THE ART AND ARCHITECTURE OF

OTTOMAN ISTANBUL

622 Ottoman 0 Prelims_622 Ottoman 0 Prelims 02/05/2012 10:05 Page i

622 Ottoman 0 Prelims_622 Ottoman 0 Prelims 02/05/2012 10:05 Page ii

a r n e tP U B L I S H I N G

THE ART AND ARCHITECTURE OF

OTTOMAN ISTANBUL

RICHARD YEOMANS

622 Ottoman 0 Prelims_622 Ottoman 0 Prelims 02/05/2012 10:05 Page iii

THE ART AND ARCHITECTURE OF OTTOMAN ISTANBUL

Published byGarnet Publishing Limited8 Southern CourtSouth StreetReadingBerkshireRG1 4QSUK

www.garnetpublishing.co.ukwww.twitter.com/Garnetpubwww.facebook.com/Garnetpubblog.garnetpublishing.co.uk

Copyright © Richard Yeomans, 2012Image copyright © Richard Yeomans, 2012(unless otherwise stated)

All rights reserved.No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages in a review.

First Edition

ISBN: 978-1-85964-224-5

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication DataA catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

DesignSamantha Barden

Jacket designDavid Rose

Cover photoUsed courtesy of iStockphoto.com/Gordon Dixon

Printed and bound in Lebanon by International Press:interpress@int-press.com

622 Ottoman 0 Prelims_622 Ottoman 0 Prelims 10/05/2012 13:06 Page iv

TO THE MEMORY OF GALOR HOLNESS

622 Ottoman 0 Prelims_622 Ottoman 0 Prelims 02/05/2012 10:05 Page v

622 Ottoman 0 Prelims_622 Ottoman 0 Prelims 02/05/2012 10:05 Page vi

Contents

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ix

PREFACE xv

INTRODUCTION 1

The Turks, the Ottomans and the Conquest

of Constantinople

CHAPTER ONE 9

Mehmet the Conqueror and the Rise

of Istanbul

CHAPTER TWO 35

Forming a Classical Style – The Architecture

of Beyazit II and Selim I

CHAPTER THREE 49

The Architecture of Sinan

CHAPTER FOUR 79

Ottoman Ceramics

CHAPTER FIVE 97

Ottoman Textiles

CHAPTER SIX 123

Consolidation and Decline – Architecture

in the Seventeenth Century

CHAPTER SEVEN 149

Between East and West – Ottoman Baroque and

Rococo Architecture in the Eighteenth Century

CHAPTER EIGHT 175

Calligraphy, Illumination and Miniatures

CHAPTER NINE 207

The Triumph of Europe – Westernization

in Nineteenth-Century Architecture

LIST OF OTTOMAN SULTANS 243

GLOSSARY 245

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY 251

INDEX 257

622 Ottoman 0 Prelims_622 Ottoman 0 Prelims 02/05/2012 10:05 Page vii

622 Ottoman 0 Prelims_622 Ottoman 0 Prelims 02/05/2012 10:05 Page viii

List of Illustrations

INTRODUCTION: THE TURKS, THE OTTOMANS

AND THE CONQUEST OF CONSTANTINOPLE

Anadolu Hisarı © Richard Yeomans 5

The Theodosian Walls © Richard Yeomans 7

CHAPTER ONE: MEHMET THE CONQUEROR AND

THE RISE OF ISTANBUL

The Haghia Sophia © Richard Yeomans 10

Rumeli Hisarı © Richard Yeomans 11

Yediküle © Richard Yeomans 12

Mehmet II by Gentile Bellini © National Gallery, 15

London

The Çinili Kiosk © Richard Yeomans 16

The entrance to Çinili Kiosk © Richard Yeomans 17

A tile mosaic at the Çinili Kiosk © Richard Yeomans 18

The türbe of Mahmut Paşa © Richard Yeomans 18

A tile mosaic on the türbe of Mahmut Paşa 18

© Richard Yeomans

Bab-ül-Hümayün © Richard Yeomans 19

Orta Kapı, or the Middle Gate © Richard Yeomans 20

Plan of the Middle Court (Court of the Divan) 21

The Divan © Richard Yeomans 22

The old treasury © Richard Yeomans 22

Plan of the Third Court 23

The Pavilion of the Holy Mantle © Richard Yeomans 24

Rear wall of the Pavilion of the Holy Mantle showing

Mamluk marble panelling © Richard Yeomans 24

The new treasury © Richard Yeomans 25

Plan of Mehmet’s külliye 27

Entrance to Prayer Hall © Richard Yeomans 28

The Sahn © Richard Yeomans 29

Akdeniz Medrese © Richard Yeomans 29

Court of Karadeniz medrese © Richard Yeomans 29

The tabhane © Richard Yeomans 31

The türbe of Mehmet II © Richard Yeomans 32

Gülbahar’s tomb © Richard Yeomans 32

CHAPTER TWO: FORMING A CLASSICAL STYLE –

THE ARCHITECTURE OF BEYAZIT II AND SELIM I

Plan of Beyazit’s mosque 36

A view of Beyazit’s mosque © Richard Yeomans 37

The prayer hall © Richard Yeomans 38

A tabhane room © Richard Yeomans 38

The tabhane wing of Beyazit’s mosque 39

© Richard Yeomans

The front portal facade to the sahn © Richard Yeomans 39

The sahn © Richard Yeomans 40

The medrese of Beyazit’s mosque © Richard Yeomans 40

The türbe of Beyazit © Richard Yeomans 41

The interior of Beyazit’s türbe © Richard Yeomans 41

The mosque of Selim I © Richard Yeomans 46

The türbe of Selim I © Richard Yeomans 47

Tilework flanking the entrance to Selim’s türbe 47

© Richard Yeomans

CHAPTER THREE: THE ARCHITECTURE OF SINAN

Plan of Haseki Hürrem Külliye 51

Haseki Hürrem hospital © Richard Yeomans 52

622 Ottoman 0 Prelims_622 Ottoman 0 Prelims 02/05/2012 10:05 Page ix

Haseki Hürrem imaret © Richard Yeomans 52

The Mihrimah Sultan Külliye © Richard Yeomans 53

Views of the prayer hall of the Şehzade mosque 54

© Richard Yeomans

The Şehzade mosque © Richard Yeomans 55

The sahn of the Şehzade mosque © Richard Yeomans 55

The türbe of Şehzade Mehmet © Richard Yeomans 56

Şehzade medrese © Richard Yeomans 57

Plan of the Süleymaniye 59

Plan of the prayer hall 60

The Süleymaniye mosque © Richard Yeomans 61

The side elevation, Süleymaniye mosque 62

© Richard Yeomans

The türbe of Süleyman © Richard Yeomans 63

The interior of Süleyman’s türbe © Richard Yeomans 63

The türbe of Roxelana © Richard Yeomans 63

The interior of Roxelana’s türbe © Richard Yeomans 63

The Tiryaki Meydan © Richard Yeomans 64

The hospital © Richard Yeomans 65

The imaret © Richard Yeomans 65

The tabhane © Richard Yeomans 65

Sinan’s sebil and türbe © Richard Yeomans 66

The Rabı medrese © Richard Yeomans 66

The baths of Roxelana, or Haseki Sultan Hamam 67

© Richard Yeomans

The entrance to Rustem Paşa mosque 69

© Richard Yeomans

The tile panel flanking the mosque entrance 69

© Richard Yeomans

Interior views of the Rustem Paşa mosque 70

© Richard Yeomans

The mihrab tiles © Richard Yeomans 70

The mosque of Sokollu Mehmet Paşa 71

© Richard Yeomans

The sahn, fountain and medrese of Sokollu 72

Mehmet Paşa mosque © Richard Yeomans

The interior of the Sokollu Mehmet Paşa mosque 72

© Richard Yeomans

The Mihrimah mosque © Richard Yeomans 73

Plan of the Mihrimah mosque © Richard Yeomans 73

The interior of the Mihrimah mosque 74

© Richard Yeomans

The Atık Valide Külliye © Richard Yeomans 75

The fountain of Atık Valide Külliye © Richard Yeomans 75

Sinan’s kitchens at the Topkapı Palace 75

© Richard Yeomans

Murat’s bedroom in the Topkapı Palace 77

© Richard Yeomans

Murat’s bedroom in the Topkapı Palace showing 77

the wall foundation © Richard Yeomans

CHAPTER FOUR: OTTOMAN CERAMICS

Window lunette from Haseki Hürrem Hospital, 80

c.1540, photograph © Richard Yeomans,

courtesy of Çinili Kiosk

Cuerda seca tilework in the Yeşil türbe, Bursa 81

© Richard Yeomans

Cuerda seca tilework in the Yeşil türbe, Bursa 81

© Richard Yeomans

Cuerda seca tiles on the throne room of the 81

Topkapı Palace © Richard Yeomans

Blue and white Miletus bowl, photograph 82

© Richard Yeomans, courtesy of Çinili Kiosk

Dish, photograph © Richard Yeomans, courtesy 82

of Çinili Kiosk

Blue and white plate, photograph © Richard 82

Yeomans, courtesy of Çinili Kiosk

Blue and white mosque lamp, c.1512 © The Trustees 83

of the British Museum

Cut-down flask from Kütahya, 1529 © The Trustees 84

of the British Museum

Ewer from Iznik, 1530 © The Trustees of the 84

British Museum

Tilework on the Circumcision Kiosk, Topkapı Palace 85

© Richard Yeomans

Dome of the Rock, Jerusalem © Richard Yeomans 86

Mosque lamp, 1549 © The Trustees of the 87

British Museum

Damascus-ware dish, 1550–60 © The Trustees of 87

the British Museum

Damascus-ware dish, 1550 © The Trustees of 87

the British Museum

Mosque lamps, c.1570, photograph © Richard 89

Yeomans, courtesy of Çinili Kiosk

Tankard © The Trustees of the British Museum 89

Decorative hanging object, 1555–60, photograph 89

© Richard Yeomans, image reproduction for

non-commercial purposes, courtesy of the

Trustees of the British Museum

Polychrome pitcher, photograph © Richard 89

Yeomans, courtesy of Çinili Kiosk

THE ART AND ARCHITECTURE OF OTTOMAN ISTANBULx

622 Ottoman 0 Prelims_622 Ottoman 0 Prelims 02/05/2012 10:05 Page x

Polychrome plate, c.1575, photograph © 90

Richard Yeomans, courtesy of Çinili Kiosk

Polychrome plate showing rock and wave 90

pattern around the rim, c.1575 © The Trustees

of the British Museum

Polychrome plate, c.1585, photograph © Richard 90

Yeomans, courtesy of Çinili Kiosk

Polychrome plate, late sixteenth/early seventeenth 90

century, photograph © Richard Yeomans,

courtesy of Çinili Kiosk

Tile representing the Ka’ba at Mecca, Rustem Paşa 91

mosque © Richard Yeomans

Tilework in one of the two rooms in the kafes 91

© Richard Yeomans

Tile panel in the Golden Road of the Topkapı 91

harem © Richard Yeomans

Yumurta, photograph © Richard Yeomans, image 93

reproduction for non-commercial purposes,

courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum

Kütahya Ewer, photograph © Richard Yeomans, 93

courtesy of Çinili Kiosk

Kütahya plate, photograph © Richard Yeomans, 93

courtesy of Çinili Kiosk

Çanakkale dishes, photographs © Richard Yeomans, 94

courtesy of Çinili Kiosk

Late nineteenth-century Çanakkale jug, photograph 95

© Richard Yeomans, courtesy of Çinili Kiosk

CHAPTER FIVE: OTTOMAN TEXTILES

Kaftan with tiger stripes © Victoria and 99

Albert Museum, London

Saz pattern © Topkapı Saray Museum, Istanbul 100

Shehzade Korkut’s ceremonial kaftan © Topkapı 100

Saray Museum, Istanbul

Ogival tulip pattern © Victoria and Albert 101

Museum, London

Ogival medallion pattern © Victoria and Albert 101

Museum, London

Crown motifs 101

Talismanic shirt © Topkapı Saray Museum, Istanbul 102

Talismanic shirt detail © Topkapı Saray Museum, 102

Istanbul

Bridal coverlet © Nour Foundation.Courtesy of 103

the Khalili Family Trust

Çatma cushion cover © Nour Foundation. 104

Courtesy of the Khalili Family Trust

Bohça © The Textile Museum, Washington. 105

Gift of Yavuz Sümer

Detail of Sultan Fatma’s kaftan © Topkapı 108

Saray Museum, Istanbul

Prayer cloth © The Textile Museum, Washington. 109

Gift of Jale Colakoglu

Bindalli dress © The Textile Museum, Washington. 109

Acquired by George Hewitt Myers

Hereke upholstered furniture in the Kȕçȕksu Palace 110

‘Holbein’ I rug © National State Museum, Berlin 112

Lotto carpet © Victoria and Albert Museum, London 112

‘Holbein’ III rug © The Museum of Islamic Arts, Berlin 113

‘Holbein’ IV rug 113

Star Uşak carpet © 2011. Image copyright The 114

Metropolitan Museum of Art/Art Resource/Scala,

Florence

Persian medallion carpet 114

Sixteenth-century medallion Uşak © Victoria 115

and Albert Museum, London

Court prayer rug © 2011. Image copyright The 116

Metropolitan Museum of Art/Art Resource/Scala,

Florence

Columned prayer rug © 2011. Image copyright 116

The Metropolitan Museum of Art/Art Resource/

Scala, Florence

‘Bird’ carpet © Victoria and Albert Museum, London 117

Transylvania rugs © Victoria and Albert Museum, 118

London

Village rug © 2011. Image copyright The 119

Metropolitan Museum of Art/Art Resource/Scala,

Florence

Salting carpet © Victoria and Albert Museum, 119

London

Typical Hereke carpet and upholstered furniture in 120

the Kȕçȕksu Palace

CHAPTER SIX: CONSOLIDATION AND DECLINE –

ARCHITECTURE IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY

The Sultan Ahmet mosque © Richard Yeomans 124

Plan of sahn and prayer hall, Blue Mosque 125

Views of the sahn of Sultan Ahmet mosque 126

© Richard Yeomans

Arcades for ablutions © Richard Yeomans 127

Dome structure, Sultan Ahmet mosque 128

© Richard Yeomans

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONSx i

622 Ottoman 0 Prelims_622 Ottoman 0 Prelims 09/05/2012 11:48 Page xi

Prayer hall of Sultan Ahmet mosque 128

© Richard Yeomans

External access to the Sultan’s loggia 130

© Richard Yeomans

Tile work and stained glass in the two rooms 132

in the Kafes © Richard Yeomans

Sultan Ahmet’s library © Richard Yeomans 132

Revan Kiosk © Richard Yeomans 134

Antique marbling © Richard Yeomans 134

Baghdad Kiosk © Richard Yeomans 135

Interior of Circumcision Kiosk © Richard Yeomans 137

Iftariye Kameriyesi © Richard Yeomans 137

Interior of Çinili Külliye © Richard Yeomans 138

Entrance to Valide Hanı © Richard Yeomans 139

View of large court with modern Shi’ite mosque 139

on left © Richard Yeomans

Views of Yeni Valide mosque, Eminönü 139

© Richard Yeomans

The sahn of Yeni Valide mosque, Eminönü 140

© Richard Yeomans

Interior of Yeni Valide mosque © Richard Yeomans 141

Domed ceiling inside the Yeni Valide mosque 141

© Richard Yeomans

The türbe in the Koprülü Külliye © Richard Yeomans 143

Vizier Han Çemberlitaş © Richard Yeomans 143

Çemberlitaş Hamami © Richard Yeomans 143

The Köprülü Yalısı © Richard Yeomans 145

CHAPTER SEVEN: BETWEEN EAST AND WEST –

OTTOMAN BAROQUE AND ROCOCO

ARCHITECTURE IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

The Sofa Kiosk © Richard Yeomans 151

Interior of the Sofa Kiosk © Richard Yeomans 151

The Fruit Room © Richard Yeomans 152

Rococo refurbishments to the Divan 152

© Richard Yeomans

Gilded rococo decoration in the Divan 153

© Richard Yeomans

Sultan Ahmet III library © Richard Yeomans 153

Interior of Sultan Ahmet III library 153

© Richard Yeomans

Rococo decoration in Sultan Ahmet III library 154

© Richard Yeomans

Çeşme outside Sultan Ahmet III library 154

© Richard Yeomans

Sultan Ahmet III fountain © Richard Yeomans 155

Decoration on the base of the fountain 155

© Richard Yeomans

Decoration on the eaves © Richard Yeomans 155

Yeni Valide mosque, Üsküdar © Richard Yeomans 156

Sahn fountain, Yeni Valide mosque 157

