Moscow, Nauka Publ. 1984. 284 p.

In recent years, Soviet scientists have published sources and studies1 that significantly expand the range of knowledge in the field of Ottoman studies, which includes the history of dozens of countries and peoples of South-West Asia, Transcaucasia and the North Caucasus, North Africa, South-East and Eastern Europe. Peer-reviewed book 2 takes its rightful place among the latest publications on this topic.

The authors ' approach to the problems under study is reflected both in the structure of the publication itself and in its content. There is a combination of extensive research work and the reproduction of valuable sources that give an idea of the era and the events described. The book's material is rich in facts from the military, civil, and socio-economic history of Turkey proper, the Danubian Principalities, Hungary, Moldavia, Southern Ukraine, and Poland, many of which are little-known or completely unknown.

The research part of the book is presented with an introduction (authored by Haji Murat Ibrahimbeyli) and an essay on the history of pol-

1 For example: Turkey on the eve and after the Battle of Poltava (through the eyes of an Austrian diplomat). M. 1977; Notes of the Janissary. Written by Konstantin Mikhailovich from Ostrovitsa, Moscow, 1978; Ivanov N. A. The Ottoman conquest of the Arab countries. 1516-1574. M. 1984; The Ottoman Empire and the countries of Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe in the XV-XVI centuries. Main trends in political relations, Moscow, 1984.

2 Compiled by: Haji Murat Ibragimbeyli, N. S. Rashba. Edited by M. S. Meyer.

page 134

North-Turkish relations in the XVI - first quarter of the XVII century (authored by N. S. Rashba). However, research points are also expressed in the notes to published documents and materials. The authors do not limit themselves to commenting on the texts, but give their own concept of the complex and contradictory historical process in South - Eastern Europe during the era of the highest rise and the beginning of the decline of the Ottoman expansion. At the same time, they rely, in addition to the documents contained in the book, on materials from our archives, published sources in many languages (including Turkish, Romanian, Polish, etc.), and extensive literature (Soviet, pre-revolutionary Russian, and foreign). Articles and comments significantly expand and supplement the factual base of the publication.

The essay on the history of Polish-Turkish relations recreates the rise and decline of Ottoman expansionism in the Balkans and Eastern Europe. The author focuses on the policy of the main rival of the Porte in Eastern Europe in the XVI-XVII centuries. Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The source and literary base of the essay, especially in its Polish part, is rich and diverse, which has had a positive impact on its scientific level.

The authors take a critical approach to sources and literature. Some subjectivist and apologetic concepts of Turkish traditional and modern historiography, as well as Polish gentry and bourgeois historiography, receive a reasoned rebuff in the book. However, in the polemic there are sometimes omissions, and even exaggerations. The criticism of Polish bourgeois historiography for idealizing the" Turkish " policy of the Jagiellons in the second half of the 15th and early 17th centuries (in the essay on the history of Polish - Turkish relations) is not convincing enough: first, it is nameless, and secondly, it does not take into account the entire sum of factors that shaped the foreign policy of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the specified period3, -Third, it is contradictory, since the author himself names the reason for Poland's refusal from anti - Ottoman alliances-the anti-Habsburg sentiments of its rulers (p. 16), who had considerable reason to fear a threat from the West. S. Batory and Y. Zamoysky's assessment of the policy (pp. 16-22) does not draw a clear line between its motivation and results.

Publishing documents takes up most of the collection. Two of the published materials are of Eastern origin, while the rest are of Polish origin. The first is the "Kamenetz Chronicle", compiled in Armenian and Kipchak by the brothers Hagop and Aksent, who belong to the Armenian mountain top. Kamianets (now Kamianets-Podilsky). The book reproduces a fragment of the "Chronicles" written in the Kypchak language and dedicated to the Polish-Turkish (Khotyn) war of 1620-1621 .4
The introduction of the Armenian-Kipchak monuments, one of the examples of which is the "Chronicle", is a long - awaited event. Our historical science is enriched by a valuable source containing abundant and unique facts from the past of Ukraine, Crimea, Poland, and the Danube region. The published excerpt contains descriptions of the most important episodes of the first Polish-Turkish war after a 175-year break - especially the battles of Tsetsora and Hotin, with a lot of important details for the historian, published from the pen of eyewitnesses, people who are undoubtedly literarily gifted. The source indicates a serious weakening of the military and political power of both the Ottoman Empire and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Information about the Khotyn War and its consequences is supplemented by an excerpt published in the collection from the diary of one of the Polish plenipotentiaries at the conclusion of the Khotyn Truce on October 9, 1621. Yakub Sobieski. This document covers some aspects of Turkey's relations with Poland, as well as those powers ' relations with the Zaporozhian Cossacks and the Danubian Cossacks.

3 N. S. Rashba gives the following argument in favor of the failure of the Polish policy of the Ottoman Empire between 1445 and 1620: at the beginning of this period, military operations between both countries took place near the Balkan Ridge, and at the end - in the foothills of the Carpathians (p.14). But this argument, firstly, essentially does not clarify anything, and secondly, the Turks approached the foothills of the Carpathians already at the end of the XV century, after the subjugation of the Danubian principalities.

4 This fragment, judging by the commentary, was written mainly by Axent, but it is very likely that Hagop, who died in the midst of the war, was involved in its compilation. Unfortunately, this point is not explained in the comment. There is also a clear contradiction in the commentary and notes (pp. 168-170). On the one hand, it is said that the monument is composed in Armenian and Kipchak languages and only the Kipchak part of it has been translated. On the other hand, in connection with the published fragment, some "Armenian-Kipchak language" is mentioned, some "Armenian-Kipchak dictionaries".

page 135

principalities. The details of the negotiations described in the diary are also of interest to the historian.

The next two documents published in the publication tell about purely Turkish affairs. Translated from Turkish and written by Tughi (Solak Huseyn), the Ibretnyumah Chronicle ("The Book of Edification") describes the bloody turmoil in Istanbul, which resulted in the deposition and murder of Sultan Osman II and the short - term reign of the feeble-minded Sultan Mustafa I (May 1622-September 1623). Here is a description of the crisis of the upper classes that struck Turkey at that time and for the first time clearly demonstrated the decay of the military and political support of the Ottoman monarchy, which janissaries and sipahs. The plot of the Tugha chronicle is closely related to the theme of other published documents, since the defeat of the Turks at Khotin caused a Janissary revolt.

A letter from Stanislaw Sulishowski, a Polish diplomat who arrived in Istanbul in 1622 to prepare the ground for the conclusion of the Polish-Turkish peace treaty, is included in this publication. This document contains the Polish version of the coup d'etat in Turkey, which adds interesting details to Ibretnyum and, most importantly, creates the necessary foreign policy background for understanding the events.

Two documents of the publication belong to the pen of the Polish diplomat," grand ambassador " Prince Krzysztof Zbarazhsky, who headed the mission in Istanbul, which achieved the conclusion of the Polish-Turkish peace treaty in 1623. The first of them is Zbarazhsky's official report on negotiations with the highest representatives of the Porte during that"time of troubles". Before us is a source of diverse nature. The researcher will find in it a lot of information related to the international relations of that period, the diplomatic practice adopted in the relations of the High Porte with Christian states, and finally, to the internal political situation in the Ottoman Empire itself at one of the most critical moments in its history. A significant place in the ambassador's report is occupied by the description of palace intrigues that played a significant role in the policy of the ruling circles The Ottoman Empire.

A logical addition to Zbarazhsky's report is his report to the Sejm "On the state of the Ottoman Empire and its troops (remarks by Prince K. Zbarazhsky, Grand Ambassador to Turkey)." In form, this is a political pamphlet, full of incriminating material, showing the degree of decomposition of the military-political structure of the Ottoman Empires. The report contains an analysis of the foreign policy situation in South-Eastern Europe in the light of Polish-Turkish relations that developed after the Khotyn War.

As appendices, the publication contains official material - four Polish-Turkish treaties (the peace treaties of 1607 and 1617, the preliminaries concluded in Khotyn on October 9, 1621, and the peace treaty of 1623). The usefulness of these appendices is undoubted, since these agreements were not published in the Russian translation.

The publication's reference system is of high quality: a terminology dictionary and annotated indexes of names, geographical and topographical names. It is compiled with exhaustive completeness, which makes it easier for non-specialists to study the publication material.

Unfortunately, the authors of the notes to the published documents are not indicated, and these notes have independent scientific significance. Pointer compilers are similarly anonymous. There are flaws in the translations (for example, "red florins" (p. 56, 70) instead of "golden florins", modernisms - " removed from office "(p. 92), "successful hooch" (p. 130), stylistically unsuccessful translation of the verse: "All these things are in the hands of God. There is no place for artificial measures " (p. 85). Sometimes there are no comments on incorrect statements in the texts of sources, for example: the tomb of Muhammad in Mecca (p. 99), although it is located in Medina. The Armenian terms "avakerets" (p.168) and "vartabed" (p. 169) are not explained. There are inaccuracies in the indexes: "Armenia is a country in Transcaucasia "(p. 209), in fact - in the east of Asia Minor, "Kaaba - mosque in Mecca..." (p.210), in reality - only a sanctuary.

The peer-reviewed, multi-faceted and largely pioneering publication will serve historians-Orientalists, Slavists,and Balkanists-well.

page 136

Permanent link to this publication: