An important component of Porte's diplomatic relations with foreign countries, including Russia, was the official Ottoman protocol. Although it is quite conservative and has an abundance of rites and ceremonies dating back to the Middle Ages, it can nevertheless serve as a mirror of the changes that took place in foreign policy and other areas of life of the Ottoman state and society in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

Despite the abundance of documentary and narrative materials, this important area of Ottoman political history has not been the subject of special research to date. This paper is devoted to the study of the specifics of the Ottoman protocol in the context of the development of diplomatic relations between the Porte and the Russian Empire from the signing of the Kuchuk-Kaynardzhi Peace Treaty (1774) and the beginning of the Nizam-i Jedid reforms1 (1789) to the proclamation of the Tan-Zimat reforms 2 (1839).

Keywords: Ottoman Empire, Ottoman state protocol, Ottoman-Russian relations, tanzimat, Nizam - i Jedid.

The corpus of Russian and foreign documentary materials of the period under study on this issue includes, first of all, Ottoman protocol registers, as well as dispatches, reports, notes, diaries and travel logs of Russian diplomats. The article is based on a large block of narrative and documentary materials stored in the Archive of Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire( AVPRI), which were not previously published or studied from this point of view.

The Ottoman Protocol of the period under study should be considered within the framework of transformations in various spheres of state life [Ortayli, 1994, p. 258-282]. The need for reforms was caused by the defeats of the Porte in the Russo-Turkish wars of 1768-1774 and 1787-1792, the loss of the Crimea in 1783, as well as a deep crisis in the financial, economic and military-political sphere [Eremeev and Meyer, 1993, pp. 193-197].

The first stage of transformation, called Nizam-i jedid, occurred during the reign of Sultan Selim III (1789-1807). The second stage was associated with the reforms of Mahmud II (1808-1839), and the third - with the name of his son Sultan Abdul Majid (1839-1861), under which the era of Tanzimat reforms (1839-1876) began.

The period from 1774 to 1838 is the final stage of the "Europeanization" of Ottoman diplomacy [Aksan, 2006, p. 111-112], and the reformers ' efforts were focused not only on the reorganization of the army and the financial system, but also on the creation of a separate diplomatic service [Naff, 1963, p. 295 - 315]. In the 90s of the XVIII century, the Sultan

1 Nizam-i jedid - the new order.

2 Tanzimat ( osm.) - ordering.

page 48
Selim III established the Institute of permanent Ottoman diplomatic missions abroad [Neumann, 2006, p. 58] and began sending ambassadors there [Aksan, 2007, p. 225-228; Shaw, 1971, p. 221]. Until then, the Porte had sent only temporary representatives from among the Sultan's dignitaries with special diplomatic assignments [Naff, 1977, p. 88-107].

With the establishment of permanent Ottoman embassies in Europe, the Port gradually began to move away from the method of "unilateral diplomacy" and began to use the principle of reciprocity-the basic principle for Modern diplomacy.

Until the mid-1930s, the Ottoman protocol was common to both the internal and external political life of the empire, since the Port did not yet have a separate diplomatic department or an independent embassy service. Several Ottoman dignitaries dealt with protocol issues at once. In official documents, the positions of some officials were translated into Russian, guided by the Russian bureaucratic nomenclature of court and civil ranks of the table of ranks, based on the concepts of German origin: ober-master of ceremonies (teshrifatji-bashi), non-commissioned master of ceremonies (khalifa-i teshrifatji), Ober-chamberlain (chavush-bashi), etc.

In the traditional Ottoman protocol, veiled symbolism was important. Any deviations from the established norm indicated a change in the attitude of the Ottoman authorities towards the receiving party. The desire to understand the meaning of encrypted ceremonial details and seek privileges to increase the prestige of their state prompted foreign diplomats to delve into all the subtleties of the Ottoman protocol. This circumstance is largely explained by the fact that Russian diplomats in their notes described in detail the audience with the sultan (padishah) and the Grand vizier (vizir-i azam), or sadraz (sadr-i azam), while at the same time giving Russian equivalents to explain the Ottoman terms and realities, if any.

In theocratic states, the supreme power of the ruler was demonstrated by a set of symbols, signs and actions, the main purpose of which was to draw the attention of the people to the ruler and create a sense of his superiority and greatness. Ceremonies have always been a favorite way to demonstrate the stability of the state system, the power of imperial power, because if they were properly organized, they almost always led to the desired results. Thus, a thorough study of ceremonies can help to find the key to understanding the self-identification of the regime [Geertz, 1983, p. 121-146].

Symbolic overtones can be found in various details and elements of Ottoman ceremonial, such as the composition and clothing of participants in ceremonies, processional routes, and ceremonial attributes. To prepare for protocol events, rehearsals were held in the presence of the Grand Vizier, in order to memorize the place of each Ottoman official and prevent the courtiers from complaining in the presence of the padishah. Sometimes the ceremonies underwent some changes. The reason for this could be a number of factors - from the lack of knowledge of officials responsible for the protocol and organization of events, to personal interference in the procedure of ceremonies of the Sultan or a high-ranking official. For example, amendments could be made "according to the requirements of time and conditions" (hasb ez-zaman, or ber mukte-za-yi waqt u khal) or "for political reasons" (hasb el-politika, or hasb es-siyaset), when state interests required changes to certain parts of the ceremonial, for example, during the time period. time of the envoy's emergency visit. Changes were identified in the protocol logs as an " extra-ceremonial element "(Kharij air-resm), "deviation from protocol norms" (gair et-teshrifat) and " contrary to the procedure "(khilaf-i usul) [An Ottoman Protocol..., 2007, p. 2-3].

page 49
The Ottoman protocol included religious and secular ceremonies. The former can be roughly divided, on the one hand, into events on the occasion of Muslim state holidays, and on the other-into events on the occasion of palace celebrations and rites related to the Sultan's accession to the throne: taking the oath, ascending to the throne and girding with a sword-a ritual that, according to the Russian Consul General in Beirut K. M. Bazili (1839-1853)," replaces crowning in the descendants of the conqueror " [Bazili, 2007, p.226]. The second category includes official audiences of diplomatic representatives with the Sultan, Grand Vizier and other Ottoman dignitaries.

The reception ceremonies for foreign envoys were part of the Port's foreign policy activities. Ottoman protocol events were always held according to a certain scenario. The format of the audience was determined by a number of factors, the most important of which were the status of the state represented by the ambassador, its position in the international arena and the foreign policy vector of the country. The envoy representing a State with which the Ottoman Empire had a treaty of alliance or was planning to conclude one, was granted special honors and various privileges.

The receptions of foreign ambassadors in times of tension in bilateral relations often took the form of rivalry: diplomats tried to get as many honors and privileges as possible, and the Ottomans resorted to various tricks and tricks to downplay their role. For example, envoys from strong Powers that the Porte wanted to belittle were received at the same time as envoys from vassal or politically weak States. Preferential treatment could be obtained on request (iltimas), with the skillful use of the practice of fait accompli (fr. faits accomplis) or precedents (sabik) from earlier reception ceremonies [An Ottoman Protocol..., 2007, p. 6-7].

The route of foreign diplomats for an audience with the Grand Vizier and the Sultan included several stops. The first ceremonial site where foreign ambassadors and envoys were received was the chambers of the Kireji Bashi (Kireji Bashi odasi). Russian diplomats called them "the special house of kerechi-bashi", "where all foreign ministers are usually received" and "which is now (1781 - M. Ya.) built much better than before" or called the above-mentioned chambers "the upper room", which was "purposely prepared and cleaned" for the arrival of emissaries [Repnin,1775, p. 4]. l. 32ob., 37ob.; Golenishchev-Kutuzov, 1793, l. 164ob., 168; Stahiev, 1776, l. 7, 10; Bulgakov, 1781, l. 64, 68]. The second ceremonial stop was the " palace of processions "(stai keshkyu), called by Russian envoys" kiosk of processions " and located on the street leading to the Sultan's palace. At this point, the emissaries were waiting for the Grand Vizier and his entourage to enter the Sultan's kiosk. The third ceremonial site, where ambassadors of important states were received, was the chambers of kapiji-bashi (kapiji-bashi odasi). Russian diplomats called them "the upper room of the Kapichi-bashi guardsmen", "which was deliberately remodeled and removed in a very well-arranged manner by the arrival of Prince Repnin in 1775 and Prince Golenishchev-Kutuzov in 1793" [Repnin, 1775, p. 38; Repnin, 1776, p. 69ob.; Golenishchev-Kutuzov, 1793 Ambassadors of lesser European states and most envoys were not received in the aforementioned chambers, but were forced to wait for a summons for an audience with the padishah, sitting on a bench at the gate.

In the event of an audience with the Sultan, at the final stage of the ceremonial route, at the entrance to the third courtyard, called the "inner courtyard" (enderun meydani), the envoys were met by Chavush bashi, who held in his right hand an important attribute of the Ottoman palace ceremonial and a symbol of his power, resembling a silver scepter in appearance. When escorting emissaries to the padishah, Cavus-bashi knocked them on the palace pavement and had the right to strike them if necessary. Russian diplomats called-

page 50
whether the above-mentioned object is a "silver cane", "silver rod" or "silver staff" [Repnin, 1775, l. 38ob.; Stahiev, 1776, l. Yuob.; Stahiev, 1781, l. 79ob.; Bulgakov, 1781, l. 68; Golenishchev-Kutuzov, 1793, l. 168ob.; Kochubey, 1794, l. 9, 1797, l. 6; Tomara, 1798, l. 25].

On special occasions, another ceremonial stop was located in the first courtyard, called the "court of processions" (stai meidani), opposite the "imperial bakery" (furun-i humayun, or furun-i nan-i hass), which served as a gathering point for embassy processions and a waiting area [Bayerle, 1997, p. 6].

The envoy sometimes had to wait for an audience for several days or even weeks. One of the reasons for this was the desire to combine the reception with some impressive and memorable event in the Sultan's palace. For this purpose, the colorful ceremony of quarterly distribution of military allowances to the janissaries (ulufe gun) was most often used.

The payment of salaries took place in the second courtyard, called the "divan courtyard" (divan Meydani), or the "court of justice" (adalet Meydani). The janissaries were standing on both sides of the road, waiting for the signal from their superiors. When the envoys approached at a sign given to them, they ran from the other end of the pavement to the door of the" imperial palace with a dome " (kubbet-i humayun, or divan-khan), where the meetings of the imperial council (divan-i humayun) were held. At the end of the divan meetings, bags of cash allowances were placed for the janissaries in front of the aforementioned palace, as well as plates of pilaf and soup, which were prepared in the" imperial kitchen " (matbah-i amire). According to Russian diplomats, the janissaries "threw themselves on the food set for them" or "grabbed the food set for them" [Repnin, 1775, l. 38ob.; Stahiev, 1776, l. 10ob.; Bulgakov, 1781, l. 68ob.; Golenishchev-Kutuzov, 1793, l. 169; Kochubey, 1794, L. 9ob.; Kochubey, 1797, L. 6; Tomara, 1798, L. 25].

Meetings of the imperial council were usually held under the chairmanship of the padishah himself, who sat in the" palace of justice " (qasr-i adalet) "above the vizier's seat in the window behind the grating", separating the council hall from the sultan's chambers with the harem (kharem-i Humayun), preferring to remain invisible to the members of the council [Stahiev, 1776, L. 11; Bulgakov, 1781, L. 68ob.; Kochubey, 1794, L. 9ob.; Kochubey, 1797, L. 6].

In exceptional cases, emissaries were invited to observe the "triumph of Ottoman justice" in order to witness firsthand such terrifying sights as exile, removal from office, execution of an Ottoman official, or the display of the severed heads of captured robbers [Walsh, 1838, p. 351].

In the event of an audience with the Grand Vizier at the main entrance, called by Russian diplomats "porch" or "locker", and leading to the "imperial palace with a dome", the envoys were met by the chief dragoman of the Port and escorted to the front or hallway, called by Russian envoys "vestibule", or to the top of the grand staircase, where they were placed. the Chief of Imperial Protocol greeted them. The emissaries then proceeded to the guest room (musafir odasi), which Russian diplomats called the "light of rest", "chamber of rest", or" rest chambers", where they waited for an invitation to the audience hall, or petitions hall (arz odasi), to meet with the Grand Vizier, who entered the "reception room". or "audience chamber", through the office (devat odasi).

In the 19th century, there were changes in the ceremonial receptions of the Grand Vizier. Diplomats are no longer forced to sit on a stool and stand up at Sadraz's entrance. It should be noted that Russian envoys introduced this practice as fait accompli as early as 1775, preferring to stand in front of a stool in order to avoid getting up at the Grand vizier's entrance to the reception hall and thereby deprive Sadraz of the opportunity to demonstrate his superiority [Stahiev, 1776, l. 8ob., 11; Stahiev, 1777, l. 42; Stahiev, 1781, l. 79; Bulgakov, 1781, l. 65ob., 68ob.; Kochubey, 1794, l. bob., 9ob; Kochubey, 1797, l. 4, 6; Tomara, 1798, l. 22-23ob., l. 25].

page 51
A constant point of contention was the seating offered to the emissary during an audience with Sadraz. An ordinary stool (iskemle) was intended for the envoys, and a chair with a back and armrests, or a chair (sandalye), was intended for the ambassadors. Moreover, the Messenger's stool was lower than Sadraz's (sadr-i ahkam) seat. Only a few envoys could avoid sitting on that stool if they were able to quickly take a seat next to Sadraz or his deputy (kaimakam) [An Ottoman Protocol..., 2007, p. 13].

The most common occasion for diplomatic representatives to have an audience with the Grand Vizier and the Sultan was when the envoy presented his credentials (nama) when he first arrived in Istanbul, as well as the presentation of letters of recall (avdet-nama). Another important reason for receiving Sadrazam and the Padishah was the presentation of letters to foreign ambassadors addressed to their monarchs or governments. It could have been a sultan's letter (nameh-i humayun), a reply message (cevab-nameh), a vizier's letter (nameh-i asafi, or mektub-i asafi), or letters from both of them on the eve of the envoy's departure from Istanbul [An Ottoman Protocol..., 2007, p. 15-16].

As a rule, if the emissary was of low rank or his diplomatic mission was not of particular importance to the Ottoman government, the sultan's message was handed to the envoys in the government meeting room. On the day of the new Sultan's accession to the throne, the Ottoman State either sent messages with extraordinary envoys to notify the governments of States that were in friendly relations with the Ottoman Empire, or these letters were transmitted to diplomats in the meeting room of the Ottoman Government located in the "imperial palace with a dome".

Foreign governments sent congratulatory messages to the new padishah on the occasion of his accession to the throne (Tabrik-nam), and this was another reason for the envoys to be received at the Sultan's palace. Ambassadors who arrived after the conclusion of the treaty to exchange signed copies of documents (mubadele-i tasdik-nam), in case of transmission of a formal declaration of succession (ihbar-nam) or a friendly message (sadaqat-nam), also had the right to an audience with the Grand Vizier or Sultan [An Ottoman Protocol..., 2007, p. 16].

In all these cases, the reception took one of two forms: official (resmen) and unofficial (bi-la-resm). If the emissary was received by both the Padishah and Sadraz, then the audience was scheduled for different days. The decision on whether to receive the envoy-in the" new Sultan's palace "(saray-i Jedid-i amir), known as the "palace of the cannon gate" (Topkapi sarayi), or in the High Port (Bab-i Ali), largely depended on the choice of the Ottoman side. The Sultan did not receive a low-ranking diplomatic representative who arrived without expensive gifts. The latter, in this case, had to be content with an audience with Sadraz or ask for special permission to receive the padishah.

In the Ottoman protocol, the clothing of representatives of the host country, especially headdresses - turbans and turbans-played an important role. Top Ottoman officials wore several turbans designed for different occasions depending on the nature of the ceremony, the state religion, and the status of the party being received. The same was true for the furs and robes worn by Ottoman dignitaries, although this was less closely monitored.

The saddles, bridles and decorations of the horses that participated in the processions were also important ceremonial and depended on the rank of the envoy and the status of the state, while the horse equipment of the highest Ottoman dignitaries always stood out for its luxury. Moreover, the drivers were leading a large number of free horses with lush blankets and armor.

The descriptions of ceremonies in the protocol registers give an idea of the Porte's relationship to the messengers. For example, entries in the protocol journal of the XVIII-early XIX centuries recorded a difference in the ceremonial reception of emissaries of vassal principalities,

page 52
gospodars of Moldavia and Wallachia. Until the 19th century, the ceremonies of presenting credentials and receiving emissaries from Muslim and Christian countries at the Sultan's house were practically indistinguishable from each other, although the protocol registers recorded their separation on religious grounds.

Exceptions were often made for Iranian envoys. For example, while other emissaries were forced to wait in front of the processional kiosk, the Iranian envoy was sometimes escorted to the Hagia Sophia Mosque and allowed to await the Grand Vizier's arrival there. The greatest honors were given to the Crimean khans, because they were not envoys, but rulers and allies in the confrontation between the Ottoman Empire and Russia.

Starting with the Congress of Vienna in 1815, new terms were introduced to the norm of international communication. This is how ambassadors of three ranks were recognized: Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary (ambassador of the first class), Envoy Plenipotentiary (ambassador of the second class) and a Resident minister (Class III ambassador). Diplomats of the first two ranks had broader powers and could make many important decisions on the spot, and the resident minister was formally no more than an intermediate link in communication between his court and the one to which he was accredited, and could not make responsible decisions independently, without appropriate instructions and instructions [Perminov, 1992, p. 11].

There were many diplomatic representatives in Constantinople: grand ambassadors (buyuk elchi), permanent envoys (mukim elchi), charge d'affaires (maslahat guzar). Ambassadors and permanent envoys could count on an audience with the Sultan if they had a sufficient number of gifts with them. Not all envoys in Istanbul in the 18th century were residents, as the maintenance of the mission required large expenses. Ambassadors Extraordinary (fevkalade elci) and envoys Extraordinary (orta Elci) arrived in Istanbul on special diplomatic and political missions, with the former coming to ratify or renew treaties, as well as convey congratulations on the Sultan's accession to the throne. Depending on the importance of their missions, they were divided into three categories: upper, middle, and lower rank [An Ottoman Protocol..., 2007, p. 19].

Until the end of the 18th century, in accordance with the international practice of that time, from the moment the ambassador extraordinary crossed the borders of the Ottoman Empire until his departure, the emissary was provided with everything necessary by the receiving party. The Port also took the necessary measures to ensure the safety of foreign diplomats on the territory of the empire. So, from the border to Istanbul, they were accompanied by a special official (mihmandar). During their stay in the capital, an armed escort consisting of several janissaries under the leadership of a colonel (chorbadzhi) was attached to the embassy motorcade.

On the occasion of the visit of a foreign ambassador, the Grand vizier held a solemn meal in his honor in the palace with a dome. Then the diplomat was treated to sweets, coffee, fruit drinks: sorbet and lemonade, offered smoking and snuff, incense, rose water, rose oil, napkin or towel. After the appropriate offerings, it was the Sultan's turn to have an audience. First, in front of the "old council meeting hall" (diwan khane-i atik, or eski diwan khane), the ambassador was presented with a "robe of honor" brought by the chief keeper of fur coats (kurkchu bashi), and the gifts sent by the ambassador were displayed by the chief keeper of gifts (pishkeshji bashi) in the front of the reception hall or laid out by the imperial gatekeepers at the gates for all to see [An Ottoman Protocol..., 2007, p. 20].

With the permission of the Sultan, the envoy and his entourage were introduced to the throne room (khan-i takht) senior palace gatekeepers [Bon, 1996, p. 41-44]. The emissary transmitted the memorandum (telhis) the guardian of the imperial standard (miralem), and the latter, in turn, handed it to the keeper of the imperial seal (nishanji) or the commander of the Ottoman fleet (kapudan bashi). Finally, when the memorandum reached the great v-

page 53
zira, he placed it next to the Sultan's throne. Then the messenger made a report (tekrir) or delivered a speech, which was translated by the chief dragoman of the Port.

Until the 19th century. Foreign emissaries were usually allowed to meet the Sultan once or twice during their stay in Istanbul. However, the padishah rarely discussed political issues with the envoys, as the Grand Vizier met with them informally for this purpose. Such meetings usually did not take place in a High Port, and the negotiations were confidential (mahfi sohbet). The Director of the Imperial Chancellery (reis-efendi, or reis-ul-kuttab), who until the mid-1930s served as the head of the foreign policy department [Kitsikis, 1994, p. 171-172], usually received diplomats informally and discussed international policy issues with them [An Ottoman Protocol..., 2007, p. 23-24].

It should be noted that many ceremonies were overloaded with details. The reason for this was that the Ottoman protocol, which guided the reception of envoys, was based more on centuries-old practice and established traditions than on interstate agreements.

The exchange of gifts and the many occasions for treats indicate that this Ottoman ritual meant more than following the traditions of Eastern etiquette. The cultural specificity of the language of gifts and offerings means that they were relevant only in their native environment. Such rituals and their details could only correctly convey their hidden meaning in the context of official Ottoman protocol. On the day of the emergency meetings of the Imperial Council (galebe diwani), when more members gathered than usual, pilaf was prepared. On the day of the usual meetings of the Imperial Council (diwan-i adi), soup was served. Although extraordinary meetings of the council were held in the event of the reception of foreign envoys, and in the event of the arrival of Moldavian and Wallachian gospodars, the second, because of their low rank, was served soup.

Actions that may seem common, such as offering smoking pipes or coffee to guests, should be considered as rituals that were important in Ottoman everyday culture, and for this reason were observed and revered [An Ottoman Protocol..., 2007, p. 25].

Among all the treats, coffee had a special status, as it was exclusively a ceremonial offering. If no coffee was offered, bypassing standard practice, it was perceived by the guest as an attempt to insult the host. This fact was recorded in protocol journals, and the violation of this ritual could lead to an increase in tension in bilateral diplomatic relations.

In Oriental etiquette, serving coffee was a more common tradition than offering a pipe. Before the nineteenth century, it was not customary to offer pipes to messengers, and even then this did not happen often. Ottoman etiquette distinguished between coffee and a pipe. If coffee was served to all guests, then the pipe was offered to those guests whose rank corresponded to the status of the host party [Slade, 1833, p. 143, 167].

In accordance with the traditional protocol ceremony, only coffee was served to a guest below the host's rank; a guest of the same rank as the host was served a pipe, coffee, and fruit drink; a guest above the host's rank was served a pipe, coffee, and fruit drink, as well as sweets and incense [White, 1845, p. 131].

In addition to the above-mentioned ceremonial offerings and treats, the envoys and their entourage were also offered dinner in the domed palace with members of the Imperial council after their meeting, with only the envoy sitting at Sadraz's table out of the foreign delegation. The top diplomatic officials of the foreign mission sat at the tables of Reis Effendi and Nishanji. The other members of the envoy's entourage dined together in a room adjacent to the main hall.

During the reception of ambassadors in the Sultan's Topkapi Palace, great importance was attached to the ceremonial and ritual aspect, especially the tradition of making offerings to the Holy Spirit.-

page 54
dark circles called pishkesh (Inalcik, 1998, p. 209). The gift-giving ritual was the basis of the protocol and ceremonial side of audiences with the Sultan and Grand Vizier, and also expressed the desire to maintain good and strong bilateral relations. The etiquette of exchanging gifts included established regulations and certain rules for offering and accepting expensive gifts.

The arrival of the envoy to the Sultan's palace for the purpose of presenting credentials was to be accompanied by the presentation of expensive gifts to the padishah, the value of which was determined by the status of the ambassador. If the reception of envoys followed the signing of contracts, the number of gifts was determined by a special article of the agreement. Diplomats presented gifts to the Ottoman rulers and received gifts from them during receptions in the Sultan's palace [Faroqhi, 2007, p. 162-184].

The most expensive gift a messenger could receive was a horse. This happened in cases where this type of gift was assigned to the State on the basis of precedent. Russian ambassadors began to receive a horse as a gift from the padishah after the conclusion of the Kuchuk-Kainardji peace treaty of 1774.

The traditional gift to foreign ambassadors and envoys was "honorary robes" called hilat. Moreover, the rite of putting on the above-mentioned robes was an important element of the Ottoman protocol, in particular the ceremonial reception of foreign diplomats by the highest Ottoman dignitaries. The word hilat meant several types of outerwear presented depending on the status and rank of a particular diplomatic representative.

In the first place in terms of value and value, there were two types of "honorary clothes": khass-ul-khass and ferva, the first being sewn from expensive fabrics (brocade, cloth or silk), lined with sable or lynx fur and intended for ambassadors and envoys, and the second was sewn from woolen fabrics (kamlot or stameda) It was lined with ermine fur and was intended for consuls, chief interpreters and embassy secretaries. In second place in terms of cost and significance was the kereke, which resembled the garment described above, but without a fur lining. In third place was a caftan in the shape of a mantle, sewn from ordinary fabric.

The famous Russian pilgrim Vasily Grigorovich-Barsky, who was included in the retinue for an audience with Sadraz in 1744 by the Russian resident in Constantinople A. A. Veshnyakov (1742-1745), described in detail the ritual of putting on "honorary clothes". Members of the Russian envoy's delegation, including monks, including Barsky himself, were dressed in "certain clothes called kavadi or kaftans, which were called "hunna" in Greek, "peletse" in Italian, and "fur coat" in Russian " (Grigorovich-Barsky, 2005, p. 321].

Grigorovich-Barsky noted that such vestments were given "for the sake of honor" "from the court of the tsar and the vizier" to patriarchs, "where they are instructed", and to governors, "where they accept power", and to ambassadors and residents "who come so to the sultan, as well as to the vezir for certain royal affairs"; " royal kavadi they differ from the viziers in this point, because they are not enough dearest ones, but rather in the image and structure of a single person, in the form and breadth of similarity to the saccos of bishops " [Grigorovich-Barsky, 2005, pp. 321-322].

The famous Russian writer A. N. Muravyov noted that in accordance with the Ottoman tradition, before presenting foreign ambassadors to the Sultan, the grand vizier "dressed them in rich fur coats so that they could appear in a decent form before his bright eyes" [Muravyov, 2005, p. 30].

Russian diplomat K. M. Bazili also paid attention to the tradition of donating "honorary robes". According to him, "the Turks mocked the narrow clothing of Europeans a lot," because "in a European dress, a person seemed so small, so indecent to them." That is why after the ceremonial audience of European embassies, in particular, at the Grand Vizier, when leaving the hall, Ottoman officials "put on their shoes".

page 55
envoys and their entire entourage wear honorary kaftans, as if out of compassion for their nakedness" [Bazili, 2006, p.33].

Foreign envoys were dressed in "robes of honor" after a reception with the Grand Vizier or before an audience with the Sultan. In the second case, the Ottomans put the following meaning into this ceremony: the messenger is worthy of the honor of an audience with the padishah only if he was dressed in a sultan's gift. It is noteworthy that this practice also extended to Ottoman dignitaries, since before an audience with the padishah, they were also dressed in" honorary clothes " called feredzhe.

Under pressure from Western diplomats, who considered putting on "honorary robes" a procedure that degraded their dignity, this rite was abolished by the beginning of the 1930s.

A. N. Muravyov, who visited Istanbul for the second time in 1849-1850, was honored to attend an audience with Sultan Abdul Majid together with the Russian envoy V. P. Titov (1843-1852). Muravyov described the changes as follows: "Instead of the wild Janissaries who made a noise in the courtyards of the Sultan's dwelling, now the Turkish nizams, in beautiful uniforms, absolutely in a European way, gave us a military honor" [Muravyov, 2005, p. 249]. A. N. Muravyov gave a rather detailed description of Sultan Abdul Majid's attire: "The Sultan was wearing an ordinary kaftan sewn with gold at the edges and a red fez with a gold sign on it; the large diamond order of Nishan and a rich saber were the best decoration of his outfit" (Muravyov, 2005, p. 250).

Having visited Istanbul twice, in 1830 and in 1849-1850, A. N. Muravyov had the opportunity to compare the" old " Ottoman Empire with the "new", "tanzimate" one. He wrote sadly:: "it is difficult to combine the forms of European education with the customs of the East, and therefore we imagined differently the solemn audience of the heir of the Arab Caliphs"; "the imitation of the poetic East to the simplified West did not seem satisfactory, and yet there was an admixture of Eastern rites proper: because the dignitaries of the Porte, at each appeal to their master, put their hands on their mouth and brow, according to the ancient custom " [Murav'ev, 2005, pp. 250-251].

A. N. Muravyov was clearly disappointed by the change in the traditional Ottoman protocol. A similar feeling was aroused in him by the change of clothing of the sultan, who preferred a fez to a turban, and a narrow semi - European dress to a full caftan. Muravyov's description of the audience clearly shows how the old Ottoman traditions gradually began to give way to more simplified European ones.

Analysis of diplomatic documents and descriptions shows that the official Ottoman protocol remained conservative until the beginning of the 19th century.

The acute crisis experienced by the Ottoman Empire in various spheres prompted the Sultan to develop the state's foreign policy activities, establishing permanent diplomatic missions in Europe at the end of the XVIII century. Ambassadors, as in the pre-reform period, were appointed high-ranking officials of the Port, who, on their return from abroad, often acted as apologists for the reforms of the Ottoman Empire on the European model.

At the beginning of the XIX century. The Ottoman state protocol, based on Old Ottoman traditions, has undergone significant changes. The Ottoman system of symbols and values was gradually replaced by the generally accepted European one. Some ceremonial attributes and rituals, such as the uniforms of Ottoman officials, gifts and treats, have changed or lost their symbolic meaning. Other ceremonial traditions, especially the practice of dressing in "honorary clothes", which was ambiguously perceived by European diplomats, as well as the practice of donating a horse, have disappeared altogether. Moreover, many ceremonial treats were canceled or adapted to the new symbol system, in particular:,

page 56
the ceremony of offering sorbet and sweets was abolished, the ceremony of serving coffee was simplified, and cigarettes were offered instead of pipes.

If until the end of the eighteenth century, after the end of audiences with the Sultan and Grand Vizier, foreign envoys were given scarves around their necks, handkerchiefs in their bosoms, precious stones, jewelry, colored fabrics, silk carpets, then from the beginning of the nineteenth century they were presented with portraits of Ottoman sultans, snuffboxes, cigarette cases, and other gifts. award them with orders and badges of distinction.

By the beginning of the 1930s, the traditional Ottoman rite of wearing "honorary robes" had given way to the pan-European protocol practice of awarding orders, which, unlike the above-mentioned robes, were awarded not before the audience, but during or after it and were considered as recognition of the merits of foreign diplomats.

Thus, by the beginning of the 19th century, the official Ottoman protocol began to undergo intensive "Europeanization", increasingly losing its uniqueness and originality.

AVPRI materials

Bulgakov Ya. I. Bulgakov's Relations to Catherine II ...on an audience with the Sultan and Grand Vizier (1781). Note of the life of the Extraordinary Envoy and Minister Plenipotentiary Bulgakov on the ceremonial visit of the Supreme Vizier Izzet Megemet Pasha on the 16th day of September 1781 / / AVPRI, f. 89, op. 89/8, d. 587, l. 64-67; Note of the life of the Extraordinary Envoy and Minister Plenipotentiary Bulgakov on the first audience with His Sultan's Majesty in 21 day of September 1781 / / AVPRI, f. 89, op. 89/8, d. 587, l. 68-71.

Golenishchev-Kutuzov M. I. Relyatsii Golenishchev-Kutuzov Ekaterine II ... about the ceremony of receiving the ambassador by the Port (1793) / / AVPRI, f. 89, op. 89/8, d. 777, l. 164.. - 172, 281 - 285, 524 - 524 rubles.

Kochubey V. P. Reports of Kochubey to Paul I ...on an audience with the Sultan and Grand Vizier (1794). Note of the life of the Extraordinary Envoy and Minister Plenipotentiary Kochubey on the ceremonial visit of the Supreme Vizier Melek Mehmed Pasha on February 18, 1794 / / AVPRI, f. 89, op. 89/8, d. 784, l. 5-8; Note of the life of the Extraordinary Envoy and Minister Plenipotentiary Kochubey at an audience with His Sultan's Majesty on February 21, 1794 AVPRI, f. 89, op. 89/8, d. 784, l. 9-11 vol.

Kochubey V. P. Reports of Kochubey to Paul I ...on an audience with the Sultan and Grand Vizier (1797). Note to the rites observed on the occasion of an audience with the Sultan and a ceremonial visit to the Supreme Vizier of the Extraordinary Envoy and Minister Plenipotentiary Kochubey / / AVPRI, f. 89, op. 89/8, d. 850, l. 3-8ob.

Repnin N. V. Reports of Repnin to Catherine II ...on his reception by Turkish dignitaries (1775). A note of Her Imperial Majesty's life as an Extraordinary Envoy and Plenipotentiary Ambassador of His Excellency Prince Nikolai Vasilyevich Repnin on a visit to the Supreme Vizier and an audience with the Sultan and what happened on these two occasions / / AVPRI, f. 89, op. 89/8, d. 446, l. 32 ^ 12.

Repnin N. V. Repnin's reports to Catherine II ...on his reception by Turkish dignitaries (1775) / / AVPRI, f. 89, op. 89/8, d.461, l. 23-30, 34-37.

Repnin N. V. Repnin's Relations to Catherine II ...on a vacation audience with the sultan (1776) / / AVPRI, f. 89, op. 89/8, d.462, l. 69-71.

Stahiev A. S. Reports of Stahiev to Catherine II ...on his reception at the Turkish dignitaries (1776). Note of the ceremony with which Her Imperial Majesty's State Councilor, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary Alexander Stahiev, upon his arrival in Constantinople at the Ottoman Porte, was received / / AVPRI, f. 89, op. 89/8, d. 472, l. 7-13ob.

Stakhiev A. S. Stakhiev's Relations to Catherine II ... on an audience with the Grand Vizier (1777). Note, with what ceremony Her Imperial Majesty's Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary Stahiev made his first visit to the new Supreme Vizier of Derendela, Mehmed Pasha, on February 9, 1777 / / AVPRI, f. 89, op. 89/8, d. 494, l. 41-42.

Stakhiev A. S. Stakhiev's Relations to Catherine II ...on a farewell audience with the Grand Vizier (1781). The rite in which the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary Stahiev made his farewell visit at the Porte to the Supreme Vizier Izet Megemet Pasha on September 27, 1781 / / AVPRI, f. 89, op. 89/8, d. 578, l. 78-79ob.

Tomara V. S. Relyatsii Tomara Pavlu I [Tomara's Relations to Paul I]...on an audience with the Sultan and Grand Vizier (1798). Note of the life of the Extraordinary Envoy and Minister Plenipotentiary Tomara at the ceremonial visit of the Supreme Vizier Izzet Meghmet Pasha on April 5/16, 1798 / / AVPRI, f. 89, op. 89/8, d. 871, l. 23-24 ob.; Note of the life of the Extraordinary Envoy and Minister Plenipotentiary Tomara at the audience of His Sultan's Majesty on April 13/24-go 1798 / / AVPRI, f. 89, op. 89/8, d. 871, l. 25-26ob.

page 57
list of literature

Bazili K. M. Essays on Constantinople. Bosporus and New Essays of Constantinople, Moscow, 2006.
Bazili K. M. Syria and Palestine under the Turkish government in historical and political relations. Jerusalem, Moscow, 2007.

Grigorovich-Barsky V. Wanderings in the Holy places of the East. Ch. 1-2. Moscow, 2005.

Eremeev D. E., Meyer M. S. Istoriya Turkii v sredniye veka [History of Turkey in the Middle Ages]. Moscow, 1992.

Murav'ev A. N. Pis'ma s Vostoka ot 1849 po 1850 g. Ch. 1 - 2. Moscow, 2005.

Perminov P. Ambassador of the III class. Moscow, 1992.

Aksan V.H. The internal and external challenges to Selim III // Ottoman Wars 1700 - 1870: An Empire Besieged. L., 2007.

Aksan V.H. War and Peace // The Cambridge History of Turkey. V. 3. Suraiya Faroqhi (ed.). Cambridge, 2006.

Bayerle G. Pashas, Begs and Effendis. A Historical Dictionary of Titles and Terms in the Ottoman Empire. Istanbul, 1997.

Bon O. Of the Audience and Entertainment given to Ambassadors // The Sultan's Seraglio: An Intimate Portrait of Life at the Ottoman Court. L., 1996.

Faroqhi S. Ceremonies, Festivals and Decorative Arts // Subjects of the Sultan: Culture and Daily Life in the Ottoman Empire. L., 2007.

Faroqhi S. The Ottoman Empire and the World around it. L., 2007.

Geertz C. Centers, Kings, and Charisma: Reflections on the Symbolics of Power // Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology. N.Y., 1983.

Inalcik H. Essays in Ottoman History. Istanbul, 1998.

Karateke H.T. (ed.). An Ottoman Protocol Register. Istanbul, 2007.

Kitsikis D. Le concept ottoman de relations internationales et le service diplomatique ottoman au dix-neuvième siècle // Aspects of Ottoman History. Jerusalem, 1994.

Naff T. Ottoman Diplomatic Relations with Europe in the Eighteenth Century: Patterns and Trends // Studies in Eighteenth Century Islamic History. Tomas Naff, Roger Owen (eds.). Illinois, 1977.

Naff T. Reform and conduct of Ottoman diplomacy in the reign of Selim III, 1789 - 1807 // Journal of the American Oriental Society. 83. 1963.

Naff T. The Ottoman Empire and the European States System. H. Bull and A. Watson (eds.) // The Expansion of International Society. Oxford, 1984.

Neumann C.K. Political and diplomatic developments // The Cambridge History of Turkey. V. 3. Suraiya Faroqhi (ed.). Cambridge, 2006.

Ortayli I. Studies on Ottoman Transformation. Istanbul, 1994.

Shaw S. Between Old and New: The Ottoman Empire under Sultan Selim III. 1789 - 1807. Cambridge, 1971.

Slade A. Records of travels in Turkey, Greece & c. and of a cruise in the Black Sea with Capitan Pasha in the years 1829, 1830, and 1831. Vol. 2. L., 1833.

Walsh R.A. Residence at Constantinople During a Period Including the Commencement Progress and Determination of the Greek and Turkish Revolutions. Vol. 1. L., 1838.

White C. Three Years in Constantinople, or Domestic Manners of the Turks in 1844. Vol. 2. L., 1845.

Permanent link to this publication: