Seyyid Osman Ağa did not live well together; the husband had assaulted his
ivanova, marital ProBlems of Christian Women
185
wife many times, yatağan in hand, attempting to kill her, and at the same time
he had used blasphemous language. A fetva from the müfti was presented,
concerning the necessity for faith and marriage to be renewed in such cases.
The vekil asked that the spouses should be separated. Two neighboring women
acted as witnesses before the court. It was specified that, as prescribed by
the fetva, the spouses were to be separated, if the wife would not agree to
renewing her marriage. Zübeyde Hatun was asked, and refused to renew her
marriage with her husband. Consequently Zübeyde Hatun and Osman Ağa
were divorced. (OrO, R50, f. 39-b, doc, I, published in S. Ivanova 1996a.)
33. Fyzee 1974: 162–63.
34. Schacht 1979: 161–65; Zilfi 1997.
35. O.
Todorova 2004: 236.
36. OrO,
S308, p. 31, doc. I, published in Gradeva 2004a: 183. The kadı documents
from the eighteenth century mention, albeit rarely, various material belongings
as a separate part of the mehr-i müeccel, or, in one of the few cases where a
divorce was requested by a rural woman, cereals and livestock, which were
returned by the wife to her husband. (OrO, R52, f. 2-a, doc. II; R51, f. 35-
a, doc. I.) The most substantial modifications in nineteenth-century hüccet s
were in this part of the document—the mehr was always represented as two
portions; see S. Ivanova 1999a: 167.
37. ОrО, R3, f. 8-а, doc. I; S60, f. 28-а, doc. I.
38. Galabov 1924: 62–64;
Anderson 1970; Schaht 1979: 161–65.
39. ОrО,
R6, f. 41-а, doc. I. About a divorced Christian woman who received part
of her property from her ex-husband and ex-father-in-law after sulh, see S14,
2-a, doc. III. For bedel-i sulh or sulh, see Gradeva 1993: 107–108, 115; Peirce
2003: 120.
40. ОrО, S38, f. 6-а, doc. I.
41. Imber 1983; Peirce 1998: 270–75.
42. ОrО, R1, f. 5-а, doc. I.
43. Gerber
1980: 230; Imber 1997a: 164; Jeninngs 1975: 101; Duben 1985: 81–
88.
44. ОrО, S4, f. 18-а, doc. IV
.
45. Papastathis
1974: 189–96; O. Todorova 1997: 162 and passim; see also 55
below.
46. Pantazopoulos 1967: 44.
47. Kabrda
1957: 383–84, 387–92; Turski izvori 1971: 2: 175–76. See also
Matkovski 1973: 93, 108.
48. Snegarov 1995: 2: 275–76.
49. OrO, S14, f. 7-b, doc. II.
50. ОrО, S14, f. 8-а, doc. II.
51. O.
Todorova 1997; Gradeva 1990; İnalcik 1965, 1978: 81–82; Ortaylı 1982b;
Faroqhi 1992: 351–59; S. Ivanova 1999b.
52. Matkovski 1973: 97–99, 103; O.
Todorova 1989; Gradeva 2004a: 181–82.
53. Grozdanova 1979: 149.
186
Women in the ottoman Balkans
54. Matkovski
1973: 103; Turski dokumenti 1969: 3: 48. The last document
raises the question of what exactly these customs were—a divorce before
the ecclesiastical court (in which case the two Muslim witnesses seem out of
place), or before the community and in accordance with customary law?
55. The
Church tried to broaden the scope of the cases that were considered and
resolved in religious courts. Rositsa Gradeva quotes a Nomokanon from
1788: “The bishops in their sees have to resolve … almost all other [matters]
belonging to Christian civil law. … Therefore, the bishops now have to be
experts not only in canon law (which is their obligation and necessity) but
in civil law as well, so that they do not judge illegally and come to decisions
irrationally.” (Gradeva 2004a: 172.)
56. İnalcık
1982: 1: 437; Snegarov 1935, 1946; Pantazopoulos 1967: 44–45, 55–
58.
57. S. Ivanova 1999a: 171–73.
58. Lachev n.d.
59. Gradeva 1989, 2004; Lape 1956: 40, 69; Snegarov 1947–48: 46–47.
60. O.
Todorova 2003: 118–24; Zarinebaf-Shahr 1996: 86–87.
61. Turski izvori 1971: 1: 20; Peirce 1998: 318–22; Singer 1996: 131–32.
62. ОrО,
R1, f. 5-а, doc. IV, published in Turski izvori 1971: 2: 132–33; OrO,
S1bis, p. 8, doc. I; Dimitrov 1981: 137; OrO, S1bis, p. 8, doc. I, published in
Gradeva 2004a: 178.
63. Grozdanova
1979: 139–51; S. Ivanova 1991, 1996b: 184-186; Peirce 2003:
185–94. In the nineteenth century—according to documents of both the
ecclesiastical courts and the Christian town communities—marital problems
were often first delt with “within the village” or “within the mahalle,” and
only after that were divorces legally formalized before the metropolitan
bishopric. Thus, marriages and divorces could be subjected to the Church
and/or the community, the legal frameworks of canonic and customary law,
and the sanction of public opinion and the formalized ecclesiastical court.
Such duality and the involvement of both formal and informal institutions is
confirmed by Ottoman sources as well.
64. Turski dokumenti 1969: 3: 122.
65. Marinov 1995: 143–44.
66. Ethnographic
sources contain abundant information on the importance that
was ascribed to engagement, and Canon law concurs on that matter. The sicil s,
however, contain no direct references to engagement. However, references
in kadı documents to belongings and property that wives received from their
husbands upon divorcing them are probably related to that pre-nuptial stage,
and may be interpreted as gifts that had been exchanged at the time of the
engagement. In nineteenth-century bishopric codexes, engagement is clearly
outlined as a separate stage in the regulation of matrimony. Thus, in the codex
of the Tarnovo bishopric, a certificate of exchange of gifts was registered in
1854 between the groom Dobri Konstantin (entering his second marriage) and
Paraskeva. In practice, this was a pre-nuptial agreement or an engagement,
ivanova, marital ProBlems of Christian Women
187
and the property relations between the spouses were its central subject. The
codex in question also confirms the well-known fact that engagements were
considered an important pre-nuptial act, and the intervention of an ecclesiastical
court was needed for them to be undone. In 1849, an agreement to undo, by
mutual consent, the engagement between Nenu Stoeny and Evprepia Nikolau
was entered in the Tarnovo bishopric kondika. Both parties were given a copy
of the document. In an attempt to establish a legal framework for engagement,
bishopric authorities were motivated precisely by the importance that was
ascribed to it as a nuptial event. In 1835, for example, the Plovdiv metropolitan
bishopric decided that engagements and contracts concerning the dowry
should be made in the presence of the parish priest and the muhtar (headman)
of the mahalle, after which they should be presented for endorsement at the
bishopric and for confirmation by the city elders. From
the viewpoint of the
dowry, the citizens were classified into three categories: the first category had
to prepare 15 underwear shirts, the second 10, and the third five. See Snegarov
1933–34: 12, 36, 51, 1947–48: 338; TSuhlev 1932: 433–35.
67. Sofronij
Vračanski 1981: 81.
68. T
urski izvori 1971: 2: 176; Kabrda 1957: 391; OrO, R42, f. 56-b, doc. I.
See also the berat of 1834 for the metropolitan of Kyistendil, which bears
the same statement about marriages and divorces: OrO, Radomir-kadia, 17
Cemaziyülevvel 1250, Bulgarian Historical Archive (henceforth BIA).
69. BIA,
1282, f. 94. See the short remarks on marriage in a medieval manuscript
in Tsonev 1910: 194. See also the canon rules for penance for fornication,
for second and third marriages, for degrees of kinship, and for close kinship
between the spouses as grounds for divorce, in the manuscript of a Missal
(prayer-book) of the teacher Philip dating from 1685 in the National Library
“St. St. Cyril and Methodius,” BIA, 972, f. 132-a–134-b. See also O. Todorova
1997: 53, 116–19, 167–69.
70. Andreev 1956: 202–203; O.
Todorova 2004: 170.
71. Galabov
and Duda 1960: 23–24; OrO, S13, f. 1-b, doc. II; S63, f. 1-а, doc. III,
f. 1-b, doc. II.
72. ОrО, R51, f. 8-b, doc. I.
73. ОrО, S159a, f. 15-b, doc. II.
74. Christian
practices in areas of the Balkan peninsula other than its central parts
were substantially different; see Pantazopulos 1967; Shaguna 1872; Snegarov
1933–34: 12; Bobchev 1904; O. Todorova 2004: 174. Furthermore, it must
be noted that the inheritance rights of women were gradually expanded under
Ottoman secular law on the inheritance of mirî (state-owned) lands and on
the tapu procedure, as well as on the tax liabilities of Christian widows; see
O. Todorova 1996a: 105–106.
75. ОrО, R42, f. 56-b, doc. I; see also Dimitrov 1968: 61–62.
76. Kristova, Karadzhova, and Uzunova 2003–2004: 107, 194.
77. ОrО,
S1bis, f.19, doc. II, f. 21, doc. I, f. 23, doc. I. Also Gradeva 2004a: 186–
87. For individual and colective criminal responsibility, see Ivanova 1990.
188
Women in the ottoman Balkans
78. On
the distinction between invalid and valid marriage according to the Shari‘a,
see Anderson 1950: 358.
79. ОrО, S49, f. 10-b, doc. I; S4, f. 20-а, doc. III, f. 22-b, doc. I.
80. ОrО, S60, f. 9-b, doc. I.
81. ОrО, S308, p. 31, doc. I; S269, f. 72-b, doc. I.
82. Andreev 1979: 90–91.
83. Jennings 1975: 94.
84. BIA, 1282, f. 94–96.
85. Turski dokumenti 1969: 3: 122; Matkovski 1978: 145.
86. OrO, R1, f. 5-b, doc. IV
.
87. Snegarov
1935: 4, 52, 71–73, 75, 90–92, 109, 110; Snegarov 1933–34: 50;
Lape 1956: 24; Trayanovski 1980: 143. See also Parveva 1992; Bobchev
1923: 70–72; Bromlei and Kashuba 1982: 69; G. Georgiev 1979: 60.
88. The
codex of the Tarnovo metropolitan bishopric (covering present-day
northern Bulgaria and the regions of Stara Zagora and Kazanlak) contains
over 250 registrations of divorces from the period 1847–75. The largest group
among them includes cases for which no motives have been registered (73
couples from towns and 145 from villages), followed by divorces motivated
by the absence of the husband for many years and the lack of financial or
other ties between him and his family (25 couples from towns and 36 from
villages). In cases of divorce by mutual consent where interpersonal relations
play a central role in deciding to obtain a divorce, men and women appear
to have had by and large equal standing (10 cases from towns and 16 from
villages). The same applies to cases of divorce resulting from ongoing discord
between the spouses due to the wife’s unbearable character (23 cases each
from towns and villages) and because of the inability of the wife (one couple
from a town and three couples from villages) or the husband (six couples
from villages) to perform their conjugal duties. Although customary law
tolerates physical violence against the wife, divorces were granted on these
grounds under canon law (nine couples from towns and 16 from villages). The
illness of the wife (three couples from towns and 13 from villages) and of the
husband (three couples from towns and four from villages) were also grounds
for divorce (together with three cases branded as “sexual perversion”). Cases
of adultery only involved acts of infidelity committed by women (10 couples
from towns and four from villages). There were also a few divorces due to
the immaturity of the husband or consanguinity. For more information, see
S. Ivanova 1996b: 177–82.
89. Andreev 1956: 205; Marinov 1995: 144; Pantazopoulos 1967: 57–65.
90. O.
Todorova 1996a: 110–14, 1996b.
91. ОrО, S14, f. 30-а, doc. I; S60, f. 13-b, doc. I.
92. ОrО, S4, f. 10-b, doc. I.
93. Gradeva
2004a: 180. On accounts of similar cases, Elena Grozdanova points
out that such mediators most probably acted as representatives of the village
community. (Grozdanova 1979: 141.) There are many such cases from the
ivanova, marital ProBlems of Christian Women
189
nineteenth century. For example, see the hüccet of the kadı of the town of
Karnobat, accompanied by a fetva which declares the validity of the scheme
for the division of the inheritance of a zimmi following a series of deaths
among his heirs—both male and female. In the final analysis, the bulk of the
inheritance was received by the wife and the two daughters of the deceased.
(OrO, F. 142A, a.u. 141, p. 2.) See also the bequest of Todor Kâhya from
the village of Shiroka Laka (today, the town of Smolian), dividing landed
properties and houses among three daughters and four sons in 1869. (The
State Archive in Smolian, Inv. No 1155, F. 415K, inv. 16, a.u. 86.)
94. OrO,
S149, 10-a, doc. I, S 38, f. 1-a, doc. IV. See also S. Ivanova 1999a: 166,
n. 26. For information on the same problem from a bishopric codex from the
nineteenth century, see S. Ivanova 1996b: 183.
95. On
the topic of women’s status in regard to the ownership of property—with
which I shall not deal here—see for example O. Todorova 2004: 323–61;
Todorov 1983; Gerber 1980; Jennings 1975, 1973; Peirce 2003: 129–250;
Faroqhi 2002: 133–217, 2003: 219–66.
96. Anderson 1950.
97. OrO,
S4, f. 9-b, doc. II, f. 10-а, doc. II; f. 10-б, doc. II, f.11-b, doc. I, f. 13-а,
doc. I.
98. ОrО,
S1bis, p. 4, doc. III, published in Gradeva 2004a: 182; S1 bis, p. 10, doc.
IV; S4, f. 23-d, doc. II; S149, f. 16-а, doc. II.
99. ОrО, R1, f. 5-b, doc.IV
.
100. ОrО, S269, f. 23-а, doc. II.
101. ОrО, S14, f. 2-а, doc. III; S60, f. 23-а, doc. I.
102. O.
Todorova 2004: 232–40.
103. T
iutiundzhiev 1996: 13.
; 104. ОrО,
S38, f. 44-a, doc. III; S4, f. 6-b, doc. II; S8, p. 47, doc. I, published in
Turski izvori 1971: 2: 154.
105. O.
Todorova 1991; Jennings 1995; Shatzmiller 1996; Greene 2000: 105–
107.
106. Galabov and Duda 1960: 45; OrO, R4, f. 8-b, doc. I.
107. Petrushevskii 1966: 174.
108. ОrО, S67, p. 51, doc. I.
109. Gradeva 2004b.
110. OrO, S1bis, p. 167, doc. I and III, published in Turski izvori 1971: 2: 119;
see also Grozdanova and Andreev 1998: 2; Gradeva 2004b: 206–11: 454;
O. Todorova 2004: 149.
111. O. Todorova 1991: p. 61; Georgieva 1988: 199–201.
112. ОrО, S13, f. 3-b, doc. I; f. 3-b, doc. II; f. 4-а, doc. IV.
113. Snegarov 1995: 1: 257.
114. Duben and Behar 1991: 87.
115. Hambly 1998; Zilfi 1997; Beck and Keddie 1978; Sonbol 1996; Keddie and
Baron 1991; Hussain 1984; Ahmed 1992; Keddie 1979; Walther 1981.
190
Women in the ottoman Balkans
116. O. Todorova 2004: 427–63; Matkovski 1973; Gerber 1980: 239–41; Jennings
1975: 59, 65, 74, 96.
117. O. Todorova 2004: 240.
118. Matkovski 1973: 83.
119. S. Ivanova 1996b: 187.
References
Agmon, Iris. “Muslim Women in Court according to the Sijill of Late Ottoman
Jaffa and Haifa: Some Methodological Notes,” in Women, the Family and
Divorce Laws in Islamic History, ed. Amira el-Azhary Sonbol (Syracuse:
Syracuse University Press, 1996).
Ahmed, Leila. Women and Gender in Islam: Historical Roots of a Modern Debate
Women in the Ottoman Balkans: Gender, Culture and History Page 35