334

BSTRACT

Perceptions of Architecture and Legend Through a Sixteenth-Century Ottoman Text

This study investigates the perception of Istanbul’s legendary past and Hagia Sophia

by early modern Ottoman authors. In doing so, the main source of this study is a

mid- 16th century text that is about the legends of Istanbul and the construction

narrative of Hagia Sophia and written by Ali el-Arabi Ilyas. In particular, the

construction narrative of Hagia Sophia has a long literary history that goes back all

the way to the Byzantine era. Therefore, the purpose of this study is two-fold; the

first is to diagnose certain connections of these early modern Ottoman texts with

Byzantine literary traditions and medieval Islamic traditions. And secondly, by

focusing on Ilyas Arabi’s work, it tries to unearth the textual and conceptual

convergences and divergences from within the early modern Ottoman text. Since,

this study focuses on Ilyas Arabi’s text, it will also pay specific attention of the

historical context in which Ilyas wrote this work. Finally, it endeavours to assert and

prove the development of a specific pattern of thought pertaining to

Constantinopolitan legends and Hagia Sophian narrative by early modern Ottoman

authors.

v

ÖZET

Bir onaltıncı yüzyıl Osmanlı metninde mimari ve efsanenin algıları

Bu çalışma erken modern Osmanlı yazarlarının şehrin efsanevi geçmişini ve Aya

Sofya’yı nasıl algıladıklarını araştırmaktadır. Bunu yaparken de Ilyas Arabi adlı

yazarın Onaltıncı yüzyılın ortalarında Istanbul efsaneleri ve Aya Sofya’nın inşası

anlatısını yazdığı eseri merkeze almaktadır. Bilhassa, Aya Sofya’nın inşası

anlatısının metinsel temeli Bizans dönemine gitmektedir. Böylelikle, bu çalışmanın

amacı iki yönlüdür; birinci kısmı bu erken modern Osmanlı metinlerinin orta çağ

Islam kültür gelenekleri ve Bizans edebi gelenekleriyle olan bağlantısı. İkinci olarak

da Ilyas Arabi’nin metnini odak noktası olarak alıp diğer benzer Osmanlı

metinleriyle buluştuğu ve ayrıştığı noktaları tespit etmektir. Bu çalışma, Ilyas

Arabi’nin metnine odaklanacağı için, Ilyas Arabi’nin bu metni yazdığı tarihsel

bağlam da dikkatli bir biçimde ele alınacaktır. En nihayetinde, bu çalışmanın temel

savı erken modern Osmanlı yazarları tarafından Istanbul efsaneleri ve Aya Sofya

anlatıları hususunda nev-i şahsına münhasır bir düşünce biçimi geliştirildiğidir.

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I want to say my thanks to my advisor, Professor Çiğdem Kafescioğlu for

her constant intellectual guidance and support. She always bore with me even though

I was in chronic anxiety and laziness from time to time. I also thank Professor Derin

Terzioğlu and Shirine Hamadeh for joining the thesis committee and their valuable

critics during the process.

I also wish to thank sincerely to Anıl Aşkın, and Akif Yerlioğlu for their

eager intellectual and moral support. Without their contribution, this study would

have been deficient in many aspects. My closest friends, Ozan Cem Arslan and

Özüm Eres, were always there any time and any where; no words are sufficient for

me to express my gratitudeness to them. Oya Harmancıoğlu and the assistant staff of

the history department were always tolerant and sensible during this stressful process

and I am deeply indebted to them. A secretive but sincere thanks to ‘tree-trunk’.

Despite our tumultuous relationship, she will always remain in my heart and mind.

Last but not least, I wish to thank my mother Gülseren Yıldız, sister, Deniz

Yıldız, and my father, Muzaffer Yıldız for their constant support. Their presence is

invaluable.

vi i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION………………………………………………..1

1.1 The scope and the main objectives of the study …………………………….1

1.2 The emergence of Turkish literary production during the fourteenth and fifteenth

centuries………………………………………………………………………….3

1.3 A brief overview of Ottoman intellectual life and literary production in the

fifteenth and seventeenth centuries………………………………………………7

1.4 Ilyas Arabi's Risale and introduction to the sources………………………...14

1.5 The importance of the spolia in the context of the study…………………....21

1.6 Outline of the study………………………………………………………….23

CHAPTER 2: OF MONUMENTAL AND MATERIAL GENEALOGIES:

NARRATIVES OF REMOTE PAST(S)………………………………………...29

2.1 Setting up the parameters…………………………………………………....29

2.2 A tale of seven hills……………………………………………………….....33

2.3 Solomonic narratives in the context of 'monumental and material

genealogies'…………………………………………………………….................36

2.4 Şemsiyye and her embellished idol…………………………………………..41

2.5 Yanko bin Madyan's life and times…..…………………………………….....48

2.6 Conclusion…………………..…………………………………..………….....55

CHAPTER 3: NARRATIVES OF A MONUMENT: HAGIA SOPHIA BETWEEN

MATERIALITY AND NARRATIVITY………………………………………....57

3.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………...57

3.2 Architectural layout: An overview……………………………………………60

3.3 Patria: An overview……………………….…………………………………..64

vi ii

3.4 A short summary of themes and story lines of the Hagia Sophia narrative in the

Patria……………… ………………………………………………………..…….68

3.5. The portrayal of Constantine in the Ottoman versions of Patria…………......71

3.6. A general introduction to the Ottoman narratives of Hagia Sophia: Representing,

devising, and designating the monument….…….……...…………………………75

3.7. The materials and the construction of the Hagia Sophia………………….......81

3.8 The persona of Justinian I through the looking glass of early modern Ottoman

mentalities: The case of Justinian's column………………………………………..88

3.9 Conclusion……………………………………………………………….……..92

CHAPTER 4: NARRATIVES OF AN AESTHETIC MINDSET: HAGIA SOPHIA

AS AN AESTHETIC TOPOS IN THE CONTEXT OF EARLY MODERN

OTTOMAN MENTALITIES……..……………………………………….………94

4.1 Introduction………………….…………………………………………….......94

4.2 Ilyas Arabi, Evliya Çelebi, and Sinan's autobiographies in a comparative context

…………………………………………………………………..………………….97

4.3 The documentary evidence on the materials of the Süleymaniye……………108

4.4 The Sultan and the architect/The Emperor and the architect: Sinan and

Ignatius…………………….…………………………………...............................111

4.5 Conclusion……………………….……………………………………...…….115

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION…………………………………………………....118

APPENDIX : TRANSLITERATION OF THE ILYAS ARABI'S RISALE-YI

ISTANBUL………………………………………………………………………..121

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………….172

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 The scope and the main objectives of the study

The main aim of this study is to analyse the construction narratives of Hagia Sophia

and its perception by early modern Ottoman authors who had read, translated,

copied, and altered a text which is mainly adopted from Byzantine literary traditions.

In particular, I will take a mid-sixteenth century text on Hagia Sophia and

Constantinopolitan narratives as my focus. The text written by a certain Ilyas Arabi,

and he claims at the beginning of his text that he is a teacher (el-muꜤallim) who is in

the service of the Grand Vizier Ali Paşa (in office 1561-1565).1 As it will be

apparent during the course of this study, Grand Vizier Ali Paşa was an important

actor during the construction of Süleymaniye mosque complex. As the governor of

Egypt, he supervised the transportation of specific ancient columns to the Ottoman

capital, to be used in the construction of Süleymaniye.2 Considering the fact that

Ilyas inscribes the date 15623 for the completion of his text, this study tries to

contextualize this text in its historical condition, which is the aftermath of

Süleymaniye’s construction. In this vein, the main question of this study would be

first how these authors contemplated the legendary narratives surrounding Hagia

Sophia, narratives that delineated the city’s history staring from its construction in

1 Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des manuscrits,

Turc 147, 2r.

2 Ömer Lütfi Barkan, Süleymaniye Cami ve imareti inşaatı (1550-1557), Vol.2(Ankara: Türk Tarih

Kurumu, 1972), 14-18.

3 ”ve bu zamanda ki ḥażret-i resūlullah Ꜥaleyhisselāmıñ hicret-i şerīfelerinden ṭoḳuz yüz yetmiş yıl

munḳażż olmuş idi” Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, 2r.

2

562 by the Byzantine emperor Justinian I (d.565). Furthermore, this study will

question how these early modern Ottoman authors, in particular Ilyas Arabi,

experienced the Hagia Sophia and related it to the other dynastic mosque complexes

in Constantinopolitan cityscape like Süleymaniye. The other main question this

thesis will explore will be the transmission of a particular Byzantine text into a

particular early modern Ottoman idiom starting with the mid-15th century and

accelerating after the takeover of Constantinople. The narrative (diegesis) of Hagia

Sophia’s construction is part of a late tenth century Byzantine compilation, namely

the Patria which is a textual tradition that consists of the city’s legendary past, its

statues and monumental columns and finally, the construction narrative (diegesis) of

the Hagia Sophia.4

Commencing from the mid-fifteenth to the mid-seventeenth centuries, one

observes the translation, and circulation of different versions of the

Constantinopolitan legends and of the construction narratives of Hagia Sophia,

written in Ottoman Turkish. As we shall see during the course of this study, this

Byzantine literary tradition i.e. Constantinopolitan legends and Hagia Sophia

narratives, gained distinctive Ottoman overtones during the process in consideration.

Hagia Sophia was converted into a congregational mosque by Mehmed II after the

takeover of 1453 and served as the primary congregational mosque of the city until it

was transformed into a national museum in 1935. As it will become manifest during

the course of this study, the appropriation of the monument by Ottomans extended

into its construction narratives. It is viable to think that the early modern Ottoman

authors who wrote about the Hagia Sophia and continued the above-mentioned

Byzantine literary tradition, also experienced the monument tangibly and added to its

4 Albrecht Berger, ed., Accounts of Medieval Constantinople: The Patria, Dumbarton Oaks Medieval

Library 24 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2013).

3

lore and legends that probably circulated among the inhabitants of the city orally and

to some extend textually on the part of the literate segment of the society. One of the

objectives of this study is to demonstrate that during the period at hand, i.e. the

period between the mid-fifteenth and the mid-seventeenth centuries, these narratives

evolved into and gained a particular Ottoman idiom within the urban and intellectual

cultures of Istanbul, while at the same time continuing to use partially the Byzantine

literary tropes and aspects of the Byzantine discourse on the city and the monument.

In the works of Ilyas Arabi and the other early modern Ottoman authors this study

will look into, one observes the theme of commemoration of the monument along

with its narratives. That is to say, even though the way in which this commemoration

of the monument i.e. the Hagia Sophia changes according to the historical conditions

of these Ottoman authors, the practice of commemorating and narrating the primary

monument of the city in histories, geographies, cosmographies, and travelogues

written by earl modern Ottoman authors was a common phenomenon. Thus, as Gülru

Necipoğlu discusses in her seminal article on the issue, the Hagia Sophia could be

seen as a specific “site of memory” for these Ottoman authors who wrote on the

subjects and as well as for the inhabitants of Kostantiniyye in general.5

1.2 The emergence of Turkish literary production during the forteenth and fifteenth

centuries

Since Ilyas Arabi’s Risale-yi Istanbul and the other Ottoman texts that this study will

analyse were all written in Turkish, it is crucial to discuss the historical and

5 Necipoğlu takes this concept from French scholar Pierre Nora, see, Pierre Nora, “Between Memory

and History: Les Lieux de Mémoire,” Representations, no. 26 (1989): 7–24, see Gülru Necipoğlu,

“The Life of An Imperial Monument: Hagia Sophia After Byzantium” in Hagia Sophia from the Age

of Justinian to the Present ed.by Robert Mark and Ahmet S.Çakmak, (Cambridge University Press,

1992), 225.

4

intellectual background during which Turkish first as the ‘Old Anatolian Turkish’

and then as the ‘Ottoman Turkish’ emerged and started to be used in literary

production, a realm that predominantly belong to the Persian and Arabic languages

before. During the late thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, there was a politically

fragmented Anatolia; different polities, often discussed under the rubric of ‘beyliks’,

meaning ‘principalities’, dominated the political scene. As Sara Nur Yıldız and

Andrew Peacock discuss in their introduction to the edited book on the intellectual

and cultural life in Anatolia during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, there was

an upsurge in Turkish literary production in the petty courts of these principalities.6

Turkish was a spoken language up until then, among sedentary and nomadic, urban

and provincial, and popular and elite Turkic populations. According to these two

historians, one can compare the emergence of written Turkish texts particularly in the

petty courts of Beyliks like Aydinids in the Aegean region7 and in the Sufi convents

(zāviye) which delineated the religio-political and religio-social landscape of the

lands of the Rum from which a lucrative genre of Hagiography (menākıbnāme)

emerged, with the ‘vernacularization’ process that started to take place in

Mediterranean polities during the late medieval era.8 Nonetheless, Yıldız and

Peacock suggest that the ‘vernacularization’ process that took place during late

thirteenth and fourteenth centuries does not mean that the Arabic and Persian, the

primary languages of medieval and early modern Islamicate societies, lost its

importance. On the contrary, the utilization of Turkish in courtly commissioned texts

and the texts produced by Sufi-Dervish groups indicates the integration of Turkish

6 Sara Nur Yıldız and Andrew C.S. Peacock, “Introduction”, in Sara Nur Yıldız and Andrew C.S.

Peacock, eds., Islamic Literature and Intellectual Life in Fourteenth- And Fifteenth-Century Anatolia

(Würzburg: Ergon Verlag, 2016).

7 For a novel study on the courtly literary production in Aydınid court, see, Sara Nur Yıldız, “Aydınid

Court Literatur in the Formation of an Islamic Identity”, in Sara and Peacock, Islamic Literature and

Intellectual Life in Fourteenth- And Fifteenth-Century Anatolia, 197-243.

8 Yıldız and Peacock, “Introduction”, in Sara and Peacock, Islamic Literature and Intellectual Life in

Fourteenth- And Fifteenth-Century Anatolia, 31-3.

5

into the ‘Perso-Islamicate cultural discourses’. Therefore, it could be said that

vernacularization took place within a multi-lingual context in fourteenth century

Anatolia. The integration of Perso-Islamicate cultural discourses as formulated by

Yıldız and Peacock also implies the translation of important texts from this cultural

milieu, in particular the adab literature which is a textual tradition according to

Yıldız and Peacock that consists of texts with didactic overtones stretching various

genres of Perso-Islamicate textual productions since the medieval era.9 Yıldız and

Peacock further suggest that the translation of adab literature into vernacular Turkish

was critical in the constitution of Rumi identity at least for the elite circles.10

Another important term, Rumi identity, its constitution and its implications

throughout the early modern era for Ottomans and in particular Ottoman intellectual

circles is an important concept for the general framework and premises of this study.

In his seminal article, Cemal Kafadar tries to trace back the perception of the word

‘Rumi’ and how the meaning of the word changed starting with the medieval period

into its perception by Ottoman intellectuals.11 According to Kafadar, the word

‘Rumi’ started to be used for the Muslims who lived in the lands of Rum i.e. today’s

Anatolia.12 The uses of Rum which means basically ‘Rome’ and Rumi ‘Roman’ were

somewhat related with the Turks who began to inhabit the lands of Rum since the

eleventh century. As Kafadar points out, although Rumi identity differs from Turkish

identity, they are related to each other.13 Moreover, the lands of Rum (Diyar-ı Rum)

meaning ‘lands of Rome’, was not a part of the official Ottoman parlance. That is to

9 Yıldız and Peacock, “Introduction”, in Sara and Peacock, Islamic Literature and Intellectual Life in

Fourteenth- And Fifteenth-Century Anatolia, 34-5.

10 Yıldız and Peacock, “Introduction”, in Sara and Peacock, Islamic Literature and Intellectual Life in

Fourteenth- And Fifteenth-Century Anatolia, 35.

11 Cemal Kafadar, “Introduction: A Rome of One’s Own: Reflections on Cultural Geography and

Identity in the Lands of Rum,” Muqarnas 24 (2007): 7–25, for another important study see, Salih

Özbaran, Bir Osmanlı Kimliği: 14.-17. Yüzyıllarda Rûm/Rûmi Aidiyet ve Imgeleri, (Kitap Yayınevi,

2004).

12 Kafadar, “Introduction.”, 10.

13 Kafadar, “Introduction.”, 11.

6

say, this concept emerged from within the people who lived in the lands of Rum

albeit their diverse ethnicities.14 For the Rumi identity, apart from its relative

connotation with Turkic ethnicity because of the importance of Turkish language in

the constitution of Ruminess, it is a new socio-cultural conception and in Kafadar’s

words, Rumi identity was delineated through ‘linguistic’ and ‘geographic’ criteria.

Rum was a cultural space inhabited by a community that shared a literary language,

Turkish; it included a few Armenian poets who used that language (Mesihi of

Diyarbakır, for instance).15

Thus, beyond ethnicities, the language and the geography are much more

crucial for the explanation of Rumi identity according to Kafadar. The discussion of

Rumi identity and the geographical concept of the lands of Rum are made due to

their relevance to the topic and the main source that this study analyses. Ilyas Arabi,

although his name suggests something other than Rumi, writes in Turkish and the

language he uses and the topics he narrate i.e. Constantinopolitan legends and the

construction of Hagia Sophia hints that he can be considered within this cultural

framework of Rumi identity and its implications. Also, the other early modern

Ottoman texts that this study looks into such as Evliya Çelebi’s Istanbul volume of

his Seyahatname, a late fifteenth century Anonymous text about Constantinopolitan

and Hagia Sophian legends, Dervish Şemseddin Karamani’s late fifteenth century

text on Hagia Sophia and the chief architect Sinan’s (d.1588) autobiographies are all

compatible with the concept of Rumi as well. To conclude the discussion of Rumi

identity, Kafadar designates Rumi identity as a socio-cultural category stretching

from thirteenth into the seventeenth centuries.16 Throughout this study, I will utilize

14 Kafadar, “Introduction.” ,12.

15 Kafadar, “Introduction.”, 15.

16 Kafadar, “Introduction.”, 16.

7

the concepts of Rumi and the lands of Rum whose historiographical and conceptual

framework I have discussed briefly.

1.3 A brief overview of Ottoman intellectual life and literary production in the

fifteenth and seventeenth centuries

In his survey article on Ottoman intellectual life during early modern period,

Gottfried Hagen suggests that the production of knowledge in Ottoman lands started

to be canonized and systemized especially after the takeover of Constantinople in

1453. He continues and asserts that these attempts at canonization ripened during the

early seventeenth century.17 Indeed, the people who produced knowledge in the core

Ottoman lands, that is to say, Rumelia and Anatolia provinces, were related loosely

or strictly with the learned class, ilmiyye, of the Ottoman imperial apparatus. The

other avenue in which early modern Ottoman intellectuals gathered and produced

knowledge were Sufi groups that flourished especially during the post-Mongol and

the so-called ‘Beylik period’ of late thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.18

Nonetheless, concomitant with the consolidation of Ottoman state power during the

course of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, these various Sufi groups came

under the strict surveillance of the state. It could thus be asserted that although these

Sufi orders could act independently in previous centuries, during the above

mentioned later periods, especially ever increasingly during the Ottoman-Safavid

17 Gottfried Hagen, “The order of knowledge, the knowledge of order: Intellectual life”in Suraiya N.

Faroqhi and Kate Fleet, eds., The Cambridge History of Turkey, 1 edition (New York: Cambridge

University Press, 2012), 407.

18 For detailed account of the expansion of Sufi orders and convents see, Ahmet Yaşar Ocak, “ Social,

Cultural, and Intellectual Life, 1071-1453”, in Kate Fleet, ed., The Cambridge History of Turkey, 1

edition (Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 353-423, For the establishment

of the Ottoman Principality and its role during the 14th century see, Cemal Kafadar, Between Two

Worlds: The Construction of the Ottoman State (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press,

1996).

8

conflict which culminated first in the Battle of Çaldıran (1514) and then the period of

intermittent wars up until the late seventeenth century, the Sufi orders which marked

as ‘dangerous’ to the Ottoman imperial authority and its accepted Hanafi-Sunni creed

were persecuted and Sufi orders tentatively acted in harmony with the Ottoman

state.19 This historical condition also demonstrates that the second branch of early

modern Ottoman intellectual circles is also related, in certain respects, with the

Ottoman imperial ideology. Furthermore, these two branches are not completely

separate social groups; a madrasa educated person could be associated with one of

the Sufi orders or he could be Sufi-minded scholar.

As the institution of madrasa was being formulated as an imperial one during

the course of fifteenth century, the people who were educated in these institutions

became inevitably associated with the Ottoman imperial apparatus. As such, these

Ottoman madrasas like the semāniye as one of the components Mehmet II mosque

complex (completed in 1470) became the crucial establishment for not only the

education of religious officials and judicial cadres, but also it provided human source

for the bureaucratic cadres of the imperial state apparatus.20

Apart from their official duties, the members of Ottoman ilmiyye also were

intellectuals who produced works in literary genres such as historiography,

geography, cosmography and poetry.21 For instance, the famous historians of

sixteenth century such as Mustafa Ali and Celalzade Mustafa were part of the

Ottoman imperial apparatus; moreover, these two figures, especially Celalzade

19 For detailed information of this transformation in the historical condition of Sufi orders see, Derin

Terzioğlu, “Sufis in the age of state-building and confessionalization” in Christine Woodhead, ed.,

The Ottoman World, 1 edition (Routledge, 2013), 86-103.

20 For the detailed account of the emergence of imperial judicial and bureaucratic cadres see,

Abdurrahman Atcil, “The Formation of the Ottoman Learned Class and Legal Scholarship (1300–

1600)” (PhD Diss., University of Chicago, 2010).

21 In his essay, Hagen thematically divides the production of knowledge primarily among

historiography, geography, and cosmography see, Hagen, “The order of knowledge, the knowledge of

order”.

9

Mustafa, spoke from within the Ottoman imperial discourse, in whose formulation

they partook.22 That is to say, as the head of imperial chancery (the office of nişancı);

Celalzade was responsible for the formulation of the various imperial titles that

Ottoman sultans consistently used for different audiences.23Due to their similar

educational background, what we observe is ilmiyye’s self-awareness as a sociocultural

group that experienced and worked through the same body of religious and

cultural knowledge, such as medieval Islamicate knowledge and Persianate forms of

prose. In this vein, Hagen suggests that with regards to Ottoman knowledge

production, there is an element of ‘philosophical and epistemological

interconnectedness’ across different genres.24 Along with this remark, certain literary

genres of medieval Islamicate intellectual production such as thirteenth century

geographer and cosmographer Zakariya al-Qazwini’s ꜤAcâîbü’l Maḫluḳat, ‘book of

wonders’, were widely used, translated, and its themes adopted by early modern

Ottoman intellectual circles in various other literary genres up until the late

seventeenth century.25 This genre as an encyclopaedic compendium of the universe

in general, stretches from the description of cities, mountains, rivers to the discussion

of demons and talismans. As such, the wide circulation of this genre hints at the

partial continuation of Aristotelian-Ptolemiac knowledge complexes which

dominated the medieval Islamicate perceptions of cosmos in the early modern

Ottoman intellectual scene.26 I say partial due to the fact that as this study will try to

22 See, Cornell H. Fleischer, Bureaucrat and Intellectual in the Ottoman Empire: The Historian

Mustafa Âli (1541-1600), Princeton Studies on the Near East (Princeton, N.J: Princeton University

Press, 1986), Kaya Şahin, Empire and Power in the Reign of Süleyman: Narrating The Sixteenth-

Century Ottoman World, Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2013).

23 See, Christine Woodhead, “Celalzade Mustafa Çelebi,” Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE, eds. Kate

Fleet, Gudrun Krämer, Denis Matringe, John Nawas, Everett Rowson,(Brill, 2017-2018)

24 Hagen, “The order of knowledge, the knowledge of order”, 411.

25 Hagen, “The order of knowledge, the knowledge of order”, 412-14.

26 For the discussion of Ottoman versions of book of wonders see, Marinos Sariyannis, “Ajāʾib ve

Gharāʾib: Ottoman Collections of Mirabilia and Perceptions of the Supernatural,” Der Islam 92, no. 2

10

unearth, within the context of early modern Eurasian geography, cultural exchange

between different geographies and the takeover of Constantinople in 1453 had

crucial implications on the intellectual production and exchange in Ottoman realms.

