Kolodziejczyk Dariusz. The Crimean Khanate and Poland-Lithuania (ENG)
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
474 part two—chapter five
Skinder, Hryhoryj Hromyka, Jacek Ratomski, and Myxajlo Svynjuska.
e khan’s instrument along with his oath, whose text was recorded
separately, were brought to Vilnius in February 1514 by two Crimean
envoys: Keldish and Augustino de Garibaldis, who were joined by two
returning royal envoys: Ratomski and Svynjuska. In the spring of 1514,
Sigismund promptly sent back the Crimean envoys in the company of
Svynjuska, asking for urgent Tatar military assistance against Mus-
covy. Instead, Mengli issued a new “donation yarlıq cum şartname,”
closer in wording and content to the royal instrument from September
1513, apparently due to the editorial assistance of Skinder and Hro-
myka who were still present at the khan’s court. e document was
sent through new Crimean envoys, Abdullah Ulan and Abdıq Bey,
who were accompanied by Skinder and Hromyka, nally sent back to
the king. is second yarlıq was brought to Vilnius in July 1514. Hav-
ing already received two instruments in the same year, in September
Sigismund asked Mengli for yet another one on behalf of the Polish
Crown. e royal wish was granted and in October 1514 the khan
issued a separate şartname concerning Poland. e document was
issued in Ruthenian, but a month later, in November, its alternative
version was issued in Italian. Both versions were apparently brought
to Sigismund in January 1515 by Myxajlo Svynjuska.
To sum up, the following instruments were issued and exchanged
between September 1513 and January 1515:
date issuer type of the instrument language of the copy
September 1513 Sigismund instrument regarding Lithuania Ruthenian
September 1513 Sigismund instrument regarding Poland Latin
ca. December 1513 Mengli Giray donation yarlıq cum şartname Ruthenian
ca. December 1513 Mengli Giray recorded oath formula Ruthenian
ca. June 1514 Mengli Giray donation yarlıq cum şartname Ruthenian
October 1514 Mengli Giray şartname regarding Poland Ruthenian
November 1514 Mengli Giray şartname regarding Poland Italian
e number of instruments, issued in 1513–1514, and the perplexed
relation between their contents led Kazimierz Pułaski, who otherwise
painstakingly edited the correspondence between Mengli Giray and
Sigismund recorded in the Lithuanian Register, to leave out the khan’s
instruments from June and October, since he mistakenly assumed
that their texts were basically identical with Mengli’s rst instrument,
the procedure of peacemaking 475
hence not worth publishing. Pułaski was even more confused by the
existence of two contemporary Polish translations of Mengli’s instru-
ments, dated in August and September 1514.
646
In fact, the rst Pol-
ish translation should be identied with the şartname from October,
and the second one with the “donation yarlıq cum şartname” from
December 1513.
647
It was bitterly ironical that Mengli Giray died in April 1515, so the
whole laborious procedure had to be repeated with his son and suc-
cessor, Mehmed Giray. Having ascended the throne, the new khan
promptly issued an instrument of peace and sent to Cracow, where
his envoys were received in August 1515. e Crimean envoys then
accompanied Sigismund to Vilnius, where in March 1516 the king
issued two parchment documents, again one in Ruthenian on behalf
of Lithuania and another in Latin on behalf of Poland. e summer
of 1516 brought a Crimean rapprochement with Moscow and a large
Tatar raid of Poland-Lithuania, but the relations between the khan
and the king were restored by the end of the year. To conrm his
sincerity, Mehmed Giray promised to send one of his younger sons as
an honorary hostage to Vilnius, but then he changed his mind under
the pressure of the boy’s mother. e khan’s oldest son, Bahadır, who
was to escort his younger brother to Vilnius, arrived empty handed at
the meeting scheduled in Čerkasy. In desire to console his Lithuanian
partners, he solemnly reconrmed his father’s instrument from 1515
with his own instrument and oath, taken in Čerkasy in late May or
June 1517. e years 1518–1519 brought a new Crimean-Muscovian
rapprochement and renewed Tatar raids of Poland-Lithuania, but in
1520 the khan resolved to frontally attack Muscovy and again needed
a peace with Sigismund. New embassies were exchanged and in Octo-
ber 1520 Mehmed Giray issued two solemn instruments: a “donation
yarlıq cum şartname” in Ruthenian regarding Lithuania and a şartname
in Khwarezmian Turkic regarding Poland. e khan conrmed his
instruments with an oath and sent to Sigismund his envoy, who also
acted as a hostage, Evliya Mirza from the Shirin clan. As the king was
on campaign against the Teutonic Order, the Crimean embassy found
him in distant Toruń (orn) in April 1521. Evliya was then taken to
646
Cf. his comments in Pułaski, Stosunki Polski z Tatarszczyzną, pp. 187, n. 2, and
422.
