iznik tiles and the mosque of rüstem pasha by kerry longbottom

1

Kerry Longbottom

Iznik Tiles and the Mosque of Rüstem Pasha

The 16th

century was a time of rapid growth and change in the Iznik tile industry, with the

Mosque of Rüstem Pasha serving as its most significant turning point. Rüstem Pasha’s

patronage of both the Iznik ceramics workshops and the court artist Kara Memi led to the

creation of a style that combined the Ottoman floral style with the existing vocabulary of ceramic

decoration into a style that was distinct to Iznik. Key to understanding this shift is to first look at

the development of the ceramics industry in Iznik prior to the reign of Süleyman I, as well as

Rüstem Pasha’s motives for sponsoring the Iznik workshops and his plans for the use of tile in

his memorial mosque. Once this has been established, the final step is to define Kara Memi’s

role in the design of tiles for this mosque, and the resulting influence this had on the Iznik

ceramicists.

The archeological record shows that Iznik “was already a significant center for pottery

manufacture” well before the Ottomans arrived there in 1331.1 Once the Ottomans had taken

control of the area, tile revetments were modeled on Seljuk and Timurid tastes and techniques.

The Green Mosque in Iznik was completed in 1378 and stands as an example of this style, with

its namesake feature being its minaret covered with green glaze tiles.2 This style fell out of favor

at the beginning of the fifteenth century, when the Ottoman craze for blue-and-white porcelain

wares imported from China created a market niche for Iznik potters to develop their own blue-

and-white wares.3 This pottery imitated Ming wares but was more affordable than their Chinese

counterparts, spurring a wave of technical experimentation that would continue throughout the

1 Gerard Degeorge and Yves Porter, The Art of the Islamic Tile, trans. David Radzinowicz (Paris: Flammarion,

2002), 203. 2 Degeorge and Porter, Art of the Islamic Tile, 194-195.

3 Walter B. Denny, “Turkish Tiles of the Ottoman Empire,” Archaeology 32, no. 6 (1979): 9.

2

next century.4 The most significant example of tilework in an imperial monument from this

early period is in the mosque of Murad II in Edirne, featuring blue-and-white hexagonal tiles,

mostly decorated with Chinese-inspired designs and interspersed with triangular turquoise (the

Timurid green) tiles to create a repeating pattern of six-pointed stars (Fig. 1).5

The greatest of these innovations was the development of the underglaze technique, in

which ceramics were covered with a thin white slip, painted with pigment, and fired under a lead

glaze to achieve a glassy look “respectably like [the] porcelain originals.”6 This technique had

four distinct advantages over the previous methods of color-glaze ceramics: it was better adapted

to linear decoration; more colors could be used on a single tile, which enabled potters to use

more complex designs; it allowed for a white ground, which gave it an appearance closer to

manuscript illuminations; and its non-porous glaze produced a surface almost like glass in its

smoothness and glossiness, which “imparted a quality of opulence and richness” much desired

by the Ottoman court.7 With the development of the underglaze method potters began to

experiment with new colors in addition to the familiar cobalt-blue, including the introduction of

4 Denny, “Turkish Tiles,” 10.

5 Degeorge and Porter, Art of the Islamic Tile, 196.

6 Denny, “Turkish Tiles,” 10.

7 Walter B. Denny, Ceramics of the Mosque of Rüstem Pasha and the Environment of Change (New York: Garland

Publishing, 1977), 81-82.

Figure 1. Iznik tiles, Mosque of Murad II, Edirne. 1435.

Underglaze painted tile.

3

turquoise around 1520, then sage green in 1530.8 Finally, during approximately the same time

that the Süleymaniye was constructed, Iznik potters worked out how to incorporate the color red

by painting on a thick layer of an iron oxide-based slip, which was built up under the glaze to

create a relief-like effect.9

Between 1535 and 1550, the output from the Iznik ateliers consisted almost exclusively

of ceramic vessels, with occasional examples of hexagonal tiles.10

In the 1550s, Süleyman’s

extensive building projects in Istanbul and along the Hajj routes led to such an increase in

demand for tiles that ceramics production in Iznik shifted dramatically, and vessels became

smaller, simpler, and more standardized in response to the dominance of tilework.11

The

appearance of the tiles also began to shift in response to this higher demand: sometime during the

mid- to late-1550s that square tiles began to take precedence over hexagonal tiles, as potters and

architects began to recognize that it was much easier to produce and incorporate tiles made in the

simpler square shape.

It is possible that the Iznik workshops were put under the direct control of Sinan during

the 1550s, as records dating from 1640 list the workshops as being “under the directive of the

office of the Chief Court Architect,” a policy which would likely have originated during the time

when Sinan held that role.12

While Süleyman’s sponsorship of construction was the most

geographically widespread and publicly visible, it would be wrong to assume that he was the

only member of the court whose building program had an effect on the Ottoman economy,

especially the economy of Iznik. Following closely behind Süleyman in the number of pious

8 Maria Queiroz Ribeiro, Iznik Pottery and Tiles in the Calouste Gulbenkian Collection (London: Scala, 2009), 33.

9 Degeorge and Porter, Art of the Islamic Tile, 203.

10 Gülru Necipoğlu, “From International Timurid to Ottoman: A Change in Taste in Sixteenth-Century Ceramic

Tiles,” Muqarnas 7 (1990): 136. 11

Nurhan Atasoy and Julian Raby, Iznik: The Pottery of Ottman Turkey (London: Thames and Hudson, 1989), 218-

219. 12

Atasoy and Raby, Iznik, 219.

4

endowments and public works sponsored was Rüstem Pasha, Süleyman’s powerful grand

vizier.13

Being an immensely wealthy and influential member of the court put Rüstem Pasha in a

unique position to sponsor public building projects, and the bad reputation he earned with the

public gave him ample motivation to do so. Originally a swineherd from a small village near

Sarajevo brought to the court as a devşirme boy, Rüstem had quickly risen through the ranks of

the page system, being given posts as governor-general in Diyarbakir and Anatolia before

becoming third vizier to Sultan Süleyman in 1539.14

After he was finally promoted to the grand

vizierate in 1544 he became a controversial figure known equally well for his administrative skill

as for his greed.15

The ambassador Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq commented that Rüstem was a

“man of keen and far-seeing mind” who was “not unworthy of his high office but for the taint of

mean avarice.”16

At the same time that he was using his financial acumen to fill the state

treasuries (and thereby providing the funding for many of Süleyman’s construction projects),

numerous anonymous complaints were sent to Süleyman that Rüstem Pasha was amassing an

enormous fortune through extortion.17

Rüstem Pasha’s greed, however, was not the only reason why he was disliked. Rüstem

had married Mihrimah, the daughter of the Sultan by his wife Hürrem, and became involved in a

number of schemes with his wife and mother-in-law Hürrem for which the three were

notorious.18

The most infamous of these schemes, which consequently cost Rüstem the most

public support, was the trio’s involvement in a dispute over the succession to the throne.

13

Gülru Necipoğlu, The Age of Sinan: Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Empire (London: Reaktion, 2005), 314. 14

Necipoğlu, Sinan, 314. 15


Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq, The Turkish Letters of Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq, trans. Edward Seymour Forster

(Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2005), 29. 17


Walter B. Denny and Sumru Belger Krody, The Sultan’s Garden: The Blossoming of Ottoman Art (Washington,

DC: The Textile Museum, 2012), 26.