In particular during the reign of Mehmed II, it could be observed that there is a

considerable increase in cultural exchange between Italian city-states and Mehmed

II’s recently conquered capital, Kostantiniyye.27

For the historical writing in the early modern Ottoman realm, Hagen’s remark

on the conceptualization of time by Ottoman intellectuals is important for the

purpose of the study. I’ve mentioned that the majority of early modern Ottoman

intellectuals one way or another were associated with Ottoman imperial power

structures. In this manner, Hagen suggests that, as these Ottoman chroniclers recount

the history of the dynasty they swore allegiance to or the events surrounding their

empire, there emerges an inevitable impact of their personal experience on these

events.28 In some cases, they are even present in the scene, as in the case of Mustafa

Ali’s Nusretnāme which he wrote as a participant in the long Safavid campaign of

1578-1590.29 Moreover, another important remark of Gottfried Hagen is that early

modern Ottoman historians have different conceptions of time in the sense that their

conceptualization contains the present and mythical pasts.30 This study, too, pursues

and defines these varies notions of the past, albeit in a slightly different

conceptualization. For the process of canonization and standardization, Hagen

suggests that since the late 1400s, the utilization of Persianate literary models largely

(2015): 442–467, Günay Kut, “Türk Edebiyatında Acâibü’l Mahlükat Tercümleri Üzerine”, in Beşinci

Milletlerarası Türkoloji Kongresi Bildiriler (Istabul:Istanbul Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırma Merkezi,

1985), 183-93.

27 Gülru Necı̇poğlu, “Visual Cosmopolitanism and Creative Translation: Artistic Conversations with

Renaissance Italy in Mehmed II’s Constantinople,” Muqarnas 29, no. 1 (March 27, 2012): 1–81.

28 Hagen defines this phenomenon as ‘historiography as individual memory’ see, Hagen, “The order

of knowledge, the knowledge of order”, 444.

29 Mustafa bin Ahmet Âli, H. Mustafa Eravcı, and Mehmet Şeker, Nusret-nâme, Türk Tarih Kurumu

Yayınları III-2. Dizi - Sayı 7 (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2014).

30 Hagen, “The order of knowledge, the knowledge of order”, 440-43.

11

appropriated from Timurid historical writings31 had a huge impact on both the

dynastic histories i.e. tevārīḫ-i āl-i Osmān and world histories one of the most crucial

examples being Mustafa Ali’s universal history, Künhü’l-Ahbar.32

The emergence and development of early modern Ottoman intellectual

production may be traced to the first writings in Ottoman Turkish such as Ahmedi’s

Iskendernāme which includes a history of the Ottoman dynasty33 and Ahmed Bican’s

Dürr-i Meknün34 which is an eschatological and cosmographical work35, from early

and mid-fifteenth century. If we narrow down our scope into the branch of historical

writing, one can observe that the chronicles of Ottoman dynasty (tevārīḫ-i āl-i

Osmān), most of them being anonymous, that began to emerge during the mid and

late-15th century, have various ideological stances and they are far from having

spoken from within the newly emerging Ottoman imperial discourse. However, the

emergence of such chronicles, as Halil Inalcık points out rightfully in his seminal

article, is somewhat related with the imperial project that was initiated by Mehmed II

following the takeover of Constantinople and the specific historical consciousness

that emerged as a way of perceiving this grandiose imperial project.36 In a recent

study, Dimitris Kastritsis also discusses the emergence of specific historical

consciousness especially during the reign of Bayezid II. The late fifteenth century,

thus, was a period during which the oral and written narratives were compiled and

31 For the detailed discussion of the development of specific forms of historical prose during the

Mongol and Timurid periods see, Charles Melville, “The Mongol and the Timurid Periods, 1250-

1500”, in Charles Melville, ed., Persian Historiography: A History of Persian Literature (London ;

New York: I.B. Tauris, 2012), 155-206 .

32 Hagen, “The order of knowledge, the knowledge of order”, 448-49.

33 Hagen, “The order of knowledge, the knowledge of order”, 446, also see, Kemal Silay, “Ahmedi’s

History of the Ottoman Dynasty”, Journal of Turkish Studies 16 (1992),129-200.

34 Ahmet Bican, Dürr-i Meknûn: inceleme, çevriyazı, dizin, tıpkıbasım ed.Ahmet Demirtaş, 1. baskı,

Yayın sıra, no. 8 (İstanbul: Akademik Kitaplar, 2009).

35 For the eschatological aspects of Ahmed Bican’s work see, Kaya Şahin, “Constantinople and the

End Time: The Ottoman Conquest as a Portent of the Last Hour,” Journal of Early Modern History

14, no. 4 (January 1, 2010): 317–54.

36 Halil Inalcık, “The Rise of Ottoman Historiography”, in Bernard Lewis and P. M. Holt, eds.,

Historians of the Middle East, (London: Oxford University Press, 1962), 152.

12

developed in the genre of tevārīḫ.37 Besides, prior to the emergence of a historical

consciousness especially during the reign of Bayezid II, Cemal Kafadar discusses the

Ottoman self-perception of ghazi and ghaza identity in the context of the

development of literary production in Ottoman Turkish during the course of

fiffteenth century. In his seminal book, Kafadar suggests that this identity was a

cultural construct of fifteenth century chronicles, conquest narratives, and

hagiographies.38 Burgeoning Ottoman historical consciousness of which we observe

its upstarts especially after the catastrophic defeat of Ottomans at the hand of

Timurids triggered the early fifteenth century Ottoman authors to contemplate the

possible errors of Bayezid I’s emirate. During this period, one observes the transition

from oral culture to a written one.39 The reason for the explanation of the

development of first historical accounts and the ‘chronicles of Ottoman dynasty’ in

fifteenth century is that one of the sources this study analyses, namely, a late

fifteenth century anonymous text about Constantinopolitan and Hagia Sophian

legends, is located in an anonymous chronicle of Ottoman dynasty dated back 1491.

Moreover, most of these chronicles of Ottoman dynasty establish a foundational

myth of the dynasty like relating Osman’s tribe to the glorious Kayıs of Oghuz Turks

genealogically. According to the Halil Inalcık, the above mentioned example is a 15th

century invention in order to claim Ottoman’s supremacy over other Turkic

emirates40 that were still active especially after their restoration due to the Timur’s

victory in 1402. Therefore, we observe foundation myths of Constantinople and

legendary narratives of Hagia Sophia’s construction are related somewhat to the

37 Dimitris J. Kastritsis, eds., An Early Ottoman History: The Oxford Anonymous Chronicle(Bodleian

Library, Ms Marsh 313), (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2017), 5-6.

38 Cemal Kafadar, Between Two Worlds: The Construction of the Ottoman State (Berkeley, Calif.:

University of California Press, 1996), 94.

39 Kafadar, Between Two Worlds, 95.

40 Inalcık, “The Rise of Ottoman Historiography”, 156.

13

ethos of the chronicles of Ottoman dynasty which is a genre that establishes the

foundation myths of the house of Osman. Another important point with regard to

tevārīḫ genre is that as Kafadar and Inalcık demonstrate some of these texts written

during Bayezid II’s reign were highly critical towards the imperial project of

Mehmed II.41 The people who mostly belong to ghazi-dervish milieu were

marginalized and some of their hereditary properties confiscated by newly emerging

centralized imperialized apparatus of Mehmed II.42 Unfortunately, we do not know

the social and cultural backgrounds of the author of the anonymous chronicle of

Ottoman dynasty written in 1491, one of the texts this study takes into consideration.

Nonetheless, one of the authors of tevārīḫ, Aşıkpaşazade (d. after 1484)43, gives us a

great example the diversity within the textual tradition of tevārīḫ. Coming from a

prominent ghazi-dervish family, Aşıkpaşazade’s chronicle of Ottoman dynasty

shows us the diverse perceptions of different social groups, ghazi-dervish milieu,

towards Mehmed II’s centralizing imperial enterprise. Also his incorporation of

alleged menākıb of Yahşi Fakih whom Aşıkpaşazade introduces as the son of

Ottoman Sultan Orhan’s imam is important because it demonstrates to us the tangible

connections of Aşıkpaşazade with ghazi-dervish milieu.44 Turning back to the

anonymous chronicle of 1491, since it has similar critical voice towards Mehmed II’s

imperial project and it includes the Hagia Sophian narrative within the text, this

whole discussion of the particular textual tradition of tevārīḫ is I think important for

the purposes of this study. Furthermore, It will also help during the course of this

41 Inalcık, “The Rise of Ottoman Historiography”, 165-66.

42 Kafadar, Between Two Worlds, 97.

43 For preliminary information see, Gabriel Piterberg, “Aşıkpaşazade”, in, Encyclopaedia of Islam,

third edition, eds.Kate Fleet, Gudrun Krämer, Denis Matringe, John Nawas, Everett Rowson, Brill,

2012.

44 For the detailed explanation of Yahşi Fakih and importance of his menakıb in the context of

Ottoman historiography see, Kafadar, Between Two Worlds, 96, Inalcık, “The Rise of Ottoman

Historiography”.

14

study to evaluate the main source i.e. Ilyas Arabi’s work on the foundation of

Istanbul and the narrative of Hagia Sophia’s construction.

1.4 Ilyas Arabi’s Risale and introduction to the sources

Within this general framework, how could we locate the main source I will discuss

i.e. Ilyas Arabi’s work on the Constantinople legends and the construction narrative

of Hagia Sophia? Unfortunately, the author does not have any known work other

than his history of Istanbul; the only clue about his professional life is that he refers

himself as a teacher (muꜤallim) in the service of the Grand Vizier Ali Paşa (in office

1561-1566)45. Conjecturing from this short remark, it could be surmised that Ilyas

Arabi was a member of Ali Paşa’s household and it could tentatively be stated that

Ali Paşa is the possible commissioner of the work. Along with the connection

between Ilyas Arabi and Ali Paşa, as it was explained at the beginning, it is important

to bear in mind that Ali Paşa was the governor of Egypt in 1549-1553 and he played

a pivotal role in bringing the two huge granite marbles from Egypt to Istanbul for the

construction of Süleymaniye mosque complex.46 As it will become clear from the

outset of the in-depth textual analysis of Ilyas Arabi’s work, his prose is by no means

comparable to the top quality authors of sixteenth century Ottoman intellectual

circles such as Celalzade Mustafa and Mustafa Ali. Nonetheless, one should discuss

Ilyas Arabi in the context of transformation of Ottoman historical writing into a

different level during the reign of Süleyman I (d.1566). As Kaya Şahin suggests, as

45 Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des manuscrits,

Turc 147, 2r, also for brief information on Ali Paşa see, Erhan Afyoncu, ‘Semiz Ali Paşa’ in TDV

Islam Ansiklopedisi.

46 The transliterated correspondence between Ali Paşa and the capital demonstrates the apparent role

Ali Paşa played in providing the materials for Süleymaniye,Ömer Lütfi Barkan, Süleymaniye Cami ve

imareti inşaatı (1550-1557) vol.2, (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1972), 13-15.

15

the Ottoman imperial identity reached its maturation both in the dynastic and in the

elite mindset, the historical works written by the members of Ottoman imperial

apparatus reflected the general intellectual mindset pertaining to the empire, the

sultan, and the realm in general.47

As for Ilyas Arabi’s place in the context of early modern Ottoman intellectual

life, this study claims that in terms of the literary patterns and idioms he utilizes, he

is a part of the process of canonization and standardization outlined above.

Nonetheless, two disclaimers need to be put forth; firstly, although Hagen’s remarks

on ‘standardization’ and ‘canonization’ are compatible with the literary and

intellectual development during the course of fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth

centuries, there was indeed no monolithic canonized and standardized pattern of

thought in early modern Ottoman intellectual circles, although these people might

have conjoined on similar discourses at particular points. Secondly, when we look

into to the general literary expressions of Ilyas Arabi, we may note that he does not

exhibit the degree of literary sophistication as we observe for instance in Mustafa

Ali’s works. Does this make Ilyas’ text a peripheral one? Or could one suggest that

this is a work that is connected rather to the popular culture of the era? If we answer

this question from the point of view of popular/elite culture binaries the answer

would be no due to the fact that this study methodologically denies utilizing such

binaries in the analysis of early modern culture and early modern Ottoman culture in

particular.48 However, if we look into this question in accordance with the genre in

which Ilyas Arabi writes, i.e. Ottoman versions of Byzantine narratives about the

construction of Hagia Sophia, the incorporation of popular oral traditions are highly

47 Şahin, Empire and Power in the Reign of Süleyman, 161-5.

48 For the problematization of this binary opposition and a brief historiographical survey see, Peter

Burke, Popular Culture in Early Modern Europe, 3 edition (Farnham, England ; Burlington, VT:

Routledge, 2009), Bob Scribner, “Is a History of Popular Culture Possible?,” History of European

Ideas 10, no. 2 (January 1, 1989): 175–91.

16

possible. Furthermore, the lore of Hagia Sophian and Constantinopolitan legends

most of which were filtered from medieval Islamicate and Byzantine sources were

part of the early modern Ottoman intellectual canon that included dynastic

chronicles, world histories, and works of geography. That being said, we observe that

this lore was narrated in these texts in manners that differed from the Islamicate and

Byzantine predecessors, although they had some thematic patterns in common. It is

one of the purposes of this study to discuss and explain at least some aspects of the

Constantinopolitan lore, which were incorporated into a considerable number of

early modern Ottoman works belonging to a variety of genres. In the end, the Hagia

Sophian and Constantinopolitan narratives may be regarded as a part of an urban

collective memory and at the same time, as representations of the city’s legendary

past and its primary monument at the intellectual level. In her seminal book on

Istanbul, Çiğdem Kafescioğlu suggests that when the Ottomans took over the city

they appropriated and adopted the city’s ancient heritage, its monumental landscape,

and its past. Nonetheless, they did that selectively, example is given how Hagia

Sophia converted into an imperial congregational mosque, and the equestrian statue

of Justinian I of which our sources mention, was torn down.49 Thus, Ilyas Arabi’s

contemplation on Kostantiniyye, ‘the city of Constantine’ as it is was frequently

named in official imperial orders50, alongside historical and literary works, presents

an interesting example within a distinctive genre and intellectual practice within the

context of early modern Ottoman intellectual circles, whereby the legend and the

monument were commemorated.

As it has been noted, the main source that I have analysed for this study is

Ilyas Arabi’s Risale-yi Istanbul or Tarih-i Kostantiniyye. Not much is known about

49 Cigdem Kafescioglu, Constantinopolis/Istanbul: Cultural Encounter, Imperial Vision, and the

Construction of the Ottoman Capital, (Penn State University Press, 2010), 4.

50 It is mention commonly as Mahruse-i Kostantiniyye, ‘the protected city of Constantine’.

17

him except his self-professed service to Ali Paşa (d.1565) as discussed above. I have

particularly looked into two copies of Ilyas Arabi’s work; one is from French

National Library51, the other is from the Topkapı Museum Library.52 Both copies are

from the mid-seventeenth century, which indicates a preliminary circulation of the

text due to the fact that the author mentions the date hijra 970 for the completion of

his text which corresponds to 1562-63, hence there is almost a century between these

two copies and the original date of Ilyas Arabi’s work. The text starts with the

presentation of seven hills of the city each of which was marked by a particular

monument, which seems an apparent digression from the earlier versions of

Constantinopolitan and Hagia Sophian legends; and it continues with the narratives

of the prophet Solomon. After that Ilyas Arabi recounts the legendary founder of the

city Yanko bin Madyan. This character has enigmatic roots and within textual

framework of Ilyas Arabi and other texts of the genre. His very act of building the

city, and the building projects of which Ilyas Arabi denotes as accursed and

blasphemous because of Yanko’s desire to be worshipped by his people. Following

Yanko bin Madyan, Ilyas Arabi recounts another builder of the city Buzantin, the son

of Yanko, and then Constantine, the Christian founder of the city. Throughout the

text, one would observe that perhaps the most important trait of being a ruler comes

with being a builder of great monuments. Therefore, when we speak of the way Ilyas

Arabi discusses these rulers, they will be occasionally mentioned as ‘builder-rulers’

due to their inseparable presentation throughout Ilyas Arabi’s work. From

Constantine, Ilyas Arabi finally recounts the construction narrative of Hagia Sophia

which he narrates along with his representation of Justinian I as an honourable

‘builder-ruler’ before giving a short commentary on Ottoman dynastic edifices up

51 Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des manuscrits,

Turc 147 .

52 Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Tarih-i Kostantiniyye, Topkapı Palace Museum, H.1640.

18

until his times. What perhaps renders Ilyas Arabi’s text as captivating is his

incorporation of the Ottoman dynastic edifices into the textual tradition he performs.

In other words, he incorporates and makes short commentaries on these Ottoman

dynastic edifices as an appendix to the legendary narratives of Hagia Sophia and

Constantinople. Ilyas Arabi’s ‘presentism’ in this issue gives us a valuable insight

into the work of an Ottoman author who contemplates the legendary and Byzantine

pasts of the cityscape in terms his own present. Furthermore, one should also bear in

mind that he writes his work several years after completion of Süleymaniye mosque

(1557).

In comparison with Ilyas Arabi’s book on Istanbul, I have perused into

Şemseddin Karamani’s narrative of Hagia Sophia.53 The copy I have analysed is the

Turkish translation of Şemseddin’s original Persian text which he wrote in 1480.

Moreover, the comparison between Şemseddin and Ilyas Arabi’s text proves to be

fruitful due to their obvious textual liaison. It is also telling that Şemseddin’s text

seems more of a direct translation of the original Byzantine text of the narrative of

Hagia Sophia written somewhere between eighth and tenth centuries according to

Gilbert Dagron.54 As a third crucial component, I have looked into the text that was

incorporated into the anonymous Tevārīḫ-i āl-i ‘Osman written in 1491; for this text,

I have used the transliteration made by Freidrich Giese in Stephanos Yerasimos’

comprehensive study of the Constantinopolitan legends and Hagia Sophian

narratives.55

An important remark on these different texts is about their political stance.

We have discussed before that during the reign of Bayezid II, a considerable amount

53 Şemseddin Karamani, Ha-za Tarih beyan-ı bina-i Ayasofya-i Kebir, Istanbul Universitesi

Kütüphanesi, T.259.

54 Gilbert Dagron, Constantinople Imaginaire : Études sur le recueil des Patria, (Presses

Universitaires de France, 1984), 22.

55 Stefanos Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, trans.Şirin Tekeli(İletişim, 2012).

19

of histories criticized the policies of Mehmed II and his urban and centralizing

imperial project. The Anonymous text of 1491 which will be termed as such during

the course of this study is one of the examples of this anti-imperial attitude as it is

discussed by Stephanos Yerasimos. Nonetheless, Derviş Şemseddin’s text, contrary

to the Anonymous text of 1491, has a pro-imperial attitude.56 As for the Ilyas Arabi’s

political attitude, I offer a middle ground between Şemseddin and the Anonymous

text of 1491. That is to say, as an author who apparently used Şemseddin and the

Anonymous text of 1491 in his work57, his political concerns are less than the two

former texts. As Yerasimos noticed, his narrative is politically mild and without

much political or religious problematizations.58

The last category of primary sources is from outside the genre of

Constantinopolitan and Hagia Sophian legends. The first one is Evliya Çelebi’s first

volume of Seyahatname, which is much of a book of Istanbul with its diverse

aspects. The second one is the chief architect Sinan’s autobiographies co-authored

with the painter/poet Sai Çelebi. Although these two sources are very different in

terms of historical and literary contexts, they are viable sources that are comparable

with the main primary sources which are categorized under the rubric of Ottoman

versions of Constantinopolitan and Hagia Sophian legends.

As for the secondary literature, several works needs to be underlined for the

purposes of clarification for the following sections of this study. The first and

foremost secondary source that this study has constantly used as a quasi-guidebook is

Stefanos Yerasimos’ comprehensive work on the Constantinopolitan and Hagia

56 Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 193-94

57 See Yerasimos short section on Ilyas Arabi, Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 325-

38.

58 Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 328.

20

Sophian legends.59 Yerasimos’ study gives a massive background of

Constantinopolitan and Hagia Sophian legends which began during late antiquity and

continued to circulated and read throughout the eastern Mediterranean cultural

universe. Filtered both from medieval Islamicate literary production and Byzantine

cultural heritage that began to be inherited since the early Ottomans, this study

reveals the preliminary paths in which Ottoman versions of legends burgeoned and

produced its own texts with novel features. Furthermore, Yerasimos work is the first

one to analyse these analyse these texts according to their political attitudes towards

Ottoman dynasty, by dividing them into pro and anti imperial ones. Related with

Yerasimos’ work, Gilbert Dagron’s comprehensive study on late tenth century Patria

text, Constantinople Imaginaires is yet another important source for the purposes of

this study. In this work, Dagron traces back the origins of Patria text to the late

antiquity and compares it to the other Byzantine literary traditions pertaining to the

city and its architecture. The most important element in the Byzantine Patria is the

Hagia Sophia section of the work which bears many similarities with the Ottoman

versions of Hagia Sophian narratives. Last but not least, Gülru Necipoğlu’s article on

the Hagia Sophia contributed greatly to the evolution of this study and it is referred

consistently. In this article, Gülru Necipoğlu pursues to Hagia Sophia’s

transformation all the way from its conversion into a congregational mosque and

later additions to it that changed both the interior and the exterior of the monument.

All in all, what is conveyed in this article is that Hagia Sophia is a monument that

lived and transformed not only in an architectural sense but also with its narratives

and legends surrounding it.

59 Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri.

21

1.5 The importance of the spolia in the context of the study

One of the main topics of this study is the issue and the perception of spolia

in the early modern Ottoman text that I have looked into. In relation with the practice

of spolia, this particular perception of spolia and of monument, I propose the

presence of a peculiar aesthetic outlook for the early modern Ottoman authors. That

being said, this particular early modern Ottoman aesthetics also goes hand in hand

with a broader early modern Ottoman patterns of thought that is beyond the scope of

this study.

The issue of spolia in the context of late medieval and early modern

Islamicate societies has been studied by a number of important scholars up until now.

For instance, Scott Redford study on the practice of spolia in thirteenth century

building activities of the Seljukid rulers of gives us clues for the later practices and

continuation of the spolia practices in the lands of Rum. In this concise article, Scott

Redford points out the issue the Seljuks of Rum admired the architectural remnants

of ancient societies. Furthermore, there was an apparent abundance in ancient

edifices and material from these edifices. Somewhat in accordance with the

widespread Byzantine use of ancient materials, Seljukid practice of spolia was

widespread as well.60 It is also interesting to note that Byzantine mentality with

regard to talismanic and apotropaic powers of the marbles and ancient materials

continued in the Seljukid practices of spolia in Konya, Sinop and Alanya citadels.61

Indeed, references to ancient past in Seljukid case are two-fold. While appropriating

60 Scott Redford, “The Seljuqs of Rum and the Antique,” Muqarnas 10 (1993), 148, for a recent and

comprehensive book on the issue of spolia in the context of Anatolia see, Suzan Yalman and Ivana

Jevtic, eds., Spolia Reincarnated: Afterlives of Objects, Materials, and Spaces in Anatolia from

Antiquity to the Ottoman Era, (Istanbul: Anamed, 2018).

