writing_womans_lives_symposium_paper_book_v2

especially during the reign of Süleyman brought about a change also in the techniques of power
building.
The mid‐sixteenth century marks the zenith of the empire building process and for the perceptive
eyes the beginnings of the disintegration of some of the Ottoman financial and administrative
techniques. In terms of decision‐making and the composition of the ruling elite, the post‐Süleymanic
era is also considered as a time of deterioration. Perhaps most importantly this period was marked
by the waning of sultanic power. This well‐known theme of Ottoman history also laid the grounds for
a degrading and almost apologetic reading of the post‐Süleymanic era on behalf of the sultans and
the Ottoman royal women. In terms of sultanic power, it was generally held that the sultans who
came to the Ottoman throne after Süleyman were unlike their predecessors. This approach, which
was captivated by the omnipotent sultans, preferred to remember Mehmed the Conqueror
(Mehmed II, 1451‐1481), Selim the Grim (Selim I, 1512‐1520), and Süleyman the Lawgiver Süleyman
I, 1520‐1566) not the sultans of the post‐Süleymanic age who were not made out of the stuff that
great sultans were made of. They confined themselves to the palace, they were rarely seen in public,
they did not lead their armies to war. They were weak, incompetent, and some of them were even
insane. 6 Thus, in the absence of capable (mighty, effective, brave) sultans, the power passed into the
hands of other people particularly Ottoman royal women who decided, acted and ruled on behalf of
the sultan.
Most of the time, the changes in the ruling apparatus of the Ottoman Empire after the midsixteenth
century are approached as palace cliques, which are thought to have contaminated the
Ottoman politics by avaricious power usurpers among whom Ottoman royal women are presented
as the villains of the various plots. However, the problem seems to lay in the misapprehension of
power politics and its relational context as palace cliques. This terminology and the perspective
behind it immediately points to an illegitimacy which prevents any attempt to understand the power
relations first among those loci of power who are the more direct figures of power struggles because
of their personal and official ties with the Ottoman court, and secondly, between those powerful
figures of the court and the larger arena of society.
One of the claims of this study is that the expanding place of the favourites in the political arena
was an outcome of the changes that began during the reign of Süleyman. Given the possibilities of
the political framework for power building, the rise of Ottoman royal women as favourites was
neither an anomaly nor unintended. On the contrary, they were invaluable and necessary agents of
power politics. It seems more fitting to see the favourites’ politics for power in a framework of
shifting alliances. Especially after the mid‐sixteenth century, royal women of the palace became a
major foci of power. Haseki (favourite or the principal concubine of the sultan) and valide sultan
(royal mother) were among the main actors of power struggles.
According to Leslie Peirce, the Ottoman dynasty maintained its power and authority by strictly
controlling reproduction and establishing family‐based alliances. The main planner and executer of
these policies was the royal mother. Peirce argues that after 1566, the primary place of the haseki
was taken by the valide sultan and she became the major power figure of the harem. 7 That is why
Pierce sees the period between 1566 and 1656 as the “Age of Queen Mother”. In addition, although
the period begins in 1566, with the end of Süleyman’s reign, she argues that the mother of Murad III,
Nurbanu sultan, set the example of the later royal mothers. In spite of her argument’s general
appeal, we should again note the absence of Nurbanu in the political arena for twelve years because
of relatively early death. On the other hand, Safiyye’s omnipresence in the power politics makes her
a better example for Peirce’s argument. 8
Peirce states that “Nurbanu established a paradigm for the careers of the valide sultans of the
century following her death….tradition also places in Murad’s reign the inception of what became
later years the processional transfer, shortly after a sultan’s accession, of the valide sultan and other
members of the new sultan’s harem from the Old Palace to the harem quarters in the New Place.
Known as the “procession of the valide sultan” (valide alayı), this event developed in later centuries
into an elaborate ceremonial”. Although this procession took place for Nurbanu is not clear Peirce
502