398

 SURVIVING THROUGH THE MODERN TIMES: ULEMA SEASIDE
MANSIONS AND HOUSEHOLDS IN ISTANBUL, 1790-1890

iv
ABSTRACT
Surviving through the Modern Times: Ulema Seaside Mansions and Households in
Istanbul, 1790-1890
Ottoman ulema families as a social entity have rarely attracted the attention of
academic scholarship. The existing literature on the ulema on the edge of the
Tanzimat reforms circulates around institutional change along with a limitation to
secularist and nationalistic biases. Furthermore, the ilmiye’s political decline can be
seen in a number of works, which, in fact, does not necessarily bring socioeconomic
decline. In this regard, the present work questions and identifies the Istanbulite ulema
households in the examples of their residences, sahilhane, or seaside mansions, on a
particular geographical along the Bosphorus Strait. Moreover, in the nineteenth
century, the thesis aims to draw attention to the remaining dominance of particular
ulema families within the ilmiye bureaucracy in the nineteenth century, while
examining the Şeyhülislams of the century and a number of ulema genealogies. By
doing so, it outlines the Bostancıbaşı records and population registers of the
Bosphorus Strait, examining human geography and social topography in a specific
coastal line. Overall, the thesis aims to provide an analysis of ulema households and
claims that there was no visible decline of the ilmiye in the nineteenth century in
terms of socioeconomic wealth, and the presence of the ulema on the opulent shores
of the Bosphorus could be discussed as an indicator for such claim.
v
ÖZET
Modern Zamanlarda Hayatta Kalmak: İstanbul’daki Ulema Yalıları ve Haneleri,
1790-1890
Osmanlı ulema aileleri sosyal bir varlık olarak akademik çalışmaların nadiren ilgisini
çekmiştir. Tanzimat reformlarının eşiğinde ulema hakkındaki mevcut literatür,
sekülerist ve milliyetçi önyargılarla sınırlandırılmış bir şekilde kurumsal değişim
etrafında dolaşmaktadır. Dahası, pek çok çalışmada görülebileceği gibi ilmiyenin
siyasi gerilemesi sosyoekonomik gerilemeyi de beraberinde getirmek zorunda
değildir. Bu bağlamda, bu çalışma İstanbullu ulema hanelerini, Boğaziçi hattı belirli
bir coğrafyadaki meskenleri, sahilhaneleri veya yalıları örnekler üzerinden
sorgulamakta ve tartışmaktadır. Ayrıca tez, on dokuzuncu yüzyılda ilmiye bürokrasisi
içinde belirli ulema ailelerinin süregelen hâkimiyetine dikkat çekmeyi amaçlarken,
yüzyılın Şeyhülislamlarını ve bir dizi ulema şeceresini incelemektedir. Bunu
yaparken, Boğaziçi'ndeki Bostancıbaşı defterlerini ve nüfus defterlerini ana hatlarıyla
ele alarak, belirli bir kıyı şeridindeki beşeri coğrafyayı ve sosyal topografyayı ele
almaktadır. Spesifik olarak tez, ulema hanelerinin bir analizini sunmayı amaçlamakta
ve on dokuzuncu yüzyılda sosyoekonomik zenginlik açısından ilmiye sınıfında gözle
görülür bir gerileme olmadığını ve ulemanın Boğaz'ın zengin kıyılarındaki varlığının
bu iddianın bir göstergesi olarak tartışılabileceğini iddia etmektedir.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First, I sincerely thank my advisor, Professor Edhem Eldem. Taking his graduate
courses has broadened my perspective, and further gave me the chance to enhance
my reading skills in Ottoman Turkish. I am also grateful to Assistant Professor Yaşar
Tolga Cora, whose classes and personal advice have enhanced my skills in Ottoman
social history. I also express my gratitude to Professor Abdülhamit Kırmızı and
Assistant Professor Seda Altuğ, the other members of my thesis committee, for their
time and contribution to my thesis. I am specifically thankful to Seda Altuğ for her
academic advice over the last three years. In addition, I am grateful to have worked
with Münevver, Yasemin, Fatih, Deniz, and İbrahim for the previous year and a half,
who showed empathy during my thesis writing process. With all its components, the
Department of History at Boğaziçi University has been home during the harsh and
turbulent times. In addition, I received financial support from the TÜBİTAK BİDEB
2210-A scholarship program for the first two years of my Master’s studies. This
scholarship has partially helped me to deal with the struggling socioeconomic
atmosphere in Istanbul, Turkey. I express my sincere gratitude to many friends and
companions, which is hard to name them all; some of them hosted me in harsh times,
and others have never left me alone while facing struggles. Lastly, I am thankful and
grateful to my parents, especially my mother, for their help, assistance, and
cooperation since childhood. I hope my accomplishments will remain their way of
being honored.
vii
TABLES OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION……………………………………...……………..1
1.1 General concepts of the Ilmiye…………………...…...…………………1
1.2 Historiographical problems…………………......………………………..6
1.3 Outline of the thesis………………...…….……..……....………...……10
CHAPTER 2: TANZIMAT AND ULEMA FAMILIES ……………..….………...…14
2.1 Tanzimat and ulema families……………..………………...……………14
2.2 Bâb-ı Meşihat: A general portrayal of the Şeyülislams (1790s to the
1890s)………………………………………………………….…………….21
2.3 Ulema families: Genealogy……………………………………………..32
CHAPTER 3: THE BOSPHORUS AND THE ILMIYE……………………...……..55
3.1 Bosphorus and ulema families……………………….………….……….55
3.2 A Glimpse into the sources: Bostancıbaşı Defterleri and Nüfus
Defterleri…………………………..…………..……………………………….……61
3.3 How to imagine a Sahilhane: Architectural landscape of the yalıs and
human geography……………………………………………………..…..…64
CHAPTER 4: THE ULEMA HOUSEHOLDS……………………………………...74
4.1 The ulema households: An overview…...……………….………………74
4.2 Sahilhanes by size: An analysis of the households………………...……79
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION……….………………...………………..…………..91
APPENDIX A: BOSTANCIBAŞI DEFTERLERİ AND NÜFUS DEFTERLERİ…95
APPENDIX B: VISUAL MATERIALS………………………….……………......111
REFERENCES….…………………………………………………………….…...119
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Timeline of the Şeyhülislams (1790-1890)………………………………...26
Figure 2. Reasons for the termination of the Şeyhülislam tenures (1790-1890)…….27
Figure 3. Genealogy of the Dürrizade family……………...…………….…………..44
Figure 4. Genealogy of the Mekkizade family……………………..………………...45
Figure 5. Genealogy of the Ebuishakzade family……………………………………46
Figure 6. Genealogy of the Arabzade family………………………………………...47
Figure 7. Genealogy of the Pirizade family………………………………………….48
Figure 8. Genealogy of the Salihzade family………………………………………...49
Figure 9. Genealogy of the Sıdkızade family………………………………………...50
Figure 10. Genealogy of the Hekimbaşızade family…………………………………51
Figure 11. Genealogy of the Yasincizade family……………………………………..52
Figure 12. Genealogy of the Kocayusufpaşazade family……………………………53
Figure 13. Genealogy of the Arif Hikmet Bey’s family……………………………...54
Figure 14. Sahilhanes by the number of residents…………………..……………....84
ix
LIST OF APPENDIX A
BOSTANCIBAŞI DEFTERLERİ AND NÜFUS DEFTERLERİ
Figure A1. Bostancıbaşı Defteri 1802……………….………....……...……………95
Figure A2. Bostancıbaşı Defteri 1803……………….………….…………………..98
Figure A3. Bostancıbaşı Defteri 1815…………….………….……………………100
Figure A4. Bostancıbaşı Defteri 1822……………………………………………..106
Figure A5. 1844 Nüfus Defteri……………….………….………………………..107
Figure A6. 1826 Nüfus Defteri…………………………………………….….…..110
x
LIST OF APPENDIX B
VISUAL MATERIAL
Figure B1. Seaside mansions……….…………………………………….……...111
Figure B2. Seaside mansions……….………………………….………………...112
Figure B3. Bâb-ı Meşihat Süleymaniye………………………………………….113
Figure B4. Bebek……….………………………………………………………...114
Figure B5. Kuruçeşme………………………………...………………………….115
Figure B6. High-ranking bureaucrats’ costumes……..………………..…………116
Figure B7. Şeyhülislam and Dersvekili…………………..………………………117
Figure B8. Map of Bosphorus………………………………………...…………..118
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1. General concepts of the Ilmiye
The presence and influence of the Ottoman ulema, as a cohesive social entity, has
primarily remained in the shadows of scholarly discourse, both within Western and
Turkish academia. This is a notable oversight, given the significant social, political,
and economic impact that the ulema wielded over nineteenth-century Ottoman
society. The Ulema, having played a significant role throughout the empire’s history,
were emerged as a pivotal actor within the administrative framework of Ottoman
governance. The pinnacle of the Ottoman religious hierarchy was occupied by the
esteemed Şeyhülislam, who held the prominent position as the foremost leader
within the religious organization. Accompanying this central figure were the two
Kazasker judges, one presiding over Rumelia and the other Anatolia. Additionally,
there were a number of high-ranking judges located in significant cities, including
Mecca, Bursa, Edirne, and Cairo.1 Below this upper echelon, the rest of the ilmiye,
the learned class, encompassed a spectrum of positions such as ordinary judges
(kadı), esteemed professors (müderris), and authoritative religious consultants
(müftis). Aspiring to be affiliated with prestigious Ottoman medreses, such as Hagia
Sophia, Sahn, and Süleymaniye, these individuals forged their paths within the
realms of scholarship or officialdom.2 Nevertheless, the Ottoman medreses with their
1 Mevleviyet describes the high-ranking ilmiye bureuacracy, which exhibited a fluid conception. To
illustrate, the term bilad-ı selase refers to the Mecca, Edirne and Bursa, which trasformed into bilad-ı
hamse after a while, with the addition of Cairo to this group, the relocation of Mecca to the
Haremeyn, and the enhanced status of Plovdiv resulted in the formation of bilad-ı hamse in the
eighteenth century. See. “Mevleviyet” in TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi 29, 467.
2 Ordinary ilmiye individuals, those who do not belong to the ulema families, were supposed to be
involved in a system (mülazemet) to gain further affiliations within the religious establishment. See.
2
significant components, müderris, the professor, and, softa, the student, have been
the scene for various social and political events including the rebellions against the
authorities to demand better conditions.3
Throughout history, the ulema played a multifaceted role in the Ottoman
context, most notably as significant contributors in three crucial domains: education
(tedris), judiciary (kaza), and religious consultation (fetva). Nevertheless, the
dynamic nature of these roles underwent transformations over time, even as the
bureaucratic duties of the ulema endured until the final days of the empire.
Reflecting on the hierarchical structure within the ilmiye, a clear pattern can be
observed, starting from mahreç4 and moving upwards through bilad-ı hamse5,
haremeyn (Mecca and Medina), Istanbul judgeship, and finally, the Anatolian and
Rumelian judgeships. Remarkably, the journey towards attaining the esteemed
position of Şeyhülislam often involved progressing through a hierarchical ladder,
with each step a testament to expertise and influence. Notably, from the seventeenth
century onward, the position of Şeyhülislam ascended to an important role, wielding
the authority to appoint members of the ilmiye bureaucracy.6 Furthermore, the
increase in the number of kadı appointments during this specific timeframe should be
seen in conjunction with the broadening of the tasks assigned to the Şeyhülislams.7
Mehmet İpşirli, “Mülazemet”, in TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi 31 (Ankara: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı
Yayınları, 2020), 536-537.
3 There are a number of revolts in which the softas take an active part. The most famous are the Celali
Rebellions, and the Revolt of the Softas in 1876, and the March 31st Vakası. As a matter of fact, the
softas were at the forefront of many social and political event for different reasons. See. Selma
Özülkü, “1876 Softalar İsyanı, Osmanlı Tarihindeki Yeri ve Önemi” MA thesis, Selçuk University,
2000. Mustafa Alkan, “Softa”, in TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi 37 (İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı
Yayınları, 2009), 342-343.
4 İpşirli, “Mahreç” Diyanet İslam Ansiklopedisi, 27, 387-388, (2003), Haremeyn refers to the cities of
Mecca and Medina combined, which has been one of the high-ranking posts of the ilmiye officialdom.
5 Fahri Unan, “Mevleviyet”, in TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi 29, 467-468.
6 Mehmet İpşirli, “Şeyhülislam”, in TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi 39, 91-96.
7 When examining the employment of the ulema, it is possible to mention the new posts that emerged
along with the problems of paye, mülazemet, and employment in general. See. Yasemin Beyazıt,
“Osmanlı İlmiye Bürokrasisinde Şeyhülislamlığın Değişen Rolü,” 423-442.
3
Moreover, a contingent of scholars argues that the Ottoman ilmiye underwent
a profound transformation by the sixteenth century, emerging as a remarkably
sophisticated bureaucratic apparatus—a contention that positions it as potentially the
most efficacious administrative framework within the spectrum of Muslim-ruled
empires. Within this discourse, the influence and import of the ilmiye entity extend
beyond conventional perspectives. Rather, it was an element capable of orchestrating
pivotal modifications not only within its own structures but also across the broader
institutional milieu. In this regard, the expansion in the duties of the kadıs, the
institutionalization of the Meşihat, and the increase in the number of medreses and
kadı nominees can be observed.8 However, the earlier ilmiye institution appears to
have been constrained by the influence of individual alims, whereas the prominent
ulema houses played a crucial role in the process of institutionalization.9
Furthermore, recent studies indicate that ulema in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries’ ulema can be seen as alim-bureaucrats, as pivotal actors who engaged in
religious duties and were effectively involved in the administrative framework.10 In
this regard, the ilmiye bureaucrats evolved as crucial actors, both in the center and in
the provinces, exercising decisive authority as representatives of the Ottoman state,
but simultaneously upholding the fundamental framework of the religious
establishment. This cadre of administrators in question undertook many
8 Faroqhi, Civilian Society and Political Power in the Ottoman Empire: A Report on Research in
Collective Biography (1480-1830), 112.
9 Zilfi, Elite Circulation in the Ottoman Empire: Great Mollas of the Eighteenth Century, 318.
10 Atçıl, “Scholars and Sultans in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire” 2017. Atçıl underlines the fact
that by the sixteenth century the ilmiye began establishing its institutitonal framework while the
mülazemet ratio was about %37 in early sixteenth century, which resulted in reinforcing the hierarchy
by the seventeenth century. In fact, the ulema were acting as the bureaucrats, which were truly the
representative of the state from center to the provinces. The rise of number of medreses as well as
ulema prove that they were scholar-cum-bureaucrats. This argument could be understood as a feature
of the making of the early modern Ottoman Empire.
4
responsibilities that encompassed the domains of the court, education, and religious
obligations, as previously mentioned.
Nevertheless, particularly during the eighteenth century, a significant shift in
the landscape of high-ranking ilmiye officials, as they became more concentrated
within a select few urban ulema families. The complex interaction of familial
lineages inside the ilmiye has become a compelling determinant in shaping the
trajectory of these families’ fortunes both within the ilmiye establishment and among
the broader ranks of the askeri elites.11 This phenomenon gave rise to the emergence
of a social class that may be appropriately compared to an aristocracy. This particular
social group is distinguished by hereditary advantages, setting apart the privileged
few from the larger body of ulema who had limited access to prominence. However,
it is noteworthy to acknowledge that the latter, despite their differing degrees of
prominence, frequently maintained a connection to the legacy of their predecessors
within the domain of ehl-i ilm.12 Therefore, the auspicious situation of being born
into an ulema family was regarded as the role of a potent privilege. As illustrative
instances, the Mekkizade, Ebuishakzade, Dürrizade, and Arabzade lineages are
renowned ruling families whose influence became evident during the eighteenth
century. In fact, the terminologies “family” and “lineage” pertain to the
intergenerational transmission of the Ottoman ilmiye bureaucracy from fathers to
sons, as well as the occurrence of many individuals from the same family acquiring
positions within the ilmiye bureaucracy through kinship connections.13 Therefore,
11 In the Ottoman context, Askeri means the ruling elite which divided into ehl-i örf (the military and
non-ilmiye bureaucray) and ehl-i şer’ (the ilmiye bureaucracy). See. Sahillioğlu, 3, 488-489, (1991).
12 Christoph Neumann, “Elites’ Networks and Mobility” in A Companion to Early Modern Istanbul,
ed. Shirine Hamadeh and Çiğdem Kafescioğlu (Leiden: Brill, 2022), 114-143.
13 Moreover, the scope and content of ulema “families” and “lineages” will be identified and
discussed later in the thesis, encompassing an analysis of the ways they were named.
5
the eighteenth century witnessed a notable consolidation in the number of ulema
families that exercised dominance within the higher ranks of the ilmiye officialdom.
According to Madeline Zilfi, a prominent Ottoman historian, this consolidation
resulted in a total of eleven influential ulema families during that period.14 Thus,
Zilfi’s scholarly inquiry into the eighteenth-century ulema families offers a
noteworthy exemplar, shedding light on the underlying processes that underpin the
bureaucratic nature of the ulema entity.
Overall, existing scholarship on the ilmiye has, for the most part, neglected
the genealogies and the broader social and familial aspects of the ulema families. The
study of Ottoman ulema frequently overlooks social, familial, and dynastic
dimensions, hence necessitating paying attention to the historiographical problems.
These problems will be discussed in the next section. In this regard, the prospect of
prosopographic studies as a convincing approach deviates from the prevailing notion
that ulema individuals can only be understood by exclusively examining their
political and bureaucratic engagements. These studies, by delving into the intricate
fabric of individual lives in a comparative manner, aim to provide a more
comprehensive understanding of the ulema’s multifaceted roles.15 Specifically, they
seek to highlight the complicated interplay between familial networks, political
connections, inheritances, and administrative pursuits of the ulema. In doing so,
prosopographic studies hold the potential to reshape our perceptions of the ulema
that goes beyond their official functions and places within the Ottoman bureaucratic
14 According to Zilfi, and several studies that flourished afterward, a tiny number of ulema families,
have dominated the Şeyhülislamlık from 1703 to 1839, which will be discussed in detail in the
following parts of the thesis.
15 A cluster of works can be mentioned: Madeline Zilfi, The Politics of Piety: the Ottoman Ulema in
the Postclassical Age 1600-1800 (Minneapolis, USA: Bibliotheca Islamica, 1988). Abdurrahman
Atcıl, “Scholars and Sultans in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire” Cambridge, 2017. Zeynep
Altuntaş “Sultan Abdülmecid Dönemi Osmanlı Uleması” PhD diss., 2013. Erhan Bektaş “Ulema in
the Late Ottoman Empire 1880-1920”, PhD diss., Boğaziçi University, 2019.
6
milieu. Finally, it is worth considering the problem of how the influential ulema
families, who gained significant prominence during the eighteenth century, were
integrated into the bureaucracy and social fabric of the nineteenth century. This
investigation of how they have managed and survived in the long nineteenth century
may be conducted in conjunction with historiographical problems, employing
prosopographical methods.
1.2. Historiographical problems
There is a substantial body of literature on the Ottoman Ulema, however most of
them are subject to various historiographical problems, whether intentionally or
unwittingly. One fundamental problem is the prevailing state-centered perspective
seen in the bulk of existing scholarship, which analyzes the ilmiye solely through its
institutional and bureaucratic affiliations. Although these studies contain a great deal
of detail, they may not go beyond a descriptive approach. İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı’s
work is one of the first studies that may be regarded as pioneering within this field.
His renowned book“İlmiye Teşkilatı” served as a foundational reference for
repetitive and, most likely, reductionist studies in the following decades.16
Hence, this present work seeks to tackle a prevalent historiographical fallacy
by addressing the propensity to analyze the ilmiye officialdom and ulema families
within a state-centered framework that prioritizes political and bureaucratic
16 Interestingly, a vast number of theses and works on the ulema tend to repeat Uzunçarşılı’s
understanding of institution-centered approach to the ilmiye.
See. Akgündüz, Murat. XIX Asır Başlarına Kadar Osmanlı Devleti’nde Şeyhülislamlık. (İstanbul:
Beyan Yayınları, 2002). Yasemin Beyazıt, “Osmanlı İlmiyye Tarikinde İstihdam ve Hareket: Rumeli
Kazaskerliği Ruznamçeleri üzerine bir tahlil denemesi: 16. Yüzyıl.” PhD diss., Ankara University,
2009.
7
affiliations and disregards a substantial amount of ulema’s social and economic
presence. That is to say, this approach has inadvertently marginalized the intricate
facets of the ulema’s everyday life, which eventually limits their capabilities and the
scope of their power apparatus exclusively to institutional domains. It is crucial to
emphasize that the prevalence of familial lineages, as seen in the case of Dürrizade
and Arabzade families, for example, does not inherently equate to exclusive control
over political power mechanisms. Rather than limiting the concept of ulema families
to their recognition within bureaucratic and palatial contexts, which in turn highlights
their power dynamics, it is pertinent to shift focus toward themes that are relevant to
the ulema’s everyday and social experiences. Similarly, the examination of the ilmiye
from an institutional perspective in existing literature often highlights the
establishment of the Evkaf-ı Hümayun and the subsequent transfer of waqf revenues -
one of the paramount sources of income for the ulema- to the state in 1826 as an
indication of the diminishing influence of the religious establishment. Moreover,
there is a tendency to analyze the Tanzimat times as a teleological process as
primarily driven by Westernization. These approaches also argue that the Ottoman
ulema had already experienced a decline in authority, privileges, and competencies
prior to the nineteenth century. While there exists a substantial amount of literature
on the Tanzimat that has effectively addressed these fallacies, the majority of works
pertaining to the Ottoman ulema tend to perceive the ilmiye as having experienced
an overall decline. To illustrate, Avigdor Levy, in his work, “The Ottoman Ulema
and the Military Reforms of Sultan Mahmud II,” claims that the ulema can be
regarded as a conservative and over-reactionary ruling component that stands against
8
the state’s modernization process.17 Nevertheless, even those who have a more
nuanced perspective on this matter have adopted a novel method by examining the
interplay between the Ulema and the Tanzimat reforms. To give an example, David
Kushner’s significant contribution demonstrates the ability to surpass conventional
categorizations. He critically examined the ulema’s correlation with the central
government in light of the Tanzimat reforms, arguing that the ulema were
instrumental in driving the reforms, guiding their trajectory, and subsequently
benefiting from the changes implemented. This approach presents a counterargument
to the notion that the ulema were merely passive recipients of reforms, emphasizing
their proactive role as both instigators and beneficiaries. In addition to this, Uriel
Heyd’s attempt to analyze the ulema in relation to the modernization during the time
of Selim III and Mahmud II, is considered to be an early inquiry into studying the
ulema based on socio-economic backgrounds.18 According to Heyd, the more
socioeconomically prosperous central ulema were in favor of reform, while the
lower-ranking provincial ulema were against reform. It is interesting to note that
many studies on this subject embrace and promote, either directly or indirectly, the
inquiry into the connection between the ulema and reforms that was conducted by
Heyd and Kushner without much alteration. As an illustration of one of these studies,
Ahmet Cihan while discussing the Ottoman Ulema in terms of their relationship with
rulers, classifies the span of 1300 to 1600 as the time of formation, 1600 to 1770 as
stagnation, and 1770 to 1876 as the period of reformation. Naturally, he contends that
17 Roderic H. Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 1856-1876 (Princeton, 1963): 65-70. Avigdor
Levy “The Ottoman Ulema and the Military Reforms of Sultan Mahmud II,” Asian and African
Studies Vol.7 (1971): 13-39.
18 Uriel Heyd, “The Ottoman Ulema and Westernization in the time of Selim III and Mahmud II” in
The Modern Middle East, eds. Albert Hourani, Philip Khoury, and Mary Wilson (London I. B. Tauris,
2005): 29-59.
9
by the 1830s, the ulema had been barred from participating in the political arena.19
Scholars such as Kushner, Heyd, and Levy have dealt with the Ottoman ulema in
relation to the Tanzimat reforms at an early date. In this respect, it is worth noting
that a few dissertations dealing with the same problem in Turkish were published in
the 1990s.20 Therefore, the existing perspectives, to some extent, on the ulema may
be categorized into, dichotomist and reductionist frameworks, with certain scholarly
publications providing descriptive praise for the ulema. Last but not least, the ilmiye
institution has been constrained within the aforementioned frameworks, which
effectively shape perceptions that either downplay or overstate the ilmiye.
Hence, this present work endeavors to explore the prominent ulema families
of the nineteenth century, together with the complex interplay of social and human
geography. This approach deliberately deviates from a limited emphasis on
institutional structures and professional trajectories. In essence, this thesis serves as
an exploration of the dynamic institutional transformations that the ilmiye witnessed,
fundamentally challenging notions of decline in the socio-economic standing of the
ulema during the nineteenth century. In contrast to commonly held assumptions, the
study reveals a multifaceted reality in which Şeyhülislams, various ulema families,
and even segments of the middle-class ulema population displayed a notable range of
responsibilities and economic activities during this long century. The diversity
mentioned may be observed in several ways, such as individuals residing for
extended periods in certain areas along the Bosphorus, the creation of foundations
19 Cihan, Reform Çağında Osmanlı İlmiye Sınıfı, 15.
20 See. Ahmet Cihan, “Modernleşme döneminde Osmanlı uleması (1770-1876), PhD diss., İstanbul
University, 1994. Osman Özkul, “III. Selim döneminde Osmanlı uleması ve yenileşme konusundaki
tutumları 1789-1807,” PhD diss., Istanbul University, 1996. Ahmet Şamil Gürer “Osmanlı Ulemasının
III. Selim ve II. Mahmud reformları karşısındaki tavrı”, MA thesis, Hacettepe University, 1996. Veli
Karataş Ondokuzuncu Yüzyılda Yenileşme çabaları ve Osmanlı Ulemasınn Tavrı”, MA thesis,
Marmara University, 1998.
10
and estates, or the ongoing presence of their descendants inside bureaucratic
structures.
Therefore, the narrative presented herein goes beyond a simple linear decline
and instead illuminates the complex interaction between the ulema's continued
involvement in administrative and scholarly roles and their shrewd involvement in
many economic pursuits. Thus, it portrays the ulema and their families not as passive
individuals experiencing decline but rather as skilled individuals who adeptly
adjusted to evolving circumstances while maintaining their influence in various
aspects of Ottoman society.
1.3. Outline of the thesis
This thesis consists of three chapters; the initial chapter will conduct the groundwork
to understand the Tanzimat and the Ulema families, which outlines a general
portrayal of the Şeyhülislams from the reign of Selim III to Abdülhamid II and
discusses the genealogy of the four esteemed ulema families (Arabzade, Dürrizade,
Ebuishakzade, and Mekkizade). In addition to these four prominent ulema families,
the genealogy of the Feyzullahzade, who were influential in the eighteenth century
but had no such presence in the nineteenth century, is provided. Additionally, the
genealogy of the Şeyhülislam families, which were influential in the nineteenth
century, is discussed. Some examples of these families include Sıdkızade Ahmed
Reşid’s (1759-1834) lineage and Kocayusufpaşazades, the family of Ahmed Muhtar
Molla Bey (1807-1882). As a broad review, this chapter examines fifteen distinct
ulema families as well as Şeyhülislam families as a general survey.
