1 Transliteration and Spelling
The transliteration of Ottoman texts, words, and names follows the MEB (Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı) İslam Ansiklopedisi system, whereas the Russian and Greek ones adhere to the Library of Congress system. Ottoman names are rendered in their transliterated Ottoman form rather than Modern Turkish (e.g., Rāmī Meḥmed instead of Rami Mehmet). For Turkish terms which have acquired a standard form in English, such as pasha or padishah, I will mostly follow this form (e.g. the pasha of Bosnia), except in cases when the full Ottoman name plus title is given (e.g., ʿAmcazāde Köprülü Ḥüseyin Paşa). Russian, Polish, and Hungarian names are retained in their original spellings, except when a variant has become common in English (e.g., Peter I). Regarding place names that are not standard in English, I generally follow their modern spellings with the following exceptions:
1) Adrianople (Edirne)
1) Carlowitz (Sremski Karlovci)
2) Castello di Rumelia (Antirrio)
3) Constantinople (Istanbul)
4) Lepanto (Nafpaktos)
6) Ṭemeşvar (Timişoara)
2 Dates and Translation
All dates are given in the Gregorian Calendar unless specified otherwise (see J.C. [Julian Calendar] and A.H. [Anno Hegirae]). In some instances, when the protagonists use dual calendars in their correspondence, both dates are kept (e.g., 10/20 December 1698). January 1 is uniformly regarded as the beginning of the year. All translations are my own unless otherwise indicated.
3 Specific Terms
Since terms such as diplomat, diplomacy, diplomatic, and foreign policy were not used by late seventeenth-century contemporaries, I employ them only expansively for the sake of clarity and linguistic diversity. Although, in theory, the words ambassador, plenipotentiary, and plenipotentiary ambassador had distinct connotations among most Carlowitz participants, these terms are often used interchangeably in the sources. To avoid tedious repetition, I will adopt the same practice while clarifying their terminological differences in Interlude IV regarding the plenipotentiary ambassador.
State constitutes a highly problematic term when it comes to its possible semantics for the diverse participants of the Carlowitz Congress. Although I privilege the use of the terms polity or political entity, when I do employ the term or translate specific words as such (for instance, the Ottoman Turkish devlet), I intend an impersonal political entity (dominium), which, in the case of hereditary monarchies (such as the Austrian Habsburgs, the Ottoman Empire or Muscovy), was, in tandem, closely associated with the ruling dynasty.
The Austrian Habsburg side is referred to as the Habsburgs or the Imperials – a term frequently encountered in the sources – since, at this period, the Habsburg monarch in Vienna was the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. The Ottoman Empire will also be referred to as the Porte or the ‘Exalted State’ – the Ottomans’ predominant appellation by the late seventeenth century when referring to their empire. Russia, as a name, was not used by the Carlowitz contemporaries to designate the tsar’s polity; they instead spoke of Muscovy and the Muscovites. I will follow this terminology unless I am speaking about the language (Russian).
Finally, regarding one of the largest political formations of Eastern Europe in the early modern period, its correct designation would be the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or the Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów (Republic of the Two Nations), or simply the Rzeczpospolita (Commonwealth/Republic). This is the terminology I primarily follow. However, since the terms Pole, Polish or Poland also appear in the primary material, I sporadically use only the first two to avoid linguistic repetitions.