ITU A|Z • Vol 12 No 2 • July 2015 • 35-48 Courtyards and Ottoman mosques in the 15th and 16th centuries: Symbolism, mimesis and demise Satoshi KAWAMOTO [email protected] • JSPS research fellow at Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Tokyo, Japan Received: January 2015 Final Acceptance: April 2015 Abstract Te frst aim of this paper is to describe the emergence of courtyards in Otto- man sultanic mosques in the ffeenth century and discuss the background of this pivotal transition. Te reception of courtyards in Ottoman mosques dates back to A.H. 841(1437), Üç Şerefeli Cami in Edirne. Te fact that Eyüp Sultan Camii in Istanbul was the second sultanic mosque with a courtyard indicates the royal sym- bolism of courtyard at a mosque, since the one in Eyüp functioned as the stage of sword girding (kılıç kuşanma) ceremonial of newly enthroned sultans. Secondly, in order to afrm that only sultans could construct mosques with courtyards, a few exceptional non-sultanic mosques with courtyards are exam- ined. Tese pseudo-courtyards, were merely extensions which was a clever solu- tion for non-sultanic benefactors. Finally, it is analysed how Sinan prepared a formula for courtyards in mosques for his non-sultanic patrons in the sixteenth century. He adopted an existing “mosque and madrasa” style for these patrons, but carefully alluded to the dif- ference between the mosque section and the madrasa. However, it was also Si- nan who abandoned this meticulous design and started building mosques with courtyards for non-sultanic patrons in a sultanic manner in 1580s. Te demise of courtyards as a symbol of the omnipotent sultan coincided with the political upheaval of the dynasty. Since then, Queen Mothers and other court ofcials be- gan to participate in decision making of the colossal empire, as well as enjoying a freedom to donate mosques in a style once only adopted at sultanic mosques. Keywords Ottoman architecture, Mosques, Architectural patronage, Courtyard, Architectural symbolism. 36 1. Introduction that it was the great court architect Te reception of courtyards in Ot- Mimar Sinan in the next century who toman mosques dates back to A.H. codifed “mosque types according to 841(1437). Tis was when Murad II the gradations of social and territorial commissioned the construction of Üç rank” (Necipoğlu, 2005, 20). In other Şerefeli Cami in Edirne, the then Ot- words, the social gradation from sul- toman capital. Tis mosque is consid- tan to commoners was well refected ered to be the frst mosque with two in the design of buildings they spon- prominent architectural elements, sored. Above all, the use of courtyard which were to become the norms of in mosques seems to have been strict- subsequent sultanic mosques: a huge ly forbidden for non-sultan patrons, dome dominating the prayer hall and including princesses and infuential a courtyard surrounded by domical ar- viziers, even before the codifcation cades. by Sinan. Interestingly and ironically, Courtyards, unquestionably one of such a rigorous prohibition was even- the essential elements of every build- tually violated by Mimar Sinan himself ing type in most part of the Muslim in the 1580s with several non-sultanic world, had not been widely accepted mosques as is discussed later. in Anatolian mosques until then, with Firstly, this paper describes the only a few exceptions. Te Seljuks in emergence of courtyards in Ottoman Anatolia usually preferred “iwan style” sultanic mosques in the ffeenth for their mosques and did not build century and discusses the background monumental courtyards, while oth- of this pivotal transition in Section 2 er building types such as Caravansa- and 3. Te second sultanic mosque rai and madrasa, were predominantly with a courtyard was Eyüp Sultan courtyard-centred. Some mosques in Camii, which was the spiritual centre eastern Anatolia, such as those in Sivas of the Ottoman Istanbul and the stage or Diyarbakır, can be regarded as rare of sword girding (kılıç kuşanma) exceptions with courtyard. But their ceremonial of newly enthroned geographical and climatic proximity to sultans. In other words, the courtyard Syria and Iran, where courtyards were embodied the authority of Ottoman essentially a ubiquitous component for sultan through both symbolism every building, do give good reason for and ceremonials. Secondly, in order the deviation from the mosque types in to afrm that only sultans could mainland Anatolia. construct mosques with courtyards, a Te introduction of arcaded court- few exceptional non-sultanic mosques yards to Ottoman sultanic mosques with courtyards are examined in marked an architectural transition in Section 4. Tese pseudo-courtyards, the ffeenth century, which coincid- in fact, were merely extensions which ed with the political, territorial and was a clever solution for non-sultanic psychological transformations of the benefactors who wished to embellish Ottoman dynasty. Tey started to take their mosques with courtyards like place at the beginning of the century, that of a sultanic mosque. Finally, afer the turbulent period of the Otto- Section 5 analyses how Mimar Sinan man Interregnum and eventual reuni- prepared a formula for courtyards in fcation by Mehmed I. Te Ottoman mosques for his non-sultanic patrons court relocated its capital from Bursa in the sixteenth century. He adopted to Edirne during Mehmed I’s reign and an existing “mosque and madrasa” consequently this geographical shif style for these patrons, but carefully brought drastic reformations to the dy- alluded to the diference between nasty in every aspect. the mosque section and the madrasa As for the mosques, along with the section through the proportions use of courtyard, other elements; size of domes or eaves surrounding the of the main dome, number of minarets “courtyard.” However, it was also Sinan and selection of building materials and who abandoned this meticulous design ornament, were utilized to represent and started building mosques with the social ranks of patrons from this courtyards for non-sultanic patrons in century. Gülru Necipoğlu concludes the sultanic manner in the 1580s. Te ITU A|Z • Vol 12 No 2 • July 2015 • S. Kawamoto 37 demise of courtyards as a symbol of comparison without enough evidenc- the omnipotent sultan coincided with es. Te Turks in Anatolia were familiar the political upheaval of the dynasty. with a courtyard in the other build- Since then, Queen Mothers and other ing types for more than two hundred court ofcials began to participate in years, and yet the Ottomans had clung decision making of the colossal empire, to a mosque type without courtyard as well as enjoying a freedom to donate until the ffeenth century. Terefore, mosques in a style once only adopted the sudden emergence of courtyards at sultanic mosques. in mosques should be interpreted in a diferent way. 2. Te frst Ottoman mosque with As will be discussed in the follow- courtyard: Üç Şerefeli Cami ing sections, the fact that no one other Most of Ottoman architectural his- than sultan was allowed to construct torians agree on the importance of a mosque with an arcaded courtyard, Üç Şerefeli Cami as an epoch-making indicates the real signifcance of the monument (Figure 1). Howard Crane courtyard in Üç Şerefeli Cami. It was a for example, aptly and concisely eval- novel architectural manifestation of the uates the building as “innovative in sultanic symbolism together with the conception, and occupies a transition- monumental dome. As a matter of fact, al spot in the evolution of Ottoman arcaded courtyards emerged in the frst mosque planning between Bursa and half of the ffeenth century not only in Istanbul” (Crane, 1991, 178). Neither mosque but also in palatial architecture hypostyle plan of traditional Anatolian (Kawamoto, 2012). According to the congregational mosques (ulu cami), reports of European visitors, Edirne nor T-shaped iwan plan of convent Old Palace, whose basic structure had mosques (zâviyeli cami) is not adopted been completed by 1430s, was a walled here. Instead, the prayer hall is domi- complex with a ceremonial courtyard. nated by a monumental dome support- It was the site for audience and ban- ed by two ponderous hexagonal piers quet with the sultan. Te advent of the and two thick load-bearing walls. And ceremonial courtyard, such as that at the courtyard in front of it, is surround- Topkapı Palace later, was the frst step ed by domical arcades. Unlike the stan- for the Ottoman palace to detach itself dardized later courtyards, the dimen- from the traditional Turco-Mongolian sions of domes covering the arcades mode of ceremony in the garden-pavil- are still diverse here; the front row at- ion palace. tached to the prayer hall has seven bays Te simultaneous introduction including two smaller oval domes, and of courtyards into the mosques and the rear row has nine domed bays of the palace alludes to their shared smaller dimension. Leaving the lack of symbolism. Te Ottoman court dimensional and aesthetic integration which settled in the new capital, aside, this courtyard became the frst Edirne, also endeavoured to introduce example of Ottoman mosques. architectural innovations in order to Unfortunately, no contemporary lit- symbolise the new governance by the erature informs the reason and back- absolutist sultan and the centralized ground of introducing a courtyard in administrative structure. It is sure that the mosque. Modern scholars usually the two courtyards in the two building interpret it as a result of a stylistic dif- types were diferent in scale; bearing fusion from south-eastern Anatolia in mind the size of Topkapı Palace, and Syria, probably via western Anato- the one in Edirne Old Palace should lia. Tere we fnd two fourteenth-cen- have been several times larger than tury mosques with courtyard built by the one in Üç Şerefeli Cami to say the local monarchs before the debouch- least.