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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

344 part two—chapter three

1520 (yarlıq cum Божъею милостью Магъмет Киреи цар,

şartname) Деист-и Сипчокъ всимъ землѧмъ господаръ,

татарскимъ с предков своихъ господаръ,

слово мое то есть:

(“By the grace of God, Mehmed Giray Khan, the

lord of all the lands of the Kipchak Steppe and the

hereditary lord of the Tatars, this is my word:”)

1520 (şartname) Ulu Ordanung ulu hanı Deşt-i Qıpçaq barça Moġul

padişahı Muhammed Gėrey Han sözüm:

(“e great khan of the Great Horde, the padis-

hah of the Kipchak Steppe and all the Mongols,

Muhammed

294

Giray Khan: my word:”)

1527 (khan) Великое Ѡрды великого царѧ Садеть Киреѧ

слово нашо то естъ:

(“is is our word, [the word] of the great khan of

the Great Horde, Sa‘adet Giray:”)

1527 (qalga) Великое Ѡръды великого царѧ Садетъ Кирева

брата Слагаль Кгево слово:

(“e word of Islam Giray, the brother of Sa‘adet

Giray, the great khan of the Great Horde:”)

1532 Деда моего, цара Менъ Кгиреево слово, и ѡтца

моего, цара Магмет Киреево слово, Богатыръ

солтаново слово, брата моего, Алпъ Киреи

солтаново слово:

(“e word of my grandfather, Mengli Giray Khan,

and the word of my father, Mehmed Giray Khan,

[also] the word of [mine,] Bahadır Sultan,

295

[and]

the word of my brother, Alp Giray Sultan:”)

1539 Iż z łaski bożej na miescu ojca naszego carem

zostałem, ojca naszego, cara Menligireya słowo, i

brata naszego starszego cara słowo, i nas, Sahib-

kireya słowo to jest:

(“As by the grace of God I have become the khan

in the place of our father, this is the word of

(i.e., word), Bahadır invokes the authority of his late grandfather, Mengli Giray, his

father, Mehmed Giray, and his younger brother, Alp Giray.

294

An Arabicized form of the name Mehmed.

295

e instrument was nominally issued by Islam Giray but in fact literally reiter-

ated the contents of Bahadır Giray’s instrument from 1517.

the crimean instruments 345

my father, Mengli Giray Khan, and of my elder

brother,

296

and of us, Sahib Giray:”)

1552 Великое Ѡрды великии царъ Давлетъ Киреи

цар слово:

(“e word of Devlet Giray Khan, the great khan

of the Great Horde:”)

1592 (‘ahdname) Uluġ O[r]du uluġ hanı Ġazi Gėrey Han sözüm:

(“e great khan of the Great Horde, Ghazi Giray

Khan: my word:”)

1592 (oath-yarlıq) Ebü`l-feth el-ġazi Ġazi Gėrey Han sözüm:

(“e conqueror and ghazi, Ghazi Giray Khan:

my word:”)

In regard to the remaining instruments, from which the “sözüm for-

mula” is missing, it must be remembered that its absence from their

extant translations does not necessarily imply that it was missing from

the originals as well. For example, it is unlikely that Mengli Giray’s

yarlıq from ca. 1473, based on the yarlıq of his father, did not con-

tain such a crucial element. Similarly, the extant Polish translation of

Sahib Giray’s instrument from 1542 does not contain the “my word”

formula, but without this formula the document’s introductory para-

graph does not make sense; besides, this formula is present in Sahib

Giray’s earlier instrument from 1539.

297

e evidence from the Crimean instruments, sent to Poland-Lithua-

nia, only in part conrms the typology of Usmanov, who regarded the

“sözüm formula” as characteristic for a yarlıq (see above). e formula

gured indeed in the yarlıqs, but also in several şartnames, such as the

instruments from 1514 (November) and 1520. Admittedly, its pres-

ence in şartnames was probably less requisite than in yarlıqs.

