UDC: 28-74:348.97(497.

11 Belgrade)”1683”

Aleksandar FOTIĆ

THE BELGRADE KADI’S MÜRASELES OF 1683:

THE MIRROR OF A KADI’S ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES

Abstract: Apart from some transcripts in the kadı sicils, müraseles (the kadı’s orders)
are the type of documents originated by local authorities that have only exceptionally
been preserved as original archival material. They are of outstanding importance for
studying the kadı’s administrative role, an aspect of his office which has not received
much attention in historiography. By fortunate circumstance, Biblioteca Universitaria di
Bologna holds about a dozen müraseles issued by the kadı of Belgrade in 1683. All are
addressed to the mütevelli of Yahyapaşaoğlu Mehmed Paşa’s Belgrade vakıf and concern
the duties of the inhabitants of his vakıf’s suburban villages: Mirijevo, Višnjica, Gornje
Slance and Donje Slance. The villagers, being experienced as millers operating
characteristic floating mills on the Danube, are ordered to assist in building a pontoon
bridge, to tow boats to the city port, to transport timber, sand and the stone from the
nearby quarry at Kayaburunu for the construction of the Imperial Palace and the Palace
of the Grand Vizier, to provide oxcarts and labourers... The müraseles testify to a lively
building activity in preparation for the arrival of Ottoman armies and to the kadı’s role
in making provisions for the construction.
Keywords: Belgrade, Mehmed Paşa Yahyapaşazade’s vakıf, 1683, kadı’s duties,
mürasele.

By a fortunate concatenation of circumstances, about a dozen müraseles issued

by the kadı and the naib of Belgrade in 1683 have survived in the collection of Count
Marsigli in the Bologna University Library. All are addressed to the mütevelli of
Yahyalu Mehmed Paşa’s Belgrade vakıf and concern the duties of the inhabitants of
four vakıf villages at the outskirts of Belgrade: Mirijevo, Višnjica, Gornje Slance and
Donje Slance.1 Count Luigi Ferdinando Marsigli (1658–1730) was a proven lover of
1
Biblioteca Universitaria di Bologna (hereafter BUB), MS 3574 (Biglieti, petizioni, pro
memoria, note etc. in lingua turca, et alcune poche in Ebreico, il tutto preso dal S. C. Marsigli
nelle sue militari spedizioni, sec. XVII, cc 223 sciolte in lingua turca piu 13 in lingua Ebreica

65
 Aleksandar FOTIĆ

old manuscripts but also, not quite typically of a bibliophile, of documents. The
müraseles apparently came into his possession after the Austrian conquest of
Belgrade on 6 September 1688, as the spoils of war consisting of the personal archives
of a few officials of Mehmed Paşa Yahyapaşaoğlu’s Belgrade vakıf.2
The kadı was perhaps the most important fulcrum of administrative and judicial
power in the Ottoman bureaucratic apparatus. I emphasize his administrative duties
first, before those judicial and notarial, because historiography has largely tended to
neglect them. The kadı assisted in collecting imperial taxes, supervised the operation
of mines, the management of customs and other revenues, the recruitment of
manpower for military campaigns, the production, purchase and transportation of
food and all other supplies, the maintenance of roads and bridges, presided over the
entire economic, religious and social life of a city, oversaw the operation of religious
foundations, served as the city notary etc. Long is the list of all his duties, as presented
most clearly by Rossitsa Gradeva using the example of Hacioğlu Pazarcik.3
The surviving müraseles fully illustrate the wide range of a kadı’s duties.
Müraseles are the type of documents which has been quite neglected in the study
of Ottoman diplomatics,4 probably because not many original müraseles have been
preserved. That is all the more reason to draw attention to their importance as a
historical source.
The term mürasele has two meanings. In its most general sense, it denotes a
“letter”, whatever its content may be. In a narrower, much better known and more
widely used sense of the term, it is the kadı’s or the naib’s order or binding
notification in the form of a letter. These usually are brief and unambiguous messages.
Müraseles are official documents that the kadı sends to various addresses in his
kaza, not infrequently also in surrounding kazas or, if needed, even further afield.
They can be quite diverse in content: the letter of appointment of a naib, the kadı’s
notice to his subordinate naibs informing them about the arrival and content of
newly-issued orders from the Porte or about the arrival of the paşa’s orders
(buyuruldu), frequently appended with instructions how to act in compliance with
them. They can also be an order to various other lower-ranking officials in his kaza,
both those permanently employed and those on a temporary assignment, usually the
one of collecting taxes. Also, müraseles having the force of an order can be issued to

di formati diversi, contenute in un cartone con titolo di mano di Giuseppe Mezzofanti), 17,
23, 30, 45, 49, 55, 66, 76, 88, 92, 154, 175. Photocopied documents from the folder were
kindly made available to me by the late Dr. Dušanka Bojanić, for which I remain very grateful.
2
For more on the subject see: А. Фотић, Турски документи о Рустем‐пашином вакуфу и
‘двоструком закупу’ (İcāreteyn) у Београду, Мешовита грађа (Miscellanea) XXXI (2010) 75–77.
3
R. Gradeva, The Activities of a Kadi Court in Eighteenth‐Century Rumeli: The Case of Hacioğlu
Pazarcik, Oriente Moderno XVIII (LXXIX), 1 (1999) 177–190.
4
The analytical 44-volume encyclopaedia Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (1988–
2013) contains no entry on the mürasele, nor is there a reference to it in one of the best and
most detailed diplomatic textbooks: M. S. Kütükoğlu, Osmanlı Belgelerinin Dili (Diplomatik),
İstanbul 1994.

66
 The Belgrade Kadi’s Müraseles of 1683: The Mirror of a Kadi’s Administrative Duties

persons other than imperial officials, for example, to vakıf officials, to representatives
of the re‘aya and to individuals, regardless of their religion. They can also be quite
diverse in terms of subject: the carrying out of the Sultan’s orders or orders of any
higher Imperial official, a summons to give a statement in the matter of an
administrative offence of a local nature, a witness summons etc. On the other hand,
the term is also used for a simple summons to appear before the court in a private
complaint case, including those brought by non-Muslim subjects. In short, the
mürasele is reflective of all types of a kadı’s duties and obligations.5
This rarely preserved type of documents can, as a rule, be found in personal
archives or the archives of some institutions (e.g. churches or monasteries). It is
known that the archives of the monasteries of Hilandar, Dečani and the Holy Trinity
near Pljevlja each possess a few müraseles.6 The content of now lost müraseles may
be known from transcripts entered in the kadı registers, sicils. That, however, was
not common practice, but rather only applied to müraseles of general interest.
Müraseles were served by officers of the court, muhzirs, çokadars, kethüdas, who,
if needed, were escorted by a subaşı or by other police officers subordinate to the
sancakbeyi. According to the sharia, it was an unambiguous duty of every person to
obey a summons, be it issued by the court on its own motion or at the request of a
private individual. The serving of a mürasele and a summons to appear before the
court did not automatically entail the enforcement of the order. There is a record in
Kayseri that three successively served summonses were disobeyed and that, now and
then, mürasele servers were given a beating. When in 1603 a Jew, Gamal son of Uziel,
requested through the court of Thessaloniki that the monks of Hilandar be summoned
on account of delayed repayment of a loan, a çokadar was sent to serve the mürasele.
He returned empty-handed because the Hilandar monks replied that they “do
acknowledge the debt but are unable to come at the moment”. Gamal could do
nothing but ask that the reply be recorded by the kadi’s court. The serving of every
following summons was usually entrusted to higher-ranking officials. It has not been
explained why kadıs used not to issue an order to bring persons to court by force
after the first summons was disobeyed, and no recorded instructions have been found
as to when and in what way force should be used. This obviously varied from case to
case and from kadı to kadı. Instances are known in which the kadı had the person
who disobeyed a summons punished by beating. Delays in enforcing summonses
made it possible for many to make a timely escape from justice, but the practice also

5
BUB, MS 3574, 17, 23, 30, 45, 49, 55, 66, 76, 88, 92, 154, 175; Hilandar Monastery Archive,
Turcica (hereafter HMAT), 1/26, 2/115, 12/37/56, 2/141, 12/37/31, 2/174; Ф. Бајрактаревић,
Турски документи манастира Св. Тројице код Плевља, Споменик LXXIX, други разред
62 (1936), бр. 48, 80, 85, 99, 104, 139, 161; М. Шакота, Дечанска ризница, Београд 1984,
382, 404–405; Şer’iyye Sicilleri. Mahiyeti, Toplu Kataloğu ve Seçme Hükümler, Hzr. A.
Akgündüz et al., İstanbul 1988–1989, I, 38–39; II, 161–192. Also helpful are the numerous
published kadı registers (sicils).
6
See n. 5 above.

67
 Aleksandar FOTIĆ

made it impossible for police officers to make arrests arbitrarily. Even though the use
of force was rare, examples demonstrate that summonses were usually complied
with and that the mürasele had its justification within the Ottoman legal system.7
In the reign of Selim I (1512–1520) the issuance fee for a mürasele was six and
eight akçes; in December 1521, seven akçes; and in 1644/5, eight akçes. Of the seven
akçes, four went to the kadı, two to the naib, and one to the court scribe.8 Müraseles
were not standardized in dimensions. Their back side was frequently stamped with
the kadı’s seal.
A broader meaning of the term mürasele, unrelated to the kadı’s duties, is
evidenced by the sicil of the kadı of Bursa which contains a transcript of the mürasele
by which Hızır Paşa appoints a person as voyvoda of the nomads. The Paşa’s official
position is not mentioned (possibly beylerbeyi of Anatolia).9 In this case the term
mürasele clearly denotes a letter with order. This usage of the term certainly comes
from its general meaning of correspondence. In some cases there is a clear diplomatic
similarity to the buyuruldu.10

The locations that the Belgrade kadı’s müraseles are concerned with are the
villages belonging to the Belgrade vakıf of Mehmed Paşa Yahyapaşazade, which was
also frequently referred to as ‘İmaret vakfi, after the widely-known soup kitchen that
formed part of this charitable foundation.11 Today the former evkaf villages of
Mirijevo (Miriyeva), Gornje Slance (Gorne İslançe), Donje Slance (Dolne İslançe) and
Višnjica (Vişniçe) are incorporated into the city of Belgrade. Sometimes referred to as
‘İmaret villages (‘İmaret köyleri) in documents, they constituted a territorial whole
which bordered Belgrade city’s administrative boundary (sınır).12 In the 16th and 17th
century they were among the most developed and prosperous villages in the

7
R. C. Jennings, Kadi, Court, and Legal Procedure in the 17th C. Ottoman Kayseri, Studia
Islamica 48 (1978) 169–171; HMAT, 2/113.
8
Le code (kānūnnāme) de Selim Ier (1512–1520) et certaines autres lois de la deuxième moitié
du XVIe siècle / I. Selim Kānūnnāmesi (1512–1520) ve XVI. Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısının Kimi
Kanunları, Hzr. S. Pulaha – Y. Yücel, Ankara 1988, 31, 42; Х. Хаџибегић, Канун-нама султана
Сулејмана Законодавца, Гласник Земаљског музеја у Сарајеву, нова серија IV–V (1950)
347; İnalcık, Maḥkame. 2. The Ottoman Empire, Encyclopaedia of Islam, CD-ROM Edition v.
1.0, Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden 1999.
9
H. Ongan, Ankara’nin İki Numaralı Şer’iye Sicili, Ankara 1998, No. 730.
10
Şer’iyye Sicilleri. Mahiyeti, Toplu Kataloğu ve Seçme Hükümler, I, 44–46.
11
On the importance of this foundation see: А. Фотић, Улога вакуфа у развоју оријенталног
града: београдски вакуф Мехмед‐паше Јахјапашића, Социјална структура српских
градских насеља (XII–XVIII век), Смедерево–Београд 1992, 149–159; idem, Yahyapaşa‐
oğlu Mehmed Pasha’s Evkaf in Belgrade, Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae
54, 4 (2001) 437–452.
12
A. Fotić, Yahyapaşa‐oğlu Mehmed Pasha’s Evkaf in Belgrade, 446–448.

68
 The Belgrade Kadi’s Müraseles of 1683: The Mirror of a Kadi’s Administrative Duties

immediate environs of Belgrade. The reason for that were some privileges, typically
enjoyed by vakıf villages, but also their remarkable geographical position, especially
their proximity to the city. Mirijevo was situated on the Belgrade–Smederevo
(Semendire) section of the Imperial Road (İstanbul Yolu), the most important route
in the Balkans. The vakıf complex was thus linked to two largest cities in the sancak
of Semendire. Moreover, the road was safe and well-maintained.13 On top of that,
the boundaries of the villages abutted the Danube. This had tremendous economic
importance but also entailed some obligations.
The vakıf also owned lands across the Danube, an area bounded by the Danube
and Tamiš rivers which was known as “The Island of Ovča with Borča (Cezire‐i Ofça
me‘a Borça). Even though a look at the map may suggest that these vakıf lands
formed a whole with those on the right bank of the Danube, this was not so
administratively. The area on the left bank of the Danube was administratively in the
nahiye of Pančevo (Pançova) and then, from 1552, in the sancak of Temesvár,
whereas the ‘İmaret villages on the right bank of the Danube belonged to the nahiye
of Belgrade.14
Before the establishment of Yahyalu Mehmed Paşa’s vakıf, which probably took
place just shortly before 1548, the area on the right bank was largely deserted and in
a state of neglect. One of the conditions under which the Sultan granted full private
ownership (mülk) of state lands to individuals was that they turn unused and
uninhabited land into an economically prosperous vakıf. Süleyman the Magnificent
rewarded Mehmed Paşa for his great military merits between 1528 and 1536, seeing
to it that the future vakıf fulfilled not only its religious but also its social and economic
roles. All four villages of the vakıf complex came into existence by colonization. Since
the area was abandoned and without re‘aya, it was settled with slaves that Mehmed
Paşa had captured in Slavonia and elsewhere, but also with Vlachs (Eflak) and other
landless people. Mirijevo grew from the mezra‘a of Mirine, and Gornje Slance and
Donje Slance from the mezra‘a of Slanac, while Višnjica was settled much later.
According to the 1528/30 imperial survey register, only Mirijevo (then called Mirijevci
and Miranje) was not abandoned. Mehmed Paşa was not the first Yahyapaşazade to
grow attached to those parts. In the 1521/22 survey, which was carried out
immediately after the conquest of Belgrade, Bali Bey is recorded as the lessee of the
mezra‘a of Mirina, which belonged to the imperial hass at the time. The earliest
reference to Višnjica occurs only in 1560, but it certainly had been a village even
before the issuance of the foundation charter (vakifname) shortly prior or in 1548.15

13
O. Зиројевић, Цариградски друм од Београда до Софије (1459–1683), Зборник
Историјског музеја Србије 7 (1970) 21, 115–116; З. Шкаламера – М. Поповић, Нови
подаци с плана Београда из 1683, Годишњак града Београда III (1976) 41.
14
A. Fotić, Yahyapaşa‐oğlu Mehmed Pasha’s Evkaf in Belgrade, 446–448. The exact boundary
of the entire land possession is known from a surviving sınırname, which will be the subject
of a separate article.
15
Х. Шабановић, Турски извори за историју Београда, I, 1, Катастарски пописи
Београда и околине 1476–1566, Београд 1964, 21, 25, 70, 239, 395–397, 529–533.

69
 Aleksandar FOTIĆ

The villages of Gornje Slance and Donje Slance are referred to in the 1683 müraseles
as Veliko Slance and Donje Slance.16 This leads to a different assumption from the
one proposed by earlier historians. Namely, it suggests that it is Donje Slance that
can be identified as the later village of Malo Slance, and that Veliko Slance was the
core around which the village today called Slanci grew.17
Most of the local population were Orthodox Christians. They rallied around the
monastery dedicated to the Translation of the Relics of St Stephen at Slanci. The first
mention of the monastery in the sources dates from 1666, but it must have been
founded much earlier.18
There is no doubt that most inhabitants of Višnjica were freed slaves, who began
to be settled there in the 1530s. They almost certainly constituted the nucleus of
Višnjica’s Roman Catholic community, which would grow to 25 households, or some
100 to 160 people, in the 17th century. In 1631 this community purchased a plot of
land and built the church of St John the Baptist. Višnjica was an important and
numerically strong Roman Catholic centre in the sancak of Smederevo, a fact that
not a single papal visitor failed to emphasize in his report.19
Unlike most villages in the environs of Belgrade, those of Mehmed Paşa’s vakıf
had a considerable number of Muslim inhabitants, who were settled there at the time
Mehmed Paşa was granted the land to hold it in full ownership (mülk). This fact means
that there must have been a mescid there, but the first reference to one occurs only
in a 1717 map of the Belgrade district which shows a mosque in Mirijevo.20
The vakıf villages differed from other villages in that a number of vineyards were
held by “outsiders”, i.e. by some enterprising residents of Belgrade keen on growing
the famous sort of grapes themselves.21

16
BUB, MS 3574, 23, 76.
17
Šabanović suggested the opposite because he was unaware of this piece of information (Х.
Шабановић, Турски извори за историју Београда, 396) and, after him, so did R. Novaković
in interpreting J. de Haro y Cordona’s map from 1717 (Р. Новаковић, О ишчезлим селима
на подручју Београда, Годишњак града Београда XXXVII (1990) 72–82). Of course, this
involves the question of destruction and rebuilding of these villages and of the possible
confusion of their names during many later Austro-Turkish wars.
18
Д. Медаковић, Манастир Сланце код Београда, Историски часопис V (1954–1955) 419–
425. On possible interpretations of data contained in the imperial register compiled in 1560,
see Х. Шабановић, Турски извори за историју Београда, 466, and О. Зиројевић, Цркве и
манастири на подручју Пећке патријаршије до 1683. године, Београд 1984, 185.
19
Х. Шабановић, Турски извори за историју Београда, 532; E. Fermendžin, Acta Bosnae
Potissimum Ecclesiastica cum insertis editorum documentorum regestis ab anno 925 usque
ad annum 1752, Zagabriae 1892, 407; М. Јачов, Списи тајног ватиканског архива XVI–
XVIII века, Београд 1983, 69; idem, Списи Конгрегације за пропаганду вере у Риму о
Србима 1622–1644, Београд 1986, 197.
20
Ж. Шкаламера, Мапа једног дела београдског дистрикта из 1721, Годишњак града
Београда XVII (1970) 56.
21
Х. Шабановић, Турски извори за историју Београда, 530.

70
 The Belgrade Kadi’s Müraseles of 1683: The Mirror of a Kadi’s Administrative Duties

Information about the income that the villages brought to the vakıf is available
only for the 16th century. The figures show clearly how important the villages were.
The income they brought accounted for nearly one half of Belgrade’s total revenue.
According to the available data for 1572, out of the total income of Belgrade city and
nahiye of 119,491 akçes, the income from the four villages was 58,507 akçes (Mirijevo
17,564; Gornje Slance 9,591; Donje Slance 7,997; and Višnjica 23,355).22
Most of the income generated by the villages came from vine growing which, as
documented in the sources, had a very long tradition in the area.23 The well-known
travel writer Evliya Çelebi observed that Belgrade had “a great many vineyards”,
especially in the area between the city and Višnjica. According to him, the vakıf
vineyards were “exempted” (from paying extraordinary non-sharia taxes).24 Evliya’s
remark is confirmed by a few title deeds (tapu, tapuname) from Marsigli’s collection
of Ottoman documents issued by the mütevellis and other authorized officials of the
vakıf between 1663 and 1680. An unusual piece of information in a list of the officials
and dependants of the vakıf who received a daily portion of bread (fodıla) from the
‘imaret in 1660 confirms the existence of a “wine master” (bāde usta).25 As can be
seen from the 16th-century imperial survey registers, apart from the grapes, local
population also grew wheat, rye, barley, oat, millet, hemp, cabbage and red onion.
The same sources also attest to well-developed beekeeping and to the raising of pigs
and small horned livestock.26
The vakıf administrators took advantage of the opportunities presented by the
Danube to encourage the construction of watermills. They must have been quite
numerous given that Pietro Masarecho, Archbishop of Bar, in his report of 1663 which
22
Österreichische Nationalbibliothek (Wien), Mxt 158, photos 24–25 (İcmal defteri of the
sancak of Smederevo from 1571, with annotations from 1580); A. Fotić, Yahyapaşa‐oğlu
Mehmed Pasha’s Evkaf in Belgrade, 448. The same income is recorded in two other imperial
registers (defters) dated to 1574–95, most probably 1583–85 (Tapu ve Kadastro Genel
Müdürlüğü (Ankara) TD 184, pp. 175b–177b and Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi (İstanbul), TD
517, pp. 438–440), with only one difference: the figure for Višnjica is 21,329 akçes. These
defters are the last imperial survey registers for the sancak of Smederevo, with annotations
added even in the late 17th century, and still in use in the first decades of the 18th century. I
wish to thank Dr. Aleksandar Jakovljević for information and copies of the two defters.
23
Cf. Г. Гарић Петровић, Прилог историји виноградарства и винарства у Србији,
Историјски часопис LX (2011) 231–245.
24
Evlijā Čelebī, Putopis. Odlomci o jugoslovenskim zemljama, prevod, uvod i komentar H.
Šabanović, Sarajevo 19794, 91; Evliyâ Çelebi b. Derviş Mehemmed Zıllî, Evliyâ Çelebi
Seyahatnâmesi. Topkapı Sarayı Kütüphanesi Bağdat 308 Numaralı Yazmanın Transkripsiyonu
– Dizini, Hazırlayanlar Y. Dağlı, S. A. Kahraman, İ. Sezgin, 5. Kitap, İstanbul 2001, 199. This
sentence is the same in both editions of the manuscript.
25
BUB, MS 3574, 35, 51, 64, 67, 73, 77, 150 (no. 67 published as an example in: A. Fotić,
Tapunāme on Vakf Lands – Contribution to the Ottoman Diplomatics, Balcanica XX (1989)
270); idem, Дефтери фодула београдског имарета Мехмед‐паше Јахјапашића,
Balcanica XXII (1991) 61, 65, 73.
26
Х. Шабановић, Турски извори за историју Београда, 529–533.

71
 Aleksandar FOTIĆ

he drew up in his capacity as papal visitor, referred to the inhabitants of Višnjica as

millers by occupation (la profesion’ loro è di molinari).27 Those were so-called floating
or boat mills anchored in the midstream. Masarecho described them in detail when
reporting on Belgrade, and they are also depicted in a plan drawn by Joan Baptista
Gumpp in 1688. This type of watermills was in use in the following century as well
(1721 and 1768).28 By an undated mürasele, written probably in the spring or summer
of 1683, the naib of Belgrade, Mehmed Emrüllah, ordered the mütevelli of the vakıf
to provide a man from each watermill in the environs of Višnjica who were to be paid
a wage to set and tie together boats (sefīne) for a pontoon bridge (tombaz, misspelled
as tonbaz).29 We cannot know how many men he was able to muster, but we know
from Evliya Çelebi’s account, as an example, that the bridge for the crossing of troops
on a campaign against Varad, built between a point in the environs of Grocka and
Pančevo, consisted of 77 tombaz-boats and was 800 paces long by 50 paces wide.30

In the 16th and 17th century, apart from Buda, Belgrade housed the largest arms
and ammunition warehouse in Rumelia. The annual output of the powder works in
Belgrade was 1,000 kantars (about 61,440 kg) of black powder.31 Saltpetre was
obtained in various places, most of it arriving via Thessaloniki. There has been no
mention in historiography of its having been produced in Belgrade as well, even
though the very name of the village Slance would seem to suggest that. The only
documentary evidence is a 1679 tezkire to the villagers of Mirijevo confirming that
they handed over 90 okkas (1 okka = 1.28 kg) of “pure saltpetre” (gühercile‐i halis) as
an imperial tax levied on ten registered houses. We do not know if those were
households or simply houses as accounting units. Nor does the document allow us to
conclude if it was a regular yearly tax or a temporary obligation.32
The 1683 campaign against Vienna greatly worsened the life of local people both in
Belgrade and in the surrounding villages. In the spring of 1683 Belgrade was amidst
preparations for the visit of the Sultan Mehmed IV. He would spend the months from
May to September in Belgrade following developments on the battlefield and receiving
news about the progress of the siege of Vienna. Much of the burden to provide for the
needs of the entire Ottoman court, the Imperial Council (Divan‐i Hümayun) and
chancery, fell on Belgrade’s urban and surrounding population. The villages of the
‘İmaret vakfi were no exception. The pressures were reflected in an almost daily
demand for workers – cerahors (saraors, colloquial form of the word in use in the
Balkans), transport vehicles, building material, food and other necessary supplies.
27
М. Јачов, Списи Конгрегације, 197.
28
Ibidem; http://www.digitalna.nb.rs/wb/NBS/Kartografska_gradja/Beograd_na_starim_mapama/
KR-II-600#page/0/mode/1up <30.04.2018>; Ж. Шкаламера, Мапа једног дела београдског
дистрикта из 1721, 46, 53; С. Пецињачки, Забелешке о Београду и његовој околини из
1768. године, Годишњак града Београда XXVII (1980) 80.
29
BUB, MS 3574, 23.
30
Evlijā Čelebī, Putopis, 89, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, 198.
31
Ibidem.
32
BUB, MS 3574, 165.
72
 The Belgrade Kadi’s Müraseles of 1683: The Mirror of a Kadi’s Administrative Duties

In May 1683 the Ottomans had already been busy building, repairing and
embellishing important edifices in Belgrade. The müraseles provide information about
two of such buildings: the Grand Vizier’s Palace (Sadr‐i ‘ali sarayı, Sadr‐i ‘azam binası)
and the Imperial Palace (Saray‐i ‘Amire). The Imperial Harem (Harem‐i Hümayun)
mentioned in one mürasele must in fact been the same Imperial Palace.33 Probably
used for the residence of the Grand Vizier was an existing palace built in the second
half of the 16th century, which was only renovated for this purpose.34 The Imperial
Palace (Saray‐i ‘Amire) was built specially for Mehmed IV.35 For some time, there
apparently existed two different luxurious stone buildings and, therefore, the two
should not be identified as one and the same as Gumpp’s plan of 1688 suggests (10
Il palazzo del Sultano, ò del primo Visire).36
The type of obligations imposed on the villages was influenced by the immediate
vicinity of the Kayaburunu stone quarry. (Kayaburunu means “stony promontory”, as
a part of what now is called Karaburma was correctly called until about the beginning
of the 20th century.37) Another highly influential factor was their proximity to the
Danube, because sand was extracted there and transported from its banks to
construction sites. Since the construction of the Imperial Palace required “a very large
amount of stone”, in March 1683 the kadı of Belgrade, ‘Abdülhalim, sent a mürasele
to the mütevelli of Mirijevo and Višnjica ordering him to provide some thirty to forty
cerahors equipped with their own pickaxes to break up the soil and extract stone. In
this brief mürasele, he emphasized two times that their wages would be paid fully.38
A few months later, in mid-July, the same kadı requested oxcarts from all four villages,
because the already issued Imperial firman ordering that one hundred oxcarts be
provided for construction needs had not been obeyed fully. The duty of oxcarts
drivers (‘arabacılar) was to transport stone from Kayaburunu twice a day, for which
they were paid a daily wage.39
The kadı of Belgrade, ‘Abdülhalim, and the naib intervened with müraseles a few
more times with regard to the renovation of the Vizier’s residence. In May 1683 sixty
oxcarts were requested for the needs of the “Islamic army” (‘asakir‐i İslam), of which
forty for the Grand Vizier. A month later there were two more requests for oxcarts for
the transportation of sand.40

33
BUB, MS 3574, 49, 55, 175 and, probably, 17 and 154.
34
Х. Шабановић, Урбани развитак Београда од 1521. до 1688. године, Годишњак града
Београда XVII (1970) 34.
35
Р. Веселиновић, Београд од 1683. до 1717. године, Годишњак града Београда XV (1968)
17; Ж. Шкаламера – М. Поповић, Нови подаци с плана Београда из 1683, 51.
36
Х. Шабановић, Урбани развитак Београда, 34; М. Лазаревић, Тврђава и град Београд
крајем XVII вијека на плану Јоана Баптисте Гумпа, Годишњак града Београда XIII (1966) 68.
37
On the meaning and use of the toponym Kayaburunu, see А. Фотић, Девет прилога
историји турског Београда, Годишњак града Београда XXXVIII (1991) 103–104.
38
BUB, MS 3574, 49.
39
BUB, MS 3574, 175.
40
BUB, MS 3574, 154, 55, 17.

73
 Aleksandar FOTIĆ

The inhabitants of the vakıf villages paid their levy on firewood within a set of
levies paid annually to the vakıf as a lump sum. With the outbreak of war in 1683 the
situation changed. The villages now had to hand over larger amounts of firewood for
the needs of the part of the Imperial army which was stationed in Belgrade. The basis
for taking the firewood was a firman ordering iştira (forced purchase at a prescribed
price, usually lower than the market price). Višnjica was to supply the Imperial
chancery, which was in Belgrade at the time, with one çeki, or about 250 kg, of
firewood a day. Ramazan, the chief imperial scribe (ser‐yaziciyan‐i şerhriyari),
confirmed that he had already received 110 çeki of firewood by the time of the
issuance of his undated receipt.41 Special müraseles were issued in April 1683
requesting ten oxcarts from Veliko Slance, then twenty more, and then another
fifteen from Višnjica, for the transportation of firewood and fodder for the needs of
the Imperial kitchen (Matbah‐i ‘Amire). In August Višnjica and Donje Slance were
required each to provide another ten carts for the Grand Vizier, and Višnjica was to
provide five carts for the kaz‘asker of Anatolia.42
The known and detailed imperial survey registers (müfassal defterleri) for the
sancak of Smederevo make no mention of the population of the vakıf villages having
the duty of towing boats along the Danube.43 Again, the war and the huge need for
workers for all kinds of work changed the situation. In mid-August 1683 the mütevelli
was ordered by the kadı of Belgrade to provide “enough” workers (cerahors) for
towing a barley-loaded boat from Višnjica to Belgrade.44
How effective was the mürasele as an order? The experience of Ronald Jennings
with the Kayseri kadı sicils does not seem to support the assumption that it was; on
the contrary. Not infrequently, mürasele servers were harshly driven away.45 And yet,
it should be kept in mind that the müraseles of this type, based on Imperial orders and
backed by the Grand Vizier and the presence of an army in the immediate vicinity,
could not have been disobeyed lightly. The basic diplomatic section of a mürasele
suggesting an order is similar to other documents in form: “When the mürasele
arrives” (Mürasele vusulunda gerekdür ki; Lede‐l‐vusul ül‐mürasele gerekdür ki).46 In
some, albeit rare, cases, there is a warning, also in the main text of the mürasele: “Do
not disregard and do not ignore” (İhmal ve müsamaha etdirmeyesiz). An appended
sentence, which was unusual, written in a different hand, perhaps by the kadı himself,
reads: “If this is ignored, the mübaşir will come and I’ll have everything turned upside
down” (Müsamaha olunursa mübaşir varub devr etdirilüm).47
There is no doubt that many of the abovementioned duties were extraordinary in
nature, caused and prompted by the circumstances of war. The labourers and oxcart
41
Х. Шабановић, Турски извори за историју Београда, 529–532; BUB, MS 3574, 65, 178.
42
BUB, MS 3574, 23, 45, 76, 30.
43
Cf. Х. Шабановић, Турски извори за историју Београда.
44
BUB, MS 3574, 66.
45
R. C. Jennings, Kadi, Court, and Legal Procedure in the 17th C. Ottoman Kayseri, 169–171.
46
BUB, MS 3574, 66, 23, 154, 45, 76.
47
BUB, MS 3574, 55, 17.

74
 The Belgrade Kadi’s Müraseles of 1683: The Mirror of a Kadi’s Administrative Duties

drivers (cerahors, ‘arabacıs) from the vakıf villages received some compensation for
their work. Almost every mürasele emphasizes, sometimes even two times in a text
as short as a few sentences, that daily wages will be paid. In one case it is even
underlined that daily wages will be paid in advance! The amount of the wage is
specified in only one mürasele and it was by no means negligible – the whole 50 akçes
a day.48
Müraseles are a rarely surviving and insufficiently studied type of documents. If
found grouped together, as in this case, and especially if they concern related cases
and a particular area, they can be a highly rewarding source for local history. In our
case, about a dozen müraseles concerning the local history of the villages belonging
to Mehmed Paşa Yahyapaşaoğlu’s vakıf in the immediate environs of Belgrade have
survived owing to the diversity of Count Marsigli’s interests. The information they
provide sheds a revealing light on the wide range of an Ottoman kadı’s
administrative duties.

48
BUB, MS 3574, 30, 17.

75
 Aleksandar FOTIĆ

Aleksandar FOTIÇ

KADI İDARİ GÖREVLERİNİN BİR AYNASI OLAN BELGRAD KADISININ 1683

YILINA AİT MÜRASELELERİ

Özet

Kadı emirleri ve mektuplaşmaları anlamına gelen müraseleler, kadı sicillerinde yer

alan sayısı az olan bazı suretler dışında orijinal arşiv malzemesi olarak saklanmayan
yerel idari makamların belgeleri arasında yer almaktadır. Söz konusu belgeler, tarih
yazımında yeterince araştırılmamış, ancak kadı idari görevi için önemi büyük olan
belgelerdir. Talihli bir tesadüf sayesinde Bologna’daki Marsigli Kütüphanesi’nde 1683
yılına ait olan, Belgrad kadısı tarafından yazılmış on kadar mürasele bulunmuştur.
Bulunan müraselelerin tamamı Yahyapaşaoğlu Mehmed Paşa’nın Belgrad Vakfı
mütevellisine hitaben yazılmış olup vakfa ait olan Miriyevo, Vişnyica, Gornye Slance
ve Donye Slance kenar mahallelerinde yaşayan sakinlerin görevlerini içermektedir.
Müraselelerde, Tuna üzerinde yüzen su değirmenlerini çalıştırmakta tecrübeli olan
köylülere yeni yapılan bir seyyar köprü inşaatında yardım etmeleri, şehir limanına
kadar gemileri çekmeleri, Sultan sarayı ile Vezir-i âzam sarayının inşaatı için gerekli
olan kereste, taş ve kumu yakınlarda bulunan Kayaburun taş madeninden taşımaları,
belirli para karşılığı kağnı ile iş gücünü temin etmeleri için emirler yer alıyordu.
Müraseleler, Osmanlı ordusunun gelişinin beklendiği dönemde Belgrad’daki hareketli
inşaat faaliyeti ve kadının gerekli hazırlıkların yürütülmesindeki önemli rolünü ortaya
koymaktadır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Belgrad, Yahyapaşaoğlu Mehmet Paşa’nın Vakfı, 1683 yılı, Kadı
görevleri

76
 The Belgrade Kadi’s Müraseles of 1683: The Mirror of a Kadi’s Administrative Duties

Александар Фотић

МУРАСЕЛЕ БЕОГРАДСКОГ КАДИЈЕ ИЗ 1683. ГОДИНЕ:

ОГЛЕДАЛО КАДИЈИНИХ УПРАВНИХ ДУЖНОСТИ

Резиме

Мураселе (кадијски дописи – наредбе) спадају међу документе локалних

органа власти који највећим делом нису сачувани као оригинална архивска
грађа, изузев понеког преписа у кадијским сиџилима. У питању су документи
који су изузетно важни за проучавање управне улоге кадије, улоге која је у
историографији прилично слабо проучена. Захваљујући срећним околностима,
у Марсиљијевој библиотеци у Болоњи сачувано је десетак мурасела београдског
кадије из 1683. године. Све су упућене мутевелији београдског вакуфа Мехмед-
паше Јахјапашића и односе се на обавезе житеља приградских вакуфских села:
Миријева, Вишњице, Горњег и Доњег Сланца. Наређује се да житељи пруже
помоћ приликом грађења понтонског моста, будући да су искусни као
воденичари на специфичним пловећим речним воденицама на Дунаву, да вуку
бродове до градског лимана, да довозе дрва, песак и камен из оближњег
каменолома у Кајабурни за потребе грађења Царског сараја и Сараја великог
везира, да за одређену надницу обезбеде воловска кола и раднике... Мураселе
указују на живу градитељску делатност у Београду уочи доласка османске војске
и на улогу кадије у организовању тих припрема.
Кључне речи: Београд, вакуф Мехмед-паше Јахјапашића, 1683, дужности
кадије.

77
THE INSTITUTE
OF HISTORY
BELGRADE

BELGRADE
1521–1867
Editors in chief
Srđan Rudić
Selim Aslantaş

Editor
Dragana Amedoski

Belgrade
2018.
Reviewers

Vesna Bikić, PhD

(Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade)
Prof. dr. Turan Gökçe
(İzmir Kâtip Çelebi Üniversitesi, Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler)
Prof. Nenad Makuljević, PhD
(Faculty of Philosophy Belgrade)
Prof. dr Konstantin Nikiforov
(Institute of Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences)

Editorial Board

Selim Aslantaş (Yunus Emre Enstitüsü – Turkish Cultural Centre Belgrade)

Dragana Amedoski (Institute of History Belgrade)
Şeref Ateş (Yunus Emre Enstitüsü – Ankara)
Mahir Aydin (Istanbul University)
Machiel Kiel (Netherlands Institute in Turkey)
Christian Promitzer (Institute for History, KarlFranzens University of Graz)
Srđan Rudić (Institute of History Belgrade)
Aleksandra Vuletić (Institute of History Belgrade)
Olga Zirojević (Institute of History Belgrade)

This book has been published with the financial support of

the Ministry of the Education, Science and Technological Development
of the Republic of Serbia and
Yunus Emre Enstitüsü – Turkish Cultural Centre Belgrade
TABLE OF CONTENTS

5 Marko POPOVIĆ
SIEGE OF BELGRADE IN 1521 AND RESTORATION OF FORTIFICATIONS
AFTER CONQUEST

27 Machiel KIEL
THE CARAVANSERAI OF TUYGUN PASHA IN BELGRADE:
ITS DESCRIPTION BY HANS DERNSCHWAM (1555) AND SOME NOTES
ABOUT ITS FOUNDER IN THE OTTOMAN ARCHIVES IN ISTANBUL

53 Dragana AMEDOSKI
BELGRADE WOMEN IN OTTOMAN SOCIETY:
MUSLIM WOMEN FROM BELGRADE AT SHARIA COURT (17TH CENTURY)

65 Aleksandar FOTIĆ
THE BELGRADE KADI’S MÜRASELES OF 1683:
THE MIRROR OF A KADI’S ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES

79 Tatjana KATIĆ
WALKING THROUGH THE RAVAGED CITY: AN EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY
TO THE DEMOLITION OF THE BELGRADE FORTRESS IN 1690

101 Mahir AYDIN

THE BELGRADE FORTRESS
BEFORE THE TREATY OF PASSAROWITZ (1697–1717)

129 Hakan KARAGÖZ

THE 1717 SIEGE OF BELGRADE AND THE OTTOMAN WAR EQUIPMENT
CAPTURED BY THE HABSBURGS AFTER THE SIEGE

155 Isidora TOČANAC RADOVIĆ

BELGRADE – SEAT OF THE ARCHBISHOPRIC
AND METROPOLITANATE (1718–1739)

169 Uğur KURTARAN

OTTOMAN-AUSTRIA BORDER DETERMINATION WORKS AND NEWLY
DETERMINED BORDERS ACCORDING TO THE TREATY OF BELGRADE OF 1739

193 Hatice ORUÇ

BELGRADE ACCORDING TO THE 1741 DATED TAHRIR DEFTER
ON THE SMEDEREVO SANJAK

259 Mehmet TÜTÜNCÜ

BELGRADE’S OTTOMAN INSCRIPTIONS AS WAR BOOTY
283 Nurbanu DURAN
LIFE IN THE BELGRADE FORTRESS
IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF THE 19TH CENTURY

297 Nedeljko V. RADOSAVLJEVIĆ

BELGRADE METROPOLITANATE 1825–1831

315 E. Attila AYTEKIN

BELGRADÎ RAŞID AND HIS VAK’A‐I HAYRET‐NÜMA:
A LOCAL MUSLIM PERSPECTIVE ON DUAL ADMINISTRATION IN BELGRADE
DURING SERBIAN AUTONOMY

327 Aleksandra VULETIĆ, Nino DELIĆ

POPULATION OF BELGRADE AS A FOCUS OF POLITICAL
AND ADMINISTRATIVE INTEREST IN THE MID–19TH CENTURY

347 Bojana MILJKOVIĆ KATIĆ

ABOUT CONTRADICTORY POLICY OF PURCHASES OF MUSLIM ESTATES
IN BELGRADE AND THE PRINCIPALITY OF SERBIA

363 Irena ĆIROVIĆ

OTTOMAN WOMAN, AGENCY AND POWER:
MELEK HANIM IN BELGRADE 1847–1848

383 Gordana KAROVIĆ

ESTABLISHING STEAM NAVIGATION IN THE PRINCIPALITY OF SERBIA

407 Ljubodrag P. RISTIĆ

THE BOMBING OF BELGRADE (1862) AND THE CESSION
OF FOTRESSES TO SERBIA (1867) IN BRITISH POLITICS

423 Suzana RAJIĆ

BELGRADE AND THE CITY QUESTION 1866/1867
IN CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE OF FOREIGN OFFICE

437 Evren KUTLAY

ELEMENTS OF OTTOMAN INFLUENCE IN SERBIAN MUSIC

453 Vladimir TOMIĆ

THE VIENNESE VIEW ON BELGRADE. BELGRADE IN THE WORKS OF
VIENNESE ENGRAVERS BETWEEN THE 17TH AND THE 19TH CENTURY
FROM THE BELGRADE CITY MUSEUM COLLECTION

479 Selim ASLANTAŞ

A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORKS ON OTTOMAN BELGRADE