5

Busbecq gives a detailed narrative of the unfortunate prince Mustafa, who, “on account of his

remarkable natural gifts and the suitability of his age, was marked out by the affection of the

soldiers and the wishes of the people as the certain successor of his father, who was already

verging on old age.”19

Because Mustafa was the son of a concubine his likely succession was a

threat to Hürrem and her children, so it was suspected of being at her request that Rüstem

accused Mustafa of planning a revolt with the janissaries and orchestrated his execution in

1553.20

Süleyman then stripped Rüstem of his title in order to placate the outraged janissaries,

giving Hürrem and Mihrimah the opportunity to return the favor to Rüstem by having his

replacement, Kara Ahmed Pasha, murdered in 1555 so that he could resume his former post.21

Given his unpopular reputation with the people and the janissaries, it is not difficult to

imagine that Rüstem Pasha sought to improve public opinion and atone for his well-known sins

by sponsoring a number of public building projects. Rüstem’s great wealth also meant that he

was able to undertake these projects on an unprecedented scale, as none of the former grand

viziers had come close to matching the number of pious endowments Rüstem Pasha left behind,

“creating an empire-wide infrastructure of charitable works contributing to urban renewal.”22

His final public project was to be his memorial mosque, a place where the prayers of the

residents of Istanbul’s Tahtakale neighborhood would be directed towards the redemption of

Rüstem Pasha’s soul.

Rüstem’s waqfiyya from January 1561mentions a “noble Friday mosque that is going to

be constructed with the surplus revenues” of the waqf properties he had endowed.23

Although it

does not specify the intended location of the mosque it is highly likely to have been in Tahtakale,

19

Busbecq, Turkish Letters, 28. 20

Busbecq, Turkish Letters, 31-32; Necipoğlu, Sinan, 314. 21



Necipoğlu, Sinan, 317.

6

where he had recently established a caravanserai and endowed a number of commercial

structures.24

He died just a few months after this waqfiyye was registered, leaving Mihrimah, his

widow and appointed executor of his will, to undertake the actual planning and construction of

the mosque.25

Rüstem’s death so early on in the construction process raises the critical problem

of intentionality- how much of the mosque’s design can really be attributed to Rüstem Pasha, and

how much was decided by those acting on his behalf?

Official written permission for the construction of the mosque was obtained from

Süleyman in the fall of 1562, a full year after Rüstem Pasha’s death, meaning that he had not

lived long enough to oversee even the clearing of the site for his mosque.26

In his stead, the

details were decided and executed by Sinan, Mihrimah, and Mehmed Beg (Rüstem’s waqf

administrator and the building supervisor appointed by Mihrimah).27

This is not to say, however,

that they were acting without any input from Rüstem, as the amount of planning he had already

undertaken leaves little doubt that he would have communicated his intentions for the location,

layout, and decoration to Mihrimah and Mehmed Beg before his death.28

The choice to use decorative tiles as the defining feature of the mosque, however, is a

source of contention, as scholars disagree over which of these figures ultimately decided on the

amount of tilework to be used. Ottoman historian Gülru Necipoğlu argues that “such wasteful

extravagance seems out of character with [Rüstem Pasha’s] penny-pinching,” and instead

suggests that Mihrimah, the “wealthy princess with a taste for conspicuous consumption,” chose

tile revetments as an appropriately splendid tribute to her deceased husband.29

Julian Raby,

24


Necipoğlu, Sinan, 316-317. 26





7

however, notes that Mihrimah’s own building projects contain virtually no tiles whatsoever, an

omission certainly not due to any lack of extravagance on Mihrimah’s part.30

Raby’s suggestion

that the tiles were specifically requested by Rüstem is most likely closer to the truth, especially

taking into consideration that Mihrimah’s own mosque complex at Edirnekapı, which Sinan

designed for her at roughly the same time that they were planning Rüstem Pasha’s mosque,

features an abundance of stained-glass windows as its primary architectural decoration with

simple frescoes on its interior walls.31

Sinan can also be ruled out as prime mover, as he seems

to have preferred to use tiles only sparingly as a means of emphasizing certain architectural

elements, such as the qibla wall and pendentives, as seen in the Süleymaniye.32

Considering these factors, it is most plausible that Sinan and Mihrimah were simply

acting according to Rüstem Pasha’s wishes when incorporating this unusual amount of tilework

