Abstract
In its historical context the Ottoman household reflected global social practices such as patronage and networking that have existed in various times and places throughout history.1 In general, the creation of patronage ties is based on exchange: in return for the client’s services and loyalty, the patron promises protection, social standing, employment, the possibility of social mobility, and other privileges. Although the balance of power between the two parties is uneven, the tie provides mutual benefits. However, that tie varies from place to place, influenced by, for example, cultural codes and governmental structures, and their changes over time.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
See, for example, Chamberlain, Knowledge; Richard P. Saller, Personal Patronage under the Early Empire, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982
Patricia Crone, Slaves on Horse: The Evolution of the Islamic Polity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980(especially pp. 49–57)
Paul G. Forand, “The Relation of the Slave and the Client to the Master or Patron in Medieval Islam”, IJMES, 2 (1971), pp. 59–66
David Ayalon, Islam and the Abode of War: Military Slaves and Islamic Adversaries, Aldershot, Hampshire: Variorum, 1994
Ronald G. Asch, “Introduction”, in Ronald G. Asch and Adolf M. Birke (eds), Princes, Patronage and the Nobility: The Court at the Beginning of the Modern Age c. 1450–1650, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991, pp. 1–38
Sharon Kettering. Patrons, Brokers, and Clients in Seventeenth-Century France, New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.
Dror Ze’evi, “My Slave, My Son, My Vizier Master: State, Family and Slavery in Muslim Middle Eastern Cultures”, Jama’a, Vol. 4 (1999), p. 158
Fleischer, Mustafa Ali, pp. 209–11. See also Jane Hathaway, “Mamluk Households and Mamluk Factions in Ottoman Egypt: A Reconsideration”, in Thomas Philipp and Ulrich Haarmann (eds), The Mamluks in Egyptian Politics and Society, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998, p. 115.
Itzkowitz, Realities, pp. 91–3; Findley, Civil Officialdom, pp. 47–51, 55; Itzkowitz and Shinder, The Office of Şhaykh Al-Islam, pp. 97–8; Atcil, The Route to the Top, pp. 490, 510; Joel Shinder, “Career Line Formation in the Ottoman Bureaucracy, 1648–1750: A New Perspective”, IJMES, 16 (1973), pp. 217–37.
Hans G. Majer, Zu Uşakîzade, Seiner Familie Und Seinem Zeyl-i Şakayik, Munich: Rudolf Trofenik, 1978, p. 205
Peirce, Harem, pp. 65–7, 143–9; A. D. Alderson, The Structure of Ottoman Dynasty, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956, pp. 88–9.
C. G Fisher and A. Fisher, “Topkapi Sarayi in the Mid-Seventeenth Century: Bobovi’s Description”, Archivum Ottomanicum, X (1985/1987), pp. 69–70.
Zilfi, Circulation, pp. 331–4; Gibb and Bowen, Islamic Society, II, p. 107; Uriel Heyd, “The Ottoman ’Ulema’ and Westernization in the Time of Selim III and Mahmud II”, Scripta Hierosalymitana, IX (1961), pp. 82–3.
Zilfi, Circulation, pp. 320–1; Cemile Koşar, Mirza Mehmed Efendi ile ailesi ve onun diğer ailelerle vücuda getirdikleri sihri münasebetler, İstanbul Üniversitesi: Basilmamiş Mezuniyet Tezi, Edebiyat Fakültesi, Tarih Semineri Ktb. Nr. T. 445, İstanbul, 1947–8.
Öztuna, Hanedanlar, p. 722; Süreyya, Sicill, III, p. 718; Ismail H. Danismend, İzahli Osmanli Tarihi Kronolojisi, Vol. 3, İstanbul: Türkiye Yayinevi, 1950, pp. 520–1.
Mehmed Serhan Tayşî, “Seyyid Feyzullah Efendi,” TDVIA, 12 (1995), p. 527.
Süreyya, Sicill, I, p. 335; Öztuna, Hanedanlar, pp. 630–53; M. Şihabüddin Akalin, Dürri Zadeler Ailesi ve Onun Diğer Ailelerle Vücude Getirdiği Sihri Münasebat, İstanbul Üniversitesi: Basilmamiş Mezuniyet Tezi, Edebiyat Fakültesi, Tarih Semineri Ktb. Nr. T. 3795, Istanbul, 1947–8, pp. 28–9.
In this regard, see Denise Klein, Die osmanischen Ulema des 17. Jahrhunderts: Eine geschlossene Gesellschaft?, Berlin: Klaus Schwarz, 2007.
Abou-El-Haj, Paşa Households, p. 441; Toledano, Review, p. 451; Göçek, Demise, pp. 22–3; Uzunçarşili, Merkez, pp. 168–71, 255–61; Findley, Reform, p. 36; Metin Kunt, Bir Osmanli Valisinin Yillik Gelir-Gideri Diyarbekir, 1670–71, İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayinlari, 1981, pp. 54–5.
Uriel Heyd, “Some Aspects of the Ottoman Fetva”, BSOAS, 32 (1969), pp. 46–9
Mehmed V. Ş. Altinbaş. “Fetva Eminleri”, Diyanet İşleri Başkanliği Dergisi”, 10/2 (1963), pp. 23–6
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2014 Michael Nizri
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nizri, M. (2014). The Formation and Consolidation of the Kapi (Grandee Household). In: Ottoman High Politics and the Ulema Household. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137326904_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137326904_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-46004-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-32690-4
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)