Vjeran Kursar

Non-Muslim Communal Divisions and Identities in the EarlyModern Ottoman Balkans and the Millet System Theory

Acceptance of Islamic law as the state law of the Ottoman Empire, though par-tially transformed through the kanun and in principle restricted to civil law, meantthe adoption of the sharia division of people along religious lines into believers andnon-believers, that is Muslims and non-Muslims. Monotheistic non-Muslims, namely,Christians and Jews, were recognized by Islamic law as the "People of the Book," andfurther categorized according to their relationship to the Islamic polity. Non-Muslimsliving within the Abode of Islam made a theoretical agreement with the State,

which provided them with protection and the guarantee of basic rights, asAccording to a prevailing narrative, in dealing with their non-Muslim subjects, the

%immh, the Ottomans adopted and applied classical Islamic conceptions. Further-more, Ottoman non-Muslims of various denominations were organized into sepa-rate coherent entities based on a common religious creed, the so-called millets,. Alongthese lines, Orthodox Christians were organized into the Orthodox millet (millet-i

Ram), Jews into the Jewish millet (millet-i Yahudijan), while members of the Arme-nian Church were organized into the Armenian millet (millet-i Ermeniyan). Accordingto traditional historiography, these entities (millets) enjoyed considerable communalautonomy, especially in religious affairs, education, family law and, theoretically, inall legal cases that included members of their own community and did not involveMuslims. Religious dignitaries from the communities served at the same time as theirleaders and representatives vis-a-vis the authorities, acting as the millet bafis ("headsof the millef). They were responsible for order and security in their communities andwere entrusted with the collection of taxes. In exchange, the state promoted dieminto the rank of state officials, appointed by the berate. Traditionally, the inventionof the millet system is credited to Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror. In 1454, one yearafter the Fall of Constantinople, the Sultan appointed Gennadios Scholarios as theEcumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and, accordingly, as head of all OrthodoxChristians in the Empire. Somewhat later Mehmed appointed Joachim as Patriarchof the Armenian Church, and Moses Capsali as Chief Rabbi (haham bafi) of all Jewsof the Empire. The Sultan's real intention was to secure the loyalty of the conquerednon-Muslim peoples by binding their religious leaders to the Ottoman state.2

1 Claude Cahen, Dhimma, Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd ed., CD-ROM. Leiden: Brill 1999.Henceafter: EF.

2 See H. A. R. Gibb and Harold Bowen, Islamic Society and the West: A Study of the Impact ofWestern Civilisation on Moslem Culture in the Near East. London, New York, Toronto: Oxford

98 Kursar

According to widely accepted opinion, after the Ottoman conquest indigenous

Balkan societies were left without their ruling elites, who were either forced to leave

their countries or annihilated by the Ottomans. In such circumstances the Church

represented the only remaining structure that was able to administer the everyday lay

affairs of the population. In this manner, apart from its religious authority, the Church

gained secular power over the population.3 Some prominent students of the Ortho-

dox Church believe that the Church had much wider authority than that theoretically

guaranteed by Islamic law in the fields of religious affairs, education and family law.

Hadrovics, in his study on the Serbian Orthodox Church, concluded that "the Serbian

... Patriarchate may be considered a theocratic state within a superior Ottoman state."4

Pantazopoulos and Cubrilovic think that the Orthodox Church had full authority over

its believers in every aspect,5 while Runciman claims that the Patriarch of Constanti-

nople was no less than "Ethnarch, the ruler of the millet" ̂ and, "as head of the Or-

thodox millet... to some extent the heir of the Emperor."7 This picture of the alleged

state of affairs in the Orthodox "millet' was, with minor modifications, accepted as a

commonly valid model for other non-Muslim communities in the Ottoman Empire.

However, the provisions of Ottoman sultanic law, the kanun, and the institution

of the state judge, the kadi, infringed the alleged autonomy of the non-Muslim

"millets" and the authority of the Church and clergy outside the religious realm,

i.e., internal Church matters, family law and education. Peasants, who represented

the vast majority of non-Muslim population, were above all under the jurisdiction

of the kadi. While in theory fief holders, sipaMs, were merely intermediaries be-

tween the State and formally free peasants, some of their rights, like the collection

UP 1957, vol. 1, pp. 211—20; Stanford J. Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and ModernTurkey, 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge UP 19952, vol. 1, pp. 58—9, 61; Peter F. Sugar, South-eastern Europe under Ottoman Rule, 1354—1804. Seattle and London: University of Washing-ton Press 1977, pp. 45—9; cf. Leften S. Stavrianos, The Balkans since 1453. London: Hurst& Company 20002, pp. 89-90; Ilber Ortayli, The Ottoman Millet System and it's SocialDimensions. In: Ilber Ortayh, Ottoman Studies. Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi UP 2004, pp. 15—22.Cf. Halil Inalcik, The Status of Greek Orthodox Patriarch under the Ottomans. In: HalilInalcik. Essays in Ottoman History. Istanbul: Eren 1998, pp. 195—223.

3 Cf. Steven Runciman, The Great Church in Captivity. A- Study of the Patriarchate of Constanti-nople from the Eve of the Turkish Conquest to the Greek War of Independence. Cambridge: Cam-bridge UP 1968, pp. 167—8, and passim.

4 Laszlo Hadrovics, Srpski narod i njegova crkva pod turskom vlascu. Zagreb: Nakladni zavodGlobus 2000, p. 86. French edition: Ladislas Hadrovics, Ees people serbe et son eglise sousla domination turque. Paris: Les Presses universitaries de France 1947. See also: DokoSlijepcevic, Istorija Srpskepravoslavne crkve, 2 vols. Miinchen 1962, vol. 1, p. 340.

5 N. J. Pantazopoulos, Church and Ean> in the Balkan Peninsula During the Ottoman Rale. Am-sterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert 1984, p. 19; Vasa Cubrilovic, Srpska pravoslavna crkva podTurcima od XV do XIX veka. In: Projekat Rastko, http://www.rastko.rs/istorija/spc/vcu-brilovic-crkva-turci.html (accessed February 1st, 2010), originally published in: ZbornikFilosyfskogfakulteta, vol. V-l, Belgrade, 1960.

6 Runciman, pp. 171—2.7 /to/, p. 175.

Non-Muslim Communal Divisions and Identities 99

of penal dues (curm u cinayei) and bad u hava taxes, in addition to agricultural taxes,

often resulted in their interference in legal matters.8 Another significant group of

the population, the Vlachs, Balkan semi-nomadic people, and the population which

adopted the Vlach status, including theyz/»fz'-tax payers, enjoyed a certain degree of

autonomy in exchange for the performance of some special services, including mili-

tary service.9 They were under the administration of their own kne^es and premiers,

who served as state officials, while the sancakbegi and voyvodas acted as the supreme

authority. Each fine or corporal punishment imposed on the Vlachs had to be ap-

proved by the kadi.10 Other groups that performed special services for the state had

similar arrangements. Semi-military groups of the voynuks and marto/oscs were under

the jurisdiction of the military judge and the command of their superior officers."

The rtfaya with special privileges and duties, the tmtaf ve musdlem, were under the le-

gal jurisdiction of the kadi us well, while it was administered by its professional supe-

riors.12 Townsmen, for the most part artisans and traders, were included in the guild

organizations (esnaft) and subjected to the guild hierarchies. They were administered

by the state officials called /ehir kethiida and muhtesib, while juridical authority was in

the hands of the kadiP It should be mentioned that the assertion that the Balkan

peoples were left without their ruling elites following the Ottoman conquest is not

completely true. While ruling dynasties and the upper nobility did disappear, some

8 Suraiya Faroqhi, Rural Society in Anatolia and the Balkans during the Sixteenth Century,II . Tunica, 11 (1979), pp. 118—9, 125—6; Branislav Durdev, O uticaju turske vladavine nara2vitak nasih naroda, Godisnjak Istoriskog drustva BiH, 2 (1950), pp. 73—6; cf. Halil Inalcik,Osmanlllar'da Raiyyet Rusumu. In: Halil Inalcik, Osmanh Imparatorlugu. Toplum Ve EkonomiIJ^erinde Ar^iv Cah^malan, Incelemeler. Istanbu: EREN 1993, pp. 31—65.

9 Cf. Nenad Moacanin, The Question of Vlach Autonomy Reconsidered. In: Essays on Otto-man Civilisation. Archiv Orientalni. Supplementa VII (1998). Proceedings of the Xllth Congress ofCIEPO. Prague, 1998, pp. 263-9.

10 Cf. Ahmet Akgiindiiz, Osmanh Kanunnameleri Ve Hukuki Tahlilleri. Istanbul: OsmanllArastirmalari Vakfi, 1991, vol. 3, pp. 459, 463. See also: Branislav Durdev, O knezovimapod turskom upravom, Istoriski casopis, 1,1—2 (1948), 3—37.

11 Branislav Durdev, O vojnucima sa osvrtom na razvoj turskog feudalizma i na pitanje bo-sanskog agaluka. Glasnik Zemaljskog mu^eja u Sarajevu, n.s., 2 (1947), 75—137; Yavuz Ercan,Osmanh Imparatorlugunda Bulgarlar Ve Voynuklar. Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi1989; Robert Anhegger, Martoloslar Hakkinda, Tiirkiyat Mecmuasi, 7-8, 1 (1940-1942),pp. 282—320; Milan Vasic, Martolosi u jugoslovenskim ^em jama pod turskom vladavinom. Sara-jevo: ANUBIH 1967.

12 Aleksandar Stojanovski, Ra/a so specijalni %adol%enia vo Makedonija (vojnud, sokolari, origan isolan). Skoplje: Institut za nacionalna istorija 1990; Adem Handzic, Rudnici u Bosni oddruge polovine XV do pocetka XVI I vijeka. In: Enver Redzic, ed., Prilo^i %a istoriju Bosne iHercegovine, vol. 2, Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine, no. Ixxix, Odjeljenjedrustvenih nauka, no. 18. Sarajevo: ANUBIH 1987, pp. 5-38; Robert Anhegger and HalilInalcik, Kdnunndme-i SultdniBerMuceb-i 'Orf-i 'Osmdni. II. Mehmed Veil. Baye^id Devirlerine AitYasakndme Ve Kdnunndmeler, 2nd ed. Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu 2000, pp. 7,11—2.

13 Halil Inalcik, The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age, 1300-1600. London: Weidenfeldand Nicolson 1973, pp. 152-60; A. Raymond. Sinf, 1. In the Arab World. EP. HamdijaKresevljakovic, Esnafi i obrti u starom Sarajevu. Sarajevo: Narodna prosvjeta 1958, pp. 50—9.

100 Kursar

members of the middle and lower nobility eventually came to terms with the con-

querors eager to include Balkan soldiers in the army. In many cases former BalkanChristian feudal lords received timdrs as Ottoman sipahis and continued to exerciseauthority over the peasants, although in a somewhat narrowed capacity.14 In such a

system not much room was left for non-Muslim religious authorities, although theremight have been some exceptional cases.

This manifold social organization and relations stem from a political division of Ot-toman society into the ruling class — 'askeri (literally "military class") and the subjects —rtfaya (literally "flock") which was sanctioned by the kanun. The crucial aspect of thisdivision was that it was based not upon the sharia division of people into Muslims and

non-Muslims, but exclusively upon service to the State, disregarding religion.15

Recognition of non-Muslim religious institutions and clergy and their incorpora-tion into the state organization by official appointments must have given them a cer-tain power. However, on occasion their authority in the fields officially recognized asautonomous was contested by their own flock. In 1674, Orthodox Christian laymenfrom Sarajevo rejected the priests chosen by the vladika for the church of the town

and wanted to invest those chosen by the Orthodox opstina of Sarajevo. In order toenforce his right to appoint the priests, the vladika had to approach the Ottomanauthorities.16 Clergy often lamented over the inability to exercise control over familylaw, while believers disregarded the basics of canon law. The Bosnian Catholic bish-op Olovclc, for example, in a report to Rome covering the period 1672—1675, com-plains that some Bosnian Catholics did not adhere to the principle of monogamy,

but preferred polygamy, as was the case in nine Bosnian parishes. Further examplesof the breach of canon law are even more abundant, like cases of marriage withinthe forbidden degrees of kinship, cohabitation with a partner outside the frameworkof Catholic marriage "in a Turkish manner," or the practice of conducting marriages

and divorces in the Mddfcoutt, as was the case in another twelve parishes.17 Accord-

14Halil Inalcik, Od Stefana Dusana do Osmanskog Carstva. Hriscanske spahije u Rumelijiu XV vijeku i njihovo porijeklo, Prilo^i %a orijentalnu filologiju, 3-4 (1952—53), pp. 23—53,originally published as: XV. Asirda Rumeli'de Hlristiyan Sipahiler Ve Menseleri: StefanDusan'dan Osmank Imperatorluguna. In: Fuat Kopriilu Armagam, Istanbul 1953, pp. 207—48; cf. Halil Inalcik, Ottoman Methods of Conquest, Studialslamica, 2 (1954), pp. 103-29.

ISlnalcik, Ottoman Empire, 68—9; Bahaeddin Yediyildiz, Ottoman Society. In: EkmeleddinIhsanoglu, ed., History of the Ottoman State, Society & Civilisation, 2 vols. Istanbul: IRCICA2001, vol. 1, pp. 491—557. Cf. Vjeran Kursar, Some Remarks on the Organization ofOttoman Society in the Early Modern Period: The Question of "Legal Dualism" andSocietal Structures. In: Ekrem Causevic, Nenad Moacanin and Vjeran Kursar, eds., Otto-man Studies in Transformation. Papers from the 18"' Sjmposium of the International Committee ofPre-Ottoman and Ottoman Studies (CIEPO). Berlin: LIT Verlag 2010, pp. 837-56.

16 Vladislav Skaric, Srpski pravoslavni narod i crkva u Sarajevu u 17. i 18. stoljecu. In:Vladislav Skaric, I^abrana djela. Prilo^i %a istoriju Sarajeva, 3 vols. Sarajevo: Veselin Maslesa1985, vol. 2, pp. 108-9.

17Julijan Jelenic, Spomenici kulturnog rada bosanskih Franjevaca (1437—1878), StarineJAZU, 36 (1918), pp. 134,136-7,140-7,149,151-2.

Non-Muslim Communal Divisions and Identities 101

ing to the report, in the great number of Catholic parishes visited by the bishopa considerable proportion of the population were living in marriages contrary tocanon law. This state of affairs is abundantly confirmed in court records from Otto-

man towns and cities throughout the Balkans and Anatolia.18 However, surprisingly,not a single example could be found of a Christian marriage in front of the kadi

in several preserved court records from the Bosnian towns of Sarajevo and Mostarfrom the period ca. 1550—1750.19 On the other hand, non-Muslims often appear inthe Sarajevo court records on various occasions in the second half of the sixteenthcentury, in fact considerably beyond what might have been expected on the basis oftheir percentage of the total population.

Although autonomy in matters like marriage or inheritance was granted to thejurisdiction of non-Muslim communities, their members had the right to approachthe kadi courts, which they often exercised. Apart from an attempt to assure a betteroutcome for their cases than that potentially delivered by communal courts, a reasonfor non-Muslims' attraction to the kadi courts was the assurance that the verdict

would be executed by the force of the State. Non-Muslim communal courts, in casethey existed in a given region, which is still not confirmed in the sources for Bosnia,could not guarantee the same. The other reason must have been the openness of thekadi court as the state court, the practices of which do not suggest the discrimina-tion of non-Muslims who disregarded theoretical sharia stipulations.20

Despite the Church ban on bringing internal Catholic cases to the Islamic court,

even members of clergy were doing the same. A great example is a quarrel in thefirst half of the seventeenth century between Bosnian merchants and their Francis-cans on the one hand, Ragusans and their priests and Jesuits on the other, concern-ing the chapel in Belgrade. When they were not satisfied with a verdict from Rome,

18 See Svetlana Ivanova, Marriage and Divorce in the Bulgarian Lands (XV—XI X c.), Bulgar-ian Historical Review, 21, 2—3 (1993), 49—83; Ronald C.Jennings, Zimmis (non-Muslims) inearly 17th century Ottoman Judicial Records: The Sharia Court of Anatolian Kayseri. In:Ronald C. Jennings, Studies on Ottoman Social History in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries.Women, Zimmis and Sharia Courts in Kayseri, Cyprus and Trab^pn. Istanbul: The ISIS Press 1999,pp. 393—6; Rossitsa Gradeva, Orthodox Christians in the Kadi Courts: The Practice of theSofia Sheriat Court, seventeenth century. In: Rossitsa Gradeva, Rumeli under the Ottomans,-J5'll-18a> Centuries: Institutions and Communities. Istanbul: The ISIS Press 2004, pp. 165-94.

19 Gazi Husrev-beg library, Sarajevo (henceafter: GHB). Sarajevo court records - sidjilsnos. 1 (1551), la (1556-1558), 2 (1564-1566), 3 (1707-1709),4 (1727-1728), and 6 (1752-1762); Oriental Institute in Sarajevo, Mostar sidjils nos. 2 (1669-1671), and 3 (1681-1685);Sid^tl mostarskog kadije 1632—1634., tr. Muhamed A. Mujic, Mostar: Ikro Prva knjizevnasmotra 1987. Cf. Eleni Gara, Marrying in Seventeenth-Century Mostar. In: Elias Kolovos,Phokion Kotzageorgis, Sophia Laiou and Marines Sariyannis, eds., The Ottoman Empire,The Balkans, The Greek Lands: Toward a Sofia/ and Economic History. Studies in Honor of John C.Alexander. Istanbul: The Isis Press 2007, p. 125.

20 Cf. Jennings, Zimmis (non-Muslims), pp. 225—93; Najwa Al-Qattan, Dhimmis in the MuslimCourt: Legal Autonomy and Religious Discrimination, Inernational Journal of Middle EeastStudies, 31, 3 (1999), 429^-4. 16th century court records of Sarajevo (nos. la and 2) leavethe same impression.

102 Kursar

both sides turned to the Ottoman authorities in the search for a better solution.21 It

seems that the Jews of Sarajevo used to appeal to the Ottoman authorities as well,since one of the articles of the Jewish commune of Sarajevo from 1731 bans sucha practice.22 To sum up, a significant presence of non-Muslims registered in court

records, their partnership with Muslims in business and the existence of a consider-able number of mixed neighborhoods and villages greatly undermine the notionof isolated, self-sufficient and self-governing non-Muslim millet theocracies. On theother handjthe high number conversion by non-Muslims to Islam, as well as numer-ous instances of syncretism, magic and superstition, prove that religious authorities

did not have firm control even over strictly religious matters.Recent scholarship has thoroughly questioned the postulates of the millet system

theory. The Empire-wide organization of non-Muslim communities into the threemillets, Orthodox Christian, Armenian and Jewish, has been rejected as not con-firmed in contemporary sources and as an anachronism in the Early Modern period.A potential exception might be the Orthodox Christian community, although even

the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople was contested by rival patriarchates,

like the Serbian Patriarchate of Pec that separated from Constantinople in 155~.In general, members of other non-Muslim confessions were not organized into

Empire-wide organizations (millets), but divided into numerous micro-communitiesdetermined by geographic, administrative, ethnic, cultural, economic and other fac-tors. Prior to the nineteenth-century reforms, the common administrative organiza-tion of non-Muslim communities and the concept of the millet system did not exist.Terms that were generally used to mark communities or groups of people of the

same confessional or ethnic affiliation, as well as the same social, political or mili-tary rank, were ta'ife and cemSatP On the other hand, the term millet for Ottoman

21 Antal Molnar, Struggle for the Chapel of Belgrade (1612-1643). Trade and CatholicChurch in Ottoman Hungary, Acta Orientalia Academiae Sdentarium Hungaricae, 60,1 (200~ .73-143.

22Moric Levy, Sefardi u Eosni. Prilog historiji jevreja na balkanskom podrucju, tr. Ljiljana Ma? .̂[Klagenfurt:] Bosanska biblioteka [1996], p. 30. Originally published as: Moritz Levy, DitSephardim in Bosnien. Sarajevo 1911.

23 Benjamin Braude, Foundation Myths of the Millet System. In: Benjamin Braude and Ber-nard Lewis, eds., Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire. The Functioning of a Plural Soriet\.2 vols. New York, London: Holmes & Meier Publishers 1982, vol. 1, pp. 69-90; Berri-min Braude, The Strange History of the Millet System. In: Kemal Cicek, ed., The Gr-.-.:Ottoman-Turkish Civilisation, 4 vols. Ankara: Yeni Tiirkiye 2000, vol. 1, pp. 409—18; Alichie.O. H. Ursinus, Millet, EP; Michael Ursinus, Zur Diskussion um 'Millet' im Osmanische"Reich. In: Michael Ursinus, Quellen %ur Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches und ihre Interpreta-tion. Istanbul: ISIS Press 1994, pp. 185-97. On the organization of Jews see: ArnnonCohen, Jewish Ufe under Islam. Jerusalem in the Sixteenth Century. Cambridge: Harvard LT1984, pp. 3—5; Amnon Cohen, On the Realities of the Millet System: Jerusalem in theSixteenth Century. In: Braude and Lewis, eds., Christians and]ews, vol. 2, pp. 8—9; Mark A.Epstein, The Leadership of the Ottoman Jews in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Century. LL:Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis, eds., Christians and jews in the Ottoman Empire, vol. '-.pp. 104-5, and passim. On the organization of the Armenians see: Kevork B. Bardak::irL

Non-Muslim Communal Divisions and Identities 103

non-Muslims does occur on a dozen occasions as early as the seventeenth! century.However, the occurrence of the term does not imply a change in the administration

of non-Muslims, although, as Ursinus notes, it might indicate a defensive reflex onthe part of the State to the strengthening of Western European Christian mission-ary activities.24 Yet again, it has been stressed that the notion of the millet'is opposedto the very principle of Islamic law, which does not recognize the notion of the"legal entity," i.e., the concept of corporation, or freedom of association, except formercantile partnership (sharikat"*akd), which generally envisaged only two partners.25

The use of the term milkt'vn. the Early Modern period is, in fact, quite inconsistentand vague and seems to correspond to its Kur'anic meaning of "religion, confes-sion," rendering it synonymous with the word dm, "religion."26

In this connection, seventeenth-century documents concerning internal Catholiclitigation over the Belgrade chapel, preserved in the Dubrovnik Ecnebi Defteri no.14/2, and partially analyzed by Daniel Goffman,27 as well as documents concerningRoman Catholic — Orthodox Christian quarrels over the right of the collection of

Church taxes, show that the terms millet, dm and me^heb ("creed," "religious denomi-nation") were used with the same meaning, along with the neutral ta'ife ("group,""band"). In a document from 1628 concerning the quarrel between "Latin" Ragu-sans on the one hand and Bosnians and Sokci (§okcd) on the other over the RomanCatholic chapel in Belgrade, expressions such as "the infidel millet of. Sokci and Bos-nians and others" ($okca ve Bo/nak ve sa'irkefere milleti) and "the ta'ife of Bosnians and

Sokci" (Bofttak ve $okfa ta'ifesi) were used interchangeably.28 This constitutes the firstmention of an Ottoman Roman Catholic community as the millet, which in turn re-

pudiates the traditional concept of the triple millet organization, milel-i seldse, in whichRoman Catholics (like other smaller denominations and sects) were subject to theArmenian millet, or, alternatively, the Orthodox one.29 The following document fromthe same defter contains a petition by a Ragusan missionary, Fr. Luka, against state

officials and monks, metropolitans and vladikas from the "different millet" (gayri/

ahir milletden olan rahibler ve midrepolidler [ve] vladikalar), who were harassing him whilehe was preaching to Ragusans and "Christians in the remaining/other millef (sa'ir

The Rise of the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople. In: Benjamin Braude and Ber-nard Lewis, eds., Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire, vol. 1, pp. 89—100.

24 Ursinus, Millet; Ursinus, Zur Diskussion um 'Millet', pp. 195-7; Daniel Goffman, Otto-man Millets in the Early Seventeenth Century, Neiv Perspectives on Turkey, 11 (Fall 1994),pp. 135-58; Ahmed Refik, Onikinci Asr-i Hicri'de Istanbul Hayati (1689-1785). Istanbul:Enderun Kitabevi 1988, pp. 21-2, 160, and passim.

25 Amnon Cohen, Communal Legal Entities in a Muslim Setting. Theory and Practice inthe Jewish Community in Sixteenth-Century Jerusalem, Islamic Law and Society, 3, 1 (1996),75-90; Joseph Schacht, An Introduction toIslamicLaw. Oxford: Oxford UP 1964, pp. 155-6.

26 Cf. Ursinus, Millet.27 Basbakanhk Osmank Arsivi, Istanbul (henceafter: BOA). Diivel-i Ecnebiye Defteri, no.

1.4/2. Cf. Goffman, pp. 135-58.28 BOA. Diivel-i Ecnebiye Defteri, no. 14/2, p 46/1; cf. Goffman, p. 144.29 Cf. Gibb and Bowen, pp. 214-231; Sugar, p. 49.

104 Kursar

milletde olan Nasdrd) in Rumelia.30 Obviously, in this document dated 1630 the Ro-man Catholics are again mentioned as a millet distinct from the Orthodox Christians.A document from 1640 reveals the clear use of the term "Latin milled for theRoman Catholics.31 Again, Catholic monks were urging the authorities to protectthem and the rfaya of the Latin millet (Latin milletinde olan re'aya) from unauthorizedinterference by clergy from the "millet of Serbs and others" (Sirf ve gayri milletinde olan

rahibleri ve papaslan ve midrepolidleri [ve] vladikalari). The last example from the defteris the permission given to a Roman Catholic bishop in 1641 freely to move aboutand preach to the "Christians of the Latin millef (Latin milletinde olan Nasdra).32 Allthese examples indicate that the term millet denotes "confession" or "denomina-tion," thus coming very close in meaning to the terms din and me^heb. In an examplefrom 1642, the term din is used in the same manner as millet in the above-mentionedcases. Catholics from Pecuh and Backa, that is, "the infidel ta'ife of the Latin din"were to be protected against interference from Serbian Orthodox clergy, i.e., "met-ropolitans, vladikaS and priests of the Serbian din"** We have found another exampleof the use of the term millet in a collection of thirty-five Ottoman documents con-cerning disputes between Serbian Orthodox and Roman Catholic clergy in Bosnia,Herzegovina and Dalmatia between 1498 and 1693, published by Boskov.34 To thepresent author's knowledge, a firman of 1626 given to the Roman Catholic bishopToma represents the earliest example of the use of the term millet for Ottoman non-Muslims discovered so far.35 Toma was appointed head of the Bosnian Franciscans,who were guaranteed protection against interference from "monks from the Serbianand Vlach millef' (Sirf ve Eflak milletinde olan rahibler). It should be noted that this isthe only document in the collection in which the term millet is used. In other docu-ments traditional terms for religious denominations, such as ta'ife, din, me^heb and thegeneral term kefere ("unbelievers"), were preferred. Let us mention two examples. Ina document from 1575, Roman Catholics from Imotski, Duvno and Mostar com-plained about the Serbian Orthodox metropolitan Savatije, who was taxing themalthough they belonged to "the Prankish confession" (Frenk dittf).*6 According to ahiiccetof the Sarajevo court from 1672 concerning litigation between Franciscans andrepresentatives of the patriarch of Pec, the Franciscans declared that they did nothave any connection with the "confessions [sic] of Orthodox Christians, Serbs andVlachs" (Rum ve Sirf ve Eflak dtnleri), since they were members of the "Latin and Sokci

30 BOA. Duvel-i Ecnebiye Defteri, no. 14/2, p. 62/3; cf. Goffman, p. 145.31 BOA. Duvel-i Ecnebiye Defteri, no. 14/2, pp. 114-5; cf. Goffman, pp. 145-6.32 BOA. Duvel-i Ecnebiye Defteri, no. 14/2, p. 146/1; cf. Goffman, p. 146.33 BOA. Duvel-i Ecnebiye Defteri, no. 14/2, pp. 145-6.34 See Vanco Boskov, Turski dokumenti o odnosu katolicke i pravoslavne crkve u Bosni,

Hercegovini i Dalmaciji (XV—XVI I vek), Spomenik SANU, 131, Odeljenje istorijskih nau-ka 7, Belgrade 1992, pp. 7-95.

35 Boskov, doc. no. 21, pp. 82 (fascimile), 35—6 (transliteration and translation).36 Ibid., doc. 8, pp. 72 (fascimile), 20—1 (transliteration and translation).

Non-Muslim Communal Divisions and Identities 105

ta'ife" (Latin ve §okca td'ifesi).37 These examples show that in the seventeenth century

the term ml/etwas used almost exceptionally, while the synonymous traditional termsme^heb and dm, along with ta'ife and kefere, prevail. Let us conclude the chase of theword millet with two peculiar examples. In a document from 1673 concerning a ban

against a newly erected Roman Catholic church in Mostar, the terms millet and ta'ife

are used interchangeably.38 However, what makes this case relevant is the fact thatwhile the kadi of Mostar in his petition to the Porte uses a traditional formula for

non-Muslims — "infidel group of %}mmh" (%immi kefere td'ifesi) — the Porte in its re-ply substitutes the term millet for the term ta'ife — "refaya from the Latin millet" Thisdocument seems to prove the hypothesis that, in the Early Modern period, the term#«'//<?/was used exclusively by central government, while local administration preferred

traditional terms.39 Indeed, the most usual terms for non-Muslims in court recordsfrom the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries were %immi for Christians and Yahucti

for Jews. Additionally, a term often used for Catholic Christian ^immii, in the court re-cords from Sarajevo is Frenk. Otherwise, when there was a need to specify the originof an individual non-Muslim, the term asil ("root," "origin") was used, as in the cases

of a slave women named Fatima bin Abdullah of Slavonian origin (Is/avonya'I-asI)mentioned in the Sarajevo court register in 1557,40 or two Christians of Hungarian

origin in Sarajevo in 1565 (Macari'iil-asil), among others.41

On the other hand, the term millet occurs in an interesting entry from the Sara-jevo court records, book no. 4, from 1728—1729. It is an inscription concerning the

foundation of a ban for the Jews by the former beglerbegi of Rumelia, Siyavus Pasha,and his permission for the erection of a synagogue in 989/1581—1582.42 Here, the

term millet is applied to the Jews of Sarajevo (millet-i me^kure/ merkume, "the above-mentioned millet"). However, since the inscription is neither the original from thesixteenth century, nor its authentic copy, but an entry not even confirmed by the tes-

timony of the court witnesses (juhudii'l-hal), this is probably not the earliest exampleof the use of die term millet, but an echo of later times, even though the content ofthe text is not necessarily a forgery In any case, this may be a unique example of itsuse by local administration in the early eighteenth century.

It should not go without mention that there are two allegedly pre-seventeenth-century examples of die use of the term millet ̂ The most representative is the

famous firman given by Sultan Selim I to the Armenian Patriarch of Jerusalem,

37 Ibid., doc. 25, pp. 86 (fascimile), 41—3 (transliteration and translation).38 BOA. Cevdet-i Adliye, Dosya no. 70, Gomlek no. 4185.39 Ursinus, Zur Diskussion um 'Millef, pp. 195-6.40 GHB. Sarajevo sidjil, no. la, p. 192/2.41 GHB. Sarajevo sidjil, no. 2, p. 13/3.42 GHB. Sarajevo sidjil, no. 4, p. 85. Cf. Alij a Bejtic, Jevrejske nastambe u Sarajevu. In: Spo-

menica 400 godina od dolaskajevreja u Bosnu i Hercegovinu, Sarajevo 1966, p. 26; Levy, p. 15.43 See M. Macit Kenanoglu, Osmanh Millet Sistemi. Mit Ve Gerfek. Istanbul: Klasik 2004,

pp. 44—6; Bilgehan Pamuk, Osmanlilar Zamamnda Rum-Ermeni Kiliseleri ArasmdakiIliskiler (Kudus Ornegi),^lLl Tiirkiyat Arastirmalan Dergisi, 16 (2001), 239-47.

106 Kursar

Sarkis III , following the Ottoman conquest of the city in 1517.44 Selim I guaranteed

the Patriarch various rights and freedoms and, among other things, listed Abyssin-ians, Copts and Assyrians as denominations, the millets, under the jurisdiction of theArmenian patriarchate. Again, while the content of the document should probablynot be questioned, the term millet itself might represent the style and addition of

the later period. The Kilise Defteri no. 8, where the copy of the firman is preserved,as a whole most probably originates from the mid-seventeenth century, if not later,although it contains copies of documents from 1455 to 1757.45 In addition, it con-tains a charter issued by Mehmed the Conqueror in 1458 to the Christian OrthodoxPatriarch of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and his priests, who visited the Sultan in his

new capital, Istanbul.46 Mehmed confirms the legendary rights and privileges thatthey had enjoyed since the time of the Arab conquest and had been granted by thecaliph cUmar.47 Interestingly enough, the term millet appears again, as "the millet of

Christians" (millet-iNasrdni). In the opinion of the author, the documents in ques-tion acted as charter myths that legitimized later grants given to the Armenian andOrthodox Christian patriarchates of Jerusalem. Therefore, in both documents the

legendary seventh-century charter of the caliph cUmar was confirmed which linkedthe Ottoman sultans Mehmed and Selim with the Prophet's Companion and thethird caliph. Similarly, the seventeenth-century Ecnebi Defteri related to the Republic

of Ragusa (Dubrovnik) discussed above, contains, on its first page, a copy of thelegendary ahdname issued by Mehmed the Conqueror to the Bosnian Franciscansafter the conquest of Bosnia.48 It was most probably supposed to legitimize the mis-

sionary logistic activities of the Republic as the centre for Balkan Roman Catholicmissions in the seventeenth century.49 Until the original firmans are consulted, theseearly examples of the occurrence of the term millet have to be taken into account

44 Pamuk, pp. 233-43. For the text of the firman see: BOA. Kilise Defteri, no. 8, pp. 61-2.See transliterated text in: Pamuk, pp. 246—7.

45 Cf. Yavuz Ercan, Osmanh Yonetiminde Gayrimiislimler. Kurulustan Tan^imat'a Kadar Sosyal,Ekonomik Ve Hukuki Durumlan. Ankara: Turhan Kitabevi 2001, pp. 30—1. BasbakanlikOsmanhArsiviRebberi. Istanbul: T. C. Basbakankk Devlet Arsivleri Genel Mudurlugu 2000,pp. 39-40.

46 BOA. Kilise Defteri, no. 8, p. 6. See fascimile and transliteration in: Gokkube Altmda Birlik-te Yasamak. Ankara: T.C. Basbakanhk Devlet Arsivleri Genel Mudurlugu 2006, pp. 106—7.

47 Cf. C.E. Bosworth, The Concept of Dhimma in Early Islam. In: Benjamin Braude andBernard Lewis, eds., Christians and jews in the Ottoman Umpire, vol. 1, pp. 45—7; Daniel J.Sahas, The Face to Face Encounter between Patriarch Sophronius of Jerusalem and theCaliph 'Umar Ibn al-Khattab: Friends or Foes?. In: Emmanouela Grypeou, Mark Swan-son and David Thomas, eds., The Encounter of Eastern Christianity with Early Islam. Leiden —Boston: Brill 2006, pp. 33-44.

48 BOA. Diivel-i Ecnebiye Defteri, no. 14/2, p. 1/1. See fascimile and transliteration in:Gokkube Altmda, pp. 2—3. The individual document is preserved in the museum of themonastery of Fojnica in Bosnia.

49 Cf. Antal Molnar, Relations between the Holy See and Hungary during the OttomanDomination of the Country. In: Istvan Zombori, ed., Fight against the Turk in CenralEuropein the first half of the 16th century. Budapest: METEM 2004, pp. 201-2, and passim.

Non-Muslim Communal Divisions and Identities 107

with due precaution. In this respect it should be recalled that original documentsfrom around the same period concerning the Churches in the same region contain

traditional terms such as sgmmi and td'ife \fhen referring to non-Muslim groups.50

Despite the fact that the millet system as an administrative concept did not existbefore the nineteenth-century reforms, the appearance of terms with specific ethnicmeaning such as Sirf (Serb), Ermem (Armenian), Hirvad (Croatian), Bo/nak (Bos-nian), Bu/gar (Bulgarian), Kibti or fingene (Gypsy), among others, does indicate that a

certain sense of ethnic and communal distinctions may have existed. The occasionalassociation of the term millet with ethnic terms might mean that it was beginningto acquire one of its present-day meanings, i.e., that of "folk," or "nation", that is,

ethnie. ̂ The Ottoman administration recognized even such micro-ethno-communalidentities as the Catholic Sokci of Southern Hungary, i.e. the Baranja and Backa.In fact, it seems that the term §okfa was used to denote a wider group of CatholicSlavs living in Southern Hungary (including Srijem, Slavonija, Baranja and Backa)and Northern Serbia.32 Similarly, in the context of South Slavic regions, the admin-

istration sometimes recognized the old Balkan pre-Slavic ethnie of the VLachs. Theirname appears in several documents from the seventeenth century jointly with Serbsas the millet of Vlachs and Serbs, or the millet of Vlachs, Serbs and Rum (here obvi-ously meaning Orthodox Christians, not Greeks).53 Most probably the term Vlachdoes not, in this context, have a separate ethnic meaning, which was already lost,

but rather an administrative one and denotes believers in the Patriarchate of Pec.This might indicate that in the first half of the seventeenth century the processof sedentarization of Orthodox Vlachs and their gradual fusion with the Serbianpeasant population reached a high level, a state which was officially acknowledgedby the Ottoman chancery.54 On the other hand, just as the name of Sokci became aderogative term for Roman Catholics used by neighboring Orthodox Christians and

Muslims, the name of Vlachs was applied to Orthodox Serbs as a whole, whether ofVlach origin or not. Ottoman recognition and differentiation between Balkan ethnicand even micro- and pseudo-ethnic communities and the occasional designation ofthe latter as the millets do not mean that all these groups existed as administratively

50 See Uriel Heyd, Ottoman Documents on Palestine, 1552—1615. A Study of the Firman accordingto the Miihimme Defteri. Oxford: The Clarendon Press 1960, doc. 126, plate xvii (fascimile),p. 184 (translation) — ̂ immt,Frenk ta'ifesi (\60T); Klaus Schwarz, OsmanischeSultansurkundendes Sinai-KJosters in tiirkischer Sprache. Freiburg im Breisgau: Klaus Schwarz Verlag 1970,pp. 41-4 - Yahudi' ta'ifesi (1567).

51 Cf. Turk Dil Kurumu, Biiyii k Tiirkce Sozliik - Giincel Tiirkce Sozliik. "Millet." http://tdkterim.gov.tr/bts/ (accessed, February 1, 2011).

52 Sokci, In: Hrvatska enaklopedija. Zagreb: Leksikografski zavod "Miroslav Krleza" 2008,pp. 499-500.

53 See above.54 Cf. Nedim Filipovic, Islamizacija vlaha u Bosni i Hercegovini u XV i XVI vijeku. In: Sim-

pozijum Vlasi u XV i XVI vijeku (Sarajevo, 13-16. XI 1973), Radovi ANUBiH, vol. 73,Odjeljenje drustvenih nauka, vol. 22, Sarajevo 1983, p. 142.

108 Kursar

organized and recognized entities that functioned as "a state within Ottoman state,"in accordance with postulates of the millet system theory. Further research will defi-nitely bring to the surface more examples of the use of the term millet in the EarlyModern period, which, however, should not lead to the fusion of the term withthe anachronistic concept named after it. At that time the Ottoman state was stillself-sufficient and self-confident enough not to share its prerogatives with any otherentity within its confines, be it ethnic, religious, cultural or social.

Power and Influencein South-Eastern Europe

16th-19th century

edited by

Maria Baramova, Plamen Mitev,Ivan Parvev and Vania Racheva

LIT

Cover image:The Signing of the Treaty of San Stefanofrom the book Illjustrovannaja hronika vojny, 1877-1878. Vol.2,St. Petersburg 1878, p. 372-373.Courtesy Seminar Library of the Faculty of History, Sofia University"St. Kliment Ohridski"

Publication of the Center of Excellence in the Humanities "Alma Mater"(Regional Studies Program), Sofia University "St. Kliment Ohridski"funded by the Scientific Research Fund of the Bulgarian Ministry ofEducation, Youth, and Science.

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche NationalbibliothekThe Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the DeutscheNationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet athttp://dnb.d-nb.de.

ISBN 978-3-643-90331-0

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

©LlT VERLAG GmbH & Co. KG wien, LIT VERLAG Dr. w. HopfZweigniederlassung Zurich 2013 Berlin 2013Klosbachstr. 107 Fresnostr. 2CH-8032 Zurich D-48159 MtinsterTel. +41 (0) 44-251 75 05 Tel. +49 (0) 2 51 -62 03 20Fax +41 (0) 44-251 75 06 Fax +49 (0) 2 51 -23 19 72E-Mail: zuerich@lit-verlag.ch E-Mail: lit@lit-verlag.dehttp://www.lit-verlag.ch http://www.lit-verlag.de

Distribution:In Germany: LlT Verlag Fresnostr. 2, D-48159 MunsterTel. +49 (0)251-6203222, Fax +49 (0)251-9226099, E-mail: vertrieb@lit-verlag.de

In Austria: Medienlogistik Pichler-OBZ, e-mail: mlo@medien-logistik.atIn Switzerland: B + M Buch- und Medienvertrieb, e-mail: order@buch-medien.chIn the UK: Global Book Marketing, e-mail: mo@centralbooks.comIn North America: International Specialized Book Services, e-mail: orders@isbs.com