1

THE ENIGMAS, HEDONISTICS, AND

ENORMITIES OF THE IMPERIAL HAREM’S IN
ISLMIC TRADITION

By: Janelle Harrison

Art History 132c
Professor Khoury
Due: 3/17/99
 2

Islam is a nation devoted to many aspects of traditional religious

orthodoxy, social and political theories and, a hierarchy of structures that are not

only conducive of the former enumerated but also several others. During the

reign of Ottoman Empire this hierarchy of mental and physical realms created an

ideology that placed the women of Turkey in distinct positions which led to a

great divide between the males from the females and, the wealthy from the

poor. Such divides led to the building of the Imperial Harem’s, or harem-I

humayin. The Ottoman mind was influenced by the Eastern theological doctrines

of the Hindu culture thus, there is a symbolic significance found in every mode of

Ottoman representation: from the architectural design of the palaces to the holy

words written in calligraphy on the tile walls. The Ottomans great architects such

as Mehmed II and later, Sinan used structural design; organization of buildings

like the Harem, the mosque, the mederese, the inner and outer gardens of the

palace, the Hans, and the minarets to express the Sultans divine status as a

ruling authority appointed by God. Another very important mode of expression

used to communicate this religious and political power was that of colors; mainly

those of red, blue, white, gold, and purple. Each with an ideological meaning

that defined the Ottoman mind.

By understanding the thinking process of the rulers, as well as their

architects, the importance of the Harem unfolds to reveal a layered meaning;

and within some historical context this discussion should identify these layered
 3

meanings so that the Imperial Harem, the harem-I humayin not only reflects the

negative side of Turkish women’s lives, but also the positive.

In today’s context there are very opposing views of Ottoman society.

Coming from the context of different historical views the story of the Ottoman

Empire is divided, thus reflecting as I stated in the title, the enigmas, hedonistic

and enormities of Islamic tradition. Norman Itzkowitz is one author that focused

on the male succession and sociopolitical structure of the Ottoman Empire. It

was his focus in Ottoman Empire and Islamic Tradition that left out the

importance of women in political as well as social realms. In a metaphorical

context his book could be a representation of the palace with the women; the

kadin, kadin bas, and the supreme Valide Sultan segregated in isolation away

from the royal court in the Harem. It is his one-sided historical context that

leaves the reader without any understanding of the “Ottoman Consciousness”

and without a context to study the architectural significance expressed by the

Sultan’s architects for which, as it has been stated continuously throughout the

palace records as a vital form of communication.

In trying to understand the consciousness of Ottoman society the

architectural structure of such palaces like the Topkapi Saray and the

Suleymaniye will help build an ideological representation which will encompass

the meaning of the Harem, Harem life, and Ottoman society verses other Muslim

states of the early 1500’s to the 1800’s. Perhaps this can be done by viewing the

Harem as a centerpiece of what has been called “The circle of Equity” (Itzkowitz
 4

88). The circle of equity is an “all-encompassing formulation that embodied the

ethical, political, and social values of the Ottoman class” (88).

It is at this point that Norman Itzkowitz gives the circle of equity only an

outer layer of explanation which, are “eight statements written around the

circumference of a circle” (88). I say outer because they are expressed in a

gender oriented frame of thought. The diagram below with an outer circle and its

eight statements, as well as an inner circle (a development of my own to signify

the vital role of women in society) that is a conscious representation of Ottoman

women which, is not only a supportive mirror reflection of the male dominated

society, but also the true building block for which the royal house of Osman was

born.

1) There can be no royal authority without

the military.

2) There can be no military without wealth

3) The reaya produce the wealth

4) The Sultan keeps the reaya by making

justice reign

5) Justice requires harmony in the world

6) The world is a garden, its walls are the

state

7) The state’s prop is the religious law

8) There is no support for religious law

without royal authority (88).
 5

This inner circle of equity, one composed of the Harem life can also reflect

a ninth value of Turkish society, that which states “all of the above can not exist

without the female as a life giver, the woman as the generator of society.” This

statement is held valid by many of the Muslim customs found in their religious

and political laws. It expresses why there was a need for an Imperial harem to

house the many wives and concubines of the Sultan and the wives of his imperial

court. Now within the two circles I have diagramed the hierarchical structure of

society to emphasize where the different patterns of thought coincide and create

smaller hierarchical structures with women forming the base, as well as

positioning the female at the apex of rule. One example of this positioning of

power held by a Turkish woman was Hatice Turkan who held political reign in

the mid-seventeenth century. Most authority of the Valide Sultan (and any other

women) was contained within the harem-I humayin rather than the Empire

which, was the Sultan’s domain. Although the Valide Saltans’ role seems to be

one of silence and not ruling, much as it was in the Roman Empire that

influenced the Byzantine and Ottoman ruler’s she held political power within the

palace. Unlike the Valide Saltan, the other women of the Harem were subdued

by the different modes of pleasure that was offered to the kadin, kadin bas, and

the kadinlik (the four women who were the Sultans official concubines) .

The modes of pleasure within the Harem were to the normal eye plesures

to be envied. The peasantry perhaps longed for such opportunities not knowing

that the pleasures were used to subdue the angst within their imprisoned souls.
 6

To subdue the women’s jealousy and rivalry the use of opium was widely

accepted and, encouraged to promote a sense of relaxation and paradise. The

kadin cubuqu (woman’s pipe) was used to smoke great Turkish tabacco and,

opium. Fine foods to fill the belly and coffee to promote conversations kept the

concubines in positions of lower authority. The Valide Sultan, one can assume,

rarely had time to join in the lax conditions enjoyed by the lower ranks of the

Imperial Harem’s residences. This mode of thinking reflects Muslim religious

belief that the holy war is psychological rather than geographical because she

had to keep a clear head to continue in her role as the apex of the women’s

stream of thought.

Though this psychological war is a customary belief throughout the

Turkish society, it also is contradictory to the Sultan’s purpose of conquering

other lands for political power and, positioning the palaces in geographical areas

that reflect piety towards God. The reasons for mentioning the holy war as

psychological rather than geographical is that in the enclosure of the Harem the

women must have had some mental repercussions from the seclusion they were

subjected to from outer society. The repetitive acts that became the kadians

ritual way of life could only stagnate their lust for life. Even in a paradise setting,

with courtyards and fountains, hamam’s and sitting rooms, the enclosed, isolated

environment could only begin to pressure-cook the minds of imprisoned women.

This isolation was less intense with the company of others; thus the variable of

psychological warfare is reintroduced. Thus, the physical surrounding did have

 7

repercussions on the mind, but the intoxicating substances could help (or hinder)

in the battle for sanity.

The Topkapi palace is one such structure that inherently reflects the

ideology of Turkish male society. It was built by Mehmed II and renovated later

by Sinan in the late 1500’s (roughly 1585). The spatial, architectural, and

functional organization of the royal household was unified under one principle:

the omnipotence of the Sultan (Architecture, Ceremony, and Power 96).

The Palace, with its three courtyards that divide the palace into a

hierarchy of symbolic meaning, displays the power of the Sultan and, the

segregation of common persons from the authorities of the royal court. Each

courtyard is separated by a gate that transmits the intellectual significance of the

architectural structure of the palace. Although Sinan did not built the Topkapi

Palace he was able to instill his architectural communication in the renovation he

conducted after the royal kitchens burnt down in 1574. It was believed that

major damage to the Harem left Sinan with the freedom to express his own

meanings through use of space, materials, and positioning of the royal

apartments.

The Imperial Harem is a large complex of apartments in the third court,

which is divided into “three distinct parts: the first housed the male pages,

entrusted to white eunuchs. The second housed the female population, guarded

by the black eunuchs, and the third is a walled hanging garden which,

communicates with the other two through gates (History 91). This three-layer
 8

division is reflective of the structures guarding the Sultan from the common

people. These structures are the courtyards and, the gates that protect

penetration of lower status persons from entering the next level.

In Cengiz koseoglu’s The Topkapi Saray Museum Architecture: The Harem

and Other Buildings, the structural design of the Harem is presented with key

buildings numbered. In this diagram the most public area is presented

longitudinally with the Carriage gate as #1 on the far left. Entrance from there or

the Cumie Kapisi (main entrance #18) is parallel to the quarters of the black

eunuchs. The rise of power is presented as the 2nd and 3rd levels are examined in

more detail by Koseoglu’s. This symbolic pattern gives rise to the continuous

theme of layered accessibility, noting that rarely anyone was admitted into the

Harem at all, and if any outsiders were permitted entrance, one can conclude

that the throne room (#39), the Valide Sultan’s apartments (#30), bedchamber

(#33), baths, the kadins’ quarters (#23), and the Valides’ courtyard (#38) where

strictly forbidden.

This layering of accessibility, or hierarchy is also encircled with the

ideological theme of male power encompassing the female world of social,

religious, and political life. The male eunuch’s are a symbol of a gate that is a

gate of power that denies anyone from entering the Sultan’s wives and

concubines areas. While at the heart of the Harem the Valide Sultan’s quarter’s

stand where she is able, in a metaphorical tone, to oversee everything that

occurs in the Harem. She is at the heart of the circumference of the circle of
 9

equity viewing the actions from the inside to the outer layers. This theme is

reflective of the diagram I presented earlier with the male and female streams of

thought encircling the triangle of hierarchal power.

Mehmed II designed the Topkapi Palace, but it has been stated by

historians that it is unclear weather or not he in fact designed and built the

Imperial Harem. Suleyman also took part in the renovation of the palace before

Sinan did a major overhaul as the chief administrator of architecture. It was at

that time it has been concluded that the large structure called the Imperial

Harem was built.

If this is so, then the final interpretation of the architectural design will

have a significantly different outcome. Mehmed II, when designing structures

used an ideology that his complexes where the center of learning. They also

reflected his imperial claims to the Byzantine succession. If Sinans’ structures

within the Topkapi Palace where influenced by Mehmed II, which it seems they

were, and only seems appropriate to keep the continuity of architectural

communication, then the ideology of the former must be considered in the later.

Sinan may have interpreted his work differently, trying to give the Imperial

Harem meaning beyond Mehmed II’s frame of thought, but the idea’s he had to

work with were already pre-designed. Sinan therefore, had much more freedom

of expression in designing many of the other complexes.

If we compare for example, the way the Imperial Harem is a compact

structure, tightly enclosed with very few open spaces (and no windows) such as
 10

the Valide Sultan’s throne room, or the concubines infirmary where, the

pressures of the imprisoned life, the imprisoned soul exbound to Sinans’

mosques we find a great contrast in structural language.

The courtyards which are the only areas of release can, in this respect be

a metaphor for the opium used to relax the inmates and, deviate their minds

from the reality that they are prisoners. And within the Harem itself, there are no

religious structures, no mosque for the women to go to and pray. In fact, these

women, mainly the concubines, got lost in a world detached from God. They

lived a life of indulgence, seeking pleasures too often. Was Sinan trying to

express various layers of meaning within the ideology of Mehmed II’s structural

design? Mainly, the communication and embodiment of the women’s life and

position in the palace, as well as the women’s own inner emotions and outlets?

The Harem then, reflects early Christianity’s ideology of the Bibical tale

about Adam and Eve. The Muslims did accept many of the scriptural writings

found in the Christian Holy Bible. If the Harem is a symbol of the embodiment of

the women in the Palace, then women are devoid of any religious sanctuaries

and only express a very intense mood or an act of indulgence, both of which

create a feeling of release and entrapment for the Sultan and the rest of the

palace’s residences.

Now, contrasting this idea to the structural designs of Sinan’s mosque’s

there are significant differences between the architectural designs. Sinan’s main

concern in his builds was “a sense of harmony and space” (History 240). In the
 11

Suleymaniye complex, the mosque was built as a “symbol of paradise” (100).

The vast open spaces of this mosque, with the high dome, was designed to be

illuminated by “divine light” from the heavens. These mosques, as well as many

others built by Sinan express a pressure-free, spacious environment where one

can pray and mediate to and for God.

The layered meaning of the Sultan’s importance is now set in an encircled

form of representation. The palace is a symbol of the embodiment of the Sultan

as the State. Within this embodiment there are the microcosmic bodies that hold

specific positions within the palace. The mosque; the Harem; each of these

within his power; his circumference of thought, with only various outlets from his

imprisoned soul. The Harem can be an analogy of the opium used by women to

release the pressures of ruling by the Saltan; not quite a European brothel, but

similar in many functions the Harem was visited by the men of the court. The

mosque one the other hand was his way of release by communicating with God

through prayer and satisfied his soul from any angst he might have to endure. All

of these reflect ideological symbols that start with the Muslim religious doctrines

that believe expansion of holy power is through the bringing forth of new life and

to claim territory that he believes God gave to him as the ruler of his state. The

Sultan communicated his power through the design and expense of his royal

palaces, the architects held a very important position, and the ideology of the

Harem reflects many meanings and can be read as a symbol charged with many

meanings as it has been pointed out in this essay.

 12

Goodwin, Godfrey. The Private World of Ottoman Women. London: Saqi Books:

1997.

Zilfi, Madeline, C. Women In The Ottoman Empire: Middle Eastern Women in the

Early Era. New York: Brill 1997.

Itzkiwitz, Norman. Ottoman Empire and Islamic Tradition. London: 1972