Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T16:05:02.922Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Property and morality: women in the communal courts of late Ottoman Greece

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

Evdoxios Doxiadis
Evdoxios Doxiadis*
Affiliation:
International Centre for European and Mediterranean Studies (DIKEMES), Athens
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Women in Ottoman Greece were present in a number of different courts of law, one being the so-called communal courts. These courts became increasingly important towards the end of the Ottoman period, especially in areas where there was little if any Muslim population, and they dealt with a great variety of cases ranging from property disputes to rape and crimes of morality. Women were very active in such courts, both as accusers and as accused, showing remarkable knowledge of the manner in which such courts functioned. They frequently chose to pursue cases in them, in part because communal courts were supportive of individuals in difficult circumstances such as widows, who form the bulk of the female petitioners. This was an outcome of the nature of these courts which were composed of the same individuals who exercised executive powers over their communities and who thus wanted to ensure tranquillity and the prosperity of their people. For that reason notables appear almost unconcerned with the stipulations of customary law in several of their judgments, seeking instead to achieve compromises, or what we could term the greater social good. Being local, easily accessible, and familiar to the members of each community, communal courts were attractive to women and men in the years leading to the emergence of the modern Greek state, forming one tier of the complex Ottoman ‘system’ of conflict resolution.

Type
Articles
Information
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , 2010 , pp. 61 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Laiou, S., ‘Christian women in an Ottoman world: interpersonal and family cases brought before the sharia courts during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries,’, in Buturovic, A. and Schick, I. C. (eds.), Women in the Ottoman Balkans (New York 2007)Google Scholar.

2 Visvizis, I., ‘Δικαστικαί Αποφάσεις του 17ου Αιώνος εκ της Νήσου Μυκόνου’, Επετηρίς του Αρχείου της Ιστορίας του Ελληνικού ΔικαΙου 7 (1957) 24 Google Scholar.

3 By court I mean a dispute settling body recognized or accepted by the Ottoman authorities with a more or less stable composition.

4 Pantazopoulos, N. I., Από της ‘Λόγιας’ Παραδόσεως εις τov Αστικόν Κώδικα (Thessalonike 1965) 105-7Google Scholar; Koukkou, E. E., #Οι Κοινοτικοί Θεσμοί στις Κυκλάδες κατά την Τουρκοκρατία (Athens 1980) 168, 197Google Scholar.

5 The lack of sources from the mainland prohibits any definitive statement regarding the presence of such courts there, even in areas like the Morea where the notables held considerable power and one could assume that they would have sought to assume certain judicial functions as their counterparts did in the islands. Furthermore, the specific conditions of each locale had a profound impact on the authority, scope, and effectiveness of these courts even in the areas where they were present.

6 See GAK Naxos F98/5, 27 July 1805; GAK Naxos F98/15, 22 October 1805; GAK Naxos F98/66, 9 September 1815, among many. In Athens, instead of an Ottoman official the bishop often headed these courts, an indication of the greater influence of the Church in that region. See Philadelpheos, Th. N., Ιστορία των Αθηνών (Athens 1902) 253 Google Scholar.

7 See IEEE Naxos 5777, 5 December 1817; IEEE Naxos 5977, 15 January 1820; IEEE Naxos 6024, 9 August 1820.

8 Kampouroglou, D. G., Ιστορία των Αθηναίων (Athens 1969) 126 Google Scholar; Slot, B. J., Archipelagus Turbatus, Les Cydades entre colonisation latine et occupation ottomane с. 1500-1718 (Istanbul 1982) 263 Google Scholar; Filadelfeos, Ιστορία των Αθηνών, 242; Koukou, Κοινοτικοί Θεσμοί στις Κνκλάδες, 57-74.

