Ottoman Istanbul Website

(1)

T

HE

A

RT AND

A

RCHITECTURE OF

(2)

(3)

a r n e t

P U B L I S H I N G

T

HE

A

RT AND

A

RCHITECTURE OF

O

TTOMAN

I

STANBUL

(4)

THE ART AND ARCHITECTURE OF OTTOMAN ISTANBUL

Published by

Garnet Publishing Limited 8 Southern Court South Street Reading Berkshire RG1 4QS UK www.garnetpublishing.co.uk www.twitter.com/Garnetpub www.facebook.com/Garnetpub blog.garnetpublishing.co.uk

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 Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Design

Samantha Barden

Jacket design

David Rose

Cover photo

Used courtesy of iStockphoto.com/Gordon Dixon Printed and bound in Lebanon by International Press: [email protected]

(5)

(6)

(7)

L

IST OF

I N E 2 0 7

The Triumph of Europe – Westernization in Nineteenth-Century Architecture

L

IST OF

O

TTOMAN

S

ULTANS 2 4 3

G

LOSSARY 2 4 5

S

ELECT

B

IBLIOGRAPHY 2 5 1

(8)

(9)

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

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

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

CHAPTER THREE: THE ARCHITECTURE OF SINAN

Plan of Haseki Hürrem Külliye 51 Haseki Hürrem hospital © Richard Yeomans 52

(10)

Haseki Hürrem imaret © Richard Yeomans 52 The Mihrimah Sultan Külliye © Richard Yeomans 53 Views of the prayer hall of the Şehzade mosque 54

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

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

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

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

The Atık Valide Külliye © Richard Yeomans 75 The fountain of Atık Valide Külliye © Richard Yeomans 75 Sinan’s kitchens at the Topkapı Palace 75

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 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

Polychrome pitcher, photograph © Richard 89 Yeomans, courtesy of Çinili Kiosk

THEART ANDARCHITECTURE OFOTTOMANISTANBUL x

(11)

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

Scala, Florence

‘Bird’ carpet © Victoria and Albert Museum, London 117 Transylvania rugs © Victoria and Albert Museum, 118

London

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

Arcades for ablutions © Richard Yeomans 127 Dome structure, Sultan Ahmet mosque 128

LIST OFILLUSTRATIONS

(12)

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

The türbe in the Koprülü Külliye © Richard Yeomans 143 Vizier Han Çemberlitaş© Richard Yeomans 143 ÇemberlitaşHamami © 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

Gilded rococo decoration in the Divan 153 © Richard Yeomans

Sultan Ahmet III library © Richard Yeomans 153 Interior of Sultan Ahmet III library 153

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

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

Interior of Mahmut’s fountain © Richard Yeomans 158 Hekimoğlu fountain © Richard Yeomans 158 The Haci Mehmet Emin Ağa cemetery 159

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

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

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

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

THEART ANDARCHITECTURE OFOTTOMANISTANBUL xii

(13)

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

Selamlık entry/exit hall © Richard Yeomans 216 Dolmabahçe Palace, crystal staircase 216

Dolmabahçe Palace, crystal staircase detail 216 © Richard Yeomans

LIST OFILLUSTRATIONS

(14)

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

Interior of Dolmabahçe Bezmialem Valide Sultan 221 mosque © Richard Yeomans

Büyük Mecidiye mosque, Ortaköy © Richard Yeomans 221 Interior of Büyük Mecidiye mosque, Ortaköy 221

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

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

The Mabeyn apartments, Yıldız Palace 234 © Richard Yeomans

Şale Pavilion: Yıldız Palace © Richard Yeomans 235 Mother-of-Pearl Room in the Şale Pavilion 236

Malta Pavillion © Richard Yeomans 237 Inside the Hamidiye mosque © Richard Yeomans 238 The Hamidiye mosque © Richard Yeomans 238 Kocatepe mosque, Ankara © Richard Yeomans 241

THEART ANDARCHITECTURE OFOTTOMANISTANBUL xiv

(15)

M

y 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

(16)

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

THEART ANDARCHITECTURE OFOTTOMANISTANBUL xvi

(17)

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 Tug˘laci’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. Ug˘ur

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 tug˘ra, 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 Kö

ş

k, 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.

PREFACE

(18)

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

THEART ANDARCHITECTURE OFOTTOMANISTANBUL xviii

(19)

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.

PREFACE

(20)

(21)

I

NTRODUCTION

The Turks, the Ottomans

and the Conquest

(22)

THEART ANDARCHITECTURE OFOTTOMANISTANBUL

2

I

n 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 Og˘uz 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

(23)

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 Eski

ş

ihir. 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: THETURKS, THEOTTOMANS AND THECONQUEST OFCONSTANTINOPLE

(24)

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 Og˘uz Turks. He emerged as a leader in the Sög˘üt 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).

(25)

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 dev

ş

irme. 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 dev

ş

irme

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 dev

ş

irme. 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

5

(26)

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

(27)

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:

7

(28)

[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

N

otes

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.

(29)

C

HAPTER

O

NE

Mehmet the Conqueror

and the Rise of Istanbul

(30)

T

he 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 of Afrasiyah.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

10

Ottoman Istanbul Website

T

HE

A

RT AND

A

RCHITECTURE OF

a r n e t

T

HE

A

RT AND

A

RCHITECTURE OF

O

TTOMAN

I

STANBUL

Contents

L

I

P

I

C

O

C

T

C

T

C

F

C

F

C

S

C

S

C

E

C

N

L

O

S

G

S

B

List of Illustrations

M

Preface

­­

ş

I

NTRODUCTION

The Turks, the Ottomans

and the Conquest

I

ş

ş

ş

ş

N

otes

C

HAPTER

O

NE

Mehmet the Conqueror

and the Rise of Istanbul

T