61 Redford, “The Seljuqs of Rum and the Antique,” 149-50.

22

the Greco-Roman past, one observes the references to the Persianate mythical

elements from Firdawsi’s eleventh century epic work Shahname.62

As for the Ottoman period Robert Ousterhout’s article on the early Ottoman

and late Byzantine architectural practices are telling. Ousterhout asserts an ‘overlap’

between the two by stating that how the early Ottoman architecture differs from the

other Anatolian principalities and how the early Ottoman architecture bears

resemblance with that of local Byzantine craftsmanship.63 In addition, Ousterhout’s

remark on the early Ottoman architecture as the reflection of the intricate early

Ottoman socio-cultural universe is crucial. The utilization of spolia was not an act of

domination of triumph. On the contrary, it was an act of integration, incorporation

and continuation of a Byzantine architectural practice. Moreover, the fact that the

Byzantine craftsmen and workshops were possibly used by early Ottoman builders

means that they were not outsiders. They comprised a considerable part of the early

Ottoman society. Nevertheless, in an another article, Ousterhout claims that

conversion of the main churches of Byzantine cities like Hagia Sophia at Iznik and

ultimately the great church of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople were definitely the

acts of domination and triumph. Be that as it may, according to Ousterhout, these

acts still acknowledged the Christian past of these monuments.64

Another recent important study on the utilization of ancient materials and cultural

implications is Zeynep Yürekli’s study on the two Bektashi shrines, namely, Seyyid

Gazi in Eskişehir, and Hacı Bektaş Veli in Nevşehir. Through giving evidence from

62 Redford, “The Seljuqs of Rum and the Antique,” 154-55.

63 Robert Ousterhout, “Ethnic Identity and Cultural Appropriation in Early Ottoman Architecture,”

Muqarnas 12 (1995): 50-53.

64 Robert Ousterhout, “The East, the West, and the Appropriation of the Past in Early Ottoman

Architecture,” Gesta 43, no. 2 (2004): 168-69, for a detailed architectural and multi-cultural aspects

of early Ottoman building activity see, Zeynep Yürekli, “ Architectural Patronage and the Rise of the

Ottomans”, in Finbarr Barry Flood and Gülru Necipoğlu, eds., A Companion to Islamic Art and

Architecture, Wiley-Blackwell Companions to Art History 12 (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc,

2017), 733-50.

23

the Byzantine spolia especially in Seyyid Gazi shrine65, Yürekli suggests that firstly,

the practice of spolia is a shared architectural practice since late antiquity in the

Mediterranean context.66 Secondly, by pointing out the conspicuous use of spolia in

Seyyid Gazi and Hacı Bektaş shrines which is not the case for the standard spolia

practice for the sixteenth century Ottoman architecture, Yürekli suggests that the

patrons of these two shrines, who belonged to ghazi-dervish milieu, try to challenge

their disaffected position of their community through a practice of spolia that is in

odds with the common practice of the time.67 That is to say, use of spolia is not about

only the appropriating and embracing the ancient past. It has socio-political

implications as well. Furthermore, throughout this study, we will observe the diverse

implications of spolia both on textual and architectural levels.

1.6 Outline of the study

The first chapter titled “Narratives of Distant Past: of Monumental and Material

Genealogies”, will look at the narratives pertaining to the foundation of Istanbul or in

Ottoman idiom also Şehr-i Konstantiniyye (Constantinople). We will look into the

attitudes of above-mentioned Ottoman intellectuals with regards to the Christian and

pagan past of the city. Nonetheless, the main body of this chapter will consist of a

discussion of Ilyas Ali’s attitude towards the city’s legendary past. Ilyas conceives

the city as a part of wondrous history (Ꜥacībü’l acāīb rüzgārdır)68 and continues that

along with the use of other chronicles/histories and oral traditions, he also claims that

65 Zeynep Yürekli, Architecture and Hagiography in the Ottoman Empire: The Politics of Bektashi

Shrines in the Classical Age, Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Studies (Farnham, Surrey :

Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2012), 79.

66 Yürekli, Architecture and Hagiography in the Ottoman Empire, 96.

67 Yürekli, Architecture and Hagiography in the Ottoman Empire, 139-40.

68 Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, 2r.

24

he has written some parts of his book through observation (kimi müşāhededen)69; this

becomes a crucial point within the narrative due to the fact that while narrating some

of these distant stories, Ilyas makes comparisons with the present conditions and

places within the city’s landscape. The narration of legendary and prophetic pasts of

the city consistently invokes the present topography of the city within Ilyas’ text.

The second chapter, “Narratives of a Monument; Hagia Sophia between materiality

and narrativity” will investigate in depth the narrative of construction of Hagia

Sophia in Ilyas Ali’s manuscript. As the main method suggests, Ilyas Ali’s narrative

of Hagia Sophia will be put in a cross-reading with the different versions of the

Hagia Sophia narrative written by Ottoman intellectuals that are mentioned above.

To give an example, Ilyas’ narrative with regard to the materiality of Hagia Sophia

implies that his depiction of Angels at the four sides of the dome and his

astonishment70 could be gleaned from his point of view as an ‘observer’. Comments

on the materiality of the building are juxtaposed with the distant narratives from

Byzantine past, which had considerable importance for the early modern Ottoman

intellectuals and thus, for their understanding of the histories of the urban topography

itself. As such, the same modes of narrative appear in Evliya’s description of Hagia

Sophia in the Seyahatname. Evliya demonstrates his astonishment and admiration

pertaining to the materials, icons, and decorations in Hagia Sophia. His discussion of

ehl-i nazar, masters of looking/gazing, reveals the crucial place of peculiar mode of

looking at a monument within the context of early modern Ottoman mentalities that

this study will discuss. In a recent article, Gülru Necipoğlu traces back this issue of

different modes of looking to medieval Islamicate knowledge, speaks of the

‘scrutinizing gaze’ (iman-ı nazar) as an emergent aesthetic idiom during this

69 Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, 2v.

70 Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, 35v.

25

period.71 Necipoğlu argues that this mode of looking that emerged from medieval

Islamicate cultural milieu had an impact on the mentalities, aesthetics, and

intellectual outlook of early modern Islamicate empires such as Ottomans and

Safavids. Therefore, this mode of looking and the ‘subjectivity of gaze’ that is argued

by Necipoğlu proves to be beneficial for the premises of this study.72These diverse

perspectives directed at monuments and visual arts combined with the memory of

legendary pasts is in line with what this study tries to unravel when we look into

Ilyas’ perception of Hagia Sophia through its legendary narrative of construction.

Considering this argument with the expressions and idioms of Evliya and Ilyas, one

would encounter a similar disposition. Both authors, describe Hagia Sophia as if they

are strolling within the monument. Hagia Sophia, for them, remains as a monument

that delineates the city’s distant and multi-layered past. Therefore the term

monumental and material genealogy in this study serves as a viable concept that one

could utilize in relation with the representation of the imperial capital by early

modern Ottoman intellectuals. Tracing city’s origins back to the mythical figures

such as the prophet Solomon and Yanko bin Madyan, these authors give us a

representation of Kostantiniyye with its ancient builder-rulers and monuments. In the

case of builder-rulers, llyas emphasizes how they rendered the city as constructed

(maꜤmūr) and prosperous (abadān). In line with Ilyas Efendi, Evliya narrates the

history of Istanbul through the compilation of the builder-rulers (bānī) from the firstbuilder

being the prophet Solomon73 to the ninth builder Constantine the Great.74

Thus, according to these two Ottoman writers, the idea of rulership goes hand in

hand with that of being builder.

71 Gülru Necipoğlu, “The Scrutinizing Gaze in the Aesthetics of Islamic Visual Cultures: Sight,

Insıght, Desire”, Muqarnas 32, 2015, 24-61.

72 Necipoğlu, “The Scrutinizing Gaze in the Aesthetics of Islamic Visual Cultures”, 51-3.

73 Orhan ş. Gökyay. ,Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, vol.1, (İstanbul:Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 1996) , 11.

74 Evliya Çelebi, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, 18.

26

The importance of the juxtaposition of narrativity and materiality manifests

itself when looking at the autobiographies of the chief architect Sinan. This

juxtaposition opens up a new conceptual plane that this study will try to discuss and

establish. That is to say, through textual analysis of architectural idioms that denotes

these monumental spaces, one can explain and contextualize an early modern

Ottoman aesthetics. Thus, the third chapter of this study is titled “Narratives of an

Aesthetic mindset; Hagia Sophia as an Aesthetic Topos in the Context of Early

Modern Ottoman Mentalities”. In Tühfetü’l Mimarin the author speaks of Hagia

Sophia as unprecedented (āyasofya gibi Ꜥimāret ki bī-nazır-i ālem olub)75 .

Throughout the text, we observe that Hagia Sophia serves as a monumental threshold

from Sinan’s perspective. And he compares his works with that of Hagia Sophia; he

claims that he achieved the style of Hagia Sophia with refinement (nezāket). This is a

point that has been suggested by Gülru Necipoğlu. She claims that Sinan’s form does

not entail a mere novelty but it is an attempt of revision, refinement, and distillation

of the older architectural forms76, Hagia Sophia being at the top of references. For

instance, she states that the domical structure of Süleymaniye mosque complex

(central dome flanked by two half-dome) is a direct reference and challenge to the

Hagia Sophia. It can be seen from this point that references also imply the

challenges. While Sinan takes Hagia Sophia as an architectural/monumental

threshold, he also aims to surpass that architectural threshold. Considering the fact

that Sinan also gives references to Ottoman imperial monuments, a kind of

intertextuality of monuments can be seen at least for Sinan’s aesthetics of

architecture. Necipoğlu also points out that even though Sinan’s magnum opuses, the

75 Sinan’s autobiographies: five sixteenth century texts, ed. and tr. H. Crane and E. Akın, preface by

G. Necipoğlu (Leiden, 2006), 78.

76 Gülru Necipoğlu, “Challenging the Past: Sinan and the Competitive Discourse of Early Modern

Islamic Architecture”, Muqarnas, Vol. 10, (1993), 173.

27

Süleymaniye and Selimiye mosque complexes are in a competitive and referential

conversation with the Hagia Sophia, they transform themselves into a fresh idiom.77

In Tezkiret’ül Bünyān, when Sai Çelebi and Sinan (the author of Sinan’s

autobiographies, it could be seen that at certain points Sinan intervenes into the text

and the subject turns into ‘I’) speak of the construction process of the Süleymaniye

mosque complex, a parallel could be detected with regards to Ilyas’ narrative of

Hagia Sophia.

Last but not least, Evliya’s narrative method of evṣāf, meaning qualities in

Ottoman Turkish, will be discussed in line with both the discourse of Ottoman

aesthetics and Hagia Sophia. This study terms Evliya’s textual method as “evṣāf

narrative pattern”.78 This method becomes more visible and hierarchized when one

looks at Evliya’s narrative of three Ottoman capitals, most important them being

Istanbul. In the first chapter of the Istanbul volume of Seyahatname, Evliya starts to

describe the evṣāf of the mosques of Istanbul with that of Hagia Sophia79. Thus, one

can discern that Hagia Sophia as the architectural and monumental threshold operates

within Evliya’s extensive evṣāf narrative patterns.

To sum up, starting with the Hagia Sophia, or in Evliya’s words cāmiꜤ-i

Ayasoyfa-yı Kebīr, this study will trace the representations of this monument

between the mid-sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Representing a monument with

a considerably loaded past always implies particular sets of mentalities and the

historical conditions in which these mentalities emerged and operated. Furthermore,

if one would carry out a genealogy of Hagia Sophia in the realm of early modern

Ottoman mentalities, one would also have to discuss the narratives of the foundation

77 Gülru Necipoğlu, “Challenging the Past”, 176.

78 For a comprehensive survey of Evliya see. Robert Dankoff, An Ottoman Mentality: The World of

Evliya Çelebi,( Leiden:Brill, 2004).

79 Evliya Çelebi, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, 49.

28

of the Istanbul, which constitutes a representation of a rooted and distant past within

this textual framework. Therefore, this study aims to discuss these three-fold

conceptual planes (material and monumental genealogy, materiality/narrativity, and

early modern Ottoman aesthetics) by focusing on the Hagia Sophia as either a

monument or as representation. When Sai/Sinan speaks of the ornaments within the

Süleymaniye mosque, they state that it was left to world/time for model/example

(…dehre nümun kalmış…7)80. The word, dehr, means both the world and the time.

Architecture for early modern Ottoman mentalities signifies a sort of demarcation of

history (rüzgār) and time (dehr) whether it is a mythical or recent one. This study

will also discuss some of the words/idioms used within this set of sources for the

materiality of the monuments and buildings located within the urban topography.

This study will thus try to reach an understanding of early modern Ottoman

aesthetics, alongside its main research questions pertaining to early modern Ottoman

mentalities as gleaned through a particular genre of writing and contemplating on the

city and its past.

As a last remark, on the appendix, there is the transliteration of Ilyas Arabi’s

work which is based on the Paris copy. This appendix aims to provide the reader the

whole text so that they can compare it with the main arguments in the study as well

as to be used in further studies.

80H. Crane and E. Akın, Sinan’s autobiographies, 150.

29

CHAPTER 2

OF MONUMENTAL AND MATERIAL GENEALOGIES:

NARRATIVES OF DISTANT PAST(S)

2.1 Setting up the parameters

Even from an unassuming perspective, narrating a history of a city which has a

loaded past is a very versatile undertaking. And if we are speaking for the early

modern period, narrating the history of the city and the city itself resembles an

escaping from a labyrinth. The city of Istanbul/Islāmbol/Kosṭanṭiniyye81 in its variety

of idioms and all the written documents pertaining to it proves the intricacy of such

an enterprise. When the Ottomans took over the city, they also inherited the

monumental topography of the city which had been amalgamated since antiquity, the

‘wondrous’ and ‘marvellous’ columns82, and eventually its Romano-Byzantine

legacy. Most of the time these different layers of legacy intersected with one other;

columns had various stories that at least a considerable part of the city’s denizens

knew. The monuments were constructed and within a context of urban culture

legendary narratives emerged surrounding its building process. The literati of the

Ottoman imperial machine and the rulers, starting with the conqueror of the city

Mehmed II, were all well aware of these peculiarities of the city. When Mehmed II

81 The interchangeable perceptions of the city is well demonstrated on the title of Çiğdem

Kafescioğlu’s pioneering book see, Çiğdem Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis/Istanbul: Cultural

Encounter, Imperial Vision, and the Construction of the Ottoman Capital, Penn State Univesity Press,

2009.

82 The wondrous and marvellous, Ꜥacāīb and garāīb, are idioms that are widely used by early modern

Ottoman authors in relation to aesthetical notions and perceptions. For the detailed account of the

medieval Islamicate background of these idioms see, Persis Berlekamp, Wonder, Image, and Cosmos

in Medieval Islam, Yale University Press, 2011.

30

ordered for the translation of 10th century Byzantine compilation Patria, he also

incorporated the overall Constantinopolitan cultural baggage.83

This chapter attempts briefly at reviewing the narratives with regards to the

foundation of Istanbul or Kostantiniyye, the Arabicized version of Constantinople,

focusing on Ilyas Arabi’s account on the legends. I will compare Ilyas’ version on

the foundation of the city with that of anonymous text that is incorporated into

anonymous chronicle of Ottoman dynasty (Tevārīh-i āl-i osmān) dated 149184 and of

Evliya Çelebi’s brief commentary at the beginning of his travelogue. It would be

apparent during the course of subsequent chapters that even though the founding

fathers of the city and their legendary narratives may seem irrelevant to the modern

audience at a first glance, the narratives of legendary monuments in the abovementioned

sources would be interwoven with the present times of the authors. That is

to say, as it will be apparent during the course of this chapter, while narrating these

legendary monuments of Yanko bin Madyan and the prophet Solomon, most of them

feel the urge to indicate the place of such legendary edifices within their present

cityscape i.e. Kostantiniyye. The initial sections of this chapter will reflect primarily

Ilyas Arabi’s perception towards history and legends. This perception will also

establish a path for us within the course of İlyas’ narratives to the culminating point,

namely, the construction of Hagia Sophia, and as a continuation of Hagia Sophia’s

monumentality, Ottoman dynastic mosque complexes.85

83 Gülru Necipoğlu, “The Life of An Imperial Monument: Hagia Sophia After Byzantium” in Hagia

Sophia from the Age of Justinian to the Present ed.by Robert Mark and Ahmet S.Çakmak,

(Cambridge University Press, 1992)198.

84 For this thesis I will use the transcription Yerasimos uses in his book, see Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye

ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri.

85 For the brief discussion with regards to mosque complexes see. Gülru Necipoğlu “Dynastic

Imprints on the Cityscape: The Collective Message of Funerary Imperial Mosque Complexes in

Istanbul”. Ed. Jean-Louis Bacqué-Grammont. Colloque Internationale: Cimetières et traditions

funéraires dans le monde islamique , 1996, 23-36.

31

Before commencing a full-fledged comparative textual analysis, it is essential for the

purposes of this study to introduce the quite enigmatic author of Risale-i İstanbul,

namely, İlyas Arabi or ‘Ali el-Arabi İlyas’ as he mentions himself at the outset of his

work. Through the course of this study, I will mention him as İlyas Arabi. Not much

is known about him. Nonetheless, we could trace some clues about Ilyas Arabi while

he briefly mentions himself in the introductiory sections of his book. He states that

he is a teacher in the service of the vizier (Bu ḥaḳīr-i muꜤterifü’l-taḳṣīr Ꜥalī el-Ꜥarabī

ilyās el-faḳīr el-muꜤallim fī-ḫidmet-i ḥażretü’l-vezīr); the vizier being the Grand

Vizier Ali Paşa who was in office during 1561-1565 following the death of Rüstem

Paşa (d.1561). While İlyas Efendi mentions his service to Ali Paşa he uses an

intricate panegyric idiom interwoven with Persian and Arabic phrases, and at the end

of this part he mentions that he attempts at constructing a gift (muḫaṣṣar bir tuḥfe

binā idüb).86

It is not clear whether Grand Vizier Ali Paşa commissioned the writing of the

work or not, but it is apparent that this certain Ilyas was related with the grand

vizier’s household. According to Stephanos Yerasimos, İlyas Arabi’s Risale has a

number of copies in Paris, Berlin, and Vienna.87 In this study I will follow mainly the

Paris copy, but for the purposes of the critical assessment of the work, I will also

look into one Topkapı Palace library copy of İlyas Arabi, a copy that was apparently

omitted by Yerasimos.88 The biographical information pertaining to the life and the

profession of İlyas Efendi is unknown, except for his self-definition as a teacher (elmu

Ꜥallim). Due to this hindrance, aspects of the possible social and cultural context in

which İlyas Efendi had written this work will be briefly touched upon. İlyas states

that 970 years had passed since the hijra of the Prophet Muhammad when he

86 Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, 2r.

87 Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 371.

88 Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Tarih-i Kostantiniyye, Topkapı Palace Museum, H.1640.

32

completed this work.89 When this date is translated into Common Era it corresponds

to 1562-3, right in the middle of Ali Paşa’s term as grand vizier. The scribe of the

Paris copy is Rıdvan Abdü’l-Mannân and the date is Cumada 1043, corresponding to

November 1633.90 The scribe of the Topkapı manuscript is MesꜤud bin İbrahim bin

Emrullah who copied this work in 14 ṣeferü’l-ḫayr 104691, 18 July 1636. Therefore,

within a time span of about seventy years, İlyas Efendi’s work was copied and

circulated. The Paris copy has a distorted neshi script whereas the Topkapı copy has

a more readable one. To reiterate my argument, although İlyas Efendi and these two

copyists of his work remain relatively obscure to the current audience, at least we can

state that the text as a part of large component of the Byzantine narratives pertaining

to Hagia Sophia and the foundation of Constantinople was circulated to a degree.

Regarding the sources of İlyas Efendi, unfortunately, he does not mention any

specific work or author. Curiously, without any certain specification, İlyas Efendi

explains that he has narrated and analyzed the history of Istanbul and its monuments

through utilizing the histories (kimi tevārīḫden), the oral stories (kimi ağızdan), and

observations (kimi müşāhededen).92 Ilyas Arabi does not specify his sources but it

becomes apparent that these lines written right at the beginning of his work

demonstrate to us that he utilizes written works and orally transmitted narratives as

well as his own critical observations. Therefore, he has a certain methodology and

his emphasis on observation is worth mentioning due to the fact that especially

during the section in which Ilyas Efendi narrates the construction story of Hagia

Sophia, he follows more or less original Byzantine patriographies which includes the

89 “ve bu zamānda ki ḥażret resûlullah Ꜥaleyhisselāmıñ hicret-i şerīfelerinden ṭoḳūz yüz yetmīş yıl

munḳażż olmışdı.” Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, 2r.

90 Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, 45r.

91 Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Tarih-i Kostantiniyye, 55v.

92 Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, 2v.

33

construction narrative of Hagia Sophia93. Consequentially, it would be viable to

suggest his incorporation of personal observation can render this work more than a

rewriting or translation of the medieval Byzantine Patria texts.

2.2 A Tale of Seven Hills

Before Ilyas Arabi starts to narrate the the foundation and the early history of the city

of Constantine, in his own idiom, he establishes a topographical layout of the city.

This topographical setup is demarcated by certain monuments and edifices that are

located within the city space with a particular reference to the materials utilized in

their construction. Thinking in line with the title of this chapter and the conception I

propose i.e. ‘monumental and material genealogy’, this initial topographical and

monumental narration fits the conceptual framework I aim to follow.

According to Ilyas, the narrators of events (rāvīyān-ı aḫbār) and the tellers of

histories of time (ḫākīyān-ı tevārīḫ-i rüzgār) state that 5072 years passed after Adam

fell to this world and the place of the city was a triangular island.94 Ilyas states that

the sea passes through Eyüb Ensari side95, an extramural settlement named after the

famous companion of the Prophet Muhammad Eyyub el-Ensari due to the miraculous

discovery of his burial at the vicinity of this place during the takeover of 1453. He

died during an early Umayyad expedition towards the city. Around 1459, Mehmed II

93 The Patria genre and its relationship with İlyas’ work will be discussed in the second chapter but at

this point suffice it to refer the seminal book of Gilbert Dagron, see, Gilbert Dagron, Constantinople

Imaginaire : Études sur le recueil des Patria, (Presses Universitaires de France, 1984), also see the

introduction section of Albrect Berger’s translation of Patria of 995, Accounts of medieval

Constantinople: the Patria, trans. by Albrecht Berger, Harvard University Press, 2013, vii-xxi.

95 Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, 2v; The Topkapı palace copy also has exactly same line in this

section, see. Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Tarih-i Kostantiniyye, 3r.

34

built a tomb and mosque complex at the recently discovered burial site.96 The

digression from the main text is pivotal for the purposes of the subsequent narratives

in Ilyas Arabi’s work because throughout the initial sections of his work, until we

proceed to the narrative of Hagia Sophia’s construction (and there too to some

extent), it could be observed that İlyas Arabi fluctuates between the present and the

past; and he does this through a sort of spatial discourse. For instance, in this specific

beginning he is speaking of the very geographical beginnings of the city but he is

utilizing religio-cultural, religio-political and religio-historical signifiers that are

related to the ‘conquest’ and a recent past of the city. In this manner, the other two

angles of the city’s main topography are presented to the reader through edifices. On

the one side is the cape of the imperial palace (saray-ı Ꜥāmire); on the other side the

north-western edge of the triangle, is signified by the Tekfur Palace, the only

remaining compound from Blachernia Palace after the takeover. The third side of the

triangle is the side of Yedikule. After this brief overture, İlyas Efendi mentions seven

hills (yedi ṭāğ) through which they are demarcated by a certain monument or edifice

that is in connection with the city’s past.

Within this narrative of the spatial layout of the city, we encounter the

interplay between the topography, the past, and monumentality. Moreover, it is

visible that among this assemblage of the seven hills, there is a certain topographicalcum-

hierarchical correlation. Accordingly, the first hill is the site of the sui generis

monument of the city, Hagia Sophia. The second hill is located in the Dikilitaş, at the

environs of Tavuk Pazarı neighbourhood, that is, the ancient Forum of Constantine.

The third hill is the place of the Old Palace that is located nearby today’s Bayezid

96 Çiğdem Kafescioğlu, “Eyüp”, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Third Edition, Edited by: Kate Fleet,

Gudrun Krämer, Denis Matringe, John Nawas, Everett Rowson, 2016, for another assesment on the

construction of this funerary mosque mosque complexe see, Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis/Istanbul,

45-51.

