- 1 Contemporary research focuses on the concept of spatiality and its role both in the integration of (...)
1In a newly established, decentralized, administrative area, such as the island of Cyprus was in the year 1571, after its occupation by the Ottomans, one would expect that the attention of the Ottoman administration would turn to the coordination of control mechanisms over the new subjects and their institutions as well as the Ottoman officials sent there. Whether and to what extent this framework of control and overall connection between the beylerbeylik of Cyprus and the central administration was organized and ultimately worked effectively will remain an open question in this article – the answer to which is beyond the scope of this study – with the rationale of being an occasion for re‑approaching its answer through the perspective of management of the monastic property and especially land acquisitions.1
- 2 The general census that accompanied each new conquest was the first step in this direction. In the (...)
- 3 Moutafcieva 1990, pp. 22‑25.
- 4 Those tracts of land within the boundaries of built‑up areas and those held as private freehold lan (...)
2Land management on the island of Cyprus, like any other place brought under its control, was at the top of the Ottoman administration’s political-economic agenda and was therefore the first thing it dealt with after the conquest and during the organization of each new place.2 Land management was based, as is well known, on the application of the timar system, in which all the lands of the island (except for private estates) passed into the ownership of the Treasury,3 i.e. the state, and were categorized as public lands (arazi‑i miriye), which were divided into timars assigned to sipahis,4 while the most profitable lands of the island, such as the valley of Mesaoria but also the areas of Kythrea and Lefka, to which Kykkos monastery also belonged, were possessions of the sultan (hass‑ı hümayun) and their incomes were directly channeled to the Imperial Treasury.
3However, at the center of this study is specifically the question of the Kykkos monastery property management, both from the state’s and the monasteries’ point of view. At a first level, we seek to present a brief overview of the first steps of the integration and management of monastic property in the Ottoman administrative and legal framework and then, within this same framework, to examine the pursuits and actions of all parties involved.
- 5 Kermeli 2001, p. 145; Fotic 1994, p. 39.
- 6 Fotic 1994, pp. 38‑39; Alexander 1997, pp. 151‑158; Kermeli 2001, pp. 145‑146.
4In our attempt to follow the policy of the Ottoman central administration regarding the management of the monastic lands in Cyprus through the case of Kykkos monastery, we need to refer, at least briefly, to the revision and codification of the land ownership regime that took place in the years 1568-1569. It is well known, that immediately after his accession to the throne, Sultan Selim II, along with Şeyhülislam Ebussuud Efendi, managed to complete the revision and codification of the legal framework on land ownership and taxation based on an argument that focused on the necessity of conciliation between the two existing legal systems, the Islamic Law (Sharia) and the Sultanic Law (Kanun) but also following the need to reduce the financial costs incurred by the Ottoman government from the abuses in land ownership (a fact that justified the confiscation of monastic lands that was subsequently carried out by of the central administration).5 Research, however, has shown that the whole project was not only based on purely legal or fiscal motives but also on economic-political ones, such as the intention to drastically strengthen the control of the central state power over the lands of the empire (an effort that Ebussuud had begun to serve already under Suleiman I, the predecessor and father of Selim II) and to limit land ownership by individuals (mülk) and institutions (vakıf).6
- 7 Fotic 1994, pp. 39‑46; Kolovos 2016, pp. 110‑113.
- 8 The confiscation process did not take place at the same time for all monasteries. Fotic suggests th (...)
5By issuing opinions (fetva), Ebussuud managed to create a new legal framework, which redefined the boundaries of land ownership, public, private and vakıf, while also focusing on the issue of determining the content of the term “ecclesiastical/monastic endowment” (kenisa vakıf).7 The existing monastic endowments did not meet any of the conditions set by the new legal framework on land ownership, resulting in the legalization of their confiscation, which was ordered during the years 1568-1569.8 Henceforth, those designated as “public” lands could not constitute vakıfs (as had been the case until then) and consequently any vakıfs established on public lands were now invalid. Public lands included arable lands, pastures and meadows, which could not constitute waqf lands but only vineyards, gardens/orchards, mills, livestock and buildings but these too under conditions. Consequently, monasteries could no longer have the same rights of full ownership that they previously enjoyed over arable land (they lost everything they had) with the tolerance of the Ottoman state and law, but could only hold them under a lease (icare) regime.
- 9 Alexander 1997, p. 183 (see also footnote 93).
- 10 Finkel 2007, pp. 161‑204.
- 11 The fixed expenses obviously included the payment of salaries of the local officials and the Janiss (...)
- 12 Finkel shares the same view: Finkel 2007, p. 213.
- 13 Alexander 1997, pp. 182‑184 (see also footnotes 91‑92).
- 14 Lemerle, Wittek 1947-1948; Fotic 1994; Alexander 1997; Kermeli 2000; Kolovos 2000; Kotzageorgis 200 (...)
6The timing of the completion and implementation of the new land legal regime as well as the consequent confiscation of Christian endowments is not simply a product of circumstances. Rather, it seems to reinforce the idea that the motives for the confiscation of Christian institutions were financial, and consequently political.9 At the time of the Confiscation (1568-1569) the Ottoman Empire had completed a particularly costly and long period of conflict with the Habsburgs in European lands and the Mediterranean (1526-1566) – including the most recent failed four-month siege of Malta in 1565 – by which the public treasury had come out weakened.10 In this we have to factor in the current needs of the state at the given time, which included fixed as well as extraordinary expenses,11 but also the need of the sultan himself to maintain his political prestige, i.e. his survival on the throne. Furthermore, Alexandropoulos, relying on western sources, has suggested the correlation of the time of the seizure with the desire of the Ottoman state to finance the upcoming campaign in Cyprus through it.12 In addition, he aptly points out the gap in the documentation of the confiscation event, which results in only the obvious and not always reliable aspects of the issue being highlighted, both from Ottoman and Greek, as well as western sources.13 From the point of view of the monasteries, the year 1568-1569 marks the moment when the struggle for survival begins with the aim of recovering their confiscated properties but also maintaining their property in a different legal status, as we already know from the case of the monasteries of Mount Athos but also Meteora, Patmos, Lesvos, etc. 14This struggle, sometimes resembling a forced interaction and sometimes a mutual negotiation of state and church centered on land ownership, oscillated between legitimacy and deviance from it.
- 15 Regarding the establishment of Christian endowments by monasteries/churches and individuals (basica (...)
- 16 Erdoğru 2019, pp. 71‑73.
7The conquest of Cyprus was completed in 1571, which means that unlike the cases of other monasteries in different parts of the empire (mainly in the vilayet of Rumιli) monastic property was for the first time confronted with the revised Ottoman-Islamic legal framework and after having been preceded by the confiscation of monastic endowments that previously existed in Ottoman territory.15 At this point it is worth pointing out the research gap and the lack of documentation regarding the treatment of Cypriot Christian-Orthodox ecclesiastical institutions (monasteries, churches, bishoprics) immediately after the occupation of the island by the Ottomans.16
- 17 Roudometof, Michael 2010, pp. 59‑60.
8However, the information derived from two documents, coming from different times of the 16th century, which record the efforts of Abbot Gregorios to recover the property of Kykkos monastery, although they are quite helpful, do not give us a clear picture of the issue of the confiscation of the monastic property by the Ottoman state neither of their treatment by the state during the first phase of the island’s administration but rather they raise questions.17
- 18 Theocharides 1993, pp. 2‑3.
9According to the first document, an order of the year 1572 (3‑11/7/1572), the abbot of Kykkos monastery (... Çiko nam manastırın ğumenosı ...) is said to have visited the governor of Cyprus, about a year after the fall of Famagusta (August 1, 1571) and the conquest of all of Cyprus by the Ottomans, in order to inform him of the situation of his monastery’s vakıf property. According to the abbot’s report, some people were exploiting the assets (mills, vines, orchards, sheep, goats) that used to belong to the monastery in different parts of the island. The abbot’s report to the governor of the island was followed by his request that the assets be returned back to the monastery to which they belonged. In turn, the governor of Cyprus ordered the naib of Lefka (where the Kykkos monastery belonged) to investigate the case and act according to the findings. At this point in the document, the validity of the new legal framework on endowments and land ownership is now evident. More specifically, the governor points out that in the event that the naib (judge) found that what the abbot mentioned was correct, then the claimed assets should be returned to the monastery following the relevant proofs and on the condition that they do not belong to the public or to someone else. However, he clarified that in the event that the assets in question were registered as belonging to the public then they could not be monastery’s full property but only held by the abbot in the name of the public as a mukata’a.18
- 19 Kermeli 2000, pp. 47‑48.
10From this particular document it appears that when the abbot of the Kykkos monastery tried to recover the monastery’s property he was confronted with the new reality regarding its property rights, which had been revised in the meantime by the new legal regime of Ebussuud, essentially redefining the content of the term “monastic vakıf”. Since then, Kykkos monastery, like any other monastery, would not be able to claim the return of its assets with the same ownership relationship that it possessed them before the conquest of the island, due to the confiscation. From now on, based on the new legal provisions, as it is already known from the cases of other monasteries, monastery’s full ownership (mülk) could include vineyards, gardens, animals, buildings and other objects, which by extension could be endowed but in no case arable lands, i.e. fields, meadows and pastures, which constituted public land. In the event that the Kykkos monastery aspired to somehow control the parts of its property that had now been designated as public land, this could only be by renting by tapu and paying the required customary and Islamic taxes. In addition, the destination of the Christian endowments is clearly stated as well as the way to ensure their continuity.19
- 20 Theocharides 1993, pp. 28‑31, 32‑33. In the above document, the term vakıf is used to refer to the (...)
11This new reality with which Kykkos monastery was also confronted, is also described in the second document, in a hüccet of the year 1589, according to which, abbot Gregorios, appearing in court in the presence of Muslims and Christians, gave the timeline of this transition from the old regime to the new one, stating the following: “Kykkos monastery was established more than 300 years ago. The monastery with all its products, coming from the vines, orchards/gardens, mills and fields (tarlaları), which were located in every corner of Cyprus, was transformed according to religious Christian customs into a holy religious institution, where visitors could be served. Meanwhile ‘the shadow of God’, the sultan, took over Cyprus. Then the blessed Mustafa paşa (governor of Cyprus), issued a holy order, by which he left the monastery and its monks to the abbot, maintaining the existing order. Later the molla issued a fetva, and officials were appointed on behalf of the state, who received from the monastery and the monks the fixed amount of rent (icare) for the name of the public. The court and the public also gave the monastery titles, in order to preserve the previous situation”.20
12The excerpt from the above document presents in a concise way and from the point of view of the abbot of the Kykkos monastery, the transition from Venetian to Ottoman administration and how it affected the status of monastic endowments, speaking in both cases of a religious institution intended to serve people, that is, focusing on its social role and proving the already known ability of the monks to converse with the representatives of the Ottoman administration. What is of particular interest, however, is that no mention is made of the confiscation of monastic property but only of the change of data and the care of the Ottoman state to maintain the status of church/monastic endowments “according to the old method” (üslub‑i sabık).
13In the above-mentioned hüccet of the year 1589, the Ottoman state’s perception of the management of the Christian endowments, as well as the strategy of the Kykkos monastery regarding the preservation and expansion of its bequeathed property in the following years, are clearly given. According to the document, while under the old regime the abbot of the Kykkos monastery was the owner of the estates and lands, which belonged to the monastery and the monks and the products were intended for the sustenance of the Christian taxpayers, now the abbot Gregorios annexed to the monastery, according the old regime, vineyards, orchards and mills. When the molla was asked if the things connected with the monastery constitute a religious institution (endowment) and if the previous situation changes, he decided that it does not change, the abbot according to the old regime attached to the main body of the monastery the vineyards, orchards and mills, which he had additionally repaired. The abbot also requested that after the payment of secular taxes and tithes the remaining income be kept for the maintenance of any of the Muslims or Christians who would visit the monastery. The document expressly mentions the abbot’s wish that, after his death, future abbots should manage these estates, in the same way that he himself owned and made available their products to the visitors of the monastery. He also asked that no one, Muslim or Christian, should oppose this old regime. According to the document, the court’s acceptance of Abbot Gregorios’ claims was based on the fact that the monastery’s role was useful as a “human passage” for foreigners and visitors.
- 21 Kermeli 2000, pp. 43‑45.
14The “old regime” referred to in this part of the document as well is the recognition by the state of the vakıf status for the mentioned vineyards, orchards and mills annexed by the monastery and the consent on the part of the monastery to accept the new tax framework that accompanied the new conditions of land ownership but also the promotion of the social contribution of the monasteries as the official reason for the existence of monastic endowments. Under the new land ownership regime, one more parameter had been added, which had previously been the reason for the legalization of confiscation. It is about the recipient and the purpose of monastic endowments. Until 1568-1569, endowments were established in the name of each monastery itself without this being a problem for Ottoman law. However, under the new regulations of Ebussuud and the strengthening of the Islamic identity of Ottoman law, dedication in the name of a monastery/church was prohibited since Islamic law did not recognize Christian-Orthodox monasteries as legal entities nor found in them some divine purpose in accordance with Islam since they belonged to the “world of infidels”. Instead, in order to preserve the existence of Christian endowments the new legal framework stipulated that the endowment had to be intended for some public benefit and dedicated to the monks and benefactors of the monastery, thus providing a solution to the question of legality as to reason for the existence of Christian endowments.21 As can be seen from the above document, the abbot emphasized the public benefit nature of the monastery’s work and this allows us to speculate that he was probably already aware of the special parameters of this new regime regarding the legal operation of Christian endowments. The questions, however, which mainly concern the argumentation and the way in which the ecclesiastical/monastic property of Cyprus was confiscated by the Ottoman state, remain largely open calling for further research.
- 22 Archmandrite Kyprianos in his History mentions indicatively, that it was decided by the central adm (...)
15What seems to be common between the case of the ecclesiastical property of the Kykkos monastery and other monasteries (outside Cyprus) is the intention of the state itself to return the confiscated property to its former owners after it would have previously benefited from this return through their sale.22 In the case of the ecclesiastical/monastic property of Cyprus and Kykkos monastery itself, it is certain that after the conquest of the island and since monastic and ecclesiastical property of the island somehow passed to the Ottoman government, it was allowed to be sold again to the interested parties and so the efforts of churches and monasteries to recover it began.
- 23 Theocharides 1993, pp. 22‑25.
- 24 Ibid., pp. 16‑17, 26‑27.
- 25 The case of the conversion of the sale of monastic property by the Ottoman central administration i (...)
- 26 Theocharides 1993, pp. 26‑27. Let it be recalled here that the corresponding total amount paid by t (...)
16According to the documents a special commissioner was appointed by the central administration in charge of the sale of the monasteries and churches of Cyprus, while subsequently the bishops of the island took over as lessors for the sale of the ecclesiastical/monastic property. As testified in a court document (hüccet) of the year 1588 (10‑20/12), the role of lessor (mültezim) was assumed by the higher clergy of the Church of Cyprus, more specifically the bishops, who would then sell them to interested buyers, basically, to the monasteries, who were their previous owners.23 According to another document, a letter sent by the governor of Cyprus to the kadı of Chrysochou, in the year 1589, the abbot Gregorios addressing to the governor of Cyprus, stated that the bishops of the island had bought all the monasteries and the churches from Abu zade Ahmed çavuş (the special commissioner appointed by the Ottoman state).24 The Ottoman administration seems to have treated the ecclesiastical/monastic land holdings in Cyprus as a muqata’a.25 The sum paid by the bishops of the Church of Cyprus to buy from the Ottoman government all the monasteries and churches of the island was a total of 7 yuk akçes (which corresponded to about 700,000 akçes).26
- 27 Theocharides 1993, pp. 22‑25; the same amount is mentioned in a document of the year 1589 (March 18 (...)
- 28 Theocharides 1993, pp. 22‑25.
17A large part of this money was allocated to the repurchase of the Kykkos monastery property by abbot Gregorios, paying 127,000 akçes. The process of selling church/monastery endowments by the bishops to interested buyers, mainly the former owner monasteries and churches, was closely supervised by a special commissioner (mubaşir) sent from Istanbul, called Mustafa çavuş of the Sublime Porte (dergah‑i ali).27 More specifically, according to a document of the year 1588, the aforementioned Mustafa Çavuş summoned the lessor of the monasteries of Lefkas and Pentageia, bishop Christodoulos together with other monks, to the court and before the abbot of the Kykkos monastery, Gregorios, he asked the lessor Christodoulos and the other monks to answer if they deposited the amount of 120,000 akçes that they received from the sale of the Kykkos monastery and its dependents in the public treasury. The abbot replied that he bought the monastery from Christodoulos for 120,000 akçes and paid an additional amount of 7,000 akçes for interest, i.e. paying a total of 127,000 akçes (yedi bin akçe dahi verdüm cümle yüz yiğirmi yedi bin akçe olur dedikde) for the recovery of the monastery. The bishops who were present confirmed the words of the abbot, even stating that they themselves delivered this money with their own hands as well as that the relevant titles and certificates were given to the abbot. They (the bishops) stated that Abu zade Ahmed çavuş, took all the silver of the monastery to the Divan of Cyprus and ordered that the corresponding court document be given to them. The bishops and Abu zade Ahmed çavuş assured that the abbot of the Kykkos monastery no longer owed anything and that the certificates and titles given to him were genuine.28
- 29 Theocharides 1993, pp. 16‑17.
18In an earlier document, however, dated 1586 (1‑10/2), a different amount is mentioned regarding the purchase of the Kykkos monastery. According to the document in question, abbot Gregorios, had presented himself to the local council (divan) of Cyprus, in order to protest against the exercise of unfair financial pressure, stating that while he himself had paid the required 150,000 in full, that is, the amount corresponding to the purchase of the Kykkos monastery and its assets (land, objects, silver, wheat and barley) at the time of their sale by the Ottoman government, however, he was under pressure from the bishops in order to pay in addition to the amount paid a yük akçes (i.e. 100,000 akçes). Abu zade Ahmed çavuş, who was present at the court, stated that for the lands and belongings of the monastery, he received from Kykkos monastery a total of 55,000 akçes and nothing more. However, since these were also not found in the treasury, proofs were requested from the abbot Gregorios, and then the sipahi Ali Abdullah and Kulafi çavuş of the Divan of Cyprus were summoned and testified as witnesses, who in turn declared that Abu zade Ahmed çavuş had received the money for the lands and other assets of the monastery listed in the register (defter) and their testimony was accepted.29
- 30 Laiou 2005.
- 31 Theocharides 1993, pp. 2‑3.
19The issue of church/monastery property management, especially land property, as can be seen from other cases of churches/monasteries in the Ottoman territory, was often the subject of arbitrariness and controversy.30 This is evidenced by the repeated recommendations in the various documents of both central and regional authorities. In the case of the Kykkos monastery, such incidents of conflicts and arbitrariness are already recorded from the first year of implementation of the land ownership regime and, to a large extent, of the Ottoman administration. In an order document of the year 1572 (3‑11/7), the governor of Cyprus ordered the naib of Lefka to ensure that the abbot of the Kykkos monastery was not harassed by anyone and furthermore that the lessors of the mukata’as did not interfere with the monastery’s mill.31
- 32 The sultan’s new order stipulated that the matter be re‑investigated and if it is established that (...)
20The interventions of Ottoman officials, basically tax collectors, were often aimed at questioning the rights of possession or even ownership. In a document of the year 1583 (14/2) the priests, monks and inhabitants of the villages of Cyprus are said to have sent a report to the sultan informing him that their rights over their possessions (estate, land, vineyards, orchards) continued and after the Ottoman conquest, just as it was the case before it, and indeed in the first general census of Cyprus, their possessions were registered in their names in the vilayet register. But although they possessed them in this manner for 13 consecutive years (since the time of the island’s conquest) and paid to the tax-collectors of the public taxes and the mukata’as the required 1/5 for the public treasury, yet they would come and dispossess them of their property (and their animals) by force and sold it to others contrary to what was prescribed by an order that had already been issued previously on the same matter.32
- 33 Kermeli 2008.
- 34 The recognition of this right, according to Kermeli, is essentially equal to the recognition of the (...)
21A key aspect in the matter of managing monastic property is the issue of heirs. It is, however, known that the monks of Mount Athos, in the context of an idiosyncratic negotiation with Ebussuud,33 secured the recognition of the monks as “descendants” and therefore as successors in the properties owned by the monastery with a tapu. This meant that when monks died, the heirs (the remaining living monks) would not pay the tapu tax (so the local authorities would not get involved) to own these properties, as was the case with the natural descendants of a deceased person, which in turn entailed securing the right of unhindered succession of the remaining monks.34 In the case of the Kykkos monastery there is no differentiation in this issue, as was seen from the above documents.
22At this point it should be noted that each monk retained the right to individual property. This case, which is quite frequent, is also recorded in the documents of the Kykkos monastery. In these cases, however, the above regulation did not apply. This means that the property possessed by a monk while he was alive did not remain in the monastery after he died but was bequeathed to his natural heirs (i.e. his descendants), in the event that he had any. On the contrary, in the event that he died without having descendants, his property fell under the jurisdiction of the public treasury from where it would again be available for sale.
- 35 More specifically, the abbot had possessed mills, vineyards, orchards, trees, animals and other est (...)
- 36 According to the said documents, two tezkeres and a hüccet, all of the aforementioned property of t (...)
- 37 Theocharides 1993, pp. 74‑75, 78‑79, 82‑83.
23A typical similar case is presented in a series of the Kykkos monastery documents, referring to the same case which took place during the years 1616-1617. From these documents we find that the late abbot of Kykkos monastery, Gregorios, maintained a remarkable personal property which consisted both of full ownership property (mülk) and of possessions that he could only own with tapu (as they fell under the category of public lands). His property was bordered by the real estate of the Kykkos monastery and some of its dependencies in various other parts of Cyprus.35 When the abbot Gregorios died without male issue, his property fell, as expected, into the jurisdiction of the public treasury, from which certain Christians from Nicosia jointly purchased it36 paying a total of 80,000 akçes for his mülks while for the fields he owned by tapu within the boundaries of the monastery of Agios Georgios, they paid to the sipahis the amount of 5,000 akçes as a tax on the transfer of the right of possession (resm‑i tapu) under the condition not to leave them uncultivated for three years, to cultivate them and pay the tithe.37
- 38 Unfortunately, we are not in a position to know how this case developed as no other document referr (...)
24As mentioned above, the property of the abbot Gregorios was transferred in its entirety to the public treasury and from there it was put up for sale because the abbot had passed away without leaving behind male descendants and therefore beneficiaries of his property. However, in the documents of the Kykkos monastery there is also a document according to which a Christian woman named Mandalo, daughter of Gregorios, appeared before the kadı of Paphos claiming to be the genuine daughter of the abbot Gregorios and asking for exclusivity in the property of the deceased abbot which he had acquired from the public through the person responsible for the sale of the monastic property, Abu zade.38
- 39 Theocharides 1993, pp. 20‑21. Regarding monastic metochia, see Fotic 2008; Fotic 2007; Kotzageorgis (...)
25The case of the metochia (dependencies) of the Kykkos monastery shows that the repurchase and management of the Kykkos monastery property but also of the ecclesiastical/monastic property in general was not a case that concerned exclusively monasteries and churches but also third parties, sometimes Christians or Muslims, between whom they sometimes became an object of transaction. For example, in a document dated 1588 (28/4‑7/5), a Christian named Giovanni sold all the agricultural products he had cultivated (cotton, wheat, barley) that year as well as animals (donkeys) and plants for the sum of 22,000 akçes to the Ottoman official Receb paşa. According to the document, all of the above belonged to the monastery of Sindi (which belonged to the kaza of Paphos and was a metochi of the Kykkos monastery) and Giovanni allegedly bought all of the above from the public.39
- 40 Theocharides 1993, pp. 6‑7.
26Cases of arbitrariness by officials and disputes on their part regarding the ownership rights of Kykkos monastery are also recorded in the metochia of Kykkos monastery. For example, in a hüccet of 1579 (11‑20/11) a case of encroachment on vakıf property is recorded, this time concerning the Archangelos monastery (Acistariqo nam manastırın), which was located in the village of Choli of Kaza Chrysochous and was also a metochi of the Kykkos monastery. In this document, the abbot of the Kykkos monastery (Kiqo nam manastırın ğumenosı olub papa Liğori) protesting before the kadı of Chrysochou, Şaban Osman and the deputy kadıs Ahmed Mehmed and Derviş Mehmed, initiated a lawsuit against three Muslims stating that they took from the public and possessed (under a hüccet) assets (land, estates, olive trees and carob trees), which constituted vakıf property of Archangelos monastery and which had been bought years ago by Kykkos monastery and converted into a vakıf (land and half a mill). This was followed by the issuance of a relevant firman which stipulated the conduct of an investigation in order to establish whether the assets in question were vakıf property of the monastery and whether the monastery in question was old. Following the investigation conducted on Muslims and Christians, the court decided in favor of the Kykkos monastery since the aforementioned three accused Muslims confessed that the monastery was indeed in good condition and the above estates were vakıf properties of the monastery.40
- 41 Theocharides 1993, pp. 26‑27.
27In a document of 1589 (18‑27/3), another interesting case of encroachment on monastic property in the monastery’s metochi is recorded. This time it is a dispute between the Kykkos monastery and a certain subaşı centered on the purchase of the Agios Nikolaos monastery which was a metochi of the Kykkos monastery. More specifically, according to the document, even though the entire process of repurchasing the Kykkos monastery by bishop Christodoulos was carried out legally and with the concurring testimonies of all those involved in it, a certain Qurd subaşı presented himself, claiming that he too had bought from the aforementioned Abu zade Ahmed çavuş (the special commissioner appointed by the Ottoman state for the sale of the ecclesiastical/monastic property) fields and other belongings of the monastery of Agios Nikolaos. Therefore, he opposed the possession of the above assets by the abbot of the Kykkos monastery. The dispute ended with the order of the governor of Cyprus to return the monastery of Agios Nikolaos and its assets to the abbot of Kykkos monastery who had bought it first, while stating the established recommendation that no one should be allowed to interfere with the possession of the particular monastery by the abbot of Kykkos.41
- 42 Theocharides 1993, pp. 40‑41.
28According to two documents dated 1603, which refer to the case of the Sindi monastery (another metochi of the Kykkos monastery), a Christian, named Dimos Tzias, had asked the court to grant him a document of proof (temessük) based on the legal opinion (fetva) he had in his possession. This fetva answered the following question: “Is it possible for a monastery, which a Muslim had bought from the ‘infidels’ and prayed in, to function as a monastery again?”. According to the fetva, which he presented to the court, the answer to the above question was positive.42
- 43 Theocharides 1993, pp. 42‑43. According to Theocharides, it is possible that Dimos Tzias was the ab (...)
29The second document concerning the same case, which was issued a few months later (9‑18/8/1603), is an official letter (mektub) of the governor of Cyprus, Ahmed, addressed to the kadı of Paphos. According to this document, the above-mentioned Christian, Dimos Tzias, had also addressed the governor of Cyprus on the matter, saying that the monastery of Sinti belonged to the Christians from long ago, who operated it according to their religious customs. Later a Muslim bought the monastery and, after owning it for a period of time, sold it to Dimos, whom, however, some continued to harass. He demonstrated again the same fetva that he had in his hands, asking that its content be respected and that they stop preventing him from possessing the monastery. So in this document, the governor of Cyprus informs the kadı of Paphos that the aforementioned fetva is valid and should be respected.43
- 44 Theocharides 1993, pp. 76‑77.
30The legal framework regarding the management of monastic property that the Kykkos monastery possessed in various parts of the island through its metochia kept being violated despite the opinions given to monks in order to protect their property rights. In a document of the 17th century (year 1616), through which the governor of Cyprus addresses the kadıs of the kazas in which Kykkos monastery’s metochia were located and therefore kept some property, it is stated that the monks and the abbot of Kykkos monastery had protested (to the governor of Cyprus) for being forced to pay the tapu tax every time they wanted to sell a part of their property stating that this was against the fetva they had in their hands. After this protest an envoy (mübaşir) was appointed to investigate the issue and kadıs were ordered to take care to protect monks from the pressure exerted on them by various Sipahis, Janissaries, Azebans and other soldiers while it was clearly stated once again that monks were free to manage their property as they wished based on the fetva and the property titles they had in their hands.44
31One would hardly be able to come to safe conclusions on the issue of monastic property in Cyprus immediately after the occupation of the island by the Ottomans based solely on the available sources. The valuable Ottoman archive of Kykkos monastery offers important, if ambiguous in some cases, information, but the need for further research on the subject is greater than the need to draw easy conclusions. However, we could finally assert with certainty that representatives of the Church of Cyprus acted as lessors to repurchase church/monastic property which they then sold to the monks and priests. For its part, the Ottoman state not only did not prevent the return of ecclesiastical and monastic property but actively promoted it by giving priority to priests and monks as buyers and then trying to ensure that their property was secured through the relevant fetvas. Church and state seemed to discipline each other’s claims to secure their own interests in an unequal negotiation for the monasteries. Discipline, however, did not characterize the entire body of the Ottoman administration. This is confirmed by the cases of arbitrariness on the part of various local officials whose main purpose was to challenge the ownership rights of the Kykkos monastery and to obtain an unfair profit, while at the same time disputes about the rights of the monastery to its recovered assets are also recorded by ordinary citizens (Muslims and Christians).