Pederasty in the Ottoman Empire
What should we understand from pederasty in the Ottoman Empire? Did it have today’s meaning or was it something different?
This article is a translation of my article titled ‘Osmanlı’da Oğlancılık’ in 2020. In this translation I have made some spelling corrections and added some additional sentences to help with the context.
In popular media, one of the topics that piques curiosity regarding the Ottoman Empire is the practice of pederasty. People are intrigued by discussions around homosexuality, particularly pederasty, and whether state administrators engaged in this practice within Ottoman society.
A common mistake is made in some discussions and studies aimed at addressing this curiosity. As I stated here, an important aspect often overlooked in many popular historical studies is the concept of anachronism. Anachronism refers to the misplacement of concepts, individuals, or events that did not exist during the historical period. For instance, it is an anachronism to criticize the Ottoman Empire for lacking parliamentary democracy. This is because, apart from the final phase of the Empire’s existence, the concept of parliamentary democracy had not yet been established. During its last era, the state was already making efforts to transition towards parliamentary democracy. In a concise manner, anachronism is also a common error found in discussions regarding the Ottomans and pederasty. It involves mistakenly labeling the Ottomans as sodomites due to a misguided belief that they were inherently immoral individuals. According to this misperception, the Ottomans were pedophiles, and Ottoman men sexually abused children as young.
However, when approaching the issue from a scientific perspective, it is unfair to oversimplify the matter, especially for those engaged in historical research. A more nuanced understanding can be gained by considering the concept of pederasty. Pederasty, in this context, refers to the sexual and affectionate relationships between younger boys that have not bearded and mature men of higher social status that have bearded.
Just, how many was the age range, boys that have not bearded? The age range specified in this context includes individuals who are not yet considered adults but are also not children, known as “emred boys” in Ottoman records. This age group typically falls between twelve and eighteen years old, sometimes extending to around twenty. The most common age range mentioned is between fourteen and seventeen.
Although these descriptions may be disturbing to us in modern times, it is important to avoid projecting our current sensibilities onto historical periods. It is crucial to understand historical events and contexts within their own time frame, without imposing anachronistic judgments. History aims to comprehend the circumstances and practices of the past by refraining from anachronisms.
As a matter of fact, In the Ottoman Empire, the definition of a child was not always universal. For instance, Ebusuud, the renowned Shaykh al-Islam during Suleiman the Magnificent’s reign, stated that girls were considered children until sixteen, while boys were considered children until seventeen. He had emphasized that sexual relations with children were inappropriate.
At this point, we must move the issue from sexuality to economic and legal dimensions.
Children could not make decisions on their own. The law did not allow this. Additionally, children had to be protected. The state was responsible for the protection of children. Children were not permitted to form attachments or have special relationships with authority figures that, for example, military commanders or job masters, share closed spaces with them voluntarily or engage in private conversations. Furthermore, children were ineligible for public office positions. However, apprentices were recruited to institutions such as the Novice Boys’ Corps between the ages of 12 and 14. For this reason, people of this age were not considered children. As a result, Ebusuud Efendi’s views were not accepted. This scholar, who has a strong influence in every field, had not been able to show the age of the concept of childhood at an age level like today.
In essence, the Ottoman understanding of childhood was generally completed between twelve and fourteen. Ebusuud’s perspective on this issue has yet to be universally valid. Socio-economic influences played an essential role in the failure of the Ebusuud’s views to become law. Period conditions that included individuals being drafted into the military at a young age contributed to the idea that childhood ended around twelve.
These ages correspond to the period of puberty. Men who enter puberty are no longer children; they fall into an intermediate category. These individuals can now be seen as adults or children depending on the situation. Like any gray area, this ambiguity makes them susceptible to exploitation. I believe that the great jurist Ebusuud found this particularly troubling.
Boys in this transitional phase often seek licit protection on their behalf. Moreover, due to various pressures, they may come under the protection of powerful men, either willingly or by coercion. Some of these young men then become close companions to their protectors. However, it is important to remember that not all boys who enter into protection become the personal companions of a pahsa or agha. A significant number of them become soldiers or civil servants who would employed because of their professional skills. So, Lamartine was wrong. He noted that the enderun people were specifically created to be the bedfellows of the sultan. However, enderun people were elite servant for sultans. Let says, if padishas had selected a emred oglan for sexual servant, they would have looked a place, out of enderun.
In fact, in the Ottoman Empire, the patronage system supplied personnel for the state, foundations, trade, and the guild system. This was the cornerstone of a patrimonial society. While the system did provide a limited number of boys who served as bedfellows for powerful men, these individuals were few in number. Period sources reflect that two poets who were part of the patronage networks and rose to high positions fiercely competed with each other. One poet provided sexual services to his patrons during his time in the patronage system, effectively becoming their ‘oglan.’ The other poet was the famous Taşlıcalı Yahya, a soldier and proud janissary who demonstrated his masculine behaviors. He emphasized his masculine identity and condemned his rival’s feminine stance.
