Ottomans - Crimea - Jochids : Studies in Honour of Mária Ivanics

Istvan Zimonyi

In the past 35 years, historical scholarship has completely transformed our understanding of the Crimean Khanate. This book contains 12 essays which taken together show the reader why it is important, and possible, to revise much what we know about the Crimean Khanate. A brilliant book with a brilliant introduction.

The Russian (including Soviet) historiography has been trying for a long time to eliminate the “Tatars” from Russian history. In fact, the Russian historians are unwilling to admit that the Tatars and the states they had formed dominated Russia for almost 300 years (13th-15th centuries). Moreover, nationalist Russian historians deny the real and significant contribution of the Tatars in the formation and development of the Russian state centred on the Grand Duchy of Moscow. For hundreds of years – and still today – Russia has been propagating a negative image of the Tatars with the subsequent aim of justifying the systemic invasion of the territories that once belonged to the Tatars. The chief preoccupation of the Russian historiography is related to the imperial legitimacy, a highly relevant issue for Russia. The Russian rulers have adopted the tile of ‘tsar’ (emperor) in 1547, when Ivan the Terrible ascended to the Muscovite throne. The Russian politics focused on the conquest and destruction of the Tatar states, first the Tatar khanate of Kazan in 1552, then the other Tatars khanates (Astrakhan, Kasim, Siberia, Nogay, and, eventually, Crimea). These politics were dictated by the wish of the self-proclaimed Russian emperor to legitimize his new position in the world and in history. The only imperial justification that the Russian tsars could make was with the inheritance of the great empire of the Golden Horde (1242-1502). To this view, the Russian tsars prioritised the conquest of the abovementioned Tatar states that remained of the Golden Horde so as to present themselves as the upholders of this empire. The Russian tsars appropriated imperial titles and symbols of the Golden Horde, being constantly preoccupied with the recognition of their imperial power by the whole world. Thus, the Eurasia project was put into practice, designed precisely on the immense area once belonging to the Golden Horde. But, as the Golden Horde was a state of Turk-Islamic (Tatar) essence, it did not formally correspond to the plans and pretentions of the pravoslavnic Russian empire. Hence, the obsessive desire to remove the Tatars from history and to mystify the substance of the Golden Horde. Nowadays, with the naïve or biased support of foreign, namely Western, historians, there are attempts to break the organic ties of the Tatar people with the greatest state in its history – the Golden Horde. In many recent works, including under the aegis of renowned publishing houses in the U.S.A., the Mongol appellative is used instead of the Tatar name, even for the khanates that were heirs of the Golden Horde. There is a clear attempt to remove Tatars from history. This study starts from two volumes recently published in the U.S.A. and present the historical and current resources of this new campaign directed against the Tatars, whose historical lands were abducted also by Russia.

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4637-7121 Фергад ТУРАНЛИ доктор історичних наук, доцент, факультет гуманітарних наук Національного університету «Києво-Могилянська академія», вул. Сковороди, 2, м. Київ, Україна, індекс 04070 (ferhadturanly@gmail.com) Бібліографічний опис статті: Turanly F. (2019). The military cooperation between the Crimean Khanate and the Zaporozhian Host in the second quarter of the XVIIth century. Summary. The purpose of the study-analysis of the historical events associated with the development of the formation process of the military and political alliance which was in force from the time of the end of the Khotyn War till the 40s of the 17th century. The set up aim has been achieved on the base of observing the general theoretical and methodological principles of sources studying, so as to provide identification of the typical features of the above said historical events. The study methodology is based on keeping in line with the principles of historism and historical sources-studying, those ones of objec-tiveness and specific historical systematicity, as well as on the principles of interdisciplinary approach, identification of the truth and informational value of the identified data and facts. While carrying this study, there have been applied the general historical methods of the historiographic, terminological and typological analyses, as well as the comparativistics method. The academic novelty of the study is a civilisational сcomprehension of the Historiography of Ukraine in the context of a renovation and development of its statehood, and the application of the author's methodology for the interpretation of the respective historical events with taking into account the information available in Turkish-Ottoman written sources. Conclusions. The sources-based study we have carried out of contents of the Turkish Ottoman written documents, where there are available data about the Cossack-Hetmanic Ukraine in the first half of the 17th century and about its relationships with the Ottoman Empire, gives us grounds to make the following conclusions: 1) the Khotyn Military Campaign became a historical event, which noticeably changed the correlation between the military and political forces in Eastern Europe and in the Northern Black-Sea Area, while the consequences of that campaign were as follows: а) destabilisation of the domestic situation in the Ottoman Empire, hence-a further decrease in the capabilities of that state to keep holding its military and political positions in the above said regions; b) emergence of tendencies to making actions in the foreign policy of the Crimean Khanate against the central power; c) a further rise of the military power of the Zaporozhian Sich and transformation of the «Cossack factor» into an important component of the international relations in Eastern Europe and in the Northern Black-Sea Area; 2) a crisis in the domestic situation, which was one of the most negative consequences for the

OTTOMANS – CRIMEA – JOCHIDS Studies in Honour of Mária Ivanics Ottomans – Crimea – Jochids Studies in Honour of Mária Ivanics Edited by István Zimonyi Szeged – 2020 This publication was financially supported by the MTA–ELTE–SZTE Silk Road Research Group Cover illustration: Calligraphy of Raniya Muhammad Abd al-Halim Text: And say, “O my Lord! advance me in knowledge” (Q 20, 114) Letters and Words. Exhibition of Arabic Calligraphy. Cairo 2011, 72. © University of Szeged, Department of Altaic Studies, Printed in 2020 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by other means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission in writing of the author or the publisher. Printed by: Innovariant Ltd., H-6750 Algyő, Ipartelep 4. ISBN: 978 963 306 747 5 (printed) ISBN: 978 963 306 748 2 (pdf) Contents Preface .........................................................................................................................9 Klára Agyagási К вопросу о хронологии изменения -d(r)- > -δ(r)- > -y(r)- в волжско-булгарских диалектах ..............................................................................13 László Balogh Notes to the History of the Hungarians in the 10th Century ......................................23 Hendrik Boeschoten Bemerkungen zu der neu gefundenen Dede Korkut-Handschrift, mit einer Übersetzung der dreizehnten Geschichte ...................................................35 Csáki Éva Kaukázusi török népek kálváriája a népdalok tükrében ............................................47 Éva Csató and Lars Johanson On Discourse Types and Clause Combining in Däftär-i Čingiz-nāmä......................59 Balázs Danka A Misunderstood Passage of Qādir ʿAli-beg J̌ālāyirī’s J̌āmī at-Tawārīχ..................71 Géza Dávid The Formation of the sancak of Kırka (Krka) and its First begs ...............................81 Mihály Dobrovits Pofu Qatun and the Last Decade of the Türk Empire................................................97 Pál Fodor A Descendant of the Prophet in the Hungarian Marches Seyyid Ali and the Ethos of Gaza ............................................................................101 Tasin Gemil The Tatars in Romanian Historiography .................................................................111 Csaba Göncöl Remarks on the Čingiz-nāmä of Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī.........................................................123 Funda Güven Imagined Turks: The Tatar as the Other in Halide Edip’s Novels ..........................133 Murat Işık The Animal Names in the Book of Leviticus of the Gözleve Bible (1841). Part I: Mammal, Insect and Reptile Species ............................................................145 Henryk Jankowski The Names of Professions in Historical Turkic Languages of the Crimea .............165 Mustafa S. Kaçalin Joannes Lippa: Türkçe Hayvan Masalları ...............................................................181 Bayarma Khabtagaeva On Some Taboo Words in Yeniseian ......................................................................199 Éva Kincses-Nagy Nine Gifts.................................................................................................................215 Raushangul Mukusheva The Presence of Shamanism in Kazakh and Hungarian Folklore ...........................229 Sándor Papp The Prince and the Sultan. The Sublime Porte’s Practice of Confirming the Power of Christian Vassal Princes Based on the Example of Transylvania............239 Benedek Péri Places Full of Secrets in 16th Century Istanbul: the Shops of the maʿcūncıs ..........255 Claudia Römer “Faḳīr olub perākende olmaġa yüz ṭutmışlar” the Ottoman Struggle аgainst the Displacement of Subjects in the Early Modern Period .........................269 András Róna-Tas A Birthday Present for the Khitan Empress ............................................................281 Uli Schamiloglu Was the Chinggisid Khan an Autocrat? Reflections on the Foundations of Chinggisid Authority ........................................295 Hajnalka Tóth Entstehung eines auf Osmanisch verfassten Friedenskonzepts Ein Beitrag zu der Vorgeschichte des Friedens von Eisenburg 1664 ......................311 Вадим Трепавлов Мосκовсκий Чаган хан ..........................................................................................325 Беата Варга «Крымская альтернатива» – военно-политический союз Богдана Хмельницкого с Ислам-Гиреем III (1649–1653) ..................................331 Barış Yılmaz Deconstruction of the Traditional Hero Type in Murathan Mungan’s Cenk Hikayeleri .....................................................................339 Илъя Зайцев – Решат Алиев Фрагмент ярлыка (мюльк-наме) крымского хана Сахиб-Гирея ........................355 István Zimonyi Etil in the Däftär-i Čingiz-nāmä ..............................................................................363 Preface Mária Ivanics was born on 31 August 1950 in Budapest. After completing her primary and secondary education, she studied Russian Language and Literature, History and Turkology (Ottoman Studies). She received her MA degree in 1973. In the following year she was invited by the chair of the Department of Altaic Studies, Professor András Róna-Tas, to help to build up the then new institution at the József Attila University (Szeged). She taught at that university and its legal successors until her retirement. First, she worked as an assistant lecturer, then as a senior lecturer after defending her doctoral dissertation. Between 1980–86, she and his family stayed in Vienna (Austria), where she performed postdoctoral studies at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the University of Vienna. She obtained the “candidate of the sciences” degree at the Hungarian Academy of Science in 1992, and her dissertation – The Crimean Khanate in the Fifteen Years’ War 1593–1606 – was published in Hungarian. From 1993 to 2009 she worked as an associate professor. Her interest gradually turned to the study of the historical heritage of the successor states of the Golden Horde, especially to publishing the sources of the nomadic oral historiography of the Volga region. As a part of international collaboration, she prepared the critical edition of one of the basic internal sources of the Khanate of Kasimov, the Genghis Legend, which she published with professor Mirkasym Usmanov in 2002: (Das Buch der Dschingis-Legende. (Däftär-i Dschingis-nāmä) 1. Vorwort, Einführung, Transkiription, Wörterbuch, Faksimiles. Szeged: University of Szeged, 2002. 324 p. (Studia Uralo-Altaica 44).1 In 2008, Mária Ivanics was appointed to the head of the department and at the same time she became the leader of the Turkological Research Group of the Hungarian Academy operating at the department. In 2009, she defended her dissertation entitled “The Nomadic Prince of the Genghis Legend”, and received the title, “doctor of sciences” from the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. It is an extremely careful historical-philological study of the afore-mentioned Book of Genghis Khan, published in Budapest in 2017 as a publication of the Institute of History of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences entitled Exercise of power on the steppe: The nomadic world of Genghis-nāmä. She was the head of the Department of Altaic Studies until 2015. Between 2012 and 2017, she headed the project “The Cultural Heritage of the Turkic Peoples” as the leader of the MTA–SZTE Turkology Research Group operating within the Department of Altaic Studies. She has been studying the diplomatic relations between the Transylvanian princes and the Crimean Tatars and working on the edition of the diplomas issued by them. 1 https://ojs.bibl.u-szeged.hu/index.php/stualtaica/article/view/13615/13471 Her scholarly work is internationally outstanding, well known and appreciated everywhere. Her studies have been published in Russian, German, Turkish, Hungarian and English.2 She actively involved in scientific public life. She has been a member of the board of the Kőrösi Csoma Society, a member of the Oriental Studies Committee of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, and the Public Body of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. From 2005 she was the editor and co-editor of different monograph series (Kőrösi Csoma Library, and Studia uralo-altaica. From 2008 to 2017, she was the vice-president of the Hungarian–Turkish Friendship Society. Her outstanding work has been rewarded with a number of prizes and scholarships: in 1994 she received the Géza Kuun Prize, in 1995 the Mellon Scholarship (Turkey). She received a Széchenyi Professorial Scholarship between 1998 and 2001 and István Széchenyi Scholarship between 2003 and 2005, the Ferenc Szakály Award in 2007 and the Award for Hungarian Higher Education in 2008. In addition to her scientific carrier, she has given lectures and led seminars on the history and culture of the Altaic speaking peoples, she has taught modern and historical Turkic languages to her students. She has supervised several thesis and dissertations of Hungarian and foreign BA, MA and PhD students. Through establishing a new school of thought, she has built a bridge between Ottoman studies and research on Inner Eurasian nomads. Szeged, 2020. István Zimonyi 2 Complete list of her publication: https://m2.mtmt.hu/gui2/?type=authors&mode=browse&sel=10007783&paging=1;1000 Tabula Gratulatoria Almási Tibor Hoppál Krisztina Apatóczky Ákos Bertalan Hunyadi Zsolt Baski Imre Károly László Bíró Bernadett Keller László Csernus Sándor Kocsis Mihály Csikó Anna Kósa Gábor Czentnár András Kovács Nándor Erik Dallos Edina Kovács Szilvia Deák Ágnes Kövér Lajos Emel Dev Molnár Ádám Felföldi Szabolcs Polgár Szabolcs Fodor István Sándor Klára Font Márta Sipőcz Katalin Gyenge Zoltán Szántó Richárd Hamar Imre Szeverényi Sándor Hazai Cecília Vásáry István Hazai Kinga Vér Márton К вопросу о хронологии изменения -d(r)- > -δ(r)- > -y(r)в волжско-булгарских диалектах Klára Agyagási Дебреценский университет Изменение -d(r)- > -y(r)- в чувашском языке является позиционным вариантом изменения западно-древнетюркского (з-д-т.) интервокального -d- через -δ- в огурских предшественниках чувашского языка. Такое объяснение было предложено А. Рона-Ташем в 1978 г. (Róna-Tas 1978: 84–85). Pезультат этого изменения встречается в следующих примерах исконно тюркского происхождения: з-д-т/ог. *adgïr >*aδγï r >> чув. ïyăr > ăyăr ‘жеребец’1 ср. в-д-т adgïr ‘stallion’ (Clauson 47) з-д-т/ог. *adïr- > *aδïr- >> чув. uyăr- ‘отделять’ ср. в-д-т adïr- ‘to separate’ (Clauson 66) з-д-т/ог. *kadïr > *χaδïr >> чув. χuyăr ‘кора’ ср. в-д-т qadïz ‘кора’ (ДТС 403) з-д-т/ог. *kudrak > *χuδraγ > *χuyra > чув. χüre ‘хвост’ ср. в-д-т qudruq ‘хвост’ (ДТС 463) з-д-т/ог. *sedräk > *seδräγ >> чув. sayra ‘редкий’ ср. в-д-т seδräk ‘редкий’ (ДТС 494) з-д-т/ог. *sïdïr- > *šïδïr- >> чув. šăyăr- ‘сдирать’ ср. в-д-т sïδïr- ‘сдирать’ (ДТС 502) Об этом изменении чувашского языка существовало и другое мнение, высказанное Й. Бенцингом (Benzing 1959: 713). Бенцинг трактовал его как пример перехода -d- > -y-, но он считал цитированные выше чувашские слова прямыми заимствованиями из неназванного общетюркского источника. 2 На самом деле результат перехода -d- > -y- регуляpно отражается в волжско- 1 2 Чувашские данные взяты из словаря Скворцова (Скворцов 1982). Общетюркским источником непосредственного заимствования предположены среднекыпчакские диалекты Волго-Камья. могли быть 14 кыпчакских соответствиях этих слов, ведь изменение -d- > -y- является характерной особенностью кыпчакских языков: в-д-т adgïr ‘stallion’ (Clauson 47) >> тат.диал. (м.-кар.) aygï̌r ‘жеребец’ (ТТЗДС: 27), башк. aygï̌r ‘жеребец’ (Ураксин 1996) в-д-т adïr- ‘to separate’ (Clauson 66) >> тат.диал. (нокр.,глз., перм., т.-якрш., карс.) ayï̌r- ‘разделить’ (ТТЗДС: 30), башк. ayï̌r- ‘разделять’ (Ураксин 1996) в-д-т qadïz ‘кора’ (ДТС 403) >> башк. qayï̌r ‘кора’ (Ураксин 1996) в-д-т qudruq ‘хвост’ (ДТС 463) >> тат. kŏyrï̌k ‘хвост’ (ТРС), башк. qŏyrŏk ‘хвост’ (Ураксин 1996) в-д-т seδräk ‘редкий’ (ДТС 494) >> тат. siräk ‘редкий’ (ТРС), башк. hiräk’редкий’ (Ураксин 1996) в-д-т sïδïr- ‘сдирать’ (ДТС 502) >> тат.диал. (мам., кмшл.) sï̌yï̌r- (ТТЗДС: 591) Мнение Бенцинга разделяла Л. С. Левитская (Левитская 1966/2014: 193– 94), а позицию Рона-Таша приняла я (Agyagási 2019: 88–89). Доказательной силой для раннего протекания изменения кыпчакского -d- > -y- для Бенцинга и Левитской мог послужить тот факт, что результат этого изменения отражается регулярно в Кодексе Куманикусе, в среднекыпчакском памятнике первой половины XIV века (см. Gabain 1959: 47), и так, в начальном периоде волжскобулгарско-кыпчакских контактов, булгарам уже возможно было копировать кыпчакские слова, содержащие -y- на месте древнетюркского -d-. Убедительным для меня в пользу внутреннего происхождения -d(r)- > -δ(r)> -y(r)- показалась сопоставительная реконструкция тюркского слова qudruq ‘хвост’ и среднемонгольского заимствования γoiqan ‘красивый’ (Róna-Tas 1982: 95) для начала среднетюркского периода. Рона-Таш утверждал, что изменение -d- > -δ- > -y- в слове qudruq должно было произойти до сужения гласного первого слога (o > u, ui > ü), то есть, по его мнению, до X–XI-ого века: qudruq > quyruq. Сужение o > u отражается в реципиентной форме среднемонгольского слова (γoiqan → *χuyχan). Сопоставление ранне-среднетюркской и сpеднемонгольской формы показывает наличие дифтонга ui в обоих словах (qudruq > quyruq > quiruq, χuyχan > χuiχan), что является исходным условием для обрaзования «нового» гласного ü в чувашском, но это произошло только в поздне-среднечувашском периоде (Agyagási 2019: 239– 41). Рона-Таш в этой своей статье выделил 10–11 век как нижнюю хронологическую границу протекания изменения -d(r)- > -δ(r)- > -y- в предшественнике чувашского языка. В соответствии с этим позже он делал попытку определить и верхнюю границу этого изменения концом IX-го века, обнаруживая результат этого изменения в одной западно-древнетюркской 15 лексической копии венгерского языка (венг. szirony ‘thin hide rope, strap (used for embroidery or as a whip)’ следующим образом: з-д-т/ог. *sïδrum > sïyrum (ср. в-д-т sïdrïm ‘a strip, a leater strap < *sïd- ‘to come away in layers) → древневенг. siyrum > sirum > sirom > siron > siroń ‘thin hide rope, strap (used for embroidery or as a whip)’ (Róna-Tas & Berta 2011: 802–805) Теоретически такая реконструкция может быть правильной, но нужно отметить, что в древневенгерских письменных памятниках нигде не сохранилась форма с сочетанием -yr- в середине слова, а тюркский задний ï адаптировался бы в древневенгерском передним i без присутствия y. Изучая источники истории чувашского языка, я полагаю, что для определения абсолютной хронологии сужения гласного o > u не имеется единого ответа, поскольку в разных территориальных вариантах волжскобулгарского языка этот процесс произошел в разное время и заканчивался поразному (Agyagási 2019: 123). Но Рона-Таш полностью прав в том, что ко времени монгольского нашествия и появления среднемонгольских лексических копий в чувашском языке оба изменения (о > u, -d(r)- > -δ(r)> -y-) уже были завершены. Об этом свидетельствуют некоторые древнерусские прямые и одно арабо-персидское опосредованное заимствование в ранне-среднечувашском (рсч.) предшественнике чувашского языка: др. русск. mъxъ ‘мох’ > mox → волжско-булг. *mox > *mux3 > рcч. *mux > mŭk > анатрийск. măx ‘то же’(Адягаши 2005: 149) др. русск. kudŕa ‘вьющиеся или завитые волосы’ → рcч. *kütre > kǚtre > анатрийск. kětre, kătra, виръяльск. kŏtra ‘кудри, локон и локоны; перен. пышный, ветвистый’ (Адягаши 2005: 134–35)4 ар. qudra ‘Fähigkeit, Kraft, Macht’ → новоперс. qudrat ‘то же’ → среднемишарск. *qudrat > *küdrät5 → рчс. *kütret > *kǚtret > анатрийск. kětret ‘чудодейственная сила’ (Scherner 1977: 81) 3 4 Здесь возможен и такой вариант реконструкции, по которому древнерусское слово было заимствовано тогда, когда в волжско-булгарском предшественнике чувашского языка гласный о уже совпал с u, и древнерусский о был субституирован через u. Критерием для ранне-чувашского датирования копирования данного слова является передняя артикуляция реципиентной формы русского слова с задним вокализмом (см. подробнее Agyagási 2014: 14). Второй критерий в пользу того, что русское слово попало в волжско-булгарский предшественник чувашского языка в ранне-среднечувашский период, это участие гласного первого слога в процессе редукции гласных верхнего подъема после монгольского нашествия, как это отражается и в адаптации среднемонгольского слова quda → чув. χăta ‘suitor’ (Róna-Tas 1982: 112–13). 16 М. Эрдаль (Erdal 1993: 141), анализируя фонологические особенности языка волжско-булгарских эпитафий (письменных памятников волжско-булг.2 диалекта), тоже приходит к выводу, что во время возникновения этих памятников (1281–1361 гг.) в данном диалекте булгар -d- уже не существовал. Этот звук был субституирован в заимствованиях через -t-, как показывает написание арабского имени Zubaydah в виде Sübeyte. Что касается третьего диалекта волжско-булгарского языка, пример, содержащий изменение структуры с сочетанием древнетюркского -d(r)- (> древнерусские -δ(r)- > -y-, до последнего времени не был обнаружен. Ниже представлен историко-этимологический анализ марийского слова, обращающего на себя внимание именно присутствием в нем результата изменения волжско-булгарского типа -d(r)- > -δ(r)- > -y-. В диалектологическом словаре марийского языка, составленном Э. Беке, в словaрной статье kuδur ‘lockig, krausig, krumm’ (Beke 1998: 998) встречаются следующие данные: P B M kuδur, U CÜ J V ku·δə̂r, CK Č ČN J V kŭδŭr, JP kŭδŭr, K kə̂jə̂r ‘то же’. Данное слово за исключением горномарийского варианта, записанного в Козьмодемянске (К), является непосредственной копией русского диалектного слова кудерь ‘курчавая прядь волос, локон, букля, завиток, витушек’ (Даль т.2. 211). Морфологические варианты русского слова широко распространены в диалектах тюркских языков Поволжья, ср. чув. анатрийск. kětre, kătra, виръялский kŏtra, тат. лиал. (нгб.-крш.) gö̌drä, (менз.) kö̌dräč, миш. (буг.) kö̌drä, башк.диал. (Гайна) gö̌drä ‘то же’ (Адягаши 2005: 134–135). Тюркские формы все являются заимствованиями после монгольского нашествия, ведь в них оригинальный древнетюркский -d- уже не существовал. В ранне-среднечувашском и среднекыпчакских диалектах этот звук был субституирован через -t-, который позже частично (в чувашском) или полностью (в кыпчакских диалектах) озвончался. В случае марийского языка Берецки (Bereczki 1994: 34–40) на основе историко-фонетического анализа марийского лексического состава финноугорского происхождения пришел к выводу, по которому в позднепрамарийском -δ- существовал в результате изменения протоуральского сочетания *rt > *rδ, a также в суффиксах в интервокальном положении. 5 В этом случае налицо среднемишарское опосредование при заимствовании новоперсидского слова, ведь только в мишарском диалекте произносился нейтральный k по отношению к противопоставлению передней и задней артикуляции, что является сигнификантным критерием различения мишарского от центрального диалекта татарского языка (Бурганова–Махмутова 1962: 10–13). Благодаря этой особенности мишарского диалекта данное слово могло появляться передней артикуляцией в среднечувашском. (В центральном диалекте татарская форма хранит заднюю артикуляцию новоперсидского источника, ср. qŏdrät ‘могущество, сила’.) Среднемишарская форма этого слова опять попала в ранне-среднечувашский до реализации редукции гласного первого слога. 17 Поздне-прамарийский -δ- в последствии сохранился в марийских диалектах. Примером послужат следующие слова финно-угорского происхождения: мар. диал. P B M küδür, U C küδə̂r, MK küdǚr, Č J V kǚδǚr, K kəδər ‘Birkhuhn’ < поздне-прамарийск. *küδir (Bereczki 2013: 99) мар. диал. P B M C Č JT erδe, UP USj US erδə̂. UJ örδə̂, K, JO V erδə ‘Oberschenkel’, P B M V örδö̌ž, MK örδǚž, UJ C JT örδə̂ž, Č JO K örδəž ‘Seite’ < поздне-прамарийск. *erδз; *örδiž (Bereczki 2013: 16–17) мар. диал. P B M UJ C JT šorδo, MK šorδǔ, UP šorδə̂, Č šarδe, JO V K šarδə̂ ‘‘Elentier, Rentier’ < поздне-прамарийск. *šorδə̂ (Bereczki 2013: 247) мар. диал. P B M šüδür, MK šüδǚr, U CÜ CK šüδə̂r, Č JT JO V šǚδǚr, K šəδər ‘Spindel’ < поздне-прамарийск. *šüδir (Bereczki 2013: 261) Как видно из данных, горномарийский вариант слова kuδur ‘кудри’, содержащий согласный -y- на месте ожидаемого -δ- (K kə̂jə̂r), является таким отступлением от общей субдиалектной нормы, которое объясняется не на основании закономерностей марийской фонологии. К тому же форма kə̂jə̂r не может быть опиской, потому что другой независимый источник марийского диалектного лексикона, собранный и изданный финскими учеными, в словарной статье слова kuδə̂r ‘lockig’ содержит тот же самый горномарийский фонетический вариант: kə̂jə̂r (Moisio–Saarinen 2008: 283). Остается трактовать эту форму как второй член двойного заимствования русского слова марийскими диалектами. (Двойные заимствования из русского языка уже известны в марийской лексикологии, см. подробнее Agyagási 2017.) В конкретном случае это значит предположение того, что русское слово, кроме непосредственного копирования, попало в марийский язык (в предшественник горномарийского говора западного диалекта), к тому же через опосредование другого языка, в другое время. При определении языка-посредника нужно учитывать географическое расположение горного наречия марийского языка. Это именно тот край, где, по сообщению анонимного автора Казанской истории (см. Адрианова–Перетц 1954: 85–86), в 16 веке еще обитал народ «нижняя черемиса». Язык этого народа неизвестен, но его следы как субстратные элементы сохранились в марийском (иногда в чувашском и татарском) языках. Таким субстратным элементом из нижне-черемисского языка является марийское диалектное слово P B Bj M U C Č artana·, JT arta·na, JO V ärtämä ‘Stoß, Klafter (Holz)’ (Beke 1: 70), K a·rtém ‘große Stangen’ (Beke 1: 71, см. еще Moisio–Saarinen 2008: 17), содержащее западно-балтийскую глагольную основу *ard̃ y- ‘hew, cleave’ (см. подробнее Agyagási 2019: 270–272). Все формы этого слова в марийском свидетельствуют о том, что язык народа «нижняя черемиса» имел сочетание rd- в середине слова, которое было сохранено марийскими диалектами как -rt-, 18 а не -yt-. Это значит, что субстратный язык «нижняя черемиса» не мог опосредовать русское слово кудерь с согласным -y- в середине слова. Другая возможность для определения языка-посредника – это предположение о присутствии среди носителей западного диалекта марийского языка другого, остаточного, субстратного волжско-булгарского диалекта, не совпадающего ни с предком чувашского (волжско-булг.3), ни с представителями центрального диалекта волжских булгар (волжско-булг.2). Таким диалектом может выступать первый волжско-булгарский диалект (волжско-булг.1). Носители этого диалекта до монгольского нашествия обитали в соседстве пермских народов, а после появления в Волго-Камье монголов они убегали от них не вместе, в организованной форме, а рассеивались на большой территории. Для этого диалекта была характерна в первом слоге очень ранняя редукция гласных верхнего подъема, что было обусловлено местом ударения на последнем слоге (см. подробнее Agyagási 2019: 162–168). В марийских диалектах сохранились слова, отражающие эту особенность, см. реализацию з-д-т/ог. *bura ‘домашнее пиво’ в западном диалекте марийского языка (Agyagási 2019: 123), или з-д-т/ог. bürti ‘зерно’ (Agyagási 2020: 12–13). Этот диалект имел ранние контакты с северными древнерусскими диалектами, о чем свидетельствует наличие древнерусских редуцированных гласных на месте в-д-т *u в двух волжско-булгарских заимствованиях древнерусского языка (см. подробнее Agyagási 2019: 163). Древнерусское слово кудерь восходит к праславянскому *kǫderь (Трубачев 1985: 51–52). Оно как двухсложная структура могло существовать в древнерусском языке после падения редуцированных. В северных диалектах древнерусского языка это означает начало 13-го века. Слово [kuďer’] могло заимствоваться первым волжско-булгарским диалектом в форме *kəyer. Фонетическая характеристика древнерусского [k] определила переднюю артикуляцию волжско-булгарского слова. В начале 13-го века оригинальные редуцированные этого диалекта в первом слоге уже потеряли признак лабиального образования и имели всего лишь ряд как единственный дифференцирующий признак (Agyagási 2019: 166), поэтому в первом слоге уместно ожидать гласный ə. Изменение -d(r)- > -δ(r)- > -y- во время копирования этого слова должно было находиться в последней фазе. Волжско-булгарское слово *kəyer – после переселения из-за монгольского нашествия остатков носителей первого волжско-булгарского диалекта на левобережье Волги – могло попасть в один местный вариант географически разложимого позднепрамарийского языка, являвшегося предшественником горномарийского наречия. Однако волжско-булгарское слово не соответствовало позднепрамарийским структурным нормам. По этим нормам двухсложные структуры со вторым закрытым слогом могли иметь только редуцированный гласный во втором слоге, как например *kurə̂k (Bereczki 1992: 24, № 113), *kuwə̂l (Bereczki 1992: 25, № 120), *šüδə̂r (Bereczki 1992: 71, № 381), *tuγə̂r (Bereczki 1992: 79, № 427) и др. Далее, позднепрамарийский язык 19 имел редуцированный гласный только в непервом слоге, и этот звук являлся гласным заднего ряда (см. подробнее Agyagási 2019: 202). Все это означало, что адаптации в марийском потребовали изменения. Гласный е второго слога слова *kəyer перешел в ə̂ по структурным причинам, а редуцированный гласный переднего ряда был субституирован в марийском редуцированным заднего ряда: *kəyer → *kə̂yə̂r. На основании вышеприведенного анализа можно прийти к следующему выводу: для определения верхней хронологической границы изменения -d(r)> -δ(r)- > -y- все еще не имеются однозначные данные, но при выделении нижней границы можно сделать некоторые уточнения. Процесс двухступенчатого исторического изменения древнерусского слова кудерь от древнерусской исходной формы до освоения ее волжско-булгарского варианта позднепрамарийским предшественником горномарийского говора показывает, что изменение -d(r)- > -δ(r)- > -y- и окончательное исчезновение фонемы -δ- из волжско-булгарского фонемного состава завершилось непосредственно до монгольского нашествия на оригинальной территории трех волжскобулгарских диалектов. Это изменение является последним звеном преобразования западно-древнетюркской консонантной системы в поволжском ареале. Принятые сокращения анатрийск.: анатрийский диалект чувашского языка ар. : арабское слово в-д-т : восточно-древнетюркский др. русск.: древнерусский виръялск.:виръялский диалект чувашского языка з-д-т/ог.: западно-древнетюркский огурского типа новоперс.: новоперсидское слово поздне-прамарийск.: поздне-прамарийская форма рcч: ранне-среднечувашский среднемишарск.: среднемишарский чув. чувашский 20 Литература Адрианова-Перетц, В. П. (ред.) 1954. Казанская история. Москва–Ленинград. Адягаши, К. 2005. Ранние русские заимствования тюркских языков ВолгоКамского ареала I. Kossuth Egyetemi Kiadó, Debrecen. Бурганова Н. Б. – Махмутова Л. Т. 1962. К вопросу об истории образования и изучения татарских диалектови говоров. Материалы татарской диалектологии 2: 7–18. Даль, В.1882. Толковый словарь живого великорусского языка т. 1–4. С.Петербург, Москва. Издание М. О. Вольфа. ДТС=Древнетюркский словарь. Ред. В. М. Наделяев, Д. М. Насилов, Э. Р. Тенишев, А. М. Щербак. Наука, Ленинград 1969. Левитская, Л. С. 1966/2014. Историческая фонетика чувашского языка. Чувашский государственный институт гуманитарных наук. Чебоксары. Скворцов М. И. 1982. Чувашско-русский словарь. Издательство «Русский язык». Москва. ТРС: Татарско-русский словарь. Ред. М. М. Османов. Советская Энциклопедия, Москва 1966. Трубачев, О. Н. (ред.) 1985. Этимологический словарь славянских языков. Выпуск 12. Наука, Москва. ТТЗДС: Татар теленеӊ зур диалектологик сүзлеге. Төз. Ф. С. Баязитова, Д. Б. Рамазанова, З. Р. Садыкова, Т. Х. Хайрутдинова. Татарстан китап нəшрияты, Казан 2009. Ураксин, З. Г. 1996. Башкирско-русский словарь. Русский язык, Москва. Agyagási, K. 2014: Опосредование лексических единиц как характерный действующий механизм доминантного булгарского языка Волго-Камского языкового ареала. Slavica 43: 9–18. Agyagási, K. 2017. Двойные русские заимствования в марийском лексиконе. Slavica 47: 17–28. Agyagási, K. 2019. Chuvash Historical Phonetics. An areal Linguistic study With an Appendix on the Role of Proto-Mari in ther History of Chuvash Vocalism. Turcologica 117. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden. Agyagási, K. 2020. A Volga-Bulgarian Classifier: a Historical and Areal Linguistic Study. Journal of Old Turkic Studies Vol 4/1 (winter): 7–15. Beke Ö. 1998. Mari nyelvjárási szótár IV. Unter Mitarbeit von Zs. Velenyák und J. Erdődi. Neu redigiert von Gábor Bereczki. Herausgegeben von János Pusztay. Berzsenyi Dániel Főiskola, Savariae (Szombathely) 21 Bereczki, G. 1994. Grundzüge der tscheremissischen Sprachgеschichte I. Studia Uralo-Altaica 35. Attila József University, Szeged. Bereczki, G. 1992. Grundzüge der tscheremissischen Sprachgeschichte II. Studia Uralo-Altaica 34. Attila József University, Szeged. Bereczki, G. 2013. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Tscheremissiscen (Mari). Der einheimische Wortschatz. Nach dem Tode des Verfassers herausgegeben von Klára Agyagási und Eberhard Winkler. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden. Benzing, J. 1959. Das Tschuwaschische. In: Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta (Ed. Jean Deny, Kaare Grønbech, Helmuth Scheel, Zeki Velidi Togan). Tomus Primus. Franz Steiner Verlag, Wiesbaden. Clauson sir G. 1972. An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Erdal, M. 1993. Die Sprache der wolgabolgarischen Inschriften. Turcologica 13. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden. Gabain, A. von 1959. Die Sprache des Codex Cumanicus. Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta (Ed. Jean Deny, Kaare Grønbech, Helmuth Scheel, Zeki Velidi Togan). Tomus Primus. Franz Steiner, Wiesbaden. Moisio, A. & Saarinen S. 2008. Tscheremissisches Wörterbuch. SuomalaisUgrilainan Seura, Kotimaisten Kielten Tutkimuskeskus, Helsinki. Róna-Tas, A. 1982: Loan-Words of Ultimate Middle Mongolian Origin in Chuvash. In: Studies in Chuvash Etymology I. Ed. by A. Róna-Tas. Studia Uralo-Altaica 17: 66–134. Róna-Tas A. 1978. Bevezetés a csuvas nyelv ismeretébe. Tankönyvkiadó, Budapest. Róna-Tas, A. & Berta, Á. 2011. West Old Turkic. Turkic Loanwords in Hungarian Part I–II. Turcologica 84. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden. Scherner, B. 1977. Arabische und neupersische Lehnwörter im Tschuwaschischen. Versusch einer Chronologie ihrer Lautveränderungen. Franz Steiner, Wiesbaden. Notes to the History of the Hungarians in the 10th Century László Balogh Klebelsberg Library, University of Szeged There are few information about the relation between the Hungarians and the Byzantine Empire at the beginning of the 10th century. Therefore, opinion of the historians are often based on a single source, whether they declarate hostile or friendly relationship between the two powers. It is widely accepted that the Hungarians did not interfere in the Bulgarian– Byzantine conflicts in the Balkans from the beginning of the 10th century until the death of the Bulgarian ruler Symeon in 927.1 However, this view has fundamentally changed as a result of a single source. The Miracula Sancti Georgii reports about a battle between Bulgarians and Byzantines identified with the battle of Ankhialos in 917. 2 According to this source the Hungarians (Ungroi), 3 the army of ʿAbbasid Caliphate (Medes), 4 the Pechenegs (Scythians) 5 and the Turk warriors of the Abbasid Caliphate (Turks)6 fought against the Byzantine Empire at a time of the battle of Anchalos.7 Several researchers conclude that in addition to the Bulgarians, the Hungarians, the Pechenegs, and the ʿAbbasid Caliphate were also enemies of the Byzantines at the time of the battle of Anchalos in 917.8 There were only a few 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Pauler 1900, 68, 169 note 102; Györffy 1977a, 149; Györffy 1977b, 46. Moravcsik 1932, 437; Дуйчев 1964, 60; Božilov 1971, 172–173; История на България 287. Cf. Moravcsik 1958, II, 225 cf. Moravcsik 1932, 437; Дуйчев 1964, 61 note 6; Дуйчев 1972, 514. Cf. Moravcsik 1932, 437; Moravcsik 1984, 77 note 1. Cf. Moravcsik 1984, 77 note 1 cf. Moravcsik 1958, II, 281. Cf. „‛Seldschuken’, ‛Mameluken’ und verwandte Türkstämme” Moravcsik 1958, II, 322. Moravcsik 1984, 77 cf. 78. See source: Czebe 1927, 47–48; Moravcsik 1958, 441–442; Király 1977, 325. Дуйчев 1964, 61 note 6; Božilov 1971, 172–173; История на България 287; Димитров 1998, 59–60, 356; Князький 2003, 12; Moravcsik 1934, 140–141; Moravcsik 1984, 77–79; Kristó 1980, 248, 532 note 589; Kristó 1985, 38; Kristó 1986, 27; Makk 1996, 15–16; Makk 1998, 220; Kristó– Makk 2001, 106. 24 researchers who pointed out that conceivably the source did not authentically mention these peoples.9 However, the plausibility of the description of the source can be determined based on other sources. The Byzantine Empire had already agreed in a peace treaty with the ʿAbbasid Caliphate by the time of the Battle of 917.10 The Pechenegs – although the Bulgarians repeatedly tried to put them on their own side – had already formed an alliance with the Byzantine Empire in 914, 11 and a Pecheneg army went to the Lower Danube to fight against the Bulgarians in 917.12 A letter of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Nikolaos Mystikos mentions that the Byzantine Empire is trying to use the Pechenegs and other barbaric peoples against the Bulgarians in 917.13 Nikolaos Mystikos wrote that the imperial government hired the Pechenegs and the Hungarians, as well as other peoples against the Bulgarians in another letter, which was dated to 915.14 However, the tone of this letter differs from the those of the patriarch which he wrote about the Byzantine–Pecheneg alliance in 914.15 It was much more likely that the source was written in 917.16 According to Constantinus Porphyrogennetus (913–959) the Byzantine Empire sent an envoy to the prince of the Pagania, Peter by the time of the battle of Ankhialos in 917. He was instructed to form an alliance with the Hungarians against the Bulgarians. 17 The Hungarians were allies of the Byzantine Empire in 917 according to the sources.18 The Miracula Sancti Georgii thus falsely claimed that the Hungarians fought against the Byzantine Empire in 917.19 In other cases, a single source has greatly influenced the judgment of events too. This is what happened in connection with the Hungarian campaign in 927. In that year, according to the Benedicti Sancti Andreae monachi chronicle, Pope John X (914–928) and his brother Petrus marquis regained power in Rome with the help of a 9 Czebe 1927, 48; Moravcsik 1984, 77 note 1. Cf. „Die gemeinsame Aufführung der erwähnten Völker ist natürlich nichts anderes, als die eigenmächtige Kombination des Verfassers der Legende, da die Geschichte des X. Jh.-s nichts davon weiss.” Moravcsik 1932, 438; „Für die ungarische Geschichte ist aber die Quelle wertlos, weil die historisch unmögliche Völkerliste wohl nur zur Ausschmückung der Legende diente.” Bogyay 1988, 32. 10 Le Strange 1897, 35–45; Jenkins 1953, 392; Vasiliev 1950, 60–61, 66–69, 73–79, 108, 146– 147, 222, 226, 237, 245, 248, 252, 260, 270, 273; Balogh 2007, 17. 11 Jenkins–Westerink 1973, 310–313. (66. letter), 553–554, 312–315. (67. letter) cf. Grumel 1936, 162–163; Balogh 2007, 10–15. 12 Bekker 1838. 390, 724, 882; Runciman 1930, 159–160; Wozniak 1984, 305–306; Jenkins– Westerink 1973, 60–63. (9. letter); Balogh 2007, 16–17. 13 Jenkins–Westerink 1973, 58–59 (9. letter). 14 Jenkins–Westerink 1973, 514–517. (183. letter); Balogh 2007, 18–19. 15 Jenkins–Westerink 1973, 591. 16 Димитров 1998, 59; Kristó 1995, 98. note 256; Kristó–Makk 2001, 106; Божилов 1973, 44 note 38. 17 Moravcsik 1950, 156–159. (32. c.); Balogh 2007, 19–20. 18 Fine 1989, 150. 19 Balogh 2007, 8–21; Tóth P. 2011, 157; Bácsatyai 2016, 222. 25 Hungarian army,20 while according to Romualdo Salernitano a Hungarian army went to Apulia and occupied the cities of Oria and Taranto in 927.21 Based on this, several historians concluded that the Hungarians rushed to the aid of Pope John X, and then they carried out raids in southern Italy. Oria and Taranto was under control of the Byzantine Empire, so the Hungarians became enemies of the Byzantine Empire in 927.22 The occupation of the two cities is also unusual because Hungarian armies very rarely attempted to occupy well-fortified settlements, and these attacks were even less successful in the 9th and 10th centuries.23 Indeed, Romualdo Salernitano says that Oria (Aerea) and Taranto (Tarentum) were occupied by the Hungarians (Ungri).24 But, does the author report authentically about of the event? Many Arab, Latin and Greek sources describe the fall of Oria and Taranto, thus we can answer this question. Ibn Khaldūn and Ibn al-Athīr mention that a Muslim fleet conquered Taranto in 313 A. H. (29 March 925–18 March 926). 25 The same event is also reported by Nuwayrī during the year 316 A. H. (25 February 928–13 February 929)26 and the Kitāb al-ʿuyūn during the year 315 A. H. (8 March 927–24 February 247). 27 Cambridge chronicle, which has survived in Greek and Arabic versions, explains that a Muslim fleet occupied Taranto in A. D. 6436 (927–928).28 Latin sources also report that the city of Taranto was occupied by the Muslims (927: Anonymi Barensis, Annales Lupi protospatharii, 929: Annales Barenses). 29 Al-Bayān says that a Muslim army attacked the city of Oria (Wari) during the year 316 A. H. (25 February 928–13 February 929),30 while Ibn cIdarī reports the fall of Oria (Wār.y) in 313 A. H. (29 March 925–18 March 926). 31 The Cambridge Chronicle mentions that Oria (.w.rā) was occupied by the Muslims during A. D. 20 Benedicti Sancti Andreae monachi chronicon 1839, 714. cf. Czebe 1930, 164–167; Fasoli 1945, 149–152; Vajay 1968, 79–80; Kristó 1980, 265; Györffy 1984, 667–668; Moravcsik 1984, 27; Kristó–Makk 2001, 115–116. 21 „Non post multum vero temporis Ungri venerunt in Apuliam et capta Aerea civitate ceperunt Tarentum. Deinc Campaniam ingressi non modicam ipsius provincie partem igni ac direptioni dederunt.” Arndt 1866, 399. 22 Kristó 1980, 265; Györffy 1984, 668; Kristó 1986, 32; Kristó–Makk 2001, 115–116; Tóth 2010, 198; Tóth 2016, 531. 23 Kristó 1986, 16, 26, 28, 31, 33, 36, 37, 38, 40–41; Tóth 2016, 542–543. 24 Cf. Hóman 1917, 134–151. 25 Amari 1880, 411–412; Amari 1881, 191; Fagnan 1898, 317; Vasiliev 1950, 148–149. 26 Vasiliev 1950, 231. Several researchers have been deceived by the source calling the leader of the army attacking the city, Sabīrt the “Slav”, based on which they mistakenly saw a Slavic leader in it. (Bréhier 1969, 149; Veszprémy 2014, 87). In fact, in this case, it is merely a matter of the commander of the fleet being a high-ranking slave in the Fatimid Caliphate (cf. Gay 1904, 208; Halm 1996, 278–279). 27 Vasiliev 1950, 223. 28 Amari 1880, 283; Vasiliev 1950, 104. 29 Muratorius 1724, 147; Churchill 1979, 116, 126. 30 Amari 1881, 27. 31 Vasiliev 1950, 217. 26 6434 (925–926). 32 Latin sources also mention that the Oria were taken by the Muslims in 924 (Anonymi Barensis, Annales Lupi protospatharii, Annales Barenses).33 Veszprémy was the first Hungarian researcher, who draws attention to the fact that Oria and Taranto were not occupied by Hungarians but by Muslims. 34 Romualdo Salernitano – who does not write about the Muslim revenues of the two cities – obviously simply confused the attackers and he wrote Hungarians – who were also visiting Italy at that time – instead of Muslims.35 It was previously a widespread opinion that the Hungarians were in a hostile relationship with the Byzantine Empire in both 917 and 927. However, as the Hungarian–Byzantine conflict of 917 has no reliable source, and the Hungarian campaign of 927 in Byzantine-ruled southern-Italy was not a real event, but only due to the mistake of the author of a medieval Latin source, it is obvious that this was not the case. I have previously paid attention to the reports of Abū Firās on the relations between the Hungarians and the Byzantine Empire in the middle of the 10th century. The author mentions that the Byzantine emperor Constantinus Porphyrogennetus sent an army led by Basilios Parakoimomenos in Asia Minor to fight against the Hamdanid prince, Sayf al-Dawla. For the success of the campaign the emperor agreed in a peace treaty with the lord of the West (sāhib *al-Ġarb) and with the kings of the Bulgarians (bulġār), the Russians (rūs), the Hungarians (turk), the Franks (ifranğa) and other people and asked them for military help. 36 Although several scholars assumed that the Hungarians had a hostile relationship with the Byzantine Empire in 958, 37 in the light of the source, this view cannot be maintained. The Hungarians were allies of emperor Constantinus Porphyrogennetus and they supported the emperor’s fight against the Principality of Hamdanids with auxiliary troops in 958.38 32 Amari 1880, 283; Vasiliev 1950, 104. 33 Muratorius 1724, 147; Churchill 1979, 116, 126. 34 Veszprémy 2014, 87. For events, see: Gay 1904, 208; Eickhoff 1966, 304–308; Bréhier 1969, 149; Metcalfe 2009, 49; Churchill 1979, 198–200; Kreutz 1991, 98; Lev 1984, 231; Jacob 1988, 1–2; Runciman 1999, 190. 35 Cf. Churchill 1979, 200 note 1. 36 Balogh 2014, 11–18. 37 Györffy 1984, 709–710; Kristó–Makk 2001, 146. 38 Balogh 2014, 13–14. 27 Hungarian warriors fought in the Byzantine army many times. They were present on the Italian battlefield (935, 1025),39 on the Balkans (990s),40 and along the eastern borders of the Byzantine Empire (954, 960s). 41 In full agreement with this, Abū Firās says that the Hungarians fought on the side of the Byzantines in 958. Recently, I noticed that not only the Muslim source but also a reliable, contemporary Byzantine source reports foreign auxiliary troops fighting in the Byzantine army in 958. An oration to the eastern troops which was written in August-September 95842 by emperor Constantinus Porphyrogennetus mentions that the news of the successes of the Byzantine army had spread to “foreign people” who joined the Byzantine army as well.43 McGeer pointed out that when the author wrote “foreign people”, he meant the Byzantine forces’ Bulgarian, Russian, Hungarian, and Frankish auxiliaries.44 Thus, the news of the Muslim source about the foreign auxiliary troops of the Byzantine army, including the Hungarians, is now confirmed by the sentences of emperor Constantinus Porphyrogennetus himself. New sources have emerged not only for the Hungarians, but also for certain Hungarians or people of Hungarian origin. Among them, several sources can be linked to southern Italy in the 11th century. Olajos drew attention to the inventory of Région metropolia dating back to around 1050, which mentions Ungros’s land, near Rhegium (Reggio di Calabria).45 Olajos also drew attention to a diploma to 1076/1077, which mentioned Ungros’s land near Vibo Valentia and Catanzaro in Calabria.46 Probably these person were descendants of the Hungarian prisoners of war, they were captured during their Italian campaign in the 10th century,47 or they could have been Hungarian soldiers 39 Reiske 1829, 660–661; Churchill 1979, 118; Moravcsik 1984, 34; Olajos 1987–88, 26; Olajos 1998, 219–222. 40 Moravcsik 1984, 74–77; Balogh 2015, 86–99. 41 Balogh 2014, 11–13; McGeer 2008, 201; Becker 1915, 199; Baán 2005, 541. There is an opinion that one of the paintings of the Chludov Psalter made in the middle of the 9th century shows a Hungarian warrior in Byzantine service. (Petkes– Sudár 2017, 40). 42 McGeer 2003, 123. 43 „The great and widespread report of your courage has reached foreign ears, to the effect that you have an irresistible onslaught, that you possess incomparable courage, that you display a proud spirit in battle. When several contingents of these foreign peoples recently joined you on campaign, they were amazed to see with their own eyes the courage and valour of the other soldiers who performed heroically in earlier expeditions; let them now be astonished at your audacity, let them marvel at your invincible and unsurpassable might against the barbarians. […] Let your heroic deeds be spoken of in foreign lands, let the foreign contingents accompanying you be amazed at your discipline, let them be messengers to their compatriots of your triumphs and symbols which bring victory, so that they may see the deeds you have performed.” McGeer 2003, 131–132; Vári 1908, 75–85; Ahrweiler 1967, 396. 44 McGeer 2003, 131, note 81. 45 Olajos 2015, 90–95 cf. Guillou 1974, 179. 46 Olajos 1987–88, 26–27. 47 Cf. Ekkehardus Casuum S. Galli continuatio 1829, 107; Benedicti Sancti Andreae monachi chronicon 714; Olajos 1987–88, 25–26; Elter 2009, 88, 105. 28 (their descendants?) fighting in the Byzantine army in the 10th and 11th centuries.48 We know that Hungarian troops arrived in southern Italy as Byzantine auxiliaries in 935 and 1025. The commander of a Hungarian corps, Kyrillos spatharokandidatos and domestikos, donated land to the Asekrétis monastery in Calabria in 1053/1054.49 Based on these data, we can state that Hungarians or persons of Hungarian origin already lived in the territory of southern Italy in the 11th century for sure. I recently noticed that a Latin diploma mentioned Leo filius Petri Ungri near Castellabate 50 in Campania in 980. 51 In this case, based on Byzantine sources already mentioned, we can assume that Ungri refer to the Hungarian origin of Leo’s father. 52 Based on this data, it seems that in southern Italy, not only in the 11th century, but also in the second half of the 10th century, there were people who ancestrally could be connected to the Hungarians. These people, like English, Alan, Pecheneg, Frankish, Russian, or Vlah warriors of the Byzantine army,53 enriched the mosaic of the population of the Byzantine Empire with a new color.54 References Ahrweiler, H. 1967. Un discours inédit de Constantin VII Porphyrogénète. Travaux et Mémoires 2, 393–404. Amari, M. 1880. Biblioteca arabo-sicula. I. Torino–Roma. Amari, M. 1881. Biblioteca arabo-sicula. II. Torino–Roma. Arndt, W. (ed.), 1866. Romoaldi II. archiepiscopi Salernitani Annales. In: Pertz, G. H. (ed.), Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriptorum 19. Hannoverae, 387–461. Baán I. (szerk.), 2005. A Nyugat és Bizánc a 8–10. században. Budapest, (Varia Byzantina 9.). Balogh L. 2007. A 917. évi anchialosi csata és a magyarság. In: Révész É.– Halmágyi M. (szerk.), Középkortörténeti tanulmányok 5. Szeged, 8–21. Balogh L. 2014. Megjegyzések a 10. század második felének magyar–bizánci kapcsolataihoz. In: Olajos T. (szerk.), A Kárpát-medence, a magyarság és Bizánc. Szeged, 11–18. (Opuscula Byzantina 11.) 48 Olajos 1987–88, 26; Olajos 2015, 104–109. It seems that the Hungarians also left their mark on Italian toponymy: Tardy 1982, 153–164; Pellegrini 1988, 307–340. 49 Guillou–Rognoni 1991–1992, 424, 426–428; Olajos 2015, 96–103. 50 Visentin 2012, 160. 51 Morcaldi–Schiani–de Stephano 1875, 146. 52 Ebner 1979, 170 note 53. 53 Janin 1930, 61–72; Vasiliev 1937, 39–70; Ciggaar 1974, 301–342; Shepard 1974, 18–39; Shepard 1973, 53–92; Makk 1992, 16–22; Wierzbiński 2014, 277–288; Shepard 1993, 275– 305. 54 Cf. Janin 1930, 61. 29 Balogh L. 2015. II. Basileios bizánci császár türk szövetségesei. In: Gálffy L.– Sáringer J. (szerk.), Fehér Lovag. Tanulmányok Csernus Sándor 65. születésnapjára. Szeged, 86–99. Bácsatyai D. 2016. A magyar kalandozó hadjáratok latin nyelvű kútfői. MS. Becker, J. (Hrsg.), 1915. Die Werke Liudprands von Cremona. Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum ex Monumentis Germaniae Historicis separatim editi. 41. Hannoverae–Lipsiae 19153. Bekker, I. (1838) = Theophanes Continuatus, loannes Cameniata, Symeon Magister, Georgius Monachus, ex recognitione I. Bekkeri, Bonnae (Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, 45). Benedicti Sancti Andreae monachi chronicon. In: Georgius Heinricus Pertz (ed.), Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriptorum 3. Hannoverae, 1839. Bogyay, Th. von 1988. Ungarnzüge gegen und für Byzanz: Bemerkungen zu neueren Forschungen. Ural-altaische Jahrbücher 60, 27–38. Božilov, I. 1971. Les Petchénègues dans l’histoire des terres du Bas-Danube (Notes sur le livre de P. Diaconu. Les pechénegues au Bas-Danube). Études balkaniques 3, 170– 175. Божилов, И. 1973. България и печенезите (896 – 1018 г.). Исторически преглед 29, 37–62. Bréhier, L. 1969. Vie et mort de Byzance. Paris. Churchill, W. J. 1979. The Annales Barenses and the Annales Lupi Protospatharii. Critical Edition and Commentary. MS Toronto. Ciggaar, K. 1974. L’émigration anglaise a Byzance après 1066. Un nouveau texte en latin sur les Varangues à Constantinople. Revue des études Byzantines 32, 301–342. Czebe Gy. 1927. De filio ducis Leonis. Magyar Nyelvőr 56, 47–52. Czebe Gy. 1930. A magyarok 922. évi itáliai kalandozásának elbeszélése egy XIII. századi bizánci krónikatöredékben. Magyar Nyelvőr 59, 164–167. Димитров, Хр. 1998. Българо–унгарски отношения през средновековието. София. Дуйчев, Ив. 1964. „Чудото” на св. Георги. In: Гръцки Извори за Българската История–Fontes Graeci Historiae Bulgaricae. V. G. Cankova-Petkova et alii. (ed.) Извори за Българската История – Fontes Historiae Bulgaricae 9. Serdicae (София). Дуйчев, И. 1972. Разказ за „чудото” на великомъченик Георги със сина на Лъв Пафлагонски, пленник у българите. In: Дуйчев, Иван Българско средновековие. Проучвания върху политическата и културната история на средновековна България. София 1972, 513–528. Ebner, P. 1979. Economia e societa’ nel cilento medievale. I. Roma (Thesaurus Ecclesiarum Italiae recentioris aevi XII./4.) 30 Eickhoff, E. 1966. Seekrieg und Seepolitik Zwischen Islam und Abendland. Berlin. Ekkehardus Casuum S. Galli continuatio. In: Pertz, Georgius Heinricus (ed.), Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriptorum 2. Hannoverae, 1829. 75–147. Elter I. 2009. Ibn Hayyān a kalandozó magyarokról. Szeged (Szegedi Középkortörténeti Könyvtár 24.) Fagnan, E. (Trad. et annotées) 1898. Ibn el-Athir Annales du Maghreb et de l’Espagne. Alger. Fasoli, G. 1945. Le incursioni ungare in Europa nel secolo X. Firenze. Fine, John V. A. Jr. 1989. The Early Medieval Balkan. A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century. Ann Arbor, 5th ed. Gay, J. 1904. L’Italie méridionale et l’Empire byzantin depuis l’avènement de Basile Ier jusqu’à la prise de Bari par les Normands (867–1071). Paris. Grumel, V. 1936. Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople. I/2. Kadiköy–Istambul. Guillou, A. 1974. Le Brébion de la métropole byzantine de Règion (vers 1050). Città del Vaticano. Guillou, A.–Rognoni, C. 1991–1992. Une nouvelle fondation monastique dans le theme de Calabre (1053–1054). Byzantinische Zeitschrift 84–85, 423–429. Györffy Gy. 1977a. István király és műve. Budapest. Györffy Gy. 1977b Honfoglalás, megtelepedés és kalandozások. In: Magyar őstörténeti tanulmányok. Bartha A.–Czeglédy K.–Róna-Tas A. (szerk.) Budapest, 123–156. Györffy Gy. 1984. A kalandozások kora. In: Székely Gy. (szerk.), Magyarország története. Előzmények és magyar történet 1242-ig. Budapest, 651–716. (Magyarország története tíz kötetben I/1.) Halm, H. 1996. The Empire of the Mahdi. The Rise of the Fatimids. Leiden–New York–Köln. Hóman B. 1917. A magyar nép neve a középkori latinságban. I. Történelmi Szemle 6, 134–151. История на България II. София 1981. Jacob, A. 1988. La reconstruction de Tarente par les byzantins aux IXe et Xe siècles. À propos de deux inscriptions perdues. Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Bibliotheken und Archiven 68, 1–19. Janin, R. 1930. Les Francs au service des «Byzantins». Échos d’Orient 29, 61–72. Jenkins, R. J. H. 1953. The Emperor Alexander and the Saracen. Prisoners. Studi Bizantini e Neoelleniki 7, 167–175. Jenkins, R. J. H.–Westerink, L. G. (ed.) 1973. Letters. Dumbarton Oaks (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 6.) 31 Király P. 1977. Óbolgár forrás a 894–896. évi magyar–bolgár háborúról. Századok 111, 320–328. Князький, И. О. 2003. Византия и кочевники южнорусских степей. СанктПетербург. Kreutz, B. M. 1991. Before the Normans Southern Italy in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries. Philadelphia. Kristó Gy. 1980. Levedi törzsszövetségétől Szent István államáig. Budapest. Kristó Gy. Az augsburgi csata. Budapest. (Sorsdöntő történelmi napok 8.) Kristó Gy. 1986. Az Árpád-kor háborúi. Budapest. Kristó 1995. (szerk.) A honfoglalás korának írott forrásai. Szeged (Szegedi Középkortörténcti Könyvtár 7.) Kristó Gy.–Makk F. 2001. A kilencedik és a tizedik század története. Budapest. Le Strange, Guy 1897. A Greek Embassy to Baghdad in 917 A. D. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 29, 35–45. Lev, Y. 1984. The Fātimid Navy, Byzantium and the Mediterranean Sea 909–1036 C.E. / 297–427 A. H. Byzantion 54, 220–252. Makk F. 1992. Megjegyzések a Szent László korabeli magyar-bizánci kapcsolatok történetéhez. Acta Universitatis Szegediensis. Acta Historica 96, 16–22. Makk F. 1996. Magyar külpolitika (896–1196). Szeged. 2. bővített és átdolgozott kiadás. (Szegedi Középkortörténeti Könyvtár 2.) Makk F. 1998. A turulmadártól a kettőskeresztig. A korai magyar–bizánci kapcsolatok. In: Makk Ferenc A turulmadártól a kettőskeresztig. Tanulmányok a magyarság régebbi történelméről. Szeged 215–238. McGeer, E. 2003. Two Military Orations of Constantine. In: Nesbitt, John W. (ed.) Byzantine Authors: Literary Activities and Preoccupations. Texts and Translations dedicated to the Memory of Nicolas Oikonomides. Leiden–Boston, 111–135. (The Medieval Mediterranean Peoples, Economies and Culture, 400–1500. 49.) McGeer, E. 2008. Sowing the Dragon’s Teeth. Byzantine Warfare in the Tenth Century. Washington. (Dumbarton Oaks Studies 33.) Metcalfe, A. 2009. The Muslims of Medieval Italy. Edinburgh. Moravcsik, Gy. 1932. Κουκούμιον ein altbulgarisches Wort? Kőrösi Csoma-Archivum 2, 436–440. Moravcsik Gy. 1934. A magyar történet bizánci forrásai. Budapest. (A Magyar Történettudomány Kézikönyve I. 6b) Moravcsik Gy. 1950. Bíborbanszületett Konstantin A birodalom kormányzása. Budapest Moravcsik, Gy. 1958. Byzantinoturcica. I–II. Zweite durchgearbeitete Auflage. Berlin. Moravcsik Gy. 1984. Az Árpád-kori magyar történet bizánci forrásai. Budapest. 32 Morcaldi, M.–Schiani, M.–de Stephano, S. (cur.) 1875. Codex diplomaticus Cavensis. II. Mediolani–Pisis–Neapoli. Muratorius, L. A. 1724. Rerum Italicarum scriptores. V. Mediolani. Olajos T. 1987–88. Felhasználatlan bizánci forrás a magyarság korai történetéhez. Antik Tanulmányok 33, 24–27. Olajos T. 1998. Egy felhasználatlan forráscsoport. A 11. századi magyar–bizánci kapcsolatok történetéhez. Századok 132, 219–222. Olajos T. 2014. Bizánci források az Árpád-kori magyar történelemhez. Szeged (Opuscula Byzantina 12.) Pauler Gy. 1900. A magyar nemzet története Szent Istvánig. Budapest. Pellegrini, G. B. 1988. Tracce degli Ungari nella toponomastica italiana ed occidentale. In: Popoli delle steppe: Unni, Avari, Ungari. I. Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo 35. Spoleto, 307–340. Petkes Zs.–Sudár B. (szerk.) 2017. Honfoglalók fegyverben. Budapest, 2. javított kiadás. (Magyar Őstörténet 3.) Reiske, I. I. (rec.) 1829. Constantini Porphyrogeniti imperatoris de cerimoniis aulae Byzantinae. I. Bonnae. Runciman, S.1930. A history of the first Bulgarian empire. London. Runciman, S. 1999. The Emperor Romanus Lecapenus and his reign. A Study of Tenth-Century Byzantium. Cambridge–New York–Melbourne. Shepard, J. 1973. The English and Byzantium. A Study of Their Role in the Byzantine Army in the Later Eleventh Century. Traditio 29, 53–92. Shepard, J. 1974. Another New England? Anglo-Saxon Settlement on the Black Sea. Byzantine Studies 1, 18–39. Shepard, J. 1993. The Uses of the Franks in Eleventh-Century Byzantium. AngloNorman Studies 15, 275–305. Tardy, L. 1982. Le incusioni magiare nella Lombardia del IX secolo e la conseguente comparsa del cognome „Ungaro” nell’onomastica italiana. Acta Universitatis Szegediensis de Attila József nominatae. Acta Romanica 7, 153–164. Tóth P. 2011. A besenyők betelepedésének hátteréhez: békekötés 933 után. In: Bartha J. (szerk.) Kunok és jászok 770 éve a Kárpát-medencében. Szolnok, 153–161. Tóth S. L. 2010. A honfoglalástól az államalapításig. A magyarság története a X. században. Szeged. Tóth S. L. 2016. A magyar törzsszövetség politikai életrajza. A magyarság a 9–10. században. Szeged. 2. javított kiadás. Vajay, Sz. de 1968. Der Eintritt des ungarischen Stämmebundes in die europaische Geschichte (862–933). Mainz. 33 Vasiliev, A. A. 1937. The Opening Stages of the Anglo Saxon Immigration to Byzantium in the Eleventh Century. Seminarium Kondakovianum 9, 39–70. Vasiliev, A. A. 1950. Byzance et les Arabes. II. La Dynastie Macédonienne (867– 959). Bruxelles. Vári R. 1908. Zum historischen Exzerptenwerke des Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos. Byzantinische Zeitschrift 17, 75–85. Veszprémy L. 2014. Itt a magyar, hol a magyar? Megjegyzések a korai nyugati magyar kalandozások (907–933) forrásaihoz és időrendjéhez. Hadtörténeti Közlemények 127, 77–90. Visentin, B. 2012. Fondazioni cavensi nell’Italia Meridionale (secoli XI–XV). Battipaglia. Wierzbiński, S. 2014. Normans and Other Franks in 11th Century Byzantium: the Careers of the Adventurers before the Rule of Alexius I Comnenus. Studia Ceranea 4, 277–288. Wozniak, F. E. 1984. Byzantium, the Pechenegs and the Rus’: The Limitations of a Great Power’s Influence on its Clients in the 10th Century Eurasian Steppe. Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 4, 299–316. Bemerkungen zu der neu gefundenen Dede Korkut-Handschrift, mit einer Übersetzung der dreizehnten Geschichte Hendrik Boeschoten Mainz Die Handschrift aus Gonbad Im Jahr 2018 tauchte eine bis dahin unbekannte Handschrift in einer Privatbibliothek in Gonbad-e Qabus, etwas östlich vom Kaspischen Meer im Iran, auf, die Texte aus dem Dede Korkut-Zyklus enthält. Diese weisen eine große Affinität zu dem Material in den Handschriften aus Dresden und dem Vatikan auf.1 Der Fund war eine Sensation und Bearbeitungen folgten schnell (Azmun 2019; Shahgoli & al. 2019; Ekici 2019). Die erstgenannten zwei Veröffentlichungen enthalten ausgezeichnete facsimilae, die auch über das Internet eingesehen werden können. Die neu gefundene Handschrift umfasst dreißig Blatt plus einige Zeilen. Den Großteil macht eine locker versifizierte Sammlung von Sprüchen aus von der Art, wie sie u.a. aus der Sprüchesammlung in ms. Dresden, dem Fragment in der Seldschukengeschichte Yazıcıoğlıs und der Berliner Oğuznāme bekannt sind (f.1r1– 24v6). Es folgt ein kurzer Text, der von der Eroberung des Aras-Tales und der Burg Kars handelt, aber hauptsächlich einen Prahlvers und die Erwähnung der Anführer mit ihren Epitheta enthält, und kaum irgendwelche Handlung. Es handelt sich wohl um eine Kurzfassung, die ein Sänger ad hoc ausbauen kann (f.24v7–26r14). Schließlich folgt eine gänzlich in Prosa verfasste, bisher unbekannte Geschichte, in der Salur Kasan einen Drachen tötet (f.26v1–31r5). Die Handschrift stammt wohl aus der zweiten Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts (Shahgoli & al. 2019). Der Text scheint aber eine recht getreue Kopie einer Handschrift aus dem frühen 16. Jahrhundert Chr. zu sein (nach Shahgoli & al. 2019, aus der zweiten Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts). Diese Datierung beruht, wie im Falle der Dresdener Handschrift, u.a. auf die Erwähnung der „neun Distrikte Georgiens“ 1 Diese Texte sind aus der Literatur genügsam bekannt; ich zitiere nach Gökyay (1973) mit seiner ausführlichen Ausarbeitung der Hintergründe, Tezcan & Boeschoten (2001, Textausgabe) und Boeschoten (2008, deutsche Übersetzung). Im Folgenden beziehe ich mich nur auf ms. Dresden. 36 (Doquz Tümän Gürcistan, f.2r13). Diese Zersplitterung Georgiens gab es erst nach etwa 1460. Wie auch in der Dresdener Handschrift wird der Name Başı Açık erwähnt (f.26r10), allerdings hier nicht auf eine Person bezogen, wie in der Dresdener Handschrift (Başı Açuk Dadian), sondern auf dessen Herrschaftsgebiet Imeretien (einer der „neun Distrikte“). Anderseits wird Salur Kasan in einem Epitheton „Waghalsigster im Staat der Ẕulkadir“ (Ẕu l-qadir delüsi) genannt und das ergibt einen möglichen terminus ante quem von etwa 1550. Für die Klärung der handschriftlichen Zusammenhänge ist erst einmal eine genaue sprachliche Analyse nötig. Die Sprache, in der der Text verfasst ist, ist dabei eindeutig als Aserbaidschanisch einzustufen. Ein auffallendes Dialektmerkmal ist eine starke Neigung zur Velarisierung von auslautendem /-n/. Siehe dazu Shahgoli & al. (2019). Die Handschriften im Vergleich Zweifellos gehört der Text in ms. Gonbad sowohl formell als inhaltlich zur selben Tradition wie ms. Dresden. Ich gebe hier nur ein kleines Beispiel. In einer Passage mit dem Reimwort yėg (ms. Dresden 4r4–4v1, viel kürzer in ms. Gonbad 16v13– 17r3) finden wir eine auffallende Parallelle, inklusive der trigesimal formulierten Zahl hundert. In ms. Dresden: Gerçeklerüŋ üç otuz on yaşını ṭoldursa yėg / Üç otuz on yaşıŋız ṭolsun! ‚Schön ist es, wenn die wahren [Helden] hundert Jahre alt werden / Mögen Sie auch hundert Jahre alt werden!’ Ms. Gonbad: Yaḫşı igidler ölür olsa üç otuz on yaşını doldursa yėg / Üç otuz on yaşuŋız devlet ilen dolı gelsüŋ! ‚Wenn gute Helden sterben, ist es schön, wenn sie hundert Jahre alt sind / Mögen Sie auch hundert Jahre alt werden mit fortwährendem gutem Glück!’ Auffallend ist, dass die Geschichte mit dem Drachen keine Verseinschübe enthält. Ein Text wie die „Eroberung des Aras-Tales und der Burg Kars“ ist in dieser Form auch neu. Ein wesentlicher Unterschied besteht darin, dass ms. Dresden (wie auch ms. Vatikan) seinen Schwerpunkt in Anatolien hat, sowohl hinsichtlich der Handlung, als auch sprachlich, während ms. Gonbad deutlich Aserbaidschan verhaftet ist. Das ist zumindest von der Sprache her klar. Bei den Aufzählungen der Helden und deren Epitheta gibt es auch einige auffallende Unterschiede, und damit will ich mich weiter unten befassen, nachdem ich zuerst eine Übersetzung der Geschichte von der Drachentötung geliefert habe. Zudem werde ich mich befassen mit der Frage nach dem Zusammenhang zwischen Epitheta und (noch verschollene) Episoden. [Wie Kasan den Drachen tötete] Es war an einem Tag im heißesten Sommer, als der Drache unter den Männern, Kraftquelle des Islam, Bereiter des Fuchses, Bester unter den Salur, Glanz der Eymür, Waghalsigster im Staat der Ẕulkadir, mit Sommerweide auf dem Berg Savalan und Winterquartier in Sarikamisch, imposant wie achtzig tausend Mann, 37 Schneide des Schwertes aus dunklem Stahl, Flügel des spitzen Speeres, Spitze der zischenden2 Pfeile, Griff des straffen Bogens, Anker Aserbaidschans, Stellvertreter des Herrschers, Kasan, Sohn des Ulasch, die Windhunde und Pointer 3 vorführen ließ. Er ließ auch die Wanderfalken auf den Arm nehmen und die scheckigen Geparden bereitstellen. Er nahm dreihundert Genossen mit, fasste den Akmankan ins Auge und ritt zur Jagd. Am Akmankan jagten sie Wildtiere und Vögel. Am Nachmittag sprach Kasan wie folgt: „Meine Fürsten! Niemand soll mit mir reiten, geht alle zum Lager, ich will alleine eine Beute erjagen, dann komme ich nach.“ Kasan ließ seinen Fuchs tänzeln und ritt alleine zum Gipfel des Akmankan. Da brach das Dunkel herein, ohne dass er schon eine Beute erhascht hätte. Er sprach: „O Allmächtiger! Ich habe mich von meinen Fürsten getrennt, um eine Beute zu erjagen. Ich kann mich kaum mit leeren Händen im Lager zeigen, lasse mich nicht ohne Beute stehen!“ Sein Blick streifte über die Niederungen, und da sah er am Hang des Karadagh an sieben Stellen etwas wie Fackeln brennen. Und an sieben Stellen stieg dichter Rauch auf. Kasan meinte, es sei der Schein der Fackeln in seinem eigenen Lager. Er ließ sein Pferd tänzeln und ritt auf die Lichter zu. Inzwischen hatte Lele Kilbasch, der Erzieher Kasans, 4 erfahren, dass dieser alleine auf der Jagd zurückgeblieben war. Das fand er unerträglich und er galoppierte hinter ihm her. Als Kasan sein Ziel erreichte, sah er etwas wie einen Hügel liegen mit etwas wie einem rauschenden Wald. Er war auf ein Festlandmonster, 5 auf einen Drachen gestoßen. Was an sieben Stellen wie Fackeln brannte, waren die Augen des Drachen, und der dichte Rauch, der an sieben Stellen aufstieg, war der Dampf aus dessen Rachen. Der rauschende Wald jedoch war die Mähne des Drachen. Als Kasan den Drachen erblickte, machte sein tapferes Herz einen Sprung und die ganze Welt lächelte ihm zu. Er hatte vor, sich mit dem Drachen zu schlagen. Er ritt etwas zurück, und da sah er Lele Kilbasch, bereit in Hilfestellung. Er beriet sich mit Lele: „Lieber Lele, siehst du diesen Drachen, der wie ein Hügel da liegt? Sollen wir gegen ihn vorgehen, oder sollen wir zur Seite treten und uns davonschleichen? Was rätst du, sage es mir, lieber Lele.“ Lele überlegte sich, dass dieser Kasan ein Haudegen, ein echter Held war, und dass dieser ihm, sollte er einen Angriff entraten, zürnen möge. Also sagte Lele: „Du bist herausragender als der Karadagh gegenüber, stirb nicht. Du strömst wilder als der glasklare überströmende Bach, stirb nicht. Du bist der Hengst unter den rassigen Pferden, stirb nicht. Du bist der Hengst der Kamelherde, stirb nicht. Du bist der Widder im Schafsgehege, stirb nicht. Du bist 2 3 4 5 ṣ[u]hār (?) tula; tt.dial. ‚köpek ile tazının birleşmesinden doğan yavru’. Diese Funktion von Kilbasch ist neu. In ms. Dresden tritt er nur als Bote Bajidur Chans in der Geschichte über den Aufstand der Außen-Oghusen in Erscheinung. Rašīduddīn erwähnt einen Sari Kilbasch, der Erzieher (atabeg) von Bughra Chans Sohn war (Gökyay, 1973: clxvii). yėr evreni 38 der Anführer der Kämpfer, stirb nicht. Du bist der Held unter den Tapferen, stirb nicht. So ein Drache ist ja eigentlich bloß eine Schlange, gehe ruhig auf ihn los.“ Kasan ließ seinen Fuchs tänzeln und ritt schnell auf den Drachen zu. Er sah diesen im Schlaf liegen. Da dachte sich Kasan: „Einen Mann im Schlaf zu töten ist keine Mutprobe, ein Leben in Arglist ist für einen Männersohn kein Leben.“ Also griff er zu einem Pfeil6 in seinem Köcher und zielte auf den Drachen, den er traf. Der Drache schlug beim Aufwachen mit seinem Schwanz, der den Berg umschlang und spie Gift, das die Erde färbte. Er atmete tief ein durch die zusammengepressten Lippen und, wie ein Distelstrauch, den der Wind vor sich hertreibt, bewegte sich Kasan mit Pferd und Rüstung auf den Rachen des Drachen zu. Da rief Kasan Allah an und flehte: „Wunderbarer Gott, der den Weg freimacht zum Himmel, den er errichtet hat, großer Gott, der seinen Auserwählten nicht aufschreien lässt!7 Viele suchen dich im Himmel, aber du befindest dich im Herzen der Gläubigen und auf der Zunge der Aufrichtigen. Allah, mein Gott, wer dich eins nennt, den werde ich auf den Mund küssen, wer dich zweifach nennt, den werde ich auf den Mund hauen. Über reißende Bäche werde ich Brücken schlagen, die Verlassenen werde ich bei der Hand nehmen, die Nackten werde ich kleiden. Es soll nicht heißen, dass den Kasan am Ende eine Schlange geschluckt hat. O Allmächtiger, biete mir einen Ausweg!“ Möge dir kein böser Tag befallen! Und wenn dir ein böser Tag befällt, dann flehe Allah an. Denen, die Allah anflehen, bleibt nichts verwehrt. Kaum hatte Kasan Allah angefleht, da schob sich ein Fels in der Größe eines geräumigen Zeltes zwischen ihm und dem Drachen. Kasan ritt auf diesen hinauf und stieg dort vom Pferd. Er pflanzte seinen Speer in den Boden (sic!) und legte sein Schild an. Solange der Held gesund ist, gibt er sein Leben für eine Waffe. Irgendwann wird er diese Waffe brauchen, wenn auch nur für kurze Zeit. Wie sehr sich der Drache auch mühte, Kasan in sich hinein zu schlürfen, Speer und Schild verhinderten, dass er auf den Felsen hinaufkam. Kasan hielt oben auf dem Felsen stand, aber sein Auge wurde durch das fürchterliche Andringen des Drachen getrübt und wurde blutig. Kasan sprach seinem Auge wütend zu: „He du, mein feiges Auge! Du fürchtetest nicht die Schneide eines Schwertes aus gehärtetem dunklem Stahl und schrecktest nicht zurück vor den Spitzen der blitzschnellen Pfeile. Die sechzehn batman schwere Keule eines Ungläubigen traf meinen Scheitel, aber du quollst nicht hervor. Dieser sogenannte Drache ist nur eine Schlange, was ist an dem, dass du schwach und trübe wirst? Was hat ein feiges Auge wie du in einem tapferen Mann wie mir zu suchen?“ Er zückte seinen Dolch und schickte sich an, seine Augen auszustechen. Da fiel ihm aber ein, dass die Leute sagen mochten, Kasan habe den Drachen zu Gesicht bekommen und sich, da ihm nichts Besseres einfiel, aus Angst die Augen ausgestochen. 6 7 ṣ[u]hār (?) ürdügüŋi ulatmayan; falsch in den Ausgaben; ür= ‚auserwählen’ (*üḏür=) gibt es im Türkmenischen und im Osmanischen. 39 Er warf seinen Köcher vor sich hin, und als die achtzig Pfeile aus dem Köcher verbraucht waren, hatte der Drache Spieße in allen Gelenken. Er hatte keine Energie zum Schlürfen mehr, aber es steckte noch Leben in ihm. Kasan nahm sein Schwert aus gehärtetem dunklem Stahl in die Hand und stürzte sich damit auf den Drachen. Kasan schlug dem Drachen am zentralen Gelenk alle sieben Köpfe ab und warf sie auf den Boden. Dessen Gift floss zu Boden und verursachte dort links und rechts Brände. Kasan durchbohrte den Drachen mit seinem Dolch, seinem Schwert und seinem Messer. Dann setzte er sich mit gekreuzten Beinen oben auf den Drachen drauf. Sowie Lele Kilbasch das Feuer sah, meinte er, der Drache hätte Kasan verschluckt. Er rief aus: „Herr, Herr, dessen Weißbrot ich aß!“, und sputete sich mit gezücktem Schwert zum Drachen. Und was sah er dort? Er sah die sieben Köpfe des Drachen auf der Erde liegen und Kasan mit gekreuzten Beinen auf dem Rücken des Drachen sitzen. Lele sprach: „Segensreicher Gott! Lob der Mannhaftigkeit und Überlegenheit meines Herrn Kasan!“ Kasan erwiderte: „Lieber Lele, ich war es nicht, der den Drachen tötete, sondern deine Standhaftigkeit und Unterstützung. Hole Fachleute und schau, dass der Drache enthäutet wird.“ Lele holte gute Fachleute und ließ den Drachen enthäuten. Aus der Haut des Drachen ließ Kasan ein Kleid für seine furchtlose Selbst nähen und ein Futteral für seinen Bogen anfertigen. Für seine blitzschnellen8 Pfeile mit den drei Federn ließ er einen Köcher nähen, für sein Schwert aus dunklem Stahl eine Scheide herstellen, für seine sechseckige Flanschkeule ein Futteral und ebenso für seinen spitzen Speer mit dem bunten Fähnchen. Der Sattel seines wolfhaarigen Fuchses bekam eine Bekleidung und die Bedeckung seines Sonnendaches ließ er auch aus Streifen von Drachenhaut fertigen. Die sieben Köpfe wurde auch irgendwie enthäutet und das beste Exemplar setzte Kasan sich auf. Nachdem er selber mit Pferd in Drachenhaut geschlüpft war, machte er sich auf dem Weg zu Bajindir Chan. Bajindir Chan bekam die Nachricht, Kasan sei zum Drachen geworden und käme angeritten. Der Oghuse ist ein solch treuherziger Türke, dass er sich nicht fragt, wie denn ein Mensch zum Drachen wird. Also meldeten sich links und rechts Leute zu Wort, die sagten: „Solange Kasan ein Mensch war, sind wir ihm immer gefolgt.9 Jetzt da er zum Drachen geworden ist, wird er uns alle schlucken. Komm, wir steigen auf einen Hügel und decken ihn mit Pfeilen ein.“ Da meldete sich Bajindir Chan zu Wort: „Mein Stellvertreter Kasan ist ein mutiger Held, ein guter Held. Womöglich ist er einem Drachen begegnet, hat ihn getötet und sich dann als Drache verkleidet. Wenn Kasan zum Drachen geworden ist kennt er so etwas wie Volk und Bruder nicht.“ Karabudak sprach: „Mein Chan, erlaube es mir, Kasan entgegen zu reiten, soll er mich schlucken, wenn er zum Drachen geworden ist.“ Karabudak ließ sein Pferd tänzeln und ritt Kasan entgegen. Auf Hörweite hielt er halt und griff einen 8 9 ṣ[u]hār (?) cuhdäsindäŋ čïqmazduq. Azmun (2019) und Shahgoli & al. (2019) übersetzen: ‚konnten wir nicht gegen ihn an’, was sicherlich besser passt. Ekici (2019) übersetzt wie ich. 40 Pfeil 10 aus seinem Köcher. „Onkel, man sagt, du seiest zum Drachen geworden. Wenn das nicht stimmt, dann rede laut und deutlich mit mir,“ sagte er. „Redest du nicht, dann töte ich dich, Kasan, mit der Spitze eines blitzschnellen Pfeils, ich schneide dich in Stücke mit der Schneide des Schwertes aus dunklem Stahl. Wenn du einen Drachen getötet hast, sei deine Heldentat gesegnet. Dann gib mir einen Anteil an deiner Beute.“ Kasan stieg vom Pferd und band sein Schwert um Karabudaks Taille. Ob Karabudak nun seinem Schwert Ehre gemacht hatte oder nicht, darüber wurde Chan Bajindir aufgeklärt. Kasan hatte also einen Drachen getötet. Bajindir Chan zog los mit den Innen- und Außen-Oghusen, um Kasan zu empfangen. Kasan stieg vom Pferd, machte einen Sprung von siebzig Fuß und warf sich Bajindir Chan zu Füßen. Er stellte sein Sonnendach aus Drachenhaut auf. Bajindir Chan setzte sich mit gekreuzten Beinen unter das Sonnendach hin und Kasan bewirtete ihn sieben Tage und sieben Nächte. Wie Dede Korkut es ausdrückt: „Ein großer Held wie Kasan hat diese Welt durchlebt.“ Eine Geschichte mit Ansage Nun ist also eine dreizehnte Heldengeschichte aus dem Dede Korkut-Zyklus aufgetaucht, und dass sie von einem Drachenkampf, den Kasan liefert, handelt, kommt nicht unbedingt als große Überraschung. In zwei Quellen wird ein solcher Kampf erwähnt. Einmal in der Dresdener Handschrift (f.141r6–8), in einem Prahlvers, den Kasan an die Ungläubigen richtet, die ihn gefangen halten: Und auch den Drachen mit sieben Köpfen ging ich besuchen, der ist so grauenhaft, dass mir das linke Auge tränte. Ich sagte: „He Auge, feiges Auge, was ist an einer Schlange, dass dir vor ihr bangt?“ Wir sehen hier ein Zitat aus der obigen Geschichte. Der andere Verweis, aus dem Stammbaum der Türkmenen Abūlghāzī Bahadur Chans, bezieht sich zwar auf einen Drachenkampf, aber die Unterschiede zum vorigen sind unübersehbar: Eine Riesenschlange kam vom blauen Himmel und fraß jeden Menschen, den sie sah. Salur Kasan hieb ihr gnadenlos den Kopf ab. Meine Helden, meine Herren, hat jemand einen gesehen wie Kasan? (Ölmez 1996: 209) 10 ṣ[u]hār (?) 41 Hier ist die Rede von einem Drachen aus der Luft, während es sich vorher explizit um einen Landdrachen (yėr evreni) handelt. Viel wichtiger ist aber der Umstand, dass der Drache hier die Menschheit bedroht, Kasan tritt also als Held in seiner Normalfunktion auf, das heißt als Ordnungshüter. In unserer Geschichte hat der Drache aber noch gar nichts verbrochen, er hat etwa keine Stammesmitglieder gefressen oder Jungfern entführt. Ein Held, der aus purer Abenteuerlust loszieht, ist für den Dede Korkut-Zyklus eher untypisch. 11 Übrigens gibt es auch in einem Prahlvers im ms. Gonbad einen ganz wesentlichen Verweis auf die Drachengeschichte (f.19v4–5): Yėddi başlı yėr evreni12 olubanı Quyruq çaldum, daġ dolandum Aġu saçdum, yėr boyadum Nefes çeküb ṣon sömüreŋ Ġazanıdum. Ich wurde zum siebenköpfigen Drachen, Schlug mit dem Schwanz, um den Berg herum, Spuckte Gift, färbte die Erde, Holte Atem und schlürfte in mich hinein, das war ich, Kasan. Kasan identifiziert sich also wirklich mit dem Drachen! Es stellt sich die Frage, nach welchen Geschichten oder Episoden die Prahlverse Kasans und die Lobpreisungen in anderen Quellen sonst noch verweisen. Ein wiederkehrender Topos sind Eroberungszüge gegen Burgen und Städte, etwa gegen Akhisar, in der Dresdener Handschrift, und im ms. Gonbad ist ja tatsächlich die Kernfassung eines Eroberungszuges im Aras-Tal und gegen Kars enthalten. Es werden zwei andere Episoden des öfteren erwähnt in den Quellen. Erstens eine in einer Passage (f.19b12–20r5) im ms. Gonbad, in der Kasan prahlt: 11 Başgöz (1978: 35) vertritt die folgende Meinung: “When the hero begins pursuit of an individual goal, such as the heroic quest for a bride, (…) the decay of the epic begins. (…) Since individual motivation is the main feature of a romance hero (...)” Was das Motiv der Brautwerbung angeht, liegt Başgöz allgemein gesprochen wohl falsch. Ich zitiere hierzu Hatto (1989: 291): “In Siberian and Inner Asian, but also in some African traditions, the main action may be the (exogamic) Quest for a Bride.” (siehe auch den Index des Bandes unter “wooing”). Dabei argumentiert Hatto aber schon dahingehend, dass eine Brautwerbung ein wesentliches Element sein kann für das Fortbestehen eines kleineren Stammesverbandes. Bleibt also die Frage, was der Nutzen die Drachentötung durch Kasan für das Gemeinwesen haben mochte, noch abgesehen von seiner Identifikation mit dem Drachen. Will er nur eben so sein Epitheton „Drache unter den Männern“ konkretisieren? 12 Man kann das Kompositum yėr evreni womöglich auffassen als „Festlanddrache“, im Gegensatz zu Drachen aus der Luft oder aus dem Meer. Anderseits bedeutet evren etymologisch „etwas das sich dreht“, und dann insbesondere „das Firmament“, also hat die Disambiguierung vielleicht damit zu tun. Yėr evreni ist ein Epitheton für den Helden Bügdüs Emen im Oğuzname-Fragment in Yazıcıoğlıs Seldschukkengeschichte (Gökyay 1973: cliii), aber auch in ms. Günbed in der Form qara yėrüŋ evreni ‚Drache der dunklen Erde’. 42 Ala Demür Kāfir Ḫandaŋ geleŋ altı degül altmış batman ġazanıdı İç Oġuzuŋ Dış Oġuzuŋ aqaları boş yėrindeŋ götüre bilmezidi İçine laᶜlī çaqır doldurdum, aq dalımuŋ üstine ḫōb götürdüm Qara ġazanı boşadubanı yėre qoydum Adum Delü Dönmeziken ad ġazanaŋ Ġazanıdum Es kam ein Kessel von Ala Demür Chan, dem Ungläubigen,13 nicht sechs, ganze sechzig batman schwer Keiner der Genossen von den Innen- und Außen-Oghusen konnte ihn leer heben Ich füllte ihn mit Rotwein und hob ihn schön auf meine weiße Schulter Den schwarzen Kessel leerte ich und stellt ihn zurück auf den Boden Ich hieß Delü Dönmez,14 aber erwarb mir den Namen Kasan.15 Auch hier gibt es eine Variante bei Abūlghāzī, wobei aber der Aspekt der Namensgebung außen vor bleibt: Er warf das Fleisch von einundvierzig Pferden in einen Kessel Er hob den Kessel mit der linken Hand Und teilte das Fleisch mit der rechten Hand unterm Volk aus Meine Helden, meine Herren, hat jemand einen gesehen wie Kasan? (Ölmez, loc.cit.) Am weitesten verbreitet ist wohl der Hinweis auf eine Episode, in der Kasan eine Lawine oder einen den Hang hinunter rollenden Felsbrocken stoppt. In ms. Gonbad (f.19v8–12) finden wir: Aqalarumla içiridüm, qayadan bir qara daş ayrıldı geldi Saġdaki bėgler saġa qaçdı, soldaki bėgler sola qaçdı Saq elümdeŋ sol elüme piyāleni tepretmedüm Qarılarumı qarşı vėrüb qara daşı saḫlayaŋ Ġazanıdum Ich war gerade beim Trinken mit meinen Genossen, da löste sich ein großer Brocken vom Felsen und kam angerollt. Die Herren zur Rechten flohen nach rechts, die zur Linken nach links. Ich, Kasan, nahm noch nicht den Becher aus der rechten in die linke Hand, sondern hielt dem Felsbrocken meine Arme entgegen und stoppte ihn. In ms. Dresden (f.140v12–13): Als vom riesig hohen schwarzen Berg Steine hinunterrollten, war ich, Kasan, der sie mir meiner dicken Ferse und meinem Schenkel aufhielt. 13 Nicht erwähnt in ms. Dresden. 14 „Wild und nicht kehrtmachend“. 15 D.h. „Kessel“. 43 Auch hierzu gibt es eine Parallelle bei Abūlghāzī, hier allerdings mit Feindeinwirkung: Vom Berg Karaghurt rollten sie Felsen aus einer Grotte. Kasan trat diesen entgegen und hielt sie auf. Die Petschenegen sahen dies und erschraken sehr. Meine Helden, meine Herren, hat jemand einen gesehen wie Kasan? (Ölmez, loc.cit.) Und der Topos kommt Seldschukengeschichte vor: im Oğuzname-Fragment in Yazıcıoğlıs Als die Ungläubigen vom Berg Tschalban im Karadschuk Steine fliegen ließen, War ich es, Kasan, der ihnen meinen Schenkel entgegenhielt. Zudem wurde das Motiv in Zusammenhang mit Salur Kasan in Sibirien gefunden, in einer südsiberisch-tatarische Fassung der Sage von Ak Kübäk. In der betreffenden Passage rollt Kübäk große Felsbrocken auf Kasan herab, der diese umgehend über seinen Kopf zurückwirft (Radloff 1872: 190). Gökyay (1973: clxxiii) spekuliert schon darüber, dass sich hinter den Verweisen in den Prahlversen insbesondere zwei Geschichten verstecken mochten: Eine über einen Kampf mit einem Drachen, und eine über das Aufhalten der Lawine. Die letztere ist vielleicht als nächste dran, gefunden zu werden. Insgesamt bezieht sich das Textmaterial in ms. Gonbad vordergründig auf die Person Salur Kasans. In ms. Dresden tritt Kasan in der Handlung nicht als allzu großer Held in Erscheinung, das ist eben nur der Fall in den Prahlversen, aus denen ich oben zitiert habe. Eine neue Generation von Helden ist in ms. Dresden herangewachsen (siehe die Bemerkungen zu den einzelnen Helden in Gökyay 1973: cxli–clxxix). Die Helden und ihre Epitheta Eine andere Verbindung zu möglich verschollenen Episoden des Dede KorkutZyklus bieten die Epitheta der Helden, die im Versteil der Handschrift und teilweise auch in der Kernfassung der Eroberung der Festung Kars und des Aras-Tals aufgelistet werden. Das Verhältnis der längeren formellen (extended formulaic) Epitheta zu den Episoden wird besprochen durch Başgöz (1978: 41–41), der die Meinung vertritt, dass sie als Gedächtnisstützen für den Sänger funktionieren, der so die Episoden den passenden Helden zuordnen und diese in die Geschichten richtig einreihen kann. Die schlagkräftigsten Helden werden in ms. Dresden an zwei Stellen in identischer Reihenfolge aufgezählt: Kara Göne – Deli Dundar – Kara Budak – Scher Schemseddin – Bamsi Beirek – Jegenek – Arus – Bügdüs Emen – Alp Evren 44 (Tezcan & Boeschoten: 63–65, 111–113; Boeschoten 2008: 59–61, 135–137). 16 Diese Reihenfolge schreibt den Status der jeweiligen Helden fest (Başgöz 1978: 33– 34). Eine Aufzählung von Helden mit deren Epitheta findet sich auch in den Verspassagen in ms. Gonbad (f.12r11–14r1): Delü Dundar – Kara Budak – Jegenek – (Bügdüs) Emen – Chan Afschar. Diese ist im Vergleich zu ms. Dresden wesentlich gekürzt; insbesondere fehlen die Helden der älteren Generationen Kara Göne (Kasans Bruder) und Arus (Kasans Oheim). Zwei führende Helden der jüngeren Generation aus ms. Dresden, Bamsi Beirek und Basat, werden in der Handschrift gar nicht erwähnt. Neu in der Aufzählung ist aber Chan Afschar, der in ms. Dresden fehlt; er wird aber als Herr der Außen-Oghusen in einer anderen Quelle erwähnt (Gökyay 1973: cxliii). Obwohl er in der Aufzählung der Helden dem Außen-Oghusen Delü Dundar noch den Vortritt lässt, wird in ms. Gonbad Kasans Neffe Kara Budak zum Haupthelden (nach Kasan) stilisiert. Er wird als erster Kämpfer bei der Eroberung vom Aras-Tal und Kars genannt (f.25v1) und meldet sich für die Konfrontation mit dem als Drachen verkleideten Kasan (f.30v1). Vergleichen wir die Epitheta von den in beiden Handschriften genannten Helden, die sich womöglich auf Episoden beziehen, dann ergibt sich folgendes Bild: ms. Dresden Deli Dundar: * Hat das Tor beim Pass mit dem Stahltor im Sturm genommen (?) (Demür qapu dervendindeki demür qapuyı depüp alan) * Hat Kasan im Duell dreimal vom Pferd gestoßen Kara Budak: * Hat die Festungen von Diyarbekir und Mardin im Sturm verwüstet * Hat König Kiptschak Blut spucken lassen * Hat Kasans Tochter mit viel Mut erobert Jegenek: * Hat Kasan „Pfaffe“ geschimpft Bügdüs Emen: * Hat das Antlitz des Propheten gesehen und war dessen Vertreter bei den Oghusen ms Gonbad Deli Dundar: * Hat Mangyschlak geplündert * Hat Derbend mit dem Stahltor im Sturm genommen (?) (Demir qapu Derbendi tepüp alan) 16 In der zweiten Aufzählung ist in ms. Dresden Kara Budak versehentlich ausgelassen, er kommt aber vor in der Parallellstelle in ms. Vatikan (f.98v11-99r1). 45 * Hat am Fluß Samur ein Trinkgelage veranstaltet Kara Budak: * Hat Aleppo und Damaskus erobert Jegenek: * Hat Kasan „Pfaffe“ geschimpft (Bügdüs) Emen: * Hat in Mekka das Antlitz des Propheten gesehen und wurde dessen Vertreter bei den Oghusen Der auffallendste Unterschied ist die geographische Verlagerung der Taten von Kara Budak. Auf der Basis der Übereinstimmungen scheint mir, dass die besten Kandidaten, wohinter sich eine verbreitete Episode oder Geschichte verbergen könnte, erstens der Eroberungszug von Deli/Delü Dundar bei oder gegen Derbend, und zweitens die Beleidigung Kasans durch Jegenek sind. Die Herren der Oghusen als Herrscher Ein auffälliger Unterschied der ms. Gonbad zu ms. Dresden ist die Tatsache, dass in den Epitheta einige Herren der Oghusen als Herrscher über eine bestimmte Region dargestellt werden, während die Oghusen in der Dresdener Handschrift sich in ihrem eigenen Stammesgebiet befinden. Deli Dundar, der generell mit dem Kaukasus und weiter (Mangyschlak östlich des Kaspischen Meeres) assoziiert wird, wird „Sultan der Tabassaranen“ genannt und (Bügdüs) Emen „Chef Kurdistans“ (Kürdistānuŋ böyügi). Kara Budak hat nicht nur Syrien erobert, er ist auch „Herrscher in Aleppo“ (Ḥaleb ḫanı) und sitzt auf „dem goldenen Thron Ägyptens“ – eine merkwürdige Verbindung zum Mamluken-Staat. Und Paj Bidschan, der in ms. Dresden figuriert als Vater Banu Tschitscheks, der Braut Bamsi Beireks, wird in ms. Gonbad (f.12v12 und f.25v2) ein pādişāh (wo wird nicht genannt), zu dem Bajindur Chan (auch pādişāh genannt) Chan Afschar als Boten schickt. Den Epitheta Chan Afschars zufolge hat sich ein Konflikt zwischen ihm und Bidschan ergeben, auch dahinter steckt vermutlich wieder eine Episode. Möglicherweise sind diese Herrschaftsbezeichnungen spätere Ergänzungen. Dieser Aufsatz ist Maria Ivanics gewidmet, Möge sie ihren Ruhestand genießen! 46 Bibliographie Azmun, Yusuf. 2019. Dede Korkut’un üçüncü elyazması. İstanbul: Kutlu Yayınevi. Başgöz, İlhan. 1978. Epithetes in a prose epic: The Book of my grandfather Korkut. In: İlhan Başgöz & Mark Glazer, Studies in Turkish folklore. Bloomington: Indiana University, 25–45. Boeschoten, Hendrik. 2008. Das Buch des Dede Korkut. Stuttgart: Reclam. Ekici, Metin. 2019. 13. Dede Korkut destanı. Millî Folklor 31, 5–13. Gökyay, Orhan Şaik. 1973. Dedem Korkud’un kitabı. İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi. Hatto, Arthur. 1989. Towards an anatomy of heroic and epic poetry. In: J. B. Hainsworth, Traditions of heroic and epic poetry. Vol. II, London: The Modern Humanities Research Association, 145–306. Ölmez, Zuhal Kargı. 1996. Ebulgazi Bahadır Han. Şecere-i Terākime. Ankara: Simurg. Radloff, Wilhelm. 1872. Proben der Volksliteratur der türkischen Stämme. Theil 4. Sanktpeterburg: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Shahgoli, Nasser Khaze, Valiollah Yaghoobi, Shahrouz Aghatabai & Sara Behzad. 2019. Dede Korkut Kitabı’nın Günbet Yazması. Modern Türklük Araştırmaları Dergisi 16/2, 147–379. Tezcan, Semih & Hendrik Boeschoten. 2001. Dede Korkut Oğuznameleri. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları. Kaukázusi török népek kálváriája a népdalok tükrében A migráns válság kapcsán Csáki Éva Marinak A krími tatárok történetét évtizedek óta kutató Ivanics Mária érdekessé tette számomra is a Kaukázust. Egy kihalófélben lévő kaukázusi török népnél, a karacsájoknál jártunk 2019 márciusában, de korábban, a törökországi karacsájokkal úgy 1996-ban már felvettük a kapcsolatot. Számos kutatás és gyűjtőút után jelentek meg velük kapcsolatos tanulmányaink. A magyar népvándorlás szempontjából is igen nagy jelentőséggel bíró terület a Kaukázus északi előtere, ahol számos kisebb-nagyobb népcsoport, (többek közt a hun és az avar is) korábban és azóta is nyugat felé vette az irányt. Elég, ha csak a török nyelvűek közül a saragur, kutrigur, onogur, utrigur, onondur, onogundur, avar, kazár, bulgár, besenyő, kun népekre gondolunk, vagy ezek ilyen-olyan más népekkel keveredett utódaira, többet kellene tudnunk róluk, hogy kideríthessük, minél tisztábban láthassuk a magyarokra gyakorolt hatásukat. A karacsáj-balkárokat történelmük során több névvel is illették, etnogenezisükbe a legkülönfélébb csoportok kapcsolódtak be. Önelnevezésük tavlu ‘hegyi’ mellett van külső elnevezésük is, a karacsáj, melyet Tavkul (1994: 65) személynévi eredetűnek tart a karacsáj vezér Karcsa nevéből. Magyar nyelvterületen számos korai helynevünkben 1 is szerepel ez a személynév. Rásonyi (1973: 109) a kun Karacsa névvel hozta összefüggésbe, mely nevet Kolozs megye ura viselte 1469ben.2 13. századi grúz forrásokban kipcsak néven emlegetik őket, nyugati forrásokban kunként. Közép-Ázsiából a 11. században az Irtis felől érkező kipcsakok volgai bulgárokkal találkoztak. Egy csoportjuk a Kubán folyó vidékére telepedett (Tavkul 2012: 462). Az előnyomuló dzsingiszi seregekkel szemben az alánokkal egyesültek, de így is lerohanták őket a mongolok, emlékül hagyva rájuk számos középmongol nyelvi hatást, melyek vizsgálatával magam is próbálkoztam. Nagyjából a 19. század közepéig belakták a karacsáj-balkárok Európa legmagasabb hegyének, az Elbruznak keleti és nyugati völgyeit egyaránt. Az egyes csoportokat a völgyek neve szerint emlegették, baszháni, csegemi, holami, bizingi és 1 2 A valahai magyar nyelvterületen széltében-hosszában elterjedt helynév több szóösszetételben is előfordul, többnyire utótagként. Személynévből tisztségnév, majd helynév kialakulása az egész steppe övezetben ismert nyelvi jelenség, melyet mongol és török területeken is megfigyelhetünk. 48 balkári, vagy az oroszok öt völgyieknek, vagy öt hegyi csoportnak is hívták őket, egymást alannak szólították. A karacsáj-balkárok őriznek magyar vonatkozású legendákat is, melyekből Hacieva (1996) és Tavkul (2004) is közölt párat. Számos kutató gyürkőzött már neki a sokrétű feladatnak, mely nem kevés eredménnyel kecsegtet. Magam Sipos János népzenekutatói tevékenysége kapcsán a népzenei vonatkozásokra, konkrétabban a népi irodalmi szövegekre figyelek. Ezek közül nyúlok most a következő karacsájbalkár és azeri példáimhoz. Karacsáj Ex 8.2a Biz çıqġan edik a voy Ullu Bashandan üzülüb Da kirgen edik şam Teberdige voy voy tizilib Biz umut etgenek ullu Teberdide caşarġa Bizge buyurulmad Muhunu da budayından aşarġa Kel aruwçuġum alıb keteyim voyra rirara voy Beri cuwuq kelçi oŋ canıma Seni anama kelin eteyim Oltur meni caŋŋı maşinama Elindultunk Nagy Bashanból örökre, Odaértünk szent Teberdébe. Azt reméltük, majd ott élhetünk, Nem adatott meg, hogy Muhu búzájából együnk. Gyere kedvesem, fogjuk magunkat, Erre gyere, a jobb oldalamra! Anyám menyévé teszlek, Szállj fel az új kocsimra! Megjegyzés: Nagy Bashan és Teberda a legismertebb karacsáj települések közül valók. Muhu pedig egy karacsáj puszta neve. Karacsáj No 275 Oy hoy marcala deydi da bu Küz qoyçula Ucet awzuna kirdile deyle Hoy alay da kirdile İt gawurla bılanı qaydan bildile 49 Oy hoy marca deydi da bu Tuwdulanı da wa qaratornu sürdüle deyle Hoy alay da sürdüle Küz qoyçula da ulaq3 soydula aşarġa Udzset völgyébe értek az őszi pásztorok,4 Beértek a völgybe. Kutya gyaurok honnan értesültek róla? A Tuwdu család barna lovait elrabolták, Nyájait elrabolták, Az őszi pásztorok vacsorára kecskegidát vágtak. Karacsáj No 279 Ata curtha eltgen colla kesilib Oŋluraqla çıqdıq entda bir cazġa Tüye cıyın barad qumnu tizilib Ala bara bolurlamı Kafkazġa Başçı tüye köllendired cıyının Tiri atlay ant etgença talmazġa Başçı bolsa bir onowġa sıyınıb Sürkelib da ceter edik Kafkazġa Elvágták a visszautat hazafelé, Mi erősebbek még egy tavaszt megértünk. Teve karaván halad a homokban sorba, Vajon eljutnak-e a Kaukázusba? A vezér teve biztatja a többieket, Bátran lépdel, fáradhatatlanul. Ha már vezér, hűen fogadalmához Akár hason csúszva is eljutunk a Kaukázusba.5 Karacsáj No 286 Kökge termilib ösgen naratla Caşil çepkenli tabiġat Ata curtumu seyir haparı Sawlay duniyaġa aytılad 3 4 5 A ‘kiskecske, kecskegida’ jelentésű szó egy korai nyugati ótörök jövevényszó a magyarban (WOT 638). A nyári legelőről a nyájakat leterelő pásztorok. A Szíriában rekedt karacsáj-balkárok történetéről szól ez az ének. 50 Atam anam da sense Qaraçay Kiriş tutuşub tawlarıŋ Üyüm künüm da sense Qaraçay Erib ketginçi buzlarıŋ Égbe nyúló hatalmas fenyők, A zöldruhás természet Elmeséli az egész világnak Hazám érdekes történetét. Te vagy, karacsáj föld apám és anyám is. Lánchegységként húzódó hegyeid, Otthonom, napom is te vagy karacsáj föld, Míg jegeid mind el nem olvadnak. A cári oroszok kaukázusi hódításai idején (1864) költöztek nyájaikkal mind magasabb területekre a hegyoldalakon a karacsájok. Egy részük a kivándorlást választotta, miután 1886-ban megkapták a kérvényükre az Oszmán Birodalom Menekültügyi Igazgatósága engedélyét. A hátramaradottak Stampulčula néven emlegetik ezt a nagy, kb. 1500 főből álló első kivándorló csoportot. Őket az anatóliai Tokat és Eskişehir környéki falvakba telepítettek le. Stampulçula Stampulga ketdile Mında kalganlaga ne kıyınlıkla cetdile Ol künlede bizge bolur bolgandı Ak betleden kızıl nürle ongandı Bizni elibiz kolan hudiyleden tolgandı Ol künle maşharlanı künüdü Allay koturbaşnı ceti cahanim üyüdü Cılav boldu Teberdini ullu toyları Mangıray kaldı Gata kıyınlını Buv Ölgende koyları Teberdide kibik kara kozu soymayla Para almayın üy salkınlaga koymayla Kemele kelelle bizni allabızga çabhanlay Biz carlıla Stampuldan kalmay keterek Burun kibik Teberdini tabhanlay Oy igi sagan Teberdi kobannı tabared 51 Sıylı Şamda ötmek bla aşarga Carathan Allahdan buyruk tabared Burun kibik tik künnümde Ceti el bolub caşarga... (Sipos – Tavkul 2012: 86) Megérkeztek Isztambulba a kivándorlók, A hátrahagyottakat nagy csapás érte Minden megtörtént, ami csak történhetett, A fehér arcokról eltűnt a fény. Megtelt a falunk tarka ördögökkel, Azok a napok a végítélet napjai lettek. A magára maradtnak a hét pokla Sírásra váltak Teberdi híres mulatságai. A szegény Gata birkanyájai Buv Ölgen völgyében bégetnek, Fekete bárányt nem vágnak már Teberdiben, Ingyen nem védelmeznek a házak. Hajók érkeznek elénk szinte röpülve, Mi gyarlók, nem akartunk Isztambulban maradni, A régi Teberdihez hasonló helyet kerestünk, Ó, bár megtaláltuk volna a Teberdi folyót! Szent Damaszkuszban kenyeret ettünk volna Mindenható Allah rendelése szerint Mint régi napjainkban, Hét faluba6 telepedve éltünk volna... Az első kivándorlókat később több csoport is követte, sőt egy részük a mai Szíria területére telepedett, ahonnét rettenetes körülmények között kellett tovább menekülniük a jelenleg is folyó háború miatt. A helyben maradott karacsájokat sem kímélte az élet. A második világháború idejére már olyan sokat szenvedtek az oroszoktól, hogy bárkivel összefogtak volna ellenük. Így lettek a gyötrelmes sztálini korszakban a németek szövetségesei, mely okból a szovjetek száműzték őket több más kaukázusi néppel együtt. Akik túlélték a sivatagi, vagy szibériai száműzetést, azok sem térhettek vissza régi otthonaikba az amnesztia után. 6 A magyar településnevek vizsgálata is várat még magára. Az állítólag besenyőkből hétfalusi csángókká lett magyarok közt is több karacsáj családnév került lejegyzésre. 52 Sipos János 1999-ben végzett öthetes azeri terepmunkája igen sikeres volt, hatszáz ötven dallamot rögzített negyvenhét településen. Azóta többször is járt, jártunk Azerbajdzsánban. Minden konferencia utat kiegészítve kisebb-nagyobb gyűjtésekkel. A Kaukázus déli szomszédságában élő azeriknek is van okuk a kesergésre. Gyönyörű siratóik közül, a karabahi menekülttábor lakóitól felvett dalok szövegeiből válogattam. Van, amikor siratónak, keservesnek, olykor viszont altatónak "álcázott" formában adnak hangot a honvágyuknak, végtelen fájdalmuknak. Nem csak az otthonuk, a temetőik, a hátrahagyott hegyeik is égető emlékként élnek a gyászolókban. ex 40a Aǧı Éle bil, qanadı qırıx quşam, uça bilmirem, uça bilmirem, Zalım düşmen kesib aranı, kéçebilmirem, kéçebilmirem, hem, éy. Déyirem: ay, balam, ay, balam, ay, balam, Mezarımız üssüne gédebilmirem, gédebilmirem, gédebilmirem. Qasımova Réyhan, 1927, Ermenistan, (Sipos 2009: 347) Sirató Törött szárnyú madár vagyok, nem szállhatok, nem szállhatok, Kegyetlen ellenség elzárta az utat, át nem mehetek, át nem mehetek, jaj. Mondom: jaj, kicsim, jaj, kicsim, jaj, kicsim, A temetőnkbe sem mehetek el, nem mehetek el, nem mehetek. 6a–12 Laylay Laylay, vetenim, laylay, Gezmeye yad ölke, Ölmeye veten yaxşı. Veten, ay, veten, Veten, ay, veten. Dağılan veten, ay, veten, Kor veten, ay, veten. İstey’rem vetenmi, İstey’rem gédem, ölem vetende. Vetenim, ay, vetenim, Vetenim, ay, vetenim. Meherremova Töhve İmanxan qızı (84), Qarabaǧ (Sipos 2009: 360) 53 Sirató Jaj, hazám, jaj, Kirándulni az idegen föld, Meghalni a haza a jó. Haza, jaj, haza, Haza, jaj, haza. Széthulló haza, jaj, haza, Vak haza, jaj, haza. Akarom a szülőföldemet, Haza akarok menni meghalni. Hazám, jaj, hazám, Hazám, jaj, hazám. 15a–9 Ağı Göyde bulud yan géder, Açma yaram, éy, ana, qan géder, Gelinlerimiz, qızdarımız girev géder. Dağda duman yéri var, ay, bala, Qaşta keman yéri var. Biz d’ istiri vetene gédek, Vetanda güman yérimiz var, Éle sizde de güman yériniz var, éy, éy. Déyr: éy, men aşiq o günéyler, Şeh düşmüş o günéyler, Vetanı alsalar, vetana gétseler, Gétsek, bayrammızı o gün éylerik, o gün éylerik. Déyr: ay, menim, aq kağızım, Dili yox, lal kağızım, Gédirsen vetana, Bizden dilden dili kağızım. Qalanın burcu menen, ay, éller, Qalanın burcu menen, Dil bilmez gürcü menen, Baş qoydum Tumas dağında, Ölsem d’ incimerem. 54 Çox gelinlerimiz, qızlarımız girev gétti, Çox bize zülüm oldu, évler yandı, éşikler7 yandı. Gelinler, qızların hamısı, çoxu şehid oldu, Oğlanların çox şehid oldu, évler yandı, Bir yağı éline géçen olmadı. Esedova Dilşad Ehmed gızı (68) Qarabaǧ (Sipos 2009: 363) Sirató Az égen ferdén száll a felhő, Ne tépd fel sebemet, jaj, anya, folyik a vér, Menyeink, lányaink, fogságba estek. A hegyen ködös helyek vannak, jaj, kedves, Ívelt a szemöldököd. A hazánkba akarunk menni, A hazánkban vágyott helyeink vannak, Nektek is vannak vágyott helyeitek, jaj, jaj. Azok a déli hegyoldalak, Azok a harmatlepte déli hegyoldalak, Bár visszafoglalnák a hazát, bár hazamehetnénk, Ha visszamehetünk, ünnepeinket azon a napon üljük meg, azon a napon üljük meg. Jaj, én fehér levelem, Nyelve nincs, néma levelem, Ha elmégy a hazába, Adj rólunk hírt, beszélő levelem. A vár bástyája vagyok, jaj, népem, A vár bástyája vagyok, Nyelvet nem tudó idegen vagyok Mindenemet Tumasz hegyén hagytam, Ha meghalok sem bánom. 7 A török eşik ‘kapı boşluǧunun alt yanında bulunan alçak basamak’ (Eren 1999: 140). A kaukázusi térségben beszélt török nyelvekben, így a karacsájoknál is szélesebb jelentésmezőre tart számot, mert nem csak az ajtó alatti kis területet, hanem a külvilágot is jelöli. Számos kipcsak nyelvbe a középmongol eredetű bosuγa ‘küszöb’ jövevényszó is bekerült. 55 Sok menyünk, lányunk fogságba esett, Velünk sok kegyetlenkedés történt, égtek a házak, égett a ház körül. Menyeink, lányaink közül sokan mártírhalált haltak, Fiaink közül sokan mártírhalált haltak; égtek a házak, Semmi sem maradt az ellenségnek. Laylay8 Ezizim, ağlamazdım, Gülerdim, ağlamazdım. Atam qocalıb ölse, Men qara bağlamazdım. Eziziyem, balam men, Tirmeyem men, şalam men. İmam atam ölübdür, Meler gezen menem, men. Ehmedova Cemile Mısır qızı (36), Zaqatala, Çobanköl Sipos (2009: 145) Sirató Kedvesem, nem sírtam volna, Nevettem volna, nem sírtam volna. Ha apám megöregedve halt volna meg,9 Nem öltöttem volna feketét.10 Szentem, gyermekem, Drága kelme vagyok, fejkendő vagyok. Imám atyám meghalt, A zokogva bolyongó én vagyok, én. 6a–2 Laylay Laylay dédim adına, Haqq éşitsin dadına. Her vaxt layla déyende, Balam düşer yadıma. Terana Oktay qızı, 1973, Bakı, Merdekan 8 Az altató és a sirató az élet két végpontjához kapcsolódó műfaj. Számos esetben megfigyeltük, hogy magyar és török adatközlők esetében is átcsaphat egyik a másikba. Itt is ennek vagyunk tanúi. 9 Nem pedig idő előtt. 10 Vagyis nem gyászolnék. 56 Altató Altatót énekeltem a nevére, Az Isten vigyázzon rá.11 Mindig, mikor altatót énekelek, A kicsim jut az eszembe. 8a–3 Aǧı Ezizim, balam, veten yaxşı, Géymege balam, keten yaxşı. Senin bir günüvi göreydim, bala, Soora öleydim, ne yaxşı. Ezizim, balam, ay, balamdı, Ezizim, balamın balası balamdı, balamdı. Taǧıyéva Mehfuza (56) Quba (Sipos 2009: 437) Sirató Szentem, gyermekem, a haza jó, Hordani a vászonból készült ruha jó. Bár legalább egy napodat láttam volna,12 kicsim, Azután halnék meg, milyen jó lett volna. Szentem, kicsim, jaj, kicsim, Szentem, kicsim kicsije az én kicsim, kicsim. A kaukázusi népeknél a háborúk mellett a járványok is több kivándorlást idéztek elő. Ezekről szóló énekek is dokumentáltak a Sipos archívumban (www.zti.hu/sipos_gyujtesek). Bibliográfia Borzsák I. – Dobrovits A. – Trencsényi-Waldapfel I. 1944. A világirodalom története. I. rész: Az ókor irodalma. Budapest. Büyükakıncı, E. – Bacanlı, E. (eds) 2012. Sovyetler Birliǧ’nin Daǧılmasından Yirmi Yıl Sonra Rusya Federasyonu. Türk Dilli Halklar – Türkiye ile İlişkiler. I–III. Ankara: Atatürk Kültür Merkezi. Csáki, É. 1995. Türk ve Macar türkülerinin metinlerine dair. A.Ü. DTC Fak. Dergisi XXXVII: 1–2, 169–79. 11 Dada yėtmek (yėtişmek) ‘segíteni’. 12 Amikor életben vagy. 57 Csáki É. 2002. Körtefa-kultusz a Kaukázusban. Ethnica IV:3, 117–120. Csáki, É. 2002a. A törökországi karacsájok közt tett kutatóutunkról és a karacsáj szókincs egyes sajátságairól. In: Birtalan Á. – Yamaji M. (eds): Orientalista Nap 2001, 25–33. Csáki, É. 2005. Középmongol eredetű jövevényszók a karacsáj-balkárban 2. A lótartás szavai. In: Birtalan Ágnes – Rákos Attila (eds): Bolor-un gerel. Kristályfény. Crystal-splendour. Tanulmányok Kara György professzor 70. születésnapjának tiszteletére. Volume I–II. Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem, Belső-ázsiai Tanszék – Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, Altajisztikai Kutatócsoport, Budapest, Vol. I., 169–189. Csáki, É. 2006. Karaçay-Balkar’da Orta Moǧolca Alıntı Fiiller. Modern Türklük Araştırma Dergisi 3–4, 36–65. Csáki É. 2009. Azeri szókészlet összehasonlító vizsgálata török közmondásgyűjtemény korpusza alapján. In: “Magyarország és Azerbajdzsán: a kultúrák párbeszéde” III. Nemzetközi Tudományos Konferencia (Előadások, cikkek és rezümék) 2008 november 18–20. I. kötet (történelem, néprajz, folklór, irodalom, nyelvészet) Budapest, 251–262. Csáki É. 2011. Seyyid Nesimi 14. századi azeri török költő. In: “Magyarország és Azerbajdzsán: a kultúrák párbeszéde” V. Nemzetközi Tudományos Konferencia (Előadások, cikkek és rezümék) 2010 nov. 22–25. (gazdaság, jogtudomány, történelem, néprajz, folklór, irodalom, nyelvészet) Budapest, 210–216. Csáki É. 2012. A karacsáj-balkár szókészlet különleges jellemzői. In: Sipos J. – Tavkul, U.: A régi magyar népzene nyomában. A kaukázusi karacsájok népzenéje. Budapest. MTA BTK ZTI – L’Harmattan, 302–310. A dalszövegek és magyar fordításuk: 310–381. Csáki, É. 2013. Macarca’daki yer adlarına ve ad verme geleneklerine dair. Dil Araştırmaları 13, 37–44. Csáki, É. 2015. Similarities in Animal Husbandry (Karachay-Balkars and Hungarians). In: Dilek, İ. – Türker, F. (eds): Türkmen Bilgesi. Fikret Türkmen Armağanı. Ankara: Türk Kültürünü Araştırma Enst. Yay., 289–296. Csáki É. 2016. Török népek között gyűjtött népdalszövegek. Ethnologia 1:1–4. pp. 312–340. Csáki É. 2019. Török és magyar párhuzamok folklórszövegekben. In: Sipos J.: Keleti hatások és motívumok a magyar művészetben. Konferencia 2017 nov. 27–8. Budapest. (A Magyar Művészeti Akadémia konferenciafüzetei) Bp.: MMA. 39–52. Csáki É. 2019. A török népdalok szövege és fordításuk. In: Sipos J. (ed.): Bartók Béla: Török népzene Kis-Ázsiából. Magyar fordítás és kották. Budapest: L’Harmattan. 211–251. 58 Csáki, É. 2020. Evlilikle İlgili Terimler Örneǧinde Macar ve Türk Folkloründeki Benzerlikler. Türk – Macar İlişkilerinin İzinde 20 Yıl. Prof. Dr. Melek Çolak Armaǧanı. İstanbul: Kitabevi. 109–116. Domokos P. P. 1987. A moldvai magyarság. Budapest: Magvető. Eren, H. 1999. Türk Dilinin Etimolojik Sözlüǧü. 2. B. Ankara. Hacieva, T. M. 1996. Karačay-Malkar folklor. Nalčik: El-Fa. Hegedűs A. 2012. A vonzatosság a magyar nyelvjárásokban. (A PPKE Magyar Nyelvészeti Tanszékének Kiadványai 8) Budapest – Piliscsaba. Kósa L. (szerk.) 1979. Rozmaringkoszorú. Szlovákiai magyar tájak népköltészete. Bratislava. Rásonyi, L. 1973. Kuman özel adları. Türk Kültürü Araştırmaları III–VI., 71–144. Róna-Tas, A. ‒ Berta, Á. 2011. West Old Turkic. Turkic Loanwords in Hungarian I– II. (Turcologica 84) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. (= WOT) Sipos J. 2009. Azerbajdzsáni népzene. A zene forrásainál. Budapest : Európai Folklór Intézet. Sipos, J. ‒ Tavkul, U. 2015. Karachay-Balkar Folksongs. Budapest: Inst. for Musicology of the Research Centre for the Humanities of the HASc – L’Harmattan. Tavkul, U. 1994. Sosyo-linguistik bir yaklaşım: Karaçay adının kökeni. Dil Dergisi 24, 61–65. Tavkul, U. 2004. Karaçay-Malkar destanları. (TDK Yay. 840) Ankara. Tavkul, U. 2009. Kafkasya gerçeǧi. 2. B. İstanbul: Selenge. Tavkul, U. 2012. Kafkas Mozaiǧinde Türk Dilli Halklar. In: Büyükakıncı, E. – Bacanlı, E. (eds) 2012, 439–530. On Discourse Types and Clause Combining in Däftär-i Čingiz-nāmä Éva Á. Csató and Lars Johanson Introduction This article is dedicated to Szeged, because of our deep attachment to the Department of Altaistics, a fabulous center of scientific research.1 The topic of the article, Das Buch der Dschingis-Legende (Däftär-i Čingiz-nāmä) (2002), was edited by Mária lvanics together with Mirkasym A. Usmanov. It presents a reconstructed version of the book of the Chingis legend in transcription and facsimile accompanied by a richly annotated vocabulary. The stories presented in the volume were collated by an unknown person in the 1680s. In the introduction, Professor Mária Ivanics calls the reader’s attention to the importance of the linguistic evaluation of the different parts of the text. As she points out, dating the individual parts requires a thorough examination of the linguistic peculiarities of the manuscript (Ivanics & Usmanov 2002: 13). The aim of our present article is to respond to this invitation and compare some of the discourse types occurring in the texts and describe the clause-chaining strategies they contain. This scholarly edition of the Chingis legend provides inspiring analyses and data, which could be used as resources in further studies. The language of the texts Linguistically, the work is not uniform, but reflects the peculiar ethnic mix of the population of the Volga-Ural region. The foundation is the East Turkic language used in the Golden Horde, and Oghuz and Kipchak elements are represented in the morphology. Because of the archaic spelling, the first chapter preserves several words and phrases that reflect the state of Turkic at the end of the 13th century. In the other chapters the vocabulary of the Turkic peoples of the Volga-Ural region is prominently represented. In addition to words from Tatar, Kazakh and Bashkir, several words only used in the vocabulary of Siberian Turkic languages are found. Throughout the text, synonymous Kipchak and Oghuz words are used in parallel. The genealogy at the very beginning is more recent than the other chapters; ol- ‘to 1 We are grateful to Professor Birsel Karakoç for her thoughtful comments on this paper. 60 be’ is used, not the older form bol-. Presumably this text was not originally part of the collection, but was added later. The language used in the story of Chingis is the oldest in the text and shows a striking resemblance to the language of the Oghuznāmä, which dates from the 13th century and is written in Uyghur script (Danka 2019). In the entire manuscript, the initial phoneme y- is represented by ǰ- or č-, which indicates dialectal differences. Irregularities The discussion of irregularities in the text, i.e. the occurrence of features characterizing different Turkic varieties, is an important issue, as Ivanics points out in the introduction to the volume. According to János Eckmann (1963: 305) and Gerhard Doerfer (1976: 88–89), five main characteristics can be used to distinguish between the three important Middle Turkic literary languages Old Ottoman, Kipchak, and Chaghatay: the adjective form, the ablative suffix, the dative of the 3rd person possessive form, initial t-/d-, and ä/e in the first syllable. Chaghatay is very close to Old Uyghur, whereas Kipchak stands between Chaghatay and Old Ottoman. See Table 1. Old Uyghur Old Ottoman Kipchak Chaghatay Adjective form {+IG}, {+lU} {+lu} {+I}, {+lI} {+I}, {+lI} Ablative suffix {-dIn} {+dAn} {+dAn} {+dIn} Dative of the 3rd person possessive {+InA} {+Ina} {+InA} {+IngA} > {+IGA} Initial t-/d- t- d- (mostly) t- (mostly) ~ d- t- ~ seldom, late d- ä/e in the first syllable ä ä ä e Table 1. Five main characteristics distinguishing between Turkic literary languages Regarding texts demonstrating mixed features, we refer readers to Gerhard Doerfer’s (1989) review of Münyetü’l Ġuzāt, edited by Mustafa Uğurlu (1987). This work is available in a vocalized manuscript from 1446/1467, so it belongs to the (late) Middle Turkic period. Overall, the text has a Chaghatay structure, but a certain amount of Kipchak influence can also be found in it. It is one of the many works 61 written outside of the actual area, where Chaghatay had its validity. It was composed in Egypt and exhibits mixed characteristics of a Mamluk Kipchak-Old Ottoman dialect and a Chaghatay-Kipchak idiolect; thus it is a tögül-däyil dili and an ermäztögül dili. It mostly uses {+lIG} and {+InA}, the clearly Chaghatay vowel e, and the Kipchak negation particle dögül. It does not include the well-known Macaronian Chaghatay-Ottoman olɣa-bolɣa dili, found in poems intended to be Chaghatay by Old Ottoman authors. The Chingis legend is further evidence of the tremendous influence of Chaghatay, which radiated into the early Kazan literary language. Both Chaghatay and Kipchak features occur in the texts. The text The 2002 edition of Däftär-i Čingiz-nāmä is composed of six chapters. The identification of the parts of the text in the manuscript is given in parentheses. Chapter 1 (f.1 v–28r) relates the birth of Chingis Khan and his ascent to power. The genealogy at the beginning is a later addition. As mentioned above, this is the oldest part, presumably from the 13th century. Chapter 2 (f.29r–41r) consists of several parts, beginning with the story of Timur’s birth, his later ascent to power, his campaigns against the Ottomans, the towns of Bulghar and the Russian town Wladimir, and finally the conversion of Amet and Samet Khan to Islam. These narratives are thought to be from the middle of the 15th century. Chapter 3 (f.42r–44v) tells about Saltchi who reigned in Astrakhan in the 14th century and narrates the biography of his father Isaoɣli Ahmet. This part is a genuine love story with literary quality, allegedly from the end of the 14th century. Chapter 4 is a short genealogy describing the family tree of Edige Bey (d. 1420), the founder of the Noghay Horde. The story must be from the period after 1602. Chapter 5, also a short text, lists the places of hegemony of the different khans and historical figures who at the end of the 17th century were still present in the memory of the community. Chapter 6 differs from the previous chapters in style and language. It narrates the main historical events of the Volga-Ural region from the 13th to the end of the 18th century. Discourse types Several discourse types are found in the volume. Johanson (1971: 76–87) deals with Turkish discourse types that are basically different from each other with respect to how viewpoint-aspect oppositions are realized in them. Each discourse type is based on one finite verb form, {-DỊ}, {-mỊš}, {-mỊštỊr}, {-(Ṿ)r} or {-(Ø)Ịyor}, which 62 functions as the “key”, defining aspectual values. The {-DỊ}-based narrative is the most differentiated type and guarantees an optimal contrastive development of potential functions. Types of more limited inventories do not allow the realization of all these relevant qualities, since the maximum contrast possibilities are missing; i.e. a restricted set of verb forms are selected. The options include the synchronic report, the historical tunc narratives based on {-DỊ}, the {-mỊš}-based narrative, the {-mỊštỊr}-based narrative, and non-deictic nunc narratives based on {-(Ṿ)r} and on {-(Ø)Ịyor}. Mixed discourse types also occur. Chapters of Däftär-i Čingiz-nāmä contain parts which differ with respect to discourse types. Some of them are basic, restricted to a combination of a few finite verb forms and either completely lack or only have a limited set of clausecombining devices, whereas others are more elaborate, and make use of a rich inventory of finite and non-finite verb forms using advanced clause-combining devices. In the present article, we extend the description of discourse types to also include the types of clause-combining devices employed in them. Johanson (1993) describes a typology of clause-combining strategies available in Turkic for building causal sentences. The establishment of semantic relations between two predications in a text can be marked explicitly or implicitly. Clauses can be juxtaposed, e.g., He came. He sat down; connected, e.g., He came. Then he sat down; or incorporated, e.g., Having come he sat down. In the following, we will refer to these basic distinctions using Johanson’s typological framework. In the descriptions of the basic features of discourse types represented in the Chingis legend we will summarize the finite verb forms defining a given discourse type and also the typical clause-combining strategies occurring in them. We will begin with the most restricted discourse type and continue with the more elaborate ones. Discourse type 1 This most restricted discourse type is used in some of the inserted poetic texts. It is based on the aorist as Köb et-är [multiply-AOR] ‘X multiplies’, Xizmät ḳïl-dur-ur-lar [service make-CAUS-AOR-PL] ‘They make (somebody) serve’. In the following example, a non-modifying ‹B› converb, kečir-ib [accompany-CONV] ‘accompanying + and’, is also used. The converb here functions as a clause-combining device establishing an “and” relation between two consecutive events. The converb clause is syntactically incorporated by the bound converb junctor, but semantically is at the same narrative level as the matrix clause. 63 J̌avdan elin köb etär. Ḳala tübün or etär. Därvaːzäsini keŋ etär. Čav elgä yat nökärgä sirrini aytmaslar. Uluɣlarïn törgä kečirib kičiklärin χizmät ḳïldururlar. (f.9v: 18; f.10r: 1–3) He makes his people more numerous than the enemy. He builds an earthwork (protected by a ditch) around the castle. He makes its portal wide. They do not disclose its secret to hostile people, to alien companions. They show the eminent persons to the place of honor and let the common people serve (them). Discourse type 2 The Chingis legend begins with a short narrative, which presents the background of the story proper. This introductory text contains main clauses without any clausecombining devices. The inventory of finite verb forms is restricted. The terminal anteriority suffix in {-DI} or er-di [be-TERM] ‘was’ is used with a propulsive function; i.e. it drives the narration forward. The sequence of consecutive events is interrupted by intraterminal forms in {-(V)r} erdi, describing situations characterizing a period of time in the anteriority, e.g., Bit-är er-di [grow-AOR beTERM] ‘X used to grow/was growing’. Existential clauses are based on Bar er-di [existent be-TERM] ‘X used to be/was present’. The discourse is mostly built as a chain of juxtaposed finite sentences without any junctor. The item ämmaː is employed here as an interjection. A temporal/conditional clause is based on a verb form in {-sA}, e.g., Sač-ïn tara-sa yinčü tök-ül-ür er-di [hair-POSS3.ACC comb-HYP pearl pour-PASS-AOR be-TERM] ‘When she combed her hair, pearls were pouring’. The syntactic status of the clause in {-sA} is unclear. The hypothetical form {-sA} can build finite sentences. Thus an asyndetic juxtaposition of the clauses Sač-ïn tara-sa ‘(Imagine) she combs her hair’ and Yinčü tök-ül-ür er-di ‘Pearls were pouring’ is possible. However, Turkic varieties demonstrate clear evidence of the use of {-sA} as a converb suffix as well. Ävväl zamaːnda Aḳ Deŋizniŋ ičindä Maːlta degän šähär bar erdi. Ol šähär χaːnïnïŋ atï Altun Χan degän erdi. Χaːnïšïnïŋ atï Körlävič degän erdi. Ol eki paːdišaːhdïn bir ḳïz tuɣdï. Ḳïznïŋ atï ‘Ülämaːlik Körikli atadïlar. Taḳï ayɣa küngä körgüzmädilär. Ḳïrḳ <ḳulač taš säraːyda ḳoydïlar>. Ämmaː körki andaġ erdi! 64 Külsä ḳuru aɣačɣa yapraḳ bitär erdi. Taḳur yergä baḳsa ölän bitär erdi. Sačïn tarasa yinčü tökülür erdi. <Tükürsä altun kümüš bitär erdi.> Ämmaː dünyaːda bir artuḳ tuɣmuš ǰaːn erdi. Ḳašïnda daːyäläri bar erdi. Özinä yaḳïn daːyäsiniŋ atï Orda Χaːn degän erdi. (f.2v: 9–16, f.3r: 1–6) ‘Once upon a time in the Mediterranean Sea there was a land called Malta. The name of the khan of that land was Altun Khan. His wife’s name was Körlävič. To these two padishahs a girl was born. They named their daughter Celestial Beauty. They did not even show her to the moon or the sun. They placed her in an outside castle of forty fathoms. Oh, how beautiful she was! When she smiled at a withered tree, its leaves sprouted. When she looked at an arid patch of earth, the grass sprouted. When she combed her hair, pearls were pouring. When she spat, gold and silver appeared. Oh, she was a unique human being in the world. There were nurses by her side. The name of her favorite nurse was Orda Khan.’ Chapter 5 (f46r), a short text, lists the places of hegemony of the different khans and historical figures, who at the end of the 17th century were still present in the memory of the community. In this text, the events are marked for anteriority with the terminals {-DI} or er-di and intraterminals with the aorist + erdi, e.g., bolur erdi ‘was (at the given time)’ as in discourse type 2. In addition, non-anteriority is coded with nominal predicates + turur and bar turur ‘is existent’. Discourse type 3 Chapter 4 (f45r) is a short genealogy of Edige Bey. This text makes use of a somewhat extended inventory of finite forms. Anteriority is marked with the terminals {-DI} or er-di. A postterminal form in ‹B› + {-DUr} is used for anterior events of relevance for the time of narration, e.g., Müslüman bol-dur-updur [Muslim become-CAUS-POST] ‘X has become a Muslim’. Non-anteriority is coded with the aorist, e.g., Kä’bä-dä yat-ur [Kaba-LOC lie-AOR] ‘X rests in Kaba’. This chapter ends with a non-finite form, a participant nominal in {-GAn} functioning as a predicate: Ämmaː Edigä Biy Toḳtamïš Χaːn-ïŋ ulus-ïn ol biyälä-di [in turn E.B. T.Kh.-GEN people-POSS3.ACC he rule.over-TERM] Edigä Biy oɣlï Nuːräzin Mirza-dur 65 vä bala-sïn ulus-ïn biylä-gän [E.B. son-POSS3 N.M.-COP.PRTCL and child-POSS3.ACC people-POSS3.ACC rule.over-PN] ‘Edigä Bey in turn, he ruled over Toḳtamïš Khan’s people. Edigä Bey, his son is Nuːräzin Mirza, who is the one who ruled over his children and people’. In this example the conjunction vä is used to coordinate two predicates. Discourse type 4 In the subsequent part of the Chingis legend, a dialogue takes place between the girl and her nurse. This is an example of an elaborate discourse type, rich in finite and non-finite verb forms as well as clause-combining devices. This is how it begins: Künlärdä bir kün baːlïɣ olɣandïn soŋ aytdï kim. "Ay Orda Χaːn sän bu säräydïn čïka[r]sän tašḳaru nä körärsän?” dedi. "Ämmaː dünyaː degän bu säraːymu dur yaː özgä yer? Bu säraːydïn bašɣa bar mïdur yaː ošbu säraːy iči mü dür?” dedi. (f.3r: 9–12, f.3v: 1–2) One day, after she had become an adult, she spoke as follows: “Oh, Orda Khan when you leave the saray what do you see outside?” she said. “After all, is the world this saray or another place? Is there anything else than this saray? Or is the world the inside of this saray?” she said. This discourse type is based on terminals in {-DI} and i-di telling a sequence of consecutive events in the anteriority. These terminals are accompanied by an unrestricted inventory of finite verb forms such as aorist, voluntative, ‹B› + {-DUr}, ‹A› + {-DUr}, optative, imperative, evidential particle er-miš, pluperfect, e.g., Degän er-di-m ‘I had said’, or nominal predicate + copular particle dur in the present. The particle kim is used as a sentence-final element pointing anaphorically to the following sentence. Utterances of participating speakers are announced by a clause such as Ayt-dï kim [speak-TERM PRTCL] ‘X spoke [what follows]’ and followed by a direct quotation, which is complemented to the predicate De-di ‘X said’. Different forms of the verb de- ‘to say’ have developed into quotation particles (e.g., Karakoç 2009), which are obligatorily used for embedding object complements of a verbum dicendi, for instance, Turkish “Yardımcı ol!” diye söyledi [help.IMP QUOT.PRTCL say-TERM] ‘“Help!” saying X spoke’. See some examples for the use of kim in the text studied here: Körär kim. Χaːmilaː olubdur [see-AOR PRTCL pregnant becomePOST] ‘He sees the following: she has become pregnant’. Andaɣ attï kim [so.much shoot-TERM PRTCL] plus a main clause with a finite predicate ‘He shot it so much!’ 66 The verbum dicendi, de- ‘to say’, in the terminal as de-di ‘X said’ or in a converb te-p/de-b takes different types of finite clauses as complements. Examples: “Nä kör-är-sän?” dedi [what you see-AOR-2SG say-TERM] ‘X said “What do you see?” ’ “Dünya de-gän tašḳaru keŋ ǰihaːn-dur” dedi [world say-PN outside wide world COP.PRTCL say-TERM] ‘ “What is called the world is the wide world outside”, she said’. “Ol närsä-lär-ni maŋa körgüz-gil!” dedi [that thing-PL-ACC I.DAT showIMP say-TERM] ‘ “Show me those things!”, she said’. The quotation can consist of several juxtaposed finite clauses, e.g., “Ič-i sän-iŋ bol-sun! Ṭaš-ï mänim bol-sun!” de-di [inside-POSS3 you-GEN become-VOL3SG outside-POSS3 I.GEN become-VOL3SG say-TERM] ‘ “May its inside be yours! May its outside be mine!”, he said’. “Öl-sä-m öl-äyin. Körgüz-gil!” de-di [die-HYP-1SG die-VOL1SG show-IMP say-TERM]’ “If I die let me die! Show (it to me)!”, she said’. Direct quotations can be incorporated into a matrix clause as a complement of teb, the ‹B› converb of the verb ‘to say’, e.g., Duyïn Bayan öl-di. J̌engämiz Alanɣo tul ḳal-dï te-b ödür-gä käl-di-lär [D.B. die-TERM sister-in-law-POSS1PL A. widow remain-TERM say-CONV funeral.ceremony-DAT come-TERM-3PL] ‘“Duyïn Bayan has died. Alanɣo, our sister-in-law, has become a widow”, they said and came to the funeral ceremony’. The semantic relation between the converb clause and the matrix clause is non-modifying. In this discourse type, non-finite verb forms, action nominals and participant nominals build small clauses functioning as subject clauses or adjuncts. For instance, in the following example the subject clause is based on the action nominal in {-GAn} + possessive suffix: Munday uyat iš käl-gän-i yoḳ er-di [such shameful thing come-AN-POSS3 non-existent be-TERM] literally ‘Such a shameful thing did not happen’. The subject of the action nominal, munday uyat iš ‘such a shameful thing’, is in the nominative. In the example Ölü-m-dän hič ḳurtul-ɣu-muz yoḳ er-miš [deathABL never escape-AN-POSS1PL non-existent be-POST] ‘There is apparently no escape from death’, the subject clause is based on {-GU} + possessive suffix representing the subject. The old modal marker {-GU} denotes actions that are appropriate or expected to occur. The infinitive in {-mAK} builds a purposive clause with subject control, which implies that the subject of the matrix clause is interpreted as the first actant of the infinitive: Ḳïz-ïn körmäk-kä kel-di [daughter-POSS3.ACC see-AN-DAT come-TERM] ‘He came to see his daughter’. Participant nominals are used, for instance in attributive position, e.g., kör-gän kün [see-PN light] meaning in the context ‘the light X saw’, sönmäs čïraːɣï ‘her candle which does not go out’, mänim nuːr-diːn ḳuyaš-dïn bol-ɣan oɣlum [I.GEN light-ABL sun-ABL be.born-PN son-POSS1SG] ‘my son who is born from the light, from the sun’. The diathetic relation between the participant nominal and the head noun is unspecified; see the first example kör-gän kün. The most frequent converb in this discourse type is the ‹B› converb. This nonfinite verb form is used in non-modifying function to render consecutive sequences of events, e.g., Huš-ï ket-üb öl-ä ḳal-dï [consciousness leave-CONV die-CONV remain-TERM] ‘She fainted and remained in the state of dying’. In this non- 67 modifying function, the converb can be used repeatedly as a clause-chaining device, e.g., Daːyä-lär-i χaːn-ɣa bar-ïb “Nä ayt-ur-mïz?" de-b yïɣla-š-ïb oltur-dï-lar [nursePL-POSS3 khan-DAT go-CONV what say-AOR-1PL say-CONV cry-COOP-CONV sitTERM-3PL] ‘Her nurses went to the Khan and said: “What should we say?” and sat crying together’. The last converb yïɣlašïb ‘crying’ is used in a modifying sense, as the translation shows. The ‹A› converb is usually doubled and always modifying, e.g., ḳayɣur-a ḳayɣur-a [mourn-CONV mourn-CONV] ‘mourning’. The hypothetical/conditional converb in {-sA} is frequently employed to build temporal/conditional clauses, e.g., Kör-sä-ŋ öl-är-sän [see-HYP-2SG die-AOR-2SG] ‘If you see it, you will die’. Complex converbs are semantically more explicit, i.e. they define the semantic relation to the context more clearly. The converb in {-GAn-dïn} soŋ renders the temporal meaning ‘after having V-ed’, e.g., baːlïɣ ol-ɣan-dïn soŋ [adult become-ANABL after] ‘Having become an adult …’, whereas {-GAn} üčün ‘because of’ has a causal meaning, e.g., buz-ɣan üčün [destroy-AN for] ‘because X broke it’. The converb suffix {-GA-lI} means ‘since’, e.g., čift bol-ġa-lï [pair become-CONV] ‘since we got married’. Converb clauses can have their own subject, e.g., Anlar ḳayt-ïb käl-ä-tur-ɣan-da orman-dan bir ḳavm kiši-lär čïḳ-tï-lar [they return-CONV come-CONV stand-AN-LOC forest-ABL a group person-PL come.out-TERM-3PL] ‘When they were returning, a group of people came out of the forest’. A semantic connection between clauses can be more or less explicitly established by using junctors, which most often occur in clause-initial position. Some examples: yaː ‘or’ taḳï ‘and’, e.g., Örä tur-dï-lar taḳï ay-dï-lar [get.up-TERM-PL and speak-TERMPL] They got up and spoke’ an-dïn, an-dïn soŋ ‘thereafter’, e.g., An-dïn X aydï ‘Then X said’; after a converb: de-b an-dïn soŋ [say-CONV that-ABL after] ‘said and then’ yänä ‘and’, ‘besides’, e.g., Yänä X aydï ‘X moreover said’ er-sä ol vaḳït-da ‘in that time’ ämmaː ‘but’ anïŋ üčün-kim ‘because’ äylä ol-sa ‘therefore’ vä yänä ‘and moreover’ mägär ‘but’, ‘if’ Postverbial constructions modifying the actional content are often used, e.g., Ešit-ib käl-di-lär [hear-CONV come-TERM.3PL] ‘They got to hear’. Sometimes auxiliary verbs are in the same inflectional form as the lexical verb, e.g., Dünyaː-dïn öt-ti ket-di [world-ABL pass-TERM leave-TERM] ‘X died (definitely)’ (Csató et al. 2019). 68 Discourse type 5 Chapter 3 (f.42r–44v), telling about Saltchi, represents a more elaborate form of discourse type 4. Anteriority is marked with the terminals {-DI} or er-di. Anteriority in the anteriority is rendered by {-GAn} erdi, e.g., Ay-ï kün-i yet-kän er-di [monthPOSS3 day-POSS3 arrive-POST be-TERM] ‘Her month and day had arrived’. Intraterminal anteriority is in aorist + erdi, e.g., Sïyla-r er-di [respect-AOR be-TERM] ‘He respected her’. Non-anteriority is marked with the aorist and in nominal predicates with tur-ur. Different types of modifying converbs are used, such as {-GUn-čA}, e.g., kelgün-čä ‘when arriving’. The main difference from discourse type 4 is that non-finite, left-branching object clauses based on an action nominal occur. In the previously discussed discourse type, this kind of incorporation does not occur. Examples: J̌aːnibäk Χaːn ḳïz tuɣ-ɣan-ïn bil-di [J.Kh. girl be.born-AN-POSS3.ACC find.out-TERM] ‘J̌aːnibäk Khan found out that a girl had been born’, Χaːn χalḳ-nïŋ köŋl-i yaman bol-ɣan-ïn bil-ib … [khan people-GEN heart-POSS3 bad become-AN-POSS3.ACC find.out-CONV] ‘The khan had found out that the people were angry and …’. The subjects of the complement clauses, ḳïz ‘girl’ and χalḳnïŋ köŋli ‘the heart of the people’, are in the nominative. An aorist in dative functions as action nominal in a purposive small clause, e.g., Ḳïz-nï öl-tür-ür-gä kiši yibär-di [girl-ACC die-CAUSAOR-DAT person send-TERM] ‘He sent a man to kill the girl’. Participant nominals are used in several syntactic functions such as a subject, e.g., bil-gän-lär ay-dï-lar [find.out-PN-PL speak-TERM-PL] ‘those who had found out about it spoke’, or as a predicate, e.g., “Öltür-mä-gän bol-ɣay” de-di [die-CAUSNEG-PN become-OPT say-TERM] ‘ “He has maybe not killed (her)”, he said’. Instead of a summary In our modest contribution to a linguistic analysis of the texts, we have availed ourselves of the philological accuracy and high competence manifested in the edition. The aim has been to demonstrate that in Turcology no distinct border should be drawn between philological and linguistic research. We appeal to scholars to continue in both branches and to collaborate. This seems especially important for young researchers today, something that we have expressed in recent lectures at conferences and meetings in Ankara, Astana and Tokyo. Scholars in Turkic linguistics should join forces to strengthen their common endeavors. What is needed is cooperation between researchers in various fields of Turkic studies. There are plenty of tasks, and they cannot be fulfilled alone, only in networks. Turkic linguistics needs to continue its steady development into a wellorchestrated field of knowledge (Johanson 2015: 591). In other words, “түркі 69 лингвистикасы үздіксіз білім саласына айналу үшін тұрақты дамуын жалғастыра алады” (Johanson 2018: 13). The Szeged School of Altaic research is the finest example of broad, fruitful cooperation between scholars in philology and linguistics. Abbreviations ABL ACC AN AOR CAUS CONV COP.PRTCL DAT GEN HYP IMP LOC OPT PASS PL PN POSS POST QUOT.PRTCL SG TERM VOL Ablative Accusative Action nominal Aorist Causative Converb Copular particle Dative Genitive Hypothetical Imperative Locative Optative Passive Plural Participant nominal Possessive Postterminal Quotation particle Singular Terminal Voluntative 70 References Csató, Éva Á., Lars Johanson & Birsel Karakoç (eds) 2019. Ambiguous Verb Sequences in Transeurasian Languages and Beyond (Turcologica 120). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Danka, Balázs 2019. The ‘Pagan’ Oɣuz-nāmä. A Philological and Linguistic Analysis (Turcologica 113). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Doerfer, Gerhard 1976. Das Vorosmanische. (Die Entwicklung der Oghusischen Sprachen von den Orchoninschriften bis zu Sultan Veled). [Pre-Ottoman. The development of the Oghuz languages of the Orkhon inscriptions to Sultan Veled] (Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları 433). Türk Dili Araştırmaları Yıllığı Belleten 1975– 1976: 81–131. Doerfer, Gerhard 1989. Review of Mustafa Uğurlu (1987). Central Asiatic Journal 33: 139–142. Eckmann, János 1963. The Mamluk-Kipchak literature. Central Asiatic Journal 8: 304–319. Ivanics, Mária & Usmanov, Mirkasym A. 2002. Das Buch der Dschingis-Legende (Däftär-i Čingiz-nāmä 1 (Studia uralo-altaica 44). Szeged: Department of Altaic Studies. University of Szeged. Johanson, Lars 1971. Aspekt im Türkischen. Vorstudien zu einer Beschreibung des türkeitürkischen Aspektsystems [Aspect in Turkish. Preliminary studies for a description of the Turkish aspect system] (Studia Turcica Upsaliensia 1). Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Johanson, Lars 1993. Typen türkischer Kausalsatzverbindungen [Types of Turkish causative clause combining]. Journal of Turkology (Szeged) 1: 213–267. Johanson, Lars 2015. So close and so distant ... On Turkic core structures, genealogical and typological grouping of varieties, and mutual intelligibility. In: Zeyrek, D., Sağın-Şimşek, Ç., Ataş, U., Rehbein, J. (eds) Ankara Papers in Turkish and Turkic Linguistics (Turcologica 103). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. 583– 592. Johanson 2018 = Л. Йохансон Түркітілдес əлемнің кіндігінде [In the world of Turkic linguistics]. Altaistika, türkologiya, moŋɣolistika. Xalïқaralïқ ɣïlïmi žurnal 3(2018): 7–13. Astana: “Gylym”. Karakoç, Birsel 2009. The syntactic and grammatical roles of deydi/deydiler in Noghay, Kazakh and Kirghiz. In: Éva Á. Csató, Gunvald Ims, Joakim Parslow, Finn Thiesen, and Emel Türker (eds) Turcological Letters to Bernt Brendemoen. Oslo: Novus. 137–153. Uğurlu, Mustafa 1987. Münyetü’l Ġuzāt (Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı yayınları 676). Ankara. A Misunderstood Passage of Qādir ʿAli-beg J̌ālāyirī’s J̌āmī at-Tawārīχ* Balázs Danka University of Szeged The number of the narrative Turkic sources written in the territory of the Golden Horde is scarce and most of them has no critical edition (Ivanics 2017: 37). One of these sources is Qādir ʿAli-beg b. Hošūm-beg J̌ālāyirī’s J̌āmiʿ at-Tawārīχ (‘Compendium of Chronicles’). Qādir ʿAli-beg finished his work in 1602 in the territory of Kasimov Khanate (1452–1681), a vassal state of Russia. The work is dedicated to the Russian tsar Boris Godunov (1552–1605). The source has two more or less whole and a fragmentary manuscript in Kazanˊ. Two new instances are recently discovered in the British Museum (Ivanics 2017: 43). The high-resolution coloured photographies of the most complete manuscript copied in 1641 are accessible in the Research Repository of the Saint Petersburg State University (In the following RRSPSU) (Web1). Unfortunately, at least one folio (nr. 6) is missing from this digital version. Some of the folios are in the wrong order according to the plot of the text (starting at folio nr. 148), due to a mistake made probably during the volumization of the manuscript. The text is written in Volga-Turkī literary language in Arabic script. It consists of three main parts. The first part is an introduction and dedication to Boris Godunov (folios nr. 1r-6r). The second part is a concise Turkī translation of the Persian historian Rašīd ad-Dīn’s (1247–1318) J̌āmiʿ at-Tawārīχ (folios nr. 6r–142v). Qādir ʿAli-beg’s work has no overt title, and is named J̌āmiʿ at-Tawārīχ after Rašīd ad-Dīn’s work. The final part (folios nr. 142v–158r) consists of eight autographic chapters (dastāns), which tells about the khans and important persons of the Golden Horde and its successor states. These last chapters are based on oral tradition and the contemporary viewpoint of the author (Ivanics 2017: 47). * The idea of the present paper popped up during one of our late-hour discussions with Professor Mária Ivanics about the material of our common PhD-student, Guldana Togabaeva. Such discussions have ever been so inspiring and have meant a lot to me. It may be no exaggeration to claim that I dedicate this paper to Professor Ivanics with the same enthusiasm as Qādir ʿAlibeg dedicated his text to Boris Godunov. I hereby would like to express my deepest gratitude to Professor Ivanics for the incredible amount of thought towards me and I wish her a productive retirement. 72 The text has two editions, the elder one is made by I. N. Berezin (1851) with typography in Arabic script. This edition follows the plot correctly. The other edition was published by R. Syzdykova and M. Kojgeldiev in 1991. This latter contains a cyrillic transcription and a Kazakh translation. It includes a description of the historical context and that of some phonological, morphological and lexical features of the text. Qādir ʿAli-beg’s J̌āmīʿ at-Tawārīχ has no translation in European languages, (including Russian). Unfortunately, even the existing modern Kazakh translation is not completely reliable. In this paper, I will demonstrate a passage of the text which is misunderstood and mistranslated by Syzdykova and Kojgeldiev due to a wrong syntactic analysis. I will propose a new analysis and will attempt to translate the passage to English. Most Turkic languages (including Volga-Turkī and modern Kazakh) have a head-final, left-branching syntax (Johanson 1998: 49). This also means that the unmarked constituent order of Turkic indicative sentences is subject-object-verb (Johanson 1998: 57). For the purpose of simplicity, I will use only the labels S, O, V to designate syntactic units during my analysis. The label ‘S’ will stand for subjects and its complements including nominal dependent clauses (if there is any). The label ‘O’ will stand for direct or indirect objects, and any arguments and/or complements of the finite predicate (if there is any), including any other than nominal dependent clauses (typically dependent and even juxtaposed clauses ending in the converb -p). The label ‘V’ will stand for the finite verbal or nominal predicate of the sentence. I will not consider the inner structure of these units with one exception: the inherent direct or indirect objects of finite compound verbal predicates will be labelled as ‘o’. For example, χu̇rūǰ qïldï ‘das Hinausgehen; Auflehnung, Empörung, Herauskommen, zum Vorschein kommen’ (Z 406c) ‘do’+PAST, will be labelled as ‘oV’ where χu̇rūǰ is an inherent direct object of the verb qïl-. These syntactic units will be bracketed with ‘[]’ in the presented sentences for better transparency. The Volga-Turkī passage under discussion is cited from the dedication to Boris Godunov (4v/2–5r/1). The broader context tells about the conquests of Godunov, who is referred to as Bāris χān (Syzdykova – Kojgeldiev 1991: 125). The Cyrillic transcription and punctuation is presented below exactly as it is.1 I numbered the examined syntactic units with (1)–(16). The numbering is based on the punctuation of the transcription, as the translators intuitively analyzed and understood the passage, probably based on their native Kazakh linguistic competence. (1) [Фатх̣ ўа насрат білəн]O [йетер болғай]V. OV (2) [Ша̄м білəн ирақ ға та̄рӣх мыңда беш де мундағ]O [хуруж қылды]oV. O oV (3) [С̣адаф дын]O [данə]S [инжу дек]O [сачылды]V OSOV 1 Throughout the paper, I will present every example according to the transcription system in which they are published in their respective editions. Discussing the phonological problems and their codification in the respective scripts is beyond the scope and limits of the present work. 73 (4) [əр бір данəсы]S [Рум білəн Хытайға]O [тигмес дур]V. (5) [Аның баһасы]S [күндін күнге]O [зийада болсун]oV, (6) [даулаты һəм]S [бузулмасун]V, (7) [мамлакаты ʿадл келіб]O, (8) [З̤улм көтерілгүсі]S, (9) [кечə кетіб]O [күндүз болғусы]S, (10) [булут арасындын күн көзі көрүнгүсі]S (11) [бізнің падшаһымыз Ба̄рис ханның даўлаты ачылғусы]S (12) [дəмбəдəм Рум, Хытайны алғусы]S (13) [йеті иқлим Кəшурны билегүсі]S, (14) [əзəл сақи сыдын бір мəй ічкүсі]S (15) [фа̄ни дүнйада даўлат ўа икбал ға йолуқғусы]S, (16) [барча муиассар болғусы]S, [иншаʿалла дүр]V SOV S O oV SV O S OS S S S S S S SV Parallelly, I present Syzdykova and Kojgeldiev’s Kazakh translation (1991: 249) prepared in the same way as their transcription. The numbering of the syntactic units attempts to follow that I presented above. (1–2) [Шам мен Ираққа жеӊіспен]O [жетпек]V. (2) [Тарихтыӊ мыӊда бесінші жылы айтулы жорық жасап]O, (3) [інжү-маржанға]O [кенелді]V, (4) [(олардың) бірде-бір данасы]S [Рум мен Қытайда]O [жоқ]V. (5) [Оның бағасы]S [күннен-күнге]O [арта түссін]oV, (6) [дəулеті]S [бұзылмасын]V, (7) [мемлекеті əділ келіп]O, (8) [залымдық (бас) көтерсе күші кетіп]O, (9–10) [күндіз бұлт арасынан күн көзі көрінгендей]O, (11) [біздіӊ патшамыз Борис ханныӊ дəулеті]S [ашылсын]V. (12) [Жедел Рум, қытайды алуы]S, (13) [жеті ықылам кешүрні билеуі]S [жақындай]O [түссін]V, (14) [мəӊгі ыдыстан шарап ішіп]O, (15) [жалған дүниеде дəулет пен бақытқа жолығып]O, (16) [барша тілегі]S, [алла жар болып]O, [іске ассын]oV! OV O OV SOV S O oV SV O O O SV S SOV O O S O oV I attempted to prepare a preliminary English translation of the Kazakh one.2 Due to the basic syntactic differences between English and Turkic, I did not label the English text. However, I kept the numbering of the translated syntactic units. Although it is not marked overtly, the subject of (1)–(3) is Boris Godunov, as understood from the broad context. 2 I would like to express my warmest thanks to Dr. Raushangul Mukusheva for translating the Kazakh text to Hungarian for me. My English translation is actually based on hers. Her translation was also a great help during my analysis of the Kazakh text. 74 (1–2) ‘He shall reach Syria and Iraq victoriously. (2) In the 1005th year of history,3 he marched out to a famous campaign (3) and he obtained pearls and corals, (4) none (of them) exists in Rum and China. (5) Their value shall rise day by day, (6) His fortune shall not decay, (7) His state shall be just, (8) If evil rear (its head), it shall exhaust, (9–10) as the sunlight has showed up from the clouds during the day, (11) (thus) shall clear the fortune of Boris Khan, our padishah! (12) Quickly, his conquest of Rum and China, (13) to rule the seven directions,4 shall happen soon! (14) He shall drink wine form the eternal vessel, (15) finding fortune and luck in the mundane world, (16) all his wishes, Allah willing, shall come true!’ If we compare only the two excerpts made in the right of the transcription (in the following, ‘input’) and its Kazakh translation (in the following, ‘output’), the striking differences are clearly visible at first glance. While the input consists of seven finite sentences according to Syzdykova and Kojgeldiev’s competence, we have eight in the output. Moreover, the finite verbs do not match each other in the two excerpts. Let’s see a short comparison. The numbering in the comparison matches to that of the excerpts. Input: (1) O V (2) O oV (3) O S O V (4) S O V (5) S O oV (6) S V (7–16) O S O S S S S S S S S V Output: (1–2) O V (2–3) O O V (4) S O V (5) S O oV (6) S V (7)–(11) O O O S V (12)–(13) S S O V (14)–(16) O O S O oV It is clear that the output is a free translation at best and does not follow the input precisely. Only sentences (4)–(6) have the same structure in both excerpts. Certain corresponding units does not have the same content, for example, unit (8) have items in the Kazakh translation which simply do not exist in the Turkī text: бас көтеру ‘to 3 4 The date is given according to the Hijra, it dates to 1597/1598 according to the Gregorian calendar. Boris Godunov became Russian tsar in 1598. The center, the four cardinal points, above and below. ‘The ‘seven directions’ is a reference to the whole world. 75 appear, rear its head, show up’ and күші кету ‘to exhaust’. I will not discuss all the differences in detail but rather focus on units (1)–(6) which are mistranslated not only because of stylistic reasons, but because of the wrong intuitive syntactic analysis of the sentences. If we look at the above comparison and the two excerpts, it can be seen that even the editors/translators were uncertain about the order of the constituents in (1)–(3). While – based on the punctuation – they consider the unit Ша̄м білəн ирақ ға ‘to Syria and Iraq’ as part of the second sentence, they translate Шам мен Ираққа into the first one. This is the key to my proposal and this is the source of their mistake, although Шам мен Ираққа is translated into the sentence where it belongs in the output, but analyzed wrongly in the input. If we examine Syzdykova and Kojgeldiev’s syntactic analysis of the input and the structure of the sentences in the output, we see that the editors/translators insist the basic S O V constituent order in almost all finite sentences, the maximum difference they allow that O may be partly or entirely moved in front of S. However, the structure of the Turkic sentence is even more flexible than that. Therefore, with certain limitations, constituents do appear in Turkic sentences in postpredicative positions, that is, after V: “The postpredicative position seems to be a natural place for some types of sentence adverbials […]. The postpredicative position is not the place for new information, for interrogative pronouns and adverbs or for unmarked direct objects for specific reference. Subject pronouns found in this position cannot have topic function. Note that postpredicative elements are not confined to less carefully planned speech, but have also been part of written varieties throughout the history of Turkic.” (Johanson 1998: 58) The postpredicative position may be occupied, for example, when a non-object constituent is put in the focus-position. “The position immediately in front of the predicate core is used for focused constituents, offering new or relatively important information. This is the natural position for unmarked direct objects and for interrogative pronouns asking for new information.” (Johanson 1998: 59). It is well-known already about the Karakhanid mirror of rulers, the Qutadɣu Bilig ‘Wisdom that brings good fortune’ from the 11th century that it is very rich in loan translations from Persian, and has a rather ‘non-Turkic’, partly unintelligible syntax due to the necessity of versification (Scharlipp 1995: 65). If we look at the input, we see that units (8)–(16), all being nominal dependent clauses with a single finite predicate, have end rhyme. The examples below demonstrate that versed sentences are very often have constituents in postpredicative positions. I cited these examples from other narrative Turkic sources from the Golden Horde, namely, the ‘Pagan’ Oɣuz-nāmä from the 15th century (Danka 2019), the Tashkent manuscript of Ötämiš Ḥāǰī’s Čingiz-nāma from the 16th century (Kawaguchi 2008), and the Däftär-i Čingiz-nāmä, compiled in the 18th century. (Ivanics–Usmanov 2002, Ivanics 2017) For the detailed descriptions of these sources, see the referred editions, and Ivanics’s compilation of the narrative Turkic sources of the Golden Horde (2017: 40, 42 and 201–206 respectively). The examples are cited in the order given above. 76 In the first example, we see that both of the inherent indirect object of the verbal predicate is behind the verbal head bol- ‘to become’, partly because of the end rhyme and partly because of the optative/imperative mood of the sentence. [ay sän]S [munda beglärgä]O [bolɣïl bašlïq]Vo [m(ä)n m(ä)ŋiläp sängä]O [at]S [bolsun qārlï ̣ɣ]Vo S O Vo O S Vo ‘Oh, you shall become the leader of the begs here, (Because) I am happy, thy name shall be Snowy!’ (Danka 2019: 106–107, 173) The verbal predicate of the second example is in the optative mood again, and direct object appears in postpredicative position. The two relevant sentences have end rhyme. ol kiši aydï [mäniŋ atïm]S [saŋġïsun]V [aŋlaɣaysïn]V [soŋġusun]O tedi5 (Kawaguchi 2008: 25, 83) SV VO ‘That person said: “My name is Sangisun you shall understand the final part!” he said.’6 The final example consists of sentences of similar constituent order, they all have an adverbial clause expressing purpose in postpredicative position and have perfect end rhyme. [saqalunmusän]V [suẇ ičib buwaz bolmaġa]O [manï degän qušmusän]V [kün issi-sinä buwaz bolmaġa]O [qaẇun qarbuzmusän]V [ersiz orlïq yïymaġa]O [taẇuq musän]V [külgä aẇnab yumurtqa salmaġa]O [qurt anasï musän]V [köbük ašab buwaz bolmaġa]O (Ivanics–Usmanov 2002: 44, 217; Ivanics 2017: 220) 5 6 VO VO VO VO VO The passage also occurs in the Istanbul manuscript of the text, although slightly differently, and not in a verse. Nevertheless, the clause in question is the same: Ol kişi aydı kim menim aytım saŋ saŋġusun turur, aŋlaġay sen soŋġusïn tidi (Kafalı 2009: 124). English translation by me. 77 ‘Are you a saqalun7 to get pregnant drinking water? Are you a bird called mani8 to get pregnant by the heat of sunlight? Are you a melon or watermelon to cache seed without a man? Are you a fowl to lay eggs rolling in ash? Are you a queen-bee to get pregnant eating pap?’9 All the above examples have a constituent other than the category labelled by ‘S’ in postpredicative position. However, Johanson’s above definition of the postpredicative position and its limitations also allows ‘S’ to appear after ‘V’, if the (intransitive) predicate core or the constituent immediately in front of it is emphasized. Consider the following corresponding modern Turkish and Kazakh sentences: [Çok güzel idi]V, [şarkı sölyemesi]S. [Өте əдемі болды]V, [оның əн айтқаны]S. VS VS ‘It was very beautiful, his/her singing.’10 I present the input in Latin transcription, with a different analysis than presented above. My proposed analysis is based on the idea that in units (1)–(6), postpredicative positions are occupied by ‘S’ because another constituent is emphasized. The only exception is šām bilän ʿiraqɣa, which is labelled as ‘O’. In Syzdykova and Kojgeldiev’s analysis, these were understood in the beginning of the subsequent sentences, which was the ultimate reason of their mistranslation. In my proposal, all the sentences and nominal clauses also have end rhyme. (1) [fȧtḥ wȧ nu̇srȧt bilän]O [yätär bolɣay]V [šām bilän ʿiraqɣa]O (2) [tāriχ miŋdä beš-dä mundaɣ]O [χu̇rūǰ qïldï]OV [sȧdȧfdin]O [dānä]S (3) [inǰü teg]O [sačïldï]V [hȧr bir dānäsï]S (4) [rūm bilän χïtayɣa]O [tegmäs dür]V [anïŋ bähāsï]S (5) [kündin küngä]O [ziyādȧ bolsun]oV [dȧwlȧti]S (6) [hȧm buzulmasun]V [mȧmlȧkȧti]S (7) [ʿadl kelib]O [ẓulm köterilgüsi]S (8) [käčä ketib]O [kündüz bolɣusï]S (9) [bulut arasïndïn kün közi körüngüsi]S (10) [bizniŋ pādšāhïmïz bāris χānnïŋ dȧwlȧti ačïlɣusï]S (11) [dämbädäm rūm χïtaynï alɣusï]S (12) [yäti iqlim kȧšwȧrni biylägüsi]S OVO O oV O S OVS OVS O oV S VS OS OS S S S S 7 Ivanics (2017: 220, footnote no. 492) proposes that saqalun is a kind of grass. 8 Ivanics (2017: 220, footnote no. 493) proposes that manï may be ‘blackbird’ or ‘a kind of starling, mynah’. 9 English translation by me, based on Ivanics’s Hungarian translation. 10 I would like to express my thanks to my native Turkish and Kazakh informants, Emel DevZörgő and Guldana Togabaeva, respectively. 78 (13) [ȧzȧl saqïsïdïn bir mȧy ičgüsi]S (14) [fāni du̇nyāda dȧwlȧt wȧ iqbālɣa yoluqɣusï]S (15) [barča mu̇yȧssȧr bolɣusï]S (16) [inšāʿȧllȧhdïr]V S S S V ‘Victoriously shall they reach Syria and Iraq! Thus broke out the pearl from the oyster, in the 1005th year of history. All of its pieces11 sprinkled like pearls Yet its value12 hasn’t matched to Rum and China. His fortune shall thrive day by day! His realm shall not decay! May tyranny be lifted, justice to come May the Sun rise, the night to pass May the Sun’s face emerge out of the clouds, May the kingdom of our padisah, Boris Khan come May he conquer Rum and China soon, May he rule the seven directions, May he drink wine given by the eternal cup-bearer May he meet luck and happiness in the mundane world, May all these happen with ease, By Allah’s will.’ As a final conclusion, it can be claimed that the future research of the narrative Turkic sources of the Golden Horde and its history has huge tasks for the future. The preparation of critical editions of these sources is of crucial importance. Critical edition is meant here also in the sense that they have to be published by or in cooperation with scholars with the proper linguistic training. I demostrated, how easy is to mistranslate a text without deep insight to the source language even if the target language is as closely related to it in time and space as Volga Turkī and 11 It seems that the two instances of dānȧ ‫ داﻧﮫ‬has different meanings in the two subsequent lines. The meaning of the word is quite broad: Korn, Körneben, einzelne Beere, Vogelbeere, Lockspeise, Kugel, Kanonkugel, Flintenkugel, ein Stück, etc. (Z 422a), basically anything small and round, which together with the oyster in the context, likely to mean ‘pearl’. However, the same word is used in the next sentence, where the general meaning ‘piece’ is compared to pearls. The two sentences have clearly metaphorical connotations, about which however, I can only speculate. The pearl(s) probably refer to Boris Godunov and his army, praised highly in the previous passage. 12 There are two entries for ‫ ﺑﮭﺎ‬in Zenker’s dictionary, the Persian word bähā means ‘Preis, Werth’, the Arabic bȧha means ‘Schönheit’ (Z 229b). The context with pearls supposes that the Persian word is used and its reference is ‘military power’. Therefore sentences (2)-(4) state that Godunov’ political and military power was no match to that of Europe or China in a very diplomatic way. This is supported by the fact that in unit (11)-(12) Qadïr ʿAli-beg wishes Godunov to conquer Rum and China and rule the whole world. 79 modern Kazakh. I hope that the above discussion illustrated the nature of hazards to be expected when researchers rely on misunderstood and mistranslated editions of historical sources. References Berezin, I. N. 1851. Qadir ʿAlī Bek J̌alāyirī, Sbornik letopisej. Tatarskij tekst s russkim predisloviem. Biblioteka vostočnyh istorikov. Tom II. častˊ 1. Kazanˊ. Danka, B. 2019. The ‘Pagan’ Oɣuz-nāmä. A philological and linguistic analysis. Wiesbaden. Ivanics, M.–Usmanov, M. A. 2002. Das Buch der Dschingis-Legende (Däftär-i Čingiz-nāmä) I. Szeged. Ivanics, M. 2017. Hatalomgyakorlás a steppén. – A Dzsingisz-náme nomád világa. Budapest. Johanson, L. 1998. The structure of Turkic. In: Johanson, L. – Csató, É. Á. (eds.) The Turkic Languages. London–New York 30–66. Kafalı, M. 2009. Ötemiş Hacı’ya Göre Cuci Ulusu’nun Tarihi. Ankara. Kawaguchi, T.–Nagamine, H.–Sughara, M. (eds.) 2008. Ötämiš Ḥāǰī: Čingiz-nāma. Introduction, Annoted Translation, Transcription and Critical Text. Tokyo. Scharlipp, W. E. 1995. Türksiche Sprache Arabische Schrift – Ein Beispiel schrfithistorischer Akkulturation. Budapest. Syzdykova, R. – Kojgeldiev, M. 1991. Kadyrgali bi Kosymuly žene onyn kylnamalar žinagy. Almaty. Z=Zenker, J. T. 1866–1876. Dictionnarie Turc–Arabe–Persan I–II. Leipzig References from the internet: Web1: https://dspace.spbu.ru/handle/11701/15394 80 Appendix: the picture of the passage from the manuscript in the RRSPSU. (source: Web1). The Formation of the sancak of Kırka (Krka) and its First begs Géza Dávid For Mária Ivanics, my highly esteemed friend The administrative division of the vilayet of Budin (Buda) significantly changed with the passing of time. In spite of smaller transformations, we can speak about considerable stability in the core territories. On the frontiers, however, new administrative units were created following subsequent conquests or as a result of strategic or economic considerations. Some of the districts turned out to be provisional; others functioned longer while they occasionally were attached to another province. One of the last established livas, which belonged to Buda for a very short interval, was the sancak of Kırka (or Lika). The formation of this entity, and its first leaders, is the topic of my article.1 1. The creation of the sancak of Kırka In the central list of ümera appointments kept between 1578 and 1588 an additional, last entry, following the kapudanlık of Bihaç (Bosnian Bihać), we find the following text: “The liva [consisting of regions] beyond the river2 Kırka (Croatian Krka), of Kotar, 3 and of Koribava 4 in the liva of Pojega (Hungarian Pozsega, Croatian 1 2 3 I wish to express my gratitude to Fazileta Hafizović, Hatice Oruç, Boglárka Weisz, Pál Fodor, Douglas A. Howard, Mehmet İnbaşı, Nándor Kovács, Bálint Lakatos, Géza Pálffy, Attila Pfeiffer, Marko Šarić, and Balázs Sudár, who helped me in various forms to prepare this short study. The Turkish text would allow one or more rivers. As we shall immediately see, only one is denoted here. Possible decipherings include Krbaz, Kobar, Komar. The good solution is, I think, the region of Ravni Kotar, which is already mentioned as a nahiye seat in 1585. Cf. Fazileta Hafizović, Kliški sandžak od osnivanja do početka Kandijskog rata (1537–1645. godine) (Orijentalnu Institut u Sarajevo. Posebna izdanja, 46) Sarajevo 2016, 27. 82 Požega). Based on the letter of the beglerbegi of Budun [they are] given as a sancak to the kapudan of Una5 with 200,000 akçe including his ziamet amounting to 34,800 akçe but which was granted with twenty-two thousand eight hundred [akçe] with the stipulation that he should not receive another sancak elsewhere. 20 zi’l-kade 987 (8 January 1580). He got his diploma in the above mentioned form. 22 zi’l-hicce 987 (9 February 1580), 200,000 [akçe].” Below this text we find a remark by another hand: “[Now] it belongs to Bosna (Bosnia).”6 It was not an easy task to make sense of the above sentences. Considering that the Krka region in Croatia is located rather far away from Pozsega, my first attempt at interpretation was that perhaps the stream named Kerka at its Hungarian section (and similarly called Krka in Slovenian) was meant here. The Kozijak Mountain, referred to in note 3, could have fit into this idea. Were this explanation true one could speak about an aborted experiment of which we have other examples in Hungary.7 But this assumption was to be given up, since a district bearing these names never appears again. Further, it is unlikely that two administrative entities of practically the same name were simultaneously created in this neighbourhood and the foundation of only one of them referred to. Namely, we know it for sure that the sancak of Kırka with Knin as its centre was called to life somewhat more to the south-southwest of Pozsega at about this very same time. This is evident from Joachim von Sinzendorf’s report of 17 September 1580 about the establishment of the vilayet of Bosna, formed two weeks earlier, on 4 September 1580. 8 Here he 4 5 6 7 8 In the lack of diacritical points several variations can be imagined: Korinak, Foribak, and the like. Some eight kilometres southwest of Pozsega a mountain called Kozijak (Cf. https://mapcarta.com/18816824) can be found. At the beginning I tried to identify the Ottoman version with this denomination. Later, however, in the light of what will be expounded below, I realized that this is not a correct equation. It took a long time to come to the form above and to conclude that it cannot denote to anything other than the Krbava area. Nenad Moačanin, in Kapudánságok a bosnyák határvidéken a 16–18. században. Aetas (1994/4), 53, maintains that there was no kapudan on the river Una, while our source contradicts his assumption. İstanbul, Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi, Kâmil Kepeci tasnifi 262, 26. This is the original text: Liva-i maveraü’n-nehr-i Kırka ve Kotar/Krbaz ve Koribava/Forinak/Koziyak der liva-i Pojega. Budun beglerbegisinün defteri mucebince Una kapudanı Pojegada yigirmi iki bin sekiz yüz ziamete tekmilile 34,800 akçe üzere mutasarrıf olan Mehmede ziameti mahsub olmak üzere 200,000’le sancak tarikiyle ahar yerde sancak olmamak şartıyle buyuruldı. Fi 20 zi’l-kade sene 987. Berat eyledi vech-i meşruh üzere, fi 22 zi’l-hicce 987. 200,000. Bosnaya tabi olmışdur. Such a case is that of Babócsa, Berzence, Segesd, and Szöcsény, all the four fortifications in County Somogy, which were chosen to guard a new sancak called to life in 1585 but which never appears later in the documents. See Géza Dávid, Die Bege von Szigetvár im 16. Jahrhundert. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes in memoriam Anton C. Schaendlinger 82 (1992 [1993]), 84. Cf. Kâmil Kepeci tasnifi 262, 2. Published by: Metin Kunt, Sancaktan eyalete. 1550–1650 arasında Osmanlı ümerası ve il idaresi. (Boğaziçi Üniversitesi yayınları, 154) İstanbul 1978, 150. 83 alludes to the sancak of Lika, the common second name of the liva of Kırka, as its constituent element,9 which implies that he referred to this unit and not to another one. 10 A further telling ‒ in this case Turkish ‒ proof of its freshness is that somewhat later, in the spring of 1583, it was ordered to prepare a separate register of the sancak in question. The firman runs as follows: “Order to the registrar (muharrir) of the sancak of Kırka. The mentioned liva has no distinct summary (icmal) and detailed (mufassal) defters; these are together with the defters of the sancak of Kilis (Croatian Klis, Hungarian Klissza). Since it had been reported that the liva of Kırka should have summary and detailed defters I decreed that besides the sixty thousand akçe given out so far, a register of the rest be made and distributed [namely the revenues among the timar-holders], and since Kırka is a separate sancak, it should have its own summary and detailed defters! I ordered that as soon as – arrives, besides the sixty thousand akçe given out so far, a register of the rest be made and distributed; prepare its summary and detailed defters and send them to my Threshold of Felicity.”11 To put it more clearly: no alienated defters were made up for the sancak of Kırka, as its whole territory had belonged to Klis. Becoming independent, there emerged the necessity to draw up separate registers there. “The 60,000 akçe given out so far” can probably be interpreted either as the sum granted to the beg as a portion of his hasses or that this much of the sources of revenue had been carved out from the neighbouring territories for the new formation. Luckily, we know that the work had been finished by 1585, this being the date of the first detailed register of the sancak of Kırka.12 9 Wien, Haus-, Hof und Staatsarchiv, Türkei I. Karton 42. Konv. 2. 1580. VIII-IX, 124‒129. In another Habsburg letter it is also labelled as a new entity on 8 March 1581: Türkei I. Karton 43. Konv. 3. 1581. III. 35‒55, 59‒77 (and again in July). 10 Ottoman documents used below regularly contain the name given after the river and not the one borrowed from the Lika Mountains. In the 17th century, however, we also meet parallel forms: “the liva of Kırka alias Lika”. Kunt, op. cit., 185. 11 Hasan Yıldız, XLIX numaralı mühimme defteri (tahlîl–metin). Yüksek lisans tezi. İstanbul 1996, 120, No. 261. ‒ The same issue was also dealt with one month earlier, when the beglerbegi of Bosna was instructed to share the work between a commissioner (emin) and a scribe. In all likelihood the complexity of the task was underestimated for the first run, this being the reason of thinking that one single person would be sufficient to accomplish the task. Cf. Yıldız, op. cit., 43, No. 98. 12 See Fazileta Hafizović, Posjedi zvaničnika i njihovih porodica u Kliškom sandžaku u XVI stoljeću. Znakovi vremena 13 (2010/ljeto‒jesen), 229, note 1. (It is preserved in Istanbul: Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi, Tapu defteri 622). At this point it was divided into 29 subdistricts (nahiye), as identified by Hafizović, Kliški sandžak, 27‒28: Vrana, Skradin, Karin, Novi and Stari Obrovac, Gradčac, Mazin, Strmička, Udvina, Bilaj Bunić, Knin, Zvonigrad, Stara Ostrovica, Obrovac, Cvituša, Karin, Mazin, Vrana, Skradin, Kožul – the pious foundation of Hüsrev beg, Nadin, Velin, Zvonigrad, Knin, Kotar, Novi along the Lika, Cvituša along the Lika, Medak along the Lika, Perušić, Bilaj Barlet. (I have no explication for the repeated names.) 84 We can conclude, then, that the entry of January 1580 in the ümera list refers to the better known sancak of Kirka/Lika and not to another, quickly disappearing one. 2. Did a sancak of Kırka exist at an earlier date? Occasionally we can read that there was a sancak in existence around the river Krka also considerably earlier. 13 This assumption is based on a passage from İbrahim Peçevî, who wrote his chronicle some 100 years later than the events narrated here.14 The relevant part was printed in this form: “The conquest of the castles of Kadin (recte: Karin, Croatian Donji Karin15 ) and Obruça (Croatian Obrovac, Hungarian Obrovác).16 The mentioned castles were conquered by the good endeavours of the named [Hüsrev beg] and Gazi Murad beg in the year 944 (10 June 1537‒29 May 13 Andreas Birken, Die Provinzen des Osmanischen Reiches. (Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients. Reihe B, Nr. 13) Wiesbaden 1976, 56; Balázs Sudár, Török fürdők a hódoltságban. Történelmi Szemle 44 (2003), 256; Idem, Ki volt Jakováli Haszan pasa? Pécsi Szemle 9 (2006/1), 33. 14 The great lacuna in time can be partly counterbalanced by the fact that the chronicler served as mirliva of Kırka for approximately one year from 15 February 1637, which might have enabled him to become informed about local traditions about the creation of the sancak. Cf. Pál Fodor, Egy pécsi származású török történetíró: Ibrahim Pecsevi. In: Pécs a hódoltság korában. Tanulmányok. Szerk. Ferenc Szakály‒József Vonyó. (Pécsi Mozaik, 2) Pécs 2012, 151. 15 Its ruins can be seen on an elevation in the vicinity of Popovići, which belongs to Benkovac, when going in the direction of Donji Karin. See Bukovica i Ravni kotari. Vodič kroz kulturnu baštinu. Zagreb 2013 (http://kula-jankovica.unizg.hr/files/file/Bukovica/Hrvatski_PRIPREMA _web.pdf), 124‒125. 16 About the occupation of Karin Evliya Çelebi gathered the following hearsay: “This was also built by the Croatian infidels. It was also conquered by Hüsrev beg in 944. Nowadays it belongs to the sancak of Kırka.... It is reported that earlier, in the time of Süleyman han it was a separate sancak where Sarhoş İbrahim pasha’s father, Memi beg, had been the mirliva who possessed [the territory] as far as the river Kırka. Later the infidels demolished this castle and merely one of its towers survived; it was a strong castle but it is abandoned at present.” (Cf. Evliyâ Çelebi b. Derviş Mehemmed Zıllî, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi. Topkapı Sarayı Kütüphanesi Bağdat 307 yazmasının transkripsiyonu‒dizini. V. Haz. Yücel Dağlı–Seyit Ali Kahraman‒İbrahim Sezgin. İstanbul 2001, 244.) The sancak of Karin implicitly included in the text does not crop up elsewhere; the traveller must have misunderstood something. I can imagine that he wished to allude to the 1580 formation of the sancak of Kırka as we read it in Peçevî, erroneously adding Süleyman’s name. 85 1538) and were attached to the imperial domains.17 ... At present they are detached from Kilis and are appended to the sancak of Kırka. It was detached for the first time by Mahmud, son of Araniz (recte: Aranid)18 when the beg of Kilis was the late Yahyalu Solak Mehmed beg. 19 Moreover, it is known that Veli beg 20 criticised Mahmud beg in this connection. Then, when it was appended to Kilis again; it was detached again [for] Arnavud Memi beg, the father of Sarhoş and Gazi İbrahim 17 Obrovac and, suspiciously, nearby Karin as well, were captured by Ottoman forces headed by Murad, at this time voyvoda and not beg, and not by Hüsrev. Cf. Gábor Barta, A Forgotten Theatre of War 1526‒1528 (Historical Events Preceding the Ottoman‒Hungarian Alliance of 1528). In: Hungarian–Ottoman Military and Diplomatic Relations in the Age of Süleyman the Magnificent. (Ed. by Géza Dávid and Pál Fodor). Budapest 1994, 98‒99. In 1530 we find both places as nahiye centres in the sancak of Bosna. See 91, 164, MAD 540 ve 173 numaralı Hersek, Bosna ve İzvornik livâları icmâl tahrîr defterleri (926‒939/1520‒1533. I. Dizin. (T. C. Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, Osmanlı Arşivi Daire Başkanlığı, 81, Defter-i Hâkânî dizisi, X) Ankara 2006, 142, 158, 215 (map). In December 1536 (i.e. H. 943) dizdars functioned in both castles, who must have been local converts as it can be judged by their names. (Cf. M. Tayyib Gökbilgin, Venedik Devlet Arşivindeki Türkçe belgeler kolleksiyonu ve bizimle ilgili diğer belgeler. Belgeler V‒VIII (1968‒1971/9‒12), 84). We were ready to conclude that Peçevî made a mistake when specifying the date of the occupation. However, the annalist Bostan, who lived in Süleyman’s epoch, also puts the year of the capture of the two fortifications to 1537. (See Török történetírók. Fordította és jegyzetekkel kísérte József Thúry. II. Budapest 1896, 98). Consequently, it can be imagined that temporarily they were in Christian hands and it was necessary to march up against them once again. 18 Hazim Šabanović (Bosanski pašaluk. Postanak i upravna podjela. Sarajevo 1959, 73) correctly assumed, I think, that if anybody, he could be the postulated “first beg of Kırka”. The problem is, however, that Aranid Mahmud was “only” the alaybegi of Budun in 1546. (Cf. Gyula KaldyNagy, Kanuni devri Budin tahrir defteri (1546‒1562). 164, note 192, 168, note 197, 198, note 242, 211, note 255, 212, note 257, 217, note 265, 218, note 267, and 302, note 374. See also Balázs Sudár, An Aristocratic Albanian Family that Gained a Foothold and Emerged in the Hungarian Borderlands. The Aranids. In: “These were hard times for Skanderbeg, but he had an ally, the Hungarian Hunyadi.”Episodes in Albanian–Hungarian Historical Contacts. Ed. by Krisztián Csaplár. (Acta Balkano‒Hungarica, 1) Budapest 2019, 26, note 17). Before this date he could not have held a sancakbegi post because we have no examples of such a demotion. On the other hand, the creation of a district of Kırka after 1546 is fiction-like. 19 Sudár (An Aristocratic Albanian, 27) equates him with Yahyapaşazade Mehmed, whose beg position at Klis needs verification. According to Antal Gévay, A’ budai pasák. Bécs 1841, 6, No. 3. he came to office in Morea in 1534 and seven years later he was appointed beglerbegi of Anatolia. Others show him as a returning official to Szendrő (Serbian Smederevo, Ottoman Semendire) in 1536, who could well serve there until 1541. Cf. Olga Zirojević, Tursko vojno uredjenje u Srbiji (1459–1683). L’organisation militaire turque en Serbie (1459–1683). (Istorijski Institut, posebna izdanja. Institut d’histoire, monographies, 18) Beograd 1974, 262; Aleksandar Fotić, Yahyapaşa-oğlu Mehmed Pasha’s evkaf in Belgrade. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 54 (2001), 440. (I have not seen further examples for his nickname Solak (‘left-handed’) elsewhere.) 20 If it is really he who is meant here (see below), then our earliest piece of information about him dates from 1544, when he was coincidentally the beg of Kilis. Cf. Markus Köhbach, Die Eroberung von Fülek durch die Osmanen 1554. Eine historisch-quellenkritische Studie zur osmanischen Expansion im östlichen Mitteleuropa. Wien–Köln–Weimar 1994, 262, note 246. 86 pasha, so that its frontier be the river Kırka, and it was named the sancak of Kırka.”21 Unfortunately, this narration is not void of a certain obscurity. Neither the dates nor the persons can be unambiguously identified (see the previous footnotes). Archival sources do not corroborate at all the existence of an administrative unit of this name before 1580 (Peçevî’s “second detachment” must have hinted at this date). 22 In spite of this it cannot theoretically be fully rejected that there was, perhaps, some truth in the chronicler’s information. Still, if it subsisted at all, that sancak 23 was abolished so rapidly that there remained no official trace of it. 24 Instead, sultan’s hasses “beyond the river Kırka” are mentioned several times but as parts of the sancak of Kilis. In the 1550 defter of this latter district 107,230 akçe 21 Tarih-i Peçevî. [Istanbul 1866]. I. 194. ‒ As it is known, we have no critical edition of this work. It has been preserved in several manuscripts, which will cause difficulties when one or more scholars attempt to undertake the task of collating and publishing a reliable text. Some theses have been prepared of different sections of the chronicle at Marmara University, one of them containing the passage cited above. Its author used two manuscripts. She possibly transcribed the ‒ in her judgement ‒ more reliable version where both “Solak Mehmed” and even Veli beg figure as Vusulî while in the other codex as Yahyalu and Havlulî/Hululî Mehemmed. Cf. Bihter Gürışık, Peçevî tarihi (46b‒80a, metin, dizin, özel adlar sözlüğü). Yüksek lisans tezi. İstanbul 2005 (https://katalog.marmara.edu.tr/eyayin/tez/T0051983.pdf), 111‒112, exposure 546=76v, exposure 584. The Oriental Collection of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences possesses one copy of the work from the 17th and two from the 18th centuries. Here we read Yahyalu Vusulî Mehmed/Mehemmed beg while Veli beg is missing altogether. Cf. O. 217, f. 39v, O. 355, f. 49r, and O. 405, f. 85r (from this manuscript the sentence about Memi beg is left out). We can add that the word “criticism” (hicv) is substituted by “attack” (hücum) in three renditions. This calls for some more caution concerning the reliability of the text and in terms of the identities of the persons involved in it. 22 Šabanović (op. cit., 73‒74) also came to practically the same conclusion. 23 Evliya Çelebi alludes twice to the early period of the sancak of Kırka postulated by him: in connection with Nadin and then İvranya (Croatian Vrana, Hungarian Vrána). In the latter case he explicitly highlights that “When conquered, it was attached to the sancak of Kilis and later ‒ upon the demand of Hüsrev pasha, to the sancak of Kırka.” Cf. Evliyâ Çelebi, op. cit., V. 244. In my opinion these two data are far from being enough to decide the question. 24 The sancak of Kırka is not mentioned at all either in the 1543 campaign journal (Mehmet İpçioğlu, Kanunî Süleyman’ın Estergon (Esztergom) seferi 1543. Yeni bir kaynak. Osmanlı Araştırmaları X (1990), 137–159), or in the first two mühimme defteris of 1544‒1545 and 1552, respectively (Halil Sahillioğlu, Topkapı Sarayı Arşivi H. 951–952 tarihli ve E-12321 numaralı mühimme defteri. [Osmanlı Devleti ve medeniyeti tarihi serisi, 7] İstanbul 2002; Géza Dávid–Pál Fodor, „Az ország ügye mindenek előtt való.” A szultáni tanács Magyarországra vonatkozó rendeletei (1544–1545, 1552). “Affairs of State Are Supreme”. The Orders of the Ottoman Imperial Council Pertaining to Hungary (1544–1545, 1552). Budapest 2005; Eidem, „Ez az ügy fölöttébb fontos.” A szultáni tanács Magyarországra vonatkozó rendeletei (1559– 1560, 1564–1565). “This Affair is of Paramount Importance”. The Orders of the Ottoman Imperial Council Pertaining to Hungary (1559–1560, 1564–1565). Budapest 2009). 87 originated from such sources.25 In 1559 we twice come across imperial holdings in that area,26 and once at the beginning of 1566.27 In 1576 we learn that a certain Ali farmed the taxes of the region beyond the river Krka and Venetian lands conquered in the proximity of Kotar from the treasury annually for 600,000 akçe, a pretty sum.28 The expanding occupied areas beyond the Krka and the increase of revenues might have motivated the court to establish a new sancak here.29 3. The carrier of the first sancakbegi of Kırka How far can we follow the posts the first “real” beg of Kırka had filled before he became kapudan? We have some difficulties: a. his name, Mehmed, was very common; b. its diminutive form, Memi (Şah), is used alternately but unsystematically even in official documents;30 c. when appointed to another office the previous is not regularly indicated; d. there are contradictions in the different sources. Keeping these difficulties in mind, I have tried to follow up the earlier and later carrier of Mehmed, the kapudan of Una and then sancakbegi of Kırka. Since Peçevî (and in his wake others) referred to him as Memi, who, in this interpretation, can be 25 Opširni popis Kliškog sandžaka iz 1550. godine. Obradili Fehim Dž. Spaho‒Ahmed S. Aličić. Sarajevo 2007, 1‒22 (and the facsimile before the first page: the formula “beyond the river Kırka” is used here again). The sum total can be found on p. 22. 26 Gökbilgin, Venedik Devlet Arşivindeki, 72, 79. 27 5 numaralı mühimme defteri (973 / 1565–1566) <Özet ve İndeks>. (T. C. Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü. Osmanlı Arşivi Daire Başkanlığı, 21. Dîvân-ı Hümâyûn sicilleri dizisi, II) Ankara 1994, 136, No. 776. 28 Kornelija Jurin Starčević, Krajiške elite i izvori prihoda: primjer Jadranskog zaleđa u 16. i 17. stoljeć. Prilozi za orijentalnu filologiju 55 (2006), 256. 29 Short characterisations of it: Šabanović, op. cit., 73‒76, 226‒227; Nenad Moačanin, Turska Hrvatska. Hrvati pod vlašču Osmanskoga Carstva do 1791. Preispitivanja. Zagreb 1999, 40. ‒ For a map without legends showing the early 17th century extension of the district see Marko Šarić, Društveni odnosi i previranja u sandžaku Lika-Krka u 16. i početkom 17. stoljeća. Diplomska radionica 1 (1999), 77. Also published by Drago Roksandić, Triplex Confinium, ili o granicama i regijama hrvatske povijesti, 1500‒1800. Zagreb 2003, X. 30 As an example: one of the officials in our region is named Mehmed as the beg of Pécs (cf. Géza Dávid, Mohács–Pécs 16. századi bégjei. In: Pécs a hódoltság korában. Szerk. Ferenc Szakály– József Vonyó. (Pécsi mozaik, 2). Pécs 2012, 86, 113), but as Memi Şah in his capacity of registrar: Arşiv belgelerine göre Osmanlı’dan günümüze Türk‒Macar ilişkileri. Török‒magyar kapcsolatok az Oszmán Birodalomtól napjainkig a levéltári dokumentumok tükrében. İstanbul 2016, 146‒147. Cited by: Balázs Sudár‒János J. Varga‒Szabolcs Varga, Pécs története. III. A hódoltság korában (1543‒1686). Főszerk. József Vonyó (in print); Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi, Mühimme defteri 15, 190, No. 1594. (23 November 1571). 88 an important member (or the founding father) of the Memibegoviç family,31 I was looking for persons who, besides Mehmed, emerge also as Memi (Şah). 3a. The nazır of Gabela, Bosna, and Hersek (Herzegovina), later defterdar of Bosna Two entries close to each other in the same defter, dated 19 August 1565, mention mid-level officials who could possibly later have become kapudan of the river Una and beg of Kırka. One of them is an order addressed to Mehmed, supervisor (nazır) of Bosna and Hersek, in which he is demanded to obtain lead (kurşun) in an unspecified quantity from mines in the vicinity. 32 At the end of an undated (but written before 1569) letter signed by him he indicated the same functions.33 In a document from April 1561 the financial supervisor (nazırü’l-emval) charged with selling Venetian/Ragusan salt arriving at the harbour of Gabela was called Memi Şah beg. 34 I think these data refer to the same person. 35 This equation is strengthened by the content of an investigation against Memi Şah nazır at the end of 1577 which wished to clarify whether he performed his duty appropriately in Gabela during the previous campaign. This legal procedure was repeated in 1583, when he was already the defterdar of Bosna.36 From this it follows that he could by no means have become district governor in Kırka in 1580. This fiscal expert, who never held a mirliva post but the beg title was affixed to his name,37 died in 1585.38 31 About this clan see Nedim Zahirović, A Memibégovicsok Magyarországon, Szlavóniában és Horvátországban a 17. század első felében. Korall 13 (2012), 121‒132. Balázs Sudár also wrote about the family and related issues in some of his studies. Lately: Pécs 1663-ban. Evlia cselebi és az első részletes városleírás. Pécs 2012, 93‒99. 32 Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi, Maliyeden müdevver defter 2775, 133. 33 Gökbilgin, Venedik Devlet Arşivindeki, 127‒128. 34 Gökbilgin, Venedik Devlet Arşivindeki, 37. 35 Cf. Behija Zlatar, Vakuf fočanskog nazira i zaima Mehmed-bega. In: Vakufi u Bosni i Hercegovini. Urednik Nedim Begović. Sarajevo 2015, 209‒217. Her reasoning is not always easy to follow. 36 See N. H. Biegman, The Turco‒Ragusan Relationship According to the Firmāns of Murād III (1575‒1595) Extant in the State Archives of Dubrovnik. The Hague‒Paris 1967, 156‒157. ‒ Among others Zlatar (Vakuf fočanskog nazira, 213) postulates that he was active also as the defterdar of Tımışvar (Hungarian Temesvár, Romanian Timişoara), which cannot be documented, and it is much more likely that he received the nickname “defterdar pasha” as a result of his being in this very office in Bosnia as shown by Biegman. ‒ It can be added here that Ahmed, the former defterdar of Buda, was nominated to Temesvár on 16 February 1584 and a bit later on 16 May Behmenzade Mustafa the previous timar defterdarı of Rumelia followed him (Kâmil Kepeci tasnifi 262, 30). Sometime in 1583 a certain Ali cared about financial matters there (Antal Velics‒Ernő Kammerer, Magyarországi török kincstári defterek. II. 1540‒1639. Budapest 1890, 639, 732). 37 On the inscription of his cami we find: “the late defterdar Memi Şah beg”. Cf. Mehmed Mujezinović, Turski natpisi XVI vijeka iz nekoliko mjesta Bosne i Hercegovine. Prilozi za orijentalnu filologiju 3‒4 (1952‒1953), 477. 38 Zlatar, op. cit, 214. (Based on the kitabe in the previous note.) 89 3b. The kapudan of the river Drava (Hungarian Dráva, Croatian, Ottoman Drava) The second document of 19 August 1565 instructs Muhi’d-din, the kadi of Eszék (Croatian Osijek, Ottoman Ösek) in connection with a petition brought to the court (kapuma gelüb) by Mehmed, kapudan of the river Drava, who was at the same time the supervisor (nazır olan nehr-i Drava kapudanı, müfahharü’z-zuamai [sic!] vel’lemacid Mehmed) of the sancaks of Bosna, Kilis, Zaçasna (the territory beyond the river Čazma), Pojega, and the “island of Sirem” (Hungarian Szerémség, Latin Sirmium) and by three emins, Mustafa, İnehan, and Selim. They were assigned from various points of time to collect mevkufat, mabeyn, and beytü’l-mal revenues in the mentioned districts. 39 Nenad Moačanin, who cited this passage, added that “here Gazi (Arnavut ?) Mehmet” is spoken about. He failed, however, to show evidence for this statement; the original contains merely the very common name, not even the title Gazi figures there. 40 The author put in parentheses the byname meaning ‘Albanian’ probably on the basis of Peçevî’s chronicle. Though I have no exact proof in this respect, it can be imagined that he exchanged one kapudan post with another, and then he received his first beg appointment. 4. Mehmed beg’s later places of office According to the central ümera list, Mehmed was the beg of Kırka until 13 October 1584, when he was transferred to Esztergom (Ottoman Estergon) 41 and he was followed by Piri in Knin.42 But the reality was more complicated than that. Namely, as a consequence of Venetian complaints his office here had terminated earlier, and as early as October‒November 1582 he was already replaced by İdris.43 Mehmed, perhaps after a short interval of dismissal (mazul), was sent to an almost unknown and temporary administrative unit named after the settlements of Krupa (modern 39 Maliyeden müdevver defter 2775, 135‒136. (See Moačanin, Kapudánságok, 53, note 13. (With some misunderstandings and mistakes.) ‒ His data were repeated by Sudár, Pécs 1663-ban, 99; Zahirović, A Memibégovicsok, 124. 40 Moačanin, Kapudánságok, 52‒53. ‒ It cannot be proved that later he became the sancagbegi of Pojega as Moačanin proposes. 41 Kâmil Kepeci tasnifi 262, 20. 42 Kâmil Kepeci tasnifi 262, 35. The entries for Kırka in this defter were published by Tayyib M. Gökbilgin, Prof. Tayyib Okiç ve Bosna-Hersek tarihi, Bosna Eyaleti. In: Tayyib Okiç armağanı. Ankara 1978, XLII. 43 Venezia, Archivio di Stato di Venezia. Miscellanea documenti turchi, No. 911. (http://www.archiviodistatovenezia.it/divenire/imagefullscreen.htm?fs=1&imgIndex=1&idUa= 38464&first=0&last=1). Pedani’s catalogue (I “Documenti Turchi” dell’Archivio di Stato di Venezia. Inventario della miscellanea. A cura di Maria Pia Pedani Fabris. I. (Pubblicazioni degli Archivi di Stato. Strumenti, 122) Roma 1994, 229‒230, No. 911) was cited by Nedim Zahirović, Tragom jedne karijere: Halil-beg (Halil-paša) Memibegović od Like preko Jegra do Banje Luke. Historijski zbornik 70 (2017), 354, note 5. 90 Bosanska Krupa), Bužim, Zrin, Jezerski, 44 and Ostrožac (as identified by Nedim Zahirović). He could not have been very content with his yearly sources of revenue, either, since of the 300,000 akçe which was granted to him in principle (and which, otherwise, could have been considered a significant increase) he had to be satisfied with 200,000, of which 150,000 came from settlements “outside the defter” (haric ez-defter) ‒ the explanation in the entry says: “from reaya settling here in the future” ‒, while the rest from the mine of Gvozdansko (Hungarian Gvozdanszkó). 45 It remains a question how long he stayed in this position and whether he returned to his previous post and this was really the place from where he went to Esztergom.46 In the register kept in Istanbul, which fails to show the change of 1582 hinted at just now, the above mentioned Piri beg’s successor was Ali ağa, previously defter kethüdası of Bosna at the head of the sancak of Kırka from 25 November 1587. When his time was up, once again the current beg of Esztergom was placed here on 25 May 1587. His name, however, was left out.47 Everything seems to be in order, but under Esztergom we read that on the same day Memi (and not Ali) beg of Kırka was put there!48 Moreover even the Habsburg side obtained similar information; a postscript dated on 27 May 1587 reported that Osman, the beg of Estergon, was substituted by Memi, from “Gerga” (Krka), 49 which is the same story as what happened according to the central list in 1584. This is a rather surprising turn, the background and reason for which are not clear. It is most likely that the implementation of the given idea was delayed for three years. If this was the real sequence of events we do not know whether Mehmed beg was uninterruptedly in Krupa etc. in the meantime, or whether he spent his days in temporary dismissal (mazul), or whether it was truly he who was transferred to Esztergom, or one of his namesakes. Another sign of this shift is that Habsburg sources in June‒July 1588 narrate that Memi Şah, the former beg of Lika (Kırka) made serious efforts to become the beglerbegi of Bosna.50 His efforts failed and he was compelled to be satisfied with 44 This identification is a bit shaky, but I cannot come up with a better proposition. 45 Zahirović, Tragom jedne karijere, 354 and note 6. ‒ His predecessor here was, if I understand it well, İdris. Cf. Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi, Tımar ruznamçe defteri 82, ff. 622v‒623r. 46 News in April 1584 spread that this very Mehmed beg (Meny weeg) was the candidate to get the sancak of Çernik (Croatian Cernik, Hungarian Csernik; Zernikh in the original)/Pakraç (Croatian Pakrac, Hungarian Pakrác,)/Zaçasna. Cf. Spomenici hrvatske krajine. Sakupio i uredio Radoslav Lopašić. I. (Monumenta spectantia historiam slavorum meridionalium, 15) Zagreb 1884, 133). Cited by Nenad Moačanin, Slavonija i Srijem u razdoblju osmanske vladavine. Slavonski Brod 2011, 131, note 243. and from his work by Zahirović, A Memibégovicsok, 124, note 22. 47 Kâmil Kepeci tasnifi 262, 35. 48 Kâmil Kepeci tasnifi 262, 20. ‒ Mentioned by Pál Fodor, A váci „harmincad” és egy hódoltsági főember a 16. századból: Oszmán aga, cselebi és bég. Történelmi Szemle (2010), 336. 49 Türkei I. Karton 61. Konv. 1. 1587. V. 50 Türkei I. Karton 67. Konv. 1. 1588. VII; Türkei I. Karton 67. Konv. 2. 1588. VIII. 91 Esztergom around September of the same year.51 This is a new, unexpected, twist, since we are at a point another year later. But around this time he definitely served in Esztergom, as he signed some of his letters in this capacity between March and October 1589.52 A further additional and significant detail is provided by the contemporary historian Gelibolulu Mustafa Ali (1541‒1600), who wrote his main work between 1591 and 1599, namely during a very near period of time to the years we are just dealing with.53 He states that “the beg of Estergon, Arnavud Memi beg”, together with the beg of Hatvan and the alaybegi of Budun, participated in the mutiny directed against Ferhad, the mirmiran of Budun, in 1590, in which the pasha lost his life.54 This remark is of special importance for us since the same forename of the mirliva figures in it as the one Peçevî gave to him. This implies that the later chronicler did not make a mistake when he spoke this way about the beg of Kırka. Seemingly as a consequence of his unfriendly words to the Habsburg envoy, but probably partly because of his participation in the rebellion, he had been deprived of his post in Esztergom by the beginning of December 1590 and disappears from our eyes.55 (According to Habsburg news Pál Márkházi, a noble convert who entered the Ottoman elite as İbrahim beg, was chosen as his successor.56) Allegedly the Memi who died as the beg of İzvornik (Bosnian Zvornik) in the battle of Sziszek (Croatian Sisak) in 1593 is identical with him.57 This supposition seemed questionable because we have no definitive evidence which shows that the earlier beg of Kırka, then that 51 Türkei I. Karton 67. Konv. 3. 1588. IX. 52 Jedlicska Pál, XVI-ik századi török‒magyar levelek Pálffy Miklóshoz. (A gr. Pálffy-család levéltárából) Magyar Történelmi Tár 3. sorozat. 4 (1881), 692, No. 4, 694, No. 6, 697, No. 13, 698, No. 15. Cited by: Sudár, Pécs története. Both Sudár and Géza Pálffy (A Magyar Királyság a 16. századi Habsburg Monarchiában. Századok 141 (2007), 1112) show him “Szokolovics” which does not appear in the source. This forename probably goes back to Gergely Pethő’s history. Cf. Rövid magyar kronika. Sok rend-béli fő historiás könyvekböl nagy szorgalmatossággal egybe szedettetett és irattatott Petthö Gergelytül. Kassa 1753 (reprint Debrecen, 1993), 131. Being a contemporary, the Hungarian annalist can probably be given credit. 53 Cornell H. Fleischer, Bureaucrat and Intellectual in the Ottoman Empire. The Historian Mustafa Âli (1541‒1600). Princeton, 1986, 317‒318. 54 Faris Çerçi, Gelibolulu Mustafa Âlî ve Künhü’l-ahbâr’ında II. Selim, III. Murat ve III. Mehmet devirleri. III. (Erciyes Üniversitesi yayınları, 121) Kayseri 2000, 556. 55 Gustav Bayerle, Ottoman Diplomacy in Hungary. Letters from the Pashas of Buda, 1590–1593. (Indiana University Publications, Uralic and Altaic Series, 101A) Bloomington, [1972], 76, No. 34. = Türkei I. Karton 74. Konv. 1. 1590. X-XII. und s.d. 56 Türkei I. Karton 73. Konv. 1. 1590. V‒VI. About his life see Sándor Papp, From a Transylvanian Principality to an Ottoman Sanjak. The Life of Pál Márkházi, a Hungarian Renegade. In: Chronica. Annual of the Institute of History, University of Szeged. IV. Szeged 2004, 57‒67. 57 Sudár, Pécs története. He quotes İyanî’s chronicle: Câfer İyânî, Tevârîh-i cedîd-i Vilâyet-i Üngürüs (Osmanlı‒Macar mücadelesi tarihi, 1585‒1595). Haz. Mehmet Kirişçioğlu. İstanbul 2001, 25. (We meet the same assertion in Southern-Slav literature.) 92 of Estergon, was nominated to Zvornik. Though I cannot show a clear proof, either, the text of an order dated 29 August 1598 and copied into the 1604 defter of Bosna indirectly confirms the feasible validity of the above statement. Here we read: “Halil, the sancakbegi of Kirka, may his glory last, sent a petition [reporting that] »Since at the place called Kaletina,58 there is a crossing point for travellers where they pass and traverse from the vilayet of Bosna and the sancaks of Kilis, Hersek, and Kırka to Budin, Tımışvar, and other well protected dominions, Memi beg, who fell as a martyr while sancakbegi of İzvornik, in the war of Hasan pasha, had earlier built a han«.”59 Namely, the earlier position(s) of Memi, the beg of İzvornik, is not specified here, but we learn that the district governor of Krka was Halil in 1598. And this is an essential piece of information, because we know that he could call himself Memi beg’s son.60 The fact that not someone else, but he, took a pen in connection with the pious foundation of a mirliva of the same name who worked in Zvornik around 1593 suggests that this latter person may have had something to do with the sancak of Kirka. However, we do not really need this reasoning, since at practically the same place a small çiftlik in the possession (tasarruf) of “Mehmed beg, mirliva of Kırka” in the nahiye of Lefçe (Bosnian Livač, Lijevče61) is mentioned and, just after it, a mahalle which was formed around the cami of “the late Mehmed beg, mirliva of Kırka.”62 It is more than likely that these “two” Mehmeds are one and the same person. It remains, however, a question if the Memi beg, “owner” of the kervansaray, is identical with him or not. One of the interpretations regards them as two different individuals, ascribing the cami to Gazi Arnavud and the han to his son. To strengthen his argument this author modified the above text by adding that the petition was sent by Memi’s son Mehmed beg to the Porte63 which – as we have to emphasise ‒ cannot be read either in the original or in Kupusović’s rendition. 58 Today unknown. It must have been situated somewhere near Bosanska Gradiška, and since it was a crossing place and where fairs were held, it might lie near the river Száva (Croatian, Ottoman Sava). As kindly imparted by Boglárka Weisz: “Ferry fee was collected at Alsógradiska (Ógradiska, Croatian Stara Gradiška) already in the Árpádian age; the road led from Orbász (Serbian Vrbas), to Schl[a?]platu (unidentifiable) land.” See Hazai okmánytár. Codex diplomaticus patrius hungaricus. Szerk. Imre Nagy. VIII. Budapest 1891, 361, No. 299. 59 Ankara, Tapu ve Kadastro Genel Müdürlüğü Kuyud-i Kadime Arşivi TTd. 43 (old number 479), f. 229v. The Ottoman text runs as follows: Kırka sancağı begi Halil ‒ dame izzuhu ‒ arz gönderüb Kaletina nam mahalde vilayet-i Bosna ve Kilis ve Hersek ve Kırka sancaklarından Budun ve Tımışvar ve sair memalik-i mahruseye mürur ve ubur eden ebna-i sebilün memerri olmagıla bundan akdem İzvornik sancağı begi olub Hasan paşa muharebesinde şehid olan Memi begün mevzie-i merkumede bina eyledügi hanun... For its translation see Opširni popis Bosanskog sandžaka. Obradila Amina Kupusović. Sarajevo 2000, III. 518‒519. (She made Hasan the beg of İzvornik.) ‒ The translation was cited by Zahirović, A Memibégovicsok, 124. 60 Sudár, Pécs 1663-ban, 95; Zahirović, A Memibégovicsok, 127. 61 A region around Banja Luka. 62 Opširni popis Bosanskog sandžaka, III. 518. 63 Ismet Bušatlić, Vakufi na području medžlisa islamske zajednice Bosanska Gradiška. In: Vakufi u Bosni i Hercegovini. Urednik Mustafa Prljača. Sarajevo 2018, 179. (He hypothesises that the younger Mehmed died in 1576, earlier than his father. Ibid., note 18.) 93 Zahirović, on the other hand, opines that these data refer to one single officeholder.64 This question should be left open ‒ both variations are imaginable. In contrast to Zahirović,65 however, I do not think that the first beg of Kırka would have been identical with the Memi beg of the 1530s.66 This latter, who must have been at least 20 years old at that time (otherwise he probably could not have played a leading role in conflicts), consequently would have been over 80 in 1593.67 It is unlikely that at such an old age he would have participated in military undertakings. Had he reached this time of life at all he would have lived as a pensioner. Further it is not realistic, either, that he would have been appointed to establish a new sancak when 70 in 1580.68 5. The founder of the Memi beg complex in Pécs Though it is not directly connected to our topic we can make a short detour and try to clarify who established the Memi beg complex in Pécs, modest remnants of which have survived. Unfortunately, the relevant documents have disappeared, so we have to guess, choosing the most likely one from several potential persons. Can we find motivational reasons in the case of the first beg of Kırka? Recalling what has been said about him above our answer tends to be negative, since we have not met him 64 Zahirović, A Memibégovicsok, 123‒125. 65 Zahirović, A Memibégovicsok, 124. 66 Chronicles report that it was he who occupied Diakovár (Croatian Đakovo, Ottoman Yakova), and scholarly literature suggests that “later here was formed one of the centres of a small dynasty named Memibegović after Memi” (Sudár, Pécs 1663-ban, 95). It remains a question when this happened, and how we know. Fazileta Hafizović (Novi podaci o vakufu/legatu Benlu-age u Đakovu. Scrinia slavonica 14 (2014), 42) tried to connect a certain Mehmed çeribaşı who was the owner of a mosque in the town in 1561 to the family, but this equation is not convincing. As for the 1579 defter of Pojega it does not contain any reference to the clan at all. Cf. Popis sandžaka Požega 1579. godine. Defter-i mufassal-i liva-i Pojega 987. Prevela Fazileta Hafizović. Osijek 2001, 147‒154 and passim. This allows us to cautiously conclude that the “dynasty” and its fame emerged only in the 17th century. 67 It may cause some ambiguity but hopefully does not discredit my argumentation that Memi, the beg of İzvornik who died at Sziszek, is called “old” twice, once in Croatian (“stari Memi beg Svornički”) at another time in German (“des ... alten Memj beegs zu Suorinkh”). See Spomenici hrvatske krajine. I. 179, 182. ‒ The significantly later chronicler Mustafa Naima (1655‒1716) speaks about him as Gazi Koca Memi beg (in the light of the two above non Turkish passages the word koca cannot mean ‘great’ here; cf. Naîmâ Mustafa efendi, Târih-i Na’îmâ. (Ravzatü’lhüseyn fî hulâsati ahbari’l-hafikayn) Haz. Mehmet İpşirli. (Türk Tarih Kurumu yayınları, III/33.] I. Ankara 2007, 61, 62.) His source for this detail could not be discerned. The edition of this work in Arabic script is quoted by: Alexis Olesnicki, Tko nosi odgovornost za poraz turske vojske kod Siska 20 ramazana 1001 godine (22. lipnja 1593)? Kritički pregled turskih izvora о Sisačkom boju u njihovoj uzajamnoj konsekutivnoj vezi. Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu 22‒23 (1942/1), 169‒170. 68 Similar concerns were sounded by Sudár, Pécs 1663-ban, 99. To resolve the contradiction, he suggested that “perhaps two Memis followed each other in the lineage”. 94 serving in this town (as a contrast, his building a kervansaray and a cami next to it near Gradiška can be connected to his activity along the nearby rivers). Then, we have two officials in the 16th century who ruled Pécs and were called Mehmed: the first between 1559 and 1561, the other from 1567 to 1571; i.e. almost four and a half years, long enough to warm up there. The first mirliva does not seem to be a potential founder of the pious works; about the second we can think this with more rights since ‒ as we have seen ‒ he was occasionally shown as Memi Şah in the sources.69 What we further know about him is that he arrived from the sancak of Nógrád to Transdanubia. 70 His earlier post(s) and family background are unfortunately in shadow. It cannot be fully excluded that he had been the kapudan of the river Drava, from where he was elevated to the rank of the sancakbegi of Nógrád, but the change should have happened between August 1565 (active as kapudan) and November 1567 (district governor of Pécs). Quite regrettably, even if these fictitious elements were true it does not help us to a great extent, since Mehmed/Memi Şah disappears like camphor from Pécs in 1571.71 6. Summary: possible career paths As I understand it, at present we cannot come to reassuring final results as far as the true nature of the relationship between the beg of Kırka and the Memibegoviç family is concerned, nor in connection with the founder of the vakıf in Pécs. Because of the missing details we have the following imaginable variations: a. Mehmed, the kapudan of the river Drava (1565) becomes the kapudan of the river Una (before 1580), then sancakbegi of Kırka (1580), Krupa etc. (1582), Kırka again (around 1584), and Estergon (1584 or 1587); dies as the beg of İzvornik (1593). b. Mehmed, the kapudan of the river Drava (1565), is appointed to Nógrád, and to Pécs (1567). He disappears in 1571. It can be propounded that he emerges as the mirliva of Estergon (1584 or 1587) after having been district governor in Kırka for a short time. In this case it can be he who lost his life at Sziszek. Were this the case, Peçevî turns out wrong in saying that the sancak of Kırka was created for him. c. Mehmed, the beg of Kırka, is transferred to Krupa etc. and then we lose sight of him. He is replaced by Memi, coming from an unknown destination. He goes to Esztergom, etc. 69 This view is represented by Balázs Sudár: Pécs története. 70 Maliyeden müdevver defter 563, 49. 71 To our great sorrow several pages for Rumelia, where, unless he died, he likely continued his activity, are missing from our main source for the period, Maliyeden müdevver defter 563. Moreover Mühimme defteri 15 from the relevant months of H. 979 does not contain high office holders’ nominations (in contrast to earlier ruus defteris) any more. 95 d. It can theoretically be imagined that more than one Mehmed followed each other in the sancak of Kırka: the first stationed there from 1580 until 1582, the second around 1584, and the third before 1587. We have seen that the two latter are not entered into the list kept in the centre. It does not sound reasonable that two separate individuals would have escaped the attention of the scribes, maximum one. But if we count with one single Mehmed/Memi then the district governor put to Krupa had to return (once, twice?) for a short interval to Knin, or he remained out of office (mazul) for a period while he earned his fame as the beg of Kırka in public consciousness, which is reflected by using this denomination when speaking about him in both Turkish and Habsburg sources. A sign of this “popularity” is that it is he who is still mentioned (Memi, the beg of Kırka) and not his son in connection with a tower built by the latter which the Venetians wished to have demolished in 1598,72 and that he figures (only by name) in a popular poem which enumerates the Ottoman leaders drowned in the river at Sziszek.73 e. No undisputable archival evidence could be detected about the Memi Şah beg of the 1530’s, which is thought-provoking even if we have to admit that we possess a very few reliable documents from those years. I do hope that the collected data and my remarks have reflected in a proper manner the soundly known and missing details that can help us to draw a more exact picture about the first years of the sancak of Kırka and to identify their district governors on a firmer basis. 72 Inventory of the Lettere e scritture turchesche in the Venetian State Archives. Edited by Maria Pia Pedani. Based on the Materials Compiled by Alessio Bombaci †. Leiden‒Boston 2010, 183, No. 771. 73 Olesnicki, op. cit., 155. Pofu Qatun and the Last Decade of the Türk Empire Mihály Dobrovits The Imperial Annals (benji) of the Jiu Tangshu preserved the information that in 742 a lot of illustrious members of the Ashina clan fled to China. This information, with a detailed list of the refugees is also to be found in the Chapter on the Türks (194a) of the Jiu Tangshu. Amongst them one can mention the Abusi (阿布思) eltäbär, the Western yabγu,1 the uncle of Mechuo (Qapγan) qaγan, Bodeji tegin, the wife and the son of the Western šad, Princess Daluo, the daughter of Bilgä qaγan, Yusaifu, the concubine of Yiran qaγan, Princess Yuzhu, the daughter of Dengli qaγan, and also Pofu, the widow of Bilgä qaγan.2 The Xin Tangshu dates the flight of Pofu to 745.3 As to the causes of the collapse of the dynasty, one can mention the role of Pofu guduolu, the widow of Bilgä qaγan. Although the sons of Bilgä qaγan can hardly be depicted as infants, for one of them had at least one daughter, the influence of their mother on them was definitely unquestionable. She also had an illegitimate relationship with somebody called Yinsi tarqan, so she lost all her respect in front of the Türks. Meanwhile the control of the armies slipped over to the uncles of Dengli qaγan who wore the titles of the Left and Right šad.4 After the death of Bilgä Qaγan in 734, his first successor was his older son, Yiran (伊然, EMC ?ji-ɲian , LMC ?ji-rian < *Ïnan ?), who was granted with the honorary title Dengli (登利 i.e. Täŋri) qaγan by the Chinese court sometime before 740, the most probable date is being 735. 5 Later, after his death, this title was conferred by the Chinese to his younger brother, who originally held the title Bijia guduolu (苾伽骨咄祿, Bilgä qutluγ) qaγan. The two brothers ruled altogether eight years, from 734 to 741. 6 From our confused Chinese sources we cannot tell the ruling time of the first son from that of the second.7 We can also see that the title Bilgä qaγan which was originally worn by the elder brother of Kül tegin became incorporated into the titulature of his successors. The Inscription of Bilgä qaγan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Jiu Tangshu 215b: Zhonghua shuju, 6054. LMT = Liu Mau-tsai, Die chinesischen Nachrichten zur Gechichte der Ost-Türken (T’u-küe) III (Göttinger Asiatische Forschungen 10; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasovitz, 1958, 180, 261. LMT 231. LMT 179, 229. Paul Pelliot, "Neuf notes sur des questions d’Asie Centrale", T’oung Pao 26 (1929), 234, 236‒238. Jiu Tangshu 215b: Zhonghua shuju, 6054. Mihály Dobrovits, „A türk hatalom utolsó évtizede“, Antik Tanulmányok 47 (2003), 313. 98 begins as follows (II. E 1): täŋri täg täŋri yaratmiš türk bilgä qaγan sabïm qaŋïm türk bilgä [qaγan ………] (1I the Heaven-like and Heaven-created Turkish Bilgä Kagan, (here are) my words: When my father Turkish Bilgä Kagan ………’)8 and on the line II. S 13, narrating the enthronement of Bilgä qaγan we read: täŋri täg täŋri yaratmïš türk bilgä qaγan sabïm qaŋïm türk bilgä qaγan olurtuqïnta (‘I the Heaven-like Turkish Bilge (Kagan), here are my words: When my father, Turkish Bilge Kagan succeeded to the throne […]’)9 The expression täŋri also became an integrated part of the royal titulature. On the Ongin inscription, that we dated with 740, the Türk rulers were first time referred to as täŋrikän.10 This movement can be understood as a sign of sacralization of the rulers. With all these changes, the old system of the family rule and the lateral succession to the supreme rule were gone. 11 The lateral succession system was shown in the Orkhon Inscriptions as the source of all the troubles that caused the collapse of the First Empire.12 With the lateral sytem gone, new troubles arose. Due to the linear succession (primogeniture), young people inevitably might succeed to the throne. Formal rulers easily could become puppets of other people who really ruled the Empire. According to our Chinese sources this was the case with the Türks. It was not the foreign forces that caused the collapse of the Empire, they merely took advantage from the forerunning calamity that ruined the ruling clan. To regain control over the Empire, the young ruler and his mother made a desperate step. They killed the Right šad and put the western wing of the armies of the Empire under their direct control. The Left šad then attacked the ruler and killed him.13 The Xin Tangshu also tells us that the Left šad, called Panjue tegin then put 8 Talât Tekin, A Grammar of Orkhon Turkic (Indiana University, Uralic And Altaic Series: Bloomington, 1968, 243, 275. 9 Tekin 1968, 246, 280. 10 Mihály Dobrovits, "Ongin yazıtını tahlile bir deneme", Türk Dili Araştırmaları Yıllığı, Belleten, 2000, 147‒150. 11 On the lateral system amongst the Türks: Thomas J. Barfield, The Perilous Frontier. Nomadic Empires and China 221 BC to 1757 (Cambridge, Mass. - London: Blackwell, 1996), 133. 12 I. E 4-7 (II. E 4-7): anta kisrä inisi qaγan bolmis ärinč oγlïtï qaγan bolmis ärinč anta kisrä inisi äčisin täg qïlïnmaduq ärinč oγlï qaŋïn täg qïlïnmaduq ärinč biligsiz qaγan olurmis ärinč yablaq qaγan olurmis buyruqï yemä biligsiz ärinč yablaq ärmis ärinč bägläri bodunï tüzsiz üčün tabγač bodun täbligin kürlüg üčün armaqčisin üčün inili äčili kiŋsürtükin üčün bägli bodunlïγ yoŋšurtuqin üčün türk bodun illädük ilïn ïčγïnu ïdmis qaγanladuq qaγanin yitürü ïdmis ‘Then the younger brothers succeeded to the throne and the sons succeeded to the throne. But, apparently the younger brothers did not resemble their elder brothers, and the sons did not resemble their fathers. (Consequently) unwise kagans succeeded to the throne, bad kagans succeeded to the throne. Their buyruqs, too, were unwise and bad. Since the lords and peoples were not in accord, and the Chinese people were wily and deceitful, since they were tricky andcreated a rift between younger and elder brothers, and caused the lords and peoples to slander one another, the Turkish people caused their state which they had established to go to ruin, and their kagan, whom they had crowned to collapse.’ Tekin 1968, 232‒233, 263. 13 LMT 180, 230. 99 on the throne the third son of Bilgä qaγan and killing him he put on the throne the fourth one. Having him also deposed and killed, he personally sat on the throne as Guduo yehu (*Qutluγ yabγu) qaγan. 14 Around 742, an alliance of the Uyghurs, Qarluq and Basmïl revolted and killed him. While the Basmïl ruler proclaimed himself Xiexieyishi qaγan, the son of Guduo yehu qaγan proclaimed himself as Wusumishi (烏蘇米施) qaγan.15 The Uyghur inscriptions call him Ozmïš tegin.16 The coalition of the Basmïl, Uyghur, and Qarluq defeated him two times, 742 and 744, when he was finally killed.17 The Türks did not give it up, and they put on the throne the younger brother of Ozmïš, Hulongfu (鶻隴匐) called Bomei tegin as Bomei (白眉) qaγan.18 According to our Uyghur sources, the remnants of the Türks were still in war in the next year of Hen (taqïqu yïl, i.e. 745).19 At the end the Türks, who became totally disappointed with their own rulers, accepted the sovereignity of the rulers of the Basmïl, who were close relatives of their original ruling clan.20 So this was the final moment in the history of the once so mighty Türks in Inner Asia. 14 LMT 230. 15 Jiu Tangshu 215b: Zhonghua shuju, 6054; LMT, 230. 16 Terkhi E 6: ozmïš tegin udarqanta yorïyur tedi; E 9: ozmïš tegin qan bolmïš qoń yïlqa yorïdïm; SU N. 9: ozmïš tegin qan bolmïš qoń yïlqa yorïdïm. S. Klyashtorny, The Terkhin Inscription. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae XLII (1982), 343. 17 LMT, 230, Terkhi S1-2.: ekinti ... bïčïn yïlqa yorïdïm ... süŋüšdüm anta sančdïm qanïn anta tutdum [qatunïn anta altïm] ... anta kisrä bašï kälti, Klyashtorny 1982, 343. 18 三載，拔悉蜜等殺烏蘇米施，傳首京師，獻太廟。其弟白眉特勒鶻隴匐立，是為白眉可汗。 Jiu Tangshu 215b: Zhonghua shuju, 6054; ‘Im 3. Jahr (744) töteten die Pa-si-mi und andere Wu-su-mi-schi und schickten seinen Kopf nach dem Haupstadt. Man brachte der Kopf) im kaiserlichen Ahnentempel dar. Sein jüngerer Bruder Po-mei T’ê-le (=Tegin) namens Hulung-wu bestieg den Thron, und dies war Po-mei Khagan.’ LMT 230. 19 Terkhi S 2-3: taqïqu yïlqa yorïdïm yïlladïm bešinč ay üč yigirmikä qalïšdï süŋüšdüm anta sančïm. Klyashtorny 1982, 343. 20 LMT 230. A Descendant of the Prophet in the Hungarian Marches Seyyid Ali and the Ethos of Gaza Pál Fodor Sometime during the reign of Murad III (1574–1595) – presumably in the second half of the 1570s – Seyyid Ali, a timar-holder sipahi from Szigetvár submitted the following petition to the ruler: “May God – whose praises I recite, the exalted! – increase the life and luck of his majesty the illustrious and fortunate padishah, the refuge of the world, day by day, and let him attain his objectives in both worlds. We are submitting the following request to the dust of his noble feet. I, a descendant from the house of the apostle of God from venerated Mecca, am your servant. When the late and deceased Sultan Süleyman khan – the mercy and forgiveness of God be upon him! – was waging the sacred war at Szigetvár, in the fight against the infidels I, the humble servant, cut off the heads of several infidels and rolled them before his imperial stirrups. As a reward for my bravery, his excellency the pasha 1 deigned to assign and grant me 10 akçes [a day] from the net accrual of [the pious foundation] of Aya Sofya. Since, however, I belong to the rank of timar-holding [sipahis], I declined it and set myself the goal to wage a sacred war against the infidels in the marches. By divine wisdom, the lord of a castle by the name of Kanizsa deployed some 800 infidel gunmen to lie in ambush, and with his horsemen he galloped under our castle. We confronted them and by the grace of God – may he be exalted! – and by the miracles of God’s apostle defeated, scattered and dispersed the infidel horsemen. But we had no knowledge of the gunmen lying in ambush, who suddenly launched a hail of bullets at us from behind, killing some of us and capturing others. The horse of your humble servant was also hit, opened from one side to the other. Poor me, I received five or six wounds and fell into captivity. Since the death of the late Süleyman sultan I have been the prisoner of the infidels. The unbelievers have tortured and harassed me a lot. Since they know I am a descendant of the prophet, they set the ransom for me at 1500 guruş, after the cruellest tortures. I have left my little son as hostage with the infidels and have come [here] to inform the leaders of the state of my miserable plight. I am entreating the illustrious 1 Grand Vizier Sokollu Mehmed pasha. 102 padishah for the sake of the only living Allah the most high, for the salvation of the soul of God’s apostle, the pride of the creatures,2 and for the salvation of the soul of your predecessors and of the late Sultan Selim khan, that you take pity on this feeble servant, the issue of the prophet’s house and rescue and liberate from the hands of the infidels my little son your servant, a descendant from the prophet’s house. Two months remain till the deadline; if I fail to return, my little son will be tortured, his body mutilated and maimed. My illustrious padishah, you have thousands of manumitted slaves and disciples; add an offspring of the prophet to your other servants so that we shall recite blessing prayers with our son and daughter for the illustrious padishah until our dying breath. From the bottom of the gaol [my son] keeps scanning the gates asking: when is my father, your servant, coming? With heavy irons on his hands, feet and neck he is suffering in captivity, tied up; each night and day appears to be a thousand days. We are entreating the fortunate padishah: for the sake of the prophet, he shall not leave the prophet’s descendants, your servants, in the hands of the infidels. In return for your kindness toward this poor soul the descendant of the prophet, may God’s apostle be your advocate and may he intercede that you shall see and meet Allah – may he be exalted! The poor Seyyid Ali” We can safely state that the story narrated in the letter was common at this time: in the Hungarian frontier area similar skirmishes were galore; defeated soldiers were held captives, heavy and even heavier ransoms were imposed on them, their hopeless and humiliating struggle for raising the required sum was an everyday matter. 3 The aggrieved party of the “ransom business” was not the simple footsoldier or commoner in the first place (he was quickly sold by the owner in the slave trade) but the officers, high-ranking dignitaries with known (or presumed) wealth behind them, from whom their holders tried to extort considerable amounts of money. The writer of the letter belonged to the latter category on two counts: he was a timar-holder and also a seyyid, a descendant (at least by name) of the prophet. In this situation, both main elements of his identity were detrimental to him: he could 2 3 Muhammad. Géza Pálffy, Ransom Slavery along the Ottoman–Hungarian Frontier in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century. In: Géza Dávid and Pál Fodor (eds.), Ransom Slavery along the Ottoman Borders (Early Fifteenth – Early Seventeenth Centuries). (The Ottoman Empire and Its Heritage, 37.) Leiden, Boston 2007, 35–83; Ferenc Szakály, The Ransom of Ali Bey of Koppány: The Impact of Capturing Slaves on Trade in Ottoman Hungary’, in Dávid and Fodor (eds.), Ransom Slavery, 93–114. 103 expect a large ransom as a sipahi, 4 and since he could not make a secret of his seyyidhood, the price of his freedom was set even higher. Pressed by the deadline, eventually he left his underage son in Kanizsa as hostage and left for the capital in his utter despair to ask the sultan directly for money to pay his ransom. The end of the story is not known: we do not know whether he got help from his lord or not, and whether he returned into captivity or sacrificed his son left in subjection. Each option is possible, as they were frequent in the marches. For this reason, we shall not focus on the denouement of the story (although it would be important to know the sultan’s reply), but on what the applicant adduced as arguments to move the ruler, hoping that he would not get the customary negative answer. Seyyid Ali deployed several methods of psychological influencing, and apparently he laid the stress on those that affected the ruler’s and the dynasty’s prestige. First, he presented himself as a fellow fighter of Sultan Süleyman whose aureole was shining with increasing glory, putting special emphasis on his heroism in the Szigetvár campaign. Sultan Murad III, Grand Vizier Sokollu Mehmed Pasha and the Halveti dervishes around them were making every effort to “sacralise” the conquering sultan, to establish the places of memory of the Szigetvár campaign,5 so it was no accident that Ali emphatically named his participation in the great sultan’s last “sacred war”. At the same time, it is obvious that there were another two arguments in store to persuade the ruler: his commitment to the gaza, the fight for the religion and his being a seyyid, the descendant of the prophet. To make it clear why he regarded this tactic useful, let us take a glance at the situation of the prophet’s descendants within Islam. In mostly functionally stratified Muslim societies with little attention to ethnic differences, people from “the house of the prophet” (ehl-i beyt) constituted the only social “class” or “caste” based on ties of blood.6 Islamic jurists had argued a lot about who belonged to them, but in practice (and also among the Ottomans) the descendants of Muhammad’s two grandsons, Hasan and Husayn (the sons of the fourth caliph Ali) were regarded as offspring of the prophet, “lords” (the original meaning of seyyid is ‘lord’, ‘master’, ‘chief’). Those with a genealogy from Hasan were called şerif (pl. eşraf), those issuing from Husayn were called seyyid (pl. 4 5 6 Similarly to Receb of Pécs (Peçuy), who failed to acquire the money for his ransom in a struggle that lasted for more than a decade. See Zsuzsanna J. Újváry, A Muslim Captive’s Vicissitudes in Ottoman Hungary (Mid-Seventeenth Cetury). In: Dávid and Fodor (eds.), Ransom Slavery, 141–167. See Pál Fodor, Turbék. Szulejmán szultán szigetvári Türbevárosa a 16–17. századi oszmántörök forrásokban [Turbék. Sultan Süleyman’s Türbe Town in 16–17th century OttomanTurkish sources]. Budapest 2020, 7–32; Norbert Pap and Máté Kitanics, A sejk álma – Turbék oszmán zarándokváros története [The shejk’s dream. History of the Ottoman pilgrimage town of Turbek]. In: Norbert Pap (ed.), Turbék: Szulejmán szultán zarándokvárosa [Turbék: Sultan Suleyman’s pilgrimage town]. Budapest 2020 (forthcoming). On the discussion below, see Murat Sarıcık, Osmalı İmparatorluğu’nda Nakîbü’l-Eşrâflık Müessesi. (Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, VIII/19.) Ankara 2003; Rüya Kılıç, Osmanlıda Seyyidler ve Şerifler. (Kitap Yayınevi, 86; Tarih ve Coğrafya Dizisi, 35.) İstanbul 2005. 104 sadat). Respect to them was expected from everyone, as it was believed to be identical to respect for the prophet. (The famous mystic Ibn Arabi writes somewhere that love of the seyyids is a kind of service to God.)7 They were specially treated, and enjoyed several privileges. Some of the descendants played outstanding roles in the history of different states, including the foundation of the Seljuk and Ottoman Empires. Without them and without the dervish orders they established or controlled, the conquest of Anatolia, its settlement and the shaping of its MuslimTurkish spiritual-cultural profile would not have taken place so quickly and successfully. For this reason, the Ottoman sultans also held the seyyids and şerifs in high esteem. In the early times pious foundations were initiated for them and the conservation of their privileges was seen to. The Ottoman government thinking in functional categories subsumed them in the “military estate” (askeri), that is, among the “servile elite” of the state, hence they were exempt from taxation. The upper, educated crust of the seyyids was closely intertwined with the scholars of Islamic law (ilmiye, ehl-i ilm: “men of learning/religion”), and the leaders appointed to them were usually trained ulemas. At the same time, they could also be found in the lower social strata, some living very modestly. The state assumed the duty of allocating some pay (vazife: “daily pay, salary”) for the needy from the revenues of the great sultanic and state pious foundations, or from customs receipts. 8 Their privileged legal status was revealed by an external sign (alamet): they wore a green turban (often complemented with a green gown) which could only be worn by them. The privileges implied by seyyidhood had an irresistible appeal to those who wished to rise from a low social rank or an intolerable situation. Corrupt practices were soon to emerge, and for a modest pay-off one müteseyyid (sham seyyid) after the other joined the rank of descendants. To weed out and punish them, a seyyid inspector (sadat nazırı) was already appointed in Bayezid I’s time. This position was abolished by Mehmed II, but around 1494 the office of the “chief of the descendants of the prophet” (nakibü’l-eşraf) was set up to administer the matters of the descendants, write, issue and archive the certifying documents, explore and punish the false claimants, and represent the “caste” at the courts of justice. In the Ottoman Empire only those who possessed an official certificate (hüccet, temessük) and authenticated ancestry (family tree, scroll: silsilename, şecere, tomar) were acknowledged as real seyyids and şerifs. With the deterioration of living conditions in the 16th century, the pressure on the seyyid institution increased immensely: masses tried, without success, to acquire the legal status of seyyid. An early 17th century treatise puts the number of mütesseyids risen from reaya status at 300,000.9 This aggravation of the situation called for the 7 8 9 Sarıcık, Osmanlı İmpratorluğu’nda, 60. See, e.g., İstanbul, Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi, Maliyeden Müdevver Defterler 5227, 126–127, 150–151, 159. Kılıç, Osmanlıda Seyyidler, 103. 105 extension of the controlling authority: to represent the nakibü’l-eşraf “deputies” (kaimakam) were gradually appointed to every province and district of the empire to look after the local seyyids in cooperation with the kadıs. Evidently, mass fraud had a negative impact on the evaluation of the descendants: the numerically decreasing productive and tax-paying population blamed them for the growing taxes, and the state officials were more and more irritated by the inevitable multiplication of the claimants. At the same time, they had to take care to maintain the delicate balance between religious duty (respect for the seyyids) and the interest of the state. While therefore they did the utmost to curb the influx, they often had to yield to the “legal” or “authentic” seyyids’ request who solicited help, so as to uphold the prestige and legitimacy of dynastic power. As a result, a growing portion of state resources was consumed by people who performed no directly useful work. It is another matter that their presumed spiritual capacities (the power of their prayers, intercession with the next world) were resorted to by the masses, and the state also counted on them when launching a major military campaign or when afflicted by a grave vicissitude (e.g. an epidemic). This duality is reflected by a “mirror for princes” from the second half of the 16th century, whose anonymous author also touches on concerns about the sadat and eşraf. Having made a point of stressing the significance of the reverence due to them, he harshly denounces the abuses and proposes pieces of advice to enhance the efficiency of control, eradicate corruption and punish corrupt officials. Finally, he declares his following opinion about the social role of the seyyids: “In our judgment, it is more appropriate if the seyyids do not enter the rank of court cavalry, the ziamet- and timar-holders. The reason is this: when there is a service which is assigned to one of them [and the person fails to appear], a penalty is imposed on him with reference to his failure to comply.10 The proper thing for seyyids with ulema training is to be judges (kadı) or teachers (müderris), and those who do not choose the occupation of judge or teacher should be preachers or şeyhs; those who decline these options should be allotted a daily pay from the profit [of the pious foundations] according to their merit, or they should be put in adequate lower religious positions. The craftsmen should be left as they are.”11 In the light of this position, transmitting the opinion of the upper circles and of the afore-mentioned, Seyyid Ali’s behaviour and the tactic applied in the petition appear distinctly risky. For one thing, it was practically unparalleled that he had declined the grand vizier’s offer for a decent allowance, which could ensure a peaceful life. Lots of other seyyids and non-seyyids would have happily retired to the 10 Which is unimaginable for a seyyid. The author’s opinion is that a seyyid should not join such a body to avoid being called to account with that status. 11 Yaşar Yücel, Osmanlı Devlet Teşkilâtına Dair Kaynaklar. Kitâb-i Müstetâb – Kitabu Mesâlihi’l-Müslimîn ve Menâfici’l-Mü’minin – Hırzü’l-Mülûk. (Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, III/13.) Ankara 1988, 201; cf. Kılıç, Osmanlıda Seyyidler, 112. Analysis of the work: Marinos Sariyannis with a chapter by E. Ekin Tuşalp Atiyas, A History of Ottoman Political Thought Up to the Early Nineteenth Century. Leiden, Boston 2019, 151–158. 106 capital or a fortified town in Hungary with the daily 10 akçes (a rather high pay for castle guards and janissaries) to live their lives in safety (eking out some extra money with an auxiliary job). Ali, however, proudly professed to being a sipahi, a claim that easily generated disapproval, and was apparently convinced that by taking the course of the old heroes imbued with the gazi ethos and demonstratively volunteering to fight against the infidels, his sipahihood would elevate his seyyidhood and imbue it with missionary content. His reference to the religious war is a rare and hence important piece of information in support of the fact that the gazi idea was not only the interpretive and narrative framework for court historiographers or intellectuals (poets and scholars) in Ottoman Hungary,12 but there were indeed warriors who – unlike the majority – did not only fight or plunder booty to make a living but had come to the border zone driven by their inner conviction, consciously undertaking the danger to fulfil the command of Allah and his prophet to fight against the infidels and spread Islam. It is another matter that Ali was exceptional within his peer group; this is obvious from the timar defteris of the Szigetvár sancak: in 1570 not a single seyyid can be found among the sipahis,13 in that around 1592 there is one: Seyyid Ahmed, son of Seyyid Mehmed, who was in possession of a prebend worth 7,000 akçes.14 Ali added another two arguments to his commitment to the gaza. Firstly, he subtly alluded to the fact that a seyyid was worth as much as any member of the sultan’s army of slave status, and therefore the padishah might deign to do as much for him as for those. Secondly, he “generously” promised to arrange with the prophet to intercede for him with the Almighty. As noted above, it is not known what the response to Seyyid Ali’s application was, and whether the ruler did help him out, contrary to the general practice. With this information missing, all that can be concluded is this: emulating the example of the great predecessors, Seyyid Ali paid a great price for the gaza mission. He was soon caught, and, irrespective of how the adventure ended, his life was ruined by captivity for at least a decade, in the course of which he tried in vain to collect the 12 On the latter, see Sudár Balázs, A Palatics-kódex török versgyűjteményei. Török költészet és zene a XVI. századi hódoltságban [Collections of Turkish poems in the Palatics codex. Turkish poetry and music in Ottoman Hungary]. (Humanizmus és Reformáció, 29.) Budapest 2005; Idem, Görösgál ostroma 1555-ben és a hódoltsági török epikus költészet [The siege of Görösgál in 1555 and the Turkish epic poetry in Ottoman Hungary]. Hadtörténelmi Közlemények 115:2 (2002) 353–374; Idem, Kanizsa 1601. évi ostroma török szemmel [The siege of Kanizsa in 1601 as seen by an Ottoman Turk]. Hadtörténelmi Közlemények 119:4 (2006) 1025–1058; Dženita Karić, A birodalom szolgálatában: Ali Dede élete és munkássága [In the service of the empire: The life and work of Ali Dede]. In: Pap (ed.), Turbék (forthcoming). 13 İstanbul, Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi, Tapu Tahrir Defterleri 503. 14 Tapu Tahrir Defterleri 638, 12b. At the same time, three seyyids were registered among the holders of müstahfız timarıs: two gunners (topî) and an arrow-maker (kemanî) from Siklós: ibid., 52b, 54a. 107 ransom money.15 The repeated fiascos must have strengthened in him the remorse for not having accepted the grand vizier’s offer at the time… Supplement Seyyid Ali’s petition to Sultan Murad III (presumably second half of the 1570s) Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Arşivi, E. 321. (1) Hak sübhanehu ve taala devletlü ve saadetlü padişah-i alem-penah hazretlerinün ömr ve devletlerin yevmen fi yevmen ziyade eyleyüb iki cihan muradatın (2) hasıl eyleye. Hak-i pay-i şeriflerine arz-i hal budur ki: bu duacınuz Mekke-i muazzamadan al-i beyt-i resulu’l-lah sadat duacı olub merhum-i mağfur (3) Sultan Süleyman han aleyhi’r-rahmet ve’l-rızvan Sigetvar gazasında iken küffar muharebesinde bu hakir nice kafir başın kesdüm rikab-i hümayunlarına (4) galtan eyledüm. Ol yoldaşlığum mukabelesinde paşa hazretleri Ayasofya zevaidi[n]den on akçe tayin ve sadaka buyurdılar. Erbab-i timardan olduğum (5) ecilden kabul etmemişdüm, serhadlerde kafirlere gaza etmek murad edindüm. Hikmet Allahun ol serhadde Kanice nam hisar beği sekiz yüz mikdarı tüfenklü (6) kafirleri pusuya koymış kendü atlusıyle bizüm hisarumuz altına seğirdüb biz dahi gazilerle karşu çıkduk. Allahu taalanun inayeti ve resulu’l-lah (7) mucizatıyle kafirün atlusın sıyub kırub kovarken ol pusuda olan tüfenklü kafirden haberümüz yok idi ansuzın ardumuzdan tüfenk yağdurdılar, (8) kırılanumuz kırıldı tutulan tutuldı. Bu hakirün atumı tüfenkle vurdılar, bir yanından bir yanına açıkdı. Bu fakir beş altı yerde yaralanub kafire yesir oldum. (9) Merhum Sultan Süleyman vefat edeliden kafir elinde yesirin, kafirler canuma nice azab ve işkence etdiler; sadat olduğumuz bilmekle eşedd-i azabdan sonra (10) bin beşyüz kuruşa bahaya kesdiler. Şimdiki halde oğulcuğumı yerüme kafir elinden rehin koyub bu fakir ahval-i perişanum sahib-i saadetlere ilam etmeğe (11) geldüm. Devletlü padişahdan ricam budur ki Allahu taala hazretlerinün varlığı birliği hürmetiyçün ve fahr-i kainat resulu’l-lah ruhıyçün ve ecdad-i izamunuz (12) ruhlarıyçün merhum Sultan Selim han ruhıyçün bu zayıf al-i beyt-i resul sadat duacıya şefkat edüb küffar elinden al-i beyt-i resul (13) oğulcuğum duacıların halas ve azad eyleyeler. Vademüze iki ay kalmışdur; varmayacak olursam oğulcuğuma çok işkenceler ederler bedenine (14) noksan ve zarar ederler. Devletlü padişahum, niçe bin azadlularun çırağlarun vardur; bir sadatı dahi sair duacılaruna zamime edesin 15 Unfortunately, it cannot be inferred from the brief allusions in the letter when exactly he was captured. “The day after” the capture of Sziget (7th of September) clashes between the Hungarian garrison of Kanizsa and the Ottomans in Szigetvár began and went on and on in the next months and years. For more detail on this, see László Vándor, Kanizsa története a honfoglalástól a város török alóli felszabadulásáig [A history of Kanizsa from the settlement of the Magyars to the liberation from the Ottomans]. In: Nagykanizsa. Városi monográfia. Első kötet. Nagykanizsa 1994, 288–304. 108 (15) ta ki ölüb gidince oğlumuzla kızımuzla devletlü padişaha hayır dualar eyleyevüz. Babam duacınuz babam kaçan gelür deyü zindan dibinden kapulara (16) bakar; el ayak ve boğazı nice batman demirle kayd-i bendde giriftar yatur; her gecesi her güni bin yıl gibi geçer saadetlü padişahdan mercudur ki nur-i Muhammed (17) hürmetiyçün bu sadat duacılarunuzı kafir elinde giriftar komayasız. Bu sadat fukaraya olan ihsanunuz mukabelesinde resulu’l-lah şefinüz (18) olub Allahu taala didarin [ve] likasın nasib eyleye. El-fakir Seyyid Ali 109 The Tatars in Romanian Historiography Tasin Gemil Cluj-Napoca, Babeș-Bolyai University Interactions between Tatars and Romanians have been ongoing for almost eight centuries and have played a significant role in the evolution of Romanian history, between the 11th and 18th centuries. However, the Tatar problem was seldom addressed by Romanian researchers. The explanation for this deficiency lies both in the inaccessibility of the specific historical sources, Tatar and Ottoman, and moreover in the fact that Romanian historians deemed the Tatars to merely have been the coercive instruments of the Ottoman Porte. To this I might add the preconceived opinion of many historians that the Tatars themselves were not at all civilization bearers, but rather a predatory and destructive force; this preconception relegated any Tatar-related topics to the fringes of scientific interest. In fact, many Romanian historians outright deny the contribution of the Tatar factor to the development and evolution of Romanian history and culture. Very few Romanian historians admit the role of the Cumans (Qipchaqs) and the Golden Horde in the creation and consolidation of the feudal Romanian states of Moldavia and Wallachia. We would like to remind our readers that the Qipchaqs (Cumans) and the Golden Horde laid the foundations for the ethnogenesis of the modern Tatar people. In this regard, I wish to highlight the significant example of a certain piece of information found in a Papal document, long and deliberately ignored by Romanian historiographers, who considered it “inopportune” (!). This document was published in 1913, in the 2nd volume of the well-known collection of Franciscan historical sources, coordinated by Girolamo Golubovich. It is the letter of a Franciscan monk, Ladislaus of Kaffa (Crimea), dated April 10th 1287, and contains the first attested record of the name of Moldavia. The monk wrote to the Pope in Rome in a laudatory manner about a great Tatar high-ranking official named “Ymor, filium Molday dominum terrae”. Accepting the proof of this document would inarguably also mean 112 accepting the fundamental role of the Tatars in the foundation of the Moldavian state.1 The first extended study of Romanian–Tatar relations was published in 1926 in a cultural gazette. Its author is not widely known, and the work itself does not challenge the information and outlook contained in medieval Romanian chronicles. Nevertheless, this scantily cited article merits at least a passing mention in a broader inventory, being one of the first works of modern Romanian historiography dedicated to the history of the Romanian–Tatar relationship.2 The first scientific works that brought a new, more realistic perspective on the role the Cumans, and later the Tatars, played in Romanian medieval history were the communications delivered by the great Romanian historian Nicolae Iorga in the auditorium of the Romanian Academy in 1926 and 1927. Both addresses were published in the “Annals of the Romanian Academy”.3 Nicolae Iorga noticed the fundamental, constructive role of the Cumans and Tatars in the foundation, organization and consolidation process of the first Romanian states of the 14th century. Although Nicolae Iorga is widely regarded as the greatest Romanian historian, his ground-breaking idea did not manage to change the broadly negative perception of the Tatars’ image in Romanian history in the slightest. Nearly all Romanian historians of the following decades ignored these works of the great historian Nicolae Iorga – at times deliberately – and they remained hidden in libraries for a long time. They were only brought to light in 2007, a great 80 years later, by a genuine scholar named Neagu Djuvara, who had lived abroad for over half a century. 4 Yet Nicolae Iorga’s novel, realistic take on the fundamentally positive role of the Cumans-Tatars in Romanian history was vehemently contested, 1 2 3 4 “Ladislaus curtos Gazariae, Relatio de Tartaria Aquilonari data Caphae (10 Aprilis 1287) “, ed. by Girolamo Golubovich, Biblioteca Bio-Bibliografica della Terra Santa e dell’Oriente franciscano, II, Quaracchi 1913, 443‒445. See also Thomas Tănase, „Le «Khan» Nogai et la géopolitique de la Mer Noire en 1287 à travers un document missionaire: la lettre de Ladislas, custode de Gazarie”, Annuario Instituto Romeno di cultura e ricerca umanistica, nos. 6–7 (2004–2005), Bucarest–Venezia, 267‒301; Tasin Gemil, ”Cumano-Tatars and the Early Medieval Romanian States”, Studia et Documenta Turcologica, no.2/2014, the Institute of Turcology, the Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, 85‒97; Roman Hautala, Crusaders, Missionaries and Eurasian Nomads in the 13th–14th Centuries: a Century of Interactions, ed. by Victor Spinei, Romanian Academy Press –„Carol I” Museum of Brăila, Bucharest-Brăila 2017, 145‒151. P. Georgian, „Tătarii în țările românești”, Convorbiri Literare, an. 58, July-August 1926, Bucharest, 590‒610. A rudimentary article was published in 1916 by Tudor Pamfile (of Bârlad), „Prada tătarilor din toamna anului 1758”, Miron Costin, an. IV, nr.1. N. Iorga, „Români și tătari în evul mediu”, Analele Academiei Române. Memoriile Secțiunii Istorice, s.III, t.VII, 1927, 103‒107; N. Iorga, „Imperiul cumanilor și domnia lui Băsărabă. Un capitol din colaborația româno-barbară în evul mediu”, Analele Academiei Române. Memoriile Secțiunii Istorice, s.III, t.VIII, 1928, 97‒103. Neagu Djuvara, Thocomerius – Negru Vodă. Un Voivod de origine cumană la începuturile Ţării Româneşti, Bucharest 2007; Neagu Djuvara, Răspuns criticilor mei şi neprietenilor lui Negru Vodă, Bucharest, 2011. 113 particularly within the academic environment (including and chiefly by two historians of Romanian origin, who have been living in France for more than 40 years!).5 Four decades after Nicolae Iorga’s above-mentioned papers were published, the issue of the Romanian–Tatar rapport was seldom tackled in Romanian historiography, only in a few brief papers of limited circulation. The Romanian historians of the time paid tribute to the clichés that had been cultivated for centuries by Romanian medieval chroniclers, who viewed the Tatars solely as destructive, frightening forces and later on as terrifying agents of punishment and pressure, employed not only by the Ottoman Porte, but also by God, against the Christians in general and the Romanians in particular. In the interwar period, one sole work made significant progress in tackling a Tatar-related issue which had gone almost unknown until then.6 It was only over the last five-six decades that solid works on the topic have begun to appear, analysing the role of the Tatar factor in Romanian history more or less objectively. In this regard, the truly remarkable contribution of Alexandru Gonța bears mention. Gonța, a researcher of Romanian medieval history, is the author of the first attempt at a comprehensive, extended study of the relations between the Romanians and the Golden Horde.7 Prior to 1990, very few Romanian historians dared tackle themes pertaining to the Tatars, primarily owing to the available sources which, being of mostly Tatar and Turkish-Ottoman origin, were only accessible to Turkish language specialists. Another hindrance came in the form of Communist censorship which forbade topics related to Bessarabia or Crimea; more specifically, after the invasion of Czechoslovakia in August 1968, the state outlawed the mention of place and river, lakes names of the left bank of the Prut river, including regions one inhabited by the Tatar population. Although limited in size and scope, the works authored during that period nevertheless represent 5 6 7 Matei Cazacu, „O controversă: Thocomerius – Negru Vodă”, Revista Istorică, tom XIX, nr. 1– 2, 2008, 49‒58; Matei Cazacu, Dan Ioan Mureșan, Ioan Basarab, un domn român la începuturile Țării Românești, Cartier Press, Kishinev 2013. Gh. I. Năstase, „Hotarul lui Halil Pașa și cele două ceasuri”, Buletinul Societății Regale de Geografie, tom L (1931), Bucharest 1932. See also A.Sacerdoțeanu, Marea invazie tătară și sud-estul european, Bucharest 1933. Alexandru Gonța, Românii și Hoarda de Aur 1241–1502, Jon Dumitru-Verlag, München 1983. See also Victor Spinei & Mihail Guboglu, „ Pe marginea unei istorii a relațiilor româno-tătare”, Anuarul Institutului de istorie și arheologie A. D. Xenopol–Iași, XXIII/1, 1986. 114 substantial contributions to approaching this important issue in Romanian and Tatar history.8 After the fall of the Communist regime, in December 1989, a period of national rebirth also began for the Romanian Tatar population. It was only then that the majority of the Romanian population even discovered the existence of the Tatars in their midst. Until that point, most Tatars would present themselves as Turks. Their assumption of this double identity – both Tatar and Turkish – was dictated by individual and collective security imperatives.9 The Tatars successfully managed to organize and appoint their representative to the Romanian Parliament, a move which increased general interest for the Tatars as a whole. They also issued their own magazine, titled “Karadeniz” (“The Black Sea”), published monthly in Tatar, Turkish and Romanian, which provided much information alongside historical and cultural commentary pertaining to the Tatar population.10 Moreover, international scientific reunions were organized to tackle themes critical to the Tatars themselves, with the proceedings of these reunions subsequently published in successive volumes. All in all, the past three decades have seen more published material on the Tatars that the entirety of the preceding period combined. These works serve to 8 See G. Brătianu, „Demetrius, princeps Tartarorum”, Revue des etudes roumaines, 9–10, 1965; Vasile Mihordea, „Participarea diplomatică a Moldovei la aplanarea neînțelegerii polono–tătare în 1763”, Studii. Revistă de istorie, no.2/1966; Cicerone Poghirc, „Goths et Tatars en Crimée au XVIe siècle (D’après le temoignage de Busbecq), Studia et Acta Orientalia, V–VI, Bucharest, 1967; Tasin Gemil, „Două documente tătărești referitoare la campania din 1476 a sultanului Mehmed al II-lea în Moldova”, Anuarul Institutului de istorie și arheologie A. D. Xenopol din Iași, tom V (1968); Mustafa A. Mehmed, „La politique ottomane à l’régard de la Moldavie et du Khanat de Crimée vers la fin du règne du sultan Mehmed II Le Conquérant”, Revue Roumaine d’Histoire, tome XIII (1974), no.2; Tasin Gemil, „Un yarlîg al hanului Crimeei Gazi Ghiray-Bora către domnul Moldovei Aron Vodă-Tiranul”, Anuarul Institutului de istorie și arheologie A. D. Xenopol din Iași, tom XI (1974); Aurel Decei, „La Horde d’Or et les pays roumains aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles selon les historiens arabes contemporains”, Romanoarabica, 2, 1976; idem, „Invazia tătarilor din 1241/42 în ținuturile noastre după Djami’ ot Tevarikh a lui Fazl ol-Lah Rașid od-Din”, Aurel Decei, Relații româno-orientale. Culegere de studii, ed. by Virgil Ciocîltan, Bucharest 1978; Vasile Mihordea, „Raporturile Moldovei și Țării Românești cu tătarii în secolele XVI–XVIII”, Revista de Istorie, nr.6/1979; Tasin Gemil, „Yeni belgelere göre <<Halil Pașa Yurdu >> ve <<İki Saatlik>> arazi”, IX. Türk Tarih Kurumu Kongresi. Ankara, 21–25 Eylül 1981. Kongreye sunulan bildiriler”, II, Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, Ankara 1988; Virgil Ciocîltan, „Informațiile lui Guillaume de Rubruck despre români și bașkiri în lumina izvoarelor orientale”, Românii în istoria universală, II/1, 1987; Tasin Gemil, “Tatar Adı”, Renkler, vol.2/1989, Kriterion Press, Bucharest. 9 See Tasin Gemil, Pe drumurile istoriei, vol. I, Cluj University Press, 2019, 180‒184; see also vol. II, 425‒487. 10 See Melek Fetisleam, „Tătari”, Cronologia Minorităților Naționale, vol. II, ed. by Gido Attila, Cluj-Napoca 2013, 201‒275. 115 uncover aspects and moments from the Tatars’ true history. 11 Among these, of particular mention and relevance is the (re-)edition of the monumental source of the 11 See Virgil Ciocîltan, „Restaurația Hoardei de Aur și tratatele tătaro-genoveze din anii 1380– 1387, Revista Istorică, tom 1/1990, nr.6; idem, „Geneza politicii pontice a Hoardei de Aur, Anuarul Institutului de Istorie și Arheologie A. D. Xenopol–Iași, XXVIII, 1991; E. OberlἂnderTârnoveanu, „Un atelier monétaire de la Horde d’Or sur le Danube: Saqčy-Isaccea (XIIIe–XIVe siecles), Actes du XIe Congrès Internationale de Numismatique, Bruxelles 8–13 septembre 1991; idem, „<<Tartarian zlots>> – The Golden Horde’s legacy in the monetary terminology and practice of mediaeval Moldavia and its neighbouring countries”, Revue Roumaine d’Histoire, nos.3–4, 30/1991; Virgil Ciocîltan, „Hegemonia Hoardei de Aur la Dunărea de Jos (1301–1341), Revista Istorică, tom 5/1994, nos. 11–12; idem, „Cinghizhanizii și comerțul: izvoare și abordări istoriografice”, Revista Istorică, tom 5/1994, nos. 3–4; Eugen Nicolae, „Quelques considérations sur les monnaies de la <<Ville Neuve>> (Yangi-şehr/Şehr al cedid)”, Studii și Cercetări de Numismatică, XI (1995); Tasin Gemil, „L’Evolution des limites de l’habitat des tatars nogai au sud-est de la Moldavie”, Revue Roumaine d’Histoire, Tome XXXV, no. 3–4, Juillet-Décembre 1996; Tasin Gemil (ed.), Originea tătarilor. Locul lor în România și în lumea turcă, Kriterion Press, Bucharest, 1997; Virgil Ciocîltan, Mongolii și Marea Neagră în secolele XIII–XIV. Contribuția Cinghizhanizilor la transformarea bazinului pontic în placă turnantă a comerțului euro-asiatic, Editura Enciclopedică, Bucharest 1998; Tasin Gemil, „Crimeea în politica pontică a Porții otomane”, Național și universal în istoria românilor. Studii oferite Prof. dr. Șerban Papacostea cu ocazia împlinirii a 70 de ani, Editura Enciclopedică, Bucharest 1998; Nagy Pienaru, „Otomanii și Hoarda de Aur. Relațiile lui Murad II cu Ulug Mehmed”, Studii și materiale de istorie medie, XX, 2002; Tasin Gemil (ed.), Tătarii în istorie și în lume, Kriterion Press, Bucharest, 2003; Viorel Achim, „Despre misiunile la tătari ale magistrului Ponyt (1263, 1270)”, Istorie și diplomație în relațiile internaționale. Omagiu istoricului Tahsin Gemil, ed. by Daniel Flaut & Iolanda Țighiliu, Ovidius University Press, Constanța 2003; Nagy Pienaru, „<<Proiectul scitic>>. Relațiile lui Ștefan cel Mare cu Hoarda Mare”, Revista Istorică, nr. 5–6, 2003; idem, „Relațiile lui Ștefan cel Mare cu Hanatul din Crimeea. O controversă: prima incursiune tătară în Moldova”, Istorie și diplomație în relațiile internaționale. Omagiu istoricului Tahsin Gemil, ed. by Daniel Flaut & Iolanda Țighiliu, Ovidius University Press, Constanța 2003; idem, „Moldova și Hanatul din Crimeea. 1484– 1492”, Studii și materiale de istorie medie, XXII, 2004; Sergean Osman, „Configurația geopolitică a Peninsulei Crimeea în spațiul ponto-caspic”, Geopolitica. Revistă de geografie politică, geopolitică și geostrategie, anul II, nos. 11–12, 2004; Tasin Gemil, Statutul juridic al Hanatului Crimeei față de Poarta otomană (sec. XV–XVIII), Ovidius University Press, Constanța 2005; Gabriel Andreescu (ed.), Ernest Oberlἂnder- Târnoveanu & Volker Adam, Tătarii din România: Teme identitare / Tartars in Romania: Problems of Identity, APADORCH Centre for Human Rights, Bucharest 2005; Nagy Pienaru, „Românii și tătarii. Relațiile Țării Românești cu Hoarda de Aur în vremea lui Mircea cel Bătrân”, Vocația istoriei. Prinos Profesorului Șerban Papacostea, ed. by O. Cristea & Gh. Lazăr, Istros Publishing, Brăila 2008; Tasin Gemil, „Relații comerciale moldo-tătare în secolul al XVIII-lea”, Românii în Europa medievală (între Orientul bizantin și Occidentul latin). Studii în onoarea profesorului Victor Spinei, ed. by D. Teicu & I. Cândea, Istros Publishing, Brăila 2008; idem, „Relațiile româno– otomano-tătare și problema <<Hotarului lui Halil Pașa>>”, Politică, diplomație și război. Profesorului Gheorghe Buzatu la 70 de ani, ed. by L. Damean & M. Cîrstea, Universitaria Press, Craiova 2009; Radu Săgeată, „Tătarii din Crimeea – între Kiev și Ankara”, Geopolitica. Revistă de geografie politică, geopolitică și geostrategie, an. VIII, no. 38, 2010; Tasin Gemil & Pienaru Nagy (eds.), Moștenirea istorică a tătarilor, vol. I–II, Romanian Academy Press (vol. II), 2010–2012; Stoica Lascu & Melek Fetisleam (eds.), Contemporary Research in Turkology 116 and Eurasian Studies. A Festschrift in Honor of Professor Tasin Gemil on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday, Cluj University Press 2013 (parts II and IV); Sergiu Iosipescu, „Autour du Khanat de Crimée. Cossaques et Ottomans dans la Mer Noire (milieu du XVIe siècle – 1648) (I–II)”, Studia et Documenta Turcologica, no. 1/2013 and no. 2/ 2014, Cluj University Press; Virgil Coman, „Situația învățământului din regiunea Constanța în limbile de predare tătară și turcă reflectate într-un document din anul 1956”, Moștenirea culturală turcă în Dobrogea, ed. by Tasin Gemil, Gabriel Custurea & Delia Roxana Cornea, Constanța 2013; Laura-Adina Fodor, „The Tatars in the Collective Memory of the Szekely Inhabitants of the Sic Settlement, Transylvania”, Studia et Documenta Turcologica, no. 1/2013, Cluj University Press; Adriana Cupcea, „Evoluții identitare la comunitatea turcă și tătară din Dobrogea (Perioada comunistă și post comunistă), Moștenirea culturală turcă în Dobrogea, ed. by Tasin Gemil, Gabriel Custurea & Delia Roxana Cornea, Constanța 2013; Eugen Nicolae, „Așa-zisul ort al lui Despot-Vodă și zloții tătărești”, Studii și Cercetări de Numismatică, Serie Nouă, vol. IV (XVI), 2013; Stoica Lascu, „Turco-tătarii dobrogeni în lumina unor mărturii arhivistice constănțene (1885–1948), Moștenirea culturală turcă în Dobrogea, ed. by Tasin Gemil, Gabriel Custurea & Delia Roxana Cornea, Constanța 2013; Delia-Roxana Cornea, „Noi documente privind emigrația turcotătarilor din Dobrogea”, Moștenirea culturală turcă în Dobrogea, ed. by Tasin Gemil, Gabriel Custurea & Delia Roxana Cornea, Constanța 2013; Tasin Gemil, „Romanya tarihinde KıpçakTatar Etkisi”, Krymskoe Istoricheskoe Obozrenie, no. 1/2014, Kazan-Bahchesaray; Sergean Osman, ”Did the Crimean Khans Collect Tribute (Harac or Hazine) from Moldova and Wallachia?”, Studia et Documenta Turcologica, no. 2/2014; Tasin Gemil, „Cumano-Tatars and the Early Medieval Romanian States”, Studia et Documenta Turcologica, no. 2/2014; Melek Fetisleam, „Secret Documents Regarding the Tatar National Movement in Romania”, Studia et Documenta Turcologica, no. 2/2014; idem, „Publicaţia <<Karadeniz>> a comunităţii tătare din Dobrogea – fereastră către intreaga lume turcică”, Dunărea şi Marea Neagră în spaţiul euroasiatic, Istorie, relaţii politice şi diplomaţie, Craiova 2014; Tasin Gemil, „Budzakskie i dobrudzinskie tatary”, Istorija Tatar s drevneishikh vremen v semi tomakh, tom V, Akademija Nauk Respubliki Tatarstan, Kazan 2014; Virgil Coman & Melek Fetisleam, „Turko-Tatars from Romania during the Government of Ion Antonescu – Archive Landmarks”, Studia et Documenta Turcologica, no. 2/2014; Tasin Gemil, „Hanatul tătar din Crimeea”, Magazin Istoric, nos. 5–7/2014; Ion Bistreanu, „Crimeea, o perlă însângerată”, Magazin Istoric, nos. 8– 9/2014; Tasin Gemil, „Cumano-tătarii și începuturile statelor medievale românești”, Istoria ca datorie. Omagiu academicianului Ioan-Aurel Pop, la împlinirea vîrstei de 60 de ani, ed. by Ioan Bolovan & Ovidiu Ghitta, Romanian Academy / Center for Transylvanian Studies, ClujNapoca 2015; idem, „Euroislamul – Cum vor tătarii să se integreze valorilor Occidentului”, Sinteza. Revistă de cultură și gândire strategică, no. 6, May 2015, Cluj-Napoca; idem, „Altın Orda’nın Türk tarihinde yeri ve dünya uygarlığına katkısı”, Krymskoe Istoricheskoe Obozrenie, no. 3/2015, Kazan-Bakhcisaraj; Adriana Cupcea (ed.), Turcii și tătarii din Dobrogea, ClujNapoca 2015; Tasin Gemil, „Tatary na Balkanakh”, Zolotoja Orda v Mirovoi Istorii – The Golden Horde in World History, Akademii Nauk Respubliki Tatarstan – University of Oxford, Kazan 2016; idem, „Probleme identitare actuale la tătarii dobrogeni”, Sinteza. Revistă de cultură și gândire strategică, no. 2, January 2016, Cluj-Napoca; Melek Fetisleam, Rolul clerului musulman în susţinerea mişcării naţionale tătare din România în perioada interbelică, Caietele C.N.S.A.S, Editura CNSAS, anno IX, no. 1–2 (17–18), 2017; idem, “Colaborarea fructuoasă dintre ambasadorul Turciei la București, Hamdullah Suphi Tanrıöver și liderul mișcării naționale tătare din România, Mustegib Hagi Fazîl/The Fruitful Collaboration between Hamdullah Suphi Tanrıöver, Turkish Ambassador to Bucharest and the Leader of the National Tatar Movement in Romania, Müstecib Hacı Fazıl”, Relațiile româno–turce în perioada modernă / Romanian–Turkish Connections in modern times, ed. by Tasin Gemil & Simona Deleanu, Cluj University Press 2020. 117 Tatar language, the “Codex Cumanicus”, through the efforts of an Romanian erudite linguist, the late Vladimir Drîmba.12 Nevertheless, the Tatar issue is still too little known in Romanian historiography, while the image of the Tatar as a plunderer and destroyer persists in the Romanian collective memory; this image is perpetuated to this day by certain historians and influencers of public opinion. As a significant example, I refer to a work (Dobrogea. Cheia de boltă) [“Dobrudja. The Keystone”] published in 2010 in Tulcea, which is the second largest city in Dobrudja – the Romanian region home to the majority of the country’s Tatar community. The author of this book, journalist Dan Arhire, is of Dobrudjan descent, and therefore lived and grew up in direct contact with the Tatars. This did not however prevent him from publishing a pernicious forgery and a gross insult to the Tatars. Invoking a dubious letter of sultan Suleiman the Magnificent to the Moldavian voivode Ştefan Rareş, Dan Arhire attributes the following statement to the great Ottoman sultan: “the Tatar army is a great weapon … and it is known that [the Tatars] eat horse and human meat!” (Dan Arhire’s emphasis). I have perused thousands of Ottoman historical documents, and never have I come across such a serious accusation levelled at the Tatars. Only a handful of Christian medieval writings, attributed to some of the most hardened enemies of Islam, contain epithets struck in a similar vein, directed not only at the Tatars but also the Turks and the entire Muslim world at large. Yet the Ottomans viewed the Tatars as their most important and faithful allies, and the Crimean Khan was as a “brother” (biraderim) to the Ottoman Sultan. The Khan of Crimea occupied the second most distinguished position in Ottoman imperial protocol, second only to the Sultan himself; and the Tatar army were treated with the respect owed to a stalwart ally, not least by Ottoman chroniclers themselves who bestowed appreciative epithets upon them, likening them to “the morning wind”, “the hunters of foes” etc. Yet this modern Romanian journalist has the audacity to accuse the Tatars of cannibalism, without even indicating any historical evidence! Given that, historical imagology – more precisely the topic of otherness – is a relatively new field in our scientific arena, only now beginning to be delved. More explicitly, the Tatar issue only began to be studied in a systematic manner after the 2008 opening of the Institute of Turkology at the Babeș-Bolyai University of ClujNapoca. Hence, the first consistent works related to the Tatars have authors either from Cluj, or who were formed by the Cluj academic environment: Călin Felezeu, Nagy Pienaru, Adina Fodor, Sergean Osman, Melek Fetisleam, Adriana Cupcea, Margareta Aslan, Tasin Gemil, all members of the Institute of Turkology. In recent years, under my scientific supervision, three doctoral theses with topics referring 12 Vladimir Drîmba, Codex Cumanicus, Editura Enciclopedică, Bucharest 2000. 118 directly to Tatar history have been elaborated. 13 All three were successfully defended at the Babeș-Bolyai University of Cluj-Napoca and are awaiting publication. Among these doctoral theses is that of Ms. Adina Fodor, who studied the image of the Tatars in the medieval chronicles of the 15th to 18th centuries. The topic had been discussed some time before by Professor Călin Felezeu, in a brief paper published some years ago.14 Throughout these works, the issue of the image of the Tatars in Romanian medieval chronicles is approached from the perspective of both the times and the places of the chroniclers themselves, tackled in correlation with an analysis of the evolution of historiographic thought across the Romanian space. Depending on the region where in they lived and wrote, the historians of the Romanian Middle Ages can be divided into three categories: the chroniclers of Moldavia, of Wallachia and of Transylvania. The Tatar issue is more frequently addressed by Moldavian and Transylvanian chroniclers than by their Wallachian counterparts. The explanation for this is straightforward: the inhabitants of Moldavia were geographically and historically closer to the Tatars than those in Wallachia, while medieval Transylvanian historians, almost entirely of Hungarian or German descent, awarded the Tatars more attention due to the often-collaborative state relations between the Principality of Transylvania and the Khanate of Crimea. Despite this, the Saxon and Hungarian chroniclers from Transylvania often painted the Tatars in the ugliest light, primarily because they saw in them both foreign Muslims and the descendants of the great Mongol invaders of 1241. If for 16th–17th centuries Transylvanian chroniclers the vision of the Tatars is fixist in nature, inspired by Western Christian anti-Muslim militants, the chroniclers of Moldavia, and by extension those of Wallachia, assessed the Tatar factor in relation to the evolution of Romanian–Ottoman rapport, where the factor of religious difference had yet to prove fundamental. All Romanian chroniclers of the 15th–18th centuries saw the Tatars as oppressive forces under the command of the Ottoman sultan; whence the darker representation of the Tatar in comparison to the Ottoman, the latter – according to certain chroniclers – not having always been informed and in agreement with the iniquity of their Tatar subjects. 13 Adina Fodor, Imaginea tătarilor în cronistica românească a sec.XV–XVIII” (“The image of the Tatars for 15th–18th centuries Romanian chroniclers” (defended at the Babeș-Bolyai University of Cluj-Napoca on January 21st, 2014). Sergean Osman, Relațiile Hanatului din Crimeea cu Țările Române (1672–1783) (“Relations between the Crimean Khanate and the Romanian Principalities (1672–1783)”), defended at the Babeș-Bolyai University on September 17th, 2014; Melek Fetisleam, Mișcarea Națională Tătară din România în perioada interbelică (“The national Tatar movement in Romania in the interwar period”), defended at the Babeș-Bolyai University on September 25th, 2017. 14 Călin Felezeu, „Imaginea tătarilor în conștiința românească din secolele XV–XIX”, Moștenirea istorică a Tătarilor, vol. II, ed. by Tasin Gemil & Nagy Pienaru, Romanian Academy Press, Bucharest 2012, 565‒571. 119 The earliest Romanian mention of the Tatars is found in an anonymous chronicle titled “The Chronicle of Putna”, compiled at the end of the 15th century. These writings are related to the predatory attacks of several bands of Tatars upon Moldavian territory, in 1439 and 1440. Over the following period, such news was frequently recorded by Romanian chroniclers, particularly by those in Moldova. Beginning in the middle of the 16th century, when Ottoman dominance was established over the Romanian principalities, the autochthonous chroniclers accepted their situation as divine punishment, and attempted to make sense of it. From their fatalist viewpoint, both the Turk and the Tatar were seen as frightful weapons of a cruel fate. Romanian–Ottoman relations experienced a sinuous evolution throughout the 17th century, with both regress and progress achieved in the spheres of power and in installing the regime of the Ottoman dominance alike. The chroniclers of the era, themselves influenced by the advent of humanist ideas, reflected the rebirth of their hope for freedom by attenuating previous chroniclers’ fatalism in favour of a more overt anti-Muslim – in effect, anti-Ottoman and antiTatar – stance. At the same time, the chroniclers of the period – Grigore Ureche and Miron Costin in Moldavia, Constantin Cantacuzino and Radu Popescu in Wallachia, and Georg Kraus and Nagy Szabó Ferencz in Transylvania – conveyed more actual information on the Ottomans and Tatars than their predecessors.15 These chroniclers also offered critical interpretations of the facts and events they recorded. While some of this information was realistic and came from trustworthy sources, the chroniclers of the era did not alter their attitude towards the Tatars. Thus, for instance, the future prince of Transylvania (1661–1662), Ioan Kemény, spent almost two years (1657– 1658) as a prisoner among the Tatars in Crimea. In his account, later published as a memoir and chronology, Prince Ioan Kemény, despite being an avowed enemy of the Tatars, recounts the respectable attitude of the Tatar authorities towards him and his men, as well as his surprise when confronted with a knowledge of culture, including of ancient philosophy and universal history, displayed by his Tatar friends 15 Grigore Ureche, Letopisețul Țării Moldovei, ed. by P. P. Panaitescu, 2nd Edition, Bucharest 1958; Miron Costin, Opere, ed. by P. P. Panaitescu, Romanian Academy Press, Bucharest 1958; Istoria Țării Românești 1290;1690. Letopisețul Cantacuzinesc, ed. by C. Grecescu & D. Simonescu, Romanian Academy Press, 1960; Radu Popescu, Istoriile domnilor Țării Românești, in vol. „Cronicarii munteni”, I, Bucharest 1960; Georg Kraus, Cronica Transilvaniei 1608–1665, ed. by Gh. Duzinchevici & E. Reus-Mîrza, Romanian Academy Press, Bucharest 1965; Nagy Szabó Ferencz, Memorialul lui Nagy Szabó Ferencz din Tîrgu Mureș (1580–1658), ed. by Gabriela Gáll Mihăilescu, Kriterion Press , Bucharest 1993. 120 and interlocutors.16 Despite this, the Saxon chronicler Georg Kraus, an inhabitant of Transylvania and a contemporary of Prince Ioan Kemény, would write that the Tatars were the embodiment of evil, entirely lacking in culture and civilization, a nation of perjurers of abominable behaviour. However, the Hungarian chronicler Nagy Szabó Ferencz of Târgu Mureș (Marosvásárhely) – a contemporary of Georg Kraus of Sighișoara (Schäßburg) – strikes a less subjective tone than Kraus when accusing not only the Tatars and Turks, but also the Hungarians, Romanians and Serbians of „terrible predations”. The spread of Enlightened ideas throughout the 18th century also occasioned significant changes in the mentality of Romanian historians of the time. Of these, the most representative are Dimitrie Cantemir (1673–1723)17 and Ion Neculce (1672– 1745). 18 The former was obviously more erudite than the latter, being well-connected to both Oriental and Western culture at the same time. Although Cantemir was convinced he was the descendant of Genghis Khan and Tamerlane, and thus of Tatar ancestry by blood, he manifested a clearly anti-Muslim, anti-Ottoman and anti-Tatar position through his entire work. Yet we must also stress that Dimitrie Cantemir was the first European historian to present the Ottoman and Tatar phenomena from the inside, in their intimacy and universal connections. Cantemir approaches the Tatar problem, similarly to the Ottoman one, from an enlightened European perspective. According to him, the Ottomans and the Tatars are representatives of a different, Muslim civilization which is opposite and inferior to its European, Christian counterpart. His seminal works, The History of the Ottoman Empire and The System of the Mohammedan Religion attempted to highlight the discrepancy between the two value systems. Cantemir promoted the ChristianEuropean civilization as clearly superior and in possession of a bright future, in accordance with Tsar Peter I’s beliefs, at whose court he was living at the time. Cantemir made a conscious effort to write to the liking and understanding of the European political and intellectual elite, meaning from an anti-Ottoman, anti-Tatar and anti-Muslim position, in the Latin language. 16 Ioan Kemény, Memorii. Scrierea vieții sale, ed. by Ștefan J. Fay, Casa Cărții de Știință, ClujNapoca 2002; Ștefan J. Fay, Cronologia lui Ioan Kemény (Caietele unui roman care nu s-a scris), Editura Casa Cărții de Știință, Cluj-Napoca 2002: 186 “With the money in his waistband, Kemény could purchase anything except his freedom. Both him and his men were treated with respect… At times, an officer of the Tatar army would stop by, occasionally even a vizier, relishing in the long conversations under the sycamore tree in the courtyard… Other times, the discussions would veer towards Oriental religions or Greek philosophers, and he wondered at the extent of the leadership’s grasp of both Aristotle and the writings of the Persian Ibn Sina, called Avicenna in the West”. 17 Dimitrie Cantemir, Descrierea Moldovei, ed. by Gh. Duțu, Romanian Academy Press, Bucharest 1973; idem, Sistemul sau întocmirea religiei muhammedane, ed. by Virgil Cândea, Romanian Academy Press, Bucharest 1987; Demetrii Cantemirii Incrementorum et decrementorum Aulae othomannicae libri tres / Creșterile și descreșterile Imperiului Otoman, ed.by Virgil Cândea, Roza Vânturilor Press, Bucharest 1999. 18 Ion Neculce, Letopisețul Țării Moldovei, ed. by Iorgu Iordan, Minerva Press, Bucharest, 1975. 121 Ion Neculce’s chronicle, titled “The Letopisetz (Annals) of the Country of Moldavia” according to the Slavic tradition, covers the history of this Romanian principality between 1661 and 1745. Its most valuable segments encompass the period the author experienced first-hand, particularly in the first half of the 18th century. With regard to our topic of the Tatars, Ion Neculce’s chronicle offers more information on them than all other Romanian medieval chronicles. Ion Neculce, as a high dignitary of the Moldavian state (his title was biv.vel.vornik/byvshij velikij vornik/former High Steward”), had access to the official state archives – including confidential documents – and knew more information, which confers his work an enhanced authenticity. Unlike the other chroniclers in the Romanian Principalities, Ion Neculce does not treat the Tatars merely as invaders and predators, but also sees in them allies in the fight against other invaders. At the same time, Neculce highlights the assistance the Tatars had given the Moldavians, as neighbours, in times of need. Hence, for instance, when referring to the Moldavian famine of 1684, Ion Neculce writes that “people brought bread from Transylvania and from the Tatars”, “and in the second year of the reign, a plethora of convoys of Tatars started to arrive with maize to sell in Iași”. 19 Unfortunately, such passages pass unobserved by the Romanian historians who choose to only write about the Tatar predations of Moldavia. The same Ion Neculce also writes about the pillaging, plunder and massacres done by the Moldavians against the defenceless Tatar women and children in Budjak in 1683, when the local forces were mobilized for the siege of Vienna. The Moldavians – writes Ion Neculce – “went together with the Cossacks…to Budjak... There, they pillaged and burned everything in Budjak; they would cut open the pregnant Tatar women and impaled the children, releasing the slaves from the yards, and seizing the Tatars’ grains, bringing back many spoils, so many one could not count. Because there was no one to oppose them. And so they wandered for a while, burning and ruining the Budjak”.20 This passage has been and continues to systematically be ignored by authors writing or talking about the Tatars! The advent of Romanticism in the 19th century imprinted strong national accents unto the writings of the Romanian historians of the epoch. The established hostility towards the Ottomans and Tatars and their dark image were now strongly contrasted to the bright, glorified portrayals of national Romanian heroes. Yet at the same time, Romanticism’s specific interest in exoticism made the Oriental issue, including any topics related to the Turks and Tatars, quite appealing to both literary writers and historians alike. We cannot, however, indicate a paper worthy of interest for our subject from the period. What was written then about the Turks and Tatars is contradictory, oscillating between rejection and attraction, and grounded on no real basis. The poignantly negative image of the Tatar in Romanian historiography is, in fact, the product of the universal and incessant confrontation between Christianity 19 Ion Neculce, op.cit.,77. 20 Ion Neculce, op.cit., 70. 122 and Islam, or more accurately the result of engendered Islamophobia throughout Christian Europe, including in the Romanian Principalities. The Ottomans and Tatars were the only forces of Muslim descent to exist not in the vicinity of Europe, but within Europe itself, which explains the vehemence of the reaction against them. Remarks on the Čingiz-nāmä of Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī Csaba Göncöl Ottoman Era Research Group of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and the University of Szeged The past few decades witnessed an increased interest in historical works produced in the successor-states of the Golden Horde, an interest to which Mária Ivanics contributed massively by the publication and in-depth analysis of the so-called Däftär-i Čingiz-nāmä, a chronicle compiled in the Upper-Volga region at the turn of the 17th century (Ivanics–Usmanov 2002, Ivanics 2017). The Däftär-i Čingiz-nāmä has an undeniably oral character, a feature shared by many other histories coming from the territory of the former Golden Horde. The Šaybanids, for example, in an attempt to legitimise the reign of their lineage, cultivated a rich historical consciousness which was also deeply rooted in unwritten tradition. Historians in their employment portrayed the earlier history of the Golden Horde based on oral traditions circulating on the steppes on the one hand, while on the other, they narrated events closer to their time according to eye-witness accounts (Mustakhimov 2014: 10–11). The so-called Čingiz-nāmä ‘Book of Genghis khan’ of Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī is one of the earliest of such histories of the Golden Horde, written in the Turkic literary language of Central Asia (also called Chaghatay or Tūrkī). Although Bartol’d introduced this historical work to scholarship early in the 20th century (Bartol’d 1973: 164–169), other scholars – with a few exceptions – avoided its use for a long time because of its oral character. However, it gained considerable attention in these past decades. In order to pay my humble homage to the scholarly and teaching merits of Mária Ivanics, I shall summarise our present knowledge regarding the life of Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī and his historical work on the one hand, and add further remarks concerning the relationship of the two extant manuscripts of the work, as well as the possible date when the chronicler compiled his history, on the other. Very little has come down to us regarding the life of the author, Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī, the majority of which has been preserved in his chronicle, the Čingiz-nāmä. The honorific title of his father, Muḥammad Dōstī, mawlānā ‘our lord’ – generally used to designate leading members of Muslim religious institutions – indicates that he must have come from a family of learned background. His forefathers served at the courts of the descendants of the Šaybanid Yādigār khan (died 1469) and Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī kept up this family-tradition. He saw service at the court of Ilbars I. khan bin Büräkä of the Khanate of Khiva (r. 1511–1518) (ÖH/Yudin 1992: 119; ÖH/Kawa- 124 guchi–Nagamine 2008: 6, 66),1 who gained prominence by expelling the encroaching Ṣafawīd forces from Khwarezm. 2 Based on this piece of information Kafalı assumes that the author must have been born in the 1490s (ÖH/Kafalı 2009: 21). Sources offer only a limited insight to the life of our author after the death of Ilbars khan. Introducing one of his informants, he writes the following: “The man called Ḫïtay Baba ʿAlī was the uluġbeg and nā’ib of ʿAbdu l-Karīm khan of Astrakhan.3 After the death of the said khan he made the pilgrimage to Mecca and became a hajji. (Then) he entered the service of sultan Ġāzī Sulṭān. His majesty, the sultan adored tales of old (qarï söz) and asked [the following] from him: They say that Toqtamïš khan left the threshold of Urus khan. How did that happen? The above-mentioned hajji told the story in this fashion, [I] the worthless heard it from him.” (ÖH/Yudin et al. 1992: 114; ÖH/Kawaguchi–Nagamine 2008: 39–40; 95). Sultan Ġāzī Sulṭān was the first born son of Ilbars I. khan. Although he rejected the title of khan, he became the de facto ruler of the khanate after his father’s death (1518) and governed from the city of Vazir (today in Uzbekistan) (ʿAbu l-Ġāzī/ Desmaisons 1970²: 202). Taking into consideration that ʿAbdu l-Karīm khan of Astrakhan died around the year 1517 (Zajcev 20062: 66) and that the abovementioned Ḫïtay Baba ʿAlī needed several months to visit Mecca and return to the steppes, we may assume he entered the service of sultan Ġāzī Sulṭān around the year 1518 or soon after. Since Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī remarks that he heard the story of Toqtamïš’s flight from the hajji himself (ešitip turur-män), it is safe to assume that he continued his service to Ilbars khan’s son at the most influential court of the region. We do not know how long this service lasted or what his duties were. However, we know that sultan Ġāzī Sulṭān and his sons became victims of a blood-feud, which in the long run triggered an invasion of the forces of the Khanate of Bukhara headed by ʿUbaydullāh khan (1513–1539) in 1539/1540 (Materiali/Ibragimov et al. 1969: 441– 442, Munis–Agahi/Bregel 1999: 31–32). The only well-grounded information we have on Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī from these decades is that that he occupied himself with gathering tales of old (qarï söz) about the rulers of the Golden Horde and he became renowned. His expertise in history and the rising interest in history-writing among the Šaybanid potentates provided him a new patron when a certain Iš Sulṭān summoned him to his court and eventually commissioned him to compile his collection of unwritten histories into a chronicle (ÖH/Yudin et al. 1992: 90–91, ÖH/Kawaguchi–Nagamine 2008: 7, 67). Scholarship suggests the new employer of our author was Iš Muḥammed Sulṭān bin Buǰuġa khan (r. cc. 1525–1530), younger brother of Dōst Muḥammad (Bartol’d 1 2 3 Kafalı misread the term bändäzādälär ‘sons of servents’ as bändä-i väzīrläri slave of viziers’ made the claim that Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī, as well as his forefather, rose to the rank of viziers (2009: 20–21). For a short overview of the events consult Sultanov 2006: 311–313, Bregel 2012. For an attempt to clarify the position of a nā’ib in the Khanate of Astrakhan, see Zajtsev 2006²: 67–68. 125 1973: 166, DeWeese 1994: 148). According to ʿAbu l-Ġāzī Bahadur khan the brothers used to govern the city of Kāt (today Beruniy, Uzbekistan) during and after the reign of their father, until Dōst Muḥammad ascended to the throne of the Khanate of Khiva in 1556. After this date sultan Iš Muḥammad remained in the possession of Kāt. However, he contested other members of the ʿArabšāhid dynasty for the city of Ürgenč (today Konye-Urganch, Turkmenistan), which resulted in a bloody dynastic feud and eventually in the death of both brothers. ʿAbu l-Ġāżī dates these events on the year 965 of the hegira, i.e. 24. October 1557–14. October 1558 (ʿAbu l-Ġāzī/Desmaisons 1970²: 234–236, Munis–Agahi/Bregel 1999: 31, 34–35). After the events described above Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī disappears completely from our view. There is only a vague mention of a certain ḥāǰǰu l-ḥaramayn šerīʿat-šiʿār Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī ‘the pilgrim of the two holy cities, the follower of the sharia, Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī’ in the ʿAbdullāh-nāma of Ḥāfiẓ Tanïš Buḫarī,4 whom Togan and Kafalı – with good reason – identify with our author (Togan 1981²: 148, Kafalı 2009: 22). If their view stands to reason, ʿAbdullāh khan of Bukhara (1583–1598) visited and sought council from our chronicler in the year 1583, just after his ascension to power. Following this event, sources grow completely silent on Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī. A further moment in Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī’s life that one may infer relates to his pilgrimage to Mecca. We can fully agree with Kafalı who connects the authors knowledge of Golden Horde geography, particularly the lower Volga region, to his voyage to the holy cities of Arabia (ÖH/Kafalı 2009: 22–23). Pilgrims from Central Asia – instead of journeying through Iran – traversed the steppes west or north-west through the cities of Sarayčïq, Astrakhan to the Crimean ports, where they continued their journey on ship to the Levant and eventually further to the Arabian Peninsula (Trepavolv 2009: 92–93). Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī must have taken this same road. This becomes clear from sporadic remarks and descriptions of some of the locations he mentions (ÖH/Kafalı 2009: 21–22). For example, when describing the confluence of the Volga and the Caspian Sea, he nonchalantly notes that he saw it personally (ÖH/Yudin et al. 1992: 98, ÖH/Kawaguchi–Nagamine 2008: 17, 75, 120, ÖH/Kafalı 2009: 120, ÖH/Mirgaleev 2017: 265). What is particularly important in regard to this journey, is that he had the opportunity to gather new material and information. His description of the Mongol conquest of the town Qïrq yer (today Chufut-kale on the Crimean Peninsula) is informative of his activities. According to the tradition he penned in his chronicle, when laying siege to the fortress, Šiban, son of Joči had his men distract the defenders on the one hand, and had a road carved into the rocks of the fortress, on the other. These efforts contributed to the Mongols managing to storm the fortress. Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī did not see the road himself, so he interviewed travellers who attested that it still existed in the 16th century (ÖH/Yudin et al. 1992: 95, ÖH/Kawaguchi–Nagamine 2008: 14, 73, 118, ÖH/Mirgaleev 2017: 32–33). This small piece of information enables us to acquire some insight into our authors working-method. 4 On the author and the ʿAbdu l-lāh-nāma see Materialy/Ibragimov 1969: 237–245. 126 As was already mentioned, Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī became renowned for his knowledge of “tales of old” (qarï söz), meaning oral historical traditions circulating on the steppes. Although he admits to have used written sources – “the chronicles of Dōst Sulṭān” and the “Ẓafar-nāma of Tīmūr beg” (supposedly the chronicle of Šāmī or ʿAlī Yazdī under the same title) – he claims to have penned stories “found in neither book nor chronicle” (ÖḤ/Kawaguchi – Nagamine 2008: 6–8, 66–67). Thus, his chronicle is a unique collection of genuine oral tradition (Bartol’d 1973: 166, DeWeese 1994: 148), which came down to us in two extant manuscripts. The first manuscript of the Čingiz-nāmä is preserved in Tashkent, at the Oriental Institute of the Academy of Sciences of Uzbekistan (No. 1552/V fol. 36r–59r) – hence I shall refer to it as the “Tashkent manuscript”. It comprises a part of a colligate codex and includes a total of 23 folios. It is important to stress that the text starts with the praise of God and the prophet, Muḥammad, as is usual in Muslim historiography, and continues with details on the author and the circumstances of the chronicle’s compilation. Then the text continues portraying the partition of the Yeke Mongol Ulus and proceeds to depict the khans of the Golden Horde. However, the text abruptly breaks off at the story of Toqtamïš khan. Bearing in mind that the chronicle is a part of a colligate, it is safe to assume that it is a copy of the author’s version which, unfortunately, lacks any indications regarding the date of the copy. The best editions of this manuscript is that of Yudin and his colleagues (1992, transcription according to Kazakh vocalisation, Russian translation, commentaries and facsimile) and of Kawaguchi and Nagamine (2008, text in the Arabic script, transcription in the Latin script and a Japanese translation). The second manuscript originates from Orenburg, Russia. A local reader of the Tatar periodical, the Šura, sent it to its editor, Rizaeddin Fakhruddin in the initial years of 1910s. He, in turn, passed it on to Ahmed Zeki Velidi Togan, émigré historian in Istanbul, where it became a part of his personal library. It still remains there, thus I shall refer to it as the “Istanbul manuscript” (Togan 19854: 224, Mirgaleev 2011: 14, ÖH/Mirgaleev 2017: 9–10). The codex comprises 77 folios total and bears the title Qara tawārīḫ ‘Black History’, a title thought to be given to the manuscript by a later copyist (ÖH/Kafalı 2009: 27). The text lacks the introduction, instead starts with a brief history of Genghis khan, after which it follows the text of the Tashkent manuscript with negligible alterations. What is important is that the Istanbul manuscript preserved the full text of the Čingiz-nāmä, depicting the events on the steppes to the 15th century. Furthermore, this manuscript contains a continuation by an unknown person, namely a brief description of the descendants of the Siberian khan Küčüm (r. 1563–1598) (ÖH/Kafalı 2009: 154–156, ÖH/Mirgaleev 2017: 160–164). Belyakov devoted a detailed article to this continuation and rightly stressed that it has been compiled – most likely – between the 1660s and 1680s, a century after our author’s death (Belyakov 2018). The text of the Istanbul manuscript has been published by Kafalı (2009, transcription in the Latin script) and recently by Mirgaleev (2017, transcription according to Tatar vocalisation, Russian translation, facsimile). 127 Unlike the Tashkent manuscript the one in Istanbul is dated. However, this dating causes some confusion. The last lines of the continuation run as follows: qad waqaʿa l-firāġ min ḫāzihi l-awrāq fī yavmī čaharšamba fī šahri Muḥarram sannati [---] bāraka llāh tamma tārīḫ-i [….]’, i. e. “This manuscript was finished on Wednesday, in the month of Maḥarram, in the year of […]. May God praise it! Finished. In the year of [….]” (ÖH/Kafalı 2009: 156, ÖH/Mirgaleev 2017: 160). As one can remark, the manuscript has not one, but two dates. I only had the chance to consult the facsimile of the manuscript provided in the edition of Mirgaleev, where the first date is blurred and illegible. However, both Kafalı and Mirgaleev read the date as 959 (ÖH/Kafalı 2009: 156, ÖH/Mirgaleev 2017: 160), this would correspond to the 30th of December 1551, 6th, 13th, 20th and 27th of January 1552. This could – in theory – correspond to the date that Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī finished his chronicle, but since this date is located on the end of the continuation and its reading is problematic, it cannot be determined with certainty. Concerning the second date, Kafalı and Mirgaleev both read it as 1040 (ÖH/Kafalı 2009: 156, ÖH/Mirgaleev 2017: 160), i.e. 10. August 1630 to 29. July 1631. Both readings raise problems. First, the date comprises of five numbers. Second, the events depicted in the continuation took place – as was already pointed out – in the second half of the 17th century (Belyakov 2018), many decades after the hypothetical date of copying. In any case this topic requires further investigation. There is a small remark in the Istanbul manuscript, which deserves further discussion. Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī writes: “The wish of this poor [soul – meaning the author; Cs. G.] is to write down this manuscript for a second time. Now, I am starting for the second time.” (ÖH/Kafalı 2009: 136; ÖH/Mirgaleev 2017: 216). This remark makes it clear that the author made two versions of the Čingiz-nāmä and that the Istanbul manuscript preserved the second version. Based on structural dissimilarities of the two extant manuscripts we may formulate a hypothesis. The Tashkent manuscript begins – as was already mentioned – with the praise of God and Muḥammad, followed by a brief introduction. Then it continues without any abruption in the text with the partition of the Mongol Empire. At the same time the Istanbul manuscript, evidently the second version, lacks the praise and the introduction. Instead it begins with the history of Genghis khan, after which the text follows the same course as the Tashkent manuscript with minor differences in the wording. Having this in view, I suppose that Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī finished his first version without the history of Genghis khan, as is seen in the Tashkent manuscript, and made the addition when drafting his second version represented by the Istanbul manuscript. 128 Tashkent manuscript Istanbul manuscript – second version! Introduction: praise of God and the None Prophet Information on the author and on the Non reason of the chronicles compilation None Abridged history of Genghis khan Text – breaks abruptly Text – complete – Continuation Table 2. Structural differences and similarities of the extant manuscripts When dating the Čingiz-nāmä, scholars usually give a wider timespan. Akhmedov supposes the first half of the 16th century (ÖH/Yudin et al. 1992: 5), whereas Kawaguchi and Nagamine claim that Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī must have penned his chronicle in the decades between the death of Ilbars khan (cc. 1518) and Dōst Muḥammad khan (cc. 1558) (Kavaguchi–Nagaminė 2010: 48). One must keep in mind that they only had access to the Tashkent manuscript of the chronicle which, unfortunately, gives no indication of the date of the work or the time of the copying. Other researchers give a narrower timespan of the 1550s (Togan 19854: 148, DeWeese 1994: 144, ÖH/Kafalı 2009: 27). A thorough reading of the Istanbul manuscript, however, offers a number of clues to designate a terminus post and ante quem. When narrating the events of Uluġ Muḥammad khan’s reign, Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī alludes to “Aq Köbek khan, who is khan in Astrakhan” (ÖH/Kafalı 2009: 152, ÖH/Mirgaleev 2017: 169). The author’s use of the aorist (ḫān turur) indicates a present tense. Though, it might be ambiguous, it still offers us the possibility to narrow down the dates we have to operate with. Aided by his Cherkes allies, the above-mentioned khan came to power for the first time in 1532, but he was forced to flee on the following year. He took the throne for a second time a decade later, in 1545 and governed the khanate for a year or two, only to be expelled for a second time (Trepavlov 2002: 219–221, Zajcev 2006: 115). A careful reading of the of the Šaybanid genealogy provides us with further clues to operate with. When listing the offspring of Yādigār khan (died 1469), Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī writes as follows: “ḫān-i märḥūm Buǰuġa ḫān wä Ṣōfyā[n] ḫān wä ḥażrat-i Āvānäš ḫān wä ḥażrat-i Qal5 ḫān 5 The correct reading of this name is uncertain. Both Kafalı and Mirgaleev read it as Qahïl ḫān. The letter qāf and lām are clearly legible and this makes it evident that the name refers to the ruler called Qal ḫān, mentionened in the Šäǰärä-i türk of Abu l-Ġāzī (Abu l-Ġāzī/Desmaisons 1970²: 229) and in the Firdawsu l-iqbāl of Mūnīs and Āgāhī (Munis – Agahi/Bregel 1999: 33– 34), as well as Ṣafāwīd sources. 129 ḫallada mulkahu” (ÖH/Kafalı 2009: 138, ÖH/Mirgaleev 2017: 210). As one may notice, Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī uses the Arabic marḥūm ‘the late, the deceased’ with Buǰuġa khan and the Arabic phrase ḫallada mulkahu ‘may his reign last forever’ with the name of Qal khan, implicating he was the currently ruling khan.6 The Firdawsu liqbāl of Mūnīs and Āgāhī – a rather late source – dates the death of Buǰuġa khan on the year of 932 of the hegira, i.e. 1525/1526 (Munis – Agahi/Bregel 1999: 31). However, Yuri Bregel remarks that Ṣafawīd sources date the same event to A. H. 935, i.e. A. D. 1529/1530 (Munis – Agahi/Bregel 1999: 553. note 162). Be it as it may, the terminus post quem is the end of the 1520s. Moving on to the next clue, Abu l-Ġāzī and the Firdawsu l-iqbāl state that Qal khan came to power after the forces of Bukhara invaded Khiva in 1539/1540 and ruled for nine years, i.e. until 1548/49 (Munis – Agahi/Bregel 1999: 34). That is our terminus ante quem. All in all, the timespan we may operate with is cc. 1530–1549. It would be tempting to pair the reign of Qal khan with the corresponding reign of Aq Köbek khan, and thus reckoning that Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī penned his work in in the years around 1545–1547. However, as it was already mentioned, this may be ambiguous. What is more, this was calculated based on the Istanbul manuscript, the second version! This means Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī must have written the first version somewhat earlier than scholars calculated previously, somewhere during the 1530s or 1540s. As was already mentioned, the Čingiz-nāmä preserved genuine oral traditions, offering a unique insight into the historical consciousness of the population of the Golden Horde, uninfluenced by outside sources such as Russian, Persian, Arabic etc. When approached with the right methods, this offers a range of research topics and results as it is shown by the excellent monography of DeWeese (1994). However, there is a further characteristic of the Čingiz-nāmä one may highlight. Since Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī drafted his work on the commission of an ʿArabšāhid member of the Šaybanid branch, it is no surprise he attempted to draw from traditions strengthening the legitimacy of his patrons and he went to great lengths to achieve it. This attempt includes exaggerating the merits of the ancestor of the dynasty, belittling other branches of the Jͮ očids7 and even falsifying some events. For example, according to his description, the nökers of Eǰän – i.e. Orda, the eldest son of Jͮ oči – rose up against their lord and eventually killed him and his offspring shortly after the subjugation of Eastern-Europe (ÖH/Yudin et al. 1992: 94, ÖH/Kawaguchi – Nagamine 2008: 12, 71, ÖH/Kafalı 2009: 117, ÖH/Mirgaleev 2017: 274). This story 6 7 This piece of evidence was noticed by Kafalı who – without providing any reference – dates the end of Qal khans reign to 1551/1552 (ÖH/Kafalı 2009: 27). For an example Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī vividly portrays how the offspring of Toqa Temür, thirteenth son of Jͮoči, another branch of the Jͮočids contesting for power with the Šaybanids, carried bricks on their back on the order of Tengiz Buġa, an influential beg in the left wing of the Golden Horde (died in the middle of the 14th century), or how the above-mentioned beg humiliated them by having them kneel down and take of their hats outside his tent during festivities (ÖH/Yudin et al. 1992: 109–110, ÖH/Kawaguchi-Nagamine 2008: 88–89, 33–34, ÖH/Kafalı 2009: 128–129, ÖH/Mirgaleev 2017: 238–239). 130 is, of course, is not true. Owing to Rašīd al-dīn, we are able to keep track of Orda’s successors for another century or so (Allsen 1985 [1987]). Stories such as these served to underline the legitimacy of Šaybanid overlordship, and therefore one must approach chapters regarding this lineage with a grain of salt. Regardless of this, the Čingiz-nāmä, as the second oldest historical work of the later Golden Horde in Turkic, merits further research. Moreover, a critical edition of the chronicle would be desirable, since it could easily provide us with new information on the history of the manuscripts, as well as the date of their compilation. References Abu l-Ġāzī Bahadur khan 1970². Šäǰärä-i Türk. Ed. by. P. Desmaisons, Amsterdam. Allsen, Th. T. 1985 [1987]. The Princes of the Left Hand: An Introduction to the History of the Ulus of Orda in the Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries. Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 5: 5–40. Bartol’d, V. V. 1973. Otchet o komandirovke v Turkestan. In: Sochineniya VIII. Moskva: 119–210. Belyakov, A. V. 2018. O vremeni i meste napisaniya prodolzheniya sochineniya Utemish-Hadzhi «Kara tavarikh» (Kommentarii k tekstu). Zolotoordynskoe obozrenie 6/2: 370–392. Bregel, Y. 2012. Ilbārs khan. Encyclopædia Iranica 12/6: 644. Accasable at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ilbars-khan (last view 11. 06. 2020). DeWeese, D. A. 1994. Islamization and Native Religion in the Golden Horde: Baba Tükles and Conversion to Islam in Historic and Epic Tradition. Cambridge. Ivanics, M. – Usmanov, M. A. 2002. Das Buch der Dschingis-Legende (Däftär-i Čingiz-nāmä) I. (Vorwort, Einführung, Transkription, Wörterbuch, Facsimiles). Szeged. Ivanics, M. 2017. Hatalomgyakorlás a steppén. A Dzsingisz name nomád világa. Budapest. Kafalı, M. 2009. Ötemiş Hacı’ya Göre Cuci Ulusu’nun Tarihi. Ankara. Kavaguchi, T. – Nagaminė, Kh. 2010. Nekotorye novye dannye o «Chingiz-name» Utemisha-Khadzhi: v sisteme istoriografii v Dasht-i Kipchake. In: Zolotoordynskaya tsivilizatsiya III. Kazan’: 44–52. Materiali po istorii kazakhskikh khanstv XV – XVIII. vekov. Ed.: S. K. Ibragimov, et al. Alma-ata: 1969. Mirgaleev, I. M. 2011. «Chingiz-name» Utemisha Hadzhi: perspektivy izuchieniya. In: Zolotoordynskaya tsivilizatsiya IV. Kazan’: 14–19. 131 Munis, Shir Muhammad Mirab – Agahi, Muhammad Riza Mirab 1999. Firdaws aliqbāl. History of Khorezm. Translated from Chaghatay and Annotated by Y. Bregel, Leiden – Boston – Köln. Mustakhimov, I. 2014. Istochniki po istorii tatarskikh gosudarstv XV–XVIII vv. Arabografichnye istochniki. In: Istoriya tatar s drevnejshikh vremen v semi tomakh. Tom Iv. Tatarskie gosudarstva XV–XVIII vv. Ed.: R. Khakimov, et al. Kazan’: 2014. 10–19. Ötämiš Ḥājī 2008. Čingīz-nāma. Ed.: T. Kawaguchi, and H. Nagamine, Tokyo. Sultanov, T. I. 2006. Chingiz-khan I Ghingizidi. Sud’ba i vlast’. Moskva. Togan, Z. V. A. 1981². Bügünkü Türkili (Türkistan) ve Yakın Tarihi I. Batı ve Kuzey Türkistan. İstanbul. Togan, Z. V. A. 19854. Tarihte Usul. İstanbul. Trepavlov, V. V. 2002. Istoriya Nogajskoj ordy. Moskva. Trepavlov, V. V. 2009. Khadzh iz Desht-i kipchaka v XIII – XVII vekakh. In: V. V.Trepavlov, Tyurskie narody srednevekoj Evrazii. Izbrannye trudy. Kazan’. 24–34. Utemish-khadzhi 1992. Chingiz-name. Ed.: V. P. Yudin, et al. Alma-ata. Zajtsev, I. V. 2006². Astrakhanskoe khansvto. Moskva. Imagined Turks: The Tatar as the Other in Halide Edip’s Novels Funda Güven Introduction “Tatar” and “Turk” have both been controversial terms in world literature. Western literature has referred to Mongols as “Tatars,” while Russians have used the term “Tatar” for their Turkic subjects. The name “Turk,” also, has been used by Westerners for all Muslims living in Europe. Both terms have had an insulting meaning since they were used to define the "other" group or nation. When ethnic nationalism launched in the late Ottoman period, ideologists had long discussions on the name of a new nation. They decided to call it Turk, but they did not know how to define who the “Turk” was. Halide Edip got actively involved in discussions starting from 1911. Having been brought up in a cosmopolitan family setting, and having a liberal education, she welcomed all groups while she used “Turk” as an umbrella term to depict the characters in her novels. However, she needed an ethnic group to focus on since new nationalism was seeking its primordial ties within an ethnic Turkic community. She became acquainted with the Tatar community who came to Istanbul for education and settled there, as well as the Tatar community living in Anatolia, during her service to the Turkish army and the inspection after the War of Independence as well. She did not hide her admiration for modest, educated, and caring Tatar women. To uproot the negative image of Tatars and create a role model for Turkish women, she used the image of Tatar women in her two novels. This article explores Halide Edip’s novels New Turan and Tatarcık, in which both protagonists are Tatar women. Background Halide Edip Adıvar (1882–1964), one of the pillars of Turkish nationalism, contributed to the nationalist movement’s becoming a populist movement based on ethnicity and language. Halide Edip had Islamic and Western education and grew up in an intellectual surrounding in Istanbul. She attended an American all-girls boarding school, which gave her a better understanding of Western culture, while her extended family lived in all-Turkish culture. She was involved in politics when 134 Turkish nationalism was moving between the first and second generations of nationalists in the late Ottoman period. The ideology of the first nationalists of the Ottoman period, based on patria, was “liberal and human,” which was a reactionary movement against the monarchy (Adıvar 1930: 86). The first generation, who were called Young Ottomans and Young Turks, was constructivist, bringing new ideas such as liberty, the constitution, and the fatherland into political and cultural discourse. They presented an Ottoman-Islamist identity while focusing on establishing a modern democratic state based on the separation of powers. They were able to force the Sultan to declare constitutional monarchy and initiate democracy in the Ottoman Empire. However, because of the domestic impetus and conjectural developments out of borders, the Sultan abolished the parliament and returned to monarchy. Ultimately, the Sultan could not prevent another wave coming from members of the army and a new generation of intellectuals. The military forced the Sultan to open the parliament and held elections again in 1908. This time intellectuals who lived in the Empire joined a pro-nationalist, pro-Turkish movement, which was not imported from abroad but developed inside the Empire. Halide made her home a meeting point for those nationalist intellectuals, who attended to discuss politics, literature, and history. Ahmet Ağaoğlu appreciated her for challenging segregation between sexes among upper-class elites in Istanbul and opening her house to male intellectuals (Ağaoğlu 1959). Because her first husband served in UPP (Union and Progress Party), and her second husband took an active role in the nationalist Turkism movement and the establishment of Turkish Hearts, Halide found herself in the second wave of nationalism, which gradually hinged on language and ethnicity. While the first wave had been based on the adoption of new ideas coming from the West, the intellectuals of the second wave looked for “local and national” ideas rooted in the culture that they dwelled in, language as an amalgam of Turkish nationalism, instead of ideas of liberty, constitution, and fatherland. Halide Edip found any political nationalism ugly since it made men destroy each other. Yet, she justified that Turkish nationalism was different from the Western case since Western Powers supported each other, but Turks were all alone for their survival (Adıvar 1930: 82). While the intellectuals of the first wave aimed to change the political culture, the second wave aimed to bring culture to politics. The second wave was focused on tangible straits of culture, such as religion, language, ethnicity, and custom. Halide Edip, Ziya Gökalp, Ömer Seyfettin, Fuat Köprülü, Ahmet Ağaoğlu, and Yusuf Akçura were the intellectuals of the second wave, who aimed to bring a change by using faculties of society to create a popular nationalist movement from bottom to top. For this reason, they needed to examine the Turkish nation to find what they wanted to see in her cultural codes. Reforming language was one of them, but not enough: they needed a united society to use this standardized vernacular language. The second wave, also, did not focus on geography or fatherland at the beginning, 135 but the human capital of their nationalistic ideology, because they did not know where to end their nation.1 Theory Benedict Anderson and Eric Hobsbawm elucidated that nation-states are the product of imaginations. Anderson argued that “the nation is imagined as limited because even the largest of them encompassing perhaps a billion living human beings, has finite, if elastic, boundaries, beyond which lie other nations” (Anderson 2006: 7). When all is said, the pioneers of Turkish nationalism looked for a framework which made Turkish nationalism essentialist. The roots of Turkish nationalism started with imagining patria and a nation. It was the most democratic starting point, but they were not able to create a grassroots movement since the geography that they addressed was vast, and the population was cosmopolitan. Their ideal nation was obscure, and they could not reach ordinary people, only Ottoman elites. This first occurrence of nationalism went hand in hand with Islamism. In this sense, their ideology stood on essentialism. A Crimean Tatar, Ismail Gaspirali, led a parallel attempt which overlapped with the last years of Young Ottomans, who tried to form national consciousness of a vernacularly imagined Turkic community. His reductionist view was also essentialist, since it was based on communication in a common Turkic language, and grounded in the ethnicities of Turkic societies, as well as a liberal model of Islam. At the same time, his imagination, which did not go beyond an imagined liberated Muslim society from Russians, was survivalist—those two romantic movements abided by another essentialist nationalist movement of Young Turks, who imagined an absolute nation. The Young Turks who, thrilled by German nationalism, instilled ethnicity and language in their ideology. Ideologies of those three nationalist movements do not have a geographical limit and definition of the values’ democratic principles, but a tangible, particular Turkish nation. Halide Edip engaged in the third group when she wrote her novel, New Turan, in 1912 and had already parted with all of them when she wrote Tatarcık in 1938. 1 However, Hülya Argunsah categorizes Halide Edip with Yakup Kadri and Yahya Kemal, not with Ziya Gökalp, Ömer Seyfettin, or Hamdlulah Suphi under the title of National Literature. She argues that Yahya Kemal’s ideas of land-based nationalism conformed to the philosophy of national movement in Anatolia. This categorization was based on themes of their writings, since three of them wrote about defeating Greeks from Anatolia (Argunşah 2005: 211). 136 Behind the Turkish Identity: Gökalp and Akçura Ziya Gökalp, ideologist of UPP, had written his book Becoming Turk, Islamic, and Civilized in 1918, in which he sought to show how to construct a nation by the will of people based on cultural relativism (Gökalp 2014: 2/12). In his book, he argued that the Islamic nation has its own space where Turks belong. On the other hand, he defined a space, “Turan,” for the new establishment of the nation under the influence of Gaspirinski. His idea of “Turan," an imagined community, is formed by only the Turkic society, including all Turkic places (Gökalp 2014: 4/39). Following up Gaspirinski’s Turanism Gökalp mentored and relied on two authors to disseminate his ideas in a simplified form, using literature. One of them, Ömer Seyfettin, was at the forefront of Turkifying the language, while Halide Edip’s sharp and brave pen was fighting to form an ethnic component of the new Turkish identity. The friendship of Ziya Gökalp and Halide Edip went back to the Turkish Hearts, founded in 1911, where they discussed the bases of Turkish nationalism and propagated their ideas. The spirit of the imagined Turkic community, which was named “Turanism” by Ziya Gökalp, yielded to a Turkism whose principles he wrote in 1923. He described Turkism as a hegemonic ideology which had a land and people to govern. Halide Edip mentioned in her memoirs that she wrote her novel, New Turan, under the influence of her friend Ziya Gökalp before they parted ways in 1915, after they had different ideas on education and politics. In the meantime, their populist character of Turkish nationalism was shaped in the hands of another intellectual whom Halide Edip worked with, Yusuf Akçura.2 Halide Edip did not write much about Yusuf Akçura, a Kazan Tatar, although she worked with him closely at Turkish Hearts, and her late husband Adnan Adıvar was one of the founders of National Turk Party with Akçura. His ideology rested solely on a secular Turkish identity, based on ethnicity, eliminating Islamic values in the new formation of the nation. Despite Akçura and Halide Edip’s husband’s close ideological fellowship, she insisted on the liberal values of Anglo-Saxons, in which religion finds a place in citizens’ lives. Akçura’s secular ideology, which excluded Islam, conflicted with Halide’s sympathy for folk Islam and Mevlevi culture. Under the influence of her grandmother and her Mevlevi circle, she drew attention to the Mevlevi order as representing Islam in the culture of Turkish people. The second conflict was on multiculturalism. Yusuf Akçura did not tolerate multiculturalism in Ottoman land but exalted suppressing Turkish culture. When they met in the Turkish Hearts, they had heated discussions on performing Anatolian ethnic music. Akçura lost against Halide and Fuad Köprülü, both of whom defended that Turkish culture must include other cultures of people living in Anatolia, even if they belonged to different ethnic groups. The third conflict between Akçura and Halide was about the 2 At the convention of Turkish Hearts, represent of Izmir argues that Halide Edip is not a Turkist. Her friend Hamdullah Suphi stands up to him and advocates Halide Edip because of her international reputation (Üstel 2004: 158). 137 federation. As we will see in her novel New Turan, Halide was for a federation; however, her fellow nationalist ideologists Akçura did not support this idea. In her utopian novel, New Turan’s new ideology lies in the Mevlevi culture of Islamic Sufism and the protagonist’s defense of federalism. First, five or six Mevlevi dervishes arrived on the stage with flutes, ney, in their hands. Right behind them, ten or twelve children in Mevlevi dervish dresses stood in a row. New Turan’s inspiration in architecture and music was always going as far back as the period of Selcukis. In addition to this, after many years of influence and penetration of Western culture, I do not know; one of the songs, hymns, or dramas of new musicians with these thin enigmatic Sufi elements was bringing the soul and voice of wild, rascal, sturdy, and brave Turko-Tatars (Adıvar 2014: 28). New Turan: Tatar Cousins Lead the New Party In her memoirs, Halide Edip mentions that she wrote the novel New Turan under the influence of Ziya Gökalp’s ideas. The novel was published in a newspaper in 1912 and as a book in 1913. She must have written the novel while she was visiting her father in Greece. The genre is a utopian novel in which pro-Turkish nationalists were dreaming of a country following their ideology (Balcı 2020: 10). Moreover, she wrote a play from the novel and participated in it in 1913–1914. However, Major Cemal Pasha banned them from staging the play, since they objected to Muslim women acting on stage (Üstel 2004: 68). A female protagonist, a half-Tatar Turkish girl Kaya is the crucial person between two political groups competing with each other to form the government. The pre-bourgeois ruling class of New Ottomans and their constituent Islamists are personified by Hamdi Pasha and his nephew Asım, a journalist of New Ottomans. The first-person narrator, Asım, narrates the ideas of two camps depicted in a romantic love story between two cousins, protagonist Kaya and Oğuz. The confessional narration reveals the truth that the narrator witnessed, but did not dare to intervene, in the life of his uncle, who is also an influential political figure and the leader of the New Ottoman Party. The nephew of Hamdi Pasha represents the change and calls reader’s attention for mass transformation from “Ottomanism” to “Oğuzism.” The reader gets engaged in the arc and roots to change with the narrator’s change during the development of the plot. The tone of the narrative is mostly sad and somber. The narrator witnesses that his villain uncle forced Kaya to get married for two reasons. First, he loved Kaya when she was very young, and the second, he spies the opposite party called “New Turan” and wants to end the popularity of the party’s activities, organized by Kaya and the leader Oğuz. 138 On the other hand, Oğuz, coming from the Tatar community in Yıldırım in Bursa, was brought up by a strong, literate, religious Tatar mother. His widow mother sends him to school and provides for him by working very hard. The narrator highlights how this Tatar family especially values the education of girls. His mother opens a small school for girls, which Oğuz also attends. Oğuz, a charismatic and progressive character of the novel, receives his first religious education from his mother and later goes to mosques nearby. The narrator emphasizes that his strong religious foundation drives him to respect women. The main difference of the two men, Hamdi Pasha and Oğuz, and the ideology of New Ottomans Party and New Turan Party, is that progressive Oğuz defends the necessity of women’s education and participation in social and economic life, as well as federalism as a political system, whereas conservative Hamdi Pasha oppresses women and is for a unitarian state. The role of the first-person narrator in the novel becomes clearer when the climax approaches. The narrator carries the message with the two main characters to convince the reader for federalism. Formation of a modern nation-state goes hand in hand with building a nation living on a land. Halide Edip highlights and justifies a federation between Kurds and Arabs. The narrator gives a direct message to the reader that local people support federalism in some regions where they have started federal governance (Adıvar 2014:108). Representing confusion between what Kaya defends and his party expects, the villain Hamdi Pasha does not show strong leadership. This old-school bureaucrat prepares the tragedy of the protagonist and her love Oğuz. Yet, the narrator’s confession gives the reader hope for the future of New Turan while feeling repugnance for the New Ottoman Party. By giving the name “Oğuz” to a Kipchak or a Tatar character and creating a romantic idealist who dies for his ideas, the author confirms essentialist nationalism where she answers the question of who a Turk is.3 Given names as symbols or given identities show primordial ties between individuals and the hegemonic ideology (Smith:1986). Those brand-new Turk characters of the novel, essentially Tatars and or Ottomans mixed with Tatars, carry Turkish names. Kaya abandons her Arabic name, Samiye, to go back to use her given name, Kaya, which is still in the memory of her aunt and cousin (Adıvar 2014: 127–128). Villain Hamdi Pasha does not sympathize with the protagonist’s Tatar identity. He insists that her name is Samiye, but the protagonist prefers Kaya as her both primarily given and later chosen name. The repentant narrator says, “We have a lot of odd New Turan women, whose names are coming from stone, rock, sky, moon overall from the science of space and spheres of the Earth,”when he goes to the New Turan Party’s meeting in the setting of the novel (Adıvar 2014: 22). 3 Giving Turkic names became famous as a project of Turkism. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk supported the idea giving names such as Oğuz, Kaan, Mete in the first years of the Republic. Duman, Derya https://www.haberturk.com/yasam/haber/1212411-docent-dr-derya-dumanhaberturke-anlatti 139 The narrator brings the underlying “otherness” of Tatars from Ottoman identity and shows the reader how the word “Tatar” is used as an ethnic slur. When Hamdi Pasha was not able to convince Katya to sleep with him after a fight over carrying Ottoman or a Turkish identity, he says “Kaya behaves like a Tatar tonight”4 (Adıvar 2014: 104). Hamdi Pasha addresses the protagonist by her name Kaya, and when he uses her previous Arabic name, Kaya corrects him. Yet, he always emphasizes her Turkish identity: “You are the bravest Turkish person among the Turks who I have known” (71), "You, strong Turkish girl!"5 (Adıvar 2014: 116). Protagonist Kaya and Oğuz, two burgeoning leaders of New Turan Party drink kımız, a fermented mare’s milk in Eurasia. When Kaya gets sick, she refuses to drink ayran, a drink made of yoghurt, and insists upon drinking kımız instead. New Ottoman Hamdi Pasha buys kımız from Turan restaurants and brings two bottles of kımız for Kaya from work every night. Opposition party newspaper learns it and writes that Hamdi Pasha finally remembered that “he was a Turk” (Adıvar 2014: 78). When Oğuz was shot and wounded, he also asks to drink kımız to recover. Beside their ideology and blood ties, cultural products of Tatars bring them together even if they are apart. It is clear that members of this new imagined community live in the Ottoman Empire and are connected to Tatars who are well educated and active in politics. The author relies on the image of Tatar women in the novel, New Turan, for two reasons. First, this revolutionist nationalist movement needed a middle class who could carry the new ideas, since old elites of Ottoman Empire were not eager to change the status quo. The protagonist’s father cuts his ties with old Ottomans and abandons his old circle and house before he dies. Orphan Kaya gets a good education and serves her community and becomes politically active. Oğuz changes his middle-class status by getting a good education and becoming politically active. The reader gets a message that two Tatar women together support Oğuz’s political agenda and Turkist ideology. Motherhood in the novel is sublimated and only serves for ideology. Oğuz’s mother, like the Virgin Mary, raises her son by herself. On the other hand, Kaya, does not conceive a baby in four years of marriage with Hamdi Pasha. The author refrains to represent a synthesis of two ideologies. In other words, although it is a constructivist ideology which invent a nation with its symbols, new Turkism has its pride coming from its essence. This ideology presents soldier-like women: women members of the "New Turan Party” sometimes wear black and sometimes gray robes cover their heads with white headscarves and wear thick modest shoes, reminiscent of Turko-Tatars.6 Women of this ideology sacrifice their body in the sake of the future of their ideology (Adıvar 2014: 19). 4 5 6 “Kaya’nın bu gece Tatar damarı tuttu!” “Seni çetin Türk kızı!” In her memoirs, she says that she borrowed this image not from Tatar culture but the culture of Quakers, a liberal Christian group. 140 Oğuz, raised by a devout Muslim mother and in a Muslim environment, respects Islam. Kaya accuses Hamdi Pasha’s fellow party members for provoking Islamists against Turkists and causing Oğuz’s death. Islamists gain the majority in New Ottoman Party to defeat Turkists after Oğuz’s bill, decentralization of the government, passes. The love between cousins stays platonic and idealized from the beginning to the end of the plot. Both the protagonist and Oğuz live for their ideals. Tatarcık: Calling a Girl “Little Tatar” or “Sandfly” Halide Edip served at the front during the Turkish War in 1921–1922 (Adıvar 2010: 216). She visited many villages when the Turkish army was defeating the Greek army and saw people and their life in Anatolia in the early 1920s. She wrote the novel Tatarcık between 1938–1939, when she was in self-exile. During her service in the army, she spent quite a time in the Tatar villages, which “Greeks had spared because they mistook them for Russian settlements.” She admired that “they were all clean and well cared for; the women looked wide-awake and less tired, every child could read, and it was a surprise for her to talk to their schoolmaster.” Her admiration went further when she realized that in every form of material progress, Tatars, emigrants from Crimea, were superior to people living in Anatolian villages. She was disappointed when Ismet Pasha used Tatars’ appearance as an excuse not to accept their fellow Crimean migration from Crimea in the early 1900s. Their birth-rate was high, and their infant mortality low. As the supreme problem in Turkey seems to be the scarcity of its population, I wondered why we did not allow them to emigrate to Turkey from Crimea, where there was a great famine. I mentioned that Ismet pasha one day. He was looking at his garden, where a Tartar woman was passing with a pail of water. She was an elderly and typically Mongolic woman, plain but pleasant, whit skit eyes and high cheekbones. He shook his head, humorously. ‘They would alter the looks of the Turkish race,’ he said. I don’t want us to look like that” (Adıvar 1928: 232). Tatars had been living in Anatolia for hundreds of years since the mass migration of steppe Nogai Tatars to the Ottoman Empire started during 1787–1792, after the Jassy Treaty. Not developing a national identity based on the land but an affiliation to Islam, Tatars left the Darul Harb, “land of war,” where Russians governed, and emigrated to Darul Islam “land of Islam” where the Great Ottoman Empire, the protector of Muslims, reigned, so that they could preserve their religion and religious life. It is called hijra, or homecoming, in the history of Islam when a group of Muslims return from a place of infidel’s reign to a place where Muslims can practice Islam freely. Those emigrants found a haven for themselves in Anatolia and brought their unique culture with them (Williams 2016: 13). Tatar emigration continued until 1902, including many Tatars who came for education and did not 141 return because of Russian annexation. 1,000,000 or 1,200,000 Tatars immigrated to Ottoman land during this period (Williams 2016: 37). However, they never felt the same as local people, who called “muhajir” or migrant. While the Tatars who remained in Crimea became more religious to protect their identity from the Russians, those new inhabitants of Anatolia enjoyed following their folk religion, Islam. The opening of the novel Tatarcık starts with a discussion on the nickname of the protagonist Lale. The third-person narrator raises that there is a dispute on this nickname Tatarcık in the setting and during the development of the plot. The narrator indicates in the setting that the place and characters are all fictional, since the author was living abroad when she wrote the novel. The plot takes place in a village in Istanbul, where it is somehow connected to the life of upper-class old elites of the Ottoman Empire, who had lost their wealth and power, and new elites of the Republic of Turkey. The opening sentence is, “Everybody in the village used to refer to her as Tatarcık.” Then, the third person narrator introduces the protagonist’s father in the setting. After knowing Tatarcık’s village, you should know her father since some people gave this nickname to her only for her father was a Tatar. Though it was said that she was called as Tatarcik because they resembled her a small biting insect (sandfly), it was not resolved yet (Adıvar 1993: 14). Despite the cultural discrimination against the Tatars in society, the third person narrator idolizes them. Villagers called the protagonist’s father “Tatar Osman” behind his back to degrade him, but the narrator exalts his character by revealing his merits. The narrator emphasizes that Osman, a fisherman, was a literate person. He performs Friday congregational prayers; however, villagers feel discomfort being around him. Although he was a very private person, he makes donations and helps people in need. He supports the Independence War by smuggling ammunition and guns to Anatolia with his boat. The narrator uses a sad and apologetic tone to show agony that he remained an alien to them during his entire life, despite the fact that he had lived in the same village with them for almost three decades. Even though he had an education and lived in Istanbul for almost 30 years, it was clear from his accent that he was a Tatar. He insisted on stressing the “k” sounds of the letters "kaf" and "kef" (Adıvar 1993: 16) The narrator stresses that Osman, the protagonist’s father, did not change his Tatar accent. The reader can see hostility to Tatar elements in the language not only from ordinary people but also from intellectuals. Elites of Istanbul and the new elites of Ankara never tolerated accents in standardized Turkish. Halide Edip mentions that it is because of pride of Istanbulites who discriminated against minorities for their accents in shadow theatres and traditional Ottoman comedies. Since one of the founders of Turkism was a Tatar and the movement’s ideology was based on an imagined Turkic community, their sympathy for Tatars received backlash from new 142 literary elites of Republic of Turkey. Ahmet Haşim wrote in 1914 that “The followers of Pan-Turkism and those who styled themselves ‘Pan-Turanists’ made Constantinopolitan speech clumsily cumbersome by borrowing words of Asian origin from the pre-Islamic legends and mythologies of Turkish tribes. In juxtaposition with Constantinopolitan literature and language, the product of refined and sophisticated civilization, this new phraseology interspersed with Tatar origin words gave the impression of a tousled, repulsive alien figure” (Haşim 2016: 95). The tension of popularizing vernacular language to create a “national printlanguage” had central ideological and political importance. Benedict Andersen mentions that print language is massively used by the first wave of Turkish nationalists in the late nineteenth century. He also argues that "the first groups to do so were the marginalized vernacular-based coalitions of the educated," who were new bourgeoisie. Once specific standards were imposed in vernacular language, "from which too-marked deviations were impermissible." The second generation aimed to standardize the vernacular language which created oppression even among the compatriots (Anderson 2006: 81). The new model of Turkish language for Turks was based on not only standardized written language, but it aimed at verbal forms of the language, whose consensus was dissolved after penetration of Tatar culture, which was thought of as degenerating the status quo of elite culture. Indeed, using their status quo, dignity, and wealth, old elites rely on their dialect as their pride and cultural capita. Protagonist Lale lives with her mother after her father passes away. She receives her father’s veteran pension until it gets cut and attends school. After they cut the pension, she rents half of their houses and works as an English teacher. As an educated woman, the protagonist feels that she needs to teach to the villagers how to be civilized. The narrator brings a conflict between ignorant villagers and the protagonist over following traffic rules on the street. A fisherman gets angry at her after she has forced him to walk on the sidewalk by chasing him on her bicycle. He curses the protagonist and thinks to himself that “He would have showed Tatar bastard!” (Adıvar 1993: 29), but his wealthy client was waiting for him. This negative image of Tatars in the mind of the locals comes with her ethnic identity. In addition to the fisherman, old Islamist character Abdulgaffar Efendi who once saying "Tatars are a nation who were cursed by God. Wherever they step, the grass never grows.” (Adıvar 1993: 17). Halide changes her hostile attitude toward political Islamists in her novel Yeni Turan to sympathy toward cultural Islamists in Tatarcık. By the end of the plot, Abdulgaffar Efendi’s perspective changes, and he feels pity after the protagonist lost her father when she was 13. In addition to being ostracized by villagers, this modern Tatar girl becomes a target of bullies when her young neighbor invites his six friends to camp in the village. They are all well-educated young generation, sons of old elites of Istanbul, who all seek to the answer of the question who they are. However, she is insulted by the young host who does not like strong women who compete with men in the workplace. To insult her, he tells his friend that her last name was “Tatarcık.” When 143 Recep addresses her by “Miss Tatarcık,” the protagonist feels humiliated. This reaction to the protagonist goes to double meaning of the word “Tatarcık,” little Tatar, daughter of a Tatar or sandfly, that the author explains in the exposition. The protagonist never emphasizes her Tatar identity, but she centers her Turkish identity. One of the young guests asks why she feels offended being called “Tatarcık” if her father was a Tatar. Hasim’s father answers, "There is humiliation and mockery beyond it.” (Adıvar 1993: 93). He continues that the protagonist is a brilliant serious girl whom he admired. Although the protagonist of the novel Tatarcık, is a mixed Tatar and Circassian girl, the main character whom she gets engaged to the resolution is the son of protagonist Rabia in the previous bestselling novel of Halide Edip, the Clown and His Daughter. She transfers much information about his background from that novel to keep this newborn baby as the new generation of the new Turkish Republic, reminding readers that he is the son of a religious mother and converted Western father. References Adıvar, Halide Edip 1928. The Turkish Ordeal. The Century Co, New York London. Adıvar, Halide Edip 1993. Tatarcık. Özgür Yayınları, İstanbul 14. Baskı. Adıvar, Halide Edip 2007. Türk’ün Ateşle İmtihanı. Can Yayınları. Adıvar, Halide Edip 2014. Yeni Turan. Can Yayınları, İstanbul. Anderson, Benedit 2006. Imagined Communities. Verso, London – New York. Argunşah, Hülya 2005. “Milli Edebiyat” In: Yeni Türk Edebiyatı, Ed. Ramazan Korkmaz Grafiker Yayınları, Ankara, 2. Baskı. Balcı, Merve Burhan Çağlar 2020. Muharrire Hanım: Halide Edip Adıvar’ın Gazete ve Dergi Yazıları. Arı Sanat Yayınevi, İstanbul. Gökalp, Ziya 2008. Türkçülüğün Esasları. Hz. Kemal Bek, Bordo Siyah Yayın Basım, İstanbul. Gökalp, Ziya 2014. Türkleşmek İslamlaşmak Muasırlaşmak. Hz. Mustafa Özsarı, Ötüken Neşriyat, İstanbul. Haşim, Ahmet 2016. Selected Poems and Essays. Turko-Tatar Press, Translated Ender Gürol Madison. Smith, Anthon 1986. The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. Üstel, Füsun 2004.Türk Ocakları. İletişim Yayınları, 2. Baskı Williams, Brian Glyn 2016. The Crimean Tatars. Oxford University Press. The Animal Names in the Book of Leviticus of the Gözleve Bible (1841). Part I: Mammal, Insect and Reptile Species Murat Işık 1. Introduction This article will present the names of the mammal, insect and reptile species that occur in the Book of Leviticus (hereinafter referred to as Lev) of the so-called Gözleve Bible (hereinafter referred to as Göz. 1841) and compare these data with their equivalents in a recently-published Crimean Karaim Bible translation (hereinafter referred to as CrKB). The so-called Göz. 1841 (also known as ‘Eupatoria 1841’) is an entire translation of the Tanakh (without the chronicles) into Karaim which was printed in four volumes in Gözleve (present-day Eupatoria in the Crimea) in 1841 (Jankowski 2018: 51). The main corpus1 of the present study is the Lev, which was written in Hebrew script and can be found on pages 184–240, spanning 57 pages of the Göz. 1841 and consisting of 27 chapters. Another corpus of this study is the Lev of the CrKB translation. The basic manuscript for this translation comprises volume I and volume IV of the BSMS 288, which is held in the Cambridge University Library in 4 volumes. However, the CrKB also includes several manuscripts,2 e.g. H 170 (Gaster) and B 282, as well as some short fragments, e.g. JSul.III.02, Baxč. 116, Evr I 143, Evr I 144, Or. Ms. 169 (CrKB I: XVI–XX). For this article, the related examples of the Lev were taken from the CrKB I: 165–217. In Tanakh, the Lev specifically describes which animals are clean or unclean to eat and/or to sacrifice. In the Lev of the Göz. 1841, there exist altogether 58 different animal names, e.g. mammals (20), insects (4), reptiles (5), birds (23), and general animal group names (6). In this regard, the main aim of the present study is to demonstrate and compare the Oghuzic, Kipchak, and non-Turkic animal names (mammal, insect, and reptile species) that appear throughout the Lev translations of 1 2 I would like to thank Zsuzsanna Olach for providing me the necessary data, which are the digital photographs of the original Göz. 1841. The transcription of the relevant data was carried out by me based on a system that was presented in CrKB I: XXIV–XXV. Note that, in the CrKB edition, the Göz. 1841 was also used for some unavailable or unclear fragments of BSMS 288 since the scholars considered that the general linguistic shape of these translations is similar (CrKB: XX). 146 two Karaim Bibles. Thus, it is important to mention the widely-known Ottoman Turkish influence on the Kipchak languages of the Crimean area (see e.g. Doerfer 1959: 272–280, Schönig 2010: 107–119). As for the Crimean Karaim, it is also possible to see these Ottoman Turkish and/or Oghuzic influences as well (Gülsevin 2013: 214–219, Jankowski 1997: 53–82, Németh 2016: 199–200), while it is difficult to claim whether the non-Kipchak features in Crimean Karaim texts were directly influenced by Ottoman Turkish or via Crimean Tatar (Németh 2016: 200). However, together with the Kipchak forms, such Oghuzic influences often occur in the Göz. 1841 as well, which therefore was considered, as the editors modernised the old manuscripts to adapt to Turkish (CrKB I: XX). Although these mixed characteristics appear together, the distribution of the Oghuzic/Kipchak features in the Lev of the Göz. 1841 shows different numbers throughout its chapters. For instance, among the 27 chapters, Chapters 11, 13, 14, 15, 23, 25, 26, and 27 show the largest number of Oghuzic elements, whereas the other chapters demonstrate the highly-predominant Kipchak characteristics as well (Işık 2018: 74). Finally, it is worth noting that the relevant data will be demonstrated together with their equilavents 3 in the original Hebrew Bible and their descriptions in a Hebrew dictionary (CEDHL). In order to show some differences, the relevant examples from the other Books of the Göz. 1841 will also be presented. However, only the translation of Pentateuch (Torah) will be used. Besides this, together with two Karaim dictionaries (ACKED, KRPS), some commonly-known early written Turkic sources (e.g. IrkB, KB, DLT, CC, etc.) and Turkic studies (DTMK, EDPT, ESTJa, L, TS, etc.) will also be shown to explain the existing Oghuzic–Kipchak oppositions. Note that, the identical/similar animal names to the Biblical Hebrew forms in the Lev of these two Karaim Bible translations were not attested in the mentioned Karaim dictionaries. Thus, in the present study, such Biblical Hebrew words (that do not occur in the Karaim dictionaries/sources) will be treated as untranslated items. 4 Therewithal, in order to demonstrate certain similarities, the transcriptions of Biblical Hebrew words will also be given based on the Karaim transcription system. Thence, it must be noted that the transcription system does not represent the original Hebrew forms accurately. 3 4 In the study, some examples of English and Turkish Bible translations also exist which were collected from a software called ‘Bible Works 9’. In addition, a website (www.biblehub.com) was also very helpful in terms of viewing 29 different English Bible translations for the relevant parts of the Hebrew Bible. The main reason for this consideration is that many animal names occurring in the Hebrew Bible were not described clearly and/or they denote more than one animal (see, 4.5. göz tökä) in Hebrew dictionaries, which might cause certain words to remain untranslated in some Bible translations. 147 2. Mammals 2.1. ečki According to Clauson (EDPT: 24), the word ečkü was a generic term for ‘goat’ and has been attested in the early written Turkic sources as well, e.g. DLT I: 95 eçki, CC: 84 ečki ‘goat’. The Kipchak languages present some similar/identical forms, e.g. Kaz. eški, Kir., CrTat. ečki ‘goat’ whereas the word keči and the like show the Oghuzic counterparts, e.g. Tur. keçi, Az. keči, Trk. geči, Tat. käğä, CrTat. keči ‘goat’ (DTMK: 43, ESTJa 3: 34–36, L: 426–427). In the Lev of the Göz. 1841, the word ečki ‘goat’ (ACKED: 146, KRPS: 672) occurs 12 times (e.g. Lev 1:10), and denotes the Biblical Hebrew word ‫[ ֵﬠז‬ʿez] ‘goat’ (CEDHL: 468). The same Biblical word has been translated as ečki in the Lev of the CrKB as well. Thence, both the Lev of these Karaim Bible translations present a Kipchak form for this animal species. 2.2. sïġïr The word sïġïr ‘cow; bull; cattle; ox’ (ACKED: 349–350, KRPS: 488) appears 13 times in the Lev of the Göz. 1841 (e.g. Lev 3:1) and stands for the Biblical Hebrew word ‫[ ָבָּקר‬baḳar] ‘cattle; herd; oxen’ (CEDHL: 81). The Lev of the CrKB presents the same Turkic word as well. According to Clauson (EDPT: 814–815), the word sïġïr probably was a generic term at first indicating ‘large bovine’. In the early written Turkic sources this form has been attested, e.g. DLT I: 364 sıgır, CC: 227 syγyr ‘cattle; ox’ which also has survived in many modern Turkic languages, e.g. Tur. sığır, Az., Trk. sïġïr, Kaz., Kir., Tat. sïyïr, CrTat. sïġïr (DTMK: 183, ESTJa 7: 411, L: 435) ‘cattle; bovine’. However, among the slightly different forms, the Karaim Bible examples are identical to the Oghuzic form. 2.3. ḳoy The word ḳoy goes back to the form koñ ‘sheep’ which has been attested in the early written Turkic sources in slightly different forms, e.g. IrkB 14: koñ, KB: 59 ḳoy, DLT I: 31 koy/kon, CC: 198 qoj ‘sheep’. However, in modern Turkic languages, there exists an Oghuzic–Kipchak opposition for this word, e.g. Tur. koyun, Az., Trk. ġoyun ‘sheep’ vs Kaz., Kir., Tat., CrTat. qoy ‘id’ (DTMK: 140, ESTJa 6: 24–26, L: 431). In the Lev of the Göz. 1841 (e.g. Lev 3:6), the word ḳoy ‘sheep’ (ACKED: 316, KRPS: 368) is present 31 times and stands for Biblical Hebrew words ‫[ צֹאן‬čon] ‘small cattle; sheep and goats’, ‫[ ֶכֶּבשׂ‬kebeš] ‘lamb’, ‫[ ֶשׂה‬še] ‘(young) sheep, lamb; small cattle’, and ‫[ ִכְּבָשׂה‬kibša] ‘ewe lamb’ (CEDHL: 539, 270, 642). On the other hand, the Lev of the CrKB shows the word ḳoy for the same translations as well. Thus, both the Lev of the Göz. 1841 and the CrKB present the Kipchak Turkic form for this mammal species. 148 2.4. buġa The Biblical Hebrew word ‫[ ַפר‬par] ‘bull; bullock; steer’ (CEDHL: 522) has been translated as buġa ‘bull’ (ACKED: 95, KRPS: 136) 29 times (e.g. Lev 4:4) in the Lev of the Göz. 1841. The Lev of the CrKB also presents the same word which has been attested starting from the early written Turkic sources, e.g. KB: 575 buḳa, DLT II: 78 boka, CC: 62 boγa ‘bull’ until the modern Turkic languages with some phonological differences, e.g. Tur. boğa, Az. buγa, Trk. buġa, Kaz., Kir. buqa, Tat., CrTat. buγa ‘bull’ (DTMK: 75, ESTJa 2: 230–232, L: 437). According to Clauson (EDPT: 312), the word goes back to the form buka and has only been attested as boğa in Ottoman Turkish and some Tatar dialects. However, the Lev of these Karaim Bible translations do not present the Ottoman Turkish/Turkish form. 2.5. ulaḳ The Lev of the Göz. 1841 shows the word ulaḳ ‘kid’ (ACKED: 425, KRPS: 576) 22 times (e.g. Lev 4:24) which signifies the Biblical Hebrew words ‫[ ָשִׂﬠיר‬šaʿir] ‘hegoat; buck’, and ‫[ ְשִׂﬠיָרה‬šʿira] ‘she-goat’ (CEDHL: 672). The word ulaḳ also appears in the Lev of the CrKB and goes back to the form oġlak ‘kid; young goat’ which consists of the word oġul ‘son’ and the dim. suffix +Ak (see, ESTJa 1: 405, OTWF I: 41). This common Turkic word has been attested in the early sources as well, e.g. KB: 31 oġlaḳ, DLT I: 65 oğlak, CC: 174 oγulaq ‘kid’. In the modern Oghuz and Kipchak languages, there exist some differences, e.g. Tur. oğlak, Az. oγlaġ, Trk. ovlaq, ‘kid’ vs Kaz. laq, Kir., Tat., CrTat. ulaq ‘id’ (DTMK: 168–170, ESTJa 1: 588–590, EDPT: 84–85, L: 429). Thus, it is possible to say that, the examples in the Lev of these Karaim Bible translations present once again a Kipchak form. 2.6. ḳozu The word ḳozu ‘lamb’ (ACKED: 317) occurs 3 times in the Lev of the Göz. 1841 (e.g. Lev 4:32) and stands for the Biblical Hebrew words ‫[ ֶכֶּבשׂ‬kebeš] ‘lamb’, and ‫[ ִכְּבָשׂה‬kibša] ‘ewe lamb’ (CEDHL: 270). It is worth noting that, except for ḳoy and ḳozu, the same Biblical Hebrew word has been translated as ḳoyun twice in the Lev of the Göz. 1841 as well (see. 2.18 ḳoyun). On the other hand, throughout the Lev of the CrKB, the word ḳozu appears only once (Lev 5:6) whereas the Biblical Hebrew word ‫[ ֶכֶּבשׂ‬kebeš] has usually been translated as ḳoy. However, the word ḳozu has been attested in the early written Turkic sources, e.g. KB 60: ḳozï/ḳuzï, DLT I: 7 kuzı, CC: 202 qozy ‘lamb’ and in many modern Turkic languages with some slight differences, e.g. Tur. kuzu, Az. ġuzu, Trk. ġuzï, Kaz. qozï, Kir. qozu, Tat. quzï, CrTat. qozu ‘lamb’ (DTMK: 147–148, ESTJa 6: 107–108, L: 433). As can be seen, among the slightly different forms, the Karaim Bible examples are similar/identical to the Kipchak forms. 149 2.7. ḳočḳar One of the earliest forms of the Turkic word that denotes ‘ram’ has been attested as kočŋār, e.g. DLT I: 321 koçŋar, whereas it is also possible to see the form qočqar ‘ram’ some time later, e.g. CC: 198. In the modern Turkic languages, Kipchak forms are similar to ḳočḳar, e.g. Kaz. qošqar, Kir. qočqor, Tat., CrTat. qučqar whereas the Oghuz languages and Crimean Tatar show some contrasting forms as well, e.g. Tur. koç, Az., Trk. ġoč, CrTat. qoč ‘ram’ (DTMK: 136–137, ESTJa 6: 86–88, L: 432). The Lev of the Göz. 1841 presents the word ḳočḳar ‘ram’ (ACKED: 310, KRPS: 310) 22 times (e.g. Lev 5:15) which indicates the Biblical Hebrew word ‫[ ַא ִיל‬ayil] ‘ram’ (CEDHL: 21). The same word has been shown in the Lev of the CrKB for the same translation as well. Therefore, both Karaim Bible translations show a Kipchak type word for this animal species. 2.8. ögüz The Biblical Hebrew word ‫[ שׁוֹר‬šor] ‘ox; bull’ (CEDHL: 647) has been translated as ögüz ‘ox’ (ACKED: 266, KRPS: 437) in the Lev of the Göz. 1841 altogether 10 times (e.g. Lev 7:23). In the Lev of the CrKB, the word has also been translated as ögüz which has probably been borrowed from Tocharian to Turkic languages (see, EDPT: 120). The word has been attested in the early written Turkic sources, e.g. IrkB: 14, KB: 534, DLT I: 59 öküz, CC: 182 ögüz, and in many modern Turkic languages in similar forms as well, e.g. Tur., Az., Trk. öküz, Kaz. ögiz, Kir. ögüz, Tat. ügiz, CrTat. öküz ‘ox’ (DTMK: 172, ESTJa 1: 521–522, L: 439). One of the slight differences between Oghuzic and Kipchak forms is the medial -g-/-kopposition in the word. As can be seen, both the Lev of Karaim Bible translations present a Kipcak form for this translation. 2.9. bïzuv The word bïzuv ‘calf’ (ACKED: 83, KRPS: 145) exists 3 times in the Lev of the Göz. 1841 (e.g. Lev 9:2) and stands for the Biblical Hebrew word ‫[ ֵﬠֶגל‬ʿegel] ‘calf’ (CEDHL: 463). In the Lev of the CrKB, the Biblical word has been translated as bïzov. According to Clauson (EDPT: 391), the Turkic word goes back to the form buzağu which has been attested in the early written Turkic sources, e.g. IrkB: 18 buz(a)gu, DLT I: 59 buzagu, CC: 70 buzav/buzov ‘calf’ and in the modern Turkic languages with slight differences, e.g. Tur. buzağı, Az., Trk. buzov, Kaz. buzaw, Kir. muzoo, Tat. bozaw, CrTat. buzav ‘calf’ (DTMK: 77, ESTJa 2: 239–240, L: 438). Therefore, both Karaim Bible translations show a common Turkic word for this animal species. 2.10. deve According to Clauson (EDPT: 447–448), the Turkic word in the meaning of ‘camel’ might go back to the word tevey which has been attested in different forms in the early written Turkic sources as well, e.g. IrkB: 8 t(ä)bä, KB: 37 tive, DLT: 544 150 teve(y), CC: 252 töve. In the modern Turkic languages, the examples of the Oghuz languages show the voicing of the initial t- which also exists in Tatar and Crimean Tatar examples, e.g. Tur. deve, Az. dävä, Trk. düye, Tat. döyä, CrTat. deve, whereas the initial t- is preserved in the Kipchak languages, e.g. Kaz. tüye, Kir. töö (DTMK: 210–211, ESTJa 3: 313–315, L: 445). However, in Lev 11:4 of the Göz. 1841 and the CrKB, the Biblical Hebrew word ‫[ ָגָּמל‬gamal] ‘camel’ (CEDHL: 103) has been translated respectively as deve and devä ‘camel’ (ACKED: 136, KRPS: 183) which are identical to the Oghuzic forms. Nevertheless, in the other Books of the Göz. 1841, a Kipchak form has usually5 been attested, e.g. Gen 24:11, Exo 9:3, Deut 14:7, tüyä ‘camel’. 2.11. ada tavušan/kirpi The word ada tavušan and kirpi occur together6 once in Lev 11:5 of the Göz. 1841, and denote the Biblical Hebrew word ‫[ ָשָׁפן‬šafan] ‘rock badger (hyrax syriacus); cony rabbit’ (CEDHL: 676). The word ada tavušan (lit. ‘island rabbit/hare’7) has been attested in Ottoman Turkish as ada tavšanï, denoting ‘rabbit’ (RTD: 618) whereas tavšan (see 2.12 tavušan) itself stands for ‘hare’ (RTD: 387). In some modern Turkic languages, the word is still preserved, e.g. Tur. ada tavşanı (ÖTS 1: 107), Az. adadovşanı (ADİL I: 43) ‘European rabbit (oryctolagus cuniculus)’. On the other hand, the same Biblical word has been translated only as kirpi in the Lev of the CrKB. However, this word clearly indicates ‘hedgehog’ (ACKED: 213, KRPS: 323) and has been attested in the early written Turkic sources, e.g. DLT I: 415, CC: 148 kirpi ‘hedgehog’ and in many modern Turkic languages in identical form as well, e.g. Tur., Az., Trk., Kaz., Kir., Tat., CrTat. kirpi ‘hedgehog’ (DTMK: 110, ESTJa 5: 72–74, L: 166). Considering that, the Biblical word does not denote ‘hedgehog’ and has not been translated as ‘hedgehog’ in the other Bible translations, 8 it is very interesting that the word kirpi occurs in both Karaim translations while the Lev of the Göz. 1841 also presents an Oghuzic word that denotes a different animal species. Moreover, this Biblical word has been attested twice in the whole Torah. However, in Deut 14:7, once again both the Göz. 1841 and the CrKB present the word kirpi. 2.12. tavušan In Lev 11:6 of the Göz. 1841, the word tavušan ‘hare; rabbit’ (tavšan, ACKED: 379, KRPS: 505) appears once, denoting the Biblical Hebrew word ‫[ ַא ְרֶנֶבת‬arnebet] ‘hare’ 5 6 7 8 The Oghuzic form has also been attested in some parts of the Gen, e.g. Gen 12:16, 24:63 devä ‘camel’. The word kirpi appears in parenthesis next to the word ada tavušan. The word tavušan occurs as tavšan ‘hare, rabbit’ in ACKED: 388, KRPS: 505, while the word ada ‘island’ has also been listed in ACKED: 32, KRPS: 44. In the English Bible translations, the word has been translated as ‘hyrax’ (e.g. NIV, NLT, etc.), ‘rock badger’ (e.g. ISV, ESV, etc.), ‘coney’ (e.g. KJB, ASV, etc.), and ‘rabbit’ (e.g. BST, YLT.) whereas in Turkish Bible translation it appears as kaya tavşanı (lit. ‘rock rabbit’). 151 (CEDHL: 56). Clauson (EDPT: 447) describes an earlier form as tavïšġan, which has been attested in the early written sources, e.g. IrkB: 20 t(a)b(ı)šg(a)n ‘hare’, DLT I: 513 tawışgan, ‘rabbit’ and in several modern Turkic languages, e.g. Tur. tavşan, Az. dovšan, Trk. tovšan ‘hare’, CrTat. tavšan ‘hare; rabbit’ (DTMK: 200, EDPT: 447, L: 164). However, there exists a counterpart for this animal in the Kipchak languages, e.g. Kaz. qoyan, Kir. qoyon, Tat. quyan, CrTat. qoyan (DTMK: 200, ESTJa 6: 29, L: 164) which has been attested in CC: 198 as qojan as well. The Lev of the CrKB presents the Kipchak counterpart ḳoyan ‘hare’ (ACKED: 316, KRPS: 368) for this translation. Thence, the Lev of these two Karaim Bible translations clearly present the mentioned Oghuzic–Kipchak opposition for this animal species. Nevertheless, the Biblical Hebrew word has been attested twice in the whole Hebrew Bible. However, in Deut. 14:7 of both Göz.1841 and the CrKB, the word has also been translated as the Kipchak form ḳoyan. 2.13. ꭓïnzïr/ꭓazïr In the Turkic languages, the word toŋuz ‘pig; swine’ has been attested in many sources, e.g. IrkB: 8, DLT I: 304, CC: 249 and in many Turkic languages with slight differences, e.g. Tur. domuz, Az. donuz, Trk. doŋuz, Kaz. doŋïz, Kir. doŋuz, Tat. duŋγïz, CrTat. domuz (DTMK: 221, ESTJa 3: 267–268, EDPT: 527). In Lev 11:7 of the CrKB, the Biblical Hebrew word ‫[ ֲחִזיר‬ḥazïr] ‘pig; swine’ (CEDHL: 212) has been translated as doŋuz as well. However, the Lev of the Göz. 1841 presents the word ꭓïnzïr ‘pig, swine’ (ACKED: 184) together with the word ꭓazïr which also appears in parenthesis. The word hïnzïr has been attested in Ottoman Turkish (RTD: 734), and it is still preserved in Turkish (ÖTS 2: 1948–1949) as an Arabic loanword which is of Aramaic origin. However, the Gözleve Bible also presents the word doŋuz in Deut 14:8 where the Biblical word is present for the last time in the Torah. 2.14. šepere Another mammal occurs as šepere once in Lev 11:19 of the Göz. 1841, and denotes the Biblical Hebrew word ‫[ ֲﬠַטֵלּף‬ʿatalef] ‘bat’ (CEDHL: 469). This word does not occur in the Karaim dictionaries whereas it has been attested in Ottoman Turkish as şeb-pere (OTAL: 1146) and in Azerbaijani as şäbpärä (ADİL Vol. 4: 201) ‘bat’ which is of Persian origin. However, there exist some Turkic words in the meaning of ‘bat’ starting from the early written sources, e.g. DLT III: 433 yarısa, aya yersgil until the modern languages, e.g. Tur., Az. yarasa, Kaz. žarqanat, Kir. žarγanat, Tat. yarqanat, CrTat. ğarγana (DTMK: 240, ESTJa 4: 140–141, L: 168). However, the Lev of the Göz. 1841 shows a loanword which was common in some Oghuzic languages whereas the Lev of the CrKB presents the Kipchak Turkic form yarḳanat that has been listed in the Karaim dictionaries as well (ACKED: 452, KRPS: 232). In the whole Torah, the same Biblical word appears in the Deut as well. Nonetheless, once again another Book of the Göz.1841 shows a Kipchak form, unlike the example of the Lev, e.g. Deut 14:18 yarḳanat ‘bat’ vs Lev 11:19 šepere ‘id’. 152 2.15. gelinčik The word gelinčik ‘mole’ (ACKED: 164, KRPS: 166) occurs once in Lev 11:29 of the Göz. 1841, and denotes the Biblical Hebrew word ‫[ ֹחֶלד‬ḥoled] ‘mole’ (a hapax legomenon in the Bible) (CEDHL: 217). The word gelinčik has been attested in Ottoman Turkish as gelincik 9 (NS: 284) and still preserved in a few modern languages as well, e.g. Tur. gelincik (ÖTS 2: 1675), Az. gälincik (ADİL II: 230), CrTat. келинчек [kelinček] (KRUS: 223) in the meaning of ‘weasel’. In the Karaim dictionary (ACKED: 164), it has been remarked as a Turkish loanword, which consists of gelin10 ‘bride’ and one of the dim. suffixes -čIk (ESTJa 3:18, WOT 1: 522–523). According to the Turkish dictionary (ÖTS 2: 1675), the word gelincik is a calque from Arabic ‫[ ﻋﺮس اﺑﻦ‬ibn ʿirs]. However, some similar semantic shifts ‘girl, beautiful female’ + dim. suffix > ‘weasel’, or other small furry animals, has been attested in some other languages as well, e.g. It. belulla, donnola, Fr. belette, OEng. fairy, Hun. menyét ‘weasel’. According to Róna-Tas (WOT I: 523), this connection might go back to some mythical tales, where ‘weasel’ transforms into a beautiful, charming young girl or it might have a common background that both are considered as ‘small, beautiful, but dangerous’. Considering that, the Biblical word has been translated as both ‘weasel’ and ‘mole’ in the different translations,11 it is difficult to claim what the word exactly denotes in the Göz. 1841. On the other hand, in the Turkic languages there are different words for both ‘weasel; ferret’ e.g. Trk. gözen/küzen, Kaz. küzen, Kir. küzön, Tat. közän CrTat. küzen (DTMK: 119, EDPT: 761, L:163) and ‘mole’, e.g. Tur. köstebek, Az. köstäbäk, Trk. kȫrsıçan, Kaz. körtışkan, Kir. (sokur) çıçkan, Tat. sukır tıçkan, CrTat. кёрсычан [körsïčan] ‘mole’ (KTLS 1: 509–510, KRUS: 227). Thence, the Lev of the Göz. 1841 example clearly shows an Oghuzic/Ottoman Turkish word for this translation whereas the word has remained untranslated as ḥoled in the Lev of the CrKB. 2.16. sïčan The Biblical Hebrew word ‫[ ַﬠְכָבּר‬ʿakbar] ‘mouse’ (a hapax legomenon in the Torah) (CEDHL: 471) is present once in Lev 11:29. It has been translated as sïčan ‘rat, mouse’ (ACKED: 349, KRPS: 495) in both the Lev of the Göz. 1841 and the CrKB. In the early written Turkic sources the word has been attested in slightly different forms, e.g. DLT I: 75 sıçgan, CC: 227 syčqan which consists of the verb sïč- ‘to defecate’ and one of the Turkic participle markers (see, DTMK: 180, WOT II: 1179). In the modern Oghuz languages and Crimean Tatar, the word consists of the 9 One of the earliest attestations of the word gelincik in Ottoman Turkish was from the 16th century (TS III: 1627). However, the same animal has also been attested as ars, as, göcen and yiyirce as well (TS VIII: 131). 10 The word also represents the Oghuzic feature, which is the voicing of initial unvoiced plosive k> g- as well, e.g. Oghuzic gelin ‘bride’ vs Kipchak kelin ‘id’. 11 In the English Bible translations, the Biblical word has usually been translated as ‘mole rat’ (e.g. NLT, ESV, etc.), ‘mole’ (e.g. BSB, NASB, etc.), and ‘weasel’ (e.g. KJB, CSB, etc.) while the Turkish Bible also presents the word gelincik ‘weasel’. 153 Oghuzic participle marker –(y)An, e.g. Tur. sıçan, Az. sičan, Trk., CrTat. sïčan whereas the Kipchak counterpart -GAn is attached to the verb stem in the Kipchak languages, e.g. Kaz. tïšqan, Kir. čïčqan, Tat. tïčqan, Kar. sïčqan (DTMK: 180, ESTJa 7: 456–461, L: 167). Thus, the word sïčan in both Lev of these Karaim Bible translations show the Oghuzic characteristic. 2.17. sivri sïčan The word sivri sïčan occurs once in Lev 11:30 of the Göz. 1841, and stands for the Biblical Hebrew word ‫[ ֲאָנָקה‬anaḳa] ‘gecko; a kind of lizard’ (a hapax legomenon in the Bible) (CEDHL: 41). The compound noun does not exist in the Karaim dictionaries. As was mentioned, the word sïčan means ‘rat, mouse’ (ACKED: 349, KRPS: 195) in the Oghuz languages. On the other hand, the word sivri ‘sharp, pointed’ (ACKED: 358, KRPS: 472) has been remarked as Turkish loanword in Karaim which probably refers to the long nose of the animal. However, a similar form to sivri sïčan exists in Turkish as sivri fare,12 which stands for ‘common shrew (sorex araneus)’ (ÖTS 4: 4268). Among the different English Bible translations, this animal species has also been attested, e.g. DRB ‘shrew’. 13 Considering that, the word sivri and sïčan show the Oghuzic characteristics and a similar form is preserved in Turkish, it might be possible to regard the word as Ottoman Turkish loanword that stands for ‘shrew’. Nevertheless, in the Lev of the CrKB, the word has remained untranslated as anaḳa. 2.18. ḳoyun The word ḳoyun ‘sheep’ (ACKED: 316, KRPS: 369) occurs twice in Lev 14:24/25 of the Göz. 1841, denoting the Biblical Hebrew word ‫[ ֶכֶּבשׂ‬kebeš] ‘lamb’ (CEDHL: 270). In the CrKB, the same parts of Lev also show a similar form, that is, ḳoyïn. As was discussed, the word ḳoyun is an Oghuzic counterpart of the Kipchak koy. Thence, Chapter 14 of Lev shows this opposition in both Karaim Bible translations as well. 3. Insects 3.1. čekirtke The word čekirtke ‘locust’ (čegirtke, ACKED: 115, KRPS: 639) occurs once in Lev 11:22 of the Göz. 1841, and denotes the Biblical Hebrew word ‫[ ַא ְרֶבּה‬arbe] ‘locust’ (CEDHL: 53). A slightly different form appears in the Lev of the CrKB as čegirtkä. According to Clauson (EDPT: 417), the word goes back to the form čekürge which has been attested in DLT I: 490, and in many Turkic languages with some 12 The Arabic loanword fare also stands for ‘rat’ in Turkish (ÖTS 2: 1545). 13 However, the word has usually been attested as ‘gecko’ (e.g. NIV, NLT, etc.) and ‘ferret’ (e.g. KJB, JB2000, etc.) in the English Bible translations. 154 phonological differences as well, e.g. Tur. çekirge, Az., Trk, čekirtke, Kaz. šegirtke, Kir. čegirtke, Tat. čikĭrtkä, CrTat. čegertke (DTMK: 84–85, L: 187). Therefore, both Karaim translations show a common Turkic word for this insect species. Another point is that the Biblical word exists altogether 7 times in the Torah. However, the word has only been attested as čegirtkä in other books of Göz.1841 and the CrKB, e.g. Exo 10:4/12/13/14/19, Deut 28:38 čegirtkä ‘locust’. 3.2. ǰurǰurï In Lev 11:22 of the Göz. 1841, the word ǰurǰurï or ǰürǰüri14 occurs once to denote the Biblical Hebrew word ‫[ ָסְלָﬠם‬salʿam], which has been described as ‘a kind of locust’ (a hapax legomenon in the Bible). The words ǰurǰurï and salʿam do not occur in the Karaim dictionaries. However, in Turkish, there exists a similar form as cırcır böceği (lit. cırcır insect) ‘cricket’ (ÖTS 1: 800) which has been attested in CC: 79 as čïrlaḳ. The word čïrlaḳ consists of čïr 15 as the sound of the insect as an onom. lexical item and the Old Turkic suffix +lAk, which usually derives bird names (OTWF I: 89). In the modern Turkic languages, there exist different words that go back to similar onom. words, e.g. Az. cırcırama, Trk. çırlak, Kaz. şırıldavık, şildelik, Kir. saratan, Tat. şörçik/çikirtkä, CrTat. чырлакь [čïrlaḳ], чырчырна [čïrčïrna] ‘cricket’ (KTLS 1: 100–101, KRUS: 721). Hence, the Lev of the Göz. 1841 example is similar to the Oghuzic forms whereas the Lev of the CrKB presents the untranslated Biblical Hebrew word salʿam. 3.3. ꭓargol The Biblical Hebrew word ‫[ ָח ְרֹגּל‬ḥargol] ‘a kind of locust (a hapax legomenon in the Bible)’ (CEDHL: 230) has been remained untranslated as ꭓargol in both Lev 11:22 of the Göz. 1841 and the CrKB. This unclear locust species has mostly been translated as ‘cricket’ (e.g. NIV, NLT, etc.), and ‘beetle’ (e.g. AKJV, WBT.) in the English Bible translations. 3.4. ꭓagav Another untranslated word is ꭓagav, which appears once in Lev 11:22 of both the Göz. 1841 and the CrKB, denoting the Biblical Hebrew word ‫[ ָחָגב‬ḥagav] ‘locust; grasshopper’ (CEDHL: 207). In the whole Torah, this Biblical Hebrew word has also been attested in Num 13:33. However, there, it has been translated as čegirtkä in the Göz. 1841, whereas the CrKB presents the word čegirtäk. In the Lev, the word most probably has not been translated as čegirtkä since it has already denoted ‫[ ַא ְרֶבּה‬arbe] ‘locust’ in Lev 11:22. 14 Due to the Hebrew script system, the word can be read in these two forms as well. 15 This onom. word has also been attested in DLT I: 324 as sir. 155 4. Reptiles 4.1. ḳaplï baġa The word ḳaplï baġa ‘turtle, tortoise’ (qaplï baqa, ACKED: 289, KRPS: 362) occurs once in Lev 11:29 of the Göz. 1841, and denotes the Biblical Hebrew word ‫[ ָצב‬čab], which has been described as ‘turtle; tortoise; and a kind of lizard’ (a hapax legomenon in the Bible) (CEDHL: 539). The Lev of the CrKB presents the identical Biblical Hebrew word čab for this translation. According to Clauson (EDPT: 311– 312), the word baka means ‘frog’ and also ‘tortoise’ if it preceded by words meaning ‘horn; stone’ and the like, e.g. DLT III: 295 müngüz baka ‘turtle’. However, the word baqa has usually been attested in the Turkic languages together with tas, taš ‘stone’ in the meaning of ‘turtle; tortoise’, e.g. Az. tïsbaγa, Kaz. tasbaqa, Kir., Tat. tašbaqa. On the other hand, in Ottoman Turkish, the word ḳaplï/ḳaplu ‘covered’ has been also attested, e.g. ḳablubaġa 16 (NS: 412). In the modern Turkic languages, similar forms are present, e.g. Tur. kaplumbağa, CrTat. qaplïbaqa (DTMK: 165). Hence, the Lev of the Göz. 1841 shows a similar form to Ottoman Turkish for this animal species. 4.2. güneš kelerisi In Lev 11:30 of the Göz. 1841, the word güneš kelerisi (lit. sun lizard) occurs once, denoting the Biblical Hebrew word ‫[ ֹכַּח‬koaḥ] that has been described as ‘a kind of lizard (a hapax legomenon in the Bible)’ (CEDHL: 274). In the Lev of the CrKB, the word has been remained untranslated as kovaḥ. It is worth noting that, the words koaḥ and güneš kelerisi do not occur in the Karaim dictionaries. However, the compound noun güneš kelerisi consists of two Turkic words. The word güneš ‘sun’ (ACKED: 169–170, KRPS: 162) is an Oghuz type word (TTL: 120) whereas the word ḳuyaš is the Kipchak counterpart which appears in both the Lev of the Göz. 1841 and the CrKB, e.g. Lev 22:7, ḳuyaš ‘sun’. The second word keler is a Turkic word that stands for ‘lizard’ starting from the early stages, e.g. DLT I: 364 as keler. Therewithal, the second element of the word güneš kelerisi seems having two 3SG.POSS suffixes (keler+i+si = lizard+3SG.POSS+3SG.POSS), which is very rare in Turkic languages.17 Nevertheless, although the word güneš kelerisi consists of an Oghuzic lexical item, it does not occur in commonly known sources or other Turkic languages. Hence, it needs further research to describe this word. 16 One of the earliest attestations of the word kaplubağa in Ottoman Turkish was from the 14th century (TS IV: 2248). However, the same animal has also been attested as kaplıbağa, and bağa as well (TS VIII: 200). 17 Nonetheless, there are some exceptions as well, e.g. Tur. bir+i+si = one+3SG.POSS+3SG.POSS ‘someone; one of them; anybody’. 156 4.3. yïldïz kelerisi The word yïldïz kelerisi (lit. star lizard) occurs once in Lev 11:30 of the Göz. 1841, and denotes the Biblical Hebrew word ‫[ ְלָטָאה‬l(e)taʾa] ‘lizard (a hapax legomenon in the Bible). Once again, the Lev of the CrKB shows an untranslated Biblical word, that is, leta’a. As was mentioned earlier, the word keler denotes ‘lizard’ in the Turkic languages. On the other hand, the word yïldïz ‘star’ (ACKED: 463, KRPS: 264) goes back to the word yultuz which was a generic form for ‘fixed stars’ and ‘planets’ (EDPT: 922–923). As similar to the güneš kelerisi, the compound noun shows a Turkish form, since the word yïldïz exists in Turkish and also Crimean Tatar whereas it appears in slightly different forms in other languages, e.g. Az. ulduz. Trk. yuldïz, Kaz. žuldïz, Kir. žïldïz, Tat. yoldïz (ESTJa 4: 279–280, EDPT: 922–923, KRUS: 215). As was shown above, the second word kelerisi shows the irregular usage of the POSS suffixes as well. Therewithal, considering their meanings, the words güneš ‘sun’ and yïldïz ‘star’ might categorize the lizards according to their daily occurrence and/or their habitat. 4.4. kerten kelesi The word kerten kelesi ‘lizard’ (kertenkele, ACKED: 208, KRPS: 393) occurs once in Lev 11:30 of the Göz. 1841, and denotes the Biblical Hebrew word ‫[ ֹחֶמט‬ḥomet], which was described as ‘lizard’ (a hapax legomenon in the Bible). In the CrKB, the word has been remained untranslated as ḥomet, which does not exist in the Karaim dictionaries. The word has been listed as kertenkele in the Karaim dictionaries and appears in some Oghuz languages as well, e.g. Tur. kertenkele, Az. kärtänkälä. Therewithal, the Lev of the Göz. 1841 example kerten kelesi shows another unusual usage of 3SG.POSS suffix. It is also worth noting that this animal species has attested in different words in the other Turkic languages, e.g. Trk. hajjık, Kaz. kesirtke, Kir. keskeldirik, Tat. kältä yılan, CrTat. кертан [kertan], кертин [kertin], кесертки [kesertki] ‘lizard’ (KTLS 1: 469, KRUS: 282). Therefore, the Lev of the Göz. 1841 example is very similar to the Oghuzic forms. 4.5. göz tökä The last animal species is göz tökä which occurs once in Lev 11:30 of the Göz. 1841, denoting the Biblical Hebrew word ‫[ ַתּ ְנֶשֶׁמת‬tinšemet], which stands for two different animals. The first one is a kind of owl, probably ‘white owl’ (tyto alba), whereas the other one is ‘chameleon’ (CEDHL: 709). In the CrKB, the word has not been translated and therefore appears as tinšemet. The word göz means ‘eye’ (ACKED: 168) and shows the Oghuzic–Kipchak göz-köz opposition. On the other hand, tökä does not occur in the Turkic sources whereas it might be related to a type of lizard which is known as ‘tokay gecko’ that has vertical pupils in its eyes. It should be noted that the mentioned Biblical Hebrew word occurs altogether 3 times 157 in the Hebrew Bible. In Lev 11:18 of the Göz. 1841, it appears as ḳoġu ‘swan’18 whereas in Deut 14:16, it remains untranslated as tinšemet. However, more research is needed to describe the word göz töke. Conclusion In this article, 29 animal names that appear in the Lev of the Göz. 1841 were presented together with their equivalents in the Lev of the CrKB. Although the languages of the Göz. 1841 and the CrKB are assumed to be Karaim, their lexicon shows some differences. In the Lev of the CrKB, out of 27 items19 (which denote mammal, insect, and reptile species), 16 of them (13 mammal, 3 insect species) occur in identical/similar forms to the Lev of the Göz. 1841 (59%). Lev 1:10 3:1 3:6 4:4 4:24 4:32/5:36 5:15 7:23 9:2 11:4 11:5 11:29 11:22 11:22 11:22 14:24 Animal Species goat cow; bull; cattle; ox sheep calf kid lamb ram ox calf camel hedgehog rat locust locust; grasshopper a kind of locust sheep The Gözleve Bible (1841) ečki sïġïr ḳoy buġa ulaḳ ḳozu ḳočḳar ögüz bïzuv deve kirpi sïčan čekirtkä ꭓagav ꭓargol ḳoyun The CrKB ečki sïġïr ḳoy buġa ulaḳ ḳozu ḳočḳar ögüz bïzov devä kirpi sïčan čegirtkän ꭓagav ꭓargol ḳoyïn Table 1. The identical/similar words between the Lev of the Göz. 1841 and the CrKB In the Lev of the CrKB, among the 27 animal names, there exist 17 Turkic words (63%), e.g. ečki ‘goat’, sïġïr ‘cow; bull; cattle; ox’, ḳoy ‘lamb’, buġa ‘bull’, ulaḳ ‘kid’, ḳozu ‘lamb’, ḳočḳar ‘ram’, ögüz ‘ox’, bïzov ‘calf’, devä ‘camel’, kirpi ‘hedgehog’, ḳoyan ‘hare; rabbit’, toŋuz ‘pig; swine’, yarḳanat ‘bat’, sïčan ‘rat’, 18 Although the Biblical word has been described as ‘owl’ and ‘chameleon’, there are many translations which consider the word as ‘swan’ as well, e.g. AKJV, BST, etc. 19 The Lev of the CrKB shows 2 animal names less than the Lev of Göz. 1841 since there are 2 extra words (ꭓazïr, kirpi) that appear in parentheses in the Lev of the Göz. 1841. 158 ḳoyïn ‘sheep’, čegirtkän ‘locust’. Although the Turkic words are predominantly Kipchak type, some of these items show slightly different Oghuzic phonological and morphological features, e.g. devä ‘camel’, sïčan ‘rat’ (cf. Kipchak teve, sïčḳan), while the word ḳoyïn demonstrates the Oghuzic counterpart of Kipchak ḳoy as well. Therewithal, the Lev of the CrKB consists of many Biblical Hebrew words as well (37%), e.g. ḥoled ‘weasel’, anaḳa ‘gecko; a kind of lizard’, sal’am, ‘a kind of locust’, ꭓargol ‘a kind of locust’, ꭓagav ‘locust; grasshopper’, čab ‘turtle; a kind of lizard’, kovaḥ ‘a kind of lizard’, leta’a ‘a kind of lizard’, ḥomet ‘lizard’, tinšemet ‘chameleon’ (2 mammal, 3 insect, and 5 reptile species). As was discussed, the main reason might be related to the uncertainty of some Biblical Hebrew words. The Lev of the Göz. 1841 presents 23 Turkic items out of 29 animal names (79%), e.g. ečki ‘goat’, sïġïr ‘cow; bull; cattle; ox’, ḳoy ‘lamb’, buġa ‘bull’, ulaḳ ‘kid’, ḳozu ‘lamb’, ḳočḳar ‘ram’, ögüz ‘ox’, bïzuv ‘calf’, deve ‘camel’, ada tavušan ‘hare’, kirpi ‘hedgehog’, tavušan ‘hare; rabbit’, gelinčik ‘weasel or mole’, sïčan ‘rat’, sivri sïčan ‘common shrew’, ḳoyun ‘sheep’, čekirtkä ‘locust’, ǰurǰurï ‘cricket’, ḳaplï baġa ‘turtle’, güneš kelerisi ‘a kind of lizard’, yïldïz kelerisi ‘a kind of lizard’, kertenkelesi ‘lizard’. Among these Turkic items, 16 of them show similarity to the Oghuzic forms or consist of Oghuzic features (70%), which usually exist in Crimean Tatar. These similarities sometimes show a phonological and morphological feature, e.g. deve ‘camel’, sïčan ‘rat; mouse’ whereas they present specific Ottoman Turkish and Oghuzic words as well, e.g. gelinčik ‘weasel’, ada tavušan ‘hare’. Note that, there also exist 2 loanwords (7%), which probably have been acquired directly/indirectly by Ottoman Turkish, e.g. šepere (of Persian origin) ‘bat’ and ꭓïnzïr ‘pig, swine’ (of Arabic origin). Among the Turkic words, 4 of them (17%) do not appear in any Turkic sources, e.g. güneš kelerisi ‘a kind of lizard’, yïldïz kelerisi ‘a kind of lizard’, kertenkelesi ‘lizard’, göz tökä ‘chameleon’. Finally, there exist only 3 items (10%), which show the untranslated Biblical Hebrew words, e.g. ꭓazïr ‘pig; swine’, ꭓargol ‘a kind of lizard’, ꭓagav ‘a kind of lizard’. 159 Lev 3:1 11:4 11:5 11:6 11:7 11:19 11:22 11:29 11:29 11:29 11:30 11:30 11:30 11:30 11:30 14:24 Animal Species cow; bull; cattle; ox camel hare rabbit; hare pig; swine bat cricket weasel or mole rat; mouse turtle, tortoise common shrew a kind of lizard a kind of lizard lizard a kind of lizard sheep The Gözleve Bible (1841) sïġïr deve ada tavušan tavušan ꭓïnzïr šepere ǰurǰurï gelinčik sïčan ḳaplï baġa sivri sïčan güneš kelerisi yïldïz kelerisi kerten kelesi göz tökä ḳoyun Table 2. The Lev of the Göz. 1841 examples that are common in Oghuzic area As Table 2 clearly shows, except for the word sïġïr, all the examples, which are common in Oghuzic area are from Chapters 11 (87%) and 14 (6%) whereas all the Kipchak counterparts appear in Chapters 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9, e.g. ečki ‘goat’, ḳoy ‘lamb’, ulaḳ ‘kid’, ḳočḳar ‘ram’, ögüz ‘ox’, bïzov ‘calf’. Therewithal, among the Biblical Hebrew words that have been denoted by the Oghuzic forms (including the Arabic/Persian loanwords that are common in Oghuzic area) in the Lev of the Göz. 1841, there exist 6 words that appear in the other Books of Torah as well. However, in other Books of the Göz. 1841, these words have been either denoted by the Kipchak Turkic forms or they have remained untranslated, similar to the Lev of CrKB examples (see, Table 3). Thence, the main reason for the Oghuzic–Kipchak mixed animal names is clearly related to the specific characteristics of Chapter 11 in the Lev of the Göz. 1841. This systematical difference most probably related to the different translators/compilers of the Göz. 1841 translation. 160 Animal Species (CEDHL) camel Biblical Hebrew word ‫ָגָּמל‬ [gamal] hare ‫ַא ְרֶנֶבת‬ [arnebet] ‫[ ֲחִזיר‬ḥazïr] ‫ֲﬠַטֵלּף‬ [ʿatalef] ‫ֶכֶּבשׂ‬ [kebeš] ‫[ַתּ ְנֶשֶׁמת‬tinš emet] pig; swine bat lamb chameleon The Lev of the CrKB 11:4, devä 11:6, ḳoyan 11:7, doŋuz 11:19, yarḳanat 5:6, ḳoy 11:30, tinšemet Other Books of the Göz. 1841 Gen 24:11, Exo 9:3, Deut 14:7, tüyä Deut 14:7, ḳoyan 11:4, deve Deut 14:8, doŋuz Deut 14:13, yarḳanat Num 6:12, Exo 29:38, ḳoy Deut 14:16, tinšemet 11:7, ꭓïnzïr 11:19, šepere Table 3. The comparison of the other Books of the Göz. 1841 Abbreviations Bible Translations ASV = American Standard Version AKJV = American King James Version BSB = Berean Study Bible BST = Brenton Septuagint Translation CSB = Christian Standard Bible DRB = Douay-Rheims Bible ESV = English Standard Version ISV = International Standard Version JB2000 = Jubilee Bible 2000 KJB = King James Bible NASB = New American Standard Bible NIV = New International Version NLT = New Living Translation WBT = Webster’s Bible Edition YLT = Young’s Literal Translation The Lev of the Göz. 1841 11:6, tavušan 14:24, ḳoyun 11:30, göz tökä 161 Biblical Books Deut = Deuteronomy Exo = Exodus Gen = Genesis Lev = Leviticus Num = Numbers Languages Az. = Azerbaijani CrTat. = Crimean Tatar Fr. = French Hun. = Hungarian It. = Italian Kaz. = Kazakh Kir. = Kirghiz OEng. = Old English Tat. = Tatar Trk. = Turkmen Tur. = Turkish Manuscripts and Fragments of the Lev of CrKB Baxč. 116 = It is held in the Russian National Library, copied in the 18th century. It contains fragments of the Pentateuch (Exodus 26–40, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), three books of the Five Scrolls (the Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations), and some Psalms (1–19, 22–37, 55–57, 69–89). Only a few available leaves were employed in the Lev of the CrKB: Lev 3:10–4:7, 5:23–6:7, 8:36–10:4, 15:30–16:8. BSMS 288 = It is in the Cambridge University Library (among the holdings of the British and Foreign Bible Society) in four volumes; volume I – 203 text leaves (Pentateuch and Five Scrolls), volume II – 144 text leaves (Former Prophets), volume III – 155 text leaves (Latter Prophets), and volume IV – 118 text leaves (Writings), contains the whole Tanakh without Chronicles. In CrKB, only the volumes I and IV have been included as the basic manuscript. Evr I 143 = The available fragments consist Lev 1:1–15 and Lev 16:4–5. Other Abbreviations 3SG = third person singular dim. = diminutive lit. = literally onom. = onomatopoeic POSS = posssessive marker 162 References ACKED = Aqtay G. & Jankowski H. 2015. A Crimean Karaim–English Dictionary. Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, Katedra Studiów Azjatyckich, Wydział Neofilologii. ADİL = Orucovun, Ə. 2006. Azerbaycan Dilinin İzahlı Lüğäti, Volumes I–IV. Şərq Qərb. Akartürk, K. 2013. Codex Cumanicus’ta hayvan adları. Turkish Studies 8/1, 1839– 1865 CC = Grønbech, K. 1942. Romanisches Wörterbuch, Türkischer Wortindex zu Codex Cumanicus. (Monumenta Linguarum Asiae Maioris Subsidia 1) Munksgaard. CEDHL = Klein, E. 1987. A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of English. Carta Jerusalem. CrKB = Jankowski H. & Aqtay G. & Cegiołka D. & Çulha T. & Németh M. 2019. The Crimean Karaim Bible, Volumes I–II. Harrossowitz Verlag. DLT = Atalay, B. 1985. Divanü Lugat-it-Türk Tercümesi, Volumes I–IV. Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları. Doerfer, G. 1959. Das Krimosmanische. In: J. Dely et al. (eds.). Philologiae Turcicae Fundamental. F. Steiner, 272–280. DTMK = Hauenschild, I. 2003. Die Tierbezeichungen bei Mahmud al-Kaschgari; Eine Untersuchung aus Sprach-und Kulturhistorischer Sicht. (Turcologica 53) Harrassowitz Verlag. EDPT = Clauson, S. G. 1972. An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish. The Clarendon Press. ESTJa- 1–3 = Sevortyan, E.V. 1974, 1978, 1980. Etimologicheskiy Slovar Tyurkskikh Yazykov. Akademia Nauk SSSR Institut Yazykoznaniya. ESTJa 4 = Sevortyan, E.V. & Levitskaya, L.S. 1989. Etimologicheskiy Slovar Tyurkskikh Yazykov. Akademia Nauk SSSR Institut Yazykoznaniya. ESTJa 5, 6 = Levitskaya, L.S. & Dibo, A.V. & Rassadin, V.I. 1997, 2000. Etimologicheskiy Slovar Tyurkskikh Yazykov. Rossiyskaya Akademia Nauk Institut Yazykoznaniya. ESTJa 7 = Levitskaya, L.S. & Blagova, G.F. & Dibo, A.V. & Nasilov, D.M. 2003. Etimologicheskiy Slovar Tyurkskikh Yazykov. Vostachnaya Literatura Rossiyskaya Akademia Nauk. Gülsevin, S. 2013. Karay Türkçesinin kendisine has özellikleri ve Türk lehçeleri arasındaki yeri. Karadeniz Araştırmaları 36, 207–222. IrkB = Tekin, T. 1993. Irk Bitig: The book of omens. (Turcologica 18) Harrassowitz Verlag. 163 Işık, M. 2018. Oghuzic and Kipchak Characteristics in the Book of Leviticus, Gözleve Bible (1841). Rocznik Orientalistyczny, LXXI, Z. 2, 66–76. Jankowski, H. 1997. A Bible Translation into The Northern Crimean Dialect of Karaim. (Studia Orientalia 82) 1–84. Jankowski, H. 2018. Translation of the Tanakh into Crimean Karaim: history, manuscripts, and language. In: L. Kahn, (ed.) Jewish Languages in Historical Perspective. (IJS Studies in Judaica 17) Brill, 39–61. KB = Arat, R. R. 1947. Kutadgu Bilig I Metin. Milli Eğitim Basımevi. KRPS = Baskakov, N. A. & Zajączkowski A. & Shapshal S. M. (eds) 1974. Karaimsko-Russko-Pol’skij Slovar’. Russkij Jazyk. KRUS = Useinov, S. M. 2008. Krymskotatarsko-Russko-Ukrainskiy Slovar’. Tezis Neshriyat Evi. KTLS = Ercilasun A. B. 1991. Karşılaştırmalı Türk Lehçeleri Sözlüğü. Volumes I– II. Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları. L = Tenishev, E. R. 2001. Sravnitel’no-Istoricheskaya Grammatika Tyurskih Yazykov: Leksika. Nauka. Németh, M. 2016. A Crimean Karaim handwritten translation of the Book of Ruth dating from 1687. Türk Dilleri Araştırmaları 26.2, 161–226. NS = Nişanyan S. 2018. Nişanyan Sözlüğü. Liber Plus Yayınları. OTAL = Devellioğlu, F. 2010. Osmanlıca – Türkçe Ansiklopedik Lûgat. Aydın Kitabevi. OTWF = Erdal, M. 1991. Old Turkic Word Formation, Volumes 1–2. (Turcologica 7) Harrassowitz Verlag. ÖTS = Çağbayır, Y. 2007. Ötüken Türkçe Sözlük, Volumes 1–5. Ötüken Neşriyat. RTD = Redhouse, J. W. 1884. Redhouse’s Turkish Dictionary in Two Parts: English & Turkish, Turkish & English. Quaritch. Schönig, C. 2010. Osmanische einflüsse auf das Krim-areal. In: E. MańczakWohlfeld, & B. Podolak, (eds.) Studies on the Turkic World: A Festschrift for Professor Stanisław Stachowski on the Occasion of His 80th Birthday. Jagiellonian University Press, 107–119. TS = Aksoy Ö. A. & Dilçin D. 2009. Tarama Sözlüğü, Volumes I–VIII. Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları. TTL = Johanson L. and Csató É. Á. (eds.) 1998. The Turkic Languages. Routledge. WOT = Róna-Tas, A. & Berta, Á. 2011. West Old Turkic, Volumes I–II. (Turcologica 84) Harrassowitz Verlag. The Names of Professions in Historical Turkic Languages of the Crimea Henryk Jankowski The aim of this paper is to provide names of professions evidenced in the historical Turkic languages of the Crimea such as Kuman, Crimean Tatar, Karaim, Urum, Krymchak and Turkic loanwords in Nor-Nakhichevan Armenian. The material discussed is excerpted from direct sources which provide the names of professions in their social context and from indirect sources such as dictionaries, glossaries and lists of surnames and nicknames. The profession names do not include titles and names of services at the Khan court and local rulers, military ranks, and religious services. The article focuses on the social and cultural background of professions rather than on linguistic questions of the formation of profession names. 1. General remarks The name of a profession can be firmly established only from a direct source which shows it in its vocational context. Such sources are limited, especially for historical stages of the development of a Turkic language. It is often the case that the name of a profession becomes a nickname and later a surname. Even if identified correctly, the relationship to its holder is clear only when the factual circumstances are known. Therefore, the corpus of surnames which can later become names of habitation places is useful for the study of social and cultural contexts in a limited way. In the case of a family, the memory of the relationship of a profession name to its holder may be known for a few generations, but with the course of time this knowledge normally disappears. A certain Smith may not necessarily know if one or more of his forefathers were really smiths. If the factual background is unknown, the interpretation of a surname which covers a profession name is difficult. It is possible that somebody who holds the name Amamǧï ‘bath keeper’ had an ancestor who really was a bath owner, bath attendant or bath employee, but it is also possible that he was called so because his inclination or other relation to the bath. The situation is identical with almost all names, e.g. an Urum man called Tüt́anǧï ‘shop keeper’ could receive this name, because he liked shopping or worked for shops. 166 Another question is the range of possible relations of a name holder to his name. As Erdal (1991: 113) stressed, oqčï may be both ‘archer’ and ‘arrow maker’. etikči can be a craftsman who makes shoes, repairs or both, though the translation ‘shoemaker’ is satisfactory because of its English meaning. In a similar way, balïqčï can denote ‘fisher’ who fishes for a living or a dealer or merchant who buys and sells fish. 2. Names of professions in Old Turkic In his article on the names of professions in Old Turkic, Aydın (2008) discusses fifteen names evidenced in Runic inscriptions. Most of them are derived from nouns and action nouns or verbal nouns with the suffix +čI, one with the suffix -IGmA, one with -čI,1 and one is an Iranian loanword. Two of these words, bitigči ‘scribe’ and otačï ‘healer; doctor’ (Aydın 2008: 54–55, 56), are found in the Crimean Turkic historical documents and the Turkic languages of the Crimea. In her lexical study on Orkhon and Uighur inscriptions, User (2010: 281–283) lists nineteen names, though some are not exactly profession names, e.g. sü2 and čärig ‘army’, and some others are debatable. Erdal (1991) does not discuss names of professions separately, but he discusses the suffixes which form them in a wide perspective. Thus, the suffix +čI regarded as functional and deriving humans is in Erdal’s (1991: 110) opinion so productive that it is impossible to cite all its derivatives. As we can see from Erdal’s examples, most profession names later documented in the Crimea have been evidenced already in Old Turkic, e.g. altunčï ‘goldsmith’, aščï ‘cook’, avčï ‘hunter’, balïqčï ‘fisher’, käyikči ‘wild game hunter’, oqčï ‘archer; arrow maker’, oyunčï ‘player’, qapaɣčï ‘doorkeeper’, qoñčï ‘shepherd’, quščï ‘wildfowler’, tämirči ‘blacksmith’, yultuzčï ‘he who predicts the future from stars’ (Erdal 1991: 111–113). The vocabulary related to profession names is poorly documented in the comparative lexicology by Tenišev (1997). There are only a few words of this type related to music, songs and poetry: qobuzčï ‘musician (who plays a stringed instrument)’, qošaːnčï and qošaqčï, ‘poet; singer of folk songs’ (Tenišev 1997: 613), uːzaːn ‘singer; singer of folk songs’ (Tenišev 1997: 613) as well as yïraɣu and yïrčï ‘singer of tales; poet’ (Tenišev 1997: 612). 1 2 This suffix derives otačï ← ota- ‘to treat with herbs’. However, this derivate is unique and all others OT +čI formations are derived from nominal stems. Therefore, it may be argued that the original form was otaɣčï → otačï. In Turkish, this suffix derives words also from verbs, e.g. okuyucu ‘reader’ ← oku- ‘to read’, but this must have happened after the change -Xɣ → -I, i.e. probably yazuġcı → yazıcı ‘scribe, writer’. Though see OT süči ‘warrior’ (Erdal 1991: 110). 167 3. Names of professions in the Turkic languages of the Crimea 3. 1. Names of professions registered in Crimean habitation names This source is indirect, for a habitation name which is identical or contains a profession name does not demonstrate it directly. In addition, some names of this kind are evidenced in a distorted or phonetically adapted form which makes the identification and etymology problematic. Jankowski (2006: 57) has shown more than thirty habitation names rooted in the names of professions. As he stressed, some names of this kind are related to such traditional activities as hunting, avǧï ‘hunter’, čegirči ‘falconer’, quščï ‘wildfowler’ and qaraquščï ‘falconer who trains and keeps eagles’; horse and cattle breeding, aqtačï ‘stable-lad’, buzavčï ‘calfherdsman’, yïlqïǧï ‘herdsman of horses; horseman’, tarpančï ‘one who catches wild horses’ and tüyeči ‘camel driver; camel owner’; and some to agricultural activities, baɣčï ‘grape grower’ and sabančï ‘ploughman, tiller; farmer’, and related services, e.g. dermenǧi ‘miller’. The profession name bavurčï ‘butler; cook’ was said to be related to the services at a ruler’s court, but its cultural background in the Crimea is unknown; see, however, the same word in CC in the form baɣïrčï. There are also profession names showing handicrafts and the making of weapons, tools and everyday equipment, e.g. altïnǧï ‘goldsmith’, bulatčï ‘steel worker’, čuyunču ‘iron caster, moulder’, demirǧi ‘blacksmith’, qazančï ‘cauldron maker’, *bozteriči ‘hide and leather dealer; tanner’, könči ‘hide and leather dealer’, *savurčï ‘hide manufacturer; leather manufacturer’ teriči ‘leather manufacturer’, qaymačï ‘somebody who embroiders’, eyerči ‘saddler’, ǧayčï ‘bow maker’, sadaqčï ‘bow or quiver maker’, tuzaqčï ‘snarer’ as well as oqču ‘arrow maker’, češmeǧi ‘constructor of fountains, wells’, ǧaraqčï (or čïraqčï) ‘armourer (or producer of lamps)’ and toɣunču ‘wheelwright; wheeler’. As is seen, all these names are derived with the suffix +ČI and there is only one name without it of Arabic origin, baqal ‘grocer’. 3. 2. Names of professions registered in Codex Cumanicus There are many profession names in CC, especially in some sections, e.g. starting with 40v Nomina arcium (=artium) et que pertinent eis, Hec continentur de spetiario et spetiaria, and the subsequent sections (Drimba 2000: 88–95). Some words in this Latin–Persian–Kuman glossary are glossed identically in Persian and Kuman, especially those of Arabic and Persian origin, e.g. Lat. bancherius ‘banker; money changer’ is saraf (40v) in both Persian and Kuman, and Lat. merzarius ‘merchant’ is çarçí and çarçí (44r), respectively. Here is a list of profession names excerpted from Grønbech’s (1942) Kuman dictionary, henceforth G: altunčï ‘goldsmith’ (CC 84, G 36), astlančï ‘reseller’ (CC 87, G 43), baɣïrčï ‘cook’ (CC 12, G 47), baluqčï ‘fisher’ (CC 43, G 49), baqčačï ‘gardener’ (CC 89, G 49), bazargan ‘merchant; trader’ (CC 87, G 66), bitikči ‘scribe’ (CC 80, 50, G 61), boyačï ‘dyer’ (CC 54, G 63), bör[k]či ‘hatter’ (CC 84, G 168 36), bïčaqčï ‘knife maker’ (CC 87, G 71), čekmenči ‘cloak maker’ (CC 127, G 74), čerči ‘small vendor’ (CC 87, 164, G 74), čïɣrïqčï ‘turner’ (CC 89, G 78), derzi ‘tailor’ (CC 85, G 83), etikči ‘shoemaker’ (CC 86, G 96), etmekči ‘baker’ (CC 88, G 96), eyerči ‘saddler’ (CC 87, G 85), χakim ‘physician, doctor’ (CC 125, G 99), išči ‘workman’ (CC 164, G 108), ïrčï ‘singer’ (CC 89, G 274), kütövči ‘shepherd’ (CC 122, G 160), miyančï3 ‘middleman’ (CC 87, 91, G 164), oχčï ‘arrow maker’ (CC 89, G 174), oyïnčï ‘musician; entertainer’ (CC 89, G 175), otačï ‘physician, doctor’ (CC 87, G 180), qasap ‘butcher’ (CC 87, G 195), qobuzčï ‘musician; lute player’ (CC 89, G 198), qošïčï ‘writer; poet’ (CC 131, G 201), sabančï ‘ploughman; farmer’ (CC 130, G 210), saraf ‘banker; money changer’ (CC 80, G 214), satuχčï ‘seller’ (CC 91, G 215), širačï ‘wine trader’ (CC 87, G 230), talal ‘middleman, broker’ (CC 87, G 233), tegirmenči ‘miller’ (CC 35, G 239), temirči ‘blacksmith’ (CC 84, G 240), tolmač, tïlmač ‘interpreter’ (CC 90, 121, 123, 125, G 248) yalčï ‘day labourer’ (CC 164, G 111), yaqčï ‘arc maker; archer’ (CC 89, G 114), yarɣučï ‘judge; mayor’ (CC 125, 126, 90, G 115), yulduzčï ‘astronomer’ (CC 130, G 128), yügenči ‘reins maker’ (CC 87, G 130) and yülüči ‘barber’ (CC 86, G 131). As is evident, most of these words are listed in the initial part of Codex Cumanicus (1–110 or ff. 1–55) attributed to Italian monks. According to Ligeti (1986: 513), this dictionary does not have any religious character and was composed for practical and commercial purposes. The following names are included in the second part (CC 119–164 or ff. 56–82) composed by German missionaries: čekmenči, χakim, išči, kütövči, qošïčï, sabančï, yalčï and yulduzčï, but some of them occur in both parts. Since the glossary compiled by Italian monks was intended for practical use, we can suppose that the professions included in it really existed and were not coined just to match Latin terms. As for the forms, the overwhelming majority of the words listed are derived with the Turkic suffix +čI and only the following Arabic and Persian loanwords are without this suffix: bazargan, derzi, χakim, qasap, saraf, talal4 and the international word tolmač ~ tïlmač of debated origin. As for the professions, there are quite many related to commerce, e.g. astlančï, bazargan, čerči, miyančï, satuχčï, širačï, talal. There are some names denoting craftsmen, e.g. altunčï, bör[k]či, bïčaqčï, čïɣrïqčï, etikči, eyerči, oχčï, temirči, yaqčï and yügenči. Another type, similar to the preceding one, are the names for common services, e.g. baɣïrčï, boyačï, čekmenči, etmekči, χakim, otačï, qasap, saraf, tegirmenči, tolmač ~ tïlmač, yaqčï, yarɣučï, yülüči ‘barber’ and probably bitikči and yulduzčï, in addition to išči and yalčï. A few names designate people active in arts: ïrčï, oyïnčï, qobuzčï and qošïčï. Naturally some names can designate both activities for personal or family use and services done for a living, e.g. baluqčï, baqčačï, kütövči and sabančï. 3 4 Grønbech (1942: 164) mijanči. The word šeriyat ‘judge’ (G 230) for Lat. consul, Per. equivalent in the dictionary being chadí (Drimba 2000: 95), i.e. cadi, is ignored for it is probably a mistake for šeriyatčï. 169 There are also some terms denoting military ranks and names of official dignitaries, known from later chancellery documents, e.g. basqaq ‘governor; in Latin rector’ (CC 46, G 52) and bögevül ‘bailiff’ (CC 90, G 62),5 cf. bökevül, below. 3. 3. Names of professions in historical Crimean Tatar Unfortunately, most of hitherto published documents contain the names of titles and posts in the khan’s and local rulers’ services which are not the subject of this article. The number of the names of posts and ranks of this kind is high. It is enough to read the first document of the Khanate chancellery issued by Haji Gerey Khan in 1453 where we find more than twenty items: anbarčï ‘stock keeper’, bitkeči ‘scribe’, bökevül ‘steward’,6 čaɣdavul ‘guard, sentinel; informer, spy’,7 čerbi ‘quartermaster’, daruɣa ‘governor, high-ranking official’,8 elči ‘messenger’, kemiči ‘ship controller’, köprüči ‘bridge supervisor’, parsčï ‘leopard hunter’, qabaqčï ‘doorman; gate overseer’, qalančï ‘qalan tax-collector’, qaravul ‘sentry, guard, watchman’, quščï ‘wildfowler’, tamɣači ‘seal keeper’, tartnaqčï ‘weigher’, totqavul ‘postal relay inspector’, 9 yaftačï ‘?searcher’, yasaqčï ‘yasaq tax collector’, yolavči ‘envoy’, yürütüči ‘runner’, in addition to various Arabic, such as muftī ‘mufti’, muderris ‘teacher’, ḳāżī ‘judge’, and Persian, such as bāzargān ‘merchant’, loanwords (Kurat 1940: 64–75, 173–184). It must be noted that the Khan’s chancellery, its scribes and secretaries should not be regarded as something exclusively Crimean. Firstly, the Crimean Khanate encompassed vast territories outside the Crimea, was rooted in the Golden Horde tradition, and the language of early documents is influenced by Khwarezmian Turkic. 3. 3. 1. Names encountered in Cadi records Cadi records are a valuable source for the study of the material culture of the Crimean Khanate. There are many names of professions in them, but unfortunately all remain unedited. In an unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stefaniak-Rak (2011: 123–128) demonstrated the following ones from volume 10 written between 1666 and 1669/1670: aşçı ‘cook’, baḳḳāl ‘grocer’, bāzargān ‘merchant, trader’, debbāġ 5 6 7 8 9 Grønbech (1942: 62) reads this word as boɣavul which must be incorrect. In CC, it is written Bogaul and its Persian equivalent is Tataul (Drimba 2000: 95), evidently Mongol totɣavul, see totqavul, below, for the semantic difference between CC bögevül and Mongol-Turkic bökevül, see Vásáry (2009: 8–9). This word is variously explained (Kurat 1940: 70–71), for a comprehensive study on this word, derived from an unattested Mongol stem *böke-, see Vásáry (2009); it is unknown if bökevül is related to CC boɣavul, see above. For this Mongol word see Lessing (1960: 159); it is derived from the verb čaɣda- ‘to keep watch, patrol’. This Mongol term has the same etymology as Turkic basqaq and denotes an officer of a similar function (Vásáry 1978: 205), more for daruɣa, see Vásáry (1976). For this Mongol word derived from an unattested verb *todqa-, see Vásáry (2009: 4). 170 ‘tanner’, demirci ‘blacksmith’, elekçi ‘sieve maker and seller’, etmekçi ‘baker’, ḥammāmī ‘bath keeper’, ḥekīm ‘physician, doctor’, gümüşçi ‘silversmith’, ḥelvācı ‘halva maker’, ḳahveci ‘coffee maker; keeper of a café’, ḳapucı ‘doorkeeper’, ḳaṣṣāb ‘butcher’, ḳuyumcı ‘goldsmith’, kürkči ‘furrier’, mumcı ‘candle maker and seller’, müderris ‘teacher at a religious school’, naʿlçeci ‘farrier’, odabaşı ‘concierge’, oḳçı ‘arrow maker and seller’, sarrāc ‘saddler’, taşcı ‘mason’, terzi ‘tailor’, tüccār ‘merchant; trader’, usta ‘master’, yasaḳçı ‘watchman’, yazıcı ‘scribe’ and yılḳıcı ‘herdsman of horses’. It must be kept in mind that the court system, but especially the cadi office, was modelled on the Turkish pattern and the language of records was Ottoman Turkish. Although simpler than the language of cadi records in the mainland of Turkey, it followed the Turkish style and contained identical formulae and expressions and was characterised by the predilection for the use of Arabo-Persian words. Therefore, instead of the normal spoken form hamamcı we find the Arabic equivalent ḥammāmī ‘bath keeper’. 3. 3. 2. Names registered in documents issued by Khan’s chancellery and the local rulers The following short list was compiled from the index to Véliaminof-Zernof (and Feïz-Khanof)’s edition of the documents by Atasoy (2017b) and checked with volume I (Atasoy 2017a) which contains the transcription of the documents: 10 arabaçı ‘carter’ (A 1, 387; A 2, 79), atçı ‘horse breeder or cavalryman’11 (A 1, 678; A 2, 92), avçı ‘hunter’ (A 1 666; A 2, 94), balıḳçı ‘fisher’ (A 1 666; A 2, 114), bāzargān ‘merchant, trader’ (A 1, 99; A 2, 132), ḳāḍī ‘cadi; judge’ (A 540), ḳaravul ‘guard, watchman’ (A 1, 262; A 2, 560), ḳarçıġaçı ‘falconer’ (A 1, 164; A 2, 560), ḳoycı ‘shepherd’ (A 1, 99; A 2, 642), ḳuşçı ‘wildfowler’ (A 1, 387; A 2, 665), mılṭıḳçı ‘rifleman’ (A 1 390; A 2, 724), sevdāger ‘merchant, trader’ (A 1 672; A 2, 894), şunḳarçı ‘falconer’ (A 1 140; A 2, 954), tācir ‘merchant, trader’ (A 1 843; A 2, 965), ṭılmaç ‘interpreter’ (A 1, 748; A 2, 1011), ṭuvarcı ‘cowherd’ (A 1, 99; A 2, 10 Véliaminof-Zernof (Vel’jaminov-Zernov)’s publication (Moulla Husseïn Feïz-Khanof’s name who has copied the documents in the Russian State Archive in Moscow is mentioned by the publisher only in the foreword) was published in 1864 (Véliaminof-Zernof 1864) and recently reprinted by Özyetgin and Kamalov (2009). The 1864 edition contains copies of 378 documents and indices, all in Arabic script. Out of 378, 67 documents are related to the Polish court (Kołodziejczyk 2011: 246). 11 original documents contained in Véliaminof-Zernof (1864) have been recently published in transcription, English translation and comments by Kołodziejczyk (2011). There are many small differences between Kołodziejczyk’s and Atasoy’s reading. In contrast to Atasoy who transcribed and commented on a printed publication, Kołodziejczyk worked with the original documents and solved many specific questions. Despite this Atasoy’s edition is used, for it contains an index of all words (except for those ignored or not understood by Atasoy) which is helpful at work. The documents edited are diversified, most of them are diplomatic letters, but there are also financial reports on gifts and tributes. 11 The context of the document does not make clear if it was the term for a horse breeder, herdsman or cavalryman. 171 994),12 tuzçı ‘salt dealer’ (A 1, 777; A 2, 1039), yazıçı ‘scribe’ (A 1 236; A 2, 1146), yılḳıçı ‘herdsman of horses’ (A 1 666; A 2, 1157). Some persons mentioned in the documents who held these names of professions were not Tatars, but Ukrainians, Poles, Russians and others. Note that the number of the names of official ranks and dignitaries is much higher, e.g. aẖtaçı ‘stable-lad’ (A 41), baẖşı ‘secretary; counsellor’ (A 111), cebeçı başı ‘main armourer’ (A 229–230) or yasavul ‘guard’13 (A 1, 295; A 2, 1139). 3. 4. Names of professions used by the Karaims Crimean Karaim lexicon is well studied and can be found in dictionaries, e.g. KRPS i.e. Baskakow, Zajączkowski and Szapszał (1974), and AJ i.e. Aqtay and Jankowski (2015). However, new text editions bring to light new words, e.g. kürägäǰi ‘cupbearer’, so far evidenced only in Chaghatai as ‫ ﮐﻮَرﮔﺎﭼﯽ‬, i.e. körägäči ‘échanson’ (Courteille, Pavet de 1870: 466), derived from körägä, known in a few Turkic languages in various forms and meanings (Jankowski et al. 2019: xxii). 3. 4. 1. Profession names in Karaim surnames Lists of Karaim names are provided in KRPS and AJ, see also an early study by Vajsenberg (1913) which will be used at the discussion of Krymchak surnames. The following names originated from the names of professions: Arabacı (KRPS 675, AJ 487) ‘carter or cartwright’, Attar (KRPS 675, AJ 487) ‘pharmacist, druggist’, Ayvaz (KRPS 675, AJ 487) ‘man servant in the kitchen’, 14 Balcı (KRPS 675, AJ 487) ‘dealer in honey’, Baqqal (KRPS 675, AJ 487) ‘grocer’, Çoref, from Hebrew ‫צוֵֹרף‬ (KRPS 679, AJ 487) ‘goldsmith’, Derzi ~ Terzi (AJ 487, 489) ‘tailor’, Ekmekçi (KRPS 680) ‘baker’, Ḥallaç (KRPS 679, AJ 487) ‘cotton or wool fluffer’, Hamal (KRPS 675, AJ 488) ~ Hammal (KRPS 679) ‘porter’, Kiyikçi (KRPS 676) ‘wild game hunter’, Maqsımacı ‘boza maker or seller’ (KRPS 677, AJ 488), Meḥaneci (KRPS 677, AJ 488) ‘inn attendant’, Qabaqçı (KRPS 676, AJ 488) ‘doorkeeper’,15 Qalfa (KRPS 676, AJ 488) ‘assistant master; (qualified) workman’, Qalpaqçı (in KRPS 676 Qalpaqçi) ‘hatter’, Qapucı ‘doorkeeper’ (KRPS 677), Qazaz (AJ 488) ~ Qazas (KRPS 676) ‘silk manufacturer’, Qoyçu ‘shepherd or dealer in sheep’, (KRPS 677, AJ 488), Rofe, from Hebrew ‫( רוֵֹפא‬KRPS 678, AJ 489) ‘physician, doctor’, Saʿatçı (AJ 489) ~ Saatçı (KRPS 678) ‘watchmaker’, Saqızçı (AJ 489) ~ Sakisçı 12 Atasoy (2017a: 99) reads this word as tavarcı and glosses as ‘the owner of animals, breeder of flock, the owner of livestock’, while Kołodziejczyk (2011: 770, 774) reads it tuvarcı and glosses as ‘cowherd’; Kołodziejczyk’s reading and interpretation is correct, for this word just follows ḳoycı ‘shepherd’ and they designate different animals in livestock. 13 The meaning of this Mongol word, in Mong. ǰasavul, is ‘arbitrator, referee, umpire, judge; sentry, guard’ (Lessing 1960: 1040). 14 This word needs further study, since in Krymchak texts it occurs in the meaning similar to its Turkish cognate ivaz, i.e. ‘reward’ (Ianbay and Erdal 1988: 37, Ianbay 2016: 18). 15 See, however, the following Tur. words and meanings: I kabakçı ‘pumpkin grower and seller’ (TS 1018) II kabakçı ‘1. man serving hashish. 2. player of the gourd-shaped guitar’ (TIRS 572). 172 (KRPS 678) ‘(chewing) gum manufacturer’, Saraç (KRPS 678, AJ 489) ‘saddler’, Saraf (KRPS 678, AJ 489) ‘banker, money changer’, Sarıban (KRPS 678, AJ 489) ‘1. camel-driver. 2. baggage man in a caravan’, Sikezan (KRPS 678, AJ 489) ~ Sikazan (KRPS 678) ~ Sikka-zan (KRPS 678) ‘coiner in a mint’, Șekerci (KRPS 680, AJ 489) ‘sugar producer or dealer’, Telal (KRPS 679, AJ 489) ‘middleman; peddler’ and Yazıcı (KRPS 675, AJ 489) ‘scribe’.16 As can be seen, the professions practised by the Karaims, as suggested by these surnames, were differentiated, mostly crafts and services. Some names are not quite clear, e.g. Qılcı (KRPS 677, AJ 488) which can denote somebody making brushes of bristle, and Yekmekçi (KRPS 675). There are also surnames of Hebrew origin that denote holders of posts at the Karaim congregation, such as Gabbay ~ Gabay ‘treasurer’ (AJ 488) and Şammaş ~ Şamaş ‘caretaker’ (AJ 489). 3. 4. 2. Profession names found in two 18th-century financial documents These documents are registers of payments made by the Karaims to the Khan. They contain both the words denoting dignitaries in Khan’s service and those of common services. The number of professions of the latter type is low: demirci ‘blacksmith’ (Jankowski 2009: 31), doğramacı ‘joiner’ (Jankowski 2009: 30), dülger ‘carpenter’ (Jankowski 2009: 29), qalfa ‘assistant master; (qualified) workman’ (Jankowski 2009: 28), qazaz ‘silk manufacturer’ (Jankowski 2009: 28), sikezan ‘coiner in a mint’ (Jankowski 2009: 29) and taşçı ‘mason’, (Jankowski 2009: 29). Note that some of these professions were practised by non-Karaim masters, basically Crimean Greeks and Armenians, which is clear from their names, e.g. Tamyanos ağa. 3. 4. 3. Profession names listed in a manuscript copied by İçḥaq Qoyçu in the latter half of the 19th century This is a list written in the form of a table in a manuscript of the mejuma type, copied probably in 1895, reproduced by Jankowski (2013: 251). The names shown here in alphabetic order are the following: ağaççı ‘timber dealer; carpenter’, altıncı ‘goldsmith’, baḥçacı ‘gardener’, balıqçı ‘fisher’, baltacı ‘woodcutter’, baqırcı ‘coppersmith’, berber ‘barber’, beşikçi ‘cradle maker’, bostancı ‘vegetable gardener’, boyacı ‘dyer’, bündar ‘seller of precious stones’, camcı ‘glazier’, çalğıcı ‘musician, instrumentalist or luthier’, çilengir ‘locksmith’, çizmeci ‘bootmaker’, çoban ‘shepherd’, çorapçı ‘hosier; stocking maker’, çotçı ‘hammer maker; carpenter’, çubuqçı ‘pipe maker or rod fixer’, davulcı ‘drummer’, doğramacı ‘joiner’, doroşkeci ‘coachman’, dülger ‘carpenter’, egerci ‘saddler’, elekçi ‘sieve 16 A Karaim scribe who was called yazıcı as in Turkish, probably served Turkic clients and was proficient in Arabic script, since a Karaim scribe who copied religious manuscripts and kept congregation records would be called sofer from Hebrew ‫סוֵֹפר‬. However, this task was normally done by a ḥazzan. 173 maker’, fırıncı ‘baker’, gaḥrabarcı ‘amber dealer’, gemaneci ‘violinist’, gemici ‘sailor, mariner’, ḥalaq ‘barber’, ḥamamcı ‘bath keeper’, ḥekim ‘physician, doctor’, ẖasap ‘butcher’, kebapçı ‘kebap maker and seller’, kireci ‘renter’, kireççi ‘lime burner’, kiremitçi ‘tile maker; roofer’, kömürci ‘coal seller’, mumcı ‘candle maker and seller’, naqışçı ‘embroiderer’, pabuççı ‘shoemaker’, pıçaqçı ‘knife maker’, qalaycı ‘tinsmith’, qantarcı ‘weigher’, qayıqçı ‘boatman or shipwright’, qayışçı ‘leatherworker’, qurşavcı ‘hoop maker’, sabancı ‘ploughman, tiller, farmer’, sanduqçı ‘chest maker’, sarafçı ‘banker, money changer’, sepici ‘tanner’, sernikçi ‘maker or seller of matches’, tabaḥ ‘tanner or cook’, taşçı ‘mason’, terlikçi ‘slipper maker’, tikici ‘tailor’, yılqıcı ‘horse herdsman’, zurnacı ‘clarinettist’ (Jankowski 2013: 252–253). Note that the word for a banker or money changer, known from other sources as saraf, is extended here with the suffix +čI as sarafçı. This list contains many specific names which do not occur in other sources examined. Therefore, the search for other similar lists in other mejumas can bring to life new words. These words occur in the manuscript without any explanation, thus the meaning of some of them is a matter of conjecture. Some of these words are known from Old Turkic, Codex Cumanicus and charters granted by the Khan, but owing to the late period of industrialisation, their denotation may be different, e.g. gemici is most probably different than kemiǧi, see above. In addition to the names derived with the suffix +çI and a few loanwords, the table provides two names of profession derived with the suffix +LIk, i.e. ceraḥlıq ‘surgery’, delleklik ‘massage’. 3. 5. Names of professions used by the Krymchaks The earliest Turkic Krymchak texts critically edited date to the beginning of the 20th century and they contain few profession names, e.g. three in a text from 1906: bekči ‘guard’, oraqčï ‘reaper’ and šeraatčï ‘judge’ (Ianbay and Erdal 1988: 38, 45, 49) and in a text from 1907 äkmäkči (with variants) ‘baker’, saqaǧï ‘water carrier’ and satïǧï ‘seller’ (Erdal and Ianbay 2000: 103, 131). An exception is a short text of Krymchak Obadiah copied probably in the middle of the 19th century, published in a transliteration by Shapira (2016) with the facsimile, but it does not contain names of profession. In contrast to the Karaim surnames, there are only a few names of professions in Krymchak surnames. They were first studied by Vajsenberg (1913) who demonstrated the following ones: Atar ‘pharmacist; druggist’, *Baqšï ‘healer; doctor’, 17 Demirǧi ‘blacksmith; dealer in iron’, 18 Hekim ‘physician, doctor’, Qolpaqčï ‘hatter’, Quyumǧï ‘goldsmith’, Kürkči ‘furrier’, Penerǧi ‘cheese maker or 17 This name was not glossed by Vajsenberg (1913: 398), while Pejsax (2005a: 20) provided the meaning ‘gardener’; see baẖşı in Crimean Tatar, above. 18 Written Демерджи in both Vajsenberg and Pejsax; this word is absent from Pejsax’s list, but it is present and glossed in the comments (2005a: 20). 174 dealer’, Saraç ‘saddler’, Saraf ‘banker, money changer’, Tavuqčï ‘dealer in fowl’ (Vajsenberg 1913: 398–399). This list was later updated by Pejsax (2005a: 19–20) who provided two additional profession names, but both in a corrupted form and one mistakenly explained: *Deriǧi ‘leather dealer’19 and *Qoyunǧï ‘shepherd’.20 Professions can also be revealed from Krymchak nicknames, e.g. Arabaǧï ‘carter or cartwright’, Amamǧï ‘bath attendant’, Balǧï ‘dealer in honey’, Balïxčï ‘fisher’, Baqïrǧï ‘coppersmith’, Biberǧi ‘dealer in pepper’, Boyaǧï ‘dyer’, Čoban ‘shepherd’, Damǧï ‘roofer’, Ǧamǧï ‘glazier’, Kemaneǧi ‘violinist, fiddler’, Kömürǧi ‘dealer in coal’, Qalayǧï ‘tinsmith’, 21 Tenekeǧi ‘whitesmith’, Yurɣanǧï ‘quilter’, see Pejsax (2005b: 22) who stresses that the Krymchak nicknames had not been studied before him. Judging on this small corpus, the Krymchaks were active in quite many professions, mostly related to crafts and trade, but also arts, e.g. kemaneǧi and health service, e.g. hekim, and they shared many names with the Karaims and the Urums. 3. 6. Names of professions used by the Urums The evidence of Urum is important, for this is a language of the Turkic-speaking Greek population of the Crimea who together with Greek-speaking Greeks (Rumei) were deported to the Azov region between Mariupol and Donetsk in 1779 (Garkavec 1999: 5). In the new territory, Urum was developing in relative isolation from other Turkic languages and roughly retained its shape that it had in the 18th century, although the whole dialect network from the Crimea was reshuffled after the resettlement (Garkavec 1999: 29). The names of professions will be discussed on the basis of surnames excerpted from Garkavec’s (2000) dictionary: Arabaǧï ‘carter or cartwright’ (Gar 52), Balǧï ‘dealer in honey’ (Gar 78), Balïxčï ‘fisher’ (Gar 80), Baxlaǧï ‘bean grower’ (Gar 80), Bazïrd́ an ‘merchant, trader’ (Gar 76), Berber ‘barber’ (Gar 95),22 Biyeǧi ‘mare breeder’ (Gar 99), Bostanǧï ‘vegetable gardener’ (Gar 112), Bïčxïǧï ‘saw maker or sawyer’ (Gar 125), Čapčaxčï ‘cooper’ (Gar 575), Čičekči ‘florist’ (Gar 586), Čoban ‘shepherd’ (Gar 586), Čïrlamaǧï ‘baker of flat, round, fat bread’ (Gar 594), Čörekči ‘bun cook; cookie maker’ (Gar 590), Dareǧi ‘tambourinist, drummer’ (Gar 125), Degermenǧi ‘miller’ (Gar 164), Xasap ‘butcher’ (Gar 534), Xavalǧï ‘piper’ (Gar 379), Xoyanǧï ‘hare hunter or breeder’ (Gar 534), Ičkiǧi ‘goat breeder’ (Gar 204),23 Kemeneǧi ‘violinist’ (Gar 264), Kemenǧeǧi ‘fiddler’ (Gar 264), Köpekči ‘dog 19 Written Дереджи (Pejsax 2005a: 20) and glossed as ‘weigher’ which is evidently wrong. In fact, this word can also read dareǧi ‘tambourinist; drummer’, see the corresponding Urum surname, below. 20 Written Куюнджи (Pejsax 2005a: 20) and not glossed; note that the Krymchaks used both the word qoy and qoyun for ‘sheep’, but ‘shepherd’ was only qoyǧï, at least as it can be evidenced in the dictionaries (e.g. Ianbay 2016: 167). 21 Written mistakenly Кыалайджи. 22 See Urum berberǧi ‘barber’ (ibid). 23 There are two Urum homonyms I ički ‘strong drink’ and II ički ‘goat’ (ibid). 175 breeder’ (Gar 273), Kürkči ‘furrier’ (Gar 264), Nalbat ‘farrier’ (Gar 310), Pastaǧï ‘porridge producer; grouts maker’ (Gar 344), Piteǧi ‘flat bread baker’ (Gar 349), Qalayǧï ‘tinsmith’ (Gar 518), Qatranǧï ‘pitch producer’ (Gar 262), Sepetči ‘bag maker’ (Gar 379), Terzi ‘tailor’ (Gar 468), Tuvarčï ‘herder; herdsman’ (Gar 446), Tüt́anǧï ‘shop keeper’ (Gar 379), Yïlxïǧï ‘horse herdsman’ (Gar 256), Zeytinǧi ‘dealer in olives or oiler’ (Gar 190), Zurnaǧï ‘clarinettist’ (Gar 125). Although the surnames provided above pertain to a relatively large field of meanings, most are related to the occupations traditionally practised by the Greeks such as agriculture, livestock breeding and animal training, e.g. baxlaǧï, biyeǧi, bostanǧï čičekči, čoban, χoyanǧï, ičkiǧi, köpekči; crafts and services, e.g. qalayǧï, qatranǧï, sepetči, terzi, tuvarčï, tüt́anǧï, yïlxïǧï, zeytinǧi; kitchen, e.g. čïrlamaǧï, čörekči, pastaǧï, piteǧi; music, e.g. dareǧi, χavalǧï, kemeneǧi, kemenǧeǧi, zurnaǧï; as well as trading and selling the objects of their professional activities. Many names of professions are also evidenced in the main body of Garkavec’s (2000) dictionary as common nouns. Here are some examples from the initial part of this dictionary (letter A): alayaχ ‘servant’ (Gar 38), altïnǧï ‘goldsmith’ (Gar 42), amal ‘porter’ (Gar 45), ambarǧï ‘stock keeper’ (Gar 45), aščï ‘cook’ (Gar 72), atčï ‘stable-lad; horse breeder’ (Gar 62), avǧï ‘hunter’ (Gar 14), ayvaz ‘servant in the kitchen’ (Gar 28), ayvanǧï ‘herdsmen; livestock breeder’ (Gar 29), aydavvǧu ‘driver, carrier’ (Gar 29) and ayuǧu ‘bear keeper and trainer’ (Gar 33). 3. 7. Names of professions found in the surnames of Rostov-on-Don or NorNakhichevan Armenians resettled from the Crimea The Turkic language of Armenians deported from the Crimea in 1779 to the presentday Rostov-on-Don, unlike Armenian Kipchak from Poland and West Ukraine, is unknown. However, the Nor-Nakhichevan Armenian dialect contains many Turkic loanwords (Schütz 1976: 195) which is evident from Malxasyan’s (2001) dictionary. Malxasyan indicated the Turkic origin of approximately 14% words, but as Jankowski (2016: 225) has proved, the real number of Turkic words is much higher, for Malxasyan (2001) did not indicate compounds and in many cases he did not identify Turkic words or attributed them to other languages. Among them there are such words as alayaχ ‘female servant, maidservant; chambermaid; friend’ (M 9), also evidenced in Urum (Garkavec 2000: 38, Jankowski 2016: 228), altʿunǰi ‘goldsmith’ (M 10), aščʿi ‘cook woman’ (M 16), atʿlǝ-xaṙavul ‘horseman, night watchman; body guard; policeman’ (M 8), avǰi ‘hunter’, arabaǰi ‘carter’ (M 20) and many Arabic and Persian names probably borrowed via Turkic, e.g. atʿtʿar ‘herbs seller; hawker, retailer’ (M 8) and ayvaz ‘servant’ (M 13). On the list of surnames appended by Malxasyan to his dictionary, the following are derived from the names of professions: Ayvazyan ← ayvaz ‘servant’ (M 194), Berekčiyan probably ← börekči ‘patty, pie baker’ (M 195), Čobanyan ← čoban 176 ‘shepherd’ (M 203), Čorekčyan ← čörekči ‘bun cook; cookie maker’ (M 203), Čubuχčyan ← čubuχčï ‘?rod fixer’24 (M 203), Demirčyan ← demirči ‘blacksmith’ (M 197), Kaymakčyan ← qaymaqčï ‘producer or seller of cream’ (M 197), Xasabyan ← χasab ‘butcher’ (M 202), Sarafyan ← saraf ‘banker; money changer’ (M 200), Saχaǰiyan ← saχaǧï ‘water carrier’ (M 200), Taščyan ← taščï ‘mason’ (M 200), Topčiyan ← topčï ‘cannoneer or cannon repairer, dealer’ (M 201) and Torpuǰiyan ← törpücü ‘rasper, iron worker, rasp producer’ (M 201). These surnames show that the Crimean Armenians were active in different professions, including financial services, e.g. saraf; kitchen and cooking, e.g. börekči and čörekči; crafts, e.g. demirči and törpücü; construction works, e.g. ?čubuχčï and taščï; and selling, e.g. χasab and qaymaqčï. However, since the Armenians in the Crimea were very active in trade, commerce, crafts and services, they certainly used the corresponding Turkic profession names, as it is evident from the examples cited above. The study of the whole material included in Malxasyan’s (2001) dictionary will certainly extend our knowledge in this aspect. Conclusion As we can see from the relative richness of the terms for professions used in the past, the Crimea is one of the best documented territories of the Turkic world and therefore allows us for findings which are well based on written sources. Although the oldest Crimean Tatar documents perished, there are still many extant to study. Urum material is late, whereas Karaim is earlier, though some questions should be elucidated after the publication of old documents, despite the fact that they are of predominantly religious character. Krymchak and Armenian Turkic are even less known. As can be seen from comparison, many names of professions are common in all sources and some go back to Old Turkic. There is some Mongol influence and, naturally, a strong Arabo-Persian impact. In later periods, the most important influence was coming from Turkey. The Karaims used some names of professions of Hebrew origin and the Krymchak certainly did the same, though this question should be examined. From the names of professions used by the Turkic peoples in the Crimea we see the social and economic reality of the peninsula through Turkic languages. The Crimean Turkic languages were able to express new forms of professional activities and this ability existed across the whole Turkic history of the Crimea. 24 Tur. çubukçu is the name of at least two professions: ‘1. maker or seller of pipe stems’ and 2. hist. servant in charge of smoking pipes’ (TIRS 262). Jankowski (2009: 30) has documented expenditures to çubuḳ ören usta ‘master who fixes rods’ at a construction site, thus this čubuχču can also stay for ‘rod fixer’. 177 Abbreviations A 1 = Atasoy 2017a A 2 = Atasoy 2017b AJ = Aqtay and Jankowski 2015 CC = Codex Cumanicus, see Drimba 2000 G = Grønbech 1942 Gar = Garkavec 2000 KRPS = Baskakow, Zajączkowski and Szapszał (ed.) 1974 M = Malxasyan 2001 OT = Old Turkic TIRS = Alkım, Antel and Avery (et al., ed.). 1991 TS = Akalın, Toparlı and Gözaydın (et al. ed.). 2005 Bibliography Akalın, Şükrü Halûk, Recep Toparlı, Nevzat Gözaydın (et al. ed.). 2005. Türkçe Sözlük. 10. Baskı. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Alkım, U. Bahadır, Nazime Antel, Robert Avery (et al., ed.). 1991. Redhouse yeni Türkçe-İngilizce sözlük. New Redhouse Turkish-English dictionary: Redhouse Yayınevi. Aqtay, Gulayhan, and Jankowski, Henryk. 2015. A Crimean Karaim-English dictionary. 10 000 entries. Poznań: Department of Asian Studies. Atasoy, Faysal Okan. 2017a. Kırım Yurtuna ve ol taraflarga dair bolgan yarlıglar ve hatlar (1520–1742 Kırım Tatarcasıyla yarlıklar ve mektuplar). Metin. 1. Cilt. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu. Atasoy, Faysal Okan. 2017b. Kırım Yurtuna ve ol taraflarga dair bolgan yarlıglar ve hatlar (1520–1742 Kırım Tatarcasıyla yarlıklar ve mektuplar). Dizin. 2. Cilt. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu. Baskakow, N. A., Zajączkowski, A. and Szapszał, S. M. (eds.) 1974. Караимскорусско-польский словарь. Москва: Русский язык. Courteille, M. Pavet de. 1870. ‫اﻟﻠﻐﺎت اﻟﻨﻮاﺋﯿّﺔ و اﻻﺳﺘﺸﮭﺎدات اﻟﺠﻐﺘﺎﺋﯿّﺔ‬. Dictionnaire turkoriental. Destiné principalement à faciliter la lecture des ouvrages de Bàber, d’Aboul-Gàzi at de Mir-Ali-Chir-Nevâī. Paris: L’Imprimerie Impérial. Drimba, Vladimir. 2000. Codex Comanicus. Édition diplomatique avec facsimilés. Bucarest: Editura Enciclopedică. 178 Erdal, Marcel. 1991. Old Turkic word formation. A functional approach to the lexicon. Vol. I–II. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Erdal, Marcel and Iala Ianbay. 2000. The Krimchak Book of Miracles and Wonders. Mediterranean Language Review 12: 39–141. Erhan Aydın. 2008. Eski Türklerde Meslek Adları (Eski Türk Yazıtlarına Göre). Journal of Turkish Linguistics 2,1: 49–66. Garkavec 1999 = Гаркавець, Олександр. 1999. Уруми Надазов’я. Історія, мова, казки, пісні, загадки, прислів’я, писемні пам’ятки. Алма-Ата: Український культурний центр. Garkavec 2000 = Гаркавець, О. М. 2000. Урумський словник. Алма-Ата: Центр Дешт-и Кипчак. Grønbech, K. 1942. Komanisches Wörterbuch. København: Einar Munksgaard. Ianbay, Iala. 2016. Krimchak dictionary. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, Ben-Zvi Institute for the Study of Jewish Communities in the East. Ianbay, Iala, Marcel Erdal. 1998. The Krimchak translation of a Targum Šeni of the Book of Ruth. Mediterranean Language Review 10: 1–53. Jankowski, Henryk. 2006. A historical-etymological dictionary of pre-Russian habitation names of the Crimea. Leiden, Boston: Brill. Jankowski, Henryk. 2009. Two Crimean Karaim financial registers of the 18th century. Archivum Ottomanicum 26: 17–39. Jankowski, Henryk. Karaim mejumas in Eupatoria, In: Tatiana Pang, SimoneChristiane Raschmann, Gerd Winkelhane (ed.). 2013. Unknown treasures of the Altaic world in libraries, archives and museums. 53rd Annual Meeting of the Permanent International Altaistic Conference, Institute of Oriental Manuscripts, RAS St. Petersburg, July 25–30, 2010. Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 245–262. Jankowski, Henryk. 2016. Turkic loanwords in Nor-Nakhichevan Armenian. Iran and the Caucasus 20: 223–235. Jankowski, Henryk, Gulayhan Aqtay, Dorota Cegiołka, Tülay Çulha and Michał Németh. 2019. The Crimean Bible. Vol 1: Critical edition of the Pentateuch, Five Scrolls, Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah. Vol 2: Translation. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Kołodziejczyk, Dariusz. 2011. The Crimean Khanate and Poland–Lithuania: International diplomacy on the European periphery (15th-18th century). A study of peace treaties followed by annotated documents. Leiden: Brill. Kurat, Akdes Nimet. 1940. Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Arşivindeki Altın Ordu, Kırım ve Türkistan Hanlarına Ait Yarlık ve Bitikler. İstanbul : [İÜ] Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Yaıynları. Lessing, Ferdinand D. (ed.). 1960. Mongolian-English dictionary. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. 179 Ligeti Lajos. 1986. A magyar nyelv török kapcsolatai a honfoglalás előtt és az Árpád-korban. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Malxasyan 2001 = Малхасян, А. Г. 2001. Армянско-русский словарь диалекта донских (нахичеванских) артян. Корни слов и фамилий. 10 000 слов. Ростов-наДону: Изд-во Северо-Кавказского научного центра высшей школы. Özyetgin and Kamalov 2009, see Véliaminof-Zernof, V. (ed.). 1864. Pejsax 2005a = Пейсах, Евсей. 2005. Фамилии крымчаков. Кърымчахлар 1: 19– 21. Pejsax 2005b = Пейсах, Евсей. 2005. Прозвища крымчаков – «Лагъап». Кърымчахлар 1: 21–23. Schütz, Edmond. 1976. Armeno-Kiptchakisch und die Krim: In: Gyula Káldy-Nagy (ed.) Hungaro-Turcica. Studies in Honour of Julius Németh. Budapest: 185–205. Shapira, Dan. 2016. A Krymchak Obadiah. Karaite Archives 4: 117–127. Stefaniak-Rak, Katarzyna. 2011. Protokoły rozpraw sądowych XVII wiecznego Krymu. Analiza językowa i kulturowa. Poznań: Adam Mickiewicz University, Department of Asian Studies [unpublished PhD thesis]. Tenišev ed. (1997) = Тенишев, Э. Р. (ed). 1997. Сравнительно-историческая грамматика тюркских языков. Лексика. Москва: Наука. User, Hatice Șirin. 2010. Köktürk ve Ötüken Uygur Kağanlığı Yazıtları. Sözvarlığı İncelemesi. Konya: Kömen Yayınları. Vajsenberg 1913 = Вайсенбергъ, С. 1913. Фамиліи караимовъ и крымчаковъ. Еврейская Старина 6: 384–399. Vásáry, István. 1976. The Golden Horde term daruġa and its survival in Russia. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 30,2: 187–197. Vásáry, István. 1978. The origin of the institution of basqaqs. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 32,2: 201–206. Vásáry, István. 2009. Mongol or Turkic? Notes on bökevül, a military and court official of the Turco-Mongolian polities. In: Volker Rybatzki (et al., ed.). The early Mongols. Language, culture and history. Studies in honor of Igor de Rachewiltz on the occasion of his 80th birthday. Indiana University, 195–207. Véliaminof-Zernof, V. (ed.). 1864. Matériaux pour servir à l’histoire du Khanat de Crimée extrait [...] des Archives Centrales du Ministère des Affaires Étrangeres, à Moscou. Saint-Pétersbourg [the title and the preface also in Russian; reprinted in 2009 in Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu, with the title transcribed from the original Tatar title page as Kırım Yurtına ve ol taraflarga dair bolgan yarlıglar ve hatlar with a preface, bibliography, contents and the translation of Véliaminof-Zernof’s foreword (v–vii) by A. Melek Özyetgin and İlyas Kamalov]. Joannes Lippa: Türkçe Hayvan Masalları Mustafa S. Kaçalin Fabulæ Turcicæ quas in Idioma Latinum Transtulit [Latince Tercümeli Türkçe Hayvan Masalları] Joannes Lippa. C. R. Academiæ Linguarum Orientalium. Alumnus anno 1806, 2+31 yr. [Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Könyvtára Keleti Gyűjtemény – Vámbéry Gyűjtemény Török Q. 60. Macar Bilimler Akademisi Kütüphanesi Doğu Derlemesi Vámbéry Á. derlemesinden]. (http://vambery.mtak.hu/ hu/14-008.htm). Karşılaştırma için kullanılan öbür eserler şunlardır: Aisopos [ö. İ. ö. 6. yy.]: Masallar: Çeviren: Nurullah Ataç. İstanbul 1945; Güzide Masallar, British Museum Or. 7332. sy.’dan Kut, Günay: “Yazmalar Arasında II”, Osmanlı Araştırmaları VII–VIII: İstanbul 1988, 181–198., 193. s.; Beydeba: Kelîle ve Dimne: Çevirenler: Hayreddin Karaman – Bekir Toplaoğlu, İstanbul I. c. 1978, II. c. 1980. 1. Çırtlak1 ile Karıncanıŋ Vak’asıdır Bir çırtlak bütün eyyâm-ı sayfı ötmek ile geçirüp kışa tedârik görmediğinden hengâm-ı şitâda zahîresiz kaldı. Anuŋ bir karınca koŋşusı var idi, ki yazdan soŋra kış geleceğinden gâfil olmayup zahmet ile tedârikin görmiş idi. Çırtlak nâ-çâr olup birkaç dâne istemeğe vardı. Ve mahrûm çokdı. Karınca aŋa bahîllik yüzden gösterüp eyitdi: “Ey benim hemşîrem, yazda işiŋ ne idi. Ve zahîreŋi ne têz düketdiŋ?” dédikte • çırtlak aŋa cevâb vérdi: “Yazdan hêç bir işe el ur[ma]dım. Ançak benim işim ötmek idi.” Karınca aŋa gülerek eyitdi: “Çün-ki işiŋ yaz güninde ırlamak idi, şimdi dahı horonıŋ depmek olsun.” déyü yüzine kapuyı kapadı. Bu aŋa temsîldir ki: ‘Akıllı âdam bu dünyâda dünyânıŋ umûrına ol kadar tekayyüd eylemez ki geleçek zaman[ı] fikr étmeyüp âhiret zahîresiniŋ tedârikin görmeye.2 1 2 cırlayık: toygar kuşu, çalı kuşu. Aisopos: Masallar: 336, Güzide Masallar, 2. 182 2. Kurbağanıŋ Çatladuğı Hikâyetidir Bir kurbağa öküze bakup hased étdi. “Bu ne güzel hayvândır. Ne kadd ü bâlâsı vardır. Ben ne küçüğüm. Ben dahı ol büyüklüğe yetişeyim.” déyi ol murâd éde. Mağrûrlanup şişe şişe bir mikdâr öter, lâkin pek zahmet çeküp kendü[si]ye zor éder, ammâ çalışması fâyda étmeyüp muradına hasret kaldı. “Kiçikliği n’eyleyeyim? Beni utandurur. Öküz gibi béyik olsam gerek. Biraz kendüme zor étdim. Âferîn baŋa. Biraz dahı • şişeyim.” dedi. Ol kadar şişdi ki ‘âkıbet çatladı. Bu aŋa temsîldir ki: Ba’zı kimesneler ziyâde hasedinden helâk olurlar.3 3. Kurduŋ Çobân Olduğu Vak’asıdır Bir sürünüŋ çobânı ve köpeği uyurlarken bir kurt telbislik ile çobân kıyâfetine girer. Ve çalışır ki sürüyü ormana götüre. Göŋlünden tédi: “Eğer sâzı çobâna beŋzerdür isem dahı eyü olur, ammâ beŋzetemeyüp telbîs • sâzı ile kendü[si]yi belâya uğratdı. Ve hem umudundan mahrûm kaldı. Kurduŋ korkulu sâzı çobânı ve köpekleri uyandırdı. Ve kurt telbîsliğini bildürdi. Fakîr kurt çobânuŋ esvâbı ile kaçmağa kâdir olamayup köpekler eteginden tutar ve derisin yırtar. ‘Âkıbet çobân dahı ardından yetişüp taş ile değenek ile ura ura öldürdi. Bu aŋa misâldir ki: Münâfık âdama telbîslik elbette bir hâl ile görinür. İkinci budur ki: Vay hâline, o çobânlarıŋ ki çobân sûretinde hâyin yürekler ile kendileri ve gayrıları cehenneme atarlar.4 4. Kurbağalar[ıŋ] Bir Pâdişâh İstedikleridir Kurbağalar aralarında cümle hükûmetlerini müşâvere édüp mahsûs bir pâdişâh olmaduğından Müşterî’ye vardılar. Ondan bir pâdişâh istediler. Müşterî onlarıŋ dileğini kabûl édip göllerine bir kütük salı vérdi. “Size pâdişâh olsun.” dedi. Pâdişâhıŋ göle düştüğünden çok şamâta édip • kurbağaları korkuttu. Bunlar korkusundan her biri bir deliğe girdi ve gizlendi. Bir zamândan soŋra kurbağalarıŋ biri yüreklenip taşra çıkıp varıp pâdişâhıŋ karşısında durur bakarak göz alışır ve omuzuna biner sevirerek oynarlar. Öbür kurbağaları çağırıp seyrine getirdi. Cümlesi yaklaşıp horlamak ile üzerine çıkdılar. İbtidâ varıp Müşterî’den pâdişâh isteyenler yine varıp şikâyet éttiler, dédiler ki: “Bize diktiğiŋ pâdişâh nasıl pâdişâhdır, tomruktur. Bize hükm étmeğe cânlı pâdişâh gerek.” dédiler. “Olsun, • cânlı göndereyim.” déyip kütüğüŋ yérine turna gönderdi. Bu yeni pâdişâh kurbağalarıŋ çoğunu burnu ile yédi. Kurbağalar tekrâr şikâyete gelip feryâd éttiler: “Yâ Müşterî, bizim pâdişâhımız ne zâlimdir ki, bizi yéye yéye tüketip kökümüzü kesti.” dédiler. 3 4 Güzide Masallar, 3. Güzide Masallar, 4. 183 Müşterî dédi ki: “Siz ne ile hoş olursunuz?” yoksa size her gün yeni pâdişâh [mı] göndereyim?” déye öküz gönderdi. Öküz kendi memleketinde şuraya buraya gezerken kurbağalarıŋ çoğunu bastı öldürdü. Anuŋ ayağı altından halâs olanlar bir fitne kaynatıp Müşterî’ye vardılar. Müşterî gazab édip bunlara dédi ki: “Bu • alçaklarıŋ şikâyetinden ne kadar zahmet çekerim. Evvelki mürüvvetli pâdişâhı istemediŋiz, Üzeriŋize bu kalır. Eğer bir gayrısını korsam evvelkilerden zâlim korum.” Bu aŋa misâldir ki: Hâlimize şükr édelim. Ba’zı kerre tamah belâsıyla hâlimize kâyil olmayıp daha beter zahmete düşeriz.5 5. Bir Köylünüŋ Bülbül ile Geçen Mâcerâsıdır Bir köylünüŋ bir bînazîr bahçesi var idi. Türlü türlü meyveler ve çiçekler[le] donanmış idi. Cümleden bir gül fidanı var idi. Her sabâh üzerinde bir gül açılırdı. Ve köylü gelip anuŋ seyri ile dêvâne göŋlünü eğlendirirdi. Ve aŋa cân u göŋülden ‘âşık idi. Bir sabâh yine ‘âdeti üzre gülüŋ ziyaretine geldi. Gördü, bir bülbül burnuyla gülüŋ yapraklarını dağıtır. Bundan ziyâde elem çekip bülbülü öldürmeğe kasd étti. Bülbül uçtu ve kaçtı. Értesi sabâh yine geldikte yeŋiden açılan gülüŋ üzerinde bülbülü evvelki hâl üzerine • gördü. Yine kaçırdı. Üçüncü gün yine evvelki hâl üzerine görünce gazab{ı} âteşi alevlenip bülbüle intikâm niyyetine tuzak kurdu. Ve tutup kafese koydu. Bülbül niyâz édip eyitti: “Muradıŋ benim sesimi diŋlemek ise benim yuvam seniŋ bahçeŋiŋ köşesinde idi, her gâh bîtekellüf diŋlerdin. Tutup haps etmeğe ne hâcet?” dédi. Köylü “Gülüŋ yaprağını perêşân ettiğiŋden ziyâde elem çektim.” dedi. Bülbül “âh!” édip dédi ki, “Ben gül yaprağını perêşân étmekle habs oldum. Sen ki göŋlümü perêşân édersin. Hâliŋ néce olur?” dedi. Bu aŋa misâldir ki: Bazı kişi bir âdama ta’zîr éder ki kendi[si] daha ziyâde müstehaktır.6 6. Toprak Tencere ile Demir Tencere Vak’asıdır Demir tencere toprak tencereyi da’vet édip “Seyâhat ile gezelim, ‘âlemi seyrân édelim.” dédi. Toprak tencere geri çekilip “Olmaz. Ben gevrekim, olur olmaz şeyden kırılırım ve dağılırım. Sen kalk ki demirsin. Kolayı ile pâre pârelenmezsin ve saŋa zarar olmaz.” dédi. Demir tencere cevâbında der ki; “Sen dahı gel. Hêç korkma. Yolda öŋümüze bir zararlı şey gelirse ben kendim karşılayıp araya gireyim.” dedi. Bu kaville ikisi berâber yola çıkarlar. Uçarak giderken bir birine çatıp toprak tencere çatlar ve pâre pâre olup dağılır. • Bu aŋa misaldir ki: Senden büyük âdam ile ortaklık eyleme.7 5 6 Aisopos: Masallar: 66, Beybeda: Kelîle ve Dimne: II. 97. Güzide Masallar, 5. 184 7. Horozuŋ İnci ile Vak’asıdır Bir horoz toprağı eşerken bir inci bulur. “Ne eyleyeyim bunu?” dédi. “Mâlı ve zîneti göŋlüm istemez. Birkaç tâne ister. Bir inciniŋ baŋa fâydası nedir? Bir inci kursakta erimez. Onu satayım, bahâsıyla alış veriş édeyim.” “Bulduğum inciyi saŋa véreyim, baŋa ne vérirsin.” O dahı “Bir arpa véreyim.” dédi. Horoz “Benim dahı istediğim budur.” dédi. Bunuŋ üzeri[si]ne pâzâr édip ikisi dahı râzî oldular. Bu aŋa temsîldir ki: Bize fâydalı olan şeyi severiz ve tutarız. Fâydalı olmayan şeyi hêç sevmeyiz ve tutmayız.8 • 8. Bir Yarasa[nıŋ] Gelincik ile Geçer Mâcerâsıdır Bir yarasa bir gelinciğiŋ yuvasına girmiş. Gelincik gazaba gelip “Sen cinsimiziŋ yavuz hasmı olan yarasa olasın.! Ne yüz ile, bizim evimize gelirsin?” Senden intikâm alayım. Tutayım, ekl édeyim!” dedi. Yarasa helâk sadedinde olup kendi[si]ni kurtarmak için “Be devletli, baŋa niçin darılırsın? Ben yarasa değilim. Hêç yarasaya beŋzemem. Kanatlarımdan bellidir ki ben su kuşuyum.” Bu söz ile korkulu yerden sağ kurtuldu. • Bir iki gün geçirdikten soŋra gâfil yarasa bir gayrı gelinciğiŋ dahı yuvasına geldi. Tekrâr korkulu yérde tutulup yine kendisini hîle ile kurtardı. Gelincik buŋa darılıcak, yarasa dédi ki: “Ey gelincik, yavuzlanma bilirim seniŋ kuşlarla ‘adâvetiŋ çoktur, ammâ ben kuş değilim. Bak gör ki tüyüm yoktur.” dédi. Bu hîle ile ondan dahı kurtuldu, kaçtı. Bu aŋa misâldir ki: Ba’zı âdam vardır ki türlü türlü kıyâfetlere girip tebdîl olur. Bu fend ile muhâtaralı yérlerden kurtulur. İkinci fâydası budur ki: Çok âdam var ki, sofuyla sofu maryol9 ile maryol olur. Her kişiniŋ göŋlünce hareket édip kendi râhatı için belli bir hâlde durmaz.10 • 9. Kedi ile Tavuklarıŋ Mâcerâsıdır Bir âdamıŋ bir kedisiyle, birkaç tavukları var imiş. Kaçan tavuklarından birini tutmak isterse kaçarlardı. • Tutmak murâd éttikte ziyâde zahmet çeker imiş. Bu hâl kedi[ye] güç gelip. Tavuklara ta’n édip dér ki “Siz ne mekûrs[uŋ]uz. Siziŋle bir efendiniŋ etmeğin yériz. Ben her zamân dizinde otururum, kaçmam. Beni okşar. Hêç kendi[si]ne zahmet vérmem, ammâ siz kaçarsınız. Tutmak istedikte zahmet çeker, hêç ‘aklınız yoktur.” dédi. Tavuklar dédiler ki: “‘Akılsız kimdir, sen mi yoksa biz 7 8 9 10 Aisopos: Masallar: 351, Güzide Masallar, 6. Güzide Masallar, 7. ‘haydut’ Yazmada: mâryök. Aisopos: Masallar: 251, Güzide Masallar, 8. 185 mi? Hêç sen kendi cinsini[ŋ] tavada büryân olduğunu gördüŋ mü? ammâ biz her gün görürüz. Néce kaçmalayım.” dédi. Bu aŋa temsîldir ki: Ba’zı âdam kendi kendi[si]ni cümlesinden ‘âkil sanır, ammâ haberi yok ki ‘âkilleriŋ yanında hepsinden ahmaktır.11 10. Sıçan ile Arslanıŋ Vak’asıdır Bir gün ittifâk bir sıçan, gâfil deliğinden arslanıŋ öŋüne çıkar. Arslanı görünce buŋa dehşet el vérip titremeğe başlar ve arslana ricâ édip “Lütf eyle. Beni öldürme. Âzâd eyle.” der. Arslan dahı anuŋ ricâsını kabûl édip âzâd éder. Birkaç • günden soŋra avcılarıŋ dâmına giriftâr olup beyhode halâsa çalışır. Fâyda étmez. Sıçan arslanıŋ bu hâlini görüp etek der-miyân éder. Gelir, dişleriyle tuzağıŋ bendlerini keser ve arslanı kurtarır. Bu aŋa temsîldir ki: Cümleye iyilik ve ihsân eyle. Eğer senden alçak olursa da bir gün gelir saŋa imdâdı dokunur. İkinci fâydası budur ki: Bir müne’’am âdam Allâhu ta’âlâ rızâsı için fukâraya sadaka eyleye Allâhu ta’âlâ birine on bel-ki yüz mükâfat éder.12 11. Keklik ile Bir Tavşanıŋ Vak’asıdır Bir keklik ile bir tavşan bir tarlada birbiriyle ülfet ve sohbet éderler. Bir gün bir avcı, bir alay köpek ile bunlarıŋ izine düşüp kovalar. Tavşan ise ‘âdeti üzere kaçar, ammâ nâçâr olup tutulur. Ba’dehu cân ha[v]liyle çalışarak ve çabalayarak köpekleriŋ ağzından kurtulur, ammâ gövdesi diş yarasından pâre pâre kana müstağrak ol hâlle refîkı olan keklik yanına gelir, hemen cân vérir. Keklik tavşanıŋ bu yüzden • helâk olduğunu görücek onu istihzâ édip seğirtip kaçmakta “Seniŋ marifetiŋ çok imiş.” dédi. Ol mahalde köpekler dolaşırken kekliğiŋ üzerine uğradılar. Keklik uçup kelbleriŋ hücûmundan kolay kurtuldu. Amâ bir atmaca üzeri[si]ne zor ile gelip tutup öldürdü. Bu aŋa misâldir ki: Kimseniŋ musîbetini gülüp maskara étmemek gerek. Bel-ki o belâ saŋa dahı gelir.13 11 Güzide Masallar, 9. 12 Aisopos: Masallar: 206, Güzide Masallar, 10. 13 Güzide Masallar, 11. 186 12. Sefere Giden Arslanıŋ Vak’asıdır Cânavarlarıŋ pâdişâhı olan bir arslan sefere gitmek murâd étti. Ve cümle cânavarları çağırıp her birine mertebesine göre bir hizmet ta’yîn eyledi. Ve sefer mühimmâtını gördü. Ayınıŋ hizmeti yürüyüşte ileri gitmek idi. Maymûnuŋ işi o idi ki telbîslik ile düşmânları eylendire. Bu esnâda bir kimse arslana dédi ki: “Eşek ile tavşanıŋ saŋa fâydası nedir? Ko yürüye ki gitsinler. Eşek ne kadar ahmaktır. Tavşan ise ziyâde korkaktır.” dedi. Arslan cevâb vérdi ki: “Onlardan ferâgat étmem. Eşek aŋırdıkça mehter gibi düşmânları korku éder, ve ürkütür. Tavşan • dahı ulak. Emrlerimizi götürür. Bunuŋ ikisinden dahı ferâgat étmem.” dédi. Bu aŋa misâldir ki: ‘Âkil olan pâdişâh kullarınıŋ en ednâsından bile hüsn-i tedbîr ile bir hizmet vücûda getirir. ‘Âkil olan âdama her şeyden fâyda mukarrerdir.14 13. Arslan ile Avcınıŋ Vak’asıdır Bir avcınıŋ bir kelbi var idi. Bir gün kayb oldu. Avcı fikr éder ki bunu kurt yédi. Ziyâde darılıp o gazab ile bir çobâna uğrayıp kurduŋ makâmına sorar ki, vara intikâm ala. Çobân cevâb vérip der ki; “O yaramazı bu dağda bulursun. Avcı sa’y ile dağa seğirtip gâfilen • arslanıŋ mağarası öŋüne arslana sataştığı[nı] görücek korkusundan titreyip sağa sola bakar k[i] Allâh tarafından bir kapı açılıp kurtula. Bu aŋa misâldir ki: Bir âdam korkulu yérlerde yürekli görünür. Çok âdam uzakta olan korkulu yere tâlib olur, ammâ korkulu yérde hâzır oldukta korkusundan bayılır.15 14. Eşek ile Sâhibleriniŋ Vak’asıdır Bir bostancınıŋ bir eşeği var idi. O eşek hâline kanâ’at étmeyip şikâyet édip der ki: “Her gün sabâhtan kalkaırm. • Otları meydâna taşırım.” dédi. Ba’dehu bir debbâğıŋ eline düştü. Yeŋi sâhibinden dahı hoşnûd olmayıp “Ey vay, bostancınıŋ hizmetini bilmedim. Bu deriler otluktan ağırdır?” déye yine şikâyet eylerdi. Ondan bir kömürcünüŋ eline düştü. Fakîr eşek “Şimdiden soŋra râhat olurum.” dédi, ammâ ne ihtimâl bir iki gün geçtikte kömürcünüŋ éttiği cefâlara sabr édemeyip” ne olaydı, evvelki hâlim elime gireydi?” dédi. Bu aŋa misâldir ki: Kendi hâlimize şükr édip kanâ’at étmeyiz. Ziyâde taleb étmekle bazı kerre hâlimiziŋ dahı beterine düşeriz.16 14 Güzide Masallar, 12. 15 Güzide Masallar, 13. 16 Aisopos: Masallar: 273, Güzide Masallar, 14. 187 15. Suçlu Eşeğiŋ Vak’asıdır Bir zamân hayvânlarıŋ arasında tâûn düşüp katı çok kırıldı. Cümle bir araya gelip “Bu belâdan ne şekil kurtuluruz?” déye müşâvere éttiler. Öyle ma’kûl gördüler ki: “Allâhu ta’âlâ bize gazab étti. Aramızdan birini kurbân édelim, ki bâkîlerimiziŋ üzerinden bu âfet def’ ola.” dédiler. Ve öyle kavl éttiler ki: “Her kişi kendi ettiği kabahati söyleye. Harâmı ziyâde olan kurbân ola.” Arslan, ki cümleniŋ ulusu, dile gelip eyitti: “Nâhak yére çok koyun kaptım, yédim.” • dédi. Tilki eyitti “Sultânım, bu suç değildir. Koyunları yédiŋiz, ammâ sürüye ri’âyet éttiniz.” Ba’dehu ayı, kurt ve kaplan suçlarını söylediler. Dâiresinde olan hoş âmedciler şerlerinden korkup kabahatlerini hayra yordular. Cümleniŋ âhirinde miskîn eşek dile gelip “Bugün çayırdan geçerken uğrulayın bir azacık otlak yédim.” dédi. Cümlesi ittifâk édip eşeğiŋ bu ‘azîm kabahati için başımıza bu belâ geldi. Émdi eşek kurbân olmak gerek.” déye cümlesi hükm éttiler. Bu aŋa misâldir ki: Devletliler arasında eğer devletli iseŋ hêç suçuŋ yoktur. Eğer fakîr iseŋ hükm édip seni kurbân éderler.17 16. Arslanıŋ Sâyir Hayvânâta Ziyâfet Vak’asıdır Bir gün arslan sâyir hayvânâta ‘azîm ziyâfet édip cümlesini da’vet étti. Arslanıŋ sarâyı bir mağara idi. Ve leş ile dolu idi. Lâşeleriŋ yığınından ziyâde bed râyiha çıkardı. Çün cânavarlar mağaranıŋ içine içine girdikte ayı fenâ kokuya tahammül édemeyip burnunu kapa[dı]. Ayınıŋ nâzikliği pâdişâh olan arslana hoş gelmeyip fî ‘l-hâl ayıyı pâraladı. Ba’dehu maymûn arslanıŋ göŋlünü hoş âmedîye başlayıp mağarayı medh édip güzel sözler söyler. “Bu mağaranıŋ ne güzel latîf • kokusu vardır. Hêç çiçekleriŋ ve ‘anberleriŋ kokusu buŋa beŋzemez.” déyip sakalıŋa güler. Arslan bunuŋ medhinden yavuzlanıp maymûnu boğazladı. Birazdan soŋra arslan tilkiye suâl édip “Sen nécesin? Alıştıŋ mı? Kokudan hazz éder misin? Doğru söyle!” dédi. Tilki cevâbında dedi ki: “Pâdişâhım, zükâm oldum. Burnum kokuyu duymaz.” déye bu hîle ile kendi[si]ni ölümden kurtarır. Bu aŋa misâldir ki: Bir âdam ulular yanında ne ziyâde mübâlağa édip sakala güle ve ne ‘âdetinden eksik söyleyip devletlileriŋ ‘aybını âşikâreye çıkara.18 17 Güzide Masallar, 15. 18 Aisopos: Masallar: 209, Güzide Masallar, 16. 188 17. Yılanıŋ Başı[nın] Kuyruğuyla Münâkaşasıdır Yılanıŋ başı ve kuyruğu benîâdeme muzır ve müzâ olduğu için ziyâde zarar éderler. Bir gün başı ile kuyruk arasında • ileri geçmeden okurdu. Çok nizâ’ oldu. Baş kendi ‘âdeti üzre dâyimâ ileri giderdi. Kuyruk ise hased édip Müşterî’ye şikâyet édip der ki: “Niçin dâyimâ başa tâbi’ olup istediği yére ardı sıra sürünüp giderim? Anuŋ kulu ve câriyesi değilim ma’a-bende ikimiz hemşîre gibiyiz. İkimiziŋ kanı ve eti birdir. Hâlimize ne sebeb türlü türlü olur. Nöbetle ileri gidelim. Şimdi ben aŋa kılavuz olayım. Hakîkat doğru yola götüreyim. Nöbet geldikte o dahı kılavuz olsun.” dédi. Müşterî bunuŋ dileğini kabûl étti, ammâ hem baş hem kuyruk helâk oldu. Çün-ki kuyrukta göz yoktur. Ya taşa ya hendeğe düşer. ‘Âkibet • döğüne döğüne gitti. Başıyla helâklik belâsına uğradı. Bu aŋa misâldir ki: Halk pâdişâha tasallut édip hükm éderse elbette memleket yıkılı[r]. Eğer reyîs buyuru[rsa] sâyir halk aŋa mutî’ olmak hakdır, ve vâcibtir, zîrâ sâir cemi zamanda gözsüz olan kılavuz ol[a]maz.19 18. Ölüm ile Âdamıŋ Vak’asıdır Yüz yaşında bir ihtiyâr ölüm haddine geldi. Cân vérirken ölüme şikâyet édip dédi ki: “Ey sert olan ölüm, niçin baŋa bu kadar siklet édersin? Daha vasiyyet étmedim. Evvelden baŋa bir haber vérse idiŋ ki hâzır olaydım. Lütf eyle, biraz sabr eyle, evlâdımı evlendireyim. Ve başladığım binâyı bitireyim.” dédi. Ölüm cevâbında dédi ki: “Hey ihtiyâr, seniŋ ne şikâyet édecek hâliŋ vardır, ne mırıldarsın? Seni aldattım 19 Aisopos: Masallar: 288, Güzide Masallar, 17. Arslan, Kaplan, Tilki ve Çakalın Hikâyesi Arslan, kaplan, tilki ve çakal uzun zamandır arkadaşmışlar. Bir gün bir koyun avlayıp öldürmüşler. Arslan “Kim üleştirecek?” diye sormuş. Öbürleri “En küçüğümüz çakaldır, o üleştirsin.” demişler. Çakal koyunu dörde ayırmış. Herkese bir ülüş vermiş. Arslan “Benimki hangisi?” deyince “Senin hakkın şu, al bakalım.” der demez arslan kızmış, “Sen üleştirmekten anlamıyorsun.” deyip çakalı bir vuruşta öldürmüş. Çakal ölünce aralarında “Bu işi kim yapacak?” demişler. Telki “Ben yaparım.” demiş. Koyun ile çakalın etlerini birbirine karıştırdıktan sonra, hepsini altı ülüşe ayırmış. Arslan “Biz üç kişiyiz. Sen altıya ayırdın. Bu ne demektir?” demiş. Tilki “Şunlar arslanın hakkı, şunlar en büyüğümüzün hakkı, şunlar da içimizde kimin gözleri kıp kızıl ise onun hakkı.” deyip hepsini arslana verince, arslan “Sen ülüşü kimden öğrendin?” diye sormuş. Tilki “Çakalın yediği tokattan öğrendim.” demiş. Hanoteav: Essai de la langue Temaşek: Paris 1860 133. s.’dan Saim Ali Dilemre: Genel Dil Bilgisi: Ankara 1942, 1. c. 422. s. Hüseyinoğlu Abû Sa’îd Mansûr: Nasru ‘d-Durar; Isfahânli Muhammedoğlu Hüseyin Râğıb: Muhâdarâtu ‘l-Udabâ ve Muhâvarâtu ‘ş-Şu’arâ va ‘lBulağâ; Cavzîoğlu, ‘Alîoğlu Abû ‘l-Farâc ‘Abdu ‘r-rahmân: Kitâbu ‘l-Azkiyâ; Mevlânâ: Mesnevî; Haz. Abdülbaki Gölpınarlı, 2. basılış İstanbul 1-2. c. 1981, 1. c. 3121. b.; Bâûnî, Ahmedoğlu Muhammed: Farâidu ‘s-Sulûk fî Târîhi ‘l-Hulafâ va ‘l-Mulûk; Lâmi’î-Zâde Abdullah: Letâif-nâme: Hazırlayan: Yaşar Çalişkan, İstanbul 1978, (208. s.) 134. lâtife. Lâmi’î-Zâde Abdullah Çelebi: Latîfeler: Hazırlayan: Yaşar Çalişkan, İstanbul 1994, (246. s.) 202. lâtife. 189 mı? Doğru söyle. Bu vilâyette sen[iŋ] kadar kim yaşadı? Ne kadar âdamıŋ hastalığını ve ölümünü gördün. O gördüklerinden hisse almadıŋ mı? ‘Âkıbet • sen dahı öleceksin. Bu aŋa misâldir ki: ‘Âkil olan gaflet édip ölümden aldanmaz. Lâzım olacağı âhirete cümleden hâzırlayıp kendi kendi[si]ne “Elbette, yarın öleceğim mukarrerdir.” déye haber vérir. İkinci temsîl [bu]dur ki: Peymânesi dolup ölüme pek yakın olanlar ekser dertle olurlar.20 19. Yaşlı Bir Kocanıŋ Ecel ile Vak’asıdır Zamânla bir köyde bir fakîr ve pek yaşlı koca var idi. O koca bir gün ormanda bir ağır yük odun kesip iki kat olup adım adım şehre satmağa götürürdü. Ziyâde tâkati tâk olup bir gün bıraktı ve diŋlenmek umuduyla biraz oturdu ve hâlinden şikâyet édip “Bu dünyâda ne kadar huzûrum vardır? Dâyimâ mihnet çekerim. ‘Acaba benden fakîr ve nâçâr kimse var mıdır? Ammâ ne çâre elimden gelir? ‘Avratı ve oğlancıkları beslemeğe mecâlim yok. Ya ecel, nerdesin? Gel cânımı al. Bârîsi kurtulayım.” dédi. • Fî ‘l-hâl ecel âdam sûretinde gelip karşısında durdu. Kocaman görünce korkup “Sen kimsin?” déye sordu. “O çağırdığıŋ ecel benim.” dédi. Koca bu hâli görünce şaşıp “Gel, kerem eyle, kardeş. Şu odunları merkebe kaldırı ver. Pek yoruldum. Şehri varıp satayım. Akçasıyla evime ekmek alayım.” dédi. Bu aŋa misâldir ki: Ölüme hêç kimse râzî olmaz. Meşhûr sözdür “Ölümden, mihnet çekmek yeğdir.” dérler. Halk arasında darb-ı meseldir “Biŋ yıl toprak altında yatmaktan bir sâ’at toprak üstünde durmak iyidir.” dérler.21‘‘ 20. Tilki ile Karganıŋ Vak’asıdır Bir karga bir pârça peynîri çalıp minkârıyla tuttu. • Ve bir ağacıŋ dalına kondu. Bir hilekâr tilki meğer ağacıŋ dibinde oturmuş karganıŋ ağzında peynîr görüp onu elinden almak için bir hîle tertîb étti. Kargaya hitâb édip dédi ki “Hey cânım karga, ne güzelsin ve ne zarîfsin. Eğer sesin tüyüŋ gibi güzel ise cümle kuşlarıŋ pâdişâhı olmağa lâyıksın.” dédi. Sâde-dil karga bu medhinden şâd olup ötmeğ[e] niyyet édip ağzından peynîr düştü. Fî ‘l-hâl tilki seğirtip kavradı ve eyitti “Cânım karga, öğren ki her sakala güleniŋ medhini diŋleyen tahsîlini beyhode zâyi’ éder ve ömrünü beyhode geçirir. Bu saŋa vérdiğim ders ağzıŋdan • aldığım peynîrden daha iyidir.” déyip yoluna gitti. Bu aŋa misâldir ki: Her sakala güleniŋ medhini diŋleyip aŋa mağrûrlanma ki o âşikâre seniŋ zararına çalışır.22 20 Güzide Masallar, 18. 21 Aisopos: Masallar: 78, Güzide Masallar, 19. 22 Aisopos: Masallar: 165. 190 21. Arslan ile Öküzler Meselidir23 Arslan iki öküzüŋ üzerine geldi. Öküzler ikisi dahı bir yére müctemi’ olup boynuzları ile döğüşmeğin arslan aralarına girmek mümkün olmadı. Arslan • bunları birbirinden ayırmak için hîle ve hudaya sülûk édip “Ben size taarruz étmem.” déyi biri birinden ayırdı ve ayırdıktan soŋra birer birer ikisini dahı yırttı ve yédi. Émdi bunuŋ mânâsı budur: • Yâni beŋzer iki mediîneniŋ ahâlîsi re’y-i vâhid üzerine müttefik ve müttehid olursalar onlarıŋ üzerine düşmân zafer bulmağa kâdir olmaz, ammâ kaçan ki rey ve tedbîrleri birbirine muhâlif ve muğâyir olsa cümlesi • helâk olurlar.24 22. Böğürtlen Dikeni Diken bir kere bostâncıya dédi ki: Eğer benim için bir kimse ihtimâm édip beni bostânıŋ ortasına dikeydi ve beni her gün suvarıp baŋa hizmet édeydi pâdişâhlar benim • letâfetime ve çiçeklerime ve meyvelerime mâyil olurlar idi. Pes bostâncı onu alıp bostanıŋ ortasında en latîf yerde dikti ve günde ikişer def’a suvardı. O sebeble diken bostânıŋ içinde çoğalıp kavi oldu • ve budakları cümle etrâfında olan ağaçlara müteferri’ oldu ve kökü yer içine kuvvetlenip dağıldı ve diken ile bostân dolup kimse içine girmeğe kâdir olamadı. Bu mesel aŋa beŋzer ki: Bir âdam bir yaramaz kişi ile konuşsa • ne kadar aŋa i’zâz u ikrâm eylese şirret ve temerrüdü ziyâde olup ve aŋa ihsân éttikçe o esâeti ziyâde eyler. 23. Arslan ile Öküz Hikâyesidir Arslan bir kere bir öküzü öldürmek murâd eyledi. • lâkin öküz şedîd olmağın bir uğurdan üzerine hücûm étmeğe cüret ve cesâret édemedi. Pes bir hîle ile onu tenhâsına getirmek kasd eyledi dédi ki: Ben bir kuzu boğazlamışım, benim konağıma gel onu pişirip seniŋle bile yéyelim. Öküz da’vete • icâbet étti. Konağa geldiklerinde öküz gördü ki arslan çok katı odun tedârik eylemiş ve iri şişler peydâ étmiş. Öküz bunu gördükten soŋra oradan kaçmağa yüz tuttu. Arslan dédi ki: Ey birâder, buraya gelmiş iken ne ‘aceb kaçıp gidersin? • Öküz dédi ki: Bu tedârik ki sen étmişsin bir kuzu pişirmek için değildir, bel-ki kuzudan büyük nesne içindir, anuŋ için kaçarım. Bunuŋ ma’nâ ve misâli budur ki: Âkil olan kimseye lâzımdır ki: Düşmânı tasdîk eyleye ve-lâkin düşmâna enîs ve yâr olmaya.25 • 23 Z Ksie,gozioru Ignacego Bernsteina w Warszawie Ms. 2522/3. sy. 25b–34a yaklaşık 1760’ta yazıldı. 24 Aisopos: Masallar: 71. 25 Aisopos: Masallar: 211. 191 24. Tavşanlar ile Tilkiler Meselidir Bir kere kerkesler26 ile tavşanlar mâbeyninde ceng vâki’ oldı. Tavşanlar tilkilerden imdâd ve i’ânet istediler. Tilkiler dédiler: Eğer biz siziŋ keyfiyetinizi bilmeseydik ve siziŋ ‘adüvvüŋüz olanlarıŋ kuvvetini bilmeyeydik • size imdâd eyler idik. Bu meselden hisse budur ki: İnsân kendisinden kuvvetli ile ceng ve muhârebe étmemek gerekir.27 25. Demirci ile Kelb Meselidir Bir demirciniŋ bir köpeği var idi. Demirci her bar ki • iş işler idi kelb o vakitde dâyim uyur idi. İşten usanıp yoldaşları ile ekmek yémeye oturduklarında kelb uyanıp yanlarına gelirdi. Demirci kelbe dédi ki: Ey yaramaz kelb, biz çekiç vurduğumuz zamânda yer sarsılır iken ne ‘aceb uyanmazsın, ammâ biz ekmek • çiğner iken ayağımızıŋ sedâsından uyanırsın? Bu aŋa beŋzerdir ki: Ba’zı âdam namâz için ezân okunurken uyur ve işitmez, ammâ savt-ı nâyı ve ırlamak sedâsını ve sâyir lehv ve lu’ba müte’alık olan niyâzları işidicek ardınca gider • goş-i cân ile istimâ’ eyler. Ve dahı aŋa beŋzer ki: Ba’zı âdam kendü sanına yaramayan nesneye dikilir, kendüsi için hem dünyâda hem âhiretde lâzım olan nesneden teğâfül éder. Bu ise cehl-i ekber ve sefâhat-ı mahzdır.28 26. Sivrisinek ile Öküz Meselidir Bir sivrisinek öküzüŋ boynuzuna konmuş, zann étmiş ki öküze kendi vücûdı ağır gele. Pes öküze démiş ki: Eğer ben saŋa ağır isem baŋa haber eyle uçayım, • gideyim. Öküz démiş ki: Ey filân, nereye konduŋ ve nereye zarar éttin, hêç bilmem. Bu mesel aŋa benŋzer: Bir kimse za’îf ve hor hakîr, murâd eyleye ki kendüsini ululukla zikr éderler.29 • 26 27 28 29 kartallar. Aisopos: Masallar: 190. Aisopos: Masallar: 345. Aisopos: Masallar: 189. 192 27. İnsân ve Tay Bir kişi bir yüklü kısrağa binip giderken kısrak doğurdu. Pes yavrusu anası ardınca yürüdükten soŋra yolda durdu ve sâhibine dédi ki: Yâ sultânım, görürsün ben küçüğüm, yürümeğe kâdir değilim. Sen gidip beni burada • alı korsaŋ ben helâk olurum, ammâ beni yanına alıp büyüyünce beslerseŋ seni arkama alıp dilediğiŋ yére fî ‘l-hâl irsâl éderim. Bu meseliŋ fâydası budur ki: Bir kişi gerektir ki in’âm ve ihsânı ehline ve müstahakkına eyleye ve onu tarh ve redd eylemeye. 28. Arslan ile Tilki Hikâyesi • Bir arslan bir kere güneşiŋ issiliğinden bir mağaranıŋ içine gölgelenmek için girdi. Mağaranıŋ içinde yattıktan soŋra bir karınca gelip arkasında yürümeğe başladı. Arslan dahı ayağa sıçrayıp korkusundan sağına soluna nazar eyledi ve tilki • onu görüp güldü ve dédi ki: Karıncadan bile korkmam sen niçin korkarsın? Arslan dedi ki: Benim ondan havfım yoktur, lâkin böyle za’îf hayvân benim üzerime bindiğinden baŋa ‘âr geldi. Bunuŋ misâli budur ki: ‘Âkil olana horluk ve noksân ‘ırz, ölmekten • yaramazdır ve beterdir.30 29. Karı ile Tavuk Meselidir Bir ‘avratıŋ bir tavuğu var idi. Her gün gümüş yumurta yumurtlardı. Bir gün karı kendisi kendisine dédi ki: Eğer ben tavuğuŋ yémini ziyâde édersem günde ikişer yumurta • yumurtlar. Kaçan ki yémini ziyâde vérdi, tavuğuŋ havsalası çatladı, öldü. Bu meselden fâydadır ki: Néce kimse çok fâydaya tamah étmekle asıl malını yitirir, her hâlde kanâ’at evlâdır.31 30. Tavşan ile Dişi Arslanıŋ Meselidir Tavşan bir kere bir dişi arslana dédi ki: Ben her yıl néce evlât doğururum ve sen ‘ömrüŋde yâ bir yâhûd iki evlâd ancak doğurursun. Dişi arslan aŋa dedi: Gerçi sen iki ben bir doğururum, ammâ arslan doğururum. Bu meselden • murâd budur ki: Mübârek ve hünerli bir veled ‘âciz ve hünersiz çok evlâddan yeğdir.32 30 Aisopos: Masallar: 213. 31 Aisopos: Masallar: 90. 32 Aisopos: Masallar: 194. 193 Kaynak metinlerle münasebetler, alıntılar Muhammed b. ‘Alî az-Zahirî as-Samarqandî, Sinbâd-nâme, Arapça Sindbâd-nâme ile birlikte, nşr. Ahmed ATEŞ, İstanbul 1948, 59/34. 336. s. (İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınlarından, no. 343. Edebiyat Fakültesi Şarkiyat Enstitüsü) Yazılışı: 1161. Bal arısıyla karıncanın hikâyesi Arının biri, kovanınadn pek neşeli, pek kararsı bir hâlde uçup gidiyordu. Bir karınca, onu böyle sevinçli, kulluk hükmünden çıkmış görünce Dedi ki: Neden sen böyle neşelisin; niçin sevincinden bir yere sığmıyorsun? Arı, a karınca dedi, neden neşeden gönlüm coşmasın; niçin neşelenmeyeyim? Nerde istersem orda oturuyor, ne dilersem seçip yiyorum. Dilediğim gibi dünyayı gezip dolaşmadayım. Artık bir an bile neden kederleneyim ki? 3708. Bu cevabı verip yaydan fırlayan ok gibi bir kasap dükkânına dek uçtu gitti. 3709. Dükkânda yağlı bir et parçası vardı; ona konup hemencecik iğnesini daldırdı. 3710. Kasıp, ete satırı çalınca arı, ikiye bölünüverdi: 3711. Yere düştü. Karınca haberdar olunca gelip yarasını aldı; 3712. Yolda zorlukla onu hem çekiyor, hem de diyordu ki: 3713. Dilediği şeyi yiyen, gönlünün istediği yere konan kişi 3714. Dilemediği şeyi görür, senin akıbetine uğrar. 3715. Dilediği gibi yaşayan, senin gibi ölür. Bak, sonun ne oldu? 3716. Haddin olmayan yere adım attın, ama bilgisizlik yüzünden kendi kendinin kanına girdin. 3717. Az ululanmak, az kibirlenmek, güzel huy ve kerem sahibi olmak gerek. 3718. Gücü kuvveti olanın, terazide Kafdağı kadar ağır gelenin bile ağırlığı, değeri, bir arpadan daha aşağıdadır. 3719. İnsanları az incit; bu huyu seç. Hafif ve çevik ol. Bundan daha kısa, bundan daha yakın yolun yoktur senin. Ferideddin-i Attar: İlâhî-nâme: Çeviren: Abdülbaki Gölpınarlı, İstanbul 1971, II, 19–20. s. 3702–3719. b. Dünya edebiyatından tercümeler. Şark-İslâm klasikleri: 16. 2432. var-ımış çırlayık bir beli ince anuŋla kardaş olmış bir karınca 2433. édermiş çırlayık her geçene sâz geçenden kesmez [imiş] hergiz âvâz 2434. geçene sâz-ıla âheng édermiş âvâz-ıla cehânı teng édermiş 3702. 3703. 3704. 3705. 3706. 3707. 2432 Bir ince belli cırlayık varmış. Bir karınca onunla kardeş olmuş. 2433 Cırlayık her gece saz çalarmış Geçeninden asla sesini kesmezmiş. 2434 Geçene saz çalarak ahenk tutarmış. Saz ile cihanı dar edermiş. 194 2435. 2436. 2438. 2439. 2430. 2440. 2441. 2442. 2443. 2444. 2445. 2446. 2447. 2448. 2435 2436 2437 2438 2439 2440 2441 2442 2443 2444 2445 2446 2447 2448 kış érişdi görür keser âvâzın nécedür halka çalmaz oldı sâzın kanat büzülüp ağaca yapışur kalur ağaç butağında apışur gelüp ol kardaşı karıncaya dér kerem ét baŋa öldüm bir gıdâ vér begâyet hâlüm olmışdur mükedder baŋa rahm eyle beni koma ebter elüm dut yohsa oş gitdi hayâtum néye dönmiş-durur bir gör e zâtum alur karınca bundan bu cevâbı dönüp çırlayıka étdi hitâbı dédi yaz olıcak çekersin âvâz édersin her kişiye gökçek sâz tolar âvâzuŋla işbu ‘âlem âvâzuŋdan geçemez degme âdem kılursın her kişiye dürlü sâzı olursın her bir-ile dil-nevâzı âvâzuŋdan senüŋ kimse turumaz o râhat gölge bulup oturumaz geçene eyleyince sâz u sozı görürsin kış [ki] kılsa kâd-ı rozî be hey bî-çâre kış érdi ölürsin uzakdur kış [sen] néce dirilürsin bu sâzuŋdan saŋa oş érdi nâle bu gıllet üstüŋe oldı havâle bu sözi çırlayık karıncadan goş édüben bu arada oldı hâmoş Kış gelmiş sesini keser olmuş. Uzun zamandır sazını çalmaz olmuş. Kanadını büzmüş ağaca yapışmış. Ağaç budağında apışmış kalmış. Gelip karınca kardeşe “Öldüm, bir büyüklük et de yiyecek ver.” demiş. Hâlim çok acı. Bana acı, beni açlığa ter etme. Elimi tutmazsan hayatım kayar. Neye döndüğümü bir gör bak. Karınca bundan bu cevabı alır. Dönüp cırlayıka hitap eder. Yaz olunca avaz çekersin. Herkese güzel saz edersin. Avazınla bu âlem dolar. Avazından kimse geçemez. Herkese bir türlü saz çalarsın. Her birinin gönül okşayanı olursun. Senin avazından kimse duramaz. Rahat göle bulup oturamaz. Geçene yanıp yakınıyorsun. Kış kısmetten mahrum ederse görürsün. Hey zavallı kış geldi öleceksin. Kış uzundur sen nasıl yaşayacaksın. Bu sazından sana işte ah kaldı. Bu aldanış sana yollandı. Cırlayık bu sözü karıncadan işitince oracıkta susuverdi. 195 Kemal: Selâtîn-nâme: Hazırlayan: Öztürk, Necdet: XV. Yüzyıl Tarihçilerinden Kemal Selâtîn-nâme (699-895/1299-1490): İstanbul 2001, 207–209. s. 2432–2448. b. Anhegger, Robert: “Türk Edebiyatında Ağustosböceği ile Karınca Hikâyesi”, Türkiyat Mecmuası: İstanbul 1951, IX, 73–94. s. 0910. 0911. 0912. 0913. 0914. 0915. 0916. 0917. 0918. 0919. 0920. 0921. 0910 0911 0912 0913 0914 0915 0916 0917 0918 0919 0920 0921 meger bir cırlayık fasl-ı şitâda karıncadan taleb étmiş zevâde démiş karınca halk işlü içinde dürişürken sen ağaçlar başında ne ararduŋ ki şimdi zâr u muhtâc kaluban olısarsın bî-gümân aç çağırduklaruŋ ol dem dürlü tuyuk kuruyup degmez olduğuna oyuk iŋen hoşdur meşakkat çekmez iken kayurmak geregi gerekmez iken dürüş kardaş déyü yélter gerekdür belê her gün yarak bir gün gerekdür evüŋ var ise havluŋ içre hâlî kimsene koyma yığ içine çalı él él üzre olur âlemde çokdur ev ev üzre velê olduğı yokdur müdâm olmaz muvâfık çün iki hu kaçan bir yérde sığar iki ulu sakın konşı hakkından olma ğâfil ki konşı hakkı Taŋrı hakkıdur bil çün incitmez meseldür konşusın kurt sen incitmek neden olanı hem yurt biri biriŋüz ile kamu demde gerek hoşluğuŋuz şâdîde ğamda Meğer bir cırlayık kış mevsiminde karıncadan bir azık istemiş. Karınca çalışan halk içinde çalışırken sen ağaç başlarında ne arıyordun? Şimdi yorgun bitkin düşüp elbette aç kalırsın. O zaman ırladıkların mâni idi. Bu, kuruyup korkuluk olduğuna değer miydi? Şıkıntı çekmiyorken, gereği gerekmezken düşünmek gerek. Kardeşim çalış, diye dürten gerek. Her gün hazırlık bir gün ger içindir. Avlunda boş bir evin varsa, kimseye bırakma içine çalı yığ. Âlemde el el üstünde olur da ev ev üstünde olmaz. İki huy bir arada, iki ulu bir obada olmaz. Komşu hakkından gafil olma. Komşu hakkı Tanrı hakkıdır. Atasözüdür, kurt komşusunu incitmezken, senin ev komşunu incitmen nedendir? Birbirinizle her zaman mutlulukta mutsuzlukta hoş geçinmeniz gerek. 196 0922. 0923. 0925. 0926. 0927. 0928. ki ol derd-i şikemden olıcak zâr düşer dâmen götürmek saŋa nâ-çâr ağırla konşıyı izzet gerekse hudâdan rahmet ü cennet gerekse men ekreme’l-câre fe-kad ekremehu’llâhu ta’âlâ fe-lehu’l-cennete müdâm ét yatlu konşıya velê âl yüzüŋ suyuŋı yüzsüzden satun al göçür cehd eyle anı ya göçegör binüp yügrüge yüzsüzden kaçagör yavuz da söyleseŋ yok aŋa kayğu çeker mi rûspî kîr el korhu yaramaz konşınuŋ tutma gümânı yédi konşıya dek érer ziyânı Güvâhî: Pend-nâme (Öğütler ve Atasözleri): Hazırlayan: Mehmet Hengirmen, 159– 161. s. 910–927. b. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı yayınları: 549. 1000 Temel Eser Dizisi: 99. Hikâyelerin listesi 1. Çırtlak ile Karıncanıŋ Vak’asıdır 2. Kurbağanıŋ Çatladuğı Hikâyetidir 3. Kurduŋ Çobân Olduğu Vak’sıdır 4. Kurbağalar[ıŋ] Bir Pâdişâh İstedikleridir 5. Bir Köylünüŋ Bülbül ile Geçen Mâcerâsıdır 6. Toprak Tencere ile Demir Tencere Vak’sıdır 7. Horozuŋ İnci ile Vak’sıdır 8. Bir Yarasa[nıŋ] Gelincik ile Geçer Mâcerâsıdır 9. Kedi ile Tavuklarıŋ Mâcerâsıdır 10. Sıçan ile Arslanıŋ Vak’sıdır 11. Keklik ile Bir Tavşanıŋ Vak’sıdır 12. Sefere Giden Arslanıŋ Vak’sıdır 13. Arslan ile Avcınıŋ Vak’sıdır 14. Eşek ile Sâhibleriniŋ Vak’sıdır 15. Suçlu Eşeğin Vak’sıdır 0922 O açlıktan kıvranırken ister istemez sana da paçaları sıvamak düşer. 0923 Sana itibar edilsin, Allah’tan rahmetine cennetine girdirsin istiyorsan komşuna iyilik et. Komşusuna iyilik edeni yüce Allah cennet ile mükâfatlandırır. 0925 Kötü komşuyu hep idare et. Şerefini şerefsizden satın al. 0926 Gayret et, ya onu göçür ya sen göç. Yüzsüzden yüğrüğe bin de kaç. 0927 Kötü de söylesen kaygılanmaz. Orospu sikten korkmaz. 0928 Yaramaz komşunun hatırını sayarsan yedi komşuya dek ziyanı değer. 197 16. Arslanın Sâyir Hayvânâta Ziyâfet Vak’sıdır 17. Yılanıŋ Başı[nıŋ] Kuyruğuyla Münâkaşasıdır 18. Ölüm ile Âdamıŋ Vak’sıdır 19. Yaşlı Bir Kocanıŋ Ecel ile Vak’sıdır 20. Tilki ile Karganıŋ Vak’sıdır 21. Arslan ile Öküzler Meselidir 22. Böğürtlen Dikeni 23. Arslan ile Öküz Hikâyesidir 24. Tavşanlar ile Tilkiler Meselidir 25. Demirci ile Kelb Meselidir 26. Sivrisinek ile Öküz Meselidir 27. İnsân ve Tay 28. Arslan ile Tilki Hikâyesi 29. Karı ile Tavuk Meselidir 30. Tavşan ile Dişi Arslanıŋ Meselidir On Some Taboo Words in Yeniseian Bayarma Khabtagaeva Department of Altaic Studies, University of Szeged The paper discusses different fifteen native Yeniseian1 and eleven Altaic loanwords connected to the category of taboo words. Through this semantic category, some linguistic criteria peculiar to the Yeniseian languages and their Altaic elements are presented. The basis of the paper is the comparative (Werner 2002) and etymological dictionaries of the Yeniseian languages (Vajda & Werner: in preparation), and a recently published monograph of the author on the Altaic elements of Yeniseian languages (Khabtagaeva 2019). Taboo topics in ethnographic works The valuable information on ethnography and taboo words of the Ket and Yeniseian people we can be gained mostly from the various ethnographic works of Russian and Soviet researchers. A prominent name among them is that of the Ketologist professor Alekseenko, from St. Petersburg, whose works covered practically every cultural aspect of the Ket people. Beginning with 1959 she published about 40 papers and a monograph on Ket culture based on her fieldwork materials (e.g. 1960; 1971; 1976; 1985). The monograph The Ket people investigates the various ethnographic aspects of Ket everyday lifestyle such as house, food, means of transport, spiritual words, shamanism, tribes etc. of the Ket people (Alekseenko 1999). In 1966 Dul’zon published the Ket texts — folktales describing everyday 1 The Yeniseian languages belong in the Palaeo-Asiatic (or Palaeo-Siberian) language group, which also includes the Yukaghiric, the Kamchukotic, the Amuric and the Ainuic languages. The earliest documented sources of Yeniseian languages are relatively recent. The first short lists of Yeniseian words and phrases were compiled at the end of the 17th and in the 18th century by European travelers such as Witsen (1692), Messerschmidt (1720-1727), and Strahlenberg (1730). The most recent works on historical linguistics by Starostin (1982), Georg (2007: 16– 20; 2018: 141), and Vajda (2014, personal communication) divide the Yeniseian languages into at least three sub-branches: Ket-Yugh, Pumpokol and Assan-Kott. Arin is either connected with Pumpokol or Ket-Yugh or represents a fourth sub-branch. Today the Yeniseian language family is represented by only the three surviving dialects of Ket. The Yugh language lost its last fluent speaker in the 1970s, Kott disappeared before 1850, while Assan, Arin and Pumpokol vanished in the 1700s (for more details on the Yeniseian languages, see Khabtagaeva 2019: 7–11). 200 activities such as hunting, which were recorded by the author in the villages representing various Ket dialects (Dul’zon 1966). There were also very important publications by Dolgih in the field of Ket ethnography, especial Ket tribal structure (Dolgih 1934, 1982). Some folklore and historical ethnical questions are discussed by Nikolaev (1985). An excellent paper on Ket shamanism was published in English by Vajda in 2010. He provides a comprehensive introduction of earlier studies on shamanism including the information about the expeditions conducted among the Ket people during the 20th century. The paper provides an overview of practices, beliefs, accessories, and linguistic aspects of Ket shamanism. In addition, comprehensive information on and an annotated bibliography of ethnographic works of Yeniseian people published before 2000 are found in the Source guide by Vajda (2001). Taboo words in Yeniseian From a semantic point of view, the taboo words can be examined as part of various lexical groups. The present paper discusses twenty-six Yeniseian words connected to names of evil spirits, terminology related to shamanism, and words associated with the bear and its hunting. The names of evil spirits Like many other Siberian people, Kets have traditionally held a mythopoetic explanation of the world. In the Ket tradition, the structure of the world is reconstructed from three worlds: the Earth, which is surrounding by water area, the Heaven with its seven parallel circles, the seventh being the Sky, and seven cave dungeons supposedly found under the Earth. The Earth is inhabited by Kets, i.e. ‘bright and pure’ people, animals and birds, as well as numerous owners of places with a good or neutral nature. Under the Earth, the evil spirits have their own special world, which is also the world of the dead people and animals (for more details, see Alekseenko 1999: 55–62). Nine Yeniseian names of evil spirits are discussed below. Six of them have a Yeniseian origin (1–6) and three words are Altaic loanwords (7–9). Evil spirits’s names of Yeniseian origin Morphologically, the majority of native Yeniseian words presented below are built through compounding (2–6), and one term contains a nominalizer +s (1): (1) Ket l’ɨtís; Yugh lɯtjsi, Pumpokol lɨcɨ ‘devil’ (Werner 2002/2: 16) < Yeniseian *lɯˀtj ‘forested upland’ +si {NMLZ} (Vajda & Werner: in preparation). 201 (2) Ket qɔnij ‘myth. evil spirit; name of one of the seven Ket souls’ (Werner 2002/2: 104) < Yeniseian qɔˀn ‘dark’ and ij ‘spirit’ → ‘literally dark spirit’ (Vajda & Werner: in preparation). (3) Ket dɔt ~ dɔːt ‘evil forest spirit’ (Werner 2002/1: 202) cf. Ket dɔ́ttet ~ dotet ‘an evil male forest spirit’ < dɔt ‘evil forest spirit’ and tēˑt ‘husband’; Ket dɔtam ‘a malevolent female forest spirit, wife of dɔ́ttet ~ dotet’ < dɔt ‘evil forest spirit’ and āˑm ‘mother’ (Vajda & Werner: in preparation). An important element of the Ket people’s life is the Earth, it is represented in the image of the Mother, as the ancestress (for more details on cultural aspects, see Alekseenko 1999: 60–61). The next three Yeniseian words include the word baˀŋ ‘earth’: (4) Ket báŋl’ɨtis’ ‘underground devil’; Yugh báŋlɨt’si (Werner 2002/1: 105) < baˀŋ ‘earth’ +di {Ket POSS} and lɨtís ‘devil’ (Vajda & Werner: in preparation). (5) Ket báŋul’s’ ‘underground devil (spirit)’ (Werner 2002/1: 106) < baˀŋ ‘earth’ and ūˑl ‘water’ +s {Ket NMLZ} (Vajda & Werner: in preparation). (6) Ket baŋos ~ baŋgos ~ baŋguˑs; Yugh báŋguˑs ‘earth spirit’ (Werner 2002/2: 105) < baˀŋ ‘earth’ + kuːs ‘spirit’. The word was discussed among false etymologies or coincidences (Khabtagaeva 2019: 360). From a semantic point of view, the Ket and Yugh words indicate a borrowing from Siberian Turkic forms maŋus ~ moŋus ~ muŋus ‘devil’, which are of Mongolic origin with the original meaning being ‘fabulous, usually many-headed monster, a kind of ogre’,2 but the Yeniseian words have their own etymology. In turn, the Mongolic word maŋγus ‘monster, a kind of ogre’ has possibly a Yeniseian etymology. 2 Cf. Southern Siberian Turkic: Yenisei Turkic: Shor möŋüs ‘bad’; Altai Turkic: Altai moŋgus ‘huge’; Tuba muŋus ‘devil’; Quu moŋus ‘strong, brave, skilful; hero, warrior; evil, wicked’; Teleut manġïs ‘locust’; Sayan Turkic: Tuvan maŋgïs ‘monster’; Northern Siberian Turkic: Yakut maŋïs ‘insatiable, greedy’; Dolgan moŋus ‘monster’; Kipchak Turkic: Siberian Tatar, Kirgiz n.a.; Turki: Yellow Uyghur maŋgïs ‘devil (lives on the moon)’. ← Mongolic maŋγus ‘fabulous, usually many-headed monster, a kind of ogre’: Middle Mongol: Secret History manggus ~ mangqus; Literary Mongolian mangγus; Modern Mongol: Buryat mangad; Khalkha mangas; Kalmuck maŋγs. 202 The evil spirits names of Turkic origin One of the results of my research was to establish that the Kott, Arin and Assan languages have the greatest number of the Turkic loans 3 in comparison to loans attested in Ket, Yugh and Pumpokol (Khabtagaeva 2019: 370). A good example to prove this claim is the word ‘devil’ in Yeniseian. If Ket, Yugh and Pumpokol have a Common Yeniseian form (1), whereas Kott (8, 9), Arin (7) and Assan (8) have Turkic loanwords: (7) Arin ajna ‘devil’ (Werner 2002/1: 21) ← Turkic *ayna ‘devil, demon’ ← ? Persian: cf. Yenisei Turkic: Khakas ayna ‘devil’; Sagai, Koibal ayna ‘devil, evil spirit’; Kyzyl aynä; Shor ayna ‘devil, demon’; Altai Turkic: Altai n.a.; 4 Quu ayna ‘demon, evil spirit’; Teleut ayna ‘devil; evil spirit’; Sayan Turkic n.a.; Chulym Turkic ayna ‘devil; evil spirit’; Remaining lgs. n.a. The Arin word is obviously a Turkic loanword, the source of borrowing for the Arin form includes Yenisei Turkic, Altai Turkic or Chulym Turkic. From an etymological point of view, Erdal (1991: 591) at the basis of the Mongolic ayi- ~ ayu- verb ‘to fear, become frightened or afraid’5 reconstructs the Turkic verb *ayX(also see the reconstruction of West Old Turkic, Róna-Tas & Berta 2011: 4496 ). Clauson (ED 274b) suggests that the Turkic and Mongolic resemblance is accidental. More likely, the Turkic forms are connected to Persian hajnā+ (Stachowski 1996: 102; 2006: 109; Pomorska 2012: 301). Recently, Nevskaya (2017) published an insightful paper dedicated to this Siberian Turkic word, where she also suggested the Indo-Iranian origin. (8) Kott âsa ~ asa ~ áša; Assan asa ‘devil, evil spirit’ (Werner 2002/1: 61) ← Turkic *aza < *aδa ‘devil, demon, evil spirit’: cf. Old Turkic ada ‘danger’; Yenisei Turkic: n.a.; Altai Turkic: Altai aza ‘demon, evil spirit (name of bad spirit in Altai mythology)’; Qumanda aze ‘spirit, ghost, bad smell’; Quu aza ~ aze ‘devil, demon’; Sayan Turkic: Tuvan aza ‘evil spirit, Satan’; Tofan aza 3 4 5 6 Of the Turkic languages, only Siberian Turkic had direct linguistic contacts with Yeniseian. It seems that two layers may be distinguished: Yenisei Turkic, including the Khakas language with its dialects (Sagai, Koibal, Kachin, Kyzyl) and Shor, and Altai Turkic, including Qumanda, Quu and Tuba kiži dialects and Literary Altai language. Rare similarities may be observed with Sayan Turkic, Chulym, Yakut, Dolgan languages and Siberian Tatar dialect. Fuyü data are also important because of some similarities with Yenisei Turkic. Only these mentioned Turkic languages and varieties are considered in this paper. n.a. indicates that the form is not available, it may be present but not found in the consulted dictionaries. Cf. Mongolic: Middle Mongol: Secret History ayu-; Hua-yi yi-yu ayu-; Mukaddimat al-Adab ayi- ~ ai-; Literary Mongolian ayi- ~ ayu-; Modern Mongol: Buryat, Khalkha ai-; Kalmuck ǟ-; Dagur ai- ~ ay-; Khamnigan ai- (also, see Nugteren 2011: 275–276). Cf. Turkic: West Old Turkic *ayï- ~ *äyi- ‘to fear, to be afraid’ → Hungarian ijeszt [iyest] {< *ije-Ast-} ‘to frighten’, ijed [iyed] {< *ije-Ad-} ‘to be frightened, to take fright’. 203 ‘devil’; Chulym Turkic n.a.; Yakut n.a.; Siberian Tatar aza ‘bad spirit, demon’; Kirgiz ada ‘devil, evil spirit’; Fu-yü azï ‘ghost’. The Yeniseian words clearly belong to the loanwords of Altai Turkic. The devoicing of original intervocalic z > s is regular for Kott loanwords7 (Khabtagaeva 2019: 218) due to the absence of the original consonant *z in Yeniseian (Starostin 1982: 148). This change points to early borrowing. In spite of its non-typical form, the Altai Turkic word aza ‘devil, demon’ is probably related to the Old Turkic form ada ‘danger’ (Clauson ED: 40a). According to the phonetic rules of Altai Turkic, the Old Turkic ada had to develope into *aya, in turn, the Altai Turkic form with intervocalic z is typical of Yenisei Turkic 8 (Johanson 1998: 102). It is important to mention that the word for ‘devil, demon’ in Yenisei Turkic is ayna (see below Arin ajna ‘devil’), which is also an unusual feature. The Altai Turkic form was probably borrowed from Yenisei Turkic. For details on irregular reflexes of *d in South Siberian Turkic, see Nugteren (2012: 75– 86). A new etymology has been recently proposed by Nevskaya, who connects this term with an Indo-Iranian stem with the original meaning ‘serpent or dragon’ and adds it to the group of Wanderwörter (Nevskaya 2017: 218–219). (9) Kott aka ‘devil’ (Werner 2002/1: 22) ← Turkic *aqa ‘elder brother; senior relative, elderly man; courteous address to elders; totem; fetish’: cf. Old Turkic aqa ‘elder brother’ (DTS); Yenisei Turkic: Khakas aġa ‘a head of a tribe; grandfather; father’s elder brother; courteous address to elders; taboo bear; ancestor; totem; fetish’ (Butanaev); Shor aqqa ‘grandfather from father’s side’; Altai Turkic: Altai aqa ‘elder brother; grandfather’s brother; hon. for older people’; Tuba aga ‘elder brother’; Qumanda aga ‘father’; Quu, Teleut n.a.; Sayan Turkic: Tuvan akï ‘elder brother’; Tofan acha ‘elder brother’; Chulym Turkic aġa ‘father’; Yakut aġa ‘senior; father; ancestor’; Dolgan aga ‘father’; Siberian Tatar aġa ‘elder brother, uncle’; Kirgiz aġa ‘elder brother, uncle; senior relative’; Fu–yü n.a.; Kazak aġa ‘elder brother; senior’; Yellow Uyghur aqa ‘elder brother; Buddhist monk’ (For etymological background and data, see ESTJa 1974: 70, 121; Räsänen VEWT 13a; SIGTJa 2001: 291–292). 7 8 E.g. Kott bosarak ‘ruddy colored (said of red fox fur)’ ← Turkic bozraq < bōz ‘grey, brown’ +rAK {Turkic denominal noun suffix, which forms elatives and comparatives}; Kott esirolog ‘drunk (adj.)’ ← Turkic äsäriklig < äsär- ‘to be or become drunk, intoxicated’ -(X)K {Turkic deverbal noun suffix}, +lXK {Turkic denominal noun/adjective suffix}; Kott kasak ~ kasax ‘healthy, health’ ← Turkic qazïq ‘health’ < *qaδïġ < qaδ- ‘to be hard, firm, tough’ -(X)G {Turkic deverbal noun suffix}, etc. E.g. Old Turkic adaq ‘leg, foot’ ~ Khakas azax (cf. Yellow Uyghur azaq, Fu-yü azïx); Old Turkic qudruq ‘tail’ ~ Khakas xuzurux (cf. Yellow Uyghur quzïrïq); Old Turkic bedük ‘large, high’ ~ Khakas pözĭk (cf. Yellow Uyghur pezïk), etc. (For more examples, see Nugteren 2012: 76). 204 The Kott word for ‘devil’ is absent in other Yeniseian languages. Due to the taboo character I assume that it might be borrowed from Turkic ‘elder man, elder relative’. From an etymological point of view, the Turkic word belongs to the category of nursery words, it is present in almost all Modern Turkic languages, and it is also present in almost all Middle and Modern Mongolic languages with the same meaning of ‘elder brother’ (for data, see Nugteren 2011: 266). Words connected to shamanism Every Ket person was animated by seven different spirits a·p, i·j, iˀl, hɔnɔl’, qɔktij, qɔnij, ul’bej and átpej ~ átpet (Werner 2002/3: 419). The number seven figures prominently throughout Ket folklore and beliefs. Among these seven spirits, ul’bej is the most important for a person’s well-being. The rest were acquired from eating various plants and animals, and little is known about their individual characteristics. Unlike the other spirits, which could inhabit plants and animals as well as humans, ul’bej could only animate a human being or a bear, the latter being regarded as a lost human relative (Vajda 2010: 130). The Ket people believed that every person possessed an ul’bej, and a person without it was considered as hopelessly ill or dead (Alekseenko 1999: 60–61). (10) Literally, the word means ‘water-wind’ and is often translated as ‘soul’ in descriptions of Ket spiritual culture: Ket ul’bej; Southern Ket ulvej; Yugh úl’bej ‘the main human (out of the seven spirits said to be associated with each person)’ (Werner 2002/2: 330, 336) < *ulj(əŋ) ‘wet’ + *bej ‘wind’ (Vajda & Wener: in preparation). (11) For an indication of a ‘shaman’s soul’, the Ket people use the Turkic word qut ‘soul, spirit’. The notion of qut is conceptualized as an anthropomorphic spirit passed down from one generation to the next as a shaman’s gift (for details on the ethnographic background, see Alekseenko 1984: 56; Vajda 2010: 133). From a linguistic point of view, the borrowed form was probably *qudu, with the voiced consonant d in intervocalic position (Khabtagaeva 2019: 274–275). The intervocalic consonant d changed regularly to r in the Ket dialects (Werner 1990: 35). The final vowel in Northern and Central Ket dialects could be the vocative form (Georg 2007: 117). The source of borrowing is still unclear. The Ket forms may have been borrowed from Tungusic or directly from Turkic: Southern Ket qùt ~ qùr ‘the great “first” person; shaman’s main spirit helper’; Northern Ket qùr̄ e, Central Ket qùde ‘make magic (said of a shaman)’ (Werner 2002/2: 139) ← Northern Tungusic: Ewenki kutu ‘soul; happiness, good luck, success’ ← Turkic qut ‘soul; spirit’: 205 Podkamennyi Ewenki kuta ~ kutu; Northern Ewenki: Yerbogachon, Ilimpeya; Southern Ewenki: Nepa, Sym, Upper Lena, Nercha; Eastern Ewenki: Aldan, Uchur, Sakhalin, Barguzin kutu ‘happiness, good luck; well-being’; cf. Northern Tungusic: n.a; Southern Tungusic: Jurchen hūh-t’ūh-rh ‘happiness’; Manchu huturi ‘happiness, good luck; well-being; benefaction’; Tungusic ← Turkic qut ‘soul; spirit’: cf. Old Turkic qut ‘the favour of heaven; good fortune; happiness; spirit, soul, strength’ (DTS); Yenisei Turkic: Khakas xut ‘soul, spirit, strength’; Shor qut ‘soul’; Altai Turkic: Altai kut ‘soul, strength; embryo’; Tuba, Qumanda n.a.; Quu kut ‘soul’; Teleut qut ‘soul; means, remedy’; Sayan Turkic: Tuvan kut ‘soul; life-giving power’; Tofan n.a.; Chulym Turkic qutu ‘soul’; Yakut; Dolgan kut ‘soul’; Siberian Tatar qot ‘a kind of rite’; Kirgiz kut; Fu-yü got ‘soul’; Kazak qut ‘happiness’; Yellow Uyghur n.a. (For details on the etymological background of the Turkic word, see Räsänen VEWT 305a, Clauson ED: 594 and ESTJa 2000: 175–177). (12) The Ket word ‘sorcerer’ in shaman’s speech is probably connected with the Mongolic word nökör ‘friend, comrade, companion; husband’. The problematic side of the etymology is the absence of any other direct Mongolic borrowings into Ket. The Mongolic etymology is fitting from a semantic point of view: Ket nikkor ‘sorcerer (in shaman’s speech)’ (Vajda & Werner: in preparation) ← Mongolic *nökör ‘friend, comrade, companion; husband’: cf. Middle Mongol: Preclassical Mongol nökür; Secret History nökör; Hua-yi yi-yu nökör; Mukaddimat al-Adab nöker ~ nökör; Literary Mongolian nökör; Modern Mongol: Buryat nüxer; Khalkha nöxör; Oirat dial. nökär; Kalmuck nökr; Dagur nuγur; Khamnigan nüker ~ neker. There is a rich terminology of shaman’s paraphernalia in the Ket language. Linguistically, some of the terms were discussed by Vajda (2010). The ethnographic description was examined in detail in various works by Alekseenko (1982, 1984, 1999: 54–55). Recently, a paper about Ket shaman drums from the collections of the museum’s Kunstkamera in St. Petersburg and the Ethnographic museum of the Kazan university was published by Duvakin (2019). (13) The next Ket word is connected to the Ewenki dialectal form *kulitkōn. The proposed etymology is strengthened by the lexical coincidence, while from a phonetic perspective, the internal syllable -lit- is deleted due to the monosyllabic structure of Ket words, which is a typical feature of some Altaic loanwords in Yeniseian (Khabtagaeva 2019: 273–274): 206 Ket kɔɣɔ́n ‘the image of snake in the shaman’s costume; copper pendant of the shaman’s costume’ (Werner 2002/1: 445) ← Tungusic: Ewenki *kulitkōn < kulitkān ‘the image of snake in the shaman’s costume’ < kulīn ‘snake’ +tkĀn {Ewenki diminutive suffix: for function, see Vasilevič 1958: 791}: cf. Barguzin, Sakhalin Ewenki kulitkān ‘the image of snake in the shaman’s costume’ < kulin ‘snake’: Northern Ewenki: Yerbogachon, Ilimpeya; Southern Ewenki: Podkamennyi, Nepa, Tokma, Nercha, Northern Baikal; Eastern Ewenki: Aldan, Uchur, Urmi, Chumikan, Sakhalin, Barguzin kulin; Upper Lena kolin; cf. Northern Tungusic: Lamut qulin ~ quličān ~ qolisān ~ kuličan ~ quličān ‘mosquito’; Negidal kolixān ~ kulikān ‘worm, bug’; Southern Tungusic: Oroch kulæ ‘worm (common name for worms, snakes, and caterpillars)’; Udihe kuliga ‘id.’; Ulcha qoli ‘kind of aquatic insect’, qula ‘worm’; Orok qola ~ qolia ~ qoliγa ‘insect, worm’; Nanai qolã ‘worm; caterpillar; insect’; Southern Manchuric: n.a. (for all Tungusic data, SSTMJa 1: 428b). Words associated with the bear and its hunting The special category of taboo words includes the terminology connected with bear hunting. From an ethnographic point of view, there is a rich literature about the bearfeast. Ethnographer Alekseenko wrote that the Ket people believed the bear to be a special animal with a soul, while other animals do not have a soul; it has an ability to understand the language of animals and people. In one paper, which is dedicated to the bear-feast among Ket people (Alekseenko 1985), she describes how they hunt for bear, never saying the word ‘to hunt’, saying instead that “he was invited by an old man to visit him”. The Ket people believed that in the shape of a bear a deceased senior relative visits a hunter and his family, the ‘deceased relative’ could ‘visit’ no more than seven times, not earlier than seven years after death, and no more than once a year. The ceremony included two stages: the men ate the bear’s head, thereby expressing the bear’s rebirth; and communicated with the ‘guest’-bear, i.e. treated, gave the gifts for their protection in future hunting (Alekseenko 1985: 93). A bear was called as an ‘old man, grandfather, father-in-law, maternal uncle or forest man’ (Alekseenko 1960) and the bear’s body parts’ names were also taboo. Below are some words connected to the designation of the bear, of Yeniseian (14, 15, 16) and Turkic (17) origin, and the bear’s body parts’ names of Yenisian (18, 19, 20, 21, 22) and Tungusic (23, 24, 25) origin are listed, respectively. One Tungusic loanword is connected to bear hunting (26). 207 Taboo designations for bear (14) Ket áldɛŋ; Yugh aːħrdjɛŋ ‘forest people > taboo bears’ (Werner 2002/1: 25) < Yeniseian *al ‘deep in the forest’ and *djɛˀŋ ‘people’ (Vajda & Werner: in preparation); (15) Ket baːt ‘old man > taboo bear’ (Werner 2002/1: 111, 315), cf. Ket qájgus’-baːt ‘taboo bear’ < qajgus ‘forest spirit’ and baːt ‘old man’ (Werner 2002/2: 63); (16) Ket qīˑp, Yugh χēp, Arin qip ‘grandfather > taboo he-bear’ (Werner 2002/2: 90); (17) The word for designation ‘bear’ in Kott is kaltum. I assume that it was borrowed from Turkic, a compound word kara yoldu ‘literally with black stripes’, which is existed in Altai Turkic Quu dialect as a ‘brown bear’ (TSSDAJa 93). The final Kott -m is likely the Yeniseian adjective suffix (for function, see Georg 2007: 142) and the amalgamation occurred (Khabtagaeva 2019: 339): Kott kaltum ‘bear’ (Werner 2002/1: 406) < *kaltu +(X)m ← Turkic kara yoldu ‘brown (colour of animal)’ < kara ‘black’ + yoldïg ‘striped’ (cf. Altai Turkic: Quu dial. qara yoldu ‘brown bear’: < kara ‘black’: cf. Old Turkic qara; Yenisei Turkic: Khakas xara; Sagai, Koibal, Kachin qara; Kyzyl χara; Shor qara; Altai Turkic: Altai; Tuba; Qumanda; Quu; Teleut qara; Sayan Turkic: Tuvan; Tofan qara; Chulym Turkic qara; Yakut xara; Dolgan kara ~ xara; Siberian Tatar qara; Kirgiz kara; Fu-yü gar; Kazak qara; Yellow Uyghur qara; + yoldu ‘striped’ < *yol ‘road, way; streak, stripe’ +lXK {Turkic denominal adjective forming suffix: for function, see Erdal 1991: 121}: cf. Old Turkic yōl; Yenisei Turkic: Khakas; Sagai čollïġ < čol; Koibal yollïġ; Kyzyl šol; Shor čol; Altai Turkic: Altai d’ol; cf. yoldū (R); Tuba d’ol; Qumanda d’ol ~ t’ol ~ čol; Quu yoldïg < yol; Teleut yol; Sayan Turkic n.a.; Chulym Turkic čol ~ yol; Yakut suollāx < suol; Dolgan huol; Siberian Tatar yulaqlï < yulaq ‘stripe’ < yul ‘road’; Kirgiz žoldū < žol; Fu-yü yol; Kazak žol; Yellow Uyghur yol. Taboo names of bear’s body parts (18) Ket kɔnil ‘taboo bear’s nose’ < Yeniseian kɔːn ‘chipmunk’ and iˀl ‘song, to sing’ +s {Yeniseian NMLZ} → literally ‘whistling of a chipmunk’9 (Vajda & Werner: in preparation); 9 In the Ket culture bears are believed to lure chipmunks by imitating their mating calls in spring (Vajda & Werner: in preparation). 208 (19) Ket báŋul’ ‘taboo boiled bear liver’ (Werner 2002/1: 106) < Yeniseian baˀŋ ‘earth(-colored)’ and ul’ ‘water’ (Vajda & Werner: in preparation); (20) Ket boktʌŋ ‘taboo bear’s kidneys’ (Werner 2002/1: 139) < Yeniseian bɔˀk ‘fire’ and tʌˀŋ ‘stones’ → literally ‘fire stones’ (Vajda & Werner: in preparation); (21) Ket àtís’ ‘taboo bear tongue’ (Werner 2002/1: 77) < Yeniseian *aˀq ‘trees’ and *phis ‘protruding end’ → literally ‘splayed roots of an uprooted tree’ (Vajda & Werner: in preparation); (22) Ket àtə́p ‘taboo bear’s mouth’ (Werner 2002/1: 80) < Yeniseian *ēˑ ‘iron’ and *tāˑph ‘hoop’ → literally ‘pliers’ (Vajda & Werner: in preparation); (23) The etymology of the Ket word ‘bear eyes’ may be connected to the Podkamennyi Ewenki adjective hugdï ‘rapacious, predatory bear’ with the Ket plural suffix -ŋ (Khabtagaeva 2019: 276): Ket húktɛŋ ~ huktɛn ‘taboo bear eyes’ (Werner 2002/1: 328) < huktɛ +ŋ {Ket plural: for function, see Georg 2007: 92–93}: *huktɛ ← Northern Tungusic: Ewenki hugdï ‘rapacious, predatory’ < hug ‘bear, predator’ +dï {Ewenki denominal adjective suffix: for function, see Vasilevič 1958: 755}: Podkamennyi Ewenki hugdï ‘rapacious, predatory’; cf. Northern Ewenki: Yerbogachon; Southern Ewenki: Podkamennyi, Nepa, Upper Lena; Eastern Ewenki: Aldan, Uchur, Chumikan hug ~ hūg ‘bear; hungry’; cf. Northern Tungusic: Lamut hukečen ‘bear’; Negidal xūγēčēn ~ xūxēčēn; Southern Tungusic: n.a. (SSTMJa 2: 337a). (24) Possibly, the next Ket word was borrowed from the Podkamennyi Ewenki compound word hepete tïle ‘bear bacon fat’ (Khabtagaeva 2019: 281). The initial Ewenki h- changed to q- in Ket, which is a typical feature of Tungusic loanwords (Khabtagaeva 2019: 308). Additionally, an amalgamation occurred, and the original final vowel is deleted. In turn, the etymologies of the Tungusic words are unknown, since they exist only in a few Ewenki dialects: Ket qʌbdal ‘slice of bear bacon fat’ (Werner 2002/2: 141) ← Tungusic: Podkamennyj Ewenki hepete tïle ‘bear bacon fat’: < hepete ‘bear’ (SSTMJa 2: 368): Southern Ewenki: Podkamennyi hepete; cf. Remaining lgs. n.a.; 209 + tïle ‘bear bacon fat’ (SSTMJa 2: 181b): Northern Ewenki: Yerbogachon; Southern Ewenki: Podkamennyi tïle ‘bear bacon fat, bear’; Northern Ewenki: Yerbogachon, Ilimpeya; Southern Ewenki: Podkamennyi, Sym; Eastern Ewenki: Zeya, Aldan, Uchur tïle- ‘to eat bear meat’; cf. Remaining lgs. n.a. (25) The following Ket word is obviously related to the Ewenki word, in which possibly, semantic change occurred: ‘head’ → ‘stomach’. The Ewenki word belongs to the group of taboo words. The base of word is *tuŋ ‘head’,10 but the derivation of tuŋsuku is uncertain (Khabtagaeva 2019: 276): Ket tʌns’uk ‘taboo designation of a bear stomach’ (Werner 2002/2: 298) ← Northern Tungusic: Ewenki tuŋsuku ‘a bear head, a “funeral” of bear’: Eastern Ewenki: Uchur, Urmi, Chumikan tuŋsuku ‘a bear head, a “funeral” of bear; a funeral of people on the tree (ancient way of burial)’; cf. Northern Tungusic: Negidal texseke ‘a forehead of bear’; Remaining lgs. n.a. (SSTMJa 2: 216b). A term related to bear hunting (26) As a hypothesis, I assume that the last Ket word is connected with the Podkamennyi Ewenki form amākākse ‘bear’s skin; bear’s flesh’ with a Yeniseian nominalizer -s (Khabtagaeva 2019: 275–276). From a phonetic point of view, the loss of the internal syllables occurred in the Ket form, which is typical of some Altaic loanwords (Khabtagaeva 2019: 332–333). In Yeniseian, as in Tungusic, the word belongs to the taboo category: Ket áʁses ‘bear trap’ (Werner 2002/1: 56) < áʁse +s {Yeniseian NMLZ}: *áʁse ← Tungusic: Ewenki amākākse ‘bear’s skin; bear’s flesh’ < amā ‘father; taboo bear’ +kā {Ewenki denominal noun suffix: for function, see Vasilevič 1958: 758} +kse {Ewenki denominal adjective suffix: for function, see Vasilevič 1958: 763}: Podkamennyi, Upper Lena, Tokmin Ewenki amākākse ‘bear’s skin; bear’s flesh’ < Common Ewenki amākā ‘grandfather ( father’s or mother’s father); uncle (older brother of father or mother); ancestor; bear; sky, God’ < amā ‘father’; cf. Northern Tungusic: Lamut amā ‘father; grandfather ( father’s or mother’s father)’; Negidal amaj ‘father’; Southern Tungusic: Oroch ama ‘father’; Udihe amin- ‘father’s’; Ulcha ama ‘father’; Orok ama ~ amma ‘father’, cf. amaqa ‘grandfather; bear’; Nanai ama ‘father’; Jurchen ‘á–mîn ‘father’; Manchu ama ‘father’; Sibe ama ‘father’ (SSTMJa 1: 34b–35a). 10 Cf. Ewenki dial. tuŋkulbu- (< *tuŋ +kU-lbU- {Ewenki denominal verbal and deverbal verbal suffixes: for functions, see Vasilevič 1958: 767}) ‘to bend, to incline a head down’, tuŋkin- (< *tuŋ +kIn- {Ewenki denominal verbal suffix: for function, see Vasilevič 1958: 762}) ‘to bend, to incline a head down’, tuŋulkēn (< *tuŋ +lkĀn {Ewenki denominal noun suffix: for function, see Vasilevič 1958: 768}) ‘crown, skull’. 210 Conclusion The present paper discusses twenty-six examples (twenty-two Ket, four Yugh, three Kott, two Arin, and one each of Pumpokol and Assan forms) of taboo words that present some linguistic criteria, which characterize the Yeniseian languages and their Altaic elements. All examined words are nouns. Concerning native Yeniseian words, from fifteen terms twelve words are formed through compounding, which is the predominant noun word-formation technique (for details, see Georg 2007: 125– 127; Vajda 2014: 510), two words are derived with the nominalizer +s, which is a most productive suffix in Yeniseian (for details, see Georg 2007: 122–125; Vajda 2014: 513–514), and one word is monosyllabic. Altogether, eleven Altaic loanwords were examined, six of them are of Tungusic, four are Turkic, and one of Mongolic origin. The Tungusic and Mongolic loanwords are found in Ket and Yugh, while the Turkic elements are detected in Kott, Pumpokol and Arin. The source of borrowing for the most loanwords is clear. Most of the loanwords are recognized easily, but there are examples where the form of the Yeniseian words changed significantly according to the rules of the language as an amalgamation or the loss of the internal syllables. Semantically, due to the taboo character, the Yeniseian people either changed the original meaning of words (e.g. terms connected to bear), or borrowed words from neighboring Tungusic and Turkic people. Acknowledgement I would like to express my sincere thanks to Professor Edward Vajda (Western Washington University, USA) for his teaching and gracious sharing with me the Etymological dictionary of Yeniseian languages, which is in preparational stage and other his unpublished writings. References Alekseenko, Je. A. 1960. Kul’t medvedja u ketov. Sovetskaja etnografija 4: 90–104. Alekseenko, Je. A. 1962. Materialy po kul’ture i bytu kurejskix ketov. In: Sibirskij etnografičeskij sbornik 4. Očerki po istorii, xozjajstvu i bytu narodov Severa. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk SSSR, 30–66. Alekseenko, Je. A. 1971. Domašnie pokroviteli u ketov. In: Religioznye predstavlenija i obrjady narodov Sibiri v 19 – načale 20 vekov. Leningrad: Nauka, 263–274. Alekseenko, Je. A. 1976. Predstavlenija ketov o mire. In: Priroda i čelovek v religioznyx predstavlenijax narodov Sibiri i Severa (vtoraja polovina 19 – načalo 20 vekov), 67–105. 211 Alekseenko, Je. A. 1982. Etnokul’turnye aspekty izučenija leksiki samanstva u ketov. In: Vsesojuznaja sessija po itogam polevyx etnografičeskix issledovanij 1980– 1981 g.g., posvjaščennaja 60-letiju obrazovanija SSSR. Tezisy dokladov. Nal’čik, 61–71. Alekseenko, Je. A. 1984. Etnokul’turnye aspekty izučenija šamanstva u ketov. In: Taksami, Č. M. (ed.) Etnokul’turnye kontakty v Sibiri. Leningrad: Nauka. Alekseenko, Je. A. 1985. Na medvež’jem prazdnike u ketov. Sovetskaja etnografija 5, 92–97. Alekseenko, Je. A. 1999. Kety. Sankt-Peterburg: Prosveščenie. Altai = Baskakov, N. А. & Toščakova, T. M. 1947. Ojrotsko-russkij slovar’. Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’tvo inostrannyx i nacional’nyx slovarej. Buryat = Čeremisov, K. M. 1973. Burjatsko-russkij slovar’. Moskva: Sovetskaja Ėnciklopedija. Butanaev, V. Ja. 1999. Xakassko-russkij istoriko-etnografičeskij slovar’. Abakan: Xakasija. Chulym Turkic = Birjukovič, R. M. 1984. Leksika čulymsko-tjurskogo jazyka. Posobie k speckursu. Saratov: Izdatel’stvo Saratovskogo Universiteta. Clauson, G. 1972. An etymological dictionary of pre-thirteenth-century Turkish. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Dagur = Engkebatu 1984. Daγur kelen-ü üges / Dáwò’ĕryŭ cíhuì [Vocabulary of Dagur]. Hohhot. Dolgan = Stachowski, M. 1993. Dolganischer Wortschatz. Kraków: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Dolgih, B. O. 1934. Kety. Moskva & Irkutsk: Poligrafkniga. Dolgih, B. O. 1982. K istorii rodo-plemennogo sostava ketov. In: Alekseenko, Je. A.; Goxman, I. I.; Ivanov, V. V. & Toporov, V. N. (eds.) Ketskij sbornik. Leningrad: Nauka, 84–132. DTS = Nadeljaev, V. M.; Nasilov, D. M.; Tenišev, Ė. R. & Ščerbak, A. M. (eds.) 1969. Drevnetjurkskij slovar’. Leningrad: Nauka. Dul’zon, A. P. 1966. Ketskie skazki. Tomsk: Tomskij Gosudarstvennyj Pedagogičeskij Institut. Duvakin, Je. N. 2019. Ketskie šamanskie bubny iz sobranij Kunstkamery i etnografičeskogo muzeja Kazanskogo Universiteta. Sibirskie istoričeskie issledovanija 1. 144–173. Erdal, M. 1991. Old Turkic word formation. A functional approach to the lexicon. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ESTJa 1974. = Sevortjan, Ė. V. Etimologičeskij slovar’ tjurkskix jazykov. Obščetjurkskie i mežtjurkskie osnovy na glasnye. Tom 1. Moskva: Nauka. 212 ESTJa 2000. = Levitskaja, L. S.; Dybo, A. V. & Rassadin, V. I. (eds.) Etimologičeskij slovar’ tjurkskix jazykov. Obščetjurkskie i mežtjurkskie osnovy na bukvy «k». [Etymological dictionary of Turkic languages. The Common Turkic bases ended on the letter k] Vypusk 2. Moskva. Fu-yü = Zhen-hua, Hu & Imart, Guy 1987. Fu-yü Gïrgïs: A tentative description of the easternmost Turkic language. Bloomington: Indiana University. Georg, S. 2007. A descriptive grammar of Ket (Yenisei-Ostyak). Introduction, phonology, morphology. Folkestone/Kent: Global Oriental. Georg, S. 2018. Other isolated languages of Asia. In: Campbell, L. (ed.) Language isolates. London & New York: Routledge. 139–161. Hua-yi yi-yu = Lewicki, M. 1959. La langue mongole des transciptions chinoises du 14-e siècle. Le Houa-yi yi-yu de 1389. 2. Vocabulaire-index. Wroclaw. Johanson, L. 1998. The history of Turkic. In: Johanson, L. & Csató, É. Á. (eds.) The Turkic languages. London. 81–125. Kalmuck = Ramstedt, G. J. 1935. Kalmückisches Wörterbuch. Helsinki: Société Finno-Ougrienne. Kazak = Bektaev, K. 1999. Bol’šoj kazaxsko-russkij slovar’ i russko-kazaxskij slovar’. Almaty: Altïn Qazïna. Khabtagaeva, B. 2019. Language contact in Siberia: Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic loanwords in Yeniseian. (Languages of Asia Series 19) Leiden & Boston: Brill. Khakas = Baskakov, N. A. & Inkižekova-Grekul, A.I. 1953. Xakassko-russkij slovar’. Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’tvo inostrannyx i nacional’nyx slovarej. Khalkha = Bawden, Ch. 1997. Mongolian-English Dictionary. London & New York: Kegan Paul International. Khamnigan = Damdinov, D. G. & Sundueva, E.V. 2015. Xamnigansko-russkij slovar’. [Khamnigan-Russian dictionary] Irkutsk: Ottisk. Kirgiz = Judaxin, K. K. 1965. Kirgizsko-russkij slovar’. Moskva: Sovetskaja ėnciklopedija. Kyzyl = Joki, A. 1953. Wörterverzeichnis der Kyzyl-Sprache. Helsinki. Literary Mongolian = Lessing, F. D. 1996. Mongolian-English dictionary. Bloomington: The Mongolia society, Inc. Mukaddimat al-Adab = Poppe, N. 1938. Mongol’skij slovar’ Mukaddimat al-Adab. 1–2. Moskva & Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk SSSR. Nevskaya, I. 2017. Ayna and aza in South Siberian languages. In: Csáki, É., Ivanics, M. & Olach, Zs. (eds.) Role of Religions in the Turkic Culture. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on the Role of Religions in the Turkic Culture held on September 9–11, 2015 in Budapest. Budapest: Péter Pázmány Catholic University, 211–226. 213 Nikolaev, R. V. 1985. Fol’klor i voprosy ėtničeskoj istorii ketov. Krasnojarsk: Izdatel’stvo Krasnojarskogo Universiteta. Nugteren, H. 2011. Mongolic phonology and the Qinghai-Gansu languages. Utrecht: Landelijke Onderzoeschool Taalwetenschap. Nugteren, H. 2012. Diagnostic anomalies? Unusual reflexes of *d in South Siberian Turkic and Western Yugur. In: Erdal, M.; Nevskaya, I. & Menz, A. (eds.) Areal, typological and historical aspects of South Siberian Turkic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 75–89. Old Turkic = see Clauson 1972. Oirat dial. = Coloo, J. 1988. BNMAU dax’ mongol xelnii nutgiin ayalguunii tol’ bičig. Oird ayalguu. Ulaanbaatar. Qumanda = Baskakov, N. A. 1972. Dialekty kumandincev (kumandy-kiži). Severnye dialekty altajskogo (ojrotskogo) jazyka. Grammatičeskij očerk, teksty, perevody i slovar’. Moskva: Nauka. Quu = Baskakov, N. A. 1975. Dialekt lebedinskix tatar-čalkancev (kuu-kiži). Grammatičeskij očerk, teksty, perevody i slovar’. Moskva: Nauka. Pomorska, M. 2012. Notes on Persian loanwords in Chulym. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 264. Per Urales ad Orientem. Iter polyphonicum multilingue. Festskrift tillägnad Juha Janhunen på hans sextioårsdag den 12 februari 2012, 299– 308. Preclassical Mongol = Tumurtogoo, D. (ed.) 2006. Mongolian Monuments in Uighur-Mongolian Script (13–16 centuries). Introduction, transcription and bibliography. Taipei, Taiwan: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica. Räsänen VEWT = Räsänen, M. 1969. Versuch eines etymologischen Wörterbuchs der Türksprachen. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Róna-Tas, A. & Berta, Á. 2011. West Old Turkic. Turkic loanwords in Hungarian. 1–2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Sagai, Koibal, Kachin = Radloff, W. 1893–1911. Versuch eines Wörterbuches der Türk-Dialecte. 1–4. St. Petersburg. Secret History = Haenisch, E. 1939. Wörterbuch zu Mangḥol-un Niuca Tobca’an. (Yüan-ch’ao pi-shi) Geheime Geschichte der Mongolen. Leipzig. Shor = Kurpeško-Tannagaševa, N. N. & Apon’kin, F. Ja. 1993. Šorsko-russkij i russko-šorskij slovar’. Kemerovo: Kemerovskoe knižnoe izdatel’stvo. Siberian Tatar = Tumaševa, D. G. 1992. Slovar’ dialektov sibirskix tatar. Kazan’: Izdatel’stvo Kazanskogo Universiteta. SIGTJa 2001 = Tenišev, Ė. R. (ed.) 2001. Sravnitel’no-istoričeskaja grammatika tjurkskix jazykov. Leksika. [Comparative historical grammar of Turkic languages. Lexis] Moskva: Nauka. 214 SSTMJa = Cincius, V. I. (ed.) 1975–1977. Sravnitel’nyj slovar’ tungusoman’čžurskix jazykov. 1–2. Leningrad. Stachowski, M. 1996. Über einige altaische Lehnwörter in den Jenissej-Sprachen. Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia 1, 91–115. Stachowski, M. 2006. Persian loanwords in 18th century Yeniseic and the problem of linguistic areas in Siberia. In: Krasnowolska, A.; Maciuszak, K. & Mȩkarska, B. (eds.) In the Orient where the gracious light… Satura Orientalis in honorem Andrzej Pisowicz. Krakow, 179–184. Starostin, S. A. 1982. Prajenisejskaja rekonstrukcija i vnešnie svjazi jenisejskix jazykov. In: Ketskij sbornik. Studia Ketica. Leningrad, 144–237. Teleut = Rjumina-Syrkaševa, L. T. & Kučigaševa, N. A. 1995. Teleutsko-russkij slovar’. Kemerovo: Kemerovskoe knižnoe izdatel’stvo. Tofan = Rassadin, V. I. 1995. Tofalarsko-russkij slovar’. Russko-tofalarskij slovar’. Irkutsk: Vostočno-sibirskoe knižnoe izdatel’stvo. TSSDAJa = D’ajym, N. A.; Tybykova, A. T.; Tybykova, L. N.; Tydykova, N. N. 2004. Tematičeskij slovar’ severnyx dialektov altajskogo jazyka. Gorno-Altajsk: Institut altaistiki im. S.S. Surazakova. Tuba = Baskakov, N. A. 1966. Dialekt černevyx tatar (tuba-kiži). Severnye dialekty altajskogo (ojrotskogo jazyka). Grammatičeskij očerk i slovar’. Moskva: Nauka. Tuvan = Tenišev, E. R. (ed.) 1968. Tuvinsko-russkij slovar’. Moskva: Sovetskaja enciklopedija. Vajda, E. J. & Werner, H. (in preparation) Etymological Dictionary of the Yeniseian Languages. Vajda, E. J. 2001. Yeniseian peoples and languages. A history of Yeniseian studies with annotated bibliography and a source guide. Richmond: Curzon Press. Vajda, E. J. 2010. Ket shamanism. Shaman 18/1–2, 131–150. Vajda, E. J. 2014. Yeniseian. In: Stekauer, P. & Lieber, R. (eds.) Handbook of Derivation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 509–519. Vasilevič, G. M. 1958. Evenkijsko-russkij slovar’. Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo inostrannyx i nacional’nyx slovarej. Werner, H. [= Verner, G. K.] 1990. Kottskij jazyk. Rostov-na-Donu: Izdatel’stvo Rostovskogo Universiteta. Werner, H. 2002. Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der Jenissej-Sprachen. 1–3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Yakut = Slepcov, P. A. 1972. Jakutsko-russkij slovar’. Moskva: Sovetskaja enciklopedija. Yellow Uyghur = Malov, S. Je. 1957. Jazyk želtyx ujgurov. Slovar’ i grammatika. Alma-Ata: Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk SSR. Nine Gifts Éva Kincses-Nagy* Szeged In many ancient cultures, number ‘nine’ has an eminent role, think of the nine Muses, the nine heads of the Hydra, or the nine-headed dragon of the tales. Many examples could prove that the number nine occupied a high place in the TurkoMongol tradition, too. Not only the punishment but also a gift should consist of nine pieces. From Eastern Europe to East Asia, it is a still living custom in many traditional communities. In my paper, I offer nine Crimean and Dobrujan Tatar words meaning ‘gift’ to Mária Ivanics on the occasion of her birthday. CrT armaġan; DobT armagan ‘gift, present’ The word is attested from the 11th century on and according to a remark by Kāshgharī and other Turkic data, it belongs to the lexicon of Oghuz Turkic. In the Compendium, it is recorded in two forms (armāġān and yarmaġān), meaning ‘a gift (hadiyya) which a man returning from a successful journey brings for his relatives’ (Dankoff ‒ Kelly 1982: 160). Though the latter form is considered to be “more correct” by Kāshgharī, besides this datum we cannot meet this form in Turkic languages later. Sporadic attestation of armāġān is found in the Middle Turkic sources of the 14th–15th centuries (Fazylov 1966: 65), especially from the territory of the Golden Horde, which included the territories of the Crimea and Khwarezm with extensive contacts with the Oghuz Turkic population and many Oghuz Turkic speaking people, mostly mercenaries, from the Mamluk territory (Toparli et al. 2003; Golden 2000). Of the modern Turkic languages, the word exists only in TTu armağan, CrT armaġan, Dobrujan Tatar armagan and CrK armağan. In Azeri, it can only be found as a historical term in the explanatory dictionary (Orucov et al. 2006): armağan ‘hǝdiyyǝ, bǝxşiş, pay, sovgat, töhfǝ’. On the base of this areal attestation, one must suppose that these words are loans from (Ottoman) Turkish. The CrT phonetic variant armaγal mentioned in Radloff’s dictionary (R I: 339) is * This research is supported by the project nr. EFOP-3.6.2-16-2017-00007, titled Aspects on the development of intelligent, sustainable and inclusive society: social, technological, innovation networks in employment and digital economy. The project has been supported by the European Union, co-financed by the European Social Fund and the budget of Hungary. 216 not recorded in the modern dictionaries. Due to the Ottomans’ impact, it became a loanword in the languages of the Balkans as well (cf. TMEN II: 46). There is no plausible Turkic etymology of it. Many of the scholars (Fazylov 1966: 65; Nadeljaev et al. 1969: 53; ED: 232, 969; Tietze 2002; Pomorska 2013: 19, etc.) consider the word of Iranian origin, compared with Persian and Tajik: Tajik armuġān ‘gift’ (Rachimi ‒ Uspenskaja 1954); Per armaġān ~ armuġān ~ armaġānī ‘a present brought from a journey, an offering; a piece of money’, yarmaġān ‘a curiosity or rarity brought from afar as a present to a great man’ (Steingass 1975: 39, 1530). Tezcan (1997: 159) and Eren (1999: 18) leave open the question, considering the origin unknown. Doerfer (TMEN II: 45–6) assumes the borrowing in the opposite direction, from Turkic to Persian without further explanation on the etymology. According to the opinion of Starostin‒Dybo‒Mudrak (2003: 315), armaġan is of Turkic origin. They consider it a deverbal noun with the suffix -GAn, where the verbal stem is the cognate of the Kirg word arna- ‘to dedicate, design for’. It would be an interesting case since the verbal stem comes only up in one Kipchak language, but the supposed derivation is only attested in the Oghuz languages as we could have seen above. DobT bagış ‘donation, gift’ A loanword in Turkic of Persian origin, see baχš ‘fortune, lot, part, portion’, the verbal form baχš kardan ‘to give; to make a present, give in alms’ (Steingass 1975: 159). The one-syllabic Persian baχš was adapted with a linking sound in most of the Turkic languages as baġış. The first attestation is a verbalized form in the Compendium of Kāshgharī: bağışla- ‘to present’ (ED: 321; Dankoff ‒ Kelly 1984: 320, 325, 326). While the verbal forms can be found in many Turkic languages meaning ‘to give (present); to dedicate’ (Az baġışla-; Tkm baġışla-; Bšk baġışla-, Tat bagışla-, Nog bagısla-, KrčM baġışla-, Kzk baġışta-, Kirg bagışta-, Kum bağışla-, Kmk/Blk baġışla-; Uzb baġişla-; UygD bäγışla-), the nominal form is only attested in the translation of Gulistan by Sibîcâbî (14th c.): baġış ‘(Ünlü 2013) and in Codex Cumanicus: baγyš ‘Geschenk; donum’ (Grønbech 1942: 47), and in some modern Turkic languages in verbal constructions or independently: Tkm baġış et‘to give (a present), to grant’; Nog bagıs et- ‘id.’, Kum/Blk baġış ‘Geschenk’; Tat baġış ‘bağış, hibe’. In other languages the phonetic shape of the word (one-syllabic and/or with χ) is nearer to the New Persian original; these are considered to be later borrowings: Uyg bäχş (in the verbal construction bäχş ät- ‘to give’, cf. Persian baχš kardan); (Ottoman) Turkish bahş, baḫş 1. ‘giving; gift’; 2. ‘forgiving’; and baḫş it‘to give, donate’ (see also Pomorska 2013: 27); CrK bahış ‘donation, grant, gift’; Krčk baχışla- ‘to give, to dedicate’; the latter two data must be considered a borrowing from (Ottoman) Turkish. The Modern Turkish bağış ‘grant, donation’ is a neologism as it was stated by Redhouse (1974), a backformation from the verbal form bağışla- ‘to present’, see also Nişanyan 2018. Because of the lack of sources 217 for historical DobT data, we cannot make a definite statement: the word bagış ‘donation, gift’ can either be a modern borrowing from Turkish, or can represent the old Kipchak form, cf. Kzk baġış ‘id.’. In the modern CrT dictionary, only the verbal form baġışlamak ‘to give, donate’ and its derivations (baġışlama, baġışlav, baġışlanmak, baġışlanma, baġışlanġan) are registered. CrT baxşış; DobT bahşĭş ‘gift, present; donation’ A loanword of Persian origin in Turkic languages, cf. Per baχšīš ‘a gift, a present’ (Steingass 1975: 159). The word appears first in the Middle Turkic sources as bạḫşiş in Atebetü’l-hakayık (Arat 1951) and in the Şuşter manuscript of the Mukaddimat alAdab (dated to the 13th century by Yüce 1993: 11). In the Middle Kipchak monuments, it is recorded as baġşīş and baḫşīş (Toparlı et al. 2003: 21–2), and in Navā’ī’s works as baḫşiş (Ünlü 2013: 95). Of the modern Turkic languages, it can be found in Az (bǝhşış), TTu (bahşiş), CrK (baḥşış); CrT (baχşış); DobT (bahşĭş); in the languages of the Crimea and Dobruja supposedly through Turkish (Ottoman) mediation. The word entered into the languages of the Balkans via Ottoman Turkish mostly in the meaning ‘tip; gift, present’, cf. Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbian bakšiš, Albanian bakshísh, Romanian bacşiş, Greek μπαζίσι, and finally it became a cultural word, see German Bachschisch, Bakschisch, English baksheesh, Hungarian baksis (TESz I: 225) etc. The word bahşış, similarly to Turkish, can be used as an adjective in the CrT and DobT: CrT Baxşış atnıη tişine baḳılmaz. ~ DobT Bahşĭş atnıñ tĭşĭne karalmaz ~ TTu Bahşiş atın dişine (veya yaşına) bakılmaz ‘Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.’ DobT bülek ‘gift, present’ A very old word attested first in the 8th c. Old Turkic as beläk ‘a gift’ (according to Clauson beläg ~ beleg) (ED 338), Kāshgharī beläg [recte: beläk] ‘gift which a traveller brings his relatives, or which is sent from one spot to another’ (Dankoff ‒ Kelly I: 195); bēläg [recte: beläk] ‘gift’ (Dankoff ‒ Kelly I: 310); beläglǟ- ‘to present’ (Dankoff ‒ Kelly I: 249, II: 322). It is recorded in Middle Turkic: AtH belek (Arat 1951); Chagatay: bäläk ~ bilek (recte: beläk) and bölek (R IV: 1762, 1700, cf. also TMEN II: 413). Among Modern Turkic languages, it can be found in TTu as belek (dialectal benek: DS 1993 II: 609, 627); Kirg belek; Tat, Bšk büläk; YUyg pelek; Tuv belek and belek selek (the latter definitely from Mongolian); Tob, Tar büläk (R IV: 1894); BarT piläk (R IV: 1338), Alt belek ‘a gift or deposit from the bride to the groom to show her consent to the elopement’; Yakut bäläχ; the word means everywhere ‘gift, (engagement) present’. 218 The first problem we meet is the quality of the word final consonant. Since the scripts for Old Turkic are ambiguous in this respect, scholars give different transcriptions of the historical data, namely beläk and beläg ~ beleg due to their opinion about the etymology and origin of the word. As we can see above, Clauson, Dankoff ‒ Kelly considers a -g¸ while other scholars suggest that the phonetic shape of the word must be belek. Erdal (1991: 230) convincingly argues in favour of the final voiceless velar. Räsänen (1969: 69) proposes Mongolic origin of the Turkic word (cf. WrMo beleg ‘gift, present’), and he supposes that Mongolic beleg is a cognate of Turkic bölük ‘part; gift’, which is rightly rejected by Clark (1977: 132). Tuna (1973–5: 284) also considers the Mongolian etymology to be correct. Sevortjan (1978: 112–3) rules out the possibility of its Mongolic origin. He thinks that (similarly to the noun belge ‘sign’) the word could be a derivation of the verb *bel- ‘come into sight’ which can hardly be substantiated. Schönig (2000: 69) leaves open the possibility of both the Turkic and the Mongolic origin. According to Starostin‒Dybo‒Mudrak (2003: 926) the verbal stem of the Turkic belek ‘gift’ is a cognate of Mongolic melǯe- ‘to bet, wager’, which is hardly acceptable. Doerfer (TMEN II: 413–5), Clauson (ED: 338), Erdal (1991: 230), Tietze (2002) are probably right in supposing that the word beläk ‘gift’ is an object noun from the verb belä- ‘to wrap (up)’ with the deverbal suffix -(O)k (cf. Erdal 1991: 224–261). Kyz pälǟ ~ pälägä (R IV: 1243) are results of other derivation with the suffix -gA, for the suffix (see Erdal 1991: 376–382). The word belek was copied by Mongolian as beleg (for the data see Khabtagaeva 2009: 197), the final -g in Mongolic is a substitution for a final -k in Turkic. The Tat and DobT bülek goes back to bölek, the e > ö labialization after b- is a frequent development in Kipchak languages, which might be strengthened by the contamination with the word bölek ‘part, share, unit’. The ö > ü change occurred in Tatar and DobT. CrT ediye; DobT ediye ~ hediye ‘gift’ It is an Arabic loanword in Turkic from the stem [hdy] ‫‘ ھﺪی‬to lead on the right way, to guide etc.’. The first attestation of the Arabic ‫ ھﺪﯾّﺔ‬hadīya ‘gift, present, donation; offering, sacrifice’ as a loan in Turkic is in AtH hẹdye ‘gift’ as: hẹdye ḳıl‘to present, to grant’, and hẹdyeni ḳạbul ḳıl- ‘to accept one’s gift’ (Arat 1951). It spread in Turkic languages also via Persian ‫ ھﺪﯾﺔ‬hadiya, hadya, cf. Khwarezmian hẹdye, hẹdịyye (Arat 1951, Yüce1993), Middle Kipchak hediyye (Toparlı et al. 2003), Chagatay hediye, hediyye (Ünlü 2013), TTu hediye, Az hädiyyä, Tkm hedye, Uyg χädiyä, Uzb χadya. Besides the languages of the Crimea and Dobruja (cf. CrK ḥediye, CrT ediye; DobT ediye ~ hediye ‘gift, present’), the word seems to not exist in modern Kipchak languages, therefore one must suppose that these are borrowed from Turkish. The disappearance of onset h- happened in the Tatar idioms. 219 CrT, DobT ihsan ‘gift’ A word of Arabic origin in Turkic, cf. Ar iḥsān ‫‘ ٳﺣﺴﺎن‬beneficence, performance of good deeds’ (Wehr 1980: 178), which was originally a religious term of Islam. The semantic shift from ‘performance of good deeds’ to ‘gift’ seems to have taken place in Turkic quite early. The earliest datum in Turkic in the latter meaning is AtH iḥsan ‘grant, gift’ (Arat 1951: 46), Middle Kipchak iḥsān ‘ihsan, bağış’ (Toparlı et al. 2003). In TTu, it means 1. ‘a favour, benevolence, kindness’ 2. ‘gift (granted by a superior)’. In the languages of the Crimea and Dobruja, it must be a borrowing from (Ottoman) Turkish. In both languages it has the meanings ‘beneficence, mercy, good deed; gift, grant’. In CrK, it can be found in the verbal construction iḥsan et- ‘to endow; to bestow’. The Tat ihsan is a bookish word meaning ‘a good deed; help; beneficence; gift’; ihsan it- ‘to give a present; to endow’. It is also very popular as a proper name (mostly for men) in almost all Muslim cultures. DobT körĭmlĭk ~ körĭmnĭk ‘gift’ It is a word (and custom) of Turkic origin. The morphological structure is clear; in archphonemic transcription: *kör-(X)m+LXk; about the function of the suffixes, see Erdal 1991: 290–300; 121–131. The verbal stem is identical with the well-known and widespread verb kör- ‘to see’, therefore *körüm means ‘an act of seeing’, and *körümlük ‘a thing (worth) to see’ with a semantic shift ‘a gift given for seeing something or somebody for the first’. The word initial k-, the vocalism of the suffixes, and the allomorph -nĭk clearly reflect Kipchak features. DobT dictionary lists the following meanings of körĭmnĭk ~ körĭmlĭk are listed: 1. ‘Yalnız görülmek için bulundurulan nesne; görmelik’ 2. ‘İlk kez görmeye geldiğinde erkek tarafından nışanlısına verilen armağan’ 3. ‘Yeni doğan bebeği ilk defa görürken verilen hediye’ 4. ‘Nevruz kutlamalarında ev ev dolaşarak türküler söyleyip ellerindeki nevruz çiçekleriyle ilkbaharın gelişini müjdeleyenlere verilen armağan’. While in TTu, the phrase yüz görümlüğü refers only to ‘the gift given by the groom to the bride on the occasion of seeing her face first’, which traditionally happened often only after the wedding, in DobT yüz körĭml/nĭgĭ bermek refers to a gift given to a new-born child, or to the bride’. The custom existed in Turkic cultures almost everywhere, and though the modern dictionaries may not always contain this derivation, in many cases one can suppose, that it is an element of the vernacular. See also Kzk körimdik ‘a gift presented at the show of a bride or of a newly born child’; KrčM körümdük ‘id.’; Tat küremlek ‘id.’. 220 CrT savġa ‘gift’ The history and the etymology of the word is not clear in every detail. The direction of borrowing cannot be determined unambiguously—the word history shows successive waves of interlinguistic borrowing. The word can be found in many historical and modern languages of Eurasia, namely in Turkic (with the exception of Siberian Turkic and the Volga region), (Middle) Mongolic, Chinese (← Mongolic, as it was proposed by Pelliot 1936; Rachewiltz 2000: 433), Persian and other Iranian languages, languages of the Caucasus, Russian etc. (Pelliot 1936; Doerfer TMEN I: 345–347, IV: 388). Considering the data, the first attestations are from the 13th century on in both in Turkic and Mongolic languages. Khwarezmian savġat, savqat ‘hediye’ (Yüce 1993: 78:8); Ottoman savgat (savkat) ‘hediye, armağan, bahşiş, ihsan’ (TS V: 3341); Chagatay savgat ~ sogat ‘pişkeş, armagan, inam’ (Atalay 1970: 273, 290); sawġat ‘gift’ (Thackston 1993: 246a); savġat ~ soġat ‘id.’ (P. de Courteille 1870: 344, 356); soġa ‘das Geschenk eines von der Jagd, vom Markte oder von der Reise Angekommen’ (Vámbéry 1867; R IV: 527), soġat ‘das Geschenk’ (R IV: 529), savġat ‘id.’ (R IV: 431), sauġat ‘id.’ (R IV: 234); savġat ‘Geschenk’ (Kúnos 1902: 168); Turkish dialects savğa ‘armağan’, savga ~ savgı ‘bir acıdan kurtulmak ya da başarı kutlamak için verilen yemek, şölen’ (DS X: 3553); Tkm sovġat ‘gift’; Az soġat ‘id.’ (R IV: 529), sauġat ‘ein Geschenk, eine Gabe, eine Belohnung’ (R IV: 234), sovqat ‘is. Birinǝ göndǝrilǝn pay; hǝdiyyǝ, bǝxşiş’ (Orucov et al. 2006, IV: 140); Kzk sawġa ‘hist. war booty or (hunting) bag of game’ ; Kir sōga ~ sōgat ~ sōgo ‘id.’; Kkalp sauġa ‘id.’; Kar sawġa; CrT savġa ‘gift; a tax paid to the khan from military booty in money or in kind’; Nog savga ~ savkat ‘gift’; KrčM savga ‘hediye, armağan; ödül’; Kum savġat ‘gift; prize’; Uzb såvġa ‘id.’; Uyg soġa, soġat ‘id.’. In Mongolic, the word can be found only in Middle Mongolic sources: sauqa ‘gift’ (Haenisch 1962: 132 (saohua), Mostaert 1956: 7–8; Rachewiltz 2004: 433); sauġat ‘a salutatory gift’ (Poppe 1938–9: 319, 446); sauġat ‘= Turkic armaġan; present’ (Golden 2000: 291); sauqat ‘Geschenk, welches man von einer Reise mitbringt’ (Poppe 1927/1972: 59); WrMo sauqa ~ sauġa~ sauġad ‘gift, present’. It is not attested in any modern Mongolic languages. According to Rachewiltz (2000: 433–4) sauqa ~ sauqat “designated presents one took on a journey to repay the hospitality one received, hence a sort of due which the receiver expected by custom.” In the Secret History of the Mongols, young boys, prisoners of war, were sent as sauqa to Hö’elün. In Rashīd al-Dīn’s work, the Jāmiʿ al-Tawārīkh (1310– 1311), a daughter of the Tangut ruler was asked and sent to Čiηgis as sauqa; for further examples see Doerfer TMEN I: 346. In the Middle Turkic, sources the meaning is ‘a gift from one who has returned from a journey’ (Thackston 1993: 246a), ‘a gift from one who has been on a journey’ (Desmaisons 1970: 313). It is interesting to observe that in multilingual dictionaries, such as the Leiden Anonym, 221 the Rasūlid Hexaglot, and the Muqaddimatu’l-adab (edited by Poppe) the word is recorded only in the Mongolian part, but not in the Turkic one. Despite that, since the cognate word sajgat ‘loot, booty’ is attested in Russian chronicles (1174, 1193, 1258, 1260, 1262), Pelliot (1936: 234) considers it as an argument in support of the existence of the word in Turkic as early as in the 12th century. As one could see from the data above, there are forms with and without a final -t, often both forms registered in the very same language, both in Turkic and in Mongolic languages. Following Melioranski, Pelliot (1936: 235) considers it as a plural. He states that there is a plural suffix -t in Old Turkic in common with Mongolian and Sogdian. He proposes that plural -t in Turkic comes from a language which disappeared, e.g. Ruanruan, which is considered to be Mongol by Pelliot (1936: 236). Doerfer (TMEN I: 345–347) and Schönig (2000: 163) follows him and argues in favour of the Mongolic origin. At the same time Doerfer (op.cit.) does not exclude the possibility that savġat may also be of Old Iranian origin transmitted by the Naimans to Turkic and Mongolic languages. Other scholars consider the Mongolic word of Turkic origin without giving an etymological explanation (Poppe 1927/1972: 59; Räsänen 1969: 406; Eren 1972: 237–242; Kara 2001: 107). The latest etymological proposal is that of Doerfer ‒ Tezcan (1980: 185), which was completed by Tenišev (2001: 349–50). Based on the Halaj verb sa·v- ‘bewirten’, a Turkic etymology is suggested. The Turkish dialectal savga ~ savgı ‘bir acıdan kurtulmak ya da başarı kutlamak için verilen yemek, şölen’ (DS X: 3553), the Tatar dialectal sawǎm ‘wedding gifts’ (Tenišev 2001: 350), and the word sawġa(t) are supposed to be its derivations. The base word, however, later became obsolete and, with the exception of Halaj, disappeared. The weak point of this hypothesis is that the function of the suffix -gA is to form agent nouns, cf. Erdal 1991: 376. The word calls for further research. DobT tokuz ~ tokız ~ dokuz ~ dokız ‘a gift of nine pieces given at weddings or at wrestling-matches’; CrT doḳuz ~ doḳız ‘a set of linen given by the bride to the groom’ As I have mentioned in the dedication above, a gift should have consisted of nine times nine units of the thing given in the Turko–Mongol steppe tradition (cf. The Travels of Marco Polo). Therefore, the word ‘nine’ in many Turkic languages also have the meaning ‘gift (of nine pieces)’, cf. DobT tokuz ~ tokız ~ dokuz ~ dokız, CrT doḳuz ~ doḳız, Kzk toġız, Kirg toguz, Nog togız, Uzb toʻḳḳiz etc. The word in this meaning was also borrowed from Uzb into Tajik: tåqquz ‘Geschenk, bestehend aus neun Gegenständen (Kleidung, Schuhe, Tücher), das der Bräutigam der Braut vor der Hochzeit zurüstet’ (Doerfer 1967: 34). 222 The tradition was respected even by those peoples who had contacts with Turks or Mongols when they sent or gave gifts. Due to the close political and cultural contacts with the Tatars, we can find the calque of the Turkic word tokuz ‘nine; nine-item gift’ in Slavic languages (Russian devjat′ ~ devet, Polish dziewięć etc.). Kołodziejczyk (2011: 738. n.15) gives some examples for sending dziewięć to the Crimea. In the end of the 15th century, the Lithuanian chancery was about to send three sets of nine presents to Mengli Giray. In 1607 the Polish court wanted to send presents to Khan Ghazi II Giray and prepared a list of “three sets of nine gifts’. Another time, Khan Bahadır Giray requested gifts of nine objects in 1640. Mária Ivanics (1994: 106) also deals with the history of giving tokuz to the Crimean Tatars. Due to the Oghuz influence in modern Crimean and Dobrujan Tatar, the words display a t ~ d- alternation. The meaning, similarly to other Kipchak languages, seems to denote different nine-piece gift sets given at engagements or weddings and at other important events, such as the traditional wrestling or racing festivals. According to an ethnographic description, a dokuz consisted of the following items in the Bakhchisaray district: kise ‘tobacco pouch’, saat-χane ~ saat ḳap ‘watchcase’, yemen yavluḳ ‘kerchief with which the henna is tied to the hand of the groom’, yader yavluḳ ‘kerchief to cover the henna bowl’, two kol′mek ‘shirt(s)’, čorap bay ‘sock suspenders’, učkur ‘string for fastening trousers’, yipişli ḳuşaḳ ‘marriage belt’, yedegi yavluḳ ‘kerchief/shawl as souvenir’ (Abljamitova 2008: 25). Among the Noghays in Gebze (Turkey), the tokuz was given by the groomsman to the young men who accompanied the newly married couple to the house of the groom. It consisted of nine pieces, socks, handkerchiefs, towels etc. put on a table cloth (Koksal 1996: 77). In Turkish, I could not find the ‘gift’ meaning of dokuz, if ever existed, it has faded away. Abbreviation Alt = Altay, see Radloff 1960; Baskakov ‒ Toščakova 1947. Ar = Arabic; see Wehr 1980. AtH = Arat 1951. Az = Azeri, see Orucov, Ə. et al. 2006; Tağıyev et al. 2006. BarT = Baraba Tatar, see Radloff 1960. Bšk = Bashkir, see Ahmerov 1958. CrK = Crimean Karaim, see Aqtay ‒ Jankowski 2015; Baskakov et al. 1974. CrT = Crimean Tatar, see Useinov 2008. DobT = Dobrujan Tatar, see Karahan 2011. DS = Derleme Sözlüğü. ED = Clauson 1972. 223 Kar = Karaim, see Baskakov et al. 1974. Kirg = Kirghiz, see Judahin 1965. Kklp = Karakalpak, see Baskakov 1953. Krčk = Krymchak, see Rebi 2004. KrčM = Karachay-Malkar, see Tavkul 2000; Tenišev ‒ Sujunčev 1989. Kum = Kumyk, see Bammatov 1969. Kum/blk = Kumyk, Balkar, see Németh 1911. Kyz = Kyzyl, see Radloff 1960. Kzk = Kazakh, see Koç et al. 2003; Shnitnikov 1966. Nog = Noghay, see Baskakov 1963. Per = Persian, see Steingass 1975. R = Radloff 1960. Tar = Taranchi/Uyghur, see Radloff 1960. Tat = Tatar, see Ganiev 2005; Koç et al. 2003. TESz = Benkő 1967. Tkm = Turkmen, see Baskakov et al. 1968. TMEN = Doerfer 1963–1975. Tob = Tobol Tatar, see Radloff 1960. TS = Tarama Sözlüğü. TTIL = Ganiev 2005. TTu = Turkish, see Redhouse 1974. Tuv = Tuvan, see Tenišev 1968. Uyg = Uyghur, see Nadžip 1968. UygD = Uyghur dialects, see Jarring 1964. Uzb = Uzbek, see Borovkov 1959. WrMo = Written Mongolian, see Lessing 1973. Yak = Yakut, see Pekarskij 1907–1930. YUyg = Yellow Uyghur, see Malov 1957. 224 Bibliography Abljamitova, L. 2008. Simboličeskie aspekty nacional′nogo krymskotatarskogo kostjuma v svadebnom obrjade: Narodna Tvorčist′ ta Etnografija. 1/2008. 24–31. Ahmerov, K. Z. et al. 1958. (eds.) Baškirsko – russkij slovar´. Moskva. Aqtay, G. ‒ Jankowski, H. 2015. A Crimean Karaim-English Dictionary. Poznań. Arat, R.R. 1951. Edib Ahmed B. Mahmud Yükneki, Atebetü’l-hakayık. İstanbul. Atalay, B. 1970. (ed.) Abuşka Lugatı veya Çağatay sözlüğü. Ankara. Bammatov, Z. Z. 1969. (ed.) Kumyksko – russkij slovar´. Moskva. Baskakov, N. A. ‒ Toščakova, T. M. 1947. Ojrotsko-russkij slovar′. Moskva. Baskakov, N. A. 1953. (ed.) Karakalpaksko – russkij slovar´. Moskva. Baskakov, N. A. 1963. (ed.) Nogajsko – russkij slovar´. Moskva. Baskakov, N. A., Karryev, B. A., Hamzaev, M. Ja. (eds.) 1968. Turkmensko-russkij slovar´. Moskva. Baskakov, N. A., Szapszał, S.M., Zajączkowski, A. 1974. (eds.) Karaimsko – russko – pol´skij slovar´. Moskva. Benkő L. (ed.) 1967. A magyar nyelv történeti-etimológiai szótára I. 1967. Budapest. Borovkov, A. K. 1959. (ed.) Uzbeksko – russkij slovar´. Moskva. Clark, L. V. 1977. Mongol Elements in Old Turkic? JSFOu 75: 110–168. Clauson, G. 1972. An Etymological Dictionary of pre-Thirteenth-Century Turkish. Oxford. Dankoff, R., Kelly, J. 1982–1985. (ed., transl.) Maḥmūd al-Kāšġarī, Compendium of the Turkic Dialects (Dīwān Lugāt at-Turk). I–III. Harward University. Derleme Sözlüğü: Türkiye’de Halk Ağzından Derleme Sözlüğü I–XII. 2. baskı. 1993. Ankara. Desmaisons, P. I. 1871, 1874/19702. (ed.) Histoire des Mogols et des Tatares par Aboul-Ghâzi Bèhâdour Khan. I. Texte. II. Traduction. St.-Pétersbourg. Doerfer, G. 1963–1975. Die türkischen und mongolischen Elemente im Neupersischen. I–IV. Wiesbaden. Doerfer, G. 1967. Türkische Elemente im Tadschikischen. Wiesbaden. Doerfer, G., Tezcan, S. 1980. Wörterbuch des Chaladsch. Budapest. Erdal, M. 1991. Old Turkic Word Formation. A Functional Approach to the Lexicon. I–II. Wiesbaden. Eren, H. 1999. Türk Dilinin Etimolojik Sözlüğü. Ankara. Fazylov, E. 1966, 1971. Starouzbekskij jazyk. Horezmijskie pamjatniki XIV veka. I– II. Taškent. 225 Ganiev, F. Ä. (ed.) 2005. Tatar Teleneη Aηlatmalı Süzlege. Kazan. Golden, P. B. 2000. The King’s Dictionary. The Rasûlid Hexaglot. Fourteenth Century Vocabularies in Arabic, Persian, Turkic, Greek, Armenian and Mongol. Halasi-Kun, T., Golden, P. B., Ligeti, L., Schütz, E. (transl.), Golden, P. B., Allsen, T. (introd. essays) Golden, P. B. (ed., notes, commentary). Leiden – Boston – Köln. Grønbech, K. 1942. Komanisches Wörterbuch. Türkischer Wortindex zu Codex Cumanicus. Kopenhagen. Haenisch, E. 1939. Wörterbuch zu Mangḥol un niuca tobca’an (Yüan-cha’ao pi-shi). Geheime Geschichte der Mongolen. Leipzig. Ivanics, M. 1994. Entstehung und Quellenwert der Krimtatarischen tiyiş defters. AOH 47/1–2. 105–112. Jarring, G. 1964. An Eastern Turki – English Dialect Dictionary. Lund. Judahin, K. K. 1965. Kirgizsko – russkij slovar´. Moskva. Karahan, S. O. 2011. Dobruca Kırımtatar Ağzı Sözlüğü / Dicţionarul Graiului Tatar Dobrogean 1–3. Köstence. Khabtagaeva, B. 2009. Mongolic Elements in Tuvan. Wiesbaden. Koç, K. et al. 2003. Ḳazaḳşa-Türikşe Sözdik. Ankara. Koksal, H. 1996. Türk Düğünlerinde "Saçi" Geleneği, Buna Bağli Ritler-Pratikler: Bilig 1996/1.Bahar: 75–81. Kołodziejczyk, D. 2011. The Crimean Khanate and Poland-Lithuania: International Diplomacy on the European Periphery (15th–18th Century). A Study of Peace Treaties Followed by Annotated Documents. Brill. Kúnos, I. 1902. Šejχ Sulejman Efendi’s Čagataj-Osmanisches Wörterbuch. Budapest. Lessing, F. D. 1973. Mongolian – English Dictionary. Bloomington. Malov, S. E. 1957. Jazyk želtyh ujgurov. Slovar´ i grammatika. Alma-Ata. Mostaert, A. A. 1956 Remarques sur le paragraphe 114 de l’Histoire secrète des Mongols: Central Asiatic Journal 1956. 2/ 1: 1–11. Nadeljaev et al. 1969. (eds.) Drevnetjurkskij slovar´. Leningrad. Nadžip, E. N. 1968. Ujgurso-russkij slovar′. Moskva. Németh, Gy. 1911. Kumük és balkár szójegyzék: Keleti Szemle 12: 91–153. Nişanyan, S. 2018. Nişanyan Sözlük. Çağdaş Türkçenin Etimolojisi. Genişletilmiş, Gözden Geçirilmiş Yeni Basım. [s.l.] Orucov, Ə. et al. 2006. Azǝrbaycan Dilinin İzahlı Lüğǝti I–IV. Bakı. Pavet de Courteille, A. 1870. Dictionnaire turk-oriental. Paris. Pekarskij, E . K. 1907–1930. Slovar´ jakutskogo jazyka. I–XIII. St.Peterburg − Leningrad. 226 Pelliot, P. 1936. Sao-hua, sauγa, sauγat, saguate: T’oung Pao 32: 230–237. Pomorska, M. 2013. Materials for a Historical Dictionary of New Persian Loanwords in Old Anatolian and Ottoman Turkish from the 13th to the 16th Century. Kraków. Poppe, N. 1927/1972. Das mongolische Sprachmaterial einer Leidener Handschrift: Mongolica. Westmead, Farnborough. Poppe, N. 1938–1939/1971. Mongol´skij slovar´ Muqaddimat al-Adab. I–II. Moskva – Leningrad. Rachewiltz. I. de 2004. The Secret History of the Mongols. A Mongolian Epic Chronicle of the Thirteenth Century. Leiden ‒ Boston. Rachimi, M.V. ‒ Uspenskaja, L.V. 1954. Tadžiksko-russkij slovar′. Moskva. Radloff, W. 1960.repr. Versuch eines Wörterbuches der Türk-Dialekte. (Opyt slovarja tjurkskih narečij). I–IV. Pritsak, O. (intr.) Gravenhage. Räsänen, M. 1969. Versuch eines etymologischen Wörterbuchs der Türksprachen. Helsinki. Rebi, D. 2004. Krymčakskij jazyk. Krymčaksko russkij slovar′. Simferopol′. Redhouse, J. 1974. Yeni Türkçe – İngilizce sözlük. İstanbul. Schönig, C. 2000. Mongolische Lehnwörter im Westoghusischen. Wiesbaden. Sevortjan, Ė. V. 1978. Ėtimologičeskij slovar´ tjurkskih jazykov. Obščetjurkskie i mežtjurkskie osnovy na bukvu «B». Moskva. Shnitnikov, B. N. 1966. Kazakh – English Dictionary. London – The Hague – Paris. Slepcova, P. A. 1972. (ed.) Jakutsko-russkij slovar´. Moskva. Starostin, S. A., Dybo, A. V., Mudrak, O. A. 2003. An Etymological Dictionary of Altaic Languages. Leiden – Boston. Steingass, F. 1975. A Comprehensive Persian-English Dictionary. Beirut. Tağıyev, M. T. et al. 2006. Azärbaycanca Rusca Lüğät. I–IV. Bakı. Tarama Sözlüğü. XIII. Yüzyıldan Beri Türkiye Türkçesiyle Yazılmış Kitaplardan Toplanan Tanıklarıyla. I–VIII. 2009. Ankara. Tavkul, U. 2000. Karaçay-Malkar Türkçesi Sözlüğü. Ankara. Tenišev, E. R. 1968. (ed.) Tuvinsko – russkij slovar´. Moskva. Tenišev, E. R. 2001. (ed.) Sravnitel´no-istoričeskaja grammatika tjurkskih jazykov. Leksika. 2.ed. Moskva. Tenišev, E. R., Sujunčev, H. I. 1989. Karačaevo – balkarsko – russkij slovar´. Moskva. Tezcan, S. 1997. Additional Iranian Loan-words in Early Turkic Languages: Türk Dilleri Araştırmaları 7: 157–164. 227 Thackston, W. M. Jr. 1993. (ed.) Zahirüddin Muhammad Bâbur Mirza : Bâburnâma. I–III. Chaghatay Turkish Text with Abdul-Rahim Khankhanan’s Persian translation. Harvard University. Tietze, A. 2002., 2009. Tarihi ve etimolojik Türkiye Türkçesi Lugatı = Sprachgeschichtliches und etymologisches Wörterbuch des Türkei-Türkischen. Cilt I–II. İstanbul. Toparlı, R. et al. 2003. Kıpçak Türkçesi Sözlüğü. Ankara. Tuna, O. N. 1973–1975. (1976.) Osmanlıcada Mogolca Ödünč Kelimeler: Türkiyat Mecmuası (1973–1975) 18: 281–314. Ünlü, S. 2013. Çağatay Türkçesi Sözlüğü. Konya. Useinov, S. M. 2008. Qırımtatardža-Rusça-Ukraindže Luġat / Krymskotatarskorussko-ukrainskij slovar′. Simferopol′. Vámbéry, H. 1867. Ćagataische Sprachstudien. Leipzig. Wehr, H. 1980REPR A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic. Ed. by J Milton Cowan. Beirut ‒ London. Yüce, N. 1993. Mukaddimetü’l-Edeb. Ḥvārizm Türkçesi ile Tercümeli Şuşter Nüshası. Ankara. The Presence of Shamanism in Kazakh and Hungarian Folklore Raushangul Mukusheva Department of Altaic Studies, University of Szeged 1. Shamanistic worldview in Kazakh and Hungarian Folktales Shamanism is deeply rooted in the worldview of the Altaic peoples, especially the Kazakhs. As the renowned Kazakh scholar from the nineteenth century, Shokhan Ualihanov, put it: ‘Shamanism is the religion created by humans to have their wishes granted by otherworldly powers, to get in contact with harmless and harmful spirits, to save humans from the negative actions of bad spirits and to maintain humanity in harmony with the various spirits (pari, aurah, the spirit of the dead and others as well). Kazakhs are Muslims but they believe in shamanism as well. This is true even in this day. Over the centuries shamanistic and Muslim beliefs have mixed: Kazakhs believe in Allah, but they also say prayers to aurahs; they continue to believe in baksys (Kazakh name for ‘shamans’) but they also respect pilgrims. That is how the Kazakh belief system is, with all its contradictions; that is what they believe in’ (Ualihanov 1993, 9). These words are true to the 20th century and they remain true these days with regards to certain Muslim Turkic peoples in Central Asia. The aesthetic aspect of research requires attentive study. We can find a great many motifs related to the pre-Islamic beliefs of the Kazakh and to shamanism in Kazakh folklore. Why did I compare Kazakh folklore with that of the Hungarians? Hungarian scholars attempt to study the worldview system of preconquest Hungarians and turn to the shamanistic beliefs and folklore of other related people (Mansi, Khanty) and of Altaic people which had similar cultural traditions. And why is it not possible to do the other way round? In the study of original shamanism, preconquest Hungarian folklore can help us, because it preserved in itself ancient shamanistic elements that are present in their certain beliefs, myths, fairy tale motifs and ritual songs. 1.1. The Center of the World and the Column of the World (The Shaman’s Tree) One of the concepts in Altaic folklore (namely Kazakh literature) is based on the premise that the world is represented as a single unit. Its main motif is the center of the world. Hungarians alternately use the expression ‘world’ and ‘Earth’; therefore, it is also possible to say the ‘center of the Earth’, as well. Kazakhs prefer the use of 230 the center of the Earth expression. They also refer to a middle-aged person as “someone having reached the center of the Earth” (Kazakh: жер ортасына жеткен адам = zher ortasyna zhetken adam). The center of the Earth, or the navel of the Earth (föld köldöke) in the Hungarian folk songs, is generally either a place in beautiful natural surroundings or a place where there is a bigger town. The well-known folklorist, János Berze-Nagy explains that certain peoples of Asian origin (Turkic peoples) call the center of the Earth ‘the navel of the Earth’ since in their world view the world is a human being (BerzeNagy 1961, 109). It is also a well-known fact that the word navel in Hungarian (köldök) is of Turkic origin. The world tree holds up the sky and serves as the connection between the sky and the navel of the Earth, therefore Hungarians also refer to it as the ‘column of the world’. In Hungarian fairy tales it reaches all the way up to the sky, and on top of it there is a world just like on the Earth. Its roots reach down to the underground hell. According to folk beliefs this tree has its own spirit. There are a lot of beliefs and mythical motifs surrounding this world tree in the folklore of the Turkic peoples. “There stands a gigantic pine in the navel of the Earth, the tallest of all trees in the center of all” as Radloff quotes a Tatar saga (Radloff in Berze-Nagy 1961, 127). Kazakhs and the Kyrgyz consider this tree, growing in the steppe, to be sacred and hang articles of human clothing on it, similarly to other peoples with shamanistic traditions. 2. Gaining Shamanic knowledge 2.1. Climbing the Sky-reaching Tree The image of the shaman’s tree can also be found in Kazakh folk tales. In the Kazakh fairy tale of ‘Zharti Tyostik’ (Жарты Төстік), if the hero’s father climbed the tree with one trunk and two branches in the morning then he got back down at noon, if he climbed it at noon then he got back down in the evening. The boy was mesmerized by his father’s journey up the tree, and therefore wanted to climb it as well. When he did, he saw a large group of wanderers coming his way: little boys coming all in one straight line, all singing, following them were young men and young women, and finally old men and old women. This was the mirage of past times as his father explained to him. The hero of the Kazakh fairy tale ends up in the Underworld as he keeps searching for this mirage and how the hero’s underworld adventure begins (Khazakh ertegileri 2000, 66). The most famous Hungarian folk tale about the world tree is ‘The Tree that reached the Sky’ (Az égigérő fa). In this folk tale Jancsi, the king’s swineherd climbed to the top of the tree and there found a world identical to the one below. 231 Jancsi found a town where he freed a girl from a dragon’s lair (777 magyar népmese 1995, 423). The following remarks about the Asian origin of the sky reaching tree are made by Berze-Nagy, “The concept of the tree that reached the sky and all the relevant notions did not enter the Hungarian imagery during the Middle Ages or through the codices; they had already been since our Asian days and most of these motifs are preserved in the folktales and traditions.” (Berze-Nagy 1961,128). Vilmos Diószegi dedicated a whole chapter to the concept of the shaman’s tree in his book ‘The Shamanistic Remnants in Hungarian Folklore’ which is a significant motif in Hungarian shamanism. The old táltos (Hungarian shaman) climbed the tree. At the top of this tree he could meet and talk to people who were long dead. As Diószegi points out this tree can be found in the folklore of all Altaic peoples with shamanistic traditions (Diószegi 1958, 270–293). There are two different types of this tree mentioned: one with a regular tree trunk and another one, a notched tree shaped like a ladder (Diószegi 1958, 20). It is the latter type that is depicted in folk tales about ‘the tree that reached the sky’: “ …when the boy reached the seventh branch of the tree he found a ladder which he could easily climb.” (777 magyar népmese 1995, 424). Seven branch’s represent the view of people with shamanistic beliefs that the world (the Underworld and sky) is made of seven levels – Kazakh: жеті қат көк – ‘seven level sky’; Kazakh: жеті қабат жер асты – ‘seven level underground’. “According to Buryat beliefs the shaman’s soul goes to heaven during its upward journey on the ladder… While the young shaman is up on the tree he or she calls for the helping spirits for guidance and conveys the wishes of these spirits to the people of the world underneath.” (Diószegi 1983, 68). 2.2. ‘Being chopped up’ by the Dragon There is another important motif of shamanism which is connected to the tale ‘The Tree that reached the Sky’ (Hungarian: Az égigérő fa) namely when the hero is chopped into bits and pieces by the dragon. Having freed the girl, the fleeing János is caught by the dragon, and his body is chopped into many pieces by the beast. The dragon collects all the pieces into a sack, ties it to the back of a horse and directs this horse towards the castle. The dragon then leaves with the girl. Along the way the horse meets a snake with some grass in its mouth. This grass turns out to have vivifying powers. When it comes into contact with János’s chopped up body, the slain hero immediately comes back to life, as if he is only awakening from a long sleep. From this moment onward, János can cure anybody he meets on his journey, as he himself now possesses the power to heal (Illyés, 77 magyar népmese, 43). The Hungarian scientist Vilmos Diószegi writes about the process of how the shamans gain their knowledge: “There are several motifs in the treasury of Hungarian folk tales where the hero is chopped up into pieces then brought back to life and afterwards he becomes a ‘healer’ himself.” (Diószegi 1983, 92). 232 The hero of the ‘Tale of Rózsa the Brave’ (Rózsa vitéz) obtains his strength the same way. “And then a snake with the head of a beautiful girl crawled out of the bush and gathered every little piece of Rózsa’s body and put it nicely together, saying: this goes here, this goes there. She rubbed healing herbs on it and brought living-dead water from a nearby spring and sprinkled it with that. She repeated this three times and Rózsa gained more and more strength through the process.” (777 magyar népmese 1995, 145). This motif is present in the Kazakh folk tale of the ‘Golden Bird’ (Aлтын құс): “It gathered up the body and the head of the hero, rubbed it with a leaf and the young man lifted his head and awoke with the words: Oh, I have been sleeping for so long” (Khazakh ertegileri 2000, 6). And this has provided a direct link to the concept of the future táltos in Hungarian mythology; similarly to the belief-system of other shamanistic peoples three major paths can be distinguished when it comes to the táltos’ rite of passage: selection through physical illness, long/extensive sleep, being chopped up and gaining knowledge through slight physical abnormalities like having ‘extra bones’ or the act of the táltos’ initiation by climbing the sky-reaching tree (Diószegi 1959, 16). 2.3. Travelling through the Underworld 2.3.1. The Griffin as a Helper of the Shaman Travelling through the Underworld is one of the main criteria of gaining shaman knowledge. During his wanderings in the Underworld Kazakh folk hero Er Tyosztik (Ер Төстік) stumbles upon a gigantic oak tree with a bird nest; he then saves the young nestlings from the snake. The grateful griffin Alp-Karakus offers to fly the young lad back up to the world. In the Hungarian version of this folk tale they set off on the journey and when the griffin glanced back at the lad over its right shoulder he gave the bird some meat and when it glanced back at him over its left shoulder he gave it some water. There are two entirely different beginnings to these journeys mentioned in the folk tales of the Hungarian and Kazakh nations. In the Kazakh tale the Earth could not take the weight of the hero’s horse, Shalkuryik any longer; the Earth parted and swallowed the horse with the hero, Er Tyostik on its back and that is how he got to the Underworld (Khazakh ertegileri 2000, 12). This motif is in the folklore of most of the Altaic people. It is rather common in Kazakh tales as well. The ‘Tale of Zharti Tyostik’ is a good example. In Kazakh fairy tale the hero finds himself in the Underworld having followed an elf called Zhermistan; he is four inches tall with a five-inch beard and leads the hero to an underground road no wider than an ant’s trail. 233 In the Hungarian folk tale, the hero gets to the Underworld either by attempting to rescue the king’s daughter or by falling into a hole that leads to the Underworld while chasing a similar elf. This elf, who is stealing his life day-by-day, is seven inches tall with a very long beard. The hero saves the king’s daughter and wants to send her back above the ground but his friends reach the other, worldly realm before he does; they pull the girl back up to the Earth but lend no helping hand to Vasgyúró (‘Iron Man’), leaving the hero in the Underworld (777 magyar népmese 1995, 443). During his wanderings in the Underworld he comes upon a gigantic oak tree with a bird nest; he then saves the young nestlings from the snake. The grateful griffin offers to fly the young lad back up to the world above and orders him to take plenty of meat and water on the flight. So they set off on the journey and … when the griffin glanced back at the lad over its right shoulder he gave the bird some of the meat and when it glanced back at him over its left shoulder he gave it some water. The griffin looked back more and more often the closer they got to the world above and demanded to be fed even after there was neither water nor meat left. There was only one thing left to do, so Vasgyúró carved a piece out of his own thigh, which is what he fed to the bird. By then they were getting really close to their goal and they could even see daylight. As soon as they arrived the griffin asked Vasgyúró: ‒ You, human, what was it that you last fed me? ‒ That was a piece carved out of my own thigh. This is a reoccurring scene is in the Tale of Zharti Tyostik: “Having gathered enough food and water they set out for their journey. If the bird gave this look the lad offered it some meat, if it gave that look he offered it some water. Soon they ran out of both water and meat. ‒ Oh, what should we do now? I feel rather frail and we are beginning to fall ‒ said Samurik. ‒ Close your eyes! – came the answer. As soon as he did so, they softly descended to the ground, right by the trunk of a tree. Samurik asked the young lad: ‒ That final piece of meat; where did that come from? It was rather delicious. ‒ That happened to be the meat of my own thigh, ‒answered Zharti Tyostik. ‒ Show me, which one! ‒ Look! ‒ he said as he revealed his wound to the bird. The griffin tifú spat out the meat of his thigh and it healed back in its place right there and then.” (Khazakh ertegileri 2000, 66). The hero offers his eye instead of water and carves a piece out of his own body to feed the griffin in the Kazakh tale of the ‘Giant Bear’ (Aюдəу). The griffin mentioned in the Hungarian ‘Tale of the Son of the White Horse’ (Fehérló fia) produces a special healing potion from under its wings and pours it onto the young hero’s wounds, which heal immediately (777 magyar népmese 1995, 443). Similarities even in minute details like the ones mentioned above provide more proof for the Eastern origin of the Hungarian tales. 234 The griffin and the snake both play significant parts in Kazakh and Hungarian mythologies. But what kind of notions could the characters of the Underworld snake and griffin be based upon? The griffin is an eagle-like mythical bird. According to E. Margulan the eagle-myth is a remnant of the pastoral nomadic peoples living in the Ural and Altai mountains (Margulan, Alkej 1985, 367). It is easy to discover a correlation between the eagle-myth of these Altaic people and the eagle-myth found in the treasury of Hungarian folk tales, considering that Hungarian ancestors used to live somewhere in the Ural mountains before they settled in the Carpathian Basin in Europe. The fact that Hungarians have up to this day preserved their falconry tradition provides further proof for this theory. Álmos, the leader of the Hungarian tribes, was not fathered by a man, but the by the bird turul as the saga says –to mention a different example. In Hungarian mythology turul is a great bird resembling a falcon or an eagle. The griffin in Kazakh and Hungarian folklore is often depicted in the Underworld. Er Tyostuk, the hero of the Kazakh tale, meets Alp Karakus, the mythical bird, in the underworld. In Hungarian it lives in its underground golden castle in the ‘Tale of the Black Eagle King’ (Fekete sas-király). The king’s son-inlaw descends to the Underworld and finds the eagle’s golden castle. The dragon chops his body into pieces, but snakes heal him, so the young man returns to the world of the living. He rescues the king’s daughter with the help of the snakes, who follow him to the surface of the world. This tale is another example of the eagle and the snake appearing together; the eagle is represented as the enemy of man while the snake acts as man’s helper. 2.3.2. The Snake as the Shaman’s Teacher The snake with a crown on its head is depicted as the advocate of beneficence in Hungarian sagas and tales. According to a certain legend as Géza Nagy cites, the Scythians were born from a snake-bodied mother (Géza Nagy in Diószegi 1971, 381). In one Hungarian folk tale a childless woman gave birth to a child with a human head and a snake’s body (777 magyar népmese 1995, 419). There are numerous beliefs, patterns and superstitions concerning snakes in Hungarian folklore: Hungarians believe that a snake spotted by a house the placed is protected. If a person kills a snake it is believed that someone living in his house will die. Whoever brakes of a snake’s eggs brings misery and trouble onto himself (Diószegi 1971, 381 –382). There are numerous references in Hungarian folk tales about the metamorphosis of the snake. As in the ‘Tale of the Little Snake’: “While a shepherd was watching his flock of sheep he lit a fire. There happened to be a little snake in this the fire. It was pleading to the shepherd to free him from the fire by using the crook of his staff. The Little Snake was not ungrateful, and in the end, it gave the shepherd the key to all languages.” (777 magyar népmese, 628). 235 In another tale a childless woman, who is walking around in a garden spots a snake climbing a tree and exclaims: “Oh, I wish I had a child even if it looked like that snake!”. Not much later she did become pregnant and gave birth to a child with a human head but with a snake’s body (777 magyar népmese 1995, 419). 3. The Dragon in Hungarian Folklore: Anthropomorphic Demon with Ural-Altaic Origins From a mythological standpoint the dragon is closely related to the snake. As W. Bang points out, the word sárkány ‘dragon’ can be traced back to the Bulgar-Turkic word of sharakan, which means hissing and poison-spitting (Bang 1918, 37). From a mythological standpoint the dragon is closely related to the snake. S. Khaskhabasov describes the dragon as a gigantic snake (Khaskhabasov 2000, 326) The most interesting Hungarian folk tale featuring a dragon is the ‘Tale of King Little Michael’ (Király Kis Miklós). As the king is not willing to allow the dragon to marry his daughter, the vengeful beast steals the sun, the moon and the stars from the sky. Király Kis Miklós takes the stars back and cuts the dragon’s seventh head off as well: “And off they went through several lands until they reached the silver forest. They tied down the horse at the edge of the forest; the younger brother stayed with the horse, so no wild animal preyed on it. Király Kis Miklós marched up to the silver bridge and cut out one of its planks with his sword. The seven headed dragon came that way and his horse tripped on the bridge. The seven-headed dragon said: ‒ Dogs should drink your blood. Seven years I have traveled on this bridge and you haven’t tripped once. What is the reason today? The horse answered: ‒ Fire for me, water for you, we must both perish. The seven-headed dragon got off its horse and said: ‒ Király Kis Miklós, come out from under the bridge; you were no bigger than a fraction of a grain of millet when I already knew that I was going to have to duel you. As Király Kis Miklós came out the seven headed dragon asked him: ‒ Shall we duel with our bare hands, by sword or by staff? Király Kis Miklós replied: ‒ Dogs fight without weapons, herdsmen use staffs, the valiant fight with the sword. So, they fought each other by sword. And Király Kis Miklós was valiant during the fight and he cut off six of the dragon’s heads. The seven-headed dragon pleaded with Király Kis Miklós: ‒ Király Kis Miklós, please, leave me this one head and I will give you the stars. ‒ Alright, where are they? – said Király Kis Miklós. ‒ Over there, under my saddle cloth, – the dragon replied. 236 Király Kis Miklós took the stars and cut off the dragon’s seventh head as well.” (777 magyar népmese 1995, 569–671). He took the Moon from the twelve headed dragon and the Sun from the twenty-two-headed dragon in a similar way. Similar to the stumbling of the hero’s horse in many Turkic folk tales, the event is an omen of evil to come, the tripping of the dragon’s horse signifies danger. The dialogue between the dragon and the hero about the type of duel is another typical characteristic of Kazakh tales: ‒ Shall we wrestle or duel each other with a bow and an arrow? ‒ Oh, come on, even my grandfather knew how to shoot with an arrow and even my great-grandfather knew how to wrestle. We shall duel each other with spears. (Excerpt from the tale ‘Black Duck’ ҚaрaҮйрek – Khazakh ertegileri 2000, 257) Described by the ethnographer, Sándor Solymossy, “A typical dragon has an enormous, lizard-like body covered with an armor of scales and its reptilian tale resembles a whip. There are four short legs in its midsection with predatory claws and leathery wings reminiscent of bats; it has a strong, crested neck upon which rests a big, crocodile-type head with a huge opening for a mouth and teeth in a thick row…” (Solymossy 1991, 71). Solymossy is convinced that the image of this animal is a projection of the Paleolithic Era pterodactyl, ichthyosaurus and brontosaurus. Sándor Solymossy explains that the dragon figure usually mentioned in Hungarian tales is an anthropomorphic demon capable of riding a horse. It wears a belt around its waist, carries a sword and lives in an underground castle surrounded by girls it snatched from the world above. He expands upon this depiction of tales as follows: “It is an enlarged human-like but distorted creature with the characteristics of a demon. The fact that it tethers the sun, the moon and the stars onto its saddle can only be based on the figure of the horsemen of the plains […] There is a clear distinction between the dragon figures of eastern and western origins; one could claim that the western dragon figure is the direct result of Indo-Germanic influences, where as the eastern dragon figure – depicted in Hungarian folktales as well – is he manifestation of the Asian nomadic spirit of the Uralic and Altaic people.” (Solymossy 1991, 92). Conclusion There are numerous and unmistakable remnants of the shamanistic worldview, belief-system and aestheticism in Hungarian folk tales. As I was reading these Hungarian tales, I realized how similar they were to the Kazakh ones both in their atmosphere and world beliefs. One can detect Turkic imagery, not only in the fundamental characteristics of these stories, but in their plot and descriptive language, as well. It is no exaggeration to claim that these tales are the manifestation of the way of life, belief-system and aestheticism of the Turkic peoples and their Asian nomadic spirit. By comparing the shamanistic elements in Kazakh and 237 Hungarian fairy tales and consulting related research, I have concluded that there is an ever-present, strong need to conduct further research into this topic, and to foster the preservation of the identity of these nations in comparison with other peoples of the Altaic group, such as the Yakut, Kyrgyz, Tatar etc. Shamanism should be examined as a system of worldviews which existed in the oldest levels of our culture, especially from an ethno-cultural aspect as this culture contains archetypes of the deeply historic ethnic consciousness of the Kazakhs. References Bang, Willy, 1918. Monografien zur türkischen Sprachgeschichte. Available: http://menadoc.bibliothek.uni-halle.de/ssg/content/pageview/816510 (June 18, 2020) Berze Nagy, János 1961. Az égigérő fa. Pécs: TIT Diószegi, Vilmos 1958. A sámánhit emlékei a magyar népi műveltségben. Budapest: Akadémiai kiadó Diószegi, Vilmos 1971. Az ősi magyar hitvilág. Budapest: Gondolat Diószegi, Vilmos 1983. A pogány magyarok hitvilága. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó Illyés, Gyula, 77 magyar népmese [Online] Available: http://users.atw.hu/ gasztonlaci/mesek/Illyes_Mesek/INDEX.HTM (June 18, 2020) Khaskhabasov, Seit 2000. Zolotaja zhila. Astana: Elorda Khazakh ertegileri 2000. Аlmaty: Zhazushy Margulan, Alkej 1985. Ezhelgi zhyr-angyzdar. Almaty: Zhazushy Solymossy, Sándor 1991. A vasorrú bába és mitikus rokonai. Budapest: Akadémiái Kiadó) Ualihanov, Shokhan 1993. ‘Taniri khudaj’ in ‘Khazakh bakhsy-balgerleri’. Аlmaty: Ana tili, 36–40 777 magyar népmese 1995. Budapest: Videopont The Prince and the Sultan. The Sublime Porte’s Practice of Confirming the Power of Christian Vassal Princes Based on the Example of Transylvania Sándor Papp* ‫ﺑﺎ ﻋﺮض ﺳﻼم و اﺣﺘﺮام‬ ، ‫ﺑﻨﺪۀ ﻧﺎﭼﯿﺰ ﺳﺮﮐﺎرﻋﺎﻟﯽ‬ ‫ﭘﺎپ ﺷﺎﻧﺪور‬ The power structure of the Ottoman Empire was quite diverse, and the flexibility of their rule is shown by the fact that their system of autonomy in religion, communities and states survived up to the modernization of the 19th century. In order to examine the individual areas not in isolation, but instead from the perspective of the empire, it is necessary to make a comparative analysis of similar structures.1 * 1 This essay has been written as a result of the research project of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences-University of Szeged Ottoman Period Academic Research Group (FIKP Programm TUDFO/47138-1/2019-ITM). I would like to thank András Oross, the Hungarian archival delegate responsible for the materials in the Austrian State Archives, the Haus–, Hof–und Staatsarchiv and the Hofkammer Archiv. Panaite, V. Pace, război şi comerţ în Islam. Ţările Române şi dreptul Otoman al popoarelor (secolele XV–XVII.) Bucureşti, Editura B.I.C. ALL1999.; Panaite, V. The Ottoman Law of War and Peace. The Ottoman Empire and Tribute Payers. East European Monographs, New York, 2000. Columbia; Panaite, V. The Ottoman Law of War and Peace. The Ottoman Empire and Its Tribute Payers from North of Danube. Leiden – Boston, Brill 20192; Papp, S. Die Inaugurationen der Krimkhane durch die Hohe Pforte (16–18. Jahrhundert). In: The Crimean Khanate between East and West (15th–18th Century). Klein, D. (ed.) 2012. Wiesbaden, 2012. 75–90. Harrassowitz Verlag. (Forschungen zur osteuropäischen Geschichte Bd. 78.); Panaite, V. The Legal and Political Status of Wallachia and Moldavia in Relation to Ottoman Porte. In: Kármán, G & Kunčević, L. (eds) The European Tributary States of the Ottoman Empire in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Leiden – Boston, 2013, 9–42. Brill; Papp, S. The System of Autonomous Muslim and Christian Communities, and States in the Ottoman Empire. In: Kármán G & Kunčević L. (eds) The European Tributary States of the Ottoman Empire in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Leiden, Boston 2013, 375–419; Papp, S. Gesezliche Garantien für die christlichen Gemeinden im Osmanischen Reich. Überlegungen zur Vertragsurkunden der Franziskaner in Bosnien im Kontext der Diskussion um das Millet- 240 Researchers studying the state structure of the Ottoman Empire sharply differentiate between those vilayets and sanjaks where it was possible to observe an arrangement that is considered classical, and those that retained in some form the internal structures from prior to their conquest, in some cases even their ruling dynasties. The phrase vassal state has been used in relation to the history of the Ottoman Empire by European professional literature, but this currently seems to be in the process of being replaced by the term tributary state, which can be traced back to the Ottoman terminology of haracgüzâr (tributary). This term was generally in widespread use for vassal states, even when certain Muslim and Christian states never paid tribute. In Ottoman terminology, it is primarily the terms teba‛a and tebâ‛îyet that appear for vassal states. In every case, the Ottoman Empire considered the vassal states to be a part of their own imperial territories, the memâlik-i mahrûse (the well-protected empire). In addition to the possible payment of tribute, the subservience was underlined by the naming of services and stressing the sultan’s right of investiture over the vassal rulers. This is the point in which the circumstances of Transylvania are of prominent significance to international Ottoman research, namely that only this Ottoman vassal state has essentially complete surviving source materials related to a century and a half of the sultan’s practice of installing rulers. The sources on the sultan’s appointment of princes related to the 16th century are even available to researchers in published form.2 In the following, I will discuss a new method, the temporary confirmation of the sultans. This type of legal act seems to be unknown in the case of other vassal states. The procedure of the appointment presents the structural system for the handover of power that had developed by the middle of the 17th century. The prototype: the first confirmation and appointment of György II Rákóczi by the sultan during his father’s lifetime (1642) The Transylvanian envoys, István Serédy and Mihály Maurer arrived in Constantinople on the 3rd of May 1642 to begin the negotiations for the sultan to confirm the son of prince György Rákóczy I (1630–1648), György II Rákóczi (1642–1660) in the ruling times of his father. In accordance with tradition, they were ceremonially received before the city gates, and the Sublime Porte’s Hungarian 2 System. In: Born, R. Puth, A. Osmanischer Orient und Ostmitteleuropa. Perzepzionen und Interaktionen in den Grenzzonen zwischen dem 16. und 18. Jahrhundert. Stuttgart, Franz Steiner. 2014, 301–320. Papp, S. Die Verleihungs-, Bekräftigungs- und Vertragsurkunden der Osmanen für Ungarn und Siebenbürgen. Eine quellenkritische Untersuchung. Wien, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2003. 241 translator Zülfikar agha3 was present with his son and 28 chiauses. The number of chiauses always indicated the opinion about the prince. The next day the vizier, Kemankeş Kara Mustafa pasha (1638–1644) sent the Hungarian translator to inquire if they had the gifts sent for the sultan and for him. They opened the chests and the agha appraised the value of the silver items, which the envoys said were greater in weight than they actually were. The agha recalculated their value and found the total value of 6 thousand thalers to be much too small. The envoys claimed that the country does not customarily pay for the issuance of the insignia of appointment and the ahdname (imperial pledge) – at least according to the reasoning of the prince – and wanted to avoid the financial demands. They even denied that they had cash. The haggling went on in the manner customary in the bazaars of the oriental world for the issuance of the imperial pledge of the sultan. They promised Zülfikar, as the intermediary, an additional payment of 500 thalers, while obtaining the concession that it would not be necessary to pay the sultan cash. However, in the case of the grand vizier the agha only agreed to the reduction of the amount to 8 thousand thalers.4 Zülfikar continued to uphold the promise that if the prince were to devote a small expense to him, then he would be able to achieve other goals, such as regaining Ottoman support for the seven counties in Upper Hungary that were under the rule of the Habsburg Hungarian king, but which Gábor Bethlen (1613–1629) had held. Through skillful political negotiation, they could have had the pretender to the throne Mózes II Székely,5 the posthumous son of the prince of Transylvania Mózes I Székely (1602–1603) who had been living in Yedikule Fortress in Constantinople since 1636, sent to Rhodes or Cyprus where he would not have been able to plot against the prince as much. Mózes II Székely’s situation was genuinely uncertain, which is shown by the fact that he had not been given an allowance by the Sublime Porte for months.6 Later, the prince was quite annoyed at the envoys that they had passed up this excellent opportunity. However, they could not have done anything about this, since they had to concentrate on a much more serious issue than the possibility of being rid of Mózes II Székely, something that put their efforts up to that point in doubt. The grand vizier Kemankeş Kara Mustafa (1638–1644) ordered the members of the delegation to his office on the 11th of May. Several of those in attendance wrote reports on what was 3 4 5 6 Kármán, G. Zülfikár aga portai főtolmács (Zülfikar Agha, Translator of the Sublime Porte). Aetas, 31, 3, (2016), 54–76; Kármán G. Grand Dragoman Zülfikar Aga. Archivum Ottomanicum 35/1(2018), 5–29. Szilágyi S. & Szilády Á. Török-magyar államokmánytár 1870. (henceforth TMÁOT) Volume 2, 102-103. 08 May 1642. Mihály Maurer’s report to György I Rákóczi. Papp, S. Egy Habsburg követ, Simon Reniger oszmán kapcsolathálózata Konstantinápolyban. Vezírek, muftik, magyar renegátok. Aetas, 31/3(2016), 40–52; Papp, S. Omanische Funktionäre im Informationsnetz des kaiserlichen Residenten in Konstantinopel Simon Reniger (16491666). Chronica: Annual of the Institute of History University of Szeged 19(2019), 24–41. TMÁOT 3, 102–103. 08 May 1642. Michael Maurer’s report to György I Rákóczi. 242 said during this meeting. The tension was caused by the grand vizier proposing that instead of the insignia of the prince expected by the Transylvanians, that is, the banner, saber, scepter and horse as well as the imperial pledge of the sultan, he would only provide a lower-level confirmation. He did not want to grant the horse and the ahdname of the sultan, which is the imperial pledge, the highest level of documents for appointment for the vassal ruler. This type of document was also issued in the case of peace treaties and commercial agreements with independent states. The grand vizier cited that in reference to the imperial pledge of sultan Süleyman (1520–1566), the ahdnames of István Bocskai (1604–1606), Gábor Báthori (1608–1613), Gábor Bethlen (1613–1629) and Catherine of Brandenburg (1627, 1629–30) stated the successor would only be confirmed following the death of the prince and only after this would the insignia of the prince be issued from the Sublime Porte. The grand vizier interpreted the law in such a way that since the prince had not died, an ahdname could not be granted to his successor, only a letter under the seal (tuǧra) of the sultan. The ambassador István Serédy touched upon the following in his response, “When István Báthori [1571–1586] was to assume the kingdom of Poland, the election of Kristóf Báthori [1575–1581] took place and was confirmed by the Sublime Porte, and this was the case for Zsigmond Báthori [1581– 1602] and Princess Catharina. The final conclusion of this matter would be that our magnificent emperor understood that letter, which had been written by your grace and by a noble country, and he also understood the intentions of the legation.” At the same time, for the first time it came up that the reduction of the tribute granted to Gábor Bethlen, as a result of which the tribute that had been 15 thousand ducats was lowered to 10 thousand ducats with the ceding of fortress of Lippa (Lipova today’s Romania), was canceled by the Sublime Porte, and they began to demand the increase in tribute as a condition for inauguration by the Sublime Porte.7 Following a meal, they brought the special gifts to the grand vizier, with the gold coins placed in a pile in addition to guns as well. The grand vizier bestowed 20 ducats to the permanent envoy István Rácz, 18 to envoy Mihály Maurer and around 40 to Zülfikar. The grand vizier received the envoys without ceremony in a simple tunic, and then following the talks visited the sultan at the Field of Davud Pasha. Returning later, he sent for Serédy for a personal discussion. Again, he asked him why the prince wanted to have his son confirmed, and whether he perhaps wanted a kingdom for himself somewhere. The ambassador stood pat in his denials, but Mihály Maurer promised another 5 thousand thalers to Zülfikar if he could resolve the matters of avoiding the increase in tribute and obtaining the ahdname. The ambassador met another time that day 7 TMÁOT 3, 105-107. 15 May 1642. István Rácz’s report to György I Rákóczi. We also found data on the alteration of the Transylvanian tribute in the manuscript no. Mixt 174 held in the Nationalbibliothek in Vienna. This also shows that the compiler of the manuscript delved deeply into the relationships in the Sublime Porte at the time of György I Rákóczi. fol.: 54v. – 55v. “Ber-mûceb-i defter-i hazîne-i ‘amire ‘an tahvîl voyvoda-i Erdel” 243 with the grand vizier, who appeared more compliant prior to his visit with the sultan. Following his departure, Zülfikar considered the matter to be closed and demanded the so-called “celebratory brioche” fee ahead of time. At this time, the issue of the gift and money to be given to the grand vizier was brought up again. The negotiations came to 13 thousand thalers and a washbasin with a pitcher, but the other dignitaries that had participated in the matter also demanded sums of varying sizes. However, it is conspicuous that everyone was merely concerned with their own benefit, and they appeared to be far more liberal on the matter of the money and gifts for the sultan.8 In addition to the special gift, the regular annual gift had to be given to both the sultan and the grand vizier. This took place on the 17th of May, and it seemed that they were satisfied with the carriage for the sultan and the gifts handed over to his mother and the grand vizier.9 However, hopes were finally dashed on the 2nd of June. The permanent envoy István Rácz informed the prince that they had cited both the ahdname of sultan Suleyman and the letters of the prince and the estates in vain, as they did not receive what they wanted. The grand vizier held back the ahdname and the horse, but would send the banner, scepter, saber, cap and two kaftans for the prince, two for his son and ten for the counselors. However, a promise was made that the successor would receive the ahdname and the horse following the death of the older prince. It was declared for the first time on this day what type of document the Ottomans wanted to employ for a temporary confirmation. “Nevertheless, they will hand over a letter that they call a berat,10 so that after the death of your highness, they will recognize his majesty, his highness as the prince.” At the same time, they again began to demand the increase of the tribute of 5 thousand ducats.11 Based on the above data, Sándor Szilágyi established in the Records of the Transylvanian National Assembly that an ahdname did not arrive, but György II Rákóczi was confirmed with a berat.12 At the same time, in the pages of Levelek és okiratok I. Rákóczi György keleti összeköttetései történetéhez (Letters and Documents on the History of György I Rákóczi’s Eastern Connections) they cited the documents published in volume III of the Török-magyar államokmánytár (Turkish-Hungarian State Archives) as an explanation, which were translated by Áron Szilády from the work entitled Correspondence of the Sultans by Feridun bey. The document in question was described in both the original Turkish publication of sources and in the translation that it was the text of the ahdname issued to György II 8 TMÁOT 3, 109-110. 15 May 1642. Mihály Maurer’s report to György I Rákóczi. 9 Szilágyi, S. Levelek és okiratok I. Rákóczi György keleti összeköttetései történetéhez. Budapest 1883, 671. Constantinople, 19 May 1642. István Rácz to György I Rákóczi. 10 Also called nişan, document of appointment or confirmation of the vassal rulers, in addition this type of document was also used for the appointment of either Muslim and Non-Muslim subjects in the Ottoman Empire from ordinary soldiers even up to grand viziers. 11 Szilágyi 1883: 674. Constantinople, 02 June 1642. István Rácz to György I Rákóczi. 12 Szilágyi, S. (ed.) Monumenta Comitalia Regni Transylvaniae. Erdélyi országgyűlési emlékek. 5, Budapest 1884, 62 (henceforth: EOE 10) 244 Rákóczi “while his father was still alive.”13 János Kósa in his book on György II Rákóczi resolved the seeming contradiction by hypothesizing that with further gifts it was possible to obtain the issuance of an imperial pledge of the sultan.14 This may be indicated by the invitation to the ceremony for the granting of the prince’s insignia, “the Turkish emperor and the Sublime Porte have accepted and affirmed the election of our beloved son, György Rákóczi to the position of prince; and as a true indication and proof according to the old custom of the Sublime Porte and the country the kapuji-bashi has been sent to us with the imperial banner, scepter, athname and other appropriate imperial gifts, and also has been solemniter sent to the new prince,” who since he was proceeding in national matters, wanted to receive him with great ceremony. The invitees had to go to Alba Iulia on the 2nd of July.15 If we continue to read the correspondence between the prince and his men working at the Sublime Porte, it is clear that György I Rákóczi was very dissatisfied. There is no evidence that they might have succeeded in having an imperial pledge of the sultan, or ahdname, issued, but instead just the opposite. All of their efforts were frustrated by the grand vizier’s stubbornness. Before continuing to follow the events, I will summarize the four factors that made up the turning points in the negotiations at the Sublime Porte, and which I will examine in detail below. The factors were the following: 1) Already on the 11th of May, so at the beginning of the talks, the Sublime Porte made it clear that it did not want to issue an imperial pledge of the sultan; 2) the grand vizier cited the “imperial pledge of Suleyman”, in which the automatic confirmation would only come following the death of the father, and with no strings attached; 3) the envoys knew of two events from Transylvanian history, the appointments of Kristóf Báthori in 1576 and of Catherine of Brandenburg in 1627, that could serve as models in the matter being negotiated; and 4) of the princely insignia, György II Rákóczi only received the ahdname and the horse following his father’s death, and until then had to be satisfied with a berat. During the negotiations taking place to confirm the young prince, Transylvanian diplomacy was not prepared for the issuance of the imperial pledge of the sultan to be denied at the Sublime Porte. The reign of sultan Suleyman, which both parties cited as a model, in the 17th century had become a symbol of a lost golden age in all aspects. In the eyes of the Transylvanians, the ahdname he had issued meant even more than this. In the feudal public consciousness, the internal constitutional relationships of the country and the clearly definable leeway to act in external political matters were linked to this document, so it provided a kind of legitimacy for the rights of the ruler. However, this document did not in fact exist, despite the 13 TMÁOT 3, 116–120; Ferîdûn Ahmed Beg 12752 (1858). Mecmû’a-i münşe’âtü s-selâtîn. Volume 2, İstanbul, 470–471. 14 Kósa, J. II. Rákóczi György. Magyar életrajzok (Hungarian Biographies). Szekfű, Gy. (ed.) [Budapest], 18. 15 TMÁOT 3, 124–125. Alba Iulia, 16 June 1642. György I Rákóczi to Péter Sófalvai Gávai. 245 fact that it had become a part of a historical tradition that was not just based on fairy tales, as we have seen above. The envoy of György I Rákóczi, István Rácz, reported in detail about the negotiations that preceded his son, György II Rákóczi, receiving the confirmation as prince from the sultan while his father was still alive. He also informed the prince that the envoys would be departing for home on the 3rd of June and would be bringing with them the kapuji-bashi (kapıcı başı), who would arrive in the seat of the principality, Alba Iulia, for the investiture. György I Rákóczi was able to receive information about all of this in person from Mihály Maurer, who had been sent ahead.16 The response from Alba Iulia was already on its way to Constantinople on the 13th. György I Rákóczi was very angry that the envoys had left the Ottoman capital without his permission. He deemed that they had not proceeded in the spirit of their orders. If they had waited for his letters, then the matter would not have taken an unfavorable turn form him.”17 It can be seen that the prince considered the behavior of the Sublime Porte to be deceitful, because in spite of the promises of the grand vizier and the şeyhülislam and the great expenditures of the Transylvanians, it had not issued an ahdname, but instead a berat. He gave orders that the troublemaker Mózes II Székely, who was waiting to gain the throne of prince of Transylvania, should be removed from the Ottoman capital to Rhodes or Cyprus, so that he would no longer be able to meddle in Transylvanian affairs. The matter of the unsuccessful diplomatic maneuvering crops up from time to time for a few weeks in the correspondence of the prince and the envoy to the Sublime Porte, but then attention was drawn away from this by a much more pressing matter. This was the possibility of intervening in the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648), possible Ottoman support in joining the European anti-Habsburg alliance and most specifically, the taking back of the seven counties of Upper Hungary that were in Habsburg hands.18 Since the commissioners of the two great empires had renegotiated the continuance of the treaty of Zsitvatorok in Szőny in the spring of 1642, it was uncertain whether the Sublime Porte would give permission for military action. Instead of the 2nd of July date that was indicated on the invitation, the ceremonial handover of the insignia of the prince took place on Tuesday the 8th, and this is reported on in an anonymous journal. Since there are not a great deal of these types of descriptions available, I consider it worthwhile to present the reception in detail. One of the confidants of the prince, Ákos Barcsai, joined the envoys arriving from the Sublime Porte in Transylvania, and they escorted the kapuji-bashi, Mustafa agha, to Szászsebes (Sebeş) on the 7th of July. The next day the procession set off from there to the seat of the prince in Alba Iulia. Preparations were also underway in the capital. Following the early morning church service, which the young prince attended with the counselors and the people of the court, György II Rákóczi returned 16 Szilágyi 1883, 674. 02 June 1642. István Rácz to György I Rákóczi, Constantinople 17 Szilágyi 1883, 676–677. 13 June 1642. Alba Iulia, György I Rákóczi to István Rácz. 18 TMÁOT 3, 125–126; 131–132. 246 to the prince’s audience chamber. From there, his father gave him his blessing and sent him back to his accommodations. During this time, the estates of the country prepared to march out on horseback. When the drum of the country was struck, the young prince joined them as well. The peers also joined the procession, led by the field armies and then the nobility that lived in the vicinity of Alba Iulia. This was followed by the thirty-two person escort of the young prince, and then ten lead horses that were richly decorated and equipped, expressing the majesty of the prince. Following the horses, György II Rákóczi marched with his closest escort, Zsigmond Rákóczi, Boldizsár Wesselényi, Ferenc Kornis, Zsigmond Barcsai, István Szalánczi, Simon Pécsi, Ferenc Rédey, István Haller and Zsigmond Kornis, who all rode alongside one another in threes. The young prince himself followed them, and behind him, a group of leading men marched, including Pál Bornemissza, the captain-general of the court cavalry, János Kemény and Ferenc Bethlen, the head steward. The ceremonial procession was closed by the people of the princely court and the court guard organized into four battalions. Seven hundred Hungarian and five hundred fifty infantrymen served as the military escort. The escort of the kapuji-bashi was made up of thirty-nine people, and his son was also in attendance with him. They approached one another ceremonially. The Hungarian and German infantry of the court encircled an area where the first ceremony took place. The nearby mounted lancer units also appeared. First, the kapuji-bashi dismounted from his horse and approached the prince on foot. The young prince reciprocated this honor and dismounted from his horse along with his younger brother, counselors and ten leaders, as well as Pál Bornemisza, János Kemény and István Haller. Following the mutual words of greeting, the kapuji-bashi personally buckled the saber that was one of the insignia around the waist of the young prince. At the same time, he unbuckled his own saber from his belt and held it out to Mihály Monaki. The most important of the prince’s insignia, the banner was handed over second, which the prince passed along to Mátyás Huszár. Third to be handed over was the ornamental mace that was referred to as a scepter, which Péter Haller received. Words of greeting again followed the bestowal of the sultan’s insignia. After the ceremony, everyone mounted their horses while the cannons sounded from the bastion. Mustafa agha was to the left, the young prince to the right, and they returned to Alba Iulia in the same order in which they marched out. The sultan’s insignia of rule were brought ahead of the prince by the aristocrats that had received them from the young György Rákóczi when they were handed over. The procession accompanied the Ottoman delegation to their accommodations in the Gálfi House, where they bid them farewell but left a large escort alongside the Ottoman dignitary. Meanwhile, the Hungarian and German infantrymen marched into the market square and took their positions. The Ottoman pipers and drummers 247 escorted the prince up to the castle palace, on his way to his father.19 The “old” prince greeted the counselors and his son and gave them advice. While the young prince was in the palace with his father, the Hungarian and German infantry fired two salutes. The German soldiers then marched to their quarters but stopped on the way before the accommodations of the kapuji-bashi, where they also fired off a salvo. At 10 o’clock, the prince sent his carriage accompanied by numerous aristocrats and courtiers for Mustafa agha, who they escorted to the audience chamber. At the gate to the palace, the prince’s steward, Ferenc Bethlen, greeted the Ottoman dignitary and escorted him in to see his lord. György I Rákóczi rose from the table in deference to him. To his right stood the young prince, behind him Zsigmond Rákóczi and to his left the counselors. Mustafa kissed the hand and robe of the “old” prince, and then handed over the letters of the sultan and the grand vizier to him, György II Rákóczi and the estates, comprising six letters in all. At the same time, he presented two ceremonial robes, or kaftans, each to the young and the old prince. At this time, the kapuji-bashi placed upon the head of György II Rákóczi the “scofium embroidered cap”, which was the headwear of a janissary officer and was adorned with a decorative plume (üsküf, börk). Ten counselors also each received a kaftan. During the period before lunch, the old prince and his sons accompanied by the Turkish scribe had a talk with Mustafa agha and his entourage. Meanwhile, everyone else left the reception hall. After the meal together, during which the younger György Rákóczi sat at the prince’s right hand and Mustafa agha at his left, the participants in the ceremony went back to the audience chamber for a brief time, where the Ottoman envoy bid farewell and returned to his accommodations.20 It may be apparent that the handover of the insignia did not occur at once, but took place in well-structured stages. There was some kind of customary order that stretched back to the 16th century for these events at the prince’s court. István Báthori’s insignia of confirmation were brought to Transylvania by the master falconer Mehmed agha. The delegation was much larger and more impressive, being comprised of two hundred people according to the chronicler. The voivoide rode a mile out of Alba Iulia to greet the Ottoman dignitary and received the sultan’s banner there in the open, mounted on his horse, slightly different from described above. The Ottoman envoy and István Báthori also rode into the city alongside one another. The audience was held on the third day after this, and this was when there was the handover of the kaftans, the horse, the scepter (sceptrum=topuz) and 19 Although the source talks about the castle outside the city, it is clear on the basis of András Kovács’s book that there was no freestanding castle, just the fortified city, and within this, the prince’s palace. Kovács, A. Késő reneszánsz építészet Erdélyben 1541-1720 (Late Renaissance Architecture in Transylvania 1541-1720). Budapest, Cluj-Napoca 2003, 75–83. 20 Szilágyi, S. A két Rákóczi György fejedelem családi levelezése. Budapest 1875, 237–244. 248 diadem, which here should not be understood as a crown, but instead a cap with a plume. Twenty-five counselors received kaftans during the investiture ceremony.21 György I Rákóczi could not help himself, and at the final reception on the 12th, he threw it in the face of the kapuji-bashi that the Sublime Porte had made such a mess of it. The Ottoman dignitary promised that the horse would also be bestowed, and perhaps they would send it after him. However, the prince did not lighten up, and stated that it should have been there already. Although the above matter affected György I Rákóczi very deeply, he also paid attention to other affairs in Constantinople. For weeks, he had corresponded on the matter of the purchase of several items with his agent (kapitiha) at the Sublime Porte, who wrote that he could offer 850 thalers for the 4 rugs in question, and if they sold them, then fine, if not, then they would keep the money.22 He showed similar “implacability” in the matter of the rugs as he did in connection with his son’s appointment. Another berat: the confirmation of the prince Ferenc I Rákóczi during his father’s lifetime (1652) György II Rákóczi called a national assembly on the 18th of February in Alba Iulia. The pressing reason for this was that he was suffering from such a serious case of smallpox that it could have been fatal. He asked the estates to elect his son, Ferenc Rákóczi, to be his successor while he was still alive. As with every similar case when preparations were made to place a child alongside his father, the example of Zsigmond Báthori and its sorrowful results came to mind. During the period called the Fifteen Years’ or Long Turkish War (1591/93–1606) the rule of the restless prince devastated Transylvania nearly completely. The election took place along with the enactment of strict regulations on the 9th of March. János Kemény was appointed as the regent. However, by the time the national assembly had concluded, György II Rákóczi had recovered nicely. János Boros was sent to the Sublime Porte for the confirmation by the sultan.23 Sándor Szilágyi wrote very briefly about the sultan’s confirmation of Ferenc Rákóczi in the Erdélyi Országgyűlési Emlékekben (Records of the Transylvanian National Assembly). His information was for the most part taken from the chronicle of the scribe from Georg Kraus. According to this, the insignia for confirmation 21 Papp 2003, 81–82; Forgách, F. Emlékirat Magyarország állapotáról. In:Borzsák István (ed.) Kulcsár, P (trans.) Humanista történetírók. Budapest 1977, 995–996; Majer F. Ghymesi Forgách Ferencz nagyváradi püspök Magyar Históriája 1540-1572, Forgách Simon és Istvánfi Miklós jegyzéseikkel együtt. Pest 1866, 475. 22 Szilágyi 1883, 678–679. György I Rákóczi to István Rácz, 12 July 1642. Alba Iulia; TMÁOT 3, 120. István Rácz to György I Rákóczi. 11 June 1642. Constantinople. 23 Szilágyi S. Erdélyi országgyűlési emlékek. Monumenta Comitalia Regni Transylvaniae. Volume 11, (henceforth EOE 11) Budapest 1886, 11, 21–24. 249 were brought in March by an agent by the name of Hasan. However, the prince was not satisfied with this, and so in September he announced another national assembly, which sent István Serédy, a diplomat who was already experienced in these matters, along with János Daniel, György Bánffy and the royal magistrate of Szászsebes (Sebeş today’s Romania), Stephanus Mann, to rectify the “imperial pledge”.24 The confirmation by the sultan of the young prince ran into similar difficulties as that of György II Rákóczi ten years earlier. At first it seemed like everything would proceed in order, and the special and permanent envoys easily received the consent of the grand vizier with the help of the kizlar aghasi (kızlar agası).25 Szilágyi noted that the papers from this delegation were still lurking somewhere. Recently it has been possible to discover some of the Turkish documents related to the appointment of Ferenc I Rákóczi in Istanbul and in Göttingen. It must be stated that Georg Kraus and Sándor Szilágyi who followed him were going down the wrong path. Naturally, the most obvious error was committed by Kraus, according to which Hasan pasha had already brought the insignia of appointment in March. The envoy of the Sublime Porte, who was identified as Elczi Haszon (Elçi Hasan) in the Transylvanian sources, did in fact go to Transylvania during the prince’s illness.26 The purpose of his journey was twofold, on the one hand, he had to provide information on whether the prince of Transylvania was alive and on the other hand, he was participating in a joint Ottoman–Habsburg border demarcation commission in Hungary.27 However, one thing is certain, at this time there was not yet any talk of electing Ferenc I Rákóczi. Kraus thoroughly confused the events of this period, and it can be seen that for him the actual purpose of the envoy’s trip was not what was important, but for him to work his anti-Hungarian speech given in Sebeş into his message. The group of insignia that were wanted could not have arrived before the Transylvanian delegation petitioned for Ferenc I Rákóczi’s confirmation. The envoy Márton Boldai still mentions getting the grand vizier’s permission in May.28 However, the documents to be presented now all place the petition and the confirmation itself in the autumn and winter of 1652. I propose that the first steps thought to be for appointment could not have been anything other than preliminary requests for permission. If in connection with this, an order was prepared in the name of the sultan, that would not have been considered a final confirmation. An example such as this is known from later, when Mihály II Apafi 24 EOE 11, 23–24; Kraus, G. Erdélyi krónika 1608–1665 Budapest 1994, 201. 25 Szilágyi 1874, 97. Constantinople, 28 May 1652. Kapitiha Márton Boldai to György II Rákóczi. 26 Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára, Magyar Kamara Archívuma, Archivum Familiae Rákóczi, E190. 27. cs. 6566. Alba Iulia, 08 January 1652. János Kemény to György II Rákóczi; Publication: Szilágyi 1874, 92–94. The pasha of Buda also reports on this: Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Arşivi E.6977; Papp 2016, 49–51; Papp 2020, 37–40. 27 Papp 2016, 40–52; Papp 2020, 24–41. 28 EOE 11, 23–24; Kraus 1994, 201. 250 was recognized as the future prince while his father was still alive.29 All of this is just supposition in terms of Ferenc I Rákóczi, and there is no proof of it. The prince and the estates pleaded for the mercy of the sultan through a collective letter of petition, just as they had ten years earlier. 30 This document is known in Turkish translation. Several Transylvanian aristocrats signed the petition on behalf of the estates, and in the translation, it was also noted that the petition was authenticated by their seals above their names in the original. The document was issued in September (bu ‘ubûdiyet mahzarımuz Erdel Belgrâdında evvelki güz ayınuñ ibtidâsı güni sene 1652 târîh-i velâdet-i Hazret-i ‘Îsâ ‘m (‘aleyhi s-selâm) yazıldı). The argument of the estates was so similar to the petition following the election ten years previously that it can be hypothesized that they were prepared using the model of earlier documents. In essence, they cited that if the prince were to die, it will be the duty of the estates to elect a new ruler, but all of this would take time. Since they were surrounded by large and strong countries, it would be better if they were to avoid the danger inherent in the interregnum and elect the son of the prince to be the future prince while his father was still alive. They had decided on all of this in the national assembly that had been concluded, and requested that the sultan confirm their decision according to custom.31 Two documents were created due to this petition, or at least this many are known up to now. One was addressed to György II Rákóczi and in this, he was informed of the sultan’s decision, according to which his son would be accepted as prince after his death, but until then he could not intervene in the matters of governance. In the manuscript at Göttingen it was considered necessary to mention that this document was not an ahdname of the sultan, just a name, or a letter (bi-l-fi’l Erdel hâkimi olan Râkóçî Görgy ve Erdel memleketine tâbi’ üç millet â’yânı ‘arz u mahzarları ile ricâ eyledükleri ‘ahdnâme vërilmeyüb išbu vërilen nâme-i hümâyûnuñ sûretidür fî sene 1063. [“In the request of the current prince of Transylvania, György Rákóczi and the nobles of the three estates and their collective letter of petition, they have requested an imperial pledge, which has not been issued. [This] is a copy of the sovereign’s letter in the year 1063.]”) The document is in fact a response to the petition of the prince and the estates, which also repeats elements from the request. At the same time, it also differs in a few points from the previous ahdnames, and for example prohibits the voivodes of Moldavia and Wallachia being received if they rebel against Constantinople. It also blocks the immigration of rayahs, both from the voivodeships and from Ottoman 29 Document of appointment of Mihály II Apafi. Österreichisches Staatsarchiv Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv, Türkische Urkunde 1684. 11, 19–28. (Frangment of the original berat) („Fragment, Nachfolge Apáfy’s in Siebenbürgen betrifft. Mitte Zilhidsche 1059 / Nov. 1684); Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen, 4o Cod. MS. Manusript Turcica 30. fol. 77r–77v; Its publication with a French translation: Veselá-Přenosilová, Z. Contribution aux rapports de la Porte Sublime avec la Transylvanie d’apres les documents Turcs. Archiv Orientální 33(1965), 571–572. 30 TMÁOT 7, 382–385. 31 Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Arşivi (İstanbul) E. 6462. 251 territories. The insignia of the prince to come from the sultan were the following: two decorative kaftans, a banner of the sultan and a scepter, which they bestowed upon both the adult and child princes. The insignia of rule were brought by an internal official of the court, the haseki-bashi (the fifth officer of the baltacı / halberdier corps), Ahmed.32 Mention must also be made of the appointment letter itself. The confirmation document sent at this time has been unknown to the study of history to this point. Its copy can be found in the aforementioned manuscript from Göttingen under shelf guide Turcica 29, and it is a berat, not an ahdname.33 The construction, structure and diplomatic analysis of the temporary letter of appointment (berat) This document bears special value when examining the diplomatic links between Transylvania and the Sublime Porte in the 17th century. Namely, on the basis of this berat it has also been possible to form a clear opinion on the documentary materials related to the confirmation of the prince ten years earlier mentioned above. Without the document from the sultan appointing Ferenc I Rákóczi, it would not have been possible to perform the textual critical analysis that provides the basis for me to state that the 1642 letter of confirmation for György II Rákóczi known from the collection of Feridun bey and listed as an ahdname there, is instead a berat. From the comparison of the text of the two documents it becomes clear that the original berat of 1642 is essentially the same word-for-word as the document granted ten years later to Ferenc I Rákóczi. The question may arise about what was left out of the publication that could be supplemented by the manuscript in Göttingen. The elements that are missing are those that are indispensable for identifying the “type”, such as the long introductory section that states that the sultan, as the trustee of divine justice, fulfills the requests of those who turn to him as well as references to sections of the text of the Koran that are aimed at observing contracts and supporting beneficiaries. The Feridun publication for the most part included the details that were interesting from a political perspective, which state that the prince and the representatives of the three nationalities had petitioned for the confirmation of the young György Rákóczi while his father was still alive with the condition that he not be able to interfere in the exercise of power. The tribute had to be sent in time and if the voivodes of Moldavia or Wallachia were to rise up against the Sublime Porte and seek refuge there or immigrating rayahs came looking for a better life, they must be handed over. Based on these conditions, the prince and the estates requested the issuance of a berat of the sultan, which – with the renewed mention of the terms – 32 Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen, 4o Cod. MS. Manusript Turcica 29. fol. 96v. –97r. The date is 20-30 Muharrem 1063 / 2-11 December 1652. 33 Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen, 4o Cod. MS. Manusript Turcica 29. fol. 96r. –96v. The date is 20-30 Muharrem 1063 / 2-11 December 1652. 252 the sultan had fulfilled and appointed György II Rákóczi prince of Transylvania, but he would only be able to govern the country in actuality after the death of his father. The document repeatedly mentioned the surrender of the tribute on time, lawful rule and includes a recurrent formula, according to which the young György Rákóczi will be a friend to the sultan’s friends and an enemy to his enemies. The text in the Feridun collection related to Ferenc I Rákóczi ends here, essentially in the middle of a sentence that states that a kapuji-bashi (head of the palace doorkeeper) would bring the insignia of the prince. The missing section is also worthy of attention. This is where the berat talked about how György II Rákóczi must do everything to protect the state and his subjects, who in return must consider him the prince after his father’s death and must recognize his rule. The original text concluded with the customary formula, “Thus it is known, certify it with the noble mark (= tugra)!” A precise date was not included on the document, the currently unknown draftsman of the Feridun collection only provided the year. The above structural elements are thus repeated in the case of Ferenc I Rákóczi as well, and the text is identical aside from having the names changed and minor stylistic differences. This is a quite natural occurrence. An element of diplomacy of this great importance, the installation of a vassal ruler into power, demands clear forms, grand, ceremonial phrasing, established ceremony and the reduction of improvisation to the extent possible by the sovereign power. Differences from the usual always suggest the development of a new structure of political power, which requires the alteration of the ceremonies as well as the symbols, insignia and documents used. Therefore, there is no wonder that berats based on the same logic and using very similar expressive terminology and content were prepared for the vassal rulers of the period. Very few examples had published until now. As an example, there is a single known Moldavian berat from the 17th century, which was sent to the voivode Alexandru Iliaş around 1620/21, when Gaspar Graţiani was removed.34 Of those that have not been published, the berat of the Cossack hetman Dorošenko stands out, which is from around 1660.35 Since the entire process is built upon a very rigid system, it is possible to identify those documents and insignia about which information was not found, or which due to the preliminary nature of the confirmation – since the father was still alive – were not sent. The prince’s letter of petition sent to the Sublime Porte for his son’s 34 Ferîdûn Ahmed Beg, 2, 12752, 488–489, Antalffy, A. Münşeat al-salatin al lui Rukhsanzade Ahmed Feridun et-Tevki (pomenit şi supt numele Ahmed Feridun Bey Nişangi) ca izvor pentru istoria Românilor. Buletinul comisiei istorice a României 13(1934), 5–23; Papp, S. Keresztény vazallusok az Oszmán Birodalom észak-nyugati határainál (Diplomatikai vizsgálat a román vajdák szultáni ‘ahdnâméi körül). Aetas 17(2002), 92–93. 35 BOA, İbnülemin, Hariciyye No. 52; Ostapchuk, V. Cossack Ukraine In and Out of Ottoman Orbit, 1648–1681. In: Kármán, G. – Kunčević, L. The European Tributary States of the Ottoman Empire in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Leiden & Boston, 2013. Brill, 123–152. 253 appointment has not survived or has not yet been found. At the same time, the letter of the sultan issued to the estates is not known either, although I consider its existence to be certain, since there are continuous examples of them from the 16th century. It was also necessary for the grand vizier to write a document called a mektub. Despite the lack of these, we have made a large step forward, since there had been no materials available so far from Hungarian archives related to this appointment. From the berat, it is clear that only the decorative clothing, the sultan’s banner and the scepter were sent of the prince’s insignia, so the saber, the ornamental plume, the janissary officer’s cap and the horse with its equipment were left out of the set. These should have been brought at the final confirmation, with the transfer of power, which – with the knowledge of Ferenc I Rákóczi’s life story – never could have happened. According to the Transylvanian Saxon historian Georg Kraus, a pasha by the name of Osman, the sultan’s cup-bearer, was sent from the Sublime Porte to confirm the young prince. 36 Precise information was found in the correspondence of the Rákóczi family in terms of when and where the handover of the documents and insignia of appointment took place. The young Ferenc Rákóczi himself wrote to his grandmother, Zsuzsanna Lórántffy on the 14th of February 1653 that “I went before the Turkish envoy and there were shots, but I did not fear anything, and I entered with him from the bridge of Várfadja [Alsóváradja, Oarda in Romania].”37 Although we do not have any more information about the ceremony besides the handover of the insignia of power, the cited correspondence indicates that it proceeded in a similar manner to what took place ten years earlier, in the case of György II Rákóczi. 36 Kraus 1994, 201. 37 Szilágyi 1875, 448. Places Full of Secrets in 16th Century Istanbul: the Shops of the maʿcūncıs Benedek Péri The Ottoman imperial literary paradigm as it came to be established in the second half of the 15th century was a derived literary system, one of the branches of the Persianate literary tradition. Ottoman litterateurs followed the examples of Persian authors whom they considered their direct predecessors. In their works they endeavoured to comply with the written and unwritten rules of a continuous literary tradition that started to develop sometime in the late 10th century, under the rule of the Samanids and the Ghaznavids. This Persian tradition reached a turning point at the turn of the 15th–16th centuries, at the time when the Ottoman system was still in the phase of development. A new literary trend emerged and slowly started dominating the literary scene. The new style often termed maktab-i vuḳū or vuḳūʿgūyī ‘incidentalist style’ had an especially great impact on gazel, a major branch of Persianate poetical production. Gazel as a poetic form developed in the Persian tradition and it has very strict formal conventions.1 The technical gazel consists of five to eleven couplets (beyts), has a special rhyme scheme (aa, ba, ca, etc.) and the rhyme is often followed by a refrain-like element, the redīf, that can be a suffix, a word or a whole phrase. An important feature of the technical gazel is that the closing couplet (maḳtaʿ) contains the nom de plume of the author. Though during its history the technical gazel was applied for various aims and topics and there are didactical, panegyrical, religious gazels as well, the most often occurring subject of this type of poems is love, more specifically unrequited love. Traditionally, āşıḳāne (amorous) gazels are snapshots taken of a love affair in which the poet plays the role of the lover. Lover (āşıḳ) and beloved (maʿşūḳ) are separated both physically and emotionally. The poet lover yearns for meeting (vaṣl) his beloved and complains about being separated (hicr). The beloved, who is traditionally depicted as an adolescent male, usually plays a passive role in the poem: he ignores the feelings of the lover, which torments the poet. Gazels describe the sufferings of the poet and praise the beauty of the beloved in exaggerating terms. 1 For an overview of the development of gazel as a poetic form see de Burijn, J. T. P., The Gazel in Medieval Persian Poetry. In: Yarshater, Ehsan, Persian Lyric Poetry in the Classical Era, 800–1500: Gazels, Panegyrics and Quatrians. London 2019, 315–487. 256 The imagery used to depict the lover’s state of mind and the beloved’s physical characteristics are conventional and fall far from reality. This is especially true for the gazel poetry of the Timurid period that was “too often marred by an excessive use of rhetoric” which led to “artificialness, and conventionality, combined with an ever increasing deftness of craftsmanship and brilliance of artistry”.2 As the focus of gazel poetry shifted towards a mastery of rhetorical niceties, the connection of a poem to the tradition overshadowed its relationship to reality. Though contemporary native literary critics stress that passion (sūz u gudāz lit. ‘burning and melting’) is an essential ingredient of a good lyric piece,3 composing a traditional style āşıḳāne gazel can be a simple technical affair. A skilled and talented poet doesn’t necessarily have to be in love at all because he has everything he needs in the poetic toolbox provided by the tradition of classical poetry: metrical rules, rhetoric conventions and a rich set of images to choose from. It is possible to write a good poem in the technical sense simply by combining these elements in a creative way. This seemingly rock solid system of Persian gazel poetry was profoundly changed by the advent of the maktab-i vuḳūʿ, the incidentalist style. While the traditional system was living one of its important phases hallmarked by the poetic activity of the last great classical poet, ʿAbd al-Raḥman Jāmī (Turk. Cāmī; d. 1492), the first signs of the oncoming changes in literary taste already appeared in the late 15th century. Contemporary literary critics consider Bābā Fiġānī (d. 1519) 4 the trendsetter of this poetic style that “made a conscious move in the direction of a kind of innovation (or at least change) and of becoming to a certain extent simple”.5 Amorous gazels written in the incidentalist style close the gap between the poetic world and reality. The beloved is often a real human being and the “love affair” between the poet lover and his beloved is based on reality. Love affairs are depicted in a realistic way, in simple everyday language using only a limited number of rhetoric devices.6 Shafīʿī Kadkānī summarized the “manifesto” of the poets of the 2 3 4 5 6 Gibb, Elias John Wilkinson, A History of Ottoman Poetry, vol. 2 London 1902., 11, 13. For a detailed description of Timurid gazel poetry see Subtelny, Maria Eva, A Taste for the Intricate: The Persian Poetry of the Late Timurid Period. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 136, no 1 (1986), 56–79. For the term sūz u güdāz in Ottoman Poetry see Ambros, Edith Gülçin, Emotivity as a Stylistic Marker in Ottoman Lyric Poetry of the 15th and 16th Centuries. In: Christiane Czygan and Stephan Connermann (eds.) An Iridescent Device: Premodern Ottoman Poetry. Göttingen 2018, 33–48. On Fighani and his poetry see Losensky, Paul, Welcoming Fighānī. Imitation and Poetic Individuality in the Safavid-Mughal Gazel. Costa Mesa 1998. Kadkanī, Shafīʿī, Persian Literature (Belles Lettres) from the Time of Jāmī to the Present Day. In: Morrison, G (ed.) History of Persian Literature from the Beginning of the Islamic Period to the Present Day. Leiden 1981, 146. Şamīsā, Sīrūs. Sayr-i ġazal dar şiʿr-i Fārsī. Tehrān 1370/1991, 160; Losensky, Welcoming Fighānī, 82. 257 maktab-i vuḳūʿ in the following way: “We must once more draw poetry close to the experiences of daily life and turn our faces away from ‘universal love’, ‘universal beloved’ and everything that is absolute”.7 Ottoman gazel poetry in the early 16th century remained seemingly untouched by the new trend in Iran. The works of Persian poets from the classical period continued to serve as “official” reference points for literary critics and authors alike. Compilers of literary anthologies (teẕkires), the main forum for literary criticism in this period, hold up the poetry of Persian classics as examples that should be followed. And as their poems show, Ottoman poets are in a continuous competition with Amīr Ḫusrau (d. 1325), Ḥāfiẓ (d. 1394), Kamāl-i Ḫujandī (d. 1400) and Jāmī, whom they look upon as their predecessors, as far as poetic excellence is concerned.8 A few entries and scattered remarks in teẕkires, however, suggest that Ottoman poets were well aware of the changes in the literary taste in Iran and the maktab-i vuḳūʿ started making its influence felt on the Ottoman literary scene. As it has been mentioned earlier, one of the features of the maktab-i vukūʿ texts was the use of simple, everyday language. It is possible that the use of proverbs and sayings in Ottoman gazels, a practice that started in mainstream Ottoman gazel poetry around the turn of the 15th–16th century, can be attributed to the influence of the incidentalist style.9 It must not be forgotten that the cultural relations between the Ottoman Empire and Iran, in spite of the political conflicts were never disrupted. Moreover, many Iranians, poets among them, migrated to Ottoman lands. Some of these poets like Ḥāmidī Iṣfahānī (fl. 15th c.) are considered precursors of the maktab-i vuḳūʿ.10 It is also possible that the inspiration for a style of gazel called the Türkī-i basīṭ movement in Turkish literary history, a short lived literary project trying to use simple Turkish language with many Turkish words instead of Persian and Arabic lexical items, was also inspired by the simple language of vuḳūʿ-gūyī.11 Contemporary sources contain samples of Ottoman poems that appear to show the characteristics of the incidentalist style. Most of these were inspired by everyday incidents, like going to a barber or to a public bath and they are often praising 7 Kadkanī, Persian Literature, 147. 8 For a detailed description how Ottoman poets in the 16th century viewed Persian gazel poetry see Péri Benedek, ‘O Muhibbi! You’ve Lit Your Lamp with Khosrow’s Burning Passion’. Persian Poetry as Perceived by Sixteenth-Century Ottoman Authors. In Melville, Charles The Safavids, The Idea of Iran 10. (forthcoming). 9 On the use of proverbs and saying in classical Ottoman poetry see Kaya, Bayram Ali, Atasözleri ve Deyimlerin Dîvân Şiirinde Kullanımı ile Dîvânların Bu Söz Valıklarımızın Önemi. Divan Edebiyatı araştırmaları Dergisi 6(2011), 11–54. 10 On Ḥāmidī see Raʾīsī, Iḥsān Ḥāmidī Iṣfahānī, az shāʿirān-i pīshgām-i maktab-i vuqūʿdar saddayi nuhum. Pazhūhash-i zabān va adabiyāt-i Fārsī no. 45/Tābistān 1396/2017, 91–115. 11 For a recent summary of the movement see Aynur, Hatice, Rethinking the Türkî-i Basît movement in Turkish Literature. Archivum Ottomanicum 25(2008), 79–97. 258 people from all walks of life as the poet’s beloved. These poems are written in a simple language; they are straightforward, lack artificiality (takalluf) and elaborate rhetorical devices. One of the well-known representatives of this style of poetry was Nihālī (d. 1542). His amorous poems addressed to various craftsmen, a tailor, a cook, a person making silver thread, a börek-maker or an unnamed youth going to the bath and another one he saw somewhere close to the Aya Sofya were preserved in Āşıḳ Çelebi’s teẕkire and in various poetry collections (mecmūʿas).12 Divans of poets, literary anthologies and poetry collections contain quite a few poems addressed to simple people, among them craftsmen beloveds, indicating that this style of gazel was quite popular in urban centres of the empire. A distinct group of poems within this category of gazels are addressed to a very special type of beloveds, the maʿcūncı, professionals preparing and selling maʿcūn, ‘paste’. Maʿcūn in the 16th century Ottoman context was a generic term describing a class of electuaries sold in the form of paste, including medicine and various types of opium and cannabis-based drugs. An undated, manuscript preserved in the Bibliothèque Universitaire des Langues et Civilisations in Paris contains the description of a large number of pastes, together with their ingredients and instructions how to prepare them. The text (Ms. no. 131) titled Kitāb-i maʿācīn, The Book of Electuaries, describes a wide range of products a maʿcūncı could produce, extending from an electuary called cāvidān (‘eternity’) facilitating longevity, to corroborants, medicines, syrups, soaps and various drugs, like berş and funūniya.13 Products that captured the imagination of poets and inspired them to compose gazels to maʿcūncıs seem to have belonged to the last group. Ẕātī (d. 1546) one of the most prolific gazel composers of his age, who dedicated quite a few poems to everyday and craftsmen beloveds, 14 has three gazels describing the wonders a maʿcūncı’s shop could offer.15 Sooyong Kim in his monograph on Ẕātī translated two of these poems and interpreted them as gazels addressed to “a maker of the mesir paste, a medicinal electuary that was used for an assortment of ailments and popularized early in 12 Âşık Çelebi, Meşâ’irü’ş-şuʿarâ. Ed. Filiz Kılıç. Ankara 2018, 392–396; Pervâne b. Abdullah, Pervâne Bey Mecmuası. Ed. Kamil Ali Gıynaş. Ankara 2017, 241, 1435–1436. 13 On berş see Péri Benedek, Gyógyszerből "hangulatjavító": egy partidrog karrierje az Oszmán Birodalomban (From medicine to mood enhancer: the carrier of a party drug in the Ottoman Empire). Szabolcs-Szatmár-Beregi Szemle 54, no. 2(2019), 45–56; Péri Benedek, A Janissary’s Son Turned Druggist and His Highly Successful Designer Drug in 16th–17th Century Istanbul,” In: Osmanlı İstanbulu IV. Ed. Feridun M. Emecen and Ali Akyıldız and Emrah Safa Gürkan. İstanbul 2016, 643–654. 14 Kim, Sooyong, The Last of An Age. The Making and Unmaking of a Sixteenth-Century Ottoman Poet. London and New York 2018, 62. 15 Tarlan, Ali Nihad (ed.) Zatî Divanı (Edisyon Kritik ve Transkripsiyon). Gazeller Kısmı II. İstanbul 1970, 506–507; Çavuşoğlu, Mehmed and Tanyeri, M. Ali (eds.) Zatî Divanı (Edisyon Kritik ve Transkripsiyon). Gazeller Kısmı III. İstanbul 1987, 316–317. 259 Süleyman’s reign”.16 This interpretation shows that the author was not aware of the contemporary realities that inspired the poet. It misses the main point and fails to recognize the poetic riddles and rhetorical niceties that make Ẕātī’s poem a showcase of how traditional elements can be updated and adapted to poetical contexts reflecting everyday experiences. The Ottoman poetical tradition introduced a few innovations to the classical Persianate literary tradition in the early 16th century, some of which reflected Ottoman realities. One of these special Ottoman features was the semantic field of cannabis.17 As it has been referred to earlier an essential branch of the maʿcūncı’s range of products was drugs, some of which was produced using cannabis. Looking at Ẕātī’s gazel from this perspective enables the reader to see the text in a new light and discover all the hidden poetic niceties. Bir güzel maʿcūncınuŋ dīdārınuŋ ḥayrānıyam Ḥoḳḳa-i laʿl-i lebi esrārınuŋ ḥayrānıyam I am intoxicated by the sight of a beautiful paste-maker, I am intoxicated by the secrets of the pillbox of his ruby lips. The meaning of the lemma ḥayrān is usually given in dictionaries as ‘dombfounded’ and in this meaning it is an integral part of the signifying universe of classical gazel poetry. In āşıḳāne gazels it denotes the state of mind the poet lover gets into when he sees the beloved’s beauty. However, the adjective is also a wellknown term in the 16th–17th century vocabulary of drug subculture, and thus an integral part of the semantic field of cannabis or more widely drug use, referring to the altered state of consciousness drugs induce. Ẕātī very consciously placed the word play (īhām) based on the double meaning of the word in a key position and used it as the redīf of the poem. This way he defined the topic, set the tone of his gazel and provided the reader with clear-cut guidance how to interpret the poem. Ḥoḳḳa, the first word in the second hemistich, is an often recurring word in lyric poetry. It is used in similes and metaphors as an object to which the beloved’s mouth is compared (ḥoḳḳa dehen). Beautiful beloveds have tiny mouth in classical poetry resembling small objects like the circle of the letter mīm (‫ )م‬or a little round box. Originally, and in the context of the present poem, the noun ḥoḳḳa refers to a small portable container used for storing pills. Esrār in the same line has a double meaning. In its first meaning it is the Arabic plural of sırr ‘secret’ and at the same time it is the Ottoman and modern Turkish term denoting cannabis. The word leb ‘lip’ is a general word quite frequently met with in lyric poetry. Its form suffixed with third person genitive marker coupled with 16 Kim, The Last of an Age, 62. 17 For a detailed description of the topic see Péri Benedek Canabis (Esrār): A Unique Semantic Field in Classical Ottoman Lyric Poetry. Turcica 48(2017), 9–36. 260 the next word in the line esrār, however, can be understood as a direct allusion to a widespread drug of the 16th–17th century. Leb-i dilber or dilber lebi18 was the name of a cannabis-based electuary with a long lasting popularity. Laṭīfī (d. 1582) a literary critic from the 16th century mentions it as one of the many drugs sold in Istanbul,19 and it was the only drug Evliyā Çelebi (d. after 1685) admitted to have occasionally consumed.20 The inclusion of the noun ḥoḳḳa, so characteristic of a paste-maker’s profession, in the line was of utmost importance for Ẕātī. In order to be able to do this he decided to slightly modify the conventional image of the “pillbox like tiny mouth” by replacing the traditionally used word dehen, dehān ‘mouth’ in the noun phrase with leb ‘lip’. This way he partially ruined the simile, because it lost its most essential part, the basis for comparison, but the rhetoric force provided by the semantic bonding of the words ḥoḳḳa, lebi, esrār was worth the sacrifice. The double meanings of the keywords in the opening couplet (maṭlaʿ) prepare the reader for an intellectual adventure and show the direction where to look for the solutions of the poetic riddles Ẕātī hid in the poem. The second couplet (beyt) is worded in the same vein. Būstānda bunı der reyḥān perīşān ḳalb olur Ben ġubār-ı ḫaṭṭ-ı ʿanber-bārınuŋ ḥayrānıyam The sweet basil becomes distressed in the garden and says, I am intoxicated by the dust of the amber-laden peach-fuzz of the beloved. The beyt focuses on praising the peach-fuzz of the beloved, often compared to sweet-basil in love poetry. The two hemistichs (miṣrāʿ) could easily fit into any classical āşıḳāne gazel. The second hemistich, however, contains a word play based on the double meaning of the word ġubār. Its original meaning is ‘powder, dust’, and as such it is often part of metaphors and similes describing the facial hair of juvenile boys. The second meaning, as it is expected, is connected to drug use and refers to ‘cannabis powder’ often used in the religious practices of antinomian dervish communities.21 Esrār with its double meaning returns in the first hemistich of the fourth couplet. 18 Though the form leb-i dilber is more commonly used, Muṣṭafā ʿĀlī refers to this drug as dilber lebi. Şeker, Mehmet (ed.) Gelibolulu Mustafa cÂlî ve Mevâ’idü’n-Nefâis fî Ḳavâ’idi’l-Mecâlis. Ankara 1997, 300. 19 Lâtifî, Evsâf-i İstanbul. Ed. Nermin Suner (Pekin). İstanbul 1997, 52. 20 Evliya Çelebi b. Derviş Mehemmed Zıllî, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi; I. Topkapı Sarayı Bağdat 304 Yazmasının Transkripsiyonu-Dizini. Ed. Robert Dankoff and Seyit Ali Kahraman and Yücel Dağlı. İstanbul 2006, 335. For more data on leb-i dilber see Péri, Canabis (Esrār), 22–24. 21 On the word ġūbār and its uses in classical poetry see Péri, “Canabis (Esrār)”, 20. For its connection to antinomian spiritual communities see Péri Benedek, “It is the Weed of Lovers. The Use of Cannabis Among Turkic Peoples up to the 15th Century” Acta Orinetalia Academiae Scientiarum Hung. 62, no. 2 (2016), 150–152. 261 Her dem ol şīrīn dehen esrārdan virmez ḥaber Cān ü dilden ben anuŋ güftārinuŋ ḥayrāniyam That sweet mouth never says anything about secrets, My heart and soul is intoxicated by the way he speaks. The first hemistich can be translated as Kim did22 but the contrast between the two miṣrāʿs indicates that it can also be interpreted as a reference to the maʿcūncı’s trade and his accounts of his business: “That sweet mouth doesn’t always [need to] speak about cannabis/I am fully intoxicated by the way he speaks”. It is impossible to say whether the addressee of Ẕātī’s second love poem dedicated to a maʿcūncı was the same person as the previous paste-maker. This poem contains less direct allusions to the maʿcūncı beloved’s profession and except for the redīf ḥayrānıyam ‘I am intoxicated by...’ nothing would suggest that the beloved in the poem traded with drugs.23 Though the paste-maker beloved of the third and the second poem seems to be the same, a person called Sikender Şāh, the third gazel contains more allusions to the beloved’s profession. Etdi bir maʿcūncı ġarrā dil-rübā ḥayrān beni Eyledi yine ġubār ile hevā yeksān beni A paste-maker, a sparkling beauty robbed my heart and made me intoxicated, Desire made me [feel] like dust. Ġubār and ḥayrān are used in the couplet in word plays (tevriye) based on their double meanings. Together with the noun maʿcūncı they form a basic rhetoric figure called tenasüb, ‘congruency’ that is based on the semantic bonding of words belonging to the same semantic field. Though the beyt is seemingly a simple couplet from a traditional love poem, with the semantic field of drug use lingering vaguely in the background, its poetic force is greatly enhanced. The second couplet also contains obvious allusions to some qualities of the maʿcūncı’s products. Keşf eder yoḳdur vilāyetde lebi esrārını Eyledi ḥayrānı bir maʿcūncınuŋ devrān beni There is no one in this land who could discover the secrets of his lips, The intoxication caused by a paste-maker made me dizzy. / Fate made me fall for a paste-maker. Besides the surface meaning of the couplet, the first miṣrāʿ also suggests that the taste of cannabis couldn’t be felt in the paste-maker’s products and a possible interpretation of the second hemistich alludes to a side effect of cannabis intoxication: dizziness. 22 That sweet-mouth never reveals any secret news. 23 For an English translation of the poem see Kim, The Last of an Age, 63. 262 The third couplet is also worded in a plain language and seems to advertise the high-quality merchandise the paste-maker sells. Ṭurfa maʿcūn görmek isterlerse ṭās-i ʿışḳda İsteyü gelsün anuŋ dükkānına yārān beni If you want to see a special paste in the goblet of love, My friends, you should wish to come to his shop. The fourth beyt is a reference to another side effect of cannabis: the drug often gets consumers into a giggling mood. It was such a well-known and common experience of drug users in the 16th century that the notion of ‘laughing’ became part of the semantic field of cannabis.24 Gördi kim berg-i ḫazān gibi döker yaşın gözüm Etdi faṣl-i gül gibi maʿcūn ile ḫandān beni He saw that tears were dripping from my eyes like autumn leaves, With his paste he made me laugh like spring. Besides expressing Ẕātī’s dedication to the paste-maker and his addiction to the maʿcūncı’s products, the maḳtaʿ describes another effect of cannabis use. The drug can cause a state of bliss; all the stress and tension the consumer might have, disappears and he feels as if he was a ruler sitting on his throne. Ẕātiyā farḳ olmazam hergiz Sikender Şāhdan Her gece maʿcūnı eyler ʿāleme sulṭān beni Ẕātī, I would never leave Sikender Şāh! His paste makes me a king every night. Drugs seem to have been very popular in the Ottoman Empire and the demand for the paste-makers’ products was high. To serve the public, many such shops were opened in urban areas. According to Evliya Çelebi there were two hundred maʿcuncı shops in 17th century Istanbul and five hundred people were engaged in this trade.25 The relatively great number of such undertakings and the “wonderful” world of their products captured the imagination of other poets as well. Both Muʿīnī’s (fl. 16th c.) and Sürūrī’s (d. 1562) description of their paste-maker beloveds start with unexpected incidents.26 Muʿīnī goes for a pleasure walk in Istanbul and suddenly notices a freshly opened fancy new shop of a paste-maker; Sürūrī falls in love with a maʿcūncı in the Tahtakale district of the city. Both gazels praise the beloved whose charming beauty intoxicates the poets. These poems are written in a simple language reflecting 24 Péri, Canabis (Esrār), 29. 25 Evliya Çelebi, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, 248. 26 For the full text of the poems see the Appendix. For a full translation of Muʿīnī’s poem see Péri, Canabis (Esrār), 24. 263 contemporary realities by mixing traditional imagery with elements freshly introduced by Ottoman authors to the signifying universe of Ottoman poetry. Rhetorically they are not too complex; the devices Muʿīnī and Sürūrī apply are simple similes, metaphors, and most importantly word plays based on words that have two or more meanings, one of which can be interpreted as an allusion to contemporary drug culture. The second and third couplets of Muʿīnī’s gazel contain several of these words. Oturmış anda bir ḥoḳḳa-dehen yār ü müferriḥ-leb Ki bir keyfiyyet ile ḥoḳḳaya ḳoymış niçe cānı Anuŋ ḥayrānlıġından ben küleh etmezdüm ey zāhid Götürsem başum üstinde ġubār-i rāh-i cānānı A beloved was sitting there, his mouth was [tiny] like a pillbox, his lips were exhilarating, The euphoria he induced had already bound several souls to his pillbox. Ascetic! The intoxication he caused made me forget my dervish cap, Even if I let the dust from the beloved’s street settle on my head. The adjective müferriḥ, the first part of the compound müferriḥ-leb ‘exhilarating lips’ was the name of a popular drug in the Islamicate world. Keyfiyyet ‘quality’ has a second meaning in contemporary Ottoman vocabulary denoting a merry state induced by the use of drugs. 27 Besides being the abstract noun formed from the adjective ḥayrān, a term that has already been mentioned as the par excellence term for describing a state of altered consciousness caused by drugs, ḥayrānlıḳ was also used to mean cannabis in the 16th century.28 The utterance in the second hemistich of the second couplet, bir keyfiyyet ile ḥoḳḳaya ḳoymış niçe cānı, lit. ‘he has put with this merry mood [caused by the drugs he sells] quite a few souls into the pillbox’ can be understood that many of the customers got addicted to the paste-maker’s products. The third beyt is an updated version of a well-known poetic topos often occurring in classical Persianate gazel poetry, especially in rindāne ‘libertine style’ gazels. Rinds are inspired libertines, representing members of spiritual communities endeavouring to attain an ecstatic personal experience of God, instead of simply following orthodox religious practices and obeying religious law. In classical poetry they are depicted as drinkers of wine, a substance prohibited by Islam, who spend much time in taverns using wine as an entheogen that helps them in their spiritual 27 For these terms see Péri, Canabis (Esrār), 16–17; 20–22. 28 For this meaning of the word see Péri Benedek, Beng, eszrár, maszlag: a cannabis és a cannabis tartalmú drogok az anatóliai törökségnél. Terminológiai áttekintés” Keletkutatás 2012 tavasz, 60. 264 quest.29 They are always shown in a positive light while orthodox characters (zāhid ‘ascetic’, ṣūfī ‘dervish’, vāʿiẓ ‘preacher’, etc.) are shunned. Muʿīnī adapted the traditional topos to the poetic context of his poem when he replaced wine with cannabis. The poet-lover turns his back to orthodox religious practices represented in the couplet by the character of the ascetic (zāhid) and the noun külāh denoting the headgear worn by Mevlevi’s dervishes, and chooses the ecstatic spirituality symbolized by love and the use of ġubār, cannabis powder. Since cannabis was used as an entheogen by some antinomian communities, a scene described by several European travellers,30 and Mevlevi’s were one of the traditional religious communities known for orthodox piety in the Ottoman empire, the poetic topos based on the dichotomy represented by rinds and orthodox devotees receives an Ottoman flavour in the poem. The fourth and fifth couplets also contain direct allusions to the products the paste-maker beloved sells: leb-i dilber, maʿcūn and berş, an opium based electuary enjoying great popularity in the 16th–17th centuries, all of them produced in the form of pills (ḥabbe). Ger ol dil-ber lebi fikrin edersem ben gece gündüz Olur bu ḫasteler gibi anuŋ esrārı ḥayrānı Muʿīnī açılur göŋlüŋ gözüŋ bir ḥabbe ġam ḳalmaz Yeyüp maʿcūn ü berşini temāşā eyleseŋ anı If I keep thinking of the lips of the beloved, day and night, I would be intoxicated by his secrets like these [love] stricken people. Muʿīnī! It will open up the eyes of your soul and not a single grain of sorrow remains, When you consume his maʿcūn and berş and keep looking at him. Sürūrī’s approach to his topic is a bit different as he focuses more on the pastemaker’s products and their effects, than on the maʿcūncı himself. His allusions to Ottoman drug culture are more direct and his poem is rhetorically a less complex mixture of traditional ideas and images of love poetry, and elements reflecting contemporary realities. 29 For a detailed treatment of the topic see Lewisohn, Leonard, The Religion of Love and the Puritans of Islam. Sufi sources of Ḥāfiẓ’s Anti-clericalism. In: Lewisohn, Leonard (ed.) Hafiz and the Religion of Love in Classical Persian Poetry. London and New York 2010, 160–196. 30 Dernschwam, Hans, Erdély, Beztercebánya, Törökországi útinapló. Budapest 1984, 206; Menavino, Giovanni Antonio, Trattato de costumi et vita de Turchi. 1548, 78–79. Menavino’s description was borrowed by other authors as well. See Sanovino, Francesco, Historia dell’origine et imperio de Turchi. Venezia 1568, 31; Lonicer, Philipp, Chronicorum Turcicorum. Tomus primus et secundus. Frankfurt 1584, 110; Bandier, Michael, Histoire generale de la religion des Turcs. Paris 1625, 186. 265 After the first two couplets relating how he fell in love with a paste-maker in the Tahtakale district, Sürūrī starts describing his experiences with drugs and explains his attraction to the beloved with his addiction to the mind altering substances the maʿcūncı produces. The feeling of bliss, a side effect of cannabis that was worded by Ẕātī in the closing couplet of his third poem, is also mentioned by Sürūrī in the second miṣrāʿ of his third beyt. Beng ileydi iḳlīmüŋ sulṭānı oldı göŋlümüz It was cannabis that made my heart the sultan of the land Beng, the word Sürūrī uses to denote the drug is the most common term applied to refer to cannabis in Persian sources.31 The phrase kör bengī in the next couplet is a term both for cannabis addicts and people in the state of cannabis intoxication, while tiryākī refers to consumers addicted to opium based drugs. The second hemistich seemingly describing the poet-lover’s attachment to his beloved can also be interpreted as an account of his drug addiction and his withdrawal symptoms. This can be true for the sixth couplet and the closing beyt as well. Ṭaŋ mı kör bengi vü geçgin şöyle tiryāki olam, Çünki ol maʿcūncınuŋ giryānı oldı göŋlümüz. It’s no wonder that I am intoxicated and bedazzled by cannabis, and that I am an opium addict, Our heart cries out for that paste-maker. Aġzuŋ esrārı biter dilde şehā ḥayrānlara, Var ise esrāruŋuŋ būstānı oldı göŋlümüz. O Shah! The secrets of your mouth sprout in the heart of those who are intoxicated, If there is a garden for your secrets/cannabis, it is in our heart. Dilde yāḳūt-ı müferriḥdür Sürūrī çün lebi Cevherī maʿcūnlaruŋ dükkānı oldı göŋlümüz In Sürūrī’s heart his lips are like the rubies used in the müferriḥ,32 Our heart became a shop for your pastes made of gems. As cannabis use spread in the Persianate world it became a cheap alternative of wine. A reference to the rivalry of cannabis and wine, a topic elaborated on by several texts in various Turkic languages,33 appears in the seventh couplet. The beyt 31 For examples taken from Persian sources see Péri, Beng, eszrár, maszlag, 51–52. 32 For the müferriḥ prepared with powdered gems see Péri, Canabis (Esrār), 21; Schimmel, Annemarie, A Two Coloured Brocade: Imagery of Persian Poetry. Chapel Hill 1992, 158–159. 33 On Turkic texts on the topic see Péri Benedek, Muḥammed Fuzūlī’s “The Debate of Weed and Wine” (Beng ü Bāde) Revisited. Towards a New Interpretation. Diyâr. (forthcoming). 266 also reflects Ottoman realities: while wine-shops and taverns were closed whenever authorities decided to enforce Islamic laws on wine and wine drinking, various drugs were freely sold and used in the Ottoman Empire. Açalı maʿcūn dükkānın ḳapandı meygede Mey yerine şimdi maʿcūn kānı oldı göŋlümüz Since he opened his paste shop the tavern has closed, And our heart became a mine of maʿcūn instead of wine. Ottoman āşıkāne gazels addressing and praising the maʿcūncı show many features of the incidentalist style developed in Iran at the turn of the 15th–16th centuries. They are devoted to living human beings, beloveds who exist and the feelings they depict are real. Their connection to contemporary realities is obvious. The paste-maker’s shop, his range of products, the effect of the drugs he sells are all parts of Ottoman everyday life in the 16th century. Stylistically, these gazels are written in a simple language; they lack the rhetorical complexity and artificiality love gazels following traditional patterns endeavour to attain and they rely heavily on the vocabulary of contemporary drug culture. Though research on the possible influence of the maktab-i vuḳūʿ on 16th century Ottoman gazel poetry has just begun, the results it has hitherto yielded suggest that the incidentalist style influenced the Ottoman literary scene. Ottoman authors were aware of the new poetic trends in Persian poetry and the literary connections between the Ottoman Empire and Iran were not disrupted by the advent of the Safavids and the series of Ottoman–Safavid conflicts. Appendix Ottoman gazels addressed to the paste-maker Ẕātī Bir güzel maʿcūncınuŋ dīdārınuŋ ḥayrānıyam Ḥoḳḳa-i laʿl-i lebi esrārınuŋ ḥayrānıyam Būstānda bunı der reyḥān perīşān ḳalb olur Ben ġubār-ı ḫaṭṭ-ı ʿanber-bārınuŋ ḥayrānıyam Nola meyl etsem aŋa şīrīne ḥayrān virür Ol nigāruŋ laʿl-i şīrīn-kāruŋ ḥayrānıyam Her dem ol şīrīn dehen esrārdan vermez ḥaber Cān u dilden ben anuŋ güftārınuŋ ḥayrānıyam Serv uyuḳlarken bunı söyler zebān-ı ḥāl ile Ben o şūḫuŋ serv-i ḫoş-reftārınuŋ ḥayrānıyam Nergisi gördüm uyuḳlarken bunı dir dāyimā 267 Ol gülün ben ġamze-i seḥḥārınuŋ ḥayrānıyam Ḳarşusında dem-be-dem ḳan aġlayan ʿāşıḳlaruŋ Oldı Ẕātī çeşm-i deryā-bārınuŋ ḥayrānıyam Bir güzel maʿcūncınuŋ pehlūsınuŋ ḥayrānıyam Aġzum aḳar suyı şeftālūsınuŋ ḥayrānıyam Mülk-i ʿālem içre ḳorḳum yoḳ Sikender Şāhdan Büsbütün dünyā deger ḳapusınuŋ ḥayrānıyam Ṭurfa maʿcūnam be-ġāyet ṭās-ı ʿālem içre ben Ḥoḳḳa-i laʿl-i lebinüŋ būsınuŋ ḥayrānıyam Serve dedüm kim uyuḳlarsın nedür ḥālüŋ senüŋ Dedi anuŋ ḳāmet-i dil-cūsınuŋ ḥayrānıyam Nergisüŋ gözi süzülmiş yoḳ mecālı kıpmaġa Der o şūḫuŋ ġamze-i cādūsınuŋ ḥayrānıyam Māh-i nev aġzın açub ḳalmış nedür ḥālüŋ dedüm Dedi ol māhuŋ hilāl ebrūsınuŋ ḥayrānıyam Gördi kim ʿummāna beŋzer ḥaddı vü pāyānı yoḳ Oldı Ẕātī yaşınuŋ lūlūsınuŋ ḥayrānıyam Etdi bir maʿcūncı ġarrā dil-rübā ḥayrān beni Eyledi yine ġubār ile hevā yeksān beni Keşf eder yoḳdur vilāyetde lebi esrārını Eyledi ḥayrānı bir maʿcūncınuŋ devrān beni Ṭurfa maʿcūn görmek isterlerse ṭās-i ʿışḳda İsteyü gelsün anuŋ dükkānına yārān beni Gördi kim berg-i ḫazān gibi döker yaşın gözüm Etdi faṣl-i gül gibi maʿcūn ile ḫandān beni Ẕātiyā farḳ olmazam hergiz Sikender Şāhdan Her gece maʿcūnı eyler ʿāleme sulṭān beni Muʿīnī Gözüm ṭuş oldı eylerken Sitanbul içre seyrānı Açılmış zīnet ile bir güzel maʿcūncı dükkānı Oturmış anda bir ḥoḳḳa-dehen yār ü müferriḥ-leb Ki bir keyfiyyet ile ḥoḳḳaya ḳoymış niçe cānı Anuŋ ḥayrānlıġından ben küleh etmezdüm ey zāhid Götürsem başum üstinde ġubār-i rāh-i cānānı Ger ol dil-ber lebi fikrin edersem ben gice gündüz Olur bu ḫasteler gibi anuŋ esrārı ḥayrānı Muʿīnī açılur göŋlüŋ gözüŋ bir ḥabbe ġam ḳalmaz Yeyüp maʿcūn ü berşini temāşā eyleseŋ anı 268 Sürūrī Bir güzel maʿcūncınuŋ ḥayrānı oldı göŋlümüz Gāh ḥayrānı gehī sekrānı oldı göŋlümüz Varmaz iken ehl-i ʿarżum diyü Taḫta’l-ḳalʿe’ye Göreli anda seni mihmānı oldı göŋlümüz Ḥoḳḳa aġzından emüp etdi viṣāli fikrini Beng ileydi iḳlīmüŋ sulṭānı oldı göŋlümüz Ṭaŋ mı kör bengi vü geçgin şöyle tiryāki olam Çünki ol maʿcūncınuñ giryānı oldı göŋlümüz Ḥoḳḳa aġzını göricek yemedin dutdı meger Ḳarşusında ṣūret-i bī-cānı oldı göŋlümüz Aġzuŋ esrārı biter dilde şehā ḥayrānlara Var ise esrāruŋuŋ būstānı oldı göŋlümüz Açalı maʿcūn dükkānın ḳapandı meygede Mey yerine şimdi maʿcūn kānı oldı göŋlümüz Ben yedüm ġālib seni dutdı göŋül şāşduŋ ḳatı Ṭaŋ mı dersem illerüŋ seyrānı oldı göŋlümüz Dilde yāḳūt-ı müferriḥdür Sürūrī çün lebi Cevherī maʿcūnlaruŋ dükkānı oldı göŋlümüz “Faḳīr olub perākende olmaġa yüz ṭutmışlar” the Ottoman Struggle аgainst the Displacement of Subjects in the Early Modern Period* Claudia Römer Vienna Süleymān the Magnificent’s Kanunnâme of Budin stipulates the following, including the threat of a severe punishment for those who do not comply to the order, Ve vilayet reʿâyâsının akçesüz yemlerin ve yemeklerin almayalar ve müfettet ve meccânen reʿâyânın rızâları olmadın istihdâm etmeyeler deyü Kanunnâme-i hümâyûnda mukayyed iken ve bu husûsda defeʿâtle fermân-ı şedîd ve emr-i te’kîd vârid olmuş iken ümerâ ve zuʿamâ ve sipâh tâifesi eslemeyüb ve menʿ olunmayub bir cânibe sefer vâkiʿ oldukça yüklerin ve azıkların çekmek içün hâsları ve tîmârları köylerinden dörder beşer hâneden birer koçu bârgirleriyle ve koçuyaşlarıyla çıkarub seferin evvelinden âhirine değin istihdâm eyleyüb ve hazarda oldukları ve olmadıkları zamanda dahi reʿâyâyı cebr ile be-nevbet evlerinde ve bağlarında ve yapularında arabaları ve koçularıyla leyl ü nehâr hidmet etdirmekle reʿâyânın ekseri perâkende olmasına ifrâtla zulm ve teʿaddîleri sebebdir. … ve bir raʿiyyet mürd olsa, akrabasından kimesnesi kalmasa, sahib-i zemin olanlar yetimdir deyü oğlun kızın esir edüb ve emlâk ve davarın zabt edüb fürûht ederler imiş. İmdi bu husûslar defter-i cedid südde-i saʿâdet penâhıma geldikde pâye-i serir-i âlem-masîrime arz olunub min baʿd fermân-i celîl’ül-kadr (!) şöyle sâdır oldu ki; … Şöyle ki, eslemeyüb emr-i hümâyûnuma muhâlif iş edenleri hâkim’ül vakt (!) olanlar arz eylemeyeler, anın gibilere olacak itâb ve siyâset neticesi kendülere âid olmak mukarrer bileler. * A preliminary draft of the present article was read at ICOSEH 2017, Sofia 24–28 July 2017 under the title of ”’Re‘aya perakende olmağa yüz tutmışlar’ – the Ottoman State Vis à Vis the Displacement of its Subjects in the Early Modern Period”. Some forty years ago, Mária Ivanics may have been present during the first decipherment of several documents cited here, as she was an important member of the seminar called "Privatissimum", the material of which was subsequently integrated into Schaendlinger 1983, Schaendlinger 1986, and parts of ProcházkaEisl – Römer 2007. 270 “The lofty law code says that nobody ought to take away the fodder and foodstuff from the subjects of the country without paying. Nor shall anyone out of spite make the subjects work without their consent. Nevertheless, and although this had been specified many times in strong and corroborated orders, the emirs and fief holders do not obey and are not stopped from confiscating one cart driver with horses each from about four to five villages of their fiefs in case of a military campaign in order to transport their goods and provisions. They also make them work for them from the beginning to the end of the campaign. Indiscriminately during peace or war, they make the subjects serve day and night with their carts near their houses, vineyards, and buildings. Therefore, the reason for the dispersal of the majority of the subjects is the excessive oppression and aggression they suffer. … When one of the subjects dies, the owners of the land declare his sons and daughters to be orphans and take them prisoner, seize their possessions and livestock and sell them. Now these facts were brought forth before the foundation of my throne, the refuge of the world, when the new register came to my felicitous threshold. (With validity) from now on, my order of high rank was issued as follows: … If the lawyers of the period do not report those who do not obey and act against my imperial order, they shall know for sure that the outcome of the reprimand and punishment deserved by such persons will be suffered by them.”1 Depopulation as a consequence of unfavourable conditions (natural disasters, skirmishes along the so-called Austrian Military Border,2 as well as forced labour imposed on the peasant population by their overlords) was not only a threat to agricultural production but also to taxation and thus to the income of the fisc. 3 Soldiers being absent from their garrisons weakened the military force. Their absence was also liable to instigate their superiors to commit various kinds of frauds, e.g., by not adding a note about absent or deceased soldiers in the relevant yoḳlama defteri, a garrison agha would get their pay and keep it for himself.4 Therefore, it was in the interest of the central government strictly to forbid actions that were prone to favouring the subjects’ dispersion, as we have seen in the quotations from the Budin Eyaleti Kanunnâmesi. 1 2 3 4 Akgündüz 1992: 281–282. – Unless stated otherwise, we follow the transliteration system of İslam Ansiklopedisi. Exceptions are citations from published sources, where the transliterations are left as they are. On the Austrian Military Border, see, e.g., Rothenberg 1960. Due to changes in population figures, the central government had to renew their censuses (taḥrīr) at regular intervals, as they served as a basis for taxation (Káldy-Nagy 1985: 15). On frauds of this kind, see, e.g., Römer 1994, and more generally, Römer-Vatin 2016. 271 Therefore, the law code foresaw the protection of the sultan’s subjects from unlawful actions of their own superiors. Forced labour was not to be tolerated. First and foremost, it was unlawful and against the sharia to enslave Muslims. Sometimes, however, famines caused such dire circumstances for surviving that this principle was disregarded. Thus, Tatars had sold their own children as slaves. Subsequently, in 1579, Mehmed Giray II asked Murad III to send an order to the kadis of Nicopolis, Silistre, and Vidin to free all these children.5 As non-Muslims within the Ottoman Empire have the status of zimmīs and must not be molested in any way as long as they do not do anything against the law, neither the Muslim nor the non-Muslim subjects of the sultan ought to be enslaved or misused for forced labour. In spite of this theoretical framework, the infringements of the law were numerous, both in the 16th and in the 17th centuries within and beyond the Ottoman Empire. This atmosphere of constant threat and insecurity was one, albeit the most common, reason for people to give up their homes and migrate to other places. For the time being, we are not in a position to say anything about the later lives of those who had left and were not re-captured, an endeavour not feasible due to the lack of adequate sources. In what follows, I will deal with the displacement of Ottoman subjects in various places throughout the Ottoman Empire, especially but not exclusively in 16th century Ottoman Hungary.6 The reasons for people fleeing their homes will be discussed as well as the rather helpless way the Ottoman central administration was trying to prevent regions from becoming depopulated, soil being left untilled, and posts becoming vacant by their holders’ unlawful absence. This situation was detrimental to the Ottoman state, as no taxes could be gained from depopulated regions. In order to make up for the financial loss, a special tax for not tilling the land (çift bozan resmi) was introduced.7 The Budin Eyaleti Kanunnâmesi explicitly specifies that as long as the subjects do not leave the land untilled, they must not be molested in any way: Madem ki, arzı taʿtîl etmeyüb kemâ yenbeğî zirâʿat ve hirâset ve taʿmîr edeler bî-kusur hukûkun edâ edeler, kimesne dahl ve taʿarruz eylemeye, fevt oluncaya değin tasarruf edeler “As long as they do not leave the soil untilled, engage in agriculture, protect and make it prosperous, and as long as they pay their dues, nobody shall molest them, and they shall have the usufruct until they die.” 8 As Halil İnalcık has shown, even the endeavours of Mehmed the Conqueror to resettle people in the new capital of Istanbul after its depopulation in the aftermath of the conquest had had a limit. Sürgün of re’aya first of all was a catastrophe for 5 6 7 8 Ivanics 2007: 199. For numerous examples from the Mühimme Defterleri of subjects leaving their country, from the Ottoman Empire to the Safavids, the Habsburgs, and vice versa, see Arslan – Özbay 2015. Cf., e.g., Káldy-Nagy 1985: 22. Akgündüz 1992: 269. 272 the regions the deported people came from, as they became depopulated in their turn. Moreover it was precisely the “basic rights of the re’aya” that would have been infringed.9 There are several terms of migration to other places, depending on the kind of sources and also the circumstances of people being absent from their villages or posts. One term is perākende olmaḳ “to become dispersed”, sometimes also perākende ve perīşān olmaḳ. This term is used in the Ottoman–Habsburg treaties of 1562 and 1565.10 There are many occurrences of whole villages who left due to the exaction of their local overlords in the Mühimme Defterleri from the reign of Süleymān the Magnificent. A large number of firmans of ÖNB cod. Mxt. 270 also deals with this problem. This manuscript is a Mühimme Defteri of the years 1563–4, badly damaged by water.11 In May 1579, Süleymān sent an order to the beglerbegi of Buda, saying, “In your letter you told us that some sancaḳs belonging to Buda were flourishing again, because many single farms had become villages, but on the other hand, the population of some other villages has become dispersed as a consequence of the unbelievers’ attacks. Therefore, a new census is necessary.”12 A feature of the Habsburg–Ottoman treaties was the so–called condominium, meaning that villages along the border (serḥadd) were liable to taxation from both sides. The stipulations of the 1547 Ottoman–Habsburg peace treaty, which was renewed in 1562 and 1565, and several more times after the end of Süleymān’s reign, also foresaw how to deal with infringements of the peace and that the population along the border should pay their taxes to both empires.13 It is clear that any overburdening with tax loads quickly caused people to evade from their homes.14 People had to be brought back if they were found and punished: ve iki cānibüñ reʿāyāsından biri ḳaçsa cümle emlākı beglik olduġından ġayrı gendüsi redd olınub veyāḫvud ḥaḳḳından geline ki sāyirlere mūcib-i ʿibret ola “And if one of the subjects of both sides flees, all his property shall be confiscated. Moreover, he shall 9 İnalcık 1979: 32-33. 10 Schaendlinger 1983: documents no. 25 and 32. See also below. 11 Cf., e.g., Römer 2004. For several years, the late Gilles Veinstein, Nicolas Vatin and myself have been involved in its decipherment with the help of multispectral images, see, e.g. Römer – Vatin – Veinstein 2011. 12 Káldy-Nagy 1985: 15, translated by C.R. 13 Petritsch 1985: 74-75. 14 Cf., e.g., Schaendlinger 1983: document no. 25, line 30 and document no. 32, line 29, “ḥālīyā virgülerinden on mertebe ziyāde alınmaġla faḳīr olub perākende olmaġa yüz ṭutmışlardur ‘as now ten times their original taxes were taken they became poor and started to become dispersed’” – The transliteration here is changed from the system of Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft to the one of İslam Ansiklopedisi. 273 be brought back or he shall be punished in a way that it will be a warning for the others.”15 Sometimes dispersed subjects could be a threat for public order as we see from a report to the sultan of July 1565: ve şimdiyedegin azıḳ gönderilmedüginüñ sebeb bu idiki Vārāddan öteye perākende olan re‛āyā cem‛ olup ve Ecedvārlı daḫı yolları bekleyüp geçen azıġı alurlar imiş ol sebebden göndermege iḫtizār eyledük “The reason that no provisions could be sent until now is that the subjects that were dispersed until Varad gathered and also the people from Ecedvar were lurking next to the roads and stole the provisions that were carried past them.”16 According to a firman of 1563 sent to the person who was responsible for the census, the migrants had been helped to flee by the local fortress commanders and fief holders. These are ordered to be punished. At the same time the people who fled are to be brought back and entered again into the new census, “in order to make the villages flourishing.”17 Secondly, there is the term celā-yi vaṭan itmek “to leave one’s home” with its variants of terk-i diyār itmek, vilāyet terk itmek “to leave the country”. These terms occur especially, but not exclusively, at the end of the 16th century and during the period of the so-called Celali revolts in Anatolia which started in this period and formed a major threat to the stability of the core part of the Ottoman Empire.18 Often large groups of people took refuge in the mountains and hid their moveable goods. The Anatolian population used the threat of emigrating (celā-yi vaṭan/terk-i diyār) as a means of pressure in order to prevent too bad forms of exaction. In a complaint against military commanders, the population of Erzurum addressed the central authorities thus, bizi rencîde vü remîde ederler. Celâ-yi vatan etmemiz mukarrerdir veyahut küllî kabahat ve fesada sebeptir “They oppress us. Therefore, we will definitely leave the country or it will surely be the reason for wrongdoing and disorder.” 19 Note here that the direct speech must not be misunderstood as real direct speech, but as a set formula of chancery practice for expressing what people might have said in reality, if they had said anything at all.20 For persons not being mevcūd during mustering in fortresses, several terms were used, e.g., terk-i ḳal’e itmek “to leave the fortress” or gendü hevāsında olmak “to follow one’s own ideas”. (Römer 1995: 70; it is not clear what the difference between these two forms of not being present and not doing one’s job is). Except that such a post usually is given to somebody else, we do not find any hint at what happened to the soldiers who were not mevcūd. 15 Cf., e.g., Schaendlinger 1983: document no. 32, line 23, and nearly identical sentence in the treaty of 1562, document no. 25, lines 25–26. 16 Procházka-Eisl – Römer 2007: document no. 91. 17 ÖNB cod. Mxt. 270: 97 r doc. no. 535. 18 İlgürel 1995: 238. 19 İlgürel 1995: 239. 20 On this subject, cf. Veinstein 1995. 274 There was also the possibility of frauds concerning the officials who carried out the census. It could happen that they registered fewer households (ḫāne – 5 persons per ḫāne) than there were, in order to keep the taxes for themselves. In the defter, they added a note that the families had left.21 Another reason for emigration were the frequent attacks from outside, i.e. in Hungary from the Habsburg side – it must be noted that skirmishes and unlawful deeds along the Habsburg – Ottoman border occurred from both sides, with a large number of persons being either killed or abducted and forced to work for the other side. Especially mowing the grass was a very popular way of forced labour. Moreover, and equally against the treaty, a ransom often was asked for the release of these esīr (prisoners/slaves),22 e.g., re‛āyā ise beglerinüñ ẓulmından ve ḫidmetlendürmelerinden şöyleki gice ve gündüz bāġlarından baḫçelerinden çıḳarmazlar hemān perākende olmaları ḳalmışdur “As far as the subjects are concerned, if they never are allowed to leave the vineyards and gardens where they are forced to work day and night by their (i.e. the Habsburg) beys, they cannot do anything but disperse completely”. This statement was made in June 1565 by the sancaḳbegi of Esztergom in a letter to the Ottoman envoy to Vienna, Hidāyet Aġa.23 Hidāyet Aġa is asked to make this point clear vis-à-vis Maximilian II.24 How frequent ransom slavery was at the Ottoman–Hungarian border in the 16th and 17th centuries has been shown by the collective volume Géza Pálffy (2007). One reaction of the Ottoman state was to send numerous complaints via the beglerbegis of Buda to the Habsburg side. One example will suffice here. In February 1565, Grand vizier ʿAlī Paşa wrote to Maximilian II, ṣulḥ u ṣalāḥdan murād ṭarafeynüñ re‛āyā vu berāyāsı ve tüccār u müsāfirīn ve sāyir āyende vu revende żarar u gezend irişmekden maṣūn olub emn u amān ve refāhiyet u iṭmīnān üzre ḥużūr-i ḥāl u refāh-i bāl ile kār u kesblerinde āsūde olmaḳdur esnā’-i ṣulḥda bu maqūle aḥvāl olub ṭarafeynüñ ḥużūr u ārāmı merfū‛ olıcaḳ bu nev‛ ṣulḥdan ne ḥāṣil olur “The object of the peace and armistice is that the subjects of both sides, the merchants and wayfarers and all those who come and go be safe from loss and damage and that they happily do their work and earn money in peace and security, well-being and under protection. If during the peace such circumstances are abundant and law and order are disrupted on both sides, what use is then such a kind of peace?!”25 For evil doings of Ottoman officials against the treaty, which might make the subjects leave the country, we see numerous warnings directed to the beglerbegis, sancakbegis, kadis and others. Basically, the same ideas as in the Budin Eyaleti ÖNB cod. Mxt. 270: 97 r doc. no. 535. On the status of prisoners of war, see the thorough discussion in Özkoray (2017: 117–123). Procházka-Eisl – Römer 2007: doc. no. 83. See also Römer – Vatin 2019: 350–351 and note 43, which refers to Petritsch 1991: nos. 483, 485, 488, and 489. 25 Procházka-Eisl – Römer 2007: doc. no. 66. 21 22 23 24 275 Kanunnâmesi cited at the beginning are expressed, with drastic punishments announced in case the orders are not obeyed. Thus, an order to the beglerbegi of Buda of 1563 says, ümera ve hükkamun ihmal u tekasüli ve teaddi vü tecavüzleri sebeb-i nefret-i kulub-i reaya olmağla vilayet-i mezkure şenleyüb mamur olmayub “The negligence and abuse of the emirs and judges is the reason for fear in the subjects’ hearts. Therefore, the aforementioned country is not fortunate and prosperous.”26 According to the Mirror for Princes literature,27 one important aspect of rulership is justice and as a consequence, allowing the country and the subjects to prosper. This theme is reiterated in many of the beglerbegis’ letters to the Habsburg rulers, e.g., pādişāh ḥażretlerinüñ eyyām-i se‛ādetlerinde memleket ma‛mūr olmaḳda olub re‛āyā refāhīyet üzredür “In the fortunate day of His Majesty the Padishah the land is flourishing and the subjects are happy.”28 Contrary to this principle, the Tatars, being of course unable to ask for ransoms within the Ottoman Empire, at the end of the 17th century granted expensively paid safe conducts to entire cities within the borders of the Ottoman Empire, thereby ironically protecting the sultan’s subjects from becoming their prisoners.29 During the Fifteen Years’ War, in 1602, the Tatars tried to abduct from Transylvania some 3000 captives originally taken by Giorgio Basta’s haiducks. But the Prince of Transylvania Zsigmond Báthory succeeded in freeing them, arguing in his negotiations with the Pasha of Temesvár and the Grand vizier that the Transylvanian captives were subjects of the sultan.30 Besides deliberate actions of wrongdoers, an important reason for migration can also be natural disasters, one reason that is beyond the just ruler’s control.31 In March 1560, the kadı of Akkerman on the northern Black Sea coast sent a report to the sultan. A number of Tatars had crossed the Dnjester and entered the Ottoman sancaḳ of Silistre on the Danube. The reason was a drought in the region of the Nogay Tatars, as a consequence of which they fled to the Ottoman Empire where they sought shelter from the famine and hoped to survive. The sultan wanted to get rid of them and therefore ordered the emīn who was guarding the river not to allow them in. 32 The sultan subsequently was informed of the fact that these Tatar immigrants had walked all the way accompanied by their families, and that they were poor and carried no arms.33 Then, Nogay Tatars fled to the Crimean Peninsula, but as there also was a famine, the Nogays moved on hunting in the region of Kili, Akkerman and Bender, also crossing into Moldavia. The reaction of the central 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 ÖNB, cod. Mxt. 270, fol. 142v, document no. 659, Römer – Vatin 2019: 353. On Mirror for Princes literature, see Fodor 1986. Procházka-Eisl – Römer 2007: doc. no. 11. Ivanics 2007: 202. Ivanics 2007: 203. On the instance cited below, see Veinstein 2010. Mühimme Defteri no. 3: docs. no. 832, 864. Mühimme Defteri no. 3, no. 894, Veinstein 2010: 92. 276 government was an order to prevent them from staying all in one place and to distribute them all over the region.34 However, in this special instance, we witness a 180 degrees’ turn in the sultan’s attitude when it becomes known that these migrants who are Muslims are enslaved and sold by crooks. In this moment, the sultan’s function as just ruler who observes the sharia and has it observed in his protected realms is more important than the dislike for migrants.35 As a conclusion, one might discuss how effective the stipulations of the kanunnâmes and single sultan’s orders as well as letters of his officials may have been. They of course give succinct regulations on how the subjects ought to be treated in order to prevent them from leaving their homes and becoming dispersed. However, numerous orders that were sent iteratively to various officials in the Empire and to Habsburg rulers contain constant warnings, threats, and the depiction of drastic measures in case of disobedience. This is in line with the picture that resulted from Gilles Veinstein’s gleaning a large number of firmans from the Mühimme Defterleri. Thus, the sultan’s constant endeavour to have his orders executed and thereby to prevent illegal acts is in itself a weakness of the ruler’s authority. “The firman is the junction of the ideal with reality: it creates the decorum of power and at the same time reveals the opposite of this decorum by a corpus of codified expressions that invariably repeat the difficulty the master has to make himself being obeyed...” 36 Süleyman always has to repeat his orders against the “mauvais penchants” of his officials, in order to establish order and justice, precisely in the fortunate days of his auspicious reign, as we have seen above.37 We can even go further when looking for the reason for all this bureaucratic endeavour in drastic speech and think of the Circle of Justice, an old Middle Eastern concept of rulership and the ruler’s relationship with his subjects: No power without troops, no troops without money, no money without prosperity, no prosperity without justice and good administration. (Darling 2013: 1) 34 Mühimme Defteri no. 3, nos. 863, 897, Veinstein 2010: 93. This case brings us back to our day, the authorities’ attitude in European states towards migrants and refugees being practically the same. 35 Veinstein 2010: 94, 99. 36 Veinstein 1992: 141. Citation translated by C.R. 37 Veinstein 1992: 135. 277 Bibliography Akgündüz, Ahmet 1992. Osmanlı kanunnâmeleri ve Hukukî tahlilleri: 5. kitap. Kanunî Sultan Süleyman devri kanunnâmeleri: II. kısım. Kanunî devri eyâlet kanunnâmleri. FEY Vakfı: İstanbul. Arslan, H. – Özbay R.D. 2015. İktisadî ve siyasî etkenlerle Osmanlı’da dış göç 16. yüzyılda Mühimme defterlerinde. Sosyologji Dergisi, 3. Dizi, 30. Sayı 2015.1: 397– 424. Darling, Linda T. 2013. A history of Social Justice and Political Power in the Middle East. The Circle of Justice from Mesopotamia to Globalization. London – New York: Routledge. Fodor, Pál 1986. State and Society, Crisis and Reform in 15th-17th Century Mirror for Princes. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 40: 217–240. İlgürel, Mücteba 1995. Celâ-y vatan, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi 7. İstanbul: 238–240. İnalcık, Halil 1979. Servile Labor in the Ottoman Empire. In: Ascher, A. – HalasiKun T. – Király, B.K. (eds.): The Mutual Effects of the Islamic and Judeo-Christian Worlds: the East European Pattern. Brooklyn (NY): Brooklyn College Press: 25– 52. Ivanics, Mária 2007. Enslavement, Slave Labour and the Treatment of Captives in the Crimean Khanate. In: Dávid Géza – Pál Fodor, eds.: Ransom Slavery along the Ottoman Borders. (Early fifteenth- early eighteenth centuries) Leiden: Brill: 193– 219. Káldy-Nagy, Gyula 1985. A budai szandzsák 1546–1590. évi összeírásai. Demográfiai és gazdaságtörténeti adatok. Budapest: A Pest megye levéltár. Özkoray, Hayri Gökşin 2017. L’esclavage dans l’Empire ottoman (XVIe-XVIIe siècle): fondements juridiques, réalités socio-économiques, représentations. Histoire. PSL Researuch University. Français. NNT: 2017PSLEP055. tel02106829v2 Pálffy, Géza 2007. Ransom Slavery along the Ottoman–Hungarian Frontier in the sixteenth and seventeenth Centuries. In: Dávid Géza – Pál Fodor, eds.: Ransom Slavery along the Ottoman Borders. (Early fifteenth- early eighteenth centuries). Brill, Leiden 35–83. Petritsch, Ernst Dieter 1985. Der habsburgisch–osmanische Friedensvertrag des Jahres 1547. Mitteilungen des Österreichischen Staatsarchivs 38: 49–80. Petritsch, Ernst Dieter 1991. Regesten der osmanischen Dokumente im Österreichischen Staatsarchiv. Mitteilungen des Österreichischen Staatsarchivs. Ergänzungsband 10,1. 278 Procházka–Eisl, Gisela – Römer, Claudia 2007. Osmanische Beamtenschreiben und Privatbriefe der Zeit Süleymāns des Prächtigen aus dem Haus–, Hof– und Staatsarchiv zu Wien (Denkschriften der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.–hist. Kl., vol. 357). Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften: Wien. Rothenberg, Gunter E. 1960. The Austrian Military Border in Croatia, 1522–1747, Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Römer, Claudia 1994. Widerrechtlicher Soldbezug in einer ungarischen Festung im Jahr 979 (1571–72). In: Faroqhi, Suraiya – Baldauf, Ingeborg – Vesely, Rudolf (eds.), Festschrift A. Tietze. Prague: Enigma-Verlag: 169–176. Römer, Claudia 1995. Osmanische Festungsbesatzungen in Ungarn zur Zeit Murāds III., dargestellt an Hand von Petitionen zur Stellenvergabe. Schriften der BalkanKommission, Philologische Abteilung, Bd. 35. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften: Wien. Römer, Claudia 2004. An Unknown 16th Century Mühimme Defteri at the Austrian National Library. In: Tuncer Baykara (ed.): CIÉPO XIV: Sempozyumu Bildirileri. 18–22 Eylül 2000, Çeşme. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu: 639–654. Römer, Claudia – Vatin, Nicolas – Veinstein, Gilles 2011) : Un mühimme defteri de 1563–1564: le manuscrit Mxt 270 de la Bibliothèque Nationale de Vienne. Étude préliminaire accompagnée d’un dossier de six documents concernant les relations entre Soliman le Magnifique et Ferdinand de Habsbourg.“ Archivum Ottomanicum 28: 5–48. Römer, Claudia – Vatin, Nicolas 2016. Faux, usage de faux, faux témoignage, accusation mensongère et usurpation d’identité à la fin du règne de Soliman le Magnifique. In: Johannes Zimmermann, Christoph Herzog, Raoul Motika (eds.): Osmanische Welten: Quellen und Fallstudien. Festschrift für Michael Ursinus. Bamberger Orientstudien 8., University of Bamberg Press: 509–561. Römer, Claudia – Nicolas Vatin 2019. The Hungarian Frontier and Süleyman’s Way to Szigetvár according to Ottoman sources. In: Fodor, Pál (ed.), The Battle for Central Europe. The Siege of Szigetvár and the Death of Süleyman the Magnificent and Nicholas Zrínyí (1566), Budapest: HAS, Research Centre for the Humanities / Leiden – Boston: Brill: 341–358. Schaendlinger, Anton C. 1983. Die Schreiben Süleymans des Prächtigen an Karl V., Ferdinand I. und Maximilian II. aus dem Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv zu Wien. Unter Mitarbeit von Claudia Römer. Denkschriften der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist.Kl., Bd. 163. Wien. Schaendlinger, Anton C. 1986: Die Schreiben Süleymans des Prächtigen an Beamte, Militärbeamte, Vasallen und Richter aus dem Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv zu Wien. Unter Mitarbeit von Claudia Römer. Denkschriften der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Kl., Bd. 183. Wien. 279 Veinstein, Gilles 1992. La voix du maître à travers les firmans de Soliman le Magnifique. In: idem (ed.): Soliman le Magnifique et son temps. Actes du colloque de Paris. Galeries Nationales du Grand Palais. 7–10 mars 1990. Paris: La Documentation Française: 127–144. Veinstein, Gilles 1995. L’oralité dans les documents d’archives ottomans: paroles rapportées ou imaginées? In: Vatin, Nicolas (éd.), Oral et écrit dans le monde turcoottoman, Revue du monde musulman et de la Méditerranée, 75–76: 133–142. Veinstein, Gilles 2010. La grande sécheresse de 1560 au nord de la mer Noire : perceptions et réactions des autorités ottomanes. In: Zachariadou, Elizabeth (ed.): Natural Disasters in the Ottoman Empire, Halcyon days in Crete, III. A Symposium held in Rethymnon, 10–12 janvier 1997, Foundation for Research and TechnologyHellas. Institute for Mediterranean Studies, Rethymnon: Crete University Press: 1999: 273–281. Reprint in: Autoportrait du sultan ottoman en conquérant Istanbul: ISIS: 91–101. A Birthday Present for the Khitan Empress András Róna-Tas Department of Altaic Studies, University of Szeged The Khitan texts written in the Khitan Small Script (KSS) were recently published in the three volumes monograph by Chinggeltei, Wu Yingzhe and Jiruhe (2017 = CWJ).1 The work is containing 39 major and 16 minor inscriptions. Yet unpublished remained five major and one minor inscriptions. Among the published minor inscriptions is one found on the bottom of a jade jar. The precious item was kept in the famous collection of Qianlong. It got in CWJ the sigla Yu 玉 and in the List in Latin letters 2 it figures as YuS where S stands for Small (that is the minor inscriptions in Khitan Small Script). The photo is available on p. 858 and the text in normalized KSS on pages 1603–16043 of CWJ, where the Khitan words are glossed in Chinese by the authors. The photo of the inscription was published by Wittfogel and Feng (WF 245.a) and has been dealt with by Luo Fucheng, Chinggeltei, Ji Shi, Wang Hongli and Kane (2009,63), who summarized and quoted the earlier literature.4 In this paper I offer a detailed analyzis of the inscription.5 The text transformed into a linear horizontal way is the following6: 1)      2)  1 2 3 4 5 6 On the work see Apatóczky – Róna-Tas 2019. See the List of the sigla of the inscriptions in Apatóczky – Róna-Tas 2019, 266–268. The text there is reset with normalized Khitan fonts. See the bibliography of the earlier literature in Kane 2009. I offer my sincere thanks to the editors of CWJ, and specially to Professor Wu Yingzhe for the permission to reproduce the inscription and also for his remarks on an earlier draft. I also owe many thanks to several of my colleagues who wrote remarks during the session on academia.edu. The text is written, as all inscriptions, in vertical lines (see Figure 1), I transformed them, following the usage and for technical reasons into horizontal, linear form. The words of the inscription are not in boxes as in the major inscriptions, all glyphs are written one beneath the other. I call this type of writing “highlighting”. 282 I. Remarks on the glyphs FIRST LINE 1/1 (331) The reading of this glyph is based on the Chinese reading of the Khitan expression  (331.348.021) which is transcribed in the Liaoshi as nou-wo-mo 耨斡麼.7 *Newamua (see Kane8 74, Pulleyblank 1991:LMCh nəw.ʔuat. mua). 1/2  (021) This glyph was earlier read as <mo> in accordance with its Chinese transcription, see above.9 CWJ changed the reading to <em> evidently influenced by Mongolic eme ʻwoman, femaleʼ. 1/3 (251) The Romanisation of this glyph is <n> based on several Chinese transcriptions, as Chinese ning 寧 à Khitan <n.ing>(251.303), Chinese nei 內 à Khitan <n.ui> , (251.262), see Kane 65. 1/4 (238) It is read by CWJ as <sui>. Earlier only its approximate meaning was known and treated as a logogram for BORN (Kane 63). 1/5 (361) It is read by the earlier authors and CWJ as <én> where the diacritic has the only function to distinguish this glyph from other with the same reading, as the heteroglyphs <en> (140) and <ēn> (073), see also the alloglyphs <én2>(100), <én3>  (100.10), <én4> (100.20). The suffix (361) is here an adjectivizer and can be contrasted with  (140), which is, among others, the suffix of the genitive case. As already Kane (2009, 78) remarked, its back vocalic form is (290) <án>. It figures also as marker of the ordinal numbers if they are front vocalic. 1/6  (159) The glyph was earlier read as a logogram for DAY. Kane cited the Liaoshi: “In the national language, the first day of the new year zheng dan 正旦 is called nai nie yi er 乃捏咿兒, nai means ʻfirstʼ, 捏咿兒 nie yi er means ʻday~sunʼ. In the Liaoshi glossary nai nie yi er 乃捏咿兒, means “the first day of the first month” (Kane 7 8 9 LMCh, EMCh new, LMCh ʔuat, EMCh ʔwat, LMCh mua, EMCh ma. I quote here Kane 2009, in many cases Kane is summarizing also the earlier research. Shimunek 2017, 425 read <omo>. 283 53).10 CWJ Index retained the logogram <DAY>, but following Chinggeltei (2002, 112), suggests on pages 30 and 346 the reading <nær> with a ? mark. SECOND LINE 2/1 (319) The reading <go> of earlier authors is based on the Khitan transcription of the Chinese title guanchashi 觀察使 (*kuan cha:t šr̥ ) as  (319.251.375.180) <go.n ca šï> (Kane 73). but see below. 2/2, 2/5  (341) The glyph is read by all authorities as <er>, see Kane76, it has an alloglyph (269) and is frequently mixed with . <oi>  (347) and <oi2>  (107). 2/3  (053) The glyph was read as <qa> by all authorities, see Kane 41, Shimunek 2017, 427. Kane adds that it may have been a fricative, because it was used in the transcription of the Chinese name Han Jia Nu 韓家奴. 2/4 (372) The glyph was read as <û> in my transcription as <ū> by the former research, see Kane 79, based on the transcription of such Chinese syllables as Chinese hu 護 à Khitan <xu.ū > (036.372) or Chinese du 度 à Khitan <t.ū>  (247.372). Shimunek 2017, 440 read <uw>. The glyph (372) is sometimes mixed with  (373) which is a logogram for GREAT. II. The transcription or Romanisation11 of the inscription 1.<neu em n sui én när 2. go er qa u er> The reading12 of the inscription may have been: new em-en sui-en när goer qa u-er 10 Shimunek 2017 read <ñ̴ayr?> 11 Romanisation is the technical transcription of the KSS glyphs. 12 The reading of the Khitan inscription was not necessarily the same as the spoken language. There may have been an eleveted reading style. The latter is what, at present, we can reconstruct. 284 III. Translation: 1. Earth Motherʼs birthday 2. The Houshold Kan gave.13 IV Remarks on the words, the grammar and the pronunciation The form <neu> is here the short form for <neu.e> and <neu.e2> . This is the only place in the Khitan corpus written in KSS, where this short form is used14. The full form neu-e is written in the KSS in two ways: neu-e (331.348) which occurs 25 times and as neu.e2 (331.109) which occurs 12 times in the corpus. The glyphs (109) and (348) are alloglyphs, that is graphic variants and cannot in all cases be distinguished. The term occurs in the genitive case: once as   neu.e.en (331.348.140), once as  neu.e2.en (331.109.140), once as   neu.e2.n (331.109.251) and once as neu.ń  (331.222), it occurs twice in the dative case as  neu.e.de (331.348.205). The meaning of newe is ʻearthʼ, see Kane 94. CWJ on p. 471 has the following expressions with <neu.e> (331.109): <neu.e ETERNAL>   di jiu 地久 ʻeternal Earthʼ, <neu.e 066.g.n>   di mu zhi 地母之 ʻof Earth Motherʼ, also (from the Liaoshi) nuowomezhi 耨斡么之 with me 么 instead of mo 麼, which is modern re-transcription. <neu.e as.ar>   di qing 地清 ʻclean Earthʼ15, <neu.e em>  huanghou 皇后 ʻempress, queenʼ, <neu.e em.n>  huanghouzhi 皇后之 ʻof the Empressʼ. Before we go into the question of the actual meaning and the origin of the Khitan word, let us see what the Liaoshi (71.1a) has to say: „The Liao, following the Tujue [Turks], called the empress kedun [qatun]. In their national language they say *teiligien. The respectful term is nuo-womo. It is said that houtu 后土’the [Chinese] female earth deity’ is the same as mu ʻmotherʼ.16 13 The translation of Kane is practically the same ʻon the birth day of the empress, the family kan gave her [this]ʼ (Kane 63). CWJ has the following glosses: tai hou zhi dan ri 太后之诞日 jia han shou 家汗授. 14 The Index of CWJ 2219 gives another place Xuan 2–2, but this is only because of the „highlighted” way of the inscriptions, the glyph <e> is written beneath the glyph <neu> and not beside it. The short form is here due to the confined place. 15  (174.123) <as.ar> ʻclear, peace, peacefulʼ (Kane 111, 159), (331.348 174.123) <neu.e as.ar> ‘the earth is clear’ (Huanyi, Kane 88, 111), <HEAVEN as.ar> is the Khitan equivalent of the reign title Chin Qingning 清寧 ‘Clear and Tranquil’ (Kane 88, 111). 16 The text was referred to by Wittfogel—Feng, 1949, 431. I follow Kane 2009, 74. 285 This text stresses that the title qatun used by the Khitans follows the Turkic usage. Of course this does not mean that qatun is an original word in Turkic, only that the term was earlier used by the Turks. The second title is also of Turkic origin, though here the Liaoshi says that „in their national language [guo yu yue 國語曰, the language of the country (Liao)]”. The term, the reconstructed Chinese transcription of which is given by Kane as *teiligien is Chin telijian 脦俚蹇 also 忒里蹇. Its Khitan pronunciation may have been *teriken. The origin of the term is Old Turkic terken. 17 The term occurs in the contemporaneous work of Kashgari (10721078/1266)18 where the definition is: ʻtärkän An address of the Khaqaniyya for one who has sovereignity over a realm or province…the word means „you who are obeyed”ʼ. It was especially used in Uighur for queens as in: silig terken qunčuy tengrim ʻpure queen, consort princessʼ. 19 Also in this case, though terken was a common Old Turkic title, we donʼt know what was its origin. The second glyph  (021), read by CWJ as <em>, is the Khitan word for ʻmotherʼ, CWJ mu 母. It occurs in the published corpus 243 times. Its plural is <em.t> (021.247), which occurs 99 times. Its genitive case is <em.en> (021.140) and <em.n>  (021.251), the first occurs only twice, the second 46 times including our example.20 The first three glyphs have then the meaning ʻEarth Mother-GENITIVE CASE, of the Earth Motherʼ. It was perhaps Shiratori who mentioned that the Khitan word for ʻearthʼ may be of Jurchen origin, later Menges21, suggested to Wittfogel and Feng that the word may be connected with Jurchen. They quoted the Jurchen word „náh” fom the work of Grube (1896, 96). Menges in his monography (1968) tried to find a wider background including „ba” and reconstructing *nā-ba-e̊ me̊ „Mutter von Erde und Land” (Menges 1968, 34). Herbert Franke in his paper on the language of the Liao (1969, 26–27) has dealt with the Chinese transcription nuo-wo-mo. He criticized the 17 Herbert Franke in his very important paper on the langue relations of the Liao Empire (1969), which is a critical review of Menges 1968) suggested that the word is identical with Turkic tengriken. Doerfer in his Scholia to Frankeʼs paper (1969, 47) proposed to connect the Khitan word with terken, which he have dealt with in Doerfer (II, 1965, 495–498): „tärkän, terkän ʻTitel für Damen….(ursprünglich für beide Geschlechter)”. on p. 497 also on the Khitan title. 18 See Dankoff—Kelly I. 1982, 332 19 See F. W. K. Müller 1915, 6, line 4, quoted also by Clauson 1972, 544. 20 I accept for the time being the reading <em>, though the contemporous Chinese transcription was mo 麼. 21 Karl Heinrich Menges teaching then at Columbia, New York, was the consultant for linguistic matters to Wittfogel. As it can also be seen from his monograph (Menges 1968), he overestimated the Manchu-Tunguzic influence on Khitan. Only one example: From the Chinese transcription nou-wo-mo he selected wo and wrote: “Dann müsste man in wo ein 2. Kompositionsglied mit nou (für na, nā, “Erde”) sehen, als das ein Äquivalent von Manʒˇu ba “Ort, Platz, Stelle, Punkt; Gelengheit” in Frage käme, zumal im Manjʒˇu diese beiden etymologisch unklaren Wörter ba und na als ʿέν δια՝ δυoῑν gebraucht werden” (Menges 1968, 34). 286 idea of Menges, and offered other possible origins. None of his suggestions were acceptable.22 G. Doerfer in a comment to Frankeʼs paper23 also criticized Menges and wrote „Ich glaube nicht, dass sich nur ein einziges tungusisches Wort im Liao nachweisen läst” (1969, 47).24 In the Sino–Jurchen Vocabulary of the Bureau of Interpreters (SJVBI, ed Kane 1989 ) the word for ʻearthʼ is *beho, Manchu boihon, Shibe biohĕN, biohuN, Chin tu 土. The Jurchen word na has the meaning ʻlandʼ Chin di 地 , while Chinese ʻfieldʼ tian 田 is in Jurchen *uši. The same do we find in the Jurchen version of the Hua-Yi yiyu (JHYYY) edited by Kiyose (1977, 99). The word na is present in almost all Manchu-Tunguzian languages. Its meaning is in the Tunguz-Russian dictionaries ʻzemlja, suša, materik, mesto, pol, počva [earth, dry land, mainland, place, floor, soil]ʼ (see Cincius 1975, 372–373). As in Russian the word zemlja has the meaning ‘earthʼ and also ʻlandʼ (see Novaja Zemlja ʻNew Landʼ) and as Mongolian gajar has the meaning ʻearth, soil, ground, landʼ, it is possible, that the Jurchen data above are late and learned distinctions, and na was used for all these meanings. There are however further problems with the Jurchen comparison. The Jurchen word is backvocalic, while the Khitan is front vocalic. True, Khitan is a highly palatalized language, e.g. Mongolic sara ʻMoon, monthʼ is in Khitan sär, Mongolic nara ʻ Sun, dayʼ is in Khitan när. But these are exceptions and these open vowels are treated by the system as back vocalic. The word for ʻuncleʼ is in Mongolian naqa, Khitan naha, Mongolian ala- ʻto killʼ is in Khitan al-. Another problem is that newe is a bisyllabic word, while na is in all ManchuTunguzian languages a monosyllabic one, though its vowel is long. While we have to abandon the connection of Khitan newe with Jurchen na ‘land, earthʼ, there existed another Jurchen word which had a very near if not indentical pronunciation with Khitan newe. The word for ʻyounger sisterʼ, Chin mei 妹, is in the SJVBI rendered by Jurchen neu-u. Kane (1989, 268) quotes from the JHYYY a cognate niyohun ʻyounger sisterʼ(see Kiyose 1977, 113), and Manchu non, see below. A better cognate may be Manchu nehū ʻa slave girlʼ, also nehūji „with a pecular spelling of soft h before ū” as remarked by Norman (1967, 299, after Hauer). Rybatzky (2006, 630) added Sibe nexu, nehu ʻHaussklavin, Magd, Hausdienerinʼ from Kaluzynsky 1977, 232. This Manchu word, as it was remarked by Rozycki (1994, 161), has to be a loanword (with the „soft h”). The original Manchu words are the following: Manchu neku ʻa womanʼs female friend, sworn sisterʼ, nekcu ʻthe wife of oneʼs motherʼs brothers, pl. nekcuteʼ.25 22 SHM noʼu ʻGeländeeckeʼ, nigun ʻKnabeʼ, načigai eke ʻEarth motherʼ. 23 Doerfer 1969, 47. 24 This may have been of course an overstatement, but Doerfer was right in rejecting most of the Tunguz etymologies of Khitan words and suggested by Menges partly to Wittfogel and later in Menges 1968. 25 The suffix -cu is the same as in Khitan nahaju. 287 The word family is present in the Manchu-Tunguzian languages. The protoform *nekun has in all Manchu-Tunguzian languages the basic meaning ʻyounger relative from both genderʼ, ʻyounger sister and brotherʼ, sometimes also ʻyounger niece or nephewʼ, (Evenki nekū, Solon nexū, Even nȫ, Negidal nuxu, nexu, nexuj, Orochon noko, nokko, Udihe neædiga, Ulcha neku, Orok noγonʼe, nokono, noko, nūggu. nūkku, nuku, Nanai neil, negil, neku (Cincius 617–618), 26 see also Manchu non ʻyounger sister, pl. notaʼ. The Evenki word was compared by Poppe (1960, p. 38) with „MMong, Mong” nekün ʻslave, girl slaveʼ. The word nekün occurs in the Secret History of Mongols (SHM) in the 200 § in the expression bool nekün translated by de Rachewiltz as ʻslaves and servantsʼ (Rachewiltz, p. 129) to which Rachewiltz adds on p. 744 „Nekün is one of the several terms used by the ancient Mongols to designate domestics (see Vlad[imircov] 2, 154 and n7) and is glossed chia-jen ʻhoushold servant”. Though jia-ren 家人 is the name of the house or family servant, the expression bogol-nekün is a compound word consisting of the constituents bogol ʻ(male) and nekün (female) servants, i.e. servants of both genders as ečige-eke ʻparents (father and mother)ʼ. That means that nekün itself is the name of the female servant, female house servant. The word occurs in the SHM also as part of the name Nekün taiishi. He is the son of Bartan baʼatur, son of Kabul kan and was the elder brother of Chingis kanʼs father Yisügei or with other words he was a cousin of Chingis kan. He appears in the paragraphs 50, 54, 56, 122, 130, 179 and played an important role in the history. His son was Kucharbeki, one of the leaders who made qan of Temüjin, the later Chingis kan. In this name the word nekün may mean, that he was born from a nekün, from a female house servant. There occurs a nonidentified placename in the SHM Nekün Usun according to de Rachewiltz ʻSlave Waterʼ, a better „translation” would be ʻMaiden Spring”, the spring where the girl servants take water. The expression in the form ‫ ﻧﻜﻮن ﺑ ؙ ֯ﻮل‬nekün bol occurs in the Middle Mongolian wordlist of the Anonymous of Leiden (A.D. 1343, ed. Poppe, 1928, 72). Important is the remark of Poppe: ”nikün ist ein unbekanntes Wort. Vgl. übrigens den Namen nekün taiisi und mandžu nexun ʻSklavinʼ (Poppe 1928, 72). This means that the word was present in Middle Mongolian, but disappeared in the later Mongolic languages, because the signified special social group of house maiden disappeared. A female name derived from the basic word occurs in two Khitan inscriptions. It is clear in the inscription Qing5:         <s-ar-ha-án ja-ri-qó-on t-od-o-ón em ku neu-uh-ñ pu-ši-ñ-en b-qo> ʻthe son of mylady New-uh-ń, the fifth wife of the Prime Minister S.ar.ha.án was…ʼ 26 The work of Cincius et al contains a more rich material, I have only selected the most important data. 288 The same name occurs also in Nan7. The reconstruction of this name may be *Neuɣiń, The suffix +uh+ń occurs in the following Khitan names. Jur.uh.ń (Ling9), T.il.uh.ń (Gu1, 7, 9, 23), P.ul.uh.ń (Gao2, Han2), L.búl.uh.ń (Di23, Tu22), Ci.ie.uh.ń (Jue11) and 227.uh.ń (Hui22). In case of the name T.il.uh.ń we know that the base of the word: T.il.uh is the famous Khitan clan name, transcribed into Chinese dilu 敵魯. The basic word of the name P.ul.uh.ń is <p.ul.uh>(295.366.172) ‘surplus, intercalary month’, Chin run 閏 (K103, 41–9, WJ 142, occurs 18 times), which itself is a Khitan name and goes back to <p.ul.u>(295.366.131) ʻsurpassʼ, Chin yue 越. As it is well known the name of the famous Hülegü kan (1217?–1265), grandson of Chinggis qan and brother of Kubilaj has the same origin. Because of univocal syntagmatic rules the final -ń cannot be here the suffix of the genitive case. Thus Newuhiń has to be a Khitan personal name, which may be connected with the basic word New–e and may be the connection with Jurchen neuu, Manchu nehū, Sibe nexu, nehu. Returning to the Khitan word newe, we can state that phonologically it can be connected with Jurchen neu-u ʻyounger sisterʼ, but semantically it is not an evident connection. One would have to suppose a semantic change ‘young womanʼ à ʻEarthʼ, or ʻyoung woman àʻMother Earthʼ, or even ‘young womanʼ > female spiritʼ > Earth Motherʼ. The problem is not in the idea that the earth is a female being – this is an ubiquitous idea. At present I could not find any data which would help to overbridge the semantic gap. Thus we can only state, that Khitan newe is used in the eleveted Khitan languge as a honorific designation for ‘earthʼ, it is used to denote the Empress or it is used together with „heaven” in the Khitan locutions „heaven and earth” as in the inscriptions Dao37–11/13, Xing36–4 or Yu16–12/13. The following glyph (238) denotes ʻbirthʼ, the gloss in CWJ 424 is sheng 生 ʻ to give birthʼ. There were several suggestions for the reading of this glyph. Ji Shi proposed to read it as <tur> leaning on Mongolic törü- ʻto be bornʼ, Wang Hongli suggested <men> comparing it with Mongolian mendüle- ‘ to be born, said of illustrious personsʼ. Kane (63), who quoted his predecessors, gave no reading and remained at the logogram BORN. CWJ, 264 offers the reading <sui>. According to a personal letter27 of Wu Yingzhe (2020.03.26) this is based on the following: The personal Chinese name 隋哥 Sui Ge is written as <BORN G.e>   (Song11–22) and also recorded as  <s.ui.i g.e> (Hong17–6, 21–10), so  is equal to , and then  has to be read as “sui”. There is an expression:   (Chao5–35) <BORN.l.ha.a.ar ai> which means “natural father”, (Born father?), this is written also  (Xiang8–28) <BORN.il.ha.ar> but sometimes recorded also as  . <s.oi2.l.ha.a.er ai> (Guang3–10). In this case BORN is equal with “soi” (see also CWJ 265, 266). The word (238) occurs three times alone: in Dao23–27, in Song11–22, in Ren 24–24 and in our inscription. In our inscription  (238.361) is written separately and one beneath the other, but this is due only to the usage in this inscription, a form 27 Thanks to Wu Yingzhe for his permission to quote his letter. 289 of highlighting. The form  (238.361) occurs 50 times, where the basic word has an adjectivizer suffix thus <sui.én> is an adjective qualifying the next word. The next word is  (159). This glyph, as we have seen above, has to be read när 28 and has the meaning ʻday, also Sunʼ, glossed by CWJ by ri 日. It occurs isolated 125 times in the corpus, it has a form in a locative-terminative case <närde> ʻon the dayʼ, occurring 63 times in the texts. The word had to be considered by the Khitan system to be back vocalic, as we find   <MR t-ur-én DAY-ha-ar-i> where in this name <När> is followed by the backvocalic syllables <ha.ar> in Gu19–12. On the other hand the genitive case is <Day.en>   (159.140) which points to a front vocalic stem. The palatalized character may be seen in those cases where the genitive case is written with <ń> which occurs in four cases. The expression <sui.en när> has the meaning ‘birthdayʼ. The first word of the second line is <go.er> (319.341). This word occurs isolated 128 times, in 38 cases written one beneath the other, and in 80 cases in a box, side by side. The genitive case <go.er.en> occurs 59 times, and the accusativeinstrumental case <go.er.er> only once. As it was remarked by Kane, this term refers to a tribal unit, and is translated into Chinese usually as zhang 帳 or zhangfang 帳房 ʻtentʼ. The greater family of the Emperor was also called the Patriarchal Tent fu zhang 父帳, see WF 732 (Index). There existed Senior and Junior Tents. The word <go.er> is glossed by CWJ with jia 家 ʻhome, nationalityʼ and on page 468 as fang 房.ʻhouse, homeʼ. The word is used similarily to the European usage, as in the case of the Habsburg house. It is highly probable that this word can be compared with Mongolic ger ʻtent, houseʼ. But it may be perhaps not due to a mere chance that it is not written with <g>  (334), or <ge>  (349) or <ge2>  (112). The form <g.er> (334.341) occurs twice: Xing22–5 and Xu61–8, unfortunately in not clear places. The form <ge.er> (349.341) occurs only once in Xing16–26:     <s-or-or li₂-l ge-er RECORD-e> where it is probable that it has to be read as <…li2 l-ge-er RECORD-e>, in any case this cannot be the word for ʻtentʼ. The form <ge2.er> does not appear at all. Shimunek (2017, 341) suggested to consider the probability of an areal contact or a loanword relationship with Tibetan gur ʻtentʼ. The word ger has backvocalic forms in the archaic Mongolic Baoan, and front and backvocalic forms alternate in Kangjia (Nugteren 2011, 340, where also Nugteren mentiones the possible influence of Tibetan). The word occurs in the dative-locative as <go t>  (319.247) nine times, written one beneath the other and 24 times side by side. Here we see that the final -r is disappearing. A clear example: 28 The reading ńayr proposed by Shimunek 2017, 431 cannot be substantiated. 290 (DiX24–22)            /      /  <tai shï-en b-hu-án tau GREAT a-an-e ia deu-un SMALL-qu ai-en s-in ong-on go-er-en tu n-u tai shï-en go-t u-ul-ge₂-én₂> ‘The Grand Preceptor had five children, the eldest was A.an.e, she was given in marriage to the house of Grand Preceptor Tu Nu of the house of Prince S.in of the junior unclesʼ (Wu-Janhunen 2010, 102). The genitive case <go.er.en> we find five times written one beneath the other and 54 times side by side. There are a few more cases written with <oi>  (347) some of which are misreadings for <er> as the data from Xiang15–32, 19–4 and 39– 48 corrected already by Wu – Janhunen (2010). The dative case shows clearly that we can not read /ger/. We may suppose that the Khitan form goes back to a form *guer.29 There would be one argument in favour of this claim. As we have seen above the reading <go> was suggested by the earlier authors following the Khitan transcription of the Chinese title guanchashi 觀察使 ʻinvesitigative officerʼ as  (319.251.375.180) <go.n.ca šï> (Kane 73). In fact the Chinese original has *kua- see MCh *kuan cha:t šr̥ and if we are consequent, we should transcribe the reading of the glyph (319) as <gua> and not <go>, and the word for ʻtentʼ as <gua.er> a possible way to render *guer.30 It is known that labiovelar initials existed in this area, among others also in Old Chinese, but at present I will not go further.31 The third word in the second line is <qa> (053). CWJ gives han 汗 as transcription for qan. It occurs in the corpus 46 times. This is the tile Qan without the final -n. It occurs as qa in the Secret History of the Mongols seven times (see de Rachewiltz 2004, I, 315). The form without a final -n is also written as  (053.189) <qa.a> and occurs twice (Gao7–8, Xian6–42). The title qan with the final -n is written as  (053.011) <qa.an> and occurs 26 times. A variant <qa.a.an>  (053.189.011) can be find in the corpus only three times.32 For qa we find in the corpus such examples as:     <SIX.er n.on.en mu.u.ji qa> (Xing10–4) ʻthe holy kan of the sixth generationʼ,33 29 Shimunek (2017, 340) reconstructed for Common Serbi-Mongolian *gwər. 30 May be the Khitan glyph for ʻemperorʼ  (075), Chinese huang 皇 should also be trascribed <huang> and not <hong> as it was done under the influence of modern Mongolian qong. 31 The word has to be separated from Khitan gür <g.úr> (334.097) ʻstate, countryʼ, plural güres  (334.097.244), the base of the title gürqan. The expression <g.úr go.er> ʻthe Patriarchal Tent of the country occurs in line 19 of GuD. Jacques (2010, 163) proposed to compare Khitan gur with Tibetan gur ʻtentʼ. 32 The form <qa.an>  (053.011) is also used to transcribe several Chinese syllables, mostly Han, <qa.a.an> is occurring e.g. in Jue as the transcription of qagan:   <goer qa-a-an cau-úr-i>,ʻthe army of the kagan of the (Patriarchal) Houseʼ. 291    <n.o b.qo qa> (Xing31–10) ‘the spouse, the son, the kanʼ,34    <t.le s.ung g.ur.en qa> ʻthe kan of the South Song country> (Ren8–14),35         <te po.do s.oi.ri.úr.en b.qo qa QATUN.i g.ji.en h.or> ʻAt this time the son by birth, the kan, the katun….ʼ (Ren16– 13).36    <qa b.qo c.i.iši> ‘the kan, the son and the relativesʼ (Ren28–9)37          <tum g.ur.s hu2.ú qa ol mu.u.ji.d u.ur ai us.g dor> ʻall ten thousand lands and many holy qans, ancestors, written ritual> (Dao10–18)38   <s.abu.u.or qa> ʻthe heir qanʼ (Dao33–2),39 The form <qa.ad.i>  (053.099.339) is a name ʻQaadiʼ read Khadi who was a ʻcourt attendantʼ according to DiX16–13. See also <qa-ad-i sh-a-rí> (Hu37–12). The title qagan is written mostly as  (053.051.011) <qa.ha.an> which occurs 81 times. Its plural is <qa.ha.ad>  (053.051.099). We have to call the attention to the fact that in the glyph system of Khitan there does not exist a glyph for <qan>, we have only <qa.an>, <qa.a.an> and <qa.ha.an>. The morpho-phonetic rules for the use of qa and qan have to be investigated. The functions of qa/qan and qagan and their relation in the Khitan society deserves a separate study.40 In the case of the fourth word the basic verb is: ü(w)-  <ū> (372) ‘to give, provide’. The Khitan word can be compared with Mongolic ög- ‘to give’. 41 The Khitan verb stem occurs in many derivatives, among them as üwüi  (372.262) <ū.ui> ʻgave, grantedʼ, a converbal form in –ui of ū- which occurs 26 times mostly in sentences as ʻX title was awardedʼ. The form  <ū.er>(372.341) occurs 28 times. It is the past tense form of the verb (see Kane 145) and thus can be translated ‘gave, was givenʼ or even ʻpresentedʼ. It occurs also in such expressions as <HEAVEN ū.er> ʻheaven bestowed, given by the Heavenʼ, (DiX3–23–24, 27–9, Xiang39–35). 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 See <n.on> ʻgenerationʼ, CWJ dai 代, <mu.u.ji> ʻholyʼ CWJ sheng 圣. <n.o> ʻspouseʼ, CWJ pei ou 配偶, <b.qo> ʻsonʼ, CWJ zi 子. <t.le> ʻsouthʼ, CWJ nan 南, <s.un> ʻSongʼ CWJ 宋, <g.ur> ʻcountryʼ, CWJ guo 國 <te> ʻthis, thatʼ, CWJ gai 该, <po.do> ʻat the timeʼ, CWJ shi yu 时于, <s.oi.ri.úr.en> ʻbornʼ see above. <ci.i.iši> ʻ(blood) relativesʼ. <tum> ʻten thousand, a unitʼ, CWJ wan 万; <hu2.ú> ʻtogetherʼ CWJ tong, zhang 统, 掌; <ol> ʻall, manyʼ CWJ zhong 众, <u.ur> ʻancestorʼ CWJ xianzu 先祖; <ai> ʻfatherʼ CWJ fu 父, <u.ur ai> ʻancestorsʼ, <us.g> ʻletter, writingʼ, CWJ zi 字; <dor> ‘ceremony, ritual; seal, lawʼ CWJ li, 礼 yin 印. <s.abu.u.or> ‘heirʼ, CWJ 915 si 嗣, 433 <s.abu.u.or qa> ʻheir apparentʼ, CWJ si han 嗣汗 Wu remarked in his letter quoted above that „It is quite common in the inscriptions in Khitan Small Script to use   to denote “the emperor of the current dynasty”. Dahur has: Da uke-, DaE ukw-. 292 Summary: The jade jar has preserved a personal message by one of the Khitan emperors to his wife, and gives us a small insight into the everyday life of the Khitan court. Its analysis offers new insights into the script and language of the Khitans. Abbreviations CWJ = Chinggeltei – Wu Yingzhe – Jiruhe 2017 JHYYY =Jurchen part of the Huayi yiyü, se Kiyose 1977 KSS = Khitan Small Script LMCh = Late Mikddle Chinese EMCh = Early Middle Chinese SHM = Secret History of the Mongols, ed. de Rachewiltz 2004, 2013 SJVBI =Sino–Jurchen Vocabulary of the Bureau of the Interpreters, see Kane 1989 WF =Wittfogel – Fêng 1949 Kane = Kane 2009 References Apatóczky—Róna-Tas 2019. A New Comprehensive Monograph on Khitan. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 72 (2), 259–268. Chinggeltei [Qingge’ertai] 清格尔泰, Wu Yingzhe 吴英喆, and Jiruhe 吉如何: 2017. Qidan xiaozi zai yanjiu 契丹小字再研究 [Further Research on Khitan Small Script]. Vols. I–III, Beijing, 2017. Clauson, G. 1972. An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth-Century Turkish, Oxford. Cincius, V. I. 1975–1977. Sravnitelʼnyj slovarʼ tunguso-manʼčžuurski jazykov I–II, Leningrad. Dankoff, R. – Kelly, J. 1982–1985. Mahmūd al-Kāšγarī: Compendium of the Turkic Dialects (Dīwān Luγāt at-Turk). Vol. 1–3. [Vol. 1. 1982; Vol. 2. 1984; Vol. 3. 1985] Duxbury. Doerfer, G. 1963–1975. Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen. Vol. 1–4. [Vol. 1. 1963; vol. 2. 1965; vol. 3. 1967; vol. 4. 1975.] Wiesbaden. Doerfer, G. 1969. Altaische Scholien zu Herbert Frankes Artikel „Bemerkungen zu den sprachlicen Verhältnissen im Liao-Reich“, Zentralasiatische Studien 3, 45–49. Franke, H. 1969. Bemerkungen zu den sprachlicen Verhältnissen im Liao-Reich, Zentralasiatische Studien 3, 7–43 293 Grube, W. 1896. Sprache und Schrift der Jučen, Leipzig. Jacques, G. 2010. Review on Kane 2009. Diachronica 27, 157–165. Kałużyński, St. 1977. Die Sprache des Mandschurischen Stammes Sibe aus der Gegend von Kuldscha. I. Band I. F. Muromskis Sibenische Texte, 2. Wörterverzeichnis, Warszawa. Kane, D. 1989. The Sino–Jurchen vocabulary of the Bureau of Interpreters. Bloomington. Kane, D. 2009. The Khitan Language and Script, Leiden – Boston. Kiyose, G. N. 1977. A study of the Jurchen language and script. Reconstruction and decipherment. Kyoto. Menges, K. H. 1968. Tungusen und Ljao. (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes XXXVIII,1) Wiesbaden. Müller, F.W.K. 1915. Zwei Pfahlinschriften au den Turfanfunden, Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin, 1–38. Nugteren, H. 2011. Mongolic Phonology and the Qinghai-Gansu Languages, Utrecht. Poppe, N. N. 1927–1928. Das mongolische Sparchmaterial einer leidener Handschrift, Leningrad. Poppe, N. 1960. Vergleichende Grammatik der altaischen Sprachen, Teil 1, Vergleichende Lautlehre, Wiesbaden. Poppe, N. 1964. Grammar of Written Mongolian, Wiesbaden. Pulleyblank, E. G. 1991. Lexicon of Reconstructed Pronunciation in Early Middle Chinese, Late Middle Chinese and Early Mandarin. Vancouver. Rachewiltz, I. de 2004. The Secret History of the Mongols. A Mongolian Epic Chronicle of the Thirteenth Century. Vols. 1–2. Leiden – Boston, 1347 p., Vol 3 (Supplement), Leiden – Boston 2013. Rozycki, W. 1994. Mongol elements in Manchu. Bloomington. Rybatzki, V. 2006. Die Personennamen und Titel der mittelmongolischen Dokumente. Helsinki. Shimunek, A. 2017. Languages of Ancient Southern Mongolia and North China, A Historical-Comprative Study of the Serbi or Xienbei Branch of the Serbi-Mongolic Language Family with an Analysis of the Northeastern Frontier Chinese and Old Tibetan Phonology, Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden. Witfogel, K. – Fêng Chia-shêng 1949. History of Chinese Society: Liao (907–1125), Philadelphia. Wu Yingzhe – Janhunen, J. 2010. New Materials on the Khitan Small Script. A Critical Edition of Xiao Dilu and Yelü Xiangwen. Folkestone. 294 THE JADE JAR YuS Was the Chinggisid Khan an Autocrat? Reflections on the Foundations of Chinggisid Authority1 Uli Schamiloglu Nazarbayev University & University of Wisconsin-Madison 0. Introduction In this paper in honor of my dear colleague Professor Mária Ivanics of the Department of Altaistics at Szeged University, I would like to consider some aspects of the basis of the Chinggisid state from its establishment through the Crimean Khanate in the 17th century. All too often the Chinggisid state is equated exclusively with the person of the Chinggisid khan, who is presumed to be an autocrat. In extreme cases—say most of Russian national historiography—the Chinggisid state (especially the Golden Horde) is presented as an all-powerful monolith, until, of course, it is defeated and no longer all-powerful. How shall we explain the political foundations of the Chinggisid state in terms of the dynasty and loyalty to it, the participation of non-dynastic groups in the state, and the distribution of resources within the state? Analyzing the literature on what constitutes a “state” is too vast a topic to take up for the purposes of this study. A useful collection of articles on the topic is to be found in Grinin et al. (2004), to which we may add more recently Kradin (2018). I would suggest that— with the notable recent exceptions of Zhao (2008), De Nicola (2017), Broadridge (2018), and Landa (2019)—problematizing the social basis of political power and loyalty in the Chinggisid state has not been a priority for historians of the Mongol World Empire and even less so for historians of its subject states. For useful surveys of scholarship on the rise and structure of the Mongol World Empire see as well Trepavlov (1993) and Kradin (2019). As usual, when it comes to the topic of the social structure of the Golden Horde, I find it difficult to engage German Fedorov-Davïdov (1973), a great scholar whom I otherwise admire as a numismatist and archeologist. In what follows I would like to share a few thoughts on this topic in an effort to contribute to problematizing the nature of the Chinggisid state. 1 The publication of this work was included under Nazarbayev University Grant Award Number 090118FD5332. I would like to thank my dear colleague Professor István Zimonyi for his suggestions and kind assistance in obtaining certain publications. 296 1. The “four-bey system” To present my argument, I would like to begin with the briefest of overviews of the results from my earlier research which I have presented on a number of occasions (1984, 1986). Most recently the work has been published in Russian translation, with an English edition forthcoming (2019b, 2020 [in press]). I studied the features of a system of state organization with governance shared between the dynasty and the tribes which existed during the period of the “Later Golden Horde” (the period of the khanates of Kazan, Crimea, Kasimov, Astrakhan, and Siberia) lasting from the mid-15th century until the conquest of the Crimean Khanate in late 18th century. Professor Ivanics has also written about the significance of this principle of state organization (2017: 112–154, especially 138ff.). The central feature of this system of governance was the presence of four individuals known as qarachı beys who formed a council of state in opposition to the Chinggisid khan. Each of the the qarachı beys was leader of his own tribe. (I introduced the term “ruling tribe” in an attempt to define these state-forming tribes in contrast to the other tribes in the state, whose definition will no doubt continue to elude us.) They played a role in the selection of the khan and could (and would) attempt to depose him. The leader of the four qarachı beys was known as the ulugh qarachı and by other names in Turkic and non-Turkic sources. According to the sources no edict of the khan was valid without their approval. The leader of the four qarachı beys also had a role in commanding the military forces in the state and conducting correspondence with foreign states. I proposed in my study that this same system in the Later Golden Horde was characteristic of the Golden Horde (13th–14th centuries) and is, in fact, derived from it, even though the individual tribal configurations are not identical (1986: 202–203; 2019a; 2019b: 183–184). Moreover, I have argued that there is evidence to suggest that this system was also present in Ilkhanid Iran, the Chağatay Khanate, and possibly Yüan China as well (1984; 1986: 80–126; 2019b: 77–117). This has also been discussed by Professor Ivanics (2017: 119–121). Recently Michael Hope (2017) has offered an alternative theory regarding the development of this institution in the Ilkhanate. As I have suggested elsewhere, the Shibanid state, which emerges from the Golden Horde—or more accurately the ulus of Jöchi, consisting of the White Horde (Aq orda) in the west and the Blue Horde (Kök orda) in the east—also has the same system of state organization (2015, 2019c). My own research on this topic was inspired by the works of Edward L. Keenan, Jr. (1965, 1967), who interpreted the role of the qarachı beys as “magnates” rather than as tribal leaders, viewing them as representing the “land” (zemlya in the Russian sources) in opposition to the khan. I have not really encountered this term as such in the Islamic sources. It is quite possible that zemlya could be a calque of ulus ‘people, nation; country, state; empire; dynasty’ (Lessing 1960: 873) since that term is attested for the 14th century (see below). More recently I have understood that this 297 term could also refer to Turkic ėl ‘a political unit organized and ruled by an independent ruler’ (Clauson 1972: 121–122), a term which also exists in Mongolian (see the detailed discussion in Zimonyi 2003). If this is the case, it would be very significant for my argument here because, as Keenan proposed, the “state” was a union between the Chinggisid khan, who was the “vessel of sovereignty”, and the “land”, which really meant the population of the “state” (represented in my view by their tribal leaders). This relationship was formalized through the ritual installation of the khan by raising him on a felt rug, with two significant figures (or later the leaders of each of the four “ruling tribes”) holding the rug, each holding one corner of the rug. This was followed by the taking of an oath of fealty to the khan, see Schamiloglu (1986: 68–69; 2019b: 67–68). Professor Ivanics has also studied the sources for this ritual investiture (2017: 74–104). Rather than focusing on the structures of administrative rule such as taxation to characterize the nature of the state (Allsen 1987; Di Cosmo 1999), I would like to define the state as a union between the khan from the Chinggisid dynasty and the population as represented by the tribes through the leadership of the four “ruling tribes”. Taking Keenan’s insights as a starting point, I would like to pursue the question of the nature of the Chinggisid state, including the question of how the socio-political basis of the state was managed in the relationship between the Chinggisid dynasty and the “land” (ulus~ėl). I will argue below that it was based on—or at least maintained through—a complex set of marital ties uniting the dynasty with the tribal leadership. There was also an economic component to this relationship. The Chinggisid state is usually viewed primarily as a parasitic state extracting revenues (Di Cosmo 1999: 34ff.), without considering any services the state may have provided, especially the security offered merchants to promote commerce. (One would think that no historian of the Mongol World Empire has ever lived in a state which collects taxes.) This is not to say that the lower socio-economic classes were not exploited, but at least the “ruling tribes” and their members who represented the “citizen” population of the Chinggisid state shared in the resources of the state through mechanisms of exchange and redistribution of wealth. In the case of the earlier Golden Horde, for example, it appears that the four “ruling tribes” shared revenue from the taxation of trade, see my rereading of the passage in Mufaḍḍal concerning Noghay and the division of tax revenue from Sudaq in the late 13th century (1986: 138–140; 2019b: 128–130). For a different perspective see De Nicola (2017: 149ff.). 298 2. The foundations of a khan’s reign If we pause for a moment, I would like to complicate this a bit further by asking whether we should term this union between a Chinggisid khan and the leaders of the four “ruling tribes” representing the “land” (or perhaps more accurately the “people”) as a “state” or as a “reign”, as would be the case in Chinese history. Considering that the state established by Temüjin was situated in the borderlands of China, perhaps their understanding of the state and of reigns was informed or influenced by Chinese dynasties in the immediate pre-Chinggisid period. Given that each khan seems to have been installed through the ceremony described above and was sworn an oath of fealty by the “land”, did each installation of a new khan mean a renewal of the social and political contract between the sovereign and the “land”, including through new (or renewed) marital alliances? We do not have the evidence to argue the case one way or the other, but I believe that the transition from the preceding khan to his successor could not have been a simple matter for reasons which will become apparent below. I would argue that marriage was instrumentalized by the Chinggisid dynasty and the dynasties of the hereditary leaders of the “ruling tribes” to form deep marital bonds between the Chinggisid dynasty and the tribes, especially the “ruling tribes”, which may have formed a majority of the “citizen” population of a given state. As I have proposed elsewhere, in the case of the Aq orda in the 13th–14th centuries these were apparently the Qıyat, Qongrat, Sijivut, and Mangıt. In the 15th–18th centuries in the khanates of Kazan and Crimea these were the Shirin, Arghın, Barın, and Qıpchaq (who arrived in the company of Toqtamısh); in Kasimov they were the Arghın, Qıpchaq, Jalayir, and Mangıt. In contrast, the Shibanid state apparently consisted of the Qushchi, Nayman, Büyrek, and Qarlıq tribes (see Schamiloglu 1986: 45–56, 67n, 202–203; 2019b: 46–56, 66n, 183–184). Broadridge describes the Qonggirat, Oirat, Kereit, Ikire, Öng’üt, and Uighur as “consort houses” during the early Chinggisid state (2018, 260–295). For a review of the literature on women in the Mongol World Empire, see De Nicola (2017: 1–33). If we consider the information on the wives of members of the Chinggisid dynasty mentioned in the section on the successors of Chinggis Khan by Rashīd al-Dīn (Rashīd al-Dīn/Boyle: 97–116), it is difficult to see any correlation between the information provided by Rashīd al-Dīn and the information for the Golden Horde and the Later Golden Horde which I have cited above, except for the Qongrat. Therefore we are confronted with the situation in which there is an almost complete disjuncture between the picture offered by Rashīd al-Dīn, who mentions a wide number of women of various tribes married to males in the Chinggisid line in the Golden Horde, versus the specific four “ruling tribes” for the Golden Horde in the second half of the 13th–14th centuries and the Later Golden Horde in the 15th–18th centuries. 299 3. Ibn Baṭṭūṭa on the Golden Horde élite during the time of Özbek Khan A unique opportunity for a closer examination of the marital ties between the Chinggisid dynasty and the Golden Horde élite is offered by Ibn Baṭṭūṭa, who visited the territories of the Golden Horde in the early 1330s during the reign of Muhammad Özbek Khan. For a discussion of this account see also Zimonyi (2005). During his travels in the territory of the Golden Horde he met Özbek Khan’s emir Tölük Temür of al-Qiram (Ibn Baṭṭūṭa/Gibb: 471), Tölük Temür’s brother cIsa and Tölük Temür’s two sons Qutlu Temür and Sarubek (Ibn Baṭṭūṭa/Gibb: 472–473). He also met Muhammad Khoja of Azaq (Ibn Baṭṭūṭa/Gibb: 476, 479). Following his visit to Saray, he visited Khwarezm, the residence of the great emir Qutlu Temür (Ibn Baṭṭūṭa/Gibb: 541). Although he did not meet him, he does mention the great emir cIsa Bek (who presumably could not be the same person as Tölük Temür’s brother, since he would have had a different tribal affiliation), who is amīr al-ulūs, meaning ‘emir of emirs’ (Ibn Baṭṭūṭa/Gibb: 488). If cIsa Bek was just one of the four ulus beys, not their leader, then this must be a mistranslation by Ibn Baṭṭūṭa. Were he indeed ‘emir of emirs’, he would have been the bekleri bek (cf. Trepavlov 1993: 87–91; De Nicola 2017: 139 and 171 note 81). It seems likely that Tölük Temür, Muhammad Khoja, cIsa Bek, and Qutlu Temür were the four ulus beys at the time. In fact, Qutlu Temür’s father (see below), who was leader of the four ulus beys under Toqta, had managed Özbek Khan’s succession to the throne following Toqta’s death (see Schamiloglu 1986: 149–152; 2019b: 137–139). Ibn Baṭṭūṭa also mentions other emirs such as Naghatay whose tribal affiliation and role are not clear based on the contemporary sources (Ibn Baṭṭūṭa/Gibb: 489). These individuals will be the unnamed participants in the court ritual of the Golden Horde which follows. Ibn Baṭṭūṭa’s travelogue offers a treasure trove of data regarding ceremonial court ritual at the Golden Horde. The two descriptions reveal a very deep relationship based on marital ties between the Chinggisid dynasty and the great emirs. Both accounts are from his visit to Besh Dagh, where the court was gathered for the celebration of cĪd al-Fiṭr, the festival at the end of the month of Ramaḍān falling that year on 26 June 1332 (Ibn Baṭṭūṭa/Gibb: 492n). According to the first description, it is Özbek Khan’s custom after Friday prayers to sit in the Gold Pavilion. The khan sits on the throne with khatun Taytoghıla at his right and khatun Kebek next to her; to his left are the khatun Bayalun and khatun Orduja.2 His first son (and heir) Tınıbek stands below the throne to his right and his 2 See Pelliot 1949 for a discussion of Bayalun (83–85) and Tay-Tūla~Tay-Dūla (101–105). I propose to read the name ṬYṬĠLY as Taytoghıla~Taytovıla or (with the Volga vowel shift) Taytughıla~Taytuvıla ‘a foal is born’, reading both Taytoghıla and Orduja (ʾRDJY) in this passage with an alif maqṣūra. In later occurrences Orduja is spelled with a regular alif, see Ibn Baṭṭūṭa/Defrémery and Sanguinetti, 2: 383–384, 389, 395 (ʾRDJA), 397, 406 (ʾRDJA); and 3: 9. 300 second son Janıbek stands to the left of the throne. His daughter İt Küchüjük sits in front of him. In this description Ibn Baṭṭūṭa refers to the principal khatun Taytoghıla as his queen, whom he meets and salutes as she enters; he sits on the throne only after she is seated. After this the great emirs come in and are seated to his right and left. In front of the khan are the scions of the Chinggisid dynasty, so his nephews, brothers, and relatives. Parallel to them, at the entrance to the pavilion, stand the sons of the great emirs, with the senior officers of the troops standing behind them (Ibn Baṭṭūṭa/Gibb: 483–484). The second description is of the procession on the morning of the festival. Özbek Khan rode on horseback among his troops, with each khatun riding in her own wagon accompanied by her troops. The khan’s daughter accompanied him with a crown on her head as “queen” (see below). The khan’s sons rode separately accompanied by his troops. The procession also included the religious establishment accompaning the designated successor Tınıbek. Once they arrived at a wooden pavilion the khan took his seat accompanied by his khatuns, with the designated successor and the “queen” (i.e., his daughter İt Küchüjük) sitting in a second pavilion. Two other pavilions were erected for the sons and relatives of the khan. Chairs were placed for the emirs to the right of the khan’s pavilion and for the scions of the Chinggisid house to the left of the khan’s pavilion. Each of the emirs of 10,000 (of whom there were 17) was also set up with a stand for observing archery practice by the soldiers under his command. Each emir of 10,000 was given a robe of honor, after which he paid homage to the khan. The emir was then presented with a horse and took his seat (Ibn Baṭṭūṭa/Gibb: 492–494). Damir Isxakov offers a novel explanation for the presence of 17 emirs in this account (2019: 61–62). The khan then descended from the pavilion and mounted a horse, with his designated successor Tınıbek and his daughter, the “queen” İt Küchüjük, to his right and his second son (Janıbek) to his left. With his four khatuns in their wagons in front of him, they all proceeded to a huge tent. The khan’s throne was in the center. The khan and his principal khatun (Taytoghıla) sat on a cushion in the middle of the throne. To his right sat his daughter İt Küchüjük (the “queen”) and the khatun Urduja, with the khatun Bayalun and the khatun Kebek sitting to his left. Tınıbek sat on a chair to the right of the couch and second son Janıbek sat on a chair to the left of the couch. Other chairs were placed to the right on which the scions of the dynasty sat and to the left were the great emirs and then the lesser emirs of 1,000. After the food and drink were brought in, they ate and drank according to precise rituals. Whenever the khan wishes to take a drink, his daughter (the “queen” İt Küchüjük) takes the bowl, presents homage to him, and presents the bowl to him. After he has drunk, she takes another bowl and presents it to the principal khatun and then the other khatuns, in order of precedence. Next the khan’s heir takes the bowl, pays homage to his father the khan and presents the bowl to him, after which he presents it to the khatuns and his sister (the “queen” İt Küchüjük). The second son (Janıbek) then takes the bowl, pays homage to his brother, and presents him the bowl to drink. After this the great emirs rise and each one of them gives the bowl to 301 the khan’s heir and pays homage to him. After this the lesser emirs also present drink to the sons of the khan. The festival celebrations concluded with the Friday prayers, to which the khan arrived late (Ibn Baṭṭūṭa/Gibb: 494–496). Compare this as well with the ritual at the camp of the emir Saltiya, on whom more below (Ibn Baṭṭūṭa/Gibb: 481). These two descriptions confirm that the relationship between the khan and the great emirs is so formal that it is guided by a strict court ritual protocol. It can also be seen as depicting a precise delimitation between the category of scion of the Chinggisid dynasty (who should be descended from Chinggis Khan in the male line) and the other relatives, including the great emirs and their descendants, who may be descended from Chinggis Khan, but only through the female line. 4. The wives and daughters of Özbek Khan It is clear from the account of Ibn Baṭṭūṭa that the Chinggisid dynast Özbek Khan entered regularly into marital ties with females who were closely related to the great emirs, who are the leaders of various tribes. Of course, the dynasty could also forge marital alliances with foreign states, too. He had four principal wives—echoing the system of four “ruling tribes”—but it appears that the four principal wives were not necessarily linked to the four “ruling tribes”. The affiliation of Özbek Khan’s principal wife Taytoghıla, mother of Tınıbek and Janıbek, is not certain (Ibn Baṭṭūṭa/Gibb: 486). His second wife is Kebek, daughter of emir Naghatay (Ibn Baṭṭūṭa/Gibb: 487), the name of whose tribe is not known. His third wife Bayalun is daughter of the emperor of Byzantium (Ibn Baṭṭūṭa/Gibb: 488). His fourth wife Orduja is daughter of the great emir (amīr al-ulūs) cIsa Bek, who appears to be one of the four ulus beys and perhaps even their leader (see above) (Ibn Baṭṭūṭa/Gibb: 488). Given that cIsa Bek is also married to Özbek Khan’s daughter (from the khan’s first wife) İt Küchüjük (Ibn Baṭṭūṭa/Gibb: 488–489), this makes cIsa Bek and Özbek Khan both father-in-law and son-in-law to each other (!). Special mention should be made of Ibn Baṭṭūṭa’s description of the role of Özbek Khan’s daughter İt Küchüjük: The sultan’s daughter rode with a crown on her head, since she is the queen in reality, having inherited the kingdom from her mother (Ibn Baṭṭūṭa/Gibb: 492–493). Gibb, following Pelliot, suggests that she is the daughter of Özbek Khan’s earlier wife Bayalun (Baalin in the Russian sources) who died in 1323, so not to be confused with the wife of the daughter of the Byzantine emperor who may have been conferred the same name in honor of the late earlier wife (Pelliot 1949: 84–85; Ibn Baṭṭūṭa/Gibb: 493n.; Zimonyi 2005). This raises the interesting question of why Ibn Baṭṭūṭa sometimes describes İt Küchüjük as “queen” (like her mother before her), using the same term malika throughout (Ibn Baṭṭūṭa/Defrémery and 302 Sanguinetti, 2: 383–385, 389, 397, 403, 405). Does her status derive from the fact that she is the oldest child? Does her status derive from the fact that she was (as far as we know) the oldest daughter of the previous “queen”? It is not clear that there was a comparable figure in the Ilkhanate (see De Nicola 2017: 90–129). Another possibility – and this is speculation – is that after Özbek Khan’s death she may have been in line to marry his successor Tınıbek, which predetermined her high status during Özbek Khan’s lifetime? Upon the death of a Chinggisid male, the deceased male’s son could take his father’s wives (excluding his own natural mother, of course) to be his own wives. For example, it is recorded that Bayan, son of Qonichi, son of Sartaqtay, son of Orda, took his father’s wives Barquchin, Chingtüm, and Altaju as his own (Rashīd al-Dīn/Boyle: 101). This is corroborated by John of Plano Carpini, who writes the Mongols marry any of their relations except for a mother, daughter, or sister by the same marriage. They can, however, marry any sisters who have the same father (but not the same mother). They can also marry their father’s wives upon his death, or else another younger relation is expected to marry the wife or wives. Women generally do not remarry after the death of a husband unless it is to marry a stepson (John of Plano Carpini/Dawson: 7). William of Rubruck’s account confirms most of these points, but clarifies that they observe first and second degrees of consanguinity. He also adds that the father’s orda always falls to the youngest son, who has to provide for all his father’s wives who come to him with his father’s effects (William of Rubruck/Dawson: 104). This speculative hypothesis is complicated, however, by the fact that she was the wife of cIsa Bek during the time of Ibn Baṭṭūṭa’s visit. But, as I noted earlier, it may be the case that even marriages are revisited as a part of the (re)newal of the social and political contract between the sovereign (i.e., the Chinggisid khan) and the “land” at the inception of a new reign (cf. the discussion in Zhao 2008: 18–30; Landa 2019: 222–223). 5. The wives of the ulus beks & other emirs Of the four ulus emirs about whom Ibn Baṭṭūṭa gives us information, we have information concerning several of their wives. It is clear from the information offered by Ibn Baṭṭūṭa that the ulus emirs regularly entered into marital ties with the Chinggisid dynasty by marrying female members of the dynasty, be it daughters of the Chinggisid khan or other close female relatives. cIsa Bek is described as “still alive” and married to Özbek Khan’s daughter İt Küchüjük (Ibn Baṭṭūṭa/Gibb: 489), as already noted above. Qutlu Temür is married to khatun Törebek, but it is not clear what her ancestry is (Ibn Baṭṭūṭa/Gibb: 544). In addition to these principal emirs, another emir named cAli b. Arzaq (or Arzan) is married to the sister of Özbek Khan’s daughter İt küchüjük, so somebody we may take to be the second daughter of Özbek Khan (Ibn Baṭṭūṭa/Gibb: 489). While the wife of emir Saltiya (Salṭīya) is mentioned only in connection with the wagon in which she was traveling, it is not 303 clear what her family background is (Ibn Baṭṭūṭa/Gibb: 480). But could the emir’s name be a garbled rendering of the name of the “ruling tribe” Saljiut~Sijivut? That would make sense, given that they appear to have been one of the four “ruling tribes” of the Golden Horde, at least in a later period. One final point made by Ibn Baṭṭūṭa is that Qutlu Temür, who is himself described as a great emir (Ibn Baṭṭūṭa/Gibb: 541), is the son of the maternal aunt of Özbek Khan and the “greatest of his emirs” (Ibn Baṭṭūṭa/Gibb: 544). This seems to suggest that Özbek Khan’s mother’s sister was married to the head of the ulus emirs, the bekleri bek (amīr al-umarā’ in the Arabic sources). Earlier, the greatest of his emirs was Qutlu Temür. Can this mean that the Qutlu Temür whom Ibn Baṭṭūṭa saw is the son of the earlier Qutlu Temür who was bekleri bek first under Toqta Khan and who then orchestrated the selection and installation of Özbek as khan? These marital ties are not limited to just one generation, either: Qutlu Temür’s son Harun Bek (who may have been in line to succeed his father) is married to the daughter of Özbek khan and his wife Taytoghıla (Ibn Baṭṭūṭa/Gibb: 544). In addition to this marriage, khatun Törebek’s sister Jija is identified as the wife of the qāḍī of Khorezm, Abū Ḥafs cUmar al-Bakrī, which shows that there was a similar marital relationship with the Islamic religious establishment. This marital alliance between the dynasty and the religious class was clearly a later development, possibly dating only to the reign of Özbek Khan (Ibn Baṭṭūṭa/Gibb: 543, 546). 6. Defining the nature of the Chinggisid state To return to the question I raised at the beginning of this paper: how do we define the nature of the Chinggisid state (at least from the perspective of a historian of the Golden Horde)? If we follow Keenan, the state is formed (or at least renewed) when the khan is raised by the leaders of the four “ruling tribes”. Through the oath of fealty, the bond between the “sovereign” and the “land” (or “people”?) is formalized. Does this then require (or simply result in) a series of marriages to formalize these ties? Or is the system of marital ties a form of stability (a sociopolitical gyroscope, so to speak) to allow one to at least be able to expect political stability and perhaps to guide succession in the future as well? In the end, is it incorrect to speak of the (re)creation of the state each time a new khan is installed, in which case would it be more correct to use the equivalent of “reign” for the Golden Horde and/or the other Chinggisid states? Ibn Baṭṭūṭa reveals that underlying the “four-bey system” which I have described in detail elsewhere involves, at least in the first half of the 14th century, a very deep system of marital alliances between the Chinggisid dynast and the descendants of the leaders of “ruling tribes” and other tribes as well in the form of the khan taking the daughter of a tribal leader as a wife or granting the hand of his daughter (or another close female relative) to a tribal leader or his son. This has also been noted for the Khanate of Crimea by Zaytsev (2014: 257). This seems to have been the 304 basis of the political power of the khan, namely the power to mobilize the population of the tribes through its leadership with whom he was allied on the basis of marriage. This was also the basis of the loyalty of the tribes to the Chinggisid khan, who was able to (re)distribute wealth to the tribes through their leaders in the form of revenue-producing sites of tax collection and other sources of wealth. As we know, just because the system was set up (or evolved) in this manner, it did not guarantee stability. While Ibn Baṭṭūṭa clearly described Tınıbek as the heir apparent, he could write (many years after the fact) that Tınıbek would, in fact, be “killed for disgraceful things” and that Janıbek, who succeeded him, was far more worthy (Ibn Baṭṭūṭa/Gibb: 490). What is more, I have tried to show elsewhere that, with the death of Berdibek, the Golden Horde was destined for complete and utter collapse because of the Black Death (see most recently Schamiloglu 2017, 2018a, b). The system which was able to mediate the relationship between the Chinggisid dynast and the leading “ruling tribes” (and through them the rest of the state) could not survive sudden severe depopulation, including decimation of large segments of the ruling élite. The collateral principle of Chinggisid succession based on genealogy would, in the final analysis, spell a recipe for disaster in a time of pandemic. The only surprise is that the Golden Horde (in this case the Aq orda) survived as long as it did in such an era, perhaps because of the deep ties between the dynasty and the “ruling tribes” described above. This system would finally implode, however, upon the death of Berdibek, a period during which there were severe waves of bubonic plague afflicting the territories of the Golden Horde, including its capital Saray. 7. Concluding discussion: Was the Chinggisid Khan an autocrat? The accounts I have described lead me to a conclusion which could be, in fact, the subject for a separate study, namely: Was the Chinggisid khan an autocrat? The evidence from Ibn Baṭṭūṭa confirms my earlier findings that the khan of the Golden Horde in the 14th century had close socio-political ties with the tribal élite, especially the leaders of the four “ruling tribes”, who shared in the governance of the state. It does not offer a clear answer, however, to the question of whether the khan was an all-powerful autocrat or not. My guess, based on this evidence, is that he was less powerful than, say, the Ottoman sultan (who to my mind was an absolute monarch without any structural restrictions beyond the sheyhülislam, which was not a fundamental native structure of the Turko–Mongolian state, but rather an Islamic institution). Let me examine briefly three separate examples related to this spanning the 13th–17th centuries. First, for Veselovsky (1922), the contentious relationship between emir Noghay and Toqta in the late 13th century did not make sense except to view Noghay, whom I have argued elsewhere was the head of the ulus emirs in the second half of the 13th century (above), as a second khan. In my view, this obsession with the power of the 305 Chinggisid khan may have had as much to do with the search for the origins of autocracy in Imperial Russia (even in early Soviet times) as it did with an attempt to understand the institutions of the Golden Horde in the 13th century. Second, in the case of the Khanate of Kazan, it is clear that the khan was undermined by the relationship of the “ruling tribes” of the land, especially the Shirin “ruling tribe”, who negotiated for example with the Shibanid Mamuq and the grand duke of Muscovy, thereby undermining the position of the Chinggisid khan. In terms of the historical relationship between the four qaraçı beys and the Chinggisid khan, this was – arguably – completely normal. For the political history of the Khanate of Kazan see most recently Baxtin and Xamidullin (2014). This history can also be viewed through a Tatar nationalist lens as a “betrayal” of the Tatar nation (just think of the last khan Shah cAli, whose name is synonymous in modern Kazan Tatar with ‘traitor’). This is, of course, completely anachronistic for the 16th century, as there was no concept of a Tatar “nation” until the late 19th century, the foundation for which was laid by the great Tatar scholar Shihabeddin Märjani (see Schamilogu 1990, 2019, 2020). Third and last, let us consider the case of the Crimean Khanate in the 17th century. Evliya Chelebi’s account of his visit to the Crimean Khanate includes a remarkable description of the relations between the new Crimean khan “Choban Giray” (Adil Giray, r. 1666–1671) and the Shirin “ruling tribe”. Following his arrival in Kefe on 6 June 1667, the new khan set out three days and three nights later to travel to the capital Bahchesaray (Evliya Çelebi/Cevdet, 8: 31–32; Evliya Çelebi/Çevik, 7: 556–557; Evliya Çelebi/Dankoff et al., 8: 195a–b). As he left Kefe in the direction of Eski Kırım, the notables of the khanate met him and, removing their hats, they then rubbed their faces against the hem of his garment. The next day, however, 20,000 Shirin troops came fully armed to meet the khan. They did not ever get off their horses, but they did take off their hats to greet the khan and then withdrew into formation. The khan continued to greet everyone with good humor. Following his installation, which was followed by three days and nights of feasts, on the fifth day the notables gathered and told the khan: Kânûn-ı Cinkız Hân’ımızdır kim otuz yılda bir felek günleri devr edüp otuz sene temâmında her kankı hân bulunursa Kırım içinde olan esîr başına birer kızılga altun esîr zekâtı almak kânûnumuzdur. Şimdi otuz yıl başı bu hânımızın tâli’ine düşüp Osmânlıya borcu olduğundan esîr başına beşer guruş alsın. “It is the law of our khan Chinggis that when the stars of fortune turn once every 30 years, whoever is the khan when the 30 years have been completed will collect one gold coin in alms-tax for each slave to be found in Crimea. Now is the beginning of the 30th year and it has been the bad lot of our khan to be indebted to the Ottomans. Let him collect 5 kurush per slave” (Evliya 306 Çelebi/Cevdet, 8: 33–34, Evliya Çelebi/Çevik, 8: 5; Evliya Çelebi/ Dankoff et al., 8: 195b–196a). After the legal authority for this was granted, they counted the slaves in 24 kadı districts and arrived at a figure of 400,000 Cossack slaves. The khan decided to distribute hundreds in alms-tax to the mırzas and soldiers, 100,000 to the karachıs and their people and the palace troops, and 100,000 to the religious class. Out of the 100,000 remaining to himself he also distributed funds to members of his retinue. Thus, he was able to convince the entire class of notables to agree to the tax. Yet when palace officials went to collect the tax from the Shirin tribe, they were beaten up and sent back to the palace, having been relieved of the taxes they had already collected. This led to a confrontation between the khan and the Shirin leaders, following which the khan agreed to forego the alms-tax in exchange for Shirin participation on the campaign against Moscow. Despite the agreement, the Shirin were not pleased with the terms of their participation and decided to march on Bahchesaray to kill the khan and other leading officials. The Shirin decided to give up on their plans and flee only upon hearing that there were Ottoman troops along with other Crimean tribes lying in wait for them. The khan decided to take action against them at that point, including obtaining fetvas from all four legal schools supporting their extermination and allying with their rivals, the Mansur “ruling tribe”, to raid them and seize their holdings (Evliya Çelebi/Cevdet, 8: 34–38, Evliya Çelebi/Çevik, 8: 5–8; Evliya Çelebi/Dankoff et al., 8: 196a–197a). The story does not end with this, but our retelling of it must. This briefest summary of the episode of the confrontation between Adil Giray and the Shirin “ruling tribe” shows very clearly that the relationship between the khan (who, to be fair, had just arrived in Crimea following the absence of a khan for some time) and the leading “ruling tribe” could be very contentious and even deadly. Through the redistribution of resources (or, in this case, exemption from the almstax), the Crimean khan in the 17th century could (at times) buy the loyalty of his tribal forces, but that might not be enough to maintain their loyalty on a regular basis. I can guess at the many ways in which the Crimean khanate in the 17th century—since 1475 a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire—might have been different from the Golden Horde in the 13th–14th centuries (that would be a whole study unto itself), but I think we have enough data points to see continuity in the economic relationship between the dynast and the tribal leadership, including the fact that the khan could simply not count upon his ability to control the loyalty of the leadership of the “ruling tribes”. In the end, we must acknowledge that there is little basis—perhaps even none whatsoever (?!)—for believing that the khan of the Golden Horde, the khan of Kazan, or the khan of the Crimea was an autocrat with unlimited power. Rather, the evidence (albeit limited and spanning five centuries) suggests that the state was organized on the basis of a relationship between the dynasty and the “ruling tribes”, that this relationship needed to be renewed with each successive ruler, that the 307 relationship was based upon (or maintained through) marital ties, and that it was also based in part upon economic redistribution to maintain the loyalty of the tribal élite (representing the “citizen” population of the state). References Allsen, Thomas T. 1987. Mongol Imperialism. The Policies of the Grand Qan Möngke in China, Russia, and the Islamic Lands, 1251–1259. Berkeley: University of California Press. Baxtin, Aleksandr and Bulat Xamidullin 2014. “6. Politiçeskaya istoriya Kazanskogo xanstva”. In: Istoriya Tatar s drevneyşix vremen v semi tomax. IV. Tatarskie gosudarstva XV–XVIII vv. Kazan: Institute istorii AN RT, 2014: 289–358. Broadbridge, Anne F. 2018. Women and the Making of the Mongol Empire. Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clauson, Gerard. 1972. An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish. Oxford: Oxford University Press. De Nicola, Bruno 2017. Women in Mongol Iran: The Khātūns, 1206–1335. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Di Cosmo, Nicola 1999. “State Formation and Periodization in Inner Asian History”, Journal of World History 10:1 (Spring): 1–40. Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi (A.H. 1314–1938). Edited by Ahmet Cevdet. 10 volumes. Dersaadet: İkdam Matbaası. Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi 1978–1986. Edited by Mümin Çevik. 10 volumes. Istanbul: Ücdal Neşriyatı. Evliyâ Çelebi b. Derviş Mehemmed Zıllî 2011. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi. Ed. Robert Dankoff, Seyit Ali Kahraman, and Yücel Dağlı. 10 books in 2 volumes. Yapı Kredi yayınları, 3415–3416. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları. Fedorov-Davïdov, G.A. 1973. Obşçestvennïy stroy Zolotoy Ordï. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. Grinin, Leonid E., Robert L. Carneiro, Dmitri M. Bondarenko, Nikolay N. Kradin, and Andrey Korotayev 2004. The Early State, Its Alternatives and Analogues. Volgograd: Uchitel. Hope, Michael 2017. “‘The Pillars of State:’ Some Notes on the Qarachu Begs and the Kešikten in the Īl-Khānate (1256–1335).” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 27: 1–19. 10.1017/S1356186316000523. Ibn Baṭṭūṭa 1877. Edited and translated by C. Defrémery and B.R. Sanguinetti. Voyages d’Ibn Batoutah. Collection d’ouvrages orientaux publiée par La Société asiatique. Volumes 2–3. Paris: L’Imprimerie Nationale. 308 Ibn Baṭṭūṭa 1958–1971. Translated by H.A.R. Gibb. The Travels of Ibn Baṭṭūṭa, A.D. 1325–1354. Volume 1–3. Works Issued by the Hakluyt Society, II, 110, 117, and 141. Cambridge. Isxakov, D.M. 2019. “Xalkıbıznıŋ ėpik äsärlärendä yäşerengän milli tarixıbız. İkençe yazma: ‘Idegäy’ dastanınıŋ serläre” (II). Tugan jir 1: 49–65. http://tuganzhir.org/arhiv-zhurnala/. Ivanics, Mária 2017. Hatalomgyakorlás a steppén: A Dzsingisz-náme nomád világa. Magyar történelmi emlékek. Értekezések. Budapest: MTA Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpont Történettudományi Intézet. John of Plano Carpini 1980. Translated by A Nun of Stanbrook Abbey, edited by C. Dawson. “History of the Mongols”. In: Mission to Asia. The Medieval Academy Reprints for Teaching 8. Toronto: University of Toronto Press: 1–76. Keenan, Jr., E.L. 1965. “Muscovy and Kazan’ 1445–1552: A Study in Steppe Politics”. Ph.D. dissertation: Harvard University. Keenan, Jr., E.L. 1967. “Muscovy and Kazan: Some Introductory Remarks on the Patterns of Steppe Diplomacy”. Slavic Review 26: 548–558. Kradin, Nikolay 2018. “Ancient Steppe Nomad Societies”. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190277727.013.3. Kradin, N.N. 2019. “Derjava Çingis-xana”. In: Koçevïe imperii Evrazii: osobennosti istoriçeskoy dinamiki, edited by B.V. Bazarov and N.N. Kradin, 252–278. Moscow: Nauka. Landa, Ishayahu 2019. “Reconsidering the Chinggisids’ Sons-in-Laws: Lessons from the United Empire”. Chronica 18: 212–25. https://ojs.bibl.u-szeged.hu/index. php/chronica/article/view/31984. Lessing F.D. 1980. Mongolian-English Dictionary. Berkeley, 1960/Bloomington, IN. Pelliot, Paul 1949. Notes sur l’histoire de la Horde d’Or. Suivies de Quelques noms turcs d’hommes et de peuples finissant en "ar". Oeuvres posthumes de Paul Pelliot. Paris: Librairie d’Amérique et d’Orient Adrien Maisonneuve. Rashīd al-Dīn 1971. Translated by J.A. Boyle. The Successors of Genghis Khan. New York: Columbia University Press. Schamiloglu, Uli 1984. “The Qaraçı Beys of the Later Golden Horde: Notes on the Organization of the Mongol World Empire.” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 4: 283– 297. Schamiloglu, Uli 1986. “Tribal Politics and Social Organization in the Golden Horde”. Ph.D. dissertation: Columbia University. Schamiloglu, Uli 1990. “The Formation of a Tatar Historical Consciousness: Şihabäddin Märcani and the Image of the Golden Horde”. Central Asian Survey 9:2: 39–49. 309 Schamiloglu, Uli 2015. “The Origins of Kazakh Statehood: From the Golden Horde to the Kazakh Khanate”, Qazaq xandığınıŋ qurıluınıŋ 550 jıldığına oray uyımdastırılğan “Qazaq xandığı: tarix, teoriya jäne bügingi kün” attı xalıqaralıq ğılımi-teoriyalıq konferentsiya Materialdarı. 5–6 mausım 2015 jıl, Almatı qalası (Almatı: Qazaq universiteti,), 15–18. Schamiloglu, Uli 2019a. “The Migration of Tribes from East to West the Golden Horde in the time of Toqtamış”, Altın ordanıŋ 750 jıldığına arnalğan “Sarıarqa jäne Altın Orda: Uaqıt pen keŋistik” xalıqaralıq ğılımi konferentsiya materiyaldarı / Saryarka and the Golden Horde: Time and Space, Eurasian Research Institute Books 19 (Karaganda: Hoca Ahmet Yesevi Kazak-Türk Üniversitesi, 2019), 25–30. Schamiloglu, Uli 2019b. Translated by Ç.İ. Xamidova and Roman Hautala. Plemennaya politika i sotsial’noe ustroystvo v Zolotoy Orde, İstoriya i kul’tura Zolotoy Ordï i tatarskix xanstv 27. Kazan: İnstitut istorii im. Ş. Mardjani AN RT. Schamiloglu, Uli 2019c. “Qazaq memletekşiliginiŋ şığu tegi: Altın ordadan Qazaq xandığına deyin”, “Coşı ulısı jäne Sarayşıq – Qazaq memleketiniŋ bastauında”. Xalıqaralıq ğılımi-täciribelik konferentsiya, ed. Ä.Q. Muqtar—Ö. Qanay. Almaty, 298–304. Schamiloglu, Uli (in press). Tribal Politics and Social Organization in the Golden Horde. Nur-Sultan: International Turkic Academy/TWESCO Press (Nur-Sultan). Trepavlov, V.V. 1993. Gosudarstvennïy stroy mongol’skoy imperii XIII v. Provlema istoriçeskoy preemstvennosti. Moscow: “Vostoçnaya literature”. Veselovskiy, N.I. 1922, “Xan iz temnikov Zolotoy ordï. Nogay i ego vremya”, Zapiski Rossiyskoy akademii nauk, VIII, 13:6: 1–58. William of Rubruck 1980. Translated by A Nun of Stanbrook Abbey, edited by C. Dawson. “The Journey of William of Rubruck”. In: Mission to Asia. The Medieval Academy Reprints for Teaching 8. Toronto: University of Toronto Press: 89–220. Zaytsev, Il’ya 2014. “5.1. Krïmskoe xanstvo”. Istoriya Tatar s drevneyşix vremen v semi tomax. IV. Tatarskie gosudarstva XV–XVIII vv. Kazan: Institute istorii AN RT: 252–261. Zhao, George Qingzhi 2008. Marriage as political strategy and cultural expression: Mongolian royal marriages from world empire to Yuan dynasty. Asian thought and culture 60. New York: Peter Lang. Zimonyi, István 200. “Bodun und El im Frühmittelalter”. Acta Orientalia Hungarica Vol. 56, No. 1: 57–79. Zimonyi, István 2005. “Ibn Baṭṭūṭa on the First Wife of Özbek Khan”. Central Asiatic Journal Vol. 49, No. 2: 303–309. Entstehung eines auf Osmanisch verfassten Friedenskonzepts. Ein Beitrag zu der Vorgeschichte des Friedens von Eisenburg 1664* Hajnalka Tóth Lehrstuhl für Geschichte Ungarns im Mittelalter und in der Frühneuzeit, Universität Szeged In den letzten Jahren habe ich mich im Rahmen eines Forschungsprojekts mit der Vorgeschichte und den Dokumenten des Friedensschlusses von Eisenburg (ung. Vasvár), sowie den Varienten des Friedenstextes befasst.1 Im Laufe dieser Arbeit habe ich ein in Osmanisch verfasstes Dokument in arabischer Schrift im Österreichischen Staatsarchiv, Haus-, Hof-, und Staatsarchiv, in der Unterserie Türkei I. aus dem Jahr 1663 gefunden, das während früherer Verhandlungen enstanden sein sollte. Dieses Dokument wird am Ende dieses Beitrags – in den Kontext der Friedensverhandlungen eingebettet – veröffentlicht. Weil wir früher mit Professorin Mária Ivanics im Thema des Friedens von Eisenburg einen gemeinsamen Aufsatz geplant haben, so bietet mir diese Festschrift die Möglichkeit, einerseits dieses Versäumnis nachzuholen, andererseits Ihnen meine Ehre zu erweisen und zugleich mich bei Ihnen für Ihre ständige und fachliche Hilfe zu bedanken. Obzwar der Friedensvertrag am 10. August 1664 vom Großvesir Köprülü Ahmed Pascha (1661–1676) und Simon Reniger von Reningen, kaiserlichen Residenten in Konstantinopel (1649–1665), unterzeichnet wurde, gingen ihm mehr * 1 Dieser Beitrag wurde im Rahmen der Forschungsgruppe für Osmanisches Zeitalter der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften – Universität Szeged angefertigt. Im Rahmen des Projekts OTKA [Országos Tudományos Kutatási Alapprogramok, äquivalent zu Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung, K 109070, 2013–2018] namens Alltage und kaiserliche Politik in der Zeit der Köprülü Restauration wurden die regelmäßigen Relationen des kaiserlichen Residenten in Konstantinopel (1649–1665), Simon Reniger von Reningen, edirt: Papp, S., Cziráki, Zs., Tóth, H., Szabados, J. Everyday Life and Imperial Politics in the Köprülü Era. Reports of the Resident Envoy, Simon Reniger from Constantinople to the Vienna Court (1649–1660). Szeged 2018. [Manuskript] 312 als zwei Jahre diplomatische Verhandlungen voran.2 Am Anfang des Jahres 1662 zogen kaiserliche Truppen unter der Führung Raimondo Graf Montecuccoli in Siebenbürgen (ung. Erdély) ein, um dem Fürsten Johann Kemény (1661–1662) gegen die Osmanen militärische Hilfe zu leisten.3 Dadurch griff Leopold I. ungarischer König und römischer Kaiser (1657/1658–1705) – zumindest aus der Sicht der Hohen Pforte – in die inneren Angelegenheiten der Osmanen ein. Nach dem Tod von Kemény (23. Januar 1662) hatte die habsburgische Regierung das Ziel vor Augen, ihre Macht über Siebenbürgen zu erweitern, zumindest durch die Erhaltung der von den kaiserlichen Soldaten besetzten Festungen.4 Leopold I. wollte jedoch aufgrund des Einflusses von Grafen Johann Ferdinand von Porcia, Präsidenten des Geheimen Rates (1658–1665), den offenen Krieg gegen die Pforte vermeiden. 5 Dank der kaiserlichen Diplomaten, Reniger in Konstantinopel und des dorthin am 2 3 4 5 Über die Verhandlungen siehe: Tóth, H. A vasvári békekötésig vezető út. Oszmán–Habsburg diplomáciai lépések a béke megújítására, 1662–1664. In: Tóth, F., Czigány, B. (Hrsg.) A szentgotthárdi csata és a vasvári béke. Oszmán terjeszkedés – európai összefogás. / La bataille de Saint-Gotthard et la pais de Vasvár. Expansion ottomane – coopération européenne. Budapest: MTA Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpont 2017, 319–338 (Tóth 2017a). Über die Dokumenten des Friedensvertrags von Eisenburg siehe: Tóth, H. The circumstances and documents of the Peace of Vasvár. Archivum Ottomanicum 34(2017), 243–256 (Tóth 2017b). Über Simon Reniger von Reningen siehe: Cziráki, Zs. Zur Person und Auswählung des kaiserlichen Residenten in Konstantinopel, Simon Reniger von Renningen (1649–1666). In: Cziráki, Zs., Fundárková, A., Manhercz, O., Peres, Zs., Vajnági M. (Hrsg.) Wiener Archivforschungen. Festschrift für den ungarischen Archivdelegierten István Fazekas. (Publikationen der Ungarischen Geschichtsforschung in Wien 10.) Wien: Institut für Ungarische Geschichtsforschung in Wien, Collegium Hungaricum, Ungarische Archivdelegation beim Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv. 2014, 157–164; Cziráki, Zs. Habsburg– oszmán diplomácia a 17. század közepén. Simon Reniger konstantinápolyi Habsburg-rezidens kinevezésének tanúságai (1647‒1649). Századok 149:4(2015), 835–871. Über die militärischen Ereignisse siehe: Czigány, I. A furcsa háborútól a nagy háborúig, 1661– 1664. Hadtörténelmi Közlemények 127:4(2014), 892–908. R. Várkonyi, Á. Országegyesítő kísérletek (1648–1664). In: R. Várkonyi, Á. (Hrsg.) Magyarország története 1526–1686. Bd. 1. (Magyarország története tíz kötetben 3/2.) Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó 1987, 1092. Am Ende 1660 wurde im Geheimen Rat sowohl über die Verhandlungen mit den Osmanen als auch über die Vorbereitungen auf einen Krieg die Entscheidung getroffen (Czigány 2014: 896– 897). Über die Denkschrift der ungarischen Stände für den Kaiser (Januar 1661), in dem sie von ihm eine militärische Aktion verlangten, siehe: R. Várkonyi, Á. Török világ és magyar külpolitika. Budapest: Magvető 1975, 17–18. 313 22. Mai angekommenen Internuntius, Johann Philipp Beris, 6 konnte ein Waffenstillstand ab 15. Juni 1662 zwischen den zwei Mächten unterzeichnet werden, so nahmen die obgenannten Verhandlungen, die bis zum 10. August 1664 dauerten, ihren Anfang. In der ersten Phase dieser Verhandlungen wurde als Ziel gesetzt, den zwischen den Habsburgern und Osmanen seit 1606 bestandenen und mehrmals erneuerten Frieden wiederherzustellen und zu erneuern.7 Der Bedarf an einem neuen 6 7 Johann Philipp Beris wurde im Frühling 1662 nach Konstantinopel geschickt und der Pascha von Ofen informierte sofort die Pforte über seine Ankunft: Österreichisches Staatsarchiv (ÖStA), Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv (HHStA), Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 134. Konv. 2. fol. 151r. Vgl. Veltzé, H. Die Hauptrelation des kaiserlichen Residenten in Constantinopel Simon Reniger von Reningen 1649–1666. Mitteilungen des k. (u.) k. Kriegsarchivs, Neue Folge 12(1900), 123; Horváth, M. Magyarország történelme. Bd. 5. Pest: Heckenast Gusztáv 1872, 515. – Beris kam am 22. Mai in Konstantinopel an und einen Tag hernach berichtete sowohl er als auch Reniger dem Hof darüber: ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 134. Konv. 2. fol. 157, 162, 163. Vgl. Hammer-Purgstall, J. Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches. Bd. 6. (GOR 6) Pest: Hartleben’s Verlag 1830, 106. Mehrere Aufsätze der Mitarbeiter der Forschungsgruppe für Osmanisches Zeitalter beschäftigen sich mit den Friedenserneuerungen nach dem Frieden von Zsitvatorok 1606: Papp, S. Az Oszmán Birodalom, a Magyar Királyság és a Habsburg Monarchia kapcsolattörténete a békekötések tükrében (Vázlat és adatbázis). Aetas 33:4(2018), 86–99; Brandl, G., Göncöl, Cs., Juhász, K., Marton, G. E., Szabados, J. Válogatott források az 1627. évi szőnyi békeszerződés történetéhez. Lymbus. Magyarságtudományi Forrásközlemények 15(2017), 151–203; Brandl, G., Göncöl, Cs., Juhász, K., Marton, G. E., Szabados, J. Kommunikáció és híráramlás. A Habsburg-oldal tárgyalási stratégiája az 1627. évi szőnyi békekötés során. Aetas 33:4(2018), 108–124; Brandl, G., Göncöl, Cs., Juhász, K., Marton, G. E., Szabados, J. Kommunikation und Nachrichtenaustausch – Verhandlungsstrategie der habsburgischen Seite bei der Friedensverhandlung von Szőny 1627. Chronica 19(2019), 113–140; Juhász, K. „…gyümölcse penig semmi nem volt”. Esterházy Miklós véleménye 1642. február 28-án a szőnyi béke(tervezet) pontjairól. Levéltári Közlemények 91(2019), 353–366; Juhász, K. Esterházy Dániel és Esterházy Miklós levelei az 1642. évi szőnyi békekötés idején. Lymbus. Magyarságtudományi Forrásközlemények 17(2019), 175–204; Juhász, K. A második szőnyi béke margójára. Adalékok az 1642. évi szőnyi békekötés történetéhez. In: J. Újváry, Zs. (Hrsg.) Hétköznapok az oszmán uralom idején, egyén és közösség viszonya. Budapest 2020 [im Druck]; Marton, G. E. On the Question of the Negotiations Between the Habsburgs and the Ottomans at Szécsény and Buda (1628) through Palatine Miklós Esterházy’s letter to the head of the Hungarian negotiators. Rocznik Przemyski 55, Historia 22:1(2019), 79–91; Marton, G. E. „Szőnyből tudatjuk.” Három magyar diplomata – Rimay János, Tassy Gáspár és Tholdalagi Mihály követnaplóinak összehasonlító elemzése az 1627. évi szőnyi békekötés kapcsán. In: J. Újváry, Zs. (Hrsg.) Hétköznapok az oszmán uralom idején, egyén és közösség viszonya. Budapest 2020 [im Druck]; Marton, G. E. Three Hungarian Diplomats’ Emissary Diaries. A Comparative Analysis of Emissary Diaries of János Rimay, Gáspár Tassy and Mihály Tholdalagi in the Context of the 1627 Peace Treaty of Szőny. Prace Historyczne 2020 [im Druck]. Zum Thema siehe noch: Cervioğlu, M. H. The Peace Treaties of Gyarmat (1625) and Szöny (1627). Ege ve Balkan Araştırmaları Dergisi 3:2(2016), 67–86. 314 Friedensvertrag wurde klar, nachdem das osmanische Heer im April 1663 nach Ungarn aufgebrochen war.8 Die Verhandlungen über die Erneuerung des Friedens fanden grundsätzlich an zwei verschiedenen Orten statt. Reniger verhandelte mit dem vom Großvesir Köprülü Ahmed Pascha beauftragten Reis ül-Küttab (Vorsteher der Kanzlei des Divans und als „Minister” für auswärtige Angelegenheiten), Şamizade Mehmed Efendi, in Konstantinopel.9 Als Ergebnis entstand am Ende Juni 1662 ein Konzept, das die folgenden Punkte enthielt:10 (1) die von kaiserlichen Soldaten eingenommenen Städte und Festungen in Siebenbürgen müssen evakuiert werden und die vorigen Zustände in Siebenbürgen müssen wiederhergestellt werden; (2) die Komitate Sathmar (ung. Szatmár) und Saboltsch (ung. Szabolcs) dürfen des Weiteren im Besitz des Kaisers bleiben und der Pascha von Großwardein (ung. Várad) darf keine Steuer mehr von den Gebieten der Komitate verlangen; (3) der Kaiser werde künftig Ansprüche an den Thron Siebenbürgens weder des Sohns von Georg II. Rákóczi11 noch des von Johann Kemény12 unterstützen; (4) der Kaiser darf seine Festungen und Städte in den Komitaten Sathmar und Saboltsch fortifizieren, aber es dürfe dort kein Kriegsvolk unter Führung eines Generals gehalten werden; (5) der Kaiser werde nicht eingreifen, falls die Untertanen gegen ihren Fürsten in Siebenbürgen rebellieren würden; (6) der Kaiser werde die Festung Neu-Zrin (ung. Zrínyi-Újvár) demolieren lassen; (7) der Kaiser werde künftig seinen Untertanen alle Streifzüge und Hostilitäten verbieten. Dieses Konzept wurde am Ende Juni von Reniger nach Wien geschickt und alle seiner Punkte befinden sich auch in dem zwei Jahre später unterzeichneten neuen Friedensvertrag. Leopold I. diskutierte mit den ungarischen Ständen über dieses Dokument im eben verlaufenden Landtag von Pressburg (ung. Pozsony, 1. Mai – 19. September 1662), wo die Ungarn von ihm sowohl das Verhältnis zu der Pforte offen zu regeln, als auch ungarische Abgesandte zu den Verhandlungen zu delegieren verlagten. Diese letztere Forderung wurde im vierten Artikel des Gesetzes vom Jahre 1662 ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 135. Konv. 1. fol. 87. Vgl. Veltzé 1900: 130. – „es müsse ein neuer Friede aufgerichtet und die Diplomata durch Gross-Botschaften ausgewechselt werden” (Veltzé 1900: 131; Tóth 2017a: 330). 9 Über das Amt Reis ül-Küttab siehe: Ahıskalı, R. Reisülküttab. In: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi. Cilt 34. İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı. 2007, 546–549. 10 Laut Alfons Huber musste es ein – eventuell Osmanisches – aus sieben Punkten bestehendes Konzept geben, das Reniger zur Einwilligung an seinen Bericht angeschlossen nach Wien schickte. Huber, A. Österreichs diplomatische Beziehungen zur Pforte, 1658–1664. Archiv für österreichische Geschichte 85(1898), 56. Vgl. Tóth 2017a: 323. – Die Beilage ‘A’ des Renigers Berichts vom 4. September 1662 ist ein lateinisches Exemplar der Punkte des Friedenskonzepts vom Juni. ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 134. Konv. 4. fol. 12r–13v. 11 Franz I. Rákóczi wurde im 1652 als Kind zum Fürsten erwählt, aber er bestieg nie den fürstlichen Thron. 12 Simon Kemény 8 315 deklariert,13 über deren Realisierung im Licht der späteren Ereignisse nicht die Rede sein konnte. Die Modifikationsvorschläge zum Konzept wurden jedoch mit dem Einverständnis des ungarischen Landtages nach Konstantinopel zurückgeschickt,14 Reniger erhielt sie am 17. August und er trug sie bereits am 19. in der Audienz bei dem Sultan vor.15 Die Änderungen und Forderungen des kaiserlichen Hofs machten die Friedenskonditionen bilateral, was vor allem die ersten Punkte betrifft: die Soldaten von beiden Seiten müssen aus dem Gebiet des Fürstentums ausgeschafft werden und von beiden Seiten müssen die Streifzüge verboten werden. Es wurde in Wien akzeptiert, dass es weder dem Sohn Georg II. Rákóczis noch dem von Johann Kemény im Fall ihres Anspruchs auf den Thron geholfen werden würde, aber Leopold forderte Amnestie für die gegen die Pforte rebellierenden Siebenbürger an. Er verlangte außerdem, falls der Fürst Michael I. Apafi (1661–1690) stärbe, würde die Wahl des neuen Fürsten nach den alten Privilegien durchgeführt werden.16 Die habsburgische Seite forderte wesentlichere Änderungen bezüglich zweier Punkte. Der eine war das Problem der Festung Neu-Zrin, welche im westlichen Teil des ungarisch–osmanischen Grenzgebietes aufgebaut wurde. Nikolaus Graf Zrínyi, der Ban von Kroatien (1646–1664), begann den Bau der Festung im Sommer 1661 in der Nachbarschaft von Kanischa (ung. Kanizsa), das damals in osmanischen Händen war.17 Diese Festung war der Pforte ein Dorn im Auge, weil sie aus strategischer Hinsicht – betreffend die Streifzüge aus den gegen Kanischawärts liegenden Grenzen – an einem wichtigen Ort lag. Da die Festung ungeachtet des Friedens und Verbotes gebaut wurde, verlangten die Osmanen die Demolierung von Neu-Zrin und 13 Márkus, D. (Hrsg.) Magyar törvénytár 1000–1895. 1657–1740. évi törvényczikkek. – Corpus juris Hungarici. Millenniumi emlékkiadás. Bd. 6. (CJH 6) Budapest: Franklin-Társulat 1900, 227.; R. Várkonyi 1987: 1101–1102. Vgl. Az 1638:3. tc. (Márkus, D. (Hrsg.) Magyar törvénytár 1000–1895. 1608–1657. évi törvényczikkek. – Corpus juris Hungarici. Millenniumi emlékkiadás. Bd. 5. Budapest: Franklin-Társulat1900, 373) und 1659:14. tc. (CJH 6, 1900:147). – Über die damaligen Verhältnisse zwischen den ungarischen Ständen und dem kaiserlichen Hof siehe: Pálffy, G. Mellőzött magyarok? Hadikonferenciák ülésrendje 1660–1662-ből és 1681-ből. Levéltári Közlemények 75(2004), 51–56. 14 Das Konzept der Pforte wurde am 25. Juli 1662 dem Landtag vom Kaiser vorgelegt (Szalay 1866: 97, Huber 1898: 53). Dieses Moment wurde später unter den Umständen des Friedensschlusses nicht mehr erwähnt. Vgl. R. Várkonyi 1987: 1138. 15 ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 134. Konv. 4. fol. 1–2. Vgl. GOR 6, 1830: 107; Huber 1898: 57–58; Veltzé 1900: 125. 16 ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 134. Konv. 4. fol. 3. Eben dieselben Konditionen befinden sich im Bericht des venezianischen Residenten in Wien, Giovanni Sagredo, den er am 5. August 1662 dem Dogen schickte. Huber 1898: 56–57. 17 Der Bau dieser strittigen Festung wurde von Anbeginn an sowohl vom innerösterreichischen Kriegsrat als auch vom Hof unterstützt: Czigány 2014: 904–905; Toma, K. Gróf Nádasdy Ferenc országbíró politikusi pályaképe (1655–1666). Budapest. [Ph.D. Dissertation, Loránd Eötvös Universität] 2005, 134. – Über die Festung Neu-Zrin siehe: Hausner, G., Padányi, J. Zrínyi-Újvár emlékezete. Budapest: Argumentum 2012; Hausner, G., Németh, A. Zrínyi-Újvár. Egy 17. századi védelmi rendszer az oszmán hódoltság határán. Budapest: Ludovika Egyetemi Kiadó 2019. 316 sie wollten auf ihren Standpunkt beharren. Laut der Verordnung des kaiserlichen Hofs reichte Reniger die Liste der 39 (oder 40) Festungen und Burgen, die seit dem Frieden von Zsitvatorok (1606) von den Osmanen gebaut oder wiederaufgebaut wurden, bei dem Reis ül-Küttab ein, und er verlangte zugleich die Zerstörung einer gewissen Anzahl der gennanten Festungen gegen Demolierung Neu-Zrins.18 Die andere problematische Stelle betraf sowohl das östliche und nordöstliche Teil des ungarisch–osmanischen Grenzgebietes als auch Siebenbürgen: es war nämlich die Frage der Herrschaft über die Komitate Sathmar und Saboltsch. Diese zwei Komitate – und auch noch fünf andere Komitate in Ober Ungarn – durften für einen bestimmten Zeitraum von den zwei vorigen Fürsten, Gabriel Bethlen (1613– 1629) und Georg I. Rákóczi (1630–1648), laut den Verträgen mit den Habsburger Königen, besessen werden. 19 Zufolge dem Frieden von Linz (1645) durften die Herrschaft über die zwei Komitate sogar von Nachkommen Georg I. Rákóczis, d. h. Georg II. Rákóczi, geerbt werden. Der Pascha von Großwardein aber besteuerte auch diese Komitate. Das größte Problem löste die Festung Zickelhid (ung. Székelyhíd) aus, weil sie früher Großwardein untergeordnet war. Während Großwardein seit 27. August 1660 unter osmanischer Herrschaft stand, garnisonierten in Zickelhid auch im Weiteren kaiserliche Soldaten. Leopold begehrte die Festung wegen ihrer strategischen Lage zu behalten, die Osmanen wollten aber sie von ihm wegnehmen, die Siebenbürger beabsichtigten sie auch wieder zu besitzen. Die zwei verschiedenen Verhandlungsorte benötigte man eigentlich wegen der Komitate Sathmar und Saboltsch (die osmanische Besteuerung deren Gebiete, die Zugehörigkeit der Festungen und der dort wohnenden Heiducken, die Anwesenheit kaiserlicher Soldaten) und wegen Zickelhid. Das eigentliche Ziel der kaiserlichen Diplomatie war, dass die Osmanen ihre Herrschaft über diese Festung akzeptieren. 18 ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 134. Konv. 3. fol. 12r.; Konv. 4. fol. 7r. Vgl. Veltzé 1900: 125. – Unter den von den Osmanen gebauten Festungen benannte Reniger auch Berkigát, diese Palisade wurde nämlich im Jahre 1655 von Osmanen gebaut (oder aber wiederaufgebaut) und sie wurde im Februar 1660 von den Soldaten des Obristen der gegen Kanischawärts liegenden Grenzen, Christoph Batthyány II. (1637–1687), eingenommen und zugleich auch demoliert. Der kaiserliche Hof bot in demselben Jahr der Pforte an, die Palisade wiederaufbauen zu dürfen, aber es fand bis Sommer 1661 nicht statt. Papp, S. Egy ismeretlen dél-dunántúli török palánk: Berkigát. In: Kovács, Gy., Gerelyes, I. (Hrsg.) A hódoltság régészeti kutatása. A Magyar Nemzeti Múzeumban 2000. május 24–26. között megtartott konferencia előadásai. (Opuscula Hungarica 3.) Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum 2002, 129–136. – Laut Ágnes R. Várkonyi unterzeichnete der Kaiser während des Landtags von Pressburg seinen Befehl über die Demolierung Neu-Zrins (R. Várkonyi 1987: 1100). 19 Zufolge des am 31. Dezember 1621 von Ferdinand II. (1619–1637) und Gabriel Betlen geschlossenen Friedens von Nikolsburg gab der König sieben Komitate (Abaúj/Abau, Borsod/Borschod, Zemplén/Semplin, Bereg/Berg, Ugocsa/Ugotsch, Saboltsch, Sathmar) dem Fürsten bis zu seinem Tod über, aber sie gehörten in der Tat nicht zum Fürstentum Siebenbürgen. Laut des am 16. Dezember 1645 von Ferdinand III. (1637–1657) und Georg I. Rákóczi geschlossenen Friedens von Linz wurden die Komitate nach gleichen Konditionen Rákóczi übergeben. 317 Inzwischen proklamierte der Fürst Apafi, dass Zickelhid zu Siebenbürgen gehöre, er beanspruchte sogar die Festung, und die Pforte unterstützte ihn natürlich auch dabei. Laut Reniger wollten die Osmanen die Festung belagern und sie wollten sie dem Fürsten Apafi auf keinen Preis verlassen. Der Resident behauptete, man hätte mit dem Fürsten über die Übergabe von Zickelhid vereinbaren können, aber Reniger hielt es für unmöglich, die Festung wegen ihrer Nähe zu Großwardein künftig behalten zu können. Noch dazu wollte der Reis ül-Küttab mit ihm über diese Frage auf keinen Fall verhandeln.20 Um diese Fragen gründlicher zu untersuchen, wollte man Kommissionen aufstellen: von der Pforte wurde deswegen Ali Pascha von Temeschwar (ung. Temesvár) mit den Verhandlungen beauftragt, und vom kaiserlichen Hof wurde zuerst Philipp Johann Beris von Konstantinopel nach Temeschwar abgeordnet. 21 Beris kam am 19. Juni in Griechischweissenburg (ung. Nándorfehérvár, Belgrád) an, von dort schickte er einen Bericht nach Wien, in dem er den Hof um ein Akkreditiv für die Verhandlungen und Geschenke für den Pascha bat. 22 Am 17. Juli erhielt Reniger die Nachricht, dass Beris krank wäre und er wollte entweder nach Ofen (ung. Buda) oder nach Wien fahren. Danach ersuchte Ali Pascha die Pforte um Erlaubnis für Beris Reise. Reniger hielt es ebenso nicht für notwendig, dass Beris nach Temeschwar reisen sollte.23 Der Diplomat erreichte aber inzwischen am 16. Juli den Verhandlungsort und er wurde am 18. von Ali Pascha willkommen geheißen. 24 Beris hatte jedoch keine Beglaubigung, über die streitige Festungen (darunter Zickelhid) und über die Demolierung von Neu-Zrin zu verhandeln. In erster Linie bat er den Pascha darum, den Waffenstillstand auch im Weiteren zu halten. Nachdem Beris in der Audienz am 27. Juli erklärt hatte, dass das Abkommen an der Pforte zustande kommen sollte, bekam der Pascha einen Wutanfall und er wollte den Internuntius einfach wegschicken, aber der Diplomat musste laut ihrem 20 ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 134. Konv. 3. fol. 17r–v, 20r–v. Vgl. „ich versicherte aber Euer Majestät, dass Szekelyhid nichts Guetes verursachen werde, wie hernach in der That geschechen” (Veltzé 1900: 125). 21 GOR 6. 1830: 107; Horváth 1872: 515; Huber 1898: 54. 22 ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 134. Konv. 3. fol. 52r. Der Kurier kam am 12. Juli in Griechischweissenburg in Begleitung des Dolmetschers François (Franz) Mesgnien de Meninski und mit Geschenken an. Ebd. fol. 100r. 23 ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 134. Konv. 3. fol. 66v–67r. – Beris selbst schrieb in seinem Bericht vom 4. August über seine Krankheit, davon er sich erholt hat, inzwischen wurde er aber schon wieder krank. Er bat deswegen den Kaiser darum, entweder nach Komorn (ung. Komárom) oder nach Raab (ung. Győr) zu fahren und dort sich ärtzlich behandeln zu lassen. Ebd. fol. 150r–v. 24 ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 134. Konv. 3. fol. 100r–v. – Reniger wurde erst am Anfang August darüber informiert, dass Beris in Temeschwar angekommen war. ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 134. Konv. 3. fol. 123r. 318 Auftrag bis weiteren Anordnungen in Temeschwar bleiben.25 Beris berichtete am 13. August darüber, dass der Pascha mit der entstandenen Situation unzufrieden war – die zwei Mächte schienen nämlich miteinander nicht zu einer Übereinstimmung zu kommen –, und er musste schon seit langem mit seinen Truppen bei Temeschwar untätig warten. Zur gleichen Zeit war ein Kurier auf dem Weg nach Konstantinopel mit der kaiserlichen Resolution über das Friedenskonzept.26 Reniger erhielt die Antwort des Kaisers am 17. August und zwar falls die Punkte des Konzepts mit Leopolds Änderungen an der Pforte akzeptiert werden würden, hätte der Resident den Vertrag unterschreiben können.27 Nach mehrmahligen Verhandlungen im Divan wurde ein – aus acht Punkten bestehendes und von der Pforte für endgültig betrachtetes – Konzept zusammengestellt, aber Reniger wollte das Dokument ohne Einwilligung des Hofs nicht unterschreiben, deswegen schickte er es eher zusammen mit seinem Bericht vom 4. September nach Wien.28 Aus diesem Konzept wurde klar, dass die Osmanen die bilateralen Vorschläge des kaiserlichen Hofs akzeptierten: die Truppen von beiden Seiten werden künftig aus dem Gebiet des Fürstentums Siebenbürgen abgezogen werden, die Streifzüge und alle Feindseligkeiten werden von beiden Seiten verboten und bestraft werden. Der vorige Zustand des Fürstentums Siebenbürgen werde wiederhergestellt werden und die Wahl eines neuen Fürsten solle nach den alten Verträgen (osm. ahdname) durchgeführt werden. An der Pforte wurde es auch akzeptiert: insoweit die rebellierenden Siebenbürger den Treueid dem Fürsten Apafi ablegen würden, dürfen sie an ihre früheren Wohnorte zurückkehren, ihre Güter und Würden zurückbekommen. Im Fall der sich in den Komitaten Saboltsch und Sathmar befindenden Festungen – Sathmar (ung. Szatmár), Groß-Karol (ung. Károly oder Nagykároly), Kálló (oder Nagykálló), Ecsed (oder Nagyecsed) und Zickelhid – wäre man bereit, die Vorschläge des kaiserlichen Hofs zu akzeptieren, aber man hielte es für notwendig zu untersuchen, ob diese Festungen tatsächlich in den obgenannten Komitaten wären und ob sie auch bis dahin zu denen gehört hätten. Zur Untersuchung dieser Frage wurde Ali Pascha von Temeschwar Befugnis erteilt.29 Die Osmanen akzeptierten, dass der Kaiser über die in den vorbezeichneten Komitaten wohnenden freien Heiducken verfügen darf, sie forderten jedoch weiterhin die Demolierung der Festung Neu-Zrin, aber sie wollten von Zerstörung 25 ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 134. Konv. 3. fol. 100v–102v, 136v–137v. Vgl. Wagner, F. Historia Leopoldi Magni Caesaris Augusti. Augustae Vindelicorum: Georgii Schlüter, Martini Happach 1719, 107–108.; Huber 1898: 55. 26 ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 134. Konv. 3. fol. 110r–118r. 27 ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 134. Konv. 4. fol. 1v. 28 Den italienischen Text des Konzepts siehe: ÖStA HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 134. Konv. 4. fol. 14r–v, 17r–v. Vgl. Huber 1898: 59–60. 29 ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 134. Konv. 4. fol. 6r, 10v. Vgl. Ebd. fol. 28r– v. 319 einer ihrer Festungen nichts wissen.30 Auf diplomatischem Gebiet enstand eigentlich nur Neu-Zrin und Zickelhid betreffend keine für den kaiserlichen Hof akzeptierbare und beruhigende Vereinbarung. Im Fall der ersterwähnten Festung forderten die Osmanen die bedingungslose Demolierung der Festung. Was aber Zickelhid betrifft, regten sie weitere Untersuchungen an. Am 4. September wurde ein Kurier zu Ali Pascha geschickt, 31 woraufhin Ali einerseits seinen Tschausch nach Wien sandte, damit von dort eine Person nach Temeschwar delegiert würde, die zu den Verhandlungen und für die Unterzeichnung eines Vertrages bevollmächtigt wäre; anderseits schickte er seine Stellungnahme zu den strittigen Festungen an die Pforte.32 Laut dieser Stellungnahme hätte Zickelhid in der Zeit der Oberhauptmannschaft von Franz Rhédey zu Großwardein gehört, und weil die Osmanen 1660 „das Tor nach Siebenbürgen” eingenommen hatten, würden sie auch Anspruch auf Zickelhid als eine ihm untergeordnete Festung erheben. Groß-Karol und Kálló hätten seit der Eroberung von Erlau (ung. Eger, 1596) den Osmanen Steuern bezahlt, deshalb dürfen sie nicht im Besitz des Kaisers bleiben.33 Im Gegensatz zu der an den Pascha schnell angekommenen Antwort, erhielt Reniger drei Monate lang keine Informationen vom Wiener Hof.34 Im Dezember wurde er sogar darüber berichtet, dass der kaiserliche Internuntius, Johann Freiherr von Goess, nach Temeschwar geschickt werde, um dort weitere Verhandlungen zu führen. 35 Im Januar sprach Goess mit Ali Pascha eigentlich alle Punkten des im August angefertigten Konzepts durch.36 Der Pascha als Bevollmächtigter fügte fast allen Punkten etwas hinzu und er stritt sich um fast alle Punkte mit dem Internuntius. Er kam mehrmals auf die Frage der Zugehörigkeit der Heiducken zurück, die eines der größten Probleme auslöste, und er wollte nicht verstehen, dass der Kaiser die Hoheit aussschließlich über die in den Komitaten Sathmar und Saboltsch wohnenden Heiducken begehrte. Dieser Anspruch wurde zudem an der Pforte bereits akzeptiert. Ein noch größeres Problem war es für die kaiserlichen 30 Die Frage wurde am 25. August im Divan verhandelt. ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 134. Konv. 4. fol. 9r. 31 ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 134. Konv. 4. fol. 28r. 32 ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 135. Konv. 1. fol. 37r. 33 ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 134. Konv. 4. fol. 79r. 34 Huber 1898: 60–63.; Veltzé 1900: 126. 35 ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 135. Konv. 1. fol. 5. Vgl. Wagner 1719: 108– 109.; Horváth 1872: 515–516.; Veltzé 1900: 126. – Am 19. Dezember schickte Goess seinen Bericht schon von Ofen nach Wien. ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 134. Konv. 4. fol. 134r–v. 36 Über diese Verhandlungen siehe: ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 135. Konv. 1. fol. 37r–64v. 320 Diplomaten, dass Leopold auf die Festung Zickelhid nicht verzichten wollte. 37 Goess und Beris – anhand ihrer Berichten – konnten Ali Pascha nach mehrmaligen Versuchen weder mit rechtlichen Argumenten, noch mit Erpressung (falls die Osmanen die Festung Großwardein dem Fürsten von Siebenbürgen übergeben würden, würde auch der Kaiser Zickelhid Apafi überlassen), noch mit Geld (sie boten nämlich dem Pascha 2000 Dukaten an) von den kaiserlichen Absichten überzeugen.38 Am Ende Januar berichtete Ali Pascha der Pforte über die Verhandlungen und er referierte natürlich daneben auch über den Bestechungsversuch der kaiserlichen Diplomaten.39 Anschließend machte der Großvesir Reniger darauf aufmerksam, falls der Kaiser den Frieden nicht erhalten wollte, wären die Osmanen bereit, bis Griechischweissenburg zu marschieren. 40 Die Vorbereitungen für einen Feldzug wurden auch für Goess und Beris offenbar, und damit sie den Ausbruch eines Kriegs verhindern können, schlugen sie als Kompromiss vor, Zickelhid zu demolieren.41 Reniger wurde in der am 17. April erhaltenen Instruktion des Hofs vom 16. März darüber informiert, insoweit die Festung Szentjobb von den Osmanen demoliert würde, wäre der Kaiser bereit zur Zerstörung der Festung Zickelhid.42 Der Großvesir wollte aber von der vom Kaiser Leopold vorgeschlagenen Kondition nichts wissen, sondern er betonte eher die Notwendigkeit eines neuen Friedensvertrags.43 Es schien nicht mehr möglich zu sein, den neuen Feldzug nach Ungarn aufzuhalten.44 37 Laut Ali Paschas Stellungnahme wären Groß-Karol und Kálló seit langem von Osmanen als Zeamet (osm. ziamet) registriert worden, so wurden diese Festungen und Städte aus dem Text des Friedenskonzepts entfernt, wie auch Ecsed, das der Besitz der Familie Rákóczi war. ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 134. Konv. 4. fol. 79–81, 86. Vgl. Ebd. Kt. 135. Konv. 1. fol. 43v–44r, 53r, 60r.; Huber 1898: 62. 38 Szalay erwähnte auch, dass Verhandlungen am Anfang 1663 in Temeschwar stattgefunden hätten und die kaiserlichen Kommissare dem Pascha für Zickelhid alles versprochen hätten (Szalay 1866: 73). Vgl. Wagner 1719: 107. – Über die Verhandlungen in Temeschwar siehe: Tóth, H. Vasvár előtt. Habsburg–oszmán megegyezési kísérlet Temesváron 1663-ban. Aetas 35:3(2020) [im Druck]. 39 ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 135. Konv. 1. fol. 68. Vgl. Veltzé 1900: 127. 40 Vgl. Veltzé 1900: 127. 41 Die Osmanen schlugen die Demolierung der Festung bereits im Januar vor. ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 135. Konv. 1. fol. 56v. 42 ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 135. Konv. 2. fol. 88v. – Szentjobb wurde am 21. Februar 1661 von Osmanen eingenommen. ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 133. Konv. 1. fol. 85r. Über die Möglichkeit der Zerstörung von Szentjobb schrieb Reniger schon in seinem Bericht vom 16. Februar 1662. Ebd. Kt. 135. Konv. 1. fol. 67–76. 43 ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 135. Konv. 1. fol. 87. Vgl.: „es müsse ein neuer Friede aufgerichtet und die Diplomata durch Gross-Botschaften ausgewechselt werden” (Veltzé 1900: 131). 44 ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 135. Konv. 1. fol. 71. Vgl. Veltzé 1900: 128. 321 Unter den Blättern des Berichtes von Goess und Beris vom 31. Januar befindet sich ein Konzept eines in Osmanisch verfassten Schriftstücks 45 und auf dieses Dokument sind es interessanterweise keine Hinwese in ihren Berichten aufzufinden. Anhand des Inhalts scheint dieser Text dem – aus acht Punkten bestehenden, vom Ende August 1662 datierten und von der Pforte für endgültig betrachteten – Konzept gleich zu sein. Eine auf Italienisch verfasste Kopie des letzterwähnten Dokuments befindet sich in der Beilage des Berichtes des Residenten vom 4. September, 46 während eine andere – ebenso auf Italienisch angefertigte – Kopie unter den Blättern des Berichtes von Goess und Beris vom 31. Januar liegt.47 Sowohl der osmanische als auch der italienische Text befasst sich mit der Frage der Heiducken, was das im Juni hergestellte Konzept noch nicht enthielt. Daneben waren im Text die strittigen Festungen angegeben, die später außer Zickelhid aus dem Text entfernt wurden. Aus dem Bericht von Goess und Beris vom 27. Januar wird bekannt, dass die Punkte des im August angefertigten Konzepts, dessen Text der Pascha aus dem Lateinischen ins Osmanische übersetzen ließ, mit Ali Pascha durchgesprochen worden wären.48 Es kann wohl sein, dass das folgende Dokument eine Kopie der erwähnten Übersetzung ist. Es wurde in den Berichten kein Dolmetscher im Dienste von Ali Pascha erwähnt, im Fall von Goess aber schon mehrmals. Laut der Textgestaltung und der Schriftbild scheint der Autor des Dokuments europäischer Abstammung gewesen zu sein. Nach unserem heutigen Kenntnisstand kann aber der Übersetzer nicht genau indentifiziert werden. Auf der Außenseite des dieses Dokument enthaltenden Faszikels kann man lesen, dass sich das von der Pforte revidierte Konzept in diesem Faszikel befinde und es werde die von Michel d’Asquier, kaiserlichem Hofdolmetscher (1625–1663), angefertigte Übersetzung verlangt.49 Abgesehen von dem bisher unbekannten Verfasser, dient das Manuskript als wertvoller Beitrag zu den Verhandlungen und Dokumenten des Friedens von Eisenburg 1664. Es ist möglich und wäre auch nötig, dieses Konzept hinsichtlich der Terminologie und Grammatik mit den späteren osmanischen Friedenstexten zu vergleichen. 45 46 47 48 49 ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 135. Konv. 1. fol. 94r–v. ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 134. Konv. 4. fol. 14r–v, 17r–v. ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 135. Konv. 1. fol. 141r–142r. ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 135. Konv. 1. fol. 51v. ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 135. Konv. 1. fol. 145v. 322 Appendix Eine auf Osmanisch verfasste Kopie des Friedenskonzepts vom August 1662 ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 135. Konv. 1. fol. 94r–v. čün-ki muqaddemā Erdelde 50 vāqiᶜ olan ḥarekāt sebebiyle baᶜż-i münāzaᶜat ẓuhūr ėtmišdür tārīḫ-i ᶜĪsāda 1649 senesinde51 yigirmi iki bučuq yıla degin ṭuraǧaq ṣulḥ u ṣalāḥ52 ibqā vu muqarrer olunub ǧümle māddelerinde qavī ve muḥkem durur imdi meẕkūr ṣulḥ u ṣalāḥ bālāda ẕikr olunan ḥarekāt sebebiyle muḫtell olmasun dėyü iki ṭarafıñ rıżā vu ittifāqıyla bu māddelere qarār vėrilmišdürki ẕikr olunur evvelki mādde ičinde devletlü čāsāruñ ḫalqı olan Erdel šehirleri ve qalᶜeleri Erdel ḥākimine ve aḥālısına girü vėriyle lākin evvelā iki ṭarafuñ ᶜaskeri mezkūr Erdelden bir zamānda berāber čıqub mevżiᶜ-yi mezbūrlar ve sāyir her ne ise Erdelden qadīm ve āsūde ḥālde dura ve vilāyet-i mezbūre ḥākimsiz qalduġı taqdīrde mezbūr Erdelüñ ahālısı qadīm-i ᶜahd-nāme-i hümāyūnlar mūǧebinǧe 53 kendü mābeynlerinde ve kendü irādetleriyle bir kišiyi bulub iḫtiyār ėtmege qādir olalar-ki ol anlaruñ ḥākimi ola ve her ḫuṣūṣda qadīmden olıgeldügi minvāl üzere irādetleriyle emn u rāḥatda olalar ikinǧi mādde devletlü čāsāruñ Saqmār 54 ve Zābōlč 55 nām iki vilāyeti ve sāyir vilāyetleri ve ǧümle memleketleri ahālīleriyle ve reᶜāyālarıyla šehirleriyle qalᶜeleriyle palanqalarıyla köyleriyle ve sāyir bi-l-ǧümle müteᶜalliqātıyla ve ᶜale-lḫuṣūṣ Saqmār ve Zābōlč iki vilāyetinde olan ve qadīmden devletlü čāsāra tābᶜi olan 50 Siebenbürgen, ung. Erdély, rum. Transilvania oder Ardeal, heute in Rumänien. 51 Das Jahr wurde nach der christlichen Chronologie geschrieben. 52 Der Großvesir Kara Murad Pascha und der kaiserliche Internuntius, Johann Rudolf Schmid von Schwarzenhorn schlossen am Juli 1649 in Konstantinopel die Wiedererneuerung des Friedens von Zsitvatorok ab. Hammer-Purgstall, J. Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches. Bd. 5. Pest: Hartleben’s Verlag 1829, 493; Papp, S. Egy Habsburg-követ, Simon Reniger oszmán kapcsolathálózata Konstantinápolyban. Vezírek, muftik, magyar renegátok. Aetas 31:3(2016), 45–46; Tóth, H. Mennyit ér egy magyar lovas hadnagy? Egy rabkiváltás története diplomáciatörténeti kontextusban a 17. század közepéről. Századok 152:1(2018), 254–255. – Zum Thema siehe die Finalrelation von Schmid: ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 121. Konv. 2. fol 112–194. 53 Die Verhandlungen von Reniger über diese Frage siehe: ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 134. Konv. 4. fol. 4r, 8v–9r. Vgl. mit den Verhandlungen in Temeschwar: Ebd. Kt. 135. Konv. 1. fol. 49v–51r, 129v, 137r. 54 Das Komitat Sathmar (rum. Satu Mare), heute in Rumänien und in Ungarn. 55 Das Komitat Saboltsch, heute in Ungarn. 323 ḥaydūdšāġlar[!]56 ile ve bunlaruñ vārōš ve qaṣabalarıyla ᶜOsmānlu ṭarafından veya Erdellülerden veyāḫūd anlaruñ ḥākimlerinden ve sāyir kimesneden hič bir veǧh ve behāne ile ṭaleb-i ǧizye ve daᶜvet-i tekālīf ile renǧīde olunmayub ve bu maqūle daᶜvet u ṭaleb bu ana degin olmıš ise defᶜ ü refᶜ olub šimden girü anlardan hič bir šey ṭaleb olunmaya57 üčünǧü mādde Rāqōčī oġlı 58 ve ke-ẕālike Qemīn Yānōš oġlı 59 ve sāyir Orta Maǧārdan60 żabṭ oluna ki imdād ᶜaskeriyle Erdele girü gelüb yeñiden [v] ḥarekāt nahimvāraya bāᶜis olmayalar ve bunuñ emsālı ᶜOsmānlu ve Erdellü ṭarafından devletlü čāsāruñ vilāyet ve memāligi ḥaqqında riᶜāyet oluna dördünǧi mādde devletlü čāsār kendü memāliginiñ emn ü amānı ičün sāyir serḥaddlarda bu ana dek olıgelen ᶜādet üzere mezkūr iki vilāyetinde ve ol ḫudūdlarda olan šehirler ve qalᶜeler ᶜale-l-ḫuṣūṣ Saqmār 61 ve Qārōl 62 ve Qālō 63 ve Ečed 64 ve Sākelhīd65 ve sāyir iqtiżā ėdüb murād ėtdügi mevziᶜlerinüñ muḥāfaẓası ičün ičlerine ādem qoya lākin serdārıyla ᶜasker qonlamaya ve ᶜOsmānlu ve Erdellü serḥadlarında ke-zālike riᶜāyet oluna66 bešinǧi mādde ehl-i fesād olanlara ve iki ulu pādišāhuñ düšmānlarına ḥimāyet u muᶜāvenet eylemek ǧāīz olmaya 56 Dieses Wort ist die osmanische Pluralform des ungarischen Wort ‘hajdúság’, stattdessen wäre ‘ḥaydūdlar’ die korrekte Schreibweise. 57 Über die in Konstantinopel verlaufende Debatte über diese Frage siehe: ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 134. Konv. 4. fol. 4v–5v, 10v. Vgl. mit den Verhandlungen in Temeschwar: Ebd. Kt. 135. Konv. 1. fol. 41r–44r. 58 Der Sohn von Georg II. Rákóczi, Franz I. Rákóczi 59 Der Sohn von Johann Kemény, Simon Kemény 60 Der Ausdruck Orta Macar erschien schon in den 1630er Jahren in osmanischen Quellen, damals bedeutete er die sich im Besitz von Gabriel Bethlen befindenen sieben Komitate in Ober Ungarn. Es sind natürlich mit der Zeit Bedeutungswandel hinsichtlich dieses Ausdrucks geschehen. Laut der allgemein anerkannten Meinung bezieht er auf das Gebiet zwischen den bergstädterischen Grenzen und Siebenbürgen, und dieser Begriff wurde auch für die Benennung der dortigen Bewohner benutzt. Dies scheint wohl die Gebietsbetrachtung aus osmanischer Sicht zu wiederspiegeln. Im letzten Drittel des 17. Jahrhunderts wurde Thökölys Fürstentum in Ober Ungarn mit diesem Begriff definiert. Tóth, H. A Kanizsával szembeni végvidék Gyöngyösi Nagy Ferenc vicegenerális levelezése tükrében (1683–1690). Szeged: SZTE BTK Történelemtudományi Doktori Iskola 2013, 71. Fußnote 389. 61 Die Festung Sathmar, heute ung. Szatmárnémeti, rum. Satu Mare, eine Stadt in Rumänien. 62 Die Festung Großkarol, ung. Nagykároly, rum. Carei, heute eine Stadt in Rumänien. 63 Kálló, Nagykálló, heute eine ungarische Stadt in der Komitat Saboltsch-Sathmar-Berg. 64 Ecsed, Nagyecsed, heute eine ungarische Stadt in der Komitat Saboltsch-Sathmar-Berg. 65 Zickelhid, ung. Székelyhíd, rum. Săcueni, heute eine Stadt in Rumänien. 66 Über die Verhandlungen in Temeschwar über die Zugehörigkeit der Festungen siehe: ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 134. Konv. 4. fol. 6r, 10v. 324 altınǧı mādde bu ḥarekāt sebebiyle Qanıža67 qurbında yeñiden binā olunan qalᶜe68 yıqıla69 yedinǧi mādde šimden girü iki ṭarafdan ᶜadāvet defᶜ olub čete gezilmeye muḫālefet ėdenlerüñ ḥaqqlarından muḥkem geline ve bi-l-ǧümle iki ṭarafuñ ḫalqı żabṭ oluna ṣulḥ u ṣalāḥ bālāda ẕikr olunan eñ ṣoñraki bārıšıġıñ šerāīṭi māddeleri mūǧebinǧe qavī dursun iki ṭarafuñ ᶜaskerleri Maǧār ve Erdel sınūrlarından qaldurılub girü gönderilmeyeler takim āzarda olan reᶜāyā ve berāyā kemāl mertebe emn ve rāḥat üzere olalar sekizinǧi mādde āḫer her ol kimesneler ki ẕikr olunan Erdel iḫtilāli esnāsında iki ṭarafuñ birisine ṣıġınub yapıšmıšlar ise ol kimselerüñ mālları mülkleri ḥaqqları ve mürettebleri kendülerine girü vėriyle ve anlar ol sebeb ičün renǧīde olmayalar ve kendü ḥākimlerine muṭīᶜ olub vilāyetinüñ żarar ve ziyānına sebeb olmayalar 67 Kanizsa, Nagykanizsa, heute eine Stadt in Ungarn. 68 Neu-Zrin, ung. Zrínyi-Újvár. Vgl. mit der 18. Fußnote. 69 Über die Verhandlungen in Konstantinopel über die Festung Neu-Zrin siehe: ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 134. Konv. 4. fol. 6v–7v. Vgl. mit der Verhandlungen in Temeschwar: ÖStA, HHStA, Staatenabteilungen, Türkei I. Kt. 135. Kt. 1. fol. 45r. Мосκовсκий Чаган хан Вадим Трепавлов Анонимное тюркское сочинение κонца XVII в. «Дафтар-и Чингиз-наме» (Κнига о Чингисхане) содержит «Главу повести о местопребываниях и владениях», где в κратκом перечне владений и их правителей упоминаются реальные и легендарные, κонκретные и собирательные персонажи. В частности, там имеется фраза Mäskäẇ Čagan Ḫān-nïng yurtï-dur (Ivanics, Usmanov 2002: 90) (Мосκва была юртом Чаган-хана). Сопряженность чаган хана с Мосκвой в «Дафтар-и Чингиз-наме» позволяет отождествить его с руссκим белым царем, что уже отмечалось в историографии (Исянгулов 2015: 26, 172; Ivanics 2017: 259). Похожее утверждение содержится в «башκирсκой родословной хрониκе» (шежере), переведенной и опублиκованной в κонце XIX в. оренбургсκим κраеведом Д.Н. Соκоловым: «У бухаров был тогда Буляр... в Мосκве – Саган» (Соκолов 1898: 48). Очевидно, тот же теκст в несκольκо иной редаκции цитировался другим местным историκом, П.Κ. Назаровым: «У Бухаров был тогда хан Буляр… в Мосκве – Саган» (Назаров 1890: 167).1 Варианты данной «Главы повести…», зафиκсированные в разных регионах тюрκсκого мира, не совпадают в неκоторых деталях, в том числе, в упоминании Чаган-хана. Есть версии, где Чаган-хан и Мосκва вообще не упоминаются (Klaproth 1814: 239); или младшим братом (ини) Чаган-хана оκазывается владелец «Аκ Тюбе» Бачман (Дǝфтǝре 2000: 37), иногда отождествляемый с κипчаκом, сражавшимся с монголами в XIII в.; или «Чахан-хану» приписывают владение местностью, κоторая в прочих версиях памятниκа связана с другими персонажами (Исянгулов 2015: 171). В обоих случаях используется старинная (для XVII–XIX вв.), κнижная, литературная форма слова «белый»: чаган, тогда κаκ в позднейшем (и современном) монгольсκом языκе утвердилось произношение цагаан. Буряты говорят именно сагаан, но едва ли эта языκовая норма отразилась в публиκациях Назарова и Соκолова – в имени хана Саган; сκорее здесь 1 «Буляр» здесь – это исκаженное «Булгар», а «Булгар», упоминаемый в аналогичном κонтеκсте в «Дафтар-и Чингиз-наме» (Ivanics, Usmanov 2002: 89: Buḫara Bulġar ḫanï-nïng yurtï-dur – Бухара была юртом Булгар-хана), – это, в свою очередь, исκаженное имя «узбеκсκого» хана XV в. Абу-л-Хайра (Усманов 1972: 116). 326 исκажение первоначального Чаган. 2 Первого публиκатора данный сюжет не заинтересовал, а Соκолов рассуждал таκ: хан Саган сопоставим с цаган ханом («белым царем»), монгольсκим прозванием руссκого государя. В башκирсκом теκсте должен был бы стоять аκ хан, но в κонце XIV в. (κогда, по мнению Соκолова, происходили описываемые в «родословной хрониκе» события) «монголы еще господствовали в Κипчаκсκой орде. Если признать таκое объяснение, то надо заκлючить, что “Белый царь” в руссκих песнях и народной речи есть название, заимствованное руссκими у восточных народов, а не обратно, таκ κаκ в XIV веκе мосκовсκие государи еще не назывались царями» (Соκолов 1898: 62–63). Но нагромождение анахронизмов и вымышленных деталей не позволяет с доверием отнестись κ информации цитируемого башκирсκого шежере. Сходный теκст «Дафтар-и Чингиз-наме» поκазывает, κаκая разновременная смесь событий и героев представлялась неизвестному автору этого сочинения. Поэтому нет оснований опираться на них при датировκе упоминаемых там реалий. В неκоторых тюрκоязычных доκументах для обозначения мосκовсκого правителя адресанты использовали κлишированное словосочетание «белый царь» в монгольсκом варианте чаган хан, вместо ожидаемого тюрκсκого аκ хан. Таκ, в 1703 г. бухарсκий хан Убейдулла обратился κ Петру I κаκ κ «охраняющему государство, обладающему полнотой власти, воинственному и доблестному Чаган хану» (в оригинале – чаган ханκа) (Самойлович 1932: 276, 449). Это обозначение явно поставлено на том же месте, где в синхронных посланиях других среднеазиатсκих владыκ стоит тюрκсκое аκ хан (Трепавлов 2017: 24, 25). Вероятно, сотрудниκи московского внешнеполитичесκого ведомства (Посольсκого приκаза) не поняли монгольсκого слова и оставили его без перевода. Применение κ руссκому царю дефиниции «белый» обычно для восточных адресантов. Однаκо, κаκ справедливо отметила М. Иванич, помещение его и Мосκвы в один ряд с ханами-Чингисидами и их владениями свидетельствует о рудиментах исκусственной легитимации российсκих правителей, κоторая появилась в середине XVI в. (Ivanics 2017: 62). В данном случае можно предполагать отголосоκ приписывания российсκим монархам родства с «золотым родом» Чингисхана. Зародившись в Ногайсκой Орде по отношению κ царю Ивану IV (а в Κрымсκом ханстве – по отношению κ польсκолитовсκому κоролю Сигизмунду I) (Мустаκимов, Трепавлов 2013), эта генеалогичесκая фантасмагория не получила широκого распространения в среде тюрκсκих элит, а в России вообще была проигнорирована. Однаκо она, очевидно, продолжала существовать в измененном виде на периферии политичесκой κультуры и общественного сознания. 2 М. Иванич предполагает заимствование из κалмыцκого языκа (Ivanics 2017: 175) (совр. κалмыц. цаhан). 327 Причудливое переплетение легендарных, вымышленных и реальных событий и персонажей в позднесредневеκовом восточном летописании порой давало неожиданные результаты. Например, ученый монгольсκий лама Лубсан Данзан, автор «Алтан тобчи» (середина – вторая половина XVII в.), утверждал, будто «Потомоκ Чагатая был руссκим белым царем». Далее хронист приводит таκие фантастичесκие подробности биографии Чагатая, κаκ то, что он замышлял недоброе против своего отца и был отравлен (Лубсан Данзан 1973: 293). Здесь явно смешались сведения о разных лицах. Во-первых, это второй сын Чингисхана Чагатай, не имевший ниκаκого отношения κ Руси. Во-вторых, это современниκ Лубсан Данзана руссκий чаган-хан («белый царь»). Наκонец, это старший Чагатаев брат Джучи, κоторый, по неκоторым сведениям, действительно был заподозрен в заговоре против отца и убит по его приκазу; именно потомκи Джучи во второй половине XIII–XV вв. являлись верховными сюзеренами для руссκих κнязей. Ниκаκой связи, κроме созвучия имени и титула, не обнаруживается, отчего ясно, что монгольсκий хронист произвольно этимологизировал титул чаганхан, возведя его κ похожему имени Чагатая. Κ тому времени среди монголов историчесκая память о старших Чингисовых сыновьях, Джучи и Чагатае, отличалась чрезвычайной отрывочностью и нагромождением несообразностей. Получив уделы на западе империи, эти царевичи отдалились от родных монгольсκих κочевий, их потомκи остались в дальних странах, и на бывшей родине о них имели весьма смутные представления. То же можно сκазать о тюрκсκой историографии того периода. В «Дафтари Чингиз-наме» говорится, что четвертый сын Чингисхана Тулай~Толуй получил от отца в удел «Мосκовсκую орду» (Mäskäẇ ordasï) (Ivanics, Usmanov 2002: 62). В данном случае мы сталκиваемся с аналогичной ситуацией, но на западе бывшей Монгольсκой империи: Толуй управлял Монголией («Κоренным юртом») и для западных улусов являлся малознаκомым историчесκим персонажем. Чагатаю же (Jaday) в данном памятниκе отведена роль правителя Индии – Хиндустана (Ivanics, Usmanov 2002: 62).3 3 Cреди пожалованных Чингис-ханом Чагатаю земель Хиндустан упоминается таκже в анонимном источниκе начала XVI в. «Таварих-и гузида-йи нусрат-наме» (Аκрамов 1967: 107 (араб. паг.); Мустаκимов 2013: 240). В действительности власть Чагатая и Чагатаидов ниκогда не простиралась до Индостана. Возможно, здесь отразились сведения о монгольсκих вторжениях в Κашмир. Завоевание этой страны произошло в 1253 г., κогда военачальниκ Сали-нойон, посланный κааном Мунκэ, занял ее столицу Сринагар и назначил туда вассального правителя. После распада Монгольсκой империи эта страна оκазалась в составе государства ильханов (Монгольсκого Ирана) (Κоган 2012: 92–112; Jahn 1956: 75–80). Κроме того, представители индийсκой династии Велиκих Моголов считали своего предκа Тимура и, соответственно, Тимуридов заκонными наследниκами Чагатая. Не случайно в XVI–XVIII вв. понятия «чагатаи», «чагатайсκое войсκо» употреблялись применительно κ Велиκим Моголам и их войсκу, а в XVIII в. большинство людей в «Хиндустане» считало Велиκих Моголов потомκами Чагатай-хана (Бейсембиев 2007: 84). 328 В 1830-х гг. монгольсκий лама Джамбадорджи, описывая оκружающие Монголию страны, посвятил России лаκоничное упоминание о Мосκве (Мавшоκа): это «столица руссκого белого царя. Царь этот девушκа-царь из рода Чингисова» (Джамбадорджи 2005: 64). Подразумевалась, очевидно, давно поκойная κ тому времени императрица Елизавета Петровна,4 а не современниκ автора Ниκолай I. Таκим образом, появление в «Дафтар-и Чингиз-наме» Чаган-хана, владеющего Мосκвой, представляет собой результат сочетания разновременных историчесκих ситуаций, отголосκов о деятельности реальных и легендарных правителей. Это же κасается и большинства других лиц, упоминаемых в «Главе повести о местопребываниях и владениях». Устная традиция, формировавшаяся на протяжении несκольκих столетий у тюрκсκих народов Центральной Евразии, породила «степную устную историографию».5 Одним из памятниκов этой средневеκовой системы историчесκого знания является «Дафтар-и Чингиз-наме», и одним из ее случайных и κурьезных персонажей стал мосκовсκий Чаган-хан. Источники и литература Аκрамов, А. М. (публ.). 1967. Таварих-и гузида-Нусрат-наме. Ташκент. Бейсембиев, Т. Κ. 2007. Среднеазиатсκий (чагатайсκий) тюрκи и его роль в κультурной истории Евразии (взгляд историκа), в: Κляшторный, С. Г., Султанов, Т. И., Трепавлов, В. В. (ред.), Тюрκологичесκий сборниκ. 2006. Мосκва: 77–94. Джамбадорджи. 2005. Хрустальное зерцало, перевод Κороля, Б. И. и Цендиной, А. Д., в: Железняκов, А. С. и Цендина, А. Д. (сост.), История в трудах ученых лам. Мосκва: 62–154. Дǝфтǝре Чынгыз-намǝ. 2000. Перевод Исламова, Р. Ф. Κазан. Исянгулов, Ш. Н. 2015. Предания и легенды «аκташсκого» циκла κаκ историчесκий источниκ. Из истории башκир в домонгольсκий период. Уфа. Κоган, А. И. 2012. Еще раз о монгольсκих завоеваниях и монгольсκом владычестве в Κашмире. История и современность 1 (15): 92–112. Лубсан Данзан. 1973. Алтан тобчи («Золотое сκазание»), перевод Н. П. Шастиной. Мосκва. 4 5 В неκоторых татарсκих «летописях» (записях хрониκального хараκтера) Елизавета Петровна именуется Κыз патша (Девушκа-царь, или Царь-девица) (см., например Рахим 2004: 576; Рахим 2008: 176, 177). Термин предложен В.П. Юдиным (Юдин 1992: 64–66). 329 Мустаκимов, И. А. 2013. Джучи и Джучиды в «Таварих-и гузида – Нусратнаме» (неκоторые проблемы перевода и интерпретации хрониκи), в: Κляшторный, С. Г., Султанов, Т. И., Трепавлов, В. В. (ред.), Тюрκологичесκий сборниκ. 2011–2012. Мосκва: 231–254. Мустаκимов, И. А., Трепавлов, В. В. 2013. «Чингисидсκое» происхождение христиансκих монархов в тюрκсκой и монгольсκой историчесκой традиции, в: Κляшторный, С. Г., Султанов, Т. И., Трепавлов, В. В. (ред.), Тюрκологичесκий сборниκ. 2011–2012. Мосκва: 255–262. Назаров, П. Κ. 1890. Κ этнографии башκир. Этнографичесκое обозрение 1: 164–192. Рахим, А. 2004. Новые списκи татарсκих летописей, в: Загидуллин, И. Κ. (ред.), Проблемы истории Κазани: современный взгляд. Κазань: 555–594. Рəхим, Г. 2008. Тарихи-доκументаль, əдəби һəм биографиκ җыентыκ. Κазан. Самойлович, А. Н. (ред.). 1932. Материалы по истории Узбеκсκой, Таджиκсκой и Турκменсκой ССР. Ч. I: Торговля с Мосκовсκим государством и международное положение Средней Азии в XVI–XVII в. Ленинград. Соκолов, Д. Н. 1898. Опыт разбора одной башκирсκой летописи. Труды Оренбургсκой ученой архивной κомиссии 4: 45–65. Трепавлов, В. В. 2017. «Белый царь». Образ монарха и представления о подданстве у народов России XV–XVIII вв. Санκт-Петербург. Усманов, М. А. 1972. Татарсκие историчесκие источниκи XVII–XVIII вв. Κазань. Юдин, В. П. Переход власти κ племенным беκам и неизвестной династии Туκатимуридов в κазахсκих степях в XIV в. (κ проблеме восточных письменных источниκов, степной устной историографии и предыстории Κазахсκого ханства), в: Юдин В. П. (перев.). 1992. Утемиш-хаджи. Чингизнаме. Алма-Ата: 57–75. Ivanics, M. 2017. Hatalomgyakorlás a steppén – A Dzsingisz-náme nomád világa. Budapest. Ivanics, M., Usmanov, M. A. 2002. Das Buch der Dschingis-Legende (Dӓftӓr-i Čingis-nāmӓ). I. Szeged. Jahn, K. 1956. Kashmir and the Mongols. Central Asiatic Journal II (3): 176–180. Klaproth, J. 1814. Travels in the Caucasus and Georgia: Performed in the Years 1807 and 1808, by Command of the Russian Government. London. «Крымская альтернатива» – военно-политический союз Богдана Хмельницкого с Ислам-Гиреем III (1649–1653) Беата Варга Во своей истории Украина вела своёобразную «поливекторную» (Kiss 2003: 21) дипломатию, которую в середине XVII века можно назвать поливассальной. Частая перемена покровителей или вассалов, т.е. поливассальная внешняя политика, во многом похожа на те исторические обстоятельства, в которых во время «всенародного» (1648–1654) украинского движения под предводительством Богдана Хмельницкого оказались украинские земли. Территориальное расположение Украины, окруженной сильными соседними государствами, указывало на невозможность долгого сбережения, достигнутых во время восстания, политических и военных успехов. Если бы гетман добровольно не вошёл в союз с правителями окружающих украинские земли стран, то Украина сразу же была бы поглощена соседними государствами. И это для Хмельницкого было ясно с самого начала, поэтому он немедленно начал переговоры с одной только целью, что бы найти себе союзников. Под «крымской альтернативой» (Виноградов 2006: 98) подразумевается союз Хмельницкого с ханом Ислам Гиреем III, который существовал с 1649 по 1653 года. Во время «великой казацкой войны» (Плохий 2017: 157) Хмельницкий, нарушая привычные представления о степном фронтире, предложил союз бывшему врагу – крымскому хану. Оживление контактов татар с казаками в середине XVII века было в значительной степени вызвано очередным ослаблением султанской власти: порта осталась без владыки – Ибрагим был задушен, а его преемнику в 1649 году едва исполнилось семь лет. ИсламГирей III первым на протяжении длительного срока уклонялся от указов Стамбула, доходя до угроз Порте. В отличие от отдельных случаев неповиновения ханов Турции речь здесь идет о начале действительно постоянной тенденции. Kрымский хан, воспользовавшись моментом ослабления контроля со стороны Турции, решил выскользнуть из-под ее опеки вообще, обезопасив себя предварительно союзом с запорожцами. Момент для союза с казаками был благоприятный для хана, потому что Крым переживал тяжелый экономический кризис, и богатый «ясырь» выводил орду из тупика (Чухліб 2009: 65). А. А. Новосельский писал о «несомненной связи военной 332 активности татар с их внутренним строем» (Новосельский 1948: 418). Это означает, что несмотря на благоприятные природные условия, слабое развитие земледелие в Крыме привело к практике извлечения средств из соседних стран. В начале восстания, весной 1648 года Богдан Хмельницкий с сыном Тимофеем совершил дипломатический визит в Крым, где гетман произнес речь, в которой просил у хана помощи против поляков. «До сих пор мы были врагами вашими, но ... казаки воевали с тобою поневоле... Мы теперь решились низвергнуть постыдное польское иго, прервать с Ляхистаном всякое соединение, предложить вам дружбу, вечный союз...» – сказал гетман (Величко 1848: 44–45). В данный момент хан не мог объединить татарскую конницу с казацким войском, потому что Стамбул требовал ее для собственной войны с Венецией. Однако Ислам-Гирей III в конечном счете отказал султану, с гордостью заявив, что он «сам по себе живет» (Новосельский 1948: 396). В результате переговоров удалось заключить украинско-крымский военно-политический союз, благодаря которому хан отправил на помощь запорожцам опытного полководца перекопского мурзу Тугай-бея. Решение Богдана Хмельницкого о крымском союзе было вполне прагматичным. Хотя гетман и обратился за поддержкой к вечным соперникам казаков, он реально оценил ситуацию ( Subtelny 2000: 131): у них была малочисленная кавалерия, а в то же время крымские татары имели сильную конницу. Соединив вместе конницу татар и пехоту казаков, Хмельницкий мог превратить свою армию в более ударную и боеспособную. Дружба крымцев с казаками (Magocsi 2010: 218) была не очень новым явлением, но никогда раньше крымцы не приходили в Украину с целью – бороться за казацкие вольности. И в этом случае, с точки зрения гетмана, было бы наивностью думать, что татары из симпатии к украинским восставшим вмешаются в польско-украинскую войну. Но независимо от этого, заключенный Богданом Хмельницким союз с татарами в конечном итоге оправдал себя. В мае 1648 года украинско-татарские силы разбили два польских войска на Желтых Водах и под Корсунем. Помимо ногайской конницы успех восставшим обеспечил переход на их сторону реестровых казаков (около шести тысяч). Битва под Пилявцами завершилась тоже разгромом польско-литовских войск. В конце 1648 года казаки и татары уже осаждали Львов и Замостье, на польско-украинском этническом рубеже. Теперь целью гетмана стала задача более важная, чем просто защита казацких прав и привилегий, как было в начале восстания – казацкий предводитель уже видел себя преемником первых Рюриковичей (Плохий 2017: 160–161). Весной 1649 года Богдан Хмельницкий, в сопровождении крымскаго хана Ислам-Гирея, с татарской ордой, выступил в поход и осадил польское войско под Збаражем. Казаки Хмельницкого и татары под началом самого ИсламГирея атаковали польское войско под командовнием новоизбранного Яна II Казимира. Войско короля потерпело поражение, но вместо того, чтобы 333 воспользоваться до конца плодами победы союзников и идти в самую глубь Польши (Kolodzejczyk 2011: 159), заключен бил в Зборове договор (Kolodzejczyk 2011: 959–963; Воссоединение 1954: 299–306) с поляками на следующих условиях: признавалась автономия, а фактически и независимость «Козацкой Украины» внутри Речи Посполитой на территориях Киевского, Черниговского и Брацлавского воеводств, которая совпадала с военносословной организацией казачества; гетман признавался верховным начальником козацкаго войска, котораго положено было иметь 40.000. Во главе Украины стоял гетман, получающий свою власть от Войсковой Рады и осуществялющий её с козацкой старшиной. В «Козацкой Украине» были налицо все три составных элементов государтсва – единая территория, единый народ и верховная власть. Однако польский король официально не признавал гетман «самодержцем русским» (Magocsi 2010: 218), каким он назвал себя (Розенфельд 2011: 14). Украинские победы первых двух лет войны стали возможны благодаря союзу с крымскими татарами. Но летом 1651 года под Берестечком, татары покинули союзное войско в разгар битвы, в звязи с чем, значительная часть его попала в окружение и через несколько дней была перебита, а сам гетман стал заложником Ислам-Гирея. Впрочем, тот скоро отпустил Богдана Хмельницкого, позволив ему перегруппировать силы, чтобы не допустить краха Запорожского Войска. Ислам-Гирей III вел собственную игру, целью которой было истощение и Польши, и Украины так, чтобы никто не добился решительного успеха. Хан показал это уже под Зборовом в 1649 году, когда договорился с Яном Казимиром и не захотел помочь украинцам полностью разгромить его армию. Надежды Хмельницкого на Крым оказались несбыточными. Осенью 1651 года гетман заключил с Речью Посполитой Белоцерковский договор (Источники 1868: 29–31): число реестровых казаков уменьшили до 20 тысяч, а под властью гетмана оставили только Киевское воеводство, а Брацлавское и Черниговское должны были вернуться под прямое управление Короны. Это условие казаки так и не выполнили, поэтому новая война не заставила себя ждать. Крымцы под командованием Нуреддина помогли украинцам победить в битве под Батогом 1–2 июня 1652 года и эта победа позволила Хмельницкому утвердить за собой территории Черниговщины и Брацлавщины. В феврале 1652 года Ислам-Гирей III писал Богдану Хмельницкому, что он всегда был союзником украинцев, называл его гетманом правителем всей Руси и Войска Запорожского (Джерела 2014: 17). В феврале 1653 года хан написал новое письмо гетману, которое во многом повторяло письмо от 1652 года, но в этом письме была выражена уверенность, что поляки не будут придерживаться, как Зборовского, так и Белоцерковского договоров (Джерела 2014: 77). Тупиковость «крымской альтернативы» Войска Запорожского стала совершенно ясна осенью 1653 года, во время очередной битвы с поляками у Жванца. Союзники-татары повторили тот же маневр, что и в 1649 году, и 334 помешали казакам разгромить противника. На самом деле крымский хан оберегал казаков от поражения, но не давал победить Яна Казимира (Плохий 2018: 165). Гетману и его окружению ничего не оставалось, как искать иного союзника (Magocsi 2010: 220). Предпринятая ханом политика пoсредничества между Чигирином и Варшавой привела к ухудшению крымско-украинских отношений. Именно в декабре 1653 года, когда приготовления к Переяславской Раде шли полным ходом и был заключен так называемый Жванецкий мир между Речью Посполитой и Крымом, по которому Ян Казимир подтверждал условия Зборовского договора, выплачивал хану 200 тысяч талеров. В этом договоре предусматривали гарантию крымского хана прощения гетмана королем и сохранения определённых прав войска запорожского в том виде, в котором они были зафиксированы статьями Зборовского договора 1649 года. Таким образом хан разорвал союз с Хмельницким и стал союзником Речи Посполитой (Latopisiec 1853: 143–144; 146–147; 149–153). Заключение сепаратного мира с Речью Посполитой в конце 1653 года привело к разрыву с украинцами, который, однако, не был окончательным (Перналь 2013: 218). После смерти Ислам-Гирея ІІІ Мехмет-Гирей IV наладил союзные отношения с поляками, а к казакам отправил своего посла Кара-бея, с надеждой, что гетман разорвет союз с русскими (Мицик 2014: 167–168). Почему союз с Крымом потерял в глазах Богдана Хмельницкого свою привлекательность? К 1653 году гетман разочаровался в союзе с Крымским ханством узнав, что хан заинтересован не в создании украинского государтсва, а лишь во взаимном ослаблении Речи Посполитой и Украины. Ислам Гирей III больше всего стремился к созданию благоприятных условий для свободных набегов крымской орды по Украине, Речи Посполитой, и, в конечном счёте – это продвижение в Центральную Европу. В своей внешней политике крымский хан, как вассал турецкого султана, должен был учитывать политику Стамбула, что заключалась в ослаблении и Речи Посполитой, и России, а кроме этого и в установлении политического контроля над украинскими землями (Виноградов 2006: 99). Нереальность «крымской альтернативы» показали переговоры в январе 1658 года с новым ханом Мухаммед Гиреем IV и гетманом Иваном Выговским, и это были уже не переговоры двух равноправных сторон, как было во времена Богдана Хмельницкого, и вмешательство Крыма в ход событий в Украине во второй половине 50–60-х годов XVII века всё равно происходило. Кроме того, в дальнейшем, крымцы приняли активное участие в военных действиях против Речи Посполитой, но это уже совершенно другая геополитическая ситуация. Фактом остается то, что в момент Переяславской рады Богдан Хмельницкий отказался от союза с Крымским ханством. Присоединение украинских земель к России резко изменило отношения Речи Посполитой с Крымским ханством. Ни Богдан Хмельнцикий, ни Алексей Михайлович не могли определить, как будут развиваться отношения с 335 Крымский ханством: будет ли это военный союз против польско-литовского государства, либо хан предпочтёт войну против них в союзе польским королем (Санин 2006: 47). Действительность открывала для хана две альтернативы: традиционный путь союза с Хмельницким или путь смены ориентации, союза с Речью Посполитой. Пока Переяславский договор затруднял грабеж для крымских татар украинских территорий, в то время как союз с польским королем создал предпосылки для более близких и эффективных походов на Украину (Санин 2006: 50–51). Заключение Гетманские полномочия Богдана Хмельницкого в области международных отношений пережили длинную эволюцию. После блестящих побед украинццев к казацкой старшине являлись послы от соседних государств, которые предлагали Хмельницкому союз и покровительство, что было как бы международным признанием автономной Украины. Целью гетмана было превратить украинские земли в предмет борьбы между соседними государствами, ведь без масштабной войны его власть имела мало шансов устоять. С 1649 года внешняя политика гетмана руководилась целью добиться утверждения «Козацкой Украины» как государтсва, состоящего в подданстве у какой-либо страны-покровителя, и вырваться из международной изоляции (Чухліб 2009: 54–55). Но во время украинского движения Крымское ханство было единственным государством, которое открыто поддержало восставших казаков против Речи Посполитой (Чухліб 2017: 37–48), хотя поддержка Крымом вооруженного «сепаратизма» осуществлялась при молчаливом согласии турецкого султана и русского царя. Союз с Крымом явился важнейшим фактором, существенно повлиявшим на ход украинско-польской войны. В конечном итоге именно крымский фактор определил успешный для Богдана Хмельницкого Зборовский договор 1649 года, т. к. вместе с ордой казаки на первых порах были безусловно сильнее польской армии. Не пользуясь военной поддержкой татар, гетман не мог бы проводить те важные политические решения, к которым его понуждала международная обстановка. Однако, крымско-украинский союз закончился фактическим провалом уже через несколько лет. Когда в результате сотрудничества казаков и татар, усиление казаков стало чрезмерным, Ислам-Гирей III мог оказывать поддержку и Польше. Крымский хан перестал быть союзником для украинцев только в самом конце кампании и на сторону Речи Посполитой он перешел только после того, как поляки пообещали ему значительно больше чем могли дать украинцы. На самом деле усиление России с приобретением украинских территорий, нарушая выгодное для Крыма равновесие сил в Восточной Европе, толкало хана к сближению с Речью Посполитой» (Заборовский 1979: 268). Отсюда сделан правильный вывод о «собственном татарском расчете», 336 основанном на «политическом равновесии» (Смирнов 1887: 555). На самом деле крымские ханы предпочитали оказывать помощь тому противнику, которого они считали более слабым (Санин 1987: 50). Для Богдана Хмельнцикого было ясно, что татары гарантировали для них военный успех, а успеха политического – утверждения автономии «Козацкой Украины» – нужно искать иным путем, с присоединением украинских земель к России. На самом деле и Богдан Хмельницкий вёл «двойную» внешнюю политику, и т.н. «крымскую альтернативу» он использовал для достижения благосклонности русского монарха: посредством крымской – и вместе с этим турецкой – ориентации он хотел склонить Алексея Михайловича к антипольскому союзу с «Козацкой Украиной» (Варга 2011: 182). Источники Воссоединение 1954. Воссоединение Украины с Россией-Документы и материалы в трех томах. I–III. Моска: Издательство Академии Наук. I. Джерела 2014. Джерела з історії Національно-визвольної війни українського народу 1648–1658 рр. Т. 3: 1651–1654 pp. Упорядн. о. Ю. Мицик; Редкол.: В. А. Брехуненко, Д. В. Бурім, О. О. Маврін, Г. К. Швидько. НАН України. Інститут української археографії та джерелознавства ім. М. С. Грушевського, Інститут історії України; Канадський інститут українських студій. Кіїв. Источники 1868. Источники Малороссийской истории, собранные Д.Н. Бантыш-Каменским (1649–1687.) Москва: Университетская типография. Latopisiec 1853. Latopisiec albo Kroniczka Joachima Jerlicza. T. 1. Warszawa: W drukarni Wienhoebera. http://books.google.com.ua/books?id=tkghAQAAMAAJ& printsec=frontcover&hl=uk&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f= false Литература Варга, Б. 2011. Спорные вопросы украинской государственности в середине XVII века (1648–1654) в зеркале внешней политики Богдана Хмельницкого. Роль государтсва в исторической развитии России – The Role of the State in the Historical Development of Russia. Budapest, Russica Pannonicana: 178–189. Величко, С. В. 1848. Летопись событий в Югозападной России в XVII-м веке. Т. 1 Киев: в лито-типогр. заведении Иосифа Вальнера. Виноградов, А. В. 2006. «Крымская альтернативa» Переяславской Рады. История русско-украинских отношений второй половины XVII века–к 350летию Переяславской рады. Москва, ИРИ РАН: 98–99. 337 Заборовский Л.В. 1979. Крымский вопрос во внешней политике России и Речи Посполитой в 40–50-х гг. XVII в. Россия, Польша и Причерноморье в XV–XVIII вв. Москва, Наука: 263–275. Новосельский А.А. 1948. Борьба Московского государства с татарами в первой половине XVII века. Москва – Ленинград: Издательство АН СССР. Перналь А. Б. 2013. Річ Посполита двух народів і Україна. Дипломатичні відносини 1648–1659 рр. Кіїв: ВД Київсько-Могилянська Академія. Плохий, С. 2018. Врата Европы–История Украины. Москва: Издательство АСТ: CORPUS. Розенфельд, И. Б. 1915. Присоединение Малороссии к России (1654–1793). Петроград: Издание Петроградского Политехнического института Императора Петра Великого. Санин Г.А. 1987. Отношения России и Украины с Крымским ханством в середине XVII в. Москва: Наука. Смирнов В.Д. 1887. Крымское ханство под верховенством Оттоманской Порты до начала XVIII в. СПб: Университетская типография. Чухліб Тарас. 2009. Козаки і монархи. Міжнародні відносини ранньомодерної Української держави 1648–1721 рр. Кіїв: В-во імені Олени Теліги. Чухліб Т. 2017. Козаки і татари. Українсько – кримські союзи 1500-1700-х років. Кіїв: Видавничий дім Києво- Могилянська академія. Kiss, J. L. 2003. Nemzeti identitás és külpolitika Közép- és Kelet-Európában. Nemzeti identitás és külpolitika Közép-és Kelet-Európában. Budapest, Teleki László Alapítvány: 13–32. Kolodzejczyk D. 2011. The Crimean khanate and Poland-Lithuania: international diplomacy on the European periphery (15th–18th century): a study of peace treaties followed by annotated documents. Leiden – Boston: E. J. Brill. Magocsi, R. P. 2010. A History of Ukraine. The Land and Its people. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Subtelny, O. 2000. Ukraine – a History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Deconstruction of the Traditional Hero Type in Murathan Mungan’s Cenk Hikayeleri Barış Yılmaz 1. Introduction Murathan Mungan’s story collection Cenk Hikayeleri (Battle Stories), written between 1980 and 1983 and first published in 1989, has many parallels to traditional Turkish oral cultural narratives in many respects, including characters, story arcs, narrative features and motifs used. The collection contains six stories under the names of “Şahmeran’ın Bacakları” (Shahmeran’s Legs), “Ökkeş ile Cengâver”, “Kasım ile Nâsır”, “Binali ile Temir”, “Ensar ile Civan” and “Yılan ve Geyiğe Dair” (On Snake and Deer). The stories, with the exception of “Şahmeran’ın Bacakları” and “Yılan ve Geyiğe Dair” аre written in a very similar style and approach. Although these two stories are both sufficiently significant to be the subject of a number of studies in terms of their connection to the oral culture of the Turkish people, they have been omitted from this study. In my analysis, the primary objective is to present the findings on undermining of the superior and noble attributes of heroism that are common ground throughout four stories called “Ökkeş ile Cengâver”, “Kasım ile Nâsır”, “Binali ile Temir”, “Ensar ile Civan”1. The secondary aim of the study is to discover the key components of the traditional human model embodied in tribal communities and their conflict with the brand-new hero model introduced in Mungan’s tales, which avoids patriarchal pressure through its individualistic attitude towards initiation rites and rigid ordeals. Another point worth mentioning is that all four stories connote a generic link to a certain style in the classical Turkish and Middle Eastern literature, a titular reference par excellence of which Gerard Genette would call “architextuality” (1984: 4). They are emblematic of the tragic romances between— predominantly— a rich girl and a poor boy in the mesnevis of divan literature and their variants as folk-tales, such as “Layla and Majnun,” “Khosrow and Shirin,” “Kerem and Aslı,” and so on. Nevertheless, there is a major discrepancy in the four stories of Murathan Mungan, who came out as homosexual a long time ago, that their two protagonists are male characters. Mungan’s protagonists are not necessarily in love with each other, 1 From now on, when I say “four stories”, it will mean these four stories. 340 sometimes they seem to be friends, sometimes there is more than friendship, a tangible emotional tension between the two. Yet apart from the nature of the relationship they share, there is something naive and sentimental that gives a sense of inadequacy in the context in which they reside. The verisimilitude of their inertial lack of willingness to follow customs that require an act contrary to their needs and feelings is what makes Mungan’s stories both fascinating and deconstructive. Having revealed the attributes of the common, generic and unchanging characteristics of mythical heroes, I will consider the extent to which these characteristics are applied to the heroes of the Turkish epic and traditional narratives, then I will argue where hero representation in the four stories takes place according to this typology. Another important issue to be taken into account is the passage to adulthood, that is, the importance, the rules and the binds of rituals called initiation in traditional societies, and the questioning of initation by Mungan’s heroes in the four stories. Issues such as the weight it adds to the relationship between the group and the individual, the new meaning of these transition ceremonies in the four stories, the centrifugal force of the rites of initation, and how they have been reshaped in modern culture will be discussed through the sources of cultural anthropology. 2. Traditional hero in Turkish culture 2.1. Mythical hero and hero archetype Typically, mythical heroes have very similar characteristics in oral narratives which appear in almost every geography. Heroes are depicted with a special emphasis on the extraordinary qualities they exhibit from birth to death in the ubiquitous and routinely circulated artefacts of orality. Joseph Campbell, in his cult book The Hero with Thousand Faces, argues that different myths from all over the world and over the centuries have common patterns. The typical direction taken by the hero in his adventure is the extended version of the formula “departure-initiation-return”, which, as a whole, forms a narrative of transformation that becomes “the nuclear unit of the monomyth”, a word borrowed from James Joyce’s Finnegans Wake to describe the invariable and omnipresent character of myths. Campbell describes monomyth as “a hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabolous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man” (Campbell 1949: 28). According to him, only the details vary during the Hero’s recursive journey, but the frame structure is always preserved for a reason. Hero’s actions and choices offer guidance to ordinary people as they face comparatively less challenging circumstances in their everyday lives, or, in Campbell’s words: “The whole sense of the ubiquitous myth of the hero’s passage is 341 that it shall serve as a general pattern for men and women, wherever they may stand along the scale” (Campbell 1949: 111). This brings us to the phenomenon known as the archetypes coined by Carl Gustav Jung. Archetypes аre, according to Jung, immortal embodiments of individuals, actions, or characteristics that аre seen in mystical or religious imagery. Jung pointed out that there are four main archetypes that shaped the collective unconscious and lay within it. He distinguishes the collective unconscious from the personal unconscious, which, unlike the former, stems from personal experience and acquisition. Another point of distinction between the two is that the collective consciousness does not, in fact, rely on consciousness, meaning that it does not originate from the forgotten or repressed material that has been dumped in the subconscious, but from the contents that “owe their existence exclusively to heredity” and are called archetypes. Then, as a result, Jung suggests that “the concept of the archetype, which is an indispensable correlate of the idea of the collective unconscious, indicates the existence of definite forms in the psyche which seem to be present always and everywhere” (Jung 1936: 42). Key words here, which led Jung to acknowledge that there is a consciousness that does not lie in consciousness, are always and everywhere. The same idea appeared in the monomyth theory of Campbell. Both authors support their views by providing examples of mythical narratives in different cultures, from Africa to Australia. According to these examples, fearlessness, bravery, wisdom, physical strength , resilience, nobility, etc. are among the unchanging attributes of heroes throughout their endless journeys. Yet the emphasis on heroes’ individuality is not one of the components found in myths. Heroes are not portrayed with psychological depth; they do not display signs of idiosyncrasy in their decision-making; they are all enclosed in heroic traits: lack of feeling, rigidity, single-mindedness... They tend to show signs of exhaustion and even desolation at times, but that is also a constant motif of the journey; if they die, they only die to be reborn stronger. Campbell describes this stage in the hero’s cycle of becoming a hero as “the hero has died as a modern man; but as eternal man— perfected unspecific, universal man—he has been reborn. His second solemn task and deed therefore is to return then to us, transfigured, and teach the lesson he has learned of life renewed.” (Campbell 1949:18). What a rite of initiation or passage is the re-enactment of this whole journey in a symbolic way. A young adolescent whose time has come to become an adult must prove that s/he is able to bear all the burdens that come with adulthood. Much like the myth hero who abruptly had to be ready to fight for his/her society, the initiation candidate must cross the same paths and face the same ordeals. To do so, they have to die as a child and be reborn as an adult. As Eliade suggests: “The term initiation in the most general sense denotes a body of rites and oral teachings whose purpose is to produce a decisive alteration in the religious and social status of the person to be initiated. In philosophical terms, initiation is equivalent to a basic change in existential condition; the novice emerges from his ordeal endowed with a totally 342 different being from that which he possessed before his initiation; he has become another.” (Eliade 1984:16). Because of the very practical nature of their disposition, which is to be an example to all members of society, heroes are not expected to show weakness, fragility or childish intentions. Decisions and acts are taken on a cruel and solely altruistic basis that lacks the complexities of human needs, whether positive or negative, such as intimacy and affection, or even self-gratification. In oral culturebased narratives, the entire initiative of the hero is aimed at ensuring that the organizational stability and ideal cohesion of the society continues, whereas the same is required of young adults who have passed through initiation. The fundamental issue is precisely this in Mungan’s “Battle Stories”, as we will see in the following chapters. In short, there is a battle to be an individual whose choices are governed by no one but himself in each of the four stories. But before dealing with the somewhat paradoxical question of being an individual in a tribal society, let us look at how the hero type was depicted in Turkish oral narratives. 2.2. Representation of the hero in Turkish oral culture The representation of hero in Turkish epic, legendary, or folk stories is just as similar to that of its counterparts in other parts of the world. Depicted with numerous indicators of their extraordinary attributes since childhood, the main protagonists of such narratives in Turkish oral tradition are valiant, noble, good hunter, good wrestler, strong, cunning, ruthless, relentless, and fear neither fight nor death. The determination to overcome even death is a symbol of their tenacious, indestructible and indefatigable character. Yıldırım describes Turkish heroic epics as biographies of a hero whose life story is told in a sequence of events starting with his miraculous birth from elderly parents. The miraculous birth of the hero is preceded by exceptional circumstances in the process of his development, and the hero is honored by a name that reflects his personality or a special ability he obtains. The name is given by the wisest member of his tribe after the first rite of initiation that comes with puberty. Upon a successful transition to manhood, his title as a hero is granted through stages such as the pursuit of an appropriate wife, the revenge on a villain for abusing or harming his family/clan, the capture of an elusive animal or the defeat of an invincible beast, and a series of events in which he shows his courage, nobleness and physical strength (Yıldırım 2003: 60). Kara-Düzgün points out that the central hero figures in the Turkish epics exhibit certain qualities which are repeated in almost every epic narrative, though variations can also be noted. She speaks of the twenty-four defining attributes of the Turkish epic hero, of which the most relevant to our investigation are as follows: 1. The emergence of the hero is foreshadowed before birth. 2. The hero is born in extraordinary circumstances. … 343 5. The hero’s childhood is abnormal and he grows up in a very short time. (There is not so much emphasis on his childhood.) 6. Once the hero proves his heroism, he takes a name. 7. The hero, by means of a heroic act, proves that he is been through childhood. (The name symbolizes holiness and is given by a holy person.) 8. The physical strength of the hero is exceptional from birth, and from time to time he is compared to animals. … 13. The hero embarks on an adventure to live up to his ideal, to prove his courage, or to take revenge. … 15. The hero is often alone in most of his struggles, or in very dangerous situations. 16. The hero is brave. He does not fight those who are not his equivalent. 17. The hero opposes those who are hostile to him, including his father, if necessary. … 24. After the death of the hero, his ideals are pursued by his descendants (Kara-Düzgün 2012: 11, translation mine). The sixth entry in this list seems to be the most relevant to my analysis, given its intersection with the subject of overcoming puberty through a forced ordeal and exceptional heroism in Mungan’s Cenk Hikayeleri. Just to offer an example, let’s take a brief look at the saga of “Oguz Khagan”, one of the most famous epic heroes in the Turkic world. According to the legend, Oguz Khagan showed constant superhuman qualities from infancy to death. Like the birth of many epic heroes, his birth was a late birth, and it could only happen through great prayers and offerings. His face was sky-colored when he was born, his mouth red as fire, his eyes hazel, his hair and eyebrows dark black, as the story illustrates. He was such a tough kid that he drank his mother’s milk only once, and then he asked for raw meat and kumis. What was more, he started walking, playing, and even riding a horse when he was just 40 days old. When the name-taking ceremony took place in the first year of his birth, he immediately stood up and gave his own name, saying, “My name is Oguz”. Portrayed as a superior being than a common man, Oguz Khagan gave every indication that he was a “chosen one”. His every physical feature bore resemblance with some animal’s, as if his feet were like ox feet, his waist was like a wolf’s waist, his shoulders were like sable shoulders, and his chest was like a bear’s chest. These impressive traits are reinforced as he grew up and started hunting and herding horses (Bang & Arat 1970). In short, from birth to death, Oguz Khagan is described as an outstanding hunter, an exceptional khagan, and an exemplary father as a whole. There are obviously not so many references to his psychological state or emotional characteristics. There is no hint of whether he regretted killing an enemy or questioned the role God casts in him. 344 Kaplan underlines the extremely pragmatic attitude of the epic protagonist, by noting that Oguz Khagan had a fairly straightforward view towards life and did not like complicated matters (Kaplan 2003: 106). We know that Oguz Khagan and other mythical heroes from all over the world have more or less similar features, and their story arcs contain common elements, that is, archetypes. Nevertheless, in the epics of the Turkic world, we may note an explicitly strong emphasis on single-hero narratives, possibly because of the warlike and nomadic character of Turkic tribes in the past. It is not a coincidence that the Ural-Batyr and Akbuzat kubairs 2 of the Bashkirs, the Altyn-Aryg 3 myth of the Khakas people, the voluminous Epic of Manas or Er Toshtuk legend of the Kyrgyz people, the Maday Qara of the Altai people, etc, are all built around similar archetypal patterns (Gökdağ & Üçüncü 2007). We can also get the same impressions in every story in the Oguzname of Dede Korkut. Warriors and begs of the Oguz tribes are often described in a fiery passion for battle and blood. They seem to love hunting and attach great importance to bravery and fertility. In this regard, the stories in Dede Korkut, as well as the other epics, provide meaningful information about what the collective consciousness of the Turkic people once consisted of. Besides Oguzname of Dede Korkut, it is worth mentioning some other important epics produced by Turkish tribes in Anatolia under the influence of Islam, such as Battalname, Saltukname, Danishmendname, or Epic of Köroğlu, and so on. We observe that there is a religious aspect in the actions of the main characters in these mythical narratives, which are, in essence, Islamic variants of the Turkic epics created in Central Asia. These epics had a huge impact on the actual Turkish society, given that they have been reintroduced into popular culture through film or TV adaptations, or revived in the works of contemporary authors such as Yaşar Kemal (1923–2015). It is quite likely that Murathan Mungan was also inspired by these Anatolian/Islamic versions of Turkic heroic epics instead of their remote counterparts in Central Asia. We shall see that until a certain point, the four stories have the same route with some stories in Dede Korkut book. Mungan’s some other story called “Dumrul ile Azrail” (Dumrul and Azrael/The Angel of Death) is a rewritten version of the story of “Deli Dumrul” in Dede Korkut, for example. Dündar suggests that Mungan tries to reshape the oral narratives of the East in his contemporary tales by undermining the condition of “being a man” inherent in any of these narratives. He knows that the archetypal remnants of them are deeply embedded in modern Turkish society, and thus aims at bringing into discussion their patriarchal status, the status quo that forces young men to act in certain violent and inhuman ways. The pressure of the “man” image generated by hegemonic masculine 2 3 A form of epic poem peculiar to the Bashkir people. In this legend, the main character of the story is not a hero, but a heroine. Although it is a rare quality in Turkic epics, it is not so unusual for the people of Khakas. It is likely to find a female protagonist in several legends of the Khakas (Anayban 2006: 15). 345 culture is without doubt a hindrance to becoming an “individual” in Mungan’s eyes (Dündar 2003: 80–81). It is important to keep in mind that, whether patriarchal or matriarchal, collectivism rather than individualism was the most dominant feature of pre-modern society. The ultimate goal was to hold the tribe or society united through myths and pass on wisdom to the next generation by reciting the hero’s exemplary tale. That is why, in Mungan’s narratives, the primary issue should not be gender, in my opinion, but collectivist mentality. Campbell explains the function of rites of initiation and installation in this regard, the myths are useful as long as they “teach the lesson of the essential oneness of the individual and the group”, because: “In his life-form the individual is necessarily only a fraction and distortion of the total image of man. He is limited either as male or as female; ... Hence, the totality—the fullness of man—is not in the separate member, but in the body of the society as a whole; the individual can be only an organ. From his group he has derived his techniques of life, the language in which he thinks, the ideas on which he thrives; through the past of that society descended the genes that built his body. If he presumes to cut himself off, either in deed or in thought and feeling, he only breaks connection with the sources of his existence. The tribal ceremonies of birth, initiation, marriage, burial, installation, and so forth, serve to translate the individual’s life-crises and life-deeds into classic, impersonal forms. They disclose him to himself, not as this personality or that, but as the warrior, the bride, the widow, the priest, the chieftain; at the same time rehearsing for the rest of the community the old lesson of the archetypal stages. All participate in the ceremonial according to rank and function. The whole society becomes visible to itself as an imperishable living unit. Generations of individuals pass, like anonymous cells from a living body; but the sustaining, timeless form remains. By an enlargement of vision to embrace this superindividual, each discovers himself enhanced, enriched, supported, and magnified.” (Campbell 1949: 354−55) This is what the antiheroes in Mungan’s four stories are silently against: being part of “an imperishable living unit”, ”a timeless form”. They choose to perish on their own at the expense of being expelled. The tribal mentality, which gives priority to societal duties over personal needs, still retains its validity in modern societies and thus continues to eradicate the individual from the human being, which is the real subject of discussion in the four stories. The characters of Mungan, who can now be considered individuals, have a great difficulty in fitting into the patterns of actions that their societies regulate. 346 3. The Manhood Ordeal: Antiheroes in Cenk Hikayeleri The stories in Cenk Hikayeleri are the texts in which concepts such as heroism and fortitude are presented as the most evident manifestations of ongoing and approved masculinity and hive mind mentality in oral narratives. Mungan’s stories can be seen as a critical appeal to the tendency of traditional society to create heroes and to glorify the notion of a hero, together with the representation of such an archaic way of thinking within modern culture. In view of the socio-political climate of modern Turkey, I would suggest that Mungan, who reinvigorates the heroic narratives by overturning their focus, on the one hand seeks a source of patriarchal domination over society, on the other, undermines this dominance. Dündar calls this approach “a critique of the sexist heritage” rooted in Turkey while determining that love and friendship are intertwined with death and violence in Mungan’s stories through the intervention of tradition and rituals. Through the rites of initiation, adolescents, who are the leading figures in all of the four stories, are obliged to leave behind their childhood and the “feminine features that symbolize nature” (Dündar 2001: 29). Masculinity is clearly at issue here, but I would interpret the question of masculinity as more focused on the incoherence of the individual and the social aspect than on a feminist perspective that sees nonheroic passivity as feminine. The four stories in Cenk Hikayeleri include a battle between teenage boys and their groups because of certain customs, norms and values that rule in these groups. In this respect, we should seek to analyze the “critique of the standardizing and collectivist heritage” in Mungan’s stories rather than a sexist one. As a matter of fact, the four stories in Cenk Hikayeleri are parodies of epics and heroic narratives in the postmodern sense of the word. In terms of style, diction and rhetoric the stories resemble epics, however, in parody, there is always a playful manner that “inevitably connotes satire and irony” according to Genette (1984: 24). That is why, for this kind of neutral textual transformation that does not intend to mock or debase higher genres, he first uses the anachronistic term “serious parody” (Genette 1984: 26) and then chooses to call it “transposition” (Genette 1984: 28). Thus, we can also freely designate Mungan’s four stories in Cenk Hikayeleri as transpositions of Turkish heroic epics. Mungan’s transpositions are stylistically similar to heroic narratives in oral tradition, but the characters within them behave and think differently, as if they do not fit in with the customary role that has been designed for them. In each of the four stories, high manners are mirrored by low manners; love is mirrored by hatred, courage by cowardice, nobility by humility, and friendship by betrayal. By this dialectical way, Mungan makes it possible to bring these heroes closer to the ordinary equations of real life and to take the pressure of being impeccable off their shoulders. They are no longer the same heroes as the heroes of Layla and Majnun, 347 Dede Korkut, or Köroğlu, on whom the society’s thirst for the sanctification of sacred and high values is diminished. The first story of the four stories is called “Ökkeş ile Cengâver”. It is a narrative challenging the brutal aspect of initiation rites that render enemies of two boys who used to be close friends. The rite, which means the transition to manhood, makes the main character Ökkeş think about and question töre −the tribal customs that leave no room for feelings at all. He attempts to rationalize the intent of the rites by asking, “What is the sense of custom?”4 which is the first hint as to how he differs from the classical mythical heroes who never look for reason in the rites (“Oguz Khagan did not like the complicated matters”). It is Ökkeş’s mother who trains him for the initiation ceremony and keeps reminding him of the importance of the ceremony to prove his virility. She has the utmost loyalty to the patriarchal norms of society that reproduce this virile image of the male members, and thus disapproves of the doubts that her son casts on customs. Her answer to Ökkeş’s question − “What is it that these customs test?”5 − is a good illustration of her fatalistic commitment to the way things work in their tribe, which is precisely why things work that way. It is, for some reason, just mandatory for any 15-year-old boy: “Everything is tested by customs in the camp, don’t you know that? It is the law of custom that guides the heart and mind, as well as the entire life. And this is the test of manliness. Why do you pretend not to understand? Now, you have turned fifteen. Your age has reached the man-age. It is time to test your manliness. If you can’t bear the pain of these two days, how can you bear the pain of your whole life, my son?”6 What we understood from the mother’s answer is that the ordeals in the ritual are considered a dry run for the predestined troubles that life will bring. Life is supposed to bring all kinds of threats, and this is the best way to be braced for them. Then she tells him to see everything as a “game” or a kind of “second circumcision” (Mungan 1989: 102). Considering that circumcision is seen as one of the most important rites of passages in terms of turning to a man in the societies that apply it, the mother’s argument makes more sense. Yet, it is preconceived that her son was already at peace with the fear of having his penis cut off and the ritualistic celebration of all these as a symbol of being a male. Ozturk’s research shows that Turkish young males indeed carry an anxiety of castration over circumcision, and that it is not only the ritual itself that causes fear, but all the aura of masculine culture that surrounds the individual, in other words, “societal preparatory experiences and meanings attached to it.” (Ozturk 1973: 49). It is accurate to assume, therefore, that to think of 4 5 6 “Törenin usu nedir?” (Mungan 1989: 101). “Neyin sınamasıdır bu töreler?” (Mungan 1989: 101) “Bilmez misin ki, her şey töreyle sınanır obada. Törenin hukukudur akla ve de yüreğe yol gösteren. Ve de cümle hayata yol gösteren. Bu da erliğin sınanmasıdır. Niye anlamaz görünürsün? Yaşın gayrı on beştir. Yaşın er yaşına değdi. Erliğini sınamak vakti geldi. Şu iki günün acısına katlanamayan, bir ömrün acısına nasıl katlanır oğul?” (Mungan 1989: 101). 348 it as a “second circumcision” would definitely not motivate Ökkeş to handle the rite of passage better; on the contrary, it might increase pressure and anxiety. In the mother’s view, circumcision is not even a matter of debate, it is a must, and everybody knows it, just as in modern Turkish culture, where it is so entrenched that nobody questions whether to perform it or not. Returning to the story, the mother explains the rules of this violence-filled game. Candidates are left in a remote place where they are set to play a hunting game with the roles of hunter and prey. First, they take Ökkeş’s friend Cengâver and leave him in a spot near the top of a mountain. Ökkeş is the next one, and in order to win, he must track and locate Cengâver before sunset. “If one of your enemies is Cengâver, the other is time”, says his mother (Mungan 1989: 102). Most of the story is made up of these dialogs between Ökkeş and his mother. She knows her son’s strong affection for Cengâver, but still points out that traditions are more important than anything else, making it more difficult to solve Ökkeş’s dilemma. In the non-linear structure of the narrative, we return to the first day when Cengâver was a hunter, and Ökkeş was his prey. While töre tests the manhood of the lads, Ökkeş tests Cengâver’s friendship and loyalty. Cengâver reminds Ökkeş how binding the customs are when he hits his stomach. Saying, “My manhood is at stake, and there is no one else to defend it”,7 Cengâver admits that he gives priority to his status in the camp, rather than showing loyalty to his mate. Beating his best friend, he successfully passes the initiation ritual and becomes a man, but fails the test of integrity and loyalty in Ökkeş’s eyes. He is disappointed, but not because of the blows of his friend, the fact that his friend never questioned customs, as he did, hurts him deeply (Mungan 1989: 108−09). Ökkeş’s discord with the rest of the community is founded on the community’s effort to extinguish tender feelings in order to make people rock solid. He cannot think of this brutal ceremony as a game, because there is something malicious about it that encourages backstabbing: “There was a dagger on the back of this game. There was something that hurts friendship, fellowship, and love in this ritual. Each ritual was diminishing a part of the human.”8 He believes that the answer may lie in discovering the point from which such rituals arose. Ökkeş is seen as the hunter this time at the end of the story. He tries his best to violate the rules of the game by deliberately searching for his friend in places he would not go. He cannot afford to lose his sensitivity in order to become a “real man”. Yet, no matter how hard he tries, he feels drifted to the place where he last met Cengâver, who would be waiting for him in the same place. At this moment, he figures out that Cengâver’s love, like his, also overcomes customs (Mungan 1989: 122−23). Regardless of the fact that the author of this story is homosexual, it is not difficult to figure out that there is an intimacy that is more than friendship between 7 8 “Erliğim ortada. Ve benden başka onu koruyacak kimse yok.” (Mungan 1989: 108). “Bu oyunun sırtında bir hançer vardı. Sevgiyi, dostluğu, arkadaşlığı, yoldaşlığı yaralayan bir şey vardı bu törede. Her töre insanın bir yanını eksiltiyordu.” (Mungan 1989: 111). 349 these two characters. The nature of the relationship between them is never explicitly mentioned, but it is implied that they are in love, like Layla and Majnun, except that they are both men, or that they are bound to be men. This is how Murathan Mungan overturns the notion of a hero whose courageous deeds are presented as models for all men and must be imitated in the rites of initiation. Another story in the collection that reveals how initiation rituals extinguish individuality is “Ensar ile Civan”, albeit not as powerful as “Ökkeş ile Cengâver”. Ensar, a 14-year-old, and Civan, a 13-year-old, are two friends who live on two sides of a river, causing a break in their relationship when winter comes. When nature wakes up with the return of spring, their respective clans celebrate it with a rite of rejuvenation. And this time it is Ensar and Civan who are obliged to represent their clans “as the last trackers of a shrunk tradition” in a battle of cirit.9 As in the previous story, a game seen as a test to prove manhood appears to be a cause of friction between two close friends, as well as between the individual and society. Arslan suggests that Ensar and Civan are instrumentalized in the hegemonic fight between their villages, as their combat-commodified bodies become an arena for the ongoing struggles of domination between different groups, the showdowns of manhood, and the savor of aggression and blood (Arslan 2018: 41). Ensar shares his excitement about the upcoming show by saying, “It was my first cirit, the first cirit at a festival like this. I had been raised for a long time to do this, and now I was waiting for my turn.”10 When his turn comes to show his skills, he notices that his rival is Civan, his friend from the other side of the river, whom he had never seen so close. He then points out the unfortunate fact that their first encounter without a river between them has to be “on such a line of enmity”,11 which means this first cirit game is a “loss” for both of them. Influenced by the audience’s grunts, Ensar strikes first. Civan, reeled from the hit, watches his friend in a disappointed way. The scene is very similar to how Ökkeş feels betrayed when Cengâver punched him, but the difference between the stories is that Ensar never asks questions about the customs that make him beat his friend. He prioritizes the first cirit game and the success that comes with it, instead of thinking about friendship. Ensar’s only complaint is that because of this issue, he could not have enough pleasure in the ceremony (Mungan 1989: 244−45). However, he has his own conflict with the customs of his tribe, but for a totally different cause. One summer, he does not see his friend on the other side of the river. Then he hears that Civan has lost his dog and is searching for it. Ensar manages to find him on a raft floating on the water, on which Civan wallows in an 9 Cirit (or Jereed, Jirid, Djerid, etc.) is a traditional Turkish equestrian team sport performed on horseback in which the goal is to gain points by throwing a wooden javelin-like stick at the opposing team’s horsemen. 10 “Bu benim ilk ciritimdi. Böyle bir şenlikte ilk ciritim. Nicedir bu iş için usta ellerde yetiştirilmiştim, şimdiyse heyecanla sıramı bekliyordum.” (Mungan 1989: 243). 11 “Böyle bir düşmanlık çizgisinin üzerinde” (Mungan 1989: 244). 350 unrecognizable physical state. He tries to save him, but the villagers on some other rafts warn him not to do so, since Civan is cursed and possessed by the “water djinns”. They say the only way is “to exorcize the water djinns” by making him pass through the water on that weak raft. Civan, apparently infected with rabies, attacks Ensar, who defends himself with an oar and interprets the situation as their “last cirit game”. Civan loses his balance during the scuffle, eventually falls into the water and disappears, leading Ensar to blame himself for his death. Civan’s fellow-tribesmen tell him not to despair, “Water djinns did not let him go. No one is guilty of this!”12 This is the point of contention in the battle of Ensar and Civan; the villagers bring Civan to the river to exorcize the water djinns that allegedly possess him. They believe that if he does not fall into to the river, then he will pass the trial of djinns. Ensar also most probably does not have the answers to Civan’s condition, then again, he inadvertently stands against such irrational way of solving a problem, or against “collective representation”. It signifies that there are symbols that have common meanings and interpretations among the members of particular communities, the accumulation of which creates a collective consciousness that is transmitted over generations (Durkheim 1912:16; Lévy-Bruhl 1926: 17; Jung 1936: 61–62). The hero archetype of the epics is the most fitting conveyor of such meanings by his acts and decisions. What we see in this Murathan Mungan story is a hero who cannot interpret a symbol, as other members of that particular community do, and his misinterpretation causes his friend to die. In the first story, Ökkeş was a hero who did not want to undertake the role of hero; in this story, Ensar is a hero who does not fully meet the requirements of becoming a hero, however he wants to be. In the next story, “Kâsım ile Nasır” , we are taken to revisit a well-known theme in epics: patricide. Kâsım and Nasır are twins who are driven to the deer-hunting by their fathers to prove their skills when they become 15. But because their bloodline is cursed, they mistakenly shoot their father, who is seen as a deer to them, and decapitate him as well. They realize what they did, only when they cut off the head (Mungan 1989: 128). Lineage and having noble blood are very important attributes of the hero in all epics. Turkic heroic legends also place emphasis on the sacredness of the bloodline. Kâsım and Nasır have a rotten heritage, for their mother uses black magic and loses her eyesight to give birth to them. They are born after a long and painful process, like archetypal heroes, but they are not skilled hunters or noble children. They kill their father in a ceremony that gives them the opportunity to prove their dignity, whether by accident or not. Because they have not been able to pass the ordeal of initiation, their adulthood also becomes excruciating. Once the elders conclude that Kâsım is dead because of his long absence, they agree to marry his wife to Nasır according to their customs. Kâsım finally returns home and starts a fight over his wife with his twin brother, resulting in a loss of their bloodline (Mungan 1989: 130). 12 “Su cinleri geçit vermedi! ... Kimsenin bir suçu yok!” (Mungan 1989: 243). 351 The story is a complete transposition of the epics in terms of heroic deeds and features, which are also described in the story by Hazer Bey’s father, the great grandfather of Kâsım and Nasır: “Falling in love weakens a man. Love is a womanly thing. Man loves, too, for sure, but he loves his family, his tribe, he loves horses, weapons, war, he loves shedding blood. He unkindly loves his enemy. Some men love well-knit carpets or well-forged coppers. Man’s heart must be filled only with feelings such as courage, valor, fortitude and righteousness. Each man must fall in love with the stories of heroism.”13 Mungan transposes the sum of these ideas into his modern-heroic narratives, incorporating the dimension of resistance against this detached-from-emotion representation of man. It does not seem anachronistic, provided the reverberation of this ethos, which persists in the collective subconscious of developed societies, to be based on these narratives. The final story, “Binali ile Temir”, is a battle of courage and cowardice between a brave pastor who, once again, is no more than 15 years old and lives alone in the mountains, and a famous eşkıya (brigand) who gets wounded while escapes from the soldiers. In this story, the point of conflict is that Binali has made a name for himself as a feared outlaw, but now he is taken care of by a pastor boy who does not fear him at all. Temir lives in solitude and has not been affected by the mythical aura generated around Binali, which actually harms Binali’s ego. Outlaw heroes in Turkish folk tales, such as Köroğlu, are often associated with positive attributes. Although acting against the law, they inspire respect and appreciation in the common people, in so far as they protect the poor and the weak. But here, Temir, with the power of capturing a notorious brigand, feeds his own ego by torturing Binali. He keeps yelling, “I am the Köroğlu of these mountains!” 14 as Binali’s heroism fades away. Binali feels tired, desperate, and defeated by a nobody, because he was confronted with an enemy that no other hero had ever been confronted with. 4. Conclusion Murathan Mungan’s Cenk Hikayeleri, in a postmodernist way, reshapes the stories about the heroism of men that have been told in ancient Turkic epics, myths and legends, and folk tales of Anatolia, the Balkans, Central Asia. The stories are somewhat parody of the ideals of so-called manly behaviors that young boys in adolescence have been urged to follow in pre-modern cultures, which are still to 13 “Sevdalanmak erkeği zayıf düşürür. Sevmek kadının işidir. Erkeğe korumak, himaye etmek düşer. Erkek de sever elbet, lakin ailesini, kavmini, atları, silahları, savaşı, kan akıtmayı sever. Düşmanını da düşmanca sever. Kimi erkekler iyi dokunmuş halıları, iyi dövülmüş bakırları da severler. Erkek yüreğini yalnızca cesaret, yiğitlik, gözüpeklik ve adalet duygusu gibi duygular doldurmalı. Her erkek ancak kahramanlık hikâyelerine gönüş düşürmeli.” (Mungan 1989: 133). 14 “Ben bu dağların Köroğlusuyum!” (Mungan 1989:199). 352 some degree preserved in modern societies. Mungan also provides a stance that is opposed to a collectivist mindset that functions in conjunction with patriarchy to render soldiers of ordinary people. In the final analysis, we can determine that Mungan, through the new hero type he created in his battle stories, incorporates a tacit resistance in the battle against the collectivist-masculine culture, the roots of which lie in mythical narratives and initiation ceremonies. References Anayban, Z. 2006. Epic Legends and Archival Materials as Sources for Historical Study of the Role of Woman in Traditional Nomadic Societies of Southern Siberia. In: Boikova, E. V. & Rybakov, R. B. (eds.) Kinship in the Altaic World: Proceedings of the 48th Permanent International Altaistic Conference, Moscow 10– 15 July, 2005, Wiesbaden: 13−19. Arslan, A.D. 2018. Murathan Mungan’ın Öykülerinde Hegemonik Erkekliğin Tezahür Alanı Olarak Beden: ‘Ökkeş ile Cengâver’ ve ‘Ensar ile Civan Örnekleri. Monograf 10: 24–46. Bang, W. & Arat. R. R. 1970. Oğuz Kağan Destanı. İstanbul. Campbell, J. [1949] 2004. The Hero with Thousand Faces. Princeton, Oxford. Dündar, L. B. 2001. Murathan Mungan’ın Çağdaş Masallarında Cinsiyetçi Geleneğin Eleştirisi. [MA Thesis, Bilkent University, Ankara] http://repository. bilkent.edu.tr/handle/11693/15963. Durkheim, E. [1912] 1995. The Elementary Form of Religious Life. Fields, K. E. (trans). New York. Genette, G. [1984] 1997. Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree. Newman, C. & Doubinsky, C. (trans.). Lincoln; London. Gökdağ, B. A. & Üçüncü K.. 2007. Başlangıcından Günümüze Türk Destanları. Ankara. Jung, C. G. [1936] 1980. The Collected Works of C. G. Jung Part 1: Archetypes and the Collective Unconcsious. Volume 9. Adler, G. & Hull, R. F. C. (trans.). Princeton; Oxford. Kaplan, M. 2003. Oğuz Kağan-Oğuz Han Destanı. In: Sakaoğlu, S. & Duymaz, A. (eds.) İslamiyet Öncesi Türk Destanları. İstanbul: 90–107. Kara-Düzgün, Ü. 2012. Türk Destanlarında Merkezî Kahraman Tipinin Tipolojisi. Folklor/Edebiyat 18 (70): 9−46. Lévy-Bruhl, Lucien. [1926] 2018. Revival: How Natives Think. Claire, L. E. (trans.). London. [ebook]. Mungan, M. [1989] 2015. Cenk Hikayeleri. (16th ed.) İstanbul. 353 Ozturk, O. M. 1973. Ritual Circumcision and Castration Anxiety. Psychiatry 36 (1): 49–60. Yıldırım, D. 2003. Türk Kahramanlık Destanları. In: Sakaoğlu, S. & Duymaz, A. (eds.) İslamiyet Öncesi Türk Destanları. İstanbul: 57–67. Фрагмент ярлыка (мюльк-наме) крымского хана Сахиб-Гирея Илъя Зайцев (Москва) – Решат Алиев (Бахчисарай) Почти двадцатилетнее правление Сахиб-Гирея (1532–1551) составляет целую блестящую эпоху в истории Крымского ханства. Завоевательные походы на север и восток, экономические преобразования и строительная деятельность амбициозного и честолюбивого хана сопровождались, помимо прочего, и изменениями в ханской канцелярии. В 1540-х годах, судя по сохранившимся образцам, в Крыму появляется новая разновидность суюргального ярлыка. Писцы ханского дивана стремятся к максимальной лаконичности текста пожалования, еще свободного от тяжеловесных арабизмов ярлыков второй половины XVI–XVII вв. Как писал некогда лучший знаток джучидской деловой письменности М.А.Усманов, отличительной чертой этого нового суюргального пожалования становится замена диспозиций-запрета тарханных жалований на диспозицию-утверждение суюргальных, где определяются территории и границы владений (Усманов 1979: 245). Иными словами, вместо освобождения от повинностей и налогов держателям ярлыков жалуют землю. В эпоху Сахиб-Гирея, как мы увидим, был узаконен и обычай взимания платы за оформление пожалования. До нас дошло 10 ярлыков Сахиб-Гирея времени его правления в Крыму (не считая казанского, выданного 1 января 1523 г. Шейх-Ахмаду). Из них ровно половина – копии (иногда даже копии с копии), вторая половина – подлинники. Перечислим эти последние:1 «ярлык мюльк-наме» Сахиб-Гирея Ак-Кучек-бию, Анепи и Кудай-кулу на колодец (между Кунджу, Тубаем и Джурунджи) от конца Джумада II 956 / июль 1549 г., выданный в Бахчисарае. Ходатайствовал Маашук. Писал кятиб Мустафа. Хранится в Архиве Республики Крым в Симферополе (далее - АРК. Русский перевод см. Лашков 1897: 2). «мюльк-наме ярлык» Сахиб-Гирея Тиляу-Берди на землю (между владениями Хаджи-Хейр-шейх, с востока – Урлюк, с запада – Баушмерен) от конца Джумада II 956 / июль 1549 г., выданный в Бахчисарае. 1 Знакомство с подлинниками ярлыков позволило нам уточнить описания М.А.Усманова (Усманов 1979: 38–42). 356 Ходатайствовал Кюн-Тоган-бей. Писал кятиб Мустафа. Хранится в АРК. «мюльк-наме ярлык» Сахиб-Гирея …хбай-Суфи на землю около АкМесджида (между владениями Абд ар-Рахим – б[а]я, Седжиут, Бурнак и Хаджи-Дервиш-суфи) от реджеба 956 / июль-август 1549 г., выданный в Бахчисарае. Имя ходатая не сохранилось. Писал кятиб Шаабан. Хранится в АРК. «ярлык мюльк-наме» Сахиб-Гирея Тулпару на землю от 19 сафара 957 / 8 марта 1550 г., выданный в Алма-Сарае. Ходатайствовал Маашук-бей. Писал кятиб Шаабан. Хранится в АРК. «мюльк-наме ярлык» хана Кызыл-Курту, сыну ширина Баш-Куртуга на землю по реке Кара-Су от 21 Раби II 957 / 10 мая 1550 г., выданный в Алма-Сарае. Ходатайствовал Агыш-бей. Писал кятиб Шаабан. Хранится в Санкт-Петербурге в Институте восточных рукописей РАН. Легко заметить, что все пять подлинных ярлыков относятся к короткому промежутку времени между июлем 1549 и маем 1550 г. Агыш, Маашук и ГюнДоган, упомянутые в трех ярлыках как беи-ходатаи, – хорошо известные нам по «Истории Сахиб-Гирея» Реммал-ходжи деятели, приближенные хана. Три ярлыка написаны кятибом Шаабаном, два – Мустафой.2 Теперь в нашем распоряжении появился еще один подлинный ярлык Сахиб-Гирея (вернее, к сожалению, только его часть). Документ был обнаружен внутри музейного предмета в Бахчисарайском историко-культурном и археологическом музее-заповеднике (КП 9761 – К 620), значащегося в музейной документации как «Книга на арабском языке, в картонном переплете, корешок из коричневой кожи. Крышки оклеены бумагой с крупным орнаментом темного цвета. Тушь черная, красная, коричневая. Красной выполнены подчеркивания». В действительности это турецкое сочинение по шариату и основам исламской обрядовой практики со ссылками на классические тексты по фикху (например, Хазинат ал-фикх Абу Лейса ас-Самарканди). Как пишет составитель (переводчик?) в сохранившейся части предисловия, основой для написания его послужили 96 книг. Самое начало текста утрачено. Судя по колофону, текст переписал некий Ахмед б. Абд ал-Ханан (‫)ﻋﺒﺪاﻟﺤﻨﺎن‬, год переписки не указан. Текст разделен на главы (…‫ )ﺑﺎب ﺑﯿﺎن‬с изложением отдельных тем (например, об омовении, о мисваке и проч). Очень ровный крупный насх говорит о том, что рукопись относится к XVXVI вв. 2 По копиям нам известен еще один писец хана – Халкаман. 357 К сожалению, на данном этапе изучения истории формирования музейной коллекции невозможно проследить источник поступления указанной книги в музейное собрание. Известно, что значительная часть старинных книг изначально хранилась в библиотеки Бахчисарайского дворца-музея, затем была переведена в архив, а в 2000-е годы в фонды музея. Книга, внутри которой обнаружен исследуемый документ, в 2019 г. была отреставрирована сотрудниками отдела художественной реставрации Бахчисарайского музея-заповедника. На отчетном заседании реставрационного совета музея-заповедника было отмечено, что по итогам проведенных работ оригинальную обложку в виду её ветхости заменили на новую. В ходе замены старинной картонной обложки, внутри неё обнаружили несколько вклеенных листов бумаги. Специалисты расслоили склеенные между собой листы, в результате чего выявили, по меньшей мере, восемь фрагментов с рукописными текстами арабской графикой. Среди них текст - опись махра (неотчуждаемой части имущества женщины, оговариваемой при вступлении в брак) общей стоимостью 28 300 [курушей], принадлежащей некой Халиме - разведенной жене покойного Хусейна. Эта опись включает в себя черный сундук, большую и малую чаши ‫ ;ﭼﻤﭽﺎق‬какой-то «пыточный» замок (? - ‫)اﺳﻜﻨﺠﮫ ﻗﻠﯿﺪ‬, печатное покрывало или накидка ( ‫ﺑﺒﺼﻤﮫ‬ ‫)ﯾﻮرﻏﺎن‬, 2 кыйе меди и др. Опись заверена оттиском восьмиугольной печати с рифмованной легендой в две строки ( ‫ ﻣﺼﻄﻔﻰ‬... ‫ ﻗﻞ ﺷﯿﻔﺎء‬...) и датой 1188 г.х. (1774–75). Дата на печати дает нам terminus post quem для переплета книги: иными словами, реставрация этого переплета не могла быть сделана ранее этого года. Скорее же всего, сама реставрация произошла уже после присоединения Крыма к Российской империи, когда была утрачена правовая сила ханских имущественных документов и они превратились в ненужную бумагу, вполне пригодную для починки переплета. На одном из выявленных документов внимание привлекает квадратный оранжевый оттиск ханской квадратной печати с куфическим шрифтом, характерной для золотоордынских и ранних крымских ярлыков. Размеры сохранившейся части документа соответствовали размерам обложки книги, в которой он был обнаружен – 16 х 21,5 см. Документ имеет следы четырёх сгибов и незначительные утраты биологического характера. До нас дошла примерно одна четвертая часть первоначальной площади листа (левая нижняя часть). Ни имя ходатая, ни имя писца, ни дата выдачи ярлыка не сохранились. Однако даже по сохранившемуся фрагменту можно сделать вывод, что это суюргальный ярлык, выданный Сахиб-Гиреем на землю, границы которой описываются в первой сохранившейся строке. Именно в эпоху Сахиб-Гирея оформляется, по словам М.А.Усманова, новая разновидность суюргальных ярлыков, в которых диспозиция не содержит оборотов-распоряжений с указанием налогов и повинностей. В этих ярлыках после т.н. публичного объявления, следующего за развернутым адресатом, 358 указывается границы земли, которая закрепляется за держателем ярлыка, далее сообщается о цене, которую заплатил жалуемый «за печать» при получении акта (Усманов 1979: 245). Публикуемый текст в сохранившемся своем объеме в наибольшей степени близок ярлыку Сахиб-Гирея от 21 Раби II 957 / 10 мая 1550 г., также выданному в Алма-Сарае некоему Кызыл-Курту, сыну какого-то ширина БашКуртуга на землю по реке Кара-Су (Усманов 1979: 41–42). Этот документ, как мы уже упомянули, в подлиннике хранится в ИВР РАН в Санкт-Петербурге. Мы можем заметить, что плата «за печать» вместо подведения коня в двух документах одинакова и составляет 15 000 акче. По мнению М.А.Усманова, эта плата, существовавшая и раньше, была узаконена в крымской канцелярии именно Сахиб-Гиреем (Усманов 1979: 245). Текст ярлыка ...‫ ﻛﻮن ﺑﺎﺗﺸﻰ‬....‫ﻛﻮن طﻮﺷﻰ ﺳﻜﺰ‬... ..‫ ﺳﺎﻏﻰ اﯾﭽﻮن آط ﯾﺮﺳﯿﺰ اون ﺑﺶ ﻣﯿﻨﻚ ﯾﺮﻟﯿﻎ اﯾﭽﻮن ا‬... ... ‫ﻟﺪي اﯾﺮﺳﺎ ﻣﻨﻮم داﺧﻰ ﺳﯿﻮرﻏﺎل ﻋﻨﺎﯾﺘﻢ ﺑﻮﻟﻮب ﻗﻮﻟﻮﻧﮫ‬... ... ‫ﺑﺮدم و ﺑﯿﻮردﻣﻜﻰ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺣﺎﻛﻢ اﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺑﻮﻟﻐﺎن اوﻟﻮغ ﻛﭽﯿﻚ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧﻠﺮدﯾﻦ‬... … ‫… ﻛﻤﺮﺳﮫ ﻣﺂﻧﻊ ﺑﻮﻟﻮب ﻛﻮج وﺑﺎﺳﻨﺞ ﻗﻠﻮب ﺑﻮﻧﺠﻮغ‬ ‫ﻻرزﻧﮭﺎردﯾﻮ ﻗﻮﻟﻮﻧﮫ ﻣﻠﻚ ﻧﺎﻣﮫ ﯾﺮﻟﯿﻎ ﺑﺮﻟﺪى‬ Перевод 1. с востока – …, с запада Секиз - .. 2. …[за что упомянутый] дал за ярлык вместо коня пятнадцать тысяч … 3…я также, соизволив, суюргальное мое пожалование дал в его руки… 4. …. Кто бы то ни был из правящих старших и младших султанов… 5. …пусть не чинят препятствие и насилие, вред и [притеснение]... 6. Так говоря, ему в руки дан, этот ярлык-мюльк-наме.. Вертикальная надпись ‫ﺑﻤﻘﺎم آﻟﻤﺎ ﺳﺮاى‬ Перевод: «В месте Алма-Сарай». 359 360 361 Текст печати: Оттиск печати сохранился не полностью, но читаемая часть позволяет сделать вывод, что печать тождественна оттискам квадратной тамги Сахиб-Гирея, которую мы знаем по другим его крымским ярлыкам (Усманов 1979: 149, табл. XI-з), и которая содержит такой текст: «Во имя Аллаха милостивого милосердного. Нет божества, кроме Бога, а Мухаммад его пророк. Султан величайший Сахиб-Гирай-хан сын МенглиГирай-хана сына Хаджи-Гирай-хана». К величайшему сожалению, границы земельного владения в ярлыке, читаются чрезвычайно неуверенно. Совершенно очевидно, что в названиях двух мест с востока и запада от жалуемой земли (или колодца) имеется общая концовка - ‫ﺷﯿﺎن‬. Возможно, что в первом случае это нечто вроде ‫ دﻛﻮزﺗﻮ ﺷﯿﺎن‬, или даже ‫ ;… وﻛﻮزﺗﻮ ﺷﯿﺎن‬во втором - ‫ﺳﻜﺰﺑﺎطﺒﺎى ﺷﯿﺎن‬. Впрочем, даже наличие числительных не дает нам пока ключа к разгадке расположения этих мест в Крыму. Особого внимания заслуживает указание на место выдачи ярлыка. По подсчетам М.А.Усманова, Альма-Сарай как место выдачи крымских ярлыков второй половины XVI в. упоминается 10 раз (Усманов 1979: 266). Действительно, Сахиб часто бывал там. Согласно «Истории хана СахибГирея», у хана было 5 дворцов: «в это время у него было 36 тысяч овец, более 10 тысяч лошадей, 5-6 тысяч черного скота, 3 тысячи слуг, в 5-ти местах у него были дворцы, подобные райским жилищам (‫)ﺑﺶ ﯾﺮده ﺟﻨّﺖ ﻣﺜﺎل ﺳﺮاى‬. Со времен Чингиз-хана никто еще из ханов не имел таких богатств и имущества» («История Сахиб-Гирея»: 188; Tarih-i Sahib 1973: 138).3 В 1620-х годах монах доминиканского ордена Жан де Люк повторял данные о количестве дворцов хана: «У хана пять дворцов, у султана – два…» (Описание 1879: 483). Дворцы в Улаклы (совр. Глубокий Яр в Бахчисарайском районе) и на Альме были, видимо, наиболее любимы ханом. Так, Реммал-ходжа пишет: «а хан проводил время в еде и питье, охоте и веселии то в Бахчисарае, то в Улаклы-сарае, то в Эльма-сарае» (Tarih-i Sahib 1973: 45). Обычно хан проводил там по несколько дней, не только предаваясь веселью, но, и решаю государственные дела (в частности утверждая ярлыки-пожалования). По словам Жюльена Бордье, посетившего Крым в 1607 г., дворец Альма находился в 5-6 милях от Бахчисарая (Бордье 2020). Необходимо отметить, что выявленный фрагмент ярлыка – единственный оригинальный образец делопроизводства эпохи Крымского ханства, сохранившийся в собрании Бахчисарайского музея-заповедника. Известно, что в довоенной коллекции музея имелись десятки оригинальных документов. Все они погибли 27 октября 1941 г. во время бомбардировки нацистской авиацией Керчи, куда их эвакуировали. В наши дни часть этого комплекса ханских 3 В издании этой фразы нет. 362 ярлыков доступна лишь в виде изображений на стеклянных негативах, находящихся в фондах музея-заповедника. В списке утраченных книг и рукописей Бахчисарайского музея за 1946 г. значатся «книги, в которых переплетены ярлыки крымских ханов и другие рукописные уникальные документы времен ханов, касающиеся культуры, быта и имущественных взаимоотношений населения» (Зайцев, Эминов 2015: 152). Авторы надеются на обнаружение новых ярлыков и документов эпохи Крымского ханства, истории которого так много сил отдает Мария Иванич. Этому выдающемуся венгерскому тюркологу и замечательному человеку мы и посвящаем эту скромную статью. Библиография Бордье Жюльен, Путешествие в Крым в 1607 г. Перевод с французского М. С. Мейера. Мосκва: Квадрига, 2020 (в печати) Зайцев И.В., Эминов Р.Р. 2015. Культурные ценности из собрания Бахчисарайского историко-культурного и археологического музея-заповедника, утраченные или перемещенные в результате Великой Отечественной войны: сб. документов и материалов. Мосκва: Бахчисарай: Кучково поле. «История Сахиб-Гирея» – Рукопись Отдела рукописей Восточного факультета Санκт-Петербург (MS. 0 488) Лашков Ф.Ф. 1897. Исторический очерк крымско-татарского землевладения: Сборник документов по истории крымско-татарского землевладения. Симферополь: Таврич. губ. тип. Описание 1879. – Описание перекопских и ногайских татар, черкесов, мингрелов и грузин Жана де-Люка, монаха Доминиканского ордена (1625 г.) // ЗООИД. Т.11. Одесса, 1879. Усманов М.А. 1979. Жалованные акты Джучиева Улуса XIV–XVI вв. Казань: Изд-во Казанского университета. Tārih̠ -i Sāh̠ ib Giray H̠ ān (Histoire de Sahib Giray, Khan de Crimée de 1532 à 1551). Edition Critique, Traduction, Notes et Glossaire. Ö.Gökbilgin. Ankara: Baylan Matbaası, 1973 (Atatürk Üniversitesi Yayınları 212). Etil in the Däftär-i Čingiz-nāmä István Zimonyi MTA-ELTE-SZTE Silk Road Research Group The edition and translation of the famous Däftär-i Čingiz-nāmä with a detailed historical commentary and study of the nomadic power system are an integral part of the scientific activity of Professor Mária Ivanics. The study of the river name Etil in this Tatar source is a fitting topic for a tribute to her. One of the historical narrative sources of the Volga region, the Däftär-i Čingiznāmä was compiled in the 1680s in the Khanate of Kasimov, a puppet state of Moscow. It is divided into six chapters: the first is the tale (dastān) of Chingis Khan, the second is that of Timur and his campaigns against among others Bulghār, the third is the story of Isaoghlï Amet, fourth is the tale of Edige-bey, fifth is the list of rulers and their habitats (yurt) and finally the historical events (taʾrīkh).1 The hydronym Etil is written in the forms: ʾ.dīl ‫ ادﯾﻞ‬Īd.l ‫ اﯾﺪل‬and Īdīl ‫ اﯾﺪﯾﻞ‬in the text: Insān Beg aydï ay anam män uluġ Īdīl-ning ‫ اوﻟﻮغ اﯾﺪﯾﻞ‬ič [yönigä] (15) ṭaw yerigä barurmän anda mäqām yurt tutarmän (Ivanics, Usmanov 2002: 77, 243, 39r 15) Insan Beg said: O my mother! I go to the inner side of the Great Īdīl, to the mountain and I settle there (Ivanics 2017: 246). Insan Beg is one of the two sons of a wise woman living in Bular. After the siege of Bulghar (modern Bolgary) Timur went against Bular (modern Bilyarsk) and its ruler surrendered. Timur visited the town in disguise and he heard the wise widow of Jadash Beg saying that the surrender is the order of God due to their sins. Next day Timur ordered that the clan of this woman may settle wherever they wish. The elder son Insan Beg with her mother and relatives crossed the Etil, and, after reaching the mountainous bank, they settled along the river Kubnya, the left tributary of the river Sviyaga which is now in the territory of Chuvashia. The younger brother went toward the east to their ancient habitat on the bank of the Zay, the left tributary of the river Belaya. As for the western migration of the clan, there is an interesting reference to one episode in the ethnogenesis of the Chuvash. 1 New critical edition: Ivanics, Usmanov 2002; A detailed description of the author and the work cf. Usmanov1972, 97–133; Frank 1998, 14–17. 364 ḥān awġa čïqġanda qïznï alïb qačdï (15) Züyä taġïnda barïb ‘.dīl ‫ادﯾﻞ‬ yaqasïnda turdï (Ivanics, Usmanov 2002: 85, 248, 43vl5) When the Khan (Janibeg r. 1342–1357) went out to hunt, he (Isaoghlī Amet) kidnapped the girl, went to the Züyä mountain and settled down on the bank of the ‘.dīl. (Ivanics 2017: 254). < Īd.l ‫( اﯾﺪل‬12) bašïna čïqdï Īd.l ‫ اﯾﺪل‬bašïnda> mäqām yurt tutdïlar (Ivanics, Usmanov 2002: 86, 248, 44r 11–12) (Amet) went out to the source of the Īd.l and he settled down at the head of the river Īd.l (Ivanics 2017: 255). Aq Īd.ldä ‫ اﯾﺪل‬salčï-män (Ivanics, Usmanov 2002: 87, 249, 44v3) I am a raftman on the White Īd.l (Ivanics 2017: 256). These parts are from the story of Isaoghlī Amet, who was the son of Isa-beg, the son-in-law of Özbeg, and his ulus emir (1335–1347). He kidnapped the daughter of Janibeg and married her. Their son was Salčī. Earlier, Janibeg had promised his daughter’s hand to Amet, but finally he gave her to someone else to marry. Amet was indignant at this and when the khan Janibeg went out to hunt, he kidnapped the girl and escaped to Züya-mountain (Züya = river Sviyaga) near the river Etil. The Khan sent against him an army. At that time, their son was born, but they could not take him with them so they put him in a golden cradle and hid the child among the branches of a tree. After a successful escape Amet settled down near the spring of the Etil. The boy was found by raftsmen from Astrakhan and they gave him to the queen of Astrakhan. When he grew up he wrote a poem mentioning his orphanhood and his different jobs as, among others, raftsman on the Volga referring to the etymology of his personal name (salǰï ~ salčï ‘raftman’) (Ivanics 2017: 68–69, 126– 127). Baba Tükläs-ning oġlï Termä atlïġ (21) erdi bu Termä Īdīl ‫ اﯾﺪﯾﻞ‬Jayïqda ḥāṣïl boldï anïng oġlï Qazïcï (22) atlïg erdi ol häm Īd.l ‫ اﯾﺪل‬Jayïqda ḥāṣïl boldï anïng oġlï Islām Qïya ol [f.45v] (1) häm Īdīl ‫ اﯾﺪﯾﻞ‬Ĵayïqda ḥāṣïl boldï anïng oġlï Qadir Qïya ol häm Īdīl ‫ اﯾﺪﯾﻞ‬Ĵayïqda (2) ḥāṣïl boldï (Ivanics, Usmanov 2002: 88, 249–250, 45r 20–21, 45v 1–2) The son of Baba Tükläs was called Termä. This Termä settled on the Īdīl and the Jayïq, his son Qazïcï settled on the Īd.l and the Jayïq, too, his son Islām Qïya settled on the Īdīl and the Jayïq, too, his son Qadir Qïya settled on the Īdīl and the Jayïq, too (Ivanics 2017: 257). wá} biri-ning atï Termä turar ol häm" Īdīl ‫ اﯾﺪﯾﻞ‬Jayïqda (10) ḥāṣïl boldï (Ivanics, Usmanov 2002: 89, 250, 45v1–2) (The three sons of Baba Tükläs) one of them was called Termä, he settled on the Īdīl and the Jayïq, too (Ivanics 2017: 257). 365 These data are from the tale of Edige-bey. His genealogy is not connected to Chingis Khan, but it reflects an Islamic legitimization coming from Abū Bakr, the first Caliph through his fictive descendent Baba Tükläs who played significant role in the Islamization of the Golden Horde (Ivanics 2017: 65–67). (5) Aq Īdīl ‫ اﯾﺪﯾﻞ‬ṭamaġï Qara Ḫān birlä Boġra Ḫān-nïng yurtï-dur (Ivanics, Usmanov 2002: 90, 250, 46r5) The abode of Qara Ḫān and Boghra Ḫān was at the mouth of the White Īdīl (Ivanics 2017: 259). The final datum is from the list of rulers and their habitats. The names of the rulers refer to the tradition of the Oghuz-name and they seemed to be legendary figures. The name Etil appeared first as a river name and later as the name of the Khazar capital at the mouth of the river Volga. The earlier data from the Greek sources were collected by Moravcsik: τίλ Theophylactus Simocatta; ἄταλ Theophanes; ἁτηλ Constantinus Porphyrogenitus (Moravcsik 1983 II: 78–79). Golden added the forms from Arabo-Persian (ʾ.t.l; Āt.l Iṣṭakhrī, Ibn Ḥawqal, Muqaddasī, Ibn Rusta, Masʿūdī, Ibn Faḍlān, Yāqūt, Ḥudūd al-ʿĀlam) Hebrew ( ̓.ṭ .l; Āṭīl Letter of Qaghan Joseph, The Cambridge Document) and Armenian (At’l Armenian Geography) sources (Golden 1980, I: 224–229). The first component of the Hungarian compound Άτελκούζου and Έτέλκαι κουζού Etel is an Old Turkic loanword in Hungarian mentioned as the habitat of the Hungarians before the conquest of the Carpathian Basin in the work of Constantinus Porphyrogenitus (Róna-Tas, Berta 2011: 345– 347). The oldest form can be reconstructed as Ätil in the West Old Turkic between 7th and 10th centuries. The Hungarian Etel is from this West Old Turkic form. The Volga Bulghar form of this name is reflected in the following sources: Arabic: ʾ.t.l Maḥmūd al-Kāšgharī (1074); Abū Ḥāmid al-Gharnaṭī (c. 1150): (Kaplony 2008: 210; Ferrand 1925: 115); ʾ.t.l Idrīsī (Konovalova 2006: 77, 78, 79, 95, 100, 107); Latin in the Hungarian Kingdom: Anonymus (c. 1200) Etyl (SRH I: 41); Riccardus (1235) Ethyl (SRH II: 539), Iulianus (1237) Ethil (SRH II: 718). The Secret History of the Mongols contains three variants: Idil, Adil, Eǰil (Rachewiltz 2006: 960–961) which is explained by Ligeti from Edil or Etil (Ligeti 1986: 479). Similarly, the early Latin travelers to the Mongol Empire have also Etil: Benedictus Polonus Ethil = Volga (Sin. Fr. I: 136); Rubruq Etil (Sin Fr. I: 195, 210, 223, 315; Ethil 205, 212, 216, 313). It was copied by Hungarian which became Etül in Hungarian as reflected in the chronicles (Simon de Keza Etul = Don SRH I: 145, 146). I quote the Muslim sources from the Mongol period, compiled by Konovalova and Tiesenhausen. 366 Reference Konovalova 2009: 20, 21, ~ al-kabīr ‘Great Etil’ = Volga and ~ al-ṣaġīr ‘Small Etil’ = Lower Don 23, 24; ʾ.t.l 19; Russian translation: 26, 28, 29, 32, 33 Konovalova 2009: 96, 98, 105 Russian transl: 113, 117, 126) ʾ.t.l (95, 98, 104; Russian transl: 112, 117, 124, 125 Tizengauzen 2005: 4829, Russian transl. 75 Arabic Ibn Saʿīd (second half 13th c.) Name ʾ.t.l Abū-l-Fidāʾ (1329) ʾ.t.l Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir (d.1239) Rukn al-Dīn Baybars (d. 1325) al-Nuwayrī (d. 1333) al-Mufaḍḍal (1358) al-ʿUmarī (d. 1349) Ibn Baṭṭūṭa (d. 1377) Ibn Khaldūn (d. 1406) Persian Juwaynī (1260) Rašīd al-Dīn (1311) ʾ.t.l Wassāf (1328) Niẓām al-Dīn Šāmī (1404) Anonym Iskandar (1415) Dhayl Jāmiʿ alTawārīkh Šaraf al-Dīn Yazdī (1425) Šajarat al-Atrāk (1457) Ġaffarī (1565) Итил Идил Tizengauzen 2006: Russian transl. 56. 60 Ali-Zade 1980: 130, 131; Tizengauzen 2006: Russian transl. 84, 85, 119, 123, 124 Tizengauzen 2006: Russian transl. 169 Tizengauzen 2006: Russian transl. 236 Īt.l Tizengauzen 2006: 5787 Russian transl. 262 ʾ.t.l Tizengauzen 2006: 58421 Russian transl. 277 Итил Tizengauzen 2006: Russian transl. 324–326, 335, 343–344 Tizengauzen 2006: 6054 Russian transl. 392 ʾ.tīl, ʾ.t.l ʾ.t.l Īt.l Īt.l ʾ.t.l ʾ.t.l ʾ.t.l ʾ.tīl ʿīd.l ʾ.t.l Tizengauzen 2005: 4896, 5058, Russian transl. 89, 107 Tizengauzen 2005: 5224, Russian transl. 131 Tizengauzen 2005: 5385, Russian transl. 150 Tizengauzen 2005: 55412,15, Russian transl. 176 Tizengauzen 2005: 59210, 59416, 5953 Russian transl. 227, 231, 234 Tizengauzen 2005: 6252, Russian transl. 272 Tizengauzen 2006: 60911, 6113 Russian transl. 402, 404 367 The Venetian Iosaphath Barbaro (1436–1452) mentioned it as Ledil, which can be reconstructed as Edil (Skržinskaja 1971: 114; Russian translation 137, comments note 16, 163–164). The basic form can be reconstructed as Etil in the 13th–15th centuries, but there are some data referring to the voicing of the t in the middle of the 15th century. The hydronym in European maps in 15th–17th centuries published by János Tardy shows all forms with -d-: Edil - Frau Mauro map 1459 (Tardy 1982: 190), Battista Agnese 1525 (Tardy 1982: 197), Anthony Jenkinson 1554–1572 (Tardy 1982: 205), Gerard Mercator 1538, 1587, Rumold Mercator 1595 (Tardy 1982: 210–211), Willem Janszoon 1630 (Tardy 1982: 213); Edel, Baron Sigismund Herberstein 1546 (Tardy 1982: 200), Anthony Jenkinson 1554–1572 (Tardy 1982: 205), Abraham Ortelius 1570 (Tardy 1982: 206), Gerard de Jode 1578 (Tardy 1982: 207), Plantius Petrus 1592 (Tardy 1982: 208), Matthias Quad 1600 (Tardy 1982: 212). The forms in the maps reflect the voicing of the t in the 16th century in Volga Kipchak dialects and the variant Edel shows the process of reduction (or laxing) of the vowel i in the second syllable. Figure 1 Fragment of the Mercator map 1630 http://tat-map.ru/do1800/_1630.jpg (downloaded 25.05.2020) 368 I collected some data from the historical works and travelers fixed in the 17th– 18th centuries. The Pagan Oghuz-name was written in Uyghur script in the 15th–16th centuries somewhere in Eastern European steppe. It contains the forms ʾydʾl and once ʾʾdʾl, which Danka reads as Etil (Danka 2019: 86–89, 96–97, 314), but other reconstructions are possible: Edil, Idel. The Muslim contemporaries of the Däftär-i Čingiz-nāmä are selected to present the variants of the hydronym. The Khanate of Kasimov was the home of Kadir Ali Bey (1602): ʾ.t.l (Alimov 2015: 275, 82, 68). In the middle of the 16th century Ötemish Hajji wrote his Qara tawārīkh in the Khanate of Khiva. He mentioned the river as ʿĪdīl (Utemiš-hadži 2017: 18b1,5, 23b12, 27a3, 10, 17 , 44a11, 47a14, 47b3 (ʿAydīl), 53a11, 53b8, 55a14, 61a2, 4, 5, 67b6, 7, 71b2,3, 13); ʿ.dīl, Āq Īd.l (Utemiš-hadži 2017: 16a12, 76a14). The Khan of Khiva, Abū-l-Ghāzī (1660) mentioned Āt.l, ʿ.d.l, ʾ.dīl (Kononov 1958: 127); ʾ.t.l (Kononov 1958: 294, 297, 1215); Āt.l (Kononov 1958: 317, 1317, 1395). I quote the data from the author of the Khanate of Crimea: ʿAbdu-l-Ghaffar Qirimī (1748): ʾAdīl (Abdulgaffar Kyrymi 2014: 258a1, 258b2) ʾAdīl without kesra under the d (Abdulgaffar Kyrymi 2014: 258b7, 22, 25910, 16, 261a14, 263a2, 267b14, 268a22, 268b6,15, 270b2, 15, 271b1, 276a14, 279b2) ʾ.dīl without kesra under the d (Abdulgaffar Kyrymi 2014: 258b18, 266a8, 273b4, 7, 8, 11, 277b22, 278a2, 278b10, 282b17, 284a20). In 1733/4 under the leadership of Gerhard Friedrich Müller an Academic research group visited the Volga region travelling to Siberia. Müller wrote about the peoples of the Volga region. He noted that the river Vyatka is called Naukrat Idel by the Tatars and the meaning of Idel is ‘river’. Another example is the Kama which is named as Čolman Idel. The Tatars called the Volga Idel. There are Tatar dialectal forms: Atel and Etel and the Kalmyk variant is Ečil. The Chuvash Adal is the equivalent of the Tatar Idel and Atel whereas the Kama is called by them Šorog Adal i.e. ‘white river’ (Müller 1759: 337–338; Skvorcov 2001: 109–110, comments 139– 140). In modern Volga Turkic languages, the hydronym is well-known. Garipova wrote a monograph on the Tatar hydronyms. The Tatar Idel as an appellative means ‘great river’, the term Idel yort is used as designation of the Bulgar and Kipchak states on the river Idel. Ana Idel ‘Mother Idel’ Idel su ‘Idel water’ is well-known in Tatar folksongs and legends. As an appellative it is used with other names of the rivers: Čulman idele, Kama idele ‘Kama’, Vyatka idele, Nokrat idele ‘Vyatka’ Ak Idel ‘White River, Kama’. The name Idel is known as the name of villages and microtoponyms and personal names by itself or in compounds (Garipova 1991: 121– 122). The modern Tatar form can be reconstructed as the analogy of the following parallels: Volga Kipchak ešik > Tatar: išěk ‘door’; Volga Kipchak ǰeti > Tatar: ǰidě ‘7’; Volga Kipchak sekiz > Tatar: sigěz ‘8’; Volga Kipchak elli > Tatar: illě ‘50’ (Berta 1989: 61, 162, 207, 268). The Middle Kipchak form in the Volga region was Etil in the 13th–15th centuries, the voicing of the t started in the 15th century it followed by the reduction of the i in the second syllable, finally the initial e changed to i: etil ˃ MKipchak etil ˃ edil ˃ edĭl ˃ Tatar: iděl. The Bashkir iδel is the result of the same process. 369 There are widely used forms in historical and even linguistic works: Idil and Itil. Togan and following him Ligeti called the attention to the fact that these forms were used by the Kazan Orientalists, especially Fraehn (Ligeti 1986: 479). The Idil reflects the transliteration of the form with Arabic script: Īd.l ‫ اﯾﺪل‬or Īdīl ‫ اﯾﺪﯾﻞ‬, which is almost identical with the modern Tatar pronunciation Iděl. Following this tradition, the form of ʾ.t.l in the Muslim sources of the 9th–15th centuries was transcribed as Itil. These variants are ghost-words, and it is better the use the term Etil or the modern Tatar form Idel. The Chagatay Turkic texts (e.g. Abū-l-Ghāzī) reflect the original Middle Turkic vowels and the voicing of the consonant t. The Chuvash Atăl [Adăl] can be reconstructed on the analogy of the West Old Turkic world älik ‘door’ cf. East Old Turkic and Middle Kipchak ešik. The Volga Bulgar dialect 3 had the form älik, which became älĭk in the first phase of Middle Chuvash, alĭk in the second period and finally alăk in modern Chuvash (Agyagási 2019: 236). The reconstruction of the Turkic forms: WOT *etil ~*ätil ˃ VB *ätil ˃ MChuvash1 *ätĭl ˃ MChuvash2 *atĭl ˃ Chuvash atăl → H *etil ˃ etel EOT *etil ˃ MKipchak *etil ˃ edil ˃ edĭl ˃ Tatar: iděl, Bashkir iδel ˃ Chagatay edil → Kalmyk idžȴ → H etül In the text of the Däftär-i Čingiz-nāmä the hydronym Etil has two attributives: Ulu Idel and Aq Idel. Mária Ivanics noted that the Aq Idel is the Belaya, whereas the Idel may refer to the Volga or the Belaya (Ivanics 2017, 246, note 586; 255, note 627). Schramm reconstructed a system in which the Qara or Ulu Idel was identical with the Volga, whereas Ak or Small Idel was a term for the Belaya and lower Kama (Schramm 1973, 121; Podosinov 1999:46, Göckenjan 2003–2004: 165). According to Garipova the peoples of the Middle Volga region called the main river as Aq Idel, Nokrat Idel (Vyatka), Kük Idel (Upper Volga), Kara Idel (Ufa), Čulman (Kama) were tributaries of the Aq Idel (Garipova 1991:122). N. I. Egorov wrote comments regarding Müller’s description and he noted that the Chuvash and their predecessors used Aslă Atăl ‘Great Volga’ for the water system including the Belaya-Lower Kama – Lower Volga. Its upper part was called Šură Atăl ‘Belaya – Lower Kama’, and the Lower Volga was called the Kăvak Atăl. Its tributary was the Xura Atăl ‘Upper Volga’ (Skvorcov 2001: 140, notes 92, 93). Semenova wrote a dissertation on Chuvash hydronyms. She has the following data: Vilĕ Atăl ‘the old riverbed of the Volga’; Kăvak Atăl ‘Blue Volga’ (used only in 370 folksongs); Kĕśĕn Atăl ‘Small Volga’; Măn Atăl ‘Great Volga’; Šură Atăl ‘BelayaLower Kama (Semenova 2005). According to Ligeti Atăl means Volga in Chuvash, Xura Atăl ‘Black Etil’ appeared only in folksongs and Šură Atăl is ‘Belaya-Lower Kama’ (Ligeti 1986: 479). The Bashkir toponymic dictionary contains the following data: Agiδel ‘White Etil’ is the official Russian Belaya, the greatest river of Bashkiria. In Bashkir folklore, literature and everyday usage it is called Iδel. In the 16th–17th centuries Russian literature the river is called Belaya Voložka. There are two other compounds with colours: Kariδel (Kara+iδel) ‘Black Etil’ is the river Ufa, the right tributary of the Belaya, but it is used as the name of Kama, too. Kügiδel ‘Blue Etil’ is the river Demy, the right tributary of the Belaya. The Kama is called as Sulman Iδel, Iδel and Kariδel (STB 18–19, 70, 79, 90). There are two possibilities to reconstruct the river system on the basis of the analogies. The river Irtysh is divided into an Upper section called White Irtysh which flows into the Lake Zaysan and Lower part called Black Irtysh from Zaysan to the estuary. The other possibility can be the example of the Hungarian river Körös. The rivers Black Körös and White Körös originated in Transylvania, their confluence is near the town Gyula and from it to the estuary it is called Körös. In the first case the White Etil is the Belaya – Lower Kama – Lower Volga until the estuaries of the Ufa (Bashkir: Kariδel) or Kama (up to the confluence with Belaya) or the upper Volga (from the confluence with the Kama). As for the second analogy the White Etil is the Belaya – Lower Kama, the Black Etil is the Upper Volga and Etil is from the confluence of the Volga and the Kama to the Caspian Sea. The central territory of the Volga Bulgar state in the 10th–13th centuries was south and southwest of the Volga–Kama estuary, whereas the capital of the Khanate of Kazan was transferred to the north of the Kama. The modern state of Tatarstan inherited the territory of the Khanate of Kazan, the Bashkirs lived east of them, and the Chuvash west of them. The original concept used by the Volga Bulgars may have been altered through the adoption of new habitats by the Tatars, Bashkirs and Chuvash. Trepavlov noted that the Etil occurs in pairs with river Yayïq (Ural) in historical and folklore texts. Constantine Porphyrogenitus mentioned that the Pechenegs lived on the Etil and Jayïq. Abū-l-Ghāzī (1660) recorded that Yaphet settled on the river Etil with Yayïq in his Oghuz name (Kononov 1958: 127). In the Tatar historical tradition, i.e. Kunak babay žyrdy and Idegey the two rivers appeared in pairs. The Etil and Yayïq are brother and sister in the Bashkir legends (Trepavlov 2002: 143– 144). In addition, in the Secret History of the Mongols the river Etil was also mentioned together with the Jayïq. In a recent article I studied the river Etil in the Muslim maps of Ibn Ḥawqal, Maḥmūd al-Kāšgharī and al-Idrīsī. The maps and descriptions reflect a waterway commercial network called Etil originating from Central Asia via Siberia to the Volga–Kama region, a northern way on the Kama and perhaps the Vyatka, and a northeastern network including the Oka, Unzha and upper Volga. From its central region including the territory of Volga Bulgaria, the lower Volga reached the 371 Caspian Sea where via the Volga–Don portage it followed the lower Don until its estuary flowing into the Sea of Azov (Zimonyi 2020: 135–155). In conclusion, the Etil in the Däftär-i Čingiz-nāmä can be reconstructed as Edĭl or Iděl. The Uluġ Edĭl in the first paragraph can be identified as the Volga north of the Kama estuary reflected in the Tatar tradition and the context refers to the territory where the Chuvash live. The Aq Edĭl is the Belaya-Lower Kama in paragraphs 4 and 7. The Etil and Yayik together in paragraphs 5 and 6 refer to the steppe between the Lower Volga and the river Ural. The Edĭl meant Volga south of the Samara knee in these cases. In paragraph 2, the first element of the Züyä mountain can be identified with the Sviyaga, the right tributary of the Volga and the Edĭl must have been the Volga north of the Kama confluence. Mária Ivanics noted that the river Edĭl in paragraph 3 can be identified with the Belaya (Ivanics 2017: 255, note 627). So, the hydronym Edĭl may have been used for the whole riversystem. Refereneces Abdulgaffar Kyrymi 2014. Umdet al-ahbar. Kniga 1: Transkripcija, faksimile. Kazan’. Agyagási, K. 2019. Chuvash Historical Phonetics. An areal linguistic study with an Appendix on the Role of Proto-Mari in the History of Chuvash Vocalism. Turcologica 117. Wiesbaden. Ali-zade, A. A. 1980. Rašid ad-Din: Džami’ at-tavarih. Tekst sostavlen po semi rukopisjami i odnomu izdaniju. Т. II/1.Moskva. Alimov, Rysbek 2015. Kadir Ali Bek ve Eserinin Yeni (Londra I) Nüshası Üzerine, In:. Festschift in honor of R. Dankoff. Journal of Turkish Studies 44: 61–83. Berta, Á. 1989. Lautgeschichte der tatarischen Dialekte. Studia Uralo-Altaica 31. Szeged. DAI Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio. Greek text edited by Gy. Moravcsik, English translation by R. J. H. Jenkins. Dumbarton Oaks 1967. Džakson T. N. Kalinina T. M. Konovalova I. G. Podosinov I. G. 2007. Russkaja reka. Rečnye puti Vostočnoj Evropy v antičnoj i srednevekovoj geografii. Moskva: 86–91, 135–158, 181–196. Ferrand G. 1925. Le Tuḥfat al-Albāb de Abū Ḥāmid al-Andalusi al-Ġarnāṭī. Journal Asiatique CCVII, 1–148: 193–304. Frank, Allen J. 1998. Islamic historiography and "Bulghar" identity among the Tatars and Bashkirs of Russia. Leiden, Boston. Garipova F. G. 1991. Issledovanija po gidronimii Tataristana. Moskva. 372 Göckenjan, H. 2003–2004. Frühe Nachrichten über die Wolga und ihrer Anwohner. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 18: 161–178. Golden, P. B. 1980. Khazar Studies. An Historico-Philological Inquiry into the Origins of the Khazars (Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica, XXV), 1–2, Budapest. Ivanics M. 2017. Hatalomgyakorlás a steppén. A Dzsingisz-Náme nomád világa [Authority in the steppe. The nomadic world of the Chingis-Nāmä]. Budapest. Ivanics, M. – Usmanov, M. A. 2002. Das Buch der Dschingis-Legende (Däftär-i Čingiz-nāmä) I . (Vorwort, Einführung, Transkription, Wörterbuch, Faksimiles) (Studia Uralo-Altaica 44) Szeged. Kaplony, A. 2008, List of Geographical Nomenclature in al-Kāshgharī’s Text and Map. In: The Journey of Maps and Images on the Silk Road. Eds. Philippe Forêt, Andreas Kaplony. Leiden – Boston: 209–225. Kononov, A. V. 1958. Rodoslovnaja Turkmen. Sočinenie Abu-l-Gazi hana hivinskogo. Moskva-Leningrad. Konovalova I. G. 2006 Al-Idrisi o stranah i narodah Vostočnoj Evropy. Tekst, perevod, kommentarij. Moskva. Konovalova I. G. 2009. Vostočnaj Evropa v sočinenijah arabskih geografov XIII– XIV vv.: Tekst, perevod, kommentarij. Moskva. Ligeti L. 1986. A magyar nyelv török kapcsolatai a honfoglalás előtt és az Árpádkorban. Budapest. Moravcsik, Gy. 19833. Byzantinoturcica, I–II. Berlin. Müller, Gerhard Friedrich 1759. Nachricht von dreyen im Gebiete der Stadt Casan wohnhaften heidnischen Voelkern, den Tscheremissen, Tschuwaschen und Wotiaken. In: Sammlung Russischer Geschichte Band 3. 4. Stück. St. Petersburg: 305–412. Podosinov, A. (1999) O nazvanii Volgi v drevnosti i rannem srednevekov’e. In: Meždunarodnye svjazi torgovye puti i goroda srednego povolž’ja IX–XII vekov, Kazan’, 36–52. Rachewiltz Igor De 2006. The Secret History of the Mongols. A Mongolian Epic Chronicle of the Thirteenth Century. Translated with historical and philological commentary by ~. Vol. I–II. Leiden – Boston. Róna-Tas, A. Berta, Á. 2011. West Old Turkic. Turkic Loanwords in Hungarian. Turcologica 84. Wiesbaden. Schramm, G. 1973. Nordpontische Ströme. Namenphilologische Zugänge zur Frühzeit des europäischen Ostens. Göttingen. Semenova, I. A. 2005. Tipologija Čuvašskih gidronimov. Čeboksary http:// cheloveknauka.com/tipologiya-chuvashskih-gidronimov#ixzz6Myr6Lxfv Sin. Fr.= A. Wyngaert, Sinica Franciscana. Itinera et Relationes Fratrum Minorum saeculi XIII. et XIV. B. 1. Quaracchi–Firenze 1929. 373 Skržinskaja, E. Č. 1971. Barbaro i Kontarini o Rossii. K istorii italo-russkih svjazej XV v. Leningrad. Skvorcov M.I. (ed.) 2001. Hrestomatija po kul’ture Čuvašskogo kraja: dorevoljucionnyj period. Čeboksary. SRH Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum, I–II. Edendo operi praefuit E. Szentpétery. Budapestini 1937–/1938, 19992. STB = Slovar’ Toponimov Baškirskoj ASSR – Baškort ASSR-ynyn toponimder huzlege. Ufa 1980. Tardy, J., 1982. A Contribution to the Cartography of Central and Lower Volga Region. In: Chuvash Studies. Ed. A. Róna-Tas. Budapest: 179–236. Tizengauzen, V. G. 20053. Sbornik materialov otnosjaščisja k istorii Zolotoj Ordy. Izvlečenija iz arabskih sočinenij. In: Istorija Kazahstana v arabskih istočnikah. Tom I. Almaty. Tizengauzen, V. G. 20063. Sbornik materialov otnosjaščisja k istorii Zolotoj Ordy. Izvlečenija iz persidskih sočinenij. In: Istorija Kazahstana v persidskih istočnikah. Tom IV. Almaty. Trepavlov, V. 2002. Volga i sakral’noj topografija tjurok i slavjan. In: Velikij volžkij put’: istorija formirovanija i razvitija. Materialy Kruglogo stola „Velikij Volžskij put’ i Volžskaja Bulgarija“ i Meždunarodnoj naučno-praktičeskoj konferencii „Velikij Volžskij put’, Kazan’ – Astrahan’ – Kazan’ 6–16 avgusta 2001 g. Čast’ II. Kazan’: 137–150. Usmanov, M. A. 1972. Tatarskie istoričeskie istočniki XVII–XVIII vv. Kazan’. Utemiš-hadži, 2017. Kara tavarih. Transkripcija I. M. Mirgaleev, E. G. Sajfetdinova, Z. T. Hafizov; perevod na russkij jazyk I. M. Mirgaleev, E. G. Sajfetdinova. Kazan’. Zimonyi I., 2020. Az Etil folyó-rendszer és a kereskedelmi utak a középkori muszlim térképeken. In: „Tűzben tisztult az arany s ezüst” a XVII. Nemzetközi Vámbéry Konferencia előadásai. Dunaszerdahely: 135–155.

Log In

Ottomans - Crimea - Jochids : Studies in Honour of Mária Ivanics

Ottomans - Crimea - Jochids : Studies in Honour of Mária Ivanics

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS