Kolodziejczyk Dariusz. The Crimean Khanate and Poland-Lithuania (ENG)
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
294 part two—chapter two
e ongoing process of bilateralization is also evidenced by the
procedure adopted in 1667, during the pacication at Pidhajci (Pol.
Podhajce). Aer the Polish and Crimean commissioners had agreed
on the peace conditions, they composed a single instrument in Polish,
whose two copies were then corroborated and exchanged.
188
Only a
few months later, in April 1668, Khan Adil Giray, who had not par-
ticipated in the negotiations of 1667, formally conrmed the peace
with his own instrument.
189
e document invoked the khan’s solemn
oath taken in the presence of two Polish ocers, who had remained
in the Crimea as residents (or rather hostages) since 1667. Neverthe-
less, both to the contemporaries and to a modern historian, the khan’s
instrument was of secondary importance since the mutually binding
decisions had already been taken at Pidhajci.
e term yarlıq did not entirely disappear from the Crimean docu-
ments, although it gradually lost its original meaning of a document
granted by a sovereign to a vassal or subject. In the second half of the
17th century, the term still appeared, especially in the introductory
formula, in the letters sent to Warsaw, Stockholm, and Copenhagen.
It can also be found, admittedly only in the introductory formula, in
the instruments of peace sent by Murad Giray to Moscow in 1681 and
1682, which were otherwise referred to as ‘ahdname and şartname,
respectively.
190
In the context of the Crimean-Polish formal peacemaking, the term
yarlıq resurfaced one more time in the instrument, sent to Poland in
1742 by Selamet II Giray. Aer the long war of 1683–1699, in which
Poland-Lithuania was a member of the Holy League while the Tatars
fought side by side with the Ottomans, the Treaty of Karlowitz abol-
ished the “gis,” formerly paid by the Polish kings to the khans, and
severely prohibited any Tatar raids of their northern neighbors’ ter-
ritories, making the Porte responsible for the khan’s behavior. More-
over, the Polish-Crimean border became shorter due to the Russian
188
e instruments and procedure of the pacication of 1667 are separately dis-
cussed below.
189
See Document 69. e instrument is preserved in a corrupt Polish translation so
we do not know how it was originally referred to by the Crimean chancery; neverthe-
less, we may safely classify it as an ‘ahdname.
190
On these two instruments, see also n. 192 below; their introductory formulas
read i‘lam-i yarlıġ-i şerif ‘ibret-redif-i hani bu dur ki and i‘lam-i yarlıġ-i şerif-i hani bu
dur ki, respectively.
the crimean instruments of peace and their typology 295
annexation of the lands on the lower Dnieper (Zaporozhia), stipu-
lated by the treaties between Moscow and Warsaw, and Moscow and
Istanbul, in 1686 and 1700, respectively. e Tatars did not even par-
ticipate in the peace negotiations as their interests were represented
by the Ottoman plenipotentiaries, sent to the Congress of Karlowitz.
All this, paired with the diminishing sovereignty of Warsaw and Bagh-
chasaray in regard to their powerful neighbors, resulted in the loosen-
ing of their direct political contacts in the 18th century. Nevertheless,
mutual interest revived in the years of wars and political crises, most
notably in the years 1709–1714, 1733–1742, and 1767–1772. It was
aer the conict over the Polish throne (1733–1736), which resulted in
an armed Russian intervention and evolved into a European war, and
aer the Russo-Ottoman War of 1736–1739, in which the Crimean
Khanate suerred subsequent Russian invasions and the ruin of the
khan’s capital, when Augustus III decided to send missions not only
to Istanbul, but to Baghchasaray as well. On his part, the ambitious
khan Selamet II Giray did not limit himself to sending an ordinary
“friendly letter” (muhabbetname) and paying the usual lip service to
the Karlowitz Treaty “that should be observed by the two parties,” but
issued a proper instrument of peace that turned out to be the last in
the history of the Polish-Crimean relations.
e instrument, provided with the khan’s tuġra and containing
seven articles that were discussed with the Polish envoy, is reminiscent
of an ‘ahdname, although it is not referred to by this term and does
not contain any reference to the khan’s oath. Neverthess, it is struc-
tured like the instrument of peace, in fact more developed than the
seventeenth-century Crimean ‘ahdnames. Even though its language is
already fully Ottomanized, it is referred to by the term yarlıq, appar-
ently to invoke the glorious Genghisid past.
