: vassily kandinsky (1866-1944), lungarno pacinotti, 43 56126...

Constructing cultural identity, representing social power / edited by Cânâ Bilsel, Kim Esmark, Niyazi Kžzžlyürek, Ólafur Rastrick. - Pisa : Plus-Pisa University Press, 2010. – (Thematic work group. 2, Power and culture ; 5)306 (21.)1. Studi culturali I. Bilsel, Cânâ II. Esmark, Kim III. Kžzžlyürek, Niyazi IV. Rastrick, Ólafur

CIP a cura del Sistema bibliotecario dell’Università di Pisa

This volume is published thanks to the support of the Directorate General for Research of the European Commission, by the Sixth Framework Network of Excellence CLIOHRES.net under the contract CIT3-CT-2005-006164.The volume is solely the responsibility of the Network and the authors; the European Community cannot be held responsible for its contents or for any use which may be made of it.

Cover: Vassily Kandinsky (1866-1944), Square with Dots, 1913, Russian State Museum, St. Petersburg.© 1990 Photo Scala, Florence

© 2010 by CLIOHRES.netThe materials published as part of the CLIOHRES Project are the property of the CLIOHRES.net Consortium. They are available for study and use, provided that the source is clearly [email protected] - www.cliohres.net

Published by Edizioni Plus – Pisa University PressLungarno Pacinotti, 4356126 PisaTel. 050 2212056 – Fax 050 [email protected] - Section “Biblioteca”

Member of

ISBN: 978-88-8492-734-7

Linguistic editingRobert Collis

Informatic editingRăzvan Adrian Marinescu

Editorial assistanceViktoriya Kolp

Return of the Sultan: Nuruosmânîye Mosque and the Istanbul Bedestan

Ali Uzay PekerMiddle East Technical University

AbstrAct

This chapter explains why the 18th-century royal mosque Nuruosmânîye was built next to Istanbul’s central Bedestan after a long lapse in the tradition of royal patronage of monumental mosque buildings. The Tarih-i Cami-i Şerîf-i Nur-u Osmanî, a history of the construction by the building’s secretary, Ahmed Efendi, is reviewed for the first time for the clues it offers to the social and political atmosphere that led to the mosque’s construction. This study asserts that Nuruosmânîye Mosque was conceived to effect a rapprochement between the traders of the Bedestan and Sultan Mahmud I following tumultuous years of mutual distrust, which culminated in the Patrona Halil Revolt and the dethronement of Mahmud I’s predecessor, Sultan Ahmed III. The use of Baroque features is explained as indicating the increasing role of the State’s local non-Muslims and Levantines and as a sign of growing commercial relations with the West. This contribu-tion interprets the coexistence of Ottoman forms, such as a classical domed baldachin, and novel Baroque features as a manifestation of the cosmopolitanism of the capital, which inspired Sultan Mahmud I to resume the royal tradition of building patronage.

Bu yazı, Sultan I. Mahmud’un başlatıp, Sultan III. Osman’ın tamamlattığı Istanbul’daki Nuruosmânîye Camisi’nin niçin İstanbul Bedesteni’nin hemen yanında, son selâtin camisi yapıldıktan yaklaşık 140 yıl sonra ve Barok etki altında yapıldığını açıklar. Bu makalede, Bina Kâtibi Ahmed Efendi’nin yazdığı Tarih-i Cami-i Şerîf-i Nur-u Osmanî adlı metin ilk defa teknik bilgilerin ötesinde verdiği tarihî bilgiler açısından değerlendirilerek, Nuru-osmânîye Camisi‘nin inşası III. Ahmed’in tahttan indirilmesine neden olan Patrona Ha-lil İsyanı’nın arkasındaki toplumsal olaylarla ilişkilendirilmiş, yapının Bedesten’in esnaf ve tüccarları ile yapılan sosyal antlaşmanın somutlaşması olarak inşa edildiği fikri ortaya atılmıştır. On sekizinci yüzyılın ilk yarısında ortaya çıkan nisbî barış döneminde yaptırı-lan bu cami, Osmanlı hanedanlığına gönderme (Nur-u Osmanî) ile adlandırılıp, yapıl-dığı döneme kadar başa geçen sultanların isimleri ile bezenmiştir. Bu özelliği ile uzun bir dönem ara verilen sultan camisi yaptırma geleneğine gösterişli bir dönüşü ifade eder. Açılış töreninin ihtişamı da bu durumu pekiştirir. Bina, on yedinci yüzyıl boyunca görülen mi-

Ali Uzay Peker140

marî krizin aşılması yolunda önemli bir adımdır. Bu yazıda cami, kıtalararası ilişkilerde yeni bir dönemin simgesi olarak değerlendirilir. Batı ile gelişen ticarî ilişkiler ile Batı’nın aracısı olan Levanten ve azınlık kültürünün toplum içinde kendisini giderek faha fazla göstermeye başlamasının neden olduğu Batı sanat üslûplarıyla tanışıklık, Nuruosmânî-ye Camisi’nin yoğun Barok niteliğini açıklayabilir. Öte yandan yapı, aynı ölçüde yoğun İslâmî göndermeler içerir. İç ve dış bezemedeki sütunceler Mekke ve Medine’deki kutsal camileri çağrıştırır; Kur’an ve hadislerden alıntılar, cami ve ek binalarının ibadet, eğitim ve beslenme gibi işlevlerini vurgularken bunları hayırsever sultanın inananlara hediyesi olarak sunar. Barok ve Klâsik Osmanlı etkilerinin dengelenmeye çalışıldığı yapı, melez bir karakter taşır. Nuruosmânîye Camisi, sultanın, eski Osmanlı geleneğinden gelen bir anlayışla, hâlâ çok katmanlı-kozmopolit bir kültürden kaynaklanan çeşitli ögeleri dönüş-türebilen yaratıcı gücünü gösterebildiği bir alan olarak değerlendirilebilir.

IntroductIon

At the end of the 17th century, the Treaty of Karlowitz (1699) ended the long and wea-rying Austrian-Ottoman War of 1683-1697, and the subsequent Treaty of Passarowitz (1718) introduced a relative concord in Ottoman-European affairs. Peace on the borders stimulated Ottoman rulers’ concentration on the enjoyment of daily life, and produced what is now commonly known as the Tulip Age, an era of leisure renowned for its culti-vated taste. Nevertheless, the placid surface of this sea of bliss was disturbed by discontent welling up from the borderlands between Austria and Iran, and a financial crisis in Istanbul fomented anger that turned into an outburst against the Sultan in 1730, an event known as the Patrona Halil. This riot ended with the dethronement of Sultan Ahmad III (reigned 1703-1730) and the coronation of Mahmud I (1696-1754, reigned 1730-1754).