35

square. The fourth hill takes the reader to the mosque complex of Mehmed II. The

fifth hill is the place of Sultan Selim mosque which is located uphill from today’s

Balat district. The sixth hill is in the place of Turcoman Convent ( Türkmen

Tekyesi).97 Actual location of this lodge is unknown but it is probably somewhere

between Yavuz Selim mosque complex and Edirnekapı, the last plateau that is

mentioned by Ilyas Efendi. Furthermore, if we inspect Ilyas Arabi’s taxonomy

closely, it would be visible that he denotes monuments or place along ‘Divan axis’ a

term Maurice Cerasi uses in his article on the city’s main ceremonial artery.98

Although some places such as Turcoman Convent remain marginal or ambiguous,

İlyas Arabi still utilizes this ‘Divan axis’ i.e. the route connecting Hagia Sophia to

Edirnekapı by invoking what Cerasi defines as the ‘urban collective memory’ and the

diverse functions of this multifaceted urban identity.99 That is to say, by the time

Ilyas Arabi was writing his work i.e. circa 1560, the Divan axis or the former

Byzantine mese, most of the primary imperial edifices and funerary mosque

complexes such as the Bayezid Mosque complex, the Old Palace, Mehmed II

mosque complex100 and Süleymaniye Mosque complex101 were already built; hence,

they already became the denominators of urban commemoration and imperial

ceremonials in their Ottoman idioms.102

97 Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, 3r, Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Tarih-i Kostantiniyye, 3r-v

98 Maurice Cerasi, “ The Urban and Architectural Evolution of the Istanbul Divanyolu: Urban

Aesthetics and Ideology in Ottoman Town Building”, Muqarnas, vol.22, (2005), 191.

99 Also it is worth to mention Cerasi’s remarks on the narrative aspect of the Divanyolu in paralel with

the aforementioned ‘urban collective memory’ since this study is about a particular or particular

branches of the plane of ‘urban collective memory’ with respect to the monumentality of cityscape,

see. Cerasi, “ The Urban and Architectural Evolution of the Istanbul Divanyolu”, 193.

100 For the construction of Mehmed II mosque complex and Mehmed II’s building activities in

Constantinople see, Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis/Istanbul, 53-85.

101 For a wide range architectural and historiographical analysis of Süleymaniye Mosque Complex

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

Reaktion Books, 2005, 209-222, also see. Gülru Necipoğlu, “The Süleymaniye Complex in

Istanbul:An Interpretation”, in Muqarnas vol.3, 1985, 92-117.

102 For a recent survey pertaining to the urban development of Ottoman Kostantiniyye see. Çiğdem

Kafescioğlu and Susan Babaie “Istanbul, Isfahan, and Delhi: Imperial and Urban Experiences in the

36

Last but not least, one encounters such hierarchical treatment of the urban-cumimperial

space around a century after İlyas Efendi. Evliya Çelebi’s treatment of

Ottoman cities, especially the three capitals of the empire, namely Bursa, Edirne, and

İstanbul presents an all encompassing hierarchical description of the qualities (evṣāf)

of these cities.103 Therefore, İlyas Efendi’s quite sketchy hierarchical introduction to

the seven hills of the city could be related to a certain textual lineage and

development that culminated in Evliya Çelebi’s perfection of evṣāf narratives

pertaining especially to the three important imperial centres of Ottomans located in

the lands of Rum.

2.3 Solomonic Narratives in the Context of ‘Monumental and Material Genealogies’

Ilyas Arabi begins his series of narratives about the prophet Solomon, whose

importance for the three Abrahamic religions is an undeniable fact albeit with

different representations of Solomon in Judeo-Christian and Muslim religious

traditions. The beginning narrative line is suitably about the construction of a city.

Solomon, with his demon masters and human experts, builds an exalted city (Ꜥaẓīm

şehir yapdılar) in Aydıncık, which is the Kyzikos ancient site situated near today’s

Balıkesir. Yerasimos states that the remnants of the great temple constructed by the

Roman emperor Hadrian (d.138) were attributed to the Solomon in Turkish versions

of the Solomonic narratives. Parallel to this information, Stephanos Yerasimos

points out the fact that during the reign of Hadrian, a new pagan city, Aelia

Capitolina, was built on the ruins of the second temple which was destroyed during

Early Modern Era” in A Companion to Islamic Art and Architecture eds. Finbar Barry Flood and

Gülru Necipoğlu, Wiley-Blackwell, 2017, 854-57.

103 Robert Dankoff, An Ottoman Mentality: The World of Evliya Çelebi, (Leiden:Brill, 2004), 17.

37

the Jewish War (66-73 CE) in 70 CE.104 Moreover, the alleged Solomonic edifices

in Kyzikos in the early modern Ottoman narratives are predictably related to the

narrative concerning the prophet Solomon and his idolater wife Şemsiyye.105 At this

juncture, one encounters yet another thread that connects this place with that of

Constantinopolitan space. İlyas remarks that even now the greatness of Aydıncık’s

materials that are brought to Istanbul and the other cities is observable.106 Moreover,

it could well be suggested that the element of spolia is inserted into the narrative; and

as one will observe during the course of İlyas’ work, the case of spolia, starting with

the narratives pertaining to precious marbles from the Prophet Solomon’s era, would

be elaborated and disseminated into the narratives of other ‘wondrous’ and

‘marvellous’ monuments, in particular to that of Hagia Sophia.

Solomon’s relationship with Istanbul in the foundation narratives of

Constantinople is an intriguing one. In the Anonymous text of 1491, we see that

eight somaki107 stones (a precious stone that has green and red colours) brought from

legendary Kaf mountain for construction of Solomon’s edifice in Aydıncık are

associated with that of Hagia Sophia.108 Nonetheless, there is no indication or

elaboration as to Solomon’s building activities, to the Solomon Kiosk and Gardens

which according to the anonymous text of 1491 are located at the site of Topkapı.

While Ilyas renders him as a builder-ruler who is touched upon only briefly in the

context of Constantinopolitan topography, the other authors such as Evliya Çelebi

104 Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 102, For the detailed first hand account of the

Jewish War see, Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War, trans. G.A. Williamson, (Penguin, 1984).

105 Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 79.

106 “Ve ḥāliyā andan istānbūla ve gayrıya sürülüb gelen mermerlerini ve māhya ṭāşlarını/ ve ālātlarını

gören kimesne ezelden ne mertebede idugini istidlāl ider”, Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, 5r, Ali

el-Arabi İlyas, Tarih-i Kostantiniyye, 6v.

107 Somaki stone would have crucial implications for the narratives of Hagia Sophia, but its discussion

will take place in the succeeding sections of this study.

108 Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 17.

38

name him as first among the builders (bānī) of the city.109 Turning to Ilyas Arabi’s

narrative of Solomon, he conveys that after he built palatial edifices in Aydıncık

Solomon discovers Istanbul; he wishes to move his throne there but since God lets

him know that he will die soon, he is not able to do so. Instead, he constructs a

splendid kiosk in the place of the Imperial Palace and establishes various gardens

around the kiosk.110 Therefore, although there are convergences or similar lines

between İlyas’ and the Anonymous text of 1491, İlyas’ strong emphasis on the

connections between present edifices and places with those of the remote past

suggest divergences that hint at the later development of the narratives pertaining to

the foundation of Istanbul and Hagia Sophia to be authored by early modern Ottoman

authors. As we proceed through this chapter and the following, this textual evolution

that involves the amalgamation, accumulation, and forking of the themes, figures and

narrative paths will be exhibited more vividly.

I have briefly mentioned that Ilyas Efendi’s narrative strategy is a non-linear

one. That is to say, at one point he could go back and forth in his temporal scheme or

he could present the diverse narratives pertaining to these builder-rulers that do not

necessarily coincide with each other. In particular, with respect to the narrative of

Prophet Solomon, Ilyas’ approach is as such.

After a sketchy narrative pertaining to Solomon and his kiosk at the vicinity

of Topkapı Palace, İlyas mentions that a ruler called ‘Yanko’ fulfils the desire of

Solomon, and constructs the city. There, İlyas mentions Yanko bin Madyan, an

109 Evliya Çelebi, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, 11-12.

110“ṣoñra/ süleymān Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām/ bu istānbūl yerini gördü gāyetle begendi/ ve ḳaṣd eyledi ki/

taḥtını aydıncıkdan buna naḳl eyleye/ āmmā vaḥy ile bilmişdi ki eceli yaḳındır ol sebebden/ muḳayyed

olmadı āmmā ḥāliyā sarāy-ı Ꜥāmireniñ/ yerinde bir āꜤlā köşk yapdırdı/ ve eṭrāfında vāfir bağ ve

bağçeler/ eylediler”, Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, 5r, “ṣoñra ḥażret-i süleymān peygamberim

bu istānbūlun yerin gördi gāyetle beğendi ve ḳaṣd eyledi ki taḥtını aydıncıkdan yerinden naḳl eyleye

āmmā vaḥy ile bilmişdi ki eceli yaḳındadır ol sebebden muḳayyed olmadı āmmā ḥāliyâ sarāy-ı

Ꜥāmirenüñ yerinde bir āꜤlā köşk yapdı ve anuñ etrafında vāfir bağ bağçeler eyleye”, Ali el-Arabi İlyas,

Tarih-i Kostantiniyye, 6v.

39

important component of his narrative, briefly by recounting his lineage and his fights

against the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, Buḫt-naṣr in its Ottoman idiom. İlyas

states that Yanko is the progeny of Şeddad bin ꜤAd and Amalekites, an idolater ruler

in Yemen in the Islamicate tradition.111 Şeddad bin ꜤAd is also an important figure

for the pre-Islamic Arabic literary tradition. Moreover, Amalekites are Biblical

people who fought against Israel and perished eventually. In this manner, one may

suggest that the Abrahamic narratives, whether through Islamicate or Biblical

sources, operated as an umbrella framework for Ilyas’ overall textual representations.

The ꜤAd tribe to which Şeddad belonged to is mentioned in the Quran as an

idolatrous tribe; dismissing the message of prophet Hud they eventually perished by

the wrath of God.112 Their demise via divine intervention is important for the

sequence of events that would connect the Solomonic narrative to Yanko’s reign.

The remark on Yanko’s lineage will later on affect the narratives of Ilyas with regard

to the perception of the city and its genealogical relationship with its rulers.

According to Ilyas, Yanko had seen Şeddad bin Ad and more importantly he was

enthroned and girded by Şeddad himself.113 This remark also puts emphasis on

Yanko’s textual representation as an idolater ruler, which also connects his kingship

to the figure of Şeddad bin ꜤAd figure, if one bears in mind that gestures such as

girding and enthroning are two crucial themes of kingship in pre-modern mindset.

In a similar vein, Ilyas’ recounting of Yanko’s war against invading Nebuchadnezzar

is related to Evliya’s version of the foundation narratives during which he includes

Nebuchadnezzar as one of the four universal rulers. These four universal rulers were

111 Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, 5v, Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Tarih-i Kostantiniyye, 7r.

112 For a brief knowledge for ꜤAd tribe see, F.Buhl, “ʿĀd”, in Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition,

eds. P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs.

113 “ve şeddād bin Ꜥādı görmüş ve tacı andan giymişdü ḳılıcı andan ḳuşanmış idi”, Risale-i İstanbul,

5v, Tarih-i Kostantiniyye, 7r.

40

divided into two sections; those who had rightly guided beliefs and those who had

false beliefs. The former category includes Alexander the Great (İskender-i Kübra,

İskender-i Zülkarneyn) and the prophet Solomon. The latter category includes

Nebuchadnezzar (Buḫtunnaṣr-ı Kürdī) and Yanko bin Madyan.114The notions of

universal kingship in relation with these builder-rulers are visible both in İlyas’ and

Evliya’s texts, underlining the connection between the two authors with regard to the

topic. For instance, İlyas mentions a certain time span during which the rulers

succeeding Solomon ruled over Solomon’s domain. The lineage of kingship that

commenced with the reign of Solomon is associated spatially and monumentally to

his capital city and the exalted edifices in Aydıncık. Ilyas mentions that succeeding

universal rulers stayed in Solomon’s palatial edifices and kiosk. Incidentally, during

Yanko’s reign an earthquake stroke the edifices damaging some compounds of

Solomon’s palace at Aydıncık.115 In the Anonymous text of 1491 we see that the

earthquake element is not present. The author only gives us the scene during which

Yanko’s discovery of the notorious idol of the island king ꜤAnkur hidden by

Şemsiyye in Aydıncık.116 This may suggest that the later additions could connote the

recent events in the urban memory of the city dwellers such as the earthquake of

1509 which was remembered as ‘little apocalypse’.117

114 Evliya Çelebi, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, 12.

115 Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, 6r, Tarih-i Kostantiniyye, 7v.

116 Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 18.

117 Even though it is not solely about the earthquake this mention taken from Gülru Necipoğlu’s article

see, Gülru Necipoğlu, “‘Virtual Archaeology’ in Light of a New Document on the Topkapı Palace’s

Waterworks and Earliest Buildings, Circa 1509,” Muqarnas 30 (2013), 315.

41

2.4 Şemsiyye and Her Embellished Idol

While Yanko’s men are repairing the edifice at Kyzikos, they incidentally find an

idol. Ilyas states that the idol (put) is ornamented with various crafts and precious

stones. After seeing the idol, Yanko marvels at it and subsequently interrogated his

scholars about the origins of the object. Thereafter, we move into the story of

Solomon and his idolater wife Şemsiyye who is the daughter of the rebel island-king

ꜤAnkur. That is to say, it is revealed by Ilyas that the idol was carved to answer the

wishes of Solomon’s wife.118 The discovery also paves the way to the narrative of

Solomon and Şemsiyye in İlyas’ text. Nonetheless, when we look at the anonymous

text of 1491, without delving into any detail, the text proceeds to Yanko’s

amazement by the artfulness of the idol and Yanko’s desire to build a city that would

inscribe his name to the world and history.119 The idol of ꜤAnkur operates in different

manners in the Anonymous text of 1491 and in Ilyas’ text. Yanko’s amazement by

the artfulness of the ancient artefact arouses jealousy towards the prophet Solomon.

This discovery triggers him to build a great city that would remain as a memento of

his universal kingship throughout the history. It appears quite discernibly that the

metaphor of being the ‘Solomon of the time’ or ‘the second Solomon’ becomes one

of the crucial topoi. This remark is also touched upon by Yerasimos. He asserts the

demonic and accursed affect of ꜤAnkur’s idol on Yanko bin Madyan.120

Consequentially, the memento (yādigār) in the form of establishing a city is bound

textually by another ‘devilish’ yādigār textually.

118 “ve ḥads ve kıyāsetle bildiler ki süleymān peygamber Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām ḥātānunñ düzdürdüğü

putdır”, Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, 6r, Tarih-i Kostantiniyye,8r.

119 Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri,18-19.

120 Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 102-103.

42

Apart from its good old misogynistic tendencies, as we observe above, a

discovery of an object and idol (put) is connected to another layer within Ilyas’ text.

That discovery serves as an inciting incident as other elements such as dreams would

serve later in the text. In addition, such utilizations within the text enables a mobility

between the temporal layers of Ilyas’ narratives; these layers could be summarized in

three categories; the first one is the Solomonic and prophetic past, second is the

legendary past i.e. Yanko bin Madyan’s times; lastly and in particular the Romano-

Byzantine past which by and large demarcates the monumental and cultural

topography of pre-Ottoman Kostantiniyye. Henceforth, we observe that these layers

are connected to each other via spatial, monumental, and material connotations. In

Ilyas Arabi’s narrative this is observed in the association of Solomon’s edifices in

Aydıncık and Constantinople with Yanko bin Madyan’s monuments and their later

evocation in the construction narrative of Hagia Sophia which inevitably resonates

with the Romano-Byzantine past.

Considering all these preliminary elements within the textual framework Ilyas

and other early modern Ottoman authors that this study looks into, what is the

significance of Şemsiyye’s story for Ilyas’ text? What are the textual implications of

her idol that is carved after his father’s representation? Stephanos Yerasimos

discusses the rebel island-king’s narrative in the context of the character

development of Hiram who is known as the chief architect of the great temple at

Jerusalem and Yerasimos discusses how it transformed in the island-king narratives

in Ottoman versions of Constantinopolitan and Hagia Sophian legends.121 Moreover,

Yerasimos, by referring to the biblical accounts, suggests that the name of the Island

king i.e. ꜤAnkūr is among the names of the prophet Solomon.122 Thus, the persona of

121 Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri,75-77.

122 Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 103.

43

the island-king in a way resonates with a mirror element regarding the dark side of

the prophet Solomon and his depictions all the way from antiquity into early

modernity. Accordingly, Yerasimos claims that if one follows this evolution, it

would become apparent that the medieval Islamicate tradition pertaining to the

subject associates the narrative of the island-king with that of Solomon’s fall from

the grace of God.123

This narrative commences with Solomon’s campaign against a dissident

island king called ꜤAnkūr . Ilyas mentions him as a Frankish ruler (ꜤAnkūr nam freng

pādişāhı var idi)124 who rules an island in the lands of Franks. Having subjugated the

island-king and his household, Solomon encounters the Island king’s daughter,

Şemsiyye who submits to Solomon and converts into the rightful religion because of

her fear of the sword. Paradoxically, due to Solomon’s amity towards Şemsiyye, he

more and more becomes submissive to her. Here, İlyas immediately incorporates the

point that Şemsiyye in fact did not give up her false religion and she continued her

beliefs in dissimulation.125 When Solomon finds Şemsiyye in the mood of

melancholia, he asks her how he could remedy her sorrow and she reveals that she

wishes to see her father’s face. Afterwards, Solomon orders his servants demons and

men alike to concoct a representation of Şemsiyye’s father. As has been noticed in the

beginning of this narrative section, the surrogate is made and embellished with

precious stones such as ruby. Due to Solomon’s submissiveness towards Şemsiyye,

he lets his craftsmen to create the face of his enemy.126 Obviously, the object is an

123 Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 79.

124 Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, 6v.

125 “meẕkūr Ꜥankūruñ mihr u māhtābān şemsiyye nām ḳızı var idi ḳılıc ḫavfından iꜤmāna geldi āmmā

küfr niyetini ve Ꜥadāvet-i dinīyyesini iẓhār itmeyüb göñlünde bāḳī ḳalmışdı ve ḥażret-i süleymān

Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām meẕkūre ḳızı ziyāde beğendi ve şerꜤ buyuruğunca nikāḥla aldı giderek aña muḥabbeti

ziyāde oldı ḥatta cemīꜤ ḥāṣekileriñ üzerine geçürdi” Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, 6v-7r, Tarih-i

Kostantiniyye, 8v-9r.

126 Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, 7-8r, Tarih-i Kostantiniyye, 9r-10v.

44

idol and Ilyas remarks on how Şemsiyye retained and kept this artefact in an

obsessive manner because of the fact that she actually worshipped the object.

Evliya’s version of the island king, on the other hand, is quite distinct from that of

the Anonymous text of 1491 and Ilyas Arabi. Evliya names the island, which is

located in the lands of west (magrib-i zemīnde), as Ferendûz. Instead of the name

ꜤAnkûr, the island king’s name is Saydūn. Although the main course of the events

resembles those in the Anonymous text of 1491 and Ilyas Arabi, the changes in the

names of the island king and his daughter are telling. His daughter is named Aline

and while Evliya conveys this narrative, he mentions the daughter of the ruler of

Seba city (Sebā şehri pādişāhınıñ ḳızı Belḳīs) who passes away in Aydıncık-cum-

Kyzikos. In the biblical narratological tradition, the queen of Sheba i.e. Belqıs in

Islamicate literary tradition is an important element within the Solomonic narratives.

In the Turkish literary tradition, one of the earliest narratives pertaining to the issue is

found in Dürr-i Meknun which is written by Ahmed Bican during the second half of

the fifteenth century. As Yerasimos points out briefly, Dürr-i Meknun is one of the

textual roots of Ottoman versions of Constantinopolitan and Hagia Sophian

narratives.127 For instance, one observes the presence of sommaki marbles in the

temple of Solomon and the sacrifices performed during the opening ceremony in a

similar manner with that of the construction narrative of Hagia Sophia.128

Furthermore, Ahmed Bican discusses the Solomonic edifice in Aydıncık-cum-

Kyzikos and its precious marbles.129 As one of the roots of the Ottoman textual

traditions pertaining to the Constantinopolitan legends, it could be said that

Aydıncık-cum-Kyzikos, as an ancient space interwoven with Solomonic narratives,

127 Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 83.

128 Yazıcıoğlu Ahmed Bican, Dürr-i Meknûn : inceleme, çevriyazı, dizin, tıpkıbasım, ed.Ahmet

Demirtaş, Istanbul, Akademi Kitaplar, 2009, 158.

129 Ahmed Bican, Dürr-i Meknûn, 161

45

genealogically demarcates materiality and monumentality in early modern Ottoman

mentalities. Part of the textual framework of the aforementioned narratives, sommaki

with its green and red surfaces would even insert itself into the narratives (and the

architectural textures) of Ottoman imperial mosques

Turning to the story of Belḳıs, she is a queen, who worships the sun130, but

eventually she returns to the rightful religion of Solomon and together they are

among the most famous signifiers of universal and divine rule. In the Judeo-Christian

literary tradition the equivalent of Belkıs and Şemsiyye to some extent is the Queen

of Sheba.131 The name Şemsiyye, nonetheless, curiously coincides with the word

şems which means sun in Arabic. As such, it could be suggested that for the

Anonymous text 1491 and Ilyas Arabi’s narratives of island-king, the sun worshipper

image of Belḳîs is transposed in to the persona of Şemsiyye via the meaning of the

word, şems.132 As a deracinated projection of its archetype, Şemsiyye, thus, operates

as the trigger for the downfall of the prophet Solomon, the construction of the

edifices situated in Kyzikos-cum-Aydıncık which would provide spolia for Hagia

Sophia later.

The description of Şemsiyye’s idol by Ilyas Arabi also resonates with his later

aesthetical descriptions and narratives pertaining to the monuments and precious

artifacts. İlyas states that the object is concocted and ornamented with precious

metals. Moreover, he points out that anyone who gazes at the object is delighted by

its beauty and elegance (leṭāfet) and consequently, they admire it.133 During the

130 Ahmed Bican, Dürr-i Meknûn, 169.

131 For the discussion of the Queen of Sheba in the context of gender roles see, Jacob Lassner,

Demonizing the Queen of Sheba; Boundaries of Gender and Culture in Postbiblical Judaism and

Medieval Islam, The University of Chicago Press, 1993, also in one chapter Lassner discusses the

narrative of Island King and his idolatrous daughter in the Jewish and medieval Islamic traditions,

141-146.

132 Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 101.

133 “aña naẓar eyleyen kimesne ḥüsn ve leṭāfetden medhoş ve üzerinde muraṣṣaꜤ olan cevāhir

maꜤâdini/ müşāhede eyleyenler ḫayrān veya hoş olurlardı” Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, 8r,

46

course of Ilyas’ narrative, it is observed that such idioms and representations are

incessantly reiterated; in particular, such monuments and artifacts are usually from

the prophetic and legendary layers of past which are explained earlier in this chapter.

To continue with Şemsiyye’s story, she again approaches Solomon to express that

she wants a place that would be exclusive to her. Due to Solomon’s passion for her,

he accepts Şemsiyye’s desire, and orders the construction of an edifice in Aydıncık

that would be exclusive to Şemsiyye’s use. Thus, Şemsiyye establishes herself in

Aydıncık, and worships her father’s representation perpetually. As a consequence,

Solomon’s kingship is revoked by God due to Solomon’s negligence of Şemsiyye’s

idolatry and of his duties as a prophet.134 In Evliya’s narrative, one would not

observe such divine punishment exerted on Solomon. Evliya shortly tells the reader

that after having learned the idolatrous behaviour of Aline, Şemsiyye’s replica in

Evliya’s textual framework, Solomon executes her as he had done to her rebellious

father.135

We have observed in Ilyas’ narrative that an idol which is buried under an

ancient building has the property of inciting incidents. During the course of İlyas

narrative, we also get a grasp of his perception of the prophetic and legendary pasts.

Ilyas Arabi has a non-linear approach to the stories he recounted; after he narrates a

story during which the prophet Solomon is bewitched by a demon, he returns to

Şemsiyye’s story and depicts the final scenery.136 When Solomon rescues himself

from the enchantment and bewitchment from a certain devil, Şemsiyye buries his

father’s idol and escapes from Aydıncık. Thence, Ilyas Arabi carries Solomonic

“aña naẓar eyleyen kimesne ḥüsn u leṭāfetinden med-hoş olurdu üzerinde olan cevāhir ve maꜤādin

müşāhede eyleyenler ḫayrān ve bī-ḫoş olurdu”, Tarih-i Kostantiniyye, 10v.

134 Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, 8v-9r, Tarih-i Kostantiniyye, 11r-v.

135 Evliya Çelebi, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, 12.

136 The narrative with regards to Solomon ‘s overthrowing by the devil hasn’t been discussed in this

chapter due to its irrelevance to the monuments or monumental space we are talking about, Ali el-

Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, 9v-10v, Tarih-i Kostantiniyye , 12v-17r.

47

narratives through and takes the reader to the event in which Yanko bin Madyan

asked stories concerning the ‘wondrous’ and ‘elegant’ idol that was found in

Aydıncık. It can be stated that İlyas draws a circle that encompasses the themes,

characters and more crucially edifices-cum-monuments pertaining to the Prophet

Solomon and his relationship with certain sites such as Aydıncık, Istanbul, and

Jerusalem.

To conclude, Solomon’s wives, edifices, and his immense wealth has been a

common theme in representations of universal kingship that connotes both divinity

and worldliness throughout the intellectual production from antiquity into the early

modern era. For instance, the first century historian and intellectual Josephus Flavius,

speaks of the construction of Solomon’s temple and palace in a detailed way in his

Jewish Antiquities.137 Also as observed by Yerasimos in connection to the

Anonymous text of 1491, the sections such as the opening ceremony of the

Temple138 thematically resembles that of the construction narrative of Hagia Sophia

in such details as the singing of hymns and offering of sacrifices. One could observe

that more than a few times, Ilyas Arabi explains that god has given Solomon both

kingship and the propethood (fe āmmā ki kendisi hem peygamber ve hem pādişāh

idi139 āmmā ḥaḳḳ teꜤāla aña hem peygamberlik ve hem pādişāhlıḳ virdi140). If we

compare Ilyas Efendi’s idioms with that of Josephus, we find similar themes

pertaining to the divine and profane. While Josephus is depicting the palatial

complex of Solomon, he clearly states the hierarchical inferiority of the palace vis-àvis

the temple.141 The palace and the temple were understood as the manifestations of

137 Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities;Books V-VIII, (Loeb Classical Library; Harvard University

Press, 1950), 603-643.

138 Flavius, Jewish Antiquities;Books V-VIII, 625-29.

139 Risale-i İstanbul, 9r.

140 Risale-i İstanbul,13v.

141 Jewish Antiquities, 641-43.

48

divine and temporal authority within a specific literary tradition that goes all the way

back to the antiquity.142 Nonetheless, it is also crucial to bear in mind that Solomon,

as well as other figures from these remote and near pasts have interwoven and

fluctuating cultural signifiers which go back and forth between Islamicate,

Persianate, Byzantine, and overall Mediterranean and Eurasian cultural geographies

as it is elaborately demonstrated in the grand survey of Stephanos Yerasimos.

2.5 Yanko bin Madyan’s Life and Times

As for the second layer of legendary past(s), the enigmatic Yanko bin Madyan who

has the ancestry from idolatrous ꜤAd people, and his edifices/monuments are the

main themes in Ilyas Arabi’s text. In this section, we will try to detect how Yanko’s

monuments relate to and connote Solomon’s works in terms of spatiality and

depiction. Later, it will become apparent in the study that in the textual context of

İlyas narratives, Yanko’s edifices operate as intermediaries which would weave the

remotest to the near past and then to Ilyas’ present in a spatio-temporal sense.

To return to the scheme of events narrated by Ilyas Efendi, after the repair of

Solomon’s palatial edifices in Aydıncık, Yanko celebrates Solomon as a builder-ruler

who built many monuments or mementos (yādigār).143 Thereafter, Ilyas Efendi

mentions one of the viziers of Yanko bin Madyan who is a knowledgeable person in

history and who has seen Jerusalem.144 At this juncture, it is inserted in the narrative

that the vizier of Yanko, Kantur who knows Solomon’s buildings and history,

recounts these events to Yanko and urges him as the Solomon of his time; he claims

142 For the significance of temple in Solomon’s overall image of kingship see. Yerasimos,

Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 66.

143 Risale-i İstanbul, 13v.

144 “ve meẕkūr/ ḳantor/ çoḳ tevārīḫ bilürdi ve ḳudüs-i şerīfi görmüşdi”, Risale-i İstanbul,13v, Tarih-i

Kostantiniyye , 17r-v.

49

that Yanko should establish a monument and place of memorial to be remembered

like Solomon.145 There, the decision to build a great city is made by Yanko and his

council.146 Curiously but in accordance with the textual patterns of İlyas, the

following lines depict how Yanko detects his capital-to-be via his dream. This dream

sequence has two versions according to Ilyas Arabi. In the first version, it is revealed

to Yanko in his dream that the city would be in a place where the Black sea flows

towards the Mediterranean. The second version of Ilyas narrates that Yanko is

miraculously brought to the place of Istanbul together with his throne; having seen

the remnants of Solomon’s kiosk which is at the site of the Topkapı palace, a spatiotemporal

connection which is punctuated by Ilyas before, he likes the place and starts

to stroll around.147 Thereafter, some men who are on a hunt see Yanko wandering

around and inform their lord, supposing that Yanko was a monster. Recognizing the

man as Yanko, the lord of the place gives him a horse and they circumvent the

peninsula.148

Two important elements emerge within this section related with the former

connotations to the past; monumentality and the spatial connection. Firstly, we

observe that through a quasi-intercessional dream sequence, Yanko finds himself in a

desolate space where the remnants of Solomon’s kiosk are present. The desolateness

of the space in fact echoes with that of the desolateness and remoteness of the past.

Henceforth, this brings us a rediscovery that would add yet another monumental

layer to the city’s past within its topographical context. Second important element is

in relation to the archetype of builder-ruler figure Solomon; Yanko is presented as a

ruler who discovers, and eventually denotes the topography in which he would build

145 Risale-i İstanbul,13v, Tarih-i Kostantiniyye, 17v.

146 Risale-i İstanbul,14r, Tarih-i Kostantiniyye, 18r.

147 Risale-i İstanbul,14r-v, Tarih-i Kostantiniyye, 18r-v.

148 Risale-i İstanbul, 14v-15r, Tarih-i Kostantiniyye, 18v-19r.

50

his city and his monuments. Moreover, this resonates with the phenomenon of being

remembered together with Solomon. He decides that the place in his dream is here.

And although Yanko consults his viziers, through a textual rendering, the viziers

bequeath and denominate the ruler as a sole decision-maker. Yanko’s viziers

celebrate Yanko bin Madyan, for the great place of Solomon has been bequeathed to

him .149

The next section of İlyas Efendi’s narratives pertaining to Yanko bin Madyan

is the gigantic act of constructing the city. Throughout this part, we observe the

universality of the construction process. Yanko bin Madyan immediately sends word

to his vassals throughout the world in order to invite them to contribute to the

construction of his new capital. Subsequently, the lords from Russia, Bulgaria,

Hungary, China, Maghreb, Egypt, and Damasucs, basically the provinces of the

known-world in the mindset of the text, send workers, materials, and craftsmen to

Yanko.150

During this process of the establishment of the foundations of the city

Yanko’s men encounter with an ancient edifice. As they dig the ground more and

more a dome appears and at the edge of the dome they see a representation of six

Egyptian vultures (kerkes) ornamented with rubies and diamonds.151 And it is stated

in the text that the sixth one remains incomplete. When they are unable to read the

script that is carved on a wooden plate which is in front of the golden door, they

brought couple of pupils of Plato who could read them in detail.152 This narrative of

vultured dome is also mentioned in the anonymous 1491 text; its narrative path more

149 “süleymān peygamber Ꜥaleyhi’s-selāmın beğendüği maḳām-ı Ꜥaẓīm saña naṣīb oldı” Risale-i

İstanbul,15r, Tarih-i Kostantiniyye, 19v.

150 Risale-i İstanbul, 15v, Tarih-i Kostantiniyye, 20r.

151 Risale-i İstanbul, 16r, Tarih-i Kostantiniyye, 20v.

152 “ve ol taḥtada bir Ꜥacaīb yazı yazılmışdır bu ḥālden ziyāde taꜤaccüb itdiler ve ol kerkesleriñ

ḥikmetini bilemediler ve ol taḥtada ki yazunı oḳuyamadılar ve ol zamānda eflāṭūn ḥekīmiñ

şākirdlerinden ve andan oḳumuş ādemlerden baꜤżı kimesneler var idi anlarıñ bir ḳaçını getürdüb

kerkesleri ve yazuyı gösterdiler” Risale-i İstanbul, 16r-v, Tarih-i Kostantiniyye, 21r.

51

or less similar with that of Ilyas Arabi.153 Stephanos Yerasimos discusses vultured

dome as a theme that was transmitted from Eastern culture, mainly the Ismaili

tradition in which the universe is created repeatedly.154 Putting aside the reasonable

conclusions of Yerasimos pertaining to the vultured dome, if one zooms in İlyas text

or his mindset apart from his apparent appropriation of themes and cultural signifiers

that float around the previous Ottoman variations of Constantinopolitan legends, it

could become discernible that the Egyptian vultures are also related with the layered

understanding of time that this study has discussed earlier. When the pupils of Plato

have read the wooden plate they learn that due to the thousand years old lifespan of

Egyptian vultures the rulers who passed through the world since the prophet Adam

put precious stones for every year on these representations of Egyptian vultures.

Then one day a great earthquake occurred, burying the edifice of vultured dome to

the ground.155

Having been told about this edifice and its story, Yanko is amazed by it but

interestingly he utilizes the precious stones that are put on the representations of the

Egyptian vultures.156 They are appropriated as spolia that would be injected into the

novel foundation of the city. On the one hand, right at the beginning of Yanko’s

miraculous journey to Istanbul, the topography is perceived as a wilderness and as a

desolate space where the remnants of monuments were present. On the other hand, it

is seen that Ilyas Efendi conveys an image where there is a deeper and multilayered

past buried under the ground. Furthermore, the remotest past(s) manifests

themselves, as Yanko and his entourage starts the enterprise of construction.

153 Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 21-3.

154 Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 109-11.

155 Risale-i İstanbul, 16v, Tarih-i Kostantiniyye, 21r-21v.

156 Risale-i İstanbul, 17r, Tarih-i Kostantiniyye, 21v.

52

Another theme that is inserted at this juncture is the representation of the past(s) of

the city in a series of destruction and construction cycles. After every period of

destruction, apocalypse, and plague, there emerges a builder-ruler like Yanko, and

engages in an arduous construction process.157 While this element of multilayered

configuration of remote past(s) below the desolate space is with the reader

throughout Ilyas’ text, it could be stated that an apocalyptic element is introduced

into the narrative with the vultured dome.

The construction also connotes the universality of the city. Ilyas narrates that

Yanko constructed and encircled the city with walls; then he also constructed public

baths, churches, houses, and caravanserais within the city.158 The exaggeration of the

number of these edifices shows us the representation of Yanko’s endeavour as

monumental. Furthermore, forced migration of people from various provinces to

Yanko’s newly built city refers to the policies of Ilyas’ near past i.e. Mehmed II

project of forced migration to his newly taken-over city.159 Nonetheless, bringing

together the people from various provinces also hints at cosmopolitanism and

universality under Yanko’s kingdom.

Concomitant with the construction process, the other important element is the

construction of a great temple within the city. Ilyas Efendi conveys an image of

temple in which scholars from various provinces and beliefs gathered; they read and

prayed there according to their creed.160 Yanko then brings a man of knowledge who

157 For the detailed discussion of apocalyptic themes see, Benjamin Lellouch and Stefanos

Yerasimos, eds., Les traditions apocalyptiques au tournant de la chute de Constantinople: actes de la

Table Ronde d’Istanbul (13-14 avril 1996), Varia Turcica 33 (Paris, France: Harmattan, 1999),

Cornell Fleischer, “Ancient wisdom and new sciences: prophecies at the Ottoman court in the

fifteenth and sixteenth centuries” in Massumeh Farhad, Serpil Bağcı, and Maria V. Mavroudi, eds.,

Falnama: The Book of Omens (London: Thames & Hudson, 2009), 231-45.

158 Risale-i İstanbul, 18r, Tarih-i Kostantiniyye,23r-v.

159 For the detailed discussion of forced migration see. Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 118-120.

160 “ekseri hūd peygamber Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām dininde olub ṣaḥif oḳurlardı ve kimi dāvud nebī Ꜥaleyhi’sselām

dininde olub zebūr oḳurlardı ve kimi yıldıza Ꜥibādet iderdi ve kimi aya ve güneşe ve kimi puta

53

is a follower of Prophet Hūd (in Old Testament equated with Eber) and makes him

the head of his “Temple of Knowledge”. This remark is quite interesting due to the

fact that the Prophet Hûd was sent as a messenger to the idolatrous ꜤAd people from

whom Yanko bin Madyan derives his ancestry and kingship according to İlyas’

narrative.161 As can be seen from the depiction of Ilyas, it is visible that this temple

has a positive image within the text. Nonetheless, when we come to the construction

of another temple or monastery (the Ottoman word deyr can mean both), the author

conveys to us a narrative of heresy or corruption of the builder-ruler and his subjects.

Eventually, within the cyclical framework within which Ilyas Efendi operates, this

heresy leads to the inevitable destruction of the city through a divine intervention.162

Interestingly, Yanko builds this monestary-cum-temple at the vicinity of Hagia

Sophia and in front of the monestary-cum-temple he erects an obelisk (mīl) and puts

the aforementioned idol (put) of Şemsiyye at the top of obelisk. Thereafter, Yanko

starts to worship the idol and his subjects follows him;163 more sacrilegiously, he

claims prophethood; in a reverse intercessional manner, because the devil intervenes

in the scheme of events164, Yanko makes the idol speak, and the idol urges the people

to worship Yanko himself. In a different manner, the anonymous 1491 also narrates

how Yanko erects an obelisk with the representation of a seven headed dragon on top

of it165.

The temptation that is first urged by the devil and then Yanko bin Madyan

leads to the heretical rendering of the urban and monumental space. As a culmination

ve kimi āteşe ṭapardı ve’l-ḥāṣıl çoḳ meẕheb var idi” Risale-i İstanbul,18v, Tarih-i Kostantiniyye, 23v-

24r.

161 Risale-i İstanbul,18v, Tarih-i Kostantiniyye,24r.

162 Fort a wider overview of the ‘apocalyptic’ theme in Yanko’s story, see. Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye

ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 132-137.

163 Risale-i İstanbul,20r, Tarih-i Kostantiniyye, 25v-26r.

164 “el-Ꜥiyāẕü bi’llah şeyṭān gaddâr ve ṭabꜤ-i gadāâr kendüye böyle sevḳ eyledi ki” Risale-i

İstanbul,20v, Tarih-i Kostantiniyye, 26r.

165 “Yanko bin Madyan bu dahi ol suretde etdirdi ol mil üzerinde yedi başlı bir ejderha

etdirdi”,Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 25.

54

point, during a ‘the new day’ (nev-rūz) celebration which is commonly recognized

in the Ottoman world as weel, the crowd is perished. On this ceremonial date, while

Yanko’s vassals commenced to worship him, a great earthquake occurs and buries

the heretical space and the people with it to the ground.166 Thus, what we observe is

the completion of one of the cycles of destruction/construction pertaining to the

remote past of Istanbul. From the image of wise king, Yanko’s image gradually

transformed into one that of a heretical figure in Ilyas’ narrative. At this juncture, it is

important to mention that as Yerasimos discussed in detail, Yanko bin Madyan’s

image as a universal ruler coincides with that of Nimrud.167 According to Yerasimos

, this theme comes from a medieval book of wonders written by Ibrahim bin Vasıf

Şah or al-Wasifi who probably lived during eleventh century.168 In relation with the

transmutation of legendary narratives, Yerasimos remarks on how the destructive

desert winds in the case of Nimrud are transformed into horrendous rains in the

apocalyptic demise of Yanko and his subjects. Moreover, amidst all these events, the

role Şemsiyye’s father’s idol played is worth mentioning. It not only operates as an

intermediary between the remotest past i.e. Solomonic narratives and the remote past

of Yanko, but also a textual theme that relates the edifices and narratives spatially all

the way from Solomon to Yanko and to the figures of near past such as Constantine

the Great and Justinian.

166 “ittifāḳ bir nevrūẓda bu deñlü ādem ve beğler ve şehzādeler kilisede cemꜤ olub küfr u ḍelāletde

ḥumḳ u cehāletde iken bir Ꜥaẓīm bād-ı ṣarṣar ḳopdı ve ḥarāb idici seyller ve mühlik yağmurlar ve

ṭolular yağdı ve bir hāīl zelzele vāḳiꜤ oldı ki meẕkūr kilise hep yıḳıldı ve ṭaşları ṭopraḳları içindeki

emleriñ āꜤiżżāları ḳarış ve ḳatış oldı ve düğeli şehriñ bināsı ve ḥiṣārı ve türābı ve ehcārı tārūmār oldı”

Risale-i İstanbul,21r, Tarih-i Kostantiniyye, 26v-27r.

167 Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 133.

168 Ursula Sezgin, “al-Waṣīfī”, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, Edited by: P. Bearman,

Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs.

55

2.6 Conclusion

In conclusion, the urban memory and oral tradition that circulated first within the

Constantinopolitan city and then the larger Mediterranean framework since late

antiquity accumulate in İlyas’ narrative with regards to Solomon and Yanko bin

Madyan. Since this study accepts the grandiose intertextual aspect of this literary

genre and since it is impossible to get a full grasp of this intertextuality in one study,

one can argue that İlyas’ case is one of the ramifications of this culmination. The

most critical point is that Ilyas as a man of letters, even in an act of rewriting this

well-circulated body of texts, commemorates these figures from the remote past.

In particular, his mentioning of the mythical spaces such as Shepherd King’s palace

in juxtaposition with that of Haseki sultan bath, or Solomon’s kiosk with that of

Topkapı palace demonstrates to us a specific mode of thinking and of narration

themes which are not encountered in the Anonymous text of 1491. On the whole, it

could be stated that along with the appropriation of older cultural signifiers, we

observe the development of this genre in Ottoman manner. To illustrate, if we look at

Evliya’s section with regards to the foundation narrative we see more a hierarchized

and qualified form of narrative. We observe the same manner of commemorating and

remembrance pertaining to the mythical figures and edifices from the legendary and

the prophetic pasts. In certain instances, Evliya mentions structures that are from

Yanko’s epoch (Yanko b. Madyan asrında)169 or he mentions an edifice as the edifice

of Kantur (Kal’a-ı Kantur vezir binasıdır)170, the legendary vizier of Yanko.

Therefore, at least for a period of one century and half, these themes were discussed,

processed, and eventually adopted into Ottoman patterns of thought.

169 Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, 22.

170 Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, 23.

56

In this manner, one can term this time-span as the Ottomanization and domestication

of the foundation narratives by Ottoman literati. What I have identified as the

legendary, the prophetic, and the remote past(s) of the narrative were an important

component of this Ottomanization. However, the more crucial component was the

Romano-Byzantine past, the construction narrative of Hagia Sophia and its

interconnection with contemporary Ottoman monuments. The following chapter of

this study will explore the perception of the monumentality of the Hagia Sophia

through the looking glass of Ilyas Arabi.

57

CHAPTER 3

NARRATIVES OF A MONUMENT:

HAGIA SOPHIA BETWEEN MATERIALITY AND NARRATIVITY

3.1 Introduction

For the purpose of this study, to understand the way in which the Byzantine literary

tradition of Hagia Sophian and Constantinopolitan narratives was transmitted into

and appropriated by early modern Ottomans who wrote in the sixteenth and

seventeenth centuries is a very crucial task. As such, this chapter’s aims are

manifold; firstly, I will discuss briefly the architectural layout of Hagia Sophia, as

this would give a basis for the narratives I aim to survey, compare, and analyse. For

this purpose I will mention some of the architectural aspects of Hagia Sophia by

using prominent secondary studies, and in particular, Rowland J. Mainstone’s

general architectural survey of the monument.171 Since concomitant with the

construction of the monument a literary tradition was established during late

antiquity, I will discuss the genre of Patria and its implications for later Islamicate

and Ottoman traditions. One of the most prominent studies pertaining to this

particular Byzantine literary genre is Gilbert Dagron’s grand survey on the origins of

the Patria. The genre in itself is a unique one that emerged out of dispersed folklore,

history, and myth that reached all the way back to late antiquity, one of the

culmination points being the Patria of 995.172

171 Rowland J.Mainstone, Hagia Sophia; Architecture, Structure, and Liturgy of Justinian’s Great

Church, (Thames and Hudson, 1988).

172 Gilbert Dagron, Constantinople Imaginaire : Études sur le recueil des Patria, (Presses

Universitaires de France, 1984), 53.

58

While explaining the textual and cultural inner dynamics of patriographies according

to Gilbert Dagron, I will discuss the question of the genre via early modern Ottoman

mentalities. Do the Byzantine literary traditions like Patria matter for the Ottoman

versions of Hagia Sophian narratives? Are Dagron’s remarks pertaining to the textual

dynamics of Patria such as the ambiguous interplay between time and space173

compatible with Ilyas Arabi’s narrative of Hagia Sophia? In this manner, this

discussion of genre attempts to contribute to Dagron’s discussion on patriography as

a unique Byzantine literary genre. I’ve suggested ‘monumental and material

genealogy’ in the previous chapter for Ilyas Arabi’s representation of the Solomonic

narratives and Yanko bin Madyan’s legendary narrative but even though there were

some parallels with Dagron’s conceptualization of Patriographies, Solomonic

narratives and Yanko bin Madyan are basically Islamicate or Ottoman additions to

the narrative. Besides, the first three parts of the Patria of Constantinople preceding

the narrative (diegesis) of Hagia Sophia’s construction are not related with the

foundation narratives of Ilyas Arabi or the Anonymous text of 1491 due to the fact

that they have enormous cultural baggage that derived from Greco-Roman

antiquity.174 Despite all these challenges and contradictions, the discussion of the

early modern Ottoman versions of Constantinopolitan and Hagia Sophian narratives

as a literary tradition that is influenced by and benefitted from the Byzantine genres

such as patriography, I think is the most suitable way to tackle the issues that are

discussed in this chapter and this study in general.

The discussion of ‘genre’ will be followed by yet another textual comparison

among various sources pertaining to Hagia Sophia and the legendary foundations of

173 Dagron, Constantinople Imaginaire, 54.

59

Kostantiniyye. The first and foremost among these will be Ilyas Arabi’s version.

Throughout this chapter, the focus would be Ilyas text and Ilyas’ perception of Hagia

Sophia as a monument in the context of his times i.e. mid-sixteenth century. This will

pursue Derviş Şemseddin’s version of the narrative which is one of the earliest

Ottoman versions pertaining to Hagia Sophia. Şemseddin Karamani originally had

written the work in Persian in 1480 but later it was translated to Ottoman Turkish.

