Очередная порция ссылок.
- Suraiya Faroqhi. Approaching Ottoman History. An Introduction to the Sources. 1999.
A comprehensive examination of the Ottoman route system during the period under discussion forms the second part of Ye´rasimos’ monograph. Accounts of campaign routes followed by the Sultan’s armies, in addition to the writings of European, Ottoman and a few Arab travellers, constitute the documentary basis for this study. Today, 450 longer and shorter descriptions of fifteenth- and sixteenth-century travels in the Ottoman Empire have become known. Almost 100 of them remain unpublished; Ye´rasimos has used the publishing history of travelogues as a telling indicator of intellectual trends in early modern Europe. In the reference section, apart from the dates at which the traveller in question visited the Ottoman Empire, we find a list of the relevant author’s works, both published and in manuscript, including translations if any.An itineraryis also given, often with commentary in the notes. When the travel writer in question is reasonably well documented, these notes contain a capsule biography as well.
...
Moreover, during the sixteenth century many European states established permanent embassies in Istanbul, located at short distances from one another in the ‘vineyards of Pera’ (today Beyog˘lu). Thus it became important to impress not only Ottoman dignitaries, but also the French, English or Dutch neighbours whom one might meet in church or street.
...
A special tradition of reporting on embassies existed in Venice. Venetian ambassadors to Istanbul, also known as baili, throughout the early modern period resided in the Ottoman capital (Pedani Fabris, 1994). The baili were expected to produce interim reports which they sent home by messenger whenever they had the chance. After their term of office was over, they also appeared in front of the Senate for a kind of debriefing session. The highly structured report they read at this occasion is known as a relazione. Among other things, relazioni needed to contain accounts of the physical appearance and personal characteristics of the Sultan(s) and powerful personages at the Ottoman court. This information was considered worth storing for the use of future negotiators. Descriptions of personalities thus might be written for purely practical reasons. But probably it was also significant that such character accounts had their place in the Roman tradition of history writing, the emperors’ portraits by Suetonius forming part of the curriculum taught in many Latin courses of the time. And while humanist models of writing in public business were not adopted in Venice quite as readily as they were in Florence, this style did have an impact even here. Obviously the demand for ‘personal’ information on members of the Ottoman ruling group could result in the inclusion of gossip picked up at the Sultan’s court.
Venetian relazioni were not originally intended for publication. But in short order, manuscript copies of individual texts were passed on to non-official readers, and today are often found in libraries rather than in archives (Ye ´rasimos, 1991, p. 18). They were held in high esteem by nineteenth-century historians following the example of Leopold von Ranke. As a result, relazioni have long been available in print (Albe `ri, 1840-45; Barozzi and Berchet, 1871-72; Pedani/Fabris, 1996). But the information these documents provide needs to be treated with as much caution as that contained in any other embassy account, even though the established traditions of the Venetian diplomatic service often ensured reporting of a higher calibre than was customary in other countries of early modern Europe (Queller, 1973; see Valensi, 1987 on the manner in which Venetians conceptualised the Ottoman Empire).
...
However, the ‘male’ tradition of travel-writing allowed, indeed encouraged, the presentation of scholarly credentials. We have already encountered Busbecq, Maundrell and Gyllius,for whom scholarship constituted an aspect of their identity to be deployed, not to say flaunted, before their readers. For our purposes, this commitment to scholarship is often not an advantage, but a distinct drawback. For then as now, scholarly activity involves knowing the writings of one’s predecessors, and often ‘knowing’ meant something like ‘copying’. As every undergraduate knows, it is often difficult to find words for novel experiences, and travel in the Balkans or Anatolia was a once-in-a-lifetime experience for most writers. Thus, predecessors’ formulations might be taken over simply because they were the first thing that came to mind.
But quite often,the matter was much more complicated, and only a brief outline of the problem is possible here. Down to the Renaissance, no particular value was placed on literary invention. Quite to the contrary, even when authors invented a story, they often claimed to have heard it from ‘an authority’ or read it in a book. With the classical revival of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the number of possible ‘authorities’ increased, and it became more important to use a philologically correct text. But for all that, the dependence upon predecessors did not necessarily lessen, as the prestige of ancient authors encouraged close imitation of their style. To mention but one example, quite a few sixteenth-century writers dealing with travel in their own times would feel the need to call contemporary peoples by names taken from Greek or Roman sources. Thus the Turks might be called Scythians, even though there is no link between the two peoples.The equation was justified by a philological concern, namely not to commit any ‘barbarisms’, that is, to avoid using any words unknown to Graeco-Roman authors. That a distortion of reality was involved in all this is a more serious concern to present-day historians than it was to contemporary readers (for an example among many, see Gyllius, tr. Ball, ed. Musto, 1988, p. 222).
That scholarly and literary originality are values to be protected was certainly not a complete novelty in the eighteenth century. But this notion did become much more widespread after about 1700. A link to the expansion of the literary market is clearly visible, and the idea that a certain work is an ‘original’ has affinities to the nineteenth- and twentieth-century concept of copyright.
Вот поэтому и нужно, имхо, ставить записки иностранцев о России в общий ряд с такими же текстами о Порте, Иране... Тот же Герберштейн вел переговоры и с султаном. Повернись ситуация чуть иначе - мы бы имели очередную "Turcorum mores", а "Московия" осталась рукописью, опубликованной в 197X году. Люди, которые писали о России, Польше, Порте - принадлежали к одной культурной традиции. Зачастую - даже получали образование в одних и тех же университетах. И можно относительно уверенно говорить о наличии в их сочинениях общих черт. Тексты, описывающие Порту, и многочисленнее, и разнообразнее. Это позволяет найти приемлемые аналогии для текстов Герберштейна или Йовия, а не ходить бесконечными кругами вокруг "уникального источника". Кроме этого - мы гораздо больше знаем о военной системе Порты 15-16 века на основе ее "внутренних источников", чем о военной системе России (простейший пример - качество и количество изображений). То есть - кроме солидного корпуса "внешних описаний" имеется еще и столь же солидный корпус "внутренних свидетельств". А это уже позволяет дать некие обобщенные качественные оценки западным свидетельствам вообще и отдельным их категориям в частности, каковые оценки, с определенными допущениями, можно "приложить" и к западным описаниям России. Да, экстраполяция - всегда "головная боль". Но, имхо, такой подход в любом случае лучше, чем бесконечные "верю/не верю" на базе личных эстетических вкусов.
- Ostapchuk V. Crimean Tatar long-range campaigns: The view from Remmal Khoja's History of Sahib Gerey Khan // Warfare in Eastern Europe, 1500-1800. 2012
Significant to us is not just information that gives a new picture of some aspect of Tatars at war, but also information that might be essentially the same as that given by other primary sources. This is so because often our sources of concrete information on the Crimean Khanate, for example, travelers such as M. Litvin, d'Ascoli, and Beauplan, while being contemporaries and to some extent observers, also collected data from other observers, data which may have been either common knowledge or untrue rumor. Moreover, these travelers were in any event outsiders to the khanate. Often their testimony on a given aspect of Tatar life is the only such and this testimony could just as easily be false, relate to a one-time or rare occurrence, or be concerned with a phenomena restricted to a certain time and/or place. Of course we tend to trust the veracity of these authors, given the lack of better alternatives and, relying on the traditional nature of Tatar society, we hope that their picture can be applied to other periods.
- Elizabeth Lapina. 'Nec signis nec testis creditur... ': The Problem of Eyewitnesses in the Chronicles of the First Crusade // Viator 38 (2007) 117-39
- Sally Harvey. The Knight and the Knight's Fee in England // Past & Present. No. 49 (Nov., 1970), pp. 3-43
An analysis of the instances in Domesday Book, nearly 500, which give details of the number of hides or carucates each knight holds, reveals the normal landed basis of the eleventh-century knight to be about 1,5 hides.
Полторы гайды - это, грубо, шесть малых семейных наделов. Для сравнения - в саксонской Англии для похода брали воина с 5 гайд, шлем и кольчугу требовали с 8 гайд. А дьявол - он в деталях, то есть - в условиях службы.
Of course, knights lodged in the household would probably be on similar terms to those at Ely; they received their food from the cellarer and also cash, and the abbot provided many of them with arms. The early and detailed charter of enfeoffment from Bury St. Edmunds seems to refer to four types and conditions of royal and abbatial service. The text is not clear, but on at least one type of occasion, when the abbot conducts the knights, he will provide their maintenance. One Peterborough knight who had been given just over half a hide in sergeanty was supposed to serve with two horses and his own arms in the army, with the abbot affording all other necessaries. Later, in 1166, the abbot of Evesham returns that his knights do the full service of a knight with horses and arms, but the abbot provides their expenses as long as they are in the king's army.
- Sally Harvey. Horses, Knights and Tactics // Anglo-Norman Studies XLI. Proceedings of the Battle Conference 2018. 2019
For some, their lords might well have furnished their mounts and equipment and contributed to their expenses, but they, nevertheless, went into action alongside the elite. Of course, every gradation of landholding occurred in between, and extra parcels of land would form excellent incentives or rewards. There was also the opportunity of spoils in the form of horses and precious metals. The smaller knightly landholders of Domesday, and other texts, should not be denied their function because of historians’ own ideals of knightly conduct. On their ‘minimum wage’ in the form of land, the nameless Domesday milites could have supported their old age should they reach it, and, before that, their small and active horses.
- Jean Scammell. The Formation of the English Social Structure: Freedom, Knights, and Gentry, 1066-1300 // Speculum, Vol. 68, No. 3 (Jul., 1993), pp. 591-618
Before the late twelfth century most knights did not own their own equipment, and men were only knights (milites) while they were actually in possession of "knightly" arms.
- F.M. Stenton. The First Century of English Feudalism. 1932
- C.A. Empey. Conquest and settlement patterns of Anglo-Norman settlement in North Munster and South Leinster // Irish Economic and Social History. Vol. 13 (1986)
- Sir Frederick Pollock and Frederic William Maitland. The history of English law before the time of Edward I. Vol. I. 1898. Дополнительно - Parliament Writs and Writs of Millitary Summons. Раз и два.
- Трофимова Н.В. Московская повесть о походе Ивана III на Новгород в 1471 г // XVII Ежегодная богословская конференция ПСТГУ: Материалы. Том II. 2007