38

This thesis examines the nature of the financial activities of the Greek

Orthodox Church vis-à-vis Ottoman State during the 17th century that has often

been neglected by the historians due to the lack of archival sources. It proposes to

overcome these challenges by systematically scanning two important archival

collections, namely the Atik Şikâyet Defters and Mühimme Defters, which contain

registers covering both ecclesiastical and non-ecclesiastical matters through an

examination and analysis of the orders (hüküms) on financial aspects of the

ecclestical matters between 1650 and 1690. This research will unveil the evolving

dynamics between the church members and the Ottoman officers. Analysis of the

orders in these registers with the religious, legal, financial and social dynamics of

the petitioners sheds light on the financial changes of the period that is often

characterized by almost exclusive crisis in the secondary literature. This thesis

shows that the financial relations between them were more complex and that the

crisis also included several cases of financial cooperation. Consequently, the

findings promise to make a significant contribution to the field of Ottoman and

ecclesiastical studies, providing a rich and comprehensive understanding of an

important but under-explored period.

Keywords: Ottoman State, Greek Orthodox Church, Economic Interaction, 17th

century

v

ÖZ

ON YEDİNCİ YÜZYIL OSMANLI BELGELERİNDE RUM ORTODOKS

KİLİSESİ İLE OSMANLI DEVLETİ ARASINDAKİ EKONOMİK ETKİLEŞİM

GÜRKAN, Deniz

Yüksek Lisans, Tarih

Tez Danışmanı: Doç. Dr. Hasan Çolak

Bu tez, 17. yüzyılda Rum Ortodoks Kilisesi'nin, Osmanlı Devleti

karşısındaki ekonomik faaliyetlerinin, arşiv kaynaklarının eksikliği nedeniyle

tarihçiler tarafından sıklıkla ihmal edilen doğasını incelemektedir. Bu çalışma hem

dini hem de dini olmayan konuları kapsayan kayıtları içeren Atik Şikâyet Defterleri

ve Mühimme Defterleri gibi iki önemli arşiv koleksiyonunu sistematik bir şekilde

tarayarak, 1650-1690 yılları arasındaki etkileşimlerinin mali yönlerine ilişkin

hükümlerin incelenmesi ve analizi yoluyla bu zorlukların üstesinden gelmeye

çalışmaktadır. Kilise mensupları ile Osmanlı devlet idaresi yetkilileri arasında

gelişen dinamikleri ortaya çıkaracaktır. Bu kaynaklardaki dilekçe sahiplerinin dini,

hukuki, mali ve sosyal dinamikleriyle birlikte incelenmesi, ikincil literatürde

genellikle kriz olarak nitelendirilen bu dönemin mali değişimlerine ışık tutacaktır.

Aralarındaki mali ilişkilerin krizle birlikte daha karmaşık bir hal aldığını ve bazı

alanlarda bunun iş birliğine dönüştüğünü de göstermektedir. Sonuç olarak, bulgular

Osmanlı ve kilise çalışmaları alanına önemli bir katkı sağlamayı ve önemli ancak

yeterince araştırılmamış bir dönemin zengin kaynakları aracılığıyla kapsamlı bir

şekilde anlaşılmasını vaat etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Osmanlı Devleti, Rum Ortodoks Kilisesi, Ekonomik

Etkileşim, 17.yüzyıl

vi

DEDICATION

To my mother, and the memory of my father…

vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt gratitude to the

many people who have supported and guided me throughout my journey toward the

completion of this master's thesis. I am forever indebted to them for their

encouragement, understanding, and unwavering support. Above all, I would like to

express my deep gratitude to my adviser, Assoc. Prof. Hasan Çolak. This thesis has

been shaped by his profound knowledge, insightful guidance, and patient

mentorship. I have been inspired to strive for excellence in my work by his

dedication and passion for history and academia. I would also like to sincerely

thank my thesis committee members Prof. Evgenia Kermeli and Assoc. Prof. Fuat

Dündar. The quality of this study has been greatly enhanced by their expertise and

constructive feedback. I am grateful for their time, valuable suggestions, and critical

insights that have been instrumental in the refinement of my ideas. I would like to

thank my gratitude to Assoc. Prof. Elif Bayraktar Tellan, who kindly read my thesis

and provided valuable feedback. I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to

Dr. Yavuz Özgüldür and Dr. Harun Yeni for their invaluable assistance.

For their unwavering love, support, and belief in my abilities, I am indebted

to my family and friends. I am profoundly appreciative of Erdi Dinç's unwavering

support, readily extended whenever the need arose, as well as his unwavering

commitment to uplifting my spirits through laughter during moments of despair. I

would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my beloved partner, who illuminates

my nights into days when I am in need of light and turns my days into nights when I

seek solace and tranquility. I cannot thank enough also my friends Meyra, Rüya,

Sedef, and Yaren for these sacrifices, understanding, and constant motivation. The

driving force behind my accomplishments has been their encouragement.

I would like to thank TÜBİTAK BİDEB for their financial contributions. I

am deeply grateful to Matbah-ı Müverrihin for instilling in me the academic passion

during our fruitful conversations, and for introducing me to numerous esteemed

scholars and students. Finally, I am grateful to the countless researchers, academics,

and authors whose work and contributions have been a source of inspiration and

motivation for my own research.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PLAGIARISM PAGE ............................................................................................... iii

ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. iv

ÖZ .............................................................................................................................. v

DEDICATION .......................................................................................................... vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................ vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ viii

CHAPTER I ............................................................................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Primary Sources ...................................................................................... 2

1.2. Literature ............................................................................................... 14

1.3. Methodology ......................................................................................... 25

CHAPTER II ............................................................................................................ 33

THE GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH AND THE OTTOMAN STATE: A

HISTORICAL EXAMINATION OF THEIR RELATIONS .................................. 33

CHAPTER III ........................................................................................................... 55

THE ECONOMIC INTERACTION OF THE GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH

WITH THE OTTOMAN STATE ............................................................................ 55

3.1. Taxation of the Church .......................................................................... 64

3.2. Monastic and Church Vakfs from the Perspective of the State ............. 91

CHAPTER IV ........................................................................................................ 123

CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 123

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................. 129

Unpublished Primary Sources .................................................................... 129

Published Primary Sources ........................................................................ 129

Secondary Sources ..................................................................................... 131

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

In this thesis, the aim is to analyze economic interaction between the

Ottoman State and the Greek Orthodox Church in the 17th century in the light of the

Atik Şikâyet Defters and Mühimme Defters. As such, it seeks to trace the activities

and roles of the church hierarchy and institutions in the Ottoman economy through

primary sources. By examining of the relationship between the two institutions from

the perspective of the state records, it navigates the boundaries of conflict and

negotiation between them and analyses the intricate and multifaceted financial

relationship between these two institutions with findings from the sources.

Spanning several centuries, this relationship evolved through various stages,

from cooperation and coexistence to tension and conflict. However, since the 17th

century was an age of drastic change and transformation period in the history of

both the Ottoman state and the Church, it was also a period in which the dynamics

of relations between the two were altered by the circumstances, particularly the

economic ones. Analyzing a bulk of archival sources aims to provide a

comprehensive understanding of this crucial interaction's historical dynamics and

implications in the 17th century. The study will contribute to the understanding of

the financial, political, social, and ecclesiastical dynamics of the period by

analyzing their interactions. The registers provide insight into the interaction

between the Church and the state. The activities of church members, their demands

from the central administration, and the conflicts that them encountered will also be

2

examined and then will be placed in a wider historical context and the complex

nature of the relationship will be revealed. This chapter provides an overview of the

Greek Orthodox Church and the Ottoman State. It introduces the sources and

methods used, sets the historical context, and presents the main themes explored in

the literature.

1.1. Primary Sources

The documents in the archives were produced from a particular perspective,

often that of the state. In essence, these documents are a compilation of records that

were collected by the bureaucratic apparatus of the state and that included

problematic issues. The archives have a lot to tell us about the perspective of the

state on different topics. They contain a lot of information about internal

organization and structure of the state and political, financial, and social life. In a

period of political conflict, struggle, and problems, it is important whether the

records are a reflection of these or to what extent they are a reflection of the

political aspects of the time. Sometimes it is what they do not tell and what they

keep silent about that is important. The study begins with the idea of examining

how the political conflicts and power struggles between the Ottoman administration

and the clergy in the seventeenth century were reflected in official documents. In

the analysis phase, it begins to ask what the documents do not contain rather than

what they do. In other words, the analysis aimed to determine whether there were

any traces of the crisis, which is the term used in the literature to define the period.

Then, as the questions began to be answered, it was realised that many things that

would have been described as 'exceptions' in the historiography of the century were

3

a part of life. The problem in the secondary literature is that although historians use

archival documents they transliterated them without much questioning according to

his/her perspective. Only when placed in context does a document gain meaning.

We need 'horizontal' and 'vertical' evidence to construct the context. These are what

happened at the same time as the event studied (horizontal) and what happened

before and after the event studied (vertical).1 Documents are used as evidence for

the development of an event or phenomenon. Depending on where it is placed on

the horizontal and vertical axes, this evidence answers our questions. This is why

history is a discipline of context, and why the skill of the modern historian is judged

not by the document he or she finds, but by the context in which he or she places

the document for.

Recently, there has been a move away from anachronistic analyses based on

either chronicles or single documents, which used to be the basis for general

conclusions, in historical writing on the non-Muslims in Ottoman administration.

Open access to Ottoman archives and the exploitation of ecclesiastical and monastic

archives and sources have contributed to this change. Up to this point, there has

been little in the way of historical evidence and even less in the way of perspectives

on the interaction of non-Muslims in their communities and with the state.

Examining these peoples in their social context and seeing them as the

multidimensional historical people rather than as one-dimensional cultural

1 Michael Stanford, Tarihin İncelenmesi Için Bir Kılavuz (İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları,

2010): 164.

4

monuments, is a good step toward a better understanding of the status and history of

non-Muslims.2

This dissertation uses Ottoman documents that have not been used before, or

if used, have never been used by in writing the Greek Orthodox Church history in

17th century, and focuses on the relationship, interactions, networks and conflicts

between the church and state. The 17th century is characterized by the lack of

notebooks (defters) or documents directly related to ecclesiastical matters. For this

reason, and due to the lack of studied archival sources of the period, the relationship

between them in this century is difficult to study in its entirety. For all of these

reasons, Scholars who studied the Orthodox Church history mostly focused on the

18th century and later periods. Although there is a difficulty with the sources, this

study will overcome them through a detailed examination and comprehensive

research of two archival collections that contain several registers related to both

ecclesiastical and non-ecclesiastical matters and registered in the same century.

Based on Heath Lowry's view that if there is more than one record for a

particular region, we should use records serially whenever possible, used almost all

the Mühimme and the Atik Şikâyet Defters (registers of complaints) of the 17th

century in this thesis. Lowry adds to this view the following, using of a series of

registers allows the scholars to capture the high degree of imprecision that

characterizes this particular source, apart from the fact that the resulting study will

be analytical, focusing on change over time, rather than purely descriptive, taking a

2 Tom Papademetriou, Render unto the Sultan: Power, Authority, and the Greek Orthodox Church in

the Early Ottoman Centuries (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015): 41.

5

snapshot approach to history.3 Therefore, I scanned the defters for the years 1650-

1690 consecutively and analyzed them.

Mühimme Defters and the Atik Şikâyet Defters are among the most important

sources available for the political, social, economic, and cultural history of the

Ottoman State and its provinces, especially from the 17th century onwards. These

records also contain invaluable material, particularly on how problems are

approached from a state perspective.

Despite the tendency to work on unexplored and untransliterated Ottoman

documentation, these sources which provide an abundant and diverse variety of

content available have not attracted much attention among scholars for the study of

the Church. Moreover, scholars who use these sources in their work also

unfortunately treated these records mostly as a single, homogeneous source for the

political history of the state, despite the fact that they cover a wide geographical

area and span several centuries. Several scholars working on the church-related

matters also have used these sources mostly as supplementary materials in their

studies.4

My argument in this study is that these records have a more complex

structure and that they should be used as a reflection of the different voices of

Ottoman subjects. They are an important source of material on how these voices

were recorded and processed by the state, and the study evaluates them as the

voices of different members of the church. The Church, previously characterized as

3 Heath W. Lowry and Nejat Göyünç, Studies in Defterology: Ottoman Society in the Fifteenth and

Sixteenth Centuries (Istanbul: Isis Press, 1992): 10.

4 K.A. Leal, The Ottoman State and the Greek Orthodox of Istanbul: sovereignty and identity at the

turn of the eighteenth century, PhD Dissertation, Harvard University, 2003., Elif Bayraktar Tellan,

The Patriarch and the Sultan: The Struggle for Authority and the Quest for Order in the Eighteenth-

Century Ottoman Empire. A Ph.D. Dissertation, Ankara, 2011.

6

either in captivity5 or as an institution completely independent Ottoman realities,

has been shown by the sources to be in a relatively different position from the state6.

Although it is somehow believed that analyzed hüküms in defters include

exceptional cases, they are not exceptional considering the intensity of relationship

networks and interactions, these are findings that can be characterised as in tandem

with the flow of that century. In addition, it would not be correct to describe them

are exceptional, given that not all of the cases reached the Porte and only a certain

number of them could be registered.

The Ottoman state gave everyone within her borders the right to seek justice

and a complaint mechanism has been established in order to use this right, at least in

theory.7 Any Ottoman subject who suffered injustice for political, economic, legal,

or personal reasons had the right to appeal to the Ottoman sultan thanks to this

mechanism. Contrary to the idea of offering limited Ottoman jurisdiction for non-

Muslims, patriarchs and other church members or any dhimmi used this right and

petitioned the sultan for various reasons. Imperial decrees given in response to their

petitions were copied and gathered into the Mühimmes which contain records of all

kinds of topics that were discussed in the Divan and then registered through a more

specialized defter series like the Şikâyet Defters.

5 Steven Runciman, The Great Church in Captivity: A Study of the Patriarchate of Constantinople

from the Eve of the Turkish Conquest to the Greek War of Independence (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1968).

6 Theodore H. Papadopoullos, Studies and Documents Relating to the History of the Greek Church

and People under Turkish Domination, (Aldershot: Variorum, 1952).

7 Halil İnalcık, “Şikâyet Hakkı: Arz-ı Hal ve Arz-ı Mahzarlar,” The Journal of Ottoman Studies, no.

VII–VIII (1988): 33.

7

In the 17th century, the variety and volume of issues in the Divan increased

greatly and brought about specialization in the Ottoman bureaucratic apparatus.8

According to Kovács, this was not only a specialization but also a bureaucratic

transformation, which is a natural consequence of a social transformation.9 A great

reflection of this transformation is the organization of several funds and new

notebooks series in the Imperial Chancery in the 17th century. Because the number

of petitions and complaints increased dramatically in this century and the chancery

had to transform and specialize. An examination of the content of sources reveals

the diversity of orders and, almost all social, cultural, economic, administrative, and

military issues are covered in them.

In some respects, it is difficult to distinguish between the Şikâyets Defters

and the Mühimmes Defters because they resemble each other quite closely

stylictically and in content. For some scholars, while Mühimmes contain orders on

matters throughout the state and affecting a significant portion of the population,

Şikâyets contain more individual issues.10 Nevertheless, the individual nature of the

petitions in the Şikâyets analyzed over a certain period provides information about

the Church and its members' roles in ecclesiastical, economic, and social matters

and the state's response to them in the 17th century. All Mühimme and Şikâyet

registers recorded by the Divan involving a church member or church-related issue

demonstrate the interaction between the Church and the central administration.

8 Murat Tuğluca, XVII. Yüzyıl Sonu Şikayet Defterlerine Göre Osmanlı Devlet-Toplum İlişkisinde

Şikayet Mekanizması ve İşleyiş Biçimi (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2016): 7.

9 Nándor Erik Kovács, “17. Yüzyılda Divan-ı Hümayun’un Şikâyet Defterleri”, Osmanlı Coğrafyası

Kültürel Arşiv Mirasının Yönetimi ve Tapu Arşivlerinin Rolü Uluslararası Kongresi: Bildiriler, no.

1, Ankara (2012): 273.

10 Emel Soyer, XVI. yy. Divan Bürokrasi’sindeki Değişimlerin Bir Örneği Olarak Mühimme

Defterleri, İÜ Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Unpublished Phd thesis, İstanbul 2007: 92. See also, Necati

Aktaş, Atik Şikâyet Defteri”, TDV. İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 1991.

8

These sources also pay testimony to the highly bureaucratized system of the

Ottoman state because the language and terminology in the registers were uniform,

consistent, and formulaic. A similar literary style was also used by the petitioners

who were Muslim and non-Muslim subjects or their agents who penned these

petitions, because their arguments should be persuasive and satisfy the state's

expectations. Thus, the petitions were also written and (re)phrased in a similar style.

The similarities in these defters have been studied by tracing and examining the

small nuances in them.

The bulk of archival materials of the study are from the Ottoman section of

the Directorate of the State Archives and they are part of the Dîvân-ı Hümâyun and

Bâb-ı Âsafî Kalemi Defters. These funds are available in the classifications of Dîvân

(Beylikçi) Defters (A.{DVN.d). This collection includes a total of 267 Mühimme

Defters covering the period between 1553-1772 with the classification on the

archive A.{DVNSMHM.d and 213 Atik Şikâyet Defters covering the period

between 1649-1837 with the classification on the archive A.{DVNS.ŞKT.d.11

In the study, Şikâyet Defters numbered 1-15 covering the dates 1649-1691

and Mühimme Defters numbered 92-101 recorded between 1656-1691 are used. In

addition to the fifteen Atik Şikâyet Defters two more defters were used in the

research. The first of them are the defter numbered 187, which was miscataloged,

although it contains the records covering the years 1675 and 1676.12 The other is in

Austrian National Library registered with name of Cod. mixt. 683. This is also dated

1675 like the other defter and it was published in 1984 by Hans Georg Majer

11 Uğur Ünal, İskender Türe, and Salim Kaynar, Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi Rehberi (İstanbul: T.C.

Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, 2017): 29-30.

12 Soyer, 82.

9

entitled Das Osmanische Registerbuch der Beschwerden (Şikâyet Defteri) vom

Jahre 1675.13

Whereas the aforementioned Şikâyet Defters are mostly unpublished and

unexplored, the majority of the Mühimme Defters were published and transliterated.

The orders transliterated in this study are given in the footnotes with their

references. It should be mentioned, however, that there are some fundamental

problems with these transliterated orders. First of all, the transliteration often

misreads proper names (church members, patriarchs, dhimmis, place names). There

are also significant errors, especially when transliterating terms of Greek origin. An

attempt has been made to correct these errors in the relevant sections, where

appropriate and the translitaration is given in the footnote as it stands. It is hoped

that these issues will be addressed in a more careful manner by the future

Ottomanists.

The main difference between this study and the others is that it is based on a

wider scan of the major funds in the Ottoman archive. It identifies the orders

(hüküms) that were linked to the Church and the nature of their relationship

examined through these. To achieve this within a limited time frame, I selected a

more restricted thematic and chronological scope. Despite some gaps in dating in

the archival funds, it has been possible to establish the following chronological

order: Şikâyet Defter no. 1 (1060/1650), no. 2 (1064/1653-1654), no. 3 (1065/1654-

1655), no.4 (1081/ 1670-1671)14, no. 5 (1078/ 1667-1668), no. 6 (1078/ 1667-

13 Hans G. Majer, Das Osmanische Registerbuch der Beschwerden (Şikâyet Defteri) vom Jahre

1675, Wien 1984.

14 Yasemin Tataroğlu, “4 Numaralı Atik Şikâyet Defteri 1665-1670 (H. 1075-1081)’’, Master’s

Thesis, Marmara University, 2015.

10

1668), no. 7 (1083/ 1672-1673)15, no. 8 (1084/ 1673-1674), no.187 (1087/1676-

1677 ), no. 9 ( 1092/1681-1682)16, no. 10 ( 1098/ 1686-1687)17, no. 11 (1100/ 1688-

1689), no. 12 (1100/1688-1689), no. 13 (1100/ 1688-1689)18, no 14 ( 1102 / 1690-

1691)19, no. 15 (1102 / 1690-1691). Mühimme Defter no. 75 (1011-1013/ 1602-

1604)20, no. 77 (1013-1014/ 1604-1605)21, no. 82 (1026-1027/ 1617-1618)22, no 85

(1040-1042/ 1630-1632)23, no 88 (1046-1048/ 1636-1638)24, no 92 (1067-1069/

1656-1658)25, no 93 (1069-1071/1658-1660)26, no 94 (1073-1076/1662-1665)27, no

95 (1075-1076/1664-1665)28, no 96 (1089-1090/1678-1679)29, no 99 (1100-

15 Muhammed Vergili, “Atik Şikâyet Defteri (7 numaralı H.1081-1083/ M.1671-1672)

Transkripsiyon- değerlendirme”, Master’s Thesis, Fatih Sultan Mehmet Vakıf University, 2019.

16 Kaan Ekin, “9 numaralı şikâyet defterinin transkripsiyonu ve incelenmesi”, Master’s Thesis,

Sakarya University, 2019.

17 Mesut Demir, “1686-1687 (h.1097-1098) Tarihli Atik Şikâyet Defteri'nin transkripsiyon ve

değerlendirilmesi”, Master’s Thesis, Marmara University, 2010.

18 Hasan Basri Türk, “13 numaralı Atik Şikâyet Defteri (Vr.1-142) (Değerlendirme-çeviri-metin)”,

Master’s Thesis, Marmara University, 2019.; Muhammet Murat Hurç, “13 numaralı Atik Şikâyet

Fefteri (VR. 143-302) (Değerlendirme-çeviri-metin)”, Master’s Thesis, Marmara University, 2019.

19 Ümit Baki Erdem, “14 numaralı Atik Şikâyet Defteri (h.1101-1102/ m. 1690-1691)

transkripsiyonu ve değerlendirilmesi”, Master’s Thesis, Marmara University, 2017.

20 Selçuk Demir, “75 Numaralı Mühimme Defterinin Transkripsiyon ve Değerlendirilmesi, (s. 1-

170)”, Master’s Thesis, Atatürk University, 2008.; Adem Keleş, “75 numaralı Mühimme Defteri'nin

transkripsiyonu ve değerlendirilmesi (s. 172-331)”, Master’s Thesis, Atatürk University, 2011.

21 Serpil Gökçe, “77 Numaralı Mühimme Defterinin Transkripsiyonu ve Hükümlerin Özeti (1-370)”,

Master’s Thesis, Ağrı İbrahim Çeçen University, 2019.

22 Yusuf Sarınay and Osman Yıldırım, 82 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri, 1026-1027/1617-1618: Özet,

Transkripsiyon, Indeks ve Tıpkıbasım (Ankara: T.C. Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü,

2000).

23 Yusuf Sarınay, 85 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri, 1040-1041 (1042)/1630-1631 (1632): Özet,

Transkripsiyon, Indeks. (Ankara: T.C. Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, 2002).

24 Murat Ateş, “88 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri'nin Transkripsiyon ve Değerlendirmesi, 1637-1638

(H. 1046-1048)”, Master’s Thesis, Van Yüzüncü Yıl University, 2008.

25 Selçuk Osmanoğlu, “92 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (Özet ve Transkripsiyon)”, Master’s Thesis,

Marmara University, 2004.

26 Azize Gelir Çelebi, “93 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (1069-1071/1658-1660), Tahlil,

Transkripsiyonu ve Özet”, Master’s Thesis, Marmara University, 2008.

27 Müjge Karaca, “94 Numaralı Mühimme Defterinin Özeti, Transkripsiyon ve Değerlendirmesi”,

Master’s Thesis, Atatürk University, 2008.

28 Ercan Alan, “95 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (Tahlil, Transkripsiyonu ve Özeti)”, Master’s

Thesis, Marmara University, 2008.

29 Yunus Mercimek, "96 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri'nin Transkripsiyonu ve Değerlendirilmesi (S.

1-99)." Master’s Thesis, Gaziantep University, 2013; M.Alper Yayvan, “96 Numaralı Mühimme

Defteri'nin Transkripsiyonu ve Değerlendirilmesi (H. 1089-1090/M. 1678-1679) (s. 100-199)”,

Master’s Thesis, Gaziantep University, 2014.

11

1101/1688-1689)30, no 100 (1101-1102/1689-1690)31, no 101 (1102-1103/1690-

1691)32.

This study used both records in all mentioned defters given as replies to

petitions of church members and records of events in which these people were

involved for various reasons. These records pay testimony to the church members’

interaction with the Ottoman Court for seeking justice. Furthermore, hüküms in the

Mühimme and the Şikâyet registers also contain intra-communal and intercommunal

issues in economic, social, religious, and administrative matters in the

17th century. Some of them can be evaluated as insignificant in the first place, but if

their context is discussed in the manner of handling problems, they are treasures for

understanding the state's approach to the Church and determining the Church's role

in administrative, social, and economic life in the Ottoman empire.

Each defter was carefully examined to determine cases involving the Church

and its members. Then, their hüküms were classified and used to explore the

network of relations between the Orthodox Church and Ottoman administration.

The process was started by scanning the defters chronically and continued by

examining and the hüküms, which included issues of the Church and its members.

Then, they were classified and attached to the study according to their contents.

The registers expressly demonstrate the changing dynamic of the interaction

between the Orthodox Church and the state in the 17th century in financial matters

especially. Furthermore, the evidential materials in the defters illustrate the

30 Mehmet Ali Tan, “99 numaralı mühimme defteri transkripsiyonu ve değerlendirmesi (91-180)”,

Master’s Thesis, Bitlis Eren University, 2015.

31 Muzaffer Fehmi Şakar, “1101-1102 (1690-1691) Tarihli 100 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri

Transkripsiyonu ve Değerlendirilmesi”, Master’s Thesis, Marmara University, 2007.

32 Tuba Meryem Yıldız Karacan, “101 no’lu Mühimme Defteri’nin transkripsiyonu ve

değerlendirmesi”, Master’s Thesis, Akdeniz University, 2010.

12

perspective of the Ottoman legal system for the patriarchate and Orthodox

authorities. They also show how their internal affairs, economic power, and roles

were reflected in the Ottoman sources. As I will attempt to show, the combined

study of archival material produced by the state authorities allows us to draw

conclusions about the nature and extent of the authority of the patriarch and the

higher clergy. It also demonstrates the potentials and limitations of state support. In

addition, through a comprehensive analysis of these archival materials, we can

determine how the patriarch exercised authority and its place in the eyes of the

state.

There has been a great deal of detail about the contribution of the sources to

this study, but as with any study, there will be limitations and shortcomings. At the

request of the subjects, hüküms or orders were issued by the central administration

eventually as described. It is questionable to what extent the sources reflect the true

picture of the current context. They are usually documents that serve as a summary

of the legal proceedings and do not provide details about the background of the

story. This does not mean, of course, that one cannot read between the lines and

draw certain conclusions. It can be concluded that they primarily reflect the legal

practices of the time, as they also shed light on the legal process between the

Church and the State. Hence, we should carefully construct the framework with

hüküms. They should be discussed in the light of their actual development under the

conditions of the time and in the light of legal doctrines and practices.

Apart from these sources, this study uses ecclesiastical berâts which

complement the study's main sources in indicating the changing role of the

patriarch. The berâts defined the terms and conditions of the relationship between

13

the sultan and the holder of the berâts by granting the latter a certain position,

income, possessions, privileges, and exemptions.33 Berâts had to be renewed when

there was a change of sultan or patriarch, as they were valid during the time of the

two. A copy of the berât is registered in a defter and kept in the Imperial Treasury

while the original is given to the holder. Only berât used in this research are these

copies registered in the defters. They are very important sources as they clearly

reveal the legal basis of the interaction between the sultan and the patriarchs. The

acquisition of a berât was not an easy matter, because the patriarch was the subject

of a number of mechanisms within the state bureaucracy.34 Firstly, the holder had to

pay a lump-sum amount called pişkeş to acquire the berât at least until the year

1686, when pişkeş was replaced with an annual payment.35 Clergymen who

competed for the seat of patriarchs increased the amount of pişkeş in due course. In

the end, it was turned into a mandatory and permanent payment. Second, regarding

the patriarchal candidate's eligibility and credibility, the Ottoman bureaucratic

procedure made some additional checks even if these two criteria were met. These

are indications that the acquisition of a berât is not a simple matter and has a

detailed process.36 The berâts used in the study are published primary sources. I

will try to draw the boundaries of the patriarchal jurisdiction until the middle of the

17th century based on the berât of 1662.

In accordance with the state's approach to the Church and the conditions of

the time, all these sources confirmed the Ottoman central administration’s

interaction with the Church and the rights and privileges of its members. Scholars

33 Mübahat Kütükoğlu, ‘Berât’, TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi 5, (1992): 472.

34 Hasan Çolak and Elif Bayraktar-Tellan, The Orthodox Church as an Ottoman Institution: A Study

of Early Modern Patriarchal Berât s (Istanbul: The Isis Press, 2019). 33-34.

35 Çolak and Tellan, 34.

36 Çolak and Tellan, 35.

14

have often attributed great power to the Church in the period of Mehmed II based

on privileges granted by the sultan which was regarded as the first berât. Following

this, each succeeding patriarch was confirmed by similar documents issued by the

sultans. In addition, the pashas started granting such testimonials like these to new

bishops in the provinces.37 Mosty studies were trying to situate it within the

Ottoman State as an autonomous institution by cutting the Church off from its

networks.38 The patriarch who was under the authority of the sultan was considered

the ethnarch of the Orthodox subjects and a tax collector role was attributed to him

merely. As the registers used in this study show, contrary to the conviction of

several historians, the patriarchate does not seem a stagnant institution.39 It was

engaged in a relationship with the Ottoman administration through bureaucratic,

social, and financial networks in the 17th century.

In conclusion, the study is based on the analysis of previously unexplored

and unused sources of the 17th century in order to examine the relationship between

the Church and the State by focusing on the role of the Church in the Ottoman

economy and the financial activities of the Church and the nature of their links

during the century.

1.2. Literature

One of the biggest problems in the histography on Ottoman non-Muslims is

that seen as a completely different segment from the rest of Ottoman society, i.e.

Muslims. According to this view, Christians and Jews are monolithic communities,

37 G. Georgiades Arnakis, “The Greek Church of Constantinople and the Ottoman Empire,” The

Journal of Modern History 24, no. 3 (1952): 237. See M. Süreyya Şahin, Fener Patrikhânesi ve

Türkiye (İstanbul: Ötüken, 1999): 50-62.

38

39

15

closed to the outside world, without any significant difference or diversity within

themselves. Although criticized in recent years, both in Ottoman historiography and

in large parts of the society, this traditional view has maintained its place. In fact,

critical studies in recent years, highlighting the diversity Ottoman non-Muslims and

the need to rethink the traditional concept of community, have questioned the

existence of an order, referred to the millet system.

The system which is believed to ensure the administration of non-Muslims

living in the Ottoman lands and to grant them religious and administrative

autonomous areas is a matter for the historiography with discussions about its

existence and characteristics. The proponents of this systems argue that sultan

Mehmed II appointed Gennadios as the first Patriarch and gave certain rights to him

regarding religious, administrative, and judicial matters concerning all Orthodox

Christians in the state after the conquest of Constantinople. With the system, it is

thought that their economic, legal, religious, linguistic, and cultural identities were

preserved under the administration of the state. The part of this idea to be criticized

is the claim that the organization was established systematically from the first

moments of the conquest of Constantinople for different millets and continued with

almost no change for the decades to come. It is clear that there were administrative

and legal improvements, especially in religious communities in the social order

after the conquest in the records. However, these improvements were evaluated as

tolerant understanding of the state by the historians who claim the existence of the

millet system.40 The system confirms differences in the social structure and uses a

40 Karen Barkey, “Maintaining Empire: An Expression of Tolerance.” Chapter. In Empire of

Difference: The Ottomans in Comparative Perspective, 109–53. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 2008.

16

different tone against the religious group tolerated. What is meant to be emphasized

is the existence of a system that lives under the absolute authority of the state where

pluralism prevails, and that system is maintained with tolerance and differences are

preserved. For these reasons, their interactions have been studied by many

researchers in the context of the system. On the other hand, other studies in this

context generally focused on the centralizing role of the Patriarchate of

Constantinople over the whole Orthodox community, and the patriarchate is seen as

an Ottoman institution. Recent studies which analyzed the complex structure of

ecclesiastical institutions and their relations with the state have raised serious

doubts about the reliability of this this system.

This research supports the view that minority groups are not affected by an

understanding of the proposals millet system. The existence of the system will be

discussed in this chapter with reference to the historical account of the debate,

when major contributions to the topic since the beginning of the 20th century.

In the traditional Ottoman historiography, the Greek Orthodox were among

the non-Muslims who were seen as a minority group against the Muslim population

of the empire or were characterized negatively. As there was not a monolithic Greek

community in the empire, the small Greek communities at the regional level, and

came together to form a millet. Historian Arnold Toynbee, who witnessed the

Turkish War of Independence in the early 1920s, noted that these communities were

"imaginary" at the time, but such ideas were unlikely to develop at a time when the

nation-state paradigm was ascendant. Only after the 1980s, with the development of

17

poststructuralist criticism, historians began to question this perspective.41 The new

critical approaches define the Greek Orthodox population in the empire in terms of

difference and diversity. Considering the Greek Orthodox not as a whole in

themselves, but in conncetion with the other segments of the Ottoman society

brought different perspectives. In addition, new research is being carried out using

connected approaches. The aim is to link the Ottoman and Greek histories, which

are generally studied in isolation.

At the beginning of the 1940s, Michalis Sakellariou stated that the study of

the Ottoman period was necessary for the understanding of the modern history of

Greece.42 In fact, scholars have begun to address the Ottoman context in Greek

historiography since the 1960s, especially in the last two decades.

If we go back to the development of the system in historiography, the origins

of the system date to the period after conquest of Constantinople in 1453 as

mentioned above. After the conquest, the Orthodox Patriarchate became part of the

Ottoman administrative and fiscal system, and the patriarchs had to be approved by

the sultan. The first patriarch appointed by Mehmed II was Gennadios Scholarios

(c. 1400 – c. 1473). In the course of the next decades, the Patriarchs in

Constantinople were theoretically empowered to rule over all Orthodox Christians

living in the Ottoman Empire. In addition to providing fiscal and legal autonomy to

the Orthodox Church, Mehmed II was reputed to have granted several privileges to

Patriarch Gennadios. He paid the taxes and the state-supported his authority in

return. It is important to note that although these statements lack a basis in fifteenth-

41 Ayşe Ozil, Anadolu Rumları: Osmanlı imparatorluğu’nun son Döneminde Millet Sistemini

Yeniden Düşünmek. (İstanbul: Kitap, 2016): 33.

42 Evangelia Balta, “Turkish Archival Material in Greek Historiography”, Türkiye Araştırmaları

Literatür Dergisi, Vol.8, No.15, (2010): 763.

18

century sources, they are pervasive in secondary literature today.43 There is a

discussion about this in the literature as some scholars argue that Mehmed II gave

Gennadios a berât or ferman which were eventually lost as proof of rights and

privileges, others say that he received them orally.44 The scope of the rights or

privileges granted to all Orthodox Christians within the empire is also an important

issue. Some claim that these rights are only of an ecclesiastical nature, while others

claim that the Patriarch has a wider range of administrative and judicial powers.45 It

was challenging from the beginning for the Patriarchate to integrate into Ottoman

institutional and legal order since Islamic law does not recognize either legal

persons or corporate bodies.46 However, although this had legal validity in the 17th

century and before, it is seen that they were adapted to the legal system with

different regulations in practice.

The patriarch was considered personally liable and was expected to collect

the necessary amount from the metropolitans and bishops. According to some

scholars, these developments showed that the state regarded the patriarchs and the

members of the church as tax farmers. According to the system, the church was an

unchanging and stable institution over the years. Also it had a wide range of power

thanks to the privileges granted by the sultan.

43 Benjamin Braude, Foundation Myths of the Millet System in Christians & Jews in the Ottoman

Empire (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc., 2014): 69-87. Daniel Goffman,“Ottoman

Millets in the Early Seventeenth Century.” New Perspectives on Turkey 11 (1994): 177.

44 Papadopoullos, 7-10. Runciman, 166-172. Macit Kenanoğlu. Osmanlı Millet Sistemi: Mit ve

Gerçek (İstanbul: Klasik, 2004): 83.

45 Halil İnalcık, “The Status of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch under the Ottomans” in Essays in

Ottoman History, ed. Halil İnalcık. (İstanbul: Eren, 1998): 195-229; Halil İnalcık, “The Policy of

Mehmed II Toward the Greek Population of Istanbul and the Byzantine Buildings of the City”

Dumbarton Oaks Papers 23-24 (1969-70): 236-237. Nicolaos I. Pantazapoulos, Church and Law in

the Balkan Peninsula during the Ottoman Rule. Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1967: 7-

10, 19, 23, 86. Joseph Kabrda, Le Système Fiscal de l’Eglise Orthodoxe dans l’Empire Ottoman

(D’après les documents turcs), (Brno: Universita J. E.Purkyně, 1969): 14-16.

46 Joseph Schacht, İslam Hukukuna Giriş, Trans., Mehmet Dağ ve Abdülkadir Şener (Ankara:

Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi, 1986): 134-135.

19

Gibb and Bowen proposed that Mehmed II had formalized the dhimmis into

three recognized millets: Orthodox, Armenian, and Jewish.47 The system was

directed not only against the Orthodox Church, but also against the Armenian

Patriarchate and the Jewish Rabbinate.48 The majority of historians were in favor of

the system and their tendency was that the patriarch received a great deal of power

from the Ottoman administration. The Patriarchate is narrated as an autonomous

institution within the state, and the Patriarch is considered the ethnarch of the

Orthodox subjects in their studies. This system also suggests that the Church and

the Patriarch had many rights and privileges. What is more, the attitude of the state

towards them did not change for centuries according to this system.

The system was first criticized in 1982, when Braude stated that it was

inaccurate to describe the patriarch as totally autonomous to act in legal and

ecclesiastical matters. For Braude, the system was only a myth, and the

arrangements made by the sultan were ad hoc, rather than a uniform system that

was adopted. He assumed that the extended autonomy given to community leaders

is assumed to have not resulted in an administrative system for dealing with non-

Muslims in the classical period. According to Braude, the concept of dhimmi dates

back to the time of the Prophet Muhammad, while the term millet used by

historians dates back to the 19th century. The term also existed in the early Ottoman

centuries and had various connotations, it was not used with a meaning of dhimmi

before the Tanzimat period. In the 15th and 16th centuries, the Ottomans did not have

47 Gibb and Bowen, Islamic Society and the West: A Study of the Impact of Western Civilization on

Moslem Culture in the Near East, 1969: 207-261.

48 Tellan, 3.

20

a consistent policy towards non-Muslims.49 The development of administrative

policies was a gradual process over the course of centuries, in accordance with the

conditions of the time. Historians tended to ignore changing policies and justify

new ones by ascribing them to the past.

Michael Ursinus provided examples of the usage of the term millet from

Mühimme Defters to refute Braude's arguments. Ursinus cites as evidence that, as

early as 1591, millet was used as a term to refer to an empire-wide religious

community. This and his other examples show that since at least the end of the 17th

century, the term millet has referred to the non-Muslims of the empire.50 The fact

that the word millet appeared in these registers when referring to non-Muslims was

not entirely new. However, the word was not used to point to the non-Muslim

communities throughout the latter half of the 17th century in the Mühimme and

Şikâyet registers. It is worth noting that it was used late in the century.

Braude, in a later article, accepted Ursinus' arguments with respect to the

time of use of the term, but he added that the using in the way Ursinus suggested

was limited to the 17th century Mühimmes and was not founded in sources outside

Constantinople such as sharia records. The absence of the term in the Ottoman

administration for non-Muslims is an indication of the absence of the millet system

in Braude's view. On the other hand, Goffman has demonstrated the fluidity of the

term millet as used in Ottoman political discourse in the 17th century. The word is

juxtaposed with the word taife, referring to the Orthodox-Armenian conflict over

control of Jerusalem's holy sites in a decree. Here the expression seems to refer to

the community of Christians. According to Goffman, this usage was an example of

49 Braude, 69-88.

50 Michael Ursinus, “Millet”, EI 2, Vol. VII, 1993: 61-64.

21

Braude's understanding of millet, in which the word refers to the ecumenical nature

of Christianity as opposed to particular groups.51 In addition, he also points out

other ways in which the word has been used. These several usages indicate that

Ottomans did not have a specific type of community unit in mind when they used

the term in the 17th century. Although the term appears more frequently in the later

centuries, especially in the Tanzimat period, Braude's argument that the absence of

the term suggests the absence of an empire-wide system does, seem to hold true for

the 17th century.

The patriarchs had the responsibility for the Orthodox re‘âyâ by the

Christian canon law. Family law issues like marriage and inheritance according to

their religion and mores fell under his jurisdiction. The boundaries of ecclesiastical

judicial jurisdiction of the Church can be defined by examining documents of

patriarchs' and metropolitans' appointments. It is clear that any privileges granted

were personal to the Patriarch and not to the Church, as is evident from the berâts

published by Zachariadou.52 Moreover, Konortas emphasizes that berâts granted

administrative rights to patriarchs. Their offices could be validated by

administration through these documents. It is clear that the Ottoman Porte expected

the patriarchs to maintain order and taxation from the provisions of the berâts,

which gave the patriarchs authority over the Christian clergy and laity. Patriarchal

power, whether in religion or politics, has been an important point of the millet

system paradigm. Konortas states that a milletbaşı or ethnarch did not exist before

51 Daniel Goffman, “Ottoman Millets in the Early Seventeenth Century,” 139-140.

52 See Elizabeth A. Zachariadou, Deka Tourkika Eggrafa gia tin Megali Ekklisia (1483-1520),

Athens: Ethniko Idryma Ereunon, Institouto Byzantinon Ereunon, 1996.

22

the 19th century.53 In his book which covers the 17th to the 20th centuries, he has

consulted berâts in the discussion of the territorial jurisdiction of the Patriarch

during the Ottoman period. A comprehensive bibliography on the Ottoman state's

perception of the Greek Orthodox community is also included in this work.54

Pantazopoulos contributes to this discussion with the idea that the Ottomans,

for religious, political, and economic reasons, not only extended the religious

authority of the milletbaşı but also granted patriarch political authority.55 Runciman

stated that the patriarch had complete control over the entire church structure, the

bishops and all the churches and convents they owned. In addition, the rights and

responsibilities of the authority of the Patriarch extended to the Greek Orthodox

population as well. From this description Runciman's conclusion was that he was

the ethnarch, the ruler of the millet.56 Many scholars of Ottoman history have cited

this work possibly because of the lack of material on the subject. Based on

Runciman's conclusions, Yavuz Ercan, Süreyya Şahin, Halil İnalcik, and Kemal

Karpat made a number of similar observations. However, İnalcık disagreed with the

idea of etnarch because Ottoman administrators acted in accordance with Islam.

According to İnalcık, the patriarch was an official of the administration in the

system rather than a political leader because the patriarch was appointed with an

official berât.57 His claims are supported and elaborated by Kenanoğlu. He

53 Paraskevas Konortas, ‘From Tâ'ife to Millet: Ottoman Terms for the Ottoman Greek Orthodox

Community’, in D. Gondicas and C. Issawi (eds.), Ottoman Greeks in the Age of Nationalism:

Politics, Economy and Society in the Nineteenth Century (Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press, 1999): 169–

80.

54 Leal, 85 and Tellan, 25. See Konortas, Othomanikes Theoriseis gia to Oikoumeniko Patriarcheio:

17os- arches 20ou Aiona [Ottoman Perspectives on the Ecumenical Patriarchate],Athens: Ekdoseis

Alexandreia, 1998: 209-281. He listed 14 patriarch berâts.

55 Pantazopoulos, 19-21.

56 Runciman,171.

57 İnalcık, The Status of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch under the Ottomans, 206-208.

23

proposed the mültezim theory for the millet debate in his book Osmanlı Millet

Sistemi: Mit ve Gerçek. However, the Patriarch's power and influence over the

Orthodox subjects of the society has been overlooked again in this approach. He

conducted extensive research in the Ottoman archives to investigate the financial

relations between the Church and the state. He concluded that the role of the

patriarch was solely that of a mültezim, or tax farmer, for the state.58 On the other

hand, he expanded mültezim's scope ecclesiastically and named it as ruhani

mültezim as a part of religious iltizam system.59 For the process of acquiring berât

continued when the relevant tax was paid. According to Kenanoğlu, the state

organized non-Muslims into a structure within the system in order to control the

administrative, financial, and legal power of non-Muslim clerics. He stated that the

iltizam system clarifies a lot of things. It shows that the religious communities were

not autonomous, as was claimed. The religious leaders had their authority in

accordance with the rules of the state, and the power of tax collection was under the

control of the state. The religious leaders used this power as mültezims in their

areas. Their jurisdiction was not autonomous; rather, it was dependent and

intangible. Furthermore, the relationships between the central and other provincial

patriarchates and metropolitanates in different regions were explained by

Kenanoğlu's system.60 In sum, Kenanoğlu claims that the empire had complete

authority over its non-Muslim subjects and the patriarch played a minor role. The

weakness of his work is that he uses archival sources without contextualizing them.

58 Kenanoğlu, 64-70.

59 Kenanoğlu, 59-61.

60 Kenanoğlu, 59-67.

24

He also gave examples that support his claims without depending on the historical

context.

Papademetriou agreed with Kenanoğlu’s claims and added new ones. He

considered the patriarch a tax farmer because his duty was a duty to collect taxes

and he benefited from the financial archive’s documents to demonstrate his claims.

His main claim is that the empire was not an Islamic institution, but an efficient and

pragmatic one. For this reason, the state considered the Patriarchate as a source of

income and used it to collect taxes properly.61 However, it is not possible to

consider the financial activities of the Church in the Ottoman lands. The economic

roles of its members did not remain the same in all the centuries that passed, and it

is not possible to deal with its relationship with the state in a limited framework.

Scholarship on the period of supposed decline has been reoriented away

from terms such as rise and decline towards crisis, adaptation, and transformation

since the 1990s.62 However, when it comes to the Church or a structure or

institution with a different identity located in Ottoman territory, we cannot see these

conceptual flexibilities. On the other hand, 20th and 21st century historiography has

produced many important studies on the history of the Orthodox Church which was

part of the empire. The relevant chapters of the thesis will be describing these

valuable studies in detail. In particular, studies on the economics of the Church will

be listed in the main chapter.

In the study, many of our old ideas about the history of the Church have

been re-evaluated in Ottoman history. In some cases, they have been, and continue

61 Papademetriou, 61-62.

62 Alan Mikhail and Christine M. Philliou, Ottoman Empire and the Imperial Turn.” Comparative

Studies in Society and History 54, no. 4 (2012): 725.

25

to be, completely transformed. However, the relationship between the Ottoman

administration and the Church has been either understudied or one-dimensional in

Ottoman studies, despite the increasing emphasis on church history in recent years.

Since both the Ottoman administration's view of the Church and the Church's view

of the state were discussed in terms of political history, much was missing in the

literature on this subject. This research aims to fill in the missing parts of the topic

and make a contribution to the literature of Ottoman historiography by using

archival material. There has been little research on textual analysis of these

documents. I want to look at practice rather than theory, that is, how the church's

relations with the state and society are shaped in public complaints and state

resources. For the purpose of this essay, the discussion will be on the different

perspectives of the state with regard to the economic and political functions of the

church vis-à-vis the state.

1.3. Methodology

The Ottoman State and its borders, as well as how these borders changed

over time, is one of the main topics studied by historians. The impermeability of

political and cultural borders, dominated by political and military history, as the

portrayal of two mostly separate and hostile worlds in traditional historiography has

led to the assumption that interaction is not possible. Where the distinction in

question is a strong one, such as religion, the desire to cluster institutions,

individuals and structures and squeeze them into separate worlds has been even

more pronounced. However, since the Church has existed in the territory of the state

for centuries and its activities and roles are part of many areas of religious,

26

economic and social interaction, it will not be possible to remove it from the

Ottoman context and place it in a separate set of worlds. The creation of literature

on the history of the Church through the removal of the Ottoman context is as

impossible as the above proposition. While studies with a Eurocentric perspective

explain history entirely in terms of European phenomena, they examine other

regions outside the discipline of history under the roof of area studies.63 Whereas it

is not possible to put the empire in complite isolution and limit its interaction with

the outside world only through war, and to believe in the existence of an iron

curtain separating the empire from the outside world.64 In addition, the root of these

problems lies in the fact that, especially in the studies conducted until the twentieth

century, the empire was treated only as a political unit and was subjected to history

only in this aspect. As Goffman emphasizes, from this centralist perspective, the

view of the empire and its history is shaped in parallel with where you position the

center.65

The categories of East and West are always fluid, always polymorphous and

almost always projections of an imaginary difference.66 Therefore, a binary reading

of the Patriarchate versus the Ottoman State should not be applied to developments

in the history of the Church during the Ottoman period. Instead of the ideological

walls that allegedly separate Europe from the empire, the focus should be on its

heterogeneous character, socially, religiously, and culturally as well as politically

and militarily, and these rich and complex relations should be analyzed in their

63 Pascal W. Firges ve Tobias P. Graf, “Introduction,” Well-Connected Domains: Towards an

Entangled Ottoman History, (Brill 2014): 2-3.

64 Suraiya Faroqhi, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu ve Etrafındaki Dünya, (İstanbul: Kitap, 2010): 13.

65 Daniel Goffman, The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe, (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2012): 13-16.

66 Bernard Heyberger, "East and West". In Arabic Christianity between the Ottoman Levant and

Eastern Europe, (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2021): 3.

27

context with connected history methods. This is because issues such as limited

interactions, insurmountable intercultural borders, and the monolithic nature of

identities, which are assumed in traditional historiography, have begun to lose their

reality with the contributions of a connected approach. The focus on cross-border

dialogues and transfers increasingly challenged political boundaries’ definitions.

New methodological approaches will be used to examine not only the

official perceptions of states, but also the perceptions of societies and communities,

the creation of contact zones and the impact of interactions in these zones.67 Since

the 1990s, when global history began to be discussed, debates among historians

about terms such as transnational history, connected history and histoire croisée

became more frequent.68 In these approaches, the place and the moment of contact

and exchange between people who come from different backgrounds, speak

different languages, belong to different religion, and display different behavioural

patterns, are examined in particular detail. An important factor in situations of

contact and exchange is the figure of the "mediator", the "go-between".69 Focusing

on Sheikhulislam Feyzullah Efendi (1639-1703), Cesare Santus argues that he

played a central role in the religious and social upheavals that affected the Eastern

Christian communities of the state at the beginning of the 18th century, and through

an analysis of his actions and a cross-check of Ottoman, Western and Armenian

sources, he attempts to answer the political and entangled dimension of Ottoman

confessionalization. Using and analyzing primary sources to construct a trans-

67 Caroline Douki ve Philippe Minard, “Global History, Connected Histories: A Shift of

Historiographical Scale,” Revue D’histoire Moderne & Contemporaine 5, (2007): 5-7.

68 Tassos Anastassiadis, “Eastern Orthodoxy. An Histoire Croisée and Connected History

Approach.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique moderne et contemporain, no. 2 (2020).

https://doi.org/10.4000/bchmc.463.

69 Heyberger, 5.

28

religious and trans-cultural narrative through the networks established by an

intermediary shows the key role these individuals played in historiography.70 The

present study is based on a similar set of objectives. The objective of this historical

research is not to define identities and boundaries, but to highlight the role of

intermediaries and to analyze through primary sources the relationship their

economic interactions created between Church and State in the 17th century.

The scholars also proposed several analytical concepts, namely

entanglement, hybridity, intersectionality, and transculturality to present a global

perspective for interaction.71 Entanglement creates a transnational history by

focusing on the historical development of cross-border networks.72 Hybridity

introduced the necessity or possibility of adaptation, translation, and imitation.

Hybridity developed in the context of the post-colonial debate,73 and

intersectionality interrogates the multiple ways in which social inequalities

develop.74 Finally, transculturality eschews the comparative and focuses on the

zones of contact, the processes of adaptation and exchange, the modes of

translation, and the periods when borders are crossed within a global framework.

70 Cesare Santus, "Sheikh ül-islam Feyzullah Efendi and the Armenian Patriarch Awetikʿ: A Case of

Entangled Confessional Disciplining?" In Entangled Confessionalizations?: Dialogic Perspectives

on the Politics of Piety and Community Building in the Ottoman Empire, 15th18th Centuries edited

by Tijana Krstic and Derin Terzioglu (Piscataway, NJ, USA: Gorgias Press, 2022): 233-254.

71 Madeleine Herren, Martin Rüesch and Christiane Sibille, (2012). Introduction: What is

Transcultural History? In: Transcultural History. Transcultural Research – Heidelberg Studies on

Asia and Europe in a Global Context. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

72 See Sebastian Conrad and Dominic Sachsenmaier, Competing Visions of World Order: Global

Moments and Movements, 1880s–1930s, Palgrave Macmillan Transnational History Series (New

York: Palgrave, 2007).

73 Peter Burke, Cultural Hybridity (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2009). Joel Kuortti and Jopi Nyman,

Reconstructing Hybridity: Post-Colonial Studies in Transition (Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi,

2007).

74 See Janet Siltanen and Andrea Doucet, Gender Relations: Intersectionality and Beyond (Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 2008). Gudrun-Axeli Knapp, “‘Intersectionality’ - Ein neues Paradigma der

Geschlechterforschung,” in Was kommt nach der Genderforschung? Zur Zukunft der feministischen

Theoriebildung, ed. Rita Casale (Bielefeld: 2008).

29

All these concepts questioned intellectual monopolies and sought to avoid

methodological and disciplinary Eurocentrism.75

In order to write the history of the Church, especially after the fall of

Constantinople, it is necessary to re-establish the connections between different

networks and to have a more comprehensive understanding of interactions. By

using the methods of connected history can we overcome the shortcomings and

limitations of the studies of church-state interactions influenced by the Millet

system literature detailed in the previous chapter.

This study proposes to contribute to the history of the Ottoman State and the

Greek Orthodox Church relations in the 17th century using by the orders (hüküms)

of the Şikâyet Defters and Mühimme Defters, which include church members and

their interactions, to reveal the relationship and interactions between them on an

economic basis. Reconstructing the Church’s connections, relationships,

negotiations, and conflicts with the state is essential to the realization of this

contribution. In this reconstruction process, the focus is on the functional aspects of

the strategies and mechanisms of each hüküm. Each of them has always been

analyzed in the light of its own circumstances and the points of overlap and not

overlap with others. Antecedent privileges, the location and possible geographical

spread of their landed property, and different political and social experiences before

and after the conquest are among the analytical criteria used in the study.

The study also aims to investigate the continuity of the differences,

privileges, and exceptions of the Church and its members at the local and regional

levels in the eyes of the state in the 17th century. Furthermore, it provides archival

75 Herren.

30

documentation. One of the main gaps remains a broad sampling over as wide an

area and time as possible. To do these properly, the tools and propositions of

approaches putting the emphasis on connections will be used.

Studies on the relationship between them have adopted a variety of

approaches and themes. In analyzing and explaining their interactions, I use the

offers of connected history. This is not only the most appropriate way to assess the

process of their relationship. It is also a way of avoiding the traditional approach of

looking at them as separate institutions and making comparisons. Connectedness

point that we need to go beyond singular binaries (national or local versus imperial,

central versus peripheral, secular versus ecclesiastical, western versus eastern,

Greek versus Ottoman) and to multiply angles of approach and perspective in order

to identify ‘tensions and equilibria’ more accurately of specific periods.76 It also will

be used when discussing political, financial, cultural, and ecclesiastical interactions

of the Church members and state’s officials.

In 1997, Sanjay Subrahmanyam proposed the connected approach.77 He

demonstrated the "patchwork" nature of the world in the early modern period. As an

alternative to comparative history, this offers a "transnational perspective". This

approach allows the empire to be meaningfully engaged in comparative analysis

while preserving the specificity of the Ottoman historical experience.78

Connected history, which breaks away from comparative approaches, makes

this possible by emphasizing the multifaceted character of transfers. The inability of

Comparative History to break away from the bonds of a nation and national identity,

76 Anastassiadis.

77 Sanjay Subrahmanyam, “Holding the World in Balance: The Connected Histories of the Iberian

Overseas Empires, 1500-1640,” American Historical Review, (December 2007): 1359-1385.

78 Subrahmanyam, “Connected Histories: Notes towards a Reconfiguration of Early Modern

Eurasia,” Modern Asian Studies 31 (1997): 735–62.

31

the "Spatial Turn", "Dependency Theory", "Globalization" and the need for

reflexivity have strengthened the hand of connected history in historiography.79

Among the relational approaches, Bénédicte Zimmerman proposed the histoire

croisée as a multiple perspective. However, it and the connected approach are

slightly different. Their epistemology differs but not sharply ones, but the

researcher's methodology affects how relational approaches can fit into theories.80

For research focused on theoretical concepts such as knowledge transfer or

communication, the histoire croisée approach is a valuable tool, with its emphasis

on hybridization or homogenization because it transcends different territorial,

linguistic, and cultural borders, and revisits the categories of analysis of their spatial

and temporal configuration.81

The comparative approach consists in choosing a focal point. In order to

ensure symmetry, this focal point must be the same for each of the entities studied.

The aim of it is to fill in the gaps and the blind spots that arise when these are

carried out separately.82 Comparative history is not appropriate for this study. This

approach ignores cultural transmissions and interactions, detaching what it deals

with from its historical context and confining it to a singular context. This context is

often one where standardized models are used, such as the "Millet System". In

contrast to comparison, it provides an active field of study. In comparative history,

the effects and repercussions of events are analyzed in detail, that all processes that

79 Sönke Bauck and Thomas Maier. 2015. “Entangled History.” InterAmerican Wiki: Terms -

Concepts - Critical Perspectives:

www.uni-bielefeld.de/cias/wiki/e_Entangled_History.html

80 Michael Werner and Bénédicte Zimmermann, “Beyond Comparison: Histoire Croisée and the

Challenge of Reflexivity,” History and Theory 45, No. 1 (February 2006): 30-50.

81 Bénédicte Zimmermann, “Histoire Croisée: A Relational Process-Based Approach,” Footprint 26,

no.14, (Spring/Summer 2020): 12.

82 Bénédicte Zimmermann, “Histoire Croisée”, 7-13.

32

can be evaluated are considered from a broader perspective, and that not only those

positioned in the intersection cluster are included in the research, but also the

environments in contact are included and analyzed. However, it is essential to focus

on the change that comes with influence and interaction. It is also an alternative to

the grand narrative of modernization, its focus is on interactions at different levels,

from the micro to the macro.83 The connected approach provides a new gateway to

analyze and understand the State and the Church relationship in detail. Given that

this study is concerned with two large institutions interacting with each other, I use

the connective approach throughout the study to identify their interactions and

relations.

In this study, the relations between the Church and the State will be analyzed

within the framework of interactive and relational approaches. I will adopt a

relational, transcultural, and connected approach, not looking at the Church an only

an institution, but at the forms of relationships that the Church's members have

developed with the state and society. The question of how we can explain the

intricate nature of Church history in connection with Ottoman history focal points

of this thesis. Another question is where we will place the financial relations

between them that made the Church and its members a part of the Ottoman world.

These questions will be answered through a combination of primary sources and the

above-mentioned approaches.

83 Douki and Minard, 12-14.

33

CHAPTER II

THE GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH AND THE OTTOMAN

STATE: A HISTORICAL EXAMINATION OF THEIR

RELATIONS

The 17th century was a significant period in the history of the Greek

Orthodox Church, marked by several important events and developments. The

Church experienced several crises in the century, both in its relations with the

Ottoman administration and in its internal. At the turn of the century, the

patriarchate was experiencing an especially turbulent period. The Ottoman

administration interpreted some contacts of the patriarchs in the century as treason,

and their results were fatal for patriarchs. Three patriarchs and one ex-patriarch

were executed for alleged treason between 1638 and 1659.84 The relationship

between the state and the Church went through ups and downs as a result of the

tumultuous events of the century.

The rapid succession of patriarchs evidences the increasing competition

inside and outside the Church. Between 1453 and 1500, the office of the Patriarch

of Constantinople changed hands eighteen times with an average of one patriarch

every 2.4 years. It changed thirty-two times between 1500 and 1600, averaging one

patriarch every 3.1 years, and fifty-three times between 1500 and 1600, averaging

one patriarch every 1.9 years. During the period 1694-1801, had thirty-four

patriarchs, giving an average lifespan of about three years per patriarchate.

However, there were twenty-five Patriarchs during this period, several of which

84 Runciman, 259-88.

34

occupied the seat several times. Only four Patriarchs during this period died in

office; the rest were forced to resign or were deposed.85 These datas are an

indication that the patriarchate was not a stable institution for a large part of the

century.

The network of church-state involved more than just members of the Church

and the state officials. It was made up of a complex network of actors, both internal

and external. In this chapter, I will try to present a panorama of Church history in

the turbulent 17th century and the role of its members in the century’s political

atmosphere.

The beginning and the half of the century can be characterized by a post-

Reformation atmosphere. Both Catholics and Protestants, not only in Europe but

also in the Ottoman lands, sought to win the Orthodox to their side. The Catholics

in the Empire, who were particularly influenced by the Catholic missionaries who

worked in the Empire from the 17th century, lived mainly in the Aegean islands.

They consisted of those who had been Catholic since the Venetian period, as well as

those Orthodox who converted to Catholicism. The patriarchs reacted to this

influence because it was not only an ecclesiastical issue, but also closely related to

current political conflicts.

In response to the Protestant Reformation, which culminated in Luther's

manifesto, the Catholic Church held the Council of Trent (1545-1563). This council

created great division which caused a serious rupture in the structure of Western

85 Papademetriou, 214.

35

Christianity, leading to accusations of unbelief and wars in the end.86 The reasons

for this separation were undoubtedly both theological and political. In this context,

Catholic-Protestant rivalries played a crucial role, especially in the first half of the

17th century.

The establishment of Catholic orders in Europe resulted from the Church's

spiritual renewal in the 16th century in Spain and Italy. Jesuits, who began as a small

fraternity established by Ignatius Loyola in Paris in 1534, were the most successful

of all of the orders. After receiving papal approval, they moved to Italy in 1540.87

The Capuchins, founded in 1528 as an offshoot of the Franciscans to restore the

Franciscan Order to its original ideals, were another sign of the forces of renewal. In

numbers and influence in the course of the Catholic Reformation, they rivaled the

Jesuits.88

Jesuits first arrived in Constantinople in 1583. Because Pope Gregory XIII

and Jesuit General Claudio Aquaviva agreed to send five members of the Society

there in response to the Galatians' request for educators.89 After the accession of

Pope Clement VIII (1536-1605) to the throne of St. Peter in 1592, there was an

increase in the intensity and activity of the orders in the Ottoman lands. He

developed a strong interest in the Eastern Churches. To encourage communion with

the see of Roma and a possible alliance against the Turks, he sent numerous

delegations to these churches. The Pope was particularly concerned with

Catholicism among the Orthodox Greeks. He sent generous sums to the bishoprics

86 Thomas S. Bokenkotter, A Concise History of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday, 2005):

372. See Wolfgang Reinhard, “Reformation, Counter-Reformation, and the Early Modern State a

Reassessment.” The Catholic Historical Review 75, no. 3 (1989): 383–404.

87 Bokenkotter, 368.

88 Bokenkotter, 369.

89 Charles A. Frazee, Catholics and Sultans the Church and the Ottoman Empire, 1453-1923

(London: Cambridge University Press, 2006): 73.

36

of the Aegean. He also urged the Jesuits to establish more eastern foundations.

Convincing the Ottoman Grand Vizier of Catholicism was also one of his plans.

This was Cığalazade Yusuf Sinan Pasha who had been taken prisoner in a raid on

the Italian coast and converted to Islam. If he were to return to his original faith, it

would be a remarkable success for Christianity. The Pope sent two Jesuit members

of Pasha’s family to carry out this plan, but they were not successful.90

In the late 16th century, France and the Ottoman empire came close in their

interests. Jesuits from France returned to Constantinople in September 1609, as

chaplains of the French embassy. Although they worked with individual Orthodox

Christians, their main goal was to bring about the union of the Greek Orthodox

Church with Rome. They also paved way for the re-establishment of union between

these churches and Rome. In addition to these, Neophytos II, the Greek Orthodox

patriarch when they arrived in Istanbul, was favorably disposed towards

Catholicism and he simplified their works. However, with the death of Ambassador

de Salignac in 1610, the Jesuits lost their great patron and progress.91 The Ottoman

authorities ordered their arrest and imprisoned them until the arrival of the next

ambassador to Constantinople. In spite of these setbacks, the Jesuits still remained

hopeful until 1616 when Halil Pasha, the new grand vizier, radically changed the

fate of the Catholics in the capital. He wanted to stop the advance of Catholicism

and the spread of French influence. He fulfilled his aim with the order of the arrest

of Jesuits who were accused of secretly baptizing Muslims.92

90 Frazee, 78.

91 Frazee, 79-80.

92 Frazee, 81-82.

37

A number of Catholic monarchs throughout Western Europe underwrote the

expenses of Catholic missionaries during the 16th and early 17th centuries. For this

patronage, missionaries were expected to represent their home countries, and

churches from one country may see others from another country or order as rivals,

not as co-workers. From the point of view of Rome, there was an urgent need to

centralize and institutionalize the missionary activity under a Congregation directly

responsible to the Pope, and for that purpose, during the brief pontificate of Gregory

XV (1621-23) established the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith

(Propaganda Fide) in the year 1622.93 It expedited the activities of missionaries

especially Jesuits in the lands of the Empire.

It is often suggested the Orthodox Church did not experience either a

Reformation or a Counter-Reformation because the forces of reform stopped when

they reached the borders of the Empire and Russia. It would be a mistake, however,

to conclude that these two movements have had no effect at all on the Orthodox

Church. These worlds have been in contact with each other through several agents.

The Orthodox went to study in the West, the Jesuits, and Franciscans were sent out

to the eastern Mediterranean to undertake missionary work among the Orthodox,

the foreign embassies in Constantinople, and the foreign embassies in

Constantinople played religious and political roles for Catholic and Protestant

powers.94 Protestants and Roman Catholics, whose cooperation in the 16th century

was characterized by the absence of patriarchal hierarchies and theologians, made

93 Frazee, 88.

94 Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1997): 93.

38

inroads in the 17th century.95 In the course of the century, these contacts and inroads

led to significant developments in Orthodox theological debates.

One of the most important factors in bringing the Orthodox and Protestants

closer to each other in mutual understanding implied a common hostility toward

Catholicism based on developments at the end of the 16th century. In 1558, the

Patriarch of Constantinople Joasaph II the Magnificent (1556-1565) sent his

deacon, Demetrios Mysos the Thessalonian, to Wittenberg to learn about Protestant

doctrine.96 During the first Patriarchate of Jeremias II Tranos (1572-1579), the

dialogues with Protestantism under Joasaph II found a more substantial

continuation. However, these attempts at establishing dialogues with each other left

no fundamental traces on the Orthodox Church.97 In contrast to the insecurity or

hostility that often characterized Orthodox dealings with Catholics, the early

contacts under Jeremias II suggest suspicion towards Protestants. In 1573, he

conducted the first significant exchange of views between Orthodox and

Protestants. He adhered strictly to the traditional Orthodox position in responding to

the Tübingen theologians in 1576, 1579, and 1581, and showed no inclination

toward Protestantism. In these answers, he also declared that clearly, the Orthodox

Church had no desire for Reformation.98 The Lutherans responded to the first two

letters, but the third letter ended in an impasse between the parties. Therefore, the

relationship between the Orthodox Church and the Reformation Church had been

95 Papademetriou, 214.

96 In 1559 the Lutheran theologian Melanchthon sent him a letter along with a Greek translation of

the Augsburg Confession, but it did not produce any effect. Some scholars suggest that

Melanchthon's letter never reached Constantinople.

97 Paschalis Kitromilides, “Orthodoxy and the West: Reformation to Enlightenment.” Chapter.

In The Cambridge History of Christianity, edited by Michael Angold, 5:187–209. Cambridge

History of Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006: 188-190.

98 Ware, 94.

39

presented precisely and clearly for the first time in the exchange during the period

of Jeremias II.

At the beginning of the 17th century, attitudes toward Protestantism were to

change completely. This was closely related to the changing nature of the

relationship of the Orthodox Church with the West and the Empire. In light of

political conflicts and events, the Church and the Porte had conflicting interests in

this century. In order to improve the Orthodox position in the Empire and in

Europe, the Church saw the West as an ally. Especially during the time of the pro-

Protestant Patriarch Kyrillos Loukaris, it can be said that many foreign missions,

such as the Catholic and Protestant Embassies, intervened in the Orthodox Church.

Between 1612 and 1638, Patriarch Cyril Loukaris ascended the throne of

Alexandria and Constantinople seven times (1612, 1620–23, 1623, 1623–33, 1634–

35, 1637–38). Because he was heavily influenced by 16th-century Calvinism, he

was known as a "Calvinist" patriarch. Sympathizing with Calvinist doctrine, he

showed strong opposition to Roman Catholicism, and he tried to reform Orthodoxy

according to Calvinism. He wrote the Confession of Faith in Latin and published in

1629. He argued that instead of relying solely on the teachings of the Church, the

Church should emphasize the study of the Bible and encourage individuals to

interpret it for themselves. These views caused conflict between Loukaris and other

clerics and were considered heretical by many within the Church.99 The most

controversial theological issues in Loukaris' work, "Confession of Faith," were

those concerning images and his insistence on "justification by faith alone," which

99 Detailed Bibliography on Kyrillos Loukaris: G. A. Hadjiantoniou, Protestant Patriarch: The Life of

Cyril Lukaris (1572–1638) Patriarch of Constantinople (London: The Epworth Press, 1961);

Runciman, 259-288.

40

irritated the traditional Orthodox Christians. To create as much trouble for Loukaris

as possible, the Catholics spread the contents of his work in Constantinople.

Their efforts began to bear fruit and diminish his hold on the church. In the

end, he was executed in 1638 and his body was thrown into the Bosphorus, and

Kontaris became the next patriarch. As a result, he was the first patriarch to be

executed in the period. It is generally acknowledged that he played a fundamental

role in shaping Orthodoxy like he devised a grand strategy for the defense of

Orthodoxy by courting the Protestant powers of Europe to form a united front

against Rome100 but his theological policies have been largely contested.

He had a complicated relationship with the Ottoman administration. On the

other hand, he was able to negotiate certain privileges and concessions for the

Church from the Ottoman authorities. On the other hand, he was a target of the

administration's suspicions and accusations that he was too sympathetic to Western

ideas and influences. He faced opposition from both the state and the clergy. His

legacy has been the subject of debate among scholars and theologians. Some see

him as a courageous reformer, while others see him as a divisive figure who

undermined the unity of the Orthodox Church.

His period when especially five times as patriarch of Constantinople

between 1620 and 1638 is important for a discussion of the nature of the

ecclesiastical and political authority of both the Church and state in the first half of

the 17th century. At this time, the church and its hierarchy were not stable from a

financial perspective. It is evident from many synodical decisions that refer to an

increased financial burden. The Patriarchate was in serious debt, which had reached

100 For strategy see Kitromilides, 194-197.

41

4,000,000 akçes by the time Loukaris took office.101 A portion of the debt was paid

from his own funds, and the rest was apportioned among the Hierarchs of the

Patriarchate. It took less than a month after his election for the Holy Synod to agree

to the apportionment and it was decided that the hierarchs were to pay their share

before St. George's feast day (23 April). The patriarch was permitted to depose

metropolitans and bishops who refused to pay as disobedient and uncooperative and

to appoint other people to their dioceses.102 Loukaris was not the first patriarch to

demand the deposition of hierarchs who could not or refused to pay their share of

the Patriarchate's debt. Since the 1580s, there has been the threat of such a penalty.

Metropolitans and bishops were deposed by a Constantinopolitan synod under

Patriarch Hieremias II in 1593 for refusing to pay their financial contributions to the

Patriarchate. An attempt was made in May 1595 to convene a synod in Thessaloniki

to force the bishops of 'Western Greece' and of the Peloponnese to fulfill their

financial obligations. On various occasions, subsequent patriarchs have

implemented or renewed this ruling.103

When Patriarch Neofytos died in 1612, Loukaris was supported by the

bishops who wanted to see him elected Patriarch.104 About ten years later, Loukaris

was enthroned in 1621. During his tenure, he continued to struggle with them,

which resulted in his dismissal several times.105 It is clear that interchurch politics in

101 Eleni Gara and Ovidiu Olar, "5. Confession-Building and Authority: The Great Church and the

Ottoman State in the First half of the Seventeenth Century" In Entangled Confessionalizations?:

Dialogic Perspectives on the Politics of Piety and Community Building in the Ottoman Empire,

15th18th Centuries edited by Tijana Krstic and Derin Terzioglu, (Piscataway, NJ, USA: Gorgias

Press, 2022): 178-180.

102 Gara and Olar, 181.

103 Gara and Olar, 181.

104 Thomas Smith, An Account of the Greek Church, (London: Miles Flesher & Richard Davis,1653):

246-248.

105 Smith, 250.

42

this century has been one of great struggle. He was deposed and exiled in 1622 and

was replaced by Gregory of Amasia. Gregory was appointed by the Grand Vizier

Hüseyin Pasha in May 1623, but he was succeeded by Anthimos of Adrianople

three months later. However, Anthimos resigned shortly after despite the attempts

of the Jesuits. Meanwhile, Loukaris was on good terms with the Dutch and English

ambassadors.106 After this change of throne, he continued to struggle with the

Jesuits unceasingly. However, the latter continued complaints about him at the same

time to the Church and Ottoman Porte to dethrone him. In May 1635, Kontaris won

a costly war against Loukaris became a patriarch. The synod approved a special

contribution and authorized the Patriarch and his exarchs to punish and depose the

hierarchs who refused to pay their share of the debt resulting from Loukaris'

deposition and restoration to the throne of Constantinople. As a result of the heavy

debts of the Church, a synod convened by Kyrillos II Kontaris decided to impose

another contribution in 1636. Those unwilling or unable to meet the financial

requirements were again replaced by the Patriarch. These decisions also have

political overtones. He regained the throne from Gregory, Loukaris began to use the

removal of bankrupt hierarchs not only to deal with the Church's debts but also to

take control of appointments, thus neutralizing his political and ideological rivals.

Not all elections and decisions have been controversial, and the reasons for each

appointment or the "political leanings" of those appointed cannot be known.

However, we can assume that the patriarch had to cope simultaneously with the

indebtedness of the Church and the pressure of allies who supported his enemies.

They had an impact on his decisions and plans for the restoration of the Church

106 Tellan, 74.

43

without the cooperation of the higher clergy. The decisions of the Synod which as

mentioned above strengthened the authority of Loukaris and authorized him to

appoint a close circle. Hence, his subordinates within the holy synod played an

important role in limiting Kyrillos II's actions.

The Holy Synod, which was directly affected by the conflict among the

clergy, had to appoint a finance committee to oversee all revenues and consists of

four to five hierarchs and three ecclesiastical officers in 1635.107 The committee

took the responsibility for auditing the Church and checking revenues which

include taxes, alms, inheritances, monasteries' and exarchates' fees and the Church

expenses for a certain fee. In addition, it enforced all decrees concerning the

punishment, deposition, and election of high clergymen, and appointment of tax

officials. It had to also submit a report at the end of its term.108

Loukaris remained as patriarch until 1636 at which time Kyrillos Kontaris

replaced him. However, Kontaris failed to control the higher clergy when he was

enthroned again in 1638. Furthermore, he did not eradicate Loukaris faction’s traces

from the clergy. The Synod elected Kontaris for a third time after Loukaris'

deposition in 1638, but his hold on the Patriarchate was tenuous and many enemies

threatened him. He signed a formal profession of the Catholic faith in order to

consolidate the Catholic support behind him in 1638. In 1639, he was exiled to

Tunisia and then arrested and imprisoned. In 1640, he was strangled by his

guards.109 In 1642, an important synod convened in Iaşi by patriarch Parthenios I

107 Gara and Olar, 183.

108 Gara and Olar, 183-184.

109 Frazee, 94.

44

who succeed Kontaris.110 The aim of the Synod was to provide a comprehensive

Orthodox statement in order to counter certain Roman Catholic and Protestant

"heresies" which have penetrated into Orthodox theology.111 The condemnation of

the Calvinist doctrines attributed to Loukaris was the first item on the agenda. The

main contribution of the Synod has been to strengthen the sense of unity in the

Church through the promulgation of an authoritative statement that was agreed

upon by all the hierarchy.112 Parthenios I was succeeded by Parthenios II, the

former Metropolitan of Chios. He called a special session of the Holy Synod, which

approved the decrees issued in Iaşi. He was exiled and replaced in 1646 by

Ioannikios II, a cleric sympathetic to Catholicism.113

Loukaris was an important figure of the period. His relations with foreign

ambassadors, conflicts with Jesuits, and activities of the printing press were

important during his time as patriarch. In the years to follow, when the internal

crisis was at its height, the supporters of Loukaris’ teachings did not disappear in

the circle of the Church.114 The long-term consequence of his death was that for the

rest of the 17th century, an aggressive spirit of anti-Protestantism prevailed in

Orthodoxy. In addition, this spirit would be the explanation for the otherwise

different rapprochement between the Catholic and Orthodox churches in the last

decades of the century.115 A struggle for control of the Patriarchate continued

between Greek factions and their allies until 1648. In most cases, power struggles

for ecclesiastical offices were the underlying reasons for the depositions of many

110 Runciman, 342.

111 John Anthony McGuckin, “Iasi (Jassy), Synod of (1642),” in The Encyclopedia of Eastern

Orthodox Christianity (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011): 325.

112 Runciman, 342-343.

113 Frazee, 94.

114 Gara and Olar, 187.

115 Kitromilides, 201.

45

patriarchs.116 There were, however, a few major doctrinal disagreements responsible

for patriarchal succession in the century apart from these major events. The

patriarchs became more cautious in expressing their theological, ideological, or

political affiliations at the end of this period.

The beginning and the half of the century can be characterized by a post-

Reformation atmosphere. Both Catholics and Protestants sought to win the

Orthodox to their side. During the reign of Mehmet IV (1642-1693), good relations

between the Eastern patriarchs and the French ambassadors in Istanbul were a

matter of concern for all parties. The Patriarch at that time, Ioannikios II, stayed

with the French ambassador for ten months. Then he was deposed and went to

Venice.117 In addition to these major events, one more patriarch was executed in

those years: Parthenios II. He was denounced to the sultan with the accusation of

treason. Then, he was killed and thrown into the sea due possibly to the political

threat posed by the Cossacks.118

Parthenios III Parthenakes became the Patriarch in 1656 when Köprülü

Mehmed Pasha (1578-1661) took over the office of the Grand Vizier. He was

credited with ushering in a period of relative stability in the empire. During his

tenure and that of his son and successor, Köprülüzade Fazıl Ahmed Pasha (1661-

1676), members of the Orthodox archon families became prominent in the Ottoman

Porte because of their education and bureaucratic skills from the second half of the

116 Eugenia Kermeli, “Kyrillos Loukaris’ Legacy : Reformation as a Catalyst in the 17th Century

Ottoman Society: Reformation in the 17th Century Ottoman Society,” The Muslim World 107, no. 4

(2017): 737–53.

117 Tijana Krstić, "2. Can we Speak of ‘Confessionalization’ beyond the Reformation? Ottoman

Communities, Politics of Piety, and Empire-building in an Early Modern Eurasian Perspective "

In Entangled Confessionalizations?: Dialogic Perspectives on the Politics of Piety and Community

Building in the Ottoman Empire, 15th18th Centuries edited by Tijana Krstic and Derin Terzioglu,

25-116. (Piscataway, NJ, USA: Gorgias Press, 2022): 42; Frazee, 99.

118 Tellan, 72-73.

46

17th century. In suppressing the "heretical" teachings of Loukaris and the Loukarist

circle, they played a key role. Panagiotes Nikousios (1613-1673), was a Phanariote

physician was appointed the first dragoman (chief interpreter) of the Ottoman Porte,

orchestrated the promotion of Mohila's Orthodox Confession119 as the authoritative

text of Orthodox Christians in the 1660s.120 In addition, his appointment marked the

beginning of the Phanariots’ rise to high political offices in the government.

Parthenios III, who respected the memory of Loukaris and sided with the

Russians in the struggle to control the Church in the Ukraine, denounced the

Confession of Faith of the former Metropolitan of Kiev, Peter Mohila, because of

considering to be too close to Catholic doctrine.121 Reflecting Mohila's desire to

reconcile Eastern and Western Christianity, the Mohila’s Confession is based on the

Nicene Creed and incorporates elements of Orthodox theology and Western

theological concepts. As well as highlighting the importance of sacraments such as

baptism and the Eucharist, it emphasizes the role of the Bible and the Orthodox

Church's traditions.122 Recognized as one of the most important theological works

in Eastern Christianity, the Confession outlines the beliefs of the Eastern Orthodox

Church.

Parthenios III became suspected of having corresponded with Russian and

Romanian prince because he sent letters to a Greek bishop in the Tsardom of

119 It is a document outlining Orthodox beliefs and rejecting certain Protestant doctrines. It was

confirmed by the Synod of Jassy in 1642, while a year later it was recognized by the four

Patriarchates of the East as the fundamental text defining the right faith of the Orthodox world under

the title Confession of the Orthodox faith of the Catholic and Apostolic church of Christ.

120 Gara and Olar, 187.

121 Runciman, 344-345.

122 See Ronald Peter Popivchak, "Peter Mohila, Metropolitan of Kiev (1633-47): Translation and

Evaluation of his "Orthodox Confession of Faith" (1640)." Order No. 7601178, The Catholic

University of America, 1975. https://www.etu.edu.tr/dissertations-theses/peter-mohila-metropolitankiev-

1633-47/docview/302760296/se-2.

47

Russia, then a political enemy of the empire, to raise funds. His letters were

intercepted and handed over to Köprülü Mehmed Pasha, who decided that

Parthenios should stand trial on charges of betraying the empire.123 The Tatars of

Crimea, allies of the Ottomans, found out this correspondence, and they passed it on

to the vizier, who interpreted it as a call by the Cossacks for an invasion of the

empire.124 He was also accused of secretly urging Venice and the Habsburgs to

attack Constantinople at a time when the army was in a precarious state. Sultan

Mehmed IV ordered his execution in order to set an example for those who might

attempt such a thing in the future.125 He was executed on March 24, 1657 and

hanged at the Parmakkapı.126 Thus, he was the third patriarch to be executed during

this turbulent period. A new era began for the relationship between the Great

Church and the state after his execution. The symbolically important privilege of

the Patriarch to pay homage to the sultan upon his appointment was abolished by

the Grand Vizier.127 Hence, patriarchs were for a time deprived of the right to

present themselves in person to the sultan.

Parthenios III’s immediate successor, Gabriel II, was also hanged on charges

of disloyalty, after he had been exiled to Bursa on the orders of Köprülü Mehmed

Pasha. He held office very briefly in 1657 and was executed in 1659 for allegedly

baptizing a Jew in Bursa. In return, the Jews made a false accusation against him to

123 Nomikos Vaporis, Witnesses for Christ: Orthodox Christian Neomartyrs of the Ottoman Period,

1437-1860 (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2000): 114-115.

124 Vaporis, 114.

125 Demetrius Kiminas, The Ecumenical Patriarchate: A History of Its Metropolitanates with

Annotated Hierarch Catalogs (San Bernardino, CA: Borgo Press, 2009): 47.

126 Marc David Baer, Honored by the glory of islam: Conversion and conquest in Ottoman Europe.

(New York: Oxford University Press, 2011): 60.

127 Gara and Olar, 186-187.

48

the Vizier saying that he had baptized a Muslim.128 As a result of this, he suffered

the same fate as the other three patriarchs.

Maintain the order appear to be the most important Ottoman expectation

from patriarchs in this period. The state considered that strict practices and

executions were necessary to keep the Church under control. The executions and

imprisonments of the Patriarchs were also mostly based on suspicions of treason. It

is noteworthy that their execution was by strangulation or hanging, as was the case

with Ottoman officials.129

Unfortunately, there are limited resources that allow us to follow the history

of the Patriarchate from the middle to the end of the century. If we want to examine

the period from the berâts, we can see only two berâts issued in the century:

Makarios III of Antioch (1649)130 and Dionysios III of Constantinople (1662).131

These documents state that the punishment of Orthodox clergy for acts against their

religion was under the jurisdiction of the patriarch. The 1662 berât contains other

provisions not contained in 1483 and 1525. The procedure of the appointment of

metropolitans was described in more detail there.132 In this century, the position of

the patriarch seems to have become more bureaucratized, and he began acting as a

mediator between the community and the state. The patriarchate gained greater

power, and the church administration in the empire became more systematic and

regular. In this way, we can see that the state now views the church primarily from

128 Tellan, 77-78.

129 See Ahmet Mumcu, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Siyaseten Katl (Ankara: Phoenix Yayınları, 2007): 118-

119.

130 Yavuz Ercan, Kudüs Ermeni Patrikhanesi, (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu,1988): 37-38.

131 Çolak and Tellan, 61-63. It was allegedly issued in 1662 and published by Manouel Gedeon in

1910, exists only in a translation from Greek, and is of dubious authenticity. For the English

translation: Tellan, 32-33 footnotes. See Manuel Gedeon, Episima Grammata Tourkika,

(Konstantinoupoli: Patriarchikou Typografeiou, 1910): 9-14.

132 Tellan, 32.

49

an administrative point. From an economic point of view, the Porte expected from

the patriarchs, of course, the full and timely payment of their dues to the treasury.

However, it is important to remember that patriarchs, metropolitans, and officers of

the Porte's administration were not the only members of the network of

relationships between the Church and the State. In the making of the state's policies,

financial and administrative relations played a main role. The Patriarchate was also

under the influence of the conditions of the empire and played a role in the political,

fiscal, and social transformation.

Another important milestone in the 17th century the Church history was the

Synod of Jerusalem also known as the Synod of Bethlehem held in 1672. The synod

was by the patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem (1669-1707) and produced a

confession that is known as the Confession of Dositheus133. He defined the

Orthodox dogma in the areas that had been disputed in the Reformation, and he

reorganized the monasteries of his patriarchate on a more rigorous basis. While the

Synod was a response to the Reformers in doctrinal terms, it was also an attempt to

articulate Orthodoxy's dogmatic heritage in the face of Catholic and Protestant

disputes.134 The synod refuted the confession of Lucaris, as was done in Iaşi. Philip

Schaff asserts that the synod was the most important synod in the modern history of

the Eastern Church and can be compared to the Council of Trent due to both the

determination of the doctrinal status of the churches they represent and the

condemnation of the doctrines of Protestantism.135

133 “The Confession of Dositheus (Eastern Orthodox, 1672),” The Confession of Dositheus (Eastern

Orthodox), http://www.crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html.

134 Kenneth Parry and John R. Hinnells, in The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern

Christianity (Oxford: Blackwell Pub., 2007): 267.

135 Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom: With A History and Critical Notes (Baker Books,

2007): 84.

50

On the other hand, the 17th century for the empire can be evaluated in a

number of different ways. Politically, the Ottomans were at war with the Holy

League led by the Austrian Habsburgs at the end of the century. An intense period

of fighting began in 1683 and ended in 1699 with the signing of the Treaty of

Karlowitz. Financially, the empire underwent radical administrative, fiscal and

military transformations that were not independent of each other. Financial

problems were particularly prevalent at the end of the 16th century. The devaluation

of the akçe was a recurring phenomenon that occurred in 1600, 1618, 1624, and

1640. A series of revolts broke out in the first half of the century in response to

inflation and devaluation in the Ottoman currency. During the 16th century, the

state's growing need for cash and a decline in the tımar system led to a series of

changes in the fiscal sphere. In the first half of the 17th century, the cizye, avârız-ı

dîvâniyye and tekâlif-i örfiyye taxes became more important and then the avârız

became a permanent tax. These fiscal measures created new provincial units. Due

to the growing need for cash during times of war, the state waited for significant

contributions from these administrators in the provinces.136 Diplomatically, the

Ottomans, either a threat to the Habsburgs or an ally of the French, were major

players in European politics in the 16th century. However, in the 17th century, the

empire was in need of Western diplomatic support in their war against the

Habsburgs. Because after the second failed siege of Vienna in 1683, the tides in the

conflict between the Ottomans and their Western allies turned decisively against the

empire. It was from this time that the Ottomans began to encounter many

136 Şevket Pamuk, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Paranın Tarihi, (Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt

Yayınları,1999): 140-160. See Linda T. Darling, Revenue-Raising and Legitimacy: Tax Collection

and Finance Administration in the Ottoman Empire, 1560-1660 (Leiden: Brill, 1996): 80-93.

51

complications in the conduct of their foreign relations and there was need for people

who would engage in lengthy and complex diplomatic negotiations. In need of

skilled diplomats and administrators, the state turned to the Phanariots, an efficient

Greek Orthodox nobility which had originally made their fortunes as merchants and

bankers.137 They acted as intermediaries between the church and the state. In order

to pursue their political goals, they needed the support of the Church. As the

administrators of the affairs of the Patriarchate, they had acquired a comprehensive

understanding of the state administration. In time, the Phanariots entered the

Ottoman bureaucracy gradually and rose to the top-ranks.138

In sum, the 17th century was a more challenging and complicated era than

expected for analyzing the Church's political history. Some of the Church's actions

have been met with a reaction from the administration because of their political

connotations in this era. Above all, political and religious developments both in

Europe and in the Empire after the spread of Protestantism, complex alliances

between patriarchs and church hierarchy with councils, and the foreign relations of

the Porte determined Ottoman church policy in the 17th century. At the beginning of

the century, both the Catholics and Protestants attempted to infiltrate the Ottoman

Empire through their connections with patriarchs or missionaries. Especially after

1622, under the strong patronage of France, the Jesuits were active in this direction.

In the election of the patriarch, the ambassadors took an active role by providing

financial support to them. The empire perceived these actions to be direct

interference and reacted in harsh ways.

137 Panayotis Alexandrou Papachristou, Three Faces of the Phanariots: An Inquiry into the Role and

Motivations of the Greek Nobility under Ottoman Rule, 1683-1821, Unpublished Master’s Thesis,

(Simon Fraser University, 1992): 7.

138 Runciman, 378-79.

52

The century was an important period in the history of the Orthodox Church,

marked by a number of significant events and developments. These events and

developments aforementioned in this chapter had significant implications for the

Church, shaping its theology and history, institutional structures, and relationship

with administration. There were also periods of conflict and tension between the

Church and the state, particularly during times of political unrest or war. Moreover,

the administration of the Church in the century was also marked by internal

divisions and controversies. The relationship did not proceed positively in the

absence of political and financial stability in the Ottoman system and Church

organization. The instability is reflected in the fact that the patriarchal throne was

occupied by several patriarchs for short periods, and three patriarchs and one expatriarch

were executed between the years 1638 and 1657. Taking everything above

into account, one can reach the conclusion that the 17th century was a chaotic one

for the Orthodox clergy in the Ottoman realm.

This study traced the reflections of the effects of this turbulent period on

archival sources. The materials obtained indicate that political chaos or disorder did

not cause a radical collapse in the relations between the state and the Church.

Among others, the state was interested in the Church's actions for two major

reasons: its desire to have its taxes properly collected, and its desire to control the

Orthodox population through the institutional mechanism of the Church. The

administration had little cause for concern as long as these were in accordance with

the order, the nizam which was one of the major concerns for the state’s raison

d’être. When the century is examined through archival materials in a systematic

53

way, it can be seen that their relationship in the 17th century was characterized by a

synthesis of cooperation, conflict, and negotiation through a delicate balance of

power and influence on both sides. Findings from the archival material will be

analyzed in detail in the following chapters.

54

55

CHAPTER III

THE ECONOMIC INTERACTION OF THE GREEK

ORTHODOX CHURCH WITH THE OTTOMAN STATE

The present chapter deals with the economic interaction between the Greek

Orthodox Church and the Ottoman state in the light of the Ottoman archival sources

from the 17th century. The members of the church were mainly the recipients of

documents from the provincial and central authorities of the state. These documents

informed the community of what was required of it or of the administration's

response to the community's petitions and requests, tax relief, and permission to

repair churches.139 This will allow the Church's economic activities to be traced and

the State's attitude towards them. I also address the economic power of the Church

and the impact of its internal transformations and struggles on the state and vice

versa. For, the Church played an active role in social and economic change,

influenced by the conditions of the empire. This part will be an exploration of

cooperation, negotiation, and conflict in financial matters between them.

It is impossible to look at the economic structure of the state and the Church

without considering their administrative structure and relations between them. As,

the relationship between them directly affects the economic activities and functions

of the Church for the state. This chapter will focus on the economic relations of the

Church and the state rather than the administrative structure of them, the archival

139 Evangelia Balta, “Ottoman Archives in Greece.” In Balkanlar ve İtalya’da Şehir ve Manastır

Arşivlerindeki Türkçe Belgeler Semineri: 16-17 Kasım 2000, 15–16. (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu

Basımevi, 2003).

56

sources analyzed are also focused on economic orders for this reason. In future

studies, Church-State relations can be studied in line with administrative and

political aspects.

The majority of the orders (hüküms) in the Şikâyet and Mühimme defters are

related to economic issues. Although most of them are complaints about nonpayment

of debts between members of the church and another member, a dhimmi, a

government official or a foundation official, it is still possible to glean information

that can be useful in completing the picture of the economy of the time through

reading between the lines and analysis of other complaints.

Church members who played an active role in the debt economy both lent

and borrowed. Borrowing and not paying back, and the legalisation of these issues,

are common problems. Most of the orders classified in the analyzed defters are

related to debt or credit issues between the church members and other subjects for

these reasons. Sometimes the complaints and orders about the alleged harassment of

church members by the Ottoman officials in financial matters became the subject of

several orders. Sometimes church members appealed to the qadi for the collection

of their debts.

The 493rd order in the 13th Şikayet Defter (1689) is the first order that

deserves a special attention. It contains many important details about the patriarchs'

financial relations with the metropolitans and the place of their relationship in the

eyes of the state. In this order, Kalimnos who was metropolitan of Edirne ‘bought’

the metropolitanate of Edirne for ten sacks of akçe from the patriarch Kaligos (sic.

Kallinikos II (1694-1702)) by handing over the amount in full (İstanbul patriği olan

Kaligos nâm râhibden Edirne metrepolidliğin on kîse akçeye alıp ve meblâğ-ı

57

mezbûru bi't tamâm teslîm eyledikden). Up to this point, the first question to be

asked is whether it is possible to purchase the office of metropolitan for a certain

amount. In this century we find examples of the sale of important positions due to

the economic crisis in the Church. However, this is the first time we have witness it

clearly declared in the defters. In the order after the delivery of this sum, the

patriarch was deposed during this time, and Neofytos who was the former

metropolitan of Edirne became the patriarch of Constantinople (mezbûr patrik azl

ve yerine sâbık Edirne metrepolidi olan Bilafyos nâm râhib İstanbul patriği

olmağla). It was at this point that things got complicated. Bilafyos (probably

Neofytos) reportedly said, "metropolitanate of Edirne used to be my place of office

and authority, but the patriarch filled it with you by presenting it to me, and I will

give it to another one," (Edirne metrepolidliği benim mukaddemâ mansıbım idi,

bana garzen patrik-i sâbık sana verdi, ben dahi âhara veririm). As such he took

another fifteen sacks of money from him. Then Neofytos was metropolitan of

Edirne, he incurred a debt of one hundred and fifty sacks of akçe (mesfûr Bilafyos

râhib Edirne'de metrepolid iken yüz elli kîse akçe deyn edinmekle). I have seen no

evidence that suggest whether he did so from his personal pocket or the account of

his office. However, the people to whom he owed money wanted to collect their

debts by saying that Kalimnos had promised to pay the patriarch's debts and thus

they wanted the said amount from him (dâyinleri mezbûrlar mesfûrun yüz elli kîse

akçe deyni sen vermeği taahhüd eylemiş idin, senden alırız deyü). In the order

written to the qadi of Edirne, such harassment against Kalimnos was prohibited.140

140 Türk, 264.

Edirne kadîsına hüküm ki,

58

The other question that comes to mind when examining this order is whether the

debts of the purchased metropolitanate were also taken over. While there is such an

expectation here, it will not be possible to generalise it. While this order reveals that

the metropolitan office was seen as a source of income, it also contains interesting

nuances about the debts and guarantors of church members. It is also important to

note here that a metropolitan sought a solution to his problems with another

metropolitan or patriarch by submitting his complaint to the Ottoman administration

instead of resorting to canon law. The fact that guarantors and debtors are seen as

belonging to the same administration, despite changes in appointment and

dismissal, maybe shows that this law is institutional despite its individuality.

In a nutshell, the economic turmoil of the period inevitably affected both the

church and the state economy. Most of the economic relations of church members

with the public and other members were based on debt issues. Sometimes the debtor

and sometimes the creditor members found the remedy in applying to the qadi or

the divan and wanted to collect their debts through the mechanisms of the state. The

orders dealing with these matters provide us with important information not only

about the relations of the members with the state mechanism but also about the

internal functioning of the church and the financial aspects of this functioning.

Edirne metrepolidi olan Kalimnos nâm metrepolid arzuhâl edip İstanbul patriği olan Kaligos nâm

râhibden Edirne metrepolidliğin on kîse akçeye alıp ve meblâğ-ı mezbûru bi't tamâm teslîm

eyledikden sonra mezbûr patrik azl ve yerine sâbık Edirne metrepolidi olan Bilafyos nâm râhib

İstanbul patriği olmağla Edirne metrepolidliği benim mukaddemâ mansıbım idi, bana arzen patrik-i

sâbık sana verdi, ben dahi âhara veririm deyü tekrâr bundan mesfûr Bilafyos on beş kîse akçesin

alıp ve mesfûr Bilafyos râhib Edirne'de metrepolid iken yüz elli kîse akçe deyn edinmekle yüz elli

kîse deynine kefîl bi'l-mâl olmuş değil iken dâyinleri mezbûrlar mesfûrun yüz elli kîse akçe deyni sen

vermeği taahhüd eylemiş idin, senden alırız deyü hilâf-ı şer-i şerîf rencîde eylediklerin bildirip hilâfı

şer-i şerîf rencide olunmayıp vech-i meşrûh üzere yazılmışdır.

Fî Evâsıt-ı C. sene [1]100. See for the other debt issues orders in the 13th Şikâyet defter

112,170,333,483,660.

59

It should be noted that due to the severe economic problems of the time, the

clergy were urged to negotiate with the state at the beginning of the 17th century.

This is also true for the state since the extent of state control in this century was also

dependent on the social and economic conditions at the local level. In theory, all the

Church property was protected by the Ottoman administration, and no one could

interfere with its management. However, abuse of power on the part of Ottoman

officials was common, especially in the periphery of the empire.141 In particular, the

difficult economic conditions forced the local officials to compensate for the loss of

income by imposing “illegal” taxes and collecting more taxes than the required

amount from the church members and their foundations. For example, the order in

the 2nd Şikâyet Defter (1654) and numbered 789 sent to the qadi of Egypt upon the

written petition of one of the priests in Egypt, it is understood that the priests and

his flocks were willing to pay their taxes as of old, but some regional administrators

were not satisfied with these taxes and harmed them against the sharia and law

(hilâf-ı şer‘ ve kânûn ziyâde alup zulm ve te‘addî etmeleriyle). The order calls for an

end to unjustified harassment by the authorities (men‘ u def‘ olunmak bâbında

hükm-i hümâyûnum ricâ etmeğin şurûtuyla hükm yazılmışdır).142

Although the content of the complaints about the state officials varied, most

of the orders asked them not to interfere with the members of the Church. The

141 Victor Roudometof and Michalis N. Michael. “Economic Functions of Monasticism in Cyprus:

The Case of the Kykkos Monastery.” Religions 1, no. 1 (2010): 60.

142 Mısır kâdîsına hüküm ki

Mahrûse-i Mısır’da ruhban taifesi tarafından (…) nâm rahib rikâb-ı hümâyûnuma rik‘a idüp tâife-i

mezbûre kadîmü’l-eyyâmdan veregeldikleri üzre lâzım gelen tekâlîflerin vermeğe râzılar iken hâliyâ

kadîmden olagelene muhâlif kâşif olanlar kanâ‘at etmeyüp hilâf-ı şer‘ ve kânûn ziyâde alup zulm ve

te‘addî etmeleriyle bundan akdem kadîmden olagelene muhâlif ve te‘addî ve tecâvüz olmamak içün

emrim olmuşdur kanâ‘at etmeyüp ziyâde taleb ile rencîdeden hâlî olmayup gadr ve muhâlefet

olunduğun bildirüp men‘ u def‘ olunmak bâbında hükm-i hümâyûnum ricâ etmeğin şurûtuyla hükm

yazılmışdır.

60

intense struggle between the church members and the local authorities is shown by

the fact that most of the petitions about the interventions are answered with the

expression that they should not be oppressed (rencîde itdirilmeyüb).143 A number of

bishops and metropolitans raised complaints against various officials of the

Ottoman provincial administration especially in the Balkans. They accused mostly

the ehl-i örf taifesi who were the district governors (mütesellim) of extorting money

from them with the beys, kapudans, subaşıs, emins and the others.144 Considering

the frequent complaints of church members or dhimmi subjects that we come across

in the first defters onwards in this topic, it can be concluded that they were quite

common in the 17th century. The church members who were harassed have

complained to the state, sometimes by themselves and sometimes through

intermediaries who were other Church members and state officials, and have sought

their rights. It is understood from the orders that the state responded to these actions

with sanctions to maintain order and justice. For this purpose, the necessary

members of the judiciary were involved in the cases. The large number of examples

indicates that these issues were common problems of the period rather than

exceptions.

Protecting churches and monasteries from the abuses of local authorities was

seen by the state as a public duty to maintain order. A frequent subject of complaint

was that the officers, who were equipped with a special order, would demand food

and money in the course of their tour. The fact that tımar owners or vakf

administrators did not allow metropolitan and other church members to collect taxes

143 Hasan Çolak, The Orthodox Church in the Modern Middle East: Relations between the Ottoman

Central Administration and the Patriarchates of Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. (Ankara: Türk

Tarih Kurumu, 2015): 216.

144 Michael Ursinus, “Petitions from Orthodox Church Officials to the Imperial Diwan,1675.”

Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 18 (1994): 244.

61

from their own flocks in their territories was another issue of complaint frequently

mentioned in the defters.

The order 1239 of the Şikâyet Defter No. 4 is an example that can be

considered representative of the orders under this heading. In the order sent to the

qadi of Rahovica (today a city in the Slavonia region of Croatia) the monks of the

monastery of Zumena (?) on the mountainside made a request by giving a petition

and sending a man (kazâ-i mezbûrede cebel-i azîm içinde Zümena dimekle ma‘rûf

manastır râhibleri arz-ı hâl ve adam gönderub). Since the olden times, a sergeant

has been assigned to oversee this community (kadîmden bunların vaktini gözetmek

içün çavuşları olub), and while they have not harmed anyone (kimesneye zarar ve

ziyânları almayub), a few people led by a certain Mahmud from the region united

and oppressed them in order to take their property (Mahmûd ve hevâsına tâbi‘

birkaç adem ile müttefik olub bunları celb itmek sevdâsına düşüb). This order has

been written to ensure that they are not subjected to any harassment by the officers

and that those responsible put an end to their oppression. The fact that it is desired

to resolve this issue without opposing the ancient tradition (kadîme muhâlif te‘addî

ve tecâvüz olunmamak bâbında) may also be considered as the aim of the

administration to preserve and maintain the order established beforehand.145

105A/3rd order of Cod. Mixt. 683 relates an interesting complaint about

abovementioned officers. Ursinus analyzed the other orders in the defter and

145 Tataroğlu, 817.

Rahoviçe kādîsına hüküm ki

Kazâ-i mezbûrede cebel-i azîm içinde Zümena dimekle ma‘rûf manastır râhibleri arz-ı hâl ve adam

gönderub kadîmden bunların vaktini gözetmek içün çavuşları olub kimesneye zarar ve ziyânları

almayub nesne lâzım gelmez iken Mahmûd ve hevâsına tâbi‘ birkaç adem ile müttefik olub bunları

celb itmek sevdâsına düşüb saatiniz kaldırın deyu rencîde idub te‘âddi itmeleriyle kadîme muhâlif

te‘addî ve tecâvüz olunmamak bâbında emr-i şerîfim ricâ eyledikleri ecilden bilâ- emr-i şerîf rencîde

olunmamak içün yazılmıştır.

Fî evâil R sene 81

62

established the context of the case based on this complaint. The metropolitan bishop

of Serres complained to the bostancı who asserted that the bishop had guaranteed a

sum that the patriarch of Constantinople had borrowed from himself. But the bishop

denied all such claims, arguing that he owed no money to anyone and had stood no

surety. He also wanted an imperial decree that would put an end to this illegal

harassment, in violation of the sharia law, and to any interference in his own affairs.

A hüküm is issued and the case was to be the subject of an on-site investigation by a

qadi. The case continued, however, and the bostancı insisted on his position despite

a hearing in a court. Furthermore, a fatwa was issued after consulting a mufti. The

bishop asked for an imperial decree to end the bostancı’s activities on the basis of

this fatwa, which was in his favor. The result was a hüküm that the case was to

return to a qadi, along with zabit, who was to attend the trial.146

These orders are examples of how the clergymen interacted with the central

administration against the state officials who wanted to extort money from them.

The financial matters and the desire of both the members of the Church and the

Ottoman administration to increase and sustain their economic power was the main

area of conflict between church members and state officials. At the same time, it

should not be forgotten that it was important for both sides to pursue their economic

issues on a common basis. This means that the same issues can also be an area of

146 Ursinus, 245.

Siroz kâdîsına hüküm ki

Siroz metrepelidi olan (…) nâm rahib gelüp mezbûr kimesnenin deynine kefil olmuş olmayıp kendü

halinde iken Bostancı Mehmed dimeğle ma‘rûf kimesne İstanbul’da patrike bin guruş vermiş idim

sen kefilimsin ol akçeyisenden alırım diyü mukaddemâ rencîde etmeğle elinde olan fetvâ-yı şerîfe

mûcebince murâfa‘a-i şer‘ olunup görüldükde kefîl olan râhibin vereceği olmayup mezbûr Bostancı

Mehmed müdâhaleden men‘ olundukdan sonra kanâ‘at etmeyip tekrâr yemîn verdirüp bir vechile

alakası yoğiken müdâhale etmeğle elinde fetvâ-yı şerîfe olduğun bildirüp men‘ u def‘ olunmak

bâbında emr-i şerîfim ricâ etmeğin zâbiti ma‘rifetiyle şer‘le görülmek emrim olmuşdur.

63

cooperation and negotiation. Expectedly, these cases of cooperation and negotiation

feature in the documents produced by the imperial chancery rarely and when a

certain conflict broke out.

This thesis will prefer to focus on the dynamics between the Church and the

Ottoman state, that is, between the two institutions, rather than focusing on the

relations between church members and state officials. Therefore, the examples

given above are given both to draw a general framework and to shed light on the

relations of the actors of the two institutions locally. By following the traces of the

church's activities in taxation and foundation, the institutional relations it has

established with the state will be detailed, and the nature of their relations will be

revealed by exemplifying these with the orders in the defters. Despite the paucity

and limitations of the petitions, these analyzed defters sometimes include long

records of disputes which can be traced in more than one defter. In addition, there

are a large number of similar and repetitive cases, which is an indication that the

problems are the same for most places, regardless of their wide geographical extent.

Most of the instances refer to petitions from the Church members such as monks,

metropolitans, bishops, and patriarchs. In all of these petitions or cases, the

members of the church were involved in financial or tax matters. When analyzing

these, it is important to remember that they are responses by the state to the

petitions of the clergy, hence reflecting the views held by the State, at least to a

certain extent.

64

3.1. Taxation of the Church

The state entrusted the members of the Church with public, administrative,

and financial duties on behalf of its local communities. Loyalty was a key part of

the basis of this relationship. The Patriarch had been responsible for the collection

of an annual tax from his flock and the payment of the tax to the state. The state's

expectation from the patriarchs was the full and timely payment of their dues to the

treasury. Depending on the economic status quo, the financial demands varied. The

amount of payment was a matter of negotiation; debts were divided into

installments, reduced and increased, and taxes were renamed.147 According to

İnalcık, the main ecclesiastical taxes paid by the Church members or the re‘âyâ in

the 17th century, as enumerated in the berâts, were as follows: Mîrî rüsûm or mal-i

mîrî, patriklik and metrepolidlik tax, zarâr-ı kassâbiye, manastır resmi, panayır.

Moreover there were patriarchal dues like tasadduk (alms) , zitiye (zeteia), ayazma

and ayasmos, marriage tax (nikah).148 They were collected from people under the

jurisdiction of the patriarch such as metropolitans, bishops, monks, and priests. The

patriarchs' representatives were sent to each diocese to collect these contributions

from the local re‘âyâ and clerics.

First of all, the mîrî represented the amount that is paid to the state treasury.

This tax refers to the amount collected by the priests for the Church, which in turn

is used to pay taxes to the state, the mîrî. The origin and scope of the mîrî rüsûm,

literally 'taxes that belong to the treasury', are a matter of dispute. İnalcık stated that

the government considered all taxes collected by the church members to be the

property of the state or mîrî and them as tax farmers. Joseph Kabrda argues that mîrî

147 Tellan, 35-36.

148 İnalcık, “The Status of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch under the Ottomans.”, 422.

65

means the sum of ecclesiastical taxes and dues collected by the metropolitans and

bishops in their dioceses to cover the annual payment to the Church and their own

expenses.149 It is known that the patriarch had to pay a certain sum to the treasury

each year, in addition to the pişkeş paid when he took office. If members of the

church were found to be unable to perform thir duties, or if they failed to renew

their berât when a new sultan came to power, they could lose their position. To put

it another way, to renew their berât, they had to pay pişkeş. In 1686, the patriarchal

pişkeş was replaced with an annual amount.150 In addition, each patriarch had to pay

an annual mîrî tax upon taking office. For this reason, the annual mîrî tax was

already in place by the middle of the 16th century.

The conversion of customary payments and fees into regular taxes was an

Ottoman practice, especially in the early periods. Incorporating pre-Ottoman taxes

into the state tax system, as long as they did not contradict the principles of

taxation, was also a well-known practice.151 There were various ways of introducing

new regular taxes in the Ottoman tax system. Hence, the occasional pişkeş was

probably the origin of the mîrî rüsûm, one of the regular annual taxes.152 The berâts

were also the official documents that authorized the church members to collect the

state tax (mal-ı mîrî), as mentioned above. It was also by these berâts that the rights

of ownership of church property and the administration of the metropolitan or

patriarch were legally established. They were able to meet their financial

obligations to the state, as well as their personal and ecclesiastical expenses, with

149 Kabrda, 68-70.

150 Phokion P. Kotzageorgis, “About the Fiscal Status of the Greek Orthodox Church in the 17th

Century”, Turcica 40, (2008): 72.

151 Halil İnalcik, "Military and Fiscal Transformation in the Ottoman Empire, 1600-1700", Archivum

Ottomanicum, VI (1980): 318-323.

152 İnalcık, “The Status of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch under the Ottomans.”, 423.

66

the taxes and income from these properties. İnalcık suggested that the patriklik tax,

also called mîrî patriklik, was a specific tax to cover the contribution to the

patriarch's annual payment to the treasury, whereas Kabrda claims that all taxes and

dues levied in a diocese, even such purely canonical taxes as the marriage tax, were

included in the mîrî-rüsûm or mal-ı mîrî.153 For the collection of the mîrî taxes, the

metropolitans and bishops received deeds (temessükât) from the patriarch. Church

members who refused to pay the mîrî tax were punished by having their hair

shaved, being exiled, and being replaced by other members and no one could

interfere with these punishment.154

It is possible to come across these taxes in the Şikâyet and Mühimme

registers. For example, the 308th order in the Mühimme Defter numbered 82 is

about some priests in the monasteries near Eğridere in Kratova region who, taking

advantage of the fact that they were not to be interfered with, collaborated with the

bandits and haramzades in the vicinity, blocked roads, killed people, harbored

bandits and wounded them. These priests were to be found out and inspected; those

who were found guilty but were not required to be presented to the center were to

be punished on the spot, and those who needed to be presented were to be

imprisoned and dispatched.155 Furthermore, in the 255th order of the 11th Şikâyet

153 Kabrda, 62-63.

154 Tellan, 137.

155 Sarınay, 42.

Ermiye kâdîsına hüküm ki:

Kazâ-i mezbûra tâbi‘, Dergâh-ı Mu‘allâm müteferrikalarından Ferruh Kethudâ zîde mecdühûnun

ze‘âmeti karyelerinden Kiremidli (?) nâm karye ahâlîsinden Bedir ve İdrîs ve Osmân ve Hısâr ve

Nazar ve Turhân ve Halîl ve Hasan ve Hudâvirdi ve Zülfikâr ve Hâcât nâm kimesneler mûmâileyhün

defterde mukayyed ra‘ıyyetlerinden olup ösr ü resmlerin ser‘ u kânûn üzre mûmâ-ileyhe edâ

iderler iken hâliyâ Selanik ve Ofçabolı Yörükleri Beği olan Abdülcelîl nâm kimesne mezbûrlar içün;

Kadîmü'l-eyyâmdan eben an-ceddin yörükler olmağla bu âna gelince esküncileri sefer-i hümâyûna

gidüp yamakları kânûn üzre harcların viregelmislerdür." diyü bunlardan dahı yörükler harcı taleb

idüp lâkin mezbûrlar yörükler olmayup mûmâ-ileyhün sûret-i defterinde mukayyed ra‘ıyyetleri

olduğına Âsitâne-i Sa‘âdetüm'den sûret-i defter virilüp murâfa‘a-i ser‘-ı serîf olduklarında

67

Defter, a dhimmi named Yanaki submitted a petition and stated that he had asked

the patriarch of Constantinople (probably Kallinikos II) for 2,000 kuruş of his debt

with the metropolitans as guarantors, but they did not give it to him (Yanaki nâm

zimmî arz-ı hâl idüp hâlâ İstanbul patriki olan nâm rahib zimmetinde metrepolidler

kefâletleriyle iki bin guruş hakkı olup taleb eyledikde vermekde te‘allül üzre

oldukların bildirüp). In the order written to the district governor and qadi of

Istanbul, they were ordered to collect the debt of the creditor dhimmi in accordance

with the debt deed and to imprison the metropolitans if the latter refuse it (yedinde

olan temessükleri mûcebince şer‘le alıverilip te‘allül ederler ise metrepolidler habs

olunmak bâbında). The reference to the vizier at the end of the order, stating that he

could imprison the metropolitans, is a sign that the administration could impose

such sanctions when necessary (sen ki vezîr-i müşârun ileyhsin te‘allül eder ise

habs eylemek için yazılmışdır).156

Zarar-ı kassâbiye was one of the treasury's mîrî taxes. It was not a churchspecific

tax, but an empire-wide tax introduced at the end of the 16th century to

finance the state's expenditures and to cover the difference between the fixed price

of meat supplied to the standing army divisions in the capital and the market

mezbûrlar yörüklerden olmayup ra‘ıyyet-oğlı ra‘ıyyet oldukları defterde mukayyed bulunmağla

yörük beğleri men‘ u def‘ olunmak bâbında cânib-i ser‘-ı serîfden tenbîh olunup huccet-i ser‘ıyye

virildüği" i‘lâm olunmağın, ol huccet mûcebince amel olunup ol huccete muhâlif mezbûrlar rencîde

vü remîde olunmamak bâbında fermân-ı âlî-sânum sâdır olmısdur. Buyurdum ki:

Vusûl buldukda, bu husûsa onat vechile mukayyed olup göresin; fi'l-vâkı‘ mezbûrlar yörük-oğlı

yörük olmayup defterde mukayyed ra‘ıyyet-oğlı ra‘ıyyet olmağla yörük beğleri rencîde itmemek

bâbında huccet-i ser‘ıyye virilmis ise ol huccet mûcebince amel idüp min-ba‘d ol huccete ve sûret-i

deftere muhâlif mezbûrları yörük beğlerine dahl ü rencîde itdürmeyesin. Memnû‘ olmayanları yazup

arzeyleyesin.

156 İstanbul kâimmakâmına ve kâdîsına hüküm ki

Yanaki nâm zimmî arz-ı hâl idüp hâlâ İstanbul patriki olan nâm rahib zimmetinde metrepolidler

kefâletleriyle iki bin guruş hakkı olup taleb eyledikde vermekde te‘allül üzre oldukların bildirüp

yedinde olan temessükleri mûcebince şer‘le alıverilip te‘allül ederler ise metrepolidler habs olunmak

bâbında emr-i şerîfim ricâ etmeğin sen ki vezîr-i müşârun ileyhsin te‘allül eder ise habs eylemek için

yazılmışdır.

Evâil-i Zâ sene 99

68

price.157 The butchers of Istanbul had to sell meat at low prices to supply the army

and the palace. This empire-wide tax was levied to compensate for the butchers'

losses. In the first half of 1597, it became a regular tax of one percent. Its amount

was fixed for some places, while for others it was determined on the basis of the

local conditions. At the end of the 17th century, it was part of the rest of the customs

duties and the butchers were paid by the state from various other sources.158 Kabrda

was of the opinion that it is a tax from the metropolitans to the patriarch.159

Bayraktar Tellan also notes that zarar-ı kassâbiye is not used for the annual meat

paid by the Patriarchate, but for money paid to the Patriarch by local

metropolitans.160

One of the other most important ecclesiastical dues was the zitiye. It was

contributions in cash or in kind paid by the re‘âyâ to the patriarch and local

metropolitans to meet the expenses of the Church. It was a voluntary contribution

by Christians, synonymous in its first phase with almsgiving and it was not a formal

tax levied by the Church. From the 17th century onwards, it was referred to as one

of the ecclesiastical revenues of the metropolitans and patriarchs.161 The tax

collected was used to pay not only the treasury but also used to pay off the debts of

Church members.162 Tasadduk akçesi was collected in a box by the monks for the

monasteries and the needs of the Church and it was usually the money that all

157 Tellan, 38-39.

158 Tellan, 37-38. See, Antony Warren Greenwood, “Istanbul’s Meat Ordering: A Study of the

Celepkeşan System”, PhD Dissertation, University of Chicago, (1988): 213-216.

159 Kabrda, 74-75.

160 Tellan, 40.

161 Tellan p. 159 in footnotes. See Paraskevas Konortas, “Les Contributions Ecclésiastiques

‘Patriarchike Zeteia’ et ‘Basilikon Charatzion’, Contribution À L’Histoire économique du Patriarcat

Oecuménique aux XVe et XVIe Siècles” in Actes du IIe Colloque International d’Histoire (Athènes,

18-25 Septembre 1983) économiques Méditerranéennes équilibres et Intercommunications XIIIe-

XIXe siècles, Vol III, Athens: 1986: 220-222.

162 Tellan, 35 and 109.

69

Christians give to the Church after Sunday Mass.163 These alms were in turn used

for the payments of the Church.164 The 1662 berât clarifies that with the following

expression: “According to the ancient practice and according to the orders of the

berâts, the infidels should immediately give the Patriarch the annual taxes, alms,

panayır, marriages, monasteries and the rest of the patriarchal rights.”165

The 502nd order of the 99th Mühimme defter contains references to tasadduk.

This is a decision sent to the mollas of Istanbul and Jerusalem about not prohibiting

them from collecting alms upon the petition of the members of the monastery in

Mount Sinai.166 The 381st order of the Mühimme defter numbered 100 (1690-91) is

also related to tasadduk. It is about the prevention of the flock of the patriarchs of

Jerusalem and Constantinople from giving the alms to the monks of the monastery

163 For the orders on collecting alms see Şikâyet Defters 8/2389, 13/939, Mühimme Defter 75/6,

92/131, 99/502, 100/381.

164 Tellan, 34. See, Zachariadou, Deka Tourkika Eggrafa gia tin Megali Ekklisia (1483-1520), 162-

178.

165 Tellan, 35. Translation from Gedeon, Episima Grammata,12-13.

166 Tan, 155.

İstanbul ve Kudus-i Şerif Monlalarına Hüküm ki

Cebel-i Tûr-i Sina᾽da vaki deyrin râhibleri dergah-ı muallama arzhal idüb deyr-i merkumda

kadîmden Hazret-i Amr ibn-i Âs zamanından beru ruhbân taifesi sakin Olub dâhilinde olan mescid-i

şerifde dahi ehl-i İslam gelüb edâ-yı ferâ᾽iz idüb mescid-i merkûmenin mefrûşât ve kanâdili ma‘mûr

Ve frûzân-ı şe‘â᾽ir-i İslâm᾽a edâ olunub bunlar etrâf ve eknâfında diyârı Rum ve sâ᾽ir memâlikde

sâkin millet-i Nasârâdan cem‘-i ( ... ) idüb Mahall-i mezbûrda müsferet tarîkı üzre murûr iden

muslimîn ve urbân ve huccâc-ı zevi᾽l-ibtihâcı it‘âm idüb ve mahall-i merkûm mahûf ve arz-ı

munkati‘ olub ( ... ) tarîkle bâ‘is iken hâlâ Kudus-i Şerif ve İstanbul patrikleri diyâr-ı Rum᾽da olan

millet-i Nasârâ᾽yı deyr-i merkûm fukarâsına tasaddukdan Men‘ ile zaruret-i hâl ve ma‘îşetlerinin

mezâyikalarına sebeb olub bunlar dahi millet-i nasârânın tasaddukâtına munhasıra olmalarıyla

mahall-i merkûmda ikamet mahalleri Kalmayub perakende ve perişan olmalarına bâ‘is ve arz-ı

merkûmun harâbete hususan değirmenin mu‘attal ve hâlî kalmasına bâdî oldukların bildirüb

Kadimü᾽l-eyyâmdan bu âna gelince selâtîni İslâm᾽ın takrîrleri ve yedlerinde olan fetvâ-yi şerif

evâmir-i ‘aliyye mucibince sadakâtların ke᾽l-evvel cârî olub Kudus-i Şerif ve İstanbul patrikleri bivech

mu‘ârazadan men‘ ve def‘ ve millet-i Nasârâ᾽nın kadîmden infâk ittikleri sadakâtların kemâ

fi᾽l-evvel kat‘ ittirmeleri Babında hükm-i humayunum reca eyledikleri ecilden tasdik-ı ehl-i zimmînin

hakkında dahi tasaddukâtı câ᾽izeden olub murâd ittikleri memerre sarf eylemelerinden men

edilmeleri Hilâf-ı ‘akd-i zimmet olmağla patrik-i mezkur ve ğayrısı bir vecihle mezburları deyr-i

merkûm ruhbanlarına îsâr-ı tasaddukâtdan men‘ ve mu‘âraza eylememeleri içün yazılmışdır

Fî evâsıtı b sene 1101

70

of Tur-ı Sinai. For such prevention would be against the dhimmi convert (hilâf-ı

‘akd-i zimmet olmağla).167

For the sake of the Church's control over social and financial matters, the

Patriarch struggled against the ‘illegal’ practices of local church members. The

major concerns of the Church arise mainly from problems of the practice of

collecting alms and other taxes. Some disputes are related to the fact that a group of

monks would set out from somewhere not only to collect the alms and the income

of the church foundations and the inheritances of certain distant provinces but also

to collect alms along the way. Normally, the consent of both Patriarchates should be

obtained for the collection of alms in regions under the jurisdiction of another

Patriarchate.168 However, the boundaries of the churches under the control of

167 Şakar, 184.

İstanbul ve Kuds-i şerîf monlalarına hüküm ki:

Cebel-i Tûr-ı Sînâ’da vâki‘ deyrün râhibleri ordu-yı hümâyûnuma ‘arz-ı hâl idüp deyr-i

merkûmda kadîmden Hazret-i ‘Amr ibn-i ‘Âs zemânından berü ruhbân tâifesi sâkin olup dâhilinde

olan Mescîd-i Şerîf’de dahî ehl-i İslâm gelüp edâ-yı ferâiz idüp mescîd-i merkûmun mefrûşât

ve kanâdîl-i ma‘mûr ve fürûzân şe‘âir-i İslâmiyye edâ olınup bunlar etrâf [ve] eknâfdan diyâr-ı

Rûm ve sâir memâlikde sâkin millet-i nasârâdan cem‘-i sadakât idüp mahall-i merkûmda müsâferet

tarîkı üzere mürûr iden müslimîn ve ‘urbân ve hüccâc-ı zevil-ibtihâcı it‘âm idüp ve mahall-i

merkûme mütehavvif ve arz-ı münkatı‘ olup ‘umrânına bu tarîk ile bâ‘is iken Kuds-i şerîf

ve İstanbul patrîkleri diyâr-ı Rûm’da olan millet-i nasârâyı deyr-i merkûm fukarâsına

tasaddukdan men‘ ile zarûret-i mâl ve ma‘îşetlerinün müzâyakalarına sebeb olup bunlar

dahî milel-i nasârânun tasaddukâtına münhasır olmalarıyla mahall-i merkûmda ikâmete

mecâlleri kalmayup perâkende ve perîşan olmalarına bâ‘is ve arz-ı merkûmun harâbına husûsen

zikr değirmenün mu‘attal ve hâlî kalmasına bâdî oldıkların bildirüp kadîmü’l-eyyâmdan bu

ana gelince selâtîn-i İslâm’un takrîrleri ve yedlerinde olan fetevâ-yı şerîf ve evâmir-i ‘aliyye

mûcibince sadakâtlar kel-evvel câriyye olup Kuds-i şerîf ve İstanbul patrîkleri bî-vech

mu‘ârızadan men‘ ü def‘ ve millet-i nasârânun kadîmden ittifâk itdükleri sadakâtları kemâ-fi’levvel

kat‘ itdirmemeleri bâbında hükm-i hümâyûnum ricâ eyledükleri ecilden tasadduk-ı ehl-i

zimmetün hakkında dahî tasaddukât-ı câizeden olup murâd eyledükleri yere sarf

olınmasından men‘ olınmaları hilâf-ı ‘akd-ı zimmet olmağla patrîk-ı mezkûr ve gayrısı bir vechile

mezbûrları deyr-i merkûm ruhbânlarına îsâr-ı tasaddukâtdan men‘ ve mu‘ârıza eylememeleri

içün bundan akdem emr-i şerîfim virilmişiken ol tarafda piskopos olan râhib mücerred ta‘cîz içün

zikr olınan tasaddukâtı hukûk ve rusûm ve ‘avâid ta‘bîr idüp râhibler kendüleri almayup tebdîl ve

tagyîr eylemeyeler diyü hilâf-ı inhâ ile mukaddemâ mâliyeden emr alup ve hâlâ yine bir tarîkile

tecdîd itdirüp şer‘-i şerîfe muhâlif olmağla.

İmdi: Vech-i meşrûh üzere mâliyeden virilen emrün mazmûnı ilka olınup mukaddemâ

Edirne’de Dîvân-ı Hümâyûnum tarafından virilen emr-i şerîfim mûcibince ‘amel olınmak

bâbında yazılmışdır.

Evâhir-i Z Sene [1] 101

168 Çolak, 213-216.

71

patriarchs were not delineated in the geography of the empire was another reason

for the problems with the vakfs, property ownership, and tax collection. Problems or

conflicts of influence are often driven by economic considerations. However, when

the two had problems with each other, or when the patriarchates had problems with

their subjects, the problems were reflected in the defters. This means that the central

government is involved in the issues of alms collection and other church affairs

through complaints. This is why the disputes are no longer a matter for the church

alone.

The manastır resmi seems to have been occasionally included in the mîrî

taxes in the berâts of the metropolitans. It was an annual tax that was paid to the

Metropolitan. He also received the property of the monks and nuns who died.

Another important source of income for the church was the ayazma. When the

re‘âyâ visited a holy spring near a church or monastery in search of healing, they

gave alms or paid a fixed fee. The metropolitan took his share in this due. Since the

fairs were usually held near a place of pilgrimage or a hagiasma on the occasion of

a religious festival, the panayır tax was also considered a religious tax. An

important part of the proceeds of these fairs went to the metropolitan.

The metropolitan had an agent (vekil) in the church or monastery to collect

the money (vekîl nasb u ta‘yîn idüp, vekîl nasb idüp).169 In general, the patriarch

also usually sent an agent to the provinces for the collection of taxes from the

metropolitans. The agent was empowered to punish or dismiss priests or monks

who refused to pay their taxes. The state granted protection and immunity to the

169 İnalcık, “The Status of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch under the Ottomans.”, 424. For orders agent

in Şikâyet Defters, see 7/16, Cod. Mixt.683 102B/4, 141A/4, 193B/2, 12/1039. For orders agent in

Mühimme Defters, see 85/333, 88/113, 92/310, 93/217, 93/218, 93/279, 93/298.

72

representatives of the Patriarch and the Metropolitan on their travels. Moreover,

they were not allowed to be harassed or oppressed. They also did not impose

commercial charges on the taxes in kind collected for the Church.170

The marriage tax or nikah resmi, which was introduced during the Byzantine

period, was fixed in 17th-century Ottoman documents at 80 akçes for the first

marriage, 160 for the second, and 240 for the third. Re‘âyâ and priests paid it to the

metropolitan.171 Taxes included in the annual mîrî tax started to be diversified and

increased towards the 17th century. However, all these taxes and pişkeş that the

patriarchs and metropolitans had to pay to the Ottoman treasury represented a heavy

addition to the overall tax burden for the re‘âyâ, since much of the payments had to

be made by them. Hence, we encounter several ramifications of these disputes in

the defters. İnalcık divided the various taxes paid by the re‘âyâ and the local priests

and monks into three categories. The first were the taxes that went directly to the

Ottoman treasury, the second were those reserved for the patriarch and the

metropolitans, and the third were those collected exclusively for the local clergy.172

The resulting tax revenue belonged to the holder of the privilege. This was

often a church or a monastery. Holders paid to the government a lump sum for the

privilege of collecting taxes, part of which went to metropolitans with churches or

monasteries in their dioceses. Generally, the income associated with a particular

monastery or church would be farmed out at an amount agreed upon by the clergy

associated with the place. Hence, the state was closely linked to the religious and

economic function of the Church.

170 Tellan, 160.

171 Kabrda, 89-100.

172 İnalcık, “The Status of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch under the Ottomans.”, 426.

73

In fact, the patriarch depended on the metropolitans for his income. Through

their agents, the metropolitans collected the taxes owed by bishops and priests and

the re‘âyâ. Thus, in the final analysis, it was the bishops or village or neighborhood

priest who was the actual collector of taxes or dues from the re‘âyâ. There was a

problem of agency in these matters that has come up on a number of occasions. This

problem also affected the Ottoman economy because the state received the taxes

collected by the local bishops and ultimately sent to the Church.173 Thus, delaying

and failing to pay the Patriarch resulted in government action, including sending the

Patriarch every four to five years to collect taxes and punishing them.174 The

members who refused to pay or used fraud to pay less faced some sanctions. The

Ottoman registers contain necessary to these matters. In the order 174 of the 13th

Şikâyet Defter, the former metropolitan of Thessaloniki had given 100,000 akçes to

the patriarch of Constantinople under the name of olive oil akçes in 1688 and had

collected 100,000 akçes from the bishops of Thessaloniki in accordance with his

guarantor but he demanded 16,000 akçes more from the bishops and even extorted

60 akçes more from them. In 1689, the bailiff he had appointed while he was in

charge of it oppressed the bishops by demanding money from them again while it

was not his responsibility to collect the jizya (bin yüz senesi cizyesi uhde[sinde]

olmayıp bunun uhdesinde iken arz peydâ ve emr-i şerîfle mübâşir alıp buna ve

piskoposlara gadr eylediğin bildirip). In the order written to the Vizier Süleyman

Pasha in Thessaloniki and the qadi of Thessaloniki were ordered to return the

173 Monastic Economy across Time: Wealth Management, 16.

174 İnalcık, “The Status of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch under the Ottomans.”, 424.

74

unnecessary sums taken from the poor (fukarâdan cebren fuzûlî aldığı akçe gerü

ashâbına alıverilmek üzere).175

As is clear from the Ottoman documents, it was not uncommon for the

Christian re‘âyâ to fulfill their tax obligations in grain or cloth. Goods such as wine,

butter, olive oil and honey were used as alms.176 It was not easy for people to find

enough cash to pay the church taxes in addition to the jizya and other state taxes.

İnalcık argued that it was the Ottoman government that came forward to protect the

re‘âyâ against the illegal and excessive demands of the church members. For, the

state was on the lookout for those who were overtaxing the re‘âyâ and took action

in response to complaints.177 Ursinus also stated that re‘âyâ had a right to write a

petition or complaint in cases of abuse by them in collecting taxes. Evidence

suggests that Christians, on occasion, resented, and openly opposed, the fiscal

regime imposed on them by their bishops, rather than the payments as such.178

It has already been mentioned that people from all walks of life have the

right to complain, but the provision under analysis below is instrumental in terms of

showing how this will work in practice. The 690th order of the numbered 96

Mühimme defter is about the Dâru’s-sa‘âdet Ağası’s request to collect taxes from

the beehives belonging to the monastery in the places belonging to the vakf land of

175 Türk, 155.

Selanik muhâfazasında [olan] Vezîr Süleyman Paşa'ya ve Selanik kadîsına hüküm ki,

Hâlâ Selanik metropolidi Benoktoz? nâm râhib gelip bin doksan dokuz senesinde Selanik

metropolidi olan Benoktoz? nâm râhib âyinleri üzere İstanbul patriğine zeyt yağı akçesi nâmıyla yüz

bin akçe verip ve Selanik piskoposlarından beherine verilen temessük mûcebince yüz bin akçeyi

tahsîl eylediğinden gayrı on altı bin akçe ziyâde taleb ve ibtidâdiye? nâmıyla piskoposlardan altmış

akçe isteyip ve cebren alıp ve bin yüz senesi cizyesi uhde[sinde] olmayıp bunun uhdesinde iken arz

peydâ ve emr-i şerîfle mübâşir alıp buna ve piskoposlara gadr eylediğin bildirip tekrâr akçe

talebiyle rencîde olunmayıp fukarâdan cebren fuzûlî aldığı akçe gerü ashâbına alıverilmek üzere

şurûtuyla hüküm yazılmışdır.

Fî evâhiri Ca. sene 1100.

176 İnalcık, “The Status of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch under the Ottomans.”, 428.

177 İnalcık, “The Status of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch under the Ottomans.”, 428.

178 Ursinus, 244.

75

Athens. The monks of monasteries said that they would not pay these taxes because

they were not equal to the taxes demanded from Muslims. In the above-mentioned

order, 2,000 akçes were delivered and registered every year from the beehives on

the foundation land of the Vâlide Sultan Vakf's menzil monastery in Athens, 8 acres

per beehive as beehive rent and 4 acres as tax and that the crops are left to the

monks of the monastery (menzil manastırı (…) nâm mahalde vakıf toprağında olan

kovanlarından kovan başına sekizer akça resm-i kovan (...) isticâr iden dörder akça

müceddeden tahrir ve defter olunub mahsulâti manastir-ı mezbûr râhibleri üzerine).

However, the monks of the monastery did not give this amount this time because

they considered it unjust that the amount they pay not equal to pay by Muslims

(ber-mûceb-i defter Müslümanlardan taleb eylediği öşre mu âdil değildir deyû

virmeyüb gadr olmağla). This situation was reported by the foundation's kethüda

and the ruling ordered the qadis of Athens to collect the amount recorded in the

ledger from the monks in accordance with sharia, law and the stipulations of the

orders registered in the defter (şer ve kânun ve defter mûcibince alivirilmek emr

olunmuşdur).179 This order was written with reference to the records kept and in

order to ensure the continuity of the order, in which we hear the voice of the Greek

subjects in the reorganisation of the tax, which was considered unfair.

179 Yayvan, 173.

Atina ve (…) Kâdıları'na hüküm ki

Vâlide Sultan dâmet ismetuhânın kethüdâsı Mustafa dame mecdühû 'arz-ı hâl idüb müşârün ileyhin

bağçekapusu kurbünde müceddeden binâ eyledüği câmi'-i şerîf evkâfindan Atina Kazâsı'na tâbi'

menzil manastırı (…) nâm mahalde vakıf toprağında olan kovanlarından kovan başına sekizer akça

resm-i kovan (...) isticâr iden dörder akça müceddeden tahrir ve defter olunub mahsulâti manastir-ı

mezbûr râhibleri üzerine ve her sene ikişer bin vukiyye asel getürdüb câmi-i mezbûre kilâvete(?)

teslim eylemek üzre ber-vech-i maktu kayd olunub rahibler dahi ber-mûceb-i defter Müslümanlardan

taleb eylediği öşre mu âdil değildir deyû virmeyüb gadr olmağla hüccet-i şer'iyye ve defter

mücibince alivirilmek ricâ itmeğin şer ve kânun ve defter mûcibince alivirilmek emr olunmuşdur

deyû yazılmışdır.

Evâsit-ı Ş. Sene 89

76

Tax issues have created many areas of conflict. They sometimes took place

between two church members, sometimes between church members and state

officials, and sometimes between Greek subjects and the members who collected

taxes from them. In this chapter, I would like to present examples of the orders

related to these issues. For instance, in the 409th order of the 14th Şikâyet defter

(1691), there is a decision that the people of Sömbeki were overtaxed by several

dhimmis, and the excess should be returned. The re‘âyâ of Sömbeki island

petitioned that many of the dhimmis in the region interfered and collected the taxes

and embezzled them together with other tax officiers (tekâlifleri umûruna karışup

cem‘ ü tahsîl itmeleriyle tekâlif cem‘ine me’mûr olanlar ile yek-dil ve emr ü

defterden ziyâde akçelerin cem‘ ve kendüleri ekl ü bel‘ ve istihlâk eyledüklerinden).

Since they made excuses and fled when they were asked to be held accountable

immediately, orders were given to the Kapudan Pasha and the qadi of Rhodes to be

held accountable according to the sharia law and to collect the amount remaining in

their dues.180

Orders 3 and 4 in the page 201 the of Şikâyet defter Cod. mixt. 683. (1675)

dealt with similar issues. In the 3rd order, Avakim who was the former patriarch of

the flock of İpek, asked some dhimmis to collect and deliver the taxes to himself.

Even though the aforementioned dhimmis collected taxes, they did not give them to

180 Erdem, 315.

Kapudân Paşa'ya ve Rodos kādîsına hüküm ki:

Kazâ-i mezbûre tâbi‘ Sömbeki ceziresi re‘âyâsı Dergâh-ı mu‘allâma arz-ı hâl idüp karye-i mezbûre

zımmîlerinden Piket Re’is Kosta Re’is ve diğer Kosta ve diğer Piket ve Yani ve Papalis? (…) ve

Papa (…) ve Papa Sabrin? ve Bako ve diğer Kosta ve Nikola ve Kosti ve diğer Yani ve diğer Piket?

ve Baltaz? ( ) nâm zımmîler bin doksan ( ) senesinde tekâlifleri umûruna karışup cem‘ ü tahsîl

itmeleriyle tekâlif cem‘ine me’mûr olanlar ile yek-dil ve emr ü defterden ziyâde akçelerin cem‘ ve

kendüleri ekl ü bel‘ ve istihlâk eyledüklerinden mâ‘adâ nice akçelerin tahmiline? taksîm? idüp

zimmetlerinde? kalmağla? bunlar dahî şer‘le muhâsebelerin görülmek istedikde te‘allül üzere

oldukların bildürüp şer‘le muhâsebelerin görülmek istediklerinde te‘allül üzre oldukların bildürüp

şer‘le muhâsebelerin görülüp zimmetlerinde zuhûr iden hakları alıvirilmek içün yazılmışdır.

Fî evâhir-i Z Sene 1101

77

him, and they also said to lose collected taxes. The pasha of Hersek and the qadi of

İpek were ordered to collect the taxes from them. In the 4th order, Avakim could not

collect the taxes that he was entitled to receive from the dhimmis, and an agent was

sent to collect them, but since they were still not collected, a collection decree was

sent to the qadis of Foça and Taşlıca.181

Sometimes the problems in collecting taxes were caused not by the subjects,

but by the church members under the jurisdiction of the patriarch. İnalcık asserted

that as many re‘âyâ preferred the qadi court to evade religious taxes or to benefit

from extra security, the state issued orders in favor of the metropolitans to prevent

such interference. The metropolitan also had the power to punish priests and monks

who did not fulfill their tax obligations as mentioned above. Shaving their hair and

dismissal from office were among the canonical penalties.182 For example, in the

263rd order of Mühimme defter 96, Okatos (probably Nikiphoros II Skotakis), the

Metropolitan of Crete, refused to pay taxes (Okatos nâm rahib üzerine lâzım gelen

mîrî rüsumı virmekde ta‘allül itmeğle) and was complained about by the Patriarch

of Constantinople. In the order, the decision to bring the priest to the capital was

181 Hersek paşasına İpek kâdîsına hüküm ki

Sâbıkâ İpek kazâsında sâkin zimmî tâifesinin patriki Avakim nâm patrik gelüp bunun (…) kazâ-i

mezbûrda vâkı‘ zimmîlerin üzerlerine edâsı lâzım gelen rüsûm-ı âdiyelerin âyîn-i bâtılları üzre cem‘

ve tahsîl ve buna teslîm eylemek üzre tarafından (…) nâm zimmîleri göndermeğle mezkûr zimmîler

varup kazâ-i mezbûrda olan zimmîlerden mîrîye âid rüsûm-ı âdilerin cem‘ ve tahsîl idüp buna

vermeyüp muhâsebelerin dahi görmeyüp gaybet etmeleriyle zimmetinde zuhûr eden rüsûm-ı

âdiyeleri akçesi alıverilmek bâbında emrim ricâ etmeğin şer‘le görülmek [içün] emrim yazılmışdır

Fî evâil-i C sene 86

Hersek paşasına Foça ve Taşlıca kâdîlarına hüküm ki

Sâbıkâ İpek kazâsında sâkin zimmîlerin patriki Avakim nâm patrik gelüp Foça kazâsı sâkinlerinden

Yanko ve Yeroni ve İlarik ve Hristot ve Kaniber ve Yuhan ve Miloş ve Havze nâm zimmîleri berâtları

yazıları üzre kendüye âid ve râci‘ ve mîrîye teslîm olacak rüsûmâtların cem‘ ve tahsîl eylemeleri

içün mübâşir ve irsâl etmeğle mezbûr zimmîler varup meblağ-ı mezbûru cem‘ ve tahsîl idüp buna

getirüp vermeyüp ve muhâsebelerin dahi görmeyüp zimmetlerinde kalmağla bu tarafdan âdem

gönderip taleb eyledikde vermede te‘allül eylemeleriyle emr-i şerîfim ricâ etmeğin şer‘le görülmek

içün yazılmışdır.

Fî evâil-i C sene 86

182 İnalcık, The Status of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch under the Ottomans.”, 425.

78

conveyed to the pasha of Heraklion.183 As can be seen here, the church member did

not refrain from appealing to the Divan for pragmatic reasons when tax revenues

were at stake. The fact that church members appealed to the Porte or qadi shows

that their relations with the State were conducted in the context of negotiation. In

the Şikâyet defter 12, order 1200, while the priest of Pomorie was authorized to

collect taxes from the re‘âyâ under his responsibility, the bishop of Shumen

claimed rights over these taxes, and the administration appointed a bailiff to make

the necessary observations and referred the matter to the Divan in Edirne.184 In this

order sent to the qadi of Shumen, the priest, who was the metropolitan of the

Ahyolu region with a berât, was supposed to receive the mîrî rüsûm, patriarchal and

metropolitan rüsûm to be collected from the villages under his responsibility, the

bishop of Shumen unnecessarily interfered and and took these taxes (Şumnı

piskoposu olan Safranbus (probably Sofronios) nâm rahib fuzûlî dahl ve rüsûmâtı

ahz u kabz etmeğle). A bailiff had been appointed previously by the finance

183 Mercimek, 153.

Kandiye muhâfazasında olan İbrâhîm Paşa’ya ve kâdîsına hüküm ki

İstanbul patriki Dibokastos(?) ‘arz-ı hâl idüb cezîre-i Girid metrepolidi Okatos nâm rahib üzerine

lâzım gelen mîrî rüsumı virmekde ta’allül itmeğle Asitâne-i sa‘âdete ihzâr olunmak bâbında emr-i

şerîf recâ itmeğin vech-i meşrûh üzre hükm yazılmışdır.

Evâil-i Câ sene 1089

184 Şumnı kâdîsına hüküm ki

Berât ile Ahyolu ve tevâbi‘i keferesinin metrepolidi olan (…) nâm rahib gelüp bunun menzilinde

tebe‘iyyetine (?) dâhil Şumnu kazâsına tâbi‘ Simrave ve Çalıkkavak nâm karyeler keferesinin âyîn-i

âdetleri üzre yedinde olan berât mâliye tarafından verilen evâmir-i şerîfleri mûcebince kendüye aid

olan senevî mîrî ve rüsûm vesâir patriklik ve metrepelidlik rüsûmu kadîmden Ahyolu metrepelidi

olanlar ahz u kabz edegelmişler iken Şumnı piskoposu olan Safranbus nâm rahib fuzûlî dahl ve

rüsûmâtı ahz u kabz etmeğle men‘ için mâliye tarafından emr-i şerîfimle mübâşir ta‘yîn olunup

mahalline vardıkda mezbûr piskopos dahl etdirilmeyip aid olan rüsûmâtı Ahyolu metrepelidine ahz u

kabz etdirüp ve mezbûr piskopos muhâsebesin görmek içün dîvân-ı hümâyûna havâle olunmak üzre

mâliye tarafından mukaddemâ emr-i şerîfim verildiğin bildirüp yedinde olan hüccet-i şer‘iyye ve

mâliye tarafından verilen evâmir-i şerîfem mûcebince kendüye aid olan rüsûmâtı ahz u kabz

etdirilüp cevâbı var ise dîvân-ı Edirne’ye havâle olunmak bâbında emr ricâ etmeğin hüccet-i

şer‘iyye ve mâliye tarafından verilen emr-i şerîf mûcebince vech-i meşrûh üzre amel olunmak içün

emr yazılmışdır.

Evâil-i C sene 1100

79

department with the order to prevent the bishop's actions, and ordered to refer the

bishop to the Divan if he does not cease his afore-mentioned actions. In addition,

the bishop was ordered to collect the taxes belonging to him, and if he had an

answer, he was ordered to be referred to the Divan in Edirne (cevâbı var ise dîvân-ı

Edirne’ye havâle olunmak bâbında).

Taxes contributing to the church economy as charity were a slightly different

matter. In this case, the state was more a mediator in the resolution of internal

church affairs. In the 2,389th order of the 8th Şikâyet defter (1673), while the alms

and taxes of the Latin re‘âyâ were given to their priests through their own choice

(kendü ihtiyârlarıyla papasları olanlara virüp), the Orthodox priests wanted to

collect them themselves and they demanded 12 akçes alms per house and oppressed

the re‘âyâ while they have no right to collect taxes here (Rum papaslara aslâ

alakaları yoğiken hâlâ Eğin kasabasında vâkı‘ Rum keferesi tarafından ladikası (?)

gelüp bunlardan ev başına on ikişer akçe nezr ve sadakât akçesi taleb ile rencîde

etmekden). Hence, the Latin priests complained against these priests. In the order

sent to the qadi of Mostar, it was ruled that the subjects should not be oppressed and

should not be treated contrary to what was customary in the past.185 Moreover, in

the order 2 in 70/A of Cod. Mixt. 683, while Philotheos, the priest of Crete, was

collecting the taxes according to the order, some people said that they would collect

50,000 akçe of tax themselves and deliver it to the treasury. His claim was that they

185 Mostar kâdîsına hüküm ki

Sen ki kâdîsın dergâh-ı mu‘allâma mektûb gönderüp kazâ-i mezbûrede vâkı‘ Latin keferesi meclis-i

şer‘a varup bu âna gelince nezir ve sadakât vesâir ayîn-i bâtılları üzre lâzım gelen mîrmîrân

harçların kendü ihtiyârlarıyla papasları olanlara virüp Rum papaslara aslâ alakaları yoğiken hâlâ

Eğin kasabasında vâkı‘ Rum keferesi tarafından ladikası (?) gelüp bunlardan ev başına on ikişer

akçe nezr ve sadakât akçesi taleb ile rencîde etmekden hâlî olmadığın arz eylediğin ecilden

kadîmden olıgelmişe mugâyir te‘addî olunmamak içün hükm yazılmışdır.

Fî evâil-i S sene 84

80

were preventing him from taking control of tax collection. So he requested an edict

from the sultan ordering the observance of the old customs and the conditions of his

berât, and the non-interference of anyone in the collection of the taxes. In response,

the state issued a hüküm stating that an examination of the accounts of the treasury

and a review of the latest census register confirmed that the annual lump sum to be

paid by the holder of the office of Metropolitan of Crete was 50,000 akçes.186

Therefore, no one had the right to interfere with the collection of contributions and

taxes by him.187 In the hüküm, ehl-i fesâd is an interesting way of describing them,

referring to law and order and the habitability of offenses.

In the 6th order of the Şikâyet Defter No. 12, the dhimmis again prevented

the collection of taxes. Kallinikos, the patriarch of Constantinople, sent a petition to

the army about this. In the petition, some of the dhimmis had a debt from another

priest who was the metropolitan of Edirne, and they wanted to collect them from the

current metropolitan of Edirne during the collection of the taxes of mîrî rüsûm and

zarar-ı kassabiye taxes. It was reported to the army in Özi and the qadis that this

186 Ursinus, 243-244.

187 Kandiye paşasına ve kâdîsına hüküm ki

Philotheos nâm rahib gelüp beher sene elli bin akçe maktû‘ ile Girid cezîresinde olan zimmîler

üzerinde metrepelid nasb ve ta‘yîn olunup sene-be-sene maktû‘ı olan elli bin akçeyi Kandiye

hazînesine edâ ve teslîm idüp kusûrı yoğiken sâir memâlik-i mahrûsede olan metrepelidler cem‘ ve

tahsîl edegeldikleri mîrî resm ve tasarruf akçelerini vesâir cüz’î ve küllî mahsûlâtı mezbûr

metrepelid dahi Girid cezîresinde olan re‘âyâdan cem‘ ve tahsîl etmek istedikde bazı ehl-i fesâd

kimesneler biz metrepelidlik mahsûlün elimizde emrimiz vardır biz mâ-beynimizde cem‘ ederiz

senede maktû‘ı olan elli bin akçeyi Kandiye hazînesine edâ ve teslîm ederiz diyü mezbûr

metrepelidin zabtına mâni‘ ve rencîde etmeleriyle olageldiği üzre ve yedinde olan berât-ı âlîşân

mûcebince amel olunup mahsûlâtına müdâhale olunmamak bâbında emr-i şerîfim ricâ etmeğin

hazîne-i âmiremde mahfûz olan başmuhâsebe ve tahrîr-i cedîd defterlerine nazar olundukda cezîre-i

mezbûrede vâkı‘ metrepelidlik ber vech-i maktû‘ senede elli bin akçeye mestûr ve mukayyed

bulunmağın imdi mezbûre müceddeden tevcih olunmağla yedine verilen berât mûcebince zabt

etdirilip rüsûmât ve mahsûlâtına müdâhale olunmamak üzre mâliye tarafından emr-i şerîf verilmeğle

mûcebince amel olunmak içün hükm yazılmışdır.

Fî evâil-i M sene 86

81

case would be heard in the Porte.188 Again, in the 926th order of this defter, the

metropolitan of Tarnova submitted a petition, saying that he did not owe any debts

to anyone and had not committed any offence. He also stated that in 1687, while he

was in possession of the mîrî rüsum, the mütesellim of Niğbolu oppressed him by

saying that he owed him 700 kurus (yedi yüz guruşun alup te‘addî eylediğin).

Afterwards, the mütesellim appointed a person as a representative to collect the debt

and took the metropolitan's rüsum in force. The mutasarrıf and qadi of Niğbolu

sanjak were ordered to return the rüsum taken to its owner, and if the representative

prevented this, to refer it to the Porte.189

In the 91st order of the 13th Şikâyet Defter, the priest submitted a petition

stating that Nikiforos, who was still the metropolitan of Thessaloniki, had appointed

him as his deputy, that he had collected and delivered to the metropolitan the

rüsumat that belonged to him for three years and that he had no debts left (nâm

râhib gelip hâlâ Selanik metrepolidi olan Nikokotos [Nikiforos] nâm metrepolid

188 Özi tarafında olan ordu-yı hümâyûnuma (…) ve (…) ve (…) kâdîlarına hüküm ki

Hâlâ İstanbul’da Rum patriki olan Kalikos nâm rahib ordu-yı hümâyûnuma arz-ı hâl gönderüp bi’lfi‘

il patrikliğine dâhil ve Edirne metrepelidi olan Sarafim nâm rahib üzerine edâsı lâzım gelen

senevî mîrî rüsûm zarar-ı kassâbiye akçelerin cem‘ ve tahsîl üzre iken Halebli Haci Gargori ve (…)

nâm zimmîler şirrete sülûk idüp on altı seneden mukaddem silk-i münselikimde olan ve Edirne’de

olan metrepelid olan (…) nâm rahibde bizim alacağımız varidi sen ânın yerine metrepelid oldun

akçemizi senden alırız diyü şuhûd-ı udûl ile şer‘an üzerine bir nesne sâbit ve zâhir olmuş değil iken

mezbûr Sarafim’i te‘addî ve rencîdeden hâlî ve mîrî rüsûmun cem‘ ve tahsîline mâni‘ olmalarıyla bu

makûle zamân mürûr idüp hilâf-ı şer‘-i şerîf âhar kimesnenin deynini da‘vâ eden kimesnelerin

da‘vâları İsakçı’da ve gayrı yerlerde istimâ‘ olunmayup dîvân-ı hümâyûnumda görülmek içün vech-i

meşrûh üzre yazılmışdır.

Fî evâil-i M sene 100

189 Ber vech-i arpalık Niğbolu sancağına mutasarrıf olan (…) dâme ikbâlehu ve Niğbolu kâdîsına

hüküm ki

Tırnova ladikası (…) nâm rahib arz-ı hâl idüp bunun kimesneye verecek deyni olmayup ve üzerine

şer‘an bir nesne sâbit olmuş değil iken bin doksan sekiz senesinde mîrî rüsûm hüccetinde iken sâbıkâ

Niğbolu mütesellimi olup hâliyâ Niğbolu’da sâkin Dayı İbrahim nâm kimesne bunu tutup hilâf-ı şer‘-

i şerîf ve bi-gayr-ı hakk yedi yüz guruşun olup te‘addî eylediğin ve tarafından (…) nâm kimesneyi

vekîl eylediğin bildirüp hilâf-ı şer‘-i şerîf zulmen aldığı mâl-ı mîrîyi mümâna‘at vermekde te‘allül

eder ise dîvân-ı hümâyûnuma havâle olunmak bâbında hükm-i hümâyûnum ricâ etmeğin vech-i

meşrûh üzre amel olunmak içün hükm yazılmışdır.

Fî evâil-i R sene 1100

82

taraflarından bunu vekîl edip üç sene mikdârı kendüye âid olan rüsûmâtın tahsîl ve

kendüye teslîm edip zimmetinde bâki nesnesi kalmış değil iken). The Metropolitan

dismissed the priest and oppressed him, saying that ‘I would have you brought to

the Divan in Edirne and take akçe from you again’ (ben seni Dîvân-ı Edirne'ye

ihzâr etdirip tekrâr senden akçe alırım). In the order written to Vezir İsmail Pasha

and the qadi of Thessaloniki, it was ordered that the priest should not be oppressed

and the case should be heard on the spot in accordance with the sharia (mahallinde

şer ile görülüp ihkak-ı hak olunmak içün yazılmışdır).190 We see this metropolitan’s

name again in the 94th order. In this order, the metropolitan submitted a petition

and claimed that in 1689, the imdadiyye akçes from the year 1099 A.H., and the

zarar-ı kassabiye and zitiye akçes of the year 1100 A.H., which were under the

responsibility of the bishops of Thessaloniki, remained in their possession. In order

to collect them, the metropolitan appointed a deputy, and in this hüküm addressing

the pasha guarding Thessaloniki and the qadis of the region, it was ordered by the

Maliye to send them to Istanbul should they resist the collection of the deputy or

persist in not making payments.191

190 Türk, 127.

Selanik muhâfazasında olan Vezîr İsmâ‘îl Paşa'ya ve Selanik kadîsına hüküm ki,

(…) nâm râhib gelip hâlâ Selanik metrepolidi olan Nikokotos nâm metrepolid taraflarından bunu

vekîl edip üç sene mikdârı kendüye âid olan rüsûmâtın tahsîl ve kendüye teslîm edip zimmetinde bâki

nesnesi kalmış değil iken bunu azl etmekle ben seni Dîvân-ı Edirne'ye ihzâr etdirip tekrâr senden

akçe alırım deyü bî-vech ve bilâ-emr-i şerîf rencîde ve remîdeden hâlî olmadığın bildirip ol bâbda

hükm-i hümâyûnum recâ etmeğin sen ki vezîr-i müşârun-ileyh ve mevlânâ-yı mûmâ-ileyhsin

mahallinde şer ile görülüp ihkak-ı hak olunmak içün yazılmışdır.

Evâhir-i Ca. sene 1100.

191 Türk, 129.

Selanik muhâfazasında olan paşaya ve Selanik ve Siroz ve Serfiçe ve Doyran veBalatmene? ve ( …)

ve (…) kādîlarına hüküm [ki],

Selanik ve tevâbiii keferesi metrepolidi olan Nikogokos nâm râhib gelip kazâ-i mezbûrun

piskoposlarının bin doksan dokuz senesinde üzerlerine edâsı lâzım gelen imdâdiye akçeleri ve bin

yüz senesinin zarar-ı kassâbiye ve zeyd akçesi zimmetlerinde kalmağla tarafından vekîli olan (…)

nâm kimesneye mübâşir marifetiyle tahsîl etdirdip inâd [ve] muhâlefet ederler ise mübâşire?

konulup muhâsebesin görülmek içün Âsitâne-i sa‘âdet'ime gönderesin deyü Mâliye tarafından emr-i

şerîf verilmekle mûcebince yazılmışdır.

83

In the 330th order of the 85th Mühimme defter, it was ordered to prevent the

interventions reportedly made by the elders of the province, and the others the

vineyards, gardens, fields, and pastures, which were endowed to the monastery

named Aya (probably Panagia) on the island of Naxos. The priest who was

appointed by the Patriarch for all the monks in monastery complained that some

people unleashed their animals on the lands belonging to the monastery and that this

was causing damage to the monastery. This complaint was forwarded to the

administration by the patriarch, and since the actions subject to the complaint

continued despite previous orders to the relevant state officials (An-yedi Ahmed

Ağa, Kethudâ-i Voyvoda-i Boğdan, sâbıkâ Cezîre-i Naksa [Nakşe] kâdîsına) were

ordered to prevent those who damaged the monastery's property and if anyone

continued to interfere and cause damage to monastery lands despite the order, their

names should be written down and reported (Memnû‘ olmayanlar her kim olursa

olsunlar ism ü resmi ve istihârları ile yazup arzeyleyesin ki, sonradan haklarında ne

vechile emr-i serîfüm sâdır olur ise mûcebi ile amel oluna). Moreover, it was

ordered should not be allowed to interfere with the churches and monasteries here

and to prevent the disruption of the ancient order.192 This order is valuable for

Evâsıt-ı Ca. sene 1100.

192 Sarınay, 201-202.

Bâ-hatt-ı hazret-i efendi.

An-yedi Ahmed Ağa, Kethudâ-i Voyvoda-i Boğdan, sâbıkâ Cezîre-i Naksa kâdîsına hüküm ki:

İstanbul keferesinün Patrıkı olan Kirilos nâm râhib Südde-i Sa‘âdetüm'e arz-ı hâl idüp; "cezîre-i

mezbûrede vâkı‘ Aya nâm manastırda sâkin kesîslerün* üzerlerine bas u buğ ta‘yîn olunan ( ) nâm

râhibün manastır-ı mezbûra vakıf ta‘yîn olunup mahsûs u müstekıl tasarrufında olan bâğ u bâğçe vü

tarla vü mer‘âlarına kadîmden olıgelene muhâlif a‘yân-ı vilâyetden ve âhardan ba‘zı kimesneler

fuzûlî dahlidüp ve tavarların ve koyun u sığır u at u katır ve sâyir hayvânâtların salıvirüp te‘addî

itmeleriyle bundan akdem ser‘le görildükde men‘ u def‘ olunup eline huccet-i ser‘ıyye virilmisken

mezbûrlar girü memnû‘ olmadukların" bildürüp huccet-i ser‘ıyye mûcebince amel olunmak bâbında

emr-i serîfüm recâ itmeğin, vech-i mesrûh üzre amel olunmak emridüp buyurdum ki: Vusûl

buldukda, husûs-ı mezbûra mukayyed olup ve bu bâbda olan huccet-i ser‘ıyyesine nazar idüp

göresin; arzolunduğı üzre husûs-ı mezbûr mukaddemâ ser‘le görilüp huccet-i ser‘ıyye virilüp ser‘-ı

84

analysing the relationship between the patriarch and the members of the

monasteries in the provinces and for understanding the actions and measures taken

by the administration after the patriarch shared monks’ demands with the state. In

the following 331st order, it was ordered to prevent the interventions reportedly

made by shepherds and the Efrenc re‘âyâ to the vineyards, gardens, farms, and

fields in the village of Çoklarpa. Villagers damaged lands of the Panaya (probably

same monastery Panagia) Monastery on the island of Naxos, herd their animals into

monastery lands, and seized their monastery's incomes. The decision was made for

the priest named Papa Yerasimo to seize the said lands and farms there to protect the

income of the monastery as in ancient times.193 As in the above order, it is requested

serîfde men‘ olunmıslar iken mezbûrlar girü memnû‘ olmayup tekrâr dahl ü tecâvüzden hâlî

olmadukları vâkı‘ ise bu bâbda olan huccet-i ser‘ıyye da‘vâsına muvâfık olup mazmûnı alâ-vechi'lhasm

sâbit olur ise mukarrer tutup mûcebiyle amel idüp min-ba‘d huccet-i ser‘ıyyeye muhâlif

manastır-ı mezbûrenün zikrolunan bâğ u bâğçe vü tarla vü mer‘âlarına a‘yân-ı vilâyetden ve ehl-i

örf tâyifesinden ve âhardan bir ferdi dahl ü ta‘arruz itdürmeyüp olıgeldüği üzre mezbûr ( ) nâm

râhibe zabt u tasarruf itdüresin ve kazâ-i mezbûrda vâkı‘ ve kadîmî Nasârâ tâyifesine ta‘yîn olunan

kilise vü manastırlarına Efrenc ve sâyir kefere tâyifesin aslâ dahl ü ta‘arruz itdürmeyesin. Memnû‘

olmayanlar her kim olursa olsunlar ism ü resmi ve istihârları ile yazup arzeyleyesin ki, sonradan

haklarında ne vechile emr-i serîfüm sâdır olur ise mûcebi ile amel oluna. Ser‘-ı serîfe ve kadîmden

olıgelene ve emr-i hümâyûnuma muhâlif kimesneye is itdürmeyesin

193Sarınay, 202.

Bâ-hatt-ı hazret-i efendi.

An-yedi mezbûr Ahmed Ağa.

Cezîre-i Naksa kâdîsına hüküm ki:

İstanbul keferesinün Patrıkı olan Kirilos nâm râhib Südde-i Sa‘âdetüm'e arz-ı hâl idüp; "cezîre-i

mezbûra tâbi‘ Çoklarpa nâm karyede vâkı‘ patrıklığına müte‘allik Penaye nâm manastır-ı

mezbûreye vakıf ta‘yîn olunup tasarrufında olan bâğ u bâğçe vü çiftlik ü tarla vü mer‘âlarına hılâf-ı

ser‘-ı serîf hâricden ba‘zı çobânlar ve gayriler koyunların ve sığırların ve sâyir hayvânâtların

salıvirmeleriyle zikrolunan bâğ u bâğçe vü çiftlik ü tarla vü mer‘âların harâb u yebâb idüp ve

kadîmî patrıklığına müte‘allik olan kilise vü manastırların ellerinden alup fuzûlî zabtitmek murâd

itmeleriyle mahsûline gadreyledüklerin ve bu bâbda elinde huccet-i ser‘ıyyesi olduğın" bildürüp

mûcebince ser‘le görilüp men‘ u def‘ olunmak bâbında emr-i serîfüm recâ itmeğin, hılâf-ı ser‘-ı serîf

dahl ü rencîde olunmamak emridüp buyurdum ki:

Vusûl buldukda, emrüm üzre husûs-ı mezbûra mukayyed olup husûs-ı mezbûr[d]a olan huccet-i

ser‘ıyyeye nazar idüp göresin; bu bâbda olan huccet-i ser‘ıyye da‘vâsına muvâfık ve mazmûnı

muvâfık-ı ser‘-ı serîf olup alâ-vechi'l-hasm sâbit olur ise mukarrer tutup mûcebiyle amel idüp minba‘

d ser‘-ı serîfe ve huccet-i ser‘ıyyeye ve kadimden olıgelene muhâlif bunlarun vech-i mesrûh üzre

olan kenîse vü manastırlarına ve bâğ u bâğçe vü çiftlik ü tarla vü mer‘âlarına harbî Efrenc ve çobân

tâyifesin ve âhardan bir ferdi dahl ü ta‘arruz itdürmeyüp mahsûline zarar u ziyân itdürmeyüp

olıgeldüği üzre mezbûr Papa Yerasimo nâm râhibe zabt u tasarruf itdüresin. Anun gibi memnû‘

85

here that those who oppose this decision be notified and reported. In both cases, the

monks of the monastery reported the problems that they were encountered in the

land where they were collecting taxes, and the state issued strong warnings to the

qadis and other officials to maintain the order, demanding that the problem be

resolved. The fact that the orders deal with the same subjects is also noteworthy in

terms of seeing the continuity of the problem and the ways of solution.

In the 340th order, the Sadaret Kaymakamı Recep Pasha in Zistovi

complained about the priests named Bob Sinto (?) and Bob Istamet (?), who were

reported to have prevented the hass voivodes from collecting taxes such as öşür by

provoking the re‘âyâ. It was ordered that these priests o be sent to Istanbul and the

janissaries named Mustafa, Kenan and Selim were ordered to be banned and

expelled on the ground that they prevented the tax collection by these priest.194 The

matter in the 340th order was also the subject of the 353rd order. Hasan, the

voivode of the aforementioned Recep Pasha, complained to the Divan the

olmayup emr-i serîfüme muhâlif girü dahliderler ise ism ü resmleriyle yazup arzeyleyesin ki,

sonradan haklarında ne vechile emr-i serîfüm sâdır olur ise mûcebiyle amel oluna.

194Sarınay, 208.

Bâ-hatt-ı hazret-i efendi.

( ) kâdîsına hüküm ki:

"Düstûr-ı mükerrem, müsîr-i mufahham, nizâmü'l-âlem bi'l-fi‘l Sadâret-i Uzmâ Kâyimmakâmı olan

Receb Pasa edâma'llâhü te‘âlâ iclâlehûnun Zistovi hâslarında sâkin Bob Sinto(?), Bob Istamet nâm

ruhbânlar serîr olmalarıyla her umûra müdâhale idüp müsârun-ileyhe âyid ü râci‘ olan a‘sâr-ı

ser‘ıyye ve sâyir rüsûm-ı örfiyyeyi bu âna değin varan voyvodalar almağa mâni‘ olup ve sâyir

re‘âyâyı dahı tahrîk ü ıdlâl idüp ve karye-i mezbûre ve tevâbi‘ı re‘âyâsın yeniçeri tâyifesinden

Ellibirinci Ağa Bölüği'nde Voynuk Mustafâ ve Otuztokuzuncı Ağa Bölüği'nde Ken‘ân ve ( ) Selîm

nâm yeniçeriler dahı minvâl-i mesrûh üzre tahrîk ü ıdlâl idüp müsârun-ileyhün voyvodasınun zabt u

tasarrufına mâni‘ oldukları" i‘lâm olunmağın, mezbûrân râhibler Âsitâne-i Sa‘âdetüm'e ihzâr

olunmak fermânum olup ve mezbûrân yeniçeriler dahı men‘ u def‘ olunmak bâbında iftihâru'lemâcid

ve'l-ekârim Sekbânbası Kâsım dâme mecdühû tarafından mühürlü mektûb virilmeğin

buyurdum ki:

Vusûl buldukda, bu bâbda sâdır olan emrüm üzre mezbûrân râhibleri yarar âdemlere kosup

mu‘accelen Âsitâne-i Sa‘âdetüm'e gönderdükden sonra müsârun- ileyh tarafından virilen mektûb

mûcebince mezbûrân yeniçerileri dahı men‘ u def‘ idüp min-ba‘d müsârun-ileyhün re‘âyâsına ve

mahsûli ve voyvodası umûrına karısdurmayup memnû‘ olmazlar ise müsârun-ileyh tarafından virilen

mektûb mûcebince amel eyleyesin.

86

mentioned priests for provoking the re‘âyâ and damaging his crops. The qadi of

Ziştovi was ordered to send the people in question to Istanbul immediately with a

bailiff.195

The 298th order of the 93rd Mühimme defter (1658-80) is about the debt of

Pavlov from the metropolitan named Ustlustro. However, this is not a simple case

of debt and credit. The molla of Konya and the qadis of the neighboring districts

were ordered by the sultan's order to collect the debt, and if he opposes or fails to

make the payment, the metropolitan was ordered to be brought to Istanbul by his

dhimmi kefils.196 The 331st order of the same defter is the decision of the complaint

made by the priest Papa İstefan about some people demanding money from him

when he owed anything to anyone. Some dhimmis from the inhabitants of Chios

took 1,700 kuruş from him by perjury and committed cruelty and mischief. If the

debt cannot be collected, it is ordered that he be dispatched to Istanbul.197

195Sarınay, 216.

Bâ-hatt-ı hazret-i efendi.

Zistovi kâdîsına hüküm ki:

Kazâ-i mezbûrda vâkı‘ düstûr-ı mükerrem, müsîr-i mufahham, nizâmü'l-âlem Sadâret-i Uzmâ

Kâyim-makâmı olan Vezîrüm Receb Pasa edâma'llâhü te‘âlâ iclâlehûnun Zistovi ve tevâbi‘ı Hâsları

Voyvodası olan Hasan Südde-i Sa‘âdetüme arz-ı hâl idüp; "havâss-ı mezbûre re‘âyâlarından Bob

Sinto(?), Bob Istamet nâm zimmîler papaslar kendü hâllerinde olmayup serîr ü gammâz

olduklarından mâ‘adâ re‘âyâyı tahrîk ü ıdlâl itmeleriyle müsârun-ileyhün mahsûline zara[r] u

noksân terettüb eyledüğin" bildürüp mezbûrlar Dîvân-ı Hümâyûnum'a ihzâr olunmak bâbında emr-i

serîfüm recâ eyledüği ecilden, ihzâr olunmak emridüp buyurdum ki:

Vusûl buldukda, emrüm üzre mezbûrları mübâsir-i mezbûra kosup mu‘accelen Âsitâne-i Sa‘âdetüm'e

gönderesin.

196 Çelebi, 166.

Konya Monlâsına ve Isparta ve […] Kādılarına ve mütesellimlerine hükm ki,

Pavlov nâm zimmî arz-ı hâl idüp hâlâ Konya ve Isparta metropolidi olan Uslustro nâm rahibden

mikdâr-ı hakkı olmağla bundan akdem emr-i şerîfimle bir akça vakf-ı vekilin kondurup şer‘le

müteveccih olan hakkı taleb eyledikde… sülük idüp vermekde ta‘allül ü inâd eyledüğin bildirüp bu

def‘a dahi vermeyüp gaybed ider ise vekîli olan Menkovale ve Yani nâm zimmîlere buldurdup

Âsitâne-i sa‘âdetime ihzâr olunmak bâbında emr-i şerîfim verilmek recâ etmeğin inâd ider ise şer‘le

buldurması lâzım olanlara buldurdup Âsitâne-i sa‘âdete ihzâr olunmak içün şurûtuyla emr-i şerîf

yazılmışdır.

Fî Şevvâl 70

197 Çelebi, 181.

87

The clergmen and monks are expected to avoid overt illegal practices and

based their strategy on the already recognized status of their properties and on the

preservation of tax privileges related to these or other properties. However,

violations of the order and commitments of offences are also found in the defters.

For example, in the 255th order of the 2nd Şikâyet Defter dated 1654, the

inhabitants of Aydos made a petition and complained about the priest who had been

living here for several years, but he had been committing violence and mischief

(şirret ve şekâvet üzre olup nice fesâdâtı zuhûr etdiğinden). The priest spied on for

the infidel ships coming to the strait and committed the offense of exporting grain198

to the ‘infidels’ (Boğaz’a kâfir gemileri geldikde casusluk idüp küffâra zahîre

verdiği şer‘an sâbit olup hüccet-i şer‘iyye verilmişiken). Although his offenses were

recorded, the inhabitants were constantly oppressed by the priest, and they even

reported that they almost had to leave their neighborhood because of him (mezbûr

memnû‘ olmayup dâimâ bunları rencîde ve remîde eylemekden hâlî olmamağla

mezbûrun şerrinden âciz kalıp terk-i tekâsül etmeleri mukarrer olduğun). In the

order written to the qadi, it was ordered that if the priest, whose guilt was clear,

escaped, he should be found wherever he was and his case be handled in his place,

Sakız muhâfızı olan vezîr, ve Sakız Kādısına hükm [ki]

Ruhban tâ’ifesinden Papa İstefan nâm râhib südde-i sa‘âdetime arz-ı hâl idüp mezbû kendü halinde

olup hilâf-ı şer‘-i şerîf kimesneye zulm u te‘addîsi ve şer‘an üzerine nesne sâbit ü zâhir olmuş değil

iken mahrûse-i Sakız sâkinlerinden Papa Hristo’yu ve Papa İstepan ve Anton Yorşoşo’yu ve […] ve

[…] ve […] nâm zimmîler zûr şâhid olmağla hilâf-ı şer‘-i şerîf bunun bin yedi yüz guruş alup ziyâde

zulm u te‘addî ve fesâd eylediklerin bildirüp mahallinde ve huzûrunda alınan guruşu alıverilüp

ta‘allül eder ise Âsitâne-i sa‘âdetime ihzâr olunmak içün hükm yazılmışdır.

Fî Evâhir-i Z. 70

198 From the 16th century onwards, the Ottoman Empire banned the export of certain substances.

Wheat had an important place among these materials. However, despite the prohibitions and

measures taken, grain smuggling continued until the mid-19th century. For detailed information see

Zeki Arıkan, “Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda İhracı Yasak Mallar (Memnu Mallar)”, Prof. Dr. Bekir

Kütükoğlu’na Armağan, (İstanbul: 1991): 279-306.

88

and if it was not possible, he be brought to Istanbul.199 It is not surprising that the

state took into account the people's complaints and took action, but the threat of tax

loss and disruption of order that may occur as a result of the displacement of the

inhabitants should not be overlooked as it was used by the re‘âyâ probably facilitate

the process. Another similar order is number 670 in the 75th Mühimme defter

(1602). In the petition submitted here, it was reported that some priests and

dhimmis secretly gave wheat to the infidels (ba‘zı rahibler ve zimmiler harbi

kefereye hafiyyeten bûğday verüb), smuggled those who opposed this to infidel

ships (ayak iden kûlları kâfir gemilerine virüb kaçırub), spied on them and

imprisoned those who converted to Islam in their churches (harbi kefereye casusluk

idüb ve zimmilerden İslâma gelenleri sen Müslümân oldun deyû tutub kiliselerinde

haps idüb). In the decree written to the qadi of Antakya, it was ordered that the

matter be inspected closely and if it is as it was presented, to record the names and

descriptions (bu makûle fesâd ve hıyânet idenleri isim ve resimleriyle yazub ve sicil

itdirüb) of the offenders.200

199 … kâdîsına hüküm ki

Kazâ-i mezbûra tâbi‘ Aydos nâm karye ahalisi gelüp (…) nâm papas (…) cezîresinden gelüp birkaç

seneden beri karye-i mezbûrede sâkin olup lakin mezbûr kendü hâlinde olmayup şirret ve şekâvet

üzre olup nice fesâdâtı zuhûr etdiğinden mâ‘adâ Boğaz’a kâfir gemileri geldikde casusluk idüp

küffâra zahîre verdiği şer‘an sâbit olup hüccet-i şer‘iyye verilmişiken mezbûr memnû‘ olmayup

dâimâ bunları rencîde ve remîde eylemekden hâlî olmamağla mezbûrun şerrinden âciz kalıp terk-i

tekâsül etmeleri mukarrer olduğun ve bu bâbda ellerinde hüccet-i şer‘iyyeleri olduğun bildürüp

hükm-i hümâyûnum ricâ etmeğin mahallinde ahvâli ve töhmeti suâl oluna firâr eder ise her kande

ise ve her ne mahalde bulunur ise ahz olunup mahallinde görülmek mümkün değil ise Asitâne-i

sa‘âdetime ihzâr olunmak bâbında emr-i şerîf yazılmışdır.

Fî evâsıt-ı M sene 63

200 Keleş, 265-266.

Mektûbi Antakya kâdısına hüküm ki:

Ol tarafdan dergâh-ı mu‘allâma arz-ı hâl sunulub ba‘zı rahibler ve zimmiler harbi kefereye

hafiyyeten bûğday verüb ve ayak iden kûlları kâfir gemilerine virüb kaçırub ve harbi kefereye

casusluk idüb ve zimmilerden islâma gelenleri sen Müslümân oldun deyû tutub kiliselerinde haps

idüb hıyânet eyledüklerin bildirdikleri ecilden buyurdum ki:

Varduk da bu husûsa bi’z-zât onat mukayyed olub göresin arz olunduğu gibi ise bu makûle fesâd ve

hıyânet idenleri isim ve resimleriyle yazub ve sicil itdirüb vukû üzre arz eyleyesin ki hâkklarından

89

Privileges granted to church members included maktu method of payment

and/or the non-payment of the avarız (cash levies), tithes, or the tekâlîf-i şâkka.201

The 331st order of the 99th mühimme defter (1688-1689) is interesting and

important for analysing state-church relations in the context of Jerusalem the

context to tekalif-i şakka. The mutasarrıf and qadi of Jerusalem sanjak were

informed that the patriarch of Jerusalem and all of his flock were exempt from the

takalif-i şakka since the conquest of Selim I and those responsible for attempting to

collect this tax were banned in this order. Nevertheless, Salih Pasha, the pasha of

Jerusalem, did not comply with this and tried to collect the tax and persecuted those

who did not pay it. Although he was dismissed in 1688, those who succeeded him

continued to collect this tax by claiming that it was old custom. This issue was

emphasized and ordered to be prevented.202

geline amma bu bahâne ile reâyâ’dan celb u ahz olmak ve hilâf-ı şer‘-i şerîf ve gârez ve ta’assub ile

kimesneye zulm olmakdan begâyet hazer eyleyesin.

201 For examples of privileges see Şikâyet Defter 4/312, Mühimme Defter 96/187, 99/330, 99/331,

100/467.

202 Tan, 40-41.

Ber vech-i Arpalık Kudus-i şerîf sancağına mutasarrıf olan ( … ) dâme ikbâluhûya ve Kudus-i şerîf

kâdîsına Hüküm ki

Kudus-i şerîfde sakin Rum patriği ve Rum ruhban fukarâsıyla Kudus-i şerîf dâhilinde olan harâcgüzar

Rum re‘âyâsı milletinin Cenâb-ı Rasûl-i Ekrem sallallâhu aleyhi ve sellem hazretlerinin ve

cenâb-ı Ömer bin El-Hattâb radıyallâhu anh hazretlerinin nihân-ı zaman-ı se‘âdetlerinde virilen

mu‘âf-nâme-i şerîf mucibince ruhban neferâtı ve Kudus-i şerîf dâhilinde olan ra‘âyâ fukarâsı cümle

tekâlîf-i şâkkadan mu‘âf olub ve selâtîn-i mâzîyede dahi mu‘âf-ı tâmmeleri olduğundan mâ-‘adâ

merhûm ve mağfurun leh ceddim Sultan Selim Han tâbe serâhu Mısır ve Kudus᾽-i Şerîfi feth

eyledükde minvâl-i meşrûh üzre mu‘âf-ı tâmm virilüb ol zamandan beru imdâd-ı ‘izâmdan her

birinin zamanında Kudus-i şerîf Paşaları ve kadıları tekâlîf-i şâkka ile mudâhale eyledikçe

yedlerinde olan ahidname-i şerîfe ile men‘ olunub âsûde hâl iken Salih Paşa Kudus-i şerîf Paşası

olmağla yedlerinde olan temessukâta amel itmeyüb zulmen tekâlîf-i şâkka ( ... ) namıyla yedi seneden

beru akçelerin alub ta‘addi itmekle iki üç def‘a i‘lâm-ı hâl eyledüklerinde men‘i i.ün kat‘î evâmir-i

şerîfe virilüb götürüb ibrâz eyledüklerinde amel eylemeyüb zulmünü ziyâde idüb tekrar bin doksan

dokuz senesinde kat‘î emr-i şerîf virilüb ve ünvanına hatt-ı humâyûn ( ... ) sâdır olub ve hâlen Salih

Paşa azl olunub lâkin bundan sonra Kudus-i Şerîf sancağına mutasarrıf olanlar mücerred Salih

Paşa᾽nın tekâlifi şâkka namıyla zulmen aldığı akçeyi adetttir deyu fukarâdan taleb ve rencide

olunmak ihtimâli olduğun bildirüb yedlerine virilen hatt-ı humâyûn-ı se‘âdet makrûnumla

mukaddemâ emr-i şerîfim mahalline g.türdüklerinde kayd u icrâ ve fukarâya zulm ve ta‘addîsinden

tahlis olunmak bâbında hukm-i humâyûn reca eyledükleri ecilden ellerinde olan temessukât-ı

ma‘mûlun bihâya muğâyir Kudus-i Şerif sancağına mutasarrıf olanlar ve kadılar hilâf-ı şer‘-i şerîf

tekâlîf-i şâkka mutâlebesiyle rencide ve remîde eylemeyeler memnû‘ olmayub sen ki mîri mîrân-ı

90

In the 81st order of Şikâyet Defter no. 6, the priests and the people of some

regions and villages of Larissa sent their petitions through an agent. While they

were paying the avarız and other taxes for which they were responsible without any

problems according to their tax status as a‘lâ and evsât ve ednâ, the beylerbeyi

demanded heavier taxes and other items such as caftans. The order was written to

Larissa and Urmiye qadis to stop these offenses in violation of the sharia and the

law.203 The 1021st order of the 8th Şikâyet Defter (1673) was similar to the one

above. Also in this order sent to the qadi of Jerusalem, the monks of the monastery

who collected alms were unjustly harrassed by the beylerbeyi and qadi of Jerusalem

with the demand of takalif-i şakka without any order or decision. In the priest's

petition, he stated that they had been taxed by the beylerbeği and qadi of Jerusalem

for several years, with types of taxes such as based on the orders given to them by

the sharia and law, and that they had even been charged with debts for the çuka,

kumaş, and goods in their possession, with new types of taxes such as imdâd and

hırfet.204 The order was sent to the qadi of Jerusalem that they should not be further

mûmâ ileyhsin sâbıkan Kudus-i şerîf sancağına mutasarrıf olanlar zulmen ve bi-ğayri hakk akçelerin

alub ( ... ) deyu ânın zulmünü mu‘tâd i‘tibâr idüb mukaddemâ ve hâlen virilen evâmir-i şerîfeye

muğâyir hilâf-ı şer‘-i şerîf tekâlîf-i şâkka ile ta‘zîb ve tecâvuze cesaret idenlerisen ki Mevlânâ-yı

mûmâ ileyhsin der-i devlet-i medârıma arz eylemeniz babında ferman-ı alişanım sadır olmuşdur

deyu yazılmışdır.

Fî evâhiri Ca sene 1101

203 Yenişehr-i Fener kâdîsına ve Armiye kâdîsına hüküm ki

Armiye kazâsına tâbi‘ Mitraliye ve Kodolovin (?) nâm manastır rahibleri ile Sabun ve Çotovirez ve

Kodolor ve Perertam ve Aryani (?) nâmûn karyeler ahalileri arz-ı hâl ve âdem gönderüp bunlar

üzerlerine edâsı lâzım gelen avârız vesâir emr-i şerîfimle vâkı‘ olan tekâlîfi a‘lâ ve evsât ve ednâ

i‘tibâriyle tahammüllerine göre edâ edip ve kusurları olmayıp âhardan rencîde olunmak lâzım

gelmez iken hâliyâ Azdin ahalisi üzerlerine mîrmîrân tarafından birer emr-i şerif nakl bahâ ve

kaftan bahâ vesâir tekâlîf-i şâkka teklîf olundukda mezbûrlar bizim ile ma‘an verin diyü hilâf-ı şer‘

ve kânûn rencîde etmeğle men‘iyçün hükm yazılmışdır.

Fî evâhir-i N sene 77

204 Kudüs-i şerîf kâdîsına hüküm ki

Kazâ-i mezbûrda vâkı‘ (…) nâm manastır rahibleri gelüp bunlar Manastır-ı mezbûrda sâkin

sadakât-ı nâss ile gitmeyüp hilâf-ı kânûn ve bilâ emr-i hümâyûn tekâlîf-i şâkka talebiyle dahl ve

91

oppressed and that a decision should be made without violating the law and sharia,

and the old traditions.

In this chapter, an attempt has been made to compile the orders under which

the Church or its members are subject to direct or indirect taxation. The reaction of

the administration to the problems experienced by church members, who were

sometimes involved as subjects and sometimes as objects, was shaped by the

concerns of maintaining order and ensuring the continuity of taxes. On the other

hand, the church and its members are concerned not only about the loss of their

sources of income, but also about the preservation and expansion of their privileges.

Some rights and privileges are necessary for the maintenance of order in society and

the laws have been bent for them for the same reason in some cases to collect taxes

properly. The secure collection of taxes from the provinces was, as has often been

mentioned, the primary concern of both Church and State. Therefore, there was a

mutual relationship and important cooperation between the two as far as tax matters

were concerned.

3.2. Monastic and Church Vakfs from the Perspective of the State

The Atik Şikâyet defters and Mühimme defters contain also documents

involving the bilateral nature of the relations of the monastic and Church vakfs and

with both central and local Ottoman authorities. Of course, these can be used to

draw conclusions about the relationship of both the state and these vakfs to the local

population, but also to the patriarch. Firstly, this study aims to show the structure of

rencîde olunmak lâzım gelmez iken birkaç seneden berü Kudüs-i şerîf beğlerbeğisi ve kâdîsı olanlar

hilâf-ı şer‘ ve kânûn ve bilâ emr-i hümâyûn imdâd ve hırfet nâmıyla küllî akçelerin aldıklarından

gayrı çuka ve kumaş dahi teklîf ve celb-i mâl için elinizde olan hüccet ve temessükâtların imzâ

etdirin diyü rencîde etmekden hâlî olmadığın bildirüp hilâf-ı şer‘ ve kânûn ve olıgelmişe mugâyir

rencîde olunmamak hükm yazılmışdır.

Fî evâhir-i L sene 83

92

these vakfs and their interactions with the state with pieces of petitions from these

archival sources. I will discuss primarily the economic functions of the said vakfs.

The petitions of the Muslims, non-Muslims, and patriarchs in the 17th century from

these defters show some of the disputes that arise in the vakfs. In view of the

abundance of examples of these institutions in the defters, they have a decisive role

in the understanding of the relationship between the State and the Church.

In the history of both the Empire and the Church, the foundations were one

of the most important institutions. There is a vast literature especially on Ottoman

Muslim vakfs. However, studies on non-Muslim vakfs are scarce. Many scholars

have focused on the legal and socio-economic aspects of the establishment of vakfs

by Greek Orthodox subjects. Most of the studies about vakfs are either on the

theoretical-legal conditions governing their establishment and functions of them or

on their political, social, and economic structures.205 The donations to vakfs of

monasteries and churches were not only a reflection of the donors' religiosity but

were also a reflection of the economic interests of both the donors and the

beneficiaries, i.e. church members such as monks, bishops, and priests. What kind

of problems these economic interests cause, what socio-economic effects they have,

and how they are reflected in the documents are the questions that this chapter tries

to answer.

As emphasized in each chapter of this research, relations, institutions, and

structures should be evaluated according to their historical contexts. Therefore,

205 Eugenia Kermeli, “Ebu’s-Suud’s Definition of Church Vakfs: Theory and Practice in Ottoman

Law” in Islamic Law Theory and Practice, R. Gleave, E. Kermeli (eds.), (London: I.B. Tauris,

1997): 141.

93

especially when it comes to non-Muslim vakfs, adopting a general and descriptive

approach to vakfs can cause several misleading approaches.

Among the non-Muslim vakfs, monastic vakfs are the most common. Even

before the conquest, endowments for monastic vakfs were common in the Balkans.

During the Byzantine period, the monasteries were among the most powerful

landowners in the region.206 The monasteries became centers of flourishing

economic activity during the Byzantine period and even more so during the

Ottoman period. On the other hand, from the beginning of the spread of monastic

life in the Mediterranean basin, the status and privileges of the properties owned by

monastic communities were a matter of dispute between monasteries and local and

central authorities.207

As might be expected, each monastery should be analyzed according to its

own particular characteristics, and often in comparison with the other monasteries

in the same period and region. According to John C. Alexander, each monastery as

an institution has its manager (hegoumenos, prohegoumenos), its governing board

of partners (elders: synaxis geronton), its programming manager (oikonomos), its

other partners (monks and priest-monks, monachi, hieromonachoi), its lay

employees and their dependents, as well as its satellite holdings (subsidiaries of

branches variously called sketae, kellia or metochia) scattered at various distances

from the center in rural areas and towns and cities.208

206 Kermeli, 142.

207 Kermeli, 141-142.

208 John C. Alexander, “The Turkish Documents of the Orthodox Christian Monasteries as Sources

for the Study of the Ottoman Period in Greece .” Essay in Balkanlar ve İtalya’da Şehir ve Manastır

Arşivlerindeki Türkçe Belgeler Semineri: 16-17 Kasım 2000. (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu

Basımevi, 2003): 3.

94

Monasteries comprised a complex organization of production and

distribution. They were prominent instutions in the local economy producing

agricultural goods. They were governed by a constitution or by a set of internal

rules and regulations. The monasteries, like other institutions, were intended to be

self-sufficient entities. They evolved from economic self-sufficiency to growing

enterprises thanks to their agricultural surpluses.209 Participating in the market led to

increased agricultural innovation, and monastic agricultural prosperity created more

opportunities for local employment. As the importance and visibility of the local

monastery increased as a result of its participation in the market, its benefactors

were increasingly willing to donate to it for spiritual concern. With the expansion of

their property holdings, monasteries began to operate more explicitly as agricultural

enterprises.210 Hence, the survival and growth of every monastic vakf depended on

profit. One of the aims of this study is to shed light on the nature of the monastic

enterprise. The survival and growth of each monastic community and its constituent

sub-units were all the more profitable as they were unable to receive material

support from the state and had to rely in part on benefactors of varying personal

circumstances within and, increasingly, beyond the immediate borders of the

empire.211 Moreover, Zachariadou explains that the donation of property to

monasteries at the time of the conquest and afterward was more than an act of

209 Robert B. Ekelund, Sacred Trust the Medieval Church as an Economic Firm. (New York: Oxford

University Press, 1996)42-43.

210 Ekelund, 43.

211 Alexander, 4.

95

devotion; it was a means of securing this property by placing it under the protection

of the monastery, which had a relationship with the would-be the Church.212

In the Byzantine and Ottoman periods, Orthodox monasteries aimed to

achieve economic security through the acquisition of landed property to get through

turbulent times.213 Churches and monasteries maintained their existence by

cultivating the land, by donations from pious people of all classes, or by bequests

left in wills. The large sources of income they obtained in this way increased their

power.

There are outstanding centers of monastic life the Balkan region such as the

Mount Athos, the rock monasteries of Meteora, the monasteries of Kykkos,

Petritsoni monastery, Dečani, and Mileševa, and those in the Ottoman vassal

principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, to name but few.214 Monasteries were

secure and often fortified institutions in rural areas. Perhaps more importantly, they

took part in organizing their Orthodox subjects' religious life and agricultural

production.215

In particular, the monasteries of Mount Athos were social, financial, and

cultural institutions in the Byzantine and Ottoman periods. They were rooted in the

rural economy where they drew their sustenance in both periods. According to

Kolovos, through successful negotiations for their protection, the rural estates of the

212 Zachariadou, “Some Remarks about Dedications to Monasteries in the Late 14th Century.” Essay

in Ho Athos Stous 14o-15o Aiones: Mount Athos in the 14th-15th Centuries. (Athena: Ethniko

Hidryma Ereunon, Inst. Byzantinon Ereunon, 1997): 27-31.

213 Sophia Laiou, “Diverging Realities of a Christian Vakıf, Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries”,

Turkish Historical Review, v.3, (2012): 4.

214 Avramov Rumen Lûbenov, Fotić Aleksandar, and Elias Kolovos, Monastic Economy across

Time: Wealth Management, Patterns, and Trends (Centre for Advanced Study, 2021): 9-10.

215 Elias Kolovos, Christian Vakıfs of Monasteries in the Ottoman Greek Lands from the Fourteenth

to Eighteenth Centuries", in Sabine Mohasseb Saliba (ed.), Les fondations pieuses Waqfs chez les

chretiens et les juifs (Paris, 2016): 103.

96

Athonite monasteries were held as çiftliks in the empire throughout the 15th and 16th

centuries. During and even before the time of the Ottoman expansion, the

monasteries had already submitted to the authority of the Ottoman state in exchange

for protection. On the other hand, the granting of such protection to the monasteries

was a powerful legitimization policy for the state vis-à-vis the Orthodox subjects.216

Actually it was a way to continue taxes on agricultural produce since monastic

lands were ever expanding instead of diminishing through inheritance.

When Murad II conquered Thessaloniki in 1430, the Athonite monks

presented themselves and asked for the documents issued by the previous sultans,

Beyazid I and Mehmed I, regarding their status to be confirmed. He issued an edict

detailing the status and especially the tax exemptions that the Athonite monasteries

had already obtained from the sultans in the previous century.217 No one from

outside the monastic comunity was allowed to enter Mount Athos or its rural lands

without the permission of the sultan or the monks. Their rural lands had the status of

vakfs and mülks and were exempt from taxation. The kadıs and subaşıs were not

allowed to collect taxes from them and the haraç (as land tribute) collectors were

not allowed to collect taxes from them. They were also exempted from

extraordinary taxes. Lastly, they were free to ship the products of their estates to

Mount Athos.218 However, after the census (tahrir) ordered by Murad probably in

1432-33, both Mount Athos and its rural estates had lost, at least in part, their

previous status. As part of a general policy of centralization pursued by Murad II,

216 Kolovos, “Negotiating for State Protection: Çiftlik-Holding by the Athonite Monasteries

(Xeropotamou Monastery, Fifteenth-Sixteenth c.).” Frontiers of Ottoman Studies: State, Province,

and the West, (2005): 197-198.

217 Kolovos, Ibid., 199.

218 Kolovos, “The Monks and the Sultan outside the Newly Conquered Ottoman Salonica in 1430”.

Republished with corrections and additions from the Journal of Turkish Studies, vol. 40 (December

2013) [= Defterology. Festchrift in Honor of Heath Lowry], : 271-279.

97

the full imposition of the tımar system for the distribution of tax revenues from this

area in the Thessaloniki region abolished its tax exemption. The tax revenues of the

peninsula of Mount Athos were reserved for the sultan. However, it appears that the

monks had negotiated the payment of their poll tax in the form of a lump sum, at the

same level for all monasteries there. The berâts of successive sultans up to Selim II

confirmed this special status. Monks also continued to be exempt from paying

extraordinary taxes.219

The monasteries also had to start paying taxes on their rural properties in the

region they continued to own as farms according to the registers. They continued to

enjoy state protection for their rural estates during this period, even though they had

lost their full tax-exempt status and the tax revenues from their dependent peasants.

According to a berât of Beyazid II, dated 1495, which was renewed earlier by

Mehmed II and Murad II, the monks of Mount Athos could have the usufruct

(tasarruf) their churches, houses, mills, and fields in the districts of Serres and

Thessaloniki, as long as they did not abandon them, regularly registered them in the

defters, and did not change their building structure and established functions.220 No

one had the right to deprive them of any of their properties. The officials of the state

were ordered to protect the legal rights of the monks in any case. They were also

not allowed to oppress them (rencide, zulm and taaddi) by contradicting sultan's

legislation (kanun) and customary practice (adet, kadimden beri).221

219 Kolovos, “Negotiating for State Protection: Çiftlik-Holding by the Athonite Monasteries

(Xeropotamou Monastery, Fifteenth-Sixteenth c.).” : 199. See, Zachariadou, “Ottoman Documents

from Archives of Dionysiou (Mount Athos) 1495-1520.” Essay. In Romania and the Turks, c.1300-

c.1500. (London: Variorum Reprints, 1985): 1-35.

220 Kolovos, Ibid., 200. See these berâts, Zachariadou, Ibid, 4-7.

221 Kolovos, Ibid.

98

After the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans, and in some cases, even before,

sought to maintain the status of their institutions and properties. Research has

shown that the monasteries, in general, have survived, and in some cases further

flourished under Muslim rule. Several monasteries were able to receive various

prerogatives from the sultans during the transition from Byzantine to Ottoman rule.

These monasteries were usually the most prestigious Orthodox vakfs in the Balkans.

The state pursued a pragmatic policy of protecting selected religious institutions of

its Orthodox Christian subjects. We must also remember that monasteries were

major taxpayers. Zachariadou stated that monks seemed to be left undisturbed and

untaxed for a temporary period after the hostilities. In addition, their requests were

mostly accepted and implemented by the administration, which protected the monks

and granted privileges to monasteries and monastic properties. These privileges are

mentioned in the early years of the empire in official documents in both Greek and

Turkish.222 Moreover, Wittek and Lemerle argued that the empire respected the

practices of monasteries and granted them the privileges and exemptions they

enjoyed under Byzantium.223 Therefore, the state was able to increase its prestige

for the Orthodox Christian re‘âyâ with the privileges while adhering to the

principles of its own religion.

Fotić stated that the term vakf was used to refer to each and every vakf,

regardless of whether the founder was Muslim or non-Muslim.224 In addition,

according to Akgündüz, a Christian could bequeath his property to churches or

222 Zachariadou, “Monks and Sailors under the Ottoman Sultans”. Oriente Moderno 20 (81), no. 1 (2001):

140.

223 Kermeli, 143. See, P. Wittek and P. Lemerle, Recherches sur l’Histoire et les Status des

Monastères Athonites sous la Domination Turque, Archives d’histoire du Droit Oriental 3 (1947):

428.

224 Aleksandar Fotić, “The Official Explanations for The Confiscation and Sale of Monasteries

(Churches) and Their Estates at the Time of Selim II”, Turcica, vol. XXVI, (1994): 43.

99

monasteries. S/he could even endow his/her property for the public good and for

other purposes that, according to Islam, were considered to be for the pleasing of

God.225 However, Abraham Marcus asserted that the fact that non-Muslims

approached the issue of helping the poor in a different way and established vakfs for

them is related to the tight community organization of these groups dating back to

the past as well as the sense of insecurity they experienced as a minority. For they

had learned from their experiences that converting to Islam, which was a threat to

their communities, affected the poor who wanted to be free from tax obligations and

their dhimmi status.226 Van Leeuwen also suggested that the restrictions on the

establishment of Christian vakfs in the empire may have been intended to prevent

the Church and its members from gaining an independent, solid and financial basis

as an institution.227 However, not here is no restriction only a legal problem of

organisation solved by Ebussuud.

In the transition period, monasteries also showed a strong tendency to

rationalize their landholdings and were deeply involved in the economy as

landowners.228 Although they did not continue their role as landowners during the

Ottoman period, they held an abundance of land in the region and provided the area

with economic stability.229 They had managed to maintain their rural estates and

endowments (mülks, vakfs), and some of them even expanded during the Ottoman

225 Ahmed Akgündüz, İslam Hukukunda ve İslam Tatbikatında Vakıf Müessesesi. (İstanbul: Osmanlı

Araştırmaları Vakfı, 1996): 48-55.

226 Abraham Marcus, Middle East on the eve of modernity: Aleppo in the Eighteenth Century. (New

York N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 1989)

227 Kermeli, 144. See, Richard van Leeuwen, Notables and clergy in Mount Lebanon: The khāzin

sheikhs and the Maronite Church, 1736-1840. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994): 30.

228 Angeliki E. Laiou and Cécile Morrisson. The Byzantine Economy. (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2007): 173-175.

229 Kostis Smyrlis, Monasteries, Society, Economy, and the State in the Byzantine Empire, in The

Oxford Handbook of Christian Monasticism, ed. B. M. Kaczynski (Oxford: Oxford University Press,

2020): 155–157.

100

period. It is known from Greek documents that the Athonite monasteries had

collected taxes from their dependent peasants in previous years, in accordance with

Ottoman fiscal practice, after the restoration of Byzantine rule around Thessaloniki

(1403).230 It seems that the monasteries collected a tax called harâç from the

peasants. One-third of this tax went to the state. This can be identified with the poll

tax (cizye) that non-Muslims had to pay to the state. The two-thirds of this tax

probably corresponded to the resm-i çift that the peasants had to pay to their

landowners, in this case the monasteries. The monasteries also collected tithes

(öşür) from the farmers and a tax called kephalatikion (salariye), which the former

in turn paid to the state.231

The monasteries assumed the role of representatives of the dhimmi

communities within their jurisdiction as intermediaries between them and the state.

They were instrumental for the Church and the State by playing an ecclesiastical

and political role in their communities.232

Property rights were at the heart of the relationship between the monasteries

and the state. After the conquest, the properties of the Church and its monasteries,

although their state was in a gray area, were gradually integrated into the legal and

administrative framework of the Muslim vakfs, with the protection and tax benefits

that come with it.233 After the protection of the monasteries and the churches, it

seems that the state was not so much concerned with or not able to control the

development of a strict legal definition of the status of monastic property or Church

230 Kolovos, Negotiating for State Protection: Çiftlik-Holding by the Athonite Monasteries, 198.

231 Kolovos, Ibid.

232 Laiou, 5.

233 Monastic Economy across Time: Wealth Management, Patterns, and Trends, 12.

101

property.234 However, obtaining the status of freehold or vakf for the landed

property and achieving a similar status for the previously acquired property were

the main goals of the monks' policies. At the time when in the absence of a political

environment where property rights were guaranteed in the empire, the status of

vakfs served as the safest way to ensure the inalienability of property for the

Church.235 According to Islamic law, there are two basic prerequisites to achieve

that. The first is that the property to be endowed must have the status of freehold

property. The second is that making endowments must have charitable motives and

be in favor of individuals in need. Endowments in favor of religious vakfs such as

churches and monasteries are not accepted by the law as the legal personality is not

recognized.236 However, the establishment of vakfs for the benefit of churches or

monasteries depended on the authorization of the central or local rulers and this was

possible in practice unless it was countered by the ulema.

One of the most important legal issues that the higher ulema experienced in

the 16th century was the status of the non-Muslim vakfs. Until the second half of the

16th century, the legal background to this issue was quite complex. Fotić notes that

the financial support of churches, monasteries, and the entire Church organization

and their vakfs in the empire have been an area of research that is still inadequately

explored. For him, the main reason for this state of research is the fact that this issue

is caught between the autonomous laws of the Church and the Sharia. The

boundaries of this subject were blurred by the application of pre-Ottoman traditions

and the new legal regulations, as well as by the attempt to adapt to the completely

234 Kolovos, Christian Vakıfs of Monasteries in the Ottoman Greek Lands from the Fourteenth to

Eighteenth Centuries, 104.

235 Laiou, 4.

236 Akgündüz, 239-240.

102

different new living conditions in the empire.237 The existence of a number of

church vakfs between the beginning of the 17th and the end of the 18th century may

raise the question of these implementation of law in these matters. The answer may

be the Byzantine legal traditions that were still in force at the time. In some cases,

donations to monasteries continued the Byzantine tradition.238 Elias Kolovos also

conceptualizes this dual legal situation in the context of ecclesiastical and monastic

vakfs by using the concept of "hybrid".239 The vakfs were important for an

understanding of the combination of church law and practice with the rules

established by Islamic law.

Apart from non-Muslim subjects, there was uncertainty and even resistance

to priests and monks dedicating vakfs for monasteries and churches. For this reason,

during the reign of Selim II (1566-1574), many monastic foundations in Rumelia

were confiscated and subsequently sold to generate revenue for the treasury and

financial stability assurance.240 Orthodox monasticism was hit hardest by the

“Confiscation Crisis (1567-1571)”.241 During this period, in order to redefine the

legal basis for the retention of the monastic possessions on a continuous basis, the

state asked the monasteries to repossess their properties. Lacking the large sums

needed to re-purchase their properties, many of the monasteries had to borrow

loans, which they repaid for the upcoming decades. The smaller and poorer

237 Alexsandar Fotić, “Concealed Donation or a Sale: The Acquisition of Monastic Property (15th –

17th C.)”, 721.

238 Laiou, 14.

239 Kolovos, Christian Vakıfs of Monasteries in the Ottoman Greek Lands from the Fourteenth to

Eighteenth Centuries, 116.

240 Alexsandar Fotić, “The Official Explanations for the Confiscation and Sale of Monasteries

(churches) and their Estates at the Time of Selim II,” Turcica 24 (1994), 42-44.

241 For the "confiscation crisis” detailly see Fotić (1994): 33-54; Alexander (1997): 149-200;

Kermeli (2000): 39-53.

103

monasteries were mostly abandoned.242 In the crisis, the monasteries and their

monks renegotiated the status of their lands according to the general legal definition

of state lands. It is possible to examine the role played by the individual monasteries

in the local and regional power structures of their respective areas, both individually

and collectively.

The grand mufti Ebussuud Efendi’s argument was that monasteries and

churches did not have tapu, i.e. certificates of ownership or possession for their

lands, and they were not paying taxes for their lands, as such, they should be

registered and taxed. Especially, the monks, like other taxpaying subjects, should

had to start paying tapu in order to keep their land. For these reasons, he redefined

the landholding status, whereby the state owned all lands in the empire, and all

possessors should have licence (tapu). As a result of the redefinition, the newly

adjudged “unlawful” monastery vakfs were repossessed, and the monasteries were

obliged to repurchase their possesions with a tapu.243 The whole status of

ecclesiastical and monastic lands throughout the empire was called into question in

this re-definition process. This is because the monasteries were already in existence

before the Ottoman conquest and were under the institutional control of the Church

bishoprics rather than under the personal control of the monks.

The state granted the Orthodox monks the right to automatic succession to

the monastic properties of deceased monks by the other members of a monastic

community. With this arrangement, monastic foundations and other Church

foundations were considered family foundations, and legal arrangements were made

242 Monastic Economy across Time: Wealth Management, Patterns, and Trends, 11.

243 Colin Imber, Ebu'ssuud The Islamic Legal Tradition (Stanford: Stanford University Press,

1997):124-125.

104

accordingly. This arrangement protected monasteries and their vakfs from the

intervention of local Ottoman officials.244 The incoming monks and other members

of the community were considered the descendants of the deceased monks. 245 Thus,

the legal basis was created for the monks to keep their property, provided it was reregistered.

In this way, he satisfied both the monks, through the regulation of their

affairs, and the central government, through the generation of more revenues for the

state treasury. Naturally, not all of the monastic vakfs were able to survive this turn

of events. Despite the crisis, monks also re-established vakfs for their properties.

These vakfs also included agricultural lands, which were now given the tapu.246 A

glance at their building activities in the registers can be evidence of their prosperity.

The grand mufti recognized monasteries in terms of one of the existing

appropriate categories, rather than creating a category of Church vakfs.

Furthermore, in his opinion, the confiscation of the endowments was based on two

principles. The first was that the Church was now endowed by using the land

donated by the State. The second was that the monasteries' properties, i.e.,

buildings, monasteries, holy springs, vineyards, orchards, farms, fields, meadows,

and animals, were donations.247 However, patriarchs were allowed to donate these

and other properties to the church to protect their finances.248

244 Kermeli, "The confiscation and repossession of monastic properties in Mount Athos and Patmos

Monasteries , 1568-1570", Bulgarian Historical Review 28/34. (2000): 39-53.

245 Kermeli, “Ebu’s-Suud’s Definition of Church Vakfs: Theory and Practice in Ottoman Law”, 148-

153.

246 Kolovos, Christian Vakıfs of Monasteries in the Ottoman Greek Lands from the Fourteenth to

Eighteenth Centuries, 111-112.

247 Tellan, 135.

248 Tellan, 36. 1662 berât: The said patriarch should have the same authority as all of the patriarchs

in Constantinople according to their ancient berâts, and he should have the same jurisdiction as the

patriarchs before him on churches, vineyards, fields, kışlak, panayır, manastır, ayazma, mills, and

other things that have been dedicated to their church. Gedeon, Episima Grammata, 14.

105

The purpose of these regulations is the creation of a framework that is under

the control of the state. However, the functioning of the vakfs was not smooth and

did not necessarily follow the regulations suggested by Ebussuud Efendi. For

example, the monasteries in the districts of Thessaloniki and Serres refused the

status of tapu. In the negotiations in Istanbul, they used the threat of flight and the

consequent loss of taxation as a bargaining chip. In the end, Selim II agreed to the

exemption of their lands from the status of tapu, and in the registers, a special

arrangement was made for them.249 These lands were held as tapu. However, they

were mîrî and after 1569 all acquisitions were made under the tapu.

The negotiations between the monasteries and the Porte that were aimed at

resolving the crisis are also worth mentioning. Two firmans illustrate this process.

The first was sent to the Monastery of St John the Theologian on Patmos in 1569

and initiated the repossession process. The second was the result of the final stage

of the negotiations between the Porte and the monks of the Dionysiou monastery on

Mount Athos in same year for all monasteries.250 Since copies of the firman

initiating the process can be found in almost all monasteries, it seems that the order

to confiscate all monastic property was a general one, at least in the Balkans. It is

also clear that confiscating and repossessing monastic property was not initiated at

the same time.251 In these firmans, the monks made a request to the Porte to avoid

any interruption by local authorities in case of the death or departure of a monk. In

accordance with the Islamic law of inheritance, in the event that no heir asserts their

right to the deceased's possessions, said possessions would be transferred to the

249 Kolovos, Negotiating for State Protection: Çiftlik-Holding by the Athonite Monasteries, 201.

250 Eugenia Kermeli, “Central Administration Versus Provincial Arbitrary Governance. Patmos and

Mount Athos Monasteries in the 16th Century.” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 32 (2): 2008):

192-193.

251 Kermeli, 193. For the translation of firmans: 193-194.

106

treasury. In addition, the remaining monks within the monastery requested to be

acknowledged as a collective entity. The sultan's replies reiterated the reasons for

the confiscation to these requests, he granted the monks their requests. These

firmans show us that both the state and the members of the church could capably

negotiate with the state. At the end of this process, the property of the monasteries,

excluding their lands, was repossessed, and turned into foundations for the benefit

of monks, travelers, and the poor. They completed the confiscation process in qadi

courts. 252

The monasteries proceeded to the formal establishment of monastic

foundations, including the buildings of their farms. For each monastery, foundation

documents (vakfiyes) were drawn up between February and March 1569 by the qadi

of Istanbul and Ebussuud himself.253 The monasteries underwent an important

change during the establishment process because the Ottoman authorities took the

monasteries under their protection and took the property of the monasteries and then

sold it on to the same monasteries. The monasteries were forced to seek support not

only from the Orthodox rulers, but also from anyone willing to lend a hand.254

Receiving contributions from the congregation was one way, and not a negligible

one, of generating income for the vakfs. The great churches and monasteries,

especially those on Mount Athos, regularly received donations from the Orthodox

religious re‘âyâ. These donations were mostly transferred by traveling monks on

252 Kermeli, 194.

253 John C. Alexander (Alexandropoulos), “The Lord Giveth and the Lord Taken Away: Athos and

the Confiscation Affair of 1568-1569,” Mount Athos in the 14th-16th Centuries, (Athonika

Symmeikta 4), Athens (I.B.E./E.I.E.) (1997): 162-169.

254 Alexsandar Fotić, “Athonite Travelling Monks and the Ottoman Authorities (16th-18th

Centuries)”, Perspectives on Ottoman Studies. Papers from the 18th Symposium of the International

Committee of Pre-Ottoman and Ottoman Studies (CIEPO) at the University of Zagreb 2008, eds.

Ekrem Čaušević, Nenad Moačanin, Vjeran Kursar, Berlin: LIT Verlag, (2010): 157.

107

their way to collect alms. The gifts consisted mainly of money, books, icons, more

or less valuable liturgical objects of the church, and other objects. The monks

probably sold grain and cattle that came to them from outlying regions. Whenever

possible, they would also take such contributions with them to a monastery or to the

nearby metochia organized as large çiftliks. The monks themselves, especially the

hegumens of the monasteries, were also donors.255 These donations could vary in

size and production from a single building, a vineyard with its shed, to, especially

among the Athonites, entire agricultural units like çiftliks with a church and a tower.

Each unit was at the service of, and theoretically accountable to, its headquarters,

whether in kind.256

Another practice related to generate income for the vakfs, of a different

nature and worthy of further explanation, was the widespread dhimmi practice of

making a will to a monastery or church, which was not recognized by Islamic law.

Gifts of money and other personal property did not need to be designated in any

particular way. Moreover, the bequests of immovable property in the empire were

subject to certain legal regulations. Moreover, the legal relationship between the

Ottoman state and these entities was not bound by a written declaration of

exclusion, as is more common in modern times.257

According to the Sharia, it was not permissible to make a bequest to the

monastery itself as mentioned above. Donors were required to give their property to

monks, novices, and servants of monasteries, provided that income from such

255 Alexsandar Fotić, Concealed Donation or a Sale: The Acquisition of Monastic Property (15th –

17th C.), 721.

256 Alexander, The Turkish Documents in Greece, 4.

257 Ayşe Ozil, “Whose Property Is It? The State, Non-Muslim Communities, and the Question of

Property Ownership from the Late Ottoman Empire through the Turkish Nation State.” Journal of

the Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association 6, no. 1 (2019): 215-216.

108

property is used to feed monks, pilgrims, and poor people. The bequest was

considered revoked if this condition was not met. There was a certain imprecise

restriction that was probably not observed in reality: Bequests were to be given only

to poor monasteries and not to rich ones. However, the largest and richest

monasteries received the largest bequests.258

We can assume that the main reason that led Orthodox subjects to make a

will to monasteries was primarily for charity. Another factor was the possibility for

wealthy donors to live in monasteries for a short or long period of time, or even for

life. Thus, the security of the donor’s properties was protected by these vakfs against

problems that might arise both from their heirs and from the state. The main motive

of the donors, both big and small, was undoubtedly the desire to join the ranks of

the ktetors. They also wanted to be included in the monastery's memorial books and

to be mentioned regularly during liturgical services. The person who donated his

property to the monastic foundation would achieve it for the rest of his/her life in

exchange for a small rent agreed upon with the monastery.259 The monasteries

leased the cells, sometimes for a short time, sometimes for a longer period, and

even for life. Rich donors could provide themselves with large cells inside or

outside the monasteries, as well as with servants to take care of them in case of

illness or infirmity, by means of valuable bequests. For these reasons, many donors

from the hinterland became monks in their old age because they wanted a peaceful

life and daily prayer.260 In other words, monasteries in the Balkans have devised

new procedures to avoid bankruptcy, either by placing struggling houses under the

258 Fotić, Concealed Donation or a Sale: The Acquisition of Monastic Property (15th – 17th C.), 722.

259 Nuri Adıyeke, "XVII. ve XVIII. Yüzyıllarda Resmo (Girit) Manastır Vakıfları". BELLETEN 79

(2015): 562-563.

260 Fotić, Concealed Donation or a Sale: The Acquisition of Monastic Property (15th – 17th C.), 723.

109

protection of lay elders or by turning them into subsidiaries of a more prosperous

monastery.261 However, many years after the endowment process, there were

significant problems between the heirs of the property owners and the monastic

vakfs.

Dhimmis could freely bequeath one third of their possessions, as was the

case with Muslims. The rest of the property was divided among the heirs. If the

bequest exceeded one-third of the total estate, the heirs had the right to contest it.

However, dhimmis could bequeath more than one-third, even all of their property, if

the heirs could come to an agreement, or if there were no heirs. Of course, only the

property in full personal ownership could be bequeathed. The property included

vineyards, gardens, orchards, mills, houses, stores, livestock, beehives, and other

similar possessions, with the exception of arable land, meadows, and pastures.262

Donations and bequests of state land were strictly prohibited, as it is known.

However, Fotić states that fields and pastures could be given to monasteries for

permanent use by assigning the rights of tasarruf to the monks of the

monasteries.263 This was probably a privilege granted by the sultan, which allowed

monks to use a piece of land together, with tapu, but without payment of tapu resmi

after the death of a monk.264

The inheritances of the testators who willed their possessions to the Church

were another point of contention in the petitions because if donation becomes a case

of inheritance, i.e. if a dhimmi donates to the church and dies and his/her heirs

261 Daniela Kalkandjieva, “Monasticism in Bulgaria.” In Monasticism in Eastern Europe and the

Former Soviet Republics, edited by I. A. Murzahu, (New York: Routledge, 2016): 10-12.

262 Fotić, Concealed Donation or a Sale: The Acquisition of Monastic Property (15th – 17th C.), 722-

723.

263 Fotić, Concealed Donation or a Sale: The Acquisition of Monastic Property (15th – 17th C.), 722-

723.

264 Akgündüz, 173.174; Kabrda, 85.

110

claim something after his/her death, there would be a conflict between the two

parties. It is often unclear how this dispute will be resolved. The competent

authority for non-Muslim vakfs, as with other vakfs, is the sharia courts. Both the

approval of vakfs and the settlement of disputes related to them were carried out in

the presence of the qadi himself. It is observed that these procedures were carried

out in the presence of the qadi, and that the writings received from Istanbul

regarding the Church and vakfs were recorded in the registers.

Following the general evaluation of the Church and its vakfs above, it would

be pertained to provide examples from the primary sources (defters) that form the

core of the thesis. When all the available examples are analyzed, a general

conclusion can be drawn that the qadi first evaluated the problem according to the

circumstances and then generally made a decision on a case-by-case basis. Mostly,

the qadis were instructed to investigate the matter and to prevent actions contrary to

the sharia in these examples. Furthermore, the same case could be referred to a qadi

several times. Hüküms merely referred to the evidence in the central archives,

without requiring a formal decision from a qadi or a legal opinion from a mufti,

often when the institutions and concerns of the Ottoman central administration is

concerned.265 For example, in the 85th order of the Şikâyet Defter No. 187, it states

that the documents and registers in the defterhane-i amire, the government office

where the registers related to land and timar records were kept, were examined and

decisions were made in line with the records (defterhâne-i âmiremde mahfûz olan

265 Ursinus, 246.

111

defter-i evkafa …. defter-i mufassalda olan kaydına nazar olundukda).266 This is a

nice example of how the monastry was rending Muslim vakf land.

The fact that the members of the Church also resorted to the qadi or sharia

law for their disputes is important for analyzing and understanding the relations of

this period. Between the lines of a simple debt issue, we can encounter many

surprising details. For example, the 111th order of the 6th Şikâyet Defter (1667)

contains many details to understand the relations of the period. Even the analysis of

this order alone unveils numerous misconceptions about the church-state interaction

in the Ottoman Empire. In the order written to the qadi and molla of Chios, a

dhimmi named Papa İsteka submitted a petition and stated that he had lent 6,300

kurus to the metropolitan of Chios (Papa İsteka nâm zimmî arz-ı hâl idüp Sakız

cezîresi metrepolidi olan nâm […] rahibe karz-ı şer‘îden altı bin üç yüz esedî guruş

virüp). In the record, this debt is mentioned as karz-ı şer‘i, which shows that it was

recorded in the presence of the qadi. The registration of a debt between a dhimmi

and a metropolitan or another church member by the qadi shows that a Church

could take the metropolitan to an Islamic court. The fact that he had the means to do

266 Erzin kâdîsına hüküm ki

Vâlidem Sultân dâmet ismetuhânın kethudâlığı hıdmetinde olan Mustafa dâme mecduhu arz-ı hâl

idüp müşârun ileyhânın mahrûse-i İstanbul’da vâkı‘ müceddeden binâ eyledikleri câmi‘-i şerîf ve

Harameyn-i şerîfeyne vakf eylediği Erzin mukâta‘asına tâbi‘ Gardik nâm karye hâsılından olan

Kokotos nâm manastır rahibleri üzerlerine hîn-i fetihden berü ber vech-i maktû‘ senede beş bin akçe

vakf-ı şerîfe hâsıl ve kayd ve tahrîr olunup ve kadîmden bu âna değin vakf-ı mezbûr voyvodaları

sene-be-sene manastır-ı Kokotos rahiblerinden vakf içün ahz u kabz olunup bir vechile mu‘âraza

olunagelmiş değil iken hâlâ Kokotos nâm karye sipahisi olan Hasan’ın yüz elli akçe yazusı olan

manastır-ı Panayaki ez yedd-i Papa Luka mezkûr Hasan’ın kayd ve berâtında olup merkûm Hasan

kanâ‘at etmeyüp şirrete sülûk etmeğle Kokotos manastır-ı (…) berâtım dâhilinde olan manastırdır

diyü mücerred ahz ve celb ve hilâf-ı kânûn ve defter da‘vâ ve nizâ‘dan hâlî olmamağla hükm-i

hümâyûnum ricâ etmeğin defterhâne-i âmiremde mahfûz olan defter-i evkafa ve mezbûr Hasan’ın

defter-i mufassalda olan kaydına nazar olundukda Gardik nâm karye hâsılında vâkı‘ senede beş bin

akçe deruhde olunan manastır Kokotos nâm karyenin hasılı dâhilinde olup yüz elli akçe yazusu olan

manastır-ı Panayaki der yedd-i Papa Luka mezkûr Hasan’ın kayd ve berâtında olup ber mûceb-i

mufassal başka başka olup birbirinde alakaları olmadığın defter emini arz etmeğin manastır-ı

mezburda sâkin olan ruhbanlar tahrîr-i cedîd mûcebince maktû‘ların taraf-ı vakf-ı şerife her sene

teslîm idüp hilâf-ı kânûn ve defter te‘allül etdirilmemek içün hükm yazılmışdır.

Fî evâil-i Ş sene 86

112

so and contradicts the idea that relations at that time were lived separate. Contrary

to the prominent presumptions in the secondary literature, we are faced with an

intricate network of intertwined relationships where borders cannot be traced. When

the dhimmi could not collect his debt (edâsında te‘allül etmeğle), a mübâşir was

appointed, and when the bailiff went to collect, he could not find the debtors

because the metropolitan and his guarantors had deserted, and report was issued

stating that they were hiding and could not be found (emr-i şerîfimle mübâşir verilip

vardıkda merkûm rahib ile kefîl-i bi’l-mâl olanlar firâr idüp hâkimü’ş-şer‘

tarafından tecessüs etdirmeğle ihtifâ eylediğine eline arz verilip). In the meantime,

the metropolitan went to the patriarch of Constantinople (probably Parthenios IV)

and said, "Do not have offended me in the capital and let there be a trial in the said

place" (Asitâne’de beni rencîde eyleme kazâ-i mezbûrda murâfa‘a olalım diyü). It is

understood that the patriarch was involved here at the request of the metropolitan.

Why for cases like that it would be preferable to go to the capital and have the

support of the patriarch if he wants to go local there is a reason. The priest opened

the case in İstanbul. The metropolitan would feel at ease if the case is heard locally

because he has leverage.

In order for his request to be realized, an order was given to have the trial in

Chios as the said metropolitan made a promise in the presence of Muslims

(Müslümânlar huzûrunda kavl ve şart edip hâliyâ kazâ-i mezbûra revâne olmağla

icrâ-yı hakk olunmak bâbında), and the fatwa of the grand mufti was taken fort he

same arrangement (emr-i şerîfim ricâ etmeğin yine şeyhü’l-islâm fetvâsı ve nakl-i

şehâdet-i şer‘iyye mûcebince mahallinde şer‘le görülmek için yazılmışdır).267 The

267 Sakız muhâfazasında olana ve Sakız mollasına hüküm ki

113

fact that the problem was resolved within the Ottoman law, by fulfilling the wishes

of both the dhimmi and the metropolitan is significant from many angles that the

course of the case changed with the intervention of the Patriarch indicates that,

contrary to popular belief, relations between the administration and the church were

closer during this period. It is recorded in a few orders that church members

obtained a fatwa from the grand mufti for their cases.268 Some inferences can also

be drawn from this order about the relation among the hierarchy of church

members. This in itself shows the need to move away from the portrayal of a period

when religious borders exclusively were characterized by conflicts.

Not only in matters of debt, but also in matters concerning the church's

property, the church members would have recourse to the qadi or liaise with the

administration. Most of the disputes over church property arose in places where the

authority of the church was largely unclear or where its boundaries could not be

defined, and which later came under the control of the empire. They were mainly in

the Balkans, where the financial Church organization was much stronger and wellestablished.

269 The church and monastery properties and their multifaceted

economic ventures created competition and contradicted the local authorities, which

sought to exert control over assets and resources managed by them. Claims

regarding vakf properties and disputes about them have been the subject of many

Papa İsteka nâm zimmî arz-ı hâl idüp Sakız cezîresi metrepolidi olan (…) nâm rahibe karz-ı şer‘îden

altı bin üç yüz esedî guruş virüp edâsında te‘allül etmeğle bundan akdem emr-i şerîfimle mübâşir

verilip vardıkda merkûm rahib ile kefîl-i bi’l-mâl olanlar firâr idüp hâkimü’ş-şer‘ tarafından

tecessüs etdirmeğle ihtifâ eylediğine eline arz verilip Asitâne-i sa‘âdetime geldikde merkûm rahib

patrike varup mezbûrı ahz ve şer‘-i şerîfe ihzâr eylemek sadedinde iken Asitâne’de beni rencîde

eyleme kazâ-i mezbûrda murâfa‘a olalım diyü müslümânlar huzûrunda kavl ve şart edip hâliyâ kazâi

mezbûra revâne olmağla icrâ-yı hakk olunmak bâbında emr-i şerîfim ricâ etmeğin yine şeyhü’lislâm

fetvâsı ve nakl-i şehâdet-i şer‘iyye mûcebince mahallinde şer‘le görülmek için yazılmışdır.

Fî evâil-i L sene 77

268 For these examples in 14th Şikâyet Defter see orders of 172, 203 and 228.

269 Çolak, 214.

114

orders (hüküms). For example, a dhimmi claimed the right to monastery property in

the 729th order in the Şikâyet defter no. 187 (1675). The priest Estelyano, who was a

monk in the monastery in the town of Galata, presented his petition and stated that

he had been a priest, (sic., monk) in this monastery for nine years with a sealed

certificate from the metropolitan (mühürlü temessüklü dokuz seneden berü papas

iken), The dhimmi named Adonahizo, who resided in the town, said that this

monastery was built by his father and hence it was his property (ol manastır benim

babam binâ eylemiş ol takdîrce benim mülkümdür). This order was written to the

pasha and qadi of Chania so that the priest's property is not interfered with and the

matter is resolved without violating the sharia (hilâf-ı şer‘ rencîde etdirilmeye).270

In addition, the 931st order in the same defter contains a complaint about the

dhimmis who wanted to usurp the rents of the properties endowed to the church.

The priest named Makarios, who held a berât and was the metropolitan of İzmir,

wrote a petition. While it is not necessary to interfere with the rents of houses,

vineyards, cellars, and shops, which are the endowments of their churches (kazâ-i

mezbûrda vâkı‘ kenisalarına vakf olan ev ve bağ ve mahzen ve dükkân ve harâr

kiralarına dahl olunmak îcâb etmez iken) in the aforementioned place, some

dhimmis of the region united to take their property without their orders and

certificates. The petition entailed that in violation of the law and sharia, they wanted

to take the rent of the house in which the priest lived, as well as the rent of the

things that were endowed. They also they said that they would appoint the priest

270 Hanya paşasına ve kâdîsına hüküm ki,

Galata nâm karyede vâkı‘ manastırda papas olan Estelyano nâm papas arz-ı hâl idüp bu manastır-ı

mezbûrda metrepelid tarafından mühürlü temessüklü dokuz seneden berü papas iken karye-i

mezbûrede sâkin Adonahizo (?) nâm zimmî ol manastır benim babam binâ eylemiş ol takdîrce benim

mülkümdür diyü dahl ve rencîde [etmeğin] hilâf-ı şer‘ rencîde etdirilmeye diyü hükm yazılmışdır.

115

they wanted (senin oturduğun evin kirasın ve vakf olan şeylerin kirasın biz alıruz ve

istediğimiz papası koruz). The qadi of İzmir was ordered to resolve the matter by

following the sharia and customary law.271 This order, which explicitly states that

the properties endowed to the church should not be interfered with, emphasises that

the ancient order should be maintained in accordance with the public order.

In the 1032nd order in this defter, a priest named Makarios, who was the

Orthodox metropolitan of Silistre, Tulca and Kharşova with a berât (Silistre ve

Tulca ve Hırsova’da vâkı‘ kefere tâifesinin berât-ı şerîfimle metrepolidi olan

Makarios nâm rahib gelüp), filed a petition and complained against the qadis of

Tulca and Kharşova for collecting 30 or 40 akçes more money than the legal one in

violation of the law (kânûndan ziyâde otuzar ve kırkar guruşların alup gadr

etmeleriyle). In the order sent to the qadi of Silistre, it was ordered that the issue be

resolved by returning the sums taken from the metropolitan according to the

sharia.272 I see officials seizing money belonging to a church member. The fact that

the metropolitan who had been appointed by the state with a certificate, was

protected by Ottoman law is important in this case.

271 İzmir kâdîsına hüküm ki

İzmir’de vâkı‘ kefere tâifesinin berât-ı şerîfimle metrepolidi olan Makarinos nâm rahib gelüp âyîn-i

bâtılları üzre kazâ-i mezbûrda vâkı‘ kenisalarına vakf olan ev ve bağ ve mahzen ve dükkân ve harâr

kiralarına dahl olunmak îcâb etmez iken kazâ-i mezbûrda sâkin (…) ve (…) nâm zimmîler bilâ emr

ve berât ve hilâf-ı şer ve kânûn mücerred ahz-ı mâl içün birbiriyle yekdil olup ve senin oturduğun

evin kirasın ve vakf olan şeylerin kirasın biz alıruz ve istediğimiz papası koruz ve hıdmetinde olan

zimmîleri …. diyü hilâf-ı kânûn ve bilâ berât ve bilâ emr rencîdeden hâlî olmadıkların bildirüp

hilâf-ı şer‘-i kânûn te‘addî olunmamak içün hükm yazılmışdır.

Fî evâil-i Zâ sene 86

272 Silistre kâdîsına ve mütesellimine hüküm ki

Silistre ve Tulca ve Hırsova’da vâkı‘ kefere tâifesinin berât-ı şerîfimle metrepolidi olan Makarniyos

nâm rahib gelüp bundan akdem âyîn-i bâtılları üzre elinde olan zeydiyye akçesinden onarlı sicill

kayd olundukda Tulca ve Hırsova kâdîları olanlar kânûndan ziyâde otuzar ve kırkar guruşların alup

gadr etmeleriyle şer‘le görülüp ziyâde alınan akçeleri girü alıverilip icrâ-yı hakk olunmak içün emri

şerîfim ricâ etmeğin hilaf-ı şer‘-i kânûn aldığı red etdirilmek içün hükm yazılmışdır.

Fî evâhir-i Zâ sene 86

116

In the 438th order of the Şikâyet Defter No. 1 dated 1650, the patriarch of

Constantinople (probably Dionysius II) petitions the Ottoman chancery stating that

the priest sent by him to receive the state taxes (mîrî rüsum) of Edirne and the taxes

for the patriarchate retained them for himself (Edirne’de vâkı‘ patrikliğe müte‘allik

mîrî rüsûmı ve kendüye aid olan hukûkı ve rüsûmâtı ahz u kabz etmek içün

gönderdiği Papa Tarsus nâm rahib ahz u kabz idüp). After the priest was taken to

Istanbul, he had a large sum of money left on him, and when he was invited to the

court for a hearing, he fled (bundan akdem Asitane-i sa‘âdete götürülüp üzerinde

küllî akçe kalmağla dîvân-ı hümâyûnuma murâfa‘aya da‘vet olundukda firâr idüp).

Upon the petition of the patriarch, the sultan ordered that the case be judged with

sharia and justice be delivered (şer‘le da‘vâları dîvân-ı hümâyûnumda görülüp icrâyı

hakk olunmak bâbında emr-i şerîfim ricâ etmeğin ihzâr olunup). This order was

sent to the molla of Edirne and the bostancıbaşı to find the priest wherever he was

and bring him to the court, and to settle the case in the presence of viziers and

kadıasker in the Porte (dîvân-ı hümâyûnumda vüzerâ-yı a‘zâmım ve kadıaskerim

huzûrlarında murâfa‘a-i şer‘ olup ahvâlleri şer‘le görülüp).273 The fact that the

patriarch, after a problem with the priest he had appointed, turned to the Porte in an

attempt to recover his financial losses, shows that the relationship between the state

and the church was much more entangled than previously thought.

273 Edirne monlâsına ve Edirne bostancıbaşısına hüküm ki

İstanbul’da Rum taifesinin patriki olan (…) nâm patrik südde-i sa‘âdetime arz-ı hâl idüp nefs-i

Edirne’de vâkı‘ patrikliğe müte‘allik mîrî rüsûmı ve kendüye aid olan hukûkı ve rüsûmâtı ahz u kabz

etmek içün gönderdiği Papa Tarsus nâm rahib ahz u kabz idüp bundan akdem Asitane-i sa‘âdete

götürülüp üzerinde küllî akçe kalmağla dîvân-ı hümâyûnuma murâfa‘aya da‘vet olundukda firâr

idüp şer‘le da‘vâları dîvân-ı hümâyûnumda görülüp icrâ-yı hakk olunmak şer‘le ahvâlleri görülmek

emrim olmuşdur buyurdum ki vüsûl buldukda bu bâbda sâdır olan emrim üzre amel idüp dahi

mezkûr râhib her kande bulunur ise getirüp Asitâne-i sa‘âdetime ihzâr eyleyesin ki gelüp dîvân-ı

hümâyûnumda vüzerâ-yı izâmım ve kadıaskerim huzûrlarında murâfa‘a-i şer‘ olup ahvâlleri şer‘le

görülüp ihkâk..

117

The problems with the property of the church and the property of the

monastic vakfs are mostly related to interference with them. For example, in order

1092 of the 12th defter (1689), one of the monks of the Tur-ı Sina monastery

complained about the seizure of the mill, one of the properties of the monastery

vakf, by Voyvoda Saltık on the grounds that it belonged to him. The mill was in

Kavarta hass and was registered before the conquest as a monastery vakf property

and after the conquest it was recorded as a vakf of the mill (Kavarta hâssı dâhilinde

kable’l-feth manastır-ı mezbûrun vakfı olmağla ba‘de’l-feth selâtîn-i maziyye

temlîki ile defter-i cedîd-i hâkânîde mukayyed evkâfdan olan değirmende).

However, Saltık had seized this property. Even though the monks had an order on

this matter, justice has not been delivered yet. In the order that was sent to the

serasker Vizier Mustafa Pasha and the qadi of Balçık, it was ordered that Saltık had

no right to seize it, and he was asked to be sent to Babadağı along with an officer.274

In most of the orders, as in this one, it was requested that the property should not be

interfered with or damaged, emphasising that those who committed such acts had

no right to do so and that they should be prevented.

A/4th order on page 141 of the Şikâyet Defter numbered Cod. Mixt.no. 683

(1675), the metropolitan of Cisr-i Ergene petitioned that the inheritance left behind

by the monks and priests living there had always belonged to the metropolitans

274 Babadağı cânibinde serasker Vezîr Mustafa Paşa’ya ve Balçık kâdîsına hüküm ki

Tur-ı Sina manastır ruhbânlarından (…) nâm rahib gelüp kazâ-i mezbûrda Kavarta hâssı dâhilinde

kable’l-feth manastır-ı mezbûrun vakfı olmağla ba‘de’l-feth selâtîn-i mazenne temlîki ile defter-i

cedîd-i hâkânîde mukayyed evkâfdan olan değirmende kimesnenin alakası yoğiken hâss-ı merkûm

voyvodası Saltık nâm kimesne zikr olunan değirmen hâssı toprağında kadîmî tapulı ve resmlü

değirmendir diyü bin doksan (…) senesinde fuzûlî zabt eylediğin ve bu bâbda hüccet-i şer‘iyyesi

olduğun bildirüp mûcebince birkaç defa mahallinde murâfa‘a olmak istedikde hevâsına tâbi‘ kâdîya

istinâd idüp icrâ-yı hakk olunmadığın bildirüp zâbiti ma‘rifetiyle Babadağı’na ihzâr olunmak içün

yazılmışdır.

Evâhir-i R sene 1100

118

according to their old customs (Kazâ-i mezbûre kefere tâifesinin metropelidi (…)

nâm pelid gelüp kazâ-i mezbûrede olan keşiş ve papas ve …. metrûkâtları mu‘tâd-ı

kadîm üzre metrepolid olanlara aid olup). However, when the monk in one of the

villages of the vakf died, one of the trustees of the Sultan Murad Han Vakf in this

region, appointed a deputy to receive the inheritance for the metropolitan in

accordance with the berât in his hand (dahi mu‘tâd-ı kadîm ve elinde olan berâtı

mûcebince metrûkâtın ahz u kabz etmek içün tarafından vekîl nasb idüp

gönderdikde). However, the subaşı, vakf trustees and other officials of the village

prevented the delivery of the inheritance by stating that the taxes of the foundation

were not paid in full (evkâf-ı mezbûre karyesinin subaşısı ve mütevellîsi vesâir örf

tâifesi mücerred ahz ve celb için mâni‘ olup mezbûr vakfın mahsûlini küllî noksân

müterettib olduğun bildirüp). In the hüküm sent to the recent of the region, it was

ordered that the matter be dealt with on the spot in accordance with the sharia

(mahallinde şer‘le görülmek içün hükm yazılmışdır).275

All examples given above are also an indication of the interaction between

the state and the monastic vakfs in financial matters. They also show that when the

Church and its members’ properties are damaged, they were able to seek their rights

by using their complaint rights in several legal bodies in the capital and the

provinces of the Ottoman Empire. The members of the Church vakfs tried to

275 Cisr-i Ergene nâibine hüküm ki

Kazâ-i mezbûre kefere tâifesinin metropelidi (…) nâm pelid gelüp kazâ-i mezbûrede olan keşiş ve

papas ve …. metrûkâtları mu‘tâd-ı kadîm üzre metrepolid olanlara aid olup âhardan bir vechile dahl

olunmak îcâb etmez iken hâlâ kazâ-i mezbûrede vâkı‘ merhûm Sultan Murad Hân evkâfının

mütevellîsi olan (…) nâm kimesne evkâf-ı karyelerinden (…) nâm karyede keşiş olan (…) nâm rahib

mürd olup bu dahi mu‘tâd-ı kadîm ve elinde olan berâtı mûcebince metrûkâtın ahz u kabz etmek

içün tarafından vekîl nasb idüp gönderdikde evkâf-ı mezbûre karyesinin subaşısı ve mütevellîsi

vesâir örf tâifesi mücerred ahz ve celb için mâni‘ olup mezbûr vakfın mahsûlini küllî noksân

müterettib olduğun bildirüp emr-i şerîfim ricâ etmeğin mahallinde şer‘le görülmek içün hükm

yazılmışdır.

Fî evâil-i R sene 86

119

regulate their relations with the state authorities and to negotiate their position both

as units subject to taxation and as ecclesiastical entities. The monks took an effort to

appear as law-abiding and reliable taxpayers in their official contacts with such state

representatives as qadis and tımar holders.276 However, there are some ambiguities

and gaps in these issues in defters. In order to fill these gaps, the parameters which

are the land ownership status of the area, the presence or absence of a Muslim

population in the vicinity, and the relationship between the local authorities and the

dhimmi communities are to be taken into consideration to conduct a comprehensive

understanding of the issues.

Another important issue that we come across in the defters is the lending of

money from the foundations to the patriarch or other church members and its

repayment with interest (murabaha). The earliest example of this issue in the

records analyzed is in the 475th order of the 187th Şikâyet Defter dated 1675. Such

early examples have not been included in studies before, although examples of

these problems were encountered in the 18th and 19th centuries. The relations of

Muslim foundations with the Church and the patriarch will be the main subject of a

prospective study and here, suffice it to provide a brief introduction to these

relations and to include their existence in the literature. The first order concerns a

patriarch who borrowed money from the trustee of a Muslim vakf. Mehmed, one of

the trustees of the Ayşe Hatun Vakf in Istanbul by holding a berât lent 7,000 akçes to

the Greek Orthodox Patriarch from the funds of the vakf with murâbaha and with

the guarantorship of several dhimmis (zimmîlerin kefâletleriyle murâbaha ile yedi

bin esedî guruş alup). Although a year has passed, the patriarch did not pay the debt

276 Laiou, 12.

120

(senesi hulûl idüp hâliyâ bu meblağ-ı mezbûrı ribhi ile taleb eyledikde vermekde

te‘allül eyledikde), and he made excuses for not giving the money even though

Mehmed had a deed in his hand (bu bâbda hüccet-i şer‘iyyesi olduğun bildirüp), the

qadi of Istanbul was ordered to allocate this amount from the patriarch or his

guarantors in accordance with this order.277

We see similar orders in the 12th Şikâyet Defter dated 1689. In the 1095th

order of the defter, Mustafa who was one trustee of the same Ayşe Hatun Vakf

which is also included in the above order, made a petition, and declared that all the

money of the foundation was in the possession of the patriarch of Constantinople

(probably Kallinikos II) (vakf-ı mezbûrun nükûdunun cümlesi İstanbul'da Rûm

patriği zimmetinde olmağla). The trustee demanded 2,500 kuruş on the condition

that the amount bring a profit of 10 to 11.5 per year, which the patriarch refused to

give (meblağ-ı mezbûr deyn-i şer‘î ve ilzâm-ı ribh olınan senelerün ona on bir

buçuk hisâbı üzre iki bin beş yüz guruş mu‘âmelesin taleb eyledükde virmekde

te‘allül ve inâd eylemeğle). Then, in addition to the mîrî rüsûm, it was ordered that

the money of the vakf and interest be given to the creditors in proportion to their

shares every year according to their income (bundan akdem mîrî rüsûmdan mâ‘adâ

vakf ve murâbahalu deynleri her sene îrâdlarına göre ber vech-i taksît tedrîcli

ashâb-ı duyûna senede guremâdan hisselerine isâbet itdüği mertebe virilmek).278

277 İstanbul kâdîsına hüküm ki

İstanbul’da vâkı‘ Ayişe Hatun evkâfının berât-ı şerîfimle mütevellîsi olan Mehmed zîde kadruhu arzı

hâl idüp bundan akdem Rum patriki olan (…) nâm zimmî vakf-ı mezbûrun nükûdundan (…) ve (…)

ve (…) nâm zimmîlerin kefâletleriyle murâbaha ile yedi bin esedî guruş alup ve senesi hulûl idüp

hâliyâ bu meblağ-ı mezbûrı ribhi ile taleb eyledikde vermekde te‘allül eyledikde ve bu bâbda hücceti

şer‘iyyesi olduğun bildirüp hüccet-i şer‘iyye mûcebince amel olunup meblağ-ı mezbûr kendüden

veyahud ve kefillerinden alıverilmek emr-i şerîfim ricâ etmeğin şer‘le alıverilmek içün yazılmışdır.

Fî evâil-i L sene 86

278 İstanbul kãimmakãmı paşaya ve kãdîsına hüküm ki:

Mahmiyye-i İstanbul'da vâkı‘ müteveffiye el-Hâce Âyişe Hâtûn evkãfınun berât-ı şerîfümle

mütevellîsi olan Mustafâ gelüp vakf-ı mezbûrun nükúdunun cümlesi İstanbul'da Rûm patriği

121

Notwithstanding the exceptions in the hüküms, the interaction between

monastery and the state was characterized by considerations of lasting mutual

benefit and cooperation. These monasteries adapted their actions according to their

social and financial considerations. It can be assumed that they were considered

politically safe and profitable for the state on the whole, despite the occasional

disorders in the monasteries. It should be noted that the monasteries, in their

entrepreneurial endeavors, had two primary and persistent objectives. The first was

to acquire and retain secure title and control over their land holdings, and the

second was to secure the most extensive and permanent tax relief possible. This is

also supported by the fact that most of the orders include expressions such as

ruhban fukarası as being in a state of misery (perişân olmağın) for a legal

strategy.279 While the form expressions emphasized their status as the subjects of the

sultan who must be protected the latter was a call to the sultan to cooperation for the

continuation of the taxation of the monasteries.

It has already been established from the sources analyzed that the state’s

attitude towards the economic activities or economic power of monasteries was

shaped according to the conditions of the period and the context. It is essential to

draw from the sources how the monasteries and their representatives were seen

from the state's point of view, and what the state's and the judiciary's attitudes were

when they faced problems. The study overcame difficulties such as thematic

zimmetinde olmağla meblağ-ı mezbûr deyn-i şer‘î ve ilzâm-ı ribh olınan senelerün ona on bir buçuk

hisâbı üzre iki bin beş yüz guruş mu‘âmelesin taleb eyledükde virmekde te‘allül ve inâd eylemeğle

bundan akdem mîrî rüsûmdan mâ‘adâ vakf ve murâbahalu deynleri her sene îrâdlarına göre ber

vech-i taksît tedrîcli ashâb-ı duyûna senede guremâdan hisselerine isâbet itdüği mertebe virilmek

emr-i şerîfüm virilmeğle ol bâbda hükm-i hümâyûnum recâ eylemeğin fermân-ı sâbık mûcebince

sâire virdüği minvâl üzre ancak buna dahi virilmek emrüm olmışdur diyü yazılmışdur.

Fî evâhir-i R sene [1]100 [11-20 Şubat 1689]

279 For the orders in which these expressions are used, see Şikâyet Defter 12/789, 12/841, 13/174,

13/939.

122

limitations and discontinuities with the help of a representative sample of sources

and some observations on specific cases. Of course, these hüküms are not sufficient

to provide a complete picture of each and every monastic vakfs in the empire.

However, they do give us information about their inhabitants, possessions, and

interests, as well as their effects and results on the perspective of the state.

However, the image that can be drawn on the basis of these sources shows that

monastic vakfs in question did not suffer from the crisis mentioned in the previous

chapters. What is more, in some of the cases analyzed here patriarchs and

metropolitans also interacted with the Ottoman central administration without any

problems.

123

CHAPTER IV

CONCLUSION

This study focused on building a new empirical basis for understanding the

economic interactions between the Orthodox Church and the Ottoman

administration through Ottoman archival sources. These sources consist of the Atik

Şikâyet Defters and Mühimme Defters covering the period between 1650-1690. As

mentioned throughout this thesis, the aforementioned defters contain numerous

examples where economy is concerned. These series of orders are valuable in that

the subjects concentrate on similar issues and the resolutions offer similar attitudes

by the Ottoman state. Especially during the economic turmoil in the empire in the

17thcentury, the relations between State and the Church serve as a catalyst for

understanding the period. The study brings to light the dynamics of their

interactions by reconnecting financial areas that were in contact in the century, by

tracing the economic interaction between the Orthodox Church and the Ottoman

administration outline a new synchronic process of transfer and interaction between

them.

The cumulative experience of centuries of skillful adaptation to political,

social, and financial circumstances was used and refined by both parties in their

interaction areas, especially financial matters. In fact, it can be argued that the

Church, its members, and its institutions as a whole were seen as political and

financial players to maintain order. The point at the heart of this thesis is that in its

dealings with the Ottoman state, the Orthodox Church, with its members and

124

monastic foundations, as socio-economic as well as ecclesiastical institutions, has

also been the subject of negotiation rather than mere conflict. Their relationship was

also based on considerations of lasting mutual benefit.

These petitions and complaints by the members of the Orthodox Church

reflect a certain concern for the protection, consolidation, and expansion of the

prerogatives, privileges, status, and property against all sides, including other

church members and state officials. In the 17th century, the boundaries of economic

activities, taxation and financial matters were highly permeable, involving many

intermediaries. The impact of these activities was also very strong on institutions

and communities. The economic functions of the Church from the perspective of the

state, which we can observe in the registers, also provide us with insights into the

duties and missions of church members and communities in these functions. We are

confronted with the fact that the imagined reality of the period is different between

the lines of these registers, in which we trace disagreements, arguments and

sometimes conflicts of interest. This study is a humble contribution to pave the way

for the construction of this complicated picture, which needs to be further explored.

It is obviously impossible to draw clear conclusions from a sample of no

more than a hundred petitions. Nevertheless, some observations about this group of

petitions, all of which concern the Church and its members, can be made and some

signigicant conclusions can be drawn. As far as the content is concerned, the

petitions here hardly confirm the common stereotypes about the Great Church being

in captivity or under domination as noted by such scholars as Runciman or

Papadopoullos. Moreover, in most cases under discussion, Church members seem to

be preoccupied with their own concerns, many of which are financial in nature. An

125

impressive amount of archival material from these defters contributes to the

understanding of the economic interactions of the Church with the State. In his

studies of ecclesiastical taxes and the tax administration of the Greek Orthodox

Church, Kabrda concludes that the Church actually came to cooperate with the state

in consolidating Ottoman rule over the flock. At the same time, the Church

succeeded in preserving and developing identity and religion. It can be argued,

therefore, that mutual interests had created a political and financial relationship

between the Church and the State. The documents analyzed in this thesis support

this view.

The members of Church constituted an important part of Ottoman social and

economic life. The taxation of the church and the role of church members as tax

collectors, are topics discussed by several scholars including İnalcık, Kenanoğlu

and Papademetriou. However, the documents analyzed in this thesis shows that the

economic interaction between the Church and the state was not limited to the role of

the members of the Church as tax collectors for the state. When the relevant

documents are studied in a more systematic fashion, it becomes clear even in the

area of taxation that both the state and the church had to interact with each other in

practice for the collection of a myriad of state and ecclesiastical taxes by and from

the Church.

In particular, the third chapter of the study devotes a great deal of space to

monastic vakfs, focusing on their economic function for both the church and the

state. The vakfs apparently had a positive effect on financial transactions in

economy of these instutions. In the case of monastic or church vakfs in the Ottoman

period, one is faced with the challenge of the rarity of the relevant material. It was

126

felt that this difficulty could be overcome by researching and analyzing the

complaints of people from all walks of life who were seeking solutions to their

social and financial problems. In particular, some of the issues that can be observed

in the defters are the role of the qadis and the taxpayers together with the local

population in the areas where church vakfs were established, and the attitude of the

central authority towards these vakfs. In the Ottoman countryside, monasteries were

stable and largely productive social and economic units. Therefore, these vakfs also

placed the Orthodox Church and the Ottoman administration in many ways of

interaction.

In conclusion, the 17th-century economic interactions between the Ottoman

State and the Greek Orthodox Church have been systematically examined through

Atik Şikâyet Defters and Mühimme Defters, with a focus on taxation and

foundations (vakfs). On the other hand, their 18th-century economic interactions

mostly were studied in the light of the Piskopos Mukâta‘ası registers. This research

sheds light on the intricate dynamics of fiscal relations during that 17th century,

revealing how the Ottoman state and the Church were intertwined economically.

Analyzed defters in thesis offer valuable insights into the nuances of taxation

policies and the management of vakf properties. However, this study merely

scratches the surface of a complex historical relationship that requires further

exploration. Further research for their relations in upcoming centuries is necessary

to delve deeper into the socio-political contexts surrounding these transactions and

explore the long-term ramifications on both parties' financial stability. Future

research should explore the long-term effects of these economic interactions and

their impact on social structures between religious institutions and state authorities.

127

Furthermore, these interactions not only influenced their respective economies but

also had broader implications on the social and political dynamics within their

institutions. An understanding of this historical interplay can contribute to a more

comprehensive understanding of wider socio-economic processes and their impact

on church-state relations. This research underscores the importance of analyzing

primary sources to gain a comprehensive understanding of historical events and

emphasizes the need for further investigations to enrich our knowledge of this

critical era for both the Greek Orthodox Church and the Ottoman state.

128

129

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Unpublished Primary Sources

Directorate of State Archives

Şikâyet Kalemi Defterleri (A.{DVNS.ŞKT.d): 1/2/3/5/6/8/187/11/12/15.

Published Primary Sources

Alan, Ercan. “95 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (Tahlil, Transkripsiyonu ve Özeti)”,

Master’s Thesis, Marmara University, 2008.

Ateş, Murat. “88 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri'nin Transkripsiyon ve

Değerlendirmesi, 1637-1638 (H. 1046-1048)”, Master’s Thesis, Van Yüzüncü Yıl

University, 2008.

Demir, Mesut. “1686-1687 (h.1097-1098) Tarihli Atik Şikâyet Defteri'nin

transkripsiyon ve değerlendirilmesi”, Master’s Thesis, Marmara University, 2010.

Demir, Selçuk. “75 Numaralı Mühimme Defterinin Transkripsiyon ve

Değerlendirilmesi, (s. 1-170)”, Master’s Thesis, Atatürk University, 2008.

Ekin, Kaan. “9 numaralı şikâyet defterinin transkripsiyonu ve incelenmesi”,

Master’s Thesis, Sakarya University, 2019.

Erdem, Baki Ümit. “14 numaralı Atik Şikâyet Defteri (h.1101-1102/ m. 1690-1691)

transkripsiyonu ve değerlendirilmesi”, Master’s Thesis, Marmara University, 2017.

Gelir Çelebi, Azize. “93 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (1069-1071/1658-1660),

Tahlil, Transkripsiyonu ve Özet”, Master’s Thesis, Marmara University, 2008.

Gökçe, Serpil. “77 Numaralı Mühimme Defterinin Transkripsiyonu ve Hükümlerin

Özeti (1-370)”, Master’s Thesis, Ağrı İbrahim Çeçen University, 2019.

130

Hurç, Muhammet Murat. “13 numaralı Atik Şikâyet Fefteri (VR. 143-302)

(Değerlendirme-çeviri-metin)”, Master’s Thesis, Marmara University, 2019.

Karaca, Müjge. “94 Numaralı Mühimme Defterinin Özeti, Transkripsiyon ve

Değerlendirmesi”, Master’s Thesis, Atatürk University, 2008.

Keleş, Adem. “75 numaralı Mühimme Defteri'nin transkripsiyonu ve

değerlendirilmesi (s. 172-331)”, Master’s Thesis, Atatürk University, 2011.

Majer, Hans G. Das Osmanische Registerbuch der Beschwerden (Şikâyet

Defteri)vom Jahre 1675, Wien 1984.

Mercimek, Yunus. "96 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri'nin Transkripsiyonu ve

Değerlendirilmesi (S. 1-99)." Master’s Thesis, Gaziantep University, 2013.

Osmanoğlu, Selçuk. “92 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (Özet ve Transkripsiyon)”,

Master’s Thesis, Marmara University, 2004.

Sarınay, Yusuf. 85 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri, 1040-1041 (1042)/1630-1631

(1632): Özet, Transkripsiyon, Indeks. Ankara: T.C. Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri

Genel Müdürlüğü, 2002.

Sarınay, Yusuf and Osman Yıldırım. 82 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri, 1026-

1027/1617-1618: Özet, transkripsiyon, Indeks ve Tıpkıbasım. Ankara: T.C.

Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, 2000.

Şakar, Muzaffer Fehmi. “1101-1102 (1690-1691) Tarihli 100 Numaralı Mühimme

Defteri Transkripsiyonu ve Değerlendirilmesi”, Master’s Thesis, Marmara

University, 2007.

Tan, Mehmet Ali. “99 numaralı mühimme defteri transkripsiyonu ve

değerlendirmesi (91-180)”, Master’s Thesis, Bitlis Eren University, 2015.

131

Tataroğlu, Yasemin. “4 Numaralı Atik Şikâyet Defteri 1665-1670 (H. 1075-1081)’’,

Master’s Thesis, Marmara University, 2015.

Türk, Hasan Basri. “13 numaralı Atik Şikâyet Defteri (Vr.1-142) (Değerlendirmeçeviri-

metin)”, Master’s Thesis, Marmara University, 2019.

Vergili, Muhammed. “Atik Şikâyet Defteri (7 numaralı H.1081-1083/ M.1671-

1672) Transkripsiyon- değerlendirme”, Master’s Thesis, Fatih Sultan

MehmetVakıf University, 2019.

Yayvan, M.Alper. “96 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri'nin Transkripsiyonu ve

Değerlendirilmesi (H. 1089-1090/M. 1678-1679) (s. 100-199)”, Master’s Thesis,

Gaziantep University, 2014.

Yıldız Karacan, Tuba Meryem. “101 no’lu Mühimme Defteri’nin transkripsiyonu

ve değerlendirmesi”, Master’s Thesis, Akdeniz University, 2010.

Secondary Sources

Adıyeke, Nuri. "XVII. ve XVIII. Yüzyıllarda Resmo (Girit) Manastır Vakıfları".

BELLETEN 79 (2015): 559-588.

Akgündüz, Ahmed. İslam Hukukunda ve İslam Tatbikatında Vakıf Müessesesi.

İstanbul: Osmanlı Araştırmaları Vakfı, 1996: 48-55.

Aktaş, Necati. Atik Şikâyet Defteri”, TDV. İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 1991.

Alexander (Alexandropoulos), John C. “The Lord Giveth and the Lord Taken

Away: Athos and the Confiscation Affair of 1568-1569,” Mount Athos in the 14th

16th Centuries, (Athonika Symmeikta 4), Athens (I.B.E./E.I.E.) 1997:473-504.

Alexander (Alexandropoulos), John C. “The Turkish Documents of the Orthodox

Christian Monasteries as Sources for the Study of the Ottoman Period in Greece .”

132

Essay in Balkanlar ve İtalya’da Şehir ve Manastır Arşivlerindeki Türkçe Belgeler

Semineri: 16-17 Kasım 2000. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 2003.

Anastassiadis, Tassos. “Eastern Orthodoxy. An Histoire Croisée and Connected

History Approach.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique moderne et

contemporain, no. 2 (2020). https://doi.org/10.4000/bchmc.463.

Arıkan, Zeki. “Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda İhracı Yasak Mallar (Memnu Mallar)”,

Prof. Dr. Bekir Kütükoğlu’na Armağan, İstanbul, 1991.

Arnakis, G. Georgiades. “The Greek Church of Constantinople and the Ottoman

Empire.” The Journal of Modern History 24, no. 3 (1952): 235–50.

https://doi.org/10.1086/237518.

Baer, Marc David. Honored by the glory of islam: Conversion and conquest in

Ottoman Europe. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Balta, Evangelia. “Ottoman Archives in Greece.” In Balkanlar ve İtalya’da Şehir

ve Manastır Arşivlerindeki Türkçe Belgeler Semineri: 16-17 Kasım 2000, Ankara:

Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 2003.

Balta, Evengelia. “Turkish Archival Material in Greek Historiography”, Türkiye

Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi, Vol.8, No.15, 2010, 755-792.

Barkey, Karen. “Maintaining Empire: An Expression of Tolerance.” Chapter.

In Empire of Difference: The Ottomans in Comparative Perspective, 109–53.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Bauck, Sönke, and Thomas Maier. 2015. “Entangled History.” InterAmerican Wiki:

Terms - Concepts - Critical Perspectives:

Bayraktar Tellan, Elif. The Patriarch and the Sultan: The Struggle for Authority and

the Quest for Order in the Eighteenth-Century Ottoman Empire. A Ph.D.

Dissertation. Ankara, 2011.

133

Bokenkotter, Thomas S. A concise history of the Catholic Church. New York:

Doubleday, 2005.

Braude, Benjamin. Christians & Jews in the Ottoman empire. Boulder, CO: Lynne

Rienner Publishers, Inc., 2014.

Burke, Peter. Cultural Hybridity . Cambridge: Polity Press, 2009.

Conrad, S. Competing visions of world order: Global moments and movements

1880s-1930s. Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.

Çolak, Hasan, and Elif Bayraktar-Tellan. The Orthodox Church as an Ottoman

institution: A study of early modern Patriarchal Berât s. Istanbul: The Isis Press,

2019.

Çolak, Hasan. The Orthodox Church in the Modern Middle East: Relations between

the Ottoman Central Administration and the Patriarchates of Antioch, Jerusalem

and Alexandria. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2015.

Darling, Linda T. Revenue-raising and legitimacy: Tax collection and finance

administration in the Ottoman Empire, 1560-1660. Leiden: Brill, 1996.

Douki, Caroline and Philippe Minard. “Global History, Connected Histories: A Shift of

Historiographical Scale?” Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine 54, (May 2007):

7-21.

Ekelund, Robert B. Sacred Trust the Medieval Church as an Economic Firm. New

York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Ercan, Yavuz. Kudüs Ermeni Patrikhanesi, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1988.

Faroqhi, Suraiya. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu ve Etrafındaki Dünya. İstanbul: Kitap,

2010.

Firges, Pascal et al. Well-connected Domains: Towards an Entangled Ottoman

History. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2014.

134

Fotić, Aleksandar. “Athonite Travelling Monks and the Ottoman Authorities (16th-

18th Centuries)”, Perspectives on Ottoman Studies. Papers from the 18th

Symposium of the International Committee of Pre-Ottoman and Ottoman Studies

(CIEPO) at the University of Zagreb 2008, eds. Ekrem Čaušević, Nenad Moačanin,

Vjeran Kursar, Berlin: LIT Verlag, (2010): 157-166.

Fotić , Aleksandar. “Concealed Donation or a Sale: The Acquisition of Monastick

Property (15th – 17th C.)”, XIV. Türk Tarih Kongresi (Ankara, 9–13 Eylül 2002).

Kongreye Sunulan Bildiriler, II. Cilt – I. Kısım, (Ankara: TTK Basımevi 2005):

721-727.

Fotić, Aleksandar. “The Official Explanations for The Confiscation and Sale of

Monasteries (Churches) and Their Estates at the Time of Selim II”, Turcica, vol.

XXVI, (1994): 33-54.

Frazee, Charles A. Catholics and sultans the Church and the Ottoman Empire,

1453-1923. London: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Gara, Eleni and Olar, Ovidiu. "Confession-Building and Authority: The Great

Church and the Ottoman State in the First half of the Seventeenth Century "

In Entangled Confessionalizations?: Dialogic Perspectives on the Politics of Piety

and Community Building in the Ottoman Empire, 15th18th Centuries edited by

Tijana Krstic and Derin Terzioglu, 159-214. Piscataway, NJ, USA: Gorgias Press,

2022. https://doi.org/10.31826/9781463243586-008

Gedeon, Manuel. Episima Grammata Tourkika, Konstantinoupoli: Patriarchikou

Typografeiou, 1910.

Gibb, Hamilton and Harold Bowen. Islamic Society and the West: A Study of the

Impact of Western Civilization on Moslem Culture in the Near East, 1969.

135

Goffman, Daniel. “Ottoman Millets in the Early Seventeenth Century.” New

Perspectives on Turkey 11 (1994): 135–58.

https://doi.org/10.1017/s0896634600001011.

Goffman, Daniel. The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Greenwood, Antony Warren. “Istanbul’s Meat Ordering: A Study of the Celepkeşan

System”, PhD Dissertation, University of Chicago, (1988).

Hadjiantoniou, G. A. Protestant Patriarch: The Life of Cyril Lukaris (1572–1638)

Patriarch of Constantinople, London: The Epworth Press, 1961.

Herren, Madeleine, Martin Rüesch, and Christiane Sibille. Transcultural history:

Theories, methods, sources. Berlino: Springer, 2012.

Heyberger, Bernard. "1 East and West". In Arabic Christianity between the

Ottoman Levant and Eastern Europe, (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2021)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004465831_002

Imber, Colin. Ebu'ssuud The Islamic Legal Tradition. Stanford: Stanford University

Press, 1997.

İnalcık, Halil. “Şikâyet Hakkı: Arz-ı Hal ve Arz-ı Mahzarlar,” The Journal of

Ottoman Studies, no. VII–VIII (1988): 33-55.

İnalcik, "Military and Fiscal Transformation in the Ottoman Empire, 1600-1700",

Archivum Ottomanicum, VI (1980): 283-337.

İnalcik, Halil. “The Policy of Mehmed II toward the Greek Population of Istanbul

and the Byzantine Buildings of the City.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 23/24 (1969):

229–49. https://doi.org/10.2307/1291293.

İnalcık, Halil. “The Status of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch under the Ottomans” in

Essays in Ottoman History, ed. Halil İnalcık. İstanbul: Eren, 1998.

136

Kabrda, Joseph. Le Système Fiscal de l’Eglise Orthodoxe dans l’Empire Ottoman

(D’après les documents turcs), Brno: Universita J. E.Purkyně, 1969.

Kalkandjieva, Daniela. “Monasticism in Bulgaria.” In Monasticism in Eastern

Europe and the Former Soviet Republics, edited by I. A. Murzahu, New York:

Routledge, 2016.

Kenanoğlu, Macit. Osmanlı Millet Sistemi: Mit ve Gerçek. İstanbul: Klasik, 2004.

Kermeli, Eugenia. “Central Administration Versus Provincial Arbitrary

Governance. Patmos and Mount Athos Monasteries in the 16th Century.” Byzantine

and Modern Greek Studies 32 (2): 2008): 189-202.

Kermeli, Eugenia. “Ebu’s-Suud’s Definition of Church Vakfs: Theory and Practice

in Ottoman Law” in Islamic Law Theory and Practice, R. Gleave, E. Kermeli

(eds.), (London: I.B. Tauris, 1997): 141-156.

Kermeli, Eugenia. “Kyrillos Loukaris’ Legacy : Reformation as a Catalyst in the 17

th Century Ottoman Society: Reformation in the 17 Th Century Ottoman Society.”

The Muslim World 107, no. 4 (2017): 737–53.

Kermeli, Eugenia. "The confiscation and repossession of monastic properties in

Mount Athos and Patmos Monasteries , 1568-1570", Bulgarian Historical Review

28/34. (2000): 39-53.

Kiminas, Demetrius. The ecumenical patriarchate: A history of its metropolitanates

with annotated hierarch catalogs. San Bernardino, CA: Borgo Press, 2009.

Kitromilides, Paschalis. “Orthodoxy and the West: Reformation to Enlightenment.”

Chapter. In The Cambridge History of Christianity, edited by Michael Angold,

5:187–209. Cambridge History of Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 2006. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521811132.009.

137

Knapp, Gudrun-Axeli. “‘Intersectionality’ - Ein neues Paradigma der

Geschlechterforschung,” in Was kommt nach der Genderforschung? Zur Zukunft

der feministischen Theoriebildung, ed. Rita Casale, Bielefeld: 2008.

Kolovos, Elias. “Negotiating for State Protection: Çiftlik-Holding by the Athonite

Monasteries (Xeropotamou Monastery, Fifteenth-Sixteenth c.).” : 197-209.

Kolovos, Elias. “The Monks and the Sultan outside the Newly Conquered Ottoman

Salonica in 1430”. Republished with corrections and additions from the Journal of

Turkish Studies, vol. 40 (December 2013) [= Defterology. Festchrift in Honor of

Heath Lowry], : 271-279.

Kolovos, Elias. Christian Vakıfs of Monasteries in the Ottoman Greek Lands from

the Fourteenth to Eighteenth Centuries", in Sabine Mohasseb Saliba (ed.), Les

fondations pieuses Waqfs chez les chretiens et les juifs (Paris, 2016): 103-127.

Konortas, Paraskevas. ‘From Tâ'ife to Millet: Ottoman Terms for the Ottoman

Greek Orthodox Community’, in D. Gondicas and C. Issawi (eds.), Ottoman

Greeks in the Age of Nationalism: Politics, Economy and Society in the Nineteenth

Century (Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press, 1999).

Konortas, “Les Contributions Ecclésiastiques ‘Patriarchike Zeteia’ et ‘Basilikon

Charatzion’, Contribution À L’Histoire économique du Patriarcat Oecuménique

aux XVe et XVIe Siècles” in Actes du IIe Colloque International d’Histoire

(Athènes, 18-25 Septembre 1983) économiques Méditerranéennes équilibres et

Intercommunications XIIIe-XIXe siècles, Vol III, Athens: 1986.

Konortas, Othomanikes Theoriseis gia to Oikoumeniko Patriarcheio: 17os- arches

20ou Aiona [Ottoman Perspectives on the Ecumenical Patriarchate], Athens:

Ekdoseis Alexandreia, 1998.

Kotzageorgis, Phokion P. “About the Fiscal Status of the Greek Orthodox Church in

the 17th Century”, Turcica 40, (2008): 67-80.

138

Kovács, Nándor Erik. “17. Yüzyılda Divan-ı Hümayun’un Şikâyet Defterleri”,

Osmanlı Coğrafyası Kültürel Arşiv Mirasının Yönetimi ve Tapu Arşivlerinin Rolü

Uluslararası Kongresi: Bildiriler, no. 1, Ankara (2012) : 273-284.

Krstić, Tijana. "Can We Speak of ‘Confessionalization’ Beyond the Reformation?

Ottoman Communities, Politics of Piety, and Empire-Building in An Early Modern

Eurasian Perspective " In Entangled Confessionalizations?: Dialogic Perspectives

on the Politics of Piety and Community Building in the Ottoman Empire, 15th18th

Centuries edited by Tijana Krstic and Derin Terzioglu, 25-116. Piscataway, NJ,

USA: Gorgias Press, 2022. https://doi.org/10.31826/9781463243586-005

Kütükoğlu, Mübahat. ‘Berât’, TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi 5, 1992.

Laiou Angeliki E. and Cécile Morrisson. The Byzantine Economy. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Laiou, Sophia. “Diverging Realities of a Christian Vakıf, Sixteenth to Eighteenth

Centuries”, Turkish Historical Review, v.3, (2012): 1-18.

Leal, K.A. The Ottoman State and the Greek Orthodox of Istanbul: sovereignty and

identity at the turn of the eighteenth century (PhD Dissertation, Harvard University,

2003).

Leeuwen, Richard Van. Notables and clergy in Mount Lebanon: The khāzin sheikhs

and the Maronite Church, 1736-1840. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994.

Lowry, Heath W., and Nejat Göyünç. Studies in defterology: Ottoman society in the

fifteenth and sixteenth centuries = defterology. Istanbul: Isis Press, 1992.

Lûbenov, Avramov Rumen., Fotić Aleksandar, and Elias Kolovos, Monastic

Economy across Time: Wealth Management, Patterns, and Trends, Centre for

Advanced Study, 2021.

Marcus, Abraham. Middle East on the eve of modernity: Aleppo in the Eighteenth

Century. New York N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 1989.

139

McGuckin, John Anthony. In The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity.

Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.

Mikhail, Alan, and Christine M. Philliou. “The Ottoman Empire and the Imperial

Turn.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 54, no. 4 (2012): 721–45.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23274549.

Mumcu, Ahmet. Osmanlı Devleti’nde Siyaseten Katl, Ankara: Phoenix Yayınları,

2007.

Nyman, Jopi and Joel Kuortti. Reconstructing Hybridity: Post-Colonial Studies in

Transition, Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi, 2007.

Ozil, Ayşe. Anadolu Rumları: Osmanlı imparatorluğu’nun son Döneminde Millet

Sistemini Yeniden Düşünmek. İstanbul: Kitap, 2016.

Ozil, Ayşe. “Whose Property Is It? The State, Non-Muslim Communities, and the

Question of Property Ownership from the Late Ottoman Empire through the

Turkish Nation State.” Journal of the Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association 6,

no. 1 (2019): 211-235.

Pamuk, Şevket, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Paranın Tarihi, İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı

Yurt Yayınları,1999.

Pantazapoulos, Nicolaos I. Church and Law in the Balkan Peninsula during the

Ottoman Rule. Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1967.

Papachristou, Panayotis Alexandrou. The three faces of the phanariots: An inquiry

into the role and motivations of the Greek nobility under Ottoman rule, 1683-1821.

Ottawa: National Library of Canada = Bibliothèque nationale du Canada, 1993.

Papademetriou, Tom. Render unto the sultan: Power, authority, and the Greek

Orthodox Church in the early ottoman centuries. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

2015.

140

Papadopoullos,Theodore H. Studies and Documents Relating to the History of the

Greek Church and People under Turkish Domination. Aldershot: Variorum, 1952.

Parry, Kenneth, and John R. Hinnells. In The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern

Christianity. Oxford: Blackwell Pub., 2007.

Popivchak, Ronald Peter. " Popivchak, Ronald Peter. "Peter Mohila, Metropolitan

of Kiev (1633-47): Translation and Evaluation of his "Orthodox Confession of

Faith"" (1640)." Order No. 7601178, The Catholic University of America, 1975.

https://www.etu.edu.tr/dissertations-theses/peter-mohila-metropolitan-kiev-1633-

47/docview/302760296/se-2.

Reinhard, Wolfgang. “Reformation, Counter-Reformation, and the Early Modern

State a Reassessment.” The Catholic Historical Review 75, no. 3 (1989): 383–404.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25023084.

Roudometof, Victor, and Michalis N. Michael. 2010. "Economic Functions of

Monasticism in Cyprus: The Case of the Kykkos Monastery" Religions 1, no. 1: 54-

77. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel1010054

Runciman, Steven. The Great Church in Captivity: A Study of the Patriarchate of

Constantinople from the Eve of the Turkish Conquest to the Greek War of

Independence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968.

Santus, Cesare. "7. Sheikh ül-islam Feyzullah Efendi and the Armenian Patriarch

Awetikʿ: A Case of Entangled Confessional Disciplining?" In Entangled

Confessionalizations?: Dialogic Perspectives on the Politics of Piety and

Community Building in the Ottoman Empire, 15th18th Centuries edited by Tijana

Krstic and Derin Terzioglu, 233-254. Piscataway, NJ, USA: Gorgias Press,

2022. https://doi.org/10.31826/9781463243586-010.

Schacht, Joseph. İslam Hukukuna Giriş, Trans., Mehmet Dağ ve Abdülkadir Şener,

Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi, 1986.

141

Schaff, Philip, and David S. Schaff. The creeds of christendom: With A history and

critical notes. Baker Books, 2007.

Siltanen, Janet and Andrea Doucet, Gender Relations: Intersectionality and Beyond.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Smith, Thomas. An Account of the Greek Church, London: Miles Flesher & Richard

Davis, 1653.

Smyrlis, Kostis. Monasteries, Society, Economy, and the State in the Byzantine

Empire, in The Oxford Handbook of Christian Monasticism, ed. B. M. Kaczynski,

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020.

Soyer, Emel. XVI. yy. Divan Bürokrasi’sindeki Değişimlerin Bir Örneği Olarak

Mühimme Defterleri, İÜ Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Unpublished Phd thesis,

İstanbul 2007.

Stanford, Michael. Tarihin incelenmesi için Bir Kılavuz. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt

Yayınları, 2010.

Subrahmanyam, Sanjay. “Connected Histories: Notes towards a Reconfiguration of

Early Modern Eurasia,” Modern Asian Studies 31 (1997): 735–62.

Subrahmanyam, “Holding the World in Balance: The Connected Histories of the

Iberian Overseas Empires, 1500-1640.” American Historical Review, (December 2007):

1359-1385.

Şahin, M. Süreyya. Fener patrikhânesi ve türkiye. İstanbul: Ötüken, 1999.

“The Confession of Dositheus (Eastern Orthodox, 1672).” The Confession of

Dositheus (Eastern Orthodox). http://www.crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html.

Tuğluca, Murat. XVII. Yüzyıl Sonu Şikayet defterlerine göre Osmanlı Devlet-

Toplum Ilişkisinde şikayet Mekanizması ve işleyiş Biçimi. Ankara: Türk Tarih

Kurumu, 2016.

142

Ursinus, Michael. “Millet”, EI 2, Vol. VII, 1993.

Ursinus, Michael. “Petitions from Orthodox Church Officials to the Imperial

Diwan, 1675.” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 18 (1994): 235-248.

Ünal, Uğur., İskender Türe, and Salim Kaynar, Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi

Rehberi (İstanbul: T.C. Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, 2017).

Vaporis, Nomikos. Witnesses for christ: Orthodox christian neomartyrs of the

Ottoman period, 1437-1860. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2000.

Ware, Timothy. The Orthodox Church. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1997.

Werner, Michael and Bénédicte Zimmermann. “Beyond Comparison: Histoire

Croisée and the Challenge of Reflexivity.” History and Theory 45 (February 2006):

30-50.

Wittek, P. and P. Lemerle, Recherches sur l’Histoire et les Status des Monastères

Athonites sous la Domination Turque, Archives d’histoire du Droit Oriental 3

(1947).

Zachariadou, Elizabeth A. Deka Tourkika Eggrafa gia tin Megali Ekklisia (1483-

1520), Athens: Ethniko Idryma Ereunon, Institouto Byzantinon Ereunon, 1996.

Zachariadou, Elizabeth A. “Monks and Sailors Under the Ottoman

Sultans.” Oriente Moderno 20 (81), no. 1 (2001): 139-151.

Zachariadou, Elizabeth A. “Ottoman Documents from Archives of

Dionysiou(Mount Athos) 1495-1520.” Essay. In Romania and the Turks, c.1300-

c.1500. London: Variorum Reprints, 1985: 1-35.

Zachariadou, Elizabeth A. “Some Remarks about Dedications to Monasteries in the

Late 14th Century.” Essay in Ho Athos Stous 14o-15o Aiones: Mount Athos in the

14th-15th Centuries. (Athena: Ethniko Hidryma Ereunon, Inst. Byzantinon

Ereunon, 1997.

143

Zimmermann, Bénédicte. “Histoire Croisée: A Relational Process-Based

Approach,” Footprint 26, no.14, (Spring/Summer 2020): 7-14.