647
For the identication done by the present author, see Document 12. n. 1, and
Document 15, n. 2.
476 part two—chapter five
Lithuania and detained until the Diet in Hrodna, which was held in
February and March 1522. Having taken a solemn oath on behalf of
the khan, the envoy was nally released in return for his nephew Djan
Giray, who came to replace him as a hostage.
To sum up, the following instruments were issued and exchanged
between 1515 and 1522:
In addition, Evliya’s oath taken in Hrodna in February or March 1522
was recorded and entered in the Lithuanian Register.
Mehmed Giray’s instruments sent to Poland-Lithuania have been
recently studied by Feliks Šabul’do. In his article, the Ukrainian scholar
persuasively proves the existence of the rst instrument from 1515,
whose text is not preserved. Yet, his further conclusions are mislead-
ing. e author fails to notice that the dokončane na Korunu Pol’skuju
from October 1520, recorded in the Lithuanian Register (published
in the present volume as an appendix to Document 20), is simply the
Ruthenian translation of the khan’s şartname, which is preserved in
the Khwarezmian Turkic original. Moreover, had Šabul’do analyzed
the text and contradictory dating of the instrument preserved in a Pol-
ish translation in Acta Tomiciana, he would have found that this trans-
lation is based on the “donation yarlıq cum şartname” from October
1520 and cannot be attributed to 1522. In result, while Šabul’do nds
as many as four instruments of Mehmed Giray issued in the years
1520–1522, in fact there are only two, both issued in October 1520.
650
648
On this instrument, see n. 153 in Part I.
649
On this instrument, see n. 154 in Part I.
650
Cf. Šabul’do, “Jarlyki,” pp. 262 and 275–281; on the perplexed dating according
to the Muslim and Christian calendars of the instrument entered in Acta Tomiciana,
see Document 19, n. 1.
date issuer type of the instrument language of the copy
ca. June 1515 Mehmed Giray donation yarlıq cum şartname Ruthenian (unpreserved)
March 1516 Sigismund instrument regarding Lithuania Ruthenian
March 1516 Sigismund instrument regarding Poland Latin (unpreserved)
May–June 1517 Bahadır Giray copy of instrument from 1515 Ruthenian
October 1520 Mehmed Giray donation yarlıq cum şartname Ruthenian
October 1520 Mehmed Giray şartname regarding Poland Khwarezmian Turkic
the procedure of peacemaking 477
Foreign envoys who arrived at the khan’s capital usually had to wait
for the audience from a few days to several months. e hosts oen
deliberately informed the Polish-Lithuanian and Muscovian envoys
about each other’s presence and arranged their audiences almost
simultaneously in order to “soen” them in negotiations and incite
them to make a higher bid. e khan took upon himself the accommo-
dation and living expenses of the envoys, but the latter oen resented
the oerred conditions. In 1680, the Russian envoys were housed in an
unfurnished stone building on the Alma river, lacking doors and with
small windows, covered with manure (apparently to keep warmth) and
already crowded by the members of the previous Russian embassy.
ey commented in their report that “in the Muscovian state, dogs
and pigs have cosier and warmer conditions” ( psom i svinijam v Mosk-
ovskom gosudarstve daleko pokojnee i teplee). eir trauma was so deep
that in the ensuing negotiations they formulated a separate clause that
obliged the khan to build convenient lodgings for future embassies
in Baghchasaray.
651
To be sure, the living conditions were not always
so deplorable. Piaseczyński seemed satised with his lodging in Süyrü
Tash (Sujurtasz), a Circassian village near Baghchasaray, where he
was put up in a house belonging to certain Djanibek (w domu Dżan-
Bekowym), especially when on the following day the Tatars delivered
an oxen, ten sheep, bread, sh, olives, and wine.
652
Prolonged detainment, limited freedom of movement, shabby hous-
ing, and even diminished food rations were all intended to “soen” a
foreign envoy so that he would concede to the hosts’ requests more
easily. It could get even worse, especially when the envoy refused to
deliver the expected gis, both to the khan and the Crimean dignitar-
ies. e reports of Muscovian envoys are full of descriptions of frus-
trated Crimean ocials and nobles, who—with or without the khan’s
consent—broke into the envoys’ lodgings and took by force whatever
they considered their due gis.
653
In 1629, a young Nogay relative of
Kantemir, named Veli-shah, entered by force the Muscovian embassy
quarters, beat up both envoys, pulling one envoy’s beard, struck the
651
“Spisok s statejnago spiska [. . .] Vasil’ja Mixajlova syna Tjapkina, d’jaka Nikity
Zotova,” pp. 578 and 621.
652
See Pułaski, “Trzy poselstwa Piaseczyńskiego,” p. 359. To the envoy’s utmost
regret, most of the wine had been consumed by the Tatars on their way and the rest
turned into vinegar.
653
See Xoroškevič, Rus’ i Krym, pp. 255–256.
478 part two—chapter five
embassy’s interpreter with his saber, and le with a number of pre-
cious furs. e saber blow was so severe that the interpreter—appar-
ently a Tatar in Muscovian service named Redjeb (Rezep in Russian
sources)—died soon aer. Although Djanibek Giray admitted his sub-
ject’s guilt in the ensuing correspondence with Moscow, he did not
want to jeopardize his relations with Kantemir, to whom in fact he
owed his throne.
654
An even more humiliating event occurred in 1546,
when a clerk ( pod’jačij) of the Muscovian embassy was exposed naked
in the bazaar with his nostrils and ear-conchs sewn (nos i uši zašival i,
obnaža, po bazaru vodil) in allusion to a common punishment: cutting
o one’s nose and ears.
655
Frequent allusions to abusing the envoys can also be found in the
correspondence between the Jagiellonian court and the Girays. In a
letter to Mehmed Giray, Sigismund complained that his envoys no
longer wished to go to the Crimea.
656
e interventions brought some
eect, at least on paper, as the instruments from 1539, 1542, 1552,
and 1560 contained the clause, in which the khans engaged to respect
the envoys. In 1552, Devlet Giray declared that: “when an envoy or
courier comes from you, our brother, we will not detain him for a
longer time and we will not make him any trouble, and we will send
him back without delay. Neither will we let our brothers and children,
the sultans, [and] the ulans, beys, mirzas, and all our people hurt or
oppress your envoys, couriers, interpreters, or their servants. As they
arrive out of their free will, so they will depart.”
It is nevertheless curious that the descriptions of tribulations, suf-
fered by Lithuanian and Polish envoys in the Crimea, are somewhat
less “picturesque” than the descriptions of their Russian colleagues.
One might propose several explanations, although none of them seem
entirely satisfying:
A. the Polish-Lithuanian envoys were treated better indeed because:
a) their ruler’s position was higher in the Crimean eyes than that of
the Muscovian ruler;
654
Novosel’skij, Bor’ba Moskovskogo gosudarstva s Tatarami, pp. 187–188.
655
See Juzefovič, Put’ posla, p. 36.
656
See the royal letter dated 10 September 1522, published in Lietuvos Metrika.
