Women in the Ottoman Balkans: Gender, Culture and History
Page 31
Even then, the Church had difficulty imposing its regulation of marital relations
and especially enforcing the barriers to marriage, and was forced to make
compromises (the principle of economy), explicitly citing the motive “so that
they do not go to the kadı.”53 Some documents lead us to conclude that, by and
large, Christians resorted to marrying and divorcing before the Shari‘a court when
seeking guarantees that the terms of the marriage or divorce would be enforced.
Apparently—out of a desire to seek a double guarantee—some Christians went
simultaneously to both the Church authorities and the kadı court. Thus, in 1741,
in the town of Manastır, Karanf il and Iankula were married by a priest, and a
month later they appeared before the kadı to register their marriage. In 1636, a
Christian woman stated before the kadı court in the town of Manastır that “before
the date of the present record, my husband left me in accordance with our rituals
and I am divorced from him.” This claim was confirmed by the testimony of two
Muslims: “In truth, the aforementioned husband divorced her in our presence
according to their rituals.”54
Similar documents reveal how, at least starting in the second half of the
seventeenth century (if we strictly follow the emergence of sources evidencing that
process), the courts of the kadı and the bishop collided in the field of matrimonial
institutions. The court of the bishop should have had certain means at its disposal
to enforce its decisions, but, as the records in the sicil s suggest, the kadı court
continued to be in demand among Christians when dealing with their matrimonial
problems.
It is not possible to state this with certainty, but it appears that the number of
Christians from Rumeli who turned to the kadı court for the settlement of their
marriage and family issues decreased during the eighteenth century. It is equally
difficult to accurately determine the reason for this phenomenon—whether it was
because they had no further need to do so, or because they increasingly turned
to the Orthodox institutions that were de jure entitled to solve their marriage
problems. For now, I tend to favor the second explanation. With the consolidation
of the institutions of the Orthodox Church in Bulgarian lands starting toward
the middle of the eighteenth century and continuing during the nineteenth, it is
probable that the opportunities of Christian women to have recourse to its judicial
166
Women in the ottoman Balkans
services in dealing with their matrimonial matters increased. Coincidentally or
not, it was precisely around the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the
nineteenth centuries that ferman s confirming the jurisdiction of bishops over the
matrimonial matters of Christians started to be issued with greater regularity.
The codexes [ kondika s] of bishops reveal an abundance of divorce cases in the
nineteenth century.56 It appears that episcopal bodies had begun to function more
systematically during the eighteenth century, and the jurisdiction of the Church
over marriages and divorces was reestablished, perhaps accompanied by a
clearer institutional division between the treatment of the matrimonial matters
of Muslim and Christian women.57 It is against this background that some of the
above mentioned conflicts may be interpreted. The bishops had been unhappy
with ongoing infringements on powers that had been guaranteed them for several
centuries. By the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth
centuries, the Church appears to have gained the opportunity to assume the full-
fledged exercise of these powers in the lands that now constitute Bulgaria. Thus,
the Church confronted Shari‘a institutions that had, until then, been de facto
performing, at least in part, the Church’s functions in the field of matrimonial
relations.
Against that background, Icho’s recourse to the kadı court over his daughter’s
matrimonial problem should not be considered an exception. However, it is more
difficult to guess exactly why he did so. At the time, beside the kadı court in Sofia,
there was also a bishop—in this particular case, the Metropolitan Anastasii.58 It
can only be supposed that because Istoiana and Mitre had had conjugal relations,
and a wedding ritual had been administered—quite possibly by an authorized
clergyman—the Church would not have accepted so easily the argument that there
was no legal marriage, and therefore would not have readily granted a formal
divorce. Rather, the Church would have made efforts to stabilize the marriage that
was opposed by the father and perhaps by Istoiana herself.
Neither bishops, nor kadı s could however enforce criminal sanctions
(imprisonment, corporal and capital punishments); in cases—marital or
otherwise—when they did impose such sanctions, they had to refer them for
execution to the secular Ottoman authorities.59 Indeed, cases involving the
matrimonial problems of both Christians and Muslims do figure among those
brought to the attention of the central government.60
Ottoman laws provided for certain situations in which the Shari‘a court,
along with local security authorities, could interfere in matrimonial and sexual
relations between Christians (as well as between Muslims); this applied to cases
of adultery.61 Special accidental fees and penalties were imposed upon adulterers
and included in the total list of accidental fees and penalties ( bad-ı hava) so often
recorded in Ottoman taxation registers. While it was shared equally between
timariot and sancak beyi, this penalty had to be imposed by a Shari‘a court. Thus,
Derviş Ağa, the zâbit of the village Taban in the region of Rousse, appeared before
the kadı court and declared that one year earlier Sabo had committed adultery, and
three months later she had had an abortion. This was confirmed by the priests
ivanova, marital ProBlems of Christian Women
167
Georgy and Nikola, dwellers in the same village; at least the court considered their
statement that “this whole business cannot have happened without a reason” to be
substantiation of the charges. The proceedings were recorded in the sicil and Sabo
was handed over to the zâbit, most probably for him to carry out the sentence and
collect the fine. In another case, the voivoda el-Hac Ebubekir—probably relying
on his authority and because he hoped to collect the fine for adultery—claimed
that Pauna, former wife of Dimo, had wedded the candle-maker Vasil without first
being divorced and rejected by Dimo and against the Shari‘a. When interrogated,
Dimo, son of Parashkev, from the village of Dizdar in the region of the town of
Provadia, confirmed that he had in fact left her. A further example: In the court
of Sofia, in 1617, a cash bail [ kefalet] was registered for Milka, dauther of Yove,
from the village of Lozene-i Zir. She had been accused of adultery. In accordance
with the rules of the Shari‘a, she had been detained for the purpose of investigating
her situation, but because of difficulties in proving the allegations against her, her
brother Stoyu, son of Yove, now paid her bail. This was recorded in
the sicil at the
request of the zâbit of the village, Hüseyin Bey.62
Both Ottoman and Church documents recorded the involvement of
representatives of the town or village communities in the matrimonial issues of
their members; apart from being summoned as witnesses, they could initiate a
particular procedure or be involved in the enforcement of a decision. This was the
lowest institutional level concerned with the regulation of matrimonial problems
in a social environment actively involved in all the stages of matrimonial relations.
Witnesses, neighbors, relatives, elders, and dignitaries—they were all exponents
of traditions and local customs. Their participation in all matrimonial events was
in many cases sufficient to legitimize them.63
Matrimony
In 1638, Visha, from the village of Tzurno Buka in the region of Manastır,
complained that she had been married by force. Her husband and a priest had
entered the room where she was sleeping and had hastily recited a prayer. On
the following day, before the Shari‘a judge, the marriage was nullified.64 What
stands out in this case is its similarity to the case in which Mitre had tried to marry
Istoiana. It is known that in the past in Bulgarian traditional society, a public
wedding—the customary rite, often without a church ritual—had been sufficient
to legitimize a marriage. Yet, some hints in the sources suggest that during the
period of Ottoman rule, religious marriage—the nuptials, a sacrament officiated
by a priest—gradually came to be regarded as essential, if not sufficient, for
legal matrimony. In both the instances just cited, no mention is made of a public
wedding, and the recitation of a prayer by a priest was considered sufficient for a
valid marriage. It is important to note that Orthodox priests were involved in both
cases of disputed marriage. In fact, the priests were the officials recognized by both
the Church and the Ottoman state, and they were empowered to administer legal
marriages of Orthodox subjects. Perhaps this is what had led the two unsuccessful
bridegrooms to hope that the Church nuptial sacrament performed by a priest,
168
Women in the ottoman Balkans
together, of course, with sexual intercourse, would have sufficed to put the brides
and their families before a matrimonial fait accompli, even if there had been no
wedding witnessed by the public. We can only speculate that both the Church and
the Christian community would have been reluctant to accept the easy dissolution
of wedlock created in this manner,65 and thus the court of the kadı appeared as the
simplest alternative means of obtaining a divorce.
Nuptials66 fell within parish priests’ jurisdiction, and their authorization to
officiate was included in the bishops’ berat s. In his memoirs—one of the first
examples of this genre in modern Bulgarian literature—Sofronii, bishop of
Vratsa, describes his adventures at the end of the eighteenth century as a village
priest, and relates how Ahmed Giray Sultan, the Crimean Tatar Khan, had wanted
to take by force a Bulgarian girl as his second wife. Sofronii, however, prevented
him from doing so by hastily wedding the girl to another man. The marriage was
a fact and was lawful, and Giray Khan could only direct his anger at the priest.67
Some of the quoted Ottoman berat s confirm that the Orthodox bishops issued
a vula (bull), i.e. a canonical permission to enter a marriage, and that technically
the priest could exercise his discretion on that matter. The issuance of a bull was
within the competence of metropolitan bishops. Parish priests, however, living
closest to their parishioners—like the mahalle imamı—were those who could
actually provide information as to whether the issuance of a bull was permissible
in a particular case. The ferman issued on the occasion of the appointment of
the metropolitan of Sofia stated that only the metropolitan was authorized to
appoint an intermediary for the conclusion of an engagement (betrothal) or
divorce. Some berats and “Church” ferman s contain concrete provisions aimed
against the practice of circumventing the competent parish priests: “Whenever
somebody from the reaya goes to another place with the intention to marry
against the rules, the marriage shall not be allowed.” This ferman, addressed to
the Varna metropolitan, exhibits clear dissatisfaction with lay people who did not
get a vula from the Church and got married before imam s in the mahalles. There
are also recorded cases in which the sanctions provided for by the canons and
the berat s were imposed on priests who had officiated at marriages in violation
of the canon. The 1802 berat of Paisii—metropolitan of Varna, Yeni Pazar (the
town of Novi Pazar), Kozluca (the village of Oreshnik in the district of Razgrad),
Pazarcık (the town of Targovizhte), and Mangalia (in Romenia)—is very clear:
the reaya conclude marriages and divorces [ akd-i nikâh ve fesh-i nikâh] with
the mediation of the metropolitan and his proxies [ vekil] who, when necessary,
give blessings or anathema ( aforos) in accordance with their customs in their
churches. But some do not comply with their old false customs. When they wish
to get married or divorced [ talâk] from their legal wives, they request permission
from the metropolitan. If he does not marry them because that would contravene
custom, they refer to the imam s of the Muslim mahalle s who, prompted by greed,
conclude the marriage.68
However, domestic sources from as late as the third quarter of the nineteenth
century do not provide evidence of the systematic registration of marriages. It is
ivanova, marital ProBlems of Christian Women
169
indicative that a pismovnik (epistolary reference book) from the eighteenth century
contains a sample form entitled “How a paper of marriage should be written.” It
is a model blank form in which the father of a newlywed bride declares that he
gives “to the one wanting her … my daughter as wife,” blesses his daughter,
and wishes her to have children (“to give birth in peace”). Further, it describes
the assets that the father grants his daughter under the condition “to have these
assets at their disposal jointly with her husband. To be their possession.” The
newlyweds were to have full disposal of the assets granted to them, and no one
was to interfere—“neither me, nor her mother, nor her brothers.” The names of
the witnesses were to be recorded.69 In practice, the Church would have certified,
by such a document, the conclusion of a nuptial contract—or, more precisely, of
a prenuptial agreement. Perhaps Mitre had kidnapped Istoiana in order to evade
the pre-wedding oral agreement—and most importantly, its financial aspects.
Perhaps this was a case of “stealing of a lass” or “elopement of a lass” as a form
of customary marriage.70
But for Mitre there existed another option for concluding a legal marriage
with Istoiana: as with other Christians, he could have taken the matter to the
kadı court. When marriages between Christians were registered in local sicil s,
the entries were even more laconic than those referring to Muslims. A Christian’s
> entry into marriage before the Shari‘a judge was effected by his or her appearance
in person or by proxy, and in the compulsory presence of witnesses. Niko, son
of Stamat, entered into marriage in 1550 by his proxy Kosta, as evidenced by
the Sofia kadı sicili. In another case, the bride Tota, daughter of Jorgi, was also
represented by a proxy—Kiriak, son of Dimo—for the purpose of entering into
marriage before the Sofia kadı court. The witnesses were Niko, son of Dimo, and
Simo, son of Shenar. A matrimonial donation was agreed upon in the amount of
100 akçe. In a sicil from Vidin dated 1763, it is recorded that “The husband is
Parvul, the lawful wife is the Christian woman Stoiana.” That was, in fact, the
registration of a marriage, as is also confirmed by the presence in the document
of the names of three Muslims, apparently the witnesses. The marriage of Nikola,
son of Stan, from the çiftlik of Kerim Bey, and Kalina, daughter of Ignat, from the
village of Koshov in the region of Rousse, was also recorded in similar manner.
No matrimonial donation is registered in these last two cases, and the deeds are of
the short-entry type, certifying only the matrimonial event itself.71
Various deeds in sicil s—the partition of estates, the registration of divorces
and marriages of Christians—suggest that the sum of money often called mehr in
Ottoman documents, to which the wife was entitled in case of divorce or the death
of her husband, was also provided for in the Christian community. In 1715, after
the death of Dragosh, son of Ispas, from the çiftlik of Genç Ali Ağa situated near
Rousse, his wife Todora, daughter of Istoian, and their mature children Dragoi
and Dimko were recognized as his heirs. Later Dragoi died as well. Then Kalina,
daughter of Istoian and wife of the deceased son Dragoi, claimed her husband’s
share from the estate of his father Dragosh. She asserted that the claim was in her
own name and on behalf of their infant children Dragoi and Ivana. Eventually, the
170
Women in the ottoman Balkans
following two deductions were made from Dragosh’s estate: the refund of a debt
to Kalina, confirmed by Istati and Istamad, totalling 600 para, and a “confirmed
claim by the wife arising from her marriage [ nikâh]” totalling 240 para. After that,