191
In conclusion, we can arm that the common crucial element of
the şartname, the oath-yarlıq, and the ‘ahdname, was the solemn oath
of its issuer—the khan, the qalga, or even the nureddin, invoked in
the document and sometimes quoted in extenso. Only two extant
instruments, addressed to Polish-Lithuanian rulers, can be classied
as oath-yarlıqs, namely the instruments of Sa‘adet Giray (1527) and
Ghazi Giray (1592b). eir common feature is their “expressiveness”
191
See Document 71.
296 part two—chapter two
and loosely organized structure, but it is hard to conclude whether this
was the rule. e standard Tatar/Turkish term that applied to Crimean
oath-instruments issued by the late 16th century was şartname. is
term appears in the unique instrument, preserved in the Turkish
(Khwarezmian Turkic) original: the şartname of Mehmed Giray from
1520. e common usage of the term şartname is best evidenced by
the loanword šertnaja gramota, which entered the Russian chancery
language.
In the late 16th century, the Crimean chancery gradually adopted
the term ‘ahdname, which was equivalent to şartname and apparently
entered the Tatar political vocabulary under the Ottoman inuence.
In the 17th century, the new term was already commonly used in the
Crimean instruments of peace sent to Poland-Lithuania. Interestingly,
this was not the case in the Crimean relations with Muscovy: the term
şartname still prevailed in the seventeenth-century instruments sent
by the khans to Moscow, although the term ‘ahdname was known as
well.
192
is “terminological conservatism” apparently resulted from
the fact that the terms šert’ and šertnaja gramota had been domesti-
cated in the Russian chancery language and the recipients would regard
with suspicion any terminological innovations on the part of their
Muslim partners. Vilnius and Cracow could accept the change eas-
ier because the term šert’ had not entered their domestic vocabulary;
besides, their chancery clerks were familiar with the term ‘ahdname as
it already appeared in the instruments of Sultan Suleyman, adressed
to the Jagiellonian kings.
192
e examination of eight instruments, sent by the khans to the tsars in the years
1624, 1630, 1634, 1636, 1646, 1647, 1681, and 1682, whose Turkish texts are preserved
in the original or in copies, leads to the following conclusion: the instruments of 1624,
1646, 1647, and 1682 are referred to within their texts as şartnames; the instrument
from 1636 is referred to three times as a şartname and once as an ‘ahdname, while the
one from 1634 two times as a şartname and once as an ‘ahdname; in the instrument
from 1630 an equilibrium is reached: each term appears once and besides a hybrid
term şart-‘ahdname appears twice (for instance: bu şart-‘ahdname hattına altun müh-
rümüzni qoyduq); solely the instrument from 1681 is uniquely referred to with the
term ‘ahdname, but admittedly this instrument was issued on behalf of the Porte in
the conrmation of the Ottoman-Russian treaty of Baghchasaray; signicantly, in his
following instrument from 1682, addressed to the young tsars, Ivan and Peter, Murad
Giray referred to his previous instrument, addressed to their late older brother, Fedor
(i.e., the one from 1681), as a şartname. For these documents, see RGADA, f. 123,
op. 2, nos. 36, 39, 41, 43, 52, 54a, 62, 64; their texts are published in Materialy dlja
istorii Krymskago xanstva, pp. 20–24, 48–51, 100–104, 150–155, 355–359, 383–393,
651–653 (erroneously under the tuġra of Qalga Tokhtamısh Giray), and 689–691.
the crimean instruments of peace and their typology 297
e sole exception from the aforementioned typology is the instru-
ment of Selamet II Giray from 1742, the unique eighteenth-century
document in the present collection. Referred to as yarlıq, it is rather
reminiscent of an ‘ahdname, although it does not contain any refer-
ence to the khan’s oath.
Solemn instruments of the Crimean khans, conrmed with their
oaths and referred to as oath-yarlıqs or şartnames/‘ahdnames, are
known to have been dispatched only to the rulers of Lithuania, Poland,
Muscovy, and—in one case—Transylvania.
193
e subordinate posi-
tion of the khans in their relations with Istanbul apparently prevented
them from sending ‘ahdnames to the sultans. In 1469, Mengli Giray
still did not hesitate to call Mehmed II “my brother” (qarındaşım),
194
although he did not go as far as his Genghisid cousin, Ahmed, the khan
of the Great Horde, who addressed Mehmed II as if the latter were
his vassal as late as 881 A.H. (1476/1477).
195
Yet, aer the Ottoman
invasion of the Crimea and Mengli’s temporary imprisonment, his
position vis-à-vis the Porte became weaker, even though Selim I, who
was Mengli’s son-in-law, still addressed the old khan “my father”
(babam). In the following years, especially aer the violent death of the
ambitious khan Mehmed Giray, the Porte gradually turned the khans
into its vassals, using such tools as the institution of hostages (rehin),
193
An overview of the instruments sent to Moscow in the years 1474–1684 can be
found in Fedor Laškov, “Krymskija šertnyja gramoty XVI–XVII vv. xranjaščijasja v
Moskovskom Glavnom Arxive Ministerstva Inostrannyx Del,” pp. 191–208; the ear-
liest instruments from the years 1474–1531, or rather their contemporary Russian
copies and translations, are published in Malinovskij, “Istoričeskoe sobranie,” pp.
267–419 (due to a typographic error in pagination p. 278 is followed by p. 379, so
in fact the edition is shorter than it appears to be); the remaining instruments, again
only in Russian copies and translations, are published in Pamjatniki diplomatičeskix
snošenij. . . . Edited by F. Laškov (the instruments earlier published by Malinovskij are
only registered there). e ‘ahdname of Ghazi II Giray, addressed in 1598 to the Tran-
sylvanian ruler and preserved in the original in Vienna, is published along with the
German translation in Ivanics, “Der Bündnisplan zwischen dem Chan Gazi Giray II.
und dem Fürsten Sigismund Báthory,” pp. 192 and 198.
194
Mengli’s letter, preserved in the Topkapı Archives, is published in facsimile and
French translation in Le khanat de Crimée, pp. 41–44; due to the ancient Chinese-
Mongolian practice of “honoric elevation,” the name of the sultan is lied above the
main text of the letter and entered below the invocation; the translators unnecessary
divided the address qarındaşım Sultan Mehemmed into two parts: au sultan Mehmed,
entered above the mainbody, and à mon frère, entered within the text. On the “honor-
ic elevation,” used also in the Ottoman chancery, cf. Kołodziejczyk, Ottoman-Polish
Diplomatic Relations, p. 12.
195
Il’ja Zajcev, “Pis’mo xana Bol’šoj ordy Axmada tureckomu sultanu Mexmedu II
Fatixu 881 goda xidžry,” Vostočnyj Arxiv 2–3 (1999): 4–15, esp. p. 10.
298 part two—chapter two
recruited from among the Giray princes who were always eager to
replace the ruling khan, stipends (salyane etc.) for the khan and his
retinue members, Ottoman troops sent to assist, but also to control
the khan, and the Porte’s direct contacts with the khan’s subjects, who
were at times encouraged to rise against their ruler. e khans came
to be ocially conrmed (tasdiq) on their thrones by the Ottoman
sultans, who sent them the symbols of investiture. Admittedly, the
process of vassalization was impeded by the repeated eorts of sub-
sequent khans to loosen Istanbul’s patronage, and was not completed
until the late 17th century.
196
Nevertheless, the relations between Istan-
bul and Baghchasaray were formally regulated by solemn diplomas
(berats), by which the sultans appointed the khans and sometimes
even the qalgas, rather than by ‘ahdnames.
197
While the position of the Ottoman sultan was apparently too high
to enable a mutual exchange of peace instruments between Istanbul
and Baghchasaray, the status of Ottoman tributaries, the hospodars of
Moldavia and Wallachia, was probably too low, at least in the Crimean
eyes. e khans repeatedly endeavored to extend their inuence to the
Danubian principalities and discussed their status in direct negotia-
tions with Istanbul and Warsaw, as is evidenced by the contents of the
Crimean-Polish agreements published in the present volume. Never-
196
For similar opinions, see Le khanat de Crimée, pp. 3–10; Alexandre Bennigsen
and Chantal Lemercier-Quelquejay, “Le khanat de Crimée au début du XVI
e
siècle.
De la tradition mongole à la suzeraineté ottomane d’après un document inédit des
Archives ottomanes,” Cahiers du monde russe et soviétique 13 (1972): 321–337, esp. pp.
326–328; İnalcık, “Yeni vesikalara göre Kırım hanlığının Osmanlı tâbiliğine girmesi ve
ahidname meselesi,” pp. 228–229.
197
e texts of the berats or imperial letters (name-i hümayun) of appointment,
granted by the Ottoman sultans to the khans Djanibek Giray (1628), Adil Giray (1666),
Hadji Giray (1683), Selim Giray (1684), Ghazi III Giray (1704), Kaplan Giray (1707),
and to the qalgas Devlet Giray (1628), Feth Giray (1641), Qırım Giray (1666), Devlet
Giray (1684), and Sa‘adet Giray (1708), are preserved in copies and have been studied
by Rypka, “Briefwechsel der Hohen Pforte mit den Krimchanen im II. Bande von
Ferīdūns Münšeāt,” pp. 263–264; Zdenka Veselá, “Les rapports de la Porte Sublime
avec le Khanat de Crimée (1676–1686),” in: Rapports, co-rapports, communications
tchécoslovaques pour le V
e
Congrès de l’Association Internationale d’Études du Sud-Est
Européen (Prague, 1984): 207–220, esp. pp. 216–217; and recently by Sándor Papp,
who compares them with similar instruments granted to the rulers of Moldavia, Wal-
lachia, Transylvania, Hungary, and the Cossack Ukraine; see his paper, “Das Krim-
khanat und die Beiden Donaufürstentümer als Vasallen des Osmanischen Reiches im
17. Jahrhundert,” read at the conference: “Das frühneuzeitliche Krimkhanat zwischen
Orient und Okzident,” held in Munich on 31 March–1 April 2008 (to be published
soon). I wish to thank the author for letting me quote this article before publication.
the crimean instruments of peace and their typology 299
theless, they are not known to have issued ‘ahdnames to the hospo-
dars, even though at times they collected tribute from both Moldavia
and Wallachia. e Transylvanian rulers, who were Ottoman vassals
as well, typically received from the khans letters referred to as yarlıqs,
with the sole exception of the ‘ahdname, obtained by Sigismund
Báthory from Ghazi II Giray in 1598. e khan’s decision to send an
‘ahdname to the Transylvanian ruler can be explained by the latter’s
semi-independent role as a political actor in the region. Nevertheless,
the ‘ahdname addressed to Sigismund Báthory is much more sim-
ple in form and content than Ghazi II Giray’s şartnames/‘ahdnames
addressed at the same time to Poland-Lithuania and Moscovy, and
probably remains the sole instrument of this type in the history of the
Crimean-Transylvanian relations.
198
Other capitals were too distant for regular bilateral relations to
evolve. By maintaining relations with Isfahan, the khans in addition
risked being accused of favoring the Shiite “heresy” by the Porte, for
whom any rapprochement of Baghchasaray with the Safavids was
equal to treason.
199
e contacts between Baghchasaray and Vienna,
evidenced for the years 1598–1682, were irregular and conditioned by
their crossing interests in Transylvania and Poland rather than by a
necessity to maintain direct political or commercial relations. In their
correspondence with the Habsburg emperors, the khans resorted to
the category of less formal “friendly letters” (muhabbetnames), while
no ‘ahdnames are known to have been issued.
200
e same can be said
198
I am very grateful to Mária Ivanics for all the information regarding the Crimean-
Transylvanian correspondence; Prof. Ivanics is currently preparing an edition of the
Crimean letters addressed to the Transylvanian rulers, preserved in the Romanian,
Hungarian, and Austrian archives. On the tributary relations imposed on the Molda-
vian and Wallachian rulers by the Crimean khans, see Vasile Mihordea, “Raporturile
Moldovei şi Ţării Româneşti cu tătarii în secolele XVI–XVIII,” Revista de Istorie 32
(1979): 1069–1095.
199
Nevertheless, embassies were at times exchanged between the khans and the
shahs; for such exchange in the years 1607–1608 between Ghazi II Giray and Shah
Abbas, see Kortepeter, Ottoman Imperialism, p. 228.
200
Ivanics, “Posol’stva krymskix tatar pri Venskom dvore v 1598–1682 gg.,” p. 230.
It is symptomatic that very few Crimean letters sent to the Habsburg Imperial court
had been preserved in the original, as is evidenced by the nineteenth-century manu-
script catalogue of the Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv, and even those few originals
could not be found during the present author’s visit in Vienna in March 2009.
300 part two—chapter two
of Baghchasaray’s relations with Stockholm,
201
or even more accidental
contacts with Copenhagen and Berlin.
202
To be sure, only few of the letters, sent by the Crimean rulers to
Moscow, Vilnius, and Cracow (and then Warsaw) can be described as
şart- or ‘ahdnames. Most of them were less formal ordinary letters, in
the 17th century referred to as muhabbetnames. e division in con-
tents between an ‘ahdname and a muhabbetname was not always sharp
as both could refer to everyday matters and complaints, but also both
could contain the khan’s promise (though not a formal oath that was
typically contained in an ‘ahdname) to keep the peace. Predictably,
this leads to scholarly misunderstandings. For instance, Bohdan Bara-
nowski refers to the letters of Mehmed IV Giray and his qalga, Feth
Giray, sent in 1642 to Poland, as “oath-letters” (Pol. listy przymierne),
while in fact they are both referred to within their texts as muhabbet-
names. Again, the same scholar refers to Islam III Giray’s document
from April 1654 as an “oath-letter,” while in reality it took almost
another year until the meticulous procedure, initiated by Jaskólski’s
embassy in April 1654, resulted in the granting of an ‘ahdname by
Islam III Giray’s successor in November 1654.
203
If a scholar, specializing in the Tatar history, can be entrapped by
the nuances of the Crimean diplomatics, one should not expect more
from the archival sta, especially in the countries where Crimean
documents are an unusual rarity. In the Danish State Archives two
muhabbetnames, sent by Adil Giray and Selim Giray to the kings Fred-
erick III and Christian V, respectively, can be found today in the sec-
tion named Traktater Tyrkijet.
204
201
On the history of Swedish-Crimean relations and the Crimean documents held
in the Riksarkivet in Stockholm, see Zetterstéen, Türkische, tatarische und persische
Urkunden im Schwedischen Reichsarchiv, pp. 78–128; Święcicka, “e Diplomatic Let-
ters by Crimean Keräy Ladies to the Swedish Royal House,” pp. 57–90.
202
e khans’ letters addressed to the Danish court in the 17th century are typically
referred to as muhabbetnames, and sometimes also as yarlıqs in the introductory for-
mula; cf. Matuz, Krimtatarische Urkunden im Reichsarchiv zu Kopenhagen, p. 60; for-
mal diplomatic relations with Copenhagen and Berlin were initiated by Baghchasaray
in the years of the Crimean engagement in the Swedish-Polish war of 1655–1660; cf.
idem, “Les relations étrangères du Khanat de Crimée (XV
e
–XVIII
e
siècles),” Revue
d’histoire diplomatique 102 (1988): 233–249, esp. pp. 243–244. When in 1656 Mehmed
IV Giray resolved to write to Frederick William, he asked a Polish envoy then present
at his court to help compose the letter in Latin; see Baranowski, Znajomość Wschodu
w dawnej Polsce, p. 128.
203
On the letters from 1642 and 1654, cf. notes 441 and 473 in Part I.
204
Copenhagen, Rigsarkivet, Traktater Tyrkijet, nos. 1–2.
the crimean instruments of peace and their typology 301
e oath formulas of the Crimean rulers and envoys
and the written instruments of the envoys
Apart from the oaths invoked or quoted in extenso in instruments
of peace, the texts of the oaths, pronounced orally, were sometimes
recorded separately. In 1513, aer Mengli Giray had pronounced his
oath in the presence of Lithuanian and Polish envoys, the text of his
oath was recorded, brought to Vilnius and entered into the Lithua-
nian Register books.
205
Besides, Lithuanian and Polish chancery clerks
recorded the oaths formulas, pronounced by Crimean envoys during
their solemn audiences at the royal court.
In 1480, a solemn oath was pronounced in Vilnius by a Crimean
envoy Hadji Baba, who swore to keep peace on behalf of his lord,
Mengli Giray, the latter’s younger brother and qalga, Yaghmurcha, as
well as other Crimean dignitaries, including the powerful bey of the
Shirin clan, Eminek.
206
In 1506, a similar oath was taken in Mielnik by
the next Crimean envoy, Tevkel Ulan, who also promised that Mengli
Giray would assist King Sigismund against Muscovy. e reference to
the khan as the ruler of “the two hordes: the Trans-Volgine [i.e., the
Great Horde] and of Perekop [i.e., the Crimean Horde],” contained
in Tevkel’s oath, reected an eort to legitimize Mengli’s claim to
the entire heritage of the Golden Horde aer his recent victory over
Sheikh Ahmed.
207
e next oath, recorded in the Lithuanian Register books, was taken
in 1522 in Hrodna by Evliya Mirza, a prominent member of the Shirin
clan, on behalf of Khan Mehmed Giray.
208
In 1535, another prominent
Crimean noble, Devey Mirza from the Manghıt clan, took an oath in
Vilnius on behalf of Khan Sahib Giray. On Sigismund’s request, the
oath provided that also his son, the young king Sigismund Augustus,
would be comprised in the future peace.
209
Two instruments resulted from the embassy of Ali Hadji, a courtier
(içki bek) of Khan Sahib Giray, who traveled to Poland and Lithuania
in 1541. Having arrived at Cracow, Ali Hadji negotiated with the royal
lords councilors a preliminary agreement that consisted of thirteen
205
See Document 13.
206
See Document 5.
207
See Document 7.
208
See Document 21.
209
See Document 25.
302 part two—chapter two
clauses: it reconrmed the “granting” of lands to Lithuania according
to the “donation yarlıqs” of the previous khans and referred to such
standard matters as the alliance against Muscovy, the regulation of
embassies and trade, and the timely delivery of the royal gis due each
year to the khan. e Crimean envoy corroborated the instrument with
an oath, taken on his behalf and on behalf of the khan, and promised
that Sahib Giray would send a letter of agreement (dokončan’e, i.e.,
şartname) that would be “in accord with this dra [Ruth. spysok], but
written more broadly, as the other letters of agreement [used to be
written].”
210
Having nished his negotiations in Cracow, Ali Hadji then
continued his travel to Vilnius, where King Sigismund stayed between
May 1540 and May 1542. ere, the Crimean envoy took another oath
in the royal presence. His second oath was worded similarly to the
one taken by Devey in 1535, but it contained a specic reference to
the agreement negotiated in Cracow and an additional stipulation that
Anikij Hornostaj, the royal envoy who was to accompany Ali Hadji
on his way back to the Crimea, would not be detained there by the
khan. Like his predecessor, Ali Hadji engaged that also the young king,
Sigismund Augustus, would be comprised in the future peace.
211
In 1599, a Crimean envoy, Djan Temir Agha, brought the khan’s
instrument to the royal court. As the royal side was not satised with
its contents, the envoy was made to issue a written guarantee in which
he assured that the khan would issue an “amended” version in accor-
dance with the royal request. e envoy’s instrument, written in his
own hand, was corroborated with his seal.
212
Unfortunately, it is extant
today only in contemporary Polish translation.
e next preliminary agreement, which was to be conrmed by
a formal ‘ahdname issued by the khan, was negotiated in 1654 by a
Crimean envoy, Süleyman Agha, with King John Casimir and the dig-
nitaries assembled for the Diet that was held in Warsaw. e nego-
210
maet’ vodluh toho spysku dokončan’e svoe do Eho Mylosty pryslaty, leč šyrej
dokon’čan’e maet’ byty vypysano po tomu, jako y ynšye dokon’čan’ja; see Document
29. Although the instrument was negotiated in Poland during the absence of the king,
who was then in Lithuania, it was registered in the Lithuanian Register books.
211
See Document 30.
212
Do którego listu mego własnemi rękami memi pisanego dla lepszej pewności
pieczęci swe rękami swemi przycisnąłem (“In order to render my present letter, written
with my own hands, more trustworthy, I have impressed my seals with my hands”);
it is not clear whether the envoy used one or more seals, as is literally stated in the
text; see Document 38.
the crimean instruments of peace and their typology 303
tiations resulted in an anti-Muscovian alliance, whose clauses were
entered in an instrument, prepared in Polish by the royal chancery
and corroborated by the king.
213
Apart from corroborating the docu-
ment, John Casimir took a solemn oath to observe its contents, and
analogous oaths were taken by the Polish chancellor and other dig-
nitaries. In reciprocity, also Süleyman conrmed the agreement with
his oath. While the texts of the oaths taken by the king and Polish
dignitaries are extant today,
214
the text of Süleyman’s oath, taken in the
Royal Castle, has not been preserved, although the ceremony is well
evidenced in Polish sources.
215
e following oath of a Crimean envoy, preserved and recorded
in extenso, origins from September 1666. It was taken in the Royal
Castle in Warsaw by Dedesh Agha, an experienced Crimean diplomat
who had frequently visited Poland before. On behalf of the new khan,
Adil Giray, Dedesh swore to maintain the peace and alliance with King
John Casimir and the Commonwealth.
216
Finally, during the pacication at Pidhajci in October 1667, apart
from composing peace instruments corroborated with their seals,
the plenipotentiaries of the two sides also pronounced oaths, whose
texts have been preserved. e oath of the Crimean plenipotentiaries,
taken in the presence of Hetman Jan Sobieski, was recorded in Polish,
although it is likely that in the original it was pronounced in Tatar. In
March 1668, Sobieski submitted its written text, authenticated by his
own signature, at the Senate meeting in Warsaw and it is today extant
in the Polish archives.
217
e oaths, by which Crimean diplomats corroborated preliminary
agreements that were due to be conrmed by the khans’ solemn instru-
ments, are also well evidenced in the Crimean-Muscovian diplomatic
practice. Several instruments, negotiated and sworn upon by Crimean
envoys or plenipotentiaries, are today extant in the original in the Rus-
sian archives. For instance, in 1670 two Crimean envoys, Sefer Agha
and Shahtemir Atalıq, negotiated and issued in Moscow an instrument
of peace on behalf of the khan. It is composed in the Tatar language
213
See Document 61; it is discussed below among the Polish-Lithuanian instruments.
214
See Documents 62 and 63; they are also discussed below among the Polish-
Lithuanian instruments.
215
Cf. n. 698 below.
216
See Document 65.
217
See Document 67.