Describing tenant farmers, estates, and estate‑holding, Mihailo Gavrilović, the most thorough researcher of the rule of Prince Miloš Obrenović, uses Vuk Stefanović Karadžić as a direct witness of late Ottoman feudalism. “An estate in Serbia,” says Vuk, “is called that village which, besides the sipahi, has another master. The master of the estate is called in Turkish čitluksahibija, the people who live on his estate are his tenant farmers or (as they say in Bosnia) serfs, and he is their aga or master.” Among the people, the estate was also called agaluk. Tenant farmers gave the sipahis the usual dues, and in addition to the estate‑owners what was agreed, which was greater than the sipahi dues.
Estates existed in Serbia before Koča’s Frontier Rebellion, and the Porte abolished them after the Treaty of Sistova (1791). However, the creation of estates continued through abuses. For example, a Turk (Serbs could not) would buy land from a sipahi and settle peasants there, treating them as in a regular estate. Or a powerful man would force a village to sell, the sipahi would issue a deed confirmed by the kadi, and the village became his property. Another way was for a sipahi to impose his brother, nephew, relative, or friend upon the peasants as an estate‑owner. Violence did not end there, as new dues were imposed by force, and anyone who resisted was killed, making others submissive. Estates were sold among Turks, and after several changes the new owner believed he had acquired legal ownership. Sipahis often imposed themselves as estate‑owners.
According to Vuk Karadžić, the estate system completely dominated Serbia before the First Serbian Uprising and provoked it. After the death of Mustafa Pasha, the Janissaries imposed themselves as estate‑owners and mercilessly exploited and tormented the people until they took up arms. The abuses of the Janissary estate‑owners reached the point where even sipahis could not collect their tithe, so
they initially supported the uprising to restore the lawful state, i.e., to abolish estates in Serbia.
After the Second Serbian Uprising, in the period 1815–1833, with crucial help from the Russian Empire (the Akkerman Convention, the Treaty of Adrianople, and three hatt‑i sharifs), Prince Miloš implemented the 8th article of the Treaty of Bucharest (1812) on the autonomy of the territory liberated in the First Uprising. With the second hatt‑i sharif (1830), Serbia was recognized as autonomous and Miloš Obrenović as hereditary prince, thus establishing the Principality of Serbia. The third hatt‑i sharif (arrived in Kragujevac in December 1833) confirmed, among other things, the return to the Principality of previously detached territories, including part of the Novi Pazar district, namely the captaincies of Jošanička and Studenička.
After liberation from Ottoman rule, Serbia abolished feudal relations, declared all its citizens free and equal, and granted peasants full ownership of the land they had cultivated.
While awaiting the annexation of the “detached territories” to the Principality, feudal oppression and arbitrariness of estate‑owners and sipahis grew worse. The position of tenant farmers was harsh. Private land of sipahis, agas, and beys (milk) was under estates and cultivated by tenant farmers who were not permanently tied to the land. The master could at any time expel them and bring in others.
The position and life of an individual tenant farmer is illustrated by the case of the suffering of Miloš Radulović from Šutanovina in the Jošanička captaincy of Filip Pribaković. Radulović’s petition to Prince Miloš, requesting the return of his patrimony from which he had been expelled by an estate‑owner, arrived at the Prince’s office on May 14, 1833. At that time, Prince Miloš had not yet formally “received” the Jošanička captaincy, but this was already certain. Soon, on May 29, 1833, Prince Miloš officially announced to the people that the once detached territories, including the captaincies of Jošanička and Studenička, were annexed to the Principality of Serbia.
At the beginning of his petition, Radulović notes the long presence of his ancestors in Šutanovina: “See my oppression. It has been 400 years that my grandfathers and great‑grandfathers have lived in the village, and three years ago I quarreled with the Turk who was the estate‑owner of that village.” Radulović does not explain the cause of the conflict but lists the consequences: “He tried to strike at my honor, and when he could not, he grew angry, wanted to drive me from the village, demanded my rifles, and when I did not give them, he said: get off my land. He expelled me from my property and settled another on my patrimony.” Miloš had a house, a mill, cleared land, and a meadow to which he had brought water at his own effort and expense. Convinced of his right and that he sought justice in the right place, he concluded: “Since you have received our district, I returned again to that village and sit under a bush. I beg you, Lord, for your health, to restore to me my patrimony…”.
Apparently, the petition bore fruit, for some months later Miloš was recorded in the tax register with his family in Šutanovina, where the Radulović family still lives today.
Radomir Ristić
historian, retired archival advisor
Historical Archive Kraljevo