Rumeli under the Ottomans, 15th-18th Centuries: Institutions and Communities 9781463225865

Citation preview

Rumeli Under the Ottomans, 15th-18th Centuries

Analecta Isisiana: Ottoman and Turkish Studies

76

A co-publication with The Isis Press, Istanbul, the series consists of collections of thematic essays focused on specific themes of Ottoman and Turkish studies. These scholarly volumes address important issues throughout Turkish history, offering in a single volume the accumulated insights of a single author over a career of research on the subject.

Rumeli Under the Ottomans, 15th-18th Centuries

Institutions and Communities

Rossitsa Gradeva

The Isis Press, Istanbul

gûfgias preSS 2010

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2010 by The Isis Press, Istanbul Originally published in 2004 All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of The Isis Press, Istanbul. 2010

ISBN 978-1-61719-133-6

Printed in the United States of America

A graduate of the History Department at Sofia University, Rossitsa Gradeva holds a doctorate from the Institute of Balkan Studies, Bulgarian Academy of Scieties, Sofia, The Kadi Institution in the Balkans, 16th-17th centuries. Since 1989 she has been Research Fellow at the institute of Balkan Studies. She has lectured at several Bulgarian and foreign universities. Her research interests are mainly in the field of Ottoman institutions of provincial administration, application of Islamic law in the Ottoman Empire, various aspects of the status of the non-Muslims communities in the Ottoman Balkans in the preTanzimat period.

To the memory of my father

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. The Ottomans 1. "Administrative system and provincial government in the Central Balkan territories of the Ottoman empire, 15th century", enlarged version of the article published in: The Turks, vol. 3, Ottomans, H. C. Giizel, C. C. Oguz, and O. Karatay (eds), Ankara: Yeni Turkiye Publications, 2002, p. 498-507 2. "The activities of a kadi court in eighteenth-century Rumeli: the case of Hacioglu Pazarcik", in: Kate Fleet (ed.), The Ottoman Empire in the Eighteenth Century, Oriente Moderno, n.s. XVIII (LXXIX), No 1 (1999), p. 177-190 3. "On Kadis of Sofia, 16th-17th centuries", in: Jan Schmidt (ed.), Essays in Honour of Barbara Flemming, I, Journal of Turkish Studies, 26/1 (2002), Harvard University, p. 265-292 4. "War and Peace along the Danube: Vidin at the End of the Seventeenth Century", in: Kate Fleet (ed.), The Ottomans and the Sea, Oriente Moderno, n.s. XX (LXXXI), No 1 (2001), p. 149-

23

53

67

175 (co-authored with Svetlana Ivanova) "Researching the Past and the Present of Muslim Culture in Bulgaria: the "popular" and "high" layers", Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, Vol. 12 (2001), No 3, p. 317-337

133

II. The Subjects 6. "Orthodox Christians in the Kadi Courts: the Practice of the Sofia Sheriat Court, seventeenth century", Islamic Law and Society, vol. 4 (1997), No 1, p. 37- 69

165

5.

7. " Turks and Bulgarians, Fourteenth to Eighteenth Centuries", in: I. Beller-Hann and K. Fleet (eds), European Perception of the Ottomans, Journal of Mediterranean Studies, Vol. 5 (1995), No 1, p. 173-187 8. "Turks in Eighteenth-Century Bulgarian Literature: Historical Roots of Present-Day Attitudes in Bulgaria", The European Legacy, Vol. 1, No 2 (1996), p. 421-426 9. "Jews and Ottoman authority in the Balkans: the cases of Sofia, Vidin and Ruse, 15th-17th centuries", unpublished

107

195

217 225

8

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

10. "Apostasy in Rumeli in the Middle of the Sixteenth Century", Arab Historical Review for Ottoman Studies, vol. 22 (2001), p. 29-73 11. "Ottoman Policy towards Christian Church Buildings", balkaniques,

1994, N o 4, p. 14-36

287 Etudes 339

INTRODUCTION

The Balkans have often been defined in local mass media, history works or popular writing, as a bridge between the East and the West, between Islam and Christianity, between civilisations, which until the last decades of the 20th century met and cohabited on the peninsula without significant conflicts. For others it has been, and still is, a barrier (in front of Islam), a frontier where these very civilisations clash. For most of the 20th century 'Westerners', a term equally fluid, general and misleading, have labelled the peninsula and its inhabitants as a powder keg and troublemakers. It should, however, be pointed out that local people — before the invention of the name, and long afterwards, were not aware that they and the lands where they lived could be regarded as an entity and a distinct region — geographically, geopolitically and historically. For the Balkan peoples there have always existed other alignments and affiliations which have been and are more important, and whose roots we trace back to the geographical realities, to events and social processes in the Roman and early Byzantine period, long before the Ottoman conquest and the establishment of the Ottoman state. It is actually the overlapping of the cultural legacy of the two empires, the Byzantine and the Ottoman, in particular, that accounts particularly for the emergence of this region as a unique entity that straddles so many fractures. The geographic location and the rugged relief of the Balkans, its long history as part of the ancient and medieval European world, and the Roman rule in particular, are among the major factors for the amazing diversity which is regarded as one of their most important features. After the Roman-early Byzantine period and until the Ottoman conquest the Balkans were never, even nominally, united within one political structure. In fact historians count as many as forty states of greater or lesser importance on the eve of the establishment of the Ottomans in what was later to evolve as a specific European sub-region. Among them as the most prominent, probably more as part of the tradition than in actual fact, featured the remnants of the once glorious Byzantine Empire, Serbian Principality, and Bulgarian Kingdom, the Bosnian state, some of the successor states of the crusaders of the 13th century. Certainly, at different times some of them had ruled over large parts of the peninsula but not a single one was ever able to unify and establish an effective rule over the whole of it. Of no less importance for local

10

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

politics, but also for the ethnic and religious diversity observed in the peninsula, were also the variety of state structures that emerged after the Fourth Crusade, some of which struggled their way till the second half of the 15th century. During the Middle Ages, and even after the Ottoman conquest other states that cannot be classified among the proper Balkan ones also directly ruled over parts of the peninsula — Venice and the Hungarian Kingdom, the Tartar Khaganate, to mention just those which managed to gain a firmer hold on some Balkan territories. By the time of the Ottoman conquest people in the Balkans were separated by numerous dividing lines, the most important probably being the religious one. Indeed, across the peninsula runs one of the major divisions in Europe, between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, dating back to Emperor Diocletian's (284-305) decision to divide his empire, and its subsequent evolution into the Western and Eastern Empires which became a feet in 395. The bulk of the Balkan territories belonged to the so-called Byzantino-Slavic commonwealth, with Orthodoxy as the official religion. Not only that, the eastern tradition allows for the existence of autocephalous churches, and indeed, in the course of time Bulgarians and Serbs established their own ecclesiastical hierarchies which could not compete in dignity with the Oecumenical Patriarchate but still gave spiritual independence to their rulers. Political ends even forced the Byzantines themselves to establish another hierarchy in Ohrid, which gradually became an almost independent centre in itself. The northwest of the peninsula, including parts of modern Bosnia, north Albania and Croatia, on the other hand, were largely within the Catholic sphere of influence. They belonged to the dioceses of the Pope. Most of the Balkan territories, however, were only gradually being incorporated into the respective Christian worlds, some of them, especially in the higher and less accessible mountains remaining as late as the 14th century only nominally Christian, with strong traces of paganism, a kind of no man's land and a contest ground between Orthodoxy and Catholicism and the ideal place for the preservation of old beliefs and the emergence of new heresies. The spread of the heresies — Bogomilism, Paulicians, and a number of others of lesser importance, not to mention the not yet clear situation with mediaeval Bosnia, adds to the complex picture of Eastern and Western Christianity as represented in the Balkans.

INTRODUCTION

11

Even this, however, is only a very simple, and hence, inaccurate description of the confessional map of mediaeval South Eastern Europe. In the first place, by the time of the Ottoman conquest there were already more or less significant Jewish communities in many of the urban settlements and in most parts of the peninsula. Less conspicuous but still existing were also Armenian groups who had either migrated or had been forcibly resettled as a result of the Byzantine policy of displacement of heretics from the eastern parts of the empire. Less secure is the information about any spread of Islam prior to the Ottoman conquest. The possibility has been suggested by a number of scholars for the eastern, but also for the western parts of the peninsula. There is no doubt that contacts between local people and Islam date from as early as the first sieges of Constantinople by the Muslims in the 8th century. It was also one of the alternatives that stood before the Bulgarian khan Boris in the mid-9th century. Finally, being at a geographic crossroads, the Balkans attracted — long before the Ottomans, several Turkic tribes which settled there and disappeared in the 'melting pot'. With the exception of Bulgarians and, possibly, the Avars, they rarely left any lasting traces other than toponyms or some linguistic peculiarities. By the time the Ottomans began their conquest the peninsula had already become a patchwork of ethnic, linguistic and confessional groups, which often overlapped sharing spaces and forming larger or narrower 'zones of contact', to use the felicitous expression of Prof. Tsvetana Gueorguieva. Even major ethnic groups such as Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, Albanians would rarely populate ethnically 'clean' territories, with, for example, large groups of Slavs and Albanians settling deep in the south of the peninsula, but significant groups of Greeks also living along the Black Sea coast or in what is today Southern Bulgaria and Southern Albania. Thus, when the Ottomans stepped in Europe, on a territory which they recognised as "Greek land" or Rumeli, they had to learn to deal with a wide variety of people belonging to different religio-cultural and linguistic traditions, using different alphabets, at different levels of state formation, not to speak of the variety of economic patterns, ranging from the probably more wide-spread agricultural, through semi-transhumance and even the nomadism, practised in some parts of the peninsula to the advanced trading urban settlements along the sea littorals — on the Adriatic, the Aegean, the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. The process of mutual adaptation between rulers and subjects lurked throughout the Ottoman rule \Y\ the area.

12

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

Under the Ottomans the peninsula was again included within one political structure. Yet it was hardly subjected to a uniform administration. The 'Greek land' was the vast laboratory where the Ottoman state proved its right to exist, to rule over the turbulent region and control this 'bridge' or 'frontier'. It was in the Balkans that most of the Ottoman military, economic and administrative institutions took shape. The Ottomans proved good students of historical experience and closely followed the Roman example. Under their rule the road network expanded and gradually encompassed even the remotest mountain corners, ensuring not just better communications between the distant regions of the vast empire but also interregional trade and, more generally, the stronger hold of the Ottoman authority over these territories. The Ottomans also inherited Constantinople transforming it into an Islamic city. For the Balkan Slavs, despite this transformation and the change of its name into Istanbul, it remained Tsarigrad, not just the seat of the rulers but also the immense heart of the empire, a crossroads that attracted people from many parts of the Old World with its opportunities and wealth. It had been before and remained the true political, economic and cultural centre of the Balkans, if not as a geographical notion at least in the dreams of those who wanted to see one of the most cosmopolitan cities of early modern Europe. In establishing their rule the conquerors applied a rather complex approach, taking into consideration local traditions, the geographical relief and of course, their own needs. Leaving aside the Danube Principalities, Transylvania and Dubrovnik, which enjoyed considerable autonomy in running their internal affairs, the proper Ottoman territories in the Balkans, too, were administered in different ways. Some of these variations would date from the time of the conquest or would be introduced subsequently, after the accumulation of some experience in dealing with local affairs and appraising the costs of the maintenance of direct rule. This process led to the emergence, under the cloak of the uniform sancak division of the newly conquered territories, of a number of administrative units taking account of the local specifics. Till roughly the middle of the 16th century all European acquisitions of the Ottomans were included in one huge province, the 'Greek land', but to rule its subdivisions they applied a variety of administrative forms. Among the specific areas one should list in the first place the mountainous territories in the Western Balkans such as Albania, Montenegro, Epirus and Peloponnese, as well as the Greek islands which enjoyed a wider self-rule of different types, originating either from the strong patriarchal traditions of the mountain tribes

INTRODUCTION

13

or from the Italian legacy, but resulting in varying degrees of nominal Ottoman authority. The Ottoman administration in the serhad, the border areas, where the spirit of the frontier prevailed, took equally specific forms. In the core territories the Ottomans seem to have introduced a more or less uniform administrative system and provincial government based largely on the timar system, directly related to the military detachments in the spahi troops, and on the Sharia court, with the kadi as one of the most important channels in the communications between the central authorities and the provinces, between rulers and subjects. Kadis and the Sharia courts were in many ways an embodiment of the unity of the empire and ensured its functioning as a unique huge body. The Ottoman conquest diversified the Balkan population even more. It is in fact with the establishment of the Ottomans that the real spread of Islam in the region began. This is traditionally attributed to the colonisation, forced settlement and migration of Muslims, in groups and as single administrators, merchants, religious functionaries, and to the conversion to Islam of large numbers of local people. At the time of the peak in the spread of Islam in the Balkans, during the 18th century, the number of Muslims is estimated at about one third of the total population in the Balkan territories under direct Ottoman rule, people who in the course of time acquired Turkish or other identity based mainly or entirely on their religious affiliation. The incorporation of the Balkans in the Ottoman state that quickly grew into a vast empire straddling three continents opened new horizons to its subjects, enhanced the movement of people for different purposes and facilitated their settlement in new places. It is not surprising then that at the end of the 17th century we find in Silistra a noticeable group of people identified as Arabs by the Ottoman registrar. The Danube ports attracted sailors and captains from all Ottoman dominions. Equally attractive were the trade centres. The political events and the wars with the Habsburgs and Russia of the end of the 17th through the end of the 19th century triggered new mass displacements of population. Along with the Ottomans from Hungary this meant also the resettlement of large groups of Crimean Tartars and Circassians adding to the diversity within the group of the Balkan Muslims. By the 19th century Muslims in the Balkans were already a group of very complex nature. Religiously it consisted of a Sunni majority but also a noticeable group of Kuilbaj in the eastern part of the peninsula, as well as a wide range of Sufi brotherhood networks between these two poles. In ettmic terms, under the cloak of the generic 'Muslims' there were Turks, Albanians,

14

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

Slavs of different backgrounds, Greeks, Tartars, Circassians, Arabs, Persians, Kurds, and others, but also a significant group of persons who belonged to the upper classes who would identify themselves uniquely as Ottomans. Certainly, they differed also in linguistic terms, speaking their respective language as a maternal one but would often have command of Ottoman Turkish that served as a lingua franca in the vast empire. Despite the steady process of Islamisation the Orthodox Christian population remained the largest group in the peninsula. It, however, was far from being homogeneous in ethnic or linguistic terms either, consisting of Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, Albanians, Vlachs, and other smaller ethnic groups. Without the direct uniform sancak-based administration but certainly considered Ottoman subjects and zimmis were also the inhabitants of the Danube Principalities, also belonging to this confessional group and under the spiritual leadership of the Oecumenical Patriarchate. None of these ethnicities lived in ethnically or religiously clean regions. Thus we find groups of Rum (Greeks) in most of the towns in modern Bulgaria, or Arnavud (Albanians) and (Serbs) in 17th-century 'Bulgarian' settlements, resulting from natural movements or deliberate policy of the government or of individual Ottoman dignitaries. While Ottoman authorities did not regularly identify their subjects by their ethnicity random mentions make it clear that they were well aware of the diversity of the population in Rumeli even when this concerned only islets of different languages. Migration was not restricted to the territories south of the Danube. Especially in times of disturbances and war, large groups of Christians (Bulgarians, Serbs, but also Greeks and Albanians) would cross the river in search of better conditions of life, settling mainly in Wallachia, but also in the Habsburg or Russian possessions. The movement was not one-way only, as there are also many occurrences of Vlachs settling in Ottoman territories proper, the village of Arbanassi, near Tarnovo, being probably one of the most striking but certainly not unique example in this respect. While in the course of the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans the Bulgarian Patriarchate disappeared and its dioceses were overtaken by the Constantinople patriarch, the Ottomans seem to have deliberately preserved the Ohrid Archbishopric-Patriarchate. After the initial abolishment of the Ipek (Pec) Patriarchate, political expedience prompted the new rulers to restore it, thus preserving three Orthodox ecclesiastical hierarchies in the peninsula. Despite the overwhelming domination of Greek clerics, especially in Ohrid,

INTRODUCTION

15

and of the Greek language as the language of both 'high' culture and commerce, the existence of the 'Slavic' churches meant also a chance for the Slavic languages to survive through the centuries, albeit with considerable damages to their lexical richness over the time, not just as vernaculars but also as a means of expression of more abstract ideas. Under the Ottoman rule the variety of non-Muslim groups in the Balkans increased even more. Although Catholics were largely regarded as agents of hostile powers Catholicism expanded. In the 17th century as a result of the missionary work of Franciscans among local heretics (the Paulicians in Northern and Southern Bulgaria, for example), Catholicism gained ground in new territories. Catholics were also a diverse group in ethnic terms, including Albanians, Bosnians, Croats, Ragusans, Greeks, Bulgarians, descendants of the German miners who settled in the Serbian and Bulgarian states long before the Ottoman conquest. The Ottoman conquest facilitated the expansion towards the Balkans of another Christian group, the Armenians. While there were minor groups of Armenians even before, it was in the 17th century that they became a noticeable minority in Balkan towns, mainly in the eastern parts of the peninsula. In many of them the Armenian communities were of a composite nature — of already permanently settled people, often defined in official Ottoman documentation as mahalle-i Ermeniyan, but also of migrant interregional and international merchants, usually identified as Acem tticcar. In a different way but equally effective was the Ottoman state in attracting Jews to its territories. There have been Jewish communities in many of the Roman forts and towns as early as the 1st century c. e. They remained a stable element of the Balkan urban centres throughout the mediaeval period. In the course of time Romaniot Jews were joined by three waves of Ashkenazim driven out of Bavaria and other states in Germanspeaking Europe, in the second half of the 14th and in the second half of the 15th century, as well as after the conquest of Hungary in the first half of the 16th century. At the end of the 15th and beginning of 16th century Jewish communities swelled even more, with the Sephardim's expulsion from the Iberian Peninsula, but also from other parts of Western Europe. In many Balkan towns the Jewish communities consisted not just of these three major groups, but would fall apart on the basis even of local peculiarities, such as Jews from Portugal, Seville or other. Jews added their tongues — the Hebrew spoken by the Romaniot Jews bearing heavy Greek or Slavic influences, Yiddish and Ladino, to the medley of languages heard in the Balkan towns' business areas.

16

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

Even an abridged list of the ethnic and confessional groups in the Ottoman Balkans would be incomplete without the ever outlawed Gypsies. They, too, started settling in the Balkans before the Ottoman conquest, probably as early as the 11th century when much of the peninsula had been incorporated into the Byzantine Empire for several decades but they seem to have become a conspicuous element of the landscape only with the Ottoman rule. They were present in most of the Rumeli towns, certainly also in the countryside, usually treated as a single group by the authorities despite differing religious affiliations. In effect, in the Ottoman urban centres such as Sofia, for example, in the 17th century we find, apart from the Muslims who gradually became the dominant majority, also Greeks, Bulgarians, Ragusans, three groups of Jews (Romaniot, Ashkenazi and Sephardic), Armenians, Gypsies, and a number of people of other ethnic backgrounds drawn by the opportunities in the administrative and trading hub, or dragged there by the military activities in the region, as soldiers or slaves. The same is valid of many other larger or smaller centres in the Balkans which gradually transformed into typical Levantine cities. One of the most important consequences of this ethnic and religious diversity in my opinion has been the accumulation of centuries of experience in living with people who are different — linguistically, culturally, and religiously. This does not necessarily mean that Balkan societies were less compartmentalised, or that people in the Balkans were or became less intolerant and even hostile to the 'alien' than others. As elsewhere in contemporary Europe, in the Balkans, and in the urban centres in particular, local denizens tended to group together mainly on the basis of religious affiliation. Yet, mixed villages and neighbourhoods, guilds or partnerships in trade and production were by no means an exceptional phenomenon. It seems that in the course of centuries of invasions and the arrival of new settlers they had learnt to live alongside with these differences, allowing the 'other' to exist, and accepting these differences as part of normal life. The problems of the establishment of the Ottoman authority in the region and its maintenance, the relations between rulers and ruled at a provincial level in the pre-nationalist era, the way people managed to live together without large-scale conflicts, and mechanisms in overcoming the crises when they emerged, have been among the topics that I have always found fascinating. The themes of most of the articles included in this volume

INTRODUCTION

17

grew out of my work on the kadi sicills preserved in the National Library in Sofia and in continuation of my doctoral thesis on the Kadi Institution in the Balkans, 15th- 17th centuries. The first part of the book includes studies in various aspects of the Ottoman provincial administration in territories belonging to Rumeli and for different periods from the establishment of the Ottoman authority till the age of the reforms. Up to the beginning of the 19th century the 'Greek' land was considered the most important European province of the Ottoman domains comprising much of the central Balkan lands. Here Rumeli is used both as an administrative and as a geographic term which did not necessarily overlap and which evolved through the centuries. The kadi institution and the kadi court as a judicial and administrative body formed the core of the Ottoman administration. The articles devoted to the functioning of the court in a small town in present-day Northeastern Bulgaria that may be regarded as a more or less 'typical' one and to the portrait of the Ottoman provincial kadi on the basis of material for Sofia are a natural continuation and addition to the picture of the provincial government introduced in the Balkans at the beginning of the Ottoman rule. Included here are also an article discussing the military institutions in the serhad region, as well as a more general (co-authored with Dr Svetlana Ivanova) study on the emergence of the Muslim communities in the Balkans, on the spread of Islam among local population, and on the institutions related to the Islamic cult and culture in the broadest meaning of the term. The Ottoman Empire has often been cited as a classical example of multiethnic, multi-confessional and multicultural state where all groups cohabited in relative peace and with a minimum of bloodshed. Included in the second part of the volume are studies devoted most generally to the status of the non-Muslims within the Ottoman polity, their attitude to the Ottoman administration and Islam, largely before the actual advent of nationalism in the Balkans. It is certainly impossible to exhaust all aspects of the relations between the Ottoman state and its Balkan non-Muslim subjects which may be discussed at many levels and from various viewpoints, between the ecclesiastical hierarchies — the Oecumenical, the Ohrid, and the Ipek Patriarchates, and the central authority, but also at a lower level between communities in each town or region and the respective Ottoman provincial administration. In most places these were complex entities consisting of groups of different ethnic and linguistic background but united by religion. — Greeks, Bulgarians, Albanians, Serbs and other Orthodox Christians, or

18

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

Romaniot, Ashkenazi and Scphardic Jews, each with its own traditions and language. It is amazing what variety of models we may find under the general rules of the zimmi status. In these studies I have viewed the religious communities as entities and only rarely discuss the internal divisions. The study of these communities and their constituent elements, the relations between the communities in the Balkans both in times of pcaccful cohabitation and in moments of violence and extreme confrontation is an ongoing project, as that of the Ottoman judicial and administrative institutions. Some of the topics are discussed as case studies, others are based on material from larger areas, but in all I have tried to draw conclusions that might be regarded as valid if not for the entire empire, at least for the core European province of the Ottoman state, or that at least nuance the picture of these relations under the Ottomans. Kadi sicills have been and still are my favourite source. They provide unique insights into life into the provinces — be it on the functioning of the provincial administration, the judicial system, the military or the local economy, but also on everyday life, the non-Muslims' communities, the vakif as a charitable, cultural and economic institution, and so forth. I have always thought, however, that no source can be the perfect one and unique in any research, especially when it is a matter of social processes. Wherever possible I have tried to balance and compare the results based on the Sharia court records with texts emanating from the local Christian and Jewish population. More recently I have turned my attention also to a variety of defters compiled with different purposes, in the first place, the muhimme, the books of important matters, which complement considerably the court documentation. In preparing the articles and studies for their publication in this volume I have applied the following principles. The topics which I am in the process of expanding and still working on I have left without considerable alterations or additions, just the needed cosmetic changes — linguistic or factual. With the others I have introduced more or less significant additions, material that I have accumulated after their initial publication and which I consider important. I have indicated these new parts with square brackets. This book is not intended as a eulogy of the Balkans or of the Ottoman rule there. What I have always found amazing ever since I began my studies in the Ottoman Balkans are the variety of patterns of relations between rulers and ruled and mechanisms applied by the Ottomans in dealing with their subjects

INTRODUCTION

19

and in maintaining the relative peace in their dominions. I hope that this book will, if not change, at least nuance the image of the Balkan peoples of today, peoples of so many ethnicities, languages, and religions who had been able, before and under the Ottoman rule, for centuries to live and share their small peninsula without clashes.

*

I feel really privileged for having had the support in bad and good times of so many colleagues and friends of different generations and background. 1 would like to thank all those who have helped me through the years. I owe much to my teachers — Prof. Dr Tsvetana Gueorguieva, of the History Department at Sofia University, and my late PhD advisor at the Institute of Balkan Studies, Prof. Dr Strashimir Dimitrov. Both of them have shown me different aspects, angles and approaches in the study of Ottoman and Balkan history, the ultimate result being that they have inspired me and encouraged me in my curiosity in things Ottoman and Balkan. They have set in front of me standards of research which I hope I shall be able to meet sometime. I am very grateful also to m y teacher in Ottoman language, palaeography and diplomatics and presently colleague at the institute, Maria Kalitsin. I hesitate to single out anyone, lest I slight others, but at the same time I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge how much indebted I feel to Dr Svetlana Ivanova, History Department, Sofia University, Prof. Dr Nadia Danova, Institute of Balkan Studies, Sofia, Prof. Dr Michael Ursinus, University of Heidelberg, and Dr Virginia Aksan, McMaster University. Their moral support, expertise and invaluable advice have been and are a corrective and a stimulus. I am also very grateful to Dr Colin Imber, University of Manchester, T i m Stanley, Victoria and Albert M u s e u m , London, John Thirkell, University of Kent, Canterbury, Prof. Dr Elizabeth Zachariadou, University of Crete, Prof. Dr Machiel Kiel, Netherlands History and Archaeology Institute, Istanbul, Dr Nathalie Clayer and Prof. Dr Alexandre Popovic, CNRS, Prof. Dr Leslie Peirce, University of California, Berkeley, Dr Stefka Parveva, Institute of History, Sofia, Prof. Dr David Powers, Cornell University, Prof. Dr Rudolph Peters, Amsterdam University, Dr Kate Fleet, Skilliter Centre for Ottoman Studies, and many other colleagues whose names it is difficult to list here. T o every one of them I feel obliged for advice and comments, for books or references, which have proven essential in my research.

20

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

Much of what I know about the Ottoman Empire I owe to my work at the Oriental Department at the National Library in Sofia. I wish to thank its staff and Stefan Andreev and Asparuh Velkov, in particular, f o r m e r l y researchers at the department for always being helpful and for never sparing their time when I was finding my way in the difficult Ottoman readings. I should express also my gratitude to the staff of the Basbakanl ik Osmanli Ar§ivi in Istanbul for their invariably friendly and helpful attitude. To a great extent what I have done so far and in a way what I shall do would have been impossible without my first grant, which I received at the beginning of my career as an Ottoman specialist and at a time of radical political and economical changes for my country. My gratitude to the Skilliter Centre for Ottoman Studies, N e w h a m College, Cambridge. Several other institutions have provided me with the financial and collégial support which have been vital for a Bulgarian scholar — the Andrew F. Mellon Fund, IMIR, Sofia, IFEA, NHAIIST, and ARIT, Istanbul, the International Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies, the British Council, Sofia. I am also indebted to my colleagues at the Sabanci University, Istanbul, for the excellent conditions of work I enjoyed there which made this book possible in so short a time. At the end, I wish to express my deep gratitude to my parents, to my husband and our daughters for their love, for having always been by my side, for their belief in my abilities and for being so tolerant of the oddities of an 'itinerant' daughter, wife and mother.

ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE CENTRAL BALKAN TERRITORIES OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE, 15th century

By the eve of the 15th century the majority of the central parts of the Balkan Peninsula of today had already been conquered by the Ottomans. The second half of the 14th century was a time when the Ottoman campaigns and incursions still had a predominantly destructive character, but also a period of most intensive state-building and formation of the central and provincial stnicture and apparatus. The establishment of Edirne as the Ottoman capital upon its conquest 1 was an important sign that the Balkans were already regarded as an integral part of the state. The idea of settling in the newly conquered territories had important consequences for the local peoples. The Ottoman sultans abandoned their previous model of subduing the Balkan states by imposing only vassal relations and the ensuing duties on them and proceeded towards the abolition of their statehood. Since then despite all the cataclysms of the first half of the 15th century the Ottoman authority had remained firmly entrenched in the Balkans, and had rarely been seriously compromised before the advent of the age of nationalism during the 18th- 19th centuries. During the early stage of the conquest in the 14th century the Ottoman system of administration was still in its formative stage and we find echoes of this period in the narratives of the later Ottoman chroniclers. The expansion in the Balkans was conducted by Stileyman, the son of Orhan (1324-1362), but also by military commanders and bands from other Turkic beyliks. During the reign of Murad I (1362-1389) the latter's actions gradually co-ordinated with the general directions of Ottoman expansion and soon they were forced to 1 The date of the fall of Adrianople is among the disputable ones in the history of Ottoman expansion in the Balkans. Here we shall mention just a few of the existent opinions. According to C. Imber Adrianople was conquered by Sultan Murad I (1362-1389) some time after 1366, most probably in 1369. Cf. Imber, C , The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1481, Istanbul: The Isis Press, 1990, p. 29.1. Beldiceanu-Steinherr also sets the date of the capture of Adrianople at that time but, according to her, it was only in 1377 after the restoration of the Ottoman rule over Gallipoli/Gelibolu, that the city fell under the direct authority of the Ottoman sultans. SteinherrBeldiceanu, I., "La conquête d'Adrianople par les Turcs", in Travaux et Mémoires, Vol. 1, 1965; Eadem, Recherches sur les actes des règnes des sultans Osman, Orkhan et Murad I, Monachii, 1967, 46-47. On his part, H. Inalcik puts the conquest of Adrianople in 1361 at the end of Sultan Orhan Fs reign. See his "The conquest of Edirne (1361)", Archivum Ottomanicum, vol. Ill, 1971.

24

RUM ELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

accept the Ottoman ruler's supremacy. 1 It was probably Murad I who, by the appointment of Lala §ahin as the first beylerbey of Rumeli, began the proper administrative organisation of the newly conquered territories in the Balkans under the direct rule of the Ottoman dynasty. Under Bayezid I the beylerbeyliks became two, the second comprising the Ottoman territories in Anatolia. The leading principle in the organisation of both units was one, the sequence of the conquests. The subsequent centuries saw a proliferation of the beylerbeyliks but Rumeli and Anatolia, though undergoing constant changes, remained the main administrative units throughout the pre-Tanzimat period, the Rumeli beylerbey enjoying the highest rank among the beylerbeys during the said period. While the largest administrative units are more or less known we know little of the administrative structure on a lower level especially for the period till the reign of Mehmed II the Conqueror, but also even later. Here we aim at reconstructing the earliest Ottoman administrative units and underlying principles of provincial government in the Central Balkans during the 15th century prior to the reforms of Siileyman the Magnificent (1520-1566). Our main sources are the available timar and cizye defters of the time, most of which are published. Together with some kanuns they provide probably a somewhat distorted but yet unique picture of the Ottoman provincial administrative system. Their main drawback in this respect is of course the fact that they had not been compiled for the purposes we would be using them but for the needs of the central authority in view of its control over the spahi troops and the land holding, or for the levying of the cizye tax. A closer look at their contents, however, shows that they not only reveal the administrative system based on the military organisation but also provide an insight into the 'civil' administrative units based on the jurisdictions of the Sheriat court judges. The cizye defiers also seem to follow very closely the existing administrative division into sancaks and vilayets, providing in some cases the only key we have to the administrative structure of the sancaks during the 15th century. Below we shall discuss some of the problems in using the defters with a view to our purposes. * *

*

1 Histoire de l'Empire ottoman, Sous la direction de R. Mantran. Paris: Fayard, 1989, pp. 39-41; Beldiceanu-Steinherr, Recherches, p. 47, doc. 13, pp. 115-120. Similar opinion, though in a less categorical way, is expressed also by H. Matanov in Matanov, Hr. and R. Mihneva, Ot Galipoli do Lepanto [From Gallipoli to Lepanto], Sofia: Nauka i Izkustvo, 1988, p. 43.

THE

CENTRAL

BALKAN

TERRITORIES

25

Some of the strategically important directions of the Ottoman expansion in the Balkans, along Via Egnatia in particular, were pursued by semi-independent commanders whose main task seems to have been to engage their Christian neighbours in constant warfare and, certainly, when possible, to conquer new territories. Their relations with the Ottoman beys at the earliest stage of the conquest are subject to much speculation. Some scholars even attribute the conquest of Adrianople and the debacle of the Christian armies at Chernomen/firmen to Evrenos Bey and Haci Ilbegi. Though such interpretations of the available sources might be considered too bold, the role of Evrenos Bey, the Turakhans, Mihaloglus, and the other gazi beys in the conquest of the Balkans and in the political life of the early Ottoman state is beyond any doubt. In the areas they conquered these beys founded wees, territories governed by them and where they enjoyed almost entire independence in their internal affairs, probably entire at the outset but gradually losing some of it with the growth of the territory under direct Ottoman rule. The uccs of Pa§a Yigit and Evrenos Bey may be considered classical in this respect as they clearly show that they emerged as state nuclei similar to the role of the Ottoman beylik at the end of the 13th century in Anatolia but missing the opportunity to evolve into independent state structures. The first centre of Evrenos' uc was in Gumiilcine [modern Komotini, Greece] but with the expansion to the west, towards modern Macedonia and Northern Greece, it moved westwards too — in Siruz [Serrai, Greece] and Yenice-i Vardar [Gianissa, Greece]. We find an echo of this time in a document from Feridun Bey's collection according to which the whole territory between Gumiilcine, Siruz, Manastir [Bitola, Macedonia], Bihli§te [the village of Belishta, Albania], and Hurpi§te [Argos Orestikon, Greece], defined as a sancak was granted by Sultan Murad I under his direct government along with the right to transform his lands into vakijs.1 This document, though clearly reflecting the terminology and ideology of the time of Feridun Bey, reveals the territorial potential of this early structure. Uces of similar type were also founded by the Turakhan family, with their centre first in Migalkara/ Malkara and later in Thessaly, as well as by other outstanding families of military commanders.

1 Beldiceanu-Steinherr, Recherches, doc. 47. pp. 228-236; Mutafchieva, V., "Za chiflitsite vàrhu pozemleniya vakàf na Gazi Evrenos beg v nachaloto na nashiya vek" [On the çiftliks on the landed vakifs of Gazi Evrenos Bey at the beginning of our century], Izvestiya na dârzhavnite arhivi, vol. 63, Sofia, 1992, p. 57.

26

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

The uc of Pa§a Yigit, with its centre in Uskiib [Skopje, Macedonia], emerged probably immediately after the fall of the city to the Ottomans around January 1392. 1 After the battle of Rovine of 1395 almost the whole of modern Macedonia came under direct Ottoman rule and the better part of it was included in this uc ruled successively by Pa§a Yigit (till 1414), his heir ishak Bey (1414-1439) and isa Bey, the son of Ishak Bey (1439-1463). Though displaying some of the typical features of the structure, this uc seems to have been in a closcr relation to the mainstream Ottoman expansion and authority. In 1463 when Bosnia also fell, the Uskiib uc was dismantled and Isa Bey became the first sancakbey of Bosnia. A large part of the uc was incorporated in the sancak of Bosnia while the rest in Pa§a sancak? The inventories of the uc of Uskiib of 14553 and of the Brani§evo suba§ilik of 14674 as well as the above-mentioned document concerning Evrenos Bey, allow us to draw a provisional picture of the structure of these wees at a time when they were at an advanced stage of integration within the Ottoman state. Thus, in 1455, the uc of Isa Bey was divided into the vilayets of Uskiib, Kalkandelen [Tetovo, Macedonia], Zvegan, Ras, Senile, Yeleg, and Hodided. The Braniccvo defter confronts us with an interesting variant of an uc of a transitional type, before its complete integration into the regular Ottoman administrative system. Probably the specific situation was to a large extent due to the role of Ali Bey Mihaloglu in the Ottoman expansion and military organisation in the region. The mere fact of the sultan's hasses, however, makes it clear that the status of the territory was far from that of the early uces. The region of BraniCevo fell under Ottoman rule in the summer of 1458. In 1460, Ali Bey Mihaloglu was the subagi of the district residing in Giivercinlik [Golubac, Serbia]. Later during the same year he became the sancakbey of Vidin for the first time. In 1462-63, he became sancakbey of Semendire [Smederevo, Serbia], and then again of Vidin. During the whole

1 Stojanovski, A., "Administrativno-teritorijalna podelba na Makedonija pod osmanliskata vlast do krajot na XVII vek" [Administrative-territorial division of Macedonia under Ottoman authority till the end of the 17th century], Glasnik na Institutot za natsionalna istoriya (GIN1), 1973, No. 1, p. 132. 2 Ibidem, p. 130, 132. Shopova, D., "Koga Skopje e bilo tsentar na sandzhak vo periodot od pagyanyeto pod turska vlast do krayot na XVI vek" [When was Skopje the centre of a sancak in the period from the fall under Turkish authority till the end of the 16th century], GIN1, 1957, No. l , p . 92. 3 Sabanovid, H., Krajiste Isa-bega Ishakovica. Zbimi katastarski popis iz 1455 godine [The Uc of Isa-beg son of Ishak. Detailed cadastral inventory of 1455], Sarajevo, 1964. 4 Stojakovici, M., Braniëevski tefter. Poimenicni popis pokrajine Braniçevo iz 1467 godine [Braniçevo defter. Detailed inventory of the region of Braniçevo of 1467], Belgrade, 1987.

THE

CENTRAL

BALKAN

TERRITORIES

27

period, 1467 including, he was holding a hass in these territories. 1 This fact has given grounds to some scholars to suggest that for a short period after its conquest the said territory must have been attached to the Vidin sancak.2 According to others, however, because of its strategic and geopolitical situation the Branicevo region enjoyed a specific status of an independent subagilik (vilayet) under the control of the Vidin sancakbey but outside the sancak itself. 3 In the first register of the Semendire sancak Branicevo is already among its nahiyes. It is quite possible, however, that for a short period the district might indeed have been a constituent part of the Vidin sancak, probably under the personal control of Mihaloglu, as almost all records of that time speak of frequent fluctuations in the boundaries of the sancaks. It is also quite probable that at an earlier stage in the Ottoman expansion the same or similar status may have been granted also to other territories in the Balkans such as the later sancaks, of Silistra, Nigbolu [Nikopol, Bulgaria] or Vidin, which too were border areas facing the still independent Danube Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, and which served as starting points for the akinci razzias. Unfortunately our earliest evidence about the Vidin 4 and the Nigbolu 5 sancaks dates from a period of advanced centralisation and we can only guess about their earlier status. Some confirmation for this assumption, however, we see in the fact recorded by Evliya f elebi and in documents of later times that Gazi Mihal received Pleven [a town in Central North Bulgaria] and 33 villages in its district as an í arpallk-ocakllk , as well as other settlements around Nigbolu and Vidin 6 where his family remained in power for much of the 15th and even 16th century. 1 According to the registration of 1467 these were the second most important land holdings after the sultan's in the district. Cf. Stojakovic, op. cit., passim. 2 Turski izvori za istoriju Beograda, T. 1, Katastarski popisi Beograda i okoline, 1476-1566 [Turkish Sources on the History of Belgrad, vol. 1, Cadastral Registers of Belgrade and its Region, 1476-1566], Compiled by H. Sabanovic, Belgrade, 1964, p. 2. 3 Stojakovic, op. cit., p. 6. 4 Bojanic'-Lukac, D., Vidin i Vidinskiyat sandzhak prez XV-XVI vek [Vidin and the Vidin Sancak in the 15th-16th centuries], V. Mutafchieva and M. Staynova (eds), Sofia, 1975, 55-94. 5 "Hasove, zeameti i timari v Nikopolski sandzhak" [Hasses, zeamets and timars in the Nigbolu sancak], in Turski izvori za bdlgarskata istoriya, Seriya XV-XVI vek [Turkish Sources on Bulgarian History, Series 15th-16th centuries] (hereafter T1BI\, vol. 2, N. Todorov and B. Nedkov (eds and compilers), Sofia, 1966, pp. 161-297; "Zeameti i timari na mustahfâzi v Nikopolskiya sandzhak" [Zeamets and timars of mustahfizes in the Nigbolu sancak], in Ibidem, pp. 297-335; Kovachev, R., Opis na Nikopolskiya sandzhak ot 80te godini na XV vek [An Inventory of the Nigbolu Sancak of the 1480s], Sofia: NBKM, 1997. 6 Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname. We have used the Bulgarian translation Evliya Chelebi, Pdtepis [Travelogue], Transi, by Str. Dimitrov. Sofia: OF, 1972; Balaschev, G. and D.'lhcliiev, "Turskite vakâfi v bâlgarskoto tsarstvo i dokumenti vârhu tyah" [The Turkish Vakifs in the Bulgarian Kingdom and Documents about Them], Minalo, I, 1909, No. 3, pp. 243-255.

28

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

The «res existed in territories where the Ottoman sultans were not directly involved in the conquest but where the confrontation with the Christian neighbours had to be maintained. There the semi-independent military commanders and leaders of the earliest stage of the Ottoman conquest and, for some time, their heirs could act as still somewhat independent 'rulers' but were gradually losing some of their authority as a result of the expansion which added new territories under the direct rule of the sultans. Under Murad II (1421-1451) the correlation between the forces of centralisation and decentralisation was irrevocably in favour of the sultans, but the gazi families retained some of their importance in Ottoman political life for nearly a century more till the reign of Sultan Siileyman the Magnificent (1520-1566) when the uces were finally abolished as an administrative structure and their specific status was replaced with that of the regular Ottoman provinces, while the majority of the Ottoman territories were divided into eyalets, sancaks, kazas and nahiyes.1 * *

*

The territories included in the ever-expanding Rumili beylerbeylik under the direct control of the central authority were divided into sancaks, governed by sancakbeys. On the basis of the available sources we may assume that the following sancaks. emerged in the Central Balkans during the 15th century or even earlier: Pa§a, Cirmen, Kiistendil, Ohrid, Nigbolu, Vidin, Silistra and probably Sofia. Less positive is the data about some other centres which we shall discuss separately - Manastir, Uskiib, Selanik [Thessaloniki, Greece], and Siruz. Two principles seem to have been in function with the formation of the former group of sancaks. Chronologically the first must have been simply the sequence in the conquest. This principle can be most clearly detected in the case of Pa§a, and probably of Carmen and Sofia. Later it seems that another principle has prevailed — the preservation of the existent situation, where each conquered state formed an administrative unit — Nigbolu, Kiistendil, Ohrid and Vidin. Silistra presents us with a probably intermediary situation. Pa§a sancak was the biggest one in the Rumili beylerbeylik. It was to be governed directly by the beylerbey who also personally led on military campaigns the spahis based in it. Initially its centre was in Edirne, then

' Dimitrov, S., Istoriya na balkanskite narodi [History of the Balkan Peoples], vol. 1, Sofia, 1972, p. 64; Glidewell-Nadolski, D., "Ottoman and Secular Civil Law", IJMES, vol. 8, 1977, No. 4, p. 520.

THE

CENTRAL

BALKAN

TERRITORIES

29

moved to Filibe [Plovdiv, Bulgaria] where it was during the Long Campaign of 1443-44. At some point after this campaign, probably towards the end of the 15th century, the centre of the beylerbeylik (and of the sancak!) was moved to Sofia where it remained till the first decades of the 19th century. Due to its large territory Pa§a sancak was divided in two branches — left and right. In times of war the spahis from each were commanded by an alaybey. The sancak comprised a large part of modern European Turkey, South Bulgaria, North Greece, Macedonia, and even parts of Albania. For the time being, however, it is practically impossible to delineate its exact borders as throughout the century they fluctuated and at different moments some territories were added to or detached from it. Thus, after the fall of Bosnia in 1463 the vilayets of Uskiib with Ka^anik and Kalkandelen were joined to Pa§a sancak while the rest of the uc — to the newly established sancak of Bosnia. 1 More or less permanently to it belonged the districts of Kir§ova [Kichevo], Kopriilii [Veles], Pirlepe [Prilep], Manastir, in Macedonia, Drama, Zihna [Nea ZihnaJ, Selanik, Demir Hisar [Siderokastron], Avret Hisar [Paleo Ginekokastron], Yenice-i Karasu [Yenitsa], Siderokapsa, Karaferye [Verroia], Servia, Fiorina, Kostur [Kastoria], Giimulcine, Hurpigte, in North Greece, Bihli§te, in Albania, Nevrekop [Gotse Delchev], the regions of Eski Zagra [Stara Zagora], Filibe and Tatar Pazarcik [Pazardzhik], in Bulgaria, the entire Rhodopes, as far as Edirne, and others, 2 bordering on the sancaks of Ohrid, A r van id and Bosnia, probably Sofia, to the west, Gelibolu, Vize and (,'irmen, and on the Selanik and Siruz, to the south, when these would exist (see on them below); Silistra — to the east, Nigbolu and Vidin — to the north. According to registers of 1530 the right wing of Pa§a sancak comprised nine kadiliks — Edirne, Dimetoka, Ferecik, Ipsala, Tatar Pazarcik, Ke§an, Eski Hisar-i Zagra, Kizilagag [Hlhovo, Bulgaria], Filibe, while the left wing — Giimulcine, Yenice-i Karasu, Zihna, Drama, Siruz, Nevrekop, Demir Hisar, Selanik, Sidrekapsi, Avret Hisar. 3 The (,'irmcn sancak came into existence as an administrative subdivision of the Rumili beylerbeylik probably as early as the end of the 14th century at the time of the reign of Murad I or Bayezid I. 4 Its first sancakbey was Saruca Pa§a succeeded in the position by his son Umur Bey. The latter founded several vakifi. in ('irmen and other settlements belonging at 1

Shopova, op. cit., p. 92. Stojanovski, op. cit., pp. 132-137. 3 Gokbilgin, M.T., XV-XVI. Asirlarda Edirne ve Pa§a Livasi. Vakiflar-Mtilkler-Mukntaalar, Istanbul, 1952, p. 10. 4 Hala§oglu, Y„ "XVI. Yiizyilda Sosyal, F.konomik ve Demografik Bakimdan Balkanlar'da Bazi Osmanli §ehirleri", Belleten, vol. LIII, Nos. 207-208. Ankara, 1989, pp. 637-679. 2

30

R U M E L I

U N D E R

T H E

O T T O M A N S

the time to the sancak such as Kazanlik, Hasskoy [Haskovo] and Yeni Zagra [Nova Zagora], in Bulgaria. 1 Apart from these places, the sancak also included the modern districts of Chirpan, in Bulgaria, Tekirdag and Eyne Pazar with Ergene, in Turkey 2 . The Tarnovo Bulgarian Kingdom was the first European state subjected by the Ottomans and incorporated as an entity in one administrative unit. Of course, we mean here only this part of it that had survived till the 1390s. Nigbolu sancak or a structure comprising the same territory was most probably established immediately after the fall of the Kingdom of Ivan Shishman in 13953. The available registers for this sancak date from about eighty to ninety years after the conquest4. The earliest available timar defters, unfortunately fragments, dating from around 1479 and around 1485, allow us to identify the following administrative subdivisions of Nigbolu sancak Ivraca [Vratsa], Kievo (in the region of Teteven and Yablanitsa, Lovech district), Loffa [Lovech], Mramorni§e (along the rivers Iskar and Vit), Nigbolu, §umnu [Shumen], Cernovi [the village of Cherven, Ruse district], izladi [Zlatitsa], f i b r e [the village of Gorni Tsibar, Montana district], Rahova [OryahovoJ, Plevne, Tirnova [Tarnovo], Kur§una [the village of Krushuna, Lovech district], Resele? [the village of Reselets, Lovech district], Nedeligko (probably in the region of Lukovit), Zi§tovi [Svishtov], Krapig [the village of Krepcha, Ruse district], Ala Kilise [Omurtag], Gerilova [probably with its centre in the village of Varbitsa, Shumen district], Kolene [the village of Kolena, Haskovo district], Yerkeg [the village of Kozichino, near Pomorie], tslimiye [Sliven]. Some of these are identified as vilayets, others — as nahiyes. A third group, identified only as 'belonging to' emerge as some sort of an administrative centre but it is not clear what. This structure is to a large extent corroborated by the cizye defters of the same time. In 1488/89 we find under one heading the vilayets of Nigbolu, Zistova, Pilevne, Nedeli?, Reselee, Tirnovi, Lofga, Ivraca, fernovi with Rusi [Ruse], Kur§una and Kimk (?) 5 . These divisions, with only one difference, appear also in the cizye defter of 1491, and the difference can be attributed only to the correct reading of the above Kinik — as Kieva 6 . On the basis of these registers we should be 1

Gökbilgin, op. cit., pp. 12-20; Beldiceanu-Steinherr, Recherches, pp. 127-128. Gökbilgin, op. cit.., p. 18; Hala90glu, op. cit., pp. 639-640. 3 Imber, op. cit., p. 43. 4 See the defters quoted in n. 5 p. 27. 5 Barkan, Ö. L., "894 (1488/89) Yili Cizyesinin Tahsilätma ait Muhasebe Bilansolan", Belgeier, I, 1964, vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 42-43. 6 "Chast ot smetkovoden registär za danäka dzhizie, säbran ot evropeyskite provintsii na Osmanskata imperiya prez 1489-1491 g." [Fragment of a book-keeping register for the cizye tax, collected in the European provinces of the Ottoman Empire in 1489-1491], in TIBI, vol. 7, S. Dimitrov, E. Grozdanova, S. Andreev (eds), Sofia, 1986, pp. 36-38. 2

THE C E N T R A L

BALKAN

TERRITORIES

31

able to reconstruct almost exactly the boundaries of the sancak in the 1480s. To the north, this was the Danube but with one qualification — two fortified places on the left bank were under the direct Ottoman authority as part of the Nigbolu sancak — the fortresses of Holovnik [near Turnu Magurele, Romania] and Yergogi [Giurgiu, Romania], forming important bridgeheads for Ottoman campaigns across the river. Later they developed into kadihks. To the west, it bordered on Vidin and Sofia sancaks. To the south, its border went along the Balkan range [Stara planina], but at times reached beyond, including the nahiye of izladi (to the south-west) and the nahiyes of Kolene, Yerkec and Islimiye (to the south-east). Unfortunately, we have only too few villages from the latter to draw a detailed line of the south border. Generally, there it bordered on Pa§a, Airmen and Silistra sancaks. To the east, the neighbour sancak was Silistra, but the border line is even less clear, running roughly from the turn of the Tundzha river till Tutrakan on the Danube, but, as we shall see below, with many questionable territories 1 . Towards the end of the 15th-beginning of the 16th century the boundaries of the sancak noticeably shrank and it lost most of its territories to the south, beyond the Balkan range, the southern ridge of the mountain becoming its natural boundary there2. Chronologically, the Kiistendil sancak emerged at the same time as Nigbolu and consisted of the possessions of the Ottoman vassal Constantine Dejanovic who lost his life at the battle of Rovine. Upon his death the principality was annexed and following a short period of somewhat dubious status it became a fully-fiedged sancak3. Some peculiarities in the registration of the administrative units forming part of the sancak in the cizye defters of 1488/89 and 1491 lead us to the thought that the smaller vilayets may have been grouped around the more important centres. Thus, under the rubric of "Account of the infidels from the vilayets of Ilica Kiistendil |Kyuslendil, Bulgaria], Islavi§te, Kumanige, Gorne Krai§te (in modern Macedonia)" we see also the vilayets, Piyanige, Ko§ani, in Macedonia, Dupnige, Sirigtnik (in the region of Pernik), Radomir, in West Bulgaria. In another group are the

Stoykov, R., "Novi svedeniya za minaloto na bàlgarskite selishta prez XV-XVI v." [New evidence on the past of the Bulgarian settlements during the 15th -16th centuries], Istoricheski Pregled, 1959, No. 6; Todorov, N., "Za demografskoto sàstoyanie na Balkanskiya poluostrov prez XV-XVI vek" [On the demographic situation in the Balkan Peninsula during the 15th-16th centuries], Godishnik na Soflyskiya Universitet, Filosofsko-Istoricheski fakultet, 1959, Vol. 1, Part III, No. 2. ICovachev, op. cit., p. 46. 3 See in more detail on its emergence Matanov, Hr., Vdznikvane i oblik na Kyustendilskiya sandzhak [The Emergence and View of the Kiistendil Sancak], Sofia, 2000.

32

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

vilayets of Strumi§e, Male§evo, Konge, Tikve§, in Macedonia, and Petrig, in Bulgaria and finally, in a third, I§tib [StipJ, Nogerig [NagoriCane] and Kratovo, all in Macedonia 1 . Towards the beginning of the 16th century the sancak comprised territories in modern Southwest Bulgaria (Kyustendil, Petrich, Radomir, Pernik, Dupnitsa) and modern Macedonia (Kratovo, Stip, Strumitsa, Tikves and others) 2 . Yet another sancak came into being also after the battle of Rovine following the death of King Marko on the battlefield. The Ohrid sancak comprised the districts of Ohrid, Debar, Starova, in West Macedonia of today, and several Montenegrin and Albanian areas 3 . The cizye defters of 1488/89 and of 1491 record the following vilayets, under two rubrics. One contains Ohri [Ohrid] with Debri§ [Debartsa], Prespa, Mokri, in Macedonia, and the other, Upper and Lower Debar, in Macedonia, with (,'ernice [Crnici, Montenegro], Veliko Brde [a village of the same name in Montenegro], Rika [the village of Rieka Crnojevifie, Montenegro], Akgahisar [Kruje, Albania], Tamatiye [the region Tamade, Albania], Mat [along the river Mat, Albania], Karlo 4 . The territories around Debar and the Albanian regions, however, were permanently incorporated into the Ottoman provincial administration only after the subduing of Skenderbeg's revolt in the last third of the 15th century. One year later, following the debacle of the West European crusaders in 1396 at Nicopolis/Nigbolu, was annexed the Bulgarian Tsardom of Vidin. The boundaries of the newly-formed Vidin sancak followed very closely those of the kingdom of Ivan Sratsimir 5 . The earliest evidence about its structure dates from 1454/55. According to an icmal defter the sancak consisted of the vilayet of Vidin and the nahiyes of Isfirlig [the village of Svrlig], Bane [Soko Bane], in Serbia and Belgrad [Belogradchik], in Bulgaria, as well as the unspecified administrative units of Timok (along the river of the same name), Gel vie (along the upper course of the river Crni Timok), Velejnige, Qerna reka (along the middle and lower course of the river Crna reka) and Zagoriye 6 . A fragment of a timar defter of 1467/68 records the following subdivisions — Vini§ni§e (maybe a different reading of the above Vele§ni§e), Kliviye

1 "Chast ot smetkovoden register", pp. 47-50, 51-53, 34-35; Barkan, op. cit., pp. 50-52. ^ Stojanovski, op. cit., p. 138. 3 Ibidem, pp. 140-141. 4 "Chast ot smetkovoden register", pp. 40-42, 68-70; Barkan, op. cit., pp. 77-78. ^ Nikov, P., "Sadbata na severozapadnite b&lgarski semi prez srednite vekove" [The fate of the northwestern Bulgarian lands during the Middle A g e s | , in Balgarska istoricheska biblioteka (BIB), T. Ill, No. 1, Sofia, 1930, pp. 147-148. ^ Bojanic-Lukac, Vidin i Vidinskiyat sandzhak, pp. 55-94.

THE

CENTRAL

BALKAN

TERRITORIES

33

(probably a different reading of Gelviye), Zagoriye, Timok, Cerna reka, Polomiye, Isfirlig, Bane, Belgrad and Vidin. The data from this register also speak of the existence of some sort of a more complex structure in which smaller nahiyes would be grouped around a more important centre as was the case with the vilayet of Vidin and the vilayets of C'erna reka, Zagoriye and Timok 1 . According to the fragments of 1478/81 the Vidin sancak included the following administrative units — the vilayets Isfirlig, Zagoriye, Bane 2 , the nahiye Belgrad, the zeamet Verenige, Gelviye, (Terna reka, Vele§nice 3 . In the cizye defters of 1488/89 and of 1491 the records of the non-Muslims from this sancak are included under one rubric where the vilayets are the following — Vidin, Timok, Glaviye [Gelviye, Kliviye] and Tegnig (in the register of 1491 - Ne§beti§) 4 , f e r n a reka, Belgrad, Isfirlig, Bane, the villages Verenice (in the register of 1491 these villages are not recorded, but in their place we have the vilayets of Kray and Trebigan) 5 . The data from all available registers allow concluding that the Vidin sancak enjoyed relatively stable boundaries and internal subdivisions. Silistra sancak consisted of lands annexed at different stages of the Ottoman conquest. The region between Yambol and Nessebar of the Kingdom of Ivan Shishman and the hinterland of the Black Sea towns were integrated into the Ottoman state in the 1370s, but the very city of Nessebar changed its rulers several times. By the treaty of 1403 it was returned to Byzantium by the son of Bayezid I, Siileyman and remained under Byzantine jurisdiction till the fall of Constantinople 6 . After the punitive campaign of Ali Pa§a (,'atidarli in 1388, the possessions of Despot Ivanko, the ruler of Northeast Bulgaria, were incorporated into the Ottoman state. Since then they used to form the core of the Silistra sancak. Towards mid-15th century the Byzantine Black Sea cities were, too, permanently included in it. During the reign of Bayezid II (14811512) the newly conquered districts of Mangaliye, Ktistenca and Babadag in North Dobrudzha (modern Romania) were also added to this sancak.7 ' Eadem, "Fragmenti zbirnog popisa Vidinskog sandiaka iz 1466 godine" [Fragments of a synoptic inventory of the Vidin sancak from 1466|, in Mesovita Grada (Miscellanea), vol. 2, Belgrade, 1973, pp. 5-70. 2 Eadem, "Fragmenti opsirnog popisa Vidinskog sanZaka iz 1478-1481" [Fragments of a detailed inventory of the Vidin sancak of 1478-1481], in Ibidem, pp. 79-110. 3 "Timari väv Vidinsko, Berkovsko, Belogradchishko i porechieto na reka Timok" [Timars in the regions of Vidin, Berkovitsa, Belogradchik and along the river Timok], in TIBI, vol. 2 nn 102-159. 4

Ottoman orthography allows the reading of Te§nicj as Nefbetif and vice versa. "Chast ot smetkovoden registär", pp. 85-87; Barkan, op. cit., p. 57. 6 Imber, op. cit., p. 30. 7 Akgiindüz, A., Osmanli Kanunnameleri ve Hukuki Tahlilleri, vol. 2, II. Bayezid Kanunnameleri, Istanbul, 1990, p. 508.

Devri

34

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

Unfortunately, for the time being we have to rely entirely on the two cizye defters to reconstruct the internal divisions of the sancak during the 15th century. The data there is identical: the vilayets are grouped under two rubrics, the division line running roughly along the Balkan range. The first group are those north of the mountain — Silistra, Pravadi [Provadiya], Madara, Petri§ (near Varna), Gerlovo and Anhialo [Pomorie]; the second are to the south — Yambol, Aytos, Rusikasri [the village of Rusokastro, Burgas district], Karinabad [Karnobat], Eskihisar-i Zagra, Mesemvri [Nessebär], Süzebolu [Sozopol], Agatopoli [AhtopolJ, all in modern Bulgaria, as well as Midiye [Kiyiköy], in Turkey 1 . Thus, towards the very end of the 15th century Silistra sancak stretched along the Black Sea coast from Kirklareli to the south, to the delta of the Danube to the north. Its western boundary, however, seems to have been quite unstable. The district of Gerlovo sometimes belonged to the Nigbolu and sometimes to Silistra sancak. The case with the districts of Yambol and Eski Zagra was similar. The former was sometimes part of (firmen and sometimes — of Silistra sancak, the latter was sometimes part of Pa§a and at other times, of Silistra sancak. The only source about the administration of the region of Sofia and the formation of a sancak shortly after its conquest in the first years of the 1380s are two documents from Feridun Bey's collection 2 , which name its conqueror ince Balaban also as its first sancakbey. Probably this early structure was of the type of the uc as those of the gazi beys but under the direct control of the Ottoman sultans. Sofia sancak as a unit is mentioned in the cizye defters of 1488/89 and 1491, one rubric for the "cizye of the infidels from the vilayets of Berkof^e [Berkovitsa, Bulgaria], and Asaga Bucak [Temnisko, Pirot district, Serbia] in liva Sofia", and another, for the vilayets of Sofia and §ehirköy [Pirot, Serbia] with Iznebol [the region of Znepole with the town of Trän, Bulgaria] 3 . Sofia sancak is mentioned also in the first decades of the 16th century, when Sofia was in all probability the seat of the Rumili beylerbey. The " s a n c a k b e y of Sofia" Malko§oglu Ali Bey perished in the battle at ('aldtran. He was replaced by Canberdi Gazali and then by Mustansiroglu Ali Bey. Finally, there is a kanun for Sofia sancak of 1525/26 according to which it comprised the kazas of §ehirköy, Berkof$e, Samokov and Sofia 4 . All this raises the problem of the correlation between Pa§a sancak and Sofia sancak and whether it was indeed always the Pa§a sancak in a beylerbeylik 1

"Chast ot smetkovoden registär", pp. 25-26; Barkan, op. cit., pp. 40-41. Beidiceanu-Steinherr, Recherches, docs 43 and 44, pp. 224-225. 3 "Chast ot smetkovoden registvr", p. 29, 32-32; Barkan, op. cit., p. 37, 54-56. 4 Barkan, Ö. L., XV. ve XVI. Asirlarda Osmanh Imparatorlugunda Zirai Ekonominin Hukuki ve Mali Esaslari, vol. 1, Kanunlar, Istanbul, 1943, pp. 251-254. 2

THE

CENTRAL

BALKAN

TERRITORIES

35

where the beylerbey would reside. Also possible is that these districts formed a specific sub-unit with the status of sancak within the huge and rather amorphous Pa§a sancak. Finally, one may ask also whether Sofia had indeed become the centre of the Rumili beylerbeylik prior to the reign and administrative reforms of Siileyman the Magnificent. Even more complicated is the case with the second group of sancaks which appear occasionally in the documents of the time, but also, at other times, as subdivisions of other sancaks. Thus, according to some scholars, Manastir [Bitola] had never been a centre of sancak^ Recent publications of sources, however, reveal that such a sancak must have existed at certain periods during the reign of Mehmed II and Bayezid II 2 . At the beginning of the 16th century, Manastir was only a kaza within Pasa sancak3. In the cizye defters of the end of the 15th century Manastir is in a separate rubric without any indication as to its belonging to one or another sancak or to any specific relations between it and other vilayets,4. According to D. Shopova the Uskub [Skopje] uc was disbanded in 1463 and became a sancak centre only in mid-16th century 5 . Its status, however, must have changed several times as we see it occasionally belonging as a kaza to Pa§a or Manastir sancaks, or even as a sancak6. Finally, one of the cizye defters says that Kalkandelen belonged to 'vilayet Uskiib' 7 . Selanik [Thessaloniki] and its region, too, had a rather changeable fate during the 14th-15th centuries. The town was finally captured by the Ottomans in 1430. Immediately afterwards the city and its region seern to have been joined to Pasa sancak. We see it as a kaza in Pa§a sancak also in the 1530s8. Other documents, however, reveal that at certain moments during the 15th century it was the centre of a sancak within Rumili beylerbeylik, including the kazas of Selanik, Drama, Yenice-i Vardar, Kavala, Karaferye, Alasonya and the island of Thassos 9 . The latter is partially corroborated by the data from the cizye defters of the end of the 15th century where we see the ^ Stojanovski, op. cit., p. 142. Akgiindiiz, A., Osmanli Kanunnameleri ve Hukuki Tahlilleri, voi. 1, Osmanli Hukukuna Giri§ ve Fatili Devri Kanunnameleri, Istanbul, 1990, p. 505; voi. 2, p. 455. 3 Gokbilgin, op. cit., p. 8,76. 4 "Chast ot smctkovoden registàr", p. 42; Barkan, "894 (1488/89) Yili Cizyesinin", p. 83. 5 Shopova, op. cit., pass. 6 Akgundiiz, op. cit., voi. 2, p. 521. ^ "Chast ot smetkovoden registar", p. 30. 8 Stojanovski, op. cit., p. 142. 9 Akgundiiz, op. cit., voi. 2, p. 514; voi. 2, p. 476. 2

36

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

vilâyets of Selânik, Kalimerie [Kalamaria], Hortaç [Hortiatis, the Thessaloniki district], Avret Hisar, §u§meni (or Sosmanoz in other sources), Cebl-i Bogdanos [the mountain Vertikos], Yenice-i Vardar, Olivire fthe district of Maglen], the mines of Sidrekapsi [Siderokavsia], the vakijs of Evrenos Bey grouped under one rubric1. Finally, in some documents from the time of Mehmed the Conqueror we find Siruz [Serrai] as a kaza in Manastir sancak, in others it is a sancak comprising the kazas of Siruz, Demir Hisar, Zihna, Drama (in Greece), Nevrokop, Melnik and Petriç (in South Bulgaria) 2 , and in third ones, mentioned above, a kaza in Pa§a sancak. The data from the cizye defter1* seem to speak in favour of the existence of a sancak with a centre in Siruz, at least at the time of their compilation. Its component vilâyets and nahiyes we find in three subsequent rubrics — Siruz, Poroyka [unidentified], Yoteaka [unidentified], Ke§i§lik [the village of Dervisiani, Serrai district], the basses of Siruz, vilâyet Hasses of Halil Pa§a, vilâyet Istifanie [Stefanina, Thessaloniki district], vilâyet the Nigel mine, the cemaat of the çeltukçis, vilâyet Zihna, vilâyet Drama with the mine Niksani. nahiye mine Kavala, nahiye Axhatie [Xhanthi, Greece], nahiye Ycnice with Gumiilcine, villages Despina Hatun 3 . * *

*

At a lower level, the sancaks were divided in vilâyets or nahiyes, or both. Taking into account that the military principle was the dominant one in the government of the empire at that time, we may assume that these smaller units reflected subdivisions of the sancak as a military unit rather than being proper administrative units. It should be pointed out that economic considerations also accounted for the constitution of administrative units. These could be just important revenue-sources such as a mine which needed specific administration but sometimes could be completely detached from territoriality, including just the members of specific economic or military groups. It is still not possible to find the reason why in some cases the one term should be preferred to the other. Data f r o m the available registers, however, provide sufficient grounds to reject a hypothesis launched 1 2 3

"Chast ot smetkovoden registàr", pp. 80-81; Barkan, "894 (1488/89) Yili Cizyesinin", p. 49. Akgiindiiz, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 500; vol. 2, p. 532. "Chast ot smetkovoden registàr", pp. 97-102; Barkan, "894 (1488/89) Yili Cizyesinin", p. 46.

THE

CENTRAL

BALKAN

TERRITORIES

37

previously, namely, that the division into vilayets was introduced upon the conquest of a given territory and in the course of time was superseded by the regular administrative units, the nahiyes1. Throughout the period in question, till the reign of Siileyman the Magnificent the two terms are polysemantic 2 . They are used interchangeably in the Ottoman chronicles and in the registers in the sense of a region with the dimensions of a sancak but also of its subdivisions. Thus, the register of the Vidin sancak of 1454/55 begins with the heading ' Vilayet Vidin' which probably meant simply 'the region/district of Vidin', rather than vilayet in the strict meaning of the term. Some rubrics in the cizye defters, too, seem to reflect such a practice though they usually indicate correctly the sancaks. Thus, for example, we have 'vilayet Popov¡^e in vilayet Bosnia', or 'vilayet Pavlo Kurtik in vilayet Arnavud' 3 . A similar case is to be seen in the inventory of the sancak of Hercegovina of 1477, entitled by its compilers 'sancak vilayet Hercegovine' 4 . By the beginning of the 16th century the terminology had become more coherent and systematic. This process culminated in the reforms undertaken by Siileyman the Magnificent, when the vildyet became mainly a tax unit, used especially in the collection of the cizye5, while the nahiye transformed into a subdivision of the kaza. Towards the end of the 15th-beginning of the 16th century another tendency also started surfacing. Some nahiyes and vilayets of the 15th century grew in size, with the smaller ones being added to adjacent administrative units or divided among two or more. Thus, of all the abovementioned subdivisions of the sancak of Nigbolu at the beginning of the 16th century we already have only the kazas of Nigbolu, Zistova, Tirnovi, ivraca, Cernovi, Lof$a, §umnu, izladi, Selvi and Rahova, some of them comprising several of the previous nahiyes. Tirnovi kaza for example included the nahiyes of Tirnovi, Sahra, Ala Kilise, parts of Kur§una; the kaza of ivracaIvraca, Cibre and parts of Nedeli§ko and Resele?; the kaza of Lof^a - Lofga, Kievo, the rest of Nedeli§ko and Reseleg, and Mramornige 6 .

1 Stojanovski, op. cit., pp. 131-132. Gokbilgin, op. cit., p. 8. 3 Barkan, "894 (1488/89) Yili Cizyesinin", p. 63,78. 4 Poimeni£ni popis sandzaka vilayeta Hercegovina [Detailed Inventory of the Sancak Vilâyet Hercegovina], A. Alicic (ed.), Monumenta Turcica, Serija III, Defteri. Vol. 3. Sarajevo, .1985. 5 Dimitrov, S., "Demografski otnosheniya i pronikvane na islyama v Zapadnite Rodopi i dolinata na Mesta prez XV-XVII v." [Demographic Relations and Infiltration of Islam in the Western Rhodopes and along the Valley of Mesta during the 15th-17th centuries], in Rodopskl Sbornik, vol. 1, Sofia, 1965, rp. 73. tr ° Kovachev, op. cit., pp. 46-47. 2

38

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

The main difficulties in the identification of the boundaries of the smaller units 1 arise from a specific problem of the period. Very often under the heading of one administrative unit we find timars including also places belonging to other units within the same sancak. Perhaps the leading principle in those cases was registration according to the administrative unit where the centre of the timar belonged or the military unit the timar holder was member of. Besides, the registers in most cases are rather fragmentary. There are also problems with the identification of some of the settlements, especially those in modern East Bulgaria and even some areas of Central Bulgaria inhabited by Turkish nomads. Finally, there were frequent occurrences of fluctuating boundaries when one or more villages were being added to another unit, as was the case with some twenty villages taken from vilayet Siruz and attached to vilayet Giimiilcine for example 2 . Very often the vilayets and nahiyes of the 15th century bore preOttoman names, allowing a peep into the administrative structure of the Balkan lands on the eve of the Ottoman conquest 3 . Unfortunately the rather sparse pre-Ottoman material for most of the territories considerably limits the possibilities for the analysis of the material from the Ottoman registers of the 15th century from this perspective. The vilayets of Kievo and Mramorni§e in the Nigbolu sancak, Glaviye and Zagoriye in the Vidin sancak, and others are clearly not related to the names of any particular settlement and have Slavic roots. It is quite probable that some of them followed the boundaries of administrative units or the territories of larger feudal possessions from before the conquest. It is indicative in this respect that most of the administrative units recorded in the Ottoman registers of the 15th century were centred around fortresses and towns from pre-Ottoman times. Along with this military-administrative system there existed also another one, related more to the civil administration of the newly conquered territories and based on the Sheriat court judgeships. The tax and timar registers of the 15th century, however, are based on the nahiyes and the vilayets, and this makes the data about kazas rather incidental. Yet, an analysis of the timar defters and other documents from the 15th century reveals that during the 15th century the network of kadis (and hence of kazas)

1

See for example for some of the nahiyes of the Nigbolu sancak, Ibidem, pp. 43-45. "Chast ot smetkovoden register", pp. 22-23. 3 Matanov, Hr., Yugozapadnite balgarski zemi prez. XIV vek [The Southwestern Bulgarian Lands during the 14th century]. Sofia, 1986, pp. 145-152, who managed to locate and identify the vilayets of Bogdan, Oliver and Vaikashin in the border areas of Bulgaria, Greece and Macedonia, on the basis of material for the pre-Ottoman history of the region. 2

THE

C E N T R A L

B A L K A N

T E R R I T O R I E S

39

was very well developed, closely and densely covering the Ottoman territories. Below we shall offer a provisional list of the kazas in the Balkans based on accessible timar and cizye defter s, and other relevant documents of the 15thbeginning of 16th century 1 . On the territory of modern Albania: Nahiye Muzakiye - 14311, 14912 Vilâyet Kanina - 14311, 14912 Vilayet Belgrad (Berat) - 14311, 14912 Vilâyet Iskrapar (Skrapari, the district of Vlöre) - 1431 (only a naib is recorded) 2 ,1491 (already a kadi)2 Vilâyet Akçahisar - 14312, I488-89 2 Yenice Kale (?) - 14311 Vilâyet Dukakin - 1485 (kaza Depedukin) 2 , 1488-893, 14912 Vilâyet Elbasan - 1488-893, 14912 Vilâyet 1 spat - 1488-893, 14912 Vilâyet Argirokasri (Gyirokaster) - 14911 Vilâyet iskenderiye (Skoder) - 14854 Kaza Bihor (?) - 14854 1

2 3 4

tnalcik, H., Hicri 835 Tarihti Suret-i Defter-i Sancak-i Arvanid, Ankara, 1954, p. 19, 38,70,83,89,106-107. TIBI, vol. 7, p. 27,77-79, 92-93. Barkan, "894 (1488/89) Yili Cizyesinin", pp. 76-78, 86. Le cadastre de Van 1485 du sandjak de Shkoder, t. 2, Présentation, introduction, translitération, traduction et commentaire Selami Pulaha, Tirana, 1974, p. 48, 69, 85,112.

On the territory of former Yugoslavia: Kaza Podgoriçe (Podgorica, Montenegro) - 14851 Kadilik Novi (Montenegro) - 14852 Kalkandelen (Tetovo) - 14523, 14554, 1467-685, 1488-896, 14917 Kirçova - 1467-685, 1488-896, 14917 ïgtib - 14917 Ohri (Ohrid) - 1488-896, 14917 Manastir (Bitola) - 1468s, 1488-896, 14917

1

We have grouped the references by each of the countries.

40

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

Uskiib (Skopje) - 1452 2 , 1467-68 5 , 1491 7 Koprulu - before 1445 8 , 1491 7 Ustrumca (Strumica) - 1488-89 6 , 1491 7 Vilayet Gorni Debar - 1467 3 Pirlepe - 1467-68 5 Kiratova (Kratovo) - 1475 9 §ehirkoy (Pirot) - 1488-89 10 , 1491 7 tvraniye (Vrana) - 14917 Nis - 1454-55 11 , 1488-89 6 , 1491 7 Novo brdo - 1445 12 Srebrenige (Srebrenica) mines - 1455-81 9 , 1488-89 6 Vilayet Zaplanina and Planina - 1455-81 9 , 1491 7 Pristine - 1445 12 , 1491 7 Vu§itrn - 1485 1 Brod - 1 4 9 1 7 Urgiib (Prokuplje) - 1491 7 Yeni Pazari (Novi Pazar) - 1491 7 Prizren- 1491 7 Zvecan - 1455 4 Bobovac - 1 4 6 9 1 3 Neretva - 1469 13 Yele5 - 1469 13 Saray Bosna (Sarajevo) - 1469 13 Nevesine - 14917 Visegrad- 1469 13 , 1491 7 Vilayet Drina - 1469 13 , 1477 14 Zvornik - around 1480 15 B r v e n i k - 1519 16 Vilayet Blagaj - 1469 13 Malesevo - 1477 14 Ipek (Pec) - 1 4 8 5 1 Vilayet Belasig (Belasica) - 1488 10 I s f i r l i g - 1454-55 11 , 1488-89 6 Bane - 1454-55 11

THE

C E N T R A L

B A L K A N

T E R R I T O R I E S

41

Priboj - 1488-896 Semendire (Smederevo) - 1459 17 ,1491 7 1

Le cadastre de Van 1485, p. 76,177, 220, 231, 271 Istorija srpskog naroda [History of the Serbian People], vol. 2, Belgrade, 1982, p. 413. 3 Turski dokumenti za istorijata na makedonskiot narod (hereafter TD1MN) [Turkish Sources on the History of the Macedonian People ], Opsirni popisni defteri od XV vek [Detailed defters from the 15th century], vol. 3, Skopje, 1982, p. 413. 4 Sabanovic', op. cit., p. 50,87. 5 TDIMN, Defter No. 4, Skopje, 1971, pp. 60-61, 218-220, 333-334,484-485. 6 Barkan, "894 (1488/89) Yih Cizyesinin", p. 50, 57, 5 9 , 6 4 , 7 4 , 7 9 , 8 0 , 8 3 , 84, 113. 7 TIBI, vol. 7, pp. 30-35, 40-47, 51-56, 58-62,67-68,71-73,104-107, 121-124. 8 TDIMN, vol. 2, Skopje, 1973, pp. 59-60,193-194. ^ Beldiceanu, N., Les actes des premiers sultans conserves dans les manuscrits turcs de la Bibliothèque Nationale à Paris, t. 1, Paris, doc. 5, p. 71; doc. 8, p. 75; doc. 9, p. 76; doc. 10, p. 77. 10 Ibidem, vol. 2,1964, doc. 9, p. 198; doc. 17, p. 218. ' ^ Bojanic-Lukad, Vidin i Vidinskiyat sandzhak, p. 65,78, 85. ^ Oblast Brankovica. Opsirni katastarski popis iz 1455 godine [The Brankovic Territory. Detailed Cadastral Inventory from 1455]. Monumenta Turcica Historiam Slavorum Meridionalium Illustria, Serija II, Defteri, vol. 2, fasc. 1, A. HandZic and E. Kovacevic (eds), Sarajevo, 1972, p. 216, 219. Sabanovic', H., Bosanski pasaluk. Postanak i upravna podjela [Pagalik Bosna. Emergence and Administrative Division], Sarajevo, 1959, p. 117. Poimenicni popis sandzaka vilayeta Hercegovina, pp. 245-250, 308-309. ^ Handïic, A-, "Zvornik u drugoj polovini XV i u XVI vijeku" [Zvornik in the second half of the 15th and during the 16th century], Glasnik Drustva Istoricara Bosne i Hercegovine, XVIII (1968-1969), Sarajevo, 1970, p. 153. Dva prva popisa Zvornickog sandzaka (iz 1519 i 1533) [The Two Earliest Inventories of the Zvornik Sancak (of 1519 and 1533)], transi, and ed. by A. HandZic, Vol. XXI. Sarajevo, 1986, p. 50. 7 I Zirojevic', O., Tursko vojno uredenje u Srbii, 1459-1683 [Turkish Military Administration in Serbia, 1459-1683], Belgrade, 1974, p. 63. 2

On the territory of modern Bulgaria: Vidin - I454-55 1 Berkofça (Berkovitsa) - 14882, 14913 Nigbolu - 14794, 149I 3 Rahova - 14794, 14913 Tarnovo - 1478 s , 14794, 1488-896, 14913 L o f ç a - 14794, 1488-896,14913 Çernovi - 14794, 14913, beginning of the 16th century 7 Yanboli (Yambol) - 14913 Aydos (Aytos) - 1488-896, 14913 Eski Hisar-i Zagra - 1488-896, 14913 Filibe (Plovdiv) - 14S2-838

42

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

Sofia - 1443-444, 1488-896, 14913 Nahiye Gopsa (centre in Karlovo) - 14964 Ak?a Kazanlik (KazanlSk) - 1471-728 Hasskoy- 1471-728 Kann (Karnobat) - 1443-449 1 Bojanic-Lukac, Vidin i Vidinskiyat sandzhak, p. 73. Beldiceanu, op. cit., vol. 2, doc. 16, p. 217. 3 TIBI, vol. 7, p. 27, 30,32-33, 36-38. 4 TIBI, vol. 2, p. 33,193,217, 237, 245,283,481-497. 5 Kiselkov, V., Vladislav Gramatik i negovata Rilska povest [Vladislav the Grammarian and His Rila Story], Sofia, 1947, p. 62. 6 Barkan, "894 (1488/89) Yili Cizyesinin", p. 43, 55, 86,100. 7 TIBI, vol. 3, Sofia, 1972, p. 373-374. 8 Gokbilgin, op. cit., p. 79,131. 9 Gazavatname-i Sultan Murad bin Mehmed Han, H. Inalcik and M. Oguz (eds), Ankara, 1978. See the Bulgarian translation, Pisanie za verskite bitki na Sultan Murad, sin na Mehmed Han [On the Battles for the Faith of Sultan Murad son of Mehmed Han], M. Kalitsin (translation from the Ottoman Turkish, introductory study and commentary), Sofia, 1992, p. 114. 2

On the territory of modern Greece: Selanik - 1443-441, 14952 Giimulcine - 1488-893, 14914, beginning of the 16th century 5 Fere - 1453-14816 Angelikasri (Angelokastron) - 14917 Vilayet Aya Mavri (the island of Levkas) - 14914 Vilayet Kefaloniye (the island of Cephalonia) - 14914 Karaferye - 1488-893 Mezistre (Mistra) - I488-893 Tirhala (Trikkala) - 14914 15067 Avret Hisari -1494-1503 8 Demir Hisar - 1494-15038 Siruz - 1451-52 or 1460-619, 14914, 1494-15038 istifaniye or Istifa (Stefanina, nom Thesaloniki) - 1488-893, 14914 Karasu Yenicesi - from the reign of Mehmed II 9 Zihna - from the reign of Mehmed II 9 , 14914, 14952 £irmen (near the village Ormenion, nom Alexandropoulos) - 147172

lo

Dirama (Drama) - 1503-150410 Kesriye- 144511, 14914 Atine (Athens) - beginning of the 16th century 12 Fiorina - 148111

THE

CENTRAL

BALKAN

TERRITORIES

43

Vilâyet Livadiya - 14S8-893 Siderokapsi - 1451-78/9 13 Kavala - no date (15th century) 13 1 TIBI, vol. 2, p. 395. 2 Zachariadou, E., "Ottoman Documents from the Archives of Dionysiou (Mount Athos), 1495-1520", Sudost Forschungen., vol. XXX, 1971, pp. 4-6. 3 Barkan, "894 (1488/89) Yih Cizyesinin", p. 36, 69, 103,107. 4 TIBI, vol. 7, pp. 53-54,70-71, 94-95, 97-102. 5 TIBI vol. 3, pp. 361-362. ® Negri, M., Kitab-i Cihannuma. Negri Tarihi, F. R. Unat, M. A. Koymen (eds), Ankara, vol. I, 1949, vol. II, 1957. We have used the Bulgarian translation, Mehmed Neshri, Ogledalo na sveta. Istoriya na osmanskiya dvor [A Mirror of the World. History of the Ottoman Court], M. Kalitsin (selection and transl.), Sofia, 1984, p. 273. n Alexander, J., Toward a History of Post Byzantine Greece: The Ottoman Kanunnames for the Greek Lands, circa ISOO-circa 1600, Columbia University Ph. D., 1974 (microfilm), p. 271 (Kanun of the province of Trikkala. Kanun of Trikkala proper with the vilayet of Trikkala). ® Dimitrov, S. and R. Stoykov (transl.), "OtkSsi ot registar za lenni vladeniya v Zapadni Rodopi i Sersko" [Excerpts from a register of feudal possessions in Western Rhodopes and the Serrai region |, Rodopski Sbornik, vol. 1, p. 294, 296, 298, 300, 317.

® Beldiceanu, op. cit., vol. 1, doc. 13, p. 82; doc. 45, p. 133. Gokbilgin, op. cit., p. 79,137. 11 TDIMN, vol. 2, p. 112, 389. 1? Karidis, D., "Town Development in the Balkans, 15th-19th cent. The case of Athens", Etudes balkaniques, 1982, No. 2, p. 50. 13 Beldiceanu, op. cit., vol. 2, doc. 3, p. 183; doc. 15, p. 215. 10

On the territory of modern European Turkey: E d i r n e - 1488-89 1 , I491 2 Kirk kenisa (Kirklareli) - 1491 2 Tekfur Dagi (Tekirdag) - 1471-723 Migalkara - 1436-37 and 1439-40 3 , 1478-79 3 I p s a l a - 1488-89 1 1 2 3

Barkan, "894 (1488/89) Yih Cizyesinin", p. 36,69. TIBI, vol. 7, p. 97,124. Gokbilgin, op. cit., p. 79,128,172.

On the territory of the former USSR: Kili - 1488-89 1 , 1491 2 Akkerman (Belgorod Dnestrovski) - 1484 1 ,1491 2 1

2

Beldiceanu, N., "La Moldavie ottomane à la fin du XVe siècle et au début du XVIe siècle", REI, t. XXXVI, 1969, fasc. 2, doc. 1, p. 261; âoc. 2, p. 263. Idem, Recherche sur la ville ottomane au XVe siècle. Etudes et actes, Paris 1973 doc. X, p. 163, doc. XIII, p. 173.

44

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

This list includes only kadiships that are explicitly mentioned in accessible documents and should be regarded only as a preliminary one, until more documents for the earlier Ottoman history in the Balkans are published and/or processed. Actually, there is no doubt that other kadiships did exist, as with many of the vilâyets where ciz.ye was collected we find a recurring note that the losses from deaths and conversion to Islam and the gains from newly discovered taxpayers are accounted for "according to the huccets of the kadis in the mentioned vilâyets". This note appears with many of the rubrics containing more than one vilâyet and since in some cases it is clear that several vilâyets came under the jurisdiction of just one kadi we have decided against including them, except for in cases when this evidence is supported by other documents. Some of the records of kadis are really incidental. Thus in the timar defter for Nigbolu sancak from 1479 we find that the kadi of Çernovi had been granted a mezra to 'revive' because no other candidates appeared; the village of Rupça is recorded as a traditional timar of the kadi of Rahova (though at the time of the compilation of the defter it was not), while in the vilâyet of Nigbolu we find a timar of the son of the local kadi. Taking into account the importance of Gelibolu or Dimetoka/Didymotheichon in early Ottoman history there can be no doubt that kadis resided there from the earliest time of permanent Ottoman settlement in the Balkans. In the majority of the cases the dates we have in the list are distanced from the actual time of appointment of a kadi in the respective place. Sometimes the defters explicitely state that kadis had resided there also during the reign of the previous sultan. Thus, in 1431 a timar of the kadi of nahiye Muzakiye was recorded which he had held since the reign of the previous sultan, that is Mehmed I (1413-1421).1 The same applies also for the kadis of Kanina 2 and for Akçe Kazanlik, 3 while with the registration of the timar of the kadi of Selânik in 1443-44 we learn that "kadis have held it from before".4 Thus, firm evidence about the establishment of kadis in the Balkan territories of the Ottoman state date from as far back as the reign of Sultan Mehmed I. Probably only the fact that we have no earlier documents is the reason why we cannot move the establishment of some of the kadiships back to the time of the conquest of a given place. In fact, according to H. inalcik 1 Inalcik, Hicri 835 tarihli, p. 19. Ibidem, p. 38. 3 Ibidem, pp. 106-107. 4 TIB1, vol. 2, p. 395. 2

THE

C E N T R A L

B A L K A N

T E R R I T O R I E S

45

there are data in registers for the appointment of kadis and suba§is even for the time of Sultan Bayezid I (1389-1402) — for example for the regions of Premedi and Ak^ahisar/Kor^e in Albania 1 , but we have been unable to find other, for other parts of the peninsula that came under Ottoman authority before the end of the 14th century. It may be claimed though that at least in the important fortresses and urban centres the appointment of kadis went along with the conquest. It would also be quite safe to suggest that the picture of the end of the 15th century should be valid for the whole century, of course taking into account the process of Ottoman expansion, as at the time of Mefamed I there were kadis even in minor fortified centres of the rank of Koprtilii/Veles2 or Kesriye/Kastoria 3 which were centres only of vilayets. No doubt, kadis resided in centres of sancaks and in important economic centres such as the town of Novo brdo or the Srebrenica mines. The 15th-century kazas usually comprised more than one nahiy el vilayet, but in other cases the boundaries of kaza and nahiye/vilayet coincided. The kaza was the district where one kadi administered justice but the judge had not yet acquired the full range of administrative competences of the later period. Besides, the appointment of kadis was dependent on the presence of Muslims in the region, which in turn made the kaza network looser in the 15th century when the process of Islamisation of local population was only in its beginning. On the other hand, kadis were apparently regarded as guardians of the sultan's interests and we find them residing in important economic centres and sites, everywhere where the central authorities deemed it necessary to have a source of independent and direct information 4 . The registers from the last two decades of the 15th century, however, show that the kazas had started acquiring more importance also within the timar system. In a register of the iskenderiye/Skodra sancak of 1485 we see the kaza as an administrative unit of higher order than the nahiye — for example, nahiye Komaran, belonging to kaza Bihor, nahiye Ko§a belonging to kaza Podgorige5. Another document of the same time reveals that a 1

Inalcik, H,, "Arnawutluk", in EI 2, vol. 1, p. 674. TDIMN, vol. 2, pp. 59-60. 3 Ibidem, p. 112. 4 See in more detail on the functions of the kadis in the 15th century Gradeva, R., "Nalaganeto na kadiyskata institutsiya na Balkanite i myastoto i v provintsialnata administratsiya, XIVnachaloto na XVI vek" [The establishment of the kadi institution in the Balkans and its place in the provincial administration, 14th-beginning of 16th centuries], Balkanistika, vol. 3, 1989, pp. 39-40. 2

^ Le cadastre de l'an 1485, p. 48,76.

46

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

Nigbolu kaza was also in existence 1 . Very interesting in this respect is a defter of 1494-1503 where vilayets are mentioned along with the kazas. The customary formula as in most timar defters of the 15th century is 'the village so-and-so belonging to so-and-so' without specifying the type of the administrative unit. However in the inventory of the hasses of Mesih Pa§a we come across also registrations of the following type: 'the village of Pripadna, belonging to Bogdanos in kaza Avret Hisar', 'the village of Graditna, belonging to Bogdanos in kaza Avret Hisar'. Further we see the village of Rayanova belonging to kaza Demir Hisar and the mezra Eftalis belonging to Ke§i§lik, in the kaza of Siruz 2 . This tendency found its natural conclusion in the establishment of the kaza as the basic administrative subdivision of the sancak replacing the nahiyes and vilâyets, of the 15th century and combining the features of both civil administrative and military unit. One of the earliest signs of this transformation we have been able to trace out is in a defter of the sancak of Zvornik of 1519 where part of the timars were recorded under the heading 'Kadillk Birvenik' 3 . The rest of the timars, however, were registered by nahiyes. In 1533, all timars in the same sancak were again recorded by nahiyes. For much of the 16th century this evolution steadily continued towards the establishment of a more complex hierarchy in the administrative units. According to S. Faroqhi in some regions the hierarchy ' eyalet-sancakkaza-nahiye' where the nahiye was a subdivision of the kaza in which justice was administered by naibs was established as early as 1550. However, till the end of the 16th century we can still see the same administrative unit being called once kaza, and at other times, nahiye4, the nahiye s as direct subdivisions of a sancak or kazas without subdivisions 5 . * *

1

*

St St Cyril and Methodius National Library (NBKM), Or. Dept., Tn 31/10, p. 13. "Otkäsi ot registar za lenni vladeniya v Zapadni Rodopi i Sersko", p. 294, 296, 300, 317. 3 Dva prva popisa Zvornickog sandzaka, p. 43 ff. 4 See for example the case of Istrumife in TDIMN. Opsirni popisni defteri od XVI vek za Kustendilskiot sandzak [Detailed defters for the Kiistendil Sancak of the 16th century], vol. 5, part 3, Skopje, 1982, pp. 33-38. 5 Faroqhi, S., "Sixteenth Century Periodic Markets in Various Anatolian Sancaks: I$el, Hamid, Karahisar-i Sahib, Aydin and Menteje", JESHO, vol. XXII, 1979, Pt. 1, p. 37. 2

THE

C E N T R A L

B A L K A N

T E R R I T O R I E S

47

The administrative government 1 of a sancak was headed by the sancakbey who was usually also the holder of the largest timar there, of course apart from the hasses of the sultan and other high dignitaries from the central institutions. He was also the military commander of the spahis of the sancak, leading them on campaigns when called to the banners. In theory, he was also to govern the civil life in the sancak, but due to the incessant wartime duties in this period of accelerated expansion, in reality his functions were more and more being overtaken by the 'civil' officials, the kadi in the first place. The main function of the sancakbey as a governor was to ensure public order and security in the province and, in most general terms, to guard the interests of the sultan and the central authority. The role of the timar system as the backbone of the Ottoman military power during the 15th century and as the main military champion of centralism ran through the entire provincial government. It seems that during the 15th century the central authority had authorised the sancakbey & with considerable prerogatives in the government of a province including granting timars and controlling those already granted. The competences of the ucbeys must have been even broader. According to the above-cited document, Evrenos Bey was free to endow with timars and salaries the spahis on the territory of his sancak, as well as to transform lands there into vakijs2. The inventory of the Uskiib uc, compiled at a time when the ucbeys more and more came to resemble the regular sancakbeys, still shows some specifics. One of the most important among them is probably the fact that the bulk of the timar holders are identified as servants or slaves of isa Bey (hizmetkar and gulam), and part of them were provided with timars, at the expense of the hasses of the ucbey3. It should, however, be borne in mind that the Uskiib and Brani§evo inventories reveal an advanced stage in the evolution of the uc and their integration into the centralised administrative system, just before their final abolition. The very fact that an inventory of the timars in the wees had been carried out at all speaks in favour of this. Despite the considerable privileges of the ucbeys in the appointment of the timar holders, the central authority was already able and did indeed keep under control the landholding in these regions. Another interesting detail is that Isa Bey was combining the position of an ucbey with that of a subagi of Uskiib and was the only one holding a hass in the district. The situation in Brani§evo seems to be similar.

We have dealt in detail with the prerogatives of the main provincial administrative officials, the kadis in particular, and with the correlation between their powers during the 15th ccntury in Gradeva, "Nalaganeto na kadiyskata institutsiya", pp. 43-48. Here we shall only summarise some of our findings. 2 3

Beldiceanu-Steinherr, Recherches, doc. 47, p. 236. Sabanovic', Krajiste Jsa-bega Ishakovica, passim.

48

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

At a lower level, in the nahiye! vilayet, were the suba.ps. usually with the largest timars in the respective administrative unit. They would often be zaims leading the soldiers on military campaigns. The suba$is, too, were entrusted with guarding the public order and security in the district and control over the spahis there. Probably the geribagisl seraskers whom we find in almost all vilayets were acting as their assistants. And at the lowest level, the administrative control was carried out by the spahis themselves. Though with very limited prerogatives they were apparently regarded as representatives and embodiment of the Ottoman authority in situ. In the fortresses, mainly in the territories closer to the borders and in the hinterland of the military activities, resided garrisons of mustahfizan and other military and paramilitary detachments commanded by the dizdar. During the 15th century they, too, would receive their remuneration in timars, usually smaller than those of the ordinary spahis. Along with the military functionaries there were in the sancaks also 'civil' ones as far as there existed such a rigorous division of powers. Actually, the 'civil' officials were in many ways related and subject to the military organisation. One of the most important among them was the defterdar. During the second half of the 15th century defter dars were already appointed by the defterhane, becoming more independent from the bey. Their main task was to take care of the financial affairs in the sancak and of the sultan in the first place. Another important functionary was the kadi. Probably during the 15th century the Christians who addressed the Sheriat court to solve their judicial problems were not too many but it may be expected that the process was already gathering momentum. The kadi entered the life of the local population — Muslims and Christians alike, also with his wide prerogatives in the control of urban life, in the regulation of market prices, of the produce sold at the market, in the compilation of inventories of the revenue-sources on the territory of the kaza, etc. As early as the 15th century it is clear that kadis were involved in supervising the various registrations of the population and the landholding in their kadiliks. Very often it was the judges that would be entrusted with that task — but in other kadiliks. The kadis also supervised in a most general way the work of other functionaries. They could initiate the deprivation of spahis of their timars; reported on the misdeeds of sancakbeys, emins, subagis to the central authorities. The Sheriat judges were also instrumental in issuing permissions for the restoration of churches and monasteries, and in the control over the functioning of the vakijs.

THE

CENTRAL

BALKAN

TERRITORIES

49

Yet, it should be pointed out that during the 15th century the kaclis seem to have been in a dependent position with respect to the military commander, the sancakbey. In this early period they were still integrated into the military organisation, very often receiving a timar as remuneration and providing effective military service, being thus at least to a certain extent dependent on the military governor 1 . W e shall mention only a few instances which make this crystal clear. It seems that the sancakbey could add or detach shares f r o m the timar of the kadi. According to a marginal note in the defter for sancak Arvanid, 1431: " T i m a r of the kadi of Kanina. Kadis hold it f r o m before, but when Ismail Bey was sancakbey an addition was made f r o m the possession of Ali to the timar of the kadi ilyas ... — 5372 akçes. Addition — addition for the mentioned kadi in accordance with a letter f r o m Zaganos Bey. Addition — at the time of the late sultan it was held by Ali and now ismail Bey gave it as an addition to the timar of the kadi."2 Another case comes f r o m vilâyet Kara dag/ Montenegro. While the first inventory of the vilâyet f r o m 1497 showed that there was a kadi there with a timar3, in 1513, with the appointment of Skender Bey to the position of sancakbey the situation radically changed. "Earlier, in the inventory of the vilâyet one village belonged as a timar to the one who was the kadi. When Skender Bey became [sancakbey] he took the timar of the kadi. After that the kadi could not remain in that place (sic!). T h e land seeks a kadi (sic!). T h e kadilik might be added to kadilik Podgoriçe." 4 As a report about the mines in sancak Vidin of 1488 shows at times the kadi was also directly regarded as subject to the bey. "Ordre a été donné aux subalternes du sandjaqbey de Vidin d'ouvrir une enquête sur la mine, de se renseigner sur la loi en vigueur depuis les temps anciens j u s q u ' à présent .... et d'inscrire [le résultat de l'enquête] sur un registre, pour le soumettre à la Porte." T h e inquiry was carried out by the kadi of B e r k o f ç e . 5 All this probably should make us more cautious in drawing too far-fetched conclusions about the existing balance of powers between kadis and beys, at least for the 15th, and probably the beginning of the 16th century. *

*.

*

We have dealt with this issue in Gradeva, "Nalaganeto na kadiyskata institutsiya", pp. 43-45; also Eadem, Kadiyskata institutsiya na Balkanite, XV-XVII v. [The Kadi Institution in the Balkans, 15th-17th century]. Sofia, 1989 (unpublished PhD thesis). ^ Inalcik, Hicri 835 tarihli, p. 38. %lurdev, Br., Dva deftera Crne Gore iz vretmna Skender Bega CrnojeviCa [Two Deiters of Montenegro from the Time of Skender Beg Crnojevic], vol. 1, Sarajevo, 1968, p. 25. f ) u r d e v , Br. and L. HadZiosmanovic, Dva deftera Crne Gore iz vremena Skender Bega Crnojevica, vol. 2, Sarajevo, 1973, p. 86. ^ Beldiceanu, Les actes, vol. 2, doc. 16, p. 217. 4

50

RUM ELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

Conclusion During the 15th century the Balkan territories were not just included in the Ottoman possessions, they were already closely encompassed and densely covered by the Ottoman administration. Two principles of formation of administrative units emerged in the course of the conquest. Maybe chronologically the first was that of the sequence of acquisition where new territories were simply added to the already conquered ones. At the very end of the 14th century when the policy of keeping the vassal principalities in the periphery of the Ottoman state was abandoned and the Ottomans undertook the subjection of entire states, these would be integrated intact, usually as sancaks. The pre-Ottoman heritage was also preserved on a lower level, in the sancak subdivisions where very often in the Ottoman nahiyes and vilâyets we see the boundaries of pre-Ottoman feudal possessions and/or administrative units. In some of the sancaks, probably in all, we find a kind of a hierarchy in the administrtaive units of lower order, where several nahiyeslvilâyets would be grouped together. It is not clear, however, whether this grouping was around one kadi seat or a transitional stage towards the larger sancak subdivisions of the 16th century based on the kadihks. The underlying principle in building the administrative structure of the expanding state was the military organisation. One of the expressions of this principle was the existence of administrative units that had little to do with territoriality — voynuk, doganci, and other sancaks, each with its sancakbey. It was also the basis of the whole structure of the provincial administration from the sancakbey down to the ordinary spahi. The parallel kadi network that was being constructed at the same time did not yet have the importance of a real counterweight of the military principle. Very often the kadis themselves were integrated in the military organisation by holding a timar and having either personally to take part in military campaigns or to send soldiers which made them directly dependent on the military governor. For several decades, probably as late as the reign of Mehmed II the regime established in the Balkan territories very much resembled a military occupation. During the second half of the 15th century the Ottoman administration more and more acquired civil features at the expense of the military . As early as the end of the 14th century we see attempts at limitation of the prerogatives of the beys and the Turkic aristocracy and centralisation, but it was mainly during the reign of Mehmed II that this policy started bearing visible results. The sancakbey s were gradually deprived of their broad

THE

CENTRAL

BALKAN

TERRITORIES

51

prerogatives with respect to the spahis and the provincial administration. The members of the old aristocratic families were being replaced by devçirme converts. Along with this, the numbers of the Muslims living in the Balkans began to grow. This, together with the expansion of the functions of the kadis as the main guardians of the interests of the sultan and of centralism in the provinces, made these functionaries a major factor in Ottoman provincial administration. A direct consequence from all these changes was also the transformation in the administrative system where the vilayets and nahiyes of the 15th century gradually shrank, others, relatively small, were joined to more important centres. The vilâyet remained mainly a tax unit in the collection of the cizye, while the Ottoman administration reached down, closer to the local population. In the following centuries the kazas became the main intermediary level between the sancak and the nahiyes, and the real backbone of Ottoman provincial administration.

THE ACTIVITIES OF A KADI COURT IN EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY RUMELI: THE CASE OF HACIOGLU PAZARCIK

The 18th century usually attracts the attention of scholars due to the structural changes in the Ottoman society and, particularly, the rise of the powerful ayan who often challenged the central authorities, and the changing balance of forces of centralisation and decentralisation, culminating in the dagh disturbances at the end of the century. For Balkan historians it is the century of the rise of national identity consciousness, of the beginning of the struggle for emancipation, and of the rise of the economic strength of the Balkan peoples. In the last few years there has also been a shift towards considering such issues as the problems of everyday life and the position of women in the Ottoman empire. The functioning and the evolution of Ottoman provincial administration in the 18th-century Balkans however, is left somewhat neglected. And even when it does attract attention, it tends to be within the context of the changed realities on a provincial level and the change of the balance of power there. 1 The aim of this article is to provide an insight into the activities of a kadi court within these changed realities, its prerogatives, relations to other notables and officials on a kaza level, its connections with the central authorities and its role in the life of the community. This particular town and kaza, Hacioglu Pazarcik, was chosen for many reasons, the most important among which is the fact that it gives an idea of a 'typical' example in Ottoman provincial government in the 18th century, although most of the towns presented some peculiarities.

Inalctk, Halil, "Centralisation and decentralisation in Ottoman administration", in: Naff, T. and Owen, R. (eds), Studies in Eighteenth Century Islamic History, London and Amsterdam, 1977, p. 27-52; idem, "Military and fiscal transformation in the Ottoman empire, 1600-1700"! Archivum Ottomanicum, VI (1980), p. 283-337; Mejer, M. S., "Noviye yavleniya v sotsial'nopoliticheskoy zhizni Osmanskoy imperii vo vtoroy polovine XVII-XVIII vv." [New Phenomena in the Socio-Political Life in the Ottoman Empire, second half of the 17th-18th centuries), in: Danilov, V. I., Mejer, M. S. and Oreshkova, S. F. (eds), Osmanskaya imperiya: sistema gosudarstvennogo upravleniya, sotsial'niye i etnoreligiozniye problemiy [The Ottoman Empire: System of State Government, Social and Ethnoreligious Problems], Moskva, 1986, p. 155-185.

54

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

Hacioglu Pazarcik/Dobrich is situated in north-east Bulgaria, in Dobrudja, close to the Black Sea coast, to the ports of Varna and Balchik. We do not know when Hacioglu Pazarcik came into being but this probably occurred in the 14th or 15th centuries during the Ottoman conquest or shortly afterwards, with the influx of colonisers from Asia Minor. It was first mentioned as a small town by the Polish ambassador Otvinowski in 1557 and about ten years later, in 1569, by another Polish ambassador, Tarnowski, both without giving any further information. 1 According to a tahrir defter of 1569 and a celepkegan defter of 1573 the sancak of Silistre consisted of four nahiyes: Silistre, Hirsova, Tekfurgol and Varna. 2 This division, however, reflected rather the military structure of the sancak and does not give a very clear picture of the civil administration of the region. That this is so is proved by a kanun of the bac of the kasaba Hacioglu Pazarcik of 1569 according to which there functioned a kadi court controlling the local market (with a kadi, a muhtesib and muhzirs).3 The kadilik of Hacioglu Pazarcik was mentioned for the first time in available documentation at the beginning of the 17th century in a ferman issued by Sultan Osman II (1617-1622) in 1620 and addressed to the local kadi on the occasion of a petition on the part of the peasants living in the village of Kostek§iler. 4 The territory of the Hacioglu Pazarcik kadilik was populated by a predominantly Muslim population consisting of settlers from Asia Minor, mainly yuriiks, and converted local population, but also Tatars, some of whom were living there before the Ottoman conquest, others arriving after the 1530s and 1540s, and Gypsies, both Christians and Muslims. The bulk of the non-Muslim population in the area was Bulgarians, but there were also Armenians and probably Jews. 18th-century developments brought Hacioglu Pazarcik and Dobrudja closer to the battlefields in the North. It became an important hinterland of the military operations against Russia and its importance rose considerably, both

^Kesyakov, Hr., "Stari pituvaniya prez Balgariya" [Old Travels across Bulgaria], Periodichesko spisanie, XXI-XXII (1887), p. 341, 369. ^Stoykov, R., "Selishta i demografski oblik na Severoiztochna Balgariya i Yuzhna Dobrudzha prez vtorata polovina na XVI vek" [Settlements and Demographic Picture of North-East Bulgaria and South Dobrudja in the Second Half of the 16th century], tzvestiya na Varnenskoto arheologichesko druzhestvo, XV (1964), p. 1; Dimitrov, Str., Zhechev, N. and Tonev, V., Istoriya na Dobrudzha [History of Dobrudja], III, Sofia, 1988, p. 11-12. ^Tsvetkova, B. Prouchvaniya na gradskoto stopanstvo prez XV-XVI vek [Studies in Town Economy, 15th-16th Centuries], Sofia, 1972, p. 210-211, doc. 53. ^Oriental Department of the National Library of St. Cyril and St. Methodius (ODNL), fond 22, archival unit (a.u.) 52. See Dimitrov, Str., Bobcheva, L., Todorov, P., Georgiev, Iv. and Kolev, N., Istoriya na grad Tolbuhin [A History of the Town of Tolbuhin], Sofia, 1967, p. 21.

A KADI

COURT

IN

RUMELI

55

as a road station and as the rear to the military forces. Two of the three kadi sicih we have 1 coincide roughly with two wars between the Ottoman empire and Russia and Austria, in 1735-1739 and 1787-1791. A large number of single documents reveal the situation in the district between these two wars, while the third sicil, though from a relatively peaceful period for the northern borders, reflects also the enormous strain put on the empire by the rise of the local ayan and by the expedition of Napoleon to Egypt. The impression one gets from all these documents is that, although it became more and more difficult for the organism of the 18th century empire to run smoothly, it continued, contrary to the impression given by the numerous studies on the ayan and the dagh, to be an entity and to function as such. To a great extent, this entity was ensured by the functioning of the kadi courts in the provinces. Of course, it is impossible in this article to make an exhaustive survey of all the areas in which we see the intervention of the kadi. We shall, therefore, rattier dwell on those which, due to different circumstances, come to the fore in the documents which we have at our disposal. The kadis, of Hacioglu Pazarcik, in most cases together with the notables, were engaged in the preparations for war, with the wars and the functioning of the rear. They took part in the mobilisation of the askeri — in the kadihk — Janissaries, 2 yamak of the border fortresses of Braila, Bender and Nigbolu, 3 auxiliary troops. 4 Strange as it may seem, we did not find any summons for the sipahis in the kadihk, though it is clear from other documents that they took part in the campaigns. Fermans and orders for mobilisation of military units settled in the area were addressed invariably to the kadis, and sometimes, also, to other officials and notables in the district. The kadis, the local military commanders and the ayan had also to secure the participation of volunteers in both wars, in 1739 and 1787-1791. 5 They had to be mobilised from among the Muslims living in the kadihk. This was done in the court with the help of the ayan, the imams and the elders of the population of the kaza on the basis of the number of Muslims living in the kadihk. In some cases the demands of the central authorities clearly became exorbitant and the local ayan initiated a complaint drawn up by the kadi, Dimitrov, Str. (ed. and translator), Osmanski izvori za istoriyata na Dobrudzha i Severoiztochna Bdlgariya [Ottoman Sources for the History of Dobrudja and North-Eastern Bulgaria|, Sofia, 1981. This publication contains the documents of two sicils, from circa 1739-1741 and 17861790, almost in extenso, lacking only the introductory and closing formulae. The third sicil which we have is not published. It is preserved in ODNL, R 42 of 1798-1807. z Ibid., p. 65-66, doc. 87 (1739); p. 199-200, doc. 382 (1787). hbid., p. 181, doc. 353 (1786), p. 182, doc. 354 (1786), p. 182, doc. 355 (1786). 4 Ibid„ p. 182, doc. 357 (1786). 5 Ibid„ p. 200, doc. 383 (n.d.).

56

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

appealing against these demands on the grounds that the local population had already given more conscripts than it could afford. 1 Later, the kadilik also had to send a detachment of 200 volunteers to the army, during the campaign against Osman Pazvantoglu when the army besieged Vidin. 2 The kadi court, together with the local officers, had also to ensure order in the kaza and to fight brigandage and the dag lis in the area. On the initiative of the population and of the ayan, it had to appoint seymens from among the local people. The persons hired were usually inhabitants of the derbendci villages in the kaza, both Christians and Muslims, but were sometimes also from other kadiliks.3 In other cases appeals came from the capital to fight the dagli bands which had appeared in these districts. Kadis and ayan received a number of orders demanding a more active participation in the struggle against the brigands and the daglis. Military detachments from Hacioglu Pazarcik were demanded a number of times to fight daglis in Deli Orman, around Nigbolu, Aytos, Sliven, Yanbol and Eski Zagra. 4 Kadis and ayan were also authorised to organise and control the state deliveries for the army: grain (mainly wheat, flour and barley), meat, bread, fodder, carts and carters for the army, be it against Russia, Austria or Osman Pazvantoglu; materials for the repair of the fortress of Varna and other places. 5 Because of the French invasion, the kadis of the Right Wing were to collect ammunition and guns, needed for the journey of the official charged with the yearly transportation of the treasury to Mecca and Medina, 6 and barley for the Ottoman army in Egypt fighting Napoleon. 7 During the military operations against Osman Pazvantoglu in Vidin the kadi of Hacioglu Pazarcik had to collect and send enormous quantities of flour. 8 All these demands often exceeded the capacity of the population of the kadilik, as in 1798-1799 when a series of fermans demanding grain for the needs of the capital, of the army besieging Vidin and of the Ottoman army in Egypt fighting Napoleon were received. 9 Following a complaint by the local population and acting on its and iODNL, fond 22, a.u. 70 (17.4.1789). O D N L , R 42, f. 6r, doc. II (28.4.1799); f. lOr, doc. I (10.11.-9.12.1798); f. 10 v, doc. 11 (26.12.1798). ^Dimitrov, Osmanski izvori za istoriyata, e.g., p. 154, doc. 290 (1782), p. 170, doc. 333 (1787). 4 O D N L R 42. f. ]5v, doc. I (8.5.1799); f. 20r, doc. I (11, 07.1799); f. 20v, doc. Ill (21.7.1799); f. 21r and f. 21v-22r (27.07.1799); f. 21r, doc. II (25.7-2.8.1799). 5 Dimitrov, Osmanski izvori za istoriyata, p. 142, doc. 247 (n.d.), p. 179-180, doc. 350 (4.07.1786). 6 ODNL, R 42, f. 7r, doc. I (8.10.1798). 7 ODNL, R 42, f. 19r, doc. I (19.4.1799). 8 ODNL, R 42, f. 6r, doc. II (9.10.1798). 9 ODNL, R 42, f. 4r, doc. I (3-12.8.1798); f. 5v, doc. II (7.7.1798); f. 19r (April 1799). 2

A KADI

COURT

IN

RUMEL1

57

the ayans' behalf, the kadi tried to lessen the burden for kaza. we have to say with little or no success at all.1 Kadi courts were the places where documents of major importance for the empire were officially announced and registered in the court records: the declaration of war with Russia in 1787 2 and Austria in 1788 3 in which the entire Muslim population was called to the colours and encouraged to fight the infidels with citations from the Koran and from fetvas of the §eyh til-islam. The kadi courts were also kept informed on the Ottoman victories: the reconquest of Belgrade in 1739, 4 the victory over the Austrian army in Banat in 1788, 5 which had to be publicly announced for the population in the kadilik. They had also to fight the spirit of despair and desertion that spread among the Muslim army because of the successes of the Russian armies. 6 Kadis were also to carry out the disarmament of the Christians in the district, who were suspected of spying for the enemy during the wars. 7 The local population was kept informed through the kadis of events of major importance in other parts of the empire, such as Napoleon's invasion of Egypt, and on the progress of the military campaign there, and although the Russians were hostile to Napoleon, kadis on the Black Sea coast from the Straits to the "end of the Rumeli sea coast" were advised to follow carefully the progress of the Russian fleet towards the Mediterranean and to keep the central authorities informed. 8 The area of Hacioglu Pazarcik was among the most important suppliers of Istanbul, providing the city with grain, wheat and barley, meat, wax, butter and tallow. 9 Kadis, together with the collectors of the foods and materials demanded, were held responsible for the regular supply of the capital. They informed the central authorities of the delivery schedules of goods demanded and were ordered to control the quality of the grain transported 10 and to ensure that captains who bought grain in the ports of, among others, Balchik, Kavarna and Varna did not divert any quantity to other provinces of the ^ODNL, R 42, f. 22r, doc. Ill (15.7.1799). Dimitrov, Osmanski izvori za istoriyata, p. 209, doc. 403 (15-24.8.1787). 3 Ibid.., p. 243, doc. 462 (17-26.4.1788). 4 Ibid„ p. 67, doc. 92 (20.8.1739). 5 /bid„ p. 257, doc. 488 (2-11.09.1788). 6 lbid., e.g., p. 230-232, doc. 444 (23.10-1.11.1787); p. 264-265, doc. 504 (28.01-6.2.1789). 1 lbid„ p. 222-223, doc. 429 (24.9-3.10.1787). 8 ODNL, R 4 2 , f. 6v, doc. II (22-31.8.1798); see also ibid., f. l l r , doc. II (6-15.02.1799). 9 Dimitrov, Osmanski izvori za istoriyata, p. 25-26, doc. 19 (29.3-27.4.1740); p. 118-120 £)oc 197 (11.11.1740); ODNL, R 42, f. 13v, doc. II (15.1.1799); f. 4r, doc. I (3-12.8.1798). Dimitrov, Osmanski izvori za istoriyata, p. 96-97, doc. 151 (26.6-24.7.1740). 2

58

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

empire, especially to the Anatolian sea coast. 1 Kadis had also to prevent the trade in foodstuffs on the part of the Janissaries or foreign profiteers.2 The collection of these supplies, as well as of other taxes, supplies and corvées, was performed through the kadi court. Fermons for the collection of cizye, avariz, bedel-i nuziil, bedel-i agnam were usually addressed to the local kadi or kadis, while the rest were addressed also to ayan and other officials in the district, such as the kethuda yeri or the yeniçeri serdari. They informed them of the exact amount due from the kaza and its monetary value, the number of hanes registered in the mevkufat defters, the rate of exchange of different currency valid in the empire, and the name of the collector of the given tax. Very often, a copy of the respective defter for the kaza followed the fermait. After the tax collector had presented the fermait, the work of the court took place. A list of the hautes in the mahalles of the town and in the villages of the kadilik was drawn up there, with the help of the local ayan and imams, and then the sum of money or the quantities demanded, to which an additional sum for the payment of the collector himself and for the administrative and judicial services performed by the court was added, and the total divided among the hanes. Finally, the list was given either to the collector himself, to his representative, or to a local official who were authorised to collect it, be it cizye (in this particular case the collector only came to court to present t h e f e r m a n containing the number and category of the tax-payers), 3 avariz,4 bedel-i nuziil,5 sursatp imdad-i hazariye or imdadi seferiye,7 celepke.san-i agnam? for the collection of a tax on raki/arak, wine and other spirits produced in the area. 9 Lesser lease-holders for a given kaza or a group of kazas were also registered in the sicil. There is no information however, on whether the collector of a given tax gave any account in the court. In some cases the payment itself was performed in the court and the tax-payers had to deliver the money demanded to the collector in the presence of the kadi. This procedure was followed in only l

Ibid„ p. 35, doc. 33 (24.6-23.7.1732); p. 102-103, doc. 165 (25.7-3.8.1740).

2

E.g„ ibid., p. 103-104, doc. 166 (14-23.8.1740).

hbid., p. 84, doc. 122 (4.4.1740); p. 191, doc. 372 (1786); p. 216, doc. 412 (1787). 4 Ibid p. 61-62, doc. 77 (23.11.1739); p. 166-167, doc. 319 (24.6.1781); ODNL, R42, f. 16v, doc. I (25.6.1799); f. 16v, doc. II (27.6.1799). 5

E.g., Dimitrov, Osmanski izvori za istoriyata, p. 63, doc. 80 (23.11.1739); p. 166, doc. 318

(24.6.1781); ODNL, R 42, f. 16b-17a (27.6.1799). 6 Ibid„ p. 165, doc. 317 (16-25.1.1782); p. 157-158, doc. 303 (n.d.). 1 E.g„ ibid., p. 189-190, doc. 368 (24.10.1786); p. 259, doc. 491 (22-31.10.1788); ODNL, R 42, f. lib, doc II (2.5.1799). hbid., p. 193-194, doc. 375 (22.12.1786). 9 ODNL, R 42, f. lOr, doc. Ill (21.12.1798).

A

KADI

C O U R T

IN

R U M E L I

59

two cases, both concerning the payment of damga-resmi by the leatherworkers. There is a more detailed entry for 1806 when a representative of the ayan of Lovech, the lease-holder of the damga-resmi for the eyalet of Silistra, came to Hacioglu Pazarcik to demand payment. The guild of the leatherworkers was summoned to court, the ferman was read in their presence and four days later their representative paid in court the full amount due for five years.1 The proper functioning of the menzilhane system was considered vital for the empire and this was one of the most important tasks of the kadi of Hacioglu Pazarcik in the 18th century when the significance of the local menzil, situated on a main road from the capital to Russia, Poland, Wallachia, Moldavia, and to the Sultan's armies in Bender, Braila and Ozii, increased. One of the most important obligations of the kadi court in this respect was the appointment of a menzilci.2 Being a representative of the state authorities in the area, but also of the local population, the kadi had to balance the interests of both sides with the ultimate aim of appointing the most appropriate person because of the crucial importance of the proper functioning of the road network. The kadi had also to ensure the regular supplying of the menzil with horses, grain, wood and fodder. The money needed for the maintenance of the menzil, including the salary of the menzilci, was estimated in court, and then divided among hanes in the kadilik. A list of the hanes available in each mahalle and village in the kadilik was then drawn up and entered in the sicil, while a copy of it was handed to the menzilci. It was explicitly stated how he was to collect the tax: in kind (barley or wheat for example) or in cash. 3 In times of war kadis had also to ensure the repair of the road network, especially of bridges, and the building of ovens on the territory of the menzil.4 Sometimes a special envoy, usually an architect, was appointed to check the state of the roads, bridges and pavements, as well as to make an assessment of the resources needed and to see if there were any vakfs, villages or reaya obliged to take care of their repair and maintenance. All this he was to do in the presence of the kadi and all the accounts were to be drawn up by the local !QDNL, R 42, f. 84r, doc. I (4.7.1806); see also Dimitrov, Osmanski izvori za istoriyata, p. 277 doc. 554 (7.10.1789); p. 298, doc. 557 (11.10.1789). 2 Dimitrov, Osmanski izvori za istoriyata, p. 40-41, doc. 47 (30.6.1739); p. 41 doc 48 (2.7.1739). 3

See e.g., ibid., p. 27-29, doc. 23 (12-21.8.1739). lbid„ p. 238, doc. 453 (23.3.1788); p. 241, doc. 459 (30.3.1788).

4

60

R U M E L I

U N D E R

THE

O T T O M A N S

Seriat judge.1 Following a reform in the menzilhane system in the late 17th century, 2 kadis controlled the expenditure of the menzilci, the horses used, checked the amount of grain stocked in the menzil and the accounts of the menzil which were regularly registered in the sicils twice a year, on Ruz-i Hizr (St George's Day) and Ruz-i Kasim (St Demetrius' Day). 3 They were also obliged to check and register the documents of the officials permitted to use the menzil, its horses and foodstuff, couriers, ambassadors and military commanders.4 Reports were presented to the court on all the expenditures of the villages and of the town itself, for the stay of officials, for the maintenance of embassies, military commanders, and provincial governors, for payments and bribes to officials, and for the needs of the menzil.5 They were summarised every six months in the presence of the local ayan and the imams of the mahalles, towards Ruz-i Hizr and Ruz-i Kasim, and then divided among the hanes in the kaza, a list of which was drawn up each time. The list was given to an authorised person by the court official, usually the mu'temed ayan, the local serdar, or sometimes to the menzilci when the money to be collected was his own payment or for the menzil.6 Kadis, were traditionally kept informed of new appointments in the eyalet: of a vali? mutesellim,8 of their voyvodas or other representatives, 9 seraskersand, in the kadilik, of kethuda yeriyenigeri serdari,12 and so on. In cases of appointment of local military commanders, the information from the aga of the Janissaries and from the Grand Vizier respectively was addressed only to the kadi, who was probably regarded as the head of the local

l

Ibid„ p. 208, doc. 401 (5.9.1787). For more on the subject see Hey wood, C., "The Ottoman menzilhane and ulak system in Rumeli in the eighteenth century", in: TUrkiye'nin Sosyal ve Ekonomik Tarihi (1071-1920), Okyar, O. and Jnalcik, H. (eds), Ankara, 1980, p. 179-186. 3 Dimitrov, Osmanski izvori za istoriyata, p. 133-134, doc. 219 (21.2.1741); p. 285, doc. 539 (30.8.1789); ODNL, R 42, f. 16v-17r (27.6.1799). 4 Dimitrov, Osmanski izvori za istoriyata, p. 81, doc. 114 (n.d.); p. 133-134, doc. 219 (21.2.1741). 5 Ibid., p. 39, doc. 43 (11.11.1732); ODNL, R 42, f. 14r doc. I (n.d.); f. 14r, doc. II (1827.12.1798). 6 Ibid p. 44-49, doc. 57 (5.9.1739); p. 85-86, doc. 125 (n.d.); ODNL, R 42, f. 7v-8r (April 1798); f. 12r-13r (October 1798); f. 17v-18v (n.d.); f. 24v-25v (24.11.1799). 7Ibid., p. 183, doc. 360 (28.7-6.8.1786). 8 Ibid„ p. 184, doc. 361 (29.8.1786). 9 Ibid., p. 65, doc. 86 (8.3.1740). 10 Ibid„ p. 213, doc. 407 (n.d.). n Ibid„ p. 23, doc. 11 (28.4-26.5.1740). l2 lbid„ p. 32, doc. 27 (12-21.08.1732).

2

A

KADI

C O U R T

IN

R U M E L I

61

government. Kadis were informed of their prerogatives, both military and in police matters, and were advised to help them perform these duties. The kadis were also informed of the changes in the timar holders in the kazas. These changes were still dependent on whether the timar holder had failed to appear on the battlefield or had died there.1 Very often documents for leasing of a timar2 were registered in the sicils, as well as decisions on different disputes concerning land ownership rights.3 An important part of the functions of the kadi, including the kadis of Hacioglu Pazarcik was control of the town life. One does not find any special body for the town administration of Hacioglu. We may rather speak of a body with an amorphous membership structure changing from case to case. Besides local officials and notables, it included, in specific municipal cases, also representatives of local citizens such as the imams of the mahalles. The sehir kethiidasfi appears in only one of the available documents, which is not very revealing as to his position and functions, and obviously the kadi court was still regarded as the centre of town life. There is not much information on the development of trade and crafts in the area. But bearing in mind the data contained in the kanun for the bac of the town in 1569, and the increasing role of the town as a road station, we may presume that it developed even further. Some of the goods mentioned in this kanun give enough grounds to consider that there were some crafts in the town but we do not know if they were organised in guilds. What we know for sure is that a market functioned there and that prices were fixed by the muhtesib at least by the mid-16th century. The town economy obviously developed and in the middle of the 18th century there already existed a clock tower dominating the "business centre". It was first noticed by R. Boskovic in 1762 who noted that its presence was a rare fact in Ottoman towns. 5 Twenty years later it was rebuilt and repaired by a gun-producer who founded a vakfio support it and bequeathed the vakf and the obligation to maintain the clock to

l

Ibid„ p. 26-27, doc. 22 (4.2.1740); p. 125-126, doc. 206 (13.12.1740). hbid., p. 49, doc. 60 (6.8.1739). hbid., p. 182-183, doc. 358 (28.7-6.8.1786). ^See Bojanici-Lukac, D.- DzordZevic, S., "Razvoj lokalne gradske uprave na Balkanu od XV do XIX v." [The Development of Local Town Administration in the Balkans from the Fifteenth to the Nineteenth Centuries], in: Gradska Kultura na Balkanu [Balkan Urban Culture, 15th-19thcenturies], Samad&d, R. (éd.), I., Belgrade, 1984, p. 59-81. ^Boskovid, R. J., Dnevnik na edno pâtuvane!Boscowich, Y., Journal d'un voyage de Constantinople en Pologne, fail à la suite de J. Porter, trans, by M. N. Todorova into Bulgarian, Sofia, 1975, p. 57.

62

RUM ELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

masters from the same craft. 1 It is clear that many crafts were present in the gar§i of Hacioglu Pazarcik. There are no documents registering the hierarchy of guilds in our sicih, but the existence of at least four (those of the abovementioned leather workers, of the soap workers 2 and meat producers, 3 and of the candle-makers) 4 is attested, usually in the registrations of the narh. In another similar document the presence of a special clerk for the tile-producers is mentioned, something which might be regarded as a proof for the existence of an institutionalised organisation. 5 We might expect that other, welldeveloped crafts such as those of the bread-makers, fur-dressers, gun-producers, builders, many of whom were Bulgarians, were also grouped in guilds. What is important to note here however, is not the existence or non-existence of certain guilds but the fact that the old system of regulating production and trade still existed, lasting until at least to the beginning of the 19th century, and that craftsmen still went to court to agree upon the narh in the presence of the local notables and to have them registered in the kadi sicil. Hacioglu Pazarcik gives the impression, at least viewed from the documents, of a town with a strong presence of Islam in its life. According to the document of 12.2.1798, issued on the occasion of the rebellion of the local ayan Sarikhoglu and his supporters, and registering the mutual liability of the remaining inhabitants of the kaza, by mahalles and villages, the vast majority of them were Muslims. We have every reason to consider that the entire adult male population of the city was included. For example, in one mahalle, more than 160 men were named, in another there were nearly 90. Most probably, the inhabitants of the villages were registered through representatives but still they give a relatively correct picture of the ethnic structure of the population in the area. There were, according to this document, 1,806 adult male Muslims, Turks and Tatars, 47 Armenians and 41 Bulgarians in the city. The situation in the villages of the kadilik was roughly the same. Of the 83 villages registered there were a few Bulgarians among the Turkish-Tatar population in only six, and only two were predominantly or entirely Bulgarian.6

iDimitrov, Osmanski izvori za istoriyata, p. 147, doc. 262 (7.8.1789). Ibid„ p. 170, doc. 331 (17.07.1787). 3 ODNL, R 42, the inside page of the front coyer, doc. II (18.1.1799); doc. V (27.08.1799); doc. VI (9.12.1800). ^Dimitrov, Osmanski izvori za istoriyata, p. 221, doc. 427 (1.12.1787). 5 ODNL, R 42, f. lr, doc. I (6.6.1800). ^Dimitrov, Osmanski izvori za istoriyata, p. 338-346, doc. 645 (12.2.1798). 2

A KADI

COURT

IN

RUMELI

63

There were at least 16 mosques and three mescids serving the Muslim population of the city, and one of them, the Mahkeme mosque, obviously housed the kadi court or was situated in its neighbourhood. Twenty three big vakf foundations supported mainly the religious institutions in the area, but there also existed some small vakfs supporting only individual religious functionaries, some public buildings and/or ensuring the payment of avariz. The information in these sicils, as well as in a specialised vakf sicil confirms the tendency of some transformation in the 18th century vakfa with the state assuming greater rights of direct interference in their administration. Kadis, as state officials and of course as §eriat judges, were responsible for the control of all these vakfs, starting with the registration of vakf deeds, 2 as well as the accounts of the mutevellis, their financial operations and other transactions. 3 If a mutevelli was considered for some reason unsuitable, as when, for example, accused of misappropriation of vakf funds, he was removed from his post on the demand of "people" in the kadi court and on the grounds of a special report presented usually by the naib or by the kadi, the central authorities appointing a new person whose berat was registered in the sicil.4 Kadis were supposed to ensure that the religious life of Christians complied with the legal norms of the empire. It is for this reason that we find in the latest sicil a ferman, marking the first stage in establishing a parish in the town. Following a complaint on the part of the bishop of Varna made through the Patriarch, a ferman was issued ordering that Christians were permitted "to gather in a room in a private house", to have their sermons, to read the Bible and the Gospel, to have their liturgies, icons and to light their icon-lamps. The kadi had to secure these rights of the Christians against unnamed officials of the ehl i drf who had before prevented their application. He had also to ensure that the Christians did not read the texts in a loud voice. 5

^See Georgieva, Ts. and Andreev, S., "Nyakoi strani ot sastoyanieto i deynostta na vakSfite v Hadzhioglu Pazardzhik" [Some Aspects of the State and Activity of the Vakfs in Haeioglu Pazarcik], in: Sbornik v pamet na Profesor Alexander Burmov [In the Memory of Professor Alexander Burmov], Sofia, 1973, p. 396-403. 2 Dimitrov, Osmanski izvori za istoriyata, p. 140-141, doc. 241 (13.10.1787): p. 147, doc. 262 (7.8.1789). hhid., p. 24, doc. 15 and doc. 16 (26.5.1740); p. 173, doc. 341 (28.3-6.4.1788). 4 Ibid„ p. 114, doc. 188 (22.10.1740). 5 ODNL, R 42, f. 93r, doc. I (28.9.1807).

64

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

Kadis, were traditionally regarded as serial judges first and foremost. The reason for leaving their judicial functions to the end is, however, rooted in the characteristic features of the three sicils we have which contain mainly incoming documents from the central authorities and from the provincial administration related to the developments in the kaza and documents of the kadilik, and only about 70 to 80 documents related to the kadis' judicial prerogatives, some of which came also from the provincial and central authorities. We may judge from this that there possibly existed different sicils for different types of documents in this particular court: for private lawsuits, for incoming documents and documents of the community and for vakf documents. This suggestion is supported by the fact that there exists a specialised vakf sicil covering almost the entire history of the local vakfs in Hacioglu Pazarcik between 1626 and 1863, 1 and there are only a few documents regarding vakfa in the present sicils. This practicc was not an exception as there is a special vakf sicil for the kaza of Ruse/Ruscuk, too, but this is not the case in other cities. In the Vidin sicils for example, 2 documents of a legal character and orders of the central authorities are registered either in a chronological order or are divided into two or three parts according to their origin. And in all, the legal documents represent the majority. The second major problem that arises while using the sicils is the order of registration of the documents. The problem is that in the first two sicils the chronological principle in entering documents was not followed at all or was followed in a very strange way. Although the majority of the documents registered in the first sicil date from 1739 — beginning of 1741, there are also many among the main body dating from 1730, 1731, 1732, 1738, 1742, 1743 and even from 1744. The most striking example of this complete mess is the registration of a be rat of 1730 on f. 21v-22v and a ferman proclaiming the enthronement of Sultan Abdiilhamid I (of 17.2.1774) following immediately after on the same page. This is the same for the second sicil, too, in which the main body of the documents cover the period 1786-1790 but there are also documents from 1781, 1782, 1783, 1784.

^Georgieva and Andreev, op. cit., p. 396-403. ODNL, S 38 (1705-1713); S 8 (1720-1721); S 305 (1715-1718); S 60 (1710-1721); S 67 (17171720).

2

A

KADI

C O U R T

IN

R U M E L I

65

The documents available in these sicih permit us to speak of a continuity in the judicial functions of the kadis. Registration of transactions of property, 1 debts, 2 wills 3 and agreements 4 were still registered in court, as well as decisions on disputes for debts, 5 salaries, 6 property 7 or arising from a divorce. 8 Evaluation of inheritances and assessments of the shares of the heirs, 9 appointment and control of guardians, 1 0 among other things, were performed in the court. And, finally, a number of cases of murder, 11 battery, 12 rape, 13 brigandage, 14 theft, 1 5 and actions against moral principles 16 were taken to court. The aim in most of these cases was either to establish the circumstances, probably to assist the executive authorities in deciding the verdict, or to absolve the inhabitants of the settlements near the scene of crime from accusations and from the payment of blood-money, the initiative coming from the victim or from his/her relatives, from police officials or from specially appointed miibagirs. In all these cases, the role of the local kadi was limited to the investigation into the case and, sometimes, to establishing the name of the culprit and probably taking part in his arrest. The attitude of local Christians to the kadi court is of particular interest. There is some information in a ferman dating from the very beginning of the 19th century showing that very often they turned to the imams of the Muslim mahalles to get married or divorced and to the kadi court to repeal the religious penalties imposed by the Church court in Varna. 1 7 There are many explanations for this practice. The easiness and the speed of getting a decision on a marital problem according to Muslim

i o D N L , R 42, f. 61v. doc. I (24.9.1803), f. 64v, doc. II (same date); f. 38v, doc. II (15.10.1801); the inside of the front cover, doc. VIII (n.d.). Dimitrov, Osmanski izvori za istoriyala, p. 318, doc. 588 (n.d.). 3 Ibid., p. 172, doc. 339 (4-13.10.1787); p. 36, doc. 35 (n.d.). 4 Ibid., p. 147, doc. 264 (21.10.1789). 5 ODNL, R 42, f. 44r, doc. II (15.8.1801); Dimitrov, Osmanski izvori za istoriyata, p. 337, doc. 641 (4.11-3.12.1785). 6 Ibid„ p. 210, doc. 402 (5.9.1787). 7 ODNL, R 42, f. 15r, doc. I (24.4.1799); Dimitrov, Osmanski izvori za istoriyata, p. 330, doc. 621 (13.9.1766); p. 330-331, doc. 622 (21.9.1767); p. 331, doc. 623 (10.10.1790). 8 ODNL, R 42, inside front cover, doc. VII (27.3.1804); Dimitrov, Osmanski izvori za istoriyata, p. 149, doc. 274 (12.3.1789). 'Dimitrov, Osmanski izvori za istoriyata, p. 105-106, doc. 171 (11.9.1740); p. 134, doc. 220 (10.11.1732). 10 E.g., ibid., p. 135, doc. 224 (n.d.); p. 135, doc. 225 (29.3-27.4.1740). n I b i d . , p. 337, doc. 643 (30.7.1788); p. 140, doc. 240 (13.10.1787). 12 ODNL, R 42, inside front cover, doc. IV (15.6.1798); Dimitrov, Osmanski izvori za istoriyata, p. 37-38, doc. 39. "Dimitrov, Osmanski izvori za istoriyata, p. 35-36, doc. 34 (22-31.8.4.1732). 14 Ibid„ p. 36, doc. 36 (2.9.1732); p. 38, doc. 40 (30.10-8.11.1732). 15 Ibid., p. 107, doc. 176 (28.9.1740); p. 108, doc. 178 (6.10.1740). 16 Ibid„ p. 137, doc. 233 (25.1.1741). 17 ODNL., R 42, f. 56v, doc. I (beginning of December 1802).

66

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

religious law, the distance they had to travel and the fact that the decision of the kadi court was always easier to enforce than that of the Church authorities must have been very strong arguments in the minds of 18th-century Christians. One gets the impression that the administration of the kadilik and of the town were entirely in the hands of the kadi who in some respects had an even wider range of prerogatives in the 18th century than in the 16th and 17th centuries. He presided over a council in whose activities most of the notables of the district, the officers of the Janissary detachments stationed in Hacioglu Pazarcik, other renowned ulema, as well as the local miiderris, and, sometimes, the imams took part. In many cases these notables held official posts as yenigeri serdari, kethuda yeri, menzilci, tahsildar, mu 'temed ayan. They were also collectors of some of the state revenues in this and in other kazas, thus forming a happy union of military force and financial power. It is not difficult to guess that kadis could not oppose the military and financial power of these notables, particularly if we keep in mind that they were changed each year and sometimes leased their posts without ever going to their place of destination. They might even have been subject in some way to the local ayan, but this cannot be seen from the sicih. Kadis were invariably listed among the notables of the kaza, holding their position by virtue of their post as state officials. Kadis usually informed the central authorities of the qualities and loyalty of the ayan of the kaza.1 They also took part in re-establishing order after rebellions of the Janissaries or of the ayan,2 helped with the confiscation of the property of executed rebels, 3 and gave impartial reports to the central authorities on the possible reasons for a rebellion, 4 but we have no information what they did in the course of these riots, whom they sided with. There were fights in which some representatives of the central authorities were killed. Rebels were subsequently punished, but the kadis do not appear in either group. But whatever events in the district, kadis remained the strongest link between the capital and the province, though they never united the functioning of the provincial administration, except probably in the case of the local expenditures: they had to convey orders, ensure that they were properly carried out and provide the central authorities with feed-back and, of course, were the most important judicial institution in the everyday life of the local population. T

ODNL, fond 22, a.u. 881 (12.10.1799). ODNL, fond 22, a.u. 877 (11.10.1791); a.u. 876 (24.9.1791); a.u. 879 (1.9.1798); a.u. 880 (20.5.1779), R 42, f. 24r, doc. II (21-30.10.1799). 3 ODNL, fond 22 a.u. 879 (1.3.1798); R 42, inside front cover, doc. I (1798); f. lv-2r, f. 2v, doc. I, f. 3r, doc. I, II, f. 4r, doc. II. 4 ODNL, fond 22, a.u. 540 (23.12.1760). 2

ON KADIS OF SOFIA, 16th - 17th centuries

Kadis were undoubtedly among the most important representatives of the Ottoman authority in any of the vast Ottoman provinces. Throughout the centuries, with changeable success this institution upheld the authority of the sultan and kadis were his "eyes and ears" in the provinces. Many studies are devoted to the functions of the kadi courts in general or in some particular provinces or towns, to the relations between the non-Muslims and the Sheriat court, the kadi sicills as an historical source, to the ulema in general, and other related topics. 1 Here, however, we shall not discuss any of these issues. Our attention was drawn to the personalities of the kadis who held a post in Sofia. This interest was inspired by four cases, taking place in the 16th century, in which non-Muslims — three Christians and a Jew, were taken to the Sheriat court in Sofia and sentenced to death for the grave offences of apostasy or offence to Islam and its Prophet. 2 An interesting moment in all of them is the image of the kadi, described in a very positive way in several Bulgarian religious works of the time, even in the vitae of the Christian neomartyrs. Most Bulgarian scholars who have studied this particular genre and works are inclined to regard the image of the kadi of Sofia in them as a replica of Pilate Pontius in the trial of Jesus Christ. 3 While this may be partly true, we should not ignore also the fact that the kadis of Sofia ranked among the high judicial authorities in the empire. Seventeenth century was a transitional period for the Ottoman Empire, between the classical age culminating in the zenith of the Ottoman state during Siileyman the Magnificent's reign with its territorial expansion, administrative and legislative unification, and the age of social and economic transformation prior to the Tanzimat. During the 17th century we witness constant reworking of the existing institutions, the ulema including, gradual

^It is impossible to list here even the most important studies on the kadi institution, the functioning of the court, the documents issued by it, issues that attract the attention of a constantly growing number of scholars. 2 See Gradeva, R., "Apostasy in Rumeli in the Middle of the Sixteenth Century", Arab Historical Review for Ottoman Studies, vol. 22, September 2000, pp. 29-75. 3 See for example, Dinekov, P., "Otnosheniya mezhdu bàlgari i tartsi v Sofiya prez, XVI vek" [Relations between Bulgarians and Turks in Sofia in the 16th century |, in Sbornik v pamet na Prof. P. Nikov [In memory of Prof. P. Nikov], lzyestiya na Istoricheskoto Druzhestvo, vol. XVIXVIII, Sofia, 1940, pp. 196-211.

68

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

change in the balance of powers between the new social groups in the provinces and the central authority. Taking into account the importance of the kadi court in the functioning of the Ottoman authority, it is clear how important the personality, the qualification and experience of the Sheriat judge himself also were. Of course, throughout the Ottoman history there were qualified and less qualified kadis. There were kadis who strictly followed the spirit of the Sheriat and thus came sometimes in conflict with the military authority, but there were also ones whose careers in the higher judicial circles were the result of other than strictly scholarly merits. Needless to say that judges were not immune of any human weaknesses and the flaws of contemporary Ottoman society in general, some of them becoming notorious for their corruptness. Yet, during the whole period kadis remained one of the main factors for the preservation of the administrative and political unity of the empire, and the strongest link between the capital and the provinces. On the following pages we shall try to establish a provisional list of the names of the kadis of Sofia in the 17th century, and where possible, in the 16th century, their teaching background, their place in the hierarchy of the judicial institution, their role and place in the life in that city. These issues do not just add to the picture of the Ottoman authority in this Rumeli city. The qualification of the kadis had a rather direct impact on the running of very many judicial and administrative affairs in the vast Ottoman province, on the relations between local non-Muslim communities and the Ottoman authority. We hope that the case of the kadi of Sofia will also provide an insight into the careers of the Ottoman ulema during the 17th century, into the functioning and hierarchy of the Ottoman judicial institution from a very concrete angle. Our basic sources in this undertaking will be information contained in the Vaka 7 iil-Fuzala of Mehmed §eyhi Efendi and the extant kadi sicills of Sofia from the 17th century. Unfortunately none of the famous biographical dictionaries of the Ottoman ulema is available to us in its original, and we shall have to rely on the analytical publication of part of the information contained in §eyhi's work by A. Ugur, 1 which naturally limits us to the selection of biographies presented by him and makes us dependent on his eventual mistakes. Needless to say that probably §eyhi himself did not include the biographies of all kadis of Sofia. There are other drawbacks in this source as well. Though abundant in factual details about the professional careers of ^On Mehmed §eyhi and his work see Ugur, A., The Ottoman Ulema in the mid-l7th century. An Analysis of the Vakä-i 'Ü'l-Fuzalä of Mehmed §eyhi Ef., Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 1986, pp. xxii-xxxvi.

K A D I S

OF

S O F I A

69

the scholars, §eyhi's dictionary contains only few anecdotes about their lives in the cities they were assigned to, depriving them to a large extent of the human dimension of their personalities. 1 The dictionaries are sometimes misleading even w h e r e facts f r o m their professional biographies are concerned. 2 This is why, where possible, we shall crosscheck information f r o m the dictionary with that from another very informative source, the available kadi sicills f r o m Sofia. However, there are problems with the skills, as well. In the first place, we do not possess a coherent series of sicills covering the whole 17th century. In fact, there are only five volumes of the 17th century that have survived till present days. 3 We shall also make use of the publication of some of the Sofia sicills destroyed during the World War II. 4 Unfortunately, it contains only annotations of the documents, without the names of the instrumental witnesses to the judicial case, which also limits our possibilities to extract the maximum of information usually provided by this source. Besides, the available kadi registers are in most cases fragments containing only very few documents naming the kadi in office. Thus, on the basis of those two main sources, we shall try in the first place to compile a list of the kadis who adjudicated in Sofia in the 17th century. The first two decades of the 17th century are a bit difficult to reconstruct since neither of our major sources covers them fully, this being valid also of the last two decades. 1. Sometime around 1605 an Osman Efendi had probably been the kadi of Sofia. This is attested in a document of 17 Zilkade 1013/6.04.1605, when a proxy of the kadi Osman Efendi demanded 3,980 akce f r o m Petri of the village of Stolnik near Sofia, which the latter was due to pay for a guarantee. 5

R. Repp indicates a very interesting change of emphasis between biographical dictionaries of the 16th century and those of the 17th century. While the former concentrated on the achievement of excellence in knowledge by the scholar, the latter measured the scholars' successes by the attainment of high offices and allowances. See Repp, R., The Mufti of Istanbul, London: Ithaca Press, 1986, pp. 27-30. ^Repp discusses at length the reliability of the biographical dictionaries. Ibidem, pp. 1-25. 3 Natsionalna Biblioteka "Sv. Sv. Kiril i Metodii" (NBKM), Or. Dept., S 1 bis, of 1617-8; S 308, of 1619; S 85, of 1679-80 (including a fragment of 14 pages from 1613-4); S 149, of 1683-4; S 12, a terete defter, of 1671-8. ^Gàlâbov, G., Die ProtokollbUcher des Kadiamtes Sofia, ed. H. Duda, Miinchen: Verlag R. Oldenburg, 1960 (hereafter Gâlàbov-Duda). Unfortunately at least two other sicills from the 17th century - S 3 (of 1662-72, 382 f.) and S 7 (of 1684-5), have been lost during the bombing of. Sofia during the World War II, and only few documents from them have been published in thé pre-war period by G. Gâlâbov, J. Kabrda and others. 5 Gâlâbov-Duda, op. cit., No. 428, p. 103.

70

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

This is the earliest mention of the name of a kadi of Sofia from the 17th century in the sources at our disposal but it is not clear if he was in office at the time of the registration. Unfortunately no other identification of him is provided by this short note or other documents in the sicills. Several years later on various occasions we find another, or maybe the same, Osman. The name of Mevlana Osman Vildan-zade or Mevlana Osman Efendi b. Vildan appears in several documents in the sicills. On the basis of available documents we may conclude that he must have been kadi of Sofia in 1022-1023/1613-1614, maybe even earlier. This is explicitly stated in documents of 15 Zilhicce 1022/26.01.1614, on occasion of the appointment of the mutevelli of the vakifs of Hizir £avu§, based on an arz by "akdi kudat el-muslimin Mevlana Osman" 1 and of the last decade of Zilhicce 1028/29.11.-7.12.1619 in a dispute between the former and the current mutevelli of the vakif of Siyavu§ Pa§a. In 1023/11.02.1614-30.01.1615 "the former kadi of Sofia Mevlana Osman" stamped with his seal a defter of the additional expenditures of the mutevelli for the restoration of a dukkan belonging to the vakif. The witnesses confirmed that these expenditures were made during the incumbency of Kadi Osman Vildan-zade. 2 Osman Efendi seems to have been either a local citizen or had settled in Sofia and integrated into the economic and spiritual life of the city. Unfortunately no information about his birthplace, parents, family 3 or date and place of death are available in the accessible sources. For several years he had been an important money lender, having lent through his proxy Mevlana Husameddin 32,000 akge to the bishop of Sofia Simeon in the second decade of §aban 1021/7-16.10.1612, 4 2,000 akge at 20 percent interest through his proxy Piyale b. Abdullah to two Muslims on 20 Cemazi II 1027/14.06.1618. 5 Two of the witnesses to the case are identified as "people of Osman Efendi". Finally, we learn that he had lent 40,000 akges to Christians from several villages to pay their cizye for the 1029/8.12.1619^ S S , p. 136, doc. II. GSlabov-Duda, op. cit., No. 1044, p. 315. % e are tempted to see some relationship between Osman Efendi and the famous at the time Molla Mehmed b. Benlik (?), known as Molla Vildan, or Molla Vild§n Mehmed (d. 1488) who was Rumeli kadiasker in 1486-8. Repp, op. cit., p. 21, 23. For the time being it is mainly the rather specific name Vildan that brings them together, the relation of both to Rumeli and the high prestige Osman Efendi enjoyed among his contemporaries. However, to prove this possibility we shall need further exploration in earlier biographical dictionaries. It should also be pointed out that the suffix zade is very often used to indicate a family name rather than the patronym. The other known probable member of the family, Ahmed, also bears the family name Vildan-zade. 4 Gaiabov-Duda, op. cit., No. 798, p. 228. 5 S 1 bis, p. 120, doc. I. 2

K A D I S

OF

S O F I A

71

26.11.1620. 1 These activities of Osman Efendi very much remind of those of the earlier Osman and are, apart from the name, another argument in favour of our suggestion that it was the same person. Osman Efendi possessed also properties at the Sungurlar market. 2 Apparently he was also interested in acquiring agricultural possessions because on 10 Cemazi II 1027/4.06.1618 we find Mevlana Osman Efendi b. Vildan buying through his proxy Ibrahim a vineyard from a Christian in the village of Kremikovtsi, near Sofia. 3 He participated also in the work of the Sheriat court and obviously enjoyed very high prestige among the local citizens. Any time he appears in the documents he is identified as "the Glory of the kadis, and the holy people", or as "alim elulema, the former efendi of Sofia, the elevated Vildan-zade Efendi". 4 Maybe these documents explain who the mysterious Efendi was, whose people appear on several occasions as witnesses to cases. 5 A close relative of Mevlana Osman Vildan-zade, probably his son or grandson, Ahmed Efendi Vildan-zade, established a vakif and built a Friday mosque, mentioned first in a document of Ramazan 1077/February-March 1667, 6 and later in kadi records as the "Friday mosque of the late Vildanzade" 7 Maybe the mosque or the place where the Vildan-zades lived had also

^Gaiabov-Duda, op. cit., No. 87, pp. 251-2. This time he is identified as "Kegeci MevlSna Osman Efendi, the Glory of the kadis", this meaning that he either practised or, more probably, simply possessed shops where keges were produced, S 1 bis, p. 131, doc. Ill, of the first decade of Receb 1027/24.06.-3.07.1618. The document is published in extenso in Izvori za b&lgarskata istoriya [Sources for Bulgarian History] (hereafter IBI), t. XXI, Sofia: BAN, 1977, No. 149, pp. 255-6. 3 S 1 bis, p. 119, doc. II. 4 Ibidem, p. 73, doc. IV, published in IBI, t. XXI, No. 128, p. 243, witnessing to a transaction of a house between two Muslims, second decade of Rebi I 1027/8-17. 03. 1618; S 1 bis, p. 15, doc. III, a sale of a house between two Muslims, first decade of §evval 1026/2-10.1617; p. 162, doc. IV, the payment of taxes by a suba$i to a zaim, of 11 §evval 1027/1.10.1618. 5 S e e for example Ibidem, p. 120, doc. II and p. 133, doc. 1, where a "Mehmed Bey, of the people of the Efendi" is recorded among the ¡uhud til-hal. Ayverdi, E. H., Avrupa'da Osmanli Mimari Eserleri, vol. 4, Bulgaristan, Yunanistan, Arnavudluk, Istanbul: Istanbul Fetih Cemiyeti, 1982, No. 2322; according to this earliest document the mosque was situated in the mahalle of Karagoz Bey where some of the most outstanding members of the Muslim community in the city resided. 2

7

S 85, p. 211, doc. II, of 1 Cemazi II 1092/18.06.1681, S 149, f. 7b, doc. V, of 7 Rebi I 1095/23.02.1684. According to later documents from BBOA the mosque was still existent in Cemazi II 1142/12.1729-01.1730, and on 23. Cemazi I 1254/14.08.1838.1 wish to thank: Dr O. Sabev for providing me with this additional information. Unfortunately we do not know its further fate. Clearly it had survived the great earthquake of 1818, but we do not know what happened to it after 1848 and 1858 when other earthquakes caused the fall of several mosques arid other buildings in Sofia. See Pisahme da se znae... Pripiski i letopisi [Be It Knew«.... Marginal Notes and annals], ed. by V. Nachev and N. Fermandzhiev, Sofia: OF, 1984, p. 164, 173, and Vatsov, S. "Gradivo na seizmografiyata na BSlgariya" [Contribution to the seismography of Bulgaria], Spisanie na BAN, vol. 2, No. 1, Sofia, 1912, pp. 227-28.

72

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

given the name of the "living quarter (mahalle) of Vildan-zade."1 No separate sicill from the time of Osman Efendi has reached us, apart probably from two fragments lost during the War, dating from 1605 2 and a fragment from 10221023/1613-14 wrongly bound in modern times with a later sicill.3 2. Two documents from the sicilh reveal the name of another kadi of Sofia, who had probably held the position before the second (?) term in office of Osman Efendi. Both date from 2 §aban 1020/10.10.1611. Apparently prior to this date the kadi of Sofia Muhyiddin, had sent arz for the appointment of two readers of the Koran at the mosque of Sofu Mehmed Pa§a.4 It is difficult to judge when exactly and how long he had held his position because though the average term was about a year and two to three months, there are many cases of shorter or longer tenures. His judgeship probably coincides with a small fragment, from 1610/11.5 3. He was succeeded by Mehmed Sadik el-Ansari Efendi (d. 1027/1618), who held the position of kadi of Sofia twice, in 1020-21/16111612, and in 1025-1026 (actually 1027)/1616-1618. Mehmed Sadik el-Ansari is the first in our list, of whom we know not just as a kadi of Sofia but also his biography of a scholar and judge who had worked in other places as well. He started his career as a muderris, moved through the lower ranks, to be finally appointed with a higher than 40-akge daily salary to the Koca Sinan Pa§a, the Sinan Pa§a Sultani, and the Siyavu§ Pa§a Sultani, all in Istanbul. Then he proceeded to the ranks of the Sheriat judges, being kadi and mufti of Gence, was appointed kadi and mufti of Lefkoja (Nicosia, Cyprus), 6 which he refused, and then was transferred to Filibe (Plovdiv), Ankara, Sakiz (the island of Xios), Sofia, izmir, and again to Sofia where he, according to some sources died in 1026, that is 1617.7 Some of these data drawn from the biographical sources are corroborated, others need modifying when compared with the sicills. There are documents from both his incumbencies. Apparently Mehmed Sadik was holding the position of kadi of Sofia as early as July 1611, when his nephew and proxy Mehmed f avu§, a palace cavus. submitted on two ^S 149, f. 27a, doc. II, of 22 Receb 1095/5.07.1684. This is the only occasion when we come across this mahalle in the 17th century. Most probably, as is often the case, this was an alternative name for another ward in Sofia. 2 Galabov-Duda, op. cit., Nos 349-470, pp. 87-114. 3 S 85, pp.127-140. 4 GaIabov-Duda, op. cit., Nos 737,738, pp. 204-5. 'ibidem, Nos 471-518, pp.114-131. 6 W e shall give the modern name of the place only at the first instance of mention. Further we shall stick to the Ottoman place names. 7 Baltaci, C., XV-XVI. Asirlarda Osmanh Medreseleri, Istanbul, 1976, pp. 199-200.

KADIS

OF

SOFIA

73

occasions 18,000 of the 66,000 akge, which "the current kadi of Sofia Mehmed Sadik" owed to Seyyidi Cavu§, another palace gavu§, through the latter's proxy Siileyman Abdullah. 1 Two copies of berats issued in response to arz sent by the kadi of Sofia Mehmed Sadik, reveal that he was probably still holding the position in May-June 1612.2 Another berat from the same collection, however, presents a problem. It was recorded on 15 Cemazi I 1027/10.05.1618, and states that following an arz by kadi Mevlana Mehmed Sadik a Mevlana Haci Ali was being appointed kethuda of the hasses (?) from 10 Cemazi I 1024/7.06.1615.3 It is not clear why the berat was recorded so late, but this is not a unique case in this respect. I am inclined to think that we may have a typing or writing mistake here, but since the original documents have not been preserved we cannot be certain as to which of his two incumbencies we should attribute the document to. His second tenure is well documented in the sicilh. Some of the kadi registers preserved in Sofia, though probably not the entire volumes, no doubt reflect his work. 4 His name is not mentioned very often, mainly in cases when he himself was using the Sheriat court — when one of the men of the chief accountant declared that he had received 50,000 akge of the 110,000 akge due for the mukataa of Sofia from Mehmed Sadik Efendi, 5 and when he freed an Ethiopian slave woman. 6 He is also explicitly mentioned as the "kadi of Sofia Sadik" in the berats of a new timar holder, of an imam and of the tiirbedar of §eyh Bali Efendi. 7 In his capacity of being the current kadi of Sofia (el-kadi bi medine-i Sojya) Mehmed Sadik Efendi was also appointed as miifetti§ to investigate the dispute between the local bread-makers and the ihtisab in the city. The note is not dated but is recorded between two related documents — a ferman on the issue, dating from the second decade of Cemazi 11 1024/7-16.07.1615 and a huccet of the kadi of 7 Scvval 1026/8.10.1617, both treating the said dispute. 8 It is quite possible that the ferman was recorded there only to provide the legal basis for the complaint of the breadmakers, and had been issued during the term in office of another kadi. From

krâlâbov-Duda, op. cit., No. 586, p. 154, and No. 593, pp. 156-7, both from the second decade of Cemazi I 1020/22-31.07.1611.

n

See Ibidem, No. 746, p. 208, appointing Ali b. Ahmed to the ihtisab in Sofia, of 9 Muharrem 1021/12.03.1612; and No. 726, p. 200, appointing Mevlâna Inaetullah as duaci in the fiasses of the mukataa of Breznik, of 3 Rebi II 1021/3.06.1612. 3 Ibidem, No. 955, p. 282. 4 S 1 bis, S 308, some documents published in Gàlâbov-Duda. 5 S 1 bis, p. 86, doc. II, of 1 Rebi II 1027/28.03.1618. 6 Ibidem, p. 133, doc. I, of the first decade of Receb 1027/24.06.-3.07.1618. 7 Ibidem, p. 228, doc. I; p. 233, doc. I; p. 241, doc. II, all of 1027/1618. 8 S 308, p. 42, doc. II and III.

74

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

the point of view of establishing the correct chronology of his life and deed, we should also mention another document, of the second decade of Receb 1027/3-12.07.1618, registered when the underage son of "the late Mehmed Sadik Efendi" through his proxy manumitted a Hungarian slave 1 allowing us, when we compare all available documents, to establish the date of his death sometime in the first or second decade of Receb 1027, that is end of June or beginning of July 1618. §eyhi also places his death in Receb 1027. 2 4. A document of 10 Muharrem 1024/9.02.1615 3 reveals the name of the kadi who in all probability held the position between Osman Vildan-zade and Mehmed Sadik, that is in 1615-1616, a Mehmed Emin Efendi. This is a tahvil towards the vakif of Haci Ibrahim, compiled "in the time of the kadi of kadis, Mehmed Emin Efendi". Unfortunately we have been unable to retrieve other documents or information about him, but having in mind the usual term in office of the kadis of Sofia we may assume that he had held the post in the said period. 5. In Receb 1027/probably July 1618, after the death of Mehmed Sadik, the post of kadi of Sofia was offered to Edhem-zade Mustafa Efendi, but he declined it, apparently aiming at higher positions in the learned hierarchy. By the time of the offer Mustafa Efendi (d. 1048/1638-9), who was of an ulerna family, had already taught at medreses with 40-akge daily salary, and had been promoted with a higher payment to the Sultaniye (Bursa), the Murad Paga-i cedid (Istanbul), and the Sahn. Almost immediately he was offered the judgeship of Sofia which he declined, as he did with the offer to assume a teaching position at the Dariilhadis in Edirne. Several years later he re-entered the teaching career but as a miiderris at the Siileymaniye, which opened his horizons towards far more prestigious kadihks in the empire, becoming consecutively kadi of Medina, Bursa and Edirne where he died. 4 6. Finally, on 10 §aban 1027/2.08.1618 a new kadi was appointed in Sofia, Ziyaeddin Efendi Nivali-zade, who arrived there twelve days later and recorded his beginning of work on the following day (16.07.1618). His official introductory formula gives also the name of his naib, Mustafa b. Mirza, and explains that Nivali-zade was appointed in the place of the late Mehmed Sadik. 5 According to §eyhi, Mevlana Ziyaeddin (d. 1050/1640-1), bis, p. 138, doc. I. ^Ugur, op. cit., p. 39. 3 S 1 bis, p. 266, doc. I. 4 Ugur, op. cit., pp. 41-42. 5 S 1 bis, p. 147, doc. I.

KADIS

OF

SOFIA

75

himself of an ulema family, had received his mulazemet from the famous Hoca Seadeddin Efendi. His career was to a great extent traditional. He began as a teacher in medreses going through the lower ranks, then was appointed by a sultan's order to the §ah Sultan (Istanbul), after which received assignments to the Haseki Sultan (Istanbul), and the Sahn (three times). While still in the teaching profession he refused two assignments as kadi of Gelibolu and of Ktitahya. Finally, he accepted positions in Izmir (twice consecutively), Manisa, Ktitahya, again Manisa and again Ktitahya, then twice in Sofia (§aban 1027-§aban 1029/August 1618-July 1620; Cemazi II-Zilkade 1031/March-September 1622), Sakiz, Gelibolu, Ebu Eyyub Ansari, and retired with an arpalik-1 In the available sicilh, apart from the registration of the beginning of his first term, we find also some other documents confirming the dates provided by the biographical dictionary. Of interest from the point of view of procedures is one from the first decade of Zilhicce 1027/1928.11.1618. Then, Gedikli Hasan Bese declared in the Sheriat court, in the presence of Mevlana Ziyaeddin himself, that the kadi who owed 10,000 akge to a Mehmed Be§e in the capital had paid his debt entirely and owed him nothing else. 2 On the grounds of an arz by Ziyaeddin Efendi was issued the berat of §eyh Mehmed b. Mustafa for the latter's appointment as hatib in the mosque of Siyavu§ Pa§a. 3 It seems that some parts of the available sicilh reflect his first tenure. 4 7. Fenari-zade §ah Mehmed Efendi (d. 1051/1641-2) held the position between the two tenures of Nivali-zade, that is between §aban 1029/August 1620 and Cemazi II 1031/March 1622. According to the biographical dictionary he was offspring of an ulema family and followed the traditional path, teaching with 40-akge salary, then promoted to a higher degree. Then he taught at the Sinan Pa§a (Fethiye, Istanbul), the Koca Mustafa Pa§a (Istanbul), the Yildirim Han (Bursa), was offered the kadilik of Konya, which he refused and continued his teaching at the Gevher Han Sultan (Istanbul), the Sahn, following which he refused an appointment to the Muradiye (Manisa) and entered the career of a Sheriat judge, his first appointment being to Sofia, then to Medina and Bursa. 5

^Ugur, op. cit., pp. 39-41. Gäläbov-Duda, op. cit., No. 970, pp. 287-8. 3 S 308, p. 29, doc. I, of t i Zilkade 1028/9.11.1619. 4 S 1 bis; S 308; Gäläbov-Duda, op. cit., Nos 857-1143, pp. 247-353. 5 Ugur, op. cit., pp. 64-5. 2

76

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

8. We have no information about the kadi who held the post in Sofia after the second tenure of Nivali-zade, just his name and term — Nak§bendzade Mehmed Efendi who served between Zilkade 1031/September 1622 and Rebi T 1032/January 1623. 9. Tevfiki-zade Mehmed Emin Efendi (d. 1043/1633-4), again from an ulema family, had also received miilazemet from Hoca Seadeddin Efendi. Having taught at medreses with 40-akge daily salary he replaced, already at a higher grade, his father at the Cezri Kasim Pa§a (Istanbul) and then went to the Hayder Pa§a (Istanbul). That was his last teaching position and then he entered the judicial career — in Baghdad, Trablus-i §am, Sakiz, again Baghdad, Amid, Medina, Trablus-i §am again, Sofia, Kuds-i §erif (Jerusalem), and Izmir, where he was killed as a result of his long strife with Murtaza Pa§a. In Sofia Mehmed Emin Efendi served between Rebi I 1032/January 1623 and Receb 1034/April 1625.1 10. Baba Hiiseyin Efendi, kadi of Sofia between Receb 1034/April 1625 and Safer 1035/November 1625. 11. Miiezzin-zade Fikri Mehmed Efendi (d. 1051/1641-2). After teaching positions with 40 akge, he was appointed with the grade of haric to the medrese Kadi Mahmud (Edirne), the Cezri Kasim Paga (Istanbul), and the Orhaniye (Iznik). Then he entered the judicial career as kadi of Kiitahya, Manisa, Belgrade, Sofia, Diyarbakrr and Manisa. In Sofia he stayed between Safer 1035/November 1625 and Cemazi 1 1036/January 1627.2 12. Martalos-zade Mahmud Efendi (d. 1051/1641-2), from an ulema family, had held teaching positions at a higher than 40-akge daily salary in the medreses of Maktul Hasan Pasa (Istanbul), Nuanci Pa§a-i cedid (Istanbul) and Efdal-zade (Istanbul). Then he became kadi of Kiitahya, Sofia, twice in Belgrade, Manisa and Kuds-i §erif. Kadi of Sofia between Cemazi I 1036/January 1627 and Safer 1037/0ctober 1621? 13. Baba Halil-zade Mehmed Efendi (d. 1045/1635-6), of the family of a dervish §eyh, taught with the grade of 50 akge daily at the medreses of Molla Gurani (Istanbul), Koca Mustafa Pa§a (Istanbul), Esmahan Sultan (Fethiye, Istanbul), Mehmed Pasa (Kadirga Limam, Istanbul), §ah Sultan 1 Ibidem, pp. 5-6. Ibidem, pp. 61-2. •'ibidem, pp. 63-4.

2

K A D I S

OF

S O F I A

77

(Istanbul) and the Sahn. His judicial career included only two appointments — in Belgrade and Sofia, where he served between Rebi I 1037/November 1627 and Zilhicce 1038/July 1629.1 14. Ürke Mustafa Efendi (d. 1059/1649), of an ulema family, held teaching positions of the grade of haric at the §ah Kulu (Istanbul), the Sekban Ali (Istanbul), the ibrahim Pa§a-i atik (Istanbul), the Esmahan Sultan (Istanbul), the Mihrimah (Edirne Kapi, Istanbul), the Mihrimah (Üsküdar, Istanbul), the Sahn. Following this last appointment he was given the post of kadi of Gelibolu, and then Sofia, Sakiz, Gümülcine (Komotini, Greece), Diyarbakir, Ebu Eyyub. In Sofia he stayed between Zilhicce 1038/July 1629 and Safer 1039/September 1629.2 15. Ibrahim Efendi, kadi of Sofia between Safer 1039/September 1629 and Cemazi I 1040/December 1630. 16. Hayyat-zade Ahmed Efendi (d. 1054/1644-5), of an ulema family, appointed with the grade of haric to the Hizir (,'elcbi (Istanbul), the Ula of Hiisrev Kethüda (Istanbul), the Sinan Pa§a (Besikias, Istanbul), the Hayder Pa§a (Istanbul), the lie §erefeli (Edirne), and then proceeded to the judicial career as kadi of Tire, Belgrade, Sofia, Balikesir. In Sofia he was between Cemazi I 1040/December 1630 and Receb 1041/January I632. 3 17. Niksari-zade Abdiilhayy Efendi (d. 1051/1641-2), of an ulema family. He taught at the Efdaliye (Istanbul), where he was appointed twice, at the Ibrahim Pa§a-i atik (Istanbul), the §ah Sultan (Istanbul), the Sahn and the Sultaniye (Bursa). Then followed a judicial career — in Sakiz, Gelibolu and Sofia, between Receb 1041/January' 1632 and Zilkade 1042/May 1633.4 18. Yakubca-zade Mahmud Efendi (d. 1054/1644-5), of an ulema family. Having taught at medreses with the grade of 40 akge he received the post of miiderris at the Yildirim Han (Balikesir), which he held for over 15 years. Then he moved to the judicial career — in Mara§, Kütahya, Bosna Saray (Sarajevo, Bosnia), which he refused, Belgrade, Sofia, and then retired, later he was again appointed in Kütahya. In Sofia he was between Zilkade 1042/May 1633 and Rebi II 1043/0ctober 1633.5 'ibidem, pp. 24-5. ^Ibidem, pp. 114-5. ^Ibidem, p. 73. ^Ibidem, pp. 66-7. ^Ibidem, pp. 75-6.

78

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

O T T O M A N S

19. §eriyati Omer Efendi (d. 1047/1637-8). When promoted to the grade of haric he taught at the medrese of Ibrahim Pa§a-i atik (Istanbul), then twice at the Efdaliye, at the Mihrimah (Edirne Kapi, Istanbul), the Sahn. Then he entered the judicial career and held posts in Bosna Saray and Sofia (Rebi II 1043-Safer 1044/0ctober 1633-July 1634).1 20. Da'i-zade Kasim Efendi (d. 1056/1646-7), of an ulema family. Taught with the grade of haric at the medrese of Ahmed Pas a (Demir Kapi, Istanbul). His subsequent career as a Sheriat judge includes appointments to Tire twice, Sofia, then retirement, and a few years later he resumed work as a judge in Ycnisehir (Larissa, Greece). In Sofia he stayed between Safer 1044/July 1634 and §aban 1045/January 1635.2 21. Gul Mustafa Efendi (d. 1056/1646-7), of an ulema family. Taught at the Ni§anci Pasa-i atik (Istanbul), the Mustafa Pa§a (Gebze), the Zal Pa§a (Istanbul), the Orhaniye (Bursa), the Rum Mehmed Pa§a (Istanbul), the Hadim Hasan Pasa (Istanbul), the Hadice Sultan (Istanbul), by tahille the Sahn, again the Orhaniye (Bursa), in Qorlu, the Sultan Bayezid Han (Edirne), the Sultan Selim Han (Edirne), the Sultan Selim-i kadim (Istanbul), the Stileymaniye. After this successful teaching career he was appointed kadi of Sofia (Safer 1044?, maybe a mistake in the source. Taking into account the end of the term of the previous kadi, it should rather be §aban 1045/January 1635, till Rebi I 1047/July 1637) and then of Manisa. 3 22. Ay§i (isa) Efendi (d. 1061/1650-1), received his mUlazemet from Kmah-zade Fehmi Mehmed Efendi. Taught with the grade of haric at the Ummulveled (Istanbul), the Sinan Pa§a (Fethiye, Istanbul), the Hoca Hayreddin (Istanbul), the Hatice Sultan (Istanbul), the Sahn, the Qorlu, refused appointment to a new medrese with a daily salary of 60 akge, and went to the Hankah (Istanbul). Then received the judgeship of Manisa, Sofia (Rebi I 1047-§evval 1049/July 1637-January 1640), and Oskudar. He had also served as a tezkereci with Kadiasker Azmi-zade Mustafa Efendi. Though his name was isa he actually preferred the literary pseudonym of Ay§i, an author of poetry. 4

1 Ibidem, pp. 33-4. Ibidem, p. 89. 3 Ibidem, pp. 90-1. 4 Ibidem, pp. 128-9. 2

KADIS

OF

SOFIA

79

23. Hamdi Mehmed Efendi (d. 1055/1645-6), received his müläzemet from Esad Efendi. He was son-in-law of another famous scholar of the time, Kara felebi-zade Abdiilaziz Efendi. Appointed with the grade of haric to the newly opened medrese of Siileyman Suba§i (Istanbul), the Emre Hoca (Istanbul), the Hadim Hasan Pa§a (Istanbul), the Rüstern Pa§a (Istanbul), the Sahn and in £orlu. His first appointment as a judge was to Sofia (§evval 1049-Rebi 11051/January 1640-June 1641), then to Gümülcine and Baghdad. He also wrote poetry under the pseudonym of Hamdi. 1 24. Yakub Efendi, kadi in Sofia between Rebi I 1051/June 1641 and §evval 1052/December 1642. 25. Senear (Sencari) Mtiizzeddin Mehmed Efendi (d. Rebi II 1076/0ctober 1665). He and his mother were bought slaves of Hakimi Gilani, an outstanding scholar of the time, who later adopted him. Having taught at medreses with 40-akge daily salary he moved to the judicial career and held positions at various places in Rumeli. Then he apparently rose to a higher grade and was appointed first in Sofia, in Filibe, again Sofia, Baghdad, Manisa, and again Sofia, four times consecutively with short breaks between the terms. Sofia was apparently his favourite place since he held the post six times altogether, in §evval 1052-Zilkade 1053/December 1642-January 1644; Cemazi II 1054-Rebi II/Cemazi I 1055/August 1644-May/June 1645; Zilkade 1063-§evval/Zilkade 1064/September 1653-August/September 1654; SaferZilkade 1066/November 1655-August 1656; Rebi II 1069-Zilkade 1070/December 1658-July 1660; Receb 1074-Rebi II 1076/January 1664October 1665, when he died. An interesting episode of his life is related to his first incumbency in Sofia. In Zilkade 1053/January 1644 the vail of Rumeli Faik Pa§a 2 executed several people in Sofia without having a legal sanction by the kadi. When he afterwards demanded one, Mehmed Efendi rode on horseback to Istanbul where he arrived in six days, and reported the case to the Sultan. Faik Pa§a was summoned to the capital, interrogated in the presence of the kadi and executed on 10 Zilkade/20.01.1644. This earned the kadi the benevolence of the sultan and he was transferred to Filibe. 3 [Traces from his fifth tenure we find in the miihimme defters. The current kadi of Sofia (halä

1 Ibidem, p. 81. ^See Siireyya, M., Sicill-i osmani, eski yazadan aktaran S. A. Kahraman, Istanbul, 1996, vol. 2, p. 507. Unfortunately we have been unable to find an echo of these events in domestic sources or other documentation in Bulgarian archives. 3 Ugur, op. cit., pp. 286-7.

80

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

kadi olari) Miiizzeddin was addressed in an imperial order to consider again a case based on the arzuhal of a Yusuf, nam kadi, who also resided in Sofia. 1 ] 26. Reis Hacesi Siileyman or Kara Siileyman Efendi (d. end of 1057/December 1647). Before assuming an academic career he had been preceptor (hace) to Reisiilkiittab Kadri Qelebi. Later he was promoted to the grade of haric at the Ferhad Pa§a (Bursa), the Sekban Ali (Istanbul), twice at the §eyhiilislam Zekeriya Efendi (Istanbul), the Murad Pa§a-i atik (Istanbul), the Gazanfer Aga (Istanbul). Meanwhile he refused an appointment as kadi of Diyarbakir, but later entered the judicial career as kadi of Sakiz, then Sofia (Zilkade 1053-Cemazi II 1054/January-August 1644), and Filibe.2 27. Hafiz Kudsi Seyyid Ahmed Efendi (d. 1056/1646). With the grade of haric he was appointed at the Perviz Efendi (Istanbul), then the Nisanci Pa§a-i cedid (Istanbul), the Sinan Pasa (Istanbul). Then he became kadi of Bosna Saray and Sofia (Cemazi I 1055-Cemazi I 1056/June 1645-June 1646).3 28. Dervi§ Efendi-zade §eyh Mehmed Efendi (d. 1071/1660-1). Having passed the lower grade of teaching positions he was then appointed to the §ah Kulu (Istanbul), and then to the Koca Mustafa Pasa (Istanbul), the Sahn, the Kasim Pasa (Bursa), the Murad Paga-i cedid (Istanbul), and the (."orlu. At this stage he moved into the judicial career and served in Sofia (Cemazi I 1056§aban 1057/June 1646-September 1647), Kayseri, Diyarbakir, and two terms in Manisa. 4 A small fragment of a sicill, apparently reflecting his term of office in Sofia is published in Galabov-Duda.5 29. Baghdadi Ahmed Efendi (d. 1071/1660-1) received his mulazemet from §eyhtilislam Esad Efendi. With the grade of haric he was appointed to the F.mre Hoca (Istanbul), then proceeded to the Mehmed Aga (Istanbul), the Mustafa Aga (Istanbul), the Gazi Hiidavendigar (Bursa) and the Muradiye (Bursa). After that entered the judicial career with appointments to Sofia (§aban 1057-Cemazi I 1058/September 1647-May 1648), Erzurum, back to Sofia (Receb 1061-Zilkade 1061/June-October 1651), Bursa and Kayseri.6 The date of the second appointment of Baghdadi Ahmed Efendi leaves an unusually HBBOA, MD 93, p. 2, doc. 13, of Evasit §evvai 1069/2-11 July 1659], Ugur, op. cit., p. 105. 3 Ibidem, p. 93. 4 Ibidem, pp. 240-1. 5 Cj&15bov-Duda, op. cit., Nos 1144-1192, pp. 354-72. ®Ugur, op. cit., p. 233. 2

KADIS

OF

SOFIA

81

long gap of several months without an appointed judge between his appointment and the end of the term of the previous kadi, Nefes-zade Mustafa Efendi, who had died while in office in Sofia. There might of course have been another appointment that is not reflected in §eyhi's work. 30. Hafiz Yusuf Efendi, kadi

of Sofia, Cemazi I 1058-Receb

1059/May 1648-July 1649. 31. Mente§-zade Ahmed Efendi (d. 1075/1664-5), also of an ulema family. With the grade of haric he had been appointed to the medrese of Mufti Ahmed Pa§a (Bursa), then to the Ula of Mesih Pa§a (Istanbul), the Molla Yegan (Bursa), and then entered the judicial career serving successively in Vize, Kayseri, Mara§, Gelibolu, again Kayseri, Tire, Konya, Sofia with paye of Mecca (Receb 1059-Ramazan 1060/July 1649-August 1650, the latter date coming into contradiction with the beginning of the term of the next kadi as indicated by §eyhi, Nefes-zade Mustafa Efendi, Receb 1060, that is June 1650, which may be attributed to some mistake of the biographer or some other unknown to us circumstance), Manisa, Filibe, Izmir, Yeni§ehir-i Fenar. 1 32. Nefes-zade Mustafa Efendi (d. 1060/1650), of an ulema family. Taught with the grade of haric at the Kepenkgi Sinan (Istanbul), with the grade of hareket at the Abdusselam (Kiigiik £ekmece), the Ibrahim Pa§a-i atik (Istanbul), and the Ali Pa§a-i cedid (Istanbul), and then began his judicial career — in Sakiz and Sofia, where according to §eyhi he was appointed in Receb 1060/June 1650 and died in Ramazan 1060/August 1650.2 33. Golbazari Hiiseyin Efendi (d. 1083/1672-3) received his miilazemet from Kadiasker Bostan-zade Yahya Efendi. With the promotion to the grade of haric he taught at the Abdullah Aga (Uskiidar, Istanbul), the §ah Kulu (Istanbul), the Sinan Pa§a (Fethiye, Istanbul), the Murad Pa§a-i atik (Istanbul), and then became kadi in Sofia (Zilkade 1061~zilkadel062/0ctober 1651-October 1652), Manisa, Konya, Sakiz, twice, and Bosna Saray. 3 34. Ba§mak§i-zade Mehmed Efendi (d. 1093/1682), was of an outstanding ulema family both by birth and by marriage. He had received his miilazemet from §eyhiilislam Ebu Sa'id Efendi. Having taught at medreses i b i d e m , pp. 270-1. Ibidem, p. 121.

2 3

Ibidem, pp. 389-90.

82

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

with 40-akge daily salary, he was first appointed to the kadilik of Pe£evi, a town in Rumeli, and then promoted to a position in Filibe, Selanik (Thessaloniki), Sofia (Zilkade 1062-Zilkade 1063/0ctober 1652-September 1653), Sakiz, Bosna Saray, Belgrade, Manisa and Uskiidar.1 35. Salih Efendi-zade §eyh Mehmed Efendi (d. 1072/1661-2), of an outstanding ulema family, received mulazemet from his uncle §eyhiilislam Esad Efendi. Promoted to the grade of haric while teaching at the Menla Kestel (Istanbul), and then moved to the Mehmed Aga (Istanbul), the Ali Pasa-i atik (Istanbul), the §ah Hace (?), the Sahn, the Gevherhan Sultan (Istanbul), the Hakaniye (Istanbul), and the Siileymaniye. After this peak in his teaching career he retired with the customary pension. Two years later he was appointed kadi of Birgi, Trablus-i §am, Sofia (§evval/Zilkade 1064-Safer 1066/September/October 1654-November 1655), Ankara and Sakiz.2 36. Kizikli Mehmed Efendi (d. 1067/1656-7). After his promotion to the grade of haric he taught at the Isa Beg (Bursa), the Emir Sultan (Bursa), and the Gazi Hiidavendigar (Bursa). Then followed a career as Sheriat judge in Sakiz twice, Kiitahya, and Sofia (Zilkade 1066-Rebi I 1067/August-December 1656) where he died during his incumbency.3 37. Sahhaf §eyh-zade Abdiilbaki Efendi (d. 1082/1671-2 at the age of 52), of an ulema family by birth and by marriage, received his miilazemet from §eyhiilislam Esad Efendi. Taught first with the grade of 40 akge but following the intervention of a woman from the Palace was appointed by sultan's command kadi of Kayseri, and then proceeded to Bursa, Konya, Sakiz, and four successive terms in Sofia (Rebi I-Zilhicce 1067/ December 1656-September 1657; Zilkade 1070-Safer 1072/July 1660-September 1661; Rebi II 1076-Cemazi I 1077/0ctober 1665-October 1666; §aban 1081-Receb 1082/December 1670-November 1671), where he died during his fourth tenure. 4 [Among the documents recorded in S 85 we find a ferman dated March 1666 and addressed to the (unnamed) current kadi of Sofia on occasion of a grievance by several Jews from Sofia that a kadi named Mahmud, resident of that kaza, in agreement with a mutesellim, arrested them any time a Jew in debt would travel elsewhere, trying to extort money from them. 5 The other

1 Ibidem, pp. 530-1. Ibidem, pp. 250-1. 3 Ibidem, pp. 188-9. 4 Ibidem, pp. 373-4. 5 [ S 85, p. 160, doc. II, of Evasit Ramazan 1076/17-26.03.1666. The document is published in facsimile and translation in extenso in Ottoman Documents on Balkan Jews, XVIth-XVIIth centuries, V. Boskov, M. Epstein, St. Andreev (compilers), Sofia: CIBAI., 1990, doc. XI, p. 2425.] 2

K A D I S

OF

S O F I A

83

documents in the sicill do not prompt any answer to the question why it should be registered in court fifteen years after its actual issuance. No kadi of that name was serving in Sofia at that time or earlier, with the exception of one, but only for several months in 1627. Apart from these problems, this document raises the issue of how many functionaries bearing the title of kadi would be in office at the same time and what positions would be occupied by them.] 38. Ta§kendi-zade Seyyid Mustafa Efendi (d. 1068/1657-8) After promotion to a higher than 40-akge daily salary grade he was appointed to teach at the Yusuf Pa§a (Istanbul) and the Neccariye (?). Then he entered the judicial career and adjudicated in Konya, Bosna Saray and Sofia (Zilhicce 1067-Rebi I 1068/September-December 1657), where he died during his incumbency.1 39. Kurd Abdiilgani Efendi (d. 1089/1678-9), received miilàz.emet from §eyhtilislàm Yahya Efendi. When promoted to a higher than 40-akge grade, he was appointed to the medrese of Fazli Pa§a (Bursa). Then he entered the judicial career with positions in Sinob, Mara§, Sofia with pay e of Medina (Rebi I 1068-Rebi II 1069/ December 1657-December 1658), Erzurum, Ankara, Bosna Saray and again Sofia (Zilkade 1086-Zilkade 1087/January 1676-January 1677), where he retired. 2 Part of a tereke register preserved in Sofia, S 12, covering the terms of several kadis of Sofia, with estates from roughly October 1671-February 1678, was kept during his second incumbency. 40. Tavil Hasan Efendi (d. 1090/1679-80), received his mulàzemet from Nakibiile§raf Ankaravi Seyyid Mehmed Efendi. Having taught at medreses with the grade of 40 akge daily he entered the judicial career. After holding several appointments of lower level he was promoted to a mevleviyet in Lefko§a, Trablus-i §am, Tire, Trablus-i §am again, Konya, Diyarbakir, Sofia (Safer 1072-Receb 1073/September 1661-February 1663), Manisa, Filibe, Baghdad with pay e of Kuds-i §erif. 3 41. Bursavi Receb-zade §eyh Mehmed Efendi (d. 1078/1667-8), received his mulàzemet from §eyhiilislam Yahya Efendi. When promoted to the grade of haric he was appointed to the medrese of liasci Ibrahim ^Ufur, op. cit., p. 197. Ibidem, pp. 471-2. •'ibidem, pp. 476-7. 2

84

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

(Istanbul), the Tevki'i Cafer (jelcbi (Istanbul), received the grade of dahil in the same medrese, then the Canbaziye (Istanbul), the §ah Kulu (Istanbul), the ibrahim Pa§a-i cedid (Istanbul), and the Murad Pa§a-i cedid (Istanbul). Finally he received appointment as kadi of Sofia (Receb 1073-Receb 1074/Fcbruary 1663-January 1664), his only assignment as a Sheriat judge. 1 42. Be§eri Mehmed Efendi (d. 1089/1678-9) received his muldzemet from Gani-zade Efendi. Like most Ottoman jurists taught first with the grade of 40 akge, then was promoted to the grade of haric in the medrese of Menla Kestel (Istanbul), the Merdiimiye (Istanbul), the Abdiisselam (Kii§iik Q'ekmece), the Fatma Sultan (Istanbul), the Sinan (Fcthiye, Istanbul), where he was promoted to the grade of musile-i Sahn, the Sinan Pasa (Istanbul), the Sahn, the Kih$ Ali Pasa (Istanbul). His judicial career included posts in Bosna Saray, which he refused, Belgrade, Kayseri, and two terms in Sofia (Cemazi I 1077-Rebi I 1079/0ctober 1666-August 1668; §evval 1084-Ramazan 1085/January-November 1674). 2 Though not specifically indicated in the register, his second term coincides with some of the documents recorded in the above-mentioned tereke defter S 12. [An arz has been preserved from his first tenure in Sofia ("the kadi of Sofia Mehmed") for the appointment of an imam at the mosque of Abdi Hoca in Sofia. 3 ] 43. Tatar Abdullah Efendi (d. 1083/1672-3 at an age of over 90 years), a pupil of §eyhi-zade Mehmed Efendi. His own teaching career included after the grade of 40 akge teaching at the Hiiseyin Pa§a (?, Crete, in 1060/1650, that is, before the final conquest of the island!), the Emir Fakih (?, Umurca), the Canbaziye (Istanbul) where he received the grade of 60 akge, and then the Sahn, the Hafiz Pa§a (Istanbul), the §eyhiilislam Ahi-zade Hiiseyin Efendi (probably in Istanbul), the Koca Mustafa Pasa (Istanbul). Then moved into the judicial career as Sheriat judge of Bosna Saray, Sakiz two terms, Konya and at the end of his life, in Sofia (Rebi I 1079-Zilkade 1080/August 1668-April 1670). 4 44. Sofyali Ibrahim Efendi (d. 1081/1670-1, born and died in Sofia), received his muldzemet in Istanbul from Allame Efendi. First taught with 40 akge, and then was appointed as the first muderris to the newly opened

i b i d e m , p. 321. Ibidem, p. 462. 3 [NBKM, Or. Dept., F. 156A (Sofia), a.u. 275, of 1 Ramazan 1077/25 February 1667.] 4 Ibidem, pp. 384-5.

2

KADIS

OF

SOFIA

85

Ibrahim Kethiida 1 with the grade of liareket-i misliye. Then came appointments to the Kepenkci Sinan (Istanbul), the Ummiilveled (Istanbul), the Ni§ancj Pa§a-i atik (Istanbul), the Kara (Telebi-zade Mahmud Efendi. 2 His career as a judge included Sakiz, Belgrade and finally Sofia (Zilkade 1080§aban 1081/April-December 1670) where he died. 3 ibrahim Efendi was also author of poetry under the pseudonym of §iikri.4 45. Parsa Mehmed Efendi (d. 1091/1680), was introduced into the Mevlevi order in Gelibolu by the Mevlevi §eyh Aga-zade Mehmed Efendi, whom he succeded at his death as head of the tekke. Several years later he was forbidden to serve there and at the advice of §eyhiilislam Minkan-zade Efendi entered the teaching career first at the medrese of Dagi Mehmed Efendi (Gelibolu), afterwards at the Eminiye (Edirne), the Cami-i atik (Edirne), and then became kadi of Bosna Saray, of Sofia (Cemazi II/Receb 1082-§evval 1084/October/November 1671-January 1674), and Filibe with paye of Kuds-i §erif. 5 Parsa Mehmed Efendi was also author of poetry and translated literary works from Persian under the pseudonym of Sabir. 6 S 12, the abovementioned tereke defter, opens with his introduction to the post explicitly stating that he assumed office on 1 Cemazi II 1082/5.10.1671,7 thus solving the problem with the months indicated in §eyhi. The first ten folios of the register are stamped with his seal. [During his incumbency "the pride of the kadis, §eyh Mehmed Efendi" seems to have appeared in court also in the capacity of vekil in a transaction — sale of a house to cover a debt, 8 a fact that raises again the issue of who in that case would be presiding the court session. In another document §eyh Mehmed, el-kadi, appears as the leader of a commission despatched by the Sheriat court ("bu fakire") to the house of the deceased manumitted slave iftab bt. Abdullah on occasion of a property dispute between her own freed slave and stepdaughter (rebibe) Ay§e and the former master of Iftab, Musa Qavuj b. Mehmed Aga. At the end of the document we

The Ibrahim Kethiida in Istanbul was founded by a kethiida of Sultan Murad III, that is, towards the end of the 16th century. See Baltaci, op. cit., pp. 256-7, and Ozergin, M. K., "Eski bir Ruzname'ye gore Istanbul ve Rumeli Medreseleri", Tarih Enstitusu Dergisi, s. 4-5, Agustos 1973-4, No. 35, p. 276. This however, contradicts the explicitly stated fact that this was a newly opened medrese at the time Ibrahim Efendi taught there, in 1061/1651. ^Several medreses containing the name of Mahmud Efendi are listed in the ruzname of about 1660, but we cannot be certain as to its identification. See Ozergin, op. cit. 3 Ugur, op. cit., p. 358. 4 See Hammer, J. von, Geschichte des Osmanischen Dichtkunst, vol. 3, Pesth, 1836-8. pp. 484-5. 5 Ugur, op. cit., p. 487. ^See Hammer, op. cit., p. 523. 7 S 12, p. 1, doc. I. 8 [Ibidem, p. 28, doc. Ill, of Evail Muharrem 1083/29.04.-8.05.1672. |

86

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

find his seal. 1 However, we cannot always be certain whether this indeed was the kadi in question. There is evidence that roughly at that time there was also a §eyh Mehmed, el-naib bi medine-i Sofya,2 especially if we bear in mind that often naibs would also be titled "el-kadi" making it difficult to identify the titular judge. This is, for example, the case with an "Osman Efendi, elkadi T recorded among the §uhud ul-hal to a case, who is probably identical with Mevlana Osman Efendi, naib, who led a Sheriat court commission to the house of the deceased Fatma bt. Mehmed and recorded an agreement over the division of the inherited property between her husband and her daughter. 3 ] 46. Sivasi-zade Mehmed Emin, kadi in Sofia between Ramazan 1085/November 1674 and Zilkade 1086/January 1676, apparently also having contribution to the SI2. 47. Ataullah Efendi (d. 1096/1684-5), received his mulazemet from Hoca-zade Abdullah Efendi. He was also on close terms with §eyhiilislam Bali-zade Efendi. His teaching positions after the grade of 40 akge include the Papas-oglu, the Hamid Efendi, where he received the grade of hareket-i misliye, the Ba§§i Ibrahim, the Perviz Efendi, the §ah Kulu, the Ni§anci Pagai atik, and then judicial assignments to Bosna Saray, Sofia (Zilkade 1087Cemazi I 1089/January 1677-June 1678), Diyarbakir, Kayseri. 4 Part of the estates and other documents related to inheritances recorded in S 12 are from his tenure. 48. Solak-zade Halil Efendi (d. 1095/1683-4). After teaching with the grade of 40 akge he was appointed with the grade of haric at the Haci Hamza, then at the Bali Efendi, the Ibrahim Pa§a-i cedid, the §eyhiilislam Zekeriya Efendi, and the Sahn. Afterwards he entered the judicial career with appointments to Belgrade, Sofia (Cemazi I 1089-Ramazan 1090/June 1678October 1679), and Manisa, where he died. 5 Some documents from the sicilh shed light on this kadi's tenure in Sofia. A her at for the appointment of a new mutevelli of a vakif in Sofia had been issued following an art by Mevlana Halil. 6 Other notes reveal that the kadi obviously had not left the city after Ramazan 1090, and continued to fulfill his obligations several 1

[Ibidem, p. 63, doc. II, of 1 Muharrem 1084/18.04.1673.] [Ibidem, p. 67, doc. II, undated entry between documents dated respectively 15 and 27 §evval 1084/23.01. and 4.02.1674.] 3 [Ibidem, p. 123, doc. I, of 27 Zilhicce 1087/2.03.1674; p. 63, doc. I, of 26 Zilhicce 1083/14.04.1673.] 4 Ugur, op. cit., pp. 560-1. 5 Ibidem, pp. 547-8. 6 S 85, p. 147, doc. I, of 16 Receb 1090/23.08.1679. 2

KADIS

OF

SOFIA

87

months later. Thus, two hiiccets compiled by him were recorded in S 85. The documents relate to sales of houses between, if we judge by the witnesses to the cases recorded at the end, eminent members of the Muslim community of Sofia. The first dates from 18 Cemazi 11/27.07.1679, the second — from the second decade of Zilhicce 1090/13-22.01.1680. The latter is accompanied by a legalisation by the kadi bi medine-i Sofya, Halil b. Mehmed. The former is followed by a note saying that: "This hticcet was compiled at the time of Halil Efendi, [but] was not entered in the sicill. Since it is necessary, it is recorded in this sicillThis allows us to conclude that for some unknown reason, probably because of the delay of the next incumbent, Halil Efendi had stayed on in Sofia and performed his functions of a Sheriat judge at least till the end of 1090/January 1680. 49. The last kadi of Sofia whom we were able to identify with the help of our two main sources is Kaba Sakal Ahmed Efendi. According to §eyhi, if we judge by the end of the term of the previous kadi, Halil Efendi, he should have assumed office in Ramazan 1090/0ctober 1679. The sicills however, help us correct the data from the biographical dictionary. S 85 contains the introductory formula for the beginning of the term of Ahmed Efendi. The document is very damaged but we can still identify the month — Zilhicce of 109?, apparently, 1090, that is from end of January 1680. The document also gives the name of the mevli-i hilafeten of the kadi, a Mustafa b. ibrahim. 2 The end of his term most probably coincides roughly with the end of the sicill S 85, but since this is again a fragment, without an ending, and its parts have been bound together in modern times (including a much earlier fragment, from 1022-3/1613-4), we cannot be certain about it. The latest documents in it date from Cemazi II 1092/July 1681, and we may assume that Ahmed Efendi had still been in office at that time. 3 Several documents confirm our suggestion that S 85 had been compiled during Ahmed's tenure. [On 15 Safer 1092/6 March 1681 "the current kadi of Sofia Ahmed" sent an arz for the appointment of an imam.]4 On 9 Rebi II 1092/28.04.1681 the current kadi of Sofia, Ahmed b. Ibrahim, appointed the kadi of Berkovitsa as his naib for a judicial case to be held at the Sheriat court in Berkovitsa.5 Two berats — for the appointment of a scribe at Kapan Han, belonging to the vakijs of the late Hasan Pasa in Ak §ehir from 13 Muharrem 1091/14.02.1680, and for the appointment oi a halib at the Friday mosque of the late Vildan-zade in Sofia ^See Ibidem, p. 5, doc. I and II. Ibidem, p. 266, doc. 1. ^Unfortunately A. Ugur does not include Ahmed Efendi's biography in his publication. 4 [NBKM, Or. Dept., F. 156A, a.u. 276.] 5 S 85, p. 85, doc. I. 2

88

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

from 1 Cemazi II 1092/19.05.1681, were issued following an arz by the current kadi of Sofia, akdi kudat el-miislimin Mevlana Ahmed} This probably proves that Ahmed Efendi had stayed in Sofia at least till end of May 1681, maybe even later. Unfortunately the last available sicill dating from the 17th century, S 149, with documents from the first decade of Zilhicce 1094/21-30 November 1683 till 8 Muharrem 1096/15 December 1684, does not contain any formulae for the beginning or ending of the term of the incumbent kadi of Sofia, fit does, however, contain the names of several kadis but we cannot tell with certainty whether anyone of them had ever been or was at that time the titular kadi of Sofia — an umdet iil-kudat el-keram Yusuf Efendi; 2 an umdet iil-kudat el-keram Mehmed Efendi b. Ebu Bekir; 3 and an umdet iil-kudat elkeram Umrullah Efendi. 4 Normally a titular kadi would be indicated as such but sometimes as we have seen, this is not the case.] Further investigations into the biographical dictionaries and in the archives would probably allow us to go further in the reconstruction of the list of the kadis, of Sofia. The available information permits us to draw some conclusions about the term in office of the kadis, about their qualification, and the functioning of the judicial hierarchy in the Ottoman Empire in the 17th century. Taking into account the data about the terms in office of the kadis of Sofia in the 17th century we find that in about 70 years the kadis in the city have changed 61 times. However, the post was actually given to 49 persons. The reason is that some of the kadis were appointed to the Sofia kadihk more than once. A sort of champion among them, with six tenures, was Senear Miiiz/eddin Mehmed Efendi, who had spent more than seven years altogether

'ibidem, p. 148, doc. Ill, and p. 211, doe. II. 149, f. 17r, doc. Ill, as a vekil of an obviously distinguished Muslim woman in Sofia for the sale of a house; f. 24r, doc. Ill, at the manumission of a slave, among the ¡uhud Ul-hal, actually listed first preceding even one indicated as an ayan; f. 38v, doc. IV, when the zimmis of the village of Kurilo were paying back their debt to the vakif of the late Mehmed Pa§a.] 3 [Ibidem, f. 26v, doc. I, as an instrumental witness in a hticcet concerning the repairs of the Sofia water conduit, registered third after a §eyh of the ¡eyhs and the nakib; f. 36v, doc. I, instrumental witness at the manumission of a slave woman of the late Rumeli vali Hasan Pa§a.] ^[Ibidem, f. 40r, doc. II, instrumental witness at the manumission of a slave.]

KADIS

OF

SOFIA

89

in Sofia as kadi, maybe more. 1 Another one, Sahhaf §eyh-zade Abdiilbaki Efendi was four successive times appointed in Sofia. Abdulbaki Efendi spent there nearly four years altogether. Finally, several others — Mehmed Sadik alAnsari (a bit more than three years), Ziyaeddin Efendi Nivali-zade (about two years and a half), Baghdadi Ahmed Efendi (two years), Kurd Abdiilgani Efendi (two years), Be§eri Mehmed Efendi (two years and a half), and probably Osman Vildan-zade, held two tenures in Sofia. Only one scholar declined appointment in Sofia, apparently aiming at higher positions. The average length of term was about a year. The longest tenures, those of Tevfiki-zade and Ay§i Efendi, exceeded two years, being two years and three months and two years and a half respectively. The shortest tenures were as short as two to four months — of Urke Mustafa Efendi, two months, the second term of Nefes-zade, again two months, of Ta§kendi-zade, three months. However, when we scrutinise the details it turns out that these conclusions need some modification. Indeed, several kadis, whose biographies we know, died during their incumbencies in Sofia — Mehmed Sadik Efendi, Senear Miiizzeddin Efendi, Nefes-zade Mustafa Efendi, Kizikh Mehmed Efendi, Sahhaf §eyh-zade, Ta§kendi-zade, and Sofyali ibrahim Efendi, while others — Da'i-zade Kasim Efendi, Yakubca-zade, Kurd Abdiilgani Efendi and Begeri Mehmed Efendi, retired while in office in Sofia. With very few exceptions these tenures were among the short ones, less than a year long, and account to some extent for the rather short average term in office. Even then, however, the average term would be about a year and three months. Throughout the century there were longer and shorter tenures, and it is not possible to draw any conclusions about tendencies in this respect — neither in terms of shortening nor of lengthening the tenure period, despite the established opinion as to the standard term in office of holders of mevleviyets and kadiliks in the 17th-18th centuries, 2 and actually despite the official regulations promulgated in the 17th century. The three mollas who held the

A similar case, that of the kadi of Edirne Mehmed b. Bayezid, is quoted as an anomalous and indeed impossible situation by R. Repp. On the grounds of his signatures in a series of vakfiyes ranging from 1465 to 1493, interspersed with the signatures of others, no fewer than eight, kadis among them, Repp concludes that the kadi in question had been appointed to this particular kadihk at least six times (op. cit., pp. 16-7). Judging by the better known case of Sencari who received six appointments to Sofia in the course of 23 years it seems that though not often this was possible to happen in the Ottoman administrative practice. Veysi, one of the outstanding Ottoman writers, poets and scholars of the end of 16th and beginning of 17th centuries, was appointed to the kadihk of Uskiib (Skopje, Macedonia) seven times in 24 years. See on his biography: Veysi, Hab-name. Kniga snoviden'ia [A Book of Dreams], Transl. and ed. by F. A. Salimzianova, Moscow, 1977, pp. 3-51, pp. 5-6 in particular on his life story. ^Compare Inalcik, H., "The Ruznamfe Registers of the Kadiasker of Rumeli as Preserved in the Istanbul Muftiiluk Archives", Turcica, T. XX, 1988, pp. 262-4.

90

R U M E L I

U N D E R

THE

O T T O M A N S

post in Sofia after the Kanunname of Abdurrahman Tevki'i was issued in 1676-7, had stayed in Sofia for 18-19 months each.1 The kadis of Sofia originated from all parts of the Ottoman Empire. Judging by the information provided by §eyhi, they came from Baghdad, Tire and Jerusalem in the Arabic lands, from Crimea and Georgia, from Aydm, Bursa, Kastamonu, Aya§, Ayntab and Golbazari in Anatolia, from Edirne, Sofia and Gelibolu, and, naturally, from the capital Istanbul. A large number of those whose background is known, belonged to eminent ulema families or were related to ones by marriage or friendship, this probably being one of the factors for their successful careers within the ulema ranks. In fourteen cases the fathers', sometimes even the grandfathers', biographies as scholars were considered worth including in the biographical dictionary of Ata'i. The titles of other parents also indicate appurtenance to the ulema group, but to its lower ranks. We should not overlook also another large group, those who belonged to dervish families or themselves were leading members of dervish brotherhoods. Indeed, it is very difficult to draw a strict line of division between ulema and Sufi orders at that time. It is worth mentioning that at least three of the kadis bore the title of ,seyh. Unfortunately we know the affiliation of only one of them, of Parsa Mehmed Efendi, who was Mevlevi. In any case, here we find yet another proof of the growing interaction and mutual infiltration of Ottoman ulema and dervish brotherhoods.2 The majority of the kadis of Sofia whose biographies we know followed the traditional path for the Ottoman higher ulema at the time, going through the grades of the teaching profession, to positions with higher than 40-akge daily salary in medreses of high reputation. We know the teaching background of 39 of the kadis holding the office in Sofia in the 17th century. Of them, four seem not to have gone further than the 40-akge teaching appointment, which was considered a prerequisite for a mevleviyet grade. The

By the time of Abdurrahman Tevki'i the term for mollas was fixed at one year, while for ordinary kadis according to the Kanun, it was two years, but an addition to the main text says that: "In our time from two years they deduct four months." Gibb, H.A.R. and H. Bowen, Islamic Society and the West, vol. 1, pt. 2, London-New York-Toronto, 1963, p. 106. As we see from our sources, however, throughout the 17th century the length of term in office for kadis and mollas alike was rather varied, and often dependent on factors other than official regulations. ^See on this problem, about the Halvetiyye in particular Clayer, N., Mystiques, Etat et Société. Les Halvetis dans l'aire balkaniques de la fin du XVe siècle à nos jours, Leiden-New YorkKöln: E.J.Brill, 1994, pp. 98-104, 148, 153-62, 371. For North Bulgarian lands see Pärveva, S., "Predstaviteli na myusyulmanskata religiozna institutsiya v grada po bälgarskite zemi prez XVII vek" [Representatives of the Muslim religious institution in the town in Bulgarian lands during the 17th century]", in Myusyulmanskata kultura po b&lgarskite zemi [Muslim Culture in Bulgarian Lands], ed. by R. Gradeva and S. Ivanova, Sofia: IMIR, 1998, pp. 127-209, passim.

KADIS

OF

SOFIA

91

case of Sencari presents a striking example of this possibility. A former slave, having reached a grade of only 40 akge, he moved into the judicial hierarchy, initially receiving only lower grade kadiliks. However, in December 1642 he was promoted to the kadilik of Sofia. It is difficult to judge what this promotion was due to, but we may suspect the influence of his former master and stepfather in it. The same applies to Basmak^i-zade Mehmed Efendi, who entered the judicial career again after teaching posts with 40 akge. His first assignment, as in the case of Sencari, was to a lower-grade kadilik, the town of Pegevi in Rumeli, 1 followed immediately by an appointment to Filibe, which ranked high among the mevleviyets. On the other hand, Sahhaf §eyhzade benefited from the intervention of a woman from the Palace to receive a mevleviyet straight from a teaching position with 40-akge daily salary. Again, this may be attributed to his very influential relatives both by birth and by marriage. And finally, Ziyaeddin Efendi was granted appointment to the teaching post in the medrese of §ah Sultan by royal command. For all these cases we are unable to offer any other plausible explanation of their extraordinary, though not unique, careers. In this context one wonders why the rest, some of whom had even stronger connections, should move through the grades of the educational system to reach finally the same level as the kadis in question. As H. inalcik, has noted, a factor other than previous grade can always be valid in such cases. A muderris with 50 akge could be appointed to a kaza with only 100-akge daily payment, 2 and, as we see from our cases, muderris with 40 akge could rise rather high in the judicial hierarchy. Of course, there always exists the possibility that they had proved capable judges and deserved being appointed straight to a mevleviyet. Another possible explanation is that in the 17th century the grades in the judicial system were still not elaborated and strictly applied, leaving thus space for elevation from a lower grade kadilik to the mevleviyets and maybe kadis could gain a higher grade while already in the judicial career. The rest of the kadis as we see from their careers, had usually served as professors at medreses with a salary of 40 akge, then were promoted to a higher level, but very often we cannot judge which one of the elaborate system that was taking shape in the Ottoman education. We assume that in the medreses mentioned in the biographical dictionaries they had held a higher

In the 1667-68 re-organisation of the Rumeli kadiliks lower than mevleviyets, Pe9evi (or Pe?uy) though a sancak centre was classified in the Salise grade and was certainly not among the most prestigious appointments in the European provinces. See Özergin, M. K., "Rumeli Xadihklan'nda 1078 Diizenlemesi", in Ord. Prof. Ismail Hakki Uzunfar§ili'ya Armagan, Ankara: TTK, 1976, No. 81, p. 262, No. 91, p. 280. 2 Inalcik, op. cit., pp. 270-1.

92

RU M E L I

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

than 40-akge daily salary position. In only 15 of the 39 cases we are explicitly informed that the scholar had been appointed with the grade of haric or had attained it while already teaching at a medrese. For the rest we can only guess that this was the case as well. In only rare instances do we find information about their subsequent grades. Only once we learn that the scholar had received the grade of dahil (Bursavi Receb-zade §eyh Mehmed Efendi) and this while teaching at a medrese where he was initially appointed with the grade of haric (the Tevki'i Cafer Celchi). Other grades occasionally mentioned are — twice the achievement of the grade of hareket-i misliye,1 once hareket, and once, musile-i Sahn. In the latter case the scholar was soon afterwards appointed to the Sahn. Prior to their appointment in the judicial system the future kadis of Sofia had taught at various colleges, more than 90 altogether, situated mainly in the capital, but also in the old Ottoman capitals, Bursa and Edirne, occasionally in other places such as iznik, Balikesir, Gebze, Umurca, Gelibolu, and (,'orlu. Among the medreses where the careers of the kadis of Sofia more often crossed we should mention the Sahn, the Koca Mustafa Pa§a, the (.'orlih the §ah Kulu, the Ibrahim Pa§a-i atik, the Sinan Pa§a, and others. Fourteen of the kadis had previously taught at the Sahn and one had achieved the (honorary) grade of Sahn at another medrese. One of the kadis was actually thrice appointed to this complex of colleges having meanwhile declined appointments as a Sheriat judge in Gelibolu and Kiitahya. Another was appointed to the Sahn by tahille, that is by skipping one or more intervening grades. 2 For eight of them this was also their last teaching appointment before entering the judicial career. The Sahn was one of the stable elements of the grades of the educational system in the Ottoman Empire and had its fixed place among the rest of the medreses.3 Although the haric and dahil professors received the same salary as Sahn professors, it is clear that the Sahn was considered a class apart from, and above these two. All sources point to the fact that having taught at the Sahn added to the prestige of any scholar of the time. Gradually, as the sultans who succeeded Mehmed the Conqueror built their own medreses, the Sahn began to slip down to occupy

Since the number of miiderris awaiting promotion was always in excess of the medrese s available, it was not uncommon for an individual to be promoted to a higher rank within the same institution, the term for such a promotion being misli, or hareket-i misliye. Ugur, op. cit., p. xlvi; Zilfi, M., "The Ilmiye registers and the Ottoman medrese system prior to the Tanzimat", in Contributions à l'histoire économique et sociale de l'Empire ottoman, Collection turcica III, Louvain: Editions Peeters, 1983, p. 318. 2 See Ugur, op. cit., pp. xlvii-viii, n. 51. 3 For the grades in the Ottoman educational system prior to the Tanzimat, see Zilfi, op. cit., pp. 313-21; Ugur, op. cit., pp. xliv-1.

KADIS

OF

SOFIA

93

only the sixth of the twelve grades above the 40-akge level. However, as we see from the biographies of the Sofia kadis, the Sahn maintained its particular importance in the hierarchy as a level through which it was necessary to pass. 1 We may assume that in the medreses listed before the Sahn the scholars were usually going up the ladder though probably not a I ways following a strictly ascending line. Judging by the careers of the scholars, by the end of the 16th century teaching on at least two levels of medreses beyond the Sahn had already become customary, the top level being the Siileymaniye or other imperial institutions. 2 As we see from the biographies of the kadis of Sofia, six of those who had attained position in the Sahn continued teaching in one or more medreses before entering the judicial career. However, it is not always clear whether that meant going up the hierarchy, staying on the same level or even going down. Indeed, it seems that in different cases all these variants are valid. Thus, Edhem-zade Mustafa Efendi reached the Sahn and then refused two appointments — to Sofia as kadi and to the Dartilhadis in Edirne as a professor, finally receiving a post in the Siileymaniye which opened a new path before him, giving access to the far more prestigious kadihks of Medine, Bursa and Edirne. Two of the kadis of Sofia had previously served as professors at the Siileymaniye, the second highest grade in Ottoman educational system after the Dariilhadis-i Siileymaniye. In both cases the persons moved from the Sahn to the Siileymaniye through high-prestige medreses founded by sultans and members of the sultans' families. In neither case did this brilliant career help them attain higher mevleviyets, and their careers followed the same pattern as those of their colleagues who had taught in less prestigious colleges. It is not possible to offer explanation of this fact but it is clear that in the teaching careers as in the judicial ones we cannot speak of an established and strictly followed ascending line of promotion but rather of prevalent tendencies. It is not quite clear what grade the professors attained when they continued teaching after the Sahn, before going into the judicial career, whether it was up or down the hierarchy. Thus, after the Sahn Fenari-zade refused appointment to the Muradiye in Manisa, though this was a rather high-ranking medrese;3 Niksari-zade Abdiilhayy Efendi received

^Repp, op. cit., p. 32, n . l l . Ibidem, p. 44. C. Baltaci places it among the "above 60 akge" medreses. It was founded by Sultan Murad III in 1591-2, and from the point of view of its rank ranged among the highest level ones, op. cit., pp. 546-8. 2

94

RIJMELI

U N D E R

THE

O T T O M A N S

position in the Sultaniye in Bursa, also founded by a sultan, 1 before entering the judicial career; after the Sahn Ay§i Efendi taught at the Qorlu, 2 refused appointment to an unknown new medrese with 60 akge, and went to the Hankah 3 before receiving the judgeship of Manisa. After the Sahn, Dervi§ Efendi-zade §eyh Mehmed Efendi was appointed consecutively to the Kasim Pa§a,4 the Murad Pa§a-i cedid 5 and the (."orl u. On the other hand, Be§eri Mehmed Efendi's starting point into the judicial career was the Kih§ Ali Pa§a,6 where he was appointed after the Sahn. The same applies to Tatar Abdullah Efendi, who was appointed to the Hafiz Pa§a,7 the §eyhiilislam Ahi-zade Hiiseyn Efendi, 8 and the Koca Mustafa

^Founded by Sultan Mehmed (Jelebi at the beginning of the 15th century. According to C. Baltaci, op. ext., pp. 491-6, during the reign of Murad II the muderris there received 50 akge, and in 1600-1, already 60 akge. ^The Qorlu medrese is somewhat enigmatic. According to the ruzname of 1660 there were two medreses in Qorlu - the Ahmed Pa§a, which was currently occupied by a muderris with 50 akge, and the Sinan Beg, with 40 akge. See Ozergin, "Eski bir Ruzname'ye", Nos. 41, 42, p. 281. Baltaci also includes the medrese of Ahmed Pa§a, which according to his sources was of A0-akge rank around 1598-9, op. cit., pp. 152-3. In our opinion, however, this should be the medrese founded by Sultan Stileyman the Magnificent in f o r l u at the very beginning of his reign, 1521-2. Initially it was of the 40-akge grade, then rose to 50, at the end of the 16th century - received the grade of dahil, ibidem, pp. 426-7. The "£or!u Medrese" mentioned in the biographies of several muderris, Abdiilkadir Efendi (p. 395), Abdurrahman Efendi (p. 496), Mehmed b. Emrullah Efendi (p. 441), Muslihiddin Mustafa Niksari Efendi (p. 603), was no doubt the Sultan Siileyman Medrese, and thus we may conclude that in this case it is again a matter of a medrese founded by a sultan and thus enjoying high reputation and rank. 3 HankSh, or the "Kahriye, with another name Hankah, at the Bab-i Top", was among the medaris-i selatin, founded by Haseki Hurrem Sultan in 1555-6. According to Baltaci, throughout the 16th century it was of the 50-akge grade (op. cit., pp. 232-4). The ruzname of 1660 also places it in that category. Ozergin, "Eski bir Ruzname'ye", No. 113, p. 278. 4 Kasim Pa§a, or Emir Sultan, in Bursa, was founded by Cezeri Kasim Pa§a, a former Rumeli defterdar and fourth vezir, before his death in 1543-4. According to Baltaci, initially it was of 20 akge, then gradually rose to 30, 40, and at the end of the 16th century entered the grade of the 50- akge with haric status, op. cit., pp. 274-7. 5 There is only one Medrese-i Murad Pa§a in the ruzname of 1660, with 40 akge, but it is not clear which one of the Medrese-i Murad Pa§a-i atik or cedid is meant in the case. See Ozergin, "Eski bir Ruzname'ye", No. 57, p. 276. The founder of this medrese was Has Murad Paga, a vezir of the time of Sultan Mehmed II. It was established in 1472-3. According to the vakfiye 20 akge, prior to 1535-6 - 30 akge, 1574-5 - 40 akge, 1577-8 - 50 akge, and 1652-3 - 60 akge. Baltaci, op. cit., pp. 317-9. According to Ugur, op. cit., p. xlviii, both medreses held the grade of musile-i Sahn. M. Zilfi also puts them among those with the honorary title of musile-i Sahn in the 17th century, op. cit., p. 316, n. 11. 6 I t s founder was one of the kapudans of Selim II and Murad III. It was established around 1587-8. From the very beginning it held the grade of 50 akge. In 1652-3 it was granted the status of musile-i Sahn. Baltaci, op. cit., pp. 279-81. ^This medrese is not included in Baltaci's catalogue, but exists in the ruzname of 1660, and we may assume that it was founded in the 17th centuiy. According to the source of 1660, it was in Istanbul and had the grade of 50 akge. Ozergin, "Eski bir Ruzname'ye", No. 4, p. 275. 8 T h e §eyhulislam Ahi-zade Hiiseyn Efendi was founded prior to the death of the ¡¡eyhiilisldm in 1634. See Altunsu, A., Osmanli §eyhulislamlari, Ankara, 1972, pp. 64-66. Unfortunately not much could be found about this medrese. Obviously, judging by the ¡eyhiilislam's biography it was in Istanbul. According to the ruzname of 1660, the medrese-i Ahi-zade, if at all identical with the medrese of the jeyhttlislam, was giving only 25 akge to the holder of the teaching post in it. Ozergin, "Eski bir Ruzname'ye", No. 19, p. 275.

KADIS

OF

SOFIA

95

Pasa. 1 Thus, while in some cases the professors apparently moved upwards, to better paid and/or more prestigious imperial colleges, in very many cases the positions following the Sahn indicate rather a descending career, at least in terms of prestige, though maybe not in terms of salary. It is even more difficult to speak of the careers of those who did not attain positions in any of the three stable grades of the educational system, the Sahn, the Suleymaniye and the Dariilhadis-i Siileymaniye, not to say of their starting point in the judicial system because of the complex relationship between their own grade and the prestige of the tnedrese where they taught. In some of the cases there is enough ground to consider the influence of external factors in the promotion to the mevleviyet. The careers of Tevfikizade, who had teaching experience of only about a year altogether in two medreses with higher than 40-akge grade (the Cezezri Kasim Pa§a and the Hayder Pa§a), 2 of Kurd Abdiilgani who taught only about two years at the Fazli Pa§a (Bursa), 3 of Da'i-zade who taught about five-six years at the Ahmed Pa§a (Istanbul), 4 could hardly be sufficient to reach a degree higher than haric or dahil at best. It is not difficult to attribute their careers among the high judicial ranks to the intervention of external factors. On the other hand, it was possible for a scholar to reach a high teaching degree within just one institution as is probably the case with Yakubcazade who spent nearly 15 years teaching at the Yildirim Han (Balikesir). 5 The rest seem to have followed the normal, or maybe more correct, the traditional path of an Ottoman scholar and judge. Here we shall only list the medreses from which the kadis of Sofia went into the judicial profession. These were, apart from the above-mentioned, the Orhaniye (tznik), 6 The Koca Mustafa Paga in Istanbul was founded by the Grand Vezir Koca Mustafa Pa§a about 1489-90. Throughout its existence in the 16th century it was of the 50-akge grade. According to Baltaci, in 1652-3 it was giving 50 akge along with the musile-i Suleymaniye grade, op. cit., pp. 281-4. Ugur, however, places it among the musile-i Sahn medreses, op. cit., p. xlvii-viii. Its founder Hadim Haydar Pa§a was a vezir of Suleyman. The medrese was established in 1566-7. Throughout the period in question it was of 50-akge daily salary, and in 1652-3 received the grade of ibtida-i dahil. Baltaci, op. cit., pp. 240-2. According to the ruzname of 1660 it ranked among the medaris-i. selatin, again with 50 akge. Ozergin, "Eski bir Ruzname'ye", No. 110, p. 278. 3 The Fazli or Fazlullah Pa§a was founded by one of the vezirs of Murad II. Unfortunately we have no information concerning its grade through the centuries. Baltaci, op. cit., pp. 565-6. ^Founded by the beylerbey of Cczayir Ahmed Paga. Its first miiderris was appointed in 1571-2 with 20 akge, but in 1595-6 it was already with 50 akge (Baltaci, op. cit., p. 154); in the ruzname of 1660 - with 30 akge (Ozergin, "Eski bir Ruzname'ye", No. 78, p. 277). ^Founded by Sultan Bayezid I. Towards the end of the 15th century -with 20 akge, in 1600-1 50 akge, Baltaci, op. cit., pp. 462-3. ^Founded by Sultan Orhan Gazi a year after the capture of the city. Initially, according to the vakfiye it gave 30 akge, in the 16th century already 50 akge. This medrese was of particular importance for the Ottoman educational system. Baltaci, op. cit., pp. 326-30.

96

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

the Efdal-zade (Istanbul), 1 the Ì)g §erefeli (Edirne), 2 the Niganci Pa§a-i atik (Istanbul), 3 the Gazi Hudavendigàr (Bursa), 4 the Muradiye (Bursa), 5 the Molla Yegan (Bursa), 6 the Ali Pasa-i cedid (Istanbul), 7 the Neccariye, 8 the Kara Qelebi-zade Mahmud Efendi, 9 the Cami-i atik (Edirne), 10 the Murad Pasa-i cedid and the Murad Pasa-i atik (Istanbul), the Sinan Pa§a (Istanbul), 11 and the Siyavu§ Pa§a Sultani. 12 The picture that emerges is again rather varied to allow us to speak of an "ideal" career. In many cases the future kadis seem to have reached a post that to a large extent did correspond to the grade of the Sahn, or maybe went even a bit further, as was the case with the medreses established by sultans and members of their families. By the mid-17th century these medreses usually not only provided 60-akge daily salary, but also enjoyed very high prestige among the rest of the educational institutions. However, an equally bounded by §eyhiilislam Efdal-zade Hamiduddin Efendi. See about him Altunsu, op. cil., p. 13. The medrese was in all probability established in 1502-3, initially - with 40 akge, in 1557-8 - 30 akge, then 50 akge, in 1652-3, dahil. Baltaci, op. cit., pp. 438-41. In 1660 it again gave 40 akge to the muderris who held a teaching position in it. Ozergin, "Eski bir Ruzname'ye", No. 26, p. 275. The Ug §erefeli actually consisted of two medreses. The first was built by Sultan Murad II in 1447-8, while the second, by Sultan Mehmed II, about 1481-2. Initially it was among the most highly paid positions with 100 akge, but after the construction of the second, by order of Mehmed II the salary was divided in two equal parts between the two professors. In 1652-3 it ranked among the 60-akge salaried. Baltaci, op. cit., pp. 450-8. •'its founder is unknown, and only later it has been named Mehmed Pa§a. In 1569-70 - 20 akge, in 1597-8 - 40 akge, in 1652-3 with the grade of dahil. Baltaci, op. cit., p. 118. In 1660 - 40 akge. Ozergin, "Eski bir Ruzname'ye", No. 11, p. 276. ^Founded by Sultan Murad I in 1365-6. In 1518 - 30 akge, 1552-3 - 40 akge, 1568-9 - 50 akge, 1597-8 - 50 akce with the grade of dahil, in 1652-3 - 60 akge. Baltaci, op. cit., pp. 249-53. ^Founded by Murad II, prior to 1446-7. According to its vakfiye - 20 dirhemen as well as the whole output of the village of Salihler, later - with 50 akge. Sometime before 1494-5 through till 1652-3 - 60 akge. Baltaci, op. cit., pp. 505-13. ^Founded by Kara Eyne Bey, one of the Ottoman statesmen of the time of Sultan Bayezid U, but bore the name of one of its muderris who built a mescid in the courtyard of the college. Later in his career Molla Yegan became mufti of Istanbul. Repp, op. cit., pp. 98-104. The salary of the muderris rose gradually from 20 akge prior to 1557-8, through 30 akge, in 1558-9, 40 akge, in 1559-60, to 50 akge prior to 1581. Baltaci, op. cit., pp. 315-7. ^Founded by one of the Grand Vezirs of Sultan Suleyman, Semiz Ali Paja, about 1558-9. From the very beginning it was of the 50-akge grade. Baltaci, op. cit., pp. 460-2. In 1660 it ranked among the medaris-i selatin, with 50 akge. Ozergin, "Eski bir Ruzname'ye", No. 109, p. 278. %or the time being we have been unable to identify this college. ^There are several medreses containing the name Mahmud Efendi, but neither of them can be identified with certainty with the Kara £elebi-zade Mahmud Efendi. 10 Founded by Musa felebi, the son of Sultan Bayezid I, but probably finished at the time of Mehmed (Jelebi and Murad II. Prior to 1533-4 - 30 akge, in 1580-1 - 50 akge. Baltaci, op. cit., pp. 191-3. Founded by Koca Sinan Pa§a, Grand Vezir during the reign of Suleyman, Selim II and Murad III. Built in 1582-6. From its establishment - 50 akge, in 1652-3, granted the grade of dahil. Baltaci, op. cit., pp. 284-6. According to Ugur, op. cit., p. xlviii, in the mid-17th century it had the grade of musile-i Sahn. Founded by the Grand Vezir from the time of Suleyman, Kanije Siyavuf Pa§a, built in 1590-1. Generally of the 50-akge grade. See Baltaci, op. cit., pp. 419-21; Ozergin, "Eski bir Ruzname'ye", No. 3, p. 275.

KADIS

OF

SOFIA

97

large group of kadis began their judicial careers from medreses with rather fluctuating status. Though they mostly belonged to the 50-akge grade, at least in certain periods, maybe depending on the grade of the professor holding the position, they could pay a salary of less than that, 40 and even 30 akge} In any case in terms of rank they apparently occasionally changed their status. It should also be borne in mind that it seems that the akge-grading was to some extent provisional because very often despite the officially acknowledged status of the medrese it would give a different, sometimes much higher, salary to the miiderris. A very important factor in this respect must have been the rank attained by the scholar appointed to the position. 2 Whatever their previous appointments, however, once they stepped on the path of the judicial career it corresponded to the contemporary trends in the evolution of the high judicial hierarchy. Throughout the period till early 18th century the Ottoman ulema hierarchy was undergoing constant re-organisation and re-structuring, and the status of the kadilik of Sofia made no exception in this. While according to i. H. U/,uncarsili as early as the 15th century Sofia, along with Filibe and Selanik, was a mevleviyet,3 R. Repp has convincingly argued that this was not the case, at least not so early, unfortunately without providing evidence for Filibe and Sofia. 4 On the following pages we shall try to trace out the status of the kadilik of Sofia through the centuries prior to the 17th century. The information about it is rather scanty and scattered in various sources, very often indirectly alluding to this issue. There is no doubt that ever since Sofia became the centre of the Rumeli beylerbeylik sometime in the middle of the 15th century, after the Long Campaign of 1443-4, the Sofia judgeship also enjoyed high prestige. Sofia for instance was the starting point in the career of the future Grand Vezir Piri Mehmed Paga (d. 1532), who served there as a Sheriat judge and then in Silivri, Siruz (Serrai, Greece, in 1498-9) and Galata. 5

Compare for example the Efdal-zade which according to the data gathered by Baltaci had the grade of dahil in 1652-3, while the ruzname of 1660 records the salary of the professor at 40 akge. ^Repp mentions for example the cases of Sinaneddin Yusuf (d. 1538-9), whose career of a professor and Sheriat judge ended in the Sahn with 70 akge a day, (op. cit., p. 50) or Hocazade, appointed in 1481 to the Sultan Medrese in Bursa with 100 akge a day (op. cit., p. 71). \ j z u n f a r g t h , 1. H., Osmanli Devletinin ilmiye Tegkilati, Ankara, 1964, p. 96. ^Repp, op. cit., p. 45. -'Piri Mehmed Pa§a (7-1532) originated from an outstanding ulema family which settled in Amasya from Aksaray. He received his education in a local medrese, then worked as a scribe and chief scribe in the Sheriat court in the city. At the ascension of Bayezid II Piri Mshmad, together with other ulema from Amasya, went to Istanbul. His first appointment by the new sultan was to the judgeship in Sofia. Islam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 9, pp. 559-61; Siireyya, op. cit., vol. IV, p. 1335.

98

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

Unfortunately, only a few names and even fewer biographies of 16thcentury kadis of Sofia are accessible to us, shedding light also on the pattern of the contemporary judges' careers. Among the interesting personalities we should mention Siibhi Efendi, known also as Hekim-zade, 1 and Kadi Seyfi (Seyfullah, Seyfuddin). 2 The biographies of two other kadis, are a bit more revealing as to our purpose here — of Abdi Efendi and Hiisrev Efendi. Abdi Efendi (d. 1553) was apparently of an eminent family, a poet and writer, and if we judge by his works, an adherent to the Mevlevi order. He was the brother of Molla Abdurrahman Efendi, Rumeli kadiasker in 1551-1557,3 and a sonin-law of Piri Mehmed 1'asa. Abdi Efendi's other name, Miieyyed-zade Qelebi takes us to another influential ulema family from Amasya, that of the Rumeli kadiasker of the early 16th century, Miieyyed-zade Abdurrahman b. Ali (d. 1516) 4 and his brother §eyh Abdurrahim Mueyyedi (d. 1537-8), known as Haci (,'elcbi,5 but for the time being, apart from the name and the common place of origin, we are unable to find further arguments in favour of their possible blood relationship. Being a good scribe of talik and connoisseur of Persian literature, Abdi earned himself the sultan's favour. He was first appointed as kadi with 50-akge daily salary. Soon he was promoted further, but Piri Pa§a could not appoint him as a defterdar or nisanci as he wished since he himsef fell out of favour. After that Abdi received positions as a judge in Siruz, Uskiib and Sofia where he died while in office. 6 Hiisrev Efendi (d. 1559-60) was grandson of Kirmasti Efendi, another high judicial authority of the time of Bayezid II. Hiisrev Efendi first taught at his grandfather's medrese with 20 akge and then entered the judicial path as kadi of Selanik,

^Hekim-zade, son of Vezir Sinan, was also author of poetry. He died in 1548 while in office in Sofia. Hammer, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 255. 2 W e know few details of Kadi Seyfuddin's biography. He was born in Sinob, and died while serving as judge in Sofia. Also mentioned as author of poetry. Probably in the first half of the 1560s he founded a vakif in Sofia. See more on it below. 3 Abdurrahman b. Seydi Ali (d. 1574-5), bora in Amasya, had a long carecr of a professor and Sheriat judge. As a professor he taught at the Bayezid Pa§a (Bursa), the Cemaleddin (Ankara), the Yildirim Bayezid (Ala§ehir), the Suleyman Pa§a (Iznik), the Abdusselam (Kii§uk f ekmece), the Halebiye (Edirne), the Haseki Sultan (Istanbul), the Sahn, the Bayezid II (Edirne), the Eyyub Sultan (Istanbul), serving as kadi 'of Aleppo, Bursa and Mecca before his second appointment to the Sahn whence he moved to the position of Kadiasker of Rumeli and later kadi of Egypt. He was among those high ulema who were invited to give their opinion on the sentence to be given to §ehzade Bayezid. See Baltaci, op. cit., p. 483; Repp, op. cit., p. 285, n. 258. ^Molla Abdurrahman b. Ali b. al-Mueyycd al-Amasi had been advisor to §ehzade Bayezid (Suitan Bayezid II). Upon the latter's ascension to the throne the molla went to Istanbul where he was appointed as professor at the Kalenderhane (Istanbul), then the Sahn, and then entered the judicial career as kadi of Edirne, kadiasker of Anadolu, and of Rumeli (1505-11, 1513-4). Repp, op. cit., pp. 228-9; Baltaci, op. cit., pp. 382-3. -'One of the members of the Miieyyed-zade family, the son of Haci Qelebi, Abdiilkadir §eyhi Efendi (d. 1593-4) rose to the position of Rumeli kadiasker (1571-3) and ¡¡eyhulislam (1587-9). Baltaci, op. cit., pp. 170-1; Altunsu, op. cit., pp. 41-2. ^Hammer, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 268.

K A D I S

OF

S O F I A

99

Filibe, Yeni§ehir, Sofia, Uskiib and finally of Galata, in 1552-3. 1 Some fragmentary evidence about an unnamed kadi of Sofia reveals a similar pattern of career. According to the vita of the Christian neo-martyr, the beginning of the trial of St Nikolay in Sofia in the spring of 1555 was taking place in the absence of a kadi, the previous being called back to the capital while the next one had not yet arrived from his previous post in Skopje. 2 This rather scanty data comes in support of R. Repp's thesis that, apart from those of Istanbul, Edirne and Bursa, there existed before mid-16th century a grade of kadihks, which were mevleviyets in a wider, honorary sense. 3 It seems possible to speak of Balkan cities whose kadis prior to the 1560s15'70s belonged to this or to a similar grade in terms of hierarchy — Uskiib, Selanik, Filibe, Yeni§ehir, Siruz, Sofia. This group, which can probably be extended to cover other Balkan towns as well, was maybe geographically limited to Rumeli only. These kadiliks were probably the highest grade among the provincial judgeships but one did not ascend from them to the posts in Istanbul, Bursa and Edirne and to the kadiaskerlik. In the period between the opening of the Sahn and the middle of the 16th century it seems that only teaching at the Sahn and a few imperial medreses served as a direct step to the highest judicial offices in the Empire. 4 Towards the middle of the 16th century other cities from the newly conquered Arabic lands were elevated to the grade of mevleviyet sensu stricto. Another wave of places with much lower prestige dates from the last decades of the same century. 5 We should probably regard Sofia as part of the latter group as it is clear that some change in its status as a kadilik had occurred at about that time. Biographies of judges who lived and worked at the turn of the 17th century reveal that the above-mentioned group of Balkan cities had fallen into two relatively distinct groups, though occasionally trans-group movements did take place. Selanik as early as 1575, but also Sofia, Filibe and Yeni§ehir, were already mevleviyets, while Uskiib and Siruz had remained among the ordinary kadiliks, though in the highest-ranking group. The biographies of two eminent Ottoman scholars who never seem to have reached 1 Bai taci, op. cit., pp. 103-4. "Mächenie na Nikola Novi Sofiyski ot Matey Gramatik" (The Torture of Nikolay the New of Sofia, by Matthew the Grammarian], in Stara bälgarska literatura [Old Bulgarian Literature], vol. 4, Zhitiepisni tvorbi [Vitae Works], ed. K. Ivanova, Sofia: Bälgarski pisatel, 1986, p. 345. See also Gradeva, op. cit., pp. 46-7. Repp, op. cit., p. 45. 4 S e e for example the careers of the above-mentioned Miieyyed-zade, n. 152, and Abdurrahman b. Seydi Ali, n. 151. % e e in more detail Repp, op. cit., pp. 45-8. 2

100

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

mollaship — Nevi-zade Ataullah Efendi, or Ata'i, and Uveys b. Mehmed, or Veysi, are good examples of this transformation. Ata'i (d. 1635) entered the judicial career having attained the grade of haric at the Canbaziye (Istanbul) and served as a kadi in Rumeli all his life — in Lofja (Lovech, Bulgaria), Babaeski (European Turkey), Varna, Rusguk (Ruse, Bulgaria), Silistra, Hezargrad (Razgrad, Bulgaria), Tirnova (Tarnovo, Bulgaria) with Sahra, Tirhala (Trikala, Greece), Mizistre (Mistra, Greece), again Tirhala and Uskiib.1 Veysi (d. 1628) had more diverse appointments — beginning in Egypt, then in Anatolia, he finally came to and stayed in Rumeli for the rest of his life. His first position was as kadi of Siruz, then kadi of the sultan's army, was offered Sakiz but declined it. His next appointments were Rus§uk, Uskiib, Sakiz, again Uskiib, Tirhala, Agriboz (Eubea, Greece), four times successively Uskiib, Gumiilcine and again Uskiib where he died.2 Apart from Sakiz,3 which is present in the careers of most of the kadis of Sofia in the 17th century, and probably Giimulcine, all other kadiliks actually belong to the two highest groups among the ordinary kadiliks. This should in all probability be regarded as a sign of the fluctuating status of Sakiz at the beginning of the century rather than of instability of the system that was taking shape at the time. From the beginning of the 17th century kadis could enter the mevleviyets from the ordinary kadiliks only by a special favour of the sultan or other important connections.4 At present we cannot tell when exactly and why Sofia became a mevleviyet. The explanation of Ko§u Bey in his Risale of 1640, however, seems plausible: "Whatever great provinces (eyaletler) there are in the divinely-protected [i.e. Ottoman] dominions, such as Egypt, Aleppo, Diyarbakir, Damascus, Erzurum, Selanik, Budin (Buda, Hungary), Sofia, ^Ugur, op. cit., p. 1. Veysi, op. cit., pp. 5-6. •^Compare for example the careers of Mehmed Sadik, Ziyaeddin Efendi, Tevfiki-zade and others, whose careers coincide in time with those of Ata'i and Veysi. 4 According to the above-mentioned ruzname of 1667-8 both Uskiib and Siruz were among the Menasib-i Sitte-i Aliye, the former with 300 akge and the latter with 499 akge. Ozergin, "Rumeli iTaiAliklari'nda", p. 259, 271, 292. Another undated, but certainly of the 17th century, list of the kadiliks in Rumeli also indicates that the kadis of these two cities were among the best paid and high-ranking in the European provinces. Both lists do not contain mevleviyets such as Sofia, Selanik or Filibe. See NBKM, Or. Dept., Or 435, the ending three folios include this alphabetical list. The main body of the manuscript contains Arabic grammar works. Uskiib and Siruz are on f. Ir, and Hr respectively. The pagination of these folios is done in modern times. These two sources from the 17th century and the recorded daily income of the kadis also support Repp's thesis that the ¡zipe-grading had a rather symbolic meaning and significance and was far from reflecting the actual daily salary of the kadis {op. cit., p. 36, 48 n. 66). Judging by some scathing remarks of Evliya f elebi about the kadi of Silistra, for example, these salaries were not the only income of the kadis. Gadzhanov, D., "Patuvaneto na Evliya Chelebi iz balgarskite zemi prez sr. na XVII v." [The Journey of Evliya (Jelebi through Bulgarian lands in the mid-17th century], Periodichesko Spisanie na BKD, vol. 70, 1909, p. 661. 2

K A D I S

OF

S O F I A

101

Bursa, Edlrne, Istanbul — [the kadis of] all such as these are 500-akfe Mollas."1 Apart from the administrative motivation, Sofia as the administrative centre of Rumeli, was probably also regarded as a lucrative assignment by the high judiciary. It is not clear whether this promotion also meant a territorial enlargement of the kadilik, as was the case with Selanik. 2 It seems certain that the kadi of Sofia did not combine his functions with those of mufti in the city. 3 Judging by the available biographies, as early as the first decade of the 17th century, and probably even earlier, the kadilik of Sofia was permanently integrated into the mevleviyet grade of the judicial hierarchy. The judicial path of the kadis of Sofia went normally through Sakiz (14 of those whose biographies we know), Manisa (12), Bosna Saray (11), Belgrade (9), Filibe (7), Kayseri and Konya (6), but also in Ktitahya, Diyarbakir, Izmir, Baghdad, Tire, Bursa, Ankara, Trablus-i §am, Mara§, Lefkoga, Ebu Eyyub Ansari, Medina, Erzurum, Kuds-i §erif, Yenigehir, Uskiidar, and Selanik, of the centres listed by §eyhi as mevleviyets,4 Thus the level corresponding to the kadis of Sofia would roughly comprise the mevleviyets of Diyarbakir, Kayseri, Manisa, ranking just above Sofia, Belgrade, Bosna Saray and Sakiz, occasionally even lower ranking mevleviyets. Baghdad, Filibe and Izmir were probably the highest position a kadi of Sofia could hope for and normally obtain. Occasionally kadis of Sofia received appointment to Kuds-i §erif, Medina or Bursa, but these seem to have been an exception rather than the rule. In the 17th century a kadi of Sofia, despite his connections could not go further, Edirne and Mecca being beyond his horizon, though one was appointed in Sofia with "the paye of Mecca". The careers of two of the kadis emerge as exemplary of the 17thcentury realities in the judicial stream of the ulerna. Fenari-zade's career is probably an example of what it should have been. He seems to have gone through all the grades to the Sahn, though this is not explicitly indicated in the source, the Sahn included, then refused appointment to a higher-level medrese, and entered the judicial path, where his career was again following a strictly ascending line, beginning in Sofia, with the next steps in Medina and Bursa. Of course, as was usually the case with most of his colleagues, he ^Quoted from Repp, op. cit., p. 35. ^Ibidem, p. 45. -î •'The position of mufti of Sofia could serve as a starting point in the judicial career of a scholar as is the case with the mufti of Sofia Ebussuud Efendi. In 1670 he was appointed kadi of Lefkoga, and then of Trablus-i §am. Ugur, op. cit., pp. 44-5. ^Ugur, op. cit., p. lix.

102

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

belonged by birth to the high ulema and had received mulazemet from Hoca Seadeddin Efendi. Strangely enough, the other one, of Tevfiki-zade, had also begun with a mulazemet from §eyhiilislam Hoca Seadeddin Efendi, and is also exemplary only this time of the possibilities for nepotism and favouritism. With just one year of teaching experience in a medrese with 50-akge daily payment, he began his career from Baghdad, ranking rather high among the mevleviyets, as were most of his subsequent positions. With occasional ups and downs he was also despatched to Medina, Kuds-i §erif, his last position being in tzmir. Only three other kadis of Sofia reached Bursa or Kuds-i §erif, that is mevleviyets, which later in the century would form part of the socalled Paye Menasibi.1 The rest, whatever their teaching background was, stayed within the ranks of the lower grade mevleviyets. In this group belong for example the only two who had taught in the Siileymaniye before entering the judicial career. Their appointments, however, included only Sofia, Manisa, Trablus-i §am, Sakiz and Ankara. Several places of appointment confront us with the issue of the list of mevleviyets during the 17th century before its fixing at the beginning of the 18th century. There are some like Sinob, Birgi, Balikesir or Gelibolu, which are not mentioned by §eyhi as mevleviyets, but figure among those enumerated by U/ungar§ili. According to the Kanunname of 1676 all four belonged to the lower sub-group of the mevleviyets.2 It is not clear why §eyhi has ommitted them, Gelibolu in particular, since it was quite often a step in mollas' careers and not always their first one. Whether it was a matter of unstable status is difficult to say. Even stranger is the case with another group of places of assignment such as Gence, Gtimulcine and Vize, which have never figured among the mevleviyets, at least not in the accessible sources. Maybe in our particular case Gence served as a temporary mevleviyet formed by the combination of the offices of the kadi and the mtifti. However, we were unable to find any explanation about the other two places, all the more so that they do not figure among the ordinary kadihks either.3 The rather short term in office in a given place during the 17th century in particular seems to have contributed to the relative alienness of the kadi to the place where he served. Few kadis of the 17th century integrated into the ^Uzungargih, op. cit., pp. 98-9. Ibidem, p. 99. ^Compare Ózergin, "Rumeli Ifadihklan'nda"; Or 435, f. I-III. 2

KADIS

OF

SOFIA

103

local society in Sofia to an extent to feel the need to establish a pious foundation there. This is not surprising if we take into account the fact that even Sencari who was six times appointed in Sofia had actually stayed there for about seven years altogether. Even when a kadi would receive successive terms in Sofia, they would be interrupted by other kadis' appointment. Besides, normally the mollas should wait for their next destination in the capital. Few exceptions are known. Indeed, it was only the activities of Osman Vildan-zade that reveal a closer link to the local society. He is the only kadi we know of who participated in the social and economic life in Sofia, buying agricultural property, possessing a shop, maybe more, at the market, and engaging in money lending to Muslims and Christians from the kaza. He is also the only one who attended sessions of the Sheriat court after his term in office had elapsed. Probably he was either a local person himself, or his family had chosen to settle in Sofia, as it was his relative Ahmed that founded a mosque in the town. The rest of those whose biographies we know seem not to have been involved in any such transactions or pious deeds. However, probably the reason should be sought not just in the shortness of the term in office. Unlike many other Balkan cities of less administrative importance Sofia was never endowed with imperial charitable institutions. The main donors there were grand vezirs, beylerbeys and other military commanders. 1 In this context, the contribution of kadis to the Islamisation of the urban space in Sofia was also rather significant. We should immediately point out that it was kadis of Sofia in the 16th century rather than those of the 17th century who established any notable institutions in the city. Among them, we should mention in the first place the vakif of Seyfi Efendi, consisting of a mosque, still standing in the centre of Sofia, fa mekteb, a han and a kervansaray of 41 rooms, established in the 1560s. The Baneba§i or Molla mosque by which he was buried in a tiirbe was a work of the school of Mimar

^See Ivanova, op. cit., p. 734; Kiel, op. cit., pp. 116-8.

104

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

Sinan. It was constructed in 974/1566-67. Several other kadis and Sheriat court officers also emerge as major donors. Among them we should mention Benli (or Beyli) Kadi, founder of a medrese.2 The name of §iica Fakih or Kadi §iica, another vakif founder, became a stable element of the town's topography. 3 [In an undated defter from the reign of Sultan Siileyman (1520-1566) Kätib §üca Bey appears as a founder of a mekteb in Sofia, while Kätib Mustafa b. Kätib §üca — as the founder of another mekteb,4 In a later defter of around 1595 we find only one mekteb as part of the vakif of Kätib Mustafa b. Kätib §iica. It possessed 19 rooms der tasarruf i Yahudiyan, with ten dükkans in front of them, four dükkans near the bedestan, five dükkans in Samokov, and about ten more dükkans, as well as mills. The rent and revenues went for the allowance of a muallim, a halife, an imam, a muezzin and a mütevelli.5 Bilecikli Alaeddin Kadi also founded a vakif in Sofia which supported a medrese, a mekteb, a müderris, a muallim, a halife, provided books, as well as the salaries of an imam at the mescid of Rüstern Bey, a kayyim and a muezzin. It drew its income from the rent from bakkal, butchers', saddlers', tanners', l[See Ayverdi, op. cit., Nos 2306, 2342, 2364, 2377, 2401. In a tapu tahrir defter from the time of Sultan Siileyman the Magnificent (1520-1566) we find the mosque (called also Kadi Camii, Molla Efendi or Seyfullah Efendi Camii) and a primary school (mekteb) of Mevlana Seyfullah Efendi in Sofia, along with the daily wages of a teacher (muallim), an assistant ( h a l i f e ) and a servant {kayyim). BBOA, TTD 409, p. 606. Quoted from Sabev, O., Osmanski uchilishta po balgarskite zemi, XV-XVIII v. [Ottoman Schools in Bulgarian Lands, 15th-18th centuries], Sofia: Lubomadrie-Chronia, 2001, p. 229. See also S Ibis, p. 7, doc. I, of 1617, where the mekteb built by Seyfullah Efendi is mentioned as located at the Bancba§i suk. One document (mazbata) of 1264/1848 reveals that several people had donated cash vakifs to support financially a muderris appointed to lecture at the mosque of Mevlana Seyfullah Efendi in Sofia, hence this was not a separate college but a dersiye course at the mosque. Quoted from Sabev, up. cit., p. 229. In the 18th century, more probably in its second half in an extension added to the Banebafi Camii was founded an independent library which housed the book collections existing in the town by that time - that is, the collection donated by the muftis Mustafa Efendi, Mehmed Efendi and Ebu Bekir Efendi, as well as those from the library of Sofu Mehmed Pasa. Sabev, O., "Osmanski obshtestveni biblioteki v Sofiya (Novi arhivni svedeniya ot XVIII-XIX vek)" [Ottoman public libraries in Sofia (New archival sources from the 18th-19th centuries], lstorichesko bddeshte, 2002, No. 1-2, p. 198. See also, Ivanova, S., "Sofia", EI 2, vol. 9, pp. 731-4; Kiel, M., "Urban Development in Bulgaria in the Turkish Period: the place of Turkish Architecture in the process", International Journal of Turkish Studies, vol. 4, No. 2, 1989; Hammer, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 440; G&labov-Duda, op. cit., No. 599, pp. 158-9, from 1611. It is not clear if this vakif is identical with that of Seyf Efendi. Ibidem, Nos 191, 192, p. 52, Nos 208, 209, p. 52, all from 1550. If that is the case, Kadi Seyfullah would also be one of the kadis, who settled in Sofia probably as a result of their assignment to the city.] ^Galabov-Duda, op. cit., No. 505, p. 127, undated but included among documents from 1610, concerning the appointment of a Mevlana Omer Efendi as muderris with 20-akfe daily salary in the said medrese in Sofia. Unfortunately no other information about the medrese itself, its date of construction, or its founder could be discovered. 3 See Ivanova, op. cit., p. 734. The name of this mahalle is mentioned in the sicills throughout the century. ^[Quoted from S&bev, Osmanski uchilishta, p. 224, 225 respectively. 5 Gen?, N., XVI. Yuzyil Sofya Mufassal Tahrir Defteri'nde Sofya Kazasi, Eski§ehir, 1988, p. 678. See also Ayverdi, op. cit., No 2339.

KADI S

OF

S O F I A

105

blacksmithies, farriers', cotton carders', carpenter dukkans, as well as from four houses, a soap workshop, a hammam at the mahalle of Rustem Bey, and a kervansaray} One sicill document mentions a Meraceki (?) Kadi, as founder of a vakif which possessed plots where butchers' shops at the Igeri £ar§i were located. 2 A Mevlana Abdulkadir b. Ahmed founded a mekteb and supported a muallim and a halife? | And, finally, we should not forget the foundation of a kadi Abdurrahman b. Abdiilaziz, a descendant of Mevlana Ali Ku§ n the role of §ukud iil-hal in the judicial practice of the Sheriat court in the Balkans, cf. R. Gradeva "Za pravnite kompetentsii na kadiyskiya sSd prez XVII vek" [On the judicial competences of the kadi court in the 17th century], Istoricheski pregled, 1993, No. 2, pp. 117-8. 5 S 1 bis, p. 35, doc. II.

J E W S A N D O T T O M A N A U T H O R I T Y IN THE B A L K A N S

281

under certain conditions, Jews were allowed by their religious authorities to address the courts of the ruling religion despite their 'corruptness and injustice'. Payment of taxes was also recorded in the Sheriat court which issued special tezkeres on those occasions. The criminal cases were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the state legal authorities. The Sheriat court would usually be approached to establish the facts, to name the criminal offenders, eventually to free f r o m or to charge a given territorial unit (a village or a mahalle in town) with the payment of blood money ( d i y y e t ) . Jewish responsa, too, very often dealt with cases arising f r o m homicide. The Jewish judicial authorities usually tried to collect evidence with a view to establishing the fact of the death of an itinerant Jew and the circumstances in which he met his death. The ultimate purpose of such enquiries would be to subsequently clarify the family status of the widow and the inheritance issues. Unlike the situation in other parts of the Ottoman Empire, including also in the Balkans, 1 the kadi skills, from Sofia, f r o m the 16th-17th centuries contain only one document settling a problem f r o m the sphere of the family law concerning Jews, but it is between a Muslim man, probably a Jewish convert, and a Jewish woman. 2 Only in one case a young Jew received the estate of his missing father in the Sheriat court. 3 We find no cases related to marriage, divorce, guardianship of orphans, divisions of estates, wills, donations or other family and personal law cases, between Jews only in the Sofia kadi sicills of the 17th century. Obviously most such cases and disputes, as well as many others related to property transactions, partnerships, employment, within the community were decided before the rabbi court, as indeed witness its documents that have survived till present day. There were, of course, breaches of the prescriptions of the rabbis when litigation between Jews was brought before the kadis, but in the case of Sofian Jews they were very rare, and concerned mainly issues between Jews belonging to different cemaats. On the other hand, the cases show a very good understanding of the mechanisms of power and of the Ottoman judicial system. This knowledge and their financial power secured them support from 1 Cf. Veinstein, op. cit., p. 787. ^Unfortunately, the document is badly damaged but we understand that the divorce was initiated by Miriam bt Saul against her former husband Mustafa b. Abdullah, and on the grounds of bad cohabitation and lack of understanding. As in other cases of hul', the wife offered an agreement — instead of the ltOO gurus (!) for the mehr-i mueccel, nafaka and iddet she agreed to 100 esedi guruj and garments (esvab) at the price of 50 guru}. S 149, f. 29v, doc. II. 3 See n. 5 p. 279 below.

282

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

high levels of the Ottoman state hierarchy but also that of the lower level Ottoman state functionaries, especially when they needed to neutralise their rivals in trade. This behaviour is in line with the policy of the Jewish rabbis and of the communities as entities. Interestingly, several decisions of Jewish communities concerning relations between their members and the Ottoman authorities have reached us. Among them are the communities in Sofia and Vidin, but also in Kastoria (modern North Greece), Pleven and elsewhere condemning any collaboration with the state authority to the detriment of the community or any of its members. Thus, all Jews of age in Sofia, from the three synagogues, had decided that anyone among them who would report or betray their internal affairs to the authority should be subject to excommunication. 1 A decision of the Vidin community from before the Ottoman conquest (1377), was later confirmed and remained obviously in force also under the Ottomans. It explicitly prohibited litigation concerning marital problems in front of the 'non-Jewish courts'. Only if the agreement of the Jewish judges was secured could Jews turn to these courts. Otherwise those who breached the agreement were to face ostracism and anathema. 2 The document where we find various aspects of the relations between Jews and Ottoman authority in the most developed form belongs to the community of the Kastoria Jews. It envisaged that anyone who turned to the Sheriat court for any reason instead of going to the Jewish one was to be accursed and excommunicated, and subject to very heavy punishment even if he or she repented. 3 All these decisions, though speaking of existing tensions and breaches, probably had an important role in shaping the behaviour of the members of the communities to the Ottoman institutions, and the Sheriat court in particular.

Conclusion Jews played an important part in the economy of Balkan towns in the 17th century. Despite the fact that in their majority they were newcomers to the Balkans, to Sofia, Vidin and later Rusguk in particular, they quickly managed to find their niche in Ottoman cities. They managed gradually to oust and to a great extent replace the Ragusans, but in their turn suffered blows 1

Evreyski Izvori, vol. 1, doc. 174, p. 414 (included in tre responsa of Moarshah, d. 1602). lbid., doc. 172, p. 410 (in the responsa of Moarsah). 3 Ibid„ vol. 2, doc. 122, p. 331 (Aharon Haim Akoen (1648-1698).

2

J E W S A N D O T T O M A N A U T H O R I T Y IN THE B A L K A N S

283

from the expanding Armenian trading community. Yet, Jews retained their role both in trade and in crafts, especially in the production of guha. Some of the members of the Jewish community in Sofia were among the most affluent and powerful citizens in Sofia. They usually enjoyed the support of local as well as of high levels of central authority. Not only were Jews very successful in business matters, they also succeeded to take root in Sofia and Vidin, as well as, later, in Rus§uk. In Sofia they even replaced its old Christian population in the central part of the old city. They acquired a considerable part of the housing, usually renting plots from vakijs both for living places and dukkans, and established their own network of living places, places of worship, schools, within those already existing of Muslims, Orthodox Christians and Ragusans. Their representatives were not only among the powerful citizens because of their personal wealth, they also were, though rarely, appointed to important positions, representing and guarding the interests of the Public Treasury. To a great extent the success of the Jewish community may be attributed to its very tight internal organisation, to its centuries-old experience in dealing with alien powers during the exile. Jewish communities were complex entities where the constituent components were groups with different place of origin (towns, regions or countries), which usually meant also common language and even dialect, common customs and features of law, and probably closer informal relations. The inner divisions in the Jewish communities were known to and recognised by Ottoman authorities and foreign travellers, who usually registered and recorded the linguistic differences. The subgroups — cemaat, or kahal, retained their own structure, with their own synagogues and schools, lay and religious leaders, who formed the leadership of the whole community. Where the interests of the whole entity (kehillah! taife) were concerned — mainly in the relations with the Ottoman authorities, but also in arranging common problems within the community which most broadly would be related to religion, Jews in the town were represented by the leaders of the cemaats. The leaders of the whole community would communicate with the Ottoman authorities mainly about fiscal (the collection of taxes and related problems) and communal matters, including those of the faith. Both lay and religious leaders were particularly concerned with the relations between the individuals of the community and the authorities, the kadi court in the first place. Responsa literature abounds in decisions

284

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

proclaiming the legal decisions of 'non-Jewish' courts invalid where Jews were concerned. Jews were warned against taking their private and even civil law disputes to the Sheriat court, but at the same time the religious authorities recognised the power of the Sheriat as the law of the state where they lived. Members of the community were advised against collaborating with the Ottomans and revealing details of the life of the Jewish community. They had to take all their cases to their own courts, of which at least two — an Ashkenazi and a Sepharadic, in Sofia, and three — an Ashkenazi, a Romaniot and a Sephardic, in Vidin, functioned during the 16th and 17th centuries. Such an attitude to the kadi court was in line with a special decision issued first by Shemuel de Medina and, shortly later, supported by a common rabbi ordinance backed by an anathema for all those who turned to the Sheriat court or would serve as witnesses for any disputes arising among Jews there. 1 However, as the few documents concerning relations and disputes between Jews only and responsa prove, this was not a universal attitude and they did not hesitate to address the kadis whenever they deemed this necessary. Neither the lay, nor the spiritual leaders of Jews seem to have received the berat authorising the Christian prelates, to implement canon law in certain judicial cases and in fact acknowledging their leadership within the community. While the latter appointments came from above, through the Patriarchate, the Grand Vizier and with the sanction of the ruler, Jewish leaders in provincial cities, and Sofia in particular, were registered in the kadi sicills in the same way as the leaders of professional organisations. We must admit, however, that the policy of the Jewish leaders, at least in the case of Jews in Sofia and probably Vidin, shows remarkable success. Their behaviour vis-à-vis the Ottoman judicial court is at variance with the practices of Orthodox Christians in Sofia, Vidin or Rusçuk who came to the Sheriat court relatively frequently to declare their marriage, more often their divorce, but mostly to settle legal problems arising from these events. 2 It also differs from the practices among Christians, who would comparatively more willingly participate in the court procedures — as witnesses, suhud iil-hal, experts, especially when another Christian was involved. Our only explanation for the fact is that probably Jews in Sofia did indeed follow the rabbis' instructions and whenever that was possible, avoided the Sheriat court.

^Todorov, N., "Uvod" [Introduction], in Evreyski Izvori, vol. 1, p. 10, n. 1. C f . on that problem R. Gradeva, "Orthodox Christians in the Kadi Court: the Practice of the Sofia Sheriat Court, Seventeenth Century", in Islamic Law and Society, vol. 4:1,1997, pp. 37-69.

2

J E W S AND O T T O M A N A U T H O R I T Y IN THE B A L K A N S

285

Why Jewish leaders were relatively more successful than their Christian counterparts can be a subject of speculation. First, it should be pointed out that the decisions condemning any collaboration with the authorities and recourse to the 'non-Jewish' institutions were made by the entire communities and this confronted any transgressor with the danger of being ostracised which in a pre-modern community had really heavy implications and often would lead to conversion. Besides, the Jewish leaders showed certain flexibility, allowing in certain cases the pre-emption of the state law, unlike the Christian clergy who insisted that their flock turn to the ecclesiastical courts for any disputes that could arise among them. It is probably also important that Jews had centuries-old experience in surviving in an alien and hostile milieu. Finally, no doubt, it is important that Jews in the Balkans were relatively small urban communities which made the task of their leaders easier than that of the Christian religious functionaries. W e may find important similarities in this respect in the behaviour of Jews and Armenians. As for the relations with the central authority, the Jewish community may be considered of the same order as that of the Orthodox Christians, as a kind of necessary, useful and looked-for ' e x t e n s i o n ' in-built within the corporate structure of the Ottoman Empire, though sanctioned in a different way — in situ, in the kadi court, for each of the local communities. It played an important role in preserving and supporting Jewish faith and education, and in fencing its members from the other communities. Staying away in matters of personal law, Jews often were very successful in achieving their goals with Ottoman authorities at a provincial and central level where their private or communal business interests were concerned. This does not mean that they were immune to the vicissitudes of life in the Ottoman Empire. Like the Orthodox Christians, they also suffered f r o m illegal actions of Ottoman officials, of Muslim or Christian fanatics, or foreign rivals in trade — as individuals and as an entity, but they showed a much better understanding of the mechanisms of power in the empire, often reacted more appropriately and usually were more effective in achieving their goals.

APOSTASY IN RUMELI IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY

The Ottoman Empire is often cited as a classical example of a polyethnic society where religious and ethnic communities enjoyed a considerable degree of autonomy and diverse groups lived together with a minimum of bloodshed. The functioning of this society and the role of different mechanisms in maintaining this balance are the subject of a number of studies, many of which represent the two basic opposing views on the question of Muslim tolerance and non-tolerance. One of them depicts Islam and Muslims as fanatic, not tolerant, oppressive, while the other describes something of a Golden Age in which Muslims, Jews and Christians lived in perfect harmony and equality. The first group, where a large part of older Balkan historiography belongs, stresses on violence and pressure exerted by the Ottoman authority and Muslims in general, on the non-Muslim subjects, Christians in particular. The second avoids any of the controversial issues, and even when they are touched upon, this is to show the good will of the conqucrors, permitting a large number of non-Muslims to enter the political elite and the military ranks of the empire through Islamisation and the devoir me in particular. It is my deep belief that none of these extremes presents a valid picture of the Ottoman rule throughout the centuries from the 14th to the beginning of the 20th century and in all parts of the empire. Each group of the nonMuslim Ottoman subjects had its own policy of survival; each had a specific position and role in the Ottoman polity. The literati of each drew a different picture of the rule, most often serving their own policy of introducing solid barriers between their flock and the "other", especially the Muslims and Islam, to neutralise the temptations of Islamisation. 1 Some of the most impressive cases of confrontation in the relations between Muslims and Christians have been described in the vitae of the neomartyrs, a genre which flourished under Ottoman rule and was widely used in

See in more detail on the policy of the Orthodox Christian Church as regards the Ottoman rule, Islam and Muslims in: Gradeva, R., 'Turks and Bulgarians, Fourteenth to Eighteenth Centuries", Journal of Mediterranean Studies, vol. 5 (1995), No. 2, pp. 173-87, and the studies cited there.

288

RUMELI

UNDER

THE

OTTOMANS

the defence of the Church against the temptations of mixing with the ruling faith. Jewish leaders adopted a more pragmatic policy of adjustment to the realities, though similar examples of violence were used for moralising purposes, again to fence in their co-religionists. Three of the Bulgarian neo-martyrs lived and perished in Sofia in the first half and around the middle of the 16th century — St Gueorgui Novi (George the New) of Sofia (d. 1515), St Gueorgui Noveyshi (George the Newest) of Sofia (d. between 1515 and 1555), and St Nikolay Novi (Nicholas the New) of Sofia (d. 1555).1 Their life and deeds, known only by their vitae and the sermons devoted to them written by contemporary local clerics, 2 are widely used in descriptions of the atmosphere prevailing in the Ottoman Balkans in the relations between conquerors and local population. A considerable number of documents kept in the Oriental Department at the National Library in Sofia relate to Christians' and Jews' conversion to Islam, usually containing their motives to do so as well as respective orders for the assignment of the clothes and other donations in cash and in kind due to the new converts. 3 However, no documents originating from the Ottoman authorities have been discovered so far, related to the personalities of the neomartyrs and the events around their martyrdom, neither about similar cases from the Balkan territories of the Ottoman Empire. Recently, while working on a fragment of a Sheriat court sicill from Sofia, dating from 1550, I came across a document, the finale of a long judicial case related to the (forcible) conversion to Islam of a young Jew in Samokov, a small town southeast of Sofia, and the consequences from his subsequent apostasy.4 The document is even more interesting for the parallels l"Machenie na Gueorgui Novi Sofiyski ot Pop Peyo" [The Torture of George the New of Sofia by Priest Peyo] and "M&chenie na Nikola Novi Sofiyski ot Matey Gramatik" [The Torture of Nikolay Novi of Sofia by Matthew the Grammarian], in Stara balgarska literatura [Old Bulgarian Literature], vol. 4, Zhitiepisni tvorbi [Vitae Works], Kl. Ivanova (comp. and ed.), Sofia, 1986, pp. 291-308, 308-76 respectively. See also Levkiyski Episkop Parteniy (ed.), Zhitiya na balgarski svettsi, v novobalgarski prevod [Vitae of Bulgarian Saints (translated in New Bulgarian)], vols. 1-2, Sofia: Sinodalno izdatelstvo, 1974-79. 2 See on some specifics in the spread of their cult in Kiel, M., Art and Society of Bulgaria in the Turkish Period. A Sketch of the Economic, Juridical and Artistic Precondition of Bulgarian PostByzantine Art and Its Place in the Development of the Art of the Christian Balkans, 1360/1370 1700. A New Interpretation. Van Gorcum/ Assen, Maastricht, The Netherlands, 1985, pp. 31322; Todorova, O., Pravoslavnata tsdrkva i bdlgarite XV-XVIII vek [The Orthodox Christian Church and Bulgarians, 15th - 18th centuries], Sofia, Akademichno izdatelstvo "Marin Drinov", 1997, pp. 229-32, 269-70. 3 Osmanski izvori za islyamizatsionnite protsesi na Balkanite (XVI-XIX v.) [Ottoman Sources on the Islamisation Processes in the Balkans (16th - 19th centuries)], M. Kalitsin, A. Velkov, E. Radushev (eds), Sofia, 1990, part II, pp. 98-240. 4 Sts. Cyril and Methodius National Library in Sofia, Oriental Department (hereafter NLCM, Or. Dept.), S 344, f. 7b, doc. I - f. 8a (See fac-simile p. 337).

A P O S T A S Y

IN

R U M E L I

289

it allows to draw with vitae of the Christian neo-martyrs of the time. Here I shall try, with the help of this document, to throw light on the course of similar cases in the Sheriat courts in the Ottoman Balkans. The text, translated in extenso, together with contemporary vitae of neo-martyrs will serve an analysis in several directions. In the first place, by the identification of the characters, I shall put the cases in their historical context. They allow me to discuss details of the Ottoman judicial system. The Ottoman document allows also further analysis of the Jewish community in Sofia and in the empire, of its relations with the central authority, while the vitae provide material for the description of the realities and wished image of the Orthodox Christian community. Both contain excellent material for the study of the application of the Islamic theory of apostasy. In view of this latter goal the document will be compared, where possible, with the vitae of the abovementioned neo-martyrs, who perished at almost the same time in Sofia. All events will be discussed against the backdrop of the religious atmosphere in Sofia and in the Balkan provinces of the Ottoman Empire in the 16th century during the reign of Sultan Siileyman the Magnificent, called also the Lawgiver (1520-1566). My analysis will be based primarily on the information contained in the document, compared and complemented with the above-mentioned vitae of the neo-martyrs from Sofia as well as other sources of the time — Ottoman registers, 1 other kadi records from Sofia. 2 /