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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

364 part two—chapter three

claim his rule over all the Tatars and Nogays, previously conquered by

Russia.

346

Noticatio-promulgatio

A typical Genghisid yarlıq was formally addressed not only to its direct

receiver, but to all the khan’s subjects, who were required to obey and

execute their ruler’s will. If a yarlıq was sent to a foreign ruler, the lat-

ter’s subjects were addressed as well because they, too, were expected

to obey and execute the will of the khan, who regarded himself as their

and their ruler’s superior suzerain.

347

e list of the khan’s subjects, entered in the Crimean documents

sent to Lithuanian rulers, typically opened with the male Genghisid

dynasty members referred to as ulans,

348

followed by military com-

manders, from the highest to the lowest ones, having under their

346

See Document 64; this fragment is already discussed in Part I and quoted (in a

simplied translation) by Inalcık in ibidem, p. 379.

347

For the cathegories of social groups and individuals, typically addressed in the

yarlıqs, cf. Grigor’ev, “Konkretnye formuljary čingizidskix žalovannyx gramot XIII–

XV vv.” (part III), Učenye zapiski Leningradskogo [. . .] Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta,

no. 383: Serija vostokovedčeskix nauk, vypusk 18: Vostokovedenie 2: Filologičeskie issle-

dovanija (1976): 156–166, esp. pp. 162–164, and Usmanov, Žalovannye akty Džučieva

ulusa XIV–XVI vv., pp. 206–228; both authors identify the notificatio-promulgatio for-

mula with inscriptio; here, it is treated separately while the standard inscriptio will be

discussed below. Anna Xoroškevič makes a convincing point that one cannot speak of

a regular inscriptio when the name of the actual addressee (in the given case, a foreign

ruler) is mentioned only indirectly; cf. eadem, Rus’ i Krym, p. 34. Such cases are also

typical for Ottoman ‘ahdnames, where the name of a foreign ruler, to whom they were

in fact sent, was only mentioned in the expositio-narratio; hence the term “indirect

inscriptio,” coined by Hans eunissen, is now generally accepted; cf. Kołodziejczyk,

Ottoman-Polish Diplomatic Relations, p. 21.

348

e term ulan is somewhat confusing. According to Usmanov, it referred to

Genghisid princes who directly commanded over the right and le wings of the army

and stood in hierarchy higher than the beys; see idem, Žalovannye akty Džučieva ulusa

XIV–XVI vv., p. 206. At rst sight, this denition ts the given context and can be

conrmed by the fact that in the 17th century the right and the le wings of the

Crimean army were—at least in theory—commanded by the qalga and the nureddin,

who aer all were the Genghisid princes. Yet, from other occurrences it appears that

the ulans should not be identied with the Giray princes, who were distinctly referred

to as sultans (see the noticatio-promulgatio formula of the instrument from Decem-

ber 1513). Even if some (or all?) of the ulans could claim the Genghisid lineage, they

usually owed their position to their personal merits in the khan’s service, like Tevkel

Ulan, sent in embassy to Lithuania in 1506. According to the French authors, in the

Crimean context the term ulan (or oġlan) could refer to a Genghisid prince, but also

to a nobleman of elevated status; see Le khanat de Crimée, p. 394.

the crimean instruments 365

orders tens of thousands [tümens],

349

thousands, hundreds, and tens of

the Tatar troops, arranged into the right and le wings of the khan’s

army. ese commanders, recruited from among the Tatar nobility,

were titled as beys

350

or mirzas.

e address to the khan’s subjects was typically followed by the

address to the subjects of the grand duke, graded in a descending social

order: from the Ruthenian princes, who traced their ancestry back to

Gediminas or Ruryk and were thus related to the Jagiellonians, to met-

ropolitans, [Orthodox] bishops and priests, monks, boyars, townsmen,

and commoners. In the address of the instrument sent to Poland in

1520, such standard collective formula was replaced by a more precise

one, referring to the Crown dignitaries by their proper names and

functions. Unlike the lists of Lithuanian addressees that opened with

Gediminid princes and Orthodox metropolitans, the list of the Polish

addressees opened with Catholic hierarchs, followed by highest secular

dignitaries. e Crimean chancery apparently learned their names and

functions from a document previously sent from Poland.

