Life after the Harem: Female Palace Slaves, Patronage and the Imperial Ottoman Court 9781108488365, 9781108770316, 2020002837, 2020002838, 9781108726252, 6208209561

Citation preview

|

Life after the Harem

This is the first study to explore the lives of female slaves of the Ottoman imperial court, including the period following their manumission and transfer from the imperial palace. Through an analysis of a wide range of hitherto unexplored primary sources, Betül İpşirli Argıt demonstrates that the manumission of female palace slaves and their departure from the palace did not mean the severing of their ties with the imperial court; rather, it signaled the beginning of a new kind of relationship that would continue until their death. Demonstrating the diversity of experiences in non-dynastic femaleagency in the early-modern Ottoman world, Life after the Harem shows how these evolving relationships had widespread implications for multiple parties, from the manumitted female palace slaves, to the imperial court, and broader urban society. In so doing, İpşirli Argıt offers not just a new way of understanding the internal politics and dynamics of the Ottoman imperial court, but also a new way of understanding the lives of the actors within it. betu¨ l i˙ ps¸ i˙ rli˙ argıt (Ph.D. 2009, Bogaziçi ˘ University) is an associate professor of Ottoman history in the Department of Islamic History at Marmara University in Istanbul. She is the author of Rabia Gülnuş Emetullah Valide Sultan (1640–1715) (2014) and Hayatlarının Çeşitli Safhalarında Harem-i Hümayun Cariyeleri, 18. Yüzyıl (2017).

Life after the Harem Female Palace Slaves, Patronage, and the Imperial Ottoman Court

betu¨ l i˙pşi˙rli˙ argıt Marmara University, Istanbul

University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10006, USA 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia 314–321, 3rd Floor, Plot 3, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi – 110025, India 79 Anson Road, #06–04/06, Singapore 079906 Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence. www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781108488365 DOI: 10.1017/9781108770316 © Betül İpşirli Argıt 2020 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2020 A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Argıt, Betül İpşirli, author. Title: Life after the harem : female palace slaves, patronage and the imperial Ottoman court / Betül İpşirli Argıt. Other titles: Hayatlarının çeşitli safhalarında harem-i hümayun cariyeleri 18. yüzyıl. English Description: Cambridge, United Kingdom ; New York, NY : Cambridge University Press, 2020. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020002837 (print) | LCCN 2020002838 (ebook) | ISBN 9781108488365 (hardback) | ISBN 9781108726252 (paperback) | ISBN 9781108770316 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Harems–Turkey–History–17th century. | Harems–Turkey–History–18th century. | Women slaves–Turkey–History–17th century. | Women slaves–Turkey–History– 18th century. | Favorites, Royal–Turkey–History–17th century. | Favorites, Royal–Turkey– History–18th century. | Turkey–Kings and rulers–Relations with women–History–17th century. | Turkey–Kings and rulers–Relations with women–History–18th century. Classification: LCC HQ1726.7 .A7413 2020 (print) | LCC HQ1726.7 (ebook) | DDC 306.3/6208209561–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020002837 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020002838 ISBN 978-1-108-48836-5 Hardback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

To my parents, Neriman and Mehmet İpşirli, for their constant support and encouragement

Contents

List of Illustrations

page viii

List of Maps

ix

List of Graphs

x

List of Tables

xi

Acknowledgments

xii

Note on Usage

xiv

List of Abbreviations

xv

Introduction

1

1

The Imperial Harem and Its Residents

38

2

Departure from the Imperial Palace and Changing Relationships with the Imperial Court

78

3

Marriage Patterns

108

4

Residential Districts and Relations with Society

136

5

Material World: Fortunes and Possessions

162

6

Charitable Activities: Architectural Patronage and Endowments

199

Conclusion

226

Appendix Residential Neighborhoods of Palace Women in intra muros Istanbul

235

Bibliography

240

Index

271

vii

Illustrations

1.1 “Chief administrative officer in Enderun-ı Hümayun (Enderun-ı Hümayun’da kethüda kadın)” 1.2 “An attendant of the Harem of the Grand Signior” 1.3 “Female Slave (Cariye)” 1.4 “Women dancing in the Harem” 5.1 An estate register

viii

page 47 51 53 75 172

Maps

4.1 Distribution of residential districts for palace women in intra muros Istanbul between 1685 and 1840 page 140

ix

Graphs

3.1 Distribution of husbands’ titles page 112 4.1 Distribution of residential districts of palace women 139 5.1 Distribution of the wealth of palace women based on nominal value 164 5.2 Distribution of the wealth of palace women in grams of silver 165

x

Tables

1.1 Categorization of the Persian names carried by palace women 4.1 Neighborhoods in intra muros Istanbul where palace women frequently resided 4.2 Neighborhoods in Galata where palace women resided 4.3 Neighborhoods in Eyüb where palace women resided 4.4 Neighborhoods in Üsküdar where palace women resided

page 66 141 143 145 145

xi

Acknowledgments

This book grew out of my doctoral dissertation, completed at Bogaziçi ˘ University in 2009. I expanded and revised the dissertation, originally entitled “Manumitted Female Slaves of the Ottoman Imperial Harem in Eighteenth-Century Istanbul,” for publication in Turkish.1 I present here a further revised edition in English. This work owes much to the generous help and support of many individuals and institutions. It is a pleasure to thank many people who have helped in the long and arduous process of completing this book. First, I would like to express special gratitude to my dissertation advisor Edhem Eldem, who provided scholarly insight and constructive criticism at every stage of the process. My very special thanks go to Derin Terzioglu, ˘ who provided an invaluable contribution with her criticism and advice. Invaluable, too, were the constructive criticisms of Işık Tamdogan, ˘ Tülay Artan, Cem Behar, and Ahmet Ersoy, all of whom read and commented on all or parts of my dissertation. I am indebted to Ahmet Özel, Ali Akyıldız, Arzu Terzi, my dear friend Ayşe Tek Başaran, Caroline Finkel, Çagatay ˘ Anadol, Erol Özvar, Feridun Emecen, Gülay Yılmaz, Günhan Börekçi, Hülya Canbakal, İsmail Erünsal, İrvin Cemil Schick, Jane Hathaway, Kemal Beydilli, Kenan Yıldız, Mehmet Genç, Mehmet İpşirli, Mustafa Uzun, Nalan Turna, Ömerül Faruk Bölükbaşı, Semavi Eyice, Suraiya Faroqhi, Yunus Ugur, ˘ and Zeynep Yelçe; each shared their valuable ideas and provided assistance during the process of transforming my dissertation into a book. I have benefited from their contribution in numerous ways. I would especially like to thank Hakan Erdem for his encouragement and endless assistance every step of the way. I owe special thanks to my friend Nukhet Varlık who always found time to answer my endless questions during last twenty years. Without her 1

Betül İpşirli Argıt, Hayatlarının çeşitli Safhalarında Harem-i Hümayun Cariyeleri, 18. Yüzyıl (Istanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2017).

xii

Acknowledgments

xiii

erudite comments and constructive suggestions, the quality of the work would have been much inferior. I am grateful to Lori Jones who read the entire book manuscript and offered chapter-by-chapter comments. At Cambridge University Press, I would like to thank Maria Marsh for her encouragement and support to expedite the production process of the book. The two anonymous readers at Cambridge University Press provided astute and constructive critiques. Needless to say, responsibility for any errors or omissions is entirely mine. The staff at Cambridge University Press deserve special thanks for their patience and diligence in seeing this project through to completion. These individuals include Daniel Brown, Atifa Jiwa, and Thomas Haynes, as well as project manager Orvil Matthews, copyeditor Alex Kats, and others involved in this book’s production. I would also like to thank the director and staff of the Presidency of State Archives (BOA) in Istanbul, the Topkapı Palace Museum Archive, the Archive of General Directorate of Endowments in Ankara (Vakıflar Genel Müdürlügü ˘ Arşivi), the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Ataturk Library, and the Center for Islamic Studies (İSAM) for their generous assistance as I conducted my research. Finally, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my family, whose constant support made this endeavor possible. The presence of my brother, Mahmut İpşirli, and my beloved children, Taha and Yümna, has always given me strength. Tarık Argıt, my husband, has always been the great source of support through this journey. I cannot thank him enough for everything he did and continues to do for me. Above all, I extend my special gratitude to my parents, Neriman and Mehmet İpşirli, for their counsel, constant encouragement, and boundless capacity for giving in every possible way. To dedicate this book to them is the least I can do for thanking them.

Note on Usage

Modern Turkish usage has been followed here for Ottoman Turkish terms and names. Exceptions are made for words in the text that have been absorbed into English. Thus, when the choice has been mine to make (as opposed to bibliographical citations, quotations, and the like), pasha is written rather than paşa, agha rather than aga, ˘ and so on. Otherwise, the spelling of Turkish words generally conforms to that employed in the Redhouse Yeni Türkçe-İngilizce Sözlük/ New Redhouse Turkish-English Dictionary (1968; repr., Istanbul, 1979). I have reduced the number of diacritical marks in the interest of readability. For Arabic and Persian names and terms that are not a part of quoted material or bibliographical citations, a simplified system of romanization has been used. All dates are given according to Common Era. Documents from the Ottoman archive are cited in the original Hijri date, followed by the Gregorian calendar.

xiv

Abbreviations

BOA

DİA

EI2 IA TSMA VGM

Republic of Turkey Presidency of State Archives – Ottoman Archives (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Cumhurbaşkanlıgı ˘ Devlet Arşivleri Başkanlıgı ˘ – Osmanlı Arşivi) Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Araştırmaları Merkezi) Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd edition (Leiden: Brill, 1954–2005) İslam Ansiklopedisi (Istanbul: Milli Egitim ˘ Basımevi). Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Arşivi (Topkapı Palace Museum Archive) Vakıflar Genel Müdürlügü ˘ Arşivi (The Archive of General Directorate of Endowments in Ankara)

xv

|

Introduction

Allahümme yâ müfettiha’l ebvâb iftah lenâ hayre’l bâb O my Allah, the opener of all gates. Let the most propitious gates be opened in front of us as well.’1

In 1799, a woman who signed her name as el-Hâcce Sarayî Fatma received a letter from the scribe of the Chief Black Eunuch. The letter informed her that due to the war against the infidels, her annual share of the mukataa (a fiscal unit administered as tax farm) would be reduced. el-Hâcce Sarayî Fatma Usta, who was previously the çaşnigir usta (mistress of the table service) in the imperial harem before moving to Medina, noted in the signed return letter that as female palace companions (saraylı yoldaş) living in Medina, she and other former harem residents had no other source of revenue apart from this share. This situation she considered to be a great injustice, especially since the women were living in the holy land. Fatma stated that the sultan was these women’s sole source of support and that the money not given to them would not benefit anyone else. Fatma then demanded that the women’s share be sent as usual. She noted that the women prayed to Allah that the Ottoman Empire should not need money assigned to the people of Medina. She also added that this share was not a protection (himaye); rather, the women had earned this share over their many years of serving several sultans (so long, in fact, that their hair had whitened). Because the women had also sold their jewelry and had saved through their hard work, this revenue could not be regarded “as apprenticeship or a freedom due, nor a gift” (çıraklık degil, ˘ ihsan degil). ˘ She finished her letter stating that the women wanted to spend 1

This is an inscription on one of the gates of the imperial harem. This inscription not only sheds light on the state of mind of the inhabitants of the imperial harem but also reminds them of the fact that being affiliated with the prestigious and splendid imperial court provided them with access to various propitious gates.

1

2

Introduction

the last days of their lives near Prophet Muhammed, and that they expected the state to show its generosity by helping them.2 Not long before Fatma’s letter exchange, in 1791, another former palace slave named Sungur had written to Sultan Selim III (r. 1789–1807), indicating that she had been taken to the imperial palace at the age of five, that she had served three sultans, and that she had been manumitted by Hadice Sultan the elder.3 Being blind for some time, she was now living in poverty and had nobody to look after her. This needy and apparently old woman added that since she had been trained at the palace and transferred from there, she could not beg for money to support herself: doing so would not be an appropriate reflection of the sultan’s honor and reputation. However, due to her very desperate situation, she dared to demand an allowance that would allow her a modest livelihood. Upon receiving Sungur’s request, Selim III issued an order to offer Sungur 20 akçe from the customs revenue.4 Fatma’s and Sungur’s demands may seem ordinary, considering the large number of archival documents revealing that the imperial court was always considered to be a permanent place of reference for the material and moral requests of people from various segments of Ottoman society. But the particular expressions that Fatma used in her letter, such as “this share is not a protection” or “this is not apprenticeship or a freedom due, nor a gift” hint at the fact that these women were directly affiliated with the palace, unlike many others who also made requests for support. Additionally, these expressions refer to the fact that affiliation with the imperial harem created a bond between palace women5 and with the 2

3

4

5

Republic of Turkey Presidency of State Archives – Ottoman Archives (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Cumhurbaşkanlıgı ˘ Devlet Arşivleri Başkanlıgı ˘ – Osmanlı Arşivi), henceforth BOA, Sadâret Mektubî Kalemi (A.MKT) 520/75 (1214/1799). Hadice Sultan the elder should be the daughter of Mehmed IV (r. 1648–1687). The names of the three sultans that Sungur served were not mentioned. Yet, since she was manumitted by Hadice Sultan the elder (d. 1743), these three sultans might refer to Mustafa II (r. 1696–1703), Ahmed III (r. 1703–1730), and Mahmud I (r. 1730–1754). The case of Sungur was mentioned by Atilla Çetin (Atilla Çetin, “Muhtaç Bir Cariyenin Sultan III. Selim’e Arzuhali,” Türk Dünyası Tarih Dergisi 27 (1989): 37–39). In this study “palace women” refers mainly to those manumitted female palace slaves who served in the imperial harem for a period of time, and who were later manumitted and transferred from the imperial palace and regarded as sarayî/ saraylı in Ottoman society. In this study, the term “palace women” does not refer to the female members of the dynasty.

Introduction

3

imperial court. These women were not just any women; they had reason to expect that their requests would be met. Despite the increasing volume of literature on women, slavery, and the imperial court in the Ottoman world, the importance of the female slaves of the Ottoman imperial court is still only dimly understood. The available literature has mainly focused on the female members of the dynastic family, rather than on the lower status female palace slaves. The lives and experiences of female palace slaves have been largely ignored. The absence of studies on the experiences of manumitted female palace slaves following their departure from the imperial harem has led to a false perception about this group of women. Generally, it is assumed that manumitted female palace slaves broke their ties completely with the imperial court following their departure from the palace, after which they simply disappeared from the scene. This assumption has led scholars to miss the continued roles and importance of manumitted female palace slaves, both within the imperial court and in Ottoman society more broadly. Based on this fact, this book focuses on the female slaves of the Ottoman imperial court who lived in the imperial harem between the second half of the seventeenth and the end of the eighteenth centuries, and who were later manumitted and transferred from the palace. Through an analysis of a wide range of hitherto unexplored archival and historical sources, it aims to explore the various aspects of female palace slaves’ lives, including the period following their manumission and transfer from the imperial palace. The book’s main argument is that the manumission of female palace slaves and their departure from the palace did not mean the severing of their ties with the imperial court; rather, it signaled the beginning of a new kind of relationship that would continue in various ways until their death. This evolving relationship had implications for several parties, including the manumitted female palace slaves, the imperial court, and urban society. This book evaluates the lives of female palace slaves from the perspective of patronage relationship with the imperial court. Patronage between palace members and the imperial court regulated the relationship between two parties both during their stay in the palace and following their transfer from the palace. This book studies the implications of the patronage relationships for both parties, namely the palace women as protégés and the imperial household as the patron (hâmî). By tracing these women’s ongoing relations with the palace and

4

Introduction

patronage networks after their time in the harem, it aims to reconstruct the lives of manumitted female palace slaves in an attempt to recapture what it meant to be a palace woman in the Ottoman world. It also explores the roles and places that palace women held in the imperial court. In doing so, it offers not just a new way of understanding the workings of the imperial court but also a new way of understanding the lives of the actors within it. * In the Ottoman state, political power was centered in and exercised through the household, giving it a particular sociopolitical character. Powerful households, including but not limited to the imperial household, operated through patronage networks; these networks, in turn, not only legitimized and ensured the continuity of the household but also tied it to the broader political system. The actual authority of the household heads, including that of the sultan himself, depended heavily on the size of the household, on their ability to keep household members under control, on their capacity to provide material and moral protection to those members, and finally on the level of service, loyalty, and support that they received in return.6 Patronage relationships refer to an asymmetric, mutual, and reciprocal relationship between two parties. There is a master, benefactor, or patron on the one hand and a protégé or client on the other. In patronage relationships, the individual holding higher status and prestige (hâmî) uses his influence and resources to provide material and moral protection, assistance, and benefits to the person of lower status (mahmî, protégé) through the transmission of goods and services. 6

For detailed information on the organization and functioning of households in the Ottoman State, see Rifa’at Ali Abou-El-Haj, “The Ottoman Vizier and Pasha Households 1683–1703: A Preliminary Report,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 94 (1974): 438–447; Metin Kunt, “Kulların Kulları,” Bogaziçi ˘ Üniversitesi Dergisi: Beşeri Bilimler 3 (1975): 27–42; M. Kunt, The Sultan’s Servant, The Transformation of the Ottoman Provincial Government, 1550–1650 (New York: Columbia Universtity Press, 1983); Carter Findley, “Political Culture and the Great Households,” in The Cambridge History of Turkey: The Later Ottoman Empire, ed. Suraiya Faroqhi (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), III, 65–80; Jane Hathaway, The Politics of Households in Ottoman Egypt: The Rise of the Qazdaglis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997); Jane Hathaway, “Eunuch Households in Istanbul, Medina, Cairo during the Ottoman Era,” Turcica 41 (2009): 291–303.

Introduction

5

In return, the lower-status party is expected to reciprocate by offering his or her personal service, loyalty, and affection. Patronage activities thus not only displayed the power and the generosity of hâmî but also contributed to its legitimacy.7 Loyalty was the main building block in these political households. As a matter of fact, Ottoman chronicles offer valuable information 7

Claude Cahen, “Himâya,” EI2, III, 394–397. For studies evaluating the functioning of patronage relationships, see J. Boissevin, “Patronage in Sicily,” Man 1 (1966): 18–33; R. R. Kaufman, “The Patron-Client Concept and MacroPolitics: Prospects and Problems,” Comparative Studies of Society and History 16 (1974): 284–308; Verena Burkolter, The Patronage System, Theoretical Remarks (Basle: Social Strategies Publishers Co-operative Society, 1976); Ernest Gellner-John Waterbury ed., Patrons and Clients in Mediterranean Societies (London: Duckworth, 1977); Samuel Eisenstadt-Louis Roniger, Patrons, Clients and Friends: Interpersonal Relations and the Structure of Trust in Society (Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984). In the Islamic tradition, the practice of patronage relationships was related to concepts of benevolence, charity, and generosity (sadaqa, khayr, ihsân), which all refer to doing good voluntarily for some person(s) in need. Additionally, the practice of patronage might be linked to the concept of gift giving (hîbe), which had been employed for centuries by members of the imperial court in various ways. Gifts given in the name of in‘âm, ‘atıyye-i hümâyûn, and ihsân, more specifically donations and largesse, referred to financial subsidies and presents of various types. At this point, the theory of anthropologist Marcel Mauss is important. According to him, gift giving aimed to cement the bonds of obligation and dependence. He regards gift giving as “in theory voluntary, in reality given and returned obligatorily” (Marcel Mauss, The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies, trans. W. D. Halls (London, New York: Routledge, 1990). In Ottoman society, patronage relationships formed the basis of many relationships in bureaucracy, in the military, and in religious institutions (ilmiye). For several examples, see Gabriel Baer, “Patrons and Clients in Ottoman Cairo,” in Mémorial Ömer Lûtfi Barkan (Paris: Institut Français d’Istanbul, 1980), 11–18. For the observation of a sixteenth-century Ottoman bureaucrat from the perspective of a patron–client relationship, see Cornell H. Fleicher, Bureaucrat and Intellectual in the Ottoman Empire: The Historian Mustafa Ali (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986). Within the ilmiye class, patronage relationships played an important role for those seeking to embark on a religious career; Suraiya Faroqhi, “Social Mobility among the Ottoman Ulema in the Late Sixteenth Century,” IJMES 4 (1973): 204–218. Patronage relationships were also developed by women who were members of political households; Leslie Peirce, The Imperial Harem, Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993); Jane Hathaway, “Marriage Alliances Among the Military Households of Ottoman Egypt,” Annales Islamologiques 29 (1995): 133–149; Mary Ann Fay, “The Ties That Bound: Women and Households in Eighteenth Century Egypt,” in The Family and Divorce Laws in Islamic History, ed. Amira Sonbol (Syracuse: State University of New York Press, 1996), 155–172.

6

Introduction

about the functioning of patronage relationships in the imperial court, about the expectation of loyalty in return for the patronage given to the household members, and also about how loyalty was defined.8 In fact, the primary aim of education in the imperial palace for both men and women was to teach and impart Ottoman loyalty throughout all levels of the imperial household. In this context, male and female slaves were important in the household structure: it was believed that those slaves who effectively broke their ties with their own relatives and with their own cultural roots would serve more faithfully and effectively than would members of established families. The presence of slaves in the imperial palace, in the political households, and in the military establishment thus played an important role that was perhaps peculiar to the Ottoman State and the previous Islamic states. Manumission of the slave members of the households and their transfer from the household did not signal the end of their household membership, but rather referred to the transformation of that relationship. According to Islamic law, manumission was not a severance of the master–slave relationship; instead, it created an even deeper bond between the two parties through a special relationship called velâ, or patronage, between the manumitter and the manumitted person. Manumitted slaves thus became connected to their former masters by means of patronage. Such patronage relationships within a political household gained another meaning as far as protégé were slaves. Classical experts on Islamic law interpret velâ as a type of fictitious kinship tie, more precisely an agnatic one. The velâ relationship thus functioned as a system that regulated rights and duties, including the inheritance relationship between manumitter and the manumitted person. In this case, both patron and client were named “mevlâ,” and the velâ relationship survived the death of each. In this way, the families of the freed person and the patron were, in effect, bound together in perpetuity.9 8

9

For instance, during the dethronement attempt, Sultan Ibrahim (r. 1640–1648) reacted to those people who came to take him by stating “you traitors what are you doing, did I not offer you many benefactions (“bre hâinler bu nasıl iştir, ben her birinize nice ihsan etmedim mi?”) (Na‘îmâ Mustafa Efendi, Tarih-i Na‘îmâ, ed. M. İpşirli [Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2007, III, 1165]). For a similar expression, pronounced by Kösem Sultan, see Na’îmâ, Tarih, III, 1163. Ottoman sources also provide numerous examples concerning how disloyalty was punished in the Ottoman Empire. Detailed information in this issue will be given in Chapter 2.

Introduction

7

Therefore, household affiliation comprised free, slave, and manumitted persons, both residents of the household and nonresidents. Physically leaving the household did not necessarily refer to the end of household affiliation. The former slaves’ service and loyalty to the household continued, and manumitted persons retained their protection against social and economic realities. While their household duties may have ended, these people took on other important functions to ensure the permanency of the political household. For instance, they could play an effective role in developing or sustaining networks of outside political relationships. At the same time, with their intimate familiarity with the particular the culture and life style of the household, these people actively represented their households to the outside world. The marriages of members of Ottoman political households also held strategic and symbolic importance, in terms of their role in strengthening existing relationships, establishing new bonds, and enlarging networks. Marriage among household members was also important for securing loyalty and for increasing the household’s strength. Especially in the case of the marriages among members of the imperial court, these relationships and networks significantly affected the formation and expansion of a ruling elite loyal to the sultan. Just as important was the household’s ability to establish strong connections with the public and to ensure its allegiance. In this context, the charitable activities of members of the political households, including endowments and architectural patronage, functioned as a tool that strengthened the household’s position and contributed to its power and prestige in the eyes of the public. * In a state structure in which political households and patronage relationships prevailed, female palace slaves held an important place in the functioning of the imperial court, as important to the Ottoman Empire’s political functioning as the male members of the Enderun. Due to the reciprocal character of the patronage relations based on mutual obligation and interest between patron and protégé, palaceaffiliated people were protected and provided with material and moral benefits by the household; in exchange, they offered their personal service, loyalty, and affection, both during their service period and following their departure from the palace. As will be discussed throughout the book, affiliation with the imperial court until death and beyond had implications for both parties.

8

Introduction

From the perspective of the manumitted female palace slaves, affiliation with the imperial court and patronage relationship impacted their marriage prospects, residential locations, material world, network of relationships, and charitable activities. Even though affiliation with the imperial court entailed some obligations, it also provided a social identity, privileges, prestige, and opportunities to climb the social ladder. From the perspective of the imperial court, manumitted female palace slaves carried their “palace identity” with them into local communities, established social and communal relationships, especially with members of their neighborhoods, represented the court culture outside of the palace, established ties through marriage between the imperial household and members of the ruling class, and engaged in charitable activities for the benefit of society and the imperial court. Thus, no picture of the imperial court is complete without taking into account the role of these former slave women. These factors were important in every period, even during the eighteenth century as many socioeconomic, political, and cultural changes unfolded. To properly evaluate the place of palace women both in the imperial court and in society, it thus is important to take into account the socioeconomic, political, and cultural context of the eighteenth century.

A Brief Overview of the Eighteenth Century From the last quarter of the sixteenth century, several developments deeply affected the administrative, social, and economic structure of the Ottoman Empire. In this period, during which the authority of the sultan was shaken and the power balances changed, deep political struggles emerged between different sections of society, such as palace members, kapıkulu corps, and ulema. Six dethronement incidents occurred between 1618 and 1703, highlighting the instability of this troubled period.10 As a result of long-standing changes taking place in the Ottoman state and society, by the eighteenth century there existed a state structure that was fundamentally different from that 10

For evaluations concerning the impact of the developments realized in this period on the power and authority of the imperial dynasty, see Baki Tezcan, “The Second Empire: The Transformation of the Ottoman Polity in the Early Modern Era,” Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 29/3 (2009): 559–572.

A Brief Overview of the Eighteenth Century

9

of the sixteenth century. The devshirme system (the recruitment of non-Muslim boys into state service), which had been the main characteristic of the Ottoman military and administrative organization, began to lose its importance. In time, as an alternative to devshirmeorigin people, the administrative and military structures began to incorporate children and household members of askeri class members,11 and even some reaya (tax-paying subjects) who were included in the askeri class.12 Social transformation gradually blurred the marks of distinction that had long separated the ruling elite from society at large.13 In addition, and as a result of the extensive transformation that had begun at the end of the sixteenth century, the importance of establishing households that each represented a social, political, and economic unit increased, both in the capital and in the provinces. In the seventeenth century, members of the vizier and the pasha households were able to obtain important positions, taking the places previously occupied by graduates of the Enderun and those who had been trained in the military organization.14 The appointment of Köprülü Mehmed Pasha as grand vizier in 1656, and his acquisition of political authority, reveals the effectiveness of the vizier and pasha households in the Ottoman political administration. The households as political, economic, sociocultural units maintained their importance until the end of the nineteenth century. Following the defeat of Ottoman forces at Vienna in 1683, the Ottoman state entered into a new period in which they encountered 11

12

13

14

In Ottoman technical usage, askeri refers to the members of the ruling class as distinct from reaya. The term askeri included retired or unemployed askeris, the wives and children of askeris, and manumitted slaves of the Sultan and of the askeris (Bernard Lewis, “Askari,” EI², I, 712). The devshirme system was abandoned gradually (Tayyar-Zâde Atâ, Osmanlı Saray Tarihi, Târih-i Enderûn, ed. Mehmet Arslan [Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2010], I, 235). Especially in the eighteenth century, children of many notable families entered the Enderun (İsmail H. Baykal, Enderun Mektebi Tarihi [Istanbul: İstanbul Fetih Dernegi, ˘ 1953], 70). Several archival documents from the eighteenth century reveal that the rule of wearing distinctive clothes according to rank, status, profession, and religious affiliation was violated: some lower-class men in particular no longer dressed in accordance with their status (Betül İpşirli Argıt, “Clothing Habits, Regulations, and Non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire,” Journal of Academic Studies 24 [2005]: 82). Abou-El-Haj, “The Ottoman Vizier and Pasha Households 1683–1703,” 438–447.

10

Introduction

problems in various areas.15 In this period, even the authority of the Ottoman dynasty was questioned. Following the deposition of Mustafa II after the Edirne incident of 1703,16 there was even a search for an alternative to the rule of the House of Osman.17 During this period of change, transformation, and intense political crisis, Ahmed III ascended to the throne (1703) and transferred the imperial court back to Istanbul. He endeavored to strengthen the sovereign authority of the sultan that had been shaken during the seventeenth century, and his efforts (and their impacts) can be seen in different forms throughout the century.18 Conflict with Iran in the first half of the eighteenth century and with Russia in the second half led to troubles in the military, political, financial, and social structures of the Ottoman Empire. In response, from the second half of the eighteenth century, the central authority turned toward reforms to regain its strength. Parallel to these developments, the capital’s environment was evolving. Following the transfer of the imperial court from Edirne back to Istanbul in 1703, tremendous changes took place in the fabric and architecture of the city. Urban development increased, social spaces expanded,19 and people from various segments of society appeared in these spaces.20 In a period in which the boundaries between askeri class and reaya gradually loosened, changes also occurred in consumption habits along with changing economic relations.21 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

For a study evaluating this period in the context of Ottoman Venetian relations, see Güner Dogan, ˘ “Venediklü ile Dahi Sulh Oluna” 17. ve 18. Yüzyıllarda Osmanlı Venedik İlişkileri (Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2017). For detailed information about Edirne Incident of 1703, see Rıfa’at Ali Abou-ElHaj, The 1703 Rebellion and the Structure of Ottoman Politics (Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1984). Feridun Emecen, “Osmanlı Hanedanına Alternatif Arayışlar Üzerine Bazı Örnekler ve Mülahazalar,” İslam Araştırmaları Dergisi 6 (2001): 63–76. For information about the period, see Caroline Finkel, Osman’s Dream: The Story of the Ottoman Empire 1300–1923 (London: John Murray, 2005). Shirine Hamadeh, “Public Spaces and the Garden Culture of Istanbul in the Eighteenth Century,” in The Early Modern Ottomans, Remapping the Empires, ed. Virginia Aksan-Daniel Goffman (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 283, 287. For instance, Ignatius Mouradgea d’Ohsson notes that in the good season citizens of all orders, men and women take pleasure in walking, and women are always veiled and separated from men (Mouradgea D’Ohsson, Tableau Général de L’Empire Othoman (Paris, 1788–1824), IV, 186). Donald Quataert, “Introduction,” in Consumption Studies and the History of the Ottoman Empire, 1550–1922, ed. D. Quataert (New York: State University of New York Press, 2000), 10.

Harem and Female Slaves in the Ottoman Imperial Court

11

As was the case in every period, the place of palace women both in the imperial court and in society was also important in the eighteenth century in which many socioeconomic, political, and cultural changes took place. Based on this, the following section traces the roots of the Ottoman harem as an institution and of female palace slavery more broadly, from the early period of the Ottoman state until the end of the empire. It outlines the place of the female palace slaves in the Ottoman Imperial Court and demonstrates the early presence of an administrative structure that enabled the court to bring women from different geographical regions to the palaces and provide them with protection.

Harem and Female Slaves in the Ottoman Imperial Court From Antiquity until the beginning of the twentieth century, in dynastic palaces around the world, there were separate places reserved for female members of the dynasty and their female servants. In ancient Greece, Rome, and Egypt, in India, in China, and in the pre-Islamic Turkish and Arabic world, female slaves served in palaces. The presence of an administrative structure that enabled the bringing of women from different geographies to the palaces and “protecting them” was an indication of the power, dignity, and richness of the ruler and of the dynasty. In the dynasties that followed the Islamic tradition, ancient institutions of harem and of female slavery continued to exist, albeit with certain changes. In the societies that adopted Islam, slavery was already deeply rooted in social life. Islam did not abolish slavery, but rather endeavored to moderate the institution and mitigate its legal and moral aspects. For example, Islamic law applied various regulations to slavery: it greatly limited opportunities to enslave people, recommended the freeing of slaves, and regulated the way slaves were treated as human beings. Islam’s teachings that slaves were to be regarded as human beings with dignity and rights and not just as property, and that freeing slaves was a virtuous act, paved the way toward a culture in which freed slaves easily integrated into society. According to Islamic law, the only legitimate means by which people could be enslaved was their birth to legally enslaved parents or their capture following defeat in war. In Islamic law, slavery has no other legal source except these two means. The enslavement of Muslims, regardless of their condition,

12

Introduction

was strictly forbidden.22 When one considers birth into slavery as a logical conclusion of enslavement in war, enslavement of prisoners of war appears to be the primary legitimate cause for enslavement.23 Apart from these legal roads to slavery, a slave trade based on and enslavement through abduction also existed. The most important source of slaves in the Ottoman State was enslavement of male and female war captives, and numerous prisoners of war were procured from conquests. In both Bursa and the second capital, Edirne, tremendous slave markets existed. Âşıkpaşazâde provides information about the abundance of captives during the reign of Murad II. He notes, for example, that Murad II’s campaign against Belgrade in 1438–1439 ended with the acquisition of rich booty that was then traded, in part, for slaves.24 As the empire’s boundaries expanded through conquest, the slavery institution developed further and slaves became an important element of social life. As warfare declined in subsequent centuries, the number of prisoners of war declined somewhat, but the acquisition of slaves continued through the slave trade and the abduction and sale of slaves.25 The sale of 22

23

24

25

For information about the situation of slaves in pre-Islamic periods, the status of slaves in Islamic law, their legal and social statutes, and slavery in the Near East tradition, see R. Brunschvig, “Abd,” EI2, I, 24–40; W. Juynboll, “Abid,” İA, I, 110–114; Vecdi Akyüz-Nihat Engin, “Asr-ı Saadette Kölelik ve Câriyelik,” in Bütün yönleriyle Asr-ı Saadet’te İslam, ed. Vecdi Akyüz (Istanbul: Beyan Yayınları, 1994), 493–511; M. Akif Aydın-Muhammed Hamîdullah, “Köle,” DİA, XXVI, 237–246; Ahmet Özel, “Esir,” DİA, XI, 382–389. Following a battle, male and female prisoners were released with or without recompense, or they were exchanged for Muslim prisoners, or they were enslaved. Ahmet Özel, İslâm Devletler Hukukunda Savaş Esirleri (Istanbul: TDV Yayınları, 2014). For detailed information about war captives, see Hakan Erdem, Slavery in the Ottoman Empire and its Demise, 1800–1909 (London: Macmillan, 1996), 29–33, 44–45. A female slave was acquired in exchange for a pair of boots, and a decent boy could be puchased for a hundred akçe. Âşıkpaşazâde Tarihi, Osmanlı Tarihi (1285–1502), ed. Necdet Öztürk (Istanbul: Bilge Kültür Sanat, 2013), 164–165. European writers provided information about girls who were kidnapped by raiders. For instance, according to the account of Georges Guillet de SaintGeorges, the mother of Mehmed IV’s first son had been captured and taken away by the Tatars when she was four years old; a short time later she was sold to a pasha. This pasha designated her for the pleasures of the sultan and brought her up accordingly (Georges Guillet de Saint-Georges, An Account, 349). De SaintGeorge also wrote that a girl from Athens was taken into the palace during the reign of Ahmed I. Her parents were Christian and she was torn from them in her minority by the Turkish officers because of her excellent beauty (G. G. de SaintGeorge, An Account, 157). According to Habesci’s account, some slaves were stolen by Turkish marauders from Georgia and Greek settlements while still in

Harem and Female Slaves in the Ottoman Imperial Court

13

male and female children by their families was another source of slaves in Ottoman society.26 It was a characteristic of the classical Islamic states that male slaves worked in the service of rulers and dynasties, since they were believed to serve the interest of the central state. For similar reasons, female slaves were present in the rulers’ palaces, and the institution of female slavery was a standard feature of Muslim dynasties.27 In the Islamic tradition, the harem corresponds to the private living space of a family and, especially, to the women living in it. The harem’s organization was based on an institutionalized structure. In the imperial harems, for example, the great majority of female slaves had domestic responsibilities and functioned as servants, attendants, nannies, and wet nurses. A smaller group of women became concubines since, according to Islamic law, a slave owner had the right to enter into a sexual relationship with his female slave. As in other states, female slavery and the harem were deep-rooted institutions in the Ottoman State, although here they were a distinctive system that combined and modified versions of practices whose roots lay in ancient Turkish and Islamic states and in the Byzantium Empire.28

26

27

28

their infancy (Elias Habesci, The Present State of the Ottoman Empire containing A More Accurate and Interesting Account of the Turks (London: R. Baldwin, 1784), 398. Slavery through kidnapping was technically illegal. For cases of enslavement through kidnapping, see also Erdem, Slavery in the Ottoman Empire, 45–47. For information and for several examples on this issue, see Nihat Engin, Osmanlı Devletinde Kölelik (Istanbul: İFAV, 1998), 89–96. At the beginning of the eighteenth century, Aubry de la Motraye noted that some Circassians, Georgians, and Mingrelians sold their own children. He also added that some ambitious poor Turks who had handsome daughters brought them to please, play instruments, sing, and dance like the female slaves who were destined for the sultan (Aubry de la Motraye, Aubry de la Motraye’s Travels Through Europe, Asia and into Part of Africa [London, 1723], I, 247, 250). According to an archival record, el hac Ahmed from Bursa brought his wife to Istanbul and sold her as a slave (C. ADL 79/4764 [1178/1764]). For information about the sale of children by their families, see Erdem, Slavery in the Ottoman Empire, 48–52. The historian Ahmed Cevdet Pasha noted that Circassians had astonishing customs and added that if the Circassians’ wives committed adultery, they were sold together with their children to a slave dealer. (Ahmed Cevdet Paşa, Tarih-i Cevdet, Dersaadet: Matbaa-i Osmaniye, 1309), I, 292–293. Brunschvig, “Abd,” EI2, I, 35; Shaun Marmon, “Concubinage,” Islamic Dictionary of the Middle Ages, ed. Joseph Strayer (New York: Scribner, 1983), III, 527–529. The literature on slaves in the Ottoman Empire gives insight into the various aspects of slavery practices in Ottoman lands and provides information about

14

Introduction

Evaluating the development of the Ottoman imperial harem institution in relation to female slavery over time makes it clear how local dynamics and conditions specific to the period affected the structure and functioning of the institution. It is not possible to determine exactly when the harem structure, including its female slaves, appeared in the palaces of Ottoman rulers, but it is thought that male and female slaves were present in the palace of Orhan Bey (r. 1324–1362) in Bursa.29 In a waqfiyye (endowment deed) dated 1324, a manumitted eunuch of Orhan Bey named Tavaşî Serefeddin ¸ appeared as the administrator of a waqf established by Orhan Bey.30 This hints at the possible existence of female slaves in the court in this period, since eunuchs were employed to protect the harem. Following the city’s conquest, Murad I (r. 1362–1389) built a palace in Edirne in an area called Kavak Meydanı, and he, Bayezid I (r. 1389–1403), and Murad II (r. 1421–1444/1446–1451) all used this building as a state palace.31 Fuad Köprülü noted that eunuchs may have been employed at the Ottoman court during the time of Bayezid I.32 The nobleman Bertrandon de la Broquirère, who was actually a pilgrim-spy sent by the Duke of Burgundy, came to Edirne in 1433 during the reign of Murad II. He stated that there were three hundred or more women in the Edirne Palace.33

29 30

31

32

33

how slavery in the Ottoman Empire was an institution that impacted political, sociocultural, and family life from the early days. For a recent study that provides a broad bibliography on slaves in the Ottoman world, see Madeline Zilfi, Women and Slavery in the Late Ottoman Empire: The Design of Difference (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010). For a recent study evaluating slavery in the Ottoman world from various angles, see Ehud Toledano, “Enslavement in the Ottoman Empire in the Early Modern Period,” in The Cambridge World History of Slavery, Volume 3, AD 1420–1804, ed. David Eltis-Stanley L. Engerman (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011): 25–46. A recent detailed literature survey on Ottoman slavery by Faroqhi comprises a detailed bibliography, Suraiya Faroqhi, Slavery in the Ottoman World: A Literature Survey, Otto Spies Memorial Lecture, eds. Stephan Conermann-Gül Sen, ¸ vol. 4 (Berlin: EB Verlag, 2017). Çagatay ˘ Uluçay, Harem II (Ankara: TTK, 1971), 11. İ. H. Uzunçarşılı, “Gazi Orhan Bey Vakfiyesi, 724 Rebiülevvel-1324 Mart, Belleten 19 (1941): 279–281. Rifat Osman, Edirne Sarayı, ed. Ahmet Süheyl Ünver (Ankara: Türkiye Tarih Kurumu, 1957), 16–20. M. Fuad Köprülü, Bizans Müesseselerinin Osmanlı Müesseselerine Tesiri (Istanbul: Ötüken, 1981), 79. Bertrandon de la Brocquière, Le Voyage d'Outremer de Bertrandon de la Brocquiere, ed. Charles Schefer (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1892), 184.

Harem and Female Slaves in the Ottoman Imperial Court

15

Murad II ordered the construction of a New Palace in Edirne on the bank of the Tunca River in 1450; his son Mehmed II (r. 1444–1446 & 1451–1481) completed the construction. This newly built palace (called New Palace [Saray-ı Cedid], to distinguish it from the Old Palace [Saray-ı Atik] built by Murad I) contained harem apartments.34 During Mehmed II’s reign, the harem organization evolved and the number of female slaves living in and serving it increased.35 At this point, concerns about strengthening the central state authority increased the importance of slaves in the households of the ruling elite. This, in turn, strengthened the institution of female slavery in the imperial court. Following the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, Mehmed II ordered the construction of another palace there; work was completed in 1455. This palace, which was later called the Old Palace (Saray-ı Atik), included harem apartments like the palace in Edirne. In 1459, construction began on yet another palace (to be called the New Palace, Saray-ı Cedid – today it is known as Topkapı Palace); this one was completed only in 1478.36 The Ottoman Empire’s administrative center then passed to the New Palace, but the harem, consisting of female members of the dynasty and their female servants, remained in the Old Palace for another century.37 During Mehmed II’s reign, there was a harem in the New Palace, but it was not a large and organized structure. A Genoese merchant named Iacopo de Promontorio de Campis who served at the Ottoman court between 1430 and 1475 34

35 36

37

İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Devletinin Saray Teşkilâtı (Ankara: TTK, 1988), 11–12, 301–302. Uluçay, Harem II, 11. New Palace is noted in the sources as “Saray-ı Cedid,” “Saray-ı Cedid-i Âmire,” “Saray-ı Hümâyun,” “Saray-ı Âmire,” and “Saray-ı ismet-penâh- ı Hümâyun.” Gülru Necipoglu, ˘ Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power: The Topkapı Palace in the Fifteenth and Sixteeenth Centuries (New York: The Architectural History Foundation, 1991), 3–4, 8–10. D’Ohsson noted that Fatih left his harem in the Old Palace, and his example was followed by Bayezid II and Selim I. Mehmed II lived in the New Palace with some of his officers, leaving the rest of his court and all of his harem in the other building, which was then called the old seraglio. His example was followed by Bayezid II and Selim I; the great Suleyman transferred his court and his harem to the New Palace, and after that the old seraglio was inhabited only by the sultan’s consorts and slave girls who had lived with the predecessors of the reigning sovereign (d’Ohsson, Tableau, VII, 3). On this matter, see also Necipoglu, ˘ Architecture, 160–162.

16

Introduction

noted that in 1475, four hundred women were living in the sultan’s harem. One hundred and fifty lived in the New Palace together with the sultan, while two hundred and fifty women lived in the Old Palace.38 Another person, Giovanni Maria Angiolello of Vicenza, who was taken prisoner in the siege of Negroponte in 1470 and remained in the service of Mehmed II’s son Mustafa until the latter’s death in 1474 and from then until Mehmed II’s death in 1481 in the service of the sultan’s court, wrote that there were two palaces in Istanbul. The sultan and state officials lived in one palace and women and female slaves of various backgrounds resided in the other.39 However, Angiolello’s narrative indicated the presence of women in both palaces: he noted that forty people guarded the palace doors, and that each night these forty people changed their guard duty with other forty; they also guarded other women who were staying half a mile away.40 Similarly, there were women in the New Palace during the period of Bayezid II.41 Until the beginning of the sixteenth century, sultans had both legal wives and female slaves. After that point, the legal marriages made with the daughters of Christian rulers and of the Anatolian emirates faded into the background, and the sultans established their family lives with female slaves. Although some sultans continued to have legal wives, this eventually became the exception rather than the rule.42 38

39

40

41

42

Iacopo de Campis, “Die Aufzeichnungen des Genuesen Iacopo de Promontorio de Campis über den Osmanenstaat um 1475.” (Governo et Entrate del Gran Turco 1475. Stato del Gran Turco), ed. Franz Babinger (Sitzungsberichte, Jahrgang 1956, Heft 8, Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften PhilosophischHistorische Klasse, Munich, 1957), 44–45, quoted in Necipoglu, ˘ Architecture, 160. Giovanni Maria Angiolello, Historia Turchesca, ed. I. Ursu (Bucarest, 1909), 123. Angiolello stated that all these women were Christian girls, and there were about three hundred people in the section of the palace where the sultan's consorts and female slaves lived (Angiolello, Historia Turchesca, 128). Angiolello noted that the duty of the palace eunuchs was to ensure that palace women were not seen by outsiders apart from the sultan and the eunuchs (Angiolello, Historia Turchesca, 129). For information about the existence of the harem in the New Palace during the reign of Mehmed II, see Necipoglu, ˘ Architecture, 8, 159–161. Giovanni Antonio Menavino, I cinque libri della legge, religione, et vita de’ Turchi et della corte, d’alcune guerre del Gran Turco (Venice, 1548), 13–14. For information about the women in the New Palace during the reign of Bayezid II, see Necipoglu, ˘ Architecture, 160. Uzunçarşılı, Saray Teşkilâtı, 146. For detailed information about the sultans’ consorts, see Uluçay, Padişahların Kadınları ve Kızları (Ankara: TTK, 1980). By constrast, some European writers mentioned the period of Bayezid I as a turning

Harem and Female Slaves in the Ottoman Imperial Court

17

There were two groups of female slaves in the Ottoman imperial harem: the sultans’ concubines and those women who worked in the service of the harem and of the sultan and his family.43 Only a small group of women in the harem were the sultan’s consorts.44

43

44

point. Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq wrote that none of the sultans had contracted a marriage since the time of Bayezıd I (1389–1402); Ogier de Busbecq, Turkish Letters (London: Sickle Moon Books, 2001), 19. Writing in the 1580s, Reinhold Lubenau noted that at that time, the Turkish sultan had no legal wives. The reason for this was that Bayezid I’s wife had fallen captive to Timur and was raped in front of Bayezıd I. Since that day, Turkish sovereigns did not marry their wives (Reinhold Lubenau, Reinhold Lubenau Seyahatnamesi 1587–1589, trans. Türkis Noyan [Istanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2012], I, 207). According to the account of Baudier, which was compiled from earlier sources including Hierosolimitano and Ottaviano Bon, the law ordaining that the sultan should not marry took its beginning from the reign of Bayezıd I (Michel Baudier, The History of the Serrail and of the Court of the Grand Seigneur, Emperour of the Turkes, trans. Edward Grimeston [London: Published by William, 1635], 54). One should bear in mind and write accordingly that such a division was not a de jure but a de facto one. There was nothing to prevent a sultan from having sexual access to a female slave from either group. Moreover, even that de facto or pragmatic division could be quite blurred: A female slave could be a concubine or consort yet fulfill a service in the harem. For example, as will be mentioned below, Nevres Kadın, the third consort of Abdulhamid I (r. 1774–1789), was the head treasurer, as was the sixth consort of Mahmud I (r. 1730–1754). I thank the anonymous reader for Cambridge University Press for reminding me of this point. Additionally, the issue of when sexual relations between a master and his female slaves was lawful was discussed in the Ottoman period. Prince Korkut, who was son of Bayezid II, wrote a treatise about booty, entitled Hallu İşkâli’l-Efkâr fî Hilli Emvâli’l-Küffâr. In his account, he noted that if war booty was not divided according to the principles of Islamic law, sexual relations between the master and the female slave would not be lawful (A. Cüneyt Köksal, ed. İslam’da Ganimet ve Cariyelik: Osmanlı Sistemine İçerden Bir Eleştiri [Istanbul: İSAR, 2013]). It is known that in the Ottoman lands, some people who were sold as slaves had been obtained contrary to the legitimate means noted in Islamic slave law. Since Islam forbade the enslavement of freeborn Muslims, some Islamic jurists who lived during the period drew attention to this issue. They noted that marriage (nikah) should be performed before sexual intercourse with a female slave whose source of slavery was doubtful (Aydın-Hamidullah, “Köle,” 244). The sultan did not have sexual relations with every female slave in the imperial harem. However, some European accounts used the term “concubine” when referring to female slaves in the imperial harem (J. E. Beauvoisins, Notice sur la cour du Grand Seigneur son serail son harem la famille du sang imperial sa maison mitiataire [Paris, 1809, 26–28]), but some acknowledged that the sultan did not have sexual intercourse with every woman in the harem. For instance, according to Habesci, “it is commonly believed that sultan may take to his bed all the women of palace, yet this claim is a vulgar error” (Habesci, The Present State, 167).

18

Introduction

The remaining female slaves were organized in a manner similar to the organization of pages in the Enderun. In the early period of the reign of Süleyman I, his family lived in the Old Palace.45 His favorite concubine, Hürrem, gained control of the harem after the two highestranking female members of the dynasty left: Prince Mustafa's mother went to Manisa with her son in 1533, and the sultan’s mother died in 1534. Hürrem then convinced Süleyman to marry her, and when he did, she moved from the Old Palace to the New Palace together with her children.46 Hürrem’s permanent move to the harem of the New Palace has been referred to as the beginning of the period in which the harem within the New Palace acquired organizational and functional characteristics. After Süleyman I’s reign, the sultans began to live in the New Palace together with their families, and this led to the transformation of the Old Palace into a place allocated to the consorts and female slaves of the previous rulers. This change continued through the dynastic politics of the sultans who followed, and, from the period of Selim II (r. 1566–1574), drastic changes in the harem’s architectural and institutional organization took place.47 As a consequence of the imperial family’s concentration in one location, there was a considerable enlargement of the harem at the New Palace during the reign of Murad III (r. 1574–1595). New halls and apartments were built to accommodate the harem’s expanding numbers.48 Transformations also took place in the harem’s hierarchical structure and the status of its residents. In comparison to the apartments of female members of the dynasty, the dormitory of slave girls was a modest structure, highlighting their lower status. Nevertheless, the architectural structure that allowed valide sultan (the mother of the reigning sultan) to access all areas of the palace reflected her position as ruler of the harem. Several changes in the Ottoman state beginning in the last quarter of the sixteenth century affected the harem’s structure and function. First, 45 46

47 48

For detailed information, see Necipoglu, ˘ Architecture, 162. Necipoglu, ˘ Architecture, 163; Peirce, The Imperial Harem, 121. Leslie Peirce, Empress of the East: How a European Slave Girl Became Queen of the Ottoman Empire (Basic Books: New York, 2017), 121–122. Necipoglu, ˘ Architecture, 23, 163–177. For information about the changes in the physical structure of the Imperial Harem in the New Palace, see Necipoglu, ˘ Architecture; Murat Kocaaslan, IV. Mehmed Saltanatında Topkapı Sarayı Haremi, İktidar, Sınırlar ve Mimari (Istanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2014).

Harem and Female Slaves in the Ottoman Imperial Court

19

the Ottoman state became a stable bureaucratic state led by a sedentary rather than a warrior sultan. The primogenitor succession tradition by which the Ottoman throne passed in an unbroken line from father to son transformed during Ahmed I’s (r. 1603–1617) rule into a seniority system in which the eldest male member of the dynasty inherited the throne. Furthermore, from the period of Ahmed I, the practice of establishing governorates for royal princes in line for the throne came to an end. Princes and their mothers were no longer sent to the provinces to live, but rather remained in the New Palace together with their entourage. This led to the enlargement of the harem and paved the way for greater hierarchical organization.49 Moreover, sultans who ascended to the throne in the first half of the seventeenth century were either minors on accession or mentally incompetent. Thus, a series of structural changes, including the centralization of the royal family in the imperial palace, the growing importance of the palace as a center of government, and the implementation of a new system of succession, eventually placed women of the royal family in key positions, which allowed them to acquire and exercise greater power and authority. The political agency of female members of the dynasty, especially the sultans’ mothers and consorts, also increased, as they played a role in the Ottoman political system’s distribution and exercise of power through the harem.50 From the second half of the seventeenth century until the beginning of Ahmed III’s reign (r. 1703–1730), the imperial court was located in Edirne. During the reigns of Mehmed IV (r. 1648–1687), Süleyman II (r. 1687–1691), Ahmed II (r. 1691–1695), and Mustafa II (r. 1695–1703), the imperial dynasty lived in Edirne Palace. Yet, during this period, female slaves still lived in the Old Palace and in the New Palace in Istanbul.51 At the beginning of Ahmed III’s reign, the imperial court moved to the New Palace in Istanbul. 49

50 51

For the development of the imperial harem’s organization in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, see Peirce, The Imperial Harem, 119–124. Peirce contextualizes the issue of increase in the harem’s population in the specified period and articulates its significance within the general framework of Ottoman history, its central administration, expansion of courtly hierarchy, etc. For detailed discussion of this issue, see Peirce, The Imperial Harem. Several primary sources describing the fire that took place in the New Palace in 1665 in Istanbul reveal that there were female slaves living both in the Old Palace and in the New Palace. Some speculated that the fire was set by female palace slaves (John Shirley, The history of the state of the present war in

20

Introduction

In the nineteenth century, the state transformed again into a bureaucracy, as the Ottoman State adopted European style modernization. During the reign of Mahmud II (r. 1808–1839), not only the structure of the government but also the palace organization was subjected to serious regulations.52 Despite the reform movements of the period that affected various facets of life, though, the main structure of the imperial harem organization did not change. The imperial court moved to the Dolmabahçe Palace following its construction in 1853–1856 by Abdulmecid (r. 1839–1861). Abdulhamid II (r. 1876–1909) then left the Dolmabahçe Palace and moved to the Yıldız Palace in 1878, staying there until the end of his reign. Over time, the functions carried out in the Old Palace passed to the New Palace, and women living in the Old Palace moved to the New Palace. Following the dethronement of Abdulhamid II (1909), some of the female slaves living in the Yıldız Palace were also sent to the New Palace.53 As a result of Ottoman modernization efforts that began in the Tanzimat period,54 statewide debate about slavery increased and reactions against the institution of slavery intensified. The Istanbul Slave Market was closed down in 1846 by order of Sultan Abdulmecid. The black slave trade was prohibited in 1857.55 Despite these restrictions, however, the male and female slave trade continued in the empire. An examination of the archival records reveals that female slaves’ admission to the imperial harem continued throughout this period.56

52 53 54

55

56

Hungary, Austria, Croatia, Moravia, and Silesia between Leopold Emperour of Germany, and Mahamet the fourth Sultan of the Turks, in conjunction with Count Teckely and the Hungarian rebels [London: William Whitwood, 1683], 301). When the dynasty was located in Edirne, some of its female slaves lived in the New Palace in Istanbul (Murat Kocaaslan, “Topkapı Saray’ı Haremi: 1665 Yangını Sonrası Yenileme Projesi,” Belleten LXXVI/275 [2012]: 50–51). Ali Akyıldız, “Mâbeyn-i Hümâyun,” DİA, XXVII, 284. Uluçay, Harem II, 36. The Tanzimat was a period of reform in the Ottoman Empire that began in 1839 and ended with the First Constitutional Era in 1876. For detailed information on this issue, see Ehud Toledano, The Ottoman Slave Trade and Its Supression: 1840–1890 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982); Erdem, Slavery in the Ottoman Empire, 94–124; Ehud Toledano, Slavery and Abolition in the Ottoman Middle East (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1998). For information on female slaves purchased during the reign of Abdulmecid, see Topkapı Palace Museum Archive, Defter (TSMA D) 332/0001; TSMA D 1038. Sultan Abdulaziz’s (r. 1861–1876) mother Pertevniyal Valide Sultan (d. 1883)

Harem and Female Slaves in the Ottoman Imperial Court

21

Especially in the second half of the nineteenth century, the number of Circassian slaves imported from the Caucasus to Istanbul actually increased, due to the forced migration of the Caucasian population that was under threat by the Russian state.57 The sale of children was widespread among the Circassians, mosty among those who already belonged to the slave class. With the consent of master and parent(s), girls were sold and taken into the harems of Istanbul to enjoy the great opportunities that they believed were awaiting them there.58 Even at the end of the century, the demand for Circassian women was still alive, and the admission of Circassian slaves into the imperial harem continued.59 Indeed, in 1909, when Sultan Abdulhamid was dethroned, the female slaves who were sent from Yıldız Palace to New Palace were reportedly mostly Circassian.60 Female slaves lived in the imperial palace until the end of the empire, and it was only with the end of the state itself that the harem institution ceased to exist.61 The following section offers a critical review of the existing literature on palace women, the imperial court, and slavery in the Ottoman

57

58 59

60 61

purchased female slaves for the imperial harem (Dolmabahçe Palace Archive, Evrak II, nr. 2045, quoted in Ali Akyıldız, “Müsrif, Fakat Hayırserver: Pertevniyal Valide Sultan,” Osmanlı Araştırmaları XLVII [2016]: 312). For information about female slaves who were purchased for the imperial palace during the last quarter of the nineteenth century, see Y.PRK.M 1/115(1299/1882); Y.PRK.M 2/59 (1305/1887); Y. PRK. UM 17/11 (1307/1890). The practice of entry of female slaves to the imperial harem following the enthronement ceremony continued in this period (Y.PRK. AZJ 4/3 (24 Za 1297/1879). Frederick Millingen, “The Circassian Slaves and the Sultan’s Harem,” Journal of the Anthropological Society of London 8 (1870–1871): cix–cxx. For a detailed evaluation of this issue, see also Toledano, The Ottoman Slave Trade and Its Supression, 148–184. Toledano, The Ottoman Slave Trade and Its Supression, 18. For information on this issue, see Toledano, The Ottoman Slave Trade and Its Supression, 184–191. Prior to 1909, there was no ban on the Circassian slave trade. In 1909, prohibition of the selling and buying of male and female Circassian and other white slaves was discussed. For the first time in the Empire, the Circassian slave trade was prohibited universally by the Sultan’s authority (Erdem, Slavery in the Ottoman Empire, 150–151). Slavery was gradually abandoned in the Ottoman society from this time forward. Uluçay, Harem II, 36. The harem institution continued in Iran until the beginning of the twentieth century. For an autobiography written by the daughter of Naser al-Din Shah (d. 1896) regarding this issue, see Taj al-Saltana, Crowning Anquish: Memoirs of a Persian Princess from the Harem to Modernity, 1884–1914, trans. Anna Vanza, Amin Neshati, ed. Abbas Amanat (Washington, DC: Mage Publishers, 1993).

22

Introduction

world to highlight the importance of the experiences of female members of the imperial court.

Evaluation of the Literature on Female Palace Slaves Since this study relates to the themes of palace women, imperial courts/ harems, and slavery, it is critical to evaluate the existing literature on these issues in order to understand common tendencies, deficiencies, and misconceptions on these issues. Despite its recent growth, the literature on female palace slaves is very limited, and the lives and experience of female palace slaves have been largely ignored. European perceptions of Ottoman/Muslim women were, and continue to be, shaped largely by the accounts of early modern travelers to Ottoman lands. The orientalist literature evaluated the harem and female slaves with a mix of fact, hearsay, and fantasy, and thus created a long-lived stereotype of both the women and the harem. Here, one sees the Ottoman imperial harem mostly depicted as a setting for female slavery, sexual fantasy, seclusion of women, and intrigue.62 From the 1950s, articles repeating these stereotyped orientalist impressions of Ottoman women, harems, and female slaves even appeared in popular magazines in Turkey.63 Other articles provided more nuanced information about the admission of female slaves into the imperial harem and the harem’s organization, but for the most part, European perceptions were adopted. From the early twentieth century, some Turkish and foreign researchers did attempt to describe the Ottoman imperial court, including the organization of the imperial harem, using Ottoman sources in combination with Western accounts. These works have provided 62

63

Evaluation of this subject is included in the “Sources and Methodology” section below. The existence of writings related to Ottoman women in the popular periodicals should be evaluated in the context of historiography that has been reshaped alongside the changing national discourse in place since the 1950s. The historiography of the period has been developed through the inclusion of Ottoman history in Turkish history. This prompted the inclusion of articles introducing the various facades of Ottoman women, including female slavery, in popular magazines (Ruth Barzilai-Lumbroso, “Turkish Men and the History of Ottoman Women: Studying the History of the Ottoman Dynasty’s Private Sphere through Women’s Writings,” Journal of Middle East Women’s Studies 5/ 2 [2009]: 53–82).

Evaluation of the Literature on Female Palace Slaves

23

information about the organization and operation of the imperial harem and daily life in the harem, focusing on issues such as the admission of female slaves into the imperial harem, the hierarchy that operated inside the harem, the training regimens of the female palace slaves, their duties in the harem, and their clothing habits and entertainment. This literature that delves into the situation of female palace slaves during their stay in the harem pictures these women as a collective group; little information exists concerning the individual identities of women, their personal worlds, and their relationships.64 The process of female palace slaves’ manumission and the period following their transfer from the imperial palaces are absent in this literature. Literature focusing on the architectural aspects of the imperial court also sheds light on the hierarchically organized structure of the harem and daily life of female slaves.65 The common feature of these works, in contrast to the orientalist discourse, is that they portray the imperial harem as a well-organized institution with rigid protocols, hierarchy, and training similar to that of the Enderun. Yet, it should be noted that works on the Ottoman imperial court and the imperial harem are still quite limited. There are also an increasing number of studies about Ottoman women, but again, only a few focus on Ottoman palace women.66 64

65

66

Barnette Miller, Beyond the Sublime Porte: The Grand Seraglio of Stamboul (New Haven: Yale University, 1931); N. M. Penzer, The Harem (London: George G. Harrap and Co., 1936); Uzunçarşılı, Saray Teşkilâtı; Uluçay, Harem II; Uluçay, Padişahların Kadınları ve Kızları; Pars Tuglacı, ˘ Osmanlı Saray Kadınları, Istanbul: Cem Yayınevi, 1985; Fanny Davis introduces the imperial harem based on Turkish sources, Western accounts, and memories (Fanny Davis, The Ottoman Lady: A Social History from 1718 to 1918 [New York: Greenwood Press, 1986]); Ahmed Akgündüz, İslâm Hukukunda KölelikCariyelik Müessesesi ve Osmanlı’da Harem (Istanbul: Osmanlı Araştırmaları Vakfı, 1995); Peirce, The Imperial Harem. In this category, Gülru Necipoglu's ˘ work on the Topkapı Palace has exceptional value. Lucienne Thys Senocak, ¸ Ottoman Women Builders, The Architectural Patronage of Hatice Sultan (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006); Peirce, Empress of the East; B. İ. Argıt, Rabia Gülnuş Emetullah Sultan 1640–1715 (Istanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2014); Argit, “A Queen Mother and the Ottoman Imperial Harem: Rabia Gülnuş Emetullah Valide Sultan (1640–1715),” in Concubines and Courtesans: Women and Slavery in Islamic History, ed. Matthew S. Gordon and Kathryn A. Hain (Oxford University Press, 2017); Muzaffer Özgüleş, Female Patronage and the Architectural Legacy of Gülnuş Sultan: The Women Who Built the Ottoman World (London-New York: I.B. Taurus, 2017).

24

Introduction

Of those that do, some of the more reputable examples that are listed below focus on the female members of the dynasty as opposed to female palace slaves of lesser status, who are nevertheless touched on only as a collective group during their stay in the harem. By constrast, scholarly literature on slavery in the Ottoman Empire, which began in the mid-1970s, has been steadily increasing, especially as a reflection of the increasing interest in the history of minorities and marginalized groups all over the world.67 This literature focuses on various aspects of the issue, such as the slavery institution in the Ottoman State, slave politics, the slave trade, the perspective of Islamic law on slavery, the origins of slaves, the areas in which they served, their socioeconomic status in society, the socioeconomic and cultural aspects of slavery, the impact of nineteenth-century developments on slavery, and social-legal aspects of manumission.68 In addition, as a result of the increasing demand to focus on the human aspects of social history, there has been an increase in the literature that approaches slaves as individuals, focusing on their personal worlds and experiences and writing about events from the perspective of slaves.69 This approach of “history from below” that 67

68

69

For a study that evaluates the recent developments in slavery in the world, see E. Toledano, As if Silent and Absent: Bonds of Enslavement in the Islamic Middle East (New Haven-London: Yale University Press, 2007), 47–55. See note 28 above for the bibliography evaluating the literature on slaves in the Ottoman World. Toledano, As if Silent and Absent. In a recent study, Toledano emphasizes the need for new studies pertaining to the lives of slaves in Islamic societies and offers a rich bibliography (Toledano, “Enslavement in the Ottoman Empire,” 45). There are few exceptional works that present the events from the perspective of slaves and allow hearing their personal voices: Eve Troutt Powel, “Will That Subaltern Ever Speak? Finding African Slaves in the Historiography of the Middle East,” in Narrating History: Histories and Historiographies of the Twentieth-Century Middle East, eds. Israel Gershoni, Amy Singer and Hakan Erdem (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2006), 242–261; Powel, Tell This in my Memory: Stories of Enslavement in Egypt, Sudan and the Ottoman Empire (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2012); Hakan Erdem,“Magic, Theft, and Arson: The Life and Death of an Enslaved African Women in Ottoman İzmit,” in Race and Slavery in the Middle East: Histories of TransSaharan Africans in Nineteenth Century Egypt, Sudan and the Ottoman Mediterranean, eds. Terrence Walz-Kenneth M. Cuno (Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, 2010), 125–146. A forthcoming book titled Slaves and Slave Agency in the Ottoman Empire, eds. Stephan Conermann and Gül Sen ¸ (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2020) focuses mainly on the agencies developed by slaves.

Evaluation of the Literature on Female Palace Slaves

25

focuses on the experiences of ordinary people has impacted the nature of literature about slaves. Some studies have reevaluated the status of slaves who took part in various areas of Ottoman society, questioning the common discourses, such as assumptions about the conditions of slavery being lighter in contrast to other regions, about slaves being treated well, and about slaves living in better conditions compared to the environments in which they were born. While these studies acknowledge the fact that some slaves had a superior standing compared to people of free status, they recognize that this situation should be assessed cautiously and should not be generalized.70 Relevant to these issues is discussion about the extent to which evaluating slaves in the Ottoman world as a monolithic group reflects their reality. Some authors classify slaves as elite and non-elite. Slaves in the militaryadministrative services and female slaves in the elite harems correspond to the first group, while the second group refers to those slaves who were employed in domestic service and in agricultural fields, in mining, and in other labor-intensive activities.71 These new approaches demonstrate that the experiences of slaves, and their place within the community, should be assessed separately, not as a whole. Yet, despite all these developments, there are still relatively few studies about slavery in the Ottoman Empire, despite its importance. An absence of literature about the female palace slaves has led to ignorance of the roles and importance of manumitted female palace slaves, both in Ottoman society and within the imperial court. However, studies focusing on the political activities of the female members of the dynastic family imply the significance of female palace slaves of lesser status in the imperial court mechanism, both during their service period in the harem and following their transfer from the palace.72 Since the imperial harem functioned as a fundamental aspect of the political arena, female members of the dynasty carried out political roles through the networks they established within and outside of the 70

71

72

For detailed discussion of this issue, see Toledano, As if Silent and Absent; Toledano, “Enslavement in the Ottoman Empire.” These evaluations were predominantly carried out by E. Toledano. He names the first group as kul/harem slaves (Toledano, Slavery and Abolition in the Ottoman Middle East). Peirce, The Imperial Harem, 144–146; Maria Pia Pedani, “Safiye’s Household and Venetian Diplomacy,” Turcica 32 (2000): 9–32; İpşirli Argıt, Rabia Gülnuş Emetullah Sultan.

26

Introduction

imperial palace. Likewise, studies focusing on the role and agency of provincial women in the lesser-status political households also reveal the importance of these women in the functioning of all political households. This literature demonstrates that female members of the household were influential in maintaining the continuity of the households to which they were attached. These women functioned for the benefit of their households and strived to secure the interest of the household.73 This literature indicates that any picture of a political household would be incomplete without including its female members. Since female members of various statuses were not peripheral to the functioning of the households, they too must be taken into account in order to fully understand the functioning of political households of different scales. Studies focusing on the experiences and agency of nondynastic female members of the imperial courts that existed in different geographies and in various time spans have been increasing, pointing to the diversity and richness of experiences of palace women all over the world.74 It is time to pay such attention to their contemporaries in the Ottoman Empire. Additionally, recent literature on the harem, covering a wide geography and time period, rebuts the idea that all Eastern harems were the same, unique, abstract, and timeless. They point to the fact that the harem institution was shaped by the conditions of the period and by the local dynamics; each thus had a diversified structure.75 Such recent 73

74

75

Hathaway, “Marriage Alliances,” 133–149; Fay, “The Ties That Bound,” 155–172; Fay, “From Concubines to Capitalist: Women, Property, and Power in Eighteenth-Century Cairo,” Journal of Women’s History 10/3 (1998): 118–140; Fay, Unveiling the Harem, Elite Women and the Paradox of Seclusion in Eighteenth Century Cairo (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2012); Margaret Meriwether, The Kin Who Count: Family and Society in Ottoman Aleppo 1770–1840 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1999); Amy Aisen Kallender, Women, Gender, and the Palace Households in Ottoman Tunisia (Austin: Texas University Press, 2013). For a global scale study evaluating palace women in the context of powerpolitics in Europe, the Near East, the Far East, Africa, Mexico, and the Indian world, see Anne Walthall, ed., Servants of the Dynasty: Palace Women in World History (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2008). For a recent study on this issue, see Nadine Akkerman-Birgit Houben, ed., The Politics of Female Households: Ladies-in-Waiting across Early Modern Europe (Leiden: Brill, 2014). A recent study evaluates the topic of harems from different angles and disciplines, covering a wide geographical area and time interval. This edited volume emphasizes that there is no fixed meaning and singular history of

Sources and Methodology

27

developments in the literature imply the importance of focusing on female slaves of the imperial court, apart from members of the dynasty. In sum, despite growing interest in the aforementioned fields, the available literature makes little or nothing of the roles and places of female palace slaves of lesser status, either in society or in the imperial court. This book thus takes this group of women as its central focus in order to fill a major lacuna in the existing literature. An evaluation of manumitted female palace slaves’ experience in relation to the imperial court can be better understood from the perspective of patronage relationships that constitute the basis of many relationships in the Near Eastern tradition and in the social and political structure in Europe.76 Such an approach allows for the different dimensions of the relationship between imperial court and its members to be elucidated. This study on manumitted female palace slaves not only unveils their experiences, but also contributes to a better understanding of various aspects of Ottoman history, such as the imperial court, how political households functioned in Ottoman society, the political balances of power in the period, patronage relations, the structure of Ottoman society and culture, consumption, charity, and also what certain key categories such as gender and slave–free–manumitted meant in the Ottoman world.

Sources and Methodology It is important to assess the nature, merit, and limitations of primary sources related to female palace slaves. Due to the slave origin of these women, the available sources generally make it possible to reconstruct only certain aspects of their lives. In general, information

76

“the harem,” but rather there are “histories” of a geographically and socially variable concept; Marilyn Booth, ed. Harem Histories: Envisioning Places and Living Spaces (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2010). There is a large body of literature evaluating patronage relationship in the historical context. These studies focus on the role and function of patronage for different time periods and geographies. For example, for the functioning of patronage relationships in the eleventh century, see Roy Mottahedeh, Loyalty and Leadership (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980). Sharon Kettering regards patronage relationship as a valuable tool for a more nuanced understanding of the nature and scope of political power in early modern France (Sharon Kettering, Patrons, Brokers, and Clients in Seventeenth-Century France [New York: Oxford University Press, 1986]; Kettering, Patronage in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century France [Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002]).

28

Introduction

such as their date of birth, origins, names at birth, stories before they entered the imperial palace, the process of their enslavement, when and how they entered the imperial palace, their service period, and when they were manumitted and transferred from the palace is largely absent in the sources. The sources kept in the state archive also have some limitations due to their official character. Subjects were registered within certain standards, and are silent about some issues or offer only limited and superficial information. These sources generally do not allow us to hear the personal voices of women, to follow every phase of their lives, or to see how they behaved in various situations. Some sources in the state archives, though, do provide information about the prices and origins of female slaves taken to the imperial palace. Several registers, such as tayinat (allowance), mevâcib (stipend), masraf-ı şehriyârî (royal expenditures), harc-ı hassa (expenditure for purchases and disbursements for privy purposes), ceyb-i hümâyun (privy purse), inamat (gifts), melbûsât (clothes), me’kûlât (food), enable us to see money, food, clothing, and other objects assigned to the female palace slaves. These sources are valuable in constructing the harem hierarchy, and they provide some information about who were the residents of the harem and who possessed how many female slaves in this organization. These sources do not mention each separate resident of the harem, though, and thus do not provide access to them aside from the chief administrative officer (kethüda kadın), the head treasurer (hazînedar usta), and the consorts and daughters of the sultans who are listed in these sources individually. The remaining harem residents are noted as a whole under a single classification. By contrast, documents such as estate records, endowment deeds, and registers of inheritance and wills stand as personal documents related to each female slave. Some other documents provide information about the women’s relationship with the imperial court following their transfer from the palace. Ottoman chroniclers also tended to have an official character, only providing information about noticeable female palace slaves who had political affiliations. These sources do not contain information about life in the harem. If female palace slaves attracted the attention of the chroniclers at all, they were mentioned as a single group concerning their admission to the harem, their total manumission, or their transfer from the imperial palaces.

Sources and Methodology

29

Shari’a court records that shed light on many aspects of the lives of Ottoman women constitute a rich alternative to archival records. These records enable us to see the personal experience of the persons who appeared in the court as defendants, plaintiffs, and witnesses. Literature about Ottoman women appearing since the 1970s has been based largely on such court records.77 Similarly, the most important source for manumitted female palace slaves is the court registers recorded in the Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi ˘ (Inspectorate of Imperial Foundations) court, one of Istanbul’s Shari’a courts. This court, which mainly dealt with issues related to waqfs, also includes cases related to people affiliated with the imperial court. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi ˘ court records offer a surprising range of information about the lives of manumitted female palace slaves, including property sales, loan transactions, inheritance settlements, issues related to divorce, guardianship, slavery, and waqfs, as well as estate records.78 These records allow us to identify the names of women, their husbands, their residential neighborhoods, their legal heirs, their fortune and material world, and, more rarely, their origin and the identity of their masters. Additionally, research in the Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi ˘ court records provide access to valuable information regarding the social, economic, and daily lives of these women, and 77

78

For an evaluation of the literature, see B. İ. Argıt, “Women in the Early Modern Ottoman World: A Bibliographical Essay,” Journal of Academic Studies 60 (2014): 1–28. Estate records known as tereke or muhallefat stand as valuable sources for manumitted female palace slaves. Estate records were inventories describing the deceased's patrimony in detail: cash, movables, and real estate, all with their estimated market prices. The next part constitutes claims against the inheritance: debts, “outstanding dowry” due to the wife, and sundry expenses (funeral costs, eventual taxes, and payment to the agents who helped draw up the inventory and appraise the objects and goods owned by the deceased). Finally, in the fourth and last part, the net amounts of the assets are divided up among the heirs. In addition to the court records, The Topkapı Palace Museum Archive and the Presidency of State Archives also contain estate records related to female palace slaves. For about the problematic aspects of estate records, see Ömer Lütfi Barkan, “Edirne Askeri Kassamı’na Ait Tereke Defterleri (1545–1659),” Belgeler III/5–6 (1966): 133; Dror Ze’evi, “The Use of Ottoman Shari’a Court Records as a Source for Middle Eastern Social History: A Reappraisal,” Islamic Law and Society 5/1 (1998): 44; H. Canbakal, “Barkan’dan Günümüze Tereke Çalışmaları,” Vefatının 30. Yıldönümünde Ömer Lütfi Barkan’ın Türkiye Tarihçiligine ˘ Katkıları ve Etkileri Sempozyumu, Aralık, İstanbul, 2009. http:// research.sabanciuniv.edu/17249/1/CANBAKAL_BARKAN.pdf

30

Introduction

their relationship with both the imperial court and the surrounding urban society. This book uses Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi ˘ court records from two different periods of the eighteenth century. For the period 1714–1732, it evaluates cases related to 385 manumitted female palace slaves, based on 20 registers from no. 101 to no. 120. For the period 1773–1775, it evaluates cases related to forty-three women based on registers no. 193 and no. 195. Additionally, for comparative purposes, estate records that belonged to contemporary askeri status women recorded in the Kısmet-i Askeriyye court have been used. This study examines registers from no. 33 to no. 55, which cover the period 1712–1726. Tombstones belonging to the palace women stand as another source for constructing their biographies, since they include information about their burial place, date of death, the identity of their master, and their position in the harem. If the deceased was married, the identity of her husband is also stated on the tombstone. Another valuable source that allows us to hear the personal voice of female slaves during their service period in the harem is their writing on the harem’s walls.79 These writings offer insight into female slaves’ emotional worlds, their personality, and their relationships within the imperial harem. * For the early modern period, European accounts focusing on the Ottoman world also provide information about the imperial court and the imperial harem. From early times an unknown, mysterious harem world attracted the attention of the West, and the “harem” was one of the fundamental elements that constituted the Western perception of the East. As a matter of fact, Thomas Thornton’s (d. 1814) expression, “No part of the Turkish institutions or establishments has so strongly excited the curiosity of the foreigners as the harem of the Seraglio,” is significant in terms of revealing the interest in the subject.80 Westerners’ curiosity about the East has produced a rich literature, including 79

80

Uluçay, Harem II, 34–35; Canan Cimilli, “Topkapı Sarayı Harem Daire’sindeki Duvar Yazıları ve Bir Yazı Çekmecesinden Çıkan Mektuplar,” Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Yıllık 6 (2013): 82–97. Thomas Thornton, The present state of Turkey or a description of the political, civil, and religious Constitution, Government, and Laws of the Ottoman Empire [London: Published for Joseph Mawman, 1807], 361).

Sources and Methodology

31

travelers’ accounts, ambassadorial reports, accounts from members of the ambassadorial entourages, and the accounts of captives who served in the imperial palace. This study has examined approximately one hundred European accounts produced between the fifteenth and early nineteenth centuries.81 The Western perception of the East has been shaped according to the social and political context of the period. Thus it would be incorrect to assume that European accounts related to Ottoman world produced in different periods were homogeneous and constant. Indeed, Western Europeans’ perceptions of the Ottomans in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were different than their perceptions in the eighteenth century. In the earlier centuries, the Ottoman Empire was the representative of strong tyranny, and the harem was seen to be the essence of this structure. In the eighteenth century, however, as the ideas of the Enlightenment dominated and colonization policies intensified, Eurocentrism became the dominant discourse that justified European colonization politics through superior–inferior relations of power. In the accounts developed in this atmosphere, the negative narrative about Ottomans was improved and the Ottoman Empire was set into the “despotic theory” discourse, and the “harem” was one of the most important symbols of despotic rule.82 It is also critical to recognize that harem accounts produced during and after the fifteenth century were primarily written by men who had never been admitted into the harems. The writers frequently emphasized their difficulty entering the harem, and therefore their difficulty learning about the harem. In general, these writings are repetitive, as the authors tended to read and copy previously written 81

82

For travel accounts produced in the early modern period, see Shirley Howard Weber, Voyages and Travels in the Near East Made during the XIX Century, Catalogues of the Gennadius Library in Athens, 2 vols. (Princeton: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1952); Stéphane Yerasimos, Les Voyageurs dans l’empire ottoman (XIVe-XVIe siècles) (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1991). For evaluations of this issue, see Alain Grosrichard, The Sultan’s Court: European Fantasies of the East, trans. Liz Heron (London, New York: Verso, 1998); Aslı Çırakman, From the “Terror of the World” to the “Sick Man of Europe” European Images of Ottoman Empire and Society from the Sixteenth Century to the Nineteenth Century (New York, Washington: Peter Lang, 2002); Thomas Kaiser, “The Evil Empire? The Debate on Turkish Despotism in Eighteenth Century French Political Culture,” The Journal of Modern History 72 (2000): 6–34; Gülay Yılmaz, “The Orientalist Construction of the Ottoman Governance,” The Studies of the Ottoman Domain 7 (2014): 50–81.

32

Introduction

works. As a whole, this literature evaluated the harem with a mix of fact, hearsay, and fantasy. The common feature of these works is that they portray the imperial harem as a setting that symbolized several overlapping fantasies: the despotic ruler, eunuchs, female slaves, virgin beauties for the pleasure of the sultan, sexuality, lust, intrigue, and extravagance. Yet, some European sources do have exceptional value, especially those written by men who were attached to the Ottoman imperial court in various ways. These include the accounts of the Genoese merchant lacopo de Promontorio de Campis, the prisoner Giovanni Maria Angiolello, and the Genoese Giovanni Antonio Menavino who was presented as a slave to Bayezid II (r. 1481–1512) by a corsair and then educated as a royal page in the sultan's palace during the reign of Bayezid II and his son Selim I. From the same period, we also have the accounts of Theodoro Spandounes, who belonged to a Byzantine refugee family that had settled in Venice following the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453. He made several sojourns in Istanbul in the first decade of the sixteen century and compiled information about the Ottoman court based on what he learned from the members of his family who were in the service of the sultan.83 The account of Luigi Bassano da Zara is based on observations made during his long stay in Istanbul in the 1530s.84 Other important sixteenth-century accounts include those of Benedetto Ramberti (1534), who came to Instanbul with the Venetian ambassador, of Yunus Bey (an Ottoman dragoman) and Alvise Gritti, the son of the Venetian Doge (1523–1538). Alvise Gritti was born in Istanbul and eventually became jeweller to Sultan Süleyman and a close intimate in the household of Ottoman grand vizier İbrahim Pasha. He had access to Ottoman networks of patronage and worked within the Ottoman intellectual and cultural context. The work of Nicolas de Nicolay, who came to Istanbul in 1551 on a diplomatic mission in the retinue of French ambassador to the Ottoman court, decribes Ottoman court life and women’s manner and costumes. Nicolay noted that he established a friendship with a eunuch named Zafer 83

84

Theodoro Spandounes, On the Origin of the Ottoman Emperors, trans. Donald M. Nicol (Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997) (translation of the Italian text of 1538). Luigi Bassano da Zara, I Costumi et i modi particolari de la vita de’Turchi (Rome, 1545).

