Residents of the Imperial Harem

Tayinat (allowance),masraf-ı şehriyârî (royal expenditures),mevâcib (stipend),inamat (gifts), andmübayaa (purchase) registers are valuable sources that provide information about the structure of and residents in the imperial harem.Footnote³ Although these registers generally do not allow us to establish the exact numbers, positions, or names of all harem residents, some raremevâcib 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.Footnote⁴

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 adetailed 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 forty-nine. During the subsequent reign ofMurad 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.Footnote⁵ 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 theOld Palace there were 1,500.Footnote⁶ According to Domenico Hierosolimitano, more than 800 women were fed regularly in the Seraglio.Footnote⁷ Ottaviano Bon, the Venetian bailo to Istanbul between 1604 and 1607, and Bobovius, who was a page in theEnderun in the seventeenth century, both claimed that the number of female slaves in the palace was between 1,100 and 1,200.Footnote⁸

The number of female palace slaves also changed during each sultan’s reign. According to themevâcib register from the period ofMahmud I (r. 1730–1754), there were 446 female slaves in the imperial harem.Footnote⁹ Amevâcib register from the period ofSelim III (r. 1789–1807) shows that the number of female slaves in the imperial harem was around 720.Footnote¹⁰ By contrast, amevâcib register from the period ofMahmud II (r. 1808–1839) lists only 473 female slaves in the imperial harem.Footnote¹¹ D’Ohsson, who lived in the second half of the eighteenth century, stated that the imperial harem was composed of 500–600 female slaves.Footnote¹² Likewise according to Melling’s account, some 500 women populated the harem.Footnote¹³

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 andikbal), 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 calledacemi (novice), and their early period of service was known asacemilik (novitiate). In time, theacemis 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),usta (mistress), gedikli (who waited on the sultan in person), kadın.”Footnote¹⁴ The basis on which these women were promoted is not yet as clear as it was for the men in theEnderun.Footnote¹⁵

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. Thevalide 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.Footnote¹⁶ 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.Footnote¹⁷

As the archival sources reflect, the sultan’s favorite consort in the sixteenth through seventeenth centuries was namedhaseki. Even as late as the period ofMustafa II (r. 1695–1703), the titlehaseki was used.Footnote¹⁸ By the eighteenth century, though, the titlehaseki no longer appears in the records, seemingly haven fallen out of official use and replaced by the titlekadın. 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.

Below the consort (kadın) ranked a lower level of concubine who bore the titleikbal (favorite, fortunate one). Like the consorts, these concubines were ordered by seniority, as seniorikbal, secondikbal, thirdikbal, fourthikbal, etc. The available sources reveal that Mustafa II,Mahmud I, andMustafa III each hadikbals.Footnote¹⁹

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.Footnote²⁰ The head consort and other high-ranked consorts also enjoyed the service of anagha (palace officer) and personnel responsible for the coffee service (kahvecibaşı).Footnote²¹ In the period ofMahmud II (r. 1808–1839), consorts were served by between three and thirteen female slaves, again in accordance with their status.Footnote²² The number of female slaves assigned to the service of seniorikbal and otherikbals of Mahmud I ranged from four to six.Footnote²³

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.Footnote²⁴

*

Another woman who held great influence within the imperial harem in every period was the sultan’s wet nurse.Footnote²⁵ She had a prestigiousposition, recognized through the honorific title “respectable” (izzetli) that was attributed to her.Footnote²⁶ In some cases, young wet nurses for the sultan’s children were admitted to the imperial harem together with their own daughters. In fact, themevacib list belonging to the period ofMahmud II reveals that a wet nurse’s daughter (daye kızı) appeared in the service of both princeAbdulmecid and Mihrimah sultan (one of the sultan’s daughters), earning a personal salary.Footnote²⁷

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.Footnote²⁸ 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.Footnote²⁹ As will be discussed in more detail inChapter 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.Footnote³⁰ The honorific titles attributed to her, such as prosperous, virtuous, respectable (saadetli, iffetli, izzetli), reflected herstatus in the harem.Footnote³¹ 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 ofMehmed 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.Footnote³² Likewise, her predecessor, Kösem ValideSultan (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.Footnote³³

European accounts frequently emphasized the role and status of the chief administrative officer. Generally, she was referred to askahya kadın, and reportedly she had a privileged position in the imperial harem, being its governess and lady matron to all the women.Footnote³⁴ She examined all the girls who were brought to the palace and ensured their adherence to the harem’s rules and orders.Footnote³⁵ According to Europeanaccounts,kahya kadın also took care of the women who were destined to become the sultan’s consorts.Footnote³⁶ D’Ohsson noted that thekethüda kadın was selected by the sultan from among the most experienced women and from the ranks ofgediklis.Footnote³⁷ He added that as a sign of her high status, thekethüda kadın carried a cane and an imperial seal.Footnote³⁸

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 ofAhmed III, the chief administrative officer received gifts alongside the sultan’s mother, his daughters, his consorts, and the wet nurse.Footnote³⁹ Themevâcib registers likewise point to the chief administrative officer’s high status and prestigious position. According to a register from the period ofSelim III (r. 1789–1807), the chief administrative officer received 500akçe daily, more than the sultan’s mother, who received 400akçe.Footnote⁴⁰ During the reign ofMahmud II (r. 1808–1839), the chief administrative officer continued to receive 500akçe, while the sultan’s children received only 100akçe each; the head consort and other six consorts received much less, only 40akçe per day.Footnote⁴¹D’Ohsson noted that since 1689, the chief administrative officers had enjoyed a large pension of 7,500 piastres per year, granted to them bySüleyman II.Footnote⁴²

