The East, the West, and the Appropriation of the Past in Early Ottoman Architecture Author(s): Robert Ousterhout Reviewed work(s): Source: Gesta, Vol. 43, No. 2 (2004), pp. 165-176 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the International Center of Medieval Art Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25067103 . Accessed: 25/11/2012 17:58

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Press and International Center of Medieval Art are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Gesta.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 17:58:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The East, theWest, and the Appropriation of the Past in Early Ottoman Architecture

ROBERTOUSTERHOUT University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Abstract nean history; as Deborah Howard insists, "The concept of East and West remains fundamental to our political, ideolog As the Ottoman state emerged in the fourteenth and fifteenth ical and cultural framework."2 These categories are linked it encountered the medieval cultures centuries, contemporary, to geography only superficially, however; the fundamental of Western and Byzantium, as well as the past, clas difference lies in radically opposing viewpoints on govern sical cultures of northwest Minor. An examination of ment, economy, and ethics. Moreover, these early Ottoman architecture, including the construction of new religion, catego as its own works, adaptation of existing buildings, and attitudes expressed ries shifted each Mediterranean culture fashioned toward older monuments, helps to clarify the nature of the worldview. They could function as part of a binary opposition encounter. The Ottoman the be appropriation of past may in the assertion of political identity, but they could also take understood as a part of their symbolic control of the land and on increasing importance as that identity was compromised. as an attempt to themselves within the larger context position In classical Asia and the East were of world history as the rightful heirs of the Roman/Byzantine antiquity, symbolized a Empire. by and signified Troy; the became potent metaphor enlisted in times of conflict and conquest. As Brian Rose has demonstrated, the site of the Trojan War provided a a on Is the past really foreign country? Consider the follow potent symbolic station-stop for autocratic rulers the move.3 ing incident. In 1463, a decade after the Ottoman capture of The Perisan king Xerxes offered sacrifices to Athena Ilias and , when Mehmet the Conqueror was on expedi to the Trojan heroes on his way westward in an attempt to tion toMitylene, he diverted his army and crossed the Helles conquer in 480 bce. It is unclear if he identified the pont to visit Ilium, the site of ancient Troy (Fig. 1). There was Trojans as his fellow Asiatics, as Mehmet later did, although at best a poor village on the site at that time, but Mehmet was this seems likely; they were linked by their wars against the more concerned to see "its ruins and the traces of the ancient Greeks.4 Alexander the Great clearly identified with the Greeks city" as well as the tombs of the heroes?"Achilles and Ajax on his eastward campaign in 334 bce; at Troy he sacrificed and the rest," whom he praised and congratulated. Then, to Athena Ilias and King Priam and then reenacted the funeral according to his biographer Kritovoulos, games of Patroklos.5 The Romans saw themselves as the de scendants of the Trojans, and following the Roman conquest He is reported to have said, shaking his head a little, of Asia Minor, they acknowledged Troy as Rome's mother "God has reserved for me through so long a period of city; consequently the pilgrimage to Troy became an ideolog years the right to avenge this city and its inhabitants. ical necessity for traveling Roman rulers. Julius Caesar visited For I have subdued their enemies and have plundered the site, and Suetonius later claimed Caesar had considered their cities and have made them the spoils of the My moving the capital there. The rebuilding of Troy by his heir sians. It was the Greeks and Macedonians and Thes Augustus reflects the unprecedented emphasis he placed on salians and Peloponnesians who ravaged this place in his Trojan ancestry, and it coincides with the writing of the the past, and whose descendants have now through my Aeneid. Hadrian stopped at Troy, followed by Caracalla, who efforts paid the just penalty after a long period of years, visited in 214, on his way to battle the Parthians, repeating the for their injustices to us Asiatics at that time and so rituals performed by Alexander. Whether successful in their often in or subsequent times."1 ambitions not, for each of these visitors, the legend of Troy and notions of East and West were significant cultural con Mehmet's words resonate against the backdrop of legen structs underlying their concepts of empire and dominion. dary Troy, which stood as a historical flashpoint in East-West The idea of the Eastern/Trojan ancestry of the Romans relations?or inMehmet's terms, Asiatic-Greek relations. The must have been in the mind of Constantine as well, as he geographic polarity signaled by Mehmet's comments repre founded a new capital, Constantinople, in the East, and the sents a remarkably persistent cultural construct inMediterra public monuments he imported to decorate his new city may

GESTA XLIII/2 ? The International Center of Medieval Art 2004 165

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 17:58:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions " ??5S?$\ -^l&A7???^?Z-- 3??S? =2i-'-t:r; ? -'..'-.ve -rS?rc

ii,irev

''ft'??

FIGURE 1. V/ew o/ r/i? archaeological site of Troy (photo: author).

FIGURE 2. , Hippodrome, view in 1574, showing Hagia Sophia, Obelisk of Theodosius, Serpent Column, and Masonry Obelisk. Freshfield Album, drawing 21, Cambridge, Trinity College Library, MS 0.17.2 (photo: Trinity College Library).

166

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 17:58:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ?

4^^SS?|

?S*sfHr*?

^.a?:r

FIGURE 3. iznik, Haci ?zbek Camii, historie photograph by G. Berggren (from collection of A. A. M. Bryer).

reflect this. The Serpent Column in the Hippodrome, for ex destiny.10 As Sarah Bassett argues, early Constantinople was ample, called to mind the conflict of the Greeks and the Per very much an intellectual construct, one that "grew up around . . . sians. Itwas originally erected in to commemorate the the intersection of history and myth that makes the city Battle of in 479 bce, in which the army of Xerxes the last link in a chain of destiny that stretched from Troy to was defeated, an event that was viewed at the time as the Rome."11 victory of the rational, democratic, civilized Westerners?the The question I would like to pose in this paper is, what Greeks?over the irrational, uncivilized, despotic Easterners? did Mehmet think he was doing at Troy? The culturally con the Persians (Fig. 2).6 The foundation of Constantinople fol structed competitive discourse between East and West briefly lowed on Constantine's vanquishing his eastern co-emperor outlined above makes sense in the context of classical antiq and rival Licinius in 324, an event presented in terms similar uity, from Xerxes to Constantine, with its established attitudes to the Greek victory over the Persians, as the triumph of jus and prejudices. But why would the classical past have been tice over tyranny. In the political propaganda of the period, appropriated in the establishment of the ? Licinius was portrayed as a cruel and depraved despot, the How did a formerly migratory tribe, whose origins may be enemy of the civilized world.7 Perhaps most interesting in traced to central Asia, come to situate themselves within this context of historic destiny and potent political symbol the matrix of Western civilization? An examination of early ism, Constantine is said to have considered establishing his Ottoman architecture, including both the construction of new new capital at Troy.8 Much of the borrowed symbolism in early works and the appropriation of existing buildings, may help Constantinople referred to the Trojan legend, such as the to answer this question. As I shall argue, the Ottoman appro sculptural program in the main public bathing institution, the priation of the past may be understood as part of their sym Baths of Zeuxippos.9 bolic appropriation of the land and as an attempt to position In addition to a variety of Trojan themes in its public themselves within the larger context of world history as the sculpture, the colossal statue of Constantine once displayed rightful heirs of the Roman/. atop the porphyry column in his forum is also claimed to have The beginning of the Ottoman state in the late thirteenth come from Troy; the base of the statue is said to have con century may be characterized as a period of cultural overlap.12 tained the palladium, the ancient wooden guardian statue As the Ottomans settled in the Byzantine territory in north associated with Troy and its fortunes, later with Rome and its west , they adopted the Greek administration of the

167

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 17:58:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions region, and the population remained largely mixed. In spite trast to his response to Troy. When, for example, in the mid of their clear, dramatic political rise to power in the four fourteenth century, Siileyman Pa?a saw the Temple of Hadrian teenth and fifteenth centuries, the origins of Ottoman archi at Cyzicus, he thought that it must have been constructed by tecture remain problematic. Before they settled in , King Solomon?not simply because Solomon was his name we have no clear evidence for an architecture in permanent sake, but because Solomon was a legendary magician credited materials. By the 1320s-1330s, however, the former nomads in folklore with the construction of virtually every impressive were actively building, and in a manner technically and sty ruin, be it Greek, Roman, or Sasanian.17 listically distinct from theMuslim architecture that had evolved Just around the corner from ancient Troy is the site of in other parts of Anatolia. The methods of wall construction ancient Assos, which was taken by the Ottomans toward the and the decorative detailing follow local, Byzantine prac end of the fourteenth century. Its architectural transformation tices, although plans and vaulting forms may be more closely gives some suggestion of early Ottoman attitudes. The Hiid? aligned with the architecture of the Seljuks of central Anato vendig?r Camii was apparently constructed during the reign lia. Such a mixture of forms would seem to reflect the mixed of Murat (ca. 1380), and it was built almost entirely of spolia background of the Ottomans, who were politically and reli taken from a variety of local buildings and dating from many giously linked with the Seljuks, while occupying Byzantine different periods, including ancient stone coffer blocks, a tri lands and incorporating Byzantine institutions into their na glyph and metope frieze, mutules and guttae, Byzantine tem scent state. The resulting heterogeneous architecture may be plon posts, and fragments of an architrave, as well as undetailed emblematic of early Ottoman culture.13 stone and brick (Fig. 4).18 The reuse of an inscribed door The similarities in late Byzantine and early Ottoman frame from a church of St. Cornelius led the first mission of construction techniques have led to numerous confusions, the Archaeological Institute of America to claim that the build and these have been encouraged by the Ottoman use of spolia ing was originally a church (Fig. 5).19 They later retracted in the early buildings. Mosques frequently incorporated ele this, but the confusion persists. In fact, the spolia are of both ments from ancient and Byzantine buildings?columns, cap ancient and Byzantine derivation. even itals, stringcourses, reused brick?into their construction. What is noteworthy in the case of Assos is that neither For example, a nineteenth-century photograph by the Swed the cathedral (probably the basilica in the gymnasium of the ish photographer Guillaume Berggren of the Haci ?zbek lower city) nor the archaic Doric temple, situated nearby on Camii, one of the earliest mosques in iznik (built ca. 1330), the acropolis, was transformed. The cathedral may have been is mislabeled "ancienne ?glise byzantine."14 A Byzantine cap in disrepair by this time, but the archaic temple on the acrop ital decorated with crosses appeared prominently in its portico olis was still standing when the mosque was built, surrounded facade, which no longer survives (Fig. 3). With the destruc by some Byzantine houses and a separate fortification wall, tion of the portico, the photograph still confuses scholars. but it was left alone. Of the numerous spolia employed in the How should we interpret the Byzantine construction tech construction of the mosque, I can identify only one piece, a niques and spolia in these buildings? Should they be viewed broken triglyph, that may have come from the temple. As in as part of the development of a "language of power," indica the earlier examples, it seems most likely that spolia were tive of the Ottoman domination? Considering the nature of used in the Hiid?vendig?r Camii precisely because Byzantine the Ottoman state during the fourteenth century, however, the construction practices were observed. More often than not, technical similarities and reuse of materials might be better the architectural sculptures that appear in late Byzantine build as an are were viewed expression of integration, rather than domina ings spolia.20 In Ottoman examples, spolia used for on tion. The early Ottoman state was based as much cooper exactly the same purposes they served in their original Byz are set same ation as on coercion, and it was for mutual benefit that the antine context and in exactly the places.21 disaffected Byzantines of Bithynia were assumed into the tribe Ottoman domination and the Islamic present were cer of Osman.15 Beginning with Orhan, there were also strong tainly more clearly expressed in the standard practice of trans diplomatic and family connections between the Osmanh Turks forming the main church of a conquered city into a mosque, and the Byzantine court, and this may presume an openness as for example the Ayasofya Camii at iznik or the Fatih Camii as a new was we toward Byzantine culture.16 In sum, architecture at Trilye. At Bursa (conquered in 1326), intriguingly, have formed to serve the needs of the new Ottoman state, we wit no record of a cathedral converted to a mosque, but two Byz were use as ness a strong element of cultural continuity. antine churches appropriated for the mausolea The early, transitional Ottoman examples speak of con of Osman and Orhan. Both were destroyed by earthquake in tinuity, what we might call an "appropriation of the present." the nineteenth century but are known from drawings.22 The But when do the Ottomans begin to look deep into regional conversion of Byzantine churches to house the tombs of the history in an attempt to connect themselves with the past? founders of the Ottoman dynasty is an act I find redolent with Northwest Asia Minor is an area rich in cultural remains, and meaning. yet our rare mentions of ancient monuments before Mehmet's The evidence for church conversions provides useful time have a sort of fairy-tale quality that stands in sharp con information about attitudes toward cultural interchange. In

168

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 17:58:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .;i|iggp

:M

FIGURE 4. Behremkale (Assos), H?d?vendig?r Camii, late 14th century, view from south (photo: author).

' ^i'\?a?i^u^0^ ;

.i>J:.;,, :-?.: ?rMM >r-M\t.*

FIGURE 5. Same, inscribed Byzantine doorframe (photo: author). FIGURE 6. Istanbul, Hagia Sophia, interior view to east in 1672, with Byz antine figurai decoration still exposed (from G. J. Grelot, Relation nouvelle d'un voyage de Constantinople, Paris, 1680, Dumbarton Oaks Library).

169

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 17:58:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions contrast to spoliation, the actual, functional appropriation of important Byzantine buildings was symbolically significant and would have been clearly understood by the contemporary viewer, whether Christian or Muslim. In most instances, the physical transformation of the building was minimal, often without the immediate destruction of its figurai decoration. A minaret would have been added on the exterior, a mihrab and other necessary furnishings on the interior, giving the building a sort of transitional appearance?at once identifi able as both a church and a mosque. I would argue that in these instances, the building would have functioned symbol ically as a monument of conquest and domination. What was most important, I believe, was the clear recognition that the building used to be a Christian church but was no longer. Ini tially in Hagia Sophia at Constantinople and other converted buildings, much of the original interior decoration was left FIGURE 7. Istanbul, Fatih Camii, view from north, showing dome and half the Christian elements were understood intact, although visibly dome, from the K?pr?l? Su Yollari Haritasi, 1672, K?pr?l? Library, Istan differently by later, more religiously conservative generations bul, document no. 2441/1 (photo: S?leymaniye Library). (Fig. 6).23 On the other hand, a competitive discourse with the past can occur only once there has been a clearly defined chron ological break.24 For the Ottomans, that break came in 1453. half-dome of the apse collapsed on the night of the Prophet The conquest of Constantinople and the reign of Mehmet II Mohammed's birth, it could be repaired only with a mortar mark a turning point in both architectural and historical con composed of sand from Mecca, water from the well of Zem sciousness. What impressed Mehmet when he viewed Con zem, and the Prophet's saliva.28 In addition, Muslim and Otto stantinople was not so much its contemporary state as its man symbols were introduced into Hagia Sophia, including ancient monuments and glorious past, and he attempted to the first minaret, the mihrab, and other mosque furnishings, establish parallels between himself and the Byzantine emper as well as sacred relics and battle trophies. Yet a tension re ors Constantine and Justinian as he effected a symbolic re mained, and the Christian memory was never entirely erased: founding of the city.25 His actions bespeak both a fascination a firman (official decree) of 1573 indicates that there was still with history and a scholar's interest in historic authenticity. some opposition to the preservation of a building built by Instead of relying on the oral history of the city, Mehmet com non-Muslims.29 missioned the collection and translation of standard historical The second point about the conversion is the profound and topographical works, including the Patria and the Diege influence direct exposure to Hagia Sophia had on Ottoman sis, as well as works of contemporary scholarship, including architecture, in both form and scale. The new Fatih Camii a Greek version of Christopher Buondelmonti's Liber insu (Mosque of the Conqueror), begun in 1463 to replace the larum archipelagi.26 dilapidated Church of the Holy Apostles, was smaller than Mehmet converted the church of Hagia Sophia to a Hagia Sophia, but itwas dramatically larger in scale than any mosque in one of his first official acts following the conquest previous Ottoman mosque?or any Byzantine church built of Constantinople, and it was clearly done for its symbolic since the sixth century. Although rebuilt after its destruction content (Figs. 2 and 6). The conversion involved minimal in the earthquake of 1766, an illustration from the seven physical transformation, and even its name remained the teenth century shows its original form (Fig. 7). The plan, with same?in Tbrkish, Ayasofya Camii. As appropriated, how a square domed bay expanded with an axial half-dome, fol ever, the scale and evocative power of the building cry out for lowed the model of Hagia Sophia. As Julian Raby has argued, a symbolic reading. Half a millennium later, for example, this combination of forms marks a new departure in mosque Atat?rk performed a similar symbolic transformation: as he design, which could have only been inspired by the direct ob secularized the Tbrkish state, he secularized Hagia Sophia. servation of the Byzantine masterpiece. The connection was Two aspects of the conversion of Hagia Sophia from a church clearly recognized at the time of the Fatih Camii's construc to a mosque are important to our discussion. First, itwas nec tion. Mehmet's biographer Ibrsun Bey wrote thatMehmet had essary to create an Islamic text and an Ottoman legend for "constructed a great mosque on the design of the apprentice Hagia Sophia.27 Borrowing from Byzantine accounts, Ottoman work of Ayasofya, which apart from combining all the artifices historical texts interwove history and myth to situate Hagia of Ayasofya, has found, according to the uses of the moderns, Sophia in an Ottoman present and to justify its conversion a sort of new style and immeasurable beauty, and in its efful into a royal mosque. Thus, according to one version, when the gence its miraculous quality is evident."30

170

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 17:58:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The construction of the Fatih Camii with its adjoining of his Italian contemporaries.38 He had read ancient history as one mausoleum is recognized of Mehmet's important sym and was familiar with the life of Alexander the Great?not bolic acts of refoundation, as it replaced the old Byzantine simply from the popular medieval legend, the Iskendername, Church of the Holy Apostles and theMausoleum of Constan but from Arrian's biography of Alexander. Scholars have been tine, that is, replacing the martyrium of the founder of the quick to point out how Mehmet's actions and his concept of Christian city with that of his Muslim successor. But Tursun a world empire were modeled on those of Alexander, and his Bey's account sets the building into a somewhat different biographer Kritovoulos took pains to emphasize the connec perspective. As he explains, Mehmet (or rather his architect) tion, to compare symbolic acts in his history of conquest, in followed the model of an ancient monument to create a new sisting that the sultan's exploits "were no way inferior to style, "according to the uses of the moderns."31 Mehmet, from those of Alexander of Maced?n."39 His visit to Troy parallels the sound of it, is behaving like a Renaissance man. Alexander's visit. Moreover, Mehmet's library included par In fact, Mehmet was a Renaissance man, as is made allel editions of the two biographies, Arrian's of Alexander clear when he visited in 1458. He came well informed and Kritoboulos' of Mehmet, in identical bindings, copied by about its history and was anxious to view the antiquities of the same scribe.40 the city, over which he lingered for several days; his biog Mehmet's uses of the past were manifold. At one point rapher Kritovoulos goes so far as to describe him as a "Phil he attempted to legitimize his claim as the emperor of Byz hellene," explaining that when he visited the Acropolis he did antium through his alleged descent from the great twelfth so with knowledgeable eyes: "He reconstructed mentally the century Komnenos dynasty.41 But his self-authenticating ex . . . ancient buildings and he conjectured how they must have tended far deeper into history and into the rhetoric of history. been originally."32 Mehmet's appreciation of Athens may have Within his library was a copy of the Iliad, prepared for Meh been aided by a curious text entitled The Theaters and Schools met shortly after his visit to Troy, and his knowledge of the of Athens, written about 1458-1460 by an anonymous Greek text may be due to its enduring importance in Byzantine cul author. Several scholars have suggested that it was produced ture.42 In the quotation at the beginning of this paper, Mehmet as a vade mecum specifically for the visit of Mehmet.33 Writ called the Turks "Mysians," using the ancient name for north ten in grammatically flawed Greek, the text is full of wishful west Asia Minor. Curiously, there was a legend, well known misinformation, attempting to associate the famous schools in Europe at that time, that the Turks were descended from of classical Athens with the standing remains.34 the Trojans, through Teucer, the mythological first king of It was either at this time, or perhaps before Mehmet's Troy. Thus, Italian humanists equated the "Turci" with the second visit to Athens in 1460, that the Parthenon was con "Teucri."43 This belief appeared already in medieval Euro verted into a mosque. It had been transformed into a church pean texts; in fact, following the Romans, everyone from the in the late sixth century, and throughout the Middle Ages it Merovingians to the citizens of Cologne professed Trojan had served as the cathedral of Athens, dedicated to the Virgin descent. As a consequence, Western Europeans looked more on as common on Mary. As with Hagia Sophia, very little physical change was favorably the Trojans, their ancestors, than effected. The altar and belfry were removed; a minaret, mih the Greeks. But the claim of Trojan ancestry for the Turks rab, and minbar were added. As amosque, the Parthenon still was upsetting, to say the least, particularly after the fall of preserved itsmarble peristyle and a good portion of its ancient Constantinople. Cardinal Isidore, who was present at the fall, sculptures on the exterior, as well as Byzantine paintings in called Mehmet both the Antichrist and "prince of the Tro fresco and mosaic on the interior?including a mosaic of the jans."44 According to Laonikos Chalkokondiles, writing in the Virgin and Child in the apse and a fresco of the Last Judgment 1480s, many Greeks ascribed the fall of the Byzantine capital at the entrance, all of which were left intact.35 Mehmet's to vengeance for the sack of Troy, and the Romans firmly aesthetic appreciation of the monument is paralleled in the believed this.45 This belief was taken seriously enough in later response by the noted Ottoman traveler Evliya ?elebi, fifteenth-century Italy to worry the pope, and Mehmet him who in Athens marveled at the "hundreds of thousands of self certainly must have been familiar with the legend. Pius II works of art carved in white virgin marble," commenting that (whose original name, Aeneas, is not without some irony in "whoever looks upon them falls into ecstasy and his body this context) attempted to debunk the legend while calling for grows weak and his eyes water for delight."36 With the addition a crusade against the Turks.46 Even today, Turks living around of a minaret, the Parthenon stood until its explosion in 1687 the archaeological site of Troy insist on the veracity of the as perhaps the most evocative monumental summation of the legend.47 mixed cultural and religious heritage of the Mediterranean.37 Mehmet's personal association with the past may sound Mehmet knew his classical history long before he arrived familiar to scholars of Renaissance Italy. In fact, in his new in Athens. In fact, in addition to his Muslim instructors, Meh capital, Mehmet's actions were not dissimilar from those of met had two European tutors, one trained in Greek, the other his papal contemporary. He collected classical sculpture and in Latin?the latter was an Italian colleague of Cyriacus of classical texts and maintained an active Greek scriptorium. Ancona; Mehmet thus had an education similar to that of many He commissioned , spoke and read several languages,

171

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 17:58:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ?jiifllM

FIGURE 8. Costanzo da Ferrara, Portrait medal of Mehmet the Conqueror, FIGURE 9. Reverse of Figure 8. obverse, Washington, DC, National Gallery of Art, Samuel H. Kress Collec tion (photo: National Gallery of Art).

and he even knew how to draw the human figure, as may be Italian condottieri could be just as brutal, if far less success seen in the pages of a preserved Schoolbook.48 He supported ful, and they were usually far less well educated. In contrast Italian court painters, and he commissioned portrait medals to his Ottoman predecessors, whom we can see as part of a with heroic representations in the Italian manner (Figs. 8 and continuity and cultural overlap with Byzantium, Mehmet seems 9).49 I suspect we should be looking at Mehmet as another to have understood the difference between the classical past enlightened warrior-prince of the early Renaissance. Never and what had transpired in the intervening period. That is to theless, Western history tends to present him less favorably, say, his view of history, and of his position in it, seems to as a brutal, murdering , crediting him with bringing the have been shaped in large part by his familiarity with con final flowering of classical culture in the East to a violent end. temporary Italian culture. With the , Pius II (Aeneas Silvius Let us return to Troy, where we began. For Mehmet, as Piccolomini) complained of "a second death to and a for his Roman imperial predecessors, Troy was more than second destruction of Plato."50 Andrea Cambini, writing in simply a symbol of conquest. It also represented his ancestral 1529, still concerned with the origins of the Tbrks, insisted home, as well as the common literary culture of the Medi that they were descended from the Scythians, because their terranean elite, both East and West.53 In the end, the past was present conduct could be compared with the abominations of no more foreign toMehmet than it was to his Italian contem the Sythians, as related by classical writers.51 Western con poraries, who viewed and used history similarly. temporaries were eager to dismiss Mehmet as yet another ex The downfall of Troy came about with a horse, so it ample of the irrational oriental despot. seems appropriate to conclude with horses. On the medal cast In addition to his cultural interests, Mehmet derived much about 1481 by Constanzo da Ferrara, Mehmet is represented of his political program from Western Europe. "How closely on horseback on the reverse, celebrating his military exploits the Conqueror corresponded to Machiavelli's ideal of a po with a bravado that evokes the classical past (Fig. 9). More tentate and despot is shown by every page of his biography," over, the equestrian image appears here on a portable object wrote his modern biographer Franz Babinger.52 That he so that could circulate freely between the eastern and western successfully out-Machiavelli'ed his Italian contemporaries, Mediterranean and could attest to Mehmet's political power that he threatened Italy in a way none of its homegrown petty in a language well understood in Italy, at a time when the could, may explain why we emphasize his political equestrian portrait was just beginning to reappear in monu role at the expense of his cultural interests. Contemporary mental sculpture.54

172

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 17:58:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ?MT> S* C O N.ST'ANT?NQPQUTANA NOVA gwOMA.

FIGURE 11. View of Constantinople, from the Notitia dignitatum, 1436, Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Canon misc. 378, fol. 84 (photo: Bodleian Library).

lisks in the Hippodrome (Fig. 2), but he nevertheless felt obliged to remove the equestrian statue from the , FIGURE 10. statue Justinian, Equestrian of Budapest, University Library, perhaps answering to popular sentiment. Allegedly, the bronze MS 35, fol. 144v (photo: University Library). statue was broken into pieces, melted down, and used to fab ricate cannons for the siege of Belgrade in 1456, but there is some evidence thatMehmet attempted to preserve at least part The fates of two equestrian monuments may be illu of it. The curious drawing now in Budapest came from the minating in the context of an East-West discourse. In Con Topkapi Library and may have been from his personal col stantinople, the colossal equestrian statue of a Byzantine lection.58 Because Mehmet was not an iconoclast by nature, emperor, usually identified as Justinian, dominated the Au the destruction stands uncomfortably amid his antiquarian gustaion square at the entrance to the Great Palace and was a interests. Nevertheless, he clearly understood the symbolic landmark of the city visible from afar.55 Facing east, the rider power of antique monuments, and the destruction presents an held a globe in his left hand and gestured with his right. It is act as evocative as his appropriation of ancient buildings. known from several representations, notably a drawing now According to an Italian who had been taken prisoner and in Budapest (Fig. 10), but it also appears in several city views who had served in the household of Mehmet, astrologers had in the manuscripts of Buondelmonti, and in the 1436 version advised the sultan to destroy the statue because itwas a threat of the Notitia dignitatum (Fig. II).56 Except for the clumsi to the Ottomans; as long as it stood, its talismanic properties ness of the Budapest drawing and the rather curious head would guarantee the triumph of Christianity.59 Similarly, the dress, the equestrian statue seems to have been a standard globis cruciger held by the rider had been understood by Roman imperial representation. To the Byzantine viewers, most viewers to symbolize world dominion, and this belief no however, as well as to Frankish and Muslim visitors, the doubt lay behind the Ottoman legend of the Red Apple: to statue stood as a talisman. Its gesture was ascribed apotropaic achieve world dominion one must capture Constantinople and powers, commanding the oriental enemy to stay back beyond take the orb.60 Following the conquest of Constantinople, the Byzantine border.57 however, this legend was transferred to other cities, in par Mehmet had amassed a collection of antique statuary and ticular, to Rome.61 Thus, as the battle lines were drawn in had left many antique public monuments in place throughout the discourse of the fifteenth century, theWest was Rome and Constantinople, including the Serpent Column and the obe Christian, while the East was istanbul/Constantinople and

173

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 17:58:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions -?r -' -fwc '' < ' r..r?

&$r*7&** ?>5v Tt&r

fcS-~n

.1

K.

FIGURE 12. Statue as Rome, Campidoglio, of Marcus Aurelius, erected after 1536, University of Illinois School of Architecture slide collection (photo: A. K. Laing).

same Muslim. At the time, both Mehmet and his Italian con of the other.64 Certainly the fate of the Constantinopolitan temporaries looked to antiquity to legitimate their positions. monument was known in Italy, just as the fate of Constanti Three-quarters of a century later in Rome, the equestrian nople was known, and the meanings ascribed to the two may statue was of Marcus Aurelius transported to the city center have been intertwined. As an emblem of the Christian, Byz to become the centerpiece inMichelangelo's redesign of the antine city, the equestrian statue is a standard feature in the Campidoglio (Fig. 12). In pose and gesture, the statue is quite fifteenth-century views of Constantinople that accompanied similar to the Constantinopolitan monument just discussed. the text of Christopher Buondelmonti's Liber insularum to Long thought represent Constantine, the first Christian archipelagi, which was widely disseminated.65 Drawing on emperor and founder of Constantinople, the Roman statue had its symbolic value, Mantegna included the equestrian statue been preserved through the Middle Ages in the Lateran Pal of Justinian as an evocative image in his Agony in the Garden an ace, where it had accrued array of legendary and talismanic (London, National Gallery), painted immediately after the fall associations similar to those attached to the statue of Justin of Constantinople. As Michael Vickers has demonstrated, in ian.62 Perhaps most important to the present discussion are the this painting Constantinople is represented as Jerusalem; the to circumstances leading the relocation of the statue of Marcus fall of the city to the Ottomans is thus equated with the be Aurelius to the Campidoglio: it was inspired by the "triumph" trayal of Christ by Judas.66 staged in Rome in 1536 to honor Charles V, following his naval In New Rome one mounted emperor faced east and was over the at was victory Ottomans Tbnis. That victory accorded destroyed; in Old Rome the other was reerected triumphantly the utmost at significance the time, for it checked the Ottoman facing west. As with the compulsory rulers' homage at Troy Empire's westward expansion. As reerected in its new position, during antiquity, by the time of the Renaissance, the players the imperial figure gestures triumphantly westward, toward had changed and the boundaries had shifted, but the compet the dome of St. Peter's, the center of Christendom.63 itive discourse continued to be reflected in the monuments. We might wonder if somehow the complex meanings As the gestures of the two statues indicate, the concepts of with the one encour associated destruction of equestrian statue East and West remained fundamental to the cultural, ideolog aged the politically and religiously charged re-presentation ical, and political framework of the Mediterranean.

174

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 17:58:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions NOTES

1. Kritovoulos, History of , trans. C. T. Riggs tecture?probably to the 14th century"; J. T. Clark, "Report on the In (Princeton, 1954), IV, 72-72, 181-182. vestigations at Assos, 1881," Papers of the Archaeological Institute of America (Classical Series, I) (Boston, 1882), 122-123 and errata, x. 2. D. Howard, Venice and the East: The Impact of the Islamic World on The mosque is still often said to have originally been a Byzantine church, Venetian Architecture, 1100-1500 (New Haven, 2000); note also review see A. Kuran, The Mosque in Early Ottoman Architecture (Chicago, by R. Ousterhout, "In Pursuit of the Exotic Orient," Journal of Aes 1968), 38; also B. McDonagh, : The Aegean and Mediterranean thetic Education, XXXV/4 (2002), 113-118. Coasts (Blue Guide) (London, 1989), 204. 3. For Troy in the classical construction of an East-West encounter, as 20. See, for example, the assessment of O. Hjort, "The Sculpture of the well as the development of the myth of the Trojan origin of the Ro Kariye Camii," DOP, XXXIII (1979), 199-289; R. Ousterhout, The mans, see C. B. Rose, "Troy and the Historical Imagination," Classical Architecture of the Kariye Camii in Istanbul (Washington, DC, 1987), World, 1998, 98-100; idem, "Bilingual Trojan Iconography," inMauer esp. 140. schau. Festschrift f?r Manfred Korfmann (T?bingen, 2002), I, 329 I and 350; idem, "The Theater of Ilion," Studia Troica, (1991), 69-77; 21. Ousterhout, "Ethnic Identity," passim; further discussed in idem, Master at idem, "The 1997 Post Bronze Age Excavations Troy," Studia Troica, Builders of Byzantium (Princeton, 1999), 140-145. VIII (1998), 71-113.1 thank Brian Rose for sharing his research with me. 22. M. Lindgren, ed., C. G. L?wenhielm Artist and Diplomat in Istanbul, 4. 329-330. Rose, "Bilingual Trojan Iconography," 1824-1827 (Uppsala University Library, Exhibition Catalogue no. XXXIII) (Uppsala, 1993), II, 18, IV, 39 (I thank Lars Karlsson for this 5. Ibid.; see also M. Sage, "Roman Visitors to Illium in the Roman Im reference); and M.-F. Auz?py and J.-R Gr?lois, eds., Byzance retrouv?e. perial and Late Antique Period: The Symbolic Functions of a Land Erudits et voyageurs fran?ais (XVIe-XVIIIe si?cles) (Paris, 2001), 139 scape," Studia troica, X (2000), 211-231. and Fig. 74. These buildings will be addressed by Suna ?agaptay-Ankan 6. For the of the column, see T. Madden, "The Column of history Serpent in her Ph.D. dissertation on the architecture of fourteenth-century in Placement, and Mutilations," Delphi Constantinople: Purposes, Byz Bithynia. antine and Modern Greek Studies, XVI (1992), 111-145. 23. G. Necipoglu, "The Life of an Imperial Monument: Hagia Sophia after 7. T. Barnes, Constantine and (Cambridge, MA, 1981), 68. Byzantium," in Hagia Sophia from the Ages of Justinian to the Pres ed. R. Mark and A. 8. For Ilion/Troy as an alternative site, see Theophanes, XXIII, ed. de Boor; ent, ?akmak (Cambridge, 1992), 195-225, esp. Zonaras XIII, 3, 1-4, ed. Bonn, III, 13-14. 206-207.

24. G. 9. R. Stupperich, "Das Statuenprogramm in der Zeuxippos-Thermen. Necipoglu, "Challenging the Past: Sinan and the Competitive Dis von course of Modern Islamic X ?berlegungen zur Beschreibung der Christodorus Koptos," Istan Early Architecture," Muqarnas, (1993), buler Mitteilungen, XXXII (1982), 210-235, who associates the Trojan 169-180. iconography with civic identity; see also S. G. Bassett, "Historiae cus 25. S. Vryonis Jr., "Byzantine Constantinople and Ottoman Istanbul: Evo tos: Sculpture and Tradition in the Baths of Zeuxippos," AJA, C (1996), lution in aMillennial Imperial Iconography," in The Ottoman City and 491-506. Its Parts: Urban Structure and Social Order, ed. I. Bierman, R. Abou 10. Malalas, XIII, 7, ed. Bonn, 321; C. Mango, "Constantine's Column," in el-Haj, and D. Preziosi (New Rochelle, NY, 1991), 13-52; ?. Kafes Studies on Constantinople (Aldershot, 1993), study III, 1-6. cioglu, "The Ottoman Capital in the Making: The Reconstruction of Constantinople in the Fifteenth Century" (Dissertation, Harvard Uni 11. S. Bassett, The Formation of Urban Identity in Late Antique Constan versity, Cambridge, MA, 1996). tinople (Cambridge, forthcoming). I thank the author for this reference. 26. J. Raby, "Mehmed the Conqueror's Greek Scriptorium," DOP, XXXVII 12. See, among others, R. P. Lindner, Nomads and Ottomans inMedieval (1983), 15-34. Anatolia (Bloomington, IN, 1983); C. Kafadar, Between Two Worlds: The Ottoman State and H. Construction of the (Berkeley, 1995); Lowry, 27. Necipoglu, "Life of an Imperial Monument," 195-225. The Nature of the Early Ottoman State (Albany, 2003). 28. Ibid., 200, with further references. 13. As I have discussed in "Ethnic Identity and Cultural Appropriation in 29. Ibid., 206-207. Early Ottoman Architecture," Muqarnas, XIII (1995), 48-62. 30. "El Gran Turco," 253 note 111; see also 14. Ibid., 54; unfortunately, the copy of the photograph published here cuts Raby, Necipoglu, "Challeng the Past," 171; Mehmet's mosque in the of off the misidentifying inscription. ing collapsed earthquake 1766 and was subsequently rebuilt; see W. M?ller-Wiener, Bildlexikon 15. Here I borrow the of Lindner, Nomads and Ottomans, esp. language zur Topographie (T?bingen, 1977), 405-411. 1-50. 31. Raby, "El Gran Turco," 253 and note 111. 16. Following initial hostilities, Orhan developed a friendship with John 32. Mehmed the 136. VI Cantacuzenus, who in 1346 gave his second daughter Theodora in Kritovoulos, History of Conqueror, marriage to Orhan; see D. Nicol, The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 33. W. Miller, The Latins in the Levant (London, 1908), 443-445; Raby, 1261-1453 (London, 209. 1972), "El Gran Turco," 232.

17. J. Raby, "El Gran Turco: Mehmed the Conqueror as a Patron of the 34. For text, see A. Michaelis, Der Parthenon (Leipzig, 1871), 353. Arts of Christendom" (Dissertation, Oxford University, 1980), 233. 35. For the Parthenon in the Middle Ages, see M. Korres, "The Parthenon 18. Ousterhout, "Ethnic Identity," 54-55; see also ?. Serdaroglu, Assos from Antiquity to the 19th Century," in The Parthenon and Its Impact (Istanbul, 1995), 96-97. inModern Times, ed. P. Tournikiotis (Athens, 1996), 138-162; and 19. Apparently the excavators were unable to get a close look at the build R. Ousterhout, '"Bestride the very peak of heaven': The Parthenon ing during their first excavation season, but in the errata they state after Antiquity," in The Parthenon: From Antiquity to the Present, ed. clearly, "The edifice is referable to the earliest ages of Turkish archi J. Neils (Cambridge, forthcoming).

175

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 17:58:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 36. Significant sections appear in translation in K. Andrews, Athens Alive 50. See J. Brotton, The Renaissance Bazaar: From the Silk Road toMichel (Athens, 1979), 68-77; for the Greek version, see K. Bires, Ta Anika angelo (Oxford, 2002), 49. tou Evlia Tselebi (Athens, 1959), 28-42. 51. Spencer, "Turks and Trojans," 332. 37. Unlike Hagia Sophia, which preserves its Ottoman accretions and thus 52. F. Babinger, Mehmet the Conqueror and His Time, ed. W. C. Hickman, stands as a sum of its the later additions to the Parthenon were history, trans. R. Manheim (German ed., 1953; Princeton, 1978), 502. removed in a flurry of antiquarian interest in 1843 following the Greek 53. "Roman Visitors," 230-231. war of independence; see R. McNeal, "Archaeology and the Destruc Sage, tion of the Later Athenian Acropolis," Antiquity, LXV (1991), 49-63; 54. Brotton, Renaissance Bazaar, 138-144. see also comments in J. Hurwitt, The Athenian Acropolis (Cambridge, 55. C. Mango, "The Columns of Justinian and His Successors" and "Jus 1999), 298-302. tinian's Equestrian Statue," in Studies on Constantinople (Aldershot, 38. Earlier scholars believed that Cyriacus had been the tutor in question, 1993), studies X and XI, the latter reprinted from AB, XLI (1959), but see J. Raby, "A Sultan of Paradox: Mehmet the Conqueror as a Pa 351-356; see also J. Raby, "Mehmed the Conqueror and the Eques tron of the Arts," Oxford Art Journal, V/l (1982), 3-8. trian Statue of the Augustaion," Illinois Classical Studies, XII (1987), 305-313. 39. Raby, "Scriptorium," 18; Kritovoulos, History of Mehmed the Con queror, 3-6. 56. M. Vickers, "Mantegna and Constantinople," BM, CXVII (1976), 680 687, esp. 683; see also R. Stichel, "Zum Bronzekolo? Justinians I. vom 40. Raby, "Scriptorium," 18. Augusteion in Konstantinopel," in Griechische und r?mische Statuetten 41. A Komnene prince is alleged to have fled to Konya, converted, and und Gro?bronzen, Akten der 9. internationalen Tagung ?ber antike Alto und married a Seljuk princess; M. F. K?pr?l?, Les origines de l'empire otto Bronzen (Vienna, 1988), 133-136; F. Bauer, Stadt, Platz man (Paris, 1953), 82-88; derived from T. Spandounes, On the Origin Denkmal in der Sp?tantike (Mainz, 1996), 158-162. of the Ottoman Emperors, trans. D. Nicol (Cambridge, 1997), 11. 57. As Procopius explained in De aedif. I, 2, Iff.; trans. C. Mango, The Art the Sources and Documents 42. Raby, "Scriptorium," 18. of Byzantine Empire: (Toronto, 1986), 110-111. 43. A. Pertusi, "I primi studi in occidenti sull'origine e la potenza dei 58. "El Gran Turco," 221-222 and 351-359. Turchi," Studi veneziani, XII (1970), 465-552; Raby, "El Gran Turco," Raby, 233-234. 59. The account in the Diario di viaggio of Gian-Maria Angiolello is thor oughly discussed by Raby, "Mehmed the Conqueror and the Eques 44. Letter preserved in B. von Breydenbach, Peregrinatio ad terram sanctam trian Statue," 307-308. (1486); T. Spencer, "Turks and Trojans in the Renaissance," Modern Language Review, XLVII/3 (1952), 330-333. 60. Ibid., 305 note 1.

45. Spencer, "Turks and Trojans," 331; for text, Migne, Patrologiae cursus 61. F.W. Hasluck, Christianity and Islam under the Sultans (Oxford, 1929), completus, XXXIX, col. 397c. II, 736-740. 62. D. "The the and the Cuckoo: Medieval Narra 46. A. S. Piccolomini, Europa, in qua sui temporis varias historias com Kinney, Horse, King, tions of the Statue of Marcus XVIII 372-398. plectitur (1548), II, chap. 26; ed. F. Strowski, II, 106; cited in Spencer, Aurelius," W&I, (2002), "Turks and 332; see also S. Runciman, "Teucri and Turci," in Trojans," 63. S. Kostof, A History of Architecture: Settings and Rituals, 2nd ed. Medieval and Middle Eastern Studies in Honor Aziz S. ed. of Atiya, (Oxford, 1995), 495. S. Hanna (Leiden, 1972), 344-348. 64. The motivation behind the transfer of the statue to the Capitoline Hill 47. The of the recent film with Brad Pitt has the popularity Troy reignited is not recorded; see J. S. Ackerman, The Architecture of Michelangelo debate on the of the a cause taken possible Trojan origins Turks, up by (Harmondsworth, 1986), 136-170; M. Mezzatesta, "Marcus Aurelius, several Turkish see most H. Turk politicians; recently, ?ahin, Troyahlar Fray Antonio de Guevara, and the Ideal of the Perfect Prince in the a collection of recent from the Turk M?yd?? (Istanbul, 2004), essays Sixteenth Century," AB, LXVI (1984), 620-633, suggests a personal ish press. I thank Suna ?agaptay-Ankan for bringing this amusing little association of Charles V with Marcus Aurelius, but this would not ne book to attention. my gate the hypothesis presented here.

48. Raby, "El Gran Turco," 195-198; idem, "Sultan of Paradox," Fig. 2. 65. I. Manners, "Constructing the Image of a City: The Representation of as The various antiquities used spolia throughout Topkapi Palace may Constantinople in Christopher Buondelmonti's Liber insularum archipe see represent part of Mehmet's collection; H. Tezcan, Topkapi Sarayi lagir Annals of the Association of American Geographers, LXXXVII ve ?evresinin Bizans devri arkolojisi (Istanbul, 1989). (1997), 72-102, esp. 86.

49. Raby, "El Gran Turco," passim. 66. Vickers, "Mantegna and Constantinople," 683.

176

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 17:58:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions