Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies ISSN: 0307-0131 (Print) 1749-625X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ybyz20 Central administration versus provincial arbitrary governance: Patmos and Mount Athos monasteries in the 16th century Eugenia Kermeli To cite this article: Eugenia Kermeli (2008) Central administration versus provincial arbitrary governance: Patmos and Mount Athos monasteries in the 16th century, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 32:2, 189-202 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/174962508X322678 Published online: 18 Jul 2013. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 16 View related articles Citing articles: 1 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ybyz20 Download by: [Bilkent University] Date: 01 October 2017, At: 23:51 Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies Vol. 32 No. 2 (2008) 189–202 Central administration versus provincial arbitrary governance: Patmos and Mount Athos monasteries in the 16th century* Eugenia Kermeli Department of History, Bilkent University The confiscation of monastic properties ordered by Selim II in 1568 served as a catalyst precipitating a process of negotiation and mutual accommodation between the centre – represented by the sultan and his jurisconsult- and the periphery articulated by the monks. Even in formulaic imperial orders, it is apparent that the monastic communities suc- cessfully negotiated the terms for the normalisation of the affair, whereas the jurisconsult accommodated the Porte’s interests to the local society’s needs. On the local level, the judge functioned as a mediator, addressing the monks’ requirements, even if he had to transgress a number of Islamic rules and imperial orders. Thus, this case study illustrates the gradual transformation of a polity in dialogue with local communities. ‘All a historian does when she or he attempts the reconstruction of the past by writing it down is simply a temporary attesting of the fluidity inherent in the historical process’.1 In 1568, what is perceived today as a temporary attesting of fluidity was, for the subjects of the Ottoman sultan, a reality to be dealt with. Upon his succession to the throne in 1566, Selim II ordered a new registration of all imperial orders and deeds validat- ing possession of movable and immovable properties. None of the monks in the monastery Downloaded by [Bilkent University] at 23:51 01 October 2017 of Saint John the Theologian situated on the remote Aegean island of Patmos and of those in Dionysiou monastery on Mount Athos could have predicted the intensity of the legal * A first draft of this paper entitled ‘The Aegean Sea in the 16th century: the archives of Patmos monastery’, was presented at a workshop organised by the Centre for Byzantine Studies of the National Research Centre of Greece, 14 January 1997. I would like to dedicate this paper to the memory of the late Professor Oikonomides who suggested the title. I would also like to thank Professor Zachariadou for guiding me through the archive of Patmos monastery and for allowing me to see the important firman of Dionysiou monastery. 1 R. A. Abou-El-Haj, ‘A Response to Linda Darling’s review of Formation of the Modern State: The Ottoman Empire Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries’, International Journal of Middle East Studies 26/1 (1994) 175. © 2008 Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham DOI: 10.1179/174962508X322678 190 Eugenia Kermeli battle that followed. Luckily we can trace the origins of the dispute and describe the way it unfolded until the time when a final settlement was reached between the Porte and the monks. The confiscation and repossession of monastic properties illustrates the negoti- ation process and the argumentation employed by central and local actors in an effort to solve the dispute. This case elucidates efforts on the part of the Sultan to normalize complicated — and often conflicting— agrarian and endowment laws. It depicts local resistance to the commands of the centre and negotiation between centre and periphery in an effort to reach a viable settlement. Finally, it demonstrates the efforts of the local judge, ensnared in a web of central commands and local needs. The Case Selim II’s order to confiscate monastic properties in 1568 took the monks of Mount Athos and of Patmos by surprise. It was customary for a new sultan to validate documents issued by his predecessors. The monks had failed to foresee the change in regard to the land- system and its taxation. This change was initiated by Selim’s father, the illustrious Süleyman the Magnificent, otherwise known as the Lawgiver. Süleyman rightfully earned this last epithet due to the strenuous efforts of one of his most able subjects, the juriscon- sult (sceyhülislam) Ebu’s Sugud, who was renowned for reconciling the Holy Law (Shariga) with the Ottoman ‘secular’ law (kanun).2 Ebu’s Sugud had already attempted to create a uniform system with regard to land and its taxation, and to redefine general principles. The system that applied in the Balkans until his time was based primarily on custom and imperial legislation. Practice, though, was not uniform and there was no description of its norms.3 Following the tradition of Hanafi jurists like Qadikhan, Ibn Bazzaz and Kemalpascazade, Ebu’s Sugud redefined the basic laws on land tenure and taxation.4 In 1541 Ebu’s Sugud addressed the problem of Downloaded by [Bilkent University] at 23:51 01 October 2017 2 C. Imber, Ebu’s Sugud: The Islamic Legal Tradition (Stanford 1997) passim; H. Inalcik, Ottoman Empire: the classical age 1300–1600 (New York 1989) 70–73 and ‘Islamization of Ottoman laws on land and land taxa- tion’, in C. Fragner, K. Schwarz (eds.), Festgabe an Josef Matuz: Osmanistik- Türkologie- Diplomatik (Berlin 1992) 100–116. 3 Imber, Ebu’s Sugud, 122; Inalcik, ‘Islamization’, 157; J. Barnes, An Introduction to Religious Foundations in the Ottoman Empire (Leiden 1987); A. Akgündüz, OsmanlI Kanunnameleri (Istanbul 1990); Ö. L. Barkan, XV ve XVIinci asIrlarda OsmanlI Imparatorlud hunda zirai ekonominin hukuki va mali esaslar, Kanunlar (Istanbul 1943); H. Lowry, Fifteenth Century Ottoman Realities: Christian peasant life in the Aegean island of Limnos (Istanbul 2002) and ‘The Ottoman Liva Kanunnames contained in the Defter-i Hakani’, Journal of Ottoman Studies 2 (1981) 43–74; G. Veinstein, ‘Le législateur ottoman face à l’insularité: l’enseignment des Kânûnnâme’ in N. Vatin, C. Veinstein, eds., Insularités ottomans (Paris 2004) 91–110. 4 Imber, Ebu’s Sugud, 136–7. Central administration versus provincial arbitrary governance 191 misappropriation of land and its revenues while drafting the law-book (kanunname) for Hungary. Nonetheless, customary practices proved tenacious.5 Thus, the significantly old by now jurisconsult had another golden opportunity to rectify whatever he considered to be the ‘mistaken supposition’ of peasants (regaya) and even of judges on the issue of land ownership by supervising the promulgation of a new kanunname for Thessaloniki and Skopje (1568–1569).6 The same kanunname enunciated the legal grounds for ordering the confiscation of monastic properties. Thus all title deeds (hüccets) and endowment documents (vakfIyes) issued by judges became invalid. There could be a number of reasons behind the late response of the monastic com- munities to the paramount changes in the system. Like the peasants, the monks had not yet grasped the nature of the changes in the law on land.7 Using a legal stratagem, Ebu’s Sugud categorized all land in the empire as ‘royal demesne’ (aradi’l-mamlaka), apart from lands recognized by the sultanic authority as freeholds (mülk). The cultivators had acquired the ownership of the usufruct as a loan (gariyya). Thus, the entry fee (tapu), which a new occupant paid for his land to the fief holder (sipahi), was the advance rent (ücret-i mugaccele).8 In practice the monks, like the other peasants, continued to treat land as their freehold, by selling, buying, pre-empting and exchanging it.9 Monastic properties other than land, that is vineyards, orchards, mills, shops, houses, wine houses, animals and ships were also confiscated on the basis of another legal techni- cality. Monastic estates had expanded over the centuries as a result of private and imperial patronage. The Byzantine collections of monastic documents are full of smaller and bigger gifts and donations.10 Pious Christians donated part or all of their properties to monasteries in order to have the family name commemorated, others because they died without issue, or as they entered monastic life. The extent of monastic wealth is 5 Ibid., 122–136. 6 See especially the introductory paragraph of the law book where Ebu’s Sugud explained all these problems: Barkan, Kanunlar, 298–99. Downloaded by [Bilkent University] at 23:51 01 October 2017 7 For an extensive analysis of the legal tricks employed by Ebu’s Sugud see Imber, Ebu’s Sugud, 123–125; B. Johansen, The Islamic Law on Land Tax and Rent (London 1988) 84ff; E. Kermeli, ‘Ebu’s Sugud’s Definition of Church Vakfs: Theory and Practice in Ottoman Law’, in R. Gleave, E. Kermeli, eds., Islamic Law: Theory and Practice (London 1997, pbk ed. 2001) 146–147. 8 Imber, Ebu’s Sugud 123–124; Kermeli, ‘Church Vakfs’ 146; Inalcik, ‘Islamization’ 159. 9 Imber, Ebu’s Sugud 130, fetva n. 17. 10 A. Laiou Thomadakis, Peasant Society in the Late Byzantine Empire: A Social and Demographic Study (Princeton 1977) 163ff.; P. Charanis, ‘The monastic properties and the state in the Byzantine Empire’, DOP 4 (1948) 53–118; Mount Athos and Byzantine Monasticism, eds. A. Bryer, M.B. Cunningham, Section III (Aldershot 1996); J. Thomas, A. Constantinides Hero, Byzantine Monastic Foundations Documents (Washing- ton, D. C. 2000); E.