Ghazi II Giray’s documents from 1592 reect the development which

began already during the reign of Devlet Giray, when the “sözüm for-

mula” adopted the shape of a monogram analogous to the Ottoman

tuġra.

298

e “sözüm formulas” of the two documents from 1592 are

296

I.e., Mehmed Giray.

297

Cf. Document 31, n. 2.

298

Already Devlet Giray’s letter, sent to Sigismund Augustus in June 1572 (dated

1 Safer 980 A.H. and referred to as a yarlıq), is topped with a large inscription

Devlet Gėrey Han sözüm

(مزﻮﺳ نﺎﺧ ىا ﺮﻛ ﺖﻟﻮد), which resembles a tuġra, especially

since the Arabic letter lam in the word Devlet and the two elifs in the words Gėrey

346 part two—chapter three

written in gold ink in very large divani script, below the invocation

but well above the main body of the text. In the rst document, which

is also provided with a golden nişan, the “sözüm formula” is placed

above the nişan.

299

Although these inscriptions still cannot be properly

labeled as tuġras, I would tentatively refer to them as proto-tuġras.

In the Ottoman Empire, the tuġra developed in the 14th century

and the earliest extant specimens belong to Sultan Orhan. By the 16th

century, the initially simple monogram of the sultan had developed

into a highly artistic feature, drawn by a special calligrapher known

as tuġrakeş, and used to corroborate all the documents issued in the

name of the sultan.

300

e Crimean tuġra fully developed only in the 17th century and was

inspired by the Ottoman model. Like the Ottoman one, it contained

three vertical strokes that symbolised horse-tail standards. Yet, it usu-

ally lacked two loops, sometimes referred to as wings, which made

it resemble the monogram of Ottoman viziers and pashas, known as

pençe, rather than the tuġra of the Ottoman sultan.

301

For that rea-

son, some scholars had referred to them as pençes rather than tuġras

until their dignity has been fully restored by Sagit Faizov.

302

e Tatar

and Han are lengthened and shaped like the three horse-tail standards of the

Ottoman tuġra; see AGAD, AKW, Dz. tat., k. 65, t. 8, no. 584. Usmanov states that

the development of the Crimean tuġra was completed in the second half of the 16th

century aer the reign of Sahib Giray (posle Saxib-Giraja), but he does not provide any

examples; see idem, Žalovannye akty Džučieva ulusa XIV–XVI vv., pp. 134–135. e

earliest Crimean tuġra known to Faizov is the one of Qalga Mehmed Giray from 1576,

published by Mária Ivanics; cf. Faizov [Faiz], Tugra i Vselennaja. Moxabbat-name i

šert-name krymskix xanov i princev v ornamental’nom, sakral’nom i diplomatičeskom

kontekstax (Moscow-Baghchasaray, 2002), pp. 4–5 (for an earlier example, preserved

in Mehmed Giray’s letter sent to Poland in 1574, see AGAD, Dz. tat., k. 65, t. 116,

no. 692). Unlike Faizov, I refer to these early, sixteenth-century examples as proto-

tuġras rather than tuġras.

299

Admittedly, the “sözüm formulas” were placed above the nişans also earlier, for

instance in the documents of Tokhtamısh (1393) and Mehmed Giray (1520).

300

On the Ottoman tuġra, see Jan Reychman and Ananiasz Zajączkowski, Hand-

book of Ottoman-Turkish Diplomatics (e Hague-Paris, 1968), pp. 141–143; Ernst

Kühnel, “Die osmanische Tughra,” Kunst des Orients 2 (1955): 69–82; and especially

Suha Umur, Osmanlı padişah tuğraları (Istanbul, 1980).

301

To be sure, some tuġras drawn on the Crimean documents held in Moscow

contain two loops, like the Ottoman tuġra, but such exceptions are rare: the tuġra of

Khan Djanibek Giray from 1628 (albeit most of his extant documents contain typical

tuġras without the loops), the tuġra of Qalga Hüsam Giray from 1635, and the tuġra

of Khan Inayet Giray, drawn on his şartname sent to the tsar in 1636 (see RGADA,

f. 123, op. 2, no. 43); for the color reproductions of these three tuġras, see Faizov,

Tugra i Vselennaja, pp. 38 (ill. 3), 42–45 (ill. 9–10), and 50–51 (ill. 15–16).

302

On the Crimean tuġras, see Sagit Faizov, “Tugry krymskogo xanskogo dvora

XVII—načala XVIII st. v protokole i xudožestvennoj strukture gramot xanov i princev,”

the crimean instruments 347

scholar has persuasively demonstrated that unlike the pençe, placed

on the margin of a document, the Crimean tuġra is drawn, like the

Ottoman one, over the main text, directly below the invocation. It

symbolically represents the ruler as the mediator between his subjects

and God, and is sometimes believed to be shaped aer a bird that

also “mediates” between earth and heaven. Unlike the pençes of Otto-

man dignitaries, the tuġras of the Crimean khans, and even of the

Crimean qalgas and nureddins, were drawn in various colors that fur-

ther stressed their solemn character.

e inscription in a tuġra of an Ottoman sultan consisted of his

monogram along with the name of his father, followed by two words:

muzaer (“victorious”), entered directly below the horse-tail standards

(whereas the lengthened vertical stroke of the Arabic letter

ﻈ in the

word

ﺮﻔﻈﻣ made the middle standard), and da’ima (“ever”), written

separately to the le of the tuġra.

303

Since the Crimean tuġra was

shaped aer the Ottoman one, some of its features resembled the

inscriptions of the latter (e.g., the word muzaer), but in fact these fea-

tures were redundant. On the other hand, the Crimean chancery clerks

charged with drawing the tuġra sometimes le out words that did not

t the visual composition even though these words should gure in

the monogram. For instance, in the tuġras of Khan Bahadır Giray and

his brother, Nureddin Qırım Giray, the surname Gėrey in the name

of their father, Selamet Giray, is missing (cf. below). e inscription

of Islam III Giray’s tuġra, appended to his instrument from 1649, is

especially corrupt and can only be reconstructed by comparing with

his earlier tuġra from 1646. As the document from 1649 was issued

in a military camp far from the Crimean capital, we may surmise that

the clerk who had usually drawn the tuġra was absent and his task was

entrusted to a less gied substitute.

e only fragment easily decipherable in all the Crimean tuġras is

the term sözümüz (

ﺰﻣزﻮﺳ, “our word”), written to the le of their main

in: Mappa Mundi. Zbirnyk naukovyx prac’ na pošanu Jaroslava Daškevyča z nahody

joho 70–riččja (L’viv-Kiev-New York, 1996): 427–434; idem, “Xudožestvennye dos-

toinstva opublikovannyx Xusainom Faizxanovym gramot krymskix xanov i princev,”

in: Xusain Faizxanov. Žizn’ i nasledie. Istoriko-dokumental’nyj sbornik, pp. 149–151;

and especially idem, Tugra i Vselennaja; the latter publication contains color repro-

ductions of some fabulous seventeenth-century tuġras drawn on the Crimean docu-

ments preserved in the Russian archives.

303

For instance, the tuġra of Murad III (r. 1574–1595) read: Murad-şah bin Selim-şah

han muzaer da’ima (“Murad-shah, son of Selim-shah, the ever victorious khan”).