Knyga Nr. 11 (1518–1523). ļrašų knyga 11. Edited by A. Dubonis (Vilnius, 1997),
p. 118.
the procedure of peacemaking 479
b) apart from the turn of the 15th century, the Crimean relations with
Poland-Lithuania were usually better than with Muscovy;
c) Polish-Lithuanian nobles, sent as envoys to Baghchasaray, enjoyed
more respect among the Tatar nobility than Muscovian bureau-
crats; it is worth noting that the most excessive abuses against the
Muscovian diplomats, described above, were directed not against
the envoys themselves but against lower ranked embassy members:
a clerk and an interpreter;
657
B. the Polish-Lithuanian envoys were treated equally bad but:
a) the information is missing because the Polish-Lithuanian chancery
records are less detailed than the Muscovian ones;
b) unlike their Russian colleagues, the Polish-Lithuanian envoys pre-
ferred not to expose their humiliations because that would aect
their personal prestige back home.
ere is probably a grain of truth in all the above explanations, which
do not necessarily exclude each other. e last option (Bb) which
stresses the literary and narrative character of early modern diplo-
matic reports, has been raised by the present author in another place.
If we read the seventeenth-century Polish embassy reports, even those
not intended for a larger audience, they usually present their protago-
nists as noble and valiant defenders of their king’s honor and of the
Commonwealth’s noble liberties.
658
During his second mission to the
Crimea in 1602, Piaseczyński also heard a warning that “envoys who
come with false missions have their noses and ears cut o,” yet, accord-
ing to his report, he retorted by shaming the khan and his entourage
657
Likewise, one of the most drastic events in the history of the Ottoman diplo-
matic relations with the West was the strangulation of a Venetian dragoman in 1649
while the bailo suered only temporary imprisonment; cf. Kołodziejczyk, “Semiot-
ics of behavior in early modern diplomacy: Polish embassies in Istanbul and Bagh-
chasaray,” Journal of Early Modern History 7 (2003): 245–256, esp. p. 252.
658
Cf. my article quoted in n. 657 above. To be sure, Muscovian reports were no
less literary; cf. Juzefovič, Put’ posla, pp. 292. Yet, they were addressed to another audi-
ence—the tsar and fellow bureaucrats rather than the individualistic nobility whose
ideals were inspired by medieval chivalry mixed with Cicero’s republican writings,
then taught in Jesuit schools in Poland-Lithuania. A loyal bureaucrat did not need to
be ashamed of his suerings and even humiliations experienced in the tsar’s service.
Pulling one’s beard has numerous analogies in the vitae of Orthodox martyrs, hence
one who suered for the tsar in this way was reminiscent of a martyr who defended
Christ.
480 part two—chapter five
and invoking “the law of all the nations” ( prawo wszech narodów).
659
is must have been his favorite rhetorical gure as already in 1601,
during his rst mission, he admonished Ghazi II Giray for interrupt-
ing his speech by invoking “the law of all the nations” which required
that an envoy should be listened to in silence.
660
If we are to believe
Piaseczyński’s report, the confused and ashamed khan turned red and
fell into silence. Yet, are we really to believe that the khans listened like
naughty pupils to the admonitions of Polish envoys while at the same
time Russian diplomats were conducted naked through the bazaars?
Or rather, the dierence was rooted in imagination rather than real-
ity? What could serve well the self-image of a Muscovian diplomat,
could endanger the self-image of a Polish noble: defending one’s king
and liberty by being martyred with a sword in hand was one thing,
but being robbed and beaten up or having one’s beard pulled (aer
all, beards were not fashionable in seventeenth-century Poland) was
another thing and would be better covered with silence.
Arguably, the average treatment of diplomats at the Crimean court
was less humiliating than described in the Muscovian reports, but less
honorable than stated in the Polish ones. A prestigious issue that oen
provoked discussions was the form of greeting the khan during the sol-
emn audience. Marcin Broniowski admitted that during an audience,
envoys had to remain on their knees (genibus exis). Piaseczyński tried
to bargain, proposing that if he did not have to kneel, the Tatar envoys
in Warsaw would be also allowed to remain standing, but his oer was
rejected and he had to kneel, although he proudly recorded that he
only kneeled on his right knee. e Russian envoys sent in 1680 bowed
their heads to the ground but they had successfully negotiated in
advance that the khan’s retinue members should not bend their heads
by force like it had been practiced with former envoys.
661
During the
rst audience, the envoy also submitted the letters of his lord and the
khan asked about the latter’s health. If a Polish-Lithuanian envoy was
furnished with a royal instrument of peace, its solemn delivery usu-
ally took place during the rst solemn audience. e delivery of royal
gis also occurred during this audience, which ended with dressing
659
Pułaski, “Trzy poselstwa Piaseczyńskiego,” pp. 758–759.
660
Ibidem, p. 363.
661
Martini Broniovii [. . .] Tartariae descriptio, p. 18; Pułaski, “Trzy poselstwa Piase-
czyńskiego,” p. 361; “Spisok s statejnago spiska [. . .] Vasil’ja Mixajlova syna Tjapkina,
d’jaka Nikity Zotova,” p. 583; on the issue of kneeling, cf. also Kołodziejczyk, “Semio-
tics of behavior,” pp. 250–251.
the procedure of peacemaking 481
the embassy members in robes of honor. e last two acts were
highly symbolical, hardly pleasing for the foreign ruler: while the gis
embodied the tribute, the act of putting a robe of honor on the envoy’s
shoulders stressed the khan’s ultimate sovereignty over both the envoy
and his lord.
If a mission was to result with the issue of the khan’s solemn instru-
ment, its contents were negotiated during the foreign envoy’s stay in
the Crimea. e instrument was to be ready by the farewell audience,
yet, it was not given to the foreign envoy but to the khan’s envoy
who was to travel to the foreign court. Polish-Lithuanian envoys oen
complained that they were not allowed to examine the nal document
whose contents they had negotiated because it could be unpacked only
in the royal presence.
e peacemaking procedure required an exchange of oaths that also
took place during the farewell audience. e royal envoy took an oath
on behalf of the king and the khan pronounced his oath in the envoy’s
presence so that the latter could conrm this fact before his lord. e
khan’s oath was typically mentioned and sometimes even recorded in
his written instrument. e text of the oath could be recorded sepa-
rately as well.
e expression “to drink an oath” (pit’ šert’ or pit’ rotu), encoun-
tered in the early sixteenth-century Crimean-Muscovian correspon-
dence preserved in Russian, probably refers to the ancient custom
known among various peoples, according to which the partners who
exchanged their oaths of brotherhood also drank each other’s blood.
We do not know whether the Tatars had ever practiced this custom
and—if so—when had they abandoned it.
662
In the early modern era it
was certainly not practiced at the Crimean court and the khan simply
took his oath on the Koran. In 1637, Inayet Giray recalled in his letter
to Vladislaus IV that he, along with his qalga, had taken an oath in
the presence of the royal envoy “having laid the Koran on our heads”
(Alkoran na głowach naszych położywszy).
663
One should not imagine
that the khan actually put the Koran on his head; rather, the expres-
sion reected his obeisance to the word of God and was the calque
of the Turkish term baş üstünde. e same calque can be found in
the Crimean-Muscovian correspondence recorded in Russian, where
it typically referred to the obedience to the khan’s word (e.g., carevo
662
Cf. Xoroškevič, Rus’ i Krym, pp. 206–207.
663
Bibl. Czart., ms. 133 (Teki Naruszewicza), p. 109.
482 part two—chapter five
slovo na golove deržati, “to keep the khan’s word on one’s head”).
664
Mariusz Jaskólski described the oath of Mehmed IV Giray that took
place during his farewell audience on 22 November 1654. Initially, the
khan refused to take it arguing that the oath was already contained
in his instrument, yet, persuaded by his vizier, Sefer Ghazi Agha, he
agreed. As he could not nd his own Koran, the vizier handed him
his own copy and the khan pronounced the oath, whose contents
were recorded in Polish by the envoy: “May my God kill me if I think
about deserting you; indeed, I hereby enter the everlasting friendship
directed against all your enemies; so help me God!”
665
Jaskólski did
not provide any details about the khan’s posture and gestures, but we
know more about the oath procedures followed at the khan’s court
during the audiences of Russian envoys. For instance, in 1623 a Rus-
sian envoy insisted that Mehmed III Giray should swear on the copy of
the Koran brought by the Russian embassy from Moscow, apparently
in fear that the Tatars might bring another book and pretend that it
were the Koran. e khan was amused but consented and, having pro-
nounced his oath, even kissed the sura pointed to by the envoy in the
open book.
666
In 1681, Murad Giray took his oath with the Koran in
his hands, while his vizier, Ahmed Agha, stood nearby with the khan’s
instrument of peace. Aer the oath, the khan kissed the Koran as it
was expected by the Russian envoys.
667
A sixteenth-century Muscovian embassy report furnishes evidence
that at least in that period a special book, containing the ready text
of the khan’s oath, was held in the khan’s palace. In 1564, Devlet
Giray pronounced his oath in the presence of Muscovian envoys,
reading aloud from an open book referred to as “oath-book” (kniga
šertnaja).
668
Well aware of the decentralized structure of the Crimean politics, the
Khanate’s northern neighbors insisted that the oath should be taken
not merely by the khan, but by his family members, dignitaries, and
664
Cf. Xoroškevič, Rus’ i Krym, p. 203; Juzefovič, Put’ posla, p. 25.
665
Bodaj mnie Bóg mój zabił, jeśli was myślę odstępować, i owszem wieczną przyjaźń
przeciwko wszytkim nieprzyjaciołom waszym zawieram. Tak mi Panie Boże dopomóż!;
see AGAD, Libri Legationum, no. 33, fol. 44a–44b.
666
Novosel’skij, Bor’ba Moskovskogo gosudarstva s Tatarami, p. 111.
667
See “Spisok s statejnago spiska [. . .] Vasil’ja Mixajlova syna Tjapkina, d’jaka
Nikity Zotova,” p. 638.
668
[. . .] velel [. . .] prinesti knigu šertnuju. [. . .] I car’ vzjav knigu šertnuju i učal pered
nami v knigu smotriv govorit: šertuju svoemu bratu, velikomu knjazju Ivanu na tom
[. . .]; see RGADA, f. 123, op. 1, no. 10, fol. 313a.
the procedure of peacemaking 483
prominent Crimean clans as well. An incredibly long list (deer) of
those who had taken an oath to keep peace with Muscovy in 1524 has
been preserved in a Russian copy in the Muscovian archives. It con-
sists of over two hundred names, grouped into the following catego-
ries: Muslim clergymen (seyyids and mullahs), the Giray princes, the
beys and mirzas from the Shirin and Barın clans, the members of the
khan’s council (divan), the khan’s mother and other prominent harem
ladies, the Manghıts, the sheikhs and kadis, the palace clerks and the
khan’s courtiers, Qalga Özbek Giray’s retinue members, Prince Islam
Giray’s retinue members, the ulans, the Sedjevüts, Arghıns, Qıpchaqs,
Qongrats, Qıyats, and others.
669
Although not as long, the list of the Crimean dignitaries, who cor-
roborated with their oaths Mengli Giray’s şartname sent to Sigismund
in 1507, is also impressive. Apart from the khan, the document lists
the following names that can be grouped into three categories: the
dynasty members, the Muslim clergymen, and the leaders of the
Crimean nobility:
670
dynasty members:
– Yaghmurcha (the khan’s younger brother and qalga)
– Mehmed Giray (the khan’s oldest son, the future qalga and khan)
– Ahmed Giray (the khan’s second son)
– Yapancha (Yaghmurcha’s son)
– Mahmud Giray (the khan’s third son)
– Feth Giray (the khan’s fourth son)
– Burnash (the khan’s h son)
Muslim clergymen:
– Babaka Seyyid
671
– Mullah Sultan Ali Abdulghani
672
– Baba Sheikh (on him see below)
669
RGADA, f. 123, op. 1, no. 6, fol. 86b–88b; published in Malinovskij, “Istoričeskoe
sobranie,” pp. 412–415; in Central Asia, the Qıyats originally formed a subsection of
the Qongrats.
670
For more details about the listed personages, see Document 9.
671
Babaka or Babike Seyyid, the brother-in-law of Mengli Giray.
672
Probably identical with the “great mullah Ali,” mentioned by Mehmed Giray in
his letter to Vasilij III from 1516 and referred to as “my great mullah, superior to all
our mullahs, and also my great kadi.”