The Ottoman Vezir and Paşa Households 1683-1703

The Ottoman Vezir and Paşa Households 1683-1703: A Preliminary Report Author(s): Rifaat Ali Abou-El-Haj Reviewed work(s): Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 94, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1974), pp. 438- 447 Published by: American Oriental Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/600586 . Accessed: 04/10/2012 20:58

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org THE OTTOMANVE7IR AND PASA HOUSEHOLDS 1683-1703: A PRELIMINARY REPORT*

RIFAAT ALI ABOU-EL-HAJ

CALIFORNIASTATE UNIVERSITY,LONG BEACH

By the second half of the seventeenth century nearly half of all appointments for high office in the central government in Istanbul and the governorshipsof the provinces were filled by men who had been either raised, trained or attached to the kapilar households of vezirs and papas. This comparatively new element of the Ottoman elite had come grad- ually to replace the sultan's household and the military, the two traditional sources for the Ottoman ruling class. This essay is divided into two parts: a statistical substantiation showing the number of men who held high office in 1683-1703 by way of the kapilar com- pared with those who were drawn from the sultan's household and the military. The kapi par excellence was the one created by Kopriilii Mehmed PaSa. The second part explores the growth and continued political dominance by Mehmed's kapi and its allies during the last two decades of the seventeenth century.

THIS ESSAYWILL FOCUS ON a heretofore ignored Since the study of the vezir and pasa households element of the Ottoman elite, a privileged group is still in its preliminary stages, the following directly derived neither from the military nor presentation will be confined to the period 1683- from the palace, the two sources traditionally as- 1703 and focus on two limited purposes: a tentative signed as the reservoirs from which the ruling class statistical substantiation showing the growing was drawn. In the second half of the seventeenth number of men who came to hold high office by century the vezir and pasa households graduated way of the households and a description of the and came to govern the identity of a growing growing dominance by the satellites of the house number of men who eventually became vezirs and of IKpriili Mehmed Pasa. pasas in their own right, generating thereby their The traditional view of the structure and in- own satellite households. Prior to this century, stitutional set up of the central organs of the Otto- vezirs and pasas were known to have had large man state in the seventeenth and eighteenth cen- staffs on their households, some of whom were turies seems to differ only slightly from the picture assigned to lucrative administrative positions. drawn of them in the previous century. At the Late in the sixteenth century complaints were head of the state stood the absolute ruler who lodged against the preferential treatment which appointed the grand vezir as his chief executive. some household graduates were receiving in those This officer as well as all those who held high office assignments. At that time, however, the phenom- in the government was drawn from the palace- enon was still sporadic.1 schools, institutions which trained the palace "slaves" for the various palace and central govern- mental functions which the state The * required. I wish to express my gratitude to Andreas Tietze continuity in the absolute nature of a sultan's and Albert Hourani for their comments and encourage- power is attested to by the fact that the laws of ment. A semester leave granted by the CaliforniaState each ruler were outstanding and ad hoc. With the and in 1968 University Colleges helped in freeing me from accession of a new sultan all enactments by the teaching duties and in the launching of this project. previous one stood null and void until otherwise 1 My gratitude to Andreas Tietze for bringing to my renewed. attention Mustafa 'Aali's observations. He is currently Recent studies have tended to revise this static engaged in the translation of works of this late sixteenth view. Invariably, the sultans never abandoned century Ottoman figure. The same observations are old usages or institutions, not even office-labels made by Halil Inalcik in "Ghulam," Encyclopedia of as the structure of government evolved over the Islam (2nd Edition). centuries. Among the main changes which have

438 ABOU-EL-HAJ: The Ottoman Vezir, and Pa?a Households 439

been noted were those effected in the institution Itzkowitz sees the period as one which witnessed of the grand vezirate itself. Up to 1654 the grand the rise of an "efendi class" from the bureaucracy.4 vezir's office was regarded as the first of several This new class came to hold the highest posts of found in the sultan's personal household. Since government along with those who were graduated political affairs were inseparable from the sultan's from the palace schools. private affairs, the offices of the grand vezir were The Hourani interpretation, while rightly ac- housed on the palace grounds.2 knowledging the shift in the executive power from In the middle of the seventeenth century the the sultans to the grand vezirs, leaves the latter offices of the grand vezir were removed from the completely dependent on the palace schools for palace grounds and housed in a former pasa's staffing the central government. Itzkowitz, on the palace just outside the Top Kapi Palace in Istan- other hand, leaves his reader with the impression bul. This event may not have been any more that the bureaucracy became one of the major than a symbolic act which signaled the final re- keys for advancement in the period 1684-1774. cognition of the changed status of the office. What Both these generalizations are acceptable as de- had in fact taken place was the formal separation scriptions for the widest possible extension of the of the personal affairs of the Ottoman dynasty period they cover. However, a study of the back- from those of the general public. This pattern grounds of those who came to hold high office of personal rule and its eventual division into the from 1683-1703, at the very least, does not quite private and public administration is not unique to bear out either generalization. the Ottomans, for in the West several medieval In the second half of the seventeenth century states evolved from personal patrimonies where a different pattern of training and a different gate kings carried in their baggage all the business of of opportunity for entry and advancement is dis- government wherever they went, into bureaucratic cernible. The palace schools' monopoly, if ever states. As the business of government grew more there was one in the sixteenth century, of the complex there developed specialization of func- highest posts of government had broken down by tions and duties of offices and officials. the latter part of the seventeenth century. Va- Both the attendant and the consequent changes cancies which were not staffed by palace graduates or additions which occurred in the structure and were increasingly filled not by men who were raised institutions of the Ottoman state due to division and identified as bureaucrats, but by men who and eventual separation of public from the private were raised in or attached to vezir and paga affairs of the sultans have barely been touched kapilari/households.5 Contemporaries called the by modern research. Most of those who treat the period 1650-1700's regard it primarily as a transi- (Oxford, 1967 edition), Vol. I, i, 56ff. (Hereafter cited tional one which bridged the gap between the as Gibb and Bowen, Islamic Society.) Albert Hourani, sultanate of the women (1600-1650's) and that of "The Changing Face of the Fertile Crescent in XVIII decline and disintegration (1700-1800's). Drawing Century," Studia Islamica, VIII (1957), 92. 4 mainly on Gibb and Bowen's study, Albert H-ourani Norman Itzkowitz, "Eighteenth Century Ottoman portrayed the half century under discussion as a Realities," Studia Islamica, XVI (1962), 86-87. (Here- "time of troubles" to which the universal sultanate after cited as Itkowitz, "Eighteenth Century.") Itzko- of the sixteenth century had succumbed. The witz's work is misinterpreted by Kurat-Bromley and struggle for power between the various palace therefore the role of the efendi-turned paSa is somewhat groups, ulema and slave conspirators paralyzed exaggerated. "It was this able and loyal group of efendis the state. From the turmoil of the seventeenth or 'Men of the Pen,' some of them trained in the palace- century, the house of Osman emerged permanently schools instead of in the college-mosques, that now held weakened. "In so far as a single hand now con- the empire together." New Cambridge Modern History, trolled the government, it was not the Sultan, but VI (1970), 616. Halil Inalcik points out that the efendis that of the Grand Vezir who had behind him the or 'men of the pen' dominated the grand vezirate in the elite of the palace schools, that solid and loyal eighteenth century. "Reisulkuttab," Islam Ansiklopedisi group which held the Empire together."3 Norman (Istanbul, 1940-). 5 By the 1650's, at least, the rank of vezir was awarded 2 For details see I. H. Uzuncarsili, Merkez ve Bahriye as an honor by the sultans to esteemed individuals in Te?kilati (Ankara, 1948), 249-50. return for substantial monetary contributions called "ak- 3 H. Gibb and H. Islamic Bowen, Society and the West ce-i ca'ize ... tug-i humayun." Thus both Sohrabli 440 Journal of the American Oriental Society 94.4 (1974) households: kapilari/kapi = singular. The term the headings Central Administration and Eyaletler kapi was used to signify bab; both terms, the (provinces), were tabulated the backgrounds of first Turkish and the other Arabic, literally mean those who held office in either category in terms "gate" or "door" and by extension are the parts of the following symbols: B. Z. (beyzadeler); C. which are made to signify the whole, the household. (civilian); M. (military); P. (palace); V. H. (vezir In this manner the expression Sublime Porte which and/or pasa households). Except where otherwise was a translation of Bab-i 'Aali, referred to the noted, in this period all posts in the palace house- grand vezir's household and eventually became hold services and most of the posts in the military the designation for the government of the Otto- service were almost invariably manned by in- man state in its public departments. In this study, dividuals who were brought up in the palace and the expression vezir and pasa kapilari is meant to military services respectively. Thus, in these be inclusive of the grand vezir's. The latter was services, except where otherwise noted, appoint- considered as one of the several simultaneously ments of outsiders to the palace and most of the co-existing vezir and pasa households. military posts were the exception to the rule. The suggestions which are made in this paper The above-mentioned symbols are defined as are based on a partially completed survey of the follows: official biographies of men who held the highest P. (palace) refers to those, whether slaves or posts in the central and provincial administration. free-born Muslims, who started their service in The biographical data were gleaned from con- the sultan's palace. temporary and near contemporary sources.6 Under Although in the past (especially starting from the middle of the fifteenth century) the imperial Ahmed and Morali Hasan were expected to pay 25 keses household was staffed almost exclusively by slaves, each into the sultan's private treasury as their contribu- in the second half of the seventeenth century a tion in return for elevation to the rank of vezir. Cited good number of those who entered that service in Silihdar Mehmed Aga, Silihdar Tarihi. 2 vols. (Istan- were free-born Muslims, some of whose parents bul, 1928), Vol. II, 139, (hereafter cited as Silihdar, were comparatively well-known. Such was the Tarih); and also in Defterdar Mehmed Pasa, Zubdat ul background of Elmas Mehmed Aga (grand vezir: vakay,' Istanbul, Suleymaniye Kutuphanesi Esad Efendi 1695-97). His father, Sadik Reis was a commander ktb. (manuscript) no. 2382, f. 137a (hereafter cited as in the navy (gemi reisi). Mehmed was born in Defterdar, Zubdat). Rami Mehmed paid the sum of Kastamonu, entered the palace at an early age, 22,500 gurus for the same honor. Maliye defteri 10148, 8. serving as cokadar-i hassa, then as silihdar, mir-i 6 The standard chronicles for this period are Silihdar, alem, rikab kaymakami and eventually mi?anci.7 Tarih (which is being continued in modern translation M. (military) refers to those who were brought by Ismet Parmaksizoglu under the title Nusretnamein up in the ocaks of the standing armed forces and fasikules, Istanbul, 1962-0. Cilts I and II, fasikul I, were navy and who were assigned to posts outside used in this study along with and checked against the what may be considered strictly military functions. manuscript with the same title in Istanbul, Beyazit Umumi Kutuphanesi no. 2369), Defterdar, Zubdat; and which the biographical fragment or event occurred, as Rasid, Tarih-i Rasid, 6 vols. Istanbul, 1282. These three well as the source and page on which the information chronicles, some archival sources (Muhimme defterleri was based. The cards were then indexed in alphabetical 105-114, and some Maliye defterleri), the specialized order under the biographee's name and in chronological biographical dictionary by Ahmed Resmi, Safinat ul- order. Similtaneously, while the biographical data was ruesa, Vienna, OsterreichischeNationalbibliothek, H. O. being collected, a list was kept of changes in office which 118, and the biographicalstudies of UzuncarSili,Osmanli had occurred both yearly and by tenure under the name Tarihi, Vols. III, part 2 (Ankara, 1954), and IV, part 2, of each incumbent grand vezir and the duration of the (Istanbul, 1959) and those in Danismend, Izahli Osmanli service of the appointee was noted down. This latter Tarihi Kronolojisi, vol. III, (Istanbul, 1961 edition), set of cards was also indexed in alphabetical order and were surveyed for biographicalinformation on all officials by the name of each office. It was thus possible to retrieve who acquired a title, or managed to get promoted, or the biographical data by three means: in terms of the demoted or advanced within the ranks or changed status. biographee's name, or in terms of the office he held, or Each item of information was placed on 3 by 5 inch cards. in terms of the year of his appointment under each specific Each card carried also the date (or approximate date grand vezir. when no specific date was given by month and day), on 7 Uzuncarili, Osmanli Tarihi, III, 2. 443. ABOU-EL-HAJ: The Ottoman Vezir and Pa a Households 441

Thus, sons of members of the ocaks would fall monly used with reference to them, but here, into this category if they were to follow their again for the purposes of simplification, these men fathers' career. For purposes of simplification, are regarded as B. Z. as though they had carried those who were brought up in the provincial the title bey. Of course, the sons of very important military establishments are listed here as members agas, such as K6prtili Mehmed Pasa's nephew of the military establishment proper. It should Amcazade Huseyin, rated the title bey. Hasan, be emphasized again that those who were trained his father, was known as Aga." and brought up in the palace household used to V. H. (Vezir and Pasa household) refers to the be the main beneficiaries of both the highest mili- halk or staffs of the households of the pasa and tary and administrative posts starting from the vezirs. The halk included the personnel and troops middle of the fifteenth century. However, by of the kapi, be they Muslims in origin or slave. the middle of the seventeenth century, whereas The kapi usually consisted of men who were raised before, most if not all commanders and men of and trained in the household as well as those who the centrally stationed armed forces came from were trained elsewhere but eventually were at- amongst the palace graduates, now more and more tached to the house through clientship/intisap. men are noted who had inherited their positions The last group were acquired following the dis- from their fathers.8 These developments did not solution of a V. H. and the breakup of the halk preclude the continuation well into the seventeenth (literally creatures) of the kapi or from amongst century of the practice of graduating men from those who received their initial apprenticeships in the palace right into the ocaks of the standing the central administration's bureaucracy.12 While army.9 halk was the generic term used to refer to all the B. Z. (beyzadeler) literally sons of beys, those household staffs, the sources refer to them also who were more or less well-known, and had become as 'atbd' (followers/hangers-on), agalar (officers), close to an equivalent to nobility. Here, B. Z. is adamlar (men) and kullar (slaves). As with the used with reference to all who carry the title bey sultan's palace, the vezir and pasa kapi acquired whether by virtue of the sons' having acquired slaves which it trained into whatever skills were it because their fathers had achieved the title, needed or necessary for service. Some of these or those who had pa?a; inherited the title bey slaves managed to ascend not only to the headship been so having designated by the state in recogni- of the staffs of the household (kyahyaship/from tion of their rulership over a specific group (K(urds, the Persian: ketkhoda)13 but also went on after Albanians or Turkomans). In the seventeenth manumission to create their own households. In sources the century title was commonly applied the second half of the seventeenth century one to those men who held sancaks, hukumets or muha- such 'abd-i ma'tuk (manumitted slave) of a V. fazit through inheritance.10 In this study the H. became a grand vezir in his own right.14 abbreviation is applied to the immediate families Like the palace the households had an inner and of vezirs and pasas, their brothers, sons-in-law, an outer service, each sector staffed by officials or what the sources refer to as their akriba. It and officers proportionate to the position and should be noted, finally, that not all sons of pasas wealth of its founder.15 A large number of these were designated as bey in the sources, for example household members came to attain the rank of the title efendi or aga was perhaps even more com- 1 Silihdar, Tarih, I, 526. 8 See cited in examples Itzkowitz, "Eighteenth Cen- 12 For example Kara/BayburtliIbrahim Aga who served tury," 91-92. Celali Hasan Pasa, then Ferari Kara Mustafa and 9 In finally mid-year, 1675, Mehmed IV graduated 1,000 Kara Mustafa,whom he succeeded as grand vezir in 1683. ghilman-i-enderun-i hassah into the boluks, Silihdar, The same Kara Ibrahim admitted into the service of his Tarih, vol. I, 648; and in March 1678 he graduated 1,500 household Dal Taban Mustafa, first as a messenger and Istanbul bostancis into the Janissary corps. Ibid., 673; later as ic mehterbasi beforehe moved out to serve into and 16 enderun ghilman-i again in September 1680 the military establishment. Uzunear?ili,Osmanli 733. Tarihi, Ibid., Mustafa II graduated 200 men of the saray-i III, ii, 423-25; and IV, ii, 259-63. 'atik service, of the Istanbul 1,000 saray/palace and 500 13 Gibb and Bowen, Islamic Society, I, i, 152-53. Edirne bostancis to serve as 14 tufengcis. Silihdar, Nusret- During 1687-88, Abaza SiyavuS, a slave of K6priilfi name, Cilt fasikul I, I, 135/manuscriptreference 231a. Mehmed, who served as grand vezir. 10 Gibb and 15 Bowen, Islamic Society, vol. I, i, 162-66. For details see citation in Footnote 13 above. 442 Journal of the American Oriental Society 94.4 (1974)