348 part two—chapter three

bodies, in the place where the Ottomans inscribed the word da’ima.

e inscriptions of the Crimean tuġras drawn on the documents pub-

lished in the present volume are as follows:

1632 Canibek Gėrey Han sözümüz

1634 Canibek Gėrey Han sözümüz

1640 Bahadır Gėrey Han bin Selamet [Gėrey] Han

sözümüz

304

1640 (qalga) İslam Gėrey Sultan hazretlerimiz sözümüz

1640 (nureddin) Qırım Gėrey Sultan bin Selamet [Gėrey] Han

sözümüz

305

1646 İslam Gėrey Han bin Selamet Gėrey Han sözümüz

1649 İslam Gėrey Han bin Selamet Gėrey Han sözümüz

1654 Mehmed Gėrey Han bin Selamet Gėrey Han

sözümüz

1742 Selamet-Gėrey

306

Han bin el-Hacc Selim Gėrey Han

sözümüz

As we can see, the Crimean tuġra simply adopted the “sözüm formula,”

removing any details of the khan’s intitulatio that had been sometimes

inscribed in this formula, and preferring the possessive plural to the

possessive singular (sözümüz and not sözüm). By the mid-17th cen-

tury, the name of the owner’s father had been added to the inscription,

though the clerks charged with drawing the tuġra initially had trouble

with nding a place for the second Gėrey within its text.

e limited sample analized in the present study does not allow one

to draw general conclusions about the development of the Crimean

tuġra in the 17th and 18th centuries. Yet, one may safely assume that

the lavish colors and impressive size of Djanibek Giray’s tuġras must

have been inspired by the Ottoman tuġras from the same period that

were also of impressive size and came in a variety of colors.

307

Depend-

ing on where they were issued and to whom they were addressed,

304

is tuġra is more simple than the tuġra of Bahadır Giray drawn on his şartname

and other letters sent to Moscow; for color reproductions of the latter, see Faizov,

Tugra i Vselennaja, pp. 46–49, 52–55, ill. 12–14, 18, 20–22.

305

Faizxanov read this tuġra dierently: Qırım Gėrey Sultan hazretlerimiz sözümüz;

cf. Materialy dlja istorii Krymskago xanstva, p. 256.

306

Written together: ىاﺮﻜﺘ

ﻣ

ﻼﺳ.

307

On the Ottoman tuġras drawn on the instruments addressed to Poland-Lithua-

nia, see Kołodziejczyk, Ottoman-Polish Diplomatic Relations, pp. 10–11 and 43–44.

the crimean instruments 349

tuġras of the same khan could dier in size and artistic quality. For

instance, Islam III Giray’s tuġra from 1649, drawn in a military camp

near Zboriv, whose illegibility has been already deplored, is smaller

than his tuġras from 1646, and even from 1640, when he was only the

qalga. Besides, the tuġra from 1649 is the only one drawn in black,

while the others are drawn in gold and sometimes additional colors

as well.

A constant practice in the Crimean chancery, already mentioned

above, was the corroboration of the khan’s instrument with his per-

sonal signet seal, used not instead but along with the nişan, baysa, or

tuġra. Unlike the Ottoman sultans, who avoided attaching personal

seals to their letters sent to foreign rulers, the khans did not perceive

such a personal touch to be below their dignity. Perhaps they even

regarded it useful for creating the liaisons of intimacy between the

sender and the addressee. Such an attitude is explicitly worded in the

instrument of Mehmed III Giray from 1624, whose corroborating for-

mula, recorded in a Polish translation, reads: “and in order to further

raise its validity, we have impressed the seal with our own brotherly

hand.”

308

A żeby to ważniej było, ręką swą własną i braterską pieczęć przycisnęliśmy; see

Document 48. e Polish translation, which records the inscription of the khan’s sig-

net seal, does not refer to his tuġra, but we may safely assume that the instrument was

also provided with a tuġra or at least proto-tuġra.

Table 2. Color and size of the tuġras on Crimean instruments sent

to Poland-Lithuania

Date Colors used Heigth (cm.) Width (cm.)

1632 gold, blue, green,

greyish, red

23 26

1634 gold, brown, red,

orange, blue

25.5 29

1640 gold 13.5 21.5

1640 (qalga) gold on the black

background

12.5 21

1640 (nureddin) gold 12.5 23

1646 gold 13.5 28.5

1649 black 9 25.5

1654 gold 15 29

1742 gold 20 29.5

350 part two—chapter three

Intitulatio

Few eenth- and sixteenth-century documents that lack the sözüm

formula contain in its stead an intitulatio, which is analogous to the

one used in the contemporary European and Ottoman chanceries:

1467 Nordulath magnus imperator Tartharorum

1507 (şartname) Великое Ѡрды великии цар Менъдликгиреи цар

(“Mengli Giray Khan, the great khan of the Great

Horde”)

1514 (October) Мендли Кгиреи цар, божю милостью Великое

Ѡрды великии цар, всихъ Кипъчаковъ, и

Туркменꙗ, и татарскии господаръ

(“[I,] Mengli Giray Khan, by the grace of God the

great khan of the Great Horde, all the Kipchaks and

Turkomans, and the lord of the Tatars”)

Nevertheless, the intitulatio fully developed in the Crimean documents

only aer the sözüm formula had been incorporated into the tuġra

that had been detached from the main text and elevated to the top of

the instrument.

309

While the early proto-tuġras of Ghazi II Giray from

1592 still recorded both the khan’s name and his titles, apparently for

practical and aesthetic reasons such lengthy inscriptions ceased to be

inscribed within the tuġras proper. erefore, while the tuġra inscrip-

tion was limited to the khan’s monogram, his full elaborated title was

transferred to the intitulatio. is development is already manifest in

Ghazi II Giray’s instrument from 1599, preserved in a Polish transla-

tion. Its text opens with a short inscription “Ghazi Giray Khan” (Car

Kazigierey) that apparently belonged to the proto-tuġra (the Polish

translator probably le out the formula sözüm), but then follows a

309

Consequently, the expression sözüm (or sözümüz), absorbed into the tuġra,

could no longer be found in the main text; still, in Islam III Giray’s instrument sent

in 1646 to Moscow one nds the sözüm formula twice: in the tuġra, and again in

the main text, aer the loy intitulatio which ends with the words: sözümüz oldur

kim; see RGADA, f. 123, op. 2, no. 52 (the document is preserved in a contemporary

copy); published in Materialy dlja istorii Krymskago xanstva, p. 355; this intitulatio is

quoted in Inalcık, “Power Relationships between Russia, the Crimea, and the Ottoman

Empire as Reected in Titulature,” p. 387.

the crimean instruments 351

longer inscription that apparently opened the main text and can be

classied as an intitulatio:

1599 Z łaski i miłości bożej, Wielkiej Ordy wielki car Kazigierey

(“By the grace and love of God, the great khan of the Great

Horde, Ghazi Giray”)

Further intitulatios found in the Crimean instruments are as follows:

1601 Wielkiej Ordy wielki car, distkypczacki, petihorski, nohaiski, i

nad niezliczonymi Tatary wolny hospodar, Car Kazy Girei

(“e great khan of the Great Horde, the free

310

lord of the Kip-

chak Steppe,

311

of the Circassians,

312

Nogays, and innumerable

Tatars, Ghazi Giray Khan”)

1604 Wielkiej Ordy wielgi car, czerkaski, nogaiski, saneski,

313

i inszych

wszytkich narodów tatarskich dziedziczny cham [sic], Gazi

Gierey sułtan

(“e great khan of the Great Horde, the hereditary khan of

the Circassians, Nogays, innumerable [Tatars], and all other

<Tatar> nations, Ghazi Giray Sultan”)

314

1607 Magnae Ordae magnus et excellentissimus caesar Destkiperiach,

315

Crimi et Cerkassiae, innitimorum Nogaiorum et innumerabil-

ium Tartarorum magnus et absolutus princeps et chanus Kazi-

gerey Han

310

e expression wolny hospodar (“free lord”), also found in Ruthenian sources

(cf. Document 10, n. 3), reects the ancient Mongol-Tatar notion of sovereignty.

311

e Turkish term Deşt-i Qıpçaq (Kipchak Steppe) is rendered in Polish by the

adjective distkypczacki.

312

e Polish and Ruthenian term Petyhorcy (i.e., “those of the Five Mountains”)

was analogous to the Russian term Pjatigorcy (cf. the name of the modern town of

Pjatigorsk) and referred particularly to the Kabardinians, inhabiting the region extend-

ing between the Elbrus range and the Kuma river. Nevertheless, it sometimes applied

to other Circassian tribes as well; cf. Aleksandr Nekrasov, Meždunarodnye otnošenija

i narody Zapadnogo Kavkaza, pp. 27–29.

313

It should read nad niezliczonymi Tatary (“[the lord] of innumerable Tatars”) like

in the instrument from 1601. e Polish translator apparently did not understand the

Turkish word sansız (“innumerable,” hence sansız Tatarnıŋ, “of innumerable Tatars”),

so he invented a nonexistant Polish adjective saneski (“of the Sans”).

314

e title of sultan was apparently entered by mistake. While in the Ottoman

Empire it referred to the ruler, in the Crimea it referred to the princes but not to the

khan himself.

315

Corrupt for Tur. Deşt-i Qıpçaq, i.e., the Kipchak Steppe.

352 part two—chapter three

1609 Wielkiej Ordy wielki wolny car, deskiczapski, petihorski, tatar-

ski, i wielu nahayskich narodów mocny i wielki car Salamet

Gierey (“e great, free khan of the Great Horde, the mighty

and great khan of the Kipchak Steppe, of the Circassians,

Tatars, and numerous Nogay peoples, Selamet Giray”)

1611 Wielkiej Ordy wielki wolny car, destkypczacky, wielki newiy-

sky wieliu nacij, pietiorski, bez liczby wielie Tatar wielki car

będący Dziambegiery

(“e great, free khan of the Great Horde, being the great

khan of the Kipchak Steppe, numerous Nogay peoples,

316

the

Circassians, and innumerable Tatars, Djanibek Giray”)

1624

317

Wielkiej Ordy i wielkiego państwa, i pól lipciackich [sic], i

stolice krymskiej, i wiele Tatarów, i bez liczby Nahayczyków,

i prawej strony i lewej strony, i sto tysięcy Tatarów, i wielu

w górach siedzących Cerkiesów, i Tatów wielki cesarz i wielki

chan, podobny Ferydunowi, zacnością jako słońcem oświecony,

możności i sprawiedliwości pełny, najjaśniejszy krymski chan

Mechmed Gyray chan (któremu niech Bóg pomocnikiem będzie

i niech go błogosławi na długie czasy!)

(“[I,] the great emperor and great khan of the Great Horde

and great state, the Kipchak Steppe, the Crimean throne,

numerous Tatars and innumerable Nogays, the right side and

the le side, one hundred thousand Tatars, numerous Circas-

sians dwelling in the mountains, and the Tats,

318

the illus-

316

Recorded in a slightly corrupt form as: wielki newiysky wieliu nacij.

317

Strangely, this intitulatio can be found in the middle of the document and in

fact belongs to the narratio.

318

e term Tat appears already in the eighth-century Turkic Orkhon inscriptions

denoting “a subjected foreign people.” In the seventeenth-century Crimean context, it

probably denoted various peoples of foreign (i.e., non-Turkic) origin living under the

khan’s rule, especially the Greeks, Italians, and the remnants of the Goths and Alans

inhabiting the mountainous southern section of the Crimea; cf. Edmond Schütz, “e

Tat people in the Crimea,” AO ASH 31 (1977): 77–106, esp. pp. 77–84 and 89–97; Ivan-

ics, “Formal and linguistic peculiarities of 17th century Crimean Tatar letters adressed

to princes of Transylvania,” pp. 217–218; Alexander Vasiliev, e Goths in the Crimea

(Cambridge, Mass., 1936), p. 193. In the now lost original document in Turkish, the

reference to the Tats was probably accompanied by a reference to the Tavgaches, like

in the later Crimean documents and in the almost contemporary şartname sent by

Mehmed III Giray to Muscovy, dated 11 September 1624; cf. RGADA, f. 123, op. 2,

no. 36, fol. 5a; published in Materialy dlja istorii Krymskago xanstva, p. 21 (the Turk-

ish copy reads: Tat bile Tavgaçnıŋ, whereas in the contemporary Russian translation

both terms are le out as they were apparently unknown to the translator; cf Pamjat-

niki diplomatičeskix snošenij. . . . Edited by F. Laškov, p. 47). Samuel Otwinowski, the

the crimean instruments 353

trious Crimean khan Mehmed Giray Khan (may God assist

and bless him for a long time!), similar to Feridun,

319

enlight-

ened with righteousness like with sunlight, full of power and

justice”)

1632 Uluġ orda ve uluġ yurtnıŋ ve taht-i Qırımnıŋ ve Deşt-i

Qıpçaqnıŋ ve sansız hem Tatarnıŋ ve saġışsız köp Noġaynıŋ

ve taġ çıġlay Çerkesniŋ ve Tat bile Tavgaçnıŋ ve din-i mübin

ve islam-i din-i mü’mininniŋ uluġ padişahı ve uluġ hanı

‘azametlü Canibek Gėrey Han hazretleriniŋ edame`llahu

ta‘ala ila yevmi`l-mizan eyyam-i nusretindin

{“From his excellency, the great padishah and great khan

of the Great Horde and great country [yurt], the Crimean

throne, the Kipchak Steppe, innumerable Tatars and count-

less

320

Nogays, mountain Circassians, Tats and Tavgaches,

321

and of the faithful of the manifest religion of Islam, great

Djanibek Giray Khan (may God—may He be exalted!—pro-

long his [i.e., my] victorious days until the Day of Judgment!)

[. . .]”}

1634 Uluġ orda ve uluġ yurtnıŋ ve Deşt-i Qıpçaqnıŋ ve taht-i

Qırımnıŋ ve sansız köp Tatarnıŋ ve saġışsız Noġaynıŋ ve Tat

bile Tavgaçnıŋ ve taġ ara Çerkeçniŋ ve cümle-i mü’minin ve

author of the extant Polish translation, was probably familiar with the term Tat, but

not with Tavgaç, so he le it out. On the Tavgaches, see n. 321 below.

319

Feridun was the legendary ancient Persian hero and king.

320

e Turkish word köp (“many”), oen paired in the intitulatio with the terms

saġışsız (“countless”) or sansız (“innumerable”), is le untranslated because the phrase

“innumerable many Tatars” or “countless many Nogays” would sound awkward in

English.

321

On the Tats and on the earliest known reference to the Tavgaches in the Crimean

context, see n. 318 above. In the Old Turkic context the term Tabγač or Tavγač

referred to a Mongolian speaking tribe in northern China, while in the Karakhanid

state it referred to Central Asia. It is doubtful whether the term Tavgaç, adopted by

the Crimean chancery in the 17th century, referred to any ethnic or religious group.

It rather stressed the dynasty’s historical roots, harmonizing in juxtaposition with the

word Tat; cf. Edmond Schütz, “e Tat people in the Crimea,” pp. 98–100 (the author

overlooked the earliest reference from 1624 and attributed the introduction of the for-

mula “Tats and Tavgaches” to Djanibek Giray); Ivanics, “Formal and linguistic pecu-

liarities of 17th century Crimean Tatar letters adressed to princes of Transylvania,”

pp. 217–218. e vague meaning of the formula, not referring in the Crimean context

to any specic ethno-religious community, is conrmed by an entry in Drevnetjurkskij

slovar’, where the expression tat tavγač is explained as vsjakie inozemcy (“all kinds of

aliens”); see Drevnetjurkskij slovar’ (Leningrad, 1969), p. 541.