This example, along with similar cases, suggests that the phenomenon of pederasty involved a two-way exchange. So, there were essentially two paths to entering the patronage system. One could attach themselves to a master and pursue specialized roles that required knowledge or skill, such as warfare or writing. Alternatively, a warmer accommodation and different forms of service might be provided, especially for male homosexuals who preferred to exhibit feminine behaviors. For such individuals, this was often the only viable option, as survival with feminine behavior was not possible within the military system.
In other words, those who become oglans through force and rape should be on one side, and those who use it willingly should be on the other.
At this point, examining the roles of the efendis and agas will provide a clearer basis for explanations. The oglans, who were acquired either voluntarily or by force to advance their status, represent the supply side of this practice. Some powerful men were on the demand side. Demand, in turn, drives supply. Why did these powerful and wealthy individuals seek boys?
Were most of them homosexual? How did those who had boys as sexual servants interact with women?
There have indeed been homosexual statesmen in Ottoman history, as well as heterosexual ones. However, when we examine the long span of history, homosexuality appears to have been a minority. If it were more prevalent, reproduction would have been limited. But from our current perspective, the practice of pederasty was common in the Ottoman Empire, with many participating in it. Despite this, these individuals also engaged in relationships with women.
Pederasty people continued to have relationships with women because they were heterosexual rather than homosexual or bisexual. When examining Ottoman literature, this claim is confirmed. For example, bearded love poems (turkish: sakallı aşk şiirleri) prominently stand out. As observed in poetry and moral literature, Ottoman pederasty places the boy in the role of a girl. The boy aims not to enjoy himself but to serve his master somehow. According to morals, this should be the case. A young man who enjoys being an oglan, that is, who enjoys being with a man, is condemned. In other words, homosexuality is condemned. What is expected of him is to establish a home when he is older and have children in the future. The master, on the other hand, should ensure that boys, whom he values for their girl-like appearance, become job masters when they reach adolescence and retire from their roles.
As can be seen, the older man wants to his oglan look like a girl. It is understood from the poems that boys are praised because they look like girls. Thus, the common behavior is to be with a boy who looks like a girl. This does not resemble a homosexual practice.
So why did this practice exist? What has changed today that these practices no longer exist? Did the Ottomans engage in these practices because they were perverts?
The famous sociologist Anthony Giddens provides explanations that help us understand this. In his study, which examines the view of sexuality in modern society and the change in the concept of privacy, Giddens explains how birth control practices have changed sexual life. He emphasizes that the sexuality that emerged after the development of modern birth control techniques, independent of reproduction, is ‘plastic sexuality.’ Because now sex, or more specifically penetration, has become merely a mechanical act. Its evolutionary meaning has ended.
There is no doubt that Giddens overlooks the emotional aspect of sexuality in his explanation. He defines sexuality as being devoid of emotions like love. However, the point I aims to highlight is that this same detachment was also evident in the pederasty practices of the Ottoman Empire. In other words, in the Ottoman Empire, pederasty was not imbued with emotion. The objective appeared to be purely penetrative, unrelated to reproduction. So essentially, pederasty had served as a method for the Ottomans to avoid procreation.
There were undoubtedly Ottomans who practiced pederasty as a means to live out their hidden homosexuality. The bearded love literature mentioned above is an indication of this. The subject of these poems is typically as follows:
A middle-aged man who is knowledgeable, respectable, and wealthy cannot find a response to his love. His former beloved is now a young man whose beard has grown as he starts a new life. The rich man addresses this young man, saying, “Okay, come, accept me, do not cut your beard, but come, just come.” Actually, the boy who once resembled a girl has now grown into an adult man. Despite this transition, the wealthy man still calls for the young man, who no longer looks like a girl, to come and accept him.
Even today, indicators such as beards and mustaches distinguish men and women in appearance. There are other indicators, but this distinction held symbolic importance, at least for the Ottomans. The metaphor of not cutting the beard signifies that the person would be accepted as a man. The poet, who addresses his lover in these poems, ultimately accepted his lover as a man. It seems that he has decided to embrace his homosexual life openly. However, while some former boys responded to this call, others rejected it. Some had acquired sufficient income from pederasty, established a profession, and started new lives. Most likely, those young men that former oglans, were heterosexual and unhappy with their previous jobs, which was what the system wanted.
In conclusion, the issue of pederasty in Ottoman society represents an institution that cannot be fully understood through a modern perspective. This practice was normal in the old era and was a pratic at the time, prevalent from India to the Atlantic coast.
Further Readings
The Age of Beloveds: Love and the Beloved in Early Modern Ottoman and European Culture and Society, Mehmet Kalpaklı & Walter G. Andrews, Duke University Press, 2005
The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies, Anthony Giddens, Politiy Press, 1993
16. yüzyıldan 19.yüzyıl başlarına: Osmanlı Toplumunda Çocuk Olmak, Yahya Araz, Kitap Yayınevi, 2013