vezir and title of pasa and were able to establish Halep 1 6 7 7 1 their own kapilar. Diyarbekir 5 8 8 3 0 C. (civil) refers to those who started their careers Rakka 1 3 7 1 0 in the central bureaucracy irrespective of back- Rumeli 6 3 4 4 0 ground (whether or not they were sons of military Silistre 3 3 3 2 0 men or those who came from the ilmiye/religious Sivas 4 4 13 0 0 bureaucracy), but were not attached to any specific Sham 4 2 13 4 0 vezir or pasa household. Shehrizor 3 5 5 2 0 The tables included in this study represent Trablus Sham 1 1 6 0 2 probes into the backgrounds (as far as these can Trabzon 2 1 4 3 1 be determined) of officials who attained office Timishvar 4 5 2 2 1 under the two headings: Central Administration Kars 2 1 0 1 and Eyaletler (governors of provinces) during the Kibris 1 4 4 1 2 grand vezirates of Kara Ibrahim (1683-85), Sari Karaman 2 6 7 2 0 Suleyman (1685-87), Abaza Siyavus (1687-88), Kamanicha () 3 2 1 1 Nisanci Ismail (1688), Bekri Mustafa (1688-89), Kandya 3 2 6 3 1 Fazil Mustafa (1689-91), Arabaci Ali (1691-92), Kanica 0 2 0 1 0 Hlaci Ali (1692-93), Bozoklu Mustafa (1693-94), Keffe 1 0 2 2 0 Surmeli Ali (1694-95), Elmas Mehmed (1695-97), Marash 4 2 5 3 1 Amcazade Huseyin (1697-1702), Dal Taban Musta- Misr 0 3 4 1 1 fa (1702-03) and Rami Mehmed (1703). Mora 0 2 6 5 0 Mosul 1 3 5 1 0 Central Administration: 1683-1703 Varad 0 0 2 1 0 Office B.Z. V. n. P. M. C. Van 2 8 15 2 0 Istanbul Kaymakam 4 4 7 4 1 Yanova 2 4 4 2 0 Rikab 1 6 11 Kaymakam 2 0 62 117 164 67 16 Nisanci 1 2 4 0 4 Vezir-i Azam 2 7 3 1 1 The sub-totals for the twenty years for each Yenceri Aga 0 6 5 15 0 category are as follows: Sipahilar Aga 0 14 5 0 1 Central Administration Cebeci Basi 0 10 1 12 0 Eyaletler (provinces) Bas Baki Kullu 0 7 0 2 2 B.Z. 13 4.80% 62 14.50% Buyuk Mirahor 1 3 9 3 0 V.H. 91 34.70% 117 27.40% Cavus Basi 0 10 8 2 1 P. 69 26.30% 164 38.50% Kapicilar Kyahyasi 2 3 7 1 0 M. 56 21.30% 67 15.70% Silihdar Aga 1 11 2 4 0 C. 33 12.50%// 16 3.70%/ These figures indicate that the had been 12 4 5 0 military Kapudan Papa down-graded as a source for staffing posts in the Defterdar Basi 0 4 4 0 15 central government and in the Reisulkuttab 0 2 2 provinces taking 0? a little over 20% of posts in the central and about 13 91 69 56 33 16% of the governorates.16 The palace household, Governors of Eyalet tler/Provinces:er/Provinces: 1683-1703 16n .. As if in justification of this change, Mustufa Naima, Province B.Z V.H. P. Mi. C. quoting Ibn Khaldun, tried to explain early in 1700 that Adana 2 4 6 0 0 during a period of stability of a government (presumably Erzurum 1 6 6 2 1 the Ottoman state had reached that stage in the late Eger 0 1 1 0 0 seventeenth century) the "men of the sword" tend to Anadolu 2 7 3 3 0 give way to others in attaining the highest posts of govern- Bosna 2 7 1 5 1 ment. Mustafa Naima, Naima Tarihi, (Istanbul, 1283), Budin 1 0 0 1 1 vol. I, 24-40, of the author's own introduction to the Basra 1 7 6 0 0 chronicle where he discusses the various stages (life- 0 Bagdat 4 6 2 0 cycles) through which each government or state passes Habesh 1 0 0 1 1 through from oblivion to zenith to demise. ABOU-EL-HAJ: The Ottoman Vezir, and Paca Households 443

on the other hand, continued to provide a sub- ment coincided with the decline in the recruitment stantial number of men to staff both levels of and training of slaves by the palace schools.18 government. Howover, in at least the latter two The enhanced position of the households was decades of the seventeenth century it provided recognized existentially and only de facto by the about a fourth and a little over a third of the posts sultans. The denial of de jure and therefore in- on these two levels of government respectively, stitutional recognition of the growing preeminent whereas in the previous century it was purported position of the vezir and pasa kapilar kept the to have had a near monopoly in filling these men and the institution in a precarious position In positions. the second half of the seventeenth and predisposed the internal political history of century assignments to the highest posts of govern- the state to potentially violent struggles for as- ment were shared by the palace graduates and cendency during political crises.19 At the base of the families and staffs of the vezir and pa?a these struggles was the constitutional question of in the kapilar.l7 However, period 1683-1703, men whether in fact the sultans both ruled and reigned. from the vezir and household's pasa staffs and Although the right of reigning was rarely ques- members of their families surpassed the palace tioned, the growing preeminence of the households in the recruits graduates number of who obtained and their capacity for self-perpetuation threatened, important central and provincial posts. While the at least in the second half of the seventeenth palace graduates obtained 26.30% and 38.50% of century, the Ottoman monarchs' right to rule. all positions filled on these two levels, the B. Z. In the period under discussion, the question was and V. H. combination totaled 39.50% and 41.90 % formally raised at the time of a major political crisis. respectively. Internal strife and disaffection had para- The smallest percentages, 12.50% and 3.70?%, lyzed the state. The Venetians threatened to were registered by men who came from the bu- blockade the Dardanelles and invade Istanbul. reaucracy (C). The total number of men neither of To extricate itself from both internal and external the nor of the who military palace managed to threat, the Ottoman court turned to Koprulii attain office on the central high and provincial Mehmed. As his conditions for accepting the office levels came to over half of the former and five of grand vezir, he requested of the court: non- points short of half for the latter out of the total interference with his recommendations and nom- number of made the assignments during last two inations to all levels of government service; denial decades of the seventeenth century. A significant of permission for criticism to be voiced of his shift in for recruitment and decisions dependence staffing and policies; and denial of meddling in for these of highest posts government took place state affairs by former ministers and statesmen. from the away traditional ones of the palace and When the court finally accepted his conditions in the military services. Mehmed 1656, took the seal of office. This grand The of the vezir a growing preponderance and vezir, Muslim-born graduate of the palace, was households and their pasa graduates indicate the able to found the vezir-pasa kapi par excellence. decline in the personal rule of the a trend of the sultans, Thirty-eight forty-seven years following his which had its in the end of beginnings Suleyman ascendence were dominated by grand vezirs either Kanuni's The to this of reign. parallel decline was his direct descent (his sons: Ahmed, 1661-76 the of the as the sole and down-grading palace training Mustafa, 1689-91), or a nephew (Amcazade ground for public administrative Here experience. Huseyin, 1697-1702), a son-in-law (Kara Mustafa, it should be noted that the failure of the palace 1676-83), or members of their various households to the staffs for the of provide highest posts govern- (Kara Mustafa's kyahya Kara Ibrahim; a slave of Mehmed Kopriilii and his son-in-law Abaza Siya- 17 between 1664-1683 about 18 Already one-third of all Halil Inalcik discusses the decline of slave to the system in assignments highest posts of the central government "Ghulam,"cited in Footnote 1 above. were filled by a combination of B. Z. and V. H. staffers 19 In a highly suggestive article, Serif Mardin attributes and no less than twenty percent of the same combination the continued political strife in the Ottoman state to the were assigned eyaletler. These figures should be taken reluctance to dynasty's accord institutional recognition merely as suggestive of the current trend since are to the they elites. "Power, Civil Society and Culture in the based on uncompleted research for these two de- Ottoman Empire," Comparative Culture and Society, cades. (1969), XI, 258-81. 444 Journal of the American Oriental Society 94.4 (1974)

vu?, 1687-88; Fazil Mustafa's kyahya Kadi/Arabaci Having been denied the throne twice by the Ali, 1691-92; Kara Mustafa's kapicilar kyahyasi/ K6priiliis, Mustafa II upon his accession was de- chamberlain of the gate keepers, Namazci Ali, termined to exercise the right of ruling. Four days 1692-93).20 following his elevation to the sultanate, he issued His kapi and its successor households did not an Imperial rescript to the incumbent grand vezir only manage to dominate political life in 1656- Surmeli Ali Pasa declaring his full intent "to go 1703 but on two occasions between 1683-1703 con- on the ghaza and cihad in person."26 From Feb- tributed to the ouster of two sultans who had ruary 1695 until July 1697, Mustafa did in fact challenged their growing power and political em- reign and rule. Within those two years he was inence. In 1687, Mehmed IV, who had begun to able to mold the various elements of the ruling turn away from the Kopriilis following the failure class, including the vezir and papa households, into of Kara Mustafa at Vienna in 1683, was ousted by an instrument which was subordinate to himself. a military rebellion in which two members of His eventual and ultimate success or failure de- Mehmed's household were involved: his son, Fazil pended upon his performance and those of his Mustafa, and his own slave, Abaza Siyavus.21 subordinates on the battlefield. By request of the soldiery, Siyavus was nominated Under his leadership, the Ottoman state re- and eventually was confirmed as grand vezir only covered in two years several forts along the frontier to be ousted and assassinated after the accession between Timisvar and Transylvania. The daring of Suleyman II by the very same elements which exploits of these first years were brought to a sud- had invited him to take office.22 Almost simul- den halt by the annihilating defeat of Ottoman taneously, Fazil Mustafa was ousted also, though forces at Zenta in 1697. In his time of need, his life was spared. Less than three years later, Mustafa II turned to Huseyin Pasa to extricate however, he returned to take office in time to himself from the chaos, confusions and embar- deny the throne to ex-sultan Mehmed (IV) and rassments of defeat.27 Had the new minister ex- his son Mustafa (subsequently sultan in 1695).23 pected to have a free rein in the conduct of state Ahmed II who had succeeded his brother Suleyman affairs, he was bound for disappointment. The II in 1691 was like his brother, rather ineffectual.24 inability of the sultan to allow him a free hand This last succession was calculated to give Fazil was eventually to cost Mustafa II his throne. Mustafa the freedom to manage the Ottoman To retard the possible ambitions of the grand state without interference from the palace. In vezir, the sultan had given $eyhulislam Feyzullah 1703, Mustafa II (1695-1703) too was removed by Efendi, his chief political advisor since 1695, the a rebellion which was carried out by a coalition of freedom to interfere in the conduct of state business. the ulema/religious bureaucracy, the military and In his own turn, Feyzullah had already developed the leaders of the trade corporations of Istanbul.25 his own ambition, designing to secure for himself Leadership of the rebellion had devolved upon and his direct progeny perpetuation in the highest Sohrabli Ahmed Pasa and $ehrizorli Hasan, both 26 of whom were partisans of Amcazade Huseyin; a Text of the rescript in Rashid, Tarih-i Rashid, Vol. K6prilui and grand vezir, 1697-1702. II, 289-99. a7 Following Zenta, the Ottoman state was forced to make peace. The negotiations at Karlowitz in 1698-99 20 For biographiesof these grand vezirs see Uzuncarsili, were discussed in detail in my study, "The Reisulkuttab Osmanli Tarihi, III, ii, 414-448. and Ottoman Diplomacy at Karlowitz," 21 unpublished Silihdar, Tarih, vol. II, 278-333 and Defterdar, Zub- Ph. D. dissertation, Princeton 1963; and in a less detailed dat, 119a-141b. study in "Ottoman at Journal 22 Diplomacy Karlowitz," Silihdar, Tarih, vol. II, 333. of the American Oriental Society, vol. 87, no. 4 23 (1967), Ibid., 483, 569-70. 498-512. Some of the of the treaties for the 24 implications Whereas both princes Mustafa and Ahmed were Ottomans were discussed in "The Formal Closureof the considered too and freely liberally raised (therefore dan- Ottoman Frontier in Europe: 1966-1703,"JAOS, vol. 89, gerous for any ambitious minister), Sultan Ahmed II no. 3 (1969), 467-475 and in "OttomanAttitudes Toward was "not but only pious skilled in the production of the Peacemaking: The Karlowitz Case," (delivered at the calender." 570. Ibid., annual meeting of the American Historical Association, 25 I am a detailed currently preparing study of the re- Western Branch Meeting, in August 1971, Los Angeles), bellion of 1703. forthcoming in Der Islam. ABOU-EL-HAJ: The Ottoman Vezir and Pasa Households 445

posts of the religious bureaucracy and a monopoly of this contact is not spelled out in the sources; of the political advisorship to the sultan.28 Prior however, the precipitous reaction from the court to Zenta, his ambitions were curbed by the sultan points to conspiracy. Ali Bey was a favorite who had conducted state business in person. But nephew of the grand vezir and would not, in all with Mustafa IIs withdrawal from the personal likelihood, have attempted to reach Prince Ahmed conduct of state affairs, Feyzullah was left with without his uncle's blessings. Furthermore, a few an unobstructed field to nourish his growing power. days following the departure of Ali Bey, Huseyin The inevitable conflict between the ambitious Pasa's chamberlain Sehrizorlu Hasan Aga was mufti and the fairly independent and strong-willed singled out for removal.31 This time the retainer grand vezir does not come out to the surface. In was elevated to the rank of vezir and sent to govern fact contemporary sources do not even hint at his native eyalet. A few months later, however, the potential for conflict. Towards the end of the orders were sent for his execution. Again, the con- vezirate of Huseyin, however, the buyuk mirahor temporary sources offer no explanation for the Kiblelizade Ali Bey was suddenly dismissed from kyahya's departure. In Hasan's case, however, a his office and was sent to exile and eventual sequel to these events can be followed, for the execution in Istanbul.29 Ali Bey was caught when agent who was sent to execute him was unable he secretly contacted Prince Ahmed (subsequently to perform his mission,32 and the Pasa managed Sultan Ahmed III) in the harem.30 The purpose to go into hiding until the outbreak of the rebellion, when he was invited to take the office of kaymkam/ 28 acted like a ambitious Feyzullah typical vezir or deputy for the rebel grand vezir in Istanbul.33 paSa of the second half of the seventeenth century. His It is quite obvious that the sultan and his close sons were placed in the very highest ilmiye posts. His advisor Feyzullah Efendi must have felt threatened eldest son, Fethullah, was elevated to the nekdbetand by the machinations of these officers who were in was the at guaranteed similtaneously ?eyhulislamate his Huseyin Pasa's service. The grand vezir in turn father's death. The son was youngest given the preceptor- lost hope of ever retaining freedom of action due of Mustafa II's eldest son. For shiplhocalik fairly detailed to interference of the mufti in state affairs and treatments of Efendi, see the article "Edirne Feyzullah the refusal of Mustafa II to curb Feyzullah's Vakasi" in Islam Ansiklopedisi, Istanbul, 1940-, and ambitions and greed. It is only then that he must Sabra Efendi: An Ottoman Meservey, "Feyzullah $ey- have decided to explore the alternatives to the Ph. D. hulislam," unpublished dissertation, Princeton, continuation of Mustafa II in office. The contact 1966. with Prince Ahmed would have been the first 29 Kibleli Mustafa Ali served both Pasa-oghlu Bey Fazil step in effecting the change of sultans. It is in He Mustafa and Amcazade Huseyin. was kapicilar kyah- light of this interpretation that the circumstances yasi for Huseyin Pasa for three years before his promotion leading to the death of Kiblelizade Ali Bey and to buyuk mirahor. It is perhaps significant that five days the dismissal of kyahya Sehrizorlu Hasan Aga following his dismissal from his post as mirahor, the sul- would have to be understood. tan's son, Mahmud Sultan, was assigned a hoca from amongst Feyzullah's sons. The information on Ali Bey theless, he attributes Ali Bey's execution to the fact that comes from Silihdar, Tarih, II, 543-44, and Nusretname, the latter had predicted Ahmed III's accession and there- I, III, 307; II, I, 45, 83, 86; and manuscript 255b, 267a, fore also predictedthe fall of Mustafa II. In both accounts 276b-277a. by Silihdar and the anonymous history Feyzullah is ac- 30 in 116 Reported Silihdar, Nusretname, II, I, 90-91, cused of being the man responsiblefor Ali Bey's execution, and only hinted at by Rasid, Tarih, II, 531. Defterdar, though the crime as reported by both had to do with the 393a the issuance of Zubdat, reports the order for Ali wish or desire of Huseyin's nephew for seeing a new sultan Bey's execution, but claims ignorance of the motive. The replace Mustafa II. author of "Tarih-i Sultan anonymous Suleyman .. " 31 Biographical information on Sehrizorlu Hasan Aga/ (Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Diez A quart, 75) 292a-94a Papa is based on Defterdar, Zubdat, 388a, 319b and Silih- claims that Ali was removed from the office of mira- Bey dar, Nusretname, II, I, 89/manuscript 277b, 92/278a, hor and sent to Egypt. There, he apparently wrote and 120/281b. predicted the fall of Efendi and Mustafa II 32 Feyzullah Reported in Silihdar, Nusretname, II, I, 120/281a; and of the eventual accession of Ahmed III. This last Defterdar, Zubdat, 405b-06a and Muhimme defteri 114, author does not claim that Ali Bey had tried to reach 2a, 12a, 53a, 73a. Prince Ahmed, Mustafa II's brother,in the harem. Never- 33 Silihdar, Nusretname, II, I, 170-71. 446 Journal of the American Oriental Society 94.4 (1974)

The intrigues to rid themselves of both Feyzul- Since the households rarely acted in a monolithic lah Efendi and Sultan Mustafa II were carried fashion, factions flourished, some were drawn to out by Amcazade Huseyin's successors in the support and act in concert with similarly inclined grand vezirate, Dal Taban Mustafa (1702-03)34 and parties from the palace or the military or both. Rami Mehmed (1703).35 The first was discovered Heretofore, it has been claimed, the struggles and paid for his failure with his life, while the for political ascendency at the center of power second triggered the rebellion whose leaders were were played out by the palace and military factions Amcazade Huseyin's brother-in-law Sohrabli Ah- with the bureaucracy acting as a third but weak med Pasa and his former kyahya Sehrizorli Hasan partner. The rise of the vezir and pasa households Pasa. adds a new component to the power struggle and A complex of factors lies behind the rebellions their kapi-politics contributes a further complexity of 1687 and 1703. The discussion and analysis to the structure of Ottoman history in the seven- of the underlying causes of these upheavals and teenth century.37 the predisposition of Ottoman polity to such violent reactions in the seventeenth century must await further detailed consideration. At this stage as kuls/domestics of the sultans' household and they of knowledge it can be asserted with a fair amount therefore were governed by the same regulations. (Even of accuracy that the growing power of the vezir Kopriiliizade Mustafa was not immune from this law. and pasa households, here demonstrated by the See Silihdar, Tarih, II, 598, for details.) If, however, Kopriilii family and its satellite kapilar, made this policy which was applied throughout the second half them equal to the supreme task of creating and of the seventeenth century at least, was meant to curb deposing sultans. the ability of the vezir and pasa householders to perpetu- The vezir and pasa households must have evolved, ate themselves, it failed. Apparently, neither the sultans like the palace and military institutions, ostensibly nor their chief administrators were seriously interested to serve the interests of the dynasty. In time in the rigorous application of the confiscations. Several however, they seem to have superseded these loopholes were available. One was the conversion of institutions and in the second half of the seven- personal property into inalienable family endowments, a teenth century developed their own raison d'etre.36 practice which had its early start in the sixteenth century. The sultans themselves violated the rule by turning over 34 Dal Taban Mustafa triggered a rebellion among the the household of a deceased vezir to his son. Such was Tartars as a prelude to his coup to rid himself of both the the case of Birunsuz Mehmed Bey who following his mufti and Mustafa II. Some of the details of the Tartar father's death was given the rank of Karaman, awarded rebellion are discussed in "The Formal Closure of the the sancak of 'Ala'iyye and authorized to carry over his Ottoman Frontier in Europe," Journal of the American father's household. The law of confiscations was not Oriental Society, vol. 89, no. 3 (1969). abandoned, although in a large number of cases only its 35 Rami Mehmed's role in the coup d'etat of 1703 letter was followed. The pretense was kept up that every requires a much more detailed treatment than is possible effort was expended in the collections of estates and effects in this essay. The sources are not in total agreement about for the benefit of the royal private purse. Once the law his role in the upheaval of that year. Though most of had been enforced, and with the pardoning of the officer our sources implicate him in the plot against Feyzullah in question, no further confiscations were allowed. A Efendi, some exonerate him of all "wrong-doing." corollary to the law was a statue of limitations. From these 36 Through a policy of confiscations, the sultans in the observations, it would seem obvious that the sultans were fifteenth and sixteenth centuries were able to curb the not interested in crippling or making total destitutes out power of vezirs and pasas who had graduated from the of their demoted high officials or their heirs. palace service. Since these men were regarded as the 37 The sultans' palace household used to be taken as personal slaves of the sultans, their effects following dis- the first model for any ambitious vezir or pasa in their missal or demise were turned over to the royal treasury identification with the dynasty, its ways and with high (enderun). By tapping their wealth through this policy Ottoman culture. It is quite probable that the vezir the dynasty was effective in its attempt at curtailing the and pasa kapilar came to serve, in the second half of the capacity of the palace graduates for self-perpetuation. seventeenth century, as the second and actual model As the palace turned to recruit Muslims to its service, for the growing number of ambitious notables (ayan) the policy of confiscations was also extended to Muslim- and derebeys (provincial military) of the eighteenth cen- born officials. These men were viewed by the sultans tury. It was after all from the kapilar that a growing ABOU-EL-HAJ: The Ottoman Vezir, and Papa Households 447

When viewed within the larger context of dy- Mahmud II in the nineteenth century would the nastic sovereignty, these same rebellions appear dynasty regain direct control over state affairs. as minor interruptions in the further consolidation The regression in the political power of the sul- of an otherwise peaceful revolution. In vain tans contrasts with contemporary developments in Mehmed IV and his son Mustafa II tried to regain continental Europe. While these states witnessed the absolute power and prerogatives of their six- the consolidation of dynastic absolutism accom- teenth century predecessors. Their failure signified panied by centralism, the Ottomans moved in a the end of traditional dynastic absolutism and the parallel but opposite direction. The revolution triumph for over a century of the rule of an oli- which curtailed the personal rule of the Ottoman garchy whose main beneficiaries were the vezir sultans through the de facto consolidation of the and pasa households.38 Not until the reforms of power of the households may have paved the way for the rise of provincial autonomies in the eigh- number of assignments was made to head the provincial teenth century. governments. 38 The power of the ulema was growing quite rapidly share in power must await detailed studies parallel to in this same period. An evaluation of their place and the one attempted here.