Kolodziejczyk Dariusz. The Crimean Khanate and Poland-Lithuania (ENG)
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
424 part two—chapter three
names of God, Prophet Muhammad, the khan and the king, their
ancestors, and the Ottoman sultan. e two documents from 1592
are ornamented with scattered golden triple dots, and the documents
from 1640 (of the qalga) and 1742 with regular golden dots. e shape,
color and size of other elements, such as the nişans, the tuġras, and the
signet seals, have been already described above.
In a sharp contrast to the richly ornamentated documents, described
above, the instrument from 1649 is written entirely in black, includ-
ing the invocatio and the tuġra. It is also much smaller than the other
documents. e dierence can be easily explained by the fact that it
was issued on a military campaign, where apparently only few chan-
cery clerks were present and such articles like golden ink might have
been missing.
Tatar documents issued in Polish have even a less solemn character.
e instrument issued in 1667 in the camp near Pidhajci is written in
black on a folded sheet of paper (sheet format: 30.5 × 38.5 cm.), in
analogy to the Polish documents from the same period. Likewise, the
document of Selim Giray issued in 1672 in the camp near Žvanec’ is
inscribed on one inside page of a folded sheet of paper (sheet format:
29.5 × 42.5 cm.). No watermarks can be discerned on the paper of the
document from 1667 and it is hard to establish whether the paper was
taken along by the Tatars on the campaign, or was provided by the
Polish negotiators. e watermark of the paper used in the document
from 1672 depicts a crown topped with a star topped with a crescent.
is paper, apparently of Western origin, is similar though not identi-
cal to the one known to have been used in the Ottoman chancery.
CHAPTER FOUR
THE POLISH AND LITHUANIAN INSTRUMENTS OF PEACE
ADDRESSED TO THE KHANS
None of the Polish-Lithuanian instruments, published in the present
volume, origin from the khans’ archives, the major part of which per-
ished in the great re of Baghchasaray caused by the Russian invasion
of 1736. us, one can only make judgments on the basis of copies
made before the actual documents were sent. e fact that these instru-
ments are preserved merely in copies should prevent one from making
too broad generalizations about the development of Lithuanian as well
as Polish chancery practice. Besides, numerous original documents,
issued by the Jagiellonians and their successors, are preserved in vari-
ous European archives and the Polish as well as Lithuanian chancer-
ies have already been studied by numerous scholars, more thoroughly
than the Crimean one. erefore, the conclusions presented in the fol-
lowing section only have a cursory character and focus on the relations
of Vilnius, Cracow, and then Warsaw with the Crimea.
e destruction of the khans’ archives explains in part why Lithu-
anian and Polish instruments are much less numerous in the present
volume compared to the Crimean ones. Yet, there were other reasons
as well. Some Crimean instruments, like the “donation yarlıqs,” were
unilateral ex denitio, so the receiver was not expected to reciprocate
them by sending analogous instruments to the khan. We also know
that in some cases the royal side did not reciprocate the khans’ docu-
ments because of its irritation caused by continuous Tatar raids, or
its plans of an aggressive war with the Crimea, like in 1527 and 1646.
Finally, it happened that while the khans sent solemn documents,
which can be classied as formal instruments of peace, the royal side
responded with ordinary letters, which stressed its peaceful intentions,
but cannot be classied as instruments of peace (like in 1742).
524
524
Opposite situations were also possible; for instance, in 1472 Casimir issued a
formal instrument of peace in return for Mengli Giray’s letter that was much less
formal; it is yet possible that the khan’s original letter, referred to as cum sigillo meo
litera, was originally longer and more formal than its extant Latin copy, preserved in
the Crown Register books and published by Pułaski (cf. n. 53 in Part I).
426 part two—chapter four
e last reason of the imbalance in the number of the preserved
Polish-Lithuanian vs. Crimean instruments was the insistence of the
royal side that the khan’s instrument should minutely conform to
the desired model. In analogy to the practice known in Moscow, the
chanceries in Vilnius and Cracow/Warsaw sometimes took initiative
in their hands and draed ready formulas of future documents, which
were expected to be issued by the khans with a word for word exac-
titude. Even though these formulas duly invoked Prophet Muham-
mad and their form was usually based on the khans’ previous genuine
instruments, the Crimean chancery was not always willing to follow
the royal instructions step by step. In result, Tatar instruments were
sometimes sent back to the Crimea in order be “amended,” or the royal
side accepted the already brought instrument but immediately asked
the khan to issue its new, “better” version. As to the Tatars, they were
apparently less obsessed with the most minute details in the wording
of the received instruments; at least they are not known to have issued
ready formulas of the instruments to be issued by the kings and tsars,
or to have sent back the already received documents.
To provide one example, the pacication of 1513–1514 resulted
in two instruments issued by Sigismund: one on behalf of Lithuania
and one on behalf of Poland, and as many as four instruments issued
by Mengli Giray: two successive versions of the “donation yarlıq” for
Lithuania, and two successive versions of the instrument regarding
Poland.
Royal instruments
It has been stressed above that in the rst century of its existance the
Crimean Khanate bordered with Lithuania, and not with Poland, and
its relations with Vilnius were much more intensive than with Cra-
cow. Hence, it may come as a surprise that the earliest extant instru-
ment of peace, sent by a Jagiellonian ruler to the Crimea, was drawn
in 1472 in Cracow, composed in Latin and not Ruthenian, and issued
solely on behalf of Poland: Casimir is referred to exclusively as the
king of Poland and his document is corroborated by the Crown chan-
cellor, Jakub from Dębno. Moreover, the instrument’s contents were
authenticated by the presence of leading Polish dignitaries, of whom
fourteen are listed by their names and functions. e list duly opens
with the archbishop of Gniezno, followed by the bishops of Cracow
the polish and lithuanian instruments of peace 427
and Włocławek, ve palatines,
525
three castellans, and other dignitaries.
Also the royal envoy originated from a family settled in Polish Pod-
olia, and not from Lithuania. In the instrument, addressed to potenti
domino Mengligerej, Magno Imperatori terre artharorum, fratri nos-
tro dilecto, Casimir invoked the recent arrival of Mengli’s letter, which
referred to the oath to maintain peace, taken by the khan and his sub-
jects. On his part, the king also promised to keep peace on his behalf
and on behalf of his subjects.
526
In that period, the diplomatic exchange between Qırq Yer and Cra-
cow paralleled the exchange between Qırq Yer and Vilnius. Shortly
aerwards, Mengli Giray sent a “donation yarlıq” to Vilnius, and in
this yarlıq Casimir was referred to exclusievely as the grand duke of
Lithuania. e yarlıq was probably reciprocated by a Lithuanian instru-
ment, issued in Vilnius in Ruthenian, whose text is not preserved. It
is hard to guess whether the missing document was a solemn peace
instrument or an ordinary letter. Although in theory a yarlıq was
granted unilaterally, one cannot exclude the possibility that already at
that time Lithuanian rulers reciprocated the yarlıqs with instruments
of peace.
e next two instruments of peace were issued in 1513. Sigismund
and his advisers resolved that the new pacication with Mengli Giray
should be cemented by two separate documents: one issued in Ruthe-
nian on behalf of Lithuania, and the other in Latin on behalf of Poland.
Both instruments were issued in Vilnius, where the court temporarily
resided, and taken to the Crimea by one envoy, Hryhoryj Hromyka.
For that time, in both documents Sigismund was referred to as both
the king of Poland and the grand duke of Lithuania. Interestingly,
the list of his ancestors, repeated in both instruments, contained not
only his grandfather Vladislaus, father Casimir, and brother Alexan-
der, who had ruled in both states, but also Vytautas and the latter’s
brother Sigismund, who had never reigned in Cracow, and—on the
other hand—John Albert, who had never reigned in Vilnius. e two
documents contained the same political clauses, including the engage-
ment to send annual gis to the khan: one half from Poland and one
half from Lithuania.
525
e palatine of Lublin, Dobiesław Kmita from Wiśnicz, is erroneously referred
to as castellan.
526
See Document 3.
428 part two—chapter four
e only notable dierence was in the two documents’ corrobora-
tions: the instrument in Ruthenian was corroborated with the great
majestic seal of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as well as the indi-
vidual seals of the twelve present members of the Lithuanian Council:
the bishop of Samogitia,
527
the Lithuanian chancellor and palatine of
Vilnius, Mikołaj Radziwiłł, and others—altogether four palatines, two
castellans, the starosta of Samogitia (equal in hierarchy to a palatine),
and other functionaries, including Abraham Ezofovyč, the famous Jew-
ish convert who had advanced to the post of land treasurer. In turn,
the instrument in Latin was corroborated with the seal of the Pol-
ish Crown and only three individual seals of Polish councilors, whose
names have not been recorded in the extant copies. e unequal num-
ber of seals attached to the two instruments can be explained by the
fact that few Polish lords accompanied Sigismund during his travels
to Lithuania.
528
e following pair of royal instruments was dispatched from Vilnius
in 1516, along with the embassy of Stanisław Skinder. Sigismund thus
reciprocated the Crimean embassy, which had brought the “donation
yarlıq cum şartname” (now lost) of the new khan, Mehmed Giray,
to Cracow, and then accompanied the king on his way to Vilnius. In
his letter to the khan, which was sent along with the same embassy,
Sigismund referred to his instruments as “two letters on parchment,
with our great hanging majestic seals, one of the Polish Crown, and
another of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.”
529
Only the Lithuanian
instrument, composed in Ruthenian, is today preserved in a copy.
Both in its form and content it is very similar to the analogous instru-
ment from 1513. It was corroborated with the great majestic seal of
the Grand Duchy as well as the individual seals of the ten present
members of the Lithuanian Council: the bishop of Vilnius—Wojciech
Radziwiłł, the Lithuanian chancellor—Mikołaj Radziwiłł (who had
also corroborated the previous document), and other dignitaries, of
527
e highest Catholic hierarch in Lithuania, the bishop of Vilnius Wojciech
Radziwiłł, must have been absent; he is referred to in Mengli’s şartname from 1507
and in the royal instrument from 1516; cf. Documents 9 and 17.
528
See Documents 10–11; on the seals, cf. Document 10, n. 9 and Document 11, n. 6.
529
dva lysty našy na pargamenex z našymy velykymy zavesystymy maistatnymy
pečat’my, odyn Korony Polskoe a druhyj Velykoho Knz’stva Lytovskoho; quoted aer
Šabul’do, “Jarlyki,” p. 259.
the polish and lithuanian instruments of peace 429
whom only two (including the future chancellor, Olbracht Gasztołd)
had not gured in the instrument from 1513.
530
e state of civil war, almost permanent in the Crimea aer the
violent death of Mehmed Giray, did not favor stable political relations.
e Polish-Lithuanian diplomacy rather tried to benet from the
struggle between Sa‘adet and Islam Girays, or even organize an anti-
Crimean coalition with the participation of the Nogays and Sheikh
Ahmed, released from the Lithuanian custody in 1527. A new opening
was enabled by the accession of Sahib Giray and the “eternal peace”
concluded between his protector, Sultan Suleyman, and Sigismund, in
1533. In 1535, in response to the Crimean embassy, headed by Devey
Mirza, the Lithuanian chancery in Vilnius issued a new instrument
of peace on behalf of King Sigismund and his already crowned son,
Sigismund Augustus. e document, taken to the Crimea by Vasyl’
Tyškevyč, closely resembled the ones of 1513 and 1516. Yet, the royal
side regarded the new khan as weaker than his predecessors and still
vulnerable to a possible rebellion of Islam Giray. erefore, it changed
a few clauses of the previous instruments, diminishing the value of the
annual gis and removing the clause which had obliged the king to
assist the Girays against the descendants of Küchük Muhammed. e
new document also stipulated that the khan should take responsibility
for the raids of Ottoman subjects dwelling in the Black Sea steppes
and should refrain from sending too numerous embassies because
their hosting incurred large costs on the royal side. Sigismund sol-
emnly conrmed his instrument with an oath taken by the Gospel
in the presence of Devey Mirza. e ceremony was attended by the
members of the Lithuanian Council, of whom ten are listed in the
instrument. ese were: Jan, the bishop of Vilnius and the natural
son of King Sigismund, Olbracht Gasztołd, the Lithuanian chancellor,
Jurij Radziwiłł, the castellan of Vilnius and hetman, and others. Yet,
unlike in 1513 and 1516, their seals were not appended to the docu-
ment, which was corroborated only by Sigismund’s “majestic seal on
a golden string” (pečat’ju maestatnoju na šnjure zolotom), used in the
Lithuanian chancery.
531
530
See Document 17.
531
See Document 26; on the question whether the “majestic seal” was still used in
the Lithuanian chancery during the reign of Sigismund, cf. Document 10, n. 9.
430 part two—chapter four
ere is no evidence whether in 1535, like in the years 1513 and
1516, a separate instrument was composed in Latin on behalf of the
Polish Crown. Such a document would serve merely ceremonial pur-
poses as the extant document in Ruthenian refers to Sigismund as both
the king of Poland and the grand duke of Lithuania, and contains the
issues that were of equal concern to both states, including the equal
nancial share of Vilnius and Cracow in dispatching the gis to the
khan.
No royal instrument of peace, adressed to a Crimean khan, is known
for the long period extending between 1535 and 1598.
532
One cannot
exclude that such instruments existed but their texts have not been
preserved. Nonetheless, it is evident from the extant correspondence
that the khans awaited royal gis rather than paper instruments to be
sent from the royal side. In the Tatar mind, it was the timely delivery
of the yearly gi (or else tribute) that was expected in reciprocation of
grants and privileges enclosed in the khan’s yarlıq.
e practice of sending royal instruments in exchange for the
Crimean ones was resumed aer the agreement of Ţuţora (1595) and
its solemn conrmation by the Ottoman ‘ahdname in 1597. In 1598,
Sigismund III issued an instrument of peace that was dispatched to the
khan through a royal envoy, Nikodem Kossakowski. e document
invoked the ancient friendship, dating back to the times of Mengli
Giray and Sigismund I, and the recent meeting at Ţuţora between
Ghazi II Giray and the Polish hetman and chancellor, Jan Zamoyski.
In fact, the document’s narration presented the khan as the one who
had petitioned for peace and the king as the one who granted this
request aer a consultation with his councilors. Moreover, the instru-
ment stipulated that the khan should recognize the Polish territorial
claims to the Black Sea shore, should not interfere with the reign of
Jeremy Movilă, the pro-Polish ruler of Moldavia, and should provide
military assistance against any royal enemy. In return, the royal trea-
sury was to send gis “just as the old king Sigismund used to do.” e
instrument exhibited the familiarity of the Polish chancery with the
Khanate’s internal structure and referred to the khan’s sons and broth-
ers, mirzas, qaraçıs, ulans, beys, and Nogays. In conclusion, Sigismund
III requested that the khan should reciprocate his instrument with a
532
For the alleged instrument of Stephan Báthory from 1585 that probably never
existed, cf. n. 321 in Part I.
the polish and lithuanian instruments of peace 431
similar letter of agreement, “written word for word” (słowo od słowa
napisany).
e rising role of Poland vs. Lithuania in the making of the Com-
monwealth, and especially in its relations with its southern neighbors,
is reected by the fact that the royal instrument of 1598 was issued
in Warsaw, composed in Polish, sealed with the seal of the Polish
Crown (pieczęć naszę koronną przycisnąćeśmy kazali), and its copy was
recorded in the Crown Register. Moreover, the document referred to
the engagements made by the king on his part and “on the part of the
Lords Senators of the Crown” (od nas i Senatorów Panów Koronnych),
while there was no mention about the king’s Lithuanian councilors.
533
Lithuania gures in the document even less prominently than Swe-
den, as Sigismund III never gave up his claims to the throne in Stock-
holm. e instrument that reached the khan in the year of Sigismund’s
dethronment by the Riksdag (1599), referred to the sender not only
as the king of Poland, but also as “the hereditary king of the Swedes,
Goths, and Vandals,” and was dated in the 11th year of his reign in
Poland and the 5th year of his reign in Sweden.
534
Kossakowski never reached the khan, who was campaigning in
Hungary. Nevertheless, correspondence developed between the royal
envoy, who was waiting in the Moldavian old capital of Suceava, and
the khan’s military camp. In result, in 1599 Ghazi II Giray issued an
instrument of peace that was sent to Poland. It was heavily dependent
in form and content on the royal instrument from 1598. One gets the
impression that the khan did not really care what he promised: for
instance, he acknowledged the Polish territorial claims to the Black Sea
shore (sic). Aer all, he openly admitted that his instrument could not
assume a proper form because—being on campaign in Hungary—he
lacked the great seal (apparently the nişan), which used to be impressed
on letters of agreement, so he could corroborate his instrument merely
with his signet seal.
535
Around 1600, Poland-Lithuania was at the peak of its power and
its inuence extended from Estonia to Wallachia, where Hetman
Zamoyski enthroned Simion Movilă, Jeremy’s brother. is explains
533
Admittedly, in everyday language of that period the adjective koronny could
in some cases refer to the whole state and not just to the Polish Crown (Lat. Corona
Regni Poloniae; Pol. Korona Polska) as opposed to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
534
See Document 36.
535
Cf. n. 270 above.
432 part two—chapter four
why the royal chancery was still unsatised with its recent agree-
ment with Ghazi II Giray, even though the latter complied (at least
on paper) with all its wishes. In 1601, a new embassy was sent to the
Crimea, headed by Ławryn Piaseczyński. e envoy was provided with
a new royal instrument, which repeated the clauses of the previous one
from 1598, but in addition stipulated that the khan should recognize
the rule of Simion Movilă in Wallachia.
536
To the dismay of the Polish court, in his new instrument Ghazi II
Giray not only passed over the new Polish claims regarding Wallachia
but did not acknowledge the claims to the Black Sea shore that he
had already “recognized” earlier. In its form and wording, the khan’s
instrument was in fact reminiscent of the older Crimean documents
and less dependent on the Polish version than the instrument drawn
in Hungary in 1599. Apparently, this time the instrument was care-
fully checked by the Crimean chancery clerks who ensured that the
prestige and rights of their ruler would not be jeopardized.
If the Polish court had not been entirely satised with the khan’s
instrument from 1599, which was almost a mirror version of the royal
instrument of 1598, no wonder that Sigismund III openly rejected the
khan’s instrument of 1601, which seriously deviated from the new
royal instrument of 1601. In 1602, Piaseczyński was again sent to the
Crimea in order to return the khan’s instrument and ask for a new
one. e envoy was furnished with an Arabic-script translation of the
royal instrument of 1601, so that the Crimean chancery could word
its document accordingly.
537
Yet, the royal refusal to accept the khan’s
instrument caused a scandal and Ghazi II Giray was not in a mood
to issue a new one. Not wishing to provoke a war with the Tatars, the
royal court nally decided to release the gis, earlier prepared for the
khan, but no peace instruments were enchanged until 1604, when a
new Crimean embassy brought Ghazi II Giray’s new instrument. To
the dismay of the royal side, its political clauses reiterated those of
the khan’s instrument of 1601, so the document was again rejected,
although the Polish court once more expressed its wish to conclude
a lasting peace. Consequently, a new royal embassy was prepared, to
be headed by Florian Oleszko, who was provided with Sigismund III’s
new instrument of peace. e document, issued in 1605, reiterated the
536
See Document 39.
537
Cf. n. 347 in Part I.
the polish and lithuanian instruments of peace 433
clauses of the royal instruments of 1598 and 1601, though it precised
that the royal gis should hereaer be collected by the Crimean envoys
in Kamieniec, and not transported at the royal cost along the long
ancient route to the Dnieper passage of Tavan’, as the khan’s instru-
ments of 1601 and 1604 had stipulated. e precedent was already
made by Piaseczyński, who used the new route when delivering the
gis in 1603, although he traveled a little further then Kamieniec,
namely as far as Jassy. A minor variation from the royal instrument
of 1601 is detectable in the wording of the clause regarding the alliance
against Muscovy: while the document of 1601 referred to “the ancient
kings of Poland and the grand dukes of Lithuania,” the one of 1605
referred merely to “the ancient kings of Poland.” Although perhaps
innocent and not made on purpose, this change might again reect the
already discussed diminishing role of Lithuania on the “mental map”
of the ruling elite in Warsaw.
538
According to the royal instruction,
Oleszko was to succeed where Piaseczyński had failed in 1602, namely
in securing that the khan’s instrument be written word for word in
accordance with the royal one.
539
Due to a Tatar raid of Poland, undertaken on the news of the death
of the powerful hetman Zamoyski, Oleszko did not depart until 1607,
but his mission was crowned with a success. Ghazi II Giray nally con-
sented to the royal proposals and issued an instrument that fullled
the royal wish. Yet, the khan died soon aer and the peace negotia-
tions had to be resumed. Ghazi’s successors, Selamet and Djanibek
Girays, promptly sent their instruments of peace shortly aer their
respective accessions, but their instruments diered from the “model”
one of 1607, which had cost the royal side so many years of painstak-
ing negotiations. No wonder that Sigismund III did not reciprocate
the new khans with his own instruments, and in the following years
the rise of mutual hostilities, with an apex during the Polish-Ottoman
war of 1620–1621, made the whole matter irrelevant. No royal instru-
ments of peace are known to have been sent to the Crimea during the
later period of Sigismund III’s reign, even though the king received
an instrument of peace, issued in 1624 by Mehmed III Giray, during a
temporary rapproachement between Warsaw and Baghchasaray.
538
See Document 42.
539
On Oleszko’s embassy, cf. Part I.