Abstract:
In the present paper the economic and diplomatic motivations of visits of
English merchants to Persia and the South Caucasus is analyzed against the background
of relationship between Europe and the East. Also, impartial comparison
of the obtained material with the Georgian and Persian sources allows us to define
precisely a number of controversial issues of Georgian historiography.
Great geographical discoveries that fundamentally changed social, economic
and mental development of European states, and significant expansion of
the Ottoman Empire put one of the problematic issues for the early modern Europe
on the agenda – to confront the new reality or to accept it. Besides, the
cataclysms of that period provoked an unprecedented interest in having trade
routes and markets for trading in every direction (Asia, Africa and America).
Within the context of the confrontation, some attempts were made to
create anti-Ottoman coalitions. The West considered that Safavid Persia would
be the best partner for that as the main enemy of the Ottoman Turks in the East.
However, anti-Ottoman coalitions were not able to unite all the states of
Western Europe and to keep to one standpoint: in that period the Habsburgs
were in constant confrontation with the Ottoman Empire, while France was its
ally; in Levant, the position of Venice was staggering according to their own
interests, and the English were primarily driven by economic motives. They
wanted to seize new trading areas in the Mediterranean and in general in the
East and did their best for that. Through different ways they managed to enter
the Ottoman controlled area and the Near East.
In 1558-1581, the representatives of the "Muscovy Company", the
English company well-established on the Russian market, had seven visits in the
East – one in Central Asia, and six in Safavid Persia. The reports on each visit were submitted to the company and to the Royal Court and are included in the
famous work of Richard Hakluyt “The Principal Navigations, Voyages,
Traffiques and Discoveries of the English Nation”. The English merchants were
trying and struggling for opening a way in that direction. They left interesting
materials about Safavid Persia and about the South Caucasian nations controlled
by that state; about the relationship of those nations with Persia, Ottoman
Empire and Russia; about internal economic conditions and political situation
etc. However, in terms of specific political situation in Georgian states and the
information provided in the materials of Anthony Jenkinson (we mean his full
account that we translated rather than the fragmentary information of other
Georgian researchers), we consider that first of all the accounts of his travels in
Persia and the South Caucasus are worthy of attention.
Antony Jenkinson’s accounts show the broad travelling profile of English
trade agents, their diplomatic flexibility and insight in political situation that is
clear from his conversations with the people he met during his traveling and
especially in his actions and conversations during his audience with the shah. It
is noteworthy that in that moment he did not miss an opportunity to note the
goal of the Ottoman ambassadors’ visit to Shah and the result they achieved.
Also, he noticed their negative attitude to his visit and the factors that were the
impediments in obtaining the trade privileges from the Safavid dynasty. The
same can be said about his contact with Shah’s subordinate Shirvan and Georgian
kings, about his assessment of political situation in these countries and his
attempts to establish foreign relationships. Naturally, as a representative of the
trade company he assessed the scale of silk production as the main export goods
in Safiavid Iran and its dominions, and the prospects of its exchange for English
broadcloth. His account clearly shows that Kakheti and Shirvan, which were the
Safavid dominions, were the row silk production areas. Also, he was well-aware
of the main European competitors in the East and tried to get rid of the
Venetians that was not so easy, because they were well established in Tabriz. It
is of interest how skillfully Jenkinson tries to gain Shah’s goodwill for England
when he portrays them as the enemies of Portuguese (appearance of the
Portuguese in the Gulf of Persia greatly strained relations between them and
Safavids) and, also, what potential risks he sees in the case if the South Caucasian
nations decide to pursue an independent policy etc.
Similarly to the material of other travellers, the accounts of Anthony
Jenkinson, the farsighted witness, clearly show the interest of Safavid Empire to the political course of European states and Russia. No less interesting is that
Russia, which had already appeared in the international arena by that time, was
concerned in communication with the South Caucasian countries and actually,
Jenkinson carried out the assignments of Russia (in addition to the assignment
of his company and its interests) while travelling in the Safavid dominions
(otherwise he would not be permited to travel through Russia).
It is not disputable that the 16th century was very difficult for Georgia,
when the fragmented country being under the influnce of Ottoman Turks and
Safavids, was struggling for survival. There are not very many Georgian
sources about this period. Therefore, any material that can help us to reconstruct
the events that took place in the past of our country and to see the picture in a
wider spectrum is of special importance for us. In the paper we try to connect
the fragments, where Anthony Jenskinson mentions Georgians, and also compare
them with the relevant Persian, Ottoman and Georgian sources of the same
epoch. That adds more clarity to the analysis of Georgian political, economic
and diplomatic problems of the 16th century and to the dispute regarding the
identification of the persons (Georgians) mentioned in the report.