|
|
A Report From an Ottoman Ambassador to the Court of August II, King of Poland İsmail E. Erünsal (Marmara University) It is known that both before and after the Prut war there was heavy diplomatic traffic between Poland and the Ottoman Empire. This relationship, which was problematical due to the Karlowitz agreement, had begun to improve, but worsened again when Charles XII, the Swedish King, was offered asylum in Turkey. During this time, just as some Polish ambassadors were coming to the Ottoman country, so did the Ottoman state send some official documents expressing their opinions to Poland. In the lists containing the name of ambassadors who were sent to Poland, we see that between 1700-1714 only Salahor Ahmed Bey can be seen as having been sent as ambassador or special envoy. Certainly, there were other diplomatic missions at this time, which have not been identified. However, just as we have not been able to identify the ambassadors sent during this period, we have not been able to find any report presented concerning the comission that these ambassadors were sent to carry out. This new found manuscript has made a significant contribution to the information that we have. The ambassadorial report of Seyfullah Aga, which was presented to academic circles before[i] and published with a colleague[ii], has a journal appended to it, in which there is a three page letter. An unnamed official has listed the negotiations that took place between the Polish King Nalkiran (August II) step by step, in the form of a letter. This paper presents this report. Throughout, and indeed both before and after the Prut war, there was a high level of diplomatic activity between the Polish court and the Sublime Porte[iii]. This activity had begun to increase in attempts to solve a number of problems stemming from the Treaty of Karlowitz and with the appearance of Charles XII of Sweeden as a political refugee in Istanbul. In the period between 1700 and 1714, a number of Polish ambassadors were sent to Istanbul and the Sublime Porte despatched a number of letters to the Polish court. From the studies of this period we know that a certain Salahor Ahmed Bey was sent as ambassador to Poland in 1710-1711[iv] and it is certain that there were other embassies, and indeed in the Ottoman Archives there are various documents concerning this sort of missions which are waiting to be discovered.[v] A new document that has recently come to light offers some information which sheds a little more light on the nature of those Polish-Ottoman diplomatic relations. Appended to the ambassadorial report of Seyfullah Aga, which was the subject of a previous conference paper, there was a three page report[vi] entitled "This is a copy of the letter sent by your humble servant who had been sent as official emissary to the king of Poland, Nalkıran [August II ] containing the summary of discussions carried out there". The report, the author of which remain anonymous, sets out the main points of his discussion with the Polish king in a series of articles. The report makes it clear that the ambassador was representing the Sultan to the king of Poland and that he was presenting both a written memorandum to the King as well as messages which were to be delivered orally[vii]. There then comes a list of subject matters raised with the king of Poland with the Polish position in each case: 1. The Ottomans requested that Polish nobles who had fled to the Ottoman empire should be allowed to return to their country and be reinstated in their previos position. August II agreed to the request and offered to confirm this in writing: "When I began by requesting that the Polish nobles be pardoned and that they should all be allowed to return to their places, it was made clear by the king that the request of both the Sultan and the Khan [of the Crimea] would be met but that the nobles should return within the next three months... As for Istanavuslavus[viii], it would be difficult to return him to his old Voyvodalık as it had been given to two other men and now a third man. To remove the incumbants and reinstate the former noble will be difficult and could be the cause of future disputes but since this has been requested by the Sultan he would be prepared to give other voivodelık to the present incumbants and return Istanuslavus to his former position. When I pointed out that it may be difficult for some of the nobles to return within three months because some of them had people in Edirne and Istanbul, the king agreed that those nobles who were at a distance could return within four months but those who were presently resident in Bender and Boğdan should return within three months. Those who refused to return within four months should no longer be offered asylum by the Sultan or the Khan. It is the King's sincerest hope that when they return they should behave as loyal subjects and once more be looked upon as brothers of the King. But should they act in rebellion it is requested that the Sultan should in no way give them support. The King was pleased to offer us a written guarantee to the above agreement and we saw it fit to accept." 2. The Ottoman ambassador then made it clear that the letter of guaratee was not enough in itself and that it should be delivered personally by Tarlo or some other person of similar status and this further stipulation was accepted: "However for the Poles the letter of guarantee is not enough. They should send it by the hand of Tarlo[ix] or some other man but the Khan [of Crimea] has particularly requested Tarlo. But the King said that he needed Tarlo [in Poland], but he would think about the matter and decide whether it should be Tarlo or some other person and he would send him together with me. But I believe that he will not send Tarlo but another person". 3. The King complained that the Ottomans had repaired the fortress of Hotin contrary to the conditions of the Karlowitz: "The King pointed out that it was agreed in the treaty which was drawn up with the late Sultan Osman that the fortress of Hotin would not be repaired. And later in the treaty of Karlowitz it was stipulated that no fortress should be built in the territory of Bogdan [Moldavia]. I agreed that this was true and that we had repaired fortress in Bogdan because there were some boyars both in Russia and in Poland [constituting a danger] and we had to repair the fortifications to be able to control Bogdan. The King requested that even if this were the case could Hotin not be given to Bogdan". 4. The ambassador requested that the Polish King should make peace with the King of Sweden and received the following reply: "We would regard peaceful relations with the Swedish King with great pleasure. In fact I have done nothing which was contrary to the peace that existed between us. If something has come between us and the Swedish King wishes to mend relations I will accept his offer most willingly. But [I know that] the Swedish King is stubborn. Already several kings have tried to be intermediaries between us but he has refused to make peace. It is good that the Sultan wishes us to make peace and God willing he will accept our offer. We have representatives in Brunşvik[x] [in Nemçe], and if he wants peace he should send his ambassador there. We have two reasons for stipulating this location, the first being that if we conclude a treaty on Ottoman soil he may say that he was coerced into a treaty by the Ottomans and make this a cause for breaching the peace. The second reason is that if we make peace we will both need guarantors to force us to keep this peace. If the treaty were signed on Ottoman soil then it would be the Sultan who would become guarantor. If either of us violate the terms of the treaty it would be difficult for the Ottomans to put pressure on us because they are too far away. If we sign the treaty there [in Brunşvik] they will act as guarantors and force us not to do anything that would violate the peace. This is because they are near to both our countries and they are neutral, and continually acting as intermediaries. However I am concerned that the Swedish King is not predisposed towards peace. He wishes to reside in the Ottoman Empire for as long as possible and attempt to cause discension from there. He is conducting secret activities aimed at creating discension. When we suggest peace he imposes unacceptable conditions and furthermore he does what he can to replace our present state of friendship with a state of enmity. He completed his reply by requesting that we persuade the Swedish King to send an ambassador to that forementioned place. 5. The problem of the Cossacks was discussed: "When we raised the problem of the Cossacks, the King replied that he would address that question on a completion of a peace treaty with the Swedish King. I replied that this matter could not be left as it was and that we needed certain places where the Cossackz were. He said that he would look for a solution but there were other people to consider who also had an interest in this area and that he had to consider them. He could not speak on their behalf." 6. The ambassador asked about the situtation of Osetozatke[xi] : "When we asked about Osetozakte, he replied that he was not certain whether the lands that he wanted were in his control , in which case he would be pleased to hand them over to him, or in the control of republic (cumhur) in which case he would somehow acquire them and return it to him. In any case the King recognised his claims and he should come to get his lands". 7. Finally the lipkas situation was discussed: "On asking about lipka people, I was assured that they would be accorded all their former rights and this was guaranteed in writing provided that they undertook not to attack anyone"[xii]. We could not come to any certain conclusion as to the identity of the author of this ambassadorial report. One possible candidate is Seyfullah Aga who was appointed to Vienna some two years previously. My reason is not only that this report was appended to a much longer report by Seyfullah Aga but that both texts resemble each other stylistically. Research in the Polish National Archive might give us some clues which would help us identify the author of this report. As there is no date given in the text of the report we can not date it with certainty. However the subjects of discussions held may allow us to hazard a guess. First we know from the discussion that the Swedish King was still living in the Ottoman Empire when this report was sent from Poland. From the discussion concerning the return of the Polish nobles it would seem that the Polish King was anxious about the activities of the nobles in both in Edirne and in Istanbul. For many years Istanbul had been the centre of intrigue against the Polish King on the part of the emigré nobility but that there was no such activity in Edirne until the Swedish King was taken there by force in March of 1713[xiii]. We know that after a piece treaty was signed between Polish court and Sublime Porte on 22nd April 1714[xiv], the Swedish King finally left the Ottoman Empire in September 1714[xv]. This would suggest that the report was made sometime between April 1713 and 22nd April 1714. Despite the brevity of this report it is in many ways far more informative than the longer descriptive discourses of ambassador sent on formal embassies to offer congratulations on the birth of an heir, accession to the throne, conclusion of a treaty or proclamation of a war. This embassy was not a formal exchange of courtesies but a hard bargaining session where both parties put their position as bluntly as possible. Such rough documents rarely survive the polishing hand of historians. This document may not change a great deal our understanding of this period but it certainly sheds light on how the Ottomans conducted diplomacy.
Appendix : 1
The first page of the report Appendix : 2
