BOOKS OF JEREMIAH

CYRILLIC CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE COMMUNE OF RAGUSA AND OTTOMANS FROM 1396 TO 1458

UDC: 341.76(497.5:560)(044):[930.2:003.074”13/14”

Miloš IVANOVIĆ

Abstract: An important source for an overview of relations between the Commune of Ragusa and the Ottoman Empire is Cyrillic correspondence of these states. In this paper I analyze letters from the period between 1396 and 1458. Namely, the first preserved document in the Serbian language dates from 1396, while the year 1458 marks the end of the research since Ragusa became a vassal of the Ottoman Empire. The Ragusan letters to Turkish officials had a similar form as documents which they were sending to Serbian and Bosnian rulers and noblemen. Through their analysis it is possible to determine what kind of reputation Ottomans had in the eyes of the Ragusans. On the other hand, Ottoman letters combined patterns of Serbian and Turkish diplomatics. The content of most of the letters referred to the status and privileges of Ragusan merchants in the Ottoman territory. It should be noted that Ragusans avoided contact with Sultans because they were afraid that he would impose the payment of tribute to their commune. Therefore, they tried to resolve problems of their citizens in communication with Ottoman military commanders and officials.

Keywords: Ragusans, Ottomans, correspondence, letters, Cyrillic, intitulatio, inscriptio.

Cyrillic correspondence is an important source for understanding Ragusan Ottoman relations. In this paper I will analyze letters from the period between 1396 and 1458. The lower chronological limit is the first preserved document of this correspondence originating from 1396,1 while the year 1458 is taken as the upper point of the research as Ragusa hen became a vassal of the Ottoman Empire.2 The letters that Ragusans were sending during this period are known only based on the book Lettere e commissioni di Levante dal 1399 (there should be 1395) al 1423, in which they were registered by Slavic chancellor Rusko Hristiforović.3 It contains total thirteen letters sent by Ragusan authorities to different representatives of the Ottoman state and relating to the period between 1396 and 1417. Ottoman Cyrillic letters from this
period are originals kept in the State Archive in Dubrovnik.4 This paper analyses some diplomatic forms in all these letters. In this way, it is possible to reach conclusions about the reputation and importance enjoyed by some Ottoman commanders among Ragusans.5 It will also be possible to examine, to an extent, the manner in which Ottoman Cyrillic chanceries operated. The contents of the documents will also be analysed, as well as the time of their creation.

The Commune of Ragusa entered into more serious contacts with Ottomans after 1389 when they started to threaten their merchants in the territory of Serbian local lords. The successors to Prince Lazar became Ottoman vassals most probably during 1390.6 By no later than autumn 1392, Vuk Branković also subjugated himself to Sultan Bayezid I (1389–1402).7 It is noted that in spring 1392 authorities of Ragusa ordered to their merchant Todor Gisla to go to the Sultan on the occasion of the capture of Pirko Binčulić.8 However, as Vuk Branković disobeyed the Sultan, in 1396 the Ottomans captured his territories.9 Therefore it is logical why Ragusans first established written communication with Ottoman military officials in the above area. The Ragusans’ primary objective was to facilitate the work of their traders in the territories controlled by the Turks. The letters Ragusans sent to them had a similar form as documents which they were sending to Serbian and Bosnian rulers and noblemen. All letters that Ragusans sent to Ottomans contained a month, day and year from Christ’s birth.

In the first such letter from March 1396 they marked an unnamed kadi of the town of Gluhavica as a “respected friend” (“počtenomu prijatelju”).10 Gluhavica was a mining town near contemporary Novi Pazar.11 The contents of the letter show that Ragusans had established even before communication with the kadi. Namely, they emphasise that they received from him a document confirming the Sultan’s permit for free trade in the Ottoman territory, subject to payment of the prescribed customs.12 This is also a confirmation that, at the time, they had already arranged their relations with the Sultan.13 Furthermore, we find out from the letter that the kadi requested that all Ragusan traders should travel through Gluhavica and pay customs duties there. They, however, rejected his request.14 The mentioned way of addressing was used by the Commune of Ragusa during 1395 and 1396 in communication with nun Jevgenija, the widow of Prince Lazar Hrebeljanović.15 The same epithet was used in 1398 for Bosnian nobleman Sandalj Hranić.16 Ragusans used such method of addressing in their letters sent to the nobility and local lords, whom they considered less influential.17 It can also be noted that the salutation form (salutatio) was entirely modest in a letter to the kadi and expressed only in the word “salute” (“pozdravljenije“).18 It is possible to say that Ragusans somewhat adapted this diplomatic form to the rank of the person whom they addressed.19

Different epithets are present in the five letters which the Ragusans sent to udjbey Pasha Yiǧit Bey,20 commandant of March of Skoplje. The topic of all these letters was the regulation of the position of Ragusan traders in the territory of his influence. The issue of customs was particularly underscored in them. First, in the letter from May 1398 he was for them a “much respected and powerful voivode Pašajit” (“mnogopočtenomu i veleprêhrabrennomu vojevodi”).21 The next year at the end of March or at the beginning of April, he was denoted as a “much respected and grand voivode” (“mnogopočtenomu velikomu vojevodi”).22 However, six months later the authorities of Ragusa called him an “illustrious and noble grand voivode” (“slavnomu i vel’možnom velikomu vojevodi”).23 It is from this letter that we find out that Ragusans finally regulated the issue of customs with Feriz, kephale of Zvečan. They delivered to him the text of the agreement as he did not have a scribe. They asked him his diak (scribe) should write down the agreement and send it to them.24 The formula “illustrious and noble” was used by the Ragusans also in the letter which they sent to him in
December 1399, on the occasion of an attack of Albanian nobleman Dimitrije Jonima at their traders.25 On the same day, they wrote to Sarhan and kephale Feriz in relation to the same matter.26 The manner of addressing which they used in the first letter to Pašajit is somewhat particular. Namely, it has been observed that the epithets “much powerful” (“veleprehrabreni“) and “greatly powerful” (“mnogoprehrabreni“) are seen only in letters to Ottoman commanders.27 It is not entirely clear why
they used them only during 1398 and 1399.

Unlike the mentioned epithets, the formula “illustrious and noble” was well known and the Commune of Ragusa used it to address the most important Serbian and Bosnian local rulers. For example, Serbian local ruler Vuk Branković was addressed in such way during 1395 and at the beginning of 1396.28 Taking into account the forms of addressing in documents it can be concluded that in the mentioned time in the Ragusans’ eyes Vuk Branković enjoyed greater reputation among Serbian lords than successors to Prince Lazar.29 Therefore, one can say that for Ragusans Pasha Yiǧit Bey was on a par with Vuk Branković. It is necessary to point out that Yiǧit Bey probably occupied the territories of Vuk Branković in 1396.30 Some towns (Jeleč, Zvečan, Gluhavica) of the mentioned area were incorporated in the March of Skoplje which increased the power of Yiǧit Bey.31 On the other side, Ragusans may have begun to show greater respect to Yiǧit Bey after they concluded an agreement with his envoy kephale Feriz on the issue of trade tariffs in October 1399.32 Also, in August 1398 the authorities of Ragusa used for the first time the epithets “illustrious and noble” for nun Јеvgenija,33 whose son Prince Stefan Lazarević was a vassal of Ottoman Sultan Bayezid I (1389–1402).34 In the late 14th century, they used the same epithets for Bosnian voivode Hrvoje Vukčić.35 At the time, Ragusans expressed greater respect only to Bosnian King Stefan Ostoja (1398–1404; 1409– 1418), who was for them “most holy and high” (“prêsvêtlomu i prêvisokomu”).36 The reason for this was certainly his high title.

It seems that the salutation in letters to Yiǧit Bey was also in line with the rank that Ragusans bestowed on him in inscriptions. In May 1398, they sent to him ”most kind salutation” (“mnogoljubimo pozdravljenije”), whereas in March or April of the following year they sent to him “most cordial salutation” (“m’nogosr’dčno pozdravljenije”).37
They used such type of salutation from 1395 to 1398 in letters to Vuk Branković, as well nun Jevgenija and her son Stefan Lazarević.38 In October 1399, the Commune expressed to Yiǧit Bey “great adoration” (“mnogo poklonjenije“), while two months later they wished him good health and expressed “in everything kind adoration” (“v’ vsem’ ljubovno pokonjenije“).39 In the late 14 th century, Ragusans regularly used the term “adoration” in letters to the Lazarevićs, Bosnian King Stefan Ostoja and Bosnian voivode Hrvoje Vukčić.40 Given the above, one may say that the Commune of Ragusa equalized the most reputable persons that they addressed also through the form of salutations.

During the second half of 1399, the Commune of Ragusa also communicated with Ottoman commander Sarhan (Saraža) around the disputed customs. On the basis of Ragusans’ letters it seems that Sarhan was a kind of a special emissary of Sultan Bayezid I. It seems that in mid-1399 he came to the area of interest for Ragusans.41 It is not clear what his powers were and why the Sultan had sent him. It can be easily seen that Ragusans addressed him in a similar way as Yiǧit Bey, designating him as a grand voivode as well.42 In two letters from 28 of July 1399 he was for them an “illustrious and powerful, furthermore well-distinguished grand voivode“ (“slavnomu i mnogoprêhraben’nomu pače velenaročitomu velikomu vojevodi“).43 We find out from one of these documents that he guaranteed to them the freedom of doing business. They addressed him in the same way in relation to damages to be compensated to their looted traders. The solution to this issue was earlier promised to them by Yiǧit Bey who, however, did nothing in this regard.44 A few months later, in а letter from 10th December they called him an “illustrious and noble grand voivode” (“slavnomu i vel’možno velikomu vojevodi”).45 Obviously, Ragusans believed that he could effectively help in solving problems of their merchants.

The salutation in all three Ragusans’ letters to Sarhan was different, although it was basically similar to letters sent to Yiǧit Bey. In the first letter of 28 July, a “most cordial and entirely kind salutation” (“mnogosr’dačno i v’ vsem’ ljubimo pozdravljenije“) was expressed,46 whereas in the other letter compiled on the same day, a “most kind an entirely cordial adoration (“mnogoljubimo i v’ vsem’ srdačno poklonjenije“) was expressed.47 In a document from December 1399, this diplomatic formula was shorter and read as “most cordial adoration” (“mnogosr’dčno pozdravljenije“).48 In short, it is possible to conclude that the salutation was also consistent with Sarhan’s importance for the Commune of Ragusa.

As already mentioned, on 10 December 1399 Ragusans also wrote to Feriz, the kephale of Zvečan, whom they designated as an “entirely cordial friend” (“v’ vsem’ sr’dčnomu prijatelju“). 49 Since he was subjugated to udjbey Pasha Yiǧit Bey, it is entirely understandable that he was addressed with less prominent epithets than him. It has been observed that the same inscription is found in Ragusans’ letters from 1400 to protovestiarios of Prince Stefan Lazarević Ivan and Bosnian knez Đurađ Radivojević.50 When in 1388 they wrote to Novo Brdo kephale Goislav and local citizens, the salutation read as a “kind salutation” (“ljubovno pozdravljenije“).51 We believe that these examples show that Ragusans adjusted this formula as well to the position of the person whom they addressed.

After the Battle of Ankara, in December 1402 the Commune of Ragusa wrote to Yiǧit Bey and Balaban with the aim that they ensure the safety of their traders.52 It is worth adding that on the same day they wrote to Đurađ Branković and his mother Mara on the same occasion.53 It can be noticed that Ragusans addressed Yiǧit Bey with words a “well distinguished grand voivode” (“mnogonaročitomu velikomu vojevodi”).54 This is an epithet found only in this act.55 We believe it was consciously used, indicating that Yiǧit Bey enjoyed at the time lesser reputation than before. Namely, he was not called as in 1399 “illustrious and noble”, but they still used these epithets for nun Jevgenija.56 Somewhat lower ranking is not seen in the salutation “much kind salutation” (“mnogoljubovno pozdravljenije“).57 Balaban, about whom little is known,58 is addressed as an “entirely cordial friend of ours” (“v’ vsem’ sr’dčnomu nam’ prijatelju”).59 No epithet was added to the word “salute” (“pozdravljenije).60 He was thus designated in the same way as kephale Feriz in 1399. It is not possible to ascertain whether he was subjugated to some of more important commanders. Based on inscriptions, it is possible to conclude that after the Battle of Ankara, Ottoman commanders did not enjoy such high reputation among Ragusans as before. Their influence on Ragusans’ trade activities diminished significantly. This is probably one of the reasons why they rarely conflicted with Turkish authorities.61 It is therefore not surprising that until 1415 we do not have information about Cyrillic correspondence between Ragusans and Ottomans.

From the middle of the second decade of the 15th century, Ottomans began to occupy the area of present-day Albania. They first occupied Krujë in 1415, and two years later they captured Vlorë, Kaninë, Pirg and Berat.62 This area was of exceptional importance for Ragusans as they exported from it large quantities of grain.63 It is therefore not surprising that they quickly established contact with the local Turkish commanders. The authorities of Ragusa wrote to Balaban Bey in December 1415 at the time when he was governor (subaşi) of “Kroja and Albania”.64 It cannot be determined whether he was the identical person with Balaban who was mentioned in 1402.65 The fact that they used for him only the epithet “respected” (“počtenomu subaši“)66 shows that at the moment he was still not an important person for them. Nonetheless, they were very hospitable to him. They invited his people to freely come to Ragusa and trade customs-free. They also allowed him to send grain and millet,
emphasizing that they would themselves take care about the unloading and storage of goods.67 The envoys of Hamza Bey, the administrator of estates captured by Ottomans in 1417,68 arrived to Ragusa in July of the same year. They invited local traders to come to his area. He gave them both his own and Sultan’s guarantees. In a letter of 9 August, they thanked him, offering the freedom of doing business to his people, and calling him an “illustrious and noble lord” (“slavnomu i velmožnomu gospodinu“).69 At that time they used the same epithets for Serbian Despot Stefan Lazarević (1389–1427), his nephew Đurađ Branković and Bosnian lords voivode Sandalj Hranić and prince Petar Pavlović.70 They ranked him with local rulers, attaching to him importance as to Pasha Yiǧit Bey in the prior period. A different degree of reputation of Balaban and Hamza Bey is not seen in the form of salutation which was similar for both of them – “most cordial salute” (“mnogosrdčno pozdravljenije“) or “much kind salute” (“mnogoljubimo pozdravljenije“).71 The above document from 1417 represents the last preserved Cyrillic letter of Ragusans to the Ottomans in the period before 1458.

At the end of this section, we must touch upon several other issues relating to the letters analysed. As already mentioned, in October 1399 Feriz, kephale of Zvečan did not have a diak with him while compiling a customs agreement. This is why Ragusans asked from Yiǧit Bey to subsequently send to them the document with the text of the agreement. The question is thus asked whether the agreement that he had to send was to be in the Serbian or Ottoman language? Did perhaps Ottoman commanders make copies of Ragusan letters in their language? It is hard to give answers to these questions. It is probable that as in the subsequent period, as we will see later, they had around them those who were well versed in the Serbian language and Ragusan diplomatic practice.

Table: Letters of the commune of Ragusa to Ottoman commanders (1396-1417)

Their relations can also be traced on the basis of Ottoman Cyrillic letters. In general, as determined by Vančo Boškov, these documents combined the forms of Serbian and Turkish diplomatic practice.72 The content of most of the letters referred to the status and privileges of Ragusan merchants in the Ottoman territory. It should be noted that Ragusans avoided direct contacts with Sultans.73 Therefore, they tried to resolve problems of their citizens in communication with Ottoman military commanders and officials. Also, Ragusans often strived to obtain from Sultans charters on the freedom of commerce by mediation of Serbian rulers.74

Hence it is not surprising that the first letter of an Ottoman ruler to Ragusans originates from 1430. In July that year Sultan Murad II (1421–1451) wrote to them on the occasion of their war with his vassal Bosnian lord voivode Radoslav Pavlović. The Sultan criticized them for not sending envoys before, although they traded in his lands. He requested that they should send their envoys to the Porte in order to face Radoslav’s envoys for the purpose of ascertaining truth in the dispute. He threatened to attack them if they failed to do it. He also noted that he had sent his envoy Karadza who had to communicate his attitude and explore the case.75 The envoys that they sent to him received from him, on 9 December, a charter on the freedom of commerce in Serbian, Turkish and Greek.76 After that, Ragusan envoys stayed at the Porte,
managing to receive the Sultan’s permit for the occupation of a part of the territory of Radoslav Pavlović. In this regard, on 9 June 1431, the Sultan sent a letter to the rector and the Ragusan nobility. With this letter, he sent Ali Bey who had to deliver them the land.77 However, this was not carried out. Left without Sultan’s support, in mid-October 1432 Ragusans reconciled with Radoslav Pavlović.78

