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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

CONCLUSION

If culture is about communication, there was certainly a common cul-

ture shared by the political elites of Poland-Lithuania and the Crimean

Khanate. Both sides were familiar with the political institutions, exist-

ing in their partner’s country, and with the limitations imposed on the

king’s and the khan’s rule by their respective nobilities. In the mutual

correspondence, conducted in various languages in Cyrillic, Arabic,

and Latin scripts, the beliefs and religious feasts of the other side were

oen invoked. In 1514, King Sigismund explained to Khan Mengli

Giray that the Lithuanian troops which were supposed to attack

Muscovy, jointly with the Tatars, were not ready to gather “by the

Tatar Bairam” (na bajram tatarsky).

763

Six years later, Khan Mehmed

Giray asked King Sigismund to send him the customary gis “by your

feast of Pentecost, seven weeks aer your feast of red eggs” (sizing qızıl

yumurtqa bayramıngızdan yeti haa song Pentekoşte bayramıngızda

yibergeysiz), obviously referring to Easter when eggs, which symbol-

ized Christ’s Resurrection, were traditionally colored.

764

Furthermore,

both sides used to invoke the partner’s religion while summoning

him to keep his oath. In 1527, Khan Sa‘adet Giray reproached King

Sigismund that even though the Lithuanians had sworn unto the Gos-

pel, Prophet Jesus and his mother, Virgin Mary, they did not keep

their word (što este prysjahaly na evanhelii y na proroka Ezusa y matky

eho panny Maryi, y to este ne zderžaly).

765

On their side, the Lithuanian

and Polish chancery ocials did not hesitate to invoke “the righteous

prophet, His Majesty Muhammad Mustafa” and include the Arabic

oath vallahi ve billahi ve tallahi in the formulas of future instruments,

submitted to the khans for acceptance.

Aware of the authority and prestige enjoyed by clergymen in their

own societies, both sides did not hesitate to contact religious authori-

ties of the other country: while the khans referred to Orthodox and

Catholic bishops in their yarlıqs, the kings corresponded with Muslim

mullahs and sheikhs.

763

Pułaski, Stosunki Polski z Tatarszczyzną, p. 441.

764

See Document 20.

765

RGADA, f. 389, no. 7, p. 910.

conclusion 515

e two sides did not mind using the other party’s calendars, not-

withstanding that these calendars stemmed from conicting religious

beliefs. is was by far not a usual approach in the early modern

era. It is worth reminding that at the same time, the Protestant elites

from the supposedly “more rational and enlightened” western part of

Europe long refused to adopt the Gregorian calendar merely because

it had been introduced by a Catholic pope, even though they admit-

ted that it was more precise. In another corner of the world, the Chi-

nese government refused to receive a Russian embassy in 1660 merely

because the tsar’s letter did not follow the Chinese calendar.

766

For

the same reason, the Japanese government resigned from maintaining

regular diplomatic relations with China because a letter dated accord-

ing to the Japanese calendar would not be accepted in Peking, whereas

the adoption of the Chinese calendar would imply the acceptance of

the Chinese suzerainty.

767

In this context, it is worth quoting Mengli Giray’s instrument, dated

in lo angni de nove centto vinti de nostro profetta iusto et in lo angno

de Jezu Criste in mille cinque cento quatordice.

768

e idea of multi-

culturalism, so fashionable today, is embodied in this very document,

composed in the name of a Muslim khan by his Italian ocial, drawn

in Latin script but corroborated with a square seal with Arabic engrav-

ings, and sent to a Catholic king who also happened to rule over mil-

lions of Orthodox Ruthenians (and thousands of Jews and Muslim

Tatars as well), whose chanceries used alternatively Latin and Cyrillic

scripts, and whose Lithuanian grandfather was ridiculed by a Polish

Catholic chronicler for spending whole nights on listening to night-

ingales, a strange romantic habit believed to have disclosed his pagan

and barbarian descent.

769

766

See Mjasnikov, e Ch’ing Empire and the Russian State in the 17th Century,

pp. 120–121.

767

See Toby, State and Diplomacy in Early Modern Japan. Asia in the Development

of the Tokugawa Bakufu, pp. 90–91 and 181.

768

See Document 16.

769

Joannis Dlugossi Annales seu Cronicae incliti Regni Poloniae. Liber undecimus et

duodecimus: 1431–1444 (Warsaw, 2001), p. 114.

INSTRUMENTS EXCHANGED BETWEEN THE CRIMEAN

KHANATE AND POLAND-LITHUANIA

Tatar documents Polish-Lithuanian documents

[ca. 1432-40 donation yarlıq regarding Lithuania]

ca. 1462 donation yarlıq regarding Lithuania

[ca. 1467-69 donation yarlıq regarding Lithuania]

1467 şartname regarding Poland 1472 on behalf of Poland

ca. 1473 donation yarlıq regarding Lithuania

1480 the Crimean envoy’s recorded oath

1480 şartname

1506 the Crimean envoy’s recorded oath

1507 donation yarlıq regarding Lithuania

1507 şartname 1513 on behalf of Lithuania

1513 on behalf of Poland

1513 donation yarlıq cum şartname

1513 the khan’s recorded oath

1514 donation yarlıq cum şartname

1514 şartname regarding Poland

1514 şartname regarding Poland (in Italian)

[1515 donation yarlıq cum şartname] 1516 on behalf of Lithuania

[1516 on behalf of Poland]

1517 donation yarlıq cum şartname sworn by

Bahadır Giray

1520 donation yarlıq cum şartname

1520 şartname regarding Poland

1522 the Crimean envoy’s recorded oath

1527 oath-yarlıq

1527 oath-yarlıq issued by the qalga

1532 donation yarlıq cum şartname conrmed by

Islam Giray

[1534 instrument not accepted and returned]

1535 the Crimean envoy’s recorded oath 1535

1539 donation yarlıq cum şartname

1541 preliminary peace conditions sworn by the

Crimean envoy

1541 the Crimean envoy’s recorded oath [1541?]

[1541 donation yarlıq cum şartname]

1542 donation yarlıq cum şartname

1552 donation yarlıq cum şartname

1560 donation yarlıq cum şartname

instruments of the crimean khanate & poland-lithuania 517

Tatar documents Polish-Lithuanian documents

[1571?]

[1579]

[1582?]

[1585 instrument not accepted and returned]

1592 ‘ahdname

1592 oath-yarlıq

1598 (issued aer the pacication

of 1595)

1599 ‘ahdname

1599 the Crimean envoy’s sworn instrument 1601

1601 ‘ahdname (not accepted and returned) [1602 a copy of the above

instrument?]

1604 ‘ahdname (not accepted) 1605

1607 ‘ahdname

1609 ‘ahdname

1611 ‘ahdname

1624 ‘ahdname

1632 ‘ahdname

1634 ‘ahdname

1635 ‘ahdname

1637 ‘ahdname

1637 ‘ahdname issued by the qalga 1637 addressed to the qalga

1640 ‘ahdname

1640 ‘ahdname issued by the qalga

1640 ‘ahdname issued by the nureddin

1646 ‘ahdname

1649 instrument of the Treaty of Zborów (Zboriv) 1649 the royal instrument of the

same treaty

1654 the royal instrument of

peace sworn by the king, the

representatives of the Senate and

Diet, and the Crimean envoy

1654 the king’s recorded oath

1654 the Senate members’ recorded

oath

1654 ‘ahdname

1666 the Crimean envoy’s recorded oath

1667 instrument of the Treaty of Podhajce

(Pidhajci)

[the Polish-Lithuanian instrument

of the same treaty]

1667 the Crimean plenipotentiaries’ recorded oath 1667 the Polish commissioners’

recorded oath

Table (cont.)

518 instruments of the crimean khanate & poland-lithuania

Tatar documents Polish-Lithuanian documents

1668 the khan’s instrument conrming the Treaty

of Podhajce

1672 the khan’s guarantee following the Ottoman

‘ahdname

1742 instrument of peace referred to as yarlıq

If the document’s issue is conrmed in other sources, but its text is not extant, it is mentioned in square

brackets. During the negotiations near Žvanec’ (Pol. Żwaniec) in 1653, only an oral agreement was

reached and no written instruments were exchanged. Besides, in 1595 and 1676 the khans corroborated

the treaties of Ţuţora (Pol. Cecora) and Žuravno (Pol. Żurawno) on behalf of the Ottoman sultans and

these treaties are already published along with the Ottoman-Polish ones. e present list does not contain

the ready formulas of the khans’ instruments, prepared by the royal chancery in 1534, 1535, 1571, 1581,

1619, and 1622. e texts of three formulas are preserved (the ones from 1535, 1619, and 1622) and

published in the present volume, but they cannot be regarded as instruments of peace.

Table (cont.)

CHRONOLOGY OF THE REIGNS OF CRIMEAN KHANS,

POLISH KINGS, AND LITHUANIAN GRAND DUKES

(1386–1795)

khans: kings: grand dukes (till 1572):

1441–1466 Hadji Giray 1386–1434 Vladislaus II Jagiełło 1392–1430 Vytautas

1466–1467 Mengli Giray* 1434–1444 Vladislaus III 1430–1432 Švitrigaila

1467–1469 Nur Devlet* 1447–1492 Casimir 1432–1440 Sigismund

1469–1474 Mengli Giray** 1492–1501 John Albert 1440–1492 Casimir

1476–1478 Nur Devlet** 1501–1506 Alexander 1492–1506 Alexander

1478–1515 Mengli Giray*** 1506–1548 Sigismund 1506–1544 Sigismund

1515–1523 Mehmed Giray 1548–1572 Sigismund II Augustus 1548–1572 Sigismund

1523 Ghazi Giray 1573–1574 Henry Valois Augustus

1523–1532 Sa‘adet Giray 1576–1586 Stephan Báthory

1532 Islam Giray 1587–1632 Sigismund III Vasa

1532–1551 Sahib Giray 1632–1648 Vladislaus IV

1551–1577 Devlet Giray 1648–1668 John II Casimir

1577–1584 Mehmed II Giray 1669–1673 Michael [Michał

1584 Sa‘adet II Giray Korybut Wiśniowiecki]

1584–1588 Islam II Giray 1674–1696 John III [Jan Sobieski]

1588–1596 Ghazi II Giray* 1697–1733 Augustus II Wettin

1596–1597 Feth Giray 1704–1710 Stanislaus [Stanisław

1597–1608 Ghazi II Giray** Leszczyński]*

1608 Tokhtamısh Giray 1733–1736 idem**

1608–1610 Selamet Giray 1733/36–1763 Augustus III Wettin

1610–1623 Djanibek Giray* 1764–1795 Stanislaus Augustus

1623–1628 Mehmed III Giray [Stanisław Poniatowski]

1628–1635 Djanibek Giray**

1635–1637 Inayet Giray

1637–1641 Bahadır Giray

1641–1644 Mehmed IV Giray*

1644–1654 Islam III Giray

1654–1666 Mehmed IV Giray**

1666–1671 Adil Giray

1671–1678 Selim Giray*

1678–1683 Murad Giray

1683–1684 Hadji II Giray

His appointment by the Porte in 1624 is not counted here as he was then pre-

vented by Mehmed III Giray from ascending the throne.

Crowned as the king of Poland already in 1530 and as the grand duke of Lithuania

in 1529. In 1544, his aged father granted him the full authority over Lithuania.

520 crimean khans, polish kings, lithuanian grand dukes

1684–1691 Selim Giray**

1691 Sa‘adet III Giray

1691–1692 Safa Giray

1692–1699 Selim Giray***

1699–1702 Devlet II Giray*

1702–1704 Selim Giray****

1704–1707 Ghazi III Giray

1707–1708 Kaplan Giray*

1708–1713 Devlet II Giray**

1713–1716 Kaplan Giray**

1716–1717 Kara Devlet Giray

1717–1724 Sa‘adet IV Giray

1724–1730 Mengli II Giray*

1730–1736 Kaplan Giray***

1736–1737 Feth II Giray

1737–1740 Mengli II Giray**

1740–1743 Selamet II Giray

1743–1748 Selim II Giray

1748–1756 Arslan Giray*

1756–1758 Halim Giray

1758–1764 Qırım Giray*

1764–1767 Selim III Giray*

1767 Arslan Giray**

1767–1768 Maqsud Giray*

1768–1769 Qırım Giray**

1769–1770 Devlet IV Giray*

1770 Kaplan II Giray

1770–1771 Selim III Giray**

1771–1775 Sahib II Giray

1771–1773 Maqsud Giray**

1775–1777 Devlet IV Giray**

1777–1782 Shahin Giray*

1777–1778 Selim III Giray***

1782 Bahadır II Giray

1782–1783 Shahin Giray**

* First reign.

** Second reign.

*** ird reign.

**** Fourth reign.

Table (cont.)

Appointed by the Ottom an sultan with the consent of the Giray princes and Tatar

mirzas who remained loyal to the Porte; he never managed to enter the Crimea, which

was then reigned by Sahib II Giray under the Russian patronage.

Appointed by the Ottoman sultan, who refused to recognize the Russian protégé,

Shahin Giray; he landed on the Crimea but was forced to retreat under the pressure

of the Russian troops.

PRINCIPLES OF PUBLICATION

Only the original documents, written either in the Arabic or Latin

alphabet, are published in facsimile along with the printed text. e

documents preserved in copies and translations are not provided with

facsimiles. e texts preserved in Latin and Italian are rendered in the

original only, while the texts written in Turkic and Slavic languages are

provided with English translations.

As the Latin and Italian documents included in the present vol-

ume had been issued by the mid-sixteenth century (except for the

instrument from 1607), the conventions regarding the edition of late

medieval sources have been applied to all their texts. e original

orthography is preserved with the exception of the letters v and u, used

alternatively by medieval scribes and rendered here according to their

phonetic value. e occasionally written “long” j has been changed

to the “short” i, used in classical Latin, with the exception of proper

names (e.g., Eczgerij, Johanne). e punctuation and upper/lower case

has been modernized to render the text more legible.

For the Polish texts, which primarily originate from the late 16th

and 17th century, the conventions regarding the edition of early mod-

ern sources have been applied. Here the orthography has been mod-

ernized (apart from proper names and ethno-geographical terms),

but the phonetics of the words has been preserved.

What can arise

scholarly interest is the language of the original Crimean documents

of 1667 and 1672 that are composed in Polish. ese documents are

rendered in facsimile as well so linguists will be able to trace their

original orthography.

e documents in Turkic languages (Khwarezmian Turkic, Crimean

and Ottoman Turkish), all preserved in the Arabic-script originals, are

published in facsimile, Latin-script transcription, and English transla-

tion. eir Latin-script transcription is based on the modern Turkish

See Komisja Historyczna Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności (ed.), Instrukcja wydaw-

nicza dla średniowiecznych źródeł historycznych (Cracow, 1925); Adam Wol, “Projekt

instrukcji wydawniczej dla pisanych źródeł historycznych do połowy XVI wieku,” Stu-

dia źródłoznawcze 1 (1957): 155–81.

See Instrukcja wydawnicza dla źródeł historycznych od XVI do połowy XIX wieku

(Wrocław, 1953).