Sources and Methodology

33

Agha who had grown up in the palace.85 Domenico Hierosolimitano, who served as third physician to Sultan Murad III (r. 1574–1595) for some ten years, has also provided information about the Ottoman imperial court, including its harem.86 The sultan’s palace, which came to represent the otherness of the East, continued to attract the curiosity of European observers in the seventeenth century. One of the frequently referenced accounts belongs to Ottaviano Bon, who served as Venetian bailo in Istanbul from 1604 to 1607. He was informed about the Topkapı Palace by the head gardener (bostancıbaşı) and presented it as a report. Bon recorded every aspect of life at the palace, including life in the harem. Robert Withers, who came to Istanbul in 1610, translated Bon’s Italian report into English. However, Withers made some small additions. John Greaves, who was in Istanbul in 1638, found this translation and published it in London in 1650, stating that the owner of the book was Robert Withers.87 Another contemporary treatise on the palace is that by Albertus Bobovius, who was a page in the Enderun. His account about the harem is noteworthy and is one of the best for the seventeenth century.88 He was taken captive and sold to the palace, where he lived for 85

86

87

88

Nicolas de Nicolay, Les navigations peregrinations et voyages, faicts en la Turquie (Anverp: G. Silvius, 1577), 100. Domenico’s Istanbul, translated with an Introduction and Commentary by Michael Austin, ed. Geoffrey Lewis. Warminster, Wiltshire: Printed and published for the E.J.W. Gibb Memorial Trust by Aris-Phillips Ltd., 2001. The account was republished in 1653. Ottaviano Bon-Robert Withers, A description of the grand signour’s seraglio or Turkish emperours court, ed. John Greaves (Londra: Jo. Ridley, 1653). The text written by Albertus Bobovius around 1665 was published in 1669 in German and in 1679 in Italian. In 1685, Pierre de Girardin, the French ambassador in Istanbul, adapted the original Italian text of Bobovius into French. But on Bobovius’s work, Girardin incorporated his own personal interpretations, and sent it to France as if he had written the account himself. For the Turkish translation of this account, see Albertus Bobovius ya da Santuri Ali Ufki Bey’in anıları Topkapı Sarayı’nda Yaşam, trans. Ali Berktay (Istanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2002). A partial English translation of the Paris manuscript also exists: C. G. Fisher-A. W. Fisher, “Topkapı Sarayı in the Mid-Seventeenth Century: Bobovi’s Description,” Archivum Ottomanicum 10 (1985 [1987]): 7–81. For the Turkish translation of the book published in German in 1669, see Ali Ufkî Bey/Albertus Bobovius, Saray-ı Enderun Topkapı Sarayı’nda Yaşam, trans. Türkis Noyan (Istanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2013). The translation of the book published in German is extremely valuable in that it notes in footnotes where Pierre de Girardin added, who adapted Bobovius's work to French.

34

Introduction

nineteen years as a royal page specializing in music. His account concentrates on the palace’s functional organization and includes information about the women’s apartments based on what he had learned from the wife of an imperial cavalry officer who had served herself in the imperial harem.89 Paul Rycaut, who was secretary to the English embassy in the 1660s, noted that he received information about the imperial court from a person who had spent nineteen years in it.90 Most probably he referred to Bobovius. Jean Baptiste Tavernier, a seventeenth-century author, stated that he included a chapter about the women’s quarters only to demonstrate to the reader the impossibility of having a full knowledge of the harem. Tavernier noted that white eunuchs, who waited in the sultan’s lodgings, were able to give some measure of account.91 The account of Aubry de la Motraye, who was in Istanbul at the beginning of the eighteenth century, is also noteworthy. When the sultan was in Edirne with his entire court, Aubry de la Motraye was able to see the interior of several harems by accompanying the person who had been assigned to mend some pendulums in the seraglio. He was conducted by eunuch to the harem when women were absent.92 Aubry de la Motraye provides relatively reasonable information about events related the members of the harem, practices in the harem and the experiences of female slaves in the harem.93 These valuable accounts are complemented by the reports (relazioni) of Venetian diplomats, published by Eugenio Albèri, Nicolò Barozzi and Guglielmo Berchet, as well as Marino Sanuto’s Diarii (1496–1533), which includes not only dispatches and eyewitness accounts of diplomats, merchants and travelers but also various rumors.

89

90

91

92 93

C. G. Fisher-A. W. Fisher, “Topkapı Sarayı in the Mid-Seventeenth Century: Bobovi’s Description,” 72. As a matter of fact, Thomas Thornton (d. 1814) noted that no direct information could be obtained about the Imperial Harem except what may be learned by means of ladies who had themselves constituted part of the Imperial Harem (Thornton, The present state, 361). Rycaut, The Present State of the Ottoman Empire, “the Epistle to the Reader” (London: Published for John Starkey-Henry Brome, 1668). Jean Baptiste Tavernier, New relation of the inner part of the grand seignor’s seraglio (London: Published for R. L.-Moses Pitt, 1677), 85. Aubry de la Motraye, Aubry de La Motraye’s Travels, I, 171–173. For instance, Motraye describes the practice of halvet (public diversion of palace women) in a reasonable way (Aubry de la Motraye, Aubry de La Motraye’s Travels, I, 248).

Sources and Methodology

35

These accounts provide details about ceremonies regarding the presentation of female slaves to the sultan and the place and roles of the sultan’s mother and his consorts in the harem. Apart from that, there is a focus on the privileged position of the chief administrative officer in the harem. The remaining female slaves are typically mentioned as a single group. In these sources, some information concerning the ways female palace slaves entered the imperial harem, and about their origins, is also available. Information concerning the imperial harem’s organization, its functioning, and its internal dynamics is rarely encountered, however. These accounts do not provide information concerning the life of manumitted female palace slaves following their transfer from the imperial harem. In this context, D’Ohsson’s account stands as a rare find, and it has an exceptional value in providing detailed and reasonable information concerning the residents and daily life in the imperial harem. D’Ohsson (1740–1807), who was a functionary of the Swedish embassy in Istanbul for much of his life, noted that officers of the palace furnished him with details about the imperial palace. He added that he owed the details concerning the female members of the imperial dynasty and the imperial harem to the slave girls of the Seraglio. Many of these girls received their freedom after a few years of service, and then they left the imperial palace, given in marriage to officers of the court. D’Ohsson stated that he corrected his misconceptions through these officers, and through Christian women who were able to arrange free access.94 He noted that he also received information from some Christian women who had the opportunity to visit other Ottoman harems.95 * In the nineteenth century, sources that provide information about palace women diversified. Memoires and novels contain complementary information about female slaves working in different fields.96 Particularly the accounts of women who lived in the harem97 or the accounts of relatives 94 96

97

95 D’Ohsson, Tableau, I, ix –x. D’Ohsson, Tableau, IV, 327, 338. For information about novels of the period, see İsmail Parlatır, Tanzimat Edebiyatında Kölelik (Ankara: TTK Basımevi, 1992). Melek Hanum, Thirty Years in the Harem or the Autobiography of Melek Hanum, Wife of H. H. Kıbrızlı Mehemet Pasha (London: Chapman and Hall, 1872). For the memoirs of Musbah (d. 1908) who was daughter of Serif ¸ Ali Haydar, see Musbah Haidar, Arabesque (London, 1944). Ayşe Osmanoglu, ˘

36

Introduction

of women who had previously lived in the harem98 provide rich information. In addition to the written sources, oral sources provide valuable insight into manumitted female palace slaves who set out to establish a new life in society following their departure from the palace. In this study, oral history was conducted with a few people who had acquaintance with manumitted female palace slaves.99 * It is not possible to draw detailed biographies of each manumitted female palace slave from these sources. In this respect, in a study that examines the various aspects of lives of some eight hundred women, a prosopographical approach seems more appropriate. Prosopography is a historical research technique based on the systematic analysis of biographical data of a selected group of people who have common characteristics. It is, in a sense, a collective biography based on a comprehensive collection of data on these individuals.100 This study aims to conduct a prosopographical study of palace women, while providing details about the personal lives of some individual women as far as available sources permit.

98

99

100

Babam Abdülhamid (Istanbul: Güven Yayınevi, 1960); Sadiye ¸ Osmanoglu, ˘ Hayatımın Acı ve Tatlı Günleri (İstanbul: Bedir Yayınları, 1966); Safiye Ünüvar, Saray Hatıralarım (Istanbul: Cagalo ˘ glu ˘ Yayınevi, 1964); Leyla Saz, Haremin İçyüzü, ed. Sadi Borak (Istanbul: Milliyet Gazetesi, 1974); Emine Foat Tugay, Three Centuries: Family chronicles of Turkey and Egypt (London: Oxford University, 1963); Leyla Açba, Bir Çerkes Prensesinin Harem Hatıraları, ed. Harun Açba (Istanbul: L&M, 2004). For a study on the imperial harem based on the memoirs of members of the harem in the nineteenth century, see Douglas Scott Brookes, ed. and trans., The Concubine, the Princess, and the Teacher: Voices from the Ottoman Harem (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2008). Ali Rıza Bey received information from the elderly women, from his wife, and from his mother who had previously served in the imperial palace and later transferred from the palace (Ali Rıza Bey, Eski Zamanlarda İstanbul Hayatı, ed. Ali Sükrü ¸ Çoruk [Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2001]). I interviewed three people: Doctor Asım Taşer, who was born in the early 1920s and lived in Fatih; 1932-born housewife Mükerrem Çavuşoglu ˘ who lived in Nişantaşı; and İsmet Demir, who was imam of Darülaceze Mosque from 1964 to 1970. For a pioneering study in this field, see Lawrence Stone, “Prosopography,” Daedalus 100/1 (1971): 46–79. For a recent study, see K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, ed., Prosopography Approaches and Applications: Handbook (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).

Sources and Methodology

37

The prosopographical approach allows us to see the names of palace women, identity of their masters, uncover to whom they were married and the number of children they had, their relatives, their residential patterns, their general wealth, their possessions, and their networks. This approach makes it possible to understand what it meant to be affiliated with the palace. However, there are some limitations and difficulties in examining Ottoman women through a prosopographical approach. It allows us to see only general trends, to make generalizations, and to reveal what is typical. Therefore, this approach evaluates the studied group as homogeneous and thus may miss the fact that individual differences existed. As much as possible, though, I have highlighted individual women and their lives, even when offering them as examples.

|

1

The Imperial Harem and Its Residents

The permanent move of members of the Ottoman dynasty to the harem at the New Palace in the sixteenth century gradually transformed the imperial harem (Harem-i Hümâyun) into a well-organized, hierarchical, and institutionalized structure with rigid protocols and training, similar to that found in the Enderun. Indeed, the Harem-i Hümâyun was also called Enderun-ı Hümâyun in some sources.1 In the eighteenth century, the general organization of the imperial harem was more or less the same as it had been in previous centuries. Even so, tracing the evolution of the imperial harem from the sixteenth century onward shows that, despite its institutional continuity, its organizational structure was never static. At different periods, the number of women living in the harem changed, and the importance attributed to various hierarchical positions within it could increase or diminish over time. Just as the Enderun experienced change in its organizational structure over time,2 so too did the imperial harem evolve in terms of its physical and organizational structure. The present chapter reconstructs the structure of the imperial harem and the relationships within it, with a central focus on its residents. This task is important, for it is only by understanding the web of 1

2

For instance, in a document it is stated that female slaves were purchased for the Enderun-ı Hümâyun (see BOA, İE. SM 4/340 [1089/1678]; İE. SM 1/111 [1091/ 1680]). According to her waqfiyye, Suhi ¸ Kadın was listed as the chief administrative officer (kethüda kadın) in the Enderun-ı Hümâyun (BOA, Evkaf Vakfiyeler Evrakı [EV. VKF] 26/1 [1199/1784]). Likewise, in some cases Enderun was named as Harem-i Hümâyun. For several examples, see Osmanzade Ahmed Taib, Hadikatü’l Vüzera (Istanbul: Ceride-i Havadis Matbaası, 1271/1855). For instance, when the enthronement ceremony of Mehmed IV was delayed, pages in the imperial palace rebelled, and in 1675, the Greater Chamber (Büyük oda) and Lesser Chamber (küçük oda) in Enderun were abolished. Halil İnalcık, Osmanlı İmparatorlugu ˘ Klâsik Çag˘ (1300–1600), trans. R. Sezer (Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2003), 92. During the period of Ahmed III, Silahdar Çorlulu Ali Pasha made extensive re-arrangements within the Enderun (Tayyar-Zâde Atâ, Osmanlı Saray Tarihi, I, 260–265).

38

Residents of the Imperial Harem

39

hierarchies within the harem that one can trace women’s relationships with the imperial court during their harem service and following their transfer from the palace. The chapter identifies the residents of the harem through an analysis of their origins, families, names, occupations, and salaries, based on extensive research into the range of sources noted above. The available sources enable to construct both women’s positions in the harem organization and the size of the harem population in the eighteenth century. The final section of this chapter evaluates the role of patronage relations within the broader network of relationships in the imperial harem. The long-lasting relationship between the imperial court and female palace slaves was rooted in the harem, and residents of the harem were attached to the household through various layers of patronage relationships.

Residents of the Imperial Harem Tayinat (allowance), masraf-ı şehriyârî (royal expenditures), mevâcib (stipend), inamat (gifts), and mübayaa (purchase) registers are valuable sources that provide information about the structure of and residents in the imperial harem.3 Although these registers generally do not allow us to establish the exact numbers, positions, or names of all harem residents, some rare mevâcib registers do enable us to count the harem population at particular moments of time, to tease out the names of individual harem members together with their occupations and assigned salaries, and to know who possessed how many slaves in the harem.4 From the last quarter of the sixteenth century, the imperial harem’s population at the New Palace gradually increased in connection with many developments realized in this period. Leslie Peirce provides a 3

4

The sources used in this section to examine the imperial harem institution of the eighteenth century include the following: for the period of Mustafa II (TSMA D 676); for the period of Ahmed III (TSMA D 7908 (1115/1703); for the period of Mahmud I (TSMA D 8075); for the period of Mustafa III (TSMA E 53/2; Kamil Kepeci (KK) 7247, KK 7248; and D.BSM ¸ 830); for the period of Selim III (TSMA D 2999); for the period of Mahmud II (Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Ataturk Library, Muallim Cevdet B4, II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri; TSMA D 9962). These mevâcib registers belonging to the periods of Mahmud I, Mustafa III, and Mahmud II are: TSMA D 8075; TSMA E 53/2; Muallim Cevdet B4, II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri.

40

The Imperial Harem and Its Residents

detailed analysis of the changing harem population for the period from the mid-sixteenth century to the mid-seventeenth century. According to Peirce, the harem’s population at Selim II’s death in 1574 was fortynine. During the subsequent reign of Murad III, it increased to 104, and then continued to grow during each successive reign. During the reign of Mehmed III, the harem population was 275; it rose to 295 in 1622, to 433 in 1633, and to 436 in 1652.5 Some European accounts provide information about the size of the imperial harem for this period, although their estimates of female members varied and were sometimes exaggerated. In 1573, for example, Costantino Garzoni reported that 150 women were living in the New Palace and in the Old Palace there were 1,500.6 According to Domenico Hierosolimitano, more than 800 women were fed regularly in the Seraglio.7 Ottaviano Bon, the Venetian bailo to Istanbul between 1604 and 1607, and Bobovius, who was a page in the Enderun in the seventeenth century, both claimed that the number of female slaves in the palace was between 1,100 and 1,200.8 5

6

7 8

Peirce, The Imperial Harem, 121–122. Parallel to these developments in the imperial harem population, a similar development took place in the imperial kitchen. The number of staff working in the palace kitchen was around 100 during the period of Mehmed II. Toward the end of Bayezid’s reign, this number rose to 160. At the beginning of the period of Süleyman I, the number exceeded 250. In the last years of the same sultan, the kitchen population approached 500. It rose above 600 during the period of Selim II. In the last years of Murad III, the number exceeded 1,000. From the beginning of Mehmed III’s reign to the middle of the seventeenth century, the number reached 1,300 in sixty years. During the period of 1520–1595, then, the number of kitchen staff quadrupled (Arif Bilgin, Osmanlı Saray Mutfagı ˘ [Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2004, 44–45]). Costantino Garzoni, “Relazione del impero ottomano [1573],” in Relazioni degli ambasciatori veneti al senato, ed. Eugenio Albèri, series III, vol. I (Florence, 1840), 395. For the account of Domenico Hierosolimitano, see Domenico’s Istanbul, 23. Ottaviano Bon-Robert Withers, A description of the grand signour’s seraglio, 35–36; Fisher-Fisher, “Topkapı Sarayı in the mid-seventeenth century: Bobovi’s description,” 73. According to G. Sandys’s account (1577–1644), the number of virgins in the palace was 500 (G. Sandys, Relation of a journey began an dom 1610 [London, Published for W. Barren, 1615], 74). Fauvel noted that the girls in the palace were usually 400–500 (Robert Fauvel et al., Le voyage d'ltalie et du Levant, de Messieurs Fermanel Fauvel, Baudouin de Launay, et de Stochove [Rouen, chez Jean Viret, 1670], 76, 79). Formanti gives the number of women as 3,000 (Don Neriolava Formanti, “Relatione del Serraglio degl’Imperatori Turchi Ottomani,” in Raccolta delle historiae delle vite degli imperatori ottomani sinoa a Mehemet IV regnante [Venice, 1684], 15). Giovanni Sagredo (1617–1682) gives also an exaggerated number by stating 3,000 women lived in

Residents of the Imperial Harem

41

The number of female palace slaves also changed during each sultan’s reign. According to the mevâcib register from the period of Mahmud I (r. 1730–1754), there were 446 female slaves in the imperial harem.9 A mevâcib register from the period of Selim III (r. 1789– 1807) shows that the number of female slaves in the imperial harem was around 720.10 By contrast, a mevâcib register from the period of Mahmud II (r. 1808–1839) lists only 473 female slaves in the imperial harem.11 D’Ohsson, who lived in the second half of the eighteenth century, stated that the imperial harem was composed of 500–600 female slaves.12 Likewise according to Melling’s account, some 500 women populated the harem.13 The sources examined for this study reveal that during the eighteenth and first half of the nineteenth centuries, the imperial harem’s organization remained much as it had been during the seventeenth century. The Ottoman imperial harem had a hierarchically organized structure that encompassed various female slaves of different status. The harem’s female slaves can be broadly categorized into two groups: the first comprised women who were directly linked to the sultan as consorts (kadın and ikbal), while the second included those who worked in the service of the sultan and the dynastic family, as well as those who served in various sections of the harem. Inexperienced female slaves who newly entered the imperial palace were called acemi (novice), and their early period of service was known as acemilik (novitiate). In time, the acemis attained the various ranks. D’Ohsson noted that female slaves in the harem were actually composed of five separate groups, namely “cariye (female slave), şakird (apprentice),

9 11 12

13

the palace (G. Sagredo, Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman [Paris, 1732], VII, 30). According to the account of Carari, dated 1693, there are about 500–600 maidens in the Seraglio (John Francis Gemelli Carari, A Voyage Round the World, in A Collection of Voyages and Travels, eds. A. Churchill and J. Churchill [London, Printed by H. C. for Awnsham and J. Churchill,1704], IV, 70). 10 TSMA D 8075. TSMA D 2999. Muallim Cevdet B4, II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri. D’Ohsson, Tableau, VII, 69. According to Habesci, the number of women in the harem could change during the period of each sultan. For instance, Sultan Selim had 2,000, Mahmud I had 300, and Abdulhamid I had 1,600 (Habesci, The Present State, 145, 166). According to account of Beauvoisins, during the period of Selim III, there were 1,300–1,400 women in the imperial harem (Beauvoisins, Notice sur la cour du Grand Seigneur, 22). Melling, “Intérieur d’une Partie du Harem du Grand-Seigneur”; there is no pagination.

42

The Imperial Harem and Its Residents

usta (mistress), gedikli (who waited on the sultan in person), kadın.”14 The basis on which these women were promoted is not yet as clear as it was for the men in the Enderun.15 Consorts of the Sultans, Wet Nurse (Daye Kadın), and the Chief Administrative Officer (Kethüda Kadın) Female members of the sultan’s family who lived in the imperial harem consisted of the sultan’s mother (valide sultan), his unmarried daughters, and his consorts. The valide sultan was the most important and powerful member of the dynastic family, and as such she constituted the chief authority over the harem. Senior and experienced slave women served in her entourage.16 Until the beginning of the sixteenth century, the sultans’ consorts included both married legal wives and slave concubines. From this period on, however, imperial marriages with the daughters of Christian dynasties and of the Anatolian emirates fell into disfavor. Instead, the Ottomans normally adopted the practice of maintaining slave concubines rather than marrying legal wives, although a few rare sultans continued to marry.17 As the archival sources reflect, the sultan’s favorite consort in the sixteenth through seventeenth centuries was named haseki. Even as late as the period of Mustafa II (r. 1695–1703), the title haseki was used.18 By the eighteenth century, though, the title haseki no longer appears in the records, seemingly haven fallen out of official use and replaced by the title kadın. The consorts were not limited in number, although they were ranked by their status: the highest-ranking consort bore the title senior/head consort (baş kadın), followed by second consort (ikinci kadın), third consort (üçüncü kadın), fourth consort (dördüncü kadın), and so on. Promotion was possible among the consorts over time.

14

15

16

17 18

D’Ohsson, Tableau, VII, 64. This classification was repeated by Hammer, Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman depuis son Origine Jusqu’a nos Jours (Paris: Bellizard, Barthès, Dufour et Lowell, 1841), XVII, 70–71. For the functioning of the Enderun institution, see Uzunçarşılı, Saray Teşkilâtı 297–357; İnalcık, The Classical Age, 76–84. For a detailed biography of a valide sultan who was the mother of two sultans, see Argıt, Rabia Gülnuş Emetullah Sultan. Uzunçarşılı, Saray Teşkilâtı, 146. MAD. d 5065; BOA, Cevdet Saray (C. SM) 1762 (1109/1697); (D. MSF 1-19) (1106/1695).

Residents of the Imperial Harem

43

Below the consort (kadın) ranked a lower level of concubine who bore the title ikbal (favorite, fortunate one). Like the consorts, these concubines were ordered by seniority, as senior ikbal, second ikbal, third ikbal, fourth ikbal, etc. The available sources reveal that Mustafa II, Mahmud I, and Mustafa III each had ikbals.19 In the imperial harem, not only sultan but also each other member of the dynastic family, including the sultan’s mother, sons, daughters, and the consorts as well, possessed their own cadre of female slaves assigned to their personal service. During the reign of Mahmud I (r. 1730–1754), twenty female slaves were assigned to the service of the head consort, while another five consorts had various numbers of female slaves in their service, ranging from eight to thirteen.20 The head consort and other high-ranked consorts also enjoyed the service of an agha (palace officer) and personnel responsible for the coffee service (kahvecibaşı).21 In the period of Mahmud II (r. 1808–1839), consorts were served by between three and thirteen female slaves, again in accordance with their status.22 The number of female slaves assigned to the service of senior ikbal and other ikbals of Mahmud I ranged from four to six.23 In both of these periods, the sultan’s sons and daughters typically had more female slaves than most of the consorts. For instance, in the period of Mahmud I, the number of slaves in the princes’ service ranged from seven to nineteen; during the reign of Mahmud II, the numbers were slightly lower. In the latter period, female slaves serving the sultan’s daughters ranged in number from five to fourteen.24 * Another woman who held great influence within the imperial harem in every period was the sultan’s wet nurse.25 She had a prestigious 19

20 22 24 25

For the estate register of Mustafa II’s ikbal named Sâhin ¸ Fatma, see TSMA D 9988; Mahmud I had four ikbals (TSMD D 8075). For information about the ikbals of Mustafa III, see KK 7247, KK 7248. 21 TSMA D 8075. TSMA D 7908. 23 Muallim Cevdet B4, II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri. TSMA D 8075. TSMA D 8075; Muallim Cevdet B4, II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri. Wet nurses were also highly influential in the Near Eastern (and South Asian) imperial courts. For information on the importance and influence of wet nurses in the Mughal Harem organization, see Ruby Lal, Domesticity and Power in the Early Mughal World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 188–193. On the importance of wet nurse at the Fatımid court, see Delia Cortese-Simonetta

44

The Imperial Harem and Its Residents

position, recognized through the honorific title “respectable” (izzetli) that was attributed to her.26 In some cases, young wet nurses for the sultan’s children were admitted to the imperial harem together with their own daughters. In fact, the mevacib list belonging to the period of Mahmud II reveals that a wet nurse’s daughter (daye kızı) appeared in the service of both prince Abdulmecid and Mihrimah sultan (one of the sultan’s daughters), earning a personal salary.27 The high status position held by the wet nurses was also reflected in their allowances. In the registers of the imperial harem’s food allocations (tayinat), only the sultan’s family members, the chief administrative official (kethüda kadın), and the wet nurse are listed individually. The remaining harem residents are listed as an undifferentiated single group. To give but one example from a large number of possibilities, a food allocation (me’kûlât) register from the period of Mehmed IV, dated 1643, shows the wet nurse being allocated the almost same amount of food as the sultan’s mother.28 According to an expenditure register delineating purchases and disbursements for privy purposes (harc-ı hassa) from the period of Mustafa II, the wet nurse received a higher allowance than the head consort or any of the other consorts.29 As will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3, wet nurses were usually married to a high-ranking state official, in accordance with their status. * The chief administrative officer (kethüda kadın) acted as the superintendent of the imperial harem, and as a result had an influential and prestigious position.30 The honorific titles attributed to her, such as prosperous, virtuous, respectable (saadetli, iffetli, izzetli), reflected her

26 27 28 29

30

Calderini, Women and the Fatimids in the World of Islam (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007), 82. TSMA D 7908 (1115/1703). Muallim Cevdet B4, II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri. BOA, Bab-ı Defteri Başmuhasebe Kalemi (D.BSM) ¸ 10523. TSMA E 68-10 (1108–1109/1697–1698), quoted in Hans George Majer, “The Harem of Mustafa II (1695–1703),” Osmanlı Araştırmaları XII (1992): 440. For instance, Canfeda Hatun, who was a chief administrative official in the harem during the reign of Murad III, had great influence. See Pedani, “Safiye’s Household,” 23–25.

Residents of the Imperial Harem

45

status in the harem.31 In the archival registers, while the large number of female palace slaves are mentioned as a single group, the chief administrative officer is always listed individually. Ottoman chroniclers have left us with information concerning the duties and importance of this chief administrative officer. Historian Silâhdar informs us that following the death of Hadice Turhan Valide Sultan, mother of Mehmed IV, in 1683, the chief administrative officer became responsible for taking delivery of her possessions, for maintaining the order of the harem, and for guarding the princes.32 Likewise, her predecessor, Kösem Valide Sultan (d. 1651), instructed the chief black eunuchs that whenever an important issue took place they should inform the chief administrative officer to ensure their access to the sultan’s mother.33 European accounts frequently emphasized the role and status of the chief administrative officer. Generally, she was referred to as kahya kadın, and reportedly she had a privileged position in the imperial harem, being its governess and lady matron to all the women.34 She examined all the girls who were brought to the palace and ensured their adherence to the harem’s rules and orders.35 According to European 31

32

33

34

35

Chief administrative officers played important roles in the Near Eastern palace. For the roles of the administrative officer in the Abbasid palace, see Nadia Maria El-Cheikh, “The Qahramâna in the Abbasid Court: Position and Functions,” Studia Islamica 47 (2003): 41–55. Nazire Karaçay Türkal, “Silahdar Fındıklılı Mehmed Aga ˘ Zeyl-i Fezleke (106522 Ca–1106/1654-7 Subat ¸ 1695)” (Ph.D. diss., Marmara University, 2012), 910–911. Pınar Saka, Risale-i Teberdariye fi Ahval-i Darüssaade, Derviş Abdullah, Darüssade Agalarının ˘ Durumu Hakkında Baltacı’nın Raporu (Istanbul: İnkılâp, 2011), 139. This information was repeated in several European sources. For several examples, see Bassano, I Costumi, 18; Lorenzo Bernardo, “Relazione [1592],” in Eugenio Albèri, ed. Relazioni degli ambasciatori veneti al senato (Florence, 1840), series III, vol. II, 360; Ottaviano Bon-Robert Withers, A description of the grand signour’s seraglio, 147; Baudier, The History of the Serrail, 55; Beauvoisins, Notice sur la cour du Grand Seigneur, 26–28; Habesci, The Present State, 166, 169; Antoine Laurent Castellan, Moeurs, Usages, Costume des Othomans et Abrégé de leur Histoire (Paris 1812), III, 62–63; C. Pertusier, Promenades Pittoresque dans Constantinople et sur les rives du Bosphore (Paris, 1815), II, 290. Ottaviano Bon-Robert Withers, A description of the grand signour’s seraglio, 37; Deshayes de Courmenin, Voyage de Levant fait par le Commandement du Roy en l’année 1621, Paris, 1632), 158; Fauvel, Le voyage, 77; Sagredo, Histoire, VII, 30. It is told that she would correct any immodest behavior among the residents of the harem (Rycaut, The Present State, 39).

46

The Imperial Harem and Its Residents

accounts, kahya kadın also took care of the women who were destined to become the sultan’s consorts.36 D’Ohsson noted that the kethüda kadın was selected by the sultan from among the most experienced women and from the ranks of gediklis.37 He added that as a sign of her high status, the kethüda kadın carried a cane and an imperial seal.38 The chief administrative officer’s privileged position can also be seen in the network of gift exchange that existed within the imperial court. For instance, during a birth ceremony that took place during the reign of Ahmed III, the chief administrative officer received gifts alongside the sultan’s mother, his daughters, his consorts, and the wet nurse.39 The mevâcib registers likewise point to the chief administrative officer’s high status and prestigious position. According to a register from the period of Selim III (r. 1789–1807), the chief administrative officer received 500 akçe daily, more than the sultan’s mother, who received 400 akçe.40 During the reign of Mahmud II (r. 1808–1839), the chief administrative officer continued to receive 500 akçe, while the sultan’s children received only 100 akçe each; the head consort and other six consorts received much less, only 40 akçe per day.41 36

37

38

39

40 41

For the account of Domenico Hierosolimitano, see Domenico’s Istanbul, 32; Matteo Zane, “Relazione [1594], in Relazioni degli ambasciatori veneti al senato, ed. Eugenio Albèri, series III, vol. III (Florence, 1855), 412; Courmenin, Voyage de Levant, 158; Baudier, The History of the Serrail, 51; Rycaut, The Present State, 40; Fauvel, Le voyage,77; Giovanni Battiste de Burgo, Viaggio di cinque anni in Asia, Africa, & Europa del Turco (Milan, 1686), 376; Sagredo, Histoire, VII, 30; J. C. Hobhouse, A Journey through Albania and Other Provinces of Turkey in Europe and Asia to Constantinople During the Years 1809 to 1810 (London: Published for James Cawthorn, 1813), I, 853. D’Ohsson, Tableau, VII, 69. This information was also noted by Hammer (Hammer, histoire de l’Empire Ottoman, XVII, 70–71). D’Ohsson, Tableau, VII, 69. Sieur de la Croix also noted in the seventeenth century that kahya kadın always carried a cane (Sieur de la Croix, Mémoirs de Sieur de la Croix [Paris, 1684], I, 367). As a matter of fact, in a visual material appearing in Fenerci Mehmed Album, the chief administrative officer is depicted with a cane (Osmanlı Kıyafetleri Fenerci Mehmed Albümü/Ottoman Costume Book, Fenerci Mehmed, ed. İlhami Turan, trans. Robert Bragner [Istanbul: Vehbi Koç Vakfı, 1986], no 23). BOA, Bab-ı Defteri Başmuhasebe Kalemi Defterleri (D.BSM.d) ¸ 1210 (1124/1712). TSMA D 2999. Muallim Cevdet B4, II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri. Besides, in mevâcib registers, a category named “mahlûl kethüda kadın” appears. In the period of Selim III, the allocated amount for this category was 667 akçe (TSMA D 2999); in the period of Mahmud II, it was 867 akçe (Muallim Cevdet B4, II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri).

Residents of the Imperial Harem

47

Figure 1.1 “Chief administrative officer in Enderun-ı Hümayun (Enderun-ı Hümayun’da kethüda kadın).” Osmanlı Kıyafetleri Fenerci Mehmed Albümü/Ottoman Costume Book, Fenerci Mehmed, ed. İlhami Turan, trans. Robert Bragner (Istanbul: Vehbi Koç Vakfı, 1986) no. 23.

48

The Imperial Harem and Its Residents

D’Ohsson noted that since 1689, the chief administrative officers had enjoyed a large pension of 7,500 piastres per year, granted to them by Süleyman II.42 Like members of the dynasty, the chief administrative officer had her own suite, in accordance with her status. She had an eunuch agha,43 personnel responsible for providing the coffee service,44 and female slaves in her personal service. In the period of Mahmud I, she had four female slaves; during the reign of Mahmud II, this was increased to five. Her slaves, in turn, were ranked, and their daily stipend ranged from five to forty akçe.45 Like the wet nurse, the privileged position of the chief administrative officer in the harem hierarchy was also reflected in the amount of food assigned to her. According to the sources, the chief administrative officer always received less food than the chief black eunuch, but higher amounts than the princes and sometimes even the sultan’s consorts.46 Gedikli- Usta- Sakird¸ Cariye Gedikli was below the rank of kadın. The gediklis were girls destined for the sultan’s personal service. These women had similar employment to that of the officers of the privy chamber (has oda), and they carried the titles of their offices. For instance, the person who was responsible for table service was called çaşnigir usta (mistress of the table service). The woman who was in charge of laundry service was, likewise, named cameşuy usta (mistress of the laundry service). In the suite of each gedikli, there were female slaves who helped her and were trained at the same time. When his kadın died or was sent to the Old Palace, the sultan chose her replacement from among these girls. Those who were

42 44

45 46

43 D’Ohsson, Tableau, VII, 73. TSMA D 7908 (1115/1703). Suhi ¸ Kadın, who was a chief administrative officer in the imperial harem in the eighteenth century, had personnel responsible for the coffee service (kahvecibaşı) (EV. VKF 2l/1). TSMA D 8075; Muallim Cevdet B4, II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri. D.BSM.d ¸ 381 (1091–1096/1680–1685); D.BSM.d ¸ 828 (period of Mustafa II); D.BSM ¸ 3 85 (period of Ahmed III); KK 7248 (1176/1763); KK 7252 (period of Abdulhamid I). According to a me’kûlât register dated 1698, the monthly allocation of sheep to the sultan and his mother was forty, it was twenty for the chief administrative officer and the wet nurse, and thirty for the chief black eunuch (D.BSM. ¸ MTE 2-45).

Residents of the Imperial Harem

49

most distinguished would receive the title of ikbal, ranked below the kadın but in line for eventual promotion to the rank of kadın.47 Ustas performed the same personal service for the sultan’s mother, consorts, and children as the gediklis performed for the sultan. Ustas also had their own entourage of female slaves. Each usta was known by the work assigned to her and also by the name of the person she served.48 Therefore, one finds in the records the sultan’s mother’s cameşuy usta, or Ayşe Sultan’s kahveci usta (the mistress of the coffee service), etc. According to the archival sources, the following ustas lived in the imperial harem: hazînedar usta (head treasurer), saray ustası (mistress of the palace),49 deputy mistress (vekil usta), cameşuy usta (mistress of the laundry service),50 çaşnigir usta (mistress of the table service), ibrikdar usta (mistress of the ewer service), kahveci usta (mistress of the coffee service), kilerci usta (mistress of the pantry), berber usta (mistress of the hairdressing service), kutucu usta (mistress of toilette services),51 külhancı usta (mistress of the bath service)52, and kâtibe usta (head scribe). Each usta also had a main assistant. D’Ohsson defined the head treasurer as the assistant to the chief administrative officer and defined her duties as being in charge of the sultan’s clothes and the harem’s finance, as well as accompanying the palace women when they were outside.53 The head treasurer was followed by second treasurer (ikinci hazînedar), the third treasurer (üçüncü hazînedar), and sometimes a fourth treasurer (dördüncü hazînedar) and fifth 47

48

49

50

51

52

53

D’ohsson, Tableau, VII, 66–67; Hammer, Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman, XVII, 70–71; Uzunçarşılı, Saray Teşkilâtı, 148. D’Ohsson, Tableau, VII, 68. Hammer, Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman, XVII, 70–71; F. Davis, The Ottoman Lady, 6. According to Pakalın, the chief administrative officer (kethüda kadın) and the mistress of the palace were the same person (Pakalın, Osmanlı Tarih Terimleri ve Deyimleri Sözlügü, ˘ III, 127–128). In the mevâcib register from the period of Mahmud II, however, the mistress of the palace appeared separately from the chief administrative officer and the head treasurer (Muallim Cevdet B4, II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri). Cameşuy usta supervised the entourage who was in charge of laundry service, and her assistant was called second cameşuy. Kutucu usta was in charge of toilette of sultan’s consorts and daughters. She also supervised the articles for the bath and toilette and other similar objects (Pakalın, Osmanlı Tarih Terimleri ve Deyimleri Sözlügü, ˘ II, 333; Uluçay, Harem II, 136). Külhancı usta supervised the women who heated and cleaned the baths in the imperial harem. D’Ohsson, Tableau, VII, 69–70.

50

The Imperial Harem and Its Residents

treasurer (beşinci hazînedar).54 The reputable position of treasurers was reflected in the number of female slaves assigned to their service. During the reign of Mahmud I, the second treasurer had three female slaves to herself.55 In the period of Mahmud II, the head treasurer had two female slaves, one of whom was called the head female slave. The second and third treasurer each had one female slave.56 In the eighteenth century, some head treasurers held an even more special place in the harem’s hierarchy. For instance, Nevres Kadın, who was the third consort of Abdulhamid I, was the head treasurer, as was the sixth consort of Mahmud I. In the latter case, she had thirteen female slaves in her service, more than the number serving the sultan’s fourth and fifth consorts.57 In the period of Abdulhamid I, the head treasurer received a greater amount of food than even the chief administrative officer and the second consort.58 The allowances assigned to ustas also reflected their relative positions in the imperial harem. For instance, during the reign of Mahmud I, the daily stipends assigned to ustas were higher than the amount given to the sultan’s ikbals.59 According to the mevâcib register from the period of Mahmud II, stipends allocated to ustas exceeded those assigned to the consort and sultan’s children.60 During the reigns of both Mahmud I and Mahmud II, each usta usually had one female slave in her service. The sources suggest that the ustas’ hierarchical status remained 54

55 57 59

60

In the period of Mahmud I, the second treasurer received 50 akçe, while the other three treasurers received 30 akçe each (TSMA D 8075). In the period of Mahmud II, the head treasurer received 120 akçe daily and the second treasurer received 80 akçe (Muallim Cevdet B4, II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri). The difference witnessed in this period must be due to inflation. 56 TSMA D 8075. Muallim Cevdet B4, II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri. 58 TSMA D 8075. KK 7250 (1188/1774); KK 7252. During Mahmud I’s reign, the mistress of the palace (saray ustası), the mistress of the laundry service (cameşuy usta), and the mistress of the pantry (kilerci usta) each received 100 akçe daily; the kâtibe usta (head scribe) and the berber usta received 80 akçe; the çaşnigir usta (mistress of the table service), the ibrikdar usta (mistress of the ewer service), and the kahveci usta (mistress of the coffee service) received 50 akçe; the ikinci kâtibe (second scribe) received 60 akçe; the ikinci cameşuy got 35 akçe; the ikinci kahveci and the ikinci çaşnigir received 30 akçe each (TSMA D 8075). The cameşuy usta, kahveci usta, kilerci usta, çaşnigir usta, berber usta, and ibrikdar usta each received 120 akçe daily; the kâtibe usta received 80 akçe, as in the period of Mahmud I; the ikinci kâtibe got 40 akçe; the ikinci cameşuy and ikinci çaşnigir each received 35 akçe; the ikinci kahveci and ikinci sab ¯ uncu ¯ _ received 30 akçe (Muallim Cevdet B4, II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri).

Residents of the Imperial Harem

51

Figure 1.2 “An attendant of the Harem of the Grand Signior.” Octavian Dalvimart, The Costume of Turkey (London: William Miller, 1804).

relatively uniform across the eighteenth century, in terms of their stipends and the number of female slaves working for them, although there were some minor variations. A lower category of women serving in the harem was the kalfa. Kalfa was a rank below that of usta.61 The entourages of the imperial 61

According to Pakalın, seniors of the palace kalfas were named as usta (Pakalın, Osmanlı Tarih Terimleri ve Deyimleri Sözlügü, ˘ II, 554). On the other hand, D’Ohsson writes that “the ustas otherwise known as kalfas” (D’Ohsson, Tableau, VII, 68).

52

The Imperial Harem and Its Residents

family included kalfas. Among the female slaves given to the service of the sultan’s children, for example, were nannies and wet nurses who carryied the title kalfa (daye kalfa- dadı kalfa).62 Some of the sultan’s ikbals were also called kalfa: four ikbals of Mahmud I were Miyase Kalfa, Fehmi Kalfa, Sırrı Kalfa, and Habbabe Kalfa.63 Senior kalfas were also responsible for training the novices. Finally, according to D’Ohsson, the term şakird (apprentice) referred to those who were trained to fill vacant places among the gediklis and ustas.64 * Apart from these specialized categories of women, the largest group within the imperial harem was the female slaves (cariyes) who performed various services.65 Cariyes were the lowest-ranking members of a particular individual’s suite and they performed the harem’s ordinary menial tasks, such as cleaning, laundry, maintaining the baths and pantry, and other similar tasks.66 Apart from sultan’s family (which included his consorts), the ustas, and the kalfas, palace aghas also owned female slaves. The chief black eunuch had four female slaves, in addition to the head female slave called aga ˘ ustası;67 after the members of the imperial dynasty and highest-ranking members of the harem, this was the largest number of female slaves in one person’s service. According to D’Ohsson’s account, the chief black eunuch was the only palace officer who was allowed to have slave girls serving him.68 However, the records show that the agha of the treasury (hazînedar aga), ˘ the servant of the chamber (oda lalası), the chief door keeper (baş kapı gulamı aga), ˘ 62

63 64

65 66

67 68

For the periods of Mahmud I and Mahmud II, see TSMA D 8075 and Muallim Cevdet B4, II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri. TSMA D 8075. D’Ohsson, Tableau, VII, 68. Hammer, Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman, XVII, 70–71. D’Ohsson, Tableau, VII, 68–69. Those assigned to serve in the boiler room (külhan) were called “neferât-ı külhancıyân-ı Harem- i Hümâyun” or “külhancılarda olan cevâri.” Those who served in the pantry were called “neferât-ı kiler der Saray-ı Cedid-i Âmire-i Harem-i Hümâyun,” “neferât-ı kiler,” or “kilerde olan cevârî” (TSMA D 8075; TSMA E 53/2; TSMA D 9962; Muallim Cevdet B4, II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri). TSMA D 8075, Muallim Cevdet B4, II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri. D’ohsson, Tableau, VII, 54.

Residents of the Imperial Harem

53

Figure 1.3 “Female Slave (Cariye).” Osmanlı Kıyafetleri Fenerci Mehmed Albümü/Ottoman Costume Book, Fenerci Mehmed, ed. İlhami Turan, trans. Robert Bragner (Istanbul: Vehbi Koç Vakfı, 1986).

and the favorite (musâhib aga) ˘ also had female slaves in their personel service.69 Female slaves were likewise assigned to the service of dethroned sultans.70 During the eighteenth century and in the reign of Mahmud II, the imperial harem’s structure remained largely as it had existed in the 69 70

TSMA D 8075; Muallim Cevdet B4, II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri. On Mustafa I, see Hasan Bey-Zâde Ahmed Paşa, Hasan Bey-Zâde Tarihi, ed. Nezihi Aykut (Ankara: TTK, 2004), III, 979. Likewise, when Sultan Ibrahim was dethroned, female slaves were assigned to his service (Mustafa Öksüz, “Sem’dânîzâde ¸ Fındıklılı Süleyman Efendi’nin Müri’t-Tevârîh Adlı Eserinin (180B-345A) Tahlil ve Tenkidi Metni,” M.A.Thesis, Mimar Sinan University, 2009, 150).

54

The Imperial Harem and Its Residents

seventeenth century, although there were some minor changes. For instance, while there were influential figures known as musâhibe (companion) in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,71 references to this position do not appear in the eighteenth-century sources. Likewise, during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and into the reigns of Mustafa II (r. 1695–1703) and Ahmed III (r. 1703–1730), there were women in the imperial harem called bula.72 However, the term bula did not appear in the examined sources from the rest of the eighteenth century. In the imperial harem, the importance and definition of certain positions and titles thus changed over time, just as they did in the Enderun.73

A Female Slave’s Entrance to the Imperial Harem Female palace slaves were taken into the imperial harem in a number of different ways. Unfortunately, from the existing records it is not possible to determine in what ways each individual female slave arrived. However, as in the previous centuries, female slaves of the eighteenth century entered the service of the imperial harem either as gifts, through purchase, or as war captives.

71

72

73

Hubbi Hatun was a companion (musâhibe) of Selim II and was both a tutor (hoca) of princes and a poet (Öksüz, “Sem’dânîzâde,” ¸ 61). Raziye Hatun was a famous companion during the reign of Murad III, while Sekerpare ¸ Hatun and Hubyar Agha were companions in the period of Sultan Ibrahim (Na‘îmâ, Tarih-i Na‘îmâ, ed. M. İpşirli [Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2007]). Selânikî mentions that the “bulas of the harem” received gifts during the wedding ceremony of Fatma Sultan and Vizier Halil Pasha in 1593 (Selânikî Mustafa Efendi, Târih-i Selânikî, ed. Mehmed İpşirli [Istanbul: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1989], I, 342). Evliya Çelebi mentions Sekerpâre ¸ Bula and Meleki Bola (should be “bula”) (Evliya Çelebi, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnamesi: Topkapı Sarayı Kütüphanesi Bagdat ˘ 304 Numaralı Yazmanın Transkripsiyonu-Dizini, 2. Kitap, ed. Zekeriya Kurşun, Seyit Ali Kahraman, Yücel Daglı. ˘ 2nd edition [İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2006], 248). In the seventeenth century, Sieur de la Croix stated the names of officers of valide sultan as boulla (haznedar boulla, çamaşır boulla, kutucu boulla, ibrikçi boulla, hamamcı boulla, kilerci boulla . . .) (Sieur de la Croix, Mémoires du sieur de La Croix, I, 356–357. See also TSMA D 2350-0005) (1695); TSMA D 676; TSA E 118/12 quoted in Majer, “The Harem of Mustafa II,” 436 and TSMA D 2352.0382 (1115/1704). For example, from the beginning of the eighteenth century, the prestige of the sword bearer (silahdar) increased. He became the head of the privy chamber (has oda başı), which was the highest level of the Enderun hierarchy (Tayyar-Zâde Atâ, Osmanlı Saray Tarihi, I, 264; Uzunçarşılı, Saray Teşkilâtı, 341–350).

Residents of the Imperial Harem

55

Captive girls were presented to the palace in every period of the Ottoman Empire.74 Gülnuş Sultan, mother of Mustafa II (r. 1695–1703) and Ahmed III (r. 1703–1715), for example, was born in the 1640s in Rethymno, Crete, which was at that point under Venetian rule. Led by Deli Hüseyin Pasha, the Ottoman army seized part of the island during the Crete War (1645–1669); the girl was then enslaved and sent to the palace.75 According to Rycaut’s account, during a campaign in 1697, Mustafa II wrote a letter to his mother stating that he would send her a present of young ladies from the region of Transylvania.76 The admission of captive girls into the imperial harem continued during the eighteenth century.77 Other female slaves entered the imperial harem as gifts from foreign rulers, local statesmen, and even between members of the Ottoman dynasty.78 A person named Hamza Efendi presented Sanavber Hatun to Mustafa I, for example; later in the eighteenth century, when the ruler of the Güril did not submit his poll tax for several years, eight male slaves (gulâm) and four female slaves who had been sent as presents with the Georgian envoy were then sold in the bazaar to cover

74

75

76

77

78

Menavino, I cinque, 134–136; Guillaume Postel, De la republique des Turcs et, là au l’occasion s’offrera des meurs et loy de tous Muhamedistes (Poitiers, 1560) 6, 34; Postel, La tierce partie des Orientales Histoires (Poitiers, 1560), 17, 18; Nicolay, Les navigations, 99; Francesco Sansovino, Dell'Historia universale dell' origine et imperio de Turchi (Venice, 1568), 32; Salomon Schweigger, Sultanlar Kentine Yolculuk, 1578–1581, ed. Heidi Stein; trans. S. Türkis Noyan (Istanbul : Kitap Yayınevi, 2004), 113; Michael Heberer, Osmanlıda Bir Köle Brettenli Michael Heberer’in Anıları 1585–1588, trans. Türkis Noyan, ed. Kemal Beydilli (İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2010), 238–239; Lubenau, Reinhold Lubenau Seyahatnamesi, I, 207; Courmenin, Voyage de Levant, 157; Baudier, The History of the Serrail, 50, 57; Rycaut, The Present State, 38; Formanti, “Relatione del Serraglio,” in Raccolta, 15; Carari, A Voyage Round the World, IV, 70. İpşirli Argıt, “A Queen Mother and the Ottoman Imperial Harem: Rabia Gülnuş Emetullah Valide Sultan (1640–1715),” 208. Paul Rycaut, The History of Turks Beginning with the Year 1679 (London: Robert Clavell, 1700), 550–551. Hasan Paşa, who was governor of Çıldır, sent female slaves (esir cariye) to the sultan, to the grand vizier, and to the sheyhulislam in the second half of the eighteenth century (TSMA D 6561). The fifteenth-century gift exchange between the Mamluk rulers and the Ottoman sultans included male and female slaves sent from both sides (Elias I. Muhanna, “The Sultan’s New Clothes: Ottoman-Mamluk Gift Exchange in the Fifteenth Century,” Muqarnas XXVII [2010]: 189–207).

56

The Imperial Harem and Its Residents

the poll tax debts.79 The Crimean Khans sent female slaves,80 while female members of the dynasty and statesmen of various statuses likewise presented female slaves as gifts to the sultan on different occasions. Mustafa II’s consort Hafife had been presented to the palace by Sirvanî ¸ Kara Ebubekir Efendi when she was ten years old.81 The eighteenth-century chronicler Sem’dânî-zâde ¸ likewise recorded that some female slaves were admitted to the imperial palace as presents, while European authors noted that girls in the imperial harem were presented as gifts from members of the imperial family, grand dignitaries, and provincial governors. It was also stated that Tatars presented young virgins to the sultan.82 79

80 81

82

On Mustafa I, see Hasan Yaşaroglu, ˘ “Osmanlı’da Bir Darbe ve Tahlili: Genç Osman Örnegi,” ˘ Turkish Studies 8/7 (2013): 727. On the poll tax debt, see Bakkalzade Defterdar Sarı Mehmed Paşa, Zübde-i Vekayiat: Tahlil ve Metin: 1066–1116/1656–1704, ed. A. Özcan (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1995), 753–754; Râşid, Tarih-i Râşid (İstanbul: Matbaa-i Âmire, 1282), II, 561. C. SM 119/6997 (1155/1742). Mary Wortley Montagu, The Complete Letters of Lady Mary Montagu, ed. Robert Halsband (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965), I, 380–381. Alderson gives her name as Hafise (A. D. Alderson, The Structure of the Ottoman Dynasty [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956], Table XL). Uluçay states her name as Hafsa (Uluçay, Padişahın Kadınları ve Kızları, 74). Majer gives her name as Afife/Hafife (H. G. Majer, “The Harem of Mustafa II,” Osmanlı Araştırmaları,” XII [1992]: 431–443). Sem’dânî-zâde ¸ Fındıklılı Süleyman Efendi, Sem’dânî-zade ¸ Fındıklılı Süleyman Efendi Târihi, Mür’i’t-Tevârih, ed. Münir Aktepe (Istanbul: Istanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi, 1976), I, 165. For Domenico Hierosolimitano’s account, Domenico’s Istanbul, 35; Nicolay, Les navigations, 99. Lubenau noted that some of the girls in the palace had been purchased by high-status men and then presented to the sultan (Lubenau, Reinhold Lubenau Seyahatnamesi, I, 207; Baudier, The History of the Serrail, 50, 57); Guillet de Saint-Georges talked about the period of Ahmed I and noted that beglerbe ˘ gs ˘ (the General Governor of the entire province) and sancak begs ˘ (governor of the given district) sent beautiful girls to the sultan (G. G. de Saint-Georges, An Account, 158). Jean Baptiste Tavernier noted that beautiful women of several countries by the chance of war, or otherwise, had fallen into the hands of the pashas and provincial governors, who then sent them up as presents to the sultan (Tavernier, A new relation, 88; Carari, A Voyage Round the World, IV, 70); A. Hill wrote that fullgrown women were made a war prize and sent to the Seraglio by some pashas (Aaron Hill, A full and just Account of the Present State of the Ottoman Empire [London, 1709], 169; Demetrius Cantemir, The History of the Growth and Decay of the Othman Empire, trans. N. Tindal [London: John James, Paul Knapton, 1734–5], 296; D’Ohsson, Tableau, VII, 63–64; Marchebus, Voyage de Paris a Constantinople, [Paris, 1839], 152–155; Antoine Ignace Melling, “Intérieur d’une parti du Harem du Grand Seigneur,” in Voyage Pittoresque de Constantinople et des rives du Bosphore [Paris: Treuttel et Würtz, 1819; there is

Residents of the Imperial Harem

57

Upon a sultan’s enthronement, gifts from statesmen played an important role in the making of a new cadre within the harem. Aubry de la Motraye noted that Ahmed III had received one hundred Circassian virgin slaves as presents following his accession to the throne.83 Dallaway also noted that when the sultan came to the throne, the grandees presented him with virgin slaves who, they hoped, would become their patronesses.84 As will be seen in Chapter 2, the enthronement of a new sultan could result in some female slaves in the previous sultan’s harem being manumitted; as a result, the harem itself was regularly being renewed. Statesmen’s goal of presenting new female slaves was to assist with dynastic reproduction. For instance, following the enthronement of Sultan Ibrahim in 1640, statesmen sent female slaves in order to ensure the continuity of the dynasty.85 Female slaves were also presented during the wedding ceremonies of the dynastic family. At the wedding of Mehmed IV’s daughter Hadice Sultan in 1675, the groom offered female slaves to the sultan’s mother, to his wives, and to Princes Mustafa and Ahmed.86 For the wedding between Mustafa II’s daughters and viziers, the pashas of Bosnia, Erzurum, and Meskhetia sent female slaves.87 Likewise, in a 1676 circumcision ceremony, the groom Musâhib Mustafa Pasha presented

83 84

85 86

87

no pagination]; Hammer, Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman depuis son Origine Jusqu’a nos Jours, XVII, 70–71). Hobhouse stated that the Imperial odalisques, belonging to the sultan’s harem, were for the most part presents from the pashas, procured from the merchants who traded in Circassia and Georgia (Hobhouse, A Journey through, I, 852). On the issue of Tatars and virgins, see Ottaviano Bon-Robert Withers, A description of the grand signour’s seraglio, 36; Baudier, The History of the Serrail, 57; Formanti, “Relatione del Serraglio,” in Raccolta, 15; Sagredo, histoire VII, 30. Aubry de la Motraye, Aubry de La Motraye’s Travels, I, 247. J. Dallaway, Constantinople, Ancient and Modern with Excurcions to the shores and Islands of the Archipelago and to the Troad (London, 1797), 26. Likewise, Guillaume-Antoine Olivier (1756–1814) noted that the pashas and other state officials were eager to present beautiful girls to the sultan in order to benefit in the future (G. A. Olivier, Voyage dans l’Empire Othoman, l’ Égypte et la Perse [Paris, 1803], I, 43). Na‘îmâ, Tarih, III, 1111 (1058/1648); Öksüz, “Sem’dânîzâde,” ¸ 144. Salih Zorlutuna, “XVII. Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında Edirne’nin Sahne Oldugu ˘ Sâhâne ¸ Sünnet ve Evlenme Dügünleri,” ˘ in Edirne, Edirne’nin 600. Fetih Yıldönümü Armagan ˘ Kitabı (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1965), 287. Anonim Osmanlı Tarihi (1099–1116/1688–1704), ed. Abdülkadir Özcan (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2000), 225.

58

The Imperial Harem and Its Residents

an artist female slave to the sultan’s mother and bath attendant (tellâk) female slaves to each of the sultan’s consorts.88 The imperial palace also acquired female slaves from other members of the court. Before his death, Ahmed Agha (d. 1596), the steward of the door keepers (kapıcılar kethüdası) and great master of the stable (büyük mirâhur), had noted that Safiye Valide Sultan had the rights to his cash and his female slaves.89 When Grand Vizier Hasan Pasha died in 1792, his property was confiscated and his female slaves were sent to the imperial palace.90 In some cases, when manumitted female slaves who had already left the imperial palace died, their own female slaves were taken into the imperial harem. Again, as will be discussed in Chapter 2, the inheritance relationship between manumitted slaves and their manumitters was predicated on the fact that part of a palace woman’s estate would be delivered to her master. When a female slave of a manumitted palace woman was taken into the imperial palace, the price of the slave was reduced from the sultan’s share of the estate, as he was one of the heirs of the palace women. To give but one example from among various possibilities, when Bekdaş Hatun died in 1720, her female slaves were given to the reigning sultan Ahmed III.91 Purchase was another means of acquiring slaves for the palace.92 Eighteenth-century historians Subhi and Sem’dânî-zâde ¸ noted that a 88 89 91

92

Zorlutuna, “XVII. Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında,” 287. 90 Selânikî, Târih-i Selânikî II, 685. C. SM 5513 (1207/1792). TSMA E 126-65. For several examples in this issue, see TSMA D 8193-1; TSMA E 126-14; TSMA E 126-90. Female slaves were purchased for the palace in the seventeenth century (İE. SM 4/340 [1089/1678]; İE. SM 1-1111[1091/1678]), sometimes by the chief black eunuch and the master of the stable (mîrâhur) (İE. SM, 11-1117 [1091/1678]; İE. SM 11-1122 [1091/1678]). A document dated 1700 cites the purchase in Çatalca of a female slave for the Imperial Harem at a cost of 320 kuruş (TSMA E 88/179). Two female slaves were bought by aga ˘ babası in 1712 (TSMA E 153-2). Eight female slaves of Georgian and Russian origin were bought for the imperial harem during the reign of Ahmed III (C. SM 80/4027 [1123/1711]). According to a decree from the time of Abdulhamid I, three Georgian slaves were bought for the palace for whom the treasury of the holy cities (haremeyn hazînesi) paid 49,000 kuruş (BOA, İbnü’l Emin, Hattı Hümâyun 71-477 [1200/ 1785]). Female slaves who had children were bought for the imperial harem, and their cost was 9,400 kuruş (TSMA E 11113/1; TSMA E 11113/2). There are several examples of customs officials (gümrük emini) purchasing slaves for the imperial palace (Cevdet Hariciye [C. HR] 9223/185 [1188/1774]; TSMA E 267; TSMA E 117; TSMA E 1239; TSMA E 8799; C.SM 177/8884 [1188/1774]).

Residents of the Imperial Harem

59

female slave was bought for Saliha Sultan, mother of Mahmud I, from a slave dealer.93 Sem’dânî-zâde ¸ also added that the vizier of the period bought female slaves for the Valide Sultan from the slave market.94 European accounts likewise provide numerous examples of the practice of purchasing female slaves for the imperial harem. According to Nicolas de Nicolay, who came to Istanbul in 1551 in the retinue of Gabriel de Luel, Sieur d’Aramon, French ambassador to the Ottoman court, some of the sultan’s women and concubines were purchased from merchants.95 Aubry de la Motraye noted that the women in Ahmed III’s harem had all been bought.96 Dallaway stated that the female slaves of the seraglio are either privately bought or exposed to sale in the Avrat bazar.97 Especially slave wet nurses (daye cariyes) were purchased to meet the needs of the sultan’s children.98 Sem’dânî-zâde ¸ added interesting anecdotes to his account about female slaves taken to the palace for this purpose. During the reign of Abdulhamid I, the sultan’s consort became pregnant, and a wet nurse thus became necessary. Ulema and imams informed the members of the neighborhood, and the inns were searched for Circassian or Georgian women who were three months pregnant. He added that these women were required to be pleasant and long-haired.99 The prices paid for female palace slaves are rarely known, although it is possible to find some information. Certainly, the price of female slaves varied enormously according to their qualities. During the reign of Mehmed IV, artist female slaves were purchased at prices ranging

93

94 95 96 97

98

99

D’Ohsson also notes that those female slave who were bought for the palace were selected by the chief of the customs of Istanbul (D’Ohsson, Tableau, VII, 64). Subhi Mehmed Efendi, Subhî Tarihi, Sâmi ve Sâkir ¸ Tarihleri ile Birlikte (1730–1744), ed. M. Aydıner (Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2007), 62. Sem’dânî-zade ¸ Fındıklılı Süleyman Efendi Târihi, Mür’i’t-Tevârih, I, 16–17. Nicolay, Les navigations, 99. Aubry de la Motraye, Aubry de La Motraye’s Travels, I, 247. Dallaway, Constantinople, 28. D’Ohsson also states that most of the girls were acquired for money (D’Ohsson, Tableau, VII, 63–64). Slave wet nurses were bought for princes, and the expenses were taken from customs by customs official (gümrük emini) of Istanbul (İE. SM 24/2517 [1118/ 1706]). A wet nurse was bought for Fatma Sultan, daughter of Mahmud II (C. SM 29/1486 [1224/1809]). Sem’dânî-zade ¸ Fındıklılı Süleyman Efendi Târihi, Mür’i’t-Tevârih, III, 41.

60

The Imperial Harem and Its Residents

from 36,000 to 406,000 akçe.100 The prices of Georgian and Russian female slaves taken for the imperial harem in the reign of Ahmed III were between 150 kuruş and 250 kuruş, while others cost between 280 and 320 kuruş.101 During the reign of Abdulhamid I, a very high sum of 16,000 kuruş was paid for one Georgian slave,102 while a Russian slave was purchased for only 87 kuruş.103 This discrepancy was observed in Melling’s account, which pointed to beauty alone being a key indicator of price and thus value; talents and other interesting qualities counted for little.104 This accorded to the value of female slaves within the broader Ottoman society, in which prices varied according to the girl’s beauty, age, and other characteristics.105 * When pages were taken for the Enderun, it was recommended that those from certain regions be preferred and that those from certain other places be avoided.106 In the majority of cases, the available sources do not allow us to trace the geographic origins of individual 100

101

102 103

104

105

106

Günnaz Özmutlu, “Harem Cariyelerinin Musiki ve Seyirlik Oyunlardaki Egitimleri ˘ (1677–1687),” Belleten LXXVIII, 283 [2014]: 1038. The price of the female slave who was bought for the sultan in the same period was 750 kuruş (Bab-ı Defteri Başmuhasebe Hazînedarbaşılıgı ˘ [D.BSM. ¸ HZB] 2-6 [1060/1650]). C. SM 80/4027 (1123/1711); TSMA E 88-179 (1112/1700); TSMA E 153-2 (1124/1712). İE. HAT 5-477 (1200/1786). Cevdet Hariciye (C. HR) 127/6340 (1189/1786). The total price of the other six female slaves taken at the time of Abdulhamid I was 6,950 kuruş (C. SM 177/ 8884 [1188/1774]). Melling, “Intérieur d’une Partie du Harem du Grand-Seigneur,” there is no pagination. G. A. Olivier (1756–1814) noted, by contrast, that the prices of slave girls varied according to supply and demand and generally ranged from 500 to 1,000 kuruş (G. A. Olivier, Voyage dans l’Empire Othoman, l’ Égypte et la Perse [Paris, 1803], I, 174). For various examples of slave and female slave prices in the eighteenth century, see Mehmet Akif Terzi, “İstanbul 1131/1719 Tarihli Askeri Kassam Defteri,” M.A. Thesis, Istanbul University, 1995; Zehra Özdener, “İstanbul Askerî Kassâm Defterlerinden 336 No‘lu ve Hicrî 1184 (M. 1810) tarihli Tereke Defteri,” M.A. Thesis, Istanbul University, 1996; F. Bozkurt, “Tereke Defterleri ve Osmanlı Maddî Kültüründe De˘gişim (1785–1875 İstanbul Örne˘gi),” Ph.D diss., Sakarya University, 2011. In these studies, female slave prices appear between 20,000 and 150,000 akçe (167–1,250 kuruş). Gelibolulu Mustafa Âli Efendi, Mevaidü’n-Nefais fi Kavaidi’l-Mecalis, ed. Mehmet Seker ¸ (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1997), 283–284, 341–342.

Residents of the Imperial Harem

61

female palace slaves. It is clear, though, that slaves of various origins were taken to the imperial harem, including Circassian, Georgian, Abkhasian, Russian; women from Africa and Europe also became slaves. Angiolello noted that girls in the Old Palace are all Christians and that they had been brought from various parts of the world.107 Other European writers stated that most of the women in the palaces were Christians from Greece, Hungary, Poland, Wallachia, Italy, or other regions.108 D’Ohsson noted that there were women in the imperial harem who were brought from Europe, Asia, and Africa.109 J. Dallaway and Ch. M. Deval also noted that female palace slaves were Circassian and Georgian.110 Archival documents from the eighteenth century provide corroborative evidence. An order was given to a governor (beylerbeyi) to purchase Circassian, Abkhazian, and Russian slaves for the imperial harem.111 A woman named Sarayî Sehbaz ¸ (d. 1716) was from Malta, while Sarayî Simten Kadın, who was manumitted by Mustafa III, possessed a slave from Wallachia named Lutfiyye.112 In every period, black women from Africa also served in the imperial harem, although they were few in number. According to Ottaviano Bon’s account, in the seventeenth century, black women were brought to the imperial court from Cairo.113 In the eighteenth century, at least two black women (zenciye) were present in the imperial harem: Zenciye Saide (d. 1776) and Zenciye Halime, who were 107 108

109 110

111

112

113

Angiolello, Historia Turchesca, 128. Postel, De la republique, 34; Nicolay, Les navigations, 99; Lubenau, Reinhold Lubenau Seyahatnamesi, I, 207. D’Ohsson, Tableau, VII, 69. J. Dallaway, Constantinople, 28; Ch. M. Deval, Deux Année a Constantinople et en Morée (1825–1826) (Paris, 1828), 101. Gibb and Bowen note that “from the end of the sixteenth century onward, the majority of the harem women were recruited from the Caucasus” (H. A. R. Gibb-Harold Bowen, Islamic Society and the West: A Study of the Impact of Western Civilization on Moslem Culture I/2 [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1950], 74–75). TSMA E 1511. Another document from the eighteenth century also states that Circassian, Abkhasian, and Russian female slaves were taken for the imperial harem (TSMA E 1511). BOA, Bab-ı Defteri Başmuhasebe Muhallefat Halifeligi ˘ (D.BSM.MHF) ¸ 58-56 (1775). Ottaviano Bon-Robert Withers, A description of the grand signour’s seraglio, 101–102. Bon noted that “the more ugly these black women were, the more they were valued. The pashas of Cairo were diligent in finding the most ill favoured, coal-black, blabber-lipped, and flat nosed girls to send them as presents to the sultan.”

62

The Imperial Harem and Its Residents

manumitted by Âlicenab Kadın, Mahmud I’s head consort.114 The varied origins of female palace slaves in the eighteenth century more or less reflect the situation of other slaves living in other parts of the Ottoman Empire.115 It is not possible to determine at what age each female slave entered the palace, but it is understood that there was no standard practice concerning the age of entrance to the harem. Some of the slaves entered the palace as children, while others entered at a later age. It is said that Turhan, who later became the concubine of Sultan Ibrahim, was only four years old when she was captured by raiders and then presented to the palace.116 According to D’Ohsson’s account, since some people intended to offer girls to the sultan as an act of homage, they carefully cared for the girls and sent them to the palace when they reached the age of ten or eleven.117 Sungur, who appeared at the beginning of this book, wrote to Selim III and stated that she had been taken to the palace at the tender age of five.118 Additionally, some features related to physical appearance and character were sought in women who were taken to the court, and in some 114

115

116

117 118

For the estate inventories of Zenciye Saide and Zenciye Halime, see D.BSM. ¸ MHF 59-49, D.BSM. ¸ MHF 13026. Among the slaves living in Konya from the mid-seventeenth century to the eighteenth century, there were Circassian, Russian, Polish (Leh), and Abyssinian (Habeş) slaves (İzzet Sak, “Ser’iye ¸ Sicillerine Göre Sosyal ve Ekonomik Hayatta Köleler (17. ve 18. Yüzyıllar),” Ph.D. diss., Selçuk University, 1992, 92–97). In the eighteenth century, captives from Ukraine, South Russia, and Austria were brought to the Ottoman State (Nihat Engin, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Kölelik [Istanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Vakfı, 1998], 109–110). Around 1700, there were manumitted female slaves in Galata who were mainly Austrian in origin, with a few being Venetian, Dutch, or French (Géza Dávid, “Manumissioned Female Slaves at Galata and Istanbul Around 1700,” in Frauen, Bilder und Gelehrt: Festschrift Hans Georg Majer, ed. Sabine Prätor-Christoph Neumann [Istanbul: Simurg, 2002], I, 229–236). For a detailed information about the ethnic origins of slaves in the Ottoman Empire, see Erdem, Slavery in the Ottoman Empire, 58–62. Guillet de Saint Georges, An Account, 349. According to Uluçay, the Russianorigin Turhan Sultan was taken captive after the Tatar raids at the age of ten to twelve, and afterwards she entered the imperial court. He also noted that Russian-origin Hürrem was taken captive during the raid and entered the imperial court when she was between the ages of fourteen and seventeen. Venetian-origin Safiye Sultan was captured by pirates and entered the imperial court between the ages of fourteen and fifteen (Uluçay, Kadınları ve Kızları, 43). D’Ohsson, Tableau, VII, 64. Çetin, “Muhtaç Bir Cariyenin Sultan III. Selim’e Arzuhali,” 37–39.

Residents of the Imperial Harem

63

cases chronicles provide clues on this issue. For instance, according to Sem‘dânî-zâde’s ¸ account, a summer palace was constructed in Beykoz in 1764 and female slaves with eminent and desirable attitudes (mümtaz ve müşteha tavırlı) were selected in addition to pages.119 * Regardless of their geographical origins or the means through which they were acquired, girls started an entirely new life once they entered the palace. D’Ohsson noted that girls selected for the palace were first examined by a woman assigned to this office; the slightest bodily defect was sufficient to exclude the girl.120 Female slaves were divided into Chambers similar to those of the pages in the Enderun.121 They were then trained under the supervision of more experienced women.122 Following their entrance into the palace, the girls were converted to Islam through the repetition of the core Islamic creed, “There is no 119 120 121

122

Sem’dânî-zade ¸ Fındıklılı Süleyman Efendi Târihi, Mür’i’t-Tevârih, II A, 60–61. D’Ohsson, Tableau, VII, 64. Rycaut, The Present State, 39 (Rycaut notes that similar to pages, maids were divided into two Chambers where they worked); C. G. Fisher and A. W. Fisher, “Topkapı Sarayı in the mid-seventeenth century: Bobovi’s description,” 72; Sieur de la Croix, Mémoirs de Sieur de la Croix, I, 354. G. G. de Saint-Georges noted that in the period of Ahmed I, a girl from Athens was first taken to küçük oda (Chamber of Newcomers) in the palace (G. G. de Saint-Georges, An Account, 160). Guer noted that women’s section consisted of four chambers. First chamber was called the greater chamber (Büyük Oda), where girls received education upon their arrival in the palace. The second chamber, called the supreme chamber (Küçük Oda), was allocated for those who were capable of amusing and entertaining the sultan. Girls were assembled in the third chamber to work and to wash laundry. Girls learned music and dance in the fourth chamber (J. A. Guer, Moeurs et Usages des Turcs, Leur Religion, Leur Gouvernement Civil, Militarie et Politique [Paris; Merigot & Piget, 1747], II, 57). Hobhouse noted that all of the odalisques lived and slept in two large dormitories (Hobhouse, A Journey through, I, 852). Habesci also claimed that girls who were taken to the palace were divided like the pages into two chambers (Habesci, The Present State, 165). European sources frequently stated that each girl had a separate bed and between the beds of every five or more girls laid an old woman who minutely inspected their conduct in order to prevent immodest and indecent behavior (Fauvel, Le voyage, 77). Writing in 1534, the Italian Benedetto Ramberti noted that virgin girls were given to the government of many matrons (Benedetto Ramberti, Libri tre delle cose de Turchi. Venice, 1543. Excerpted and translated by Albert Howe Lybyer in The Government of the Ottoman Empire in the Time of Suleiman the Magnificent [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1913], 253); Nicolay, Les navigations, 99; Sieur de la Croix, Mémoirs de Sieur de la Croix, I, 354; Rycaut, The Present State, 39; Fauvel, Le Voyage, 77.

64

The Imperial Harem and Its Residents

God but Allah, Muhammed is the Messenger of Allah.”123 During the first period of their enslavement, called acemilik (novitiate), they underwent training in court manners under the supervision of elders. They were employed in the activities to which they were best suited. They were given knowledge of the Islamic religion, they learned Turkish, and some of them even received education in sewing, embroidery, music, and dancing. Angiollello, who served in the palace during the reign of Mehmed II, described the training of women in the sultan’s harem. He noted that senior women taught the new ones how to speak and to read, instructed them in Muhammedan law, and showed them how to sew and embroider, to play instruments, and to sing. The girls also learned about Ottoman ceremonies and customs, to the degree that they had the inclination to learn.124 D’Ohsson also observed that the newly acquired slaves were educated by older women; at the end of their novitiate, they began their service in the harem.125

Names of Female Palace Slaves Female slaves were given new names that usually accorded with their physical appearance and their personality.126 These new names 123

124

125 126

Postel, De la republique, 34; Ottaviano Bon-Robert Withers, A description of the grand signour’s seraglio, 36; Courmenin, Voyage de Levant, 157; Baudier, The History of the Serrail, 57; Formanti, “Relatione del Serraglio,” in Raccolta, 16. Angiolello, Historia Turchesca, 128. This issue was mentioned by several other European authors: Junis Bey and Alvise Gritti, Opera noua la quale dechiara tutto il gouerno del gran turcho . . . Venice, 1537. Reprinted in A. H. Lybyer, The Government of the Ottoman Empire in the time of Suleiman the Magnificent (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1913), 268–269. For the account of Hans Dernschwam (1494–1568), who visited Istanbul in 1553, see H. Dernschwam, İstanbul ve Anadoluya Seyahat Günlügü, ˘ trans. Y. Önen (Ankara: Kültür Bakanlıgı, ˘ 1987), 189; Ottaviano Bon-Robert Withers, A description of the grand signour’s seraglio, 38; Baudier, The History of the Serrail, 50, 57, 58; Sieur de la Croix, Mémoirs de Sieur de la Croix, I, 354. Girls were taught sewing and embroidery in the palace (Menavino, I cinque, 135; Ramberti, Libri tre delle, in Lybyer, The Government, 253; Postel, De la republique, 6, 33; Sansovino, Dell'Historia, 1568; Schweigger, Sultanlar Kentine Yolculuk, 113). D’Ohsson, Tableau, VII, 64. Uluçay, Harem, 18. D’Ohsson notes thas these female slaves received different names than those of free women (D’Ohsson, Tableau, VII, 69). For information about pre-Ottoman naming practices, for instance about practices in Egypt in the Middle Ages, see S. D. Goitein, “Slaves and Slavegirls in the Cairo Geniza Records,” Arabica 9 (1962): 8–9.

Residents of the Imperial Harem

65

served as a break from old identities and the adoption of new ones; the girls’ new life, then, was marked by the adoption of a new name and identity. In Ottoman society, female slaves generally were given Persian names, mostly related to flowers, fragrances, and other pleasures of life.127 On the other hand, some female slaves bore Arabic names.128 In Ottoman society, a person was called by his/her father’s name. When a person became a slave, his/her new status was marked by renaming. Male slaves – and also devshirmes – were called “bin Abdullah” (son of a slave of God); female slaves, including those in the palace, were called “bint Abdullah” (daughter of the slave of God). Archival records that provide information about the names and origins of female slaves who were taken to the palace offer the possibility of two naming alternatives. It is possible that some female slaves had already been given new names before they entered the palace, and they then kept these names following their admission. Other slaves were given new names only after they had entered the harem. From the eighteenth-century records, it appears that the great majority of slaves in the harem had Persian names, although a few had prestigious Arabic names associated with the family of the Prophet Muhammed, such as Ayşe, Fatma, Zeynep, and Hadice.129 As far as the Persian names have been evaluated, girls were given names than can be categorized roughly into several types. Some girls were given names that reflected the manners, attitudes, and physical characteristics. Others carried names 127

128

129

Suraiya Faroqhi, “Quis Custodiet Custodes? Controlling Slave Identities and Slave Traders in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Istanbul,” in Stories of Ottoman Men and Women: Establishing Status, Establishing Control, ed. S. Faroqhi (Istanbul: Eren, 2002), 248; Zilfi, Women and Slavery, 157–158. Uluçay notes that Persian names given to female slaves were not considered appropriate for free-born Muslims (Uluçay, Harem, II, 37). In the mid-sixteenth century, in Galata, some muslim female slaves bore Persian names, while others bore prestigious Arabic names such as Ayşe, Fatma, Zeynep, Hatice, Rabia, and Meryem (Nur Sobers-Khan, Slaves without Shackles: Forced Labour and Manumission in the Galata Court Registers, 1560–1572 [Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 2014], 231–232). According to an archival record that states the names of female slaves who were sent to the imperial harem, some female slaves had Persian names, while some others bore Arabic names such as, for example, Ayşe and Hadice (C. SM 80/ 4027 [1711]). Additionally, for various examples of female slaves who had Arabic names during their stay in the imperial harem, see TSMA D 8075; TSMA D 2999; TSMA D 9962; Muallim Cevdet B4, II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri.

66

The Imperial Harem and Its Residents

Table 1.1 Categorization of the Persian names carried by palace women Names reflecting the manners and attitudes

Names reflecting the physical characteristics

Names inspired by aspects of nature Names related to flowers

Names related to precious stones Names related to power and authority Names that were given to the beloved in Divan literature

Sirin ¸ (sweet), Edâlı (gracious), Sivekâr ¸ (coquettish), Nazlı (coquettish), Nazperver (coquettish), Gamzekâr (flirting), Mihrî (affectionate) Dilâver (brave), Sehsüvar ¸ (intrepid hero), Kahraman (hero), Üftade (in love) Simten (fair-skinned), Çeşm-i Siyah (blackeyed), Periruhsar (fairy faced), Mehpâre (beautiful and bright like a moon), Mahpeyker (moon-faced), Afitab (beautiful face) Mehtab (moonlight), Bad-ı Sabâ (zephyr), Bad-ı Seher (morning breeze), Bag-ı ˘ Cinan (garden of paradise) Gonca (rosebud), Gülfem (rose mouth), Gülistan (rose garden), Goncafem (rosebud mouth), Gülbün (rosebush), Gülçehre (rose-faced), Gülkıyafet, Gülgün (rose-colored), Gülnuş (rose drink), Gülruhsar (rose-cheeked), Gülistan (rose garden) Gevher (jewel), Dürrî (sparkling like a pearl), Necef (precious stone) Cihanşah (king of the world), Alemşah (king of the world) Sehbaz ¸ (royal falcon, royal, generous, noble), Sâhin ¸ (excellent falcon), Bâd-ı Sabâ130

that were inspired by aspects of nature. Some women bore names related to flowers, precious stones, and power and authority. Few women had names that were given to the beloved in Divan literature (Table 1.1) 130

In Divan literature, lover is like a hunter, and both Sehbaz ¸ and Sâhin ¸ are pursued and hunted by the lover. For the case of Bâd-ı Saba, lover misses his beloved, and the wind carries the smell of her to him. İskender Pala, Ansiklopedik Dîvân Siiri ¸ Sözlügü, ˘ 2 vols. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlıgı ˘ Yayınları, 1989.

Residents of the Imperial Harem

67

Families of the Female Palace Slaves Since a person was called by his or her father’s name in Ottoman society, an examination of the names of manumitted female palace slaves provides information not only about their origins but also about the identity of their fathers. In the available registers belonging to female palace slaves, the great majority of them (97 percent) are listed as bint (daughter of) Abdullah,131 as was also the case for other Ottoman women of slave origin. The name Abdullah was used interchangeably with the names of Abdülmennan, Abdülkerim, Abdürrahim, and some other names relating to God. An example of a woman who was not listed as “bint Abdulah” is Sarayî Amine Hatun bint Ahmed Beşe bin Abdullah.132 The identification of the mother is more difficult than that of the father. As a requirement of Islamic law, living parents including mothers appeared in estate registers as heirs as long as they were alive. However, among the examined examples, it was extremely rare that parents appeared as heirs in the estate registers of manumitted female palace slaves. The story of Sarayî Necef, also known as Saliha bint Abdullah bin Abdülmennan, is unique and thus very important in revealing the family network of female palace slaves. In a court case dated 1715, Necef Hatun’s estate was divided among her heirs. She had been manumitted by Hadice Sultan (1662–1743), who was the daughter of Mehmed IV (r. 1648–1687). Necef’s heirs were her previous master Hadice Sultan, her husband, el-Hac Halil Agha bin Ali bin Himmet, her minor daughter Emine, and, interestingly, her mother Sarayî Zeynep bint Abdullah, who was also of slave origin.133 One year later, Sarayî Zeynep, who was also manumitted by the same Hadice Sultan, appeared in the law court and stated that her grandchild Emine had died; she thus demanded her rights over the estate of the young girl.134 The case of Necef bint Abdullah is unique for various reasons: it shows a palace woman who had knowledge of her mother, and both daughter and mother were manumitted by the same master. It is possible that 131

132

133 134

Among the examined examples, the fathers of 381 female palace slaves were mentioned. Of these, 371 (97 percent) were listed as “binti Abdullah.” Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi ˘ (Inspectorate of Imperial Foundations), nr. 114, p. 70 (1135/1722). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 103, p. 7 (1127/1715). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 112, pp. 30–31 (1128/1715–1716).

68

The Imperial Harem and Its Residents

Necef and her mother Zeynep had been taken to the palace together.135 There are certainly several examples showing that daughters of wet nurses also lived in the harem.136 The story of Zeynep and Necef leads to the definition of another category, that of sarayî daughter (sarayî kızı). In some very rare examples, palace women are listed as sarayî kızı. It is possible that those girls who had at least one parent affiliated to the imperial court were named sarayî kızı. One of the defining features of this group of sarayî kızı was that their fathers were not listed as Abdullah. In general, the sarayî kızı had a palace-affiliated mother. For instance, Sarayî kızı Emetullah was the daughter of Sarayî Zeynep and Halil Agha bin Himmet,137 while Sarayî kızı Fatma Hatun was the daughter of Usta Ahmed bin Osman and Sarayî Hanife.138 Brothers and sisters also appear extremely rarely in the examined estate registers. In my examination of 460 estate registers in which inheritors are recorded, I found only four women who had a named mother, only four who had named sisters139 and only one woman who had a brother.140 Sisters of the examined palace women did not carry the title sarayî.141 This raises the possibility that the siblings may have been brought to the capital together, and then one was taken to the palace while the others were sent to different households. For instance, Reftâridil was sold together with her sister, but only Reftâridil was taken to the palace where she became the consort of Murad V.142 The very rare appearance of family members as heirs in the estate registers raises the question of how much contact these palace women were able to maintain with their natal families. In 1864, a minor female slave was presented to Behice Sultan (b. 1848), the daughter of Sultan Abdulmecid. A document was prepared stating that the girl’s relatives 135

136 137 138 139

140 141

142

The daughter of famous sixteenth-century companion Raziye Hatun was also in the harem, and she read and wrote the sultan’s letters (Pedani, “Safiye’s Household,” 25). Muallim Cevdet B4, II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 103, p. 139 (1128/1715). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 101, p. 81 (1126/1714). TSMA E 126-59; TSMA E 126-73; TSMA D 8254-3; Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 117, p. 172. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 120, p. 64 (1143/1730). On the other hand, in a seventeenth-century example, Sarayî Ayşe Hatun binti Abdullah had a sister named Sarayî Andelib Hatun (Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 65, pp. 83–85 (1092/1681). Uluçay, Kadınları ve Kızları, 167.

Relations within the Imperial Harem

69

would not interfere with her. This implies that it was not considered appropriate for female slaves who were taken to the imperial palace to be contacted by their families.143 Yet some rare examples from earlier periods do reveal that some female palace slaves were in contact with their family members, but only those who had some link with the imperial court. In the seventeenth century, the famous Canfeda Hatun, a chief administrative official in the harem, had two brothers that she looked after, both of whom held the rank of pasha.144 Likewise, Hadice Turhan Valide Sultan’s (d. 1683) brother Yunus Agha (d. 1689) was living in Istanbul.145 In sum, the high ratio of “bint Abdullah” and the extremely rare appearance of family members, such as mothers and siblings as heirs, imply that the great majority of these girls lost contact with their family members. These girls came from many different regions, but all were divorced from their own lineage as they were gathered into the harem. This situation impacted their relationship with the imperial court and strengthened their sense of belonging.

Relations within the Imperial Harem Very little is known about the internal functioning of the harem, or of the relationships that developed between its residents. The account of Derviş Abdullah, halberdier (teberdar) of the Old Palace, provides an idea about how female palace slaves were perceived within the palace. He noted that “female slaves were regarded as daughters, and since it was a religious duty for Muslim believers to protect their children, it was also compulsory to protect female slaves.”146 Likewise, in one 143 144 145

146

TSMA D 8079(1281/1864), quoted in Uluçay Harem II, 14. Pedani, “Safiye’s Household,” 24. Ahmet Refik [Altınay], Hicri Onikinci Asırda İstanbul Hayatı: 1100-1200 (Istanbul: Enderun Kitabevi, 1988), 1. There might be a difference in terms of female palace slaves’ contact with their families in the nineteenth century compared to previous periods. It is known that especially after the second half of the century, the number of Circassian female slaves coming from the Caucasus to Istanbul increased and also some Circassian girls were sold as slaves by their families. It can be assumed that this situation differentiated the ability of female slaves to connect with their families compared to the previous centuries. One Circassian family who was reluctant to sell their daughter was given permission to visit her once or twice a year (Toledano, The Ottoman Slave Trade and Its Supression, 188). Saka, Risale-i Teberdariye, 202.

70

The Imperial Harem and Its Residents

archival record, female palace slaves were defined as those who were nourished, cared for, and educated by the imperial court.147 The long-lasting relationship between the imperial court and its female palace slaves was rooted in the harem, and residents of the harem were attached to the household through various layers of associations that were often based on emotional and material bonds. Residents of the imperial harem, much like those of the Enderun, occupied various ranks within the hierarchy and were protected and provided with benefits during their service period. Importantly, household members were related to the household through a patronage relationship. Household heads were responsible for providing for their dependents, safeguarding their best interests, and ensuring their welfare. The principle of Islamic tradition ordering that slaves should be treated well might have been influential in their attitude toward slaves. Patronage relationships were fostered in the imperial court and were realized across various layers, and this shaped the dynamics among the members of the imperial court. * In every period, male and female members of the imperial court received regular stipends called mevâcib and ulufe in return for their services. This practice was not enacted exclusively at the Ottoman palace: in a similar manner, residents of harems across the Near East and South Asia received monthly salaries.148 A person’s position within the imperial harem, or in the Enderun, played a major role in determining their stipends.149 According to the mevâcib registers belonging to the periods of Selim III and Mahmud II, female palace

147

148

149

C. SM 7226. At this point, it should be noted that in some cases it may be the rhetoric and may not reflect the actual reality. This discourse may have been used to support and perpetuate slavery. For information about Mughal stipends for harem residents, see Ruby Lal, Domesticity, 178. Ottaviano Bon (d. 1622) stated that female palace slaves were paid from the sultan’s treasury according to their rank. Some received 15 or 20 akçe a day, while others received 4 or 5 akçe. They were paid every three months. Haseki Sultan received 1,000 or 500 akçe daily (Ottaviano Bon-Robert Withers, A description of the grand signour’s seraglio, 49). According to D’Ohsson, each gedikli and ikbal received 200 piastres for three months, usta got 200, şakird received 50, and cariye received 35 (D’Ohsson, Tableau, VII, 73).

Relations within the Imperial Harem

71

slaves received between 5 and 500 akçe per day.150 In a mevâcib register from the period of Mahmud I, 446 female palace slaves were recorded and, of these, 52 received between 20 and 100 akçe, 21 received 15 akçe, and 67 received 10 akçe. The vast majority (306) received only 5 akçe.151 Among 473 female palace slaves listed in a mevâcib register from the period of Mahmud II, almost 20 percent (92) received 20 akçe or more, but the rest received no more than 15 akçe.152 Additionally, some members of the harem received a share of the customs.153 Residents of the imperial harem were assigned food, listed in the records as me’kulât.154 The great majority of female slaves are listed together under a general category.155 Higher-status residents, such as the chief administrative officer and the wet nurse, were listed separately. Female slaves in the imperial harem were also assigned clothing, called melbûsât.156 Writing in 1534, Benedetto Ramberti noted that 150 151 152

153

154

155

156

TSMA D 2999; Muallim Cevdet B4, II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri. TSMA D 8075. Muallim Cevdet B4, II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri. For several similar examples in the Enderun from the period of Mustafa III, see Tahir Güngör, “Enderun Saray Mektebi’nde Has Oda Teşkilatı,” M.A. Thesis, Marmara University, 2007, 59. BOA, Cevdet Maliye (C. ML) 132/5704 (1195/1781); HAT 1467/44) (1212/ 1797); HAT 1483/26 (1217/1802). For several examples from the eighteenth century, see D.MSF 4-32; D.MSF 119; D. MSF 1-25; D.MSF 1-32; D. MSF 2-39 (1113/1702); D. MSF 3-16 (1704); D.MSF 2-39; D.MSF 3-25; D. MSF 3-85; D.BSM. ¸ d 41561, p. 15 (1206–1213/ 1791–1799); D.BSM ¸ 828 (1107/1696); D. BSM ¸ 830; BOA, Bab-ı Defteri Başmuhasebe Matbah-ı Âmire Emini defterleri (D.BSM. ¸ MTE d.) 2-45; KK 7129; KK 7242, KK 7248 (1176/1763); KK 7252 (period of Abdulhamid I); KK 7254 (period of Selim III); KK 7255 (period of Selim III); KK 7258 (1226/1811). The issue of providing food was also mentioned by Fauvel (Fauvel, Le voyage, 79). In the documents, the food assignment to this large group of female slaves was stated as “sofra-yı horendegân-ı harem-i hümâyun-ı ismet makrun der matbah-ı has,” “tayinat-ı horendegân-ı harem-i hümâyun,” and “tayinat-ı harem-i hümâyun.” Archival records provide rich information about clothes and fabrics assigned to members of the imperial court in every period: D.BSM.d ¸ 1658 (1142/1730); Bab-ı Defteri Büyük Ruznamçe Kalemi Evrakı (D.BRZ. d) 20933; MAD 1917; MAD 19174 (1159–1169/1746–1756); TSMA D 210; TSMA D 676 (1109– 1114/1697–1703); TSMA d 689; TSMA d 688; TSMA D 681 (1108/1695); TSMA D 5922 (1192/1778–1779); TSMA d 7961; TSMA d 5969; TSMA D 9478; TSMA D 9962. For information about fabrics given to the head of the privy chamber (has oda başı), see Güngör, “Enderun Saray Mektebi’nde Has Oda Teşkilatı,” 56, 60.

72

The Imperial Harem and Its Residents

“the sultan gives pay of ten to twenty aspers per day to the girls in the Palace and twice every year at the two Bairams he has them clothed in stuffs of silk.”157 Other objects that the harem members needed were also provided.158 Apart from salaries, clothing, food, and other necessities, harem residents received extra payments and gifts called in‘âm, ihsân, or ‘atiyye on specific occasions. These gifts paved the way in strengthening the ties between the imperial household and the members of the imperial court.159 These gifts included goods of various kind and quality.160 Habibe Kadın bint Abdullah, who was the consort of Mahmud I (r. 1730–1754), designated monetary and tangible gifts, including several types of textile furnishings, to several harem residents including the black eunuch Beshir Agha and the female slaves of the head treasurer, of the mistress of the pantry, of several kalfas, and others.161 The possession of female slaves by various people in the imperial harem paved the way for a diversification of patronage relations. Members of the imperial court acted as benefactors and offered patronage, depending on their status in the hierarchy. For instance, Süleyman Agha bin Abdülmennan, the Agha of the Old Palace, donated several items as a trousseau to his slave Hibetullah bint Abdullah in 1740 while she was still a child. The objects and jewelry assigned to this young slave were astonishing, both in number and value: the

157

158

159

160

161

Ramberti, Libri tre delle, in Lybyer, The Government, 253. This issue is also mentioned in Schweigger, Sultanlar Kentine Yolculuk, 113; Heberer, Osmanlıda Bir Köle, 239; Ottaviano Bon-Robert Withers, A description of the grand signour’s seraglio, 49; Histoire Generale des Turcs (Paris, 1662), II, 29. Goods were bought for the chambers of sultan’s mother, consort (haseki), chief administrative officer (kethüda kadın), aghas, and servants (horendegân) in Edirne Palace (D.BSM.d ¸ 874 [1108/1696]). On the goods given to the harem slaves, see İE. SM 1215 (1083/1672); TSMA d 2357-0005 (1126/1714); MAD d 771 (Safer 1115/1703). A record from the period of Mustafa II, for example, reveals that the head consort received 150 kuruş, while the kethüda kadın and daye kadın were assigned 60 kuruş; the hazînedar usta, saray usta, cameşuy usta, berber usta, legen ˘ ibrikçi usta, çaşnigir usta, and kilerci usta received 40 kuruş each (TSMA D 2350-0005 [1695]). On the items given to members of the imperial harem and Enderun, see MAD 15867 (1677–1683); TSMA D 1219-0002 (1085/1674); TSMA D 2354/0003; TSMA d 980/0001; TSMA d 2354/0006. TSMA E 3055-6.

Relations within the Imperial Harem

73

trousseau included two pairs of emerald and diamond earrings, a gold bracelet, two emerald belts, fourteen rings made of various gems, and other accessories made of gold and precious stones. The value of furs and other clothing items was not less than that of the jewelry: three furs of different qualities, fifteen caftans, twenty dresses, and other clothing items. The trousseau also contained a variety of household items, including textile products, candelabra, trays, a coffee ewer, a basin, a thurible, a rose water flask, and even a clock. The total value of all these items was 12,080 kuruş, which was a huge amount compared to the generosity of Habibe Kadın. Since Hibetullah was too young to take care of these items, Süleyman Agha entrusted these objects to Fatma Hatun, who was another of his slaves.162 Harem residents received gratuities called ıydiye bahşişi on religious holidays.163 D’Ohsson noted that in two bairams, harem residents were given gratuities.164 They also received muharremiye, which was pocket money given out at greeting ceremonies held at the beginning of the month of Muharrem.165 Harem residents were also granted favors before imperial departures (hareket-i hümâyun). For instance, when Ahmed III moved from his waterside residence in Eyüb to Istanbul, he bestowed gratuities upon the harem residents.166 Weddings and birth ceremonies within the imperial dynasty were special occasions during which harem residents received presents as members of the household. Presenting gifts to the residents of the imperial harem on the occasion of imperial weddings was an ancient tradition.167 When Emine Sultan, a daughter of Mustafa II, married 162 163 165

166 167

Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 193, p. 13a (1188/1775). 164 MAD d 3338. D’Ohsson, Tableau, VII, 73. BOA, HAT (Hatt-ı Hümâyun) d 27067; HAT 32810. At the beginning of the month of Ramadan, when the Nativity poem of Prophet Muhammed was chanted, members of the Enderun were given benevolence in the name of “mevlûdiyye”; Güngör, “Enderun Saray Mektebi’nde Has Oda Teşkilatı,” 56. In the seventeenth century, Koçi Bey notes that mevlûdiyye or mevlûd bahşişi was given to members of the Enderun following a mevlid; Ali Kemali Aksüt, Koçi Bey Risalesi (Istanbul: Vakit Matbaası, 1939), 82. The same situation might have been the case for the members of the imperial harem. TSMA D 2369/0001 (1138/1726). During the wedding ceremonies of Mustafa II and Ahmed III’s daughters, grooms offered gifts to female palace slaves (TSMA D 10590, quoted in Mehmet Arslan, “III. Ahmed’in Kızı Fatma Sultan’ın Dügünü ˘ Üzerine Bir Belge,” in Osmanlı Edebiyat-Tarih-Kültür Makaleleri, ed. Mehmet Arslan [Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2000], 545; TSMK, Hazine no: 1573/2, quoted in Mehmet Arslan, “II. Mustafa’nın kızları Ayşe Sultan ve Emine Sultan’ın Dügünleri ˘

74

The Imperial Harem and Its Residents

Çorlulu Ali Pasha, the latter offered gifts to the head treasurer of the Sultan and the Valide Sultan, to the mistress of laundry and her staff, and to the female slaves who were sent to Emine Sultan’s palace.168 Likewise, as reflected in the registers of velâdet-i hümâyun (imperial birth ceremonies), members of the imperial harem were presented with gifts following the birth of members of the dynasty.169 The education given to members of the imperial harem can also be evaluated in the context of patronage relations. As mentioned above and resembling what took place within the Enderun, female slaves received education in accordance with their capacities and position.170 Some harem residents received education in Islamic sciences, reading, calligraphy, sewing, and embroidery, as well as several branches of art such as literature, poetry,171 dance and music,172 shadow puppetry, and other theatrical skills.173 In addition, some female slaves had training in medical fields.174 Bobovi, who was a page in the

168

169 170

171 172

173

174

Üzerine Bir Belge,” Osmanlı Edebiyat-Tarih-Kültür Makaleler, 565; TSMA D 10591, quoted in Mehmet Arslan, “II. Mustafa’nın kızı Safiye Sultan’ın Dügünü ˘ Üzerine Bir Belge,” in Osmanlı Edebiyat-Tarih-Kültür Makaleler, ed. Mehmet Arslan [Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2000], 573–574). TSMK, Hazine no: 1573/2, quoted in Mehmet Arslan, “II. Mustafa’nın kızları Ayşe Sultan ve Emine Sultan’ın Dügünleri,” ˘ 565. TSMA D 974; D.BSM.d ¸ 1210 (1712). Angiolello offered information about the education given to male members in Mehmed II's palace (Angiolello, Historia Turchesca, 126). Bobovius described the training in the Enderun (Fisher and Fisher, “Topkapı Sarayı in the midseventeenth century: Bobovi’s description,” 77–79; Barnette Miller, The Palace School of Muhammed the Conqueror [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1941], 82; Necipoglu, ˘ Architecture, 111–112). About courses taken in the Enderun, see TSMA D 4783/1, quoted in Güngör, “Enderun Saray Mektebi’nde Has Oda Teşkilatı,” 111. This issue will be mentioned in Chapter 5. D’Ohsson, Tableau, IV, 421, 426; Tableau, VII, 64. For information about music education given to female palace slaves, see İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, “Osmanlılar Zamanında Saraylarda Musiki Hayatı,” Belleten, 41 (1977): 79– 115; Uzunçarşılı, Saray Teşkilatı, 150; Metin And, “Sanatçı Cariyeler,” Sanat Dünyamız 73 (1999): 69–77; Günnaz Özmutlu, “Harem Cariyelerinin Musiki ve Seyirlik Oyunlardaki Egitimleri ˘ (1677–1687),” 1033–1074. Usturacı Mehmed Çelebi provided puppet training to female palace slaves (hassa cariyes) in his house (İE. SM 10/949 (1090/1679). D’Ohsson noted that in the harems, women performed games and comedies in a stupid manner, almost always trying to counterfeit the Christians and to ridicule them. He added that sometimes women dressed up as men and took up the European costume to make their jokes even more piquant (D’ohsson, Tableau, IV, 412). Some have noted that Jewish women taught needlework to female members of the harem, or the secret of some excellent medical recipes for the healing of their

Relations within the Imperial Harem

75

Figure 1.4 “Women dancing in the Harem.” Aubry de la Motraye. A. De La Motraye’s Travels Through Europe, Asia and into Part of Africa (London: Printed for the author, 1723).

seventeenth century, stated that the primary aim of education in the harem was to teach Ottoman court culture and loyalty to the imperial household.175 The education given in the imperial harem was important when we take into consideration the future roles of female palace slaves following their transfer from the imperial court. As will be discussed in the following chapters, following their departure from the palace, these women were absorbed into the local communities with an intact “palace identity.” This allowed them both to establish social and communal relationships with people, especially with members of their

175

infirmities or the conservation of their health (Baudier, The History of the Serrail, 62; Guer, Moeurs et Usages, II, 34). D’ohsson noted that in many harems, only women practiced medicine. Even though women had little knowledge, he claimed, their long experience made them skillful. They were also in charge of childbirth (D’Ohsson, Tableau, IV, 319). Ali Ufkî Bey/Albertus Bobovius, Saray-ı Enderun Topkapı Sarayı’nda Yaşam, trans. Türkis Noyan, 76–77.

76

The Imperial Harem and Its Residents

neighborhood, and to represent court culture outside of the palace. The women were married primarily to members of the askeri class (members of the ruling elite), and it was thus important that they be trained properly, considering their future positions in the outside world. A statement used in one court register hints that some harem residents were trained as meticulously as one would train one’s own child (evladiyet üzere terbiye edib).176 This approach seems to have been informed by Islamic theory.177 There is no doubt that apart from the patronage relations, an emotional bond was formed among the members of the imperial court. Halberdiers of the Old Palace called each other ocakdaş, referring to their affiliation to the same institution.178 Similarly, the common harem experiences of the female slaves of various ages and standings strengthened their attachment to each other. Lost contact with their family members obviously strengthened these ties. It is difficult to reach into the emotional bonds that developed among women in the palace. However, during their palace service, feelings of sisterhood (ahiret kardeşligi) ˘ developed among the residents. Sarayî Okumuş Ayşe Hatun bint Abdullah was the adopted daughter (ma’nevî kız) of Hâcce Emetullah Hatun bint Abdullah bin Abdulmennan, who was herself previously the mistress of patients (hastalar ustası) in the Old Palace.179 Likewise, a moral and sometimes emotional bond was created between master and female slaves. Hadice Sultan (1768–1822) regarded her head treasurer, Dilpezir Hanım, as her daughter.180 The depiction of the harem as an always harmonious institution would be misleading, though. Exceptional situations and distressed relationships certainly existed. Several records across various time periods reflect examples of intrigue, hatred, and competition. Thievery was another fact in the imperial harem. Indeed, it is said that a fire was set in the New Palace in 1665 in order to conceal jewelry thievery in the harem.181 In sum, a reconstruction of the harem hierarchy and an examination of the network of relationships that developed in the harem are critical 176 177

178 179 180 181

Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 120, pp. 111, 116 (1143/1731). Master is recommended to train his/her female slave in a proper way (Brunschvig, “Abd,” EI2, I, 25). Saka, Risale-i Teberdariye, 196. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 193, p. 51a (1188/1774). C. SM 6268 (1212/1797); C. SM 3317 (1227/1812). Shirley, The history of the state of the present war, 301.

Relations within the Imperial Harem

77

for understanding how manumitted female palace slaves maintained their ties with the imperial court over the longer term. This will serve as a point of departure into the investigation of the lives of these women as they left the harem, which will be addressed in detail in the following chapters. As I discuss in the next chapter, the slave’s transfer from the palace through manumission did not end her relationship with the imperial court, but rather established a new type of relationship that lasted until her death. Having completed their service period in the imperial harem, female palace slaves were manumitted and transferred from the palace to begin a new life in society. The next chapter examines the process of transfer from the palace and the relationship with the imperial court following these former slaves’ transfer from the palace.

|

2

Departure from the Imperial Palace and Changing Relationships with the Imperial Court

There were several career paths available for female slaves within the Ottoman imperial harem. Only a small group was linked directly to the sultan, serving as his concubines or consorts. Some slaves rose within the harem service and were, eventually, promoted to one of its administrative offices. The majority, who held lower-status positions, were manumitted after serving for a period of time and then left the imperial harem at the New Palace, the Old Palace, or at other imperial palaces, such as Edirne Palace. The present chapter examines the process of manumission of female palace slaves and their departure from the palace (çırag) ˘ from various angles. It also explores the extent of their later relationship with the imperial court. This chapter demonstrates how, contrary to commonly held belief, their departure from the palace did not mean an end to their relationship with the imperial court, but rather signaled the creation of a new kind of relationship between the two parties that continued in various ways throughout their lives. The chapter examines the various ways and factors that enabled manumitted female palace slaves to continue their bonds with the imperial court. It argues that the continuation of the women’s relationship with the imperial court paved the way for the continuity of the patronage relationships throughout their lives, and that this situation was loaded with various implications for both the palace women and the imperial court.

Manumission and Transfer (Çırag) ˘ from the Imperial Palaces Available sources provide detailed information about the promotion and transfer of pages from the Enderun and their new appointments outside the imperial palace. There is, by contrast, little information that addresses the manumission of female palace slaves and their transfer from the imperial harem. Most likely, female slaves who left the imperial palace did so through manumission, as suggested in one 78

Manumission and Transfer (Çırag) ˘ from the Imperial Palaces

79

archival record that refers to “those women who were cared for, nourished and educated by the imperial court and [who were] later manumitted and left the palace.”1 According to Islamic law, there are a number of ways and occasions by which a slave could be manumitted.2 Since Islam encouraged manumission as a pious, meritorious act, in some cases slave owners granted freedom to their slaves in order to attain merit.3 Furthermore, freeing a slave was the appropriate way to gain forgiveness for certain wrongs, and those who committed certain sins should be penalized by emancipating their slaves. Other types of manumission included “mukâtaba” (formal contract),4 “tadbîr” (emancipation upon the master’s death),5 and “istilad/umm al-walad” (emancipation through childbirth).6 The available sources do not state what kind of manumission process each female palace slave experienced, yet certainly some women were manumitted through tadbir. For instance, according to the testament of Gülnuş Valide Sultan (d. 1715), she manumitted her four female slaves 1

2

3

4

5

6

“Saray-ı ismet-penah-ı Hümâyun perveriş-yâftelerinden iken i’tâk ve çırag˘ edilenler” (C. SM 7226 [1190/1776]). For information on this issue, see Brunschvig, “Abd,” EI2, I, 24–40; M. Akif Aydın, “Köle,” DİA, XXVI, 237–246; Erdem, Slavery in the Ottoman Empire, 152–153. Ebü’l-Hasan Burhaneddin Ali b. Ebi Bekr Merginani, The Hedaya or Guide: A Commentary on the Mussulman Laws, trans. Charles Hamilton (Karachi: Darul Ishaat, 1989), I, 420. Through a mukâtaba/kitaba, the master and the slave entered into a formal contract that allowed the slave to purchase his/her freedom, to the economic benefit of the master. The mukâtaba was a voluntary contract. It could not be imposed upon either party. Depending on the terms of the contract, the slave would pay for his/her freedom in cash, in goods, or in services. Such a slave was called mukâtab. A state of manumission was immediately recognized upon the signing of the contract, leading to manumission on the fulfilment of the agreed conditions. The mukatab was set free once when his/her payments had been completed, but importantly, the master was forbidden from selling the slave in the meantime. The tadbir was a declaration of freedom that would be recognized after the master’s death. A slave was promised manumission in return for his/her loyal services during the lifetime of the owner, and such a slave was called mudabbar. Tadbir itself is in principle irrevocable (The Hedaya or Guide: A Commentary on the Mussulman Laws, I, 475–478). The third path to freedom for the slave was istilad. If a slave brought forth a child begotten by her master or owner, she became an umm al-walad (mother of child). This made it unlawful for her master to dispose of her, because the prophet had said, “her child has set her free.” She became free on her master's death (J. Schacht, “Umm al-walad,” EI, X, 857–859).

80

Departure from and Changing Relationships with the Imperial Court

through tadbîr.7 Whatever the process of their manumission, female slaves who served in the imperial harem for a period of time eventually left the imperial palace. According to contemporary sources, the process of transfer from the palace was known by several different names: taşra ihraç olunmak, taşra çırag˘ çıkmak, çırag˘ olmak, çırag˘ çıkmak, çırag˘ edilmek, çıkma, çerag˘ edilmek. Women who left the imperial harem were referred to as Saray-ı Hümâyundan muhrec, saray mu’takası, Saray-ı Hümâyun çıraglarından, ˘ or çırak. The transfer practices themselves, which are more easily uncovered for the Enderun, should be taken into consideration in tracing the process by which female palace slaves transferred out of the palaces. In the Enderun, the practice of çıkma referred to the system according to which members of the Enderun could, at fixed intervals or at the accession of each new sultan, be promoted within the palace or transferred to outside service and employment. Therefore, çıkma could occasionally take place whenever new positions were made available to the candidates.8 During this process, senior pages in the Greater Chamber (büyük oda) and the Lesser Chamber (küçük oda) were promoted to higher chambers. The rest of the men left the palace and joined one of the six cavalry divisions. The higher chamber positions available to the senior pages, in order, included the Campaign Chamber (seferli), the Larder (kiler), and the Treasury (hazîne). The seniors already serving in those chambers could rise to a position within the Privy Chamber (has oda). While the transfer of female slaves from the imperial harem included manumission, pages in the Enderun were not necessarily slaves in the eighteenth century: freeborn Muslims are found in the Enderun by then.9 Transfers out of the imperial palace took place at various lifestages for members of both the Enderun and the imperial harem. In the Enderun, some pages left at an early age, while others reached the Privy Chamber and then left the palace in their fifties for an outside service. Those female slaves who served in the imperial harem and 7 8

9

TSMA E 3941, quoted in İpşirli Argıt, Rabia Gülnuş Emetullah Sultan, 61. For information about the Enderun, see İsmail Baykal, Enderun Mektebi Tarihi, 53, 64; İnalcık, The Classical Age, 79–84; Ülker Akkutay, Enderun Mektebi (Ankara: Gazi Üniversitesi Egitim ˘ Fakültesi, 1984), 120; Uzunçarşılı, Saray Teşkilâtı, 336–339. The children of many noble families entered the Enderun in the eighteenth century (Baykal, Enderun Mektebi Tarihi, 70).

Manumission and Transfer (Çırag) ˘ from the Imperial Palaces

81

could not rise in the hierarchy (described in more detail in Chapter 1) were transferred from the palace. Others continued to serve in the imperial harems, rose in the hierarchy, and became administrative officers. There is no agreement among scholars about the standard length of a female slave’s service period. The historian Na‘îmâ noted that Kösem Sultan was inclined to free her female slaves after only two or three years of service,10 although it was frequently recommended that a Muslim slave should be freed after seven years of service.11 Even contemporaries disagreed: Aubry de la Motraye noted that concubines (odalisques) gained their freedom after seven or eight years of service in the imperial harem,12 while D’Ohsson stated that many of the slave girls of the Seraglio could gain their freedom after just a few years of service.13 At the accession ceremony of each new sultan, there was a çıkma involving most members of the Enderun and the Harem.14 This was mainly due to the concern to create a new cadre of female slaves who would be loyal to the new sultan. This concern is understandable, considering the fact that loyalty was the main building block in the political households, as described briefly in Introduction. According to Na’îmâ’s account, following the enthronement of Mehmed IV in 1648, all female slaves and consorts of the previous Sultan Ibrahim were sent to the Old Palace.15 Na‘îmâ also noted that in Ottoman court language, this event was called the great çıkma (büyük çıkma).16 Sometimes, following enthronement, female slaves were sent first to the Old Palace and some were then transferred from there. On same the day that Kösem Sultan died, for example, all of her female slaves were sent to the Old Palace and then transferred from there with allowances in 10 11

12 13 14

15

Na’îmâ, Tarih, III, 1329. Brunschvic, “Abd,” EI2, I, 31. Habesci noted that slaves obtained their freedom after seven years (Habesci, The Present State, 397). G. A. Olivier noted the period of slavery as nine years (G. A. Olivier, Voyage dans l’Empire Othoman, l’ Égypte et la Perse [Paris, 1803], I, 175). The service period of seven to nine years was also the case in the nineteenth century (Erdem, Slavery in the Ottoman Empire, 154–156). On the other hand, Abdulhamid II’s daughter Ayşe Sultan writes that the service period for female slaves was three years (Ayşe Osmanoglu, ˘ Babam Abdülhamid [Istanbul: Güven Yayınevi, 1960], 99). Aubry de la Motraye, Aubry de la Motraye’s Travels, I, 249. D’ohsson, Tableau, I, ix–x. İ. H. Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Devleti Teşkilâtından Kapukulu Ocakları (Ankara: TTK 1988), II, 143; Uzunçarşılı, Saray Teşkilâtı, 338. 16 Na’îmâ, Tarih, III, 1172. Na’îmâ, Tarih, I, 326.

82

Departure from and Changing Relationships with the Imperial Court

cash and in kind. Shortly thereafter, these women were married to suitable men.17 Another reason for female slaves’ departure from the palace was to reduce expenses. According to historian Silâhdar Fındıklılı Mehmed Aga, ˘ when Sultan Mehmed was deposed (r. 1648–1687), his consort Gülnâr Sultan and his female slave Afife Kadın were sent to the Old Palace, and two hundred other slaves were transferred to reduce the expenses faced by his successor.18 In other cases, female palace slaves were transferred from the palace to prevent the establishment of alliances between high-status palace women and members of the imperial harem. This situation reflects the existence of cliques in the palace. For instance, Kösem Sultan, mother of both Murad IV (r. 1623–1640) and Ibrahim (r. 1640–1648), warned black eunuchs not to interfere in harem affairs, and she transferred the female slaves of these black eunuchs out of the harem; some of them were manumitted and the rest were sent to the slave market and sold.19 It would be wrong, however, to assume that all female slaves either left or were promoted within the imperial palaces. Some died during their harem service. The sixteenth-century chronicler Mustafa Selânikî noted that, in 1598, 150 people died from plague in the Old Palace, including Murad III’s daughters, female slaves, and some eunuchs (tavâşî).20 An expense register dated to the early eighteenth century also states that an amount of money was allocated to the burial expenses of female slaves who had died in the Old Palace.21 Some female slaves were exiled due to some faults during their stay in the imperial harem. The story of the famous Sekerpare ¸ Hatun is just one example of women whose lives ended in misery. Sekerpare ¸ Hatun was one of Kösem Sultan’s female slaves, and later she became a companion of Sultan Ibrahim. Sekerpare ¸ had great influence in the harem and attained great wealth, apparently through bribery. A dispute arose between her and Kösem Sultan due to this bribery, 17 18

19 20

21

Na‘îmâ, Tarih, III, 1343. Silâhdar Fındıklılı Mehmed Aga, ˘ Silâhdar Tarihi (Istanbul: Devlet Matbaası, 1928), II, 298. Saka, Risale-i Teberdariye, 139. Selânikî, Târih-i Selânikî, II, 760, 762. The impact of plague was also mentioned in Formanti’s account (Formanti, Raccolta delle historiae delle vite degli imperatori ottomani sino a Mehemet IV regnante, 92). TSMA E 153-2 (1124/1712).

Manumission and Transfer (Çırag) ˘ from the Imperial Palaces

83

and finally Sekerpare ¸ was exiled to the island of Chios in May 1648.22 An event mentioned by the eighteenth-century chronicler Sem’dânî¸ zâde Fındıklılı Süleyman Efendi provides another example: Nurbanu Sultan, mother of Sultan Murad III, claimed that some women had cast a spell on Murad at the request of Safiye Sultan, Murad’s consort. Nurbanu Sultan ordered that these women be tortured and then exiled.23 Other female palace slaves were also exiled to Chios, Cyprus, or Bursa.24 Unlike Sekerpare’s ¸ and Safiye’s exceptional cases, though, the available sources do not usually allow us to know why these women were exiled. The sources do reveal, though, that some girls were killed as punishment. According to Na’îmâ, in 1642, the sword bearer husband of Kaya Sultan (daughter of Murad IV) was murdered. A companion (musâhibe) in the harem, who was his sympathizer, was also strangled.25 According to John Cam Hobhouse, Grand vizier Bairaktar (Alemdar Mustafa Pasha who became grand vizier following the enthronement of Mahmud II) diminished the harem establishment by drowning more than a hundred odalisques of Sultan Mustafa’s (r. 1807–1808) harem, instead of removing them, as was usually the custom to the Old Palace.26 Some other European accounts tell of female slaves who were bound and then thrown into the sea. Ottoviano Bon (d. 1622) noted that women of the palace could be punished very severely for their faults. If they proved disobedient, incorrigible, and insolent, they were sent to the Old Palace by the sultan’s order and stripped of most of their possessions. If they were accused of being engaged with witchcraft or any similar act, they were bound hand and foot, put into a sack, and thrown into the sea during the night. Bon added that if female slaves wanted to come to a good end, they had to contain themselves within the bounds of honesty, chastity, and good behavior.27 22 24

25 27

23 Na’îmâ, Tarih, III, 1137–1138. Öksüz, “Sem’dânîzâde,” ¸ 55. A female slave named Bad-ı Seher was exiled to Cyprus (C. SM 65/3273 [1146/ 1733]; C. SM 13/691 [1170/1756]). During the reign of Mustafa III, a female slave was exiled to Bursa and another to the Island of Chios (C. SM 13/681 [1170/1756]). 26 Na’îmâ, Tarih, III, 958. Hobhouse, A Journey through, I, 853. Ottaviano Bon-Robert Withers, A description of the grand signour’s seraglio, 55. This issue is also mentioned by Baudier, who drew from Bon’s account (Baudier, The History of the Serrail, 65). Likewise, several other authors noted that girls who were found to have engaged in improper behavior were thrown

84

Departure from and Changing Relationships with the Imperial Court

Age at the Time of Transfer from the Imperial Palace Since there was neither a standard age at which slaves entered the palace nor a fixed length of service, it is difficult estimate the standard age at which women were transferred from the harem. A comparison with the meticulously recorded practices of the Enderun may give some idea. Members of the Enderun left the palace at various ages. The author of Letaif-i Enderun, Hafız Hızır İlyas, was born in 1804 and served in the Enderun between 1812 and 1831, leaving at the age of twentyeight. Hocazade Mehmed, known as Silâhdar Mehmed Agha (d. 1723), entered palace service at the age of fifteen and requested retirement from the Privy Chamber (has oda) in 1704 at the age of forty-five.28 The age at the time of transfer out of the imperial harem likewise differed from woman to woman, according to status. According to the account of Benedetto Ramberti, girls in the palace served and were educated up to the age of twenty-five.29 Abdulhamid I wrote to his vizier to offer his female slave, who was fifteen years old and had been meticulously educated in the palace, to the vizier’s son.30 Some administrative officers, such as the kethüda or head treasurer, stayed on much longer in their service to the imperial harem. Some estate registers record which sultans freed which female palace slaves. This helps us to evaluate the time period between the female slave’s transfer from the palace and the registery of her estate following her death. For some palace women, about fifty years passed between their transfer from the palace and the date of their estate record. For instance, Ahmed III (d. 1736) manumitted Sarayî Hâcce Gevher Hatun, but her estate record was dated 1779, meaning that, at a minimum, forty-three years had passed since her manumission.31

28

29

30

into the sea, tied together as guilty couples (Histoire Generale des Turcs, II, 31; de Burgo, Viaggio, 377; M. Jouvin de Rochefort, Le Voyageur d’europe ou est le voyage de Turqui, qui comprend la terre sainte et l’egypte [Paris: Claude Barbin, 1676], 213; Habesci, The Present State, 171; Melling, “Intérieur d’une Partie du Harem du Grand-Seigneur,” there is no pagination). Mehmet Topal, “Silahdar Fındıklılı Mehmed Aga, ˘ Nusretname: Tahlil ve Metin (1106–1123/1695–1721),” Ph.D diss., Marmara University, 2001, 670; Türkal, “Silahdar Fındıklılı Mehmed Aga ˘ Zeyli Fezleke,” XIX. Ramberti, Libri tre delle, in Lybyer, The Government, 253–254. This issue was also mentioned in Heberer, Osmanlıda Bir Köle, 239. 31 TSMA E 7029. D.BSM.MHF ¸ 63-25.

Manumission and Transfer (Çırag) ˘ from the Imperial Palaces

85

The estate record of another woman manumitted by Ahmed III, Ümmü Gülsüm Hatun, was dated 1780.32 The aforementioned Sungur wrote to Selim III in 1791 and stated that she had been taken to the Palace at the age of five; she had served three sultans and had been manumitted by Hadice Sultan the elder. Since Hadice Sultan the elder, daughter of Mehmed IV, died in 1743, most probably Sungur had served in the imperial harem throughout the reigns of Mustafa II, Ahmed III, and Mahmud I.33 Examining the household size of these women to determine if they had any children could also be used to estimate their age at manumission. Studies that look at the complex connections between the age of females at marriage and fertility patterns have concluded that, historically, the age at which women married was a major fertilityregulating mechanism. There was thus a correlation between age at marriage and family size.34 The estate records belonging to manumitted female palace slaves are valuable sources in revealing the inheritors and therefore the number of children surviving these women. It is interesting to note, though, that the percentage of manumitted female palace slaves who had children is very low (only 18.7 percent); of these, most had only one child. According to the examined court records and estate inventories (muhallefat), of 342 married former palace slaves who lived in different periods of the eighteenth century, only 64 had children. These numbers are surprisingly low when we compare them against another group of women who were not affiliated to the palace, such as those recorded in the Kısmet-i Askeriyye court registers of the seventeenth century, among whom very few did not have children. In seventeenth-century Istanbul, almost three-quarters of women had children (73 percent of a sample of 1,728).35 While it is not possible 32

33 34

35

Bab-ı Defteri Haremeyn Muhasebesi Haremeyn Muhallefatı (D.HMH. MHF), 33–47. Çetin, “Muhtaç Bir Cariyenin Sultan III. Selim’e Arzuhali,” 37–39. For a detailed evaluation in this subject, see Cem Behar-Alan Duben, The Households of İstanbul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 76. Said Öztürk, “Tereke Defterlerine Göre XVIII. Asırda İstanbul’da Aile Nüfusu, Servet Yapısı ve Dagılımı,” ˘ İstanbul Araştırmaları 3 (1997): 21–58. In Konya, the percentage of those who did not have children was only 7.4 percent in the first half of the eighteenth century (Hayri Erten, Konya Ser’iyye ¸ Sicilleri Işıgında ˘ Ailenin Sosyo-Ekonomik ve Kültürel Yapısı (XVIII. Y.Y. İlk Yarısı) [Ankara: Kültür Bakanlıgı, ˘ 2001], 95).

86

Departure from and Changing Relationships with the Imperial Court

to generalize the upper age limit for fertility in eighteenth-century Ottoman society, such information was meticulously recorded for the sultans’ daughters: very few gave birth after their late twenties.36 If they followed the same patterns, manumitted palace slaves’ later age at marriage might have been a natural limit to their fertility.

Names Following Transfer from the Palace and the Title of Sarayî /Saraylı37 Men who left the Enderun typically possessed Arabic names. The court records related to the manumitted female palace slaves who had been transferred from the imperial palace reveal that the great majority of women had Arabic names. Especially common were names belonging to women of Prophet Muhammed’s immediate family.38 Other former female palace slaves assumed Persian names. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi ˘ court registers reveal that some women had both an Arabic and a Persian name, such as “Sarayî Cilve, also known as (nam-ı diger) ˘ Ayşe”; “Sarayî Necef, also known as Saliha”; “Sarayî Hadice, also known as Gülbün”; “Sarayî Aşub, also known as Rukiye Hatun”; “Eglence, ˘ also known as Fatma”; “İltifat, also known as Zeynep”; or “Cilve, also known as Ümmü Gülsüm Hatun.” Following their transfer from the palace, some women might have taken prestigious Arabic names suitable to their new free identity. Several examples reveal that some female slaves were given new names following their manumission. For instance, one of Murad V’s women, named Reftaridil, had a sister named Ceylan. Ceylan was purchased by Doctor Mehmed Emin Pasha and renamed Melek upon her manumission.39 In a similar way, some manumitted female palace slaves altered 36

37

38

39

For instance, Ümmü Gülsüm Sultan, daughter of Ahmed III, gave birth at the age of twenty-four (Yılmaz Öztuna, Devletler ve Hanedanlar: Türkiye 1074–1990, II [Ankara: Kültür Bakanlıgı ˘ Yayınları, 1996], II, 227); Ayşe Sultan, daughter of Ahmed III, was twenty-nine years old (Öztuna, Devletler ve Hanedanlar, II, 231); Saliha Sultan, daughter of Mahmud II, was twenty-six years old (Öztuna, Devletler ve Hanedanlar; II, 257). The term sarayî/saraylı referred to those women who were brought up in the imperial palace and connected to the palace. In an extremely rare example, it is stated that a sarayî woman who had been named as Mahbülend during her stay in the palace, was currently known as Sarayî Safiye Hatun (Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 61, p. 12 [1085/1674]). Uluçay, Padişahın Kadınları ve Kızları, 167. Information stated in one of the novels of Samiha Ayverdi makes us suspect that some women might have taken

Relationship with the Imperial Court after Departure from the Palace

87

or gave new names to their own female slaves upon their manumission. For instance, Sarayî Sehbaz ¸ manumitted her slave named Eglence ˘ (entertainment) by giving her a new and prestigious name, Fatma, a name belonging to the daughter of Prophet Muhammed.40 The giving of new names to slaves was an important aspect of their transition from the palace, since it reflected the movement out of a private sphere into a public life open to other segments of contemporary society. Adopting more honorable Arabic names that were typically given to freeborn women, and that belonged to women of Prophet Muhammad’s immediate family, could be regarded as a symbol of starting a new life with a free identity. Following their transfer from the palace, manumitted female palace slaves used the title sarayî or saraylı, which denoted their affiliation to the imperial court. Since the social status and identity of a slave was closely identified with his or her master’s position in society, adding the sarayî title to their names maintained their connection to a prestigious, powerful household even after they had left it. Therefore, the term sarayî referred not only to the place from which they had graduated but also to their continued affiliation with the imperial court.41

Relationship with the Imperial Court Following Departure from the Palace Manumitted female palace slaves started a new life in urban society with a new identity following their transfer from the palace.42 As noted above, this manumission and transfer did not break women’s ties with the imperial court, but rather allowed them to take a different shape.

40 41

42

new names in their marriages. It is stated that Terânedil Kalfa’s marriage name (nikâh ismi) was Emine (Samiha Ayverdi, İbrâhim Efendi Konagı ˘ [Istanbul: İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti, 1964]). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 109, pp. 20, 22, 25 (1129/1716). In Mamluk society, clients were identified with their patron to the extent of adopting his sobriquet laqab (David Ayalon, “Names, titles and ‘nisbas’ of the Mamlûks,” in The Mamlûk Military Society: Collected Studies [London: Variorum Reprints, 1979], IV, 213–219). Members of the household carried the sobriquet of the household head. On this, see Hathaway, The Politics of Households, 23. Muslim jurists described slavery using powerful metaphors of illness and death. They regarded manumission as a resurrection for the enslaved person who had lost his or her original condition of freedom (Shaun Marmon, “Slavery, Islamic World,” Dictionary of the Middle Ages [New York: Scribner, 1988], XI, 332).

88

Departure from and Changing Relationships with the Imperial Court

Dilpezir, for example, was head treasurer for Hadice Sultan, Selim III’s sister. Upon her manumission, Dilpezir left the palace in 1797. Documents dated 1807 and 1812 indicate, though, that Dilpezir was still affiliated with Hadice Sultan (Hadice Sultan mensubu).43 There was thus a special bond between a master and his/her apprentice (çırag/ ˘ çırak) in Ottoman society. Ottoman chronicles provide valuable information regarding the functioning and implications of the patronage relationship, what it meant to be a person’s protégé, and how protégés were regarded in society. For instance, during a dethronement attempt, Sultan Ibrahim said to the agha of the janissary, “aren’t you my protégé (çırag), ˘ let’s see how you will struggle for me.”44 In another case, Mustafa II had a special bond with Çorlulu Ali Pasha. Mustafa wanted to ensure that his brother Ahmed III patronized Çorlulu Ali Pasha and thus reminded Ahmed of his own special bond with Ali Pasha, stating Ali Pasha was his son-in-law and his çırag. ˘ 45 Likewise, according to the Silahdar’s account, Ahmed III chose Baltacı Mehmed Pasha as his grand vizier because Mehmed Pasha was his çırag, ˘ and 46 thus would serve him as he wished. Some manumitted female slaves continued to visit the imperial palace, such as to attend ceremonies related to the dynasty. They also participated in the network of gift exchange.47 Obviously, not having contact with their natal family strengthened the already existing ties between the former slaves and the imperial court. Continuing relationships among members of the court fostered group solidarity and the idea of belonging to a household. Legal bonds strengthened the already established patronage relationship, especially the inheritance relationship that arose between the manumitter and the freed slave person. While the service, loyalty, and affection of the manumitted slaves to their households continued, they also still enjoyed patronage of various kinds, as discussed below.48 43 45 46 47 48

44 C. SM 66/3317 (C. Ahir 1227/1812). Na‘îmâ, Tarih, III, 1162. Anonim Osmanlı Tarihi, (1099–1116/1688–1704), 270. Topal, “Silahdar Fındıklılı Mehmed Aga,” ˘ 684. Zorlutuna, “XVII. Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında,” 293. For several examples, see Metin Kunt, “Kulların Kulları,” 29; Jane Hathaway, “The Military Household in Ottoman Egypt,” IJMES 27 (1995): 43; Mohammed Ennaji, Serving the Master: Slavery and Society in Nineteenth Century, trans. Seth Graebner (New York: St. Martins’s Press, 1999); David Ayalon, “Mamluk,” In Slavery in the Islamic Middle East, ed. Shaun Marmon, 89–117; Yvonne Seng, “Fugitives and Factotums: Slaves in Early Sixteenth-

Relationship with the Imperial Court after Departure from the Palace

89

Material and Moral Support (Hacet Kapısı) Affiliation with the imperial court provided manumitted palace slaves with lasting protection and assistance. The court functioned as a petition gate (hacet kapısı) whenever palace women found themselves in need of material or moral support, for example, even following their transfer from the palace.49 In return for their services, these women were protected against harsh economic and social realities and were assigned cash allowances. Of the sixteenth century, Stephan Gerlach wrote that girls who were married off and left the palace were given clothes, money, and assigned salaries.50 According to the account of the historian Na’îmâ, the death of Kösem Sultan resulted in her female slaves first being transferred to the Old Palace and then each given an assignment of cash from Kösem Sultan’s property as well as two chests full of goods.51 The archival records also show that salary assignments continued to be made until the end of the empire. To give but two examples among many: Fatma Kadın, manumitted slave of Sultan Ahmed, was assigned four akçe per day,52 while a female slave of Hibetullah Sultan named Saide Kalfa was assigned a salary from the treasury.53 The registers of harc-ı hassa and ceyb-i hümâyun, as well as individual archival registers, give further evidence of money and goods being given to manumitted female palace slaves as benefactions.54 Na'îmâ noted that

49

50

51 53 54

Century Istanbul,” JESHO 39 (1996): 148. Similarly, according to Jewish law, the freed slave continued to be a part of the family (S. D. Goitein, A Mediterranean Society, The Jewish Communities of the World as Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza, The Individual (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), V, 150). This situation is parallel to what James Scott notes about patron–client relations, according to which the patron is expected to support the client in making a living (James Scott, “Patronage and Exploitation?,” in Patrons and Clients in Mediterranean Societies, ed. E.Gellner and J. Waterbury [London: Duckworth, 1977], 23). Stephan Gerlach, Türkiye Günlügü ˘ 1577–1578, trans. Türkis Noyan, ed. Kemal Beydilli (Istanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2006), II, 637. 52 Na’îmâ, Tarih, III, 1343. C.SM 58/2947 (1158/1745). C.SM 54/2701 (1258/1836). For information about about benevolence given during the time of Mustafa II, see Mustafa (TSMA D 2350-0005 [1695]; C. SM 56/2838 [1145/1732]). For benefaction of money to manumitted palace slaves in the reign of Ahmed III, see TSMA D 2369. For information about benevolence given in the reign of Mustafa III, see TSMA D 2408/0077.

90

Departure from and Changing Relationships with the Imperial Court

Kösem Sultan married her manumitted slaves to suitable men and then favored these men with good employment opportunities. She also looked after each of her manumitted slaves with allowances in cash, on religious bairams, and in other holy days.55 Sometimes, palace women made requests to the imperial court for property and allowances. A woman named Dilber Peyker, a female slave of Abdulmecid (r. 1839–1861), demanded a house since she was in need.56 The allocation of food and wood, as well as the bestowal of goods, to women who departed from the imperial palace reveals another dimension of their ongoing relationships.57 In addition to financial requests, palace women sometimes asked for the moral support that parents would otherwise provide. For instance, Habibe Hatun, who was manumitted by a daughter of Ahmed III named Saliha Sultan, died and her estate was shared by her husband, her son, and a young daughter named Serife ¸ Fatma. Later, Habibe Hatun’s husband and son also passed away. The grandparents of the young girl demanded help from Fatma Hanım Sultan, Saliha Sultan’s daughter. They claimed that since they already had their own heirs, in addition to this young girl, they were afraid that the inheritance of this girl might be wasted. The grandparents requested Fatma Hanım Sultan to be a guardian for Serife ¸ Fatma’s inheritance. The grandparents may have chosen Fatma Hanım Sultan simply because of her relation to Saliha Sultan, who had been their daughter’s master. Fatma Hanım Sultan agreed to act as guardian for the young girl’s inheritance until she reached puberty.58 The preference of Fatma Hanım Sultan for the protection of the orphan’s inheritance is important in revealing the character of the relationship that relied on trust, even following the former slave’s departure from the imperial harem. This story of young Serife ¸ Fatma is striking from various aspects, showing as it does that people continued to bear responsibilities even toward the freed slaves 55 56

57

58

Na’îmâ, Tarih, III, 1329. Yıldız Perakende Evrakı Arzuhal Jurnal (Y.PRK. AZJ) 3/91 (27 Saban ¸ 1297/ 1880). For food allocations of freed slaves (çırag) ˘ of the sultan and his mother, see KK 7254 (1218/1803). For wood allocations for Dilpezir Hanım, a freed slave (çıragı) ˘ of Hadice Sultan, see C. SM 125/6268 (1212/1798). For information about goods bestowed upon a female slave who left the imperial harem during the reign of Ahmed III, see TSMA D 2354/0004; 2355; 2357; for the fabrics given to manumitted female place slaves, see TSMA D 17 (7 Sevval ¸ 1124/1712). D.BSM. ¸ MHF 49-46.

Relationship with the Imperial Court after Departure from the Palace

91

of their parents. From another perspective, the story of Serife ¸ Fatma reveals that even following the death of a palace-affiliated woman, her relatives continued to maintain a relationship with the relatives of her previous master. In some cases, palace women applied to the imperial court for marriage assistance. According to Islamic law, the manumitter might act as a marriage guardian for his/her freed women or freedmen’s daughter.59 On this, we have a nineteenth-century example: a palace slave’s parents asked her master to marry their daughter to one of their relatives.60 Court records reveal that some palace women received medical assistance from the imperial court. Sarayî Sakire ¸ Hatun lost her mind during her stay in the imperial harem. First she was cured in the Haseki Sultan hospital (Daruşşifa) and then later, in 1774, she was sent to live in the house of Ahmed Halife, Aga ˘ babası of the Old Palace, in the Molla Hüsrev neighborhood.61 Sarayî Hadice Hatun, manumitted by Sultan Mahmud I and living in Molla Gürani neighborhood, was mentally ill. She was transferred to the Haseki hospital (bîmarhâne) by imperial head physician (ser etibbâ-i hassa), and it was ordered that she would be cured under surveillance of the chief physician (hekimbaşı).62 As these short examples show, affiliation with the imperial court palace gave manumitted slaves and their descendants access to authority that they could rely on for ongoing protection and assistance.

Relations with Members of the Imperial Court Imperial court affiliation also provided manumitted female slaves with continued access to a large network comprised of members with shared 59

60 61

62

Patricia Crone, Roman, Provincial and Islamic Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 37. BOA, Meclis-i Vâlâ Riyâseti Belgeleri (MVL) 437/30 (1280/1864). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 193, p. 73a; nr. 194, p. 44a (1188/1774). It seems that Sakire ¸ Hatun was later sent to the Haseki Sultan hospital and passed away there. For the inheritance register of Sakire ¸ Hatun who died in the Haseki Sultan hospital, see Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 198, p. 40ab (1191/ 1777). For detailed information about imperial hospitals, see Miri SheferMossensohn, Ottoman Medicine: Healing and Medical Institutions, 1500–1700 (Albany: SUNY Press, 2009). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 195, pp. 100a, 100b, 101a (1190/1776).

92

Departure from and Changing Relationships with the Imperial Court

experiences.63 Members of the imperial court possessed a marked sense of common identity and group feeling, which continued even following the transfer of individuals from the palace.64 This strong and lively network encompassed a large circle of people who were, in one way or another, members of the imperial court. Palace women regarded each other as yoldaş, or companion. ElHâcce Sarayî Fatma, who had been the mistress of the table service (çaşnigir usta) in the imperial harem and later started to live in Medina, called other sarayî women staying with her in Medina yoldaş.65 This was also the case for male members of the imperial court. Bobovius noted that pages in the Enderun called themselves “kardaş” (brother) or “canım” (my soul).66 Members of the Enderun supported and protected each other, not only during their term of office in the Palace, but also when they were appointed to other positions.67 It thus would be wrong to assume that this kind of network of social relationships existed only among palace women. Members of the imperial court, both male and female, had interconnections. For instance, Sarayî Fatma called İsmail Kâmil, who was the scribe of the Chief Black Eunuch, my brother (karındaşım).68 Court records provide us with some information regarding the nature of the relationships among palace women of varied status. 63

64

65 66

67

68

The term “group feeling” is used for the sense of solidarity within groups (Kenneth Brown, “Changing Forms of Patronage in Moroccan City,” in Patrons and Clients in Mediterranean Societies, eds. Ernest Gellner-John Waterbury [London: Duckworth, 1977], 313). This situation resembles what Boissevain regards as a “clique.” Members of a “clique” associate with each other on the basis of affection and common identity and possess a marked sense of group identity (Jeremy Boissevain, Friends of Friends: Networks, Manipulators and Coalitions [Oxford: St. Martin’s Press, 1974], 174–175). BOA, Sadâret Mektubî Kalemi (A.MKT) 520/75 (1214/1799). Fisher and Fisher, “Topkapı Sarayı in the mid-seventeenth century: Bobovi’s description,” 81. Metin Kunt notes that kuls were loyal to their own kapı and to other kuls (Metin Kunt, “Osmanlı Dirlik-Kapı Düzeni ve Kul Kimligi,” ˘ in Tarih Egitimi ˘ ve Tarihte ‘Öteki’ Sorunu; 2. Uluslararası Tarih Kongresi (8–10 Haziran 1995: İstanbul), ed. Ali Berktay-Hamdi Can Tuncer [Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1998], 166; Kunt, “Ethnic-Regional (Cins) Solidarity in the Seventeenth-Century Ottoman Establishment,” International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 5 [1974]: 233–239). Similarly, in eighteenth-century Egypt, there were ties and alliances between those comrades in servitude (Fay, “The Ties That Bound,” 155–172). A.MKT 520/75.

Relationship with the Imperial Court after Departure from the Palace

93

One involved looking after each other following their departure from the palace. Some women were called çıkmabaşı, and were assigned the duty of guiding women who left the imperial harem after them.69 A court register dated 1716 suggests that a person named Sarayî Hadice bint Abdullah had such a responsibility toward other manumitted female palace slaves who had recently left the palace. According to this record, Sarayî Halime bint Abdullah appeared in the law court to confront Sarayî Hadice bint Abdullah who was living in the same neighborhood as Halime. According to the register, Sarayî Halime bint Abdullah stated that that she had been manumitted by valide sultan, and after leaving the palace she had gone to Sarayî Hadice’s house, as was customary (mutad oldugu ˘ üzere). Sarayî Halime added that since she wanted to marry, she assigned Hadice as proxy to buy her trousseau, a house, and a female slave and provide her with money. Halime Hatun noted that her account with Sarayî Hadice has not been settled yet and she demanded to have the issue settled. In response, Hadice listed the goods that she had purchased at Halime’s request, along with their prices.70 Credit relationships between members of the imperial court were another form of connection. In 1707, Sarayî Odalık Ayşe Hatun bint Abdullah bin Abdurrahman borrowed 500 kuruş from Sarayî Sadıka Hatun. One year later, Sarayî Odalık Ayşe Hatun passed away and Sarayî Sadıka Hatun appeared in a law court to receive 500 kuruş from Ayşe Hatun’ estate.71 A relationship also existed between manumitted female palace slaves who left the palace and those who still served in the imperial harem. For instance, some of the manumitted female palace slaves assigned members of the imperial court as their proxies and guardians. For example, Sarayî Hâcce Emetullah Hatun bint Abdullah bin Abdülmennan, previously mistress of patients (hastalar ustası) in the Old Palace, 69

70

71

Likewise, a person named çıkmabaşı was responsible with çıkmas of Enderun and he guided them (Uzunçarşılı, Saray Teşkilâtı, 337). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 106, p. 27 (1129/1716–1717). In a similar way, an informal solidarity and support organization existed among freed black females in the nineteenth century. Their community leader was a manumitted African woman qualified as kolbaşı (Erdem, Slavery in the Ottoman Empire, 173–176). For information about kolbaşı who lived in Kasap İlyas Neighborhood, see Cem Behar, A Neighborhood in Ottoman Istanbul: Fruit Vendors and Civil Servants in the Kasap İlyas Mahalle (Albany: SUNY Press, 2003), 144–145. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 109, p. 86.

94

Departure from and Changing Relationships with the Imperial Court

was living in Medina. Sarayî Okumuş Ayşe Hatun bint Abdullah was her adopted daughter. Emetullah Hatun entrusted some precious jewelry to Okumuş Hatun, most probably before going to Medina. When Okumuş Hatun passed away, Emetullah Hatun wanted to take back her jewelry. She assigned the chief administrative officer of the imperial harem as her proxy. The chief officer, in turn, assigned personnel responsible for the coffee service as her proxy, and then one of the halberdiers of the Old Palace named Ali Efendi bin Mehmed was assigned as a further proxy. Halberdier Ali Efendi appeared in court to confront Okumuş Hatun’s husband and demand that Emetullah’s jewelry be returned. Eventually, the jewelry was acquired and held by Emetullah’s proxy.72 Another way of strengthening the relationship between members of the imperial court was through bequests and waqfs. As will be discussed in Chapter 6, through endowments, some palace women secured both the interest of members of the imperial court and enhanced their wellbeing. The practice of bequests was realized among the members of the imperial court both during their stay in the palace and following their transfer from it. These activities helped strengthen the existing relationship among members of the imperial court and sustain common identity of being affiliated to the court. Palace-affiliated women made bequests to members of the imperial household who were not always inferior or equal status but, in some cases, were persons of higher status. For instance, when Sultan Osman II (r. 1618–1622) arrived in Edirne, a woman named Hoşelhan who had been previously transferred from the palace donated her land in the vicinity of the Bayezid Mosque and Tunca River to the Sultan; this grant then became an imperial garden (hadâik-i hassa).73 Sarayî Simten Kadın, a wealthy woman who lived in the eighteenth century, donated her land to Sineperver Kadın bint Abdülkerim, who was the fourth consort in the imperial harem.74

72 73

74

Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 193, p. 51a (1188/1774). Rifat Osman, Edirne Sarayı, ed. Ahmet Süheyl Ünver (Ankara: Türkiye Tarih Kurumu, 1957), 31. D. BSM. ¸ MHF 58-56; Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 195, pp. 56b, 61a, 61b, 62a (1189/1775). Likewise, manumitted slaves of the notable provincial families set up endowments for the benefit of their owners’ families (Meriwether, The Kin Who Count, 101).

Relationship with the Imperial Court after Departure from the Palace

95

Obviously, emotional bonds strengthened existing relationships. Nevertheless, it was the legal bond between manumitted female palace slaves and their masters that really paved the way for the continuity of their relationship with the imperial court until the end of their lives.

Manumitter as Inheritor From a legal point of view, manumission transformed but did not sever the master–slave relationship.75 When a slave gained freedom, the freed person immediately enjoyed the same full legal rights as a freeborn person. According to Islamic law, however, manumission created a legal tie between the manumitter (mu’tık) and the freed person. The manumitted person and his/her descendants remained perpetually indebted to the emancipator and to his/her family because of the patronage relationship created by the bonds of clientage (velâ). The term mevlâ referred to a person linked to another person by velâ (proximity). In other words, both manumitter and the manumitted person were called mevlâ.76 As a result of these legal ties between the manumitter and the freed person, an inheritance relationship was also created (asabe-i sebebiyye). The manumitter (mevlâ, mu`tık) attained the right of inheritance from his/her manumitted slaves. The property of the emancipated slave or of his/her descendants who died without priority heirs or agnates reverted back to the patron or patroness or to their agnatic heirs, in accordance with the system of devolution. According to the Hanefi school of Islamic jurisprudence, even if the master manumitted his/her slave without claiming velâ, she/he still 75 76

The Hedaya, The Commentary on the Islamic Laws, I, 430. Agostino Cilardo, “The Transmission of the Patronate in Islamic Law,” in Miscellanea Arabica et Islamica, Dissertations in Academia Ultrajectina prolatea anno MCMXC, ed. F. De Jong (Leuven: Peeters Press, 1993), 31–52. For a detailed information about inheritance, see Joseph Schacht, Introduction to Islamic Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964), 170; P. Crone, Roman, Provincial and Islamic Law, 35–43; P. Crone, “Mawlâ,” EI2, VI, 874–882; Ulrike Mitter, “The Origin and Development of the Islamic Patronate,” in Patronate and Patronage in Early and Classical Islam, ed. Monique Bernards and John Nawas (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2005), 133; Wael Hallaq, “The Use and Abuse of Evidence: The Question of Provincial and Roman Influences on Early Islamic Law,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 110/1 (1990): 79–91; Paul Forand, “The Relation of the Slave and the Client to the Master or Patron in Medieval Islam,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 2 (1971): 61; Sükrü ¸ Özen, “Velâ,” DİA, XLIII, 11–15.

96

Departure from and Changing Relationships with the Imperial Court

enjoyed the right to this inheritance. It was not possible to annul these rights.77 Therefore, in documents concerning manumitted female palace slaves, the terms velâ and mevlâ are frequently used in reference to this special relationship between the two parties. When Sarayî Hadice Hatun bint Abdulmennan died, her inheritance was shared between Sultan Mahmud I and her husband Mustafa Çelebi.78 Not only sultans but also other masters received a share of the inheritance of palace women. To mention few examples among many: Sarayî Mihri Hatun, also known as Saliha Hatun bint Abdullah, was freed by Rukiye Hanım Sultan. When Mihri Hatun died, her inheritance was shared between her husband and her master, Rukiye Hanım.79 Another woman named Civanbaht Fatma Hatun was a freed slave (atîka) of Rabia Gülnuş Valide Sultan (d. 1715). When Civanbaht died, Gülnuş Sultan was still alive and received a share of Civanbaht’s inheritance.80 Necef Hatun, also known as Saliha Hatun, was manumitted by Hadice Sultan (1662–1743), the daughter of Mehmed IV (d. 1693). Necef Hatun’s estate was divided among her husband Halil Agha bin Ali bin Himmet, her daughter Emine, her mother Sarayî Zeynep, and her master Hadice Sultan.81 According to Islamic law, if the mevlâ as master was the only heir, he/she took the entire share. If the master had to share the inheritance with a husband or daughter of the freed slave, he/she took half of the share. The existence of a husband did not prevent the master from inheriting a share. By contrast, though, the existence of any male blood relatives of a freed woman, such as a son or a brother, prevented the master from claiming a share of the inheritance. For instance, when Sarayî Daye Meryem Hatun bint Abdullah passed away, her estate was 77

78

79 80 81

Hasan Tahsin Fendoglu, ˘ İslam ve Osmanlı Hukukunda Kölelik ve Cariyelik: Kamu Hukuku Açısından Mukayeseli bir İnceleme (Istanbul: Beyan Yayınları 1996), 244–245. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 120, p. 128 (1148/1735). In the archival documents, the sultan’s share of the inheritance of deceased palace women is stated in the following forms: “saraylının veraseti min ciheti’l velâ padişah-ı şehriyârî efendimiz hazretlerine inhisar,” “veraseti min ciheti’l velâ canib-i Hümâyuna,” “veraseti taraf-ı Hümâyun hazret-i hilafet penahiye,” “saray zümresinin terekelerinden padişah hazretlerinin hisse-i rikâb-ı Hümâyunları,” “hisse-i rikâb-ı Hümâyun-ı şevket makrun.” Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 195, pp. 68a, 68b. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 101, p. 93 (1126/1714). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 103, p. 7 (1127/1715).

Relationship with the Imperial Court after Departure from the Palace

97

shared between her husband el Hac İsmail and her son Hasan Agha, who was a page in the Larder Chamber (kiler odası) in the Enderun.82 Likewise, Sarayî Cilve Hatun, also named Ümmü Gülsüm, was freed by Prince Numan Efendi (1723–1764), son of Ahmed III. Her estate was shared by her husband Mehmed Semseddin ¸ Bey and her son Mehmed Nureddin Bey.83 At this point, the story of Sarayî Rabia Hatun stands as a very interesting example. Rabia Hatun was living in the Kapudan Paşa neighborhood in the vicinity of Süleymaniye Mosque. When she passed away in 1722, Osman bin Abdullah appeared in the law court stating that he was the heir to Rabia’s estate, and he thus demanded the share that had already been taken by the Agha of the Old Palace. Osman tried to prove his claim in court by using a previously taken fatwa as a reference. This fatwa claimed that Osman had uncertain parentage (mechul-i neseb), yet Sarayî Rabia Hatun had claimed him as her son. Therefore, Osman claimed his rights of inheritance as heir to the estate, and the Agha of the Old Palace returned the share he had previously taken. In the end, Osman received the whole amount of 19,587 akçe.84 According to Islamic law, if the master was no longer alive, his/her inheritance share went to his/her own male heirs (asabe-i binefsihi). For instance, Sarayî Zeynep Hatun (d. 1731) was manumitted by Fatma Hanım Sultan bint Melek Ahmed Pasha, daughter of Kaya Sultan, who was herself a daughter of Murad IV (1612–1640). When Sarayî Zeynep died, Fatma Hanım Sultan had already passed away. Fatma Hanım Sultan’s share of Sarayî Zeynep’s estate thus went to İbrahim Bey bin Melek Ahmed Pasha, her stepbrother, but only after he had clarified his relationship to her in court. He then inherited Zeynep’s estate.85 Again according to Islamic law, only if the master of the freed slave had no heir was the master’s share omitted86 and the freed slaves’ tie with the manumitter’s household broken. Furthermore, if neither the master nor the freed slave had any heirs, the entire inheritance went to the public treasury (beytu’l-mâl). This situation was not the case for palace women, however. If the master of a palace woman or that 82 83 84 85 86

Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 106, p. 91 (1129/1716–1717). D.BSM.MHF ¸ 12881 (1196/1781). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 114, p. 88. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 120, pp. 111, 116 (1143/1741). Joseph Schacht, Introduction to Islamic Law, 170.

98

Departure from and Changing Relationships with the Imperial Court

master’s heirs were not alive at the time of a palace woman’s death, the master’s share went to the reigning sultan. This was the most important situation that differentiated the inheritances of palace women from those of other slaves, since it ensured and guaranteed the continuity of a palace woman’s connection with the imperial household. Three short examples demonstrate this. When a freed female slave of the already deceased Chief Black Eunuch died, the eunuch’s inheritance share as master went to the reigning sultan. Likewise, when a female slave of Başı Büyük Ahmed Agha (the master of the patients [hastalar ustası] in the New Palace) died, the master’s share went to reigning sultan.87 Sarayî Emetullah Hatun bint Abdullah was manumitted by Fatma Sultan (d. 1745), a daughter of Ahmed III. When Emetullah Hatun passed away in 1778, the master’s share went to the reigning sultan, Abdulhamid I.88 The mevlâs of palace women also claimed shares from the estates of the freed slaves of palace women, further perpetuating the relationship. For example, Sarayî Hadice Hatun was a manumitted slave of Rami Kadın (d. 1780), who was the sixth consort of Mahmud I. Following Hadice Hatun’s death, her estate was shared by the reigning sultan Mustafa III and Hadice Hatun’s husband, Janissary İsmail Agha.89 Sümbül Agha was manumitted by Atike Ayşe Sultan, and when one of his freed slaves named Gonca Hatun died, her inheritance was shared between Gonca’s husband and the reigning sultan.90 Mevlâs furthermore took shares from the estates of the children of freed slaves. Sarayî Emine Hatun was manumitted by Sultan Mehmed IV and married Mehmed Agha bin İsa. When their daughter Ayşe Hatun passed away in 1730, her estate, worth 31,039 akçe, was shared by her husband and the reigning sultan.91 Likewise, in another example, Sarayî Rukiye Kadın, who was freed by Zübeyde Sultan, the daughter of Ahmed III, had a daughter named Hadice Hatun. When Hadice Hatun died, both her husband Ahmed Agha and the reigning sultan were entitled to a share of her estate.92 The existence of this absolute inheritance relationship between mevlâ and palace women created an almost eternal bond between palace-affiliated women and the imperial household. Even the 87 89 91 92

88 D.BSM.MHF ¸ 61-7-1 (1191/1777). D.BSM.MHF ¸ 12853 (1192/1778). 90 D.BSM.MHF ¸ 51-27 (1180/1766). TSMA E 126-31. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 113, pp. 179–181. D.BSM. ¸ MHF 63-78.

Relationship with the Imperial Court after Departure from the Palace

99

personal affairs of palace-affiliated women were closely tracked by assigned personnel.

Legal Status and Control of Palace-Affiliated Women’s Properties and Material Activities Due to the legal bonds between the palace-affiliated women and the imperial household, all material transactions carried out by palace women, including assignment of one-third (sülüs) of their estates, donations, sales, and endowments, were important to the imperial court. A petition written in 1667 and signed by the Chief Black Eunuch stated that the half of the estates of manumitted female palace slaves who died without children in Egypt or elsewhere were to be sent to sultan (rikâb-ı hümâyun), and the other half should be sent to the husbands. The petition added that unfortunately some people had interfered in delivering the share of the rikâb-ı hümâyun and that these actions had to be prevented.93 In the same year, a firman (imperial decree) addressed to the military judge (kazasker) of Anatolia and Rumelia and to the judge of Istanbul, stated that husbands of some of the manumitted female palace slaves had taken valuable items belonging to their wives as if their wives had donated these items to them on their deathbeds and that they had registered the transaction in this way. In order to prevent such fraudulent behaviors, the firman stated that if palace women wanted to donate their goods to their husbands, they had to provide a document acknowledged by the Agha of the Palace.94 During the reign of Mustafa II (r. 1695–1703), another decree dated 1696 and addressed to the judge of Istanbul stated that when manumitted female palace slaves who were transferred from the imperial palace wished to donate their property to their husbands or to other people, they had to inform the Agha of the Old Palace according to custom. It also added that donating and endowing their valuable property and their houses without prior permission from the assigned personnel had already been forbidden. It recalled and renewed an earlier decree issued during the reign of Ahmed II (r. 1691–1695), 93 94

İbnü’l Emin Dahiliye (İE. DH) 7/721 (1077/1667). Emine Soykan, “İstanbul Müftülügü ˘ Ser’iyye ¸ Sicilleri Arşivi (Rumeli Kazaskerligi ˘ ve Rumeli Sadâreti Mahkemesi Kayıtları Arasındaki Ferman Suretleri),” Graduate Thesis, Istanbul University, 1994, 61–62.

100 Departure from and Changing Relationships with the Imperial Court

according to which inheritors of the deceased people had to prove that they were heir to the deceased in order to have their cases heard in court.95 A court register dated 1716 again repeated that there was an imperial decree (hatt-ı hümâyun) requiring the permission of Agha of the Old Palace whenever palace-affiliated people wished to endow or donate their property.96 A similar decree was repeated during the time of Mustafa III.97 A decree issued in 1776 to judges of Istanbul, Üsküdar, Galata and Haslar, to the inspector of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina (Haremeyn müfettişi), and to deputy judges (naibs) of other courts connected to Istanbul reveals both the sensitivity of this issue as well as existing abuses.98 This decree noted that, as in the case of previous sultans, when both manumitted and transferred female palace slaves and their own freed slaves passed away, their estates had to be registered with the knowledge of Agha of the Old Palace and the inspector of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, as was customary. It is also added that palace-affiliated women had to inform and receive permission from the Agha of the Old Palace when they wanted to sell, donate (hibe), endow, or bequeath (vasiyet) any of their possessions. If a document (hüccet) given by the inspector of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina was not available, issues related to sales, endowments, donations, and bequests would not be heard in a law court. The decree stated that for a period of time, husbands and other people, including prayer leaders (imams) and residents of their neighborhoods, had swindled some sarayî women and used fraudulent means to gain control over the sarayî women’s properties. These people had registered their activities in the Kısmet-i Askeriyye Court and in other courts by claiming that the sarayî women had sold, donated, endowed, and bequeathed some of their properties to them. As a consequence, following the death of the sarayî women, their husbands and others consumed the women’s wealth. Therefore, it was noted that from that point forward, whenever sarayî women and their freed slaves attempted to donate, endow, sell, or bequeath their property, they had to receive a document from the inspector of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina with the permission of the Chief Black Eunuch 95 96 97 98

Ahmet Refik, Hicri Onikinci Asırda Istanbul Hayatı, 20. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 109, pp. 20, 22, 25 (1129/1716). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 178, pp. 92b-93a (1180/1767). C. SM 7226 (1190/1776).

Relationship with the Imperial Court after Departure from the Palace 101

and through the agency of the scribe of the Chief Black Eunuch (darüssaade agası ˘ yazıcısı). Documents received from other courts would not be considered valid. The decree also stated that the estates of palace-affiliated people (saraylı zümresi) and their freed slaves should be recorded, sold, and distributed among heirs with the permission of the Chief Black Eunuch and through the agency of the scribe of the Chief Black Eunuch. Only cases that met these requirements would be heard in the court. It is emphasized that only the inspector of the holy cities or his deputy could hear cases related to palace-affiliated people, not judges of Kassam-ı Askerî or others. Therefore, whenever the husbands of palace women or any other person attempted to appear in court following the death of a palace woman by stating that she had borrowed money from him or that she had sold, donated, endowed, or bequeathed her property, they would be denied the opportunity unless they had the required documentation. The order issued during the reign of Mustafa III was again renewed following the enthronement of Abdulhamid I in 1774. Several examples found in court records reveal how serious the authorities were about registering issues related to palace women. An example from Rumeli Kazaskerligi ˘ Court notes that when Hafize bint Abdullah attempted to buy a house belonging to Sarayî Hadice Kadın, an order was made that unless an agreement from Agha of the Old Palace and a document from the inspector of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina were obtained, the sale would not be valid.99 The authorities were also very serious about collecting the mevlâ share from the estates of palace women. Many court records reveal that the appointed palace personnel demanded the mevlâ share in court. Sarayî Hanife Hatun bint Abdullah bin Abdurrahman was manumitted by a freed slave of Hadice Sultan named Sarayî Eglence ˘ Hatun. Sarayî Hanife Hatun bint Abdullah bin Abdurrahman sold her house to a man who did not pay the entire price. Following Hanife Hatun’s death, Süleyman Bey bin Ömer, who was the halberdier (teberdar) of Hadice Sultan, appeared in the court as a proxy of Sarayî Eglence ˘ Hatun and 100 demanded her share from the sale of Hanife’s house. The story of Sarayî Gamzekâr Hadice Hatun is also helpful in understanding how 99

100

Osman Aksu, “Rumeli Kazaskerligi ˘ 376 Numaralı Defterin Transkript ve Hukuki Tahlili,” M.A. Thesis, Marmara University, 2004, 200, no. 106 (1200/ 1786). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 113, p. 277 (1134/1721).

102 Departure from and Changing Relationships with the Imperial Court

serious the authorities were about collecting the mevlâ share. Sarayî Gamzekâr Hatun’s husband Ömer Efendi died and his share went to his sarayî wife and to Gamzekâr’s stepson Osman Agha. Sarayî Gamzekâr Hatun had died before she received her bride price (mehr) from Ömer Efendi’s estate. In this case, the Agha of the Old Palace demanded the sultan’s share of Gamzekâr Hatun’s bride price.101 Likewise, following palace women’s death, the appointed personnel demanded the mevlâ share of waqfs (endowment to a religious, educational, or charitable cause) or donations. For instance following Sarayî Fethiye Hatun’s death, a proxy of the Agha of the Old Place appeared in court to demand the sultan’s share of the waqf of Fethiye Hatun, whose share had remained in it, since she had died without children.102 In some cases, donations made by palace women were overturned if they had not received the permission of assigned personnel at the time of donation. The case of Sarayî Sehbaz ¸ Hatun, who was manumitted by Sarayî Zeynep Hatun, reveals how serious the authorities were concerning this issue. When palace women and their freed slaves passed away, the Agha of the Old Palace who was responsible for acquiring the sultan’s share (hisse-i hümâyun) appeared in the Old Palace court. Eglence ˘ Hatun was a freed slave of Sarayî Sehbaz, ¸ and the sultan was entitled to a share of her estate. Ten days before her death, Eglence ˘ had sold her house to Fatma Hatun bint Resul for 400 kuruş, donated her bracelet to Fatma, and endowed the house in which she was living to imam Ali Efendi of the Selime Hatun neighborhood in Fındıklı. Eglence ˘ Hatun had reportedly made the donation and endowment during a period of fatal illness, and had taken them from onethird of her estate. Ali Efendi and Fatma Hatun were asked if they had received the permission of the Agha of the Old Palace to accept these donations. Fatma Hatun stated in court that the Agha’s permission was not acquired.103 Such court cases suggest that palace women did not always obey the rules, and that the Agha of the Old Palace was not always informed about the material activities of palace women. In these cases, the witnesses’ opinions were sought.104 These decrees were reissued 101 102 103 104

Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 103, p. 163. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 117, p. 116 (1139/1726). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 109, pp. 20, 22, 25 (1129/1716). For an example see Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 101, pp. 28, 29 (1126/1714).

Relationship with the Imperial Court after Departure from the Palace 103

repeatedly in an effort to prevent potential abuses and to secure control over manumitted female palace slaves.

People Responsible for the Affairs of Palace-Affiliated Women Specific palace personnel with status were assigned the duty of engaging directly in the personal affairs of imperial court members, including palace women, both during their lives and following their deaths. Such affairs included the issue of inheritance, as discussed above, as well as the use of imperial palaces as law courts to settle other issues. Sources from the seventeenth century and the first half of the eighteenth reveal that in the majority of the cases, it was the Agha of the Old Palace who was responsible for overseeing and managing the affairs of palace-affiliated women.105 Court cases related to these women proceeded only with the Agha’s knowledge and typically with his direct involvement. The women also required his permission to donate or endow their properties. Following their death, their estates were registered and sold, again only with the Agha’s knowledge. When palace women or their freed slaves passed away, the Agha of the Old Palace was responsible for claiming and receiving the sultan’s share of the inheritance.106 Contemporary sources reveal that by the second half of the eighteenth century, another person appeared as the responsible person. It was the scribe of the Chief Black Eunuch who managed the registration and sale of the women’s estates and received the sultan’s share. He also provided the necessary permissions for women to donate, endow, sell, or bequeath their property.107 The inspector of 105

106

107

In the Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi ˘ court registers, the Agha of the Old Palace appears as the responsible personnel from 1063/1653 on (Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 49). On the other hand, in this specified period, if a palace woman was living in Edirne, the court was set in Edirne and the Chief Black Eunuch was the responsible person. This situation is stated in the sources as “hisse-i hümâyunu ahza ve kabza memur olan Saray-ı Atik agası; ˘ cânib-i hümâyundan hisse-i padişahı ahza memur Saray-ı Atik agası; ˘ fevt olan sarayîlerin hissesini ahza memur Saray-ı Atik agası; ˘ sarayî ve sarayî mu’takalarından fevt olanların terekelerinden hisse-i hümâyunu/hisse-i rikâbı/hisse-i şehriyârîyi ahza ve kabza memur Saray-ı Atik agası.” ˘ In the Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi ˘ court registers, the scribe of the Chief Black Eunuch appears from 1174/1760 (Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 164).

104 Departure from and Changing Relationships with the Imperial Court

the holy cities of Mecca and Medina also assumed some responsibility for the affairs of palace women.

Use of the Imperial Palaces as Law Court Location Palace women also maintained their ties to the imperial court following their transfer by engaging in legal actions through the imperial palaces. Historiography since the 1970s has revealed that Ottoman women from various segments of society appeared in law courts as both plaintiffs and defendants, and as both guarantors and witnesses.108 Palace women were just as dynamic in their use of the courts as other women in the empire. An evaluation of Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi ˘ court registers reveals that cases related to palace-affiliated people, including women who had been manumitted and transferred, were heard in a law court (meclis) that was located inside the imperial palaces. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the great majority of legal cases related to palace women were handled at a law court in the Old Palace (Saray-ı Atik’de akd olunan meclis). Only few cases were heard in the New Palace. In some very rare cases, the court was held in the Edirne Palace. Sarayî Ayşe Hatun bint Abdurrahman, for example, completed the sale of her house at a court held at the Edirne Palace.109 Cases related to palace women who had been manumitted by daughters of the sultans were heard in the law court set in the palaces of female members of the imperial family. For instance, a case related to the estate of Cihanşah Hatun, who had been manumitted by Safiye Sultan (d. 1774), daughter of Mustafa III, was heard in a court set in Safiye Sultan’s own palace (located in the vicinity of Kaliçeciler Mansion). Mehmed Agha bin Abdülmuin, the chief door keeper (baş kapı gulamı), appeared in the court as the person responsible for collecting Safiye Sultan’s share of the estate.110 Sarayî Necef Hatun was manumitted by Hadice Sultan, daughter of Mustafa II, and following her death in 1715, her inheritance was divided by a court held in Hadice Sultan’s palace outside of intra muros Istanbul.111 108

109 110 111

For an extensive literature on this issue, see İpşirli Argıt, “Women in the Early Modern Ottoman World,” 1–28. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 108, p. 36 (1130/1717). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 117, p. 54 (1138/1725). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 103, p. 7 (117/1715).

Relationship with the Imperial Court after Departure from the Palace 105

The court was rarely held in the private homes of either a palace woman or anyone else who had some type of a relationship with these palace women. One example of the use of a private home can be seen in the case of Hâcce Emine Kadın bint Abdullah bin Abdürrezzak, who had previously been the second consort of Sultan Ahmed. She sold her house and other properties to her husband, İbrahim bin Osman, who had previously been Agha of Galatasaray, in a court held in her own house.112 In another case, a palace woman claimed her right to the inheritance of her husband, Mehmed Efendi bin Mustafa, in a court that was held in the house of a halberdier (teberdar) of the Old Palace.113 Finally, on several occasions, palace women’s cases were heard in other courts of Istanbul. In one case recorded in the Rumeli Kazaskerligi ˘ court, a woman made an accusation against a sarayî woman.114 In another example, the name of Sarayî Tahire Hatun bint Abdullah appeared in the Kısmet-i Askeriyye court register. She had requested to become legally responsible for minor Hadice, whose mother had passed away.115 Even after the death of palace women, their relatives continued to use the courts set in the Old Palace for issues related to the deceased. For instance, following Sarayî Rukiye’s death, a couple of artisans went to the Old Palace in order to collect some money they had loaned to her.116 Cases related to family members and slaves of palace women were also heard in a court located in the imperial palaces. For instance, Mustafa Efendi bin Mehmed Efendi’s estate was shared by his mother Sarayî Rukiye Hatun bint Abdullah and his uncle İbrahim Aga ˘ bin el Hac Mustafa. This issue was discussed in a court set in the Old Palace.117 In a majority of the court cases, palace personnel served as legal witnesses (şuhud’ül-hal) in law courts that were held in the imperial palaces. These included a door keeper (bevvâb), a halberdier 112 113 114

115

116 117

Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 193, p. 91b (1188/1774). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 116, p. 49. Aksu, “Rumeli Kazaskerligi ˘ 376 Numaralı Defterin Transkript ve Hukuki Tahlili,” 200, no. 106 (1200/1786). Istanbul Shari’a Court Records, Kısmet-i Askeriyye Court, nr. 36, p. 50 (1127/ 1715). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 118, p. 8 (1134/1721). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 116, p. 186 (1136/1723).

106 Departure from and Changing Relationships with the Imperial Court

(teberdar), the head of the halberdiers of the Old Palace (ser bölük-i teberdarân-ı Saray-ı Atik), the chief administrative official (harem kethüdası), the keeper of the garments (çukadar), the head of a military unit (ser bölük), chief officer in charge of room (ser oda), or the keeper of the larder (kilarî), all of whom appeared in the court either as witnesses, proxies, or guardians. Sometimes their role was to confirm the identity of palace women, since they might have had personal knowledge of them. In one example, the identity of the previous Agha of the Old Palace Habeşî Mustafa Agha’s freed slave Sarayî Sehbaz ¸ Hatun was proven by the testimony of the door keeper of the Old Palace.118 The assignment of palace personnel as proxies and guardians is also important in revealing both the extent of the network in which palace women were embedded, as well as the level of continued interactivity with the imperial court following their transfer from the palace. In 1721, Sarayî Eglence ˘ Hatun bint Abdullah bin Abdurrahman, who had previously been Hadice Sultan’s treasurer, appeared in court to claim her share of the estate of her freed slave, Hanife Hatun. Sarayî Eglence ˘ Hatun chose Süleyman Bey bin Ömer, who was the halberdier of Hadice Sultan, as her trustee (vasi) to deal with this issue.119

After Death Following her death, a palace woman’s estate was registered according to the principles of Islamic law, and the responsible party sent the estate record to the palace (rikâb-ı hümâyun). Later, their property was sold through auctions held in the Old Palace. According to Bobovius, the properties of sultans, pashas, and other state officials were also sold during auctions held in the palace in June, July, and August.120 Even real estate was sold at these actions. For instance, Sarayî Meryem’s (d. 1717) house was auctioned in the bazaar (suk-ı sultani) following her death.121 In some cases, a part of the deceased palace woman’s property, such as jewelry or a female slave, might have been taken back to the palace 118 119 120

121

Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 109, p. 103. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 113, p. 277 (1134/1721–1722). Fisher-Fisher, “Topkapı Sarayı in the mid-seventeenth century: Bobovi’s description,” 59. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 110, p. 63 (1130/1717), 63.

Relationship with the Imperial Court after Departure from the Palace 107

(taraf-ı hümâyun’da kalan, rikâb-ı hümâyuna irsal olunan). When properties were taken into to the treasury, their value was deducted from the mevlâ share.122 Some available examples suggest that items that were delivered to the treasury had been given previously as presents and then taken back following the women’s deaths. For instance, in one case, a pearl belt and emerald earrings were given to a female slave named Sahben ¸ by the Sultan as a gift (ihsân-ı hümâyun) in the Karaagaç ˘ Garden. Following her death, Musâhib Abbas Agha returned these items to the treasury (Hazine-i Âmire).123 Most probably, these items were then regifted to other harem members. Even after their transfer out of imperial palaces, then, manumitted female palace slaves continued to have a relationship with the imperial court. This enduring relationship had implications for both manumitted palace slaves and the imperial court. Obviously, it had a determining impact on various phases of a palace woman’s life. Based on these continued links with the imperial court, the subsequent chapters examine various facets of palace women’s lives in order to reveal the implications of patronage relations for both parties. 122 123

For several examples, see TSMA D 210; TSMA E 153-2; TSMA E 126-10. TSMA E 126-6.

|

3

Marriage Patterns

The vast majority of manumitted female palace slaves who left the imperial harem later married. The inscription on one of the harem’s gates stated, “O my Allah, the opener of all gates. Let the most propitious gates be opened in front of us as well,” which could be read as a reference to the marriage that was the first stage of these women’s new life outside the harem. Just as the Enderun prepared men to serve the dynasty outside the palace, the protocol, etiquette, and training provided to female slaves in the imperial harem prepared them for their future role in the outside world. According to Bobovius, “the valide sultan instructs female slaves in all the manners and skills they can use to evoke the love of the sultan, so that in time they can become concubines or else be married to an eminent person outside the palace.”1 This chapter examines the women’s marriage patterns and asks the question: To what extent did palace affiliation impact their marriages? An analysis of the social and professional profiles of the husbands shows that a great majority of the women married members of the askeri class, and that these marriages had strategic and symbolic importance for the imperial household. It traces the implications of their marriages for the women themselves, for their husbands, and for the imperial court in the sociopolitical context of the era. The chapter demonstrates that by way of marriage, women’s affiliation to the imperial court took on a different form, and they continued to play a role, albeit a new one, in the political structure.

Possible Ways of Marriages In Islam, the master acts as a guardian (walî) for matrimonial purposes to his female slaves, and is promised a twofold reward in heaven if he 1

Fisher-Fisher, “Topkapı Sarayı in the mid-seventeenth century: Bobovi’s description,” 73.

108

Possible Ways of Marriages

109

educates them, frees them, and sees them married.2 In this context, the concept of patronage found its finest articulation, through marrying male and female slaves to suitable persons. For manumitted female palace slaves, these marriages were often arranged before they left the imperial palace. For instance, during the early reign of Mustafa I (r. 1617–1618), the sword bearer (silahdar-ı şehriyârî) Mustafa Agha was transferred from the palace to the outside service on the condition that he marry a wet nurse from the palace (daye-i şehriyârî).3 According to the Evliya Çelebi’s seventeenth-century account, Sultan Ibrahim (r. 1640–1648) married his own female slaves to high-status men.4 Likewise, Abdulhamid I (r. 1774–1789) wrote to his vizier offering his son a fifteen-year-old female slave of his own who had been thoroughly educated in the palace.5 When a new sultan ascended to the throne, the consorts and female slaves of the previous sultan were either sent to the Old Palace or were married to suitable men outside the palace. The sixteenth-century chronicler Selânikî noted that following the death of Murad III, the sultan’s twenty-seven daughters were sent to the Old Palace while his consorts were married off to palace officials, such as door keepers, cavalry forces (bölük halkı), and sergeants (çavuş).6 This was done not only to reduce the expenses of the imperial palace inherited by the new sultan but also to secure these women against harsh economic and social realities. The historian Mustafa Na’îmâ noted that following the death of Kösem Sultan, all of her female slaves were sent to the Old

2 4

5

6

3 Brunschvig, “Abd,” EI2, I, 26, 27. Na‘îmâ, Tarih, II, 439. Evliya Çelebi, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi: Topkapı Sarayı Bagdat ˘ 304 Yazmasının Transkripsiyonu- Dizini, 1. Kitap: Istanbul, ed. Orhan Saik ¸ Gökyay and Yücel Daglı ˘ (Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 1996), 149. TSMA E 7029. The European authors also mentioned that female palace slaves were married off to suitable men. Luigi Bassano da Zara, who was in Istanbul in the 1530s, noted that whenever the sultan’s favorite girl became pregnant, he took her as a consort, but the girls that he did not like were married off to suitable men to avoid injuring their dignity (Bassano, I Costumi, 18). The same information was repeated by others (Dernschwam, İstanbul ve Anadoluya Seyahat, 189; Nicolay, Les navigations, 99; Lubenau, Reinhold Lubenau Seyahatnamesi, 208). Some authors wrote that female slaves were sent from the New Palace to the Old Palace and were married off from there (Ottaviano Bon and Robert Withers, A description of the grand signour’s seraglio, 48–49; Baudier, The History of the Serrail, 50, 62). Selânikî, Târih-i Selânikî, I, 432.

110

Marriage Patterns

Palace on the same day, given allowances in cash and in kind, and then married off to suitable men.7 Love affairs within the imperial court offered another path to marriage. The composer Sadullah Agha entered the Enderun and in time became a favorite (musâhib) of the sultan. He fell in love with one of Selim III’s female favorites during the music lessons that he gave to the palace women. Initially, Sadullah Agha was punished for his boldness, but later, as a reward for his compositions, was allowed to marry this woman as a sign of honor.8 There were people in the palace responsible for arranging the marriages of palace women. Canfeda Hatun was a female slave of Nurbanu Sultan, mother of Murad III (r. 1574–1595). During Murad’s reign, she became the chief administrative officer in the palace and attained great deal of influence. After Nurbanu Sultan’s death in 1583, Canfeda Hatun’s influence increased further as she gained the trust of Safiye Sultan (d. 1619), mother of Mehmed III (r. 1595–1603).9 During Mehmed’s reign, Canfeda Hatun was sent to the Old Palace with a high salary and was assigned the duty of marrying off palace women.10 Other people who had access to both the Enderun and the harem, such as dwarfs and mutes,11 also might have played a role in the organization of marriages. While some palace women married upon leaving the palace, others married only after they had set up a new life outside the palace. The case of Sarayî Halime bint Abdullah provides insight into an alternative marriage path. After Sarayî Halime had been manumitted by the Valide Sultan, she went to the house of Sarayî Hadice to get help in 7 8

9

10

11

Na‘îmâ, Tarih, III, 1343. Güldeniz Ekmen, “Hacı Sâdullah Aga ˘ ve Diger ˘ Sâdullah’lar,” Ph.D. diss., Istanbul Teknik University, 1993, 23–41. On Canfeda Hatun’s importance in the imperial palace, see Pedani, “Safiye’s Household,” 23–25. Hafız Hüseyin b. İsmail Hüseyin Ayvansaraylı, Ali Sati Efendi, and Süleyman Besim Efendi, Hadikatü’l Cevami (Istanbul Camileri ve Diger ˘ Dini-Sivil Mimari Yapılar), ed. Ahmet Nezih Galitekin (Istanbul: İşaret Yayınları, 2001), 177, 247, 558; Mehmed Süreyya, Sicil-i Osmani, ed. Nuri Akbayar (Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1996), II, 384–385; Tahsin Öz, İstanbul Camileri (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1962), I, 88–89; Mehmet İpşirli, “Canfeda Hatun,” DİA, VII, 150–151. In Hadikatü’l Cevami and in the book of Tahsin Öz, Canfeda Hatun is mentioned as a chief administrative officer in the reign of Ahmed I (1603–1617). For information about dwarves’ relationship with the imperial harem, see Ülker Akkutay, Enderun Mektebi, 93.

The Social and Professional Profiles of Husbands

111

establishing a new life. Sarayî Halime noted that she wanted to marry, and provided Hadice with money to buy a trousseau, a house, and a slave of her own.12 As Halime’s case suggests, some palace women who intended to marry following their departure from the palace might have been guided in their efforts by other women who had left the imperial palace previously.

The Social and Professional Profiles of Husbands Evaluating the titles and occupations of husbands sheds light on the types of men that these palace women married. This chapter evaluated the husbands of 400 palace women.13 The main sources of information about them are the court registers (which include cases related to the estates of their wives as well as divorce, sales, and other legal cases), waqfiyyes (deed of trust of a pious foundation), estate inventories (muhallefat), and tombstones. These sources do not refer to the husband’s position at the time of marriage, but rather reflect his position at the time of court registration. Each source thus reveals only one phase of the husbands’ careers. For example, when the estate register of a palace woman who died at an old age was recorded, her husband might have been at the top of his career. By contrast, a man whose wife died at a young age may still have held a very modest position. Therefore, these sources do not allow us to gather a complete picture of husbands’ career, unless these appear in multiple records over time. The lack of a standard career path also makes it difficult to assume any particular career for these husbands. In some cases, as well, the husband mentioned in the sources might have been the palace woman’s second husband. As noted earlier, the great majority of female palace slaves were named bint (“daughter of”) Abdullah, which referred to their slave origin. This was not the case for their husbands, as only few were named bin Abdullah as reference to their slave or devshirme origin. The scarcity of husbands named bin Abdullah can be linked to the changing character of the askeri (ruling) class from the seventeenth century onward as the devshirme system and the use of prisoners of 12 13

Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 106, p. 27 (1129/1716). I have examined the husbands of 277 palace women registered between 1704 and 1731 and the husbands of 123 palace women registered between 1762 and 1840.

112

Marriage Patterns

Distribution of husbands' titles 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25%

1704–1731

20%

1762–1840

15% 10% 5% 0% agha

çelebi

efendi

bey

beşe

odabaşı çavuş

Graph 3.1 Distribution of husbands’ titles.

war began to lose their former importance. Before the seventeenth century, men with direct devshirme origins dominated the military and administrative organizations, but thereafter children and household members of askeri class members and even some reaya took part in the administrative and military structure. This change can also be traced through the palace women’s husbands, as changing political balances and elite structures are reflected in their identities. According to available examples, the majority of palace women’s husbands (78.5 percent) belonged to various ranks of the askeri class, holding titles that referred to their askeri status such as agha, efendi, çelebi, bey, beşe, odabaşı, and çavuş.14 (See Graph 3.1.) Marrying female palace slaves to men who were in the state’s service was an ancient practice in the political tradition throughout the Near East.15 In the Ottoman Empire, female palace slaves were typically 14

15

In the Ottoman context down to and including the eighteenth century, the term reaya denoted the tax-paying subject population as opposed to the members of the ruling class (askeri) (Suraiya Faroqhi, “Ra‘iyya,” EI2, VIII, 404–406). For the definition of “Askeri,” see Bernard Lewis, “Askari,” El2, I, 712, and Halil Sahillioglu, ˘ “Askeri,” DİA, III, 488–489. In the ninth century, Abbasid Caliph Mu'tasim married his soldiers to his female slaves (Dominique Sourdel, “Ghulam,” EI2, II, 1079). In the Safavid State, female slaves at the time of Shah Süleyman (1664–1694) were married to statesmen (Ronald Ferrier, “Women in Safavid Iran: The Evidence of European

The Social and Professional Profiles of Husbands

113

married to men of askeri status, and these marriages formed the Ottoman ruling class. Following the death of Prince Mustafa in 1474, Giovanni Maria Angiolello described the situation of the prince’s female household. He noted that Mustafa’s daughter, her mother, and rest of the maidens belonging to the imperial court came to Constantinople, where they were lodged in the palace with the sultan’s other women and maidens. After several days, the prince’s maidens were married to courtiers and other men.16 According to Theodoro Spandounes, “those women the sultan has not impregnated stay for some time in the seraglio and then they are married off by him to one or other of his courtiers.”17 Angiollello also stated that other female slaves who were not much liked by Turkish Bey were likewise married off to men from either the imperial palace or whomever Turkish Bey desired; these girls were provided with all means to live an honorable life.18 Guillaume Postel also noted that girls were given in marriage to the sultan’s male slaves and to the governors of some countries.19 Nicolas Nicolay noted that sultan’s consorts who had not produced children were married to his cavalryman (sipâhî) or other court officers.20 In the seventeenth century, Jean Thevenot noted that some women in the Old Seraglio married some great men of the sultan’s court.21 James Dallaway claimed that when a sultan died, the young ladies who were declared to have been unknown to him were generally bestowed as wives upon some of his successor’s courtiers.22 The marriages of palace women to members of the askeri class continued into the nineteenth century.23

16 17 18 20

21

22 23

Travelers,” in Women in the Medieval Islamic World, ed. G. Hambly [New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998], 400). Angiolello, Historia Turchesca, 69–70. Theodoro Spandounes, On the Origin of the Ottoman Emperors, 113. 19 Angiolello, Historia Turchesca, 128–129. Postel, De la republique, 6, 32. Nicolay, Les navigations, 99. It is also mentioned in other sources that female palace slaves were married to men from the askeri class (Histoire Generale des Turcs, II, 24; Thornton, The present state, 372–373). Jean de Thevenot, The Travels of Monsieur de Thevenot into the Levant (London: Printed for H. Clark and others, 1687), 25. Dallaway, Constantinople, 115. For example, according to a marriage record from the nineteenth century, ten manumitted female palace slaves were married to members of askeri class, the great majority of whom held the title of bey (Alaaddin Aköz, Bir imamın nikâh defteri: Beşiktaş Sinan-ı Cedid Mahallesi [Konya: Tablet Kitabevi, 2006]).

114

Marriage Patterns

Variations in their titles reveal that the husbands belonged to various branches of the askeri class, having followed different types of training and served in multiple ranks of the askeri class. These men had thus gone through one of the various paths of training that existed in the Ottoman Empire: the palace school (Enderun) or other departments of the palace, the military establishment, the learned/religious establishment (ilmiye), the scribal service (kalemiye), or the vezir and pasha households. They thus typically had served in the palace organization, in the military organization, in the central organization, in a religious organization, or in the provincial organization. As Graph 3.1 shows, most of the husbands held the title of agha in the two different periods of the eighteenth century. This title was bestowed on officers and officials who served in the palace and in the military organizations.24 The majority of husbands were serving in the palace organization at the time the documents mentioning them were recorded. The husbands also occupied various ranks within the hierarchical structure.25 The diversity of the husbands’ status ranged from highstatus positions such as favorite (musâhib), sword-bearer (silahdar-ı şehriyârî), imperial warrior (silahşor-i şehriyârî), agha of the Gate of Felicity (babüssaade agası), ˘ aga ˘ babası of the Old Palace,26 and agha of Galatasaray, to the more modest positions of chief water-carrier (sakabaşı), door keeper (bevvâb-ı sultani), or halberdier (baltacı, teberdar). It is also possible to identify a group of husbands who served in different departments and in various levels of the Birun organization, the outer service of the palace, such as sergeant of the Imperial Council (Divan-ı Hümâyun çavuşu), steward of the door keepers (kapıcılar kethüdası, kethüda-yı bevvâbîn- i şehriyârî), chief door keeper of Dergâh-ı Âli (dergâh-ı âli kapıcıbaşısı, ser bevvâbân-ı Dergâh-ı Âli),27 chief 24

25

26

27

Gustav Bayerle, Pashas, Begs, and Effendis: A Historical Dictionary of Titles and Terms in the Ottoman Empire (Istanbul: İsis, 1997). For a detailed study of the palace organization, see Uzunçarşılı, Saray Teşkilâtı; Tayyar-Zâde Atâ, Osmanlı Saray Tarihi. D’Ohsson described agha babası in his account. According to him, ushers (kapıcıs), numbering eight hundred, monitored the seraglio’s first two gates. Forty were stationed at the Harem’s entrance, the station of the black eunuchs, and were subordinate to Kızlar Agha. These men were distinguished from others by their nickname, Baba; their captain bore the title Agha Babası (D’Ohsson, Tableau, VII, 33). There were two kinds of palace door keepers. Those serving the outermost gate of the palace (Bâb-ı Hümâyun) were called “bevvâbân-ı Bâb-ı Hümâyun,” while

The Social and Professional Profiles of Husbands

115

door keeper (kapıcıbaşı), door keeper, steward of the halberdiers (teberdarlar kethüdası) of the Old Palace, halberdier of the Old Palace, and halberdier. Several husbands were from the Corps of Halberdiers, while others came from the Corps of Gardeners (bostancılar ocagı), ˘ as in the example of Hadika-i hassa-i şehriyârî bostancılar odabaşısı (an office in charge of the imperial gardens).28 Some served in the palace kitchen (Matbah-ı Âmire) or in the imperial stables (Istabl-ı Âmire). As in the examples of the agha of the Enderun-ı Hümâyun, the imperial architect (mîmar-ı hassa), and the second master of the stable (mirâhur-ı sânî), some of these husbands in the palace organization were trained in the Enderun or other palace departments. The period’s changing elite structure can be followed through the palace women’s husbands. From the eighteenth century onward, for example, the number of people carrying the title of chief door keeper increased, and included sons of pashas and commanders (ümerâ).29 Sarayî Cilve Fatma Hanım (d.1807) was married to Sadr-ı esbak İzzet Mehmed Paşazâde Mehmed Said Bey, the steward of the door keepers.30 * In every period, some palace women married husbands who held posts in the military organization.31 According to Ramberti, when female palace slaves reached the age of twenty-five years, if the sultan did not elect to keep them for his own use, they were married to cavalryman (sipâhî) or to the slaves of the Porte, according to the degree and condition of both parties.32 Again, the available sources show that these husbands held titles such as agha, usta, beşe, odabaşı, and çavuş.

28

29 30

31

32

those who attended the middle gate were called “bevvâbân-i Dergâh-ı Âli” (Uzunçarşılı, Saray Teşkilâtı, 396, 404–407). The Corps of Gardeners was a large organization responsible for the sultan’s gardens in and outside the palace. Odabaşı was one of chief officers of the Corps of Gardeners (Uzunçarşılı, Saray Teşkilâtı, 465–487). Uzunçarşılı, Saray Teşkilâtı, 405–406. For the tombstone of Cilve Hanım, who was buried in the graveyard of Mihrişah Valide Sultan’s Tomb, see Mehmet Nermi Haskan, Eyüp Tarihi (Istanbul: Türk Turing Turizm İşletmeciligi ˘ Vakfı, 1993), I, 226. For information about the Ottoman military organization, see İ. H. Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Devleti Teşkilatından Kapukulu Ocakları (Ankara: TTK 1988). Ramberti, Libri tre delle, in Lybyer, The Government, 253–254. This issue is also mentioned in Heberer, Osmanlıda Bir Köle, 239; Lubenau, Reinhold Lubenau Seyahatnamesi, 208.

116

Marriage Patterns

Some other palace women married husbands who held middle rank posts in the kapıkulu corps and in the provincial army, such as janissary, high-ranking officer in the Janissary army (çorbacı),33 water carrier (saka), and cavalryman (sipâhî). Other husbands included a handkerchief maker (yaglıkçı), ˘ a quilt maker, a shoe maker (haffaf), and a butcher, all of whom held the title of agha. These husbands might have belonged to the janissary and been affiliated to craftsmen’s guilds, which was common especially in the seventeenth century.34 Some husbands were members of the learned-religious institution (ilmiye). Members of the religious institution could perform duties in various echelons of the state, undertake educational tasks in the madrasa, or serve in the field of law in the kaza (administrative and juridical district of a judge) organization. Husbands belonging to this category held the title of efendi. Among the examined examples, the high-status positons in this category were sheikhulislam and judge (kadı). Sarayî Muammere Hatun was the wife of Sheikhulislam Mehmed Efendi,35 while Emine Hanım (d. 1815), who was manumitted by Hadice Sultan (1768–1822), was the wife of Hasan Efendi, the “Eşrâf-ı Kudât” (a very high post for a judge).36 Other husbands held the posts of imam and madrasa scholar (müderris). It is not always possible to ascertain in which madrasas these husbands served, although the rank of müderris or the degree of the madrasa in which he served determined his status. Husbands of palace women could hold the highest position, such as being the müderris in the Hagia Sophia (Ayasofya) dâru’l-hadis (educational institution for instruction of the hadith), in the Süleymaniye, or in the Sahn-ı Seman. For instance, Sarayî Hadice Hâcce bint Abdullah was married to Fahrü’l Müderrisin Ahmed Efendi bin Mevali-i izam Saban ¸ Efendi, a very high-ranking müderris.37 More commonly, husbands 33 34

35 36

37

Çorbacı also can be a Christian notable. On this issue, see Cemal Kafadar, “Yeniçeri Esnaf Relations: Solidarity and Conflict,” M.A. Thesis, McGill University, 1980. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 103, p. 142 (1128/1715). Hüseyin Kutlu, Kaybolan Medeniyetimiz Hekimoglu ˘ Ali Paşa Camii Haziresi’ndeki Tarihi Mezar Taşları (Istanbul: Damla Yayınevi, 2005), 64–65. Likewise, in the seventeenth century, Sarayî Mücella Hatun was a wife of Semseddin ¸ Efendi bin Sheyh Abdullah Efendi and he had another wife apart from Sarayî Mücella Hatun (Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 57, p. 112 [1076/1665]). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 106, p. 54 (1124/1712).

The Social and Professional Profiles of Husbands

117

served as müderris in more modest madrasas throughout the Ottoman territories. It is also difficult to identify where husbands who were imams served. A few served as imam in a high-status mosque, such as Sarayî Saliha Hatun’s husband Mustafa Efendi bin Hüseyin, who served at the Sultan Bayezid Mosque, one of the imperial mosques built by the sultans.38 Sarayî Zeliha Hatun bint Abdullah was married to Ahmed Efendi bin Abdullah, who was imam of an imperial mosque (Cami-i Hümâyun).39 Being an imam of an imperial mosque was very a prestigious position. It would be wrong, though, to assume that all imam husbands served in imperial mosques and thus held prestigious positions. For instance, Sarayî Mesrure Hatun’s husband, imam İbrahim Efendi bin Mustafa Efendi,40 might have been serving as imam in a modest neighborhood mosque, or alternatively he might have been serving as imam in the military organization or in the provincial organization. Some palace women were married to those descendants of the Prophet who carried the title seyyid. These people represented the line of Prophet Muhammed’s grandson Hüseyin, were respected in the Islamic world, and were given many privileges. Husbands could also be sheikhs, as in the case of sheikh Ahmed Efendi, who was the husband of Sarayî Safiye Hatun, manumitted by Fatma Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III).41 This group of husbands might have belonged to several sufi orders, such as Nakhshibendi, Kadiri, Khalveti, Mevlevi, or any other tariqas. Another group of husbands served in the Ottoman central organization.42 According to the available examples, husbands in this category held the posts of scribe of the ruus department (ruus kalemi)43, scribe of the defterhane,44 scribe of the divanhane, clerk in the correspondence 38 39 40 41 42

43

44

Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 109, p. 75 (1130/1717). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 193, pp. 2b–3a (1187/1773–1774). D.BSM. ¸ MHF 12903 (1199/1784–1785). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 114, p. 91 (1135/1722). For detailed information about the Ottoman central organization, see İ. H. Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Devletinin Merkez ve Bahriye Teşkilâtı (Ankara: TTK, 1988). Ruus department was one of the departments of the Imperial Council (Uzunçarşılı, Merkez ve Bahriye Teşkilâtı, 45–55). Defterhane was a department in the central organization. Registers related to land surveys, military fiefs, and pious foundations were prepared and kept there (Uzunçarşılı, Merkez ve Bahriye Teşkilâtı, 95–110).

118

Marriage Patterns

office of the grand vizier (mektûbî-i sadr-ı âlî halifesi), and head goverment scribe (ser halife).45 These husbands held the title of efendi but, unlike others who also carried this title, they were not high-level officials. There were, though, some high-level officials in this category, as in the case of Sarayî Nevruz Hatun’s husband Reisülküttab (chief scribe) Ebubekir Efendi.46 Husbands in this category should be evaluated by considering the conditions of the period. Following the era of Köprülü Mehmed Pasha (d. 1661), the size and importance of the bureaucracy increased and expanded through the eighteenth century. It was at this time that members of the scribal service came to hold the highest posts of government, including vizierate.47 In addition, from the second half of the seventeenth century onward, the role of the Babıâli (the Sublime Porte, or central government) rose in prominence. The Babıâli or Bâb-ı Âsafî referred to the grand vizier's mansion; it was a distinct complex and contained both the office and the residence of the grand vizier. In the middle of the seventeenth century, the offices of the grand vizier were removed from the palace grounds and housed in a mansion located just outside the New Palace. Gradually, Bâbıâli replaced the Imperial Council and evolved to become a new government center. In this period, the power of the grand vizierate (sadâret) and the Babıâli increased. These developments reflected on the husbands’ identities, as some took on positions related to the grand vizierate. For instance, Sarayî Atike Hatun’s husband Mehmed Emin Efendi was the caller to prayer (müezzin) in the grand vizier’s mansion (divanhane-i Saray-ı Âsafî).48 Sarayî Hicab Kadın was wife to Mahmud Efendi, who was one of the assistants of the grand vizier’s steward (kethüdâ-yı sadr-ı âli).49 In the nineteenth century, there were also palace women who married bureaucrats. Hadice Edâyi Hanım had been the second kilerci (officer in charge of the larder) of Mihrişah Valide Sultan before she was married 45 46 47

48 49

See İnalcık, “Reis-ül-Küttab,” İA, IX, 680. C. Maarif 4377, VGM defter 623, p. 356. For information on this issue, see İnalcık, “Reis-ül-küttab,” İA, IX, 671–683; Rifa’at A. Abou-El-Haj, “Ottoman Diplomacy at Karlowitz,” Journal of American Oriental Society 87/4 (1967): 501; Rhoads Murphy, “Continuity and Discontinuity in Ottoman Administrative Theory and Practice during the late Seventeenth Century,” Poetics Today 14/2 (1993): 419–443. D.BSM. ¸ MHF 60-47 (1191/1777). Bab-ı Defteri Haremeyn Muhasebesi Haremeyn Muhallefatı (D.HMH. MHF) 34-19 (1196/1781).

The Social and Professional Profiles of Husbands

119

to Mehmed Abdulhalim Agha, the second telhisî (official charged with making summaries of reports) of the grand vizierate.50 In addition to all these examples, as will be mentioned below, some palace women married members of vizier and pasha households and men holding the status of beyzade.51 Some husbands held positions related to the financial management of the empire. Sarayî Hüsnüşah Hatun bint Abdullah, for example, was married to Halil Agha bin Mustafa, a steward (vekilharç) of the Süleymaniye mosque,52 while Sarayî Züleyha Hatun was the wife of Veliyeddin Efendi, the Ruznamçeci of the Sultan Bayezid Han Mosque.53 Sarayî Hâcce Niyazi Hadice Hatun bint Abdullah was married to Mustafa Efendi, who was Kantar Emini of İzmir.54 These various examples demonstrate that the husbands of palace women held a wide variety of statuses, and belonged to various branches of the askeri class. Few palace women, though, were married to top-level officials, such as sheikhulislam, reis-ül-küttab, silahşor-i şehriyârî, silahdar-ı şehriyârî, or musâhib. Instead, the majority of husbands occupied posts that put them in the lower, middle, and upper middle echelons of the ruling class. Husbands holding the title of pasha rarely appear, although Sarayî Hemrah Hatun was the wife of Seyyid Hüseyin Pasha.55 In the previous centuries, husbands with the title of pasha also existed: the marriage of Anber Hatun, who was treasurer to Kösem Valide Sultan, to Murtaza Pasha stands as an example.56 Some husbands did not possess any title at all; we typically know little about their occupations. For those whose occupations are noted in the records, we see coppersmith (bakırcı), egg seller (yumurtacı), coal seller (kömürcü), herbalist (attar), butcher, and coffee maker (kahveci). For instance, Bakırcı el-Hac Mustafa bin Mehmed was from 50

51 52

53

54

55

For the tombstone of Edâyi Hanım, see İshak Güven Güvelioglu, ˘ Osmanlı Mezar Taşları: Zeynep Sultan Haziresi (Istanbul: Türkiye Anıtlar Dernegi ˘ Yayınları, 2008), 60. Member of prominent and well-established families. D.BSM. ¸ MHF 68-48; Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 195, p. 11a (1189/ 1775–1776). The Ruznamçeci was responsible for the register of daily income and expenditures. D.BSM. ¸ MHF 76-68 (1200/1785–1786). The kantar emini was responsible for taxes on properties coming through customs. D.BSM. ¸ MHF 63-40-2 (1192/1778–1779). 56 VGM, Defter 740, pp. 76–78 (1120/1709). Na‘îmâ, Tarih, III, 1487.

120

Marriage Patterns

Giresun in Anatolia and died in Mimar Sinan neighborhood in Istanbul.57 It is probable that these men were related to the imperial court in some way. They could have been suppliers of eggs or coal to the imperial palaces, for example. The heterogeneous makeup of the husbands in terms of socioeconomic profile was reflected in the bride price (mehr) amounts. As will be discussed further in Chapter 5, the mehr usually stated in the estate records and in divorce accounts confirmed the wide spectrum of husbands in terms of their material wealth. For instance, Sarayî Sehsüvar ¸ Hatun, who was married to Seyyid Hasan Çelebi bin Ahmed, had a mehr of 1 kuruş (120 akçe).58 By contrast, Sarayî Simten Kadın bint Abdullah, who was manumitted by Mustafa III, had a mehr amounting to 180,000 akçe as the wife of sword bearer el Hac Beyzade Feyzullah Bey.59 The heterogeneous makeup of the husbands is not suprising, considering the diversity in the status of female palace slaves themselves within the imperial harem. The available examples demonstrate that there was a fairly close relationship between the former slave’s position in the imperial harem and the status of her husband. An examination of several cases reveals that some women clearly terminated their harem experience by embracing a modest union, possibly in keeping with their position in the harem. Those women who were at the higher levels of service in the harem were generally married to men with high status. The impact of the women’s status on finding an attractive spouse becomes obvious when we examine the marriages of women who had previously been concubines of the sultans. Following the sultan’s death, the mothers of his sons were transferred to the Old Palace, while those women who had no child and the mothers of his daughters had the liberty to leave the palace and were usually married off to members of the higher echelons of the askeri class. European sources noted that those consorts of the sultan who did not have children or who had given birth to the sultan’s daughters had liberty to marry any person of quality. Those consorts who had given birth to

57 58 59

Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 101, p. 152 (1126/1714–1715). TSMA E 126-50. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 195, pp. 56b, 61a, 61b, 62a. It should be noted that the mehr amounts do not always indicate the person’s real social and economic position.

Various Implications of Marriages

121

sons, though, were transplanted to the Old Seraglio.60 For instance, after the death of Mustafa II, his consort Hafife left the imperial palace and married Reisülküttab Ebubekir Efendi (d. 1723).61 In a similar way, Hâcce Emine Kadın bint Abdullah bin Abdürrezzak was second consort of Ahmed III (r. 1703–1730), and then married İbrahim bin Osman, who became Agha of Galatasaray at one point in his career.62 The Agha of Galatasaray was the head of Galatasaray, hence it was an important and critical post.63 An unidentified Sarayî Odalık Hadice Hatun (d. 1720) married Kürd Ali Bey bin Mehmed bin Abdullah, who was Agha babası of the Old Palace.64 The highly influential wet nurses (daye-i şehriyârî) also married high-status men. Cemile Hanım (d. 1801), the wet nurse of Sah ¸ Sultan, daughter of Mustafa III (1757–1774), married Hüseyin Beyefendi, who was the chief door keeper of Dergâh-ı Âli (ser bevvâbîn-i Dergâh-ı Âli).65 An examination of several cases reveals that some palace women, especially those members of the high-ranking administrative group who had close ties with the members of imperial family, married men who held important positions in the hierarchy. This will be discussed below. According to Demetrius Cantemir’s account, valide sultan’s kutucus were generally married to a vizier with three horsetails or to persons of like dignity.66

Various Implications of Marriages A 904 (1498) law for Istanbul haslar emphasized that female slaves (hassa cariyeler) and male slaves (hassa kullar) should marry each other. This law restricted marriages between female slaves and

60

61 62 63

64 65 66

For the account of Domenico Hierosolimitano, see Domenico’s Istanbul, 33; Courmenin, Voyage de Levant, 115; Rycaut, The Present State, 40; de Burgo, Viaggio, 364; Corneille le Brun, Voyage au Levant (Paris, 1714), 45. Cantemir, The History of the Growth, 297; Guer, Moeurs et Usages, II, 35; Habesci, The Present State, 169–170; Castellan, Moeurs, III, 99. Montagu, The Complete Letters, I, 380–381. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 193, p. 91b (1188/1774). For information about Galatasaray, see Fethi İsfendiyaroglu, ˘ Galata Saray Tarihi (Istanbul: Dogan ˘ Kardeş Yayınları, 1952). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 113, pp. 35, 64, 119 (1133/1720–1721). Haskan, Eyüp Tarihi, I, 267. Cantemir, The History of the Growth, 443.

122

Marriage Patterns

outsiders and stipulated that only after meeting the internal demand could female slaves be given to outsiders. The law also stipulated that if it was necessary for a female slave to marry an outsider, it would be appropriate to offer him a sharecropping (ortakçılık) service.67 This indicates both that marriages between certain groups of people were strictly controlled and that these marriages could serve certain additional purposes. As a reflection of the Near Eastern political tradition, marriages between members of elite households also had a political function, regardless of geography or era. These marriages had both strategic and symbolic importance for the households, enabling them to widen their networks of relationships, to establish new ties with households of different levels, and to strengthen existing ties.68 In the same light, the marriages of palace women were important, as seen in the fact that the great majority of them married members of the askeri class and those serving in the palace organization. Over time, changing political balances and elite structures were reflected in the identities of palace women’s husbands. As noted in Chapter 1, the palace system of training residents of both the harem and the Enderun sought to instill a feeling of obedience and loyalty toward the ruling dynasty. As such, the marriages of palace women to various members of the askeri class were important to secure the loyalty of the newly composed households. The marriage of palace women was an important opportunity through which the imperial household developed and maintained its relationship networks and alliances, both inside and outside the palace.

67

68

Ömer Lütfi Barkan, XV ve XVI’ıncı Asırlarda Osmanlı İmparatorlugunda ˘ Ziraî Ekonominin Hukuki ve Malî Esasları, Birinci cilt, Kanunlar (Istanbul: Bürhaneddin Matbaası, 1943), 95; Ahmet Akgündüz, Osmanlı Kanunnameleri (Istanbul: Fey Vakfı, 1990), II, 311. The hassa kuls and hassa female slaves mentioned here referred to sharecropping slaves (ortakçı kuls) who worked on the farms. For an evaluation of this issue, see Erdem, Slavery in the Ottoman Empire, 11–15. In Safavid State, Shah Tahmasb (1524–1576), established marriage alliances with the members of ilmiye class (A. K. S. Lampton, “Quis Custodiet Custodes, Some Reflections on the Persian Theory of Government: I,” Studia Islamica 6 [1956]: 131). In a similar way, the sultans of the Great Seljuk Empire controlled their caliphs throuh marriage (A. K. S. Lampton, “Quis Custodiet Custodes, Some Reflections on the Persian Theory of Government,” Studia Islamica 5 [1956]: 130).

Various Implications of Marriages

123

For continuity of political life, it was important to maintain contact with different groups and to ensure their ongoing support.69 Several examples give an idea of how palace women maintained their relationship and alliance with the imperial dynasty and its household after they left the imperial harem and married. In many cases, as palace women’s mobility improved following their transfer from the palace, their activities also increased. Some women established new connections between the imperial harem and the outside world, allied with their husbands. Some palace women who were close to the dynasty acted with their husbands on behalf of the dynasty. During the Pruth Campaign,70 a palace woman and her husband Mehmed Agha, who was the steward of the door keepers (kapıcılar kethüdası), played an active role in Gülnuş Valide Sultan’s emerging relationship with Charles XII, King of Sweden.71 From the perspective of the imperial court, the marriages of its members were especially important, considering the role that they played both in strengthening ties with other households and groups, especially with those of high status, and in ensuring their ongoing loyalty to the dynasty and the state. This goal becomes even more meaningful when it is recognized that some palace women were married to members of dynasties outside the borders of the Ottoman Empire. The sisters Rukiye and Hadice, for example, were gifted by Abdulhamid II to Sultan Abu Bakar of Johor. Sultan Abu Bakar married Hadice Hanım, while his brother married Rukiye.72 The marriages of palace women who held a prestigious position in the imperial harem to members of prominent and well-established 69

70

71 72

Palace women’s marriage to members of the askeri class was the case in every period. But the implications of these marriages might have different meanings in changing political balances of the period. For instance, the implication of the marriages realized in the eighteenth century might be different compared to the marriages that took place in the sixteenth century with members of the askeri class, most of whom were probably of devshirme origin. The Pruth Campaign was the Russo-Ottoman War of 1710–1711, which erupted as a consequence of the defeat of Sweden by the Russian Empire in the Battle of Poltava (1709) and the escape of Charles XII of Sweden and his large retinue to the Ottoman-held fortress of Bender. The battle ended with the Ottoman victory over the forces of Czar Peter the Great. İpşirli Argıt, Rabia Gülnuş Emetullah Sultan, 127–129. Mehmet Ozay-Ekrem Saltık, “The Myth and Reality of Rukiye Hanım in the Context of Turkish Malay Relations (1864–1904),” Human and Society 5/9 (2015): 55–74.

124

Marriage Patterns

families such as beyzades are also important in this context. For instance, Sarayî Behramşah Hatun died as the wife of Pîripaşazâde Esseyyid Sadeddin Bey bin Esseyyid Mehmed Bey in the second half of the century.73 Sadeddin Bey was a descendant of the grand vizier (Sadr-ı a’zam) Piri Pasha who had died in 1534.74 Some of the sultans’ consorts and other members of the imperial harem’s administrative staff were also married to beyzades. The former consort of Ahmed III, Sarayî Hürrem Kadın (d. 1778), was married to Musâhibzade İbrahim Bey,75 while Hadice Rami Kadın (d. 1780), who was the sixth consort of Mahmud I, married Mustafa Paşazâde Seyyid İbrahim Bey in 1755, following Mahmud I’s death. İbrahim Bey was the son of vizier el-Hac Benli Mustafa Pasha and the inspector of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina (Haremeyn Müfettişi).76 Obviously, the marriages of palace women to members of respected and influential families would strengthen ties with these families. At this point, the marriage of Sultan Mustafa III’s (r. 1757–1774) third treasurer (hazînedar) Sarayî Simten Kadın bint Abdullah, also called Fatma, is worth mentioning. She died as the wife of imperial warrior (silahşor-i şehriyârî) el Hac Beyzade Feyzullah Bey (d. 1792).77 El Hac Beyzade Feyzullah Bey was the son of imperial warrior Emin Mehmed Bey (d. 1785),78 who was married to Leyla Kadın (d. 1794–1795), previously the first consort (baş kadın) of Osman III (r. 1754–1757).79 73

74

75

76

77

78

79

Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 195, pp. 78a–78b (1189/1775). Several examples also existed in the seventeenth century. Sarayî Ayşe Hatun bint Abdullah was the wife of Mustafa Bey bin Ahmed Pasha (Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 58, p. 141 [1078/1668]). Sarayî Hüsnüşah Hatun was wife to Mehmed Bey bin Hüseyin Pasha, and they were living in the palace of Mehmed Bey in Cezeri Kâsım Paşa neighborhood in Istanbul (Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 85, pp. 8–9 (1109/1697). Mehmed Süreyya, Sicil-i Osmani, ed. Nuri Akbayar (Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1996), IV, 1110. D.BSM. ¸ MHF 12844 (1192/1778–1779). About Hürrem Kadın, see Uluçay, Kadınları ve Kızları, 81. C. SM 6533 (1194/1780). D. HMH. MHF 33-39. Uzunçarşılı, Saray Teşkilâtı, 153. D.BSM. ¸ MHF 58-56; Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 195, pp. 56b, 61, 61b, 62a; D.HMH.MHF 33-5 (1190/1776). For information about Feyzullah Bey and Emin Bey, see Mehmed Süreyya, Sicil-i Osmani, II, 456–457, 529. For the tomb stone of Leyla Kadın, who was buried in Karacaahmet Cemetary, see Hans-Peter Laqueur, “Istanbul’da İki “İmparatoriçe” Mezarı,” Tarih ve Toplum 143 (1995): 59.

Various Implications of Marriages

125

Feyzullah was the child of Leyla and Emin Mehmed Bey.80 An examination of Feyzullah Bey’s biography and family network makes us suspect that Mustafa III might have appointed Feyzullah Bey as imperial warrior following his marriage to Simten Kadın. Marrying his treasurer to Feyzullah Bey might have had some political benefits, considering Feyzullah Bey’s mother’s strong connection to the previous Sultan, Osman III, as well as Emin Bey’s important position. The marriage of another treasurer is also worth examining.81 In 1810, Hadice Sultan (1768–1822), sister of Selim III (r. 1789–1807), initiated the marriage of her head treasurer named Dilpezir (whom she reportedly regarded as a daughter) to a promising sword bearer from the palace, Serbetçi ¸ Emin Agha.82 Emin Agha was trained in the Enderun and became Mahmud II’s sword bearer in 1808; he remained in office until 1811.83 This marriage had various implications, considering the place of daughters of the sultans in the political arena, especially Hadice Sultan’s influential position during the reign of Selim III and Mahmud II. From the seventeenth century, sword bearers were potential candidates for the post of vizierate, and were thus desireable marriage partners.84 In the eighteenth century, the prestige of the sword bearer further increased, and he became the head of the privy chamber (has oda başı), the highest level in the Enderun hierarchy.85 During the reign of Mustafa I (r. 1617–1623), a wet nurse (daye-i şehriyârî) was married to Mustafa Agha, the sword bearer in the imperial palace.86 The assignment of some palace women to a high-status person like a sword bearer was especially important in the context of the eighteenth century, when some daughters of the sultans were married to the

80 81

82

83 84 85

86

Yılmaz Öztuna, Devletler ve Hanedanlar, II, 236. According to the examined estate records of the head treasurers (hazînedar usta), this group of women had no children. This may be due to the fact that these women left the palace and married at an age that would have impeded their fertility. Kemal Beydilli, Osmanlı Döneminde İmamlar ve Bir İmamın Günlügü ˘ (Istanbul: Tarih ve Tabiat Vakfı, 2001), 95. Mehmed Süreyya, Sicil-i Osmani, II, 454. Uzunçarşılı, Saray Teşkilâtı, 342. Uzunçarşılı, Saray Teşkilâtı, 341–350; Tayyar-Zâde Atâ, Osmanlı Saray Tarihi, I, 264. Hasan Bey-Zâde, Hasan Bey-Zâde Tarihi, III, 917. Na‘îmâ, Tarih, II, 439.

126

Marriage Patterns

sword bearers.87 Eglence ˘ Emine’s career resembles Dilpezir’s in the sense that she also died as the wife of a sword bearer. Sultan Ahmed III married historian Silâhdar Mehmed Agha (d. 1723) to Sarayî Eglence ˘ Emine Hanım, a slave and foster child (evladlık) of his mother, Gülnuş Valide Sultan (d. 1715).88 Mehmed Agha (b. 1658) entered palace service as a protégé of chief favorite (Baş Musâhib) Sâhin ¸ Agha. He entered the privy chamber in 1687 and was promoted to positions of dülbend gulamı (person in charge of turban muslin), çukadar (keeper of the garments) in the reign of Mustafa II (r. 1695–1703), and finally sword bearer during the reign of Ahmed III. After Mehmed Agha retired in 1704,89 Ahmed III honored him by marrying him to his mother’s foster child. Another high-status person whose loyalty was important for the dynastic family was the sheikhulislam. In this light, the marriage of the sheikhulislam Mehmed Efendi (d. 1728) to Sarayî Muammere Hatun (d. 1715) was important.90 He was the third imam of Mehmed IV (r. 1648–1687), and he also served as müderris in various madrasas.91 He became sheikhulislam during the reign of Mustafa II (r. 1695–1703), but this lasted only two months. During the Edirne Incident of 1703 that resulted in Ahmed III’s enthronement, Mehmed Efendi gained the position of sheikhulislam for a second time with the support of the janissaries. When Ahmed III ascended to throne, Mehmed Efendi’s position as a sheikhulislam was confirmed, but he stayed in the position for only five months before being deposed by Ahmed, since Mehmed Efendi had been previously brought to this position by the rebels. He was then sent to Bursa.92 While evaluating Mehmed Efendi’s career path from the period 87

88

89 90 91

92

For instance, Ahmed III’s daughter Ayşe Sultan (1718–1775) married Silâhdar Mehmed Bey in 1727. Another daughter of Ahmed III, Fatma Sultan, married Silahdar Ali Pasha in 1709. Beyhan Sultan (1765–1824), daughter of Mustafa III, married Silahdar Mustafa Pasha in 1784. Uluçay, Padişahın Kadınları ve Kızları, 103. Nusretname: Tahlil ve Metin,” 670. Eglence ˘ Emine Hatun died from smallpox, and by imperial decree, she was buried in the Yeni Mosque graveyard (Fındıklılı Silâhdar Mehmed Aga, ˘ Silâhdar Tarihi: On Yedinci Asır Saray Hayatı, ed. Mustafa Nihat Özön [Ankara: Akba Kitabevi, 1947], 231; Silâhdar, Nusretnâme, ed. İsmet Parmaksızoglu, ˘ II, 218, 226). Christine Woodhead, “Silahdâr Fındıklılı Mehmed Agha” EI, IX, 610. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 103, p. 142. Müstakimzade Süleyman Saadettin, Devhat ül-Meşayih, Osmanlı Seyhülislamlarının ¸ Biyografileri (Istanbul: Çagrı ˘ Yayınları, 1978), 78. Tahsin Özcan, “Mehmed Efendi, İmam-ı Sultani,” DİA, XXVIII, 453–454.

Various Implications of Marriages

127

of Mehmed IV, his marriage to a palace-affiliated woman should be taken into consideration. Marriages of some palace women to members of vizier and pasha households are also worth mentioning. Sarayî Bahri Hatun was the wife of Mustafa Agha bin Ali (d. 1133/1729), who was steward (kethüda) of the commandar in the navy (kapudan) and vizier Süleyman Pasha.93 Sarayî İltifat Hatun (d. 1202/1787), who was manumitted by Abdulhamid I, was the wife of Mehmed Bey, the steward of İzzet Mehmed Pasha (b. 1743), vizier and governor of Jeddah.94 The formation of households within the ruling class both in the capital and in the provinces, already known in earlier periods, became more common after the seventeenth century, and their political influence grew accordingly. Traditionally, the Palace and the army had been responsible for the recruitment and staffing of the highest government posts, but now vizier and pasha households became another attractive channel for promotion. In time, men coming from the vizier and pasha households became alternatives to those people who were being trained in the palace and in the military organization for important central and provincial posts.95 Therefore, marriages of some palace women to members of vezir and pasha households are worth examining when we take into consideration their increasing political power. The biography of İzzet Mehmed Pasha is noteworthy in evaluating the implications of such marriages. İzzet Mehmed was a member of a family that had close ties with the imperial court. He developed a closer relationship with the dynastic family when he became steward (kethüda) of Sah ¸ Sultan (1761–1802), daughter of Mustafa III, in 93

94

95

Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 113, p. 98 (1133/1720–1721). Süleyman Pasha attained the post of commander in the navy (kapudan-ı derya) in 1714, but one year later he was dismissed from office. In 1715, he became the governor of Adana and Agriboz (Euboea). In 1718, he became commander in the navy a second time and was given the post of vizierate (Mehmed İzzet, Harîta-i Kapûdânân-ı Derya [Istanbul, 1283/1868], 91). Grand vizier Melek Mehmed Pasha was son of Süleyman Pasha (Mehmed Süreyya, Sicil-i Osmani, V, 1543). D.BSM. ¸ MHF 12925 (1202/1787). Likewise, in the seventeenth century, Sarayî Emine Hatun was married to Mehmed Agha bin Mustafa bin Abdulmennan who was former steward of Egyptian governor Hüseyin Pasha (Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 85, pp. 144–145 [1110/1698]). Abou-El-Haj, “The Ottoman Vizier and Pasha Households 1683–1703,” 438–447; Carter Findley, “Political Culture and the Great Households,” in The Cambridge History of Turkey: The Later Ottoman Empire, ed. Suraiya Faroqhi (Cambridge: Cambridge Universty Press, 2006), III, 65–80.

128

Marriage Patterns

1779 and married the daughter of Halil Hamid Pasha, grand vizier during the reign of Abdulhamid I. From that point, he made rapid progress in his career. In 1794, he became grand vizier and remained in this office until 1798.96 When we consider the fact that İltifat Hatun was manumitted by Abdulhamid I (r. 1774–1789), the beginnings of İzzet Pasha’s successful career coincided with the period in which he had close relationships with the dynastic family. While evaluating men’s career developments, then, their marriages to palace women should be taken into consideration. Some husbands of palace women were related to people at the imperial court. Sarayî Fethi Hatun bin Abdullah was married to Mustafa Agha bin Hasan, administrator (mütevelli) to the waqf of the agha of the Gate of Felicity (babüssaade agası) ˘ Abdullah Agha.97 As another example, Sarayî Okumuş Fehime Hatun bint Abdülmennan (d. 1715) was married to chief door keeper falconer (kapıcıbaşı kuşçu) Mustafa Agha bin Ahmed, whose brother, Osman Bey bin Ahmed, was head coachman to the Sultan’s chief consort (baş kadın arabacıbaşısı).98 Others were affiliated with the households of eminent aghas of the imperial court, such as the Agha of the Old Palace or the chief black eunuch. While evaluating the increasing power of the chief black eunuchs from the sixteenth century, their relationship with members of their households should be taken into consideration. Na’îmâ stated that in the first half of the seventeenth century, many persons in the Enderun and Birun were apprentices (çırak) of chief black eunuch el hac Mustafa Agha.99 As they were for the palace, the marriages of people belonging to the households of chief black eunuchs were important because they enlarged the household’s reach and fostered strong relationships, all of which were a testament to the household leader’s influence. For instance, the marriage between Yusuf Agha bin Abdullah bin Abdurrahman (d. 1715), manumitted by chief black eunuch Elmas Agha, and Sarayî Ayşe Hatun strengthened the link between the chief black eunuch’s household and the imperial palace.100 In some cases, marriages were arranged between two people of the same household. The marriage of el Hac Ali bin Abdullah and Sarayî 96

97 98 99 100

Mehmed Süreyya, Sicil-i Osmani, III, 849; Abdülkadir Özcan, “İzzet Mehmed Paşa (1743–1812),” DİA, XXIII, 560–561. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 116, p. 252 (1138/1725–1726). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 105, pp. 44, 53, 65, 66, 73. Na‘îmâ, Tarih, III, 1532. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 105, p. 48 (1128/1715).

Evaluation of Marriages from the Husbands’ Perspectives

129

Ayşe Hatun, for example, brought together two slaves of the chief black eunuch Solak Mehmed Agha.101 These kinds of marriages help us understand how eunuchs enlarged their own households once they left the palace. We know that when eunuchs left the palace, some members of their household accompanied them to their new positions outside of Istanbul. For instance, eunuchs who went to Egypt following their service period kept a large group of household members.102 Palace women’s offspring sometimes attained positions in the imperial court. Sarayî Daye Meryem Hatun bint Abdullah (d. 1128/1715) was married to el-Hac İsmail, and their son, Hasan Agha, was a page in the larder chamber (kiler odası) in the Enderun.103 Therefore, palace women’s marriages allowed various members of their family to become affiliated directly with the imperial court, and households gradually emerged of people affiliated in various ways to the court.104 The marriages of palace women were thus important considering the ways in which they enabled the imperial court’s influence to expand, extending even to the lowest levels of the askeri class. These palacerelated households expanded over time, as husbands belonged to various branches of the askeri class, including not just the palace and military organization or religious establishments but also other groups of increasing importance, such as the scribal service, vezir and pasha households, Babıâli, and beyzades.

Evaluation of Marriages from the Husbands’ Perspectives In some cases, palace women’s marriages were arranged to honor the husband.105 According to Cantemir’s account, as a reward for his 101

102

103 104

105

Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 110, pp. 97, 109, 111, 112 (1131/ 1718–1719). Solak Mehmed Agha became the chief black eunuch in 1658 and stayed in that office until 1663. Then, he was exiled to Egypt and died there. Mehmed Süreyya, Sicil-i Osmani, III, 953. The exiled chief black eunuch Yusuf Agha (1671–1687) was an example (Hathaway, The Politics of Households, 139–164; Hathaway, “Eunuch Households,” 297). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 106, p. 91 (1129/1716–1717). Similarly, the famous chief administrative officer, Raziye (d. 1005/1596–1597) was married to military judge (kazasker) Yahya Efendi, and one of her two sons was Vizier Mustafa, governor (beylerbeyi) of Erzurum. Her son-in-law was Mevlana Muhyiddin Efendi, military judge (kazasker) of Rumelia (Selânikî, Târih-i Selânikî, II, 695). This situation is mentioned in some European accounts (Sandys, Relation of a journey began an dom 1610, 74; William Joseph Grelot, A Late Voyage to

130

Marriage Patterns

services, Gülnuş Valide Sultan (d. 1715) gave her Circassian kutucu or treasurer in marriage to the son of Nuh Efendi, her chief physician. The chief physician thanked the valide sultan for such a great favor.106 In some cases, marriage to a palace woman might have played a role in enhancing the husband’s career, depending on the woman’s position in the harem. In an environment in which networks within and outside the court influenced a person’s career, for some husbands, marriage to a palace woman provided the opportunity to reach certain positions and to network; for others it was instrumental in securing their position. For instance, Na'îmâ noted that Kösem Sultan favored those men whom she had married to her own female slaves with salaries and positions.107 Even though it is not possible in each case to trace how the political career of the husband developed following his marriage to a palace woman, historical accounts provide several examples of the ways in which palace women might have been effective in the improving their husband’s career. The historian Peçevi noted that Bosniakorigin Pilak Mustafa Pasha, who was trained in the inner palace school, witnessed a career boost through his marriage to a palace woman. According to Peçevi, “he was married to a woman named Sahhuban ¸ who was a slave woman in the harem, and because of this marriage he was honored with the post of vizier.”108 Likewise, the former companion of Sultan İbrahim, Sehsüvar ¸ Usta (d. 1058/1648) also known as Sekerpare, ¸ played an important role in the career of her husband, Musa Pasha. According to Na’îmâ’s account, Musa Pasha advanced in his career through his connection to Sekerpare; ¸ he first became agha of janissary with the vizierate and then held the post of intendant of finances (defterdar).109 A female slave of Gülnuş Valide Sultan (d. 1715) likewise played a determining role in the career of her husband, Baltacı Mehmed Pasha. According to Silâhdar’s account, Baltacı Mehmed Pasha was assigned to a post in

106 108 109

Constantinople [London, 1683], 76, 77; Pierre Lambert de Saumery, Anecdotes Venitiennes et turques ou Nouveaux mémoires du Comte Bonneval [Frankfurt, 1740], I, 139). 107 Cantemir, The History of the Growth, 443. Na‘îmâ, Tarih, III, 1329. Peçevi, Tarih-i Peçevi, I, 30–31. Na‘îmâ, Tarih, III, 1066, 1232–1233. For information about Musa Pasha, see Mehmed Süreyya, Sicill-i Osmani, IV, 1123. Evliya Çelebi notes that Sekerpare ¸ played a role in the career of people (Evliya Çelebi, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi: Topkapı Sarayı Bagdat ˘ 304 Yazmasının TranskripsiyonuDizini, 1. Kitap, 149).

Evaluation of Marriages from the Husbands’ Perspectives

131

Izmit and later in Chios. But he was then removed from this post, at his wife’s request.110 D’Ohsson also noted that “many of the slave girls leave the imperial palace, to be given in marriage to officers of the court, who always look for them with the hope of advancing in their career through the agency of these women.”111 Palace women might have played an important role in the operation and continuity of their husband’s household. The marriage of Hadice Turhan Valide Sultan’s (d. 1683) Kutucu Usta (who was responsible for her toilet and dressing) to Ma’noglu Hüseyin in the 1660s stands as a striking example of how palace affiliation had an impact on the kinds of changes that took place in the husbands’ careers, and on how the husbands’ relationship with political power developed over the longer term. Ma’noglu Hüseyin was a member of the Ma’noglu family, which was one of the active dynastic families of Lebanon in the late seveenteenth century.112 This family followed the Druze cult and had become subjects of the Ottoman Empire in 1516. Hüseyin was the son of Druze emir Fahreddin II (1572–1635), who controlled the frontiers of today’s Lebanon but was opposed Ottoman rule and wanted to found an independent state. When Fahreddin signed a treaty with the Duke of Tuscany in 1608, Nasuh Pasha formed an army in 1611 to break his power. Fahreddin then fled to Toscana in 1613; when he returned after five years, his brother Yunus had come to terms with the Ottomans. Although Fahreddin’s power gradually increased in the following years, he was caught and brought to Istanbul in 1634, where he was assassinated the following year.113 All of his sons, except Hüseyin, were killed alongside him. The infant Hüseyin was taken to Istanbul 110

111 112

113

“Nusretname: Tahlil ve Metin,” 684. Likewise, European accounts also state the impact of this female palace slave in the career of her husband, Baltacı Mehmed Pasha (Cantemir, The History of the Growth, 442–444; Guer, Moeurs et Usages, II, 120; Vincent Mignot, Histoire de l’empire Ottoman, depuis son origine jusqu’à la paix de Belgrade en 1740 [Paris, 1771], IV, 66–73, 103–104); Baron Fabricius, The Genuine Letters of Baron Fabricius, envoy from His Serene Highness the Duke Administrator of Holstein to Charles XII of Sweden. [London: T. Becket, 1761], xv). D’ohsson, Tableau, I, ix–x. Anonim Osmanlı Tarihi (1099–1116/1688–1704), 272; Baykal, Enderun Mektebi, 109; Fethi İsfendiyaroglu, ˘ Galata Saray Tarihi (Istanbul: Dogan ˘ Kardeş Yayınları, 1952), 199; Yılmaz Öztuna, Devletler ve Hanedanlar, II, 509. Feridun Emecen, “Fahreddin Ma’noglu,” ˘ DİA, XII, 80–82; Cavit Baysun, “Ma’n,” İA, VII, 268–272.

132

Marriage Patterns

and was educated at Galatasaray. Later, he was transferred to the Enderun and trained there. Hüseyin served in many important positions following his promotion to the privy chamber. During the reign of Mehmed IV, he was assigned the post of confidential secretary (sır katibi) for fourteen years; later he functioned as lieutenant of the treasury (hazîne kethüdâsı). When he left the palace in 1656, he held the post of chief door keeper (dergâh-ı Âlî kapıcıbaşısı). In the same year, he was sent to India as an ambassador, and there was offered the position of emir. However, after serving the state for so many years and reaching high posts, he refused the offer by saying that he could not be a Druze emir.114 Ma’nzade Hüseyin Bey was a good friend of the historian Na'îmâ and contributed a great deal to the writing of Ottoman history. As Hüseyin had a deep knowledge about the internal dynamics of the imperial court, Na'îmâ gathered information from him about the reigns of Sultan Ibrahim and Mehmed IV. According to Na'îmâ, Hüseyin was an eminent and well-behaved person who was appreciated at the Ottoman palace. As a reward, the Valide Sultan offered her trusted attendant to him in marriage. Following Hüseyin’s death, Kutucu Usta married another person from her deceased husband’s household named Salih Agha, who had been Hüseyin’s treasurer (hazînedar). Kutucu Usta’s marriage to one of the clients of her former husband’s household might have been planned to ensure the continuity of this household and to contribute to its political reputation.115 Following his marriage, Salih’s affiliation with the household continued after Hüseyin’s death, and he was renamed Ma’nzade Salih.116 Kutucu Usta’s second marriage stands as an example of a woman’s role in the fate of political households. The marrying off of a widowed female household member to any other member of the household also reveals the lifelong agency of women in political households. 114

115

116

Silâhdar Fındıklılı Mehmed Aga, ˘ Silâhdar Tarihi, I, 164. For information about Hüseyin, see Cavit Baysun, “Ma’n,” İA, VII, 268–272; Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Tarihi (Ankara, 1988) III/2, 267; Na‘îmâ, Tarih-i Na‘îmâ. Marriage of Kutucu Usta is comparable to the marriage practices in the households of Ottoman Egypt; when a grandee died, one of his clients married his widow or concubines (Afaf Lutfi al-Sayyid Marsot, “Marriage in Late Eighteenth Century Egypt,” in The Mamluks in Egyptian Politics and Society, ed. Thomas Philipp-Ulrich Haarmann [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998], 284–285). Anonim Osmanlı Tarihi (1099–1116/1688–1704), 239; Zübde-i Vekaiyat, 834.

Divorce and Second Marriages

133

When a woman married a member of her deceased husband’s household, the new husband had a right to her accumulated property. Since Hüseyin Bey had amassed a huge fortune, his marriage secured enormous benefits for Salih Agha, and he enjoyed the wealth of his new wife.117 However, Ma’noglu Salih apparently sided with the rebels in 1703, much to his detriment.118 Palace women were expected to remain loyal to the dynasty, but there is no information available to tell us how Salih joined the rebellion, how his wife perceived him, or where her alliances lay. Salih had reached an important position, being sipâhî agha, and acquired fame in this position, but he was dismissed from the office in 1703 and exiled to Bozcaada, where he later died.119 It is not known if Kutucu Usta was alive at the time of Salih’s death and, if she was alive, whether she remarried yet again following his death.

Divorce and Second Marriages The story of the Kutucu Usta not only implies the political implications inherent in some marriages but also gives us an idea about the second marriages of palace women. Some of the marriages ended in divorce. Court records contain various cases concerning divorce proceedings initiated by both palace women and their husbands.120 Overall, 117

118

119

120

Mü’minzâde Seyyid Ahmed Hasîb Efendi, Ravzatü’l-Kübera, haz. Mesut Aydıner (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2003), 47; Anonim Osmanlı Tarihi (1099–1116/1688–1704), 272; Na’îmâ, Tarih, IV, 1870; Mü’minzâde Seyyid Ahmed Hasîb Efendi, Ravzatü’l-Kübera, 47. During each sultan’s reign, there were various power balances that aimed to interfere with the sultan’s authority, and people would enter into relationships based on their self-interest. Salih was a close friend of Çalık Ahmed who was active in the rebellion. Abou-El-Haj, The 1703 Rebellion, 38. Mü’minzâde Seyyid Ahmed Hasîb Efendi, Ravzatü’l- Kübera, ed. Mesut Aydıner (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2003), 47; Zübde-i Vekayiat, 834; Mehmed Süreyya, Sicil-i Osmani, V, 1460. The great majority of divorce cases related to palace women were muhalaa type of divorce, which meant that women initiated the divorce. This reflects other divorce-related court records (Madeline Zilfi, “We Don’t Get Along,” in Women in the Ottoman Empire: Middle Eastern Women in the Early Modern Era, ed. Madeline Zilfi [New York: Brill, 1997], 264–296). Husband-initiated divorce did not have to be declared before the law court. On the other hand, cases related to divorce initiated by the husband of palace women were rarely recorded in the court. In one example, Sarayî Emine Hatun stated in the court in the presence of her husband that previously her husband Mehmed bin Hasan

134

Marriage Patterns

though, it is difficult to ascertain the divorce rate among manumitted female palace slaves, and the number of available cases is too small to allow for any final conclusions. Certainly, the court records reveal that some palace women did remarry following a divorce or after a husband’s death. Second marriage was a common occurrence in Ottoman society more broadly. The available cases suggest that palace women were remarried to members of the askeri class. Some women married a person from their deceased husband’s household, as in the case of Kutucu Usta. In one of the chronicles, the second marriage of Kutucu Usta to a man from the household of her husband is related in a way that suggests that there was a policy regulating the marriages of palaceaffiliated women.121 Several examples from Mamluk families reveal that elite women also married clients of their husbands.122 Other court records, especially inheritance registers belonging to husbands, demonstrate that some husbands had a second wife, apart from the palace woman. We see that men of high standing who were affiliated with a palace organization, such as the second master of the stable (mîrâhur-ı sânî şehriyârî) Osman Agha bin Hamza bin Abdullah,123 or Aga ˘ babası of the Old Palace Kürd Ali Bey bin Mehmed bin Abdullah (d. 1720),124 or Haseki İsmail Agha bin İbrahim who was Hadika-i hassa-i şehriyârî Bostancılar Odabaşısı (an office in charge of the imperial gardens),125 or Selim Agha bin Abdullah, who was chief

121

122

123 124 125

had stipulated that if he went to the house of his another wife Serife, ¸ Sarayî Emine would be divorced from him. Sarayî Emine noted that later on her husband went to the house of Serife. ¸ In this case, Sarayî Serife ¸ asked the court to confirm that she was divorced. He refused the stated stipulation, but witnesses supported Sarayî Emine’s claim. The court declared that Sarayî Emine was free of her husband by divorce (Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi ˘ nr. 174, p. 75a; nr. 175, p. 106 [1179/1765]). “Saraylı dahi âhara varır ise ser-rişte verilmek mukarrer” (Anonim Osmanlı Tarihi (1099–1116/1688–1704), 272). Hathaway, “Marriage Alliances,” 144. The story of Kutucu Usta resembles that of Shawikar Kadın, who was consort of one of the most powerful and wealthy men of the eighteenth-century Mamluks, Uthman Kethüda. Shawikar was a woman of property and influence in Ottoman Cairo in the eighteenth century. Following the death of her husband, she married a person from her husband’s household (Mary Ann Fay, “From Concubines to Capitalists: Women, Property, and Power in Eighteenth-Century Cairo,” Journal of Women’s History 3 [1998]: 118–140). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 110, p. 20 (1130/1717). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 113, pp. 35, 64, 119 (1133/1720). Kısmet-i Askeriyye Court, nr. 33, p. 56; nr. 34, p. 57 (1124/1712).

Divorce and Second Marriages

135

door keeper of Dergâh-ı Âli,126 all had a second wife apart from his sarayî wife. We do not know if these palace women married as a second wife or if their husbands remarried later on. Yet, some of these women might have married influential members of the imperial court as a second wife in order to be protected. * The marriages of palace-affiliated women had some implications for the various parties involved. An evaluation of these marriages from the perspective of the manumitted female palace slaves demonstrates that these women received patronage through marriage. A career in the imperial harem brought advantages for graduates, depending on the woman’s status in the hierarchy. Some women gained the opportunity to rise in the social hierarchy by way of marriage. They began their career as a slave and ended their lives as the wife of an eminent person. For other women, their connection to the imperial court provided them leverage in their marriage relations. The marriages of palace-affiliated people were critically important for the imperial court, allowing it to enlarge its networks within and outside the court, to establish new bonds, to strengthen existing relationships, and to expand its dominance over a large domain. Therefore, by way of marriage, manumitted female palace slaves’ relationship with the imperial court took on a new character, although these women continued to be a component of the larger political structure. The great majority of households made up of palace women and their husbands belonged to various ranks of the askeri class; most were located in Istanbul, but they could be located almost anywhere in the Ottoman Empire, depending on the husband’s position. The next chapter evaluates the residential patterns of palace women, with a view to tracing the impact of household affiliation and of status; it also explores the place of manumitted female palace slaves in Ottoman society by focusing on their social and communal relations with the rest of society. 126

Kısmet-i Askeriyye Court, nr. 35, p. 88 (1125/1713).

|

4

Residential Districts and Relations with Society

When manumitted female palace slaves left the imperial palaces, they settled in various parts of the empire as either married or single persons with their sarayî/saraylı title. The women’s former status in the harem hierarchy, and the extent of their palace affiliation, determined (at least to some extent) where they resided. This chapter is devoted to a study of the residential districts of manumitted female palace slaves, with a view to tracing the impact of household affiliation and of status on their residential patterns. Following their departure from the imperial palaces, manumitted female palace slaves began a new life in various parts of the empire, but mainly in Istanbul. The chapter demonstrates that households composed of palace women and their chiefly askeri-status husbands were located at certain distances to the palace. Having established the residential pattern of manumitted female palace slaves, who were familiar with the imperial court culture and lived in society with their ‘palace identity,’ the chapter explores the place of these women in society. Through an analysis of court records, the chapter demonstrates how palaceaffiliated women integrated into society and developed social and communal relationships, especially with residents of the neighborhoods in which they lived. * It was common practice that people close to the dynasty, including members of the imperial court, were assigned a residence. Some palace women were allocated houses either to honor them or due out of necessity. In 1807, İbrahim Kethüda’s property was seized (emval-i zabt) and his mansion (worth 51,000 kuruş), together with an outhouse in Tavşantaşı in the Sogana ˘ ga ˘ neighborhood in intra muros Istanbul, was awarded to Hadice Sultan (1768–1822), sister of

136

Residential Districts and Relations with Society

137

Mustafa IV and Selim III.1 Hadice Sultan then reassigned this mansion to her treasurer Sarayî Dilpezir Hanım.2 When Dilpezir married Serbetçi ¸ Emin Agha three years later, in 1810, she went to live in the mansion together with her new husband. Similarly, when Sarayî Sehbaz ¸ Hatun was manumitted by the previous Agha of the Old Palace, Habeşî Mustafa Agha, she received a house from him in one of Cairo’s neighborhoods.3 By contrast, Dilber Peyker, who served Abdulmecid (r. 1839–1861) as a female slave, requested a house because she was living in destitution.4 Not all palace women were given houses, however. Some purchased houses on their own initiative, using their own savings.5 Sarayî Halime, who had been manumitted by the Valide Sultan, went to the house of the previously manumitted Sarayî Hadice to get help in establishing her new life. Sarayî Halime provided Hadice with money to buy a house and a slave. The house Sarayî Halime Hatun purchased, valued at 720 kuruş, was in Istanbul’s Derviş Ali neighborhood in the vicinity of Çukurbostan, the same neighborhood in which Sarayî Hadice Hatun herself lived.6 Being assigned a house, or being directed in the choice of a house by another palace woman, as Halime’s case suggests, demonstrates that palace affiliation likely had an impact on the geographical location of palace women’s residences following their transfer out of the harem. Considering that palace women were married to members of the askeri class, including those serving in the palace organization, the 1

2 3

4 5

6

Ceride, vr.12a, quoted in Kemal Beydilli, ed., Osmanlı Döneminde İmamlar ve Bir İmamın Günlügü ˘ (Istanbul: Tarih ve Tabiat Vakfı, 2002), 95, 128. Cevdet Maliye 50-2342 (1222/1807). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 109, p. 103 (1130/1717). Novels also state that female slaves were married off and given houses. See, for example, Samiha Ayverdi, Mesihpaşa İmamı (Istanbul: Kubbealtı Neşriyatı, 1974). Several examples reveal that not only female palace slaves but also male and female slaves from various parts of the empire were given houses following their manumission. For instance, in Trabzon, Hayrunnisa binti Abdullah assigned a one-room house (bir bab fevkani mülk menzil) to her manumitted slave Ali bin Abdullah (Trabzon Court Records, 1830-58b-1 [1054/1644] quoted in İzzet Sak, “Ser’iyye ¸ Sicillerine Göre Sosyal ve Ekonomik Hayatta Köleler (17. ve 18. Yüzyıllar),” 139). Y.PRK. AZJ 3/91 (1297/1880). Houses appear in the estates and sale records of palace women, as will be mentioned in Chapter 5. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 106, p. 27 (1129/1717).

138

Residential Districts and Relations with Society

geographical location of their residence was important: as part of a structure in which networks of relationships and power dynamics ruled, the residential locations of people connected with the palace reflected the extent of the rulers’ sovereignty.

Residential Locations The main sources of information about the residential locations of palace women are court registers, waqfiyyes (endowment deeds), and estate inventories (muhallefat). This section evaluates the residential locations of 473 women who lived in various periods of the eighteenth century.7 The available sources record the neighborhood in which palace women were living at the time the records were registered; as such, they might not correspond to the places where these women were living immediately after they left the palace. The women might have moved to another place over time, or they might have had more than one residence.8 Some of them could also have been residing outside their own houses, as guests, when the record was written. A case in point would be Sarayî Rukiye Hatun bint Abdullah bin Abdülmennan, the wife of Ali Beşe bin Salih, who was residing in Eyüb as a houseguest (misafireten sakine) when she died in 1721.9 Manumitted female palace slaves continued their lives in various places of the empire, but most commonly in Istanbul. Graph 4.1 shows that the great majority of palace women were scattered over various parts of intra muros Istanbul. In fact, an archival document from the eighteenth century regards palace-affiliated women as “those sarayî women living in areas of Üsküdar, Eyüb, Galata, Tophane, the two shores of the Bosphorus and in other places.”10 This same distribution pattern continued through the second half of the century. The New Palace served as the dynastic center until the nineteenth century, and this led to the concentration of residences in intra muros Istanbul. The number of such dynastic, and hence power, centers then grew over the 7

8

9

Three hundred and thirty-five palace women registered between 1685 and 1739 and 138 registered between 1761 and 1840 have been examined. For instance, Sarayî Meryem binti Abdullah bin Abdullah, who was married to Mehmed Beşe bin Abdullah, lived in the Arabacı Bayezid neighborhood, but died in the Keçeci Piri neighborhood (Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 110, p. 63 (1130/1718). 10 Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 113, p. 222 (1134/1721). C. SM 7226.

Residential Locations

139

Distribution of residential districts of palace women 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

1685–1739 1761–1840

intra muros

Galata

Üsküdar

Eyüb

Graph 4.1 Distribution of residential districts of palace women.

following century, which in turn resulted in new residential areas appearing near to the Dolmabahçe and Yıldız Palaces. Map 4.1 maps the residential distribution of palace women in intra muros Istanbul in the period 1685–1840.11 Like the graph, the map reveals that these women were scattered over various neighborhoods of intra muros Istanbul.12 Palace women lived, in order of density, in areas around the New Palace, Ayasofya, the Grand Bazaar, Süleymaniye and the Mahmud Paşa Mosque, along the Divanyolu, on the shore between Ahırkapı and Kumkapı, around the Old Palace and the Bayezid Mosque, and in Aksaray, Zeyrek, and Davud Paşa. In addition, the regions around the Fatih Mosque, Koca Mustafa Paşa, and Topkapı were also densely inhabited by palace women.13

11

12

13

See Appendix for residential neighborhoods of palace women in intra muros Istanbul. This map is prepared based on the map of Ayverdi, which depicts the situation in nineteenth-century Istanbul; Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi, 19. Asırda Istanbul Haritası (Istanbul: Istanbul Fethi Dernegi, ˘ 1958). Each dot represents a palace woman. The settlement pattern of palace women more or less fits the general distribution of the population. According to Mantran, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, popular areas with a higher population density were situated north of a line stretching from Bayezid to the gate of Edirne, in the south end of the Hippodrome and the Aksaray-Yenikapı area, and finally between Samatya and Yedikule and across the Golden Horn (Robert Mantran, La Vie Quoditienne au Temps de Soliman le Magnifique et de se Successeurs (XVIe et XVIIe siècles) [Paris: Librairie Hachette, 1965], 41).

140

Residential Districts and Relations with Society

Map 4.1 Distribution of residential districts for palace women in intra muros Istanbul between 1685 and 1840.14

It is not possible to identify the number or ratio of palace women in each neighborhood in the examined period, but palace women appeared more frequently in some neighborhoods than in others at particular points in time (Table 4.1). As in the case of Sarayî Halime, who had been helped by a previously manumitted palace woman and settled in the same neighborhood, palace women with common identities might have concentrated in certain neighborhoods.15 14

15

I would like to thank the Center for Urban Studies-İstanbul Sehir ¸ University and Zeynep Eroglu ˘ for their assistance in preparing this map. Likewise, eunuch neighborhoods emerged in Medina and in Cairo. In Medina this neighborhood was next to the gate of the Prophet’s tomb complex, while in Cairo

Residential Locations

141

Table 4.1 Neighborhoods in intra muros Istanbul where palace women frequently resided Kabasakal Sinan neighborhood Koruk Mahmud neighborhood Servi neighborhood, in the vicinity of Mahmud Paşa Mahmud Paşa neighborhood Kâtib Muslihuddin neighborhood, in the vicinity of Aksaray Âşık Paşa neighborhood İbrahim Paşa neighborhood, in the vicinity of Kumkapı Nişancı Paşa neighborhood, in the vicinity of Kumkapı Molla Hüsrev neighborhood, in the vicinity of Süleymaniye Hoca Hayreddin neighborhood Molla Gürani neighborhood Daye Hatun neighborhood Sarıgez neighborhood Sarı Musa neighborhood Kazgani Sadi neighborhood Sogan ˘ Aga ˘ neighborhood Emin Beg˘ neighborhood, in the vicinity of Bayezid Mosque Akbıyık neighborhood Elvan Çelebi neighborhood Hacı Hamza neighborhood

The stories of several palace women scattered in various parts of the empire reveal the heterogeneity of their residential fates. Not all lived in attractive houses, as Dilpezir Hanım did in İbrahim Kethüda’s mansion in the Sogana ˘ ga ˘ neighborhood; in fact, some palace women actually died in rooming houses (odalar) in Istanbul.16 Sarayî Zeynep Hatun

16

it was situtated to the west of Cairo’s citadel, which was the hub of elite residence in Cairo (Hathaway, “Eunuch Households,” 296–298). In the late nineteenth century, the Kasap İlyas neighborhood of Istanbul contained a number of black people who were either manumitted slaves or the offspring of former slaves. The reason why so many of these manumitted black slaves had chosen this particular neighborhood may be related to the presence of one of their community leaders qualified as kolbaşı who was living in the same neighborhood (Behar, A Neighborhood in Ottoman Istanbul, 144–145). For a manumitted African slave of the palace who lived in Izmit, see Erdem, “Magic, Theft, and Arson.” In 1672, there were 12,000 rooming houses (İnalcık, “Istanbul,” DİA, XXIII, 231). An examination of the marital and material status of palace women living in rooming houses reveals that these women were not always single and not always poor.

142

Residential Districts and Relations with Society

bint Abdullah, who was the wife of Halil Efendi bin Mehmed, lived in Ayşe Sultan’s rooming houses in the Kabasakal Sinan neighborhood around Sultanahmed.17 Sarayî Hadice Hatun lived in the Çasnigir odas, close to Mahmudpasa, when she died in 1715.18 In the second half of the eighteenth century, Goncafem Hatun bint Abdullah, who was manumitted by Zeynep Sultan and married to Saka Mehmed Beşe, lived in Ayşe Sultan’s rooms.19 Sarayî Hafize Hatun (d. 1774) lived as a guest in Küçük Ayasofya, also called the Hüseyin Aga ˘ neighborhood. Mentally ill Sarayî Hafize Hatun had been expelled from her house and, not being accepted into anyone else’s house, remained homeless. With the help of Cebecibaşı Agha, her possessions were kept in the shop of a certain Ali, who was living in the same neighborhood. She was finally sent to the house of the imam in her neighborhood. Poor Sarayî Hafize’s story continued in this way until she was transferred to the Haseki Sultan hospital.20 Sarayî Cihanşah Rukiye Hatun was a resident of Mustafa Bey neighborhood. She lost her mental health, escaped from home, and disappeared.21

Bilad-ı Selase As Graph 4.1 shows, some palace women lived in Galata, Eyüb, and Üsküdar.22 At that time, Istanbul was divided into two districts. There was Istanbul (intra muros), and there was the outer areas or Bilad-ı Selase, referring to Eyüb (Havass-ı Refia or Haslar), Galata, and Üsküdar. In the eighteenth century, most of the population lived intra muros and outnumbered those living in Üsküdar, Galata, and Eyüb.23 Galata (Medine-i Galata, Mahrusa-i Galata) covered the area from Tophane to Rumeli Kavagı: ˘ the shores of the Bosphorus including Beşiktaş, Yeniköy and İstinye, and the area from Kasımpaşa to

17 18 19 20

21 22

23

Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 105, p. 114 (1128/1715). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 105, p. 102 (1128/1716). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 193, p. 33a (1188/1774). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 193, pp. 10a–10b (1188/1774); nr. 194, pp. 5a–5b. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 151, p. 56, 65 (1168/1755). Some of the palace women living in Bilad-ı Selase also might have owned residences in intra muros region. İnalcık, “Istanbul,” EI2, IV, 244; Halil İnalcık, “Istanbul,” DİA, XXIII, 220–239.

Residential Locations

143

Table 4.2 Neighborhoods in Galata where palace women resided Tophane

Kasımpaşa

Beşiktaş

Firuz Aga ˘ Arap Camii Cihangir Kuloglu ˘

Piyale Paşa Hacı Hüsrev Sinan Paşa Cami-i Kebir Seferikoz Kurt Çelebi Nalıncı

Kılıç Ali Ekmekçibaşı

Hasköy. In every period there were palace women living in various areas of Galata.24 For instance, according to the Selânikî’s account, Raziye Hatun (d. 1005/1596–1597), who was quite an influential person in the harem, owned a house in Beşiktaş.25 Palace women who were residents of Galata in the eighteenth century lived, in order of density, in various neighborhoods of Tophane (Kasaba-i Tophane), Kasımpaşa (Kasaba-i Kasımpaşa), Beşiktaş (Kasaba-i Beşiktaş), and Fındıklı (Kasaba-i Fındıklı) (Table 4.2). Some women also lived in the far north of Galata district, as in the case of Sarayî Mahbube Kadın who had been manumitted by Abdulhamid I and lived in the Molla Fenari neighborhood in Rumelihisarı.26 The ratio of palace women living in Galata and Eyüb appears to be more or less the same in the first part of the eighteenth century, but then trends toward Galata in the second half. In this context, the developments experienced in the region, along with changing conditions more broadly, might have had a determining effect on the women’s residential preferences. Members of the royal family and the ruling elite, for example, preferred the shores of Bosphorus that were part of Galata from the seventeenth century onward. Beşiktaş Palace was constructed in the seventeenth century.27 People affiliated 24

25 27

In the sixteenth century, in addition to the concentration in the Suriçi region, people resided in Galata, Haliç and Tophane, and in the regions of Fındıklı, Cihangir, and Kasımpaşa (İnalcık, “Istanbul,” EI2, IV, 231). In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the borders of Tophane, Beyoglu, ˘ and Kasımpaşa were expanded in Galata (İnalcık, “Istanbul,” EI2, IV, 244). 26 Selânikî, Târih-i Selânikî, II, 695. D.BSM. ¸ MHF 72-3 (1198/1773). Tülay Artan, “Beşiktaş Sahilsarayı,” in Dünden Bugüne Beşiktaş, ed. Nuri Akbayar (Istanbul: Beşiktaş Belediye Başkanlıgı: ˘ 1998), 56–59.

144

Residential Districts and Relations with Society

with the imperial court, the ruling elite, and prestigious members of the ilmiye class generally preferred Beşiktaş.28 For the second half of the seventeenth century, Evliya Çelebi noted that there were mansions in Beşiktaş region.29 During the eighteenth century, the popularity of the shores of the Bosphorus increased even more. Through the century, members of the imperial family preferred to reside in palaces located in Beşiktaş around Dolmabahçe. Mahmud I had the ruined Beşiktaş Palace repaired and ordered the construction of new mansions by Dolmabahçe. Mustafa III used the Beşiktaş Palace as a summer palace, Selim III gave importance to Beşiktaş30 and the daughters of Mustafa III, Sah ¸ Sultan (1761–1802), Beyhan Sultan (1766–1824), and Hadice Sultan (1768–1822), had private palaces there toward the end of the eighteenth century.31 Mahmud II completely abandoned the New Palace and moved to Beşiktaş. The revival that took place in the Beyoglu, ˘ Pera region from the second half of the eighteenth century should also be taken into consideration when considering where palace women ended up living following their manumission. A group of palace women were likewise scattered across the various neighborhoods of the Eyüb district (Table 4.3), which covered Çatalca, Büyük Çekmece, and Silivri at that time. Some were living at the far end of the Eyüb district, as in the case of Sarayî kızı Meryem Hatun bint Abdullah, who had a house in Büyük Çekmece.32 Some palace women lived in Üsküdar (Table 4.4), where members of the imperial dynasty and other notables had palaces. In the eighteenth century, the boundaries of Üsküdar stretched from Beykoz on the Anatolian shore of the Bosphorus to Sile ¸ in the north and Kartal, Pendik, and Gebze in the east. Some palace women lived within the 28

29

30 31

32

Nuri Akbayar, “Tarih İçinde Beşiktaş, Osmanlı Dönemi,” in Dünden Bugüne Beşiktaş, 18. Evliya Çelebi, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi: Topkapı Sarayı Bagdat ˘ 304 Yazmasının Transkripsiyonu- Dizini, 1. Kitap, 191. Nuri Akbayar, “Tarih İçinde Beşiktaş,” 19–20. Tülay Artan, “Beyhan Sultan Sahilsarayı,” in Dünden Bugüne Beşiktaş, 64–66; Tülay Artan, “Hatice Sultan Sahilsarayı,” in Dünden Bugüne Beşiktaş, 67–69. Some daughters of the Ottoman sultans had other palaces in intra muros Istanbul as well. For instance, Beyhan Sultan had palaces both in intra muros and on the shore of Boshphorus. “Medine-i Ebu Eyüb Ensari’ye tâbi Çekmece-i Kebire tâbi Bosna köyü demekle mâruf karye” (Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 119, p. 139 [1142/1728]).

Residential Locations

145

Table 4.3 Neighborhoods in Eyüb where palace women resided Cami-i Kebir Baba Haydar Defterdar Süleyman Efendi Fethi Çelebi Kızıl Mescid Bıçakcı Yavedud Davud Aga ˘ Kasım Paşa Ahmed Dede Defterdar

Table 4.4 Neighborhoods in Üsküdar where palace women resided Gülfem Hatun Aşçıbaşı Ahmed Çelebi Süleyman Paşa Bulgurlu Gerede Mirahur Arakiyeci Tavaşi Hasan Aga ˘ Hâce Hatun Mahmud Paşa Kefçe Mehmed Paşa

boundaries of Üsküdar but quite far away from the center. While Sarayî Fatma Hatun bint Abdullah bin Abdulmennan lived in the Anadoluhisarı neighborhood of Yoros, Üsküdar,33 for example, Sarayî Rukiye Hatun, who had been manumitted by Saliha Sultan (who might 33

Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 110, p. 137 (1133/1720).

146

Residential Districts and Relations with Society

have been a daughter of Ahmed III) and was married to Ahmed, son of Bosnian (Boşnak oglu), ˘ lived in Beykoz Dereseki.34

Outside of Istanbul A group of palace women also lived in various parts of the Ottoman Empire outside of Istanbul, such as in Edirne, Bursa, Rumeli, Birgi, and Medina. These women may have simply left Istanbul when they got married, or they may have left Istanbul after a period as a result of their husbands’ posts. Those palace women living in Edirne might also have been transferred from Edirne Palace, the seat of the imperial court from the time of Mehmed IV (r. 1648–1687) until the beginning of Ahmed III’s reign in 1703, and continued to live in Edirne afterward. Alternatively, some might have moved to Edirne following their marriages. For example, Sarayî Sehbaz ¸ Hatun, who died in Edirne, may have transferred from the Edirne Palace and continued to live in the city.35 Sarayî Muammere Hatun, who was the wife of sheikhulislam Mehmed Efendi, lived in Istanbul for a period of time but died in Bursa in 1715.36 Some palace women wanted to spend the rest of their lives in Medina. Saraylı Fatma, who was the mistress of the table service (çaşnigir usta), noted that she lived in Medina in order to spend her last years near Prophet Muhammad.37 In a similar way, Sarayî Hâcce Emetullah Hatun bint Abdullah bin Abdülmennan, previously mistress of patients (hastalar ustası) in the Old Palace, went to Medina after her manumission and lived there until her death.38 A number of palace women went to the holy lands to perform their pilgrimage duty and then engaged in charitable activities for the benefit of other palace women. As will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 6, Saraylı Fesahat Hanım, who was wife of one of the aghas of the Gate of Felicity (babüssaade agası), ˘ lived in Medina and endowed a rıbat 34 36

37 38

35 D.BSM. ¸ MHF 76-15 (1200/1785). TSMA E 126-53. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 103, p. 142 (1128/1715–1716). As discussed in Chapter 3, Mehmed Efendi had fallen out of favor and was sent to Bursa, where he lived until his death in 1728. Sarayî Muammere shared the fate of her husband and moved to Bursa with him, living there until her death. Özcan, “Mehmed Efendi, İmam-ı Sultani,” DİA, XXVIII, 453–454. A.MKT. 520/75 (1214/1799). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 193, p. 51a (1188/1774).

Residential Locations

147

(lodge) there, where other palace women could stay.39 Some chief harem eunuchs were also posted to Medina.40 In every period, there were also palace women living in Egypt. Selânikî noted that Belkıs Hatun, who was in the service of the sultan in the sixteenth century, lived in Egypt.41 A document signed by the chief black eunuch and dated 1677 refers to “[t]hose women who were living in the imperial harem, later freed and located in Egypt or in other places.”42 As a matter of fact, Ömer Agha, who was head treasurer (hazînedar-ı şehriyârî) and previous şeyhülharem (representative of the central authority in the holy cities of Mecca and Medina), had a mistress (usta) named Sarayî Fatma who was living in Cairo, Egypt.43 Additionally, some palace women established a life outside of the Ottoman Empire altogether, as in the case of Rukiye and Hadice, two sisters who were given as gifts by Abdulhamid II to Sultan Abu Bakar of Johor. These women left Istanbul for a new life in Johor.44 The experiences of some palace women, especially those living outside of the capital, reveal the impact that their husbands’ identity had on where these women lived.

The Impact of Husbands on Residential Location The cases of Dilpezir and Hadice are unique in the sense that these women owned their own houses before they were married. Thus, their residential locations were free from their husbands’ influence. For other palace women, though, the husbands’ identity and status must be taken into consideration while evaluating their residential locations. The great majority of palace women married members of the askeri class, and this influenced where they lived. Sarayî Hüsnüşah Hatun bint Abdullah was married to Halil Agha bin Mustafa, steward (vekilharç) of the Süleymaniye mosque, and their house was located in 39

40 41 43 44

The Archive of General Directorate of Endowments in Ankara (Vakıflar Genel Müdürlügü ˘ Arşivi), henceforth VGM, Defter 580, pp. 183–186 (1235/ 1819–1820). Some palace women who immigrated to Medina were allocated shares from the customs. One of the female slaves of Esma Sultan who migrated to Medina was given 360 akçe from the customs of Damascus (Cevdet Maliye 252/10417 [1224/1809]). Hathaway, “Eunuch Households,” 296. 42 Selânikî, Târih-i Selânikî, I, 385. İE. DH. 7/721 (1077/1677). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 190, p. 56b (1187/1773). Mehmet Ozay-Ekrem Saltık, “The Myth and Reality,” 55–74.

148

Residential Districts and Relations with Society

Süleymaniye. Sarayî Züleyha Hatun and her husband Veliyyüddin Efendi, who was Ruznamçeci of Sultan Bayezid Han Mosque, lived in the Balaban Aga ˘ neighborhood in the vicinity of Bayezid Mosque.45 Some palace women whose husbands were members of the janissary corps lived in Galata, in the Firuz Aga ˘ neighborhood of Tophane. This was largely because following the establishment of the artillery corps (Topçu Ocagı) ˘ by Mehmed II, members of this corps were located in a district later called Tophane.46 These examples are not surprising, considering the fact that certain occupational groups concentrated in certain cities and neighborhoods in Ottoman society.47 In Istanbul, specific social groups also settled in specific locations. For instance, Janissaries lived in the barracks around Atmeydanı, around the imperial palace.48 Members of the ilmiye class were located mainly around the Süleymaniye mosque.

Correlation between Status and Residential Districts The geographical distribution of the residences of high-status palaceaffiliated women implies that their (and their husbands’) status influenced the selection of residential districts in which they lived. Some high-status women settled in Eyüb, as in the case of Sarayî Odalık Hadice Hatun bint Abdullah. She lived in the Baba Haydar neighborhood as wife of Kürd Ali Bey bin Mehmed bin Abdullah, who had been a previous aga ˘ babası of the Old Palace.49 This couple might have always been living in Eyüb, or they may have moved to Eyüb following Kürd Ali’s retirement from the Old Palace. It is also possible that they might have had another house intra muros. It is not surprising to see a high-status sarayî household living within the boundaries of Eyüb, 45 46 47

48

49

D.BSM. ¸ MHF 76-68 (1200/1785–1786). Mantran, La Vie Quoditienne, 109. André Raymond, Grandes villes Arabes à l’epoque Ottomane (Paris: Editions Sindbad, 1985): 170–172, 280–281; A. Raymond, “Les zones de residence dans les grand villes arabes à l’epoque Ottomane,” Arab Historical Review for Ottoman Studies 9–10 (1994): 185–191. Mantran, La Vie Quoditienne, 36. In the seventeenth century, Janissaries resided in the city around barracks and in areas around At Meydanı and Et Meydanı (Gülay Yılmaz, “The Economic and Social Roles of Janissaries in a 17th Century Ottoman City: The Case of Istanbul,” Ph.D. diss., McGill University, 2011, 125). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 113, pp. 35, 64, 119 (1133/1720).

Residential Locations

149

considering Eyüb’s importance during the Ottoman era. Eyüb was always an attractive center for the Muslim population, and members of the elite class owned residences in the Baba Haydar neighborhood.50 Available data reveal that high-status women mostly lived in and around Süleymaniye, Bayezid, Sehzadebaşı, ¸ and Aksaray, as well as in neighborhoods in the vicinity of the New Palace and Ayasofya. The residential location of high-status women more or less fits the description that Evliya Çelebi gave of the seventeenth-century residential patterns of high-status families. That information enables us to locate the mansions and homes of high-status prestigious families: around the Hippodrome and Ayasofya and on both sides of Divanyolu that led from Ayasofya to Bayezid. They can also be found around the Süleymaniye Mosque, the Sehzade ¸ Mosque, and Vefa square, as well as near the Sea of Marmara and around Kadırga Port.51 The great majority of high-status palace women, including previous consorts as well as administrative staff, lived in the period’s prestigious districts. Sarayî Verdinaz Kadın bint Abdullah was the fifth consort of Mahmud I (r. 1730–1754). At the end of his reign, Verdinaz moved to the Molla Kestel neighborhood in the vicinity of Çukurçeşme in the district of Eski Odalar. She lived there until her death in 1804, and she 52 was buried in Sehzadebaşı. ¸ The location of the house given to Dilpezir in the prestigious neighborhood of Sogana ˘ ga ˘ stands as another example of the impact of status on residential selection. The Sogana ˘ ga ˘ neighborhood extended up to the Divanyolu and corresponded to the area where the upper and middle echelons of the ruling elite and other court-affiliated people resided during the periods of Abdulhamid I, Selim III, and Mahmud II.53 The existing examples indicate that there was a connection between the status of the palace woman and her husband, the degree of their contact with the palace, and how close to the palace they resided. Rami Kadın (d. 1780) was the sixth consort of Mahmud I. Following his death, she married Mustafa Paşazâde İbrahim Bey, the inspector of the 50

51

52 53

Baba Haydar Neighborhood took its name from Baba Haydar dervish lodge located there (Reşat Ekrem Koçu, “Babahaydar Mahallesi,” Istanbul Ansiklopedisi [Istanbul: İstanbul Ansiklopedisi Neşriyat, 1960]: V, 1741). Evliya Çelebi, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi: Topkapı Sarayı Bagdat ˘ 304 Yazmasının Transkripsiyonu-Dizini, 1. Kitap, 132–133. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 193, pp. 2b–3a (1187/1773). Kemal Beydilli, Osmanlı Döneminde İmamlar, 78.

150

Residential Districts and Relations with Society

holy cities of Mecca and Medina (Haremeyn Müfettişi) and son of Vizier Hacı Benli Mustafa Pasha, in 1755. They lived in İbrahim Bey’s mansion in the district of Babıâli, near Nallı Masjid.54 Chancellor (Nişancı) Hattî Mustafa Efendi, who was married to a palace woman, lived in a mansion located in the Küçük Ayasofya neighborhood in Cündi (Cinci) Square. Historian Silâhdar Mehmed Agha, whose wife was Eglence ˘ Emine Hanım, bought a house in the Elvan Çelebi zade neighborhood, close to the New Palace, following his retirement. Those who held high-level positions in the palace, such as the chief black eunuch, the head treasurer (hazînedar-ı şehriyârî), and favorites (musâhib), had mansions in Ahırkapı, close to the imperial palace.55 The examples noted above reflect the general residence tendencies within Ottoman society. In every period, there was an correlation between socioeconomic and political power and residential proximity to the urban center. Wealthy and respected families and upper echelons of the ruling elite lived in prestigious districts close to the urban core. In Arab cities like Aleppo and Cairo, certain neighborhoods were associated with high status, and the wealthy and the elite lived in an area near the city’s economic and politico-military heart.56 In the southeastern Anatolian city of Aintab, the relative status of each askeri group was reflected in its choice of residential district.57 In Cairo, members of the ruling elite tended to live in certain neighborhoods, during both the Mamluk and Ottoman periods.58 In Istanbul, the houses of high-status elite people and the government offices were located around the palaces. According to the account of Sem’dânî¸ 54 55 56

57

58

D. HMH. MHF 33-39 (1194/1780). TSMA D 3136, quoted in Ülkü Altındag, ˘ “Dârüssaâde,” DİA, IX, 2. Margareth Meriwether, The Kin Who Count; Abraham Marcus, The Middle East on the Eve of Modernity: Aleppo in the Eighteenth Century (New York: Columbia University Press 1989), 319–322. Hülya Canbakal, “Residential Topography and Social Hierarchy in Seventeenth Century ‘Ayntâb,” in Essays in Honour of Aptullah Kuran, ed. Ç. Kafesçioglu ˘ and L. T. Senocak ¸ (Istanbul: YKY, 1999), 164. André Raymond, “Les zones de residence dans les grand villes arabes à l’epoque Ottomane,” 192; Raymond, “Essai de Géographie des Quartiers de Résidence Aristocratique au Caire au XVIIIème siècle,” JESHO 6 (1963): 58–103; Raymond, “The Residential Districts of Cairo’s Elite in the Mamluk and Ottoman Periods (Fourteenth to Eighteenth Centuries),” in The Mamluks in Egyptian Politics and Society, ed. Thomas Philip-Ulrich Haarmann (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 207–223. This holds true for Egypt’s military households in which allied grandees clustered in particular elite neighborhoods (Hathaway, “The Military Household in Ottoman Egypt,” 47).

Residential Locations

151

zâde, the paşa kapısı (office of the grand vizier) was built around the summer palace located in the Sultaniye region of Beykoz, and coastal palaces were established there for the elite.59 Members of the higher echelons of the ruling elite had pavilions around the Sadâbad Palace in the district of Kagıthane. ˘ When the Sadâbad Palace was pulled down as a result of the rebellion of 1730, the surrounding pavilions were also pulled down.60 After the imperial palaces moved to Beşiktaş, Dolmabahçe, Çıragan, ˘ and Yıldız in the nineteenth century, other members of the imperial family and statesmen of high status followed. They left their mansions located in Aksaray, Fatih, and Çemberlitaş and moved to new areas, such as the Bosphorus, Harbiye, Sişli, ¸ Nişantaşı, and Maçka. It is no surprise, then, that the majority of residents inhabiting the Beşiktaş Sinan-ı Cedid neighborhood were members of the askeri class and sarayî women.61 The settlement of high-status people close to the imperial palace both meant prestige and offered a degree of closeness to the center of power and protection. From another perspective, this tendency also displayed the influence of the imperial court as the center of power. * An issue related to the spatiality of residence was the location where palace women were buried after their deaths. This decision too was affected by the women’s continued affiliation with the imperial court. When sword bearer Mehmed Agha’s wife Sarayî Eglence ˘ Emine Hatun died of smallpox, for example, she was buried in the Yeni Mosque graveyard by imperial order.62 59 60

61

62

Sem’dânî-zade ¸ Fındıklılı Süleyman Efendi Târihi, Mür’i’t-Tevârih, II A, 60–61. Eva Marlene Schäferes, “Sadâbâd, The Social Production of an Eighteenth Century Palace and Its Surroundings,” M.A. Thesis, Bilgi University, 2009. Alaaddin Aköz, Bir İmamın Nikâh Defteri: Beşiktaş Sinan-ı Cedid Mahallesi (Konya: Tablet, 2006). Silâhdar Fındıklılı Mehmed Aga, ˘ Silâhdar Tarihi, On Yedinci Asır Saray Hayatı, ed. Mustafa Nihat Özön, 231. Not every palace woman died in peace in the neighborhood. Some women's lives ended in a tragic way. Some women drowned in the sea. For instance, Sarayî Fatma Hoca bint Abdullah drowned in the sea in Yoros around Beykoz (Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 56, p. 84 [1077/1666]). Likewise, Saraylı Saime Hatun drowned with her husband in the ship accident in around Kızıladalar (Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 71, p. 84 [1098/1687]). On the other hand, when Sarayî Fatma Hatun died, the assigned personel from the imperial court came to inspect the event and realized that there was a rope wound around her throat. Her husband claimed that she was

152

Residential Districts and Relations with Society

A palace woman’s place or status in the imperial harem hierarchy, and her closeness to the dynastic family, heavily influenced where she was buried. An examination of approximately 200 palace women who were buried in Istanbul reveals some general trends.63 Palace women

63

mentally ill for a while and added that when he was performing his Friday prayer in the mosque, Fatma Hatun sent her female slave to the house of her mother-in-law and then she hanged herself. When female slave returned to the home, she found Sarayî Fatma Hatun dead (Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi ˘ nr. 155, p. 41 [1169/1756]). The following sources have been examined for this issue: Haskan, Eyüp Tarihi; Haskan, Eyüp Sultan Tarihi (Istanbul: Eyüp Sultan Belediyesi, 1996); Sadi Kucur, “Üsküdar Yeni Valide Camii Haziresi Mezar Taşları,” Üsküdar Sempozyumu IV, 3-5 Kasım 2006, Bildiriler (Istanbul: Üsküdar Belediyesi, 2007), 213–280; Nicolas Vatin and S. Yerasimos, Les Cimetieres dans la ville: Statut, Choix et Organisation des lieux d’inhumation dans Istanbul intra Muros (Istanbul: Institut Français d’Etudes Anatoliennes d’Istanbul, 2001); İbrahim Hakkı Konyalı, Abideleri ve Kitabeleri ile Üsküdar Tarihi, I (Istanbul: Türkiye Yeşilay Cemiyeti, 1976); Hüseyin Kutlu, Hekimoglu ˘ Ali Paşa Camii Haziresi’ndeki Tarihi Mezar Taşları (Istanbul: Damla Yayınevi, 2005); HansPeter Laqueur, Osmaniche Friedhöfe und Grabsteine in Istanbul (Tübingen: Ernst Wasmuth Verlag, 1993); Jean-Louis Bacqué, Hans Grammont, Peter Laqueur, and Nicolas Vatin, “Stelae Turcicae I Küçük Ayasofya,” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 34 (1984): 441–540; Jean-Louis Bacqué, Hans Grammont, Peter Laqueur, and Nicolas Vatin, Stelae Turcicae II: Cimetières de la mosquée de Sokullu Mehmed Paşa à Kadırga Limanı, de Bostancı Ali et du türbe de Sokullu Mehmed Paşa à Eyüb (Tübingen: Ernst Wasmuth Verlag, 1990); Jean-Louis Bacqué, Hans Grammont, Paul Dumont, Edhem Eldem, Hans-Peter Laqueur, Béatrice Saint Laurent, Nicolas Vatin, and Thierry Zarcone, “Stelae Turcicae, V. Le tekke Bektachi de Merdivenköy,” Anatolia Moderna- Yeni Anadolu, II (1991): 29–135; Edhem Eldem, İstanbul’da Ölüm: Osmanlı-İslam Kültüründe Ölüm ve Ritüelleri (Istanbul: Osmanlı Bankası Arşiv ve Araştırma Merkezi, 2005); Zeynep Hatice Kurtbil, “Kadıköy Taşköprü Caddesi Mezarlıgı ˘ (Batı Yönündeki 19. Yüzyıl Mezar Taşlarının Sanat Tarihi Açısından Degerlendirilmesi),” ˘ M.A. Thesis, Marmara University, 2009; Selma Gül, “Kadıköy Taşköprü Caddesi Mezarlıgı ˘ (Batı Yönündeki 18. Yüzyıl Mezar Taşlarının Sanat Tarihi Açısından Degerlendirilmesi),” ˘ M.A. Thesis, Marmara University, 2009; Mehmet Nuhoglu, ˘ “Koca Mustafa Paşa (Sümbül Sinan) Camii Haziresi Mezar Taşları Üzerine bir Araştırma,” M.A. Thesis, Marmara University, 2003; Mustafa Bulut, “Sultan II. Mahmud Türbesi Haziresi” (Ph.D. Thesis, Marmara University, 2012; İshak Güven Güvelioglu, ˘ Osmanlı Mezar Taşları: Zeynep Sultan Haziresi (Istanbul: Türkiye Anıtlar Dernegi ˘ Yayınları, 2008); Ahmed Nezih Galitekin, Beykoz Kitabeleri: Mezarlıkları, vols. II–III (Istanbul: Beykoz Belediyesi, 2008); Süleyman Berk, Zeytinburnu’nun Tarihi Mezar Taşları: Zamanı Aşan Taşlar (Istanbul: Zeytinburnu Belediyesi, 2006); Mustafa Sürün, “İstanbul Seyh ¸ Vefâ Camii Haziresi (Mezar Taşları Tipolojisi Üzerine bir Deneme),” M.A. Thesis, Marmara University, 2006; Hans-Peter Laqueur, “İstanbul’da İki ‘İmparatoriçe’ Mezarı,” Tarih ve Toplum 143 (1995): 58–59; Necdet Barut, “Mezar Kitabeleri X (Karacaahmed, Duvadibi, VII.

Palace Women’s Relationships with Society

153

were sometimes buried in the graveyards next to the tombs of members of the dynasty and high-status ruling elite. The physical proximity of these high-status women in the imperial harem continued thus in the places where they were buried. For example, several female slaves were buried in the graveyard of the Tomb of Sah ¸ Sultan, who was the daughter of Mustafa III and sister of Selim III. Those female slaves buried in the graveyard included the tutor of Sah ¸ Sultan, her mistress of pantry (kilerci usta), her treasurer, her female slaves, and also female slaves of other female members of the dynasty.64 Likewise, in the graveyard of Yeni Valide Mosque built by Rabia Gülnuş Emetullah Sultan, several female slaves and members of the household of Gülnuş Valide Sultan were buried.65 Others manumitted palace slaves were buried in the graveyards of a mosque, masjid, school, or Mevlevihane (lodge of Mevlevi dervishes). Another group was buried in cemeteries scattered throughout Istanbul.

Palace Women’s Relationships with Society Unlike the Atlantic slaves, in the Islamic tradition, freed slaves who began a new life after manumission became recognized members of society.66 Several factors paved the way for the integration of freed slaves in society: both in the Islamic world and in Ottoman society, manumitting slaves was considered to be a meritorious act. It was also possible for freed slaves to marry free-status people. In the Ottoman world, following their manumission, male and female slaves were integrated into society and engaged in social and communal relationships.67

64 65 66 67

Ada.),” Grad. Thesis, Istanbul University, 1969; Nuriye Ayyıldız, “Karacaahmed VII. Ada Mezar Kitabeleri,” Grad. Thesis, Istanbul University, 1969; Ahmet Sacit Açıkgözoglu, ˘ “Eyüp Sultan civarı İmzalı Mezar Taşı Kitabeleri,” M.A. Thesis, Marmara University, 1995; Tuba Ruhengiz Azaklı, “Hat ve Süsleme Sanatları ve Mimarî Uslup Bakımından Yahya Efendi Kabristanı Mezar Taşları,” M.A. Thesis, Marmara University 2009. Haskan, Eyüp Tarihi, I, 265–268. Kucur, “Üsküdar Yeni Valide Camii Haziresi Mezar Taşları,” 213–280. Patricia Crone, Roman, Provincial and Islamic Law, 36. Freed slaves were able to use law courts freely, and this situation facilitated their integration in society following their manumission (Yvonne Seng, “A Liminal State, Slavery in the Sixteenth-Century Istanbul,” in Slavery in the Islamic Middle East, ed. Shaun Marmon [Princeton: Marcus Wiener Publishers, 1999], 25–42).

154

Residential Districts and Relations with Society

Palace women who established a new life following their transfer from the imperial palace thus readily became members of Ottoman society. An examination of court registers reinforces the notion that palace women did not isolate themselves spatially or socially from the wider urban population, and they established versatile relationships with members of society, mainly with the residents of the neighborhoods in which they lived. Palace women’s husbands typically maintained a relationship with their own families, and this likely facilitated palace women’s integration into society. House sale records of palace women reveal that their neighbors were not always palace-affiliated people; instead, manumitted palace slaves often lived next to the ordinary inhabitants of the quarter. For instance, Sarayî Kahraman Hatun bint Abdullah bin Abdulmennan lived in the Ahmed Çelebi neighborhood in Üsküdar. Her neighbors were ordinary Ottoman subjects belonging to various segments of society, such as Hüseyin Agha, el-hac Mustafa, and el-hac Ali.68 The structure of Ottoman neighborhoods functioned as a collective identity, and this too played an important role in regulating social relationships between neighbors.69 There are large number of cases in the Sharia court records concerning people who were asked to be removed from the neighborhood because they broke the peace and order of the neighborhood through their poor behavior. Being a member of a certain neighborhood fostered a relationship among its inhabitants by way of shared interests, familiarity, and common obligations. This characteristic of the Ottoman neighborhood structure is noteworthy in terms of not only integration of palace women within society but also their impact on society. One might expect that a palace woman who moved to a new neighborhood was treated with respect, due to the institution to which she belonged.70 68 69

70

Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 101, p. 141 (1126/1714). Özer Ergenç, “Mahallenin İşlev ve Nitelikleri Üzerine,” Osmanlı Araştırmaları 4 (1989): 69–78. Rather few example demonstrate that some palace women did not live in peace in their neighborhood. For instance, mentaly ill Sarayî Canenaz Rukiye Hatun was living in the Cerrah İshak Bey neighborhood. Her husband appeared in the court and claimed that she had gone to the house of Abdurrahman Bey as a guest and he beat her head and shoulders with a big stick, as a result of which she lost her mind (Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 180, p. 60a [1181/1767]; nr. 181, p. 52a [1181/1767]). On the other hand, again extremely few cases reveal that some palace women disturbed the peace and sometimes order of the

Palace Women’s Relationships with Society

155

Court documents reveal the variety of different ways in which palace women interacted with people from various segments of society. Since they had to register all kinds of activities in the law courts, it is possible to trace their commercial transactions, such as lending and borrowing; their acting as witnesses, proxies or trustees; and their exchange of bequests. Together, all of these records reveal the extent of the relationship palace women had with other members of society, especially with residents of their neighborhoods. Palace women entered into commercial transactions with all kinds of other people. For instance, Sarayî Rukiye Hatun (d. 1714), who was a resident of the Nişancı neighborhood, took a loan from Neslihan Hatun, who was living in the same neighborhood. Following Sarayî Rukiye Hatun’s death, Neslihan Hatun’s proxy (vekil) appeared in the law court and stated that Neslihan Hatun had loaned 1,500 kuruş to Sarayî Rukiye Hatun one year before her death in 1713. As surety for the loan, she had taken Sarayî Rukiye’s jeweled belt containing ninetynine diamonds, as well as her emerald and pearl earrings. Following Sarayî Rukiye’s death, Neslihan Hatun’s proxy delivered all these items to the Agha of the Old Palace, who was responsible for collecting Sultan Ahmed III’s share as heir to Sarayî Rukiye Hatun’s estate. neighborhood. The aforementioned Sarayî Sakire ¸ Hatun was mentally ill and had been sent to the house of Ahmed Halife, Aga ˘ babası of the Old Palace, in the Molla Hüsrev neighborhood. Sakire ¸ Hatun was ill to such a degree that sometimes she climbed onto the roofs and ruined them. Thus the residents stated in the court that their safety was threatened due to Sakire ¸ Hatun’s acts (Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 194, p. 44a [1188/1774]). More strikingly, Sarayî Canan Hatun, resident of Defterdar Ahmed neighorhood, lost her mental balance and murdered Raziye Hatun bint İlyas who was accompanying her (Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 54, pp. 174–175 [1074/1663]). A few cases reveal that some palace women were even expelled from their neighborhood, since they disrupted the maintanence of the order as well as peace and security of the neigborhood with their immoral behaviours. Sarayî Fatma bint Abdullah was living in Samanviran neighborhood. The residents of the neighborhood complained in the court that they were disturbed by Sarayî Fatma Hatun, since she acted in inappropriate ways, pronounced immoral words, and sweared at the residents of the neighborhood for no reason. Ultimately, the court declared that she would be expelled from the neighborhood (Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 59, pp. 86–87 [1087/1676]). In another example, Sarayî Hadice Hatun and her husband were expelled from their neighborhood around Aksaray due to the complaints of the neighborhood residents. They claimed that the couple’s behaviours were contrary to the regulations or the sharia, and thus they had no security in the neighborhood (Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 152, pp. 42–43 [1168/1754]).

156

Residential Districts and Relations with Society

Neslihan Hatun’s proxy demanded repayment the 1,500 kuruş that Neslihan Hatun had previously loaned in return for the jewelry. The Agha of the Old Palace, who was responsible for issues related to palace-affiliated women, stated that he had not been informed of this loan and demanded evidence. Witnesses who were living in the same neighborhood appeared in the law court and confirmed the claim of Neslihan Hatun’s proxy.71 Another woman named Sarayî Afife Kadın bint Abdülvehhab was married to el-Hac Halil Agha following her divorce from Ahmed Bey. She lived in the Molla Gürani neighborhood in the vicinity of Sultan Süleyman mosque, but died on the way to pilgrimage in 1728. Afife Kadın was a rich woman with a huge fortune worth more than 3 million akçe. Her properties were sold in the Old Palace. Later, gardener el hac Mustafa bin Hamza appeared in the law court set up in the Old Palace and demanded repayment of the 160 kuruş that he had previously loaned to Afife Kadın.72 Some palace women also engaged in commercial relationships with non-Muslim (dhimmi) neighbors. In 1719, Sarayî Hadice Hatun bint Abdullah and her dhimmi neighbor appeared at the law court set up in the Old Palace. The dhimmi person stated in the court that he had made a loan to Sarayî Hadice and that she had not paid him back. The dhimmi person demanded his rights from the court. The two parties compromised in court on this issue.73 More interestingly, Mehmed Bey bin Hüseyin Pasha’s wife Sarayî Hüsnüşah Hatun put in pledge some of her valuable belongings to a British merchant in return for cash money.74 The appearance of Sarayî Rukiye Hatun’s neighbors in the law court as eyewitnesses reveals another dimension of the relationships that palace women established with others living around them. People from various segments of society, mainly residents of the neighborhood, appeared in the law court of the Old Palace and the New Palace as eyewitnesses for cases related to palace women. These people were asked to bear witness to the claims made in cases that had taken place previously. To give an example, a slave of Sarayî Hanife bint Abdullah, who was a resident of the Selime Hatun neighborhood in Fındıklı, claimed in court that Sarayî Hanife had already freed her. She 71 72 73 74

Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Evkâf-ı Hümâyun

Müfettişligi, ˘ Müfettişligi, ˘ Müfettişligi, ˘ Müfettişligi, ˘

nr. 101, p. 28. nr. 119, pp. 17, 25, 26, 27 (1141/1729). nr. 112, p. 67 (1131/1719). nr. 85, pp. 8–9 (1109/1697).

Palace Women’s Relationships with Society

157

demanded witnesses, and residents of the neighborhood appeared in the court to confirm that she had been already freed.75 In other cases, members of society stood as witnesses (şuhudu’l-hal) to the court hearing of palace women’s legal cases. These witnesses were listed in the records. Usually the local imam (prayer leader) and müezzin (caller of Muslims to mosque for daily praying) of the neighborhood appeared in court as witness to such cases. The appearance of the imam was not surprising, considering that the imam in an Ottoman neighborhood was responsible for the administration of the neighborhood as well as representing its members. To give an example from various cases, Sarayî Zeynep Hatun bint Abdullah bin Abdülmennan, manumitted by Safiye Sultan, was living in the Dündar Ahmed Çelebi neighborhood near Kaliçeciler Mansion. She sold her house, and the neighborhood imam as well as Hasan Agha bin Yahya, who was head of Safiye Sultan’s halberdiers, appeared as witnesses in the law court.76 A trusteeship was another type of relationship between palace women and other members of society. Several court registers show that neighbors acted as palace women’s trustees (vasi). In a majority of cases, palace women assigned neighbors as executors of their will, especially with regard to the management of one-third (sülüs) of their estates. Sarayî Fatma Hatun bint Abdullah bin Abdulmennan was living in the Anadoluhisarı neighborhood of Yoros, Üsküdar, and assigned a person from the same neighborhood named el-hac Ahmed as her trustee.77 Not having contact with their natal families and the low ratio of children born to palace women may have led to their greater tendency to assign either a member of the imperial court or any other Ottoman subject, usually a member of their neighborhood, as trustee. The practice of bequest underlay another type of relationship. Court records reveal that palace women made bequests to people from various segments of Ottoman society, including their neighbors. Sarayî Emine Hatun bint Abdullah (d. 1723) was a resident of Atik Mustafa Paşa neighborhood, and she bequeathed several of her possessions, including a small belt, a small diamond ring, an old squirrel fur, an ermine fur, a caftan, a dress, four dishes, a coffee tray, and two bowls, 75 76 77

Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 117, p. 199 (1140/1727). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 120, p. 65 (1143/1730). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 110, p. 137 (1131/1718).

158

Residential Districts and Relations with Society

to her neighbors.78 The case of Sarayî Tahire Hatun stands as another example of palace women’s close relationships with members of the society. She appeared in the court claiming that she was entitled to train young Hadice, whose mother, Rukiye Hatun bint Abdullah, had already passed away.79 Issues related to members of the imperial court, including palace women, were heard in the law courts located in the imperial palaces, either the Old Palace or the New Palace. Here they were obliged to register their financial transactions, as well as their intention to endow, sell, donate (hibe), or bequeath their possessions. This situation pushed palace women to apply to the law court, and as seen in the abovementioned cases, people from various levels of Ottoman society appeared in these law courts as witnesses, trustees, and sometimes as defendants or plaintiffs in legal issues related to palace women. This enabled a wide variety of people to have access to the imperial palaces and to become acquainted with the imperial court’s environment and culture. For example, Sarayî Rukiye Hatun (d. 1721) was living in the Sarı Musa neighborhood, and following her death, several artisans appeared in the Old Palace and claimed the debt they had previously lent to Rukiye.80 In sum, palace women who lived within the wider society and had contact with people from various segments of society allowed the nonpalace-affiliated population to witness the palace world. It would not be wrong to assume that women who were familiar with the imperial court culture and life style and lived in various parts of the empire with their “palace identity” generally held a special place in the societies in which they lived. People who lived in the last periods of the empire and had palace experience noted that palace women went through a course of training called “saray terbiyesi” during their stay in the harem, and that they were, as a result, decent and polite.81 Similarly, the oral testimonies of those people who knew palace women in the twentieth 78 79 80 81

Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 116, p. 158 (1136/1723). Kısmet-i Askeriyye Court, nr. 36, p. 50 (1127/1715). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 118, p. 8 (1134/1721). Safiye Unüvar, who was a teacher at the imperial court during the reign of Sultan Reşad, stated that when she saw how members of the imperial harem were well brought up and courteous, she understood why the pashas preferred to marry the ladies of the court (Safiye Ünüvar, Saray Hatıralarım [Istanbul: Cagalo ˘ glu ˘ Yayınevi, 1964]).

Palace Women’s Relationships with Society

159

century confirm that palace women had exceptional places in society given their manners and attitudes. The common opinion in oral testimonies is that women who were brought up in the palace culture were decent, courteous, well-behaved, and respected, even if they were poor and lived in modest conditions. Some palace women carried the court culture outside of the imperial palace and represented it in varying degrees and ways. They might have played a role in transmitting and introducing the imperial court culture and courtly way of life to other members of society, including the residents of their local neighborhoods. This effect is understandable, considering that the structure of Ottoman neighborhoods enabled their inhabitants to inform each other about their life styles and permitted the exchange of experiences of every kind. The influences of the palace women who had held different positions in the imperial harem, who had been trained at various levels, and who had been married to persons with different statutes would themselves have diverse effects on urban society. In this context, some palace women were married to local imams who held active positions in their neighborhood or to artisans who were connected in other ways to local residents. For instance, Mesrure Hatun bint Abdullah, who was manumitted by Abdulhamid I, was living in Kâtib Muslihiddin neighborhood in the vicinity of Aksaray, and her husband İbrahim Efendi bin Mustafa was the neighborhood imam.82 As in the case of Mesrure Hatun, palace women who had close relationships with the neighborhood residents and were married to local people might have been influential in the society and might have introduced the imperial court culture to their neighbors. It is known that the chief black eunuchs went to Egypt after leaving the imperial palace and were furnished with great wealth and rich culture that enabled them to affect the cultural life of Egypt.83 Likewise, the impact of palace women in introducing imperial court culture

82 83

D.BSM.MHF ¸ 12903 (1199/1785). For the immense possessions and rich book collection of the exiled eunuch Abbas Agha, who lived in Cairo, see Jane Hathaway, “The Wealth and Influence of an Exiled Ottoman Eunuch in Egypt: The Waqf Inventory of Abbas Agha,” JESHO 37 (1994): 293–317. Similarly, it is known that high-ranking state officials who were appointed from the center to the provinces carried the culture of Istanbul to the provinces.

160

Residential Districts and Relations with Society

to society might be significant, especially for those palace women who lived outside of Istanbul. For instance, Sarayî Muammere Hatun (d. 1715), who moved to one of the neighborhoods of Bursa with her exiled husband, possessed a great variety of luxurious items and died a very rich woman; she certainly established relationship with the inhabitants of her neighborhood. She might have represented the palace identity in Bursa and she might have carried the dynamics of imperial court culture to its residents. In a similar way, Hemeta Kadın, who lived in the province of Birgi, Ödemiş, owned very rare luxury items that rarely appeared in the estates of contemporary women living in Istanbul. Hemeta might have been instrumental in representing the Istanbul court culture in Ödemiş.84 Above all, according to the accounts of the local and foreign authors, some women who were previously residents of the imperial harem provided oral information about the closed harem world following their transfer. In the eighteenth century, D’Ohsson noted that officers of the palace furnished him with notions relating to the Seraglio. He wrote that he owed the details concerning the female members of the imperial dynasty as well imperial harem to the slave girls of the Seraglio. He added that many of these girls gained their freedom after a few years of service and then left the imperial palace to be given in marriage to officers of the Court. D’Ohsson stated that he corrected his misconceptions through what he learned from these officers, and through Christian women who had the facility to arrange free access.85 Likewise, Balıkhane Nazırı Ali Rıza Bey narrated the detailed story of palace life based on the personal observations of his mother and his wife, both of whom had previously served in the harem, and on what he had learned from old women.86 It would be meaningful to evaluate the material world of palace women by considering the fact that these women maintained ties with the imperial court, they were absorbed into local communities with their palace identity, and they established social and communal relationships with people in the society around them, mainly within the neighborhoods in which they lived. The next chapter focuses on the material world of palace women through an examination of their 84 86

85 D.BSM. ¸ MHF 13163 (1223/1808). D’Ohsson, Tableau, I, ix–x. Ali Rıza Bey, Eski Zamanlarda Istanbul Hayatı, ed. Ali Sükrü ¸ Çoruk (Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2001).

Palace Women’s Relationships with Society

161

wealth and possessions as it compared to their contemporaries. Doing so allows us to trace how palace-affiliated women acquired their material wealth and consumption habits. By analyzing these women’s wealth and possessions, the following chapter develops a profile of their socioeconomic position in society.

|

5

Material World: Fortunes and Possessions

Throughout history, a person’s rank and status significantly influenced his or her material world. It is no surprise, then, that palace affiliation impacted the material world of Ottoman subjects. This chapter examines the wealth and possessions of palace-affiliated women in different periods of the eighteenth century, based on estate registers, and explores how it compared to the material world of contemporary askeri-status women who were not affiliated with the imperial palace. Comparing the material world of palace women to contemporary askeri-status women who represented the privileged segment of society offers an opportunity to uncover the degree to which palace affiliation affected the material wealth and consumption habits of former members of the palace. It also allows us to uncover their socioeconomic positions in society.1 Based on this profile, the chapter demonstrates how their affiliation with the imperial court generally brought these slave-origin women a level of material wealth that placed them within a particular position in society. A small group of these manumitted female palace slaves accumulated tremendous wealth and enjoyed the possession of commodities rarely encountered, even among contemporary women of free and high status. This situation lent them status as some of the most prominent people in society and as representatives of high culture.

1

At this point, it is useful to remind readers what the category of askeri-status women who were not affiliated with the imperial palace corresponded to in the eighteenth century. From the seventeenth century, the centuries-old devshirme system, and the prisoners of war who were the main characteristic of the Ottoman military and administrative organization, began to lose its former importance. Instead, children and household members of askeri class (ruling class) members, and even some of reaya-origin people (tax-paying subjects), were gradually incorporated into the administrative and military structure. Thus, in contrast to the sixteenth century, in the eighteenth century the askeri class was composed of people from various socioeconomic backgrounds.

162

The Fortunes of Palace Women

163

The Fortunes of Palace Women This section evaluates the fortunes of palace women based on information about 420 women who died in various periods of the eighteenth century.2 Graphs 5.1 and 5.2 show the value of palace women’s average assets, compared to the material wealth of contemporary askeri women who were not affiliated with the imperial palace and recorded in the Kısmet-i Askeriyye Court registers.3 These graphs 2

3

The chronological classification of the estate inventories of palace women falls into two distinct periods: from 1708 to 1731 and from 1761 to 1804. For the first half of the century, 288 palace women have been evaluated. For the second half of the century, 132 palace women have been evaluated. Information about palace women relies on the estate records kept in Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi ˘ Court Registers; BOA, D.BSM.MHF; ¸ and BOA, D.HMH.MHF (Bab-ı Defteri Haremeyn Muhasebesi Haremeyn Muhallefatı). For the first period, this study evaluated the estate records belonging to palace women that were recorded in the Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi ˘ Court, based on twenty registers nos. 101 to 120. For the latter period, the study evaluated registers nos. 193 and 195, in addition to records registered in D.BSM.MHF ¸ and D.HMH.MHF classifications. In order to make a comparative evaluation, the estate records of 235 askeri status women who were not related to the imperial palace and died in the eighteenth century were examined. Two periods, 1712–1726 and 1770–1791, were evaluated using the following sources: for the period 1712–1726, estate records belonging to askeri status women recorded in the Kısmet-i Askeriyye court, based on registers nos. 33 to 50. To supplement this data, several master theses that included estate records belonging to askeri status women were consulted: Mehmet Akif Terzi, “Istanbul 1131/1719 Tarihli Askeri Kassam Defteri,” M.A. Thesis, Istanbul University, 1995; Hasan Akdag, ˘ “Kassam Defteri (Havas-ı Refia Mahkemesi 1204–1206/1789–1791,” M.A. Thesis, Istanbul University, 1995; Sezgin Demircioglu, ˘ “615 Numaralı Istanbul Askeri Kassam Defterinin Degerlendirilmesi ˘ (H. 1205–1206/M. 1790–1791),” M.A. Thesis, Marmara University, 1999; Zehra Özdener, “İstanbul Askerî Kassâm Defterlerinden 336 No’lu ve Hicrî 1184 (M. 1810) tarihli Tereke Defteri,” M.A. Thesis, Istanbul University, 1996. The inventories describe the deceased’s patrimony in detail: cash, movables, and real estate, all with estimated market value. It should be noted, though, that items listed in the inventories do not always reflect the deceased person’s entire possessions or total fortune. For instance, jewelry is not listed in the inventories of some rich palace women. In addition, as will be discussed in Chapter 6, some palace women endowed or bequeathed their assets before they died; these assets are thus not included in their inventories. Graph 5.1 demonstrates the assets of the palace women as well as contemporary askeri-status women by taking into account the nominal value of those assets. Graph 5.2 demonstrates the conversion of nominal values to real values in grams of silver; it reflects the devaluation that took place during various periods of the eighteenth century. The works of Sevket ¸ Pamuk and Ömerü’l Faruk Bölükbaşı have been used as reference to calculate the changing ratio of silver content in kuruş across the century (Sevket ¸ Pamuk, A Monetary History of the Ottoman

164

Material World: Fortunes and Possessions 55%

42%

44%

42.00%

31% 26%

27% 21%

17%

15% 11% 8%

14% 12%

10%

4% 1%

8% 2.30%

0

0–999 akçe

8.00%

2.38%

1,000–9,999 akçe 10,000–49,999 50,000–99,999 100,000–999,999 over 1,000,000 akçe akçe akçe akçe

Palace women 1708–1731 Askeri women not affiliated with the imperial palace 1712–1726 Palace women 1761–1804 Askeri women not affiliated with the imperial palace 1770–1791

Graph 5.1 Distribution of the wealth of palace women based on nominal value.

reveal that the women’s assets fall into several groups, reflecting the great deal of variation that existed in the level of fortunes owned by palace-affiliated women. In short, the graphs show an economically heterogeneous group of palace women. For instance, while Sarayî Rukiyye Hatun (d. 1714) possessed only 440 akçe when she died,4

4

Empire, 181; Sevket ¸ Pamuk, Osmanlı İmparatorlugu’nda ˘ Paranın Tarihi [Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1999], 178; Ömerü’l Faruk Bölükbaşı, XVIII. Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında Darphane-i Amire [Istanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2013], 132). Throughout the century, 1 kuruş is equivalent to 120 akçe. In the majority of the estate records belonging to the first half of the century, values are given as akçe, whereas in some cases registrations from the second half of the century are given as kuruş. About the use of kuruş in the eighteenth century, see Sevket ¸ Pamuk, A Monetary History of the Ottoman Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 159–171; Sevket ¸ Pamuk, “18. yy’da Osmanlı Para Sisteminde Canlanma,” Osmanlı Geçmişi ve Bugünün Türkiye’si, ed. Kemal Karpat (Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2004), 306. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 101, p. 167. To give an idea of what these amounts suggest, the value of a quilt in this era was 100 akçe, while the value of a cheapest house was 5,000 akçe. In the first half of the eighteenth century, the

The Fortunes of Palace Women

165

72.46%

58% 55%

42%

31%

21% 18.23% 16.66% 14%

19%

20%

11%

9.85% 5% 3%

0–999 gr

1.000–9.999 gr

10.000–49.999 gr

1%

50.000–99.999 gr

2% 100,000–500,000 gr

Palace women 1708–1731 Askeri women not affiliated with imperial palace 1712–1726 Palace women 1761–1804 Askeri women not affiliated with the imperial palace 1770–1791

Graph 5.2 Distribution of the wealth of palace women in grams of silver.

Sarayî Afife Kadın bint Abdülvehhab (d. 1728), who was the wife of Hacı Halil Agha, had a great fortune of more than 3 million akçe (25,766 kuruş).5 Lütfiye Hatun bint Abdullah bin Abdi Agha (d. 1715), manumitted by Beyhan Sultan bin İbrahim (1645–1700), died with a modest fortune of 806 akçe.6 Sarayî Fethiye Kadın bint Abdullah’s (d. 1721) estate, which was shared between her husband Halil Agha and Ahmed III in the Old Palace, amounted to 8,828 kuruş

5 6

daily income of an unqualified construction worker was 24 akçe in Istanbul (Sevket ¸ Pamuk, A Monetary History of the Ottoman Empire, 161). As reflected in the court records, the minimum alimony rate for children was 10 akçe per day. This provides a sense of the situation faced by palace women with modest means. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 119, pp. 17, 25, 26, 27. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 103, p. 81 (1127/1715).

166

Material World: Fortunes and Possessions

(1,059,360 akçe).7 One of the richest women who died in the second half of the century, Sarayî Ülfet Hatun, who was manumitted by Abdulhamid I, was married to Ali Efendi bin el-Hac Mustafa. At her death, her total wealth was 2,570,220 akçe (21,418.5 kuruş).8 Based on the examples of the first half of the century, the richest palace woman was more than seven thousand times wealthier than the poorest palace woman. The total wealth of the women who comprised the richest 10 percent was three hundred times more than the total wealth of women who were the poorest 10 percent. These differences are significant, and starkly show the various statutes of female slaves in the imperial harem hierarchy. As Graph 5.1 demonstrates, the general distribution of fortunes falls into six categories. The first category refers to those women whose fortunes at death ranged from 0 to 999 akçe. The palace women in this group represented about 4 percent of the total in the first half of the century. This category appears to be lower among askeri women who were not affiliated with the palace. These women owned only the most necessary possessions, such as cushions, pillows, quilts, dresses (entari), and coats (ferace).9 This category disappears altogether in the second half of the century for both palace women and their contemporaries. The second group of women includes those whose fortunes ranged from 1,000 to 9,999 akçe. In the first period under study, the proportion of palace women in this group was 17 percent. By contrast, more contemporary askeri women belonged to this group. During the second part of the century, the proportion of both palace women and contemporary askeri women in this category declined. The following example gives an idea about what this category corresponded to at that time: rarely some palace women owned a clock or a watch – relatively rare items in this period, with the least expensive one being worth 1,200 akçe. The third category refers to those women whose fortunes ranged from 10,000 to 49,999 akçe. In the first half of the century, the largest percentage of palace women fell into this category (42 percent). Among 7 8 9

Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 111, 113, pp. 52, 211, 212 (1134/1721). D.BSM. ¸ MHF 12911 (1201/1787). The price of a pillow gives an idea about what this category corresponded to at that time: the value of pillows belonging to women in this group, for example, ranged from 20 to 100 akçe.

The Fortunes of Palace Women

167

contemporary askeri women, the proportion was even higher. In the second part of the century, the proportion of women in this group, both palace-affiliated and not, declined. The following examples provide some idea about women in this group: as will be mentioned in the section on real estate, some palace women owned properties valued between 10,000 and 50,000 akçe. Some palace women also owned slaves, valued between 12,000 and 24,000 akçe each. Women whose fortunes ranged from 50,000 to 99,999 akçe comprised another category. In the first period, 15 percent of palace women are included in this group; the proportion is lower among contemporary non-sarayî askeri women. The fifth category includes 21 percent of palace women, and 8 percent of non-palace women, whose fortunes ranged from 100,000 to 999,999 akçe in the first half of the eighteenth century. In the second part of the century, the proportion of women in this category doubled for palace women, to 42 percent. Among non-palace women, the proportion increased fourfold, to 31 percent, but still remained lower than that of palace women. The final category refers to those women who had enormous fortunes of 1,000,000 akçe or more. Few palace women were included in this group in the first part of the century, only 2 percent; no contemporary askeri women held this much wealth. After mid-century, though, four times more palace women appeared in this category (8 percent), but still few non-palace women managed to do so. In this study, those who had fortunes of 100,000 akçe or more (i.e., the fifth and sixth categories) are considered to be wealthy. Some palace women possessed clocks or watches, rare items in this era, and the vast majority who did so had a fortune worth more than 100,000 akçe. These women also owned a lot of jewelry made of precious stones. For both periods of the eighteenth century, the proportion of palace women who amassed large fortunes (i.e., over 100,000 akçe) was higher than it was among contemporary askeri women. Those palace women with a fortune worth more than 1 million akçe had enormous wealth, rarely seen in the society in which they lived. In the second half of the century, the number of palace women with large fortunes increased further. The same trend is discernable among contemporary askeri women, although they were fewer in number. At this point it is important to take into consideration the fact that commercial and economic expansion was coupled with

168

Material World: Fortunes and Possessions

monetary stability until the 1780s.10 Evaluating the two groups of women takes into account the nominal value of their assets and confirms the findings based on real value, as depicted in Graph 5.2.

Sources of Wealth As discussed earlier in Chapters 1 and 2, through their palace affiliation members of the imperial court were provided with the means to support themselves, and this material bond continued following their transfer from the palace. Members of the imperial harem, from the top level down, were paid salaries during their stay in the palace. These salaries were one of the sources of their wealth. Additionally, some women were assigned land grants (has).11 For instance, Sarayî Dilpezir Hanım was given a salary (tayinat) as well as tax farms (mukataa) in various regions.12 At the end of the eighteenth century and into the nineteenth, some palace women also had a share from İstanbul customs.13 Other sources of wealth included bequests and charitable endowments. The position and status of the palace women’s husbands also had an impact on their material wealth, as would inheritances transferred from their husbands’ estates. For example, Sarayî Ayşe Hatun bint Abdullah was married to Habib Agha bin Oruç bin Abdullah, who was a steward of halberdiers (teberdarlar kethüdası) of the Old Palace. Following his death, Ayşe Hatun received 1,517.5 kuruş from the sale of his farm in Çekmece.14 The bride price (mehr) of palace women provides an idea about not only the economic capacity of their husbands but also their contribution to their wives’ fortune.

10

11

12 13

14

Sevket ¸ Pamuk, A Monetary History of the Ottoman Empire, 159. Especially during the period from 1747 to 1768, financial issues were improving (Ahmet Tabakoglu, ˘ Gerileme Dönemine Girerken Osmanlı Maliyesi [Istanbul: Dergâh Yayınları, 1985], 13–39, 74–113). For the assignment of a land grant to a chief administrative officer (kethüda kadın) during the reign of Süleyman II, see Zübde-i Vekayiat, 358. C. SM 6268 (1212/1797); C. SM 3317 (1227/1812). Cevdet Maliye 132/5704 (1195/1780); HAT 1467/44 (1212/1797); HAT 1471/ 58 (Saban ¸ 1213/ 1799); HAT 1483/6 (Zilkade 1216/1802); HAT 1484/26 (1217/1802); HAT 1485/22 (1217/1802); HAT 1488/14 (1219/1804); HAT 1488/18 (Safer 1219/ 1804); C.SM 2565. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 103, pp. 48, 72, 73, 91 (1127/1715).

The Fortunes of Palace Women

169

Mehr According to Islamic law, a woman who marries a Muslim man gains the right to a payment – in the form of money or possessions – called mehr by the marriage contract. While the mehr is often given as money, it can also be anything agreed upon by the bride, such as jewelry, home goods, furniture, a dwelling, or some land. Mehr is typically specified in the marriage contract.15 The existence of a group of women with a high mehr indicates their superior position in the social hierarchy. Information about the mehr comes from four kinds of sources: the mehr amounts were given in various cases in probate inventories, divorce cases, inheritance settlements, and litigation arising from failure to pay the mehr.16 The evaluation of mehr amounts of 209 palace women who died during the first half of the eighteenth century reveals that the mehr amounts owed to palace women differed considerably. The majority of women (57 percent) possessed a mehr worth between 1,000 and 9,000 akçe,17 although one group of palace women (17 percent) had low 15

16

17

The mehr is often paid to the bride in parts. The mehr amount paid to the bride at the time of the marriage contract is called mehr-i muaccel; the rest, called the mehr-i müeccel (the amount that was postponed as a promissory payment), remained in the husband’s possession and was only given to the wife if he died or divorced her. It seems to have been general practice to pay the mehr in this way. The sum owed to women was cited in divorce cases and was considered the first obligation against a husband’s estate in the event of his death. Since the delayed mehr was usually required to be paid to the wife upon divorce, this sum was also included in the divorce record (M. Akif Aydın, “Mehir,” DİA, XXVIII, 389–391). Some palace women received slaves from their husbands as mehr. This situation implies that in some cases mehr could be given in the form of a commodity (Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 113, p. 51 [1133/1720]). In the estate inventories, if a deceased palace woman’s husband was alive, a part of her mehr was recorded as being postponed and noted in the “income” of the record. In the estate records of men, by contrast, the amount of mehr-i müeccel is listed as an “expense.” In the examined sources, the mehr amount is stated as “mehir, mehr-i müeccel” and “nikâhı.” There are also records that reveal that some palace women donated their mehrs to their husbands before their death (Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 110, p. 30 [1131/1718]; Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 114, p. 91 [1135/1725]; Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 101, pp. 68, 86 [1126/1714]). For a caution about interpreting mehr as it appears in the court records, see Ze’evi, “The Use of Ottoman Shari’a Court Records,” 44. For comparison, see the mehr amounts of women in eighteenth-century Konya: 50 percent of women had a mehr worth between 1 and 5,000 akçe, 20 percent had a mehr between 5,000 and 10,000 akçe, and 16 percent had more than 20,000 akçe (Hayri Erten, Konya Seriyye Sicilleri Isıgında ˘ Ailenin SosyoEkonomik ve Kültürel Yapısı (XVIII. Y.Y. İlk Yarısı) [Istanbul, 2001], 53).

170

Material World: Fortunes and Possessions

mehr ranging only from 1 to 999 akçe. Sarayî Sehsüvar ¸ Hatun, who was manumitted by Rukiye Hatun, had a mehr of only 1 kuruş (120 akçe).18 When Ümmü Gülsüm passed away, she had possessions worth 5 kuruş and her mehr amount was 300 akçe.19 None of the women with this low mehr possessed jewelry. One-quarter of palace women, and fewer contemporary non-palace women, had a mehr amount worth between 10,000 and 99,999 akçe.20 Although the total fortune of each woman whose mehr amount was recorded is not known in all cases, there generally is a positive correlation between the size of a woman’s fortune and her mehr. Those women who had higher mehr were usually the wealthiest. For instance, Sarayî Ayşe Hatun bint Abdülmennan, the wife of Kerkerîzade İsmail Agha, had a mehr of 60,000 akçe, and her total fortune was 469,540 akçe.21 Sâhin ¸ Fatma Hatun, who was the concubine of Mustafa II and later married another person, had a mehr of around 48,000 akçe and total fortune of 144,000 akçe.22 Just as the number of wealthy palace women increased in the second half of the century, some women continued to attract a high mehr. Simten Kadın, the wife of sword bearer Feyzullah Efendi, had a great fortune when she died, and her mehr was 180,000 akçe.23 Sarayî İltifat, also known as Zeynep Hatun bint Abdullah, was living in Süleymaniye neighborhood in the vicinity of the Old Palace and was married to steward of Mehmed Pasha, governor of Jeddah. Her mehr was 60,000 akçe.24 As such, the material patronage provided to palace women both during their stay in the imperial harem and following their departure from the palace, combined with their marriages, in some cases to highstatus men, helped determine how wealthy these women later became.

18 20

21 22 23 24

According to eighteenth-century Üsküdar court registers, mehr amounts ranged from 12 to 30 kuruş and 240 to 6,000 akçe. Only one woman had a mehr of 16,000 akçe (Ayhan Uçar, “Üsküdar Mahkemesi’ne Ait 403 Numaralı Ser’iyye Sicili,” Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Marmara University, 2004). 19 TSMA E 126-50. TSMA E 126-51. The mehr amount of ninety-one askeri-status women who were contemporaries of palace women typically ranged from 1,000 to 9,999 akçe (77 percent). A group had a mehr between 10,000 to 99,999 akçe (13 percent), while the rest had a mehr ranging from 100 and 999 akçe (10 percent). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 119, p. 112 (1141/1728). TSMA D 9988. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 195, pp. 56b, 61a-61b-62a. D.BSM. ¸ MHF 12925 (1202/1787).

An Evaluation of Possessions

171

The vast majority of palace women who entered the palace as a female slave reached a certain level in society, close to that of the askeri class.

An Evaluation of Possessions An examination of the possessions held by palace-affiliated women provides us with the main grounds for evaluating the implications of palace affiliation on these women’s possessions and material culture. Just as palace affiliation played a determining role in the accumulation of palace women’s fortune, it also influenced the level and types of possession they came to acquire. Palace women were not only familiar with court practices but were also recipients of gifts and dowries both during their harem service and following their transfer from the palace. When women of the dynasty passed away, some of their goods and money were bestowed on their female slaves. Rabia Gülnuş Emetullah Sultan (d. 1715), mother of Mustafa II and Ahmed III, stated in her will that her forty female slaves would be given clothing from her own closet.25 Palace women also gained their goods through their own means. Sarayî Halime, who had been manumitted by the Valide Sultan, asked Hadice Hatun to buy a female slave and trousseau; Hadice Hatun bought an Arab female, a jeweled gold belt, a silver thurible (buhurdan) and flask (gülabdan), and a special cloth (örtü) called Mardin işi.26 The manumitted female palace slaves were also integrated into urban society, and thus it can be assumed that in addition to the palace culture within which they were trained, the urban culture of the city in which they lived might have influenced their material choices. There was a great deal of variety in the possessions owned by palace women, in terms of both number and quality. Dilhayat Kadın left a rich estate that included 770 different types of items. She had books, clocks and watches, jewelry, luxurious household and kitchen equipment, and items of clothing.27 Sarayî Hürrem Kadın, who died in the 25 26 27

TSMA E 3941. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 106, p. 27 (1129/1716–1717). D.BSM. ¸ MHF 30/37. There is no date on the document. However, during the classification of the document, archivists added the date 1150 (1737). In the document, the scribe of the chief black eunuch Hafız Mustafa Efendi was stated as the responsible personel. Since in the Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi ˘ court registers the scribe of the chief black eunuch appeared as responsible person from 1174/1760 on, the date of the document might be a later period. As a matter of fact, there were several scribes of the chief black eunuch in the

172

Material World: Fortunes and Possessions

Figure 5.1 An estate register, Republic of Turkey Presidency of State Archives (BOA), D.HMH.MHF 34–37.

An Evaluation of Possessions

173

second half of the eighteenth century as the wife of Musâhibzade İbrahim Bey, also had 700 items, all rich and varied.28 Naturally, not all palace women died with a rich number and variety of possessions like Dilhayat Kadın or Hürrem Kadın. Sarayî kızı Hadice bint Hasan possessed only modest material that was valued at 980 akçe when she passed away.29 Possessions listed in the estates of palace women, like those of other women living in the empire, were grouped under major categories, such as books, luxury items, clocks and watches, jewelry, clothing, slaves, bedding, household equipment, and real estate. A comparison of the estates of palace women and contemporary askeri status women suggests that estates of equal wealth contained similar possessions. Just as it did for other women living in the Ottoman lands, when the wealth level of palace women rose, it resulted in a greater number of goods, more valuable goods, and also rare items. A group of palace women, especially the wealthiest segment, owned a rich variety of possessions, the equivalent of which did not exist among other contemporary askeri women. In the second half of the century, the goods owned by palace women diversified, the materials used in these goods were enriched, and the number of items owned increased.

Books Books appeared in the estate records of 9 percent of palace women who died in the first half of the eighteenth century. This low proportion is not surprising, considering that studies of estate records have revealed that book ownership was not common in Ottoman society, especially among women.30 For the second half of the century, the

28 30

eighteenth century, named Mustafa. For a study of Dilhayat Usta, see Talip Mert, “Dilhayat Kalfa’nın Mirası” Musiki Mecmuası (1999): 1–9. 29 D.BSM. ¸ MHF 12844. TSMA E 126-30. The estate records of 1,000 askeri-status people from the seventeenth century show that books appeared in the estates of 240 people; only 13 percent of the book owners were female (Said Öztürk, Askeri Kassama Ait Onyedinci Asır İstanbul Tereke Defterleri: Sosyo-Ekonomik Tahlil [Istanbul: Osmanlı Araştırmaları Vakfı, 1995], 174). Similarly, of 439 women who died in the first half of the nineteenth century whose estates were recorded in the Mülga Beledi Kassamlıgı, ˘ only two women had books (Zeynep Altuntaş, “19.yy’ın İlk Yarısında Kadın Terekelerine Göre Osmanlı İktisadi ve İctimai Hayatı,” Unpublished Master Thesis, Marmara University, 2004). Books only rarely appeared in the estate records of some female members of the dynasty. For

174

Material World: Fortunes and Possessions

ratio of book possession among palace women rose to just over onethird (34 percent).31 This paralleled the general increase in book possession witnessed in Ottoman society overall in the second half of the century.32 Palace women who had books on their estate records mainly owned religious works.33 The Qur’an, which was recorded as Kelâm-ı Kadim and Mushaf-ı Serif, ¸ was the most common of religious books. Other religious books, such as Enam-i Serif, ¸ İlmihal, and Birgivi Risalesi, follow the Qur’an. Religious books were generally the only books appearing in the estates of non-sarayî Ottoman subjects. The book lists of some eighteenth-century palace women indicate that religious books were not the only books they owned, though, marking them as distinct from other Ottoman women.34 Sarayî Rukiyye Hatun bint Abdullah had an İnşa Mecmuası (assembled book of letter writing) in her estate when she died in 1730.35

31

32 33

34

35

instance, Beyhan Sultan, the daughter of Abdulhamid I, possessed only a few Mushaf-ı Serif ¸ (Tülay Artan, “Problems Relating to the Social History Context of the Acquisition and Possessions of Books as Parts of Collections of Objects d’Arts in the 18th Century,” Turkish Art: 10th International Congress of Turkish Art (Geneva: Fondation Max van Berchem, 1999), 87–92; Tülay Artan, “Terekeler Işıgında ˘ XVIII. Yüzyıl Başlarında Eyüp’te Yaşam Tarzı ve Standartlarına Bir Bakış,” XVIII. Yüzyıl Kadı Sicilleri Işıgında ˘ Eyüp’te SosyalYaşam, ed. Tülay Artan [Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı, 1998], 58). However, rarely there were also women who had various books in their estate records. For example, the books appearing in the estate record of Emetullah Hanım, wife of Ruhi Süleyman Aga, are noteworthy: Kuran-ı Kerim, Yâsin Tefsiri, Enâm-ı Serif, ¸ Delâil-i Serif, ¸ two inşâs, two divâns, Baki Dîvanı, a book named Eflak Sems ¸ ve Kamer, falnâme, tabirnâme, and şahnâme. The total value of these books was listed at 11,089 kuruş (Cevdet Maliye 7057 [1210/1796], quoted in Esra Baş, “Arşiv Belgelerinden Hareketle XVIII. Y.Y. Osmanlı Toplum Hayatında Kadın,” M.A. Thesis, Marmara University, 2006), 80. For detailed information about book culture in the Ottoman world, see İ. Erünsal, Osmanlı Kültür Tarihinin Bilinmeyenleri (Istanbul: Timaş Yayınları, 2014); İ. Erünsal, Osmanlılarda Kütüphaneler ve Kütüphanecilik (Istanbul: Timaş Yayınları, 2015). According to the estate records of 186 palace women who died in the first half of the century, only 17 possessed books; of 114 palace women who died after midcentury, 39 owned books. Tülay Artan, “Problems Relating to. . .,” 87–92. Of the seventeen palace women who owned books at their death, fifteen had only the Qur'an and two women had only Mushaf-ı Serif ¸ and En'am-ı Serif. ¸ Semsi ¸ Hatun had thirteen books apart from Mushaf and Enam; unfortunately, the titles of the books are not stated in the records (D.HMH. MHF 34-1). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 120, p. 64 (1143/1730). İnşa is art of letter writing, and İnşa Mecmuası or Mecmua-i İnşâ includes several correspondence examples (M. Uzun, “İnşa” DİA, XXII, 338–339.)

An Evaluation of Possessions

175

The ownership of an inşa by a palace-affiliated woman raises the possibility that some women were not only readers but also writers.36 It is known that the famous poet Baki’s palace-affiliated wife Tuti was a poet.37 Hubbi Hatun, who was a companion of Selim II, was both a tutor of princes and a poet.38 The existence of women in the harem with the title of “Kâtibe Hoca” is also suggestive, as they were responsible for the education of harem novices in reading and writing.39 It is also known that some members of the imperial harem were trained in calligraphy.40 We do not know the author, date, or the contents of Rukiyye Hatun’s İnşa Mecmuası. This available Mecmua might have included several letter examples for specific groups, it might have related to official correspondence around state issues among specific groups, or it might have comprised civil letter examples.41 It is possible that Rukiyye possessed this book in order to improve her own writing skills. Following the religious books, Türkî Risale was the most common book title appearing in the estate records. Sarayî Hâcce Gevher Hatun, who was a slave of Ahmed III, owned a Türkî Risale, which most probably referred to an ordinary Turkish work, and another book entitled Bahrü’l-Amik (“Deep Sea”).42 Thirteen Türkî Risale existed in the estate record of Sarayî Sülün Hatun, also known as Ümmühan Hatun, who was manumitted by Saliha Sultan.43 Likewise, Sarayî Simten Kadın possessed a very rare history book, namely Hasan Paşa Tarihi.44 Reading aloud for an audience was part of reading practice both in the palace and across the social spectrum.45 36

37

38 39

40

41

42 44

45

On women poets in the Ottoman Empire, see Didem Havlioglu, ˘ Mihrî Hatun: Performance, Gender Bending, and Subversion in Ottoman Intellectual History (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2017). Enver Behnan Sapolyo, ¸ Türk Büyükleri (Ankara: Suat Osmanoglu ˘ Yayınları, 1960), 253–254. Öksüz, “Sem’dânîzâde,” ¸ 61. For instance, Sarayî Ayşe Hatun held the title of Kâtibe Hoca (Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 195, p. 12b [1189/1775]). Calligrapher (hattat) Ali Efendi delivered a daily payment to Hafız Hasan Efendi, who was the tutor at the harem, of 10 akçe (C. SM 1082 [1204/1789]). For various examples of inşa mecmuası, see Cihan Okuyucu, “Tunus Milli Kütüphanesindeki Türkçe Elyazmaları,” Journal of Academic Studies 7–8 (2000–2001): 135–171. 43 D.BSM. ¸ MHF 63-25. D.HMH.MHF 33-36 (1193/1779). D.BSM. ¸ MHF 58-56; Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 195, pp. 61a-61b-62a (1189/1775). For reading practices in the imperial court, see Emine Fetvacı, Picturing History at the Ottoman Court (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2013), 26.

176

Material World: Fortunes and Possessions

In the seventeenth century, Sieur de la Croix noted that a woman named Okumuş Bula read a chapter from Qur’an or history to Valide Sultana (most probably Hadice Turhan Valide Sultan).46 Although Simten lived in the following century, most probable as owner of a history book, she was also aware of this tradition during her stay in the imperial harem. Sarayî Hüsnüşah Hatun bint Abdullah, who was manumitted by Mustafa III, possessed a richer variety of books than did other palace women, covering religious, historical, and literary topics. Her estate was registered in two different registers, each with a different date.47 Interestingly, in these two separate registers, different books also appear.48 In the early register, dated 1775, she possessed religious books such as Mushaf-ı Serif, ¸ En’am-ı Serif, ¸ and Tecvid-i Serif. ¸ She also owned a Mecmua-i Manzume (collection of poems), which was most probably labeled as such by the scribe who noted the estate. In the later register, dated 1780, she had a richer compendium of religious books in addition to those stated in the earlier register. She also had Delâil-i Hayrat (prayer book), Duaname (prayer book), Tercüme-i Hadis-i Serif ¸ (translation of Prophet Muhammed’s hadiths), Kaside-i Halhal (religious book), Ecza-ı Serif ¸ (prayer book), and Tercüme-i İbadiyat. She also owned Maktel-i Hüseyin, copies of which hardly ever appear in the estates; it narrates the martyrdom of Hüseyin (grandson of Prophet Muhammed) in Karbala at the hands of Umayyad troops and serves as a genre in the Arab, Persian, and Turkish literature.49 Additionally, in the earlier register, Hüsnüşah Hatun had a Silsilename (genealogy). It is not specified in the register to whom this Silsilename belonged. It might have belonged either to the dynasty or to

46 47

48

49

Sieur de la Croix, Mémoirs de Sieur de la Croix, I, 361. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 195, p. 11a (1189/1775); D.BSM. ¸ MHF 68-48 (1195/1780). Some of Hüsnüşah’s books might have been taken by the palace, and thus may not have been mentioned in the second, later document. Maktels were written in prose style in a romantic and dramatic way by various writers in different periods. The first Maktel-i Hüseyin was written by Câbir b. Yezîd el-Ca'bî (d. 746). The Maktel written by Ebû Mihnef (d. 773) was the most important Maktel-i Hüseyin. İlyas Üzüm, “Hüseyin,” DİA, XVIII, 521–524; Mustafa Uzun, “Kerbela,” DİA, XXV, 274–275. Additionally, Maktels were read aloud, as in the case of sixteenth-century poet Lami’i Çelebi, who recited in front of Great Mosque of Bursa his eulogy Maktel-i Hüseyin in commemoration of the martyrdom of Hüseyin.

An Evaluation of Possessions

177

a religious order.50 In any case, it was extremely rare to possess a Silsilename in one’s library in Ottoman society. Even chief black eunuch Abbas Agha, who had a passion for books, possessed neither Maktel-i Hüseyin nor Silsilename.51 We do not know what this Silsilename and Maktel-i Hüseyin looked like in terms of its writer, calligraphy, binding, or production date. It is known that some Maktel-i Hüseyin and Silsilenames included paintings and illustrations.52 Whether Hüsnüşah Hatun’s Silsilename or Maktel-i Hüseyin included illustrations and, if so, who was the artist also remains unknown.53 It is possible that Hüsnüşah Hatun owned illustrated versions of Maktel-i Hüseyin and Silsilename, considering that such works were not uncommon within courtly circles; the wealthy collected art even in the sixteenth century.54 If she owned illustrated versions of Maktel-i Hüseyin and Silsilename, they might have been painted by a famous artist such as Musavvir Hüseyin or Levni, or by any local artist.55

50

51

52

53

54 55

If Silsilename was about the dynasty, this kind of Silsilename contained the images of prophets, caliphs of the Muslim dynasties of the pre-Ottoman period, previous Ottoman sultans, and finally the reigning sultan. They were meant to convey the image of Ottomans as the last legitimate dynasty (Serpil Bagcı, ˘ “From Adam to Mehmed III: Silsilename,” in The Sultan’s Portrait: Picturing the House of Osman, ed. Selmin Kangal [Istanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Yayınları, 2000], 188–201). Hathaway, “The Wealth and Influence of an Exiled Ottoman Eunuch,” 293–317. As a religious book, Maktel-i Hüseyin was favored by the patrons who commissioned illustrated manuscripts (Metin And, “Eski Edebiyatımızda Yarı Dramatik Bir Tür: Maktel ve Minyatürlü Maktel Yazmaları,” Türkiyemiz 61 [1990]: 4–15. From the second half of the seventeenth century, especially during the reign of Mehmed IV (r. 1648–1687), portrait series in the Silsilename tradition reemerged (G. Renda, “Topkapı Sarayındaki H. 1321 no.lu Silsilename’nin Minyatürleri,” Sanat Tarihi Yıllıgı ˘ 5 [1973]: 443–480; G. Renda, “Etnografya ˘ Müzesindeki Silsilename Minyatürleri Üzerine Düşünceler,” in Kemal Çıg’a ˘ Armagan ˘ Kitabı [Istanbul: Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Yayını, 1984], 175–202; Sadi Bayram, “Ankara Etnografya Müzesi’nde Bulunan Silsile-Nâme,” Vakıflar Dergisi 23 [2003]: 315–363; Tülay Artan, “Arts and Architecture,” in The Cambridge History of Turkey, The Later Ottoman Empire, 1603–1839, ed. Suraiya Faroqhi [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006] III, 435). Unfortunately, the sources do not state the value of either the Silsilename or the Maktel-i Hüseyin, which might have given an idea whether these books were illustrated. Tülay Artan, “Arts and Architecture,” 435–443. For the artists of the period, see Tülay Artan, “Arts and Architecture,” 435–443.

