The Rise of the Household to Hegemonic Status



The establishment of separate households by senior office-holders in the elite, who competed with the kapi of the sultan for positions and power centers, reached its peak in the second half of the 17th century. This period was characterized by the increased importance and influence of grandee households as one of the dominant elements of Ottoman political organization and the rise of the Köprülü household to hegemonic status. However, between 1695 and 1703, during Feyzullah Efendi’s second term of office as Şeyhülislam, he succeeded in raising his grandee household to hegemonic status. For the first and only time in Ottoman history the grandee household of an alim dominated its politics. Feyzullah based his household’s hegemony on nepotism, the removal of rivals, and his undertaking to manage government affairs. Feyzullah’s unique political activity, backed by the sultan, shaped a new but temporary pattern of rule, evidenced by unprecedented control by one lineage of the legal-academic establishment, and, most importantly, by the Şeyhülislam’s takeover of the central administration.


Foreign Policy Legal Establishment Senior Member Peace Treaty Senior Position 
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. 60.
    Akgündüz, Şeyhülislamlik, pp. 280–5; Uzunçarşili, İlmiye, p. 208; Ahmet Mumcu, Osmanli Devletinde Siyaseten Katl, Ankara: Ajans-Türk Matbaasi, 1963, p. 130.Google Scholar
  2. 74.
    On the grand vizier see, for example, Uzunçarşili, Merkez, pp. 111–79; Gibb and Bowen, Islamic Society, I, pp. 107–37; Metin Kunt, “Sadr-i Azam”, EI2, Vol. VIII (1994), pp. 751–2Google Scholar
  3. 76.
    Repp, Mufti, pp. 192–5; İnalcik, The Ottoman Empire, p. 172; Gibb and Bowen, Islamic Society, II, p. 86; Uzunçarşili, İlmiye, p. 178; Robert Anhegger, “Hezarfen Hüseyin Efendi’nin Osmanli DevletTeşkilatina dair Mülahazalari”, Türkiyat Mecmuasi, X (1951–3), p. 389; Raphaela Lewis, Everyday Life in Ottoman Turkey, New York: Dorset Press, 1988, p. 28.Google Scholar
  4. 78.
    As to the precedent created by Feyzullah Efendi in this matter see Akgündüz, Şeyhülislamlik, p. 147; Naima, Tarih, VI, pp. 11–13; Faroqhi, An Ulama Grandee, pp. 206–7; Norman Itzkowitz, “Men and Ideas in the Eighteenth Century Ottoman Empire”, in Thomas Naff and Roger Owen (eds), Studies in Eighteenth Century Islamic Century, Papers on Islamic History, 4, Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1977, p. 17.Google Scholar
  5. 86.
    On the importance of the image of the Sultan as warrior of the faith see Colin Imber, “The Ottoman Dynastic Myth”, Turcica, XIX (1987), pp. 7–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cemal Kafadar, Between Two Worlds: The Construction of the Ottoman State, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995, pp. 62–117.Google Scholar
  7. 92.
    Silahdar, Nusretname, Vol. 2/1, p. 140; Defterdar, Zübde, p. 784; Özcan, Anonim, p. 223; Uzunçarşili, Osmanli Tarihi, Vol. 3/2, pp. 483–4; Refik, Hoca, pp. 144–5; Andreasyan, Edirne Vak’asi, p. 48; Richard Knolls and Paul Rycaut, The Turkish History, Vol. 2, London, 1687–1700, pp. 444–5.Google Scholar
  8. 120.
    Öztuna, Hanedanlar, p. 722; Süreyya, Sicill, III, p. 718; Danişmend, Osmanli Tarihi, pp. 520–1; Şeyhi, Vekayi, II-III, pp. 218–19; Uzunçarşili, Osmanli Tarihi, Vol. 3/2, pp. 444–5; Raşid, Tarih, II, p. 543; Orhan F. Köprülü, “Hüseyin Paşa,” İA, 5/1 (1987), pp. 646–8.Google Scholar
  9. 121.
    Silahdar, Nusretname, Vol. 1/3, pp. 279–80; Raşid, Tarih, II, pp. 416, 543; Joseph Von Hammer-Purgstall, Büyük Osmanli Tarihi. Erol Kiliç ve Mümin Çevik (eds), Vol. 7, İstanbul: Üçdal Neşriyat, 1992, p. 15.Google Scholar
  10. 137.
    Terzioğlu, Sufi and Dissident, pp. 286–7; Knolls and Rycaut, Turkish History, Vol. 2, pp. 222, 225, 288, Abou El-Haj, Ottoman Diplomacy, p. 498; Meservey, Feyzullah, pp. 74, 77, 79, 90, 105–6; Lewis V. Thomas, A Study of Naima, Norman Itzkowitz (ed.), New York: New York University Press, 1972, pp. 66–7.Google Scholar
  11. 138.
    Silahdar, Nusretname, Vol. 1/3, p. 339; Cantemir, Growth and Decay, pp. 423–7; Köprülü, Hüseyin Paşa, pp. 648–9; Halil Inalcik, “Foreword”, in A. Dutu and P. Cernovodeanu (eds), Dimitrie Cantemir, Bucharest: International Association of South East European Studies, 1973, pp. 5–10.Google Scholar
  12. 147.
    Derin and Türek, Hal Tercümesi, II, pp. 89–90; Hammer, Osmanli Tarihi, Vol. 7, p. 47; Orhonlu, Mustafa II, p. 699; J. H. Kramers, “Mustafa II”. EI2, VII (1993), p. 708.Google Scholar
  13. 149.
    Uzunçarşili, Osmanli Tarihi, Vol. 4/1, p. 15; Hammer, Osmanli Tarihi, Vol. 7, p. 49; Sezer Tansuğ, “Osmanli Gravürleri”, Osmanli Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 4 (1996), p. 255.Google Scholar
  14. 168.
    Ahmed Refik, Felaket Seneleri: 1094–1110, İstanbul: Kitabhane-i Askeri, 1332 (1913–14), p. 187.Google Scholar
  15. 192.
    Uzunçarşili, Osmanli Tarihi, Vol. 4/1, pp. 18–19, n. 2 and Vol. 4/2, p. 264; Bekir Sitki Baykal, “Rami Mehmed Pasa”, İA, 9 (1993), p. 623.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Michael Nizri 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ariel UniversityIsrael

Personalised recommendations