Clothing and apparel and their symbolic meanings provide insights into gender and minority issues in a society as well as customs and traditions, political processes, identity constructions, mentalities, financial culture, social structure, and histories of consumption and textiles. Socio-cultural, economic, and political conditions of the period and local circumstances, as well as status and religion, helped determine the formation and transformation of fashion within the Ottoman social structure, which itself varied according to the era, region, and religious beliefs of residents.
Fashion in Ottoman Istanbul shared a deep-rooted tradition and a common form with the rest of the state. Although Islamic principles were the main factor determining Ottoman clothing styles, the empirestate’s Near Eastern and Byzantine heritage were also influential. Major cultural changes took place over time, and the most effective visual manifestation of these changes, especially in terms of the influence of the West, was in clothing. During certain periods, for instance during the reign of Mahmud II, fashions were considered symbols of groundbreaking changes. Due to its location and its status as the capital of the state, Istanbul played a central and leading role in reflecting the wealth and aesthetics of Ottoman clothing. When uniformity in clothing was not the trend, Istanbul displayed a spectrum of colors, forms, and other differences.
Archival documents—particularly mühimme defterleri (Registers of Important Events) and hatt-ı hümayunlar (decrees of the Ottoman sultans) as well as estate records, travel books, diaries, clothing albums, and other visual material like miniatures, engravings, pictures, and photographs—record this rich and varying phenomenon.
Public Attire in Istanbul after the Conquest
Much as in other empires, clothing in the Ottoman Empire expressed social, economic, political, and religious meanings and embodied certain rules and regulations. Regulations governing civilians and military dress during the reign of Orhan Bey have been preserved. In this respect, the reign of Mehmed II constituted a turning point. Following the conquest of Istanbul, detailed dress codes were established.
To emphasize the differences between social groups, the laws drawn up during the reign of Mehmed II regulated the attire of the members of the Dîvan-ı Hümâyun (State Council), palace residents, and officials. The Fatih Kānûnnâmesi (Mehmed II’s Code of Laws) states, “Hizmetkârlarına mücevveze giydirmek, vezirlerin ve kazaskerlerin ve defterdarların yoludur.”1 (“The garments for servants are to be provided by viziers, military judges, and treasurers.”) As stated in the Kānûnnâme, professors (hoca) were to approach the Divan (Imperial Council) dressed in long-sleeved kaftans.2
The Kānûnnâme required people to wear the type of clothing assigned to their social status and to observe ceremonial etiquette. Until the final years of the Ottoman Empire, as mentioned in both chronicles and edicts, the prophet Muhammed’s saying “Enzilü’n-nase menazilühüm mısdakı üzere” (“Treat people according to their position”) was the basis for assigning individuals different apparel based on rank, status, profession, and religion.3 This practice was related to the Ottoman state’s concept of justice, which, in keeping with Near Eastern philosophy, meant keeping each individual in his or her proper place.4
Fashion, like many other aspects of the state, reached its peak in the 16th century; the Kanun-ı Teşrifat (Official Protocol) was developed during the reign of Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent.5 As the country developed and increased in wealth, the variety in apparel increased to distinguish subjects living under the protection of the state from one another.6 The apparel and headwear that had to be worn by all subjects—from the sultan to servants, soldiers, professors, and members of every social group—was determined, with different outfits assigned for gatherings, campaigns, mawlids, (the observance of the birthday of the Prophet Muhammed) holy days, and other occasions.7
According to the historian Mustafa Âli, who lived during this era, valuable textiles such as seraser (brocade), velvet, and kemha (silk brocade) were designated for sultans and princes. Lower-quality fabrics, such as satin, silk brocade, and engilyon (a type of silk) were deemed appropriate for viziers, notables, and gentlemen, while broadcloth was worn by people of all social strata. Âli bemoaned the lack of social divisions among the Ottomans, criticizing the fact that people could wear whatever fabrics they liked and could afford. He called for sultans and princes, viziers and gentlemen, craftsmen, farmers, and merchants to be allocated different fabrics.8
Edicts stated that because Istanbul was the capital, the center of the caliphate, and the site where scholars and pious people met, special care should be taken to dress in accordance with religious rulings and tradition. This continued until the final years of the empire with a few changes.
As throughout the rest of the empire, apparel for men in Istanbul consisted of undergarments, shalwar, (loose trousers, sirwal) a shirt, a dress, a caftan, a fur, and headwear. Apart from the quality of fabric and differences in the form of headwear, there was no difference between the elite and the general public in clothing style or variety.
Miniatures from this era provide important information on clothing. Miniatures that appear in works like Süleymanname, Surnâme-i Hümâyun, Şehinşehname, Hünername, Nusretname, Şehname-i Selim Han, Eğri Fetihnamesi, Nüzhet el-esrar el Ahbar der Sefer-i Sigetvar, Kıyafetü’l-İnsâniye fî Şemâ’ili’l Osmâniye, and Zübdetü’t-Tevârih provide insight into the style, fabric, patterns, and colors of the clothing worn in daily life and during ceremonies by men from different social groups.9 Bellini, Lorich, Thomas Dallam, Moryson, Nicolas de Nicolay, and other contemporary foreign authors also made observations on Istanbul fashions.10
For a very long time, headwear has indicated the wearer’s social, economic, cultural, professional, or religious status. In the ancient Near East, both men and women covered their heads, and headwear functioned as a status symbol, particularly for men. The kavuk (turban-sarık- wrapped hat), which was worn during the Ottoman era, has its roots in this tradition and is mentioned in the Uyghur literature and the works of Kaşgarlı Mahmut.11 To wear a kavuk wrapped by a white sarık (turban) was a sign of being a Muslim.12 The white sarık that was widely worn during the reign of Mehmed II spread to the other parts of the empire during the era of Suleyman I, the Magnificent.
The kavuk, with its deeply rooted tradition, differed according to rank or occasion and took on various shapes and names during different periods.13 The best known kavuks are the horasani, selimi, kalafat, örfi, kafesi, mücevveze, kâtibi, and kallavi. Although the sultans’ turbans were similar, every sultan initiated some change in the shape of the kavuk. D’Ohsson, who lived in Istanbul toward the end of the 18th century, provided detailed information regarding headwear. While he wrote that Mehmed II wore the turban that was specific to members of the ulama, he indicated that the first to wear the mücevveze (tulband) turban was Bayezid II. While Selim I introduced the form of turban known as the selimi, Sultan Suleyman devised various forms of headwear; however, he wore the mücevveze. His successors wore this headwear until the era of Mahmud I.14
Members of the court, scribes, and members of the military wore outfits of different forms, colors, and fabrics with turbans in a variety of shapes. Members of the ulama wore turbans that differed in accordance with their rank, and the headwear worn by the dervishes indicated the lodge to which they belonged. Turbans, indicating rank, were also depicted on tombstones.
The shalwar, an important component of both men’s and women’s apparel, originated in Iran and was worn extensively throughout the region in which Islam was prominent.15 According to 16th-century estate records in Istanbul, men wore a full-length mantle or overcoat or ferace.16 This garment, worn by members of the ulama and government officials in various Islamic countries since the time of the Abbasids, was worn by both men and women in the Ottoman state from the end of the 15th century until the collapse of the state, but underwent certain changes over time.17 The most distinctive quality of Muslim clothing was the yellow shoes. D’Ohsson noted that members of the ulama wore blue, while some soldiers wore red boots.18
The kaftan (caftan) is another important element of men’s and women’s apparel. It appears to be an ancient tradition, based on its presence—with a straight or reversed collar, knee-length or longer—on Göktürk statues and among the Uyghurs, and its mention by Kaşgarlı Mahmud.19 Although the caftan was worn by various people, the fabrics used for the sultans’ caftans, and more particularly their prints during the classical period, contained symbolic meanings. The miniatures of the period portray some government officials wearing plain caftans and others wearing more elaborate ones; the fabrics and prints reflected their status.
The Süleymannâme depicts Suleyman I, the Lawgiver wearing a magnificent caftan while receiving the Safavid ambassador in 1532, and subsequently wearing simple clothing while receiving the Austrian ambassador.” This renders visible the symbolism of the kaftan in Ottoman diplomacy.20
The visual record shows caftans tailored in different styles. While some of the caftans in the palace were made of Turkish fabrics, others were made with Italian velvet; it is generally accepted that caftans featuring animal and human figures were manufactured by the Safavids and imported to the Ottoman territory.21
Due to the significance of ceremonies carried out in the capital as part of Ottoman palace life, the fabrics worn or used by the sultans during these ceremonies were of symbolic importance. In the 15th century, the sultan ascended the throne in a ceremony that followed the funeral of his predecessor; for this reason, in illustrations of the ascensions, the sultans were depicted wearing dark or navy blue mourning garments. The ascension scene depicted in the Süleymannâme shows Sultan Suleyman I wearing a kaftan with a dark blue background. He is also shown wearing a dark blue ckaftan in the depiction of a hunting scene with Prince Selim after the death of his son Cihangir and the strangling of Prince Mustafa.22
Another important element of Ottoman clothing was the use of fur, a tradition dating from before the Seljuks. Like the quality of fabric, the quality of the fur indicated status. The most valuable furs were reserved for the sultans; other furs were priced and distributed to stores.23 Although furs were considered a luxury, after the era of Mehmed II people of every rank in Istanbul wore furs of various qualities. Narh defters (official price registers) and tereke defters (estate inventories) list a variety of furs, including (in order of decreasing value) sable, otter, lynx, ermine, corsac fox, rabbit, marten, pine marten, and squirrel.
The popular use of fur and fabric in gift-giving formed an important aspect of political culture; this allows us to understand which fabrics were given to whom and what people from different social ranks wore in Istanbul. Gelibolulu Mustafa Âli, who described the circumcision ceremony held for prince Mehmed III, the son of Murad III, recounted the gifts offered to Murad III. The Polish ambassador sent a sable fur, while the Crimean khan sent furs of sable, ermine, and pine marten. While the Persian shah presented satin, kemha (silk brocade), and kutnu (cotton), the third vizier gave diba (brocade), çatma (silk brocade), and seraser, and çukacı taifesi (broadcloth sellers) presented the prince with kemha and atlas-ı fireng (European satin).24
In addition to governmental regulations, individuals’ personal clothing choices were decisive. Although in general the sultans and high-ranking government officials wore the most luxurious and extravagant attire, Yavuz Sultan Selim preferred to wear simple outfits. Even though his grand vizier informed him that non-Muslim representatives placed great importance on appearances, Sultan Selim did not change his style. He did not approve of his son Suleyman, who wore silk and sırma (silver gilded) outfits as well as gold and other jewelry. He is reported to have scolded his son, saying: “Oh çakşırlı (one who wears shalwar), if you wear this, what is your mother supposed to do? You have left nothing for her to wear!” While the authenticity of this quote is uncertain, it has been widely repeated.25
Süleyman the Magnificent reportedly changed in the final years of his reign and wore a simple green robe.26 Portraits painted by Nigârî show the sultan in a simple kaftan; the simplification of his style might reflect his mental state near the end of his reign.27
The price and quality of furs and other clothing items worn by Istanbul residents was regulated by the government in a centralized system intended to protect consumers without harming manufacturers.28 The quality and quantity of fabric and clothing allotted to each individual was clear. As stated in the Fatih Kānûnnâmesi, whereas Janissaries were to receive five cubits of navy blue broadcloth and six cubits of lining for their headwear per year, the oğlans (pages) of the Privy Chamber (Has Oda) were given four kaftans per year as well as slippers made of silk brocade and shoes.29
Decisions were periodically taken to ensure that the length of the kaftan skirts and arms were in compliance with regulations, that the lining was sufficient for the robe, and that the front opening, skirt hems, and fringes of the sleeves were stitched and not glued. The types of kaftans and their prices were announced yearly, and tailors who used insufficient materials were penalized.
Regulations determined not only who could wear what kind of clothing but also what clothing could be worn in what season; this continued until the final years of the Ottoman state. An example from the era of Mahmud II is the detailed information provided by Hızır İlyas in his work Letaif-i Enderun. He noted that in the Enderun-ı Hümayun it was customary to change seasonal outfits four times, and that wearing the proper apparel was equivalent to a form of worship. The white kaftan worn during the summer was changed in September. According to theAs for Enderun, it was customary to wear dark colors in winter, and when the weather began to warm up, winter clothing would be altered, and sable fur covered with sof (mohair) would be worn instead of sable fur covered in broadcloth. Seasonal changes in clothing, proclaimed by the palace, usually took place on Fridays. 30
Similar to other dynasties, under the Ottomans, clothing was attributed great meaning in terms of representing official and social status; a hil’at (robe of honor) made of expensive fabric was granted to honor a person.31 This practice dated back to pre-Islamic times, and it was customary for a person of higher status to grant a hil’at to a person of lower status as reward for services rendered. The quality of the hil’at depended on the person’s status, and tailors who specialized in this field would use the most expensive and highest-quality materials for it. The bestowal of a hil’at in the capital was an important example of the symbolism of clothing.
Since Istanbul was the center of government and commerce, fashion emerged there and spread to the rest of the state. Officials like the governor and qadi (Muslim judge), who were assigned from the city center to the provinces, were instrumental in transferring the fashions of Istanbul throughout the state.
Istanbul fashions were also followed in Europe, and Turkish fabrics and clothing were popular in Russian and European palaces. During periods of intense diplomatic and commercial relations, cultural interactions naturally increased. Ottoman ambassadors who visited the European capitals were instrumental in introducing Turkish fashions.32 Interactions increased, particularly after 1699, and the Turquerie style became popular throughout Europe. For example, a similarn outfit of Hürrem Sultan was worn by Madame Favart in the 18th century. Another outstanding example is Antoine de Favray’s painting of the Countess of Vergennes in Turkish attire in 1766.
Traditional attire in Istanbul was generally similar for men and women; the differences were in the accessories, the cut, and the headwear. For women living in Istanbul the most important elements of clothing and apparel, which continued with slight changes throughout the centuries, were the shalwar, çakşır (a form of shalwar), bürüncük gömlek (silk shirt), entari or dolama (dress), hırka (cardigan) and shirt, kaftan, fur, and for outdoors a ferace with yashmak (veil).
Ottoman women’s inner clothing was a continuation of the Central Asian style. For centuries, as they migrated West, the Turks maintained their clothing traditions, though they enriched them with local influences. During the Uyghur and Seljuk eras, women wore shalwars and dresses.33 In addition to the illustrations in works by individuals who lived in Istanbul in the 16th century—such as Menavino, Dallam, Postel, Luigi Bassano, Hans Dernschwam, Busbecq, Philippe de Fresne Canaye, Scheweigger, Fynes Moryson, Nicolas de Nicolay, and Lorichs, the illustrations in the Bremen album give an idea of the clothing of Istanbul women of the era.34
In Central Asia during pre-Islamic times and during the Seljuk period, women wore extravagant headwear. Particularly in eastern Turkistan, Uyghur women wore fur headwear adorned with accessories. The term hotoz in the Chagatai language and the Persian term serpuş describe some types of headwear.
Women who lived during the reign of Mehmed II continued ancient Anatolian and Central Asian traditions. Thus, Bellini, who lived in Istanbul during the reign of Mehmed II, depicted women wearing conical hats.35 The fez was seen in the works of Nicolas de Nicolay, who came to Istanbul with the French ambassador Gabriel d’Aramon, and in those of Lorichs, who accompanied the German ambassador Busbecq; similar headwear is also exhibited at Topkapı Palace.36
Headwear was an important factor that differentiated the general public from the elite; the headwear of palace women and the wealthy was more elaborate and opulent. Wealthier individuals had more clothing, made of fabrics with greater variety and quality, and more valuables, like furs and kaftans. While the rich preferred imported textiles and silk, the poor wore locally produced fabrics. The clothing of women belonging to the dynasty and living in the harem, as well as that of harem personnel, differed based on their status. In distinction to the common people, they wore clothing that was made of more intricate, higher-quality fabrics and was thus more exclusive.
The ferace, yashmak, and face veil (peçe) were worn outdoors. The yashmak covered the head and face, revealing only the eyes. Women portrayed in foreign visual materials and in Turkish publications such as the Şehnâme-i Selim, Surnâme-i Hümâyun, and Hünernâme had a similar appearance, wearing feraces, yashmaks, and sometimes veils.
Regardless of their social position, women never left the house without a full-length ferace and yashmak. The details of clothing, which appear uniform in visual materials, are disclosed in the estate records, where the most common fabric listed for full-length feraces was broadcloth, which was available in every period. According to Nicolas de Nicolay’s works, some of the edges of the yashmaks were tasseled, and some women wore fez-shaped headwear under the yashmak.37
Women wearing face veils were depicted in both local and foreign visual materials. Face veils are listed in some of the estate registers belonging to women in the 16th century. The face veil continued to be worn by some women until the end of the empire.
Since women are considered mahram (protected and secluded) in Islam, the range of outdoor clothing for women in Istanbul was limited. Hence, the quantity of outdoor clothing listed in estate records is much less than the quantity of indoor clothing.
Clothing for children living in Istanbul was the same as for adults, much as it was in Europe. As reflected in the visual sources, this trend continued until the end of the Ottoman Empire. It is not unusual to encounter figures of children dressed like adults in the works of Vanmour, who was in Istanbul during the first half of the 18th century, and Julie Pardoe noted that when she visited Istanbul in 1835, a two-year-old child and a 20-year-old woman dressed in a similar fashion.38
Non-Muslims’ clothing was also regulated and differentiated them from Muslims. Long a tradition in Islamic societies,39 this principle was imposed in Istanbul after the conquest. Non-Muslims were forbidden to wear certain colors, use certain luxurious or high-quality fabrics, or wear the outfits worn by Muslims. Each non-Muslim group was required to wear different-colored clothing and specific headwear. This practice dated back to the early caliphates. The caliph Umar made an agreement with the Jews that they would not dress like Muslims.40 In Europe in the Middle Ages, special symbols, such as red and orange ribbons, were used to distinguish between Jews and Muslims.
Clothing regulations for non-Muslims living in Istanbul started with Mehmed II. Imperial edicts paid close attention to the style, quality, and color of fabrics for non-Muslims. For example, according to an imperial edict dated 1580, Jews were asked to wear red hats and black shoes and Christians black hats.41 In general, colors such as navy blue and black were allocated to non-Muslims. In Islamic tradition, turbans of any kind and yellow shoes were reserved for Muslims.
Some non-Muslims violated these rules and dressed like Muslims; this tendency increased over time. As a result, complaints were published and the rules were reiterated.
Due to their religious beliefs, some non-Muslim communities preferred to dress differently and accepted the clothing laws. From time to time non-Muslims who disobeyed the rules were reported by their own co-religionists. In a 1568 edict, a group of Jews from Istanbul complained to the authorities that their co-religionists were not adhering to the dress codes.42
In the 17th century, the clothing style of non-Muslims continued to resemble that of the previous century. The traveler Jean Thevénot recorded that with the exception of some restrictions, Jews dressed like Turks.43 In a 1648 painting by La Chapelle, who had seen the works of Nicolas de Nicolay, non-Muslim women resembled Muslim ones.44 Yet this was not the norm; it was probably an example of the previously mentioned violations. Penalties were imposed on people who violated dress regulations, and these restrictions continued. Paul Rycaut wrote that in 1662 it was forbidden for Christians to wear yellow shoes or a red kalpak (fur cap).45 Similar complaints and demands regarding non-Muslims continued during this era, with small differences in detail. Non-Muslims were forbidden to dress like Muslims or use high-quality materials such as atlas (silk), kemha, kutnu, sable fur or elvan çuka (multicolored broadcloth).
Miniatures by Ahmed Nakşi in Nâdirî Dîvanı and Tercüme-i Şakâik-i Nu’mâniye indicate that in the early 17th century, men’s clothing was generally similar to that in the previous century.46 However, over time, differences in details emerged. For example, as stated in an anonymous Ottoman history, while viziers used to go to the Divân-ı Hümâyun (Imperial Council) wearing the mücevveze turban, during the reign of Mustafa II the law required them to wear a kallavi.47 Traditional elements in fabric motifs became smaller during this period. The appearance of medallion motifs instead of the 16th-century carnation indicates foreign influences.48
Changes in Clothing Styles during the Eighteenth Century
In addition to D’Ohsson’s (1740–1807) works, which incorporate engravings, including some by L’Espinasse and Hilaire (1753–1822), the works by Melling (1763–1831), Castellan (1772–1838), Rafael, Konstantin Kapıdağlı, and Dalvimart shed light on the second half of the 18th century.49 In addition to foreign sources, local works—such as the miniatures of Levni, particularly those in the work titled Surname-i Vehbi, which includes depictions of the circumcisions of Ahmed III’s children, and the work by Fazıl-ı Enderuni (1760–1810) titled Hûbânnâme ve Zenannâme, and the material found in the Fenerci Mehmed album—demonstrate that clothing in Istanbul continued in its traditional forms.50
As reflected in some of the imperial edicts issued during this period, various changes occurred in the attire of the Muslim people living in Istanbul. Instead of wearing what had been assigned to them, a group of men started to dress like their superiors. Some merchants, servants, artists, and physicians broke the ancient clothing rules and wore styles reserved for government officials. For example, even though ermine and lynx furs were allocated to the viziers and to members of the ulama and government officials, and common people were not permitted to wear them, artisans and common people reportedly imitated government officials by wearing these valuable furs, whether or not they could afford to do so.51 They also made some illegal changes to their headwear. It is recorded that, as a result, no differences remained between upper and lower classes, merchants and military men lost their privileges, and everyone appeared to be equal, causing misunderstandings about status and leading to a breakdown in social order. It has also been stated that from the era of Ahmed III, people tended toward extravagance and debauchery, and both men and women became inclined to show off.
Repeatedly emphasized that artisans and common people were to refrain from wearing anything other than the clothing designated for them and, rich or poor, members of every group were to observe ceremonial etiquette through their clothing, headwear, and manners.
Similar orders, and violations of them, continued in the early years of the reigns of Abdulhamid I, Selim III, and Mahmud II. The common people wore furs like sable, lynx, and ermine, sandallı (silk and cotton) cübbe (long robes) and biniş (long cloaks), floral print caftans, shawls, and Indian cloth, which was reserved for government officials. People who were not authorized to do so were ordered to refrain from wearing wide-sleeved furs, Indian shawls, and Aleppo florals, and instead to wear Istanbul and Ankara shawls, Bursa kutnu, and Damascus alaca, in an effort to curb extravagances. Some of the matters that were prohibited in the imperial edicts can be seen in the estate records of some Istanbul residents. For example, there are otter and ermine furs in the estate records of people who lived in Üsküdar in the first half of the century.52
While in earlier eras, some non-Muslims imitated Muslims, during this period, some Muslims started to resemble non-Muslims. An edict from the era of Ahmed III stated that artisans no longer tailored the Muslim turban as they had previously done, but rather sewed it like the Jewish headwear, thus causing Muslims to resemble non-Muslims.53 To warn both the artisans who were producing the turbans and the Muslims who were wearing them, authorities referred to the saying of Prophet Muhammed that “men teşebbehe bi-kavmin fehüve minhüm” (“whoever resembles a society becomes part of that group”), and demanded that the artisans adhere to the regulations. However, despite the violations, the sensitivity to clothing norms for different social groups continued. During this time, D’Ohsson stated that in Ottoman society all Turks (Muslims) wore the clothing assigned to them, and that it was considered shameful— tantamount to apostasy and disloyalty—to wear the apparel, in particular the headwear, of another group.54
During this time, women continued to wear traditional styles of indoor clothing. In the first half of the century, Levni and Vanmour painted the women of Istanbul wearing traditional clothing, with striped crepe shirts, shalwars, and entaris.
Lady Montagu contracted Vanmour to paint her portrait wearing the indoor clothing of an Ottoman woman, and in the letters she wrote to her friends, she described her own and other women’s clothing in detail.55 Lady Montagu’s letters provided information to Europe about fashions in Istanbul.
In this period, during which there was an increase in commercial and diplomatic relations, the influence of the West gradually became more apparent. The low-cut neckline that was the fashion in Europe started to be seen in traditional Ottoman dresses. Collars and splits deepened. However, traditional styles of indoor clothing persisted, even in the second half of the 18th century.
Julia Pardoe, who was in Istanbul in 1835, attended the wedding of Mihrimah Sultan and noted that women were wearing shalwars, shirts, and entaris as they had done before.56 As reflected in miniatures by Levni and Abdullah Buhari, as well as in other contemporary paintings, the various forms of women’s headwear in this period differed from those of previous eras. Headwear with a narrow base and wide top, or a wide base and narrow top, which were common in the 17th century, were no longer observed in this period.
New fabrics also appeared during this period. The Surname-i Vehbi mentions new kinds of gift fabrics, such as telli (threaded with gold or silver wire) and nevzuhur hatai (a new type of silk), as well as satin and hatai. In the 18th century, French and British merchants stated that Ottoman demands for fabrics changed over time, yet it is also known that from the beginning of the century, fabrics that would suit the Ottoman taste were manufactured in Lyon.57
In the second half of the century, the variety and quality of clothing and fabrics increased in parallel with the rise in wealth. A comparison of estate records suggests that women living in the second half of the century possessed a greater quantity and quality of clothing than women of similar means living in the first half of the century.
In the second half of the century, the fabrics of the first half of the century were also used. These were beledi (cotton), çuka, sandal, hatai, boğasi, edirneşahi, germsud, şali, mağrib şali (cashmere of Magrib), zencirbaf, sof, velvet or kutnu, acemkâri (Persian style), altınoluk (striped fabric), Ankara şalisi (Ankara cashmere), telkâri (cloth woven with gold or silver thread), çitari, hindi (Indian), damgahane, gezi, Istanbul şalisi (Istanbul cashmere), mahmudiye, bağdatkâri, sakızkâri (Chios style), sevai, suzenikâri (embroidered cloth), çeşm-i bülbül, and selimiye were also used.
Even though the ferace and yashmak continued to be worn as outerwear, changes to the traditional forms occurred. Edicts concerning the outdoor attire of Muslim women started to appear during this period. By 1702, an increasing number of women in Istanbul had abandoned traditional clothing and instead wore close-fitting ferace and thin muslins and revealed their faces to men who were not their relatives; as a result, they were ordered to wear black veils and loose-fitting ferace.58
The frequency of edicts on this subject during the reign of Ahmed III is notable. Comments on men’s and women’s clothing referred to excess luxury and ostentation.59 The use of silver threads, embroidery, and other decorations became more common. It is stated that there were changes made to the form and color of feraces, and that the yashmaks had become thinner. The collars of some women’s feraces had been lengthened, and a wider spectrum of colors began to be used. Women were ordered to wear dark-colored feraces, keep the collars short, use yashmaks, and wear face veils.
It was further stated that some Muslim women were imitating non-Muslim women and wearing headwear that was not appropriate for Muslims. The new style of clothing, called nev zuhur, was banned on different grounds, such that it was considered to lead to extravagance, disregard Islamic principles of veiling, or resemble the clothing of non-Muslim women.
Toward the end of the century, women’s outfits also used a greater variety of fabrics. While some women were criticized for having their ferace made out of a very thin fabric, called Engürü şalisi, women were also ordered not to use Leh şeridi (Polish ribbons), frengâne elbise (French style dress), French umbrellas, and hotoz (headdresses).
During the reign of Mahmud II it was noted that the collars of some feraces extended all the way to the floor. Demands to refrain from wearing multicolored, wide-collared feraces continued during the reign of Abdulmecid. In an 1840 painting belonging to Thomas Allom, the women are depicted wearing very long-collared feraces and yashmaks.
Pardoe described in detail the yashmaks of the Turkish women she saw at Sultanahmet Mosque during the greeting ceremony (bayramlaşma) on the feast of sacrifice (Eid ul-Adha), which was also attended by the sultan. She stated that, under the thin, pure white muslin yashmaks with which the women covered their faces, she could see not only the sparkling diamonds in their hair and the embroidered edges of their headdress but even the color of their lipstick. During this period, in addition to wearing thin and revealing yashmaks, Muslim women wore thin cotton stockings like non-Muslims. After 1850, feraces made of a new kind of multicolored fabric called şalaki, featuring bright violet, pink, black, or light blue, started to appear.
While the new apparel style was criticized during this period, it sometimes received more positive notice in the contemporary literature. Referring to the new apparel, Nedim used the expression “Bizden tesettür etme abes külfet olmasın/ Gülesin açılasın ref’-i hicab eyleyesin/ Samurunu kaplat bu sene kırmızı şale/ Samur hoş yakışmış o gül penbe atlasa/ Servisin sana yeşil şali gerektir nim-ten.” This is a far cry from the rigid approach of the authorities.60
Fazıl-ı Enderûnî’s style was a little more flexible than that of the edicts, and he did not agree with the warnings regarding simple clothing when he said, “Örtünür sade kumaşı herzen / farkımı var kefen-i mevtadan.”61 (“Every woman is covered in simple fabrics / Is it any different from the shroud of the dead.”) On the other hand, Vehbi, who wrote in 1791, did not approve of the new style: “Hiç yakışmaz yeni çıkma zinet / Kudema tavrına eyle rağbet/ Ne güzel came imiş sevb-i edeb.”62 (“The new dress does not look good / Follow the old manners / The dress of decency, what a beautiful dress it is.”) He emphasized that women should wear traditional, modest outfits.
Helmuth von Moltke, who lived in Istanbul during the reign of Mahmud II (between 1835 and 1839), stated that Turkish, Armenian, Greek, and Jewish women wore, respectively, yellow, red, black, and blue shoes;63 but admonitions to adhere to these rules continued during this period. In 1838, non-Muslim women were ordered to refrain from wearing yellow shoes and short boots, which were reserved for Muslim women, from wearing feraces of any color other than black or the autumnal colors reserved for non-Muslims, and from wearing feraces with long collars or trimmings.64 The references in estate records of this era to feraces colored dark gray, black, navy blue, petroleum green, blue, purple, olive, burgundy, and cinnamon, and made of şali and expensive furs such as lynx and ermine, indicate that while some non-Muslims obeyed the rules, others did not.
Social, economic, and political changes during this period also led to changes in clothing. In parallel with the broadening of the political domain, the structure of the social elite changed and expanded. Furthermore, as a consequence of changing economic relations, a certain segment of society both within and outside the ruling elite increased its material wealth. The increase in the role and economic power of non-Muslims in the 18th century also affected the power balance. These developments caused changes in consumption and increased people’s willingness to challenge traditional limits. From the first to the second half of the 18th century, consumption and material wealth increased substantially.
As a result of increasing contact and commercial connections with the West, the Ottomans had become aware of Western fashions and lifestyles, and luxurious imported consumer goods were more easily available in the Ottoman capital. Thus, palace members as well as the new elites started to wear luxurious clothing as a status symbol.
In parallel to political developments in the 18th century, the outlook of the capital changed, and city culture underwent social expansion and activity. Hence, during the 18th century, some “courageous and mischievous” women were accused of corrupting honorable women by dressing, and behaving in public, in a manner that overstepped boundaries.
The Effect of Clothing Regulations on Society
The laws that had been in effect for centuries had multiple functions in shaping Istanbul society. The objectives that D’Ohsson mentioned, such as establishing rules for good manners, preventing extravagance and luxury, and differentiating between people from different classes, are also evident in the edicts. It is asserted that violation of the rules that preserved order and hierarchy and social control would lead to public disorder and chaos.
Some edicts evaluated the new clothing style within a religious and moral frame. The new fashions for Muslim men and women were criticized as conflicting with Islam, and as such it was considered a religious obligation to prevent their spread. In addition, since the government was considered to be responsible for overseeing public morality, women’s clothing was assessed in terms of honor and privacy, and the new fashions were deemed immoral and unsuitable for honorable women.
In addition to religious and moral considerations, economic factors were sometimes important in shaping state regulations. A primary objective of the regulations was to curb the increasingly passionate pursuit of extravagant consumption, especially in terms of clothing. People were encouraged to wear modest clothing with the assertion that expensive attire caused prices to go up. Increasing desire for luxury harmed both family and state budgets, it was argued; servants and artisans went into debt trying to dress like the upper class, and women’s demands in this regard sometimes led to divorce.
During times of economic hardship, curbing extravagance was repeatedly emphasized. For example, the clothing regulations enforced during the reign of Abdulhamid I, which emphasized dressing in a modest manner, were primarily related to the conditions of the period.65 The clothing regulation issued when Halil Hamid Pasha served as grand vizier called for increased use of locally manufactured materials in order to revive the local weaving industry; the fundamental idea behind this regulation was to make more funds available for military campaigns.66
In particular, economic conditions during the reign of Selim III triggered new regulations. During this time, excessive expenditures by government officials, artisans, and the public were criticized. To maintain the local economy and stop the flow of money out of the country, consumption of foreign and luxury goods was prohibited and local production was encouraged.67 While a customs tax was levied on the popular English broadcloth to protect locally manufactured products, in 1805 Selim III had outfits tailored using selimi fabric. A statement by Selim III illustrated the economic aspects of the laws: “Ben istanbulkâri kumaşı severim ve ekseri istanbulkâri giyerim, keşke devlet ricalim ve halk da giyseler, memleket makbuludur.”68 (“I like the fabrics of Istanbul, and usually wear Istanbul fabrics. If only my officials and people would use them too, it would benefit the country.”)
Similarly, the historian Şanizade wrote that the majority of people during the reign of Mahmud II were poor, and yet were prone to wearing luxurious clothing;69 the imperial edicts of the period stated that wide sleeves and long collars on feraces were a waste of material.
The government reinforced its legitimacy through regulations that strengthened its ability to preserve discipline, justice, and social order. Hence, when Kalaylıkoz Ahmed Pasha became the Istanbul kaymakam, he took strict measures against non-Muslims who violated the clothing regulations, and gained respect in the public’s eye.70 Similarly, D’Ohsson wrote that the emphasis on this issue increased when a new sultan was enthroned, and that former regulations were revived in order to maintain ancient traditions and habits.71
Changes in Clothing Styles during the 19th Century
Arif Pasha’s Mecmu’a- i Tesavir-i Osmaniye depicts Mahmud II in traditional attire. Yet in the second half of Mahmud II’s reign, starting in 1829, a significant change in clothing occurred as the result of an important reform movement. Government policy standardized the apparel of government and military personnel. When the Janissary corps was abolished and replaced in 1826, the new army was dressed in a modern Western style. Another law required government officials to wear trousers and jackets.
Hızır Ilyas reported that, according to the edicts of the sultan, palace personnel could no longer order silver-threaded skullcaps, caftans, dresses, or çakşır (shalwar); rather, they were to wear a woven fez with tassels, mısırlı kesimi cebe (Egyptian style cuirass), nimten (short jacket), and shalwar. The members of the Privy Chamber were to wear hoods embroidered with gilded thread to differentiate them from members of the lower chambers.72
The demand for fezzes that emerged in response to this regulation led to the transformation of a mansion in the Kadırga region of Istanbul, part of the sultan’s privy purse (hazine-i hassa), into a fez factory.
Istanbul estate records provide evidence of some of these changes in clothing. According to an 1837 estate record, Hasan Agha sold potur (breeches), salta (short jackets), and hoods, as well as other garments in his ready-to-wear goods store at Bitpazarı.73 Estate records for 1845 list both new and old clothing, such as setri (frock coats), trousers, socks, furs covered with broadcloth, dresses, and cardigans.74
The replacement of the quilted turban of earlier centuries by the fez was considered a major change, and many positive and negative comments were made about it. People who spread rumors that the fez was not religiously permissible were ordered to be punished. Groups who opposed the fez referred to the new attire as ecnebi kıyafeti (foreign clothing) and to the fez as Frenk başlığı (European headwear). Edmando de Amicis, who arrived in Istanbul in 1870, wrote that the people were depressed by the changes in clothing and that some Turks continued to wear turbans, caftans, and yellow Moroccan leather slippers; at the same time, the Reformist Turks wore the long black “stambouline” or knee-length coat (istanbulin) and trousers.75 Some foreigners were taken aback by the changes. G. de Nerval saw Abdulmecid wearing European attire during his visit to Istanbul and criticized the change.76
In the post-reform period, during the reign of Abdulmecid, warnings were given in different forms. It was stressed that civil servants and servants should dress in keeping with their position and refrain from wearing clothing similar to that of the military.77 In 1861, people in Beyoğlu and Galata wearing clothing that was not appropriate for an Islamic nation were warned to stop doing so.78
Modern clothing styles continued to change over time. The old-fashioned Turkish stambouline was replaced with the redingot, and the fez took many different forms over the years. While the fez of Mahmud II was referred to as the mahmûdî fes, the fez preferred by Abdulmecid was called the mecîdî fes, and Abdulaziz wore the azîzîye fes.79
Women’s clothing, consisting of shalwar, shirt, dress, and mantle, did not undergo major changes until the late 1850s, when the influence of the West inspired women’s garments that combined traditional and European elements. For example, according to the 1854 palace tailor’s register, shalwars continued to be sewn, but an elaborate, European-style cardigan in line with the contemporary fashion was also sewn. Clothing retained a traditional look in terms of its general outline but incorporated novelties into details such as lace, pleats, corsages, and collars.80
The paintings of Preziosi, who was in Istanbul between 1858 and 1861, show that shalwars were still worn under dresses. However, after the return of Sultan Abdulaziz from his European trip in 1867, the demand for üç etek (three-paneled skirts) and shalwars decreased among the youth, and two-paneled skirts and dresses became more popular as Western fashion gained influence.81 When recounting her memories of Abdulaziz’s return from Europe in 1867, Leyla Saz stated that the three-paneled skirt and shalwar were no longer in demand, and that a trend of single-paneled skirts had begun. Upon the return of Abdulaziz from his European trip, the ladies of the palace organized a special welcoming ceremony, to which most of them wore European-style clothing. Yet the old kethüdas (stewards) chose the traditional entari (dress).82
In her memoirs, Zeynep Hanım stated that following Sultan Abdulaziz’s Paris trip, Eugénie’s visit to Istanbul in 1869 increased the influence of European fashion on the women of the palace and the upper class. From 1870 onward, in parallel with the Paris fashion, the women of the palace and the capital elite started to wear two-piece tailor-made dresses with mutton-chop sleeves and riding skirts and to wear European hairstyles. Zeynep Hanım wrote that heeled shoes replaced the former footwear, the shalwar and dress were abandoned, and clothing started to be imported from Paris. In a short time the middle class started to imitate the women of the palace and wear Western styles.83
The Industrial Revolution developed European textile manufacturing and increased textile exports. The Crimean War brought thousands of foreigners to Istanbul; with them came European fashions and social customs. Sewing machines, which arrived in the Ottoman state in the 1870s, accelerated the process of change.
Changes occurred earlier in the capital than in other parts of the Ottoman state. The transition from traditional to European-style clothing accelerated in the last quarter of the 19th century. After 1875, Western style completely took over, and a major break with the traditional style occurred. When Edmondo de Amicis arrived in Istanbul in 1870, he noted that the ferace was usually worn over a Parisian-style dress.84
Toward the end of the 19th century, the influence of European fashion also reached working women. As women gained more access to education, their exposure to and adoption of European fashions increased. Cevdet Pasha stated that the elite Egyptian women who came to Istanbul had inspired an increase in extravagance and ostentation there.85 The fashion magazines published in this era provided an important source of information that had not existed previously; they encouraged women to wear Western-style apparel.
At the end of the century, although European fashion was well established, traditional clothing continued to exist. The daughter of Abdulhamid II, Ayşe Osmanoğlu, wrote that at the end of the 19th century, an elderly lady of the palace named Nerkisnihal Kalfa did not dress like other ladies, but wore short skirtless dresses topped by a mantle, a shawl around the waist, and a fez as headwear, covered by an embroidered headscarf.86
While there was a striking change in indoor clothing, after 1850 the Western influence also became apparent in outerwear. While the traditional ferace and yashmak still appeared in Preziosi’s paintings, there was a sense of the new trends as well. The feraces in these paintings are multicolored, collars reach to the floor, and the white yashmaks are very thin. As with the ferace, the way of wrapping the yashmak changed in every period. In Cerîde-i Havâdis, the use of thin yashmaks by the women in the Abdulmecid era was deemed unlawful.87
Starting in the second half of the century, the growth of photography gave people more access to information about the apparel of different people in Istanbul. From 1890 onward, middle- and upper-class Muslim families living in Istanbul started having their photographs taken; in non-Muslim families, this trend had started a generation earlier. During the era of Abdulaziz, in photographs dated 1865 taken by the famous Istanbul photographers Pascal Sebah and the Abdullah brothers, women were depicted with long-collared feraces and thin yashmaks. When Edmondo de Amicis came to Istanbul in 1870, he recorded that women still wore the old-fashioned yashmak and ferace, but that the yashmak was more transparent, and red, orange, and green feraces were being worn over Parisian-style dresses.88
In the letters he wrote in 1872, Basiretçi Ali Efendi noted that the fashion for the women of Istanbul consisted of the yashmak, ferace, and a parasol; some women wore thin yashmaks with a high headdress (hotoz). Eighteenth-century remarks about the increase in extravagance were also repeated during this era, and women were admonished that under Islam they were forbidden to adorn themselves when going out.89
Sebah’s photographs, taken during the first period of Abdulhamid’s reign, show women with embellished feraces and thin yashmaks, just as was the case in the era of Abdulaziz. Toward the middle of Abdulhamid’s reign, the ferace was prohibited; instead, a new over-garment called the çarşaf was introduced. However, in 1890 the çarşaf was forbidden as it was deemed both religiously inappropriate and suggestive.90 Photographs taken by the Abdullah brothers in 1891 show women wearing the çarşaf with parasols, as well as women wearing items similar to the ferace and yashmak. It is possible that these were exceptions to the contemporary norms, used in photography as decoration or background.
The paintings of Fausto Zonaro, who worked during the Abdulhamid era, show women of Istanbul wearing fancy feraces made of colored fabrics and thin yashmaks. Likewise, Osman Hamdi Bey’s 1887 Gezintide Kadınlar (Ladies Strolling) depicts women wearing extremely fancy multicolored feraces, thin yashmaks, and parasols; in another painting by Osman Hamdi Bey, Mimozalı Kadın (Woman with Mimosa), dated 1906, women are pictured wearing the çarşaf and black veils over European-style clothing. Although edicts promulgated during the reign of Selim III forbid the use of Frenk (European) umbrellas, women with parasols appear frequently in pictures from the end of the 19th century.
The 1904 notes of Ali Seydi Bey provide an idea of the apparel of women in Istanbul and how it was received at that time. He asserted that Islam requires women to cover their faces, the forms of the çarşaf and ferace that had been worn since ancient times had been compromised recently, çarşafs had started to resemble dresses, some women wore mantles that resembled jackets, and girls went about with their heads uncovered; he called on women to respect religious regulations in the way they dressed outside the home.91 In the Yıldız album, girls attending art school can be seen with their heads uncovered, and there is a photograph of the poet Nigâr Hanım (1856–1918) wearing a Western-style skirt and jacket.
During this era, wedding outfits also showed the transition from traditional to Western apparel. As can be seen in the works of Hogart, Vanmour, and Dalvimart, the red veil worn by Muslim and non-Muslim brides in the 17th and 18th centuries continued in use until the mid-19th century. A white wedding gown was worn for the first time in 1898 by Naime Sultan, the daughter of Abdulhamid II.92
The popularity of Western-style clothing among Muslim women was criticized by conservative groups as extravagant and void. Critics included Ahmed Cevdet Pasha, the father of Fatma Aliye, who wore Western-style clothing.93
Similar orders concerning non-Muslims living in Istanbul, and violations of those orders, continued until the Tanzimat era. Only after 1829 did the fez become a common symbol of the Ottoman spirit, and the Tanzimat and Islahat edicts, which aimed to establish equality among Ottoman people, were instrumental in erasing the differences created by clothing. This transitional period was met with skepticism by some orthodox Jews, too, and European-style clothing was worn side-by-side with traditional clothing. An 1865 painting by Preziosi depicts a Jewish man in traditional clothing.
Non-Muslim women continued to wear traditional apparel. There was no significant difference between the outdoor or indoor clothing of non-Muslim and Muslim women. Over time, non-Muslim women also started to wear European-style clothing. Sometimes the two traditions were combined—for example, when Armenian women combined a European-style wedding gown with a traditional bridal veil.
After the Second Constitution
During the Second Constitutional Era, there were significant changes in the apparel of women living in Istanbul. Even though the çarşaf and veil continued to exist, an increasing number of women ceased covering and began dressing in more revealing clothes. Some groups criticized this trend, and the government decided to enforce the regulations requiring women to cover up outside the home. In 1909 it was stated by the state that those who dressed indecently would be taken under surveillance by the Dahiliye Nezareti (Ministry of Interior), and the sheikh al-Islam admonished women to refrain from dressing like European women. The çarşaf had been transformed into a coat and cape over time.
During this period, Westerners and Islamists debated the tesettür (veiling and covering) of women. In discussions published in the magazines of the era, opponents of the veil and the çarşaf argued that they impeded women’s participation in social life and that chastity and honor could be protected by other means.94 Discussions of women’s apparel illustrate the limitations on women’s rights before the era of the Republic.
Another topic of discussion during this era was the hat. Toward the end of the Ottoman era, the hat became a popular symbol of westernization among Muslims; discussions of the hat continued until the early years of the Republic. In 1895 non-Muslims were prohibited from wearing hats, and to facilitate legal procedures, all subjects were asked to wear the fez.95 These events give an idea of the beginning of hat use in the Ottoman state. Following the proclamation of the Second Constitution, the number of non-Muslims wearing hats increased.
During World War I, an increase in the number of working women, particularly from the lower classes, promoted greater public visibility for women. The women who participated in social life chose comfort and practicality over adornment and wore a simple cape over a dress. Russians who came to Istanbul following the Bolshevik Revolution also had an influence on women’s fashion.
State control of people’s clothing choices weakened with the move of the capital to Ankara, and socio-cultural changes following the war enabled women to go out more freely. These developments triggered major transformations, and as a result, the çarşaf was abandoned completely by the upper classes and Western fashion became much more prevalent.
After 1918, women’s attire continued to be discussed in Istanbul-based periodicals. Some columnists found women’s outfits to be too colorful, ostentatious, and attractive. Although after the war the search continued for a national rather than Western clothing style, European fashion maintained a presence in Istanbul.96
Although these developments formed the basis for the Republican era, the clothing revolution took its ultimate shape after the Republic. After the establishment of the Republic, differences in clothing according to status and religion completely disappeared, and the interest in European culture predominated. Similar to the rest of the world, differences in clothing styles between social classes, and even between countries, gradually disappeared.
1 Fatih Sultan Mehmed, Kânunnâme-i Âl-i Osman (Tahlil ve Karşılaştırmalı Metin), ed. A. Özcan, Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2003, p. 9.
2 Fatih Sultan Mehmed, Kânunnâme, p. 17.
3 Ahmed Vasıf Efendi, Mehâsinü’l âsâr ve Hakaikü’l-ahbâr, ed. M. İlgürel, Istanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi, 1978, pp. 118-119.
4 Lampton, “Justice in the Medieval Persian Theory of Kingship,” SI 1962, vol. 17,pp. 91-119; İnalcık, “Padişah,” İA, 1964, IX, 491.
5 Albert Howe Lybyer, The Government of the Ottoman Empire in the Time of Suleiman the Magnificent, Cambridge: Harvard University press, 1913, pp. 133-141.
6 For example, see: Emin Cenkmen, Osmanlı Sarayı ve Kıyafetleri, Istanbul: Türkiye Yayınevi, 1948.
7 Osmanlı Devlet Teşkilatına Dair Kaynaklar, Kitâb-ı Müstetab, Kitabu Mesalihi’l Müslimin ve Menafi’il-Mü’minin, ed. Yaşar Yücel, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1988, pp. 73, 95, 113. Tevki’i Abdurrahman Paşa, “Kanunnâme”, Millî Tetemmuat Mecmuası, 1331, vol. 1, pp. 498-542; Esat Efendi, Teşrifat-ı Kadime, Istanbul: Çağrı Yayınları, 1979.
8 Gelibolulu Mustafa Ali, Mevaidü’n-nefâis fi kavaidi’l mecâlis, ed. M. Şeker, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1997, pp. 370-372.
9 N. Anafarta, Hünernâme Minyatürleri ve Sanatçılar, Istanbul: Yapı ve Kredi Bankası, 1969; Nurhan Atasoy and Filiz Çağman, Turkish Miniature Painting, tr. Esin Atıl, Istanbul: R. C. D. Cultural Institute, 1974; E. Atıl, Süleymanname: The Illustrated History of Suleyman the Magnificent, New York: National Gallery of Art, 1986; N. Atasoy, 1582 Surname-i Hümayun: Düğün Kitabı, Istanbul: Koçbank,1997; S. Bağcı, et al., Osmanlı Resim Sanatı, Ankara: Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, 2006; M. And., Osmanlı Tasvir Sanatları: Minyatür, Istanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2002.
10 For information and visuals materials, see: T. Reyhanlı, İngiliz Gezginlerine göre XVI. Yüzyılda Istanbul’da Hayat: (1582-1599), Ankara: Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, 1983, pp. 69-90; S. Eyice, “Avrupalı Bir Ressamın Gözüyle Kanuni Sultan Süleyman,” in Kanuni Armağanı, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1970, pp. 129-170; M. And, 16. Yüzyılda Istanbul: Kent, Saray, Günlük Yaşam, Istanbul: Akbank Kültür ve Sanat Baş Danışmanlığı, 1994.
11 Nebi Bozkurt, “Kavuk”, DİA, XXV, 71-73.
12 . Walther Björkman, “Sarık,” İA, X, 221- 233.
13 For examples, see: İzzet Kumbaracılar; Serpuşlar, Istanbul: Türkiye Turing ve Otomobil Kurumu, no date.
14 Mouradge d’Ohsson, Tableau Général de l’Empire Ottoman, Paris: Imprimerie De Monsieur, 1788, vol. 4, pp. 113-116.
15 Björkman, “Şalvar”, İA, XI, 295-298.
16 Yvonne Seng, “The Üsküdar Estates (tereke) as Records of Everyday Life in an Ottoman Town, 1521-1524” (PhD Dissertation), University of Chicago, 1991.
17 H. Tezcan, “Ferace”, DİA, XII, 349-350.
18 D’Ohsson, Tableau, vol. 4, p. 122.
19 Ö. Süslü, Tasvirlere Göre Anadolu Selçuklu Kıyafetleri, Ankara: Atatürk Kültür, Dil ve Tarih Yüksek Kurumu Atatürk Kültür Merkezi, 1989, p. 169.
20 B. B. Tekin, “Arifi Süleymannâmesi’nde Kaftan Tasvirleri: Kanuni Dönemi Dokumaları Hakkında Bir Değerlendirme,” Zeitschrift für die Welt der Türken, Journal of World of Turks, 2012, vol. 4, no. 2, p. 182 (pp. 167-191).
21 N. Atasoy, et al., İpek, London: Azimuth Editions Limited, 2001, p. 18.
22 Atasoy, et al., İpek, p. 24.
23 A. Refik, Eski İstanbul, ed. S. Önal, Istanbul: Timaş Yayınları, 1998, p. 4.
24 Gelibolulu Mustafa Âli, Câmiu’l-buhûr der Mecâlis-i Sûr, ed. A. Öztekin, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1996, pp. 23-37.
25 Mithat Sertoğlu, “Osmanlı Hükümdarlarının Kıyafetleri,” RTM, 1952, vol. 34, 1778.
26 G. Necipoğlu, “A Kânun for the State, a Canon for the Arts: Conceptualizing the Classical Synthesis of Ottoman Art and Architecture,” in Süleymân the Magnificent and his Time, ed. G. Veinstein, Paris: La Documentation française, 1992, p. 198 (pp. 195-216).
27 And, Tasvir, p. 150.
28 Ķānūnnāme-i Sultānī ber Mūceb-i Örf-i Osmānī: II. Mehmed ve II. Bayezid Devirlerine Ait Yasakname ve Kanunnameler, ed. R. Anhegger and H. İnalcık, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1956, pp. 41, 49, 74, 79.
29 Fatih Sultan Mehmed, Kânunnâme-i Âl-i Osman, pp. 14, 18.
30 Hızır İlyas, Letaif-i Enderun, Istanbul: Dârü’t-tıbâati’l-Âmire, 1276/1859.
31 Fuat Köprülü, “Hil’at’, İA, V, 483-6; N. A. Stillman, “Khil’a’, EI, V, 6-7.
32 N. Atasoy- L. Uluç, Osmanlı Kültürünün Avrupa’daki Yansımaları 1453-1699, Istanbul: Armaggan Yayınları, 2012; G. Renda, “Avrupa ve Osmanlı: Sanatta Etkileşim,’ in Osmanlı Uygarlığı, ed. H. İnalcık and G. Renda, Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı, 2003, vol. 2, pp. 1090-1121.
33 N. Atasoy, “Selçuklu Kıyafetleri Üzerine Bir Deneme,’ Sanat Tarihi Yıllığı, 1971, vol. 4, pp 111-151.
34 For information and visuals see, Reyhanlı, İngiliz, pp. 69-73; And, 16. Yüzyılda; Sevgi Gürtuna, Osmanlı Kadın Giysisi, Ankara 1999; Cemal Kafadar, “Tanzimat’tan Önce Selçuk ve Osmanlı Toplumunda Kadınlar”, Çağlarboyu Anadolu’da Kadın, Istanbul: Kültür Bakanlığı Anıtlar ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü, 1993; J. Scarce, Women’s Costume of the Near and Middle East, London: Unwin Hyman, 1987.
35 Reyhanlı, İngiliz, picture no. 2.
36 Reyhanlı, İngiliz, picture no. 55 and 106; Kafadar, “Tanzimat’tan Önce,’ p. 261.
37 Nicolas de Nicolay, Les Quatres premiers Livres de Navigations et Peregrinations Orientales, Lyon: Guillaume Rouillé,1568.
38 Julia Pardoe, The City of the Sultans and the Domestic Manners of the Turks, London: H. G. Clarke, 1854.
39 B. İpşirli Argıt, “Clothing Habits, Regulations and Non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire,’ Journal of Academic Studies, 2005, vol. 24, pp. 172-176; Kitabu Mesalihi’l Müslimin ve Menafi’il-Mü’minin, pp. 85, 95, 113; Defterdar Sarı Mehmed Paşa, Zübde-i Vekayiat: Tahlil ve Metin: 1066-1116/1656-1704, ed. A. Özcan, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1995, 742; BOA, HH 32153, 54918; C. Dahiliye 10290, C. Saray 884.
40 Boaz Shoshan, “On Costume and Social History in Medieval Islam,’ Asian and African Studies, 1998, vol. 22, pp. 35-51.
41 A. Refik, Onuncu Asr-ı Hicride İstanbul Hayatı, ed. Abdullah Uysal, Ankara: Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, 1987, p. 78.
42 Refik, Onuncu Asr-ı Hicride İstanbul Hayatı, pp. 47- 48.
43 Thevenot, The Travels of Monsieur de Thevenot into the Levant, London: Printed by H. Clark, 1687, vol. 1, pp. 81-82.
44 George de la Chapelle, Recueil de divers portraits des principales dames dela porte du grand seigneur, tirée au naturel sur les yieux, Paris: Par Antoine Estiene ..., 1648.
45 Paul Rycaut, The History of the Turkish Empire from the Year 1623 to the Year 1677, London,: Printed by J.D. for Tho. Basset, R. Clavell, J. Robinson, and A. Churchill, 1687, p. 117.
46 E. Atıl, “Ahmet Nakşi an Eclectic Painter of the Early 17th Century,” Fifth International Congress of Turkish Art, edited by G. Feher, Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1978, pp. 103-122.
47 Anonim Osmanlı Tarihi, (1099-1116/1688-1704), ed. A. Özcan, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2000, p. 290.
48 Ö. Nutku, “On Yedinci Yüzyılda Saray Kumaşları,” Toplum ve Bilim, 1984, vol. 4, pp. 260-266; S. Faroqhi, “Introduction or Why and How one Wants to Study Ottoman Clothes,” in Ottoman Costumes: From Textile to Identity, ed. S. Faroqhi and C. Neumann, Istanbul: Eren, 2004, p. 31 (pp. 15-48).
49 Castellan, Moers, Usages, Costume des Othomans et Abrégé de leur Histoire, Paris: Nepvau, 1812, vol. 6, pp. 1-44, 97; Octavian Dalvimart, The Dress and Manners of the Turks, London: Thomas M’Lean, 1814; Dalvimart, Costume de la Turquie, London: Printed for W. Miller by W. Bulmer and Co., 1804; Melling, Voyage pittoresque de Constantinople et des rives du Bosphore d’apres les dessins de M. Melling, ed. M. M Treuttel- Würt, Paris: Chez les éditeurs, 1819.
50 Gül İrepoğlu, Levnî Nakış, Şiir, Renk, Istanbul: Kültür Bakanlığı, 1999; E. Atıl, Levnî ve Surname, Istanbul: Koçbank, 1999; And, Tasvir; Osmanlı Kıyafetleri Fenerci Mehmed Albümü, ed. İlhami Turan, Istanbul: Vehbi Koç Vakfı, 1986.
51 For demands and violations see, B. İ. Argıt, “An Evaluation of the Tulip Period and the Period of Selim III in the Light of Clothing Regulations,” Osmanlı Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2004, vol. 24, pp. 11-28; Cabi Ömer Efendi, Cabi Tarihi, ed. M. A. Beyhan, Ankara;. Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2003, vol. 2, pp. 753, 773; E. Z. Karal, Selim III’ün Hatt-ı Hümayunları: Nizam-ı Cedid 1789-1807, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1942, 101-102; A. Refik, İstanbul Hayatı: Hicri On üçüncü Asırda: 1200-1255, Istanbul: Enderun Kitabevi, 1988, 11; A. O. Çınar, “Mehmed Emin Edib Efendi’nin Hayatı ve Tarihi” (Ph.D Dissertation), Marmara University, Istanbul, 1999, pp. 142, 289; Ö. F. Çalık, “Havas-ı Refia 325 No’lu Kadı Siciline Göre 1802-1805 Tarihlerinde Eyyüb Kazasında İktisadi ve Sosyal Hayat,” (MA Thesis), Marmara University, 1996, no. 14, 15; H. Çağlar, Istanbul Kadılığı 76 Numaralı Emir ve Ferman Defteri: 1211-1217/1796-1803” (MA Thesis), Marmara University, 1993, no. LXXIII; S. Albayrak, Osmanlı’da Sosyal Yapı ve Istanbul = Social structure in Ottoman Empire and Istanbul, Istanbul: KİPTAŞ, 2001, 137, 163, 167; İ. Kurt and Seyit Ali Tüz (prepared by), Sosyal Hayatta Kadın, Istanbul: Ensar Neşriyat, 1996, 313; A. Önal, “18. Yüzyıla Ait Buyuruldu Mecmuası: (Türk Tarih Kurumu Y. 70-değerlendirme, transkripsiyon)” (MA Thesis), Marmara University, 2006, pp. 160-167, 171; BOA, C. Dahiliye 268/ 13353, 27/ 1342, C. İktisat 27/ 1340; HH 1313/51154, 13663, 24051/ 1242.
52 B. İ. Argıt, “Üsküdar’da Yaşayan Kadınların Maddi Durumları ve Gündelik Hayatları,” Uluslararası Üsküdar Sempozyumu VI: 6-9 Kasım 2008, ed. Coşkun Yılmaz, Istanbul: Üsküdar Belediyesi, 2008, vol. 2, pp. 415-428.
53 A. Refik, İstanbul Hayatı: Hicri On İkinci Asırda: 1100-1200, Istanbul: Enderun Kitabevi, 1988, 103.
54 d’Ohsson, Tableau, vol. 4, p. 121.
55 Montagu, The Complete Letters of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, ed. R. Halsband, Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1965, vol. 1, pp. 326-330, 347-352, 380-387.
56 Pardoe, The City of the Sultans, pp. 80-100.
57 C. Jirousek, “The Tradition to Mass Fashion System Dress,” Consumption Studies and the History of the Ottoman Empire, ed. Donald Quataert, New York : State University of New York Press, 2000, pp. 209-210.
58 Defterdar, Zübde, p. 745; Anonim Osmanlı Tarihi, p. 179.
59 For orders about women’s clothing and violations of the same before the middle of the 19th century, see: S. Umur, “Kadınlara Buyruklar,” Tarih ve Toplum, 1988, vol. 57, pp. 205-207; Refik, Hicri Onüçüncü Asırda, p. 4; Ahmed Vasıf, Tarih, Istanbul: Dârü’t-tıbâati’l-âmire, 1219, vol. 1, p. 152; Şanizade, Tarih, ed. Ziya Yılmazar, Istanbul: Çamlıca Basım Yayın, 2008, vol. 1, pp. 109, 300; Nevzat Sağlam, “Havas-ı Refi’a Mahkemesi 369 nolu Kadı Siciline Göre 1815-1820 Tarihlerinde Eyüb’de Sosyal ve İktisadi Hayat” (MA Thesis), Marmara University, 1994, no. 4, 54; Önal, Buyuruldu, pp. 166, 167; Albayrak, Osmanlı’da Sosyal Yapı; BOA, MD 155, s.239; C. Dahiliye 13353; HH 15918, 16336, 18712, 32153, 33904, 51154, 57104, 9273, 9735; Sadaret Mektubi Kalemi Evrakı 4/ 68; Istanbul Kadılığı Sicil 35, folio 97/a.
60 Nedim, Nedim Divanı, ed. Abdulbaki Gölpınarlı, Istanbul: İnkılap Kitabevi, 1951, pp. 246, 306, 342, 366, 373, 375.
61 Enderûni Fazıl Hüseyin Bey, Hûbânnâme; Zenânnâme, ed. Ercümend Muhib, Istanbul: Yeni Şark Kitabevi, 1945, p. 70.
62 Sünbülzade Vehbi, Divan-ı Vehbi, Bulak: Bulak Matbaası, 1253.
63 Helmuth von Moltke, Moltke’nin Türkiye Mektupları, tr. H. Örs, Istanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 1969, p. 38.
64 HH 658/ 32153.
65 Fikret Sarıcaoğlu, Kendi Kaleminden Bir Padişah Portresi Sultan I. Abdülhamid (1774-1789), Istanbul: Tarih ve Tabiat Vakfı, 2001, p. 266.
66 Bruce McGowan, “The Age of the Ayans,” in Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire (1300-1914), ed. H.İnalcık and D. Quataert. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994, 719; Sarıcaoğlu, Kendi Kaleminden, p. 255.
67 Ahmed Rasim, Resimli ve Haritalı Osmanlı Tarihi, Istanbul: İkbal Kütüphanesi, [1327-1329], vol 3, p. 1035.
68 Karal, Hatt-ı Hümayun, p. 102.
69 Şânîzâde, Târih, vol. 1, p. 286.
70 “Şem’danizade Fındıklılı Süleyman Efendi’nin Mür’i’t- Tevarih Adlı Eserinden 180B-345A) Tahlil ve Tenkidli Metin” edited by M. Öksüz (Master Thesis), Mimar Sinan University, 2009, p. 255.
71 d’Ohsson, Tableau, vol. 4, p. 158.
72 Hızır İlyas, Letaif, p 457.
73 Fatih Bozkurt, “Tereke Defterleri ve Osmanlı Maddi Kültüründe Değişim (1785-1875) Istanbul Örneği,” (Ph.D Dissertation), Sakarya University, 2011, p. 158.
74 Bozkurt, “Tereke Defterleri ve Osmanlı Maddi Kültüründe Değişim”, p. 398.
75 Edmondo de Amicis, Istanbul-1874, tr. B. Akyavaş, Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı, 1981, pp. 138-140.
76 De Nerval, Voyage en Orient, Paris: Garnier Flarmarion, 1980, vol. 1.
77 Cerîde-i Havâdis, no 57, p. 1; Takvim-i Vekayi, no. 347, pp. 1-2; “Kadın-I,” Tarih ve Toplum, 1984, vol. 1, pp. 192-199.
78 BOA, Mektubi Nezaret ve Devair Kalemi, Dosya 379, Gömlek 85, 20 November 1861.
79 Mahmud Şevket Paşa, Osmanlı Teşkilât ve Kıyafet-i Askeriyesi, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2010.
80 H. Tezcan, “Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Arşivinde Bulunan Bir Terzi Defteri,” Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi: Yıllık-2, İstanbul: Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Müdürlüğü, 1981, pp. 166-175.
81 H. Tezcan, “Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun Son Yüzyılında Kadın Kıyafetlerinde Batılılaşma,” Sanat Dünyamız, 1988, vol. 37, pp. 45-51.
82 Leyla Saz, Harem’in İçyüzü, edited by Sadi Borak, Istanbul: Milliyet Gazetesi, 1974, p. 147.
83 Zeyneb Hanoum, A Turkish Woman’s European Impressions, ed. Grace Ellison, Philadelphia: Seeley, Service & Co. Ltd., 1913, pp. 97-98. 133.
84 de Amicis, İstanbul, pp. 138-140.
85 N. S. Turan, “16. Yüzyıldan 19. Yüzyıl Sonuna Dek Osmanlı Devletinde Gayrı Müslimlerin Kılık Kıyafetlerine Dair Düzenlemeler,” Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 2005, vol. 60, no. 4, p. 261 (pp. 239-267).
86 Ayşe Osmanoğlu, Babam Sultan Abdülhamid: Hatıralarım, Ankara: Selçuk Yayınları, 1986, p. 40.
87 Cerîde-i Havâdis, no.57, 1.
88 de Amicis, Istanbul, pp. 138-140.
89 Basiretçi Ali Efendi, İstanbul Mektupları, ed. N. Sağlam, Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2001.
90 R. Bulut, “Istanbul Kadınlarının Kıyafetleri ve II. Abdülhamid’in Çarşafı Yasaklaması,” Türk Tarih Dergisi, 1968, vol. 8, pp. 34-36.
91 Ali Seydi, Teşrifat ve Teşkilat-ı Kadimemiz, ed. N. A. Banoğlu, Istanbul: Tercüman Gazetesi, no date, p. 267.
92 Ç. Uluçay, Harem II, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1971, p. 112.
93 Ahmet Cevdet Paşa, Tezakir, ed. C. Baysun, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1986, 13/29, pp. 4-8. Quoted in Turan, “16. Yüzyıldan,” p. 261.
94 Mustafa Sabri, Dini Müceddidler yahut Türkiye için Necat ve İ’tila Yollarında Bir Rehber, Istanbul: Evkaf Matbaası, 1338-1340, pp. 278, 303, 317, 365.
95 Y.A.RES, Meclis-i Mahbus 272, t.1312 l. 28, Quoted in M. Kenanoğlu, Osmanlı Millet Sistemi: Mit ve Gerçek, Istanbul: Klasik, 2004, p. 354.
96 Elif Mahir, “Fashion and Women in the Istanbul of the Armistice Period 1918-1923”, (MA Thesis), Bosphorus University, 2005.