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

Like members of the dynasty, the chief administrative officer had her own suite, in accordance with her status. She had an eunuchagha,Footnote⁴³ personnel responsible for providing the coffee service,Footnote⁴⁴ and female slaves in her personal service. In the period ofMahmud I, she had four female slaves; during the reign ofMahmud II, this was increased to five. Her slaves, in turn, were ranked, and their daily stipend ranged from five to fortyakçe.Footnote⁴⁵

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 thechief black eunuch, but higher amounts than the princes and sometimes even the sultan’s consorts.Footnote⁴⁶

Gedikli- Usta-Şakird-Cariye

Gedikli was below the rank ofkadın. Thegediklis 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 calledçaşnigir usta (mistress of the table service). The woman who was in charge of laundry service was, likewise, namedcameşuy usta (mistress of the laundry service). In the suite of eachgedikli, there were female slaves who helped her and were trained at the same time. When hiskadın died or was sent to theOld Palace, the sultan chose her replacement from among these girls. Those who weremost distinguished would receive the title ofikbal, ranked below thekadın but in line for eventual promotion to the rank ofkadın.Footnote⁴⁷

Ustas performed the same personal service for the sultan’s mother, consorts, and children as thegediklis performed for the sultan.Ustas also had their own entourage of female slaves. Eachusta was known by the work assigned to her and also by the name of the person she served.Footnote⁴⁸ Therefore, one finds in the records the sultan’s mother’scameşuy usta, or Ayşe Sultan’skahveci usta (the mistress of the coffee service), etc.

According to the archival sources, the followingustas lived in the imperial harem:hazînedarusta (head treasurer),saray ustası (mistress of the palace),Footnote⁴⁹ deputy mistress (vekil usta),cameşuy usta (mistress of the laundry service),Footnote⁵⁰çaşnigir 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),Footnote⁵¹külhancı usta (mistress of the bath service)Footnote⁵², andkâtibe usta (head scribe). Eachusta also had a main assistant. D’Ohsson defined the headtreasurer 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.Footnote⁵³ The head treasurer was followed by second treasurer (ikinci hazînedar), the third treasurer (üçüncü hazînedar), and sometimes a fourth treasurer (dördüncü hazînedar) and fifthtreasurer (beşincihazînedar).Footnote⁵⁴ The reputable position oftreasurers was reflected in the number of female slaves assigned to their service. During the reign ofMahmud I, the second treasurer had three female slaves to herself.Footnote⁵⁵ In the period ofMahmud 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.Footnote⁵⁶

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 ofAbdulhamid 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.Footnote⁵⁷ 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.Footnote⁵⁸ The allowances assigned toustas also reflected their relative positions in the imperial harem. For instance, during the reign of Mahmud I, the daily stipends assigned toustas were higher than the amount given to the sultan’sikbals.Footnote⁵⁹ According to themevâcib register from the period of Mahmud II, stipends allocated toustas exceeded those assigned to the consort and sultan’s children.Footnote⁶⁰ During the reigns of both Mahmud I and Mahmud II, eachusta usually had one female slave in her service. The sources suggest that theustas’ hierarchical status remainedrelatively 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.

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

A lower category of women serving in the harem was thekalfa.Kalfa was a rank below that ofusta.Footnote⁶¹ The entourages of the imperialfamily includedkalfas. Among the female slaves given to the service of the sultan’s children, for example, were nannies and wet nurses who carryied the titlekalfa (daye kalfa- dadı kalfa).Footnote⁶² Some of the sultan’sikbals were also calledkalfa: fourikbals ofMahmud I were Miyase Kalfa, Fehmi Kalfa, Sırrı Kalfa, and Habbabe Kalfa.Footnote⁶³ Seniorkalfas were also responsible for training the novices. Finally, according to D’Ohsson, the termşakird (apprentice) referred to those who were trained to fill vacant places among thegediklis andustas.Footnote⁶⁴

*

Apart from these specialized categories of women, the largest group within the imperial harem was the female slaves (cariyes) who performed various services.Footnote⁶⁵Cariyes 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.Footnote⁶⁶

Apart from sultan’s family (which included his consorts), theustas, and thekalfas, palaceaghas also owned female slaves. Thechief black eunuch had four female slaves, in addition to the head female slave calledağa ustası;Footnote⁶⁷ 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.Footnote⁶⁸ However, the records show that theagha of the treasury (hazînedar ağa), the servant of the chamber (oda lalası), the chief door keeper (baş kapı gulamı ağa),and the favorite (musâhib ağa) also had female slaves in their personel service.Footnote⁶⁹ Female slaves were likewise assigned to the service of dethroned sultans.Footnote⁷⁰

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).

During the eighteenth century and in the reign ofMahmud II, the imperial harem’s structure remained largely as it had existed in theseventeenth century, although there were some minor changes. For instance, while there were influential figures known asmusâhibe (companion) in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,Footnote⁷¹ references to this position do not appear in the eighteenth-century sources. Likewise, during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and into the reigns ofMustafa II (r. 1695–1703) andAhmed III (r. 1703–1730), there were women in the imperial harem calledbula.Footnote⁷² However, the termbula 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 theEnderun.Footnote⁷³

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 theOld 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.”Footnote¹⁴⁶ Likewise, in onearchival record, female palace slaves were defined as those who were nourished, cared for, and educated by the imperial court.Footnote¹⁴⁷

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 theEnderun, 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 calledmevâcib andulufe in return for their services. This practice was not enacted exclusively at the Ottoman palace: in a similar manner, residents of harems across theNear East and South Asia received monthly salaries.Footnote¹⁴⁸ A person’s position within the imperial harem, or in the Enderun, played a major role in determining their stipends.Footnote¹⁴⁹ According to themevâcib registers belonging to the periods ofSelim III andMahmud II, female palaceslaves received between 5 and 500akçe per day.Footnote¹⁵⁰ In amevâcib register from the period ofMahmud I, 446 female palace slaves were recorded and, of these, 52 received between 20 and 100akçe, 21 received 15akçe, and 67 received 10akçe. The vast majority (306) received only 5akçe.Footnote¹⁵¹ Among 473 female palace slaves listed in amevâcib register from the period ofMahmud II, almost 20 percent (92) received 20akçe or more, but the rest received no more than 15akçe.Footnote¹⁵² Additionally, some members of the harem received a share of the customs.Footnote¹⁵³

Residents of the imperial harem were assigned food, listed in the records asme’kulât.Footnote¹⁵⁴ The great majority of female slaves are listed together under a general category.Footnote¹⁵⁵ 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, calledmelbûsât.Footnote¹⁵⁶ Writing in 1534, Benedetto Ramberti noted that“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.”Footnote¹⁵⁷ Other objects that the harem members needed were also provided.Footnote¹⁵⁸

Apart from salaries, clothing, food, and other necessities, harem residents received extra payments and gifts calledin‘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.Footnote¹⁵⁹ These gifts included goods of various kind and quality.Footnote¹⁶⁰ Habibe Kadın bint Abdullah, who was the consort ofMahmud 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 severalkalfas, and others.Footnote¹⁶¹

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 theOld 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: thetrousseau 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 12,080kuruş, 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.Footnote¹⁶²

Harem residents received gratuities calledıydiye bahşişi on religious holidays.Footnote¹⁶³ D’Ohsson noted that in two bairams, harem residents were given gratuities.Footnote¹⁶⁴ They also receivedmuharremiye, which was pocket money given out at greeting ceremonies held at the beginning of the month ofMuharrem.Footnote¹⁶⁵ Harem residents were also granted favors before imperial departures (hareket-i hümâyun). For instance, whenAhmed III moved from his waterside residence inEyüb to Istanbul, he bestowed gratuities upon the harem residents.Footnote¹⁶⁶

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.Footnote¹⁶⁷ When Emine Sultan, a daughter ofMustafa II, marriedÇorlulu 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 toEmine Sultan’s palace.Footnote¹⁶⁸ Likewise, as reflected in the registers ofvelâdet-i hümâyun (imperial birth ceremonies), members of the imperial harem were presented with gifts following the birth of members of the dynasty.Footnote¹⁶⁹

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 theEnderun, female slaves received education in accordance with their capacities and position.Footnote¹⁷⁰ Some harem residents received education in Islamic sciences, reading, calligraphy, sewing, and embroidery, as well as several branches of art such as literature, poetry,Footnote¹⁷¹ dance and music,Footnote¹⁷² shadow puppetry, and other theatrical skills.Footnote¹⁷³ In addition, some female slaves had training in medical fields.Footnote¹⁷⁴ Bobovi, who was a page in theseventeenth century, stated that the primary aim of education in the harem was to teach Ottoman court culture and loyalty to the imperial household.Footnote¹⁷⁵

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).

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 theirneighborhood, and to represent court culture outside of the palace. The women were married primarily to members of theaskeri 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).Footnote¹⁷⁶ This approach seems to have been informed by Islamic theory.Footnote¹⁷⁷

There is no doubt that apart from the patronage relations, an emotional bond was formed among the members of the imperial court.Halberdiers of theOld Palace called each otherocakdaş, referring to their affiliation to the same institution.Footnote¹⁷⁸ 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 kardeşliği) 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.Footnote¹⁷⁹ 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.Footnote¹⁸⁰

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.Footnote¹⁸¹

In sum, a reconstruction of the harem hierarchy and an examination of the network of relationships that developed in the harem are criticalfor 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 thenext 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. Thenext chapter examines the process of transfer from the palace and the relationship with the imperial court following these former slaves’ transfer from the palace.

¹ 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 herwaqfiyye, Şuhi 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).

² For instance, when the enthronement ceremony ofMehmed 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 İmparatorluğu Klâsik Çağ (1300–1600), trans. R. Sezer (Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2003), 92. During the period ofAhmed III, SilahdarÇorlulu Ali Pasha made extensive re-arrangements within the Enderun (Tayyar-Zâde Atâ,Osmanlı Saray Tarihi, I, 260–265).

³ The sources used in this section to examine the imperial harem institution of the eighteenth century include the following: for the period ofMustafa II (TSMA D 676); for the period ofAhmed III (TSMA D 7908 (1115/1703); for the period ofMahmud I (TSMA D 8075); for the period of Mustafa III (TSMA E 53/2; Kamil Kepeci (KK) 7247, KK 7248; and D.BŞM 830); for the period ofSelim III (TSMA D 2999); for the period ofMahmud II (Istanbul Metropolitan MunicipalityAtaturk Library, Muallim Cevdet B4,II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri; TSMA D 9962).

⁴ Thesemevâcib 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.

⁵ 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 ofMehmed 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 Mutfağı [Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2004, 44–45]).

⁶ Costantino Garzoni, “Relazione del impero ottomano [1573],” inRelazioni degli ambasciatori veneti al senato, ed. Eugenio Albèri, series III, vol. I (Florence, 1840), 395.

⁷ For the account of Domenico Hierosolimitano,see Domenico’s Istanbul, 23.

⁸ 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,” inRaccolta 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 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, inA Collection of Voyages and Travels, eds. A. Churchill and J. Churchill [London, Printed by H. C. for Awnsham and J. Churchill,1704], IV, 70).

⁹ TSMA D 8075.

¹⁰ TSMA D 2999.

¹¹ Muallim Cevdet B4,II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri.

¹² 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, andAbdulhamid 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).

¹³ Melling, “Intérieur d’une Partie du Harem du Grand-Seigneur”; there is no pagination.

¹⁴ 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.

¹⁵ For the functioning of the Enderun institution, see Uzunçarşılı,Saray Teşkilâtı 297–357; İnalcık,The Classical Age, 76–84.

¹⁶ For a detailed biography of avalide sultan who was the mother of two sultans, see Argıt,Rabia Gülnuş Emetullah Sultan.

¹⁷ Uzunçarşılı, Saray Teşkilâtı, 146.

¹⁸ MAD. d 5065; BOA, Cevdet Saray (C. SM) 1762 (1109/1697); (D. MSF 1-19) (1106/1695).

¹⁹ For the estate register of Mustafa II’sikbal named Şâhin Fatma, see TSMA D 9988; Mahmud I had fourikbals (TSMD D 8075). For information about theikbals of Mustafa III, see KK 7247, KK 7248.

²⁰ TSMA D 8075.

²¹ TSMA D 7908.

²² Muallim Cevdet B4,II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri.

²³ TSMA D 8075.

²⁴ TSMA D 8075; Muallim Cevdet B4,II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri.

²⁵ Wet nurses were also highly influential in theNear 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 Calderini,Women and the Fatimids in the World of Islam (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007), 82.

²⁶ TSMA D 7908 (1115/1703).

²⁷ Muallim Cevdet B4,II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri.

²⁸ BOA, Bab-ı Defteri Başmuhasebe Kalemi (D.BŞM) 10523.

²⁹ 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.

³⁰ For instance,Canfeda Hatun, who was a chief administrative official in the harem during the reign ofMurad III, had great influence. See Pedani, “Safiye’s Household,” 23–25.

³¹ Chief administrative officers played important roles in theNear 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.

³² Nazire Karaçay Türkal, “Silahdar Fındıklılı Mehmed Ağa Zeyl-i Fezleke (1065-22 Ca–1106/1654-7 Şubat 1695)” (Ph.D. diss., Marmara University, 2012), 910–911.

³³ Pınar Saka,Risale-i Teberdariye fi Ahval-i Darüssaade, Derviş Abdullah, Darüssade Ağalarının Durumu Hakkında Baltacı’nın Raporu (Istanbul: İnkılâp, 2011), 139.

³⁴ 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.

³⁵ 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).

³⁶ For the account of Domenico Hierosolimitano,see Domenico’s Istanbul, 32; Matteo Zane, “Relazione [1594], inRelazioni 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.

³⁷ D’Ohsson,Tableau, VII, 69. This information was also noted by Hammer (Hammer,histoire de l’Empire Ottoman, XVII, 70–71).

³⁸ D’Ohsson,Tableau, VII, 69. Sieur de la Croix also noted in the seventeenth century thatkahya 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).

³⁹ BOA, Bab-ı Defteri Başmuhasebe Kalemi Defterleri (D.BŞM.d) 1210 (1124/1712).

⁴⁰ TSMA D 2999.

⁴¹ Muallim Cevdet B4,II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri. Besides, inmevâcib registers, a category named “mahlûl kethüda kadın” appears. In the period of Selim III, the allocated amount for this category was 667akçe (TSMA D 2999); in the period of Mahmud II, it was 867akçe (Muallim Cevdet B4,II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri).

⁴² D’Ohsson,Tableau, VII, 73.

⁴³ TSMA D 7908 (1115/1703).

⁴⁴ Şuhi 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).

⁴⁵ TSMA D 8075; Muallim Cevdet B4,II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri.

⁴⁶ D.BŞM.d 381 (1091–1096/1680–1685); D.BŞM.d 828 (period ofMustafa II); D.BŞM 3 85 (period ofAhmed III); KK 7248 (1176/1763); KK 7252 (period ofAbdulhamid I). According to ame’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.BŞM. MTE 2-45).

⁴⁷ D’ohsson,Tableau, VII, 66–67; Hammer,Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman, XVII, 70–71; Uzunçarşılı,Saray Teşkilâtı, 148.

⁴⁸ D’Ohsson,Tableau, VII, 68. Hammer,Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman, XVII, 70–71; F. Davis,The Ottoman Lady, 6.

⁴⁹ 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 Sözlüğü, III, 127–128). In themevâcib register from the period ofMahmud II, however, the mistress of the palace appeared separately fromthe chief administrative officer and the head treasurer (Muallim Cevdet B4,II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri).

⁵⁰Cameşuy usta supervised the entourage who was in charge of laundry service, and her assistant was called secondcameşuy.

⁵¹Kutucu 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 Sözlüğü, II, 333; Uluçay,Harem II, 136).

⁵²Külhancı usta supervised the women who heated and cleaned the baths in the imperial harem.

⁵³ D’Ohsson,Tableau, VII, 69–70.

⁵⁴ In the period of Mahmud I, the second treasurer received 50akçe, while the other three treasurers received 30akçe each (TSMA D 8075). In the period of Mahmud II, the head treasurer received 120akçe daily and the second treasurer received 80akçe (Muallim Cevdet B4,II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri). The difference witnessed in this period must be due to inflation.

⁵⁵ TSMA D 8075.

⁵⁶ Muallim Cevdet B4,II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri.

⁵⁷ TSMA D 8075.

⁵⁸ KK 7250 (1188/1774); KK 7252.

⁵⁹ 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 100akçe daily; thekâtibe usta (head scribe) and theberber usta received 80akçe; theçaşnigir usta (mistress of the table service), theibrikdar usta (mistress of the ewer service), and thekahveci usta (mistress of the coffee service) received 50akçe; theikinci kâtibe (second scribe) received 60akçe; theikinci cameşuy got 35akçe; theikinci kahveci and theikinci çaşnigir received 30akçe each (TSMA D 8075).

⁶⁰ Thecameşuy usta, kahveci usta, kilerci usta, çaşnigir usta, berber usta, andibrikdar usta each received 120akçe daily; thekâtibe usta received 80akçe, as in the period of Mahmud I; theikinci kâtibe got 40akçe; theikinci cameşuy andikinci çaşnigir each received 35akçe; theikinci kahveci andikinci ṣābūncu received 30akçe (Muallim Cevdet B4,II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri).

⁶¹ According to Pakalın, seniors of the palacekalfas were named asusta (Pakalın,Osmanlı Tarih Terimleri ve Deyimleri Sözlüğü, II, 554). On the other hand, D’Ohsson writes that “theustas otherwise known askalfas” (D’Ohsson,Tableau, VII, 68).

⁶² For the periods of Mahmud I andMahmud II, see TSMA D 8075 and Muallim Cevdet B4,II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri.

⁶³ TSMA D 8075.

⁶⁴ D’Ohsson,Tableau, VII, 68. Hammer,Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman, XVII, 70–71.

⁶⁵ D’Ohsson,Tableau, VII, 68–69.

⁶⁶ Those assigned to serve in the boiler room (külhan) were called “neferât-ı külhancıyân-ıHarem- 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).

⁶⁷ TSMA D 8075, Muallim Cevdet B4,II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri.

⁶⁸ D’ohsson,Tableau, VII, 54.

⁶⁹ TSMA D 8075; Muallim Cevdet B4,II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri.

⁷⁰ OnMustafa I, see Hasan Bey-Zâde Ahmed Paşa,Hasan Bey-Zâde Tarihi, ed. Nezihi Aykut (Ankara: TTK, 2004), III, 979. Likewise, when SultanIbrahim was dethroned, female slaves were assigned to his service (Mustafa Öksüz, “Şem’dânîzâde Fındıklılı Süleyman Efendi’nin Müri’t-Tevârîh Adlı Eserinin (180B-345A) Tahlil ve Tenkidi Metni,” M.A.Thesis, Mimar Sinan University, 2009, 150).

⁷¹Hubbi Hatun was a companion (musâhibe) of Selim II and was both a tutor (hoca) of princes and a poet (Öksüz, “Şem’dânîzâde,” 61). Raziye Hatun was a famous companion during the reign ofMurad III, whileŞekerpare Hatun and Hubyar Agha were companions in the period of SultanIbrahim (Na‘îmâ,Tarih-i Na‘îmâ, ed. M. İpşirli [Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2007]).

⁷² Selânikî mentions that the “bulas of the harem” received gifts during the wedding ceremony ofFatma 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 Şekerpâre Bula and Meleki Bola (should be “bula”) (Evliya Çelebi,Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnamesi: Topkapı Sarayı Kütüphanesi Bağdat 304 Numaralı Yazmanın Transkripsiyonu-Dizini, 2. Kitap, ed. Zekeriya Kurşun, Seyit Ali Kahraman, Yücel Dağlı. 2nd edition [İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2006], 248). In the seventeenth century, Sieur de la Croix stated the names of officers of valide sultan asboulla (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).

⁷³ For example, from the beginning of the eighteenth century, the prestige of thesword 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).

⁷⁴ 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'Historiauniversale 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,” inRaccolta, 15; Carari, A Voyage Round the World, IV, 70.

