The Empress Nurbanu and Ottoman Politics in the Sixteenth Century

Nurbanu (1525–1583) is one of the most prominent yet least studied royal women of the Ottoman dynasty. Her political and administrative career began when she was chosen as the favorite concubine of the crown prince Selim. Nur- banu’s authority increased when her son Murad was singled out as crown prince. By 1574, when her son, Murad III became Sultan, Nurbanu officially took on the title of Valide Sultan, or Queen Mother, holding the highest office of the impe- rial harem until her death in 1583. This book concentrates on the Atik Valide mosque complex, which consti- tutes the architectural embodiment of Nurbanu’s prestige, power and piety. The arrangement of the chapters is designed to enable readers to reconsider Ottoman imperial patronage practices of the late sixteenth century using the architectural enterprise of a remarkable woman as the common thread. Chapter 1 provides a general history of the wqaf institution to inform on its origins and evolution. Chapter 2 looks closely at the political dealings of Nurbanu, both in the domestic and the international sphere, building upon research concerning Ottoman royal women and power dynamics of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Chapter 3 presents a textual analysis of the written records pertaining to Nurbanu’s impe- rial mosque complex. Chapter 4 examines the distinctive physical qualities and functional features of the Atik Valide within its urban context. The book con- cludes by assessing to what extent Nurbanu was involved in the representation of her power and piety through the undertaking of her eponymous monument. Providing a complete study of the life and times of this Ottoman empress, this book will appeal to students and scholars of Ottoman studies, gender studies, history of art and architecture, Islamic studies, history of religion and Middle Eastern studies.

Pinar Kayaalp is Associate Professor of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies at Ramapo College of New Jersey, USA. Routledge Studies in Middle Eastern History

The region’s history from the earliest times to the present is catered for by this series made up of the very latest research. Books include political, social, cul- tural, religious and economic history. For a full list of titles in the series: www.routledge.com/middleeaststudies/ series/SE0811

13 Protestant Missionaries in the Levant Ungodly Puritans, 1820–1860 Samir Khalaf

14 British Somaliland An Administrative History, 1920–1960 Brock Millman

15 War and State Formation in Syria Cemal Pasha’s Governorate during World War I, 1914–1917 M. Talha Çiçek

16 The Druze Community and the Lebanese State Between Confrontation and Reconciliation Yusri Hazran

17 The Secret Anglo-­French War in the Middle East Intelligence and Decolonization, 1940–1948 Meir Zamir

18 Histories of the Jews of Egypt An Imagined Bourgeoisie Dario Miccoli

19 The Empress Nurbanu and Ottoman Politics in the Sixteenth Century Building the Atik Valide Pinar Kayaalp The Empress Nurbanu and Ottoman Politics in the Sixteenth Century Building the Atik Valide

Pinar Kayaalp First published 2018 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2018 Pinar Kayaalp The right of Pinar Kayaalp to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested

ISBN: 978-1-138-09979-1 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-10394-5 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by Wearset Ltd, Boldon, Tyne and Wear For:

Stephen Altan, my Golden Crown. You are the light that sustains me.

Richard, my partner. You are the love that guides me.

Emmy and Orhan, my parents. You are the anchors that ground me.

Contents

Preface viii Notes on translation and transliteration xiii

1 The shift in the Ottoman patronage system between the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries 1

2 The emergence and rise of Nurbanu in Ottoman dynastic politics 12

3 The written records of the Atik Valide 48

4 The functional and iconographic significance of Nurbanu’s monument 71

Conclusion 113

Appendices 116 Bibliography 145 Index 165 Preface

Nurbanu (1525–1583) is one of the most prominent yet least studied royal women of the Ottoman dynasty.1 Her political and administrative career began as early as 1542, when she was chosen as the favorite concubine (haseki) of the crown prince Selim, who was governing in Manisa at the time, waiting to inherit the throne from his father, Süleyman the Magnificent (d. 1566). Nurbanu’s authority increased after 1562, when her son Murad was singled out as crown prince, and further still after 1571, the year she became the legal wife of Sultan Selim II. By 1574, when her son, Murad III became Sultan, Nurbanu officially took on the title of Valide Sultan, or Queen Mother, holding the highest office of the imperial harem until her death in 1583. This work concentrates on the Atik Valide mosque complex, which constitutes the architectural embodiment of Nur- banu’s prestige, power and piety (Figure 1).2 Nurbanu’s central place in Ottoman polity and society is closely reflected in this monumental act of charity, which she embarked upon in 1570 and arranged to expand after her death through the overseer of her waqf, Chief Black Eunuch Mehmed Agha.3 The construction of the Atik Valide provides insights into the changes that the Ottoman political and administrative systems were undergoing during the reigns of Selim II (1566–1574) and Murad III (1574–1595). In addition, the construction of the mosque complex informs about the perceived and real problems that affected Ottoman society in the same time period. This imperial mosque complex (külliye) was, aside from an act of beneficence on the part of Nurbanu, a legiti- mizing vehicle used by the Ottoman house to impress its critics in the hopes of dissipating any anxiety that might have been felt over its strength and staying power. The multiple meanings of the Atik Valide that would be readily appreciated by Ottoman audiences may not be manifest to the modern viewer. Yet, the after- glows of these powerful projections still glimmer on the külliye’s walls today. This study attempts to restore the iconographic significance of the Atik Valide to contemporary audiences. Gülru Necipoğlu, in her analysis of the Süleymaniye complex, showed that a monument may encapsulate multiple layers of meaning, and that its messages may be shaped, in part, by the endower.4 Recent studies have expanded on this switch in the research agenda involving architectural objects.5 Applying such an outlook to the Atik Valide is likely to reveal many Preface ix arrays of meaning intimated by this monument. To accomplish this task, I have shifted focus away from the imperial mosque complex’s architect to its endower, and the audiences she aimed to serve and impress. I wish to reveal at least some of the multiple layers of meaning endemic to Nurbanu’s charitable foundation by subjecting it to a rigorous iconographic analysis. Culturally defined signs and codes constituted an integral part of Ottoman pious endowments and were picked up by contemporaneous audiences.6 If Ottoman viewers were capable of capturing the elaborate symbolism inherent in the Süleymaniye and Fatih complexes,7 the cultural associations projected by the Atik Valide would also be detected by them. It is the main purpose of this work to show that this külliye is indeed an eloquent representation of the identity of the woman behind its actualization, aptly projecting Nurbanu’s beneficence and piety simultaneously with her wealth and might. This dazzling mixture of attributes, encompassing both the inner characteristics and the outwardly achievements of the Queen Mother is effectively implanted in the setting, archi- tecture, endowment deed, inscription program, and visual implications of her imperial mosque complex. Completed the year of her death in 1583, the Atik Valide marks a fundamental shift in the locus of female power in the imperial harem, which is reflected in the Ottoman patronage system. The grand scale of Nurbanu’s project attests to her unassailable standing in Ottoman dynastic ­politics and architectural hierarchy of her times, a beacon for her successors to reach and to transcend. Through the Atik Valide complex, Nurbanu’s image lived on in Ottoman con- sciousness for centuries to come. It became the center of a new neighborhood, affecting the lives of all who partook of its beneficence—the local worshipers or vagrants who filled its prayer halls, the needy or greedy who frequented its soup kitchen, the infirm or elderly seeking solace in its hospital wards, the disciples who pursued wisdom or at least a steady income once they graduated from its madrasa, the dervishes who searched for spiritual enlightenment or possibly just a room and a warm meal to dwell in its sufi lodge, the youths who first learned their alphabets in its primary school, the hundreds of administrators and employees who owed their livelihoods to the existence of the külliye, and the myriad purveyors who supplied vast amounts of victuals, goods, and wares every day to the whole complex.8 The new neighborhood continued to expand as its residents benefited from the Atik Valide’s carefully defined and budgeted phys- ical, financial, and human resources. Thus, the creation of this monument also marks the rise of Üsküdar to a respectable venue of architectural, social, and reli- gious activity (see Figure 2). The aim of this work is to provide the first full monograph on the Atik Valide mosque complex and its prominent founder. The arrangement of the chapters is designed to enable readers to reconsider Ottoman imperial patronage practices of the late sixteenth century using the architectural enterprise of a remarkable woman as the common thread. Chapter 1 will provide a general history of the wqaf institution to inform on its origins and evolution. In addition, it will replace the unadulterated paradigm of the “Sultanate of Women” with one in which the x Preface prominence of Ottoman imperial women in political and administrative activities is envisioned as a natural development, an expedient reaction to tackle and remedy the kinds of problems that began to visibly affect the Sublime Porte in this particular era of Ottoman history. Chapter 2 will look closely at the political dealings of Nurbanu, both in the domestic and in the international sphere, building upon research concerning Ottoman royal women and power dynamics of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Nurbanu’s political, diplomatic and charitable endeavors will be expli- cated using a variety of primary Ottoman and European accounts. The attitudes and reactions gleaned from these narratives intimate a telling account of Nur- banu’s life trajectory, from her first station as a rank-­and-file concubine up to her position as the Queen Mother, the highest rank a woman could attain in the Ottoman Empire. The chapter focuses on the competitive aspects of Nurbanu’s struggle for supremacy, elaborating on the dynastic friction caused by her domi- nation of the Ottoman House. Chapter 3 will present a textual analysis of the written records pertaining to Nurbanu’s imperial mosque complex. The Atik Valide’s endowment deed and inscription program constitute the focal points of this chapter, as they transmit a palpable expression of the endower’s reflections and motivations. Our endower was certainly alive during the drafting of the endowment deed, which concludes its preamble with the prayer:

May the Most High God grant her [Nurbanu’s] wishes and conclude her life in happiness and offer Paradise to her as an abode on Judgment Day. She sequestered a pure and unadulterated portion from her lands and posses- sions, enumerated in detail in this valid and legal document, which complies with the written stipulations of canonical law.9

The tenor of the deed of trust and the epigraphs of the imperial mosque complex, along with the drift of some contemporaneous registers of important affairs (mühimme defters) and imperial edicts ( fermans) reveals how Nurbanu’s mosque complex was carefully tuned both to the needs of the Empire and those of this Queen Mother’s personal politics. The textual analysis will demonstrate that Nurbanu was fully aware of both the criticism that the prospect of the dynasty was in peril and her perceived responsibility to uphold its legitimacy to ensure the perpetuity of her household. Chapter 4 will examine the distinctive physical qualities and functional fea- tures of the Atik Valide within its urban context. In this chapter, the architec- tonic and organizational materialization of this monument is inspected with relation to its chosen site. The inspection shows that the külliye’s plot, layout, and scope of services closely correlated with Nurbanu’s personal image-­making mission as well as her wider aspiration to render Üsküdar a new urban center of Sunni and Sufi coexistence. The chapter demonstrates the important role the Atik Valide played in the development of its fledgling urban surrounding, quickly transforming it into a vibrant hub of religious, social, and commercial activity. Preface xi In this larger context, the Atik Valide is compared to the other mosque com- plexes built for imperial women in Üsküdar, whose majestic landscape and spir- itual environment they shaped competitively and collectively.10 The work ends with a conclusion, which assesses to what extent Nurbanu was involved in the representation of her power and piety through the undertaking of her eponymous monument. This section reiterates the nature of Ottoman patron- age practices and reveals the importance of imperial waqf-­making in Ottoman history within the context of the late sixteenth century. By juxtaposing Nur- banu’s diplomatic and political trajectory with her philanthropic patronage, the study emphasizes the important role imperial women played in the late sixteenth century in the shaping of the Ottoman dynasty’s legitimacy and bolsters the view that the dominant presence of these personalities was appreciated and honored by most members of Ottoman society.

Notes 1 The most comprehensive study of Nurbanu can be found in S. A. Skilliter, “The Letters of the Venetian ‘Sultana’ Nur Banu and her Kira to Venice,” Studia Turco- logica Memoriae Alexii Bombaci Dicta, Naples (1982): 516–517 and E. Spagni, “Una Sultana Veneziana,” Nuovo Archivio Veneto, Vol. 19, part II (1900): 283, referring to R. Archivio di Stato, Dispacci del Bailo Soranzo. For Nurbanu’s place in the imperial harem and Ottoman dynastic politics, see Leslie P. Peirce The Impe- rial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire, Oxford: Oxford University Press (1993): 92–132 and 214–238. See also Gülru Necipoğlu’s The Age of Sinan: Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Empire, London: Reaktion Press (2005): 280–292. 2 Initially, the külliye was referred to simply as the Valide Mosque. The qualifiers Atik“ ” or “Eski ” (Old) were added later to distinguish it from two newer Valide mosques also built in Üsküdar—the Çinili, completed in 1641, and the Valide- ­i Cedid, inaugurated in 1708. Eventually, the three mosques came to be known, respectively, as “Eski or Atik,” “Orta (Middle),” and “Cedid or Yeni” Valide Mosques. Ismail Hakkı Konyalı argues that another reason the Çinili Mosque is called “Orta” is because it is physically situated between the Old and the New Valide Mosques (Üsküdar Tarihi, Istanbul: Ahmet Sait Matbaası I (1976): 131). To complicate matters somewhat, Evliya Çelebi referred to Nurbanu’s mosque as the “Orta Valide” (Seyahatname, 142a). As to why Çelebi might have done so, Konyalı supplies two explanations. First, Evliya might have emphasized the central position of Nurbanu’s mosque in the middle (orta) of the city of Üsküdar, and, second, he might have somehow attributed this characteristic to Nurbanu’s person rather than her mosque (Üsküdar Tarihi I, 143). 3 Necipoğlu, The Age of Sinan, 286–287. 4 See Gülru Necipoğlu, “The Süleymaniye Complex in Istanbul: An Interpretation,” Muqarnas 3 (1985): 92–117. 5 For a comprehensive coverage in this regard, see Fairchild D. Ruggles (ed.), Women, Patronage, and Self-Representation­ in Islamic Societies, Albany: State University of New York Press (2000) and Necipoğlu, The Age of Sinan, especially pp. 268–292. 6 Gülru Necipoğlu, “A Kânûn for the State, A Canon for the Arts: Conceptualizing the Classical Synthesis of Ottoman Art and Architecture,” in Gilles Veinstein (ed.), Soliman le Magnifique et son temps, Paris: Ecole du Louvre (1992): 208. 7 As demonstrated by Necipoğlu in “Süleymaniye Complex.” 8 Pinar Kayaalp, “The Role of Imperial Mosque Complexes (1543–1583) in the Urbani- zation of Üsküdar.” Albrecht Classen (ed.), de Gruyter Handbook of Medieval xii Preface Studies: Concepts, Methods, Historical Developments, and Current Trends in Medi- eval Studies, Berlin and New York: de Gruyter Press (2009): 645–666. 9 Vakfiye, 14: 9–12. 10 Specifically, the Mihrümah Mosque (Iskele Camii), built in 1547–1548 by the daugh- ter of Süleyman the Magnificent; the Çinili, built in 1640–1641 by Sultan Ibrahim I for Valide Sultan Kösem, wife of Ahmet I and mother of Murad IV as well as Ibrahim I; and the Yeni Valide, built in 1708–1710 by Ahmet III and dedicated to his mother, Valide Sultan Gülnuş Emetullah. Notes on translation and transliteration

Arabic words that are found in the Oxford Dictionary such as imam, sheikh, and hadith are used throughout this work and are not italicized. Some Turkish words such as agha, spahi, imaret, and caravansary are also used in their familiar English forms. Turkish proper names are spelled in their original form, such as Peçevî or Üsküdar. Constructs such as dar’ul-kurra or sadr-­ı azam are written as one word, such as darülkurra and sadrazam, in compliance with Turkish usage. Some Arabic terms mentioned in the Atik Valide’s endowment deed are kept in their Turkish form. These terms may refer to people such as hafız or muarrif, artifacts such as şadırvan or sebil, or religious institutions or concepts such as sıbyan mektebi or Makam-­ı Mahmud. The English equivalents of such terms are explained either directly in the text or in an endnote. When a term in the endow- ment deed or an epigraph of the Atik Valide is kept in its original Arabic, its transliteration is in conformity with the International Journal of Middle East Studies conventions and is shown in the text. The dates are given in the Common Era (c.e.), unless they are part of a quote, in which case the Anno Hegirae (A.H.) is also provided.

1 The shift in the Ottoman patronage system between the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries

The Ottoman dynasty ruled in an unbroken succession for six centuries, continu- ally adapting to the political, social and economic conditions of the times. Impe- rial Ottoman patronage in architecture, art, and literature reflected and paralleled these changes. In the Ottoman tradition, the construction of imperial mosque complexes constituted the loftiest affirmation of patronage, a privilege reserved only for select members of the dynastic household. Custom imposed some solid architectonic constraints on an imperial mosque project but, beyond these formal requirements, the access to and the extent of a particular royal pious endowment depended largely on dynastic politics. Kinship, age, reproductive status, and imperial blood ties figured as pivotal parameters in this enterprise, factors that gained further ascendancy when women endowers were involved.1 By the mid-­ sixteenth century, the paradigm underwent a dramatic shift as the access by royal women to grand acts of patronage, and the rewards accrued to them as a result, passed from the favorite concubine of the sultan to his mother.2 A waqf is any movable or immovable property that is given up to serve some beneficiaries within the framework of Islamic law and social institutions. In Islamic societies, we find four kinds of charitable waqfs, each with a different purpose. They are hayrî, ehlî, yarı ailevî, and aile. In the hayrî type, the revenue generated by the endowed property is collected through the autonomous functionaries of the endowment and is directly defrayed for the provision of the religious and social ser- vices stipulated in the waqf ’s deed of trust. In ehlî, the revenue is collected by the appointed members of the endower’s own family, who subsequently allocate it to the realization of the established purposes of the waqf. In the third case, yarı ailevî, the family divides the collected revenue into two parts, keeping one for itself and dispensing the other for the perpetuation of the foundation’s services. An aile waqf is an ordinary family trust with properties endowed for the benefit of its founders’ successive family members. In the last three cases, as the lineage of the endower comes to an end, the endowment reverts from private to public ownership, in effect becoming a hayrî waqf. The current study refers exclusively to this type, con- sidering that all Ottoman imperial waqfs fall into this group, and employs the term waqf to denote only the hayrî type of charitable endowments.3 There is no agreement among scholars of Islamic theology as to the prove- nance of the waqf institution. In fact, there is no mention in the Qur’an of the 2 The shift in the Ottoman patronage system term. However, Islamic scholars readily point to some cognate institutions found in the Qur’an, including lending without interest (karz-­ı hasen), spending money for God’s sake (infak fi sebilillah), giving property to family members and the needy (i’ta), feeding the poor (it’am), almsgiving (sadaka), and charitable deeds (hayrat).4 The Sunna constitutes the second body of Islamic sources in which to trace the provenience of the waqf institution. One hadith that uniformly appears in many waqf deeds is the following:

When a person dies, his good deed comes to an end and his Ledger of Deeds is rolled up. The only person whose Ledger will not close is one who will have left behind three things: (1) ongoing charity (sadaka-­i câriye); (2) a work of wisdom for people to benefit from; and, (3) a loyal son who prays for him.5

Most Islamic scholars have taken the term sadaka-­i câriye in the above hadith to imply waqf-­making and have traced the onset of this institution in Islamic experience with the charitable works performed by the Prophet and his Compan- ions. One often quoted example involves ‘Omar b. al-­Hattab, the Companion who would become the second caliph, who asked the Messenger what would be the best way to make use of the groves and fields he received as booty after the conquest of Khaibar. Muhammad’s answer was to “tie up” (one of the funda- mental meanings of the verb waqafa) the land and gardens, and devote any income from them to the welfare of the faithful.6 Notwithstanding such early instances of Islamic waqfs, the problem still persists as to why this institution emerged and thrived in Islam in the first place when the religion already had established not only the charitable duties enumerated earlier in this paragraph, but also the pivotal religious requirements of zekât (alms to the needy, one-­ fortieth of one’s yearly income) and fitre (alms given at the close of Ramadan). Considering that all these duties are prima facie institutions of benevolence, why did waqf-­making make up much of the provision of the pious and social services in the Islamic world? The building of charitable monuments emerged and thrived in Ottoman society to a large extent because it benefited the patron as much as the desig- nated beneficiaries. This is also true for patronage practices across all ages and cultures. To illustrate, if today we evoke the name of Gian Galeazzo, the illustri- ous member of the Visconti family, it is largely because he was responsible for the materialization of the Duomo in Milan, whose construction Galeazzo com- missioned in 1386. Alternatively, if we recall a minor Mamluk ruler, al-Nasir­ Hasan, it is largely because of the remarkable mosque complex he built in Cairo in the mid-­fourteenth century.7 Actually, even a small-­scale, relatively insignifi- cant charitable deed may be instrumental in keeping alive the name of its bene- factor for ages, such as the fountain built by Sultan Abdülmecid in 1839 in honor of his mother, Bezmiâlem, which modestly sits at the center of the neighborhood it lent its name to, the Valide Çeşme neighborhood in Beşiktaş.8 Evidently, acts of charitable giving, while intended to draw their initiators closer to God, also The shift in the Ottoman patronage system 3 help exalt their names in their lifetime and posterity. In other words, a waqf rewards the patron in both the temporal and the spiritual meaning of the term, emphasizing its patron’s wealth, rank, and power as well as generosity, piety, and compassion. Islamic law prescribed a strict process applicable to waqf-­ making. Once one was conceptualized, a deed of trust (waqfiyya) would be drawn up to withhold the property from the rightful owner and to prescribe the manner in which the endowed property should be employed to serve its purpose. The document would then be signed by witnesses who corroborated the appro- priate status of the endower as a free or manumitted adult and an individual of sound mind. Subsequently, a qadi would determine the endowment’s good cause,9 and finally approve its establishment. At this point, the waqf would acquire an irreversible legal identity impervious to future vagaries. Specifically, it could no longer be withdrawn or modified, nor could it be seized or usurped by political or religious authorities. The personal motives of the endowers, as well as those of political and reli- gious authorities, were not categorically subjugated to the legal stature of a waqf. In reality, these motives and considerations, rather than being disassociated from the broader framework of the phenomenon of waqfs, were centrally manifested in the conceptualization and functioning of these charitable projects.10 Ottoman imperial waqfs were particularly influenced by such factors. For one thing, the sultan closely controlled the establishment of imperial charitable endowments by granting or withholding his requisite approval. Second, dynastic politics could encroach upon the immutability of an imperial endowment even after the qadi’s seal was impressed upon the deed of trust. As an example, Safiye Sultan (d. 1619), the favorite concubine of Nurbanu’s son, Murad III (r. 1574–1595) and mother of Sultan Mehmed III (r. 1595–1603), had to abandon the construc- tion of her imperial mosque complex in Eminönü when, upon Mehmed’s death in 1603, her stipend and grants were abruptly cut-­off by the new Sultan, who ordered her back to the Old Palace.11 Imperial waqf-­making was by no means the only form of patronage in Ottoman history. Other venues of beneficence were always available, including literary, artistic and scientific patronage, each of which exalted the patron in the eyes of the target audiences. Many influential members of the Ottoman elite were noted as patrons not only of architecture, but other creative and scholarly endeavors as well. For example, the Grand Vizier Rüstem Pasha (d. 1561), while engaged in the construction of his major mosque complex in Rodoscuk (1551–1553), endowed several other mosques with expensive copies of Qur’ans.12 Similarly, the literary and artistic patronage of Mahmud Pasha (1453–1474), Grand Vizier of Mehmed the Conqueror (r. 1451–1481), rivaled his architectural patronage.13 Nonetheless, the construction of large-scale­ pious endowments always remained the most prestigious form of charitable giving, a venue open only to the most highly placed members of the Ottoman dynastic hierarchy. There are very few scholarly works devoted exclusively to Nurbanu or her imperial mosque complex in spite of the fact that she was the first and one of the 4 The shift in the Ottoman patronage system most influential queen mothers of the dynasty as well as the founder of one of the most expansive charitable endowments in the history of the Ottoman Empire.14 Typically, Nurbanu is referred to as a central figure in Ottoman history within the context of late sixteenth century Harem politics.15 As for the Atik Valide, it has been treated only within the larger framework of Sinan’s trajectory of charitable building projects and characteristics of Ottoman mosque com- plexes.16 This work focuses on this particular mosquer complex, and investigates how this charitable foundation was influenced by, and in turn influenced, the Ottoman architectural patronage system. It frames the conception, planning, con- struction, and organization phases of the Atik Valide within the broader context of the Ottoman patronage tradition and brings forth Nurbanu’s political and diplomatic trajectory in order to convey the full iconographic import of her monument. The materialization of the Atik Valide closely reflects the historical circum- stances in Ottoman society in the late sixteenth century and imparts a good sense of what was to come in the next. Nurbanu undertook this grand act of patronage at a point in time made critical by a special confluence of events, and its story should be told in this broader context. In the post-declinistic­ periodization of Ottoman history, the century and a half between the midpoint of Süleyman I’s reign (c. 1545) and the end of Ahmet III’s (1695) is considered an era of adjust- ment in response to rapid economic, political, and social changes that began taking place all at once in the Ottoman Empire.17 While it would be questionable to subject a political entity of such longevity and breadth to any sort of rigid temporal demarcations, it should be kept in mind that certain structural changes did take place in that organism in the mid- and late-­sixteenth century. Trans- formation came about gradually, in response to the developments inherited from the previous period, exacerbated by confluent contingencies. The mid- to late-­ sixteenth century marks the time that the Ottoman Empire tried to come to terms with the new consciousness that it no longer was an indomitable world power. Although the Ottoman state was expansionist until at least 1683, it was consider- ably less militarily successful after 1566, and there were fewer instances of sul- tanic participation in campaigns. In the previous phase of the Empire’s history, the royal family was spread through the dominion, with the sultans frequently away on military campaigns while the princes spent their formative years in Anatolian provincial capitals accompanied by their mothers, mentors, servants, and concubines. Beginning with Hürrem, the mothers of the princes stayed behind in the palace harem, maintaining closer proximity with the reigning sultan. This turn of events opened up new avenues of power for the female members of the imperial household, who established what Leslie Peirce refers to as “Harem networks of power.”18 As the princes remained in the Harem rather than at the helm of their provinces, their mothers gained even more access to the core of political power. Those who managed to forge propitious alliances with their offspring and sons-­in-law on the one hand, and some viziers, pashas, aghas, and stewards (kethüdas) on the other, amassed unprecedented political clout. Nurbanu’s ascent in the palace hierarchy, The shift in the Ottoman patronage system 5 too, was due to her high level of competence in her personal dealings. She formed and orchestrated effective alliances, consolidating a singularly resource- ful palace faction, without a Queen Mother looking over her shoudler.19 Operat- ing both on the domestic and foreign fronts, Nurbanu extracted great benefits upon herself and those in her coterie. The structural changes that were taking place in the imperial harem provided resourceful queen mothers such as Nurbanu with an environment in which to grow powerful and influential. In addition, the late sixteenth century marked the beginning of the creation of new imperial offices and residential arrangements within the imperial palace as well asan increase in the number of marriage alliances between royal daughters and members of the imperial council. It was in this peculiar milieu that Nurbanu emerged as the first prominent queen mother in the history of the Ottoman Empire. As new outlets of power opened up for imperial women, their participa- tion in the affairs of the state provoked mixed responses from Ottoman and foreign observers alike.20 The roots of many developments that took place in the reigns of Selim II and Murad III can be traced back to the second half of Süleyman’s rule. The matura- tion, coalescence, and apparent reconciliation of competing and conflicting social, political, legal, and intellectual trends began to take a palpable form toward the end of Süleyman’s sultanate as evidenced by the codification of a universalized dynastic law, standardization of central and provincial bureaucratic structures, truncation of the power of meritocratic officeholders, and the visual and literary formulation of imperial iconography based equally on dynastic glory and dynastic commitment to upholding the legitimating principles of order and justice.21 Palace factionalism was also in full swing during the second half of the reign of Süleyman the Magnificent, who had not proscribed some members of his immediate family, particularly his wife, Hürrem (d. 1588) and son-­in-law, Rüstem Pasha (d. 1561) from partaking in the political and administrative affairs of the state.22 However, in the following century, factionalism dramatically affected the dynamics between sultans and their mothers, as the latter and their associates assumed more dominant roles in the running of the central administra- tion. In the process, the conduct of internal as well as foreign policy effectively passed over to the imperial harem, whose members vied aggressively to win over the rival factions and remain in the thick of things. Criticism of the perceived and real changes taking place in the Ottoman state and society began during Süleyman’s sultanate, although it became more pro- nounced during Selim II’s reign and even more so during Murad III’s. The Sul- tanate of Women leitmotif was routinely employed by critics to censure the corruption that, in their view, reared its ugly head as a result of the machinations of conniving imperial women who were allowed to assume an increasingly central role starting with the last decades of the reign of Süleyman the Magnifi- cent.23 The transformation was blamed on the core palace faction comprising Hürrem, Mihrümah, and Rüstem. In these accounts, Süleyman is generally por- trayed as bewitched, pressured, or duped by this coalition to indulge in such deplorable acts as allowing the executions of Ibrahim Pasha, his childhood 6 The shift in the Ottoman patronage system friend, and subsequently of prince Mustafa, his eldest son in line for succession. Ultimately, however, it was the reigning sultan who was accorded the greatest brunt, either directly or indirectly, for allowing palace factions to play unpreced- ented roles in Ottoman politics and administration. Critics believed that the dele- gation of sultanic power to those in the imperial harem further exacerbated the problems besetting the empire and that this corruptive practice stemmed from the weakening of the Ottoman administration and the deterioration of the moral fiber of Ottoman society.24 Although many contemporaneous and near contemporary Ottoman critics placed the bulk of the blame on palace women, the ascendancy of the female members of the harem in the political and administrative arena was too broadly executed and too firmly embedded in the structural configuration of imperial institutions to be summarily dismissed as an illegitimate usurpation of power.25 The latter part of the sixteenth century witnessed the beginnings of a profound transformation of certain key institutions of the Ottoman traditional order and a slow but perceptible reversal in the military success of the empire.26 As a result of these changes, the central government gradually lost its earlier level of internal control and external force.27 Criticism in the late sixteenth-­century Ottoman society and polity began as a reaction to a series of military setbacks, coupled with a surfeit of candidates for bureaucratic positions and the devaluation of the Ottoman currency (akçe, or asper in some European accounts) as a result of the influx of silver from the New World, among other factors. A negative image of certain members of the imperial harem naturally developed when sultans in the post-­Süleymanic era chose to remain in the palace delegating their power to their grand viziers and mothers. Not all Ottoman and foreign observers viewed the developments of the sixteenth century as uniformly disastrous and not all uniformly censured the same real or perceived culprits. Oftentimes, they lent their support for certain members of the imperial harem while condemning others. In the accounts of such commentators, the increased role of imperial women in the affairs of the state was sometimes characterized as pernicious for the Ottoman way of life and the future of the Empire while at other times it was regarded as a necessary innovation for the perpetuation of the state. The two opinions led to two parallel discourses regarding imperial Ottoman women, often in the argument of the same observer. The observation that Nurbanu emerged largely unscathed by the adverse discourse directed to most other Ottoman royal women is relevant because it attests to her special station in the palace hierarchy. It was the conjuncture of Ottoman dynastic politics beginning in the late mid-­ sixteenth century amplified by Nurbanu’s personal ambition that culminated in the raising of the Atik Valide Mosque Complex. The sixteenth century was a period of immense proliferation of architectural activity. Many large-scale­ charitable endowments were being built in this century by the imperial dynasty to show off its magnificence and munificence. Nurbanu was the first favorite concubine without a powerful Queen Mother to keep her in check as well as the second, and last, manumitted concubine to marry a Sultan.28 Moreover, her son The shift in the Ottoman patronage system 7 Murad was chosen to be crown prince almost a decade before he took the throne in 1574. Nurbanu’s lofty station in the palace hierarchy was acknowledged when she was rewarded unhindered access to undertake one of the most expansive charitable projects in the Empire’s history. In the sixteenth century, the most prominent symbol of power a female member of a sultan’s household could transmit to current and future generations was to sponsor an imperial külliye.29 The scale of Nurbanu’s architectural patronage was precedent setting with respect to those of past female royal endowers. For, although some Ottoman imperial women had endorsed large-­scale building projects on previous occa- sions it was not at all common in Nurbanu’s time for a Queen Mother to under- write an architectural enterprise of such conspicuousness and opulence in the capital, one that would permanently alter its easterly skyline.30 The trajectory of Nurbanu’s architectural patronage must also be traced within the context of the Ottoman philanthropic tradition, which itself shifted within the larger framework of the administrative, military, and social evolutions the Empire was undergoing in the middle of the sixteenth century. By the second half of the sixteenth century, as the sultanate could no longer rest most of its legitimacy on the platform of military success, the display of imperial grandeur came to rely predominantly on the affirmation of pious and social accomplish- ments, such as the construction of opulent houses of worship and vast charitable facilities.31 The ability of the reigning sultan and his household to construct large-­scale acts of beneficence provided tangible proof of the dynasty’s staying power, prestige, and prosperity. The upsurge in the participation of the female members of the imperial household in various manifestations of sovereignty was a concurrent development in the evolvement of the state in the late sixteenth century, as was the shift in the role of the queen mother from that of companion to the royal prince in his provincial capital to that of the official head of the imperial household and the guardian of the royal lineage. Permission to construct a Friday mosque in the capital city was not accorded indiscriminately. Authori- zation had first to be obtained from the sultan, and even he was constrained from building one in Istanbul before making substantial military gains. The building of sultanic mosque complexes to celebrate the victory of war was the vision of the chief palace architect, Sinan (1489–1588), and quickly became the tradition during the reign of Süleyman I, who commissioned his mosque complexes prim- arily from income derived from the spoils of war and whose many military suc- cesses and spectacular building record greatly accounted for his western epithet, the Magnificent.32 In the reigns of Süleyman’s son and grandson, building activ- ity was curtailed in the capital city because neither of these sultans personally conducted military campaigns nor did one win substantial territories from the non-­Muslims.33 However, in this period of lackluster sultans, royal women com- pensated for the decline in sultanic ceremonial associated with martial activity.34 Nurbanu’s effective handling of public opinion through the construction of her imperial mosque complex elevated not only her own stature in Ottoman political and social circles to unprecedented levels but provided the dynasty with much needed displays of pomp and purport and paved the road for subsequent queen 8 The shift in the Ottoman patronage system mothers to do the same. In the course of her life, Nurbanu was able to capitalize on her exalted station in the imperial harem, first as the Favorite of Selim II, then as the Queen Mother of Murad III. As such, the Atik Valide served not only to immortalize Nurbanu’s own glory, but also to amplify the magnificence of her husband and son, hence the dominion that was embodied in the person of each of these monarchs. It is not possible to ascertain the extent to which female Ottoman patrons were able to transmit their intended images by means of their endowments. Nur- banu’s choices in this endeavor were influenced by a host of factors such as pre- vailing architectural trends, property issues, and financial considerations. As for architectural trends, any imperial endower, male or female, would have to reckon with Sinan’s own architectonic vision, such as his evolving mosque aesthetic and the attendant requisites.35 At the same time, Sinan had to reconcile his art- istic ambitions with the Ottoman policies of urban development as well as tech- nical and financial challenges of the project in addition to the particular demands of the endower. That Muslim women were secluded from public view should not misdirect researchers and commentators to assume that Ottoman female endow- ers were passive participants in the conceptualization and materialization of the pious monuments they commissioned.36 To illustrate, Nurbanu “paid extra- ordinary attention to the [endowment of her] blessed congregational mosque and all the needs of its hospice and hospital [which she] excellently provided for.”37 It should be recalled that the first condition in waqf-­making, imperial or otherwise, is that the property tied up must be legally owned by the endower and free of any encumbrances. Second, the endower must be freeborn or manumit- ted, of a mature age, and of sound mind. Third, the property should be dedicated to a worthwhile cause. An imperial waqf would automatically meet these con- ditions, and Nurbanu’s did so par excellence. As for the first condition, Nur- banu’s great wealth was amassed legitimately. According to Ottoman dynastic custom, when a concubine became chosen as the favorite concubine, she would be given a substantial dowry in addition to an increase in salary and special allowances for clothing and other personal expenditures. Nurbanu fared very well in this regard. When she became Favorite, she received from Selim a hefty dowry in addition to a salary increment from 40 to 1000 akçe a day, and her income doubled at Murad III’s ascension when she became Queen Mother, offi- cial head of the imperial harem.38 At the same time, she received a fabulous slipper-­privy (başmaklık) consisting of the fiefdom of the entire villages of the Yeni Il region in the province of Sivas.39 On top of it, Nurbanu had many other stock assets to her name, as attested by the long list of agricultural, commercial, and residential holdings enumerated in the Atik Valide’s deed of trust.40 The extent of her wealth would certainly provide her with the means to underwrite a charitable project of any magnitude, notwithstanding the enormous cost brought about by the inflationary pressure that was beginning to emerge at the time she began her charitable project. Aside from the enormous cost, Nurbanu faced a series of physical and symbolic difficulties that could hamper even the highest-­ ranking members of the imperial circle from creating a monumental pious The shift in the Ottoman patronage system 9 endowment in the capital city. For one thing, there were serious material short- ages. It should be considered that the most taxing problem in the construction of the Süleymaniye had been the procurement of four out of eight pivotal columns, “each transported from a different land.”41 Second, there was a lack of prominent plots of vacant land in Istanbul. Prime construction sites were either densely populated or were reserved for current and future sultans’ use. Any effort to relo- cate the existing population would entail even more serious economic, political, and social costs, just as any attempt to wrest a sultanic site would inflict disas- trous consequences on the part of the contemplator. As for symbolic constraints, no prospective imperial builder could exceed his or her station in the Ottoman social and political hierarchy in his or her contemplation of the type and scale of the building project. These provisions brought about such a fierce competition among those who had the means, resolve, and stature to build monumental pro- jects in the capital that potential endowers often had to put off their projects for decades.42

Notes 1 Leslie P. Peirce, “Gender and Sexual Propriety in Ottoman Royal Women’s Patron- age,” in D. Fairchild Ruggles (ed.), Women, Patronage and Self-­Representation in Islamic Societies, New York: State University of New York Press (2000): 55 and Gülru Necipoğlu The Age of Sinan: Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Empire, London: Reaktion Press (2005): 43. 2 Leslie P. Peirce, The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire, Oxford: Oxford University Press (1993): 109. 3 For a more detailed explanation of the distinctions among different categories of waqfs, see Amy Singer, Constructing Ottoman Beneficence: An Imperial Soup Kitchen in Jerusalem, New York: State University of New York Press (2002): 17–32. 4 Bahaeddin Yediyıldız, “Vakıf,” IA1 XIII, 154. 5 Yediyıldız, “Vakıf,” 154–155. 6 Gregory Kozlowski, Muslim Endowments and Society in British India, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press (1985): 10. 7 See Howyda N. al-Harithy,­ “The Complex of Sultan Hasan in Cairo: Reading between the Lines,” Muqarnas 13 (1996). 8 Ayla Ödekan, “Valide Çeşmesi,” Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi 7 (1994): 362. 9 That is, the endowment did not injure inheritors or creditors, or serve some other repre- hensible purpose, such as endowing a Christian church or monastery (Kozlowski, Muslim Endowments, 12). For an ingenious solution to legitimizing monastery vakıfs by recasting them as family trusts whereby the monks of a convent were construed as the offspring of deceased monks, see Eugenia Kermeli, “Ebū’s Su‘ūd’s Definition of Church Wakfs: Theory and Practice in Ottoman Law,” in Robert Gleave and Eugenia Kermeli (eds.), Islamic Law: Theory and Practice, London: I. B. Tauris (1997): 141–156. 10 Richard van Leeuwen, Waqfs and Urban Structure: The Case of Ottoman Aleppo, Leiden: Brill (1999): 11. 11 The mosque was completed 60 years later, under the name of Yeni Valide Camii, but this time the term Valide denoted a different Queen Mother, Turhan, who assumed the honorific after the ascension of Sultan Mehmed IV. For a full discussion of the pro- tracted building history of the Eminönü Yeni Valide Mosque, refer to Lucienne Thys-­ Şenocak’s “The Yeni Valide Mosque Complex at Eminönü,” Muqarnas 15 (1998): 58–70, “The Yeni Valide Mosque Complex at Eminönü, Istanbul (1597–1665): 10 The shift in the Ottoman patronage system Gender and Vision in Ottoman Architecture,” in Fairchild D. Ruggles (ed.), Women, Patronage, and Self-Representation­ in Islamic Societies, Albany: State University of New York Press (2000): 69–90, and Ottoman Women Builders: The Architectural Patronage of Hadice Turhan Sultan, London: Routledge Press (2016). 12 See Zeren Tanındı, “The Manuscripts Bestowed as Pious Endowments by Rüstem Pasha, The Grand Vizier of Süleyman the Magnificent,” in Gilles Veinstein (ed.), Soliman le Magnifique et son Temps, Paris: Ecole du Louvre (1992): 265–277. 13 See Theoharis Stavrides, The Sultan of Vezirs: The Life and Times of the Ottoman Grand Vezir Mahmud Pasha Angelovic (1453–1474), Leiden: Brill (2001): 295. 14 The most comprehensive study of the Atik Valide Mosque Complex can be found in Gülru Necipoğlu’s 2005 work, The Age of Sinan, especially in the section dealing with this külliye’s endower, inscription program, and architect (pp. 280–292). See also Aptullah Kuran’s 1984 work, in which Kuran adopts a consciously narrow perspective concerning the külliye’s layout and selected stipulations pertaining to its establish- ment and organization (“Üsküdar Atik Valide Külliyesinin Yerleşme Düzeni ve Yapım Tarihi Üzerine,” in Suut Kemal Yetkin’e Armağan, Ankara: Hacettepe Üniver- sitesi Yayınları, 231–248). Another informative early manuscript is Doğan Kuban’s “Atik Valide Külliyesi,” Mimarlık ve San’at I (1961): 33–36. See also Baha Tanman’s works on the subject, namely, “Atik Valide Külliyesi,” Sanat Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi I:2 (1988): 3–19 and “Sinan’ın Mimarisi: Tekkeler,” in Sadi Bayram (ed.), Mimar Koca Sinan, Yaşadığı Çağ ve Eserleri I (1989): 311–332. 15 Ismail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı puts all imperial women in the same category, emphasizing their ethnic origins as a self-evident­ sign of foreign loyalties. Mistaking Safiye for Nurbanu, he insinuates that the Venetian Nurbanu and her Jewish agent Esther had prima facie animosity toward the Ottomans. See his Osmanlı Tarihi: XVI Yüzyıl Ortalarından XVII Yüzyıl Sonuna Kadar, volume 3, part 2. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi (2003): 138–139. 16 Godfrey Goodwin sees the Atik Valide mosque complex as the literal end of Sinan’s linear trajectory, but he does not explicate why the imperial architect veered off his path. See Goodwin’s A History of Ottoman Architecture, New York: Thames on Hudson (1987): 205. 17 Cornell H. Fleischer, Bureaucrat and Intellectual in the Ottoman Empire: The Historian Mustafa Âli, 1541–1600, Princeton: Princeton University Press (1986): 8. 18 Peirce, Imperial Harem, 143–149. 19 Selim II’s mother, Hürrem died in 1558, eight years before Nurbanu entered the impe- rial palace. 20 Leslie P. Peirce, “Shifting Boundaries: Images of Ottoman Royal Women in the 16th and 17th Centuries,” Critical Matrix 4 (1988): 65–82. 21 Cornell H. Fleischer, “The Lawgiver as Messiah: The Making of the Imperial Image in the Reign of Süleymân,” in Gilles Veinstein (ed.), Soliman le Magnifique et son temps, Paris: Ecole du Louvre (1992): 159–160. 22 Cemal Kafadar, “The Myth of the Golden Age: Ottoman Historical Consciousness in the Post-Suleymanic­ Era,” in Halil Inalcık and Cemal Kafadar (eds.), Süleyman the Second and His Time. Istanbul: Isis Press (1993): 46. 23 Kafadar, “Myth of the Golden Age,” 46. 24 Peirce, Imperial Harem, viii. 25 Peirce, Imperial Harem, viii. 26 Cemal Kafadar, “The Question of Ottoman Decline,” Harvard Middle Eastern and Islamic Review 4 (1997–1998): 34. 27 Kafadar, “Question of Ottoman Decline,” 34. 28 The first haseki to be legally wed to a padishah was Hürrem, who married Süleyman around 1526. For more information regarding imperial marriages see Leslie P. Peirce, The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire, Oxford: Oxford University Press (1993). The shift in the Ottoman patronage system 11 29 For a study of European women’s charity and patronage in roughly the same period, see Chapter 4 of Sandra Cavallo, Charity and Power in Early Modern Italy: Bene- factors and Their Motives in Turin, 1541–1789, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer- sity Press (1995): 153–182. 30 Mihrümah and Hürrem each built expansive mosque complexes in Istanbul prior to Nurbanu. However, Nurbanu was the first among queen mothers to commission such an architectural enterprise. See Necipoğlu, The Age of Sinan, 268–271 and 299–314. 31 Jane Hathaway, “Problems of Periodization in Ottoman History: The Fifteenth through the Eighteenth Centuries,” Turkish Studies Association Bulletin 20 (1996): 27. 32 Necipoğlu, The Age of Sinan, especially pp. 47–70. 33 Necipoğlu, The Age of Sinan, 28. 34 Necipoğlu, The Age of Sinan, 27 and Peirce, Imperial Harem, 216. 35 Necipoğlu, The Age of Sinan, 71. 36 There are many articles pertaining to the subject of women’s patronage in Islamic society. See the works of Ülkü Bates, “Women as Patrons of Architecture in Turkey,” in Lois Beck and Nikki Keddie (eds.), Women in the Muslim World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (1978): 245–260 and “Architectural Patronage of Ottoman Women,” Asian Art 6 (1993): 50–65. See also Gabriel Baer, “Women and Waqf: An Analysis of the Istanbul Tahrir of 1546,” Asian and African Studies 17 (1983): 9–27; Atıl Esin, “Islamic Women as Rulers and Patrons,” Asian Art 6 (1993): 3–12; Tülay Artan, “From Charismatic Leadership to Collective Rule: Introducing Materials on Wealth and Power of Ottoman Princesses in the Eighteenth Century,” Dünkü ve Bugünüyle Toplum ve Ekonomi 4 (1993): 53–94; Steven R. Humphreys, “Women as Patrons of Religious Architecture in Ayyubid Damascus,” Muqarnas 11 (1994): 35–54; and Margaret L. Meriwether, “Women and Waqf Revisited: The Case of Aleppo, 1770–1840,” in Madeline C. Zilfi (ed.), Women in the Ottoman Empire: Middle Eastern Women in the Early Modern Era. Leiden: E. J. Brill, (1997): 128–152. Refer also to two works of Leslie Peirce, “Shifting Boundaries” and The Imperial Harem. 37 Hadika, 490. Similarly Safiye, Nurbanu’s daughter-­in-law and the next Valide, was directly involved in the construction process of her expansive mosque complex in Eminönü. To illustrate, when it was brought to Safiye’s attention that her building overseer (bina emini) Kara Mehmet Agha dishonestly handled his duty, she promptly replaced him with another member of her coterie, Nasuh Agha. On this, see Selânikî II, 849–851. 38 Peirce, Imperial Harem, 126 and 128. 39 Ismail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Devletinin Saray Teşkilâtı, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi (1988): 157–158. Two smaller fiefdoms, consisting of the villages of the sub-­districts (kazas) of Eski Zağra and Rodoscuk, were also included in the başmaklık, as shown in Appendix A.3. 40 Refer to Appendix A.3 for the complete list of properties owned by Nurbanu and assigned by her to her vakıf. 41 Saî Mustafa Çelebi, Tezkiretü’l-Bünyan (folio 26a), in H. Develi and S. Rıfat (eds.), Yapılar Kitabı: Tezkiretü’l-Bünyan ve Tezkiretü’l-Ebniye, Istanbul: Koçbank (2002): 60. The first two granite columns were harvested in Istanbul, the first atTopkapı Palace and the second at Kıztaşı near the Fatih Mosque, and the last two were trans- ported from Alexandria and Baalbek (Ömer Lütfi Barkan, Süleymaniye Cami ve İmareti İnşaatı (1550–1557), Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, I: 344–346 and II: 20–21 (1972). See also Tanju Cantay, XVI.–XVII. Yüzyıllarda Süleymaniye Camii ve Bağlı Yapıları, Istanbul: Eren Yayıncılık ve Kitapçılık Ltd. (1989): 24. 42 To illustrate, Safiye Sultan’s project was stopped before completion only to be taken up by Hatice Turhan Sultan 57 years subsequently. For more detail see Lucienne Thys-­Şenocak, Ottoman Women Builders: The Architectural Patronage of Hadice Turhan Sultan, London: Routledge Press (2016). References Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi Katalogları Rehberi (BA). Ankara: T. C. Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü (1992). Encyclopaedia of Islam (EI1). First Edition. Leiden: E. J. Brill (1913–1938). Encyclopedia of Islam (EI2). New Edition. Leiden: E. J. Brill (1986–2002). Hacı Selim Ağa Kütüphanesi Nurbanu ve Yakub Ağa Bölümü Yazma Eserler, Eser Adı Kataloğu. Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Ä°slâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü (1990). Index Islamicus on CD ROM. New Providence, NJ: Bowker-Saur (1998–present). Ä°slâm Ansiklopedisi: Ä°slâm Âlemi Tarih, Coğrafya, Etnografya ve Biyografya Lûgatı (Ä°A1). 13 volumes and index. Istanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi (1940–1994). Ä°slām Ansiklopedisi: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı (Ä°A2). 28 volumes published to date. Istanbul: Diyanet Vakfı Vakıf Yayınları (1988–present). The Turks. Six volumes. Ankara: Yeni Türkiye Publications (2002). Topkapı Sarayı Türkçe Yazmalar Kataloğu. Turkologischer Anzeiger/Turkology Annual. Vienna: Orientalisches Institut der Universität Wien (1975–present). Babinger, Franz. Die Geschichtschreiber der Osmanen und ihre Werke. Leipzig: O. Harrassowitz (1927), translated by Coşkun Üçok as Osmanlı Tarih Yazarları ve Eserleri. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi (1982). Bayrak, Orhan M. Osmanlı Tarihi Yazarları. Istanbul: Osmanlı Yayınevi (1982). Cox, E. Godfrey. Reference Guide to the Literature of Travel, Volume I: The Old World. Volume 9. Seattle: University of Washington Publications in Language and Literature (1935). Dawood, N. J. (ed. and trans.). The Koran. London: Penguin Books (1999). Goodwin, Godfrey. A History of Ottoman Architecture. New York: Thames on Hudson (1987). Hodgson, Marshall G. S. The Venture of Islam. 3 volumes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (1974). Kuran, Aptullah. Sinan: The Grand Old Master of Ottoman Architecture. Washington, DC: Institute of Turkish Studies/Istanbul: Isis Press (1987). Müller-Wiener, Wolfgang et al . Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbuls: Byzantion, Konstantinopolis, Istanbul biz zum Beginn d. 17 Jh. Tübingen: Wasmuth (1977), translated by Ülker Sayın as Ä°stanbul’un tarihsel topografyası: 17 yüzyıl başlarına kadar Byzantion-Konstantinopolis- Ä°stanbul. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları (2001). Necipoğlu, Gülru. The Age of Sinan: Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Empire. London: Reaktion Books (2005). 146 Pakalın, Zeki. Osmanlı Tarih Deyimleri ve Terimleri Sözlüğü. 3 volumes. Istanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevı (1946–1954). Redhouse, James. A Turkish-English Lexicon. Istanbul: A. H. Boyajian (1890). Redhouse, James. Redhouse Türkçe-Ä°ngilizce Sözlük. Istanbul: SEV Matbaacılık ve Yayıncılık AŞ. (1997). Roper, Geoffrey (ed.). World Survey of Islamic Manuscripts III. London: Al-Furqān Islamic Heritage Foundation (1994). Sönmez, Neslihan. Osmanlı Dönemi Yapı ve Malzeme Terimleri Sözlüğü. Istanbul: Yem Yayın (1997). Steingass, Francis Joseph. Persian-English Dictionary. New Delhi: Cosmo Publications (1977). Topaloğlu, Abullah et al . Mimar Sinan ve Yapılarıyla Ilgili Eserler Bibliografyası. Ankara: Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı (1988). Turner, Jane et al . The Grove Dictionary of Art Online. New York: Grove’s Dictionaries, Inc. (1999–present). Unat, Fait Reşit. HicrÄ« Tarihleri Miladi Tarihine Çevirme Kılavuzu. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi (1994). Uzunçarşılı, Ismail Hakkı et al . Fermanlar: Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Osmanlı Saray Arşivi Kataloğu. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi (1985). Vögt-Göknil, Ulya. “Spatial Order in Sinan’s Külliyes.” Environmental Design 5/6 (1987): 168–173. Watt, William Montgomery. Companion to the Qur’an. Oxford: Oneworld Publications (1994). Wehr, Hans. A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic: Arabic-English. Fourth Edition. Edited by J. Milton Cowan . Weisbaden: Otto Harassowitz (1979). Yenal, Engin. The Ottoman City in Comparative Perspective, Istanbul 1453–1923: A Selected Bibliography of Urban History, Compiled from Western Sources. Monticello, Illinois: Vance Bibliographies (1978). Yazma Bağışlar Defter No. 105: Nurbanu Sultan Kütüphanesi. Temessük defter (lease ledger) regarding some rental units belonging to the Atik Valide. Defter No. 121: Nurbanu Sultan Vakfiyesi H. 990/M. 1583 (Waqfiyya). The original deed of endowment drawn up in Arabic with a list of books bequeathed by the endower to the foundation, in Ottoman. Defter Nos. 1426, 1427: Additional copies of Nurbanu Sultan Vakfiyesi H. 990/M. 1583. Defter No. 1766: Nurbanu Sultan Vakfiyesi H. 990/M. 1583. Truncated Turkish translation of the original Vakfiye by Abdullah Tanrıkulu (1940). Defter Nos. 63, 65, 69, 1023, 1024, 1033, 1039, and 2007: Contain ration lists for food (ta’am) or bread (fodla) allotted to individuals connected with the Atik Valide mosque, madrasah, imaret, and darüşşifa. 147 Defter Nos. 315, 316, 319, 321, 323–336, 344–347, 351–354, 356, 803, 1336, and 2037: Contain a number offermans (imperial decrees) and hüküms (decrees or judicial decisions) regarding the financing of the Atik Valide’s upkeep. Defter Nos. 776, 779, 905, 1009, 1226, and 1330: Contain the Atik Valide’s mukataa (revenues) and muhasebe (accounting) entries, and additional hüküms concerning the Atik Valide. Defter Nos. 432, 780, 1343, 1353, 2012: Contain entries about the Atik Valide’s personnel concerning their job descriptions, salaries, and/or food rations. Mühimme Defter No. 12. D 1781: Vakıf Defter concerning the rents collected by the Atik Valide’s Mütevelli and Darüssade Ağa from various stores, hamams, and rooms, along with lists of the amounts spent on the upkeep of several sections of the külliye, such as the hospital, madrasah, and tekke. Also includes salaries of certain employees. (Dated H. 1080–1081). D 6078: Ağnam (sheep/goat) Defter containing accounting lists of the dairy farm (mandıra) that belongs to the Atik Valide’s endowment. Includes lists of milk revenues along with the numbers of sheep that provide milk and don’t provide milk, farm expenses, and the amounts that sick sheep were sold for. D 8729: Muhasebe Defter containing three separate accounting lists made by three different mütevellis of the Atik Valide külliye in the years H. 1108, 1113, and 1117. D 8895: Defter containing the names and duration of the employments of two mütevellis and two darüssaade ağas of the Atik Valide’s külliye, the Atik Valide’s mosque and the Cedid Valide’s mosque in Üsküdar. Also contains the accounting lists of the Atik Valide mosque from H.1078. D 9912: Muhasebe Defter containing accounting lists of the Atik Valide’s mosque, hospital and imaret’s food depot (imaret kileri), made by the mütevelli and darüssaade ağa of the külliye. D 9231: Muhasebe Defter containing a list of the expenditures made for the upkeep of the Atik Valide’s mosque and imaret, by the mütevelli of the külliye. E 246: Evrak with 18 separate entries all concerning the Atik Valide külliye. Entries include: amounts of rents and debts to be collected, amounts of money to be spent on firewood, amounts of money allotted to the upkeep and repair of the hamam, amounts of fodla to be given to employees, the names of and amounts given to loan (borç) recipients, the inheritance of a lease from father to daughter. Al-Ayvansarayî, Hafız Hüseyin. Hadikat al-Cevami (Hadika). Edited and translated into English by Howard Crane as The Garden of the Mosques: Hafız Hüseyin al-Ayvansarayî’s Guide to the Muslim Monuments of Ottoman Istanbul. Leiden: E. J. Brill (2000). 148 Ca’fer Efendi. Risāle-i Mi’māriyye. Edited and translated into English by Howard Crane as Risale-i Mi’māriyye: An Early Seventeenth-Century Ottoman Treatise on Architecture. Leiden: E. J. Brill (1987). Ebussuud Efendi. Şeyhülislâm Ebüssuûd Efendi Fetvaları Işığında 16. Asır Türk Hayatı. Edited by M. Ertuğrul Düzdağ . Istanbul: Enderun Kitabevi (1972). Evliya Çelebi b. Derviş Muhammed Zıllî . The Intimate Life of an Ottoman Statesman: Melek Ahmed Pasha (1588–1662). Edited and translated into English by Robert Dankoff. Albany: State University of New York Press (1991). Evliya Çelebi b. Derviş Muhammed Zıllî . Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, 1. Kitap: Ä°stanbul (Seyahatname). Edited and transliterated by Orhan Saik Gökyay. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları (1996). Fermanlar . Edited by Ülkü Altındağ . Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi (1985). Ä°stanbul Ahkâm Defterleri: Ä°stanbul Vakıf Tarihi 1 (1742–1764). Edited by Ahmet Kal’a et al. Istanbul: Ä°stanbul Araştırmaları Merkezi (1988). Koçi Bey, Mustafa. Risâle. Edited by Yılmaz Kurt. Ankara: Akçağ Yayınları (1998). Kömürciyan, Eremya Çelebi (1637–1695). Ä°stanbul Tarihi: XVII Asırda Ä°stanbul. Edited by Hrand D. Andreasyan . Istanbul: Kutulmuş Basımevi (1952). Mustafa b. Ahmet Âli (Gelibolulu) . NaÄ«shatü s-selātÄ«n. Edited and translated by Andreas Tietze as Mustafā ‘ÂlÄ«s Counsel for Sultans of 1581 (Nasihat). Vienna: Veralg der Österreichische Academie der Wissenschaften (1979). Mustafa b. Ahmet Âli (Gelibolulu) . Künh ül-Ahbār. Edited and translated into Modern Turkish by Jan Schmidt as Pure Water for Thirsty Muslims: A Study of Mustafā ‘Âlî of Gallipoli’s Künhü l-Ahbār. Leiden: Het Oosters Institute (1991). Mustafa b. Ahmed Âli (Gelibolulu) . Künh ül-Ahbār. Edited by Faris Çerçi as Gelibolulu Mustafa ‘Âlî, ve Künh ül-Ahbār’ında II. Selim, III Murat ve III Mehmet Devirleri. 3 volumes. Kayseri: Erciyes Üniversitesi Yayınları (2000). Naima Mustafa Efendi . Tarih. Edited by Zuhuri Danışman as Tarih-i Naima. 6 volumes. Istanbul: Bahar Matbaası (1967). Osmanlı Kanunnameleri ve Hukuki Tahlilleri. Edited by Ahmet Akgündüz . Volume VII: 2, II Selim Devri Kanunnameleri. Istanbul: FEY Vakfı (1990). Osmanlı Kanunnameleri ve Hukuki Tahlilleri. Edited by Ahmet Akgündüz . Volume VIII: 1, III Murad Devri Kanunnameleri. Istanbul: FEY Vakfı (1990). Osmanlı Padişah Fermanları: Imperial Ottoman Fermans. Edited by Ayşegül Nadir . Westerham, Kent: Hand Press Ltd. (1986). Peçevî, Ibrahim. Tarih-i Peçevî (Peçevî). Edited by Murat Uraz . 2 volumes. Murat Uraz. Istanbul: Son Telgraf Matbaası (1968). Refik, Ahmed [Altınay] . Onuncu Asr-ı Hicrī’de Istanbul Hayatı (1495–1591). Istanbul: Enderun Kitabevi (1988 [1917]). Refik, Ahmed [Altınay] . Onbirinci Asr-ı Hicrī’de Istanbul Hayatı (1592–1688). Istanbul: Enderun Kitabevi (1988 [1931]). Refik, Ahmed [Altınay] . Kadınlar Saltanatı. 2 volumes. Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları (2000 [1916]). Saî Mustafa Çelebi . Tezkiretü’l-Bünyan ve Tezkiretü’l-Ebniye. Edited by Hayati Develi and Samih Rıfat as Yapılar Kitabı: Tezkiretü’l-Bünyan ve Tezkiretü’l-Ebniye. Istanbul: Koçbank (2002). Selânikî, Mustafa Efendi . Tarih. Edited by Mehmet Ä°pşirli as Tarih-i Selânikî (Selânikî). 2 volumes. Istanbul: Ä°stanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Basımevi (1989). Solakzade Mehmed Hemdemi Efendi . Tarih. Edited by Vahid Çabuk as Solakzade Tarihi. 2 volumes. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları (1989). 149 Surname-i Hümayun . Edited by Nurhan Atasoy as 1582 Surname-i Hümayun: An Imperial Celebration. Istanbul: Koçbank (1997). Süleymaniye Vakfiyesi . Edited by Kemal Edib Kürkçüoğlu . Ankara: Resimli Posta Matbaası (1962). Talikizade, Mehmed ibn Mehmed el-Fenari. Şehname-i Hümayun. Edited by Christine Woodhead as Ta’lîkî-zâde’s Şehnâme-i HümâyÅ«n: A History of the Ottoman Campaign into Hungary 1593–94. Berlin: K. Schwarz (1983). Ufkî, Ali. Topkapi: Relation du Serail du Grand Seigneur. Arles: Actes Sud, Sinbad (1999). Uluçay, Çağatay. Osmanlı Sultanlarına Aşk Mektupları. Istanbul: Vakit Matbaası (1950). Uluçay, Çağatay. Harem’den Mektuplar I. Istanbul: Vakit Matbaası (1956). Albèri, Eugenio (1809–1878). Relazioni degli ambasciatori veneti al Senato: raccolte, annotate, ed edite da Eugenio Alberi, a spese di una società (Relazioni). Volumes 1–3 in a 15-volume series and index. Florence: Tipografia e Calografia all’insegnia del Clio (1840–1845). Badoer, Andrea. “Relazione al Senato (1573).” In G. Comisso (ed.), Gli ambasciatori Veneti (1525–1792): Relazioni di viaggio e di missione. Milan: Longanesi & C. (1985): 77–82. Barozzi, Nicolo and Berchet, Gugliermo (1826–1906). Le Relazioni degli stati Europei lette al Senato dagli ambasciatori Veneti nel secolo decimosettimo. Volume 5, parts 1–2 in a 10-volume series. Venice: Pietro Naratovich (1866). Baudier, Michel. The History of the Imperial Estate of the Grand Seigneurs: Their Habitations, Liues, Titles, Government and Tyranny. London: William Stansby (1635). Bertelè, Tommaso. Il palazzo degli ambasciatori di Venezia a Constantinopoli. Bologna (1932). Blount, Henry Sir. A Voyage into the Levant: a Briefe Relation of a iorney, lately performed by Master Henry Blunt Gentleman from England by way of Venice, into Dalmatia, Sclavonia, Bosnah, Hungary, Macedonia, Thessaly, Thrace, Rhodes and Egypt, unto Gran Cairo: with particular observations concerning the moderne condition of the Turkes, and other people under that Empire. London: John Legat for Andrew Crooke (1638). Bobovi, Albert (Alberto Bobovio). Serai enderum, cioè, penetrale del seraglio ditto nuovo dei Gran Sgri e Re Ottomani 1665. Busbeq, Ogier Ghislain de. The Turkish Letters of Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq, Imperial Ambassador at Constantinople 1554–1562. Translated by Edward Seymour Forster. Oxford: Clarendon Press (1927). Busbeq, Ogier Ghislain de. The Life and Letters of Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq, 2 volumes. Translated by Charles Thornton Forster and F. H. Balckburne Danielle . London: C.K. Paul (1881). Comisso, Giovanni (ed.). Gli Ambasciatori Veneti (1925–1794): Relazioni di Viaggio e di Missione; Milan: Longanesi & Co. (1985). Du Fresne-Canaye, Phillippe. Le Voyage du Levant (1573). Paris: Ernest Leroux (1842). Klarwill, Victor von (ed.) The Fugger News-Letters: A Selection of Unpublished Letters from the Correspondents of the House of Fugger during the Years 1568–1605. Edited by Pauline de Chary . New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons/London: John Lane (1924). Lello, Henry. The Report of Lello, Third English Ambassador to the Sublime Porte. Original version, with a Turkish translation by Orhan Burian. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi (1952). 150 De Nicolay, Nicolas. The Navigations, Peregrinations and Voyages, made into Turkie by Nicholas Nicholay, Daulphinois, Lord of Arfeuile, Chamberlaine and Geographer Ordinarie to the King of Fraunce … London: Thomas Dawson (1585). Sanderson, John. Travels of John Sanderson in the Levant 1584–1602. Series 2, no. 67. Edited by Sir William Foster . London: Hakluyt Society (1931). Adıvar-Adnan, Abdülhak. Osmanlı Türklerinde Ä°lim. Istanbul: Maarif Matbaası (1943). Akgündüz, Ahmet. Ä°slam Hukukunda ve Osmanlı Tatbikatında Vakıf Müessesesi. Ankara: Osmanlı Araştırmalar Vakfı (1996). Akgündüz, Ahmet. “Ebüssuûd Efendi.” Ä°A2 X: 365–371. Akın, Günkut. “The Müezzin Mahfili and Pool of the Selimiye Mosque.” Muqarnas 12 (1995). Akozan, Feridun. “Türk Külliyeleri.” Vakıflar Dergisi VIII (1969): 303–338. Akture, Sevgi. “Mimarbaşı Sinan and the Building Policies of the Ottoman State.” Environmental Design 5/6 (1987): 98–105. Altındağ, Ülkü. “Darüssaâde.” Ä°A2 IX: 1–3. Altunsu, Abdülkadir. Osmanlı Şeyhülislâmları. Ankara: Ayyıldız Matbaası (1972). And, Metin. Turkish Miniature Painting: The Ottoman Period. Ankara: Dost Yayınları (1974). Anderson, J. N. D. “The Religious Element in Waqf Endowments.” Journal of the Royal Central Asian Society 38: 4 (1951): 292–299. Arbel, Benjamin. “Nurbanu (C. 1530–1583): A Venetian Sultana?” Turcica 24 (1992): 241–259. Archer, Leonie J. (ed.). Women in Ancient Societies. London: Macmillan (1994). Arjomand, Said Amir. “Philanthropy, the Law and Public Law in the Islamic World before the Modern Era.” In Warren Frederick Ilchman et al ., Philanthropy in the World’s Traditions. Bloomington: Indiana University Press (1988): 109–132. Artan, Tülay. “From Charismatic Leadership to Collective Rule: Introducing Materials on Wealth and Power of Ottoman Princesses in the Eighteenth Century.” Dünkü ve Bugünüyle Toplum ve Ekonomi 4 (1993): 53–94. Artan, Tülay. “The Kadırga Palace Shrouded by the Mists of Time.” Turcica 26 (1994): 55–124. Artan, Tülay. “Aspects of the Ottoman Elite’s Food Consumption: Looking for ‘Staples,’ ‘Luxuries,’ and ‘Delicacies’ in a Changing Century.” In Donald Quataert (ed.), Consumption Studies and the History of the Ottoman Empire, 1550–1922: An Introduction. Albany: State University of New York Press (2000): 107–200. Aslanapa, Oktay. “Sinan.” IA1 X: 655–661. Aslanapa, Oktay. Mimar Sinan’ın Hayatı ve Eserleri. Ankara: Türk Kültürünü Araştırma Enstitüsü (1988). Aslanoğlu, Inci N. “Siting of Sinan’s Külliyes in Istanbul.” Environmental Design 5/6 (1987): 192–197. Atasoy, Nurhan and Çağman, Filiz. Turkish Miniature Painting. Istanbul: R.C.D. Cultural Institute (1974). Ateş, Ibrahim. “Hayri ve Sosyal Hizmetler Açısından Vakıflar.” Vakıflar Dergisi 15 (1982): 55–88. Atıl, Esin. “Islamic Women as Rulers and Patrons.” Asian Art 6 (1993): 3–12. Babinger, Franz. “Baffo, Cecilia.” In Dizionario biografico degli Taliani, volume V. Rome: Istituto dell’Enciclopedia Italiana (1960–): 161. 151 Baer, Gabriel. “Women and Waqf: An Analysis of the Istanbul Tahrir of 1546.” Asian and African Studies 17 (1983): 9–27. Baer, Gabriel. “The Waqf as a Prop for the Social System (Sixteenth-Twentieth Centuries).” Islamic Law and Society 3 (1997): 264–297. Baltacı, Cahit. “Hürrem Sultan.” IA2 XVIII: 498–500. Baltacı, Câhid. Osmanlı Medreseleri XV-XVI Asırlarda. Istanbul: Ä°rfan Matbaası (1967). Barkan, Ömer Lütfi. “Osmanlı Ä°mparatorluğunda Bir Ä°skan ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Vakıflar ve Temlikler.” Vakıflar Dergisi II (1942): 279–386. Barkan, Ömer Lütfi. “L’organisation du travail dans le chantier d’une grande mosque à Istanbul au XVI siècle,” Annales 17: 6 (1962): 1093–1106. Barkan, Ömer Lütfi. “Osmanlı Ä°mparatorluğunda Ä°maret Sitelerinin Kuruluş ve İşleyiş Tarzına ait Araştırmalar.” Ä°stanbul Üniversitesi Ä°ktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası 23 (1962–1963): 239–296. Barkan, Ömer Lütfi. Süleymaniye Camii ve Ä°mareti Inşaatı (1550–1557), 2 volumes, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları (1972). Barkan, Ömer Lütfi. “The Price Revolution of the Sixteenth Century: A Turning Point in the Economic History of the Near East.” International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 6 (1975): 3–28. Barkey, Karen. Bandits and Bureaucrats: The Ottoman Route to State Centralization. Ithaca: Cornell University Press (1994). Barnes, John Robert. An Introduction to Religious Foundations in the Ottoman Empire. Leiden: E. J. Brill (1987). Baskan, Ali Rıza. Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Islam Minyatürleri Kataloğu. Istanbul: Güzel Sanatlar Matbaası (1979). Bates, Ülkü. “Women as Patrons of Architecture in Turkey.” In Lois Beck and Nikki Keddie (eds.), Women in the Muslim World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (1978): 245–260. Bates, Ülkü. “Two Ottoman Documents on Architects in Egypt.” Muqarnas 3 (1985): 121–127. Bates, Ülkü. “Façades in Ottoman Cairo.” In Irene A. Bierman et al . (eds.), The Ottoman City and its Parts: Urban Structure and Social Order. New York: Aristide D. Caratzas Publishers (1991): 129–172. Bates, Ülkü. “Architectural Patronage of Ottoman Women.” Asian Art 6 (1993): 50–65. Bayat, Ali Haydar. “Hafsa Sultan.” IA2 XV: 122. Bayraktar, Nimet. “Üsküdar Kütüphaneleri.” Vakıflar Dergisi 16 (1982): 45–49. Baysun, M. Cavid. “Mihrümah Sultan.” IA1 VIII: 307–308. Baysun, M. Cavid. “Kösem Sultan.” IA1 VI: 915–923. Behrens-Abouseif, Doris. Egypt’s Adjustments to Ottoman Rule: Institutions, Waqf and Architecture in Cairo (16th & 17th Centuries). Leiden: E. J. Brill (1994). Benzoni, Gino and Tiziano Zanato (eds.) Storici e Politici Veneti del Cinquecento e del Seicento. Milan and Naples: Riccardo Ricciardi Editore (1982). Bierman, Irene A. “The Art of the Public Text: Medieval Islamic Rule.” In Irving Lavin (ed.), World Art: Themes of Unity in Diversity. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press II (1989): 283–290. Bierman, Irene A. “The Ottomanization of Crete.” In Irene A. Bierman et al . (eds.), The Ottoman City and its Parts: Urban Structure and Social Order. New York: Aristide D. Caratzas Publishers (1991): 53–75. Bierman, Irene A. Writing Signs: The Fatimid Public Text. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press (1998). 152 Blake, Stephen P. “Contributors to the Urban Landscape: Women Builders in Safavid Isfahan and Mughal Shahjahanabad.” In Gavin R. G. Hambly (ed.), Women in the Medieval Islamic World: Power, Patronage and Piety. New York: St. Martin’s Press (1999): 429–467. Bonner, Michael , Ener, Mine , and Singer, Amy (eds.). Poverty and Charity in Middle Eastern Contexts. New York: State University of New York Press (2003). Boratay, Pertev Nāilî. “Hızır.” Ä°A1 V: 457–471. Borie, Alain. “Sinan’s Külliyes: Architectural Compositions.” Environmental Design 5/6 (1987): 112–123. Braude, Benjamin and Lewis, Bernard. Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire, 2 volumes. New York: Holmes and Meier (1982). Brodman, James. Charity and Welfare: Hospitals and the Poor in Medieval Catalonia. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press (1988). Bryson, Norman. Vision and Painting: The Logic of the Gaze. New Haven: Yale University Press (1983). Burelli, Romano. “Vision and Representation of Urban Space.” Environmental Design 5/6 (1987): 42–51. Cantay, Gönül. Osmanlı Külliyelerinin Kuruluşu. Ankara: Atatürk Kültür Merkezi Başkanlığı (2002). Cantay, Tanju. XVI.—XVII. Yüzyıllarda Süleymaniye Camii ve Bağlı Yapıları. Istanbul: Eren Yayıncılık ve Kitapçılık Ltd. (1989). Cavallo, Sandra. “The Motivations of Benefactors: An Overview of Approaches to the Study of Charity.” In Johnathan Barry and Colin Jones (eds.), Medicine and Charity before the Welfare State. London: Routledge Press (1991): 46–62. Cavallo, Sandra. Charity and Power in Early Modern Italy: Benefactors and their Motives in Turin, 1541–1789. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press (1995). Caws, Mary Ann. The Eye in the Text: Essays on Perception, Mannerist to Modern. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1981). Cerasi, Maurice. “Place and Perspective in Sinan’s Townscape.” Environmental Design 5/6 (1987): 52–61. Cerasi, Maurice. “Late Ottoman Architects and Master Builders.” Muqarnas 5 (1988): 87–102. Cerasi, Maurice. “The Urban Perspective of Ottoman Monuments from Sinan to Mehmet Tahir: Change and Continuity.” In Çiğdem Kafescioğlu and Lucienne Thys-Şenocak (eds.), Essays in Honour of Aptullah Kuran. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları (1999): 171–190. Cichocki, Nina. The Life Story of the Çemberlitaş Hamam: From Bath to Tourist Attraction. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Minnesota (1994). Clayer, Nathalie. “Sha’bāniyya,” EI1 IX, 155–156. Clayer, Nathalie. Mystiques, état et société: Les Halvetis dans l’aire balkanique de la fin du XVe à nos jours. Leiden: Brill (1994). Coco, Carla and Manzonetto, F. Baili Veneziani alla Sublime Porta: Storia e caratteristiche dell’ambasciata Veneta a Constantinopoli. Venice: Università degli studi di Venezia (1981). Constantelos, Demetrios J. Byzantine Philanthropy and Social Welfare. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press (1968). Crane, Howard. “The Ottoman Sultans’ Mosques: Icons of Imperial Legitimacy.” In Irene A. Bierman et al . (eds.), The Ottoman City and its Parts: Urban Structure and Social Order. New York: Aristide D. Caratzas Publishers (1991): 173–243. 153 Cremonesi, Arduino. La sfida turca contro gli Asburgo e Venezia. Udine: Arti Grafiche Friulane (1976). Dankoff, Robert. An Ottoman Mentality: The World of Evliya Çelebi. Leiden: E. J. Brill (2004). Daftary, Farhad. “Sayyida Hurra: The Isma’ili Sulayhid Queen of Yemen.” In Gavin R. G. Hambly (ed.), Women in the Medieval Islamic World: Power, Patronage and Piety. New York: St. Martin’s Press (1999): 117–130. Darling, Linda T. “Another Look at Periodization in Ottoman History.” Turkish Studies Association 26: 2 (2002): 19–28. Deguilhem, Randi (ed.). Le Waqf dans l’espace islamique. Outil et pouvoir socio-politique. Damascus: Institut Français de Damas (1995). Denny, Walter B. “Sinan the Great as Architectural Historian: the Kılıç Ali Pasha Mosque in Istanbul.” Turcica 15 (1983): 104–126. Dickie, James. “Garden and Cemetery in Sinan’s Istanbul.” Environmental Design 5/6 (1987): 70–85. Doğan, Sema. “Haseki Külliyesi.” Ä°A2 XVI: 370–372. Duben, Alan. “Turkish Families and Households in Historical Perspective.” Journal of Family History 1 (1985): 75–97. Duran, Tülay (ed.). Tarihimizde Vakıf Kuran Kadınlar: Hanım Sultan Vakfiyyeleri. Istanbul: Tarihi Araştırmalar ve Dokümentasyon Merkezleri Kurma ve Geliştirme Vakfı (1990). Dursteler, Eric R. Identity and Coexistence in the Early Modern Mediterranean: The Venetian Nation in Constantinople, 1573–1645. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Brown University (2000). Egli, Ernst. Sinan, der Baumeister Osmanischer Glanzziet. Erlenbach-Zurich: Verlag für Architektur (1954). Egli, Hans G. Sinan: An Interpertation. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları (1997). Ertuğ, Zeynep Tarım. “Imaret.” Ä°A2 XXII: 219–220. Erzen, Jale. “Imperializing a City: Istanbul of the Sixteenth Century.” Environmental Design 5/6 (1987): 88–97. Erzen, Jale. “Sinan as Anti-Classicist.” Muqarnas 5 (1988): 71–86. Eyice, Semavi. “Gazanfer Ağa Külliyesi.” Ä°A2 XIII: 432–433. Eyice, Semavi. “Hamam I: Tarih ve Mimari.” Ä°A2 XV: 402–430. Eyice, Semavi. “Haseki Hamamı.” Ä°A2 XVI: 369–370. Eyice, Semavi. “Bābüssaâde.” Ä°A2 IV: 408–409. Eyice, Semavi. Mimar Sinan’ın Külliyeleri. Istanbul: Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü Yayınları (1989). Faroqhi, Suraiya. “Vakif Administration in Sixteenth Century Konya: The Zaviye of Sadreddin-i Konevi.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 17 (1974): 145–172. Faroqhi, Suraiya. “The Tekke of Hacı Bektaş: Social Position and Economic Activities.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 7 (1976): 183–208. Faroqhi, Suraiya. “Seyyid Gazi Revisited: The Foundation as Seen Through Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Documents.” Turcica 13 (1981): 90–122. Fay, Mary Ann. “Women and Waqf: Property, Power, and the Domain of Gender in the Eighteenth-Century Egypt.” In Madeline Z. Zilfi (ed.), Women in the Ottoman Empire: Middle Eastern Women in the Early Modern Era. Leiden: E. J. Brill (1997): 28–47. Findley, Carter Vaughn. “Social Dimensions of Dervish Life as Seen in the Memoirs of Aşçı Dede Ibrahim Halil.” In Raymond Lifchez (ed.), The Dervish Lodge: Architecture, Art, and Sufism in Ottoman Turkey. Berkeley: University of California Press (1992): 175–186. 154 Fisher, Alan. “Suleyman and His Sons.” In Gilles Veinstein (ed.), Soliman le Magnifique et son temps. Paris: École du Louvre (1992): 117–124. Fleischer, Cornell H. “From Şeyhzade Korkud to Mustafa Ali: Cultural Origins of the Ottoman Nasihatname.” Proceedings of the Third Congress on Social and Economic History of Turkey (1983): 67–77. Fleischer, Cornell H. Bureaucrat and Intellectual in the Ottoman Empire, The Historian Mustafa ‘Âli, 1541–1600. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1986). Fleischer, Cornell H. “The Lawgiver as Messiah: The Making of the Imperial Image in the Reign of Suleyman. In Gilles Veinstein (ed.), Soliman le Magnifique et son temps. Paris: Ècole du Louvre (1992): 159–177. Fotic, Aleksandar. “The Official Explanations for the Confiscation and Sale of Monastaries (Churches) and their Estates at the Time of Selim II.” Turcica 26 (1994): 32–54. Freely, John. Sinan, Architect de Soliman. Paris: Arthaud (1992). Freely, John. Istanbul: The Imperial City. London: Viking Press (1996). Galitekin, Ahmed Nezih. Osmanlı Kaynaklarına Göre Ä°stanbul Câmi, Tekke, Medrese, Mekteb, Türbe, Hamam, Kütüphâne, Matbaa, Mahalle ve Selâtîn Ä°mâretleri. Istanbul: İşaret Yayınları (2003). Geerz, Clifford. “Centers, Kings, and Charisma: Reflections on the Symbolics of Power.” In Clifford Geerz (ed.), Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology. New York: Basic Books (1983): 121–146. Gerber, Haim. “The Waqf Institution in Early Ottoman Edirne.” Asian and African Studies 17 (1983): 29–45. Gerber, Haim. Islamic Law and Culture, 1600–1840. Leiden: E. J. Brill (1999). Goodwin, Godfrey. “Sinan and City Planning.” Environmental Design 5/6 (1987): 10–19. Goodwin Godfrey. “The Dervish Architecture of Anatolia.” In Goodwin Godfrey (ed.), The Dervish Lodge: Architecture, Art, and Sufism in Ottoman Turkey. Berkeley: University of California Press, (1992): 73–129. Goodwin Godfrey. “Art and Creative Thinking in the Reign of Süleymân the Lawgiver.” In Suleyman the Second and His Time. Istanbul: Isis Press (1993): 295–315. Goodwin, Godfrey. Sinan: Ottoman Architecture and its Values Today. London: Saqi Books (1993). Goodwin, Godfrey. The Private World of Ottoman Women. London: Saqi Books (1997). Gökbilgin, Tayyib M. “Hürrem Sultan.” IA1 V: 593–596. Gökbilgin, Tayyib M. “Mehmed Paşa.” IA1 VII: 595–605. Göyünç, Nejat. “Frauen in der Familie Osman und am osmanischen Hof Die Zeit Selims II.” In Sabine Prator and Christophe K. Neumann (eds.), Arts, Women and Scholars: Studies in Ottoman Society and Culture I. Istanbul: Simurg (2002): 103–107. Grabar, Oleg. The Formation of Islamic Art. New Haven: Yale University Press (1987). Grabar, Oleg. Mediation of Ornament. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1992). Grabar, Oleg. “The Meanings of Sinan’s Architecture.” In Azize Aktaş-Yasa (ed.), Uluslararası Mimar Sinan Sempozyumu Bildirileri. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi (1996): 275–283. Gruendler, Beatrice. “Ibn al-Rümî’s Ethics of Patronage.” Harvard Middle Eastern and Islamic Review III:1–2 (1996): 104–160. De Groot, Alexander H. “Nurbanu.” EI2 VIII: 124. De Groot, Alexander H. “Murad III.” El2 VII: 595–597. 155 Guidoni, Enrico. “Sinan’s Construction of the Urban Panorama.” Environmental Design 5/6 (1987): 20–32. Güler, Mustafa. Osmanlı Devlet’inde Haremeyn Vakıfları: XVI–XVII Yüzyıllar. Istanbul: Tarih ve Tabiat Vakfı (2002). Günay, Reha. Sinan, The Architect and His Works. Istanbul: Yem Yayın (1999). Güngör, I. H. “The Dome in Sinan’s Works.” Environmental Design 5/6 (1987): 156–167. Hanna, Nelly. Making Big Money in 1600: The Life and Times of Isma ‘il Abu Taqiyya, Egyptian Merchant. New York: Syracuse University Press (1998). al-Harithy, Howyda N. “The Complex of Sultan Hasan in Cairo: Reading between the Lines.” Muqarnas 13 (1996): 68–79. Hathaway, Jane. “Problems of Periodization in Ottoman History: The Fifteenth through the Eighteenth Centuries.” Turkish Studies Association Bulletin 2 (1996): 25–31. Heffening, Willi. “Wakf.” EI2 IV: 1096–1103. Herrin, Judith. “Public and Private Forms of Religious Commitment among Byzantine Women.” In. J. Leonie Archer et al . (eds.), Women in Ancient Societies. London: Macmillan (1994): 181–203. Hillenbrand, Robert. Islamic Architecture: Form, Function, and Meaning. New York: Columbia University Press (1994). Hoexter, Miriam. Endowments, Rulers and Community: Waqf al-Haramayn in Ottoman Algiers. Leiden: E. J. Brill (1998). Holum, Kenneth G. Theodosian Empresses: Women and Imperial Dominian in Late Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press (1982). Howard, Douglas A. “Ottoman Historiography and the Literature of ‘Decline’ of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries.” Journal of Asian History 22: 1 (1988): 52–77. Huart, Clement. “Imāret.” EI2 II: 475. Huart, Clement. “Imâret.” Ä°A1 V: 985. Humphreys, R. Steven. “Politics and Architectural Patronage in Ayyubid Damascus.” In C. E. Bosworth and Charles Issawi (eds.), The Islamic World: From Classical to Modern Times. Princeton: Darwin Press (1989): 151–174. Humphreys, R. Steven. “Women as Patrons of Religious Architecture in Ayyubid Damascus.” Muqarnas 11 (1994): 35–54. Imber, Colin. Ebu’s-su’ud: The Islamic Legal Tradition. Stanford: Stanford University Press (1997). Ilgürel, Mücteba. “Ahmed I.” IA2 II: 30–33. Inalcık, Halil. “Istanbul.” EI2 IV: 224–228. Inalcık, Halil. “The Policy of Mehmed II Towards the Greek Population of Istanbul and the Byzantine Buildings of the City.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 23/24 (1969–1970): 229–249. Inalcık, Halil. The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age 1300–1600. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson (1973). Inalcık, Halil. “Military and Fiscal Transformation in the Ottoman Empire.” Archivum Ottomanicum 6 (1980). Inalcık, Halil. “Istanbul: An Islamic City.” Journal of Islamic Studies 1 (1990): 1–23. Inalcık, Halil and Donald Quataert (eds.). An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300–1914. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press (1994). Ipşirli, Mehmet. “Canfedâ Hatun.” IA2 VII: 150–151. Ipşirli, Mehmet. “Çivizâde Mehmed Efendi.” IA2 VIII: 347–348. Ipşirli, Mehmet. “Mustafa Selaniki and his History.” Tarih Enstitüsü Dergisi 9 (1978): 417–470. 156 Ipşirli, Mehmet. “Scholarship and Intellectual Life in the Reign of Süleyman the Magnificent.” In Tülay Duran (ed.), The Ottoman Empire in the Reign of Süleyman the Magnificent, volume 2. Istanbul: Historical Research Publishers (1988): 15–58. Isogai, Ken’ichi. “A commentary on the closing formula found in the Central Asian waqf documents.” In Nobuaki Kondo (ed.), Persian Documents: Social History of Iran and Turan in the Fifteenth-Nineteenth Centuries. London: Routledge Press (2003): 3–12. Iwatake Akio. “The Waqf of a Timurid amir: the example of Cahqmaq Shami in Yazd.” In Nobuaki Kondo (ed.), Persian Documents: Social History of Iran and Turan in the Fifteenth-Nineteenth Centuries. London: Routledge Press (2003): 87–105. Jennings, Ronald C. “Pious Foundations in the Society and Economy of the Ottoman Trabzon, 1565–1640. A Study based on the Judicial Registers (Şer’i Mahkeme Sicilleri) of Trabzon.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 33 (1990): 271–336. Jutte, Robert. “Diets in Welfare Institutions and in Outdoor Poor Relief in Early Modern Western Europe.” Ethnologia Europaea 2 (1986): 117–136. Kafadar, Cemal. “Self and Others: The Diary of a Dervish in Seventeenth-Century Istanbul and First-Person Narratives in Ottoman Literature.” Studia Islamica 69 (1989): 121–150. Kafadar, Cemal. “The New Visibility of Sufism in Turkish Studies and Cultural Life.” In Raymond Lifchez (ed.), The Dervish Lodge: Architecture, Art and Sufism in Ottoman Turkey. Berkeley: University of California Press (1992): 307–322. Kafadar, Cemal. “The Myth of the Golden Age: Ottoman Historical Consciousness in the Post- Süleymânic Era.” In Halil Ä°nalcık and Cemal Kafadar (eds.), Süleyman the Second and His Time. Istanbul: Isis Press (1993): 37–48. Kafadar, Cemal. “Eyüp’te Kılıç Kuşanma Törenleri.” In Tülay Artan (ed.), Eyüp: Dün/Bugün. Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları (1994): 50–61. Kafadar, Cemal. “The Question of Ottoman Decline.” Harvard Middle Eastern and Islamic Review 4:1/2 (1997–1998): 30–75. Kafesçioğlu, Çiğdem. “In the Image of Rum: Ottoman Architectural Patronage in Sixteenth-Century Aleppo and Damascus.” Muqarnas 16 (1999): 70–96. Kafesçioğlu, Çiğdem. “Heavenly and Unblessed, Splendid and Artless: Mehmed II’s Mosque Complex in Istanbul in the Eyes of its Contemporaries.” In Çiğdem Kafescioğlu and Lucienne Thys-Şenocak (eds.), Essays in Honour of Aptullah Kuran. Istanbul: Yapi Kredi Yayınları (1999): 211–222. Kana’an, Ruba. “Waqf, Architecture, and Political Self-Fashioning: The Construction of the Great Mosque of Jaffa by Muhammad Aga Abu Nabbut.” Muqarnas 18 (2001): 120–138. Kara, Kerim. “Karabaş Veli.’ Ä°A2 XXV: 369–371. Karamustafa, Ahmet T. God’s Unruly Friends: Dervish Groups in the Islamic Later Middle Period, 1200–1550. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press (1994). Kazancıgil, Ratip. Edirne Ä°maretleri. Istanbul: Türk Kütüphaneciler Derneği Edirne Şubesi Yayınevi (1991). Kermeli, Eugenia. “Ebū’s Su’ūd’s Definitions of Church vakfs: Theory and Practice in Ottoman Law.” In Robert Gleave and Eugenia Kermeli (eds.), Islamic Law: Theory and Practice. London: I. B. Tauris (1977): 141–156. Kondo, Nobuaki. “The Waqf of Ustad ‘Abbas: Rewrites of the deeds in Qajar Tehran.” In Nobuaki Kondo (ed.), Persian Documents: Social History of Iran and Turan in the Fifteenth–Nineteenth Centuries. London: Routledge Press (2003): 106–128. Konyalı, Ibrahim Hakkı. “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman’ın Annesi Hafsa Sultan’ın Vakfiyesi ve Manisa’daki Hayır Eserleri.” Vakıflar Dergisi VIII (1969): 47–56. 157 Konyalı, Ibrahim Hakkı. Üsküdar Tarihi, 2 volumes. Istanbul: Ahmet Sait Matbaası (1976). Kortan, Enis. “The Role of Sinan’s Work within the Urban Context.” Environmental Design 5/6 (1987): 140–145. Kozlowski, Gregory. Muslim Endowments and Society in British India. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press (1985). Kreiser, Klaus. “Zur Kulturgeschicte der osmanischen Moschee.” In Turkische Kunst und Kultur aus Osmanischer Zeit. Recklinghausen: A. Bongers I (1985): 75–86. Kreiser, Klaus. “The Dervish Living.” In Raymond Lifchez (ed.), The Dervish Lodge: Architecture, Art and Sufism in Ottoman Turkey. Berkeley: University of California Press (1992): 49–56. Kuban, Doğan. “Eski Valide Camii.” Mimarlık ve Sanat 1 (1961): 33–36. Kuban, Doğan. “Eski Valide Külliyesi.” Mimarlık ve Sanat 2 (1961): 59–63. Kuban, Doğan. “The Style of Sinan’s Domed Structures.” Muqarnas 4 (1987): 72–92. Kuban, Doğan. “Süleymaniye and Sixteenth-century Istanbul.” Environmental Design 5/6 (1987): 62–69. Kuban, Doğan. Sinan’s Art and Selimiye. Istanbul: The Economic and Social History Foundation of Turkey (1997). Kunt, Metin. “The Waqf as an Instrument of Public Policy: Notes on the Köprülü Family Endowments.” In Colin Heywood and Colin Imber (eds.), Studies in Honour of Professor V.L. Ménà ge. Istanbul: Isis Press (1994): 189–198. Kunt, Metin and Woodhead, Christine. Suleyman the Magnificent and His Age: The Ottoman Empire in the Early Modern World. Essex: Longman Group (1995). Kunter, Halim. “Türk Vakıfları ve Vakfiyeleri.” Vakıflar Dergisi I (1938): 103–129. Kuran, Aptullah. The Mosque in Early Ottoman Architecture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (1968). Kuran, Aptullah. “Üsküdar Atik Valide Külliyesinin Yerleşme Düzeni ve Yapım Tarihi Üzerine.” In Suut Kemal Yetkin’e Armağan. Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Yayınları (1984): 231–248. Kuran, Aptullah. Mimar Sinan. Istanbul: Hürriyet Vakfı Yayınları (1986). Kuran, Aptullah. Sinan the Grand Old Master of Ottoman Architecture, Istanbul: ADA Press (1987). Kuran, Aptullah. “Form and Function in Ottoman Building Complexes.” Environmental Design 5/6 (1987): 132–139. Kuran, Aptullah. “Suleyman the Magnificent’s Architectural Patronage.” In Gilles Veinstein (ed.), Soliman le Magnifique et son temps. Paris: Ècole du Louvre (1992): 217–225. Kuran, Aptullah. “Architecture: The Classical Ottoman Achievement.” In Halil Ä°nalcık and Cemal Kafadar (eds.), Suleyman the Second and His Time. Istanbul: Isis Press (1993): 317–332. Kuran, Aptullah. “A Spatial Study of Three Ottoman Capitals: Bursa, Edirne, and Istanbul.” Muqarnas 13 (1996): 114–131. Kürkçüoğlu, Kemal Edîb (ed.). Süleymaniye Vakfiyesi, Ankara: Resimli Posta Matbaası (1962). Kütükoğlu, Bekir. “Murad III.” Ä°A1 VIII: 615–625. Kütükoğlu, Bekir. “Valide Sultan.” Ä°A1 XIII: 179–187. Kütükoğlu, Bekir. “Lala Mustafa Paşa.” Ä°A2 XXVII: 73–74. Lapidus, Ira M. “Sufism and Ottoman Islamic Society.” In Raymond Lifchez (ed.), The Dervish Lodge: Architecture, Art, and Sufism in Ottoman Turkey. Berkeley: University of California Press (1992): 15–32. 158 Lewis, Bernard. “Ottoman Observers of Ottoman Decline.” Islamic Studies 1 (1962): 71–87. Lifchez, Raymond. “The Lodges in Istanbul.” In Raymond Lifchez (ed.), The Dervish Lodge: Architecture, Art, and Sufism in Ottoman Turkey. Berkeley: University of California Press (1992): 73–129. Linant de Bellefonds, Yvon. “Hiba.” EI2 III: 350–351. Lowry, Heath W. “Impropriety and Impiety among the Early Ottoman Sultans (1351–1451).” The Turkish Studies Association Journal 26: 2 (2002): 29–38. Mandaville, James. “Usurious Piety: The Cash Waqf Controversy in the Ottoman Empire.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 10 (1979): 289–308. Manners, Ian and Pinar Emiralioğlu, M. European Cartographers and the Ottoman World 1500–1750: Maps from the Collection of O.J. Sopranos. The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Museum Publications, No. 27 (2007). Mantran, Robert. “Foreign Merchants and Minorities in Istanbul during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries.” In Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis (eds.), Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire I. New York: Holmes and Meier (1982): 127–137. Mantran, Robert. “Minoritaires, metiers et marchands etrangiers a Istanbul aux XVIe et XVIIe siecles.” In L’Empire Ottoman du XVIe au XVIIIe siècle: Administration, economie, societe. London: Varorium Reprints (1984): 127–138. Mantran, Robert. L’Empire Ottoman du XVIe au XVIIIe siècle: Administration, economie, societe. London: Varorium Reprints (1984). Mantran, Robert. “Venise, centre d’informations sur les Turcs.” In L’Empire Ottoman du XVIe au XVIIIe siecle: Administration, economie, société. London: Varorium Reprints (1984): 112–116. Mantran, Robert. “l’Echo de la bataille de Lepante a Constantinople.” In L’Empire Ottoman du XVIe au XVIIIe siecle: Administration, economie, societe. London: Varorium Reprints (1984): 243–289. Mantran, Robert , 17 Yüzyılın Ikinci Yarısında Istanbul: Kurumsal, Ä°ktisadi, Toplumsal Tarih Denemesi, 2 volumes. Translated by Mehmet Ali Kılıçbay and Enver Özcan. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi (1990). Massignon, Louis. “Tasavvuf.” Ä°A1 XII: 26–31. McChesney, Robert D. Waqf in Central Asia: Four Hundred Years in the History of a Muslim Shrine, 1480–1889. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1991). McChesney, Robert D. Charity and Philanthropy in Islam: Institutionalizing the Call to Do Good. Indianapolis: Indiana University Center for Philanthropy (1995). Meriç, Rıfkı Melul. Mimar Sinan, Hayatı, Eseri I: Mimar Sinan’ın Hayatına Dair Metinler. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi (1965). Meriwether, Margaret L. “Women and Waqf Revisited: The Case of Aleppo, 1770–1840.” In Madeline C. Zilfi (ed.), Women in the Ottoman Empire: Middle Eastern Women in the Early Modern Era. Leiden: E. J. Brill, (1997): 128–152. Minor, Vernon Hyde. Art History’s History, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall (1994). Mitler, Lewis. “The Genoese in Galata: 1453–1682.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 10 (1979): 71–91. Mottahedeh, Roy. Loyalty and Leadership in an Early Islamic Society. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1980). Muir, Edward. “Art, Pageantry, and Politics in Renaissance Venice.” In Steven Ozment and Frank M. Turner (eds.), The Many Sides of History: Readings in the Western Heritage, volume 1. New York: Macmillan Publishing (1987): 177–186. 159 Murphy, Rhoads. “Provisioning Istanbul: The State and Subsistence in the Early Modern East.” Food and Foodways 2 (1988): 217–263. Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. “Islamic Conception of Intellectual Life.” In Phillip P. Wiener (ed.), Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Studies of Selected Pivotal Ideas II. New York: Charles Scribner’s sons (1973): 638–652. Nayır, Zeynep. Osmanlı Mimarlığında Sultan Ahmet Külliyesi ve Sonrası (1609–1690). Istanbul: Ä°stanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Mimarlık Fakültesi Baskı Atölyesi (1975). Necipoğlu, Gülru. “The Suleymaniye Complex in Istanbul: An Interpretation.” Muqarnas 3 (1985): 92–117. Necipoğlu, Gülru. “Plans and Models in 15th and 16th Century Ottoman Architectural Practice.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians XLV: 3 (1986): 224–243. Necipoğlu, Gülru. “A Kânûn for the State, a Canon for the Arts: Conceptualizing the Classical Synthesis of Ottoman Arts and Architecture.” In Gilles Veinstein (ed.), Soliman le Magnifique et son temps. Paris: Ècole du Louvre (1992): 195–216. Necipoğlu, Gülru. Architecture, Ceremonial and Power: The Topkapi Palace in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. New York: Architectural History Foundation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (1992). Necipoğlu, Gülru. “Framing the Gaze in Ottoman, Safavid and Mughal Palaces.” Ars Orientalis 23 (1993): 303–342. Necipoğlu, Gülru. “An Outline of Shifting Paradigms in the Palatial Architecture of the Pre-Modern Islamic World.” Ars Orientalis XXIII (1993): 3–19. Necipoğlu, Gülru. “Challenging the Past: Sinan and the Competitive Discourse of Early-Modern Islamic Architecture.” Muqarnas 10 (1993): 171–180. Necipoğlu, Gülru. “Süleymân the Magnificent and the Representation of Power in the Context of Ottoman-Hapsburg-Papal Rivalry.” In Halil Ä°nalcık , and Cemal Kafadar (eds.), Suleyman the Second and His Time. Istanbul: Isis Press (1993): 163–194. Necipoğlu, Gülru. Topkapi Scroll: Geometry and Ornament in Islamic Architecture. Santa Monica: Getty Center for the History of Art and Humanities (1995). Necipoğlu, Gülru. “The Emulation of the Past in Sinan’s Imperial Mosques.” In Azize Aktaş-Yasa (ed.), Uluslararası Mimar Sinan Sempozyumu Bildirileri. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi (1996): 177–189. Necipoğlu, Gülru. The Age of Sinan: Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Empire, London: Reaktion Press (2005). Necipoğlu, Gülru. The Age of Sinan; Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Empire. London: Reaktion Books (2010). Ousterhout, Robert. “Ethnic Identity and Cultural Appropriation in Early Ottoman Architecture.” Muqarnas 12 (1995): 48–62. Ödekan, Ayla. “Valide Çeşmesi.” Dünden Bugüne Ä°stanbul Ansiklopedisi 7 (1994): 362. Öz, Tahsin. Ä°stanbul Camileri, 2 volumes. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi (1997). Özcan, Abdülkadir. “Haseki.” Ä°A2 XVI: 368–369. Özcan, Abdülkadir. “Historiography in the Reign of Süleyman the Magnificent.” In Tülay Duran (ed.), The Ottoman Empire in the Reign of Süleyman the Magnificent. Istanbul: Historical Research Publishers II (1988): 167–222. Özer, Bülend. “The Architect of Domed Mosques as a Master of Pluralism.” Environmental Design 5/6 (1987): 146–159. Özer, Filiz. “The Complexes Built by Sinan.” Environmental Design 5/6 (1987): 198–205. Özkocak, Selma Akyazıcı. “The Reasons for Building: The Cases of Rüstem Paşa and Yeni Valide Mosques.” In Çiğdem Kafescioğlu and Lucienne Thys-Şenocak (eds.), Essays in Honour of Aptullah Kuran. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları (1999): 265–276. 160 Parry, Vernon J. “The Successors of Sulaiman, 1566–1617.” In Vernon J. Parry et al . (eds.). A History of the Ottoman Empire to 1730. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press (1976): 103–132. Peirce, Leslie P. “Shifting Boundaries: Images of Ottoman Royal Women in the 16th and 17th Centuries.” Critical Matrix 4 (1988): 43–82. Peirce, Leslie P. “The Family as Faction: Dynastic Politics in the Reign of Suleyman.” In Gilles Veinstein (ed.), Soliman le Magnifique et son temps. Paris: Ècole du Louvre (1992): 105–116. Peirce, Leslie P. The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire. New York: Oxford University Press (1993). Peirce, Leslie P. “Gender and Sexual Propriety in Ottoman Royal Women’s Patronage.” In D. Fairchild Ruggles (ed.), Women, Patronage and Self-Representation in Islamic Societies. Albany: State University of New York Press (2000): 53–68. Peters, Rudolph. “Wakf” EI2 XI: 59–63. Petry, Carl F. “A Paradox of Patronage during the Later Mamluk Period.” Muslim World 73 (1983): 182–207. Petry, Carl F. “Class Solidarity vs. Gender Gain: Women as Custodians of Property in Later Medieval Egypt.” In Nikki R. Keddie and Beth Baron (eds.), Women in Middle Eastern History: Shifting Boundaries in Sex and Gender. New Haven: Yale University Press (1991): 122–142. Pinon, Pierre. Sinan’s Külliyes: Inscriptions into the Urban Fabric.” Environmental Design 5/6 (1987): 106–111. Preto, Paolo. Venezia e i Turchi. Florence: G.C. Sansoni Editore (1975). Ramazanoğlu, Gözde. Mimar Sinan’da Tezyinat Anlayışı. Ankara: T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları (1995). Reindl-Kiel, Hedda. “Kadının Adı Yok a la Ottomane: Ein darussa’ade defteri aus der Prinzenzeit Selims II.” In Sabine Prator and Christophe K. Neumann (eds.), Arts, Women and Scholars: Studies in Ottoman Society and Culture, volume 1. Istanbul: Simurg (2002): 125–137. Rizvi Kishwar. “Gendered Patronage: Women and Benevolence during the Early Safavid Empire.” In. D. Fairchild Ruggles (ed.), Women, Patronage, and Self-Representation in Islamic Societies. Albany: State University of New York Press (2000): 123–153. Rogers, J. Michael. “The State and the Arts in Ottoman Turkey.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 14 (1982): 99–118. Rogers, J. Michael. “Sinan as Planner: Some Documentary Evidence.” Environmental Design 5/6 (1987): 174–191. Rosenthal, Franz. “Hiba.” EI2 III: 342–350. Rossi, Ettore. “La Sultana Nur Banu (Cecilia Venier-Baffo) moglie de Selim II (1566–1574) e madre di Murad III (1574–1595).” Oriente Moderno 11 (1953): 433–441. Roth, Cecil. The House of Nasi: The Duke of Naxos. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America (1992). Roxburgh, David J. Prefacing the Image: The Writing of Art History in Sixteenth Century Iran. Leiden: E. J. Brill (2001). Rozen, Minna. History of the Jewish Community in Istanbul: The Formative Years, 1453–1566. Leiden: E. J. Brill (2002). Ruggles, Fairchild D. “The Eye of Sovereignty: Poetry and Vision in the Alhambra’s Lindaraja Mirador.” Gesta 36 (1997): 180–189. Ruggles, Fairchild D. Gardens, Landscape, and Vision in the Palaces of Islamic Spain. University Park: Pennsylvania University Press (2000). 161 Sabra, Adam. Poverty and charity in medieval Islam: Mamluk Egypt 1250–1517. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press (2000). Sanders, Paula. “From Court Ceremony to Urban Language: Ceremonial in Fatimid Cairo and Fustat.” In C. E. Bosworth et al . (eds.), The Islamic World from Classical to Modern Times: Essays in Honor of Bernard Lewis. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1989): 311–321. Sauvan, Yvette. “Une liste de fonations pieuses (waqfiyya) au temps de Sélim II.” Bulletin d’etudes orientales 38 (1975): 231–257. Schacht, Joseph. “Miras.” Ä°A1 VIII: 351–359. Schacht, Joseph. An Introduction to Islamic Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press (1982). Schacht, Joseph and Layish, Aharon. “Mirath,” EI2 VII: 106–113. Schick, Irvin Cemil. M. Uğur Derman Armağanı: Altmışbeşinci Yaş Armağanı. Istanbul: Sabancı Üniversitesi Yayınları (2000). Sebastian, Peter. “The Turkish Documents in the Venetian State Archives: A Note on the Indice Bombaci.” In Studia Turcologica Memoriae Alexii Bombaci Dicata Naples: Herder Distributors (1982): 497–510. Sebastian, Peter. “Ottoman Government Officials and their Relations with the Republic of Venice in the Early Sixteenth Century.” In Colin Heywood and Colin Imber (eds.), Studies in Honour of Professor V.L. Ménà ge. Istanbul: Isis Press (1994): 319–336. Seng, Yvonne J. “Invisible Women: Residents of Early Sixteenth-Century Istanbul.” In Gavin R. G. Hambly (ed.), Women in the Medieval Islamic World: Power, Patronage and Piety. New York: St. Martin’s Press (1999): 241–268. Setton, Kenneth M. Venice, Austria, and the Turks in the Seventeenth Century. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society (1991). Shaw, Stanford. History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, 2 volumes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press (1976). Singer, Amy. “The Mülknāmes of Hürrem Sultan’s Waqf in Jerusalem.” Muqarnas 14 (1997): 96–102. Singer, Amy. Constructing Ottoman Beneficence: An Imperial Soup Kitchen in Jerusalem. Albany: State University of New York Press (2002). Singer, Amy. “Imarets.” In Hasan Celâl Güzel , C. Cem Oğuz , and Osman Karatay (eds.), The Turks: Ottomans. Ankara: Yeni Türkiye Publications (2002): 657–664. Skilliter, Susan A. “Three Letters from the Ottoman “Sultana” Safiye to Queen Elizabeth I.” In S. M. Stern (ed.), Oriental Studies III: Documents from the Islamic Chancelleries. London: Bruno Cassirer Ltd. (1965): 118–157. Skilliter, Susan A. “Catherine de’ Medici’s Turkish Ladies-in-Waiting: A Dilemma in Franco- Ottoman Diplomatic Relations.” Turcica 7 (1975): 188–204. Skilliter, Susan A. William Harborne and the Trade with Turkey 1578–1582: A Documentary Study of the First Anglo-Ottoman Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press (1977). Skilliter, Susan A. “The Letters of the Venetian ‘Sultana’ Nur Banu and her Kira to Venice.” In Studia Turcologica Memoriae Alexii Bombaci Dicta. Naples: Herder Distributors (1982): 515–536. Soucek, Priscilla P. “TimÅ«rid Women: A Cultural Perspective.” In Gavin R. G. Hambly (ed.), Women in the Medieval Islamic World: Power, Patronage and Piety. New York: St. Martin’s Press (1999): 199–226. Sönmez, Zeki. Mimar Sinan ile Ä°lgili Yazmalar-Belgeler. Istanbul: Mimar Sinan Üniversitesi Yayınları (1988). Spagni, Emilio. “Una Sultana Veneziana.” Nuovo Archivio Veneto 19 (1900): 241–348. 162 Spellberg, Denise A. Politics, Gender and the Islamic Past: The Legacy of ‘A’isha Bint Abi Bakr. New York: Columbia University Press (1994). Staffa, Susan Jane. “Dimensions of Women’s Power in Historic Cairo.” In Robert Olson (ed.), Islamic and Middle Eastern Societies: A Festchrift in Honor of Professor Wadie Jwaideh. Brattleboro, VT: Amana Books (1987): 62–99. Stavrides, Theoharis. The Sultan of Vezirs: The Life and Times of the Ottoman Grand Vezir Mahmud Pasha Angelovic (1453–1474). Leiden: E. J. Brill (2001). Stephan, St. Hanna. “An Endowment Deed of Khasseki Sultan, Dated 24th May 1552.” Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 10 (1944): 170–194. Stierlin Henri. Islamic Art and Architecture. London; New York: Thames and Hudson (2002). Stierlin, Henri and Vogt-Göknil, Ulya (eds.), Architecture of the World: Ottoman Turkey Köln: Benedikt Taschen (1965). Stowasser, Barbara F. Women in the Qur’an, Traditions, and Interpretation. New York: Oxford University Press (1994). Su, Kamil. Mimar Sinan’ın Eserlerinden Muradiye Camii. Istanbul: Resimli Ay Matbaası (1940). Subtelny, Maria Eva. “Art and Politics in Early 16th Century Central Asia.” Central Asiatic Journal 27(1983): 121–148. Subtelny, Maria Eva. “A Timurid Educational and Charitable Foundation: The Ikhlasiyya Complex of ‘Ali Shir Nava’i in 15th Century Herat and its Endowment.” Journal of African and Oriental Studies III (1991): 38–61. Szuppe, Maria. “La participation des femmes de la famille royale a l’exercice du pouvoir en Iran safavide au XVI siecle.” Studia Iranica 23/24 (1994): 211–258 and 61–122. Şakiroğlu, Mahmut. “Venedik Devlet Arşivi’nde Bulunan Ä°stanbul Balyosu Arşivi Üzerinde Bir Araştırma.” In Studia Turcologica Memoriae Alexii Bombaci Dicata Naples: Herder Distributors (1982): 470–480. Tabbaa, Yasser. Construction of Power and Piety in Medieval Aleppo. University Park, PA: Penn State Press (1997). Tanındı, Zeren. “The Manuscripts Bestowed as Pious Endowments by Rüstem Pasha, The grand Vizier of Süleymān the Magnificent.” In Gilles Veinstein (ed.), Soliman le Magnifique et son Temps, Paris: Ècole du Louvre (1992): 265–277. Tanman, Baha M. “Atik Valide Sultan Külliyesi.” Ä°A2 IV: 68–73. Tanman, Baha M. “Halvethāne.” Ä°A2 XV: 388–393. Tanman, Baha M. “Sinan’ın Mimarisi: Tekkeler,” in Sadi Bayram (ed.) Mimarbaşı Koca Sinan: Yaşadığı Çağ ve Eserleri I. Ankara: T.C. Başbakanlık Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü (1989): 311–332. Tanman, Baha M. “Atik Valide Külliyesi.” Sanat Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi I: 2 (1988): 3–19. Taşkıran, Nimet. Hasekinin Kitabı. Istanbul: Yenilik Basımevi (1972). Terzioğlu, Derin. “The Imperial Circumcision Festival of 1582: An Interpretation.” Muqarnas 12 (1995): 84–100. Thomas, Lewis V. A Study of Naima. Norman Itzkowitz (ed.). New York: New York University Press (1972). Thys-Şenocak, Lucienne. The Yeni Valide Mosque Complex in Eminönü, Istanbul (1597–1665). Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania (1994). Thys-Şenocak, Lucienne. “The Yeni Valide Mosque Complex at Eminönü.” Muqarnas 15 (1998): 58–70. 163 Thys-Şenocak, Lucienne. “The Ottoman Fortresses of Seddülbahir and Kumkale.” In Çiğdem Kafescioğlu and Lucienne Thys-Şenocak (eds.), Essays in Honour of Aptullah Kuran. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları (1999): 311–323. Thys-Şenocak, Lucienne. “The Yeni Valide Mosque Complex at Eminönü, Istanbul (1597–1665): Gender and Vision in Ottoman Architecture.” In Fairchild D. Ruggles (ed.), Women, Patronage, and Self-Representation in Islamic Societies. Albany: State University of New York Press (2000): 69–90. Thys-Şenocak, Lucienne. Ottoman Women Builders: The Architectural Patronage of Hadice Turhan Sultan, London: Routledge Press (2016). Tietze, Andreas. “Mustafa ‘Âli on Luxury and the Status Symbols of Ottoman Gentlemen.” Studia Turcologica Memoriae Alexii Bombaci Dicata (1982): 577–590. Trachtenberg, Marvin. The Dominion of the Eye: Urbanism, Art and Power in Early Modern Florence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press (1997). Turan, Şerafeddin. “Selim II.” IA1 X: 434–441. Turan, Şerafeddin. Kanunî’nin Oğlu Şehzâde Bayezid Vak’ası. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi (1961). Uluçay, Çağatay. “Kanuni Sultan Süleyman ve Ailesi ile Ä°lgili Bazı Notlar ve Vesikalar.” In Kanuni Armağanı. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi (1970): 227–258. Uluçay, Çağatay. Padişahların Kadınları ve Kızları. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi (1992). Uluçay, Çağatay. Harem, vol II. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi (1992). Uludağ Süleyman. “Halvet.” Ä°A2 XV: 386–387. Uludağ Süleyman. “Halvetiye.” Ä°A2 XV: 393–395. Uzun, Mustafa and Albayrak, Nurettin. “Hamam II: Kültür ve Edebiyat.” Ä°A2 XV: 430–433. Uzunçarşılı, Ä°smail Hakkı. Osmanlı Devletinin Saray Teşkilatı. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi (1988). Uzunçarşılı, Ä°smail Hakkı. Osmanlı Tarihi: II Selim’in Tahta Çıkışından Karlofça Andlaşmasına Kadar. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi III: 1 (2003). Uzunçarşılı, Ä°smail Hakkı. Osmanlı Tarihi: XVI Yüzyıl Ortalarından XVII Yüzyıl Sonuna Kadar. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi III: 2 (2003). Ülgen, Ali Saim. Mimar Sinan Yapıları. Türk Tarih Kurumu (1989). Ünver, A. Süheyl. “Süleymaniye Külliyesinde Darüşşifa, Tıp Medresesi ve Darül’akakire Dair (1557–1555) 965–963,” Vakıflar Dergisi II (1942): 195–207, with nineteen illustrations in unnumbered pages. Üzüm, Ä°lyas. “Makām-ı Mahmûd.” Ä°A2 XXVII: 413–414. Van Leeuwen, Richard. Waqfs and Urban Structures: The Case of Ottoman Damascus. Leiden: E. J. Brill (1999). Vatin, Nicolas. “Deux Documents sur la Liberation de Musulmans captifs chez les Francs (1573).” In Nicolas Vatin (ed.), Les Ottomans et l’Occident: XVe-XVI’e siecles. Istanbul: Isis Press (2001): 129–137. Veinstein, Gilles. “Sokollu Mehmed Pasha.” EL2 IX: 706–711. Vella, Andrew P. An Elizabethan-Ottoman Conspiracy. Malta: The Royal University of Malta Press (1972). Viallon, Marie F. Venise et la porte ottomane (1543–1566): un siècle de relations vénéto-ottomanes de la prise de Constantinople à la mort de solimon. Paris: Economica (1995). Vryonis, Speros Jr. The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century. Berkeley: University of California Press (1971). 164 Vryonis, Speros Jr. “Byzantine Constantinople & Ottoman Istanbul: Evolution in a Millenial Imperial Iconography.” In Irene A. Bierman et al . (eds.), The Ottoman City and its Parts: Urban Structure and Social Order. New York: Aristide D. Caratzas Publishers (1991): 13–52. Watt, William Montgomery. Companion to the Qur’an. Oxford: Oneworld (1994). Weil, Rachel. “The Crown has fallen to the Distaff: Gender and Politics in the Age of Catherine de Médici.” Critical Matrix I: 4 (1985): 1–38. Williams, Caroline. “The Mosque of Sitt Hadaq.” Muqarnas 11 (1994): 55–64. Wolper, Ethel Sara. “The Politics of Patronage: Political Change and the Construction of Dervish Lodges in Sivas.” Muqarnas 12 (1995): 39–47. Wolper, Ethel Sara. “Princess Safwat al-Dunya wa al-Din and the Production of Sufi Buildings and Hagiographies in Pre-Ottoman Anatolia.” In D. Fairchild Ruggles (ed.), Women, Patronage, and Self-Representation in Islamic Societies. Albany: State University of New York Press (2000): 35–52. Wolper, Ethel Sara. Cities and Saints: Sufism and the Transformation of Urban Space in Medieval Anatolia. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press (2003). Woodhead, Christine. “Selim II.” EI2 IX: 131–132. Woodhead, Christine. “Perspectives on Suleyman.” In Metin Kunt and Christine Wood-head (eds.), Suleyman the Magnificent and his Age: The Ottoman Empire in the Early Modern World. Essex: Longman Group (1995): 164–190. Yavaş, Doğan. “Hafsa Sultan Küliyesi.” IA2 XV: 123–124. Yazıcı, Tahsin. “Üsküdar.” IA1 XIII: 127–131. Yazıcı, Tahsin. “Derviş.” IA2 IX: 188–190. Yediyıldız, Bahaeddin. “Vakıf.” IA1 XIII: 153–172. Yerasimos, Stephan. “Üsküdar.” EI2 X: 923–924. Yerasimos, Stephan. “Sinan and his Patrons: Programme and Location.” Environmental Design 5/6 (1987): 124–133. Yerasimos, Stéphane. “La reglementation urbaine Ottomane.” In Stéphane Yerasimos (ed.), Hommes et idees dans l’espace Ottomane. Istanbul: Isis Press (1994): 217–288. Yerasimos, Stéphane. “Les Relations Franco-Ottomanes et la Prise de Tripoli en 1551.” In Stéphane Yerasimos (ed.), Hommes et idees dans l’espace Ottomane. Istanbul: Isis Press (1997): 387–405. Yıldız, Sara Nur. “Historiography XIV: The Ottoman Empire,” Encyclopaedia Iranica XII (2004):403–411. Yılmaz, Tayyip. Mimar Sinan ve Selimiye Camii. Edirne: Türk Kütüphaneciler Derneği Edirne Şubesi (1988). Yörükoğlu, Nihat. Hafsa Sultan ve Külliyesi. Ankara: Sevinç Matbaası (1993). Yürekli, Zeynep. “A Building between the Public and Private Realms of the Ottoman Elite: The Sufi Convent of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha in Istanbul.” Muqarnas 20 (2003): 159–185. Ze’evi, Dror. An Ottoman Century: The District of Jerusalem in the 1600’s. Albany: State University of New York Press (1996). Zilfi, Madeline C. “Elite Circulation in the Ottoman Empire: Great Mollas of the Eighteenth Century.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 26 (1983): 318–364. Zilfi, Madeline C. “The Kadızadelis: Discordant Revivalism in Seventeenth Century Istanbul.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 45: 4 (1986): 251–269. Zilfi, Madeline C. The Politics of Piety: The Ottoman Ulema in the Postclassical Age (1600–1800). Minneapolis: Bibliotheca Islamica (1988).