The Chief Harem Eunuch of the Ottoman Empire: Servant of the Sultan, Servant of the Prophet (original) (raw)

Guarding the Harem, Protecting the State: Eunuchs in a Fourth/Tenth-Century Abbasid Court

Celibate and Childless, Men in Power: Ruling Eunuchs and Bishops in the Pre-Modern World, 2018

The death of the Abbasid caliph al-Muktafī in 295/908 led to the proclamation as caliph of his 13-year-old brother, Jaʿfar (d. 320/932), who took the name "al-Muqtadir" on ascending the throne. On account of Jaʿfar's youth, a handful of personalities at court acquired undue influence, most notably, his mother Shaghab, the chamberlain Sawsan and two eunuchs, Mu'nis al-Muẓaffar, leader of the Baghdad forces; and Ṣāfī, the chief of eunuchs. Such circumstances gave eunuchs the opportunity to play a significant role in the palace and in government, as the evidence reveals that they became trusted political advisers and powerful administrators of the caliph. They also appeared in important positions in the army and police. This chapter analyses the variety of roles that eunuchs assumed in the Abbasid establishment during the early fourth/tenth century. It starts with some comparative remarks on eunuchs in the Byzantine and Abbasid empires and then proceeds to outline the various functions that eunuchs had in the Abbasid state, notably that of guarding the Abbasid courtly harem. Their political influence will then be investigated by examining the careers of three eunuchs, each of whom played leading roles at the court of the Abbasid caliph al-Muqtadir. This chapter will also refer to the competition that ensued among the leading eunuchs. In order to pinpoint the specific features of the eunuch institution in the Abbasid state, it is instructive to contrast it with that of eunuchs in the Byzantine empire of roughly the same period, namely in the fourth/tenth century. 1 This is especially pertinent given that the most obvious source of influence for the eunuch institution in Islam is Byzantium. 2 The third/ninthcentury prose writer and humanist al-Jāḥiẓ claims that every castration in the world had its origin in Byzantium: "The Rūm, together with the Ṣaqāliba (Slavs) are the only nations to practice castration, a most odious crime and a sign of their pitiless natures and corrupt hearts". 3 Judge 'Abd al-Jabbār b. Aḥmad al-Hamadhānī (d. 415/1024) also points out that when Byzantines capture Muslims, they take the children, castrating many of the boys, a number of whom die as a result. They claim to have compassion and mercy, even though castration was not prescribed in canonical law or the Torah. 4 A major difference between the two cultures with regard to eunuchism is the fact that while in the Byzantine empire, eunuchs could be supplied from the native population, a factor that made them more integrated in Byzantine society, eunuchs in the Abbasid state were imported, castration being forbidden in Islamic law. 5 A total stranger, uprooted from his homeland and with no familial ties, the eunuch served his patron with particular devotion; it was a condition Höfert, A., Mesley, M., & Tolino, S. (Eds.). ( ). Celibate and childless men in power : Ruling eunuchs and bishops in the pre-modern world. Taylor & Francis Group.

Dialogue Beyond Margins ~ Patronage of Chief Eunuchs in the late 16 th Century Ottoman Court

The present study mainly focuses on the emergence of the chief eunuchs (hadım aghalar) as prevailing actors in the imperial household and as confidants of women of the imperial family, by exploring the manner in which they assumed imperial grandeur at the end of the sixteenth century and early seventeenth century. Like the viziers and other military milieu in the court, the chief eunuchs’ patronage activity in art and architecture was a conscious and strategically planned effort in legitimizing their status. The charitable architectural endowments of the chief eunuchs conveyed their ascent in the political ladder as they became increasingly visible as patrons in the late-sixteenth century. While observing that this period was the first time that the eunuch aghas had obtained such great political substance due to their close personal relationship with the rulers, I furthermore speculate whether the structures that they built expressed a unique architectural idiom that resonated with the identity of their patrons. In the late sixteenth century the patronage of the chief eunuchs expanded beyond the conventional realm, as they systematically became engaged in literary quests. Hence, through a symbolic network of patronage of the arts, the eunuchs found a channel through which they could leave a legacy through the art of the letter. The benefaction of such secular urban monuments as fountains and sebils was paralleled by a deep interest in literary arts for this new group of patrons. If one were to compare the patronage activity of Gazanfer Agha to that of Mehmed Agha in both arts and architecture, one would quickly notice that Gazanfer Agha’s deeds were not solely motivated by political aspirations. He was indeed an intellectual of his time, supporting poets and scholars with vigorous curiosity. In this period, the sebil was not a commonly commissioned architectural monument. However, it was the beginnings of a new interpretation, a more temporal and intimate type of pious endowment. The essence of the eunuch being a patron of a structure that gave life through water might in fact be an allusion to his godlike existence. Thus, symbolically, the fountain and the sebil become objects through which the eunuch was able to achieve procreation. The eunuch’s lastingness in the mundane world is depicted through his endowment of the sebil, which was neither an entirely religious nor secular structure. The fountain/sebil endowments atoned for the eunuch’s ineffectuality in giving life.

Eunuchs and the State in the Mamlūk Sultanate and the Ottoman Empire: A Comparison

In Ottoman War and Peace: Studies in Honor of Virginia H. Aksan, eds. Frank Castiglione, Ethan L. Menchinger, and Veysel Şimşek (Leiden: Brill, 2019), pp. 315-26. [The article has been published, but Brill's policies prohibit posting the offprints online. Therefore, I have indicated page numbers in brackets in the manuscript.]