women was a metaphor for social order. During
periods of rapid social and political change, as
occurred in the late sixteenth-century Ottoman
Empire, modesty discourse reflected a fear of those
changes by focusing on threats to basic social cate-
gories (for example, male versus female) and moral
norms (gender roles and conduct). A prominent
idea among Islamic jurists was that when “proper”
gender roles are reconstituted and strictly main-
tained, society becomes harmonious. As Ottoman
historian Leslie Peirce has argued, placing restric-
tions on subordinate populations, such as women,
is certainly an easy way for the government to
assert authority in times of anxiety and change.
Thus Íun≠Allàh’s criticism of the public and politi-
cal activities of women can also be seen as an
expression of concern for what he and others per-
ceived to be an increasingly chaotic society.
The Ottoman government in general had a vested
interest in dictating the place and appearance (type
of clothing) permitted to women. Indeed, from the
sixteenth until the twentieth century, the Ottoman
state authorities regularly issued decrees (firmans)
defining what women may or may not wear, some-
times describing allowable women’s clothing in
great detail. From the sixteenth to the twentieth
century, the Divine Porte frequently issued firmans
that specified the permissible color and thickness of
a woman’s coat (ferece), the material that could be
used for lining a ferece, and the acceptable length of
veils and scarves. The appearance of the female
body was consistently an issue of imperial import.
It would of course be a mistake to assume that
modesty discourse calling for restrictions on
women’s power and movement reflected the actual
experiences of women themselves. Women did
have the means to exercise influence in politics and
society, thus provoking reactions from Mufti Íun≠
Allàh and others. For example, the Valide Sultan,
the mother of the sultan, exercised a great deal of
power over her son’s various concubines within the
harem, and often had considerable influence over
her son’s court and politics, especially after the
reign of Süleyman the Magnificent (1520–66).
Ottoman authorities often recognized that it was
the normal role of the Valide Sultan to use political
manipulations to assist her son in his ascension to
the throne. Furthermore, when a sultan was too
young or less than fully competent at the time of
ascension (as happened six times during the first
half of the seventeenth century), the Valide Sultan
could act as virtual regent as long as necessary.
Beyond the exercise of power, rules governing gen-
der segregation were suspended under special cir-
cumstances, such as during royal pageants or when502 modesty discourses
royal and elite women attended mosque teaching
sessions and went to pray at tombs. Finally, seclu-
sion practices became less strict for women past
child-bearing age. Ebu±s-su≠ud Efendi (Abù al-
Sa≠ùd), a jurist and mufti under Süleyman the
Magnificent, declared that older women were free
to join Friday mosque services from which young
women were barred.
While some modesty discourse was directed at all
women, most concerned elite women only, since
they were the ones who followed the strictest mod-
esty practices. In fact, segregation and veiling were
signs of class, so that these practices became more
stringent as one moved up the social ladder. Poorer
women in both urban and rural settings regularly
participated in public life, and were frequently
involved in some economic enterprises. For example,
agricultural labor among the rural poor required
full participation of all able-bodied family members
and women regularly worked in fields in the pres-
ence of men and without heavy veiling. Lower-class
women also worked at certain jobs, such as spin-
ning yarn or preparing dough. Low status women
would provide services and goods to elite women
sequestered in harems, performing such tasks as
acquiring items, ferrying messages, and acting as
midwives or entertainers. These poorer women
served as a link between the elite women of the
harem and the outside world, so that the ability to
segregate upper-class women depended on the
availability of poorer women who were relatively
free to move in public space. Still, gender segrega-
tion and modest dress requirements did exist to
some extent in the lower classes as well, since
women were more restricted in their public activi-
ties than men. In periods of social turmoil, officials
sometimes attempted to restrict further the public
appearance of all women, but only with partial suc-
cess. At almost all times, non-elite men and women
interacted in the public sphere much more than did
elite men and women.
In essence, notions of modesty in the Ottoman
Empire of the Golden Age (sixteenth century)
served not only to define gender roles, but were an
idiom through which power and class distinctions
were demarcated. The ability – or “luxury” – to
segregate women was limited to the ruling and elite
classes, so that economic advantage and political
power were directly linked to the power to control
women.BibliographyPrimary Sources
Mehmet Birgivi Efendi, Tarikat-ı Muhammediye, trans.
C. Yıldırım, Istanbul 1981.