This study will use the copy that is situated in the rare book collection of Istanbul

University175 which according to Stephanos Yerasimos is almost the same with the

translation of Nimetullah bin Ahmed (d.1561) at the bequest of the Ayas Paşa

(d.1539).176 The other works which would involve this multi-faceted textual

comparison will be the Anonymous text of 1491177, a text which is also used in the

previous chapter, and Evliya Çelebi’s narrative concerning Hagia Sophia’s

construction.178

Through the comparative textual analysis of the above-mentioned sources,

this chapter also will explore early modern Ottoman notions of monumentality and

materiality pertaining to the top monument of the Imperial capital i.e. the Hagia

Sophia. This endeavour will also connect this chapter with the next one which will

discuss the narratives of Süleymaniye mosque complex, in order to highlight its

aesthetical relationship to the Ottoman narratives of Hagia Sophia. Considering the

fact that these discourses on the monuments are also related with the political outlook

of these early modern Ottoman authors, this chapter will finally look into the

perceptions of universal sovereignty via various depictions of Justinian (and to a

lesser extent Constantine) as the great and just padişāhs in its Ottoman Turkish

175 Şemseddin Karamani, Ha-za Tarih beyan-ı bina-i Ayasofya-i Kebir, Istanbul Universitesi

Kütüphanesi, T.259.

176 Stefanos Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, İletişim, 1993, 370-71

177 Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri,15-63.

178 Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, 49-56.

60

idiom, engaging ardently in building activities and bringing prosperity to their

subjects. As we shall observe in the above-mentioned section, such representations of

the late antique Byzantine emperors also suggest the Ottoman appropriation and

domestication of Byzantine past within the Ottoman triumphalistic discourse.

3.2 Architectural layout: An overview

It is indeed impossible to give every detail of the architectural intricacies of Hagia

Sophia in this thesis. Nonetheless, since this study will delve into the narratives that

surround the monument and its construction story, it is reasonable to discuss briefly

some of the architectural elements of Hagia Sophia that would later establish a

concrete basis while I discuss the relationship between the prominent architectural

elements of the monument and their descriptions in early modern Ottoman narratives

pertaining to its construction. Ilyas Arabi claims that the site has a long history, and

he recounts the episodes including Yanko bin Madyan’ s construction of his

monastery (deyr) at the site of Hagia Sophia and his erection of the blasphemous

obelisk (mīl)179.Nonetheless, the first monument we come across on this is the Hagia

Sophia of Constantius (d.361) which was built in 360. Repaired during the reign of

Theodosius II (d.450) in 415, it was irretrievably damaged during the Nika Riot180 in

532 during the reign of Justinian I (d.565). There, Justinian initiates a novel building

project that would result in the present Hagia Sophia.181 It was opened in 562182 and

179 Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des

manuscrits, Turc 147,20r.

180 For brief historical information about the Nika Riot see, Geoffrey Greatrex, “The Nika Riot: A

Reappraisal” in The Journal of Hellenic Studies, vol.117, 1997, 60-86.

181 Mainstone, Hagia Sophia, 9.

182 Mainstone, Hagia Sophia;, 10.

61

even though lots of additions, repairs, and alterations took place, the main

architectural bone of the monument remained intact.

As Mainstone explains, when one gazes at the exterior of the monument, the

great dome and the gigantic horizontal spreading of the building that exposes its

grandiosity right from the first glance. Carrying influences of the common basilicatype

architectural configurations of late antiquity, we observe a significant

deportation from earlier models, namely the great dome of the monument that is

supported by semi-domes.183 When one enters into the building, the immediate

attention would lead to the great dome which is supported by four arches. Thereafter,

the second important architectural component of the interior space is the eastern apse

section of building. This eastern section of the edifice is also where the miḥrāb is

situated due to its orientation towards Mecca.

The different characteristics of the buttresses in each four sides of the

monument are also worth to mention. For instance, Mainstone suggests that the

buttresses at the western side of the church resemble those of the Gothic cathedrals

of late medieval Europe.184 The tall and grandiose buttress pier at the northern and

southern sides of the monument also make a visual contrast with western-eastern axis

of the monument. Entering into the inner narthex through the outer, we observe

firstly a series of doors that open to the interior of the monument, that is to say the

nave and the aisles, in which their surroundings are embellished with coloured

marbles. To the southern side of the inner narthex we see the porch at which the

famous mosaic of Justinian and Constantine presenting their own miniature models

183 Mainstone Hagia Sophia, 21, also Thomas F.Mathews’ photographic narration of the monument is

instrumental to get a grasp the overall aspects of Hagia Sophia see, Thomas F. Mathews The

Byzantine Churches of Istanbul; a Photographic Survey, (The Pennysylvania State University

Press,1976), 262-313.

184 Mainstone, Hagia Sophia, 24.

62

of Hagia Sophia and Constantinople to Virgin Mary.185 Mainstone also mentions the

walls of inner narthex embellished with various types of marbles;186 this is also a

feature that we observe predominantly for the interior of the monument. Of the seven

doors within the interior narthex there is a great door in the middle which is the

Imperial door, at the top of it there is also another mosaic depiction.

This shows a prostrate emperor at the feet of an enthroned Christ, to either side of

whom are busts of the Virgin and the Archangel Gabriel set in circular frames.187

When one proceeds into the main interior space of the monument, the nave, we

observe the great dome dominating the interior space which is a two storey structure

designed orthogonally and supported with series of arcaded colonnades which are

made of various coloured marbles.188 These marble columns also are of different size

and shape; for instance, there are rectangular white marbles situated at the southwestern

end of the interior space. The floor revetments is of marble particularly gray

Proconnesian stone as it is stated in Bissera Pentcheva’s article on the aesthetical

implications of the Hagia Sophia.189 Mainstone also emphasizes the unique spatial

character of the monument’s interior. The unity that is constituted in the nave, which

is the primary component of the interior space, is contradicted with the presences of

upper galleries and the aisles beyond the arcaded colonnades that disrupt the

homogeneity of the interior.190 Furthermore, the uneven size and colours between

columns supporting the upper galleries and the arcaded colonnade on the ground in a

185 Mainstone, Hagia Sophia, 29.

186 Mainstone, Hagia Sophia, 32.

187 Mainstone, Hagia Sophia, 32.

188 Mainstone, Hagia Sophia, 36.

189 Bissera V.Pentcheva, “Hagia Sophia and Multisensory Aesthetics” in Gesta 50/2, (2011), 93-111.

190 Mainstone, Hagia Sophia, 37.

63

way disrupts the geometrical consistency that is asserted at the domical level. The

decorative texture of the walls also contributes to such disruption.

Mainstone also states that the groups of arcaded colonnades also have

differences even on the surface level. For instance, the columns situated at the

exedraes have the greatest divergence from the other groups of arcaded

colonnades.191 As such, Mainstone continues that the decorative framework presents

a degree of discontinuity. Parallel to that, he mentions the ambiguous relationship

between the decorative texture of the walls and the arcaded colonnades, along with

the free standing columns. 192 For the aisles, Mainstone asserts the point that aisles

situated along the north and south axis of the monument differentiate themselves

spatiality from the central nave space. 193 Nonetheless, although the aisle space of

Hagia Sophia differentiates itself spatially from that of nave space, some of the

decorative and architectural properties continue, such as the multi-coloured marble

textures of the walls, columns with different features situated in an irregular way.

According to Mainstone the presence of arches and vaults with different

configurations contribute to the unique expression of aisle spaces of Hagia Sophia.194

At this juncture, it is also important to mention Slobodan Curcic’s work which

questions the ‘innovativeness’ and ‘originality’ of Anthemius of Tralles and Isidore

of Miletus’ monument.195 Since this brief section with regards to the basic

architectural tenets of Hagia Sophia has mainly discussed its architecturally

innovative aspects and expressions, I think it would be viable to speak of this article

which meaningfully seeks for the precedents of the experimentation and innovation

191 Mainstone, Hagia Sophia, 42.

192 Mainstone, Hagia Sophia, 45.

193 Mainstone, Hagia Sophia, 46.

194 Mainstone, Hagia Sophia, 49.

195 Slobodan Curcic, “Design and Structural Innovation in Byzantine Architecture before Hagia

Sophia”, in Hagia Sophia from the Age of Justinian to the Present eds. Robert Mark and Ahmet

S.Çakmak, (Cambridge University Press, 1992), 16.

64

that took place during the construction process of Hagia Sophia. In this article,

Curcic claims that the creativity of Hagia Sophia’s architectural framework, all the

way from its great dome to its interior configuration did not emerge from out of

nowhere.196 On the contrary, he analyses several fifth century Byzantine structures

and suggests that the innovations in Hagia Sophia actually results from a gradual and

great experimentation that took place during fifth and early sixth century Byzantine

architectural activities, Hagia Sophia being the culmination of these.197

All these irregularities, regularities, and to some extent experimentation

within the interior and exterior spaces of Hagia Sophia would have implications for

the writings of the early modern Ottoman authors of which this study is looking into.

We will see how the very materiality of the monument, both the materials and the

structural aspects of the exterior and the interior, are reflected in diverse narrative

patterns and layers. Moreover, the question pertaining to the cultural and textual

transmission of the description of these materials and their construction process will

be one of the pursuits for the rest of the chapter.

3.3 Patria: An overview

To elaborate on the cultural and textual transmission of the Hagia Sophia’s

description and its construction narratives within the mental orbit of the early modern

Ottoman authors, we must peruse into its origins located within Byzantine textual

traditions. In his seminal book on the Patria genre, Gilbert Dagron at the very outset

states that this genre is a complete ‘reassemblage’, based on copying, and

196 Curcic, “Design and Structural Innovation in Byzantine Architecture before Hagia Sophia”,17.

197 Curcic, “Design and Structural Innovation in Byzantine Architecture before Hagia Sophia”,38.

65

rewriting.198 Although there had been a large tradition of describing the city’s

marvels, legendary founders, and Hagia Sophia, the Patria tradition, or patriography

in Dagron’s terminology, diverges from its precedents. It is a reorganization of

basically three texts regarding the legendary founders of the city, the columns and

statues situated within the cityscape, and the narrative concerning the construction of

Hagia Sophia. Explaining the genesis of the genre and texts, Dagron puts emphasis

on the gradual transformation whereby the themes and the patterns are established.

As such, this transformation took place slowly between the sixth and eleventh

centuries during which one encounters the evolution of the patriography genre as

termed by Dagron. Furthermore, according to Dagron it is also crucial to bear in

mind the issues of the reorganization and rewriting for patriographies.199

What are these three texts then? The first one is the history of Hesychios of Miletos

on the origins of Constantinople known as Palatines 398 whose copy dates back to

tenth century. The second one is a text on the monuments and the marvels of the city

known as Parisinus gr.1336 dating roughly to eighth century. The last and the most

relevant one for the purpose of this study is that of the construction narrative of

Hagia Sophia. Gilbert Dagron suggests that the date of the work is somewhere

between the eighth and the tenth centuries; he continues that it is also found in other

chronicles.200 Through the emperors that are mentioned and calculating the years

mentioned in the works, Dagron reaches the conclusion that the Patria of

Constantinople must have been compiled circa 995.201 This date also marks the

culminating point in the constitution of the genre and the tradition of patriography.

Be that as it may, for patriography genre, Dagron deems crucial to point out its

198 Dagron, Constantinople Imaginaire, 1.

199 Dagron, Constantinople Imaginaire, 21.

200 Dagron, Constantinople Imaginaire, 21-22.

201 Dagron, Constantinople Imaginaire, 48.

66

obscure features; he asserts that this tradition or genre emerged out of the

interpenetration of written and oral traditions, in the longue durée between the sixth

and tenth centuries.202 Since four centuries passed during the course of the

development of the genre, even though all the components of patriographies had

more or less the same cultural genealogy, that is to say the late antique and the

Greco-Roman legacy, it is important to state that they come from diverse literary

traditions.203

At this point, two remarks of Gilbert Dagron on the Byzantine patriographies

appear as important for the Ottoman versions or variations of the genre. The first one

is Dagron’s emphasis on the impact of urban culture on this genre204; the second one

is about the problem of identity presented in these texts. Indeed, the problem of

‘Roman’ identity in patriographies cannot be the subject matter of this study.

Nevertheless, these two problematizations for the patriographies are I think well

applicable for the Ottoman variations of this literary tradition and early modern

Ottoman mentalities or perceptions pertaining to the city of Constantinople,

particularly on their sections on the times prior to the appearance of Yanko bin

Madyan in the Ottoman texts. Was the city represented in the Ottoman text a

Christian city? Was it a pagan city? Was it a blasphemous city with a blasphemous

ruler i.e. Yanko bin Madyan, and doomed to be destroyed by God’s wrath?

The other important methodological and conceptual contribution of Gilbert Dagron’s

study is the ambiguous conveyance of time and space in Patriographies. He states

that the diachronicity of past gives way to the synchronicity of the monuments during

which the past is narrated and shown through monuments and statues in the

202 Dagron, Constantinople Imaginaire, 50.

203 Dagron, Constantinople Imaginaire, 51.

204 Dagron, Constantinople Imaginaire, 60.

67

Constantinopolitan cityscape.205 Therefore, Dagron suggests that Patria offers space

and time simultaneously. The conjunction of synchronicity of monumentalities and

diachronicity of temporalities206 in some ways resembles spatio-temporal textual

strategies of Ilyas Arabi. Nevertheless, for our purposes, it is important to consider

that the texts Dagron discusses and conceptualizes have loaded a Greco-Roman

legacy pertaining to the mythological and the ancient past. For an early modern

Ottoman author it must have been another formulation of textual strategies. It is

apparent that the notions such as ‘presenting the city within a temporal continuum’

and demarcating ‘the marvels of the city’207 (Ꜥacāīb ve garāīb in its Ottoman Turkish

idioms) are predominant elements in the early modern Ottoman versions of

Constantinopolitan and Hagia Sophian narratives. Nonetheless, one should question

the manners in which they operated within different literary traditions, in terms of

their historicity and cultural implication. This becomes apparent when Dagron

mentions the ruins of monuments or the talismans of the city. He asserts that all these

figures within patriography’s textual affect constitutes a sort of ‘spectacle of the past’

for the inhabitants of city.208 We have observed that Ilyas Arabi mentioned several

talismans from the reign of Yanko bin Madyan and of Constantine the Great. As

such, although it could be said that Constantine’s talismans which are made to defy

the snakes, dragons and enemy soldiers could be considered within this abovementioned

context, since there is no Yanko bin Madyan in medieval Byzantine

patriographies, how it is appropriate to discuss them in the context of ‘spectacle of

the past’? If so how could one contextualize Dagron’s ‘spectacles of past’ through

the perspective of early modern Ottoman mentalities? Besides, since the focus of this

205 Dagron, Constantinople Imaginaire, 54.

206 Dagron, Constantinople Imaginaire, 10.

207 Dagron, Constantinople Imaginaire, 13.

208 Dagron, Constantinople Imaginaire, 16.

68

chapter is the perception of Hagia Sophia’s monumentality and its construction

narrative by Ilyas Arabi and other related Ottoman authors, the ‘spectacles of the

past’ approach simply does not fit thoroughly. Hagia Sophia could only be

considered as a ‘spectacle of past’ alongside with its present ‘spectacle of the

present’ within the framework of Ottoman imperial and dynastic gestures.

In sum, the patriography genre, as Dagron explained and discussed in detail, consists

of a complex set of traditions, and it presents a unique perception of past and present,

time and place, and the marvels of the cityscape. I have already contented that these

elements belong to the Byzantine cultural universe and to relate these implications of

patriographies with that of Ottoman versions of Constantinopolitan and Hagia

Sophian narratives, one has to delve into a wide scale textual comparison, and

pinpoint every themes that could reveal such connection. Nevertheless, suffice it to

say that this study also aims to tackle to a considerable degree the perception of

Byzantine past and of Justinian I and Constantine the Great in the texts it discusses,

in particular that of Ilyas Arabi. The next section will be such an endeavour to detect

the textual and mental liaisons between medieval Patrias and the Ottoman variations

with particular focus on the construction narrative of Hagia Sophia, and on Ilyas

Arabi’s rendering of this narrative.

3.4 A Short Summary of Themes and Story Lines of the Hagia Sophia Narrative in

the Patria

Before delving into the Ottoman narratives of Hagia Sophia, I think it would be

plausible to discuss the main narrative paths of the narrative i.e. diegesis of Hagia

Sophia that is located in the Patria of 995. By way of explaining basic tenets of the

69

Byzantine antecedent of the text, the connections and alteration could become more

visible.

The narrative of Hagia Sophia in Patria is the fourth and the last book within

the work. Right at the beginning of the text, we observe the text’s loose commitment

to the historical realities. That is to say, the text states that the first Hagia Sophia was

built by Constantine the Great (d.337) but in fact, it was built by Constantius II.209

This is one of the examples that are commonly encountered in this text. In parallel to

this phenomenon, considering the issue we have looked into so far in the previous

chapter, the confusion among the characters, places, and incident are among the

common characteristics of Ottoman texts too.

Then we observe how Justinian initiates re-building of the church after a

‘massacre’, i.e. Nika Riot took place. In accordance with the Ottoman texts, we

observe that Justinian, initiating the building activity organizes his realm to bring the

necessary materials for his construction project. The bringing of coloured marbles

from various provinces of the world also play important role in the text. One tangible

connection with the Ottoman texts is the mentioning of Kyzikos (i.e. Aydıncık) in the

Byzantine text.210 As I have tried to discuss, Aydıncık as ancient place that played an

important role in the Solomonic narratives and subsequently in Yanko bin Madyan’s

part.

The agency of Justinian as builder ruler par excellence is also a crucial theme

in this Byzantine text. We observe, as it is the case in the Ottoman versions, Justinian

actually participates in the building activity. For instance, as we will see in the

Ottoman versions of the narrative, in the Byzantine text too, Justinian works in the

209 Accounts of medieval Constantinople: the Patria, trans. by Albrecht Berger, (Harvard University

Press, 2013), 231.

210 Accounts of medieval Constantinople: the Patria, 233.

70

foundation of the building.211 Also after the completion of the construction, the text

states that Justinian started and finished this church alone.212 Yet another textual

connection is the narrative of an angel manifests itself to one of the apprentices at the

construction site and urges them to finish the building quickly. Indeed, the presence

of angels is replaced by old saintly figures or the prophet Hızır in the Ottoman text

but the thematical conjunction here is undeniable. As such, we also see in the

Byzantine text that in a dream the architectural plan of the monument is revealed to

Justinian and his architect Ignatius at the same night. Except the replacement of the

angel figure (in the guise of an eunuch with a white garment) with a saintly one, the

procession of this story line is also bears resemblance to the Ottoman versions. The

story concerning the bankruptcy of the emperor and the divine intervention of the

angel figure is worth to mention due to the fact that similar story was also found in

Ottoman text. 213

As we turn our attention to the construction process, we see the lightest brick

in the world, bricks from Rhodes were brought and used for the construction of the

four arches that carry the great dome.214Rhodes Island also has an important place in

the Ottoman narratives. Moreover, the discussion of precious marbles, marble

revetments, golden and silver materials, 215is also a conjunction between the

Byzantine and Ottoman texts.

To sum up this brief section, as we will discuss in the proceeding parts of this

chapter, the above-mentioned themes and story lines will appear in the Ottoman texts

in a different manner and within particular Ottoman idiom.

211 Accounts of medieval Constantinople: the Patria, 239.

212 Accounts of medieval Constantinople: the Patria, 265.

213 Accounts of medieval Constantinople: the Patria, 249.

214 Accounts of medieval Constantinople: the Patria, 253.

215 Accounts of medieval Constantinople: the Patria, 255.

71

3.5 The Portayal of Constantine in the Ottoman versions of Patria

Before going over the narrative of Hagia Sophia, I think it is viable to speak of the

depiction of Constantine the Great in the works that this study focuses on.

Constantine the Great who historically established the city of Constantinople naming

it after his name, is depicted in Ilyas Arabi’s narrative in a different but pragmatic

manner, in line with the purpose of his work. He is presented as the progeny of

Yanko bin Madyan and therefore, he is in fact the rightful heir to the city. However,

since the persona of Yanko reflected the notions of blasphemy and corruption within

the context of the Ottoman versions of the city’s legends, the people refuse

Constantine and his father ꜤAlā’īye to rebuild the city. For that reason, they approach

the ruler of Rome, Herakl, to prevent them to take the city. Then, Ilyas narrates the

wars occurring between Herakl and Alai’ye; there one observes the intermediary role

that Saint Peter 216 played at this point. When ꜤAlā’īye accepts Saint Peter’s invitation

to Christianity, he accepts and converts into Christianity but he dies on the road.217

His son Constantine, by the help of Saint Peter, comes to an agreement with Herakl,

also marries Herakl’s daughter Safiyye, establishing himself in his forebears’ city. At

this juncture, the advice of Saint Peter to Herakl is worth mentioning due to Peter’s

reflections on the city and its former founders. Peter points out the building activities

of Constantine’s progeny and does not forget to put emphasis on the edifices that

remain within the city as the signifiers of Yanko’s times. Peter also adds that such

216 “Ꜥīsā peygamber Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām ḥavāriyyūndan şemꜤūn adlu bir Ꜥazīz var idi”, Ali el-Arabi İlyas,

Risale-i İstanbul, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des manuscrits, Turc 147, 23r.

217 Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, 23v.

72

cities should not remain in a state of wilderness.218 What we see is that despite its

accursed past and idolatrous rulers, the presence of monuments and edifices within

the cityscape demonstrates that the city’s ancient past and monuments are praised

and commemorated by a crucial figure for the Christianity, Saint Peter.

When one compares Ilyas’ account of this story with the Anonymous text of

1491, one observes a sort of abbreviated version of it. There, Kir Mihal’s, and

ꜤAla’īye’s stories are bypassed or narrated obscurely,219 and Constantine is named as

Kostantin bin Alanya. There, Constantine defeats the armies of Herakl (the text

refers him as Herkil), but again Saint Peter acts as an intermediary. Furthermore, one

would observe a difference in the naming of Constantine’s wife, daughter of Herakl;

the text names her as Asafiyya, not Safiyye. On this issue, Yerasimos suggests that

this naming is the confluence of two cultural elements; in Ibn Battuta’s travelogue, it

is stated that the legendary vizier of prophet Solomon, Asaf bin Barahiyya built

Hagia Sophia; therefore, the two figures, the wife of Constantine and the legendary

vizier of Solomon, Asaf, are conjoined in the anonymous 1491.220 Nonetheless, at

this juncture, one should ask a precarious question as to whether the anonymous

author has read Ibn Battuta or not. Since one cannot know the answer due to the fact

that we do not have the sources of the Anonymous text of 1491, the difference

between Asafiyya and Safiyye is at least fruitful to contemplate on.

The common point among the main four sources that this study peruses into is the

depiction of Constantine as a builder of the city and its main public components. For

instance, Şemseddin Karamani praises Constantine as a great ruler who conquered

218 “ve ânıñ bir oglı var idi ki aña kosṭanṭīn dirlerdi ve ol daḫī böyle idi şemꜤūn anı bilince götürüb

heraḳle buluşdurdı ve babasınıñ ḳıṣṣasını taḳrīr itdi ve eyitdi istānbūl bunuñ babalarınıñ ve dedeleriniñ

taꜤmīri ile olmuşdur ve aña niçe ḥazāīn ve emvāl çevirteler ve ḥāliyā bināsı yerinde ṭurur āmmā içinde

ādem yoḳdur ve anıñ gibi Ꜥaẓīm şehir şöyle ıssuz ḳalmaḳ münāsib değildir” Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i

İstanbul, 23v.

219 Although the name Alanya mentioned couple of times, his untimely death on the road to the lands

of Romans is not mention in the text, Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 34-5.

220 Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 184.

73

and established himself in the city. The emphasis on universal kingship is at play

because Şemseddin’s remarks on the rulers all over the world submit themselves to

the authority of Constantine221. Along with this remark, Şemseddin puts emphasis on

how Constantine is diligent in the construction of the city222. Şemseddin also points

out the establishment of the Hippodrome At Meydanı in its Ottoman idiom, and the

variety of marbles, the wondrous and marvellous features of edifices situated there.

He continues by saying that the wondrous and marvellous features of the edifices in

Hippodrome are still testified to in Şemseddin’s present223. Unlike Ilyas and the

Anonymous text of 1491, Şemseddin’s short narrative on Constantine does not

mention his wife and Hagia Sophia. As the builder-ruler or Pādişāh, his building

projects rendered the city as the city of Constantinople and the city became greater

than it was before. Ilyas also states that some of Constantine’s works within the

cityscape are still observed in the present.224 From the perspective of 16th century

Ottoman author, Constantine legacy in Ottoman terms was still commemorated.

