We come across the expression Huzur Temsilleri (performance in the presence of the sultan) in the narratives of people, especially actors, who witnessed the entertainment life of the Ottoman palace in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. In these narratives, we see that the expression Huzur Temsilleri is used to describe the performances made in the presence of the sultan at his command/will. It is possible to argue that the word temsil here is used for all kinds of performative representations. From pantomime to juggling, from Karagöz to meddah, from operetta, to tulûat, from animal acrobats toWestern-style theater, the genre diversity of the nineteenth century performances in the palace appears to be wide-ranging.

From the second half of the nineteenth century, when trends began to change in the context of entertainment culture and especially theater art, traditional performance performers (especially Ortaoyunu performers) had to survive both economically and artistically. We can say that, among the crises experienced in various fields between the traditional and modern aspects of the Tanzimat period, this is perhaps the crisis that has produced the most creative results in the struggle for survival. Despite the negative arguments produced by the leading intellectuals of society against traditional performances, practitioners of traditional performing arts have engaged in a distinctive interaction with Western-style theater and embarked on new/experimental quests. Toward the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the creative pains of the crisis in the theater gave birth to the Tulûat Theater. The names we will discuss with their representations in the presence are the master performers of this new genre. We see that some of these masters were recruited to Muzıkâ-yi Hümâyun within the service of the Harem.

However, taking part in the Muzıkâ-yi Hümâyun theater section did not mean immediately appearing in the presence of the sultan. Being talented was not enough in itself to play in the presence of the sultan, irade-i seniyye, meaning “the sultan’s order” was also necessary. For the irade-i seniyye to be issued, it was necessary to establish relationships with the right people, especially those close to the palace, as well as having a good record. Participating in the Muzıkâ-yi Hümâyun theater section was based on the observations, recommendations and evaluations of the current senior actors.

After all, Muzıkâ-yi Hümâyun was a structure established with military organization and for military purposes. Therefore, the self-educated actors selected for Muzıkâ-yi Hümâyun, like those accepted here as students, were also subject to rank in this military hierarchy. Considering this situation, when we take this into account, we see that to perform for the huzur (royal presence), various ranks, orders, and titles appropriate to the seriousness and protocol of the palace were bestowed upon the actors, and they even performed in uniform. The contradictions between the demands of the palace and the dynamics of the theater are evaluated through examples.

Moreover, the performance that took place in the presence of the sultan had an irregular timing depending on the rhythm of the harem, especially that of the sultan. The impact of the temporal intervention on the performance, which transforms the presence of the actor into a vigilant soldier, has been discussed concerning sudden representation requests/commands, abrupt beginnings, or abrupt endings in the performance. For an actor, what is worse than an uninterested spectator who is asleep, who is interested in the guest next to him, is the audience who is not sure whether to be there or not.

This audience–player relationship has been opened to discussion with examples that will cause us to question the relationship between the spectator sultan and the performer. The sultan turns into a hypothetical spectator, that is, in the sense of the audience that is supposed to be there, but not certain to be there, based on the assumption that he is there. Moreover, how does even a small doubt about the presence of the audience affect the performance?

The actor performing in the presence of the sultan and his performance has been interpreted in four aspects. The first aspect is focused on the timing and potential changes in the duration of the performance. The second aspect is transformative intervention concerning the content of the performance. The third aspect is how the relationship between the actor and their audience differs from the performances presented in front of the public. Fourth and lastly, we can observe that the act of watching becomes somewhat more complicated. The sultan watches not only the performers but also the other audience members present during the performance from a designated area, sometimes concealed by a screen or enclosure.