The following chapter, on the other hand, will introduce the primary sources
of the present work while focusing on the spatiality of the sahilhanes on the
11
Bosphorus, where a number of ilmiye individuals resided for an extended period of
time. In this respect, the Bosphorus, which turned into an alternative living space of
Istanbul from the eighteenth century onwards, and specifically the Rumelia coast
from Kuruçeşme to Emirgan. Traditionally, the upper strata ulema, the ulemazades,
kadis, and müderris resided in different parts of Istanbul, especially in neighborhoods
such as Vefa and Fatih.21 This thesis, however, specifically focuses on the living
spaces of the upper echelon ulema, especially the ulema families, on the Western
coasts of the Bosphorus Strait. Furthermore, it also aims to briefly add the
Paşabahçe-Kandilli line, the Anatolian side of the Bosphorus, where a number of
high-ranking ulema have resided. By doing so, it is worth considering that the
present work aims to argue that the ulema’s presence on the opulent shores of the
Bosphorus for an extended period of time was one indication that the extent of the
ulema’s decline in the nineteenth century had been overestimated.
To discuss the primary sources of the thesis, the Bostancıbaşı Records,
population registers from different dates, ulema registry files, and various archival
materials can be mentioned. To summarize, from the first Bostancıbaşı Records in
the 1790s to the population records from different dates are followed, and the urban
topography of Ottoman Istanbul from Beşiktaş to Sarıyer in a timeline spanning
approximately one hundred years. By doing so, it aims to explore the social and
urban landscape of the Bosphorus Strait as being a favorable sphere for the ilmiye
over the course of decades. Undoubtedly, population records from different times
allow the present work to deal with the continuity and change within the ulema
families and other ulema elites and bureaucrats in terms of their presence on the
21 The fact that Fatih Sahn and Süleymaniye Medreses, as the two institutions played a pivotal to
produce candidates for the ilmiye officialdom over centuries. Between the Vefa and Süleymaniye
neighborhoods a number of ilmiye officials resided.
12
Bosphorus shores. The thesis aims to portray a general overview of the seaside
mansions and ulema on the Bosphorus, as well as conducting a household analysis
along a specific geographical line, from Kuruçeşme to Emirgan, on the Western
shores of the Bosphorus Strait over a century from the 1790s to the 1890s. Hence,
the last chapter will provide a closer look into ulema households and their
sahilhanes, in order to outline an alternate social topography and microcosm of the
learned hierarchy at the time. So, in the last chapter, the present work will outline a
dozen randomly selected sahilhanes from population records owned mostly by ulema
families from Bebek to Rumelihisarı, which employs the first half of the nineteenth
century. Last but not least, various visual materials, as well as lists of inhabitants on
the Bosphorus shores at the time, are given in the appendix.
Overall, the introduction aims to outline the general concepts and framework
of the ilmiye while scrutinizing a number of historiographical problems in the
literature on the Ottoman ulema. This literature’s focus on institutional structures and
bureaucratic functions results in a representation of the ulema that is often
mechanistic and a one-dimensional portrayal. Therefore, this present work attempts
to provide a more multifaceted analysis of the ulema. As a matter of fact, the usual
method, the present work, aims to examine the specific situations of specific ulema
families, which can be considered representatives of broader ulema lineages. This
investigation focuses mainly on their residential enclaves, which include yalıs
(seaside mansions) and households. This study at the micro-level presents a modest
and novel approach to examining renowned ulema, whose influence has primarily
been discussed within the context of political narratives. By broadening the scope of
analysis to include the family and domestic realms, a more nuanced and
comprehensive understanding of these individuals may be cultivated. Finally, the
13
thesis employs archival materials in the examination of the seaside
mansions belonging to people deriving from Ottoman ulema lineages. Utilizing the
existing sources, it is evident that the ilmiye class potentially has a prominent
position in the realm of residential settlements. This is substantiated by the visual
representation of sahilhanes that are progressively accumulating in close proximity
to the fortresses situated on each side of the Bosphorus.
In conclusion, one of the central arguments of the thesis is that the ulema did
not, in fact, decline in the nineteenth century, at least socioeconomically and not to
the extent previously depicted. In this regard, there are certain occurrences that
challenge the dominant perspective on the decline of the ilmiye. These include the
active involvement of the ulema in promoting the Tanzimat reforms, the prolonged
presence of specific ulema families in the Rumelia Judgeship for more than fifty
years, and the establishment of new institutions. Furthermore, it is crucial to
acknowledge that the likelihood of political decline does not necessitate
simultaneous socio-economic regression. In fact, the multifaceted layers of the
present work aim to advocate the idea that ulema families maintained survival
throughout the nineteenth century associated with their socioeconomic wealth and
the presence of the sahilhanes on the Bosphorus. To put it differently, this
microscopic scrutiny is anchored in primary sources that constitute the essence of
this study, as it aims to shed light on the complexity of these households, providing
insight into their domestic dynamics.
14
CHAPTER 2
TANZIMAT AND ULEMA FAMILIES
2.1. Tanzimat and Ulema families
The classic view in the academic literature is that the Tanzimat reforms shall be seen
as a time of codifications, which were hastily and impulsively done, leading to a
number of detrimental effects and lacking the chance for deep introspection. In this
view, the high-ranking ulema’s contributions to the reforms were regarded as simply
an attempt at survival, as argued by a number of works.22 However, after the
implementation of the hierarchical structure of the Şeyhülislam, the Ottoman ilmiye
maintained a substantial level of authority within the Ottoman state. The nineteenth
century witnessed substantial transformations within the learned hierarchy, which
have been a subject of much controversy. Mahmud II implemented significant
reforms throughout his reign, including the dissolution of the Janissary Corps and the
founding of Evkaf-ı Hümayun in 1826. Hence, despite the ilmiye’s institutional
legacy being questioned, it still adopted the novel proceedings accompanied by the
Sublime Porte’s practices.23 Even though the structure of the ilmiye underwent
radical changes during the Tanzimat period, the representation of the ilmiye in the
newly emerging institutions continued, and the new structures within the ilmiye were
redesigned. Jun Akiba’s, an Ottoman social and legal historian, works can be given
as an example of the Muallimhane-i Nüvvab and the new kadı profiles. In his book,
Akiba argues that the establishment and development of the new Naibs’ College
22 İlhami Yurdakul, Osmanlı İlmiye Merkez Teşkilatında Reform. İstanbul: İletişim, 2008. Esra Yakut,
Şeyhülislamlık: Yenileşme Döneminde Devlet ve Din. İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2005.
23 David Kushner, "The Place of the Ulema in the Ottoman Empire during the Age of Reform (1838-
1918),” Turcica 19 (1987):51-74. Avigdor Levy, “The Ottoman Ulema and the Military Reforms of
Sultan Mahmud II” Asian and African Studies Vol.7, (1971): 13-39.
15
(Muallimhane-i Nüvvab) in 1855 should be considered a combination of the classical
medrese education in the form of a modern school system. He asserts that the new
school had several innovative approaches, such as giving importance to Turkish
writing.24 By doing so, Akiba challenges the decline paradigm and opens up space
for new debates by asking further pertinent questions to concepts and institutions that
are trapped in the dichotomous narrative that can be considered a dominant view in
the literature at the intersection of the late Ottoman education and legal system.
Another issue that needs to be underlined here is to claim that the ulema can
be studied as one of the main actors in the Tanzimat era, and the ilmiye should be
evaluated in this context. However, this approach should not be taken as an absolute
authoritarian or the sole holder of political power by the Ulema. Instead, a gradual
dissolution of the ulema throughout the century can be discussed. In this respect, the
relative political dissolution of the ilmiye during this period can be questioned by
examining the changes associated with their contributions to the novel practices of
the Tanzimat. Nonetheless, a number of the privileges that were previously held and
monopolized by the ulema in the Pre-Tanzimat era, some of which are at a supreme
level of authority, were dissolved. As the Tanzimat reform efforts are to be seen as an
attempt at codifications and legalizations, then the efforts to reorganize some of the
ulema's legal privileges should not be described as a mere erosion of their status. In
this regard, it would be appropriate to detect some of the privileges that were enjoyed
by the ulema prior to the Tanzimat. That is to say, the ilmiye not only had significant
bureaucratic associations but also purportedly received certain rights and advantages
from the Ottoman Empire throughout the course of several centuries. For instance,
within the context of Ottoman history, it can be observed that the ilmiye bureaucrats
24 Jun Akiba, New School for Qadis, Turcica, 35 (2003): 125-63.
16
constituted the sole group of governing elites who were spared from punishment of
execution by the Sultan, with just three exceptions recorded.25 The benefits enjoyed
by the members of the learned hierarchy did not just pertained to exemption from
sultanic orders of execution, but also encompassed legal and fiscal exemptions.
Despite the fact that the whole askeri class had some privileges in terms of taxation,
it is essential to note that the ulema held a distinct position with regard to taxes and
penalties, which extended to their offspring as well.26 In contrast to other higher
classes, the ilmiye members were exempted from müsadere (appropriation), as a
means of illustration. The appropriation of ulema’s wealth was observed in a limited
number of situations, and such actions were implemented exclusively where the
gravity of the infraction justified such measures. One of the illustrative instances
comprises the appropriation of Safranbolulu Hüseyin Efendi's (d.1648) illicitly
obtained wealth, procured through acts of corruption known as Cinci Hoca. He was
the Anatolian Kazasker, and an influential figure during the reign of Sultan
İbrahim.27 Another illustrative example could be given as the seizure of the
properties and a sum exceeding one hundred kese in cash owned by Şeyhülislam
Erzurumlu Feyzullah Efendi (1639-1703), his offspring, and kin, who met their
demise as a consequence of their involvement in the Edirne Vakası.28 Furthermore, it
should be pointed out that the failure to enforce confiscation was accompanied by a
practice wherein the Şeyhülislams, throughout their lives, would transfer the official
nişan, a symbol of their authority bestowed by the central government, to the state
25 Şeyhülislam Feyzullah Efendi, who was executed for the Edirne Vakası, can be given as an
example of this.
26 İpşirli, “İlmiye” TDV Diyanet İslam Ansiklopedisi, 22, (2000): 141-145.
27 Özcan “Cinci Hoca Hüseyin Efendi” TDV Diyanet İslam Ansiklopedisi, 18 (1998): 541-543.
28 Micheal Nizri, Ottoman High Politics and Ulema Household, (New York: Palgrave Macmillan,
2014), 138-187.
17
upon their demise in exchange for financial remuneration. The families received
financial compensation equivalent to the monetary worth of the nişans.29
One of the critical turning points for the ilmiye that occured on the eve of the
Tanzimat was when the Şeyhülislam’s personal residence ceased to function as an
administrative office. Historically, it was customary for political and religious
matters to be settled inside the confines of the Şeyhülislam's private residence.
However, it should be mentioned that the northwestern section of Süleymaniye
Külliye, known as Ağakapısı, turned into the administrative center for the ilmiye,
which in the present day serves as the administrative headquarters for the religious
affairs chief of Istanbul. However, a more nuanced perspective emerges when one
shifts focus towards the private residences of the Şeyhülislams, which symbolize a
domain more closely linked to civilian aspects of life. At the time, the deliberate
separation of the Şeyhülislam's residential house from the administrative center can
be observed. The cumulative concentration of Şeyhülislams and other high-ranking
ilmiye officials within certain geographical places over an extended amount of time
led to their persistent presence in Istanbul's neighborhoods. Therefore, it is
advantageous to begin by offering a brief overview of the Şeyhülislams throughout
the era spanning from Selim III to Abdulhamid II, as this period is the timeframe of
this thesis. This first assessment establishes the foundation for an in-depth inquiry
into the social origins, residences of ulema families, and the social topography of the
Bosphorus. This requires a succinct analysis of the socioeconomic and vocational
contexts in which the Şeyhülislams operated. Moreover, this research investigates the
29 İlhami Yurdakul. Osmanlı İlmiye Merkez Teşkilatında Reform. (İstanbul: İletişim, 2008.) İsmail
Hakkı Uzunçarşılı. Osmanlı Devletinin İlmiye Teşkilatı, (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2014.)
18
Rumelia Kazaskers, individuals who held authoritative roles during the
aforementioned period, with the aim of elucidating the complex interconnections
among influential ulema families, the dynamic political landscape, and the persistent
institutional transformations that occurred.
As an obvious outcome of the institutionalization in the appointment of
Şeyhülislams that had been reinforced in the preceding centuries, promotion to the
office of Şeyhülislam was attainable after having served in a number of offices and
offices of the Kazaskers. There are, however, a few notable deviations from the usual
procedure in this circumstance. As a matter of fact, evidence of this may be seen in
the appointments of Şeyhülislams during the course of this long century. During the
times of Selim III and the Tanzimat period, nominations of Şeyhulislams usually
reflected the politically turbulent climate of the time. Sultans would, on occasion,
demonstrate their admiration for Şeyhulislams since these individuals possessed
attributes such as moderation and dignity, which aligned with the political goals of
the sultans. On the other hand, those who had stronger-willed dispositions had a
better chance of being favored at other times. Individuals such as Çerkes Halil Efendi
(?-1821) and Kadızade Tahir Efendi (1747-1838), who came from non-Istanbul
backgrounds and were not part of an ulema lineage, were able to acquire the role of
Great Molla as a result of their vicinity to the palace as a consequence.30 Çerkes Halil
Efendi was a Circassian slave brought to the palace, who was raised with Şehzade
Selim and began as kethüda of the treasury when Selim III came to power in 1789,
which ended up appointed as Şeyhülislam during Mahmud II’s time as he was
30 Traditionally, ulema have risen to the position of Şeyhülislam by obtaining a number degrees and
ascending through the medrese and kadılık. There are exceptions to this, and the present work
mentions names who, as imam-ı sultani, faciliated their path to the position of Şeyhülislam. See.
Ahmet Muhtar Molla Efendi (1807-1882) Also See. Esra Yakut, Şeyhülislamlık: Yenileşme
Döneminde Devlet ve Din. (İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2005.)
19
dismissed in 1821.31 Kadızade Mehmed Tahir, on the other hand, came from a
modest family from Tokat and was appointed to Şeyhülislam by Mahmud II after
Mekkizade Mustafa Asım Efendi in 1826. In fact, in the councils that were regularly
held on the eve of the dissolution of the Janissary Corps, Kadızade Mehmed Efendi
was known to play an essential part, which earned him a place of influence. In a
meeting that took place on May 25, 1826, in his mansion and was attended by a large
group of high-ranking civil and military officials as well as ulema, the Şeyhülislam
issued a fetva on the necessity of war training against the janissaries who were
against the Western-style training, and it was decided to form a trained military unit
called Eşkinci.32
Despite the fact that the genealogies of the Şeyhülislams will be portrayed in
a comparative way, the study will not go into complete biographies of the more than
thirty Şeyhülislams who served in the office for almost one hundred years. This is
particularly pertinent with regard to the individuals whose families will be the focus
of the inquiry. In contrast, the graphs and infographics that are outlined in this work
are going to be displayed as a broad review of the higher levels of the ilmiye.
Additionally, the degree of kinship between the ulema families will be taken into
consideration. Some ulema families, such as the Dürrizade and the Arabzade, might
be regarded as having controlled a substantial portion of the high-ranking
ilmiye bureaucracy during the Tanzimat and post-Tanzimat period by using the
example of the Rumelia Kazaskerlik positions serving as an example in that regard.
The fact that the Kazaskers could be regarded as military judges for the ilmiye
establishment. Unlike the viziers, the Kazaskers were Muslims and often Turks and
31 İlmiye Salnamesi, İstanbul: Matbaa-I Âmire, 1334, s. 582.
32 İpşirli, “Halil Efendi” Diyanet İslam Ansiklopedisi, 15, (1997): 312.
20
alumna of the medreses.33 In this regard, Rumelia Kazasker posts along with the
meşveret assemblies were identified from the salnames. The salnames were analyzed
in order to uncover insights into their social and family backgrounds. Therefore,
between the years 1832 and 1892, only five out of fifty-five judges in Rumelia were
the offspring of either pashas or Sufi individuals; in contrast, the rest of the judges
were the sons of ulema, with at least two dozen of them belonging to the Dürrizade,
Arabzade, Meşrebzade, and Zeynelabidinzade families.34 Accordingly, almost half of
the positions of Rumelia judges were held by members of certain ulema families or
sons of Şeyhülislams. In fact, the remaining positions in the organization were all
filled by offspring of the ulema. To put it differently, a tiny number of the ulema
families and the ulemazades were responsible for obtaining half of the posts that
were filled during the course of sixty years.35 In addition, there were less than twenty
members of the high-ranking ilmiye bureaucracy in the salname of 1263/1847, which
included the Nakibüleşraf. On the other hand, the number of people holding
Haremeyn posts has already increased beyond this figure. As a result, the observable
ascent of select families to positions of power within the higher tiers of the
ilmiye bureaucracy will be scrutinized in a manner that is inconsistent with the
generally accepted concepts of centralization.
However, despite parallels in patterns and attributes between ulema families
and the ulemazades, it would be an oversimplification to assert that every family held
substantial economic wealth and control. Consequently, instances may arise where a
33 G. Agoston and B. Masters, Encyplopedia of Ottoman Empire, 11.
34 Zeynep Altuntaş. "Tanzimat Döneminde Rumeli Kazaskerleri (1839-1861),” Journal of Anatolia
and Balkan Studies 6, no. 11 (2023): 171-201.
35 To make it clearer, around twenty-five posts belonged to the sons of Şeyhülislams and four
families; Dürrizade, Arabzade, Zeynelabidinzade, and Yasincizade. In fact, the other families such as
Meşrebzade have been presented in the posts.
21
Şeyhülislam, such as Kadızade Tahir Efendi, lacked a suitable residence in Istanbul
during the early stages of his career before ascending to prominent ilmiye positions.
Conversely, individuals like Mekkizade Mustafa Asım Efendi (1762-1846), arguably
the most affluent scholar of the Ottoman Empire, would later occupy the post of
Şeyhülislam. Notably, prominent ulema families managed to sustain and diversify
their land and property, even in the face of reforms that appeared to contradict their
interests. The influence of the Dürrizade family extended beyond their official
positions within the Ottoman administration. The family had a diverse range of
farmlands and properties located throughout Western Anatolia, with several holdings
generating significant income for the family for a remarkable duration of over fifty
years.36 The farms not only demonstrated the family's diversified sources but also
emphasized their lasting influence on the economic environment of the area.
Similarly, the Arabzade family demonstrated a parallel pattern, characterized by a
collection of farmlands and landholdings that enhanced their status as a
notable family.37 Likewise, the Arabzade family’s farmland in Küçükçemece,
Istanbul, witnessed a multitude of transfers within the family along with their
property in Kuzguncuk, Üsküdar.38
2.2. Bâb-ı Meşihat: A general portrayal of the Şeyhülislams (1790s to the 1890s)
The establishment of the office of Meşihat's first chief may be traced back to the
fourteenth century since Molla Fenari (1350-1431), who served as the kadi of Bursa
36 Dürrizade’s Pınarbaşı Mukataa located in Izmir, was belonged to the family for an extended period
of time. See. BOA, MVL/555-97 (1284/1867), ŞD/2999-41 (1317/1899).
37 Dürrizade and Arabzade families owned several farmlands located throughout Western Anatolia.
See. BOA,MKT.DV/222-16, ML.EEM./23-11 (1288/1871): According to this document, around 70
Circassian immagrants were sheltered in Dürrizade’s farmland while providing agricultural activities.
38 “Topkapı haricindeki Arabzade Çiftliği’nin İstanbul payelilerinden hafidi Mehmed Efendiye terki”
A. MKT. NZD. 241 55 H 25.03.1274, “Arabzade Hamdullah Efendinin Kuzguncuk’da ortaklık
suretiyle mutasarrıf olduğu boş arazinin satılması” İ.MVL 96 2039 H 15.06.1263.
22
for an extended period, is widely recognized as the first Şeyhülislam. During the
early sixteenth century, the tenure of Zenbilli Ali Efendi (1445-1526) from 1503 to
1526 marked a significant shift in the duties and authority of the Şeyhülislams. This
period witnessed a crucial role played by the scholarly profession in the selection and
appointment of individuals to this position. In other words, the appointment of the
Şeyhülislam necessitated the presence of a scholar who possessed a distinguished
educational background and professional trajectory within esteemed medrese
institutions, as per the explicit request of the Grand Vizier and subsequent
confirmation by the Sultan.39 During this era, it had been customary for the shift
from the Rumelia Kazasker to the post of Şeyhülislam to take place. During the midsixteenth
century, the scope of administrative responsibilities undertaken by the
Şeyhülislam experienced a notable expansion. By the end of the century, they had
attained a level of political influence inside the state that was comparable to that of
the vizier. In fact, Şeyhülislams were responsible for the appointment of the ilmiye
bureaucrats to the higher ranks.40
The seventeenth century witnessed significant transformations and
vulnerabilities within the state apparatus and the saltanat institution, which therefore
impacted the ilmiye profession and its leader, the Şeyhülislam.41 During that period,
the Şeyhülislam, Hocazade Mehmed Efendi (1568-1615), encountered challenges in
safeguarding the hierarchical structure of the ulema and maintaining control over
appointments.42 Thus, the Hocazade Mehmed Efendi’s attempts contributed to the
39 Beyazıt, “Osmanlı İlmiye Bürokrasisinde Şeyhülislamlığın Değişen Rolü ve Mülazemet Sistemi
(XVI.-XVIII. Yüzyıllar), 431-432.
40 Yakıt, “Osmanlı İlmiye Teşkilatı ve Şeyhülislamlar,” 21-22.
41 İlhami Yurdakul, Osmanlı İlmiye Merkez Teşkilatında Reform. İstanbul: İletişim, 2008.
Esra Yakut. Şeyhülislamlık: Yenileşme Döneminde Devlet ve Din. İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2005.
42 Sadık Tezin, “Osmanlı Devletinde Çok Yönlü Bir Ulema Ailesi: Hocazadeler” (PhD diss., Mimar
Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi, 2022), 159.
23
religious establishment that has endured over a span of five centuries. A total number
of 131 individuals have assumed the esteemed roles of muftis and Şeyhülislams
within the institution. The mean duration of employment for these individuals was
three and a half years. Ebussuud Efendi, Zenbilli Ali Efendi, and Mekkizade Mustafa
Asım Efendi were notable individuals who held significant positions for an extended
duration. Nonetheless, the extant body of studies posits that the institution of the
Şeyhülislam had achieved a substantial level of institutionalization by the
seventeenth century. As previously addressed, the Şeyhülislams and the broader
ilmiye functioned as a pivotal component within the administrative framework of the
Ottoman state. Their principal responsibilities encompassed the issuance of fetvas
addressing matters of religious, political, and societal significance, presiding over
legal proceedings within the court system, and assuming a bridging role between the
medrese educational system and higher echelons of both education and
bureaucracy.43
However, it is worth noting that the corpus of existing studies tends to
prioritize the institutional characteristics and developments of the Bab-ı Meşihat,
unintentionally neglecting the many perspectives from which the functions of
Şeyhülislams should be analyzed. At this point, it becomes relevant to provide a
chronological presentation of the Şeyhülislams of the era, accompanied by a concise
biographical and genealogical inquiry. By doing so, an overarching view of the
Şeyhülislams is provided, thereby setting the groundwork for an informed
exploration of the complexities within the present work, which aims to offer a
comprehensive grasp of the high-ranking ilmiye bureaucracy. Furthermore, it will be
43 Esra Yıldız, “Meşihat Arşivi Belgelerine Göre Şeyhülislamlığın Bürokratik Yapısı,” (PhD diss.,
İstanbul Üniversitesi, 2021), 15.
24
possible to discuss the correlation between the Şeyhülislam posts and Rumelia
Kazasker posts and both with the renowned ulema families.
Also, it is crucial to acknowledge that familial connections were not confined
solely to the ulema domain. Hence, in order to portray the family linkages within the
non-ilmiye bureaucracy, it is worth noting that the Sublime Porte exhibited a degree
of tolerance, and support, and occasionally even facilitated the advancement of pre-
Ottoman nobilities into the eighteenth century, before integrating them into the new
Tanzimat administration (1839-1878). Within this Ottomanization agenda, influential
notables skillfully maneuvered through changes in order to ensure that their offspring
and subsequent generations obtained official posts in Istanbul.44 Furthermore, the
practice of consolidating positions within the higher echelons of the ilmiye hierarchy,
including roles such as Şeyhülislam, judgeships in Rumelia and Anatolia, Istanbul
Great Müfti, and Haremeyn posts, was observed as a frequent and astute strategy in
the high bureaucracy. Therefore, it can be inferred that the most favorable path
towards a successful career in the bureaucracy frequently entailed establishing
connections with an ulema family, since it was seen that individuals from ulema
backgrounds predominantly occupied the most prestigious and lucrative positions. In
other cases, these positions were also made available to individuals who were either
biological or fictive offspring of other influential figures within the official elites.45
According to scholars like Zilfi and Carter Findley, this particular viewpoint posits
that the mechanisms for attaining bureaucratic advancement were predominantly
influenced by patronage. Nevertheless, it is advisable to have a cautious attitude
44 Bouquet, “Old Elites in a New Republic: The Reconversion of Ottoman Bureaucratic Families in
Turkey (1909-1939),” 588.
45 Faroqhi, “Civilian Society and Political Power in the Ottoman Empire: A Report on Research in
Collective Biography (1480-1830),” 109-117.
25
towards this concept, as it becomes apparent that although patronage played a
significant role, it was not the only factor that determined the professional paths of
ulema individuals.46
In this context, it is worth considering Findley's explication of elites, which
serves as a fitting exemplification. Findley conducts a prosopographical analysis of
the bureaucrats employed in the foreign ministry of the Late Ottoman Empire. The
author keenly notes that the subject under examination is the social group known as
Ottoman civil officialdom. It is suggested that this group may be more accurately
characterized as "preponderant" rather than merely "elite” under specific
socioeconomic circumstances.47 Moreover, it can be discussed that despite the
Tanzimat centralization agenda effectively curbing dynastic powers, several families
were able to retain their local authority and social reputation. In Istanbul, a similar
pattern was seen, wherein the state effectively fostered nepotism while official
measures were made to curb its prevalence.48
Consequently, the Tanzimat era witnessed the sway of particular families
within the high bureaucracy in defiance of centralization policies. Nonetheless, the
ascendancy and monopoly of specific ulema families within the upper echelons of
the bureaucracy do not imply a rigid and immutable organizational structure. The
Şeyhülislams in the period under consideration contribute to the assertion that a
significant majority among them were affiliated with prominent ulema families.
Notably, the majority represented religious elites of Istanbul, with the presence of
local-origin (taşralı) Şeyhülislams constituting a minority subset. Overall,
47 Findley, Bureaucratic Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 14.
48 Christoph Neumann, “Elites’ Networks and Mobility” in A Companion to Early Modern Istanbul,
ed. Shirine Hamadeh and Çiğdem Kafescioğlu (Leiden: Brill, 2022), 114-143.
26
Şeyhülislams of the period are presented on a timeline below, underlying their tenure
duration and the reasons they were dismissed from the Meşihat’s chief post, which
can be seen below.
II. Abdulhamid
1876 - 1909
Salihzade
Ahmed Esad
Efendi
1803 - 1806
1st
Hamidizade
Mustafa
Efendi
1789 - 1791
Şerifzade Ataullah
Mehmed Efendi
1806 – 1807
1st
Sâmânizade
Ömer Hulusi
Efendi
1800 – 1803
1st
Dürrizade
Mehmed
Arif Efendi
1791 - 1792
2nd
Seyit Yahya
Tevfik Efendi
1791
Mekki
Mehmed
Efendi
1791 - 1792
Mustafa Aşir
Efendi
1798 - 1800
Sâmânizade
Ömer Hulusi
Efendi
1807
2nd
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Arapzade
Mehmed Arif
Efendi
1808
11
Şerifzade
Ataullah
Mehmed
Efendi
1807 – 1808
2nd
10
Dürrizade
Abdullah
Efendi
1808 - 1810
Salihzade
Ahmed Esad
Efendi
1808
2nd
12
13
Sâmânizade
Ömer Hulusi
Efendi
1810 – 1812
3rd
14
Dürrizade
Abdullah
Efendi
1812 - 1815
15
Mehmed
Zeynelabidin
Efendi
1815 - 1818
16
Mekkizade
Mustafa Asım
Efendi
1818 – 1819
1st
17
Çerkez Halil
Efendi
1819 - 1821
18
Yasincizade
Abdülvehhab
Efendi
1821 – 1822
1st
19
Mekkizade
Mustafa Asım
Efendi
1823 – 1825
2nd
21
Ahmed Reşid
Efendi
1822 - 1823
20
Kadızade
Mehmed
Tahir Efendi
1825 - 1828
22
Yasincizade
Abdülvehhab
Efendi
1828 – 1833
2nd
23
Mekkizade
Mustafa
Asım
Efendi
1833 – 1846
3rd
24
Ahmed Arif
Hikmet Bey
Efendi
1846 - 1854
25
Meşrepzade
Mehmed Arif
Efendi
1854 - 1858
35
V.
Murad
Abdulaziz
1861 - 1876
Abdülmecid
1839 - 1861
Atıfzade
Hüsameddin
Efendi
1863 - 1866
26
28
II. Mahmut
1808 - 1839
III. Selim
1789 - 1807
36
Mehmed
Sadeddin
Efendi
1858 - 1863
27
Mehmed
Refik Efendi
1866 - 1868
29
Hasan Fehmi
Efendi
1868 - 1871
30
Turşucuzade
Ahmed
Muhtar
Efendi
1872 - 1874
32
Ahmed
Muhtar
Molla Bey
Efendi
1871 – 1872
1st
31
Hasan
Hayrullah
Efendi
1874
1st
33
Hasan
Fehmi
Efendi
1874 - 1876
34
37
38
39
Hasan
Hayrullah
Efendi
1876 – 1877
2nd
Kara Halil
Efendi
1877 - 1878
Ahmed
Muhtar
Molla Bey
Efendi
1878
2nd
Bodrumlu
Ömer Lütfi
Efendi
1889 - 1891
Uryanizade
Ahmed Esad
Efendi
1878 - 1889
Figure 1. Timeline of the Şeyhülislams (1790-1890)49
49 Şeyhülislams served the office and gained a tenure more than once are represented with a bold
circle while the numbers refer to the tenures, not the number of the Şeyhülislams.
27
Name Tenure Reason
Hamidizade Mustafa Efendi 1789-1791 Dismissal
Yahya Tevfik Efendi 1791 Dismissal
Mekki Mehmed Efendi 1791-1792 Dismissal
Dürrizade Mehmed Arif Efendi 1791-1792 Dismissal
Mustafa Aşir Efendi 1798-1800 Dismissal
Samanizade Ömer Hulusi Efendi 1800-1803, 1807, 1810-1812 Dismissal, Resignation
Salihzade Ahmed Esad Efendi 1803-1806, 1808 Dismissal
Şerifzade Mehmed Ataullah Efendi 1806-1807, 1807-1808 Dismissal
Arabzade Mehmed Arif Efendi 1808 Dismissal
Dürrizade Abdullah Efendi 1808-1810, 1812-1815 Dismissal
Mehmed Zeynelabidin Efendi 1815-1818 Dismissal
Mekkizade Mustafa Asım Efendi 1818-1819, 1823-1825, 1833-1846 Dismissal, Death
Çerkez Halil Efendi 1819-1821 Dismissal
Yasincizade Abdülvehhab Efendi 1821-1822, 1828-1833 Dismissal
Sıdkizade Ahmed Reşid Efendi 1822-1823 Dismissal
Kadızade Mehmed Tahir Efendi 1825-1828 Resignation
Ahmed Arif Hikmet Efendi 1846-1854 Death
Meşrebzade Mehmed Arif Efendi 1854-1858 Death
Mehmed Sadeddin Efendi 1858-1863 Dismissal
Atıfzade Ömer Hüsameddin Efendi 1863-1866 Dismissal
Mehmed Refik Efendi 1866-1868 Dismissal
Akşehirli Hasan Fehmi Efendi 1868-1871 Dismissal
Mir Ahmed Muhtar Beyefendi 1874, 1878 Dismissal
Turşucuzade Ahmed Muhtar Efendi 1872-1874 Dismissal
Hasan Hayrullah Efendi 1874 Dismissal
Kara Halil Efendi 1877-1878 Dismissal
Üryanizade Ahmed Esad Efendi 1878-1889 Death
Bodrumlu Ömer Lütfi Efendi 1889-1891 Dismissal
Cemaleddin Efendi 1891-1908 Resignation
Figure 2. Reasons for the termination of the Şeyhülislam tenures (1790-1890)
The three Şeyhülislams who held their positions the longest throughout the
one hundred and twenty years that spanned from Selim III to Abdülhamid II were
28
Cemaleddin Efendi (17 years), Mekkizade Mustafa Asım Efendi (16 years), and
Üryanizade Ahmed Esad Efendi (11 years). Ahmed Arif Hikmet Bey, who followed
these three names, held the office for eight years. It should be noted that throughout
this time period, there were a total of thirty different Şeyhülislams and forty different
tenures. Similarly, considering that the Şeyhülislam served in the office for an
average of three and a half years throughout Ottoman history, it can be said that the
recruitment of most of these Şeyhülislams was short-lived.50 Likewise, the fathers of
virtually all of these Şeyhülislams were members of the ilmiye class, with a few
exceptions, such as Çerkes Halil Efendi, who was a slave recruiter, and Hasan
Hayrullah Efendi, the son of a shipyard surveyor.
Nevertheless, the first striking comment on the social profiles of the
Şeyhülislams of this period is that the Şeyhülislams who served before Mekkizade
Mustafa Asım Efendi were members of the prominent ulema families, and most of
their fathers were even Şeyhülislams. However, this was not the case for those
appointed afterward. As a matter of fact, according to İlhami Yurdakul, the
Şeyhülislams following Mustafa Asım Efendi kept a low profile. Similarly, highlevel
ulema and softas (students in the medreses) participated actively in the internal
political concerns of the era, such as the Kuleli Vakası, which was a rebellion and
assassination attempt against Sultan Abdülmecid in 1859.51 However, according to
the tradition within the ilmiye officialdom, the dismissed Şeyhülislams were not
given any other post until the second half of the nineteenth century, with one or two
exceptions. However, in 1868 Atıfzade Hüsameddin Efendi (1799-1871) obtained
50 İpşirli, “Şeyhülislam”, TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi 39 (2010): 91-96.
51 Zekeriya Türkmen, “Kuleli Vakası,” TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, 26 (2002): 356-357. İlhami
Yurdakul, “Gelenek ve Değişim Sürecinde Tanzimat Devri Şeyhülislamları” in Sultan Abdülmecid ve
Dönemi (1823-1861) eds. Kemal Kahraman and Ilona Baytar, İstanbul: İBB Kültür AŞ., 2011.
29
membership in the Meclis-i Âli after his dismissal from Şeyhülislamlık, which
changed this practice.52
Nevertheless, it would not be consistent to claim that all of the Şeyhülislam
who held the office after Mekkizade Mustafa Asım had a low profile based on factors
such as the fact that virtually none of them were the son of a Şeyhülislam and that
they did not come from a prominent family. In this respect, the vertical and
horizontal kinship networks, as well as the seaside mansions where they resided,
offer one of the new debates through which this claim might be contested. As a
matter of fact, with the exception of one or two specific cases, all of the
Şeyhülislams that came after Mustafa Asım belonged to families that can be
categorized as ulema families. To put it differently, the idea that Şeyhülislams
remained low profile after Mustafa Asım Efendi can be questioned and discussed.
For instance, both Yasincizade Abdülvehhab’s father and grandfather were Şeyhs of
Hekim Çelebi Lodge. In addition, his son, Ilmî Efendi (d. 1872), was Nakibüleşraf
and Rumelia Judge, while his grandson Mehmed Nuri Efendi (d. 1889) served as the
Kadı of Mecca. Furthermore, after Mustafa Asım Efendi's demise in 1846, Arif
Hikmet Bey, born into a bureaucratic family, served as Şeyhülislam for eight years.
The library that bears Arif Hikmet Bey's name contains approximately six thousand
volumes of books.53 In addition, Hikmet Bey's career sheds light on the practices of
the Tanzimat and ilmiye bureaucracies. For instance, one year after becoming the
Rumelia Kazasker in 1838, he was appointed to the Vala-yı Ahkam-ı Adliye.
Afterward, he was designated Rumelia's Inspector (Müfettiş) and a member of the
Meclis-i Maarif.54 As mentioned above, Mustafa Asım Efendi’s latest tenure before
52 İpşirli, “Atıfzade Hüsemaeddin”, 18, (1998): 513.
53 Bilge, “Arif Hikmet Bey Kütüphanesi”, 3 (1991): 366-67.
54 Ibid. 365-366.
30
his demise shall be outlined as a turning point for the Bab-ı Meşihat, which shall
need to be questioned. However, Meşrebzade Mehmed Arif Efendi (1791-1858), who
came from an ulema family, Mehmed Sadeddin Efendi (1798-1866), also from an
ilmiye family, and ultimately Atıfzade Hüsameddin Efendi (1799-1871), who came
from a political elite family, ruled the Bab-ı Meşihat from 1858 until 1866. Atıfzade's
career was also concentrated on Tanzimat reforms and was molded by institutions
such as the Encümen-i Daniş, Meclis-i Maarif, and Meclis-i Intihab-ı Nüvvab-ı
Şer’.55 Between 1866 and 1868, Mehmed Refik Efendi (1814-1871) occupied the
position of Şeyhülislam for two years. Refik Efendi was born in Bosnia and was a
member of the Hacıabdic family. He began working in the ilmiye bureaucracy in his
homeland and arrived in Istanbul at a very late date. Refik Efendi began his career in
the fetva office and the Evkaf Müfettişliği Kalemi.56 In 1845, Mekkizade Mustafa
Asım Efendi appointed him to the relatively elevated position of Fetva Eminliği.57
Between 1868-1871 and 1874-1876, Hasan Fehmi Efendi (1796-1881) served as
Şeyhülislam for nearly five years. Fehmi Efendi, who was born in Akşehir, and one
of the taşralı Şeyhülislams, gave lectures at the Hagia Sophia Mosque and garnered
acclaim for them, was subsequently appointed as Şehzade Abdülaziz Efendi's
grammar and Arabic literature instructor. In 1862, he became Sultan Abdülaziz's
teacher and was granted the title muallim-i sultani. Hasan Fehmi Efendi, after Hoca
Sadeddin Efendi (1536-1599) and Seyyid Feyzullah Efendi (1639-1703), will be the
third and final Şeyhülislam to be both Şeyhülislam and muallim-i sultani and to be
conferred the title of camiur-riyaseteyn.58 Turşucuzade Ahmed Muhtar Efendi (1823-
1875) served as Şeyhülislam for nearly two years between 1872 and 1874. He was
55 İpşirli, “Atıfzade Hüsemaeddin”, 18, (1998): 513.
56 Muhammed Aruçi, “Mehmed Refik Efendi”, 28, (2003): 517-518.
57 İlmiye Salnamesi pp. 596-599, Sicilli Osmani II p. 415.
58 lmiye Salnamesi pp. 599-601.
31
also a member of Divan-ı Ahkam-ı Adliyye and the müfti chief for Dar-ı Şura Askeri,
as the high-ranking ilmiye bureaucracy remained a substantial presence within the
other components of the governance. However, as mentioned above, it is noteworthy
that during the Tanzimat era, there were a few instances of opposing the traditional
appointment of the Şeyhülislams. For example, Sultan Abdülaziz impressed by one
of Ahmed Muhtar Efendi's sermons designated him Şeyhzade Yusuf Izzettin Efendi's
private tutor. According to sources, it was considered a slight that he did not board
the meşihat boat and instead took the municipal ferry to Kadıköy. Shortly after his
dismissal in 1874, he perished in his mansion in Kızıltoprak.59 On the other hand,
Üryanizade Ahmed Esad Efendi (1814-1889) served as Şeyhülislam for nearly a
decade and a significant portion of Abdülhamid II's 33-year-long and turbulent rule.
Esad Efendi was the descendant of Mehmed Said Efendi, one of the kadis during the
reign of Mahmud II. According to sources, he was a descendant of the distinguished
scholar Osman el-Uryani, who moved to Istanbul in the seventeenth century from
Aleppo.60
Similar to Ahmed Muhtar Molla Efendi (1807-1882), Hasan Hayrullah
Efendi (1834-1898) and Kara Halil Efendi (1804-1880) served the office for a short
period. Bodrumlu Omer Lutfi Efendi (1818-1897), grandson of
Bodrumlu Hacı Omer and son of Hacı Mehmed Efendi, one of the few Şeyhülislams
of provincial origin, succeeded him. His dismissal between 1889 and 1891 was
influenced by the report of an informant, Cemaleddin Efendi, Bodrumlu Efendi’s
correspondent (mektupçu) at the time and the future-famous Şeyhülislam of
Abdülhamid II.61 In addition to teaching Yusuf İzzettin Efendi, he served as the chief
59 İlmiye Salnamesi pp. 604-605
60 İlmiye Salnamesi pp. 609-612, Sicilli Osmani I p. 344.
61 İlmiye Salnamesi, pp. 612-614.
32
of the Department of Temyiz-i Hukuk (Apellent Law), one of the novel structures of
the Tanzimat, as did other scholars of high rank. Lastly, Cemaleddin Efendi (1848-
1919) was the son of Kazasker Halid Efendi and grandson of Şeyh Yusuf Efendi, one
of the Kazasker of Mahmud II's era. His mother's father, Said Kevakibi, was also a
Rumelia Kazasker. The deposition of Sultan Abdülaziz and Sultan Murad on the
basis of fetvas issued by the office of the Meşihat prompted Sultan Abdülhamid II to
appoint a person whom he could trust and Cemaleddin Efendi was promoted from
being a correspondent to the position of Şeyhülislam, contrary to the established
scholarly tradition.62 However, Cemaleddin Efendi’s biography will not be adressed
in detail. Yet, Cemaleddin Efendi’s accomplishments were not excluded from being a
member of a prestigious ulema family, which has been a shared pattern among the
ulemazades. Overall, this section outlined and briefly listed the Şeyhülislams most of
whom belong to the ulema families of the previous century. Hence, the concept of
the ulemazades and the dominant ulema families of the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries shall be emphasized briefly in order to portray a closer analysis.
2.3. Ulema families: A genealogy
The learned hierarchy followed a path that was primarily paved by individual
scholars during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Indeed, highly influential
and authoritative figures such as Zenbilli Ali Efendi and Ebussud Efendi can be cited
who come to mind when one thinks of Ottoman ulema. Nevertheless, the fact that
Feyzullah Efendi, one of the victims of the Edirne Vakası of 1703, as well as his
patrimonial relations and descendants, obtained a place in the ilmiye hierarchy can
be seen as a remarkable turning point.63 Likewise, as mentioned earlier, only a few
62 İlmiye Salnamesi, pp. 615-616.
63 Zilfi, The Politics of Piety, 288.
33
great families dominated the ilmiye bureaucracy in this century. In this regard, the
terms family and lineage can be used to refer to the bureaucratic culture of patrimony
that is inherited from father to son and other close relatives. To put it differently, one
might describe the families and lineages as the communities that extend from father
to son and other relatives and that have been involved in the ilmiye bureaucracy in
this regard. However, despite the exceptional privileges of belonging to a great
ulema family, it is unlikely that anyone could have risen to the highest levels of the
ilmiye without any education or being part of a hierarchical organization. In addition,
the ulema families did not make their way through patrimony alone but maintained
their family privileges by establishing kinship through social acquisitions such as
marriage. In addition to this, the idea of an ulema family and lineage may be found in
a variety of Muslim societies, which was not limited to the Ottoman context. These
families were often regarded as active recipients of transformation. For example,
during the nineteenth century, there were ulema families in Syria that branched out as
aristocratic and ayan families, as well as families that played an active role in the
1857 Indian Revolt.64 In order to enhance the scope and identification of an ulema
family, one might underline the fact that the education and primary training are
conducted in the family’s household. That is to say, a large number of Ottoman
scholars got their initial education inside the setting of their families, most frequently
from their fathers or grandfathers. The prospective scholars who were exceptionally
fortunate to have their elders as personal mentors beginning in their early infancy
also benefited from the presence of intellectuals and family friends who visited the
houses of the young people who would eventually become scholars. In fact, initial
64 Tahazades, a significant Hanafi ulema family from Aleppo who had dominated the nakibüleşraf
posts can be given as an example. See. Jane Hathaway, Karl Barbir. The Arab Lands under Ottoman
Rule, 92.
34
examples of scholars who obtained their first training at home can be given from the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, which can be found in the nineteenth century’s
scholars.65
However, the Ottoman state had a widespread occurrence of children
pursuing the same professions as their fathers, spanning a diverse range of sectors,
including craftsmanship and military service. Nevertheless, this particular pattern
exhibited a distinctive manifestation within the ilmiye class, which experienced a
notable tendency that arose in the seventeenth century and then spread during the
eighteenth century. This phenomenon involved the increasing importance of
belonging to ulema households as a crucial determinant in obtaining prestigious
bureaucratic posts inside the Ottoman administrative structure. The act of bestowing
privileges upon the descendants of ulema had increased in prominence during the
leadership of Hoca Saadeddin Efendi in the seventeenth century.66 The Hocazade
family is a prominent illustration in the realm of Şeyhülislams, with six family
members assuming the esteemed position of Şeyhülislam and an additional four
members attaining the ranks of Kazasker. This highlights the influential contribution
of the Hocazade family, similar to the Dürrizade and Ebuishakzade families, who
were efficient contributors to the high-ranks of the religious establishment.
Undoubtedly, during the eighteenth century, the higher ranks of the Ottoman
ilmiye bureaucracy were prominently controlled by particular ulema families
originating from Istanbul. Zilfi asserts that the old ulemazades, in conjunction with
65 In reality, sons of the ulema’s fortune as being able to be educated by their fathers and grandfathers
can be seen even in the scholars of the fifteenth century. See. Shakir, Aziz Nazmi “Ordinary and
Extraordinary Ottoman Scholar Types in Fifteenth Century Edirne as Seen in Taşköprülüzade’s
Şekâ’iku’n-Nu’mâniyye fî ‘Ulemâ’id-Devleti’l-‘Osmâniyye and Mecdî’s Hadâ’iku’ş-Şekâik” Journal
of the Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association, 3 no.1 (May 2016): 49-88.
66 Sadık Tezin, “Osmanlı Devletinde Çok Yönlü Bir Ulema Ailesi: Hocazadeler”, PhD diss., Mimar
Sinan University, 2022.
35
the Şeyhülislam families, exerted significant influence in shaping the bureaucratic
framework. In the case of a descendant of ulema, the mere fact of being born into an
ulema family frequently proved adequate in ensuring a post within the ilmiye,
therefore bypassing the necessity for further accomplishments. Between the years
1703 and 1839, which encompasses Sultan Ahmed III's ascension and the demise of
Mahmud II, the influence of three prominent families - the Dürrizades,
Ebuishakzades, and Feyzullahzades - was evident in the appointment of thirteen out
of the fifty-eight Şeyhülislams and twenty out of the seventy-six Şeyhülislam
tenures. However, the professional journeys of these ulema persons did not adhere to
a particular trajectory; instead, they mirrored the trajectory of other bureaucratic
elements, such as the kalemiye (civil bureaucracy) and seyfiye (military).67 Alongside
the Sultans and those holding prominent positions in the seyfiye and kalemiye, the
ulema often formed a wide range of arrangements within their households.
According to Suraiya Faruqhi, it is worth noting that while patronage relationships in
domains beyond the ilmiye were frequently characterized by informality and
personalization, the ulema successfully established a formalized structure for such
partnerships.68 In fact, ulema lineages tended to enhance their patronage by building
marital relations. To illustrate, Mirzazade Mehmed Efendi’s daughter was married to
Ebuishakzade Mehmed Esad Efendi (1685-1753) as their daughter Zübeyde Fitnat
Hanım (d. 1780) was married to Nakibüleşraf Mehmed Derviş Efendi (d. 1790).
Another example can be exemplified by Pirizade Osman Sahib Efendi’s (1710-1770)
daughter Aişe Hanım (d. 1813) was married to Kazasker İbrahim Bey (d. 1796), who
also had a proper kinship with Şeyhülislam Zeynelabidin Efendi (d. 1824).
67 Zilfi, The Politics of Piety, 288.
68 Faroqhi, Civilian Society and Political Power in the Ottoman Empire: A Report on Research in
Collective Biography (1480-1830), 112.
36
Furthermore, the remaining patronage relations with reference to marital
interconnection can be extended beyond the eighteenth century’s cases. To illustrate,
Sıdkızade Ahmed Raşid Efendi’s (1758-1834) daughter Naile Hanım (d. 1856) was
married to Meşrebzade Mehmed Arif Efendi (1791-1858), a Şeyhülislam of the
Tanzimat era, who also belongs to a prominent Meşrebzade ulema family.
Nevertheless, the scope of an ulema family and the patronage formed by
ilmiye lineages of the eighteenth century can be questioned in order to have a
portrayal during the nineteenth century. Hence, a minute detail outline of the
Şeyhülislams and peculiar ulema families are the subjects of this chapter.
Furthermore, this study aims to examine the methods through which ulema families
established their patronage in different domains. While Zilfi's claim mainly pertains
to the nineteenth century, its applicability is enhanced by examining the timeline of
Şeyhülislams. With the exception of a limited number of cases, the bulk of the thirty
Şeyhülislams who served between 1789 and 1909, occasionally holding several
positions, originated from Istanbul and were affiliated with ilmiye lineages. Zilfi's
claims are further supported by the fact that sixteen individuals in the group had links
with esteemed ilmiye families of the previous century. Following the Mekkizade
Mustafa Asım, a shift is noticeable wherein Şeyhülislams of provincial origins
(referred to as taşralı) or those whose fathers occupied lower-level posts, such as
shipyard surveyor, began to occupy the position of Şeyhülislam. The aforementioned
transition was facilitated due to their affiliations with the palace and the sultan,
thereby underscoring the significance of interpersonal contacts within the
bureaucratic structure. Upon doing an in-depth examination of the historical
37
sequence of Şeyhülislams, it becomes evident that some urban families exerted a
significant effect, thus constituting the focus of the forthcoming chapter.69
Within this particular context, the promotion of individuals who originated
from provincial backgrounds or lacked familial connections to the ulema to the
prestigious position of Şeyhülislam, as well as their subsequent advancement within
the bureaucratic hierarchy following Mustafa Asım Efendi, was notably shaped by
their close proximity to the palace and their personal relationship with the sultan.
This highlights the fact that Şeyhülislams such as Turşucuzade Ahmed Muhtar
Efendi and Bodrumlu Ömer Efendi essentially attained their positions of leadership
within the office through their solid connections and favorable circumstances linked
to the imperial dynasty, particularly the ruling sultan. As previously stated, the
chronological representation of the Şeyhülislams reveals the growing prominence of
certain urban families and their impact. In addition to the claims made by Madeline
Zilfi, it becomes apparent that a multitude of families had an active role in shaping
the highest levels of the ilmiye bureaucracy from the late eighteenth to the late
nineteenth century. The aforementioned inquiry highlights that the newly emerging
ulema families, such as the Zeynelabidinzades70, as well as familial lineages without
immediate successors, such as the Mekkizades, exerted significant influence
within this dynamic landscape. When considering the larger context, one cannot
disregard the significant role played by the Dürrizades, a family that produced six
Şeyhülislams, as well as the Arabzades, who served in the religious establishment for
almost three centuries. This remarkable longevity is a witness to their lasting impact
on their survival throughout the nineteenth century.
69 İlmiye Salnamesi, pp. 605-607.
70 Rumelia Kazaskers Zeynelabidinzade Cemaleddin Efendi and Zeynelabidinzade Imaduddin Efendi
could be mentioned as they served for the higher ranks of the ilmiye officialdom for over two decades.
38
At the core of this argument lies the prominent presence of Mekkizade
Mustafa Asım and his prosperous family, who may be considered one of the most
opulent households among the Ottoman Şeyhülislams. The significance of these
instances resonates throughout the historical narrative, offering insight into the
complex relationship between socioeconomic power and bureaucratic governance
within the Ottoman context. Furthermore, the objective of this study is to provide a
concise and inclusive examination of the ulema families, enabling a thorough
investigation of their residential consolidation in the regions around the Anatolian
and Rumelian Fortresses situated on either side of the Bosphorus. Despite the fact
that the present study aims to portray the microcosm of social life on the shores of
Bebek and Rumelihisarı, particular shores of the Anatolian side of the Bosphorus
faced a similar consolidation of the ilmiye. Hence, this thesis aims to reveal the
intricate examination of the sociopolitical geography that influenced the residential
domination of particular families in critical locations.
Commencing with the Mekkizade family, the lineage can be traced back to
Mehmed Efendi, who was the son of Halil Efendi. Halil Efendi held the position of
Kadi of Mecca and then assumed the post of Şeyhulislam for a one-year period, a
position he obtained in his senior years. The family’s name comes from Halil
Efendi’s tenure as a Judge of Mecca as his son Mehmed was born in Mecca and later
known as “Mekki Efendi.”71 During this limited period, Mehmed Efendi's influence
was significant, resulting in a lasting heritage that spanned several endeavors.
Among these were regular lectures at Fatih Mosque, the organization of an annual
religious celebration (mevlid) at Pertek Ali Mosque in Rumelihisarı, and the supply
of nourishment to the poorer in the vicinity during certain events. Significantly, he
71 Mehmed Süreyya, Sicill-i Osmani, IV, 508.
39
bequeathed a considerable inheritance to his successor, Mustafa Asım Efendi. The
individual in question had previously occupied the esteemed role of Şeyhulislam on
three distinct times, a noteworthy accomplishment that firmly established his status
as one of the most tenured members of the ilmiye bureaucracy within the state.72
Notably, he bequeathed a substantial fortune to his successor, Mustafa Asım Efendi.
In the subsequent components of this thesis, a deeper exploration of the Mekkizade
lineage and their association with the opulent seaside mansion belonging to Mustafa
Asım Efendi, situated in Rumelihisarı, will be presented. This particular mansion and
its households will be utilized as a representative case study, enabling a detailed
portrayal of the living environment that characterized a prosperous and vital
Şeyhülislam.
Turning to the Dürrizades, the family's historical roots extend back to the
early eighteenth century, with Dürri Mehmed Efendi (d.1736) emerging as the first
recognized member. Despite the fact that there is a lack of information about the
family’s name “Dürri", one can underline that the term means “shining like a pearl.”
The father of Dürri Mehmed, İlyas Bey, originated from Ankara. Although there is
less historical information available about him, his son, Dürri Mehmed Efendi,
surpassed the traditional medrese education and achieved notable positions within
the ilmiye bureaucracy. This progression finally led to his respected appointment as
Seyhülislam. The family's trajectory reached a significant turning point when Dürri
Mehmed Efendi entered into matrimony with the Babazade Sinan family, who are
the offspring of Reisülulema Abdülkadir Efendi. The formation of this partnership
resulted in an increase in their power within the ilmiye hierarchy, so establishing the
basis for the family's long-lasting authority.73 The Dürrizade family is characterized
72 İlmiye Salnamesi, pp. 557-559.
73 İpşirli, “Mekki Mehmed Efendi,” 28, (2003): 577-578.
40
by their distinct appellations, such as "hadedanı kadim" (the ancient dynasty) and
"aile-yi paknihad" (family of noble purity), which serve to denote their extraordinary
social standing. A distinguishing characteristic of renowned ulema families is the
uninterrupted succession of keeping ilmiye offices over generations. The
intergenerational continuity observed within ulema homes is a notable aspect. The
enduring influence of the Dürrizade family is shown by their notable contribution of
six Şeyhülislams and a multitude of esteemed ilmiye officials. The long-lasting
impact of their work serves as evidence of their significance and relevance within the
Mesihat.74 The family’s ilmiye office line continues with Mustafa Efendi, Mehmed
Efendi’s elder son, who obtained Seyhülislamlık three times, whereas his younger
son Nureddin died young.75 As provided below in the genealogy, the Dürrizade
family’s contributions to the religious establishment can be seen in minute detail.
Directing attention towards the Arabzade family, it is noteworthy that their
historical influence extends over an impressive duration of three centuries, during
which they have actively served within the ilmiye bureaucracy. The lineage of the
family may be traced back to Arab Abdurrahman Efendi, whose son, Abdülvehhab,
achieved notable accomplishments in state service during the year 1671, as the
family’s name comes from Abdurrahman Efendi. After servicing as an imam for
Süleymaniye Mosque, Abdülvehhab Efendi was appointed as muallim-i sultani
(private tutor) for Sultan Süleyman II in 1687 following his death in 1689.76
Although there is less information available on the particular details of Arab
Abdurrahman Efendi's life during the seventeenth century, it is noteworthy that his
74 Dürri Mehmed Efendi, Dürrizade Mustafa Efendi, Dürrizade Mehmed Ataullah Efendi, Dürrizade
Mehmed Arif Efendi, Dürrizade Abdullah Efendi, Dürrizade Abdullah Beyefendi, Sicilli Ahval, İlmiye
Salnamesi
75 İpşirli, “Dürrizadeler”, 10 (1991): 38-39.
76 Şeyhi, Vakaiyül Fuzala IV, 91.
41
son, Arabzade Ali Efendi, had a significant role in establishing a lineage that
encompassed many positions in the fields of education, judiciary, and religious
consultation.77 It is worth mentioning that Ali Efendi held the position of imam at
Şeyhzade Mosque, which was associated with the imperial establishment. The
individual who played a pivotal role in the ilmiye hierarchy was Abdurrahman Bahir
Efendi (1688-1746), the grandson of Ali Efendi. The individual's ascension to the
office of the second imperial imam under Ahmed III facilitated significant
bureaucratic accomplishments. The individual's role as the chief imam78 to the
sultan, imam-ı sultani, for a period exceeding twenty years had notable importance
within the hierarchical structure of the empire.79 The aforementioned standing
ultimately resulted in his appointment as the Rumelia Judge in 1745, a crucial
turning point that laid the foundation for the family's rise in prominence.80
The impact of Abdurrahman Bahir Efendi's participation in the upper
echelons of the ilmiye bureaucracy had a profound effect on the subsequent
generations of his family, enabling them to strengthen their authority within the
hierarchical structure. Mehmed Sadık Efendi (1717-1786), the eldest son, carried on
his father's heritage by inheriting the position of Rumelia Judgeship.81 Likewise,
Ahmed Ataullah Efendi (1719-1785), the son of Bahir Efendi, attained the esteemed
positions of Anatolia and Rumelia Judgeship, followed by a two month tenure as
Şeyhülislam in 1785 prior to his death. Lastly, the other son of Bahir Efendi, Ali Rıza
Efendi (d. 1771), served as Judge of Yenişehir (Larissa). The strategic elevation in
77 Süreyya, Sicill-I Osmani, 3: 320.
78 Baltacı, “Hünkâr İmamı,” 18 (1998): 487-88.
79 Arzu Güldöşüren. “Üç Asır İstanbullu Bir Ulema Ailesi: Arabzadeler” Divan 23 no. 45 (2018/2):
27-79.
80 Altuntaş, Z. "Tanzimat Döneminde Rumeli Kazaskerleri (1839-1861)", 171-201.
81 Süreyya, Sicill-i Osmani, 3: 190-191.
42
question likely strengthened the family's connections with the Ottoman dynasty. The
Arabzade family maintained a continuous presence within the ilmiye bureaucracy
throughout the nineteenth century. Arabzade Mehmed Rıza Bey (1883-1893) serves
as a notable illustration, having held a lengthy position as an Istanbul Judge.82
The ensuing discourse explores the genealogical paths of the prominent
families that had significant sway within the Ottoman ilmiye administration,
complemented by brief biographical accounts. In addition to these lineages, the
genealogies of other prominent families, such as Ebuishakzades, are also examined
in this chapter. These families have played a significant role in nurturing a lineage of
Şeyhülislams and ilmiye bureaucrats, and their contributions are duly acknowledged.
A noteworthy aspect is found in the remarkable occurrence whereby the lineage of
the Ebuishakzades demonstrate a succession of Şeyhülislams over four
generations—beginning with Ebu İshak İsmail Efendi (1645-1725), followed by his
son Mehmed Esad Efendi (1685-1753), then his grandson Mehmed Şerif Efendi
(1717-1790), and concluding with the latter's son, Mehmed Ataullah Efendi (1760-
1811). The remarkable consistency of this lineage serves as evidence of the family's
deep-rooted legacy within the administrative framework. Following this, a
comprehensive examination of Ataullah Efendi, the final Şeyhülislam in this lineage,
who serves as a prime example of the family's presence in the Şeyhülislam office.83
Last but not least, these prominent ulema families remained present on the shores of
the Bosphorus for an extended period of time as their seaside mansions will be the
topic of the following part of the thesis.
In conclusion, the upcoming chapter not only identifies the primary sources
that are crucial to this study but also conducts a short examination of the architectural
82 Arabzade Mehmed Rıza (Ulema Sicil Dosyaları, 0420 01).
83 Ibid.
43
and urban aspects related to seaside mansions. The investigative approach aligns
with the discussion surrounding the social changes that occurred, characterized by a
significant movement from the old city to the Bosphorus shoreline in the early
eighteenth century. This migration (göç) serves as a fundamental basis for the
subsequent discourse on ulema families as well. In fact, a tendency towards
ostentation through the opulent seaside mansions during the nineteenth century
remained, which can be seen in the chronicles of the time. However, in the
genealogies of the ulema families, a number of claims, such as the patronage
networks of high-level ulema, bureaucratic positions passed down from father to son,
the ties established by families through marriage, and the fact that some family
members lived in the same sahilhane stand out. Likewise, the women (wives and
daughters of the ulema) identified from the ulema families are shown in the tables
and can be considered as a general survey, which enables the view of the ulema
individuals as well as preparing the ground for further household analysis.84
84 On the genealogies below, Şeyhülislams are shown in green, and Kazaskers and judges are shown
in blue. On the other hand women are shown in purple.
44
Figure 3. Genealogy of the Dürrizade family
Dürri Mehmed Efendi
(b?-d.1736)
Şeyhülislam
Dürrizade Mustafa
Efendi (1702-1775)
Şeyhülislam
Şerife Aişe Hanım
(b.?-d.?)
Dürrizade Nureddin
Efendi (b.?-1722)
Müderris
Dürrizade M.
Ataullah (1729-1785)
Şeyhülislam
Hamid Mehmed
Efendi (b?-d.1829)
Judge
Ataullah Mehmed
Efendi (b?-d.?) Judge
Said Mehmed Efendi
(b.?-d.1849) Müderris
Dürrizade Nurullah
Efendi (1724-1778)
Kazasker
Hidayetullah
Mehmed Efendi (b.?-
d.1813) Judge
Avnullah Mehmed
Efendi (b.?-d.1800)
Müderris
Seyyid Mustafa
Efendi (b.?-d.1813)
Müderris
Hidayetullah
Mehmed Efendin
(b.?-d.1860) Judge
Dürrizade Abid
Mehmed Efendi (b.?-
d.1829) Kazasker
Ahmed Raşid Efendi
(Abidzade) (b?-
d.1866) Judge
Aziz Mahmud Efendi
(b.?-d.1849) Müderris
Dürrizade Arif
Mehmed Efendi
(1740-1800)
Şeyhülislam
Emin Mehmed Efendi
(b?-d.1781) Müderris
Dürrizade Abdullah
Efendi (b.1769-
d.1822) Şeyhülislam
Arif Efendi (b.?-d.?)
Müderris
Şerif Mehmed Efendi
(b.?-d1861) Kazasker
Mehmed Dürri Efendi
(b.?-d.?) Kazasker
Dürrizade Abdullah
Bey Efendi (b.1867-
d.1923) Şeyhülislam
Tahir Mehmed Efendi
(b.?-d.?) Judge
45
Figure 4. Genealogy of the Mekkizade family
Celeb Halil Efendi (b.?-d.?)
Judge
Mekki Mehmed Efendi
(b.1714-d.1797)
Şeyhülislam
Daugther (b.?-d.?) Married
to Damadzade Arif
MekkizadeMustafa Asım
Efendi (b.1762-d.1846)
Şeyhülislam
Havva Kadınefendi – Wife
(b.?-d.1833)
Tahir Mehmed Efendi (b.?-
d.?) Judge
Lebibe Hanım (b.?-d.?)
Esad Efendi (b.?-d.1716)
46
Figure 4. Genealogy of the Ebuishakzade family
İbrahim Efendi, Rumeli Kazaskeri
Ebu İshak İsmail
Efendi (1645-1725)
Şeyhülislam
Şeyhî Mehmed Said
Efendi (d.1762)
Rumelia Judge
Ahmed Ataullah
Efendi (d.1789)
Mecca Judge
Lütfullah Efendi,
Kazasker
Sadullah Efendi,
Müderris
Feyzullah Efendi (d.
1804)
Lütfullah Efendi (d.
1843), Izmir Judge
Münevver Hanım
Mehmed Esad Efendi
(1685-1753),
Şeyhülislam
Zübeyde Fitnat
Hanım (d.1780)
Mehmed Derviş
Efendi (d.1790)
Nakibüleşraf, Esad
Efendi's son-in-law
Şerif Mehmed Efendi
(1717-1790),
Şeyhülislam
Mehmed Ataullah
Efendi (1760-1811),
Şeyhülislam
Şerif Mehmed
Efendi, Kadı
Daughter
M. Emin Efendi
Lütfullah Efendi,
Kazasker
Aişe Hanım
İshak Efendi, (1679-
1734) Şeyhülislam
Yahya Şerif Efendi
(b.?-1778), Anadolu
Kazaskeri
Safiye Hanım
(d.1788)
Ahmed Zeynüddin
Efendi (d.1754)
Müderris
Saadeddin Efendi
(d.1776)
İshak Ataullah Molla
(d.1714)
Mesud Efendi,
Müderris
Celaleddin
Mesudzade, Kadı
47
Figure 6. Genealogy of the Arabzade family
Abdurrahman
Bahir (1688-1746),
Kazasker
Mehmed Sadık
Efendi (1718-
1786), Rumelia
Judge
Ahmed Zeki
Efendi (d.1810)
Ali Rıza (d. 1770),
Yenişehir Judge
Ahmed Ataullah
Efendi (1720-
1785),
Şeyhülislam
Abdullah
M. Şemseddin
Damad
Mehmed Arif
(1740-1826),
Şeyhülislam
Ahmed Necib
Damad
Mehmed Sadullah
Efendi (d.1843)
Rumelia Judge,
Reisülulema
Mehmed Esad (d.
1803)
Mehmed Zeki
Efendi (d. 1866),
Rumelia Judge
Mehmed Behçet
Efendi, Meşihat
Mektupçusu
Mehmed
Hamdullah Efendi
(d. 1853), Rumelia
Judge,
Reisülulema
Mehmed Amir
Efendi (d. 1871),
Rumelia Judge
Mehmed Ataullah
Efendi (d. 1878),
Anatolia Judge
Abdurrahman
Safvet
M. Hamdullah
Hikmet
M. Nurullah Neşet
48
Figure 7. Genealogy of the Pirizade family
Piri Ağa
(Yeniçeri Ağası)
Mehmed Sahib
Efendi (1675-
1749),
Şeyhülislam
Osman Sahib
Efendi (1710-
1770),
Şeyhülislam
Daughter,
married to
İbrahim Efendi
Yahya Efendi (?-
1837), Kazasker
İsmet Bey,
Maarif Vekili
Pirizade Mehmed
Sahib Efendi
(1838-1910),
Şeyhülislam
49
Figure 8. Genealogy of the Salihzade family
Kırımizade Tatar
Yahya Efendi
(1641-1719) Egypt
Judge
Mehmed Salih
Efendi (d.1762)
Şeyhülislam
Salihzade Ahmed
Esad Efendi (1740-
1814) Şeyhülislam
Fatma Hanım
(d.1830)
Mehmed Salih
Efendi (d.1816)
Kazasker
Mehmed Rüşdi
Efendi (d.1859)
Kazasker
Mehmed Layih
Efendi (d.1746)
Kazasker
Fevzi Ahmed
Efendi (d.1742)
Poet
Mehmed Şükrullah
Efendi (d.1786)
Bursa Judge
Mehmed Efendi
(d.1823) Egypt
Judge
Ahmed Reşid
Efendi (d.1863)
Kazasker
Neşet Molla (1843-
1906) Lawyer
Muharrem Giray
(d.1967)
50
Figure 9. Genealogy of the Sıdkızade family
Adilşah Hanım (d. 1831), Ahmed
Raşid's wife
Sıdkızade Ahmed Raşid Efendi
(1758-1834) Şeyhülislam
Nâile Hanım (b.?-d.1856)
Mustafa Hamid Efendi
Mehmed Rıfat Beyefendi (d.1875)
Rumelia Judge
Osman Nureddin Bey (d.1854)
51
Figure 10. Genealogy of the Hekimbaşızade family
Hayrullah Efendi, Imperial
Doctor
Nefise Hanım
Behcet Mustafa Efendi
(1774-1834), Imperial Doctor
Hızır İlyas (1801-1864),
Historian, Judge
Abdülhak Molla (1786-
1854), Imperial Doctor
Hayrullah Efendi (1818-
1866), Imperial Doctor,
historian
Abdülhak Hamid Tarhan
(1852-1937), Poet, Theatre
Author
52
Figure 11. Genealogy of the Yasincizade family
Menteşeli Şeyh İbrahim
Efendi
YasinciMustafa
Efendi (1643-1708)
Hekim Çelebi
Dervish Lodge Şeyh
Osman Efendi
(d.1773) Hekim
Çelebi Dervish
Lodge Şeyh
Yasincizade
Seyyid
Abdülvehhab
Efendi (1758-
1834)
Şeyhülislam
Zeyneb Hanım
(d.1847)
Mehmed İlmî
Efendi (1821-
1872) Rumelia
Judge and
Nakibüleşraf
Mehmed Nuri
Efendi (d.1889)
Mecca Judge
Semiye Hanım
(d.1886)
Giridizade
Mustafa Rıfat
Paşa (1834-
1896)
Fatma Feride
Hanım (d.1864)
Zehra Hanım
(d.1873)
Fatma Hanım
(d.1873)
Mehmed
Kemaleddin Bey
(d.1893)
Mehmed Ragıb
Efendi (d. 1835)
Seher Elpe
(1885-1951)
53
Figure 12. Genealogy of the Kocayusufpaşazade family
Sadrazam Koca Yusuf
Paşa (d.1800) Sadrazam
Mustafa Rızaeddin Bey
(d.1795) Müderris
Mehmed Nazif Bey
(d.1839) Kazasker
Mahmud Bey (d.1824)
Mecca Judge
Süleyman Bey (1789-
1818)
Kamil Bey (?-?) Müderris
Ahmed MuhtarMolla Bey
(1807-1882) Şeyhülislam
Ali Haydar Bey (?-?)
Member of the State
Department
Mustafa Haşim Paşa
(1843-1920) Minister of
Education
Hatice Birkan (b.?-d.1969)
Fatma Münime Hanım (?-
?)
Atıyetullah Hanımsultan
(d.1848)
54
Figure 13. Genealogy of the Arif Hikmet Bey’s family
Malatyalı İbrahim
Paşa (b.?-d.1758)
Hatice Hatun (b.?-
d.1774)
Raif İsmail Paşa
(b.1729-d.1785)
Reisülküttab
Şerife Saide Hanım
(b.?-d.1812), Raif
İsmail's wife
Halil Galib
Beyefendi (b.?-
d.1779) Müderris
İbrahim İsmet
Beyefendi (b.?-
d.1807)
Nakibüleşraf,
Reisülulema
Ahmed Arif
Hikmet Beyefendi
(b.1786-d.1859)
Şeyhülislam
Nüzhet Kadın (b.?-
d.1805), Arif
Hikmet's wife
Fatma Dilnişin
Kadın (b.?-d.1840),
Arif Hikmet's wife
Mehmed Muti
Beyefendi (b.?-
d.1849) Yenişehir
Judge
Şerife Fatma
Hanımefendi (b.?-
d.1812)
Şerife Havva
Hanımefendi (b.?-
d.1840)
Mehmed Ataullah
Bey (b.?-d.1840)
Behçet Kadın (b.?-
d.1818)
Dilhayat
Kadınefendi (b.?-
d.?)
Abdullah Refet
Bey (b.1795-
d.1866) Rumelia
Judge
Kadı İsmet Bey
(b.1820-d.1907)
Mehmet İffet Bey
(b.?-d.1842)
Mekkiye Şerife
Ulviye Hanım (b.?-
d.1852)
Mustafa Ataullah
Beyefendi (b.?-
d.1804) Müderris
Hatice Hanım (b.?-
d.1780)
Şerife Saide
Hanımefendi (b.?-
d.1817)
Şerife Havva
Nesibe Hanım (b.?-
d.1824)
55
CHAPTER 3
THE BOSPHORUS AND THE ILMIYE
3.1. Bosphorus and Ulema families
After introducing a cluster of essential ilmiye concepts, the first part of the thesis
proceeds to discuss historiographic misconceptions that have hindered scholarly
examinations of the ulema. It also explores the historical evolution of the
Şeyhülislams and Kazaskerlik, which are significant institutions within the religious
and legal structure of the Ottoman Empire. Furthermore, the study identifies ulema
families and presents genealogies of specific ulema lineages. Following the
examination of the genealogies of the Şeyhülislams of the period, the focus shifts to
a household analysis of ulema families. The objective of this chapter, on the other
hand, is to provide a temporal and spatial framework for the Bosphorus. This
framework enables an in-depth exploration of the seaside mansions, integral parts of
the Bosphorus, and the ulema families who were among the primary proprietors.
This framework encompasses several aspects, including mobility resulting from
"göç" and other factors during the eighteenth century. Likewise, the idea of the
Bosphorus becoming a scene for ostentation for the Ottoman elites during the
nineteenth century can be mentioned. Nevertheless, during the tenure of Governor
Abbas Pasha of Egypt, a significant number of pashas, gentlemen, and women
migrated from Egypt to Istanbul. The individuals acquired lavish gardens and seaside
mansions and adorned their properties' interiors in an opulent fashion. Ahmed Cevdet
Pasha describes this situation as follows: “They spent and wasted a lot of money.
They opened the doors of depravity and debauchery. The elites of Istanbul sought to
56
compete with this Egyptian trash and coveted the splendor.”85 Therefore, the
Bosphorus became an opulent residential hub for the elites of Istanbul during the
nineteenth century; it can be argued that the concept of göç has remained. However,
within this chapter, the initial part will offer a concise introduction and comparative
analysis of the primary sources related to the thesis. This will be followed by a
section on the architectural and urban aspects of the seaside mansions and the
Bosphorus in general. Furthermore, this study aims to examine the correlation
between ulema families and the mansions along the Bosphorus, focusing on topics
such as debt, philanthropy, and judicial disputes.
This current chapter is crucial as it introduces and examines the primary
sources underpinning the thesis. This statement underscores how these sources have
been situated within a specific context and subjected to rationalization to ascertain
their credibility and relevance to the study. Similarly, in the previous chapter, the
scope of ulema families was traced and identified through kinship and bureaucratic
patronage relations, which can be shown in the family genealogies. In conclusion,
the elements presented in the timeline, including the Şeyhülislams of the century,
their family genealogies, and the dominance of specific ulema families over the
Rumelia Kazaskerlik, should be seen as complementary aspects to this thesis’
multifaceted approach. In this respect, the scope of the thesis will be taken one step
further by prioritizing the examination of the Bostancıbaşı Defterleri and population
records, which will be covered in 3.2. Likewise, the overlap and practical
connections between the households randomly selected from the material and the
individuals and families of the ilmiye mentioned in the previous chapters will be
effectively seen.
85 Ahmed Cevdet Paşa, Maruzat, transliterated by Y. Halaçoğlu (İstanbul: Çağrı, 1980), 7-8.
57
The primary objective of this study is to examine the pathways leading to the
residences of the ulemazades, that is, the descendants of ulema lineages. In the
following part, the chapter examines the urban and architectural features of the
sahilhanes and other seaside dwellings inhabited by ulema individuals. The primary
aim of this study is to offer insights into the spatiality of the seaside mansions in the
context of examining ulema families. These seaside mansions served as both
residential dwellings and venues for recreational activities and social gatherings.
Furthermore, the seaside mansions of the Şeyhülislams hosted various meetings. To
provide a comprehensive understanding of the social environment in the Bosphorus,
a household analysis will provide ethno-racial, demographic, and cultural aspects.
This historical analysis sheds light on the relationships and dynamics among the
various populations residing in the region, offering a general overview of the ulema
households.
In order to portray the correlation between the Bosphorus and the seaside
mansions, the depiction made by Albert Smith (1816-1860), who was an English
author and entertainer, can be mentioned. In his trip to Istanbul in 1849, he makes
noteworthy depictions of the Bosphorus, especially Bebek shores as follows:“…The
banks display every variety of water scenery. Now the handsome villas and palaces
remind one of the edges of an Italian lake, Como or Orta, for instance; the next turn
of the stream brings you to rocky eminences with such ruins on them as you might
see on the Rhine or Moselle…”86 At this point, one shall argue that the high ranks of
the ilmiye officialdom took their place by owning a property like these “handsome
villas”. To give an example, Şeyhülislam Sadeddin Efendi rented a mansion in
Baltalimanı for forty thousand kuruş for a duration of six months, which was owned
86 Albert Smith, A Month in Istanbul (London, 1851), 158-59.
58
by Halim Pasha of Egypt. Following the arrival of Şeyhülislam, an elderly individual
approached him to extend congratulations and informed him about the fact that the
mansion was sold for forty thousand kuruş on such and such a date. During this
particular time, a significant number of craftsmen and bureaucrats belonging to the
middle-upper class purchased properties along the Bosphorus, driven by the
substantial and quick growth in the value and rental rates of real estate.87
Before delving into specific details concerning the ulema' residences, it is
essential to provide an overview of the spatial extent of the sahilhanes. This chapter
offers a broader perspective on the distribution and evolution of coastal regions along
the Bosphorus, avoiding in-depth architectural and urban historical discussions.
Within this context, the mobility of people from old Istanbul to the Bosphorus
villages in the eighteenth century will be analyzed while examining the concept of
“göç.” While the thesis primarily focuses on ulema households, it aims to present a
broader social and human context by emphasizing several archival data. For instance,
one can readily observe that boatmen and fishermen constitute one of the most
prominent occupational groups among the registered individuals along the
Bosphorus, particularly on the Northern shores of the strait, which are distant from
the old city.88
In order to determine the composition of the ulema families and individuals
who resided in a specific part of the Bosphorus for close to a century, this study
makes use of Bostancıbaşı Defterleri, population records, and a number of external
archival documents. That is to say, the current study primarily utilizes the
Bostancıbaşı Records of 1802, 1803, 1815, and 1822, along with various population
87 Ahmed Cevdet Paşa, Maruzat, transliterated by Y. Halaçoğlu (İstanbul: Çağrı, 1980), 8.
88 As an interesting anecdote, referring to the population record dated 1844 it is observed that a
number of the children of boatmen became students and even sergeants in the Mızıka-i Hümayun. See.
NFS.d 182 29.12.1260.
59
registers from 1826, 1844, and 1856, to trace notable ulema families. Inevitably, as
was demonstrated in previous chapters of this thesis, materials in Ottoman such as
Tarik Defterleri, İlmiye Salnamesi, and Sicill-i Osmani were also used to discuss
issues such as the tenure and bureaucratic positions of the Şeyhülislams and
Kazaskers. Furthermore, the sources mentioned above were used as a basis for
determining the human geography of the Bosphorus. Although the characteristics of
the materials utilized in this study may pose certain difficulties, the study modestly
examines the Bosphorus region from a specific temporal perspective. Throughout the
historical analysis, it becomes evident that the ilmiye presence along the shores of the
Bosphorus persisted for centuries and dominated the region for decades, if not
centuries, particularly around the two fortresses of Anatolia and Rumelia. Despite the
initial purpose of recording the seaside mansions, yalıs, the Bostancıbaşı Records
offer valuable insights into social and public buildings, such as coffeehouses and
kayıkhanes, as well as green spaces like gardens and bostans. Additionally, it should
be noted that the Bostancıbaşı Records and the 1826 Population records generally
emphasize employment and age rather than providing detailed information regarding
the population’s physical traits and ethnic mix, which can be seen in the population
record 1844, for example.89
To sum up, by setting its framework in a specific geographical and temporal
context, the research seeks to provide a comprehensive understanding of the socioeconomic
and political dynamics of the aforementioned Ottoman ulema families. In
general, it can be asserted that the Bosphorus and its surrounding villages,
characterized by distinctive topographical features, together with the ulema families,
played a central role in the phenomenon of migration from old Istanbul to these
89 See. NFS.d 182 29.12.1260
60
coastal areas, which saw significant growth throughout the eighteenth century. The
primary goal of this chapter is to offer an alternative, albeit limited, opportunity to
develop a spatial understanding related to the subject matter. It can be seen as a
preliminary step that precedes the inspection and analysis of the households. In this
regard, the primary objective of this study is to utilize the social historiographical
possibilities offered by primary sources, with a specific focus on the sahilhanes of
senior ilmiye members and families during the nineteenth century. While it may not
be possible to discuss the architectural history of all sahilhanes in minute detail due
to their vast number and complex histories, this research aims to envisage and
describe the mansions, particularly the waterfront mansions of the Şeyhülislams and
ulema families. By evaluating these examples from a social-historical perspective,
the thesis seeks to enrich the examination of the social dynamics and historical
significance of these residences. Furthermore, it can be argued that the households
and seaside mansions of the ulema shall be regarded as one of the components that
constitute their survival during the nineteenth century opposing the decline
paradigm. Through an analysis of the architectural features, spatial distribution, and
historical context of sahilhanes, the thesis provides deeper insights into Ottoman
ulema families' lifestyle and socio-economic status during the long nineteenth
century. Last but not least, it illuminates the evolving social fabric of Istanbul and its
coastal regions during the nineteenth century, in which the presence of Şeyhülislam’s
residence on the Bosphorus remained until the end of the century.90
90 Şeyhülislam Cemaleddin Efendi’s seaside mansion can be given as an outstanding example of this.
See. ML.EEM. 227 26 23.02.1312
61
3.2. A Glimpse into the sources: Bostancıbaşı Defterleri and Nüfus Defterleri
Having discussed the existing literature on the ulema, the chapter proceeds to outline
the sources used in this present work. The primary focus is on the Bostancıbaşı
Defterleri, which serves as an essential tool for investigating the social, economic,
ethnic-racial, and urban history during Selim III's reign, as the Bostancıbaşı Ocağı
was responsible for maintaining public order and security along the coastal lines of
Istanbul, including the Golden Horn coasts and both sides of the Bosphorus.
Additionally, it was responsible for granting permission to construct and renovate
various buildings, such as yalis, coffeehouses, and shops, until 1826. These records
were essential for the Bostancıbaşı to acknowledge the Sultan when needed while
strolling around the Bosphorus. Moreover, the defters systematically recorded
sahilhanes, imperial palaces, and other beachfront buildings, providing a wealth of
information for analyzing the visual and spatial characteristics of Istanbul's coastal
lines in terms of architecture, economics, and social and political transformations.91
However, the Bostancıbaşı Defterleri span from 1791, with the first defter, to 1822,
the last one written during Mahmud the Second's reign. There are a total of eleven
independent copies of the defters, providing valuable data on demographic and urban
topographic changes and continuity.92 Apart from the Bostancıbaşı Records, Nüfus
91 Abdülkadir Özcan, “Bostancı” in TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, (İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı
Yayınları, 1992), 308-309.
92 Şevket Rado, Murat Bardakçı, MA. Şevket Rado studied the first one in 1972 “Bostancıbaşı Defteri.
1802 yılında Boğaziçi ve Haliç Kıyılarında Kimler Oturdu?” olarak isimlendirdiği çalışmanın kaynağı
olan defter İstanbul Araştırmaları Enstitüsü Kütüphanesi’nde, Tophane-i Amire’den Rumeli Kavağına
varınca sahil ve bahirde vaki’ cami-i şerifler ve sahilhaneler ve iskeleler defteridir başlığıyla
ŞR_000267/01olarak Yalı Kasr-ı Hümayûnu’ndan Bahriye Sarayına varıncaya değin vaki’ olan cami-I
şerifeler ve iskeleler ve sahilhaneler beyanındadır başlığıyla da ŞR_000267/02 ,olarak Şevket Rado
Yazmaları’nda kayıtlıdır. Toplam 64 varaklık defter 23 x15 cm’dir.
Keçeci Ailesinin özel kütüphanesinde Keçecizâde İzzet Mollâ’nın evrakı ile Sultan II. Mahmud ve
Sultan Abdülmecid dönemine ait bazı yazışmalar arasında bulunan bir defter de Murat Bardakçı 2013
yılında III. Selim Dönemine Ait Bir Bostancıbaşı Defteri adıyla yayımlamıştır.23 1803 olarak
tarihlenen defter 63 varaktır.
62
Defterleri, the population records, also serve as essential sources for this research.
The first official and large-scale population record was conducted in 1831 under the
reign of Sultan Mahmud II, following the establishment of the new modern army,
Asakir-i Mansure-yi Şahane, in 1826. This census record aimed to accumulate data
on potential military personnel from the male population.93 Different types of nüfus
defterleri provide various aspects of social life in eighteenth and nineteenth-century
Ottoman Istanbul. While Bostancıbaşı records offer an overview of the population of
the coastlines without a sectarian or religious distinctions, the population records
provide detailed information based on religious backgrounds. In this research, the
focus is on the defters of the Muslim inhabitants of the aforementioned geographical
areas, with a particular emphasis on the ulema families.
The primary sources used in this thesis, including the nüfus defteri from the
Bebek coastline dated back to 1844, provide valuable insights into the professional,
and ethno-physical features of the individuals and their place of birth, and age. While
the records of the higher strata of Ottoman society may not always include physical
features, nüfus defterleri, offers cumulative information about the regular inhabitants
of Istanbul’s mahalle’s and their religious and sectarian compositions. According to
the available primary sources, the socioeconomic diversity of the Bosphorus can be
seen through various occupations. According to the census records, the residents
across the Bosphorus can be mentioned as civil servants of different ranks, imams,
barbers, merchants, bathers, tobacconists, and so on. Likewise, although fishermen's
and boatmen's houses might not reflect the pomp and wealth of the ulema and pasha
beach houses, it can be reported that some of the boatmen's households often were
93 Sultanic orders can be found in 1830-1831 concerning the public and massive population recording.
See. HAT 334-19185 (11.03.1246/1831)
63
home to children of slaves of African descent. Similarly, people without a job stand
out as “without an art/occupation” in the records.94
After introducing the main primary sources, the following section focuses on
the sahilhanes that form an essential spatial framework along the Bosphorus. These
sahilhanes are often referred to as the "Pearls of the Bosphorus" due to their
distinctive architectural and stylistic characteristics. The research addresses the
architectural features of the Bosphorus villages with a primary emphasis on
sahilhanes that emerged as dynamic quarters for upper-middle-class social life in the
eighteenth century. In addition, several residences, including the Dürrizadeler
Mansion, the Bahai Mansion, and the current Egyptian Consulate General (formerly
a seaside mansion predating today's Consulate building), serve as precise examples
in this context. These examples provide a window into the lives of ulema families
and the Şeyhülislams, offering insights into their lifestyle, social status, and
interactions within society. Section 3.3 will seek the ways in which the sahilhanes
can be imagined and examine the ulema’s past in the region. This will further
enhance the understanding of the architectural history of sahilhanes and provide a
glimpse into the Bosphorus' historical landscape. Last but not least, a number of
archival data is presented along with the aforementioned sources.
94 Despite the fact that the vast majority of the literature on slavery and domestic labor tend to claim
that the slaves can be found in the houses of the upper-middle class of Istanbul during the nineteenth
century, the small and modest houses were also homes for the slaves and slave sons. See. NFS.d 182
29.12.1260
64
3.3 How to imagine a Sahilhane: Architectural landscape of the yalıs and human
geography
The historic homes that grace the Bosphorus, known as yalıs, hold a special place in
Istanbul’s architectural and cultural history. Since the Bosphorus Strait exhibited
distinct geographical features as a waterway to separate the Rumelian and Anatolian
sides of the city, the opulent waterfront mansions employ a testament to Istanbul’s
architectural heritage. Furthermore, despite the fact that livelihood dates back to the
Byzantine times on the shores of the Bosphorus, the Ottoman era showcased the
significance of the waterway in several aspects. The Byzantine emperors and,
subsequently, the Ottoman sultans erected fortifications along the sides of the strait,
particularly on the European side, because of the waterway's strategic importance for
the protection of Constantinople. The fortresses of Anadoluhisarı, which was built on
the Asian coast by Sultan Bayezid I at the end of the fourteenth century, and
Rumelihisarı, which was erected immediately across the strait by Mehmed II in
1452, are noteworthy instances.95 Furthermore, the Bosphorus Strait has been an
outstanding geography that provides several massive gardens with distinctive flora.96
Hence, Bosphorus can be imagined as an exclusive geographical frame in which the
dynasty and other elites have been attracted for a critical period of time.
Nevertheless, in order to outline the civil architecture and the hints of social
organization across the Bosphorus, urban and architectural structures that were
recorded in the materials shall be discussed. According to the sources used in the
present work, these structures can be seen as sahilsaray, sahilhane, and hane. It is
95 Abdullah Avunduk, “Rumelihisarı”, in TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi 35 (İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet
Vakfı Yayınları, 2008), 237-240.
96 Shirine Hamadeh, “Public Spaces and the Garden Culture of Istanbul in the eighteenth century” in
The Early Modern Ottomans ed. Virginia Aksan and Daniel Goffman, (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2007): 277-312.
65
worth noting that achieving a comprehensive and standard definition of the terms
from available sources remains elusive. Nevertheless, it is clear that sahilsaray
typically refers to the grand and imposing structures associated with the Ottoman
dynasty. On the other hand, the Bostancıbaşı Defterleri use the terms "yalı" and
"hane" interchangeably. However, a closer examination of demographic statistics
reveals a consistent use of the term “sahilhane,” with no instances of “yalı.”
Similarly, it can be inferred that the term “hane” in the demographic data refers to
somewhat smaller entities.97
In order to have a closer idea of seaside mansions, the definition and
peculiarities of the yalıs can be given. Abdülhak Şinasi Hisar, a Turkish novelist from
the twentieth century, states that the authentic and ancient yalıs of the Bosphorus
were often referred to as “leb-i derya,” which etymologically translates to “seaside,”
and is thought to allude to the pearls that could be found in the sea. Hisar paints a
vivid picture with his words, describing the sahilhane in evocative terms, such as;
…the architect who builds the yalı that gives body to the elegance, beauty,
and wonder of arts which we call the Bosphorus relies on some very delicate
considerations: he opens the yalı in between the unequaled blue of the sea in
the front and the green of the mountains at the back such that, when the doors
of the rooms around the sofas are opened, the waters in front and the slopes of
the mountains at the back unite in the eyes of the observer.98
In the work of Sedat Hakkı Eldem, the term "yalı" is described as a grand
residence that ideally occupies a waterfront location with a dock situated in its
immediate vicinity and situated in proximity to the coastal pier or even extending
over the sea itself.99 Therefore, the defining essence of a yalı often lies in its
uninterrupted proximity to the sea, free from any road infrastructure obstructing the
97 Interestingly, the housing units in 1844 Records were mentioned as hane. See. NFS.d 182
29.12.1260
98 Hisar, Boğaziçi Yalıları, 13-14.
99 Eldem, Boğaziçi Yalıları, 45.
66
view or access to the shoreline. Additionally, it is noteworthy that these seaside
mansions are sometimes constructed directly on the water’s edge or even over the sea
itself rather than on solid land.100 As to Abdülhak Şinasi's assertion, it can be argued
that mansions, unless they possess distinct structures, typically combine elements of
both haremlik and selamlık. The lower floor of the building is adorned with marble
couches and rooms, while a spacious and expansive stairway leads to the second
floor. The upper floor features wooden couches and chambers. Notably, the
architectural design of yalıs often includes boathouses situated beneath the rooms,
allowing occupants to experience the soothing sounds of the water as if they were
immersed in it.101 Şinasi Hisar further emphasizes that a significant majority of
historical seaside mansions maintain a direct connection to the Bosphorus.
Additionally, he asserts that the unique character of each palace is attributed to its
garden and the surrounding flora.102 Indeed, when examining the households residing
in these mansions, one can observe not only the diversity of their domestic
economies, and but also the distinct characteristics that define the yalıs.103
The subsequent discussion will center on the significant shift in the preferred
locations for leisure and resort settlements of the imperial dynasty during the
eighteenth century. Specifically, it will be explored how the influence of palace
dignitaries played a crucial role in this transition, as the choice shifted from
Kağıthane and the Golden Horn to the Bosphorus shoreline. Consequently, the elite
class of the Ottoman Empire, including the imperial household, gradually moved to
the Bosphorus region for their summer retreats. Following this, the use of archival
100 Hisar, Boğaziçi Yalıları, 46.
101 Hisar, Boğaziçi Yalıları, 14.
102 “The expression of this love of the old Turk, who wanted to satisfy the love of the waters he longed
for up close, was the Bosphorus mansion.” This citation could be represented the level of passion for
the pearls of the Bosphorus addressed by Abdülhak Şinasi Hisar.
103 Hisar, Boğaziçi Yalıları, 14-16.
67
materials will contribute to a more thorough depiction, in addition to the concept of
migration within the city. The residences of the sultan and his family, known as
sahilsaray, are characterized by their expansive waterfront locations and grand
proportions. Based on the materials utilized in this study, the terms "sahilhane" and
"yalı" pertain to the opulent residences situated along the shoreline, which were
predominantly held by those belonging to the elite and/or upper-middle strata of
Ottoman society. However, according to Özlem Atalan, there exists a distinction
between the smaller mansions owned by Muslims, referred to as sahilhane, and those
owned by non-Muslims, referred to as hane.104 Nevertheless, it is important to note
that this differentiation is not supported by the available archival evidence. In fact,
the term "hane" can be used to denote modest dwellings that are typically occupied
by individuals, nuclear families, or households with limited financial resources. On
the contrary, the owner of the yalı may be either an Ottoman Christian or a
descendant of an esteemed ulema family. The sahilsarays function as summer houses
for members of the royal family, while, the yalı, serving as the secondary residence
of affluent residents of Istanbul along the shores of the Bosphorus.105
Nevertheless, Tülay Artan presents an anecdote derived from a ruzname
dating back to 1735-36, wherein the author recounts a visit to the imperial gardens
situated in Kuleli, Çubuklu, and Fenerbahçe during the aforementioned year. Artan
asserts that the Sultan's excursions to the Golden Horn were exclusively dedicated to
visiting members of the imperial family.106 In contrast, during the winter season, the
104 Özlem Atalan, “Ortaköy-Kuruçeşme Arasındaki Sahilsaray; 19. Yüzyıl,” Turkish Studies 10, no. 1
(Winter 2015): 83-120.
105 Özlem Atalan, “Boğaziçi Kıyı Yerleşmelerinin Tarihsel Değişim Süreci ve Koruma Yöntemleri
Üzerine bir Araştırma Ortaköy-Kuruçeşme Sahili” (PhD diss., Yıldız Technical University, 2008), 64.
106 Tülay Artan, “Architecture as a Theatre of Life: Profile of the 18th Century Bosphorus” (PhD diss.,
MIT, 1989)
68
Sultan chose to continue his visits to the neighboring köşks (pavilions) of the Topkapı
Palace. The sahilsarays of the eighteenth century exhibit similarities to the affluent
lifestyle observed along the Bosphorus.107 In addition, the transportation of goods
and people across the Bosphorus over land has been a significant challenge for the
local population. This is particularly evident when considering the historical context
leading up to the early nineteenth century, when the prevalence of shipping as a more
convenient mode of transportation is reflected in available sources, which document
a notable rise in the number of fishermen and boatmen.108
Therefore, the coastal residences situated along the Bosphorus have long
served as notable exemplars of civil architecture in Istanbul over the centuries. As
previously stated, the establishment of coastal palaces along the Bosphorus
throughout the eighteenth century, commissioned mainly by courtiers such as the
valide and hanım sultans, facilitated the ongoing movement of the middle-upper
class from old Istanbul to the villages situated along the Bosphorus. The elites of the
empire, encompassing individuals ranging from sons-in-law to pashas to
ambassadors, procured a multitude of houses across the coastal regions from
Beşiktaş to Sarıyer. It is noteworthy to observe that certain ulema families, such as
the Dürrizade lineage, who are referenced in the Bostancıbaşı Records as residing
between Bebek-Rumelihisarı and İncirköy-Paşabahçe, continued to own a house in
the vicinity even after a span of fifty years. Similarly, the occurrence of migration
and the aspiration to utilize the Bosphorus as a platform for prestige was not limited
to certain ulema families but also extended to common ilmiye bureaucrats. Thus, the
sahilsaray, denoting the residences of the imperial family, especially the daughters
107 Ayşe Kaplan, “From Seasonal to Permanent: A Study on the Effects of Göç Tradition on the
Bosphorus Shores 1791-1815”, MA, Bilgi University, 2012), 3-4.
108 Kaplan, “From Seasonal to Permanent,” 89.
69
and spouses of the sultans, alongside the sahilhane, abodes of high-ranking officials
within the Ottoman Empire. Interestingly, these could be found in close proximity to
the simple abode of a mosque imam or a humble hane inhabited by a financially
disadvantaged fisherman constructed from basic wooden materials.109 Therefore, the
Bosphorus region comprised a wide spectrum of residential properties encompassing
the imperial family, high-ranking bureaucrats, and the ulema, reflecting the diversity
of society.
However, the presence of the ilmiye in the Bosphorus can be traced back to
the late seventeenth century, exmeplified by the Bahai Mansion in Kanlıca. This
mansion, named after Şeyhülislam Bahayi Efendi (1601-1654), serves as evidence of
ilmiye’s presence during that era. It is also crucial to recognize that the relocation to
the Bosphorus was not solely the privilege of elite ulema families; it embraced by
ulema of ordinary status. The phenomenon of migration, known as göç, served as a
testament to the social and economic influence wielded by ilmiye families.
Nevertheless, it is worth noting a paradox highlighted in a monograph written in
Armenian in 1794 by Paul Lucas Inciciyan, who resided in Istanbul. He pointed out
that religious scholars, the ulema, who actively cautioned the public about the
dangers of ostentation, ironically found themselves residing in the affluent districts
of Bebek.110 Hence, the coastal neighborhoods across the city has become gentrified
by the second half of eighteenth century as Bebek, Emirgan, İstinye, and
Rumelihisari were chosen by the ilmiye whereas non-Muslims tended to reside in
Arnavutköy. Sarıyer, on the other hand, has become a hub for low-middle class
109 Artan, “Architecture as a Theatre of Life”, 122.
110 Tülay Artan, in her dissertation, cites from Ingigiyan’s book, which was translated into Italian. See.
Artan, “Architecture as a Theatre of Life”, 59-60.
70
Muslim Turks.111 In fact, the consolidation of the ilmiye on Bebek, for example,
reachs to the level that almost all the houses belonged to the ulema.
Another historical record from 1790 indicates that the esteemed Şeyhülislam
İbrahim Efendi (1701-1783) was granted permission to acquire a sahilhane in
Kurucesme. The familial connections of Ibrahim Efendi exemplify a distinct pattern
highlighting the interconnectedness of ulema families and their ties to the Ottoman
dynasty. Moreover, he was closely related to Zeynelabidin Efendi, a prominent judge
of Rumelia, and eventually married his daughter, strengthening their familial
bonds.112 During this era, ulema houses gathered in significant numbers along the
Bebek and Rumelihisarı coasts. Several seaside mansions linked to Şeyhülislams can
be identified, such as the Yasincizade Mansion in Anadoluhisarı or the Dürrizade
Mansion in Bebek. Yasincizade Mansion, constructed during the early
nineteenth century, served as Şeyhülislam Yasincizade Abdülvehhab Efendi (1758-
1833) residence. Following the demise of Abdülvehhab Efendi, the familial
occupancy of the house persisted, as evidenced by the residence of his son-in-law,
Mizancı Murad Bey, throughout the 1890s. Another illustration may be derived from
the Dürrizade Mansion, which was in possession of the Dürrizade lineage.
Nevertheless, archival documents indicate that Şeyhülislam families were
permitted to acquire sahilhanes on the Bosphorus, which had market value and were
considered property. These sahilhanes were involved in various legal proceedings,
including debt settlements and transfers of wealth.113 It is also worth mentioning that
111 Orhan Erdenen, “Çağlar Boyunca Boğaziçi: 2”, Hayat Tarih Mecmuası, no.9 (Ekim 1968), 52.
112 Mehmet İpşirli “Seyyid İbrahim Efendi” in TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, (İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet
Vakfı Yayınları, 2000), 301-302.
113 SEE. Kuruçeşme'de sahilhane iştirasına müsaade-i Şahane buyrulan Şeyhülislam-ı esbak İbrahim
Bey'in Kuzguncuk'da ikameti mukteza-ı İrade'den olmakla, yeni sahilhanesine nakline müsaade
Şeyhülislam'ın takririyle istirham edildiğine dair. (HAT 266- 15414) 29 12 1205 Ulema Reisi, borcunu
71
upon their dismissal or voluntary resignation, Şeyhülislams would often retreat to
their sahilhanes and lead a solitary life. Instances have been documented where
Şeyhülislams inherited sahilhanes subsequent to their demise, as these dwellings
were considered assets. An example of this could be Kadızade Tahir Efendi (1747-
1838), who, subsequent to his demise, did not leave any heirs apart from his wife,
leading the transfer of the remaining assets to the Treasury in 1838.114 There is also
evidence that libraries and book collections were amassed in sahilhanes, reserved for
individuals of higher social status. This connection can be seen in the proliferation of
printing presses during this period, warranting further investigation into material
culture and the history of the book.115 Additionally, some legal cases involving
sahilhanes, considered valuable property, took place during the war years. For
instance, there was a lawsuit involving the trustee of Kazasker Mustafa İzzet
Efendi’s (1801-1876) foundations and Mediha Sultan (1856-1928), Sultan
Abdülmecid’s daughter, and centered on a sahilhane located in Baltalimanı.116
To sum, the Bosphorus mansions play a significant role in the context of
Ottoman architectural history, exemplifying the social dynamics and different origins
of its inhabitants. The thesis endeavors to question prevalent views and illuminate
the lasting impact of the ilmiye inside Ottoman society through the examination of
sahilhasını satarak ödeyeceğinden maaşından kesinti yapılmaması isteği. (A DVN 143-38) 1275. Sadrı
Esbak Nuhum Sarim Paşa'nın borcu için terk ettiği Rumelihisarı'ndaki sahilhane, köşk ve bağın
hanımı ve kayınvalidesine satılması. (A MKT. MVL. 73 5) 26.09.1271. İstanbul payeli Dürrizade
Mehmed Şerif Efendi'ye atiyye olarak verilen elli bin kuruşa mahsuben her ay verilmekte olan iki bin
kuruşun sahilhane icarı münasebetiyle beş bin kuruşa iblağı (C. ML. 75-3424) 29 12 1300
114 Vefat eden Esbak Şeyhülislâm Kadızade Tahir Efendi'nin sahilhanesinin taht-ı temhire aldırıldığına
ve terekesinden zevce-i menkûhesine rubu hisse isabet edip varis-i aharı olmadığından, baki
muhallefatının Hazine-i Amire'ye ait bulunduğuna dair şeyhülislâm efendiden Sadaret'e (HAT 647- 29
12 1254)
115 Sadaret sahilhanesinde olan kitapların gönderilmesi (A. MKT. NZD. 29 12 1267)
116 Kazasker Mustafa Efendi Vakfı mütevellisi ile Mediha Sultan arasında Balta Limanı'nda kain
sahilhane ile ilgili dava hususu. (Adliye) (BEO 4288 321571) 03 07 1332)
72
these mansions and the ulema households. It is important to note that since this thesis
focuses explicitly on mansions and the social and human landscape of the
Bosphorus, the offshore pavilions belonging to Şeyhülislams and ulema families will
be provided as illustrative instances without delving into further discussion. In this
perspective, an example can be given: Dürrizadeler Mansion, a collection of
structures located near Paşakapısı in Üsküdar, which dates back to the early 1700s.117
However, the residences of the ulema were concentrated in close proximity to the
fortifications along both banks of the Bosphorus. This trend persisted due to the
active involvement of ulema and their families in the vibrant scene along the
Bosphorus. Examples such as the Bahai Mansion, Yasincizade Mansion, Mekkizade
Mansion, and Dürrizade Mansion can be added to the list. The subsequent part of the
thesis will undertake a more meticulous examination of the residences and domestic
arrangements of the ilmiye. The objective of the following chapter is to assess homes
as a representative case to challenge the prevailing notion that Ottoman ulema
families and the ilmiye experienced a decline in social and economic status during
the nineteenth century. Indeed, the presence of bureaucrats migrating to the
Bosphorus can be seen as a contributing factor to the aforementioned framework.
Overall, the Bosphorus mansions hold significant importance within the
realm of Ottoman architectural history, effectively embodying the intricate interplay
of social forces and the different origins of its inhabitants. By studying these
mansions and the households of ulema, the thesis aims to challenge prevailing beliefs
and shed light on the enduring legacy of the ilmiye within Ottoman society. In this
regard, the accumulation of ulema families along the Bebek and Rumelihisarı lines
on the western coasts of the Bosphorus can be observed. As a result, the existence of
117 Haluk Şehsuvaroğlu, “İstanbul Konaklarına Dair” Türkiye Turing ve Ottomobil Kurumu (Ekim
1958), 3-4.
73
religious scholars in the opulent vicinity of the Bosphorus will serve to endorse the
notable socio-economic influence of the ulema households, many of whom held
esteemed positions as senior government officials. One possible indication of the
non-decline in the socio-economic status of the ulema families throughout the
nineteenth century is their ownership of sahilhanes, located on the picturesque shores
of the Bosphorus and serving as prominent venues for social activities. In this sense,
the aforementioned observations suggest that there exists a notable concentration of
seaside mansions among the middle and upper ulema within the region. Furthermore,
it can be deduced that these seaside mansions are often passed down within the same
family, and the seaside mansions are sometimes owned by the same ulema family for
several decades.
74
CHAPTER 4
THE ULEMA HOUSEHOLDS
4.1. The Ulema households: An overview
As the thesis progresses, it turns its focus to the sahilhanes and Bosphorus villages
that served as the residential areas for the ulema families for an extended period.
These yalıs, often located along the scenic Bosphorus shores, were not only symbols
of prestige and wealth but also centers of social and cultural exchange. The thesis
situates these mansions within the broader historical context, considering their
architectural features and social functions while closely examining the ulema
households. Within this context, the thesis touches upon domestic labor and slaves
who were also part of the ulema households in this chapter. Before delving into the
households of the ulema, this part aims to outline how the census records have been
analyzed to portray the ulema houses. By doing so, it also suggests that the
subsequent part can be determined as a case study to understand the ulema’s social
and familial lives with a closer glimpse. However, due to limited available data, the
total population of each household, including women, enslaved women, and children,
remains uncertain. This chapter also analyzes these residences to understand the
spatial organization, social dynamics, and daily lives of the ulema families residing
there during this era. Finally, it elaborates on the characteristics of each household,
including the number of inhabitants, the professions of the household members, and
their socio-economic backgrounds.
Overall, the chapter endeavors to shed light on the often overlooked aspects
of Ottoman ilmiye, uncovering the importance and influence of the ulema families in
the ilmiye bureaucracy. Through a rigorous analysis of historical records,
75
genealogical data, and architectural features, the thesis provides insights into the
lives and roles of the ulema families. Therefore, the subsequent section will analyze a
dozen households selected randomly from the population record dated 1826, in
which the houses of ulema can be outlined with considerable detail. To put it
differently, the aforementioned population records not only exhibit a significant
number of seaside mansions belonging to the ulema as recorded in the Bostancıbaşı
records but also seem to serve as the predecessors of later records to showcase the
ilmiye’s consolidation on the region. Furthermore, this analysis of households may
be regarded as a case study that unveils the microcosm of Bebek during the initial
decades of the nineteenth century. By doing so, it aims to address the fact that the
ulema’s dominance on the specific lines of the Bosphorus can be seen as one of the
indicators that oppose the ulema’s decline in the nineteenth century.
76
Figure 14. Sahilhanes by the number of residents118
However, the provided graphs offer insights that prompt a discussion about
the sahilhanes' demographics. Primarily, it becomes apparent that the majority of
these sahilhanes housed fewer than ten men. It is worth noting that the presence of
women and female slaves could potentially double or even triple these figures.
Unfortunately, due to a lack of sufficient data or parameters for estimating the
number of women, including wives, daughters, and female servants, it remains
impossible to predict the total population of each household accurately. Nevertheless,
it is plausible to suggest that variations in professions within these households might
118 This table represents a case study that showcases the recorded forty-three sahilhanes from
Kurucesme to Emirgan, which excluded the hanes of the line. Destpite the fact that the numbers are
taken from 1826 population records, the ratio as well as the outcomes shall be articulated and
juxtaposed with the Bostancıbaşı records and other population records. Samples from the other
records are given in the appendix.
1-9 People
65%
10-15 People
19%
15+ People
16%
SAHİLHANES
77
serve as a valuable tool for estimating their total populations. In essence, some
households employed individuals such as tobacco makers or imams for their
religious practices, offering clues about the size and composition of the household.
Additionally, a noteworthy observation is that the vast majority of the small-sized
sahilhanes belonged to non-ilmiye bureaucrats. This observation can be interpreted
in two ways: firstly, it may signify the predominance of the ulema class in the larger
and more opulent sahilhanes along the Bosphorus shores. Secondly, upon closer
examination, it reveals that even within small and medium-sized households, middleranking
ilmiye individuals could be found. In other words, the ulema class
monopolized the larger residences, but they also had a significant presence within the
households of non-ilmiye bureaucrats, which will be explored in more detail later.
Last but not least, as it is added to the appendix, Bostancıbaşı records, as well as the
1844 and 1856 population records, to some extent refer to the fact that the Ulema
remained dominant in specific shores of the Bosphorus. Hence, the dominance of the
ulema on Bebek shores can be expanded throughout the aforementioned time frame.
However, this chapter delves into the discussion of the dozen households that
were randomly selected from 1826 population records.119 These households have
been clustered based on their number of residents, and each cluster contains four
households. Each of these households either belongs to a specific individual, often an
alim or bureaucrat, or constitutes a family unit. In essence, it will be classified the
selected sahilhanes into three categories based on size: large, medium, and trim. To
119 Big size Sahilhanes: Sıdkızade Ahmed Reşid (39), Mir Arif Efendi (43), Müşir M. Arif Efendi (39),
Mustafa Behçet Efendi (38)
Medium Size Sahilhanes: Hasan Tahsin Efendi (25), Mekkizade Mustafa Asım Efendi (21), Yusuf
Rıza Efendi (18), Hasan Hüsnü Efendi (15)
Small size Sahilhanes: Dürrizade Mehmed Abid Efendi (10), M. Ratib and İbrahim Fuad Efendiler
(10), Mehmed Arif Efendi (12), Yahyazade Mehmed Said Efendi (10)
78
provide a basis for this categorization by size, various population registers have been
thoroughly examined. It is important to note that the small-sized yalıs considered in
this study are categorized as small in comparison to the medium and large-sized
sahilhanes’ number of residents covered in the thesis. In fact, numerous households
were home to a couple of individuals in these records, which are not included in the
present work. In summary, the chapter will focus on this group of a dozen
households, aiming to analyze them as a microcosm of late Ottoman ilmiye society.
As explored in earlier chapters of this thesis, significant disparities exist among the
population registers from different time periods. These differences encompass
variations in the depiction of occupational groups and discernible differences in the
physical attributes of the individuals recorded.
Furthermore, achieving a comprehensive understanding of the nuclear
household structure is a complex endeavor. The documents, exemplified by the 1844
records, reveal peculiarities in recording practices, such as the inclusion of brotherin-
law relationships. This highlights the dynamic and evolving nature of recorded
familial connections and interpersonal relationships. Additionally, these population
registers, much like living organisms, undergo periodic revisions spanning several
decades and encompassing various alterations. Within this context, the age groups
can be meticulously traced using birthdates, although precise dating may sometimes
prove challenging. Moreover, a fundamental aspect of characterizing a household, as
gleaned from the population records, centers around the individual designated as the
titular owner of the sahilhane. This individual is intricately linked to other male
relatives, whether directly or indirectly, including siblings, children, grandchildren,
brothers-in-law, slaves, slave children, and even the meczubs. Consequently, the
narrative emerging from this material vividly portrays households as intricate and
79
multifaceted structures, where familial relationships extend far beyond the owner's
immediate family and encompass a diverse range of individuals and connections.
4.2. Sahilhanes by size: An analysis of the households
In this section, there will be an examination of twelve different households. The
following households were chosen randomly from the population registers in the
vicinity of Kuruçeşme-Emirgan, with a specific focus on the areas of Bebek and
Rumelihisarı. The names of their owners commonly refer to these historic residences,
and their order of listing in the records is determined by the number of households
they accommodated. So, the classification of these households into large, medium,
and small units within this section is given with reference to the number of male
household members documented in the material. According to the primary source,
the small households are classified as those in which twelve or fewer male
individuals are documented as household members. Medium-sized units typically
encompass approximately two dozen male names. In contrast, large units, which can
host up to a hundred individuals when considering unregistered women and female
slaves, usually have around thirty-eight to forty registered male household members.
Therefore, the socioeconomic prominence of the ulema class and their presence
around the fortresses on two sides of the Bosphorus will be analyzed. This
examination will be based on cumulative samples, gaining insights into the
occupations and backgrounds of the members within these households, thereby
facilitating comprehensive comparisons. Similarly, the occupational composition and
hometowns of the servants mentioned in the households will be emphasized to draw
modest inferences about their roles and origins within the historical narrative.
80
In examining the enormous-sized households of the ulema families, the
present work uncovers insights into their opulent lifestyles and influential roles
within the Ottoman society of the nineteenth century. One such remarkable example
is the sahilhane of Şeyhülislam Sıdkızade Ahmed Reşid (1758-1834). This mansion
stands out as an epitome of a high-ilmiye residence, boasting around thirty-five
servants and accommodating dozens, perhaps even over a hundred, of individuals.
The sheer number of servants alone distinguishes it as an impressive establishment
akin to a humble palace. Both his sons, Mehmed Rıfat Bey (d. 1875) and Mustafa
Hamid Bey, were affiliated with the ilmiye positions, exemplifying the continuity of
ilmiye affiliation across generations. Additionally, his older son served as a former
Galata Judge, a prestigious post within the Meşihat, while his younger son and sonin-
law, Mehmed Arif Efendi, were professors (müderris) and held influential
positions within the Evkaf Müfettişliği. This demonstrates how kinship and son-inlaw
relations played crucial roles in consolidating the elites' power and maintaining
the household's high status in the Ottoman realm.120
The mansion's elaborate structure and size allowed for various specialized
professions among its inhabitants. Within the immense sahilhane, one could find
professions such as coffee makers (kahveci), imams, praying callers (müezzin),
doorkeepers (kapıcı), and even tobacco makers. These occupations shed lights on the
diverse and luxurious needs of the ulema households of the nineteenth century.
Moreover, the dataset reveals an interesting observation about the kethüdas of the
ulema households, who were often engaged in the kadıship. This indicates a strong
120 Bouquet, “Old Elites in a New Republic: The Reconversion of Ottoman Bureaucratic Families in
Turkey (1909-1939),” 589.
81
trust relationship among the elite bureaucrats, where financial matters were likely
handled through established hierarchies and personal connections.
Moving on to another substantial sahilhane, the residence of former Rumelia
Judge, Mir Arif Efendi, hosted an impressive population of forty-three males. This
mansion epitomizes an imperial milieu, as it accommodated individuals from
different ethnicities, languages, and professions. However, Mir Arif Efendi's post
receiver was linked to the judgeship, and an imam served within the premises.
Interestingly, the records suggest that the household included female servants,
possibly of African origins, who gave birth. Furthermore, his older son, Raşid
Efendi, was a professor (müderris), whose own family shared the same house.
Another fascinating example to be explored is the sahilhane of Müşir Arif Efendi
(1808-1865), a statesman, and pasha. With sixteen children and at least a dozen
servants, this mansion exemplifies a bustling household. The presence of specialized
professions such as imams, mirahurs (chamberlains), kethüdas, cooks, boatmen,
farmland kethüda (estate managers), and three shepherds highlights the diverse
nature of the household's operations.121 Interestingly, this sahilhane not only housed
multiple people but also accommodated livestock, symbolizing the political and
socio-economic power of the pasha.
Similarly, the residence of former Rumelia judge and present imperial doctor
(Mir Etıbba), Mustafa Behçet Efendi, (1774-1834) housed around forty individuals
and employed several coffee makers, tobacco makers, cooks, and other servants. This
121 It can be mentioned that the prevailing focus of Ottoman labor history studies has predominantly
centered around the examination of the tobacco and textile workers. In this regard, the subsequent
studies might be regarded as illustrative instances. See. Erdem Kabadayı, Kate E. Creasey “Working
in the Ottoman Empire and in Turkey: Ottoman and Turkish Labor History within a Global
Perspective” Int. Labor and Working-Class History, no. 82, (Fall 2012), pp. 187-200. Can Nacar,
Labor and Power in the Late Ottoman Empire: Tobacco Workers, Managers, and the State, 1872-
1912. Palgrave Macmillan (2019).
82
mansion exemplifies the grand scale of living spaces for numerous people, reflecting
the socio-economic and political power of the bureaucrat class. In fact, this mansion
was home to significant ilmiye individuals and families, which was also a practical
mansion among the bureaucrats of the Tanzimat period. It was also known as
Abdülhak Molla Mansion, bequeathed to Abdülhak Molla (1786-1854) by his
brother, Hekimbaşı Behçet Efendi. Abdülhak Molla was also an imperial doctor as
well as his son Hayrullah Efendi (1818-1866). Evidently, their grandfather Hayrullah
Efendi was also a renowned imperial doctor. It was nestled among the seaside
mansions of Şeyhülislam Esadefendizade Şerif Efendi and Nuri Molla, a descendant
of Dürrizade Ata Molla.122
In his Oriental Memoirs, Helmuth Von Moltke (1836) makes reference to this
mansion while discussing the area. He describes it as follows;
In Bebek, under beautiful plane trees, there was a palace belonging to the
Sultan, a graceful mosque, and the residences of prominent individuals,
especially his acquaintance Hekimbaşı. Despite holding the position of
Hekimbaşı, the leader of all doctors, he had never pursued any medical
education. The sahilhane possessed a very exquisite garden replete with an
abundance of resplendent flowers. The garden is situated on the inclines of a
long mountain. Subsequently, the path leads one through a cemetery adorned
with majestic cypress trees, culminating in the ascent into a historic fortress,
serving as my primary place of leisurely strolls.123
Notably, Abdülhak Molla passed away within the confines of this palace in
1853. Mütercim Rüştü Pasha (1811, 1882) resided at the Hekimbaşı mansion for a
period, during which secret gatherings took place with the grand vizier, Hüseyin Avni
Pasha, Midhat Pasha, and the Şeyhülislam Hayrullah Efendi. Subsequently,
ownership of this esteemed estate was transferred to Ahmed Cevdet Pasha, a
prominent statesman renowned for his intellectual pursuits. In 1895, Cevdet Pasha
met his demise inside this residence. Following his passing, the Hekimbaşı mansion
122 Reşad Ekrem Koçu, İstanbul Ansiklopedisi (İstanbul: Tan Matbaası, 1958): 83-84.
123 Helmuth Von Moltke, Şark Notları, (ter. Hayrullah Örs) Remzi Kitabevi: İstanbul, (1969) pp. 41.
83
came under the ownership of Faik Bey, the father of the highly regarded artist Fahire
Fersan. The mansion underwent extensive renovations and repairs, dramatically
altering its original appearance.124 Overall, Hekimbaşılar Mansion presents a
noteworthy depiction of the interconnections among the late Ottoman elites. In this
respect, the mansion, also known as Abdülhak Molla Mansion, served as an
intersection point for many influential late Ottoman elites, from pashas to imperial
doctors and high-ranking ulema.
However, the present work explores how these considerably big sahilhanes
belonging to the ulema class exhibited resemblances in terms of socioeconomic
power. By analyzing their size, inhabitants, and professional affiliations, the thesis
paints a vivid picture of the influence wielded by the ulema families within the
Ottoman bureaucracy. These mansions, with their grandeur and specialized
professions, were more than sole residences; they represented centers of ostentation
and prestige within Ottoman society. Moreover, the presence of considerable seaside
mansions within the ulema class emphasizes their elevated social status and
economic prosperity. Furthermore, the sahilhanes of the Ulema families were not
isolated from the broader context of Ottoman society. Instead, they were
interconnected with other mansions and households along the Bosphorus coast,
creating a vibrant social network. As mentioned above, immigration from the old
town to the lavish shores of the Bosphorus has been an ongoing phenomenon for the
ilmiye, similar to the other pashas. One shall discuss the presence of high-ranking
ulema individuals who resided in the Bosphorus line during their early careers before
obtaining significant positions within the Rumelia and Anatolia Judiciary. This
migration of the ulema to the Bosphorus coast points to the strategic importance of
124 Reşad Ekrem Koçu, İstanbul Ansiklopedisi (1958) pp. 46-47.
84
these residences in building connections. Another way of building patronage, as
discussed above, was marriage, as the family ties were not merely personal matters;
they were strategic moves to solidify alliances, consolidate power, and expand
influence.125 The interconnectedness of various ulema families through marriage
alliances further strengthened their scope within the ilmiye officialdom.
Nonetheless, while the population records do not provide comprehensive data
on the number of women and female children in each household, they hint at their
significant presence. Female servants played essential roles in managing the
household, taking care of the family, and supporting daily activities. The existence of
female slaves, some possibly of African origins, adds a layer of complexity to the
household dynamics and reflects the interconnectedness of the Ottoman Empire with
the broader world through trade and slavery.126 In addition to this, the servant-sons of
African origins can be found in other types of seaside mansions that belonged to
boatmen or fishermen, in which a couple of male members were registered.127
However, throughout the late nineteenth century, there was a progressive rise in the
number of families that expressed opposition to the utilization of slave labor.
Additionally, middle-income families, who were unable to support the ownership of
slaves financially sought domestic assistance for their households. However, there
was no regular slave market in Istanbul at the time. As Albert Smith underlines the
fact that “The fair Circassians and Georgians reside in the houses of the merchants,
to whom many of them are regularly consigned by their friends.”128 Nevertheless, the
social organization of Circassians consisted of distinct social classes, including an
125 Bouquet, “Old Elites in a New Republic: The Reconversion of Ottoman Bureaucratic Families in
Turkey (1909-1939),” 589.
126 Ehud Toledano,“Late Ottoman Concepts of Slavery (1830s-1880s)” Poetics Today, 14, no. 3
(Autumn, 1993): 477-506.
127 See. Population record 1844 NFS.d 182 29.12.1260
128 Albert Smith, A Month in Istanbul (London, 1851), 175-76.
85
aristocratic group, liberated peasants, and a significant number of enslaved persons,
both male and female, who were held by aristocratic houses and were subject to
transactions involving their acquisition and transfer. Upon the migration of the
Circassian people to the Ottoman territories, it was typical for them to undergo a
substantial deprivation of their belongings. As a result, slave owners opted to
sell their female slaves, as there existed a continuous need for their labor inside the
affluent homes of Istanbul and Cairo. Moreover, the anguish endured by expelled
individuals prompted fathers to partake in the act of commodifying their daughters,
anticipating that this would lead to an enhanced standard of living for the latter.129 To
sum, the seaside mansions of the ulema were home for the Circassian slaves as they
also took their place within the middle-class Ottomans.
The medium-sized sahilhanes, on the other hand, provide us with a more
nuanced understanding of the diversity within the ulema households and the nonilmiye
bureaucrat's residences. Hasan Tahsin Efendi's seaside mansion, being one
such example, holds particular significance in shedding light on the intersection of
piety, philanthropy, and the interrelations between high-ranking bureaucrats and the
ilmiye entity. Despite not being part of the ulema class, Hasan Tahsin Efendi's
household demonstrates how religious figures, such as the imam of Selimiye
Mosque, were connected to the high-ranking bureaucrats, possibly indicating a level
of mutual support and collaboration between the two groups. One might claim that
the presence of meczups in his household highlights the consideration and care for
the less fortunate members of society within these residences. These meczups, were
often marginalized individuals with no particular job and were provided for and
taken care of, reflecting a sense of social responsibility among the Ottoman elites. In
129 Suraiya Faroqhi, Women in the Ottoman Empire: A Social and Political History, (IB Tauris 2023),
170.
86
order to understand the concept of philanthropy, building a fountain can be given as
an example in the Ottoman Empire, three groups of women were involved in the
construction of fountains. The first group consisted of women from the dynasty and
the administrative staff of the harem, such as kalfa, kethüda, and treasurer-master.
The second group consisted of women belonging to the ruling class and ulema
families. The last group consisted of women who were the founders of the fountains
built to meet the water needs of their neighborhoods. In this regard, the high-ranking
ulema families enjoyed humanitarian aid by building fountains and mosques around
the city.130
When it comes to philanthropy, Mekkizade Mustafa Asım needs to be
underlined as his sahilhane stands out as a captivating example of wealth and
prosperity among the ilmiye class. His immense fortune, as evidenced by the
approximately eight and a half million kuruş he left behind, showcases the economic
power that some ulema families held during the nineteenth century. The capability to
contribute sums of money for the renovation of Hagia Sophia Mosque underscores
the ulema’s impact not only within the religious sphere but also in the economic and
political realms131 Thus, examining Mekkizade’s mansion, an insight into the level of
richness and affluence preserved by some ulema families and individuals can come
up with a broader understanding of the core ruling strata of late Ottoman society.
Moving to Yusuf Rıza Efendi’s household, whose main occupation was
Haremeyn Muhasebecisi, was home to his müderris son. The idea that the expected
pattern of sons following their fathers’ footsteps into either the ilmiye or non-ilmiye
130 Betül İpşirli, Hayatlarının Çeşitli Safhalarında Harem-i Hümayun Cariyeleri, 18. Yüzyıl, (İstanbul:
Kitap Yayınevi, 2017): 254. Suraiya Faroqhi, Women in the Ottoman Empire: A Social and Political
History, (IB Tauris 2023), 304.
131 İlhami Yurdakul, “Şeyhülislamlar Silsilesinin Son Büyük Zengini Mekkizade Mustafa Asım
Efendi’nin Muhallefatı” Osmanlıda Şehir, Vakıf ve Sosyal Hayat (2017): 247-268.
87
bureaucrats solidifies the interconnectedness of these households. The involvement
of slave sons, such as Circassian Alaaddin and Greek Hurşid, in this household
reflects the cosmopolitan nature of a typical Ottoman ulema household. In fact, the
slave sons have been named after their mothers’ ethno-racial origins. Last but not
least, Mekkizade Mustafa Asım’s father, Mekki Efendi, a former Şeyhülislam, owned
a seaside mansion located in Anadoluhisarı.132
Hasan Hüsnü Efendi’s sahilhane can be given as another example worth
examining due to his position as the Mevkufat Kalemi Kisedarı. His son’s occupation
in the civil bureaucracy further exemplifies the standard pattern of having family
members within the same bureaucratic circles. That is to say, the practice of
following the father’s bureaucratic affiliations enables the sons to maintain
acceptable positions over generations. However, through the examination of these
residences, one might gain insights into the intersections between the ulema and nonilmiye
bureaucrats, the practice of nepotism in various kinds, and the economic
welfare of certain ulema families. However, due to the lack of materials, it has been
hard to detect economic activities and the level of economic power across the
Bosphorus Strait during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. In fact, the
economic activities were limited to small stores and industries.133 To give an
interesting example, two French men were operating a small brewery in the
Bosphorus suburb of Kuruçeşme until 1855, when they were attacked and injured.
Therefore, the lack of significant growth and sustainability among small-scale
132 An anecdote can be mentioned from a conversation between Tatarcık Abdullah Efendi (1730-
1797), a former Rumelia Judge, and Mekki Efendi. So, Tatarcık Abdullah Efendi paid a visit to Mekki
Efendi, whom he had caused to be dismissed, at his mansion in Anadoluhisarı, both to appease the old
Mekki Efendi and to prove that he was supposedly innocent. On this visit, Mekki Efendi was bothered
by the mosquitoes and the destructive mansion. See Koçu, pp. 47.
133 Artan, “Architecture as a Theatre of Life”, 149-150.
88
businesses in Istanbul during the later years of Mahmud's and the initial years of
Abdülmecid's rule may be attributed to two main factors: local pressure and legal
instability.134
The small-sized sahilhanes offer a diverse and dynamic view of the ulema
households, revealing intriguing patterns and interconnections among the elite
families. One such sahilhane belonging to the prominent Dürrizade family, headed
by Dürrizade Mehmed Abid Efendi, sheds light on the family's status and influence.
Dürrizade Mehmed Abid Efendi, a former Istanbul judge with affiliations to the
Anatolia judgeship, represented the pinnacle of the family's achievements. His son,
Ahmed Raşid, served as a müderris. Remarkably, the Dürrizade family owned
another small-sized sahilhane, inhabited by Dürrizade Mehmed Ataullah, Dürrizade
Mehmed Nurullah, and Paşmakçızade Abdullah. This particular arrangement hints at
the deep connections between the Dürrizade and Paşmakçızade families, extending
beyond mere marital exchanges. They shared the same residence, indicating shared
experiences in their daily lives. The intertwining of the ulema families in various
spheres underscores the cohesive nature of the elite social fabric during the
nineteenth century. Hence, the case of the Dürrizade family, with its two seaside
mansions, further exemplifies the allure of the Bosphorus line for the elite ulema
families. The Dürrizades had a longstanding tradition of serving the Meşihat as their
residential presence in the neighborhood signifies their wealth and prestige.
Another example of a small-sized sahilhane, which was owned jointly by two
alim brothers, Mehmed Ratib and İbrahim Fuad, served as the former Üsküdar judge,
whereas the other served as the Sofia judge. Similar to the vast majority of the
households, their kethüda was an old judge from Rumelia, Ahmed Raif Efendi. And
134 Malte Fuhrmann, Port Cities of the Eastern Mediterranean: Urban Culture in the Late Ottoman
Empire, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020): 179.
89
they had a couple of servants and cooks. Another sample can be mentioned as a small
sahilhane belonging to Mehmed Arif Efendi, an Istanbul judgeship holder. In spite of
the fact that this household was considered minor, both his sons, Ahmed Haydar and
Mehmed, without a doubt, obtained a professorship. His kethüda, again, was an old
judge, Mehmed Tahir, along with a couple of servants and cooks, as well as
Circassian son Rüstem. The presence of a Circassian son reflects the practice of
having male slaves within the household, a common phenomenon among the
Ottoman elite. Before finishing with the households, Yahyazade Mehmed Said
Efendi’s residence can be drawn as another sample. So, he obtained the Istanbul
judgeship, whose kethüda was an old judge similar to the other households.
Interestingly, this household was home to an imam, even though not many people
were mentioned in the record. The fact that an imam resided in the household
highlights the importance of religious practices and spiritual guidance within elite
families. To add, his son from a cariye mentioned after the name Mehmed Şeref with
no ethno-racial affiliation. Hence, one might claim that the servant was Muslim.
However, these records draw an interesting outline: a critical number of compelling
ilmiye figures of the nineteenth century have resided in these opulent shores of the
Bosphorus Strait.
In conclusion, the exploration of the small-sized sahilhanes reveals an
intricate web of connections, ambitions, and social mobility among the Ottoman
elite. These residences, while more modest in size compared to their larger
counterparts, played a vital role in shaping the social fabric of Ottoman Istanbul in
the nineteenth century. The dynamics observed within these households, such as
shared residences among influential families, the presence of male slaves, and the
dedication to education, all contribute to understanding the ulema's socio-political
90
and cultural influence at a micro level. Likewise, It is essential to acknowledge that
the sahilhanes were not static entities as families rose and fell in prominence, their
fortunes changed, and political dynamics shifted. The investigation of these
households provides a snapshot of a particular period, but it is crucial to recognize
the fluidity and evolution of Ottoman ulema households over time.
Nevertheless, later documented evidence implies that a number of ulema
families remained a residential presence on the glamorous shores of Bebek. Last but
not least, ulema families and individuals such as Dürrizades and Ebuishakzades
remained present within the Bosphorus shores for several decades. Likewise,
Şeyhülislam Ataullah’s mansion can given as an example that remained for decades,
which was later owned by his son Mehmed Şerif Efendi, former Smyrna Judge.
Likewise, the idea that Şeyhülislam families ought to be an owner of the sahilhanes
during the long nineteenth century has remained till the end of the century. Lastly,
according to several archival sources, Şeyhülislam Cemaleddin Efendi’s seaside
mansion was built on the shores of Bebek at the turn of the twentieth century.135 In
this regard, the idea that Şeyhülislam, the highest post of the ilmiye, owned a seaside
mansion on the Bosphorus has remained for centuries. This can be interpreted as a
symbolic testament to the resilience of the Ottoman high-ranking ilmiye in the face
of turbulent political and economic circumstances throughout the long nineteenth
century.
135 Şeyhülislam Cemaleddin Efendi’s seaside mansion can be given as an outstanding example of this.
See. ML.EEM. 227 26 23.02.1312
91
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
As a social entity, the ilmiye class, which eventually grew into one of the most
significant administrative components of the Ottoman state, rarely attracted
substantial attention from academia. It is possible to assert that the studies of the
twentieth century on the ulema are solely institution-based and pay less attention to
the social aspects of the individuals or families. In contrast, a number of recent
studies and approaches paid attention to opposing the aforementioned problems. In
addition, one of the most prominent historiographical problems in the field of ulema
studies is that it is entangled in either secularist or nationalist paradigms. At this
point, this thesis began unveiling the fundamental concepts that define the ilmiye,
examining the primary historiographical problems that have obscured a
comprehensive understanding of the subject. Through a critical examination, the
present work has paved the way for a more nuanced and insightful analysis of the
ulema households. Meşihat, is an institution that has wielded significant influence
and has shaped the framework of this study while unraveling the multifaceted layers
of the ulema families’ roles and contributions within the Ottoman Empire throughout
the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. By doing so, the present work aims to
provide a general survey of a number of prominent ulema families and their presence
and consolidation across the Bosphorus Strait from late eighteenth to the nineteenth
century.
As mentioned in this thesis, Madeline Zilfi's main argument, that the
bureaucracy of the ilmiye was dominated by the ulema families in the eighteenth
century, can be partially extended to the nineteenth century through the Meşihat and
92
Rumeli Kazaskerlik posts. Nevertheless, this can only serve as a benchmark for the
interpretation of the ilmiye bureaucracy. Although this thesis attempts to explain the
idea that the ulema did not decline through social assets by analyzing the sahilhanes
and households, it does not argue that the Meşihat never declined politically during
the Tanzimat period. In fact, a critical amount of work circulated around the highranking
ulema's political roles during the Tanzimat period, which tended to question
the political roles of the Şeyhülislam and other high-ranking ilmiye bureaucrats. One
shall argue that the social and political privileges that were primarily given to the
ulema in the pre-Tanzimat period represented a supreme level of rights. However,
these rights faced a gradual decrease due to Tanzimat bureaucratization.
Nevertheless, the initial chapter of the thesis covers the Tanzimat period and
the Ulema, in which the general portrayal of the Bab-ı Meşihat and the ulema
genealogies are given. In this regard, the present work claims that the dominance of
particular ulema families within the ilmiye bureaucracy can be prolonged through the
nineteenth century. Hence, it can be articulated that even though the ilmiye
bureaucracy faced an institutional transformation from the late eighteenth century to
the end of the empire, the idea of belonging to an ulema family can be found among
the backgrounds of the majority of Şeyhülislams of the period. The second chapter
was followed by a representation of more than fifteen ulema genealogies while
discussing the established patronage networks. By doing so, chapter two gives
particular focus on the Şeyhülislams who obtained tenure after Mekkizade Mustafa
Asım Efendi. In fact, the idea that the Şeyhülislams after him exhibited a low profile
can be questioned with specific reference to their familial backgrounds. The
following chapter aims to draw attention to the spatiality of the Bosphorus after
introducing the primary sources of the thesis. In this regard, it analyzes the
93
Bostancıbaşı Records and population registers, followed by examining the
architectural aspects of the seaside mansions. Furthermore, the third chapter aims to
emphasize the social transformation of Bosphorus’ specific neighborhoods,
Kuruçeşme and Bebek, in terms of the notion of immigration as well as the
ostentation exhibited during the reign of Abdülmecid. In this respect, one can claim
that from the earlier Bostancıbaşı records to the 1856 population records, many
ulema individuals and families remained on the opulent shores of the Bosphorus.
Although the thesis aims to provide a case study on a dozen households and the
seaside mansions that belonged to the ulema during the first half of the nineteenth
century, one might observe that the presence of the ilmiye remained until the end of
the century. As mentioned previously, the Ottoman palace provided financial aid for
building a new and immense seaside mansion for Şeyhülislam Cemaleddin Efendi in
1894. Therefore, to some extent, building or buying an immense seaside mansion
located on the Bebek-Rumelihisarı coastlines remained present till the last
Şeyhülislams of the empire.
Although the scholarship on Ottoman ulema has been the subject of more
accurate and appealing studies in recent years, it needs further examination. In this
respect, new studies that prioritize the sociocultural assets and economic
accumulations of the ulema families would be convenient. In addition, new
prosopographical approaches centered on ulema registry documents and studies of
ulema that include more comprehensive and mutually reinforcing specific examples
from population registers would be favorable for examining this topic. However, the
present work aims to make a modest contribution to the ulema studies by juxtaposing
the material with the idea of göç from old Istanbul to the Bosphorus shores during
the eighteenth century. Likewise, the interest of the ilmiye and non-ilmiye elites in
94
ostentation as well as owning property on the shores of the Bosphorus, has become a
phenomenon during the nineteenth century. It has coincided with the mobility of the
workers of specific industires and middle-class merchants. Last but not least, the
microcosm of the Istanbulite ulema families is discussed and outlined by conducting
a household analysis of particular sahilhanes on a specific location. To construct a
robust argument, the primary sources which were meticulously contextualized and
analyzed, revealing pathways leading to the households of the ulema. An intricate
exploration of sahilhanes’ architectural attributes illuminated the broader ethnoracial,
demographic, and cultural landscape of the Bosphorus, with particular
emphasis on the residences of the ulema families.
95
APPENDIX A
BOSTANCIBAŞI DEFTERLERİ AND NÜFUS DEFTERLERİ
Kuruçeşme
Bebek Şeyh Himmetzade Molla Necib
Seretıbba-I Hassa Numan Efendi
Dürrizade Molla Efendinin Yalısı
Merhum Yesarizade Molla Efendi
Edirne Mollası Abdurrahimzade Ali Rıza Efendi
Sabık Şeyhülislamın Hemşiresinin Yalısı
Halen Nakibüleşraf Efendi
Ataullahzade Abdülhamid
Hanımının Yalısı
Nurullah Efendizade İlyas
Kardeşi Salim Efendi
Kardeşi Abid Efendi
Maktül Süleymanın Çocukları
Rumelihisari-Baltalimani Sabık Şeyhülislam Aşir Efendinin Yalısı
Sabık Sofya Mollası Feyzullah Efendi
Rakım Paşazade Abdülgani
Gelenbevizade Said Efendi
Nakibüleşrafzade İbrahim Edhem
Hıfzızade Kızının Yalısı
Kassam Katibi Mehmed Emin Efendi
Mekkizade Molla Efendi
Benlizade Ahmed Reşid
Sabık İstanbul Kadısı Osman Molla Efendi
Yenişehir Mollası Emin Efendi
Müderristen Abdullah Efendizade Süleyman
Raşid Efendizade Mehmed Salim
Sabık Bursa Mollası Kebirizadeler Yalısı
İncirköy-Paşabahçe-
Pazarkayiği
Sabık Mekke Mollası Abdülkerim Efendi
Dürrizade Nuri Molla Efendinin Oğullarının Yalısı
Keçecizade Efendinin Kızlarının Yalısı
Kerim Beyzade Derviş Bey
Hafız Ali Ağa
Arabzade Zeki Molla
Sabık İzmir Mollası Münib Efendi
Kadılardan Minnet Efendi Haznedarı Mustafa
Sabık Sadr-I Rum Salihzade Efendinin Yalısı
96
Sabık Mekke Mollası Said Efendinin Yalısı
Çelebi Efendizade Torunu Zihni Efendi
Sabık Üsküdar Mollası Hüsameddin
Efendizadelerin Yalısı
Sabık Bursa Mollası Mekki Molla Efendinin Yalısı
Sabık Şam Mollası Şeyhzade Ali Efendi
Mekki Bey’in Yalısı
Hacegandan Tahir
Müderristen İzzet Efendizade
Bostaniskelesi-Anadolu
Hisari
Arabzade Arif Molla Kiracı (Hakkı Paşanın
Yalısında)
Kadılardan Hasan Efendi
Sabık Edirne Mollası İsmail Efendi
Halen Bursa Mollası Atıfzade Ömer Efendi
Kandilli
" Merhum Şairzade İbrahim Ağanın Oğlu
" Kadılardan Mustafa Efendi
" Halen Mekke Mollası Bayburtluzade Molla Efendi
" Kadılardan Tosyalızade Alizadelerin Yalısı
" Veli Efendizade Kethudası Kadılardan Said Efendi
" Hayatizade Torunu Molla
" Tuti Molla Hanımın Yalısı
" Bekir Efendizade Ahmed Molla
Kuleli-Çengelköy
" Müftüzade Selim Molla
" Sadr-I Sabık Yusuf Paşazade Müderristan Mahmud
Bey
" Sadrazam Yusuf Paşanın Yalısı
" Halen Veliyünniam Samanizadenin Yalısı
" Sabık Selanik Mollası Celal Efendi
" Melek Mehmed Paşazade Salih Efendi
" Müderristen Adem Efendi
" Atıfzade Mühürdarı Hafız Mustafa Efendi
" Cabizade Mustafa Efendi
" Kadılardan Hammami Ali Efendinin Zevcesi Ve
Kızının Yalısı
" Sabık Eyüp Mollası Osmanpaşazade İzzet Bey
" Müderristen Kamil Molla
Nakkaşpaşa Köprülüzadelerin Meşruta Yalısı Ve Kayıkhanesi
Kuzguncuk Arabzade Arif Molla
İsmailpaşazade İsmet Bey
• Hacegandan Emin Efendi
Öküzlimani Sabıık Şeyhülislamlardan Mehmed Mollazadelerin
Yalısı
97
• Vezir Müfettişinin Yalısı
Kadılardan El Hac Mustafa Efendinin Yalısı
• Sabık Esrar Katibi Sabık Üsküdar Mollası İbrahim
Efendi
• Mekke Mollası Halil Efendi
Kadiköy Arabzade Oğlu Molla Efendinin Hanesi
Figure 1. Bostancıbaşı Defteri 1802
98
Hasköy Bülbülzade Hasan Ağanın Yahudhanesi
Üsküdar-Haydarpaşa Karışık Kürkçü-İpekçi-Kahveci
Kadıköy Arabzade Oğlu Molla Efendinin Hanesi
Öküz Limanı Eşrafı Kuzattan Mustafa Efendinin Yalısı
Üsküdar Merhum Şeyhülislam Mollazadelerin Yalısı
" Sabık Sır Katibi İbrahim Efendinin Yalısı
Balaban Merhum Raşid Efendinin Yedi Kayıkhanesi
Kuzguncuk Büyük Yahudi Haneleri
" Merhum Ata Bey Halilesi Hanımın Yalısı
" Sadrı Rum Arapzade'nin Arsası
" Sabık Sadrı Rum İsmail Paşazade İsmet Beyin Yalısı
Beylerbeyi Atıfzade Mühürdarı Mustafa Efendi Yalısı
Beylerbeyi Sultan Katibi, Bekir Ağanın Damadı
İstavroz -Nakkaşpaşa Müderrisden Adem Efendinin Yalısı
İstavroz -Nakkaşpaşa Merhum Şeyhülislam Kamil Efendinin Yalısı
İstavroz -Nakkaşpaşa Merhum Tezkire-I Evvel Enveri Efendi Halilesi Yalısı
İstavroz -Nakkaşpaşa Köprülüzadelerin Yalısı Ve Kayıkhanesi
Sadr-I Sabık Merhum Yusuf Paşazadelerin Yalısı
Hammam İskelesi Merhum İstanbul Kadısı Hamdullah Beyin Yalısı
" Hala Sadrazam Yusuf Paşa Yalısı
" Sabık Üsküdar Mollası Celal Efendinin Yalısı
" Sabık Mimar Tahir Ağanın Yalısı
" Kıbrıslı Ali Ağanın Yalısı
Vaniköy Hayatızade Hafidi Molla Efendinin Yalısı
"
Çaprazlıdamadızade Hasan Efendinin Yalısı, Kurbünde
Bahçesi
" Tuti Molla Hanımın Yalısı
" Bekir Efendizade Ahmed Mollanın Yalısı
" İbrahim'in Kerimesinin Yalısı
Kuleli - Müftüzade Selim Mollanın Yalısı
Vaniköy Kuzattan Sait Efendi
Göksu İzzet Paşazade Sait Beyin Yalısı
" Defterdar Efendi Yalısı
Kandilli Merhum Mekke Mollası Tosyalı Ali Efendinin Yalısı
Göksu - Kandilli Hatvanizade Hafidi Hakkı Mollanın Yalısı
" Sabık Yenişehir Mollası Mekki Mollanın Yalısı
99
" Müderrisini Kiramdan İzzet Efendizade Yalısı
Gübre İskelesi Halil Paşazade Ahmed Beyin Cedit Yalısı
" Sadrı Anadolu Sabık Şemseddin Efendi Yalısı
" Sabık Reisülküttab Rasih Efendinin Yalısı
" Sabık Edirne Mollası İsmail Efendinin Yalısı
" Sabık Üsküdar Mollası Atıfzade Ömer Efendinin Yalısı
Kefeli - Anadolu
Hisarı Kuzattan Seyit Ahmet Efendinin Yalısı Ve Kayıkhanesi
" Eşrafı Kuzattan Hasan Efendinin Yalısı
" Kurbunda Çeşmizade Efendinin Yalısı
" Hacegandan Aziz Efendizadelerin Yalısı
" Evliya Ahmed Paşazade M. Beyin Halilesi Yalısı
" Tavukçubaşı Emin Ağanın Yalısı
Kanlıca - Bahayi Sabık Edirne Mollası Muratzade
" Sabık Sadrı Rum Salihzade Efendinin Yalısı
" Sabık İzmir Mollası Münib Efendinin Yalısı
" Müderrisi Kiramdan Atabeyin Yalısı
" Kuzattan Münib Efendi Haznedarı Mustafa Efendinin Yalısı
" Kuzattan Ahmet Reşid Efendinin Yalısı
" Hala Üsküdar Mollası Çelebizade Hafidi Zeyni Molla
" Sabık Şam-I Şerif Mollası Şeyhzade Ali Efendinin Yalısı
" Bursa Mollası Mekki Mollanın Yalısı
" Mekke Mollası Said Efendinin Yalısı
" Sabık Üsküdar Mollası Hüsamettin Efendizadelerin Yalısı
" Memin Efendizade Kadri Efendinin Yalısı
Çubuklu-Paşabahçe Kara İsmail Efendizade Ali Efendinin Yalısı
" Merhum Mekke Mollası Abdülkerim Efendinin Yalısı
" Dürrizade Nuri Molla Oğullarının Yalısı
" Arabzade Zadesi Zeki Mollanın Yalısı
" Keçecizade Efendi Kerimelerinin Yalısı
" Solakzade İsmail Efendinin Yalısı
" Kuzattan Fındık Ahmed Efendinin Yalısı
" Kerim Bey Zade Derviş Beyin Yalısı
" Merhum Kudüs Mollası Vereselerinin Yalısı
Figure 2. Bostancıbaşı Defteri 1803
100
Vaniköy Kenan Efendizade Kullarının Yalısı
" Rumeli Eşrafıdan Seyit Ethem Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
" Müderrisin-I Kiramdan Ahmet Necip Efendisinin Yalısı
" Kurbine Dolapaltı Nam Mahaldir
" Veliefendizade Efendi Kethudası Said Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
" Ahmet Beyzade Numan Bey Kullarının Yalısı
" Hayatizade Molla Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
" Kurbinde Kuzzattan Halil Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
" Müderrisin-I Kiramdan Sadullah Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
" Mekke-I Mükerreme Mollası Taki Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
" Defterdar Müteveffe Feyzi Efendizade Kullarının Yalısı
" Şevki Efendizade Kullarının Yalı
Göksu İzzet Paşa Torunu Ata Bey Kullarının Yalısı
" Soğukçeşmeli Ebubekir Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
" Anadolu Muhasabe Kisedarı Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
" Kapudanpaşa Hazinedarı Emin Ağa Kullarının Yalısı
" Kurbinde Kandilli İskelesi
" Şam Valisi Silahdar Süleyman Paşa Kulları Yalısı
" Mekke Mollasızade Arif Efendinin Yalısı
" Kurbinde Şükrüzade Efendinin Yalısı
Kefeli - Anadolu
Hisarı Kurbinde Yasincizade Efendinin Yalısı
" Hakkı Paşazade Bey Kullarının Yalısı
" Kurbinde Kuzzattan Hüseyin Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
" Hasanpaşazade Oğlu Ahmet Bey Kullarının Yalısı
" Kurbinde Abdi Efendi Mahdumlarının Yalısı
" Kurbinde İsmail Efendi Kerimesinin Yalısı
" Kurbinde Mehmet Eminzade Kadri Bey Kullarının Yalısı
" Kurbinde Hacı Hasanzade Sadık Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
" Kurbinde Sabık Reisülküttap Galip Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
" Kurbinde Şerif Paşazade Sait Bey Kullarının Yalısı
" Derviş Efendizade Tahir Efendi Yalısı
" Salihzade Efendi Kethüdası Emin Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
Anadolu Hisarı-
Kanlıca
Hüsameddinzade Yalısı Müsteciriri Yahya Efendi Hazine Katibi
Mustafa Efendi
" Kurbinde Münip Efendi'nin Yalısı
101
"
Nakibül-Eşraf Zihni Molla Efendi Yalısı Müsteciri Mühürdar-I
Sabık Nuri Efendi Kulları
"
Sultan Beyazıt İmamı Sadık Eefendi Yalısı.Müsteciri Teşrifat
Kesedarı Necip Efendi Kulları
"
Nakibül-Eşraf Zihni Molla Efendi Yalısı Müsteciri Mühürdar-I
Sabık Nuri Efendi Kulları
" Sabık Şeyhülislam Salihzade Efendi Yalısı
" Müderrisin-I Kiramdan Mehmet Raif Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
" Kurbinde Fındıkzade Sadık Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
" Ataullah Efendi Vereselerinin Yalısı
" Nakibül Eşraf Kayıkhanesi
Çubuklu Kurbinde İzmir Mollası Derviş Beyin Yalısı
" Kurbinde Defter Emini Sabık Muhib Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
" Sabıka İstanbul Kadısı Hammamizade Efendi'nin Yalısı
Paşabahçe Mevali-I İzamdan Yenişehirli Yahya Bey Kullarının Yalısı
" Üsküdar Mollasızade Şakir Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
" Kurbinde Molla Kadın'ın İki Bab Yalısı
" Kurbinde Mollacıkzadenin Köhne Bahçesi
AVRUPA
Emirgan Kurbinde Müderris-I Kiramdan İsmail Efendi'nin Yalısı
"
Müderrisin-I Kiramdan Kapan Naibzade Abdülhalim Efendi
Kullarının Yalısı
" Kurbinde Ebubekir Paşa Hemşiresi Cariyelerinin Yalısı
" Kurbinde Şerif Molla Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
"
Kurbinde Surre-I Hümayyun Emini İrfanzade Arif Efendi
Kullarının Yalısı
" Müderrisin-I Kiramdan Cafer Bey Kullarının Yalısı
" Kurbinde Kuzzat'tan Abdullah Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
" Fevkinde Nakşıbendi Dergahı
Baltalimanı
Müderrisin-I Kiramdan Meftahağası Sabık Arif Efendi
Kullarının Yalısı
"
Cabbarzade Kapu Kethüdası Mustafa Beyin Yalısı Müsteciri
Hacı Numan Beyzade Efendi Kulları
" Edirne Mollazade Yusef Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
" Mevküfat Kesedarızade Hamdi Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
"
Kurbinde Edirne Mollası Kalyoncuzade Efendi Kullarının
Yalısı
"
Esbak Valide Sultan Kethüdasızade Münir Bey Kullarının
Yalısı
102
" Tevfik Efendi Kethüdasızade Selim Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
Rumeli Hisarı -
Bebek Küttaptan Rifat Bey Kullarının Yalısı
" Kurbinde Sabık Hisar Sardarı Numan Kullarının Kahvesi
"
Dergah-I Ali Kapucubaşı Ağalarından Berberi Şehriyari Sabık
Mehmet Ağa Kullarının Yalısı
" Kurbinde Aralık İskele
" Kurbinde Beğlizade Reşit Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
" Kurbinde Kapu Halifesi Emin Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
" Kurbinde Kevakibizadenin Kayıkhanesi Ve Dükkanları
" Kurbinde Zumandan Şakir Ağa Kullarının Yalısı
" Sabık Kazasker-I Anadolu Mekkizade Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
" Kurbinde Mumaileyh Kullarının Yalısı
"
Kurbinde Hisar Mektebi Ve Hamam Ve İskele Kurbinde Arif'in
Dükkanı
" Kurbinde Sabık Gümrük Katibi Emin Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
"
Sait Efendinin Yalısı Müsteciri Şehsuvarzade Derviş Bey
Kulları
" Kurbinde Mekkizade Sebili Ve Çeşmesi İskele
" Müderrisin-I Kiramdan Köprüzade Asım Bey Kullarının Yalısıi
" Kumkapı İmam Hacı Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
" Hububat Katibi Sabık Lütfullah Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
" Müneccim-I Sani Emin Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
" Kurbinde Kalaycızade Osman Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
" Kurbinde Serapa Kahve Dükkanları
" Şeyh Dülgerzade Kerimesi Hatunun Yalısı
" Kurbinde Aralık İskele
" Şamlı Elhac Seyyit Halil Ağa Kullarının Yalısı
" Nakibzade İbrahim Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
" Kurbinde İmam Abdullah Efendi Kullarının Harap Yalısı
" Cebehane Halifesi İsmail Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
" Gelenbelizade Halilesinin Yalısı
"
Biraderzadesi Halilesinin Yalısı Müsteciri Rumeli Kassamı
Sabık Sıtkı Efendi Kulları
" Rumelihisar Cami-I Şerifi. Pişgahı İskelesi
" Kurbinde Kasap Salhanesi
" Binyüzcü Halil Ağa Halilesinin Yalısı
103
" Kurbinde Attar Ali Bey Kullarının Yalısı
" Kurbinde Kayalar Nam Mevkidir
" Rumeli Orta Hisarı Kalesi
" Nalburzade Mustafa Kullarının Yalısı
" Musullu Ali Efendi Kerimesinin Yalısı
" Kurbinde Cami-I Şerif Mevzileri
" Durmuş Dede Türbesi Ve Mescid-I Şerifi
" Kurbinde Kal'a-I Mezburun Nöbet Yeri
"
Bekaya Katibi İbrahim Efendi'nin Yalısı Müsteciri Pirinç
Bezirgan Kulları
" İbrahim Hanzade Vakıf Cabii Veresinin Yalısı
" Kurbinde Hasan Tahir Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
" Kurbinde Türbedan Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
"
Esiri Eminağazase Yalısı.Müsteciri Bursa Müderrisi Efendi
Kulları
" Efendi-I Muamileyh Kullarının Yalısı
" Bebek Ustası Mahmut Ustanın Kullarının Hanesi
" Kurbinde Balışçıbaşı Kullarının Odası
" Sabık Şeyhülislamzade Molla Efendinin Yalısı
" Nurullah Efendizade Kullarının Yalısı
" Sabika Yeniçeri Ocağı Divan Katibi Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
" Hamamcı Mustafa Ağa Kullarının Yalısı
" Kurbinde Bebek Bostanı Nam Mahaldir
" Sabık Hekimbaşı Behçet Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
" Karındaşı Salim Efendi Vereselerini Yalısı
" Sabika Topçubaşı Eminağazadenin Yalısı
"
Şeyhülislam Efendi Biraderi Ata Efendizade Molla Efendi
Kullarının Yalısı
" Kurbinde Dürrizade Efendi Kerimesi Hanımın Yalısı
" Ata Efendi Hafidi Nuri Molla Efendi'nin Yalısı
" Diğer Karndaşı Abid Molla Efendinin Yalısı
" Süleyman Raşit Efendizade Mehmet Bey Kullarının Yalısı
Bebek Şeyhülislam Dürriefendizade Efendi Yalısı
" Kurbinde Dividigüzel Halilesinin Yalısı
"
Sultan Ahmet Han Salis Hazretlerinin Cami-I Şerif Ve Mektep
Ve İskelesi
" Sabık Haremi Şerifeyn Müftisi Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
104
" Kurbinde Hasan Tahir Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
" Müderrisin-I Kiramdan Elmas Ebezade Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
" Kurbinde Bebek Bostaniyan Kullarının Ocağı
" Kuzat-I Kiramdan Mehmet Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
" Paşa Mahmut Ağa Halilesinin Yalısı
" Kurbinde Ömer Efendi Halilesinin Yalısı
" Kurbinde Yeserizade Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
" Bebek Kasr-I Hümayunu
" Kurbinde Soğancıbaşızade Kadri Bey Kullarının Yalısı
" Küçük Bebek Nam Mahaldir
" Kurbinde Hançerli Karısı Nasraninin Hanesi
"
Kurbinde Baş Eski Bostanı Kullarının Kahvesi Ve Beş Bab
Dükkan
"
Müşarünilayh Kullarının Biraderi İstanbul Kadısı Arif Efendi
Kulları Yalısı
" Kurbinde Bedestani Ahmet Ağa Kullarının Yalısı
" Kurbinde Miri Peksimet Fırını
" Kurbinde Akıntı Burnu Nam Mahaldir
" Kurbinde Berber Ve Bakkal Dükkanı
" Biniş-I Hümayun Yeri. Mehmet Paşa Kasrı
" Kurbinde Hazinedarbaşı Şakirağa Kullarının Yalısı
" Kurbinde Hekimbaşı Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
" Beyhan Sultan Hazretlerinin Ma-I Leziz Çeşmesi
"
Halilpaşazade Mimirandan Keramettin Nuri Paşa Kullarının
Yalısı
" İsmetlu Beyhan Sultan Hazretlerinin Sarayı
"
Kethüda-I Sadr-I Ali Müteveffa İbrahim Efendi Halilesinin
Yalısı
" Kurbinde Himmetzade'nin Yalısı
Kuruçeşme Kurbinde Aralık İskelesi
" Kurbinde Şarapçı Andriyas Zimminin Hanesi
" Kurbinde İnhiliz Bezirganı Hanesi Ve Bahçesi
" Cevahirci Avram Yahudisinin Hanesi Müsteciri Bohor Yahudi
" Kurbinde Sarraf Uzun Artin Oğlunun Hanesi
" Kurbinde Karaca Boyar'ın İki Çeşm Kayıkhanesi
" Kurbinde Avram Yahudinin Hanesi Ve Tahtında Kahvesi
" Kurbinde Avramço Yahudinin Kayıkhanesi
105
" Kurbinde Sarraf Artin Karısı Nasraninnin Hanesi
"
Hançerli Bey Kullarının Hanesi Müsteciri Şarapçı Bohraki
Sarraf Kulları
" Kurbinde Dülbentçi Esnafından Sekis Zimmnin Hanesi
" Kurbinde Kuruçeşme İskelesi
" Kurbinde Aralık İskelesi
" Kurbinde Yahudilerin İrad Kayıkhanesi
" Kurbinde Sarraf Kasbar Zimminin Hanesi
"
Müderris-I Kiramdan Yenişehirli Mustafa Paşazade Şefik Bey
Kullarının Yalısı
" İsmet Esma Sultan Hazretlerinin Tırnakçı Yalısı
" Yahya Paşazade Ali Bey Kullarının Yalısı
" İsmet Beyhan Sultan Hazretlerine İntşkal Eden Yalı Arsası
"
Dergah-I Ali Kapucubaşlarından Abdullah Paşazade
Muhammet Bey Kullarının Yalısı
" İsmetlu Hibetullah Sultan Hazretlerinin Saray-I Alileri
" Kapudan Paşa Divan Efendisi Emin Efendi Kullarının Arsası
" Hekimbaşı Arif Efendi Kerim Esinin Arsası
" Hala Çarhçıbaşı Çevuşzade Emin Efendi Kullarının Yalısı
" Boyar Anaştaş Zimminin Hanesi
" Kurbinde Ekmekçioğlu Deresi Nam Mahaldir
"
Enderun-U Hümayun Pazarbaşısı Mustafa Bey Kullarının
Arsası
" Kadıasker Mütevaffa Ata Efendizade Molla Efendi
" Tırnakçızade İbrahim Bey Kullarının Yalısı
" Karaca Boyar Zimminin Hanesi
Ortaköy Sarraflar Çok
"
Kurbinde Sarraf Zimminin Agopyan Zimminin Hanesi Ve
Kayıkhanesi
" İsmetlu Hatice Sultan Hazretlerinin Neşetabad Saray-I Alileri
" Çavuşlar Emini Tahir Efendi'nin Yalısı
Figure 3. 1815 Bostancıbaşı Defteri
106
Ayvansaray-
Eyüb Müteveffa Uryanizade Mahdumu M. Said Efendinin Hanesi
Eyüp Müteveffa Kazasker Bekir Ağazadenin Vereselerinin Yalısı
" Müteveffa Medine Mollası Vereselerinin Yalısı
Hasköy Müderristen Derviş Mustafa Efendi Kullarının Yahudhanesi
36.B Sf 154 Bebek:
" Şeyhülislam Abdullah Molla
" Şeyhülislam Dürrizade Abdullah Molla
" Sadrazam Salih Paşa
37.B Sf 156
" Dürrizade Biraderi Ata Efendi
" Ata Efendi Hafidi Nuri Efendi
" Rumeli Kazaskeri Sıdkizade Efendi
" Mekke Kadısı Abid Efendi
" Şeyhülislam Esad Efendizade Molla
39.B Sf 160 Rumelihisari
" Mekkizade Asım Efendinin Yalısı
"
Sarrafzâde Mahdumu Raşid Efendi Kullarının Yalısı Müste’ciri
Sabık İslambol Kadısı Abdulhayr Efendi Kulları
" Köprülüzâde Asım Beyzâde Saffet Hamid Bey Kullarının
" Mevaliden Sabık Edirne Monlası Yusuf Efendizâde Kullarının
"
Sabık Şam Monlası Yahyazâde Mehemmed Said Efendi Kullarının
Yalısı
Figure 4. 1822 Bostancıbaşı Defteri
107
Hane
No
Ad Vazife Ek/İlişki Doğum
Tarihi
1 Devletlü Hacı
Rauf Paşa Hz.
Devletlü
2 Kamil Paşa Devletlü b. 1223
3 M. Şerif b.
Şeyhülislam
Ataullah
Encümen-i daniş,
sudur-i izamdan
b. 1213
4 Mehmet Rıfat b.
Sıdkızade
Sudur-i izamdan Sıdkızadenin oğlu b. 1213
Gulamı ... b.
Abdullah Çerkes
Köle b. 1263
5 Mustafa İzzet b.
Mustafa
Meclis-i Vala
azasından
b. 1218
Gulamı M.
Ataullah b.
Mustafa İzzet,
müderrisin-i
kiramdan
b. 1264
Abdurrahman
Efendi
akrabasından
mektupçuları b. 1249.
2 kişi daha var
birisi kırşehirli
6 Hayrullah Efendi Encümen-i Daniş
reisi
Seretıbba
Abdülhamid'in
oğlu
b. 1242
Fusus Efendi Hayrullah Efendi's
son
b. 1255
Hamid Efendi Müderris Hayrullah Efendi's
son
b. 1270
7 İbrahim Bey
Efendi
Meclis-i Vala Evrak
Müdürü
b. 1242
8 Mehmed Emin
Efendi
Nizamiye
Muhasebecisi
b. 1219
Ahmed
Abdüşşekur
M. Emin's son b. 1262
Ali Bey
Ali Rıza Efendi Mektub-u Maliye
hulefasından, rütbeyi
saniye sahibi
M.Emin Efendi's
son-in-law
b. 1243
Halil Necib Bey Mektupçu Defterdar Esbak
İzzet's son
b. 1250
9 Ahmed Arifi Mütercim-i evvel,
rütbeyi saniye
Mimarlardan
Meclis-i Vala reisi
esbak Şekib Paşa's
son
b. 1246
Mehmed Nuri Arifi's son b. 1271
Mehmed
Memduh
Tercüme Odası
hülefasından
Meclis-i Vala reisi
esbak Şekib Paşa's
son
b. 1255
108
10 Mehmed Raşid
Bey Efendi
Hazineyi hassa
kefeciyi hümayun
nazırı
Çavuş Şekib Paşa's
son
b. 1223
Abdulkadir Salim
Bey
Mektubi sadrı gurre
hülefasından
M. Reşid Bey's
son-in-law
b. 1251
Kamil b.
Abdullah el-
Habeşi
Zenci Gulamı Slave b. 1267
11 Mehmed Şevket
Bey
Mektubi sadrı gurre
hülefasından
Kamil Paşa's sonin-
law
b. 1243
Ali Bey Şevket's son b. 1269
Süleyman Bey Şevket's son b. 1272
12 Hacı M. İzzet Istablı amire
müdürlüğü
payelilerinden
Abdullah's son b. 1224
M. İzzet Emtia Gümrüğü
ketebesinden
İzzet's son b. 1250
Halid Bey İzzet's son b. 1252
M. Necib Hariciye mektubu
hülefasından
İzzet's son b. 1254
Sabit Bey İzzet's son b. 1260
M. Asım Bey İzzet's son b. 1261
13 Cabbarzade
Mehmed Naim
Bey
... kiramdan Abdurrahman
Paşa's son
b. 1216?
M. Emin Naim's brother b. 1269
14 M. Ağa b.
Süleyman
Bolu Sancağı ..
kazalı
b. 1193
Mustafa
(tebadan)
Mehmed Ağa's son b. 1233
Rıfat Efendi Mızıkayı
Hümayundan
Mehmed Ağa's
grandson
b. 1254
M. İzzet Efendi Enderunu hümayun
.. sından
Mehmed Ağa's
grandson
b. 1260
Ali Efendi Mehmed Ağa's
grandson
b. 1265
15 Mustafa b.
Abdullah
(tebadan)
Vidin sancağı ...lı b. 1233
16 M. Latif Efendi bila sanat b. 1240
17 Sadullah b.
Abdullah
b. 1233
18 H. Mehmed b.
Zeynelabidin
Bebek Camii
muhtarı sani
Babası Küreli b. 1233
Hafız Ahmed Muhtar's son b. 1256
Zeynelabidin Muhtar's son b. 1261
Salih Muhtar's son b. 1265
109
19 Ahmed Ağa Kasr-ı Şahane
Bekçisi
Taşköprülü,
Mehmed Ağa's son
b. 1218
M. İzzet Enderunu hümayun Ahmed Ağa's son b. 1260
Mustafa b. Ali Taşköprü Abdal
karyeli
b. 1266
Hafız Ahmed
Efendi
Bebek Mosque
müezzin
Ahmed Ağa's sonin-
law, Boyabadlı
b. 1228
20 Hacı Mahmud
Ağa
Kayıkçı b. 1218
Ali Ağa Tebadan Mahmud's son b. 1248
Figure 5. Nüfus Defteri (1844) NFS.d 182 29.12.1260.
110
Semt Ad Vazife Ek/İlişki Yaş
Bebek
Yesariefendizade
Mustafa İzzet Efendi
Mevaliden, Mekke
Payeli
Sahilhane
Sahibi Merhum
"
Ataullah Efendizade
Mehmed Şerif Efendi Sabık İzmir Kadısı
Babası
Şeyhülislam
"
Mir Etıbba Mustafa
Behçet Efendi
Sahilhanesi pek
kalabalık
Birkaç
müderris
mevcut
"
Dürrizade Mehmed
Ataullah Sahilhane sahibi Merhum
" M. Nurullah Müderris birader 35
"
Paşmakçızade
Abdullah Efendi Müderris Yanında 20
"
Dürrizade Mehmed
Abid Efendi
İstanbul kadısı,
Anadolu payeli
" Ahmed Raşid Efendi Müderris Mahdumu 35
" Hasan Tahsin Efendi Sahilhane sahibi
Ricali
devletten
Kuruçeşme Selim Efendi Sabık Galata kadısı mevaliden
"
Mehmed Sadeddin
Efendi Müderris Mahdumu 30
" Mehmed Eşref Efendi Eşraf-ı Kuzattan Yanında sakin 65
"
Ömer Ağazade
Mehmed Tevfik Efendi Müderris
"
Sıdkızade Ahmed
Reşid Efendi Sabık Şeyhülislam
Sahilhane
sahibi
Baltalimanı Mir Arif Efendi Sahilhane sahibi Sadr-ı Rumeli
"
Mir Seyyid Yahya
Efendi
Sahilhane Sahibi ve
Müderris
Hanım Sultan
Hafidi 40
Rumelihisarı
Mekkiefendizade
Mustafa Asım Efendi Şeyhülislam
Sahilhane
Sahibi Merhum
Kuruçeşme
Mehmed Emin Efendi
b. Hüseyin Kethüda (Kuzattan) 48
Emirgan Cafer Bey Efendi
Sabık İstanbul
Kadısı, Anadolu
Payeli
Sahilhane
Sahibi
" M. Hidayet Efendi Kethüda 45
Rumelihisarı Lütfullah Efendi
Divanı
Hümayundan 55
" İbrahim İffet Efendi Sofya Kadısı
Sahilhane
Sahibi
Figure 6. Nüfus Defteri (1826) BOA, NFS 1242/1826, NFS 13
111
APPENDIX B
VISUAL MATERIALS
Figure 1. (From right to left) Sâbık Erzurum Valisi Rauf Paşa kullarının, Vasıf
Efendi veresesinin ve Hasan Paşa veresesinin sâhilhâneleri
112
Figure 2. (From right to left) Ârif Bey kullarının, Müze-yi Hümâyunları Müdürü
Hamdi Bey kullarının ve Şeyhülislam Efendi dâilerinin sâhilhaneleri
113
Figure 3. Bâb-ı Meşihat, Süleymaniye
114
Figure 4. Bebek
115
Figure 5. Kuruçeşme
116
Figure 6. High-ranking bureaucrats’ costumes
117
Figure 7. Şeyhülislam and Dersvekili
118
Figure 8. Map of Bosphorus
119
REFERENCES
Archival sources
Directorate of State Archives (BOA)
Bostancıbaşı Defterleri
Ulema Sicil Dosyaları
Meşihat Arşivi
İlmiye Salnamesi
Salnameler
II. Abdülhamid Fotoğraf Albümleri
Books, articles and encyclopedia entries
Abu-Manneh, B. (2011). Studies on Islam and the Ottoman empire in the 19th
century (1826-1876). İstanbul: The ISIS Press.
Adanır, F., Faroqhi, S. (2002). The Ottomans and the Balkans: A discussion of
historiography. Leiden: Brill.
Agoston, G. Masters, B. (2009). Encyclopedia of Ottoman empire, New York: Facts
On File.
Ahmed Cevdet Paşa. (1980). Maruzat, transliterated by Y. Halaçoğlu İstanbul: Çağrı
Yayınları.
Araz Y., Kokdaş İ. (2022). The changing nature of the domestic service sector in 19th
century Istanbul: Female slaves and wage-earning girls Archiv Orientalni 90,
61-91.
Artan, T. (1989). Architecture as a theatre of life: Profile of the 18th Century
Bosphorus, PhD diss. MIT.
Atasoy, N. (2004). From Count Ostrorog to Rahmi Koç: The story of a yalı on the
Bosphorus, İstanbul: Rahmi Koç Müzesi.
Arslan, H. (2019). Son Bostancıbaşı defterine göre Boğaziçi ve Haliç sahilhaneleri,
MA thesis, Fatih Sultan Mehmed Vakıf Universitesi.
120
Akiba, J. (2003). A new school for qadis: Education of the Sharia judges in the
Late Ottoman empire.” Turcica, 35: 125-63.
Akiba, J. (2005). From Kadi to Naib: Reorganization of the Ottoman sharia judiciary
in the Tanzimat period. In Frontiers of Ottoman Studies: State, Province and
the West, edited by C. Imber and K. Kiyotaki, 43-60. London: I.B. Tauris.
Akiba, J. (2018). Sharia Judges in the Ottoman Nizamiye Courts, 1864-1908. Osmanlı
Araştırmaları 51: 209-237.
Akgündüz, M. (2012). XIX Asır başlarına kadar Osmanlı Devleti’nde
Şeyhülislamlık. İstanbul: Beyan Yayınları.
Akgündüz, M. (2002). Osmanlılarda Bab-ı Meşihat’a bağlı Tedkik-i Müellefat ve
Teftiş-i Mesahif meclisleri. Harran Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 3,
89-100.
Alkan, M. (2009). “Softa” in TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi 37. İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet
Vakfı Yayınları, 342-343.
Altuntaş, Z. (2013). Sultan Abdülmecid dönemi Osmanlı Uleması. PhD diss.,
Marmara University.
Altuntaş, Z. (2023). Tanzimat döneminde Rumeli Kazaskerleri (1839-1861). Journal
of Anatolia and Balkan Studies, 6(11), 171-201.
Anscombe, E. F. (2010). Islam and the age of Ottoman reform. Past & Present,
208, 159-189.
Ardaman, El. (2007). Perspective and Istanbul, the Capital of the Ottoman Empire,
Journal of Design History, 20(2), 109-130.
Argun, S. (2013). Elite configurations and clusters of power: The Ulema, Waqf, and
Ottoman State (1789-1839), PhD diss., McGill University.
Atalan, Ö. (2008). Boğaziçi Kıyı Yerleşmelerinin Tarihsel Değişim Süreci ve
Koruma Yöntemleri Üzerine bir Araştırma Ortaköy-Kuruçeşme Sahili, PhD
diss., Yıldız Technical University.
Atçıl, A. (2017). Scholars and Sultans in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bang K. A. (2003). Sufis and Scholars of the Sea: Family Networks in East Africa,
1860-1925, New York: Routledge.
Behar, C., Duben, A. (1991). Istanbul households, marriage, family and fertility:
1880-1940. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bein, A. (2011). Ottoman Ulema, Turkish Republic: Agents of Change and Guardians
of Tradition. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
121
Bektaş, E. (2019). The Ulema in the late Ottoman Empire (1880-1920): The formation
of professional Ulema identity, PhD diss. Boğaziçi University.
Beyazıt, Y. (2010). Tanzimat devri Şeyhülislamlarından Meşrepzade Arif Efendi ve
Kadılık kurumundaki istihdam sorunu, Bilig Türk Dünyası Sosyal Bilimler
Dergisi, 54, 47-74.
Beyazıt, Y. (2009). Osmanlı İlmiyye Bürokrasisinde Şeyhülislamlığın Değişen Rolü
ve Mülazemet Sistemi 16.-18. yüzyıllar. Belleten 73(267), 424-442.
Bouquet, O. (2011). Old elites in a new republic: The reconversion of Ottoman
bureaucratic families in Turkey 1909-1939. Comparative Studies of South
Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 31(3), 588-600.
Bursalı Mehmed Tahir. (2000). Osmanlı Müellifleri I-II-III. Ankara: Bizim Büro
Basımevi.
Chambers, R. L. (1978). The Ottoman Ulema and the Tanzimat, Scholars, Saints,
and Sufis: Muslim Religious Institutions in the Middle East since 1500,
edited by Nikki R. Keddie, Berkeley: University of California Press, 33-46.
Chambers, R. L. (1973). The education of a nineteenth-century Ottoman Alim,
Ahmed Cevdet Paşa. International Journal of Middle East Studies,4(4), 440
464.
Cihan, A. (2004). Reform Çağında Osmanlı İlmiyye Sınıfı. Istanbul: Birey.
Çelik, Z. (1986). The remaking of Istanbul: Portrait of an Ottoman city in the
nineteenth century. Seattle University of Washington Press.
Çetintaş, B. (2005). Dolmabahçeden Nişantaşına Sultanların ve Paşaların
semtlerinin tarihi. İstanbul: Antik Kültür Yayınları.
Doğan, O., Tunç, S. (2011). Bir Zamanlar Boğaziçi 1851. İstanbul: Çamlıca Basım
Yayın.
Doumani, B. (2017). Family Life in the Ottoman Mediterranean: A Social History.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Erbay, H. İ. (2009). Teaching and learning in the Madrasas of Istanbul during the
Late Ottoman period. PhD Diss., London: SOAS, University of London.
Eruz, F. (2013). “Yalı.” In TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi 43, 301-305. Istanbul: Türkiye
Diyanet Vakfı Yayınları.
Eldem, S. H. (1979). Boğaziçi Anıları İstanbul: Alarko.
122
Eldem, S. H. (1993). Boğaziçi Yalıları, Rumeli. İstanbul: Vehbi Koç Vakfı Yayınları.
Eldem, S. H. (1993). Boğaziçi Yalıları, Anadolu İstanbul: Vehbi Koç Vakfı Yayınları.
Erdenen, O. (1993). Boğaziçi Sahilhaneleri. İstanbul: İBB Kültür AŞ.
Faroqhi, S. (1985). Civilian society and political power in the Ottoman Empire: A
report on research in collective biography (1480-1830). International
Journal of Middle East Studies, 17(1),17, 109-117.
Faroqhi, S. (2002). Stories of Ottoman Men and Women. İstanbul: Eren.
Faroqhi, S. (2023). Women in the Ottoman Empire: A Social and Political History
London: I.B. Tauris.
Findley, C. V. (2006). Political culture and the great households. in Suraiya
Faroqhi eds., The Later Ottoman Empire, 1603–1839, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Findley, C. V. (1989). Ottoman Civil Officialdom: A Social History. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Fortna, B. C. (2001). Education and autobiography at the end of the Ottoman
Empire. Die Welt des Islams 41(1), 1-31.
Fortna, B. C. (2003). Imperial Classroom: Islam, the State, and Education in the Late
Ottoman Empire. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fuhrmann, M. (2020). Port cities of the Eastern Mediterranean: urban culture in the
Late Ottoman Empire. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gleave, R. (2004). "Ulema" in Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World, ed.
Richard C. Martin, New York: MacMillan, 2: 703.
Güldöşören, A. (2013). II. Mahmud dönemi Osmanlı Uleması. PhD Diss., Marmara
University.
Güldöşören, A. (2018). Üç asır İstanbullu bir Ulema ailesi: Arabzadeler. Divan
23(45), 27-79.
Hamadeh, S. (2007). Public spaces and the garden culture of Istanbul in the
eighteenth century. in The Early Modern Ottomans ed. Virginia Aksan and
Daniel Goffman, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 277-312.
Hathaway, J., Barbir, K., (2019). The Arab Lands under Ottoman rule, 1516-1800.
Routledge.
Hatina, M. (2009). Guardians of Faith in Modern Time: “Ulama” in the Middle
East. Leiden: Brill.
123
Heyd, U. (1993). The Ottoman 'Ulema and Westernization in the time of Selim III
and Mahmud II. In the Modern Middle East, edited by Albert Habib Hourani,
Philip S. Khoury and Mary C. Wilson, 29-59. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Hisar, A. Ş. (2005). Boğaziçi Yalıları, İstanbul: YKY.
İpşirli, B. (2017). Hayatlarının çeşitli safhalarında Harem-i Hümayun Cariyeleri,
18. yüzyıl. İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi.
İpşirli, M. (2002). “Kazasker” In TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi 25, 140-143. Istanbul:
Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Yayınları.
İpşirli, M. (2008). Medreseler ve Ulema üzerine. TALİD, 6(12), 451-470.
İpşirli, M. (1990). II. Mahmud Döneminde Vakıfların İdaresi," in Sultan II. Mahmut
ve Reformları Semineri (İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat
Fakültesi): 49-57.
İpşirli, M. (1988). "Osmanlı İlmiye Mesleği Hakkında Gözlemler: XVI-XVII. Asırlar,"
Osmanlı Araştırmaları no. 7, : 273-285.
İpşirli, M. (2010). “Şeyhülislam”, in TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi 39 (Istanbul: Türkiye
Diyanet Vakfı Yayınları), 91-96.
İpşirli, M. (1994). “Dürrizadeler.” In TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi 10, 38-39. Istanbul:
Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Yayınları.
İpşirli, M. (1994). “Dürrizade Abdullah Beyefendi.” In TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi
10(36), Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Yayınları.
Itzkowitz, N., Joel S. (1972). The office of Seyhülislam and the Tanzimat: A
prosopographic enquiry. Middle Eastern Studies, 8(1), 93-101.
Kaplan, A. (2012). From seasonal to permanent: A study on the Effects of Göç
tradition on the Bosphorus shores 1791-1815. MA thesis, Bilgi University.
Kara, İ. (2005). Turban and Fez: Ulema as opposition. in Late Ottoman Society: The
Intellectual Legacy, edited by Elisabeth Özdalga, 162-200. London:
Routledge Curzon.
Kara, İ. (1999). “Ulema Siyaset İlişkisine Dair Metinler II: Ey Ulema Bizim Gibi
Konuş!.” Divan 7 (): 65-134.
Karateke, H. T., Reinkowski, M. (2005). Legitimizing the Order the Ottoman
Rhetoric of State Power. Leiden: Brill.
Karpat, H. K. (2001). The Politicization of Islam: Reconstructing Identity, State,
Faith, and Community in the Late Ottoman State. New York: Oxford
University Press.
124
Karpat, H. K. (1978). Ottoman population records and census of 1881/82-1893.
International Journal of Middle East Studies, 9(2), 237-274.
Kırmızı, A. (2019). Şer’an Olamadığı Halde Kanunen ve Nizamen: Osmanlı
Uleması ve Tanzimat” Sahnı Semandan Darülfünuna
Palmer A. (1992). The Decline and Fall of the Ottoman Empire. New York: M.
Evans.
Koçu, R. E. (1958). İstanbul Ansiklopedisi. İstanbul: Tan Matbaası.
Kushner, D. (1987). The place of the Ulema in the Ottoman Empire during the Age
of Reform (1838-1918). Turcica 19, 51-74.
Kushner, D. (1994). Career patterns among the Ulama in the Late nineteenth century
and early twentieth centuries. In Tanzimat’ın 150. Yıldönümü Uluslararası
Sempozyum, 165-172.
Lewis, B. (1968). The Emergence of Modern Turkey. London: Oxford University
Press.
Levy, A. (1971). The Ottoman Ulema and the Military Reforms of Sultan Mahmud II
Mansel, P. (2006). Constantinople: City of the World’s Desire, 1453-1924. John
Murray.
Mardin, Ş. (2017). Türkiyede Din ve Siyaset: Makaleler 3. İstanbul: İletişim
Yayınları.
Moltke, H. Von. (1969). Şark Notları, trans. by Hayrullah Örs. İstanbul: Remzi
Kitabevi.
Neumann, C. K. (2022). Elites’ Networks and Mobility in A Companion to Early
Modern Istanbul, edited by Shirine Hamadeh and Çiğdem Kafescioğlu, 114
142. Leiden: Brill.
Nizri, M. (2014). Ottoman high politics and the Ulema household, New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Ocak, A. Y. (2021). Osmanlı İmparatorluğu ve İslam. İstanbul: Alfa.
Ochsenwald, W. (1984). Religion, Society, and the State in Arabia: The Hijaz under
Ottoman Control, 1840-1908. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
Özcan, A. (1992). “Bostancı” in TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, İstanbul: Türkiye
Diyanet Vakfı Yayınları, 308-309.
125
Özcan, A. (1994). “Edirne Vakası.” In TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi 10, 445-446.
Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Yayınları.
Pakalın, M. Z. (2008). Sicill-i Osmanî Zeyli (19 Cilt), İstanbul: Türk Tarih Kurumu.
Pakalın, M. Z. (1993). Osmanlı Tarih Deyimleri ve Terimleri Sözlüğü. İstanbul:
MEB.
Repp, R. C. (1986). The Müfti of Istanbul: A study in the development of the
Ottoman learned hierarchy, London: Ithaca Press, Oxford University.
Smith, A. (1851). A Month in Istanbul. London.
Shakir, A. N. (2016). Ordinary and extraordinary Ottoman scholar types in fifteenth
century Edirne as seen in Taşköprülüzade’s Şekâ’iku’n-Nu’mâniyye fî
‘Ulemâ’id-Devleti’l-‘Osmâniyye and Mecdî’s Hadâ’iku’ş-Şekâik. Journal of
the Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association 3(1), 49-88.
Şehsuvaroğlu, H. (1958). İstanbul Konaklarına Dair. Türkiye Turing ve Otomobil
Kurumu.
Şeker, F. M. (2011). Modernleşme devrinde İlmiye. Istanbul: Dergah Yayınları.
Şeyhi Mehmed Efendi. (2018). Vekâyi’u’l-Fuzalâ, yayına hazırlayan Ramazan
Ekinci, İstanbul.
Tanman, B. (2008). Boğaziçinde Yalı Mimarlığının Gelişimine İlişkin Bir Deneme
Sadullah Paşa ve Yalısı: Bir Yapı Bir Yaşam. İstanbul: YEM.
Tezin, S. (2022). Osmanlı Devletinde Çok yönlü bir Ulema Ailesi: Hocazadeler. PhD
diss., Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi.
Toledano, E. (1993). Late Ottoman concepts of slavery (1830s-1880s). Poetics Today:
Cultural Processes in Muslim and Arab Societies: Modern Period I 4(3), 477
506.
Toledano, E. (1997). The emergence of Ottoman-local elites (1700-1900): A
framework for research, in Ilan Pappé and Moshe Maoz, eds. Middle Eastern
politics and ideas, London: I. B. Tauris, 145-62.
Uzunçarşılı, İ. H. (1988). Osmanlı Devleti’nin İlmiye Teşkilatı. Ankara: TTK
Basımevi.
Ünver, Süheyl and Eldem, Sedad Hakkı. Amucazade Hüseyin Paşa Yalısı, Turing
(1970).
Yakıt, İ. (1999). Osmanlı İlmiye Teşkilatı ve Şeyhülislamlar, Süleyman Demirel
Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 6, 19-48.
126
Yakut, E. (2005). Şeyhülislamlık: Yenileşme Döneminde Devlet ve Din. İstanbul:
Kitap Yayınevi.
Yıldız, E. (2021). Meşihat Arşivi Belgelerine Göre Şeyhülislamlığın Bürokratik Yapısı
PhD diss., İstanbul University.
Yurdakul, İ. (2008). Osmanlı İlmiye Merkez Teşkilatında Reform. İstanbul: İletişim.
Yurdakul, İ. (2017). Şeyhülislamlar silsilesinin son büyük zengini Mekkizade
Mustafa Asım Efendi’nin Muhallefatı. Osmanlıda Şehir, Vakıf ve Sosyal
Hayat, 247-268.
Yurdakul, İ. (2011). Gelenek ve Değişim Sürecinde Tanzimat Devri Şeyhülislamları
in Sultan Abdülmecid ve Dönemi edited by Kemal Kahraman and Ilona
Baytar, İstanbul: İBB Kültür AŞ.
Zerdeci, H. (1998). Osmanlı Ulema Biyografilerinin Arşiv Kaynakları, MA thesis.
İstanbul University.
Zilfi, M. (1983). Elite circulation in the Ottoman Empire: Great Mollas of the
eighteenth century. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient,
26(3), 318-364.
Zilfi, M. (1988). The politics of piety: the Ottoman Ulema in the postclassical age
1600-1800, Minneapolis, USA: Bibliotheca Islamica.
Zilfi, M. (2006). The Ottoman Ulema" in The Later Ottoman Empire, 1603–1839, ed.
Surayya N. Faroqhi, vol. 3 of The Cambridge History of Turkey, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.