9 IEEE Mykonos 22460, 7 January 1823; IEEE Naxos 6484, 4 September 1826, among many. Sometimes the documents referred to the ‘local customs’ (IEEE Mykonos 22481, 26 May 1819, IEEE Naxos, 6575, 21 July 1827). See also Tourtoglou, M. A., ‘H Νομολογία των Κριτηρίων της Μυκόνου (17oς-19oς αɩ.)’, Επετηρίς Κέντρου Ερευνης Ιστορίας Ελληνικού Δικαίου Ακαδημίας Αθηνών 27–28 (1980-81) (repr. Athens 1985) 5 Google Scholar.

10 Pantazopoulos, Από της Άόγιας’ Παραδόσεως, 87, 92; Visvizis, I., ‘To Πρόβλημα χης Ιστορίας του Μεταβυζαντινού Δικοίου’, Επετηρίς του Αρχείου της Ιστορίας του Ελληνικού Δικαίον 6 (Athens 1955) 145 Google Scholar; Gerontas, D. A., Περί Εθιμικού Δικαίου των Αθηνών της Τουρκοκρατίας και της Επαναστάσεως (Athens 1964) 16 Google Scholar.

11 The codification was undertaken at the request of the Dragomans of the Fleet like Panagiotis Mourouzis who were often given the responsibility of listening to appeals of islanders by the Kapudan Pasha. These dragomans, almost exclusively drawn from the Greek Phanariot aristocracy of Constantinople, needed some guidance on local laws since the Ottoman state had officially recognized the right of many island communities to be judged according to their traditional laws. See Koukkou, E. E., Αιαμόρφωσις της Ελληνικής Κοινωνίας κατά την Τουρκοκρατίαν (Athens 1971) 148 Google Scholar; Della-Rokka, I. N., ‘To Δίκαιον της Νάξου κατά TOUS Χρόνους της Τουρκοκρατίας’, Επετηρίς Ετωρείας Κυκλαδικών Μελετων Z’ (Athens 1968) 427 Google Scholar; Slot, Archipelagus Turbatus, 262.

12 I have used the contemporary categorization of ‘court cases’ (which come under a variety of titles such as ‘decision of the notables’, ‘σεντέντζα’, ‘judicial decision’ and so on) and protesta, adding the category of ‘other documents’ for the remaining judicial documents. Court cases are usually decisions of the courts while protesta stated the position of litigants. The remainder of the documents provide additional information regarding the way justice worked on the islands.

13 Tourtoglou, , ‘H Νομολογία των Κριτηρίων της Μυκόνου’, 5–6 Google Scholar; Liata, E. D., H Σέριφος κατά την Τουρκοκρατια (17oς-19oς αɩ.) (Athens 1987) 95 Google Scholar. We should also keep in mind that what remains is the written record. In such close-knit communities there were certainly other interactions between litigants and the notables as is on occasion hinted at by the documents, interactions that are now lost to us.

14 In the seventeenth century divorce was solely the responsibility of the bishop, while inheritance was a shared responsibility of the bishop and the notables ( Visvizis, I., ‘Δικαστικές Απόφάσεις’ 24 Google Scholar), but by the eighteenth century the economic aspects of divorce were increasingly the province of the notables.

15 Tourtoglou identified four different categories of proof acceptable to these courts. In order of significance these were: documents, witnesses, autopsy, and πραγματογνωμοσύνη (expert opinion solicited by the court) ( Tourtoglou, M. A., ‘Νομολογία των Κριτηρίων της Νάξου’,Μνημοσύνη, Εταφεία Ιστορικών Σηουδών επί του Νεωτέρου Ελληνισμού 14 (1998-2000) 106–107 Google Scholar).

16 However, as Leslie Peirce has noted, documents may have become increasingly significant in Islamic courts as well: Peirce, L., Morality Tales, Law and Gender in the Ottoman Court of Aintab (Berkeley 2003) 102 Google Scholar.

17 GAK Naxos 98/23, 6 July 1805; IEEE Naxos 6024, 9 August 1820; GAK Naxos 98/35, 18 October 1808.

18 GAK Naxos 98/5, 27 July 1805.

19 GAK Naxos 98/22, 15 October 1808.

20 IEEE Mykonos 22543, 5 June 1817.

21 GAK Mykonos 117/501, 209, 30 October 1828.

22 GAK Mykonos 18/090, 28 October 1815.

23 IEEE Naxos 3656, 23 January 1768. They also instructed plaintiffs to ‘bring their documents’ when the case was to be heard (IEEE Naxos 6649, 13 May 1829).

24 Kasdagli has not found a single woman able to sign her name in the documents she examined, and my own experience is similar: Kasdagli, A., Έγγραματοσύνη και Παιδεία στο Avymo κατά το ‘σκοτεινό’ 17° αιώνα από τις μαρτυρίες των Νοταριακών Εγγράφων: μια πρώτη διερεύνιση’, in A. Argyriou, (ed.), H Ελλάδα των Νησιών από τή Φραγκοκρατία ως Σήμερα, Πρακτικά του B’ Ευρωπαικού Συνεδρίοο Νεοελληνικών Σπουδών, Ρέθυμνο 10-12 Μαΐου 2002 (Athens 2004), II, 539, 547Google Scholar. See also Angelomatis-Tsougarakis, H., The Eve of the Greek Revival. British Travelers’ Perceptions of Early 19th Century Greece (New York 1990) 123, 126Google Scholar; and Simopoulos, K., #Ξένοι Ταζιδιώτες στήν Ελλάδα 1700-1800 (Athens 1973) 294 Google Scholar.

25 Zepos, I. D. and Zepos, P. I., Συλλογή Τοπικών Ελληνικών Εθίμων (Athens 1931) 36, 46, 47Google Scholar; Valassis, G. M., ‘Τινά περί της Πατρικής Εξουσίας κατά το Δίκαιον του μετά την Άλωσιν Ελληνισμού’, in Stavropoulos, S. I. (ed.), #θέματα Γενικής θεωρίας και Φιλοσοφίας (Athens 1970) 536 Google Scholar. This was not universally the case in Greece and in other regions the guardianship may be shared with the brothers of the dead husband, or the widow could be entirely excluded from the administration of the inheritance of her offspring.

26 IEEE Mykonos, 22581, 1811.

27 Table 2 refers only to the cases dealing with women unlike Table 1 that presents all the surviving material involving the communal courts.

28 IEEE Mykonos 22321, 16 November 1808; IEEE Mykonos 22326, 22 January 1809; GAK Mykonos F16/74, 23 January 1809.

29 GAK Mykonos 16/86, 21 June 1817; GAK Mykonos 16/87, 17 October 1817.

30 IEEE Mykonos 22537, 22 May 1817.

31 IEEE Mykonos 22537, 22 May 1817, IEEE Mykonos 22539, 27 May 1817, IEEE Mykonos 22540, 30 May 1817.

32 IEEE Mykonos 22540, 30 May 1817, IEEE Mykonos 22541, 31 May 1817. As an outcome of the ‘capitulations’ individuals under foreign protection had the right to seek justice through the agents and ambassadors of their own state. The exchange of Marino and her opponents seems to indicate that there was a hierarchical nature in this procedure with some General Consuls acting as courts of appeal and, possibly, the ambassadors in Constantinople as a highest court. See Pantazopoulos, N. I., ‘To Δίκαιον της Τουρκοκρατίας, Τα “Προνόμιη” ως Πολιτιστικός Παράγων εις τας Σχέσεις Χρισπανών-Μουσουλμάνων’, Επιστημονική Επετηρίς Σχολής Νομικών και Οικονομικών Επιστημών 8 (1975) 872 Google Scholar.

33 IEEE Mykonos 22542, 1 June 1817.

34 IEEE Mykonos 22543, 5 June 1817.

35 IEEE Mykonos 22544, 6 June 1817.

36 IEEE Mykonos 22485, 14 March 1819.

37 IEEE Mykonos 22318, 20 October 1808; GAK Mykonos 16/47, 9 March 1767; GAK Mykonos 16/49, 7 December 1768; GAK Mykonos 16/96, 12 March 1818; GAK Mykonos 139/32, 25 May 1766.

38 IEEE Mykonos 22565, 23 March 1810.

39 GAK Mykonos 16/65, 15 October 1794.

40 IEEE Mykonos 22538, 23 May 1817.

41 IEEE Naxos 5777, 5 December 1817.

42 IEEE Naxos 5377, 25 December 1813.

43 IEEE Mykonos 22514, 1 May 1818. The notables also did the same for the widow Maroulo who inherited a debt from her husband. She was liable for the debt either because she had inherited some property of her husband’s through a will, or because she administered her husband’s property on behalf of underage children; otherwise women were not liable for the debts of their husbands. They reversed their decision, however, when they subsequently uncovered that she had an annual income of over 10,000 grosia (GAK Mykonos 117/151, 63-64, 16 August 1828).

44 IEEE Naxos 6543, 30 March 1827; IEEE Naxos 6569, 22 June 1827; IEEE Naxos 6560, 28 May 1827.

45 GAK Mykonos 117/419, 12 October 1828.

46 GAK Mykonos 117/714, 406, 6 May 1829. A similar case had taken place 150 years earlier in which a husband had accused his wife of adultery but failed to prove his case and the wife then demanded a divorce on the grounds of having been falsely accused; she received a favourable ruling from the bishop: Visvizis, ‘Δικαστικές Αποφάσεις’ 117.

47 GAK Mykonos 117/757, 427, 10 May 1929.

48 Milas, N., To Εκκλησιασηκόν Δίκαιον της Ορθοδόξου Ανατολικής Εκκλησίας (Athens 1906) 893 Google Scholar; see also Kalligas, P., Σύστημα Ρωμαϊκού Δικαίου (Athens 1878), I, 214, 302Google Scholar; and Kirshner, J., ‘Family and marriage: a socio-legal perspective,’, in Najemy, J. M. (ed.), Italy in the Age of the Renaissance 1300-1550 (Oxford 2004) 98 Google Scholar.

49 On many Aegean islands, including the Cyclades, wives were almost invariably dowered with houses among other properties, and as a result the couple often lived in a house owned by the wife. See Kasdagli, A. E., Land and Marriage Settlements in the Aegean (Venice 1999) 216 Google Scholar; Vaos, Z., Μήλος (l8oς-19oς Αιώνας), Κοινωνία - Λαϊκός Πολιτισμός (Athens 2005), I, 154 Google Scholar.

50 GAK Naxos, 98/51, 27 July 1813.

51 IEEE Mykonos, 22353, 10 October 1809; IEEE Mykonos 22357, undated. The actions of the father were perhaps influenced by the fact that his daughter had married against his will, the marriage having been arranged by his own wife and the future son-in-law.

52 Tourtoglou, , ‘Νομολογία των Κριτηρίων της Μυκόνου’ 197 Google Scholar.

53 GAK Mykonos, 96/34, 4 November 1803.

54 Adair, R., Courtship, Illegitimacy, and Marriage in Early Modern England (New York 1996) 100, 163, 168, 189-190Google Scholar; Kasdagli, A., ‘Κοινωνική Ταυτότητα του Φύλου και Καθημερινή Πραγματικότητα: To Παράδειγμα της Μεταβυζαντινής Νάξου’, Λύνη 6 (1993) 119 Google Scholar.

55 Kyrtsi-Nakou, E., ‘Ax03B9; περί Προικοδοσιών “Νομοθετικαί” Ρυθμήσεις βάσει των Κανονικών Διατάξεων του Οικουμενικού Πατριαρχείου (1701-1844)’, Επίστημονική Επετηρίδα του Αικηγορικού Συλλόγον Θεσσαλονίκης 1 (1980) 49, 66Google Scholar; Papagianni, E. S., H Νομολογία των Εκκλησιαστικών Δικαστηρίων της Βυζαντινής και Μεταβνζαντινής Περιόδου σε Θέματα Περουσιακού Δικαίου (Athens 1997) 131 Google Scholar; Kasdagli, , Land and Marriage Settlements 59, 69, 70Google Scholar; Gedeon, M. I., Βραχεία Σημείωσις Περί των Εκκλησιασηκών ημών Δίκαιον (Constantinople 1909) 59, 69-70Google Scholar.

56 Kasdagli, , Land and Marriage Settlements 255 Google Scholar; Adair, Courtship, Illegitimacy, and Marriage 84-85; Ruggiero, G., The Boundaries of Eros (Oxford 1985) 28 Google Scholar.

57 IEEE Naxos 6426, 19 January 1826; IEEE Naxos 6309, 30 September 1824; IEEE Naxos 6426, 19 January 1826.

58 Tourtoglou, M.A., Παρθενοφθορία και Εύρεσις Θησανρού, Βνζάντιο — Τονρκοκρατία — Μετεπαναστατικοί Χρόνοι μέχρι και του Καποδιστρίου (Athens 1963) 97, 98Google Scholar.

59 Zepos, P. I., ‘Τα Νομικά Έθιμα της Πελοποννήσου’, in Πρακτικά A’ Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Πελοποννησιοκών Σπονδών, Σπάρτη, 1975, Reprint (Athens 1976) 79 Google Scholar; Alexakis, E. P., Ta Γένη και η Οικογένεια στην Παραδοσιακή Κοινωνία της Μάνης (Athens 1980) 309 Google Scholar. Such surcharges could take the form of gifts to the groom (often called παλικαριάτικο or αγριλίκή or they could be added to the dowry.

60 Byzantine and ecclesiastical law obliged the man who had deflowered a virgin either to marry her or to compensate her financially: Malaxos, M., ‘Νομοκανών’, in Radulescu, A. (ed.), lndreptarea Legii (Bucharest 1962) 846 Google Scholar; Agapiou, and Nikodimou, , Πηδάλιον (Athens 2003) 607, 613Google Scholar.

61 Tourtoglou, , Παρθενοφθορία, 97, 98Google Scholar.

62 IEEE Naxos 3466a, 14 August 1752.

63 Tourtoglou, Παρθενοφθορία, 6; Ruggiero, Boundaries of Eros, 98.

64 Parents certainly had the right to disinherit children who ‘walked the bad path’: Malaxos, ‘Νομοκανών’, 864.

65 Kalpourtzi, E., Συγγενικές Σχέσεις και Στρατηγικές Ανταλλαγών (Athens 2001) 117 Google Scholar.

66 Semerdjian, E., ‘Sinful professions: illegal occupations of women in Ottoman Aleppo, Syria’, HAWWA: Journal of’Women of the Middle East and the Islamic World 1/1 (Leiden 2003) 72 Google Scholar.

67 Kasdagli, ‘Κοινωνική Ταυτότητα’, 119.

68 Semerdjian, , ‘Sinful professions 74–75, 77Google Scholar; Koukoules, P., Βυζαντινών Βίος και Πολιτισμός (Athens 1948) 152 Google Scholar.

69 GAK Mykonos, 18/090, 28 October 1815, IEEE Mykonos, 22531, 5 March 1817.

70 IEEE Mykonos, 22278, 26 June 1806.

71 Semerjian, , ‘Sinful Professions’ 76 Google Scholar.

72 Eva Kalpourtzi, who has also analysed the case of Galaziani, has, through textual analysis, determined that the actions of the notables were in essence a response to what they perceived as a threat to their social, and gender superiority: Kalpourtzi, E., Για τη Γαλαζιανή και για το Σκλάβο (Athens 2002) 35 Google Scholar. She also determined that Galaziani was a foreigner, without kin, unmarried, and childless, all of which is possible but not stated in the documents. Evidently I am do not agree with her analysis or conclusions.

73 Koukkou, E., Oι Κοινοτικοί Θεσμοί στις Κυκλάδες κατά την Τουρκοκρατία, Ανέκδοτα Έγγραφα (Athens 1989) 284 Google Scholar.

74 I should note, however, that I deliberately ignored conflict between different communities which was quite prevalent in some islands between Catholic and Orthodox, including the island of Naxos, as well as violence as a result of the Greek War of Independence which often led to certain warlords and their bands committing all sorts of violent acts on the local populations, though Naxos and Mykonos escaped such fate, unlike Andros, for example: Koukkou, , Κοινοτικοί Θεσμοί 118, 123, 180, 207Google Scholar; Paschalis, D. P., HΑνδρος κατά την Επανάστασιν του 1821 (Athens 1930) 67–72 Google Scholar; see also Markopoli, M. I., Αραματικόν Επεισόδιον της Ναζιακής Ιστορίας (Naxos 1893)Google Scholar. Furthermore I should note that where kadi courts operated, penal crimes would be subject to them rather than communal or ecclesiastical courts. It is unclear how such cases were handled in the islands where kadis were not present or where kadis or other Ottoman officials (like the Kapudan Pasha) made an annual visit in order to sit in court, as was the case in most of the Cyclades. The notables certainly asserted their authority over such cases during the Greek War of Independence (1821-1829) and in some cases, as for example of Galaziani or Vasilaki, even earlier than that.

75 Κλέφτες (thieves) were Christian bandits who have become identified in the national myth of the Balkans as early freedom fighters. Although temporarily suppressed at the start of the nineteenth century through the collaboration of the Ottoman authorities, notables, the Church, and even peasants. See Tertsetis, G., Θεοδώρον Κολοκοτρώνη Απομνημονεύματα (Athens undated) 40 Google Scholar. Many of those who survived became prominent warlords during the Greek War of Independence. Some went back to their old practices after the conclusion of the hostilities, this time known by the more derogatory term of Ληστές (bandits), and remained active throughout the nineteenth century. See Koliopoulos, G., Brigands with a Cause: Brigandage and lrredentism in Modern Greece 1821-1912 (Oxford 1987)Google Scholar.

76 Gallant, T. W., Experiencing Dominion (Notre Dame 2002) 118 Google Scholar.

77 Piracy was remarkably widespread and even notable individuals were involved in it or were accused of being involved, as for instance Nikolaos Mavrogenis ( Koukkou, , Κοινοτικοί Θεσμοί - Ανέκδοτα Έγγραφα 193, 195)Google Scholar, or even the Catholic monks of Milos ( Slot, , Archipelagus Turbatus 195)Google Scholar.

78 IEEE Mykonos 22572, 2 August 1810.

79 IEEE Mykonos 22469, 5 July 1823.

80 Tourtoglou, , ‘Νομολογία των Κριτηρίων της Μυκόνου’ 197 Google Scholar. It should be noted that throughout Europe husbands were allowed and even expected to exercise physical force on their wives in certain circumstances as long as it was kept within ‘moderation’, that is, did not lead to serious or permanent injury: Freeze, G. L., ‘Bringing order to the Russian family: marriage and divorce in Imperial Russia 1760-1860, in Journal of Modern History 611 4 (December 1990) 743 Google Scholar; Engel, B. A., Women in Russia 1700-2000 (Cambridge 2004) 34 Google Scholar; Stone, L., Road to Dworce. England 1530-1987 (Oxford 1990) 205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Phillips, R., Putting Asunder, A History of Divorce in Western Society (Cambridge 1986) 326 Google Scholar. Interestingly, a husband could seek a divorce if his wife beat him (Malaxos, ‘Νομοκανών’ 834).

81 IEEE Naxos, 4860, 6 February 1808; IEEE Naxos 4943, 25 February 1809.

82 GAK Mykonos, 97/140, 7, 13 September 1826.

83 GAK Mykonos 117/220, 123-124, 28 August 1828.

84 The use of midwives to test the virginity of women or for signs of rape dates back to antiquity and was widespread in the Mediterranean. See Clark, G., Women in Late Antiquity, Pagan and Christian Lifestyles (Oxford 1993) 74 Google Scholar; Hacke, D., Women, Sex and Marriage in Early Modern Venice (Aldershot 2004) 155 Google Scholar.

85 GAK Mykonos, 117/501, 209, 30 October 1828. Sonbol, A., ‘Rape and law in Ottoman and modern Egypt,’, in Zilfi, M. C. (ed.), Women in the Ottoman Empire (New York 1997) 222 Google Scholar; Alexakis, E. P., HΕξαγορά της Νύφης (Athens 1984) 30 Google Scholar; Peirce, Morality Tales, 362.

86 GAK Mykonos, 117, 316, 23 December 1828.

87 Geib, G. K., Παρουσίαση της Κατάστασης του Δικαίου στην Ελλάδα (Athens 1990) 110 Google Scholar.

88 Ze’evi, D., Producing Desire: Changing Sexual Discourse in the Ottoman Middle East 1500-1900 (Berkeley 2006) 83 Google Scholar; Semerdjian, , ‘Sinful Professions’ 75 Google Scholar.

89 A prohibition of sodomy for the military existed in Russia since Peter the Great in 1716, probably owing to the influence of European military manuals on the development of Russian army regulations, but it took over a century for such prohibitions to be extended to the general population. See Healy, D., Homosexual Desire in Revolutionary Russia (Chicago 2001) 21–23, 26, 53CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Sodomy was a criminal act in the Ottoman Empire but the prohibition was rather ambiguous and the punishment moderate. See Imber, C., Studies in Ottoman History and Law (Istanbul 1990) 178, 182Google Scholar.

90 Keown, J., Abortions, Doctors and the Law (Cambridge 1988) 3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

91 St. John the Faster advised that women should not be separated from the Ekklesia and the congregation of the faithful, whatever their sins, but should only be banned from Holy Communion, in order to keep them from committing suicide out of shame. Balsamon similarly suggested that they could receive αντίδωρο, so that they might hide their sins, but not μετάληψη: Agapiou, and Nikodimou, , Πηδάλιον, 715 Google Scholar.

92 IEEE Naxos 5666, 5 August 1816; IEEE Naxos 5734, 10 June 1817.

93 Hacke, Women, Sex, and Marriage, 48.

94 Karzis, T., H Γυναίκα της νέας Εποχής (Athens 1990) 105 Google Scholar; Simopoulos, Ξένοι Ταξιδιώτες, 293; Leake, W. M., Travels in Northern Greece (London 1835) IV, 225 Google Scholar; Oikonomidis, D. V., ‘H Κοινωνική Θέσις της Ελληνίδος κατά τινά Έθιμα του Λαού, Επετηρίί του Κέντρον Ερεύνης Ελληνικής Λαογραφίας, 22 (1969-1972) (repr. Athens 1974) 106 Google Scholar; Kambouroglou, Ιστορία των Αθηναίων, 24.

95 IEEE Mykonos 22531, 5 March 1817.

96 GAK Mykonos 16/65, 15 October 1794.

97 IEEE Mykonos 22481, 26 May 1819; IEEE Mykonos 22493, 16 June 1819; IEEE Mykonos 22493, 3 July 1819.

98 Pantazopoulos, Απο τη ‘Λόγια’ Παράδοση, 107.

99 It should also be noted that the peace of the community was quite fragile in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century as indicated by the example of Hydra that faced open class conflict, and even revolt in 1802, forcing the local notables to appeal to the Kapudan Pasha who dispatched Georgios Voulgaris to govern the island. Although peace was restored, and the wealth of the notables assured, they had lost their autonomy and political influence, and this was certainly something other notables would want to avoid: Theodorou, T. E., H Ελληνική Τοπική Αυτοάιοϊκηση κατά την Τονρκοκρατία και την Επανάσταση του 1821 (Athens 1996), I, 171 Google Scholar.

100 GAK Naxos 98/21, 22 October 1805.