Πόλη και Καζάς: το Yenisehir (Λάρισα) στα μέσα του 17ου αιώνα με βάση τα ιεροδικαστικά έγγραφα των ετών 1060- 1062 (1650-1652)

Abstract

In the present doctoral thesis we publish the judicial records of Yeni§ehir (nowadays Larissa in Central Greece) which bear the code number T2 and are preserved in the State Archives of Kozani in North Greece. The included entries cover the period from Ramazan 1060 to Zilaka'de 1062 (August 1650 to October 1652). The main bulk of the cases were recorded during the service of two kadis, each kadi served for about a year in this post. Given the information by Evliya Çelebi, according to whom the judge of this district (kam), who bore the title of a molla, had a daily compensation of 500 akçe, the post of the kadi in this town must have been in great demand. We possess no accurate information about where the court of Yenișehir was lodged; some indications, however, exist that in all likelihood in the period under examination there were no permanent premises for this purpose. From the data of our register we can conclude that in the given time at least twenty persons worked, in some way or other, in the court of Yenișehir -court ushers, clerks or assistants to the judge-, a fact that underlines the magnitude and importance of the town. The entries of our register belong to the type of a hüccet that is they are summaries of the documents issued by the kadi. Although one might expect that this kind of documents would have been of very great value for the buyer of a house, vineyards or fields, for the slave who was given his/her freedom, for the woman who got a divorce from her husband on her own initiative, for the loan taker who paid off his debt, for the plaintiff who won the case or for the defender who was discharged, in our records only fourteen cases -out of a total of 836- exist, in which a hüccet was produced as documentary evidence: In the middle of the 17th century in Yenișehir the best way by which one could support or secure his affair was by witnesses. Out of about 1672 litigants and contracting parties who, during the years 1650-52, made use of the services of the court of justice in Yenișehir, 251 of them, that is just 15%, did so by using a representative (vekil). A thorough examination of all the cases showed that the overwhelming majority of the people who used a vekil, both men and women, did it on grounds of prestige. So, as a rule, most people in Yenișehir around 1650 came in person to the court to plead their own cases. The cases of our entries can be divided into three categories. The first one includes those which came to the court in order to be recorded by the kadi - notary, thus securing the party that needed some kind of guarantee. In the cases of the second category one party brings a suit against another one in order to safeguard its interests. Finally, in the third one there is only one party claiming something from the court. Most of the cases belong to the first two categories. Important evidence can be drawn out of our records about the quarters in Yenisehir, and the organization of Muslims and Non-Muslims in them. Zimmis are involved in about one third of the entries, while in 14,5% of them both parties are zimmis. It seems, therefore, that even the Non-Muslim inhabitants of Yenișehir and its environs were, to a more or less satisfactory extent, incorporated into the Ottoman administration system, and were thus utilizing the services it offered. Twenty-three quarters were recorded in the register; Christians and Muslims lived together in at least eight of them, of which three constituted the greater quarters of the town. Furthermore, if we consider that in several cases houses of Christians had common borders with houses of Muslims, and that Christians sold houses to Muslims and vice versa, then we can with some certainty conclude that the supposed and so often highlighted absolute separation of the religious and ethnic communities was not in force always and everywhere, at least not in Yenisehir of the middle of the 17th century. However, if this was true for the town, it did not apply to its environs as well; we learn, for instance, of a single Muslim -obviously a convert- in Ambelakia, who was forced by his fellow villagers to leave and settle in more cosmopolitan surroundings in Yenișehir. In our records some evidence also exists on the geographical position of the quarters. The most important conclusion, however, is that the quarters constituted tax units and they were considered as such both by the state and their own inhabitants. Thus, a certain degree of cohesion and solidarity among them was quite essential so as to be able to overcome financial or other difficulties. We learn, therefore, that almost every quarter of the town had its own cash vakf (pious foundation in money) in order to be able to cope with emergencies resulting from the imposition of extraordinary levies. On the other hand, the division of a quarter into two parts by the state –obviously because of its size- indicates the fact that the state itself was very much interested in preserving and promoting such kind of relations among the inhabitants of a quarter. The letter's cohesion and solidarity -which without fail was also the result of their co-responsibility- is also reflected in some cases in which leading members of the quarter showed up in court and claimed the expulsion from their quarter of some person who, they believed, would someday cause them -as a community- much trouble. It is well-established from other parts of the empire that whenever some kind of turbulence or even murder took place in a region and the responsible was not found out, then the whole quarter or the whole village was held responsible instead. However, the cohesion of the quarter was due mainly to the collective liability of its inhabitants to pay taxes. From many cases of our records it becomes clear that no quarter was willing to lose any of its members, because that would mean extra charge for the rest of them. It seems that this sense of collectivity existed in the villages as well, but our data here are scarce. It is quite reasonable that the court records offer only fragmentary information about the buildings of a town, both public and private. A quite detailed description of a dwelling house is given in about 115 cases of our register; it is mostly about house transactions, and more seldom about transfer of houses through donation or division of an inheritance. In their majority they are one-storey houses. In several cases more than one houses stand on the same plot of land. An average house in Yenișehir in the middle of the 17th century consisted of the main house, a loggia (hayat), a penthouse, a courtyard, often with a well and trees. Of course, more extravagant houses existed as well. For lack of evidence in our records we cannot tell for sure if there was some kind of urban planning in Yenisehir. On the contrary we know for sure that an expert on architecture was of service to the local kadi, he offered his expeit opinion in cases which concerned the general public interest. Houses in the rural areas around Yenișehir cost about half the prices in the town. In this rural region we come across a special network of buildings, the so called çiftliks (çiftlik ta'bir olunur menzil), they consist mostly of farm outhouses, some rooms, barns, storehouses and stables, while often a threshing field is mentioned as well. What is interesting here is the fact that as a rule the sale of such a rural network went together with the transfer of arable land -mostly of very great extent- which "belongs" to the çiftlik. Some of the twenty-one mosques, which Evliya Çelebi saw during his stay in the town, are occasionally mentioned in our records. Also, the existance of seven mescids, seven zaviyes, three hamams, six bans and one bezesten is testified within the town of Yenisehir. Many aspects of women and family life in Yenișehir of the middle of the 17th century are reflected in our records. While 32,5 % of the Muslim women who used the services of the court did so by sending there a representative, if we take off the cases in which the representative is a close relative of them, then this percentage sinks to 14 % and is thus very close to that of the Muslim men. Moreover, as far as women are concerned the use of a representative, apart from a marker of their socio-economic status, was also a means of guarding their virtue by the command of religion. But even in this last case we believe that compliance with what religion commanded was, or could be, ultimately a way of making up an image. A young girl, just like a young boy, could get married without having come of age; the consent of her guardian was sufficient, at least for the concluding of the wedding contract. Still, if the woman was adult and the contract was drawn up without her knowledge, she had the right to annul it. In case she was a minor at the time of the contract, she could annul it when she reached her majority that is about the time she had her first menses. Probably the most important clause in a wedding contract was mehr that is the wife's dowry, of which a part was paid by the husband upon marriage, though the rest of it was to be paid in case of divorce or widowhood. In the period under examination mehr in Yenisehir ranged from 2.000 to 40.000 akçe (always an even number), obviously according to the socio-economic status and other accomplishments of the bride. Not rarely the bride remitted the whole, but more usually a part of it to her husband. As long as the whole family lived under the same roof the husband was responsible for the maintenance both of his wife and their children. In case of a prolonged absence he would leave sufficient means for the support of his family. But since the return of a husband was not always an affair one could feel sure of, some husbands were prudent enough to concede their wives, in the presence of witnesses, the right to be considered divorced after a certain space of time. Moreover, in some cases some husbands divorced their wives while being away from Yenisehir. There exist, however, cases in which the husband was missing for a long time, and that, without his having previously provided anything for his family. In such cases the law enabled the wife to take advantage of her husband's property, or borrow money offering that property as a guarantee. Serious trouble began when there was little or no property for that purpose! There are some indications that a woman in such a desperate situation might think to persuade some witnesses to testify that their husband was killed or died somewhere else, so that they could get remarried. In such cases a certain degree of flexibility on the court's part should be taken for granted. Divorce on the husband's initiative was an easy affair and was registered in the court records only rarely; that was the case when certain complications and problems arose after the divorce. In the kadi sicilleri more often occur cases of hul', that is divorce on the wife's initiative. In a hul' case the wife usually resigned from at least some of her rights. The scrutiny of all the women-initiated divorce cases revealed that, for all the impression we get that it was a procedure that favoured women, it is not always clear under what conditions a woman went so far as to ask for hul'. As long as both parents were alive there was no matter of custody, guardianship or maintenance of the minor children. The father was the natural guardian and responsible for the maintenance of his children, while the mother had the custody and the care of them. The trouble began when the parents got a divorce, or one of them, or even both of them died. A statistical analysis of the register's data revealed that in all the cases the guardian is a close relative, apart from such cases in which the degree of kinship is not given. Moreover, if we leave out mothers and siblings of the minors, then the guardians on the father's side outweight those on the mother's side. Most remarkable, though, is the fact that mothers, in a higher incidence than other relatives, took over the guardianship of their children. Of course, a mother had the custody of her children until they reached a certain age, whether she was their guardian or not. On the other hand, the court showed particular merest in safeguarding the minor's property, and went so far as to relieve a guardian of his/her duties if it was ascertained that he/she was not acting in the minor's interest. Slaves formed another class of people for whom, apart from women and orphan minors, the court of Yenisehir showed special merest. Not a single entry concerning selling and buying of slaves occurs in our register. Obviously the registering of such a transaction was not necessary. We learn of such transactions only in case of a later complication. A slave could be sold, donated and, of course, be the bone of contention among heirs. There was a variety of slaves in Yenișehir as far as their origin is concerned: Circassians, Europeans, Poles, Russians, Cretans, Croats and "negros". Several cases concern emancipation of slaves and the relevant problems. The emancipation of slaves is a pious work and many people set their slaves free for the salvation of their souls. Occasionally it was imposed as expiation from sins or as self-punishment for the violation of an oath. Sometimes it was part of the preparations made by someone who would go on pilgrimage. The former owner of a slave had no right on his/her freedman/freedwoman except from the right of vela, a kind of guardianship with consequences on marriage and heritage. When a slave owner did want to emancipate his/her slave some time, but was not ready to do so while being alive, he could make an arrangement with him/her (tedbir), that he/she would be free (müdebbere) after his death. Not rarely though, some heirs, whether they knew nothing about the emancipation or the tedbir, or from personal considerations, they went on holding the freedmen as slaves, regarding them as part of the inheritance. Another way which led a slave to his/her freedom was through some kind of exchange. It was all about an agreement -called mükatebe- according to which, if the slave fulfilled the duties given by his/her master, he/she would be considered freed after a fixed space of time. While in some other parts of the Ottoman Empire such kind of agreements securing the consent of the slave, which were made in order to cover demands for labour hands, were often, in Yenisehir of the middle of the 17th century only two such cases were recorded in a two years period. It is obvious that in this corner of the empire even if there was labour demand, that was covered otherwise than buying slaves and making agreements with them of the mükatebe type, because this would be probably an unprofitable procedure. Pious foundations played an important role in the life of Yenișehir. Of special interest are those entries in our records, in which foundation of cash vaqfs occurs. In these we learn in detail the procedure which was followed -according to the hanafite school of law- for a vaqf to be valid and irrevocable. Except from the great vaqfs, especially those of Turhan Bey and 'Ömer Bey -from the greatest not only in Yenișehir, but in the whole of the Ottoman Empire as well-, the majority of the vaqfs recorded in our register belong to the type of the cash vaqf. It seems that, if not all, at least most of the town's quarters had their own cash vaqf -it was, therefore, a collective one- aiming at gathering and increasing capital for facilitating their inhabitants in fulfilling their tax obligations. Surprisingly enough, with but one exception, no cash vaqfs occur for the villages of the region. On the other hand, most of the religious institutions, like mosques, mescids and zaviyes, had cash vaqfs at the service of not only religious but also of other, such as educational, needs. In an age when people did not cherish great expectations of much state welfare, private enterprise was of extraordinary importance for their lives. Two hundred and nine cases or, said otherwise, 25 % of all cases which came to the court of Yenisehir in the given period concerned, in one way or other, debts Of these, two thirds were direct loans, while one third concerned debts from various reasons, such as buying and selling. At the moment of contracting a loan both the lender and the borrower showed up in the court where the latter confessed in the presence of witnesses that he had borrowed a certain amount of money from the first one and that he had to pay it off. Another occasion on which both parties came to the court, this time to the borrower's protection, was on the payment of the debt. Of course, many other cases concern loans and debts in general; they were recorded because of some complication between the contracting parties, or their heirs, or the guardians of some heirs, etc. In about half of all loan cases the lender is a cash vaqf. Customers of the latter were Muslims as well as Christians, both at about the same degree. Still, while Christians borrowed money almost to the same degree as Muslims did, they hardly lent money. Either they invested their capital elsewhere, in trade for instance, or their financial status did not allow them such an investment. Moreover, granted that lending money seems to have been a usual investment among Muslims, it would be rather strange iftheir Christian fellow-townsmen did not do the same, all the more so since such an investment yielded 15 % per annum, and in some cases 20 %. On the contrary, we see groups of zimmis, whole quarters, even whole villages, resorting to borrowing in order to be able to cope with their tax or other financial obligations. Only in 17 % of the cases there is mention of a pawn. The risk of lending money without pawn was undertaken mostly be individuals than by vaqfs. However, we must take into account that another way of securing the lender was the existence of a guarantor. None the less, always concluding from our sample, even the existence of a guarantor was not an invariable tactic. It is now a common place that lending and borrowing money at interest was a usual practice among both Muslims and Non-Muslims of the Ottoman Empire, especially in the 17th century. Yenișehir on the Balkan Peninsula was no exception to the rule; interest, as if something very usual, was recorded in court openly and without further ado. The usual rate of merest at that time in Yenișehir was 15 % ("her onu on bir buçuk hesabi üzere" being the expression of it). People in Yenișehir bought and sold things often getting into debts. That practice was not unusual even between people from distant places, which not rarely was the case when traders came to the fairs of the region. We are not well informed about how the trade system and the transactions worked in Yenișehir. None the less, it seems that these were highly developed, judging by the high rate of loans and debts recorded in our register. No charges of murder, in which the accused was found guilty, occur in the kadi sicilleri of Yenișehir in the middle of the 17th century. It is thus obvious that in most cases of murder the affair was arranged in some way without recourse to the law. On the contrary, several cases came to the court of Yenișehir, in which the heirs of the murdered released some people -often a whole quarter or village- from the charge of murder, because the real perpetrator was found. None the less, even in cases of compromise between the heirs and the perpetrator, both parties came to the court to have their affair recorded; they did so because the compromise was always followed by a sum of money. We know that in the Ottoman legal practice the blood money was closely related to the whole community's responsibility, and that the salary of the police officers was supplemented by the blood money, so that the latter were always very prompt in imputing responsibility. That is the reason why so often requests came to the court to carry out an autopsy in cases of sudden and unexpected death: The members of a community wanted to have some evidence of their innocence against future claimants of compensation. Ottoman justice seems to have been more alarmed in cases of murder or wound as a result of stealing or rape for example, than it was in cases of murder for personal reasons, because in the former instance it was public security and social peace that were at stake. In many of these cases the penalty was sentence to the warships. Given the Cretan War of the time, oarsmen must have been in great demand. The kadi of Yenișehir did not hesitate to have the urgency for oarsmen recorded, when describing the grounds on which he was based for inflicting this penalty. In cases of crimes like robbery, wound, rape and murder, of great importance, next to the eyewitnesses, was also what "people" thought of the character of the accused. This kind of testimony of mostly prominent people of the quarter or the village against the accused is almost always to be found in cases of requests concerning expulsion from the quarter or the village on the grounds, for instance, of wine drinking or loose morals. It seems, thus, that at least in some cases the court of Yenișehir was very much concerned not so much about the pedantic administration of justice, as about the maintenance of social peace and order, and the avoidance of general discontent; to speak in modern terms, it took the public opinion very seriously. It should not be presumed, though, that the court of Yenișehir did not administrate justice, or that the system of this administration was corrupt. Quite the opposite is true, as far as we can judge from our material: To mention only one example, our records have saved us a case in which we learn that the kadi of Yenișehir did not hesitate to clash with the administrator of the most mighty vaqf of 'Ömer Bey over an affair that meant a lot to the financial interests of the latter.