© Richard Yeomans

Open türbe, Yeni Valide mosque © Richard Yeomans 157

Çeşme of Yeni Valide mosque © Richard Yeomans 157

Mahmut’s fountain outside the Hagia Sophia 158

© Richard Yeomans

Interior of Mahmut’s fountain © Richard Yeomans 158

Hekimoğlu fountain © Richard Yeomans 158

The Haci Mehmet Emin Ağa cemetery 159

© Richard Yeomans

Plan of Nuruosmaniye 160

Stepped entrance to the mosque © Richard Yeomans 160

Nuruosmaniye Külliye © Richard Yeomans 161

Side elevation of qibla wall © Richard Yeomans 161

Entrance and passage to Sultan’s log 161

© Richard Yeomans

Interior of Nuruosmaniye mosque 162

© Richard Yeomans

Hall of the Throne © Richard Yeomans 163

Dance floor and music gallery in the Hall of 163

the Throne © Richard Yeomans

Door showing rococo decoration © Richard Yeomans 163

Osman’s pavillion, Topkapı Palace 164

© Richard Yeomans

Hekimbaşilarin at Kandili © Richard Yeomans 165

Fetih Ahmet Paşa Yalı © Richard Yeomans 165

Hekimoğlu Ali Paşa Külliye © Richard Yeomans 166

Hekimoğlu Ali Paşa sebil © Richard Yeomans 167

Hekimoğlu Ali Paşa çeşme © Richard Yeomans 167

Hekimoğlu Ali Paşa library © Richard Yeomans 167

Laleli mosque over covered market 168

© Richard Yeomans

Laleli türbe © Richard Yeomans 169

Laleli sebil © Richard Yeomans 169

Mosque at Beylerbey © Richard Yeomans 171

Beylerbey mosque: arcaded portico and royal 171

apartments © Richard Yeomans

Interior of Beylerbey mosque © Richard Yeomans 171

THE ART AND ARCHITECTURE OF OTTOMAN ISTANBULxii

622 Ottoman 0 Prelims_622 Ottoman 0 Prelims 10/05/2012 13:11 Page xii

Domed ceiling in the reception room of Sultan 172

Valide apartments © Richard Yeomans

Reception room of Sultan Valide apartments 172

© Richard Yeomans

Selimiye mosque © Richard Yeomans 173

Valide Sultan’s bedroom © Richard Yeomans 173

Interior of the Selimiye mosque © Richard Yeomans 173

Mihrişah Sultan’s fountain © Richard Yeomans 174

CHAPTER EIGHT: CALLIGRAPHY, ILLUMINATION

AND MINIATURES

Şeyh Hamdullah’s inscription in the entrance portal 177

to Beyazit’s mosque in Istanbul © Richard Yeomans

Murakkaa by Şeyh Hamdullah © Sakıp Sabancı 178

Collection, Istanbul

Qur’an by Şeyh Hamdullah © Topkapı Saray 179

Museum, Istanbul

Ahmed Karahisari, tiled roundel in Süleymaniye 179

© Richard Yeomans

Illuminated Qur’an by Ahmed Karahisari 180

© Topkapı Saray Museum, Istanbul

Vakfiye of Roxelana © Museum of Turkish and 181

Islamic Art, Istanbul

Divan-i-Muhibbi © Topkapı Saray Museum, Istanbul 182

The tuğra. 182

Tuğra of Süleyman the Magnificent © The Trustees 183

of the British Museum, London

Qur’an by Hafız Osman © Sakıp Sabancı 184

Collection, Istanbul

Hilye by Yediküle Seyyid Abdullah Effendi © Sakıp 185

Sabancı Collection, Istanbul

Calligraphic lion by Ahmed Hílmi © Nour 186

Foundation. Courtesy of the Khalili Family Trust

Entwined lam-alif 186

Ruzname © Nour Foundation. Courtesy of the 186

Khalili Family Trust

Mahmut I’s tuğra © Museum of Turkish and 187

Islamic Art, Istanbul

İzzet Efendi’s roundels in the Haghia Sophia 188

© Richard Yeomans

Qur’an by Mustafa İzzet Efendi © Nour Foundation. 188

Courtesy of the Khalili Family Trust

Mustafa Rakım’s inscriptions in the Nusretiye 189

mosque © Richard Yeomans

Levha by Mahmut II © Sakıp Sabancı Collection, 189

Istanbul

Mensur of Abdülhamid II © Sakıp Sabancı 190

Collection, Istanbul

Hunters, Fatih album © Topkapı Saray Museum, 192

Istanbul

Portrait of a Painter in Turkish Dress © Freer Gallery, 193

Washington, DC

Gentile Bellini, A Portrait of a Seated Turkish Scribe 193

or Artist © Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, Boston

Mehmet the Conqueror by Sinan Bey © Topkapı Saray 194

Museum, Istanbul

Selim II hunting © Topkapı Saray Museum, Istanbul 195

The Battle of Mohacs by Osman© Topkapı Saray 196

Museum, Istanbul

World map by Piri Reis © Topkapı Saray Museum, 197

Istanbul

Imperial Procession, Lokman’s The Book of the Festival 198

© Topkapı Saray Museum, Istanbul

The Prophet Muhammad commending Ali, Huseyn 200

and Hasan © Topkapı Saray Museum, Istanbul

Levni, Procession of Nahils © Topkapı Saray Museum, 202

Istanbul

Ibrahim Paşa watching dancers and clowns (detail) 204

© Topkapı Saray Museum, Istanbul

CHAPTER NINE: THE TRIUMPH OF EUROPE

– WESTERNIZATION IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY

ARCHITECTURE

Nusretiye mosque © Richard Yeomans 210

Sebils outside the Nusretiye mosque © Richard Yeomans 211

Interior of Nusretiye mosque © Richard Yeomans 211

Sultan’s loggia © Richard Yeomans 212

Nakşedil Valide Sultan türbe © Richard Yeomans 212

Türbe of Mahmut II © Richard Yeomans 213

Sebil of Mahmut II © Richard Yeomans 213

Dolmabahçe Palace © Richard Yeomans 214

Dolmabahçe Palace, Mabeyn Apartments 215

© Richard Yeomans

Selamlık entry/exit hall © Richard Yeomans 216

Dolmabahçe Palace, crystal staircase 216

© Richard Yeomans

Dolmabahçe Palace, crystal staircase detail 216

© Richard Yeomans

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONSx i i i

622 Ottoman 0 Prelims_622 Ottoman 0 Prelims 09/05/2012 11:05 Page xiii

Ambassadors’ Waiting and Reception Rooms 217

© Richard Yeomans

Upper landing behind the balustrade 217

© Richard Yeomans

Zulveçeyn Room © Richard Yeomans 217

Imperial baths © Richard Yeomans 218

Blue Room © Richard Yeomans 218

Harem entry/exit room © Richard Yeomans 219

Exterior of the Audience Hall © Richard Yeomans 219

Interior of the Audience Hall © Richard Yeomans 219

Dolmabahçe Bezmialem Valide Sultan mosque 220

© Richard Yeomans

Interior of Dolmabahçe Bezmialem Valide Sultan 221

mosque © Richard Yeomans

Büyük Mecidiye mosque, Ortaköy © Richard Yeomans 221

Interior of Büyük Mecidiye mosque, Ortaköy 221

© Richard Yeomans

Hırkai-Serif mosque © Richard Yeomans 222

Interior of the Hırkai-Serif mosque © Richard Yeomans 222

Window grills © Richard Yeomans 223

The entrance to the mosque of Valide Sultan 223

Pertevniyal © Richard Yeomans

Mosque of Valide Sultan Pertevniyal 223

© Richard Yeomans

Beylerbey Palace © Richard Yeomans 225

Selamlık entrance to Beylerbey Palace 225

© Richard Yeomans

The Blue Room, Beylerbey Palace © Richard Yeomans 226

The Blue Room, showing Moorish capitals to the 226

columns © Richard Yeomans

The selamlık staircase © Richard Yeomans 226

Reception room above the selamlık staircase 226

© Richard Yeomans

Pavilion at Beylerbey Palace © Richard Yeomans 227

The Küçüksu Palace © Richard Yeomans 228

The Küçüksu Palace, stair detail © Richard Yeomans 228

The Çirağan Palace © Richard Yeomans 229

The Çirağan Palace © Richard Yeomans 230

Afif Paşa yalı © Richard Yeomans 232

Sait Ali Paşa’s yalı © Richard Yeomans 232

House at Yenikȍy © Richard Yeomans 233

Late nineteenth-century yalıs at Yenikȍy 233

© Richard Yeomans

The Mabeyn apartments, Yıldız Palace 234

© Richard Yeomans

Şale Pavilion: Yıldız Palace © Richard Yeomans 235

Mother-of-Pearl Room in the Şale Pavilion 236

© Richard Yeomans

Malta Pavillion © Richard Yeomans 237

Inside the Hamidiye mosque © Richard Yeomans 238

The Hamidiye mosque © Richard Yeomans 238

Kocatepe mosque, Ankara © Richard Yeomans 241

THE ART AND ARCHITECTURE OF OTTOMAN ISTANBULxiv

622 Ottoman 0 Prelims_622 Ottoman 0 Prelims 09/05/2012 11:05 Page xiv

My first visit to Istanbul, in 1965, marked the

last stage of a long journey that had taken

me across Italy and Greece. I was an art student at

the time and this grand tour marked the climax of

a year studying painting and attending courses on

Greek and Roman sculpture and Italian Renaissance

art. Fortified with that knowledge, I visited most of the

major galleries, museums, buildings and archaeological

sites of Italy and Greece, arriving in Istanbul with

a mind saturated with images of Renaissance and

classical art. When I reflected on that experience, I

recognised that what I had learned over the year

had probably impaired my vision. Instead of looking

at works of art and appreciating them for what

they were, I had spent most of my time in Italy and

Greece checking my knowledge against them, trying

to remember what I had read and what I had been

told. It was obvious that I had not been engaged in

serious looking and thinking, and I realized that I

should have spent my time drawing works of art with

probity rather than testing my knowledge of them. In

appreciating the visual arts, it is sometimes necessary

to look first and hold academic knowledge in reserve.

The opposite situation applied in Istanbul,

where I faced an Islamic culture in a state of complete

ignorance. My innocence and unfamiliarity, however,

enabled me to absorb Istanbul with a fresh eye and

open mind. I knew a little about the fall of Con -

stantinople, but nothing about the rise of Istanbul.

My Eurocentric education had prepared me for the

glories of Byzantine art, and impressed in my mind

were images of Constantinople’s ancient churches and

walls. None of this prepared me for the dynamic city

I encountered, which was Islamic in culture with

a sensational skyline dominated not by Byzantine

monuments but by Ottoman domes and minarets.

Very soon the Byzantine splendours of the Haghia

Sophia, the Theodosian walls and church of St

Saviour in Chora were eclipsed by the Blue Mosque,

Süleymaniye and treasures of the Topkapı Palace

and the Museum of Islamic and Turkish Art. These

buildings and artefacts excited my imagination and I

found myself, for the first time in many weeks, looking

at art with a feeling of deep visual engagement.

My unfettered eye responded initially to

Ottoman art on a purely formal and sensual level,

responding to its beauty of colour, geometric

clarity and spatial organization. I admired the floral

intricacies of the arabesque, the elegance of its

immaculate calligraphy and the sumptuousness of

its textiles. I also delighted in the informality of the

Topkapı with its leisurely arrangement of pavilions

in parks. It was a welcome antidote to the symmetry,

pomposity and monumentality of some of the

European palaces I had recently encountered. In

general, Ottoman art presented an exhilarating

alternative to what I had seen in Greece and Italy.

It contained none of the rhetoric, symbolism,

didactics, myth and religious narrative that permeates

so much Italian and, to a lesser extent, Graeco-Roman

art. The meaning of Islamic art seemed to reside in its

form rather than in any symbol system or narrative.

It did not appear to preach, teach or indoctrinate,

and it was not a vehicle for propaganda, like the

paintings in the Doge’s Palace. Islamic art did not

bombard me with images of martyrdom, mortality or

Preface

622 Ottoman 0 Prelims_622 Ottoman 0 Prelims 02/05/2012 10:05 Page xv

the Last Judgement. There was no Niobe grieving

for her children or Laocoon in his death agony, and

none of the theatricality of Tintorreto, Caravaggio

or Bernini.

The rejection of such content in Islamic art,

and the formal alternatives it offered, was a revelation

– particularly for an art student who painted abstract

pictures at the time and was schooled in the belief

that only ‘significant form’ could provoke aesthetic

emotions. My initial response to Islamic art on a

formal and sensual level served its purpose, but I

soon realized that it was not just about formal values.

It was far more complex than that. I discovered

that in the religious domain it has much the same

content as any other sacred art. What is different is

that it conveys it largely by non-figurative means. For

instance, the Qur’an has a visionary text replete with

sublime images of the Last Judgement and Paradise.

These subjects are not illustrated, but are called to

mind and contemplated through the mediation of

calligraphy and illumination. Doctrine is also a part

of religious art, conveyed not through pictures but

through calligraphy that takes iconic, and occasionally

monumental, form on the walls of mosques. Notions

of God’s plenitude, creation and the nearness of

paradise are expressed in the tilework and floral

arabesques that grace the mosque, palace and home.

In the secular domain of Islamic art there is a very

strong figurative tradition. Miniature paintings con-

tain a wealth of literary, mythological, historical, social,

anecdotal and factual content – even occasionally

bending the law to allow the representation of

religious subjects.

Meaning and content abound in Islamic

art on many levels, but they cannot generally be read

in a linear way or understood through iconographies

like those used in Christian, Hindu or Buddhist art.

Meaning is often conveyed diffusely and holistically

through an expression of harmony and unity, with

several art forms working together within a con -

tinuum. The sense of the sublime and transcendent

is conveyed in the mosque through an interplay

of architectural space, geometric form, polychrome

marble, painted arabesques, calligraphy, tilework and

patterned carpets. Colour is autonomous and vibrant,

suffusing and articulating the various elements with

clarity and resonance. It is an uncluttered environment

of worship that unfocuses the mind and renders

it susceptible to contemplation and prayer. Likewise

in the Ottoman palace, power, majesty and courtly

splendour are expressed through a similar continuum.

Here the same motifs and materials are often used,

showing the close proximity between religious and

secular life in Muslim society. Gilded and painted

arabesques fill the domes, pious inscriptions grace

bedroom walls, and the immense floral repertoire

of mosque tilework appears on plates, dishes,

vases, embroidered bedspreads, cushions, velvets

and ceremonial silk kaftans.

After many visits to Istanbul I have now

learned to appreciate more the manifold complexities

and subtleties of Ottoman art. The experience has

been like peeling an onion and constantly discovering

new layers. Each visit has opened up new vistas

and brought fresh discoveries. In recent years my

attention has been drawn to the beauty of Istanbul’s

eighteenth-century rococo fountains and the breath-

taking delights of the Bosphorus with its palaces

and yalıs (waterfront houses). That most despised

century – the nineteenth – is also capable of yielding

unexpected pleasures, such as the Hırkai-­­erif mosque,

and the beautiful wooden houses that give the towns

and villages of the Bosphorus and Princes Islands so

much character and distinction. I also now realize

that, handled sensibly, academic knowledge need not

get in the way of appreciating and looking at art. In

recent years it has given me an interest in nineteenth-

century Ottoman art and architecture, despite the

fact that much of it is not to my taste.

These recent discoveries have made me

aware that I have only scratched the surface in

many respects. The writing of this book has served to

heighten awareness not only of the enormous gaps in

my own knowledge but also in the field of Ottoman

art as a whole. What has been written in English

remains very patchy. It is generally polarized between

highly specialized books, catalogues and papers, and

superficial coffee-table picture books. Some books are

THE ART AND ARCHITECTURE OF OTTOMAN ISTANBULxvi

622 Ottoman 0 Prelims_622 Ottoman 0 Prelims 02/05/2012 10:05 Page xvi

absurdly expensive for what they are, and a number

are not easily available outside Turkey. A great deal

of material belongs to the self-contained world of

academia in the form of published papers for specialist

journals. Such papers tend to be written by academics

for academics, and they do not address the needs of

the general educated reader. At the other end of the

spectrum there is a popular genre of books, dealing

with the court and harem, that generally sensationalize

and misrepresent the Ottoman world, perpetuating

the stereotypical image in the West of the lustful and

terrible Turk.

Of the most useful books on Ottoman art

and architecture, one or two should be mentioned.

The best introduction is Michael Levey’s World of

Ottoman Art. It is not just about Istanbul, but deals

with the whole of Ottoman art in a short, incisive

and immensely readable volume. Godfrey Goodwin’s

magisterial work A History of Ottoman Architecture

goes well beyond Istanbul in covering the spectrum

of Ottoman architecture. It is the definitive book on

Ottoman architecture, but much more information

on the nineteenth century has appeared since its

publication in 1971. Pars Tuglaci’s book The Role

of the Balian Family in Ottoman Architecture is the

authoritative work on Istanbul’s nineteenth-century

art and architecture. Also, Splendours of the Bosphorus:

Houses and Palaces of Istanbul, by Chris Hellier

and Francesco Venturi, is a readable introduction to

eighteenth- and nineteenth-century architectural

developments along the Bosphorus. Zeynep Çelik’s

excellent book The Remaking of Istanbul: Portrait of

an Ottoman City in the Nineteenth Century is also an

invaluable contribution to this period. Of the age

of Süleyman the Magnificent, much more is now

available on the architect Sinan. Among others, there

is now Godfrey Goodwin’s own book Sinan: Ottoman

Architecture and its Value Today and Aptullah Kuran’s

clear analysis Sinan: The Grand Old Master of

Ottoman Architecture.

With many of the decorative arts one has

to look to exhibition catalogues rather than books.

Books on Ottoman calligraphy are thin on the ground

and the best material has come from exhibitions of

specific collections. Letters in Gold: Ottoman Calligraphy

from the Sakıp Sabancı Collection, Istanbul by M. Ugur

Derman is an excellent book and catalogue produced

for the exhibition of the Sakıp Sabancı Collection

held in 1998 at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New

York. Likewise, the catalogue Empire of the Sultans,

by J. M. Rogers, contains invaluable information on

calligraphy in the Nasser Khalili Collection (London),

exhibited at the Brunei Gallery, School of Oriental

and African Studies (SOAS), London in 1996. Very little

information was available on the sultan’s monogram,

the tugra, until the catalogue Imperial Ottoman

Fermans, edited by Aysegül Nadir, came out in 1987 to

accompany the exhibition of the same name. In the

case of Ottoman embroidery, two of the best books

relate to specific collections. Flowers of Silk and Gold,

by Sumru Belger Krody, is about the collection in the

Washington Textile Museum, and Ottoman Embroidery,

by Marianne Ellis and Jennifer Wearden, contains

useful technical information on the embroidery in

the Victoria and Albert Museum, London.

In addition to ground-breaking works like

Arthur Lane’s Later Islamic Pottery, there are now some

informative books on Iznik ceramics. Most notable

is Iznik: The Pottery of Ottoman Turkey, by Nurhan

Atasoy and Julian Raby, as well as John Carswell’s

concise introduction to the field Iznik Pottery. An

excellent brief guide and introduction to the ceramics

collection in the Çinili Kiosk, Istanbul is Turkish Tiles

and Ceramics: Çinili Köşk, by Alpay Pasinli and Saliha

Baliman. Weaving and carpets are generally better

served, and two very substantial books have now

been published in Istanbul. These are Nevber Gürsu’s

The Art of Turkish Weaving: Designs through the Ages

and Otkay Aslanapa’s One Thousand Years of Turkish

Carpets. One noteworthy paper providing a concise

introduction to the carpets in the Victoria and Albert

Museum, London is Michael Franses and Robert

Pinner’s ‘The “Classical” Carpets of the 15th to 17th

Centuries’, published in the journal Hali. Two useful

Arts Council of Great Britain exhibition catalogues,

relating to exhibitions held at the Hayward Gallery

(London) in the 1970s, are The Arts of Islam and

Islamic Carpets from the Collection of Joseph V. McMullan.

PREFACExvi i

622 Ottoman 0 Prelims_622 Ottoman 0 Prelims 02/05/2012 10:05 Page xvii

Godfrey Goodwin’s Topkapı Palace is a

readable guide to the palace with a lot of interesting

contextual material, and the book Topkapı, edited

by Ilhan Aksit, provides a useful introduction

to its various collections. Dealing with the Topkapı

collections much more thoroughly and systematically

is a series of scholarly books by J. M. Rogers covering

architecture, the contents of the treasury, albums,

illuminated manuscripts, carpets, costumes, em -

broideries and other textiles. J. M. Rogers is one of the

most distinguished scholars in the field, and he was

responsible, with Rachel Ward, for the catalogue and

exhibition Süleyman the Magnificent, held at the British

Museum in 1988. His work on albums, miniatures and

illuminated manuscripts has been particularly useful.

It is a subject that has received little attention, with

information consisting of either brief introductions

or detailed catalogues and scholarly papers. Two

good but slim introductions are Meredith-Owens’s

Turkish Miniatures and Richard Ettinghausen’s Turkish

Miniatures: From the 13th to 18th Century. Museum

catalogues, such as those produced by the British

Museum or the Chester Beatty Library, Dublin, tend

to list and describe the collections without comment

or analysis. Of scholarly papers, Esin Atıl’s ‘Ottoman

Miniature Painting under Sultan Mehmed 11’ (Ars

Orientalis 9) is excellent, as is her magnificent book

Levni and the Surname: The Story of an Eighteenth-

Century Ottoman Festival. Finally, in this review of

literature, John Freely’s Blue Guide: Istanbul must

be acknowledged as an informative and invaluable

work for both practical and reference purposes.

Among this heterogeneous and imbalanced

literature there is no single book that deals specifically

with the Ottoman art and architecture of Istanbul

in one accessible comprehensive volume. This is

what I have attempted to provide here. As with my

other books, I have tried to bridge the gap between

the specialist scholar and the general reader. I am

indebted to all the above scholars, whom I have used

and acknowledged throughout this text. This book

is also a distillation of my own observations and

experiences of a city that has been so much a part

of my life over the years. It is also the product of

shared experiences with colleagues and groups of

students who have accompanied me on numerous

study tours to Istanbul. Their reactions, observations

and questions have partly influenced the selection

of material and issues considered. My intention is to

provide the reader with the background knowledge

and understanding to appreciate and enjoy Ottoman

art not only in Istanbul’s mosques, palaces, houses

and museums but also where it appears in museums

throughout the world.

Certain decisions had to be made regarding

the range and scope of the book and what constitutes

the art of Istanbul. I have adopted a liberal inter -

pretation of this, choosing works of art that best

manifest the city’s Ottoman culture rather than

those manufactured only in Istanbul. Some arts

like calligraphy, miniatures and luxury goods were

produced in Istanbul, but those that most effectively

contributed to the splendour and majesty of the

city were commissioned and imported from Iznik,

Kütahya, Bursa and various towns in Anatolia.

Ceramics came from Iznik and Kütahya, carpets from

Anatolia and silks and velvets from Bursa. Iznik tiles

and Anatolian carpets lined the walls and covered

the floors of mosques and palaces. Bursa silks and

velvets provided splendid ceremonial court dress as

well as the soft furnishings of palaces and houses.

These works defined the environment of the mosque,

the palace and home, and have since formed the

content of Istanbul’s many museums.

Museum collections have also guided the

selection of material. Certain works of art, such as

the pre-Ottoman carpets in the Museum of Turkish

and Islamic Art, Istanbul and elsewhere, fall outside

the Ottoman period, but they have to be considered

because of the light they shed on subsequent carpet

developments. They are also beautiful works in their

own right and should not be missed on any visit

to those museums. Likewise, some works of art – not

necessarily Ottoman – have received attention because

they are important museum items. For example, in

the Topkapı Saray Museum there are some miniatures

in the Fatih Album, attributed to the artist Mehmet

Siyah Qalam. These are not Ottoman, but they are

THE ART AND ARCHITECTURE OF OTTOMAN ISTANBULxviii

622 Ottoman 0 Prelims_622 Ottoman 0 Prelims 02/05/2012 10:05 Page xviii

outstanding works of art and reveal something

about the court acquisitions of the time. The Italian

painting of A Turkish Scribe or Artist, attributed to

Gentile Bellini, is discussed at some length for what

it reveals about Mehmet the Conqueror’s taste, his

patronage and its influence on Turkish painting at

the time. Also, exported works of art that would not

have been seen in the palaces and houses of Istanbul

are examined for what they tell us about trade and

cross-cultural contacts. Mention has also been made

of European works of art that contributed so much

to the character of the nineteenth-century Ottoman

palace interior.

Decisions on the selection of architectural

material were less problematic until the nineteenth

century was reached. Here I chose to discuss buildings

produced under Ottoman, rather than European,

patronage. This seemed logical for a book on Ottoman

art, but it is questionable for a book on Istanbul.

Apart from problems of length, I felt it was beyond

the scope of this book to deal with the building

activities among the European communities of Galata,

Pera and elsewhere. Ignoring these architectural

developments was not easy because they were

both significant and fascinating. It produced such

tantalizing architecture as the church of St Stephen

of the Bulgars, assembled in Istanbul out of pieces

of prefabricated cast iron made in Vienna. Another

enticing building that recently caught my eye is the

Crimean Memorial Church, built in the Gothic style

by George Edmund Street between 1858 and 1868.

This small pocket of Victorian England in the midst

of Pera’s steep narrow streets represented yet another

delight and another possible line of investigation.

All of this, however, is another story – another

book – and it simply goes to show that Istanbul

is inexhaustible. It is an onion that can never be

completely unpeeled.

PREFACEx i x

622 Ottoman 0 Prelims_622 Ottoman 0 Prelims 02/05/2012 10:05 Page xix

622 Ottoman 0 Prelims_622 Ottoman 0 Prelims 02/05/2012 10:05 Page xx

INTRODUCTION

The Turks, the Ottomans and the Conquest of Constantinople

622 Ottoman 0.1 Introduction_622 Ottoman 0.1 Introduction 02/05/2012 10:06 Page 1

THE ART AND ARCHITECTURE OF OTTOMAN ISTANBUL2

In the course of the ninth and tenth centuries, fundamental changes occurred in the Muslim

world as its political leadership gradually passed

from the Arabs to the Persians and the Turks. During

the ninth century the Abbasid Empire, with its capital

in Baghdad, was the political centre of the Muslim

world; but after the death of the caliph Haroun

al-Rashid in 809, a war of succession, followed by

political and religious insurrection, precipitated its

slow decline. In order to combat growing instability,

the caliphs of Baghdad replaced regular Arab and

Persian forces with slave troops of Turks conscripted

from the Caucasus and Transoxiana. Because these

slaves were independent of the factional interests of

the Arabs and the Persians, they proved to be far

more loyal and reliable. In addition to soldiers,

Turkish slaves were also recruited into the civil service

and, like their military counterparts, they rose

through the ranks to achieve the highest offices of

state. A slave meritocracy was thus established which

became an administrative and military élite, and over

the course of time the weakened caliphate gradually

surrendered political control to its Turkish generals,

bureaucrats and grand viziers.

Because of the weakness at the centre, the

Abbasid Empire lost its territorial sway in both

the east and the west. In the east, aristocratic Persian

families, such as the Tahirids, Saffarids and Samanids,

established their rule in Khorasan and parts of

Central Asia. In the west, a surviving member of the

Umayyad family, Abd al-Rahman I, created, in

756, an independent dynasty in Spain which later

established a caliphate to rival that of Baghdad. In

800 the Aghlabid governors of Tunisia also established

autonomy, paying only lip service to Baghdad. Egypt

became independent in the ninth century when a

Turkish slave from Samarra (the new Abbasid capital),

Ahmed ibn Tulun, was sent there as governor by

the caliph al-Mu’atazz. He built up a formidable

army and carved out an empire for himself in Egypt,

Palestine and Syria which lasted over thirty years.

Although Egypt briefly returned to Abbasid control,

Ibn Tulun set a precedent for Turks becoming the

ruling class of Egypt (later, slave dynasties of Turkish

Mamluks ruled Egypt from 1250 to 1517 before the

Ottoman Turks took control).

Thus, the initial impact of the Turks was

that of a significant administrative and military class

within a world dominated by Arabs. The Turks were

essentially a tribal nomadic people who for centuries

had moved their herds from one pasturage to another

across the inhospitable steppes, deserts and mountains

of Central Asia. They were formidable warriors who

exercised weaponry skills, expert horsemanship and

swift mobility with great discipline and courage.

This was why they made such desirable troops and

bodyguards. In their homelands they operated as

tribes, but under the occasional leadership of a khan,

they could unite with devastating effect. Earlier in

their history, from the third to the fifth centuries AD,

the Turkish Huns had ravished China, Russia and

Central Europe, penetrating as far as Italy. During the

tenth century they were constantly engaged in border

skirmishes and incursions against the Arabs and the

Persians, but in the eleventh century the Turks went

on the offensive and invaded Persia and Iraq.1

In 1040, a branch of the Oguz tribe known as

the Selçuks invaded eastern Persia under their leader

Tügrül Beg. They conquered Khorasan, where Tügrül

Beg proclaimed himself sultan. In the course of the

next fifteen years he occupied the rest of Persia,

invaded Iraq and took Baghdad at the invitation of

the vizier Ibn al-Muslima. Later, Isfahan in Persia was

chosen as the capital of the Selçuk Empire and the

caliph in Baghdad was reduced to a symbolic religious

figure with no political power. Tügrül’s successors,

Alp Arslan (r.1063–72) and Malikshah (r.1072–92),

placed government administration in the hands of the

vizier Nizam al-Mulk, who held that office for twenty

years. He was a brilliant administrator and political

philosopher, and his book The Book of Government is

a classic of Islamic literature. He also had a profound

influence on the intellectual life of Islam by creating

the first Sunni theological colleges (medreses), known

as Nizamiyas, in Baghdad and elsewhere. The great

Persian philosopher al-Ghazali (1058–1111), who

reconciled the divisions between mysticism and

Islamic law, was professor of religious sciences at the

622 Ottoman 0.1 Introduction_622 Ottoman 0.1 Introduction 02/05/2012 10:06 Page 2

Nizamiya in Baghdad. It was also during this period

that Islamic architecture achieved some of its most

perfect forms of expression in buildings like the

Masjid-i-Jami in Isfahan.

Perhaps the most decisive event in Turkish

history was Alp Arslan’s victory over the Byzantines at

the battle of Manzikert in eastern Anatolia in 1071.

For many years, the Selçuks of Persia had encouraged

the Turkomans to raid Byzantine territory because it

suited them to direct the energy of these nomads

against an external enemy. Out of self-interest, the

nomads served the Selçuk sultans well in wars of

conquest, but in times of peace they lacked loyalty

to the state, and their resistance to centralized

government and refusal to pay tax had a destabilizing

effect on the settled community. The battle of

Manzikert opened up Anatolia to the Turkish nomads

and provided new opportunities for conquest and

occupation. Under the leadership of Süleyman,

most of Anatolia came under Turkish rule and an

independent Selçuk sultanate was created with its

capital at Iznik, the ancient city of Nicaea where,

under Byzantine rule, many important ecumenical

church councils had been held. What emerged

was two discrete empires – that of the Great Selçuks

of Persia and the sultanate of Rum (or East Rome)

in Anatolia.

Other groups of Selçuk Turks advanced into

Syria and Palestine, capturing Jerusalem in 1071 and

Damascus in 1076. It was the defeat of Christendom

at Manzikert and the capture of Jerusalem in the

same year that created the momentum in the West

for a Christian counter-attack. In 1095 Pope Urban II

called for a crusade, and the advance force, consisting

of Peter the Hermit’s ragtag army, entered Anatolia

by way of Constantinople in 1097. The Crusaders

could not have picked a better time to invade the

Muslim world because it had never been so divided.

Syria and Palestine consisted of a number of rival

Selçuk principalities and Süleyman’s successor, Kılıç

Arslan, was engaged in a bitter struggle to keep Selçuk

Anatolia together. The only thing which united the

Selçuks was Sunni Islam and their common hatred

of the Shi’ite Fatimid Empire ruled from Cairo. No

sooner had Kılıç Arslan consolidated his position in

Anatolia than a second Crusader army of regulars

defeated him at Eskişihir. He lost his capital at Iznik,

but fought back with some success and eventually

settled on Konya in central southern Anatolia as his

new capital.

Konya remained the capital of the Selçuk

Empire until the arrival of the Mongols in the

thirteenth century. Despite the initial setback from

the first Crusade, the Selçuk sultanate managed to

hold on to most of Anatolia; but as Justin McCarthy

has explained, it was a regime afflicted by constant

instability. The sultanate was often weakened centrally

by power delegated to the royal princes, who governed

in the provinces. Also, when a sultan died the

traditions of inheritance caused conflict, as land

and spoils, including empires, were divided among

his offspring.2 Nevertheless, the Selçuks presided

over a thriving multicultural empire in which trade,

manufacture and the arts flourished. Much of this

creative energy was due to nomadic culture, which

contributed to the unique character of Selçuk art

and architecture, particularly in the field of carpet

weaving. During the thirteenth century Marco Polo

commented on the great beauty of the carpets

produced in the Konya, Kaysari and Sivas regions

(although he attributes this manufacture to the

Greeks and Armenians).3

When Marco Polo passed through Anatolia,

he would also have seen some of the most remarkable

architecture in the Muslim world, including the Gök

medrese at Sivas, which was completed in the year

he was there, 1271. He was in Anatolia at a time

when the Selçuks were suzerains of the Mongols. The

Mongols had invaded Anatolia in 1243, but ruling

from Tabriz in western Persia, their hold on the region

was slack and the Selçuks retained much administrative

control. The Selçuks’ loss of sovereignty did not

prevent the remarkable flowering of architecture, and

many great masterpieces were built under Mongol

rule and occasionally with Mongol patronage. The

great buildings of this period included the Karatay

(1251) and I.nce Minare (1258) medreses at Konya, the

Gök and Çifte Minare medreses at Sivas (1271), as well

INTRODUCTION: THE TURKS, THE OTTOMANS AND THE CONQUEST OF CONSTANTINOPLE3

622 Ottoman 0.1 Introduction_622 Ottoman 0.1 Introduction 02/05/2012 10:06 Page 3

as the Çifte Minare medrese at Erzurum (1258). Selçuk

architecture was a brilliant synthesis of many regional

styles, including those of Syria, Persia, Armenia

and Georgia. Its influence spread as far as Egypt and

can be seen in the great portal of the Sultan Hasan

mosque (1356–61) in Cairo, which is similar to the

entrance to the Gök medrese at Sivas.

The tenuous hold the Mongols had on

Anatolia was eventually wrested from them by a

new breed of Turkoman leaders, known as beys. These

warriors, fleeing Mongol oppression in Persia, first

settled their tribes in Cilicia and regions on the Black

Sea coast. Then they gradually penetrated western

Turkey and set up independent principalities known

as beyliks. Konya was captured in 1276 by Mehmet

Bey, the leader of the Karamanli tribe, who proclaimed

Turkish, rather than Persian, as the official language.

The Selçuks reconquered Konya, but after the collapse

of Mongol power in 1337, the Karamanlis returned

there and established the powerful beylik of Karaman.

Many other Turkoman tribes migrated to western

Anatolia, increasing the Turkification of the region

and further eroding what was left of the Byzantine

Empire. Mindful of more conflict with Byzantium,

many Turkish beys assumed the title of gazi, meaning

holy warrior, and pursued the conquest of Christian

territory as a holy war, or jihad.

The most significant beylik to emerge in

western Anatolia, at the expense of the Byzantines,

was that of the Ottomans. Tradition has it that

Osman Bey, the first of the Ottoman dynasty, was the

leader of the Kayı tribe of the Oguz Turks. He emerged

as a leader in the Sögüt area of western Anatolia

after a period of power conflict between various rival

Selçuk princes and their Mongol overlords. Rather

than struggle against fellow Turks, Osman took on

the mantle of gazi and, uniting the nomadic Turkish

tribes against Byzantium, he made territorial gains

that culminated in the capture of Iznik. His son

Orhan Gazi continued the holy war, making Bursa

the capital in 1326 and then taking the rest of north-

western Anatolia as far as Scutari and Nicodemia,

within striking distance of Constantinople. In 1354

the Ottomans took Gallipoli, and their grip on Europe

was strengthened in 1361 when the city of Edirne

(Adrianople) surrendered to Orhan’s son Murat I.

The tribes that united under the first

Ottomans did so because there was wealth to be

gained from the spoils of war. However, by appealing

to them as Muslims with a duty to extend the

rule of Islam, the Ottomans from the outset had a

vision of empire that transcended tribal differences.

The disunited Christians provided the easiest

pickings, and under Murat I the Ottoman Empire

rapidly extended into Byzantine and Serbian territory,

with the Serbs suffering major defeats at the battles

of Maritza (1371) and Kosovo (1389). By the time of

Murat’s death (he was killed at the battle of Kosovo),

the rulers of Bulgaria, Macedonia and Serbia had

become vassals of the Turks. Turkish control of the

Balkans was based on vassalage rather than direct

rule because there were not enough Turks to settle

and colonize the region. While most of his energy was

concentrated on the Balkans, Murat did not ignore

Anatolia, and in 1387 he conquered Karaman, the

most powerful beylik outside the Ottoman domain.

Murat was succeeded by Beyazit I, known

as the ‘Thunderbolt’, and living up to his nickname,

he stormed across the Balkans and Anatolia in a

new wave of conquest. He pushed into Wallachia

and southern Hungary, captured more of Thrace and

laid siege to Constantinople, where he built on the

Bosphorus the fortress of Anadolu Hisarı.

Unlike his predecessors, he concentrated his

efforts on the east, and within a year of coming to

the throne he had conquered south-western Anatolia

with the help of Christian troops. One of the reasons

why his forebears had delayed attacking the beyliks

was the difficulty of persuading Turks that it was

in their interests to fight fellow Turks. This was

not the case with the Christians, and Beyazit adopted

the strategy of using Christian armies, raised in the

Balkans, against the remaining beyliks in Anatolia. In

so doing he also established a significant innovation

in raising an army of Christian slaves. With these

forces at his disposal, he conquered Sivas and the east

and even occupied Malatya within the border of the

Mamluk Empire (ruled from Egypt).

THE ART AND ARCHITECTURE OF OTTOMAN ISTANBUL4

622 Ottoman 0.1 Introduction_622 Ottoman 0.1 Introduction 02/05/2012 10:06 Page 4

Beyazit’s aim was to rule an empire, with

centralized control, through a powerful civil service

and military élite. He wanted a standing army and a

treasury and bureaucracy that could raise taxes. Like

the Abbasid caliphs before him, Beyazit preferred an

army and civil service comprised of loyal slaves rather

than Turkish warlords and aristocrats. The slaves

were products of a system of conscription known as

the devşirme. This involved enslaving the most able

and intelligent Christian youths, converting them to

Islam and giving them an education and training

that prepared them for the highest offices of state.

As in the Abbasid and Mamluk empires, this form of

slavery produced a ruling class, and the term devşirme

also denotes a class as well as a system. It produced a

military corps d’élite, known as the Janissaries, and

a body of civil servants that included grand viziers.

As a consequence of this, the Turkish aristocracy

experienced the erosion of their power and did not

welcome the rise of the devşirme. Although Beyazit

did not live to see these reforms in place, it was

his radical thinking that made possible a system

of government that served the Ottoman dynasty

for centuries.4

INTRODUCTION: THE TURKS, THE OTTOMANS AND THE CONQUEST OF CONSTANTINOPLE5

Anadolu Hisarı

622 Ottoman 0.1 Introduction_622 Ottoman 0.1 Introduction 02/05/2012 10:06 Page 5

Beyazit’s penetration into eastern Anatolia

quickly brought him into conflict with Tamerlane,

the most powerful and ruthless figure to appear in

the East since Genghis Khan. Tamerlane destroyed

Beyazit’s army at the battle of Ankara in 1402 and

Beyazit was taken prisoner and paraded in an iron

cage. His dramatic downfall, humiliation and

death subsequently caught the imagination of the

West, inspiring paintings, plays and operas, such

as Christopher Marlowe’s Tamerlane the Great, and

Handel’s Tamerlano. Tamerlane restored the beyliks to

their former independent status and the rest of the

Ottoman domains were divided among Beyazit’s sons,

Mehmet, I.sa and Süleyman. The Ottoman Empire in

Anatolia reverted to the territory it once occupied

under Murat I, but the European territories remained

intact. There followed a period of interregnum, with

the sons fighting each other until Mehmet I emerged as

the winner. After the turbulence of this period, Mehmet

chose to consolidate what was left of the empire

rather than attempt any campaign of reconquest.

Despite his peace-loving nature, Mehmet’s

successor, Murat II, had to be vigilant in holding on

to the Balkans, as well as in dealing with a number

of rebellions in Anatolia. Internally, he struggled

against factions of insubordinate nomads led by

Düzme Mustafa, who claimed to be Beyazit’s son.

Murat’s principal European enemies were Hungary

and Venice, but he also had to contend with Vlad

Drakule, who declared independence in Wallachia.5

Murat had further to face an alliance of Christian

powers when Pope Eugenious IV called for a crusade

against the Turks. This call to arms was partly the

outcome of Emperor John VIII’s (the Byzantine

emperor) successful diplomatic activity. In order to

rally Christendom against the Turks, John VIII agreed

to proposals, negotiated at the Council of Florence

in 1439, to unite the Greek and Latin churches

under the partial authority of the Pope. The crusade,

led by King Ladislas III of Poland and Hungary, was

crushed at Varna in 1444, and the plan to unite

the churches collapsed when the Greek clergy, who

first approved it, later repudiated it on their return

to Constantinople.6

After his victory at Varna, Murat abdicated

and retired to Manisa, where he sought a more

contemplative life among the Sufis. Mehmet II was

only twelve years old when he came to the throne,

and it was soon apparent that he was too young to

rule such a volatile empire. Mehmet was obliged to

abdicate in favour of his father, and as soon as Murat

resumed his reign, another crusade was launched, led

by Stanislas III’s general John Hunaydi. This crusade

was routed in 1448 at Kosovo – the second major

defeat a Christian army had suffered on that soil.

Three years later Murat died at Edirne, and Mehmet II

returned to the throne in 1451, an older and wiser

man, after gaining political experience as governor

of Manisa. Murat left Mehmet with a secure, united

and governable empire, and taking advantage of

this stability Mehmet concentrated on his overriding

ambition to conquer Constantinople. He wasted no

time in preparing for this, and in 1452 he built the

fortress of Rumeli Hisarı on the European side of the

Bosphorus, opposite Beyazit I’s fortress of Anadolu

Hisarı. These two fortresses gave him complete

command of the Bosphorus.

In 1452, all that was left of the Byzantine

Empire was the city of Constantinople, the territories

around Trebizond and Mistra in the Greek Pelo-

ponnese. Constantinople stood like a wedge, dividing

the European and Anatolian halves of the Ottoman

Empire, and its conquest was essential in order to

unify and bind the empire together. As the Romans

and Byzantines had understood, its location made

it a perfect capital for an empire that straddled east

and west. It was also of great economic significance, a

natural port and the bridge between the Mediterranean

and Asia where all the main land and sea trade routes

met. Above all, the capture of Constantinople was

a symbolic act, and Mehmet was very conscious of

stepping into the shoes of the Roman and Byzantine

emperors. Its conquest meant the ultimate triumph

of Islam over Christian territory, and as a gazi,

Mehmet wanted the satisfaction of achieving what

his illustrious predecessors had failed to do.

Having secured his command of the

Bosphorus, cutting Constantinople’s supplies from

THE ART AND ARCHITECTURE OF OTTOMAN ISTANBUL6

622 Ottoman 0.1 Introduction_622 Ottoman 0.1 Introduction 02/05/2012 10:06 Page 6

the Black Sea, Mehmet positioned his army against

the city’s walls in the spring of 1453. The offensive

began with Mehmet’s artillery pounding the city walls

with devastating effect. His fleet was less successful,

and it failed to penetrate the harbour – the inlet

of water that separated the city from the districts of

Galata and Pera known as the Golden Horn. An iron

chain protected the mouth of the Golden Horn,

but Mehmet overcame this obstacle and reached the

harbour by hauling his galleys on wheeled cradles

over the hills of Pera. The artillery and infantry attack

on Constantinople’s walls lasted for seven weeks, but

the resilient Greeks, led by Constantine XI, effectively

patched up the damage after each bombardment.

Mehmet sent a message to Constantine saying that

if he surrendered the city, the safety of its citizens

would be guaranteed. If not, they faced three days

of plunder, with no protection against the ensuing

mayhem. Constantine refused to surrender, hoping

for a miracle or help from his Christian allies. Neither

was forthcoming. The angel of deliverance did not

appear, and the Christian communities closest to

hand, like the Genoese of Galata, had been forced

to surrender and remain neutral.

The Theodosian Walls were finally breached

near the present Topkapı gate on May 29th, and

the infantry, followed by the Janissaries, were the

first to get through. Constantine died bravely in the

fighting, but by the end of the morning all effective

resistance had come to an end. There followed three

days of looting, and despite Mehmet’s orders that

no buildings should be destroyed, many were, and it

was estimated that 4,000 civilians died. According to

Ritter J. von Hammer-Purgstall:

INTRODUCTION: THE TURKS, THE OTTOMANS AND THE CONQUEST OF CONSTANTINOPLE7

The Theodosian Walls

622 Ottoman 0.1 Introduction_622 Ottoman 0.1 Introduction 02/05/2012 10:06 Page 7

[L]ooting started, a looting which nothing was

to stop, neither weeping women and girls, nor

cries of the children nor the oaths of the

wounded. No restraint could curb soldiers

intoxicated with victory. The only criteria that

affected the fate of trembling creatures were

those of youth, beauty and fortune. Without

any distinction of rank or sex, prisoners were

tied two by two with their belts or veils. Next

it was the turn of the churches: pictures of

saints were torn from their walls and cut up;

sacred vessels were destroyed; vestments were

turned into coverings; the crucifix capped

by a Janissary’s helmet, was carried around

the streets; altars were profaned and used as

dining-tables, or as beds to violate girls and

boys, or as stalls for horses. ‘Aya Sophia,’

[Haghia Sophia] says Phranzes, ‘God’s sanctuary,

the throne of His glory, the marvel of the earth,

was transformed into a place of horror and

abominations.’7

The horror, destruction and violation of the city and

its people was no worse than that inflicted by the

Crusaders in 1204, but as we shall see in the next

chapter, after the destruction came rebuilding and

reconciliation on an unprecedented scale.8

Notes

1 McCarthy, J., The Ottoman Turks: An Introductory History

to 1923 (London and New York: Longman, 1997), p. 4.

2 McCarthy, J., op. cit., p. 13.

3 Polo, M., The Travels (London: Penguin, 1958), pp. 46–47.

Marco Polo attributes these carpets to the Greeks and

Armenians but his observations have been questioned. He

does not seem to recognize the difference between the

nomadic and settled Turk and refers to the Turkoman

as a worshipper of ‘Mahomet’ who spoke a barbarous

language and bred horses and mules. Owing to his

anti-Muslim feelings and ignorance of the Turkish

language, his contacts in the region were Christians. For

these reasons his observation that the Greeks and

Armenians were the sole producers of carpets may

be unreliable. In another contemporary source, El

Muhtasar fi tarihi l-basar, the Arab historian Abu al-Fida

(1273–1331) states that according to Ibn Said, ‘There

[Aksaray] Turkoman carpets are made and exported to all

countries in the world.’ Quoted in Aslanapa, O., One

Thousand Years of Turkish Carpets (Istanbul: Eren, 1988),

p. 33.

4 McCarthy, J., op. cit., p. 48.

5 Vlad Drakule is better known as Vlad the Impaler, the

infamous tyrant who provided the inspiration for Bram

Stoker’s book Dracula.

6 According to Ritter J. von Hammer-Purgstall, when similar

plans for uniting the churches were discussed in the

Haghia Sophia in 1452, they were bitterly opposed by

Patriarch Gennadius, and Grand Duke Lucas Notarus said

he would ‘prefer to see in Constantinople not the hat of a

cardinal but rather the turban of a Turk’. Quoted in Kelly,

L., Istanbul: A Travellers’ Companion (London: Constable,

1987), p. 83.

7 Quoted in Kelly, L., op. cit., p. 166.

8 Compare Edward Gibbon’s account of the desecration of

the Haghia Sophia in 1204 by the Crusaders. His account

is also published in Kelly, op. cit., pp. 75–76.

THE ART AND ARCHITECTURE OF OTTOMAN ISTANBUL8

622 Ottoman 0.1 Introduction_622 Ottoman 0.1 Introduction 02/05/2012 10:06 Page 8

CHAPTER ONE

Mehmet the Conqueror and the Rise of Istanbul

622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1_622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1 02/05/2012 10:09 Page 9

The first thing Mehmet did upon entering his

newly conquered city was to head straight for

the Haghia Sophia, the most renowned cathedral in

Christendom. As he entered Justinian’s great church,

he encountered one of his soldiers breaking up the

floor with an axe. Provoked by this act of vandalism,

Mehmet ‘admonished him with his symetar’ and

declared that the building belonged to him. After

the looter was dragged away by his feet, Mehmet

ordered the proclamation of the shahada (the Muslim

creed), and the Haghia Sophia was formally rededicated

as a mosque – the Ayasfia Cami Kabir, or Great

Mosque of Haghia Sophia.1 According to Tuman Bey,

the following day Mehmet climbed up to the dome

of Haghia Sophia and, surveying the ruins of the

surrounding buildings, recited the following verse:

The spider serves as a gatekeeper in the halls of Khrosrau’s dome.

The owl plays martial music in the palace ofAfrasiyah.2

The dereliction around the Haghia Sophia was not the

result of the siege or the looting but a symptom of

the long, slow decline the city had experienced since

the fourth crusade and subsequent Latin occupation

of the city in 1204. Nearby, the Great Palace, a vast

complex of buildings stretching from the Hippodrome

to the sea of Mamara, had long been in ruins since

the imperial family abandoned it in the thirteenth

century and moved to the Blachernae Palace.

Further afield, on the fourth hill of the city, the great

Justinian Church of the Holy Apostles was also in a

ruinous state. It was handed to Gennadius, the newly

appointed Greek Patriarch, but its condition was so

bad, and the area so depopulated, that Gennadius

sought permission to use another church, and was

given the monastery of St Mary Pammakaristos as

the headquarters for the Greek Patriarchate. What

was left of the Church of the Holy Apostles was

later demolished, and its site and recycled fabric

were used to build Mehmet’s new mosque and külliye

(mosque complex).

The city was badly depopulated, and the

reconstruction process was planned in tandem with

a radical resettlement policy. Those who abandoned

the capital before the conquest were encouraged to

return, and those taken prisoner and enslaved in the

course of the conquest were resettled in the city and

given property. Some populations within the empire,

such as the Greeks of Morea, were forcibly transplanted

to Istanbul, where they were settled in the area of

Fener near the Greek Patriarchate. Greeks, Italians

and Jews were brought in from western Anatolia

and from the Aegean islands of Thassos, Samothrace,

Euboa and Mytilene. Christians and Muslims were

brought from Konya, Aksaray and Bursa.3 The

Jews, with their mercantile acumen, were particularly

encouraged to settle and, leaving Thessalonika and

places as far afield as Italy and Germany, they joined

the existing community of Jews in Balat under the

leadership of their chief rabbi Moshe Capsali.

Across the Golden Horn in Galata, the

Genoese community was guaranteed its trading

rights and religious freedom as a reward for its

prompt surrender and neutrality throughout the

siege. Each non-Muslim community formed a millet

(nation) with its own religious leader answerable to

the authority of the sultan. Thus the social, religious

and, within limits, the legal practices of the various

ethnic groups were respected and maintained under

Ottoman rule.4 According to a census in 1477, the

population of the city was between 60,000 and

70,000 people, but it is worth bearing in mind that

THE ART AND ARCHITECTURE OF OTTOMAN ISTANBUL10

The Haghia Sophia

622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1_622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1 02/05/2012 10:09 Page 10

the population of Constantinople at its height, just

before the Latin conquest and occupation of 1204,

was probably 400,000.

Mehmet’s own contribution to the rebuilding

of the city consisted principally of two fortresses,

two palaces, the bedestan (market) and his külliye, as

well as the repair of roads, bridges and fortifications.

Because his reign was dominated by wars of conquest,

it comes as no surprise that his first two buildings

were fortresses of monumental scale. As we have

already noted, the first, Rumeli Hisarı, was completed

before the conquest in 1452 in preparation for

the siege. It commands the narrowest point of the

Bosphorus where, in ancient times (512 BC), Darius

built his bridge of boats during his campaign against

the Scythians. Situated opposite the smaller fortress

of Anadolu Hisarı (built by Beyazit I in 1390), Rumeli

Hisarı secured Mehmet’s grip on the Bosphorus,

enabling him to levy taxes on passing ships as well

as to prevent the besieged city from receiving grain

supplies from the Black Sea. The fortress ensured

that, if necessary, his Janissaries could aim their

heavy artillery and destroy any ships passing through

the strait.

Mehmet designed the layout of the fortress

and ordered each of his senior viziers, Saruca Paşa,

Halil Paşa and Zaganos Paşa, to build the three main

towers. The waterfront tower, with its sea gate and

surrounding barbican, was built by the grand

vizier, Halil Paşa; the Black Tower, on the northern

side, was built by Saruca Paşa; and the southern,

Rose Tower, was built by Zaganos Paşa. Mehmet

took responsibility for the curtain walls with their

thirteen minor towers and bastions. This delegation

of responsibility induced a spirit of competition,

which made possible the completion of the whole

project within four months. Rumeli Hisarı presents

an impressive, rambling chain of architectural masses

slung along the steeply raked contours of the site.

Viewed from the water, the heavy, imposing cylindrical

masses of the Black and Rose towers rearing up on

the hill behind contrast with the lighter multifaceted,

angular forms of the duodecagonal waterfront tower

and the projecting pentagonal tower at the left-

hand corner. The tops of the towers would originally

have been conical wooden structures covered with

lead, similar to that seen today on the Galata tower.5

Enclosed within the curtain walls were a mosque

CHAPTER ONE: MEHMET THE CONQUEROR AND THE RISE OF ISTANBUL1 1

Rumeli Hisarı

622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1_622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1 02/05/2012 10:09 Page 11

and a circular water cistern, as well as less substantial

wooden buildings providing accommodation for four

hundred officers and men. All that remains of these

interior features is the stump of a brick minaret now

set among trees within a pleasing park landscape.

After the siege, Mehmet’s priority was to

repair and strengthen the walls of the city and, in so

doing, he extended the fortifications at the southern

end of the Theodosian land walls and built the fortress

of Yediküle (the Castle of Seven Towers).

Pentagonal in plan, the fortress consists of

an Ottoman extension (1457–58) inside the existing

Theodosian wall (built by Theodosius II in 447) made

up of three towers connected by a curtain wall. The

longest side of the fortress is the Theodosian section,

consisting of four towers, the central two of which

form pylons astride the bricked-in, triple-arcaded

Golden Gate of Theodosius I (390). Like Rumeli Hisarı

and Galata Tower, the towers were surmounted

with wooden conical caps, similar to the somewhat

fanciful picture the artist Matrakçi painted of them

in the sixteenth century.6 This fortress never played a

significant defensive role and was initially used as a

treasury. Up until the early nineteenth century, it served

as a prison in which many foreign merchants and

ambassadors were incarcerated. It was also a notorious

place of execution. One sultan, Osman II, was cruelly

executed here at the age of seventeen in 1622.

Rumeli Hisarı and Yediküle are dramatic and

impressive pieces of military architecture – they are

fitting monuments to the age of conquest and express

something of the vigorous personality of their creator.

However, Mehmet was a complex figure and more than

just a ruthless conqueror. He was a refined and learned

man who enjoyed intellectual debate, and he was fully

conscious of his imperial role and destiny. Immediately

after the conquest he was described by one of the

Venetian envoys, Giacomo Languschi, as follows:

THE ART AND ARCHITECTURE OF OTTOMAN ISTANBUL12

Yediküle

622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1_622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1 02/05/2012 10:09 Page 12

The sovereign, the Grand Turk Mehmet Bey, is

a youth of twenty six (sic), well built, of large

rather than medium stature, expert at arms,

of aspect more frightening than venerable,

laughing seldom, full of circumspection,

endowed with great generosity, obstinate in

pursuing his plans, bold in all undertakings,

as eager of fame as Alexander of Macedonia.

Daily he has Roman and other historical works

read to him by a companion named Ciriaco

of Ancona, and another Italian. He has them

read Leartius, Herodotus, Livy, Quintus Curtius,

the chronicles of the popes, the emperors, the

Kings of France, and the Lombards. He speaks

three languages, Turkish, Greek, and Slavic.

He is at great pains to learn the geography of

Italy and inform himself of the places where

Anchises and Aeneas and Antenor landed,

where the seat of the pope is and that of the

emperor, and how many kingdoms there are in

Europe. He possesses a map of Europe with the

countries and provinces. He learns of nothing

with greater interest and enthusiasm than the

geography of the world and military affairs; he

burns with desire to dominate; he is a shrewd

investigator of conditions. It is with such a

man that we Christians have to deal ... Today

he says the times have changed, and declares

that he will advance from East to West as in

former times the Westerners advanced into the

Orient. There must he says be only one empire,

one faith, one sovereignty of the world.7

This statement alerts the Christians to Mehmet’s

territorial aspirations and his identification with

Alexander the Great. His interest in European history

and geography was not entirely cultural, but indicative

of his longer-term ambitions to extend his empire

further west – even as far as Rome. Mehmet was

conscious that in capturing Constantinople he had

taken on the mantle of the Byzantine emperors and

now in effect ruled the territories of the former eastern

Roman Empire. He felt he could legitimately claim

the title of caesar, a title that he added to those he

already possessed – those of gazi and khan. Gazi

conferred the role of holy warrior, khan asserted his

claims on all Turkish lands and caesar now gave him

the authority to rule over Christendom.8 In many

respects Mehmet was following Alexander the Great

and the first Umayyad caliphs in assuming the rank

of king of kings.

Because of his territorial ambitions in the

West, Mehmet made it his business to understand

European culture and Christianity in particular.

Legend has it that his wife, Gülbahar, a Christian

slave of Albanian origin, never relinquished her

Christianity. He asked the Greek patriarch Gennadius

to teach him the history and doctrine of the Greek

Church, consulted clerics of other faiths and even

observed the Mass.9 According to Brother George

of Muhlenbach, Mehmet visited the Franciscan

monastery of Pera:

The Franciscan brothers living in Pera have

assured me that he came to their church and sat

down in their choir to attend the ceremonies

and sacrifice of the Mass. To satisfy his curiosity,

they ordered him an unconsecrated wafer at

the Elevation of the Host, for pearls must not

be cast before swine.10

It would be wrong, however, to attribute his interest

in Western culture entirely to ulterior motives.

Foreign intelligence was an important factor, but

he also had a genuine appreciation of Western art,

literature and learning. His library contained a number

of important inherited, acquired and commissioned

works. In view of the comparisons made between

him and Alexander the Great, two significant Greek

books in his library included The History of Mehmet

the Conqueror by Kritoboulos and a copy of Arrian’s

The Anabasis of Alexander the Great and the Indica.

One of the themes in Kritoboulos’s commissioned

history is Mehmet’s similarity to Alexander the Great,

and these volumes, copied by the same hand, were

designed to complement each other. Mehmet also

had a copy of the Iliad, and when campaigning

near Mytilene in 1462, he made a special detour

CHAPTER ONE: MEHMET THE CONQUEROR AND THE RISE OF ISTANBUL1 3

622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1_622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1 02/05/2012 10:09 Page 13

to visit the site of Troy. His interest in geography

and astronomy prompted him to acquire a number

of European maps and copies of the Geography,

Cosmographia and Almagest by the Greek mathe -

matician, astronomer, geographer and physicist

Claudius Ptolemy (lived c.150 AD).

The copy of Geography contained sections

from Hero of Alexandria’s Pneumatica, a treatise on

engineering and military science. Also in Mehmet’s

library was Mariano Taccola’s treatise on military

engineering De Machinis (1449). Such works con-

tributed enormously to the Ottoman army’s military

superiority in field artillery. Mehmet was also

interested in medical science, but in this case it was

Muslim sources that attracted his attention. For his

Jewish physician Jacopo da Gaeta, Mehmet acquired

a Latin translation of Canones (Qanun fi’ Tibb or

Canon of Medicine) by the great Persian philosopher

and physician Ibn Sina (d.1037). Other medical

treatises included I.sa ibn Jazla’s Takwin al-Abdan,

a work on drugs and remedies, and Sharaf al-Din’s

illustrated treatise on surgery Cerrahye-i Ilkhaniye.

Mehmet’s interest in theology, both Christian and

Muslim, is demonstrated by numerous volumes on

Islamic mysticism, philosophy and jurisprudence, as

well as by Christian texts in Greek and Latin, including

The Testament of Solomon, the Book of the Prophet

Daniel and Thomas Aquinas’s Summa contra Gentiles.11

The number of Italian scholars Mehmet

cultivated in his court made this collection of books

possible. In his assessment of Mehmet, Giacomo

Languschi mentioned the presence of Ciriaco of

Ancona (c.1390–1455) in Mehmet’s retinue. He was

a noted merchant, traveller and antiquarian who

studied ancient monuments in Greece, the Aegean

islands, Anatolia and Egypt. He made drawings,

collected gemstones, medallions and manuscripts

and was one of those remarkable early humanists

who contributed to the Renaissance rediscovery of the

ancient world.12 Not only did they enrich his court

but also a number of visiting humanists, scholars and

artists proved useful in securing European diplomatic

links for Mehmet. One such humanist in Mehmet’s

court was the Italian Angelo Vadio of Casena, who,

through his friendship with the humanist Robert

Valturio, established contact between Mehmet and

Sigismondo Malatesta of Rimini.

This led to a curious diplomatic liaison in

which Sigismondo Malatesta attempted to pass

military intelligence to Mehmet via the artist Matteo

de’ Pasti. Mehmet asked Sigismondo to recommend

an artist to paint his portrait, and the choice fell on

Matteo de’ Pasti, who had established his reputation

in Rimini as the master of works for the humanist

and architect Leon Battista Alberti. Matteo was

also a famous medallist and maker of illuminated

manuscripts. He set out for Istanbul in 1461 with

a letter from Sigismondo and gifts which included

detailed maps of Italy and a copy of Robert Valturio’s

handbook on warfare De re militare lib. XII (Twelve

Books on the Art of War, c.1450). The Venetians, who

were no friends of Sigismondo, got wind of this

venture and, recognizing the import of such sensitive

intelligence in the hands of their Turkish enemy,

captured Matteo in Crete.13 He was brought before

the Council of Ten in Venice, but he was eventually

released and sent back to Rimini with a warning

not to go to Istanbul nor to have any contact with

the sultan. He didn’t, but according to Babinger,

a medal attributed to Matteo de’ Pasti and the

Burgundian artist Jean Tricaudet was, nevertheless,

eventually struck.14

Another curious diplomatic incident, which

resulted in the striking of a portrait medallion,

concerns Mehmet’s relationship with Lorenzo de

Medici. In 1478, Lorenzo narrowly escaped an

assassination attempt on him in the Duomo

(cathedral), Florence by members of the Pazzi family

and their hired assassins. His brother Guiliano was

killed in the mêlée while Lorenzo escaped to the

sacristy. All the conspirators were rounded up and

executed except Bernado Bandini Baroncello, who

escaped to Istanbul, where his relatives gave him

refuge. Mehmet had him arrested and, following an

audience with Antonio de Medici, he was returned

to Florence and publicly hanged. A commemorative

medallion, designed by Bertoldo di Giovanni, was

struck in memory of Guiliano, and as a token of

THE ART AND ARCHITECTURE OF OTTOMAN ISTANBUL14

622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1_622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1 02/05/2012 10:09 Page 14

his gratitude, Lorenzo ordered another to be struck

in honour of Mehmet. This medal shows on the

obverse side a portrait of Mehmet, and the reverse

displays an allegorical scene depicting the sultan

riding triumphally in a chariot with three nude

females in the rear representing the vanquished

empires of Asia, Trebizond and greater Greece.15

According to Michael Levey, Mehmet, who

was preoccupied with building the Topkapı Palace at

that time, exploited Lorenzo’s debt of gratitude by

asking him to send Florentine craftsmen to Istanbul

skilled in intarsia work (a form of inlay made up of

different woods).16 There is no trace of any response

to this request, and the only record of a prospective

visit to Istanbul by an Italian architect occurred

long before the Pazzi conspiracy. This was in 1465,

when the Florentine architect and sculptor Antonio

Filartete planned a visit, but it is unlikely it ever

occurred.17 Undoubtedly the most celebrated artist

invited to Mehmet’s court was Gentile Bellini, who

was sent in 1479 as part of a diplomatic initiative. The

result was a number of paintings by Bellini, including

the portrait that now hangs in the National Gallery,

London. He was recommended partly on account of

his mural restorations in the Hall of the Great Council

at the Doge’s Palace in Venice, and he was supposed

to have spent much of his time in Istanbul painting

erotic murals in the Topkapı. These were removed by

Mehmet’s successor, Beyazit II.18 Bellini was awarded

a knighthood for his services to the sultan, and in his

painting St Mark Preaching in Alexandria (Pinacoteca

di Brera, Milan) he includes a portrait of himself

wearing a red robe proudly displaying his gold chain

of knighthood.19 Mehmet also requested an architect

and a bronze caster, but they were not sent, although

two assistants did accompany Bellini. The only

evidence that Italian craftsmen might have been

involved in the Topkapı Palace is the Italian-style

marble floor in what later became the camekan, or

disrobing room of the baths (hamam) of Selim II.20

Mehmet’s interest in, and appreciation of,

Western art was genuine, but it has to be balanced

against the overwhelming weight of his Muslim

identity, background, taste and culture. As far as

Western art was concerned, Mehmet was a dilettante,

but within his own cultural field he was a great

connoisseur. Apart from possible Italian influence in

the marble floor of the hamam, there is nothing in

the Topkapı Palace, or in any of his other buildings,

that remotely suggests Western influence – they

are manifestly Ottoman. Culturally the Turks looked

back to their roots in Central Asia and towards the

Persian values they assimilated during the first waves

of conquest in the eleventh century. Since the rule

of the Great Selçuk Turks in Persia, Persian rather

than Turkish had been the language of the court,

and Mehmet spoke this fluently (something Giacomo

Languschi missed from his list of Mehmet’s linguistic

attributes). Arabic was the language of theology but

Persian was the language of literature, and the great

classical works of Firdawsi and Nizami were promoted

in the Turkish court as models for imitation. Mehmet

lavishly patronized contemporary Persian poets and

philosophers, and many Persians were appointed to

the highest ranks in the court.

CHAPTER ONE: MEHMET THE CONQUEROR AND THE RISE OF ISTANBUL1 5

Mehmet II by Gentile Bellini © National Gallery, London, 2010

622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1_622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1 02/05/2012 10:09 Page 15

Mehmet also took a great interest in Shi’ism

– the branch of Islam followed by the Persians –

prompting speculation regarding his own religious

convictions. His interest in Christianity had led to

rumours that he had converted to Catholicism, and

by the same token, his regard for Persian literature

and Shi’ism prompted the comment that ‘A man

who reads Persian loses half his religion.’ While

publicly maintaining orthodox Sunnism, it is possible

that his own religious convictions were somewhat

ambivalent. His pious son Beyazit was more forth -

right in asserting that his father did not believe in

the Prophet Muhammad at all. Mehmet’s ecumenical

mind guaranteed religious freedom and tolerance,

and within the Islamic sphere he nurtured regular

theological debate in which his own participation

was never superficial. For example, the work of

the twelfth-century Persian theologian al-Ghazali

stimulated a long-standing debate in his court

regarding the differences between theologians and

philosophers. He appointed scholars, known as

preceptors, to inform him on intellectual issues, and it

was their regular duty to choose, read and comment

on theological texts.

His cultural bias towards Persia can clearly

be seen in the architecture of the earliest building in

the Topkapı Palace complex, the Çinili Kiosk (1472).

The Topkapı Sarayı was the second of two palaces

established by Mehmet. The first, later known as the

Eski Saray (Old Palace), was built in the area now

occupied by Istanbul University on the third hill.

The Topkapı occupies the high triangular promontory

where the Bosphorus, the Sea of Marmara and the

Golden Horn meet. It forms the first hill of Istanbul,

and the original acropolis of Byzantium once stood

there. Byzantine walls already enclosed the site

and Mehmet marked out the boundaries of the

new palace when he completed the wall behind the

Haghia Sophia on the south-western side. The gate of

Bab-ül-Hümayün (the Gate of Majesty) pierces this.

Within this enclosure Mehmet established a division

between the public (selamlık) and the private (harem)

THE ART AND ARCHITECTURE OF OTTOMAN ISTANBUL16

The Çinili Kiosk

622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1_622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1 02/05/2012 10:09 Page 16

domains of the palace, and like the palace in the

former Ottoman capital at Edirne, it functioned as

a private residence, a centre of government and a

place for education and training.

The Çinili Kiosk is a unique structure and

undoubtedly the most Persian of Ottoman buildings.

Its cuboid form and symmetry of proportion makes

it the most classical and self-contained of all the

Topkapı’s buildings. Built of brick and stone its plan

and elevation echoes the Persian garden pavilion of

the Timurid period known as a hasht bihisht (eight

paradises). In Persia and Central Asia these pavilions

were built of less substantial materials, and few

fifteenth-century examples survive. Traces of a

contemporary cruciform plan, similar to that of the

Çinili Kiosk, can be found in the summer palace of

the Shirvanshahs at Nadaran, near Baku in Azerbaijan.

In Persia these pavilions were essentially pleasure

domes placed in quadripartite garden settings known

as charah baghs (four gardens). The Çinili Kiosk was

not set in a formal garden, but overlooked a park at

the back and a stadium at the front. The loggia served

as a grandstand for viewing wrestling matches, polo,

lion tamers and parades of animals brought from

the menagerie nearby. In the evenings it served as

a pleasure dome, with musical entertainment by the

women of the harem. It is a two-storeyed building,

and the plan on the second floor consists of a central

domed cruciform hall, the arms of which lead to

outward-facing, open-vaulted halls, known as iwans,

on the north-eastern and south-western sides. The

north-western arm leads to a projecting hexagonal

room overlooking the park, and the axis of the

south-eastern arm is made up of the vestibule and

entrance iwan. In addition to the room overlooking

the park, four rooms clustered around the central hall

complete the suite of royal apartments. These rooms

are decorated with octagonal navy blue and turquoise

tiles, forming bold angular patterns, with some

displaying gilded arabesques like those in the Yeşil

Cami (Green Mosque) in Bursa. The lower storey

consists of rooms for the grand vizier, as well as

utility rooms and servants quarters. The loggia in the

facade, made up of an arcade supported on fourteen

slender stone columns, is the building’s most elegant

and imposing feature. The columns date from the

eighteenth century, when they replaced the timber

originals. Their form is Persian, and one can see

similar columns made of timber in the talas (the

columned halls and verandas) of the Ali Qapu

and Chihil Sutun palaces in Isfahan, Iran. Halls

of columns, like these, have pre-Islamic origins in

the adapanas, or audience halls, of ancient Persian

Achaemenid architecture.

The Çinili Kiosk, meaning Tiled Pavilion, is

so called because of the use of glazed brick and tile

mosaic. The style of decoration, like the rest of the

building, is Persian. According to Blair and Bloom,

there is some evidence that tile cutters from Khorasan

were involved with the work.21 Here and in the

contemporary türbe (tomb) of Mahmut Paşa (1474),

we witness the last use in Ottoman architecture of tile

mosaic and glazed tiles, known as banna’i work. The

extensive use of tile decoration in the loggia owes

much to Timurid architecture, in which widespread

areas of interior and exterior brick walls and vaults are

covered in tiles. In Ottoman architecture the principal

CHAPTER ONE: MEHMET THE CONQUEROR AND THE RISE OF ISTANBUL1 7

The entrance to Çinili Kiosk

622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1_622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1 02/05/2012 10:09 Page 17

building material is stone, and ceramic tiling is used

sparingly in selective areas of the interior, such as

on the qibla wall (the wall orientated towards

Mecca).

The most noticeable feature of the Çinili

Kiosk’s decoration is its geometric character –

something it shares not only with contemporary

Timurid design but also with earlier Turkish Selçuk

art. The colours are dense and resonant, despite

being restricted to turquoise blue, dark blue, white

and yellow. Framed by a narrow band of scrolling

arabesque, the entrance iwan is packed with diagonal

patterns in the tympanum and with kufic inscriptions

in the vault. This geometry is offset by the cursive

rhythms of the white and yellow sülüs calligraphy

that runs horizontally around the three sides of the

iwan vault. The inscription praises the palace in

the following words:

This pavilion, which is as lofty as the heavens,

was so constructed that its great height wouldA tile mosaic on the türbe of Mahmut Paşa

THE ART AND ARCHITECTURE OF OTTOMAN ISTANBUL18

A tile mosaic at the Çinili Kiosk The türbe of Mahmut Paşa

622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1_622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1 02/05/2012 10:09 Page 18

seem to stretch its hand up to the Gemini

themselves. Its most worthless part would adorn

the most precious part of Saturn’s crown. Its

emerald cupola sparkles like the heavens and

is honoured with inscriptions from the stars.

Its floor of turquoise with its varied flowers …

reminds one of the eternal vineyards of

Paradise.22

This kind of Arabian Nights hyperbole is typical of

literature associated with palace architecture across

the Muslim world. The Çinili Kiosk is not a lofty

pavilion, and it is worth noting the modesty of

scale generally displayed in most of the Topkapı

buildings. This palace complex was the seat

of government for a powerful empire, but most of the

buildings do not exceed one storey.

Among those that do are the two gates built

by Mehmet. The first, the Bab-ül-Hümayün (1478),

is like a triple-arcaded triumphal arch with a lofty

iwan in the centre flanked by two niches. The marble

facing we see today is the work of Sultan Abdülaziz,

who restored and altered the gate in 1867. The

central iwan is pierced by a door, with a shallow

arched lintel of joggled voussoirs (interlocking

wedge-shaped stones), leading to a domed passage

with flanking rooms that once housed fifty guards.

The second storey, which was dismantled by

Abdülaziz, originally consisted of a wooden structure

with a hipped roof. A central window lighted it

with three smaller lights on either side, and over the

years it served a number of functions, including a

depository, treasury, pavilion and viewing platform

for the women of the harem.23 The Bab-ül-Hümayün,

sometimes called the Gate of Justice, was also used to

exhibit the severed heads of traitors and criminals.

The use of monumental gates for this gruesome

display of law enforcement was commonplace across

the Muslim world.

Passing through the Bab-ül-Hümayün one

enters the first court of the Topkapı Palace, where

the ancient church of St Irene stands. This court

CHAPTER ONE: MEHMET THE CONQUEROR AND THE RISE OF ISTANBUL1 9

Bab-ül-Hümayün

622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1_622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1 02/05/2012 10:09 Page 19

was known as the Court of the Janissaries because

it served as their parade ground, and the barracks of

the Janissary cadets were located there. This was very

much the public domain of the palace, but nothing

from the period of Mehmet survives here except the

next gate, variously known as the Gate of Peace, Orta

Kapı, or the Middle Gate. If justice was displayed

on the Bab-ül-Hümayün, it was here that justice was

dispensed. Prisoners were kept in the two flanking

octagonal towers, and in front of the gate stood the

executioner’s block.

The Middle Gate leads to the second court,

the Court of the Divan, where most of the ceremonial

activity took place. It is a landscaped space with

cypress trees, plane trees and rose bushes, and

throughout Ottoman times gazelles, peacocks and

ostriches were allowed to roam here. The most

important building in this court is the Divan, where

the Imperial Council of State met four times a

week. It consists of the Council Chamber, the Public

Records Office and the Office of the Grand Vizier.

The Divan was rebuilt in the 1520s and restored

by Murat III (1574–95) after it was badly damaged by

fire in 1574. Later, Ahmet III (1703–30) refurbished

the rooms in the gilded rococo style we see in the

Public Records Office and the exterior of the building

THE ART AND ARCHITECTURE OF OTTOMAN ISTANBUL20

Orta Kapı, or the Middle Gate

622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1_622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1 02/05/2012 10:09 Page 20

today. Nothing survives from the time of Mehmet

the Conqueror except the treasury building next

door. This sturdy structure consists of a vestibule and

hall made up of eight domed units of equal height

supported on piers. They are simple domed cubes

with octagonal zones of transition (the intermediary

structure that makes the transition between square

bay and circular dome) pierced by window lights

on each side. On the outside the zones of transition

break through the roofline carrying the lead-sheathed

domes with their shallow, saucer-shaped profiles.

The level, uniform array of domes and the exterior

prominence of the zone of transition is characteristic

of early Ottoman architecture.

CHAPTER ONE: MEHMET THE CONQUEROR AND THE RISE OF ISTANBUL2 1

1

2

3

4

5

Key1. Middle Gate2. Gate of Felicity3. Outer Treasury4. Divan5. Public Records Office

Plan of the Middle Court(Court of the Divan)

622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1_622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1 02/05/2012 10:09 Page 21

THE ART AND ARCHITECTURE OF OTTOMAN ISTANBUL22

The old treasury

The Divan

622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1_622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1 02/05/2012 10:09 Page 22

CHAPTER ONE: MEHMET THE CONQUEROR AND THE RISE OF ISTANBUL2 3

2

1

3

Key1. Disrobing room (ibid.)2. Pavilion of the Conqueror / Inner Treasury3. The Pavilion of the Holy Mantle

Plan of the Third Court

622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1_622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1 02/05/2012 10:09 Page 23

More imposing are Mehmet’s pavilions in the

third court, the Pavilion of the Holy Mantle (Hirkaı

Saadet Dairesi) and the Pavilion of the Conqueror

(Inner Treasury). The Pavilion of the Holy Mantle of

the Prophet, which now contains holy relics, was

once Mehmet’s private residence. It consists of a

square symmetrical complex of four domed halls,

plus a smaller domed annexe that once served as the

circumcision room. The far room on the right-hand

side, which now contains the Holy Mantle, was

Mehmet’s bedroom. The interior decoration of this

suite of rooms dates from the time of Murat III,

who lined them with Iznik tiles and used them as

reception rooms for a selamlık (men’s public domain).

The most unusual decorative feature in this

building is the polychrome marble panelling in the

Egyptian Mamluk style on the outside rear wall. Here,

in an elegant cloistered arcade, are rectangular marble

patterns forming a dado supporting horizontal panels

of Iznik. Compared to Mamluk dados this is low and

shallow, playing a subordinate role to the tiles above.

The date of this feature is uncertain, but we know

that Selim I (1512–20) brought Egyptian craftsmen

to Istanbul after his conquest of Egypt in 1517.24 He

also brought with him Egyptian marble taken from

the floor and interior walls of the Citadel mosque

of al-Nasir Muhammad, as well as marble from a

number of Mamluk palace buildings on the Citadel.25

Goodwin attributes the work to the beginning of

the reign of Süleyman the Magnificent.26

The new treasury, which originally served

as a selamlık, is the most imposing pavilion built

by Mehmet. Like the Çinili Kiosk, it is a two-storeyed

building, but here the rooms below functioned

principally as a treasury. The royal apartments consist

of four lofty rooms and a loggia overlooking the

Bosphorus and the Sea of Marmara. Two of the rooms

are domed and a shallow hipped roof covers the

rest. The two domed rooms are identical, but one

is separate from the main body of the pavilion,

and served as the camekan, or disrobing room, for

the hamam of Selim II (1566–74) next door. Selim

built his hamam in the 1570s, but the Hall of the

Expeditionary Force (now the museum of costumes)

later replaced the main structure – the hot and cold

rooms – in 1719. Because the camekan is a part of the

hamam complex, questions arise as to whether this

is the work of Mehmet or Selim. Goodwin suggests

that it is the work of Mehmet, who constructed the

first hamam on this site, and Selim’s contribution was

probably limited to repaving the floor.27

The other domed room marks the first of a

suite of lofty reception rooms that now display

the contents of the treasury. The proximity of the

hamam next door, with its constant steam and

smoke, eventually rendered this building unsuitable

as a selamlık, and during the seventeenth century it

was converted into storerooms.

THE ART AND ARCHITECTURE OF OTTOMAN ISTANBUL24

The Pavilion of the Holy Mantle

Rear wall of the Pavilion of the Holy Mantleshowing Mamluk marble panelling

622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1_622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1 02/05/2012 10:09 Page 24

A long, arcaded portico fronts the courtside

of the pavilion with columns capped with antique

capitals. From the other side, the pavilion overlooks

the park, the Bosphorus and the Sea of Marmara. It

is from this side that both storeys are revealed, and

viewed at a distance from the seashore below, its

clarity of form and dignified proportions can best be

appreciated. Domes supported on octagonal zones

of transition break the roofline, like that of the old

treasury in the second court. The weight of its mass

is relieved on the first storey by a horizontal band of

windows, and on the second by two tiers of windows

and the double-arched openings that pierce both sides

of the loggia in the corner. In the centre, breaking the

flat surface, is a projecting balcony resting on corbels

surmounted by a triangular sloping roof.

Architecturally more significant than the

Topkapı is Mehmet’s külliye on the fourth hill. This

undoubtedly was his most important architectural

contribution to Istanbul. As conqueror of the city, it

was incumbent upon him to build his own mosque,

and he would have been very conscious of the fact

that what he built had to equal in magnitude the

Haghia Sophia. Since before the conquest, Mehmet

had coveted the Haghia Sophia, and its conversion into

the principal mosque of the city was an expression of

his regard for that sacred building. However, Mehmet

had to demonstrate that Ottoman architects could

build a new city with a different identity. The Haghia

Sophia with its complex dome structure was, and

continued to be, a challenge to Ottoman builders until

the reign of Süleyman the Magnificent. It influenced

the subsequent development of Ottoman architecture,

but it must be emphasized that the Ottomans had

already achieved a distinct architectural style of some

maturity and sophistication well before the conquest.

CHAPTER ONE: MEHMET THE CONQUEROR AND THE RISE OF ISTANBUL2 5

The new treasury

622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1_622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1 02/05/2012 10:09 Page 25

It can be seen in the mosques of the former Ottoman

capitals at Bursa and Edirne, where a century of

architectural development had produced a remarkable

synthesis of Selçuk, Persian and Byzantine forms.

He chose to build his mosque on the fourth

hill over the ruins of the Church of the Holy

Apostles. It was a prestigious site, for the Church

of the Holy Apostles had been the second most

important church in Constantinople. It was famous

for its funerary chapel containing the royal mausolea

in which various Byzantine emperors and empresses,

including Constantine and his mother St Helena,

were interred. As well as the royal burials, it also

housed the bodies of saints John Chrysostom,

Polyeuctus, Spiridon and Gregory Nazianzen, as well

as the relics of several saints and Apostles, including

saints Andrew, Luke and Timothy. The church also

contained two sacred pillars: one at which Christ

was scourged and the one where Peter wept after

his denial of Christ. The church was also of great

architectural significance, and its cruciform plan,

surmounted by five domes, provided the architectural

model for the great Apostles churches of St John at

Ephesus and St Mark’s in Venice.

During the fourth Crusade (1204) the Franks,

searching for holy relics, ransacked the church and

funerary chapel. These precious objects were eagerly

sought, not only for their material wealth – their

jewel-encrusted gold and silver mounts, rock crystals

and oriental silks – but also for their religious value

and miraculous powers. Transported to the West,

famous relics attracted pilgrims, thus transforming

the status and economies of recipient churches and

monasteries. Most of the churches in Constantinople

were looted for that purpose. Günther of Pairis, in his

Historia Constantinopolitana, gives a vivid account of

how Abbot Martin enriched the monastery of Pairis

in Alsace with a hoard of relics which he obtained

(by means of armed robbery) during the pillage of

Constantinople.28 Throughout the Latin occupation,

the relics and sacred remains in the Church of the

Holy Apostles were sent west, including the bodies

of St Helena, and those of saints John Chrysostom

and Gregory Nazienzen, which, according to Western

tradition, went to Rome.29 The sacred pillars were also

broken up and fragments transported to the West.

Constantinople never recovered from the

despoliation of the Latin conquest. By the time of

the Ottoman conquest, the Church of the Holy

Apostles was in a ruinous state and the whole area

depopulated, and, as already noted, Gennadius, the

patriarch, was only too willing to relinquish it as his

headquarters and move to St Mary Pammakaristos.

In 1463 Mehmet demolished what was left of

the Church of the Holy Apostles and used its

fabric in the building of his new mosque. The royal

sarcophagi were removed to the Topkapı Palace,

where they can still be seen on display outside the

Archaeological Museum. According to Babinger,

Mehmet also demolished the neighbouring church

of Constantine Lips.30 This amount of demolition

was necessary because Mehmet needed to clear an

enormous space, 320 metres square, not only for

his mosque but also for all the ancillary buildings

that make up the külliye. In terms of scale and

complexity, the külliye was very much an Ottoman

invention, and in building it on such an ambitious

scale, Mehmet set a precedent that was to transform

the architectural landscape of Istanbul. Many of his

successors were to follow his example.

A külliye is a major urban plan consisting

of many of the following buildings: a mosque (cami),

mausolea (türbes), theological colleges (medreses),

a college for the study of tradition, or hadis

(darül-hadis), a Qur’an school (darül-kurra), a Qur’an

school for boys (sibyan-mekteb), library (kütüphani),

hospital (bimarhane), asylum (timarhane), a combined

hospital and asylum (daruşşifa), soup-kitchen (imaret),

hospice (tabhane), caravansarai, market (arasta) and

baths (hamam). The külliye extends and embodies the

functions of the mosque that the Prophet Muhammad

established in Medina. The original Prophet’s

mosque was not just a place of prayer but a centre

of government, education, jurisprudence, welfare

and hospitality. It embodied the spirit of Islam,

which does not separate the religious and secular

domains. All these functions, except government,

were later to develop within the precincts of the

THE ART AND ARCHITECTURE OF OTTOMAN ISTANBUL26

622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1_622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1 02/05/2012 10:09 Page 26

mosque, and across the Muslim world during the

thirteenth century discrete buildings and multipurpose

complexes evolved. They can be seen in such works

as the Selçuk mosque and hospital at Divrigi (1228)

in eastern Anatolia or in Sultan Qala’un’s mosque,

medrese and hospital in Cairo (1284). However, what

makes the Turkish külliye unique and extraordinary

is its urban scale and complexity.

With eight medreses accommodating a

thousand students, what Mehmet built between

1463 and 1470 was a university city. Little of the

original mosque remains because it was destroyed

by earthquake in 1766, and what we see today is

the new mosque, totally different in plan, built by

Mustafa III in 1771. The only record we have of

the original mosque is an engraving by M. Lorichs

CHAPTER ONE: MEHMET THE CONQUEROR AND THE RISE OF ISTANBUL2 7

Plan of Mehmet’s külliye

1. Mosque 4. Medreses

2. Courtyard 5. Caravanserai

3. Türbe 6. Library

4 4 4

4 4 4

4

5

32

6

1

622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1_622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1 02/05/2012 10:09 Page 27

dating from the sixteenth century. All that has

survived of the original complex is the sahn

(courtyard), the entrance portals to the sahn and

prayer hall, parts of the hospice and sections of the

minarets. The most striking aspect of this grand urban

plan is its symmetry. The mosque, sahn and cemetery

form three adjacent rectangular units occupying the

centre of a huge enclosed precinct flanked by two

broad ranges of medreses known as the Karadeniz (Black

Sea) and the Akdeniz (White Sea or Mediterranean)

medreses. The precinct once served as a camping

ground for caravans, and flanking its entrance gates

on the north-western side were two small pavilions

consisting of a library, which began with a collection

of eight hundred books, and a boys’ Qur’an school.

Outside the precinct, on the south-western side, were

the hospital, hospice, imaret, hamam and caravansarai.

There was also a saddle market in the vicinity, the

rents from which contributed to the upkeep of the

mosque and its dependencies.

The plans of Ottoman mosques are largely

determined by their dome structures. The prayer

hall of Mehmet’s original mosque consisted of a

large dome, twenty-six metres in diameter, next to

a half-dome of the same diameter extending to the

mihrab in the qibla wall. There were three smaller

lateral domes on either side. The main dome and

half-dome were supported by buttresses within the

north-western wall of the prayer hall, two piers

and two antique porphyry columns taken from the

Church of the Holy Apostles. The central dome was

the largest in the Ottoman Empire, but it fell short

of the Haghia Sophia, which has a dome thirty-one

metres in diameter. Projecting from the main body

of the prayer hall of Mehmet’s mosque are the

monumental facades of the sahn enclosure pierced

by two tiers of windows and three entrance portals.

The prayer hall and the sahn form adjacent spaces,

like open and closed boxes, with the former covered

with domes and the latter open to the sky. The

sahn forms a spatial overture to the mosque, and

in this case it occupies a slightly larger space than the

prayer hall. This arrangement of sahn and prayer hall

is significant because it establishes the subsequent

grandeur of the sahn in most of Istanbul’s classical

imperial mosques.

The main entrance portal to the sahn on the

north-western facade, and that leading to the prayer

hall, are on the same axis, and both survive from

the original building. Their fine proportions, simple

mouldings and disciplined restraint bear witness

to the maturity of Ottoman design at that stage in

its development. Their

composition, consisting

of upright framing panels

pierced by central niches

with conical hoods filled

with stalactite clusters,

known as muqarnas,

present a classical format

derived from Selçuk

architecture. The mono -

chrome austerity of the

prayer hall portal is

beautifully offset by

gilded calligraphy, set

against dark green panels, proclaiming the name of

Mehmet and the date of the mosque’s foundation.

The generous space of the sahn is relieved by

an informal arrangement of tall cypress trees and a

centrally placed fountain with a wide conical roof.

The domed revaks (arcaded cloisters) surrounding the

sahn have arcades supported on antique columns

surmounted by muqarnas capitals. In total there are

twenty-two bays, and the level array of their domes,

breaking through the roofline of the facades, provides

a globulous baseline towards which the descending

domes of the prayer hall cascade. Inside the sahn, the

lunettes above the window grills at each end of the

qibla revak contain calligraphic inscriptions in blue,

turquoise, green and yellow in cuerda seca tilework.

Developed in Central Asia, the cuerda seca technique

involved the application of several colours on the

tile and separating each on firing with a mixture of

wax or oil with manganese. The result was that each

colour is left outlined with a thin dark line. It was

a technique used by craftsmen from Tabriz in Bursa

and Edirne, but whether they were later responsible

THE ART AND ARCHITECTURE OF OTTOMAN ISTANBUL28

Entrance to Prayer Hall

622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1_622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1 02/05/2012 10:09 Page 28

for this work, or played any part in setting up the

Iznik ceramics industry, is a matter of conjecture.31

Mustafa’s reconstruction of Mehmet’s mosque

comes as no disappointment when entering its prayer

hall. The interior space is quite awesome, and one

wonders how Mehmet’s original dome construction

might have looked in such a vast area. The plan of

Mustafa’s mosque follows Mehmet’s foundations, but

the dome structure is quite different, consisting of a

rosette formation of four half-domes clustered around

a central dome of the same diameter. Koca Sinan

first used this arrangement in 1548 for his Şehzade

mosque. It was again used by Sultan Ahmet I in the

Blue Mosque (1616) and in Valide Sultan Turhan

Hadice’s Yeni Cami (1666), which follows an earlier

design dating back to 1597. In this respect Mustafa

follows tradition, and although the new mosque is

essentially eighteenth-century baroque, it is somewhat

circumspect and conservative. Its baroque character

is defined more by its grandiose use of space

than by the details of painted decoration or the

bulbous finials that once capped the two minarets

(now replaced by conical caps).

Next to the mosque, the most important

features of this külliye are the eight medreses. It is these

buildings, which once formed a major university, that

proclaim the cultural shift taking place in the new

city. The two ranges of buildings, the Akdeniz and

the Karadeniz, flank the main precinct. Each consists

of four medreses and, separated by a passageway,

four annexes known as the Tetumme medreses (now

destroyed). Each medrese had an arcaded courtyard,

around which were arranged nineteen cells for the

students, an iwan and a domed derşane, or lecture

hall. The annexe buildings each contained nine cells.

When the student population grew to one thousand,

overcrowding became a problem, with up to five

students sharing a cell. The curriculum, in part, was

not unlike that of the liberal arts studied in Western

universities. The liberal arts, derived from the classical

world, consisted of the trivium (rhetoric, logic and

grammar) and the quadrivium (music, astronomy,

geometry and arithmetic). According to Babinger, the

medrese curriculum embraced:

CHAPTER ONE: MEHMET THE CONQUEROR AND THE RISE OF ISTANBUL2 9

The Sahn

Court of Karadeniz medreseAkdeniz medrese

622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1_622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1 02/05/2012 10:09 Page 29

[C]omplete courses in ten sciences: grammar,

syntax, logic, rhetoric, geometry, astronomy,

and the four legal-theological disciplines,

dogmatics, jurisprudence, the ‘traditions’ of

the Prophet, and Qur’anic exegesis.32

The influence of Byzantium is at work here, for

Islam since its inception has embraced, preserved

and absorbed Greek learning. What we have in this

curriculum is the intellectual tools of Greek learning

plus the Islamic disciplines of jurisprudence, Qur’anic

exegesis and hadis, or tradition. Often Turkish külliye

would have four separate medreses, each devoted to

the four orthodox schools of Islamic law, known as

madhahib. These schools, developed during the first

two centuries of Islam, are the Maliki, Hanafi, Shafi’i

and Hanbali, named after their founders, Malik ibn

Anas (d.795), Abu Hanifa (d.767), al-Shafi’i (d.820)

and Ahmed ibn Hanbal (d.855). The study of

hadis involved knowledge of the sayings, actions and

example of the Prophet. Interpretation of this material,

and the quality and reliability of its transmission

(isnad), was critically important. This was taught

in the building known as the darül-hadis, and

Qur’anic exegesis and commentary was studied in

the darül-kurra.

Also influenced by Greek culture is the nature

of the külliye itself. Although the Prophet’s mosque at

Medina provided the ultimate model for the külliye,

the implementation of this model owes something

to Greek pious and charitable institutions known as

piae causae. These had long existed in the Byzantine

world and they influenced the development of their

Islamic counterparts, the vakf. A vakf was land and

property perpetually endowed for charitable purposes

by merchants, government ministers, grand viziers,

viziers, sultans or valide sultans (mothers of reigning

sultans). Their assets would be free from taxation,

and endowments not only paid for the building

fabric of vakfs but also for the salaries of the imams,

muezzins, teachers, doctors, librarians, cooks, bakers,

door-keepers, porters and lamplighters who manned

them (totalling 383 in the case of Mehmet’s

külliye). Many institutions incorporated shops or had

cultivable land, and the produce, rents and profits

contributed to their upkeep. In Istanbul it was the

vakf endowments of successive sultans and grand

viziers that produced the great külliye that mark the

architectural landscape of the city.

Of the other buildings in Mehmet’s külliye,

only the tabhane has survived in several states of

restoration. This was a hospice built to accommodate

travellers and itinerant Sufis (dervishes). In total it

has forty-six domes, twenty of which cover the bays

of the arcaded revaks surrounding the central court.

The columns are antique and no doubt taken from

the Church of the Holy Apostles. A large hall on one

side, equivalent in size to the derşanes in the medreses,

served the dual purpose of prayer room and hall for

Sufi ceremonies. The iwans, used for prayer meetings,

are supported on piers with corner colonettes similar

to those in the entrance portals of the sahn and

prayer hall. The colonettes, mouldings and rosette

decoration suggest that they date from the time

of Mehmet. A kitchen and bakehouse were located

on the north-eastern and south-western side, and

they also served the nearby imaret (now destroyed).

Rooms flanking the main hall were used for storage

and prayers, leaving accommodation for only about

twelve guests. Most travellers were accommodated

in cells and lodgings outside the külliye precincts,

where they were allowed to stay for up to three days.

Visiting merchants stabled their animals and stored

their merchandise in the numerous caravansarais,

which, according to the seventeenth-century traveller

and chronicler Evliya Çelebi, housed up to three

thousand animals.33

The imaret had no dining hall but consisted

of two kitchens providing a take-away service. This

building alone was totally inadequate to serve all

the needs of the külliye, and it must be the case that

other catering facilities existed, such as those in the

tabhane and hospital. The food in the hospital was

particularly noted for its quality. This building

was located symmetrically opposite the tabhane and

was similarly constructed around a courtyard plan.

With its distinctive apse, the derşane shows Byzantine

influence, something that occurs in a number of

THE ART AND ARCHITECTURE OF OTTOMAN ISTANBUL30

622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1_622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1 02/05/2012 10:09 Page 30

Istanbul’s early Ottoman buildings. Lectures would

take place in this room because the hospital also

served as a teaching hospital. In total there were

fourteen wards, staffed by Jewish physicians. Jewish

doctors were very much valued by Mehmet, and they

had long held high reputations in the Muslim world.

Saladin’s doctor was the great Jewish philosopher

and physician Maimonides. During Mehmet’s time,

Pope Nicholas V denied Jews and ‘Saracens’ any

professional status and Catholics were forbidden

contact with them. As a consequence Jews flocked

to Istanbul, and two of them, I.sak Paşa and

Jacopo of Gaetea, became personal physicians

to Murat II and Mehmet. The hospital ministered to

both the physically and mentally sick, and music, as

in Greek medicine, played an important therapeutic

role.

Every külliye would contain the tomb or türbe

of the founder. Those in the cemetery adjacent to the

mosque belong to Mehmet and his wife Gülbahar, and

both were reconstructed after the 1776 earthquake.

Mehmet’s is in the baroque style and Gülbahar’s is

in a simpler classical form. The exterior of Mehmet’s

türbe is octagonal in plan and divided vertically at

the corners by heavy, engaged classical pilasters.

Its dignified simplicity of form is broken by the

undulating spread of the striking baroque canopy

over the entrance porch. It is dated 1784 and is

the work of Mustafa’s successor, Abdülhamid I. The

screen and opulent baroque interior decoration is in

keeping with the status of the türbe and its occupant.

Mehmet is revered as one of Islam’s great holy

warriors, and for centuries his tomb has been

the focus of pilgrimage. Gülbahar’s tomb, on

the other hand, has attracted the veneration of

a number of Christians because tradition has it

that she never renounced her Christianity. She

was originally an Albanian Christian, although there

was also a popular belief she was the daughter of

a French king.34

CHAPTER ONE: MEHMET THE CONQUEROR AND THE RISE OF ISTANBUL3 1

The tabhane

622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1_622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1 02/05/2012 10:09 Page 31

The architect of Mehmet’s külliye was Atık

Sinan, also a Christian by birth, whose original name

was Christodoulis. He was a product of the devşirme,

which produced architects and engineers as well

as generals, admirals and grand viziers. Despite his

magnificent achievement in building Mehmet’s külliye,

Atık Sinan displeased the sultan when he failed to

build a dome as large and high as that of the Haghia

Sophia. For this the ungrateful sultan had him

mutilated and executed. Some sources say that Atık

Sinan was also guilty of cutting down two beautiful

antique columns, which had been transported some

considerable distance at great expense. His assistant

and successor, I.yas ibn Abdullah, who died a natural

death in 1487, was also of Christian descent. However,

their Christian backgrounds had no bearing on their

architectural design, which is thoroughly Ottoman

in spirit. It demonstrates how totally Ottomanized

they had become on account of their rigorous

education and training.

THE ART AND ARCHITECTURE OF OTTOMAN ISTANBUL32

The türbe of Mehmet II

Gülbahar’s tomb

622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1_622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1 02/05/2012 10:09 Page 32

CHAPTER ONE: MEHMET THE CONQUEROR AND THE RISE OF ISTANBUL3 3

Another külliye established by Mehmet in

1458 was that at Eyüp, the burial site of the Prophet

Muhammad’s companion and standard bearer Eyüp

Ensari. After Mecca and Jerusalem, Eyüp, for the Turks,

is the third holiest place in Islam. Eyüp Ensari was

killed just outside the walls of Constantinople during

the first Arab siege of 674 to 678. There is a legend

that the şehülislam (chief jurisconsult and leader of the

learned authorities known as the ilmiye) miraculously

discovered the tomb during the Ottoman conquest. As

Freely points out, this story is somewhat apocryphal

because there is plenty of evidence that the tomb

was known during the Byzantine era.35 Christians who

prayed for rain at the tomb during times of drought

venerated it. Eyüp is now exclusively a Muslim shrine,

and it was here that successive sultans were formally

invested with the sword of Osman – the Ottoman

ceremony of coronation. Mehmet’s külliye at Eyüp

consisted of a mosque, türbe, medrese, hamam, imaret

and market, but nothing of the original buildings

remain. They were all pulled down at the end of the

eighteenth century and Selim III built the present

complex in 1800. According the Godfrey Goodwin,

the imaret was still dispensing food to the poor and

needy as late as the 1970s.36

Mehmet’s other lasting contribution to

Istanbul’s architecture was the grand bazaar, or

kapalı çarşı (covered market). Like the külliye, it is an

independent entity, although its rents originally went

towards the upkeep of the Haghia Sophia. It remains

the largest covered market in the world. The market

as a whole was not confined to the kapalı çarşı, but

extended as an open market down the hill to the

Golden Horn, thus linking Beyazit Square with the

Yeni Cami and the Egyptian Bazaar. The present

covered market, with approximately three thousand

shops, occupies the original site. Owing to a number

of fires, little of Mehmet’s original structure survives,

except the Eski Bedestan (old market), which still sells

the precious goods for which it was designed. This

structure, in the centre of the bazaar, has fifteen

domes supported on eight massive piers. Another

surviving section, dating from the time of Beyazit II

(1481–1512), is the Sandal Bedestan, which is taller,

with twenty domes supported on twelve piers.

Carved on one of the gates to the Eski Bedestan is

a single-headed eagle, the emblem of the Byzantine

Comneni dynasty. According to Freely, this has

suggested to some scholars that the fabric of the

Eski Bedestan may be Byzantine in origin.37 It is more

likely to be a piece of recycled fabric in an Ottoman

structure, but there is no doubt that Mehmet built

the bazaar in one of the commercially vibrant areas

of the city. The main thoroughfare of the bazaar,

the Avenue of the Long Market, follows the ancient

shopping street known as Makro Embolos.

Mehmet died of an abdominal disorder in

1481. At the time of his death he had extended and

consolidated an empire that brought together most of

the various countries and beyliks of the Balkans and

Anatolia. Istanbul was now the hub of that empire,

and it was Mehmet’s tight centralization of power in

the capital that held the eastern and western wings

of the empire together. Its strategic position was

crucial, but Mehmet never lost awareness of its

history and symbolism, and his architecture reflects

this on a grand scale and established a model for

his successors. Also, wearing the mantle of Caesar,

he never lost sight of his ambition to reclaim the

Eastern Roman empire, and towards the end of his

life his campaigns were directed at the invasion

of Italy. To that end he captured a number of Greek

islands, besieged Rhodes and invaded Otranto,

causing panic in Rome. More significantly, he became

embroiled in a number of disputes with the Egyptian

Mamluk sultans over border territories and the

custody of the holy sanctuaries in Mecca and Medina.

His death lifted the threat to Rhodes and Italy, but

the quarrels with the Mamluk Empire (consisting

of Egypt, Syria, western Arabia and parts of eastern

Anatolia and northern Mesopotamia) continued with

his successors, Beyazit and Selim, giving them the

opportunity for subsequent territorial gains which

permanently changed the face of the Middle East.

622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1_622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1 02/05/2012 10:09 Page 33

Notes

1 Babinger, F., Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time

(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978),

pp. 94–95.

2 Other sources state that he said these words while

viewing the ruins of the Blachernae Palace. The origin

of this verse, according to Babinger, is unknown, but

Freely attributes it to the Persian poet Saadi. Babinger, F.,

op. cit., p. 96 and Freely, J., Inside the Seraglio: Private

Lives of the Sultans in Istanbul (London and New York:

Viking, 1999), p. 15.

3 Holt, P., Lampton, A., and Lewis, B. (eds), The Cambridge

History of Islam Vol. 1A (Cambridge University Press,

1970), p. 306.

4 Freely, J., Istanbul: The Imperial City (New York: Viking,

1996), p. 183.

5 Goodwin, G., A History of Ottoman Architecture (London:

Thames & Hudson, 1971), p. 105.

6 See Tanney, D. H., Istanbul Seen by Matrakçi and the

Miniatures of the 16th Century (Istanbul: Dost Yayinlari,

1996), p. 33.

7 Mehmet was 21 at the time of the conquest. Giacomo

Languschi’s account comes from Cronaca by Zorzo

Dolfin. It is quoted in Babinger, F., op. cit., p. 112.

8 Inalcik, H., “The Rise of the Ottoman Empire” in Holt, P.,

Lampton, A., and Lewis, B. (eds), op. cit., pp. 296–97.

9 Babinger, F., op. cit., p. 410.

10 Freely, J. (1999), op. cit., p. 24.

11 Raby, J., “East and West in Mehmed the Conqueror’s

Library”, Bulletin du Bibliophile, Vol. 3, 1987,

pp. 296–321.

12 Grendler, P., “Ciriaco d’Ancona,” in Hale, J. R. (ed.), A

Concise Encyclopaedia of the Italian Renaissance

(London: Thames & Hudson, 1981), p. 85.

13 Jardine, L., Worldly Goods: A New History of the

Renaissance (London: Macmillan, 1996), pp. 231–39.

14 Babinger, F., op. cit., p. 203.

15 Babinger, F., op. cit., pp. 386–88.

16 Levey, M., Florence (London: Jonathan Cape, 1996),

p. 222.

17 Jardine, L., op. cit., p. 405.

18 Babinger, F., op. cit., pp. 377–79.

19 Chong, A., “Gentile Bellini in Istanbul: Myths and

Misunderstandings”, published in Campbell, C. and

Chong, A. (eds), Bellini and the East (London: National

Gallery Company; Boston: Isabella Stewart Gardener

Museum. Distributed by Yale University Press, 2005).

20 Goodwin, G. (1971), op. cit., p. 134.

21 Blair, S. and Bloom, J., The Art and Architecture of

Islam 1250–1800 (London: Yale University Press, 1995),

p. 215.

22 Hillenbrand, R., Islamic Architecture: Form, Function and

Meaning (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1994),

p. 459.

23 Goodwin, G. (1971), op. cit., p. 132.

24 Goodwin, G., Topkapı Palace: An Illustrated Guide to

its Life and Personalities (London: Saqi Books, 1999),

p. 169.

25 Behrens-Abouseif, D., Islamic Architecture in Cairo: An

Introduction (Cairo: American University in Cairo Press,

1989), p. 109.

26 Goodwin, G. (1971), op. cit., p. 325.

27 Goodwin, G. (1971), op. cit., p. 134.

28 Andrea, A. J., The Capture of Constantinople: The “Historia

Constantinopolitana” of Gunther of Pairis (Philadelphia,

PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997).

29 Majeska, G., Russian Travellers to Constantinople in the

Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries (Washington, DC:

Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1984),

pp. 302–05.

30 Babinger, F., op. cit., p. 292.

31 Carswell, J., Iznik Pottery (London: British Museum Press,

1998), pp. 26–27.

32 Babinger, F., op. cit., p. 296.

33 Mantran, R., Istanbul dans la seconde moitié du XVIIe

siècle (Paris: Maisonneuve, 1962), p. 137.

34 Freely, J. (1996), op. cit., p. 189.

35 Freely, J., The Blue Guide: Istanbul (London and New

York: Black & Norton, 1991), p. 288.

36 Goodwin, G. (1971), op. cit., p. 125.

37 Freely, J. (1991), op. cit., p. 172.

THE ART AND ARCHITECTURE OF OTTOMAN ISTANBUL34

622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1_622 Ottoman 1 Chapter 1 02/05/2012 10:09 Page 34