The article analyzes the legal documents of the Crimean Khanate and Moscow Rus of the XVI-XVII centuries for the presence of cross-forms, terminology, stylistic markers that could indicate linguistic mutual influence in this area.

Keywords: Crimean Khanate, Sidzhil, judicial registers, Bakhchisarai Kadylyk, waqf, source of law, language of legal documents, borrowings.

The purpose of this paper is to compare legal documents that are examples of business writing during the emergence of new language standards in Russia and in the Crimean Khanate in order to determine the presence of overlapping stylistic and lexical elements in the light of close linguistic contacts in earlier epochs. Legal documents published in large numbers in Russia (see, for example: [Akty..., 1838]), observations on the literary language of the XVI-XVII centuries by Russian linguists (Budde, 2005; Vinokur, 2010 ;Sreznevsky, 1887; Filin, 2008), and court decisions of the sharia district court of the Bakhchisarai kadylyk [Reprints...].

In contrast to the Russian array of judicial acts, the Crimean archive is studied very superficially, despite a number of publications by Turkish and Crimean Tatar authors. In many cases, these publications are informational in nature on the occasion of its next discovery [Biyarslanov, 1889-1891; 1naljik, 1996; Turan, 2002; Turan, 2004; Cihan and Yilmaz, 2004; Cobanzade, 1925; Turan, 2003] or are devoted to one very narrow topic related to the language or content of these publications. solutions [Rustemov, 2013(1-2); Rustemov, 2014 (1-2); Kavak]. These monuments, unlike, for example, diplomatic documents, historical chronicles, and Khan's labels, were not subjected to systematic study. With the exception of individual fragments in some rare articles, texts from the mentioned registers have never been published. There is no complete translation of at least one volume from this collection of acts. Thus, the task is reduced not only to comparing already published and processed texts, but also to reading and translating texts that are practically unknown and not read.

In my previous works, I have already discussed what the judicial registers of the Crimean Khanate are like [Rustemov, 2013(1-3); Rustemov, 2014 (1-2)]. Separate records of court decisions - sijili, as they sound in the original language-contain a brief description of the essence of the trial, including an accusation from the prosecutor (takrir-i dava - "evidence on the case"), objections of the suspect (ikrar-u i ' tiraf /bi'l-lnkâr cevab) or a confession of guilt (ikrar), witness statements (şahadet), decision (hukm), date and names of witnesses present. Sometimes cases are considered-

page 168
they fought not for one, but for two days or more. Then all participants in the notes that follow after the first day are mentioned with the definition of mezbur - "specified", and about dignitaries and more important persons they said mezkur - "mentioned", from the Arabic root zikr - "to mention". The deceased were referred to as tegkit (from gakat - "number"), i.e. "counted", or merhum-u tegkit - " counted deceased (mentioned deceased)". So they could write about a non-Muslim. But more often they wrote mezbur. If cases were considered on the same day one after another, then the date on all subsequent cases after the first case was usually not written, noting-tarih-i mezbur - "specified date".

This type of document, defined in Ottoman studies as ilam (i'lam)1 or as hükm (decision), is most common in Crimean judicial acts. In fact, based on the content of the case, the decision-hcm, adopted as a result of the proceedings, served as the basis for issuing various certificates or documents that have the nature of an executive order. These include determining the share of inheritance (qismet-i mevaris), issuing a certificate of release for a slave (itaq-name), entering into a marriage contract (nikah) with recording the amount of material contribution from the husband (mehr-i muaccel), as well as divorce (talaq) with mandatory payment of compensation to the wife (mehr-i m ü eccel) stipulated in the prenuptial agreement. Hyukmas or ilams could be related to issues of land division and the issuance of a certificate of ownership of a plot, with the consideration of criminal cases and the appointment of a penalty or other, more severe punishment, determination and collection of debt, permission to trade within waqf 2 possessions, etc. [Reprint..., Vol. 1].

The Crimean judicial registers contain rewritten labels and berats of the Crimean khans that stand apart, concerning the construction of mosques or other public buildings, the regulation of the activities of kadiaskers (judges) and their naibs (assistants), the operating mode of mints or prices for various products on the occasion of the holiday [Reprint..., vol.1]. Khan's labels differ from the main content of Kadiasker books - sijils - both in structure and style, although they do not completely repeat the original texts of decrees on design. These documents are solemn, written in a more strict calligraphic handwriting. Often there is a lush self-praise in them, and the style evokes images from fiction that do not quite correspond to the style of business papers.

