613

WOMEN AND NAMUS, AS A REGULATIVE PHENOMENON,
IN EARLY MODERN OTTOMAN SOCIETY

In this thesis, the concept of namus (honor) as a regulative phenomenon in early modern
Ottoman society and specifically for ordinary women are discussed. It focuses on which
characteristic of women’s namus differed from the general view of it in the society:
sexuality. Namus was a shared value for Ottoman society; thus, it functioned as both the
set of values and the regulatory tool. In other words, it not only determined which values
were appropriate for a person but also imposed sanctions on any inappropriate behavior
and made a person namuslu (honorable) or namussuz (unhonorable) in the society. As the
expressions from the archival sources (mostly arzuhals and sicil cases), related primary
sources, and the academic literature are examined, it can be deduced that women’s namus
iv
was a fragile value reduced to sexuality in early modern Ottoman society. It should be
protected, preserved, and conserved. This namus perception brings the
protector/protected relationship along in which men were protectors and women were
protected ones. This relationship can be examined in three intermingled layers: (1) A
woman must protect her own namus. (2) Her family was responsible for protecting it. (3)
At last, the society (village, neighborhood, etc.) was liable to protect women’s namus. In
this three-layered relationship of protection, women's namus and their sexuality belonged
to not only themselves but also their families and even to their society.
Keywords: Ottoman Society, Early Modern Era, Namus, Women, Sexuality
v
ÖZET
ERKEN MODERN OSMANLI TOPLUMUNDA BİR DENETİM OLGUSU
OLARAK NAMUS VE KADIN

Bu tezde, erken modern Osmanlı toplumu ve bu toplumdaki sıradan/halktan kadınlar için
bir denetim aracı işlevi gören namus kavramı ele alınmaktadır. Kadınların namusu,
toplumdaki genel namus algısından cinselliğin ön plana çıkmasıyla birlikte
farklılaşmaktadır. Osmanlı toplumunun ortak değerlerinden biri olan namus hem değerler
kümesidir hem de bu değerler üzerinde denetim mekanizması işlevi görmektedir. Başka
bir ifadeyle namus, toplum içerisinde hangi davranışın uygun olup olmadığını belirlediği
gibi bu davranışlara uygun hareket eden kişileri namuslu, uygun hareket etmeyen kişileri
namussuz olarak nitelendirerek kişiler üzerinde yaptırım uygulamaktadır. Arşiv belgeleri
ve birincil kaynaklardaki ifadeler ve literatürdeki çalışmalar ele alındığında kadının
vi
namusunun cinselliğe indirgenmiş, kırılgan bir değer olarak algılandığı sonucu
çıkmaktadır. Kadının namusu mutlak surette korunması gereken bir değerdir. Bu namus
algısı beraberinde, erkeklerin koruyan kadınların ise korunan rolde olduğu bir
koruyan/korunan ilişkisi getirmiştir. Bu ilişki erken modern Osmanlı toplumunda, birbiri
ile iç içe geçmiş üç katmanda incelenmektedir: (1) Kadınlar kendi namuslarını
korumalıdır. (2) Aile, kadının namusunu korumakla mükelleftir. (3) Toplum da kadının
namusunu korumakla yükümlüdür. Bu üç katmanlı koruma ilişkisinde, kadının namusu
sadece kendisine ait değil aynı zamanda aileye ve topluma da aittir. Bu aidiyet, kadının
namusu ve cinselliği üzerindeki kontrolün artmasına sebep olmaktadır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Osmanlı Toplumu, Erken Modern Dönem, Namus, Kadın, Cinsellik
vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This thesis is my first step to experience literally what patience, learning, and effort
mean. I owe most of these experiences to my advisor, Özer Ergenç. I always feel lucky
for being one of his students. But being his thesis student was priceless for me. His
admirable knowledge of Ottoman history, endless support, motivational talks, and
guidance enlightened my journey. Although this year was so hard for all of us, he provided
his full support. His guidance is beyond words, indeed. There are still many things to learn
from Özer Hoca, and I am waiting for them impatiently. Also, I would like to thank Nil
Tekgül. She always listened to me and shared my excitement. One of the reasons to love
Bilkent is she, and I am grateful Nil Hocam. Also, I would like to thank Mehmet Kalpaklı.
He is always helpful towards his students in every aspect. I must thank Mehmet Veli
Seyitdanlıoğlu for accepting to be part of my thesis jury.
My biggest chance is to feel the support of my beloved Said. I owe him for what I
have today. This thesis process would be harder; even to complete it would be impossible
without him. We shared everything, and we will share days, ideas, and hopes. I am
thankful for my friends, Anıl and Ahmet. Most of the time, you patiently shared my
anxieties and complaints. Your friendship and support mean a lot to me. Also, I must thank
my dearests from METU, Ezgi, and Işıl. Our days of being roommates were full of
unforgettable memories. To know they are always on the other side of the line is so
viii
valuable for me. I also thank Beyza and Hakan. Their friendship lightened my days in
Bilkent. I believe we will share both our happiness and sadness together. Besides, I cannot
imagine the days in the dormitory without Başak. She always supports and listens to me.
Last but not least, I want to thank my family, especially my mother. Their moral and
material support was always with me.
Thank you, all!
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................... iii
ÖZET ....................................................................................................................... v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................... vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ ix
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1
1.1 Objective of the Thesis ............................................................................. 1
1.2 Literature Review ..................................................................................... 3
1.3 Methodology and Sources ........................................................................ 9
CHAPTER II: ORGANIZATIONAL MODEL OF OTTOMAN SOCIETY, TAİFE,
AND NAMUS ......................................................................................................... 15
2.1 General View on Ottoman Social Structure ........................................... 15
2.2 Taifes in the Traditional Ottoman Society .............................................. 16
2.2.1 Taallukat ...................................................................................... 20
2.2.1.1 Menkuhes ............................................................................. 20
2.2.1.2 Children ............................................................................... 21
2.2.1.3 Slaves and Cariyes .............................................................. 22
2.2.1.4 Servants ............................................................................... 23
2.2.2 Discussion on Taallukat and Women .......................................... 24
2.3 Joint and Several Liability ...................................................................... 25
2.4 Namus ..................................................................................................... 27
2.4.1 Namus and Töhmet ....................................................................... 28
x
2.4.2 Namus as a Tool for Engineering Individual and Social Behavior ..
............................................................................................................... 30
2.5 Concluding Remarks on Taife Structure and Namus .............................. 32
CHAPTER III: PERCEPTION OF SEXUALITY AND LANGUAGE ................ 34
3.1 Perception of Sexuality and Namus ........................................................ 34
3.2 Reciprocal and non-Reciprocal Vocabulary ........................................... 35
3.3 Sexual Desire, Reproduction, and the Social Dimensions of Sexuality . 38
CHAPTER IV: WOMEN’S NAMUS AND LAYERS OF PROTECTION .......... 43
4.1 General View on the Protection Layers on Women’s Namus ................ 43
4.2 First Layer: Woman ................................................................................ 44
4.3 Second Layer: Family ............................................................................. 50
4.4 Third Layer: Neighborhood .................................................................... 55
4.5 Concluding the Layers of Protection ...................................................... 60
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION .............................................................................. 61
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................. 65
Primary Sources ............................................................................................ 65
Published Sources ......................................................................................... 65
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Objective of the Thesis
This thesis aims to understand the characteristics of women’s honor (namus), how
it differs from namus in a general sense, and the protection-control mechanisms around
this concept in the early modern Ottoman society. It also seeks to demonstrate how namus
and reputation have important places in taife structure of Ottoman society. To understand
women’s namus, the vocabulary related to this concept in the primary sources, mostly
arzuhals, would be the most helpful tool.
Namus is a polysemantic and multilayered concept. The perception of it differs in
terms of time, place, culture, etc. Yet, it is mostly defined as behaving appropriately in
society. Thus, as a concept, namus determines what kind of values are convenient
regarding society’s characteristics and needs. In Ottoman society, namus was a genderdifferentiated
concept parallel with the society’s structure. Ottoman society had
subcommunities which was referred to as taifes.
Individuals belonged to different taifes according to their ethnicity, religion,
occupation, residential status, such as Rum taifesi, esnaf taifesi, etc. In this structure,
2
people’s affiliation with the taife was defined through men. A man’s taallukat (household)
affiliated to taifes all together with him. To understand what namus was in Ottoman
society, one should consider this gender-differentiated structure of the society. As
Ottoman society had dividing lines (including gender), there must be consolidative values
that hold the society together. Namus, therefore, as an important concept in Ottoman
society not only determined which behavior was right or wrong but also affected an
individual’s status in the taife.
As the taife structure had gender-differentiated characteristics, namus for men
and women had also differed. Liat Kozma says that namus was something a man must
gain (sharaf). On the contrary, it was something that shouldn’t be lost for a woman (ırz).1
Although namus is a multilayered concept, it remains unchanged for a woman in
traditional-patriarchal societies: Namus was directly related to her sexuality, while the
reputation aspect of it stayed in the background. In Ottoman society, likewise, women’s
namus had meant their sexuality. For being a namuslu (honorable) woman, she must have
been virgin before the marriage. She shouldn’t have get closer to any namahrem (unrelated
people, generally referred to opposite sex) after she married. She should also have had
such qualities like being modest, earnest, self-contained, etc.
This sexuality-related namus concept for women brought together a strong
mechanism of protection and control. Their sexuality should have been strictly protected
for them being namuslu. In Ottoman society, this mechanism was divided into three levels:
(1) A woman should have been aware of her own responsibility to protect her namus. (2)
1 Liat Kozma, Policing Egyptian Women: Sex, Law and Medicine in Khedival Egypt (Syracuse, NY:
Syracuse University Press, 2011), 100.
3
Family of a woman (mostly her first-degree male relatives) should protect her namus. (3)
As a last resort, society was responsible to protect it. Under these three intermingled
layers, women’s honor belonged not only to themselves but also to their family and the
society itself. This protection mechanism also functioned as a tool to control women’s
sexuality in Ottoman society.
When the vocabulary and the language in the petitions (arzuhals), similar primary
sources, and the academic literature around this concept are analyzed, the following can
be inferred about namus. It was a shared value determining the place and the status of an
individual in Ottoman society. Women’s namus, on the other hand, had been reduced to a
fragile value around their sexuality that should be protected, preserved, and conserved. In
this protection and control mechanism over their namus and sexuality, women remained
mostly passive.
1.2. Literature Review
In the literature around the history of Ottoman Empire, women as a subject of
studies have been visible since the 1970s. As the feminist movement gained momentum
at the end of the 20th century and court registers (sicils) attracted the historian’s attention,
the experiences of Ottoman women inevitably aroused interest. Many studies have shown
that the Ottoman women had an essential part in the socio-economic history of the Empire.
Since these studies are primarily sicil-based, they have focused on the areas in which
Ottoman women appear, such as waqfs, inheritance, marriage, divorce, and sexuality.
However, as one of the important concepts to study Ottoman women, namus still needs
4
further (more detailed and narrow-scoped) attention. Although there are insightful studies
that mention namus, a few of them focus on the intersection of Ottoman women, honor,
and sexuality, as they are extensive and general studies which spare only small sections
to this concept.
In her article “Osmanlı Hukuk Çalışmalarında Kadın”, Betül İpşirli Argıt
scrutinizes the literature focuses on Ottoman women and their experiences. She argues
that early studies on Ottoman women can be categorized as a defense to Western studies
and prejudices.2 They try to show that, contrary to biases, Ottoman women were an active
part of society. For example, they could apply to courts for various reasons such as
inheritance, divorce, and marriage. Following nearly 1800 cases from the Kayseri sicils,
Ronald Jennings emphasis that as litigants, Ottoman women used courts and defended
their rights; in short, they were not prisoned at cages as the previous studies suggested.3
Like Jennings’s, Haim Gerber’s studies on Bursa sicils, Sureiya Faroqhi’s studies on
Ankara, and Kayseri sicils show Ottoman women’s active lives, especially in terms of the
economic area. For example, Gerber says that following the 17th century Bursa court
records, the number of women who owned their own houses was quite a few.4 Faroqhi
also connects women’s wealth and the judicial process from the local court of Kayseri to
İstanbul by following a murder case from rural Kayseri.5
2 Betül İpşirli Argıt, “Osmanlı Hukuk Çalışmalarında Kadın” Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi 3,
no.5 (2005): 576.
3 Ronald Jennings, “Women in Early 17th century Ottoman Judicial Records: The Sharia Court of Anatolian
Kayseri” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 18, no.1 (1975): 53-114.
4 Haim Gerber, “Social and Economic Position of Women in an Ottoman City, Bursa, 1600-1700”
International Journal of Middle East Studies 12, no.3 (1980): 233.
5 Suraiya Faroqhi, “Crime, Women, and Wealth in the Eighteenth-Century Anatolian Countryside” in
Women in the Ottoman Empire, Middle Eastern Women in Early Modern Era, ed. Madeline C. Zilfi (Leiden:
Brill,1997): 26-27.
5
As sicil-based studies improved, different areas women involved attracted
historians’ attention more. Using Aleppo sicils, Abraham Marcus shows women in Aleppo
from various perspectives such as the court, family, economic and daily life. Beside a
comprehensive work on the history of Aleppo6, Marcus focuses on specific topics such as
privacy related to women’s lives directly. In his article “Privacy in Eighteenth-Century
Aleppo: The Limits of Cultural Ideals”7, Marcus compares the ideal understanding of
privacy and its practice in daily life. From this discussion, he shed light on the
public/private spheres, women’s dress, perception of virginity in society, etc. Beside
Marcus, Judith Tucker have made a number of studies in which she extensively uses
Damascus, Jerusalem, and Egypt’s sicils. In In the House of the Law: Gender and Islamic
Law in Ottoman Syria and Palestine, following the court cases and fatwas, she shows that
how legal doctrine and practice were gendered in the case of marriage, divorce, sexuality,
and reproduction.8
Dror Zeevi, in Producing Desire: Changing Sexual Discourse in the Ottoman
Middle East, 1500-19009, examines the sexuality discourse from different perspectives.
In addition to sicils, from medical texts to dream interpretation books, he shows that
sexuality was an essential part of life and was affected by political and religious turning
points. When Zeevi shows how sexuality was silenced by these turning points, such as
Kadızadeli movement, he also shows how women and men differ in sexual discourse. For
6 Abraham Marcus, The Middle East in the Eve of Modernity: Aleppo in the Eighteenth Century (New York:
Colombia Press, 1989)
7 Abraham Marcus, “Privacy in Eighteenth Century Aleppo: The Limits of Cultural Ideals” International
Journal of Middle East Studies 18, no.2 (1986): 165-183.
8 Judith Tucker, In the House of the Law Gender and Islamic Law in Ottoman Syria and Palestine (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1998)
9 Dror Ze’evi, Producing Desire: Changing Sexual Discourse in the Ottoman Middle East, 1500-1900
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006)
6
example, from Galenic medicine point of view, women were seen as inferior to men. For
Zeevi, there was a “woman as imperfect man”10 model in the Ottoman medicine context.
Moreover, Zeevi focuses on how kanun (Ottoman law) and Islamic law (sharia) regulated
sexual desire and how they treated sexual transgression. Elyse Semerdijian’s “Off the
Straight Path”: Illicit Sex, Law, and Community in Ottoman Aleppo11 examines zina
discourse both in sharia and kanun. She highlights that zina was one of the hadd. “In the
context of Islamic law, hadd designates crimes that have fixed punishments in the
shari’a”.12 Although one of the predermined sanctions for zina was stoning, there was
almost no cases of stoning, in practice, in the Ottoman Syria. Semerdijan says that judges,
following the kanunnames (imperial codes), turn the harsh punishment of the sharia into
banishment or fine when zina is at the issue of the case.13
From economic area to sexuality, there are many studies aiming to understand the
experiences of Ottoman women and their place in society.14 As these studies improved,
new concepts came to light as important tools for further studies. In this sense, namus is
one of the critical concepts to examine the Ottoman social structure and the place of
Ottoman women within the society. Before it became a subject of history, many
10 Ibid., 23.
11 Elyse Semerdijan, ‘Off the Straight Path’: Illicit Sex, Law and Community in Ottoman Aleppo (Syracuse,
NY: Syracuse University Press, 2008)
12 Ibid., 20.
13 Ibid., 158.
14 For compherensive studies on experiences of Ottoman women see; Amira El Azhary Sonbol, Beyond the
Exotic: Women’s Histories in Islamic Societies (Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 2005); Gavin
Hambly, Women in the Medieval Islamic World: Power, Patronage and Piety (New York: St. Martin’s
Press, 1999); Amila Buturović and Irvin Cemil Schick, Women in the Ottoman Balkans: Gender, Culture,
and History (London: I.B. Tauris, 2007); Duygu Köksal and Anastasia Falierou, A Social History of Late
Ottoman Women : New Perspectives (Leiden: Brill, 2013); Suraiya Faroqhi, Stories of Ottoman Men and
Women: Establishing Status, Establishing Control (İstanbul: Eren, 2002); Nikki Keddie and Beth Baron,
Women in Middle Eastern History: Shifting Boundaries in Sex and Gender (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1991)
7
anthropological studies15 had focused on the namus concept, yet, according to Nükhet
Sirman what they missed was that they treat namus without considering its multiple
meanings.16
On the contrary, historical studies discuss namus in different ways as they focus
on particularities more. For example, Levy Aksu examines how namus was used as a selfrepresentation
tool in the Ottoman police organization during the second constitutional
period.17 Focusing on the primary sources, such as documents written by police members,
she claims that namus as a value determines, for example, who was excluded from the
police community. Tolga Esmer also focuses on namus from a different side. He examines
how namus was manipulated by various groups, for example, bandits.18
Beside how different groups adopted namus, valuable studies show the
relationship between namus and gender in Ottoman society. Başak Tuğ, in her Politics of
Honor in Ottoman Anatolia: Sexual Violence and Socio-Legal Surveillance in the
Eighteenth Century19, focuses on namus concept by using the extensive size of the primary
sources such as petitions, Anadolu ahkam defterleri, kalebend defterleri, etc. After
detailed explanations of the social and legal order, she examines how the central
15 For example, see; Lila Abu-Lughod, Veiled Sentiments: Honor and Poetry in a Bedouin Society
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986); Jean Peristiany, Honor and Shame: The Values of
Mediterranean Society (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1966); Julian Pitt-Rivers, The Fate of
Shechem: Or, The Politics of Sex: Essays in the Anthropology of the Mediterranean (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1977); David Gilmore, Honor and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean (Washington
D.C.: American Anthropological Association, 1987)
16 Nükhet Sirman, “Contextualizing Honour” European Journal of Turkish Studies 18, (2014): 1.
17 Noémi Lévy-Aksu, “Building Professional and Political Communities: The Value of Honor in the Self-
Representation of Ottoman Police during the Second Constitutional Period” European Journal of Turkish
Studies 18, (2014)
18 Tolga Uğur Esmer, “The Precarious Intimacy of Honor in Late Ottoman Accounts of Para-militarism and
Banditry.” European Journal of Turkish Studies 18, (2014)
19 Başak Tuğ, Politics of Honor in Ottoman Anatolia: Sexual Violence and Socio-Legal Surveillance in the
Eighteenth Century (Leiden: Brill, 2017)
8
government used petitioning related to sexual violence to monitor local powers in the
eighteenth century. She claims that sexual violence was strongly associated with banditry
in that period, and the use of the term hetk-i ırz by petitioners and the central government
increased. And she argues that namus was a legitimatizing tool in the legal discourse that
regulated the relationship between the central government and its subjects.20 In another
article of her21, shows how the namus-based relationship between the center and Ottoman
subjects continued in the nineteenth century. According to her, the emphasis on life,
honor, and property in the Tanzimat Edict is also a sign of continuity.
Likewise, Leslie Peirce mentions the namus concept in her studies. In her wellknown
Morality Tales,22 she concentrates on one year (1540-1541) of Aintab's provincial
court. By scrutinizing two sicils, she comprehensively examines Aintab's people and
institutions, especially the court and its processes. The book investigates several cases,
and each of them mirrors which problems Ottoman women faced during the legal process
and how they reacted to them. Peirce also considers the namus concept necessary to
understand the experiences of Ottoman women. According to her, namus closely relates
to the reputation in Ottoman society, both for men and women. She claims that Ottoman
women who were from upper strata could protect their reputations. However, for ordinary
women, the court played an important role in defending theirs. Also, in her article “Honor
as a Social Contract”23, Peirce analyzes namus’ vocabulary and asserts that it can be
20 Ibid., 23.
21 Başak Tuğ, “Gendered Subjects in Ottoman Constitutional Agreements, ca. 1740-1860” European
Journal of Turkish Studies 18, (2014)
22 Leslie Peirce, Morality Tales: Law and Gender in the Ottoman Court of Aintab (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 2003)
23 Leslie Peirce, “Honor as Social Contract” at the conference of “Honor in Ottoman and Contemporary
Mediterranean Societies: Controversies, Continuities and New Directions” in Central European University
(Budapest: 2013)
9
labeled as a social contract. She continues those contractual relationships such as marriage
and divorce in early modern Ottoman society were widespread. In such an environment,
there were some mutual habits to bring people closer, such as honor.24
At last, Cemal Çetin examines the namus concept in his article.25 By giving
interesting examples from Konya court registers, Çetin says that most of the attacks on
namus in early modern Ottoman society were related to sexual assault.26 From swearwords
to katran çalmak (put on tar on someone’s door), he shows several verbal or physical
assaults on namus related to sexuality. Also, he scrutinizes the reactions of society to these
attacks.
When these studies related to Ottoman women, sexuality, and namus are
considered, the need for narrow-scoped studies on the intersection of three of them attracts
attention. These studies would reveal further how namus affected the Ottoman women's
experiences.
1.3 Methodology and Sources
The methodology of this thesis is to turn data taken from primary sources into
historical knowledge by using content and comparative analysis and the inductive method.
The data taken from the primary sources are the vocabulary related to namus and sexuality.
24 Ibid., 6.
25 Cemal Çetin, “Erken Modern Dönem Osmanlı Toplumunda Namus Algısına Dair Bazı Gözlemler (Konya
Örneği)” Journal of Turkish Studies/ Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, no.45 (2019): 61-86.
26 Ibid., 65.
10
Focusing on the vocabulary makes it possible to analyze and cross-question documents in
detail.
This thesis primarily utilizes content analysis (muhteva analizi) to understand what
namus means and how the perception of women’s namus differs from its general
perception. Analyzing the data (expressions) from the primary sources related to namus
and sexuality enables inferences such as why people use some of these expressions
intentionally, the differentiation of the terms and grammatical structure from case to case,
etc. For example, in Chapter III, I try to analyze and compare the expressions referred to
sexual intercourse. By analyzing them, the perception of sexuality and namus in Ottoman
society can be examined and discussed better. These expressions have reciprocal and
unilateral meaning according to their prosodies and their different usage gives important
clues on the sexuality and namus perception.
Also, the analysis of gender-differentiated taife structure in early modern Ottoman
society is necessary to understand the perception of women’s namus. Without a detailed
analysis of taife structure and its gender-differentiated characteristic, examining why
women’s namus reduced to sexuality would be more complicated. So, I try to focus on
taalukat term, analyze its different components and give examples from the primary
sources to understand the correlation between the society’s structure and its perception of
women’s namus.
Arzuhals (petitions) are the primary archival sources of this thesis. They are mainly
from Prime Minister's Ottoman Archives online database. The catalog names where the
petitions found are Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi Cevdet Adliye (C.ADL), Başbakanlık
Osmanlı Arşivi Sadaret Mektubî Kalemi Umum Vilayat Evrakı (A.MKT.UM), Meclis-i
11
Vâlâ Riyaseti Belgeleri (MVL). Moreover, as supporting documents, already transcribed
petitions from İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri are used. Beside arzuhals, imperial orders (fermans)
enrich this thesis. These fermans are from Mühimme Defterleri (DVNSMHM.d), Prime
Minister's Archives.
Arzuhals are a form of legal document that demonstrates the complaint of any
individual, community, or institution. From the local offices to the Sultan, everybody in
Ottoman society could file their complaints.27 These complaints were personal/private
rather than public.28 Therefore, they mirror what was acceptable and unacceptable for an
individual and even society. Above all, although arzuhals have a formal structure and
language29, they make it possible for a researcher to hear the complainant's voice and catch
the clues on Ottoman social life. So, as this thesis aims to understand Ottoman women
and their namus, arzuhals related to them are the most valuable documents to use. Other
primary sources such as imperial orders (fermans) were used as they also refer to a
complaint which is the reason behind the ferman.
Besides, sicil records were substantially utilized in this thesis since they reveal the
problems faced by Ottoman people and to what extent these problems were taken to the
courts. Moreover, for both social and women's history, these documents have ample
material for any researchers. Nonetheless, many scholars have pointed out that studying
on sicils have some methodological problems. At this point, Dror Zeevi has a critical
27 Mehmet İpşirli, “Arzuhal”, İslam Ansiklopedisi, TDV Yay., V.3, (İstanbul: 1991), 447-448.
28 Halil İnalcık, “Şikayet Hakkı:’Arz-ı Hal ve ‘Arz-ı Mazharlar” Osmanlı Araştırmaları 07-08, (1988): 35.
29 For the detailed analysis on the structure of the arzuhals, see: James E. Baldwin, “Petitioning the Sultan
in Ottoman Egypt” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 75, no.3 (2012): 499-524.
12
article30 on using the sharia court records as primary sources. He highlights that these
records may not reflect reality as much as a mirror.31 One should recognize, first, these
records are texts and have their literary style. Second, the impact of the head of the court
(qadi) and the court procedures should be kept in mind. Lastly, Zeevi reminds that sharia
court is an institution and has a complex web of relationship inside, from qadi to subofficers.
32 Keeping Zeevi’s warnings in mind, sicils are still a significant source of
information for women’s history. Iris Agmon's “Women’s History and Ottoman Sharia
Court Records: Shifting Perspectives in Social History” 33 shows how court records are
valuable sources for the history of women. She comprehensively shows how the studies
on women have used sharia court records with different methods and affected by
methodological shifts such as cultural turn. She claims that the history of Middle Eastern
women has adopted different methodologies, causing the histography to remain
"unfocused".34
Also, Kınalızade Ali Çelebi's Ahlâk-i Alâ’î35is one of the significant primary
sources used in this thesis. It is an advice book (nasihatnâme) mainly on how to govern a
family and a state. The book consists of three parts: knowledge of ethics (ilm-i ahlâk),
domestic science (ilm-i tedbir-i menzil), and political science and public administration
(ilm-i tedbir-i medine). In İlm-i tedbir-i menzil, Kınalızade gives detail explanations about
how a menzil (home) should be governed. Also, it is possible to see the ideal relationship
30 Dror Ze’evi, “The Use of Ottoman Shari’a Court Records as a Source for Middle Eastern Social History:
A Reappraisal” Islamic Law and Society 5, no.1 (1998): 35-56.
31 Ibid., 37.
32 Ibid., 54.
33 Iris Agmon, “Women’s History and Ottoman Sharia Court Records: Shifting Perspectives in Social
History” Hawwa 2, no.2 (2004): 172-209.
34 Ibid., 202.
35 Kınalızade Ali Çelebi, Ahlâk-i Alâ’î: Kınalızade’nin Ahlâk Kitabı, ed. Mustafa Koç (İstanbul: Türkiye
Yazma Eserler Kurumu Başkanlığı, 2014)
13
between husband and wife and even their children in this part.36 The last part, ilm-i tedbiri
medine, gives advice on how a ruler should behave to their subjects, in short, the
relationship between state and subjects. The vocabulary Kınalızade chose makes it
possible to analyze how different roles were given to husband and wife in a family which
made the family relations asymmetric and hierarchical.
The last primary source worth mentioning is Hayat-ı Tenasüliye Hakkında
Musahabat-ı Mahremane.37 It is an anonymous book related to the instructions of sexual
health for teenagers (sinn-i rüşde vâsıl olanlar için). It aims to give detailed information
about reproduction and its steps to readers. The main objective of the book is explained
with these sentences: “[…] Öyle bir eser ki gerek gençlere ve gerek ihtiyarlara, ve gerek
cühelâ ve ‘ulemâya hayat-ı tenasüliyenin bi’l-‘umûm safahât-i şâmil-i teferru’âtı
tamamen izâh edebilsin.”38. The main topics are izdivâc (marriage), a’zâ-i tenasüliye
(reproductive organs), zürriyet (lineage), bekâret (virginity), hayz (menstruation),
mücâma’a (sexual intercourse), etc. With giving the important definitions, the book offers
vocabulary to analyze the relationship between women and men regarding sexuality.
Above-mentioned primary sources are mainly used to show the vocabulary related
to namus and sexuality. These vocabularies such as mücâma'a, bikr (virginity), kendi
hâlinde olmak (being inoffensive), ırzıyla mukayyed olmak (to protect the honor), ehl-i ırz
olmak (being honorable), namahremden ictinâb etmek (keeping oneself away from
36 In her unpublished Phd Thesis, Nil Tekgül takes Kınalızade’s Ahlak-i Alai and its parts related to family
from a different perspective, emotions. See; Nil Tekgül, “A Gate to the Emotional World of Pre-modern
Ottoman Society: An Attempt to Write Ottoman History from the “inside out”” (Unpublished PhD Thesis,
Ankara: Bilkent University, 2016)
37 Hayat-ı Tenasüliye Hakkında Musahabat-ı Mahremane, trans. by A.M. (Dersaadet, İstanbul: Asar-ı
Müfide Kitabhanesi, 1913)
38 Ibid., 3.
14
unrelated -men-), yaramaz (misconducting), fahişe (misconducted women), etc. are
analyzed and compared to examine the main argument of the thesis.
Beside the primary sources, previously mentioned secondary sources, such as the
studies of Dror Zeevi, Judith Tucker, Leslie Peirce, and Başak Tuğ, supporting the
analysis are frequently used.
15
CHAPTER II
ORGANIZATIONAL MODEL OF OTTOMAN SOCIETY,
TAİFE, AND NAMUS
2.1 General View on Ottoman Social Structure
Ottoman society was distributed in the vast territory called Memalik-i Mahruse,
which consisted of heterogeneous divisions and regions. These regions varied in
ecological, social, political, cultural, ethnic, and religious relationships and roots. This
diversity, nonetheless, does not hinder researchers from analyzing the shared traditionality
of Ottoman society in a broad scope. For example, although taifes differ in terms of
various criteria, they have commonalities. Taifes are the sub-communities in the classical
Ottoman organizational model. These sub-communities were determined and divided by
their religious beliefs, ethnicities, settlements, legal statuses, occupations, etc. Ottoman
individuals were members of different taifes in terms of different criteria, and it was
crucially significant for them to be part of taifes. A Christian shoemaker, for example, was
considered a member of both the Christians’ taife (religious) and the shoemakers’ taife
(occupational). Interactions of individuals with their surroundings, with the community,
and with the government were affected, even shaped, by their affiliation to these taifes.
16
Before diving deep into this taife structure, two things should be underlined. First,
taifes also defined a shared social, cultural, and economic life whose norms and rules were
mostly determined within the taife itself. These unwritten norms and rules were taken
seriously because the individuals of a taife were severally liable for each other’s actions
and behaviors. In the Ottoman terminology, this liability was referred to as müteselsilen
kefil olmak. As a byproduct of these norms, rules, and liability, namus emerges as a
significant shared value in Ottoman society. Second, affiliation to a taife was defined
through the male individuals in the community. In other words, a male individual was a
member of a taife with his taallukat (household). Taallukat of a man included his
menkuhes (wives), children, kuls-cariyes (slaves), and servants. Menkuhes were related
by marriage, children were related by lineage, kuls and cariyes were related by purchasing,
servants were related by nefsini icareye verme (leasing self for service). Affiliation of a
female to taifes, therefore, either as a menkuhe, daughter, cariye, or servant, was
determined through her male relative: her husband, her father, or her master.
Considering the significance of the taife structure in the Ottoman society, its close
relationship with the concept of namus, and the mediated affiliation of women to these
taifes, it should be closely investigated and explained.
2.2 Taifes in the Traditional Ottoman Society
From the Black Sea to Northern Africa, from the Balkans to the borders of Iran,
the land under the rule of the Ottoman Empire was called Memâlik-i Mahruse, which
means the Protected Lands. This naming tells a lot about the ideal political structure
17
perceived by the Ottoman State. According to traditional political thought, in the
relationship between the ruler and the ruled, the state is obligated and responsible to
protect those ruled individuals and communities. They were Vedâyi’-i Hâlik-i kibriyâ,
meaning that all those living under the state’s rule were trusted to the rulers, namely the
sultan, by God. That is why the sultan of the Ottoman Empire had to protect and secure
justice among the people, re’aya.39 In return for this, re’aya were obliged to abide by and
comply with the state and the sultan (ulu’l emre itaat).
In the traditional Ottoman society, those ruled were called re’aya, and this term
referred to the entirety of the ruled. However, to sustain the peace and prosperity among
the society, it was significant to keep in mind the differences of communities. Therefore,
the Ottomans divided their society into taifes regarding people’s religion, ethnicity,
residential status, legal status, occupation, etc.
All these taifes had a similar pyramid-shaped hierarchical structure in the
traditional social organization. At the highest level, there were the leaders like kethüda,
yiğitbaşı, pir, şeyh. The non-leader elites of taifes were in the middle of this hierarchy.
They were the most known or the wealthiest in their taifes. They were called ihtiyaran,
ayan, vücûh, or if they were the elites of a commercial taife, üstadân.40 The rest were at
the bottom of this hierarchy, the members of the taife. With the help of this pyramidshaped
hierarchical structure, the rules were applied and enforced, and the order was
maintained.
39 In Ahlâk-ı Alâ’î, Kınalızade Ali Çelebi explains “circle of justice” as follows: “Adldir mûcib-i salâh-ı
cihân/Cihân bir bâgdır divârı devlet/Devletin nâzımı şerî’attır/Şerî’ate olamaz hîç hâris illa melik/Melik zabt
eylemez illâ leşker/Leşkeri cem’ edemez illa mâl/Mâlı kesb eyleyen ra’iyyettir/Ra’iyyeti kul eder pâdişâhı
âleme adl” Kınalızade, Ahlâk-ı Alâ’î, ed.Mustafa Koç, 1090.
40 Tekgül, “A Gate to the Emotional World of Pre-modern Ottoman Society”, 152.
18
Taifes were significant for people’s identity. A person was expected to live and
spend the day together with the taife’s other members. They were also obliged to abide by
the same rules and customs of the same taife. However, an individual was a member of
different taifes according to different criteria. A Christian shoemaker example has been
mentioned above. A Muslim shoemaker and a Christian shoemaker were members of
different taifes in terms of their religious beliefs, while they were members of the same
taife in terms of their occupations.
To see this complex structure in a context, it would be helpful to look at a ferman41
sent to the qadi of İstanbul and his muhtesib.42 In this ferman, the head of grocers and
stallholders (bakkal ve pazarbaşı) complains about Murad’s (Murad veled-i Şahbaz)
violation of taifes rules. Murad was an Armenian grocer and stallholder43, therefore, in
this ferman, he was mentioned and discussed in terms of his affiliation to two different
taifes. Murad was allegedly violating the rules and gaining an unearned advantage. The
rules suggested that the goods and commodities that were to be sold by the grocers and
stallholders should have been first brought to the related market (e.g., fishes to the fishmarket)
and second wholesaled to those grocers and stallholders which were retailers.
41 “Mahrûse-i mezbûrede olan Bakkâl ve Bâzârbasisi sûret-i sicil ibrâz edip; "Kadîmden aramızda bakkâllık
ve bâzârcılik edenlerin dükkânları ve kefîlleri olup ve tekâlîf-i örfiyyeyi berâber çekip ve sehre gelen
zehâirden hisselerine düsen ile kanâat ederler iken Ermeni tâifesinden Murad veled-i Sahbaz nâm Ermeni,
koltukdan zahîre alib satip narh-i cârîye dahi amel etmeyip narhdan ziyâdeye satar." deyü men‘olunmak
için emr-i serîf taleb etmeğin buyurdum ki…” 82-1 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (H. 1027-1028/ M. 1618-
1619) (İstanbul: Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Cumhurbaşkanlığı Devlet Arşivleri Başkanlığı, 2020), 71.
42 Muhtesib regulates and controls hisba orders in the urban area. For further information see; Özer Ergenç,
“Osmanlılarda Esnaf ve Devlet İlişkileri,” in Şehir, Toplum, Devlet Osmanlı Tarih Yazıları (İstanbul: Tarih
Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2012).
43 Grocers and stallholders were the guilds that sold the wholesaled food and other consumer’s good at the
shops and their own marketplaces. Although they were separate guilds, they could be jointly acted, as one
taife, because both were retailers.
19
These retailers, then, should have sold the goods and commodities with the pricing
(narh44) determined by the rulers of that taife.
On the other hand, Murad was accused of meeting with the wholesalers before
entering the city and buying the commodities he needed at a lower price before anyone
else could even see them (koltukdan zahîre alıb). Moreover, he was accused of selling
these commodities more expensive than the determined narh. These accusations of
Pazarbaşı about Murad veled-i Şahbaz demonstrate the strict rules in taifes, and these
rules were enforced by the taife’s rulers. People had to abide by these specific rules and
customs of the taifes that they belonged to.
Considering all these, there were appropriate and inappropriate ways for an
individual to behave in a society. Sanctions on the inappropriate behaviors had two
dimensions. The first dimension is the jural and legal one. The case of Murad veled-i
Şahbaz is a concrete example of the legal dimension. The second dimension is the field of
Namus. Namus determines the accepted and unaccepted behaviors in a taife. In this sense,
the field of namus is more comprehensive than the first dimension. It is also more timeless.
What makes this concept even more interesting in the field of gender studies is that namus
distinguishes the genders. It regulates the relationship between genders by casting
different roles on men and women. To fully understand this regulated relationship, it is
essential to investigate the roles of men and women in the taife structure.
44 For detailed information, see; Mübahat Kütükoğlu, “Narh”, İslam Ansiklopedisi, TDV Yay., V.32,
(İstanbul: 2006), 390-391.
20
2.2.1 Taallukat
The affiliation to a taife, as mentioned at the beginning, mainly was determined
through the male individual. It can be seen in the tahrirs. Tahrirs were the records of the
population in terms of their residential status and occupations. The Ottoman State used
these tahrirs to determine who will pay how much tax. In these tahrirs, the affiliation of
individuals to taifes had been documented through the men in a family, with some minor
exceptions: female widowers who produced and paid her taxes. Apart from them, single
men were listed as mücerred, which means on one’s own, and the married men constituted
hânes, which means households. Apart from the male leader of the family, these
households included his taallukat: wives, children, cariyes, slaves, and servants.
Taallukat means relatives, kin, or immediate family. Affiliation to a taife, as
mentioned above, was determined through man and his taallukat, which together defines
the household. Kınalızade explains a household in his Ahlâk-i Alâ’î: “Mesela herkes ehli
beyt ü hâne ve sükkân-ı menzil-i kâşanesiyle- ki ehl-i beyt ü ıyâl ve evlâd u etfâl ve
hidmetkârân u haşem ve peresterân u hademdir- …”45 A household, according to
Kınalızade, consists of the man (leader of the household) and his wives, children and
servants. In a broader explanation, a man’s taallukat includes his wives (menkuhes), his
children, his slaves and cariyes, and his servants. All these are linked to the man with a
different tie.
2.2.1.1 Menkuhes
45 Kınalızade, Ahlâk-ı Alâ’î, ed.Mustafa Koç, 79-80.
21
Menkuhes were linked to the man with izdivac (marriage). Whether written or oral,
izdivac defines a contract. In the traditional social structure of the Ottomans, izdivac
happens between the two opposite poles, genders, and it is far from being symmetrical.
The fundamentals of izdivac are man’s supremacy and woman’s obedience.46 To see the
perception of the roles of man and woman in a marriage, Serope v. Vartan’s complaint47
against his wife should be scrutinized.
Serope, a zımmi living in the Üsküdar Selami district, filed a complaint against his
wife, Sima, as she was allegedly loath to do her wifely duties, and she was not behaving
according to the expected and accepted ways a wife should behave. Serope complains that
his wife did not obey to him (zevcem olup bana mutâva’at etmeyip). The subject of this
allegation, the expected and accepted behaviors of a wife, can range from respect and
obedience towards the husband to sexual intercourse. As a result of the hearing, Sima was
warned and advised to obey her husband. The obedience was the most interesting highlight
in terms of this thesis’s scope. Women should have abided and obeyed to his husband,
which demonstrates the asymmetrical relationship between spouses.
2.2.1.2 Children
46 Tucker, In the House of the Law, 40.
47 “Medîne-i Üsküdar’da Selami mahallesinde mütemekkin Serope v. Vartan nâm zimmî mahfil-i Bâb’da
meclis-i şer‘-i hatîrde hâlâ zevcesi şahsı mu‘arrefe Sima bt. Sahak nâm Nasrâniye muvâcehesinde merkūme
Sima Nasrâniye zevcem olup bana mutâva‘at etmeyip benimle izdivâc mu‘âmelesinden imtinâ‘ etmekle
kıbel-i şer‘den bana mutâva‘ata merkūme Sima Nasrâniyeye tenbîh olunmak murâdımdır deyü ba‘de’dda‘
vâ ve’l-istintâk ve’l-ikrâr mûcibiyle zevci merkūm Serope zimmîye mutâva‘ata merkūme Sima
Nasrâniyeye tenbîh olunduğu bi’l-iltimâs huzûr-ı âlîlerine i’lâm olundu. Fî 22 min-Z sene 1206.”
Transcribed by ISAM. Istanbul USK JCR 531, v.81: 821.
http://www.kadisicilleri.org/arascl/ayrmetin.php?idno=54402
22
Children were linked to the man, their fathers, with neseb. Neseb means lineage.
In traditional societies based on blood relationships, children are born with certain rights,
power, and wealth.48 Especially for legal purposes, it is significant to determine people’s
lineage. This lineage is, just like in most of the traditional societies, defined through the
father in the Ottoman society as well. In the official documents, people are mentioned
with their father’s names. Lineage for boys is shown by bin, veled, oğul. In a similar
fashion, the lineage of daughters is shown by binti, kız, kerime. Additionally, if it is wanted
to be emphasized that the child is a biological offspring the term sulbünden gelmek is used.
Sulbünden gelmek means that a child has emerged from the sperm of his father, therefore,
the child is biologically and legally the offspring of his father.
2.2.1.3 Slaves and Cariyes
A man’s taallukat was not necessarily confined to his relatives like his wives and
children. His slaves, cariyes, and servants were also counted in his household, therefore
in his taallukat. Slaves and cariyes were linked to the man with temellük (acquisition).
Slaves and cariyes were properties of their masters. They were generally used in
production and domestic chores. They were named differently in terms of their legal
status. Woman slaves, in the Ottoman official documents, are generally called cariye,
müstevlide (ümm-i veled), müdebbire, and ma’tûka.49 Masters were allowed to have sexual
intercourse with their cariyes, and a cariye giving birth to the child of his master gains a
48 Tucker, In the House of the Law, 167.
49 Nelly Hanna, “Sources for the Study of Slave Women and Concubines in Ottoman Egypt,” in Beyond the
Exotic: Women’s Histories in Islamic Societies, ed. Amira El-Azhary Sonbol (Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse
University Press, 2005), 123.
23
new legal status and a new name: müstevlide (ümm-i veled), which means the “mother of
the child.” This child’s neseb was rightfully linked to his biological father, the master of
müstevlide, in case the father acknowledges his child as his own as well. A good example
of this phenomenon can be seen in the case of Şehri Mehmed Ağa and his cariye Selame.50
Şehri Mehmed Ağa acknowledges the child that Selame was soon to give birth as his own.
Selame, referred to as cariye-i memluke in the register, was a property of his master, Şehri
Mehmed Ağa. Even if she was pregnant to his master’s child, and even if his master had
acknowledged the child as his own, Selame’s position and affiliations in the society were
possible only through his master, Şehri Mehmed Ağa.
2.2.1.4 Servants
Hidmetkarân (servants), on the other hand, were not properties of their masters.
They were linked to the man, the leader of the household, with nefsini icareye verme.
İcare means leasing. “Nefsini icareye verme” refers to the act of leasing one’s service and
self to another. In the household, a husband was responsible for the well-being and
expected to fulfill the needs of his house. Additionally, relatively wealthier men were
expected to hire a couple of servants to help his wife in the domestic chores.51 In this
sense, they were a kind of paid labor. Even though this relationship might seem like a
50 “[…] Şehrî Mehmed Ağa b. Hasan meclis-i şer‘-i şerîfde ikrâr ve takrîr-i kelâm edip orta boylu, kara
gözlü, kara kaşlı Habeşiyyetü’l-asl Selame bt. Abdullah nâm câriye-i memlûkem el-ân hâmile olub mezbûr
Selame’nin haml-i mezbûru bendendir, eğer haml-i mezbûr hayyen zuhûr ederse zuhûr eden veled benim
veledim olub mezbûre Selâme ümm-i veledim olur dedikde mâ-vaka‘a hıfzan li’l-makāl gıbbe’t-taleb ketb
olundu …” Transcribed by ISAM. Istanbul BAB JCR 11 v.53: 229.
http://www.kadisicilleri.org/arascl/ayrmetin.php?idno=2569
51 Judith Tucker, Women, Family, and Gender in Islamic Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2008): 51.
24
simple contract for service, a servant was considered in the household, therefore taallukat,
of the patron. Kınalızade Ali Çelebi lists servants after mentioning menkuhes and children,
“hıdmetkârân u haşem ve perestârân u hadem”52.
Masters should not have had sexual intercourse with their female servants, as the
hürmet-i müsahara principal dictates.53 However, in the course of history, there were
cases of such sexual intercourse. They were even brought up to courts. Ramata, a non-
Muslim woman from Mudanya, had filed a complaint against his patron Kara Yorgi as he
raped and took away her virginity.54 Ramata was known in his neighborhood in Mudanya
as the servant of Kara Yorgi, and she was a part of his taallukat. Ramada requested both
her wage for her 12-year service and compensation for her lost virginity as her sexual
integrity should have been protected by the hürmet-i müsahara principle.
2.2.2 Discussion on Taallukat and Women
52 Kınalızade, Ahlâk-ı Alâ’î, ed.Mustafa Koç, 80.
53 In Islamic jurisprudence, fıqh, hürmet-i müsahere refers to forbidden marriage because of the affinity
relationship by marriage. However, it should be examined beyond its meaning in fıqh. For example,
although a marriage is not forbidden according to legal and religious rules, it could be under a ban which
the society imposes.
54 C.ADL. 79/4770 (H.1197) reads: “Devletlü ‘inayetlü merhametlü Sultanım hazretleri sağ olsun. Arzuhali
Nasraniye cariyeleridir ki Mudanya sâkinelerinden olub yine Mudanya sakinlerinden Kara Yorgi nam
zımmiye hîn-i sabâvetimden berü on iki sene hidmetinde olub bu cariyeleri kendü hâlimde ve ‘ırzımla
mukayyed iken mesfur zımmi cebren tutub ve bikrimi izale idüb kemâl mertebe ‘ırzımı pâyimâl eylediğinden
mâ’adâ mesfur zımmi hilesinden nâşi ben seni bir aher mesfura tezvîc itdiririm deyu dürlü dürlü tezvirat
ile bir takrib küşad virüb zelil sefîl serkerdan ha’ib ve hasir bırakub ve mahall-i merkumede mesfur ile
mukâvemete bir dürlü iktidarım olmadığından taraf-ı Asitâneye gelüb ve fetvâ-i şerîfe mürâca’at olundukda
sene-i merkumelerde hizmetim mukabili ecr-i mislim ve bikrimi izâle eylediğinin mûceb-i şer’isi üzere
ecirren fetva-yı şerifeler virilmeğle hâkipây-i devletlerine arz-ı hale cesaret olundu merâhım-ı
aliyyelerinden mercûdur ki taraf-ı devletlerinden mübâşir kulları marifetiyle yedime bir kıta emr-i ‘âli ihsân
ve mahallinde şer ile ihkâk-ı hak olmaz ise mesfur zımmi taraf-ı Âsitâneye ihzâr olunması babında emr u
ferman devletlü ‘inâyetlü Sultanım hazretlerinindir. Bende Ramata.”
25
Considering all these mentioned about the taallukat, as a summary, following can
be said. Whether boys or daughters, children had been a part of society through their
fathers. However, male children’s dependence on a man was generally temporary. A boy
was expected to grow up and be the leader of their own taallukat. Women, on the other
hand, had not a similar path. Through marriage, their affiliation passed from their fathers
to their husbands. Apart from the abovementioned exception for female widows, women
were permanently affiliated to society through the men in their families. To secure this
social organizational model, written and unwritten values gained prominence. As one of
these values, Namus and its applications set light to the social structure, the power
dynamics in the society, and the gender-based behavioral patterns.
2.3 Joint and Several Liability
Until 19th century, the Ottoman society had an eclectic form which was divided
into taifes in terms of various criteria. It was crucially important to sustain the peace and
adherence among the members of a taife. Each and every member of a taife, therefore,
had to know and be closely acquainted with all the other members. This was a prerequisite
to create and sustain a shared living space. Furthermore, people were severally responsible
for the other members of their taife and neighborhood, according to the legal dimension
of this social structure.55 Ergenç strongly underlines this several responsibility as it is a
key concept revealing the nature of social order and the life in a neighborhood.
55 Özer Ergenç, “XVIII. Yüzyılın Başlarında Edirne’nin Demografik Durumu Hakkında Bazı Bilgiler” in
Şehir, Toplum, Devlet Osmanlı Tarihi Yazıları (İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2012), 183.
26
Several liability simply refers to the responsibility and accountability of a person
for the other members of his family, neighborhood, and taife. Neighborhoods and taifes
were not transitive. To come of a neighborhood and to join a new one was not easy.
Previous members of neighborhoods did not easily accept newcomers, as they would
become responsible for the newcomers’ behaviors. They supposed to know and check
each other closely. In the most extreme example, whole neighborhood could have been
accused and sanctioned because of an unsolved murder. To avoid such accusations and
sanctions, people were allowed, even encouraged, to keep an eye on each other.
This several liability and the right to check and control each other was also a
common case in taifes. Candlemaker Yorgi is a good example. Yorgi was a zımmi (non-
Muslim) and a candlemaker. His actions and behaviours, therefore, were affecting both
the zımmi taife and the candlemaker taife. When Yorgi was imprisoned because of his
debt, the other zımmi candlemakers went bail for him.56 They testified Yorgi’s good
56 “Mahmiye-i İstanbul hısnı ebvâbından Ayakapısı hâricinde vâki‘ selhhânede sâkin mumcu tâifesinden
Kosta v. Todori nâm zimmî mahfil-i kazâda işbu bâ‘iseyü’l-kitâb Mahmud Beşe b. Ömer ve Himmet Beşe b.
Mehmed mahzarında ikrâr ve takrîr-i kelâm edip Galata’da sahn-ı sultânîde hâlâ mahbûs olan tâife-i
mezbûreden Yorgi v. Yani zimmetinde deyn-i şer‘îden mezbûr Mahmud Beşe’nin üç bin üç yüz on altı akçe
ve mezbûr Himmet Beşe’nin dahi dört bin iki yüz kırk sekiz akçe ki cem‘an yedi bin beş yüz altmış dört akçe
târîh-i kitâbdan bir sene tamamına değin müeccel ve mev‘ûd hakları olmağın meblağ-ı mezbûrun cem‘îsine
merkūm Yorgi’nin emri ve mezbûrân Mahmud Beşe ve Himmet Beşe’nin kabûllerini hâviye kefâlet-i sahîhai
şer‘iyye ile ben kefîl oldum dedikde gıbbe’t-tasdîkı’l-mu‘teber yine zikr olunan selhhânede sâkinler olan
mumculardan Panayot v. Mihal ve Yorgi v. Andriya ve Foti v. Yani ve Kasab Kosta v. Harpato nâm zimmîler
dahi hâzirûn olup ecel-i merkūm hulûlünde kefâleti hasebiyle merkūm Kosta v. Todori’nin zimmetine lâzım
gelen meblağ-ı mezbûr yedi bin beş yüz altmış dört akçenin cem‘îsine mezbûr Kosta’nın emri ile her birimiz
kefîl olduk dediklerinde mezbûrân Mahmud Beşe ve Himmet Beşe dahi kabûl etmeğin mâ-hüve’l-vâki‘
gıbbe’t-taleb ketb olundu. Fi’t-târîhi’l-mezbûr. Şuhûdü’l-hâl: el-Hâc Mehmed b. el-Hâc Mahmud, Ahmed
Beşe b. el-Hâc Hasan, Yusuf Beşe b. İbrahim, Mustafa Beşe b. Hasan.” Transcribed by ISAM. Istanbul Ahi
Çelebi JCR 1 v.49: 67. http://www.kadisicilleri.org/arascl/ayrmetin.php?idno=213
27
manners and his obedience to the rules. In a nutshell, the other members of Yorgi’s taifes
had to answer for Yorgi’s behaviors.
This several responsibility, to avoid injustices to an extent, needed strict rules and
values that the members should follow and abide by. These shared values, like an invisible
hand, sustained and secured the different dynamics among the people, between different
communities, and also between the individuals and the state. One of these most significant
shared values was namus.
2.4 Namus
In the most general sense, namus can be defined as the abidance to the moral
principles and communal values, honesty, and righteousness. This concept, which has
been under the close investigation of anthropological studies since the 1960s, has been a
building stone in the Mediterranean cultures. Pitt-Rives and Peristiany, who were known
with their studies on cultural anthropology, underlines this phenomenon. According to
them, beside the environmental and historical similitudes, Mediterranean societies share
a common value system based on namus and shame.57 In these societies, people’s
reputation in the community is heavily rely on their namus.
Apart from such a generalized definition, namus is a concept that is hard to define
universally. It can change from time to time, from culture to culture. For example, a
prohibition based on hürmet-i müsahara, which was mentioned above, can vanish in a
different era. In the Ottomans, for instance, a way of dressing may be well-received for
57 Gilmore, Honor and Shame, 2.
28
non-Muslim women while it may be off the charts, even prohibited, for Muslim women.
A 1726-dated ferman related to women’s dress, which will be investigated below, is a
good example how a certain way of dressing could have been seen inappropriate for
Muslim women while not suggesting that the non-Muslim women dressing like were
namussuz. It is, therefore, a polysemantic and a multilayered concept. To understand its
nature and changes from culture to culture, and time to time, Ottoman official documents
would be a prolific source of information.
According to anthropologist Paul Friedrich, namus is a law that extents from
hermeneutic to the act. It involves both cognitive and pragmatic factors.58 First of all,
namus is a system of values and symbols. Secondly, it regulates and shapes the behaviors
within the society. In Ottoman society, it refers to the set of values related to respectability
and reputability, like honesty, generosity, being righteous, etc. A man who is known to be
honest, generous, righteous, respectable, and reputable, is regarded namuslu. On the
contrary, a man who is known to act on his nefsâniyet (lust), is regarded namussuz. People
would prefer to be namuslu as it was the key for survival in the Ottoman taife structure.
Therefore, namus became a prohibitor of bad behaviors based on lust and a catalysator for
welcomed behaviors in the society. Moreover, it became the measure of a person’s value
in the community. It shows whether a person’s reputation was besmirched or not.59
2.4.1 Namus and Töhmet
58 Abu-Lughod, Veiled Sentiments, 86.
59 Peirce, Morality Tales, 179.
29
Since namus was such an important property for a person to hold, the concept of
töhmet (indictment) comes into prominence. Töhmet means an accusation or a charge to
someone, which has not been verified or refuted, of a crime or fault. Indicted people were
töhmetli and the unindicted people were töhmetsiz. Töhmetli people were attributed with
bad behaviors, thus, they were unreputable. On the other hand, töhmetsiz people were
known with their well behaviors. Töhmet, therefore, was a tool to dishonor and besmirch.
That is why, the concepts of namus and töhmet were closely related to each other.
Numan Efendi’s petition to the grand vizier, reveals this close connection of namus
and töhmet, showing how even a doubt in a person’s reputation can have an impact.60
Numan Efendi says that he was from Niğde, and he was elected member to Niğde Sanjak
Council by the people. In his time of duty, he argues, he spent time for the necessities of
Niğde, and he was very successful even in the eyes of the people. Despite his excellent
work, the former district governor Ali Rıza Efendi terminated Numan Efendi’s
membership to Niğde Sanjak Council without a reason. Numan Efendi says that this
termination besmirched his namus: “bî vech ihracım ile kesr-i namus olduğumdan”61. He
went to the court and win his case. To restore his namus, he seeks his membership to be
renewed.
60 MVL. 384/94 (H. 1278) reads: “Ma’rûz-ı çâker-i kemîneleridir ki bu kulları nefs-i Niğde ahalisi
bulunduğum cihetle çenden akdem ittifâk-ı ahali ile Meclis a’zalığına ta’yin umûr-ı meham-ı belde ve
ahalice bilakusur tesviye itmekde iken kaim-i makam-ı sâbık Ali Rıza Efendi bir gûna sebeb olmayarak
meclis-i mezkur azalığından ihrâc itmiş kulları hâhişgir olmadığım derkâr ise de bî vech ihracım kesr-i
namus olduğumdan ikmâl-i namus itmek üzere lâzımgelenler ile bi’l-mukabele haklı olduğum tebeyyün ittiği
halde meclis-i mezkura tayin buyurulması hakkında mukaddemki isti’dâ-i âcizanem üzerine Meclis-i
Vilayete lede’l havale fî Rebiü’lahir sene (12)78 tarihi ile devletlü Konya valisine hitaben bir kıt’a
emirname. Bende Numan kulları.”
61 MVL. 384/94.
30
Numan Efendi sees the unprovoked termination of his membership as a threat to
his namus, therefore, his reputation in the society. The termination of his membership
might have caused a töhmet. Since there were no reason for the termination, people might
have thought that Numan Efendi had done something bad, because of his lust, related to
unlawful gains, dishonesty, or relationships with unrelated women. Since a man was
affiliated to the society with his taallukat, people might have thought that Numan Efendi’s
wife or children done something unacceptable, instead of Numan Efendi himself. The
unreasoned termination of his membership could cause these kinds of suspicions, even
töhmet, to his and his family’s namus. Numan Efendi, therefore, seeks an acquittance.
2.4.2 Namus as a Tool for Engineering Individual and Social Behavior
The concept of namus had the power on people to shape their behaviors. Including
but not limited to crimes, namus was suggested to prohibit bad behaviors and promote
good ones. In the Ottoman society, this concept was often linked with the metaphor of a
perde (curtain) as it hinders certain behaviors. A namuslu person was considered ehl-i
perde (person of curtain). When a person’s namus was besmirched, it was referred as hetki
ırz (tearing of honor), hetk-i perde (tearing of curtain), hetk-i perde-i namus (tearing of
honor’s curtain). This curtain was a fragile limit of accepted behaviors which should have
been protected at any cost.
Women had to be careful about what they wear, they should not have revealed
their bodies and even their bodily movements in the Ottoman society, especially in the
31
public sphere.62 In the early 18th century, the number of women violating the socially
accepted dress code has increased. As a result, a ferman was enacted in 1726 about the
apparel and clothing of women, and it shows how namus was used as a tool to rectify and
prohibit certain behaviors that are attributed to nefsâniyet.63 According to this ferman,
Muslim women started to envy and emulate non-Muslim women’s appearances, clothing
and jewelries. By coming into the public sphere with such an emulated appearance, they
violated both the rules of the state and the values of namus. They were, this ferman
suggests, tempted by their nefsâniyet and did not hesitated to tear the curtain of namus
(hetk-i perde-i nâmusdan tehâşî etmeyip)64.
When some women started to wear clothes like non-Muslim women against the
codes of namus, it is also believed to affect namuslu women to emulate that as well. As
more and more women were tempted by their lust to be dressed namussuz, it become hard
to preserve those namuslu women from the same temptation. This fear of losing namuslu
women to their nefsâniyet is clearly stated in the ferman. At this point, namus appears as
a tool to restrain nefsâniyet. Those who were namuslu and those who were not, in this
ferman, were distinguished sharply. Namuslu women were referred as ehl-i ırz (person of
honor), ehl-i ismet (person of chastity), and sahibe-i ismet (owner of chastity), while
62 Suraiya Faroqhi, Osmanlı Kültürü ve Gündelik Yaşam Ortaçağdan Yirminci Yüzyıla (İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı
Yurt Yayınları, 1998), 124.
63 “…ba‘zı yaramaz avratlar intihâz-ı fırsat ve sokaklarda halkı idlâl kasdına izhâr-ı zîb ü zînet ve
libâslarında gûnâ-gûn ihdâs-ı bid‘at ve kefere avratlarına taklîd serpûşlarında u‘cûbe heyetler ile nice
üslûb-ı ma‘yûb ibdâ‘ ve âdâb-ı ismet bi’l-külliye meslûb olacak mertebe kıyâfetler ihtirâ‘ etmeleriyle,
bundan akdem men‘ olunmuş iken, mesâlih-i mehâmm-ı nizâm-ı memâlik-i İslâm’a iştigāl esnâsında
eslâfınızdan adem-i tekayyüdden nâşî yine hetk-i perde-i nâmusdan tehâşî etmeyip ve türlü türlü heyet-i
şenî‘ ve kıyâfet-i fazîhaya mütesaddî ve birbirini görerek bu hâleti ehl-i ırz ve ismet olanlara da âdet olmak
mertebelerine müeddî olmağla ümmet-i Muhammed’i ıdlâl ve ifsâda sebeb ve ehl-i ırz ve ve sâhibe-i ismet
olanlara dahi îcâd-ı kıyâfetden nâşî şenâ‘atleri sirâyetine bâdî olduğundan mâ‘adâ…” Transcribed by
ISAM. Istanbul JCR 24 v.21: 97. http://www.kadisicilleri.org/arascl/ayrmetin.php?idno=29009
64 Ibid.,97.
32
namussuz women were referred as yaramaz (mischievous). This ferman, as a result,
suggests that in order for Muslim women (at least for those who were living in Istanbul65)
to be called ehl-i ırz, ehl-i ismet, or sahibe-i ismet and to avoid being called yaramaz in
the community, they should have abided the socially accepted apparel and clothing codes
for Muslim women. As this example also suggests, namus had been an important tool
hindering and prohibiting certain actions and behaviors that were based on one’s
nefsâniyet, and this tool was utilized to sustain the social order within the traditional social
structure.
2.5 Concluding Remarks on Taife Structure and Namus
Memalik-i Mahruse, which extended to three continents over 20 million km2,
contain within itself several cultures, ethnicities, religious groups, languages, etc. To
secure the coherence among this vast territory, and to govern such a varied society,
Ottoman society was divided into sub-communities called taifes. People within a taife
were severally liable for each other, which means that they had to answer for how the
other members behaved. This social structure brought along a set of rules and control
mechanisms, one of which is namus.
Namus was a shared value in the early modern Ottoman society. It refers to the
area of both cognitive and pragmatic factors, meaning that it both was a system of values
65 Robert Dankoff, in his article “Ayıp Değil!”, analyzes the context of the word “ayıp” in Evliya Çelebi’s
Seyahatname and shows how different parts of the Ottoman Empire had different value judgment. As he
cited from Çelebi: “ve çârşû-yı bâzârda avrat gezmek bu şehirde [Yanya] gâyet ayıbdır, avratı taşrada
görseler hemân amân u zaman vermeden katl iderler; ama Urûm karıları yüzleri açık sokaklarda gezüb gûnagûn
kâr ederler, ayıb değildir.” Robert Dankoff, “Ayıp Değil!” in Çağının Sıradışı Yazarı Evliya Çelebi, ed.
Nuran Tezcan (İstanbul: YKY, 2009), 115.
33
and functioned as a regulatory tool in the society. Society was labeling people as namuslu
or namussuz and it was important for people to be called namuslu in order for them to
survive in this social structure. Hereby, namus became a social engineering tool to shape
the behaviors of people and the society.
The taife structure in Ottoman society was gender-differentiated, thus, the concept
of namus was also gender-differentiated. For men, namus could easily be about their
professional life (just like in the case of Numan Efendi), for women it generally refers to
their behaviors in family (Sima’s example), their way of dressing (in the example of
abovementioned ferman), and their sexuality (Ramata’s example). This situation
necessitates a close study on the perception of women’s sexuality in Ottoman society, for
researchers to understand the concept of namus and women.
34
CHAPTER III
PERCEPTION OF SEXUALITY AND LANGUAGE
3.1 Perception of Sexuality and Namus
How a society perceives sexuality and which roles are given to men and women
directly shape the definition and perception of the namus. For this reason, before analyzing
how Ottoman society defines namus of women, there is a need to dwell on sexuality. The
function of women in a sexual relationship, the roles are given to them determine the
perception of women in the eye of men and society. As both a system of values and a field
of action, namus identifies different values for men and women and builds up particular
control mechanisms based on the roles in sexuality.
The language itself has important clues on how society perceives sexuality and
which roles are given to men and women. Beside the reflection of the outside world, the
language mirrors people’s and societies' perceptions of the world. In other words, it shows
the structure of the mind rather than the outside’s.66 From this point, one of the most useful
tools to demonstrate the perception of Ottoman society on sexuality is its language. As
Kalpaklı and Andrews asserts that “… such things as love and sex are not biological
66 David Evans, Language and Identity Discourse in the World (London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 22.
35
realities (in the way that reproductive sexual intercourse is). They are social constructs
given form and shape by the ways they are put into language…”67 So, genderdifferentiated
namus perception of Ottoman society can be examined by revealing the
mutual relationship between the male-dominant sexuality and the language.
3.2 Reciprocal and non-Reciprocal Vocabulary
Ottoman society had different words and expressions referring to sexuality. They
could be the expressions that either position the men and women opposite (such as
subject/object, active/passive, penetrator/penetrated) or indicate the reciprocality of the
sexuality. For example, there is a word cima' in Islamic jurisprudence to define the sexual
relationship between a man and a woman. It derives from the root of cem' ( جمع ) and means
to get together. It can also be used in mufâ’ale prosody, which makes it mücâma'a and
gives the word a reciprocal meaning. No prosody makes the cimâ' either fâ’il (subject) or
mef’ûl (object). In other words, cimâ' does not distinguish the roles of man and woman in
a sexual intercourse. Besides, istifrâş, which derives from firâş ( فراش ), refers to sexual
intercourse, meaning "getting the concubine into bed."68 Hence, istifrâş has a direction
from man to woman, lacking the reciprocal semantics of cimâ’. In a sentence formed with
istifrâş, man is the subject, and woman is the object of the verb, therefore, it has ism-i fâ’il
(prosody makes the word subject) and ism-i mef’ûl (prosody makes the word object). In
istifrâş, a man is müstefriş, and a woman is müstefreşe. The other way around does not
67 Mehmet Kalpaklı and Walter G. Andrews, The Age of Beloveds Love and the Beloved in Early-Modern
Ottoman and European Culture and Society (Durham; London: Duke University Press, 2005), 37.
68 Kamus-ı Osmani defines istifrâş as following: “Yatak manasına olan firaşa almak dimekdir ki, odalık
almak, cariye tutmakla kullanılır. Odalığa da müstefreşe denilir.” Mehmet Salahi, Kamus-ı Osmani, ed. Ali
Birinci (İstanbul: Yazma Eserleri Kurumu Başkanlığı, 2019), 324.
36
work, meaning that woman in this relationship is always the passive one, as this word
suggests.69
Beside the terms’ semantics itself, it should also be examined how the society uses
these terms in different contexts. At this point, the documents containing people’s or
communities’ complaints will be helpful because they make it possible to see both what
was welcomed and what wasn’t. A 1573-dated ferman70 sent to the qadi of Filibe is a good
example how Ottoman society expresses sexual relationships differently. This ferman is
based on the petition ('arz) of the qadi of Filibe. According to the letter of the qadi,
Muslims living in the Filibe complained about Üzümcü Mustafa and his wife, Nisa binti
Ahmed. The reason for the complaint was that Nisa had a sexual relationship with
unrelated (namahrem) men. Regarding Nisa's crime, in their complaint, the Muslim
community uses the words of yaramaz (misconducted) and fahişe (prostitute) for her. As
the content of the ferman demonstrates, Sultan ordered that Nisa and other women like
her whose criminal acts were detected by the court must be banished from Filibe. In this
ferman, one of the remarkable points is that the Muslim community expressed sexual
intercourse with the word of musahabet. It derives from the sohbet ( صحبت ) and means
talking face to face and companioning. However, despite its lexical meaning, it means
sexual intercourse in the context of the document. Musahabet is a reciprocal verb and
69 This situation overlaps with Selahattin Asım’s argument that suggests all wives, cariyes, odalisques, and
müstefreşes were the tools for the satisfaction of men. Salahaddin Asım, Osmanlıda Kadınlığın Durumu
(İstanbul: Arba Yayınları, 1989), 99.
70 A.{DVNSMHM.d... 22/169 (H.981) reads: “Filibe kadısına hükm ki mektub gönderüb Filibe
mahallatından Muhsin Hoca mahallesinde Üzümcü Mustafa’nın zevcesi Nisa binti Ahmed içün
Müslümanlar yaramazdır namahrem ile musahabet ider fahişedür deyu bildirdüklerin arz eylemişsin imdi
mezburenin ol yerden ‘alakasın kat’ idüb memleketden sürülmesin emr üdüb buyurdum ki vusul buldukda
mezburenin emrim üzere ol yerden alakasın kat’ idüb şehirden sürüb ve andan maada fahişeliği şer ile sabit
olan avretleri dahi habs idüb ‘arz eyleyesin.”
37
refers to the sexual intercourse in which women and men have mutual roles. In the Nisa
case, such a verb like istifrâş has not been used, instead musahabet was used as Nisa was
not simply the object of the act, her active participation in zinâ was emphasized. She
willingly committed the crime, so she was yaramaz and fahişe.
Another example is a 1758-dated petition71 belonged to Hatice binti Ebubekir. As
the petition demonstrates, Hatice wants to divorce her husband, Mehmet Beşe, because of
his impotence. According to her, although she gives herself to her husband, he cannot
deflower her and engage in sexual intercourse. This is the reason why Hatice seeks a
divorce. When Mehmed Beşe claims the opposite, the court appoints midwives to
understand whether he deflowered her or not. The midwives, Ümmügülsüm binti Mehmed
and Emine binti Abdullah states that Hatice was still a virgin, and her hymen was not
damaged. Then, the court informs Mehmed Beşe, and to understand Hatice's complaints,
whether based on temporal conditions or not, gives him additional time to engage in sexual
intercourse. The expressions used in this document can be a guide for the perception of
sexuality in Ottoman society. First, Hatice's words of choice to express sexual intercourse
are noteworthy. Hatice says that Mehmed Beşe took her as a wife (tezevvüc edip), then he
71 “İstanbul’da Şeyh Ebulvefâ mahallesinde sâkine ve zâtı ta‘rîf-i şer‘î ile mu‘arrefe olan Hadice bt.
Ebubekir nâm hatun Mumcu İsmail Beşe mübâşeretiyle mahfil-i şer‘iyyâta ihzâr etdirdiği zevci Mehmed
Beşe b. Halil muvâcehesinde zevcim mezbûr Mehmed Beşe bin yüz altmış sekiz senesi Şevvâli’nin sekizinci
günü beni elli guruş mehr-i müeccel tesmiyesiyle tezevvüc ve duhûl ve nefsimi kirâren ve mirâren mezbûr
Mehmed Beşe’ye teslîm edip lâkin mezbûr Mehmed Beşe ınnîn olup bana vusûl ve bikrimi izâleye kādir
olmamağla hâlâ nikâhım fesh olunmak murâdımdır deyü da‘vâ etdikde merkūm Mehmed Beşe cevâbında
müdde‘iye-i mezbûre Hadice ber-vech-i muharrer mehr-i mezbûr ile zevcesi olduğunu ikrâr ve kendüye
mukārenet ve vusûl eyledim deyü müdde‘iye-i mezbûrenin minvâl-i muharrer üzere müdde‘âsını inkâr
etdikde bu makūle husûsun teşhîsine kābile ta‘yîn olunan Ümmügülsüm bt. Mehmed ve Emine bt. Abdullah
nâm hatunlar kıbel-i şer‘den me’zûn-ı irâe ve nazar eylediklerinde müdde‘iye-i mezbûre hâlâ bikr ve
sahîhatü’l-a‘zâ olduğunu haber vermeleriyle işbu târîh-i i‘lâmdan kameriye hitâmına değin zevci merkūm
Mehmed Beşe vusûl ve mukārenete mezbûre Hadice te’cîl-i şer‘î ile te’cîl olunduğu huzûr-ı âlîlerine i‘lâm
olundu. Fî 8 Saferi’l-hayr sene 1172.” Transcribed by ISAM. Istanbul Rumeli Sadareti JCR 272 v.74: 409
http://www.kadisicilleri.org/arascl/ayrmetin.php?idno=42626
38
penetrated into her (duhûl edip), and she gave herself to him several times (nefsimi kirâren
ve mirâren mezbur Mehmed Beşe’ye teslîm edip). It is interesting that Hatice positions
herself as passive in his marriage, and in the sexual intercourse. Hatice has expectations
from her husband to penetrate her and to deflower her, which has not been met. However,
Mehmed Beşe claims that he had intercourse with and penetrated her. (kendüye mukâranet
ve vusûl eyledim). In this expression, mukâranet is a reciprocal verb and means getting
closer, on the other hand, vusûl means penetration and defines men as the subject in the
sex. At this point, what is interesting is that although mukâranet refers to reciprocity,
Mehmed Beşe uses it one-sided. He emphasizes that who was sexually getting closer was
himself (mukâranet eyledim).
The abovementioned two documents show that as contexts differ, words referring
the sexual intercourse change, too. An expression carrying a meaning of reciprocity of
women and men in sexual intercourse could refer to an unapproved relationship by the
society. In contrast, in a marriage, a word which positions the man as the active subject
could be used. In this sense, it is important to remember that the rules of sexuality were
drawn by men either way.72 The expressions referring to the reciprocity of the sexual
relationship and not positioning men and women in hierarchical relationships; are
overshadowed and made meaningless by this male-dominant language. Moreover, these
expressions serve for a discourse that makes men "more subject" than women.
3.3 Sexual Desire, Reproduction, and the Social Dimensions of Sexuality
72 Susan Sellers, Language and Sexual Difference Feminist Writing in France (New York: St. Martin Press,
1991), 23.
39
Sexual desire is necessary for reproduction, but its dangerous consequences should
also be regarded. This is why most of the advice books (nasihatnames) accept sexual
desire as an inherent feeling and warn that it should be restrained. Extreme desire can both
damage morality and negatively affect sexual health. The adjectives of itidal (moderation)
and ifrat (extreme) are the reflections of common ground. For example, Kınalızade gives
the İmam Ghazali's opinions in Ahlak-i Alai: If we were ordered to erase the rage and lust,
we cannot be strong enough for it because a living being has no power to change what the
Creator creates. However, we are ordered to direct rage and lust in moderation, and we
are strong enough to do it.73 In an ideal world, sexual desire is moderate, and people can
take it under control.74 Again in Ahlâk-ı Alai, Kınalızade continues that an individual has
the reason that distinguishes him from an animal. It is inexcusable if an individual has
extreme rage and lust.75
Tenasüliye Hakkında Müsahabat-ı Mahremane explains what the definition of
sexual intercourse is, what is the aim of it, and its limitations as following. Reproduction
is the aim of marriage, and for the reproduction, wife and husband must copulate. This
copulation is called mücâ’maa. It aims to reproduce, and reproductive organs must be in
touch with each other to do it.76 At this point, a reciprocal verb like mücâma'a is used
73 Kınalızade Ali Çelebi, Ahlâk-ı Alâi ‘Ahlâk İlmi, ed. Hüseyin Algül (İstanbul: Tercüman Gazetesi, 1974),
73.
74 Fatna A. Sabbah claims that in Islam, the reason and the desire represent opposite poles and she analysis
it by the discourse of heroism/bravery. In this discourse, the most powerful thing an individual has is the
reason. At the same time, it is the basic of religion and the essence of order. However, the desire brings the
chaous together. Fatna A. Sabbah, Women in the Muslim Unconscious (New York: Pergamon Press, 1984),
110.
75 “[…] hayvan sırf şehvet ve arzusunun içinde kalırsa mazurdur. Ama insan bu mazerete sahip değildir.
Onun elinde ona yetecek kadar bir akıl ışığı vardır. Buna rağmen şehvet ve sapıklık içinde yanmasında
insanı mazur gösterecek hiçbir yön yoktur, olamaz da” Kınalızade, Ahlâk-ı Alâi 73.
76 “Emr-i tenasül, izdivacın maksad ve gayesi bulunmasına nazaran temin vuku için zevc ile zevcenin
birleşmesine ihtiyac-ı mutlak vardır. İşte bu birleşmeye mücâma’a tabir edilir. Mücâma’a ‘amel-i tevellüd
40
because men and women have mutual roles during the intercourse. Also, its only aim is to
reproduce. As the book says once more, living being creates because it gives birth and is
created because it is born. So, the essence of life is nothing but lineage.77 In early modern
medicine also indicates that men and women desire to copulate to continue the lineage.78
Copulation has a reciprocal nature. However, it causes men and women to have
different and even asymmetrical roles in a male-dominant discourse, because sexuality is
also a social act in traditional-patriarchal societies.79 So much so that social codes shape
the biological elements of sexuality, and even get them under control. Ottoman society
had controlled sexual desire and reproduction as well. In short, in Ottoman society, the
borders of sexuality were strictly drawn.
In traditional-patriarchal societies, the lineage of a child must be sure. One of the
most dangerous things against the social order is the children whose lineage are
uncertain.80 That is why, to prevent this uncertainty, the sexual desire of men and women
should be controlled. As a contract that makes the sexual relationship legal81, marriage
(nikah/izdivac) is the most powerful mechanism to control the desire. The copulation
which serves reproduction must be between wife and husband. The names of a child’s
parents should be known by the society. Yet, these legal mechanisms not only control
sexual desire but also create different roles for men and women.
olub bu ‘amel sayesinde aza-i tenasülüye derhal yekdiğeriyle temasda bulunurlar.” Hayat-ı Tenasüliye
Hakkında Musahabat-ı Mahremane, trans. A.M, 81.
77 Ibid., 38. “Canlı mahluk hem halk eder hem halk olunur; halk olunur zira tevellüd eyler, halk eyler zira
tevlîd eder. Şu hâlde hayat esasen zürriyetten başka bir şey değildir.”
78 Ze’evi, Producing Desire, 31.
79 Tucker, In the House of the Law, 149.
80 Ibid., 149
81 Tucker, Woman, Family and Gender, 41.
41
By drawing borders of sexuality and making it the subject of the particular rules,
women have three different social roles: virgin, mother, and prostitute. For Irigaray, the
limitations of women's sexuality are drawn by these roles, and they cannot possess their
desire in any of them.82 But it is crucial to remember that the roles mentioned above can
differ from time to time and place to place. For example, İrigaray defines a prostitute as
one engages in sex for money. However, in Ottoman society, the word prostitute could be
used by the society for any women who have illicit sex.83 In other words, a woman who
goes against the rules of society or commits zina could be labeled as a prostitute or
misconducted woman in legal discourse. As court registers demonstrate, these women
were marginalized by the society, and in most cases, they were banished from their
neighborhoods.
In Ottoman society, marriage is the determinator of women's sexuality. An ideal
woman is a virgin; she must not engage in a sexual relationship before the marriage. For
Ghazali, a man should marry a virgin woman. A virgin can behave to her husband warmly
without an image of another man.84 Also, a virgin was regarded to be more religious,
earnest and guardian herself against unrelated men. Marriage, as a determinator, change
the identity and status of a woman. When her husband penetrates and takes her virginity,
she is not a girl (virgin) anymore; instead, she is avrat, kadın, hatun.85 Also, as a
consequence of the penetration, if a woman gets pregnant, it means a new identity and
82 Luce Irigaray, “Women on the Market” in Literary Theory: An Anthology, ed. Julie Rivkin, Michael Ryan
(Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004), 808.
83 Eugenia Kermeli, “Sin and the Sinner: Folles Femmes in Ottoman Crete” Eurasian Studies 1, no.1 (2002):
85.
84 Zahra Ayubi, Gendered Morality, Classical Islamic Ethics of the Self, Family, and Society (New York:
Colombia University Press, 2019), 127.
85 Kozma, Policing Egyptian Women, 104.
42
responsibility for her: being a mother. At this point, by discharging the duty of
reproduction, she fades into the background as a child's lineage is identified by his father
in traditional-patriarchal societies. Expressions from Ottoman documents to identify
individuals also demonstrate this: "gaib-i mezburdan [İbrahim'den] olma mezbure
Fatıma'dan doğma Ahmed"86. Women as an instrument for childbearing should be wellbehaved
to raise children. However, compared to men, women were a weak chain of
morality, and they can be easily overwhelmed by their senses (nafs).87
Sexuality has both biological and social sides. Although it contains reciprocity in
nature, the social dimension brings the difference between women and men: women have
passive, and men have active roles. Legal mechanisms to control sexuality, such as
marriage and father-based lineage, create this hierarchical relations between men and
women.
86 “…Hâkim sonra gāib-i mezbûrdan olma, mezbûre Fâtıma’dan doğma Ahmed ve Mehmed nâm sagīreynin
nafakası için, anneleri mezbûr Fâtıma’nın talebiyle gāib-i mezbûr babaları üzerine, her birine beşer akçe
olmak üzre yevmî râyicü’l-vakt on akçe farz ve takdîr etti…” Transcribed by ISAM. Istanbul BAB JCR 3
v.17:265. http://www.kadisicilleri.org/arascl/ayrmetin.php?idno=1443
87 Ayubi, Gendered Morality, 117.
43
CHAPTER IV
WOMEN’S NAMUS AND LAYERS OF PROTECTION
4.1 General View on the Protection Layers on Women’s Namus
As the first chapter examines, namus indicates an approved and socially accepted
set of values. These values determine individuals' reputation in society, whether they gain
recognition or not. Yet, it is crucial to remember that namus is a multilayered concept
whose meaning varies in terms of time, geography, and culture. However, what is
unvaried in patriarchal societies is that namus is mainly defined through women and
sexuality. It was the case for Ottoman society as well. As a fragile shared value which
needs to be protected, namus attributes similar characteristics to women in the society:
They, and their sexuality, are delicate and need to be protected.
This namus perception in Ottoman society brings the protector/protected
relationship along. In this relationship, men are portrayed as protectors while women are
the protected ones. It is the responsibility of men to protect women, thus, it is evident that
men's control over women is secured by this protector/protected relationship. There were
three main layers in the several liability to protect women’s namus: (1) First and foremost,
a woman must protect her own namus. (2) In the second layer of this liability, her family
is responsible to protect it. (3) On top of this layered relationship, the society (village,
44
neighborhood, etc.) is liable to protect women's namus. This three-layered relationship of
protection demonstrates that women's namus and their sexuality belong to not only
themselves but also their families, on a larger scale, even to their society.
4.2 First Layer: Woman
The prerequisite of being a namuslu woman in Ottoman society was that she must
be virgin; she must not have engaged in any sexual relationship before marriage. Abraham
Marcus gives an interesting example in his study analyzing the privacy concept in 18th
century Aleppo. In a 1756-dated case in Aleppo court records, a local woman says that
her four-year-old daughter accidentally fell from the stairs, and consequently, she lost her
virginity. The mother asks the court to record what had happened to her daughter.88
Marcus takes the case to demonstrate how an intensely private concept such as virginity
can easily be publicly discussed. The reason why the mother wants the court to know the
accident is an important question. Her motivation might have been to prevent gossips
(being called unpleasantly) and töhmet. Otherwise, her daughter might have been under
suspicion. This kind of examples from the court cases shows how virginity as a concept
was important in Ottoman society.
Virginity makes regulations on women's sexual lives and regulates the relationship
between men and women, and women's mobility in public spaces.89 In the Ottoman
Empire, a woman should have followed the behavioral rules imposed by the society to
protect her virginity and her namus. She must be cautious, especially in public spaces,
88 Marcus, “Privacy in Eighteenth Century Aleppo” 165.
89 Kozma, Policing Egyptian Women, 105.
45
about following the rules: She must not be together with unrelated (namahrem) men and
must be careful about her clothes and talking. These rules are parallel with the ideal
characteristics of a wife drawn by Muslim thinkers. For example, according to Ghazali,
an ideal wife should be beautiful, religious, and virgin; for Tusi and Davani, she should
be intelligent, devout, earnest, and self-contained.90 Also, for them, it is directly related to
virginity if a woman is modest, loyal, and obedient.91 The characteristics of an ideal wife
are, at the same time, the characteristics of a perfect woman. If a woman carries the
abovementioned characteristics, she is defined with such expressions refers being
honorable in the documents: muhaddereden, ismetlü, iffetlü, ehl-i ırz, kendi hâlinde,
ırzıyla mukayyed, namahremden ictinâb. On the other hand, if a woman does not obey the
rules, they are recognized by the society as a woman who does not protect her namus,
thus, her namus is damaged. Once a woman recognized with such characteristics, it will
be hard for her to marry, live in a neighborhood, etc.
As court registers and petitions show, many women who lost their virginity out of
their consent could apply to the court and demand further action. In the first chapter, from
nefsini icareye vermek part, a 1783-dated petition92 by Ramata can be helpful to analyze
the relationship between namus and virginity as well. Ramata's petition is a good example
to show which paths women follow for such cases, which expressions they use to
emphasize that they are aware of their responsibility to protect their namus. According to
this petition, Ramata complains about zımmi Kara Yorgi, who employed Ramata for
twelve years. She claims that he raped her. She continues that after he deforced and
90 Ayubi, Gendered Morality, 131.
91 Ibid.,134.
92 C.ADL. 79/4770 (H.1197) For the transcription see footnote 53.
46
deflowered her, he consistently forced Ramata to engage in sexual intercourse with him
(cebren tutub ve bikrimi izale idüb kemâl mertebe' ırzımı pâyimâl eylediğinden). Also, as
Ramata states, after Kara Yorgi promised that he would marry her to another man, he did
not keep his promise. On the contrary, he fired her, and she lived a miserable life. After
explaining her complaints, she continues that as she could not stand out against Yorgi in
Mudanya, she came to İstanbul. She wants her employment fee for twelve years and a
fatwa for compensation for her damaged virginity. Ramata also demands a bailiff
(mübaşir) to be appointed to call Kara Yorgi to Istanbul, in case there would not be a
satisfying judgement in Mudanya.
The expressions Ramata uses in the petition to complain about Kara Yorgi are
noteworthy. Before putting forward her complaints, Ramata emphasizes that she lives in
Mudanya, obeys the community's rules without hurting anyone (kendi hâlimde) and cares
to protect her namus (ırzımla mukayyed). The Ramata’s words of choice are not arbitrary.
In the first place, she uses these expressions because she wants to stress her awareness of
her responsibility to protect herself and her namus. Also, what grabs attention is that
Ramata uses the word which explains that Yorgi took her virginity away forcefully:
cebren. What happened in reality cannot be known exactly since petitions are highly
formulaic legal documents and shows only a one-sided point of view. For example,
Ramata might have engaged in sexual intercourse with her consent if Yorgi had promised
to marry her. Yorgi might not have kept his promise, then fired her promising to marry
her to another man. It is possible to see many cases about the complaints on sexual
relationships which happened by such promises. Yet, the concern of the thesis is not to
learn what happened in reality; instead, it aims to analyze which expressions Ramata uses
47
in the petition to emphasize her awareness that she should protect her namus. She, first
and foremost, defines herself as kendi hâlinde and ırzıyla mukayyed. No matter how the
case has happened, she is aware that she must protect herself and her namus. Also, one of
the critical points the petition demonstrates is that the strong relationship between namus
and virginity is not only experienced in a particular community, such as Muslims; instead,
it is a more widely accepted cultural phenomenon.
Another case dated back to 179093 reveals the fact that the reputation of a woman
was significant in the court processes as well. Hatice binti Salih, who lives in Debbağlar
neighborhood in Üsküdar, complains about her ex-husband, Bostancı Seyyid Mustafa. She
complains that although their daughter's guardianship belonged to her, Bostancı Mustafa
took the daughter by his side three months ago. She states in the petition that her daughter
is still with her ex-husband. Hatice wants to get her back. Bostancı Mustafa, on the other
hand, claims that her ex-wife spent nights in other people’s houses, often leaving their
daughter alone. Therefore, he claims, he took his daughter along. Then the court asks
neighborhood residents how they think about Hatice binti Salih. According to them, she
lives by the community's rules without hurting anyone (kendi hâlinde), protects her
chastity (ırzıyla mukayyed), and except going to the bath, she does not appear in the street.
(…nâm kimesnelerden herbiri mezbûre Havva Hatun için kendi hâlinde ırzıyla mukayyed
ve beher şehr hamamdan gayri umûru için sokağa çıkdığı ma‘lûmum değildir deyü […]
müdde‘iye-i mezbûre Havva’nın hüsn-i hâlini bi’ş-şöhret ve’t-tevâtür alâ-tarîki’şşehâde…)
94 After the court hears neighborhood residents, at the end, it warns Bostancı
93Transcribed by ISAM. Istanbul Üsküdar JCR 531 v.81: 203
http://www.kadisicilleri.org/arascl/ayrmetin.php?idno=53177
94 Ibid., 203.
48
Mustafa to give their daughter back to the mother, Hatice binti Salih. In this case, what
the community dwellers said about Hatice is remarkable. The expressions like kendi
hâlinde and ırzıyla mukayyed are emphasized in the case Hatice, just like in Ramata’s
petition.
When the terms from the court cases and petitions are analyzed, it is important to
remind that they were constructed by the legal discourse. They might have left out many
important details, such as what the litigants said to each other during the court.
Nevertheless, what can be seen in the cases and petitions is helpful for us to hear social
relationships and the motivations of the parties.95 So, the expressions of both the parties
and community dwellers have an undeniable importance. What is interesting in the case
is the dwellers emphasize that they didn't hear Hatice's appearance in the street except for
the bath. In this sense, Ebru Boyar's article96, on namus and Ottoman women's mobility in
public spaces, examines the muhaddere term, which was always used for namuslu women
in the documents. According to Boyar, the term has no single definition, and she supports
her claim by using fatwas from different periods. One of the fatwas she gives in her article
is Şeyhülislam Çatalcalı Ali Efendi's fatwa from the 17th century. According to Ali Efendi,
women who do not go outside except for their basic needs are muhaddere (honorable
women). 97 So, it is not a coincidence that the neighborhood residents stress that she went
out only to go to the bath, which was a basic need. This testimony shows that Havva was
a namuslu woman who meticulously protects her namus and she was aware of her
95 Boğaç Ergene, “Evidence in Ottoman Courts: Oral and Written Documentation in Early-Modern Courts
of Islamic Law” Journal of the American Oriental Society 124, no.3 (2004): 473.
96 Ebru Boyar, “An Imagined Moral Community: Ottoman Female Public Presence, Honour and
Marginality” in Ottoman Women in Public Space, ed. Ebru Boyar and Kate Fleet (Leiden: Brill, 2016).
97 Ibid., 192.
49
responsibility about it. These expressions are also determinants of how the court will end.
As previously mentioned, the court warns Bostancı Mustafa to give their daughter back to
the mother. However, if the neighbors did not make the testimony indicating Havva as an
honorable woman, the court would probably end with the opposite judgment; the daughter
would still live with her father.
The expressions from the two petitions above show that Ottoman women were
responsible to protect their honor. Any suspicion related to not being a virgin before the
marriage and developing intimacy with unrelated men after the wedding could affect their
lives profoundly. In this sense, the 1855-dated document regarding the petition of Ayşe
from Gemlik, is a good example.98 Ayşe states that the wife of Hacı Mehmed invited her
to their house. During her visit, Hacı Mehmed took her ring and pearl away. Sometime
later, through the head of the district, Ayşe took her ring and pearl back. However, because
of what happened, Ayşe's husband divorced her. In her petition, Ayşe wants further action
from the court as her honor was damaged. There are some missing points in Ayşe's
petition, such as how and under what conditions Hacı Mehmed took her belongings away.
One of the strong presumptions is that Ayşe's husband might have thought that there was
an intimacy between Ayşe and Hacı Mehmed. This presumption suggests that Ayşe was
a namussuz woman who did not protect her honor; although she was married, she had an
98 A.}MKT.UM. 216/81 (H.1272) reads: “Hüdavendigar Valisine Gemlik kazası sakinelerinden ‘Aişe
hatunun takdîm eylediği arzuhalde kaza-i mesfur sakinlerinden Hacı Mehmed nam kimesnenin haremi
kendisini misaferet tarikiyle hanesine da’vet idüb azimetden biraz vakt mürurunda merkum Mehmed kendü
nezdinde mevcûd inci ile bir aded yüzüğünü ahz ve muahharan kaza-i mezbur müdiri marifetiyle mezkur
inci ve yüzük istirdad olunmuş ise de bu husustan dolayı zevci kendisini bırakub namusu şikest oldığından
Burusa Meclis-i kebirinde bi't-terafu' icray-i hak-âyin olunması hususi istida olunmuş ve keyfiyet sahih ise
pek çirkin şey olarak merkumun te'dibi lazimimeden bulunmuş olmağla şer'-i şerîf ve meclis marifeti ile
rü'yet olunarak icabının icrası ve keyfiyyetin iş'arı hususunda himmet buyurmaları sibakında şukka.”
50
intimacy with unrelated men. As her honor was damaged (zevci kendisini bırakub namusu
şikest olduğundan), she applied to the court and demanded her right.
The experiences of Ramata, Havva binti Salih, and Ayşe show that it was
important for Ottoman women to protect their honor. It was possible for them to protect
their namus only by obeying the borders of sexuality drawn by the society. The obligation
of women to abide by these borders indicates the control mechanisms on women’s
sexuality. In order to avoid sanctions of being known namussuz, women had to protect
their namus in the first place.
4.3 Second Layer: Family
In the second layer of the several liability about a woman’s namus, there was the
family. In the Ottomans, a family was referred as menzil, beyt, hane, ehl ü iyal, which
were interchangeable for family, house, and household. For Ottoman society, which had
the traditional-patriarchal structure, the head of the family was the father. In Ahlâk-i Alâ’î,
Kınalızade explains the role of the father in the family.99 He says that the father should
take measures to sustain domestic order in the family. He should preside over the family
and bring them under his administration. He should take a hard line to prevent the
household from behaving ingloriously while handling it with kid gloves. Kınalızade also
99 “Ve çün her kesretin bir cihetle vahdeti olur, lâbüdd bu kesretin dahi vahdeti nizâm-ı sınâ’îdir. Ve nizâmı
sınâ’î tedbir ile olur ve tedbire müdebbir gerek. Ve lâyık u münâsib oldur ki bu tedbirin sahibi vü müdebbiri
sâhib-i menzil ola ki pederdir. Ve sâyir ehl-i menzile riyâset ve anların umûrunu zabt-ı siyâset anın ola. Ve
ol dahi tedbir-i sâyib edip luft u unf ve va’d u va’îd ve teşehhüd ü lîn ve teklif ü müdârâyı mahall-i
münâsibinde isti’mâl etmekle zabt u siyaset ile amel eyleye ki ehl-i menzilden her biri rezâyilden muhteriz
ü müctenib ve fezâyili muhtevi vü müktesib olalar.” Kınalızade, Ahlâk- ı Alâ’î, ed. Mustafa Koç, 666.
51
gives advice on how a father should discipline his wife and children. As the head of the
family, he should protect their honor and guide them to be well-behaved.100
It was necessary for a girl to grow up in a safe environment and a circle of moral
rules. Especially for a girl who reaches puberty and becomes an object of desire, her
father's protection was fundamental.101 In the cases where the father was absent, the
responsibility passed over male relatives such as brother, uncle, male cousin, etc. Also, as
the protector of her daughter, a father played a guardian (veli) role in her wedding. A 1796-
dated petition102, which belongs to Abdullah, one of the residents of Hürrem Village in
Danişmedli district, demonstrates a father's responsibility to protect his daughter's namus
and sexuality. In his petition, Abdullah says they did not harm anyone in the community
and preserved their honor. Nevertheless, from the reaya of the same village, brigands103
(Hüsam, his son Mehmed and Yusuf, his brother Küçük and Küçük's son Ali and his other
100 Ibid., 752.
101 Tucker, In the House of the Law, 139.
102 C.ADL. 68/4098 (H.1211) reads: “Devletlü inayetlü merhametlü Sultanım Hazretleri sağ olsun. Arzuhali
kulları budur ki bu kulları konargöçer taifesinden Danişmendlü mukataası reayalarından Danişmendlü
kazasında Hürrem nam karye sakinlerinden olub ayâl ve etfal-i kulları kendü hallerimizde ırzımız ile
mukayyed iken yine aşiret-i mezbur mukataa-i mezkur reayalarından zümre-i eşkıyadan Hüsam ve oğlu
Mehmed ve Yusuf ve karındaşı Küçük ve oğlu Ali ve diğer karındaşı İbrahim ve Deli Halil nâmun eşkıyalar
birbirleriyle müttefik ve yekdil olub hufyeten hanemi basub bakire kerimem Ümmü Gülsüm nam cariyelerini
fuzuli cebren ve kahren ahz idüb Donbay ovasında sakin zümre-i cebabire ve tegallübeden Güneşoğlu
Ahmed Bey dimekle meşhur nam eşkıya tarafına gitmek vechle mezbur Ahmed Beye varub kerimem merkume
cariyelerini matlub eylediğinde şakiy-i mezburlara i'ânet ve bir dürlü virmeyüb indinde hıfz ve hetk-i ırzile
aşiretim beyninde rezil şermsâr ve ziyade gadr-i küllî itmekleriyle merahim-i aliyyelerinden mercudur ki
mezbur Güneşoğlu Ahmed Bey nam tegallübe ve şakiy-i mezburlar mübaşir marifetiyle ahz ve Divan-ı
Anadolu'ya ihzar ve divan-ı alide murafaa olunmak üzere ve Kütahya mütesellimine ve kadısına hitaben
müekked ve müşedded bir kıta emr-i ali i'ta ve inayet buyurulmak babında emr ve ferman devletlü inayetlü
merhametlü sultanım hazretlerinindir. Bende Abdullah.”
103 Eşkiya term in the documents are directly related to sexual assault. In the complaints, banditry and sexual
assault are joint. What important is, there is no single definition of banditry. A bandit must not be armed
man, it can refer to anyone who do not obey the rules of the state and society. For a comprehensive view for
the relationship between bandity and sexual assault, see, Başak Tuğ, Politics of Honor in Ottoman Anatolia:
Sexual Violence and Socio-Legal Surveillance in the Eighteenth Century (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2017).
Tuğ claims that at the end of 17th century the distinction between eşkiya, ayan and ehl-i örf became blurred.
Also, for this issue, see; Leslie Peirce, “Abduction with (Dis)Honor: Sovereigns, Brigands, and Heroes in
the Ottoman World,” Journal of Early Modern History 15, (2011): 311-329.
52
brothers Deli Halil and İbrahim) raided his house. Also, they kidnapped his virgin
daughter Ümmü Gülsüm by force. These brigands (eşkiyas) brought Ümmü Gülsüm to
another eşkiya named Güneşoğlu Ahmed Bey. Abdullah went to Güneşoğlu to take her
daughter back, but he could not succeed. Because her daughter stays with Güneşoğlu,
Abdullah says his honor was damaged, and he is still in shame in the eye of his clan. He
says he was oppressed by these brigands and wants, with the help of the bailiff, them to
be caught and sent to Anadolu Divanı. Abdullah seeks a trial and a ferman addressed to
the mütesellim and qadi of Kütahya.
Just like the Ramata’s case, it is impossible to learn what have really happened
and what was the true intentions of the brigands to kidnap Ümmü Gülsüm. The
expressions in the petitions belong to Abdullah and show us only his point of view. So, it
should be remembered that brigands might have raided the house and kidnapped the
daughter because of the ongoing conflict between Abdullah and them. There might be an
act of revenge on the issue. Whatever the motivation they had, to kidnap the daughter of
a man functioned as an efficient way to harm and besmirch the honor of that man.
Moreover, Abdullah's expressions in the petition are important to demonstrate how
a father's responsibility to protect her daughter creates its specific language. Like previous
petitions, before the content of his complaint, Abdullah states that he, his wife (ayâl), and
his children (etfâl) were kendi hâllerinde and ırzları ile mukayyed. His emphasis on these
expressions is significant because he was aware of his responsibility as the head of the
family to protect his wife and children. These expressions Abdullah uses before his
complaint show the awareness of his responsibility and what happened to them was unjust.
53
His main complaint was the kidnap. What attracts attention at first glance is that
Abdullah defines his daughter as a virgin. He emphasizes her virginity because he wants
to clarify that he tried to protect his daughter's namus and guarded her as a father until the
incident. Another expression that should be examined is hetk-i ırz. However, when the
petition is closely read, Abdullah uses this term for his namus rather than her daughters'.
At this point, the petition clearly shows that a woman's namus belongs to her family,
especially to her first-degree male relatives, as well as it belongs to her. Although in the
document there is no direct reference to the virginity taken away, Abdullah has a strong
suspicion about it. The probability of her daughter's deflowering is enough for damaging
Abdullah's namus.
Another interesting example is a 1756-dated petition of retired-Janissary Ali, who
lives in Asperi Village in Kayseri. This petition further proves that a woman's namus
belonged to her family.104 In his petition, Ali states that when he went to İstanbul, his
closest neighbors damaged her daughter's virginity, and they intendedly took her virginity
104 C.ADL. 12/757 (H.1183) reads: “Şevketlü mehabetlü kerametlü ammeyemehametlü Halledallahu
Hilafetehu ila yevmi’d-din mübarek vücud-ı hümayunların cem’-i hatalardan ve kederat-ı dehrden ma’sun
ve mahfuz eyleyüb tûl-ı ömr eyleye serîr-i saltanat-ı ‘aliyyelerinde ber karar ber devam dünyevi uhrevi
murad-ı maksudunuza na’il eyleye amin arz-ı hâl-i kulları Cebeciyan Ocağından elli altmış seneden
mütecaviz hıdmet-i padişahide bulunub fi’l asl bu kulları Kayseri kazasına tâbi Asperi nam karyede sakin
olmağla bu kulları Asitanede umurum üzerinde iken karye-i mezkurede sakine bikr-i baliğa kerimem Fatma
Şerife civar komşum Sıvacı Ahmed’in karısı Sultan nam avret kerimem mezbureye bana gel saçımı tara deyu
davet ve kerimem mezbure dahi mezbure avretin yanına menziline vardıkda odası derununa koyub ve
üzerine kapu kapayub kocası mezbura haber idüb kerimem mezburenin bikrini zecren izale idüb kemâl-i
gadr-ı külli eylediklerine kâni olmayub mezkur Sıvacı Ahmed’in karındaşı Süleyman ve bacanağı Mehmed
ve Mehmed ve sair akrabalarını başına cem hanemi basub enva-i hakaret ve garer mucib hatun tasaddi ile
zulmlerini bu tarafa mektublarıyla ilan etmeleri bu kullarına gadr-ı külli oldığında rikab-ı hümayuna arz-ı
halim cesaret olundu meramım mülukanelerinden mercudur ki hasbeten lillahil teala hallerimize merhamet
buyurulub kerimem mezburenin vekili olan … ile terafu murad olundukda her biri firar olmağla ol tarafdan
aherhususiçün tayin olunan mübaşir marifetiyle tarafınızdan vekili ile mezkurun hangi mahallede
bulunduklarında ahz-ı huzur-ı şerde terafu ber muceb-i fetva-i şerife icra-i ahkam-i şer’i ve ihkak-ı hak
olunmak babında Konya ve Kayseri’ye mütesellimlerine ve sair kazalar zabitanlara hitaben emr-i ali ihsan
buyurulması babında emr-i ferman şevketlü mehabetlü merhametlü padişahım hazretlerinindir. Bende Ali”
54
away. When he was in İstanbul, Sıvacı Ahmet's wife Sultan, neighbors of Ali, invited
Ali’s virgin daughter Fatma Şerife to their home to comb her hair. Then, she closeted
Fatma so that her husband, Sıvacı Ahmet, could rape her. Retired-Janissary Ali continues
that it was not enough for the neighbors; after they raped and deflowered her daughter, the
relatives of Sıvacı Ahmet raided his home and insulted him.
One of the interesting points in Ali's petition is that he says the neighbors wrote a
letter to him in which they told everything they had done. The reason why they reported
their crimes to Ali might be again an ongoing conflict between them. Most probably,
Ahmet and Sultan took Fatma Şerife’s virginity as a way of taking revenge on the father,
Ali. The last two petitions demonstrate that taking his daughter’s virginity was regarded
as an effective way to besmirch the father's namus and reputation. Another important point
in the petition is that Sultan, as a woman, wanted her husband to rape Fatma Şerife. At
this point, Deniz Kandiyoti's "patriarchal bargain" concept comes to the mind.105
Patriarchal bargain suggests that women can adopt the rules of patriarchy in their lives
and give important meanings to them. Even, they can impose these rules to other women.
In Ali's petition, Sultan is a good example for Kandiyoti's concept. She, as a woman
considers damaging the virginity of one’s daughter as an effective way to damage his
namus. Even, she wanted his husband to rape Fatma Şerife and, in this way, take revenge
on Ali.
In Ottoman society, families had an important responsibility to protect women's
sexuality and namus. In the families, especially first-degree male relatives had to guard
105 Deniz Kandiyoti, “Islam and Patriarchy: A Comparative Perspective” in Women in Middle Eastern
History: Shifting Boundaries in Sex and Gender, ed. Nikki Keddie and Beth Baron (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1991), 27.
55
the women in their families. Abdullah had to protect his daughter Ümmü Gülsüm, retired-
Janissary Ali had to protect her daughter Fatma Şerife because their daughters' namus was
theirs as well. For the necessity of this responsibility, they specifically emphasized their
daughters' virginity before the mentioned incidents and tried to protect their namus.
4.4 Third Layer: Neighborhood
Neighborhood, as the last layer, was liable to protect women's namus. To
understand the role of the society in this protector/protected relationship, first, the function
of the neighborhood should be examined. As mentioned earlier, Ottoman society was not
a homogeneous entity; instead, sub-communities constituted it. In the urban areas, each
district formed a separate community. In this sense, the neighborhoods were
administrative units as well as social units in which specific rules were put to sustain daily
life.
The neighborhoods were also units of belonging for individuals. In the eyes of the
state, an individual who lived in a city was recognized by the mahalle (district) he lived.
In the court registers and petitions, the complainant must state from which mahalle he
was. Stating which mahalle he belongs to, before stating his name and complaint,
demonstrates that the mahalle was an essential belonging unit for the state and society.
Besides, it was a structure that individuals lived together and frequently communicated
with each other. The physical structures of the mahalles were constructed in a way that
maximizes the connection and communication between their residents. Looking at the
design of the mahalle is necessary to understand how individuals lived together.
56
In her article106 on the perception of privacy and the type of relations it created in
Ottoman society, Nil Tekgül analyzes the privacy concept in the cyclic structure of
physical places. In an intermingled chain, she says the cluster of houses constitutes a
mahalle and a mahalle is an eclectic combination. A mahalle was a primary living space
over a set of houses.107 There were mahalle relations; district dwellers met at common
places such as sanctuaries, they got familiar with each other at bazaars and markets. In
other words, it was a structure where dwellers were closely acquainted with each other,
living in solidarity and at the same time responsible for each other’s actions.
In a mahalle, women's behavior, either they behave moral and honorable, was
strictly controlled. They were at the focus of the mahalle with their clothes, their way of
talking, their behavior towards their husband, children, and even unrelated people (in
particular unrelated men). If they misbehaved regarding the specified issues, the mahalle
residents could request their banishment. Women who behaved against the namus code
and did not protect their honor were perceived among the most significant dangers for the
residents. The complaint of the residents of Çelebi District about a woman, Acem Emine,
demonstrates how a mahalle was responsible for women's honor and could decide on the
fate of them.108 The imam, muezzin, and a couple of residents from the Çelebi district say
106 Nil Tekgül, “Modernite Öncesi Osmanlı Toplumunda Mahremiyet Halkaları,” in Prof. Dr. Özer Ergenç’e
Armağan, ed. Ümit Ekin (İstanbul: Bilge Kültür Sanat, 2013).
107 Ibid., 425.
108 “Ashâb-ı arzuhâl Manisalı Çelebi mahallesi imâmı es-Seyyid Hasan Efendi ve Müezzin Mehmed Halîfe
ve ahâlîsinden Molla Mehmed b. Hasan ve Molla Hüseyin b. Mehmed ve el-Hâc Ebûbekir Çelebi b. Mehmed
ve es-Seyyid Mehmed b. Hüseyin ve Abdullah Beşe b. Mehmed ve es-Seyyid Mehmed b. Kasım ve Salih Beşe
b. Ebûbekir ve Mustafa b. İbrahim ve Ömer b. Mustafa nâm kimesneler meclis-i şer‘-i hatîrde derûn-ı
arzuhâlde mezkûreti’l-ism Acem Emine nâm hatun muvâcehesinde mezbûre Emine mahallemiz ahâlîsinden
olup lâkin kendi hâlinde olmayıp öteden beri dil-âzâr olduğundan mâ‘adâ nâ-mahrem kimesneler menziline
gelip ve mezbûrenin dahi nâ-mahremden ictinâbı olmamağla iki def‘a mahalleden ihrâci’çün i‘lâm-ı şer‘î
olunmuşiken fîmâ-ba‘d kendi hâlinde olmağa ta‘ahhüd ile cemâ‘ati iğfâl ile mahallemizde sâkine olup hâlâ
dahi nâ-mahrem âdemleri yine evine getirip evvelkiden ziyâde fesâda ictirâ eder olmağla mezbûre
57
they had complained twice about Acem Emine; she promised to behave appropriately
regarding the community's rules, but she did not. Then they decide to complain again. The
expressions that the residents used for referring to the reasons behind their complaint in
the court are noteworthy. They state that Acem Emine did not obey the community's rules
(kendi hâlinde olmayıp). Like in the previous documents, this expression shows that
Emine bothered the community with her behavior. According to the complainants, she did
not weigh her words (dil-âzâr) and talked in an offending way. However, above all, she
did not avoid unrelated men. The residents point out that she invited unrelated men to her
house and developed intimacy with them. As mentioned earlier, mahalle residents were
liable for each other's behavior as well as namus. Regarding this responsibility, they had
a right to request from the court for Emine's banishment from the mahalle since she
behaved against the namus code. If she is banished, the residents would feel more secure.
In the same year, from a different part of İstanbul, the residents of the Hayreddin
mahalle did not feel secure themselves, too, because of Ali Usta and his wife Zeynep binti
Mustafa.109 They complained about the husband and wife at the court and requested their
Emine’den bir vechile emn ü râhatımız yokdur deyü mazmûnu takrîrlerine mutâbık iki kıt‘a i‘lâm-ı şer‘î
ibrâz ile teşekkî ve mezbûre Emine’nin mahalle-i mezbûreden ihrâc olunmasını iltimâs eyledikleri
Mahkeme-i Bâb’dan huzûr-ı âlîlerine i‘lâm olundu. Fî-selhi Cumâdelûlâ sene 1162.” Transcribed by ISAM.
Istanbul BAB JCR 197 v.73: 200 http://www.kadisicilleri.org/arascl/ayrmetin.php?idno=7212
109 “Ashâb-ı arzuhâl İstanbul’da Sancakdâr Hayreddin mahallesi imâmı Mehmed Efendi b. el-Hâc Mehmed
ve müezzini Molla Mustafa b. Abdurrahman ve ahâlîsinden İshak Efendi b. Süleyman ve Ahmed Efendi b.
el-Hâc Abdullah ve es-Seyyid Ömer b. Süleyman ve el-Hâc Ali b. Mehmed ve Salih Efendi b. Abdullah ve
es-Seyyid Mehmed b. İbrahim ve Cafer b. İbrahim ve Ali b. Mehmed ve Mustafa b. ( ) [ve] Veli b. Mustafa
ve Mehmed b. Abdülgani ve Nu‘man b. Mehmed ve Mehmed b. Hasan ve sâirleri meclis-i şer‘de mahalle-i
mezbûre sükkânından Ali Usta b. Mehmed muvâcehesinde mezbûr Ali Usta kendi ve zevcesi gāibetü ani’lmeclis
Zeyneb bt. Mustafa kendi hâllerinde olmayıp bed-zebân ve hadîdü’l-lisân olup dâimâ herbirimize
itâle-i lisândan hâlî olmadıklarından mâ‘adâ ibâdullâhın ehl ü ıyâllerini idlâl ve ifsâd edip ve ecânibden
ricâl ve nisâdan mechûlü’l-ahvâl kimesneleri menziline getirmekle mezbûrdan bir vechile emniyetimiz
olmamağla mahallemizde sâkin oldukca kat‘a râhatımız yokdur deyü bi’l-muvâcehe teşekkî ve mezbûr Ali
Usta’nın ve zevcesinin mahallelerinden hurûcu için fermân-ı âlî ricâsında oldukları Bâb’dan huzûr-ı
âlîlerine i‘lâm olundu fermân men-lehu’l-emrindir. Fî 4 Muharrem sene 1162.” Transcribed by ISAM.
Istanbul BAB JCR 197 v.73: 400 http://www.kadisicilleri.org/arascl/ayrmetin.php?idno=7555
58
banishment. According to the residents, Ali Usta and Zeynep were not obeying the rules
of the mahalle, disturbing them (kendi hâllerinde olmayıp), and talking irritatingly. Also,
the residents claim that Ali Usta and Zeynep deceived their wives (mâ‘adâ ibâdullâhın
ehl ü ıyâllerini idlâl ve ifsâd edip). Residents define themselves as ibadullah (the slave of
God) at the court. For Hamadeh, the expressions like ibadullah, ehl-i ırz, zürafa are used
in the documents to define individuals who protect the moral order of the district and live
according to the community's rules.110 In this case, the residents of Hayreddin uses
ibadullah to emphasize that they obey the moral rules and values of their community. Ali
Usta and Zeynep were not among ibadullah people because they behaved against the
namus code. Another important point in the case is the complaint about deceiving the
residents' wives. As discussed in the family part, men were responsible to protect their
wives' honor. Behaviors of Ali and Zeynep, however, had started to besmirch the namus
of other women in their mahalle, therefore their husband’s namus as well. In this court
case, the residents protect both their, their wives’, and their mahalle's namus by requesting
Ali and Zeynep’s banishment.
An 1844-dated petition of Zaptiye (policeman) Mehmet Kamil111 is also one of the
good examples to show how a mahalle had the authority to protect the namus of women.
110 Shrine Hamadeh, “Mean Streets: Space and Moral Order in Early Modern İstanbul,” Turcica 44 (2012-
2013): 254.
111 C.ADL. 17/1047 (H.1260) reads: “Maruz-ı bendeleridir ki Bosna eyâleti dâhilinde vâki’ medine-i
Benaluka mütemekkinlerinden Cevre veled-i İlya nâm zımmî yine medine-i mezbûre ahalisinden Durçin
Hoca oğlu … nâm kimesnenin kerimesi Atiye nâm bakireye cebren icrâ-i fi’l-i şeni’ kasdıyla itâle-i dest-i
tasallut eylediği hinde bikri izâle olunmaksızın ahâli-i İslam’dan cend nefer kimesne bakire-i merkumu
zımmî-i mesfûrdan tahlis iderek keyfiyyet mahallinden bâ-i’lâm-ı şerî savb-ı acîziye iş’âr ve zımmî-i
mezbûrun bu makûle fazâhata ibtidâr ve kesr-i ‘ırzın ve namusun ictisarı ahâlinin gücüne giderek katl ve
idamını derece-i ısrârda iltimâs itmiş olduğu hususu dahi mütesellim canibinden ifâde ve izbâr olunmuş
olmağla mezbûrun mütecâsir olduğu fazahati bâb-ı ‘âliyyeye ‘arz ve inhâ ve müteallik buyurulacak irâde-i
seniyye veçhile mücâzat-ı icâbiyesi icrâ olunacağından mahalinde bir şey denilmeyüb bu tarafa
gönderilmesi sûy-i kemteriden bi’l-iş’âr zimmî-i mezbûr bu canibe celb olunub zuhûr-i irâde-i seniyye
59
According to Mehmet Kamil, in Benaluka, within the Bosnia Vilayet, zımmi Cevre veledi
İlya attempted to rape a virgin, Atiye. (cebren icrâ-i fi’l-i şeni’ kasdıyla itâle-i dest-i
tasallut eylediği hinde). At the time of Cevre's attempt to rape, a couple of men from the
Muslim community rescued her before Cevre could damage Atiye’s virginity. The
Muslims sent Cevre to the court and complained about him. The reason behind their
complaint is significant. They say that what Cevre did, damaging the honor of Atiye,
offended their feelings (kesr-i ‘ırzın ve namusun ictisarı ahâlinin gücüne giderek). Also,
they insist on the death of Cevre by execution. As the Sultan's approval was necessary to
give capital punishment, Cevre was transferred from Benaluka to İstanbul and jailed as
Mehmet Kamil ordered.
In this document, it is interesting to see how the mahalle residents paid attention
to the namus of Atiye when her virginity was at stake. Cevre's attempt to rape Atiye
offended their feelings, and it was an unacceptable situation. The expressions that refer to
the residents' feelings demonstrate that they recognized Atiye's honor as their own. Also,
it is important that Cevre was a non-Muslim and, most probably, it also triggered the
residents to request capital punishment. For Muslim men who rescued Atiye, to protect
the virginity of a Muslim girl and her namus was a responsibility. At this point, Cevre
crossed the line, and by attacking Atiye's namus, he also attacked the namus of the
Muslims.
terakkuben mahbese ilkâ ve merkumun hakkında terettüb idecek mucizât-ı icabiyenin mahalinde icrası
niyâzına dâ’ir muahharan medine-i mezkûreden tevârüd iden bir kıta ilâm-i şerî leffen takdim ve isra
kılınmış olmağla keyfiyyet meâlinden dahi ma’lûm-ı refet-i lüzum-ı alileri buyurulacağı ve icrâ-i iktizâsı
menût-ı rey ve irade-i alileri olduğı beyanıyla nemika-i ihlas-şiarı terkim ve takdîmine ibtidar kılınmıştır
inşallah u teala muhat-i ilm-i kerimâneleri buyuruldukda olbabda lutf ve irade Efendimindir An sene (12)60
Mühür (Mehmed Kamil)”
60
In an Ottoman mahalle, in which people were responsible for each other,
individuals must live under the rules of moral and namus codes; women must protect their
honor, and mischievous women (women who behaved against these codes) must be
banished from the district. Thus, the residents could feel safe as well as discharge their
responsibility to protect namus.
4.5 Concluding the Layers of Protection
To conclude the discussion on the layers of protection, women's namus was
protected by three layers in Ottoman society: first women themselves, then the family, at
last, the society must protect women's namus. In this protector/protected relationship,
women's namus belongs to not only themselves but also their families and society.
In this three-layered chain, their sexuality was also under strict control. Women
should live their sexual lives with the rules of the community. The circle of protection
aims to prevent any attack on women's sexuality. Moreover, if a woman behaves against
the community's laws, it imposes the sanction with namus mechanism. Beside the legal
sanctions, the expressions like namussuz, yaramaz, fahişe, etc., labeled the women who
stray from the circle and its rules; and these women are excluded from the society and
marginalized at the end.
61
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION
In this thesis, the concept of namus (honor) as a regulative phenomenon in early
modern Ottoman society and specifically for Ottoman women from lower strata is
examined. It tried to discuss what namus as a concept meant, how it was shaped in parallel
with the structure of the society, and lastly, how namus had the particular characteristics
when women were at issue. When related expressions from the primary sources, such as
court registers and petitions, were analyzed, they showed that women’s namus was
directly related to sexuality and its regulation. Also, this namus perception created the
protector/protected relationship to control and regulate their sexuality.
To understand women’s namus, first, analyzing the general structure of early
modern Ottoman society and how it perceived namus, in general, was important. Ottoman
society was constituted of taifes, and they had gender-differentiated characteristics. The
taallukat of a man affiliated to the taifes with him. In other words, a woman’s affiliation
to the taifes was possible through a man (especially through her father or her husband).
There was a correlation between this gender-differentiated structure of society and the
perception of namus.
62
Namus is a set of values that determines which behavior is appropriate or not. In
this sense, it has multiple meanings for different times, places, cultures, etc. As primary
sources and academic literature demonstrate, it was perceived differently for men and
women in Ottoman society. Although namus determined people’s status and how
reputable they were in society, it was reduced to a fragile value for women around their
sexuality. For being namuslu (honorable) women, their sexuality must be protected,
preserved, and conserved.
As women’s namus was directly related to sexuality, how Ottoman society had
perceived it was critical in the context of this thesis. In this sense, analyzing the vocabulary
of archival and other primary sources was helpful. The words related to sexual intercourse
enabled us to discuss the roles given to women and men. Ottoman society had a wide
range of expressions that referred to sexual intercourse. These expressions could refer to
either the reciprocal or unilateral nature of it.
At the initial stage of this thesis, I had expected a strict distinction between the
expressions related to sexual intercourse used by Ottoman society and the court. For
example, in my first readings of court records and petitions, I stumbled upon that the
expressions which referred to the reciprocity of the sex (such as musahabet, muamele,
mukavenet) were used where women were labeled as mischievous (had sexual intercourse
with unrelated men) by Ottoman society. So, it could be a general tendency to use these
words to emphasize their involvement in illegal sexual intercourse with consent. However,
as the variety of the sources increased, I realized that there was not a clear-cut distinction.
In the example of Hatice’s complaint, mentioned in the third chapter, her ex-husband used
the mukavenet in the first-person singular (mukavanet eyledim). This misapprehension
63
reminds Irigaray’s words again: “They [the sexes] are determined in and through
language. Whose laws, it must not be forgotten, have been prescribed by male subjects for
centuries.”112 Although expressions did not draw sexual intercourse as a hierarchical
relationship between men and women, they would not change Irigaray’s words. These
expressions also would serve male language at the end.
Beside discussing the language of sexuality, in terms of grammar, it was critical
to question how the perception of Ottoman women’s namus through sexuality affected
their lives. As this thesis argued, Ottoman women’s namus was reduced to a fragile value
that must be protected, preserved, and controlled. In addition to legal mechanisms such as
marriage and lineage, namus was one of the effective tools to control and regulate
women’s sexuality in early modern Ottoman society. Legal regulations gave women
different identities, such as mother, virgin, or prostitute (mischievous). The sexuality of
women was the central aspect of each role. As a regulative phenomenon, namus also
creates a protector/protected relationship in three intermingled layers. In the first layer,
women had to protect their namus. Second, their family (mostly first-degree male
relatives) was responsible. At the top of these layers, society was liable to protect women’s
namus. In this protection chain, women’s namus and sexuality were under control. These
intermingled liabilities resulted in that women’s namus belonged to not only themselves
but also their families and the society. Their behavior against the rules drawn by namus
made Ottoman women namussuz, yaramaz, fahişe. Once a woman was known by these
adjectives, her already challenging life became more challenging.
112 Luce Irigaray, This Sex Which is Not One (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1985), 87.
64
This thesis aimed to analyze the data (expressions) related to namus and turn the
data into historical knowledge by using the inductive method. When the vocabulary and
the language in the petitions, other primary sources, and the literature around the namus
are analyzed, the following can be inferred: It was a shared value determining the place
and the status of people in Ottoman society. On the other hand, women’s namus had been
reduced to a fragile value around their sexuality that should be preserved. In this protection
and control mechanism over their namus and sexuality, women remained mostly passive.
65
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources:
BOA. A.{DVNSMHM.d... 22/169 (H-20.02.981/M-21.06.1573)
BOA. A.}MKT.UM. 216/81 (H-16.03.1272/ M-26.11.1855)
BOA. C.ADL. 12/757 (H-09.05.1183/ M-10.09.1769)
BOA. C.ADL. 17/1047 (H-29.08.1260/ M-13.09.1844)
BOA. C.ADL. 68/4098 (H-29.03.1211/ M-02.10.1796)
BOA. C.ADL. 79/4770 (H-27.03.1197/ M-02.03.1783)
BOA. MVL. 384/94 (H-29.08.1278/ M-01.03.1862)
Published Sources:
82-1 Numaralı Mühimme Defteri (H. 1027-1028/ M. 1618-1619), İstanbul: Türkiye
Cumhuriyeti Cumhurbaşkanlığı Devlet Arşivleri Başkanlığı, 2020.
Abu-Lughod, Lila. Veiled Sentiments: Honor and Poetry in a Bedouin Society. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1986.
Agmon, Iris. “Women’s History and Ottoman Sharia Court Records: Shifting Perspectives
in Social History.” Hawwa 2, no.2 (2004): 172-209.
Akman, Mehmet and Rıfat Günalan. İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri Bab Mahkemesi 3 Numaralı
Sicil (H. 1077 / M. 1666-1667). İstanbul: İSAM, 2011.
Akman, Mehmet et al. İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri 81 Üsküdar Mahkemesi 531 Numaralı Sicil
(H. 1204-1207 / M. 1790-1793). İstanbul: Kültür AŞ, 2019.
_______.et al. İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri İstanbul Mahkemesi 24 Numaralı Sicil (H. 1138-
1151/M.1726-1738). İstanbul: İSAM, 2010.
66
Akman, Mehmet, Nedim Pakırdağ, and Abdullah Sivridağ. İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri 73 Bab
Mahkemesi 197 Numaralı Sicil (H. 1162-1163 / M. 1749-1750). İstanbul: Kültür
AŞ, 2019.
Akman, Mehmet, Sabri Atay, and Nedim Pakırdağ. İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri 49 Ahi Çelebi
Mahkemesi 1 Numaralı Sicil (H. 1063-1064 / M. 1652-1653). İstanbul: Kültür AŞ,
2019.
Akman, Mehmet, Salih Kahriman, And Mümin Yıldıztaş. İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri 53 Bab
Mahkemesi 11 Numaralı Sicil (H. 1081 / M. 1670-1671). İstanbul: Kültür AŞ,
2019.
_______________. İstanbul Kadı Sicilleri 74 Rumeli Sadâreti Mahkemesi 272 Numaralı
Sicil (H. 1171-1172/ M. 1758). İstanbul: Kültür AŞ, 2019.
Asım, Salahaddin. Osmanlıda Kadınlığın Durumu. İstanbul: Arba Yayınları, 1989.
Ayubi, Zahra. Gendered Morality, Classical Islamic Ethics of the Self, Family, and
Society. New York: Colombia University Press, 2019.
Baldwin, James E. “Petitioning the Sultan in Ottoman Egypt.” Bulletin of the School of
Oriental and African Studies 75, no.3 (2012): 499-524.
Boyar, Ebru “An Imagined Moral Community: Ottoman Female Public Presence, Honour
and Marginality.” In Ottoman Women in Public Space, edited by Ebru Boyar and
Kate Fleet, 187-229. Leiden: Brill, 2016.
Çetin, Cemal. “Erken Modern Dönem Osmanlı Toplumunda Namus Algısına Dair Bazı
Gözlemler (Konya Örneği)” Journal of Turkish Studies/Türkiyat Araştırmaları
Dergisi, no.45 (2019): 61-86.
Dankoff, Robert. “Ayıp Değil!” In Çağının Sıradışı Yazarı Evliya Çelebi, edited by Nuran
Tezcan, 109-122. İstanbul: YKY, 2009.
Ergenç, Özer. “Osmanlılarda Esnaf ve Devlet İlişkileri.” In Şehir, Toplum, Devlet
Osmanlı Tarih Yazıları, 417-423. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2012.
____________. “XVIII. Yüzyılın Başlarında Edirne’nin Demografik Durumu Hakkında
Bazı Bilgiler.” In Şehir, Toplum, Devlet Osmanlı Tarihi Yazıları, 178-193.
İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2012.
Ergene, Boğaç. “Evidence in Ottoman Courts: Oral and Written Documentation in Early-
Modern Courts of Islamic Law.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 124,
no.3 (2004): 471-491.
Esmer, Tolga Uğur. “The Precarious Intimacy of Honor in Late Ottoman Accounts of
Para-militarism and Banditry.” European Journal of Turkish Studies 18, (2014):
1-19.
67
Evans, David. Language and Identity Discourse in the World. London: Bloomsbury,
2015.
Faroqhi, Suraiya. “Crime, Women, and Wealth in the Eighteenth-Century Anatolian
Countryside.” In Women in the Ottoman Empire, Middle Eastern Women in Early
Modern Era, edited by Madeline C. Zilfi, 6-27. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
_____________. Osmanlı Kültürü ve Gündelik Yaşam Ortaçağdan Yirminci Yüzyıla.
İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1998.
Gerber, Haim. “Social and Economic Position of Women in an Ottoman City, Bursa,
1600-1700.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 12, no.3 (1980): 231-
244.
Gilmore, David. Honor and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean. Washington D.C.:
American Anthropological Association, 1987.
Hamadeh, Shrine. “Mean Streets: Space and Moral Order in Early Modern İstanbul.”
Turcica 44 (2012-2013): 249-277.
Hanna, Nelly. “Sources for the Study of Slave Women and Concubines in Ottoman
Egypt.” In Beyond the Exotic: Women’s Histories in Islamic Societies, edited by
Amira El-Azhary Sonbol, 119-131. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press,
2005.
Hayat-ı Tenasüliye Hakkında Musahabat-ı Mahremane, translated by A.M. Dersaadet,
İstanbul: Asar-ı Müfide Kitabhanesi, 1913.
Irigaray, Luce. “Women on the Market.” In Literary Theory: An Anthology, edited by
Julie Rivkin, Michael Ryan, 799-812. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004.
____________. This Sex Which is Not One. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press,
1985.
İnalcık, Halil. “Şikayet Hakkı:’Arz-ı Hal ve ‘Arz-ı Mazharlar.” Osmanlı Araştırmaları
07-08, (1988): 33-54.
İpşirli Argıt, Betül. “Osmanlı Hukuk Çalışmalarında Kadın.” Türkiye Araştırmaları
Literatür Dergisi 3, no.5 (2005): 575-621.
İpşirli, Mehmet. “Arzuhal”, TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi 3, 447-448. İstanbul: Türkiye
Diyanet Vakfı, 1991.
Jennings, Ronald. “Women in Early 17th century Ottoman Judicial Records: The Sharia
Court of Anatolian Kayseri.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the
Orient 18, no.1 (1975): 53-114.
68
Kalpaklı, Mehmet and Walter G. Andrews. The Age of Beloveds Love and the Beloved in
Early-Modern Ottoman and European Culture and Society. Durham; London:
Duke University Press, 2005.
Kandiyoti, Deniz. “Islam and Patriarchy: A Comparative Perspective.” In Women in
Middle Eastern History: Shifting Boundaries in Sex and Gender, edited by Nikki
Keddie and Beth Baron, 23-45. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991.
Kermeli, Eugenia. “Sin and the Sinner: Folles Femmes in Ottoman Crete.” Eurasian
Studies 1, no.1 (2002): 85-96.
Kınalızade, Ali Çelebi. Ahlâk-ı Alâi ‘Ahlâk İlmi, edited by Hüseyin Algül. İstanbul:
Tercüman Gazetesi, 1974.
_____________. Ahlâk-i Alâ’î: Kınalızade’nin Ahlâk Kitabı, ed. Mustafa Koç İstanbul:
Türkiye Yazma Eserler Kurumu Başkanlığı, 2014.
Kozma, Liat. Policing Egyptian Women: Sex, Law and Medicine in Khedival Egypt.
Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2011.
Kütükoğlu, Mübahat. “Narh” TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi 32, 390-391. İstanbul: Türkiye
Diyanet Vakfı, 2006.
Lévy-Aksu, Noémi. “Building Professional and Political Communities: The Value of
Honor in the Self- Representation of Ottoman Police during the Second
Constitutional Period.” European Journal of Turkish Studies 18, (2014): 1-21.
Marcus, Abraham. “Privacy in Eighteenth Century Aleppo: The Limits of Cultural
Ideals.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 18, no.2 (1986): 165-183.
_______________. The Middle East in the Eve of Modernity: Aleppo in the Eighteenth
Century. New York: Colombia Press, 1989.
Peirce, Leslie. “Honor as Social Contract.” Presented in the conference of Honor in
Ottoman and Contemporary Mediterranean Societies: Controversies, Continuities
and New Directions, Central European University, 2013.
___________. Morality Tales: Law and Gender in the Ottoman Court of Aintab. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 2003.
Sabbah, Fatna A. Women in the Muslim Unconscious. New York: Pergamon Press, 1984.
Salahi, Mehmet. Kamus-ı Osmani, edited by Ali Birinci. İstanbul: Yazma Eserleri
Kurumu Başkanlığı, 2019.
Sellers, Susan. Language and Sexual Difference Feminist Writing in France. New York:
St. Martin Press, 1991.
69
Semerdijan, Elyse. ‘Off the Straight Path’: Illicit Sex, Law and Community in Ottoman
Aleppo. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2008.
Sirman, Nükhet. “Contextualizing Honour.” European Journal of Turkish Studies 18,
(2014): 1-6.
Tekgül, Nil. “A Gate to the Emotional World of Pre-modern Ottoman Society: An
Attempt to Write Ottoman History from the “Inside out.”. Unpublished PhD
Thesis, Ankara: Bilkent University, 2016.
__________. “Modernite Öncesi Osmanlı Toplumunda Mahremiyet Halkaları.” In Prof.
Dr. Özer Ergenç’e Armağan, edited by Ümit Ekin, 411-433. İstanbul: Bilge Kültür
Sanat, 2013.
Tucker, Judith. In the House of the Law Gender and Islamic Law in Ottoman Syria and
Palestine. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.
____________. Women, Family, and Gender in Islamic Law. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2008.
Tuğ, Başak. “Gendered Subjects in Ottoman Constitutional Agreements, ca. 1740-1860.”
European Journal of Turkish Studies 18, (2014): 1-22.
_________. Politics of Honor in Ottoman Anatolia: Sexual Violence and Socio-Legal
Surveillance in the Eighteenth Century. Leiden: Brill, 2017.
Ze’evi, Dror. “The Use of Ottoman Shari’a Court Records as a Source for Middle Eastern
Social History: A Reappraisal.” Islamic Law and Society 5, no.1 (1998): 35-56.
__________. Producing Desire: Changing Sexual Discourse in the Ottoman Middle East,
1500-1900. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006.