Vjeran Kursar

Non-Muslim Communal Divisions and Identities in the Early

Modern Ottoman Balkans and the Millet System Theory

Acceptance of Islamic law as the state law of the Ottoman Empire, though partially transformed through the kanun and in principle restricted to civil law, meant
the adoption of the sharia division of people along religious lines into believers and
non-believers, that is Muslims and non-Muslims. Monotheistic non-Muslims, namely,
Christians and Jews, were recognized by Islamic law as the "People of the Book," and
further categorized according to their relationship to the Islamic polity. Non-Muslims
living within the Abode of Islam made a theoretical agreement with the State,
which provided them with protection and the guarantee of basic rights, as
According to a prevailing narrative, in dealing with their non-Muslim subjects, the
%immh, the Ottomans adopted and applied classical Islamic conceptions. Furthermore, Ottoman non-Muslims of various denominations were organized into separate coherent entities based on a common religious creed, the so-called millets,. Along
these lines, Orthodox Christians were organized into the Orthodox millet (millet-i
Ram), Jews into the Jewish millet (millet-i Yahudijan), while members of the Armenian Church were organized into the Armenian millet (millet-i Ermeniyan). According
to traditional historiography, these entities (millets) enjoyed considerable communal
autonomy, especially in religious affairs, education, family law and, theoretically, in
all legal cases that included members of their own community and did not involve
Muslims. Religious dignitaries from the communities served at the same time as their
leaders and representatives vis-a-vis the authorities, acting as the millet bafis ("heads
of the millef). They were responsible for order and security in their communities and
were entrusted with the collection of taxes. In exchange, the state promoted diem
into the rank of state officials, appointed by the berate. Traditionally, the invention
of the millet system is credited to Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror. In 1454, one year
after the Fall of Constantinople, the Sultan appointed Gennadios Scholarios as the
Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and, accordingly, as head of all Orthodox
Christians in the Empire. Somewhat later Mehmed appointed Joachim as Patriarch
of the Armenian Church, and Moses Capsali as Chief Rabbi (haham bafi) of all Jews
of the Empire. The Sultan's real intention was to secure the loyalty of the conquered
non-Muslim peoples by binding their religious leaders to the Ottoman state.2

1 Claude Cahen, Dhimma, Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd ed., CD-ROM. Leiden: Brill 1999.
Henceafter: EF.
2 See H. A. R. Gibb and Harold Bowen, Islamic Society and the West: A Study of the Impact of
Western Civilisation on Moslem Culture in the Near East. London, New York, Toronto: Oxford

98

Kursar

According to widely accepted opinion, after the Ottoman conquest indigenous

Balkan societies were left without their ruling elites, who were either forced to leave
their countries or annihilated by the Ottomans. In such circumstances the Church
represented the only remaining structure that was able to administer the everyday lay
affairs of the population. In this manner, apart from its religious authority, the Church
gained secular power over the population.3 Some prominent students of the Orthodox Church believe that the Church had much wider authority than that theoretically
guaranteed by Islamic law in the fields of religious affairs, education and family law.
Hadrovics, in his study on the Serbian Orthodox Church, concluded that "the Serbian
... Patriarchate may be considered a theocratic state within a superior Ottoman state."4
Pantazopoulos and Cubrilovic think that the Orthodox Church had full authority over
its believers in every aspect,5 while Runciman claims that the Patriarch of Constantinople was no less than "Ethnarch, the ruler of the millet"^ and, "as head of the Orthodox millet... to some extent the heir of the Emperor."7 This picture of the alleged
state of affairs in the Orthodox "millet' was, with minor modifications, accepted as a
commonly valid model for other non-Muslim communities in the Ottoman Empire.
However, the provisions of Ottoman sultanic law, the kanun, and the institution
of the state judge, the kadi, infringed the alleged autonomy of the non-Muslim
"millets" and the authority of the Church and clergy outside the religious realm,
i.e., internal Church matters, family law and education. Peasants, who represented
the vast majority of non-Muslim population, were above all under the jurisdiction
of the kadi. While in theory fief holders, sipaMs, were merely intermediaries between the State and formally free peasants, some of their rights, like the collection

6
7

UP 1957, vol. 1, pp. 21120; Stanford J. Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern
Turkey, 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge UP 19952, vol. 1, pp. 589, 61; Peter F. Sugar, Southeastern Europe under Ottoman Rule, 13541804. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press 1977, pp. 459; cf. Leften S. Stavrianos, The Balkans since 1453. London: Hurst
& Company 20002, pp. 89-90; Ilber Ortayli, The Ottoman Millet System and it's Social
Dimensions. In: Ilber Ortayh, Ottoman Studies. Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi UP 2004, pp. 1522.
Cf. Halil Inalcik, The Status of Greek Orthodox Patriarch under the Ottomans. In: Halil
Inalcik. Essays in Ottoman History. Istanbul: Eren 1998, pp. 195223.
Cf. 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 UP 1968, pp. 1678, and passim.
Laszlo Hadrovics, Srpski narod i njegova crkva pod turskom vlascu. Zagreb: Nakladni zavod
Globus 2000, p. 86. French edition: Ladislas Hadrovics, Ees people serbe et son eglise sous
la domination turque. Paris: Les Presses universitaries de France 1947. See also: Doko
Slijepcevic, Istorija Srpskepravoslavne crkve, 2 vols. Miinchen 1962, vol. 1, p. 340.
N. J. Pantazopoulos, Church and Ean> in the Balkan Peninsula During the Ottoman Rale. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert 1984, p. 19; Vasa Cubrilovic, Srpska pravoslavna crkva pod
Turcima od XV do XIX veka. In: Projekat Rastko, http://www.rastko.rs/istorija/spc/vcubrilovic-crkva-turci.html (accessed February 1st, 2010), originally published in: Zbornik
Filosyfskogfakulteta, vol. V-l, Belgrade, 1960.
Runciman, pp. 1712.
/to/, p. 175.

Non-Muslim Communal Divisions and Identities

99

of penal dues (curm u cinayei) and bad u hava taxes, in addition to agricultural taxes,
often resulted in their interference in legal matters.8 Another significant group of
the population, the Vlachs, Balkan semi-nomadic people, and the population which
adopted the Vlach status, including theyz/fz'-tax payers, enjoyed a certain degree of
autonomy in exchange for the performance of some special services, including military service.9 They were under the administration of their own kne^es and premiers,
who served as state officials, while the sancakbegi and voyvodas acted as the supreme
authority. Each fine or corporal punishment imposed on the Vlachs had to be approved by the kadi.10 Other groups that performed special services for the state had
similar arrangements. Semi-military groups of the voynuks and marto/oscs were under
the jurisdiction of the military judge and the command of their superior officers."
The rtfaya with special privileges and duties, the tmtaf ve musdlem, were under the legal jurisdiction of the kadi us well, while it was administered by its professional superiors.12 Townsmen, for the most part artisans and traders, were included in the guild
organizations (esnaft) and subjected to the guild hierarchies. They were administered
by the state officials called /ehir kethiida and muhtesib, while juridical authority was in
the hands of the kadiP It should be mentioned that the assertion that the Balkan
peoples were left without their ruling elites following the Ottoman conquest is not
completely true. While ruling dynasties and the upper nobility did disappear, some
8 Suraiya Faroqhi, Rural Society in Anatolia and the Balkans during the Sixteenth Century,
II. Tunica, 11 (1979), pp. 1189, 1256; Branislav Durdev, O uticaju turske vladavine na
ra2vitak nasih naroda, Godisnjak Istoriskog drustva BiH, 2 (1950), pp. 736; cf. Halil Inalcik,
Osmanlllar'da Raiyyet Rusumu. In: Halil Inalcik, Osmanh Imparatorlugu. Toplum Ve Ekonomi
IJ^erinde Ar^iv Cah^malan, Incelemeler. Istanbu: EREN 1993, pp. 3165.
9 Cf. Nenad Moacanin, The Question of Vlach Autonomy Reconsidered. In: Essays on Ottoman Civilisation. Archiv Orientalni. Supplementa VII (1998). Proceedings of the Xllth Congress of
CIEPO. Prague, 1998, pp. 263-9.
10 Cf. Ahmet Akgiindiiz, Osmanh Kanunnameleri Ve Hukuki Tahlilleri. Istanbul: Osmanll
Arastirmalari Vakfi, 1991, vol. 3, pp. 459, 463. See also: Branislav Durdev, O knezovima
pod turskom upravom, Istoriski casopis, 1,12 (1948), 337.
11 Branislav Durdev, O vojnucima sa osvrtom na razvoj turskog feudalizma i na pitanje bosanskog agaluka. Glasnik Zemaljskog mu^eja u Sarajevu, n.s., 2 (1947), 75137; Yavuz Ercan,
Osmanh Imparatorlugunda Bulgarlar Ve Voynuklar. Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi
1989; Robert Anhegger, Martoloslar Hakkinda, Tiirkiyat Mecmuasi, 7-8, 1 (1940-1942),
pp. 282320; Milan Vasic, Martolosi u jugoslovenskim ^emjama pod turskom vladavinom. Sarajevo: ANUBIH 1967.
12 Aleksandar Stojanovski, Ra/a so specijalni %adol%enia vo Makedonija (vojnud, sokolari, origan i
solan). Skoplje: Institut za nacionalna istorija 1990; Adem Handzic, Rudnici u Bosni od
druge polovine XV do pocetka XVII vijeka. In: Enver Redzic, ed., Prilo^i %a istoriju Bosne i
Hercegovine, vol. 2, Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine, no. Ixxix, Odjeljenje
drustvenih nauka, no. 18. Sarajevo: ANUBIH 1987, pp. 5-38; Robert Anhegger and Halil
Inalcik, Kdnunndme-i SultdniBerMuceb-i 'Orf-i 'Osmdni. II. Mehmed Veil. Baye^id Devirlerine Ait
Yasakndme Ve Kdnunndmeler, 2nd ed. Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu 2000, pp. 7,112.
13 Halil Inalcik, The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age, 1300-1600. London: Weidenfeld
and Nicolson 1973, pp. 152-60; A. Raymond. Sinf, 1. In the Arab World. EP. Hamdija
Kresevljakovic, Esnafi i obrti u starom Sarajevu. Sarajevo: Narodna prosvjeta 1958, pp. 509.

100

Kursar

members of the middle and lower nobility eventually came to terms with the conquerors eager to include Balkan soldiers in the army. In many cases former Balkan
Christian feudal lords received timdrs as Ottoman sipahis and continued to exercise
authority over the peasants, although in a somewhat narrowed capacity.14 In such a
system not much room was left for non-Muslim religious authorities, although there
might have been some exceptional cases.
This manifold social organization and relations stem from a political division of Ottoman society into the ruling class 'askeri (literally "military class") and the subjects
rtfaya (literally "flock") which was sanctioned by the kanun. The crucial aspect of this
division was that it was based not upon the sharia division of people into Muslims and
non-Muslims, but exclusively upon service to the State, disregarding religion.15
Recognition of non-Muslim religious institutions and clergy and their incorporation into the state organization by official appointments must have given them a certain power. However, on occasion their authority in the fields officially recognized as
autonomous was contested by their own flock. In 1674, Orthodox Christian laymen
from Sarajevo rejected the priests chosen by the vladika for the church of the town
and wanted to invest those chosen by the Orthodox opstina of Sarajevo. In order to
enforce his right to appoint the priests, the vladika had to approach the Ottoman
authorities.16 Clergy often lamented over the inability to exercise control over family
law, while believers disregarded the basics of canon law. The Bosnian Catholic bishop Olovclc, for example, in a report to Rome covering the period 16721675, complains that some Bosnian Catholics did not adhere to the principle of monogamy,
but preferred polygamy, as was the case in nine Bosnian parishes. Further examples
of the breach of canon law are even more abundant, like cases of marriage within
the forbidden degrees of kinship, cohabitation with a partner outside the framework
of Catholic marriage "in a Turkish manner," or the practice of conducting marriages
and divorces in the Mddfcoutt, as was the case in another twelve parishes.17 Accord14Halil Inalcik, Od Stefana Dusana do Osmanskog Carstva. Hriscanske spahije u Rumeliji
u XV vijeku i njihovo porijeklo, Prilo^i %a orijentalnu filologiju, 3-4 (195253), pp. 2353,
originally published as: XV. Asirda Rumeli'de Hlristiyan Sipahiler Ve Menseleri: Stefan
Dusan'dan Osmank Imperatorluguna. In: Fuat Kopriilu Armagam, Istanbul 1953, pp. 207
48; cf. Halil Inalcik, Ottoman Methods of Conquest, Studialslamica, 2 (1954), pp. 103-29.
ISlnalcik, Ottoman Empire, 689; Bahaeddin Yediyildiz, Ottoman Society. In: Ekmeleddin
Ihsanoglu, ed., History of the Ottoman State, Society & Civilisation, 2 vols. Istanbul: IRCICA
2001, vol. 1, pp. 491557. Cf. Vjeran Kursar, Some Remarks on the Organization of
Ottoman Society in the Early Modern Period: The Question of "Legal Dualism" and
Societal Structures. In: Ekrem Causevic, Nenad Moacanin and Vjeran Kursar, eds., Ottoman Studies in Transformation. Papers from the 18"' Sjmposium of the International Committee of
Pre-Ottoman and Ottoman Studies (CIEPO). Berlin: LIT Verlag 2010, pp. 837-56.
16 Vladislav Skaric, Srpski pravoslavni narod i crkva u Sarajevu u 17. i 18. stoljecu. In:
Vladislav Skaric, I^abrana djela. Prilo^i %a istoriju Sarajeva, 3 vols. Sarajevo: Veselin Maslesa
1985, vol. 2, pp. 108-9.
17Julijan Jelenic, Spomenici kulturnog rada bosanskih Franjevaca (14371878), Starine
JAZU, 36 (1918), pp. 134,136-7,140-7,149,151-2.

Non-Muslim Communal Divisions and Identities

101

ing to the report, in the great number of Catholic parishes visited by the bishop
a considerable proportion of the population were living in marriages contrary to
canon law. This state of affairs is abundantly confirmed in court records from Ottoman towns and cities throughout the Balkans and Anatolia.18 However, surprisingly,
not a single example could be found of a Christian marriage in front of the kadi
in several preserved court records from the Bosnian towns of Sarajevo and Mostar
from the period ca. 15501750.19 On the other hand, non-Muslims often appear in
the Sarajevo court records on various occasions in the second half of the sixteenth
century, in fact considerably beyond what might have been expected on the basis of
their percentage of the total population.
Although autonomy in matters like marriage or inheritance was granted to the
jurisdiction of non-Muslim communities, their members had the right to approach
the kadi courts, which they often exercised. Apart from an attempt to assure a better
outcome for their cases than that potentially delivered by communal courts, a reason
for non-Muslims' attraction to the kadi courts was the assurance that the verdict
would be executed by the force of the State. Non-Muslim communal courts, in case
they existed in a given region, which is still not confirmed in the sources for Bosnia,
could not guarantee the same. The other reason must have been the openness of the
kadi court as the state court, the practices of which do not suggest the discrimination of non-Muslims who disregarded theoretical sharia stipulations.20
Despite the Church ban on bringing internal Catholic cases to the Islamic court,
even members of clergy were doing the same. A great example is a quarrel in the
first half of the seventeenth century between Bosnian merchants and their Franciscans on the one hand, Ragusans and their priests and Jesuits on the other, concerning the chapel in Belgrade. When they were not satisfied with a verdict from Rome,
18 See Svetlana Ivanova, Marriage and Divorce in the Bulgarian Lands (XVXIX c.), Bulgarian Historical Review, 21, 23 (1993), 4983; Ronald C.Jennings, Zimmis (non-Muslims) in
early 17th century Ottoman Judicial Records: The Sharia Court of Anatolian Kayseri. In:
Ronald C. Jennings, Studies on Ottoman Social History in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries.
Women, Zimmis and Sharia Courts in Kayseri, Cyprus and Trab^pn. Istanbul: The ISIS Press 1999,
pp. 3936; Rossitsa Gradeva, Orthodox Christians in the Kadi Courts: The Practice of the
Sofia Sheriat Court, seventeenth century. In: Rossitsa Gradeva, Rumeli under the Ottomans,
-J5'll-18a> Centuries: Institutions and Communities. Istanbul: The ISIS Press 2004, pp. 165-94.
19 Gazi Husrev-beg library, Sarajevo (henceafter: GHB). Sarajevo court records - sidjils
nos. 1 (1551), la (1556-1558), 2 (1564-1566), 3 (1707-1709),4 (1727-1728), and 6 (17521762); Oriental Institute in Sarajevo, Mostar sidjils nos. 2 (1669-1671), and 3 (1681-1685);
Sid^tl mostarskog kadije 16321634., tr. Muhamed A. Mujic, Mostar: Ikro Prva knjizevna
smotra 1987. Cf. Eleni Gara, Marrying in Seventeenth-Century Mostar. In: Elias Kolovos,
Phokion Kotzageorgis, Sophia Laiou and Marines Sariyannis, eds., The Ottoman Empire,
The Balkans, The Greek Lands: Toward a Sofia/ and Economic History. Studies in Honor of John C.
Alexander. Istanbul: The Isis Press 2007, p. 125.
20 Cf. Jennings, Zimmis (non-Muslims), pp. 22593; Najwa Al-Qattan, Dhimmis in the Muslim
Court: Legal Autonomy and Religious Discrimination, Inernational Journal of Middle Eeast
Studies, 31, 3 (1999), 429^-4. 16th century court records of Sarajevo (nos. la and 2) leave
the same impression.

102

Kursar

both sides turned to the Ottoman authorities in the search for a better solution.21 It
seems that the Jews of Sarajevo used to appeal to the Ottoman authorities as well,
since one of the articles of the Jewish commune of Sarajevo from 1731 bans such
a practice.22 To sum up, a significant presence of non-Muslims registered in court
records, their partnership with Muslims in business and the existence of a considerable number of mixed neighborhoods and villages greatly undermine the notion
of isolated, self-sufficient and self-governing non-Muslim millet theocracies. On the
other handjthe high number conversion by non-Muslims to Islam, as well as numerous instances of syncretism, magic and superstition, prove that religious authorities
did not have firm control even over strictly religious matters.
Recent scholarship has thoroughly questioned the postulates of the millet system
theory. The Empire-wide organization of non-Muslim communities into the three
millets, Orthodox Christian, Armenian and Jewish, has been rejected as not confirmed in contemporary sources and as an anachronism in the Early Modern period.
A potential exception might be the Orthodox Christian community, although even
the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople was contested by rival patriarchates,
like the Serbian Patriarchate of Pec that separated from Constantinople in 155~.
In general, members of other non-Muslim confessions were not organized into
Empire-wide organizations (millets), but divided into numerous micro-communities
determined by geographic, administrative, ethnic, cultural, economic and other factors. Prior to the nineteenth-century reforms, the common administrative organization of non-Muslim communities and the concept of the millet system did not exist.
Terms that were generally used to mark communities or groups of people of the
same confessional or ethnic affiliation, as well as the same social, political or military rank, were ta'ife and cemSatP On the other hand, the term millet for Ottoman
21 Antal Molnar, Struggle for the Chapel of Belgrade (1612-1643). Trade and Catholic
Church in Ottoman Hungary, Acta Orientalia Academiae Sdentarium Hungaricae, 60,1 (200~ .
73-143.
22Moric Levy, Sefardi u Eosni. Prilog historiji jevreja na balkanskom podrucju, tr. Ljiljana Ma?^.
[Klagenfurt:] Bosanska biblioteka [1996], p. 30. Originally published as: Moritz Levy, Dit
Sephardim in Bosnien. Sarajevo 1911.
23 Benjamin Braude, Foundation Myths of the Millet System. In: Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis, eds., Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire. The Functioning of a Plural Soriet\.
2 vols. New York, London: Holmes & Meier Publishers 1982, vol. 1, pp. 69-90; Berrimin Braude, The Strange History of the Millet System. In: Kemal Cicek, ed., The Gr-.-.:
Ottoman-Turkish Civilisation, 4 vols. Ankara: Yeni Tiirkiye 2000, vol. 1, pp. 40918; Alichie.
O. H. Ursinus, Millet, EP; Michael Ursinus, Zur Diskussion um 'Millet' im Osmanische"
Reich. In: Michael Ursinus, Quellen %ur Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches und ihre Interpretation. Istanbul: ISIS Press 1994, pp. 185-97. On the organization of Jews see: Arnnon
Cohen, Jewish Ufe under Islam. Jerusalem in the Sixteenth Century. Cambridge: Harvard LT
1984, pp. 35; Amnon Cohen, On the Realities of the Millet System: Jerusalem in the
Sixteenth Century. In: Braude and Lewis, eds., Christians and]ews, vol. 2, pp. 89; Mark A.
Epstein, The Leadership of the Ottoman Jews in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Century. LL:
Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis, eds., Christians and jews in the Ottoman Empire, vol. '-.
pp. 104-5, and passim. On the organization of the Armenians see: Kevork B. Bardak::irL

Non-Muslim Communal Divisions and Identities

103

non-Muslims does occur on a dozen occasions as early as the seventeenth! century.

However, the occurrence of the term does not imply a change in the administration
of non-Muslims, although, as Ursinus notes, it might indicate a defensive reflex on
the part of the State to the strengthening of Western European Christian missionary activities.24 Yet again, it has been stressed that the notion of the millet'is opposed
to the very principle of Islamic law, which does not recognize the notion of the
"legal entity," i.e., the concept of corporation, or freedom of association, except for
mercantile partnership (sharikat"*akd), which generally envisaged only two partners.25
The use of the term milkt'vn. the Early Modern period is, in fact, quite inconsistent
and vague and seems to correspond to its Kur'anic meaning of "religion, confession," rendering it synonymous with the word dm, "religion."26
In this connection, seventeenth-century documents concerning internal Catholic
litigation over the Belgrade chapel, preserved in the Dubrovnik Ecnebi Defteri no.
14/2, and partially analyzed by Daniel Goffman,27 as well as documents concerning
Roman Catholic Orthodox Christian quarrels over the right of the collection of
Church taxes, show that the terms millet, dm and me^heb ("creed," "religious denomination") were used with the same meaning, along with the neutral ta'ife ("group,"
"band"). In a document from 1628 concerning the quarrel between "Latin" Ragusans on the one hand and Bosnians and Sokci (okcd) on the other over the Roman
Catholic chapel in Belgrade, expressions such as "the infidel millet of. Sokci and Bosnians and others" ($okca ve Bo/nak ve sa'irkefere milleti) and "the ta'ife of Bosnians and
Sokci" (Bofttak ve $okfa ta'ifesi) were used interchangeably.28 This constitutes the first
mention of an Ottoman Roman Catholic community as the millet, which in turn repudiates the traditional concept of the triple millet organization, milel-i seldse, in which
Roman Catholics (like other smaller denominations and sects) were subject to the
Armenian millet, or, alternatively, the Orthodox one.29 The following document from
the same defter contains a petition by a Ragusan missionary, Fr. Luka, against state
officials and monks, metropolitans and vladikas from the "different millet" (gayri/
ahir milletden olan rahibler ve midrepolidler [ve] vladikalar), who were harassing him while
he was preaching to Ragusans and "Christians in the remaining/other millef (sa'ir
The Rise of the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople. In: Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis, eds., Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire, vol. 1, pp. 89100.
24 Ursinus, Millet; Ursinus, Zur Diskussion um 'Millet', pp. 195-7; Daniel Goffman, Ottoman Millets in the Early Seventeenth Century, Neiv Perspectives on Turkey, 11 (Fall 1994),
pp. 135-58; Ahmed Refik, Onikinci Asr-i Hicri'de Istanbul Hayati (1689-1785). Istanbul:
Enderun Kitabevi 1988, pp. 21-2, 160, and passim.
25 Amnon Cohen, Communal Legal Entities in a Muslim Setting. Theory and Practice in
the Jewish Community in Sixteenth-Century Jerusalem, Islamic Law and Society, 3, 1 (1996),
75-90; Joseph Schacht, An Introduction toIslamicLaw. Oxford: Oxford UP 1964, pp. 155-6.
26 Cf. Ursinus, Millet.
27 Basbakanhk Osmank Arsivi, Istanbul (henceafter: BOA). Diivel-i Ecnebiye Defteri, no.
1.4/2. Cf. Goffman, pp. 135-58.
28 BOA. Diivel-i Ecnebiye Defteri, no. 14/2, p 46/1; cf. Goffman, p. 144.
29 Cf. Gibb and Bowen, pp. 214-231; Sugar, p. 49.

104

Kursar

milletde olan Nasdrd) in Rumelia.30 Obviously, in this document dated 1630 the Roman Catholics are again mentioned as a millet distinct from the Orthodox Christians.
A document from 1640 reveals the clear use of the term "Latin milled for the
Roman Catholics.31 Again, Catholic monks were urging the authorities to protect
them and the rfaya of the Latin millet (Latin milletinde olan re'aya) from unauthorized
interference by clergy from the "millet of Serbs and others" (Sirf ve gayri milletinde olan
rahibleri ve papaslan ve midrepolidleri [ve] vladikalari). The last example from the defter
is the permission given to a Roman Catholic bishop in 1641 freely to move about
and preach to the "Christians of the Latin millef (Latin milletinde olan Nasdra).32 All
these examples indicate that the term millet denotes "confession" or "denomination," thus coming very close in meaning to the terms din and me^heb. In an example
from 1642, the term din is used in the same manner as millet in the above-mentioned
cases. Catholics from Pecuh and Backa, that is, "the infidel ta'ife of the Latin din"
were to be protected against interference from Serbian Orthodox clergy, i.e., "metropolitans, vladikaS and priests of the Serbian din"** We have found another example
of the use of the term millet in a collection of thirty-five Ottoman documents concerning disputes between Serbian Orthodox and Roman Catholic clergy in Bosnia,
Herzegovina and Dalmatia between 1498 and 1693, published by Boskov.34 To the
present author's knowledge, a firman of 1626 given to the Roman Catholic bishop
Toma represents the earliest example of the use of the term millet for Ottoman nonMuslims discovered so far.35 Toma was appointed head of the Bosnian Franciscans,
who were guaranteed protection against interference from "monks from the Serbian
and Vlach millef' (Sirf ve Eflak milletinde olan rahibler). It should be noted that this is
the only document in the collection in which the term millet is used. In other documents traditional terms for religious denominations, such as ta'ife, din, me^heb and the
general term kefere ("unbelievers"), were preferred. Let us mention two examples. In
a document from 1575, Roman Catholics from Imotski, Duvno and Mostar complained about the Serbian Orthodox metropolitan Savatije, who was taxing them
although they belonged to "the Prankish confession" (Frenk dittf).*6 According to a
hiiccetof the Sarajevo court from 1672 concerning litigation between Franciscans and
representatives of the patriarch of Pec, the Franciscans declared that they did not
have any connection with the "confessions [sic] of Orthodox Christians, Serbs and
Vlachs" (Rum ve Sirf ve Eflak dtnleri), since they were members of the "Latin and Sokci

30 BOA. Duvel-i Ecnebiye Defteri, no. 14/2, p. 62/3; cf. Goffman, p. 145.
31 BOA. Duvel-i Ecnebiye Defteri, no. 14/2, pp. 114-5; cf. Goffman, pp. 145-6.
32 BOA. Duvel-i Ecnebiye Defteri, no. 14/2, p. 146/1; cf. Goffman, p. 146.
33 BOA. Duvel-i Ecnebiye Defteri, no. 14/2, pp. 145-6.
34 See Vanco Boskov, Turski dokumenti o odnosu katolicke i pravoslavne crkve u Bosni,
Hercegovini i Dalmaciji (XVXVII vek), Spomenik SANU, 131, Odeljenje istorijskih nauka 7, Belgrade 1992, pp. 7-95.
35 Boskov, doc. no. 21, pp. 82 (fascimile), 356 (transliteration and translation).
36 Ibid., doc. 8, pp. 72 (fascimile), 201 (transliteration and translation).

Non-Muslim Communal Divisions and Identities

105

ta'ife" (Latin ve okca td'ifesi).37 These examples show that in the seventeenth century
the term ml/etwas used almost exceptionally, while the synonymous traditional terms
me^heb and dm, along with ta'ife and kefere, prevail. Let us conclude the chase of the
word millet with two peculiar examples. In a document from 1673 concerning a ban
against a newly erected Roman Catholic church in Mostar, the terms millet and ta'ife
are used interchangeably.38 However, what makes this case relevant is the fact that
while the kadi of Mostar in his petition to the Porte uses a traditional formula for
non-Muslims "infidel group of %}mmh" (%immi kefere td'ifesi) the Porte in its reply substitutes the term millet for the term ta'ife "refaya from the Latin millet" This
document seems to prove the hypothesis that, in the Early Modern period, the term
#'//<?/was used exclusively by central government, while local administration preferred
traditional terms.39 Indeed, the most usual terms for non-Muslims in court records
from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries were %immi for Christians and Yahucti
for Jews. Additionally, a term often used for Catholic Christian ^immii, in the court records from Sarajevo is Frenk. Otherwise, when there was a need to specify the origin
of an individual non-Muslim, the term asil ("root," "origin") was used, as in the cases
of a slave women named Fatima bin Abdullah of Slavonian origin (Is/avonya'I-asI)
mentioned in the Sarajevo court register in 1557,40 or two Christians of Hungarian
origin in Sarajevo in 1565 (Macari'iil-asil), among others.41
On the other hand, the term millet occurs in an interesting entry from the Sarajevo court records, book no. 4, from 17281729. It is an inscription concerning the
foundation of a ban for the Jews by the former beglerbegi of Rumelia, Siyavus Pasha,
and his permission for the erection of a synagogue in 989/15811582.42 Here, the
term millet is applied to the Jews of Sarajevo (millet-i me^kure/ merkume, "the abovementioned millet"). However, since the inscription is neither the original from the
sixteenth century, nor its authentic copy, but an entry not even confirmed by the testimony of the court witnesses (juhudii'l-hal), this is probably not the earliest example
of the use of die term millet, but an echo of later times, even though the content of
the text is not necessarily a forgery In any case, this may be a unique example of its
use by local administration in the early eighteenth century.
It should not go without mention that there are two allegedly pre-seventeenthcentury examples of die use of the term millet^ The most representative is the
famous firman given by Sultan Selim I to the Armenian Patriarch of Jerusalem,
37 Ibid., doc. 25, pp. 86 (fascimile), 413 (transliteration and translation).
38 BOA. Cevdet-i Adliye, Dosya no. 70, Gomlek no. 4185.
39 Ursinus, Zur Diskussion um 'Millef, pp. 195-6.
40 GHB. Sarajevo sidjil, no. la, p. 192/2.
41 GHB. Sarajevo sidjil, no. 2, p. 13/3.
42 GHB. Sarajevo sidjil, no. 4, p. 85. Cf. Alija Bejtic, Jevrejske nastambe u Sarajevu. In: Spomenica 400 godina od dolaskajevreja u Bosnu i Hercegovinu, Sarajevo 1966, p. 26; Levy, p. 15.
43 See M. Macit Kenanoglu, Osmanh Millet Sistemi. Mit Ve Gerfek. Istanbul: Klasik 2004,
pp. 446; Bilgehan Pamuk, Osmanlilar Zamamnda Rum-Ermeni Kiliseleri Arasmdaki
Iliskiler (Kudus Ornegi),^lLl Tiirkiyat Arastirmalan Dergisi, 16 (2001), 239-47.

106

Kursar

Sarkis III, following the Ottoman conquest of the city in 1517.44 Selim I guaranteed
the Patriarch various rights and freedoms and, among other things, listed Abyssinians, Copts and Assyrians as denominations, the millets, under the jurisdiction of the
Armenian patriarchate. Again, while the content of the document should probably
not be questioned, the term millet itself might represent the style and addition of
the later period. The Kilise Defteri no. 8, where the copy of the firman is preserved,
as a whole most probably originates from the mid-seventeenth century, if not later,
although it contains copies of documents from 1455 to 1757.45 In addition, it contains a charter issued by Mehmed the Conqueror in 1458 to the Christian Orthodox
Patriarch of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and his priests, who visited the Sultan in his
new capital, Istanbul.46 Mehmed confirms the legendary rights and privileges that
they had enjoyed since the time of the Arab conquest and had been granted by the
caliph cUmar.47 Interestingly enough, the term millet appears again, as "the millet of
Christians" (millet-iNasrdni). In the opinion of the author, the documents in question acted as charter myths that legitimized later grants given to the Armenian and
Orthodox Christian patriarchates of Jerusalem. Therefore, in both documents the
legendary seventh-century charter of the caliph cUmar was confirmed which linked
the Ottoman sultans Mehmed and Selim with the Prophet's Companion and the
third caliph. Similarly, the seventeenth-century Ecnebi Defteri related to the Republic
of Ragusa (Dubrovnik) discussed above, contains, on its first page, a copy of the
legendary ahdname issued by Mehmed the Conqueror to the Bosnian Franciscans
after the conquest of Bosnia.48 It was most probably supposed to legitimize the missionary logistic activities of the Republic as the centre for Balkan Roman Catholic
missions in the seventeenth century.49 Until the original firmans are consulted, these
early examples of the occurrence of the term millet have to be taken into account
44 Pamuk, pp. 233-43. For the text of the firman see: BOA. Kilise Defteri, no. 8, pp. 61-2.
See transliterated text in: Pamuk, pp. 2467.
45 Cf. Yavuz Ercan, Osmanh Yonetiminde Gayrimiislimler. Kurulustan Tan^imat'a Kadar Sosyal,
Ekonomik Ve Hukuki Durumlan. Ankara: Turhan Kitabevi 2001, pp. 301. Basbakanlik
OsmanhArsiviRebberi. Istanbul: T. C. Basbakankk Devlet Arsivleri Genel Mudurlugu 2000,
pp. 39-40.
46 BOA. Kilise Defteri, no. 8, p. 6. See fascimile and transliteration in: Gokkube Altmda Birlikte Yasamak. Ankara: T.C. Basbakanhk Devlet Arsivleri Genel Mudurlugu 2006, pp. 1067.
47 Cf. C.E. Bosworth, The Concept of Dhimma in Early Islam. In: Benjamin Braude and
Bernard Lewis, eds., Christians and jews in the Ottoman Umpire, vol. 1, pp. 457; Daniel J.
Sahas, The Face to Face Encounter between Patriarch Sophronius of Jerusalem and the
Caliph 'Umar Ibn al-Khattab: Friends or Foes?. In: Emmanouela Grypeou, Mark Swanson and David Thomas, eds., The Encounter of Eastern Christianity with Early Islam. Leiden
Boston: Brill 2006, pp. 33-44.
48 BOA. Diivel-i Ecnebiye Defteri, no. 14/2, p. 1/1. See fascimile and transliteration in:
Gokkube Altmda, pp. 23. The individual document is preserved in the museum of the
monastery of Fojnica in Bosnia.
49 Cf. Antal Molnar, Relations between the Holy See and Hungary during the Ottoman
Domination of the Country. In: Istvan Zombori, ed., Fight against the Turk in CenralEurope
in the first half of the 16th century. Budapest: METEM 2004, pp. 201-2, and passim.

Non-Muslim Communal Divisions and Identities

107

with due precaution. In this respect it should be recalled that original documents
from around the same period concerning the Churches in the same region contain
traditional terms such as sgmmi and td'ife \fhen referring to non-Muslim groups.50
Despite the fact that the millet system as an administrative concept did not exist
before the nineteenth-century reforms, the appearance of terms with specific ethnic
meaning such as Sirf (Serb), Ermem (Armenian), Hirvad (Croatian), Bo/nak (Bosnian), Bu/gar (Bulgarian), Kibti or fingene (Gypsy), among others, does indicate that a
certain sense of ethnic and communal distinctions may have existed. The occasional
association of the term millet with ethnic terms might mean that it was beginning
to acquire one of its present-day meanings, i.e., that of "folk," or "nation", that is,
ethnie.^ The Ottoman administration recognized even such micro-ethno-communal
identities as the Catholic Sokci of Southern Hungary, i.e. the Baranja and Backa.
In fact, it seems that the term okfa was used to denote a wider group of Catholic
Slavs living in Southern Hungary (including Srijem, Slavonija, Baranja and Backa)
and Northern Serbia.32 Similarly, in the context of South Slavic regions, the administration sometimes recognized the old Balkan pre-Slavic ethnie of the VLachs. Their
name appears in several documents from the seventeenth century jointly with Serbs
as the millet of Vlachs and Serbs, or the millet of Vlachs, Serbs and Rum (here obviously meaning Orthodox Christians, not Greeks).53 Most probably the term Vlach
does not, in this context, have a separate ethnic meaning, which was already lost,
but rather an administrative one and denotes believers in the Patriarchate of Pec.
This might indicate that in the first half of the seventeenth century the process
of sedentarization of Orthodox Vlachs and their gradual fusion with the Serbian
peasant population reached a high level, a state which was officially acknowledged
by the Ottoman chancery.54 On the other hand, just as the name of Sokci became a
derogative term for Roman Catholics used by neighboring Orthodox Christians and
Muslims, the name of Vlachs was applied to Orthodox Serbs as a whole, whether of
Vlach origin or not. Ottoman recognition and differentiation between Balkan ethnic
and even micro- and pseudo-ethnic communities and the occasional designation of
the latter as the millets do not mean that all these groups existed as administratively

50 See Uriel Heyd, Ottoman Documents on Palestine, 15521615. A Study of the Firman according
to the Miihimme Defteri. Oxford: The Clarendon Press 1960, doc. 126, plate xvii (fascimile),
p. 184 (translation) ^immt,Frenk ta'ifesi (\60T); Klaus Schwarz, OsmanischeSultansurkunden
des Sinai-KJosters in tiirkischer Sprache. Freiburg im Breisgau: Klaus Schwarz Verlag 1970,
pp. 41-4 - Yahudi' ta'ifesi (1567).
51 Cf. Turk Dil Kurumu, Biiyiik Tiirkce Sozliik - Giincel Tiirkce Sozliik. "Millet." http://
tdkterim.gov.tr/bts/ (accessed, February 1, 2011).
52 Sokci, In: Hrvatska enaklopedija. Zagreb: Leksikografski zavod "Miroslav Krleza" 2008,
pp. 499-500.
53 See above.
54 Cf. Nedim Filipovic, Islamizacija vlaha u Bosni i Hercegovini u XV i XVI vijeku. In: Simpozijum Vlasi u XV i XVI vijeku (Sarajevo, 13-16. XI 1973), Radovi ANUBiH, vol. 73,
Odjeljenje drustvenih nauka, vol. 22, Sarajevo 1983, p. 142.

108

Kursar

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

Power and Influence

in South-Eastern Europe
16th-19th century
edited by

Maria Baramova, Plamen Mitev,

Ivan Parvev and Vania Racheva

LIT

Cover image:
The Signing of the Treaty of San Stefano
from the book Illjustrovannaja hronika vojny, 1877-1878. Vol.2,
St. Petersburg 1878, p. 372-373.
Courtesy Seminar Library of the Faculty of History, Sofia University
"St. Kliment Ohridski"
Publication of the Center of Excellence in the Humanities "Alma Mater"
(Regional Studies Program), Sofia University "St. Kliment Ohridski"
funded by the Scientific Research Fund of the Bulgarian Ministry of
Education, Youth, and Science.

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche
Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at
http://dnb.d-nb.de.
ISBN 978-3-643-90331-0
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

LlT VERLAG GmbH & Co. KG wien,

LIT VERLAG Dr.w. Hopf

Zweigniederlassung Zurich 2013

Berlin 2013

Klosbachstr. 107
CH-8032 Zurich
Tel. +41 (0) 44-251 75 05
Fax +41 (0) 44-251 75 06
E-Mail: zuerich@lit-verlag.ch
http://www.lit-verlag.ch

Fresnostr. 2
D-48159 Mtinster
Tel. +49 (0) 2 51 -62 03 20
Fax +49 (0) 2 51 -23 19 72
E-Mail: lit@lit-verlag.de
http://www.lit-verlag.de

Distribution:
In Germany: LlT Verlag Fresnostr. 2, D-48159 Munster
Tel. +49 (0)251-6203222, Fax +49 (0)251-9226099, E-mail: vertrieb@lit-verlag.de
In Austria: Medienlogistik Pichler-OBZ, e-mail: mlo@medien-logistik.at
In Switzerland: B + M Buch- und Medienvertrieb, e-mail: order@buch-medien.ch
In the UK: Global Book Marketing, e-mail: mo@centralbooks.com
In North America: International Specialized Book Services, e-mail: orders@isbs.com