The Debut of Kösem Sultan's Political Career

2015-09_Turcica40_15_Tezcan 02-07-2009 09:28 Pagina 347

Baki TEZCAN 347

THE DEBUT OF KÖSEM SULTAN’S POLITICAL CAREER

For Leslie Peirce, in gratitude for her encouragement and support of my work

K ösem Sultan (d. 1651) is a very well known figure of seventeenth century Ottoman history. Her political role during the reigns of his sons Murad IV (1623-40) and Ibrahim (1640-48), and the early reign of Mehmed IV (1648-87) is well attested in the sources, analyzed in contemporary Ottoman historiography, and even fictionalized in literature.1 All sources agree that she was the favorite concubine of Ahmed I (1603- 17). Twentieth century studies tend to date the starting date of her prominence to a couple of years before the birth of Murad IV in 1612.2 A closer look at the seventeenth century sources, however, suggests that her political career started earlier, soon after the succession of Ahmed I to the Ottoman throne. The present piece will substantiate this claim and argue that Kösem Sultan should be assigned a more significant role in the politics of succession during the reign of Ahmed I.

Baki TEZCAN is Assistant Professor of History and Religious Studies, University of Cali- fornia, Davis, CA 95616-8611, USA e-mail∞: [email protected].

1 See, for instance, the many references to Kösem Sultan in Leslie P. PEIRCE, The Imperial Harem∞: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire, New York, Oxford University Press, 1993∞; as examples of fiction and fictionalized popular histories about her, one could cite Re≥at Ekrem KOÇU, Kösem Sultan, 2 vols., Istanbul, Kervan Yayınları, 1972∞; A. Turan OFLAZOGLU, Kösem Sultan∞: Oyun, Istanbul, Adam Yayıncılık, 1982∞; Jean-Louis BELACHEMI, L’empire des ombres∞: Kossem, 1589-1651, Toulouse, Editions Milan, 1988∞; and Jean BELL, La dame de Topkapi∞: Roman, Paris, Denoël, 1997. 2 The source of this assumption may be Ahmed Refik [ALTINAY], Kadınlar Saltanatı, 4 vols., Istanbul, Kitabhane-i Hilmi, 1332-1923, vol. 1, p. 147.

348 BAKI TEZCAN

M. Cavid Baysun suggests that Kösem Sultan was most probably Greek by birth, but the various opinions put forward about her origin and real name may not be reliable. While her formal name as a concubine was Mahpeyker, that is moon-faced, she was known as Kösem, a nickname which seems to have been given to her either because of her smooth skin (köse∞: hairless) or because of her leadership qualities and independence (kösem∞: leader∞; free). She is believed to have born Ahmed I four sons and three daughters, the eldest son being Prince Murad (Murad IV),3 who was born in July 1612.4 If Kösem’s eldest son was indeed Murad, she could not have played a significant political role in the dynastic politics of Ahmed I’s reign as the sultan had two elder sons, Osman (b. 1604) and Mehmed (b. 1605) whose mothers would have taken precedence to her in prestige, at least in the first half of Ahmed I’s reign.5 Yet as I demonstrate below, con- trary to the established opinion, Osman’s mother had passed away a few years after her son’s birth, and Mehmed was actually Kösem’s own son. Moreover, Ahmed I’s mother Handan Sultan died quite early in his reign, and his paternal grandmother Safiye Sultan was sent to the Old Palace soon after his enthronement. Thus Kösem did not have any potential rivals at the harem and enjoyed the prestige of being the most senior mother at the imperial court after the death of Osman’s mother.

Osman’s mother Modern accounts suggest that Osman’s mother was alive when her son ascended the throne in 1618, and that Osman II was very much influenced by her in his decisions.6 Notwithstanding the assumptions of modern scholarship, however, Osman’s mother most probably died while Osman was around the age of five at the latest. Çagatay Uluçay

3 M. Cavid BAYSUN, “∞Kösem Walida or Kösem Sultan, called Mahpaykar,∞” Ency- clopaedia of Islam, New Edition, vol. V, p. 272. 4 Mustafa SAFI, Mustafa Sâfî’nin Zübdetü’t-tevârîh’i, ed., Ibrahim Hakkı Çuhadar, 2 vols., Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2003, vol. 2, p. 145. 5 Actually, Ahmed I had another son, Selim, who was born before Murad in June 1611∞; but he died within a few weeks∞; ibid., vol. 2, p. 137. The Venetian bailo Simon Contarini raises the possibility that there may have been yet another son who died as an infant as he states in the summary report of his embassy to Constantinople, which he wrote in 1612 — apparently before the birth of Murad, that besides the two princes alive, Ahmed had two other sons∞; one of them died soon after his birth, and the other a year after his birth∞; see Nicolo BAROZZI and Guglielmo BERCHET, eds., Le relazioni degli stati europei lette al senato dagli ambasciatori veneziani nel secolo decimosettimo∞: Turchia, 2 vols., Venice, 1871-72, vol. 1, p. 125-254, at p. 133 [reprinted in Luigi FIRPO, ed., Relazioni di ambasciatori veneti al senato, tratte dalle migliori edizioni disponibili e ordinate cronologicamente, vol. 13∞: Constantinopoli (1590-1793), Torino, Bottega d’Erasmo, 1984, p. 473-602, at p. 481]. 6 See, for instance, Ya≥ar YÜCEL and Ali SEVIM, Türkiye Tarihi, 4 vols., Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1990-92, vol. 3, p. 55. 2015-09_Turcica40_15_Tezcan 02-07-2009 09:28 Pagina 349

THE DEBUT OF KÖSEM SULTAN’S POLITICAL CAREER 349

claims that Osman’s mother died in 1620 and was buried in Eyüb.7 It is correct that she is buried in Eyüb, yet the chronogram marking the construction of her tomb suggests that she must have died before 1618.8 According to the resident French ambassador at the Ottoman capital in 1618, Osman’s mother had actually died while Osman was a little boy.9 The Venetian bailo Ottaviano Bon in 1609 simply states that Ahmed I had two sons and two daughters by three women.10 George Sandys writes, most probably in 1610, that the mother of the firstborn prince had passed away.11 In 1612 another Venetian bailo, Simon Con- tarini, does not refer to the mother of Osman at all but states that Osman went for carriage rides with the “∞queen,∞” the mother of the second born son,12 who is Kösem Sultan as I demonstrate below. Pietro Della Valle asserts in 1614 that the mother of the firstborn prince had already died.13 Cristoforo Valier, Contarini’s successor between 1612 and 1615,14 states

7 The document that M. Çagatay ULUÇAY, Padi≥ahların Kadınları ve Kızları, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1980, p. 48, n. 1, cites as evidence for the date of her death specifies her burial place but does not seem to suggest that she died in the year that the document is dated. Peirce states that the document cited by Uluçay is “∞not to be found in the Top- kapı Palace Museum Archives under the number he cites∞;∞” see PEIRCE, The Imperial Harem, op. cit., p. 336, n. 8. 8 “∞Hazret-i Eyyûb’da Sultân Osmân vâlidesi türbesinin binâsına Kesbî târîh demi≥tir∞: Türbe-i vâlide-i pâdi≥âh oldu âbâd, 1027 (1618),∞” Hâfız Hüseyin AYVANSARAYI, Mec- muâ-i Tevârih, eds., Fahri Ç. Derin and Vâhid Çubuk, Istanbul, Istanbul Üniversitesi Ede- biyat Fakültesi Yayınları, 1985, p. 304-5. This chronogram suggests that Osman II built a tomb over his mother’s grave in 1618, yet does not inform us about the exact date of her death. 9 Achille de Harlay, baron de Sancy, the French ambassador to the Ottoman capital, identifies Osman II in his letter to Louis XIII, the King of France, as “∞non le fils de la Sultanne vivante mais l’ainé nommé Osman, orfelin de sa mere des il y a dix ans∞;∞” Bib- liothèque nationale de France [BnF hereafter], MS fr. 16148, f. 281a, dated on February 26, 1618, the day of Osman’s enthronement. That Osman’s mother is dead is also stated in a relation on the life and death of Nasuh Pasha, written sometime after Nasuh’s execution in 1614 and sent by the same ambassador on March 5, 1616∞; BnF, MS Collection Dupuy 429, f. 109b. 10 “∞Non ha la Maestà Sua sposata alcuna schiava fin hora, et si ritrova haver con tre donne quattro figli, due maschi et due femine. Il maggiore, destinato alla successione, haverà cinque anni forniti∞;∞” the relation of Ottaviano Bon, read to the Venetian Senate on June 9, 1609, in Maria Pia PEDANI-FABRIS, ed., Relazioni di ambasciatori veneti al senato, vol. 14∞: Constantinopoli, Relazioni inedite (1512-1789) (Padova∞: Bottega d’Erasmo, 1996), p. 475-523, at p. 514. The two sons must be Osman and Mehmed. Although Bon read this report in June 1609, the information it reproduces may have been somewhat dated as he had left Istanbul earlier. 11 George SANDYS, A Relation of a Journey begun an∞: dom∞: 1610, London, 1615, p. 74. 12 BAROZZI and BERCHET, eds., Le relazioni degli stati europei∞: Turchia, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 133 [FIRPO, ed., Relazioni∞: Constantinopoli, op. cit., p. 481]. 13 Pietro DELLA VALLE, Reiss-Beschreibung in unterschiedliche Theile der Welt, ed. in German, Philippo Maria Bonini, Genff, 1674, p. 29. 14 Although his relazione was read in the Senate of Venice in 1616, he had actually 2015-09_Turcica40_15_Tezcan 02-07-2009 09:28 Pagina 350

350 BAKI TEZCAN

that Ahmed had four sons, two from the sultana who died, and two from the one alive.15 Thus the available evidence strongly suggests that Osman’s mother had died by 1610 at the latest, if not earlier. The only other thing we know about her is that her name was probably Mah- firuz.16 That she was Greek and taught Osman Latin, Greek, and Italian are products of the imagination of an eighteenth century French novelist which surprisingly entered Ottoman historiography as facts.17

The mother of Prince Mehmed Once Osman’s mother passed away, the mother of Mehmed, the second born son of Ahmed I, became the most senior mother at the imperial palace. Modern studies identify this woman with Osman’s mother and assert that Mehmed was not one of Kösem’s sons.18 It is, however, impossible for Osman and Mehmed to be full brothers since they were born only four months apart from each other.19 Moreover, early seventeenth century sources suggest that Mehmed was Kösem’s son. Contemporary European accounts consistently identify Kösem Sultan as the mother of the second born son of Ahmed. Pietro della Valle, for instance, in a letter he wrote from Istanbul in October 25, 1614, refers to her as the mother of the second born son of Ahmed and adds that she is regarded as a queen.20 Moreover, in another letter from Isfahan, dated

died on July 15, 1615, in the island of Corfu, on his return trip to Venice∞; BAROZZI and BERCHET, eds., Le relazioni degli stati europei∞: Turchia, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 8. 15 Ibid., vol. 1, p. 255-320 [FIRPO, ed., Relazioni∞: Constantinopoli, op. cit., p. 603-68], at p. 291 [639]. By 1615, Ahmed had more than fours sons∞; thus the numbers of sons ascribed to sultanas might be wrong. 16 Although one comes across to this name in quite a number of modern sources, its earliest appearance, as far as I have been able to determine, is in the chronicle of Na'imâ, who was not a contemporary∞; see Mustafa NA'IMA, Ta’rîh-i Na'îmâ, 6 vols., Istanbul, 1281-83, vol. 2, p. 156. ALTINAY, Kadınlar Saltanatı, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 146, refers to her as Hadice Mahfiruz, yet his source is not clear. 17 For claims about Osman’s knowledge of European languages, see Stanford SHAW, His- tory of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, vol. 1∞: Empire of the Gazis∞: the Rise and Decline of the Ottoman Empire, 1280-1808, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1976, p. 191. The novel, which is the source of these claims, is Madeleine-Angélique De GOMEZ, Histoire d’Osman, premier du nom, XIXe empereur des Turcs, et de l’impératrice Aphendina Ashada, 2 vols., Paris, 1734∞; idem., The Life of Osman the Great, tr., John Williams, 2 vols., London, 1735. A very extensive treatment of her novels, which include others that are inspired by the Ottoman and Safavid Empires, is available in Joseph De LAPORTE, Histoire Littéraire des Femmes Françoises, 5 vols., Paris, 1769, vol. 3, p. 466-644. 18 See, for instance, ULUÇAY, Padi≥ahların Kadınları, op. cit., p. 47∞; see also Joseph Von HAMMER, Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches, grossentheils aus bisher unbenütz- ten Handschriften und Archiven, 10 vols., Pest, 1827-35, vol. 4, p. 509, 522. 19 Osman was born on November 3, 1604, and Mehmed on March 8, 1605∞; Mehmed bin Mehmed El-EDIRNEVI, Ta’rîh [originally untitled], Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, MS Lala Ismail Efendi 300, f. 9∞; SAFI, Zübdetü’t-tevârîh, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 24-5. 20 DELLA VALLE, Reiss-Beschreibung, op. cit., p. 29. 2015-09_Turcica40_15_Tezcan 02-07-2009 09:28 Pagina 351

THE DEBUT OF KÖSEM SULTAN’S POLITICAL CAREER 351

April 22, 1619, Della Valle, while recounting some rumors he heard about events in Constantinople, talks about a Prince Mahmud, whom he refers to as the second born son of Ahmed and the firstborn of Kösem.21 Mahmud, in this case, should be seen as a mistake for Mehmed rather than Murad. Furthermore Sandys, who seems to have written the part of his travel account that deals with Istanbul and the Ottoman family in 1610, identifies Kösem as the mother of the second born prince as well.22 In short, with the birth of Prince Mehmed in March 1605, Kösem had become the second most senior mother of a prince at the palace. After the death of Osman’s mother in the next few years, she became the most senior mother at the imperial court.

Kösem’s potential rivals at the harem Kösem could have had three potential female rivals after the death of Osman’s mother in her bid for power at the imperial court∞: Ahmed I’s mother Handan Sultan, his paternal grandmother Safiye Sultan, and the mother of Prince Mustafa, Ahmed I’s younger brother who survived his elder brother’s accession. Among these three, Handan Sultan was the first one to be eliminated as she passed away in 1605 — most probably even before the death of Osman’s mother.23 A rumor circulating in the capital at the time was suggesting that Ahmed might have poisoned his own mother.24 Although there is no tangible evidence to this effect, it is interesting to note that Ahmed I had appointed a new chief black eunuch to oversee the harem, just four days prior to his mother’s death.25 As for Safiye Sultan, Ahmed I had sent her to the Old Palace on Jan- uary 9, 1604, soon after he succeeded to the throne.26 This powerful woman whose influence in Ottoman politics was felt strongly during the reign of her son Mehmed III (1595-1603) spent the reign of her grand- son in symbolic exile at the Old Palace where she died in 1619.27

21 Pietro DELLA VALLE, I Viaggi di Pietro della Valle∞: Lettere dalla Persia, vol. 1, eds., F. Gaeta and L. Lockhart, Rome, 1972, p. 419. This letter is translated in a summa- rized fashion in John PINKERTON, ed., A general collection of the best and most interesting Voyages and Travels in all parts of the world∞; many of which are now first translated into English, digested in a new plan, vol. 9, London, 1811∞; but this particular part is missing∞; compare, p. 93, with DELLA VALLE, Viaggi, op. cit., p. 417-26. 22 SANDYS, A Relation, op. cit., p. 73-4. 23 Handan Sultan died on Wednesday, November 9, 1605, a year after Osman’s birth and eight months after the birth of Mehmed∞; El-EDIRNEVI, Ta’rîh, op. cit., f. 5b. 24 See Sir Thomas SHERLEY, Discours of the Turkes, ed., E. Denison Ross, in Camden Miscellany, vol. 16 [Camden Third Series, vol. 52], London, 1936, p. 5. 25 El-EDIRNEVI, Ta’rîh, f. 5a-b∞; Mehmed bin Mehmed El-DIRNEVI, Nuhbetü’t-tevârîh ve’l-ahbâr, Istanbul, 1276, p. 231. 26 El-EDIRNEVI, Nuhbet, op. cit., p. 221. 27 For an example of her power during the reign of Mehmed III, see PEIRCE, The Impe- rial Harem, op. cit., p. 240. According to Karaçelebizade, Safiye Sultan died in the Old Palace in March-April 1619∞; ‘Abdül'azîz KARAÇELEBIZADE, Ravzatü’l-ebrâr, Bulak, 2015-09_Turcica40_15_Tezcan 02-07-2009 09:28 Pagina 352

352 BAKI TEZCAN

The last person who could possibly be of concern to Kösem was the mother of Prince Mustafa, arguably the first Ottoman prince to survive his elder brother’s succession peacefully. The name of this woman is simply not known. That she must have been alive during the reign of Ahmed I is deduced from the fact that she was politically active during both of the reigns of her son (1617-18, 1622-23).28 Yet as is the fate of all concubines of deceased sultans — except queen mothers — she, too, must have been sent to the Old Palace at the beginning of the reign of Ahmed I. Moreover, her interests in securing the eventual succession of her son Mustafa may well have led her to cooperate with Kösem who would like to ensure the survival of her own son during the potential future rule of Osman.

Kösem Sultan and the survival of Prince Mustafa It is common knowledge that the Ottoman succession system moved away from being a race open to all princes at the end of which the win- ner kills all others to a rule of seniority according to which the eldest male member of the Ottoman house would succeed to the throne while the others remained at the imperial palace under, practically, house arrest. The survival of Prince Mustafa during the reign of his elder brother Ahmed I proved to be crucial for this shift to take place. In this section, I will argue that while Mustafa’s survival in the early stages of Ahmed I’s reign may be related to a concern about dynastic survival, his survival in the second part of his brother’s reign may be related to Kösem’s own agenda about her own sons. Prince Mustafa was most probably left alive at the accession of Ahmed in 1603 because the new sultan was just thirteen years old when he succeeded his father on the Ottoman throne, and his reproductive capacity had not yet been tested.29 Far from having any offspring, he had not even been circumcised yet. Ahmed’s case was so unusual that when Mehmed bin Mehmed el-Edirnevî, the author of a world history, came to report Ahmed’s circumcision, he did not know how to put it. Thus he wrote that on Friday, January 23, 1604, more than a month after the accession of Ahmed to the throne, Ahmed’s princes were circumcised,30 whereas in Mustafa Sâfî’s chronicle of the reign of Ahmed I, it is clear that it was the sultan himself who was circumcised.31 In short, one could have easily argued that Prince Mustafa should be spared the royal tradi-

1248, p. 538. Von HAMMER, Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches, op. cit., vol. 4, p. 509, cites a Venetian report to the same effect, yet it is dated January 1619. ULUÇAY, Padi≥ahların Kadınları, op. cit., p. 44, who claims that she died in 1605, must be mis- taken. 28 PEIRCE, The Imperial Harem, op. cit., p. 248-9. 29 He was born in 1590∞; KARAÇELEBIZADE, Ravzatü’l-ebrâr, op. cit., p. 470. 30 El-DIRNEVI, Nuhbet, op. cit., p. 221. 31 SAFI, Zübdetü’t-tevârîh, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 19-21. 2015-09_Turcica40_15_Tezcan 02-07-2009 09:28 Pagina 353

THE DEBUT OF KÖSEM SULTAN’S POLITICAL CAREER 353

tion of fratricide until, at least, Ahmed I proved his reproductive capacity. Another reason for the survival of Prince Mustafa may have been his young age. Mustafa’s date of birth is not very clear. Most of the Ottoman sources state that he must have been born in 1000/1591-92 in Manisa, although there is a notable exception, Karaçelebizâde, who suggests 1011/1602-03 as his birth date.32 Some of the relations of Venetian ambassadors suggest circa 1599, while others claim an earlier date.33 Mustafa’s lack of education implies a later birth date, sometime around 1600, and thus not in Manisa, but in Istanbul during the sultanate of his father. His elder brothers, Selim, Ahmed, and Mahmud, were educated by Mustafa Efendi, who was appointed to the instructorship of Prince Mehmed’s sons in Manisa around 1592. In 1595, following his patron, Mustafa Efendi moved to Istanbul and continued with the education of the princes. Upon the accession of Ahmed in 1603, he became the “∞teacher of the sultan.∞”34 Yet his name is not mentioned in any connection with Mustafa, whose teacher is not recorded in narrative sources. Thus most probably Sultan Mustafa did not have an opportunity for a proper education during the reign of his father. Although he survived the reign of his brother, his education was probably a secondary concern for Ahmed, for whom his own sons should have mattered much more. Otto- viano Bon, the Venetian ambassador in Constantinople between 1604 and 1609,35 states in 1609 that he was being educated among the women in the harem.36 Some sources suggest that Mustafa’s imperial orders, which are supposed to be written by the hand of the reigning sultan, were actually written by a female servant.37 Interestingly enough, during

32 M. Münir AKTEPE, “∞Mustafa I,∞” Islâm Ansiklopedisi, vol. VIII, p. 692-5, at p. 692∞; KARAÇELEBIZADE, Ravzatü’l-ebrâr, op. cit., p. 494. 33 Ottaviano Bon in 1609 estimates his age around 10∞; PEDANI-FABRIS, ed., Relazioni inedite, op. cit., p. 514. Girolamo Cappello relates in 1600 that a new son was born to Mehmed III in the previous year whose name he does not mention∞; ibid., p. 399. This unnamed son could be Mustafa, in which case 1599 could be the date of his birth. But in 1612, Simon Contarini states that Mustafa is 16 years old∞; four years later, in 1616, his age increases by eight years in the relation of Cristoforo Valier∞; see BAROZZI and BERCHET, eds., Le relazioni degli stati europei∞: Turchia, op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 131, 292 [FIRPO, ed., Relazioni∞: Constantinopoli, op. cit., p. 479, 640]. 34 ‘Atâ’î NEV'IZADE, Hadâ’iku’l-hakâ’ik fî tekmileti’≥-≥akâ’ik, 2 vols. in one, Istanbul, 1268 [reprinted with indices in Abdülkadir ÖZCAN, ed., ≤akaik-ı Nu'maniye ve Zeyilleri, 5 vols., Istanbul, Çagrı Yayınları, 1989, vol. 2], p. 522. 35 BAROZZI and BERCHET, eds., Le relazioni degli stati europei∞: Turchia, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 8, state that he served in Constantinople from 1604 until the end of 1608. Yet Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts, relating to English affairs, existing in the archives and collections of Venice, and in other libraries of Northern Italy, 38 vols., Lon- don, 1864-1940, vol. 11, p. 226, no. 429, includes a dispatch signed by him on February 5, 1609. 36 PEDANI-FABRIS, ed., Relazioni inedite, op. cit., p. 514. 37 AKTEPE, “∞Mustafa I,∞” art. cit., p. 694. 2015-09_Turcica40_15_Tezcan 02-07-2009 09:28 Pagina 354

354 BAKI TEZCAN

the second sultanate of Mustafa (1622-23), two months after his accession, a high-ranking female servant of the harem was appointed to the position of the “∞teacher of the sultan.∞”38 All of this circumstantial evidence suggests that Mustafa was born too late in the reign of Mehmed III to receive a decent education. Thus Karaçelebizâde’s claim for 1011/1602-3 as his birth date may well be right, which means that, as far as the question of succession is concerned, Mustafa could not have been a serious rival to his elder brother Ahmed in 1603. Both of the reasons cited above for the survival of Prince Mustafa changed as Mustafa grew to adulthood and Ahmed I proved himself capable of producing several male heirs. After Osman (b. 1604), Mehmed (b. 1605), and Murad (b. 1612), he fathered several other sons. The next son of Ahmed should have been Bayezid, who, according to Hasanbeyzâde, was born three months after Murad, obviously not from Kösem Sultan.39 Another son, Hüseyin, was born in November 1613.40 Sâfî, who finished writing the extant version of his history in 1024/1615, mentions besides Osman, Mehmed, Selim, Murad, and Hüseyin, a prince named Hasan as well.41 Hasanbeyzâde and Karaçelebizâde mention three other names, Süleyman, Kasım, and Ibrahim.42 Ibrahim, the last son of Ahmed, as well as Kösem Sultan, was probably born in October 1617, a month before the death of his father.43 A privy purse register

38 A privy purse financial record, Ba≥bakanlık Osmanlı Ar≥ivleri [BOA], Maliyeden Müdevver [MM] 6147, p. 78, notes her among the married princesses and their daughters (“∞sultânân-ı bîrûnî∞”) as “∞Hazret-i Mâh-Ruhsâr [I am not certain of my reading of her name] Hâtûn, hvâce-i hazret-i pâdi≥âh-ı ‘âlem-penâh, ibtidâ ≥üd fî 14 ≥ehr-i n [i.e. Ramazân] sene 1031 [23 Temmuz 1622],∞” with a salary of 100 akçes per day. Her name also appears among the major eunuchs of the harem (“∞agayân-ı dârüssa'âde der sarây-ı cedîd-i ‘âmire∞”) as one of the two women in that list∞; ibid., p. 79. There she gets 20 akçes per day, twice as much as the other woman on the list. If one were to rank the salaries of the 18 eunuchs and two women on this list, she would share the fifth place with two eunuchs. She is neither the foster mother (“∞dâye hâtûn∞”) nor the stewardess of the harem (“∞kethüdâ kadın der sarây-ı cedîd-i ‘âmire∞”), who are listed together with the princes, unmarried princesses, and the concubines of the former sultans, ibid., p. 78. Thus it seems likely that this lady had a semi-administrative position in the harem and was appointed to “∞teach∞” the sultan. 39 Ahmed HASANBEYZADE, Hasan Bey-zâde Târîhi, ed., Nezihi Aykut, 3 vols., Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2004, vol. 3, p. 899. 40 SAFI, Zübdetü’t-Tevârîh, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 300. 41 According to the order of names as Sâfî organizes them, Hasan seems to have been born after Hüseyin, probably after the period covered in his work but before he started writing, thus most probably in 1615∞; ibid., vol. 2, p. 25. His name is absent from other contemporary chronicles. For Selim, see n. 5 above. 42 HASANBEYZADE, Hasan Bey-zâde Târîhi, op. cit., vol. 3, p. 899∞; KARAÇELEBIZADE, Ravzatü’l-ebrâr, op. cit., p. 534. 43 Mehmed ≤EYHI, Vakâyi'ü’l-fudalâ, 2 vols., Beyazıt Kütüphanesi, MS Veliyüddin Efendi 2361-2362∞; facs. ed., Abdülkadir ÖZCAN, ≤akaik-ı Nu'maniye ve Zeyilleri, 5 vols., Istanbul, Çagrı, 1989, vols. 3-4, vol. 3, p. 150, gives an exact date as 12 ≤evvâl 1026 / 13 October 1617. 2015-09_Turcica40_15_Tezcan 02-07-2009 09:28 Pagina 355

THE DEBUT OF KÖSEM SULTAN’S POLITICAL CAREER 355

from 1622, that is after the execution of Mehmed by his elder brother Osman II before the latter left the capital for his military expedition against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, lists five princes alive∞: Murad, Bayezid, Hüseyin, Kasım, and Ibrahim, which brings the survival of Hasan and Süleyman into question as their names are not mentioned.44 Yet Peçevi claims that he had seen Prince Süleyman while the latter was out in the streets of Istanbul in disguise.45 To make things more complicated, Peçevi does not mention the name of Hüseyin who is believed to have died during his childhood.46 Thus either the archival record or the narrative account seems to have been confused between the names of Süleyman and Hüseyin.47 What is beyond doubt, however, is that Ahmed I produced enough male heirs not to worry about the future of the dynasty.48 So it is quite legitimate to ask why he spared his brother’s life, especially after he proved his reproductive capacity. Obviously, the answer to this question would have multiple dimensions accounting for different factors. One such factor, I would like to argue, was the presence of Kösem Sultan. From the birth of Prince Mehmed in March 1605 on, Kösem must have taken an active interest in the politics of succession. After the death of Osman’s mother, that is once there was no woman left to look after Osman’s interests regarding the throne, Kösem could lobby more strongly for an institutional change in the Ottoman succession as the mother of the second born prince, who was only four months younger than the firstborn. Were Osman to be favored during the lifetime of Ahmed I the way Prince Murad was favored by Selim II and Prince Mehmed by Murad III, Osman could easily kill all of his brothers as soon as he came to the throne in the future, following the examples of Murad III and Mehmed III. On the other hand, if Mustafa’s life could be spared even after the future of the dynasty was secured, Osman could be expected to act differently. Thus it was in Kösem’s interests to turn a sit- uation created by the exigencies of Ahmed I’s accession at a young age into an institutional constant of Ottoman dynastic succession.

44 BOA, MM 6147, p. 77. 45 Ibrahim PEÇEVI, Ta’rîh-i Peçevî, 2 vols., Istanbul, 1281-83, vol. 2, p. 348-9. 46 KARAÇELEBIZADE, Ravzatü’l-ebrâr, op. cit., p. 534∞; A. D. ALDERSON, The Structure of the Ottoman Dynasty, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1956, Table xxxiv, asserts that he died in 1026/1617, but there is no source cited. 47 Since two princes were executed in 1635, and another one in 1638, by the orders of Murad IV, their elder brother, their names were probably known to the people of the capital. The contemporary narrative sources mention their names as Bayezid, Süleyman, and Kasım∞; see, for instance, KARAÇELEBIZADE, Ravzatü’l-ebrâr, op. cit., p. 587, 595. 48 For the daughters of Ahmed I, see Baki TEZCAN, “∞Searching for Osman∞: A reassessment of the deposition of the Ottoman Sultan Osman II (1618-1622)∞”, Ph.D. dis- sertation, Princeton University, 2001, p. 334, n. 58. 2015-09_Turcica40_15_Tezcan 02-07-2009 09:28 Pagina 356

356 BAKI TEZCAN

Kösem’s interest in the question of succession did not pass unnoticed by contemporary observers. Simon Contarini, the Venetian bailo in Con- stantinople between 1609 and 1612, reported in 1612 that by letting the brother of the sultan live, the “∞queen∞” was trying to make sure that Osman would spare her son his life as well. Contarini does not mention the name Kösem but talks about a “∞queen∞” (regina), whom he identifies as the mother of the second oldest son of Ahmed I.49 According to contemporary European observers, Kösem Sultan also entertained ideas about the succession of her own son Mehmed to the sultanate after the death of Ahmed. Nasuh Pasha, during his grand vizierate (1611-14), especially after his marriage to a daughter of Ahmed I — most probably Ay≥e Sultan — in 1612, became a close ally of Kösem Sultan, his mother-in-law, who apparently thought that Nasuh Pasha could be of help in securing the succession of Mehmed.50 This is easy to imagine as Hurrem Sultan, Süleyman’s wife, and her son-in-law Rüstem Pasha, the grand vizier of Süleyman, had engaged in a similar alliance, which was probably one of the important factors that brought about the execution of Prince Mustafa, Süleyman’s son by another woman, in 1553.51 However, Nasuh Pasha was executed on the orders of Ahmed in 1614. Thus Kösem lost an important ally in the government. From that point on, she probably concentrated her efforts on keeping Mustafa alive, rather than on securing the succession of her own son, as the princess to whom the new grand vizier Öküz Mehmed Pasha was married was apparently Osman’s full sister.52 With a brother-in-law as grand vizier, Osman’s chances in succession would have improved immensely. Kösem Sultan might have had another ally for the execution of her plans, the mother of Mustafa. She spent the reign of Ahmed I most probably in the Old Palace, where she may well have enjoyed the opportunity to spend time with Safiye Sultan who was sent to the Old Palace by Ahmed I very early in his reign. Safiye Sultan, as the favorite of Murad

49 “∞[L]a Bas Cadin, principalissima favorita del Gran Signore, e madre del secondo- genito di Sua Maestà che chiaman ora regina∞;∞” BAROZZI and BERCHET, eds., Le relazioni degli stati europei∞: Turchia, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 132 [FIRPO, ed., Relazioni∞: Constantinop- oli, op. cit., p. 480]∞; see also PEIRCE, The Imperial Harem, op. cit., p. 233. 50 See ULUÇAY, Padi≥ahların Kadınları, op. cit., p. 50. According to Della Valle, who was present in Istanbul in 1614, the princess Nasuh had married was the daughter of Kösem Sultan∞; see della Valle’s letter, dated October 25, 1614∞; DELLA VALLE, Reiss- Beschreibung, op. cit., p. 28-9. The alliance between Kösem Sultan and Nasuh Pasha is also noted by a French source, written sometime between 1614 and 1616∞: “∞Nassouf … estoit favorisé d’elle [i.e. Kösem], non tant pour ce qu’il avoit espousé sa fille que pour l’esperance quelle avoit qu’avenant la mort du G.S. [i.e. Ahmed] il feroit succeder son fils a l’empire au preiudice de l’aisné qui est fils d’une autre Sultane morte∞;∞” BnF, MS Col- lection Dupuy 429, f. 109b. 51 See PEIRCE, The Imperial Harem, op. cit., p. 84. 52 DELLA VALLE, Reiss-Beschreibung, op. cit., p. 33. The name of this princess was most probably Gevherhan Sultan∞; see TEZCAN, “∞Searching for Osman∞”, op. cit., p. 334, n. 58. 2015-09_Turcica40_15_Tezcan 02-07-2009 09:28 Pagina 357

THE DEBUT OF KÖSEM SULTAN’S POLITICAL CAREER 357

III and the mother of Mehmed III, had been a close witness of and par- ticipant in Ottoman politics since the latter part of the reign of Süleyman (1520-66).53 Safiye Sultan, the paternal grandmother of Mustafa, might have introduced the mother of Mustafa to her own circle of political connections, which included people like Nasuh Pasha, who owed his political career to Safiye Sultan and was now the son-in-law of Kösem Sul- tan.54 Furthermore the mother of Mustafa might have developed her own connections since two viziers at the imperial council, Cıgalazâde Mah- mud Pasha and Davud Pasha, were brothers-in-law of Mustafa. Although Mahmud Pasha’s wife seems to have died in the last years of the reign of Ahmed,55 Davud Pasha enjoyed the fruits of his relation to Mustafa during both of his short reigns.56 Thus the mother of Mustafa, who would definitely have liked to see her son succeed Ahmed I, and Kösem Sultan, who would have preferred

53 Safiye Sultan’s training as a female slave had taken place in the household of Fer- had Pasha (d. 1575), a vizier of Süleyman. Ferhad Pasha had married Hümashah, the daughter of Prince Mehmed, who was the first son of Süleyman∞; Mustafa ‘ALI, Künhü’l- ahbâr, Istanbul Üniversitesi Kütüphanesi, MS Türkçe Yazmalar 5959, f. 346b∞; Mustafa SELANIKI, Tarih-i Selânikî, ed., Mehmed Ip≥irli, 2 vols., Istanbul, Istanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları, 1989, vol. 1, p. 110-1, 171, vol. 2, p. 437. 54 Nasuh Pasha’s political career had started while he was the deputy of Safiye Sultan for the collection of the taxes from the lands assigned to her by Mehmed III. Thanks to his connection to the queen mother, he became the superintendent of the ushers at the palace in 1598. In 1600, Safiye Sultan made him her trustee for the construction of her mosque in Istanbul. Although Nasuh was dismissed from his position at the palace in 1600 due to the strong opposition of the cavalry soldiers against the queen mother, Safiye Sultan made sure he was reappointed to a similar palace position in the winter of 1601-2. Nasuh Pasha got his first major administrative appointment, the governorship of Aleppo, also with the intermediacy of the queen mother sometime around 1602 [Nasuh Pasha was definitely the governor of Aleppo in 1603∞; see Najm al-Dîn Muhammad bin Muhammad Al-GHAZZI, Lutf al-samar wa qatf al-thamar, ed., Mahmûd al-Shaykh, 2 vols., Dimashq, 1981-82, vol. 2, p. 679-89]∞; SELANIKI, Tarih-i Selânikî, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 766, 851∞; HASANBEYZADE, Hasan Bey-zâde Târîhi, op. cit., vol. 3, p. 665∞; BnF, MS Collection Dupuy 429, f. 105a-b. 55 Mahmud was the son of Cıgalazâde Sinan Pasha (d. 1606) from Messina. He was given the governorship of Damascus in 1601, apparently through the intermediacy of his father. He later held the governorships of ≤irvan and Bagdad. In 1612 he became a vizier and married Ahmed’s sister, who was the wife of the late Mirahor Mustafa Pasha. She apparently died short after their marriage∞; El-EDIRNEVI, Ta’rîh, op. cit., f. 71. 56 Davud was the çukadar of Mehmed III and became the ba≥kapucıba≥ı in 1600. Within a few days in September 1604, he was first made governor of Rumelia and then a vizier. Around the same time he married a daughter of Mehmed III, yet the feast for and the consummation of the marriage took place in March 1606, as he was busy fighting the Jelalis in Anatolia. A few months after his wedding, he was appointed to the governorship of Rumelia. Then he came back to the capital and re-joined the imperial council. During the last years of the reign of Ahmed I, he does not seem to have left the capital. During the second reign of Mustafa I, he became the first grand vizier of his brother-in-law∞; SELANIKI, Tarih-i Selânikî, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 843∞; El-EDIRNEVI, Ta’rîh, op. cit., f. 33b∞; SAFI, Zübdetü’t-tevârîh, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 22-3. 2015-09_Turcica40_15_Tezcan 02-07-2009 09:28 Pagina 358

358 BAKI TEZCAN

the sultanate of Mustafa to that of Osman, might well have been in con- tact through the intermediacy of others, such as Nasuh Pasha, Davud Pasha, and Safiye Sultan. Most of these connections are quite specula- tive, yet this imaginary portrait suggests that there were quite a number of powerful and well-connected people in the capital who would have been interested in keeping Mustafa alive, if not in securing his succession. Among them, Kösem Sultan was positioned right in the center of the imperial court as the favorite of the reigning sultan and the mother of his second born son. After the death of Osman’s mother, no one was left to oppose her on behalf of the interests of the first-born son. Eventually, despite the fact that since the last quarter of the sixteenth century firstborn sons — or the eldest son alive at the time of a sultan’s death — have been automatically succeeding their fathers on the Ottoman throne, when Ahmed I died in 1617, instead of Osman, his uncle Prince Mustafa was enthroned as Mustafa I. Retrospectively, Kösem Sultan seems to have played an important role in the developments that led to this enthronement, which proved to be an important step in the evolution of the rule of seniority in Ottoman succession.57

57 See also PEIRCE, The Imperial Harem, op. cit., p. 232-3. There were, however, other — and arguably more powerful — dynamics that led to the survival and eventual succession of Prince Mustafa∞; see Baki TEZCAN, The Second Ottoman Empire∞: Political and Social Transformation in the Early Modern World, forthcoming from Cambridge Univer- sity Press in 2010. 2015-09_Turcica40_15_Tezcan 02-07-2009 09:28 Pagina 359

THE DEBUT OF KÖSEM SULTAN’S POLITICAL CAREER 359

Baki TEZCAN, The Debut of Kösem Sultan’s Political Career

Kösem Sultan (d. 1651) is well known for her political influence during the reigns of her sons Murad IV (1623-40) and Ibrahim (1640-48). This piece traces the beginnings of her political career and suggests that she had an important role in the politics of succession from very early on during the reign of Ahmed I (1603-17).

Baki TEZCAN, Le début de la carrière politique de Kösem Sultan

Kösem Sultan (m. 1651) est connue pour son influence politique pendant les règnes de ses fils Murad IV (1623-40) et Ibrahim (1640-48). Cet article retrace le début de sa carrière politique et suggère qu’elle eut un rôle important dans la politique de succession depuis les première années du règne d’Ahmed Ier (1603- 17).