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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

544 document 4 (1472–17 may 1474)

Duke Sigismund;

and now they should also serve in perpetuity our brother,

Grand Duke Casimir, they should [deliver] incomes and all kinds of prots

from these castles, and they should serve our brother themselves. And if, for

whatever reason, they do not wish to serve our brother as they had before, then

we should raid them, enslave, and return to our brother.

We have given our present letter under the golden stamp in the year 878

aer the death of Muhammad,

in the year 1472 from the birth of Christ,

the Tatar Horde.

Sigismund (Lith. Žygimantas), the younger brother of Vytautas, was the grand

duke of Lithuania in the years 1432–1440. e following phrase: “they should serve

in perpetuity” (Pol. mają wiecznie służyć) is composed as if Sigismund were still alive.

is is apparently due to the reason that both yarlıqs from ca. 1462 (cf. Document 1,

n. 26) and ca. 1473 were based on a former yarlıq granted to Sigismund and the

anachronous fragment referring to him was le unchanged by mistake.

An obvious mistake or superuous interpretation by the translator since the

Muslim calendar begins with the emigration (Hegira) and not the death of Prophet

Muhammad.

e dating is confusing as the Muslim year 878 A.H. lasted from 29 May 1473 till

17 May 1474. As the Crimean chancery would rather give a wrong year according to

the Christian, and not the Muslim era, I would tentatively suggest dating the present

document in 1473.

DOCUMENT 5 (APRIL 1480)

e oath by Hadji Baba (Azbaba), the Crimean envoy sent

to King Casimir

Ruthenian copies:

A. RGADA, fond 389 = Litovskaja metrika, no. 4, fol. 103a [old foliation:

88a].

Published in a) Russkaja Istoričeskaja Biblioteka, vol. 27, cols. 329–330;

b) Lietuvos Metrika. Knyga Nr. 4 (1479–1491). Užrašymų knyga 4, p. 90.

A.* 18th-century Latin transcription: AGAD, Metryka Litewska, no. 191a,

p. 342 [old pagination: 94]; also copied in Bibl. Czart., ms. 21 (Teki Naru-

szewicza), pp. 423–424.

Published in a) Pułaski, Stosunki Polski z Tatarszczyzną, p. 202;

b) Łukasz Gołębiowski, Dzieje Polski za panowania Jagiellonów, vol. 3,

pp. 234–235; c) Sbornik Muxanova

(Moscow, 1836), pp. 24–25;

d) Teodor Narbutt, Dzieje narodu litewskiego, vol. 8: Panowania Kazimi-

erza i Alexandra (Wilno [Vilnius], 1840), pp. 38–39.

Се ꙗ, Азбаба присѧгаю Богꙋ, котории ꙋделалъ небо и землю, напередъ

то, што есми приехалъ ѡдъ господара моего ѡд цара Менъдликгиреѧ,

и ѡт кнѧзѧ, и ѡт всих влановъ и кнѧзеи до великого королѧ полского

и до великого кнѧзѧ литовъского и присегаю Богꙋ, котории ꙋделалъ

небо и землю, ꙋ томъ, цара Менъдликгириевою дꙋшею и господара

моего, и кнѧзѧ Ежичиною, и всихъ влановъ и кнѧзеи дꙋшею, и своею

тежъ дꙋшею, какъ жилъ цар Анъкгиреи ꙋ брацстве и ꙋ приѧзни зъ

великимъ королемъ польскимъ и великимъ кнѧзем литовъскимъ, а

царꙋ Менъдликгирею такъжо жити ꙋ брацстве и въ приѧзни з вели-

кимъ королемъ полскимъ и великимъ кнѧземъ литовъскимъ, и добра

великомꙋ королю хотети и детѧмъ его, и землѧмъ его приѧти и

ѡстерегати, и ѡт вселе боронити и до живота своего. А хто бꙋдеть

Erroneously dated by Pułaski as issued in 1479; cf. n. 10 below.

In the early 19th century the older Cyrillic volumes of the Metryka, brought to

St. Petersburg aer the partitions of Poland, were inaccessible even to Russian histo-

rians; hence, Count Rumjancev, a collector of antiquities, organized excerpting his-

torical documents from the Latin script volumes held in Warsaw; the documents,

originally Cyrillic but converted into Latin script in the 18th century, were recon-

verted into Cyrillic; the edition by Pavel Muxanov is based on Rumjancev’s collection;

cf. the introduction by Egidijus Banionis in Lietuvos Metrika (1427–1506). Knyga Nr. 5.

Užrašymų knyga 5, p. 10.

Copied aer Sbornik Muxanova, but converted into Latin script; hence, the

edited text had been converted three times: from Cyrillic into Latin script in the 18th

century, back into Cyrillic (see note 2 above), and then again into Latin!

546 document 5 (april 1480)

царꙋ неприѧтель, то и великомꙋ королю неприѧтель, а хто великомꙋ

королю неприѧтель, то тот и царꙋ неприѧтель.

Тежъ и на томъ присегаю: коли великии король пошлет посла

своего до цара, и цар маеть тое присѧги потвердити, и Аминѧкъ,

и вси вланове и кнѧзи, подле ꙗрлыковъ ѡтъца своего и своих, и

присѧги своее.

Писанъ ꙋ Вильни, инъдиктъ г҃ı҃ [13].

Translation:

I, Hadji Baba,

swear to God, who created heaven and earth, as I have come

from my lord, Mengli Giray Khan,

and from the prince,

and from all the ulans

and beys [Ruth. knjazej]

to the great Polish king and Lithuanian grand duke,

and I swear to God, who created heaven and earth, with the soul of my lord,

Mengli Giray Khan, and with the soul[s] of Prince Yaghmurcha,

and of all the

Erroneously written наминѧкъ, with the rst letter н instead of и. In A* written

Naminak, and in Pułaski’s edition erroneously ne inak [sic].

In 1474, Hadji Baba was sent to Moscow and swore an oath (Rus. pravdu dal )

on behalf of Mengli Giray in the presence of Ivan III; this oath was followed by a

formal document issued by the khan and sent to Moscow with the next embassy; see

Pamjatniki diplomatičeskix snošenij, vol. 1, p. 7; cf. Xoroškevič, Rus’ i Krym, pp. 123

and 206.

Ruth. car Mendlikgirej is translated consequently as Mengli Giray Khan as in the

Turkish-Tatar usage the title “khan” written aer the proper name formed an integral

part of the name.

A reference to Mengli Giray’s brother, Yaghmurcha; on Yaghmurcha, see n. 8.

e Ruthenian term knjaz can be translated either as “prince” or as “bey;” since

in Tatar documents ulans and beys are usually listed together, in this occurrence it is

rendered as “bey.”

e corrupt form Ežičinoju (“with [the soul] of Ežiči”) apparently refers to

Yaghmurcha (Yaġmurça), who was usually referred to in Ruthenian and Russian

sources as Jamgurčej, Emgurčej, etc. (on the name Yaghmurcha, see Jankowski,

Historical-Etymological Dictionary, pp. 561–562); he was Mengli Giray’s younger

brother and qalga (the mistaken assumption by Vasilij Smirnov, who believed that the

post of qalga had been created only later for Mehmed Giray, was already corrected in

Syroečkovskij, “Muxammed-Geraj i ego vassaly,” pp. 19–20); contrary to the statement

by the French authors that Yaghmurcha died soon aer 1486 (Le khanat de Crimée,

pp. 87–88), he was alive at least until 1509; in 1491 he was sent to Sultan Bayezid II in

order to negotiate the Ottoman military assistance for Mengli Giray against the Great

Horde; in 1493 he participated in negotiations with Muscovy; in 1499 he performed a

pilgrimage to Mecca and on his way again acted as Mengli Giray’s envoy to Bayezid

II, mediating on behalf of the khan a new Ottoman-Polish pacication; in 1507 he

participated in the conclusion of peace with Poland-Lithuania; as late as in 1509 he

is mentioned in the letter of Mengli Giray to Vasilij III of Muscovy; see Pamjatniki

diplomatičeskix snošenij, vol. 1, pp. 105 and 178–180; Xoroškevič, Rus’ i Krym, pp. 149

and 245; Document 9. e information about Yaghmurcha’s pilgrimage and second

embassy to Istanbul origins from the speech of Mengli’s envoy, delivered on 22 April

1500 in Cracow and recorded in Polish by royal chancery clerks. Mengli notied King

John Albert that Yaghmurcha had gone to Muhammad’s grave and simultaneously

document 5 (april 1480) 547

ulans and beys, and also with my soul, that as Hadji Giray Khan used to live

in brotherhood and friendship with the great Polish king and Lithuanian grand

duke, also Mengli Giray Khan is to live in brotherhood and friendship with the

great Polish king and Lithuanian grand duke, and he is to wish the great king

and his children well, and to favor [i.e., protect] and guard his lands, and to

defend them from all [directions] until the end of his life. And whoever is an

enemy of the khan, will also be an enemy of the great king; and whoever is an

enemy of the great king, will also be an enemy of the khan.