The other difference between the Constantine narrative of Şemseddin, Ilyas

Arabi, and the Anonymous text of 1491 is the Serpent Column, which Ilyas and the

Anonymous text of 1491 mention as the three headed dragon ( üç başlu ejderhā225, ol

tucdandır ki ejderha şeklindedir226). Serpent column or three-headed dragon is an

important textual element for Ottoman versions of Constantinopolitan and Hagia

Sophian. Starting from Ilyas Arabi’s perception of the Serpent column, this short

section also gives us insight on the representation of ancient columns, statues,

221 “gelüb vajendon ḳalꜤasın fetḥ idüb cemīꜤ pâdişâhları kendüye muṭīꜤ ḳıldı”, Karamani, Ha-za Tarih

beyan-ı bina-i Ayasofya-i Kebir, 2r.

222 “ve günden güne anıñ Ꜥimāretine ihtimâm gösterdi”, Karamani, Ha-za Tarih beyan-ı bina-i

Ayasofya-i Kebir, 2r.

223 “mevcūd olan binālar garāībane ve Ꜥacāībane delālet ider”, Karamani, Ha-za Tarih beyan-ı bina-i

Ayasofya-i Kebir, 2r.

224 “ve şimdi daḫî baꜤżı āsārları müşāhededir”, Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, 24v

225 Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, 23v.

226 Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 35.

74

edifices that goes back to the Greco-Roman antiquity and the legacy of Byzantine

past that is inherited inevitably by the Ottomans. Furthermore, the snake iconography

with its talismanic and apotropaic implications that goes back to the Greco-Roman

antiquity.227 Yerasimos explains the point that almost all the medieval Islamicate

texts on Constantinople mention the serpent column.228 Besides, as this study

ardently suggests right from the outset, the Ottoman authors whose works are

analysed in this study were the spectators of the Serpent column as they were for the

other monumental souvenirs of Christian, Roman, and Byzantine pasts within the

city’s topography. As it was shown in the previous chapter, the legendary past of the

city is demarcated by series of destruction/construction cycles; the destruction or the

apocalyptic occurrences renders the city in a state of wilderness where the wild

creatures, snakes, and dragons inhabit the city 229. The builder-ruler establishes the

representation of the three-headed dragon in the Hippodrome and various talismans

are bound that would defy and eventually protect Constantinopolitans from the

snakes, dragons, and wild creatures. While the erection of the Serpent column is

attributed to Constantine in the Anonymous text of 1491 and Ilyas Arabi, Evliya

Çelebi’s version of it is different from the former ones. Evliya mentions the Serpent

column in the section where he recounts the talismans of the city; the serpent column

or three-headed dragon is the seventeenth talisman of the city. It is interesting that

Evliya utilizes the adjective Ꜥibret-nümā for this talisman. The word means both

exemplary and mysterious; given the use of this adjective, one can state that this

227 For a recent detailed survey on the cultural and historical roots and implications of the serpent

column all the way from antiquity to the Ottoman and contemporary eras see, Paul Stephenson, The

Serpent Column; a Cultural Biography, (Oxford University Press, 2016).

228 Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 159.

229 “ve ol esnāda ḥarāb olub ejderhālara ve yırtıcı cānavarlara mesken oldı”, Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risalei

İstanbul, 21v, “ol zamānlarda ıssuz ḳalmışdı vāfir yılānlar ve mūẕī ḥayvānlar içinde cemꜤ olub

mesken idinmişler idi” Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, 24r, “meğer ol şeklin hasiyeti oldur kim ol

şehir viran oldukda içinde yılanlar ve ejderhalar Adem oğulları yılandan ve ejderhadan içine

giremezlerdi ve yürüyemezlerdi”, Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 35.

75

talisman has a particular place within the hierarchy of talismans according to Evliya.

For Evliya, the talisman is created by a certain sage called Surende during the times

of the king Pozantin who is juxtaposed with the legendary figure of Byzas in the

Byzantine patriographies. Interestingly, Evliya narrates how it was filled with mud

and earth during the construction of Ahmed I’s mosque complex and how Selim II

damaged one the dragon-heads of the talisman with his mace. Lastly, Evliya says that

the protective power of the talisman is still in effect.230 Beyond the narrative and

legends, one certainly observes that although sometimes the figures and the

characters bifurcate such as the builder of the serpent column being Pozantin and not

Constantine in early modern Ottoman versions of Constantinopolitan legends, the

performance of remembering, commemorating, and narrating the city’s past and

present through monuments, talismans, marvels and wonders is a perpetual feature.

3.6 A general introduction to the Ottoman narratives of the Hagia Sophia:

Representing, devising, and designating the monument

The reason for why Constantine is narrated in such length in the section of Hagia

Sophian narratives is self-evident due to the fact that Constantine is regarded as the

first builder of the monument in the Patria of 995 and the Anonymous text of 1491.

Be that as it may, in Ilyas Arabi’s work Constantine is represented as one of the

founders of Kostantiniyye and as one of the rulers who made the city prosperous. Yet

another bifurcation emerges among the narrative paths; interestingly, the Anonymous

text of 1491 directly names Constantine as the builder of Hagia Sophia was seen and

experienced by him. Thus, the author erases Justinian, the actual builder, from the

230 Evliya Çelebi, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, 25-6.

76

narrative and employs Constantine in the Hagia Sophia’s construction. On the

contrary, Ilyas Arabi and Şemseddin attributes Hagia Sophia’s construction to

Justinian whom they name as Üstünyānū, Üstünyānūş.

Maybe one of the most important foci of remembering the city’s past would be the

primary imperial mosque of Kostantiniyye i.e. the Hagia Sophia or Aya ṣofya-yı

kebir in its Ottoman idiom. As Gülru Necipoğlu comprehensively explains in her

article, having taken over the city, the Ottomans also inherited some parts of urban

memory and culture regarding the monuments of the city that had been burgeoning

since the founding of the city by Constantine the Great.231 As such, the narrative

concerning the construction of Hagia Sophia passed to the Ottoman urban culture or

‘lore’ in Necipoğlu’s words, influencing the Constantinopolitan sociabilities of

newcomers as well as the intellectual production of the period. Necipoğlu also

mentions a Greek copy of ninth century diegesis written for Mehmed II in 1474232;

since this text is the textual root of the Ottoman narratives of Hagia Sophia of which

this study analyses, this information is crucial for pinpointing the commencement of

the tradition in the early modern Ottoman cultural context. Turkish and Persian

versions of the diegesis were written in 1479 and 1480 respectively, one by Yusuf

bin Musa which is a brief summary of the Byzantine text according to Stephanos

Yerasimos, the other by Şemseddin in Persian in 1480.233 However, it is important to

bear in mind that Şemseddin’s translation or adaptation of diegesis was translated

into Ottoman Turkish in a short period of time. Thus, it could be said that

Şemseddin’s version of diegesis did not remain within a Persianate literary millieu; it

definitely influenced and operated as one of the principal textual and narratological

231 Gülru Necipoğlu, “The Life of An Imperial Monument: Hagia Sophia After Byzantium” in Hagia

Sophia from the Age of Justinian to the Present ed.by Robert Mark and Ahmet S.Çakmak,

(Cambridge University Press, 1992), 201.

232 Necipoğlu, “The Life of An Imperial Monument”,198.

233 Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 164.

77

roots of the succeeding Ottoman narratives of Hagia Sophia. This text is important

due to its pro-imperial attitude within the narrative, Şemseddin’s depiction of

Justinian’s actions and universal kingship are almost in a positive and praising

manner; and if one ever compares Şemseddin’s narrative with that of the Anonymous

text of 1491, it would become appear that within a short period of time i.e. a decade,

one indeed observes ruptures among the Ottoman narratives of Hagia Sophia. As

Yerasimos demonstrates, the Anonymous text of 1491 directly and openly criticizes

the imperial project of Mehmed II, contrary to Şemseddin’s pro-imperial gestures in

his narrative.234

At this juncture, and before delving into the textual comparison among

Şemseddin, Ilyas Arabi, the Anonymous text of 1491, and Evliya Çelebi, it is viable

to discuss briefly the position of İlyas Arabi as to whether it reflects a pro or antiimperial

attitude. This will become apparent when I discuss the important points in

Ilyas Arabi’s narrative, but suffice it to say that since Ilyas Arabi wrote this work

during the last years of Süleyman’s reign during which the ‘imperial’ institutions, be

it a religious, bureaucratic, and military ones, reached their maturity within the

context of so-called ‘classical’ era, one hardly observes an anti-imperial or dissident

expression. Nonetheless, one does not detect staunch pro-imperial overtones in Ilyas

Arabi’s narrative either even though we encounter occasionally euologic phrases

towards the Ottoman dynasty and Ali Paşa. Therefore, it could be asserted that Ilyas

Arabi’s political gesture in his narrative, as we shall see, going over his narrative of

Hagia Sophia, stand in in a different historical context from that of pro-imperial

narrative of Şemseddin and anti-imperial narrative of the Anonymous text of 1491.

234 Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 193-4.

78

In Ilyas Arabi’s and Şemseddin’s narratives pertaining to the construction of Hagia

Sophia, Justinian or Üstünyanu, emerges as yet another builder-ruler who erected a

monument for the grace of god and for his universal role. Indeed, this envisioning of

a Byzantine or Roman emperor has implications for the early modern Ottoman

mentalities. As it is mentioned earlier, Stephenos Yerasimos explains the antiimperial

sentiments that are embedded in the Anonymous text of 1491; according to

Yerasimos, the text differentiates the divinity of the temple from the imperial project.

The imperial project of Constantine echoes with its negative replica during Mehmed

II’s era.235 Furthermore, Yerasimos also claims that the erasure of Justinian in the

Anonymous text of 1491 is a deliberate choice by the authors to express anti-imperial

overtones.236 Probably one of the most critical statements is the author’s claim that

the rulers of the past do not build through tyranny237Nonetheless, Ilyas Arabi’s

narrative does not contain such anti-imperial overtones; as Yerasimos analyses

succinctly, Ilyas’ are narratives in a way polished politically as well as religiously.238

Yerasimos suggests that Ilyas Arabi benefits both from the Anonymous text of 1491

and Şemseddin’s narratives of Hagia Sophia. Ilyas firstly transforms the language of

Şemseddin into a more popular one, and secondly, and he erases the anti-imperial

overtones of the Anonymous text of 1491. According to Yerasimos, this means the

neutralization of the harsh criticism of the Anonymous text of 1491 towards Mehmed

II’s urban policies.239 By and large, Ilyas Arabi, as a man of 16th century, gives us a

smooth constellation of narrative that had been amalgamated until his times but not

235 Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 192.

236 Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 182.

237 Ol zaman padişahlar zulümle nesne yapdırmazlardı”, Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya

Efsaneleri, 35, ol zamanda zulümle bina yapdırmazlardı. Cümle ücretin işledirlerdi, Yerasimos,

Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 46.

238 Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 328.

239 Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 333-38.

79

without contributing to the Ottoman versions of Constantinopolitan and Hagia

Sophian legends.

In the section regarding architectural and historical preliminaries of Hagia

Sophia, I’ve mentioned that Justinian built Hagia Sophia after Nika Riot during

which the first Hagia Sophia was damaged irretrievably. One observes that in

Şemseddin, the Anonymous text of 1491, and Ilyas Arabi, Nika Riot is not

mentioned; the only expection in this case being Evliya’s narrative. Instead, the

conflict between Arianists whom the authors define as ‘idolaters’ and the Christian

scholars (naṣāra ṭā’īfesiniñ burhānları)240 is depicted and represented as the trigger

for the God-inspired construction of a new monumental church at the same site. The

Hagia Sophia narrative in the patria of 995 also mentions the riot initiated by

Arianists but in that case, only the roof of the first Hagia Sophia is burned and the

text recounts Theodosius II’s repairs.241

As one could observe in close analysis, the themes that are embedded in the

Byzantine literary traditions were transposed into different elements according to the

textual strategies of the authors. In the same vein, Yerasimos also mentions this

phenomenon; he suggests that the Ottoman versions of Constantinopolitan and Hagia

Sophian narratives obscure the textual paths242 and as a result a different kind of

textuality emerges within a particular cultural and historical context. As such,

Yerasimos points out that especially after the takeover of Constantinople in 1453,

after which the Ottoman versions of Constantinopolitan and Hagia Sophian

narratives started to be written, there was a considerable break with medieval

Islamicate literary traditions.243

240 Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, 25r.

241 Accounts of medieval Constantinople, 231.

242 Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 181.

243 Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 159-160.

80

At the beginning of the section on Hagia Sophia, Ilyas Arabi recounts the

quarrel between Arianist and Christian scholars that ends up with bloodshed. After

Arianists’ persecution, their monastery or church (deyr) at the site of Hagia Sophia is

eventually destroyed by Justinian. Nonetheless some elements within this section are

dissimilar between Şemseddin and Ilyas’ narratives. In Ilyas’ narrative, after

Justinian persecutes and killes the Arianists he wishes to destroy their monastery

although he respects them before for the reasons that he respects their ancestors244.

Only after an intercessional dream sequence in which Justinian is urged by a saintly

figure to tear down the monastery of idolaters, he destroyed the church.245 In

Şemseddin’s narrative, Justinian destroyed the church after the bloody incident;

during the dream sequence, the saintly figure orders him to spend all of Justinian’s

wealth to the building of a great church in accordance with the Jesus Christ’s

religion.246 After Justinian wakes up from the dream, he thinks and gathers his

council for the preparations of the construction. This intercessional dream sequence

is the beginning of a cluster of dream sequences which serve as inciting-incidents for

the textual strategies of the authors in consideration. Although the narrative lines are

more or less in the same vein so far, one can detect that small additions, omissions,

and polishing reflect the appropriations of different texts from different authors in a

creative and selective manner. In this vein, Yerasimos expounds on these dream

sequences as the trigger of three distinct events; the first one the initiation of

244“dedeleriniñ eyyāmından ḳalmışdı anı görüb Ꜥibret alurlardı ve anlarıñ rūḥları içün incitmezdi”, Ali

el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, 25v.

245 Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, 25v-26r.

246 “üstünyanoş eğer dilerseñ ki ḥażret-i Ꜥīsānıñ dinine şöhret viresin ve mülk-i muḫtelifeye gālib

gelesin gerekdir ki mālını din yoluna ṣarf idesin ve ḥażret-i Ꜥīsanıñ ṭarîḳi üzere bir Ꜥālī deyre binā

idesin şöyle kim nādirü’l-vuḳūꜤ ola”, Karamani, Ha-za Tarih beyan-ı bina-i Ayasofya-i Kebir, 4r-v

81

construction, the second is the revealing of the plan, and the last one is the

endowment of a treasury by divine intervention.247

3.7 The materials and the construction of the Hagia Sophia

The other important component of Ottoman narratives concerning Hagia Sophia’s

construction is the origins of materials that are endowed for the construction by the

rulers from almost every province of the world. This inevitably renders the

monument as universal and the builder-ruler of the monument, Justinian, as the

universal ruler who is able to send commands all over the world to bring necessary

materials for the construction of his church.248 Among the precious stones and

marbles, narratives concerning sommāḳi marbles are the element that actually unifies

Şemseddin, Ilyas Arabi, the Anonymous text of 1491 and Evliya Çelebi. In all these

four narratives, eight sommāḳi columns which are situated at the exedraes is

perceived as one of the leitmotifs of the monument. Indeed, the genealogy of

sommâḳi differs in all these four narratives. In this issue, only Şemseddin’s and Ilyas’

remarks on the issue are conjoined. In this vein, both Şemseddin and Ilyas Arabi

recites that the eight sommāḳi marbles with its signature reddish texture, comes from

the city of madāīn, the ancient Persian urban and royal centre which is established

247 Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 173.

248 “hemān ol vāḳıꜤa göndere her cānibine elciler taꜤyin idüb hindüstān ḫaṭay ḫotan ve Ꜥarab ve Ꜥacem

ve rūm ve deylem ve türkistān beğlerine ve frengistān ḳrallarına birer ḥükm gönderdi ki her nerdeki

direk veyā üsṭüvāne mermer veyā eḥcār melevven veyā füṣūṣ maꜤden buluna yerinde ḳoparub ḳaradan

Ꜥarabalar ile ve deñizden gemiler ile gönderüb istānbūla yetiştireler” Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i

İstanbul, 26v, “Öyle olsa buyurdum ki her biriñiziñ vilāyetleriñizde her ne dürlü mermer maꜤdeni var

ise anda Ꜥālī direkler garāīb ferşler kesdirüb her ne ṭarīḳle mümkün ise lüṭf idüb benim Ꜥimāretime

göndermek ardınca olasız”, Karamani, Ha-za Tarih beyan-ı bina-i Ayasofya-i Kebir, 6r.

82

along the Tigris River.249 While their main narratives put emphasis on Madāīn and

the ancient temple (deyr) or house of worship (Ꜥibādetḫāne)250 built by a certain ruler

Urlayu who lived during the times of Prophet Abraham, both Şemseddin and Ilyas

Arabi present the other versions on the provenance of sommāḳi marbles. Şemseddin,

before narrating the ancient temple, states that the sommāḳi comes from the land of

Ethiopia (ḥabeş vilāyetinden bulub gönderdiler)251. Interestingly, after recounting the

Madâîn narrative, Ilyas starts to convey a different version during which sommāḳi

marble is made out of the mixture of different materials.252 Then, he refers to the

legendary Qaf mountain by saying that sommāḳi could only be found there. This

statement also reflects the uniqueness of the material for Ilyas’ perception. When one

looks at the origins of other marbles such as the green ones from Ayasluk or the

white marbles from the province of Greece (Yunan vilāyeti), it would become

noticeable that sommāḳi is perhaps the most enigmatic material feature of the

monument from the point of view of Ilyas Arabi and the other Ottoman authors this

study looks into.

The narratives of precious marbles and materials are also narratives of the

spolia that bind the monumentality of Hagia Sophia to the ancient edifices from

prophetic and legendary pasts. In particular, Aydıncık where according to the

Ottoman literary tradition Prophet Solomon built palatial complexes and edifices for

249 For the brief history of the city see, Streck, M. and Morony, M., “al-Madāʾin”, in: Encyclopaedia

of Islam, Second Edition, eds. P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P.

Heinrichs, 2012.

250 While Ilyas Arabi mentions the edifice as house of worship, Şemseddin uses the word deyr which

means temple, monastery, and church all together.

251 Karamani, Ha-za Tarih beyan-ı bina-i Ayasofya-i Kebir, 6v.

252 “ve baꜤżı Ꜥāḳillar dirler ki somāḳī direkleri ṭaş değildir belli ki eczādan terkīb olunmuş nesnedir ki

ṣırçaya düzülür ve ol zamān hekīmleri altundan ve gümüşden ve ṣırçadan ve bir ḳac eczādan cemꜤ

idüb ḳaynadırlardı ḳaynayub tamam müteḥayyil olduğı gibi kum ile ḳarışdırub ve istedükleri direğiñ

veyā gayrı dürlü ṭaşıñ ṣūretinde ve endāmında balçıḳdan ḳalıb düzdüler ve meẕkūr eczāları ol ḳalıbıñ

içine tükrülür ve ṭoküb ṣu döḳdün ṣoñra/ ḳalıbı üstünden bozub çıḳarırlardı ve bu zamānda anıñ

ṣanꜤatına kimesne ḳādir değildir ve esrārın daḫī vāḳıf olamaz” Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul,

27r-v.

83

his wife Şemsiyye, is also a place to be spoliated; as such, anonymous 1491 mentions

how, through commanding the demons (dīv) Solomon put various marbles into his

edifices.253 The ruins of Solomon’s monuments provided marbles that are used

during the construction of Hagia Sophia254. Therefore, destroying an ancient

monument or edifice, extracting its marvellous and wondrous components, and

inserting them into a novel monument are common themes that are observed in Ilyas

Arabi and the other Ottoman versions of Constantinopolitan and Hagia Sophian

narratives. This issue of the emergence of novel narratives is also arguable for the

differences between the Byzantine Hagia Sophian narrative and early modern

Ottoman versions of it. For instance, the Patria of 995 states that eight columns sent

to Constantinople from Roma by a widow named Marcia; and the eight green

columns from Ephesus. Text continues, and mentions Kyzikos-cum-Aydıncık where

noblemen sent columns for the construction of Hagia Sophia.255 Yerasimos states

that since the columns that came from Rome were first brought there from Baalbek,

an ancient place which has strong Solomonic connotations, the Ottoman versions of

Hagia Sophia narratives, by eleminating the Roman elements and the figure of

Marcia the widow, highlights the of Justinian’s engagement with the East. This could

be defined as a sort of cultural transposition within the context of the early modern

Ottoman versions. On the one hand, it is apparent that some of the narrative paths

that are embedded in the patria of 995 adopted by these Ottoman texts. On the other

hand, one observes that these Ottoman authors who rewrote, translated, and

contemplated on both monument and its narratives transpose places, materials, and

the stories within their own textual strategies. Therefore, an ancient space like

253 Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 38.

254 “Andan sonra Süleyman peygamber divlere yaptırdığı köşkleri ve binaları yıkdırub anda olan

acayıb ve garib mermerleri ve direkleri eksikleri kadar getürüb Ayasofya’yı yapdılar”, Yerasimos,

Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 39.

255 Accounts of medieval Constantinople, 233.

84

Kyzikos-cum-Aydıncık, represents a genealogical framework, with respect to the

materials of Hagia Sophia. Also in every case, both Byzantine and Ottoman

narratives incessantly deracinates the historical context of figures, places, and

eventually materials; at this juncture, Dagron’s remark on the uniqueness of

patriographies as something neither history nor mere descriptions of the monumental

topography of the city could be applied to the Ottoman versions of

Constantinopolitan and Hagia Sophian narratives.

The persona of Justinian as builder-ruler par excellence is yet again

highlighted when Ilyas Arabi mentions how Justinian worked during the digging of

the foundations of the monument.256 He also continues to narrate how Justinian

ordered a secret tunnel to be constructed between his palace and the construction site;

at the vicinity of the site, a domed edifice is built for Justinian to supervise the

construction process and to gather his council there.257 This edifice is actually the

church of Hagia Eirini and as Ilyas Arabi states in his work, during the Ottoman

times it was used as cebehane. Interestingly, in the patria of 995, both the domed

edifice which is defined as ‘round chapel with a golden roof’ and the secret tunnel

narratives can be found albeit with different details.258 Thus, the builder-ruler is both

active participant and the overseer within the textual framework of Ilyas and

Şemseddin’s narratives of Hagia Sophia, even though the domed edifice is not

present in Şemseddin. While Ilyas Arabi narrates the domed edifice, he still

continues his textual approach of thinking in line with the present monuments; he

256“ andan ṣoñra pādişāh kendüsi eteğin beline ṣoḳub eline ḳazma aldı ve temel ḳazmağa başladı ve

cemīꜤ ḫalḳ anı görüb cān u dilden ḳazmağa başladılar” Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, 29v

257 “üstünyānū emr eyledi ki bir muḥtaṣarça dīvānḥāne yapalar tā kendüsi anda dīvān eyleyüb mutaṣṣıl

binā üzerine ola ḥāliyā sarāy-ı Ꜥāmireniñ içinde idi ki āya ṣofya ḳurbunda bir ḳubbe vardır ki aña

cebheḥāne dirler en evvel anı yapdılar ve pādişāhıñ sarāyından ol ḳubbeye dek yeraltından bir lağım

eylediler ve üstünyānū ol lağımdan sarāyına varub gelüb ve kimesne anı ṭuymazdı/ ve her gün anda

dīvān iderdi ve dīvān ṭağıldıḳdan ṣoñra aḫşama dek çıḳub iskemleniñ üzerinde otururdu ve ırgādlara

ve miꜤmārlara baḳarlardı” Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, 29v-30r.