BOA. A.AMD Dosya No: 1 Vesika No: 49 Leh vilâyetine gidüp gelen Ahmed Beğ kullarının takrîridir. Bu kulları Leh vilâyetinde İlbov'a[xvi] varub vâsıl olduğumda büyük hatman ve küçük hatman ve sekiz aded voyvodaları ile bu kulları ve tatar ağası ve haseki ağa maan bir odada oturub ve bu kulları îrâd-ı kelâm eyledim ki Moskov rehinleriyle taraf-ı devlet-i aliyyede söyleşilüp ve karâr virilen musâlaha temessükünde Leh’in memleketinde berû tarafında olan Moskov askeri otuz güne değin ve Leh’in öte tarafında vâkî’ memleketinde olan Moskov askeri üç aya değin çıkup gitmek üzre şarta bağlanmış iken ol şarta muğâyir el-yevm Leh içinde Moskov askeri olduğı istimâ’ olunmağla devletlü saâdetlü vezîr-i a’zâm hazretleri bu kullarıyla siz dostlarına mektûb-ı muhabbet irsâl eylediler içinizde Moskov askeri var mıdır yok mudur şâfî haber taleb iderler[xvii] didiğimde anlar dahî cevâb eylediler ki biz Moskovu içimize kendümüz getürdük zîrâ İsveç kralı bizim memleketimizi harâb eyledi ve içimizdeki olan kavmimizin bazısı İsveç’in tarafdârı olmağla kendü helâkimizin havfından Moskovu getürdük Moskov dahî bizde ne mal kodu ve ne tâkat kodı hak sübhânehû ve teâlâ şevketlü azametlü Al-i Osmân Padişâhı efendimiz hazretlerinin vücûd-ı hümâyûnların hatasız eylesün sizin gibi mukarreb kullarını biz dostlarının ve konşularının ahvallerini tefahhus içün bu tarafa göndermiş biz bunu gökde ararken Allâh teâlâ hazretleri bunu bize yerde ihsân eyledi. Şevketlü azametlü Al-i Osmân-i pâdişâhı hazretleri bize yardım etdikden sonra biz Moskovu bir saat içimizde komazız öteden berû Moskovu asla sevmeziz ancak kendü helâkimiz havfından getürdük deyû tekrâr eylediler kulunuza gerek büyük hatman ve gerek voyvodaların ihbârı Leh memleketinin en güzîde yeri olan Visüle[xviii] Suyu’nun öte tarafında Moskov’un askeri gerek zehâyiri ve gerek sâyir levâzım ve mühimmât makûlesini bu Pomeranya’ya[xix] nakl itmededirler ve hâlâ bu kullarına büyük hatman öyle haber virdi ki Moskov çarı ve oğlu ve Mençiyek ta’bîr itdikleri vezîri el an Pomerânya'dadır ve Pomeranya bir kumsal yer olmağla anda zahîre kısmından bir şey hâsıl olmaz deyû bu kullarının Leh’in bazı büyüklerinden ve Bender’de olan müsin ve ihtiyâr serhadd-i mansûre kullarından ale’t-tahkîk haber aldım ki İsveç kralının murâdı benim Leh memleketine nasb eylediğim İstanislavis[xx] kral, Leh kralı olsun ve Leh’in baş hatmanı, voyvoda Kiyevski olsun ve kendi hâliyle İsveç kralı kendi vilâyetine gitmez didiler. Ve mâ[h-ı] Ramazân-ı Şerîfin yirmi dördüncü günü Leh’in elçisi Boğdan memleketinin voyvodaları otura geldiği Yaş kasabasından kalkub berû tarafa azîmet eylemişdir deyû takrîr eyledi. * Prof. Dr., Marmara University. (Prof. Dr. Işın Demirkent Anısına, Dünya yayınları, Şubat 2008) 1 İsmail E. Erünsal “Seyfullah Agha’s Embassy to Vienna in 1711: The Ottoman Version”, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 90. Band (Wien 2000), 7-28. 2 This report has been published together with the documents in Başbakanlık Osmanlı Archive and in Haus-, Hof-und Staatsarchive : Kemal Beydili-İsmail E. Erünsal, “Prut Savaşı Öncesi Diplomatik Bir Teşebbüs: Seyfullah Ağa’nın Viyana Elçiliği (1711)”, Belgeler, Türk Tarih Belgeleri Dergisi, c. XXII, sayı 26(Ankara 2002), pp. 1-181 3 For a comprehensive study of Ottoman-Polish diplomatic relations see: Darius Kolodziejczyk, Ottoman-Polish Diplomatic Relations (15th-18th Century), Leiden 2000. 4 Faik Reşit Unat, Osmanlı Sefirleri ve Sefâretnâmeleri, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara 1968, s. 230 ; Azmi Süslü, “Un Aperçu sur les Ambassadeurs Ottomans et leurs Sefaretname”, Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi, c. XIV, sayı 25, Ankara 1982, s. 246. Faik Reşit Unat and Azmi Süslü do not give any information about Salahor Ahmet bey or his mission. I think that Ahmet Beg mentioned in the following document is Salahor Ahmed Bey. In fact this is made clear in one of the Mr. Le Baron de Fabrice’s letters dated 17 de Sept. 1712: “Il n’y a point de changement favourable à esperer dans les affaires de sa Majesté jusqu’au retour du Salaor, qu’on a envoyé en Pologne, pour voir, s’il y a encore des Muscovites”. Anecdotes du Sejour du Roi de Suede à Bender; ou Lettres de Mr. Le Baron de Fabrice, pour servir d’eclaircissement à l’histoire de Charles XII, Hambourg 1760, pp. 140-141. His name is also mentioned several times in the report of von Goltz, Polish ambassador in Istanbul between 1712-1714 : Akdes Nimet Kurat, “Leh Fevkalade Elçisi von Goltz’un Türkiye’deki Faaliyetine Ait Raporu (1712-1714), Tarih Vesikaları, yeni seri , volume I, no. 17 (1958), pp. 236-239. 5 For example in a document from the Ottoman Archives (BOA. A. AMD. File no. 1, documents no. 49. See for the full text and photocopy of this report Appendix 2) which deals with this issue we discover a despatch from a certain Ahmed Beg who had been sent to Poland to discover whether the Russians had withdrawn from those territories. Sir Robert Sutton , British ambassador in Constantinople, in a despatch dated 4 August 1712, probably is referring to him thus: “But upon the representations of the Suedes and French (who continue their utmost efforts to rekindle a war between the Port and the Czar, or create a rupture with Poland) that there remains one body of Muscovites under Czarish Prince in Polish Prussia, and another in great Poland, there hath been a great council held, wherein it was resolved to dispatch an officier to examine whether the Muscovites have really evacuated those parts of Poland or not. Accordingly Achmet Aga, one of the Sultan’s Querries, departed yesterday with that comission (p. 141). On 31 of October of that year Sir Robert Sutton reports: “Some daies ago Achmet Aga returned from Poland by way of Bender with a report, that there still remain Muscovite Garrisons and troops in several places of that Kingdome”. (p. 144). The Dispatches of Sir Robert Sutton, Ambassador in Constantinople (1710-1714), edited by Akdes Nimet Kurat, The Royal Historical Society, London 1953. 6 I described physical characteristics of this manuscript in my above mentioned article thus: Seyfullah Agha’s report consists of 17 folios contained within a collection of epistolary examples. The manuscript is bound with the spine in brown leather and the covers in marbled paper, all measuring 21.5 x 13.5 (19.5x9.5) cm. The number of lines on the pages of the report vary from between 23 to 26 lines. The report is the last of three separate works in the collection, the first two being on different paper and in a different hand.The first two treatises are in a elaborate nasikh hand but the report is written in ordinary nasikh. While the first two works are written on a glossy cream paper without a watermark, the report is written on rough white paper bearing a watermark consisting of a crown and grapes. The differences in paper and hand style would suggest that the report was bound in with the two other works at a later date. This is reinforced by the fact that the report was trimmed to the size of the other folios and in doing so some of the catchwords are missing. There is no completion or copying date at the end of Seyfullah Agha’s report. Because of this, our only clue to the date of composition or copying of the report lies in the watermark. Unfortunately an exhaustive search of the watermark catalogues has not given us an exact match and therefore, for the time being, the source and date of the paper remains unknown. This description fits three page report also. The only difference being number of lines on a page. First page contains 28 lines, second and third 30. 7 “Benüm şevketlü ‘azametlü efendüm, pâdişâh hazretleri, Varşav’a dâhil olup nâme-i hümâyûnı teslîm ve lisânen sipâriş buyurulan cevâplardan...” 8 Stanislaus Poniatowski, Polish general and Voivode (palatine) of Krakau 9 Kont Karl Tarlo 10 Braunschweig 11 He is most probably grand hetman Josef Potocki, the voivode (palatine) of Kiev and Posen. 12 The envoyee does not give any information about lipkas’ problem. See for their situation in Polish land: Cengiz Orhunlu, “Lipkalar”, Türkiyat Mecmuası, volume XVI (1971), pp. 57-87. Since Mehmed Efendi, an ambassador sent to Lehistan in 1730, mentions their problems in his report, it is clear that their matter has not been settled. M. Münir Aktepe, “ Mehmed Efendi’nin Lehistan Sefâreti ve Sefâret-nâmesi”, Tarih Enstitüsü Dergisi, no. 2 (1971), p. 140. 13 Akdes Nimet Kurat, İsveç Kralı XII. Karl’ın Türkiye’de Kalışı ve Bu Sıralarda Osmanlı İmparatorluğu, İstanbul 1948, pp. 636-637 14 Darius Kolodziejczyk, Ottoman-Polish Diplomatic Relations (15th-18th Century), Leiden 2000, pp.641-643. 15 Akdes Nimet Kurat, İsveç Kralı XII. Karl’ın Türkiye’de Kalışı ve Bu Sıralarda Osmanlı İmparatorluğu, İstanbul 1948, p. 679. 16 Lwow. Bugünkü Lemberg 17 For the exchange of letters between Grand Vizier and Polish King on this issue see: BOA. Nâme-i Hümâyun Defteri, no. 6, pp. 200 and 255. 18 Vistül 19 Pommern 20 Stanislaus Leşcinski (Leszczynski) |
