Kyiv Metropolia and Moscow Diplomacy: an Ottoman Viewpoint

The Muscovite legation to the Ottoman Empire in 1686 enabled the final stage of annexation of the Kyiv Metropolia by the Patriarchate of Moscow at the end of the 17th century. However, previously ignored Ottoman sources (the official register of Ottoman affairs in 1686-1687, the History of Silahdar chronicle, and a fragment of the European chronicle Relazione di Constantinopoli) contradict the Russian narrative. This casts doubt on the veracity of the Muscovite diplomatic mission in 1686 and, therefore, the process of separation of the Kyiv Metropolia from the Patriarchate of Constantinople.


Introduction
In the late seventeenth century, the Muscovite State, having annexed Left-Bank Ukraine, began its expansion into the North Black Sea region. Its first war against the Ottoman Empire took place in 1676-1681 but the Treaty of Bakhchisaray in 1681 did not bring any territorial gains.1 Five years later, the Tsardom In this situation, it would be logical to study the annexation of the Kyiv Metropolia from the perspective of the Ottoman, Ukrainian, and Russian relations, using both Turkish and Western European documentation. These documents, however, remain sorely under-researched.5 Still, plenty of Turkish archive documents and chronicles of that era could shed light on important events in the church life of the Cossack Hetmanate and the involvement of Ottoman authorities in them. This possibility is enabled by the official documents of the Divan or Council of the Ottoman Empire, where all orders concerning different aspects of the state life were scrupulously written down. Whereas the separation of the Kyiv Metropoly from the Ecumenical Patriarchate was implemented due to the negotiation of the Moscow legation to Edirne in 1686, the information about it as an element of the mission at the court of the Ottoman sultan had to be definitely recorded in the official registers of the The claim that the Ottoman authorities, faced with imminent military danger, abandoned their leverage on Ukrainian ecclesiastical and political matters, seems unlikely, especially given the Russian description of Alekseyev's legation. According to this description, the legate, in spite of the Tsar's and his own will to resolve the problem in secret from the Porte, achieved his goal only thanks to Turkish involvement. The Ottoman sources used in this study critically reinforce the doubts regarding the governing narrative of the 1686 events.28

Evidence of the Ottoman Sources
The mühimme defterleri (primary registers of the Divan) from 1686, containing the records of all rulings and decisions of the Ottomans concerning their inner and foreign policy, are missing in the Ottoman Archives in Istanbul, probably a casualty of Istanbul's frequent fires in the XVII-XVIII centuries.29 However, starting in 1649, the secretaries of the Divan also provided important "registers of complaints" (şikayet defterleri), keeping account of various petitions to the central Ottoman authorities and sultan's orders given pursuant to the decisions of the Divan on various complaints. The official Ottoman document, unlike Russian sources, makes no mention of the church issue, focusing on other aspects of the mission introduced in its two pages. The sultan's rescripts ordain the following: repeat one of the conditions of the Bakhchysarai Peace Treaty which guaranteed to inhabitants of the Left-bank Ukraine the right of free movement to Ottoman's domains with the aim of fishing, salt mining and hunting;34 enable the liberation Ukrainian and Russian slaves from their servitude in Istanbul's admiralty; and sanction the return of the legates.35 Furthermore the sultan's rescripts order to return the "person" that had previously arrived to the sultan's court from the Hetman of the "Potkal Cossacks" (in other place the "Barabash Cossacks") to the Potkal Island, i.e. Zaporijja.36 According to the rescripts, this duty was to be fulfilled by the Ottoman administrators, including one "Yani, the Hetman of Ukrayna". His name is the Greek form of the Ukrainian name Ivan, and this alteration appears entirely natural in the Greek-speaking circles of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the dragomans of the Sublime Porte.
In the XVIIth century, it was Ivan Dragynych, the Acting Hetman of the Right-bank Ukraine, who went down in history under the name Yani. In 1684, 32 The last month of the Islamic lunar calendar (Ottoman Turkish The fifth month of the Islamic lunar calendar. 44 The chronicler uses the first-person plural to paraphrase the words of the Muscovite legate. 45 Rayah or reaya is a term for the members of the tax-paying lower class of the Ottoman society; here it is used concerning the same class of the Tsardom of Muscovy. 46 The main base and naval shipyard of the Ottoman Empire located in Istanbul on the Golden Horn. 47 Efendi -senior, mister, lord, patron (Turkish) 48 Fener (Greek Φανάρι-«lantern») -a neighborhood in the European part of Istanbul, residence of the Constantinople Patriarch is situated since the late XVIth century, often used a shorthand for the Ecumenical Patriarchate. 49 The 1928 edition of the History of Silahdar (in Arabic-Ottoman script) uses the word ‫سیکاری‬ (sikâri), which means "little", as the attributive of the next word "kâfir" (infidel). But Nazire Karachay Turkal in his transliterated text based on the comparison of original copies uses the word "sükârâ" ("drunkards"). The second variant looks more plausible as an attributive for "kâfir", given the dim view of the Ottoman religious ideology regarding the use of alcohol in non-Muslim societies. The depiction of the sultan's behavior and the legate's words in the History of Silahdar (Şikayet defteri, 1097-1098 touches this theme as well) convinces that its writer was well acquainted with the events of the Moscow legation. The fragment also gives us the date of Alekseyev's audience as April 14, 1686. One of the most important nuances of this note is the irony of Mehmed IV with regard to the Moscow Tsars. His words "drunk infidel" may reflect the Ottomans attitude towards Muscovy at the end of the XVIIth century as obviously arrogant, clearly showing that the Ottomans would grant no concessions. The order of Mehmed IV given at the end of the audience confirms this as well: the release of forty slaves to Moscow is more of a symbolic gesture than a concession, given the Sultan's refusal to cede the salt deposit. The Sultan's orders and the legate's messages coincide with the records of the Şikayet defteri, 1097-1098.
The Hammer's mention of the 1686 legation is as follows: "In response to the mission of the latest chavush62 to Russia, the Russian legate came with a retinue of twenty people. He proposed to renew the capitulation on the condition that they (Russians) withdraw from the lands near Kyiv, and obtained a permission to rebuild the Greek church".63 Hammer cites the source of this information as the Italian chronicle Relazione di Constatinopoli: Baptist in the Balata district, as mentioned in S.M. Solovyov's History of Rus-sia67. However, as understood from the Relazione di Constantinopoli, the mission of the legation did not involve the question of the Kyiv Metropolia.68 Hammer also reveals an important nuance. The Ottomans demanded from Moscow to forfeit the territories near Kyiv in order to confirm of the Peace Treaty. The historian, together with Silahdar and Şikayet defteri, 1097-1098, confirms that the Ottomans did not intend to make any serious concessions to Muscovy. This position of the Sublime Porte also coincides with its enticement of the population of the Left-Bank population to move to the Right Bank after ratification of the peace treaty. This policy obviously went against the conditions of the treaty but continued until the breakout of the Ottoman-Russian war of 1686-1700.69 The privileges bestowed on Left-Bank immigrants to Ottoman dominions are recorded in Şikayet defteri, 1097-1098, reaffirming the Ottoman hard line in relations with Muscovy all the way back in 1686.
Therefore, the Relazione di Constantinopoli complements the Ottoman sources and reinforces their depiction of the negotiations with Muscovy. It makes no mention whatsoever of the Church-related mission of the Moscow legation. Another significant fact is that, contrary to Russian sources, the Italian chronicle claims that the legation was limited to thirteen persons. The congruence between Ottoman and Italian sources regarding the matter of the Kyiv Metropolia means that its transfer took place under unclear circumstances.

Conclusion
Ottoman historical sources on the 1686 Moscow legation to Edirne suggest important alterations to the claims of Russian histories. Three new sources analyzed in the article, however different their origins may be, do not contradict each other. The main differences between them and Russian narratives consist in the fact that they make no mention of the church question, supposedly the very basis of the Muscovite mission, instead concentrating on facts entirely absent from Russian narratives.   To the sanjak-bey of Azak89 Timurshah -may Allah prolong his greatness -the order is: After it had become known that up to this moment, in defiance of my ahidnamei hümayun and disrupting peace and stability, numerous attacks and hostile actions had been undertaken, against Muscovy and the reaya of palankas near Azak, which lies within Muslim dominions, you were interrogated and reprimanded. It is written that if they are calm and bear no arms, they may safely and surely arrive for in order to make a living, and no one may impede their coming and going; and release the slaves belonging to Muscovy and the population of palankas -no matter their master -who are still infidels and have not converted to Islam and who have been captured in defiance of ahidname-i hümayun and the calm and stability tat followed the Peace treaty, and afterwards let no attacks and hostilities [towards Muscovy and the reaya of palankas] come to pass.
The last decade of Jumada al-Akhira, 1097 85 An official agreement between the Sultan and a sovereign ruler of another country, Muslim or not. It is written to free and deliver to the legate who came from the Muscovite tsars the following ten freed Muscovite slaves, captured (…) during the conquest and till now kept in Tersane-i Amire, , their names being: Mihail, the son of Andon, and Kuzma(?), the son of İvan, the son of (...), the son of (.. It is written, as required by the Sharia Law and following an intercession by the legate Nekta Alekseyevich, to immediately remove those Moscow slaves who are now in Istanbul and are still infidels and have not converted to Islam from the place where they had been set free, as they had been captured in defiance of my ahidname-i hümayun, It is written that when the legate Nekta Alekseyevich, who had come to the Sublime Porte from the Moscow tsars, and the man sent by the Hetman of Barabash Cossacks are deemed worthy of the Sultan's permission for their return, you must, on arrival to the other side. take an obligation to meet him with the necessary number of people, and to release, send, and deliver them to their respective lands from the place known to them. The last decade of Jumada al-Akhira, 1097 [s. 17/h. 61] According to the law, the following order is written regarding the return of the Muscovite legate for the following officials: the kadis and the myutesellims of mirmiran and mirliva and the kethyudas and the serdars of the Janissary Corps, and the wardens of fortresses, and the agas of soldiers, and the notables of vilayet, and other men of deeds who may be encountered as he travels from Edirne to Istanbul; from there he is to leave via the Black Sea to Özi (Ochakiv), and from there to the Muscovire border.