Curiously, aer 1520 the Crimean chancery resumed the previ-

ous standard formula that was to reappear in the instruments sent

to Poland-Lithuania until the late 16th century. Even the instrument

from 1592, sent to a erce Catholic ruler, Sigismund III, addressed

the Orthodox metropolitans and bishops (metrepolitleringe ve

ivladıqalarınga) while no mention was made of Catholic bishops, who

had been referred to as püskublar in the instrument of 1520. To be

sure, the Catholic hierarchs enjoyed a much more powerful position

than their Orthodox colleagues not only in Poland, but also in Lithu-

ania. Wojciech Radziwiłł, the Catholic bishop of Vilnius, participated

in the pacication of 1507 and is in fact mentioned in Mengli Giray’s

şartname from that year, referred to as knjaz’ biskup.

351

Among the

349

e actual size of a tümen could be much smaller than ten thousand of troops.

350

e term “bey” is again somewhat confusing. On the one hand, it referred to

clan leaders, including the leaders of the four (or more?) leading clans, who were

referred to as the qaraçı beys or simply the qaraçıs (on the institution and number of

qaraçıs, see notes 42 and 110 in Part I). Only the clan leader was titled as bey while

the remaining clan members were referred to as mirzas. Yet, on the other hand, the

title of bey was also conferred to the khan’s trusted officials, who were not necessarily

recruited from among the Tatar nobility; for instance, Augustino de Garibaldis, a pro-

minent diplomat of Genovese origin in the Crimean service, is referred to in a Russian

source as Agusutun knjaz’, whereas in its context the title knjaz’ was equivalent to bey;

see Malinovskij, “Istoričeskoe sobranie,” p. 413.

351

Cf. Document 9, n. 23.

366 part two—chapter three

Lithuanian dignitaries, who corroborated the royal instruments sent

to the khans in 1513, 1516, and 1535, we encounter the Catholic

bishops of Vilnius and Samogitia, but no Orthodox hierarchs. Appar-

ently, the persistent reference to Orthodox bishops in the noticatio-

promulgatio of the Crimean instruments should not be regarded as a

promotion of the Greek creed against the Latin one, but rather as an

expression of linguistic conservatism reigning in the Crimean chan-

cery. As the yarlıqs’ original content was the “donation” of Ruthenian

lands to Lithuania, the principal addressees of these yarlıqs were the

local elites of the “donated” lands, who were predominantly Orthodox

even if Lithuania proper was predominantly Catholic. Besides, it is

likely that in the Crimean chancery language of that time, the loaned

terms metrepolitler and ivladıqalar (<Ruth. mytropolyt and vladyka;

the endings—ler and—lar are the Turkish plural) referred to any

Christian hierarchs, and not just the Orthodox ones.

352

e noticatio-promulgatio formulas found in the Crimean instru-

ments sent to Poland-Lithuania are as follows:

ca. 1462 Od prawej i lewej ręki naszej i od wszelkiego państwa

naszego ułanom, panom radom, wszelkiego Państwa

Ruskiego kniaziom, czerńcom, bielcom i wszelkim

pospolitym:

(“To the ulans and lords counselors of our right and

le hand, to the princes, monks, laymen,

353

and com-

moners of the Ruthenian state [sic]:”)

ca. 1473 Od prawej i lewej ręki naszej i ode wszego państwa

naszego panom radom, kniaziom ruskim i państwom

ich, bojarom, władykom, metropolitom, czerńcom, biel-

com i wszelkiemu pospolitemu ludu:

(“To the lords counselors of our right and le hand

and of our whole state, to the Ruthenian princes and

[the inhabitants of] their estates, to the boyars, [Ortho-

dox] bishops, metropolitans, monks, laymen, and all

common people:”)

352

In analogy, the Turkish term ruhban, which originally referred to Orthodox

monks, in the instruments from 1654 and 1742 refers to Catholic bishops and mis-

sionaries, respectively; cf. Document 64, n. 5 and Document 71, n. 20.

