80 honored by the glory of islam
was appointed grand vizier. But the Ottoman royal household still lacked the
powerful symbols that would signify its renewed strength and for nearly fi ve
years was overshadowed in every respect by an iron-fi sted elderly statesman
whom it had agreed to place in offi ce. How could the dynasty assert its rel-
evance following years of crisis and upheaval and upstaging by ministers?
Colin Imber’s wide-ranging book devoted to the Ottoman Empire from itsorigins to 1 650, which actually ends before the reign of Mehmed IV, argues
that when sultans could no longer serve as heroic fi gures propelling the em-
pire to success after success, the empire depended on the scribal service on the
one hand, and the Shariah courts and legal system on the other, to maintain
popular confi dence and ensure its empire’s survival.^88 The writer of this study
seems to be closed to the possibility that sultans could indeed again become
mobile ghazis, pious models of behavior. This raises the question of whether
sultans were ever again heroic or again aimed to be depicted that way. What
was necessary to guarantee the survival of the dynasty? Would any sultan ever
echo Mehmed II, who had declared, “The ghaza is our basic duty, as it was in
the case of our fathers”?^89
To see how the leading members of the dynasty responded in the 1 660sto crisis, calls to turn to piety, and subordination to the grand vizier, one has to
return to Mehmed IV, no longer a boy, by this point a young man of nineteen
or twenty. As Naima notes, at the same time that Köprülü Mehmed Pasha was
taking back Bozca Island, Mehmed IV, by being attentive to the needs of his
subjects, was demonstrating his mature behavior, intelligence, and vigilance
necessary for being sultan.^90 One has to look also at the actions of valide sultan
Hatice Turhan, who was primarily responsible for shaping the public image of
the Ottoman dynasty. The two worked hand in hand to strengthen the dynasty
and sultanate.