522 principles of publication

alphabet, although four letters have been added, reecting specic

sounds pronounced in Tatar but typically not in modern Turkish.

ese are: “ė” (narrow vocal “e”), “ġ” (velar “g” rendered in the Arabic

script as

غ), “q” (velar “k” rendered in the Arabic script as ق), and “ŋ”

(velar nasal “n”). Some Arabic letters were transcribed alternatively

according to their most probable phonetic value, hence ta (

ط) is ren-

dered with “t” or “d” as appropriate, and kef (

ك) with “k,” “g,” or “ŋ.”

e letter ‘ayn (

ع) and hamze (ء), both pronounced in Turkish as glot-

tal stops, are rendered respectively as “ ‘ ” and “ ’;” the Arabic wasla is

rendered by “`.” e author decided to honor orthographic archaisms,

whenever present, even if the actual pronunciation might have been

dierent. In cases of any doubts regarding the orthography of a given

word, the reader might consult the facsimile.

It should be noted that the following letters of the modern Turkish

alphabet should be pronounced as follows:

Turkish International Transcription English equivalent

cdž James

çč cheese

j ž garage

ıy bit

şš sh

Perhaps paradoxically, the edition of instruments recorded in Cyrillic

script caused more problems than of those recorded in Arabic script.

e Cyrillic-script instruments are preserved only in copies, entered

in the Lithuanian Register books. ese books are not the originals,

but—with few exemptions—the copies executed in the late 16th cen-

tury, i.e., y to hundred years aer the original documents had been

composed and issued. A facsimile edition of these copies was deemed

both impractical and costly. On the other hand, editing their texts in

modernized Cyrillic script or in Latin transcription would create a fur-

ther distance between the original text and a contemporary reader.

erefore, it was decided to publish them in original archaic Cyrillic

orthography in order to render them closer to the earlier copies and—

in consequence—to the lost originals.

e issue of proper editorial rules has been raised time and again

by numerous scholars studying the Lithuanian Register. Since 1993,

principles of publication 523

its successive volumes have been published with impressive pace by

Lithuanian and Belarusian scholars, although at the price of conscious

resigning from certain antiquarian rules: the texts are almost devoid of

footnotes (although provided with indices) and rendered in modern-

ized Cyrillic script. Only Krzysztof Pietkiewicz decided to preserve the

archaic Cyrillic orthography, but admittedly the volume that he edited

was the early sixteenth-century original, unlike most other volumes

preserved in later copies, hence more linguistically valuable.

Strikingly, most editors of the Lithuanian Register, who have

resigned from preserving the original orthography, have simultane-

ously decided to distinguish the letters originally written above the

main line (so-called vynosnye bukvy, i.e., “uplied letters”) by entering

them in italics, and to mark abbreviations by entering reconstructed

fragments in parentheses.

Hence, a fragment that appears in the man-

uscript: та



же и с цр҃емъ, would be rendered: та

же и с ц(а)ремъ,

and the title гд



я would appear as г(о)

(по)д(а)ря. As such render-

ing has seemed hypercorrect and graphically awkward, it has not been

applied in the present edition and the above fragments would simply

read: также и с царемъ and господаря respectively.

In analogy,

abbreviations in Latin-script texts are solved without entering the

missing letters in parentheses. Also vocals, rarely rendered in Arabic-

script texts but reconstructed in their Latin-script transcriptions, have

not been graphically distinguished.

One general problem that had to be solved was whether to mark the

Cyrillic letters ъ and ь (back yer and front yer), two reduced vowels

that with time evolved into the hard sign and so sign respectively, in

the reconstructed abbreviations. ese letters were entered—inconse-

quently and oen alternatively—aer certain consonants in the main

text, but never aer uplied letters. e inconsistent use of these let-

ters by the sixteenth-century scribes persuaded the present author to

ignore them in the reconstructed fragments.

See the editor’s introduction to Lietuvos Metrika. Knyga Nr. 9 (1511–1518).

Užrašymų knyga 9, p. 17.

Cf. the introduction by Egidijus Banionis to Lietuvos Metrika (1427–1506). Knyga

Nr. 5. Užrašymų knyga 5, p. 47.

Cf. Documents 10 and 19.

For a similar solution, cf. the introduction to Metryka Vjalikaha Knjastva

Litouskaha. Kniha N

560 (1542 hod). Kniha perepisau N

3 (Kopija kanca XVI st.).

Edited by A. Dzjarnovič (Minsk, 2007), p. 27.