Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T07:15:28.292Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Central administration versus provincial arbitrary governance: Patmos and Mount Athos monasteries in the 16th century*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

Eugenia Kermeli
Eugenia Kermeli*
Affiliation:
Department of History, Bilkent University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The confiscation of monastic properties ordered by Selim II in 1568 served as a catalyst precipitating a process of negotiation and mutual accommodation between the centre – represented by the sultan and his jurisconsult- and the periphery articulated by the monks. Even in formulaic imperial orders, it is apparent that the monastic communities successfully negotiated the terms for the normalisation of the affair, whereas the jurisconsult accommodated the Porte’s interests to the local society’s needs. On the local level, the judge functioned as a mediator, addressing the monks’ requirements, even if he had to transgress a number of Islamic rules and imperial orders. Thus, this case study illustrates the gradual transformation of a polity in dialogue with local communities.

Type
Articles
Information
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , 2008 , pp. 189 - 202
Copyright
Copyright © The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

A first draft of this paper entitled ‘The Aegean Sea in the 16th century: the archives of Patmos monastery’, was presented at a workshop organised by the Centre for Byzantine Studies of the National Research Centre of Greece, 14 January 1997. I would like to dedicate this paper to the memory of the late Professor Oikonomides who suggested the title. I would also like to thank Professor Zachariadou for guiding me through the archive of Patmos monastery and for allowing me to see the important firman of Dionysiou monastery.

References

1 Abou-El-Haj, R. A., ‘A Response to Linda Darling’s review of Formation of the Modern State: The Ottoman Empire Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries ’ ‘, International Journal of Middle East Studies 26/1 (1994) 175 Google Scholar.

2 Imber, C., Ebu’s Su`ud: The Islamic Legal Tradition (Stanford 1997)Google Scholar passim; Inalcik, H., Ottoman Empire: the classical age 1300-1600 (New York 1989) 70–73 Google Scholar and ‘Islamization of Ottoman laws on land and land taxation’, in Fragner, C., Schwarz, K. (eds.), Festgabe an Josef Matuz: Osmanistik- Tiirkologie- Diplomatik (Berlin 1992) 100–116 Google Scholar.

3 Imber, Ebu’s Su`ud, 122; Inalcik, ‘Islamization’, 157; Barnes, J., An Introduction to Religious Foundations in the Ottoman Empire (Leiden 1987)Google Scholar; Akgündüz, A., Osmanli Kanunnameleri (Istanbul 1990)Google Scholar; Barkan, Ö. L., XV ve XVIinci aslrlarda Osmanli Imparatorluğunda zirai ekonominin hukuki va mali esaslar, Kanunlar (Istanbul 1943)Google Scholar; Lowry, H., Fifteenth Century Ottoman Realities: Christian peasant life in the Aegean island of himnos (Istanbul 2002)Google Scholar and ‘The Ottoman Liva Kanunnames contained in the Defter-i Hakani’, Journal of Ottoman Studies 2 (1981) 43-74; Veinstein, G., ‘Le législateur ottoman face à l’insularité: l’enseignment des Kânûnnâme’ in Vatin, N., Veinstein, C., eds., Insularités ottomans (Paris 2004) 91–110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Imber, Ebu’s Su`ud, 136-7.

5 Ibid., 122-136.

6 See especially the introductory paragraph of the law book where Ebu’s Su`ud explained all these problems: Barkan, Kanunlar, 298-99.

7 For an extensive analysis of the legal tricks employed by Ebu’s Su`ud see Imber, Ebu’s Su`d, 123-125; Johansen, B., The Islamic Law on Land Tax and Kent (London 1988) 84ffGoogle Scholar; Kermeli, E., ‘Ebu’s Su`ud’s Definition of Church Vakfs: Theory and Practice in Ottoman Law’, in Gleave, R., Kermeli, E., eds., Islamic Law: Theory and Practice (London 1997, pbk ed. 2001) 146–147 Google Scholar.

8 Imber, Ebu’s Su`ud 123-124; Kermeli, ‘Church Vakfs’ 146; Inalcik, ‘Islamization’ 159.

9 Imber, Ebu’s Su`ud 130, fetva n. 17.

10 Thomadakis, A. Laiou, Peasant Society in the Late Byzantine Empire: A Social and Demographic Study (Princeton 1977) 163ff.Google Scholar; Charanis, P., ‘The monastic properties and the state in the Byzantine Empire’, DOP 4 (1948) 53–118 Google Scholar; Mount Athos and Byzantine Monasticism, eds. Bryer, A., Cunningham, M.B., Section III (Aldershot 1996)Google Scholar; Thomas, J., A. Constantinides Hero, Byzantine Monastic Foundations Documents (Washington, D. C. 2000)Google Scholar; Vranousi, E., Βυζαντινά Έγγραφοί της Μονής Πάτμου, I (Athens 1980)Google Scholar; Oikonomides, N., Actes de Dionysiou, Archives de l’ Athos, IV (Paris 1968)Google Scholar; Lefort, J., Oikonomidès, N., and Papachryssanthou, D., Actes d’Iviron, Archives de l’Athos XIV (Paris 1985)Google Scholar; Papageorgiou, P., ‘H έν Θεσσαλονίκη μοντ) τών Βλατοάων καί τά μετόχιά της’, BZ 8 (1899) 408-10Google Scholar.

11 Dimitriades, V., ‘Ottoman Chalkidiki: an area in transition’ in Bryer, A., Lowry, H., eds., Continuity and Change in late Byzantine and early Ottoman Society (Birmingham 1986) 40–41 Google Scholar; Lazarides, G. A. Lavriotes, Tó Άγιον Όρος μετά τήν Όθωμανικην κατάκτησιν (Athens 1963) 1–2 Google Scholar; Haldon, J., ‘Limnos, monastic holdings and the Byzantine state: ca. 1261-1453’, in Bryer, A., Lowry, H., eds., Continuity and Change in Late Byzantine and early Ottoman Society (Birmingham 1986) 154-74Google Scholar, 186-88; H. Lowry, ‘The island of Limnos: a case study on the continuity of Byzantine forms under Ottoman rule’, in A. Bryer, H. Lowry, eds., Continuity and Change in late Byzantine and early Ottoman Society, 250-53; Salakides, G., Sultanurkunden des Athos- Klosters Vatopedi aus der Zeit Bayezid II und Selim II (Thessaloniki 1995) 65–76 Google Scholar; Zachariadou, E., ‘Ottoman documents from the archives of Dionysiou (Mount Athos) 1495-1520’, SF 30 (Munich 1971) 23–30 Google Scholar and ‘Early Ottoman documents of the Pródromos monastery (Serres)’, SF 28 (Munich 1969) 11-12.

12 Zachariadou, E., ‘Συμβολή στην Ίστορία τοΰ Νοτιοανατολικοϋ Αίγαίου (μέ άφορμή τά πατμιακά Φιρμάνια τών έτών 1454-1522), Σύμμεικτα I (Athens 1966) 196-98Google Scholar. Balta, E., ‘Recensements ottomans de Patmos (XVe-XVIIe s.)’, Peuple et Production: pour une interprétation des sources ottomanes (Istanbul 1999) 61–75 Google Scholar.

13 In another article I have discussed his employment of legal stratagems to legitimise the confiscation and solve a seemingly insuperable problem: Kermeli, ‘Church vakfs’, 147.

14 Kermeli, ‘Church vakfs’, 149; Schacht, J., ‘Early doctrines on Waqf’, Mélanges Fuad Köprülü (Istanbul 1953) 443-52Google Scholar.

15 Kermeli, ‘Church vakfs’, 149.

16 Kermeli, E., The Confiscation of Monastic Properties by Selim II, 1568-70, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, (Manchester 1997)Google Scholar Appendix III. The firman from Athos, although anterior to the Patmos one, represents a later phase of the affair. It seems that the process was slow and it was not initiated simultaneously in all monastic communities in the Balkans. For the Alaca Hisar sancak, see a firman, 22 Rebiü’l-ahir 976/14 October 1568 in Fotiç, A., ‘The official explanations for the confiscation and sale of monasteries (churches) and their estates at the time of Selim II’, Turcica 26 (1994) 33–54 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wittek, P.-Lemerle, P., ‘Recherches sur l’histoire et les status des monastères athonites sous la domination turque’, Archives d’histoire du Droit oriental 3 (1947) 411-72Google Scholar.

17 Kermeli, Confiscation, Appendix III.

18 Kermeli, Confiscation, Appendix III.

19 Kermeli, Confiscation, Appendix IV.

20 Kermeli, Confiscation, Patmos File IV, 8, 10-17, 19-40, 42-48.

21 Kermeli, Confiscation, Patmos File IV, 4-7, 9, 18, 41, 52-63.

22 Gradeva, R., ‘Orthodox Christians in the Kadi courts: the practice of the Sofia sheriat court, seventeenth century’, Islamic Law and Society 4/1 (Leiden 1997) 57–60 Google Scholar; Ortayh, I., ‘On the role of the Ottoman-Kadi in provincial administration’, Turkish Public Administration Annual 3 (Ankara 1976) 18 Google Scholar.

23 Johansen, B., ‘Formes de language et fonctions publiques: stereotypes, témoins et offices dans la preuve par l’ écrit en droit musulman’, Arabica 44 (1997) 333-76CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ergene, B., Local Court, Provincial Society and Justice in the Ottoman Empire: Legal Practice and Dispute Resolution in Çankin and Kastamonu (1652-1744) (Leiden 2003) 141 Google Scholar; ‘Evidence in Ottoman courts: oral and written documentation in early-modern courts of Islamic law’, Journal of the American Oriental Society 24/4 (2004) 471-91, and ‘Document use in Ottoman courts of law: observations from the sicils of Çankin and Kastamonu’, Turcica 37 (2005) 83-111.

24 Ergene, ‘Document use’, 85.

25 Heyd, U., ‘Some aspects of the Ottoman fetvas’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 32 (1969) 35–56 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wakin, J., The Function of Documents in Islamic Law. The Chapters on sales frome Tahãwî’s Kitãb al Shurût al Kabir (New York 1972) 41 Google Scholar. There are numerous treatises to facilitate the scribes’ work. Ebu’s Su`ud wrote two treatises, one was instruction to his clerks and the other was about the correct use of language. See Imber, Ebu’s Su`ud, 22.

26 The hüccets in the court compilations follow this mainstream Islamic law pattern. See Sicilien, Şer’iyye. Mahiyeti toplu katalğu ve secme hükümler II (Istanbul 1989) 19–30 Google Scholar. The same applies to entries from Bulgaria in the seventeenth century. See Gradeva, , ‘Legal procedure in the kadi’s court according to the documents in the kadi’s sijills in Bulgaria (17th century)’, paper presented to the ‘Islamic, Hebrew, Ottoman Law’ conference (Manchester 1991) 4–7 Google Scholar.

27 Patmos, File III, 3, 24, 26, 29, 41, 44.

28 Wakin, The Function, 56; Schacht, J., An Introduction to Islamic Law (Oxford 1964) 194 Google Scholar.

29 Following Qadikhan’s prescriptions, the founder must make his freehold into a trust and deliver it to the trustee of his choice. Because of disagreement in Islamic law about the process, the founder is then expected to abrogate the dedication quoting the opinion of Abu Hanifa. The trustee will employ the opinions of Abu Yusuf and Shaibani to enable the judge to proclaim a verdict in his favour, since their opinion is accepted in practice. Thus the trusts could become valid and irrevocable. For the advice of Ebu’s Su`ud on the matter see, Düzdğ, M.E., Şeyhülislam Ebussuud Fetvalani (Istanbul 1972) d. 299 Google Scholar, 76; Imber, Ebu’s Su`ud, 148.

30 Papazoglou, N., Μεταφρασμενα Τουρκικα Έγγραφα TOO Μετοχίου Όρφάνη τής Μονής Αιονυσίοο τοΰ ‘AyíoO Όρους (1576-1733) (Kavala 1987)Google Scholar Appendix 2.

31 Düzdağ, Ebussuud Fetvalari, d.301, 76; Schacht, ‘Early Doctrines on Waqf’, 447-49.

32 Patmos, File IV, 5-7, 13, 24-28, 30-39, 41-53.

33 Kermeli, Confiscation, Appendix II.

34 The phrase used is as follows: ‘I have given the aforementioned field to the said monk for a tapu of 2000 silver coins. I have received the tax on behalf of the Treasury. From today the monk should plough and cultivate it. No one should interfere, if he pays his taxes’. Patmos File IV, 8; 14; 32.

35 Patmos, File IV, 43.

36 Patmos, File IV, 17.

37 Patmos, File IV, 38.

38 Patmos, File IV, 48.

39 For orchards and trees in Ottoman law see Imber, C., ‘The status of orchards and fruit-trees in Ottoman law’., Tarih Enstitiisii Dergisi, Prof. Tayyib Gökbilgin Hátira Sayisi (Istanbul 1982) 763-74Google Scholar; H. Inalcik, ‘Islamization’, 102-103. It is important to note the striking resemblance between the treatment of trees and orchards in Ottoman law with the Byzantine laws of emphyteusis. The term in Greek means `planting’. The peasant who planted trees in someone else’s property acquired the usufruct of the property on condition he did not leave the property unattended. His right on the property can be transferred and inherited. The only obligation is to pay yearly a tax called emphyteutikos kanonas or emphyteuma, either in kind or in money. In addition, the peasant is obliged, if he sells his right or transfers it, to ask the permission of the owner who in return can levy, for his permission, up to 2% of the value of planting. This tax is called eisdektikon. See for more information on emphyteusis, Käser, M., Das römische Privatrecht: Die nachklassische Entwicklungen, Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft X.3.3.1-2 (Munich 1975) 308-12Google Scholar; Konidaris, I., To AÍKCUOV xř\s μοναστηριακήε περιουσίας, άπό τοΰ 9ου μέχρι кт τοΰ 12ου a/ćuvos (Athens 1979) 195–201 Google Scholar.

40 Patmos, File IV, 42.

41 Mardin, Ş., ‘Center-periphery relations: a key to Turkish politics’, Daedalus 102 (1973) 169–190 Google Scholar.

42 The theme of centre and periphery in the social sciences has been argued with vigour since the 1960s. Lapidus, G.W., Walker, E.W., ‘Nationalism, regionalism and federalism: centre-periphery relations in post-communist Russia’, in Lapidus, G. (ed.), The New Russia: Troubled Transformation (Westview 1995) 79–114 Google Scholar; Hannerz, U., ‘Flows, boundaries and hybrids: keywords in transnational anthropology’ Mana 3/1 (1997) 7–39 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Eisenstadt, S.N., ‘Mobilization center-periphery structures’, in Eisenstadt, S.N., Rokkan, S. (eds.), Building States and Nations (London 1973)Google Scholar. For the historical approach, see Langholm, S., ‘On the concepts of Center and Periphery’, Journal of Peace Research, 8/3.4 (1971) 273-78CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a definition on centrality see Galtung, J., ‘A structural theory of Imperialism’, Journal of Peace Research 8/2 (1971) 81–117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43 Lewis, B., ‘Some reflections on the decline of the Ottoman empire’, Studia Islamica 1 (1958) 111-27CrossRefGoogle Scholar and ‘Ottoman observers of Ottoman decline’, Islamic Studies 1(1962) 71–87 Google Scholar; Fodor, P., ‘State and society, crisis and reform, in 15th -17th century Ottoman Mirrors for Princes’, Acta Orientalia Hungarica 60 (1986) 217-40Google Scholar; Howard, D., ‘Ottoman historiography and the literature of ‘decline’ of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries’, Journal of Asian History 22 (1988) 52–77 Google Scholar; Inalcik, H., ‘The heyday and decline of the Ottoman empire’, The Cambridge History of Islam, I (Cambridge 1970)Google Scholar ‘Centralization and decentralization in Ottoman administration’, Studies in Eighteenth Century Islamic History, Naff, T., Owen, R. (eds.) (London 1977) 27–52 Google Scholar; Heper, M., ‘Center and Periphery in the Ottoman empire: with special reference to the nineteenth century’, International Political Science Review 1/1 (1980) 81–105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 Gerber, H., State, Society and Law in Islam: Ottoman law in Comparative Perspective (New York 1997) 129 Google Scholar; Faroqhi, S., ‘Crisis and change, 1590-1699’, in Inalcik, H., Quataert, D. (eds.), Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300-1914 (Cambridge 1994) 411–636 Google Scholar.

45 Darling, L., Revenue-Raising and Legitimacy: Tax Collection and Finance Administration in the Ottoman Empire 1560-1660 (Leiden 1996) 5 Google Scholar.

46 Murphey, R., ‘The Veliyuddin Telhis: notes on the sources and interrelations between Koçi Bey and contemporary writers of Advice to Kings’ Belleten 43 (1979) 547-61Google Scholar; Abou-el-Haj, R. A., ‘The Ottoman Nasihatname as a discourse over ‘Morality’,’ Revue d’histoire maghrébine 14 (1987) 15–30 Google Scholar. Demirci, S., ‘Complaints about Avâriz assessment and payment in the Avâriz-tax system: an aspect of the relationship between centre and periphery: a case study of Kayseri, 1618-1700’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 46/4 (2003) 437-74CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Murphey, R., ‘Continuity and discontinuity in Ottoman administrative theory and practice during the late seventeenth century’, Poetics Today 14 (1993) 419-43CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 Peirce, L., ‘Changing perceptions of the Ottoman empire: the early centuries’, Mediterranean Historical Review 19/1 (2004) 23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hathaway, J., ‘Problems of periodization in Ottoman history: the fifteenth through the eighteenth centuries’ Turkish Studies Association Bulletin 20/2 (1996) 25–31 Google Scholar.

48 Inalcik, , ‘Adâletnâmeler’, Belgeler 2/3-4 (1965) 49–145 Google Scholar; Ergene, , ‘On Ottoman justice: interpretations in conflict (1600-1800)’, Islamic Law and Society 8/1 (2001) 52–87 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 Masud, M.K., Messick, B., Powers, D. S., Islamic Legal gnterpretations: Muftis and their fatwas (Harvard 1996) 28–29 Google Scholar; Hallaq, W.B., ‘Was the Gate of Ijtihad closed?’, International Journal of Middle East Studies 16/1 (1984) 3–41 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Johansen, B., ‘Die sündige, gesunde Amme: Moral und gesetzliche Bestimmung (hukm) im islamischen Recht’, Contingency in a Sacred Law: Legal and Ethical Norms in the Muslim Fiqh (Leiden 1999) 189–219 Google Scholar.

50 Imber, Ebu’s Su`ud, 271.

51 Kermeli, ‘Church Vakfs’, 141-157.

52 Heyd, , Ottoman documents on Palestine, 1552-1615 (Oxford 1960) 49 Google Scholar; Inalcik, , ‘The Ottoman decline and its effects upon the Reaya’, The Ottoman Empire: Conquest, Organization and Economy’ (London 1978) 346 Google Scholar; idem, ‘Tax collection, embezzlement and bribery in Ottoman finances’, Turkish Studies Association Bulletin 15 (1991) 326-6.

53 Ergene, Local Court, 109.

54 Gerber, H., State, Society, and Law in Islam: Ottoman Law in Comparative Perspective (New York 1994) 182, 173Google Scholar.

55 Gerber, State, 176; Ergene, Local Court, 115.

56 Ergene, Local Court, 195.