I also swear that when the great king sends his envoy to the khan, the khan

should conrm these oaths, along with Eminek,

and all the ulans and beys, in

accordance with the yarlıqs of his father and of his own, and [in accordance

with] his oath.

Written in Vilnius, during the 13th indiction.

performed the khan’s embassy to the Ottoman emperor (Jezdzil brath moy Ijamhurczi

Soltan do mahmetowego grobu, przes kthoregom ya wskazal poselsthwo do Czessarza

thureczkyego); see Garbacik (ed.), Materiały do dziejów dyplomacji polskiej, p. 99. A

visit to Muhammad’s tomb in Medina was a customary part of a Muslim pilgrimage

to Mecca.

Eminek, chief of the Shirin clan, the most powerful of the four qaraçıs in the

Crimea, and the son of Tekin, who had helped Hadji Giray to ascend the throne of

the Crimea; Eminek obtained the post of qaraçı in 1473, aer the death of his older

brother Mamaq; in 1469 he had supported Mengli Giray against his brother Nur Dev-

let, but then he changed sides in result of the conict over the lucrative post of the

tudun of Caa; in 1475 he supported the Ottoman intervention that resulted in replac-

ing Mengli Giray with Nur Devlet; aer the latter was overthrown by the invasion

of the Great Horde, in 1478 Eminek solicited the Ottomans to intervene once more

and reinstall Mengli Giray; in 1482 he again rebelled against Mengli Giray and took

refuge in the Great Horde, but was persuaded to return in 1483 and died soon aer;

aer his death, the post of the Shirin qaraçı was held by his brother Hadjike (1484),

and then by Eminek’s son Barash (1486); see Le khanat de Crimée, pp. 11, 318–319;

Syroečkovskij, “Muxammed-Geraj i ego vassaly,” p. 31; Xoroškevič, Rus’ i Krym,

p. 95; Jan Tyszkiewicz, “Zamach stanu Szirinów w Bachczysaraju. Utrata niezależności

Chanatu Krymskiego na rzecz Turcji: 1475,” in: Zamach stanu w dawnych społecznoś-

ciach. Edited by A. Sołtysiak and J. Olko (Warsaw, 2004): 413–418.

e thirteenth indiction lasted from 1 September 1479 till 31 August 1480. Quot-

ing a letter of Mengli Giray from October 1480, where the khan accused King Casimir

of detaining Hadji Baba for half a year (vžo pol hoda stalo), Feliks Koneczny proposed

to date the present document in April 1480 on the assumption that Casimir arrived

at Vilnius on 2 April 1480 aer a longer absence from Lithuania; see idem, “Rzekoma

koalicja Litwy z Tatarami przeciwko Moskwie w r. 1480,” Ateneum Wileńskie 1 (1923):

140–204 and 352–397, esp. p. 183, n. 1. is dating seems convincing, although from

a more recently published royal itinerary we learn that Casimir was in Vilnius already

on 17 March; see Irena Sułkowska-Kurasiowa [Sulkovska-Kuraseva], “Itinerarij Kazi-

mira Jagellona (sostojanie podgotovki),” in: Issledovanija po istorii Litovskoj metriki

(Moscow, 1989), vol. 2: 264–335, esp. p. 316.

DOCUMENT 6 (13–20 OCTOBER 1480)

e şartname (prysjažnyj lyst) sent by Khan Mengli Giray

to King Casimir

e original document is missing.

Ruthenian copies:

A. RGADA, fond 389 = Litovskaja metrika, no. 4, fol. 104a–104b [old folia-

tion: 89a–89b].

Published in a) Russkaja Istoričeskaja Biblioteka, vol. 27, cols. 332–333;

b) Lietuvos Metrika. Knyga Nr. 4 (1479–1491). Užrašymų knyga 4., p. 92.

A.* 18th-century Latin transcription: AGAD, Metryka Litewska, no. 191a,

p. 344 [old pagination: 96].

Published in a) Pułaski, Stosunki Polski z Tatarszczyzną, p. 203;

b) Sbornik Muxanova,

pp. 25–26.

Во имѧ Божъе, ѡтъ Менъдликгиреѧ, Казимирꙋ королю, брату, ꙋ сеи

мере присегнꙋлъ есми:

Королю, брате мои, мы которое словъ речомъ, братъства и приѧзни

повышати, а приѧтелю приѧтел, а неприѧтелю неприѧтель бꙋдꙋчи,

какъ король к моемꙋ приѧтелю приѧтель, а к неприѧтелю неприѧтель

бꙋдеть, а ꙗ къ его приѧтелю прыѧтель, а к неприѧтелю неприѧтель

маю быть. Такъже ꙗ, Менъдликгиреи цар, Казимира королѧ, брата

моего приѧтелю приѧтелемъ маю быть, а неприѧтелю неприѧтелемъ.

А еще мне, Менъдликгирею, Казимир король, братъ, коли на своеи

присѧзе стоѧти будеть, потомъ ꙗ, Менъдликгиреи царъ, Казимира,

брата моего людемъ, и землѧмъ его, и водамъ, коли бы мело што

статисѧ, ꙗ и царство покинꙋ, а лиха не дамъ вчинить; ѡтъ мене,

ѡтъ братьи моее менъшое,

-b

и ѡтъ сына моего лиха не бꙋдеть.

Такожъ мне, Менъдликгирею, Казимир король, братъ, штожъ

ѡтецъ мои, Ажъкгиреи царъ кнѧзю Семенꙋ котории подавалъ люди,

тые люди мне бы ѡдъдалъ. Ино корол, братъ, коли тые люди мне

ѡтъдасть, а ꙗ, Менъдликгиреи, коли зъ свое присѧги выстꙋплю, ѡт

Бога тогды, ѡд пророка Магъметѧ, и ѡт Кургана, и ѡт книгъ наших

ѡт ѡрскꙋ [sic].

Erroneously dated by Pułaski as issued on 15 October 1479.

Rendered in the Cyrillic script; cf. note 2 to Document 5.

-b

Omitted in Pułaski’s edition.

It should probably read ѡтѡркꙋс; the Cyrillic letter с is uplied above the word

and perhaps has been misplaced. For the Church Slavonic form otorku/otorkus’,

derived from otreku/otrekus’ (innitive: otrekat’/otrekat’sja), cf. Slovar’ cerkovno-

slavjanskago i russkago jazyka, vol. 3 (St. Petersburg, 1867), col. 260. I would like to

warmly thank Andrij Danylenko for his assistance in solving this puzzle.

document 6 (13–20 october 1480) 549

А такъ рекꙋчи своимъ ꙗзыкомъ сесь присѧжъныи листъ дали есмо;

на чомъ есмо присѧгнꙋли, на то есмо и листъ свои дали. Писанъ въ

Киркери, в лет[о] ѡсмъсотъное и ѡсмъдесѧтъ пѧтое, ѡкътѧбръ е҃ı҃ [15]

день, в пѧтницꙋ.

Translation:

In the name of God, from Mengli Giray to King Casimir, [our] brother, I have

sworn in the following manner:

Oh king, my brother, we pronounce this word, strengthening brotherhood

and friendship, and being a friend to [your] friend and an enemy to [your]

enemy; if the king is a friend to my friend and an enemy to [my] enemy, I

should [likewise] be a friend to his friend and en enemy to [his] enemy. Also I,

Mengli Giray Khan, should be a friend to any friend of my brother, King Casi-

mir, and an enemy to [his] enemy.

And if King Casimir, [my] brother, keeps

his oath [given] to me, Mengli Giray, then I, Mengli Giray Khan, if anything

wrong is to happen to the people of my brother Casimir, his lands, or his waters,

I will sooner leave my kingdom than let any harm be committed [to them]; no

harm will descend [upon them] from me, my younger brothers, or my son.

Moreover, King Casimir, [my] brother, you should return to me, Mengli

Giray, the people whom my father, Hadji Giray Khan, gave to Prince Semen.

And if you, king, [my] brother, return these people to me, if I, Mengli Giray,

is sentence seems to be redundant as it repeats the former statement.

Semen Olelkovyč (Pol. Olelkowicz), related to the Jagiellonian dynasty, ruled

in Kiev as a prince subordinate to King Casimir in the years 1454–1470; only aer

his death the autonomy of the principality was abolished in 1471; see his biogra-

phy by Anna Krupska in PSB, vol. 23, p. 746. At the beginning of his rule, in 1454

Semen Olelkovyč rebelled against Casimir with the help of Seyyid Ahmed, the grand-

son of Khan Tokhtamısh and the pretender to the throne of the Golden Horde. e

rebellion was crushed with the help of the Crimean khan, Hadji Giray. While Semen

was pardoned, Seyyid Ahmed spent the rest of his life in Lithuanian captivity, rst in

Vilnius and then in Kaunas. Although the members of his Tatar retinue were allowed

to settle in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Crimean khans regarded them as their

subjects and continually demanded their return. is is how the legend of the “dona-

tion” by Hadji Giray to Semen Olelkovyč must have been born. As late as in 1499,

Mengli Giray still demanded the return of “his subjects” once “donated” to Prince

Semen by his father; see Jan Tyszkiewicz, Tatarzy na Litwie i w Polsce. Studia z dziejów

XIII–XVIII w., pp. 132–133 and 161–162; Xoroškevič, Rus’ i Krym, pp. 159–160. In a

recent article, Feliks Šabul’do argues that Mengli’s request also had a territorial char-

acter and referred to the lands situated to the east from the Vorskla and the lower

Dnieper; see idem, “«Semenovy ljudi»: ix territorija i rol’ v političeskix otnošenijax

meždu Krymom i Litvoj na isxode XV veka,” in: Ruthenica, vol. 9. Edited by V. Ryčka

and O. Toločko (Kiev, 2010): 57–73, esp. pp. 72–73. Yet, the passage in question spe-

cically refers to people (ljudy), and in the steppe culture it was the people rather than

the land over whom the khan’s sovereignty could have been extended.

550 document 6 (13–20 october 1480)

happen to break my oath, then I will renounce

God, Prophet Muhammad, the

Koran, and our [holy] books.

Having pronounced this in [our] own language, we have given this oath-

letter [prysjažnyj lyst]; what we have sworn to is also in the letter that we have

given. Written in Qırq Yer, in the year 885, on the 15th day of October, on

Friday.

In the original: koly z svoe prysjahy vystuplju, ot Boha tohdy, od proroka Mah-

metja, y ot Kurhana, y ot knyh našyx ot orsku, whereas the incomprehensible last

two words should probably be read as one word: otorkus’, i.e., “I will renounce” (cf.

n. c above). An analogous clause can be found in Mengli Giray’s oath recorded in a

document from 1478, whose original text in Khwarezmian Turkic has been preserved.

It reads: “if I am the violating party, let me be separated from God and the proph-

ets, and from the one-hundred-and-four books, especially the Koran” (eger buzar

caqlı bolsam Tengriden peyġamberlerden yüz dört kitabdan ‘ala‘l-hususi Qur’andan

bizar bolġaymen); see Vásáry, “A contract of the Crimean khan,” pp. 294–295 and a

facsimile aer p. 296. On the number of Holy Books sent to mankind according to a

Muslim tradition, cf. Document 40, n. 17.

e Muslim year 885 A.H. lasted between 13 March 1480 and 1 March 1481;

yet, 15 October 1480 was a Sunday, and not Friday. Perhaps the Tatar scribe referred

to the second decade (i.e., 11th–20th) of the month as it was customary in Islamic

chanceries and the Lithuanian scribe mistakenly changed “the middle of October” into

“October 15th”? erefore, I suggest dating the present document between Friday,

13 October, and Friday, 20 October 1480.

DOCUMENT 7 (22 DECEMBER 1506–7 JANUARY 1507)

e oath by Tevkel (Tjuvikel’) Ulan, the Crimean envoy

sent to King Sigismund

Ruthenian copies:

A. RGADA, fond 389 = Litovskaja metrika, no. 7, p. 16 [old foliation: 10b].

A.* 18th-century Latin transcription: AGAD, Metryka Litewska, no. 193,

pp. 10–11.

Published in Pułaski, Stosunki Polski z Tatarszczyzną, pp. 295–296.

B. RGADA, fond 389 = Litovskaja metrika, no. 8, fol. 27b–28a [old folia-

tion: 10b–11a].

Published in Lietuvos Metrika. Knyga Nr. 8 (1499–1514). Užrašymų

knyga 8, pp. 53–54.

B.* 18th-century Latin transcription: AGAD, Metryka Litewska, no. 194,

pp. 18–19.

C. RGADA, fond 389 = Litovskaja metrika, no. 595, fol. 11b–12a.

Published in Sbornik knjazja Obolenskago, pp. 29–30.

Ꙗ, Тювикель Влꙗн,

присꙗгаю

господарꙗ моего, царꙗ

Менъди-

кгиреевою душою

на вышънего

Бога и [на]

тот свꙗтыи Кꙋран,

штожъ

господарь нашъ, царь Мендикгиреи

береть з братом своим,

Tevkel was actually sent by Mengli Giray to King Alexander, who died on

19 August 1506. e envoy was thus received by his successor, Sigismund, and swore

an oath in the latter’s presence at a council in Mielnik; on the reception of the Crimean

embassy in Mielnik, see “Litovskija upominki tatarskim ordam. Skarbovaja kniga

Metriki Litovskoj 1502–1509 gg.,” pp. 52–53. According to his itinerary, Sigismund

was in Mielnik between 22 December 1506 and 7 January 1507; see Nikolaj Berežkov,

“Itinerarij velikix knjazej litovskix po materialam Litovskoj Metriki (1481–1530 gg.),”

in: Arxeogračeskij Ežegodnik za 1961 god (Moscow, 1962): 181–205, esp. p. 192. Given

the fact that Sigismund was elected to the Polish throne already on 8 December 1506,

the amazement of Pułaski that he is referred to as the king in the present document,

is ungrounded; cf. idem, Stosunki Polski z Tatarszczyzną, p. 108.

B. Тювикел Влан; C. Тювикель Вланъ.

B. присегаю; C. присѧгаю.

C. господара моего, цара.

B. Мендикгиреевою душею; C. Менъдликгиреевою дꙋшею.

B. and C. вышнего.

In B. and C. only.

С. светыи Кꙋранъ.

B. штож; C. што.

C. господаръ нашъ, цар Мидликгереи.

552 document 7 (22 december 1506–7 january 1507)

королем и великим кнꙗзем Жикгимонътом

ѡтъ тыхъ часовъ серде[ч]-

нꙋю

приꙗзнь и верное не льстивое братство, и не хитрое житье

со

въсими

солтаны, братею и сынми своими,

и со въсими

вланы и

кнꙗзи, и со въсими мꙋрзы,

и со въсими людьми ѡбеюхъ тыхъ ѡрдъ,

Заволское

и Перекопъское, которые жъ подъданы емꙋ.

Мает госпо-

дарь

нашъ, цар Мендликгиреи

приꙗтелю королꙗ и великого кнꙗзꙗ

Жикгимонъта

быти приꙗтелем,

а неприꙗтелю неприꙗтелем, и везде

его милостю сам,

або з людми его милости своими людьми и детми,

всести на кон

противъкꙋ всꙗкомꙋ

неприꙗтелю его милости и помо-

цои быти подъле

всее моцы, а зъвлаща

того лета на московъского.

Также господарь нашъ, цар Менъдликгиреи

землꙗм, панъством, людем

королꙗ и великого кнꙗзꙗ Жикгимонъта

такъ Корꙋны Полское, какъ

Великого Кнꙗзства Литовъского

шкоды не мает

чинити, воиска не

пꙋскати,

граничъныхъ замковъ,

местъ, сел

не казити ни собою, ни

B. зъ братом своим, королем и великимъ кнꙗземъ Жикгимонтомъ;

C. з братом своимъ, королемъ и великимъ кнѧземъ Жикгимонтомъ.

B. ѡт тых часовъ сердечную; C. ѡт тыхъ часовъ сердечнꙋю.

B. не лстивое братство, и не хитросное житье; C. не льстивое братъ-

ство, и не хитрое житье.

B. and C. всими.

B. солтаны, братьею и сыны своими; C. солтаны и братею, сыны своими.

B. and C. всими.

B. всими мꙋрзы; C. всими кнꙗзи и мꙋрзы.

B. всими людьми ѡбеюх тых ѡрдъ; C. всими людьми ѡбеюхъ тыхъ

ѡръдъ.

С. Заволзское.

B. подъданы ему; С. поданы ему.

B. Маеть господаръ; C. Маеть господарь.

B. царъ Мендикгиреи; C. цар Менъдликгиреи.

B. and C. Жикгимонта.

B. and C. приꙗтелемъ.

B. and C. зъ.

B. and C. самъ.

B. детьми и людми; C. людми и детьми.

C. конь.

B. and C. противку всꙗкому.

B. and C. подле.

B. звлашъча; C. зъвлаще.

С. московского.

B. Также господаръ нашъ, царъ Мендикгиреи; C. Такъже господаръ

нашъ, царъ Мендликгиреи.

B. землꙗм, панством, людемъ королꙗ и великого кнꙗзꙗ Жикгимонта;

С. землѧмъ, панъствомъ и людемъ королѧ и великого кнѧзѧ Жикгимонта.

B. как; C. какъ и.

B. and C. Литовского.

B. and C. маеть.

B. пускати.

B. граничных замъковъ; C. граничныхъ замъковъ.

C. сель.

document 7 (22 december 1506–7 january 1507) 553

детми,

ни людми своими, але во въсем мает стерегъчи

и блюсти, и

боронити ѡтъ своихъ

детеи и людеи, и ѡт всꙗкихъ

неприꙗтелеи.

И во всем мает мир вечъныи и братство верное

держати с королем и

великим кнꙗзем Жикгимонътомъ

по томꙋ, какъ ꙋтъцы ихъ: Ачъжи-

кгиреи цар с Казимиром королем.

А на том на всем

ꙗ, Тювикель Влꙗн

присегаю, штожъ

госпо-

дарь мои, цар Менъдликгиреи

мает тꙋю мою присꙗгꙋ братꙋ своемꙋ,

королю и

великомꙋ кнꙗзю Жикгимонътꙋ

до смерти держати,

[и перед его милости]

послы сам своею дꙋшею тꙋю присꙗгꙋ емꙋ

потвердит,

и безо льсти

и без

хитрости полни[ти]

его милости и

паньством

его: Корꙋне и ВеликомꙋКнꙗзствꙋ.

И естли справедливе

[присꙗгаю],

Боже помози, а естли несправедливе,

Боже мꙗ

вышъ-

нии

забии на дꙋши

и на теле.

B. and C. детьми.

B. всемъ маеть стеречи; C. всем маеть стеречи.

B. and C. ѡт своих.

B. всꙗких; C. всѧкихъ.

B. всемъ маеть мир вечныи и братство верное; C. всемъ маеть мир

вечныи и братъство верне.

B. королем и великим кнꙗземъ Жикгимонтомъ; C. королемъ и великимъ

кнѧземъ Жикгимонтом.

B. по тому, как ꙋтцы их: Ачъжикгиреи царъ с Казимиром королемъ;

C. по томꙋ, какъ ꙋтецъ ихъ Ачъжикгиреи царъ с Казимиром королемъ и

великимъ кнѧземъ.

B. А на томъ на всем; C. И на томъ на всемъ.

B. and C. Тювикел Влан.

B. присегаю, штож; C. присѧгаю, што.

B. господарь мои, царь Мендикгиреи; C. господаръ мои, Мандликгиреи.

B. маеть тую мою присꙗгу брату своему; C. маеть тꙋю мою присѧгꙋ

братꙋ своему.

Missing in C.

B. великому кнꙗзю Жикгимонтꙋ.

us in B.; A. и передъ его милостю; C. перед его милостью.

B. своею душею тую присꙗгу ему потвердить; C. своею дꙋшею тꙋю

присѧгꙋ емꙋ потвердить.

B. а без ѡльсти; C. и безъ ѡлсти.

Missing in C.

B. полнит; C. полнити.

B. и панством; C. панъствомъ.

B. Великому Кнꙗзствꙋ; C. Великомꙋ Кнѧзствꙋ.

C. справедъливе.

In B. and C. (присѧгаю) only.

C. несправедъливе.

Missing in C.

B. and C. вышнии.

B. души; C. дꙋше.