Women in the Ottoman Balkans: Gender, Culture and History
Page 33
fate with patience.” Nineteenth-century material on divorces shows a most diverse
ivanova, marital ProBlems of Christian Women
175
range of factors eroding patriarchal marriage. However, even in the second half
of the nineteenth century, these factors were probably not particularly significant
in quantitative terms.88
Documents regarding divorces between Christians contain considerable data
concerning money and possessions—the objects of nuptial contracts. As mentioned
earlier, following the sources, they can be qualified as mehr—a practice borrowed
directly from Muslim matrimonial norms. Based on customary practices, we can
assume that the term mehr might have referred to the presents the bride received
from the groom, or even to the compensation that in some regions had to be paid
to the father of the bride (in Bulgaro-Turkish, the so-called baba hak), in other
words, the trousseau of the bride that was used in some regions for the preparation
of the dowry.89 These hypotheses are supported by records about Christian women
who received an inheritance from their deceased husbands and a share from the
partition of the estate of their parents or close relatives; in other words, they
possessed certain property rights.90 Kalina, from the village of Drianoviche in
the Vidin region, collected a share from the inheritance left by her brother who
had lived in a neighboring village. In another case, a widowed Christian woman
who had also lost her sons, sued her nephew for her share in the inheritance of her
husband. In a third case, a woman was involved in a trial with her son-in-law.91 It
is indicative that in one case a Christian woman disputed the sale of her vineyard
by her husband; however, two Christian witnesses stated that the woman had been
present when the deal was concluded, and for this reason the court ruled that there
were no grounds for honoring her claim.92 Milka, daughter of Misho, a zimmiye
from the village of Gorno Chepintsi, took her father to court in Sofia in 1617 for
a silver bracelet, a trivet, a çoha, and a bracelet that she had inherited from her
mother, but which had remained in her father’s possession. The father had given
her the bracelet, but for the rest, “we had continuous disputes, until mediators
intervened and we agreed that he should pay me 200 akçe and give me a bucket
for a price of 100 akçe.”93
The settlement of property issues between divorced Christians necessarily
included a waiver of claims, a practice applied by nineteenth century ecclesiastical
courts. The documentation of the latter even contain literal formulae similar to
those used in the kadı sicilleri. In certain cases recorded in the sicil s, the allocation
of a child’s allowance was formulated for Christians in the same way as it was
for Muslims.94
The formalized structure of documents has precluded a deeper insight into the
motivations and conditions under which Christian wives ventured to take the step
of seeking a divorce. What was the decisive factor? Was it poor relations within
the family? Or a genuine opportunity for the wife to take her financial affairs into
her own hands, at least for a while?95
In the document cited earlier concerning the disputed marriage between
Istoiana and Mitre, there is no mention of any property relations between them.
However, it is possible that financial motives induced the kidnapping of the bride.
It is interesting that on the basis of the evidence provided by the witnesses—a
176
Women in the ottoman Balkans
common judicial procedure—the court determined that there did not exist a valid
marriage, despite the fact that matrimonial relations had existed between Mitre
and Istoiana for a long time. To the extent that the court explained the reasons
behind its verdict, it was not based on the argument that the priest had lacked the
authority to marry them, but rather on the determination that no valid marriage
between them existed. Shari‘a law foresees nullification of marriages,96 although
as of this writing I am unable to quote such a case from the local sicil s. In the case
of Istoiana and Mitre, the court accepted the lack of a legal marriage, but did not
nullify it; instead, it ruled for a divorce by the initiative of the wife— tefrik—on
her father’s claim and not Istoiana’s, at least according to the source. It appears
that Istoiana was of legal age, and that her father had not been expressly authorized
to be his daughter’s proxy [ vekil] as would have generally been a prerequisite for
him to file a claim based on the rights of a third party. However, the kadı court
decreed that the daughter should be returned to the father. Since the maturity of
Istoiana was not disputed, we can only assume that in this case, it was patriarchal
authority that was respected.
Single Women—Widowed or Divorced
As with Muslims, in the case of Christians too the disposition of matters relating
to the assets left after the dissolution of the couple—by divorce or the death of a
spouse—is also documented in many instances and in great detail.
In cases where the children were juveniles, a guardian [ vasi] of their property
was appointed, but not in all instances was the guardian their mother. A group
of documents concerns the problems faced by the widow Istefana, daughter of
Stefan, from the village of Boyana near Sofia, after the death of her husband
Stoian, son of Stefan. On 1 April 1709, it was recorded that in addition to her,
the heirs of the late Stoian included the mature Tsvetko and the juvenile Yovan.
Deemed qualified, the mother was appointed guardian to her juvenile son in the
matter of the receipt of his share of the inheritance. On the same day, at her request
and by a special record, she was also granted by the kadı court an authorization
[ izin] to spend 8 akçe per diem for food and clothing for the juvenile Yovan. On
the next day, Istefana confirmed in the presence of two Muslim witnesses that she
had received from her husband’s partner, the grocer el-Hac Ömer, son of Ali, the
sum of 451 akçe—the amount that the deceased was carrying when he, along with
Ömer, went to the kaza of Ipek to buy sheep and died in the course of the journey.
All the records on the proceedings concerning the widow Istefana mention the
presence, as a witness, of İbrahim ağa, zâbit of the Boyana village. He testified
for days on end, until he himself became the subject of a judicial procedure: on
3 April 1709, he was appointed by the Shari‘a court as supervisor [ nazır] of the
inheritance transferred to the juvenile son of the late Stoian. On 12 April 1709,
for the last time according to our documents, the widow Istefana appeared in
court in relation to the affairs of her late husband. She was brought to court—
both in her own capacity and as the guardian of her juvenile son—along with her
other son, the mature Tsvetko, by Boshko, son of Djurdje, who claimed to have
ivanova, marital ProBlems of Christian Women
177
given, in the presence of witnesses, a loan of 53 kuruş to her late husband for the
purpose of purchasing sheep. The trustworthy dwellers of the village of Boyana,
/> the non-Muslims Miladin, son of Stoian, and Ilia, son of Todor, confirmed the
claim, and the court ruled that 53 kuruş be refunded to the plaintiff by the son and
the mother.97
Divorced Christian women lodged claims not only for the return of wedding
gifts, but also for the setting of an allowance for themselves and their children.
Petka divorced her husband by proxy, declaring that she had received the price
of her dowry and her clothes, and additionally made a claim for an allowance
and money for clothing. In 1709 Stoiana, daughter of Todor, a dweller in the
mahalle of Orta Mescid in Sofia, appeared in court and declared, in the presence
of her ex-husband Arsen, son of Rizo, from whom she was divorced by hul, that
she was obviously pregnant by him. She asked the court to appoint the financial
means for her allowance for the period until she delivered the child. Stoiana was
authorized to receive 4 akçe per diem. The Christian woman Marcho, daughter
of Usta Ioan from the Zincirli mahalle in Sofia, declared before the court to her
ex-husband Tomo, son of Stoian, from whom she was divorced by talâk, that she
demanded the provision of an allowance for food, clothing, and the upbringing
of her three infant sons—Anton, Misho, and Anto. The court granted her the sum
of 4 akçe per diem. Petka, daughter of Petre, from the Banişora mahalle in Sofia,
had appointed her brother Velko as her proxy, with Yusuf, son of Abdullah, and
Koicho, son of Krino, as witnesses. The proxy confirmed before the court that
Petka had received from her ex-husband Ilia, from whom she was divorced, a pair
of kâf irlik silver bracelets, 4 kâf irlik silver chains, 2 kâf irlik silver necklaces, and
a sırmalı fur coat worth 600 akçe, in payment for the allowance she was due for
sustenance and clothing for the three daughters under her guardianship—Mara,
Angelina, and Kuna.98
The case of Stamata, from the Kuyumcu mahalle in Rousse, was mentioned
above. She declared before the court that her husband had left for Wallachia six
years earlier and that she had not received any financial support from him; she
was allowed by the court to have her husband’s house sold.99 In other words, the
wife was authorized to settle her material situation without a formal divorce, as
was the practice among Muslims. This and other similar documents underscore
the fact that women possessed property of their own, but the estate of the family
was considered to be under the control of their husbands. Particular legal grounds
needed to exist for the wife to be granted authorization to dispose of the estate, or
for an allowance to be provided her by the court from the estate. However, there
did exist in society certain mechanisms for the provision of material support for
the wife and children within the framework of the nuclear family.
The document just mentioned evokes once again the issue of absent husbands.
Whether in order to marry again, or to be able to dispose of the family estate,
women needed to clarify their matrimonial status. It is apparently in this context
that the following document should be interpreted. On 2 October 1722, the
wives of Mihail and Dobro, from the Imaret mahalle in Sofia, appeared before
178
Women in the ottoman Balkans
the Shari‘a court. They stated that through local notables [ mütesellim ağa s and
zâbit s], the janissary Hüseyin Beşe had gathered people for paid work, and had
sent them to Yenişehir. Two years earlier, their husbands had left in this manner
and had not been heard of since. Hüseyin claimed that the men were either killed
or sold into slavery. The women asked for a court hearing at which Hüseyin would
confirm this fact. When summoned, however, he stated that in the meantime,
the husbands of the two Christian women had been hired by someone else, and
that this was what had been keeping them away. A letter to the kadı of Yenişehir
was then sent on behalf of the mütesellim—but most likely composed by the
court in Sofia—and entrusted for delivery to el-Hac Mehmed, the çokadar of
the mütesellim, and to Hacı Yakub. “When they arrived in Yenişehir, they called
the aforementioned infidels and summoned them to court” where the two were
interrogated and confirmed that they had been hired for some other job. Other
dwellers of Sofia, who also had business in Şehir Köy but happened to be in
Yenişehir at that moment, confirmed that the two husbands who were being
sought were from Sofia, from the İmaret mahalle, and that they were alive, but
that from Gergiovden (St. George’s day) until Dimitrovden (St. Dimitar’s day)
they had been hired by a certain Mehmed.100
There are many instances where the husband refused to fulfill his financial
obligations toward his wife and children, and even deceived his wife. Yove,
daughter of Petre, from the Wallachian village of Ribnik in the Vidin region, was
represented by her father Petre, son of Hristo. In 1700, he lodged a claim against
Georgi, son of Marko. Petre claimed that Georgi’s son (also named Marko),
who was not present at court, had been his daughter’s husband. At the time of
their divorce [ tatlik], he had taken her possessions—silver and gold jewelry
and money. Some time earlier, Petre had lodged a claim for their repossession,
but Georgi had denied that Marko had taken them. This time they reached a
settlement [ sulh] for 30 kuruş. In 1710, the kadı of Vidin was sent a ferman issued
in Constantinople in response to a petition [ arzuhal] by the Christian woman
Kotza from the capital. Her husband Defto, a non-Muslim, had borrowed 200,000
akçe from a certain Arslan as a loan; though the year of the loan is not precisely
determined, the transaction must have occurred sometime between 1699 and
1708. She had become a guarantor [ kef il] for the repayment of the debt with her
own property. Her husband had then fled to the kaza of Vidin without repaying his
debt. It was ordered that Defto be sent to the capital with çavuş İbrahim, a court
official charged with the delivery and execution of the ferman, where he would
be brought before the Imperial Divan, the grand vezir, and the kadı asker for the
examination of his situation and the administration of the law.101
Single Christian women—whether widowed or divorced102—had to be more
active in their social interactions. They were the ones who most needed the
security provided by the institutions, and for that reason they had recourse to
the kadı as well as the bishop. An “agreement” from 1620 in Greek survives in
the documentation of the local Orthodox church, stating that Katherina, wife of
the deceased Vasilis, had gone to Arbanasi, a significant and rich village in the
ivanova, marital ProBlems of Christian Women
179
vicinity of Tarnovo (the seat of a metropolitan), where she had received money,
silver items, and clothes, all of which had been left in the keeping of church
officials by her father and her husband. After that neither she, nor her children or
sons-in-law, could make any further claim.103
Mixed Marriages between Christian Women and Muslim Men
Extant documents confirm the Shari‘a rule that if a woman convert
ed to Islam,
her husband had either to do the same, or be divorced from her. In Vidin in 1707,
a Christian dweller in the varoş, the wife of a non-Muslim known as Gömleksiz
(“shirtless,” a nickname that could be interpreted as meaning “poor”), had
converted to Islam in court, and had contracted a marriage with Hüseyin, son of
Mehmed. Both sides expressed their agreement before the Shari‘a court, with
a mehr of 1000 akçe. There is no mention of the observance of the period of
idda, nor of any claims by the Christian former husband. In 1709, a dweller of
the Yazıcızâde mahalle named Ayşe hatun, daughter of Abdullah, who had been
“honored with the pride of Islam,” declared: “Now I have been honored with
Islam, but my husband, the terzi (tailor) Stoino, son of Yovan, a non-Muslim
[ zimmi], left me and his two juvenile sons without an allowance [ nafaka].” Being
Muslims, the juveniles, named Ali and Abdülmenan, were entrusted to Ayşe
by the court. The woman demanded an allowance and the court ruled that the
father should pay 4 akçe per diem for her and the boys. In another case, two
witnesses testified that the husband of Ahmed’s daughter Emine had converted to
Christianity, and that Emine now wished to marry another man.104
In this context, mixed marriages between Muslim men and Christian women105
are noteworthy—for example, the one between the soap-maker Hüseyin, son of
Abdullah, and Ianka, daughter of Dimitar, with a mehr of 100 akçe. Gergana,
daughter of Georgi from Rousse, stated before the kadı court that she had received
the mehr of 100 kuruş that was due to her after divorcing her husband Ömer Ağa,
son of Ramazan Çelebi.106
Also registered in our documents are many cases in which “daughters and
sons of Abdullah”—that is, converts to Islam—married or divorced Muslims
before the kadı court. Instances of mixed marriages between Muslim men and
Christian women are more peculiar. According to the Hanefi legal school, which
was dominant in the Ottoman empire, a Muslim man can take as wife and mother
of his children a Christian or Jewish woman (but not a pagan) without her having
to convert to Islam. This was a pragmatic solution that made mixed marriages
acceptable and harmless,107 and this attitude was perhaps made possible by the