Kolodziejczyk Dariusz. The Crimean Khanate and Poland-Lithuania (ENG)
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
34 part one—chapter one
important followers of Sheikh Ahmed were to be enslaved and settled
in Lithuanian domains, far away from the Crimean border. While
Mengli openly required the execution of Sheikh Ahmed’s closest sup-
porters, he was more circumspect in regard to the person of the for-
mer khan. e document only quotes the vaguely worded promise by
Lithuanian envoys reportedly given to Mengli Giray: “and in regard
to your enemy Sheikh Ahmed, as you said, so we will do.” Yet, in a
separate letter sent to Sigismund, Mengli openly demanded the execu-
tion of Sheikh Ahmed in the presence of the Crimean envoys.
105
Not
by accident Mengli’s embassy was headed by Mamısh Ulan, one of the
khan’s most loyal and experienced service beys, who was entrusted to
look to the fulllment of his lord’s wish.
106
e document also provided that, following the promise of the
Lithuanian envoys, the Lithuanian treasury was to reimburse Meng-
li’s expenditures on the construction and maintenance of the fort of
Islamkerman, recently built on the le shore of the Dnieper near the
Tavan’ crossing, with the annual quota of 4,500 orins. ough this
provision could be regarded as a form of tribute, an apparent rationale
of the Lithuanian policy makers was that the new castle prevented
Tatar raids unauthorized by the khan and provided greater security
for merchants and envoys.
Referring to a future campaign against Muscovy, the treaty provided
that if the Tatars conquered territories that had formerly belonged to
Lithuania, they should restore them to Sigismund, but in return a spe-
cial tax was to be collected annually from their inhabitants and sent
to the Crimea.
e khan also promised to punish any of his subjects—regardless of
their rank—, who would violate the peace by raiding the royal lands.
If the culprits managed to escape, the khan would order to arrest their
wives and children and deliver them to royal agents in the aforemen-
tioned border castle of Islamkerman.
e Lithuanian Register book, where the above document has been
copied, contains an additional list of the Crimean dignitaries who had
105
On this issue and the fate of Sheikh Ahmed, see Document 9, notes 27, 30,
and 33.
106
On Mamısh Ulan, the experienced diplomat and the lieutenant of Qırq Yer, see
Document 9, n. 12. Apart from his diplomatic function, he is also listed in the very
document that he brought among the dignitaries who had sworn to keep its provi-
sions, with his name being preceded only by the Giray family members and Muslim
clergymen.
genghisid legacy: shaping eastern europe (1240–1523) 35
conrmed its contents with their oaths. e list was apparently dic-
tated by the khan and recorded by Ibir Hodja, a scribe of the Crimean
chancery.
107
Only six persons are listed by names, namely Mehmed
Giray, Mengli’s oldest son, Mamısh Ulan, referred to by the khan as
“the next in prominence aer me” (po mne pervyj čolovek),
108
and four
clan leaders: Agısh of the Shirins, Devlet Bakhtı of the Barıns, Merdan
of the Arghıns, and Mahmud of the Qıpchaqs. A comparison of this
list with the document itself is confusing, because they record dier-
ently the composition of the four major clans. e clan leaders listed
by names in the document are Tevkel of the Manghıts, Mamısh of
the Sedjevüts, Agısh of the Shirins, and Devlet Bakhtı of the Barıns.
Only the last two names appear in both lists, though it is striking that
in the document the leader of the once powerful Shirins is listed only
in the third place. Priority is given there to Tevkel, a newcomer from
the Great Horde and former adviser of Sheikh Ahmed, and to Mamısh
the Sedjevüt, Mengli’s brother-in-law (not to be confused with Mamısh
Ulan). e rise in prominence of the Manghıts (Mansurs) and, to
a lesser degree, the Sedjevüts in the 16th century is well known in
historiography.
109
Yet, so far it has not been precisely described how
this process aected the Crimean hierarchy structure. If the number
of qaraçı beys was xed at four,
110
what happened to the beys of the
Arghıns and Qıpchaqs, supposedly deprived of the qaraçı status, and
how strongly did they resent their downfall? How were they referred
to aerwards? e document of 1507 demonstrates that the change
was in process earlier than it is oen assumed, but again it does not
provide an answer. Although neither of the two lists refers to the clan
107
See Document 9, appendix.
108
On Mamısh Ulan, see also n. 106 above.
109
Cf. Manz, “e clans of the Crimean Khanate,” p. 284; Inalcık, “e khan and
the tribal aristocracy,” pp. 447–448.
110
e number of four qaraçıs, traced back to the old Mongol tradition and con-
rmed by comparisons with other Genghisid successor states, is reasserted in the study
of Schamiloglu (cf. n. 42 above). Yet, in 1552 Devlet Giray wrote to Sigismund Augus-
tus: “in the times of my grandfather, Mengli Giray Khan, and my uncle, Mehmed
Giray Khan, gis used to be sent from you, our brothers, to six qaraçı beys, our
elder councilors” (za deda moeho Men’ Kireja cara, za djady moeho Mahmet Kireja
cara, šest’ma knjazem karečeem, Rade našoj staršoj, upomynki ot vas brat’y našoe
prysylany byvaly), naming the Shirins, Manghıts, Barıns, Arghıns, Sedjevüts, and
Qıpchaqs; see Kniga posol’skaja Metriki Velikago Knjažestva Litovskago, soderžaščaja
v sebe diplomatičeskija snošenija Litvy v gosudarstvovanie korolja Sigizmunda-Avgusta
(s 1545 po 1572 god). Edited by M. Obolen’skij and I. Danilovič (Moscow, 1843),
p. 61; cf. Syroečkovskij, “Muxammed-Geraj i ego vassaly,” p. 60.
36 part one—chapter one
leaders as qaraçıs, we may safely assume that at least two of them,
Agısh and Devlet Bakhtı, were qaraçıs, but who were the remaining
two? Did the Crimean chancery (and society) of the time stick to tra-
dition, still referring to the Arghıns and Qıpchaqs as qaraçıs, while
denying this title to the Manghıts and Sedjevüts, in fact more power-
ful? Or had the change already occurred? How long did the khans
keep two alternative lists of the four clan leaders, out of which only
one was genuine?
111
e Tatar military assistance, expected by Vilnius during the
Lithuanian-Muscovian war of 1507–1508, proved disappointing. Kazan
reached peace with Muscovy already in 1507 while Mengli Giray, dis-
illusioned by the reluctance, and then open refusal of Sigismund to
execute Sheikh Ahmed, did not conduct a single raid against Mus-
covy and concluded a new treaty with Vasilij III in 1508.
112
In real-
ity, small Tatar detachments raided alternatively both Lithuanian and
Muscovian borderlands. To make things worse, Myxajlo Hlyns’kyj, the
once victorious Lithuanian commander at Kleck, rebelled and defected
to Vasilij’s side due to a conict with King Sigismund. e Lithuanian-
Muscovian war was terminated by an “eternal peace” with no territo-
rial gains for Vilnius apart from the castle of Ljubeč.
Although the treaty of 1506–1507 between Sigismund and Mengli
Giray was never ocially renounced, both sides began to regard it as
nonexistent. Negotiations of a new agreement were initiated already
by Jacek Ratomski, Sigismund’s courtier sent to the Crimea in 1508, as
soon as he learned there about the reconciliation between Mengli and
Vasilij III. Ratomski spent almost two years in the Crimea maintaining
correspondence with the royal court. In 1509, Mengli Giray sent an
embassy to Vilnius asking Sigismund to hand him over Sheikh Ahmed
and send him annually 10,000 orins in addition to the already prom-
111
One does not gain much help from a preserved list of dignitaries, who swore
the peace with Muscovy in 1508, where we nd the leaders of all the six disputed
clans, listed in the following order: Tevkel, Mamısh, Agısh, Devlet Bakhtı, Merdan,
Mahmud, yet with no hint, who was a qaraçı, and who was not. e number of qaraçıs
was apparently limited to four, and not six (cf. the discussion in n. 110 above), since
a member of Mengli’s retinue, the mullah Baba Sheikh, recalled in his letter to Vasilij
III that the oath was sworn by the four qaraçıs (četyre karači šert’ dali); see Pamjatniki
diplomatičeskix snošenij Moskovskago gosudarstva s Krymskoju i Nogajskoju ordami
i s Turciej, vol. 2: 1508–1521 gg. Edited by G. Karpov and G. Štendman, in: Sbornik
Imperatorskago Russkago Istoričeskago Obščestva, vol. 95 (St. Petersburg, 1895), pp.
20 and 39.
112
See ibidem, pp. 19–21.
genghisid legacy: shaping eastern europe (1240–1523) 37
ised 4,500 orins for the pay (Ruth. alafa < Tur. ulufe) of the garrison
of Islamkerman.
113
In response, Sigismund entrusted Ratomski with
proposing the khan a yearly payment of ve to six thousand orins in
return for a stable treaty.
114
An important role in the negotiations was
played by Augustino de Garibaldis, a Genovese from Caa who had
entered the khan’s service. In 1506, provided with Mengli’s credentials,
he traveled through Poland to Spain for the reason of family matters
(he had two brothers there). Perhaps on his way back from Spain to
the Crimea in 1510, he took Sigismund’s letters addressed to the khan
and his retinue members. Shortly aerwards, he returned along with
another Italian, Giovanni Baptista de San Nicolo, carrying a bunch of
letters from the khan, his family, and Crimean notables.
115
Disappointed with the short duration of the previous treaty,
Sigismund also chose a new intermediary in his negotiations with Qırq
Yer. Personally religious and aware of the great inuence of clergy in
Poland-Lithuania, the king assumed that a Muslim religious author-
ity might ensure that the khan would keep his oath for a longer time.
erefore he wrote to Hadji Baba Sheikh, the mullah at Mengli’s court,
whom he later referred to as archiepiscopus imperatoris, asking him
for mediation in trust that “the khan and the princes [sultans] would
not lie to him.”
116
e mullah, who had earlier conrmed with his
oath the treaty of 1507 and whose name also gured prominently in
the Crimean diplomatic correspondence with Moscow, complied and
reported to Sigismund his conversation with Mengli. e khan report-
edly reasserted his good intentions and maintained that for the sake
of the peace he had emptied his treasury by building two castles that
cut passages of Tatar raiders into Lithuania: the one on the Dnieper
113
Pułaski, Stosunki Polski z Tatarszczyzną, pp. 359–362. e letter was dated 20
Muharrem 915 A.H., i.e., 10 May 1509. Since Sigismund remained in Poland due to
a conict with Moldavia, Crimean envoys were long detained in Lithuania and the
letter was recorded in the Lithuanian Register in 1510, along with the correspondence
brought by a following Crimean embassy.
114
Ibidem, pp. 137, 140, 349.
115
Ibidem, pp. 145–146, 356, 363–369; on the two Italian envoys, cf. Document 16,
notes 11 and 18.
116
“I have heard of you as a spiritual person at [the court of] the great khan, Mengli
Giray, so that the khan and the princes [sultans] could not lie to you” (slyšal esmy
u velykoho carja Mendligireja tebe duxovnykom, yž car y soltany tobe ne mohut sol-
haty), see ibidem, p. 363 (on Hadji Baba Sheikh, cf. Document 9, n. 11). Probably the
same rationale lay behind Sigismund’s later insistence that the khan should issue his
treaty instrument written “in the Muslim words” (musulmanskymy slovy); cf. ibidem,
p. 446.
38 part one—chapter one
(i.e., Islamkerman) and another in the Crimean isthmus (Perekop, i.e.,
Ferahkerman), providing them with soldiers (Tur. azaps) and securing
their pay. Mengli added that the remainder of his funds had been dis-
tributed among his family members and notables so that they restrain
from raiding the royal domains. By pointing to the large size of his
family (“as I have nine sons, Mehmed Giray has nine sons, Yaghmur-
cha Sultan has two sons, Ahmed Sultan has one son, and Mahmud
Sultan has two sons”), the khan complained that he had been ruined
by providing for his family and therefore asked the king to send him
annually 15,000 orins. Although his request could be seen as a plain
extortion, it also reected the importance of slave raids not just for
common Tatars, who needed to provide for their families, but also
for the Giray princes and young members of Tatar aristocracy, who
treated such raids as means of gaining status, enabling them to main-
tain numerous followers, encouraging patronage and luxurious con-
sumption. As an additional condition of peace, Baba Sheikh invoked
the requirement that Sheikh Ahmed should be rmly kept in Lithu-
anian custody. Apparently Mengli Giray already lost his hope that
Sigismund would execute his enemy. In return, the khan would send
to Lithuania two Giray princes as hostages to guarantee the peace,
namely his second son, Ahmed, and his grandson from among the
sons of Mehmed Giray, Mengli’s oldest son and heir apparent. e
15,000 orins destined for the khan were to be amassed in Kiev and
released upon the hostages’ arrival.
117
e above conditions of peace, negotiated through the mediation
of Baba Sheikh and proposed in the correspondence from the Crimea
brought by the two Italians, were reported by Sigismund in a letter to
his councilors, sent on 16 September 1510.
118
In his response to the
khan, dated in Cracow on 13 November 1510, the king notied Mengli
that he accepted his conditions in spite of a recent raid of his younger
sons, Mahmud and Burnash. Sigismund proposed that the exchange
of the promised 15,000 orins and the Crimean hostages would take
place in Kiev on Pentecost (i.e., the spring of 1511), while in the fol-
lowing years the royal gis would be divided into two halves, delivered
117
For the letter of Baba Sheikh (referred to as Babašyk) to Sigismund, see ibi-
dem, pp. 363–364. ese conditions were apparently repeated in the khan’s letter to
the king, sent with the same embassy, which is not preserved but is mentioned in
Sigismund’s reply; see n. 119 below.
118
Acta Tomiciana, vol. 1 (Poznań, 1852), p. 109.
genghisid legacy: shaping eastern europe (1240–1523) 39
on Pentecost and on St. Martin’s Day (i.e., 11 November). From the
royal letter, which refers to Mengli’s writing that is not preserved, we
also learn that Mengli’s grandson, not mentioned by name in Baba
Sheikh’s letter, was to be chosen from among the two oldest sons of
Mehmed Giray, Bahadır and Alp Girays, and that the khan and his ret-
inue members had already taken an oath to keep peace, conrmed by
Baba Sheikh’s religious authority.
119
Before the royal envoy managed
to depart from Cracow, Mengli sent prompt apologies for the recent
raid of his “devilish children” (tyi djavoly dety moi), i.e., Mahmud and
Burnash.
120
In May 1511, both sides declared their readiness for the exchange.
In the meantime, it was agreed that besides Ahmed Giray, the second
Tatar hostage would be not Bahadır or Alp, but Kemelesh, a younger
son of Mehmed Giray. Yet, due to mutual mistrust, the exchange was
repeatedly postponed and nally not eected at all.
121
In the follow-
ing spring, a large Tatar raid occurred again, but the invaders were
defeated by the Polish-Lithuanian troops in the battle of Lopušne
(in Volhynia) on 28 April 1512.
122
Paradoxically, at the same time a
Crimean hostage nally reached Lithuania. is was yet another son of
Mehmed Giray, Djalaleddin, whose arrival had been notied with the
khan’s letter adressed to Jurij (Jerzy) Radziwiłł, the palatine of Kiev,
dated 14 March.
123
Mengli’s decision to nally send his grandson was
apparently related to the outbreak of Crimean-Muscovian hostilities,
initiated by large Tatar raids of Muscovian lands in the spring of the
same year.
e young prince announced his arrival with a letter sent to
Sigismund from Kiev on 6 April 1512. He was conducted to Kiev by
his father, Mehmed Giray, and accompanied during his stay in Lithu-
ania by three prominent Crimean envoys: Devlet Bakhtı, the qaraçı of
the Barın clan, and two Italians in the khan’s service: Vicenzo de Guid-
ulphis and Giovanni Baptista de San Nicolo. While the Tatar hostage
119
Pyšeš k nam štož z ruk Babašykovyx [. . .] nam prysjahu este na vyšneho Boha
včynyly; for the whole royal letter, see Pułaski, Stosunki Polski z Tatarszczyzną, pp.
369–372.
120
Ibidem, pp. 372–374.
121
Ibidem, pp. 166–168, 380–381.
122
On the campaign of 1512, see Herbst, “Najazd tatarski 1512,” in: idem, Potrzeba
historii, vol. 2: 260–272 [the article was rst published in 1948].
123
e original Mengli’s letter from 14 March (no year is given), composed in
Ruthenian and sealed with the khan’s nişan, is preserved in Cracow, Biblioteka Czar-
toryskich [hereaer, Bibl. Czart.], ms. 2893, pp. 147–148.
40 part one—chapter one
was waiting in Kiev, a heated discussion arose at Sigismund’s court
concerning the payment of the promised 15,000 orins. Some Polish
councilors suggested that if Poland was going to share the burden,
Djalaleddin should be kept in Poland, or at least spend alternatively
one year in Poland and one in Lithuania, especially since one Tatar
prince (Sheikh Ahmed) was already kept in Lithuania. A more prosaic
reason of delay was the lack of money. e matter was nally resolved
at the Diet at Piotrków and on 14 December 1512 two envoys, Jacek
Ratomski and Stanisław Skinder, were sent along with the money to
meet Djalaleddin in Kiev and further proceed to the Crimea. Accord-
ing to their instruction, the royal envoys were to promise that future
payments would be sent each year by St. Martin’s Day (11 Novem-
ber), provided that the khan and his subjects do not violate the peace.
e envoys were also to refuse once again Mengli’s request to exe-
cute or hand him over Sheikh Ahmed, while reassuring the khan that
his enemy would remain in custody. Moreover, the envoys were to
demand that all Tatar forts on the right shore of the Dnieper, includ-
ing Očakiv, be restored to Lithuania, and that Mengli should fulll his
earlier promise reportedly given to Alexander, according to which the
royal subjects would be allowed to extract salt from the salines in the
neighborhood of Kačybej (a Tatar settlement, also known as Hadjibey,
situated on the Black Sea shore in the place of present-day Odessa).
Like in 1507, the major cause of the rapprochement between Mengli
and Sigismund was their anticipated alliance against Muscovy.
124
Early in the year 1513, Djalaleddin and his retinue le Kiev and
arrived at Vilnius. Since Sigismund was still in Poland, he welcomed
them with his letters sent from Poznań on 9 February, announcing his
upcoming arrival.
125
Yet, before the king arrived at Vilnius, Djalaled-
din died for unknown reasons in the summer of 1513.
126
Sigismund
could not risk a new eruption of hostilities with the Crimea, especially
since a series of border skirmishes with Muscovy, which had begun
124
Pułaski, Stosunki Polski z Tatarszczyzną, pp. 178–183, 396–399, 406–410. A new
Lithuanian-Muscovian war began in 1512 and was to last until 1522.
125
ree letters in Latin, addressed separately to Djalaleddin, Devlet Bakhtı, and the
two Italians, are published in Acta Tomiciana, vol. 1, pp. 159–160.
126
His death must have occurred in July or August; on 8 July, while on his way to
Vilnius and sending a letter to the khan from Mielnik, Sigismund still did not know of
Djalaleddin’s death. He forwarded his condolences to Mengli only in September, when
he sent Hryhoryj Hromyka along with new treaty documents; see Pułaski, Stosunki
Polski z Tatarszczyzną, pp. 184–185, 410–411, 413–415.
genghisid legacy: shaping eastern europe (1240–1523) 41
already in the preceding year, evolved into a full-scale war and the
Muscovian troops besieged Smolensk. In September 1513, Sigismund
issued two instruments of peace, one in Ruthenian on behalf of the
Grand Duchy of Lithuania and another in Latin on behalf of the Pol-
ish Crown, and sent them to the Crimea through his scribe and envoy,
Hryhoryj Hromyka. e envoy was instructed to ask for an urgent
help against Muscovy, hand over the rst rate of the annual “gi,”
i.e., 7,500 orins, and promise that the second rate would be sent by
St. Martin’s Day. e embassy was joined by the retinue members of
the deceased Crimean prince, who carried along his remains.
127
e Lithuanian instrument of peace, issued in Ruthenian, was dated
5 September 1513. Invoking the ancient friendship between Sigismunt’s
and Mengli’s predecessors, the document recalled Tokhtamısh, Hadji
Giray, Vladislaus Jagiełło (Jogaila), Vytautas, Sigismund,
128
and Casimir.
It is worth noting that Jogaila, although he had corresponded with
Tokhtamısh and authorized Vytautas’ Crimean policy as his suzerain,
was never mentioned before in the Crimean instruments that only
referred to Vytautas. e “invention of tradition” occurred only in
1513 on the initiative of his grandson and, possibly, the latter’s Pol-
ish advisers. e document referred to the embassy of Devlet Bakhtı,
Vicenzo de Guidulphis, and Giovanni Baptista de San Nicolo (although
no mention was made of the infortunate Giray prince, whom they had
accompanied), and invoked Mengli’s request that both sides should
exchange letters of agreement (Ruth. dokončalnyi lysty) and conrm
their contents with oaths. Having pronounced the customary formula
that each partner should be a friend of the other’s friends and an
enemy of the other’s enemies, the instrument stipulated that Mengli
127
Pułaski, Stosunki Polski z Tatarszczyzną, pp. 413–415. Mengli Giray insisted that
his family members who had died in exile be buried in the Crimea. In 1504, he per-
suaded Ivan III to send him the remains of his older brother, Nur Devlet, who had
died in Kasimov; Pamjatniki diplomatičeskix snošenij, vol. 1, pp. 544 and 553. In fact,
long-distance transport of remains was against the Muslim law, especially its Hana
school that was observed by the Ottoman Turks and Tatars. e Ottomans at times
departed from the Hana law and applied the Sha‘i prescripts that were more exible
in this aspect, for instance in 1566, when they transported to Istanbul the remains of
Suleyman the Magnicent, who had died on campaign in Hungary; cf. Nicolas Vatin
and Gilles Veinstein, “Les obsèques des sultans ottomans de Mehmed II à Ahmed
I
er
(1481–1616),” in: Gilles Veinstein (ed.), Les Ottomans et la mort. Permanences et
mutations (Leiden, 1996): 207–243, esp. p. 225.
128
e younger brother of Vytautas and grand duke of Lithuania in the years 1432–
1440, not to be confused with King Sigismund.
42 part one—chapter one
Giray should recapture the lands that the Muscovites had conquered
from Alexander, and restore them to Lithuania. Moreover, it provided
that the khan should assist Sigismund in restoring all the lands that
had once been granted to Vilnius with the yarlıqs of Hadji and Mengli
Girays. On his part, Sigismund conrmed his promise to keep Sheikh
Ahmed in custody and engaged to face jointly with Mengli the descen-
dants of Küchük Muhammed, referred to as “the children of Ahmed
and Mahmud.”
129
e king also resigned from any claims regarding
the past Tatar raids of Lithuania, as well as Poland, committed during
the reigns of John Albert,
130
Alexander, and his own. Furthermore, a
favorable treatment was promised to all Giray family members who
would come to Lithuania either as allies or refugees. Crimean mer-
chants, who would come to the royal domains, were to enjoy secu-
rity and freedom on the provision that they paid the customary tolls.
Finally, the touchy matter of gis was settled in the following manner:
the annual quota of 15,000 orins was to be equally shared between
the Polish Crown and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and paid, one
half in cash and one half in goods, in two installments: the rst one by
the Saturday before Pentecost, and the second one by St. Martin’s Day.
e document stressed again that these gis should be reciprocated
by Mengli’s military assistance against royal enemies. e instrument
was corroborated with the great majestic seal of the Grand Duchy of
Lithuania and the individual seals of twelve members of the Lithu-
anian Council, mentioned by names and functions.
131
e document in Latin, issued on behalf of the Polish Crown, con-
tained the same conditions and was sealed with the seal of the Polish
Crown and the seals of three Polish councilors. eir small number,
if compared with the number of Lithuanian lords, who corroborated
129
On “the children of Ahmed and Mahmud,” see Document 10, n. 7. Apart from
Sheikh Ahmed, a son of Ahmed and grandson of Küchük Muhammed, whose appeal
in the steppe, especially among the Nogays, was still deemed dangerous by Mengli
Giray aer a decade of his enemy’s detainment, also the sons of Mahmud: Abdelka-
rim (r. ca. 1508–1514) and Djanibek (r. 1514–1521), who ruled in Astrakhan, were
regarded by the Girays as their hereditary enemies.
130
It is worth stressing that the document, formally labeled as “Lithuanian” in
contrast to the “Polish” one issued in Latin, referred to John Albert, who had never
ruled Lithuania as he had only been the king of Poland (r. 1492–1501). is might be
regarded as proof of ongoing integration of the two states ruled by the Jagiellonian
dynasty.
131
See Document 10. As the document is preserved only in copy, the seals are not
preserved. ey must have been appended to the original sent to the Crimea.
genghisid legacy: shaping eastern europe (1240–1523) 43
the Lithuanian instrument, was due to the fact that few Polish lords
accompanied Sigismund during his stay in Lithuania.
132
While the rst installment of the gis, due for the year 1513, was
sent in September through Hromyka, the second one, due by St. Mar-
tin’s Day, was sent on 30 November 1513 along with an apology for
the delay. Sigismund simultaneously asked Mengli Giray to send him
back his envoys, Jacek Ratomski and Stanisław Skinder, dispatched to
the Crimea in December 1512 along with the gis due for the preced-
ing year.
133
A new Crimean embassy headed by two envoys: a Tatar noble named
Keldish and Augustino de Garibaldis, arrived at Vilnius on 3 February
1514. ey brought a new yarlıq of Mengli Giray, undated but appar-
ently issued in December 1513. Invoking the ancient friendship and his
own two earlier yarlıqs sent to Casimir and Sigismund, the khan again
“granted” to Lithuania virtually all the localities that had been listed in
his yarlıq from 1507, including Pskov, Velikij Novgorod, Perejaslavl’
Rjazan’skij, and Tula.
134
e document’s apparent anachronism in fact
well served its purpose of cementing the anti-Muscovian alliance. Cur-
rent events in the Lithuanian-Muscovian war theatre explained the
addition of three towns that had never before gured in the yarlıqs,
but were situated within the disputed area: Radogošč’ to the southeast
of Brjansk, on the territory lost by Lithuania in 1503, as well as Polack
and Vicebsk, far to the north, belonging to Lithuania, but claimed by
Vasilij III.
Unlike the earlier yarlıqs that merely listed the “granted” lands,
Mengli’s instrument from December 1513 also contained political
clauses. e khan, along with his sons, grandsons, and subjects, engaged
to maintain peace with Sigismund and assist him to reconquer the
lands lost to Muscovy. A separate clause provided that Mehmed Giray,
the khan’s oldest son, was to set out with a great Tatar army, assist the
132
See Document 11. e seals of the Polish lords are not mentioned in the text, but
they are referred to in Mengli’s later document (cf. Document 15): kotoryj po fražskyj
pysan lyst’, tot pod ljad’skoju velykoju pečat’ju, y pod’ ljadskyx panov trox pečatju.
133
Pułaski, Stosunki Polski z Tatarszczyzną, pp. 418–420.
134
e omission of Čerkasy, Nycjany, Jabu, Kačybej, Majak, and Ryl’sk was appar-
ently accidental and perhaps should be attributed to the negligence of the scribe who
executed the extant late sixteenth-century Ruthenian copy; this assumption seems to
be conrmed by the fact that the three latter localities along with Novhorod-Sivers’kyj,
which was omitted in 1507 but entered in earlier yarlıqs, are listed in the 16th-century
Polish translation of this document; cf. Document 12, n. 1.