Disarmed, Naked and Horseless in the Steppe.

Hungarian Noblewomen, Polish Rider, Turkish Slave (17th c wood cut)

In 1538 sultan Süleymân annexed the Black Sea litoral fortress of Cânkermân/Özü and laid claim to all the lands between the Dniester and Dnieper Rivers deep into the Pontic Steppe. This caused immediate tension with the king of Poland-Lithuania, Zygmunt I, who also claimed ownership of those lands. After a failed attempt to demarcate a common border in 1542, further negotiations devolved into a mediation of unchecked violence in the new Ottoman/Polish-Lithuanian frontier zone. While the Ottoman sultan continued to support and profit from the enormous Black Sea slave trade, which saw the disappearance or death of some 2,000,000 individuals in Poland-Lithuania and Muscovy between 1500-1700, Zygmunt I’s frontier commanders immediately set about staging their own raids on Ottoman settlements in the frontier.[1]

Theft and its sister crime of abduction were the root causes of most acts of frontier violence. One common occurrence involved raiders from the Polish-Lithuanian side making their way into the disputed frontier zone of the Pontic Steppe and attempting to catch Ottoman travelers unawares as they journeyed between the Ottoman Black Sea ports of Akkermân, Câkermân and Caffa, making off with goods, captives, and livestock. In this instance, on 12-20^th April 1547 [21-29 Safer 954 H.], Süleymân sent a letter to Zygmunt I complaining of an attack on his subjects as they traveled from Akkermân to Caffa. The victims were attacked by the Polish-Lithuanian border commander Bernard Pretwicz at a place called “sihâkli” [صحاقلک].[2]A damage register compiled by Yüsuf bin İlyas, the kadi of Akkermân, was sent along with the sultan’s letter.

Bernard Pretwicz

The letter followed the typical practice of paraphrasing the contents of the register. However, there were discrepancies between the information contained within the sultan’s letter and the enclosed damage register. While the padişah condescended to mention specifically items such as the copper pot [bakraç] stolen from one İsmail bin Hacı Satılmış, three victims present in the register were not even mentioned by Süleymân. The sultan may have chosen to focus on the more important individuals who were named specifically and declined to mention the unnamed akinci (irregular infantryman) or the other travelers mentioned in the register.

The register, in fact, describes the losses suffered by different individuals during what appears to have been three separate incidents.[3] These incidents were accorded their own entries. Thus, “(An individual by the) name of Sabânci Ahmed, a pious laborer, was on the road with his goods along with his brother and his brother’s wife, six horses, and other goods, (when he was fallen upon) and robbed.” Likewise, “Mustafa of Bursa was taken prisoner along with two slaves.” Greater detail was also furnished in both the damage register and the sultan’s accompanying letter in a related case concerning a group of seven heavily armed merchants accompanied by an akinci, all of whom were assaulted, the sultan claimed, by the notorious Polish-Lithuanian frontier commander Bernard Pretwicz, the “terror tartarorum”.

Damages claimed by the Ottoman travelers:

Hüseyin bin Boyacı Hacı

Slave boys: 3	Slave girls: 2	Furs: 2	Cloth: 1	Turban: 1
Horse tack: 1	Quiver with bow and arrows: 1	Saddle: 1	Horses: 2

Akinçi            

Slave Girl: 2	Horse: 1	Saddle and tack: 1
Sword: 1	Fur covering: 1	Akçe: 180

Mehmed

Akçe: 3,000	Other loot: 1,000 akçe	Red scarlet cloth jacket [dolama]: 1	Turban: 1	Sword: 1
Shirt: 1	Cape [kepenek]: 1	Silver chased sheath with a knife: 1	Horse: 1	Saddle: 1

Süleymân

Embroidered brocade kaftans: 3	Scarlet red cape [çüka]: 1	Arabian horse: 1	Saddle: 1	Turban: 1
Sword: 1	Damascus stone: 1	Cape [yapınc]: 1

Ismail bin Hacı Satılmış

Circassian slave boy: 1	Circassian slave girl: 1	Cloth worth 100 akçe	Akçe 1060
Saddle: 1	Lathering Musk: 1	Tobacco: 3	Fur: 1
Felt caps: 15	Cape [yapınc]: 1	Copper pot: 1

‘Ali

Slave boy: 1	Slave girl: 2	Horse: 1	Saddle and tack: 1
Quiver with bow and arrows: 1	Sword: 1	Blue cloak: 1	Akçe: 400

El-Hac Isa

Akçe: 8,500	Silk lodre: 4	Bursa sashes: 8	Bunches of knives: 12	Foreign furs: 1
Cloak [ferace]: 1	Cotton twill borlu: 6	Cloth rolls: 10	Bow with arrows: 1	Knife: 1

Emîr Yüsuf

Akçe: 10,000	Arabian horse: 2	Moldavian horse: 1	Cloak [ferace] with fur mantle: 1
Cloak [şemle]: 1	Horse tack: 1	Arabian saddle: 1

Seals attached to damage register.

The Ottoman damage register describing this incident provides a unique account of what Ottoman subjects chose to take with them on the dangerous paths of the Pontic Steppe during the middle of the sixteenth century. The travelers were evidently robbed of whatever valuables they carried, including eleven slaves in total and in some cases the horses that they were riding at the moment of the attack. Most of the victims appear to have been carrying some items for trade; slave children [esîr gulâm, esîr cariye], felt caps [arakiye], tobacco [tönbeki], furs [kürk], lathering musk [misk köbük], various textiles, quantities of knives [bıçak deste], sashes from Bursa [Bursa kuşağı], and cash were all listed as losses. Furthermore, the victims appear to have been well armed, and reported swords, knives, and bows as lost items. Arabian and Moldavian horses were taken, along with saddles [eyer], tack [oyân], turbans [dulbend], and a variety of outerwear [şemle, ferace, çüka, kaftān, gömlek, kepenek, dolama] that may been on the victims when they were robbed. The seven merchants and their accompanying akıncı were not taken captive and appear to have been left naked and horseless in the steppe.
While the travelers do not appear to have been immediately compensated for their losses, Süleymân eventually brought a powerful case against the Polish-Lithuanian frontier commander Bernard Pretwicz in 1550 accusing him of orchestrating years of violence against Ottoman subjects in the frontier. Pretwicz appeared in person before the Polish parliament and king Zygmunt II August that year in order to speak in defense of his actions. He blamed the Crimean Tatars and direct Ottoman subjects of the frontier for launching slave raids in the king’s lands and robbing and rustling from Polish-Lithuanian subjects in the frontier. This particular band of Ottoman subjects was not mentioned specifically in the litany of violence that Pretwicz was pleased to claim responsibility for in the defense of the realm. It is easy to see, however, how this small group of armed Ottoman subjects accompanied by their slaves traveling through the frontier was set upon by Pretwicz as he enthusiastically combed the steppe for groups that fit this description.

Select Bibliography:

Dziubiński, Andrzej. “Polsko-Litewskie napady na Tureckie Pogranicze Czarnomorskie w Epoce Dwu Ostatnich Jagiellonów”, Kwartalnik Historyczny, 1996, 3, p. 53-86.

Veinstein, Gilles. 1986. “L’occupation ottomane d’Oč akov et le problème de la frontière lithuano-tatare (1538-1542)”, in: Lemercier-Quelquejay, Veinstein, Wimbusch [eds.], Passé turco-tatar present soviétique: etudes offertes à Alexandre Bennigsen. (Paris: Editions de l’Ecole des hautes etudes en sciences sociales), p. 221-237.

Veinstein, Gilles. “Prélude au Problème Cosaque: à travers les registres de dommages ottomans de années 1545-1555”, Cahiers du Monde Russe et Soviétique. 1989. Vol. 30, p. 329-361.

---

[1] This rather modest estimate was proposed in: Kołodziejczyk, Dariusz. "Slave hunting and slave redemption as a business enterprise: The northern Black Sea region in the sixteenth to seventeenth centuries". Oriente Moderno. 86 (2006): 149.

[2] For the original Ottoman document see: AGAD.AKW.dz.Turecki.68.105.

[3] For the original Ottoman document, see: AGAD.MK.dz.Tatarski.60.57.61.

Sefer Muratowicz and the Armenian Connection: trans-imperial subjecthood and diplomacy between Poland, Persia, and the Ottoman Empire

Listen to the podcast via The Wild Field:

Armenian merchant and Ottoman subject Sefer Muratowicz emigrated to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the late 16th century. Soon after, he appeared before Safavid Shah ‘Abbas I as the personal envoy of King Sigismund III Vasa on a royal diplomatic mission unsanctioned by the Commonwealth’s parliament. Though the trajectory of Sefer Muratowicz’s life is not without precedence in the heterogeneous social milieu of Poland-Lithuania, his documented involvement in the private royal embassy of 1601-1602 to Safavid Persia presents an exceptional view into the critical role of the diasporic Armenian population in the diplomatic and economic relations between Europe’s largest republic and the Islamic world in the early modern period.

Throughout most of the 16^th century, a period otherwise characterized by intense regional conflicts, the maintenance of peaceful relations was a critical element of both Polish-Lithuanian and Ottoman grand strategies. This situation began to change, however, after the subsequent election of Sigismund III Vasa (r. 1587-1632), as the pro-French, Ottoman-friendly faction within the greater body of Commonwealth citizenry was confronted by the staunchly Catholic king’s desire for rapprochement with the Ottomans’ most potent enemy— the Habsburgs. Sigismund III, acting in accordance with historical attempts of Christian rulers to ally themselves with distant Persia against more proximate Islamic polities, viewed the Safavids as a potential ally in any future wars with the Ottoman Empire. Significantly, Safavid Shah ‘Abbas I had embarked on a diplomatic scheme in 1599 by sending his envoys to contact eight separate Christian rulers, including the King of Poland-Lithuania, in hopes of establishing an anti-Ottoman alliance. The failure the Persian embassy to arrive in Warsaw due to the purported intervention of the Muscovite Tsar appears to have prompted Sigismund III to send Sefer Muratowicz to the Safavid court. Upon his return to Warsaw in 1602, the Armenian merchant-cum-envoy left an account of his journey.

The shifting balance of power in the Black Sea region at the turn of the 17^th century offers fertile ground to expand the role of trans-imperial subjects within the unique political structures of the region. These individuals “straddled and brokered political, linguistic, and religious boundaries” (Rothman, 2009), serving as key interlocutors between the major regional powers of East/Central Europe and the Black Sea region; the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Holy Roman Empire/Hungary, Muscovy, the Ottoman Empire, and Safavid Persia. Although the populations of these polities were remarkably heterogeneous, they were dominated by Catholic, Orthodox, Sunni, and Shi’a religious systems respectively, and were further differentiated by disparate political structures drawing from diverse traditions of jurisprudence. Sefer Muratowicz, an Armenian merchant native to Anatolia who came to reside in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth royal city of Lwów, successfully navigated not only the vast geographical distances between Warsaw, Caffa, Istanbul, and Isfahan, but also the different sociopolitical spaces governed by these polities.

Muratowicz’s legal position within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was determined by his membership in the sizeable native Armenian community located in major centers of trade operating mainly along the Polish/Ottoman frontier. As a subject of both the Ottoman sultan and the king of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Muratowicz inhabited liminal social and legal zones offering opportunities for advancement through his collaboration with power brokers in return for his unique abilities and personal connection to the diffuse Armenian ecumene that stretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific in the early modern period. In the context of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth society at the turn of the 17th century, Sefer Muratowicz acted as an agent in the protracted struggle between royal and parliamentary power. By privately engaging a member of the Armenian community through Krzysztof Dzierżek, the royal translator and former resident of Istanbul, King Sigismund III Vasa effectively circumvented his parliament’s legal right to determine the Commonwealth’s foreign policy and re-opened dormant channels of communication with the Safavid Shah, ‘Abbas I.

Sefer Muratowicz came to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from the north Anatolian Ottoman village of Karahisar. He first arrived in the city of Lwów in 1597 by way the Ottoman Black Sea trade port at Caffa and the via tartarica trade route stretching over the Pontic Steppe into the heart of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In the late medieval and early modern periods the Armenian population of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was deeply involved in trade with the Ottoman Empire, the Crimean Khanate, and Persia. Early waves of Armenian immigrants had their roots in the Crimea and spoke a Kipchak Turkish language until the end of 17th century. Taking advantage of these strong linguistic, cultural, familial and economic links, the Polish kings began to regularly employ individuals like Sefer Muratowicz as court translators, information gatherers, and couriers to the Ottoman Empire, Safavid Persia, and the Crimean Khanate as early as 1414, when a certain Grzegorz the Armenian took part in the first Polish diplomatic mission to the Ottoman Sultan.

After his initial arrival in Crown Polish territory, Muratowicz worked with other local Armenians

Carpet purchased by Muratowicz,
bearing Polish coat of arms

intrade with the Ottoman Empire. As a legal subject of the Sultan, Muratowicz was able to petition the Ottoman envoys to advocate on his behalf at the royal court in Warsaw. In 1601 King Sigismund III sent Sefer Muratowicz to Safavid Persia as his personal merchant and royal envoy. Muratowicz’s destination was stipulated by his contract with the King; under the rule of Shah ‘Abbas I, the city of Kashan was a key entrepôt for the Persian silk trade throughout the 16th and 17th centuries, and served as an ideal location to commission and purchase the King’s items. Several rugs purchased by Muratowicz can still be found in the Residenz-Museum in Munich. It is evident, however, that there were ulterior political motives behind Muratowicz’s sojourn in Safavid lands; the desire to ensure open and regular contact with a potential ally against the Ottoman Empire was the main reason that the king sought to re-open friendly relations with Persia. Sefer Muratowicz’s status as a trans-imperial subject of both the Polish king and Ottoman sultan, as well as his skills as an experienced merchant, allowed him to operate effectively in the vast distances between Warsaw and Isfahan, and he proved to be an ideal agent to deliver the king’s subtle message of friendship to Shah ‘Abbas I.

By engaging the services of this agent, the king pursued his own political agenda vis-à-vis two of the Commonwealth’s main rivals, the Ottoman Empire and Muscovy, by entering into dialogue with the Safavids. The most critical event that this document is connected to is Shah ‘Abbas I’s attempt in 1599-1600 to send an official embassy to “the princes, potentates and republics of Europe” in hopes of establishing an anti-Ottoman alliance. To this end, letters and gifts were prepared for the leaders of eight Christian states, including the King of Poland-Lithuania. The mission was led by the Persian ambassador Husayn ‘Ali Beg Bayat and the English soldier of fortune Anthony Sherley, who had recently appeared in the Shah’s court along with his brother Robert. The Safavid embassy of 1599 and was immediately beset with difficulties. Traveling north to Astrakhan and on to Moscow, the delegates were forcibly detained by Tsar Boris Godunov for a period of five or six months. When the Tsar released them, they traveled north to the port of Archangelsk, rather than directly overland through the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and took ship. The mission eventually made land in Stettin after two months of difficult Arctic Sea travel.

Add caption

In the end, the only rulers to officially receive the Persian embassy were Emperor Rudolf II, Pope Clement VIII, and King Phillip III of Spain. Apropos to the story of Sefer Muratowicz’s 1601 mission is the question of why the Persian embassy never made it to the court of Sigismund III. Once in the presence of ‘Abbas I, Muratowicz explained that Tsar Boris Godunov intentionally held the Safavid embassy captive and made Anthony Sherley promise that he would not visit the court of King Sigismund III before releasing the envoys and sending them on to Archangelsk. Sherley’s captivity in Muscovy is well attested to in numerous sources written by members of his party, though none mention the Tsar’s demand that the mission avoid the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. As the Shah’s embassy continued on its long, difficult journey through Europe, Sefer Muratowicz arrived in the Persian court. There ‘Abbas I learned from Muratowicz that his letters and gifts to King Sigismund III had never arrived. The Shah then questioned Robert Sherley, who knew of his brother Anthony’s confinement in Moscow. Robert Sherley stated that the Tsar let Anthony go only after receiving his promise to bypass the Polish-Lithuanian court.

The case of Sefer Muratowicz shows how widespread familial and personal contacts amongst the greater Armenian diaspora, and the knowledge of several key languages, allowed trans-imperial subjects to operate successfully in different sociopolitical milieus. We learn that the Safavid Vizier Tachmas, who initially presented Muratowicz to the Shah, was an Armenian and a Christian by birth who had never before met Sefer, but had “…heard all good things about him from his brothers, who were good friends.” It is unlikely that Muratowicz would have been chosen to lead the royal trade mission and royal embassy to Persia without a connection to notable individuals with that territory. It is therefore possible that the Vizier Tachmas was indeed a familial acquaintance of Muratowicz, whose position allowed the visiting Armenian access to the Shah’s court. The history behind this relationship can only be speculated upon, though Muratowicz’s knowledge of Turkish and Persian, both of which were in use in the court of ‘Abbas I, speaks to the young merchant’s personal connection to both Ottoman and Safavid lands. His linguistic capabilities made a positive impression on the Shah; in the Relacyja, ‘Abbas I is recorded as saying “I am not as content with any of [the Christian envoys] as I am with this one, with whom I am able to speak my own language, because through translation speech has no taste.”

The most peculiar portion of the Muratowicz’s account deals with the Shah’s relationship to Christianity. The author writes boldly of ‘Abbas I’s feelings towards the Christian faith, claiming that the Shah had been secretly baptized and desired the conversion of his entire nation. The naiveté of this notion is deep, though it reflects a larger notion present in Christendom’s vision of a Muslim ruler whose tolerance towards his Christian subjects was widely renowned. Pope Clement VIII, acting upon similar reports bearing witness to ‘Abbas I’s purported inclinations towards conversion, sent a brief to the Shah, as well as his mother, relating his joy at this news on February 24th, 1601. Additionally, a small detail contained within this passage appears in other contemporary sources; Muratowicz’ description of an ornamental crucifix worn by ‘Abbas I appears in several non-related accounts left by French and Italian observer in the Persian court. The religiosity of ‘Abbas I is further attested to in Muratowicz’s account of the leader’s departure on his famous 1601/1010 pilgrimage to Shi’a holy site in Mashhad

The immediate effects of Sefer Muratowicz’s unofficial mission to the Shah are evident in the revival of diplomatic activity between the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Safavid Empire. In 1605, the Shah’s envoy, Mehdi Kuli ben Turkman, arrived in the Polish court in Warsaw with news of the Shah’s victories over the Sultan. It was hoped that this would entice the King into joining ‘Abbas I in an anti-Ottoman coalition. The parliament still desired peace with the Ottoman Empire, however, and the king became occupied with the Zebrzydowski rokosz (legal rebellion) in 1607. In 1609, another Safavid embassy arrived in Kraków, this time led by Robert Sherley, the brother of Anthony Sherley. He delivered two letters from the Shah proposing an anti-Ottoman coalition involving Spain, England, France, the Holy Roman Empire, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Muscovy. The plan proposed by the Shah suggested that the combined Christian forces rendezvous with the Persian army in Aleppo. Sigismund III had recently renewed peace with the Ottomans through the envoy Grzegorz Kochanowski, however, and could only offer his personal friendship to the Shah.

Bibliography:

1. Aslanian, Sebouh David. 2011. From the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean: the global trade networks of Armenian merchants from New Julfa [Berkeley: University of California Press].
2. Nadel-Golobič, Eleonora. 1979. "Armenians and Jews in Medieval Lvov: Their Role in Oriental Trade, 1400-1600." Persee.
3. Niesiołowski, Kazimierz. 1743. Otia Publica Vix Domestica, [Vanities, Public and Domestic]. (Warsaw)
4. Połcyzński, Michael. 2014. “The Relacja of Sefer Muratowicz: 1601-1602 private royal envoy of Sigismund III to Shah ‘Abbas I”. The Turkish Historical Review, 5. [Leiden: Brill]
5. Rothman, Natalie. 2009. “Self-Fashioning in the Mediterranean Contact Zone: Giovanni Battista Salvago and his Africa Overo Barbaria (1625)” in, Renaissance Medievalisms, Eisenbichler, Konrad (ed.) [Toronto: Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies]
6. Szuppe, Maria. 1986. “Un marchand du roi de Pologne en Perse, 1601-1602”, Moyen Orient et Océan Indien 3.    

Posted by:
 Michael Połczyński, doctoral candidate at Georgetown University. For more on author see: academia.edu

Sefaretname: an account of the 1755 Ottoman embassy to Poland-Lithuania

Polish historians have been publishing the accounts of Polish-Lithuanian ambassadors to the Ottoman Empire since the 19th century. These sources have been indispensable to the study of Polish-Ottoman historical relations for generations, particularly as few historians have had access to both Polish and Ottoman sources. In contrast, very few studies of Ottoman diplomatic embassies to Poland-Lithuania have been analyzed. As the Polish and Turkish academies become closer, an integration of sources from both historical milieus will no doubt lead to an even more nuanced understanding of the historical relations of these close neighbors. The current study is an attempt to move in this direction.

During the 18th century in the Ottoman Empire it was standard protocol to inform neighbouring states of the succession of a new sultan to the Ottoman throne and assure them of the good intentions of the new ruler. When Mahmud I (r.1730-1754) died in 1754, Osman III (r.1754-1757) became the new Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. After the succession of Osman III, several envoys were sent to Russia, Poland-Lithuania and Austria to officially inform these states of his succession.

Polish report of the mission

Former Ottoman governor Ziştovili Hacı Ali Ağa (d. 1760) was sent to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for this purpose. Following initial preparations, he set off with his legacy by way of the Ottoman vassal state of Moldavia and the fortress of Khotyn in January, 1755. He arrived in Polish territories in February and issued a letter to Crown Grand Hetman Jan Klemens Branicki announcing the arrival of the Ottoman envoy to Polish territories. In the town of Żwaniec, Hacı Ali Ağa was met by local governors. Rich banquets were given in honour of the Ottoman envoy during his progress through Polish-Lithuanian cities. The Ottoman mission consisted of almost 50 people, among whom were the secretary of the legacy (who was a poet), a seer, a cook, a postman, servants, guards etc. Their route took them through Dubno, Lublin, Radzyń, Bielsk, Białystok, Warsaw, Leszno and finally arrived in Wschowa where an audience was held for the Ottoman envoy by the King of Poland, Grand Duke of Lithuania and Elector of Saxony August III (r. 1734-1763).

As King August III was not in Warsaw at the time, Hacı Ali Ağa was forced to travel even farther, to Wschowa. As the Elector of Saxony, the King spent a great deal of time in Dresden, the capitol of Saxony. Significantly, the Ottoman envoy Hacı Ali Ağa was invited to Białystok which was located far to the east and was not on the way to Warsaw. It is likely that royal officials sent him on this unnecessary detour in order to gain time until King August III returned to Poland. Grand Hetman Branicki invited Hacı Ali Ağa to Białystok in April 1755, after which the Ottoman envoy spent some time being entertained by the city. There he met with Izabella Branicka, the wife of the Hetman and other noble Polish ladies. It is clear that Polish-Lithuanian society was very interested in the Ottoman mission; news of the envoy’s arrival, and the receptions given in his honour were published in detail in local newspapers.

After a series of similar receptions in several Polish cities as well as in the capital in Warsaw, Hacı Ali Ağa came to Wschowa, which was located in the western part of Poland, not far away from the Brandenburg border. He had an official audience in the presence of August III in May. An elaborate ceremonial entrance was held during his visit with the King, which was attended by a large crowd of curious onlookers that did not want to miss the opportunity to see the Ottoman envoy. Hacı Ali Ağa delivered the royal letter of the Ottoman Sultan to the King of Poland-Lithuania and issued words of friendship and good relations between two neighbouring states. There were also gift exchanges at the end of the audience, which were a great disappointment for the Ottoman Envoy:

When the gifts of the King were brought, we looked upon them in wonder.

In two baskets there were five to ten pieces of Viennese-style items:

A few plates, five to ten bowls and two Austrian-style watches

These are the gifts of the King…

After accepting a letter from August III to the Ottoman Sultan Osman III, Hacı Ali Ağa left from Wschowa and arrived in Istanbul in July, 1755. Despite the unimpressive gifts given by the King, Crown Grand Hetman Branicki spent a great deal of money to host the Ottoman legacy. According to his accounts, gifts and other expenses cost Branicki some 57,502 florins. As a rule, the Ottoman government covered the daily expenses of extraordinary envoys from foreign courts that came to Istanbul. In the same way the daily expenditures of Ottoman envoys were paid by host countries until the end of the XVIIIth century. As such, the cost of Hacı Ali Ağa’s trip were an enormous expense. Following the mission of Hacı Ali Ağa, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth sent Count Mniszech to the Porte to officially congratulate the new Sultan on his succession to the throne in 1755.

The Sefaretname

Thanks to his sefaretname (ambassadorial account) and Polish sources, we know a great deal about the mission of Hacı Ali Ağa. The sefaretname of Hacı Ali Ağa differs from other Ottoman ambassadorial accounts in that it was written in the form of a poem, probably by the ambassador’s secretary. The document, which is both long and detailed, provides information about all of the cities, no matter how small, that the legacy visited. All events and locations are described as they were seen through Ottoman eyes. For this reason, it is a significant source that allows us to explore an Ottoman perspective of Poland-Lithuania in the 18th century.

Ottoman Perceptions of Poland-Lithuania in the Sefaretname

It is clear that, for the author of the sefaretname, Polish-Lithuanian society, culture, and religious life were quite alien. Political and administrative structures, urban governments, officials, and women were all described in some detail. The author criticized both the Polish-Lithuanian administrative system to the habit of the locals to drink too much alcohol:

Some of these people are drunk, some of them have a foolish-temperament

The Crown Grand Hetman’s relationship with his wife were of interest to the author:

The Hetman is very fit and takes every kind of pleasure (from life)

Although he is old, his wife is very young

He has a good time and she gives him power

In generaly, the sefaretname portays women as being very active Polish-Lithuanian society, however it is clear that Hacı Ali Ağa did not find this activity, or the women themselves to be very attractive:

(These women) are without grace or pleasant demeanour;

they are not attractive.

(Here) all women look alike,

as if they were a picture on the wall.

To look like such infidels and to dream of pleasure,

for a human, is not possible

if they don’t wear hoop-dresses [çenberli fistan],

which all women here wear.

Women are famous here for these ignoble dresses.

Jewish people also figure into the account of Hacı Ali Ağa, and are noted whenever they were encountered in his journey. In the sefaretname the Christian communities of Poland-Lithuania are described as infidels (kâfirler). Hacı Ali Ağa expresses his hope that Polish territories join the world of Islam

The sefaretname of the Hacı Ali Ağa is a detailed, lengthy Ottoman diplomatic account of an embassy to Poland-Lithuania. It provides a rare Ottoman perspective on Poland-Lithuania in the mid-18th century. The future study of this and similar accounts will help to flesh out our understanding of Polish-Ottoman relations and the ways that these societies perceived of one another.

Posted by: Dr. Hacer Topaktaş. See academia.edu

Bibliography

1. Şeref, Abdurrahman. 1328/1912, “Manzum Bir Sefâretnâme”, Tarih-i Osmanî Encümeni Mecmuası (TOEM), V. III, nr. 13, pp. 777-795.
2. Kucharska, Barbara. “Polska XVIII wieku w oczach tureckiego dyplomaty Hacı Ali Agi”, Przegląd Orientalistyczny, nr. 1 (41), 1962, pp. 31-46.
3. Topaktaş, Hacer. Lehistan’da Bir Osmanlı Sefiri Hacı Ali Ağa (1755), forthcoming.

The reception of the last Polish-Lithuanian mission to the Porte, 1790