Kolodziejczyk Dariusz. The Crimean Khanate and Poland-Lithuania (ENG)

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

324 part two—chapter three

Mengli Gėrey Han bin Haci Gėrey Han

(“e greatest sultan and the khaqan, Mengli Giray Khan, son of

Hadji Giray Khan”)

Again, the inner frame is lled with the trident-shaped emblem of the

Girays.

251

e following instrument preserved in the original is the one of

Mehmed Giray, drawn in 1520 in Khwarezmian Turkic. It is cor-

roborated with the khan’s nişan impressed at the top, though not the

very top: it is placed below the invocation and the rst line of the

intitulatio. Its dimensions are slightly larger than the ones proposed

by Usmanov: 6.5 × 6.5 cm. against 6.3 × 6.3 recorded by the Tatar

scholar on the basis of another document issued by Mehmed Giray in

1515. e engraved inscription of Mehmed Giray’s nişan consists, like

the one of his father, of merely three parts:

[outer frame]

I. the basmala:

Bismillahi`r-rahmani`r-rahimi!

(“In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful!”)

II. the two shahadas:

La ilaha illa`llah Muhammadun rasul`llah

(“ere is no god but God! Muhammad is the Prophet of God!”)

III. the khan’s title and name:

as-sultanu`l-a‘zam al-haqanu`l-ekrem

[here the inscription in the middle frame begins]

Mehmed Gėrey Han bin Mengli Gėrey Han ‘azze nasruhu

(“e greatest sultan and the most noble khaqan, Mehmed Giray

Khan, son of Mengli Giray Khan, may his victory be glorious!”)

e inner frame is again lled with the trident-shaped emblem of the

Girays.

252

e last and latest instrument, preserved in the original and cor-

roborated with a nişan, is the one issued by Ghazi II Giray in 1592.

e document is provided with two invocations, a proto-tuġra bearing

251

See Document 16 and Facs. I; on these two nişans, cf. Usmanov, Žalovannye

akty Džučieva ulusa XIV–XVI vv., pp. 144–145, 148, and 153.

252

See Document 20 and Facs. II; on this nişan, cf. Usmanov, Žalovannye akty

Džučieva ulusa XIV–XVI vv., pp. 145, 149 and 153.

the crimean instruments 325

the khan’s name and the sözüm formula (on the tuġra, see below), and,

at the fourth place from the top, the nişan. Its size (5.7 × 5.7 cm.) is

identical with the one recorded by Usmanov and also almost identical

with that of the nişan of Mengli Giray. Yet, its engraved inscription

is erroneously reversed and can be read only against the light. Like in

the nişans of Mengli and Mehmed Girays, it consists of three parts,

although the invocation “Islam!” has been entered between the shaha-

das and the khan’s name:

[outer frame]

I. the basmala:

Bismillahi`r-rahmani`r-rahimi!

(“In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful!”)

II. the two shahadas:

La ilaha illa`llah Muhammadun rasul`llah

(“ere is no god but God! Muhammad is the Prophet of God!”)

III. the khan’s name and lineage (preceded by the invocation

“Islam!”):

Ġazi Gėrey Han bin Devlet Gėrey Han

[here the inscription in the middle frame begins]

bin Mübarek Gėrey Sultan bin Mengli Gėrey Han

(“Ghazi Giray Khan, son of Devlet Giray Khan, son of Mübarek

Giray Sultan, son of Mengli Giray Khan”)

Like in the earlier nişans, the inscription ends with the trident-shaped

emblem of the Girays, but the text is written in such a dense manner

that one cannot distinguish a third, inner frame. is is caused, in

part, by the khan’s desire to draw his ancestry three generations back

to Mengli Giray, apparently due to the latter’s esteem, but also due to

the fact that Ghazi’s grandfather, Mübarek Giray, had not been the

khan. Still, the engraver could save space by using smaller letters and

not entering the untypical expression “Islam!” before the khan’s name.

ere is also no excuse for making the engraving reverse. Usmanov

treats its sloppy execution as proof that by the late 16th century the

nişan had gone into disuse.

253

See Document 34 and Facs. III; for other preserved impressions of the nişan of

Ghazi II Giray, see Usmanov, Žalovannye akty Džučieva ulusa XIV–XVI vv., pp. 146,

149, 152 and 154.

326 part two—chapter three

ere is no apparent chronological tendency regarding the chang-

ing size of the Crimean nişans. e largest ones are known to have

been used by Hadji Giray (12.5 × 12.5 cm.) and Sahib Giray (13.5 ×

13.5 cm.), while the smallest ones by Mengli Giray (5.5 × 5.5 cm.) and

Ghazi II Giray (5.7 × 5.7 cm.). Sahib, Devlet, and Mehmed II Girays

are known to have used nişans of dierent sizes simultaneously.

254

It is equally dicult to establish a hierarchy of colors, used for the ink

in which the nişans have been impressed. Usmanov provides semantic

arguments, supported by the evidence from extant documents, accord-

ing to which the gold (altun) and blue (kök) colors should be regarded

as more honoric, used in the most solemn documents, while the red

or reddish color (al, hence the Russian and Ruthenian loanword alyj)

would be less valued and rather used in documents addressed to lower

ranking recipients. Nonetheless, the Tatar scholar treats this hierarchy

as “ideal” and admits that it was not always consistent.

255

Still, these

nuances were correctly perceived in Moscow and in 1563 Ivan IV cat-

egorically forbade his envoy to accept from the khan an instrument

that would bear a red nişan (alyj nišan).

256

Although few Crimean documents, addressed to Polish-Lithuanian

rulers, have been preserved in the originals adorned with nişans, addi-

tional information can be gained from the documents preserved in

copies as their texts oen refer to the fact of their corroboration with

nişans:

254

e largest nişan used by Sahib Giray is known from the time when he was the

khan of Kazan; his documents issued in the Crimean chancery were corroborated by

two smaller nişans measuring 8.7 × 8.7 cm. and 5.7 × 5.7, alternatively; other Crimean

nişans, whose sizes are recorded by Usmanov, are known from the reigns of Devlet

Giray (three types: 10.5 × 10.5 cm., 8 × 8 cm, and 6.5 × 6.5 cm. or 6.2 × 6.2 cm.) and

Mehmed II Giray (two types: 7.8 × 7.8 cm. and 6 × 6 cm.); see ibidem, pp. 39, 43, 45,

48, 144–146, and 176.

255

Cf. ibidem, pp. 91, 147, 169–170, 173–176.

256

See Vinogradov, Russko-krymskie otnošenija, vol. 2, p. 84, n. 78; Filjuškin,

“Proekty russko-krymskogo voennogo sojuza,” pp. 311–312; cf. also Juzefovič, “Russkij

posol’skij obyčaj XVI veka,” Voprosy istorii (1977), no. 8: 114–126, esp. p. 114, and

idem, Put’ posla, pp. 23–24. Juzefovič correctly interprets the cultural context of the

tsar’s instruction, but he mistakenly identies the nišan with the khan’s signet seal and

attributes the adjective alyj (“red”) to the color of the signet stone and not the ink in

which the seal was impressed; admittedly, the term perstennyj nišan (“signet nişan”)

can be found in Sa‘adet Giray’s letter from 1523, sent to Cracow and preserved in a

Ruthenian copy (see RGADA, f. 389, no. 7, p. 885), so it is possible that at times the

Tatars themselves referred to signet seals as nişans, but in the given context Ivan IV

evidently had in mind a solemn large square seal impressed in red ink.

the crimean instruments 327

Table 1. References to the nişans found in the texts

of the Crimean instruments

ca. 1462 and ca. 1473 (the same text is repeated)

I daliśmy ten nasz list pod złotą pieczęcią.

(“We have given our present letter under the golden stamp.”)

1507 (yarlıq)

под золотым нишаном и подъ алыми пꙗтны ꙗрлыкъ

(“the yarlıq under the golden nişan and under the red stamp”)

1507 (şartname)

сигнетом и печатю нашою синею запечатавъ, дали есмо [. . .] подъ

сигнетом и подъ синею печатю [. . .] листъ;

(“we have given [. . .] the letter under the signet ring and under the blue stamp,

having stamped it with our signet ring and blue stamp;”)

1513 (December)

на то алымъ пꙗтномъ а <з> золотымъ нишаномъ притоптав

послали есмо;

(“we have sent [this letter of agreement] having stamped [lit. trodden] it with

the red stamp and the golden nişan;”)

1514 (June)

зъ золотымъ нишаномъ а алою томъгою ꙗрлыкъ

(“the yarlıq with the golden nişan and the red tamġa”)

1514 (October)

сес доконъчалъныи листъ наш, подъ золотымъ знамем и подъ

черлеными печатми

(“our present letter of agreement under the golden stamp and under the red

seals”)

1514 (November)

havemo ad questa nostra lectra patente stampati li nostri sigilli de oro, e li

sigilli rossi;

1515 (Mehmed Giray’s instrument quoted in the copy issued in 1517 by his

son, Bahadır Giray)

сесъ мои есми листъ далъ, зъ золотою печатю ему есмо дали;

(“[I have] given him my present letter with the golden seal;”)

1515 (the same instrument quoted in Islam Giray’s instrument issued in

1532)

листъ нашъ сес [. . .], под золотым<и> нишаномъ а под алою тамъгою

(“our present letter under the golden nişan and under the red tamġa”)

328 part two—chapter three

Table 1 (cont.)

1520 (yarlıq cum şartname)

И золотомъ докончане и[з] золотою печатю послали есмо.

(“And we have sent the golden letter of agreement with the golden seal.”)

1520 (şartname)

bu şartnamemüznüng çınlıġı üçün altunlı şartname altun nişan basub

(“for the sake of authentication of our present şartname, we have stamped the

golden şartname with the golden nişan;”)

[contemporary Ruthenian translation: сее докончане длѧ правды золотомъ

написано, и под печатью золотою . . .]

1539

I pieczęciem swoje przyłożył.

(“And I have appended my seals.”)

1542

I daliśmy ten nasz list pod złotą pieczęcią naszą.

(“We have issued our present letter under our golden seal.”)

1552

дали есьмо [. . .] сес нашъ листъ присѧжныи [. . .] золотомъ

написаныи, печати золотыи вытиснувъши;

(“we have given [. . .] our present oath-letter [. . .] written in gold, having

impressed the golden seals;”)

1560

I posyłam [. . .] ten nasz list złotem napisany, pieczęci złote przyłożywszy.

(“And I send [. . .] our present letter written in gold, having stamped it with

the golden seals.”)

1592 (‘ahdname)

bu ‘ahdname yarlıġ-i şerif-i haqanimüzge altun nişanlıġ mührini basub

(“we have stamped this ‘ahdname, our noble imperial yarlıq, with the golden

nişan-like seal;”)

1607

signis coccineis et ceruleis consignari aureumque nostrum sigillum illis imprimi

curavimus;

1609

złotą pieczęcią naszą przypieczętowawszy

(“having stamped it with our golden seal”)

the crimean instruments 329

Only in three cases we are able to check the veracity of such clauses

by comparing the above descriptions with the extant original docu-

ments from 1514 (November), 1520 (şartname), and 1592. e rst

one is provided with the golden nişan of Mengli Giray impressed at

the top, and the two reddish nişans of Hadji Giray impressed at the

bottom, hence the Italian reference to li nostri sigilli de oro, e li sigilli

rossi is correct. e second instrument is provided with the golden

nişan of Mehmed Giray, so the Khwarezmian Turkic reference to the

altun nişan is correct, too.

257

Finally, the third instrument is provided

with the golden nişan of Ghazi II Giray, so the Turkish reference to

the altun nişanlıġ is again correct.

Having assured ourselves of the reliability of the narrative descrip-

tions, we may assume that the instrument of Hadji Giray from ca.

1462 was indeed provided with a golden nişan. Mengli Giray’s yarlıq

from ca. 1473 was also provided with a single golden nişan, but his

yarlıq from 1507 and his four instruments from 1513–1514 were cor-

roborated with both his golden nişans and, in addition, the reddish

nişans of his late father.

258

Mehmed Giray’s instrument from 1515 is

recorded only in later copies, by which his sons, Bahadır and Islam,

conrmed the peace with Poland-Lithuania. Unfortunately, the evi-

dence provided by these copies is contradictory: Bahadır’s instrument

from 1517 refers merely to “the golden seal,” while Islam’s instrument

from 1532 refers to both “the golden nişan and the red tamġa.” e

fact that the two later instruments of Mehmed Giray from 1520 were

provided merely with his golden nişan suggests that also his instru-

ment from 1515 was provided only with one, golden nişan. Since the

copy sworn in 1532 by Islam Giray was probably draed in Vilnius, it

is possible that the Lithuanian chancery “embellished” its text by refer-

ing to both the golden nişan and the red tamġa in analogy to Mengli

Giray’s instruments, issued at the end of his reign.

From the vague references in the instruments of Sahib and Dev-

let Girays, preserved only in copies, we may assume that they were

also corroborated with golden nişans. Moreover, the “golden seals”

257

Admittedly, the document is also provided with a small oval black signet seal

that is not referred to in the corroborating formula; on this seal, see below.

258

Perhaps the instruments from January and June had one golden and one reddish

nişan each, while the instruments from October and November had one golden and

two reddish nişans each; this hypothesis can be supported by the fact that in the two

latter instruments reddish nişans are referred to in the plural and the instrument from

November is indeed provided with the two reddish nişans.

330 part two—chapter three

appended to the instruments from 1552 and 1560 are referred to in

the plural, but it is uncertain whether these instruments were indeed

corroborated with more than one golden nişan each. Although Dev-

let Giray is known to have corroborated his documents with dou-

ble nişans, these nişans were of dierent colors, typically blue and

reddish.

259

e usage of more than one square seal, typically of dierent color,

in the corroboration of the Crimean khans’ documents, is now con-

rmed by the evidence drawn from both their domestic and foreign

correspondence. Eighty years ago, confronted with the confusing ref-

erences to “the golden nişan and the red tamġa” (zolotoj nišan i alaja

tamga) in the corroborating formulas of Mengli Giray’s letters sent to

Moscow, Aleksandr Samojlovič could not check their veracity because

these letters were preserved only in copies. erefore, he proposed to

regard only the term alaja tamga as referring to the square seal, while

the term zolotoj nišan as referring to the handwritten invocation or

inscription containing the khan’s name, entered in golden ink at the

top of the document.

260

Today, we can dismiss the above interpretation

by invoking the fact that Mengli’s document from 1514, addressed

to King Sigismund and preserved in the original, contains the square

seals that are indeed golden and reddish.

e use of blue color is mentioned only twice: Mengli Giray’s

şartname from 1507 was reportedly sealed with a blue nişan as well

as the khan’s personal signet seal (on signet seals, see below), and in

the corroborating formula of Ghazi II Giray’s instrument from 1607,

preserved in a Latin translation, all the three colors, commonly used

in the khan’s chancery, are mentioned, namely scarlet (coccineum)

i.e., reddish, blue (ceruleum), and golden (aureum). e latter refer-

ence, if true, contradicts Usmanov’s argument, according to which

the nişan went into disuse by the late 16th century, aer the missed

experiments with the carelessly executed nişans known from the early

reign of Ghazi II Giray. Although Usmanov encountered a much later

corroborating formula in Selamet Giray’s yarlıq from 1608, preserved

in a copy, which refers to “the red nişan and the blue seal” (krasnogo

nišana i sinej pečati), he dismissed it as unreliable.

261

Yet, the dismissal

259

Cf. Usmanov, Žalovannye akty Džučieva ulusa XIV–XVI vv., pp. 43–46.

260

See the paragraph entitled “O terminax tamġa, nišan, mühür, bajsa v dokumen-

tax Džučieva ulusa,“ in Samojlovič, “O ‘pajza’—‘bajsa’ v Džučievom uluse (K voprosu

o basme xana Axmata),” pp. 1115–1116.

261

Cf. Usmanov, Žalovannye akty Džučieva ulusa XIV–XVI vv., p. 152.

the crimean instruments 331

seems to be made too hastily, especially in the light of the corrobo-

rating formula, found in the Polish copy of Selamet Giray’s instru-

ment from 1609, which refers to the “golden seal.” To be sure, the

nişans gradually went into disuse, but it is probable that they survived

one or two decades longer, at least until the reign of Selamet Giray

(d. 1610).

b) signet seal

Unlike the Ottoman sultans, whose documents were typically corrobo-

rated merely by the tuġras, the Crimean khans used personal signet

seals along with (or instead of ) the nişans already in the 15th century.

Mengli Giray is known to have corroborated several letters sent to the

Muscovian rulers “having stamped [them] with the signet ring and

with the blue nişan” (Rus. zapečatav žikovinoju da s sinim nišanom),

just as he later corroborated his şartname, sent in 1507 to Sigismund

“under the signet ring and under the blue stamp” ( pod syhnetom y pod

syneju pečatju; see above). Less solemn documents were stamped only

with Mengli’s signet ring, without impressing the nişan.

262

Mengli’s son and successor, Mehmed Giray, also corroborated at

least some of his documents with both his nişan and his signet seal.

His black oval signet seal is impressed at the bottom of his şartname

from 1520, which is corroborated at the top with his golden nişan.

Signet seals were used by Crimean princes, too. In 1517, when

Mehmed’s son and heir apparent, Bahadır Giray, arrived at Čerkasy

and swore on behalf of his father and on his own behalf to keep peace

with Poland-Lithuania, he conrmed the instrument, issued previ-

ously by his father, by corroborating its copy with his own signet seal

(s toho lysta dokončannoho kopeju vypysavšy dal esmy pod pečatju

svoeho perstenja).

263

Admittedly, Bahadır was not the khan so he could not use a nişan,

but the next khan, Sa‘adet Giray, also corroborated his instrument

(jarlyk prysjažnyj), sent in 1527 to Cracow, merely with his signet

seal (pod perestennoju pečat’ju). It is hard to determine whether this

“devaluation in prestige” was deliberate and related to the cooling of

mutual relations, or was it perhaps caused by the fact that the doc-

ument was issued in Perekop and not Qırq Yer, far away from the

262

Cf. ibidem, p. 173.

263

See Document 18.

332 part two—chapter three

Crimean chancery.

264

Naturally, also the instrument of Qalga Islam

Giray, sent to Cracow in the same year, was provided merely with his

signet seal (pod perestennoju pečat’ju).

265

e terms syhnet, persten’/peresten’, and žikovina, found in contem-

porary Slavic translations, all refer to signet rings, whose inscriptions,

engraved in metal, usually contained the names of the owner and his

father.

266

e engravings of the khans’ seals also contained the trident-

shaped emblem of the Girays (taraq tamġa) that was missing in the

seals of other dynasty members. Aer the signet had been smoked

over the re, it was impressed on paper leaving a black imprint of its

inscription. e signets of the Genghisids, including the Giray fam-

ily members, typically assumed an almond-like form and came to

be known in Turkish as bademi mühür (“almond-like seal”).

267

e

division between the almond-like seals of the dynasty members and

oval seals used by non-Genghisids, observed in the later centuries and

stressed in historiography today, was perhaps less sharp in the times

of the early Girays: the earliest preserved signet seal, impressed by

Mehmed Giray on his şartname sent to Poland in 1520, is oval but not

almond-like. Admittedly, the signet seal of Sa‘adet Giray, preserved in

his original document from 1524, is already almond-like.

268

We may conclude that the sixteenth-century Crimean instruments

were corroborated with signet seals typically in two cases:

a) when an instrument was issued by a Giray prince who did not have

his own nişan;

b) when the khan wanted to strengthen his instrument with his per-

sonal seal, impressed along with the nişan (Mengli Giray’s and

264

See Document 22; it is also possible that Sa‘adet Giray did not have his proper

nişan; the only document from his reign, provided with a nişan, origins from 1524,

but the nişan is not his own but his grandfather’s, Hadji Giray’s; on this issue, cf.

n. 250 and the discussion above.

265

See Document 23.

266

Devlet Giray’s seal also invoked his grandfather, Mengli Giray; apparently

for legitimizing reasons Devlet traced his ancestry further back because his father,

Mübarek Giray, was not the khan; the same concern probably prompted Devlet’s son,

Ghazi II Giray, to ll his nişan with the unusually long inscription that traced his

ancestry three generations back, again to Mengli, who was Ghazi’s great grandfather

(cf. above).

267

Cf. Usmanov, Žalovannye akty Džučieva ulusa XIV–XVI vv., pp. 140–143 and

171–173.

268

For the description and pictures of Sa‘adet Giray’s seal and several sixteenth-

century seals from the later period, see Usmanov, Žalovannye akty Džučieva ulusa

XIV–XVI vv., pp. 140–141.

the crimean instruments 333

Mehmed Giray’s şartnames sent to Poland-Lithuania in 1507 and

1520; many other cases known from the Crimean-Muscovian cor-

respondence).

Less usual cases, when the khans’ instruments were corroborated

merely with signet seals instead of nişans, typically occurred when the

instruments in question were of lesser importance or when the khan

was away from his capital (like Sa‘adet Giray in 1527), especially on a

military campaign. Devlet Giray’s letter, sent in 1562 from a military

camp on the Samara river, is provided merely with his signet seal,

269

although this khan is known to have corroborated numerous docu-

ments with nişans. When in 1599 Ghazi II Giray issued an instrument

of peace for Poland-Lithuania while campaigning in Hungary, its

corroborating formula contained a specic explanation: “because we

lacked our great seal, which is normally impressed on letters of agree-

ment, as we were in route, therefore we have impressed our signet

ring” (A iż wielkiej pieczęci naszy, która bywa u przemirnych listów

przykładana, na ten czas przy nas jako w drodze nie było, tedyśmy syg-

net nasz do niego przycisnęli).

270

e above quotation sheds a further doubt in regard to Usmanov’s

thesis, according to which the nişans went into disuse by the late 16th

century. As we see, as late as 1599, Ghazi II Giray still acknowledged

that a proper instrument of peace should be corroborated with a nişan.

In 1607, when he was no longer campaigning, the khan apparently

corroborated his new instrument, issued in Baghchasaray, with a

number of solemn nişans, using the traditional reddish, blue, and

golden colors. e custom was also followed by his successor and

brother, Selamet Giray, although the latter more modestly used only

the golden color.

Aer the nal demise of the nişan or rather its replacement with the

tuġra, in the 17th and 18th centuries the instruments of peace, sent

to Poland-Lithuania by the khans, qalgas, and nureddins (one case)

were typically corroborated with both signet seals and tuġras. In two

269

Cf. n. 292 in Part I.

270

See Document 37. e fact that the khan used a signet seal instead of the great

golden nişan (nie mając wielkiej złotej pieczęci przy sobie, sygnetem zapieczętował)

caused reservations among the royal councilors who advised to wait with the formal

pacication until the khan returned to the Crimea and provided his instrument with

“the golden seal, according to the custom” (gdy poprawa wedle potrzeby w tym przy-

mierzu będzie i pieczęć zawieszona według zwyczaju złota); see Bibl. Czart., ms. 97

(Teki Naruszewicza), p. 918 (cf. also n. 340 in Part I).