178

Material World: Fortunes and Possessions

Compared to the variety of Sarayî Hüsnüşah's books, the books appearing in the estate records of Rami Kadın and treasurer (hazînedar) Saliha Kalfa were even more impressive in variety. Rami Kadın was the sixth consort of Mahmud I and, following his death, she married Mustafa Paşazâde İbrahim Bey, the inspector of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina (Haremeyn Müfettişi). She died in 1780 with a tremendous fortune of 23,665 kuruş (2,839,800 akçe).56 Treasurer Saliha Kalfa was manumitted by Saliha Sultan (most probably daughter of Ahmed III).57 Both women had rich collections of books related to the fields of history, literature, mysticism (tasavvuf), ethics, siyer (biography of the Prophet Muhammed), fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), akaid (Islamic tenets), and other issues related to Islam. Apart from ilmihal, tecvid, and enam-ı şerif, treasurer Saliha Kalfa possessed books titled Battal Gazi, Tarih-i Mısır, Altıparmak, Saadetname, Risale, Kanun-ı Sultan Ahmed, Fıkh-ı Keydâni, Tercüme-i Bahâ-i Veled, Yusuf ve Züleyha, İmâdü’l İslam, Acâibü’l Mahlukât, Dekâiku’l Ahbar, Mesâil-i Abdullah ibn-i Selam, Hallu’l Mesâil. For her part, Rami Kadın owned three Mushaf-ı Serifs, ¸ Enam-ı Serif, ¸ Akaid Risalesi, Tercüme-i Muhammediye, Lihye-i Serif-i ¸ Nebeviye-i Aliyye Efdalü’t Tahiyye, Fezâil-i Beytü’l-Makdis, Melâzü’lMüttakîn, Sifâe’l-Kulub, ¸ Kitab-ı Üstüvânî, Ulviyyat-ı Sultani, in addition to Delâil-i Hayrat (owned also by Hüsnüşah Hatun), and Altıparmak and Risale-i Saadetname (also possessed by Saliha Kalfa). The books of Hüsnüşah, Rami Kadın, treasurer Saliha Kalfa, and Rukiye show palace women’s connection to an intellectual and literary court culture. Harem residents received education according to their capacities, and some palace women received a high level of education. In a gifts register (inamat) from the period of Mehmed IV, a palace woman called Okumuş Kadın appears. Her “Okumuş” title refers to her level of literacy.58 Okumuş Kadın (Literate Woman) was described in the costume album as: “One of the girls of the palace who knows how to read and write.”59 Sieur de La Croix also mentioned a woman named Okumuş Bula who read the Qur’an or history.60 56 57 58

59 60

CS 6533; D.HMH. MHF 33-39 (1194/1780). D.HMH. MHF 34-26 (1197/1782). TSMA D 1219 0002. The daughter of Raziye Hatun, who was a very influential woman of the harem, was also called Okumuş Kadın (Pedani, “Safiye’s Household,” 25). Emine Fetvacı, Picturing History, 35–36. Sieur de la Croix, Mémoirs de Sieur de la Croix, I, 361.

An Evaluation of Possessions

179

The appearance of special and rare books in the estates of palace women indicates that their palace affiliation likely had an impact on their cultural life. The Ottoman treasury, where books were kept, functioned as a lending library to the palace’s inhabitants. Books were borrowed from the treasury on a regular basis, and careful records were kept of who borrowed what and when. Princes and pages were educated with books from the treasury. Numerous treasury records also indicate that books were given to the Harem. Harem members were educated with books circulating in the court, and some ladies residing therein possessed and read these books.61 As such, some of these women of the imperial harem were aware of the intellectual and literary court culture and might have shared it with other members of the imperial court who commissioned and read books, developing their literary tastes and, ultimately, their own book possession. It is probable that these books were given as presents to palace women during their harem service period or following their transfer from the palace; indeed, it was common to give books as presents to outstanding persons in the Ottoman Empire.62 Also, for some palace women, their husband’s profession might have been influential in their book ownership. Hüsnüşah’s husband Halil Agha bin Mustafa, who was the steward (vekilharç) of Süleymaniye Mosque, might have helped develop her literary taste.63 In addition, the location of her house in the vicinity of Süleymaniye mosque should be taken into consideration while evaluating her connection to books, since members of the ilmiye class mainly resided in Süleymaniye. The case of Sarayî Hüsnüşah reveals, curiously perhaps, that having several books was not necessarily related to one’s wealth. She left 518 kuruş (62,160 akçe) when she died in 1775, which was a moderate sum compared to the fortunes of 61 62

63

Fetvacı, Picturing History, 25, 29–30, 35–37. For various examples, see Murat Akgündüz, “Padişah ve Seyhülislam ¸ Arasındaki Hediyeleşmeler,” in Hediye Kitabı, ed. Emine Gürsoy Naskali and Aylin Koç (Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2007), 134–139. Some books appearing in the estates of deceased women belonged to their husbands. The story of Sarayî Beyza serves as an example. Sarayî Beyza, also named Hadice Hatun (d. 1770), was manumitted by Sultan Mustafa III and died as the wife of Hafız Hüseyin Efendi bin Ali. A Mushaf-ı Serif ¸ with the caligraphy of Hafız Halil appears in her estate. Next to the record of mushaf in the estate record a note was added stating this mushaf belonged to the aforementioned efendi (müşarün ileyh efendi), referring most probably to her efendi-titled husband (D.BSM.MHF ¸ 53-41).

180

Material World: Fortunes and Possessions

other palace women. She was not a wealthy woman and she did not possess a great variety of items. She was living in a small house located in the vicinity of Süleymaniye mosque. One might expect that the proportion of those palace women who owned books should have been higher. Sarayî Okumuş Fehime Hatun bint Abdullah (d. 1715) died as the wife of Mehmed Agha bin Abdullah.64 The value of her possessions, including her jewelry, indicates she was a rich woman with a large fortune. She did not possess any books, though, not even a single mushaf, as far as her estate reveals. Since books were brought to the palace by commissioning and as gifts, or were appropriated from the estate of deceased members, it is possible that Fehime Hatun’s books together with other possessions might have been taken to the palace following her death and thus been unrecorded.65 Some of Rami Kadın’s books were kept in the palace, and the price of these books was reduced from the share of the sultan (rikâb-ı Hümâyun) as heir to the estate of Rami Kadın. Okumuş Fehime notably had a high amount of debts, worth 53,400 akçe. Therefore, her books might have been sold to meet her debts. Another option is she might have bequeathed her books while alive, leaving them unrecorded in her estate record. For example, Mushaf-ı Serif ¸ of Sarayî Rukiye Hatun was given to the imam of the neighborhood as per her will.66

Luxury Items Items that were not commonly encountered on women's estate records are considered here to be luxury goods. They correspond to possessions made of precious materials or to those goods that were rarely owned. Usually, palace women or contemporary askeri-status women with large fortunes could afford to own these kinds of luxury items. An assessment of luxurious items is important for revealing the relative position of palace women in Ottoman society, considering the fact that it was society’s elite who demanded and owned luxury goods.67 64 65

66 67

Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 105, pp. 44, 53, 65–66, 73. The books belonging to the deceased ruling elite were incorporated into the imperial treasury (Fetvacı, Picturing History, 28, 29). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 103, p. 111 (1128/1715). On this issue, see Suraiya Faroqhi, A Cultural History of the Ottomans: The Imperial Elite and Its Artefacts (New York and London: I.B. Taurus, 2016) and several articles in Elif Akçetin and Suraiya Faroqhi, eds., Living the Good Life,

An Evaluation of Possessions

181

A higher proportion of palace women possessed a variety of luxury items than did contemporary askeri women. Some palace women even possessed varied luxury items that were rarely seen in the estates of their contemporaries. A group of palace women who died in the first half of the eighteenth century, for example, possessed items of Chinese porcelain (fagfûrî), ˘ gilt (yaldız), silver (sim), mother of pearl (sedef), crystal (billur), and celadon (mertebâni).68 They owned items made of silver, such as belts (kuşaks), mirrors, rose water flasks (gülabdans), thuribles (buhurdans), candlesticks (şamdans), lanterns (feners), clocks/watches, pen cases (devats), coffee cup holders (fincan zarfı), coffee holders (kahve askısı), sugar basins (şeker kutusu), trays, basins (legens), ˘ bowls, ewers, knives, and spoons. Daye Hatun’s goods, for example, which were taken from the imperial harem and registered in the Enderun treasury in 1720, included the following: an enameled (minekâri) gold coffee cup, a Yanya-style (Yanya- kârî) silver plate, a large jeweled (taşlıca) coffee cup, a Chinese porcelain rose water flusk (fagfûrî ˘ gülabdan), two large gilded (yaldızlı) and ornamented (kalemkâri) silver candlesticks, silver basins, silver ewers, silver trays (sini), a silver compote (hoşaf) bowl, a gilded silver coffee ewer, a gilded silver sugar basin, silver rose water flasks, silver thuribles, a European-style (frenkkâri) ewer and basin, a gilded silver mirror, a silver lantern, prayer beads with coral (mercan tespih), and a drawer clock called a peştahta nevbet saati.69 These items were extremely rare possessions at the time. Examples from the second half of the century show that the proportion of both palace women and contemporary askeri-status women who owned luxury items had increased, in line with their increase in wealth. As before, the proportion of women owning such goods was higher among palace women. Not only did more women possess luxury items, but the nature of these items also changed, in terms of the addition of imported objects as well as enormous variations in the

68

69

Consumption in the Qing and Ottoman Empire of the Eighteenth Century (Leiden: Brill, 2017). Mertebâni is a green glazed pottery originally made at Martaban. In the seventeenth century, Bobovius noted that all of the sultan’s serving plates were made of a precious porcelain called mertebâni that came from the Indies (Fisher and Fisher, “Topkapı Sarayı in the mid-seventeenth century: Bobovi’s description,” 63–64). TSMA D 1064-001 (1133/1720).

182

Material World: Fortunes and Possessions

materials used to create the items that were already being used and a new diversity of luxury goods produced from valuable materials. In the first part of the century, for example, items such as mirrors inlaid with mother of pearl and crystal glasses and bowls appeared in the estate records. In the second part of the century, one finds drawers and cupboards inlaid with mother of pearl (sedefkâri çekmece-dolab), candlesticks made of mother of pearl, and crystal plates and bottles, Kütahya-style plates, and coffee cups. Similarly, from the second half of the seventeenth century, Chinese porcelain (fagfûrî) ˘ goods such as coffee cups, plates, bowls, and thuribles were common among the elite.70 In the first half of the eighteenth century, a small group of palace women owned one piece of fagfûrî. ˘ The same was also the case for other women who were contemporaries of palace women. After mid-century, more people owned fagfûrî ˘ goods, and they often owned more than one. This should be related to the preference for Chinese porcelain over silver (sim), which developed at this time.71 The proportion of women who possessed silver goods thus did not increase in the second half of the eighteenth century, as silver items fell into disfavor.72 Through their increasing diplomatic contacts and expanding commercial relationships with Europeans, Ottomans became aware of Western fashions and lifestyles. Economic competition between the British and French powers increased trade volumes between and across Iran, India, and the Mediterranean basin. This, in turn, brought about 70

71

72

For a discussion of fagfûrî, ˘ see Hedda Kiel, “Osmanlı’da Hediye (16.-17. yüzyıl),” in Hediye Kitabı, ed. Emine Gürsoy Naskali and Aylin Koç (Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2007), 108; Julian Raby-Ünsal Yücel, “Chinese Porcelain at the Ottoman Court,” in Chinese Ceramics in the Topkapı Saray Museum Istanbul, ed. John Ayers and Regina Krahl (London: Sotheby’s Publishers, 1986). For the use of porcelain in the palace, see T. Artan, “18th century Ottoman Princesses as Collectors: Chinese and European Porcelains in the Topkapı Palace Museum,” Ars Orientalis (Globalizing Cultures: Art and Mobility in the Eighteenth Century) 39 (2011): 113–146. D’Ohsson noted that porcelain from China or Japan existed in most of the opulent houses (D’Ohsson, Tableau, IV, 173). For example, silver vessels were absent as gifts at the circumcision festival of 1720, while they had been available at the festival of 1675. (Hedda Kiel, “Power and Submission Gifting at Royal circumcision festivals in the Ottoman Empire (16th–18th centuries),” Turcica 41 [2009]: 72). Kiel notes that Europe and the Ottoman Empire saw parallel developments regarding the use of silver vessels for conspicuous consumption. Silver drinking vessels had come to be perceived in East and West alike as superfluous, unrefined, and unsophisticated.

An Evaluation of Possessions

183

political and economic developments that deeply affected the Ottoman Empire. Imported and luxurious consumer goods, for example, became more accessible in the Ottoman capital.73 According to examined examples from the second half of the century, the ratio of palace women who owned luxury household items increased and the variety of luxury items diversified. Some palace women with very large fortunes thus came to possess very rare items made of luxurious materials that were almost never seen in the estates of their contemporaries. These included Bogazhisarikâri ˘ plates and ewers, enameled (minekâri) silver coffee cup holders and trays, gilded bronze (tombak) coffee cup holders and plates, Viennese (Beckâri) coffee cups, plates, and jars, Viennese cushion covers, Polish (Lehkâri) plates, and Polish quiltes and curtains. Saxony goods, which only a few wealthy palace women possessed, were extremely rare items for the period. Semsi ¸ Hatun, who was manumitted by Abdulhamid I, owned a great variety of rare items: a lot of silver, crystal, Chinese, Viennese, and Saxony plates, bowls, glasses; a gilded bronze (tombak) thurible and rose water flask, Kütahya coffee cups, four sherbet jars, a Circassian knife, seven chairs (iskemle), and chiming clocks (çalar saatler). She also had a very rare rhinoceros horn cup. The number of spoons that she possessed was remarkable: eighteen spoons made of tooth of salmon (som balıgı), ˘ a dessert spoon, fifteen compote spoons, and several others. She owned rare items such as mirrors, a container for kohl (sürmedan), a container for amber (amberdan), a silver pen, five 74 Hilye-i Serifs ¸ , binoculars (dürbüns), a hand fan, a Banaluka prayer 75 rug, a Mardin silk waistcloth (Mardin futası), and a chest made of plane tree wood (çınar çekmece).76 Other very rare items that appear in the estate records of some palace women who died in the second part of the eighteenth century, but that are absent from records of the first half of the century, include chandeliers, various types of chairs such as gilded chair (yaldızlı 73

74

75

76

For a recent study that provides a rich bibliography on this subject, see Elif Akçetin and Suraiya Faroqhi, eds., Living the Good Life. Hilye-i Serîf ¸ is an Islamic art form that consists of texts that describe the Prophet Muhammad’s physical as well as moral beauty in the best manner possible in superb works of art such as calligraphy and illumination. Banaluka is a type of embroidery that takes its name from the region of Banaluka (modern-day Banja Luka) (F. Emecen, “Banaluka,” DİA, V, 49–51). D.HMH. MHF 34-1 (1195 /1780).

184

Material World: Fortunes and Possessions

iskemle), tavşankârî77 chair, chair inlaid with mother-of-pearl (musaddef iskemle), wooden chair (agaç ˘ iskemle), walnut chair, ablution chair, and various mirror types, such as endam aynası (full-length mirror). For instance, Sarayî Simten owned a chandelier containing diamonds (elmaslı avize), Semsi ¸ Hatun had seven chairs, and Sarayî Emine possessed a mirror with emerald and pearl (zümrüt incili ayna), a mirror with emerald, pearl, and garnet (zümrüt inci ve lâl mücevherli ayna), and a full-length mirror. Similar variety and richness was the case for home textiles and other goods. Saraylı Ayşe, also known as Sabite Hatun, owned numerous quilts made of precious fabrics, including dülbend (cotton), an embroidered quilt, three mücessem78 quilts, and three Polish (Lehkâri) quilts.79 The diversity and growth seen in later eighteenth-century culinary culture was also reflected in the palace women’s possessions. Some wealthy palace women possessed items rarely seen in the estate inventories of their contemporaries, such as Viennese jars, tile (çini) jar, şirmâhî80 spoons, horn compote spoons, silver dessert spoons with coral handles, walnut spoons, and Saxony glass. Luxury items related to religious and personal life and recorded in the estates of palace women were likewise diversified and enriched in the second hald of the century. These included agarwood prayer beads with corals and sandalwood and brass prayer beads. Some women possessed embroidered prayer rugs made of valuable fabrics such as suzenikâri, sakızkâri, and selanikikâri. Some wealthy women owned Banaluka prayer rugs, and a Hilye-i Serif. ¸ Sarayî Hâcce Gevher Hatun bint Abdullah, who was manumitted by Ahmed III, owned a very valuable and rare item, a Kaaba cover (Kâbe puşidesi).81 Some wealthy women owned other rare items, such as silver paper purses, pearl and silver combs, containers for kohl, containers for amber, pieces of agarwood (öd), soap, binoculars, spectacles (gözlüks), scissors (makas/mikrâs), and hand fans (mirvahas). Sarayî Velüle Hanım, another palace woman 77 78

79 80

81

Tavşankâri is a carpentry technique. Solid, possessed of a solid body, possessed of all the geogmetrical dimensions (James W. Redhouse, A Turkish and English Lexicon [Beirut: Librairie du Liban, 1974, reprint from 1890 edition], 1750). D.BSM. ¸ MHF 13127 (1219/1804). Sirmâhî ¸ refers to a small type of whale, and spoons made of its teeth are very valuable. D.BSM. ¸ MHF 63-25 (1193/1779).

An Evaluation of Possessions

185

who was manumitted by Abdulhamid I (r. 1774–1789) and who died as the wife of warrior (silahşor) and tüfekçibaşı Murtaza Bey, owned remarkable items for her period. She had a toothbrush purse embroidered with gilded silver thread (sırmalı misvak kesesi), brass prayer beads, agarwood prayer beads with coral, two Hilye-i Serifs, ¸ Chinese crystal, silver, Viennese, and Saxony items, a gilded bronze (tombak) dessert pot (hokka), two sets of binoculars, silver spectacles, and a type of wind instrument (nısfıye).82 The examination of items possessed by Dilhayat Kadın shows a surprising number of luxury items, including şirmâhî compote spoons, nine şirmâhî table spoons (şirmâhî saplı taam kaşıgı), ˘ a silver bowl (kase), a silver cup (zarf), a Saxony flask and thurible (Saksonya gülabdan, buhurdan), seven Saxony glasses, forty Saxony and Chinese (fagfûri) ˘ porcelain cups, eleven Saxony bowls, six Saxony plates, eleven crystal (billur) bowls, a Viennese (Beç) bowl, an English crystal plate (İngilizkâri muhafazalı billur tabak), two Chinese plates, five crystal jugs, three bowls with diamonds, sixteen items made of gilded bronze (tombak), a European (Efrenckârî) metal candelabra, a chair embellished with mother of pearl (sedefkârî iskemle), a gilded chair, a tavşankârî chair, Polish (Lehkâri) household items such a mattress, sheets, and seat cushion, and four canary cages, one of them embellished with mother of pearl. Sarayî Semsi, ¸ Dilhayat, Ülfet, and Velüle all had enormous fortunes and owned very rare and luxurious items; they were, though, were exceptional women of their era. Serife ¸ Hanım bint Kapu halifesi Seyyid Yahya Efendi bin Mustafa Agha, who died in the vicinity of Valide-i Atik Mosque in Üsküdar as the wife of a high-ranking member of the askeri class (Küçük Hafidzâde Mehmed Sadık Molla Efendi), was the richest non-sarayî askeri woman among the examples examined for this study.83 Unlike palace women’s slave origin, Serife ¸ came from a well-established and prestigious family, as her father’s title indicates. Serife ¸ Hanım possessed a large number of luxury items, including crystal, Chinese (fagfûrî) ˘ and silver objects, and binoculars. They did not match, though, the luxuries owned by Sarayî Semsi, ¸ Dilhayat, Ülfet, and Velüle. Hemeta Kadın, who lived in Birgi, Ödemiş, also 82 83

D.BSM. ¸ MHF 12851 (1192/1778). For Serife’s ¸ estate, see Sezgin Demircioglu, ˘ “615 Numaralı Istanbul Askeri Kassam,” p. 209.

186

Material World: Fortunes and Possessions

possessed rich luxurious items.84 Even though she was not as wealthy as the other palace women or as Serife ¸ Hanım, the extent of her luxurious possessions is surprising. She possessed soap, celadon wares, silver and crystal items, Hilye-i Serif, ¸ a spoon made of tooth of salmon, as well as very rare items from Saxony. Hemeta Kadın might have been given these items as a trousseau upon her marriage to Ali Bey, who was apparently an influential and important person in the region, or she might have attained them following her transfer from the palace. The records do not let us know.

Clocks and Watches Some palace women possessed clocks and watches, which were especially rare items in the era. Ottoman interest in clocks and watches had a long past. The mechanical clock was introduced from Europe to the Ottoman Empire in the late fifteenth century.85 From the sixteenth century, the Ottoman court started to receive clocks and watches from Europe.86 Clocks and watches produced in Europe were delivered to the imperial court, mainly for the sultans and the ruling elite. In the eighteenth century, passion for clocks and watches increased, and Western watchmakers started to compete for the Ottoman market.87 84

85

86

87

D.BSM. ¸ MHF 13163 (1223/1808). For information about the region of Datça, see Tülay Artan, “Journeys and Landscapes in the Datca Peninsula: Ali Agaki of Crete and the Tuhfezâde Dynasty,” in Halcyon Days in Crete VI, ed. A. Anastasopoulos (Rethymno: Crete Univesity Press, 2009), 339–411. Otto Kurz, European Clocks and Watches in the Near East (London: Warburg Institute, University of London, 1975), 20–22. Kurz, European Clocks, 22–45; Michael Rogers, “Ottoman Luxury Trades and Their Regulations,” in Osmanistische Studien zur Wirtschaftsund Sozialgeschichte in Memoriam Vanco Boskov, ed. Hans Georg Majer (Wesbaden: Otto Harassowitz, 1986), 135–155; Frédéric Hitzel, “De la clepsydre à l’horloge. L’art de mesurer le temps dansl’Empire ottoman,” in Les Ottomans et le Temps, ed. François Georgeon- Frédéric Hitzel (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 20–37. David Landes, Revolution in Time: Clocks and the Making of the Modern World (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983), 238–239; Kurz, European Clocks, 65–88; Netice Yıldız, “Osmanlı İmparatorlugu’nda ˘ İngiliz Saatleri ve Topkapı Sarayı Koleksiyonu,” Belleten 259 (2006): 919–963; M. Lewis, “Istanbul’da 18. Yüzyıl Çalar Saatleri,” Türkiyemiz, 23 (1977): 2–8. For the appearance of clocks and watches in the eighteenth-century inheritance registers, see Fatma Müge Göçek, Rise of the Bourgeoisie, Demise of the Empire: Ottoman Westernization and Social Change (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 105–106.

An Evaluation of Possessions

187

In this period, the imperial palace acquired many clocks and watches through gift or commission.88 Even though fascination with clocks and watches increased in the eighteenth century, they were still luxury items and status symbols. According to the estate records examined here, of 186 palace women who died in the first half of the century, clocks or watches appeared in the estates of only 17 (9 percent). The low proportion is not surprising, given their rarity of these items in Ottoman society.89 As with the other luxury or rare goods, the great majority of women who had watches and/or clocks had fortunes worth more than 100,000 akçe; most also possessed jewelry. The same was true of contemporary askeri-status women. Few had more than one clock, although Dilhayat Usta possessed a surprising number of clocks. Dilhayat owned a small gold clock with a Süleymanî case (Süleymânî zarflı altın küçük altın saat), a Persian clock (Fârisi saat), a large hanging and chiming clock (kebir asma çalar saat), a small hanging clock (sagîr asma saat), another asma saat, and a French marble drawer clock (Françe mermerli çekmece saati). The richness of Dilhayat’s clocks, in terms of number and variety, was extraordinary when compared to other highstatus palace women.90 The proportion of palace women who possessed clocks and watches increased after the mid-eighteenth century, as did the variety of clocks and watches and the number of women who owned more than one. The few wealthy women whose fortune exceeded 2 million akçe owned at least three clocks/watches, including some made with gold and jewels. Throughout the century, various types of clock/watches 88

89

90

For various examples, see Wolfgang Meyer, Catalogue of Clocks and Watches in the Topkapı Sarayı Museum (Istanbul: Ümit Basımevi, no date); Kemal Çıg, ˘ “Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Saat Seksiyonu,” Sanat Dünyamız 4/12 (1978): 2–8; Aysel Tuzcular, “Early Clocks and Watches in Topkapı Sarayı,” International Symposium on the Observatories in Islam, 18-23 Sept. 1977 (Istanbul: Milli Egitim ˘ Basımevi, 1980), 203–210; F. Davis, “The Clocks and Watches of Topkapı Palace Museum,” Journal of Turkish Studies 8 (1984): 41–54. Of 745 askeri women living between 1591 and 1700, not one possessed a clock or watch (Said Öztürk, Askeri Kassama Ait Onyedinci Asır Istanbul Tereke Defterleri). Not every high-status member of the imperial court possessed such a number and variety of clocks/watches. An eighteenth-century vizier had only three clocks/watches in his estate (Christoph Neumann, “How Did a Vizier Dress in the Eighteenth Century,” in Ottoman Costumes: From Textile to Identity, ed. Suraiya Faroqhi-Christoph Neumann [Istanbul: Eren, 2004], 181–219).

188

Material World: Fortunes and Possessions

appeared in the estate records, such as hanging and chiming clocks, chiming clocks, gold clocks/watches, gold pocket watches (koyun saati), silver pocket watches, silver pendulum clocks (sim pandül saats), drawer clocks (peştahta saats or çekmece saats), lunate clocks (hilali saats), wooden clocks (agaç ˘ saats or tahta saats), hour hand clocks (akrep saats), and another type of clock/watch called a kalkan saat. Among these, hanging clocks and chiming clocks were the two most common. The clocks’ value also varied. The lowest valued clock was worth 1,200 akçe, while the most expensive was worth 39,600 akçe.91 Palace women rarely owned jeweled clocks/watches, but those who had watches with fob chains were extremely wealthy.92 For instance, Saraylı Emine Hanım, who was manumitted by Prince Selim and was married to Ömer Efendi, scribe of ruus department (ruus kalemi), owned a gold clock/watch with emeralds, a jeweled fob chain, a gold watch with a gold chain, and a chiming clock.93 Miyase Kadın, who was manumitted by Mahmud I, had an enormous fortune of 132,175 kuruş. Among her possessions was a drawer clock worth 2,000 kuruş, a jeweled watch with fob chain valued at 150 kuruş, and a hanging and chiming clock worth 2,350 akçe.94 Technological developments paved the way for palace women to own an increasing number and variety of items. Pendulum clocks/ watches that were invented in the second half of the seventeenth century entered the Ottoman court in the second half of the eighteenth.95 At the same time, they appeared in the estates of a few wealthy palace women. For instance, Simten Usta had enormous fortune of 17,188 kuruş (2,062,560 akçe) and owned a gold push-button (basma) watch with a jeweled chain worth 130 kuruş, a large silver pendulum clock worth 70 kuruş, a large silver pocket watch, and a chiming watch.96 Sarayî Emine bint Abdullah, who was manumitted by Mahmud I (r. 1730–1754) and died as the wife of coal seller (Kömürcü) Abbas, had a fortune of 160,800 akçe. She possessed a 91

92

93 94 96

The clock belonged to Sarayî Afife Hatun was worth 330 kuruş (39,600 akçe) (Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 120, p. 92, 97–99). In the examined examples, the fob chain appears with a gold watch or jeweled watch. D.BSM. ¸ MHF 12844; D.HMH. MHF 33-6 (1192/1778). 95 D.HMH. MHF 34-16. Kurz, European Clocks, 79–84. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 195, pp. 61a-61b-62a.

An Evaluation of Possessions

189

watch chain with pearl and emerald, a silver pendulum watch with a chain, a large drawer clock, and a chiming clock.97 It is likely that palace women received these clocks/watches as gifts during their harem service. One archival document lists ninety-three clocks and watches given by Ahmed II (r.1691–1695) to members of the imperial court, including harem administrators, between 1691 and 1693.98 Palace women might also have been given these items as part of their marriage trousseau, or as gifts from their high-status husbands.

Jewelry Most palace women possessed at least one piece of jewelry, either a ring or a pair of earrings. Even those with only a modest fortune often had one or two pieces, such as silver (gümüş) or gold earrings, a bracelet, or a belt. Earrings were the most common piece of jewelry. As the fortunes of women increased, the number and value of jewelry items that they owned also increased. For example, in the estate records of women whose fortunes ranged from 10,000 to 49,999 akçe, one sees, in addition to silver and gold jewelry, one or two pieces of jewelry ornamented with precious stones. Wealthier palace women whose fortune ranged from 100,000 to 999,000 akçe owned rings, earrings, bracelets, brooches, and belts made of silver, gold, and pearl. They also owned jewelry made from turquoise, enameled (minekâri) pieces, and items including seals (hatem) containing precious gemstones such as diamonds, rubies, and emeralds. The available examples suggest that palace women and contemporary women of the same economic status owned more or less the same kinds of jewelry in terms of number and variety. Jewelry was a status symbol in every period of the Ottoman Empire. Sekerpare ¸ Hatun, who was a companion of Sultan Ibrahim, apparently owned sixteen chests of jewelry.99 Some palace women possessed a surprising number and value of jewelry. Sarayî Nedim Fatma Hatun bint Abdülmennan, who was manumitted by Rabia Gülnuş Emetullah 97 98

99

D.BSM. ¸ MHF 57-28; Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 193, p. 88b. According to the document, the chief administrative officer of the imperial harem (kethüda kadın), second treasurer, treasurer Halime Usta, and treasurer Eski Ayşe Boli were given valuable clocks/watches; quoted in Kemal Özdemir, Ottoman Clocks and Watches (Istanbul: Creative Yayıncılık, 1993), 82. Na’îmâ, Tarih, III, 1138.

190

Material World: Fortunes and Possessions

Valide Sultan (d. 1715), had twelve pieces of jewelry worth a total of 260,920 akçe.100 Sarayî Hanife Hatun, who was the former consort (ikbal) of Mustafa II and married following his death, possessed eight pieces of jewelry, including a crest (sorguç), worth a total of 4,760 kuruş (571,200 akçe).101 Some palace women who died in the second half the eighteenth century, mainly the wealthiest group, possessed a great variety of valuable jewelry. Sarayî Simten Kadın (d. 1775), whose fortune exceeded 2 million akçe, possessed over twenty pieces of jewelry, worth 1.2 million akçe. She also owned a very rarely seen hair accessory called an istefan; it was embellished with diamonds.102 Sarayî Hürrem Kadın, the wife of Musâhibzade İbrahim Bey, also possessed more than twenty items of jewelry.103 Some of the wealthiest contemporary askeri women also possessed a great number of valuable jewels.104 Palace women might have been given these items during their harem service. For instance, a silver belt was given to Sarayî Ümmü Gülsüm Hatun by the reigning sultan in Karaagaç ˘ Garden.105 The jewels of some deceased members of the imperial court were taken by the palace, and the value of these jewels was deducted from the rikâb-ı hümâyun’s share; in some cases, these pieces of jewelry were then regifted to other women related to the imperial palace.106 Some palace women also received jewelry as part of their trousseau. For instance, an Agha of the Old Palace named Süleyman Agha granted jewelry to his female

100

101 102 103 104

105

106

Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 105, pp. 91, 132 (1128/1715). Fatma was the owner of a tripartite diamond belt worth 144,000 akçe, an emerald ring worth 54,000 akçe, a diamond bracelet worth 18,000 akçe, a gold belt (17,400 akçe), a belt with pearls and emeralds (7,800 akçe), an emerald ablution earring (abdest küpesi) (5,040 akçe), four rings made with various gems (7,360 akçe), a gold seal (hatem) (360 akçe), and a gold bracelet (6,960 akçe). TSMA E 126-33-34-35. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 195, pp. 61a-61b-62a. D.BSM. ¸ MHF 12844 (1192/1778). For instance, thirty-six pieces of jewelry with an enormous value appeared in the estate of Serife ¸ Hanım binti Kapu halifesi Seyyid Yahya Efendi bin Mustafa Agha (Sezgin Demircioglu, ˘ “615 Numaralı Istanbul Askeri Kassam,” 209, 272–274). TSMA D 8519 (1123/1711). Jewelry was also bestowed upon manumitted female palace slaves who transferred from the imperial harem (Sıddık Çalık, “1108 Numaralı Harc-ı Hassa Defteri’nin Transkripsiyonu ve Degerlendirmesi,” ˘ M.A. Thesis, Istanbul University, 1993, 7). Sıddık Çalık, “1108 Numaralı Harc-ı Hassa,” 7.

An Evaluation of Possessions

191

slave Hibetullah as her trousseau. He assigned twenty-five pieces of jewelry worth 900,000 akçe to her during her childhood in 1740.107

Clothing Palace affiliation might have had an impact on palace women’s clothing choices. These women had witnessed imperial court fashion in the palace, and were presented with valuable fabrics and clothing items as gifts on special occasions during their stay in the harem. Gülnuş Valide Sultan, mother of Mustafa II and Ahmed III, stated in her will that forty female slaves were to receive her clothing; the mistress of pantry (kilerci usta) was to be given a sable fur, and other mistresses were gifted lynx fur.108 During the wedding ceremony of Mustafa II’s daughter in 1710, the groom Kara Mustafa Pasha offered a sable fur to the kethüda kadın (chief administrative officer).109 Palace women were also given clothing as a trousseau. Indeed, in the sixteenth century, Stephan Gerlach noted that if a sergeant, cavalryman (sipâhî), or any other person married a woman from the sultan or pasha’s harem, women were given money, several pieces of clothing, bedding, and a trousseau consisting of household goods.110 There were certain rules about how members of the Enderun should be dressed.111 D’Ohsson, who was in Ottoman territory in the eighteenth century, remarked that there were also rules concerning the clothing to be worn by members of the imperial harem. He added that a person’s clothing reflected her position in the harem hierarchy: the ikbals wore rich fabrics, and in winter they wore stuffed dresses. The gediklis and ustas had trailing dresses and were not allowed to wear fur; they also wore girdles, sometimes garnished with precious stones.112 107 108 109

110 111

112

Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 193, p. 13a (1188/1774). TSMA E 3941. TSMA D 10591, quoted in Arslan, “II. Mustafa’nın kızı Safiye Sultan’ın Dügünü,” ˘ 573–574. Stephan Gerlach, Türkiye Günlügü ˘ 1577–1578, II, 639. The sword bearer was allowed to wear a turban (sarık) and to wear fur in the palace. The çukadar (keeper of the garments) and rikabdar (the sultan’s stirrupholder) aghas were not allowed to wear fur but were allowed to wear a turban. The official headgear (serpuş) of the sword bearer was a knitted hat (üsküf) of red velvet (Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Saray Teşkilâtı, 347). D’Ohsson, Tableau, VII, 72. G. Sandys noted that women of the Serraglio did not much differ from each other, but that the favorite wore a taller ornament on

192

Material World: Fortunes and Possessions

In an imperial decree dated 1834, Ottoman women were warned not to dress as the palace women (saraylı) did.113 This edict hints at the fact that palace women had their own clothing style. Earlier, in the sixteenth century, Stephan Gerlach had written that female members of the dynasty, and other women of the imperial court, dressed like ordinary Turkish women but wore more jewelry on their necks, arms, and fingers, as well as a head accessory according to their own styles.114 There was also a special type of coat (ferace) worn by palace women, called saraylı ferace.115 In the nineteenth century, Julia Pardoe noted that some ladies of the imperial palace fastened immense bunches of artificial ringlets under their yashmaks when they drove out.116 Likewise, Murad V (r. May–August 1876) apparently fell in love with his sister’s female slave who was using a headdress (hotoz) used by palace women.117 This hotoz took different names according to its shape, the color of its fabric, or the shape of its knots. There was one type of hotoz called a saraylı hotozu.118 Comparing the clothing items found in the estates of palace women with those of other contemporary women reveals that palace women and their contemporaries possessed similar items. Among their clothes one finds shalwars, shirts (gömleks), dresses (entaris), jackets (zıbıns or hırkas), caftans, kapama (an outer garment), another type of garment called kavuşdurma, furs, and coats (feraces). Ordinary and essential items such as underpants (don), shirts, dresses, and coats appeared in the estates of women of modest wealth, and palace women and their contemporaries of the same economic level had more or less the same number and variety of clothing. Parallel to a rise in total wealth, the number of clothes increased and diversified, the fabric quality and the use of fur and jewelry increased, and costumes became more expensive.

113 114 115 116

117

118

her head that was typically of beaten gold and encased with gems (Sandys, Relation of a journey began an dom 1610, 75). HAT 18712/319 (1250/1834). Stephan Gerlach, Türkiye Günlügü ˘ 1577–1578, II, 637. Pakalın, Osmanlı Tarih Terimleri ve Deyimleri Sözlügü, ˘ III, 127. Julie Pardoe, The City of the Sultans and the Domestic Manners of the Turks in 1836 (London: Henry Colburn Publisher, 1838), I, 286. Çagatay ˘ Uluçay, Osmanlı Saraylarında Harem Hayatının İç Yüzü, (Istanbul: İnkılap Kitabevi, 1959). Pakalın, Osmanlı Tarih Terimleri ve Deyimleri Sözlügü, ˘ III, 127; Reşat Ekrem Koçu, Türk Giyim Kuşam ve Süslenme Sözlügü ˘ (Ankara: Sümerbank Kültür Yayınları, 1967), 131–132.

An Evaluation of Possessions

193

Those with great fortunes, not surprisingly, owned substantially more rich clothing in terms of variety and quality, and this diversity and value increased over time. The wealthy Sarayî Fethiye Hatun bint Abdullah (d. 1721) owned sable fur of great value, ermine fur, and squirrel fur.119 Palace women who died in the second half of the eighteenth century, especially the wealthiest group, had more and more varied clothing items compared to those wealthiest palace women who died in the first half of the century. Sarayî Hürrem Kadın (d.1778), wife of Musâhibzade İbrahim Bey, had a fortune of over 2 million akçe, and her wardrobe consisted of forty-three items of clothing made of valuable fabrics.120 Sarayî Ülfet Hatun (d. 1786), who was manumitted by Abdulhamid I and died as a wife of Ali Efendi bin el-Hac Mustafa with an estate worth 2,570,220 akçe, had sixty clothing items including five valuable furs such as sable, ermine (kakum), and corsack (karsak).121 Sarayî Ülfet’s caftans and dresses were surprising: she possessed several caftans made of various fabrics and in a variety of colors, including seven Edirneşahi caftans, a dark blue cashmere (şali) caftan, and a flowery (çiçekli) cashmere (şali) caftan. Her thirty-seven dresses were made of a variety of colored and embroidered fabrics, such as sevayi (silk mixture) germsud (silk), şeritli (striped) germsud, telkâri (woven with gold or silver thread), şali (cashmere), suzenikâri, hitayi, çitari (silk and cotton), gezi (silk mixture), canfes (taffeta), çiçekli (flowery), dülbend (cotton), and zencirbah. Non-sarayî women also had extensive wardrobes: eighty-five pieces of clothing, including thirty-nine dresses, are listed in the estate record of Lütfiye Hatun,122 while Serife ¸ Ayşe Hanım had a rich wardrobe consisting of fifty-six items, including furs of great value.123 In addition to growing wealth, the diversity seen in fabrics used in the second half of the eighteenth century, and the use of new types of fabrics, was also related to the technological developments experienced in the textile industry.124 The fact that fabric played an important role in gift-giving practices among the elite might have contributed to the 119 120 122 123 124

Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 111, 113, pp. 52, 211, 212 (1134/1721). 121 D.BSM. ¸ MHF 12844. D.BSM. ¸ MHF 12911. Sezgin Demircioglu, ˘ “615 Numaralı İstanbul Askeri Kassam,” p. 166. Sezgin Demircioglu, ˘ “615 Numaralı Istanbul Askeri Kassam,” p. 209. Bruce McGowan, “The Age of the Ayans,” in Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire (1300–1914), ed. H. İnalcık and D. Quataert (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994, 719).

194

Material World: Fortunes and Possessions

fact that a group of palace women had clothing made of precious and rare fabrics.125 Those palace women who married high-status husbands and lived in a prestigious environment likely also enriched their wardrobes over time.

Slaves Slaves existed in every aspect of elite Ottoman social and economic life, so it is no surprise that some palace women also possessed slaves of their own. In addition to estate records, court registers provide information about the male and female slaves owned by palace women.126 Because of the high maintenance costs of slaves, slave ownership demonstrated wealth.127 Not having contact with their natal family and low ratio of children among palace women may have led to a greater tendency among them to acquire slaves compared to other women in the Ottoman Empire. In the absence of relatives, palace women also might have taken on female slaves as companions. Even though the available sources do not allow us to identify the origins of each slave owned by palace women, they did tend to have various origins, such as Arab, Georgian, Circassian, and Persian (Acem). Generally, palace women who possessed slaves were wealthy, the majority having fortunes of between 100,000 and 999,000 akçe. Most had only one female slave, although a small number owned more than one. In some cases, a palace woman could own mother and daughter slaves.128 Sarayî Afife Kadın bint Abdülvehhab, who had a fortune of more than 3 million akçe, owned six slaves named Hüsnüşah, Gülbeyaz, Hatmisiyah, Sehbaz, ¸ Gülbün, and Acebkâr.129 The sources do not state the price paid for each slave owned by palace women,130 125 126

127

128 129 130

Hedda, “Power and Submission,” 49. It should be noted that some palace women might have manumitted their slaves before their inventories were drawn up; these slaves may not be listed in their estates. For instance, in the seventeenth century, of 1,000 estate records of both men and women, only 241 people owned slaves. Of the 241 slave owners, only 40 were women (Said Öztürk, Askeri Kassama ait Onyedinci Asır Istanbul Tereke Defterleri, 201). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 109, p. 82 (1130/1717). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 119, pp. 17, 25, 26, 27 (1141/1728). The value of a slave of a palace woman was listed in the court registers as “baha-i cariye.”

An Evaluation of Possessions

195

although some sample cases suggest that the value of slaves ranged between 4,000 and 36,000 akçe. Most had a value between 12,000 and 24,000 akçe, although Sarayî Ülfet, who was a very rich woman, had a Circassian female slave worth 60,000 akçe.131 Palace women who left the imperial harem obtained their slaves in various ways. Some might have attained slaves following their transfer from the palace, as in the case of Sarayî Halime who demanded help from previously manumitted Sarayî Hadice to buy a slave. Sarayî Dürri Hatun, a resident of Daye Hatun neighborhood, purchased an Arab female slave worth 50 kuruş for herself.132 Some palace women were given slaves by their husbands. For instance Mehmed Çelebi bin Hasan donated a male slave and gave a female slave as mehr to her wife Sarayî Hadice Hatun.133 Similar to the patronage relationship between palace women and the imperial court, palace women provided patronage to their slaves. Some even made bequests to their slaves. Sarayî Hâcce Gevher Hatun, who did not have children, designated concrete gifts including several types of household items, home textiles, and clothing for each of her three slaves.134 Dilhayat Kadın bestowed a gold belt, two brooches, and a pair of bracelets on her black female slave Tahavet before her death. Dilhayat had given a big diamond ring and a pearl rosary to another slave upon manumitting her.135 Apart from bequests and gifts, some palace women allocated a share from one-third (sülüs) of their estates to their slaves and assigned their slaves as beneficiaries to their waqfs.

Real Estate A group of palace women owned real estate. Estate inventories and court records related to property sales allow us to identify their properties. Yet, it is difficult to ascertain the exact proportion of real estate ownership among palace women, due to the fact that they might have endowed or sold their real estate before their deaths. According to available examples, though, the great majority of real estate owners 131

132 133 134

D.BSM. ¸ MHF 12911 (1201/1786). See Chapter 1 for prices of slaves in the eighteenth century. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 116, p. 145. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 113, p. 51 (1133/1720). 135 D.BSM.MHF ¸ 63-25 (1193/1779). D.BSM.MHF ¸ 30-37 (1737).

196

Material World: Fortunes and Possessions

(93 percent) possessed a house (menzil or hane),136 valued at between 10,000 and 50,000 akçe. Most of these house owners had only one house. Apart from houses, a few women had a vineyard, land, a farm, a room (oda), a cellar (mahzen), or a shop.137 For instance, Bâd-ı Saba, who was treasurer to Valide Sultan, had rooms in the Abdi Çelebi neighborhood, which were transferred to Rabia Gülnuş Emetullah Sultan (d. 1715) by way of inheritance. The Valide Sultan then assigned these rooms as a source of revenue to her mosque.138 Very few palace women had more than one estate. While some did have two houses in two different neighborhoods, others had different kinds of real estate. For instance Sarayî Eglence ˘ Hatun had a house and a yahudihane (dwelling places for Jews).139 Possession of real estate was related to wealth, and most real estate owners had a total fortune exceeding 10,000 akçe. Some palace women of great fortune owned various valuable pieces of real estate.140 For instance, Sarayî Fethiye Hatun bint Abdullah owned two farms in Darıca and Gelibolu, the total value of which was 4,200 kuruş. She had a vineyard next to her farm in Darıca. She also had two houses worth 5,500 kuruş, one of which was located outside Balat Gate, the other in Üsküdar.141 The case of Fethiye Hatun is

136

137

138 139 140

141

According to available examples dated between 1700 and 1730, 137 women possessed real estate, and 128 of them owned a house. In Ottoman society, a house (hane or menzil) was the most common piece of real estate appearing in the estate records (S. Öztürk, Askeri Kassama ait Onyedinci Asır Istanbul Tereke Defterleri, 166–170). Sarayî Halime binti Abdulmennan owned a cellar (mahzen) in Galata’da worth 36,000 akçe (Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 106, p. 28 [1129/1716]). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 111, p. 17 (1111/1700). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 110, p. 51 (1129/1716). In every period, there were palace women who had a rich real estate portfolio. Sekerpare ¸ Hatun, who lived in the seventeenth century, was the owner of many pieces of real estate: four houses in the Hocapaşa Karaki Hasan Çelebi neighborhood, a house in the Helvacı Ömer neighborhood in Eyüb, two houses and share from a shop in the Emir Nureddin neighborhood, two shops in the Hacı Küçük neighborhood, land in the Bagçekapu ˘ Çelebioglu ˘ Alaaddin neighborhood, a house in the Debbag˘ Yunus neighborhood in Küçük Mustafa Paşa, a coffeehouse in Zeyrek, two shops in the Bayezid neighborhood in Galata, a house in the Hacı Hüseyin Aga neighborhood in Samatya, and land in Balat (Semavi Eyice, “Eyüp’te Sekerpare ¸ Hatun Türbesi,” in Tarihi, Kültürü ve Sanatıyla Eyüp Sultan Sempozyumu IX Tebligler ˘ [Istanbul: Eyüp Belediyesi, 2005], 117). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 111; 113, pp. 52, 211, 212 (1134/1721).

An Evaluation of Possessions

197

interesting considering the fact that in this period, palace women rarely owned farmland. A small number of women possessed shops. For example, Sarayî Afife Hatun bint Abdullah bin Abdülmennan, a resident of Bostancıbaşı Ali Aga ˘ neighborhood near Kadırga Port, owned a barbershop and a grocery store.142 Simten Kadın (d. 1775) had a total fortune of 17,188 kuruş and was the owner of various houses and stores. She owned one-third of a khan named Sepetçiler Hanı, in which were located various stores including a candy store, a vinegar store (sirkeci dükkânı), a chickpeas store (leblebici dükkânı), a sherbet store (serbetçi dükkânı), and a lead store (kurşun dükkânı).143 * An evaluation of material world of palace women thus reveals that palace affiliation significantly influenced their material wealth and consumption habits. Even though a group of these women lived a very modest life and died in poverty, generally their affiliation with the imperial court gave these former slaves a certain elevated economic status. A small group of palace women even developed enormous fortunes and amassed possessions rarely seen among contemporary women of free and high status. Since the material world of a person partly reflected their socioeconomic and cultural situation and lifestyle, it is clear that a small group of palace women appeared among the elite segment of the society in which they lived. The possible implications of the material culture of palace women is worth considering, taking into account the fact that palace women of various statuses established social and communal relationships within urban society, and especially within their neighborhoods, and there represented the imperial court culture. The imperial decree that reveals that Ottoman women were warned not to dress like palace-affiliated women (saraylı)144 implies that Ottoman women in general were acquainted with palace-affiliated women’s material world and their styles. Second, this edict also reveals that some people from other segments of the society emulated the dressing style of palace-affiliated 142 143

144

Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 120, pp. 92, 97–99 (1143/1730). D.BSM. ¸ MHF 58-56; Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 195, pp. 61a-61b-62a; D.HMH. MHF 33-5 (1190/1776). HAT 18712/319 (1250/1834).

198

Material World: Fortunes and Possessions

women. Therefore, the material culture of palace women influenced their broader environment. The next chapter continues to examine another component of this material world, namely palace women’s charitable activities, including architectural patronage and endowments. It explores how imperial court affiliation shaped the charitable activities of palace women and also evaluates the implications that their charitable activities had for the imperial court, members of the imperial household, and Ottoman society more broadly.

|

6

Charitable Activities: Architectural Patronage and Endowments

In addition to facilitating the accumulation of wealth, palace affiliation also created a group of women who had the resources and inclination to engage in charitable activities. The degree of charitable giving that these women could give depended, of course, on their status, but overall a career in the harem underscored by material and moral patronage enabled many of these former slaves to amass the necessary resources – wealth, status, and networks – to be charitable. Some women had the outstanding capacity to engage in architectural patronage, while others made endowments on a more modest scale or even donated their possessions. Some peculiarities of these slave-origin women, such as not having contact with their natal family, the absence of a large number of heirs, and the indispensable inheritance relationship that they had with the imperial household, likely affected their inclination toward charitable activities. Thus, this chapter deals with another component of the material world, that of the charitable activities of female members of the imperial court. More specifically, the chapter examines their architectural patronage and endowments. In the previous chapters, palace women appeared as the receivers of patronage. In this chapter, they appear as dispensers of patronage as a result of the patronage that they themselves had received. The chapter endeavors to locate the impact of being affiliated with a particular household on the charitable activities of its members. It also aims to evaluate the possible implications that the charitable activities of this group of women had for the imperial court, the members of the imperial household, and Ottoman society. It demonstrates how female members of the imperial court engaged in charitable activities that served the interests of both Ottoman subjects and members of the imperial court, while also leaving their individual mark on the architectural, social, urban, religious, and intellectual landscape of various regions of the empire.

199

200

Charitable Activities: Architectural Patronage and Endowments

Architectural Patronage Some palace women engaged in architectural patronage activities. First and foremost, charitable activities were pious acts undertaken to gain merit and to fulfill the Muslim obligation to give charity. The acts of giving, though, even if only fulfilled for pious reasons, were a source of power and prestige for the benefactor and for the households to which they were attached. A rich literature on this issue reveals that the architectural patronage activities of various members of the Ottoman imperial household functioned, at least in part, as a way to display the power and prestige of the imperial court itself. The construction activities of palace women were not new to the eighteenth century. The era-specific political, social, and economic conditions of the Ottoman Empire played a determining role in the number and nature of the construction activities supported by both palace women and other women. The large number of construction activities in the sixteenth century declined in the seventeenth century. In the eighteenth century, as construction activities increased in every field across the empire, more palace women, both former slaves and members of the dynasty, engaged in construction patronage activities of their own. Great changes took place in the eighteenth century that affected the architectural texture of the city of Istanbul. Following the return of the Ottoman court from Edirne to the capital with the enthronement of Ahmed III in 1703, the construction of public and private buildings by rulers, state officials, members of the imperial household, and the general public contributed to the urban fabric of the city.1 In addition, the earthquake and fire that occurred during the period of Ahmed III caused much damage and required many rebuilding activities in Istanbul.2 Over time, the revival of settlements on the shores of the Bosphorus and the Golden Horn expanded the built environment all along 1

2

For an evaluation of this subject, see bkz. Artan, “Arts and Architecture,” 446–480; Shirine Hamadeh, The City’s Pleasures: Istanbul in the Eighteenth Century (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2007). According to an edict issued in this period, statesmen were requested to repair mosques and masjids that had been ruined by fires (Râşid, Tarih-i Râşid, V, 160–161). Mühimme registers include decrees related to the fire (June 1718). The decrees are more related to the reconstruction of the burned buildings (Ömer Bıyık, “124 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri,” M.A. Thesis, Ege University, 2001, nos: 339, 342, 349, 350, 351).

Architectural Patronage

201

the coasts.3 People from various segments of society ordered the construction of buildings such as masjids, madrasas, libraries, schools (mekteb), dervish lodges (tekke), public kitchens (imaret), tombs, public baths, fountains, palaces, mansions, inns, bazaars, and barracks. Alongside female members of the dynasty, high-ranking palace women, such as chief administrative officers, ustas, and kahyas, played an integral role in this period of rebuilding by engaging in architectural patronage activities. Even though it is not always possible to determine at what period of their lives these women engaged in architectural patronage, it can be said that they ordered the construction both during their stay in the imperial harem and following their departure from the palace. They typically supported three main areas of construction activity: mosques and masjids, schools, and fountains.

Mosques and Masjids The mosques and masjids built through the patronage of palace women should be evaluated within the broader framework of Ottoman cities. It is known that in the formation of city settlements, three architectural factors played a key role: (1) places of worship, which expressed worldly power, religious legitimacy, and economic stability; (2) bazaars, which represented commercial interactions and prosperity; and (3) fortresses, which were a sign of political control and domination. In the Ottoman context, the religious factor stood as the most important of these three.4 This was an extension of the ancient Middle Eastern tradition, wherein the city was gathered around a temple and its urban functions were blended with religious duties.5 Mosques and masjids thus played a central role in the formation of neighborhoods. The number of mosques and masjids built by palace women increased during the sixteenth century, along with the number of 3

4

5

Tülay Artan, “Architecture as a Theater of Life: Profile of the Eighteenth Century Bosphorus,” Ph.D. diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1989); Tülay Artan, “Noble Women Who Changed the Face of the Bosphorus and the Palaces of the Sultanas,” Biannual Istanbul, 92 (1992): 87–97. For information about the relationship between urban spaces, waqf buildings, and political power, see Richard van Leeuwen, Waqfs and Urban Structures: The Case of Ottoman Damascus (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 1–30. İnalcık, “Istanbul,” EI2, IV, 224–248; İnalcık, “Istanbul: An Islamic City,” Journal of Islamic Studies 1 (1990): 1–23.

202

Charitable Activities: Architectural Patronage and Endowments

mosques and masjids patronized by female members of the dynasty and other women of status.6 This activity coincided with Istanbul’s urban development as the empire’s center of power. After declining in the seventeenth century, overall construction activities in Istanbul increased again in the eighteenth century and so too did the number masjids built with the support of palace women. Esir Pazarı Masjid built by Gülnuş Kadın in the Slave Market stands as an early example from this century. Following her entrance to the imperial palace, she first served as a wet nurse for a prince and later became the administrative officer (kethüda). She died during the reign of Ahmed III.7 Another woman, named Canfeda Saliha Hatun, who was a chief administrative officer in the reign of Ahmed III, also built a masjid.8 Hadice Usta was one of the female slaves of the chief black eunuch named Maktûl Beshir Agha (also known as Moralı or Hattat) (d. 1752). In Bayezid, she constructed the Yahnikapan Mosque (1758), as well as a fountain and a school (sıbyan mektebi) in the mosque’s vicinity.9 Through her construction of this complex, Hadice Usta stands as a modest example of the types of charitable works undertaken by the female members of the dynasty. It also reflects the enormous wealth and status of the chief black eunuchs in the eighteenth century, as it was through their patronage that women like Hadice Usta were able to support such building activities.10 Palace women sometimes supported rebuilding or repair activities. The Yolgeçen Masjid, located around Altımermer, was first constructed in 1553–1554 by Ömer Efendi, director of registry for landed property (defter emini). This building was later rebuilt following the will instructions of Hümaşah Kadın, the mistress of the table service (çaşnigir usta) for Mihrişah Valide Sultan, mother of Selim III.11 The 6

7 9

10

11

For detailed information about the mosques and masjids built by palace women before the eighteenth century, see İpşirli Argıt, Hayatlarının Çeşitli Safhalarında Harem-i Hümayun Cariyeleri, 243–248. 8 Hadikatü’l Cevami, 78; Sicill-i Osmani, II, 549. Sicill-i Osmani, II, 385. Hadikatü’l Cevami, 298. Tanışık identifies Hadice Usta as female slave of el-haj Beshir Agha (İ. H. Tanışık, İstanbul Çeşmeleri [Ankara: Maarif Vekâleti, 1943–1945], I, 180). On the other hand, in Hadikatü’l Cevami, Hatice Usta is mentioned as a female slave of Maktûl Beshir Agha. This study considers the second option as correct. For information about Moralı Beshir Agha, see Abdülkadir Özcan, “Beşir Aga, ˘ Moralı” DİA, V, 555–556; Sicill-i Osmani, II, 20; Uzunçarşılı, Saray Teşkilâtı, 175–177. Hadikatü’l Cevami, 293.

Architectural Patronage

203

Büyük İskele Masjid, previously built by el hac Mahmud Agha, was likewise repaired by Cevri Usta, a kalfa of Mahmud II.12 Some palace women also built mosques outside of Istanbul. Ebribahar Usta bint Abdullah, who was a mistress of the table service in the imperial harem, rebuilt the Sulu Mosque in the Kayakapı neighborhood in Ürgüb. She also had a pulpit placed in the mosque.13

Schools (Mektebs) In addition to mosques and masjids, establishing an elementary school (sıbyan mektebi) was seen to be a valuable and effective endeavor in Islamic society, as it supported children’s education.14 The construction of schools by women of all segments of society in Istanbul was common.15 These schools were generally situated next to neighborhood mosques and masjids, although some were set up independently in a neighborhood. Grand mosques and complexes constructed by sultans, grand viziers, and female members of the dynasty also often included schools. Palace women who built masjids also typically built schools. In comparison to the sixteenth century, in the seventeenth century women’s support of school construction declined.16 Such school construction then increased again in the eighteenth century. Sarayî Nevruz Hatun, who was the wife of Reisülküttab Ebubekir Efendi, had a school built in Süleymaniye around the Kirazlı Masjid.17 Similar to Hadice Usta, who was patron of Yahnikapan Mosque and of a school (sıbyan mekteb), Sarayî Nazperver Usta, who was the head treasurer of Selim III, built a school for children in the Davutpaşa 12 14

15

16

17

13 Hadikatü’l Cevami, 360. C. Evkaf 139/6914 (1263/1847). Yaacov Lev, Charity, Endowments and Charitable Institutions in Medieval Islam (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2005), 85–95. On waqf schools located in Istanbul and Bilad-ı Selase, see Ahmet Nezih Galitekin, ed. Osmanlı kaynaklarına göre Istanbul: cami, tekke, medrese, mekteb, türbe, hamam, kütübhane, matbaa, mahalle ve selatin imaretleri (Istanbul: İşaret Yayınları, 2003), 881–947. For detailed information about the schools built by palace women until the eighteenth century, see İpşirli Argıt, Hayatlarının Çeşitli Safhalarında Harem-i Hümayun Cariyeleri, 249–251. For information about educational institutions of the period, see Zeynep Nayır Ahunbay, “17. Yüzyıl Istanbul’unda Egitim ˘ Kurumları,” 17. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Kültür ve Sanatı, Sempozyum Bildirileri 19-20 Mart 1998 (Istanbul: Sanat Tarihi Dernegi, ˘ 1998), 9–19. VGM Defter 623, pp. 345–346; Hadikatü’l Cevami, 247; Turgut Kut, “İstanbul Sıbyan Mektepleriyle İlgili Bir Vesika,” Journal of Turkish Studies 2 (1978): 63.

204

Charitable Activities: Architectural Patronage and Endowments

Kürkçü neighborhood.18 Fesahat Usta, treasurer of Mihrişah Valide Sultan, built a school in the Tahtakadı neighborhood of Kasımpaşa.19 Another woman, named Saraylı Hâcce Tahire Hatun, who was manumitted by Selim III, bought a land in Hocapaşa neighborhood and built a school for women.20 Since establishing and maintaining a school demanded the investment of considerable resources, only very few palace women undertook such a project; most of them were administrative staff of the imperial harem. In the nineteenth century, Sevkinihal ¸ Usta, the treasurer of Sultan Abdulmecid, built a school of the same type.21 While the madrasa was another type of educational institution constructed by some female members of the dynasty, no records of palace women doing so have been identified.

Fountains İffetlü Kethüda Suhi ¸ Kadın Hazretleri Bak hulus-i kalp ile bu hayrı ihya eyledi Nûş iden hayat olsun gel iç âb-ı zülalden Sifa ¸ olsun gel âb iç çeşme-i müsaffadan Her excellency the virtuous Kethüda Suhi ¸ Kadın Revived this charity with kindness of heart. May those who drink from it find health. Drink this sweet water Come, may you find health, and drink water from this fountain.22

Palace women constructed fountains.23 While palace women in the sixteenth century preferred to build mosques and schools, great

18

19

20 21 22

23

For information about Nazperver Usta Mekteb, see BOA, Cevdet Maarif (C. MF) 119/5933. For information about repair records of the school, see İrade Evkaf (İ. EV) 2/1310 (1310/1892); Maarif Nezareti Mektubi Kalemi (MF.MKT) 867/73 (1323/1905); 926/78 (1324/1906). VGM, Defter 745, pp. 229–230 (1222/1807). Kut, “Sıbyan Mektepleri,” 61. This is the inscription found on the fountain of Suhi ¸ Kadın in Üsküdar, Fenerbahçe. She was chief administrative officer in the imperial harem during the reign of Abdulhamid I (r. 1774–1789). For detailed information about the fountains built by palace women before the eighteenth century, see İpşirli Argıt, Hayatlarının çeşitli Safhalarında Harem-i Hümayun Cariyeleri, 252–254.

Architectural Patronage

205

importance was attached to constructing fountains in the eighteenth.24 This shift in preference can be tied to the general increase in fountain construction in this period. As the number of women who built fountains increased in the eighteenth century, so too did their identities diversify.25 The rebuilding of the city’s water infrastructure accounts in part for the popularity of fountain construction in this century.26 In addition, as a reflection of urban development, the number of gardens increased, with existing ones being improved and renovated.27 In such an environment, the importance of fountains, especially public square fountains, increased. Three groups of women engaged in fountain construction in Ottoman society. The first group consisted of palace-affiliated women, including female members of the dynasty and administrative staff of the harem. The sultans’ mother, imperial consorts, and daughters came first within this group of women, followed by palace women of lesser status such as kalfas, kethüdas, and hazînedar ustas. The second group consisted of female members of the ruling elite and ulema families. The final group comprised ordinary female Ottoman subjects who built simpler fountains mainly to supply water to their neighborhoods. Due to the high cost of construction, apart from female members of the dynasty, only high-ranking administrative harem personnel such as kahyas and ustas ordered the fountain construction. In the eighteenth century, in addition to her school in Süleymaniye around Kirazlı Masjid, Sarayî Nevruz Hatun built a fountain.28 The Aşub Kadın 24

25

26

27 28

For an evaluation of construction-related waqfs (endowments) in the eighteenth century, see Bahaeddin Yediyıldız, XVIII. Yüzyılda Türkiye’de Vakıf Müessesesi, Bir Sosyal Tarih İncelemesi (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2003), 93. According to Yediyıldız, 26 percent were for fountains, 17.5 percent for mosques, 14.3 percent for schools, 10.5 percent for madrasas, 7.5 percent for dervish lodges (tekke), 4.6 percent for water wells, 3.7 percent for libraries, 2.3 percent for imarets, and 2 percent for masjids. Hamadeh, The City’s Pleasures, 76–109. In the sixteenth century, seventy-five fountains were built in Istanbul. This number was 130 in the seventeenth century. The number of fountains built from 1703 to 1809 was 365 (Shirin Hamadeh, “Splash and Spectacle: The Obsession with Fountains in EighteenthCentury Istanbul,” Muqarnas XIX [2002]: 123). Ülkü Bates, “Eighteenth Century Fountains of Istanbul,” 9th International Congress of Turkish Art (23–27 September 1991) (Ankara: Kültür Bakanlıgı ˘ Yayınları, 1995), I, 294–295. Hamadeh, “Public Spaces and the Garden Culture,” 283, 287. VGM Defter 623, pp. 345–346; Hadikatü’l Cevami, 247. For information about the fountain, see İstanbul Su Külliyatı, Vakıf Su Defteri, İlmühaber

206

Charitable Activities: Architectural Patronage and Endowments

fountain in Bayezid was constructed in 1721 by Aşub Kadın, an administrative officer (kethüda) of Fatma Sultan, daughter of Ahmed III.29 The water for this fountain was supplied through the water share granted to Aşub Kadın.30 The Kethüda Gülbûy Kadın fountain in Davutpaşa, dated 1740, is another constructed in the first half of the eighteenth century.31 The female slaves of prominent harem members also had fountains built. For instance, the aforementioned Hadice Usta, female slave of Maktûl Beshir Agha, constructed a fountain in Bayezid in the vicinity of the Yahnikapan Mosque.32 Her fountain, and her other buildings, were located between Ayasofya and Mercan. In fact, the fountains of both Hadice Usta and Beshir Agha existed along a single line,33 suggesting that they all belonged to the same water supply line.34 The great majority of fountains supported by palace women in the eighteenth century were located in intra muros Istanbul. But they also constructed fountains in the Bilad-ı Selase region. Hazînedar Hoşnadi Usta, who was head treasurer of Esma Sultan (1726–1788), daughter of Ahmed III, built a fountain in Eyüb. In 1842, Nesim Saba Usta supported this fountain’s repair.35 Suhi ¸ Kadın bint Abdülmennan, who was an administrative officer in the harem during Abdulhamid I’s reign, contributed to the development of Üsküdar with her charitable works, including the reconstruction of a fountain next to a namazgâh (open-air prayer place) in Fenerbahçe. She also rebuilt a bridge in the

29 30

31 33

34 35

(1606–1898), ed. Ahmet Kal’a et al. (Istanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Yayınları, 1998), VI, 368, belge no: 18/5; İstanbul Su Külliyatı Vakıf Su Defterleri, Bogaziçi ˘ ve Taksim Suları 2 (Istanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Yayınları, 2003), XXXI, 250, belge no: 13-2/23b. Tanışık, İstanbul Çeşmeleri, I, 124. İstanbul Su Külliyatı, Vakıf Su Defterleri Hatt-ı Hümayun (1577–1804), ed., Ahmet Kal’a et al. (Istanbul: Istanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Yayınları, 1997), 204–205; Avrupa Yakası Suları III (1574–1831), 237, 238; Vakıf Su Defterleri Avrupa Yakası Suları II (1577–1842) (Istanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Yayınları, 2002), 29–30. 32 Tanışık, İstanbul Çeşmeleri, I, 164. Tanışık, İstanbul Çeşmeleri, I, 180. Beshir Agha’s earliest fountain, dated 1727, was located outside the Köseleciler gate of the Old Bazaar, on the way to Mercan Mosque (Tanışık, Istanbul Çeşmeleri, I, 132). His second fountain, dated 1738, was also located in the Old Bazaar between the Bedesten and Mercan gates (Tanışık, İstanbul Çeşmeleri, I, 158). Finally, his last fountain was constructed in 1744 in Ayasofya. I thank Nina Ergin for this comment. Haskan, Eyüp Tarihi, II, 113; Tanışık, İstanbul Çeşmeleri, I, 260; C.ML 587/ 24171 (1281).

Architectural Patronage

207

Bostanlar region, in the vicinity of Maltepe.36 Suhi ¸ Kadın had established an endowment from her property to cover these expenses.37 The construction of fountains outside of intro muros Istanbul is tied to the increasing settlement of different parts of the city and region over time, including around the Bosphorus and the Golden Horn. The construction of new water facilities in Üsküdar and Taksim likewise influenced this distribution.38 Even as the populations of Galata and Üsküdar grew, in the eighteenth century, the population of intra muros Istanbul continued to increase.39 It is thus not surprising that most of the fountains built by the palace women were located right in intra muros Istanbul. The construction of fountains by palace women increased during the period of Selim III. His wet nurse, named Gül-i Nesrin Kalfa (d. 1772), was buried in Eyüb where she had established a pious foundation.40 Selim III’s head treasurer, named Nazperver Usta, built a fountain attached to her school in Davudpaşa and another fountain in Cihangir.41 She also had a fountain constructed in 1796 in memory of the deceased Lala Mahmud Pasha, a chief administrative official (kethüda) of the valide sultan.42 Tegâfül Kalfa, who was a master of the room (oda kalfası) of the first consort (baş kadın) at the New Palace during the reign of Selim III, had a fountain constructed in 1813.43 36

37 38

39

40

41

42 43

“BOA, EV. VKF 26/1 (1199/1784); VGM Defter 744, pp. 171–184. Although the endowment deed of Suhi ¸ Kadın is dated 1199/1784–1785, the fountain itself is dated 1215/1800. There are two inscriptions on the fountain: the first inscription was written in talik and dated 1215/1800. The second inscription was also written in talik and dated 1254/1838. EV. VKF 26/1. Hamadeh, “Splash Spectacle,” 122. H. Aynur states that the spatial distribution of fountains in the eighteenth century was as follows: 266 fountains in intra muros Istanbul, 107 fountains in Beyoglu ˘ and Bosphorus, and 104 fountains in Üsküdar and in the Bosphorus region (H. Aynur, “18. Yüzyıl İstanbul Çeşmeleri,” in 18. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Kültür Ortamı, 20-21 Mart 1997 Sempozyum Bildirileri [Istanbul: Sanat Tarihi Dernegi, ˘ 1998], 42). For evaluations of the approximate population of Istanbul and Ankara in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, see İnalcık, “Istanbul,” EI2, IV, 244. Sicill-i Osmani, II, 549. Even though the pious foundation is not specified, it can be a fountain. C. MF 119/5933; Istanbul Seriye ¸ Sicilleri Mâi Lezîz Defterleri 2, Project manager Ahmet Kal’a (Istanbul: İSKİ Yayınları, 1998), 130, 131, 132; EV. HMH. d, 8077. Tanışık, İstanbul Çeşmeleri, II, 155. Tanışık, İstanbul Çeşmeleri, I, 334; Affan Egemen, İstanbul’un Çeşmeleri ve Sebilleri: Resimleri ve Kitabeleri (Istanbul: Arıtan Yayınevi, 1993), 795.

208

Charitable Activities: Architectural Patronage and Endowments

The charitable works of women belonging to the household of Selim III’s mother Mihrişah Valide Sultan are especially noteworthy. Mihrişah Valide Sultan herself was responsible for buiding the most fountains in Istanbul.44 The aforementioned Fesahat Usta, treasurer of Mihrişah Valide Sultan, built a fountain in 1807 in the Tahtakadı neighborhood in Kasımpaşa, in addition to a school.45 Fesahat Usta ordered the construction of yet another fountain in 1814, in the vicinity of the Etyemez Tekke.46 Another example is the Kilerci Dildade Usta Fountain, created in 1219/1804–1805. Dildade Usta was Valide Sultan’s mistress of the pantry (kilerci usta).47 In some cases, like the Kilerci Dildade Usta Fountain, a fountain’s patron is not clearly stated. Although they might contain a inscription calling for the recitation of a Fatiha (the first sura of the Quran) for the soul of a certain person, it is not certain if such fountains were built after the death of the named person based on her will or if the fountain was built by someone else in that person’s name. The fountain of Tıflıgül Hanım, a female slave of Selim III, and dated 1808–1809 is another example of this kind of fountain.48 Several examples reveal that members of the dynastic family likewise honored their dependents through the construction of charitable buildings in the name of these people. For instance, Mihrişah Valide Sultan ordered the construction of a fountain in 1796 in Eminönü for her çaşnigir usta named Zeynep Usta.49 In 1819, Mahmud II constructed a fountain and a school in Sultanahmed to the memory of his kalfa named Cevri Usta.50 Some palace women repaired already existing fountains. In 1706–1707, Gülnuş Kethüda repaired the fountain known as Malatyalı İsmail Agha that had been previously built by the chief eunuch Malatyalı İsmail Agha in 1617 in Üsküdar.51 Sarayî Sirin ¸ Kadın repaired the fountain that had been previously constructed by Fatma

44

45

46 48 50

51

For information about Mihrişah Valide Sultan’s charitable works, see Hadikatü’l Cevami; Tanışık, İstanbul Çeşmeleri; Egemen, Çeşme ve Sebilleri. Tanışık, İstanbul Çeşmeleri, II, 170; Haluk Kargı, “Hazinedar Fesahat Usta Çeşmesi,” Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi, IV, 36–37. 47 Tanışık, İstanbul Çeşmeleri, I, 236. Tanışık, İstanbul Çeşmeleri, II, 168. 49 Tanışık, İstanbul Çeşmeleri, II, 404. Tanışık, İstanbul Çeşmeleri, I, 220. Tanışık, no. 255, I, 242; Semavi Eyice, “Cevri Kalfa Mektebi,” DİA, VII, 461–462. Tanışık, İstanbul Çeşmeleri, II, 296; Egemen, Çeşme ve Sebilleri, 439; AynurKarateke, III. Ahmed Devri Istanbul Çeşmeleri, 101–102.

Architectural Patronage

209

Sultan, daughter of Ahmed I.52 Canfeda Kadın, who lived during the reign of Murad III (1574–1595), built a fountain opposite the Gedikpaşa Mosque; in 1848, Sevkinihal ¸ Usta, treasurer of Abdulmecid (r. 1839–1861), repaired the fountain.53 The fountain built by Hadice Sultan (daughter of Mehmed IV) in Üsküdar was repaired by treasurer Sevkinihal ¸ Usta in 1842.54 Palace women also built small-scale fountains in Istanbul. In 1757, Sarayî Ayşe Hatun built a fountain attached to her house.55 Palace women’s habit of constructing fountains continued into the nineteenth century.56 * While mosques and masjids, schools, and fountains were the most common architectural projects of palace women, a few rare women like Suhi ¸ Kadın also recognized public needs and built or rebuilt bridges. One such bridge, which is no longer extant, was located in Maltepe, probably on the pilgrimage road. A document entitled Menzil-nâme and dated 1780 described the pilgrimage route. According to this document, pilgrims who set out on the journey from Üsküdar would reach Kartal, in the vicinity of Maltepe, the next day.57 Even though there was no direct indication in the waqfiyye (endowment deed) that a bridge existed on the pilgrimage road, pilgrims who began their travel from Üsküdar at the Ayrılık Çeşme (fountain) and passed along the Baghdad road might well have passed over this bridge.58 52 53 54

55 56

57

58

Tanışık, İstanbul Çeşmeleri, I, 194; Egemen, Çeşme ve Sebilleri, 789. Tanışık, İstanbul Çeşmeleri, I, 206. Affan Egemen, Istanbul’un Çeşmeleri ve Sebilleri, 365, no. 495, Tanışık, İstanbul Çeşmeleri, II, 362–364. Apart from fountain restoration, the waterways were also repaired. For example, the third treasurer Lalezar Kalfa, who was in Mahmud II’s harem, repaired the fountain’s waterways (Hadikatü’l Cevami, 351). Avrupa Yakası Suları III (1574–1831), 300. For instance, the Cilvenaz Kalfa fountain around Edirne is dated to 1864; the Serandedil Kalfa fountain in Fatih is dated to 1901; the Hazînedar Semsi ¸ Cemal Usta fountain in Eyüb is dated to 1906. İzzet Sak-Cemal Çetin, “XVII. ve XVIII. Yüzyıllarda Osmanlı Hac Menzilleri,” Selçuk Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 19 (2005):199–261. The Kurbagalıdere ˘ Bridge is located at the beginning of the pilgrimage road (Cevdet Çulpan, Türk Taş Köprüleri (Ortaçagdan ˘ Osmanlı Devri Sonuna Kadar) [Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1975], 196–197). For information about other bridges on the Damascus-Baghdad road, see Semavi Eyice, “İstanbul-Sam¸ Bagdat ˘ yolu üzerindeki Mimari Eserler,” Tarih Dergisi 13 (1958): 81–110.

210

Charitable Activities: Architectural Patronage and Endowments

Suhi ¸ Kadın’s reconstructed (müceddeden binâ) fountain was likewise built next to a namazgâh (open-air prayer place) and might have served pilgrims traveling along the pilgrimage road.59 This reflected the Ottoman State’s responsibility – and by extension that of people affiliated with the imperial court – for securing the safety of pilgrims and providing services to them.60 Apart from the bridge built by Suhi ¸ Kadın, there were exceptional palace women who constructed public baths, dervish lodges, and tombs. Perizad Hatun was a female harem slave during the reign of Murad III and followed the Sünbüli branch of the Halveti order. Following her departure from the palace, she married Arap Ahmed Pasha (d. 1586), who was a naval commander (emîr-i deryâ). According to the endowment deed of the Hatuniye Masjid (1599–1600), following the death of Perizad Hatun, her trustee (named el hac Mehmed Agha) built a masjid and a dervish lodge known as Hatuniye Tekke from one-third of her estate.61 Although it was very rare for a palace woman to build a dervish lodge, in this case Perizad Hatun was able to contribute to the religious identity of the city. Another woman, named Canfeda Hatun, again from the period of Murad III, constructed various other pious institutions in and around Istanbul: two mosques, two schools (sıbyan mekteb), a public fountain (sebil), and a fountain. Additionally, in 1584 she built a public bath in 59

60

61

For information about the fact that the fountain is located on the Damascus– Baghdad road, see Semavi Eyice, “Istanbul-Sam-Ba ¸ gdat ˘ yolu üzerindeki Mimari Eserler,” 96–98. For information about women who contributed to the pilgrimage service, see Marina Tolmacheva, “Female Piety and Patronage in the Medieval Hajj,” in Women in the Medieval Islamic World: Power, Patronage and Piety, ed. Gavin R. G. Hambly (New York: St. Martis’s Press, 1998), 161–179. On this issue, see Suraiya Faroqhi, Pilgrims and Sultans: The Hajj under the Ottomans, 1517–1683 (London: I.B. Taurus, 1994). Over time, the Hatuniyye Dervish Lodge has been known by different names, such as Fındıklı, Cafer Efendi, Cafer Keşfî Sünbülî, Keşfî Cafer, Keşfî Dede, Keşfî Efendi, Seyh ¸ Nebi, and Seyh ¸ Yunus Efendi. Hadikatü’l Cevami, 479; Öz, Camileri, II, 30; Baha Tanman, “Keşfî Cafer Efendi Tekkesi,” Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi, IV, 549–551. For the tombstone of Perizad Hatun, see Cengiz Orhonlu, “Fındıklı Semtinin Tarihi Hakkında Bir Araştırma,” İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Tarih Dergisi 10 (1954): 72. Orhonlu notes that the tombstone states that she was one of the palace women from the period of Sultan Süleyman and that she was the patron of the masjid. It also states that the land on which the masjid was built had been previously donated by Ahmed Pasha to Perizad Hatun.

Architectural Patronage

211

the Akbaba region in Beykoz.62 The charitable works of Canfeda Hatun reflect the diversity of charitable works undertaken by female members of the dynasty.63 The endowment deed (917/1511–1512) of Asude Hatun, who was an administrative officer in the Old Palace, reveals that she built not only a school but also a tomb. In order to cover the construction expenses, she endowed a public bath in Çelebioglu ˘ neighborhood, several houses, and shops.64 Sehsüvar ¸ Usta (d.1648), also known as Sekerpare ¸ Hatun, was a companion of Sultan İbrahim who constructed a tomb for herself. Later, when she was exiled due to bribery accusations, her tomb was put up for sale.65 Some female members of the dynasty, but no palace women, have been identified as patrons for the construction of madrasas, dâru’lkurrâs (educational institutions for teaching the various ways and styles of recitation of the Quran), dâru’l-hadis (educational institutions for instruction of the hadith), dâru’ş-şifâs (institutions where healthrelated activities were carried out), muvakkithânes (timekeeper's offices), public kitchens, libraries, and inns. Buildings constructed through charitable contributions of palace women were comparatively modest compared to those constructed by female members of the dynasty. Nevertheless, these buildings served urban society and contributed to city life. Palace women thus played a role in the sociocultural and religious life of the city with their charitable works, which they built by taking into consideration the conditions of the period and the needs of the people. Just like prestigious 62

63

64

65

It is stated that the bath was the late period work of Mimar Sinan (M. Nermi Haskan, İstanbul Hamamları [Istanbul: Türkiye Turing ve Otomobil Kurumu, 1995], 20). Cengiz Orhonlu notes that he came across a document according to which Canfeda Hatun had a dervish lodge of Nakhshibendi tarika around Kabataş (Cengiz Orhonlu, “Fındıklı Semtinin Tarihi Hakkında Bir Araştırma,” İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Tarih Dergisi 10 [1954]: 78). Ömer Lütfi Barkan and Ekrem Ayverdi, İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrir Defteri (953–1546 Tarihli) (İstanbul: İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti, 1970), 276–277, no. 1634; Mehmet Canatar, İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrir Defterleri 1009 (1600) Tarihli (İstanbul: İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti, 2004), 429–430. Semavi Eyice, “Eyüp’te Sekerpare ¸ Hatun Türbesi,” 110–121. For information about Sekerpare ¸ Hatun’s tomb, see Yıldız Demiriz, “Abdurrahman Paşa Türbesi,” Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi, I, 19; Tülay Sezgin, “Üsküdar’daki Örnekleri ile Türbe-Mezar-Sebil-Çeşme İlişkisi,” in II. Üsküdar Sempozyumu Bildiriler, 12-14 Mart 2004 (Istanbul, 2005) II, 454–475.

212

Charitable Activities: Architectural Patronage and Endowments

female members of the dynasty, palace women both strengthened their own position in the eyes of the public and contributed to the imperial court’s power and prestige through their architectural patronage activities.

Endowments Palace women, like other Ottoman women, covered the expense of their charitable building projects by endowing their properties as waqfs.66 In Ottoman society, the practice of establishing waqfs was not an exceptional phenomena limited to a small number of elite women. Instead, women of almost all levels of society endowed waqfs: women who were rich and poor, women of notable families or from the household of the sultan, as well as women of simpler origins.67 Aside from the large and noticeable waqfs established by members of the sultans’ families, more modest endowments of very limited assets also existed.68 Palace women endowed real estate such as lands, houses, vineyards, gardens, and shops, as well as cash.69 66

67

68

69

In every period, Ottoman women of various statuses endowed their properties and administered them. According to a 1546 register, among 2,081 waqf founders, 1,014 were of slave origin, and among the latter group, women founders constituted 38 percent (Barkan-Ayverdi, Istanbul Vakıfları, XXVI). In a register dated 1600, among 3,265 waqfs, 1,365 waqfs (41 percent) belonged to women (Canatar, Istanbul Vakıfları). There is extensive literature on waqf foundations founded by women in the Ottoman Empire. For a recent study that provides a rich bibliography on this subject, see Fariba Zarinebaf, “Women, Patronage, and Charity in Ottoman Istanbul,” in Beyond the Exotic: Women’s Histories in Islamic Societies, ed. Amira el-Azhary Sonbol (Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press), 89–101; Randi Deguilhem, “Consciousness of Self: The Muslim Women as Creator and Manager of Waqf Foundations in Late Ottoman Damascus,” in Beyond the Exotic: Women’s Histories in Islamic Societies, ed. Amira el-Azhary Sonbol (Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press), 102–115. For several examples, see Miriam Hoexter, “Vakıf Studies in the Twentieth Century: The State of the Art,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 41 (1998): 474–495. Some of the waqfs founded by women were modest; these women were either poor or had been servants in the past (Fariba Shahr, “Kentsel Alana Kadının Katılımı, XVIII. Yüzyıl Istanbul`unda Kadın Vakıfları,” in Türkler, ed. Hasan Celal Güzel, Kemal Çiçek, Salim Koca [Ankara: Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, 2002], XIV, 20). It is not clear if palace women founded their waqfs when they were still slaves or after they had been freed. According to Islamic law, a slave may turn his or her property into a waqf by obtaining his/her master’s consent (Ahmet Akgündüz,

Endowments

213

It is difficult to ascertain the intentions of all palace-affiliated women who engaged in charitable activities. Apart from earning merit, in some cases they might have endowed their properties as a way to maintain them at their disposal, to increase their control over them, and to provide benefit to some other specific person or group of people. A waqf enabled a Muslim to assign any proportion of his or her wealth to a designated purpose. By turning his/her property into a waqf, a person kept some right of control over the whole of his/her property, although normally he/she could control only one-third of it. By endowing his/her property as a waqf, a person was able not only to safeguard it from legal heirs but also to ensure his/her right to manage the property, and to assign it to any desired purpose.70 Therefore, palace women may well have founded waqfs in order to gain control of property over which their masters maintained some rights. In some cases, people used the waqf system of bequests to safeguard their property and to provide themselves with income during their lifetime. It is known, for example, that some ruling elites established waqfs in order to protect their property against possible confiscation.71 A decree issued in 1776 hints at the possible existence of such hidden intentions concerning the practice of endowments and bequests.72 According to this decree, husbands and other people had swindled some palace women to seize control over the women’s properties. These people registered their activities in Kısmet-i Askeriyye Court and in other courts by falsely claiming that palace women had sold, donated, endowed, and bequeathed some of their properties to them. * Palace-affiliated women established waqfs in three different categories: waqf khayri, family waqfs (waqf ahli/dhurri), and semi-family waqfs. Waqf khayri referred to waqfs in which all the revenues from the

70

71

72

İslam Hukukunda ve Osmanlı Tatbikatında Vakıf Müessesesi [Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayını, 1988], 121). For several examples, see Yediyıldız, XVIII. Yüzyılda Türkiye’de Vakıf Müessesesi, 172–174. For information about waqfs in Islam and in the Ottoman context, see R. Peters, “Wakf,” EI2, XI, 59–63; Randi Deguilhem, “Wakf,” EI2, XI, 87–92. For evaluations of this issue, see H. Gibb and H. Bowen, lslamic Society ond the West (London: Oxford University Press, 1950), I, 169; Hasan Yüksel, “Vakıf Müsadere İlişkisi (Sam ¸ Valisi Vezir Süleyman Paşa Olayı),” Osmanlı Araştırmaları 12 (1992): 399–424. C. SM 7226.

214

Charitable Activities: Architectural Patronage and Endowments

endowed property were dedicated to pious, religious, or charitable purposes. In waqf khayri, the founder of the waqf did not maintain any kind of material interest with her/her waqf. Family waqfs (waqf ahli) referred to waqfs made in favor of its founder and his/her relatives and descendants. The founder stipulated that he/she would be the beneficiary of the revenues and designated any heirs he/she had chosen as beneficiaries until the extinction of his/her line. In most cases, the founder named him- or herself as administrator (mütevelli) and defined how the heirs would succeed to the trusteeship.73 Semi-family waqfs combined features of both the waqf khayri and family waqfs. They excluded the founder and his/her descendant as beneficiaries but left the post of administrator (mütevelli) at their disposal until the end of their family line, so that they could control some of the revenues and nominations. Usually the manager had a right to surplus revenue, in addition to a salary. In the semi-family waqf, although beneficiaries were charitable institutions, the founders’ descendants were assured of perpetual support through a stipulation that the surplus revenues would be divided among them. Family members were also often established in paying positions, such as that of administrator.74 In both family and semi-family waqfs, the founder secured and protected his/her property and also provided a permanent source of income for relatives and descendants to protect them from want. In both types of waqfs, after the death of the final beneficiary, the waqf reverted entirely to its charitable purposes (public institutions or to support the poor, most often in the city of Medina) named by the founder in the waqfiyye. * Palace women funded the construction and maintenance of their charitable buildings through waqfs. Thanks to waqf assets, palace women 73

74

Ö. Barkan, “Ser’i ¸ Miras Hukuku ve Evlatlık Vakıflar,” İÜ Hukuk Fakültesi Mecmuası VI (1940): 165–181; R. Peters, “Wakf,” EI2, XI, 60–61; Bahaeddin Yediyıldız, “Vakıf,” İA, XIII, 154, 172. Yediyıldız, XVIII. Yüzyılda Türkiye’de Vakıf Müessesesi, 14–19; Yediyıldız, “Vakıf,” İA, XIII, 154. For several examples of semi-family waqfs in the eighteenth century, see Yediyıldız, XVIII. Yüzyılda Türkiye’de Vakıf Müessesesi, 17–18. According to the examined examples, in the eighteenth century the ratio of family waqfs was only 7 percent, while the ratio of semi-family waqfs reached 75 percent (Yediyıldız, XVIII. Yüzyılda Türkiye’de Vakıf Müessesesi, 252).

Endowments

215

established and subsidized the construction of charitable buildings. According to one waqfiyye,75 signed by the inspector of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina (Haremeyn Müfettişi) Seyyid İbrahim Bey, Suhi ¸ Kadın had assigned 2,000 kuruş from one-third (sülüs) of her estate for a fountain and a bridge.76 She stipulated that several revenue-yielding properties were to be purchased in suitable places and the income from them assigned against the expenses of the waqf. Houses were purchased in various neighborhoods and rented out by means of the icâreteyn (double rent) system; the rent was then allocated to the expenses of the fountain and the bridge. Daily allowances were allocated to the administrator, the scribe of the waqf, and the fountain keeper. Suhi ¸ Kadın also assigned specific people as proxies to her waqf: Müstesna Hatun bint Abdullah, who was the room assistant (oda halifesi) in the harem (hürremsaray-ı sultani), and teberdar Süleyman Agha bin Hüseyin, who was responsible for the coffee service (kahvecibaşı).77 She also assigned a member of the palace personnel, Mehmed Halife bin Asaf who was a door keeper (bevvâb-ı sultani), as administrator (mütevelli) to her waqf. Additionally, Süleyman Agha bin Hüseyin, who was one of the retired halberdiers of the Old Palace, was assigned as administrator with a daily wage of 5 akçe. Educational services were provided through waqfs in the Ottoman world, and some palace women endowed their properties to support specific educational institutions. Sarayî Hâcce Tahire Hatun, who was manumitted by Selim III, endowed 11,000 esedi kuruş. She stipulated that 10,000 kuruş be used to purchase land in the Hocapaşa neighborhood on which a school for women could be built; additional real estate was to be purchased in suitable places with the remaining 1,000 75 76

77

EV. VKF 26/1 (1199/1784–1785); VGM Defter 744, pp. 171–184. As seen in the case of Suhi ¸ Kadın, some women endowed cash. Revenue from cash was generated in two ways. First, endowed money was operated to generate income through the method of istirbah, and the income that came from the capital was used for the purposes of the waqf. Second, revenue-yielding properties were purchased in suitable places and rented out, mainly by means of the icâreteyn (double rent) system; the available revenue was then allocated to the expenses of the waqf. An icâretyn contract involved a large, one-off payment known as the icâre-i mu’accele (advance rent), which secured an indefinite lease, followed by the payment of a smaller, annual icâre-i mü’eccele (delayed rent) (John Robert Barnes, An Introduction to Religious Foundations in the Ottoman Empire [Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1986], 50–56). According to the examined examples, palace women used both options. EV. VKF 26/1.

216

Charitable Activities: Architectural Patronage and Endowments

kuruş. She also stipulated that with the income obtained from rent, 5 akçe would be given daily to the teacher and then assigned to her deputy (baş halife) once the teacher died. If the conditions were difficult to fulfill, this amount was to be given to the poor of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.78 As patron of a school and a fountain, Nevruz Hatun endowed 2,000 kuruş and stipulated that several revenueyielding properties would be purchased for the waqf and rented out; 3 akçe per day were to be given to the inspector (nâzır) of the waqf, 15 akçe to the school teacher, 2 akçe to the person who taught calligraphy, and 3 akçe to the scribe. A further 1,800 akçe was assigned for the purchase of coal and straw mats for the students.79 While some palace women established waqfs to support the charitable buildings that they had constructed, others endowed their properties on a more modest scale for public benefit. For instance, a group of palace women endowed their properties to support the repair of already existing public structures. Sarayî Fevziye Hatun (d. 1728) endowed 300 kuruş for the repair of a well in the Molla Gürani neighborhood in the vicinity of Uzunçarşı.80 Through their endowment activities, some palace women contributed to religious services. In addition to constructing religious buildings, they established waqfs in order to support the physical and functional existence of religious buildings. Sarayî Fatma Hatun funded a minber (pulpit) in the Yakup Aga ˘ Masjid located in the vicinity of the Kurşunlu Tomb. She also endowed 400 kuruş and stipulated that the income obtained from it would be assigned to pay the expenses of several tasks in the masjid.81 In Ottoman society, a large number of waqfs were established for the recitation of the Qur’an and for chanting the mevlid (the Nativity poem of Prophet Muhammed) in holy places.82 Palace women were no exception to this phenomenon. 78

79 80 81

82

VGM, Defter 745, pp. 229–230 (1222/1807). For information about properties belonging to the waqf of Hâcce Tahire Hanım, see BOA, Evkaf Defterleri (EV. d) 30676. VGM, Defter 623, pp. 268, 269, 270, 345, 346. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 117, p. 220 (1140/1727). VGM, Defter 736, p. 65 (1151/1738). In Hadikatü’l Cevami, it is mentioned as being in the vicinity of Pişmaniye Mosque (Hadikatü’l Cevami, 296). Kösem Sultan endowed money for the recitation of the Qur’an in the mosque in the city of Medina (Mücteba İlgürel, “Kösem Sultan’ın Bir Vakfiyesi,” Tarih Dergisi 16/21 [1968]: 84). Four hundred sikke flori was assigned from the waqf of Gülnuş Valide Sultan for the recitation of the Qur’an in the Prophet’s tomb in

Endowments

217

Hâcce Bahri Hatun (d. 1726) was living in Sarıgez neighborhood together with her husband Osman Efendi. She endowed several shops and a house in the vicinity of Eyüb Sultan Mosque, and stipulated that these buildings should be rented out and the income assigned to the chanting of the Nativity poem of Prophet Muhammed in the mosque.83 Monies endowed by palace members were put in chests located in various parts of the imperial palace, such as the Corps of Confectionary (helvahâne ocagı), ˘ the Corps of the Halberdiers (zülüflü baltacılar ocagı), ˘ the Chamber of the Treasury (hazîne odası), the Corps of the Larder (kiler ocagı), ˘ and the Campaign Chamber (seferli odası).84 Some palace women assigned the income obtained from the operation of their money for religious services in the imperial palace itself. For instance, Lebsezâ Kalfa endowed 2,000 kuruş to the Corps of the Larder (kiler ocagı) ˘ for the recitation of the Qur’an.85 Dilberengiz Kadın endowed 7,000 kuruş for the chanting of the Nativity poem of Prophet Muhammed in the Corps of the Halberdiers (zülüflü baltacılar ocagı). ˘ 86 In 1849, another palace woman, named Mâhfer Kalfa, endowed 10,000 kuruş to the dormitory of imperial harem servants (Harem-i Hümâyun hademeleri koguşu) ˘ for the annual chanting of the Nativity poem of Prophet Muhammed in Agalar ˘ Mosque in 87 Enderun. Poor relief was another of the many possible purposes of public endowment. Sarayî Mahişeb Kadın endowed her shop and houses and stipulated the following conditions: these properties would be rented and the available rent income would be assigned for the

83 84

85 86 87

Medina every day (Fatih Aytekin, “912 Numaralı 1723–1724 (H. 1136) Tarihli Surre Defterinin Transkripsiyonu ve Degerlendirilmesi,” ˘ M.A. Thesis, Afyon Kocatepe University, 2008, 89). For various other examples, see Mustafa Güler, Osmanlı Devlet’inde Haremeyn Vakıfları (XVI.-XVII. Yüzyıllar) (Istanbul: Tarih ve Tabiat Vakfı, 2002), 124–136. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 117, p. 214 (1139/1726). Waqf inscriptions located in the Topkapı Palace provide rich information about the waqfs in this category. For examples on this issue, see Metin Tekeşin, “Topkapı Sarayı Müzesinin Orta Avlusunda bulunan Vakıf Kitabeleri,” Grad. Thesis, Istanbul University, 1964; Abdülmecit Sentürk, ¸ “Topkapı Sarayı’ndaki Taş Vakfiye Kitâbeleri,” Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Yıllık, VI (Istanbul: Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi, 2014): 220–237. Sentürk, ¸ “Topkapı Sarayı’ndaki,” 226. Sentürk, ¸ “Topkapı Sarayı’ndaki,” 227. Sentürk, ¸ “Topkapı Sarayı’ndaki,” 225, 235.

218

Charitable Activities: Architectural Patronage and Endowments

expenses of the endowed properties and also for the purchase of new properties for the waqf; 10 akçe daily would be given to the sheikh of the Seyh ¸ Murad Efendi dervish lodge (zâviye) in Eyüb to spend on its poor people; she would be the administrator (mütevelli) of the waqf until her death; and, following her death, her children and later on their children and later their children would be the administrator. After the extinction of the line of beneficiaries, the sheikh of Seyh ¸ Murad Efendi dervish lodge would be appointed as the administrator.88 Apart from architectural patronage, some palace women’s endowments provided revenue for the poor of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, a common practice in Ottoman society.89 Sarayî Ayşe Hatun bint Abdullah, for example, endowed her house for the poor of Medina in 1727.90 As servitor of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina (Hadimü’l Haremeyn), the Ottoman state not only supported the poor but also provided other services to the cities, to pilgrimage routes, and to the pilgrims themselves.91 The waqf of Fesahat Hanım is remarkable in terms of the service it provided. Fesahat Hanım was wife of one of the aghas of the Gate of Felicity (babüssaade agası). ˘ She endowed 10,500 kuruş to the Large Chamber (oda-i kebir) waqf at the corps of aghas of the Gate of Felicity (babüssaade agaları ˘ ocagı) ˘ and stipulated the following conditions: 75 kuruş from the revenue obtained from the operation of the money was assigned to the administrator (mütevelli) of the waqf; 20 kuruş would be given to the inspector (nâzır) of the waqf, who would be chosen from the aghas of the Gate of Felicity; and 25 kuruş was for the scribe of the waqf. Additionally, she noted that 1,000 kuruş would be given to the surre dolabı 88 89

90 91

VGM, Defter 744, p. 197–201 (1201). For several examples on this issue, see Mustafa Güler, Osmanlı Devlet’inde Haremeyn Vakıfları (XVI.-XVII. Yüzyıllar) (Istanbul: Tarih ve Tabiat Vakfı, 2002), 100–116, 147–152. For instance, the most important and the most common endowment institution of Ottoman Algiers was the waqfs in favor of the poor of Mecca and Medina (Miriam Hoexter, Endowments, Rulers and Community: Waqf al-Haramayn in Ottoman Algiers [Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998]). It should be noted that throughout the history of Islam, more waqfs were founded for Medina than for Mecca. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 119, p. 184. Canfeda Hatun, who was a chief administrative official in the harem during the reign of Murad III and sponsored great number of charitable works, also provided services for the pilgrims. She endowed lands and two large buildings near Cairo for the needs of pilgrims who went to Mecca and Medina from Egypt each year (TSMA D 6938).

Endowments

219

(cupboard for monetary donations for the holy places) in Medina, and she stipulated the following conditions: each year 100 kuruş would be taken from the aforementioned 1,000 kuruş and assigned for chanting the Nativity poem of Prophet Muhammed, and this amount would be for hâfızs (reciters who had memorized the entire Qurʾan) who would read several parts from the Qur’an, as well as for the purchase of sherbet, incense, and other needs. Together with her husband, Fesahat Hanım also endowed a rıbat (lodge) in Medina where people could stay. According to the endowment deed, she stipulated that 100 kuruş was assigned to the water carriers who carried water to the lodge, and the remaining amount would be shared by Fesahat Hanım. When Fesehat died, if her daughter, named Sarayî Dilşan, went to Medina and stayed in the lodge, she would share out the amount and get the remaining part for herself. If she died or did not stay in the lodge, Fesahat’s other daughter, named Gülsüm Hanım, would take 1,000 kuruş and distribute it to the assigned places; she would keep the remaining amount for herself. Following the death of Gülsüm Hanım, Dilşan Hanım’s son, named Sayyid Mahmud, would share out the amount and keep the remaining part for himself. Following his death, people from his progeny would perform this task until the line of beneficiaries ended; after that time, the manumitted slaves of Fesahat’s husband who did not have husbands of their own would stay in lodge’s empty rooms. If there were still some other empty rooms, palace women (saraylı zümresinden) who did not have husbands could stay there. Fesehat noted that one of these women would be chosen as representative, and that she would take 1,000 kuruş and distribute the amount to the assigned places. If no palace women were found in Medina, women who had come from Anatolia and did not have husbands could stay in the lodge. If it became difficult to fulfill these conditions, others who lived in the region would become the beneficiaries.92 Fesahat’s waqf is thus noteworthy not only in terms of its endowment of a lodge in Medina but also in terms of the way that it took into account the needs of her own family as well as members of the imperial palace. Some palace women endowed their properties for the benefit of other palace members. Sarayî Mah-ı Bülend Kalfa endowed her house in Galata and stipulated that income obtained from its rent would be 92

VGM, Defter 580, pp. 183–186 (1235/1819).

220

Charitable Activities: Architectural Patronage and Endowments

assigned to the tutors of aghas in the Old Palace; the larder assistant (kiler halifesi) in the Old Palace was to be the waqf’s administrator.93 Three women from the imperial harem, named Ziba bint Abdullah Kadın, Dildade bint Abdullah Kadın, and Zevki bint Abdullah Kadın, endowed the garden in Çengelköy and assigned the income obtained from its rent to several purposes. A person from the Chamber of novice pages (acemi gılman) in the New Palace’s Corps of royal bakery (has fırın) would be chosen by the head of the chamber (odabaşı). This person would recite Surah al Fath for the souls of the wives of Prophet Muhammed and would receive 5 akçe daily in return. The head of the Chamber of novice pages would read the entire Qur’an during Ramadan for the soul of Prophet Muhammed and would receive 10 akçe daily. The chief veteran (baş eski) from the Chamber of novice pages would be chosen as reciter of the whole Qur’an (hatimhan) in return for 5 akçe per day. Half of the remaining amount from the rent of the garden would be spent on food for the novice pages (acemi gılman), and the other half would be used for the repair of the garden. If the conditions were difficult to fulfill, this amount would be given to the poor.94 In some cases, palace women assigned the income obtained from the operation of their money to be put in the chests located in various parts of the imperial palace for members of several palace corps. Naile Hatun, who worked in the harem’s larder (kiler), endowed 1,500 kuruş for the candle and olive oil needs of sick harem aghas, 600 kuruş for the candle needs of sick members of the Corps of the Halberdiers (zülüflü baltacılar ocagı), ˘ and 100 kuruş for food for members of the Corps of the Rose garden (Gülhane ocagı). ˘ 95 Other palace women endowed money to meet the food needs of other palace members. Kamerşâh Hatun, who worked in the larder (kiler), endowed 400 kuruş for food for members of the Corps of the Water Wheel (dolab oca˘gı).96 Esma Hatun, who was the mistress of the table service (çaşnigir usta), endowed 1,600 kuruş for food for the corps of mat makers (hasırcılar ocagı). ˘ 97 93 94 95

96

97

VGM, Defter 776, p. 112/100 (1182/1768). VGM, Defter 629, p. 735 (1215). TSM Inventory no. 65, quoted in Tekeşin, “Topkapı Sarayı,” 11; Sentürk, ¸ “Topkapı Sarayı’ndaki,” 225–226, 230. TSM Inventory no. 60, quoted in Tekeşin, “Topkapı Sarayı,” 20; Sentürk, ¸ “Topkapı Sarayı’ndaki,” 230. TSM Inventory no. 61, quoted in Tekeşin, “Topkapı Sarayı,” 18; Sentürk, ¸ “Topkapı Sarayı’ndaki,” 230.

Endowments

221

Palace women’s waqfs thus enabled imperial court members to obtain a share of these women’s properties in the long run. Affiliation with the imperial court also influenced who these women chose as administrators (mütevelli) and inspectors (nâzır) of their waqfs. Apart from assigning court members as beneficiaries, some palace women designated members of the imperial court as proxies, administrators, and inspectors. This can be evaluated as a reflection of existing relations among members of the imperial court. Thus, in the final analysis, some of the waqfs endowed by palace women functioned for the benefit of the imperial court members and strengthened the relationships and solidarity ties among its members. * Some palace women endowed family waqfs. In these cases, the waqf founder named himself/herself as the beneficiary in order to receive income from the endowment and to have the right to use it during his/ her lifetime. Their children and their children’s children were stipulated as later beneficiaries. In some cases, freed slaves and their descendants were alternative beneficiaries. Only when the family line ended did the waqf revert to its charitable purposes (public institutions or the poor, mainly the poor of the city of Medina) named by the founder in the waqfiyye.98 Ottoman women typically designated their children and/or slaves as beneficiaries, as did aghas of the palace.99 Palace women established family waqfs throughout the Ottoman era. When Sarayî Hadice Hatun bint Abdullah endowed her house in the Hoca Kasım Günani neighborhood in Istanbul, she stipulated the 98

99

Ö. Barkan, “Ser’i ¸ Miras Hukuku ve Evlatlık Vakıflar,” İÜ Hukuk Fakültesi Mecmuası VI (1940): 165–181; R. Peters, “Wakf,” EI2, XI, 60–61; Bahaeddin Yediyıldız, “Vakıf,” İA, XIII, 154, 172. Examples show that in some cases the specified term is used as a standard formula or sharia trick (hile-i şer’iye). Interestingly, some palace women who had assigned their waqfs to themselves and then to their descendants died without offspring. As a result, their endowed property passed into the possession of the waqf, as in the case of Sarayî Hadice Hatun binti Abdullah. She endowed her house and stipulated that her children and their descendants would be beneficiaries of the waqf. But her house passed into the possession of the waqf, since she died without any children (Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 105, p. 132 [1128/1715–1716]). For several examples related to Ottoman women, see Barkan-Ayverdi, Istanbul Vakıfları, XXV-XXVIII; Fariba Shahr, “XVIII. Yüzyıl Ortalarında Kadın Vakıfları,” 20. For an example of a similar tendency among aghas of the palace, see Hathaway, “The Wealth and Influence of an Exiled Ottoman Eunuch,” 316.

222

Charitable Activities: Architectural Patronage and Endowments

following conditions: “I will be the proprietor (mutasarrıf) of the waqf during my lifetime. Following my death my manumitted female slaves and later on their children and later their children will be proprietor. Whenever the family line goes extinct, the house will be rented by the administrator and the income will go to the poor of Medina.”100 Sarayî Hadice Hatun bint Abdullah assigned Ömer Bey, who was the Aga ˘ Babası in the Old Palace as administrator (mütevelli), to her waqf. In some cases, the slaves of palace women were the first group of beneficiaries. Sarayî Genç Nihan Hatun owned a house. She stipulated that after her death, her freed slave Eglence ˘ bint Abdullah and later Eglence’s ˘ offspring would be proprietor (mutasarrıf), and after they died, the administrator (mütevelli) of the pious endowments for poor people of Medina (Medine-i münevvere fukarası evkâfı) would rent the property and the income would be sent to the poor people of Medina.101 Sarayî Hakime Hatun bint Abdülmennan gave her house as an endowment. She first assigned herself as administrator (mütevelli), to be followed by her son, Ahmed Çelebi bin el-Hac Mehmed, for a salary of 2 akçe per day.102 In this manner, waqfs ensured the well-being of the family and were used as a source of income for offspring and for slaves, ensuring the transmission of family wealth from one generation to the next.103 * 100 101 102 103

EV. VKF 6/41. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 119, pp. 24, 111, 123 (1141/1728). Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 101, p. 209 (1121/1709). For information about the functioning of family waqfs as primary vehicles for the practice of property devolution, see Beshara B. Doumani, Family Life in the Ottoman Mediterranean, A Social History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 3–4. This process of assigning administrators was also the case among Ottoman subjects. In the eighteenth century, the administrators (mütevelli) of 51 percent of the examined waqfs were the founders of the waqf, followed by their children, their close relatives, and finally freed slaves. (Yediyıldız, XVIII. Yüzyılda Türkiye’de Vakıf Müessesesi, 177–178). A similar situation was also the case among women of the dynasty. Mustafa III’s daughter Hadice Sultan (d. 1822) served as administrator for the foundation endowed by her mother, Adilşah Kadın (Fethi Kayalı, Vahit Çubuk, Tarihimizde Vakıf Kuran Kadınlar: Hanım Sultan Vakfiyeleri: Deeds of Trust of the Sultans Womenfolk: Actes de Fondation de Sultane Hanim, trans. Robert Bragner [Istanbul: Tarihi Araştırmalar ve Dokümantasyon Merkezleri Kurma ve Geliştirme Vakfı, 1990], 429). Safiye Sultan assigned her brother Mahmud I (r. 1730–1754) as a proxy to her waqf. After Mahmud I passed away, his heirs were assigned as proxies. If any heir of Mahmud I was not available, his most prominent manumitted female slave would take the position (İstanbul Ahkam Defterleri: İstanbul Vakıf Tarihi [Istanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi

Endowments

223

According to available examples, in majority of cases, palace women’s endowments were under the control of the chief black eunuch or the agha of the Old Palace. From the last quarter of the sixteenth century, waqfs under the supervision of the chief black eunuch were enlarged. The chief black eunuch became responsible for the waqfs known as evkâf-ı selâtin, which included waqfs founded by the sultans, members of the imperial court, grand viziers, and the chief black eunuchs themselves.104 Additionally, some waqfs of palace women were under supervision of the agha of the Gate of Felicity (babüssaade agası) ˘ and sheikhulislam. As a result, their palace identity shaped the waqf activities of palace women. Palace identity had an impact on what kinds of endowments they established and who were their administrators and beneficiaries. The waqfs of palace women served many purposes: some used the waqf system to control and protect their personal wealth, to provide themselves with an income during their lifetimes, and/or to ensure a perpetual source of revenue for their family. Others sought to enhance the well-being of other people, especially members of the imperial court. Still others endowed their properties to contribute to the public benefit. * Apart from waqf practices, palace women frequenty donated their properties.105 According to Islamic law, people could bequeath up to one-third (sülüs) of their estate to anyone they chose. The sharia court registers include records showing palace women bequeathing one-third of their estate or appointing a person as guardian for one-third of their

104

105

Kültür İşleri Daire Başkanlıgı ˘ Yayınları, 1998], I, 329). A similar pattern emerges from a reading of the waqfiyyes of women in eighteenth-century Egypt: most women designated themselves as the administrator of their own waqfs (Mary Ann Fay, “Women and Waqf: Toward a Reconsideration of Women’s Place in the Mamluk Household,” IJMES 29 [1997]: 33–51). For an evaluation of duties of the chief black eunuch, including being general inspector (nâzır) of Haremeyn waqfs, see İ. H. Uzunçarşılı, Saray Teşkilâtı (Ankara: TTK, 1988), 173, 177–179; M. Güler, Haremeyn, 214–217. As reflected on the court records, women from various segments of the Ottoman society donated their properties. For several examples on this issue, see Zeynep Dörtok Abacı, “‘Hibe’ as an Instrument of Transgenerational Commodity Transfer in the Ottoman Society,” Uludag˘ Üniversitesi FenEdebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 17 (2009): 413–428.

224

Charitable Activities: Architectural Patronage and Endowments

estate. In some cases, following the death of a palace woman, the chosen guardian appeared in court and demanded one-third of the estate. Additionally, the sülüs is also recorded in the estate registers, since palace women had to register their activities such as sale, endowment, donations, and bequests. This situation may have caused the fact that issues related to donations of palace women appeared more in the court registers. Several examples reveal that some palace women bequeathed onethird of their estates to their freed slaves, as in the case of endowments.106 For instance, Sarayî Reftar Hatun bint Abdullah (d. 1783) assigned one-third of her estate before her death, requesting the manumission of her female slaves and bequeathing 500 kuruş to each one of them.107 It is frequently encountered in the court records that freed female slaves of palace women claimed in court that palace women had previously donated one-third of their estates to them. To give one example from various cases: Sarayî Afife Kadın bint Abdülvehhab died in 1728 with a great fortune worth more than 3 million akçe (25,765.5 kuruş). She assigned her sülüs, worth 8,885.5 kuruş, before her death. Following her death, her six female slaves, named Hüsnüşah, Gülbeyaz, Hatmisiyah, Sehbaz, ¸ Gülbün, and Acebkâr bint Abdullah, appeared in the law court set up in the Old Palace and stated that Afife Kadın had allocated 250 kuruş for each of them from her sülüs.108 Apart from cash, palace women also bequeathed objects. For instance, Sarayî Hatem Kadın donated part of her property, consisting of bedding and clothing, to her manumitted female slave Ümmü Gülsüm.109 Similarly, Sarayî Rukiye Hatun bequeathed some of her property, consisting of more than fifty items, to her slave.110 Assigning one-third of one’s estate for religious debts was another common practice among Ottoman subjects. The aforementioned Sarayî Reftar Hatun (d. 1783) allocated 1,900 kuruş from her sülüs for her religious debts: 1,000 kuruş for her prayer debts (ıskat-ı salat), 400 kuruş for the poor for redemption of fasting (kefaret-i savm), and a further 500 kuruş for poor people for redemption of oath (kefaret-i 106

107 108 109 110

The habit of donations to manumitted slaves was a common practice in Ottoman society (S. Öztürk, Istanbul Tereke, 195, 198). TSMA E 110. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 119, pp. 17, 25, 26, 27. Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi, ˘ nr. 195, p. 15a (1189/1775). D.BSM. ¸ MHF 12863 (1194/1780).

Endowments

225

yemin). Finally, she assigned money for those practicing religious acts: 100 kuruş for the person who would recite the tawhid 70,000 times and 30 kuruş for the person reading the Qur’an.111 Since the main purpose of these charitable activities was to support poor people, palace women frequently gave alms, especially at the end of the holy month of Ramadan.112 In sum, palace affiliation had an impact on the charitable activities of palace women. Thanks to their affiliation with the imperial court, these slave-origin women attained material power, a network of relationships, and inheritance relations, all of which affected their charitable activities. In addition to the spiritual gains achieved through charities, they contributed to the architectural, social, urban, religious, and cultural development of Istanbul and other parts of the empire. They also served the public and contributed to the economic and social improvement of the designated people. They served on behalf of members of the imperial court, enhanced their well-being, and thus paved the way toward a strengthening of ties. Through their charitable activities, palace women gained public appreciation and contributed to the power and prestige of the imperial household to which they belonged. 111

TSMA E 110.

112

TSMA D 10246, 10329.

|

Conclusion

Orientalist literature has evaluated the harem and its female slaves with a mix of fact, hearsay, and fantasy. In doing so, it has created a stereotype of the harem and the women living in it. The Ottoman imperial harem has come to symbolize several general fantasies: despotism, sexuality, female slavery, intrigue, extravagance, and the seclusion of women. Yet, extensive literature critical of Orientalizing discourses and Orientalist imagery has refuted the stereotyped orientalist impressions of harems and female slaves. But female slaves’ time in the harem was often only one part of their lives, and sometimes a remarkably small one. This book aimed to recapture the later chapters of their lives and to turn them from objects into real human subjects. I have studied various aspects of the lives of palace women who lived in different periods between the second half of the seventeenth and the end of the eighteenth centuries from the perspective of patronage relationship with the imperial court; in doing so, I have evaluated what the relationship between two sides interwoven through patronage – a relationship that began as a result of affiliation to the imperial court – meant in the long term for both the palace women as protégés and for the imperial household as patron (hâmî). This book thus follows female slaves of the Ottoman imperial harem after their manumission, and traces what it meant to be a palace woman in the Ottoman world. It explores the roles and importance of manumitted female palace slaves, both within the imperial court and in Ottoman society more broadly. As a study of manumitted female palace slaves in the context of Ottoman society and the imperial court, this book has recaptured the agency of lower-level Ottoman palace women. The long-lasting relationship between the imperial court and female palace slaves was rooted in the harem, and residents of the harem were attached to the household through various layers of relationships. The web of hierarchies within the harem, and relations exercised in it, provided a basis for women’s relationships with the imperial court 226

Conclusion

227

during their service and following their transfer from the palace. This book has demonstrated that departure from the imperial palace did not bring an end to the relationship between manumitted female palace slaves and the imperial court. Rather, that relationship continued in various ways until death, and even beyond, as did patronage relationships with the imperial household. Various ways and factors enabled manumitted female palace slaves to continue their bonds with the imperial court. The imperial court was always considered to be a permanent place of reference for material and moral needs, and palace personnel remained responsible for matters related to palace-affiliated women long after they were no longer living at the imperial palace. These women had indispensable inheritance relationship with the imperial household. They also continued to use the imperial palace as a legal court, their estates were recorded in the palace, and their property was sold at auctions held in the palace. The continuation of their tie to the imperial court meant the continuity of their patronage relationships, a situation loaded with implications for the palace women, the imperial court, and urban society more broadly. Therefore, evaluating the manumitted female palace slaves’ lives from the perspective of their patronage relationships with the imperial court has provided an opportunity to understand what it meant to be palace women in Ottoman society and what their place and roles were in the imperial court and in the society. Female members of the imperial court had an important place considering that the continuity and legitimacy of the sultan’s household depended on its size, on its ability to provide material and moral protection to its members, and finally on the service, loyalty, and support the sultan received in return. Therefore, in an imperial court structure, composed of a wide and complex web of relations between people of different status attached to the sultan in different ways, palace identity included women and men, free, slaves and the manumitted, and those residing both in the palace and outside. In such a structure, status rather than gender may have been more determinative of a person’s place within the imperial court. Palace women functioned sometimes actively and sometimes passively as part of the system’s functioning. While graduates of Enderun continued their careers in military and administrative fields, the manumitted female palace slaves fulfilled different functions. Thus, manumitted female palace slaves who left the imperial harem but continued their tie with the imperial court were as important as the

228

Conclusion

members of Enderun in functioning of the imperial court and of political households in the Ottoman world. A complete understanding of the internal functioning of imperial court politics cannot be fully understood without taking into consideration the role and palace of manumitted female palace slaves. These women acted as components of the imperial court throughout their lives. Following their manumission, they were absorbed into local communities with their palace identities intact; they established social and communal relationships with people, especially with members of their neighborhood; they were married mainly to members of the askeri class; and they engaged in charitable activities for the benefit of society. From the perspective of the imperial court, the marriages of the manumitted female palace slaves had strategic and symbolic importance. The great majority of women married members of the askeri class, and mostly those serving in the palace organization. Marriages of members of the imperial court widened its network, strengthened its existing relations within and outside the palace, and spread its power over a wide area. The imperial harem was thus an institution tasked with training partners, not only for the sultans but also for their servants. By way of marriage, women’s affiliation with the imperial court and their connection to the palace took on a different form, but they continued to be a component of the political structure. In this sense, an evaluation of the marriages of manumitted female palace slaves not only sheds light on the askeri class of the period but also reveals that the political balances in ruling circles cannot be understood adequately without considering the role played by these women, who had a relationship both with the imperial court and with the elite of the era. It also contributes to an understanding of how daily politics operated and in which areas and from what aspects patronage relationships were strategically and politically important. Manumitted female palace slaves lived in Istanbul, in various parts of the Ottoman Empire, and even in other empires, as married or as single women. Households composed of palace-affiliated women and their (mostly) askeri-status husbands were located at certain distances to the palace. While some lived in respectable neighborhoods around the palace, others were in modest districts around Istanbul or in cities such as Edirne, Bursa, Cairo, and Medina. The women’s affiliation with the court and the status of their husbands influenced where they lived. These palace-affiliated women who lived in society with their

Conclusion

229

“palace identity” played an important role in carrying imperial customs and court culture outside the imperial palace and in representing the imperial court in society. In this respect it can be considered that, in comparison to the men, the palace-affiliated women were more effective in penetrating society. Affiliation with the imperial court also shaped women’s material world and consumption habits. Even though a group of palace women lived a very modest life and died in poverty, in general, affiliation with the imperial court brought these slave-origin women a certain level of material wealth. A small group of palace women had enormous fortunes rarely encountered even among contemporary women of free and high status. When it is considered that fortunes and possessions reflected partially a person’s socioeconomic and cultural position and lifestyle in society, these palace women represented high culture in the communities in which they lived, and they took their place among the prominent people of the period. Affiliation with the imperial court also gave rise to a group of women able to engage in various levels of charitable works. While some women had the power to build charitable institutions, others made endowments on a more modest scale and donated their possessions. The charitable activities of these women had several implications for the imperial court, the members of the imperial household, and Ottoman society. The charitable activities of these women served the interests of both Ottoman subjects and members of the imperial court. Charitable works ranged from the construction of mosques, prayer rooms, fountains, and primary schools to the provision of services in the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. Palace-affiliated women contributed, even if modestly, to the architectural, social, urban, and religious development of various regions of the empire. Thus, while they benefited their communities with charitable works, which they sponsored with their palace identity, these women also contributed to the imperial court’s reputation in the eyes of the public. They both secured the interests of Ottoman subjects and enhanced the well-being of members of the imperial court through their charitable activities. Consequently, resembling the Enderun, which aimed to create an administrative class loyal to the sultan and to prepare men to serve the dynasty outside the palace, the palace protocol, etiquette, and training given in the imperial harem also prepared female palace slaves for their future role in the outside world. From the perspective of the

230

Conclusion

palace-affiliated women, affiliation with the imperial court contained some obligations, but also provided a social identity, privileges, prestige, and opportunities for climbing the social ladder. An examination of various facets of the lives of manumitted female palace slaves reveals that the ongoing relationship they maintained with the imperial court after their departure from the palace until the end of their lives had the implications not only for the imperial court but also for the women themselves. Affiliation with the imperial court resulted in patronage relationships that influenced various aspects of palace-affiliated women’s lives, including their marriages, residential locations, material world, and charitable works. * An evaluation of the experiences and personal world of manumitted female palace slaves provides insight into the real condition of freed slaves, with a focus on the individual worlds and experiences of these women. This effort shed light on the categories of slave, manumitted slave, gender, political, and household affiliation in Ottoman society. In the Holy Qur’an it is said that “a believing slave woman is better than a free and respectable polytheist woman” (2: 221). This verse reveals that a Muslim female slave is considered to be superior to the free polytheist. But a Muslim slave was in a lower position than a free Muslim. According to Islamic law, slaves have different and lower legal, economic, and social status than free people.1 The Qur’an also states that “those who are not able to afford to marry free, believing women, let them marry from those whom your right hands possess of believing slave girls” (4: 25). This verse refers to the situation of slaves in the face of freeborn people. However, as this study shows, in Ottoman society, some slaves lived in superior conditions than did people of free status. Male slaves reached high-status positions within the palace, or in the administrative and military structures. Some slave-origin palace women also reached upper social status as a result of affiliation with the imperial court. Most of the women taken into the palace as slaves had a lower position than freeborn noble upper-class Muslim women. According to the account of Venetian ambassador Simon Contarini dated 1612, the 1

Muhammed Hamidullah and M. Akif Aydın, “Köle.”

Conclusion

231

daughter of grand vizier Kuyucu Murad Pasha had wanted to enter the harem of Ahmed I. But harem stewardess discouraged her by arguing that she would lose her mind among so many slaves.2 Sultan Osman II married Akile, the daughter of the mufti Esad Efendi, in 1622, but it is believed that she never lived in the imperial harem.3 These two examples imply the privileged status of highborn Muslim woman compared to the female slaves of the imperial harem. Evaluating people of slave status in the Ottoman lands as a single monolithic category does not reflect their reality. There were legal differences even between slaves. The situation of slaves of various statuses, such as “mudabbar,” “mukatab,” or “umm al-walad,” were all different. Several factors caused variations in the experiences of slaves in Ottoman society. How they were enslaved, their ethnic group and gender, in what sector of society they served, and their master's identity influenced their position in society, how they were treated by their community, and their possible future. Slaves who served in different areas in the Ottoman society – such those who served in the military-administrative sector and/or in the harem, those who were placed in domestic service and in agricultural fields, in mining, and in other areas – all had different statuses, both during their service period and following their manumission. Female palace slaves were generally elite slaves, and generally held a prestigious and privileged position in Ottoman society. In the early modern period, a person’s status was related to the household with which he/she was affiliated, and so palace affiliation carried the slave’s status to a different dimension. For slaves who began to live in a foreign environment that was very different from their social and cultural origins, household affiliation created a new identity and a new societal position. Although Sharia court records include cases that describe manumitted slaves’ physical peculiarities, manumitted female palace slaves’ physical descriptions do not appear in the court records. This may be related to the institution to which these women belonged. Therefore, being a female palace slave might have been less privileged compared to the eminent status of a highborn Muslim woman, but being a member of a prestigious household like the imperial court provided these women with an 2

3

Nicoló Barozzi and Guglielmo Berchet, ed., Le Relazioni degli stati Europei. Series 5: Turkey (Venice, 1871–1872), I, 131, quoted in Peirce, The Imperial Harem, 107. Peirce, The Imperial Harem, 106–107.

232

Conclusion

opportunity to rise higher in the social hierarchy than those, free or enslaved, who were affiliated with households of lesser status. In Ottoman society, then, a person's status depended more on the family or the household to which he or she belonged than on being slave or free, male or female. Consequently, and similar to male Enderun graduates who constituted the empire’s elites, a group of manumitted female palace slaves constituted the prominent people of Ottoman society. In addition to social status of one’s family, affiliation, or spouse, a person’s identity was influenced by education, occupation, residential quarter, and material world. Here again, a group of palace-affiliated women could be regarded as elites, with their tremendous wealth, possession of rare commodities, and representation of court culture. Some women, mainly former consorts of the sultans and administrative staff, were at high level in terms of “economic capital,” “social capital,” and “cultural capital,” to borrow terminology from Pierre Bourdieu.4 Nevertheless, manumitted female palace slaves formed a broad category, and they had a heterogeneous structure in terms of socioeconomic position, living standards, and life experience. Some women were exiled, and others died in a miserable state. Some others had suffered for a long time and then demanded help, as in the case of Sarayî Sungur. Since women of various levels of socioeconomic and cultural status shared the common title of “sarayî,” what does this situation imply about palace identity and the place of palace-affiliated women in Ottoman society? The story of the previously mentioned Sungur gives us an idea of how palace identity was perceived in society. Even though she was blind and poor, she could not beg because she had been raised in the palace and transferred from there. Palace-affiliated women who were 4

Pierre Bourdieu's classification is decisive. He speaks of four types of capital: economic capital (material wealth in the form of money and property), cultural capital (collection of symbolic elements such as skills, tastes, posture, clothing, mannerisms, material belongings, credentials, etc.), social capital (networks and acquaintances), and symbolic capital (legitimated, recognized form of the other capitals) (Bourdieu, “The Forms of Capital,” in Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, ed. J. Richarson [New York, Greenwood Press, 1986], 241–258; Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, trans. Richard Nice [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984]). It is also meaningful that Bourdieu states that education plays a critical role in the production and dissemination of cultural capital.

Conclusion

233

not married to a rich, high-status husband, and who were not living in prestigious neighborhoods, were typically regarded as well behaved, good-mannered, and courteous in the society. This refers to the identity that they attained through affiliation with the imperial court. Carrying the title sarayî’/saraylı by all female palace slaves after their transfer from the imperial court, regardless of their status in the harem hierarchy, reflects a more inclusive definition of the term “elite.” The fact that women of various levels of socioeconomic and cultural position shared the common title of sarayî reveals that elite status connoted social prestige but not necessarily economic wealth. In this context, this study demonstrates the richness of experiences and diversity of identities and categories in Ottoman society. Further studies of manumitted slaves will contribute to an even greater understanding of categories of gender, ethnic identity, slave–free–manumitted, eliteness, and identity in the Ottoman world. This study opens new avenues into the functioning and structure of patronage relationships that formed the basis of the networks that existed in the palace, bureaucracy, military, and ilmiye class in the Ottoman world. The nature of the patronage relations changed according to the status, age, and gender of the protector and the protégé. In addition, the character and meaning of the protection could change at different times. For instance, a study of how patronage relationships differed in the nineteenth century, when a more centralized and bureaucratic structure was introduced, or in various geographies where local differences existed, and taking into consideration female members of the household, will provide insights into how patronage relationships functioned in society and in political circles. Additionally, this study offers conclusions that reveal the necessity of examining the place and roles of the female palace slaves in different centuries. Conditions specific to the period may have caused differences in the functioning of the imperial court mechanism. In the nineteenth century, significant changes took place in the Ottoman imperial court in terms of its organization, its use of physical space, and its protocols. Even though the Enderun institution continued to exist, it lost its former importance and tradition. Palace protocol began to resemble that of contemporary European palaces. Throughout the century, the Ottoman sultan was a ruler to be considered together with the expanding bureaucracy. In light of these developments, the place of the imperial harem may also have been different from previous

234

Conclusion

centuries. In this context, it is necessary to examine how these periodspecific developments might have affected the place and roles of the palace-affiliated women in the imperial court. Moreover, a comparative study of the harem institution in other Near Eastern dynasties will allow us to see similarities and continuities, and to evaluate how the conditions of the period and local dynamics shaped the harem institution. An examination of the places and roles of the palace women in various dynasties will thus open new horizons concerning the role of Ottoman women in the imperial court, in daily politics, and in society. Furthermore, a study of lives and personal experiences of male palace personnel who were positioned at various levels of the Ottoman imperial palace organization will contribute to a better understanding of the imperial court and the networks of relationships and identity in the early modern Near Eastern world. As a final word, the patronage relations that existed in the imperial court as a central component of the functioning of the wider political system contributed to the tools necessary for the legitimacy, power, reputation, and continuity of the Imperial Court and its sovereignty over the long term. Resembling the privileged status of being kul of the sultan, affiliation with the imperial court provided possibilities for women of slave origin to reach the “propitious gates.”

Appendix Residential Neighborhoods of Palace Women in intra muros Istanbul Abdi Subaşı neighborhood, in the vicinity of Fenerkapı Akbıyık neighborhood, in the vicinity of Ahırkapı Akşemseddin neighborhood Ali Fakih neighborhood Ali Paşa neighborhood Alem Beg˘ neighborhood Arabacı Bayezid neighborhood Arpa Emini neighborhood, in the vicinity of Yenikapı Arpacılar neighborhood, in the vicinity of Kapan-ı Dakik Asmalı Mescid neighborhood Aşık Paşa neighborhood, in the vicinity of Kadı Çeşme Atik Ali Paşa neighborhood Atik İbrahim Paşa neighborhood Avcı Bey neighborhood Aydın Kethüda neighborhood Ayasofya-i Kebir neighborhood Baba Alemi neighborhood Baklalı neighborhood Balaban Aga ˘ neighborhood Beycegiz ˘ neighborhood Bıçakcı Ali neighborhood, in the vicinity of Haydar Paşa Bostancı Ali Aga ˘ neighborhood, in the vicinity of Kadırga Port Burmalı Mescid neighborhood, in the vicinity of Sehzade ¸ Mosque Cafer Aga ˘ neighborhood Cambaziye neighborhood, in the vicinity of Koca Mustafa Paşa Camcı Ali neighborhood Cezeri Kâsım Paşa neighborhood Çadırcı Ahmed Çelebi neighborhood Çakır Aga ˘ neighborhood, in the vicinity of Langa-i Kebir Çelebioglu ˘ neighborhood, in the vicinity of Bagçe ˘ kapusu and Balkapanı 235

236

Appendix

Çerag˘ Hamza neighborhood Çerag˘ Hasan neighborhood Daye Hatun neighborhood, in the vicinity of Timurkapı Daye Hatun neighborhood, in the vicinity of Hoca Hanı Debbag˘ Yunus neighborhood Defterdar Ahmed Çelebi neighborhood Deniz Abdal neighborhood Derviş Ali neighborhood Divani Ali Beg˘ neighborhood, in the vicinity of Gedik Paşa Duhanizade neighborhood, in the vicinity of Koca Mustafa Paşa Dündar Ahmed Çelebi neighborhood, in the vicinity of Kaliçeciler Mansion Edirnekapı Egrikapı ˘ Emin Beg˘ neighborhood, in the vicinity of Sultan Bayezid Han Mosque Emin Sinan neighborhood Elvan Çelebi neighborhood Firuz Aga ˘ neighborhood, in the vicinity of Atmeydanı Güngörmez neighborhood, in the vicinity of Sultan Ahmed Mosque Hacı Bayram Kaftanî neighborhood Hacı Evhad neighborhood Hacı Halil neighborhood, in the vicinity of Zeyrek Hacı Hamza neighborhood, in the vicinity of Koca Mustafa Paşa Hacı Hasan neighborhood Hacı Hatun neighborhood, in the vicinity of Zeyrek Hacı Hüseyin neighborhood Hacı İsa neighborhood, in the vicinity of Balatkapı Hacı Kadın neighborhood Hacı Piri neighborhood Hacı Timur neighborhood Haraccıbaşı neighborhood, in the vicinity of Unkapanı Hatuniyye neighborhood Haydarhane neighborhood Helvacı Mescidi neighborhood Hızır Bey neighborhood, in the vicinity of Zeyrek Hızır Aga ˘ neighborhood, in the vicinity of Macuni Kasım neighborhood Hoca Gıyaseddin neighborhood

Appendix

237

Hoca Hayreddin neighborhood Hoca Kasım neighborhood Hoca Kasım Günani neighborhood Hoca Paşa neighborhood Hoca Üveys neighborhood Hubyar neighborhood, in the vicinity of Bagçekapusu ˘ Hüseyin Aga ˘ neighborhood (Küçük Ayasofya) İbrahim Çavuş neighborhood, in the vicinity of Odabaşı Bazaar İbrahim Paşa neighborhood, in the vicinity of Kumkapı İnebey neighborhood, in the vicinity of Laleli İsmail Aga ˘ neighborhood İshak Paşa neighborhood, in the vicinity of Ahırkapı Kabasakal Sinan Aga ˘ neighborhood, in the vicinity of Kadırga Port Kalenderhane neighborhood Kapudan Paşa neighborhood, in the vicinity of Süleymaniye Mosque Karabaş neighborhood, in the vicinity of Yenibahçe Karaköy neighborhood, in the vicinity of Hoca Paşa Kazasker Mehmed Efendi neighborhood, in the vicinity of Hüsrev Paşa Tomb Kâtib neighborhood Kâtib Hüsrev neighborhood Kâtib Muslihuddin neighborhood, in the vicinity of Aksaray Kâtib Sinan neighborhood Kâtib Semseddin ¸ neighborhood, in the vicinity of Aga ˘ Kapısı Kazgani Sadi neighborhood Kızıl Minare neighborhood, in the vicinity of Horhor Kızıltaş neighborhood Kogacı ˘ Dede neighborhood Koruk Mahmud neighborhood Kumkapı Kürkçübaşı neighborhood, in the vicinity of Cerrahpaşa Macuni Kasım neighborhood Mahmud Paşa neighborhood Manisalı Mehmed Paşa neighborhood, in the vicinity of At Pazarı Mehmed Paşa neighborhood Mercan Aga ˘ neighborhood, in the vicinity of Saray-ı Atik Mesih Paşa-yı Atik neighborhood Mesih Paşa neighborhood Mimar Hayreddin neighborhood

238

Appendix

Mimar Sinan neighborhood, in the vicinity of Sultan Ahmed Han Mosque Mirahur neighborhood, in the vicinity of Yedikule Molla Gürani neighborhood Molla Ahmed neighborhood, in the vicinity of Haseki Mosque Molla Hüsrev neighborhood, in the vicinity of Süleymaniye Molla Hüsrev neighborhood, in the vicinity of Gül Mosque, around Küçük Mustafa Paşa Molla Kestel neighborhood, in the vicinity of Çukurçeşme Muhsine Hatun neighborhood Muhtesib İskender neighborhood Muhyiddin neighborhood, in the vicinity of Kadıçeşme Murad Paşa neighborhood, in the vicinity of Aksaray and Et Meydanı Mustafa Bey neighborhood Mustafa Paşa-yı Atik neighborhood Müftü Ali neighborhood, in the vicinity of Nallı Masjid Nişancı Paşa neighborhood, in the vicinity of Kumkapı Nuri Dede neighborhood Ördek Kassab neighborhood Piri Aga ˘ neighborhood, in the vicinity of Paşa kapısı Sahhaf Süleyman neighborhood Samanviran neighborhood Sarıgez (Çıkrıkçı Kemal) neighborhood Sarı Musa neighborhood, in the vicinity of Molla Gürani Sarı Timurcu neighborhood Sarac İshak neighborhood, in the vicinity of Kumkapı Sarac Dogan ˘ neighborhood Sekbanbaşı İbrahim Aga ˘ neighborhood Servi neighborhood, in the vicinity of Mahmud Paşa Seydi Beg˘ neighborhood, in the vicinity of Molla Gürani Seydi Halife neighborhood, in the vicinity of Çukurbostan Seyyid Hasan neighborhood, in the vicinity of Ahırkapı Sinan Aga ˘ neighborhood, in the vicinity of Pir Mustafa Paşa Bath Sinan Paşa neighborhood, in the vicinity of Mehmed Paşa Mosque Sogan ˘ Aga ˘ neighborhood, in the vicinity of Sultan Bayezid Suhte Sinan neighborhood, in the vicinity of Simkeşhane Sultan Bayezid neighborhood, in the vicinity of Sultan Mehmed Han Mosque

Appendix

239

Süleymaniye neighborhood, in the vicinity of Sultan Selim Han Mosque Sehsüvar ¸ neighborhood Seyh ¸ Ebu’l Vefa neighborhood Seyh ¸ Murad Efendi neighborhood, in the vicinity of Müfti Bath Tahta Minare neighborhood, in the vicinity of Taş Kasab Tarsus Mescidi neighborhood Taş Kasab neighborhood, in the vicinity of Topkapı Uzun Yusuf neighborhood Üçler neighborhood Üskübi neighborhood, in the vicinity of Ayasofya-i Kebir Mosque Yahni Kapan neighborhood, in the vicinity of Sultan Bayezid Yakub Aga ˘ neighborhood, in the vicinity of Hasan Paşa Inn and Kurşunlu Yarhisar neighborhood, in the vicinity of Yatagan ˘ Fountain Zeyrek neighborhood

Bibliography

Archival Sources Istanbul Shari’a Court Records Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişligi ˘ Court (Inspectorate of Imperial Foundations) No. 101 (1125–1126/1713–1714). No. 103 (1127–1128/1714–1715). No. 105 (1128–1129/1715–1716). No. 106 (1128–1129/1715–1716). No. 107 (1128–1130/1715–1717). No. 108 (1128–1130/1715–1717). No. 109 (1129–1130/1716–1717). No. 110 (1129–1132/1716–1719). No. 111 (1088–1134/1677–1721). No. 112 (1126–1134/1714–1721). No. 113 (1132–1134/1719–1721). No. 114 (1134–1135/1721–1722). No. 115 (1131–1137/1718–1724). No. 116 (1135–1138/1722–1725). No. 117 (1138–1141/1725–1728). No. 118 (1134–1143/1721–1730). No. 119 (1141–1143/1728–1730). No. 120 (1143–1144/1730–1731). No. 193 (1187–1188/1773–1774). No. 195 (1188–1190/1774–1776). Kısmet-i Askeriyye Court No. 33 (1124/1712). No. 34 (1124–1125/1712–1713). No. 35 (1124–1125/1712–1713). No. 36 (1125–1127/1713–1715). No. 37 (1127/1715). No. 39 (1128–1129/1715–1716). No. 50 (1137–1139/1724–1726).

240

Bibliography

241

Republic of Turkey Presidency of State Archives – Ottoman Archives (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Cumhurbaşkanlıgı ˘ Devlet Arşivleri Başkanlıgı ˘ – Osmanlı Arşivi) – (BOA) Bab-ı Defteri Büyük Ruznamçe Kalemi Evrakı (D.BRZ. d) 20933. Bab-ı Defteri Başmuhasebe Kalemi Evrakı (D.BSM) ¸ 3–85; 10523. Bab-ı Defteri Başmuhasebe Kalemi Defterleri (D.BSM.d) ¸ 381; 828; 830; 874; 1210; 1658; 41561. Bab-ı Defteri Başmuhasebe Hazînedarbaşılıgı ˘ (D.BSM. ¸ HZB) 2–6. Bab-ı Defteri Başmuhasebe Muhallefat Halifeligi ˘ (D.BSM. ¸ MHF) 30–32, 30–37, 49–46, 51–27, 51–35, 52–28, 53–41, 53–70, 53–94, 57–28, 57–54, 58–56, 59–6, 59–34, 59–49, 59–57, 59–74, 60–12, 60–13, 60–47, 61–7–1, 61–7–2, 61–7–3, 61–16, 61–17, 61–42, 62–60, 62–93, 63–25, 63–35, 63–40–1, 63–40–2, 68–48, 63–78, 64–9, 72–3, 72–22, 72–44, 73–16, 76–15, 76–33, 76–399–9, 76–42, 76–68, 94–33, 12840, 12844, 12851, 12853, 12863, 12875, 12881, 12903, 12907, 12908, 12911, 12925, 12933, 12996, 13026, 13127, 13138, 13163, 13270. Bab-ı Defteri Başmuhasebe Matbah Emini Defterleri (D.B¸SM. MTE d.) 2–45. Bab-ı Defteri Haremeyn Muhasebesi Haremeyn Muhallefatı (D.HMH. MHF) 33–1; 33–5; 33–6; 33– 39; 33–47; 33–55; 34–1; 34–7; 34–16; 34–28; 34–48; 34–50. Bab–ı Defteri Masraf–ı Sehriyârî ¸ Kalemi (D.MSF) 1–19; 1–25; 1–32; 2–39;3–16; 3–25, 3–85; 4–32. Cevdet Dahiliye (C.DH) 311/15513. Cevdet Evkaf (C.EV) 139/6914. Cevdet Hariciye (C. HR) 127/6340; 9223/185. Cevdet Maarif (C. MF) 119/5933; 4377. Cevdet Maliye (C.ML) 386/15806; 132/5704; 7057; 252/10417. Cevdet Saray (C.SM) 13/681; 13/691; 1082; 1486; 1488/18; 1762; 2565; 54/ 2701; 56/ 2838; 58/2947; 65/3273; 3317; 80/ 4027; 5513; 125/6268; 6533; 7988; 119/6997, 177/ 8884; 7226. Evkaf Defterleri (EV. d) 30676. Evkaf Vakfiyeler Evrakı (EV.VKF) 6/41; 14/42; 16/35; 21/1; 25/1; 26/1. Evkaf-ı Haremeyn Muhasebeciligi ˘ Defterleri (EV. HMH. d) 8077. Hatt-ı Hümâyun (HAT) 1467/44; 1471/58, 1483/6; 1483/ 26; 1484/26; 1485/22; 1488/14; 1532/64; 1533/48; 1567/44; 1611/96; 1627/38; 1626/30; 1626/31; 1629/75; 18712/319, 27067. İbnü’l Emin Saray (İE. SM), 1/1111; 4/340; 710; 711; 946; 1082; 11/1117; 11/1122; 24/ 2517, 1317; 2665; 4405. İbnü’l Emin, Hattı Hümâyun, 71/ 477; 5/477. İbnü’l Emin Dahiliye (İE. DH), 7/771.

242

Bibliography

Kamil Kepeci, Masraf-ı Sehriyârî ¸ 7129; 7242; 7247; 7248; 7252; 7254; 7255; 7258. Maliyeden Müdevver (MAD d) 1917; 3338; 3358; 5065; 14121; 19174. Meclis-i Vâlâ Riyâseti Belgeleri (MVL) 437/30. Sadâret Mektubî Kalemi (A.MKT) 520/75 (1214/1799). Yıldız Perakende Evrakı Arzuhal Jurnal (Y.PRK. AZJ) 4/3; 3/91. Yıldız Perakende Evrakı Umumi (Y. PRK.UM 17/11 (1307/1890). Yıldız Perakende Evrakı Müteferrik (Y. PRK. M) 1/ 115 (1299/1882).

Topkapı Palace Museum Archive Topkapı Palace Museum Archive, Defter (TSMA D) 17; 210; 332-0001; 676; 681; 688; 689; 1038; 1064-001; 1980; 2350-0005; 2352; 2354; 2355; 2369; 2408-0077; 2999; 3285; 5922; 974; 5969; 6561; 1219; 6938; 7521; 7889; 7908; 7961; 8075; 8192-1; 8192-2; 8192–3; 8193; 8194; 8200; 8248; 8250; 8252; 8254-1; 8254-2; 8254-3; 8255-1; 8255-2; 8255-3; 8258; 8259; 8260; 8263; 8263-2; 8519; 9478; 9962; 9985; 9988; 9989; 9990; 9991; 9995; 9998-1; 9998-2; 9994; 10246; 10329; 10591. Topkapı Palace Museum Archive, Evrak (TSMA E) 53-2; 68-10; 88-179; 110-1; 110-2; 126-1; 126-2; 126-3; 126-4; 126-5; 126-6; 126-7; 126-7; 126-8; 126-8;126-9; 126-9; 126-10; 126-11; 126-12; 126-13; 126-13; 126-14;126-15; 126-16; 126-17;126-18; 126-19; 126-20; 126-21; 126-22; 126-23; 126-23; 126-24; 126-25; 126-26; 126-27; 126-30; 126-31; 126-32; 126-33; 126-34; 126-35; 126-36; 126-37; 126-38; 126-38; 126-39; 126-40; 126-41; 126-43; 126-44; 126- 45; 126-46; 126-47; 126-48; 12648; 126-49; 126-50; 126-51; 126-52; 126-53; 126-54; 126-55; 126-56; 126-57; 126-58; 126-59;126-60; 126-61; 126-62; 126-63; 126-65; 12666; 126-67; 126-68; 126-69; 126-70; 126-71; 126-72; 127-73; 126-74; 126-75; 126-76; 126-77; 126-78; 126-79; 126-80; 126-90; 126-91; 12692; 126-93; 126-94; 126-95; 126-96; 126-97; 126-98; 126-99; 126-100; 126-101; 153-2; 267; 550; 1171; 1239; 1511; 2093-48; 3055-1-2-6; 3777; 3941; 5922; 7029; 7860; 8799; 9562; 11113-1; 11113-2.

Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Ataturk Library Muallim Cevdet B4, II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri

Vakıflar Genel Müdürlügü ˘ Arşivi (The Archive of General Directorate of Endowments in Ankara) – (VGM) Defter 580, 623, 629, 736, 740, 744, 745, 776.

Bibliography

243

Published Documents Akdag, ˘ Hasan. “Kassam Defteri (Havas-ı Refia Mahkemesi 1204–1206/ 1789–1791).” M.A. Thesis, Istanbul University, 1995. Akgündüz, Ahmet. Osmanlı Kanunnameleri. Istanbul: Fey Vakfı, 1990. Aksu, Osman. “Rumeli Kazaskerligi ˘ 376 Numaralı Defterin Transkript ve Hukuki Tahlili.” M.A. Thesis, Istanbul University, 2004. [Altınay], Ahmet Refik. Hicri Onikinci Asırda İstanbul Hayatı: 1100–1200. Istanbul: Enderun Kitabevi, 1988. Aytekin, Fatih. “912 Numaralı 1723–1724 (H. 1136) Tarihli Surre Defterinin Transkripsiyonu ve Degerlendirilmesi.” ˘ M.A. Thesis, Afyon Kocatepe University, 2008. Barkan, Ömer Lütfi. XV ve XVI ıncı Asırlarda Osmanlı İmparatorlugunda ˘ Ziraî Ekonominin Hukuki ve Malî Esasları, Birinci cilt, Kanunlar, Istanbul: Bürhaneddin Matbaası, 1943. “Edirne Askeri Kassamı’na Ait Tereke Defterleri (1545–1659).” Belgeler III/ 5–6 (1966): 1–479. Barkan, Ömer Lütfi and Ekrem Ayverdi. İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrir Defteri (953–1546 Tarihli). Istanbul: Istanbul Fetih Cemiyeti, 1970. Bıyık, Ömer. “124 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (H. 1128–1130).” M.A. Thesis, Ege University, İzmir, 2001. Çalık, Sıddık. “1108 Numaralı Harc–ı Hassa Defteri’nin Transkripsiyonu ve Degerlendirilmesi.” ˘ M.A. Thesis, Istanbul University, 1993. Canatar, Mehmet. İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrir Defterleri 1009 (1600) Tarihli. Istanbul: İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti, 2004. Demircioglu, ˘ Sezgin. “615 Numaralı İstanbul Askeri Kassam Defterinin Degerlendirilmesi ˘ (H. 1205–1206/M. 1790–1791).” M.A. Thesis, Marmara University, 1999. Genç, Mehmet. “1126 Tarihli Üsküdar Ser’iye ¸ Sicili.” M.A. Thesis, Marmara University, 1999. İstanbul Seriye ¸ Sicilleri Mâi Lezîz Defterleri 2, eds. Ahmet Kal’a et al. Istanbul: İSKİ Yayınları, 1998. İstanbul Ahkam Defterleri: Istanbul Vakıf Tarihi, eds. Ahmet Kal’a et al. Istanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür İşleri Daire Başkanlıgı ˘ Yayınları, 1998. İstanbul Su Külliyatı, Vakıf Su Defterleri Hatt–ı Hümayun (1577–1804), eds. Ahmet Kal’a et al. Ahmet Kal’a. Istanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Yayınları, 1997. İstanbul Su Külliyatı, Vakıf Su defterleri İlmühaber (1667–1871), eds. Ahmet Kal’a et al. Istanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Yayınları, 1997. İstanbul Su Külliyatı, Vakıf Su Defteri İlmühaber (1606–1898), eds. Ahmet Kal’a et al. Istanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Yayınları, 1998.

244

Bibliography

İstanbul Su Külliyatı, Vakıf Su Defterleri Avrupa Yakası Suları II (1577–1842), eds. Ahmet Kal’a et al. Istanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Yayınları, 2002. İstanbul Su Külliyatı Vakıf Su Defterleri, Bo˘gaziçi ve Taksim Suları, eds. Ahmet Kal’a et al. Istanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Yayınları, 2003. Kaplan, Feyzi. “6 Numaralı Adana Seriyye ¸ Sicili (1203–1204/ 1788–1789).” M.A. Thesis, İnönü University, 1996. Merginani, Ebü’l–Hasan Burhaneddin Ali b. Ebi Bekr. The Hedaya or Guide: A Commentary on the Musulman Laws, trans. Charles Hamilton. Karachi: Darul Ishaat, 1989. Özdener, Zehra. “İstanbul Askerî Kassâm Defterlerinden 336 No’lu ve Hicrî 1184 (M.1810) tarihli Tereke Defteri.” M.A. Thesis, Istanbul University, 1996. Soykan, Emine. “Istanbul Müftülügü ˘ Ser’iyye ¸ Sicilleri Arşivi (Rumeli Kazaskerligi ˘ ve Rumeli Sadâreti Mahkemesi Kayıtları Arasındaki Ferman Suretleri).” Graduate Thesis: Istanbul University, 1994. Terzi, Mehmet Akif. “İstanbul 1131/1719 Tarihli Askeri Kassam Defteri.” M.A. Thesis, Istanbul University, 1995. Uçar, Ayhan. “Üsküdar Mahkemesi’ne Ait 403 Numaralı Ser’iyye ¸ Sicili.” M.A. Thesis, Marmara University, Istanbul, 2004.

Works by Ottoman Writers Ahmed Resmi Efendi. Hamiletü’l– Kübera, ed. Ahmet Nezihi Turan. Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2000. Ali Rıza Bey, Eski Zamanlarda İstanbul Hayatı, ed. Ali Sükrü ¸ Çoruk. Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2001. Anonim Osmanlı Tarihi (1099–1116/1688–1704), ed. Abdülkadir Özcan. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2000. Âşıkpaşazâde Tarihi, Osmanlı Tarihi (1285–1502), ed. Necdet Öztürk. Istanbul: Bilge Kültür Sanat, 2013. Ayvansaraylı, Hafız Hüseyin b. İsmail Hüseyin, Ali Sati Efendi, Süleyman Besim Efendi. Hadikatü’l Cevâmi (İstanbul Camileri ve Diger ˘ Dini–Sivil Mimari Yapılar), ed. Ahmet Nezih Galitekin, Istanbul: İşaret Yayınları, 2001. Bakkalzade Defterdar Sarı Mehmed Paşa. Zübde-i Vekayiat: Tahlil ve Metin: 1066–1116/1656–1704, ed. Abdülkadir Özcan. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1995. Evliya Çelebi, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi: Topkapı Sarayı Bagdat ˘ 304 Yazmasının Transkripsiyonu–Dizini, 1. Kitap, Orhan Saik ¸ Gökyay, ed. Yücel Daglı. ˘ Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 1996.

Bibliography

245

Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnamesi: Topkapı Sarayı Kütüphanesi Bagdat ˘ 304 Numaralı Yazmanın Transkripsiyonu–Dizini, 2. Kitap, eds. Zekeriya Kurşun, Seyit Ali Kahraman, Yücel Daglı. ˘ 2. Baskı. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2006. Gelibolulu Mustafa Âli Efendi. Mevaidü’n–Nefais fi Kavaidi’l–Mecalis, ed. Mehmet Seker. ¸ Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1997. Hasan Bey and Zâde Ahmed Paşa. Hasan Bey– Zâde Tarihi, ed. Nezihi Aykut. Ankara: TTK, 2004. Koçi Bey. Koçi Bey Risalesi, ed. Ali Kemali Aksüt. Istanbul, 1939. Mehmed İzzet. Harîta-i Kapûdânân-ı Derya. Istanbul, 1283/1868. Mehmed Süreyya. Sicil-i Osmani, ed. Nuri Akbayar, 6 vols. Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1996. Melek Hanum. Thirty Years in the Harem or the Autobiography of Melek Hanum, Wife of H. H. Kıbrızlı Mehemet Pasha. London: Chapman and Hall, 1872. Mü’minzâde Seyyid Ahmed Hasîb Efendi. Ravzatü’l–Kübera, ed. Mesut Aydıner, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2003. Müstakimzade Süleyman Saadettin. Devhat ül–Meşayih, Osmanlı Seyhülislamlarının ¸ Biyografileri. Istanbul: Çagrı ˘ Yayınları, 1978. Na’îmâ Mustafa Efendi. Tarih-i Na’îmâ, ed. Mehmet İpşirli. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2007. Öksüz, Mustafa. “Sem’dânî–zâde ¸ Fındıklılı Süleyman Efendi, Sem’dânîzâde ¸ Fındıklılı Süleyman Efendi’nin Müri’t–Tevârîh adlı Eserinin (180B– 345A) Tahlik ve Tenkidi Metni.” M.A. Thesis, Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, 2009. Osmanzade Ahmed Taib. Hadikatü’l Vüzera. Istanbul: Ceride-i Havadis Matbaası, 1271/1855. Peçevi. Tarih-i Peçevi, 2 vols. Istanbul, 1281– 1284. Râşid, Mehmed. Tarih-i Râşid. İstanbul: Matbaa-i Âmire, 1282. Saka, Pınar. Risale-i Teberdariye fi Ahval-i Darüssaade, Derviş Abdullah, Darüssade Agalarının ˘ Durumu Hakkında Baltacı’nın Raporu. Istanbul: İnkılap, 2011. Selânikî, Mustafa Efendi. Târih-i Selânikî, ed. Mehmed İpşirli, 2 vols. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1989. Silâhdar, Fındıklılı Mehmed Aga. ˘ Silâhdar Tarihi, 2 vols. Istanbul: Devlet Matbaası, 1928. Silâhdar Tarihi: On Yedinci Asır Saray Hayatı, ed. Mustafa Nihat Özön. Ankara: Akba Kitabevi, 1947. Nusretnâme, ed. İsmet Parmaksızoglu, ˘ 2 vols. Istanbul, 1964. Subhi Mehmed Efendi, Subhî Tarihi, Sâmi ve Sâkir ¸ Tarihleri ile Birlikte 1730–1744, ed. M. Aydıner. Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2007.

246

Bibliography

Sanizade ¸ Mehmed Ataullah Efendi, Sani–Zade ¸ Tarihi: 1223–1237/ 1808–1821, ed. Ziya Yılmazer. Istanbul: Çamlıca Basın Yayın, 2008. Sem’dânî–zâde ¸ Fındıklılı Süleyman Efendi. Sem’dânî–zâde ¸ Fındıklılı Süleyman Efendi Târihi, Mür’i’t– Tevârih, ed. Münir Aktepe, 3 vols. Istanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi, 1976–1978. Tayyar–Zâde Atâ. Osmanlı Saray Tarihi, Târih-i Enderûn, ed. Mehmet Arslan. Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2010. Topal, Mehmet. “Silahdar Fındıklılı Mehmed Aga, ˘ Nusretnâme: Tahlil ve Metin (1106–1123/1695–1721).” Ph.D. diss., Marmara University, Istanbul, 2001. Türkal, Nazire Karaçay. “Silahdar Fındıklılı Mehmed Aga ˘ Zeyl-i Fezleke (1065– 22 Ca–1106/ 1654– 7 Subat ¸ 1695).” Ph.D. diss., Marmara University, 2012.

Contemporary European Accounts Ali Ufkî Bey and Albertus Bobovius. Saray-ı Enderun Topkapı Sarayı’nda Yaşam, trans. Türkis Noyan. Istanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2013. Albertus Bobovius ya da Santuri Ali Ufki Bey’in anıları Topkapı Sarayı’nda Yaşam, trans. Ali Berktay. Istanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2002. Angiolello, Giovanni Maria. Historia Turchesca, ed. I. Ursu. Bucarest, 1909. Bassano da Zara, Luigi. I Costumi et i modi particolari de la vita de’Turchi. Rome, 1545. Baudier, Michel. The history of the serrail and of the court of the Grand Seigneur, Emperour of the Turkes, trans. Edward Grimeston. London: Published for William Stansby, 1635. Beauvoisins, J. E. Notice sur la cour du Grand Seigneur son serail son harem la famille du sang imperial sa maison mitiataire. Paris, 1809. Bernardo, Lorenzo. “Relazione [1592].” In Relazioni degli ambasciatori veneti al senato, ed. Eugenio Albèri, series III, vol. II, 321–426. Florence, 1840. Bon, Ottaviano and Robert Withers. A description of the grand signour’s seraglio or Turkish emperours court, ed. John Greaves. London: Published for Jo. Ridley, 1653. Brocquière, Bertrandon de la. Le Voyage d’Outremer de Bertrandon de la Brocquiere, ed. Charles Schefer. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1892. Brun, Corneille le. Voyage au Levant. Paris, 1714. Busbecq, Ogier de, Turkish Letters. London: Sickle Moon Books, 2001. Cantemir, Demetrius. The History of the Growth and Decay of the Othman Empire, trans. N. Tindal. London: John James, Paul Knapton, 1734–5.

Bibliography

247

Carari, John Francis Gemelli, A Voyage Round the World. In A Collection of Voyages and Travels, eds. A. Churchill and J. Churchill, 4 vol. London, Printed by H. C. for Awnsham and John Churchill, 1704. Castellan, Antoine Laurent. Moeurs, Usages, Costume des Othomans et Abrégé de leur Histoire, 6 vols. Paris 1812. Courmenin, Deshayes de, Voyage de Levant fait par le Commandement du Roy en l’année 1621. Paris, 1632. Dallaway, J. Constantinople, Ancient and Modern with Excurcions to the shores and Islands of the Archipelago and to the Troad. London, 1797. De Burgo, Giovanni Battiste, Viaggio di cinque anni in Asia, Africa, & Europa del Turco. Milan, 1686. De la Croix, Sieur. Mémoires du Sieur de La Croix, 2 vols. Paris, 1684. Dernschwam, Hans. İstanbul ve Anadoluya Seyahat Günlügü, ˘ trans. Y. Önen. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlıgı, ˘ 1987. Deval, Ch. M. Deux Année a Constantinople et en Morée (1825–1826). Paris, 1828. D’Ohsson, Ignatius Mouradgea. Tableau Général de L’Empire Othoman, 7 vols. Paris, 1788–1824. Domenico’s Istanbul, translated with an Introduction and Commentary by Michael Austin, ed. Geoffrey Lewis. Warminster, Wiltshire: Printed and published for the E. J. W. Gibb Memorial Trust by Aris–Phillips Ltd., 2001. Fabricius, Baron. The Genuine Letters of Baron Fabricius, envoy from His Serene Highness the Duke Administrator of Holstein to Charles XII. of Sweden. London: T. Becket, 1761. Fauvel, Robert et al, Le voyage d’ltalie et du Levant, de Messieurs Fermanel Fauvel, Baudouin de Launay, et de Stochove. Rouen, 1670. Formanti, Don Neriolava. Raccolta delle historiae delle vite degli imperatori ottomani sino a Mehemet IV regnante. Venice, 1684. Garzoni, Costantino. “Relazione del impero ottomano [1573],” In Relazioni degli ambasciatori veneti al senato, ed. Eugenio Albèri, series III, vol. I, 369–436 (Florence, 1840). Gerlach, Stephan. Türkiye Günlügü ˘ 1577–1578, trans. Türkis Noyan, ed. Kemal Beydilli, 2 vols. Istanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2006. Grelot, William Joseph. A Late Voyage to Constantinople. London, 1683. Guer, Jean Antoine. Moeurs et Usages des Turcs, Leur Religion, Leur Gouvernement Civil, Militarie et Politique, 2 vols. Paris: Merigot& Piget, 1747. Guillet de Saint–Georges, Georges. An Account of a Late Voyage to Athens containing the Estate both Ancient and modern famous city, and of the present empire of the Turks, the life of the now Sultan Mahomet with

248

Bibliography

the Ministery of the Grand Vizier Coprogli Achmet Pacha: also the most remarkable passages in the Turkish camp at the siege of Candia and fivers other particularities of the affairs of the port. London, 1676. Habesci, Elias. The Present State of the Ottoman Empire containing A More Accurate and Interesting Account of the Turks. London: R. Baldwin, 1784. Hammer-Purgstall, Baron Joseph Von. Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman depuis son Origine Jusqu’a nos Jours. Traduit de l’Allemand par J. J. Hellert, 18 vols. Paris: Bellizard, Barthès, Dufour et Lowell, 1835–1843. Heberer, Michael. Osmanlıda Bir Köle Brettenli Michael Heberer’in Anıları 1585–1588, trans. Türkis Noyan, ed. Kemal Beydilli. Istanbul: Kitap Yayinevi, 2010. Hill, Aaron. A full and just Account of the Present State of the Ottoman Empire. London, 1709. Histoire Generale des Turcs, 2 vols. Paris: Augustin Courbé, 1662. Hobhouse, J. C. A Journey through Albania and Other Provinces of Turkey in Europe and Asia to Constantinople During the Years 1809 to 1810, 2 vols. London: Published for James Cawthorn, 1813. Junis Bey and Alvise Gritti, Opera noua la quale dechiara tutto il gouerno del gran turcho . . .. . .Venice, 1537. Reprinted in A. H. Lybyer, The Government of the Ottoman Empire in the time of Suleiman the Magnificent. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1913, Appendix II, 262–275. Lubenau, Reinhold. Reinhold Lubenau Seyahatnamesi 1587–1589, trans. Türkis Noyan. Kitap Yayınevi, Istanbul, 2012. Marchebus, Voyage de Paris à Constantinople par bateau or à vapeur. Paris, 1839. Melling, Antoine Ignace, Voyage Pittoresque de Constantinople et des rives du Bosphore. Paris: Treuttel et Würtz, 1819. Menavino, Giovanni Antonio. I cinque libri della legge, religione, et vita de’ Turchi et della corte, d’alcune guerre del Gran Turco. Venice, 1548. Montagu, Mary Wortley. The Complete Letters of Lady Mary Montagu, ed. Robert Halsband. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965. Motraye, Aubry de la. A. De La Motraye’s Travels Through Europe, Asia and into Part of Africa, 2 vols. London: Printed for the author, 1723. Mignot, Vincent. Histoire de l’empire Ottoman, depuis son origine jusqu’à la paix de Belgrade en 1740, 4 vols. Paris, 1771. Nicolay, Nicolas de. Les navigations peregrinations et voyages, faicts en la Turquie. Anverp: G. Silvius, 1577. Olivier, G. A. Voyage dans l’Empire Othoman, l’ Égypte et la Perse. Paris, 1803.

Bibliography

249

Pardoe, Julia. The City of the Sultans and the Domestic Manners of the Turks in 1836. London: Henry Colburn Publisher, 1838. Pertusier, C. Promenades Pittoresque dans Constantinople et sur les rives du Bosphore, 3 vols. Paris, 1815. Postel, Guillaume. I. De la republique des Turcs et, là au l’occasion s’offrera des meurs et loy de tous Muhamedistes. Poitiers, 1560. III. La tierce partie des Orientales Histoires. Poitiers, 1560. Ramberti, Benedetto. Libri tre delle cose de Turchi. Venice, 1543. Excerpted and translated by Albert Howe Lybyer, The Government of the Ottoman Empire in the Time of Suleiman the Magnificent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1913, Appendix 1, 239–261. Rochefort, Jouvin de. Le Voyageur d’europe ou est le voyage de Turqui, qui comprend la terre sainte et l’egypte. Paris: Claude Barbin, 1676. Rycaut, Paul. The Present State of the Ottoman Empire. London: Published for John Starkey–Henry Brome, 1668. The History of Turks Beginning with the Year 1679. London: Robert Clavell, 1700. Sagredo, Giovanni. Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman. Paris, 1732. Sandys, George. Relation of a journey began an dom 1610. London, W. Barren Published, 1615. Sansovino, Francesco. Dell’Historia universale dell’ origine et imperio de Turchi. Venice, 1568. Saumery, Pierre Lambert de. Anecdotes Venitiennes et turques ou Nouveaux mémoires du Comte Bonneval, 2 vols. Frankfurt, 1740. Schweigger, Salomon. Sultanlar Kentine Yolculuk, 1578–1581, ed. Heidi Stein, trans. S. Türkis Noyan. Istanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2004. Shirley, John. The history of the state of the present war in Hungary, Austria, Croatia, Moravia, and Silesia between Leopold Emperour of Germany, and Mahamet the fourth Sultan of the Turks, in conjunction with Count Teckely and the Hungarian rebels. London: Published for William Whitwood, 1683. Spandounes, Theodoro. On the Origin of the Ottoman Emperors, trans. Donald M. Nicol. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997. (Translation of the Italian text of 1538). Tavernier, Jean Baptiste. A new relation of the inner part of the grand seignor’s seraglio. London: Published for R. L. and Moses Pitt, 1677. Thevenot, Jean de. The Travels of Monsieur de Thevenot into the Levant. London: Printed for H. Clark and others, 1687. Thornton, Thomas, The present state of Turkey or a description of the political, civil, and religious Constitution, Government, and Laws of the Ottoman Empire. London: Published for Joseph Mawman, 1807.

250

Bibliography

Zane, Matteo, “Relazione [1594].” In Relazioni degli ambasciatori veneti al senato, ed. Eugenio Albèri, series III, vol. III, 381–444 (Florence, 1855).

Secondary Sources Abacı, Zeynep Dörtok. “Hibe” as an Instrument of Transgenerational Commodity Transfer in the Ottoman Society.” Uludag˘ Üniversitesi Fen–Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 17 (2009): 413–428. Abdal-Rehim, Abdal-Rahman. “The Family and Gender Laws in Egypt during the Ottoman Period.” In Women, the Family, and Divorce Laws in Islamic History, ed. Amira Sonbol, 96–111. New York: Syracuse University Press, 1996. Abou-El-Haj, Rifa’at Ali. “Ottoman Diplomacy at Karlowitz.” Journal of American Oriental Society 87/4 (1967): 498–512. “The Ottoman Vizier and Pasha Households 1683–1703: A Preliminary Report.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 94 (1974): 438–447. The 1703 Rebellion and the Structure of Ottoman Politics. Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1984. Açba, Leyla. Bir Çerkes Prensesinin Harem Hatıraları, ed. Harun Açba. Istanbul: L&M, 2004. Açıkgözoglu, ˘ Ahmet Sacit. “Eyüp Sultan Civarı İmzalı Mezar Taşı Kitabeleri.” M.A. Thesis, Marmara University, 1995. Ahunbay, Zeynep Nayır. “17. Yüzyıl İstanbul’unda Egitim ˘ Kurumları.” 17. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Kültür ve Sanatı, Sempozyum Bildirileri 19–20 Mart 1998, 9–19. Istanbul: Sanat Tarihi Dernegi, ˘ 1998. Akbayar, Nuri. “Nişantaşı.” Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi, VI, 88–90. Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı, 1994. “Tarih İçinde Beşiktaş, Osmanlı Dönemi.” In Dünden Bugüne Beşiktaş, ed. Nuri Akbayar, 17–28. Istanbul: Beşiktaş Belediye Başkanlıgı: ˘ 1998. Akçetin, Elif-Suraiya Faroqhi, eds. Living the Good Life, Consumption in the Qing and Ottoman Empire of the Eighteenth Century. Brill: Leiden, 2017. Akgündüz, Ahmet. İslam Hukukunda ve Osmanlı Tatbikatında Vakıf Müessesesi. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayını, 1988. Ser’iye ¸ Sicilleri Mahiyeti Toplu Katalogu ˘ ve Seçme Hükümler. Istanbul: Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları Vakfı, 1988. İslam Hukukunda Kölelik Cariyelik Müessesesi ve Osmanlı’da Harem. Istanbul: Osmanlı Araştırmaları Vakfı, 1995. Akgündüz, Murat. “Padişah ve Seyhülislam ¸ Arasındaki Hediyeleşmeler.” In Hediye Kitabı, ed. Emine Gürsoy Naskali-Aylin Koç, 134–139. Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2007.

Bibliography

251

Akkerman, Nadine and Birgit Houben, ed. The Politics of Female Households: Ladies-in-Waiting across Early Modern Europe. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Akkutay, Ülker. Enderun Mektebi. Ankara: Gazi Üniversitesi Egitimi ˘ Fakültesi, 1984. Aköz, Alaaddin. Bir İmamın Nikâh Defteri: Beşiktaş Sinan–ı Cedid Mahallesi. Konya: Tablet, 2006. Akyıldız, Ali. “Mâbeyn-i Hümayun.” DİA, XXVII, 283–286, 2003. “Osmanlı Saray Cariyelerinin Evlilikleri Üzerine (19. Yüzyıl).” In Prof. Dr. Özer Ergenç’e Armagan, ˘ 41–59. Istanbul: Bilge Kültür Sanat, 2013. “Müsrif, Fakat Hayırserver: Pertevniyal Valide Sultan.” Osmanlı Araştırmaları XLVII (2016): 307–352. Akyüz, Vecdi–Nihat Engin, “Asr–ı Saadette Kölelik ve Câriyelik.” In Bütün Yönleriyle Asr–ı Saadet’te İslam, ed. Vecdi Akyüz, 493–511. Istanbul: Beyan Yayınları, 1994. Altındag, ˘ Ülkü. “Dârüssaâde.” DİA, IX, 1–3, 1994. Altuntaş, Zeynep. “19.YY’ın İlk Yarısında Kadın Terekelerine Göre Osmanlı İktisadi ve İctimai Hayatı.” M.A. Thesis, Marmara University, 2004. And, Metin. “Eski Edebiyatımızda Yarı Dramatik Bir Tür: Maktel ve Minyatürlü Maktel Yazmaları.” Türkiyemiz 61 (1990): 4–15. “Türk Çarşı Ressamlarının Gözünden Çalgıcı Cariyeler.” Kültür ve Sanat 17 (1993): 4–7. “Sanatçı Cariyeler.” Sanat Dünyamız 73 (1999): 69–75. Arbel, Benjamin. “Nur Banu (c. 1530–1583): A Venetian Sultana?” Turcica 24 (1992): 241–259. Arslan, Mehmet. “Osmanlı Döneminde Padişahların Çocuklarının Dogumları ˘ Münasebetiyle Yapılan Senlikler ¸ ve Viladet–name-i Hadice Sultan.” Türklük Bilimi Araştırmaları 4 (1997): 21–56. “II. Mustafa’nın Kızı Safiye Sultan’ın Dügünü ˘ Üzerine Önemli Bir Belge.” In Osmanlı Edebiyat–Tarih–Kültür Makaleleri, ed. Mehmet Arslan, 567–574. Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2000. “II. Mustafa’nın Kızları Ayşe Sultan ve Emine Sultan’ın Dügünleri ˘ Üzerine Bir Belge.” In Osmanlı Edebiyat–Tarih–Kültür Makaleleri, ed. M. Arslan, 553–565. Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2000. ˘ Üzerine Bir Belge.” In “III. Ahmed’in Kızı Fatma Sultan’ın Dügünü Osmanlı Edebiyat–Tarih–Kültür Makaleleri, ed. Mehmet Arslan, 527–551. Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2000. Artan, Tülay. “Architecture as a Theater of Life: Profile of the Eighteenth Century Bosphorus.” Ph.D. diss, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1989.

252

Bibliography

“Noble Women Who Changed the Face of the Bosphorus and the Palaces of the Sultanas.” Biannual Istanbul 92 (1992): 87–97. “From Charismatic Leadership to Collective Rule.” Dünü ve Bugünüyle Toplum ve Ekonomi 4 (1993): 53–94. “Hatice Sultan Sahilsarayı.” In Dünden Bugüne Beşiktaş, ed. Nuri Akbayar, 67–69. Istanbul, 1998. “Beşiktaş Sahilsarayı.” In Dünden Bugüne Beşiktaş, ed. Nuri Akbayar, 56–59. Istanbul: Beşiktaş Belediye Başkanlıgı: ˘ 1998. “Beyhan Sultan Sarayı.” In Dünden Bugüne Beşiktaş, ed. Nuri Akbayar, 64–66. Istanbul: Beşiktaş Belediye Başkanlıgı, ˘ 1998. “Terekeler Işıgında ˘ XVIII. Yüzyıl Başlarında Eyüp’te Yaşam Tarzı ve Standartlarına Bir Bakış.” In XVIII. Yüzyıl Kadı Sicilleri Işıgında ˘ Eyüp’te Sosyal Yaşam, ed. Tülay Artan, 49–64. Istanbul: Türkiye Ekonomik ve Toplumsal Tarih Vakfı, 1998. “Problems Relating to the Social History Context of the Acquisition and Possessions of Books as Parts of Collections of Objects d’Arts in the Eighteenth Century.” In Turkish Art: 10th International Congress of Turkish Art, 87–92. Geneva: Fondation Max van Berchem, 1999. “Arts and Architecture.” In The Cambridge History of Turkey, The Later Ottoman Empire, 1603–1839, ed. Suraiya Faroqhi, III, 408–480.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. “Journeys and Landscapes in the Datca Peninsula: Ali Agaki of Crete and the Tuhfezâde Dynasty.” In Halcyon Days in Crete VI, ed. A. Anastasopoulos, 339–411. Rethymno: Crete Univesity Press, 2009. “18th Century Ottoman Princesses as Collectors: Chinese and European Porcelains in the Topkapı Palace Museum.” Ars Orientalis (Globalizing Cultures: Art and Mobility in the Eighteenth Century) 39 (2011): 113–146. Ayalon, David. “Names, Titles and ‘Nisbas’ of the Mamlûks.” In The Mamlûk Military Society: Collected Studies. London: Variorum Reprints, 1979. “Mamluk.” In Slavery in the Islamic Middle East, ed. Shaun Marmon, 89–117. Princeton: Marcus Wiener Publishers, 1999. Aydın, M. Akif. “Mehir.” DİA, XXVIII, 389–391, 2003. Aydın, M. Akif and Muhammed Hamîdullah. “18. Yüzyıl İstanbul Çeşmeleri.” In 18. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Kültür Ortamı, 20–21 Mart 1997 Sempozyum Bildirileri. Istanbul: Sanat Tarihi Dernegi, ˘ 1998. “Köle.” DİA, XXVI, 237–246, 2002. Aynur, Hatice and Hakan Karateke. III. Ahmed Devri İstanbul Çeşmeleri: 1703–1730. Istanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür İşleri Daire Başkanlıgı, ˘ 1995.

Bibliography

253

Ayverdi, Ekrem Hakkı. 19. Asırda İstanbul Haritası. Istanbul: İstanbul Fetih Dernegi, ˘ 1958. Ayverdi, Samiha. İbrâhim Efendi Konagı. ˘ Istanbul: İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti, 1964. Mesihpaşa İmamı. Istanbul: Kubbealtı Neşriyatı, 1974. Ayyıldız, Nuriye. “Karacaahmed VII. Ada Mezar Kitabeleri.” Graduate Thesis, Istanbul University, 1969. Azaklı, Tuba Ruhengiz. “Hat ve Süsleme Sanatları ve Mimarî Üslup Bakımından Yahya Efendi Kabristanı Mezar Taşları.” M.A. Thesis, Marmara University, 2009. Babayan, Kathryn. “The ‘Aqâ’id al–Nisâ’’: A Glimpse at Safavid Women in Local Isfahani Culture.” In Women in the Medieval Islamic World, Power, Patronage and Piety, ed. G. Hambly, 349–382. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998. Baer, Gabriel. “Patrons and Clients in Ottoman Cairo.” In Mémorial Ömer Lûtfi Barkan, ed. Robert Mantran, 11–18. Paris: Institut Français d’Istanbul, 1980. Bagcı, ˘ Serpil. “From Adam to Mehmed III: Silsilename.” In The Sultan’s Portrait: Picturing the House of Osman, ed. Selmin Kangal, 188–201. Istanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Yayınları, 2000. Barkan, Ömer Lütfi. “Ser’i ¸ Miras Hukuku ve Evlatlık Vakıflar.” İÜ Hukuk Fakültesi Mecmuası VI (1940): 165–181. Barnes, John Robert. An Introduction to Religious Foundations in the Ottoman Empire. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1986. Barut, Necdet. “Mezar Kitabeleri X (Karacaahmed, Duvardibi, VII. Ada).” Graduate Thesis, Istanbul University, 1969. Barzilai-Lumbroso, Ruth. “Turkish Men and the History of Ottoman Women: Studying the History of the Ottoman Dynasty’s Private Sphere Through Women’s Writings.” Journal of Middle East Women’s Studies 5/2 (2009): 53–82. Baş, Esra. “Arşiv Belgelerinden Hareketle XVIII. Y.Y. Osmanlı Toplum Hayatında Kadın.” M.A. Thesis, Marmara University, 2006. Bates, Ülkü. “Eighteenth Century Fountains of Istanbul.” In 9th International Congress of Turkish Art (23–27 September 1991), I, 294–295. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlıgı ˘ Yayınları, 1995. Bayerle, Gustav. Pashas, Begs, and Effendis, A Historical Dictionary of Titles and Terms in the Ottoman Empire. Istanbul: İsis, 1997. Baykal, İsmail. Enderun Mektebi Tarihi. Istanbul: Istanbul Fetih Dernegi, ˘ 1953. Bayram, Sadi. “Ankara Etnografya Müzesi’nde Bulunan Silsile–Nâme.” Vakıflar Dergisi 23 (2003): 315–363. Baysun, Cavit, “Ma’n,” İA, VII, 268–272.

254

Bibliography

Behar, Cem. A Neighborhood in Ottoman Istanbul: Fruit Vendors and Civil Servants in the Kasap İlyas Mahalle. Albany: State University of New York, 2003. Behar, Cem and Alan Duben. The Households of Istanbul. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Berk, Süleyman. Zeytinburnu’nun Tarihi Mezar Taşları: Zamanı Aşan Taşlar. Istanbul: Zeytinburnu Belediyesi, 2006. Zeytinburnu’nun Tarihi Mezar Taşları: Zamanı Aşan Taşlar, Envanter. Istanbul: Zeytinburnu Belediyesi. Berksan, Emine. “Matbah–ı Âmire (Saray Mutfagı) ˘ 1703–1730.” Ph.D diss., Istanbul University, 2005. Beydilli, Kemal. Osmanlı Döneminde İmamlar ve Bir İmamın Günlügü. ˘ Istanbul: Tarih ve Tabiat Vakfı, 2001. Bilgin, Arif. Osmanlı Saray Mutfagı. ˘ Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2004. Boissevain, Jeremy. “Patronage in Sicily.” Man 1 (1966): 18–33. Friends of Friends: Networks, Manipulators and Coalitions. Oxford: St Martin’s Press, 1974. Booth, Marilyn ed. Harem Histories: Envisioning Places and Living Spaces. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2010. Bölükbaşı, Ömerü’l Faruk. XVIII. Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında Darphane-i Amire. Istanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2013. Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, trans. Richard Nice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984. “The Forms of Capital.” In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, ed. J. Richarson, 241–258. New York: Greenwood: 1986. Brookes, Douglas Scott, ed. and trans. The Concubine, the Princess, and the Teacher: Voices from the Ottoman Harem. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2008. Brown, Kenneth. “Changing Forms of Patronage in Moroccan City.” In Patrons and Clients in Mediterranean Societies, eds. Ernest Gellner and John Waterbury, 309–327. London: Duckworth, 1977. Brunschvig, R. “Abd,” EI2, I, 24–40, 1986. Bulut, Mustafa. “Sultan II. Mahmud Türbesi Haziresi.” Ph.D. diss., Marmara University, 2012. Burkolter, Verena. The Patronage System, Theoretical Remarks. Basle: Social Strategies Publishers Co-operative Society, 1976. Cahen, Claude. “Himâya.” EI2, III, 394–397, 1986. Canbakal, Hülya. “Residential Topography and Social Hierarchy in Seventeenth Century ‘Ayntâb.” In Essays in Honour of Aptullah Kuran, eds. Ç. Kafesçioglu ˘ and L. T. Senocak, ¸ 161–170. Istanbul: YKY, 1999.

Bibliography

255

“Barkan’dan Günümüze Tereke Çalışmaları,” Vefatının 30. Yıldönümünde Ömer Lütfi Barkan’ın Türkiye Tarihçiligine ˘ Katkıları ve Etkileri Sempozyumu, Aralık, İstanbul, 2009, http://research.sabanciuniv.edu/ 17249/1/CANBAKAL_BARKAN.pdf Çetin, Atilla. “Muhtaç Bir Cariyenin Sultan III. Selim’e Arzuhali.” Türk Dünyası Tarih Dergisi 27 (1989): 37–39. Cilardo, Agostino. “The Transmission of the Patronate in Islamic Law.” In Miscellanea Arabica et Islamica, Dissertations in Academia Ultrajectina prolatea anno MCMXC, ed. F. De Jong, 31–52. Leuven: Peeters Press, 1993. Cimilli, Canan. “Topkapı Sarayı Harem Daire’sindeki Duvar Yazıları ve Bir Yazı Çekmecesinden Çıkan Mektuplar.” Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Yıllık 6 (2013): 82–97. Cortese, Delia and Simonetta Calderini. Women and the Fatimids in the World of Islam. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007. Crone, Patricia. Roman, Provincial and Islamic Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. “Mawlâ.” EI2, VI, 874–882, 1991. Çırakman, Aslı. From the “Terror of the World” to the “Sick Man of Europe”: European Images of Ottoman Empire and Society from the Sixteenth Century to the Nineteenth Century. New York and Washington, DC: Peter Lang. 2002. Çulpan, Cevdet. Türk Taş Köprüleri (Ortaçagdan ˘ Osmanlı Devri Sonuna Kadar). Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1975. Dávid, Géza. “Manumissioned Female Slaves at Galata and Istanbul Around 1700.” In Frauen, Bilder und Gelehrt: Festschrift Hans Georg Majer, ed. Sabine Prätor and Christoph Neumann, I, 229–236. Istanbul: Simurg, 2002. Davis, Fanny. The Palace of Topkapı in Istanbul. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1970. “The Clocks and Watches of Topkapı Palace Museum.” Journal of Turkish Studies 8 (1984): 41–54. The Ottoman Lady: A Social History from 1718 to 1918. New York: Greenwood Press, 1986. Deguilhem, Randi. “Wakf,” EI2, XI, 87–92, 1997. “Consciousness of Self: The Muslim Women as Creator and Manager of Waqf Foundations in Late Ottoman Damascus.” In Beyond the Exotic: Women’s Histories in Islamic Societies, ed. Amira el-Azhary Sonbol, 102–115. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, 2006. Demiriz, Yıldız. “Abdurrahman Paşa Türbesi,” Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi, I, 19, 1993. Dogan, ˘ Güner. “Venediklü ile Dahi Sulh Oluna” 17. ve 18. Yüzyıllarda Osmanlı Venedik İlişkileri. Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2017.

256

Bibliography

Doumani, Beshara B. Family Life in the Ottoman Mediterranean: A Social History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Duindam, Jeroen, Tülay Artan, and Metin Kunt, eds., Royal Courts in Dynastic States and Empires A Global Perspective. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Egemen, Affan. İstanbul’un Çeşmeleri ve Sebilleri: Resimleri ve Kitabeleri. Istanbul: Arıtan Yayınevi, 1993. Eisenstadt, Samuel and Louis Roniger. Patrons, Clients and Friends: Interpersonal Relations and the Structure of Trust in Society. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Ekmen, Güldeniz. “Hacı Sâdullah Aga ˘ ve Diger ˘ Sâdullah’lar.” Ph.D. diss., Istanbul Teknik University, 1993. Eldem, Edhem. İstanbul’da Ölüm: Osmanlı–İslam Kültüründe Ölüm ve Ritüelleri. Istanbul: Osmanlı Bankası Arşiv ve Araştırma Merkezi, 2005. El-Cheikh, Nadia Maria. “The Qahramâna in the Abbasid Court: Position and Functions.” Studia Islamica 47 (2003): 41–55. Emecen, Feridun. “Banaluka.” DİA, V, 49–51, 1992. “Fahreddin Ma’noglu.” ˘ DİA, XII, 80–82, 1995. “Osmanlı Hanedanına Alternatif Arayışlar Üzerine Bazı Örnekler ve Mülahazalar.” İslam Araştırmaları Dergisi 6 (2001): 63–76. Engin, Nihat. Osmanlı Devletinde Kölelik. Istanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Vakfı Yayınları, 1998. Ennaji, Mohammed. Serving the Master: Slavery and Society in Nineteenth Century, trans. Seth Graebner. New York: St. Martins’s Press, 1999. Erdem, Hakan. Slavery in the Ottoman Empire and Its Demise, 1800–1909. London: Macmillan, 1996. “Magic, Theft, and Arson: The Life and Death of an Enslaved African Women in Ottoman İzmit.” In Race and Slavery in the Middle East: Histories of Trans–Saharan Africans in Nineteenth Century Egypt, Sudan and the Ottoman Mediterranean, ed. Terrence Walz and Kenneth M. Cuno, 125–146. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, 2010. Ergenç, Özer. “Mahallenin İşlev ve Nitelikleri Üzerine.” Osmanlı Araştırmaları 4 (1989): 69–78. Erten, Hayri. Konya Seriyye ¸ Sicilleri Işıgında ˘ Ailenin Sosyo-Ekonomik ve Kültürel Yapısı (XVIII. Y.Y. İlk Yarısı). Ankara: Kültür Bakanlıgı, ˘ 2001. Erünsal, İsmail. Osmanlı Kültür Tarihinin Bilinmeyenleri. Istanbul: Timaş Yayınları, 2014. Osmanlılarda Kütüphaneler ve Kütüphanecilik. Istanbul: Timaş Yayınları, 2015. Eyice, Semavi. “Istanbul–Sam–Ba ¸ gdat ˘ Yolu Üzerindeki Mimari Eserler.” Tarih Dergisi 13 (1958): 81–110.

Bibliography

257

“Cevri Kalfa Mektebi.” DİA, VII, 461–462, 1993. “Eyüp’te Sekerpare ¸ Hatun Türbesi.” In Tarihi Kültür ve Sanatıyla Eyüp Sultan Sempozyumu IX 13–15 Mayıs 2005. Istanbul: Eyüp Belediyesi, 2005. Faroqhi, Suraiya. “Social Mobility among the Ottoman Ulema in the Late Sixteenth Century.” IJMES 4 (1973): 204–218. Pilgrims and Sultans: The Hajj under the Ottomans, 1517–1683. London: I.B.Taurus, 1994. “Ra‘iyya,” EI2, VIII, 404–406, 1995. “Quis Custodiet Custodes? Controlling Slave Identities and Slave Traders in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Istanbul.” In Stories of Ottoman Men and Women: Establishing Status, Establishing Control, ed. S. Faroqhi, 245–263. Istanbul: Eren, 2002. A Cultural History of the Ottomans: The Imperial Elite and its Artefacts. New York and London: I. B. Taurus, 2016. Slavery in the Ottoman World: A Literature Survey, Otto Spies Memorial Lecture, ed. Stephan Conermann and Gül Sen, ¸ vol. 4. Berlin: EB Verlag, 2017. Fay, Mary Ann. “The Ties That Bound: Women and Households in Eighteenth Century Egypt.” In The Family, and Divorce Laws in Islamic History, ed. Amira Sonbol, 155–172. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1996. “Women and Waqf: Toward a Reconsideration of Women’s Place in the Mamluk Household.” IJMES 29 (1997): 33–51. “From Concubines to Capitalists: Women, Property, and Power in Eighteenth-Century Cairo.” Journal of Women’s History 13 (1998): 118–140. Unveiling the Harem: Elite Women and the Paradox of Seclusion in Eighteenth Century Cairo. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2012. Fendoglu, ˘ Hasan Tahsin. İslam ve Osmanlı Hukukunda Kölelik ve Cariyelik: Kamu Hukuku Açısından Mukayeseli Bir İnceleme. Istanbul: Beyan Yayınları, 1996. Ferrier, Ronald. “Women in Safavid Iran: The Evidence of European Travelers.” In Women in the Medieval Islamic World, ed. G. Hambly, 383–406. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998. Fetvacı, Emine. Picturing History at the Ottoman Court. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2013. Findley, Carter Vaughn. “Political Culture and the Great Households.” In The Cambridge History of Turkey: The Later Ottoman Empire, ed. Suraiya Faroqhi, III, 65–80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

258

Bibliography

Enlightening Europe on Islam and the Ottomans: Mouradgea d’Ohhson and his Masterpiece. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2019. Finkel, Caroline. Osman’s Dream: The Story of the Ottoman Empire 1300–1923. London: John Murray, 2005. Fisher, C. G. and A. W. Fisher. “Topkapı Sarayı in the Mid-Seventeenth century: Bobovi’s Description.” Archivum Ottomanicum X (1985 [1987]): 7–81. Fleischer, Cornell. Bureaucrat and Intellectual in the Ottoman Empire: The Historian Mustafa Ali (1541–1600). Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986. Forand, Paul. “The Relation of the Slave and the Client to the Master or Patron in Medieval Islam.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 2 (1971): 59–66. Galitekin, Ahmet Nezih, ed. Osmanlı kaynaklarına göre İstanbul: cami, tekke, medrese, mekteb, türbe, hamam, kütübhane, matbaa, mahalle ve selatin imaretleri. Istanbul: İşaret Yayınları, 2003. Beykoz Kitabeleri: Mezarlıkları, 3 vols. Istanbul: Beykoz Belediyesi, 2008. Gellner, Ernest and John Waterbury, ed. Patrons and Clients in Mediterranean Societies. London: Duckworth,1977. Gibb, Hamilton and Harold Bowen. Islamic Society and the West: A Study of the Impact of Western Civilization on Moslem Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1950. Goitein, S. D. “Slaves and Slavegirls in the Cairo Geniza Records.” Arabica 9 (1962): 1–20. A Mediterranean Society, The Jewish Communities of the World as Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza, The Individual, V, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988. Göçek, Fatma Müge. Rise of the Bourgeoisie, Demise of the Empire: Ottoman Westernization and Social Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Grammont, Jean-Louis Bacqué, Hans-Peter Laqueur, and Nicolas Vatin. “Stelae Turcicae I Küçük Ayasofya.” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 34 (1984): 441–540. Stelae Turcicae II: Cimetières de la mosquée de Sokullu Mehmed Paşa à Kadırga Limanı, de Bostancı Ali et du türbe de Sokullu Mehmed Paşa à Eyüb. Tübingen: Ernst Wasmuth Verlag, 1990. Grammont, Jean-Louis Bacqué, Paul Dumont, Edhem Eldem, Hans-Peter Laqueur, Béatrice Saint Laurent, Nicolas Vatin, and Thierry Zarcone. “Stelae Turcicae, V. Le tekke Bektachi de Merdivenköy.” Anatolia Moderna–Yeni Anadolu, II (1991): 29–135.

Bibliography

259

Grosrichard, Alain. The Sultan’s Court: European Fantasies of the East, trans. Liz Heron. London and New York: Verso, 1998. Gül, Selma. “Kadıköy Taşköprü Caddesi Mezarlıgı ˘ (Batı Yönündeki 18. Yüzyıl Mezar Taşlarının Sanat Tarihi Açısından Degerlendirilmesi).” ˘ M.A. Thesis, Marmara University, 2009. Güler, Mustafa. Osmanlı Devleti’nde Haremeyn Vakıfları: XVI.–XVII. Yüzyıllar. Istanbul: Tarih ve Tabiat Vakfı, 2002. Güngör, Tahir. “Enderun Saray Mektebi’nde Has Oda Teşkilatı.” M.A. Thesis, Marmara University, 2007. Güvelioglu, ˘ İshak Güven. Osmanlı Mezar Taşları: Zeynep Sultan Haziresi. Istanbul: Türkiye Anıtlar Dernegi ˘ Yayınları, 2008. Haidar, Musbah. Arabesque. London, 1944. Hallaq, Wael. “The Use and Abuse of Evidence: The Question of Provincial and Roman Influences on Early Islamic Law.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 110/1 (1990): 79–91. Hamadeh, Shirine. “Splash and Spectacle: The Obsession with Fountains in Eighteenth-Century Istanbul.” Muqarnas XIX (2002): 123–148. The City’s Pleasures: Istanbul in the Eighteenth Century. Seattle: Washington University Press, 2007. “Public Spaces and the Garden Culture of Istanbul in the Eighteenth Century.” In The Early Modern Ottomans, Remapping the Empires, ed. Virginia Aksan and Daniel Goffman, 277–313. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Hambly, Gavin, ed. Women in the Medieval Islamic World. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998. Hanna, Nelly. “Sources for the Study of Slave Women and Concubines in Ottoman Egypt.” In Beyond the Exotic, Women’s Histories in Islamic Societies, ed. Amira el-Azhary Sonbol, 119–130. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press: 2006. Haskan, Mehmet Nermi. Eyüp Tarihi. Istanbul: Türk Turing Turizm İşletmeciligi ˘ Vakfı, 1993. İstanbul Hamamları. Istanbul: Türkiye Turing ve Otomobil Kurumu, 1995. Eyüp Sultan Tarihi. Istanbul: Eyüp Sultan Belediyesi, 1996. Hathaway, Jane. “The Wealth and Influence of an Exiled Ottoman Eunuch in Egypt: The Waqf Inventory of Abbas Agha.” JESHO 37 (1994): 293–317. “Marriage Alliances among the Military Households of Ottoman Egypt.” Annales Islamologiques 29 (1995): 133–149. “The Military Household in Ottoman Egypt.” IJMES 27 (1995): 39–52. The Politics of Households in Ottoman Egypt: The Rise of the Qazdaglis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

260

Bibliography

“Eunuch Households in Istanbul, Medina, Cairo during the Ottoman Era.” Turcica 41 (2009): 291–303. Havlioglu, ˘ Didem. Mihrî Hatun: Performance, Gender Bending, and Subversion in Ottoman Intellectual History. Syracuse: State University of New York Press, 2017. Hitzel, Frédéric. “De la clepsydre à l’horloge. L’art de mesurer le temps dans l’Empire ottoman.” In Les Ottomans et le Temps, ed. François Georgeon and Frédéric Hitzel, 20–37. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Hoexter, Miriam. Endowments, Rulers and Community: Waqf alHaramayn in Ottoman Algiers. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1998. “Waqf Studies in the Twentieth Century: The State of the Art.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 41 (1998): 474–495. Humphreys, Stephan. “Women and Patrons of Religious Architecture in Ayyubid Damascus.” Muqarnas 11 (1994): 35–54. Imber, Colin. The Ottoman Empire, 1300–1650: The Structure of Power. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002. İlgürel, Mücteba. “Kösem Sultan’ın Bir Vakfiyesi.” Tarih Dergisi 16/21 (1968): 83–94. İnalcık, Halil. “Reis-ül-Küttab,” İA, IX, 671–683, 1964. The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age: 1300–1600, trans. Norman Itzkowitz and Colin Imber. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1973. “İstanbul.” EI2, IV, 224–248, 1997. “Istanbul: An Islamic City.” Journal of Islamic Studies 1 (1990): 1–23. “İstanbul.” DİA, XXIII, 220–239, 2001. İpşirli Argıt, Betül. “Clothing Habits, Regulations, and Non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire.” Journal of Academic Studies 24 (2005): 79–96. “Onsekizinci Yüzyıl’da Harem-i Hümayundan Çırag˘ Edilen Cariyeler.” Türk Kültürü İncelemeleri Dergisi 25 (2011): 3–33. Rabia Gülnuş Emetullah Sultan 1640–1715. Istanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2014. Women in the Early Modern Ottoman World: A Bibliographical Essay.” Journal of Academic Studies 60 (2014): 1–28. Hayatlarının Çeşitli Safhalarında Harem-i Hümayun Cariyeleri, 18.yüzyıl. Istanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2017. A Queen Mother and the Ottoman Imperial Harem: Rabia Gülnuş Emetullah Valide Sultan (1640–1715). In Concubines and Courtesans: Women and Slavery in Islamic History, ed. Matthew S. Gordon and Kathryn A. Hain. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017. İpşirli, Mehmet. “Canfeda Hatun.” DİA, VII, 150–151, 1993. “Harem.” DİA, XVI, 135–138, 1997. İsfendiyaroglu, ˘ Fethi. Galata Saray Tarihi. Istanbul: Dogan ˘ Kardeş Yayınları, 1952.

Bibliography

261

Juynboll, W. “Abid.” İA, I, 110–114, 1978. Kafadar, Cemal. “Yeniçeri Esnaf Relations: Solidarity and Conflict.” M.A. Thesis, McGill University, 1980. Kaiser, Thomas. “The Evil Empire? The Debate on Turkish Despotism in Eighteenth Century French Political Culture.” The Journal of Modern History 72 (2000): 6–34. Kallender, Amy Aisen. Women, Gender, and the Palace Households in Ottoman Tunisia. Austin: Texas University Press, 2013. Kargı, Haluk. “Hazinedar Fesahat Usta Çeşmesi.” Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi, IV, 36–37, 1994. Kayalı, Fethi and Vahit Çabuk. Tarihimizde Vakıf Kuran Kadınlar: Hanım Sultan Vakfiyeleri: Deeds of Trust of the Sultans Womenfolk: Actes de Fondation de Sultane Hanim, trans. Robert Bragner. Istanbul: Tarihi Araştırmalar ve Dokümantasyon Merkezleri Kurma ve Geliştirme Vakfı, 1990. Kaufman, R. R. “The Patron–Client Concept and Macro-Politics: Prospects and Problems.” Comparative Studies of Society and History 16 (1974): 284–308. Keats-Rohan, K. S. B. ed. Prosopography Approaches and Applications: Handbook. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Kettering, Sharon. Patrons, Clients, and Brokers in Seventeenth-Century France. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986. Patronage in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century France. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002. Kiel, Hedda. “Osmanlı’da Hediye (16. 17. Yüzyıl).” In Hediye Kitabı, ed. Emine Gürsoy Naskali and Aylin Koç, 102–111. Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2007. “Power and Submission Gifting at Royal Circumcision Festivals in the Ottoman Empire (16th–18th Centuries).” Turcica 41 (2009): 37–88. Kocaaslan, Murat. “Topkapı Saray’ı Haremi: 1665 Yangını Sonrası Yenileme Projesi.” Belleten LXXVI/275 (2012): 45–75. IV. Mehmed Saltanatında Topkapı Sarayı Haremi, İktidar, Sınırlar ve Mimari. Istanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2014. Koçu, Reşat Ekrem. “Babahaydar Mahallesi.” İstanbul Ansiklopedisi, IV, 1742–1743, 1960. Türk Giyim Kuşam ve Süslenme Sözlügü. ˘ Ankara: Sümerbank Kültür Yayınları, 1967. Konyalı, İbrahim Hakkı. Abideleri ve Kitabeleri ile Üsküdar Tarihi, 2 vols. Istanbul: Türkiye Yeşilay Cemiyeti, 1976–1977. Köksal, A. Cüneyt ed. İslam’da Ganimet ve Cariyelik: Osmanlı Sistemine İçerden Bir Eleştiri. Istanbul: İSAR, 2013.

262

Bibliography

Köprülü, M. Fuad. Bizans Müesseselerinin Osmanlı Müesseselerine Tesiri. Istanbul: Ötüken, 1981. Kucur, Sadi, “Üsküdar Yeni Valide Camii Haziresi Mezar Taşları.” Üsküdar Sempozyumu IV, 3–5 Kasım 2006, Bildiriler, 213–280. Istanbul: Üsküdar Belediyesi, 2007. Kunt, Metin. “Ethnic-Regional (Cins) Solidarity in the Seventeenth-Century Ottoman Establishment.” International Journal of Eastern Studies 5 (1974): 233–239. “Kulların Kulları.” Bogaziçi ˘ Üniversitesi Dergisi: Beşeri Bilimler 3 (1975): 27–42. The Sultans’ Servants: The Transformation of Ottoman Provincial Government: 1550–1650. New York: Columbia University Press, 1983. “Osmanlı Dirlik–Kapı Düzeni ve Kul Kimligi.” ˘ In Tarih Egitimi ˘ ve Tarihte ‘Öteki’Sorunu; 2. Uluslararası Tarih Kongresi (8–10 Haziran 1995: İstanbul), ed. Ali Berktay and Hamdi Can Tuncer, 162–171. Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1998. ˘ (Batı Kurtbil, Zeynep Hatice. “Kadıköy Taşköprü Caddesi Mezarlıgı Yönündeki 19. Yüzyıl Mezar Taşlarının Sanat Tarihi Açısından Degerlendirilmesi).” ˘ M.A. Thesis, Marmara University, 2009. Kurz, Otto. European Clocks and Watches in the Near East. London: Warburg Institute, University of London. 1975. Kut, Turgut. “İstanbul Sıbyan Mektepleriyle İlgili Bir Vesika.” Journal of Turkish Studies 2 (1978): 55–84. Kutlu, Hüseyin. Kaybolan Medeniyetimiz Hekimoglu ˘ Ali Paşa Camii Haziresi’ndeki Tarihi Mezar Taşları. Istanbul: Damla Yayınevi, 2005. Lal, Ruby. Domesticity and Power in the Early Mughal World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Lampton, A. K. S. “Quis Custodiet Custodes, Some Reflections on the Persian Theory of Government.” Studia Islamica 5–6 (1956): 125–148. Landes, David. Revolution in Time: Clocks and the Making of the Modern World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Pres 1983. Laqueur, Hans–Peter. Osmaniche Friedhöfe und Grabsteine in Istanbul. Tübingen: Ernst Wasmuth Verlag, 1993. “İstanbul’da İki ‘İmparatoriçe’ Mezarı.” Tarih ve Toplum 143 (1995): 58–59. Lev, Yaacov. Charity, Endowments and Charitable Institutions in Medieval Islam. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2005. Lewis, Bernard. “‘Askari.” EI2, I, 712, 1986. Lewis, M. “İstanbul’da 18. Yüzyıl Çalar Saatleri.” Türkiyemiz 23 (1977): 2–8. Majer, Hans George. “The Harem of Mustafa II (1695–1703).” Osmanlı Araştırmaları XII (1992): 431–443.

Bibliography

263

Mantran, Robert. La Vie Quoditienne au Temps de Soliman le Magnifique et de ses Successeurs (XVIe et XVIIe siècles). Paris: Librairie Hachette, 1965. Marcus, Abraham. The Middle East on the Eve of Modernity: Aleppo in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989. Marmon, Shaun. “Concubinage.” Islamic Dictionary of the Middle Ages, ed. Joseph Strayer, III, 527–529. New York: Scribner, 1983. “Slavery, Islamic World,” Dictionary of the Middle Ages, XI, 330–333. New York: Scnbner, 1988. Marsot, Afaf Lutfi al-Sayyid. “Marriage in Late Eighteenth Century Egypt.” In The Mamluks in Egyptian Politics and Society, ed. Thomas Philipp and Ulrich Haarmann, 283–290. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Mauss, Marcel. The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies, trans. W. D. Halls. London and New York: Routledge, 1990. McGowan, Bruce. “The Age of the Ayans.” In Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire (1300–1914), eds. H. İnalcık and D. Quataert, 639–758. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Meriwether, Margaret. The Kin Who Count: Family and Society in Ottoman Aleppo 1770–1840. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1999. Mert, Talip. “Dilhayat Kalfa’nın Mirası.” Musiki Mecmuası (1999): 1–9. Meyer, Wolfgang. Catalogue of clocks and watches in the Topkapı Sarayı Museum. Istanbul: Ümit Basımevi, no date. Miller, Barnette. Beyond the Sublime Porte: The Grand Seraglio of Stamboul. New Haven: Yale University, 1931. The Palace School of Muhammed the Conqueror. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1941. Millingen, Frederick. “The Circassian Slaves and the Sultan’s Harem.” Journal of the Anthropological Society of London 8 (1870–1871): cix–cxx. Mitter, Ulrike. “The Origin and Development of the Islamic Patronate.” In Patronate and Patronage in Early and Classical Islam, ed. Monique Bernards and John Nawas, 70–133. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2005. Moors, Annelies. Women, Property, and Islam: Palestine Experience: 1920–1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Mottahadeh, Roy. Loyalty and Leadership in Islamic Society. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980. Muhanna, Elias. “The Sultan’s New Clothes: Ottoman–Mamluk Gift Exchange in the Fifteenth Century.” Muqarnas XXVII (2010): 189–207.

264

Bibliography

Murphy, Rhoads. “Continuity and Discontinuity in Ottoman Administrative Theory and Practice during the Late Seventeenth Century.” Poetics Today 14/2 (1993): 419–443. Necipoglu, ˘ Gülru. Architecture, Ceremonial and Power: The Topkapı Palace in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries. New York: The Architectural History Foundation, 1991. Nuho˘glu, Mehmet. “Koca Mustafa Paşa (Sümbül Sinan) Camii Haziresi Mezar Taşları Üzerine Bir Araştırma.” M.A. Thesis, Marmara University, 2003. Okuyucu, Cihan. “Tunus Milli Kütüphanesindeki Türkçe Elyazmaları.” Journal of Academic Studies 7–8 (2000–2001): 135–171. Orhonlu, Cengiz. “Fındıklı Semtinin Tarihi Hakkında Bir Araştırma.” İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Tarih Dergisi 10 (1954): 61–78. Osman, Rifat. Edirne Sarayı, ed. Ahmet Süheyl Ünver. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1957. Osmanlı Kıyafetleri Fenerci Mehmed Albümü/Ottoman Costume Book, Fenerci Mehmed, ed. İlhami Turan, trans. Robert Bragner. Istanbul: Vehbi Koç Vakfı, 1986. Osmanoglu, ˘ Ayşe. Babam Abdülhamid. Istanbul: Güven Yayınevi, 1960. Sadiye. ¸ Hayatımın Acı ve Tatlı Günleri. İstanbul: Bedir YayınOsmanoglu, ˘ ları, 1966. Öz, Mehmet. “Reâyâ.” DİA, XXXIV, 490–493, 2007. Öz, Tahsin. İstanbul Camileri. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1962. Ozay, Mehmet and Ekrem Saltık. “The Myth and Reality of Rukiye Hanim in the Context of Turkish Malay Relations (1864–1904).” Human and Society 5/9 (2015): 55–74. Özcan, Abdülkadir. “Beşir Aga. ˘ Moralı.” DİA, V, 555–556, 1992. “Devşirme.” DİA, IX, 254–257, 1994. “İzzet Mehmed Paşa. Safranbolulu (1743–1812).” DİA, XXIII, 560–561, 2001. “Kapıcı.” DİA, XXIV, 345–347, 2001. Özcan, Tahsin. “Mehmed Efendi, İmam–ı Sultani.” DİA, XXVIII, 453–454, 2003. Özdemir, Kemal. Ottoman Clocks and Watches. Istanbul: Creative Yayıncılık, 1993. Özel, Ahmet. “Esir.” DİA, XI, 382–389, 1995. İslâm Devletler Hukukunda Savaş Esirleri. Istanbul: TDV Yayınları 2014. Özen, Sükrü. ¸ “Velâ.” DİA, XLIII, 11–15, 2013. Özgüleş, Muzaffer. Female Patronage and the Architectural Legacy of Gülnuş Sultan: The Women who Built the Ottoman World. London and New York: I.B. Taurus, 2017. Özmutlu, Günnaz. “Harem Cariyelerinin Musiki ve Seyirlik Oyunlardaki Egitimleri ˘ (1677–1687).” Belleten LXXVIII, 283 (2014): 1033–1074.

Bibliography

265

Öztuna, Yılmaz. Devletler ve Hanedanlar: Türkiye 1074–1990, II. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlıgı ˘ Yayınları, 1996. Öztürk, Said. Askeri Kassama Ait Onyedinci Asır İstanbul Tereke Defterleri: Sosyo–Ekonomik Tahlil. Istanbul: Osmanlı Araştırmaları Vakfı, 1995. “Tereke Defterlerine Göre XVIII. Asırda İstanbul’da Aile Nüfusu, Servet Yapısı ve Dagılımı.” ˘ İstanbul Araştırmaları 3 (1997): 21–58. Pakalın, Mehmet Zeki. Osmanlı Tarih Terimleri ve Deyimleri Sözlügü, ˘ 3 vols. Ankara: M.E.B., 1993. Pala, İskender. Ansiklopedik Dîvân Siiri ¸ Sözlügü, ˘ 2 vols. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlıgı ˘ Yayınları, 1989. ˘ Paranın Tarihi. Istanbul: Tarih Pamuk, Sevket. ¸ Osmanlı İmparatorlugu’nda Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1999. A Monetary History of the Ottoman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. “18.yy’da Osmanlı Para Sisteminde Canlanma.” In Osmanlı Geçmişi ve Bugünün Türkiye’si, ed. Kemal Karpat. Istanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2004. Parlatır, İsmail. Tanzimat Edebiyatında Kölelik. Ankara: TTK Basımevi, 1992. Pedani, Maria Pia. “Safiye’s Household and Venetian Diplomacy.” Turcica 32 (2000): 9–31. Peirce, Leslie. The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. “The Material World: Ideologies and Ordinary Things.” In The Early Modern Ottomans, Remapping the Empires, ed. Virginia Aksan and Daniel Goffman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Empress of the East: How a European Slave Girl Became Queen of the Ottoman Empire. New York: Basic Books, 2017. Penzer, N. M. The Harem. London: George G. Harrap and Co., 1936. Peri, Oded. “Waqf and Ottoman Welfare Policy: The Poor Kitchen of Hasseki Sultan in Eighteenth Century Jerusalem.” JESHO 35 (1992): 167–186. Peters, R. “Wakf.” EI2, XI, 59–63, 1997. Quataert, Donald. “Introduction.” In Consumption Studies and the Ottoman Empire: 1522–1922: An Introduction, ed. Donald Quataert. New York: State University of New York Press, 2000. Redhouse, James W. A Turkish and English Lexicon. Beirut: Librairie du Liban, 1974, reprint from 1890 edition. Redhouse Yeni Türkçe–İngilizce Sözlük/ New Redhouse Turkish–English Dictionary. 1968. Reprint, Istanbul: Redhouse Press, 1979. Raby Julian and Ünsal Yücel. “Chinese Porcelain at the Ottoman Court.” In Chinese Ceramics in the Topkapı Saray Museum Istanbul, ed. John Ayers and Regina Krahl. London: Sotheby’s Publ., 1986.

266

Bibliography

Raymond, André. “Essai de Géographie des Quartiers de Résidence Aristocratique au Caire au XVIIIème siècle,” JESHO 6 (1963): 58–103. Grandes villes Arabes à l’epoque Ottomane. Paris: Editions Sindbad, 1985. “Les zones de residence dans les grand villes arabes à l’epoque Ottomane.” Arab Historical Review for Ottoman Studies 9–10 (1994): 185–191. “The Residential Districts of Cairo’s Elite in the Mamluk and Ottoman Periods (Fourteenth to Eighteenth Centuries).” In The Mamluks in Egyptian Politics and Society, ed. Thomas Philip and Ulrich Haarmann, 207–223. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Renda, Günsel. “Topkapı Sarayındaki H. 1321 no. lu Silsilename’nin Minyatürleri.” Sanat Tarihi Yıllıgı ˘ 5 (1973): 443–480. “Etnografya ˘ Müzesindeki Silsilename Minyatürleri Üzerine Düşünceler.” In Kemal Çıg’a ˘ Armagan ˘ Kitabı, 175–202. Istanbul: Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Yayını, 1984. Rogers, Michael. “Ottoman Luxury Trades and their Regulations.” In Osmanistische Studien zur Wirtschaftsund Sozialgeschichte in Memoriam Vanco Boskov, ed. Hans Georg Majer, 133–155. Wiesbaden: Otto Harassowitz, 1986. Sahillioglu, ˘ Halil. “Askeri.” DİA, III, 488–489, 1991. Sak, İzzet. “Konyada Köleler (16. Yüzyıl Sonu– 17. Yüzyıl).” Osmanlı Araştırmaları IX (1989): 159–197. “Ser’iyye ¸ Sicillerine Göre Sosyal ve Ekonomik Hayatta Köleler (17. ve 18. Yüzyıllar).” Ph.D. diss., Selçuk University, 1992. Sak, İzzet and Cemal Çetin. “XVII. ve XVIII. Yüzyıllarda Osmanlı Hac Menzilleri.” Selçuk Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 19 (2005): 199–261. Saz, Leyla. Haremin İçyüzü, ed. Sadi Borak. Istanbul: Milliyet Gazetesi, 1974. Salibi, Kamal. “Fakhr al-Din.” EI2, II, 749–751, 1991. Schacht, Joseph. “Umm al-walad.” EI2, X, 857–859, 2000. Introduction to Islamic Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964. Schäferes, Eva Marlene. “Sadâbâd, The Social Production of an Eighteenth Century Palace and its Surroundings.” M.A. Thesis, Bilgi University, 2009. Scott, James. “Patronage or Explotation?” In Patrons and Clients in Mediterranean Societies, ed. E. Gellner and J. Waterbury, 21–40. London: Duckworth, 1977. Seng, Yvonne. “Fugitives and Factotums: Slaves in Early Sixteenth Century Istanbul.” JESHO 39 (1996): 136–167. “A Liminal State, Slavery in the Sixteenth-Century Istanbul.” In Slavery in the Islamic Middle East, ed. Shaun Marmon, 25–41. Princeton: Marcus Wiener Publishers, 1999.

Bibliography

267

Sezgin, Tülay. “Üsküdar’daki Örnekleri ile Türbe–Mezar–Sebil–Çeşme İlişkisi.” In II. Üsküdar Sempozyumu Bildiriler, 12–14 Mart 2004. II, 454–475. Istanbul: Üsküdar Belediye Başkanlıgı, ˘ 2005. Shefer-Mossensohn, Miri. Ottoman Medicine: Healing and Medical Institutions, 1500–1700. Albany: SUNY Press, 2009. Sourdel, Dominique. “Ghulam.” EI2, II, 1079–1081, 1991. Stone, Lawrence. “Prosopography.” Daedalus 100/1 (1971): 46–79. Sürün, Mustafa. “İstanbul Seyh ¸ Vefâ Camii Haziresi (Mezar Taşları Tipolojisi Üzerine Bir Deneme).” M.A. Thesis, Marmara University, 2006. Sapolyo, ¸ Enver Behnan. Türk Büyükleri. Ankara: Suat Osmanoglu ˘ Yayınları, 1960. Senocak, ¸ Lucienne Thys. Ottoman Women Builders, the Architectural Patronage of Hatice Sultan. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006. Sentürk, ¸ Abdülmecit. “Topkapı Sarayı’ndaki Taş Vakfiye Kitâbeleri.” In Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Yıllık 6, 220–237, Istanbul: Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi, 2014. Tabakoglu, ˘ Ahmet. Gerileme Dönemine Girerken Osmanlı Maliyesi. Istanbul: Dergâh Yayınları, 1985. Taj al-Saltana. Crowning Anquish: Memoirs of a Persian Princess from the Harem to Modernity, 1884–1914, trans. Anna Vanza and Amin Neshati, ed. Abbas Amanat. Washington, DC: Mage Publishers, 1993. Tanışık, İbrahim Hilmi. İstanbul Çeşmeleri, 2 vols. Ankara: Maarif Vekâleti, 1943–1945. Tanman, Baha. “Keşfî Cafer Efendi Tekkesi.” Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi, IV, 549–551, 1994. Tekeşin, Metin. “Topkapı Sarayı Müzesinin Orta Avlusunda bulunan Vakıf Kitabeleri,” Graduate Thesis, Istanbul University, 1964. Terzi, Arzu. Hazine-i Hassa Nezareti. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 2000. Tezcan, Baki. “The Second Empire: The Transformation of the Ottoman Polity in the Early Modern Era.” Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 29/3 (2009): 559–572. Toledano, Ehud. The Ottoman Slave Trade and Its Supression: 1840–1890. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982. Slavery and Abolition in the Ottoman Middle East. Seattle: Washington University Press, 1998. As If Silent and Absent: Bonds of Enslavement in the Islamic Middle East. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2007. “Enslavement in the Ottoman Empire in the Early Modern Period.” In The Cambridge World History of Slavery, Volume 3, AD 1420–AD 1804, ed. David Eltis and Stanley L. Engerman, 25–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

268

Bibliography

Tolmacheva, Marina. “Female Piety and Patronage in the Medieval Hajj.” In Women in the Medieval Islamic World: Power, Patronage and Piety, ed. Gavin R. G. Hambly, 161–179. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998. Troutt Powel, Eve. “Will That Subaltern Ever Speak? Finding African Slaves in the Historiography of the Middle East.” In Narrating History: Histories and Historiographies of the Twentieth–Century Middle East, ed. Israel Gershoni, Amy Singer, and Hakan Erdem, 242–261. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2006. Tell This in My Memory: Stories of Enslavement in Egypt, Sudan and the Ottoman Empire. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2012. Tugay, Emine Foat. Three Centuries: Family Chronicles of Turkey and Egypt. London: Oxford University, 1963. Tuglacı, ˘ Pars. Osmanlı Saray Kadınları. Istanbul: Cem Yayınevi, 1985. Turan, Ebru. “The Marriage of Ibrahim Pasha (ca. 1495–1536) The Rise of Sultan Süleyman’s Favorite to the Grand Vizierate and the Politics of the Elites in the Early Sixteeenth-Century Ottoman Empire.” Turcica 41 (2009): 3–36. Tuzcular, Aysel. “Early Clocks and Watches in Topkapı Sarayı.” International Symposium on the Observatories in Islam, 18–23 Sept. 1977. Istanbul: Milli Egitim ˘ Basımevi, 1980. Uluçay, Çagatay. ˘ Osmanlı Saraylarında Harem Hayatının İçyüzü. Istanbul: İnkılap Kitabevi, 1959. Harem II. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1971. Padişahın Kadınları ve Kızları. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1980. Uzun, Mustafa. “İnşa.” DİA, XXII, 338–339, 2000. “Kerbela.” DİA, XXV, 274–275, 2002. Uzunçarşılı, İsmail Hakkı. “Gazi Orhan Bey Vakfiyesi, 724 Rebiülevvel – 1324 Mart,” Belleten 19 (1941): 277–288. “Osmanlılar Zamanında Saraylarda Musiki Hayatı.” Belleten 41 (1977): 79–115. Osmanlı Devleti Teşkilâtından Kapukulu Ocakları, 2 vols. Ankara: TTK, 1988. Osmanlı Devletinin İlmiye Teşkilâtı. Ankara: TTK, 1988. Osmanlı Devletinin Merkez ve Bahriye Teşkilâtı. Ankara: TTK, 1988. Osmanlı Devletinin Saray Teşkilâtı. Ankara: TTK, 1988. Osmanlı Tarihi, III/2. Ankara: TTK, 1988. Ünüvar, Safiye. Saray Hatıralarım. Istanbul: Cagalo ˘ glu ˘ Yayınevi, 1964. Üzüm, İlyas. “Hüseyin.” DİA, XVIII, 521–524, 1998. van Leeuwen, Richard. Waqfs and Urban Structures: The Case of Ottoman Damascus. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

Bibliography

269

Vatin, Nicolas and S. Yerasimos. Les Cimetieres dans la ville: Statut, Choix et Organisation des lieux d’inhumation dans Istanbul intra Muros. Istanbul: Institut Français d’Etudes Anatoliennes d’Istanbul, 2001. Walthall, Anne, ed. Servants of the Dynasty: Palace Women in World History. Los Angeles: Univesity of California Press, 2008. Weber, Shirley Howard. Voyages and Travels in the Near East Made during the XIX Century, Catalogues of the Gennadius Library in Athens, 2 vols. Princeton: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1952. Woodhead, Christine. “Silahdâr Fındıklılı Mehmed Agha.” EI2, IX, 610, 1997. Yaşaroglu, ˘ Hasan. “Osmanlı’da Bir Darbe ve Tahlili: Genç Osman Örnegi.” ˘ Turkish Studies 8/7 (2013): 705–712. Yediyıldız, Bahaeddin. “Vakıf.” İA, XIII, 153–172, 1986. XVIII. Yüzyılda Türkiye’de Vakıf Müessesesi, Bir Sosyal Tarih İncelemesi. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2003. Yerasimos, Stéphane. Les Voyageurs dans l’empire ottoman (XIVe–XVIe siècles). Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1991. Yıldız, Netice. “Osmanlı İmparatorlugu’nda ˘ İngiliz Saatleri ve Topkapı Sarayı Koleksiyonu.” Belleten 259 (2006): 919–963. Yılmaz, Gülay. “The Economic and Social Roles of Janissaries in a 17th Century Ottoman City: The Case of Istanbul.” Ph.D. diss., McGill University, 2011. “The Orientalist Construction of the Ottoman Governance.” The Studies of the Ottoman Domain 7 (2014): 50–81. ¸ Valisi Vezir Süleyman Paşa Yüksel, Hasan. “Vakıf Müsadere İlişkisi (Sam Olayı).” Osmanlı Araştırmaları 12 (1992): 399–424. Zarinebaf, Fariba. “Kentsel Alana Kadının Katılımı: XVIII. Yuzyıl İstanbul’unda Kadın Vakıfları.” In Türkler, ed. Hasan Celal Güzel, Kemal Çiçek, and Salim Koca, XIV, 15–25. Ankara: Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, 2002. “Women, Patronage, and Charity in Ottoman Istanbul.” In Beyond the Exotic: Women’s Histories in Islamic Societies, ed. Amira el-Azhary Sonbol, 89–101. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, 2006. Ze’evi, Dror. “The Use of Ottoman Shari’a Court Records as a Source for Middle Eastern Social History: A Reappraisal.” Islamic Law and Society 5/1 (1998): 35–56. Zilfi, Madeline. “We Don’t Get Along: Women and Hul Divorce in the Eighteenth Century.” In Women in the Ottoman Empire: Middle Eastern Women in the Early Modern Era, ed. M. Zilfi, 264–296. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

270

Bibliography

Women and Slavery in the Late Ottoman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Zorlutuna, Salih. “XVII. Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında Edirne’nin Sahne Oldugu ˘ Sâhâne ¸ Sünnet ve Evlenme Dügünleri.” ˘ In Edirne, Edirne’nin 600. Fetih Yıldönümü Armagan ˘ Kitabı, 265–296. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1965.

Index

Abbas Agha (Chief black eunuch), 159n83, 177 Abbas Agha (musâhib), 107 Abdulaziz (Sultan), 20 Abdulhamid I, 17n43, 41n12, 48n46, 50, 58n92, 59–60, 71n154, 84, 98, 101, 109, 127–128, 143, 149, 159, 166, 174n30, 183, 185, 193, 204n22, 206 Abdulhamid II, 20–21, 81, 123, 147 Abdulmecid (Sultan), 20, 44, 68, 90, 137, 204, 209 Abu Bakar (Sultan of Johor), 123, 147 Acâibü’l Mahlukât, 178 Acem, 194 acemi, 41, 64, 220. See also novice Africa, 61 Agha of Galatasaray, 105, 114, 121 Aga of the Gate of Felicity, 114, 128, 146, 218, 223. See also babüssaade agası ˘ Agha of the Old Palace, 72, 97, 99–103, 106, 128, 137, 155–156, 190, 223 Ahırkapı, 139, 150, 235, 237–238 Ahmed Cevdet Pasha, 13n26 Ahmed Efendi (Fahru’l-müderrisin), 116 Ahmed I, 12n25, 19, 56n82, 63n121, 110n10, 209, 231 Ahmed II, 19, 99, 189 Ahmed III, 2n3, 10, 19, 38n2, 39n3, 46, 48n46, 54–55, 57–60, 73, 84–85, 86n36, 88, 89n54, 90, 97–98, 117, 121, 124, 126, 146, 155, 165, 171, 175, 178, 184, 191, 200, 202, 206

Ahmed Pasha (Arap), 210 (Melek), 97 Aintab, 150 Akaid Risalesi, 178 Aksaray (district, Istanbul), 139, 141, 149, 151, 155n70, 159, 237–238 Aleppo, 150 Âli Cenab Kadın (Mahmud I’s consort), 62 Altıparmak, 178 Anadoluhisarı, 145, 157 Anber Hatun, 119 Antiquity, 11 apprentice, 1–2, 88, 128. See also çırag/ ˘ çırak Âşıkpaşazâde, 12 ‘atıyye, 5n7, 72 Atmeydanı, 148, 236 Ayasofya, 116, 139, 142, 149–150, 206 Ayşe Sultan (daughter of Abdulhamid II), 81n11 (daughter of Ahmed III), 86n36, 126n87 Ayşe Sultan’s rooming houses, 142 Babıâli, 118, 129, 150. See also paşa kapısı Bahrü’l-Amik, 175 babüssaade agası, ˘ 114, 128, 146, 218, 223 babüssaade agaları ˘ ocagı, ˘ 218 baltacı, 114. See also halberdier, teberdar Battal Gazi, 178 Bayezid I, 14, 16n42 Bayezid II, 16, 32 Bayezid Mosque, 94, 117, 139, 141, 148

271

272 beckâri, 183 Behice Sultan, 68 Bekdaş Hatun, 58 Belgrade, 12 berber usta, 49, 50n59-60, 72n159 Bertrandon de la Broquirère, 14 Beshir Agha (maktul, Moralı, hattat), 202, 206 Beşiktaş, 142–144, 151 bevvâb, 105, 114, 215. See also door keeper, kapıcı Beyhan Sultan (daughter of Abdulhamid I), 174 (daughter of Ibrahim I), 165 (daughter of Mustafa III), 126n87, 144 Beykoz, 63, 144, 146, 151, 211 Beyoglu, ˘ 144, 207n38 Bilad-ı Selase, 142, 203n15, 206. See also Üsküdar, Galata, Eyüb billur, 181, 185 Birgi, 146, 160, 185 Birgivi Risalesi, 174 Bogazhisarikâri, ˘ 183 Bostancıbaşı, 33 Bozcaada, 133 buhurdan, 171, 181, 185 Bula, 54, 176, 178 Bursa, 12, 13n26, 14, 83, 126, 146, 160, 176n49, 228 Büyük İskele Masjid, 203 büyük oda, 38n2, 63n121, 80 Cairo, 61n113, 61, 134n122, 137, 140n15, 147, 150, 159n83, 218n91, 228 cameşuy usta, 48–49, 50n59-60, 72n159 Canfeda Hatun (chief administrative official in harem), 44n30, 69, 110, 210–211, 218n91 Canfeda Saliha Hatun, 202 cariye, viii, 41, 48, 52–53, 55n77, 59, 70n149, 74n173, 121, 194n130 Caucasus, 21, 61n110, 69n145 Cevri Usta, 203, 208 ceyb-i hümâyun (privy purse), 28, 89 chief administrative officer, viii, 28, 35, 38n1, 42, 44–50, 69, 71, 72n158,

Index 94, 106, 110, 129n104, 168n11, 189n98, 191, 201–202, 204n22, 207, 218n91, See also kethüda kadın Chief Black Eunuch, 1, 48, 52, 58n92, 98–101, 103, 128–129, 147, 150, 159, 202, 223. See also Abbas Agha, Beşir Agha, Elmas Agha, İsmail Agha, Solak Mehmed Agha chief door keeper, 52, 104, 114, 121, 128, 132. See also kapıcıbaşı China, 11, 182n71 Chios, 83, 131 Circassian, 13n26, 21, 57, 59, 61, 62n115, 69n145, 130, 183, 194–195 companion, 54, 63n135, 82–83, 130, 175, 189, 194, 211. See also musâhibe Crete, 55 Cündi (Cinci) Square, 150 Cyprus, 83 çaşnigir usta, 1, 48–49, 50n59-60, 72n159, 92, 146, 202, 208, 220 çavuş, 109, 112, 115 çıkma, 80–81, 93n69 çıkmabaşı, 93 çırag/çırak, ˘ 1, 78, 80, 88, 90n57, 128. See also apprentice Çorlulu Ali Pasha, 38n2, 74, 88 çukadar, 106, 126, 191n111 dâru’l-hadis, 116, 211 Davudpaşa, 139, 207 daye-i şehriyârî/ daye kadın, 42, 72n159, 109, 121, 125. See also wet nurse Delâil-i Hayrat, 176, 178 Deli Hüseyin Pasha, 55 Dereseki, 146 Derviş Abdullah, 69 devshirme, 9, 65, 111–112, 123n69, 162n1 Divanyolu, 139, 149 dolab ocagı, ˘ 220 Dolmabahçe, 139, 144, 151 Dolmabahçe Palace, 20 door keeper, 105–106, 109, 114–115, 215. See also bevvâb, kapıcı Duaname, 176 Duke of Burgundy, 14

Index Ebubekir Efendi (Reisülküttab), 56, 118, 121, 203 Edirne, 10, 12, 14–15, 19, 20n51, 34, 94, 103n105, 139n13, 146, 193, 200, 209n56, 228 Edirne incident, 10, 126 Edirne Palace, 14, 19, 72n158, 78, 104, 146 Egypt, 11, 64n126, 92n67, 99, 129, 132, 147, 159, 218n91, 223n103 Elmas Agha (Chief black eunuch), 128 Emine Sultan (daughter of Mustafa II), 73–74 En’am-ı Serif, ¸ 176 Enderun, viii, 7, 9, 18, 23, 33, 38, 40, 42, 54, 60, 63, 70, 71n152, 72n160, 73n165, 74, 78, 80–81, 84, 86, 92, 93n69, 97, 108, 110, 114–115, 122, 125, 128–129, 132, 181, 191, 217, 227–229, 232–233 Enderun treasury, 181 Esad Efendi (mufti), 231 Esma Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III), 206 Eyüb, xi, 73, 138–139, 142–145, 148–149, 196n140, 206–207, 209n56, 217–218 Eyüb Sultan Mosque, 217 fagfûrî, ˘ 181–182, 185 Fahreddin (Ma’nzade/Ma’noglu), 131 Fatih Mosque, 139 Fatma Hanım Sultan, 90 (daughter of Melek Ahmed Pasha and Kaya Sultan), 97 Fatma Sultan daughter of Murad III, 54n72 daughter of Ahmed III, 98, 117, 126n87, 206 daughter of Mahmud II, 59n98 favorite, 110, 114, 126, 150. See also musâhib Fenerbahçe, 204n22, 206 Fezâil-i Beytü’l-Makdis, 178 Fıkh-ı Keydâni, 178 Fuad Köprülü, 14

273 Gabriel de Luel, Sieur d’Aramon (French ambassador), 59 Galata, xi, 62n115, 65n128, 100, 105, 114, 121, 132, 138–139, 142–143, 148, 196n137-140, 207, 219 gedikli, 42, 46, 48–49, 52, 70n149, 191 Gedikpaşa Mosque, 209 Georgian, 13n26, 55, 58n92, 59–61, 194 Greece, 11, 61 gülabdan, 171, 181, 185 Gülhane ocagı, ˘ 220 Gülnuş Sultan, 55, 79, 96, 123, 126, 130, 153, 171, 189–191, 196, 216n82 hadâik-i hassa (imperial garden), 94 Hadice Sultan, 101, 106 (daughter of Mehmed IV), 2, 57, 67, 85, 96, 209 (daughter of Mustafa II), 104 (sister of Selim III), 76, 88, 116, 125, 136–137, 144, 222n103 Hadice Turhan Valide Sultan, 45, 69, 131, 176 halberdier, 69, 76, 94, 101, 105–106, 114–115, 157, 168, 215, 217, 220. See also baltacı, teberdar Halil Hamid Pasha (grand vizier), 128 Hallu’l Mesâil, 178 hâmî, 3–5, 226 Hamza Efendi, 55 harc-ı hassa, 28, 44, 89 harem kethüdası, 106 Haremeyn müfettişi, 100, 124, 150, 178, 215 Harem-i Hümâyun, 38, 52n66, 71n155, 217 has oda, 48, 54n73, 71n156, 80, 84, 125. See also privy chamber Hasan Pasha (grand vizier), 58 Hasan Paşa (governor of Çıldır), 55n77 Haseki Sultan hospital, 91, 142 Hasköy, 143 hasırcılar ocagı, ˘ 220 hastalar ustası (mistress of patients), 76, 93, 98, 146

274 Hatuniye Tekke (dervish lodge), 210 hazînedar, 49–50, 124, 132, 178, 206. See also treasurer hazînedar usta/hazînedar-ı şehriyârî, 28, 49, 72n159, 125n81, 205. See also head treasurer. head treasurer, 17n43, 28, 49–50, 72, 74, 76, 84, 88, 125, 147, 150, 203, 206–207. See also hazînedar usta/ hazînedar-ı şehriyârî hekimbaşı (chief physician), 91 helvahâne ocagı, ˘ 217 Hibetullah Sultan, 89 Hilye-i Serif, ¸ 183–186 Hocazade Mehmed, 84 hotoz, 192 Hubbi Hatun (musâhibe of Selim II), 54n71, 175 Hungary, 61 Hürrem, 18, 62n116 Hüseyin (Ma’nzade/Ma’noglu), 131–133 Ibrahim (sultan), 6n8, 53n70, 54n71, 57, 62, 81–82, 88, 109, 130, 132, 134, 165, 189, 211 İbrahim Bey (Musâhibzade), 124, 173, 190, 193 Mustafa Paşazade (Haremeyn müfettişi), 124, 149, 178 İbrahim Pasha (grand vizier), 32 ibrikdar usta, 49, 50n59–60 ihsân, 5n7, 72, 107 ikbal, 41, 43, 49–50, 52, 70, 190–191 İlmihal, 174 İmâdü’l İslam, 178 in‘âm, 5n7, 72 inamat (gifts), 28, 39, 178 İnşa Mecmuası, 174 intra muros İstanbul, 104, 136, 138–142, 144, 148, 206–207, 235 İsmail Agha (the chief black Eunuch, Malatyalı), 208 istefan, 190

Index İzzet Mehmed Pasha (vizier and governor of Jeddah), 115, 127–128 Kadırga Port, 149, 197, 235, 237 kahveci usta, 49, 50n59-60 kahvecibaşı, 43, 48n44, 215 kahya/kahya kadın, 45–46, 201, 205 Kalemkâri, 181 Kalfa, 51–52, 72, 203, 205, 207–208 Kaliçeciler Mansion, 104, 157, 236 Kanun-ı Sultan Ahmed, 178 kapıcı, 114n26. See also bevvâb, door keeper kapıcıbaşı, 114–115, 128, 132. See also chief door keeper kapıcılar kethüdası, 58, 114, 123 kapıkulu, 8, 116 Kasımpaşa, 142–143, 204, 208 Kaside-i Halhal, 176 Kâtibe Hoca, 175 kâtibe usta, 49, 50n59–60 Kavak Meydanı, 14 Kaya Sultan (daughter of Murad IV), 83, 97 Kelâm-ı Kadim, 174 kethüda kadın, 28, 38n1, 42, 44, 46–47, 49n49, 72n158-59, 168n11, 189n98, 191. See also chief administrative officer Kısmet-i Askeriyye, 30, 85, 100, 105, 163, 213 kilarî. See kilerci kiler ocagı, ˘ 217 kiler odası, 97, 129 kilerci, 54n72, 118 kilerci usta, 49, 50n59-60, 72n159, 153, 191, 208 Kirazlı Masjid, 203, 205 Kitab-ı Üstüvânî, 178 Kösem Sultan, 6n8, 45, 81–82, 89–90, 109, 119, 130, 216n82 kutucu usta, 49, 131–134 Küçük Ayasofya, 142, 150, 237 küçük oda, 38n2, 63n121, 80 külhancı usta, 49 Leh, 62n115, 183–185 Lehkâri, 183–185

Index Letaif-i Enderun, 84 Lihye-i Serif-i ¸ Nebeviye, 178 Ma’n, See Fahreddin (Ma’nzade/ Ma’noglu) ˘ Hüseyin (Ma’nzade/ Ma’noglu), ˘ Salih (Ma’nzade/ Ma’noglu) ˘ Mahmud I, 2n3, 17n43, 39n3-4, 41, 43, 48, 50, 52, 59, 62, 71–72, 85, 91, 96, 98, 124, 144, 149, 178, 188, 222 Mahmud II, 20, 39n3-4, 41, 43–44, 46, 48, 49n49, 50, 52n62, 53, 59n98, 70–71, 83, 86n36, 125, 144, 149, 203, 208, 209n54 Mahmud Paşa Mosque, 139 Maktel-i Hüseyin, 176 Maltepe, 207, 209 masraf-ı şehriyârî, 28, 39 Matbah-ı Âmire, 115 Mecca, 100–101, 104, 124, 147, 150, 178, 215–216, 218, 229 Mecmua-i Manzume, 176 Medina, 1, 92, 94, 100–101, 104, 124, 140n15, 146–147, 150, 178, 214–219, 221–222, 228–229 Mehmed Aga ˘ (Silâhdar Fındıklılı), 82 Mehmed Efendi (sheikhulislam), 116, 126, 146 Mehmed Emin Pasha (doctor), 86 Mehmed II, 148, 15–16, 64, 148, 40n5, 74n170 Mehmed III, 40, 110 Mehmed IV, 2n3, 2, 12n25, 19, 38n2, 44–45, 57, 59, 67, 81, 85, 96, 98, 126–127, 132, 146, 177n52, 178, 209 Mehmed Pasha (Baltacı), 88 (Köprülü), 9 (Melek), 127 Mehmed Said Bey (İzzet Mehmed Paşazade), 115 mehr, 102, 120, 168–170, 195 me’kûlât (food), 28, 44, 48n46, 71 Melâzü’l-Müttakîn, 178

275 melbûsât (clothes), 28, 71 mertebâni, 181 Mesâil-i Abdullah ibn-i Selam, 178 mevâcib (stipend), 28, 39, 41, 44, 46, 50, 70–71 mevlâ, 6, 95–96, 98, 101–102, 107 Mihrişah Valide Sultan, 115n30, 118, 202, 204, 208 mîmar-ı hassa, 115 minekâri, 181, 183, 189 Mirâhur, 58, 115, 134 Mirvaha, 184 Muhammed (Prophet), 2, 64–65, 73n165, 79n6, 86–87, 117, 140n15, 146, 176–178, 183n74, 216–217, 219–220 muharremiye, 73 mukataa, 1, 168 Murad I, 14–15 Murad II, 12, 14–15 Murad III, 18, 33, 40, 44n30, 54n71, 82–83, 109–110, 209–210, 218n91 Murad V, 68, 86, 192 Murad Pasha (Kuyucu, grand vizier), 231 musâhib, 57, 107, 110, 114, 119, 126, 150. See also favorite musâhib aga ˘ (the favorite), 53 musâhibe, 54, 83. See also companion Mushaf-ı Serif, ¸ 174, 176, 178, 179n63, 180 Mustafa Agha (Habeşî, Agha of the Old Palace), 106, 137 (silahdar), 109 Mustafa Efendi (nişancı, Hattî), 150 Mustafa I, 53n70, 55, 56n79, 109, 125 Mustafa II, 2n3, 2, 10, 19, 39n3, 42–44, 48n46, 54–57, 72n159, 73, 85, 88, 89n54, 99, 104, 121, 126, 170–171, 190–191 Mustafa III, 39n3-4, 43, 61, 71n152, 83n24, 89n54, 98, 100–101, 104, 120–121, 124–125, 126n87, 127, 144, 153, 176, 179n63, 222n103 Mustafa IV, 137

276 Mustafa Pasha (Alemdar), 83 (Benli), 124 (Kara), 191 (musâhib), 57 (Pilak), 130 Nallı Masjid, 150, 238 Near East, 12n22, 26n74, 27, 43n25, 45n31, 70, 112, 122, 234 Negroponte, 16 New Palace, 15–16, 18–21, 38–40, 76, 78, 98, 104, 109n5, 118, 138–139, 144, 149–150, 156, 158, 207, 220. See also Saray-ı Cedid, Topkapı Palace novice, 41, 52, 175, 220. See also acemi Nurbanu Sultan, 83, 110 ocakdaş, 76 oda lalası (servant of the chamber), 52 Old Palace (Saray-ı Atik), 15–16, 18–20, 40, 48, 61, 69, 72, 76, 78, 81–83, 89, 91, 93–94, 97, 99–106, 109–110, 114–115, 120–121, 128, 134, 137, 139, 146, 148, 155–156, 158, 165, 168, 170, 190, 211, 215, 220, 222–224 Old Seraglio, 15n37, 113, 121. See Old Palace Orhan Bey, 14 Osman II, 94, 231 Osman III, 124–125 Ottaviano Bon (Venetian bailo), 33, 40, 61 paşa kapısı, 151, 238. See also Babıâli Perizad Hatun, 210 Pertevniyal Valide Sultan, 20n56 Piri Pasha (grand vizier), 124 privy chamber, 48, 71n156, 80, 84, 125–126, 132. See also has oda Rami Kadın (consort of Mahmud I), 98, 124, 149, 178, 180 Rethymno, 55

Index rikâb-ı hümâyun, 96n76, 99, 106–107, 180, 190 Risale-i Saadetname, 178 Saadetname, 178 Sadâbad Palace, 151 Safiye Sultan (consort of Murad III), 58, 62, 83, 110 (daughter of Mustafa II), 222 (daughter of Mustafa III), 104 Salih Agha (Ma’anoglu), ˘ 132–133 Saliha Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III), 90, 145, 178 (daughter of Mahmud II), 86 (mother of Mahmud I), 59 Saray-ı Cedid, 15, 52n65. See also New Palace, Topkapı Palace saray ustası, 49, 50n59, 72n159 Saxony, 183–186 scribe of the chief black eunuch, 1, 92, 101, 103, 171n27 sedefkâri, 182, 185 seferli odası, 80, 217 Selim I, 15, 32 Selim II, 18, 40, 54n71, 175 Selim III, 2, 39n2, 41, 46, 62, 70, 71n154, 85, 88, 110, 125, 137, 144, 149, 153, 202–204, 207–208, 215 silahdar/ silahdar-ı şehriyârî, 54n73, 109, 114, 119, See also sword bearer silahşor/silahşor-i şehriyârî, 114, 119, 124, 185 Silsilename, 176–177 Slave Market, 12, 20, 59, 82, 202 Solak Mehmed Agha, 129. See also chief black eunuch Sorguç, 190 Subhi (historian), 58 Sultan Bayezid Mosque, 117 Sultan Süleyman mosque, 156. See Süleymaniye Mosque Sulu Mosque (Ürgüb), 203 Surre dolabı, 218 suzenikâri, 184, 193 Süleyman Agha (agha of the Old Palace), 190

Index Süleyman I, 18 Süleyman II, 19, 48, 168n11 Süleymaniye. 116, 139, 141, 148–149, 170, 179, 203, 205, 238–239 Süleymaniye mosque, 97, 119, 147–149, 179–180, 237 sword bearer, 54n73, 83, 109, 114, 120, 125–126, 151, 170, 191n111, See also silahdar/ silahdar-i şehriyârî Saban ¸ Efendi (fahru’l-müderrisin), 116 Sah ¸ Sultan (daughter of Mustafa III), 121, 127, 144, 153 Sâhin ¸ Agha (baş musâhib), 126 şakird (apprentice), 41, 48, 52, 70n149 Sehzade ¸ Mosque, 149, 235 Sekerpare ¸ Hatun, 54n71, 82, 189, 196, 211 Sem’dânî-zâde ¸ (historian), 56, 58–59, 83, 150–151 Sevkinihal ¸ Usta, 204, 209 Seyh ¸ Murad Efendi dervish lodge, 218 Sifâe’l-Kulub, ¸ 178 şirmâhî, 184–185 Sirvanî ¸ Kara Ebubekir Efendi, 56 Tavaşî Serefeddin ¸ (manumitted eunuch), 14 tavşankârî, 184–185 Tayinat, 28, 39, 44, 71n155, 168 teberdar, 69, 101, 105–106, 114, 215. See also baltacı, halberdier Tecvid-i Serif, ¸ 176 tellâk (bath attendant), 58 Tercüme-i Bahâ-i Veled, 178 Tercüme-i Hadis-i Serif, ¸ 176 Tercüme-i İbadiyat, 176 Tercüme-i Muhammediye, 178 tombak, 183, 185 Topçu Ocagı, ˘ 148 Tophane, 138, 142–143, 148

277 Topkapı Palace, 15, 23n65, 33, 217n84. See also New Palace, Saray-ı Cedid Transylvania, 55 treasurer, 49–50, 106, 119, 124–125, 130, 132, 137, 153, 178, 189n98, 196, 203–204, 208–209. See also hazînedar Turkey, 22 Tuti (wife of Baki the poet), 175 Türkî Risale, 175 ulema, 8, 59, 205 Ulviyyat-ı Sultani, 178 Ümmü Gülsüm Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III), 86n36 Üsküdar, xi, 100, 138–139, 142, 145, 154, 157, 170n17, 185, 196, 204n22, 206–209 Valide sultan, 18, 42, 54n72, 59, 74, 93, 108, 110, 121, 132, 137, 171, 207. See also Hadice Turhan Valide Sultan, Gülnuş Sultan, Kösem Sultan, Mihrişah Valide Sultan, Safiye Sultan (consort of Murad III) vekil usta, 49 velâdet-i hümâyun, 74 Wallachia, 61 waqfiyye, 14, 38n1, 111, 138, 209, 214–215, 221, 223n103 wet nurse, 13, 42–44, 46, 48, 52, 59, 68, 71, 109, 121, 125, 202, 207. See also daye-i şehriyârî/daye kadın Yahnikapan Mosque, 202–203, 206 Yakup Aga ˘ Masjid, 216 Yıldız Palace, 20–21, 139 Yolgeçen Masjid, 202 Yusuf ve Züleyha, 178 Zeyrek, 139, 196n140, 236, 239 zülüflü baltacılar ocagı, ˘ 217, 220