Crimean sidzhili - a type of legal documents that began to take shape in the Crimea under the influence of the Ottoman Porte. According to their structure and style, the Sijili of Crimea and Turkey are absolutely identical. The difference lies in a slightly more careless handwriting and some Crimean realities contained in separate documents of the Bakhchisarai sakk. These are, in fact, Crimean Tatar names of non-Muslim origin (Kuntovmush, Tak'atmysh, Chak'y, etc.), Crimean toponymy, references to Crimean khans and historical events, characters, uncharacteristic titles and positions for Turkey. In addition, Crimean documents sometimes contain different spellings of numerals (for example, tokuz (nine) instead of dokuz, tort (four) instead of dert, etc.) and some other parts of speech characteristic of the dialects of the Tatar Crimea [Reprints..., vol. 1]. A more detailed comparison of the language of Crimean and Turkish languages is made. Turkish sijils of the Ottoman period, as well as the final confirmation of the existence or absence in the XVII-XVIII centuries.-

1 (i 'lam) - a record or document informing about the court's decision.

2 Waqf - movable and immovable property belonging to the department of the spiritual administration (muftiate) of Crimean Muslims, not subject to taxes. All transactions on the territory of waqf lands, such as obtaining a trade permit, were regulated by contracts between the merchant or entrepreneur, on the one hand, and representatives of the waqf commission headed by the imam of the mosque and the city mufti, on the other. Disputes between the parties were considered in the Sharia court of the local kadylyk.

page 169
the peculiarity of the written Crimean version of the Ottoman language is still waiting for its time.

In general, the language, style, calligraphy, and structure of the Crimean Sijils indicate the identity of the justice system in the Ottoman Empire and in the Crimean Khanate, its vassal. The legal proceedings in Crimea were based on the rules of Sharia law. This suggests that "the entire system of Muslim justice was based on 'Law by Analogy', which can be considered more like 'Case Law' or 'Ichtikhat' - the opinion of experts in fakh, theologians and scientists" (Rustemov, 2013, pp. 174-175). The precedents of various decisions on various issues of regulating legal relations were described first of all in the Koran, which formulated the basic principles for assessing the severity of various sins and misdemeanors and the principles of social and domestic relations between members of the Muslim community, including marriage, family and inheritance division. Thus, the source of justice in Ottoman Turkey and in the Crimea of the XVII-XVIII centuries. This is the Koran, and in a broader context, Islam, which ideally considers all members of society equal before the divine law.

This is a fundamental difference from the justice system that existed in the Golden Horde and went back to the ancient Turkic customary law-tere. On the basis of tere, Genghis Khan created the Yasa, which became the law for all the Turkic states ruled by his descendants. The source of law in the actual Turkic tradition was bek - the head of the clan, or khan (kagan, khakan) - the ruler of the state, whose powers are sanctified by the god of eternal heaven (Tanry / Tengri). This difference in the choice of basis in the system of legal coordinates separated the two justice systems and changed the direction of the linguistic development of the Crimean business letter.

The change of linguistic traditions, in my opinion, took place in the Crimea in the XVI century. The impetus for this was, on the one hand, the weakening of the influence of the Kazan Khanate, which kept the Horde written standards, and its final defeat in the war with Moscow Rus (1552), and on the other, the ever deeper incorporation of the Crimean Khanate into the administrative, cultural, scientific and business field of the vast Ottoman Empire. Fiction has become the most sensitive area to changing language priorities. The influence of the Ottoman language can be seen in the poetic sketches of the second Crimean Khan, Mengli Giray I (1445-1515). This process quickly became apparent in diplomatic documents:

"The complete transition from the Turkic to the Arabic identification article of the form (i.e., from the traditional Golden Horde to the Ottoman one borrowed from the Ottoman chancellery) occurs in the Crimean chancellery after 1524 (930 AD) and no later than 1549 (956 AD)" [Zaitsev, 2006, pp. 88-89].

Unfortunately, the earliest surviving judicial collections date back to the second half of the 17th century. There is no evidence of the Crimean legal language of previous centuries. However, judging by the general dynamics of written speech development, it can be assumed that the language of the legal sphere was transformed synchronously with the language of administration and literature.

As an example of the Ottoman type of sijil from the Sakk of Bakhchisarai, I will cite the following one, dedicated to the litigation of a young slave who wanted to find freedom after the death of his master, Muhammad Aga. The first volume of these Crimean sidzhiles contains several texts related in one way or another to the division of the property of this important person. As reported in one of the documents, he was kilyarji bashi - the head of the quartermaster service, and died on the Dnieper: "he became a martyr at the hands of a Cossack robber" [Reprint..., vol.1, p. 85b, text N 3]. The text "Ghulam Kenan's Lawsuit" published below (Fig. 1) comes after the first mention of Mehmed's death and the claim for the release of concubine Zeman (see: [Rustemov..., 2013(2), p. 17]).

page 170

Figure 1. Ghulam Kenan's Lawsuit

page 171
"THE GHULAM KENAN LAWSUIT"

1. Merhum-u merkum aĝaniň ebna-i kibari mezburûn Hasan ve Yunus ve Murtaza ve evlad-i sigar-i vasîlleri

2. mezburan Elhac Hasan ve Hizr Pasa ve büyük qizlan ve zivcesin vekilleri mezbur Ömer Çelebi ve Elhac Hüseyn ve Yunus Çelebinden

3. muhzinnda Kenan nam Eflâk al-asl gulama takrir-i kelami idub merhum Gazi Girey han vefatindan

4. soňra efendim merhum-u merkum Muhammed aĝa istanbul'a vardiqta istanbulda beni atiq itmiş idi

5. ve soňra istanbuldan Bahçesara'ya geldikte _ ol dahi demiş idi atâqami taleb iderün.

6. Sual olunub deyüb mezburundan sual olunduqda salif ul-zikr Murtaza taqdir-u mudebbir

7. idub Gazi Girey han hayatinda cemiyet hitanimizdan babam merhum-u merkum Muhammed ağa ben sagir iken

8. işbu Kenani bana hibe itmisdir benim memlugim olunduqdan soňra inaq ve tedbiri maqbulum degildir.

9. Benim memlugimdür dedükde vereseden mezbur Hasan ve vasîl ve Elhac Ali ve mezbur Kenan inkâr ile

10. muqabele idimecek mezbur Murtaza Çdebinin sadaqa duasina beni taleb olunduqta Mustafa Paşa bin Hasan

11. ve Musa bin Mehmed ve Sefes bin Toqtamiş li-ecli el-şahade hazirun olunub merhum Gazi Girey han zamaninda

12. merkum Muhammed ağani oğullan hayatinda işbu Kenam oğlu işbu Murtaza Seferniň hibe itdügine

13. şahadet dahi ideriz deyüb şahadetleri maqbulu olub___ Mehmed ağanin itaq

14. ve tedbiri ba'de al-itaq tedbir-i gibi sahih olmayub mezbur Kenan mezbur Murtazaniň mezbur Kenan

15. emni ve memlugi olmaq üzere hükm ve taqrir olunub mahuvel-vaki tahrir olundi. Fi-hamis Zilka'de (05.11.)

16. satir. Sene Ehade ve işrîn ve Elf. (1021/1631)

Şuhudu'l-hal: ....

Source: [Reprint..., vol. 1, p. 85b, text N 4].

translation

"In the presence of the children of the said deceased, the elder Hasan, Yunus and Murtaza, and the heirs from the younger generation of the above-mentioned Elhaj Hasan and Khizir Pasha, and the elder daughters, and the said representative (vekil)of the spouse (of the deceased) Omer Celebi, and Elhaj-Hussein and Yunus Celebi Ghouls, named Kenan, of Wallachian origin, giving evidence, (stated): "after the death of the late Ghazi Giray Khan, my lord, the said late Muhammad Agha, went to Istanbul, and on arrival in Istanbul released me. And when he returned to Bakhchisarai, he also said-demand his release." When interviewed, the previously mentioned Murtaza contrasted his testimony by (saying): "During the lifetime of Ghazi Giray Khan, when I was a child, my father, the aforementioned late Muhammad agha, gave me this Kenan after performing the rite of circumcision (hitan), and therefore, having become my servant, he cannot be released after the death of his master, because he is my memluk (servant)." In the face of Kenan's persistent refusal and the illegality of the testimony of the direct heirs, Hasan and Elhaj Ali, the aforementioned Murtaza Celebi prayed for mercy. Mustafa Pasha bin Hasan, Musa bin Mehmed, and Sefesh bin Toktamish responded to it, showing their willingness to testify. They showed: "in life now

page 172
the late Ghazi Giray Khan, when the father of his sons, Muhammad Agha, was alive, this very boy Kenan gave as a gift to the mentioned Murtaza Sefer, as we bear witness." After the testimony was pronounced, these testimonies were accepted as correct. Said Kenan remains the servant of said Murtaza. Recorded in accordance with the accepted and read decision. On the 5th day of the Zilkaade month. Year 1021 (1631). Witnesses of the presence of:..."

The published document is clearly written in the Ottoman language, which is observed both in the turns of speech and in the terminology. From the Crimean realities, there is the city of Bakhchisarai and the late Khan Gazi-Giray, as well as the name of one of the witnesses - Sefesh bin Toktamysh, reminiscent of the famous Horde Khan. The document text is arabicized. Among the Turkic elements of speech, there are postpositions (soñra - 'then, after'), pronouns (işbu - 'this one, this one'; benim - 'my') and pronominal endings (memlugim - 'my servant'), some verbs (vardiqta - ' traveling / during the journey, the movements of' deyub - 'saying'), including auxiliary ones (tahrir olundi - 'it was written down'; şahadet dahi ideriz - 'we also bear witness'), and the address of agha ('lord, chief'). Even the terms of kinship in the text are expressed in Arabic vocabulary, with the exception of buyuk qizlari - "eldest daughters".

At the same time, attention is drawn to the steady trend towards the formation of a clearly defined new style of legal documents. First of all, it is conciseness that excludes flowery turns of speech, comparisons and metaphors, as well as explanatory words. The text almost completely lacks adjectives, except for relative ones like: ebna-i kibari - "older children"; b ü y ü k qizlan - "older daughters"; merhum-u merkum - "said deceased", mezbur - "said". But a large number of adverbial verb forms that comment on the action, and definitions. Usually in the sitjils, where we are talking about slaves, there are their descriptions or verbal portraits, which are reduced to indicating the height, color of the eyes, hair, face and religion. In this case, only the origin is indicated - Eflâk al-asl - "Wallachian origin".

Russian judicial acts of the 17th and 18th centuries differ markedly in their structure and stylistic markers. They are much more verbose and detailed and resemble stories [Acts..., 1838]. It should be noted that in the case of the Russian literary language, there is also a change in language standards, which occurs in the XVII-XVIII centuries. But it is qualitatively different from that observed in the Turkish-Tatar Crimea. In the Crimean Khanate, since the 15th century, the book norm began to move away from the colloquial speech of the Crimean Tatars, turning into a kind of Turkic-Muslim Esperanto, accessible only to people who are well educated and know Arabic and incomprehensible to the majority of the people. The book language of Moscow Rus in the XV-XVII centuries is characterized as a transitional type that combines many elements of Church Slavonic and ancient East Slavic and elements of everyday oral Moscow or other county speech [Vinokur, 2010, p. 62]. The era of isolation of the spoken language from the book was gradually becoming a thing of the past.

The turn of the XVII-XVIII centuries in Russian linguistics is considered as the beginning of the emergence of a new all-Russian literary language, which, on the one hand, was quickly filled with European borrowings designed to denote the emerging new realities of the Petrine era, and on the other hand, continued the traditions of Church Slavonic book writing until the beginning of the XIX century [Budde, 2005, pp. 7-9].

Since the fourteenth century, the language of business papers has been distinguished from other types of written texts by its colloquialness and lack of any solemnity. In "...in our business papers, we have a purely Russian language of original monuments, for which no foreign or Church Slavonic originals could and did not exist, with the exception of some spelling techniques ... " [Budde, 2005, p. 39].

page 173
That is, the business language of Moscow Rus was colloquial. Until the 16th century, this linguistic situation coincided with the situation in the Crimean Khanate, where the language of chancelleries was spoken Tatar, which was largely based on the Uyghur language, but legal proceedings were conducted in local dialects. During this period, there was a mutual influence between the Tatar business language and Russian. It was not a large-scale event. We can only talk about individual borrowed lexemes, including cripples: "petition" from the incorrectly translated baş ypr salam etmek, "label", "baskak"; "sidekick" from körünüş - "meeting"; "aha", "share certificates" from şartname - "contract"; "shackles", "hard labor", possibly "prison" (for details, see: [Rustemov, 2014(2)]).

These borrowings were often of a local, temporary nature, and by the time of the formation of a single official business style and language of judicial proceedings on a national scale, the vast majority of them passed into the category of historicisms or became part of everyday vocabulary. Islam, which was the basis of the Crimean Tatar, and more broadly, the Turkic justice system, became a kind of barrier to the penetration of borrowings from the field of jurisprudence into the Russian language. This was due not only to different religious systems and different ideological coordinates, but also to different foundations underlying legislative and executive institutions. Jurisprudence in Russia, since the Petrine times of absolute monarchy, has increasingly focused on Western European law, which was based, in turn, on Roman law, taking into account local traditions and customs. As already mentioned, this trend provided an influx of borrowings, ways of processing documents, correction of stylistic norms in accordance with European norms of law and the language of jurisprudence based on Latin. To a certain extent, autocratic Russia became part of a single pan-European legal framework, the source of which was located outside of Russia itself. However, the democratic nature of Christianity, which allowed the use of national languages in the service, contributed to the development of the Russian language itself in all spheres and the development of all functional styles based on the native language, although with a large proportion of foreign-language borrowings.

All the Turkic peoples, including the Crimean Tatar, also became objects of a single Muslim space, where the authority of the Arabic language - the language of the Koran-was indisputable and was the basis for special terminology, and in many cases replaced the usual Turkic vocabulary. For the Turks, this had a twofold meaning. On the one hand, all of them were included in the general Muslim cultural, philosophical, scientific and aesthetic field, on the other hand, the Turkic languages were excluded for many centuries from the process of word - making in many branches of social life, including law. The process of purging the unnecessarily large number of Arabisms in the Turkish language began in Turkey only in the 1920s. In the Crimean Tatar language, this process began around the same time. But for the Turkic languages that were part of the linguistic field of the Russian Empire, and then the USSR, language modernization was the result of a certain language policy, as a result of which the pressure of the Arabic language was replaced by the pressure of the Russian language.

Despite the millennial coexistence of the Russian and Turkic language cultures [Baskakov, 1985; Filin, 2008, p. 18], the influence of the Turkic languages on Russian in the field of legal writing was insignificant. The most striking period of this influence occurred during the period of the Golden Horde rule in Russia, but it did not take on a systemic character, being inherently local and short-lived. The structures of legal documents of Muscovite Russia and Crimea differ both in form and style (for details, see [Rustemov, 2013(1)]). There are no terminological borrowings. Most of the Turkic loanwords in Russian can be considered exotisms, which, of course, are more numerous in those regions of Russia that border on the Turkic-speaking population. Of the language areas most susceptible to

page 174
military affairs, agriculture, animal husbandry and household items were borrowed from the Turkic languages. The field of jurisprudence was neutral in this respect.

list of literature

Legal acts or a collection of forms of ancient office management. Published by the Archeographic Commission, St. Petersburg: In The Printing House of the II Branch of the Own E. I. V. Chancellery, 1838.

Baskakov N. A. Tyurkskaya leksika v "Slovo o polku Igorev" [The Turkic vocabulary in the "Word about Igor's Regiment"]. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1985.

Biyarslanov M. Extracts from the kadiasker sakka (books) 1017-1022 hijri (1608/1609 - 1613 hr. years), stored in the archiv of the Tauride Provincial Government // Proceedings of the Tauride Scientific Archival Commission (ITUAC). N 8-10. Simferopol. Printing house of the Tauride provincial government. 1889 - 1891.

Budde E. F. Essay on the history of the modern Russian literary language (XVII-XIX centuries). 2nd ed. Moscow: KomKniga Publ., 2005 (Linguistic heritage of the XX century).

Vinokur G. O. Istoriya russkogo literaturnogo yazyka [History of the Russian literary language]. edited by S. G. Barkhudarov, Moscow: Book House "Librocom", 2010.

Inaljik Galil. Знахiдка судових книг Кримського Ханату (1618 - 1750) // Марра Mundi. Збiрник наукових праць на пошану Ярослава Дашкевича з нагоди його 70-рiччя. Видавництво М.П. Коць. Львiв-Киïв-Нью-Йорк, 1996.

Zaitsev I. V. Pis'mnaya kul'tura krymskikh tatar [Written culture of the Crimean Tatars]. N 14 - 15. 2006.

Reprint copies of the manuscripts of the Bakhchisarai sidzhils, kept in the library named after him. Gasprinsky in Simferopol. 120 vols. Vol. 1.

Rustemov O. D. Vnutrennaya stilistika bakhchisarayskikh sidzhiley [Internal stylistics of the Bakhchisarai sidzhiles]. N 64. Киïв: Iнститут Сходознавства им. А.Ю. Кримського, НАН Украïни, 2013(1).

Rustemov O. D. Sources on the study of the formation of the official business style of the Crimean Tatar language of the Crimean Khanate era// Scientific Notes of the V. I. Vernadsky Tauride National University, vol. 26 (65), No. 2. Philologiya. Simferopol, 2013(2).

Rustemov O. D. Russian-Ukrainian-Crimean Tatar dictionary of Legal terminology. Simferopol: Krymuchpedgiz Publ., 2013 (3).

Rustemov O. D. Voprosy stilisticheskikh sovmeshchiy pri perevodenii tekstov sudebnykh resheniy bakhchisarayskogo sakka na russkiy yazyk [Issues of stylistic correspondences in translating texts of court decisions of the Bakhchisaray sakka into Russian]. Uchenye zapiski Tavricheskogo natsional'nogo universiteta im. V. Vernadskogo, vol. 27 (66), N 3. Philologiya. Simferopol, 2014(1).

Rustemov O. D. The problem of genesis and classification of Turkisms in the Russian language. Мова // Науково-теоретичний часопис з мовознавства. N 20. ONU im. Mechnikov Street. Odessa, 2014(2).

Smirnov V. D. Collection of some important news and official documents concerning Turkey, Russia and the Crimea. SPb., 1881.

Smirnov V. D. Krymskoe khanstvo pod verkhovenstve Ottomanskoi Porty do nachala XVIII v. Krymskoe khanstvo pod verkhovenstve Ottomanskoi Porty do nachala XVIII v. Krymskoe khanate under the Rule of the Ottoman Porte before the beginning of the 18th century.

Sreznevsky I. I. Mysli ob istorii russkogo yazyka i drugikh slavyanskikh narodov [Thoughts on the History of the Russian language and other Slavic peoples]. N 78, 1887.

Turan A. N. Sudebnye registry Krymskogo Khanstva (posle ikh razvitiya) [Judicial registers of the Crimean Khanate (after their discovery)]. N 30. 2002.

Туран А.Н. Рслiгiйнi суди перiду Кримського Каганату // Украïна - Туреччина: минуле, сучасне та майбутне. Kiev, 2004.

Filin F. P. Istoricheskaya leksikologiya russkogo yazyka [Historical lexicology of the Russian language]. Under the general editorship. and with a foreword by V. Ya. Deryagin. 2nd ed. Moscow: LKI Publishing House, 2008 (History of the languages of the peoples of Europe).

Cihan A., Yilmaz F. Kinm Kadi Sicilleri // Islam Araşlirmalari derzisi. Sayi 11, Üsküdar, 2004.

Çobanzade B. Leningratta Qirim hatireleri // Oquv işleri İçtimai-siyasiy ve terbiyevi ayliq jurnal. Qirim Maarif Qomissarliği neşiri. Bağçesaray Hüner ve Sanayi Mektehi basmahanesi. Ağustos Scntyabr, 1925. Numara 4 - 5.

Kavak N. Kirim Hanliği Şer'iyye Sicillerinde Yer alan Avariz ve Para Vakiflan Üzerine // Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. N 10(1).

Turan A.N. Kirim Hanliği Kadi Sicilleri Hakkinda Notlar// Türk Kültürü İncelemeleri Dergisi. N 9, İstanbul, 2003.

page 175

Постоянный адрес данной публикации: