The Formation and Consolidation of the Kapi (Grandee Household)



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.


Senior Member Senior Official Elite Group Religious Trust Islamic Society 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    See, for example, Chamberlain, Knowledge; Richard P. Saller, Personal Patronage under the Early Empire, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Patricia Crone, Slaves on Horse: The Evolution of the Islamic Polity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980(especially pp. 49–57)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Paul G. Forand, “The Relation of the Slave and the Client to the Master or Patron in Medieval Islam”, IJMES, 2 (1971), pp. 59–66Google Scholar
  4. David Ayalon, Islam and the Abode of War: Military Slaves and Islamic Adversaries, Aldershot, Hampshire: Variorum, 1994Google Scholar
  5. 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. 1–38Google Scholar
  6. Sharon Kettering. Patrons, Brokers, and Clients in Seventeenth-Century France, New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  7. 5.
    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. 158Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    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.Google Scholar
  9. 14.
    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.Google Scholar
  10. 27.
    Hans G. Majer, Zu Uşakîzade, Seiner Familie Und Seinem Zeyl-i Şakayik, Munich: Rudolf Trofenik, 1978, p. 205Google Scholar
  11. 47.
    Peirce, Harem, pp. 65–7, 143–9; A. D. Alderson, The Structure of Ottoman Dynasty, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956, pp. 88–9.Google Scholar
  12. C. G Fisher and A. Fisher, “Topkapi Sarayi in the Mid-Seventeenth Century: Bobovi’s Description”, Archivum Ottomanicum, X (1985/1987), pp. 69–70.Google Scholar
  13. 52.
    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.Google Scholar
  14. 61.
    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.Google Scholar
  15. 72.
    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.Google Scholar
  16. 73.
    Mehmed Serhan Tayşî, “Seyyid Feyzullah Efendi,” TDVIA, 12 (1995), p. 527.Google Scholar
  17. 76.
    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.Google Scholar
  18. 92.
    In this regard, see Denise Klein, Die osmanischen Ulema des 17. Jahrhunderts: Eine geschlossene Gesellschaft?, Berlin: Klaus Schwarz, 2007.Google Scholar
  19. 106.
    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.Google Scholar
  20. Uriel Heyd, “Some Aspects of the Ottoman Fetva”, BSOAS, 32 (1969), pp. 46–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mehmed V. Ş. Altinbaş. “Fetva Eminleri”, Diyanet İşleri Başkanliği Dergisi”, 10/2 (1963), pp. 23–6Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Michael Nizri 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ariel UniversityIsrael

Personalised recommendations