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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

224 part two—chapter one

language in the Crimean Khanate, whose founders claimed their rights

to the Genghisid heritage of the Golden Horde.

e prominence of Turkic literary language(s), based on Kipchak

dialects, was not limited to Tatar chanceries. Edward Keenan stressed

the importance of Turkic as the language of steppe diplomacy con-

necting immense territories extending from Cairo to Peking and from

Vilnius to Delhi and compared it to “the Latin of this world.”

Apart

from being used as the spoken and literary language at the Mamluk

court in Cairo,

in the 16th century Kipchak Turkic reached India,

whose conqueror, Babur, composed his famous memoirs in the stan-

dard chancery language of his Central Asiatic homeland.

Turkic was

also widely used by the Muscovian chancery, not merely in its rela-

tions with the Tatars, but also with the Mongols and even—through

their medium—with China.

Until the 18th century, numerous Tatar

scribes from Kazan and Kasimov were employed in the Russian chan-

cery and Kipchak Turkic, commonly referred to as “Tatar” or “Mus-

lim” language (besermenskij jazyk), remained the lingua franca of the

steppe, facilitating St. Petersburg’s contacts with the Kazakhs and the

native inhabitants of Siberia, Central Asia, and the Caucasus.

Para-

Keenan, “Muscovy and Kazan,” p. 550.

Cf. Charles Halperin, “e Kipchak connection: the Ilkhans, the Mamluks and

Ayn Jalut,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 63 (2000): 229–245,

esp. p. 232.

In reference to the sixteenth-century Turkic language, used in Central Asian

chanceries, the adjective Chagatay is justied and crediting Ali Shir Nava’i for its

rening is fully deserved; cf. n. 2 above.

is fact was soon forgotten; a nineteenth-century handwritten catalogue of the

Crimean section (fond), preserved in the Russian archives, contained an entry refer-

ring to a letter in Tatar, composed by an unknown author and not provided with

any translation; only in 1858 it was discovered that the letter had been authored by

Tsar Michael Romanov (okazalsja gramotoju pisannoju po tatarski carja Mixaila

Feodoroviča) in 7128 (i.e., 1620 A.D.) and addressed to the Altyn Khan, hence the

erroneous entry was crossed out and provided with a margin note informing that the

letter had been transferred to the Mongolian section; see RGADA, the handwritten

catalogue of f. 123, op. 2; entry no. 71 (crossed out). On the role of the Altyn Khans

(lit. “the golden khans;” a title referring to several successive members of the same

Mongol dynasty) in the early Russian-Chinese encounters, cf. Mjasnikov, e Ch’ing

Empire and the Russian State in the 17th Century, pp. 64–71; Marc Mancall, Russia

and China. eir Diplomatic Relations to 1728 (Cambridge, Mass.), p. 39.

Kellner-Heinkele, “St. Petersburg and the Steppe Peoples,” pp. 229 and 235–236;

cf. Usmanov, “O dokumentax russko-vostočnoj perepiski na tjurkskix jazykax v XV–

XVIII vv. i ix istočnikovedčeskom značenii,” in: Vostočnoe istoričeskoe istočnikovedenie

i special’nye istoričeskie discipliny, vol. 2 (Moscow, 1994): 123–138.

the language and preservation of documents 225

doxically yet, in the Russian correspondence with the Crimean Tatars,

“Tatar” was gradually abandoned in favor of Ottoman Turkish.

this aspect, the Russian chancery simply followed the Crimean one, in

which the process of a gradual replacing of Kipchak with Oghuz ele-

ments continued from the late 15th until the 18th century.

Strikingly,

Kipchak Turkic survived much longer in the correspondence between

Baghchasaray and Moscow than in the correspondence between Bagh-

chasaray and Istanbul. In their letters to the sultans, the khans had

adopted the Ottoman forms and wording earlier, thus presenting

themselves as the Porte’s loyal vassals.

While the political pragmatism, demonstrated by the khans through

their adopting of Ottoman patterns in their contacts with Istanbul, is

evident, the retaining of Kipchak elements in the Crimean correspon-

dence with Moscow is equally explainable. For the khans, drawing their

letters in the ancient form of yarlıqs and keeping these yarlıqs’ tradi-

tional wording was the self-attering reminder of the preponderance

of their forefathers over Muscovian princes. As to the Muscovian side,

its declared conservatism would make it reluctant to accept a docu-

ment deviating from the once established terminology. e above the-

sis can be supported by the fact that the term şartname survived in the

Crimean-Muscovian correspondence till the end of the 17th century,

while in the Crimean-Polish one it was replaced already in the late

16th century by the term ‘ahdname, introduced under the inuence

Cf. a copy of the letter by Catherine II, sent in August 1777 to the new khan

Shahin Giray and congratulating him on his accession (in fact facilitated by the

Russian troops); the letter is composed in Ottoman Turkish; Arxiv vnešnej politiki

Rossijskoj imperii, f. 123, op. 3, no. 2.

By the end of the 18th century, even the Nogay subjects of the Crimean khans

had adopted Ottoman Turkish in their correspondence; the documents, issued in

1772 by the Nogay leaders, who negotiated their passage from the Crimean suzerainty

to the Russian patronage, are composed in Ottoman Turkish, not Kipchak Turkic; cf.

n. 585 in Part I.

Mengli Giray went so far in presenting himself as a fully “Ottomanized” vassal

that in his letter to Mehmed II he adopted an “Ottomanized” form of his name: Bengli

and not Mengli; cf. Usmanov, Žalovannye akty Džučieva ulusa XIV–XVI vv., p. 108;

for a facsimile of this letter, see Le khanat de Crimée, p. 78. Mengli’s great grandson,

Ghazi II Giray, known as a talented poet, composed his poetry in both Ottoman Turk-

ish and Kipchak Turkic (Crimean Tatar inuenced by the Chagatay and Azeri literary

languages, popularized by the poetry of Nava’i and Fuzuli), so he could consciously

choose which language to use in his correspondence with dierent addressees; on

the language(s) of his poetry, see İsmail Hikmet Ertaylan, Gâzi Geray Han: hayâtı ve

eserleri (Istanbul, 1958), pp. 31–32 and 61.

226 part two—chapter one

of the Ottoman chancery usage.

Besides, Moscow preferred Kipchak

Turkic to Ottoman Turkish as the language of mutual correspondence

because translators of the former were at hand, recruited among the

tsar’s subjects, many of them baptized Volgine Tatars, who were more

trusted than the Muslims. In sum, the linguistic features of the khans’

correspondence with Istanbul and Moscow can be regarded as two

extreme poles: the rst one caracterized by the strongest Ottomaniza-

tion while the second one by the strongest preservation of Kipchak

components.

Nevertheless, it is hard to agree with Sagit Faizov, who maintains

that Kipchak vocabulary and morphology still dominated in the

Crimean chancery language as late as the mid-seventeenth century,

even though the author draws his conclusions mainly on the basis of

the Crimean correspondence with Moscow, admittedly the most “Kip-

chakized” one.

Many words, recorded in Arabic script and tentatively

transcribed by Faizov in a way that is natural for a Volgine Tatar,

might have been pronounced dierently in the seventeenth-century

Crimea, especially in its southern part, exposed to Oghuz linguistic

inuences, both Ottoman and native.

In regard to the level and pace of their Ottomanization, the Crimean

letters addressed to Poland-Lithuania are in between the Crimean cor-

respondence with Istanbul and that with Moscow.

Only one docu-

ment in our volume, the şartname addressed by Mehmed Giray to

Sigismund in 1520, is preserved in Khwarezmian Turkic. e fol-

lowing Crimean documents, preserved in Arabic-script originals,

are much later and origin from the late 16th century. ey already

contain a mixture of Kipchak (i.e., Tatar) and Oghuz (i.e., Ottoman

Cf. Chapter 2 below; to be sure, neither term is of Kipchak origin but unlike

‘ahdname, the term şartname had been used by the Crimean chancery before its Otto-

manization.

Cf. Sagit Faizov, “Iz perepiski krymskix xanov s russkim carem i pol’skim

korolem, 1654–1658 gg.,” in: Russkaja i ukrainskaja diplomatija v meždunarodnyx

otnošenijax v Europe serediny XVII v. (Moscow, 2007): 438–478, esp. p. 443.

Usmanov concludes that Baghchasaray’s correspondence with Muscovy and

Poland-Lithuania retained more Kipchak features than its correspondence with Istan-

bul, but he does not dierentiate between the rst two groups; cf. idem, Žalovannye

akty Džučieva ulusa XIV–XVI vv., p. 108. Also Faizov, who studied the Crimean cor-

respondence with Moscow and Warsaw in the mid-seventeenth century, did not com-

ment on linguistic dierences but instead tended to draw general conclusions on the

language used in the Crimean chancery; see idem, “Iz perepiski krymskix xanov s

russkim carem i pol’skim korolem, 1654–1658 gg.,” p. 443.

the language and preservation of documents 227

Turkish) elements. Judging merely by its extant Polish translation, an

even stronger presence of Ottoman Turkish forms, borrowed from the

Ottoman chancery, is visible in Mehmed III Giray’s instrument from

1624. e long cohabitation of Kipchak and Oghuz elements is still

reected in the ‘ahdnames sent in 1640 from Baghchasaray to Vladis-

laus IV by Khan Bahadır Giray and Nureddin Qırım Giray. Although

composed by the same chancery at the same time, and almost identi-

cal in contents, linguistically these two documents dier substantially.

In the khan’s instrument one nds the Kipchak forms cibermek and

taqı, while their Oghuz alternatives göndürmek and dahi are missing

altogether; moreover, the Kipchak ablative ending (-din) is over four

times more frequent than the Oghuz one (-den). On the other hand,

in the nureddin’s instrument the Kipchak ablative ending is only two

times more frequent than the Oghuz one, the frequency of the Kip-

chak and Oghuz alternative verbs cibermek/göndürmek is almost equal

(11:9), and the Kipchak form taqı is missing altogether, replaced by its

Oghuz alternative dahi. e Kipchak optative sux -ġay/-gey occurs

nine times in the khan’s instrument, but only two times in the nured-

din’s one. In this last aspect, both instruments are superceded by the

one sent in the same year by Qalga Islam Giray, issued not in Bagh-

chasaray but in Ferahkerman (Perekop), which contains as many as

thirteen Kipchak optative suxes.

Perhaps the rst instrument in our volume, where the Oghuz

forms denitely prevail over the Kipchak ones, is the ‘ahdname, sent

to Poland in 1646 by Khan Islam III Giray. Interestingly, six years

earlier, when he was still the qalga, Islam Giray issued an instrument

that was strongly Kipchakized (see above). e Ottomanization had

been more or less completed in the following decade. In the ‘ahdname

of Mehmed IV Giray, issued in 1654, one nds a purely Oghuz form:

hazretlerine olsun, whereas Islam III Giray’s ‘ahdname of 1646 still has:

hazretleriġe bolsun.

Selamet II Giray’s instrument from 1742 stands apart from the

remaining ones as it is a unique document in our volume that origins

from the 18th century. It is written in pure Ottoman Turkish, although

the glorious Genghisid past is still invoked by the fact that the docu-

ment is referred to as yarlıq.

Cf. Documents 55–57.

228 part two—chapter one

e language of seventeenth-century Crimean documents, preserved

in various European archives, has been already studied by several tur-

cologists. Mária Ivanics, who studied the Crimean letters addressed to

the princes of Transylvania, observed “the mixing of Kipchak and Oguz

elements” but concluded that these letters “seem Ottoman-Turkish

rather than Tatar from the linguistic point of view.” Nevertheless, she

admitted that while in the Crimean letters sent to Transylvania “the

rate of the Oguz elements is greater, [. . .] in the documents written

to the Russian tsars the Kipchak elements are predominant.”

Josef

Matuz, who studied the language of the Crimean letters addressed

to Danish kings, found notable dierences between individual docu-

ments, even those issued in the same period, which reminds of the

aforementioned dierences between the instruments sent to Poland in

1640. Matuz singled out three linguistic categories: from almost purely

Ottoman Turkish letters (8), to the ones with “somewhat more” (etwas

mehr) Kipchak elements (12), nally to the most “Kipchakized” ones

(3), although he admitted that even the language of the latter cannot

be described as purely Kipchak or Crimean Tatar.

Curiously, a let-

ter sent in 1661 by Mehmed IV Giray is described by Matuz as eher

tatarisch and included in the most “Kipchakized” category,

whereas

in our volume the instrument of the same khan, drawn in 1654, is

the most “Ottomanized” one (not counting the much later instrument

from 1742). Apart from pointing to the already mentioned dierences

between individual instruments issued in the same period, one can

explain this seeming paradox by the fact that while in our collection

Mehmed IV Giray’s instrument is one of the latest ones (the second

latest preserved in Arabic script), the Crimean letters held in the Dan-

ish archives do not date back further than 1658. e instruments of

Mehmed IV Giray are thus in average more “Ottoman” than those

of his predecessors, but more “Kipchakized” than those of his suc-

cessors. e Crimean chancery language was also studied by Elżbieta

Święcicka, who analyzed four seventeenth-century letters preserved

Mária [Mary] Ivanics, “Formal and linguistic peculiarities of 17th century

Crimean Tatar letters adressed to princes of Transylvania,” AO ASH 29 (1975): 213–

224, esp. pp. 221 and 224.

Matuz, Krimtatarische Urkunden im Reichsarchiv zu Kopenhagen, pp. 83–85.

Ibidem, p. 119; for the letter’s text, see ibidem, pp. 139–141 and Tafel IV–V (fac-

simile).

the language and preservation of documents 229

in Stockholm, sent by the women of the Giray dynasty. Using a dif-

ferent method than Ivanics and Matuz, she concluded that the ratio

between the Ottoman Arabic/Persian, and the Turkic words in the

examined letters was 135:40 and referred to their language as “Tatar-

Ottoman.”

Having noticed the gradual Ottomanization of the language of

Crimean instruments addressed to the Polish kings, parallel with the

preservation of Kipchak elements at least until the mid-seventeenth

century, we should wait with more rened conclusions for a thorough

analysis that would include all Crimean letters addressed to Polish-

Lithuanian recipients, and not just the few ones that can be classied

as formal instruments of peace. is task is beyond the scope of the

present study and awaits a future researcher.

Other languages used by the Crimean chancery

Apart from Khwarezmian Turkic, then a mixture of Tatar and Otto-

man-Turkish, and nally pure Ottoman-Turkish, all recorded in Ara-

bic script, the Crimean chancery used other languages as well.

In 1894, a Russian historian Mixail Berežkov published an article,

voiced in a truly colonial spirit, typical for that period. e author

maintained that Crimean instruments, regarding the peace with Rus-

sia, had been in fact draed by the Muscovian chancery, in Russian,

and then sent to the Crimea merely for the khan to corroborate them.

According to Berežkov: “the khan’s chancery needed only to translate

the Russian dra into Tatar, add the heading titles as well as conclud-

ing formulas, and strengthen [thus drawn] documents with a seal.”

As if to console himself for his ignorance of Oriental languages, the

author optimistically concluded: “therefore, the Russian texts (Rus.

gramoty) are not inferior to the Tatar originals in regard to their con-

tent and importance; they are even superior [sic-DK], because the

Elżbieta Święcicka, “e Diplomatic Letters by Crimean Keräy Ladies to the

Swedish Royal House,” Rocznik Orientalistyczny 55 (2002), no. 1, pp. 57–90, esp. p. 60.

. . . xanskoj kancelarii ostavalos’ tol’ko perevesti po-tatarski ėtot russkij spisok,

pribavja zaglavnye tytuly da zaključitel’nyja formuly i skrepja dokumenty pečat’ju; see

Berežkov, Krymskie šertnye gramoty (Kiev, 1894), p. 3.

230 part two—chapter one

Crimean şartnames (Rus. šerti) were simply translations of the Russian

dras.”

Berežkov’s dismissive view of the Tatar chancery was later justly

ridiculed by the leading Russian Orientalist, Aleksandr Samojlovič.

Perhaps in reaction to such derogatory views of the Tatar culture

like Berežkov’s, today we encounter opposite views, especially among

Tatar scholars, that diminish or entirely neglect the role of the Rus-

sian language—and per analogy any non-Tatar language—in the past

foreign diplomatic correspondence of Baghchasaray. Sagit Faizov

maintains that the instruments of peace (şart- and ‘ahdnames), cir-

culating between Baghchasaray and Moscow, were drawn exclusively

in Tatar and issued unilaterally by the khan’s chancery, in analogy to

the yarlıqs once issued by the khans of the Golden Horde.

Arguing

that no seventeenth-century peace agreement between Baghchasaray

and Moscow is known to have been composed in Russian, the same

author concludes: “one can assume—for the lack of sources [sic-DK]—

that also seventeenth-century Crimean-Polish agreements were drawn

exclusively in the Crimean Tatar language.”

A more balanced view

is proposed in reference to the earlier period (15th–16th century) by

Usmanov, who nevertheless insists that almost all the letters sent by

the Girays to Moscow were composed in Tatar and translated into

Russian only in the Muscovian chancery, while the Russian replies

were composed in two languages: Russian originals and their Tatar

copies.

A modern scholar is faced with the fact that all the earliest Crimean

instruments of peace, addressed to Muscovian rulers in the 15th and

16th centuries, are preserved only in copies in Russian. Some of these

copies are referred to as translations (Rus. perevod), so we may safely

Takim obrazom russkija gramoty po soderžaniju i po značeniju ne ustupajut tatar-

skim podlinnikam; one daže preimuščestvujut pred nimi, ibo krymskija šerti byli pros-

tym perevodom s russkix obrazcovyx zapisej; see ibidem.

See Aleksandr Samojlovič, “O ‘pajza’—‘bajsa’ v Džučievom uluse (K voprosu

o basme xana Axmata),” Izvestija Akademii Nauk SSSR 20 (1926): 1107–1120, esp.

p. 1108.

Russko-krymskie šert-name i gaxed-name suščestvovali liš’ kak tatarojazyčnye

dokumenty, isxodivšie iz kanceljarii xana, podobno jarlykam-požalovanijam zolotoor-

dynskix xanov; see Faizov, “Iz perepiski krymskix xanov s russkim carem i pol’skim

korolem, 1654–1658 gg.,” p. 442.

Russkojazyčnye dogovora XVII v. meždu Rossiej i Krymskim jurtom ne izvestny.

Možno predpolagat’—vsledstvie nedostatka istočnikov—čto i krymsko-pol’skie dogovory

XVII v. ispolnjalis’ liš’ na krymskotatarskom jazyke; see ibidem.

Usmanov, Žalovannye akty Džučieva ulusa XIV–XVI vv., p. 109.

the language and preservation of documents 231

assume that their originals were written in Arabic script and com-

posed in Khwarezmian Turkic or Tatar. Sometimes, we nd additional

references to the now lost originals. For instance, in a late sixteenth-

century inventory of the Muscovian archives, we read that Mengli

Giray’s şartname (Rus. šertnaja gramota), brought in 1508 by Kos-

tjantin Zabolockij and today extant only in a Russian copy, was writ-

ten in “Muslim script” (besermenskim pis’mom).

Some of the oldest

Crimean instruments were still extant in 1626, having survived the

great re of Moscow; an ocial inventory, ordered aer the disas-

ter, listed “six old Crimean şartnames, [received] during the reign of

Vasilij Ivanovič [r. 1505–1533], the grand duke of the whole Rus’, sent

in various years, and one among them addressed to Ivan Vasilevič

[r. 1533–1584], the tsar and grand duke of the whole Rus’, written on

sheets of paper in Tatar script, very damaged and lacerated, two [of

them] with top and bottom parts missing.”

e already mentioned

fact that also the Muscovian chancery issued documents in Turkic

recorded in Arabic script, is further conrmed by a register, executed

in 1800 by Aleksej Malinovskij, an employee and the future director of

the Russian Foreign Ministry archives. An entry in the register refers

to a solemn letter, sent by Ivan III to Mengli Giray in 1481, which

was “written in the Tatar language and provided with a golden seal”

(pisannaja na tatarskom jazyke s priloženiem zolotoj pečati). Two other

letters, drawn in the same year on behalf of Ivan III, were also written

in Tatar.

Having asserted the wide usage of the Turkic language and Ara-

bic script in the Crimean-Muscovian mutual correspondence, we may

still ask about the role of the Russian language and Cyrillic script.

Undoubtedly, in Moscow, Russian functioned as the main language.

Even if some instruments, adressed to the khans and Crimean digni-

taries, were drawn in Tatar, Muscovian envoys were simultaneously

Opisi Carskogo arxiva XVI veka i arxiva Posol’skogo prikaza 1614 goda. Edited by

S. Šmidt (Moscow, 1960), p. 28.

6 gramot krymskix šertnyx, staryx, pri velikom knjaze Vasil’e Ivanoviče vsea Rusii,

prislany v roznyx godex, i odna iz nix k carju i velikomu knjazju Ivanu Vasil’evičju vsea

Rusi, pisany na bumage na listex, tatarskim pismom, vetxi gorazdo i podrany, u dvu[x]

verxov i spodu net; see Opis arxiva Posol’skogo prikaza 1626. Edited by V. Gal’cov and

S. Šmidt (Moscow, 1977), pt. 1, p. 79.

See “Reestr šertnym gramotam Krymskix xanov, zapisjam poslov ix i drugim pos-

tanovlenijam s krymskimi tatarami byvšimi, soč. 1800 g. kanc. sov. A. Malinovskim,”

published in Pamjatniki diplomatičeskix snošenij. . . . Edited by F. Laškov, pp. 1–22,

esp. p. 2.

232 part two—chapter one

provided with their copies in Russian. Besides, the contents of both

incoming and outgoing correspondence were recorded in Russian in

the Muscovian chancery registers.

In the Crimea, the situation was

apparently analogous, with Turkic serving as the main language, but

also—for practical reasons—with other languages and scripts admitted

for diplomatic correspondence.

Having studied the Russian translations of Tatar letters sent to

Moscow, Edward Keenan identied Turkic syntax and vocabulary

which oen transpires through the Russian text.

His ndings can

be fully conrmed by the present author, who has found numerous

analogies in the Ruthenian translations of Tatar letters sent to Vilni-

us.

Still, the presence of Turkic calques and loaned expressions in a

text extant today in an East Slavic language does not necessarily imply

that this text is a translation of a now lost Turkic original. A Tatar

native speaker or an assimilated Slav in the khan’s service, charged

with drawing a document in Russian or Ruthenian, would be expected

to insert Turkic linguistic elements. Turkic expressions also entered

the Muscovian chancery language, only to mention such crucial terms

as jarlyk and šert’. Ivan III and Vasilij III are even known to have

applied the formula slovo moe (lit. “[this is] my word,” a loanword

from Turkic sözüm)—originally reserved for the Genghisids only—in

their correspondence with Tatar mirzas and beys in desire to raise the

prestige of the Muscovian ruler in the addressees’ eyes.

In fact, there are three ways of explaining the presence of Turkic

elements in texts extant today in Russian or Ruthenian:

1) the texts that have come down to us may have been translated

from the now lost Turkic originals by the translators of the recipi-

ents’ chanceries—Slavs or Tatars in the Muscovian and Lithuanian

service;

Cf. Xoroškevič, Rus’ i Krym, pp. 207 and 276.

Keenan, “Muscovy and Kazan,” p. 550.

For instance, the expression v golovax, oen found in the Ruthenian translations

of the khans’ letters, does not make much sense for a Slavic speaker but is perfectly

understandable in the Turkic context, as it is equivalent to the term başliġ (“to begin

with”); the most notoriously loaned expression is of course the term slovo moe (“my

word”), which reects the Turkic formula sözüm, found in the headings of Tatar docu-

ments; for more examples, see Document 20, whose text is luckily preserved in both

Khwarezmian Turkic and Ruthenian.

Xoroškevič, Rus’ i Krym, pp. 188 and 276.

the language and preservation of documents 233

2) the texts might have been prepared already in the Crimea by the

translators of the Crimean chancery (Tatars, Crimean Christians,

or Muscovian and Lithuanian “renegates” in the khan’s service)

and sent along with original documents in Turkic in order to facili-

tate the recipients the correct apprehension of the khan’s message

(many Tatars in the Lithuanian and Muscovian service spoke the

vernacular, but few of them were able to read the Arabic script);

3) the extant texts might be the copies of the original documents,

drawn from the outset in a Slavic language and Cyrillic script by

the Crimean chancery and corroborated with the khan’s seal.

While the opinions of Usmanov and Faizov, quoted above, favor the

rst option, several entries in the Muscovian chancery books, identi-

ed by Il’ja Zajcev and the present author, prove that at least some

Crimean letters, addressed to Moscow, were originally drawn in

Russian or Ruthenian. For instance, in 1492 Mengli Giray addressed

Ivan III “in the Russian script” (ruzskim pismom) and in 1502 the

khan’s letter sent to Moscow was again referred to as written in the

Cyrillic script (a se careva gramota ruskim pismom). In 1528, Sa‘adet

Giray stressed in his letter to Vasilij III that he had written his letter in

Russian (a sju esmi gramotu [. . .] po-ruski napisal), and two years later

the same khan again notied the addressee: “I have issued [my] letters,

having written them in your language” (po vašemu jazyku napisav,

gramoty [. . .] dal esmi).

It is worth questioning which East Slavic dialect was predomi-

nant in the khan’s chancery. Anna Xoroškevič draws an example of a

letter by Mengli Giray, whose text, recorded in the Muscovian chan-

cery books, contains “old-Belarusian” (i.e., Ruthenian) linguistic ele-

ments. Although admitting a possibility that the entry might have

been composed by a recent immigrant from Lithuania, employed in

For the quotations from 1492, 1528, and 1530, see Zajcev, Krymskaja

istoriogračeskaja tradicija XV–XIX vekov. Puti razvitija. Rukopisi, teksty i istočniki

(Moscow, 2009), pp. 19–20; curiously, the same author seems to underrate the usage

of Russian in the khan’s chancery and regards Russian as less important than Latin.

For the quotation from 1502, see Pamjatniki diplomatičeskix snošenij, vol. 1, p. 377;

admittedly, a similar entry on p. 390, referring to the letter of an Ottoman prince

residing in Caa, suggests that the translation was made already in Moscow by a

member of the Crimean embassy, who is referred to by his title of bahşı (a se gramota

ruskim pismom; a imjani saltanova bakšej u nej ne perevel); on the term bahşı, cf.

Document 35, n. 21.