sempozyum_bildiri_kitabi

argues that “the fact that tradition accepted the valide sultan’s procession as having originated with
her testifies to the authority she exercised”. 9
The otherness of the Ottoman world in the eyes of the early modern Europeans was a general
theme that prevailed in most of the writings of the European observers of the Ottoman Empire
during the early modern period. While factually accurate descriptions of Ottoman might was a life
and death matter for European statesmen, such as Venetian ambassadors, a more entertaining
rendering of this exotic other gradually became a popular demand among European audience.
It should be noted that an adjunct view, which reinforces the mystical aura that surrounds the
Ottoman court, sultans and the royal women and serves best to the popular productions of Ottoman
history, modern and contemporary, is also plotted for the inner precincts of the Topkapı Palace. The
fact that even today the harem section of the Topkapı Palace attracts the biggest number of tourists
can give a hint for the deeply rooted beliefs, in fact prejudices and disinformation, about the life in
Topkapı Palace. For the eyes of the sixteenth and seventeenth century Europeans the corruptness of
everything about the Ottomans is embodied within the walls of the “Grand Signour’s Seraglio”. 10 An
unchecked power of the sultans immediately triggered the imagination towards all kind of sexual
perversion, performed within the well‐confined walls of the Sultan’s harem. 11
It seems that Altınay’s coinage “sultanate of women” is a documented historical fact, yet it was
most of the time became a useful instrument both for the declinist interpretations of the Ottoman
history and the popular productions written on the lives of Ottoman royal women. Although Peirce’s
path‐breaking study on Ottoman Royal Women attempted to correct many inaccurate assumptions,
scholarly monographs of these women which tread their lives carefully and new perspectives which
rightly fit these women’s role in Ottoman politics still waits to be written. Since popular perceptions
of Ottoman royal women seems to be closely related to the popular perception of the Ottoman
Harem nothing can serve better to the myth‐spinning on the lives of Ottoman Royal women than the
rendering of royal women as manipulative villains of Ottoman politics.
In conclusion, among the abundant number of hearsay and misinformation concerning the lives of
Ottoman royalty penned by various foreign visitors I would like to quote a 17 th century French
traveler, Jean Baptist Tavernier, whose statement is shockingly accurate. “The nature of the sultan’s
life is kept secret, I will not discuss it and I was unable to learn anything about it. It is easy to
compose fantasy on this subject but exceedingly difficult to speak accurately”. 12
Assistant Prof. Şefik Peksevgen
Yeditepe University Department of History
Notes
1
Çağatay Uluçay, Padişahların Kadınları ve Kızları, (Ankara: TTK, 1992), p. 40‐43
2
Günhan Börekçi and Şefik Peksevgen, “Court and Favourites”, in Encyclopedia of Ottoman
Empire eds., Gabor Agoston and Bruce Masters, Facts on File Publications, (New York: December,
2008), p. 153
3
Leslie Peirce, The Imperial Harem. Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire (New York:
Oxford UP, 1993), p.94
4
Ahmed Refik Altunay, Kadınlar Saltanatı, İstanbul, 1916
5
Leslie Peirce, The Imperial Harem. Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire (New York:
Oxford UP, 1993)
6
Two of the Ottoman sultans of the first half of the seventeenth century were famous for their
mental instability: Ibrahim (r. 1640‐48) and Mustafa who was enthroned twice; first between
1617‐18 and then between 1622‐23
7
Peirce, Imperial Harem, pp. 19‐43
8
Peirce, Imperial Harem, pp. 91‐113
9
Peirce, Imperial Harem, pp. 187‐188