sign in sign up
<<
Home , Nurbanu Sultan, Ottoman architecture, Ulu Cami (Birgi)

ITU A|Z • Vol 12 No 2 • July 2015 • 35-48 Courtyards and Ottoman 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 . Te fact that Eyüp Camii in was the second sultanic 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 . 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 ” 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 , 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, dominating the prayer hall and including princesses and infuential a courtyard surrounded by domical ar- , 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 usually preferred “ 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 . 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 . Te Ottoman mosques for his non-sultanic patrons court relocated its capital from 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 or eaves surrounding the of the main dome, number of “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 plan of traditional Anatolian (Kawamoto, 2012). According to the congregational mosques (), reports of European visitors, Edirne nor T-shaped iwan plan of convent Old , 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 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. And unlike the well-described ment of the Ottomans: İsa Beğ Camii court ceremonials in the palace’s in Selçuk and Ulucami in . Al- courtyard, we know almost nothing though Murad II’s personal attachment about the religious ceremonials to this region (Manisa was his place of performed in the mosque’s courtyard retirement) might support this sug- due to the lack of Ottoman liturgical gestion, this is rather a morphological protocols in general. Nonetheless,

Courtyards and Ottoman mosques in the 15th and 16th centuries: Symbolism, mimesis and demise 38

in the seventh century, who allegedly died during the frst Muslim siege of . During Mehmed II’s siege of Constantinople, the presence of Ebu Eyyup El-ensarî’s tomb was miraculously “found” by his mentor, Şeyh Akşemseddin. Soon afer the conquest, the sultan decided to construct a religious complex with the saint’s mausoleum to symbolise the Figure 1. Courtyard of Üç Şerefeli Camii, sultan’s blessed victory. Te present Edirne: Photograph by the author. mosque does not retain the original ffeenth-century plan due to a series considering that courtyard mosques of reconstructions and alterations later. had been practically monopolized by Today, the main section of the mosque the Ottoman sultans for almost one complex is composed of a prayer hall and half centuries, these courtyards (A), the mausoleum (B) opposite it and in two diferent buildings surely had a rectangular courtyard (C) between a symbolic meaning in common. them (Figure 2). Furthermore, as we will see in the next A renowned architectural section, the sultans’ ceremonial use of historian, E. H. Ayverdi, advanced a the courtyard in the second courtyard reconstruction plan of the mosque’s mosque substantiates its imperial original form through an analysis of symbolism from a functional point of contemporary written documents view. (Figure 3) (Ayverdi, 1989a, 348-356). According to the plan, the saint’s 3. Eyüp Sultan Camii and kılıç kuşan- mausoleum (B’) was placed within ması the arcaded courtyard (C’) in the frst Afer the conquest of Constantinople mosque built by Mehmed II and with in 1453, Mehmed II soon embarked sixteen cells of madrasa beyond the upon an epochal enterprise of arcades. Te attachment of a U-shaped reconstructing the devastated madrasa in Eyüp Sultan Camii was metropolis. He appointed scores of actually the frst example of this kind abandoned intramural properties to in Ottoman architectural history. It viziers and other grandees, ordering later became a signifcant architectural them to build mosques (of course element in creating pseudo-courtyards without courtyards) and other social in front of non-sultanic mosques. infrastructures to repopulate the new Furthermore, the position of the capital. Mehmed II for himself set aside mausoleum in the middle of the the site of Byzantine Church of the courtyard was another interesting Holy Apostles in the centre of the city feature of the original plan, since to erect a monumental domed mosque mosque courtyards in other regions with an arcaded courtyard. Te had rarely been occupied by massive mosque, Camii, named afer the mausoleums. By and large, fourteenth- sultan’s honorifc title, accompanied century Ottoman mausoleums were a complex of buildings including a independent structures juxtaposed soup kitchen and . It is ofen with mosques. Later Ottoman sultans overlooked that the frst Ottoman who donated mosques with courtyards sultanic mosque with a courtyard afer preferred to build their mausoleums Üç Şerefeli Camii was not Fatih Camii behind the wall, such as those in but Eyüp Sultan Camii in an extramural the Fatih complex or the Süleymaniye district along the built in complex, so that worshipers inevitably the late 1450s. Tis courtyard testifes pray (salât) toward them. In sum, the symbolism of the courtyards in arranging the mausoleum within the mosques through its signifcance as a courtyard of Eyüp Sultan mosque was stage of royal ceremonials. so unconventional and unfamiliar that Eyüp Sultan Camii was dedicated to we should investigate what it was built Ebu Eyyup El-ensarî (Eyüp Sultan), a for. companion of the Prophet Muhammad ITU A|Z • Vol 12 No 2 • July 2015 • S. Kawamoto 39

As a matter of fact, the sacred father, Murad II, was also bestowed a mausoleum of Eyüp Sultan and its sword during a serious crisis in the early surroundings functioned as a stage period of his reign, this description is for an essential imperial ceremonial, more than a rhetorical expression, but sword girding. Te earliest example rather it refects a certain ceremonial of Ottoman symbolic sword girding act that actually took place in Edirne. dates back to 1421, confrmed by Taking these preceding examples of a contemporary chronicle by an sword girding into account, a myth anonymous writer (Özcan, 2002, 408) from an unknown source that claims (de Groot, 1991, 530) . According to Mehmed II was girded in Eyüp Sultan the chronicle, an eminent religious Camii with the sword of sovereignty fgure, Emir Sultan, bestowed a sword by Akşemseddin soon afer the upon Murad II when his uncle Düzme completion of the complex, can be (“the Impostor”) Mustafa rebelled accepted as a historical fact, not a later against him (Anonym, 2000, 68). Emir fabrication (Necipoğlu, 1996, 25). In Sultan, a descendant of the Prophet the case of Mehmed II, two sacred Muhammad (sayyid) and married to a fgures, Eyüp Sultan and Akşemseddin, daughter of , father of Murad authorised his sovereignty as a warrior II, was without doubt, a key fgure of sultan, in the same way that Emir the Ottoman dynasty at the turn of the Sultan did for Murad II. At least since century. Emir Sultan, being a sacred the reign of Murad II, the Ottoman sayyid and a member of the House sword girding ceremonials were seen of Osman as a son-in-law of the late as the approval of the legitimacy of sultan, his bestowment of the sword sultans from religious fgures. Eyüp to Murad II was an efective sign of Sultan Camii, the frst sultanic mosque approval of the sultanate. in Istanbul, was the perfect setting Later, the act of sword girding was for Mehmed II and his successors to integrated into a series of enthronement visit on signifcant occasions such as ceremonials of new sultans, as the departures of military campaigns, as a ceremonial’s climax. Contemporary way of displaying the linkage between historian Selânikî confrms that the the sacredness and sultanate. then newly enthroned Selim II paid So, how was the mosque complex a visit to Eyüp Sultan Camii in 1566, used for the ceremonials? B. Tanman touring his ancestral mausoleums in provides a noteworthy analysis of the several sultanic mosques (Selânikî, mosque complex and the sword girding 1989, 43). Unfortunately, Selânikî does ceremonial. He points out that a small not describe the visit in detail and it is pavilion-like structure (Sinan Paşa not sure whether the sultan girded a Kasrı), was built within the courtyard sword in Eyüp Sultan Camii during the of the mosque, above a late ffeenth- procession or not. Te frst reference to century ablution , at the end a ceremonial of sword girding was that of sixteenth century (Tanman, 1998b, of , who enthroned in 1603 79-81). Unquestionably, the pavilion, (Tanman, 1998b, 77). which is now completely lost as a Although available documents result of the reconstruction in 1798- do not refer to any sword girding 1800, provided a space for important ceremonials in Eyüp Sultan Camii royal ceremonials. Tanman gives two before 1603, we can assume that at possible usages of this structure: a least some kind of sword girdings for sultanic gallery for the audience or a box sultans were performed in the earlier seat for grandees waiting for the sultan days. In fact the emblematic act of to appear for the ceremonial. In either sword girding for a new sultan dates case, the insertion of such a symbolic back to the enthronement of Mehmed edifce indicates that the mausoleum II in 1451. Tursun Bey reports that and its surrounding courtyard, where “he (Mehmed) girded a sword with the pavilion was, had been the scene God, in the way of God” (Dahı li’llâh of ceremonials since its foundation. fî sebîli’llâh kılıç kuşandı) soon afer As in Edirne Old Palace and Topkapı his enthronement (Tursun Bey, 1977, Palace, the Ottoman protocol required p. 37). Considering that Mehmed II’s an arcaded courtyard for their imperial

Courtyards and Ottoman mosques in the 15th and 16th centuries: Symbolism, mimesis and demise 40 ceremonial in Eyüp Sultan Camii. In In provincial cities without sultanic this way, the mausoleum in which a mosques, viziers or other high-ranking religious fgure bestowed a sword to ofcials ofen constructed principal the sultan should have been placed mosques, along with other social in- within the courtyard to conduct the frastructures such as schools, shops or rest of ceremonial. . Another later extension of Were these non-sultanic patrons ut- Eyüp Sultan Camii substantiates terly barred from building courtyards the functional and morphological for their mosques then? No one has similarities between the courtyard of yet discussed this question scrupu- the mosque and those in the . lously. Since numerous non-sultanic Afer Ahmed I encircled the mausoleum mosques have been wholly renovated to provide a roofed section for visitors or completely lost without trace, it is an in 1612, a huge eave was attached to extremely arduous task to envisage the the wall of the mausoleum on the original plans from extant structures, if courtyard side. Tanman compares it to there are any lef. In other words, we the eaves in Topkapı Palace and Edirne New Palace, under which the throne was set up for imperial ceremonials performed in the courtyards (Tanman, 1998b, 84-85). According to him, these eaves were the descendants of imperial tents (otağ-ı hümâyun) of the Central Asian steppe empires. Leaving aside the question of their origin, the set of the arcaded courtyard and the imperial eave in Eyüp Sultan Camii obviously adopted the style of palaces. Tus, the employment of the courtyard and the unique arrangement Figure 2. Plan of Eyüp Sultan Camii, of the mausoleum in the mosque must İstanbul: Prepared by the author, based on a be construed with their ceremonial plan by Kuban (Kuban, 2007, 546). functions and symbolism. An arcaded courtyard was an architectural manifestation of imperial symbolism, which were not permitted in non- sultanic mosques. Also, the analogy between the courtyards in the Ottoman palaces and Eyüp Sultan Camii corroborates that the frst courtyard in Üç Şerefeli Cami originated from the palatial architecture, as discussed in the previous section.

4. “Courtyards” of non-sultanic mosques during the pre-Sinan period It is a well-known fact that Ottoman grandees and other persons of means were encouraged to donate their for- tune to public welfare. One of the most common ways of benefaction was to construct mosques that played the role of communal nuclei. In Istanbul, a quarter (mahalle) was usually formed around a small non-sultanic mosque Figure 3. Reconstruction plan of Eyüp and named afer the mosque’s bene- Sultan Camii: Prepared by the author, factor, while sultanic mosques were based on a plan by Ayverdi (Ayverdi, 1989a, open for a wider range of congregation. Figure 563).

ITU A|Z • Vol 12 No 2 • July 2015 • S. Kawamoto 41 have to substantiate the nonexistence What needs to be noted is that when of courtyards in non-sultanic mosques a non-sultanic mosque seemingly has a with their deceiving appearances. With courtyard, it can simply be a mosque’s that in my mind, I attempted to fnd forecourt surrounded by a madrasa or out non-sultanic mosques with court- some other structure as in the İshak yards built between the 1450s and the Paşa complex. Furthermore, subse- 1530s, that is to say, the pre-Sinan peri- quent remodellings ofen refurbished od starting from the reign of Mehmed unpretentious pseudo-courtyards to II. Mainly by examining the monu- the extent that one would hardly dis- mental six-volume catalogue of Otto- tinguish them from the imperial court- man architecture by E. H. Ayverdi and yards. Te demise of courtyards as a A. Yüksel, there seems to be only three symbol of the omnipotent sultan and non-sultanic mosques in that period its popularization from the end of the which have or possibly had courtyards: sixteenth century obviously brought Başçı İbrâhim Camii in Bursa, Zağanos an oblivion of original tactful difer- Paşa Camii in Balıkesir and Güzelce entiation between imperial courtyards Hasan Bey Camii in Hayrabolu, in the and pseudo-courtyards in non-sul- order that they were built. tanic mosques. As Mimar Sinan aptly Before discussing these three demonstrated in his earlier career, the mosques, I would like to introduce diference between the mosque section the İshak Paşa complex in İnegöl as a and the madrasa section should be dis- comparative example (Figure 4). Te cernible, no matter how the space sur- complex is composed of a mosque built rounded by the two sections may seem before A.H. 873 (1468-69), a madrasa like a courtyard. completed in A. H. 887 (1482) and a Now, let us go back to the three mausoleum of İshak Paşa, one of grand non-sultanic mosques that seems to viziers of Mehmed II. Te madrasa is have or probably have had courtyards. the earliest Ottoman U-shaped madra- Zağanos Paşa Camii in Balıkesir, which sa in existence. It is worthy to note that was constructed by Zağanos Paşa, a the mosque (A) and the madrasa (B) grand of Mehmed II, in A.H. 865 share the central axis and the forecourt (1460-61), was the oldest one out of the of the mosque was partially fenced by three. Unfortunately, the whole struc- the two wings of the madrasa. Already ture was totally destroyed by an earth- in Eyüp Sultan Camii, Ottoman archi- quake in 1897 and entirely remodelled tects had moulded a courtyard by ma- at the beginning of the twentieth cen- drasa cells and the İshak Paşa complex tury in a diferent style by the hands of is a modest, and maybe permissible, Greek and Armenian artisans. Relying application of Eyüp Sultan Camii’s upon photographs taken during a dam- plan to create a pseudo-courtyard in age investigation by the authorities, E. a non-sultanic mosque. Although the H. Ayverdi presents a schematic recon- buildings are structurally set apart, the struction plan before the remodelling mosque’s forecourt between a mosque (Figure 5). According to this, the orig- and a madrasa gives an impression of inal square prayer hall (A) was covered a courtyard, with an ablution fountain with nine equal-sized domes, support- in the middle. Encircling a mosque’s ed by four piers, and the courtyard (B) forecourt by madrasa cells was a clever had arcades of fve domed bays on each solution to provide a pseudo-courtyard side. Te dimension of the whole com- for non-sultanic patrons who wished plex was also imposing as the court- to imitate a sultanic courtyard mosque. yard alone could have covered a square As will be discussed in the Section 5, of side thirty meters. this method was further elaborated by However, the courtyard section Mimar Sinan in the sixteenth century. was a later extension by the hand of While arcaded courtyards of sultanic Mehmed Bey, a son of Zağanos Paşa mosques were sheer symbolic struc- (Çobanoğlu & Erzincan, 2013, 74). tures of void, being fringed with ma- Tis extension was dedicated to an ele- drasa cells, these “pseudo-courtyards” mentary school attached to the mosque can be regarded as practical and func- complex, like the madrasa of the İshak tional elements of complexes. Paşa complex. Since there is no trace

Courtyards and Ottoman mosques in the 15th and 16th centuries: Symbolism, mimesis and demise 42 of this “courtyard” today, it is impos- Bey Camii in Hayrabolu, a small city in sible to confrm its original style and western Trace (Figure 7). Tis struc- plan, whether it was an independent ture was in fact underscored by Aptul- structure separated from the mosque’s lah Kuran as the frst Ottoman mosque prayer hall or connected to that from with a courtyard, built in A.H.809 the beginning. Considering the school (1406) (Kuran, 1968, pp. 182-183). was constructed by the son aferward, Tis construction date, which seems to it seems likely that the structures of the have been adopted from an article by complex were designed individually S. Eyice (Eyice 1964, 110), is obvious- and set apart from each other. Tus, ly erroneous. Te benefactor Güzelce Ayverdi’s reconstruction proposal is Hasan Bey was a son-in-law (dâmad) deemed to be incorrect, or at least does of Bayezid II, the successor of Mehmed not represent the original plan in the II, and a relatively unknown military late ffeenth century. Te “courtyard” ofcer at the turn of the sixteenth cen- in Zağanos Paşa Camii must have been tury. In all likelihood, the wrong date a forecourt of the mosque surrounded attributes the date of mosque’s waqf by cells of an educational institution, deed, A.H.909 (1504), whose hundreds unlike the symbolic void of sultanic digit was misinterpreted. Although the courtyards. error has been rectifed in recent works Başçı İbrâhim Camii in Bursa is (Karakaya, 1996, 329), the mosque is another example of a non-sultanic ofen taken as an example of a non-sul- mosque with a “courtyard” (Figure tanic mosque with a courtyard because 6). Te benefactor was Başçı (“head of Kuran’s antecedent emphasis on its seller”) İbrâhim, probably a wealthy importance. business owner in Bursa who died in Unlike the aforementioned exam- A.H.885 (1481). Te frst waqf deed ples of pseudo-courtyards, there is no (vakfyye) of the mosque was dated in direct evidence that shows the court- 1459, and there are supplementary ar- yard section (B) in Güzelce Hasan ticles in 1467 and 1471. Its prayer hall Bey Camii was actually a madrasa or is a typical single dome unit (A) and in an elementary school. However, sev- front of that is a small courtyard (B), eral circumstantial evidences indicate which is surrounded by domical ar- that it was also a pseudo-courtyard cades. of a non-sultanic mosque. Firstly, this Te waqf deed reveals that there mosque, too, was severely damaged by were three stages of construction: frst, an earthquake before the Balkan Wars only the prayer hall was built before in the twentieth century. Since the ex- 1459; next, the courtyard section was isting structure is the result of a resto- appended; and fnally, a was ration in 1966, it was hard to recognize annexed to the structure (Ertuğrul, the original plan at the beginning of 1992, 128). Tese successive exten- the sixteenth century. Te courtyard sions remind us of the same processes section could have been a later ex- that took place in abovementioned the tension, as in Zağanos Paşa Camii. İshak Paşa complex and the Zağanos Secondly, the size of the mosque is as Paşa complex. In fact, Ertuğrul points moderate as Başçı İbrâhim Camii. Te out that the arcades of the courtyard arcades of the “courtyard”, if existed in were used as a convent (tekke) and a the early days, might have been cells of madrasa. However considering the size a school as well. Lastly, the personality of the complex, the educational insti- of Güzelce Hasan Bey and the scale of tution attached to Başçı İbrâhim Camii his waqf cast doubt on the existence of must have been a small elementary a courtyard in his mosque. We know one. All three complexes share a simi- almost nothing about this Hasan Bey lar enlargement procedure and as a re- except for being a dâmad of Bayezid II. sult, similar pseudo-courtyards. Tese Since the amount of endowed proper- small and non-symbolic pseudo-court- ties provide only an unassuming sum yards surrounded by rooms with cer- of 2563 akçe in a year (Gökbilgin, 1952, tain functions should be distinguished 416), his mosque itself should have from those in sultanic mosques. been a humble one refecting his mi- Te last example is Güzelce Hasan nor status in the Ottoman government.

ITU A|Z • Vol 12 No 2 • July 2015 • S. Kawamoto 43

Figure 6. Plan of Başçı İbrâhim Camii, Bursa: Prepared by the author, based on a plan by Ayverdi (Ayverdi, 1989a, 70).

Figure 4. Plan of the İshak Paşa complex, İnegöl: Prepared by the author, based on a plan by Ülgen (Ülgen, 1958, 192l).

Figure 7. Plan of Güzelce Hasan Bey Camii, Hayrabolu: Prepared by the author, based on a plan by Yüksel (Yüksel, 1983, 146). enough to be adorned by a symbolic courtyard. Te “courtyard” could also be a forecourt of the mosque surround- ed by cells of other facilities. All courtyards of the three non- sultanic mosques turned out to be a part of educational facilities, unlike the authentic courtyards in sultanic mosques. A tacit code of designing compelled non-sultanic patrons to Figure 5. Schematic reconstruction plan of avoid building symbolic courtyards Zağanos Paşa Camii, Balıkesir: Prepared in their mosques, while they smartly by the author, based on a plan by Ayverdi evaded it by annexing madrasas or (Ayverdi, 1989a, 58). schools to form pseudo-courtyards. We will look at how the method was Tis makes me hesitate to acknowl- formulated by Mimar Sinan in the edge that the mosque was exceptional sixteenth century in Section 5.

Courtyards and Ottoman mosques in the 15th and 16th centuries: Symbolism, mimesis and demise 44

covered by sixteen sequential equal- 5. Sinan’s “courtyard” sized domes whose visual continuity Modern scholarship generally integrates the prayer hall and the praises Mimar Sinan’s works for courtyard into one structure (Figure rationality, which is undoubtedly an 9). On the other hand, the Sinan Paşa ideal of . Domes complex emphasises the distinction of principal mosques and their support between the mosque and the madrasa systems have been well debated from whose pitched-roof arcades are clearly an engineering and geometric point inferior to the prayer hall’s portico of view. Necipoğlu, on other hand, crowned by domes. Although a non- describes Sinan’s mosques from a sultanic complex could have been social perspective, analysing the adorned with a courtyard, it should relationship between patrons’ status have belonged to a madrasa, not to a and codes of decorum (Necipoğlu, mosque. Te Sokollu Mehmed Paşa 2005). Courtyards, which are ofen complex in Kadırgalimanı, Istanbul, overlooked by those who attempt to has a similar combination of a domed classify the mosques by domes covering portico (1) and arcades of pitched-roof main prayer halls, are one type of (2) (Figure 10). Te U-shaped madrasa architectural element that represent (B) is more distinctly separated from the sultan’s authenticity as I have the mosque section (A) with two examined in the previous sections. For taller cuboid units, which are placed non-sultanic patrons, Mimar Sinan on the sides of the portico diagonally, prepared a more sophisticated pseudo- providing entrances into the pseudo- courtyard that was almost identical to courtyard. the sultanic courtyards at frst glance. Mimar Sinan displayed another However, if we look at the structures architectural manipulation for the closely, cautious design distinctions distinction between a mosque and become clear. Since Sinan’s works have a madrasa in the Kara Ahmed Paşa preserved their original plans relatively complex in Topkapı, Istanbul (Figure well, in contrast to the preceding 11). Commissioned by Grand Vizier mosques examined in the previous Kara Ahmed Paşa, the complex is sections, they provide us with well- ofen compared to the Sinan Paşa established evidences for a discussion. complex, with its U-shaped madrasa Mimar Sinan’s frst mosque with a and hexagonal support system of the pseudo-courtyard was the Sinan Paşa main dome (Necipoğlu, 2005, 381- complex in Beşiktaş, Istanbul, which 382). However, the arrangement seems was completed in A.H. 963 (1555- to have been inspired by the ffeenth- 1556) afer the death of its patron, century İshak Paşa complex in İnegöl, Grand Admiral Sinan Paşa (Figure as the short side wings of madrasa 8). Kuran points out that here, Sinan cells in both complexes do not reach experimented with the idea of “the the prayer hall. In order to cut of the mosque-medrese sharing a common pseudo-courtyard from the exterior, courtyard” (Kuran, 1987, 104). Facing arcades of the madrasa (B) is extended a forecourt (B) of the mosque, the toward the portico of the prayer hall prayer hall (A) has a double portico, (A). Te arcades and the portico are which is a set domical arcades with an visually diferent elements since the extended eave. Tis eave is actually a domes covering them are diferent part of the roof covering the arcades both in dimension and height. Tis that encircles the “courtyard” and segregation expresses the afliation of behind the arcades there are cells of the courtyard to the madrasa section. the madrasa. While the space between Interestingly enough, the mosque- the mosque and the madrasa seems madrasa method was also adopted like a perfect mosque courtyard, in two sultanic mosques built when compared to other courtyards in provincial cities: Takiyya al- in sultanic mosques, the diference is Sulaymaniyya in Damuscus and the striking. In the Süleymaniye complex, Sultaniye complex in Karapınar, near for example, the arcades surrounding (Necipoğlu, 2005, 222-238). the courtyard is a homogeneous square Being located in the provinces, these

ITU A|Z • Vol 12 No 2 • July 2015 • S. Kawamoto 45 complexes were assigned the plans of of sultan was replaced by an oligarchy inferior non-sultanic complexes, in or “proto-democratic” system. Tezcan contrast to the monumental sultanic argues that the system “would best be ones in the capital, Istanbul. Also in symbolized by a spider web with the terms of function, they did not need monarch at the center but not on top of the symbolic courtyards, as sultans anyone else.” (Tezcan 2010, p. 193) Te never visited these provincial mosques participants of the new political sphere for weekly or ceremonial prayers. are (validesultan), sul- As we have seen, the construction of tan’s favorite (haseki), other a palpable courtyard in a non-sultanic members, viziers, ulemas and janissar- mosque was carefully avoided and dif- ies who could express their intention ferences between sultanic courtyards through numerous actions including and non-sultanic pseudo-courtyards coercive dethronement of sultan. were profoundly expressed through the Te f rst non-sultanic patron who designs of Mimar Sinan. Such archi- endeavoured to construct a mosque tectural constraints, however, seem to have been disregarded from the 1580s. Tis period was, according to the def- nition of B. Tezcan, the beginning of “the Second Empire” when absolutism

Figure 10. Plan of the Sokollu Mehmed Paşa complex, Kadırgalimanı, Istanbul: Prepared by the author, based on a plan by Necipoğlu (Necipoğlu, 2005, 334).

Figure 8. Plan of the Sinan Paşa complex, Beşiktaş, ıstanbul: Prepared by the author, based on a plan by Necipoğlu (Necipoğlu, 2005, 417).

Figure 11. Plan of the Kara Ahmed Paşa complex, Topkapı, Istanbul: Prepared by the Figure 9. Süleymaniye Camii, İ stanbul: author, based on a plan by Kuban (Kuban, Photograph by the author. 2007, 316).

Courtyards and Ottoman mosques in the 15th and 16th centuries: Symbolism, mimesis and demise 46 with an “authentic” courtyard was Nurbanu Sultan, mother of Murad III (reign: 1574-1595). In the early 1570s, she commissioned a huge complex in Üsküdar, Istanbul, whose construction was continued even afer the death of the patron in 1583. Eventually it was composed of diverse facilities: a mosque, a madrasa, a , a convent, a hospice and some others (Figure 12). Te madrasa (B) is set behind an arcaded courtyard (C) of the mosque, which is an unprecedented structure in non-sultanic mosques (Necipoğlu, 2005, 286). Te status of Nurbanu Sultan as validesultan, without doubt, allowed such a violation of the rule, since the courtyard was a later extension constructed in the 1580s, afer the death of her husband Figure 12. Plan of the Eski Valide (Nurbanu Selim II in 1574 and the enthronement Sultan) complex, Üsküdar, İstanbul: of her son. Tis was followed by Prepared by the author, based on a plan by two mosques of viziers, namely the Necipoğlu (Necipoğlu, 2005, 236). Mesih Mehmed Paşa complex and House of Osman. An examination of the Nişancı Mehmed Paşa complex, existing mosques reveals that the use of both in Istanbul (Necipoğlu, 2005, a courtyard in a non-sultanic mosque 403-415). Like in the Nurbanu Sultan was barred because of its imperial complex, these mosques have arcaded symbolism. However, non-sultanic courtyards that are not fringed by patrons devised a clever solution madrasa cells. Although Mimar Sinan to avoid the tacit agreement. Tey customarily maintained the distinction fabricated pseudo-courtyards for their between the arcades and the portico complexes by encircling forecourts of with diferent dimensions of domes mosques with other annexed facilities, covering them, the space between such as madrasas. Te method was the arcades and the portico of the further elaborated geometrically by the prayer halls is comparable to sultanic hands of Mimar Sinan in the sixteenth courtyard. Te shif of architectural century, although complexes he design in non-sultanic mosques, designed was meticulously embedded regardless of how insignifcant it may with diferentiated architectural look to the modern eye, was an explicit elements that expressed the segregation sign of the fuctuating power structure. between the mosque section and the madrasa section. 6. Conclusion Te imperial monopoly of courtyard In less than one and half centuries, mosques fnally disintegrated in the courtyards in Ottoman mosques 1580s, synchronising with the political experienced a rapid transition: upheaval that was caused by a rise of emergence, mimesis and demise. Afer political signifcance of non-sultanic its frst appearance in Üç Şerefeli Camii grandees and female members of the in Edirne, symbolic arcaded courtyards House of Osman. Finally they could were adopted in sultanic mosques enjoy the freedom to build courtyards built in the Ottoman capital cities, in their complexes as a part of mosques, sharing the same symbolism with not of madrasas. However, the new those in palaces. Te fact that sword style of non-sultanic mosques did not girding ceremonials were performed continue to fourish aferwards, due in Eyüp Sultan Camii demonstrates the to the fact that from the seventeenth ceremonial function of the courtyards, century, the Ottoman grandees start- which was closely tied to the newly ed to devote themselves to building established absolute authority of the urban infrastructures such as schools,

ITU A|Z • Vol 12 No 2 • July 2015 • S. Kawamoto 47 fountains or libraries, not monumen- Pennsylvania: Te Pennsylvania State tal mosques, which had saturated the University Press. capital in a series of intensive construc- Karakaya, E. (1996). “Güzelce tions up to the turn of the century. Hasan Bey Camii” [Güzelce Hasan Bey Mosque]. Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm References Ansiklopedisi, İstanbul: Türkiye Diya- Anonym (prep. N. Öztürk). (2000). net Vakfı. 14. 329-330. Osmanlı Kroniği (1299-1512) [An Karakaya, E. & Çobanoğlu, A. V. Ottoman Chronicle (1299-1512)]. (2000). “İshak Paşa Külliyesi” [İshak Istanbul: Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları Paşa Complex]. Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, İstanbul: Türkiye Ayverdi, E. H. (1989a). Osman- Diyanet Vakfı. 22. 541-542. lı Mi’mârîsinde Fâtih Devri 855- Kawamoto, S. (2012).「エディルネ旧宮 886(1451-1481) (2nd ed.) [Ottoman 殿の成立と空間構成 -前近代オスマン朝の首都 Architecture during the reign of Fatih]. 性の研究 (その2)- 」[Te Formation of Istanbul: İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti. 3. Edirne Old Palace and its spatial Com- Ayverdi, E. H. (1989b). Osman- position -Study of pre-modern Otto- lı Mi’mârîsinde Fâtih Devri 855- man Capital Cities (2)]. Journal of Ar- 886(1451-1481) vol. 4(2nd ed.) [Otto- chitecture, Planning and Environmental man Architecture during the reign of Engineering (Architectural Institute of Fatih]. Istanbul: İstanbul Fetih Cemi- Japan), 679, 2211-2217(in Japanese). yeti. doi: 10.3130/aija.77.2211. Crane, H. (1991). Te Ottoman Sul- Kuban, D. (2007). Osmanlı Mimarisi tan’s Mosques: Icons of Imperial Legiti- []. İstanbul: Yapı macy. In I. A. Bierman, R.A. Abou-el- Endüstri Merkezi Yayınları. Haj & D. Preziosi (Eds.), Te Ottoman Kuran, A. (1968). Te Mosque in City and Its Parts: Urban Structure and Early Ottoman Architecture. Chicago Social Order. New Rochelle, New York: & London: Te University of Chicago Aristide D. Caratzas. 173-243. Press. Çobanoğlu, A. V. & Erzincan, T. Kuran, A. (1987). Sinan: Te Grand (2013). “Zağanos Paşa Külliyesi” Old Master of Ottoman Architecture. [Zağanos Paşa Complex]. Türkiye Washington D.C. & Istanbul: Institute Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, of Turkish Studies & Ada Press. İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı. 44. Necipoğlu, G. (1996). “Dynastic 73-75. Imprints on the Cityscape: Te Ertuğrul, S. K. (1992). “Başçı İbrâhim Collective Message of Imperial Camii” [Başçı İbrâhim Mosque]. Tür- Funerary Mosque Complexes in kiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Istanbul”, Cimetières et traditions Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı. 5, 128. funéraires dans le monde islamique – Eyice, S. (1964). “Atik Ali Paşa İslâm Dünyasında Mezarlıklar ve Defn Camii’nin Türk Mimarî Tarihinde- Gelenekleri [Cemeteries and Funer- ki Yeri” [Atik Ali Paşa Mosque in the al Traditions in the Islamic World]. history of Turkish Architecture], Tarih : Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. Dergisi, Istanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Necipoğlu, G. (2005). Te age of Edebiyat Fakültesi. 14(19), 99-114. Sinan: Architectural culture in the Ot- Gökbilgin, M. T. (1952). XV. ve toman Empire. Princeton and Oxford: XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Paşa Livası: Princeton University Press. Vakıfar-Mülkler-Mukataalar [Edirne Özcan, A. (2002). “Kılıç Alayı” [Pro- and Paşa Livası in the ff eenth and cession of the sword]. Türkiye Diyanet sixteenth centuries: Vakıfar-Mülkler- Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi, Ankara: Tür- Mukataalar ]. İstanbul: Üçler Basımevi. kiye Diyanet Vakfı. 25, 408-410. de Groot, A. H. (1991). “Marāsim”. Selânikî Mustafa Efendi (prep. M In Te Encyclopaedia of 2nd ed., İpşirli). (1989). Tarih-i Selânikî, [His- Leiden: Brill. 6. 529-532. tory of Selânikî]. 1. Istanbul: Edebiyat Kafesçioğlu, Ç. (2009). Constantino- Fakültesi Basımevi. polis/Istanbul: Cultural Encounter, Im- Tanman, B. (1998a). “Edirne’de perial Vision, and the Construction of Erken Dönem Osmanlı Camileri ve the Ottoman Capital. University Park, Özellikle Üç Şerefeli Cami Hakkında”

Courtyards and Ottoman mosques in the 15th and 16th centuries: Symbolism, mimesis and demise 48

[Early Ottoman Mosques in Edirne University Press. and especially Üç Şerefeli Mosque], Tursun Bey (prep. M. Tulum). Edirne: Serhattaki Payıtaht, Istanbul, (1977). Târîh-i Ebü’l-feth [History of 324-352. the Conqueror]. İstanbul: Baha Mat- Tanman, B.(1998b). “Kılıç Kuşanma baası. Törenlerinin Eyüp Sultan Külliyesi ile Ülgen, A. S. (1958). “İnegöl’de İshak Yakın Çevresine Yansıması” [Relation- Paşa Mimarî Manzumesi” [İshak Paşa’s ship between Sword Girding Ceremo- Architectural Works in İnegöl], Vakı- nials and the Eyüp Sultan Complex far Dergisi, 4(192a- 192o). Ankara: and its Enviroment], Tarihi, kültürü ve Mars Matbaası. sanatıyla Eyüpsultan Sempozyumu II : Yüksel İ. A. (1983). Osmanlı Tebliğler, Istanbul. 76-93. Mimârîsinde II. Bâyezid, Yavuz Selim Tezcan, B. (2010). Te Second Devri(886-926/1481-1520) [Ottoman –Political and Social Architecture during the reign of Baye- Transformation in the Early Modern zid II]. 5, Istanbul: Istanbul Fetih Ce- World. Cambridge: Cambridge miyeti.

ITU A|Z • Vol 12 No 2 • July 2015 • S. Kawamoto