Book Read Free

Women in the Ottoman Balkans: Gender, Culture and History

Page 35

by Amila Buturovic


  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

 

‹ Prev