More important for us is the diplomatic analysis of the above letters. Both documents begin with the intitulatio as in letters of Serbian and Bosnian rulers and lords.79 The intitulatio of the Sultan was a translation from Turkish.80 The Ottoman ruler marked himself as a “Grand Lord and Grand Emir, Sultan Murad Bey”.81 In his charter on the freedom of commerce to the Ragusans, Murad II also stressed that he was son of Sultan Mehmed I.82 The letters were addressed to the Rector (comes) and the nobility of Ragusa.83 It is unknown why the Sultan omitted the Commune from the form of inscriptio. Such phenomenon was almost commonplace for Ottoman acts sent to Ragusa.84 On the other hand, Serbian and Bosnian rulers and nobleman usually mentioned the Commune in their letters to Ragusans.85 Numerous epithets are given to the Dubrovnik Rector in letters of Sultan Murad II. In the first letter, he is denoted as a “much noble, much respected, most sage and most adorned” (“mnogoplemenitem’ i
mnogopočtenim’, prêmudrêm’ i prêukrašenim’ knezem’“),86 while in the second he is mentioned as “much noble, sage and worthy of any honour” (“mnogoplêmenitomu i mudromu i v’sekoi često dostoinomu knezu“).87 It was noted that as in other Ottoman acts, the nobility was left without an epithet.88 Numerous epithets in inscriptio are seen in documents sent to Ragusan authorities by their citizens and the Bosnian nobility. A difference lies in the fact that epithets are not associated exclusively with the rector.89 In regard to the salutation, in the Sultan’s letter of 1430 it reads as: “much honourable, kind salutation and joy to receive your nobility” (“mnogočestno ljubovno pozdravljenije i radovanije da prime plemenstvo vi“).90 A year later, this formula read: “great salutation and greeting for your nobility” (“mnogo pozdravljenije i herêtisanije da ima plemenstvo vi“).91 The words “radovanije” and “heretisanije” are not seen in letters of Ragusans, Bosnian and Serbian rulers and the nobility. Particularly interesting is the second term, which in fact originates from the Greek word χαιρετισμός and means a salutation.92 It is thus assumed that it appeared under Byzantine influence.93 The first letter contains the month, day and year from Christ’s birth.94 The same was done in the second letter, but the year was left out.95 Dating with the year from Christ’s birth was practice in Ragusan and Bosnian acts.96 Ottoman Cyrillic acts were usually dated only with a month and year, and more rarely with a year.97 It should be added that both documents contain tugra written after several initial lines.98

The Ottoman commanders also wrote to Ragusans in Cyrillic. The earliest such letter was sent by the beylerbeyi of Rumili Shahin (Hadin) pasha in June 1441.99 At that time relations between Ottomans and Ragusans were strained. Namely, Despot Đurađ Branković (1427–1456), who was Ottoman opponent at the time, resided in Ragusa. The Commune refused to hand over the Despot to the Turks, but agreed to send a mission to Shahin pasha.100 They asked from him to guarantee safety to their envoys. He did that by his letter of 13 June 1441, offering to them as escort his man if they were to go before the Sultan.101 Shahin addressed himself in the letter with a title of “pasha and lord of all the Western lands” (“od bašije i gospodara svem zapadnim stranam“).102 As in the case of Sultan’s letters, the intitulatio has the same form as in the acts of Serbian rulers and nobleman. Particularly interesting is the use of the term Western lands. This notion appears in the intitulatio and signatures of Serbian Emperor Stefan Dušan (1331–1355). According to historian Mihailo Dinić, this term designated an unspecified part of the Byzantine Empire that was conquered by Stefan Dušan. Further, the same author pointed out that the term was of Byzantine origin. For the Byzantines the Western lands represented the European part of the Empire.103 The Bosnian ruler Tvrtko I Kotromanić (1353–1391) included Western lands in his title when he proclaimed himself King of Serbia and Bosnia.104 It is seems that during the reign of his successors Western lands began to designate the western parts of the Bosnian state.105 Taking into account the above data, it can be assumed that Shahin used the term Western lands to mark Rumelia. Unlike the Sultan, he mentioned the Commune in the address of his letter.106 The term heretisanije had the
role of salutation.107 That he was to fulfil what he promised, Shahin vowed before God, prophet Muhammad and in seven muşḥafs.108 This term relates to the complete text of the Quran observed as a physical object.109 It was believed that the Quran was published in seven different forms and that there were as many acceptable versions of its reading,110 which is why seven muşḥafs are mentioned. We should note that such oath was not unusual in Ottoman documents.111 The document is dated with a month and day.112 On its side there is a signature which is illegible according to the first compiler of this document.113 At the same time, this is the last letter which enters into the chronological framework of our paper.

It has been observed that numerous forms characteristic for similar Ragusan, Bosnian and Serbian documents were used in Ottoman Cyrillic letters. It is therefore important to examine the question of who compiled them. Great chancellor Đurađ is mentioned among those whom Ragusan envoys had to bestow gifts upon at the Porte in 1430.114 A reasonable assumption has thus been put forward that he was a Serbian scribe of Murad II, and that he compiled the charter that the Sultan issued to them in December 1430.115 It is entirely certain that he compiled two Sultan’s letters to Ragusans which we have analysed. Shahin (Hadin) pasha probably also had a person in charge of compiling Cyrillic documents. Given the way in which he shaped some parts of the document from 1441, it seems that he was familiar, at least to some extent, with the practice of Serbian and Bosnian chanceries.

The relations between Ottomans and the Republic of Ragusa were significantly changed in October 1458. Ragusans had to agree to pay tribute to the Sultan. In return, Mehmed II (1451–1481) issued to them the charter on the freedom of commerce.116 That document was extremely important for Ragusans because the next year Ottomans seized the remains of the Serbian medieval state.117 Further, in the middle of the seventh decade of the 14th century Turks become neighbours of Ragusa after they conquered a part of territory of Duke Stefan Vukčić.118 These facts have been affected in a different tone of Sultan’s letter after 1458. Namely, it may be noted that Sultan Mehmed II often made threats to the Ragusans.119 Also, he constantly imposed on them an increase in the vassal tribute.120

The Cyrillic correspondence was an important form of communication between the Commune of Ragusa and Ottomans. Owing to it, we know more about the earliest period of development of diplomatic relations between the two states. With some deviations, Ragusans shaped their letters as those which they sent to Serbian and
Bosnian rulers and the nobility. The Ottoman Cyrillic letters to Ragusans were composed under the strong influence of Serbian and Bosnian diplomatic formulas. Based on the preserved letters, we can partly familiarize ourselves with the beginnings of work of the Cyrillic chancery of Ottoman sultans. More detailed research into this
correspondence for the period after 1458 could certainly yield significant results in the field of knowledge about Ottoman diplomatics. Light should be shed also on the influence of Serbian, Bosnian and Ragusan diplomatics on its development.121

Miloš IVANOVIĆ
1396 – 1458 YILLAR ARASINDA DUBROVNİK
TOPLULUĞUN OSMANLILARLA KİRİL ALFABESİYLE
YAZIŞMASI
Özet

Dubrovnik ve Osmanlılar arasında kiril harflerinde yapılan yazışmalar, bu iki devlet arasında ilişkileri anlamak için önemli bir kaynaktır. Bu yazışmadan günümüze ulaşan ilk belge 1396 tarihli olması çalışmanın kronolojik alt sınırını (post quem) belirler. Dubrovnik Cumhuriyeti 1458 yılında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun vassalı olmaya başladı. İki siyası yapı arasındaki ilişkilerin tarihinin önemli aşamalarından biri olan bu yıl, çalışmanın zamandizimsel üst sınırı olarak seçildi.

Günümüze ulaşan mektuplara göre, Dobrovnikliler Osmanlı hükümetinin temsilcileriyle ilk olarak bu sonuncuların Vuk Brankoviç bölgesinin topraklarını 1396 yılında fethetmelerinden sonra iletişim kurdu. Bu iletişim, en sık olarak önceden Vuk’un şehirleri olan Zveçan, Yeleç ve Gluhaviçe’yi kapsayan Üsküp bölgesini ele geçiren Paşait (Yığıt Paşa) ile gerçekleşiyordu. Dubrovnikliler, Paşanın denetimi altında olan bölgedeki tüccarlarının statusü belirlemek adına ona sıklıkla başvuruyorlardı. Gönderilen mektupların elkabı (inscriptio) incelendiğinde Paşaya büyük saygı gösterildiğini görüyoruz. En güçlü Sırp ve Bosna’lı soyluların isimlerine eklenen ‘slavni’ ve ‘velmožni’ sıfatları, Ekim 1399 tarihinde, Dubrovnik kançilaryası tarafından Paşanın ismine de eklendi. Öte yandan, Paşaya tabi olan Zveçan yerel idarecisi (kephale) ve Gluhoviçe kadısına ise daha az tumturaklı bir üslupla hitap ediyorlardı. Dubrovniklilerin ilgilendiği bölgeye 1399 ortalarında gelen Sultan I. Bayezid’in özel elçisi Sarhan’a (Saraja) hitap ettiklerinde de, Paşait’e yazarken kullandıkları büyük voyvodalara ait elkabı kullandılar. Elçinin elkabı için ilk önce olağan sıfatları kullandılar, 1399 Aralığından itibaren ise ‘slavni’ ve ‘velmožni’ sıfatlarını da kullanmaya başladılar. Bu elkab, Dubrovniklilerin Sarhan’ı Paşait kadar önemsediklerini gösteriyor. Mektuplardaki dua (salutatio) kısımları da, Dubrovniklilerin hitap ettikleri kişilerin rütbesine uygun olarak davrandıklarını gösteriyor. Ancak, elkabdan farklı olarak bu rüknde bir düzen tespit edilemiyor.

Ankara muharebesinden sonra (1402) Balkanlar’daki Osmanlı etkisi, bir süreliğine, zayıfladı. Bu durumun Osmanlı komutanlarına aynı yılın sonlarında gönderilen mektuplara yansıtıldığını görüyoruz. Bu tarihten 1415 yılına kadar Osmanlılar ve Dubrovnikliler arasındaki kiril alfabesindeki yazışmalar hakkında bir bilgimiz yok. 1414 yılında Türkler, Dubrovniklilerin buğday ihraç ettiği ve bugünki Arnavutluk topraklarını fethetmeye başladığı için tekrar yeniden çıkıyor. Avlona, Kanina, Pirga ve Berat komutanı olan Hamza Bey’e 1417 yılında hitap ederken Dubrovnik kançilaryası, yine, ‘slavni’ ve ‘velmožni’ sıfatlarını kullandılar.

Osmanlılar tarafından kiril alfabesinde yazılmış mektupların günümüze ulaşanlarının sayısı çok daha azdır. Dubrovnikliler Osmanlı sultanı ile doğrudan iletişime girmekten kaçınmışlardı zira cumhuriyetlerine sultanın haracı dayatmasından ürküyorlardı. Dolayısıyla, vatandaşlarını ilgilendiren sorunları doğrudan sınırdaki askeri veya “sivil” idarecilerle çözmeye çalışıyorlardı. Dubrovnikliler Sırp hükümdarlarının arabuluculuğuyla ticari belgelerini sağlamaya çalıştılar. 1430 yılında Bosna voyvodası Radosav Pavloviç’e karşı sürdürdükleri savaştan dolayı II Murat ile iletişim kurdular. Bununla alakalı olarak II Murat’ın gönderdiği 1430 ve 1431 yıllarına ait iki mektup mevcut. Bu mektuplarda Sırp, Bosna ve Osmanlı diplomatika sistemlerinin unsurlarının bir araya geldiği farkediliyor. 1441 yılında Rumeli beylerbeyi Şahin Paşa tarafından Dubrovniklilere gönderilen mektupta da aynı olgu gözlemleniyor. Bu mektubun ünvan kısmında (intitulatio) Bizans kaynaklı “Batı Tarafı” terimi ibaresi var. Kiril alfabesinde yazılmış metinlerde bu terim ilk olarak Sırp imparatoru Duşan’ın adına yazılmış belgelerin ünvan kısmında ortaya çıktı ve sonra Bosna hükümdarları tarafından da benimsendi. Sultan II Murat’ın kiril belgeleri yazan özel katibi vardı. Osmanlı diplomatikasının tanınması ve üzerinde etkili olan faktörlerin anlaşılması için 1458 sonrası Osmanlılar ve Dubrovnik arasındaki yazışmalara dair daha detaylı araştırmaların yapılması bu noktada önemli açılımlar getirebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Dubrovnikliler, Osmanlılar, mektuplaşma, mektuplar, kiril alfabesinde yazılmış belgeler, ünvan, elkab.

Милош ИВАНОВИЋ
ЋИРИЛСКА ПРЕПИСКА ИЗМЕЂУ ДУБРОВАЧКЕ
КОМУНЕ И ОСМАНЛИЈА ОД 1396. ДО 1458.
Резиме

Важан извор за познавање дубровачкоосманских односа представља њихова ћирилска преписка. Први сачувани документ у оквиру ње потиче из 1396. која је зато одабрана за доњу хронолошку границу овог истраживања. За горњу смо одабрaли 1458. када је Дубровачка република постала вазал Османског царства што је једна од преломних тачака у историји њихових односа.

Судећи по сачуваним писмима Дубровчани су најпре успоставили контакт са представницима османских власти на тлу области Вука Бранковића коју су Турци заузели током 1396. године. Најчешће су комуницирали са Пашаитом (Јигит-паша) заповедником скопског крајишта, у чији састав су ушли некадашњи
Вукови градови Звечан, Јелеч и Глухавица. Обраћали су му се како би регулисали положај својих трговаца у области коју је контролисао. На основу инскрипција писама које су му слали може се закључити да је у њиховим очима уживао велики углед. Октобра први пут су за њега употребили епитете славни и велможни, који се обично ишли уз имена најмоћнијих српских и босанских великаша. Са далеко мање свечаног тона обраћали су се, пак, њему
подређеном звечанском кефалији као и глухавичком кадији. Посебног изасланика султана Бајазита I (1389–1402) Сархана (Саража) који је средином 1399. стигао на подручје од интереса за Дубровчане означавали су, попут Пашаита, као великог војводу. За њега су у инскрипцијама најпре користили специфичне епитете, да би га децембра 1399. назвали славним и велможним. Очито је да су сматрали да је и он имао утицај раван Пашаитовом. Чини се да
су и салутације у писмима биле у складу са рангом који су Дубровчани приписивали особама којима су писали, мада се код њих не може уочити правилност као код инскрипција.

Након битке код Ангоре 1402. османски утицај на Балкану је ослабио што се запажа и у писмима њиховим командантима крајем те године. Од тада па све до 1415. нема података о ћирилској преписци између Османлија и Дубровчана. Тада се она поново појављује, јер су Турци почели да запоседају подручја данашње Албаније, одакле су Дубровчани извозили жито. Заповедника Валоне, Канине, Пирга и Берата 1417. Хамзабега ословили су епитетима славни и велможни.

Знатно је мање сачуваних османских ћирилских писама из овог периода. Треба рећи да су Дубровчани избегавали да директно комуницирају са султанима зато што су били уплашени да би могао наметнути плаћање трибута њиховој заједници. Стога, су настојали да реше проблеме својих грађана комуникацијом са османским војним командантима и службеницима. Дубровчани су настојали да посредством српских владара добију од њих повеље о слободи
трговине. Комуникацију са Муратом II успоставили су 1430. поводом рата који су водили са босанским војводом Радосавом Павловићем. У вези са тим сачувана су два писма која им је султан упутио из 1430. односно 1431. године. Примећено је да су они комбиновали елементе српског, босанског и османског
дипломатичког система. Исто важи и за писмо које је Дубровчанима 1441. упутио румелијски беглербег Шахин у чијој се интитулацији појављује појам Западне стране, који је византијског порекла. Кад је реч о ћирилским документима он се најпре јавио у титулатури српског Цара Стефана Душана, а затим
су га преузели босански владари. Султан Мурат II имао је посебног канцелара који му је састављао ћирилске акте. Детаљнија проучавања османскодубровачке преписке за период након 1458. могла би донети значајне резултате на пољу познавања османске дипломатике, те утицаја под којима се она развијала.

Кључне речи: Дубровчани, Османлије, преписка, писма, ћирилица, интитулација, инскрипција.

  1. H. Šabanović, Turski dokumenti državnog arhiva u Dubrovniku, Prilozi za orijentalnu filologiju 12–13 (1962–1963) 121. ↩︎
  2. И. Божић, Дубровник и Турска у XIV и XV веку, Београд 1952, 155–157; V. Foretić, Povijest Dubrovnika do 1808, Prvi dio, Od osnutka do 1526., Zagreb 1980, 228. ↩︎
  3. М. Пуцић, Споменици српски I, Београд 1858, I; Енциклопедија српске историографије, пр. С. Ћирковић, Р. Михаљчић, Београд 1997, 21. ↩︎
  4. More about the Turkish acts in the Dubrovnik Archive: Ć. Truhelka, Tursko slovjenski spomenici dubrovačke arhive, Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu 23/1 (1911) 1–3; H. Šabanović, Turski dokumenti, 121–147 ↩︎
  5. Significant aid can be found in the following papers: М. Шуица, Дубровачка писма: огледало друштвенополитичких промена у српским земљама (1389–
    1402)    , Годишњак за друштвену историју 2 (2011) 29–48; С. Станојевић, Студије о српској дипломатици. III Инскрипција, Глас Српске краљевске академије 92 (1913) 162–199; М. Благојевић, Државност Земље Павловића, Земље Павловића: средњи вијек и и период турске владавине, Зборник радова
    са научног скупа, Рогатица, 27–29. јуна 2002, Бања Лука–Српско Сарајево 2003, 124–129; М. Пурковић, Етикеција и друштвени дух у старој српској држави, Годишњак скопског Филозофског факултета 2 (1931–1933) 111–139. ↩︎
  6. В. Трпковић, Турскоугарски сукоби до 1402 , Историјски гласник 1–2 (1959) 100–102, 107; М. Шуица, Вук Бранковић: славни и велможни господин, Београд 2014, 136. ↩︎
  7. С. Бојанин, Повеља Вука Бранковића којом ослобађа Манастир Хиландар плаћања „турског данка”, Стари српски архив 9 (2010) 149–151; М. Шуица, Вук Бранковић, 144. ↩︎
  8. И. Божић, Дубровник и Турска, 14 ↩︎
  9. М. Пуцић, Споменици српски I, Примедбе, Београд 1858, I; М. Динић, Област Бранковића: Српске земље у средњем веку, Београд 1978, 158–160; М. Шуица, Вук Бранковић, 161–166. ↩︎
  10. М. Ивановић, Писмо Дубровчана турском кадији у Глухавици, Стари српски архив 10 (2011) 118. ↩︎
  11. More about Gluhavuca: С. Ћирковић, Д. Ковачевић, Којић, Р. Ћук, Старо српско рударство, Београд 2002, 44–45, 52–53, 82–83; Лексикон градова и
    тргова средњовековних српских земаља: према писаним изворима    , ред. С. Мишић, Београд 2010, 82–83 (С. Мишић). ↩︎
  12. М. Ивановић, Писмо Дубровчана турском кадији, 118; И. Божић, Дубровник и Турска, 14–15. ↩︎
  13. И. Божић, Дубровник и Турска, 14–16. ↩︎
  14. М. Ивановић, Писмо Дубровчана турском кадији, 118–119 ↩︎
  15. Љ. Стојановић, Старе српске повеље и писма I–1, Београд–Сремски Карловци 1929, 180–182; М. Шуица, Дубровачка писма, 36–37, 44–45, 48; М. Благојевић, Стефан Лазаревић и суверенитет српске државе, Немањићи и Лазаревићи и српска средњовековна државност, Београд 2004, 411 ↩︎
  16. Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–1, 255; М. Благоjевић, Државност Земљe Павловића, 128; М. Пурковић, Етикеција и друштвени дух, 114 ↩︎
  17. М. Шуица, Дубровачка писма, 35–36. ↩︎
  18. М. Ивановић, Писмо Дубровчана турском кадији, 118. ↩︎
  19. С. Станојевић, Студије о српској дипломатици. IV Салутација, Глас Српске краљевске академије 92 (1913) 202. ↩︎
  20. More about Yiǧit Bey: Г. Елезовић, Турски споменици у Скопљу, Гласник Скопског научног друштва 1 (1925) 136–141, 144; Н. Исаиловић, А.
    Јаковљевић, Шах Мелек (Прилог историји турских упада у Босну 1414. и 1415. године), Споменица академика Симе Ћирковића, Београд 2011, 445–446, 456. ↩︎
  21. Љ. Стојановић, Старе српске повеље и писма I–2, Београд–Сремски Карловци 1934, 218. ↩︎
  22. Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 219. ↩︎
  23. Ibidem, 220. ↩︎
  24. Ibidem, 219–220. ↩︎
  25. Ibidem, 220; И. Божић, Дубровник и Турска, 21. ↩︎
  26. Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 224–225. ↩︎
  27. С. Станојевић, Студије о српској дипломатици. III Инскрипција, 169. ↩︎
  28. Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–1, 142–143, 145; М. Шуица, Дубровачка писма, 36, 37, 44–45; М. Благојевић, Стефан Лазаревић и суверенитет српске државе, 411. ↩︎
  29. М. Шуица, Дубровачка писма, 44–46; М. Благојевић, Стефан Лазаревић и суверенитет, 411. ↩︎
  30. М. Шуица, Вук Бранковић, 163 ↩︎
  31. М. Динић, Област Бранковића, 172–173. ↩︎
  32. Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 219–220; И. Божић, Дубровник и Турска, 20. ↩︎
  33. Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–1, 186; М. Шуица, Дубровачка писма, 40, 46; М. Благојевић, Стефан Лазаревић и суверенитет српске државе, 411. ↩︎
  34. It was during 1389 that Prince Stefan successfully overcame the crisis in his relations with Bayezid. For more information: М. Шуица, Завера властеле против кнеза Стефана Лазаревића 1398. године, Историјски гласник 1–2 (1997) 7–24. ↩︎
  35. Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–1, 447–448; М. Благојевић, Државност Земље Павловића, 127 ↩︎
  36. Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–1, 418, 429–430; С. Станојевић, Студије о српској дипломатици. III Инскрипција, 172 ↩︎
  37. Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 218–219. ↩︎
  38. М. Шуица, Дубровачка писма, 44–45 ↩︎
  39. Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 219–220. ↩︎
  40. Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–1, 186–189, 191–192, 429–431, 448; М. Шуица, Дубровачка писма, 46. ↩︎
  41. Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 222; И. Божић, Дубровник и Турска, 20. ↩︎
  42. Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 222–224. ↩︎
  43. Ibidem, 222–223. ↩︎
  44. Ibidem, 222–223. ↩︎
  45. Ibidem, 224. ↩︎
  46. Ibidem, 222 ↩︎
  47. Ibidem, 223. ↩︎
  48. Ibidem, 224 ↩︎
  49. Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 224 ↩︎
  50. Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–1, 412–413, 478; С. Станојевић, Студије о српској дипломатици. III Инскрипција, 168, fot. 3. ↩︎
  51. Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–1, 168. ↩︎
  52. Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 221, 225. ↩︎
  53. М. Ивановић, Писма Дубровчана Мари и Ђурђу Бранковићу, Стари српски архив 11 (2012) 117–119. ↩︎
  54. Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 221 ↩︎
  55. С. Станојевић, Студије о српској дипломатици. III Инскрипција, 169. ↩︎
  56. Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–1, 196. ↩︎
  57. Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 221 ↩︎
  58. И. Божић, Дубровник и Турска, 24, 36, 38, 40, 43. ↩︎
  59. Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 225 ↩︎
  60. Ibidem, 225 ↩︎
  61. И. Божић, Дубровник и Турска, 32. ↩︎
  62. Историја српског народа II, Београд 1982, 95–96 (Ј. Калић); И. Божић, Дубровник и Турска, 37–38; C. Imber, The Ottoman Empire 1300–1481, Istanbul
    1990, 90. ↩︎
  63. И. Божић, Дубровник и Турска, 36–39 ↩︎
  64. Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 226–227. ↩︎
  65. И. Божић, Дубровник и Турска, 38, fot. 92 ↩︎
  66. Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 224 ↩︎
  67. Ibidem, 226 ↩︎
  68. Историја српског народа II, 96 (Ј. Калић) ↩︎
  69. Ibidem, 227 ↩︎
  70. Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–1, 163, 216–219, 221, 223–225, 288–289, 291–292, 530; М. Благојевић, Државност Земље Павловића, 128–129. ↩︎
  71. Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 225–227 ↩︎
  72. V. Boškov, Odnos srpske i turske diplomatike, Jugoslovenski istorijski časopis 19, 3–4 (1980) 220–229, 231–234. ↩︎
  73. И. Божић, Дубровник и Турска, 50–52, 120, 125, 132, 135; М. Спремић, Деспот Ђурађ Бранковић и његово доба, Београд 1994, 36–369, 371–372, 409–412, 424 ↩︎
  74. И. Божић, Дубровник и Турска, 15–16, 106–108, 118, 135; М. Спремић, Деспот Ђурађ Бранковић, 368, 371, 411–412 ↩︎
  75. Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 227–228. ↩︎
  76. Ibidem, 229–231; И. Божић, Дубровник и Турска, 53–54. ↩︎
  77. Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 231; И. Божић, Дубровник и Турска, 54–55. ↩︎
  78. И. Божић, Дубровник и Турска, 54–55 ↩︎
  79. V. Boškov, Odnos srpske i turske diplomatike, 222. ↩︎
  80. Ibidem, 222. ↩︎
  81. Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 227, 231 ↩︎
  82. Ibidem, 229 ↩︎
  83. Ibidem, 227–228, 231. ↩︎
  84. V. Boškov, Odnos srpske i turske diplomatike, 223 ↩︎
  85. С. Станојевић, Студије о српској дипломатици. III Инскрипција, 182–183, 187, 193–194. ↩︎
  86. Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 227 ↩︎
  87. Ibidem, 231. ↩︎
  88. V. Boškov, Odnos srpske i turske diplomatike, 223. ↩︎
  89. С. Станојевић, Студије о српској дипломатици. III Инскрипција, 176–177, 182–183, 186–187; V. Boškov, Odnos srpske i turske diplomatike, 223. ↩︎
  90. Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 227–228. ↩︎
  91. Ibidem, 231. ↩︎
  92. Ђ. Даничић, Рјечник из књижевних старина српских. Дио трећи (Р–Ћ), Београд 1864, 411. ↩︎
  93. V. Boškov, Odnos srpske i turske diplomatike, 223. ↩︎
  94. Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 228. ↩︎
  95. Ibidem, 231. ↩︎
  96. С. Станојевић, Студије о српској дипломатици. XVII Датирање, Глас Српске краљевске академије 132 (1928) 30, 36, 42. ↩︎
  97. V. Boškov, Odnos srpske i turske diplomatike, 227 ↩︎
  98. Ć. Truhelka, Turskoslovjenski spomenici , 4, 6, tabla 1 ↩︎
  99. Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 234–235. ↩︎
  100. И. Божић, Дубровник и Турска, 87–88; М. Спремић, Деспот Ђурађ Бранковић, 256–257 ↩︎
  101. Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 234–235 ↩︎
  102. Ibidem, 234. ↩︎
  103. М. Динић, Српска владарска титула за време царства, Зборник радова Византолошког института 5 (1958) 10–11. ↩︎
  104. М. Динић, Српска владарска титула за време царства, 12; С. Станојевић, Студије о српској дипломатици. II Интитулација, Глас Српске краљевске академије 92 (1913) 125. ↩︎
  105. М. Динић, Српска владарска титула за време царства, 13. ↩︎
  106. Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 234 ↩︎
  107. Ibidem, 234–235 ↩︎
  108. Ibidem, 235. ↩︎
  109. The Encyclopedia of Islam, volume VII (Mif–Naz), Leiden–New York 1993, 668–669 (J. Burton); Ђ. Даничић, Рјечник из књижевних старина српских. Дио други (Л–П), Београд 1863, 97. ↩︎
  110. J. Burton, The collection of the Qur’an, Cambridge 1977, 151–153, 194, 206–210 ↩︎
  111. See some examples in documents of Murad II, Mehmed II and Bayezid II: Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 232, 239, 287; Reading the Middle Ages, Volume
    II: Sources from Europe, Byzantium, and the Islamic World, c. 900 to c. 1500    , ed. B. Rosenwein, Toronto 20132 , 456. ↩︎
  112. Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 235 ↩︎
  113. Ć. Truhelka, Turskoslovjenski spomenici , 7–8. ↩︎
  114. N. Iorga, Notes et extraits pour servire a l’ histoire des croisades au XVe siècle, vol. II, Paris 1899, 286; V. Boškov, Odnos srpske i turske diplomatike, 230. ↩︎
  115. V. Boškov, Odnos srpske i turske diplomatike, 230. ↩︎
  116. Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 237–238. ↩︎
  117. М. Спремић, Деспот Ђурађ Бранковић, 544–545 ↩︎
  118. More about that: С. Ћирковић, Херцег Стефан Вукчић-Косача и његово доба , Београд 1964, 263–264; V. Foretić, Povijest Dubrovnika I, 232. ↩︎
  119. See: Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 251, 256, 259, 262. ↩︎
  120. Љ. Стојановић, Повеље и писма I–2, 245, 247–249, 254, 260–261, 268–269; И. Божић, Дубровник и Турска, 157. ↩︎
  121. Some remarks about that: V. Boškov, Odnos srpske i turske diplomatike, 231–234 ↩︎

This article is the result of the project No. 177029 of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia.

Map of our blog posts. Go forth and discover something close to you!

Recent Posts

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe Form

If you would like to be informed when new materials get published *
Twitter Facebook Link

©2025 by Books of Jeremiah

Scroll to Top