⁷⁵ İpşirli Argıt, “A Queen Mother and the Ottoman Imperial Harem: Rabia Gülnuş Emetullah Valide Sultan (1640–1715),” 208.

⁷⁶ Paul Rycaut,The History of Turks Beginning with the Year 1679 (London: Robert Clavell, 1700), 550–551.

⁷⁷Hasan Paşa, who was governor of Çıldır, sent female slaves (esircariye) to the sultan, to the grand vizier, and to the sheyhulislam in the second half of the eighteenth century (TSMA D 6561).

⁷⁸ 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).

⁷⁹ OnMustafa I, see Hasan Yaşaroğlu,“Osmanlı’da Bir Darbe ve Tahlili: Genç Osman Örneği,” 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.

⁸⁰ C. SM 119/6997 (1155/1742).

⁸¹ 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).

⁸² Şem’dânî-zâde Fındıklılı Süleyman Efendi,Şem’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 ofAhmed I and noted thatbeğlerbeğs (the General Governor of the entire province) andsancak beğs (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 full-grown 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,” inVoyage Pittoresque de Constantinople et des rives du Bosphore [Paris: Treuttel et Würtz, 1819; there is 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,” inRaccolta, 15; Sagredo,histoire VII, 30.

⁸³ Aubry de la Motraye,Aubry de La Motraye’s Travels, I, 247.

⁸⁴ 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).

⁸⁵ Na‘îmâ,Tarih, III, 1111 (1058/1648); Öksüz, “Şem’dânîzâde,” 144.

⁸⁶ Salih Zorlutuna, “XVII. Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında Edirne’nin Sahne Olduğu Şâhâne Sünnet ve Evlenme Düğünleri,” inEdirne, Edirne’nin 600. Fetih Yıldönümü Armağan Kitabı (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1965), 287.

⁸⁷Anonim Osmanlı Tarihi (1099–1116/1688–1704), ed. Abdülkadir Özcan (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2000), 225.

⁸⁸ Zorlutuna, “XVII. Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında,” 287.

⁸⁹ Selânikî,Târih-i Selânikî II, 685.

⁹⁰ C. SM 5513 (1207/1792).

⁹¹ TSMA E 126-65. For several examples in this issue, see TSMA D 8193-1; TSMA E 126-14; TSMA E 126-90.

⁹² 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 thechief 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 320kuruş (TSMA E 88/179). Two female slaves were bought byağa babası in 1712 (TSMA E 153-2). Eight female slaves ofGeorgian 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 ofAbdulhamid I, three Georgian slaves were bought for the palace for whom the treasury of the holy cities (haremeyn hazînesi) paid 49,000kuruş (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 9,400kuruş (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]). 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).

⁹³ Subhi Mehmed Efendi,Subhî Tarihi, Sâmi ve Şâkir Tarihleri ile Birlikte (1730–1744), ed. M. Aydıner (Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2007), 62.

⁹⁴Şem’dânî-zade Fındıklılı Süleyman Efendi Târihi,Mür’i’t-Tevârih, I, 16–17.

⁹⁵ Nicolay,Les navigations, 99.

⁹⁶ Aubry de la Motraye,Aubry de La Motraye’s Travels, I, 247.

⁹⁷ Dallaway,Constantinople, 28. D’Ohsson also states that most of the girls were acquired for money (D’Ohsson,Tableau, VII, 63–64).

⁹⁸ 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 forFatma Sultan, daughter ofMahmud II (C. SM 29/1486 [1224/1809]).

⁹⁹Şem’dânî-zade Fındıklılı Süleyman Efendi Târihi,Mür’i’t-Tevârih, III, 41.

¹⁰⁰ Günnaz Özmutlu, “Harem Cariyelerinin Musiki ve Seyirlik Oyunlardaki Eğitimleri (1677–1687),”Belleten LXXVIII, 283 [2014]: 1038. The price of the female slave who was bought for the sultan in the same period was 750kuruş (Bab-ı Defteri Başmuhasebe Hazînedarbaşılığı [D.BŞM. HZB] 2-6 [1060/1650]).

¹⁰¹ C. SM 80/4027 (1123/1711); TSMA E 88-179 (1112/1700); TSMA E 153-2 (1124/1712).

¹⁰² İE. HAT 5-477 (1200/1786).

¹⁰³ 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 6,950kuruş (C. SM 177/8884 [1188/1774]).

¹⁰⁴ Melling,“Intérieur d’une Partie du Harem du Grand-Seigneur,” there is no pagination.

¹⁰⁵ 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 1,000kuruş (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 Değişim (1785–1875 İstanbul Örneği),” Ph.D diss., Sakarya University, 2011. In these studies, female slave prices appear between 20,000 and 150,000akçe (167–1,250kuruş).

¹⁰⁶ Gelibolulu Mustafa Âli Efendi,Mevaidü’n-Nefais fi Kavaidi’l-Mecalis, ed. Mehmet Şeker (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1997), 283–284, 341–342.

¹⁰⁷ Angiolello,Historia Turchesca, 128.

¹⁰⁸ Postel,De la republique, 34; Nicolay,Les navigations, 99; Lubenau,Reinhold Lubenau Seyahatnamesi, I, 207.

¹⁰⁹ D’Ohsson,Tableau, VII, 69.

¹¹⁰ 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 theCaucasus” (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).

¹¹¹ 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).

¹¹² BOA, Bab-ı Defteri Başmuhasebe Muhallefat Halifeliği (D.BŞM.MHF) 58-56 (1775).

¹¹³ 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 ofCairo were diligent in finding the most ill favoured, coal-black, blabber-lipped, and flat nosed girls to send them as presents to the sultan.”

¹¹⁴ For the estate inventories ofZenciye Saide andZenciye Halime, see D.BŞM. MHF 59-49, D.BŞM. MHF 13026.

¹¹⁵ Among the slaves living in Konya from the mid-seventeenth century to the eighteenth century, there wereCircassian, Russian, Polish (Leh), and Abyssinian (Habeş) slaves (İzzet Sak, “Şer’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 inGalata 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,” inFrauen, 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.

¹¹⁶ Guillet de Saint Georges,An Account, 349. According to Uluçay, the Russian-origin 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-originHürrem was taken captive during the raid and entered the imperial court when she was between the ages of fourteen and seventeen. Venetian-originSafiye Sultan was captured by pirates and entered the imperial court between the ages of fourteen and fifteen (Uluçay,Kadınları ve Kızları, 43).

¹¹⁷ D’Ohsson,Tableau, VII, 64.

¹¹⁸ Çetin, “Muhtaç Bir Cariyenin Sultan III. Selim’e Arzuhali,” 37–39.

¹¹⁹Şem’dânî-zade Fındıklılı Süleyman Efendi Târihi,Mür’i’t-Tevârih, II A, 60–61.

¹²⁰ D’Ohsson,Tableau, VII, 64.

¹²¹ 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 ofAhmed I, a girl from Athens was first taken toküçük 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, Levoyage, 77).

¹²² 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 inThe 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.

¹²³ 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,” inRaccolta, 16.

¹²⁴ 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 Günlüğü, trans. Y. Önen (Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı, 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).

¹²⁵ D’Ohsson,Tableau, VII, 64.

¹²⁶ 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 inEgypt in the Middle Ages, see S. D. Goitein, “Slaves and Slavegirls in the Cairo Geniza Records,”Arabica 9 (1962): 8–9.

¹²⁷ Suraiya Faroqhi, “Quis Custodiet Custodes? Controlling Slave Identities and Slave Traders in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Istanbul,” inStories 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).

¹²⁸ In the mid-sixteenth century, inGalata, 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).

¹²⁹ 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.

¹³⁰ In Divan literature, lover is like a hunter, and both Şehbaz and Şâhin 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 Şiiri Sözlüğü, 2 vols. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları, 1989.

¹³¹ Among the examined examples, the fathers of 381 female palace slaves were mentioned. Of these, 371 (97 percent) were listed as “binti Abdullah.”

¹³² Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişliği (Inspectorate of Imperial Foundations), nr. 114, p. 70 (1135/1722).

¹³³ Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişliği, nr. 103, p. 7 (1127/1715).

¹³⁴ Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişliği, nr. 112, pp. 30–31 (1128/1715–1716).

¹³⁵ 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).

¹³⁶ Muallim Cevdet B4,II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri.

¹³⁷ Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişliği, nr. 103, p. 139 (1128/1715).

¹³⁸ Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişliği, nr. 101, p. 81 (1126/1714).

¹³⁹ TSMA E 126-59; TSMA E 126-73; TSMA D 8254-3; Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişliği, nr. 117, p. 172.

¹⁴⁰ Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişliği, nr. 120, p. 64 (1143/1730).

¹⁴¹ On the other hand, in a seventeenth-century example,Sarayî Ayşe Hatun binti Abdullah had a sister namedSarayî Andelib Hatun (Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişliği, nr. 65, pp. 83–85 (1092/1681).

¹⁴² Uluçay,Kadınları ve Kızları, 167.

¹⁴³ TSMA D 8079(1281/1864), quoted in UluçayHarem II, 14.

¹⁴⁴ Pedani, “Safiye’s Household,” 24.

¹⁴⁵ 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 ofCircassian female slaves coming from theCaucasus 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).

¹⁴⁶ Saka,Risale-i Teberdariye, 202.

¹⁴⁷ 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.

¹⁴⁸ For information about Mughal stipends for harem residents, see Ruby Lal,Domesticity, 178.

¹⁴⁹ Ottaviano Bon (d. 1622) stated that female palace slaves were paid from the sultan’s treasury according to their rank. Some received 15 or 20akçe a day, while others received 4 or 5akçe. They were paid every three months. Haseki Sultan received 1,000 or 500akçe daily (Ottaviano Bon-Robert Withers,A description of the grand signour’s seraglio, 49). According to D’Ohsson, eachgedikli andikbal received 200 piastres for three months,usta got 200,şakird received 50, andcariye received 35 (D’Ohsson,Tableau, VII, 73).

¹⁵⁰ TSMA D 2999; Muallim Cevdet B4,II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri.

¹⁵¹ TSMA D 8075.

¹⁵² Muallim Cevdet B4,II. Mahmud Mevâcib Defteri. For several similar examples in theEnderun from the period ofMustafa III, see Tahir Güngör, “Enderun Saray Mektebi’nde Has Oda Teşkilatı,” M.A. Thesis, Marmara University, 2007, 59.

¹⁵³ BOA, Cevdet Maliye (C. ML) 132/5704 (1195/1781); HAT 1467/44) (1212/1797); HAT 1483/26 (1217/1802).

¹⁵⁴ For several examples from the eighteenth century, see D.MSF 4-32; D.MSF 1-19; 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.BŞM. d 41561, p. 15 (1206–1213/ 1791–1799); D.BŞM 828 (1107/1696); D. BŞM 830; BOA, Bab-ı Defteri Başmuhasebe Matbah-ı Âmire Emini defterleri (D.BŞM. MTE d.) 2-45; KK 7129; KK 7242, KK 7248 (1176/1763); KK 7252 (period ofAbdulhamid I); KK 7254 (period ofSelim 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).

¹⁵⁵ In the documents, the food assignment to this large group of female slaves was stated as “sofra-yı horendegân-ıharem-i hümâyun-ı ismet makrun der matbah-ı has,” “tayinat-ı horendegân-ı harem-i hümâyun,” and “tayinat-ı harem-i hümâyun.”

¹⁵⁶ Archival records provide rich information about clothes and fabrics assigned to members of the imperial court in every period: D.BŞM.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.

¹⁵⁷ 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.

¹⁵⁸ Goods were bought for the chambers of sultan’s mother, consort (haseki), chief administrative officer (kethüda kadın), aghas, and servants (horendegân) inEdirne Palace (D.BŞM.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).

¹⁵⁹ A record from the period ofMustafa II, for example, reveals that the head consort received 150kuruş, while thekethüda kadın anddaye kadın were assigned 60kuruş; thehazînedar usta, saray usta,cameşuy usta,berber usta, leğen ibrikçi usta,çaşnigir usta, andkilerci usta received 40kuruş each (TSMA D 2350-0005 [1695]).

¹⁶⁰ On the items given to members of the imperial harem andEnderun, see MAD 15867 (1677–1683); TSMA D 1219-0002 (1085/1674); TSMA D 2354/0003; TSMA d 980/0001; TSMA d 2354/0006.

¹⁶¹ TSMA E 3055-6.

¹⁶² Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişliği, nr. 193, p. 13a (1188/1775).

¹⁶³ MAD d 3338.

¹⁶⁴ D’Ohsson,Tableau, VII, 73.

¹⁶⁵ BOA, HAT (Hatt-ı Hümâyun) d 27067; HAT 32810. At the beginning of the month of Ramadan, when the Nativity poem of ProphetMuhammed was chanted, members of theEnderun were given benevolence in the name of “mevlûdiyye”; Güngör, “Enderun Saray Mektebi’nde Has Oda Teşkilatı,” 56. In the seventeenth century, Koçi Bey notes thatmevlûdiyye ormevlûd bahşişi was given to members of the Enderun following amevlid; 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.

¹⁶⁶ TSMA D 2369/0001 (1138/1726).

¹⁶⁷ 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 Düğünü Üzerine Bir Belge,” inOsmanlı 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 Düğünleri Üzerine Bir Belge,”Osmanlı Edebiyat-Tarih-Kültür Makaleler, 565; TSMA D 10591, quoted in Mehmet Arslan, “II. Mustafa’nın kızı Safiye Sultan’ın Düğünü Üzerine Bir Belge,” inOsmanlı Edebiyat-Tarih-Kültür Makaleler, ed. Mehmet Arslan [Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2000], 573–574).

¹⁶⁸ TSMK, Hazine no: 1573/2, quoted in Mehmet Arslan, “II. Mustafa’nın kızları Ayşe Sultan ve Emine Sultan’ın Düğünleri,” 565.

¹⁶⁹ TSMA D 974; D.BŞM.d 1210 (1712).

¹⁷⁰ Angiolello offered information about the education given to male members inMehmed II's palace (Angiolello,Historia Turchesca, 126). Bobovius described the training in the Enderun (Fisher and Fisher, “Topkapı Sarayı in the mid-seventeenth century: Bobovi’s description,” 77–79; Barnette Miller,The Palace School of Muhammed the Conqueror [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1941], 82; Necipoğlu,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.

¹⁷¹ This issue will be mentioned inChapter 5.

¹⁷² 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 Eğitimleri (1677–1687),” 1033–1074.

¹⁷³ Usturacı Mehmed Çelebi provided puppet training to female palace slaves (hassacariyes) 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).

¹⁷⁴ 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 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).

¹⁷⁵ Ali Ufkî Bey/Albertus Bobovius,Saray-ı Enderun Topkapı Sarayı’nda Yaşam, trans. Türkis Noyan, 76–77.

¹⁷⁶ Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişliği, nr. 120, pp. 111, 116 (1143/1731).

¹⁷⁷ Master is recommended to train his/her female slave in a proper way (Brunschvig, “Abd,”EI², I, 25).

¹⁷⁸ Saka,Risale-i Teberdariye, 196.

¹⁷⁹ Evkâf-ı Hümâyun Müfettişliği, nr. 193, p. 51a (1188/1774).

¹⁸⁰ C. SM 6268 (1212/1797); C. SM 3317 (1227/1812).

¹⁸¹ Shirley,The history of the state of the present war, 301.