into their design. There are several factors that support the theory that Rüstem deliberately

ordered to have Iznik tiles adorning his mosque, including his economic policies. To help

achieve his economic goal of restricting the import of foreign goods, Italian textiles and Chinese

pottery in particular, Rüstem Pasha became an important patron of the arts and is credited with

being one of the primary driving forces behind the development of the Ottoman Court style in

the 16th

century.33

Ehl-i hiref registers record an increase in textile artisans from 27 in 1526 to

105 in 1545, the first year of Rüstem’s grand vizierate, and to 156 in 1557.34

He was reported to

have owned several looms in Bursa, and was also an important patron of the arts of the book and

ceramics- he is even speculated to have owned a handful of the Iznik kilns.35

30

Atasoy and Raby, Iznik, 218-219. 31



Walter B. Denny, The Artistry of Ottoman Ceramics (London: Thames and Hudson), 71-72. 34

Gülru Necipoğlu, “From International Timurid to Ottoman: A Change in Taste in Sixteenth-Century Ceramic

Tiles,” Muqarnas 7 (1990): 155. 35


8

There are several reasons why Rüstem Pasha may have directed his sponsorship to Iznik

as opposed to the court ceramicists. Iznik had a couple of technical advantages over the Istanbul

potters. Its location away from the city meant that it had greater access to raw materials such as

wood for firing the kilns, and was the first to master red, a color that was already popular in the

realm of textile production.36

After the completion of the Süleymaniye, the resultant boom in the

construction industry necessitated the rapid production of large amounts of tile revetments, for

which Iznik proved to be much better equipped than the small royal workshop in Istanbul.37

The

Istanbul ceramicists also had the disadvantage of their adherence to the post-Timurid style of

ceramic decoration, which favored minute designs borrowed from Timurid manuscript

illumination and were not easily seen from a distance as required by Sinan’s buildings.38

By

specifying that he wanted Iznik tiles decorating his mosque, Rüstem was promoting a product

that was both technologically advanced and uniquely Ottoman.

The mosque of Rüstem Pasha also bears an important architectural relationship to the

mosques of Mihrimah and Süleyman, which illuminates the significance of the requests Rüstem

made for the mosque design and how Sinan incorporated them into the final plan. The

inscription of the Sülemaniye lists its foundation date as 1550, roughly a decade before

construction began on the mosque of Rüstem Pasha.39

Planned at the same time that Süleyman

believed himself to have wrested the title of Holy Roman Emperor from the Hapsburgs, the

mosque was meant to proclaim “the perfect concordance of state and religion in the person of the

sultan.”40

The mosque complex was created as a center of higher learning, with the mosque

36

Necipoğlu, “From International Timurid,” 154, 156. 37

Necipoğlu, “From International Timurid,” 155. 38




9

itself serving as the central orienting point of the five madrasas around it.41

The decorative

program of the mosque, with its carefully placed windows and the sparse use of tiles to highlight

architectural elements, has been orchestrated to emphasize power through its massive yet

contained space, as well as the strength of the building itself (fig. 2).42

The overall visual effect

of the arrangement of the mosque and its complex is to give a sense of rational order emanating

from a spiritual center, an architectural metaphor for the expanding but orderly Ottoman Empire

with Süleyman the Magnificent as its anchor.

As the daughter of the sultan and the wife of the grand vizier, Mihrimah Sultan also

wished to express her power through the construction of a lavish mosque. Her complex at

Edirnekapı, designed simultaneously with Rüstem Pasha’s posthumous complex at Tahtakale,

has significant similarities to the Süleymaniye and the mosque of Rüstem Pasha, while also

featuring details that suggest her desire to distinguish herself from her father and her late

husband.43

Like the mosque of Rüstem Pasha, the mosque of Mihrimah Sultan utilizes a

41




Figure 2. Interior of the Suleymaniye Mosque, Istanbul, designed

by Sinan. C. 1550-1558.

10

rectangular plan with a central baldachin, with two side entrances and an arched main portal to

enhance the unity of the space.44

Mihrimah’s mosque also references the Süleymaniye with the

inclusion of internal upper galleries raised on columns, a feature which the Süleymaniye had

introduced; as well as the inclusion of massive red granite columns to support the lateral

tympana in front of the side galleries, an exact match to the columns in Süleyman’s mosque.45

Mihrimah’s mosque, however, omits the half-domes characteristic of imperial mosques,

an omission that created more façade space for Sinan to decorate with stained-glass windows-

the defining feature of the Mihrimah Sultan Mosque (fig. 3).46

The reverse of the Süleymaniye,

in which the windows and decorations are subordinate to the architectural expression of the

mosque, the architecture and decorations of the Mihrimah Sultan mosque are made to emphasize

the windows and the colored light entering the interior. In stark contrast to the mosque of

Rüstem Pasha, evidence shows that the original painted decorations of Mihrimah’s mosque were

quite simple and minimal in order to allow light to be the central focus of the space.47

44





11

In keeping with Sinan’s principles of balance and harmony, in both the Süleymaniye and

the Mihrimah Sultan mosque a primary element of the design was chosen to which all other

elements were subordinated. The mosque of Rüstem Pasha follows this same principle, but in

this case the primary element was the exuberant display of tiles. While this decision was in large

part due to Rüstem Pasha’s taste for Iznik ceramics, it was also a fitting choice given the

architectural problems Rüstem required Sinan to solve.

The mosque is both financially and structurally supported by its waqf, having been

constructed directly on top of the market stalls Rüstem Pasha endowed for its foundation.48

While it is easy to imagine that this was another of Rüstem’s stipulations (why demolish

revenue-generating property when you can simply build on top of it), it also has the symbolic

48

Augusto Romano Burelli and Paola Sonia Gennaro, Die Moschee von Sinan (Berlin: Ernst Wasmuth Verlag,

2008), 57.

Figure 3. Interior of the Mihrimah

Sultan Mosque, Istanbul, designed by

Sinan. C. 1563-1570.

12

effect of locating sacred space on a higher plane than that of profane commercial activity.49

When designing the mosque, Sinan had the challenge of integrating it into the urban fabric in a

way that would appear harmonious even as its surrounding environment changed over time, thus

Sinan designed the structure with the idea of creating an internally-contained unity that does not

depend on any kulliye buildings for balance.50

Because of its location down the hill from the

Süleymaniye, Sinan also had to design the mosque of Rüstem Pasha to appear properly humble

so it would not be in competition with Süleyman’s grand Friday mosque. This factor likely had a

significant bearing on Rüstem’s choice for the decoration of his mosque, as he would have had

all the more reason to choose elaborate interior tile revetments as an appropriately subtle

expression of his wealth and grandeur. This choice would ultimately come to change the course

of ceramics production at Iznik.

The most important factor in Rüstem Pasha’s influence over the change of style in Iznik

tile was his patronage of the court artist Kara Memi. Kara Memi was the pupil and successor of

Shah Kulu, who is most famous for having pioneered the saz style.51

Active between 1540 and

1560, Kara Memi became the head of the court designers in 1552, just before Rüstem Pasha was

temporarily deposed.52

While there is no record indicating whether or not Rüstem Pasha had

asked in his will to have Kara Memi design decorations for the mosque, one can surmise from

the use of decorations either designed by Kara Memi or in imitation of his floral style on all of

the prominent parts of the mosque that Rüstem had at the very least expressed this wish to either

Mihrimah or his waqf administrator before his death.53

Kara Memi took the leaf-and-rosette

style of his master and gave it a realistic turn, creating what is now known as the Ottoman floral

49

Burelli and Gennaro, Die Moschee von Sinan, 52. 50

Burelli and Gennaro, Die Moschee von Sinan, 57. 51

Atasoy and Raby, Iznik, 222. 52


Denny and Krody, The Sultan’s Garden, 26.

13

style, also sometimes referred to as the ‘Quatre Fleurs’ style because of its identifiable tulips,

roses, carnations, and hyacinths.54

Kara Memi was known to be greatly favored by Rüstem Pasha, and while most of his

works are unsigned one can assume that of the several thousand manuscripts in Rüstem Pasha’s

library at the time of his death, many of them must have featured illustrations by the revered

artist.55

Rüstem Pasha’s patronage of the court designer played a critical role in the spread of

Kara Memi’s floral style throughout all the branches of Ottoman artistic output. The textile

designers in Istanbul were also taking their cues from manuscript illuminations, and many of

them were hired to create designs for tile patterns, leading to a remarkable similarity between the

textiles and tiles produced during the sixteenth century.56

Rüstem Pasha’s restrictions on the

importation of Italian textiles, as mentioned above, limited the influence of Italian textile

designs, thus allowing the floral style to flourish in the Ottoman arts without competition from

outside artistic styles.57

His patronage of the ceramics workshops encouraged the spread of his

favored floral style to the realm of pottery, thus with these two factors combined Rüstem Pasha

had an enormous role in the propagation of what would come to be known as the “new Ottoman

brand,” with Kara Memi as its progenitor.58

From a technical perspective, Kara Memi’s new style affected tilework in a variety of

ways. The hatayi flowers of Shah Kulu, which had begun appearing in tile designs around 1535,

were adaptable enough in size that they could be enlarged to make them visible from greater

distances according to the height at which they were to be placed.59

The highly realistic flowers

54




Denny and Krody, The Sultan’s Garden, 27. 58

Denny and Krody, The Sultan’s Garden, 27. 59

Denny, Artistry of Ottoman Ceramics, 62; Atasoy and Raby, Iznik, 222.

14

of Kara Memi, however, “demanded respect for their natural size,” which meant that they fit well

into single tiles but could not be expanded easily for multi-unit compositions.60

His drawings

were translated into tile patterns through the use of stencils, a practice which had not been used

for the blue-and-white tiles of the Mosque of Murad II, which were drawn by hand, but which

was known from the makers of color-glaze and cuerda seca tiles.61

Artists from the nakkashane

would draw a design with black ink on paper, then artisans in the ceramic workshops would

punch holes in the design and spread powder over the stencil, creating a dotted outline of the

pattern once the stencil was lifted away.62

The use of stencils was crucial for creating both

identically patterned tiles and modular designs.63

A series of imperial firmans from the latter

half of the sixteenth century refer to ‘examples’ sent to Iznik from the capital, most likely

referring to the stencil drawings produced by the court designers.64

Rüstem Pasha’s mosque was “the first major Iznik tile decorative project in Ottoman

history,” with virtually every vertical wall surface covered in tiles to a height of about three

meters (fig. 4).65

The ubiquity of tile in Rüstem Pasha’s mosque was a highly unusual departure

from Ottoman tradition, and one that was not readily repeated after this mosque was completed.66

In total the mosque features about 80 different patterns, most of which are simply fields of

repeated tiles (meaning that each tile is identical).67

In certain of these panels it is clearer to see

the connection in their design process to that of textiles, as when the same basic pattern unit is

either flipped or rotated in a series to create more complex patterns mimicking floral carpets (fig.

60


Walter B. Denny, “Turkish Ceramics and Turkish Painting: The Role of the Paper Cartoon in Turkish Ceramic

Production,” in Essays in Islamic Art and Architecture in Honor of Katharina Otto-Dorn, ed. Abbas Daneshvari

(Malibu: Undena Publications, 1981), 29. 62

Denny, “Turkish Ceramics,” 30. 63

Denny, “Turkish Ceramics,” 30. 64


Denny, Artistry of Ottoman Ceramics, 86, 91. 66

DeGeorge and Porter, Art of the Islamic Tile, 206. 67

Denny, Artistry of Ottoman Ceramics, 91.

15

5).68

However, the narrow panels between windows, in the mihrab, on the arch spandrels and

pendentives of the dome, and the panels on either side of the main door were designed as

complex, multi-unit compositions.69

These are also the tile panels that are most closely

connected to Kara Memi’s floral style, although it is unknown if he designed them himself.

68

Fatih Cimok, The Book of Rüstem Paşa Tiles (Istanbul: A Turizm Yayinlari, 1998), 50. 69

Denny, Artistry of Ottoman Ceramics, 91.

16

Perhaps the most significant influence the Rüstem Pasha Mosque had on the production

of tiles at Iznik was in their decoration. Because of the use of stencils and the difference in

Figure 5. Tile panel from the Mosque of

Rüstem Pasha, Istanbul, designed by

Sinan. C. 1561-1563.

Figure 4. Interior of the Rüstem Pasha Mosque, Istanbul,

designed by Sinan. C. 1561-1563.

17

location between design and production, Kara Memi only had direct control of the outlines of the

tile panels he designed, and the Iznik potters were free to color the panels as they saw fit. This

led to a new style of pottery decoration which combined Kara Memi’s floral style with the

preexisting decorative vocabulary of the Iznik ceramicists. One such example can be found in

the Kara Memi panel itself, as the potters have filled in the saz leaves at the bottom of the panel

with cintemani designs (fig. 6). Cintemani was a Chinese-inspired motif that had become

especially popular during the latter part of the 16th

century, an interesting case of a popular

design transmitted via pottery rather than originating in the nakkaşhane.70

Experimentation with

combinations of floral and abstract motifs would continue throughout the end of the century,

bolstered by the continuing technical refinement of the underglaze process.

By 1570, the Iznik ateliers had perfected the polychrome underglaze technique, and the

traditional blue-and-white had all but disappeared.71

The Sokollu-Ismihan mosque presents a

slight critique of the mosque of Rüstem Pasha: “[t]he seductive power of its internal space is

70

Ribeiro, Calouste Gulbenkian Collection, 79. 71

Denny, “Turkish Tiles,” 12.

Figure 6. Detail of tile panel designed by Kara Memi, in the Rüstem Pasha

Mosque. C. 1561-1563.

18

achieved by its lavish yet disciplined use of Iznik tiles, which enhance the perception of

architectural forms by accentuating window lunettes, pendentives, and the central qibla arch.”72

By the time the Sokollu-Ismihan mosque was constructed in the early 1570s, the color palette of

Iznik tiles had expanded to include green, allowing for even more naturalistic floral designs.73

Iznik potters had also succeeded in mastering the use of red glaze, so red appears much more

abundantly throughout the Sokollu-Ismihan mosque than in the mosque of Rüstem Pasha (fig. 7).

While court patronage had led to the major stylistic innovations of the Iznik ceramics

workshops in the 16th

century, it also eventually led to the workshops’ demise. The Ottoman

court’s system of fixed prices did not account for the rapid inflation caused by the increase in

international trade, so the large number of imperial projects bankrupted most of the workshops

by the end of the 17th

century.74

Firmans from the last quarter of the sixteenth century ordered

Iznik workshops to stop producing ceramic wares, which would have been sold at higher market

prices, in an effort to focus their production on tiles for imperial projects at the court’s fixed

72



John Carswell, Iznik Pottery (Northampton, MA: Interlink Books, 2007), 106.

Figure 7. Interior of the Sokollu-Ismihan Mosque, Istanbul, designed by

Sinan. C. 1567-1572.

19

rates.75

Iznik artisans responded by concentrating their efforts on mass-produced modular repeat

tiles, which could be sold on the international market to offset the money the workshops were

losing on imperial commissions, but this solution could only last for a limited amount of time.76

The famous Turkish traveler Evliya Çelebi reported that Iznik had only nine ceramics

workshops left in 1648, down from the 300 that existed at the beginning of the century.77

While

Çelebi is known to have exaggerated his numbers for dramatic effect, his estimate is telling of

the rapidity of Iznik’s economic decline.78

In addition to the problems with inflation, by the mid-

17th

century commissions from the court were declining.79

To compensate for the lack of

commissions during this period, the Iznik potters began to export their tiles to foreign markets in

Egypt and Europe.80

The Aqsunqur mosque in Cairo is likely a recipient of some of these tiles,

used for the restoration of its qibla wall in 1652 (fig. 8).81

While still exquisitely executed, the

tiles are of the simpler blue-and-white type with patterns contained within single tiles,

demonstrating a reversion to techniques that were easier to produce on a large scale in order to

stay afloat in the failing local economy.

75



Carswell, Iznik Pottery, 106. 78




Degeorge and Porter, Art of the Islamic Tile, 186.

20

In consideration of these developments it can be firmly stated that the late 16th

century

marked the apex of Iznik’s ceramics, leaving behind wares and tiles with an incredible variety of

decoration that spans from simple geometric patterns to the complexity and realism of the

Ottoman floral style. Spurred by Rüstem Pasha’s patronage, Iznik potters developed a style of

decoration that incorporated a variety of decorative traditions and innovations, with the mosque

of Rüstem Pasha standing as a monument to the elegance and creativity of this native Ottoman

style.

Figure 8. Mosque of Aqsunqur, Cairo. C. 1346-1347, tiles added

c. 1652-1653.

21

Bibliography

Atasoy, Nurhan. Ipek, the Crescent and the Rose: Imperial Ottoman Silks and Velvets. London:

Azimuth Editions Ltd, 2001.

Atasoy, Nurhan, and Julian Raby. Iznik: The Pottery of Ottman Turkey. London: Thames and

Hudson, 1989.

Burelli, Augusto Romano, and Paola Sonia Gennaro. Die Moschee von Sinan. Berlin: Ernst

Wasmuth Verlag, 2008.

Busbecq, Ogier Ghiselin de. The Turkish Letters of Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq. Translated by

Edward Seymour Forster. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2005.

Carswell, John. Iznik Pottery. Northampton, MA: Interlink Books, 2007.

Cimok, Fatih. The Book of Rüstem Paşa Tiles. Istanbul: A Turizm Yayinlari, 1998.

Degeorge, Gerard, and Yves Porter. The Art of the Islamic Tile. Translated by David

Radzinowicz. Paris: Flammarion, 2002.

Denny, Walter B. Ceramics of the Mosque of Rüstem Pasha and the Environment of Change.

New York: Garland Publishing, 1977.

________, ed. The Garden in the Arts of Islam. Northampton, MA: The Trustees of Mount

Holyoke College, 1980.

________. Iznik: The Artistry of Ottoman Ceramics. London: Thames and Hudson, 2004.

________. “Turkish Ceramics and Turkish Painting: The Role of the Paper Cartoon in Turkish

Ceramic Production.” In Essays in Islamic Art and Architecture in Honor of Katharina

Otto-Dorn, edited by Abbas Daneshvari. Malibu: Undena Publications, 1981.

________. “Turkish Tiles of the Ottoman Empire.” Archaeology 32, no. 6 (1979): 8-15.

Denny, Walter B, and Ahmet Ertuğ. Gardens of Paradise: 16th

Century Turkish Ceramic Tile

Decoration. Istanbul: Ertuğ and Kocabiyik, 1998.

Denny, Walter B. and Sumru Belger Krody. The Sultan’s Garden: The Blossoming of Ottoman

Art. Washington, DC: The Textile Museum, 2012.

Necipoğlu, Gülru. The Age of Sinan: Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Empire. London:

Reaktion, 2005.

________. “From International Timurid to Ottoman: A Change in Taste in Sixteenth-Century

Ceramic Tiles.” Muqarnas 7 (1990): 136-170.

22

Ribeiro, Maria Queiroz. Iznik Pottery and Tiles in the Calouste Gulbenkian Collection. London:

Scala, 2009.

iznik tiles and the mosque of rüstem pasha by kerry longbottom

Documents