In the north, Russia declared war against the Ottomans in 1735 and sacked Bahçesaray, capital of Crimea. Austria also became involved in the war in 1737. This conflict was resolved by the Belgrade Treaty with the Habsburg Monarchy, signed in 1739, followed by the Treaty of Nissa with the Russians the same year. The 1730s were also a time of conflict between the Ottoman Empire and Iran. Nadir Shah, having declared himself the first shah of the Avshar dynasty, occupied Tabriz in 1730 and besieged Baghdad in 1733. His ambition to legitimize Twelver or Imami Shî’ism ( Jafari) as a fifth school (madh’hab) of Islam was rejected by the Ottoman negotiators sent to secure peace with Iran. Nadir attacked Iraq and besieged Mosul in 1743 and proceeded to Revan in 1745. Instability continued on the eastern borders until 1746, when a pact was finally signed between the Ottoman Empire and Iran.

In the middle of the 1730s, during years of conflict on the borders, Sultan Mahmud I became conscious of the need to improve his military forces. The first printing house had been established in 1729 in Istanbul and its founder, Ibrâhim Müteferrika, present-ed the Sultan with an inquiry into the science of ruling nations (Usul ul-hikem fi nizam

Return of the Sultan: Nuruosmânîye Mosque and the Istanbul Bedestan 141

Representing Power through Art, Architecture and the Urban Space

al–uman), that advised him to learn from the military technologies of the West1. This advocacy, along with the evident weakness of the army, convinced the Sultan to form a group of salaried artillerymen (bombardier corps, humbaracı) and in 1734 he estab-lished the first Western-type military school, called the Hendesehâne (Humbarahâne). This school was organized by a French military officer, the Comte de Bonneval, who later became known as Humbaracı Ahmed Paşa. Sultan Mahmud I also built a new cannon factory in the Tophane quarter in 1744. He re-established the printing house which had been closed after the death of its founder in 1747. He imported craftsmen from Poland and established a mill in Yalova to supply it with paper. Sultan Mahmud I, with his revenues bolstered by cost-cutting measures and a time of peace, spent his time and funds on pious endowments and building a number of personal retreats.

Mahmud I is not known as a reformist Sultan2. His personal projects included enlarg-ing a palace in Beşiktaş with gardens and pavilions (so-called ‘mabeyn and yalı kiosks’) in 1747, and he was the first Sultan to retreat to the Bosphorus in the summer with his family. His launching of the military school was primarily a practical act. In point of fact, he was a devout Muslim, renowned for his pious donations. M.C. Zilfi has suggested that the military stagnation in the 18th century led to the detachment of the sacred from military initiatives3. It was a time to concentrate on acts of devotion within the Islamic domain, instead of military campaigns to expand the faith. A thriving economy helped this project4. Sultan Mahmud I sent a relic from the palace treasury to the Tomb of Eyüb al-Ensari in 1732; he ordered numerous Islamic monuments of Jerusalem re-stored in 1742 and later in 1753; and with his mother Saliha Sultan, built an aqueduct to a new water distribution centre (maksim) located in what is today the Taksim square (‘taksim’: distribution). Building upon this construction, an elite circle including his mother, viziers, harem and janissary aghas and others built around forty fountains in 1733 throughout the Tophane, Galata, Kasımpaşa, Dolmabahçe and Beşiktaş quarters. The Sultan himself built the famous Tophane Fountain in 1732; he founded a library in the Ayasofya Mosque and donated to it rare handwritten Korans – including some that had belonged to Caliph Osman and Imam Ali – and four thousand other books; ordered hadiths of Buharî to be chanted by ten preachers every day in that library; built a library in the courtyard of the Fatih Mosque in 1749 and another in Belgrade and added one in the Revan Room of the Topkapı Palace; built an imaret (soup kitchen) next to the Ayasofya Mosque; and commissioned a new dam in Büyükdere in 1750 to provide more water to his fountains, which eventually numbered around a hundred. A grand mosque called Nuruosmânîye and its associated buildings was his ultimate pious foundation5.

A dynAstIc foundAtIon

Sultan Mahmud I commissioned his royal mosque in 1749, subsequent to consolidat-ing power on the borders and suppressing local rebellions. The period between 1746 and 1768 was a time of truce, hence a time for initiating philanthropic foundations.

Ali Uzay Peker142

The new building was intended to add a link to the chain of monumental building com-plexes built by earlier Ottoman Sultans. This tradition had halted for almost 140 years after the construction of the Sultan Ahmed Mosque (1609-1616), when political and economic instability and military weaknesses precluded grand architectural projects6. This condition persisted until the end of the so-called Tulip Period, when Sultan Ahmed III and his grand vizier, Sadrazam Damad Ibrahim Paşa, both founded modest mosques. These were built as part of the residential complexes they or their close rela-tives built for themselves on the fringes of the city and on the Bosphorus7. Later sultans resumed the practice of constructing large building complexes, which, as in the example of Nuruosmânîye, aimed at stabilizing ties with the public. Sultan Mahmud I’s building project displayed piety, beneficence and his renewed financial power. Howard Crane reflects that of the reasons for Ottoman imperial patronage of great mosque complexes, the ruler’s desire to demonstrate his support of religion, orthodoxy in his faith and legitimacy in his claim to authority were among the most significant8. Ottoman rulers regarded architecture as a means of ‘dynastic propaganda’9, and their imperial mosque complexes were testimonials to the dynasty’s claims to religious sanction10. All cities or towns with a Muslim population contain a Friday Mosque (Great Mosque) or masjid with a minaret. In parallel with its function as a house of prayer, Islam is taught by regular courses for the public given either in the mosque, or in an attached medrese (school). Sultans attended Friday prayers in the Great Mosque as a regular duty, and in the course of the sermon (khutba) tribute was paid them11. Mahmud I, like many other Ottoman sultans, used the title ‘Protector of the Two Holy Cities’ (hadim al-haremeyn al-şerifeyn), referring of course to the holy mosques in Mecca and Medina. The mosques the Sultans built in major cities of the Empire were probably conceived as symbolic recreations of these mosques. The intense meaning attached to the erection of Sultan mosques (selâtîn câmii [sultan mosque] or câmi’-i Hümâyun [royal mosque]) in the Ottoman tradition, and the long delay after the Sultan Ahmed Mosque, may have combined to account for the abrupt and startling expression of grandeur when the tradition was restored. Nur-u Osmânîye was built to be a symbol of the continuing supremacy of the Ottomans, and its name, ‘Light of Osman’ recalled the governing dynasty. It also makes reference to Sultan Osman III, who was crowned only one year before the completion of the mosque in 1754 and who was acknowledged in the open-ing ceremony12. The mosque’s name joins the concept of ‘sacred light’ (nur) to the name of the dynastic founder. The expression ‘Nur-u Osmaniye’ might be understood as the Light of the Ottomans in general rather than as the Light of Sultan Osman III in par-ticular13. The Ottoman dynastic genealogy given in three continuous inscriptions on the inner side of the three entrance gates leading to the courtyard is a pointed reminder of the Ottoman rule in the capital, the so-called Âsitâne-i sa’âdet-medar (threshold of happiness). The opening ceremony included a grand royal procession from the Palace to the Mosque via the main avenue of the city, the Divanyolu14, and the presentation of gifts to administrators, men of religion and state officials in hierarchical order15. The



presence of the Sultan and his retinue, central to the ceremony, made the inauguration a solemn event. This ceremony demonstrates the significance attached to the Nuruos-mânîye Mosque following long years of neglect of dynastic foundations.

selectIon of the sIte

The secretary (binâ kâtibi) of the Nuruosmânîye building, Ahmed Efendi, recorded the construction and opening ceremony of the complex in a treatise (risâle) in the format of a historical narrative, titled History of the Blessed Nuruosmânîye Mosque (Tarih-i Cami-i Şerîf-i Nur-u Osmanî)16. A rare example of Ottoman architectural historiography before the Republican period, the text gives invaluable information on the mosque’s foundation. Ahmed Efendi offers a remarkable reason for the selection of the site for the mosque. He indicates that two inns, Kıbleli-zâde Han (an inn for slave sellers) and Bekârlar Han (an inn for bachelors), were purchased and demolished to construct the buildings of the mosque complex. The residents of the inns were a group of corrupt and dissolute men; the Bekârlar Han in particular was known as a home to slave traders involved in indecent relationships. Destruction of these two inns and construction of a mosque in their place received blessings from the community of the Prophet17. The foundation of a mosque in the place of ‘houses of sin’ asserted the Sultan’s role as a puri-fying force. This interference with their affairs must have offended the users of the inns, who were itinerant traders and slave sellers, typical members of the bazaar area, but it sent a strong message about the Sultan’s will.

Located to the north-east of the Covered Bazaar at a spot in the middle of a dense trade zone, Nuruosmânîye Mosque shines as a symbol of replenished royal dignity (Fig. 1). Adapted to the site, the shops aligned along the exterior walls of the complex render the building an inseparable part of the daily trade activity of the district. Founding a royal mosque next to, or in, the central bazaar area was a traditional Ottoman building practice. This selection of the site can be compared to building a royal institution next to Les Halles in Paris. It was clearly an act of displaying royal presence in a prominent district that had not been endowed with a monumental mosque since the construction of the Mahmud Paşa Mosque in 1464.

The southern gate to the mosque courtyard is opposite the northern main gate of the Covered Bazaar, which includes the old Bedestan. Both gates are conspicuous at the end of circulation routes and juxtapose the courtyard and the main avenue of the Ba-zaar. The Mosque and the Bazaar are thus linked by a thoroughfare for channelling people and goods, connecting Bâb-ı Âli [Sublime Port] and Bayazıd Square. Sultan Mahmud I’s choice of the site was a sign of his intention to insert a charitable founda-tion in the very centre of the city after decades of lapsed patronage. M. Cerasi explains this inner axis for circulation as “a will to change deliberately the town structure”18. According to him, this gesture aimed at the creation of “a connection towards the gov-

Ali Uzay Peker144

ernment and palace quarters of Bâb-ı Âli and Ayasofya”19. Planning sites with careful attention to the street pattern became a feature of 18th-century Ottoman architecture, and can be regarded as a first attempt at urban planning20. The arcades before the shops on the western front of the walls of the Complex create a shaded walkway. The creation of a sidewalk as such was new and can be related to the general design concept of the Complex, which aimed to open the building to the surrounding district.

The insertion of the Nuruosmânîye Complex in the middle of a densely urbanized trade zone conflicts with the idea of the mosque as a haven for prayer and education. Previ-ous royal building complexes had high protective walls to exclude the city’s crowds. The Nuruosmânîye Mosque symbolizes the return of the Sultan to the city in a way similar to the reappearance of the Pope in Baroque splendour during the Counter-Reforma-tion. It was designed to promote circulation on a main artery of the city. While classical Sultan Mosques, like Gothic Cathedrals in Europe, became urban hubs in time, Nuru-osmânîye, like the Baroque Churches in Rome, was attached to an existing circulation

Fig. 1Aerial view of the Nuruosmânîye Mosque and the Istanbul Bedestan, in the background are the Sultanah-mad Mosque and Hagia Sophia (from I. Aksit, Istanbul: Capital of Three Empires, Istanbul 2002, p. 256).,

.



route. Nuruosmânîye’s incorporation of the Bedestan’s alleyway renders it distinct from the preceding line of Ottoman Sultan Mosques – after a retreat of almost a century and a half, the Sultan now asserted his presence as part of the public life of the city.

Ahmed Efendi indicates that the site selected for the mosque was a greatly blessed (şerif) and esteemed (mu’teber) spot of Istanbul, close to tradesmen (esnâf-ı sanâyi’) and craftsmen (erbâb-ı hırfet), who were targeted as a congregation for the mosque21. The Bedestan of Istanbul with the bazaar around it plays an important part in the city. It was used for selling and storing wares and textiles, and for resident merchants to conduct transactions and organize overland trade ventures. Bedestans were also used to hold items in trust22. Halil Inalcık points out that, “the city with a bedestan was a centre for international trade”23. International transactions necessitated skills and experience that in the 16th century were still mostly in the possession of the upper classes24. The bed-estan (Old Bedestan or Jewelry Bedestan) and the Grand Bazaar were first constructed by the Conqueror Sultan Mehmed II. A second bedestan, the Sandal (Silk) Bedestan, was added in the 16th century. There were hundreds of shops outside the bedestan in the bazaar area, which were used by craftsmen specialized in different crafts like cap-, boot-, dress- and saddle-making. The bazaar also housed dealers of cloth, satin, bro-cade, cushions, velvet, silk garments, bath cloth, carpet and used-goods (bit-pazari). Outside the Old Bedestan and Grand Bazaar area, there were many shops (Mahmud Paşa Dükkânları), hans, caravanserais (large inns with stables), and slave and horse mar-kets that formed a trade zone25. The area where Nuruosmânîye was built was formerly the commercial centre of the Byzantine city. From the shore of the Golden Horn, the Portico of Domninos extended uphill to the Constantinian and Theodosian fora. The bedestan of Mehmed II was built between these fora and his first palace nearby. The bazaar in the core of the city preserved the traditional, Byzantine commercial location. Hans for itinerant merchants occupy an area which was formerly next to the Portico of Domninos, and they were located between the harbour in the Golden Horn and uphill next to the Covered Bazaar, where ships unloaded and goods were sold26. Why did Sul-tan Mahmud I built his royal mosque in such a crowded, established business centre?

The name of the Nuruosmânîye Mosque, Light of Osman, suggests a verse from Ko-ran (24/37)27. In this verse, the Light of God is embodied as physical light on earth, introduced as a sign of piety and worship to be followed by dealers. So, Nuruosmânîye Mosque appears to have been donated with the aim to provide a house of worship to the residents and clients of the Istanbul Bedestan. Why at this time?

His devaluation of silver currency, which led to the decrease in the wealth of the mer-chants, was one of the reasons why Sultan Ahmed III was dethroned in 1730. The dis-content of the commercial class began to grow around 1719, when a silver shortage oc-curred in the State Mint House, which could no longer send currency to the market. The currency shortage led to a serious crisis in trade activities in which the tradesmen and craftsmen of Istanbul suffered badly28. Ahmed III incurred further wrath from the

Ali Uzay Peker146

merchant class by imposing new taxes and re-organizing the tradesman’s guilds, restrict-ing apprentice appointments and opening of new shops by master craftsmen. When Mahmud I was crowned after the Patrona Revolt, the tradesmen of Istanbul petitioned him to reduce taxes29. There were other reasons for the economic problems, for example, the proliferation of intermediaries (dellâl) between producers and retailers; the increas-ing involvement of janissaries in trading activities; and additional taxes (bid’at vergisi) imposed in the year 1730 to pay for the military campaign to Iran. This last item par-ticularly exacerbated the ire against the Sultan, since the campaign was cancelled shortly after the taxes were collected30. The traders of the bedestan did not hesitate to join in the rebellion31. Our opinion is that Sultan Mahmud I’s pious endowment next to the trader’s market can be seen as one of the measures taken to appease the discontented merchants.

bAroque style

In his Tarih-i Câmi’-i Şerif-i Nûr-i Osmanî, Ahmed Efendi describes the mosque as, ‘the blessed mosque in the new pleasant style’ (câmi‘-i şerîf-i nev-tarz-ı latîf )32. Nuru-osmânîye incorporates a number of novel, mostly Baroque and also Rococo-inspired designs. The most noticeable of these are undulating cornices, convoluted arches, shells, cartouches, and radiating stairways (Fig. 2, 3). In the central mosque building, traditional features such as a domed-baldachin over the prayer area and Sinan’s arcaded façade were amalgamated with Baroque elements33. The horse-shoe shaped courtyard and its arcade with novel horse-shoe shaped arches can be considered an early manifes-tation of an “Orientalist” approach (Fig. 4). They might be a reference to the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, and its followers in Maghreb and Iberia. Lobed arches in the facades and inside the prayer hall recall Moorish designs34. The horse-shoe shaped arch, like the Baroque elements, is part of a foreign vocabulary; though in this case an Islamic one. This motif was also probably applied in order to introduce a typical oriental motif – so-labelled in the West – in contrast with the Western aspects of the mosque. At the same time, formally, it complemented the elliptical Baroque curves. The designer or designers of the Mosque doubtlessly sought to make a hybrid building that would strengthen ties with the present-day, yet also refer to the legacy of the past. Nuruos-mânîye’s Baroque style is more pronounced than that of other royal mosques built later in the second half of the 18th century. Why did Baroque features emerge so suddenly then gave way to more restrained imitations?

The architect of the building is given only as ‘mi’mar ağa’35, but the superintendent of the construction was Simyon Kalfa, who was an experienced master carpenter36. We also learn that non-Muslim (zımmî) stonemasons were employed in the construction37. This employment of a Greek master carpenter and local non-Muslim stone masons can be related to the changing social status of the Greeks, who after the 1660s, obtained privileged roles in the Ottoman Empire38. With the sources in hand, it is not possible



Fig. 2Domed prayer hall from south.Photo by A.U. Peker.

Fig. 3Side façade with wide stairs and undulating cornice.Photo by A.U. Peker.

Fig. 4Inner court with arcades of horse-shoe shaped arches.Drawing by T. Allom, in R. Walsh, Constantinople, p. 12.

Ali Uzay Peker148

to attribute the Baroque aspects of the mosque entirely to Simyon Kalfa, but his em-ployment indicates the rising status of a non-Muslim group. Changes in the conduct of trade in the Empire also increased familiarity with European designs. According to Ayda Arel, Baroque features penetrated Ottoman art via the minor arts39. Western items marketed in the Ottoman bazaars were the main means by which Baroque and Rococo designs were introduced to the Empire. Objects of art or tools from West reached the Ottoman lands through intercontinental trade, which the West as an advanced com-mercial and political power in the 18th century, dominated40. European mercantilist economic policies and technological advances led to the ascendancy of West as a trade partner of the Ottoman Empire. Capitulations given to the Western powers helped Western traders profit, and they became active trade agents in all the Empire’s ports. Of the European countries, the commercial domination of Britain, France, Austria, the Venetian Republic and Holland soon began to be felt41. In 1740, a new commercial agreement between France and the Sublime Port made France the Ottoman’s most privileged trade partner42. The increased status of the West affected the way Ottomans approached Western cultural properties, which became increasingly popular as luxury items43. Eighteenth-century chronicles and Western travellers’ accounts note the in-crease in the consumption of Western goods by the elite (top-level officials and mili-tary) and the minorities, mostly Christians44. The general populace began to follow this trend to consume western goods by the end of the century45. This intercontinental trade increased the status and wealth of the non-Muslim members of the Empire. In the role of trade agents they mediated cultural goods and as members of a now rising class of merchants were attuned to European cultural influence. Commercial and cultural rela-tions with the West led to the strengthening of a middle class mostly from commer-cial circles46. R. Mantran describes the spread of the Turquerie fashion in Europe and the Rococo style in Istanbul as a result of reciprocal trade relations. European traders and their Levantine agents were the primary beneficiaries of the new relations47. After the 18th century, non-Muslim groups of the Empire began to displace and dominate Muslim Ottoman merchants48. From the end of the 17th century onward, the decline in Ottoman strength brought new prosperity among certain Christian communities49. Simyon Kalfa’s appointment to the construction of the Nuruosmânîye Mosque was not incidental. Sultan Mahmud I’s choice to build in the so-called ‘new style’ responded to the economic ascendancy of the West and its promoters in the Empire.

The monumental mosques founded by the Ottoman Sultans until the end of the 16th century were grounded in structural and stylistic innovation. The architect Sinan be-came famous for contributing an extraordinary inventiveness, structural transparency and a new voluminous space. The inclusion of diverse elements from Early Islamic, Seljuk, Early Ottoman and Byzantine architecture nourished creativity and reflected the aspiration of the Ottoman dynasty to world dominion. The 17th century stagna-tion put an end to the achievements of that earlier creative force and caused a long



recess in the sequence of Sultan mosques. Nuruosmânîye’s abrupt emergence in the so-called new style can be explained with the aspiration of the Sultan to reclaim the pioneering role of the Ottoman dynasty as benefactor of royal establishments, which had been the means by which novelties had been introduced since the very beginning of the Ottoman rule in the fourteenth century. This can be paralleled with the concept of ‘rule’ introduced by Mehmed II, the Conqueror. As H. Inalcık puts it “the founder of the Empire (Mehmed II) created the ‘classical Ottoman ruler’ by reconciling Turkish, Islamic and Byzantine traditions in his persona”50. This openness to the culture of the conquered territory led to an unbiased attitude that embraced a new conceptual and formal repertoire of art and architecture.

IslAmIc Aspect

There are a number of pilasters inside and outside the mosque building, for example, between the windows of the drum and inscription panels, on the mihrab and penden-tives supporting the dome inside; on the entrance portals and balustrades of the minaret balconies and between the ablution fountains outside51. According to S. Ögel, Masjid-i Haram in the Fath Verse of the Koran (48), found in the wide inscription zone inside, and the holy masjids in the Isra Verse (17/1), found in one of the cartouches next to the Sultan’s lodge, identify these pilasters as a reference to holy mosques like Masjid-i Aqsa in Jerusalem and Masjid-i Haram in Mecca52. Sultan Mahmud I’s use of the title ‘Protector of the Two Holy Cities (hadim al-haremeyn al-şerifeyn)’ associates these ar-chetypal holy sites to Nuruosmânîye. With the aim to balance its Western outlook, the Nurosmaniye is vested with an Islamic identity through a series of inscriptions empha-sizing the rewards of prayer. The name of the current ruler was given to the mosque to perpetuate the dynastic identity. Hence, the name of Sultan Osman III can be read above a gate. Other inscriptions are mainly verses from the Koran, hadiths [Proph-et’s words], and the names of God. Koranic verses emphasize rewards of devotion and prayer53. The names of God (Esmâü’l-Hüsna) and the Prophet (Esmâü’n Nebi) are in-scribed in oval medallions above the first line of windows inside the mosque. The entire Fath surah (48) of the Koran is inscribed around the spring-point of the tympanum arches54. In this verse, believers are promised gardens underneath which rivers flow55. J. von Hammer notes lines from the Light Verse of the Koran (24/35) inscribed in the dome56. Other buildings of the complex are similarly inscribed. The Complex includes an imperial pavilion (hünkâr kasrı), its palanquin way (tahtırevan yolu), a medrese, li-brary, soup kitchen, sebil, tomb, fountain, han and shops. Inscriptions on the library in-clude sayings of the Prophet like: “Demand science from cradle to the grave”, and a long poem in praise of books and learning. The interior of the tomb is decorated with a band of Koranic verses, and the two gates leading to the imperial pavilion include poems, as does the sultan’s lodge (sultan mahfili) inside the mosque. These poems metaphorically relate the building’s gates to the gates of heaven. The inscription on the main gate of

Ali Uzay Peker150

the medrese is a poem in praise of Sultan Osman III and his generosity as donor. Cells for students are inscribed with eulogies of learning. The poem on the gate of the soup kitchen (imaret) is about the generosity of the Sultan who offered a table for the poor. Koranic verses about almsgiving are inscribed above the different gates of the imaret and the inscriptions of the sebil and fountain are appropriately related to the function of these structures as sources of water57. In general, the inscriptions on the buildings of the Nuruosmânîye complex are chosen to reflect the functions they housed. These functions are almost sanctified as being bestowed by the Sultan and given religious con-notations with the names of God and the Prophet and quotations from the Koran and Hadiths. One is reminded of the generosity of the Sultan everywhere, and through him, the glory of the Ottoman dynasty is memorialized.

conclusIon

Nuruosmânîye Mosque appeared as a symbol of the ‘new age’ in intercontinental rela-tions. Ottoman politics became more receptive to the West. Recovering from the tu-multuous years that led to the dethronement of Ahmed III, the dynasty regained the trust of the discontented groups and reasserted itself through a novel design at a time of architectural crisis in the 17th century, when dull replications of Sinan’s inventions could no longer sustain royal prestige. The result was a juxtaposition of Baroque and Si-nanesque ideas, struggling to be reconciled. Inside the mosque section of the complex, the Baroque features and the use of marble revetments up to the level of the wide in-scription zone beneath the tympana is a complete break with the classical tradition. The exedra-like recess of the mihrab contributes to this effect (Fig. 5). But above it all, there is an encompassing Ottoman-style dome that recalls a Sultanic baldachin. Similarly, the outer faces of the entrance gates are crowned with traditional niches, but include revolutionarily stylized fronds instead of traditional muqarnas (Fig. 6). This tension be-tween classical elements and novelties pervades the Complex, with the exception of the Library, which has a totally innovative Renaissance plan, likely regarded as appropriate to house the new style of printed books.

Respect for the people of the holy books sent by God had been responsible for the well-known cosmopolitanism of Istanbul cultivated since the time of Mehmed II. This tradition made the city’s dominant Muslim group tolerant of a Levantine culture incor-porating Western and local non-Muslim elements. This openness needs to be counted among the factors that facilitated the appearance of a Baroque-inspired mosque in the 18th century. The royal architect Sinan’s earlier assimilation of Byzantine architecture could be compared to the later incorporation of Baroque style in the Nuruosmânîye Mosque. In the middle of the 18th century, Sultan’s involvement in building was still a transformative power remoulding diverse elements of a multilayered culture.



Fig. 5Qibla wall with mihrab recess, minbar (right), sultan’s lodge (left) and the dome on pendentives.Photo by A.U. Peker.

Fig. 6Stylized fronds over entrance gate to the prayer hall.Photo by A.U. Peker.

Ali Uzay Peker152

notes

The author thanks Kenneth Hayes and Cânâ Bilsel for reviewing the text.1 A. Palmer, The Decline and Fall of the Ottoman Empire, London 1992, p. 40.2 N. Jorga calls him the “peace-loving Sultan Mahmud I”: N. Jorga, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Tarihi, v. 4,

trans. N. Epçeli, Istanbul 2009, p. 377.3 M.C. Zilfi, A Medrese for the Palace: Ottoman Dynastic Legitimation in the Eighteenth Century, in

“Journal of the American Oriental Society”, 1993, 113, 2, p. 185.4 Jorga, Osmanlı cit., p. 341.5 The introduction to the times and deeds of Sultan Mahmut I is based on N. Sakaoğlu, Mahmud I, in

“Dünden Bugüne Istanbul Ansiklopedisi”, 1994, v. 5, pp. 247-253; A. Özcan, Mahmud I, in “TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi”, 2003, v. 27, pp. 348-352; C. Finkel, Osman’s Dream: The Story of the Ottoman Empire 1300-1923, London 2005, chap. The perils of insouciance; İ.H. Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Tarihi, vol. 4/2, Ankara 1983.

6 T. Artan, Arts and Architecture, in S.N. Faroqhi (ed.), The Cambridge History of Turkey, vol. 3, The Later Ottoman Empire, 1603-1839, Cambridge 2006, p. 458; H. Crane, The Ottoman Sultan’s Mosques: Icons of Imperial Legitimacy, in I.A. Bierman, R.A. Abu-el-Haj, D. Preziosi (eds.), The Ottoman City and Its Parts: Urban Structure and Social Order, New York 1991, p. 187.

7 M.M. Aktepe, Patrona İsyanı (1730), Istanbul 1958, p. 48.8 Crane, The Ottoman cit., p. 193.9 Zilfi, A Medrese cit., p. 184.10 Crane, The Ottoman cit., p. 201.11 H. İnalcık, Istanbul: An Islamic City, in Id., Essays in Ottoman History, Istanbul 1998, p. 254.12 Ayvansarâyî Hüseyîn Efendi, Hadîkatü’l Cevâmî’, A.N. Galitekin (ed.), Ankara 2001, p. 63; D. Kuban,

Nuruosmânîye Külliyesi, in “Dünden Bugüne Istanbul Ansiklopedisi”, 1994, 6, pp. 100-103.13 S. Ögel, in the same way indicates that “the building is the light of the Ottoman dynasty [...] and a

reflection of the world the Ottoman state contained and was contained” [author’s translation]. S. Ögel, Nuruosmânîye Külliyesi Dekorundaki Sütunlar, in “Sanat Tarihi Defterleri”, 1996, 1, p. 54. Historian J. von Hammer relates the naming of the Mosque to Caliph Osman (579-656), who collected the verses of the Koran in a single volume and who married two daughters of the Prophet, hence called ‘possessor of two lights’. According to him, clarity, which reigns inside the mosque, is an allusion to this concept. J. De Hammer, Histoire de L’Empire Ottoman, depuis son origine jusqu’à nos jours, v. 15, Paris 1839, p. 296.

14 For the use of the Divanyolu as the main ceremonial axis of the city, see M. Cerasi, The Istanbul Divan-yolu: A Case Study in Ottoman Urbanity and Architecture, Würzburg 2004.

15 A. Neftçi published the protocol book (1756) of the opening ceremony in Nuruosmaniye Camii Açılış Töreni, in “Sanat Tarihi Defterleri”, 2007, 11, pp. 1-28. (Aygül Ağır from Istanbul Technical University provided this article; the author thanks to her).

16 This treatise was first published in Ahmet Efendi, Tarih-i Cami-i Şerif-i Nur-u Osmanî, Dersaadet (Istanbul) 1335-37, in “Tarih-i Osmanî Encümeni Mecmuası İlavesi”, 1918; later in P. Hochnut, Die Moschee die Nûruosmâniye in Istanbul: Beitrage zur Baugeschichte nach osmanischen Quellen, Berlin 1986; Hochnut makes an analysis of the structural and construction techniques defined by Ahmed Efendi; for a transliteration of the text into Latin alphabet see A. Öngül, Tarih-i Câmi-i Nuruosmânî, in “Vakıflar Dergisi”, 1994, 24, pp. 127-145. D. Kuban reviewed Ahmed Efendi’s treatise in Tarih-i Şerif-i Nur-u Osmanî ve Onsekizinci Yüzyıl Osmanlı Yapı Tekniği Üzerine Gözlemler, in Türk ve Islam Sanatı Üzerine Denemeler, Istanbul 1982, pp. 122-140.



17 Tarih-i Câmi-i Şerîf-i Nuruosmânî, in Öngül, Tarih-i cit., p. 136. We also read from Ahmed Efendi’s treatise that a ruined masjid [small mosque] founded by Fâtıma Hatun existed in the place of the Nu-ruosmânîye Mosque. Locals of the district requested that Sultan Ahmed III renew it, and Ahmed III ordered assessment of expenses conducted, but time went by and Mahmud I became Sultan. Petitions were also sent to Mahmud I who finally ordered renewal of the mosque. Tarih-i Câmi-i Şerîf-i Nuruo-smânî, in Öngül, Tarih-i cit., p. 129.

18 M. Cerasi, The Urban Perspective of Ottoman Monuments From Sinan to Mehmet Tahir – Change and Continuity, in Ç. Kafesçioğlu, L. Thys-Şenocak (eds.), Essays in Honour of Aptullah Kuran, Istanbul 1999, p. 179.

19 Cerasi, The Urban cit., p. 179.20 U. Tanyeli, Transfer of Western Urban Planning Concepts and Techniques to Turkey (1718-1840), in E.

İhsanoğlu, Transfer of Modern Science and Technology to the Muslim World, Proceedings of the Interna-tional Symposium, 2-4 September 1987, Istanbul 1992, p. 349.

21 Tarih-i Câmi-i Şerîf-i Nuruosmânî, in Öngül, Tarih-i cit., p. 129.22 H. İnalcık, The Hub of the City: The Bedestan of Istanbul, in “International Journal of Turkish Studies”,

1979-1980, 1, 1, pp. 2-3.23 Ibid., p. 2.24 Ibid., p. 8.25 Ibid., pp. 4, 11-12.26 M.M. Mango, The Commercial Map of Constantinople, in “Dumbarton Oaks Papers”, 2000, 54, p. 206.27 See the appendix, Inscription I at the end of this chapter.28 Aktepe, Patrona cit., pp. 19-20. Aktepe’s book is an excellence source on the economic basis of the so-

called Patrona Halil Revolt.29 Ibid., pp. 23, 25, 27.30 Ibid., pp. 33-34.31 Jorga, Osmanlı cit., p. 338.32 Tarih-i Câmi-i Şerîf-i Nuruosmânî, in Öngül, Tarih-i cit., pp. 132, 136.33 Authors agree that Nuruosmânîye’s design is twofold: “[…] the design of the mosque of Osman is

purely Oriental; yet it has an elegant appearance”, R. Walsh, Constantinople and the Scenery of the Seven Churches of Asia Minor, London 1839, p. 12; “[…] the mosque and its complex are the first consid-erable baroque achievement in Istanbul […] Nuruosmânîye’s contradictions were irreconcilable, but within these limits it was a tour de force […] Nuruosmânîye introduced a new style to the Empire […]”, G. Goodwin, A History of Ottoman Architecture, London 1971, pp. 383, 386; “[...] baroque does not penetrate the skin but merely scratches the surface”, A. Kuran, Eighteenth Century Ottoman Architec-ture, in T. Naff, R. Owen, Studies in Eighteenth Century Islamic History, Carbondale 1977, p. 315; “it is observed that definite novelties appear in the way details are dealt with and in the decoration; the total design of the mosque is an interpretation that belongs to us (Ottoman)”, D. Kuban, Osmanlı Mimarisinde Barok ve Rokoko, in Id., Türk ve Islam Sanatı Üzerine Denemeler, Istanbul 1982, p. 119; “It (Nuruosmânîye) is no rough quotation or mere imitation of foreign styles, but a clever transposi-tion of a foreign vocabulary into a perfectly dominated indigenous poesis”, M. Cerasi, Late-Ottoman Architects and Master Builders, in “Muqarnas”, 5, 1988, p. 98; “Nur-u Osmaniye at once testifies to the overall conservatism of Ottoman religious architecture and to its remarkable inventive and assimilative powers”, Crane, The Ottoman cit., p. 190; “[Nuruosmânîye] is a building where Ottoman architecture attained what is Western […] domed-square baldachin [like Edirnekapı Mihrimah Sultan Mosque] […] curvilinear cornices […] rich baroque profiles […] baroque features make Nuruosmânîye an idiosyn-cratic baroque monument”, Kuban, Nuruosmânîye cit., pp. 101, 102; “Nur-i Osmaniye mosque … can

Ali Uzay Peker154

be defined as an application where Ottoman structural patterns are forced through forms adopted from Baroque architecture”, A. Arel, Onsekizinci Yüzyıl Istanbul Mimarisinde Batılılaşma Süreci, Istanbul 1975, p. 61.

34 Dynastic aspirations probably led to this sort of allusions; see note 13 above.35 Tarih-i Câmi-i Şerîf-i Nuruosmânî, in Öngül, Tarih-i cit., p. 130.36 Ibid., p. 129; ‘Kalfa’ means carpenter or stonemason of middle rank, who sometimes could become an

architect or master craftsman in constructions: Ş. Sâmi, Kâmûs-i Türkî, vol. 2, Istanbul 1985. Simyon is an Ottoman version of ‘Simeon’. Greek sources from the 18th century indicate that this Simeon was a Court Architect of Greek origin, who built the Nuruosmânîye Mosque: K. Pamukciyan, Nuru-osmânîye Camiinin Mimarı Simeon Kalfa Hakkında, in “İTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi Mim. Tar. ve Rest. Enst. Bülteni”, 1981, 13-14, p. 23.

37 Tarih-i Câmi-i Şerîf-i Nuruosmânî, in Öngül, Tarih-i cit., p. 142. 38 W.H. McNeill, Hypothesis Concerning Possible Ethnic Role Changes in the Ottoman Empire in he Sev-

enteenth Century, in Social and Economic History of Turkey (1071-1920), Ankara 1980, p. 129. Ac-cording to İ. Ortaylı, “The Greeks were the sole non-Muslim group to be employed in the bureaucracy and in chancellery service… They were free to open their own schools and children of the commercial bourgeoisie were sent to Europe for education”, İ. Ortaylı, The Problem of Nationalities in the Ottoman Empire Following the Second Siege of Vienna, in G. Heissund, G. Klingenstein (eds.), Das Osmanische Reich und Europa 1683 bis 1789: Konflikt, Entspannung und Austausch, Vienna 1983, pp. 225, 226.

39 Arel, Onsekizinci cit., p. 10.40 A. Hourani, The Changing Face of the Fertile Crescent in the XVIIIth Century, in “Studia Islamica”, 1957,

8, p. 103.41 R. Mantran, XVIII. Yüzyılda Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Ticaretin Gelişmesi, in “Tarih İncelemeleri

Dergisi”, 1987, 3, p. 164.42 B. McGowen, The Age of the Ayans, 1699-1812, in H. İnalcık, D. Quataert (eds.), An Economic and

Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300-1914, Cambridge 1994, p. 728.43 F.M. Göçek, Rise of the Bourgeoisie, Demise of Empire: Ottoman Westernization and Social Change, New

York - Oxford 1996, p. 39.44 Ibid., p. 99.45 Ibid., p. 105.46 K.H. Karpat, The Land Regime, Social Structure, and Modernization in the Ottoman Empire, in W.R.

Polk, R.L. Chambers (eds.), Beginnings of Modernization in the Middle East, the Nineteenth Century, Chicago - London 1968, pp. 81, 83.

47 Mantran, XVIII. Yüzyılda cit., p. 169.48 Göçek, Rise cit., p. 34.49 Hourani, The Changing cit., p. 121.50 H. İnalcık, Devlet-i ‘Aliyye: Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Üzerine Araştırmalar I, Istanbul 2009, p. 112.51 Ögel, Nuruosmânîye cit., pp. 35-54. 52 Ibid., p. 52.53 See the appendix, Inscription II at the end of this chapter. For a documentation of the inscriptions see

A. Neftçi, Nuruosmânîye Külliyesi’nin Yazıları, in “Sanat Tarihi Defterleri”, 1996, 1, pp. 8-15.54 Tarih-i Câmi-i Şerîf-i Nuruosmânî, in Öngül, Tarih-i cit., p. 141; G. Goodwin, A History of Ottoman

Architecture, London 1971, p. 385; D. Kuban, Türk Barok Mimarisi Hakkında Bir Deneme, Istanbul 1954, p. 28.



55 See the appendix, Inscription III at the end of this chapter.56 Hammer, Histoire cit., p. 297. See the appendix, Inscription I.57 Neftçi, Nuruosmânîye Külliyesi’nin cit., pp. 16-30.58 http://majalla.org/books/quran/

bIblIogrAphy

Ahmet Efendi, Tarih-i Cami-i Şerif-i Nur-u Osmanî, Dersaadet (Istanbul) 1335-37, in “Tarih-i Osmanî Encümeni Mecmuası İlavesi”, 1918.Aktepe M.M., Patrona İsyanı (1730), Istanbul 1958.Arel A., Onsekizinci Yüzyıl Istanbul Mimarisinde Batılılaşma Süreci, Istanbul 1975.Artan T., Arts and Architecture, in Faroqhi S.N. (ed.), The Cambridge History of Turkey, vol. 3, The Later Ottoman Empire, 1603-1839, Cambridge 2006, pp. 408-480.Ayvansarâyî Hüseyîn Efendi, Hadîkatü’l Cevâmî’, in Galitekin A.N. (ed.), Ankara 2001.Cerasi M., The Istanbul Divanyolu: A Case Study in Ottoman Urbanity and Architecture, Würzburg 2004.Id., The Urban Perspective of Ottoman Monuments From Sinan to Mehmet Tahir – Change and Continuity, in Kafesçioğlu Ç., Thys-Şenocak L. (eds.), Essays in Honour of Aptullah Kuran, Istanbul 1999, pp. 171-190.Id., Late-Ottoman Architects and Master Builders, in “Muqarnas”, 5, 1988, pp. 88-102.Crane H., The Ottoman Sultan’s Mosques: Icons of Imperial Legitimacy, in Bierman I.A., Abu-el-Haj R.A., Preziosi D. (eds.), The Ottoman City and Its Parts: Urban Structure and Social Order, New York 1991, pp. 173-243.Finkel C., Osman’s Dream: The Story of the Ottoman Empire 1300-1923, London 2005. Goodwin G., A History of Ottoman Architecture, London 1971.Göçek F.M., Rise of the Bourgeoisie, Demise of Empire: Ottoman Westernization and Social Change, New York - Oxford 1996.McGowen B., The Age of the Ayans, 1699-1812, in İnalcık H., Quataert D. (eds.), An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300-1914, Cambridge 1994, pp. 639-758.Hammer J. De, Histoire de L’Empire Ottoman, depuis son origine jusqu’à nos jours, vol. 15, Paris 1839.Hochnut P., Die Moschee Nuruosmânîye in Istanbul: Beitrage zur Baugeschichte nach osmanischhen Quellen, Berlin 1986.Hourani A., The Changing Face of the Fertile Crescent in the 18th Century, in “Studia Islamica”, 1957, 8, pp. 89-122.İnalcık H., Devlet-i ‘Aliyye: Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Üzerine Araştırmalar I, Istanbul 2009.Id., Istanbul: An Islamic City, in Id., Essays in Ottoman History, Istanbul 1998, pp. 249-271.Id., The Hub of the City: The Bedestan of Istanbul, in “International Journal of Turkish Studies”, 1979-1980, 1, 1, pp. 1-17.Jorga N., Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Tarihi, vol. 4, transl. N. Epçeli, Istanbul 2009.Karpat K.H., The Land Regime, Social Structure, and Modernization in the Ottoman Empire, in Polk W.R., Chambers R.L. (eds.), Beginnings of Modernization in the Middle East, the Nineteenth Century, Chicago - London 1968, pp. 69-90.Kuban D., Nuruosmânîye Külliyesi, in “Dünden Bugüne Istanbul Ansiklopedisi”, 1994, 6, pp. 100-103.

Ali Uzay Peker156

Id., Osmanlı Mimarisinde Barok ve Rokoko, in Id., Türk ve İslam Sanatı Üzerine Denemeler, Istanbul 1982, pp. 115-122.Id., Tarih-i Şerif-i Nur-u Osmanî ve Onsekizinci Yüzyıl Osmanlı Yapı Tekniği Üzerine Gözlemler, in Kuban D., Türk ve İslam Sanatı Üzerine Denemeler, Istanbul 1982, pp. 122-140.Id., Osmanlı Barok Mimarisi Hakkında Bir Deneme, İTÜ, Istanbul 1954.Kuran A., Eighteenth Century Ottoman Architecture, in Naff T., Owen R., Studies in Eighteenth Century Islamic History, Carbondale 1977, pp. 303-327.Mango M.M., The Commercial Map of Constantinople, in “Dumbarton Oaks Papers”, 2000, 54, pp. 189-207.Mantran R., XVIII. Yüzyılda Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Ticaretin Gelişmesi, in “Tarih İncelemeleri Der-gisi”, 1987, 3, pp. 159-175.McNeill W.H., Hypothesis Concerning Possible Ethnic Role Changes in the Ottoman Empire in the Seven-teenth Century, in Social and Economic History of Turkey (1071-1920), Papers Presented to the First Inter-national Congress on the Social and Economic History of Turkey (Ankara, Hacettepe University, 11-13 July 1977), Ankara 1980, pp. 127-129.Neftçi A., Nuruosmaniye Camii Açılış Töreni, in “Sanat Tarihi Defterleri”, 2007, 11, pp. 1-28.Id., Nuruosmânîye Külliyesi’nin Yazıları, in “Sanat Tarihi Defterleri”, 1996, 1, pp. 7-30.Ortaylı İ., The Problem of Nationalities in the Ottoman Empire Following the Second Siege of Vienna, in He-issund G., Klingenstein G. (eds.), Das Osmanische Reich und Europa 1683 bis 1789: Konflikt, Entspannung und Austausch, Vienna 1983, pp. 223-236.Ögel S., Nuruosmânîye Külliyesi Dekorundaki Sütunlar, in “Sanat Tarihi Defterleri”, 1996, 1, pp. 35-54.Öngül A., Tarih-i Câmi-i Nuruosmânî, in “Vakıflar Dergisi”, 1994, 24, pp. 127-145.Özcan A., Mahmud I, in “TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi”, 2003, 27, pp. 348-352.Palmer A., The Decline and Fall of the Ottoman Empire, London 1992.Pamukciyan K., Nuruosmânîye Camiinin Mimarı Simeon Kalfa Hakkında, in “İTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi MTRE Bülteni”, 1981, 13-14, pp. 21-23.Sakaoğlu N., Mahmud I, in “Dünden Bugüne Istanbul Ansiklopedisi”, 1994, 5, pp. 247-253.Sâmi Ş., Kâmûs-i Türkî, vol. 2, Istanbul 1985.Tanyeli U., Transfer of Western Urban Planning Concepts and Techniques to Turkey (1718-1840), in İhsanoğlu E., Transfer of Modern Science and Technology to the Muslim World, Proceedings of the Interna-tional Symposium, 2-4 September 1987, Istanbul 1992, pp. 345-363.Uzunçarşılı İ.H., Osmanlı Tarihi, XVIII. Yüzyıl, vol. 4, 2, Ankara 1983.Vogt-Göknil U., Living architecture: Ottoman, London 1966.Walsh R., Constantinople and the Scenery of the Seven Churches of Asia Minor, London 1839.Zilfi M.C., A Medrese for the Palace: Ottoman Dynastic Legitimation in the Eighteenth Century, in “Journal of the American Oriental Society”, 1993, 113, 2, pp. 184-191.



AppendIx

InscriptionsI. Lines from the Light (Nûr) Verse: “Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The Parable of His

Light is as if there were a Niche and within it a Lamp: the Lamp enclosed in Glass: the glass as it were a brilliant star: Lit from a blessed Tree, an Olive, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil is well-nigh luminous, though fire scarce touched it: Light upon Light! Allah doth guide whom He will to His Light: Allah doth set forth Parables for men: and Allah doth know all things” (24/35). “(Lit is such a Light) in houses, which Allah hath permitted to be raised to honour; for the celebration, in them, of His name: In them is He glorified in the mornings and in the evenings, (again and again)” (24/36). “By men whom nei-ther traffic nor merchandise can divert from the Remembrance of Allah, nor from regular Prayer, nor from the practice of regular Charity: Their (only) fear is for the Day when hearts and eyes will be transformed (in a world wholly new)” (24/37, trans. Yusufali58).

II. On the main entrance portal of the prayer hall accessed from the inner courtyard, the purpose of the mosque is given with a quotation from the Koran: “For such prayers are enjoined on believers at stated times” (4/103, trans. Yusufali). On the entrance portal to the inner courtyard: “Peace unto you for that ye persevered in patience! Now how excellent is the final home!” (13/24, trans. Yusufali); On the inner side of the western side entrance to the prayer hall: “This is a Message (of admonition): and verily, for the righteous, is a beautiful Place of (Final) Return” (38/49, trans. Yusufali); On the inner side of the eastern side entrance to the prayer hall “Gardens of Eternity, whose doors will (ever) be open to them” (38/50, trans. Yusufali); On the eastern side entrance: “The righteous (will be) amid gardens and foun-tains (of clear-flowing water)” (15/45, trans. Yusufali) “(Their greeting will be): “Enter ye here in peace and security” (15/46, trans. Yusufali); On the apex of the dome: “Those that turn (to Allah) in repent-ance; that serve Him, and praise Him; that wander in devotion to the cause of Allah: that bow down and prostrate themselves in prayer; that enjoin good and forbid evil; and observe the limit set by Allah;- (These do rejoice). So proclaim the glad tidings to the Believers” (9/112) (translations by Yusufali).

III. Between pilasters above the first level wondows inside, reference to Paradise: “That He may admit the men and women who believe, to Gardens beneath which rivers flow, to dwell therein for aye, and remove their ills from them; “and that is, in the sight of Allah, the highest achievement ( for man)” (48/5) and “No blame is there on the blind, nor is there blame on the lame, nor on one ill (if he joins not the war): But he that obeys Allah and his Messenger,- (Allah) will admit him to Gardens beneath which rivers flow; and he who turns back, (Allah) will punish him with a grievous Penalty” (48/17). Reference to Ka’ba: “Truly did Allah fulfill the vision for His Messenger: ye shall enter the Sacred Mosque (Masjid-I Haram), if Allah wills, with minds secure, heads shaved, hair cut short, and without fear. For He knew what ye knew not, and He granted, besides this, a speedy victory” (48/027). The way Muslims should pray: “[…] Thou wilt see them bow and prostrate themselves (in prayer), seeking Grace from Allah and (His) Good Pleasure […]” (48/029). God’s cosmic power: “To Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth: He forgives whom He wills, and He punishes whom He wills: but Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (48/14)”. The Old and New Testaments: “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other. Thou wilt see them bow and prostrate themselves (in prayer), seeking Grace from Allah and (His) Good Pleasure. On their faces are their marks, (being) the traces of their prostration. This is their similitude in the Taurat; and their similitude in the Gospel is: like a seed which sends forth its blade, then makes it strong; it then becomes thick, and it stands on its own stem, ( filling) the sowers with wonder and delight. As a result, it fills the Unbelievers with rage at them. Allah has promised those among them who believe and do righteous deeds forgiveness and a great Reward” (48/29) (translations by Yusufali).

: vassily kandinsky (1866-1944), lungarno pacinotti, 43 56126...

Documents