The Selimiye Mosque: Architect Sinan’s Masterpiece as a Reflection of Classical Ottoman Multiethnic Society

1

THE SELIMIYE MOSQUE: ARCHITECT SINAN’S MASTERPIECE AS A

REFLECTION OF CLASSICAL OTTOMAN MULTIETHNIC SOCIETY

Ibrahim Yucel Class of 2014 Colgate University MIST 491: Independent Study Professor Aaron Spevack May 2014

2

“Did the Great Turk, at p resent emperor of Constantinople and fifteen or sixteen countries as large as our France, detract from his status, his or that of his predecessors, by allowing three different religions in one city? No, no! My gentlemen, to the contrary, he added to his gr  andeur!”  – Exhortation Exhortation from the Huguenots to Queen of France to respect freedom of religion, 1559 1

The Ottoman Empire was the longest-lived empire in the post-classical age, ruling for six centuries over one of the most diverse regions of the world. During the years after the Conquest of Constantinople and before the reign of Sultan Murad III, the Ottomans espoused and maintained a multi-ethnic society that was administered by a diverse and highly cultivated aristocracy of elites from countless ethnicities and origins.

Through its institutions, the the

Ottomans were able to oversee the most diverse regions of their land effectively, gather their most talented men and women, and raise them to become loyal servants of the state. The multiethnic heritage that fostered such a mosaic society allowed the Ottomans to show tremendous adaptability and resilience in a rapidly changing world and succeed where other empire failed. Although all of the Empire’s institutions were reflective of this cultural openness to difference, it most readily readily manifested itself itself in Ottoman architecture. Perhaps it is is in the evolution of classic Ottoman Architecture and its apogee under the Chief Imperial Architect Sinan — himself himself a non-Muslim converted to Islam — that that we see the best reflection of the Empire's multiethnic multiethnic history. history. This study will argue that the Ottoman Empire’s greatest asset from its formation to its peak was its remarkably multiethnic, cosmopolitan society and that its architectural style — which which synthesized styles from numerous past civilizations —   best mirrors this facet of Ottoman culture. It will then then analyze the life of Imperial Architect Sinan and conclude that his culminating masterpiece — the the Selimiye Mosque in Edirne, Turkey — is is the finest representation of a cosmopolitan formation of society that defined the Ottoman civilization. MULTIFACETED APPROACH TOWARDS A MULTIETHNIC SOCIETY Previous scholarship on Ottoman multiethnic society has often focused on Islam tradition as the primary source of inspiration for the Ottoman system of relationships between Muslims 2

and non-Muslims.

This simple framework framework however, fails to explain adequately the nuances of

Ottoman institutions such as the Millet system, the Devshirme, and the empire’s remarkable 1

Compier, Abdul Haq. "Let the Muslim Be My Master in Outward Things:’ References to Islam in the Promotion of Religious

Tolerance in Christian Europe." Al-Islam Europe."  Al-Islam EGazette (January EGazette (January 2010), Page 9  Braude, Benjamin, and Bernard Lewis. Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society . New York: Holmes & Meier Publishers, 1982, 2

2

2

“Did the Great Turk, at p resent emperor of Constantinople and fifteen or sixteen countries as large as our France, detract from his status, his or that of his predecessors, by allowing three different religions in one city? No, no! My gentlemen, to the contrary, he added to his gr  andeur!”  – Exhortation Exhortation from the Huguenots to Queen of France to respect freedom of religion, 1559 1

The Ottoman Empire was the longest-lived empire in the post-classical age, ruling for six centuries over one of the most diverse regions of the world. During the years after the Conquest of Constantinople and before the reign of Sultan Murad III, the Ottomans espoused and maintained a multi-ethnic society that was administered by a diverse and highly cultivated aristocracy of elites from countless ethnicities and origins.

Through its institutions, the the

Ottomans were able to oversee the most diverse regions of their land effectively, gather their most talented men and women, and raise them to become loyal servants of the state. The multiethnic heritage that fostered such a mosaic society allowed the Ottomans to show tremendous adaptability and resilience in a rapidly changing world and succeed where other empire failed. Although all of the Empire’s institutions were reflective of this cultural openness to difference, it most readily readily manifested itself itself in Ottoman architecture. Perhaps it is is in the evolution of classic Ottoman Architecture and its apogee under the Chief Imperial Architect Sinan — himself himself a non-Muslim converted to Islam — that that we see the best reflection of the Empire's multiethnic multiethnic history. history. This study will argue that the Ottoman Empire’s greatest asset from its formation to its peak was its remarkably multiethnic, cosmopolitan society and that its architectural style — which which synthesized styles from numerous past civilizations —   best mirrors this facet of Ottoman culture. It will then then analyze the life of Imperial Architect Sinan and conclude that his culminating masterpiece — the the Selimiye Mosque in Edirne, Turkey — is is the finest representation of a cosmopolitan formation of society that defined the Ottoman civilization. MULTIFACETED APPROACH TOWARDS A MULTIETHNIC SOCIETY Previous scholarship on Ottoman multiethnic society has often focused on Islam tradition as the primary source of inspiration for the Ottoman system of relationships between Muslims 2

and non-Muslims.

This simple framework framework however, fails to explain adequately the nuances of

Ottoman institutions such as the Millet system, the Devshirme, and the empire’s remarkable 1

Compier, Abdul Haq. "Let the Muslim Be My Master in Outward Things:’ References to Islam in the Promotion of Religious

Tolerance in Christian Europe." Al-Islam Europe."  Al-Islam EGazette (January EGazette (January 2010), Page 9  Braude, Benjamin, and Bernard Lewis. Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society . New York: Holmes & Meier Publishers, 1982, 2

2

3 th

resilience into the 20   century. A better framework would acknowledge the religious religious context,  but also consider the effects of historical and political frameworks. As for the historical context, Ottoman multi-ethnic society emerged and matured within the context of three main historical influences: the nomadic traditions of the early Ottoman ghazis, the legal traditions of Islam, and 3

the Ottoman understanding of Byzantine/Roman legacy. In addition addition to political realities, realities, these three forces helped shape Ottoman policy towards non-Muslims in the first 300 years of the empire. Ironically, the circumstances circumstances that initially created created a flourishing, diverse society were the the

same conditions that would later fracture the society and bring about the empire’s downfall, as later sections will clarify. To better understand these dynamics, we will will first consider a historical historical framework that surveys the beginnings of the Ottomans in the 1300 to its peak and decline th

starting in the 17  century. Afterwards, we will will look at the institutional institutional and political basis that that necessarily led to a relatively well-functioning multiethnic society. society. This societal framework framework was further legitimized by subordinating it to Islamic tradition, although Islamic identity was not the sole or primary defining factor factor of Ottoman society. We will then use the previously mentioned context of history, political institutions and religion to analyze the evolution of classical Ottoman th

architecture and its culmination under Architect Sinan in the late 16  century. The extraordinarily mosaic composition of the classic Ottoman aristocracy was largely a  part of historical necessities and realities that other empires did not experience.

First, the

formation of the empire empire took place within the context of tribal nomadism. Osman Ghazi, the founder of the Ottoman Empire, was the leader of a Beylik, or a regional Turkish nomadic tribe. The Beyliks were part of the larger group of Turkish tribes that claimed independence from the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum and settled settled in western Anatolia (Present day Turkey). These Turkish tribes had for generations emigrated emigrated from eastern eastern Asia towards the Mediterranean. Mediterranean.

Osman

situated his Beylik at the crossroads of the Seljuks and Byzantines, which enabled him to interact with these other groups and forge strategic and political alliances between them. The transition

from a principality of nomadic raiders to an established state was facilitated by Osman’s keen ability to bring together diverse groups in the region, especially Byzantine groups that militarily strengthened his house at the expense of other nomadic Turkish groups at the time. Osman and his men relied heavily on the manpower of Christian allies in building their state, especially

3

 Ibid, 10

4 Christian warriors such as Kose Mihal and Evrenos, who defected from the continually 4

weakening Byzantine Empire.

Even though Osman and his immediate family were all from

Turkish and Muslim background, they had no problem reinforcing their emerging state  bureaucracy with non-Muslim, non-Turkish men and women. This early assimilation benefitted Osman and his newly shaped province at the expense of less tolerant neighboring Beyliks, who failed to forge similar alliances with their Byzantine neighbors. From its formation in 1300 to the Conquest of Constantinople in 1453, the Ottoman Empire actively assimilated with its neighbors, incorporating central Asian, Arabic and especially Byzantine traditions and structures structures as their own. Even though expansion into the west occurred at the expense of the Byzantine Empire, the Ottomans readily integrated capable members of the the Byzantine elite into their bureaucracy. Because of rapid expansion and lack of adequate administrators, Osman necessarily had to form a hybrid state that would incorporate the capable Byzantine elite into existing political political and economic structures. Although most of the

“newly-inaugurated” Ottoman elite converted to Islam, the early Ottomans were not inclined to force conversion on any group, and — as as long as they professed loyalty to the Sultan and greater Empire — the the Ottomans were content to let both their subjects and elite practice as they wished to 5

so.

With this early mix with western traditions, it might be more appropriate to see the early Ottomans as a classical Mediterranean state with an incidental Muslim identity, as opposed to a Middle Eastern state predicated on Islamic culture and institutions, such as the Umayyad and 6

Abbasid Caliphates of the past.

Yet, even within the formation of a hybrid state, the Ottomans Ottomans

never abandoned their Turkish roots and Islamic traditions. The Ottoman identity therefore therefore was shaped by three separate, seemingly contradictory cultures: Central Asian and Seljuk nomadism, traditional and orthodox orthodox Islamic precepts, and the western Byzantine/Roman legacy. It emerged as a fusion of the East and West, centering itself coincidentally in what is today still considered

4

  Barkey, Karen. Empire Karen. Empire of Difference: Th e Ottomans in Comparative Perspective. Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. 49-50 5  Braude, Benjamin, and Bernard Lewis. Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society . New York: Holmes & Meier Publishers, Publishers, 1982, 27 6  This argument is implied in Kuban, D oan. Ottoman Architecture  Architecture  (2010), Page 30. Barkey (2008) on page 71 and Masters (2001) on page 2 7also make similar arguments.

5 7

the intersection of near eastern Islamic civilization and European civilization . This early inclination towards openness and lack of ethnic prejudice would later become an essential, institutionalized component of the state, many years after the Ottomans had settled. Thus, even after the Ottomans established themselves in Constantinople and forged a vast empire that spanned three continents, they continued to freely assimilate the cultures and peoples of regions they conquered. Sultan Mehmet II (‘The Conqueror’) in particular, who would triumph over Constantinople six generations after his forefather Osman, was greatly inspired by past Roman heritage and saw his conquest of Constantinople as a continuation of the Roman imperial 8

In fact, he crowned himself ‘Kayser -i-Rum’, or ‘Caesar [Heir] of Rome’— a title that

legacy.

Sultans after him would claim as well.

This openness towards Roman culture in no way

undermined his Islamic and Turkish identity; his first action upon entering the Gates of Constantinople were to renovate and convert the old Hagia Sophia chapel into a Mosque, and  build the Fatih Mosque complex on the site of the former Byzantine Church of the Holy 9

Apostles.

Nevertheless, Mehmed was particularly open to Christians and Jews and worked 10

quickly to reinstitute the Greek Orthodox Church and the Chief Rabbi in Constantinople.

As later Ottoman Sultans further expanded the empire’s territories into the east, the Empire started to take a more Sunni-Islamic identity. The centralization and strengthening of Islamic institutions did not eliminate or weaken the earlier Byzantine or Seljuk-inspired social arrangements, but the Empire did begin to take a more rigid Islamic rationalization. Starting with Sultan Selim I, the Sultan no longer referred to himself primarily as the “Heir of Rome” as Mehmet II did, but now claimed the title, “Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques”.

11

This shift

away from the west towards the east was a pragmatic move. Since Muslims were now the majority population within the empire, the Sultan necessarily had to sanction his right to sacred authority and the Sultanate through religious legitimization. This shift toward a more SunniIslamic identity — canonized and perfected by the later Sultan Suleiman — did not discount the Byzantine and Mediterranean roots of the early empire. In fact, the empire was at its most 7

 Present-day Istanbul is globally recognized as a city that ‘straddles two continents’.  Barkey 2008, 69 9   The Church of the Holy Apostles was already in ruins centuries before Mehmed’s Conquest of the City. Although the conversion of old churches into Mosques was an accepted norm of conquest at the time, none of the sources which I have analyzed indicate that Sultan Mehmet raz ed a Church simply to demonstrate Islam’s dominance over Christianity. Interested readers may consult (Ousterhaut, 1995), (Ozer, 1987) and (Kub an, 2010) for information 10  goston, bor, and Bruce Alan Masters. Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire. New York, NY: Facts On File, 2009, 367 8

11

 goston, bor, and Bruce Alan Masters, 

6 diverse and tolerant under Sultan Suleiman, whose 46-year long rule earned him the title of

“Suleiman the Magnificent” from both his subjects, allies and enemies.12 The Ottoman Empire’s economic, military and cultural strength peaked in the late 16 th century under the consolidation of Sultan Suleiman and the political ingenuity of Grand Vizier Sokollu Mehmet. In contrast, the following three centuries were an excruciatingly slow period of stagnation and decline in the face of a rapidly transforming world and constantly changing threats from the east and west. Countless factors conspired to weaken the empire, but the failure of later Sultans in controlling the multiethnic society played a major role.

13

As will be

mentioned later, the breakdown of the clever Ottoman system of power separations and multiethnic society quickly transformed the Empire’s diversity from an asset into a liability. The early Ottoman sultans were keenly aware of the virtues and limits of their system, distributing and separating the balance of power between their institutions and the others in a pragmatic and  prudent way. However, almost every sultan after Suleiman was unable to control this delicate system, and their incompetence — and occasional idiocy — led to the gradual demise of the robust, resilient state structure that the early Sultans had so meticulously constructed. INSTITUTIONAL AND POLITICAL CONTEXT Diverse and long-lived empires such as the Ottoman Empire necessarily had to create and mend strategies that addressed issues of diversity and minority protection within their societies. Where the Ottomans displayed talent relative to other empires of the time was a remarkable openness to difference, and they put forth little effort in forcing a unified, homogenous society across the Empire’s diverse regions. In this regard, the Ottoman Empire was much more similar to the classical Roman Empire — also renowned for its cosmopolitan rule — than to its 14

contemporaries such as the Hungarian and Safavid dynasties.

The Ottomans were much more

interested in efficiency and social order than in uniformity. As historian William Cleveland

notes, “It was precisely this administrative flexibility that enabled the Ottomans to rule for so long over territories as diverse as Serbia and Egypt or Syria and reece.”15 12

 Lamb, Harold. Suleiman, the Magnificent, Sultan of the East . Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1951, 325   Chua, Amy. Day of Empire: How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance — and Why They Fall . New York: Doubleday, 2007, 176 14  Barkey 2008, 69 15  Cleveland, William L. A History of the Modern Middle East . Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2004, 139 13

7 The early sultans manipulated differences to their benefit and created a resilient, structured separation of power that somehow sustained itself for centuries, even with a long line of incompetent — and sometimes catastrophic — rulers who followed Sultan Suleiman. The main goal in all cases was to maintain some semblance of peace between the different communities, and the Ottomans at the time understood well that the most effective means of limiting religious and ethnic strife was to delineate and maintain enduring separations between communities. The communities themselves also embraced this separation, because it allowed their local leaders to maintain some level of control over their institutions, traditions and symbols. As long as these local leaders at the peripheries paid the required taxes and prevented major intercommunal conflicts, the Ottoman bureaucracy was content in tolerating their local, non-Muslim, non16

Turkish practices.

The empire during the classical age understood that its rule over numerous different ethnicities and religious groups was liable to fragmentation. Yet, the government’s ability to show flexibility and allow autonomy over the various groups worked in its favor. The Sultan and his advisors were aware that through their approach to diversity, they were clearly benefiting at the direct expense of their less tolerant Western neighbors.

During the Inquisition for

example, the Spanish Monarchs ordered the expulsion of all Jews from Spain. In response, the Ottoman Sultan Beyazid II —   probably at the request of his friend and mentor Rabbi Moses Capsali —   personally financed their evacuation using the Ottoman Navy and guaranteed their freedom and safety within Ottoman lands.

The sultan himself recognized the intellectual,

economic and technological talent that the exiled Jews would add to the empire. In fact, he ridiculed the Spanish Emperor by boasting, "You venture to call Ferdinand a wise ruler…he who 17

has impoverished his own country and enriched mine!"

Just as the Sultan predicted, Moses

Hamon — a young Jewish boy exiled from Spain and resettled in Istanbul under the protection of the Ottoman Navy — would later become the most capable court  physician to Beyazid’s grandson, Sultan Suleiman.

16

  This observation is implied in most of the historical sources I have considered. It is made more explicit in Karavaitchev, (2011), Page 23, Cleveland (2004), Page 139 and Yetişgin (00), Page 9. 17  "BAJAZET II."  Jewish Encyclopedia. 2011. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2377-bajazet-ii

8 Another example is the life of Joseph Nasi, who was born in Portugal to a wealthy 18

 banking family, but immigrated to Istanbul in 1554 to practice Judaism in peace.

Because of

his connections to other bankers in Western Europe, he quickly became one of the largest financiers of the Ottoman Treasury and had considerable influence over the Ottoman Court and taxation system. As a friend of Sultans Suleiman and Selim II, he played a major role in strengthening the Jewish communities in Istanbul and Syria, as well as helping plan the Ottoman conquest of Cyprus. Joseph never relegated his Jewish faith, nor did the Ottomans ever force him to convert to Islam. He gained status within the Ottoman elite because of his ability, not  background. The openness of the Ottoman elite, however, was not predicated on the inherent goodwill of showing tolerance to minority groups. The bureaucracy was pragmatic and shrewd, using toleration as one of numerous available options for maintaining power and legitimacy. Depending on the context at hand, the Ottomans used toleration, de facto forced conversion of certain populations to Islam or various forms of assimilation as possible policies to maintain law 19

and order.

The early sultans may have seen the inherent humanism and justice in practicing

tolerance and protecting minorities, but historical analysis shows that the Sultans accepted a multicultural, bifurcated society because they were aw are of its relative benefits at the expense of less-tolerant practices.

20

Toleration in the Ottoman Empire was primarily a way to qualify and

maintain the diversity of the countless regions under its rule.

It provided a framework for

organizing and polling the different communities, establishing peace and political coherence, and

ensuring stability and the loyalty of all the empire’s subjects. According to Professor of Karen Barkey of Columbia University, the institutions that formed within this context had little to do with humanistic ideals or with an actual culture of toleration.

21

The Ottomans were successful in

delineating differences across religion, and separation between the communities ensured a relatively stable balance and distribution of power between the peripheries and the center. Sometimes the Ottomans would play a large role in shaping and organizing certain religious groups. For example, the Sultan always had the ability to depose the Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church whenever he willed, simply because Patriarch had the actual means to 18

 Chua, 171-172.  Barkey 2008, 21. Albania was one of a few Ottoman Principalities that experienced forced conversion (Masters 2001, 27). 20  Chua, 174 21  Barkey 2008, 110 19

9 22

encourage a major revolt.

For other communities, such as the smaller Jewish neighborhoods in

Istanbul, the Ottomans left in place most of the organizational and societal structure, and did not care to intervene as long as social order was maintained internally. Ottoman administration created separations between religious groups as a matter of policy, not ideology. Religious differences were controlled and maintained by the state, but people of diverse backgrounds could still coexist successfully because these demarcations did not lead to fundamental problems in everyday life. THEOLOGICAL CONTEXT AND THE IMPACT OF ISLAMIC TRADITION The Ottomans legitimized this political structure by buttressing and formalizing the system within a religious framework. Recognizing that religion played a major role in establishing identity, the Ottomans exploited this reality further by delineating communities along religious lines. When communities were separated in this fashion, religion tied each person 23

to his/her community and also formed their identity outside of it.

As noted by Karen Barkey,

“Islam helped in legitimizing and defining the empire’s identity, but more as a self-consciously 24

constructed and strategically displayed one, rather than an overriding distinctiveness.”   Islamic law most certainly helped shape Ottoman policy towards non-Muslims, but it would be misleading to suggest that it was the primary shaping force. Only when considered in connection with the historical and geopolitical context discussed above, is it appropriate to look at Ottoman society as an extension of the religious laws and traditions that formed during earlier periods of Islamic rule. The Islamic laws and tradition that govern relations between Muslims and non-Muslims originate primarily in the Quran. The Quran for example contains numerous verses on “People

of the Book”, or those who had scripture revealed to them before.25 These verses were then contextualized via Quranic exegesis or linkages to Hadith. With these two sources, the early Muslim society formed a legal pact —called ‘Dhimma’— that protected non-Muslim minorities.

The ‘People of the Book ’, which in most cases refereed to Jews and Christians living within 22

Ibid, 146  Masters, Bruce Alan. Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Arab World: The Roots of Sectarianism. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001, 5 24  Barkey 2008, 104 25   Relevant verses from the Quran are (2:62), (3:113-115), (5:5), (5:69), (29:46), (60:8). The English translation used in this study is: A., Abdel Haleem M. The Qurʼan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. 23

10 Muslim lands, would therefore have certain rights under the laws of Islamic governance. In addition to the Quranic sources and Prophetic Tradition, the Islamic laws governing Dhimma th

status were further codified as the Islamic civilization rapidly expanded in the late 7   century. The Pact of Umar, commonly attributed to the second Caliph of Islam, is seen as the first major codification of a set of rules governing Dhimmis.

26

In exchange for a number of restrictions and

 prohibitions, non-Muslims living in Muslim lands were guaranteed some level of protection and tolerance by the state. As the later Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates began to rule over vast communities of non-Muslims, they further solidified the laws governing relations between Muslims and non-Muslims. 500 years later when they were constructing their own Empire, the Ottomans also appropriated these previously made laws, but adapted them freely to meet their own political and social needs. In traditional Islamic law, the Dhimmis were limited in nume rous ways, but most of these limitations were social or symbolic in nature, enforced primarily to make it easier to distinguish  between Muslims and non-Muslims. For example, these laws prescribed that non-Muslims could not ride horses, wear green garments, construct new religious buildings, or build homes larger 27

than houses built by Muslims.

More importantly, non-Muslims — in lieu of compulsory

military service — were required to pay an additional poll tax. This tax was in practice not overly  burdensome upon non-Muslim communities, perhaps even insignificant. During the classical age of the Ottoman Empire, and specifically under the rule of Suleiman I, this tax accounted for 28

only 8% of the annual Treasury revenue.

Furthermore, numerous historical census records

indicate that no more than one third of non-Muslims actually paid any of it.

29

This divergence

 between law and practice does not reflect poor administration or incompetence on the part of th

Ottoman officials, but rather their regard for such matters as being trivial. Between the 14  and th

17  centuries, the Ottomans gained immense wealth primarily through their successful military campaigns and agricultural/commercial productivity; tax revenue was mostly irrelevant. The  bureaucracy understood that high tax burdens would aggravate dissent and instability within the non-Muslim communities.

Furthermore, lower taxes and better commercial opportunities

26

 Masters 2001, 20  Braude and Lewis, 6

27 28

Yetişgin, Mehmet. "The Ottoman Way of overning Multi -Ethnic and Multi-Religious Communities." OTAM: Ankara Üniversitesi Osmanlı Tarihi Araştırma ve Uygulama Merk ezi dergisi 21-22 (2007), 148 29

 Masters 2001, 17

11 attracted able non-Muslim merchants from neighboring lands where economic opportunities were less and taxation was more burdensome.

Therefore, despite a previously established

Islamic framework that held Muslims socially superior to non-Muslims, the Ottomans were unable or unwilling to enforce such regulations in practice. In fact, most of these symbolic restrictions on non-Muslims were ignored or laxly enforced during a majority of the Empire’s 30

rule.

In essence, Islam was the primary identity and legitimizing force of the empire, but the

early Sultans and their advisors were able to effectively subordinate religion to Sultanic rule. Religious law was adapted to the needs and realities of the state, and the Ottoman state was inclined to allow non-Muslims a relatively high degree of prosperity and freedom. As a result,  political and commercial alliances between Muslims and non-Muslims were common and all groups were generally free to pursue their own livelihoods. As the previous example of Joseph  Nasi illustrates, several non-Muslim families obtained enormous wealth and influence within the Ottoman society while contributing to the economic growth and vitality of the empire. In fact, most of the wealthiest merchant families in Istanbul during the height of Ottoman rule were nonMuslims, primarily because of their financial and commercial connections with families and 31

towns outside of the empire.

th

It would be wrong, however, to suggest that 16  century Ottoman rule was comparable to modern free societies. Our modern idea of tolerance and acceptance is very different from the Ottoman conception. Tolerance in the empire only meant a general lack of institutional ethnic or religious prosecution. Discrimination against non-Muslims was permissible and in fact, quite

common. In general, a Muslim’s testament in criminal court was always superior to a nonMuslim’s, and non-Muslims were generally prohibited from controlling strategic public positions 32

within the Ottoman bureaucracy.

A non-Muslim’s social subordination to a Muslim was

underscored by the numerous symbolic restrictions outlined above. Nevertheless, even if nonMuslims were limited in the public sphere, they still had certain economic rights and freedoms that in many cases, gave them better opportunities as protected minorities within Ottomanoccupied lands than as the majority population within their home states.

30

 Masters 2001, 34  Chua, 171 32  Masters 2001, 23 31

12 The lack of equality between Muslim and non-Muslim subjects does not necessarily diminish the merits of the Ottoman system of tolerance. At that time, European nation-states could not fathom a government structure that assured economic freedom and prosperity for all

ethnicities and religions within its borders. Even John Locke, who wrote “A Letter Concerning Toleration” a hundred years after what we retrospectively consider the cultural peak of the Empire, saw the Ottomans as an example of tolerance and justice that still did not exist in the West:

“…that [the concept of toleration] may be made clearer by an example, let us suppose two churches  —  the one of Arminians, the other of Calvinists  —  residing in the city of Constantinople. Will anyone say that either of these churches has right to deprive the members of the other of their estates and liberty (as we see practised elsewhere) because of their differing from it in some doctrines and ceremonies, whilst the Turks, in the meanwhile, silently stand by and laugh to see with what inhuman cruelty Christians thus rage against Christians?”33

Even though discrimination against non-Muslims was lighter than discriminatory  practices in neighboring empires, an Ottoman of any ethnic origin who converted to Islam usually had better opportunities than an Ottoman who was not a Muslim. Whereas non-Muslims had fewer rights than Muslims as mentioned above, anyone who converted was just as much a Muslim as one who was born into the religion. As long as they professed Islam and learned the Ottoman Turkish language, they could advance in public or private life within the Ottoman Empire regardless of their religious and ethnic backgrounds.

34

This was in stark contrast to

several European empires at the time, where rulers, governors and the elite were chosen and  promoted under a system of feudal nobility and lineage. Busbecq, the Hapsburg ambassador to

the Ottoman Empire during Suleiman’s reign, admired the Ottoman meritocratic system and condemned his own Feudal structures by writing, “It is by merit that men rise in the service, a system which insures that posts should be assigned to the competent…this is the reason that they are successful in their undertakings.”

35

Furthermore, the surprising lack of intercommunal violence throughout the classical age

of the empire is a testament to the administration’s ability to effectively manage and exploit diversity. This reality was observed and accounted by numerous other European intellectuals and rulers who praised the Ottomans on such accounts. Even before the rise of the Ottomans for 33

 Popple, William (Translator). " John Locke: A Letter Concerning Toleration." Constitution Society. October 18, 1998

34 35

Yetişgin, 138

 Chua, 173

13 example, when Constantinople was still under the rule of the Byzantines, the Great Patriarch of the Syriac Orthodox Church Michael praised the relative freedom under the emerging Turkish

 powers in contrast to Byzantine rule. He is known to have said, “The Turks, having no idea of the sacred mysteries… were in no way accustomed to inquire into professions of faith or to  persecute anyone on their account, as opposed to the Greeks [Byzantine Empire], a wicked and heretical people.”

36

400 years later on the other side of Europe, the Dutch Prince William of

Orange would praise the Ottoman Sultan by stating, ‘That the Turk, scrupulous as he is to the

 point of sectarianism, permits all kinds of religion’, while condemning Emperor Charles V for 37

his persecution against Protestants.

Prince William was asked by the Spanish king to persecute

those who turned their backs on the Catholic Church, but instead, he led the Dutch Revolt against him with the slogan “ Liever Turks dan Paaps!”, or “I would rather live under the Turk than the

Pope!”38 The cosmopolitan nature of the empire, the surprising lack of major intercommunal tensions and the overall fluidity and effective institutionalization of the Empire drew even the  praise of Voltaire, a man known to frequently condemn the "Turks" as bloodthirsty barbarians who would eventually destroy Europe:

“I know not of a single civil war among the Turks on the ground of religion. I say “civil war”; but history tells of no sedition or trouble among them that was due to controversy. Is it because they have fewer pretexts for disputes? Is it because they are by birth less restless and wiser than we? They ask not to what sect you belong, provided that you pay regularly the slight tax. Latin Christians and Greek Christians, Jacobites, Monothelites, Copts, or Protestants — all are

welcome to them; whereas there are not three Christian nations that practise this humanity.” 39

Up to the reign of Sultan Selim II, the Ottomans never used religious or ethnic persecution as a matter of ideology, and in rare situations where persecution occurred, historical court documents 40

indicate that it was carried out haphazardly through local and peripheral structures.   Although the Ottoman conception of tolerance and multiculturalism is significantly different from our  post-enlightenment humanist understanding, we must take into account the historical context. In the 1300-1600s, the Ottoman state allowed and in fact guaranteed a multicultural, cosmopolitan society where it was possible for diverse groups to flourish within their own communities. It is 36

 Crowley, Roger. 1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West . New York: Hyperion, 2005, 26  Compier, 11 38  Schmidt, Benjamin. Innocence Abroad: Th e Dutch Imagination and the New World, 1570-1670. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001, 104 39  Voltaire. Toleration and Other Essays. Translated by Joseph MacCabe. New York and London: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1912, 37

Chapter: “On Superstition” 40

 Masters, Bruce Alan. Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Arab World: The Roots of Sectarianism. New York: Cambridge UP, 2001, 37

14  precisely this outlook that allowed the Ottomans to rise as a world empire and maintain their influence for over 600 years. INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF MOSAIC SOCIETY: THE DEVSHIRME SYSTEM These institutional structures culminated in what is today known as the Millet and Devshirme systems. In short, the Devshirme was the levy system by which the Ottomans would take young men from Christian families, convert them to Islam, and then train them to become  part of the Ottoman Janissary Corps or the ruling class of elite. This peculiar system emerged  primarily through a power struggle between the Sultan and the Candarli Family prior to the Conquest of 1453. The Candarli’s were an affluent Turkish family that had gained immense wealth by financing the early formation of the Ottoman state. However, they had gained so much power by the early 1400s that they posed a significant threat to the Sultan’s legitimacy. Therefore in 1453, when Mehmed II inherited the throne from his father Sultan Murad I and finally lay siege to Constantinople, his first act as the new Sultan was to execute grand vizier

Çandarlı Halil Pasha and confiscate all of his family’s assets.41 In his position, Sultan Mehmed  placed Zaganos Pasha, a trusted member of the Janissary Corps who was born a Christian but converted and trained by the Ottoman bureaucracy. From this point forth, the process of taking Christian boys to be raised as members of the elite became a formal institution of the state. The top officials of the Ottoman bureaucracy from that point on would be selected through the Devshirme system and not from established Turkish families within the Empire. It emerged as a solution to limit the excessive influence that wealthy, Turkish families had on the Ottoman state. Whereas Turkish families were established and had ties that could supersede loyalties to the sultan, the Devshirme system was devised and administered in such a way that the levied Christian boys would be mostly stripped of their former identities, kinship ties and culture, and had no viable option other than to swear complete allegiance to the Sultan. In effect, they  became the Sultan’s property and personal guards, and earned personal favors and wages directly from the Sultan. Turks and those born as Muslims were not eligible because the Ottomans

thought that “young Christians given the chance to convert and rise in an alien land would be

41

 Masters 2009, 366

15 more zealous and more loyal.”

42

Furthermore, the system was highly selective, and the

Ottomans were very capable in choosing among the brightest and strongest boys.

This

meticulous selection process also enriched the Ottoman elite while depriving the foreign villages 43

of their natural born leaders.

Thus, the Devshirme system developed into a pragmatic way of

 balancing and fragmenting power and ensuring the loyalty of powerful groups to the sultan. After becoming Muslim and receiving the coveted Janissary training, the recruits had the opportunity to rise within the political and military hierarchy entirely on their own merit. It should be noted that this system of meritocracy was certainly not rooted in any modern understanding of humanism or meritocracy. The Christians were forcefully taken as slaves and isolated from their families, but this specific understanding of slavery is also much different from the contemporary concept of slavery. Slave in this context meant that they became symbolically the personal property of the Sultan, but they could marry, earn a wage, and buy property. Their

only commitment was to carry the Sultan’s orders  and protect him, but outside of this public obligation, many of the Devshirme recruits garnered immense power, respect and wealth because of their excellent training and discipline.

Even more so, the Devshirme system benefitted

Ottoman society as a whole by creating a pool of “genuinely talented individuals who had risen 44

through the strikingly meritocratic Ottoman system.”

Even at the height of the Devshirme’s effectiveness  however, a few who were raised within it often continued to speak their native languages, visit their homelands, and support their family members of origin.

45

The most notable example is Sokollu Mehmet Pasha, who was born

into a Serbian family before being taken through the Devshirme. He rose to the position of grand vizier and used his political power to reinstate the Serbian Orthodox Church and inaugurate his 46

 blood brother Makarije as the patriarch.

Sokollu also commissioned the eleven-arched

Mehmed Paša Sokolović Bridge in his hometown of Visegrad, Present-day Bosnia, as a tribute to his family. The bridge continues to function to this day, and was designated a UNESCO World Heritage site in 2007 for its lasting cultural significance.

47

Hence, those boys who were recruited

42

 Chua 173  Goodwin, Godfrey. A History of Ottoman Architecture. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1971, 198 44  Chua, 174 45  Barkey 2008, 124 46  goston and Masters, 19-520 43

47

"Mehmed Paša Sokolović Bridge in Višegrad." UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 00. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/160.

16 and raised through the Devshirme did not lose all ties to their former identities and societies,

even if the Devshirme system’s intention  was the complete conversion of its recruits. By forming a bridge between their new Ottoman identities and previous ethnic identities, the Devshirme recruits played a significant role in shaping Ottoman culture and further diversifying its society. During the reign of Suleiman, the Janissaries — no doubt the most capable standing army in Europe at the time — was made up of 20,000 graduates of the Devshirme system, none of 48

whom were born Turkish or Muslim.

After the great Conquest of Constantinople, almost all of

the top viziers, governors and pashas were graduates of the Devshirme. In fact, during Sultan

Suleyman’s 6-year reign that made the Ottoman Empire a global power, only one of his grand viziers was of Turkish origin.

The other eight began as humble Christian slaves captured 49

through the Devshirme, and later rose through the ranks exclusively on their own merit.   The most famous grand vizier of the Ottomans, Sokollu Mehmet Pasha, served under Sultans Suleiman, Selim II, and Murad III during the peak of the empire. Like the others, he was born into a modest Serbian Orthodox family before the Ottomans converted him through the Devshirme. Sokollu Mehmet was renowned for his incredible intellect and military prowess, and — having recognized his talents — the Sultan often relegated his administrative duties to him. In fact, it is generally accepted that under the reign of Sultan Selim II and later under Murad III, 50

the Empire was entirely run under Sokollu Pasha’s efficient and centralized rule.   Sokollu Pasha’s assassination in 19 ended his 1-year reign as de-facto sultan, and perhaps also marked the absolute peak of the empire. Almost every campaign or event following his death was either a military or a strategic concession to the increasingly more powerful eastern and western powers. Sokollu Mehmet Pasha was the last of the truly capable grand viziers who could maintain centralized control over the whole empire, just as Sultan Selim II’s father, Suleiman the Magnificent, was the last of the sultans who could maintain his legitimacy and control over the grand vizier. Thus, the Devshirme system was useful in maintaining loyalty as long as there were

strong, able Sultans to keep it in control. However, as Sokollu Mehmet’s example shows, this 48

 Chua, 174  Ibid, 174

49 50

 goston and Masters, 18

17 intricate, yet delicate system of power separations began to break apart immediately after

Suleiman’s rule. The balance and distribution of power that the early Ottoman's had so carefully engineered and perfected could not be sustainable without a strong, capable Sultan. Selim II and

Murad III’s comically incompetent rule lead to an irreversible shift, the balance of power tipping increasingly in the Janissaries' favor, and the legitimacy of the Sultan waning away. Suleiman was one of the last sultans to personally lead all military campaigns and have an actual stake in ruling his empire. The later sultans would relegate themselves to their palaces and harems, finding it fit to let their viziers rule the empire as they wished.

The previously synergistic

sharing of  power devolved into a domestic power struggle between the Sultan’s family and the Janissaries. As this domestic power struggle intensified, the Ottoman system of tolerance, flexibility, and pragmatic rule over diverse regions fragmented away. Economic and military troubles inevitably led to intercommunal tensions and oppressive responses from the Sultan. The immense diversity of the Ottoman Lands, a clear asset in the hands of capable Sultans like 51

Suleiman, quickly turned into a liability under the incompetent rule of later sultans.

And those

factors which had enabled the Ottoman system to function so well the former half of its history contributed to its stagnation and collapse the latter half. OTTOMAN ARCHITECTURE Just as much as the late 16th century signified the peak and beginning of the end for the

empire’s military and economic power, it also marked the absolute peak of Ottoman art and architecture. The historical, political and religious forces that shaped early Ottoman society, nurtured it from a regional Beylik into a world empire, and then inevitably drove it towards collapse were also the same forces that molded the trajectory of Ottoman architecture. After having analyzed these three forces within the context of the Empire as a whole, we will now shift the discussion to classical Ottoman Architectural style, which is an archetypal product and reflection of early Ottoman society. From their emergence as a regional power in 1300 to their height in 1579, the Ottomans looked beyond the ethnic or religious origins of their subjects, an

attitude that could be seen in many of the empire’s institutions as mentioned before, but especially within its imperial architecture. The centuries-long impact of Islamic civilization and traditions on the Turks prior to the emergence of the Ottoman state, the development of a 51

 Chua, 175

18 necessarily cosmopolitan and mosaic political structure, and the incidental locality of Istanbul at the crossroads of the east and west had a profound influence on the development and maturation of a unique architectural style distinct from other Mediterranean or Islamic styles of architecture. The Ottoman state was a multiethnic society comprised of people from every  background, and its architecture is a reflection of this society. Architecture in general is an 52

expression of the power, authority, culture and legacy of the civilization that produced it.

It

reveals a past culture’s level of societal advancement, bureaucratic organization and conceptions of artistic taste. Just as one could infer a great deal about the ancient Egyptians by studying the extant Great Pyramids and burial tombs, one can develop a better understanding of Ottoman culture and society at its peak by studying its imperial mosques and monuments. Ottoman monumental architecture is the product of a cosmopolitan imperial regime that continues to echo the cultural fabric of its early past. As stated before, there was a remarkable openness towards Byzantine customs in the emerging Ottoman state, and the Ottomans took great pride in appropriating elements from

foreign cultures and producing something distinctly ‘Turkish’  from them. One can observe this trend most clearly in the early Ottoman mosques. The Orhan Bey Camii, a beautiful singledomed mosque in Bilecik, Turkey is one of many early Ottoman mosques that freely adapted the 53

Byzantine and Seljuk styles.

The sidewalls of the mosque are very clearly inspired by Basilica

church design, and the technical features, building materials used and decorative details are Byzantine in nature. Even more interesting, the building itself is not oriented towards Mecca, indicating that it was not only built by local craftsmen, but also managed by Byzantine masters 54

who may not have understood the religious significance of the Islamic Qiblah . Yet, the main  plan and the dome structure are Anatolian in design, suggesting that the project was originally designed by a Turkish, Muslim architect. This fusion of two styles produces a blueprint unlike

52

  Ousterhout, Robert. "Ethnic Identity and Cultural Appropriation in Early Ottoman Architecture." Muqarnas 12 (1995). E.J. Brill, 60 53  Kuban, Doan. Ottoman Architecture. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Antique Collectors' Club, 2010, 164. For further information, Ousterhout (1995) also makes note of th e Mosque’s syncretic style on page 3. 54   One requirement of Muslim Prayer is for the believer to turn towards the direction of the Kaaba in Mecca for the whole duration. Almost all mosques are built with this orientation in mind, the fact that a mosque does not have this orientation indicates that either this was done unintentionally, or the building existed beforehand and was converted to a mosque at a later time. Since we know that the Orhan Camii was built after   Ottoman Conquest of the city, we must accept that the misdirection was unintentional. Since the likelihood of a Muslim architect ignoring the Qiblah is very unlikely, this leads to the logical conclusion that the Orhan Camii was most likely managed by a Byzantine master who could not have un derstood the Qiblah.

19

anything that either culture could have created independently. The Orhan Camii’s unique style was inspired by elements from several cultures, but is itself distinctly Ottoman. This synthesis of foreign techniques and styles may have been necessary — it was logistically and economically more feasible for the Ottomans to employ local masters rather than continually bringing in and training craftsmen from Anatolia. Perhaps the most sensible way for a new, but rapidly expanding state to develop a distinct architectural style was to appropriate and reinterpret what was already there. Yet, the fact that this trend lingered well into the prosperous classic age of Ottoman architecture also indicates that early Ottomans embraced and deliberately incorporated foreign building methods. This syncretic style developed into a distinctive and sophisticated architectural heritage that reflects the multiethnic structure and openness of the Ottoman state.

55

Architectural historian Dogan Kuban states very clearly that the Ottoman ruling 56

class had no “ethnic or religious prejudice in selecting their building masters.”  

The

fundamental reality is that the Ottomans — from their nomadic beginnings to the height of their empire — took pride in employing non-Turkish, non-Muslim craftsmen.

This remarkable

openness towards foreign customs further enabled the rapid expansion and increasing influence of the Ottomans at the expense of their less-tolerant eastern and western rivals. The true synthesis of architectural styles culminated under Sinan, the Chief Imperial Architect at the height of the empire’s military, economic and cultural strength. Not only does he embody the spirit of Ottoman art and culture, but also because he was not of Turkish or Muslim origin, he reflects the multiethnic, meritocratic society in which he lived. Studying his  biography and architectural trajectory can provide us a much deeper understanding of Ottoman mosaic society, the artistic sensibilities of the Sultans, and how the Ottomans exploited the

multiethnic nature of the empire to their direct benefit. Before we discuss Sinan’s life and his contributions to both Ottoman society and global architectural heritage, we will discuss the significance of monumental structures to empires in general, and to the Ottomans in particular. Monumental architecture is a reflection of the power and elegance of an empire and is often the most striking physical materialization of civilizations long gone. Just as the Great Pyramids near Cairo and the Pantheon in Rome are lasting artifacts of past civilizations, the great 55

 Ousterhout, 53-54  Kuban 2010, 163

56

20 imperial mosques that define the Istanbul skyline also serve a similar role. For an empire that legitimized its rule within the framework of Islamic faith, the mosque became the focus of the Ottoman community.

It was the center of life in Ottoman urban architecture and thus

encapsulated an image of the entire empire and its civilizational history. The most significant contributions to global architectural heritage the Ottomans made were their mosques and their 57

neighboring kulliyes, or compounds that included schools and soup kitchens.

The Ottomans

constructed several bridges, palaces, aqueducts and other buildings, but all of these pale by comparison to the majestic imperial mosques that still define the skylines of Istanbul, Edirne, Bursa and numerous other historic cities. Even though all Islamic civilizations contributed towards shaping an image of the Muslim mosque, the Ottomans are credited for idealizing a pure image of the single-domed mosque. The Hagia Sophia built in 537 by the great architect Justinian no doubt inspired the Ottoman fascination with the single-domed structure.

The first prayer service that Sultan

Mehmet II held after the Conquest of Constantinople was in the Hagia Sophia, and it remained

an important symbol of the imperial capital right up to the empire’s demise 30 years later.58 The Hagia Sophia symbolized power and monumentality, and stood as an inspiration to Ottoman architects. As a constant reminder of Constantinople’s past legacy under the Byzantines, it challenged the Ottomans to  prove their empire’s worth by constructing a structure with similar size and grandeur. The Ottoman state very much considered themselves the new heirs to the Eastern Roman Empire and their attempts to reproduce and surpass the Hagia Sophia’s grandeur is a testament to this ideal. Because of such inspiration, the classical Ottoman mosque took a distinctively more western and Mediterranean form than any other Islamic style. The unique sense of vastness and unity one feels upon entering a classical Ottoman mosque is representative 59

of this strive towards perfecting the single-domed monument.

In Mediterranean architecture in general, the dome symbolized perfect and infinite symmetry, but for the Ottomans in particular, single-domed structures became the focus of all imperial monuments during the classical age. In addition to the symbolic monumentality of the

57

 Kuban 2010, 254  Ibid, 175 59   Freely, John, and Augusto Romano. Burelli. inan Architect of leyman the Magnificent and the Ottoman Golden Age. London: Thames and Hudson, 1992, 74 58

21 domed structure that Ottomans adopted from pas Mediterranean legacy, the Ottoman pursuit towards perfecting the single-domed monument was influenced by centuries of Islamic tradition. For the Ottomans, a single-domed mosque was the best material representation of the Oneness and Sovereignty of All over all of its creation, as well as the complete sovereignty of the Sultan 60

over the Empire.

Thus, the imperial mosque became not only the main place of worship for all

Muslims within the city, but it also became the Empire ’s most well-funded and most meticulously constructed structure: the sultan’s legacy would be known to later generations by the elegance and sheer monumentality of the imperial mosque built in his name. Even though the Ottoman’s had attempted to surpass the Hagia Sophia since the Conquest of 1492, it was only through Sinan’s creative genius a hundred years later that the Ottomans would decisively fulfill their goal of perfecting the single-domed Mosque. It was under Sinan that Ottoman architecture flourished and matured into the form that we now

consider Classical Ottoman architecture. Sinan’s progression from village carpenter to chief imperial architect and the circumstances in which he excelled in this position shed light on Ottoman culture and multiethnic society. The following sections will provide a brief biography of Sinan and the context in which he was born, followed by a case study of Sinan’s Masterpiece, the Selimiye Mosque. BIOGRAPHY OF SINAN Sinan was born to an eastern Orthodox Christian family within a small village in what is now Kayseri, Turkey. Reports differ on whether he was of Greek or Armenian descent, but it is certain that he came from a non-Turkish family with no ties to nobility.

61

Like many other

Christian boys in his village, he was recruited through the Devshirme system in his late teenage years.

Trained as a carpenter, he later served as Janissary Corps officer under Sultan Selim I

when his master recognized his mathematical talents. As an army officer and military engineer, he quickly rose through the ranks by successfully designing and repairing bridges and aqueducts on his military campaigns. Having traveled throughout the frontier Ottoman lands, from Italy to Azerbaijan, to the Levant and Persia, he developed a cultivated sense of architectural design.

60

 Freely and Romano, 74  Goodwin 1971, 199

61

22 The official Turkish Ministry of Tourism’ information booklet on Sinan recounts his cosmopolitanism by narrating:

“All these travels gave him the chance to see different architectural traditions, important buildings designed with different materials and styles. His travels and visual acquaintance with ancient and Islamic building traditions must have contributed to his professional formation as an architect with a broad vision. His works are testimony to his capacity in using architectural memory as a source of inspiration for designs requiring universal references. ”62

After serving as military officer for a number of years, Sinan was appointed the new Chief Imperial Architect under Suleiman the Magnificent. The Chief Ar chitect’s position was much like the modern-day Minister of Public Works office for the Ottoman Empire. He was responsible for the planning, regulation and construction of all imperial buildings, in addition to controlling the prices of building materials in the market. He also headed the imperial school of 63

architects that trained hundreds of architects and craftsmen throughout the empire.

Over the

course of his patronage under Sultans Suleiman the Magnificent, Selim II, and Murad III, he  built or signed off on over 477 mosques, schools, aqueducts and bridges — more than any other architect in world history.

64

There is no doubt that Ottoman arts and architecture reached its

zenith under the guidance of Sinan, coinciding naturally with the height of Ottoman authority and influence. No Ottoman architect after him could replicate his talent and originality, and the death of Sinan and his style very well marked the end of the Ottoman classical age. Sinan did not rise through the ranks of Ottoman society because of mere chance, but fostered and developed himself within the confines of an already-established institution — the Devshirme recruitment system — and it is within this context that the Ottoman approach to multiethnic society and tolerance truly shines. Dogan Kuban summarizes this very well by

noting, “The fact that a soldier recruited and trained in the Janissary Corps can be[come] the most important representative of Ottoman culture makes him a perfect example of a pure 65

Ottoman administrator.”

Sinan signified Ottoman artistic sensibility and culture as well as the

merits of Ottoman multiethnic society. Present day debates often focus on Sinan’s ethnicity—  whether he was Greek, Armenian or Turk   —  but these petty arguments demean the multiethnic

62

 Republic of Turkey. Ministry of Culture and Tourism. General Directorate of Libraries and Publications. Selimiye Mosque and  Its Social Complex. By Zeynep Ahunbay. Vol. 21. Ankara: MRK Publishing, 2012, 42 63  Kuban 2010, 42 64  Kuban, Doan. Sinan's Art and Selimiye. Beşiktaş, stanbul: Economic and Social History Foundation, 199, 3 65  Kuban, Dogan. "Sinan." In The Great Ottoman - Turkish Civilisation, by Kemal Çıek, 0. Ankara: Yeni Trkiye, 000, 1

23 legacy of the Ottoman system that paid no heed to ethnic or racial origin. Sinan the Greek architect was just as much of an Ottoman as Suleiman the Turkish Sultan, Sokollu Mehmet the Serbian Grand Vizier, or Joseph Nasi the Polish Finance Advisor. THE SELIMIYE

“In its architecture, Sinan achieved clarity and simplicity. The [Selimiye] mosque is coherent and serene…not the law of gravity but the laws of aerodynamics lift the mosque from the ground.  Earth, air, fire, water  —inan’s construction is elemental…Whatever a do me is, this is a dome. Whatever a minaret may be, these are four minarets. In perfect mastery of his craft, Sinan used his experienced hands to make whatever architecture is. ”66  The Selimiye Mosque Complex at Edirne is a masterpiece of the human creative genius of the architect Sinan, the most famous of all Ottoman architects in the 16th century. 67  – UNESCO World Heritage Designation, Criterion (i)

The Selimiye represents the apogee of Sinan’s works, designed when he was over eighty years old, and is his f inal major project after a long line of ‘experiments’ earlier in his life.

68

Before embarking upon the Selimiye, he designed and built the Sehzade and Suleymaniye Mosques, both of which continue to serve their intended function as massive community mosques to this day. The Selimiye however is perhaps the best example of classical Ottoman architecture, and Sinan himself saw it as his masterpiece. As Italian architect Augusto Romano Burelli asserts, “This mosque is the last great monument of a Mediterranean Empire.

69

What is

 particularly unusual is that the Selimiye was built in Edirne, making it the only imperial mosque  built outside of the capital Istanbul. Although often overlooked today because of its location at

the outskirts of Turkey’s western border , Edirne was historically a major Ottoman stronghold, underscoring the Empire’s influence in the Mediterranean and Balkans at the time. Built upon the highest hilltop, the mosque could be seen for miles from every direction as trade caravans and armies traveled on the imperial highway into or out of Istanbul. Although the Suleymaniye and Sehzade mosques built earlier may be considered adapted replications of the Hagia Sophia, the Selimiye is markedly unique. The Selimiye is unlike any other mosque Sinan designed because it so perfectly integrates the load-bearing structures into 66

 Stratton, Arthur. Sinan. New York: Scribner, 1971, 232-338  "Selimiye Mosque and Its Social Complex." UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2011. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1366. 68  This study will not delve too far into these previous works, but more information can be found in his biographies by Arthur Stratton (1971) and Veronica De Osa (1982). 69  Burelli and Freely, 73 67

24 the overall artistic look of the building, giving it an airy, almost weightless composition, and maximizing the sense of unified space within. The octagonal layout — the last time it would be used by the Ottomans to build an imperial mosque —   brings out the ultimate unity of space within a monumental structure, presenting perfect harmony between the circular dome and the  polygonal base. Sinan’s choice of an Octagon was purely practical: his choice of rectangular and hexagonal bases for the Suleymaniye and the Sehzada mosques earlier failed to bring out the mastery of the dome he was striving for.

70

The Selimiye’s dome on the other hand, seems to

‘float’ above the viewer as the buttressing pillars and squinches blend away into the overall  plasticity of the structure, and the weight of the dome is supported wholly by eight columns that fade away into the walls. This vastness of space is completely unhindered by the supporting  pillars or other load-bearing structures, both internally and externally.

Furthermore, these

weight-bearing structures add to the effect of spatial unity rather than detract from it. The mosque has 999 windows that are arranged in such a way that each window further complements the overall wholeness and fluidity of the structure.

71

Unlike most other mosques both in Turkey

and around the rest of the Islamic world, the Selimiye interior is entirely illuminated by natural light, further enhancing the sense of heavenly airiness within. In complete contrast to the Hagia Sophia, whose massive pillars and poor window placement undermine its internal coherence and luminance, the Selimiye’s design presents a perfect coherence  between the interior and 72

exterior.

It is almost impossible to put into words a description of the Selimiye that does justice to its aesthetic grace and geometrical purity.

Figures 1-3 in the appendix are intended to

complement the above description through photographic evidence of the Selimiye, but only one who personally visits the mosque can develop a true appreciation of the structure. Numerous art and architectural historians, travelers and intellectuals have all attempted to describe it, often resorting to highly abstract and metaphorical descriptions. Upon visiting Edirne in the early

1900’s for example, Swiss Architect and pioneer of modern urban architecture, Le Corbusier  praised the Selimiye by saying, “The mosque of Sultan Selim looks like a splendid crown put on

70

 Kuban 1987, 86

71

 Khan, Arshi. ""The Ottoman Empire: An Oriental Architect of Multiculturalism"" In The Great Ottoman-Turkish Civilisation,

 by Kemal Çiek, 399. Ankara: Yeni Trkiye, 000, 16 72

 See Figures 3 and 4 for a comparison between the two structures.

25 73

top of an old city. The old capital of the Turks has lost nothing from its nobility.”   World traveler Arthur Stratton claimed in his memoir that the Selimiye defined   the essence of architecture itself (see the above quote that introduces section) and as Italian architect Augusto Romano Burelli recounts, “Already 80 years old, [Sinan] nonetheless managed to compose a symphony, titanic in its dimensions, superb in its structural design, nearly choral for the magic

fusion of the constructive and decorative.”74 In celebrating the Selimiye as the epitome of classical Islamic Architecture, Dogan Kuban further concludes that it “expresses better than any description can convey the most original concept of domed space  created in the history of architecture.”

75

What Sinan accomplished in the Selimiye was mastering the simplicity of the single domed structure. Unlike any major imperial mosque before or after, the Selimiye represents a true integration of the polygonal base and the circular dome, with all internal and external features of the mosque complementing each other in every way possible. It is a living artifact of global architectural heritage and rightly designates the peak of classical Ottoman architecture. With what could reasonably be called an obsession with the dome, Sinan set about to fulfill this struggle towards absolute integration of space.

As a result of this endeavor, the domed

structure — common to almost all world civilizations and especially to those in the 76

Mediterranean — reached its logical conclusion in world history with the Selimiye.   Therefore, no mosque built before or after   — even in the post-industrial age where high precision architectural processes are computerized — has surpassed this sense of openness and purity. Built in 1998, the Sabanci Mosque in Adana — now the largest mosque in Turkey — tries to present itself as a larger amalgamation of the Suleymaniye and Selimiye Mosques, but ultimately fails to capture a similar feeling of internal elegance and airiness that one finds in the Selimiye. The Selimiye is a very austere structure. In comparison to the Blue Mosque in Istanbul

and countless other monuments built by Sinan’s contemporaries in Europe and the east, the Selimiye is much less decorative and may even seem a little plain and ‘boring’. However, this absence of ornate decoration is intentional and is the result of Sinan’s lifelong exploration and

73

 Ahunbay 2012, 56  Burelli and Freely, 73 75  Kuban, Dogan. "The Style of Sinan's Domed Structures." Muqarnas, 1987, 86. Emphasis mine 76  Burelli and Freely, 37 74

26 obsession with the absolute integration of space. By completely subordinating all decoration to structural integrity, Sinan designed the Selimiye with the sole purpose of accentuating the single, massive dome. Every structural and decorative aspect of the mosque is intended to direct the focus back onto the central dome, rather than distract and detract from it. Everything else fades into the background and calls attention to the dome above. Sinan pursued a wholly austere

approach that did not dwell on extravagance or idealism. As Kuban notes, “Sinan was not prone to fantasy. He was a sober architect who avoided opulence, illusion-giving elements, 77

architectural gimmicks and the exuberance produced by the addition of decorative elements.”

The Selimiye inspires awe because of its clarity, its rationality and logic; it is the embodiment of a perfectly harmonized monument, forcing simplicity and elegance to its bare essentials. From a more symbolic perspective, the internal simplicity and coherence can be interpreted to symbolize the Islamic significance of the prayer space. An Islamic mosque is intended to be simple and  peaceful; a lavish interior may distract Muslims from their prayers, and the Selimiye solves this  potential distraction by limiting excessive decoration to the dome and exterior. As Japanese architect Takeo Kamiya states, “Sinan created a genuine Islamic space in the Selimiye…There 78

might not be any other mosque that expresses so brilliantly the idea of Islam.”

The practical approach to architectural style evident in the Selimiye is reflective of the th

 pragmatic political system of the Empire in the 16

century.

Because of the detailed

construction notes, we know that the Selimiye took only  six years  from groundbreaking to 79

inauguration.

It is ironic to note that both Sinan and Sultan Selim II consistently complained

over the ‘slow rate ‘of progress in building the mosque, whereas, by comparison, its contemporary in Rome —St. Peter’s Cathedral— took over 160 years to build. Moreover, the Selimiye represents only one of 477 buildings that were built or commissioned by Sinan and his office. The incredible speed at which these imperial structures were built throughout the empire is a testament to the Empire’s wealth, organization and efficiency at that time. Moreover, the Selimiye was financed entirely with war spoils from conquests —   placing no burden on the Ottoman Treasury — and Sinan was extraordinarily particular about obtaining the best building

77

 Kuban 1987, 82

78 79

 Burelli and Freely, 45

27 materials at the lowest costs.

80

In that regard, the Selimiye further mirrors the immense political th

and economic power of the late 16  century Empire. Architectural historian Dogan Kuban connects Sinan’s legacy with previous architectural and historical heritage by asserting:

“For artists with the sensibility of Sinan, the millennium long traditions of the eastern Islamic world and the Mediterranean could not be ignored. His domes are central Asian and Roman. His unambiguous use of architectural elements is medieval Muslim; his concept of total unity of space advanced beyond that of the renaissance architects. His radical subordination of decoration to architectural form and the total correspondence between the inner and outer forms are akin to

development in our own time.” 81 The Selimiye Mosque embodies the historical and geographical centrality of the Ottomans. Within it, we find both an affirmation of and an original contribution to global architectural heritage.

It represents the absolute synthesis of all the major religious and ethnic backgrounds

that shaped Ottoman society. Because of Sinan’s strive towards perfecting internal space and function design, classical Ottoman architecture matured into a distinctive form unlike any other Islamic or Mediterranean style. Yet, because the Selimiye links the architectural memories of  past civilizations with the accumulated knowledge of the present, it has so many elements that make it Byzantine, Central Asian, Persian and Arabic. It integrates the domed masterpieces of  past empires — exemplifying the geometrical purity and primitive command of the Pantheon in Rome, the splendor and monumentality of the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, the ornate transcendence of Persian tilework and Arabic arabesque, and the Islamic significance of the rectangular prayer space, Quranic calligraphy and the Mihrab. To this synthesis of past architectural styles, Sinan contributes an original conception of structural coherence and spatial unity. Classical Ottoman architecture and its culmination under Sinan are a testament to the cultural mosaic that defined the early Ottoman bureaucracy and allowed it to govern one of the most cosmopolitan empires in world history.

The Selimiye as an architectural masterpiece

symbolizes the fusion of the east and west, past and present that characterized the many other institutions within the Empire.

80

In other words, just as the Devshirme and Millet systems

 Necipolu, lru. The Age of Sinan: Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Empire . Princeton: Princeton University Press,

2005, 270 81  Kuban 1987, 96

28

mentioned earlier were products of cultural appropriation and openness to the ‘other’, the architectural style that flourished and matured under Sinan is reflective of the same tradition.

SINAN’S LEACY “The best of all engineers, the ornament of great constructors, the master of the scholars of his time and all times, the Euclid of his time, the architect of the Sultan and the teacher of the  Em pire”82 – Translated excerpt from Foundation Deed in Mimar Sinan’s tomb in Istanbul

Sinan lived to be around a hundred years old; his century-long life corresponded coincidentally with the most affluent century of Ottoman rule in which the empire commanded unprecedented wealth, power and self-confidence. This self-confidence led to the flourishing of the sciences and arts, culminating in the height of Ottoman classical architecture under the

creative genius of Sinan. Sinan’s art was built on the foundations of a long-lived architectural heritage. He was born into an already established empire that had the material and intellectual resources to support and foster his growth.

Sinan’s architectural style is a product of the Ottoman-Turkish heritage; one that had accepted Islam as its religion and Turkish as its origin, but had no problems looking to both the east and the west for inspiration. Because he is the father of a syncretic style that created an original art form from the fusion of Islamic, Seljuk and Romano-Byzantine traditions, Sinan is  perhaps the best personification of this facet of Ottoman multiethnic society. More so than being the persona of Ottoman culture, Sinan is also a byproduct of the classic Ottoman bureaucracy, a system in which the ruling class was actively sought from the non-Turkish population. The fact that a young Christian boy from a village in the peripheries could be raised within the Ottoman Devshirme to one day define  classical Ottoman art is a testament to the political reality at the time.

The Ottoman bureaucracy was one that melted ethnicities, nationalities and religious

 backgrounds to create one class of citizenship: the Ottoman statesman.

As someone who

emerged solely as a consequence of the Devshirme, Sinan becomes  the archetypal Ottoman statesman; he best embodies the Ottoman political system that allowed any man to rise within the state entirely on his own merit.

82

 Kuban 1997, 28

29 A man of conviction and purpose, Sinan approached his work with great discipline, but his pluralistic and multidisciplinary approach was in no way constrained by any sort of rigid 83

dogma.

Much like the early Sultans who shaped a distinctively Ottoman conception of society,

Sinan succeeded in his own endeavors through a mindset open to intuition, creativity and the relentless pursuit of the perfect image.

Precisely because he did not handcuff himself to

traditional, inflexible architectural styles, he was able to surpass the legacies of the past and make original contributions to global architectural heritage.

Sinan pursued and perfected a

classic style of monumental architecture because the Sultans whom he served were sincere

 patrons of his arts. As Stratton notes, “As a patron of the arts, in particular of architecture, Selim II has no superior. He knew Sinan’s worth, Sinan knew his. Together they got on well to do their particular work.”

84

Sinan’s superiors welcomed his independence and creativity, and the

ruling class underwent no hesitation to dedicate the full faculties of the state to help him materialize his vision. At no other point in Ottoman history was an artisan regarded with such high esteem, respect and trust. Sinan was a prodigy of his time and very much a Renaissance man, even though the European Age of Enlightenment would have very little impact on the Ottomans for another 200

years. He has often been called the “Michelangelo of the Ottomans”85, but this likeness to the Western Architect of the same period utterly fails to adequately depict Sinan’s impact on global

architecture. As New York Times traveler and writer Andrew Ferren notes, “Michelangelo made spectacular contributions to a few buildings in Rome and Florence. Sinan has hundreds of

monumental structures still in daily use, from Belgrade to Mecca.”86  Given Sinan’s long tenure in a very demanding public position at the height of empire and just the sheer number of monuments and projects ascribed to him, a comparison with Michelangelo is very much an insult to his legacy and lifelong endeavor. Mimar Sinan was both the literal and symbolic architect of a great empire. More than four hundred years have passed since his death, yet his architectural style and legacy remain

83

 Ozer, Bulend. "The Architect of Domed Mosques as a Master of Pluralism. “Environmental Design Journal of the Islamic  Environmental Design Research Centre 2 (1987), 155 84 Stratton, 230 85  Osa, Veronica De. Sinan, the Turkish Michelangelo: A Biographical Novel . New York: Vantage Press, 1982. 86 Ferren, Andrew. "Tracking Turkey’s  First Starchitect." The New York Times. June 09, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/travel/tracking-turkeys-first-starchitect.html.

30 vibrant in the historic districts of Istanbul and Edirne as well as in mosques built in the modern age that owe their designs and inspiration to his influence. Through his early military campaigns from Austria to Baghdad to Cairo, he cultivated a cosmopolitan approach to architecture that he would later use to enrich every corner of the empire and especially its capital. Istanbul had already emerged into a major city at the hands of the Byzantines and Romans centuries before th

the Conquest of 1453. Still, it was not until the 16  century that Istanbul transformed itself into a classical, imperial capital fit for a world empire. As a master urban planner, Sinan reimagined and recreated the city in his own image, and this cosmopolitan vision of an imperial city continues to resonate to this day. Even with rapid urban development in the past few decades,

the imperial capital of Istanbul continues to echo Sinan’s legacy. Designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1985, the historic districts of Istanbul has preserved its ties to the Ottoman and Byzantine imperial past. The UNESCO inscription describes Imperial Istanbul’s legacy as such:

“The Outstanding Universal Value of Istanbul resides in its unique integration of architectural masterpieces that reflect the meeting of Europe and Asia over many centuries, and in its incomparable skyline formed by the creative genius of Byzantine and Ottoman architects.” 87 

Sinan’s work is a continuation of the long line of architectural evolution and heritage that all Mediterranean civilizations — the ancient Greeks, Romans and Ottomans —   borrowed from and contributed towards. Just as much as the Ottoman bureaucracy shaped its state identity through the adoption and synthesis of past civilizations, its architects shaped Ottoman artistic sensibility  by synthesizing Byzantine, Seljuk and Persian styles. Moreover, Sinan’s long tenure as Imperial Architect to the Empire at its cultural apogee underscores the high esteem he garnered from both his contemporaries and later generations. The Imperial School of Architects he founded trained countless masters and builders who later served the empire as court architects. His peers and students went off to design the dome of the Taj Mahal in India, the Sultan Ahmet Mosque in 88

Istanbul, and numerous other great works.

Sinan perfected the monumental dome — an architectural feature intrinsic to the Mediterranean but shaped by all regions of the world —because of the Empire’s openness to a multiethnic society, because of its far reach into every corner of the old world, and because of its  pragmatic openness towards recruiting the most talented of its subjects, regardless of their 87

 "Historic Areas of Istanbul." UNESCO World Heritage Centre. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/356.  Burelli and Freely, 124

88

31

religious or ethnic backgrounds. It is within this context that Sinan’s life and works can best be understood. And it is also within this context that we can understand the factors that led to the Ottoman Em pire’s stagnation and decline.

Sinan’s legacy and artistic genius were clearly

 products of his time. As the Empire itself began to fracture and decay, so too did the creativity and talent of its artists and architects.

Even though Sinan took great care in establishing his

school of Architects, none of his successors could replicate his discipline or multidisciplinary approach. His death coupled with the deteriorating power of the Sultanate inevitably led to the hardening and disorganization of the Ottoman government and the demise of classical Ottoman Architecture. The Selimiye was the last great monument of an age characterized by good judgment and  prosperity.

The bureaucracy was highly disciplined and organized in the 16th century, yet

flexible enough to accept and incorporate new ideas. The imperial mosques and monuments

 built after Sinan’s time however represent the start of the post-classical Ottoman era, an age  — colloquially characterized by undue extravagance and stagnation. The Sultan Ahmet Mosque known as the Blue Mosque — is a reflection of the latter period. Although mistakenly considered another masterpiece of classical Ottoman architecture, the Blue Mosque in Istanbul is very much the antithesis of the Selimiye. The architect of the Blue Mosque was one of Sinan’s students; yet in designing this mosque, it seems that he applied very little of the knowledge he gained from Sinan. As architectural historian Henri Stierlin notes, “[Sinan’s] successors did not pursue the logic [The Selimiye] implied. They failed to grasp the visionary old man’s quest for ever greater coherence, grace and luminosity.”

89

Unlike the spatial unity and harmony that Sinan so

meticulously strived for in the Selimiye, the Blue mosque is excessive —   perhaps a bit clumsy —  90

and has no balance between the interior and exterior.

Determined to impress and awe with its

sheer size, the Blue Mosque lacks the elegance and coherence that defined the Selimiye and the

rest of Sinan’s works  (See Figures 8 and 9 for a comparison). Furthermore, whereas Selim II funded the Selimiye through the spoils of successful military campaigns, the Blue Mosque was financed entirely through the Treasury, which effectively bankrupted the Ottoman economy at their most vulnerable point, militarily and politically. 89

91

The Sultan Ahmet Mosque signifies the

 Stierlin, Henri, and Anne Stierlin. Turkey, from the eluks to the Ottomans . Kln: Taschen, 1998, 18  Stierlin, 195 91  Necipolu, lru. The Age of Sinan: Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Empire . Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005, 515 90

32

 beginning of the Ottoman Empire’s regression from a system of openness and functionality that had allowed the Empire to flourish, to a system governed by rigidness and dysfunction that would inevitably lead to its collapse. In the latter period, imitation, dogmatism and unyielding reiteration of the past replaced the political and cultural syntheses that were the hallmarks of classical Ottoman society. The  pragmatism, prudence and honor that characterized Suleiman’s reign were replaced by later Sultans with extravagance, ineptitude and decadence. And lastly, the lifelong pursuit of

 perfection that characterized Sinan’s endeavors was nowhere to be found in the works of his successors. As art historian Godfrey oodwin notes, “In bringing the classical period to its 92

climax, Sinan destroyed it. There was nothing left to do save change”

In conclusion, the

classical Ottoman Empire was the product of a cosmopolitan civilization shaped by the historical, political and religious forces mentioned above.

From its origin as a provincial,

nomadic Beylik in 1300 to its climatic peak as a world empire spanning three continents in 1579, the Ottomans created a new, distinctive society by adapting and synthesizing what had come  before it. The Ottoman society’s openness to foreign ideas and its development of a syncretic style is best reflected by Ottoman architectural style. And as illustrated with the example of Selimiye Mosque, the essence of its architecture is best expressed through the lifelong endeavor of Chief Imperial Architect Sinan Agha Abdul-Mannan — ‘t he best of engineers and the teacher 93

of the empire’   — who on his deathbed, ironically named himself “Sinan, the poor and humble.”

92

Goodwin, 266  Stratton, 259

93

1

 APPENDIX

Figure 1: Outer view of the Selimiye, showing the contrast between the tall minarets and the dome Source: Turkish Airlines, Skylife Magazine, Photographer: Tacli Kent http://www.turkishairlines.com

Figure 2: Inner view of the Selimiye, focusing on the large dome. Notice the significant level of luminance —   produced entirely by natural light pouring in fr om its 999 windows. Source : Wikipedia Commons, Photographer: Murdjo. Used under Creative Commons License

2

Figures 3 & 4: Unenhanced, inner view comparison of the Hagia Sophia on the left and Selimiye on the right, showcasing the level of luminance in both. Notice that the Selimiye has a significantly higher number of windows alongside the squinches that blend the dome to the columns. Whereas both structures have windows across the domes,

the Selimiye’s window placement and internal paint selection gives it a brighter, more radiant look. The window  placement and paint in Hagia Sophia however, causes excessive shadowing and creates a dimmer ambience. Source: Getty Royalty-Free St ock Images (gty.im/dv802103) Photographer: Robert Harding

Figure 5: Artist’s impression of Hagia Sophia, drawn during the final century of Ottoman Rule, circa 1894 Source: Wikimedia Commons, Library of Congress number: LC-DIG-ppmsca-03035. Public Domain

3

Figure 6: Historical outer view of the Selimiye; photo taken during the final decade of Ottoman Rule, early 1900’s. Source: Edirne Tarihi Tanıtım Projes i (Historical Edirne Publicity Project): http://www.edirnetarihi.com/eski-evler-ve-selimiye-camii.html

Figure 7: Another internal view of the Selimiye, accentuating the columns, squinches and the dome. Only 5 of the 8 columns are shown here, but one can still see the symmetry and integration of the rectangular prayer space with the circular dome above, as well as the monumental openness within. Source: Bulent Oniz, Adrianopolic Photo Collection, Photographer: Bulent Oniz

4

Figure 8 & 9: The Selimiye (Top) and the Sultan Ahmet Mosque (Bottom) interior space. Even though both

images are taken with similar zoom levels, note how much larger the Selimiye’s dome is. Other points of difference are the levels of ambience and structural integrity. The Selimiye excels in both accounts. Source: Both images are from Bernardo Ricci Armani’s Domed Ceiling Collection http://ricci-armani.com/worlds-ceilings/. Used under Creative Commons License

5

Figure 10: Selimiye Silhouette at dawn Source: DreamsTime Royalty Free Stock Images, ID: 36480039. Photographer:

Esat Kaplıca

Figure 10: Istanbul Skyline at dusk, showing silhouettes of the Sultan Ahmet Mosque and Hagia Sophia Source: Orhan Ayucce, http://archinect.com/news/article/73833975/istanbul-saves-its-silhouette

1 Bibliography Kuban, Dogan. "The Style of Sinan's Domed Structures." Muqarnas, 1987, 72-97.

"Mehmed Paša Sokolović Bridge in Višegrad." UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 00. Accessed May 03, 01. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1260. Voltaire. Toleration and Other Essays. Translated by Joseph MacCabe. New York and London: G.P. Pu tnam's Sons, 1912.

Yetişgin, Mehmet. "The Ottoman Way of overning Multi -Ethnic and Multi-Religious Communities." OTAM Ankara Üniversitesi Osmanlı T arihi Araştırma Ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi 21, no. 22 (2007). A., Abdel Haleem M. The Qurʼan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. "Selim II (Ottoman Sultan)." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. 2014. Accessed April 30, 2014. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/533574/Selim-II. "BAJAZET II." Jewish Encyclopedia - The Unedited Full-text of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. 2011. Accessed April 30, 2014. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2377-bajazet-ii. "City Crowned With A World Heritage." Turkish Airlines - Articles in Skylife Magazine. July 2012. Accessed April 30, 2014. http://www.turkishairlines.com/en-tr/skylife/makaleler/2012/july/bir-dunya-mirasiyla-tacli-kent. "Historic Areas of Istanbul." UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Accessed April 30, 2014. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/356. Kinross, Patrick Balfour. The Ottoman Centuries: The Rise and Fall of the Turkish Empire. New York: W. Morrow, 1977. Melville-Jones, John R. The Siege of Constantinople 1453: Seven Contemporary Accounts. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1972. Popple, William. "John Locke: A Letter Concerning Toleration (Translation)." Constitution Society. October 18, 1998. Accessed April 30, 2014. http://www.constitution.org/jl/tolerati.htm. Lamb, Harold. Suleiman, the Magnificent, Sultan of the East . Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1951. Merriman, Roger B. Suleiman the Magnificent, 1520 – 1566 . Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1944. "The Ottoman Architect Who Linked East and West." BBC News. February 13, 2010. Accessed April 28 , 2014. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8512512.stm. Staykov, Venelin. Edirne Selimiye Mosque and Its Social Complex -General View. July 1, 2009. Edirne Vakf Regional Directorate, Edirne, Turkey. Accessed April 27, 2014. whc.unesco.org/en/list/1366/gallery/. Armani, Bernardo R. "World's Ceilings." Bernardo Ricci Armani - Professional Photographer. June 19, 2013. Accessed April 27, 2014. http://ricci-armani.com/worlds-ceilings/.  Nigel_xf, and VS-Fototeam. "Sabanci Central Mosque, Adana, Turkey #8." Flickr. December 21, 2011. Accessed April 27, 2014. https://www.flickr.com/photos/norbertschluess/6551251317/. 'MrPanyGoff', Gavin. Interior View of abancı Central Mosque in Adana, Turkey. October 18, 2009. Adana, Turkey. Accessed April 27, 2014. https://www.flickr.com/photos/gavinsblog/4021894385. Ozgules, Muzaffer. "Fundamental Developments of 16th Century Ottoman Architecture: Innovations in the Art of Architect Sinan." Science and Technology Policies Research Center (TEKPOL) - Working Paper Series, January 2008. Accessed April 27, 2014. http://stps.metu.edu.tr/sites/stps.metu.edu.tr/files/0803.pdf.

"‘Ottoman Architecture', a  New Book by Architect and Ar t Historian Doan Kuban, Fills Another Important ap." Turkish Airlines SkyLife Articles (Interview). July 2007. Accessed April 27, 2014. http://www.turkishairlines.com/ency/skylife/makaleler/2007/july/dogan-kuban. "Road to Selimiye." Selimiye Mosque in Edirne Turkey (Selimiye Camii). Accessed April 27, 2014. http://www.selimiyemosque.net/road_to_selimiye.htm.

2

"The Selimiye - Sinan - Great Buildings Online." Architecture Design Architectural Images History Models and More - ArchitectureWeek Great Buildings. Accessed April 27, 2014. http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/The_Selimiye.html. Osa, Veronica De. Sinan, the Turkish Michelangelo: A Biographical Novel . New York: Vantage Press, 1982.

 Necipolu, lru. "Creation Of A National enius: Sinan And The Historiography Of “Classical” Ottoman Architecture."  Muqarnas Online 24, no. 1 (2007): 141-83. Kortan, Enis. "The Role of Sinan's Work within the Urban Context." Environmental Design: Journal of the Islamic Environmental Design  Research Centre 1-2 (1987): 140-45. Accessed April 13, 2014. "Selimiye Mosque and Its Social Complex." UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2011. Accessed April 13, 20 14. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1366. Ferren, Andrew. "Tracking Turkey’s First Starchitect." The New York Times. June 09, 01. Accessed April 13, 01. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/travel/tracking-turkeys-first-starchitect.html?_r=0&pagewanted=2. Schmidt, Benjamin. Innocence Abroad: The Dutch Imagination and the New World, 1570-1670. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Stratton, Arthur. Sinan. New York: Scribner, 1971. Lewis, Bernard. What Went Wrong?: Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Rogers, J. M. Sinan. London: I.B. Tauris in Association with the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, 2006. Stierlin, Henri, and Anne Stierlin. Turkey, from the eluks to the Ottomans . Kln: Taschen, 1998.

 Necipolu, lru. The Age of Sinan: Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Empire. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005. Takikawa, Mio. "Hagia Sophia and Sinan’s Mosques: Structu re and Decoration in Süleymaniye Mosque and Selimiye Mosque." Seijo University. 2006. Accessed April 4, 2014. http://journal.seijo.ac.jp/gslit/student/art/pdf/art-017-06.pdf. Majer, Hans G. "The Fun ctioning of a Multiethnic and Multireligious State: The Ottoman Empire." European Review 5 (1997): 257-65. Kuban, Dogan. "Sinan." In The Great Ottoman - Turkish Civilisation, by Kemal Çıek, 0. Ankara: Yeni Trkiye, 000. Khan, Arshi. ""The Ottoman Empire: An Oriental Architect of Multiculturalism"" In The Great Ottoman-Turkish Civilisation, by Kemal

Çiek, 399. Ankara: Yeni Trkiye, 000. Kuban, Dogan. "Sinan, the Master of Domed Structures." Museum International  40, no. 3 (1988): 158-63. Republic of Turkey. Ministry of Culture and Tourism. General Directorate of Libraries and Publications. Selimiye Mosque and Its Social Complex. By Zeynep Ahunbay. Vol. 21. Ankara: MRK Publishing, 2012.

Compier, Abdul Haq. "Let the Muslim Be My Master in Outward Things’. References to Islam in the Promotion of Religious Tolera nce in Christian Europe." Al-Islam EGazette (London), January 2010. Ozer, Bulend. "The Architect of Do med Mosques as a Master of Pluralism." Environmental Design: Journal of the Islamic Environmental  Design Research Centre 2 (1987). Archnet. Cleveland, William L. A History of the Modern Middle East . Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2004. Ozdural, Alpay. "Sinan's Arsin: A Survey of Ottoman Architectural Metrology." Muqarnas 15 (1998): 101. Ousterhout, Robert. "Ethnic Identity and Cultural Appropriation in Early Ottoman Architecture." Muqarnas 12 (1995). E.J. Brill. Fattah, H.A.L.A. "Culture and Identity in the Work of an Historian of Ottoman Basra."  ISIM Newsletter  3, no. 1 (1999).

Bozdon, Sibel. "Reading Ottoman Architecture Through Modernist Lenses: Nationalist Historiography And The “New Architecture”  In The Early Republic." Muqarnas Online 24, no. 1 (2007): 199-221.