353

In old Ruthenian the term belec (lit. “[the one wearing] white [garments],” as

contrary to a monk referred to as černec, lit. “[the one wearing] black [garments]”),

referred to a person living in a monastery who had not undergone the rite of hair

clipping and thus had remained a layman.

the crimean instruments 367

1507 (yarlıq) Правое рꙋки и левое великого влоса темникомъ,

и тысꙗчъником, и сотником, и десꙗтником,

вланом, кнꙗзем, и всимъ рꙋским людемъ,

кнꙗзем, боꙗром, митрополитом и попом,

черньцом, и всим чорнымъ людем и всемꙋ

посполствꙋ:

(“To the commanders of tens of thousands

[tümens], thousands, hundreds, and tens of the

great people [ulus] of the right and the le hand,

the ulans and beys [Ruth. knjazem], and to all the

Ruthenian people, princes, boyars, metropolitans,

[Orthodox] priests, monks, and all ordinary peo-

ple and commoners:”)

1513 (December) Правое и левое рꙋки темникомъ, и тисѧчни-

ком, и сотником, и десѧтникомъ, и

старшому сынꙋ нашому Магмет Кгирею

солтанꙋ, и сынꙋ моемꙋ Ахмат солтанꙋ,

а Магмуть Кирею, а Бурнашъ Кирею, а

Мубарекъ Кгирею, и сынов моихъ детемъ

солтановымъ, и вланом, и кнꙗземъ, мꙋръзамъ,

и всеи рꙋскои земли городом и местомъ, и

митрополитомъ, и владыкамъ, игуменомъ, и

черницомъ, и попом, и кнꙗземъ, и паномь, и

боꙗромъ, и мещаномъ, и всему посполству

(“To the commanders of tens of thousands

[

tümens], thousands, hundreds, and tens of the

right and the le hand, to our elder son Mehmed

Giray Sultan, to our son Ahmed Sultan, to Mahmud

Giray, Burnash Giray, and Mübarek Giray, to the

children of my sons, the sultans [i.e., princes],

to the ulans, beys [Ruth. knjazem], mirzas, and

to the castles and towns of the whole Ruthenian

land, metropolitans, [Orthodox] bishops, heads of

Orthodox monasteries [ihumens], monks, [Ortho-

dox] priests, princes, lords, boyars, townsmen, and

all the commoners:”)

1514 (June) Правое рꙋки и левое рꙋки великого влуса

темникомъ, и тисѧчьникомъ, и сотникомъ,

и десѧтникомъ, и всимъ тымъ вланомъ

и кнꙗземъ, такъже всих рꙋскихъ земль

внутръныхъ и замъчистыхъ мѣсть и

368 part two—chapter three

городов митрополитомъ, владыкамъ, всимъ

дꙋховнымъ, кнꙗземъ, и боꙗромъ, и мещаномъ,

и всему поспольству:

(“To the commanders of tens of thousands

[tümens], thousands, hundreds, and tens of the

great people [ulus] of the right and the le hand,

all the ulans and beys [Ruth. knjazem], and also to

the metropolitans, [Orthodox] bishops, all clergy-

men, princes, boyars, townsmen, and commoners

of the inland and fortied towns and castles of all

the Ruthenian lands:”)

1517 Праваꙗ рꙋка, леваꙗ рꙋка

354

великого влуса

темъникомъ, тисꙗчникомъ, сотником, десꙗ-

тником, вланом, кнѧземъ, теж рꙋскимъ

кнѧземъ, мѣстомъ и городом, митропо-

литомъ, ꙋладыкамъ, белыголовымъ, чернъ-

цомъ, кнѧземъ, боꙗромъ, мѣщаномъ, и всему

посполству, вамъ зведома бъ было, штож мы

ꙗвно чиним симъ нашимъ листомъ:

(“To the commanders of tens of thousands

[tümens], thousands, hundreds, and tens of the

great people [ulus] of the right and the le hand,

the ulans and beys [Ruth. knjazem], also to the

Ruthenian princes, towns and castles, metropoli-

tans, [Orthodox] bishops, women [sic],

355

monks,

princes, boyars, townsmen, and all the common-

ers, you should know that we announce [the fol-

lowing] with our present letter:”)

1520 (yarlıq Праваѧ рꙋка, леваѧ рука тмы тмами, сто и

cum şartname) десѧть хто мает, с уланы, кнѧзи, и мурзами,

всеѧ Рꙋси ѡтчизны митрополитомъ, влады-

камъ, чернъцомъ, попомъ, и кнѧземъ, паномъ,

354

It should read: Правое рꙋки, левое рꙋки.

