Kolodziejczyk Dariusz. The Crimean Khanate and Poland-Lithuania (ENG)
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
334 part two—chapter three
cases, the Crimean instruments were corroborated merely with signet
seals, but these exemptions can be easily explained by the fact that
both instruments, issued in 1667 and 1672 respectively, were issued
on military campaigns.
271
e reluctance of the Crimean khans to take along nişans on mili-
tary campaigns is well understandable. Since 1393, when Tokhtamısh
had sent Jogaila his yarlıq, provided with the golden nişan, from his
camp on the Don river, shortly before his army was routed by Tamer-
lane, it must have happened many times that Tatar chanceries fell prey
to their enemies, who could even use the captured artefacts to legiti-
mize their own claims. Signet seals were certainly more handy and
easily replacable if lost.
e oldest Crimean signet seals, whose imprints are preserved in the
original documents, belonged to Mehmed and Sa‘adet Girays and were
used in 1520 and 1524 respectively. e rst one is oval and measures
2.3 cm. in diameter, while the second one is almond-like and its height
is 1.9 cm.
272
e dimensions of the signet seals of the Giray family
members, found on the documents published in the present volume,
are as follows:
year seal’s owner seal’s height (in cm.)
1592 (2 documents) Ghazi II Giray (khan) 1.7
1632 Djanibek Giray (khan) 1.7
1634 Djanibek Giray (khan) 1.7
1640 Bahadır Giray (khan) 2.2
1640 Islam Giray (qalga) 2.2
1640 Qırım Giray (nureddin) 1.5
1646 Islam III Giray (khan) 2.3
1649 Islam III Giray (khan) 2.3
1654 Mehmed IV Giray (khan) 2.0
1667 Qırım Giray (qalga) 2.0
Inayet Giray 2.0
Takht Giray 1.8
1672 Selim Giray (khan) 2.6
1742 Selamet II Giray (khan) 2.3
271
See Documents 66 and 70; besides, these instruments were composed in Polish
so perhaps the Tatars did not nd tting to embellish them with tuġras, although such
a precedent would not be unusual; Latin script documents provided with nişans or
tuġras are known to have been issued by Muslim chanceries.
272
On these seals, cf. Document 20 and n. 268 above.
the crimean instruments 335
All the above seals are almond-like, but only the khans’ seals con-
tain the trident-shaped emblem of the Girays. One would expect that
the khans’ seals should be larger than the seals of other Girays, yet
this is not always the case. Khan Islam III Giray’s seal from 1646 is
slightly larger than his seal from 1640, when he was only the qalga, but
then, in 1640, his seal was not smaller than that of his older brother,
Khan Bahadır Giray. ere is also no clear-cut tendency regarding the
changing size of the khans’ seals, though the late seventeenth-century
ones are in average larger than those a century earlier.
273
Apart from
the usual reference to the names of the owner and his father, Mehmed
IV Giray’s seal also contains the year of his accession—1064 A.H.
e instrument from 1667, corroborated collectively by the
Crimean plenipotentiaries at Pidhajci, contains ten seals altogether:
four almond-like and six oval. Apart from the three seals of the Giray
princes, already listed above, the fourth almond-like seal (1.9 cm. in
height) belonged to the Shirin clan leader. e fact that he used an
almond-like seal, otherwise reserved for the Giray dynasty members,
becomes less unusual aer we notice further details: the Shirin bey was
named aer Mengli Giray, the past Crimean khan, and in the legend of
his seal, in the place where one expects to nd the name of his father,
we nd instead a reference to “his forefather” (ceddühü), Hadji Giray
Khan. All these elements combined reect the grandiose ambitions of
the Shirin clan, whose members regarded themselves as equal to the
Girays and strengthened their claims by the fact of the frequent past
intermarriages between the members of the two families. A Shirin tra-
dition, recorded aer the Russian annexation of the Crimea, claimed
that already Tokhtamısh had granted the right to use an almond-like
seal to the Shirin leader of his time, Ruktemir. Usmanov, who quotes
this tradition, convincingly dismisses it as spurious and his arguments
can be further strengthened by the fact that—as we have seen—the dis-
tinction between almond-like and oval seals was apparently not per-
ceived as important until the early 16th century, when Mehmed Giray
used an oval seal himself. Yet, the tradition must have been “invented”
long before the coming of the Russians and the usage of almond-like
273
e height of the almond-like seals of the khans Devlet Giray (1.8 cm.) and
Mehmed II Giray (2.0 cm.) is given by Usmanov; cf. n. 268 above. Murad Giray’s
seal, preserved in a document from 1682, measures 2.2 cm. in height; cf. RGADA,
f. 123, op. 2, no. 64.
336 part two—chapter three
seals by the Shirins in the 17th century can be now conrmed.
274
e
claims of the Shirin leader, expressed by the legend and shape of his
seal, were especially telling during the reign of Adil Giray (1666–1671),
a descendant of the Choban branch of the Giray dynasty, whose legiti-
macy was questioned by other Girays and numerous members of the
Tatar aristocracy.
e remaining seals, found in the instrument of 1667 and belong-
ing to Crimean commanders and functionaries, are oval and usually
smaller than the almond-like ones.
c) baysa or hanging seal
Usmanov atly rejects any possibility that the Djochid rulers could
use hanging seals known from the Muscovian and other European
chanceries.
275
His conviction must be related to the fact that he focuses
on the period before 1600 when such seals were yet unknown in the
Crimean chancery. Nevertheless, already Samojlovič correctly identi-
ed the term “golden baysa” (altun baysa), encountered in the corrob-
orating formulas of several seventeenth-century Crimean documents
preserved in the Russian archives, with a “hanging seal” (Rus. vislaja
pečat’), though he admitted that he had not been able to nd such
a seal.
276
In the early Genghisid states, the Chinese term p’ai-tzŭ (hence Mon-
golian baisa) referred to oval or round “tablets of authority,” given to
high ocials as “badges of rank,” or to envoys as safe conduct, entitling
their bearers to provisions and horses on their journey. Depending on
the rank of recipient, tablets were made of wood, iron, copper, silver,
or gold. One such silver “tablet,” found in the Crimea near Simferopol,
measures 29.7 × 8.8 cm. and bears a typical Uighur-script inscription
in Mongol, referring to Keldi Beg, a fourteenth-century khan of the
Golden Horde: “By the strength of eternal Heaven and by the protec-
274
Cf. Document 66, notes j and 13; the same almond-like seal can be found in
the letters of Mengli Giray Bey, sent to the Polish king and chancellor in the years
1661–1664.
275
Usmanov, Žalovannye akty Džučieva ulusa XIV–XVI vv., pp. 178–179.
276
Samojlovič, “O ‘pajza’—‘bajsa’ v Džučievom uluse (K voprosu o basme xana
Axmata),” p. 1117.
the crimean instruments 337
tion of the great might and radiance. An edict [yarlıq] of Keldi Beg.
Any person, who shall not respect [this], shall be slain and die.”
277
e term baysa then reappears in a number of Crimean documents,
sent in the 17th century to Moscow. In 1624, Mehmed III Giray con-
cluded his şartname with a corroborating formula: “we have added our
golden baysa-like seal” (altun baysalu mührümüzni salduq).
278
In 1630,
his successor, Djanibek Giray, referred more vaguely to his “golden
seal” (altun mührümüz), but his document, preserved in the original,
has three holes at its bottom, evidently le by the string with which this
seal was once attached. is fact is conrmed by a contemporary note
in Russian, preserved along with the document, which states that it had
been sent along with a golden seal (gramota šertnaja [. . .] prislana [. . .]
za zolotoju pečatju). Today only the black imprint of the khan’s signet
seal is visible below the main text and the aforementioned golden seal
is no longer extant.
279
In his following instrument from 1634, Djanibek
Giray already referred to his “golden baysa” (altun baysamız), hence
apparently the explanatory term “seal” (mühür) was no longer needed,
because it had become commonly known that baysa was synonymous
to seal.
280
More information, regarding the shape and contents of a baysa, can
be gained from Inayet Giray’s instrument, sent to Moscow in 1636.
Its corroborating formula: “we have appended our golden baysa to
our present şartname” (bu şartname hattımızġa öz altun baysamıznı
tahturduq), is also extant in a contemporary Russian translation:
k sej šertnoj gramote zolotuju svoju pečat’ privesili, whereas the Turkish
verb tahturduq
281
is rendered by the Russian verb privesili (“we have
attached hanging”). Although the instrument is preserved in the origi-
nal, no holes le by the string are visible, unlike in the şartname from
277
Nikolay Münküyev, “A new Mongolian p’ai-tzŭ from Simferopol,” AO ASH 31
(1977): 185–215, esp. p. 208.
278
Cf. RGADA, f. 123, op. 2, no. 36; the document, preserved in a contempo-
rary Turkish copy, is also published in Materialy dlja istorii Krymskago xanstva,
pp. 20–24.
279
Cf. RGADA, f. 123, op. 2, no. 39; the Turkish text is published in Materialy dlja
istorii Krymskago xanstva, pp. 48–51.
280
Cf. RGADA, f. 123, op. 2, no. 41; published in Materialy dlja istorii Krymskago
xanstva, pp. 100–104 (in the text: altun basamızı [sic] taqdıq, “we have appended
our golden baysa”); due to its bad state of preservation, I was unable to consult the
original document.
281
Cf. below for an alternative form taqtur-; its English equivalent, proposed by the
Redhouse dictionary, is “to append” or “to attach.”
338 part two—chapter three
1630. e lower part of the document, which apparently contained
such holes, has been probably ripped or cut o. A note in Russian, pre-
served with the original document, also refers to the engravings made
on both sides of the baysa: a large circle on the obverse contained the
names of the khan and his father: ‘İnayet Gėrey Han bin Ġazi Gėrey
Han, while the names of Inayet’s two brothers, the qalga Hüsam Giray
Sultan and the nureddin Sa‘adet Giray Sultan, were engraved in two
smaller circles on the reverse, both with references to their father,
Khan Ghazi II Giray.
282
is baysa, containing the names of the khan,
the qalga, and the nureddin, who are also referred to in the text of the
instrument, was apparently appended to all the solemn documents,
issued during the reign of Inayet Giray.
e following reference to the contents of a baysa can be found in
the instrument of Islam III Giray, sent to Moscow in 1646. In its cor-
roborating formula, the khan proclaims: “we have ordered to append
our golden baysa to our present şartname” (bu şart hattımızġa altun
baysamızı taqtururġa buyurduq). e document is preserved in a con-
temporary Arabic-script copy that also contains a unique testimony
in regard to the baysa inscriptions. We read there: “on one side of the
golden baysa it has been written: ‘ere is no god but God! Muham-
mad is the Prophet of God!’; and on another side it has been written:
‘Islam Giray Khan, son of Selamet Giray Khan’” (ve altun baysanıŋ
bir tarafında La ilaha illa`llah Muhammadun ar-rasul`llah [sic] deyib
yazılġandır ve bir tarafında İslam Gėrey Han bin Selamet Gėrey Han
deyib yazılġandur).
283
282
A na zolotoj pečati s odnu storonu v krugu vyrezano: Anoėt Girej car’, Kazy
Gireev carev syn. A na drugoj storone pečati v odnom krugu vyrezano: Xusam Girej
carevič, Kazy Gireev carev syn. A v drugom krugu na toj že storone vyrezano: Saadet
Girej carevič, Kazy Gireev carev syn; cf. RGADA, f. 123, op. 2, no. 43; the Turkish
text is published in Materialy dlja istorii Krymskago xanstva, pp. 150–155; the Rus-
sian translation along with the description of the baysa is published in Pamjatniki
diplomatičeskix snošenij. . . . Edited by F. Laškov, pp. 73–76.
283
Cf. RGADA, f. 123, op. 2, no. 52; the Turkish text is published in Materialy dlja
istorii Krymskago xanstva, pp. 355–359; the Russian translation along with the descrip-
tion of the baysa are published in Pamjatniki diplomatičeskix snošenij. . . . Edited by
F. Laškov, pp. 106–110. e Turkish description of the baysa remains unpublished; it
is recorded along with the document’s main text on the typical narrow and thin Mus-
covian chancery paper (stolbcovaja bumaga), written by the same hand in nice divani
script. According to a note published by Laškov, the copy was made in the Crimea
and sent to Moscow by the Russian envoys before the original document arrived. e
copy was apparently prepared in the Russian embassy quarters as that would explain
the crimean instruments 339
e authenticity of the above description, including the unusual
form of the shahada (ar-rasul`llah instead of rasul`llah), can be con-
rmed by the contents of the baysa of Mehmed IV Giray, sent to War-
saw in 1654 (see below). By the time of his predecessor, it seems that
baysas were only appended to the Crimean instruments sent to Mos-
cow. In 1646, when Islam III Giray sent the aforementioned şartname
to the tsar, he also sent an ‘ahdname to the Polish king, but the lat-
ter document was not provided with a baysa: its preserved original
copy is devoid of any reference to the khan’s baysa and does not con-
tain any holes le by the string, with which a baysa would have been
attached.
e usage of the baysa is also conrmed by the corroborating for-
mulas of the instruments sent to Moscow by Islam III Giray in 1647,
and by Murad Giray in 1681 and 1682.
284
Besides, a contemporary Rus-
sian translation of the document from 1681 refers to the engravings
on Murad Giray’s baysa: “at this letter there is a golden seal attached
with a string; on its one side it has been engraved: ‘ere is one God,
and Muhammad is God’s messenger’; on the other side it has been
engraved: ‘e sultan, son of the sultan, the valiant [Rus. xrabroj] sul-
tan Murad Giray Khan, son of Mübarek Giray Sultan, [and] Mübarek
Giray Sultan [was the] son of Selamet Giray Khan.’”
285
e fragment, rendered in the Russian translation as saltan saltanov
syn, saltan xrabroj (“the sultan, son of the sultan, the valiant sultan”)
is reminiscent of similar phrases, by which the Ottoman chancery
the use of the Russian paper, or perhaps it was rewritten in Moscow by a chancery
translator, who must have been uent in the divani script.
284
Cf. RGADA, f. 123, op. 2, nos. 54a (bu şartname hattımızġa altun baysamıznı
taqturup yiberdik, “we have sent this şartname having appended to it our golden
baysa”), 62 (altun baysalı mührimiz bilen ‘ahdnamemiz, “our ‘ahdname with our
golden baysa-like seal”), and 64 (altun baysalu mührimiz birlen şartnamemiz, “our
şartname with our golden baysa-like seal”); all the three documents are published
(with slight orthographic changes) in Materialy dlja istorii Krymskago xanstva,
pp. 383–393, 651–653, and 689–691. e original of Murad Giray’s instrument from
1682 contains holes le by the string, like the document from 1630. It is worth noting
that in the two later documents from the years 1681–1682 we again nd the explana-
tory term “baysa-like seal” (baysalı mühür), as if the term baysa were no longer as
common as in the mid-century.
285
U toj že gramoty privešena na snurku pečat’ zolotaja, a na odnoj storone vylito:
Bog edin est Bog, a Magamet poslannoj Božej; na drugoj storone vyrezano: Saltan sal-
tanov syn, saltan xrabroj Murad Girej xan, Mubarek Girej saltanov syn, Mubarek Girej
saltan, Seljamet Girej xanov syn; cf. RGADA, f. 123, op. 2, no. 62; published in Pam-
jatniki diplomatičeskix snošenij. . . . Edited by F. Laškov, p. 178.
340 part two—chapter three
referred to Ottoman sultans. e complete original inscription of the
baysa probably read on its one side: La ilaha illa`llah Muhammadun
rasul`llah [or ar-rasul`llah], and on the other: sultan ibn sultan sul-
tan al-Ġazi Murad Gėrey Han bin Mübarek Gėrey Sultan bin Selamet
Gėrey Han. Like in the analogous cases, described above, Murad Giray
was not satised with mentioning his father, Mübarek Giray, who had
not been the khan, but traced his ancestry further back to his grand-
father, Selamet Giray Khan.
By 1681, the contents of the baysa had become standardized: the
two shahadas on the obverse, and the khan’s name on the reverse. e
engravings of Inayet Giray’s baysa from 1636, described above, con-
tained only the names of the khan and his two brothers. But already
in 1642, during his rst reign, Mehmed IV Giray provided his instru-
ment sent to Moscow with a golden baysa that looked like the later
baysas. e document is preserved only in a Russian translation, but
this translation refers to the baysa and conrms that it contained the
two shahadas and the khan’s name.
286
A similar baysa was used by
Mehmed IV Giray during his second reign, as is evidenced by his
instruments from 1654 sent to Moscow
287
and Warsaw (see below).
e latest baysa, whose inscription is recorded, was attached to
Selim Giray’s instrument sent to Moscow in 1684. e inscription
was analogous to the one of Murad Giray’s baysa from 1681. Recon-
structed on the basis of a Russian contemporary description, it read on
one side: La ilaha illa`llah Muhammadun rasul`llah [or ar-rasul`llah],
and on the other: sultan ibn sultan sultan al-Ġazi Selim Gėrey Han
bin Bahadır Gėrey Han. Unlike Murad, Selim Giray did not need to
trace his ancestry back to his grandfather, because his father, Bahadır
Giray, was the khan. e Russian description of Selim’s document also
286
A na zolotoj pečati vyrezano: Veruju vo edinago Boga i v proroka Magmetja; a
na drugoj storone u toe pečati vyrezano: Magmet Girej car Salamat Gireev carev syn;
cf. RGADA, f. 123, op. 2, no. 50; published in Pamjatniki diplomatičeskix snošenij. . . .
Edited by F. Laškov, p. 102.
287
e document sent to Moscow is preserved in a Russian translation that again
refers to the baysa and its contents: “a hanging golden seal is attached to the original
letter, and the seal is inscribed: Mehmed Giray Khan, son of Selamet Giray Khan”
(a u podlinnye gramoty privešena zolota pečat’, a v pečati napisano: Magmet Girej
car’ Salam [sic] Gireev carev syn); apparently the Russian translator disregarded the
obverse side that probably contained the two shahadas; cf. RGADA, f. 123, op. 2,
no. 56; published in Pamjatniki diplomatičeskix snošenij. . . . Edited by F. Laškov,
p. 140.
the crimean instruments 341
records that the baysa was attached with a silver, or rather silvered,
string (na serebrjanom snurku).
288
From among the Crimean documents, sent to Poland-Lithuania,
only one is known to have been corroborated with a golden baysa,
namely the instrument of Mehmed IV Giray from 1654, referred to
within its text as “our ‘ahdname, provided with the golden baysa”
(altun baysalu ‘ahdnamemiz). Paradoxically, unlike all the baysas
sent to Moscow that had been long lost by the times of Samojlovič,
the baysa of the “Polish” document was still extant in the 1970s, but
unfortunately it is lost today. It is still visible on the microlm, made
on 10 March 1976 and held in the archives, and its dimensions can be
measured by comparing its size with the size of the extant almond-like
seal that is visible on the same microlm. e baysa’s inscriptions were
studied by Zygmunt Abrahamowicz, whose notes are preserved in the
archives along with the original document. ese notes allow one to
learn the text of the engravings, both on the side visible on the micro-
lm but illegible, and on the opposite side. e obverse contained the
two shahadas, written in the same unusual orthography as those of
Islam III Giray’s baysa from 1646: La ilaha illa`llah Muhammadun ar-
rasul`llah [sic], while the reverse merely contained a short inscription:
‘ahdname-i Mehmed Gėrey Han (“the ‘ahdname of Mehmed Giray
Khan”). e round baysa, visible on the black-and-white microlm,
measured 4.8 cm. in diameter. Today, only the silvered string with
which it was attached, is preserved.
289
All the baysas, described above, were once attached to the solemn
instruments sent by the Crimean khans to Moscow and Warsaw.
Unfortunately, none of them is known to have been preserved. We
may conclude that in the 17th century the Crimean chancery began
to corroborate its documents with hanging seals made of gold (per-
haps gilded silver) and attached with silvered strings. e new usage,
introduced rst in the correspondence with Moscow, and then with
Warsaw, was apparently adopted under the inuence of the Russian
and Polish chanceries, with which Baghchasaray maintained regular
288
Da u toj že gramoty privešena pečat’ zolotaja na serebrjanom snurku, a na
nej vyre zano, na odnoj storone: Bog’ edin’, a inogo Boga nest’, Magomet že poslan-
nyj ot Boga; na drugoj storone: Sultan sultanov syn, sultan xrabryj Selim Girej xan,
Bagadyr Gireev xanov syn; cf. RGADA, f. 123, op. 2, no. 69; published in Pamjatniki
diplomatičeskix snošenij. . . . Edited by F. Laškov, p. 201.
289
See Document 64.
342 part two—chapter three
diplomatic contacts. Nevertheless, the new seal was “baptized” by
a Mongolian term that invoked the ancient Genghisid tradition. In
turn, the Arabic inscriptions engraved on the seals stressed the Mus-
lim identity of their owners, and the titles referring to the khans were
coined under the inuence of the Ottoman chancery.
d) introductory sözüm/sözümüz formula and the development of the
Crimean tuġra
A typical introductory formula of Genghisid documents, especially of
the yarlıqs, consisted of the khan’s name followed by the expression
“our word” (Tur. sözümüz < Mong. üge manu), alternatively rendered
in the singular as “my word” (Tur. sözüm). Summarizing the long
scholarly discussion on its meaning and proper translation, Usmanov
regards this formula as equivalent to the intitulatio.
290
In his book
written in Russian, the Tatar scholar proposes to render a model Turkic
formula Toqtamış sözüm (whereas this khan’s name can be substituted
with any other) as Moe Toktamyševo slovo, regarding such transla-
tion the most neat and precise. Unfortunately, its English equivalent:
“My, Tokhtamısh’s word,” would sound awkward, so in the present
volume the form “Tokhtamısh: my word:” has been preferred instead.
In the cases when “sözüm formulas” are preserved in contemporary
Ruthenian or Polish translations, our English translation is based on
290
Usmanov, Žalovannye akty Džučieva ulusa XIV–XVI vv., pp. 186–205; cf. idem,
“Termin <<jarlyk>>,” pp. 238–240; also Inalcık regards the sözüm formula as “the
old Turco-Mongol intitulatio;” cf. idem, “Power Relationships between Russia, the
Crimea, and the Ottoman Empire as Reected in Titulature,” p. 410, n. 93. Such classi-
cation is somewhat misleading because the sözüm formula typically does not contain
any titles but only the khan’s name. is modesty is not accidental: Genghis Khan spe-
cically forbade his successors to use loy titles that in his times were common among
the Muslim rulers; cf. Bertold Spuler, Geschichte der Mongolen, nach östlichen und
europäischen Zeugnissen des 13. und 14. Jahrhunderts (Zürich, 1968), p. 50. Besides,
the word sözüm has a legitimizing character that is absent from a typical intitulatio
of Western chancery documents. e confusion partly results from the fact that the
Turco-Persian term sername is typically identied with the Latin intitulatio while in
fact these terms dier: the term sername merely refers to the inscription found at the
top of the document, and such an inscription does not have to contain the issuer’s
titulature that is implied by the Latin term. Lajos Fekete refers to the sername with
the German term Kopeil; see idem, “Arbeiten der grusinischen Orientalistik auf dem
Gebiete der türkischen und persischen Paläographie und die Frage der Formel sözü-
müz,” p. 13. Hence, while the sözüm formula can be certainly identied with the ser-
name, I would hesitate to call it intitulatio.
the crimean instruments 343
these translations and does not aim to fully reconstruct the hypotheti-
cal original Turkic form.
291
e introductory “sözüm formulas,” recorded in the Crimean instru-
ments sent to Poland-Lithuania by 1600, were as follows:
ca. 1462 Chadzigireia cara słowo to jest:
(“is is the word of Hadji Giray Khan:”)
1507 (yarlıq) Великое Ѡрды великого царꙗ Менъдликги-
реево слово:
(“e word of Mengli Giray, the great khan of the
Great Horde:”)
1513 (December) Великого царѧ Мендликгирѣево слово:
(“e word of the great khan Mengli Giray:”)
1514 (June) Царѧ Менликгиреево слово:
(“e word of Mengli Giray Khan:”)
1514 (November) Questa dunche è la fedel parola del Serenissimo
Menliguerei, per la gracia de Dio imperatore de la
Grande Orda, de tucta la Tartarea et de la Gazarea
signore et herede et cetera, et del gran consiglio de
la destra et senestra mano sua, zoe de li legionarii,
millenarii, centorioni, decurioni, et de tucti loro
satrape, duchi, et cetera:
292
1517 Деда моего Мелли Кириꙗ слово, ѡтца моего
Магмет Кириꙗ слово, Багатырь солтаново
слово, брата моего Алпъ Киреи солтаново
слово:
(“e word of my grandfather Mengli Giray, [also]
the word of my father Mehmed Giray, the word
of [mine,] Bahadır Sultan,
293
[and] the word of my
brother, Alp Giray Sultan:”)
291
For instance, the formula rendered in Polish: Chadzigireia cara słowo to jest
is translated: “this is the word of Hadji Giray Khan” and not “Hadji Giray Khan:
my word,” even though the lost original (provided that the document was originaly
composed in Khwarezmian Turkic and not Ruthenian) probably read: Hacı Gėrey
Han sözüm.
292
is phrase seems to combine the “sözüm formula” proper (Questa dunche è la
fedel parola del Serenissimo Menliguerei) with a fully developed intitulatio introduced
by the formula devotionis (per la gracia de Dio); on this development, see below.
293
e instrument was issued by Prince Bahadır Giray and based on the instrument
of his father, Mehmed Giray, issued in 1515; as we see, apart from his own authority