The Sultans Sons in Law Analysing Ottoma

Journal of the Economic and
Social History of the Orient 58 (2015) 327-361

brill.com/jesh
The Sultan’s Sons-in-Law: Analysing Ottoman

Imperial Damads
Olivier Bouquet
Université Paris Diderot-Paris 7
olivier.bouquet@gmail.com
Abstract
Studies of imperial courts tend to focus on the ruler and the direct line of succession,
which was crucial for the survival of the dynasty. Where succession was patrilineal,
princes therefore generally received more attention than their sisters. A group that is
invariably overlooked altogether consists of the husbands of these princesses, despite
the fact that they too were part of the extended imperial household. The Ottoman
Empire was no exception. This article attempts to redress that imbalance by examining
various aspects of the Ottoman son-in-law, including recruitment, social status, reputa-
tions, careers, and reception history.
Keywords
household – marriage – gender – affinity – Ottoman Empire
Introduction
In the Ottoman imperial order, dynastic ideology focused on the agnatic and
patrilineal continuity of the House of Osman, and the sultans do not seem to
have been concerned with delimiting the imperial household (Turk. hanedan).
* I am indebted to Jun Akiba and Hamit Bozarslan, who drew my attention, respectively,
to comparisons with the Japanese imperial system and the Iraqi state apparatus; Juliette
Dumas, for her interest in the imperial household; Marc Aymes and Ilias Petalas who com-
mented on and corrected the first version of this paper; Maurits van den Boogert, who helped
me reshape the last draft; and Hatice Aynur, for bibliographical references.
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��5 | doi 10.1163/15685209-12341377

328 Bouquet
The absolute priority given to safeguarding the dynasty, in the literal sense
of “those who hold power,”1 meant that princesses should not marry within
the family.2 In some ways, Ottoman politics appear to have been modelled
on the Mamluk system, to the extent that the reproduction of the household
was achieved through matrimonial alliances with men from outside.3 These
men were, however, also imperial insiders, in the sense that most of them
worked within the state apparatus,4 which was itself a product of the sultan’s
household. In this context, the sons-in-law of the sultan (damads) embodied
a particular form of affinity.5 They were not recognized as full members of the
household but were officially tied to it (hanedana intisap). They were provided
with a distinct status in the dynastic protocol and sometimes played such a
decisive role in the central state that they became more important to the sul-
tan than any of his sons, with the occasional exception of the crown prince.
At the same time, imperial male in-laws were also affected by the general
gender hierarchies that were common throughout the Middle East and the
Balkans. As Colin Imber has bluntly stated, “a person’s position in life derives
from the status of the father and not the status of the mother.”6 The ultimate
logic of the Hanafi jurists was to create a patriarchal household—in other
words, to subordinate the wife to the husband. This explains why marriage
contracts are supposed to adhere to the principle of equality (kafâʾa, literally
“dignity”),7 “meaning that unless her guardian consents to it, a woman may
1 P. Bonte, É. Conte, and P. Dresch, “Introduction.” In Émirs et présidents. Figures de la

parenté et du politique dans le monde arabe, ed. P. Bonte, É. Conte, and P. Dresch (Paris: CNRS,
2001): 34.
2 See N. Vatin and G. Veinstein, Le Sérail ébranlé. Essais sur les morts, dépositions et avènements
des sultans ottomans (XIVe-XIXe siècle) (Paris: Fayard, 2003).
3 L. Blili depicts “une société par côté matrilinéaire, où ce qui importe, c’est la reproduc-
tion des filles, par des hommes étrangers aux pays, réactivant à chaque alliance la règle de
l’extranéité.” L. Blili, Parenté et pouvoir dans la Tunisie houssaynîte, 1705-1956 (Unpublished
PhD diss. Université de Tunis, 2005): 439.
4 A. Akgündüz, İslâm hukukunda ve Osmanlı tatbikatında vakıf müessesesi (Istanbul: Osav,
1996): 324.
5 M. Godelier, Métamorphoses de la parenté (Paris: Fayard, 2004): 591.
6 C. Imber, “Women, Marriage and Property: Mahr in the Behcetü’l-Fetâvâ of Yenişehirli
Abdullah.” In Women in the Ottoman Empire, ed. M. Zilfi (Leiden: Brill, 1997): 83.
7 Kufʾ: “du point de vue du mariage, le partenaire digne, de statut social comparable,” É. Conte,
“Entrer dans le sang. Perceptions arabes des origines.” In Al-ansâb. La quête des origines.
Anthropologie historique de la société tribale arabe, ed. P. Bonte et al. (Paris: Editions de la
Maison des sciences de l’homme, 1991): 62; “une femme ne peut épouser un homme indigne
d’elle [. . . la kafâʾa] implique aussi que les conjoints soient d’un même statut: une femme
libre ne peut pas épouser un esclave, une Musulmane, un non Musulman. Il est mal vu
qu’une blanche épouse un noir,” L. Blili, Parenté et pouvoir: 191-192.
jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

The Sultan ’ s Sons-in-Law 329
not marry a man whose status is inferior to hers,” although a man may marry
a woman of inferior status.8 Édouard Conte insightfully explains the degree to
which this obligation is directly related to a particular sense of honour, which
is encompassed in the nature of kinship:
La différence entre les sexes à l’égard du mariage hypogamique reflète

le fait que l’homme est posé comme l’unique garant d’un honneur (ʿird)
dont hommes et femmes sont complémentairement dépositaires mais
que celles-ci, par “nature,” sont toujours susceptibles de convertir en
honte (ʿâr).9
Therefore, when Sultan Bayezid II (r. 1481-1512) introduced the innovation of

marrying off princesses to slaves, his counterparts in other Muslim areas were
astonished. For example, the Mamluk sultan once asked Hersekzâde Ahmed
Pasha (d. 1517) why the Ottoman ruler had let a slave like him marry the sultan’s
own daughter, Hundi Hatun, in 1484. Hersekzâde Ahmed Pasha reportedly did
not put forward that he was a descendant of the dukes of Herzegovina but only
that, as a slave, he had been rewarded through imperial marriage for his loyalty
and good service. Relating the event, the chronicler Aşıkpaşazâde confessed
how condemnable he considered this new practice.10
No matter what other rulers said and the chroniclers thought, the principle
of statutory parity between spouses was by nature impossible to achieve for
the sultan’s relatives.11 The hanedan was hypogamically structured, because
the dynasty was in a constant need for reproducing itself and marrying off its
female descendants while at the same time reducing the risk that any kind
of collateral nobility might be created that might attain political ambitions
of its own. The imperial family possessed a unique and unrivalled prestige
that no previous noble household, Muslim or otherwise, was allowed to claim.
The Ottomans conceived of damadlık as a form of elective kinship as well as a
8 Imber, “Women”: 87. For a general context, see Bonte, Conte, and Dresch, “Introduction”:
23. For examples of similar problems in the Dutch East Indies, see Engseng Ho, “Le don
précieux de la généalogie.” In Émirs et présidents: 81-87.
9 Conte, “Entrer dans le sang”: 63-64.
10 G. Veinstein, “Les esclaves de la Porte dans l’Empire ottoman.” Cours du Collège de France,
Paris, 6 January 2009.
11 L. Pierce has observed that fourteenth-century Ottoman royal marriages were contracted
primarily with Christian women; she has argued that the principle of kafâʾa might have
provoked the unwillingness on the part of more established Muslim powers to give their
daughters in alliance to “the fledgling Ottoman principalities” in its early decades. See
L. Peirce, The Imperial Harem. Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1993): 29.
jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

330 Bouquet
mariage proche (to borrow Bonte’s phrase).12 Interestingly, the production of

such an unbalanced gender relationship, instead of creating a matriarchal
household as observed in other contexts,13 resulted in the obliteration of the
origins of the assimilated stranger (i.e., the son-in-law); suffice it say that any
male child born to an imperial princess and her husband was officially desig-
nated as sultan-zâde (son of a sultana), the wife’s status eclipsing that of her
husband.
This article focuses on several aspects of the lives and careers of those men
who married into the Ottoman imperial household and of their relationships
with the House of Osman. For this purpose, I will examine the meanings of the
word damad; the recruitment of imperial sons-in-law in the Ottoman Empire;
their legal and social status after the wedding; and their careers. I will sum-
marize how the sultans’ sons-in-laws have been received in the literature. I will
argue that damadlık raises questions about the restrictions implemented over
nobility in the empire. The integration of the damad into the hanedan sheds
light on both the inferiority of his marital status and his dependence on the
sultan. These two dimensions are interrelated. Although the damad status typ-
ically fitted what has generally been labelled pièces rapportées, the household
it was embedded in corresponded less to a royal family than to a permanently
evolving by-product of the sultan’s body politic.14
1 Reception: The Two-faced Legend of Imperial Damads
Some princesses of the final Ottoman period became famous for the life stories
they published in the first Republican decades: Şadiye and Ayşe Osmanoğlu
are notable examples.15 Many books, although often of low quality, have been
published about female members of the imperial household.16 As a result, his-
torians today have at their disposal substantial materials that allow them to
12 P. Bonte and É. Conte, “La tribu arabe. Approches anthropologiques et orientalistes.” In
Bonte, Al-ansâb. La quête des origines: 32.
13 On “family matriarch” systems in the Ottoman world, see J. Hathaway, The Politics of
Household in Ottoman Egypt. The Rise of the Qazaqlis (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1997): 113-116.
14 A.D. Alderson, The Structure of the Ottoman Dynasty (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1956): 97.
15 For examples of sultanas addressed by historians, see A. Akyıldız, Mümin ve müşrif bir
Padişah Kızı. Refia Sultan (Istanbul: Türk Tarih Vakfı, 1998); H. Özdemir, Adile Sultan
Divanı (Ankara: Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Yayınları, 1996).
16 See, e.g., S. Eraslan, Osmanlı sarayında kadın sultanlar (Istanbul: Selis, 2007).
jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

analyse the extent to which the lives of the daughters, sisters, and nieces of
the sultans coincided with the interests of the Ottoman dynasty as a whole.
Moreover, in recent years, the study of the women of the dynasty has benefited
greatly from the rise of gender studies.17 This is relevant here, because the dam-
ads will need to be understood in their imperial female environment.
The literature has so far paid little attention to damads. This is due partly
to methodological difficulties; like other members of the imperial family, they
are difficult to identify in the sources.18 Because few of them became outstand-
ing political figures in their own right, they were not noticed by chroniclers
or biographers.19 Paradoxically, despite their seclusion, the voices of women
seem easier to hear than those of the men associated with the harem. This is
illustrated by Jane Hathaway’s book about the eighteenth-century Chief Black
Eunuch Beshir Aga, which offers few details about his personal life and emo-
tional environment.20
Several imperial damads have become famous and are mentioned in the
sources: Hersekzâde Ahmed Pasha (d. 1517), Rüstem Pasha (d. 1561), Sokollu
17 For an introduction to important and representative monographs, edited volumes, and
articles that have appeared in Turkish, English, German and French, see K. Kreiser,
“Women in the Ottoman World: A Bibliographical Essay.” Islam and Christian-Muslim
Relations 13/2 (2002): 197-206. Also see T. Artan, “From Charismatic Leadership to
Collective Rule: Gender Problems of Legalism and Political Legitimization in the
Ottoman Empire.” In Histoire économique et sociale de l’Empire ottoman et de la Turquie
(1326-1960), ed. D. Panzac (Louvain: Peeters, 1995): 569-580; Women in the Ottoman Empire,
ed. M. Zilfi (Leiden: Brill, 1997); N. Micklewright, Gender, Modernity and Liberty: Middle
Eastern and Western Women’s Writings: A Critical Sourcebook (London: I.B. Tauris, 2006);
E. Frierson, “Women in Late Ottoman Intellectual History.” In Late Ottoman Society: The
Intellectual Legacy, ed. E. Özdalga (London and New York: Routledge, 2005): 135-161;
L. Thys-Şenocak, Ottoman Women Builders: The Architectural Patronage of Hadice Turhan
Sultan (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006); M. Zilfi, Women and Slavery in the Late Ottoman
Empire: The Design of Difference (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010); A Social
History of Late Ottoman Women: New Perspectives, ed. D. Köksal and A. Falierou (Leiden:
Brill, 2013).
18 T. Artan, “The Kadırga Palace Shrouded by the Mists of Time.” Turcica 31 (1994): 67.
19 In Evliya Çelebi’s monumental Seyahatname (Book of Travels), we are provided with
several biographical sketches, but the damads seldom appear. In the first volume of the
Orhan Şaik Gökyay’s edition, for instance, only one damad-i padişahi is listed: Kapudan
Pasha Canpoladzâde Mustafa Pasha. Except for the mention of his wife’s name, Hemşire
Fatma Sultan, nothing is said on his damadlık. See Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, ed. Orhan
Şaik Gökyay (Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayinlari, 1996), 1: 106.
20 J. Hathaway, Beshir Agha: Chief Eunuch of the Ottoman Imperial Harem (Oxford: Oneworld,
2005).
jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

332 Bouquet
Mehmed Pasha (d. 1579), Nevşehirli Ibrahim Pasha (d. 1730), and Ferid Pasha
(d. 1923) rank among the dominant political figures in the Ottoman Empire,
but these dignitaries owe their lasting fame more to their position as grand
viziers than to their marriages to Ottoman princesses. In fact, the secondary lit-
erature on the dynasty sheds almost no light on the damads.21 Let us look at the
Diyanet vakfı İslam ansiklopedisi, for example;22 although this encyclopaedia is
full of detailed biographical sketches, it contains only two entries on damads,
the above-mentioned Ibrahim Pasha and Ferid Pasha, both of whom were also
(or primarily) among the most outstanding grand viziers of their time. Today,
the former embodies the Tulip Period (1718-1730), while the latter was one
of the black legends of the final Ottoman decades. Both left buildings that still
carry their names; in Istanbul alone, the memory of Damad Ibrahim Pasha is
associated with several fountains, a külliye (complex of buildings), a school of
traditional learning (darülhadis), a few mansions, and caravansaries.23 In the
last years of the empire, Ferid Pasha’s seashore mansion at Baltalimanı was
renowned.
What sources about imperial sons-in-law do we have? We may well assume
that some damads kept diaries or copy books like those written by some
princes (şehzâde)—e.g., Mehmed Salaheddin Efendi—but, to the best of my
knowledge, no damad ever published his memoirs.24 Fortunately, we find
in the popular literature a wealth of information about their specific status.
A.R. Altınay, for instance, relates a variety of damad stories, depicting memo-
rable disputes with princes over dowries, for instance.25 More recently, the use
21 In H. Karateke’s book on imperial ceremonies, the damads are quoted only three times.
See H. Karateke, Padişahım çok yaşa! Osmanlı devletinin son yüz yılında merasimler
(Istanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2004): 93, 116, 270); in Alderson’s work, the word appears only
six times, see Alderson, The Structure: 144; in the index of N. Vatin and G. Veinstein’s book,
the valide sultans and the şehzâdes are listed, but the damads are not, see their Le sérail
ébranlé. Essai sur les morts, dépositions et avènements des sultans ottomans XIVe-XIXe siècles
(Paris, Fayard: 2003): 498-499, 517.
22 The word is nowhere to be seen in the classic dictionary by M.Z. Pakalın (Osmanlı tarih
deyimleri ve terimleri sözlüğü (Istanbul: Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları, 1993).
23 H. Aynur and G. Kut, “Damat İbrahim Paşa’nın İstanbul’da yaptırdığı çeşmelerin ve sebill-
erin kitabeleri.” Türklük Araştırmaları Dergisi: Amil Çelebioğlu Armağanı 7 (1993): 393-422;
Dünden bugüne İstanbul ansiklopedisi (Istanbul: Kültür Bakanlığı ve Tarih Vakfı, 1994),
2: 545-549.
24 On this unique correspondence, see E. Eldem, “Harem, çokeşlilik ve çağdaşlık: 19. Yüzyılda
Osmanlı hanedani ve kadınları.” Lecture delivered at the French Institute of Anatolian
Studies, 4 January 2010.
25 A.R. Altınay, Kadınlar saltanatı (new ed., Istanbul: Türk Tarih Vakfı, 2005).
jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

of archival materials in the Prime Minister’s Archives in Istanbul has enhanced

our insights into the prosopographical aspects of damads’ careers.26 However,
in these studies, the damads are discussed as bureaucrats or political activists,
not in their relations with the imperial household.
If we bring together the fragments of evidence on damads, we see a clear
distinction between the early modern period and the last centuries of the
Ottoman Empire. The former period provides us with hagiographic portraits
of great damads who were illustrious grand viziers. For instance, Rüstem
Pasha and Ibrahim Pasha are exemplified as “pillars of the sultanate,” effi-
cient and prestigious delegates (vekil) of the sovereign, great statesmen, and
renowned and well-known figures (maruf ve meşhur sima).27 But again, they
have not been studied in their capacity of damad: chroniclers seldom even
mention their age, treating them the same way as favourites of the sultan and
queen mothers.28 As a kind of continuation of these narratives, several mid-
1950s popular journals considered the damads as reflections of the deficient
or declining sultanic system, put dangerously in jeopardy by favouritism and
corruption. Special attention was drawn to several sultans, such as Ibrahim I
(r. 1640-1648), who, earning his nickname “Deli” (crazy), had a reputation for
marrying off three-year-old sultanas to middle-aged viziers:
Sultan Ibrahim wanted to organize an august ceremony that would last

for days and days, but he had neither a son to circumcise nor a girl of the
age to get married. His eldest daughter was barely two and a half years
old. But what could be refused to the padishah of the world? His desire
was immediately executed, and his daughter Fatma Sultan, who had not
yet reached the age of two and a half years, was betrothed to a vizier. And
to whom? To Silahtar Yusuf Pasha, a tall and large figure, who was almost
50 years old and already the father of numerous children.29
26 C. Erdem, Sadrâzam Damat Ferit Paşa (Unpublished PhD diss. University of Marmara,
2002); Figen Satar, Damat Mahmud Celâleddin Paşa’nın hayatı ve siyasî mücadelesi, MAs
thesis (University of Marmara, 2000). Both are well documented.
27 A.B. Kuran, “Damad Mahmud Paşa.” Resimli Tarih Mecmuası 3/31 (1952): 1613-6. As an
example, see Damad Ibrahim Pasha (d. 1601) selected by Ahmed Refik from among 11 great
figures in Osmanlı kumandanları (Istanbul: Timaş, 1996): 115-136.
28 Peirce, The Imperial Harem: 57, 91.
29 A. Giz, “Üç yaşında evlenen sultanlar.” Tarih Dünyası 1 (1950): 105 (my translation from
Turkish).
jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

334 Bouquet
In these journals, a prolonged debate was also held concerning Ibrahim

Pasha, a famous grand vizier of Sultan Suleiman (r. 1520-1566), the question
being whether or not he was an imperial damad of Selim I (r. 1512-1520).30
For more than a century, historians have offered contradictory answers, and
the discussion came to an end only recently, when Ebru Turan convincingly
demonstrated that he was not. Turan argues that Ibrahim married into an
important notable family instead, because Sultan Suleiman thought that an
imperial wedding would have been less profitable in the framework of Ottoman
politics.31 At this time, the dynasty was not strong and legitimate enough to
forge matrimonial alliances with prominent dynasties. Only when none of
them was no longer in a position to challenge the Ottoman hanedan were mar-
riages of princesses used to secure ties with servants and clients.
The “last damads” (son damatlar)32 have been viewed very differently, hav-
ing been described in negative terms as emanations of the sultan’s person, act-
ing in order to safeguard their own petty interests, inexperienced (tecrübesiz),
and characterized by a dissolute morality (pek ahlâksız).33 Associated with the
last pashas, they have been considered the perfect embodiment of a privileged
palace clique consisting of lazy, potbellied prince consorts indolently biding
their time in their wife’s palaces.34
For a critical reassessment of the position of Ottoman damads, it is useful to
reflect on the definitions involved.
30 M.Ş. Çavdaroğlu, “Kanuni’nin makbul Veziri İbrahim Paşa damat değil miyidi?” Resimli
Tarih Mecmuası 4/39 (1953): 2126-8.
31 E. Turan, The Sultan’s Favorite: Ibrahim Pasha and the Making of the Ottoman Universal
Sovereignty in the Reign of Sultan Süleyman (1516-1526) (Unpublished PhD diss., University
of Chicago, 2007); E. Turan, “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
Sixteenth-Century Ottoman Empire.” Turcica 41 (2009): 3-36.
32 N.S. Örik, “Son Damatlar.” Resimli Tarih Mecmuası 3 (1952): 1212-1216.
33 L. Açba, Bir Çerkes prensesinin harem hatıraları (Istanbul: L&M, 2005): 117. This is a char-
acterization of Mehmed Ferid Pasha.
34 See O. Bouquet, Les Pachas du sultan. Essai sur les agents supérieurs de l’État ottoman
(1839-1909) (Louvain: Peeters, 2007): 37-45; L. Simavî, Sultan Mehmed Reşad Hân’ın ve hale-
finin sarayında gördüklerim (Istanbul: Şehir Yayınları, 2007): 224.
jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

2 Damad: Definitions and Uses
Ottoman imperial sons-in-law were designated by the originally Persian word

damad, not its Turkish equivalent güvey, although both words are found in
most dictionaries.35 The Arabic synonym sihr36 was also used by the Ottomans
to designate in-law relationships, especially son-in-law or father-in-law.37 In
the imperial case, its derivative sıhriyet (relationship by marriage) was widely
used in the sense of kin (akraba):38 sıhriyet-i senniye or sıhriyet-i şahane des-
ignated matrimonial relationships organized with the sultan’s household,39
while sıhriyet maaşı referred to allowances allotted to the damad on a regular
basis, once the wedding had been concluded.
In the Ottoman Empire the word damad was used as both a title and a nick-
name (lakab). It had at least three related meanings, a son-in-law or bride-
groom in general, “a man married into a royal family,”40 or “a man who marries
into the Ottoman imperial household.”41 In this third category, two subcate-
gories must be distinguished: those married to daughters of the sultan were
called damad-i padişahi (including variations such as damad-i sultan(î) and
damad-i ali-şan), while those who married the daughters of other members
35 J.W. Redhouse, Redhouse Türkçe-İngilizce sözlük (Istanbul: Sev, 1997): 270, 426;
J.W. Redhouse, A Turkish and English Lexicon (Beirut: Librairie du Liban, 1996): 883-4,
1606; N. Mallouf, Dictionnaire français-turc (3rd ed., Paris: Maisonneuve, 1881): 361; Samy-
Bey Fraschery, Dictionnaire français-turc (Istanbul: Mihran, 1905): 1124; D. Kélékian,
Dictionnaire turc-français (Istanbul: Mihran, 1911): 1063. In present-day Turkish, güvey(i)
has replaced damad, although several modern dictionaries also cite the latter term;
Y. Kocabay, Türkçe-Fransızca büyük sözlük (Ankara: Tisamat, 1998): 223; Ahmet Ç. Ertürk,
Bilge büyük sözlük (Ankara: Kalkan, 2008): 430, 1168.
36 In the law literature and in Qurʾanic exegesis, sıhr refers generally to in-laws, whether a
father-in-law or a son-in-law. In the Tunisian context of the time, sıhr may designate an
ally, a son-in-law, or a brother-in-law; M. Oualdi, Esclaves et maîtres. Les mamelouks des
beys de Tunis du XVIIe siècle aux années 1880 (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2011): 128.
37 The word sihrî also exists, referring to in-law relationships (Redhouse: 1011, Kélékian,
Dictionnaire: 777).
38 Akyıldız, Mümin: 19.
39 Sıhriyet-i senniye mazhar olmak: “to marry a princess of the blood” (Kélékian, Dictionnaire:
777). Also see İ.M.K. İnal, Osmanlı devrinde son sadrazamlar (henceforth SoSa; Ankara:
Maarif Vekaleti, 1940-1953): 2030-31.
40 Redhouse: 270.
41 Hanedandan kız alandır; Damad sıfatı, padişah kızıyla evli olmayan hânedan kadınlarının
kocalarını da içine alırdı; Ö. Nutku, “Damad,” Diyanet vakfı İslam ansiklopedisi 8 (1993):
434-435.
jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

336 Bouquet
of the imperial household, for example the daughters of imperial princes,42

tended to be called damad-i şehriyari (or, in full, damad-i hazret-i şehriyari or
damad-i cenab-i şehriyari).43 The two subcategories are sometimes conflated
into one;44 in English, the translation “imperial son-in-law” seems suitable for
both purposes.45 Alderson maintains that the title damad should, technically,
be applied exclusively to the husbands of princesses who got married during
their father’s reign.46 The sources do not reflect this, however, at least not for the
nineteenth century. Over time, variations in the definition of who constituted
the imperial household (hanedan) probably determined who was considered
a damad. According to the rules of the imperial family established in 1920, for
example, only the daughters of the sultan (the sultanas) were formally consid-
ered members of the hanedan.47 Most examples of damads in this article were
indeed sons-in-law of the sultan, but I will argue that the distinction appears to
have made little difference in the status of these men compared with damads
who married women from the outer circles of the imperial harem.
The word damad was also often part of Ottoman names. It was sometimes
connected with a first name; for example, in the case of “Edirne ayanından
Damad Mustafa” (Damad Mustafa, from among the notables of Edirne)48 it
was a paraphrase of the full name Edirneli Damad Hacı Mustafa Efendi.49 The
“nickname” damad could also be transferred to descendants in the forms
damad-oğlu or damad-zâde, both meaning “son of a damad.” Occasionally, it
42 For instance, Mehmed Pasha, a brother of Grand Vizier Ibrahim Pasha, was recorded as
a damad because he had married Humâşah Sultan, a daughter of Şehzade Mehmed. See
N. Vatin and S. Yerasimos, Les cimetières dans la ville: Statut, choix et organisation des lieux
d’inhumation dans Istanbul intra muros (Paris: Maisonneuve et Larose, 2001): 164.
43 Şehsuvaroğlu, “Damat Ferid Paşa”: 1392; F. Develioğlu, Osmanlıca-Türkçe ansiklopedik lugat
(Ankara: Aydın Kitabevi, 1999): 163; Archives of the Prime Minister, Istanbul, Başbakanlık
Osmanlı Arşivleri (henceforth BOA), I. HUS 171 / 1326 Za/42.
44 Mehmed Süreyya, Sicill-i Osmânî (Westmead: Gregg, 1971), 3: 47; M. Kanar, Osmanlı
Türkçesi sözlüğü (Istanbul: Say, 2009), 1: 642; Akgündüz, İslâm: 324.
45 I therefore do not follow Jane Hathaway’s more restrictive definition that “the epithet
damad [signifies] that they are sons-in-law of the sultan”. See Hathaway, The Politics: 110.
46 Alderson, The Structure: 113.
47 Ali Vâsıb Efendi, Bir şehzadenin hâtırâtı: Vatan ve menfâda gördüklerim ve işittiklerim
(Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2004): 409-10.
48 BOA, C.ML 38/1702.
49 BOA, C.AS 968/8667.
jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

then became part of what we might call the “family name.”50 We also find an
Armenian patronymic equivalent (damatyan, “son-in-law’s son”).51
In strictly imperial usage, we find a different onomastic situation. First, in
the context of the Ottoman court, the element damad never became part of a
patronymic. Like any other imperial title, it was for personal use only. Second,
as an imperial distinction, damad was an unequivocal identifier. Alderson has
stated that damad “was only habitually used to distinguish between viziers
of the same name,”52 and Mordtmann once argued that Mahmud Celaleddin
(Prince Sabaheddin’s father) was called damad only because Mahmud was
such a common name. A closer analysis of the sources indicate, however, that
damad was often used instead of a name, either as damad efendi (for those
who did not hold the originally military rank of pasha)53 or damad paşa (for
those who did), as a mark of prestige in and of itself. In the use of nicknames,
damad usually took precedence over all others, including those used in daily
activities or given at birth.54 The sons-in-law themselves also seem to have
50 Take, for example, the prominent dynasty of Islamic scholars starting with Damad-zâde
Ebü’l-Hayr Efendi. This dignitary owed this nickname to his father, Mustafa Rasih Efendi,
who had been a son-in-law of grand mufti Minkârî-zâde Yahya Efendi. He was a grand
mufti himself in 1732-1733, as was his son, Feyzullah Efendi, in 1755 and 1757. His descend-
ants also include Damad-zâde Murad Molla, who was infamous for his dissolute life. BOA,
C.ADL. 93/5550; Y. Öztuna, Devletler ve hânedanlar: Türkiye (1074-1990) (Ankara: Kültür
Bakanlığı Yayınları, 1996): 780-1. Vakʾa-Nüvis: Ahmed Lûtfî Efendi tarihi, ed. M. Aktepe
(Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 1991), 14: 77. On Ebu’l-Hayr Efendi and Feyzullah
Efendi, see A. Altunsu, Osmanlı şeyhülislâmları (Ankara: Ayyıldız Matbaası, 1972): 121-122,
138. Also see I. Mouradgea d’Ohsson, Tableau général de l’Empire ottoman (Istanbul: Isis,
2001), vol. 3, tome 4: 234; C. White, Three Years in Constantinople, 3 vols. (London: Henry
Colburn, 1846), 3: 17.
51 Two Armenian brothers, Migirdiç and Ohannes, are referred to under this name in chron-
icles. Münir Aktepe (ed.), Vakʾa-Nüvis: 10: 98. The archival sources also mention an impor-
tant family of money-changers named Damatoğulları (BOA, MVL 398/94). This name still
belongs to an influential and active family in Turkey. Mihran Damatyan (1863-1945) was a
famous Armenian intellectual and activist, and Krikor Damatyan is a senior monk of the
patriarchate of the Turkish Armenian Church.
52 Alderson, The Structure: 114.
53 Damad Efendi was the name of a chief military judge of Rumelia, see Selânîki Mustafa
Efendi, Tarih-i Selânikî, ed. M. İpşirli (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 1999), 2: 692,
702; Naîmâ Mustafa Efendi, Târih-i Naʿîmâ, ed. M. İpşirli (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu
Yayınları, 2007), 1: 124.
54 O. Bouquet, “Onomasticon Ottomanicum: Identification administrative et désignation
sociale dans l’État ottoman du XIXe siècle.” Revue des mondes musulmans et de la
Méditerranée 127 (2010): 213-235.
jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

338 Bouquet
preferred to use “Damad” instead of or in addition to “Pasha.”55 For exam-

ple, at the beginning of the twentieth century, Damad Mahmud Celaleddin
Pasha signed a public statement “Damad Mahmoud Pacha,” even after Sultan
Abdülhamid II (r. 1876-1909) had officially deprived him of the title.56
3 Selection: The Damad-making Process
How did one become an imperial son-in-law? In theory, it was the sultan him-
self who selected all sons-in-law for his female relatives, because he exercised
absolute authority over the imperial household and monopolized the power
of reproduction of its female members.57 In practice, however, the search for
suitable candidates also involved his highest-ranking officers. After his acces-
sion to the throne, the sultan, as the new head of the household, often soon
married off eligible female members of his household.58 The sooner the better,
the sources suggest, as many of these weddings took place in the first years
of a sultan’s reign. At the same time, there is evidence of sultans who waited,
if that was more expedient. For example, Sultan Abdülhamid II postponed
marrying off the daughters of Murad V (r. 1876) for decades, until he consid-
ered his deposed brother and predecessor’s entourage no longer a threat to his
own rule.
The sultan’s sons occasionally seem to have selected brides for their own
daughters personally, but they always needed the sultan’s approval.59 This was
the case, for instance, with Prince Vahideddin, who personally chose Ismail
Hakkı to marry his daughter, Princess Ulviye.60 We also know that both prin-
cesses and sultans occasionally used photographs for selection purposes;
55 “Damad Mahmud” (Satar, Damat: 23), or, in a more complete form, “Padişah Hazretlerinin
Damadı Erkân-i Harbiye Binbaşısı Hafız Hakkı”; L. Simavî, Sultan Mehmed: 209; “Damad
Ferid”. See Y. Çetiner, Son padişah Vahideddin (Istanbul: Epsilon, 2005): 276.
56 Damad Mahmoud Pacha, Protestation de S. A. Damad Mahmoud Pacha contre la nouvelle
décision prise par le sultan Abdul Hamid II à l’égard des Turcs résidant à l’étranger [1902], in
Bibliothèque Nationale de France, 4-J Pièce-355.
57 For a comprehensive discussion on marriage imposed on women, see M. Hocine
Benkheira, L’amour de la loi: Essai sur la normativité en Islam (Paris: PUF, 1997): 30, 222-224.
58 Akgündüz, İslâm: 324.
59 Satar says that the sultan always initiated the decision (Satar, Damat: 14), but this seems
debatable.
60 Ş. Okday, Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyet’e padişah yaveri iki sadrazam oğlu anlatıyor (Istanbul,
1988): 69-70.
jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

Sultan Abdülhamid II, in particular, made great use of them.61 Under Islamic
law, marriage had to be voluntary, so the woman’s consent was a prerequisite.62
This also applied to princesses. During the final Ottoman decades, women
had an increasing say in the choice of a marriage partner.63 Mediha Sultan, for
instance, rejected the candidacy of Kıbrıslı Kâmil, who was the grand vizier
at the time, asking the sultan to search for another groom. Presumably, some
daughters were more influential than others. Some princesses flatly refused to
remarry after their first husband had died.64 The sultans did not always allow
this, however, particularly when the first marriage had produced no offspring.65
In some cases, the legally prescribed waiting period (iddet) during which the
widow could not remarry was not even respected. Münire, a daughter of Sultan
Abdülmecid, for example, was married again only four months after her hus-
band’s death; Hamide Ayşe, one of Sultan Abdülhamid II’s daughters, remar-
ried within two months.
The following quotation from an order issued by Grand Vizier Mehmed
Kâmil Pasha on 5 February 1886 sheds light on the selection criteria for impe-
rial sons-in-law:
Concerning the order prescribed by tradition regarding the marriage of

Her Excellency Mediha Sultan, several articles require careful consider-
ation. The first stipulates that the person who shall be honoured with the
distinction of imperial betrothal must be a high official of the Ottoman
Empire, like his father and grandfather; the second, that he must display
good moral qualities; the third, that he must be a bachelor who has not yet
known any woman; the fourth, that he must be [no] less than thirty [years
61 Akgündüz, İslâm: 324; SoSa: 2032; Okday assumes that Vahideddin convinced his daugh-
ter to marry Ismail Hakkı by showing photographs to her, see Osmanlı’dan: 64-65. On the
political use of photographs by Sultan Abdülhamid, see F. Georgeon, Abdülhamid II: Le
sultan calife (Paris: Fayard, 2003): 161.
62 In a different context, Jennings has studied the question of forced weddings. See his,
“Women in Early 17th Century Ottoman Judicial Records: The Sharia Court of Anatolian
Kayseri.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 18 (1975): 53-114.
63 C. Behar and A. Duben, Istanbul Households. Marriage, Family and Fertility. 1880-1940
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991): 215.
64 Artan quotes examples of two daughters of Sultan Mustafa III (r. 1757-1774), namely Hatice
Sultan (1768-1822) and Beyhan Sultan (1765-1824), as well as their cousin Hibetullah Sultan
(1788-1841), a daughter of Sultan Abdülhamid I (r. 1774-1789): all followed the example
of Esma Sultan and declined to remarry once they were widowed. See Artan, “From
Charismatic”: 574.
65 See, e.g., Naîmâ Mustafa Efendi, Târih-i Naʿîmâ 3: 1116.
jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

340 Bouquet
of age] and not more than forty. On this basis, a large number of servants
[of the state] who were presented to us did not meet these standards and
were not taken into consideration. For instance, Reşid Bey, a grand-son of
former [six-time] grand vizier [Mustafa] Reşid Pasha [d. 1858], although
he met these demands in terms of nobility, age, and youth, was declared
incompatible on account of [his] morality. As a result, he was not con-
sidered eligible. Likewise, although Şefik Bey, a son of Süreyya Pasha, had
many suitable qualities, he was found morally wanting. Consequently,
he was not taken into account either. Our thinking and reflection went
on, as among an even greater number of contending servants like them,
no one was seen as possibly worthy to be chosen, some because of their
demeanour, others because of their moral qualities. In the end, a servant
[of the state], Ferid Bey, a son of the late [Mustafa] Izzet Efendi, a mem-
ber of the Council of State, came to my humble memory. The aforemen-
tioned, a former secretary-in-chief appointed to the Ottoman embassy
in London was discharged from duty and summoned to the Threshold of
Felicity. Seeing him in true appearance, he is altogether very handsome,
the possessor of good morality, and fits the age bracket. He is much wor-
thier of being chosen than the others.66
In general, the candidate thus must embody honourable virtues and good
character, combining a handsome appearance with moral probity. During the
late Ottoman period, damads tended to be selected from among the sons of
prominent servants of the state. Moreover, the choice seems to have been con-
nected more closely with the candidate’s father’s renown (şöhret) than in pre-
vious periods.67 Kâmil Pasha specifically states that not only the prospective
damad himself but also his father and grandfather should count among the
empire’s high dignitaries.68
Some imperial in-laws were chosen from the ruler’s foster brothers or young
aides-de-camp. For instance, Ali Fuad was recruited for the palace at the age
of seven, just after the death of his father, a prominent marshal (müşir); he
was subsequently brought up with Prince Burhaneddin, who, some years later,
acted as his best man when Ali was selected to marry the princess Refia Sultan.69
66 Order of Grand Vizier Mehmed Kâmil Pasha, 30 R 1303 (5 February 1886), SoSa: 2030-2031;
my translation from Turkish.
67 Akyıldız, Mümin: 26, 29.
68 Although, in a footnote, İnal posits that only his father was, SoSa: 2031.
69 Another example is Damad Küçük Hüseyn Pasha, the husband of Sultan Abdülhamid I’s
daughter, Esma Sultan. Of Circassian origin, Küçük Hüseyn Pasha was a foster brother of
Prince Selim.
jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

Other imperial sons-in-law were familiar with the sultan’s private apartments
(enderûn-i hümayûn) because they were sons of stirrup-holders (rikâbdar) or
aides-de-camp (yaver-i ekrem). Abdülhamid II also chose in-laws from among
servants of his own entourage (bendegân).70
One criterion goes without saying in Kâmil Pasha’s list: a prospective damad
had to be wealthy, regardless of whether or not his income derived (partly)
from the Imperial Treasury.71 The dower (ağırlık)72 alone cost a fortune, on
top of which the damad’s family had to present to a great number of people
gifts that were meant partly to compensate for the status imbalance between
the spouses.73 The imperial allowance (sıhriyet maaş) that damads received
certainly did not make up for these expenses.74 One might suspect that this
means that most sons-in-law were older men who had already had a profit-
able career,75 but an analysis of the ages of nineteenth-century damads reveals
that they averaged 28 years old at the time of their marriage to a princess.76
The honour of being betrothed to a member of the sultan’s household there-
fore imposed a considerable financial burden on the son-in-law’s family as a
whole.77
More than any other dignitary, Gazi Osman Pasha’s household epitomized
what Artan has labelled a “new type of dynastic family.”78 He was one of the
closest advisors of Sultan Abdülhamid II and the only dignitary he trusted con-
sistently. It was therefore no coincidence that two of his sons were chosen as
damads and that even one of his grandsons became an imperial son-in-law.
Despite the fact that examples of such privileged families are known from both
earlier and later periods, the Ottoman dynastic system never acknowledged
any kind of nobility of service based on damad status.79
Once the decision about a future bride groom had been made, the selected
candidate (namzed) was informed about it in writing, through an imperial
70 For instance, the father of Damad Ali Vasıf and the father of Damad Ali Galib.
71 Akgündüz, Islam: 325.
72 Money, jewellery, clothes, etc., presented to the bride by the bridegroom, according to
previous agreement.
73 See, e.g., the detailed list of the presents offered at Damad Halil Rifat Pasha’s wedding
ceremony in 1834, Aynur, The Wedding: 30-32.
74 Damad Arif Hikmet received a monthly salary of 12,500 piasters (BOA, ŞD 3195/157), which
was not much, compared with other official salaries (Bouquet, Les Pachas: 361-373).
75 Y. Öztuna, Türk tarihinden portreler (Istanbul: Ötüken, 1989): 133-134.
76 My calculation from the corpus of pashas mentioned in the appendix.
77 Behar and Duben, Istanbul Households: 143-145.
78 Artan, “The Kadırga”: 87.
79 T. Artan, “18 yüzyıl başlarında yönetici elitin saltanatın meşruiyet arayışına katılım.”
Toplum ve Bilim 83 (1999-2000): 300-3.
jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

342 Bouquet
decree—this was common until the reign of Abdülmecid I (1839-1861)80—or

the groom-to-be received a visit from one of the sultan’s close confidants.81
Sometimes the sultan summoned the future son-in-law to the palace, where
the prospective damad was made to sign a document of agreement (akd),
occasionally without having been allowed to read it.82
The sons-in-law themselves sometimes also had a say in the matter. In
1675, for instance, Sarıkçı Mustafa Pasha refused to marry a daughter of Sultan
Ibrahim, although he later became a damad after all. In 1803, the governor
of Erzurum was offered the hand of Hibetullah Sultan, a daughter of Sultan
Abdülhamid I; he declined on the grounds that his family in Erzurum might
suffer from his absence.83 Such refusals were exceptional, however, particu-
larly in the nineteenth century, when the hand of a princess was an offer one
could not refuse.84
4 Marrying a Damad85
Precise accounts (surnâme) of magnificent Ottoman wedding ceremonies and

detailed pictures of bridal processions (gelin alayı) have survived.86 Imperial
etiquette laid out three steps in the process. First, the engagement (nişan or
akd, also sözlü) was organized after a candidate had been selected. Then the
legal marriage ceremony (nikâh) took place, followed by the wedding festivi-
ties that formed the third and final part.
80 For a detailed account of the preparation of such a decree, see Aynur, The Wedding: 21. See
also Akgündüz, İslam: 324, Akyıldız, Mümin: 25; SoSa: 59, and Okday, Osmanlı’dan: 64.
81 For instance, the sultan’s chief intimate (serkurena) or chief of the sultan’s privy purse
(hazine-i hassa müdürü).
82 Okday, Osmanlı’dan: 65.
83 Artan, “The Kadırga”: 68.
84 Akyıldız, Mümin: 26.
85 R. Dankoff, “Marrying a Sultana: The Case of Melek Ahmed Paşa.” In Decision Making
and Change in the Ottoman Empire, ed. C. Farah (Kirksville: Northeast Missouri State
University, 1993): 169-182.
86 For a comprehensive bibliography, see Ö. Nutku, “Düğün,” in Türkiye diyanet vakfı İslam
ansiklopedisi (Ankara: Diyanet Vakfı, 1994), 10: 18. For a precise account of a wedding
ceremony based on the critical edition of three surnâmes (imperial festival book com-
missioned by the sultan commemorating celebrations in image and text), see H. Aynur,
The Wedding Ceremony of Sâliha Sultân: 1834. 2 vols. (Cambridge MA: Harvard University
Press, 1995).
jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

Chronicles and popular narratives occasionally indicate that long periods

(sometimes up to two or three years) elapsed between the engagement and
the wedding itself, often due to the bride’s young age.87 A famous example con-
cerns an infant daughter of Ahmed III, whose prospective husband died after
having been engaged to her for more than ten years. Naima considered these
betrothals “strange practices.”88 Akgündüz suggests that many chroniclers
appear to have felt ashamed of them, as did twentieth-century Turkish histo-
rians such as Uluçay. At the same time, Akgündüz emphasizes that these prin-
cesses were merely engaged (and the marriage was thus not consummated) at
this young age, a practice allowed by Islamic law.89 In the nineteenth century,
Sultan Mahmud II (r. 1808-1839) put an end to this practice.90 During this era,
the delay was limited: Leila Hanım mentioned a period of only one week.91
Over the entire nineteenth century, the delay between the engagement and
the wedding varied from a few months to two or three years, with a maximum
of seven years, in the case of Şadiye Sultan, Sultan Abdülhamid II’s daughter,
who married Fahir Beyfendi.92 At a minimum, several weeks were needed to
gather the trousseau (cihaz, cehiz).93 Occasionally, the delay was prolonged for
financial reasons. Under Sultan Abdülaziz’s reign (1861-1876), for example, the
Ottoman Empire was almost bankrupt, so Seniha Sultan had to wait almost two
years after her engagement, before her wedding.94 Sometimes, the delay was
deliberately shortened, especially when a collective ceremony was organized.
This was the case during Sultan Abdülhamid II’s reign, when three princesses
were married on the same day on two occasions, in 1886 and again in 1901.95
87 İ.H. Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Devletinin saray teşkilatı (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları,
1988): 160.
88 Evza’-ı garîbden biri (Naîmâ Mustafa Efendi, Târih-i Naʿîmâ: 3: 1129). For references to two-
or three-year-old sultanas, also see İ.H. Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı tarihi (Ankara: Türk Tarih
Kurumu Yayınları, 2003), 3/2: 394; Naîmâ Mustafa Efendi, Târih-i Naʿîmâ: 2: 412.
89 Akgündüz, İslam: 325.
90 Ç. Uluçay, Harem II (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 1992): 92-93; Akgündüz,
İslam: 325.
91 Leïla Hanoum, Le harem imperial au XIXe siècle (Brussels : Complexe, 2000): 259.
92 Ş. Osmanoğlu. “II. Abdülhamid Devrinde Harem Hayatı.” Hayat Mecmuası (1963) 1: 7; 15:
14-15.
93 For a precise study of a nineteenth-century trousseau, see H. Aynur, “II. Mahmud’un Kızı
Saliha Sultan’ın cehiz defteri.” Journal of Turkish Studies. Türklük Bilgisi Araştırmaları:
Hasibe Mazıoğlu Armağanı III 23 (1999): 65-85.
94 Satar, Damat: 16.
95 If the bridegroom was not in the city but was appointed in a distant governorship, he
was married by proxy, having a representative (his steward, kapı kethüdası) attend his
jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

344 Bouquet
The legal conclusion of the marriage (nikâh) traditionally took place under
the supervision of the grand mufti. First, the value of the mahr (wedding gift)
presented by the groom to the bride had to be agreed on by both parties. The
Chief Black Eunuch of the palace (dar üs saade ağası) served as the bride’s legal
representative (vekil), while the grand vizier or another high dignitary had the
same role on the damad’s behalf. Some of the empire’s most prominent digni-
taries usually attended, including those governors-general who happened to
be in the capital.96 They all gave money to and received gifts (hediye) from the
groom, the value of both being in proportion to their rank.97 The ceremony
was soon followed by the last step, the wedding festivities (sur or düğün).98
As in other imperial ceremonies (such as coronations and the circumcisions
of princes), weddings occasioned a whole programme of feasts, which, in pre-
vious centuries sometimes lasted for 15 to 20 days.99 In the nineteenth century,
they continued for a week or two, generally starting on a Thursday and taking
place in imperial palaces (mainly Dolmabahçe, Çırağan, and Yıldız in the later
period) or in the seaside mansions (sahilhane) allotted to princesses.100 Day
after day, according to the protocol, the most important officials and notables
would be hosted.101 At some point, the bridal procession (gelin alayı) began.
According to Uzunçarşılı, it was originally the Chief Black Eunuch who placed
a sable-skin mantle on the damad’s shoulders, but Mahmud II appears to have
curtailed that official’s ceremonial role.102 The most highly anticipated point
of the ceremony was the koltuk merasim, the moment when the bride and the
marriage ceremony (Artan, “The Kadırga”: 67). For reasons indicated below, this rarely
happened during the nineteenth century.
96 Akyıldız, Mümin: 27. For a list of the officials who attended Halil Rifat Pasha’s nikâh in
1834, see Aynur, The Wedding: 22.
97 Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Devletinin saray: 162.
98 Sur-i cihâz, sur-i arus, sur-i velîme, Aynur, The Wedding 1: 2.
100 Aynur, The Wedding 1: 1, Okday, Osmanlı’dan: 80-81, Nutku, “Düğün”: 17, Leïla Hanoum, Le
Harem impérial: 240, and Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Devletinin saray: 163; Uluçay and Aynur
indicate other possible days than Tuesday, see Padişahların Kadınları ve Kızları (Ankara:
Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 1992): 130, 152; Aynur, “II. Mahmud”: 65. For example, Ali
Galib and Fatma married in the former yalı (seaside residence) of the latter’s father,
Mustafa Reşid Pasha, at Baltalimanı; Vasif and Hatice met at the newlyweds’ yalı at
Ortaköy; and Arif Hikmet and Naile Sultan at the Kuruçeşme Palace. See O. Erdenen,
Boğaziçi sahilhaneleri, II, Avrupa yakası (Istanbul: İstanbul Büyükşehir, 2006): 405-409,
420-423. Occasionally, the ceremony began at an imperial palace and ended at the damad’s
konak (mansion), see Nutku, “Düğün”: 17.
101 Aynur, The Wedding: 23-26.
102 Nutku, “Düğün”: 18.
jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

groom first officially met.103 The damad had to ask the permission of the bride
to assist her in alighting from the carriage, before taking her to the harem. This
moment was dreaded by most grooms, because tradition dictated that the
bride make the gentleman wait a while.104 Sometimes, though, the spouses-to-
be actually had already met; in 1916, for instance, Prince Vahideddin personally
introduced his daughter to her future husband.105
5 Unequal Marriages
Whether or not they were marrying for the first time,106 the position of Ottoman
princesses was far superior to that of their husbands. Several chronicles stress
the men’s intrinsically subservient condition and emphasize that it was an hon-
our and a privilege for them to be allowed to share the bed of a princess.107 Paul
Rycaut, a famous observer of the seventeenth-century Ottoman Empire, also
reported how delicate and sometime humiliating the damad’s condition was:
Instead of increase of power and glory, the most miserable slave in the
world, to the Tyranny and Pride of an insulting Woman: For first he can-
not refuse the honour, lest he should seem to neglect and contemn the
Sultans favour; then before the Espousals, he must resolve to continue
constant to her alone, and not suffer his Affections to wander on other
Wives, Slaves or distractions of his love. . . . Before the Espousals, what
Money, Jewels or rich Furs she sends for, he must with complements
and cheerfulness present, which is called Aghirlick (ağırlık); besides this,
he makes her a Dowry called Kabin108 of as much as friends that make
the match can agree. . . . In public she keeps him at a distance, wears
103 For an example of the procession after the koltuk merasim, see Çetiner, Son padişah:
364-365.
104 Pakalın, “Koltuk,” Osmanlı 2: 289-291; Akyıldız, İslâm: 28.
105 Okday, Osmanlı’dan: 66.
106 The study of princesses’ tombstones reveals that some of them married three or even
four times: examples include Fatma Sultan, a daughter of Selim I; Atike Sultan and Ayşe
Sultan, daughters of Ahmed I; Ayşe Sultan, a daughter of Ahmed III; Beyhan Sultan, a
daughter of Sultan Ibrahim; and Safiye Sultan, a daughter of Mustafa II. See Vatin and
Yerasimos, Les Cimetières: 95, 162, 174-175.
107 Veinstein, “Les Esclaves de la Porte”; Alderson, The Structure: 100; on the “devirilisation” of
damads, see Peirce, The Imperial Harem: 11.
108 Kâbin: portion contracted to be paid by the husband to his wife if he divorces her without
sufficient cause.
jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

346 Bouquet
her Hancarre (hancer/hançer) or Dagger by her side in token of her

Superiority; and so frequently commands gifts and riches from him until
she hath exhausted him to the bottom of all his wealth.109
After the fifteenth century, Ottoman princesses were no longer allowed to marry
descendants of (once rival) dynasties such as the Candaroğlu or Karamanoğlu.110
The absence of any other forms of nobility outside of the imperial family
meant that all damads were necessarily commoners. They even lost their own
name upon marrying a princess. Symbolically, one damad tended deferen-
tially to sign his letters to his “benefactor who does not scold one, my lord, the
sultana of exalted reputation” (velînimet-i bi-minnetim sultan-i aliyyestü’ş-şan
efendimiz) as “your slave Mahmud” (köleleri Mahmud).111 The sources indicate
that some were happy marriages,112 but even these unions remained unequal
in terms of the legal status and social position of the spouses. An eyewitness
later wrote about Princess Fatma Naime Sultan and her husband Mehmed
Kemaleddin Pasha:
Le gendre entra au Harem dans un concert de souhaits et de vœux de

bénédiction, et passa directement au salon préparé au rez-de chaussée.
Il vint devant un canapé en forme de trône, sur lequel ma sœur s’était
préalablement assise, et la pria de se lever. Plus d’une demi-heure passa,
mais notre sœur ne se levait pas. Tout le monde attendait debout, le gen-
dre ruisselait de sueur. . . . Finalement, on avertit la Sultane Mère. Elle alla
et dit, de la porte: “Ma fille! Lève-toi par amour pour moi. Ne fais pas de
peine à notre gendre.” La sultane alors se leva.113
This seems a variation of the koltuk merasim mentioned above. Another damad,
Arif Hikmet, reportedly had to wait no less than four hours, until his bride
finally rose to receive him.114 This first official meeting between the spouses
109 P. Rycaut, The Present State of the Ottoman Empire (reprint, New York: Arno Press and New
York Times, 1971): 71-2. Rycaut’s work was originally published in 1665.
111 Satar, Damat: 73, 77. He also included formulas such as “my soul, my sultana” (rûhum,
sultanım); Enver Paşa’nın Özel Mektupları, ed. Arı İnan (Ankara: İmge, 1997): 350.
112 Osmanoglou, Avec mon père: 235.
113 Osmanoglou, Avec mon père: 102-103 (about Damad Kemaleddin and Naime Sultan).
114 For examples of short ceremonies, see Okday: Osmanlı’dan: 80-81.
jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

appears to have been ruled entirely by the whim of the princess involved;115 the
status of the husband does not seem to have had any mitigating effect.
Finally, the imperial son-in-law had no choice but to abandon his harem
if he had one.116 As Behar and Duben have shown, the proportion of polyga-
mous husbands was generally remarkably low in Istanbul at the end of the
nineteenth century, but polygamous unions were more common for high-
ranking state officials.117 As Rycaut already remarked, damads were expected
to be monogamous. This sometimes proved difficult. For example, the afore-
mentioned Mehmed Kemaleddin Pasha did not find his imperial bride, Fatma
Naime Sultan, very attractive. Next door to his mansion (konak) lived Princess
Hatice Hanım, a daughter of Murad V, who was reportedly so disgusted by the
ugliness of her husband that she made him sleep in the selamlık (the part of the
house reserved for men) for eight years, before getting a divorce. Kemaladdin
Pasha and Princess Hatice secretly started a correspondence, but their letters
were intercepted and Sultan Abdülhamid read one of them; Kemaleddin was
expelled from the imperial family and exiled to Bursa.118 Not only did he lose
his title of damad, which was the normal procedure, but he was also deprived
of his rank and decorations, which was uncommon.
Until the beginning of the eighteenth century, the newlyweds were accus-
tomed to settle in the konak of the damad.119 By the nineteenth century,
however, Ottoman princesses tended to live in large palaces given to them at
birth or upon their marriage.120 Confirming their inferior status, “the private
quarters of princesses’ husbands . . . stood in an unassuming manner either
115 Pakalın, “Koltuk.” In Tarih deyimleri ve terimleri: 2: 289-291.

116 J.H. Mordtmann, “Dâmâd.” In Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed. (1965), 2: 105-106; Naima
holds repudiation a prerequisite for damadlık. See Naîmâ Mustafa Efendi, Târih-i Naʿîmâ:
3: 1129. Sokollu Mehmed Pasha is a famous example. Uluçay, Harem: 90; Akgündüz,
İslam: 324.
117 Duben and Behar, Istanbul Households: 156.
118 Örik, “Son Damatlar”: 1214.
119 Naima describes a mid-seventeenth-century ceremony in which a sultana, after the nikâh,
left the Old Palace and took her quarters at the vizier’s saray. See Naîmâ Mustafa Efendi,
Târih-i Naʿimâ: 3: 1129. Uzunçarşılı posits that the Chief White Eunuch of the Porte accom-
panied princesses to the namzed’s konak, see Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Devletinin saray: 162-
164. Artan, “18 yüzyıl başlarında”: 300.
120 Artan, “From Charismatic”: 575. At least until Mehmed Sokollu’s time (1565-1579), these
palaces belonged to the state. Progressively “privatized” later, most of them reverted to
sultanic control and were given to princesses during the eighteenth century. See Artan,
“The Kadırga”: 86-87.
jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

348 Bouquet
next to, or—more usually—behind their royal spouse’s apartments.”121 In the

late Ottoman period, the damad’s quarter was even transferred to a separate,
pleasant mansion, a few yards away from his wife’s sahilhane along the shore of
the Bosphorus.122 This integration of the damad into his wife’s palace reflected
his devaluated position as a prince consort.
6 The Sultan’s Favour: The Careers of Damads
We have already seen that, if an imperial son-in-law did not abide by the
rules of the palace, he could be divorced and even exiled. The fate of Damad
Mahmud Celaleddin illustrates just how determinedly the sultan could move
against prince consorts he considered disloyal and ungrateful. In 1899, Damad
Mahmud Celaleddin, a brother-in-law of the Ottoman ruler, deserted the pal-
ace, along with his two sons. As soon as his absence was noticed, the sultan
alerted everyone. When it turned out that the missing in-law had travelled to
France, the sultan had Ottoman spies and diplomats follow him there. The
sultan also organized a propaganda campaign in the press in order to restore
the image of his household, countering negative publications by Mahmud
Celaleddin. The sultan seized his brother-in-law’s properties and wealth and
stripped him of his rank.123 When the fugitive did not return to the Ottoman
Empire, Sultan Abdülhamid II had him sentenced to death in absentia.
Such negative examples notwithstanding, marrying an Ottoman princess
worked out beneficially for many of the men in question. Immediate promo-
tion upon agreement to the marital arrangement, already mentioned, is con-
firmed by the 1886 order issued by Grand Vizier Mehmed Kâmil Pasha:
As an implementation of the imperial rescript announcing that he [Ferid

Bey] is compatible with the imperial dignity, the order is given that the
aforementioned servant, who possesses the rank of second degree and
121 Artan, “From Charismatic”: 575.

122 Two examples among others may be quoted: the sahilhane of Damad Mehmed Ali
Pasha in Kuruçeşme, see Lütfî, Vak’a-Nüvis 11: 11; the sahilhane of Grand Vizier Ahmed
Ferid Pasha located at a few hundred yards from the palace of his wife Mediha Sultan, in
Baltalimanı, see Erdenen, Boğaziçi: 307-310.
123 Satar, Damat: 40-43. The counter-propaganda was a reply to Damad Mahmud Celaleddin’s
Protestation published in 1902.
jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

second class be promoted, after agreement, to the upper degree and be

appointed to the Council of State with an upper rank as well.124
The sultan appointed some damads as his personal delegates, regularly

entrusting to them the presentation of imperial decorations or gifts to kings
and emperors125 and even allowing some to accept decorations from foreign
sovereigns.126 In some cases we know that the sultan felt “deep affection” (tevec-
cüh) for individual in-laws127 and reportedly felt great sorrow at the death of
some of them.128
In the popular literature, the “last damads” (son damatlar)129 have been
portrayed as büyük devlet adamlar (great statesmen) and erkân-i devlet (pil-
lars of the state) and have often been assumed to have been viziers. Based on
a few illustrious examples, historians too have tended to emphasize that the
damads were “high-ranking officials—usually viziers,” “high-ranking bureau-
crats . . . such as grand viziers, grand admirals and governors.”130 Yet the causal
connections between marrying an imperial princess and making a career in
the Ottoman administration have seldom been analysed systematically. At
first glance, damadlık does seem to have opened the way to the vizierate, if
the son-in-law in question was not a vizier already:131 as Naima remarked of
Damad Halil Pasha (mid-seventeenth century), “he was a promoted to the
higher rank of vizier of the divan.”132 Under Ahmed III (r. 1703-1730), damads
were also commonly accorded the rank of vizier.133 However, a closer quanti-
tative analysis of a large corpus of evidence reveals that, in the early modern
period, viziers who were also damads were not numerous: of the 24 listed for
124 SoSa: 2031.

125 For instance, in 1901, Damad Ferid Pasha was sent on a mission to convey the gift of some
horses to Victor Emmanuel III, the new king of Italy, BOA, Y.PRK.TKM 44/63 (9 R 1319).
126 Okday, Osmanlı’dan: 88; in 1898, Kemaleddin was honoured by the Serbian king with the
Takova Order, BOA, Y.PRK.EŞA 29/21 (29 L 1315); in 1899, he, along with Nureddin Pasha,
was endowed with the Légion d’Honneur (2nd rank), BOA, İ.TAL 184/1317 R 10.
127 M. Aktepe, Patrona İsyanı (1730) (Istanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi
Yayınları, 1958): 105.
128 SoSa: 2032, e.g., Damad Ahmed Necib and Sultan Abdülhamid.
129 Örik, “Son Damatlar.”
130 Artan, “From Charismatic”: 573-535.
131 My italics; cf. Uzunçarşılı, Tarih 3/2: 394.
132 Naîmâ Mustafa Efendi, Târih-i Naʿîmâ: 2: 696. Or damad-i şehriyâri ve divan’da vezir-i sânî
oldu (Naîmâ Mustafa Efendi, Târih-i Naʿîmâ: 2: 610).
133 Ç. Uluçay, “Fatma ve Safiye Sultanların düğünleri ait bir araştırma.” İstanbul Enstitüsü
Mecmuası 4 (1958): 135-48.
jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

350 Bouquet
Murad III’s reign (1574-1595), only one held both titles, and we find only a sin-
gle example among the 19 son-in-laws of Ahmed I’s reign (r. 1603-1617).134
If we look more closely at the careers of late Ottoman imperial sons-in-law,
two distinct categories emerge. The first consists of rising stars in the Ottoman
administration. Having previously caught the emperor’s eye, they were, in their
thirties, simultaneously appointed vizier and damad, whereupon they would
continue their careers as minister in the civil administration (e.g., Mahmud
Celaleddin, Ahmed Fethi, and Arif Hikmet), minister of war (e.g., Mahmud
Celaleddin and Enver), minister of the fleet (Halil Rifat), or president of the
Council of State (Arif Hikmet). A broader analysis of nineteenth and twenti-
eth-century compendia indicates that, of the 58 damads found in them, only
two (Mehmed Ali and Mehmed Ferid) became grand viziers.
By the mid-nineteenth century, these prominent damads were superseded
by the second group, which consisted mostly of sons of dignitaries who had
been made damad at the first stage of their career, while they were only in
their early twenties.135 They, too, received the title of vizier, just before or
immediately after marrying a princess. One of them, Mehmed Nuri Pasha,
became a vizier at the tender age of 19, even though the average age at which
this rank was attained was 45.136 This suggests that, unlike the first category,
for them the vizierate was merely an honorary title, just as it was for descen-
dants of Egypt’s khedive.137 Some damads progressed rapidly in this way, but
their actual influence remained limited, and, having reached the pinnacle of
their “honorary career” so quickly, they were stuck in their careers. This was the
case, for instance, with Ahmed Necib, who was a third-rank employee serving
as corresponding secretary (mektubi) of the Foreign Ministry, with a monthly
salary of 1500 piasters, until he was betrothed to Mediha Sultan, in February
1877. From that moment, his career suddenly accelerated: one month later, he
was promoted to the Council of State, with a monthly salary of 10,000 piasters,
with a first rank–second class, which became a first rank–first class six months
later.138 The marriage was postponed due to opposition within the imperial
household, whereupon Ahmed Nacib was sent to Paris. The princess he was
going to marry, who was said to be very fond of him, eventually arranged his
134 Naîmâ Mustafa Efendi, Târih-i Naʿîmâ: 1: 81-2, 435-6.

135 Behar and Duben, Istanbul Households: 122.
136 Bouquet, Les Pachas: 127.
137 Ibid.: 120-121, 186.
138 This was also the rank reached by Mahmud Celaleddin Bey and Abdülhamid Bey when
they respectively and simultaneously married Seniha and Behice in December 1876,
Satar, Damat: 16. As soon as they were declared damads-to-be, Mahmud Celaleddin and
Mahmud Edhem were promoted division generals, Akyıldız, Mümin: 25.
jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

return to Istanbul, where the wedding ceremony took place in June 1879. A
year later, he was promoted again, and his salary was raised to 15,000 piasters
per month; another year later he was made a vizier. Along the way he was also
decorated with the Order of Abdülmecid (second class in 1880, first class in
1881). By the age of 25, Ahmed Nacib had been given all the honours he could
hope to achieve. His marriage had resulted, to cite Blaise Pascal, in “trente ans
gagnés sans peine,”139 but he no longer had any prospects.140 Nacib and other
sons-in-law in a similar position often ended up sitting for a long time in the
same office, either in the Council of State, where they shared their fate with
various princes,141 or in newly created councils.142 This career stagnation was
not easy to bear for some of them; according to Kemal Bey, Damad Mahmud
complained about his lack of progress in the ranks, which so drove him to dis-
traction that he saw no point in continuing to live.143
Conclusion
The way in which imperial dynasties secured the survival of their lineage tells
us much about them. The position of sons-in-law is particularly significant
in this respect, especially in the Ottoman Empire. After having secured the
primacy of the House of Osman in the face of various challenges in previous
centuries, the Ottoman rulers would not allow a kind of Ottoman nobility to
develop, despite the existence of prominent men whose loyal service to the
dynasty might have entitled them to a special status. From the late fourteenth
century until the demise of the Ottoman Empire, its rulers made use of their
ability to marry off princesses to tie these families to the imperial dynasty.
Although officially slaves (kul) of the sultan, members of these families formed
a pragmatic complement structurel to the Ottoman household.144 In time,
however, the position of damad lost its political significance. The common
assumption that the status of in-law went hand in hand with a great career
in the state administration is historically incorrect. Many sons-in-law were
139 “Que la noblesse est un grand avantage, qui, dès dix-huit ans, met un homme en passe,
connu et respecté, comme un autre pourrait avoir mérité à cinquante ans. C’est trente ans
gagnés sans peine” (Blaise Pascal, Pensées et opuscules (Paris: Hachette, 1961): 478).
140 On marriages that resulted in career dead ends for some sons-in-law of the Bey of Tunis,
see Oualdi, Esclaves: 128.
141 Bouquet, Les Pachas.
142 In 1911, Damad Şerif Pasha was appointed a member of the financial administration of the
Hedjaz Railways, BOA, ŞD 31/97.
143 Ben ölmek istiyorum. Hayatın bence hiçbir kiymeti ve lüzûmu yoktur, Satar, Damat: 24.
144 Bonte, Conte, and Dresch, “Introduction”: 25.
jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

352 Bouquet
indeed promoted swiftly through the ranks, but their actual power remained
limited. By the nineteenth century, the honour of being allowed to marry an
imperial princess was granted principally to members of prominent families
with a long and distinguished record in the ruling dynasty’s service. In this
way the son-in-law’s family was inscribed into what I have labelled a “noblesse
dans l’État.”145
The significance of sons-in-law is not limited to the Ottoman Empire. The
Caliph ʿAli, the son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammad, is undoubtedly the
best-known example, but the prominence of in-laws remains relevant for mod-
ern regimes in the modern Middle East (e.g., Iraq under Saddam Hussein) and
North Africa (e.g., Morocco).146
It would be interesting also to compare Ottoman dynastic mechanisms such
as those concerning sons-in-law with monarchies beyond the Islamic world.
Japan comes to mind for possible interesting comparisons, especially because
a considerable body of comparative literature is already available.147 Possible
points of comparison include the degree of inclusion of the consorts of prin-
cesses into the Japanese imperial family;148 how they were selected;149 how
these unequal marriages affected the name and official titles of the princesses
145 Bouquet, Les Pachas: 213, 344, 446.

146 F. Filali and F. Souan, “Il n’y a pas de honte à être puissant.” Jeune Afrique 33/1976 (1993):
68-73.
147 Since the pioneering work by D.A. Rustow and R.E. Ward (editors of Political Modernization
in Japan and Turkey [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964]), the comparison has
been addressed repeatedly in Making Majorities. Constituting the Nation in Japan, Korea,
China, Malaysia, Fiji, Turkey and the United States, ed. D.C. Gladney (Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 1998); The Introduction of Modern Science and Technology to Turkey and
Japan, ed. F. Günergun and S. Kuriyama (Kyoto: International Research Center for Japanese
Studies, 1998); The Rising Sun and the Turkish Crescent. New Perspectives on the History of
Japanese Turkish Relations, S. Esenbel and I. Chiharu (Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press,
2003); R. Worringer, Comparing Perceptions: Japan as Archetype for Ottoman Modernity,
1876-1918 (Unpublished PhD diss., University of Chicago, 2001); R. Worringer, “‘Sick Man
of Europe’ or ‘Japan of the Near East’? Constructing Ottoman Modernity in the Hamidian
and Young Turk Eras.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 36/2 (2004): 207-30;
T. Kayaoğlu, Legal Imperialism: Sovereignty and Extraterritoriality in Japan, the Ottoman
Empire, and China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).
148 In contrast, the consorts of the male descendants are members of the Imperial family.
Under the terms of the 1947 Imperial Household Law, the naishinnō (imperial princesses)
and nyoō (princesses) lose their titles and membership in the imperial family upon mar-
riage, unless they marry within it.
149 Article XL of the Imperial Household Law (1889), http://core.ecu.edu/hist/tuckerjo/
1889law.html.
jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

involved;150 and how in-laws of the imperial family were housed in Japan.151
There are many aspects still to be explored of what Fujitani once described as
“the sense of nearness between the ruler and the ruled.”152
Imperial damads (1808-1909) and their Princesses
Mahmud II (1808-1839)
1. Mehmed Halil Rifat Pasha; Saliha Sultan
2. Bursalı Mehmed Said Pasha; Mirh-i Mâh Sultan
3. Rodosi Ahmed Fethi Pasha; Atiyye Sultan
4. Mehmed Ali Pasha; Adile Sultan
Abdülmecid (1839-1861)
5. Ali Galip Pasha; Fatma Sultan
6. Mahmud Edhem Pasha; Refia Sultan
7. Mahmud Celaleddin Pasha; Cemile Sultan
8. Ibrahim İlhami Pasha; Münire Sultan
9. Mehmed Nuri Pasha; Fatma Sultan
10. Ibrahim Pasha; Münire Sultan
11. Halil Hamid Bey; Behice Sultan
12. Çerkes Kabasakal Mehmed Pasha; Naile Sultan
13. Mahmud Celaleddin Pasha; Seniha Sultan
14. Ahmed Necib Pasha; Mediha Sultan
15. Mehmed Ferid Pasha; Mediha Sultan
Abdülaziz (1861-1876)
16. Ahmed Zülkefil Pasha; Saliha Sultan
17. Ali Halid Pasha; Nazime Sultan
150 Status of the Japanese imperial household of 1889, Article XXXI, http://core.ecu.edu/hist/
tuckerjo/1889law.html.
151 L. Lewis, “The Princess and the Bureaucrat: A Modern-Day Fairytale in Reverse.” The
Times (12 November 2005), http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article589235
.ece.
152 T. Fujitani, Splendid Monarchy. Power and Pageantry in Modern Japan (Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1998): 163. See also W. Edwards, Modern Japan through Its Weddings:
Gender, Person, and Society in Ritual Portrayal (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1989);
C. Gluck, Japan’s Modern Myths (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985).
jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

354 Bouquet
18. Çerkes Mehmed Pasha; Esma Sultan

19. Çavdaroğlu Mehmed Şerif Pasha; Emine Sultan
Murad V (1876)
20. Ali Vasıf Pasha; Hatice Sultan
21. Ali Galib Pasha; Fehime Sultan
22. Refik Beyefendi; Fatma Sultan
23. Rauf Hayreddin Beyefendi; Hadice Sultan
24. Mahmud Beyefendi; Fehime Sultan
Abdülhamid II (1876-1909)
25. Damad Ali Nureddin Pasha; Zekiye Sultan
26. Mehmed Kemaleddin Pasha; Fatma Naime Sultan
27. Germiyanoğlu Arif Hikmet Pasha; Naile Sultan
28. Mahmud Celaleddin Pasha; Fatma Naime Sultan
29. Ahmed Nami Beyefendi; Hamide Ayşe Sultan
30. Ali Fuad Beyefendi; Refia Sultan
31. Fahir Beyfendi; Şadiye Sultan
32. Mehmed Ali Beyefendi; Hamide Ayşe Sultan
33. Reşad Halis Beyefendi; Şadiye Sultan
Bibliography
Archival Sources
BOA: Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivleri (Prime Minister’s Archives, Istanbul)
C.ML: Cevdet Tasnifi, Maliye
C.ADL: Cevdet Tasnifi, Adliye
C.AS: Cevdet Tasnifi, Askeriye
İ.HUS: İrade-i Hususiyye
İ.TAL: İrade-i Taltifat
MV: Meclis-i Vükela Mazbataları
MVL: Meclis-i Vâlâ
SA: Sicill-i Ahvâl Komisyonu Defterleri
ŞD: Şurayı Devlet
YEE: Yıldız Esas Evrakı
Y.PRK.EŞA: Yıldız Perâkende Evrakı; Elçilik ve Şehbenderlik Tahriratı
Y.PRK.TKM: Yıldız Perâkende Evrakı; Tahrirat-i Ecnebiye ve Mâbeyn Mütercimliği
jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

Bibliothèque Nationale de France, MS 4-J Pièce-355: Damad Mahmoud Pacha.

1902. Protestation de S. A. Damad Mahmoud Pacha contre la nouvelle décision
prise par le sultan Abdul Hamid II à l’égard des Turcs résidant à l’étranger.
Secondary Literature
Açba, Leyla. 2005. Bir Çerkes Prensesinin Harem Hatıraları. Istanbul: L&M.
Ahmed Lûtfî Efendi. 1989-1998. Vakʾa-Nüvis: Ahmed Lûtfî Efendi tarihi, ed. Münir
Aktepe. Vols. 10, 12, 14. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları.
Ahmed Refik. 1996. Osmanlı kumandanları. Istanbul: Timaş.
———. 2005. Kadınlar saltanatı. Istanbul: Türk Tarih Vakfı.
Akgündüz, Ahmet. 1996. İslâm hukukunda ve Osmanlı tatbikatında vakıf müessesesi.
Istanbul: Osav.
Akşit, Elif Ekin. 2010. Fatma Aliye’s Stories: Ottoman Marriages beyond the Harem.
Journal of Family History 35/3: 207-218.
Aktepe, Münir. 1958. Patrona İsyanı (1730). Istanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat
Fakültesi Yayınları.
———. 1971. Ibrâhîm Pas̲h̲a, Nevs̲h̲ehirli. Encyclopaedia of Islam. 2nd ed. 3: 1027-1028.
Akyıldız, Ali. 1998. Mümin ve müşrif Bir Padişah Kızı. Refia Sultan, Istanbul: Türk Tarih
Vakfı.
Alderson, Anthony D. 1956. The Structure of the Ottoman Dynasty. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ali Vâsıb Efendi. 2004. Bir şehzadenin hâtırâtı: Vatan ve menfâda gördüklerim ve işit-
tiklerim. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
Altunsu, Abdülkadir. 1972. Osmanlı Şeyhülislâmları. Ankara: Ayyıldız Matbaası.
Annuaire oriental (ancien indicateur oriental, du commerce, de l’industrie, de l’adminis
tration et de la magistrature). 10e année. 1891. Constantinople: Cervati Frères.
Artan, Tülay. 1994. The Kadırga Palace Shrouded by the Mists of Time. Turcica 31: 55-124.
———. 1995. From Charismatic Leadership to Collective Rule Gender Problems of
Legalism and Political Legitimization in the Ottoman Empire. In Histoire économique
et sociale de l’Empire ottoman et de la Turquie (1326-1960), ed. Daniel Panzac. Louvain:
Peeters: 569-580.
———. 1999-2000. 18 yüzyıl başlarında yönetici elitin saltanatın meşruiyet arayışına
katılım. Toplum ve Bilim 83: 292-322.
Aynur, Hatice. 1989. Saliha Sultan’ın düğün töreni ve şenlikler. Tarih ve Toplum 11/61:
30-39.
———. 1995. The Wedding Ceremony of Sâliha Sultân: 1834. 2 vol., Cambridge MA:
Harvard University Press.
———. 1999. II. Mahmud’un Kızı Saliha Sultan’ın cehiz defteri. Journal of Turkish
Studies. Türklük Bilgisi Araştırmaları: Hasibe Mazıoğlu Armağanı III 23: 65-85.
jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

356 Bouquet
——— and Günay Kut. 1993. Damat İbrahim Paşa’nın İstanbul’da yaptırdığı çeşmelerin
ve sebillerin kitabeleri. Türklük Araştırmaları Dergisi: Amil Çelebioğlu Armağanı,
7: 393-422.
Ayverdi, İlhan. 2008. Misallı büyük Türkçe sözlük. Istanbul: Kubbealtı (1st ed., 2005).
Bardakçı, Murat. 1991. Son Osmanlılar: Osmanlı hanedanının sürgün ve miras öyküsü.
Istanbul: Pan Yayıncılık.
Behar, Cem, and Alan Duben. 1991. Istanbul Households: Marriage, Family and Fertility.
1880-1940. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Benkheira, Mohammed H. 1997. L’amour de la loi. Essai sur la normativité en Islam.
Paris: PUF.
Blili, Leila. 2005. Parenté et pouvoir dans la Tunisie houssaynîte, 1705-1956. Unpublished
PhD diss. Université de Tunis.
Bonte, Pierre. 1994. Manière de dire ou manière de faire: Peut-on parler d’un mariage
“arabe”? In Épouser au plus proche. Inceste, prohibition et stratégies matrimoniales
autour de la Méditerranée, ed. P. Bonte. Paris: Editions de l’École des Hautes Études
en Sciences Sociales: 371-398.
——— and Édouard Conte. 1991. La tribu arabe: Approches anthropologiques et orien-
talistes. In Al-ansâb. La quête des origines. Anthropologie historique de la société
tribale arabe, ed. Pierre Bonte et al. Paris: Éditions de la Maison des Sciences de
l’Homme: 13-48.
———, Édouard Conte, and Paul Dresch. 2001. Introduction. In Emirs et présidents:
Figures de la parenté et du politique dans le monde arabe, ed. Pierre Bonte, Édouard
Conte, and Paul Dresch. Paris: CNRS: 17-51.
Bouquet, Olivier. 2007. Les Pachas du sultan. Essai sur les agents supérieurs de l’État
ottoman (1839-1909). Louvain: Peeters.
———. 2010. Onomasticon Ottomanicum: Identification administrative et désignation
sociale dans l’État ottoman du XIXe siècle. Revue des mondes musulmans et de la
Méditerranée 127: 213-235.
———. 2011. Old Elites in a New Republic: The Reconversion of Ottoman Bureaucratic
Families in Turkey (1909-1939). Comparative Studies in South Asia, Africa and the
Middle East 31/3: 588-600.
———. 2013. Les noblesses du nom. Essai d’anthroponymie ottomane. Turnhout: Brepols.
Conte, Édouard. 2000. Mariages arabes. La part du féminin. L’Homme. Revue française
d’anthropologie 154-55: 279-307.
———. 1991. Entrer dans le sang. Perceptions arabes des origines. In Al-ansâb. La quête
des origines. Anthropologie historique de la société tribale arabe, ed. Pierre Bonte
et al. Paris: Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme: 55-100.
Cuisenier, Jean, and André Miquel. 1965. La terminologie arabe de la parenté. Analyse
sémantique et analyse componentielle. L’Homme. Revue française d’anthropologie
3-4: 17-59.
jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

Çavdaroğlu Mehmed Şerif [Pasha]. 1917-1919. Seyahatname-i İbn Battuta. Istanbul:

Matbaa-i Amire.
———. 1953. Kanuni’nin makbul Veziri İbrahim Paşa damat değil miyidi? Resimli Tarih
Mecmuası 4/39: 2126-8.
Çetiner, Yılmaz. 2005. Son padişah Vahideddin. Istanbul: Epsilon.
Çorlulu-zâde Mahmud Celaleddin Pasha. 1910-1. Mirʾat-i hakikat. 3 vols. Istanbul:
Matbaa-i Osmaniye.
Danişmend, İsmail Hamdi. 1971-1972. İzahlı Osmanlı tarihi kronolojisi. 5 vols. Istanbul:
Türkiye Basımevi.
Dankoff, Robert. 1993. Marrying a Sultana: The Case of Melek Ahmed Paşa. In Decision
Making and Change in the Ottoman Empire, ed. Caesar Farah. Kirksville: Northeast
Missouri State University: 169-82.
Develioğlu, Ferit. 1999. Osmanlıca-Türkçe ansiklopedik lûgat. 16th ed. Ankara: Aydın
Kitabevi.
Dünden bugüne İstanbul ansiklopedisi. 1993-5. 8 vols. Istanbul: Kültür Bakanlığı ve Tarih
Vakfı.
Edwards, Walter. 1989. Modern Japan through its Weddings: Gender, Person, and Society
in Ritual Portrayal. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Eldem, Edhem. 2010. Harem, çokeşlilik ve çağdaşlık: 19. yüzyılda Osmanlı Hanedanı ve
kadınları. Lecture given at the French Institute of Anatolian Studies, Istanbul,
4 January 2010.
Elias, Norbet. 1969. Die Höfische Gesellschaft. Untersuchungen zur Soziologie des
Königtums und der höfischen Aristokratie mit einer Einleitung: Soziologie und
Geschichtswissenschaft. Berlin: Luchterhand.
Enver Paşa’nın özel mektupları. 1997. Ed. Arı İnan. Ankara: İmge.
Eraslan, Sibel. 2007. Osmanlı sarayında kadın sultanlar. Istanbul: Selis.
Esenbel, Selcuk, and Inaba Chiharu, ed. 2003. The Rising Sun and the Turkish Crescent.
New Perspectives on the History of Japanese-Turkish Relations. Istanbul: Boğaziçi
University Press.
Frierson, Elizabeth. 2005. Women in Late Ottoman Intellectual History. In Late Ottoman
Society: The Intellectual Legacy, ed. Elizabeth Özdalga. London and New York:
Routledge: 135-61.
Erdem, Can. 2002. Sadrâzam Damat Ferit Paşa. Unpublished PhD diss. University of
Marmara.
Erdenen, Orhan. 2006. Boğaziçi Sahilhaneleri, II, Avrupa Yakası. Istanbul: İstanbul
Büyükşehir.
Ertürk, Ahmet Ç. 2008. Bilge Büyük Sözlük, Ankara: Kalkan.
Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi. 1996. Ed. Orhan Şaik Gökyay. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları,
vol. 1.
jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

358 Bouquet
Fujitani, Takashi. 1998. Splendid Monarchy. Power and Pageantry in Modern Japan.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Georgeon, François. 1997. Le Sultan caché. Réclusion du souverain et mise en scène du
pouvoir à l’époque d’Abdülhamid II (1876-1909). Turcica 29: 93-124.
———. 2003. Abdülhamid II. Le sultan calife. Paris: Fayard.
Giz, Adnan. 1950. Üç yaşında evlenen sultanlar. Tarih Dünyası 1: 105-107.
———. 1950a. Altı vezirle evlenen bir sultan: Ayşe Sultan. Tarih Dünyası 2: 283-285.
———. 1950b. İkinci Mahmud Kızları. Tarih Dünyası 2: 317-318.
———. 1950c. Ünçüncü Ahmed’in oğulları. Tarih Dünyası 2: 678-679.
———. 1953. Makbul İbrahim Paşa’nın damatlığı meselesi. Resimli Tarih Mecmuası
4/48: 2793.
Gladney, Dru C., ed. 1998. Making Majorities. Constituting the Nation in Japan, Korea,
China, Malaysia, Fiji, Turkey and the United States. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Gluck, Carol. 1985. Japan’s Modern Myths. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Godelier, Maurice. 2004. Métamorphoses de la parenté. Paris: Fayard.
Gökbilgin, Tayyib. 1971. Ibrâhîm Pas̲h̲a. Encyclopaedia of Islam. 2nd ed.: 1023-1024.
Günergun, Feza, and Shigehisa Kuriyama, ed. 1998. The Introduction of Modern Science
and Technology to Turkey and Japan. Kyoto: International Research Center for
Japanese Studies.
Hamès, Constant. 1987. La Filiation généalogique (nasab) dans la société d’Ibn
Khaldun. L’Homme. Revue Française d’Anthropologie 27/102: 99-118.
Hammel, Eugene A. 1968. Alternative Social Structures and Ritual Relations in the
Balkans. Englewoods Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hathaway, Jane. 1997. The Politics of Household in Ottoman Egypt. The Rise of the
Qazaqlis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2005. Beshir Agha. Chief Eunuch of the Ottoman Imperial Harem. Oxford:
Oneworld.
Ho, Engseng. 2001. Le don précieux de la généalogie. In Émirs et présidents. Figures de
la parenté et du politique dans le monde arabe, ed. Pierre Bonte, Édouard Conte, and
Paul Dresch. Paris: CNRS: 79-110.
Imber, Colin. 1997. Women, Marriage and Property: Mahr in the Behcetü’l-Fetâvâ of
Yenişehirli Abdullah. In Women in the Ottoman Empire, ed. Madeleine Zilfi. Leiden:
Brill: 81-104.
İnal, İbnülemin Mahmud Kemal. 1940-1953. Osmanlı devrinde son sadrazamlar. Ankara:
Maarif Vekaleti.
İpşirli, Mehmet. 2003. Lutfî Paşa. In Diyanet vakfı İslam ansiklopedisi 27: 234-236.
Jennings, Ronald C. 1975. Women in Early 17th-Century Ottoman Judicial Records. The
Sharia Court of Anatolian Kayseri. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the
Orient 18: 53-114.
jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

Kanar, Mehmet. 2009. Osmanlı Türkçesi sözlüğü. Istanbul: Say.

Karateke, Hakan. 2004. Padişahım çok yaşa! Osmanlı Devletinin son yüz yılında mera-
simler. Istanbul: Kitap Yayınevi.
———. 2005. Legitimizing the Ottoman Sultanate: A Framework for Historical
Analysis. In Legitimizing the Order. The Ottoman Rhetoric of State Power, ed. Hakan
Karateke and Maurus Reinkowski. Leiden: Brill: 13-52.
Kayaoğlu, Turan. 2010. Legal Imperialism: Sovereignty and Extraterritoriality in Japan,
the Ottoman Empire, and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kélékian, Diran. 1911. Dictionnaire turc-français. Istanbul: Mihran.
Kocabay, Yalçın. 1998. Türkçe-Fransızca büyük sözlük. Ankara: Tisamat.
Koloğlu, Orhan. 1996. Enver Paşa hakkında saray dedikoduları. Tarih ve Toplum 153:
42-45.
Kreiser, Klaus. 2002. Women in the Ottoman World: A Bibliographical Essay. Islam and
Christian-Muslim Relations 13/2: 197-206.
Kuran, Ahmet Bedevi. 1952. Damad Mahmud Paşa. Resimli Tarih Mecmuası 3/31:
1613-1616.
Lancaster, William. 1981. The Rwala Bedouin Today. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Leïla Hanoum. 2000. Le Harem impérial et les sultanes au XIXe siècle. Brussels: Complexe.
Lewis, Leo. 2005. The Princess and the Bureaucrat: A Modern-Day Fairytale in Reverse.
The Times (12 November 2005) (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/
article589235.ece).
Mallouf, N. 1881. Dictionnaire français-turc. 3rd ed. Paris: Maisonneuve.
Mehmed Süreyya. 1971. Sicill-i Osmânî. 4 vols. Westmead: Gregg.
Micklewright, Nancy. 1989. Late-Nineteenth-Century Ottoman Wedding Costumes as
Indicators of Social Change. Muqarnas 6: 161-174.
———. 2006. Gender, Modernity and Liberty: Middle Eastern and Western Women’s
Writings: A Critical Sourcebook. London: I.B. Tauris.
Mordtmann, Johann H. 1965. Dâmâd. Encyclopaedia of Islam. 2nd ed. 2: 105-106.
Mouradgea d’Ohsson, Ignatius. 2001. Tableau général de l’Empire ottoman, vol. 3,
tome 4. Istanbul: Isis.
Naîmâ Mustafa Efendi. 2007. Târih-i Naʿîmâ. Ed. Mehmet İpşirli. 4 vols. Ankara: Türk
Tarih Kurumu Yayınları.
Nutku, Özdemir. 1993. Damad. Türkiye diyanet vakfi İslam ansiklopedisi 8: 434-435.
———. 1994. Düğün. Türkiye diyanet vakfı İslam ansiklopedisi 10: 18.
Okday, Şefik. 1988. Osmanlı’dan cumhuriyet’e. Padişah yaveri iki sadrazam oğlu anlatıyor.
Istanbul: Ş. Okday.
Osmanoglou, Aïché. 1992. Avec mon père le Sultan Abdülhamid. De son palais à sa
prison. Paris: L’Harmattan.
jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

360 Bouquet
Osmanoğlu, Şadiye. 1963. II. Abdülhamid devrinde harem hayatı. Hayat Mecmuası 1: 7;
15: 14-15.
Oualdi, M’hamed. 2011. Esclaves et maîtres. Les mamelouks des beys de Tunis du XVIIe
siècle aux années 1880. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne.
Örik, Nahit Sırrı. 1952. Son damatlar. Resimli Tarih Mecmuası 3: 1212-1216.
Özdemir, Hikmet. 1996. Adile Sultan divanı. Ankara: Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı
Yayınları.
Öztuna, Yılmaz. 1996. Devletler ve hanedanlar. Türkiye (1074-1990). 2nd ed. Ankara:
Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları.
Pakalın, Mehmet Zeki. 1993. Osmanlı tarih deyimleri ve terimleri sözlüğü. 3 vols. Istanbul:
Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı.
Parry, Vernon J. 1971. Ibrâhîm Pas̲h̲a, Dâmâd. Encyclopaedia of Islam. 2nd ed. 3: 1025-
1026.
Pascal, Blaise. 1961. Pensées et opuscules. Paris: Hachette.
Peirce, Leslie. 1993. The Imperial Harem. Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Pellat, Charles. 1971. Hasab wa-Nasab. Encyclopaedia of Islam. 2nd ed. 3: 245-246.
Rapper, Gilles de. 2000. Entre masculin et féminin: La vierge jurée, l’héritière et le gen-
dre à la maison. L’Homme. Revue Française d’Anthropologie, 154-55: 279-307.
Redhouse, Sir James W. 1996. A Turkish and English Lexicon. Beirut: Librairie du Liban.
———. 1997. Redhouse Türkçe-İngilizce sözlük. Istanbul: Sev.
Rycaut, Paul. 1971. The Present State of the Ottoman Empire. Originally published in
1665. Reprint: New York: Arno Press and New York Times.
Salname-i Devlet-i Aliye-i Osmaniye. 1918. Istanbul: Matbaa-i Amire.
Samy-Bey Fraschery. 1905. Dictionnaire français-turc. Istanbul: Mihran.
Satar, Figen. 2000. Damat Mahmud Celâleddin Paşa’nın hayatı ve siyasî mücadelesi. MA
thesis. University of Marmara.
Selânîki Mustafa Efendi. 1999. Tarih-i Selânikî. Ed. Mehmet İpşirli. Ankara: Türk Tarih
Kurumu Yayınları,vol. 2.
Senyücel, Kerime. 2009. Hanedan’ın sürgün öyküsü. Istanbul: Timaş.
Simavî, Lütfi 2007. Sultan Mehmed Reşad Hân’ın ve halefinin sarayında gördüklerim.
Istanbul: Şehir Yayınları.
Status of the Japanese Imperial Household of 1889 (http://core.ecu.edu/hist/tucker-
jo/1889law.html).
Sunay, Serap. 2013. Tanzimat’ın ilk saray düğünü: Sultan II. Mahmud’un kızı Atiyye
sultan’ın Ahmed Fethi Paşa ile evlenmesi. Belleten 77/278: 119-150.
Şehsuvaroğlu, Haluk Y. 1952. Damat Ferid Paşa. Resimli Tarih Mecmuası 28: 1392-1394.
Thys-Şenocak, Lucienne. 2006. Ottoman Women Builders. The Architectural Patronage
of Hadice Turhan Sultan. Aldershot: Ashgate.
jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

Topuz. Hıfzı. 2009. Paris’te son Osmanlılar. Mediha Sultan ve Damat Ferid. Istanbul:
Remzi Kitabevi.
Turan, Ebru. 2007. The Sultan’s Favorite. Ibrahim Pasha and the Making of the Ottoman
Universal Sovereignty in the Reign of Sultan Süleyman (1516-1526). Unpublished PhD
diss. University of Chicago.
———. 2009. 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
Sixteenth-Century Ottoman Empire. Turcica 41: 3-36.
Uluçay, Çagatay. 1958. Fatma ve Safiye Sultanların düğünleri ait bir araştırma. İstanbul
Enstitüsü Mecmuası 4: 135-148.
———. 1992a. Harem II. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları (1st ed. 1971).
———. 1992b. Padişahların Kadınları ve Kızları. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları
(1st ed. 1980).
Uzunçarşılı, İsmail H. 2003. Osmanlı Tarihi. Vol. 3, no. 2. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu
Yayınları (1st ed. 1954).
———. 1988. Osmanlı Devletinin Saray Teşkilatı. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları.
Ünüvar, Safiye. 2000. Saray hâtıralarım. New ed. Istanbul: Bedir Yayınevi.
Vatin, Nicolas, and Gilles Veinstein. 2003. Le Sérail ébranlé. Essais sur les morts, déposi-
tions et avènements des sultans ottomans (XIVe-XIXe siècle). Paris: Fayard.
Vatin, Nicolas, and Stéphane Yerasimos. 2001. Les cimetières dans la ville: Statut, choix et
organisation des lieux d’inhumation dans Istanbul intra muros. Paris: Maisonneuve
et Larose.
Veinstein, Gilles. 2009. Les esclaves de la Porte dans l’Empire ottoman. Cours du Collège
de France, Paris, 6 January 2009.
Ward, Robert E., and Dankwart A. Rustow, ed. 1964. Political Modernization in Japan
and Turkey. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
White, Charles. 1846. Three Years in Constantinople. 3 vols. London: Henry Colburn.
Worringer, Renée. 2001. Comparing Perceptions: Japan as Archetype for Ottoman
Modernity, 1876-1918. Unpublished PhD diss. University of Chicago.
———. 2004. “Sick Man of Europe” or “Japan of the Near East”? Constructing Ottoman
Modernity in the Hamidian and Young Turk Eras. International Journal of Middle
Eastern Studies 36/2: 207-230.
Zilfi, Madeleine, ed. 1997. Women in the Ottoman Empire. Leiden: Brill.
———. 2010. Women and Slavery in the Late Ottoman Empire. The Design of Difference.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

The Sultans Sons in Law Analysing Ottoma

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Sultans Sons in Law Analysing Ottoma

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of the Economic and

Social History of the Orient 58 (2015) 327-361

The Sultan’s Sons-in-Law: Analysing Ottoman

household – marriage – gender – affinity – Ottoman Empire

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi 10.1163/15685209-12341377

1 P. Bonte, É. Conte, and P. Dresch, “Introduction.” In Émirs et présidents. Figures de la

jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

La différence entre les sexes à l’égard du mariage hypogamique reflète

Therefore, when Sultan Bayezid II (r. 1481-1512) introduced the innovation of

jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

mariage proche (to borrow Bonte’s phrase).12 Interestingly, the production of

1 Reception: The Two-faced Legend of Imperial Damads

jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

of archival materials in the Prime Minister’s Archives in Istanbul has enhanced

Sultan Ibrahim wanted to organize an august ceremony that would last

jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

In these journals, a prolonged debate was also held concerning Ibrahim

jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

2 Damad: Definitions and Uses

Ottoman imperial sons-in-law were designated by the originally Persian word

jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

of the imperial household, for example the daughters of imperial princes,42

jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

preferred to use “Damad” instead of or in addition to “Pasha.”55 For exam-

3 Selection: The Damad-making Process

jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

Concerning the order prescribed by tradition regarding the marriage of

jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

decree—this was common until the reign of Abdülmecid I (1839-1861)80—or

Precise accounts (surnâme) of magnificent Ottoman wedding ceremonies and

jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

Chronicles and popular narratives occasionally indicate that long periods

jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

her Hancarre (hancer/hançer) or Dagger by her side in token of her

Le gendre entra au Harem dans un concert de souhaits et de vœux de

jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

115 Pakalın, “Koltuk.” In Tarih deyimleri ve terimleri: 2: 289-291.

jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

next to, or—more usually—behind their royal spouse’s apartments.”121 In the

6 The Sultan’s Favour: The Careers of Damads

As an implementation of the imperial rescript announcing that he [Ferid

121 Artan, “From Charismatic”: 575.

jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

second class be promoted, after agreement, to the upper degree and be

The sultan appointed some damads as his personal delegates, regularly

124 SoSa: 2031.

jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

134 Naîmâ Mustafa Efendi, Târih-i Naʿîmâ: 1: 81-2, 435-6.

jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

145 Bouquet, Les Pachas: 213, 344, 446.

jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

Imperial damads (1808-1909) and their Princesses

jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

18. Çerkes Mehmed Pasha; Esma Sultan

jesho 58 (2015) 327-361

Bibliothèque Nationale de France, MS 4-J Pièce-355: Damad Mahmoud Pacha.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��5 | doi 10.1163/15685209-12341377

1 P. Bonte, É. Conte, and P. Dresch, “Introduction.” In Émirs et présidents. Figures de la

115 Pakalın, “Koltuk.” In Tarih deyimleri ve terimleri: 2: 289-291.

121 Artan, “From Charismatic”: 575.

124 SoSa: 2031.

134 Naîmâ Mustafa Efendi, Târih-i Naʿîmâ: 1: 81-2, 435-6.

145 Bouquet, Les Pachas: 213, 344, 446.