355

Apparently by misunderstanding, the scribe changed the term belcom (lit. “to

those [wearing] white [garments]”), which had gured in earlier documents and

referred to laymen living in monasteries, into belyholovym (lit. “to those with white

heads”). e latter term referred to women and is unlikely in the given context (i.e., a

social group listed between bishops and monks); yet, the mistake was perpetuated for

almost a century as in a document from 1592, composed in Turkish (cf. n. 381 below),

we encounter a mysterious term aqbaşlı (lit. “[the one] with a white head”).

the crimean instruments 369

боꙗромъ, мещаномъ, и всим посполитым

людемъ:

(“To those having [i.e., commanding over] tens

of thousands [tümens], [thousands,]

356

hundreds,

and tens of the right and the le hand, the ulans,

beys [Ruth. knjazi], and mirzas, and to the metro-

politans, [Orthodox] bishops, monks, [Orthodox]

priests, and the princes, lords, boyars, townsmen,

and all common people of whole Ruthenia:”)

1520 (şartname) Ong qol song qolnung tümen ming yüz on biyle-

gen oġlanlar biyler mirzalarıġa barça İleh yurtu-

nung knyaz arspişkub başlıġ taqı Ladıjlav pişkubi

knyaz Matyasġa taqı Premıslenüng knyaz püskub

potqanselerġe taqı Kirakuv voyvodası dizdarı

pan Qrıştof ulu qaniselerġe taqı ulu hazineci pan

Niqolayġa taqı Qamanice İlav voyvodası ulu marşalġa

taqı Pozna voyvodasıġa taqı Sudomir voyvodası

pan Filyer ulu hedmanġa taqı Lublin voyvoda pan

Tosunckige taqı bulardan başqa İleh yurtunung ulu

püskublarına ve qaloniqlarınġa ve pilebanlarıġa ve

papaslarıġa ve meşcanlarıġa ve bayarınlarıġa ve

barça Ulu Kėngeş panlarıġa ve içki daşqısıġa ve köp

qara ėlge barça tüzünce bilsingler kim:

(“To those commanding over tens of thousands

[tümens], thousands, hundreds, and tens of the

right wing and the le wing, the ulans, beys, and

mirzas, and [to] all [the inhabitants] of the Polish

country to begin with the Reverend Archbishop;

357

also to the bishop of Włocławek, the Reverend

Maciej;

358

also to the bishop of Przemyśl, the Rev-

erend Bishop Vice-chancellor;

359

also to the pala-

tine and warden

360

of Cracow, Pan

361

Krzysztof, the

356

Apparently le out by the copyist.

357

Jan Łaski, the archbishop of Gniezno; for further biographic details about him

and the following Polish dignitaries, see the respective notes in Document 20.

358

Maciej Drzewicki, the bishop of Włocławek.

359

Piotr Tomicki, the Crown vice-chancellor (podkanclerzy) and the bishop of

Przemyśl.

360

Tur. dizdar; it should be rendered here as Pol. starosta.

361

e Polish title pan is dicult to translate hence it is kept as in the original;

370 part two—chapter three

grand chancellor;

362

also to the grand treasurer,

363

Pan Mikołaj;

364

also to the palatine [sic] of Kamieniec and Lwów, the grand

marshal;

365

also to the palatine of Poznań;

366

also to the palatine

of Sandomierz, Pan Firlej, the grand hetman;

367

also to the pal-

atine of Lublin, Pan Tęczyński;

368

and apart from those [men-

tioned above] to the great bishops, canons,

369

vicars,

370

priests,

townsmen,

371

knights,

372

all lords of the Great Council, those in

the inner [i.e., courtiers] and outer service, and to all common

people: ey should all duly know that [. . .]”)

1532 Правое рꙋки и левое великого ꙋлꙋса темъ никомъ, и

тисечникомъ, и сотникомъ, [и десꙗтником,] и вланомъ,

кнѧземъ, по тому ж теж рꙋскимъ кнѧземъ и паномъ,

городом, местамъ и волостемъ, и митрополитамъ, и

владыкамъ, чорнотъцомъ и белцомъ, боѧромъ и мещаномъ,

и всемꙋ посполствꙋ, ижъбы вамъ было ведомо:

(“To the commanders of tens of thousands [tümens], thousands,

hundreds, [and tens]

373

of the great people [ulus] of the right and

the le hand, the ulans and beys [Ruth. knjazem], and likewise

to the Ruthenian princes and lords, castles, towns, and estates,

metropolitans, [Orthodox] bishops, monks and laymen, boyars

and townsmen, and all the commoners, thus you should

know:”)

unlike the English “sir” it applied not only to the nobles; on the other hand, the

modern equivalent “mister” sounds anachronistic.

362

Krzysztof Szydłowiecki, the Crown chancellor and the starosta of Cracow.

363

Tur. ulu hazineci, i.e., “the great treasurer;” the term corresponds with the Polish

title of podskarbi wielki.

364

Mikołaj Szydłowiecki, the Crown grand treasurer (podskarbi wielki).

365

is entry apparently refers to Stanisław Chodecki, the starosta of Kamieniec

Podolski (1494–1510) and of Lwów (1501–1529), the Crown grand marshal since

1505; yet, as his brother, Otto Chodecki, was the palatine of Kamieniec (1509–1515)

and then of Ruthenia, i.e., the province centered in Lwów (1515–1527), perhaps the

entry confuses the two brothers or refers to both of them.

366

Mikołaj Lubrański, the palatine of Poznań.

367

Mikołaj Firlej, the palatine of Sandomierz and the Crown grand hetman.

368

Andrzej Tęczyński, the palatine of Lublin.

369

Pol. kanonik is rendered in the Turkish text as qaloniq.

370

Pol. pleban is rendered in the Turkish text as pileban.

371

Pol. mieszczanin (mieszczan in the genitive plural) is rendered in the Turkish

text as meşcan.

372

Ruth. bojaryn is rendered in the Turkish text as bayarın.

373

Apparently omitted by error; cf. the analogous fragment in the instrument from

1517.

the crimean instruments 371

1539 I państwa naszego od prawej i lewej ręki naszej, i wiel-

kiego państwa naszego ułanom i kniaziom naszym,

374

rus-

kim państwom, miastom, zamkom, metropolitom, władykom,

czerńcom, bielcom, bojarom, mieszczanom, i wszelkim pospoli-

tym ludziom, czynimy jawno tem naszym listem:

(“<And> [To the commanders]

375

of our right and le hand

of our state, to our ulans and beys [kniaziom] of our great

state, and to the Ruthenian estates, towns, castles, metropoli-

tans, [Orthodox] bishops, monks, laymen, boyars, townsmen,

and all common people, we make known with our present

letter:”)

1542 Od prawej i od lewej ręki naszej, i od wszelkiego państwa

naszego ułanom, kniaziom, murzom,

376

ruskim państwom, zam-

kom, miastom, czerńcom, bielcom, i wszelkim aby było jawno, iż

[. . .]

(“[To the commanders]

377

of our right and le hand, to the

ulans, beys [kniaziów], and mirzas of our whole state, and to

the Ruthenian estates, castles, towns, monks, laymen, and all

[the people]: It should be known that [. . .]”)

1552 Ѡзънаимую самъ ѡтъ себе и ѡтъ всихъ верныхъ

нашихъ, котории намъ служать правою и левою

рꙋкою—ꙋланове, кнѧзи, и мꙋрзы, тымъ нашимъ

доконъчаньемъ кнѧжатомъ рꙋскимъ, замъкомъ, местомъ,

митрополитомъ, владыкомъ, черньцомъ и бельцомъ,

попом и мещаномъ, и всимъ посполитымъ людем:

(“With our present letter of agreement I announce in my

name and in the name of all our loyal subjects, who serve us

[in the troops of ]

378

the right and le hand—the ulans, beys

[Ruth. knjazi], and mirzas, to the Ruthenian princes, castles,

towns, metropolitans, [Orthodox] bishops, monks and laymen,

[Orthodox] priests, townsmen, and all common people:”)

374

Written erroneously: ułanów i kniaziów naszych; for a correct reading, cf. the

earlier documents.

375

e text of the Polish translation is corrupt; cf. n. 374 above.

376

Written erroneously: ułanów, kniaziów, murzów; for the same error, cf. n. 374

above.

377

e text of the Polish translation is corrupt; cf. n. 375 above.

378

e literal meaning of the Ruthenian translation: “who serve us with right and

le hand,” is obviously corrupt, hence it was corrected here.

372 part two—chapter three

1592 (‘ahdname) Ong qolnıng ve sol qolnıng uluġ ulusnıng tümen biyle-

gen ming yüz on biylegen oġlanlarınga ve bekleringe

ve mirzalarınga ve Rus ve Prus kenazlarınga ve

şehir ve kermen bėkleringe ve metrepolitleringe

ve ivladıqalarınga ve aqbaşlı ve qara tonlarınga

mesçanlarınga ve barça uluġ kengeş panlarınga ve

içki ve tışqılarınga ve köblik qara ėlge barça tüzünce

bilgeleringe:

(“To those commanding over tens of thousands

[tümens], and those commanding over thousands,

hundreds, and tens of the right wing and the le

wing of the great people [ulus], the ulans, beys, and

mirzas, and to the princes

379

of Ruthenia and Prus-

sia, the commanders of cities and towns, metro-

politans and [Orthodox] bishops,

380

women [sic]

381

and monks,

382

townsmen,

383

all lords of the Great

Council, those in the inner [i.e., courtiers] and

outer service, and to all common people; they

should all duly know:”)

1599 Oznajmujemy tym listem naszym niniejszym i na

potym będącym, iż [. . .]

(“We announce with our present letter to those liv-

ing now and in the future that [. . .]”)

379

In theory, the translation of the word kenazlar as “reverends” or “Catholic

bishops” is also possible since the Ruthenian term knjaz’ referred either to “prince”

or “[Catholic] priest.” Yet, albeit Catholic hierarchs were listed in the şartname sent

to Poland in 1520, throughout the 16th century the Crimean chancery stuck to the

customary formula, known from the earliest yarlıqs sent to Lithuanian rulers. e

formula opened with addressing the Ruthenian princes, metropolitans, and Ortho-

dox bishops, while it contained no reference to Catholic hierarchs. is issue is also

discussed above.

380

Ruth. vladyka or Pol. władyka (i.e., “Orthodox bishop”) is rendered in the Turk-

ish text as ivladıqa.

381

Pol. białogłowa (lit. “white head,” i.e., “woman”) is rendered in the Turkish text

as aqbaşlı (lit. “[the one] with a white head”). e term itself was apparently entered in

the present and earlier documents by misunderstanding; an earlier scribe, unfamiliar

with the old Ruthenian term belec (lit. “[the one] wearing white [garments]”), which

referred to a layman living in a monastery, changed it into belyholova, i.e., “woman;”

cf. n. 355 above.

382

Ruth. černec, (lit. “[the one] wearing black [garments],” i.e., “monk”) is rendered

in the Turkish text as qara ton (lit. “[the one wearing] black garments”).

383

Pol. mieszczanin (mieszczan in the genitive plural) is rendered in the Turkish

text as mesçan.

the crimean instruments 373

e last formula, which diers from the previous ones, should be

regarded as merely a calque from the Polish document, issued by

Sigismund III in 1598. In fact, aer 1592 the traditional noticatio-

promulgatio seems to have disappeared from the Crimean documents.

Typical for the yarlıqs, in the 16th century it was sometimes also

entered in şartnames and ‘ahdnames, as is evidenced by the docu-

ments from 1520 and 1592 (admittedly, the latter one is referred to

within its text as both an ‘ahdname and a yarlıq).

In the seventeenth-century Crimean documents, the reference to

tens of thousands, thousands, hundreds, and tens of Tatar troops

divided into the right wing and the le wing, which had originally g-

ured in the noticatio-promulgatio formula, can be sometimes found

in the intitulatio of the khan, or even the qalga.

384

is shi was already

noticed by Ivanics, who also observed that the formula had lost its

original meaning, because in the 17th century the Crimean army was

no longer divided into tümens.

385

In fact, the earliest occurence, when

the above reference no longer gures in the noticatio-promulgatio,

but in the khan’s intitulatio (more precisely, in the sözüm formula),

can be located in the document from 1514, drawn in Italian, where

Mengli Giray is referred to as the ruler 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.

Direct individual inscriptio and salutatio

Two eenth-century Crimean instruments, published in the pres-

ent volume, do not contain a noticatio-promulgatio but are directly

addressed to Casimir:

1467 Serenissimo domino et domino Kazimiro regi Polonie salutem

1480 Королю, брате мои

(“Oh king, my brother”)

384

Cf. the documents issued in 1624, 1635, and 1640 (by the qalga), published in

the present volume.

385

Cf. Ivanics, “Formal and linguistic peculiarities of 17th century Crimean Tatar

letters adressed to princes of Transylvania,” pp. 215–217.