258 Accounts of medieval Constantinople, 239-40.

85

does not forget to mention that this domed edifice is located in Topkapı Palace in his

present. Be that as it may, the dichotomy of imperial grandeur and divine

intervention continues largely via dream sequences. Justinian and his chief architect

from the country of Franks (frengistān) who is described as a skilful and

knowledgeable person, Ignatius259 while working on the most suitable plan for the

monument, see the same dream during which a saintly figure reveals the plan to them

and also utters its name. Şemseddin’s and Ilyas’ narratives convey more or less the

same lines pertaining to the naming of the monument.260 This dream sequence can

also be found in the Patria of 995.261 Therefore, even though there are incessant

divergences and polishing in the Ottoman variations of Hagia Sophia narratives,

some of the basic narrative paths in the Patria of 995 are pursued.

These series of dream sequences closes with the story concerning the draining

of Justinian’s treasury. At this point, Yerasimos points out the two different versions

regarding the treasury narrative. In the first version, a version that is present in the

Anonymous text of 1491, during the times when the treasury is nearly empty, a

saintly figure approaches an apprentice who is guarding the construction site when

worker went on rest and mentions a site where there is plenty of gold.262 In the

Anonymous text of 1491, the place and the treasury are not narrated in detail.

Şemseddin’s account regarding the issue, actually demonstrates his pro-imperial

attitude which is observed throughout the text. Discarding the incident between the

saintly figure and apprentice; in this account, the saintly figure is revealed as Hızır, a

259 “ve üstünyānıñ bir miꜤmār başısı var idi ki dīb frengistāndan gelmişdi ve ziyāde hünermend kāmil

ve fenni hendesede ḥāẕiḳ ve fâżıl idi ve anıñ ismi ignādyās idi” Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul,

27v-28r, “meğer bir behlüvān miꜤmār idi anıñ adına ignādyūş dirlerdi” Karamani, Ha-za Tarih beyan-ı

bina-i Ayasofya-i Kebir, 8v.

260 “pādişāh eyitdi āya ṣofya didiğiñ nedir pīr eyitdi āya ṣofya didüğim bu yerde yapılaçaḳ

Ꜥibādetḥānedir” Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, 30v, “āya ṣofya ne dimek olur ve ne maꜤnā

viresin pir eyitti aya ṣofya dimek Ꜥibādetḫāne dimekdir” Karamani, Ha-za Tarih beyan-ı bina-i

Ayasofya-i Kebir, 10r.

261 Accounts of medieval Constantinople, 241.

262 Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 37-8.

86

prophetic figure in Islamicate lore with intercessional skills, who shows Justinian the

location of the treasury in detail. This alleged place is near Silivri, a settlement

outside the central Istanbul today, where there is a blue column263. After he wakes

up, Justinian gathers his men and goes to the alleged place; digging the ground they

really find an enourmous treasury that would suffice for the completion of the

monument. It is also interesting that both in Şemseddin and Ilyas the incomplete

condition of the great dome which is the primary architectural element that renders

the monumentality is underlined.264 In Ilyas’ account, the two versions regarding the

treasury narrative is recounted; considering the date of Ilyas’ work that is mid-16th

century, it could be suggested that Ilyas’ collected and inserted these two versions

into his work. Although the paths and ways from which Ilyas received these narrative

patterns are inevitably ambiguous, it could tentatively be asserted that there is a sort

of amalgamation of different versions of the Ottoman versions of Constantinopolitan

and Hagia Sophian narratives. Furthermore, like the vultured dome that is discussed

in the previous chapter, the ancient edifices buried beneath the ground demarcate the

city and its hinterland as a space where ancient beauties, wealth and ultimately a

grandiose past were situated.

The importance of precious materials in Hagia Sophian narratives indeed

continues with the completion of the great dome of Hagia Sophia. Connected to the

previous narratives, it is observed that in search of the lightest mud-brick, Justinian

and his architects find out that the soil of Rhodes Island is the lightest one265. The

263 “anda bir gök rengi mā’il bir mermer direk vardır” Karamani, Ha-za Tarih beyan-ı bina-i

Ayasofya-i Kebir, 13v.

264 “ve ol demde emr eyledi ki maṣlaḥat üzerine olalar yine evvelki üstādlar ve ırgādlar fevḳāniyye

nîm ḳubbeler ile ve direkler ile tamām yapub hemān büyük ḳubbe ḳaldı” Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i

İstanbul, 31v, “şimdiki ḥakde ḫazīnemde ḫarc içün aṣla nesne ḳalmadı ve bu Ꜥibādetḫaneniñ aṣl olan

ḳubbesi nā-tamām ḳaldı” Karamani, Ha-za Tarih beyan-ı bina-i Ayasofya-i Kebir, 13v.

265 “ittifāḳ Rodos aṭasınıñ ṭoprağı cümlesinden ḥafîf geldi” Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, 34r,

Karamani, Ha-za Tarih beyan-ı bina-i Ayasofya-i Kebir, 15r.

87

main difference between Ilyas Arabi’s and Şemseddin’s account of the great dome is

that in Şemseddin, we detect a more detailed account of the construction process. For

instance, Şemseddin mentions that the bones of the former prophets are added to the

mixture of the dome which is prepared by Ignatius266; that is not a motif we

encounter in Ilyas’ account.Parallels with the patria of 995 continues in this section

too; a special ingredient in the mixture of the dome called arpacık suyu inevitably

corroborates with the barley prepared in the cauldrons in the patria of 995.267 In this

vein, it could be asserted that even though he most of the time follows the narrative

paths of Şemseddin in the case of Hagia Sophia, Ilyas’ narratives operates with its

own redactions, interpolations, and rediscoveries that also comes from the

Anonymous text of 1491 as one observes in the bifurcation of the treasury narrative.

As the great dome was constructed with light bricks coming from Rhodes Island,

both Şemseddin and Ilyas Arabi turn their gaze towards the interior space of the

monument. At this juncture, the most striking element in their narrative is their

conveyance of the sense of amazement; and this amazement is rendered through the

presence of precious stones and the marbles. For instance, Ilyas mentions a domed

space built for the Patriarch; while depicting the cross put on the dome which was

embellished with emeralds, diamonds, and rubies, he mentions that those who gaze at

the cross admired by its impact.268 Adjacent to that remark, Ilyas underlines the

unprecedented and the unseen decorations carved on this dome269. In a similar

manner, albeit with different words and syntax, Şemseddin also does not omit to

266 “ her on iki devre ol zamānda dünyādan naḳl iden peygamberleriñ âꜤżāsından yemin içün birer

bāde kemik ḳorlar idi anlarıñ bereketiyle ol ḳubbeye żarar ve ḥalel gelmeye bulmaya” Karamani, Haza

Tarih beyan-ı bina-i Ayasofya-i Kebir, 16r.

267 Accounts of medieval Constantinople, 241.

268 “ve daḫī miḥrābıñ ṣağ yanında baṭrīḳ içün yedi gümüşlük direk üzerinde bir muṣannaꜤ ḳubbe

yapdılar ki ṣāfī âltûndan eyleyüb birbirine ṭolaşdırub ḳubbe gibi çatdılar ve eşfa direkden dir ki altûn

müşebbek eylediler ve meẕkūr ḳubbeniñ üstünde ṣāfī āltūndan bir ṣalīb ḳodılar ki anda yāḳūt rummānī

ve elmās bedḫoşānī ve laꜤl ve cevāhir muraṣṣaꜤ olmuşdı ki ādem aña baḳub hayrān olurdı” Ali el-

Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, 35r.

269 “dürlü dürlü şekiller naḳş itdiler ki gözler görmüş değil”,Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, 35r.

88

point out the amazement of people by the setting of the interior space. According to

Şemseddin, the people who came to visit Hagia Sophia delved into contemplation

and were also thrilled by it.270

3.8 The persona of Justinian I through the looking glass of early modern Ottoman

mentalities: The case of Justinian’s Column

The depiction of Justinian as a builder-ruler and as a universal emperor reaches its

culmination point when Şemseddin and Ilyas narrate the opening ceremony of Hagia

Sophia and the ensuing construction of Justinian’s column by his nephew Justin II

(d.578). After the completion of the monument, Justinian organizes a feast for the

opening ceremony where plenty of food and alms are given to the poor people.271

The patriarch, after approaching Justinian with monks, enters into the monument

together with the emperor and hand in hand with the latter, proceeds to the east end

of the monument where the miḥrāb is situated.272 While this ceremonial procession

scene is not present in Şemseddin’s narrative, we encounter with a detail that is

smoothly narrated in Ilyas. Justinian’s inscription of endowment deed of Hagia

Sophia is worth to mention due to its relation to the above mentioned ‘textual

transposition’; in Şemseddin’s narrative, Justinian after the completion of the

monument orders his men for the writing of the endowment deed (vaḳf-nāme) of

Hagia Sophia.273 The issue of vaḳf and vaḳfnâme is a phenomenon that is embedded

in Islamicate societies and the utilization of the word is within this context actually.

270 “āya ṣofya taze tamam olmuşdu anıñ teferrücüne gelen kişi bir zamān tefekkür ve dehşetinde Ꜥakl

za’īl olub bī-ḥoş olurdı” Karamani, Ha-za Tarih beyan-ı bina-i Ayasofya-i Kebir, 16v

271 Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, 38v-39r.

272 “ ve pādişāh daḫī baṭrīḳe istiḳbāl idüb elini eline alub miḥrāba dek böyle yürüdi” Ali el-Arabi

İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, 39r.

273 “ sebeb bir vaḳf yazasın ve bir nice şehirleri ve cezāyirleri emlākdan iḫrāc idüb vaḳf-nāmede derc

idüb laꜤnetnāme ile idesiz tā ki bizden ṣoñra bu diyāra ḥākim olan pādişāhlar benim ḫayrıma māniꜤ ve

müzāḥim olmayalar” Karamani, Ha-za Tarih beyan-ı bina-i Ayasofya-i Kebir, 23r.

89

Nonetheless, Şemseddin transposes and injects the word vaḳf into his narrative.

Although, it is known that Byzantine Empire had an endowment system called

typica, the concept of vaḳf at least in its Islamicate context is a textual appropriation

on the part of Şemseddin. Yet another detail is that the Patriarchs (baṭrīḳler) gather to

write the endowment deed of Hagia Sophia. Among the endowed places, we see one

hundred and fifty cities in the lands of Arabia, one hundred fifty cities in the lands of

Iran and fifty units (elli bāre) from the lands of Franks and Rum (diyār-ı Rūm, diyārı

Frenk).274 Universal connotations in this curious endowment deed is obvious;

Justinian, as the universal ruler has the power for endowing cities and plots of land

from all over the world, as he brought precious and ancient materials and skilled

craftsmen for the construction of his universal monument. Unlike Şemseddin, Ilyas

Arabi only mentions the writing down of the endowment deed (vaḳf-nāmesini

yazdılar)275

The image of Justinian, in Şemseddin and Ilyas’ narratives differs in certain

ways. Also, it is important to mention that although the author of the Anonymous

text of 1491 mentions such a column, the text attributes the statue to Constantine and

it describes the statue with two themes. The first one is to show that Constantine

deviated from rightful path; the second one defines the statue as a talisman that

protects the city from plague.276 Therefore, not only the context and textual attitude is

very different than that of Şemseddin and Ilyas but also the statue of Justinian is

transposed into the statue of Constantine in the Anonymous text of 1491 together

with the insertion of talismanic motifs.

274 Karamani, Ha-za Tarih beyan-ı bina-i Ayasofya-i Kebir, 23r.

275 Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, 39r.

276 Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 40.

90

For Şemseddin and Ilyas’ version of the narrative, it could be said that Şemseddin

conveys an image of Justinian in a detailed manner whereas Ilyas’s version is just an

abbreviated narrative of Justinian’s death and the erection of his statue in front of

Hagia Sophia. Şemseddin’s narrative pertaining to the subject matter starts with an

unusual overtone and the way in which Justinian is depicted is also quite different.

Furthermore, since one cannot observe such depiction in the Patria of 995, it could be

stated that this is probably Şemseddin’s perception of Justinian within his textual

setting. According to Şemseddin, after the completion of Hagia Sophia, Justinian

starts to disdain worldly power by mentioning the profane nature of crown and

throne.277 Having designated the son of his brother Justin i.e. Üstinyūs in its Ottoman

idiom, Justinian orders his nephew to build a column with a bronze statue of himself

riding a horse as his testimony. The place Justinian chooses is in front of the Hagia

Sophia, a signifier that demonstrates the special relationship between the monument

and its builder.278 Justinian also explains to his nephew how his gestures on the horse

would be; with his one hand he would hold a globe, the other one would remain

open. The explanation Şemseddin conveys with regard to this gesture is very

interesting due to the fact that from a mighty builder-ruler, his image evolved into a

humble figure that does not care about this world. While the globe represents his

universal authority, Justinian states that he would die without having anything.279 For

Şemseddin’s depiction Çiğdem Kafescioğlu suggests in her seminal book that this is

an attempt at the neutralization of the actual implications of the statue.280 When we

277 “cünki ḳalmaz kimseye cihān derd u gamdır taḫt u tac ḫānmān cün bize bu demde yüḳdür bir Ꜥilāc

değmez imiş bir fulüse taḫt u tāc” Karamani, Ha-za Tarih beyan-ı bina-i Ayasofya-i Kebir, 24r.

278 “ve daḫī benim içün āya ṣofya muḳābelesinde bir Ꜥālī mîl binā itdüresin ve benim hey’etümi ve

heykelümi baḳırdan düzüb āb-ı zerr ile mücellā ḳılasın” Karamani, Ha-za Tarih beyan-ı bina-i

Ayasofya-i Kebir, 25r.

279 “hey’etüme naẓar kılanlar bileler ki ben Ꜥalemi bir ṭop gibi avcuma alub ele getürdim ve rabꜤi

meskūne ḥakīm eyledim ve ol bir elim acıḳ oldugını bileler ki Ꜥāḳıbet elimde nese bulunmadı

dünyadan gitdim” Ha-za Tarih beyan-ı bina-i Ayasofya-i Kebir, 25r.

280 Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis/Istanbul, 173.

91

look at the Patria the equestrian statue of Justinian is interpreted differently. The text

claims that the empty-handed side of the statue which is faced towards the east is a

warning to the Persians. Of course for Justinian’s hand holding the globe, there is a

cross fixed on it which is not the case of for the Ottoman version of the narrative281

Indeed, this is an unusual depiction of Justinian that could even connote a Sufistic

attitude. Furthermore, while Ilyas Arabi conveys a sketchy narrative with regard to

Justinian’s column, for the denouement of the statue he states that it remained until

the time of Süleyman I and it was destroyed during an earthquake.282Yet again, one

could observe Ilyas’ contemplation of the statue in line with his present and he in fact

narrates this part as if he saw the statue in his present. At this juncture, it is

reasonable to remember his statement at the beginning of his work; he clearly

remarks that he would use observation (müşāhede) namely his visual memory and

this remark could be the result of his desire to assert he he wrote based on his own

observation. Unlike Ilyas, Şemseddin states that the snitchers informs Mehmed II

about the statue and it was first torn down and melted down for the purpose of

making cannons but he continues that the column survives from this incident.283

Nonetheless, historically the statue was taken down around 1455 and this actually

shows us that we should also approach the observation method of Ilyas

precariously.284 From all these ramified imagery pertaining to Justinian, it could be

281 Accounts of medieval Constantinople, 59.

282 “ve meẕkūr ṣūret henüz cemşīd-i zamān ve iskender-i devrān ḥażret-i sulṭān süleymān ḥan

zamānına değin ḳalmışdı ve âya ṣofyanıñ çārşû cānibinde olan ḳapusı öñünde ṭurırdı āmmā zelzeleden

düşdi ve çoḳ yerleri ḥarāb oldı” Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, 39v.

283 “Ta bizim zamanımıza değin mevcūd idi anı gammāzlar gamz idüb sözüyle mehmed yıḳdırdı ve ol

ṣūretleriñ bâḳırından Ꜥālī ṭoplar yapdırdı āmmā mīl henüz āya ṣofya muḳābelesinde ḥāli üzere

mevcūddur” Ha-za Tarih beyan-ı bina-i Ayasofya-i Kebir, 25v.

For the detailed discussion on the fate of the statue and Mehmed II’s attitudes towards Justinian’s

statue see, Julian Raby, “Mehmed the Conqueror and the Equestrian Statue of the Augustaion,”

Illinois Classical Studies 12, no. 2 (1987): 305–13.

284 For the detailed discussion of Justinian’s column see, Cyril Mango “Justinian’s Equestrian Statue”,

in Cyril Mango Studies on Constantinople (Routledge, 1993), 1-16,.

92

said that the process of deracination for the purpose of textual strategies can applied

for the depiction of Justinian in the Ottoman versions of Constantinopolitan and

Hagia Sophian narratives. Be that as it may, two important features, namely the

universal rulership and the emperor-builder remain as main tenets of the textualities

of Ilyas Arabi and Şemseddin, if not that of Anonymous text of 1491.

3.9 Conclusion

To sum up, in this chapter, I’ve first tried to discuss the problematic of genre through

tracing its Byzantine origins and to tackle the question of whether one can speak of

Ottoman Patria as a distinctive genre or not. Although these early modern Ottoman

texts bear some of the textual dynamics of patriographies as described by Gilbert

Dagron, they have their own particularities, their own agenda, and their own

approach towards the Byzantine past and the primary monument i.e. the Hagia

Sophia that remains as a souvenir from that era, but also operates as a primary

monument of the city in a novel imperial context.

Furthermore, I have tried to analyse different representations of Hagia Sophia

by early modern Ottoman authors, especially Ilyas Arabi’s perception and

representation of the monument. The focus also has been directed towards these

texts’ representation of materials such as the transportation of spolia, the interplay of

coloured marbles and light. This mode of representation also demonstrates to a

degree the aesthetic mindset of these early modern Ottoman authors in experiencing

Hagia Sophia monumentally and textually.

The next chapter will be about the possible implications of experiencing and

engaging with the monument textually and tangibly within the context of early

93

modern Ottoman mentalities. The possible influence of the Ottoman versions of

Constantinopolitan and Hagia Sophian narratives and transmission of idioms into the

descriptions of Ottoman imperial mosques will be discussed.

94

CHAPTER 4

NARRATIVES OF AN AESTHETIC MINDSET:

HAGIA SOPHIA AS AN AESTHETIC TOPOS IN THE CONTEXT OF EARLY

MODERN OTTOMAN MENTALITIES

4.1 Introduction

The chief architect Sinan’s autobiographies co-authored with painter-poet Sa’i Çelebi

is instrumental in the sense that it confirms some of the preliminary suggestions of

this study. That is to say, the narratives of Hagia Sophia which is derived from

Byzantine literary traditions, especially the narrative of Hagia Sophia’s construction

situated in the Patria of 995 and the medieval Persianate-Islamicate literary traditions

were part of the early modern Ottoman mentalities with regard to architecture and

monumentality in particular between mid-fifteenth and mid-seventeenth centuries.

The commemoration of Ignatius in this unique late sixteenth century Ottoman text

indeed resonates with the self-representation of Sinan as ‘the chief architect’ in the

service of Ottoman dynasty. As Gülru Necipoğlu suggests in her preface to the

English translations of the five autobiographies of Sinan, Ignatius, Justinian and the

construction narrative of Hagia Sophia are all elements of the Ottoman architectural

mindset. As such, she remarks on how Sinan claims to have surpassed the flaws of

the former architects through foregrounding his persona and monumental edifices

built under his supervision and occasionally his active participation in building

activity.285 In this study, I have already discussed and tried to diagnose some of the

285 Gülru Necipoğlu, “Sources, Themes, and Cultural Implications of Sinan’s Autobiographies” in

Crane and Akin, Sinan’s Autobiographies, x.

95

implications of Ottoman versions of Constantinopolitan and Hagian Sophian

narratives on the patterns of thinking, writing, and contemplating of early modern

Ottoman authors. Through comparing such texts that stretch from the late fifteenth,

into mid seventeenth centuries, I’ve aimed to demonstrate some of the basic textual

and discursive liaisons among these texts.

That being said, one of the primary objectives of this last and brief chapter is

to relate this particular Ottoman literary tradition, through the particular example of

Ilyas Arabi’s text, to two important works from the sixteenth and seventeenth century

Ottoman cultural milieu. The first is Sinan’s autobiographies, a set of unique literary

works for not only the early modern Ottoman intellectual history but also for the

larger Perso-Islamicate intellectual circles.286 The second work, I aim to engage with

is the Istanbul volume of the Evliya Çelebi’s travelogue whose different sections

have been compared and contrasted in the previous chapters with Ottoman versions

of Patria of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. For the purposes of this chapter, I

will primarily focus on Evliya’s description of the Hagia Sophia and the

Süleymaniye mosque complex. Henceforth, the main objective of this chapter will be

to find literary connections of early modern Ottoman versions of Constantinopolitan

and Hagia Sophian narratives in the later writings on these two seminal sixteenth and

seventeenth century texts. Concomitant with Evliya Çelebi’s narrative of

Süleymaniye complex, I will also try to incorporate Ilyas Arabi’s fragmentary entry

on Ottoman mosques and the Süleymaniye complex. By doing so, I will also try to

contextualize the historical conditions during which Ilyas Arabi completed his work.

Earlier, we stated that he completed his work in hijrah 970 which corresponds to

1562-3, since he does not specify any specific month for his dating. That is to say,

286 Necipoğlu, “Sources”,vii, also see, Gülru Necipoğlu, “Challenging the Past: Sinan and the

Competitive Discourse of Early Modern Islamic Architecture”, Muqarnas 10 (1993): 171.

96

Ilyas’ work was written a few years after the completion of Süleymaniye complex

(1557) and this may hint at the initial impact of Süleymaniye as a monument on a

sixteenth century Ottoman author who claims to be in the service of the grand vizier

of his time. Earlier in this study, we have mentioned that Ali Paşa (in office 1561-

1565), during his governorship in Egypt played an important role in transferring

precious materials from ancient places such as Alexanderia. It is in this part that we

will try to find tangible connections with the narratives of ancient materials, of spolia

practices, and overall sixteenth century Ottoman architectural culture and practice. In

doing so, we will use the documents that Ömer Lütfi Barkan provided for the

construction process of Süleymaniye, Gülsüm Tanyeli’s on Ottoman building

techniques287, and Gülru Necipoğlu’s seminal work on the chief architect Sinan, a

work that not only analyses Sinan’s overall oeuvre, but also gives insights on the

Ottoman architectural culture and practice during the sixteenth century.288

This chapter then will discuss the self-representation of Sinan in his autobiographies

in comparison with the depiction of the fictional chief architect of the Hagia Sophia,

Ignatius. By doing so, it will also try to touch upon the perception or self-perception

of architect as a craftsman and an artist by the early modern Ottoman authors. At this

juncture, the ‘self-mythologizing’ persona of Sinan, highlighted by Gülru Necipoğlu

will be discussed in line with the narrative of Ignatius’ escape from Constantinople

and his confrontation with the emperor Justin II in Ilyas Arabi’s work. Due to the

point that Sinan’s autobiographies mention Ignatius several times, it could be

suggested that Ignatius and his escape story are related themes in the context of the

intricate relationship between the ruler and the architect as well as the culture of

287 Gülsün Tanyeli and Bülent Ekrem, Hiçbir Üstad Böyle Kar Etmemişdir: Osmanlı Inşaat

Teknolojisi Tarihi, (İstanbul: Akın Nalça Kitapları, 2017).

288 Necipoglu, The Age of Sinan, also see, Gülru Necı̇poğlu-Kafadar, “The Süleymaniye Complex in

Istanbul: An Interpretation,” Muqarnas 3 (1985): 92–117.

97

architecture in the early modern Ottoman world in line with Necipoğlu’s argument.

That being said, similar relationship between Sinan and his patron Süleyman I

(d.1566) in diverse manners is observed in the fifth autobiography of Sinan,

Tezkiretü’l-Ebniye.

4.2 Ilyas Arabi, Evliya Çelebi, and Sinan’s autobiographies in a comparative context

One of the main premises of this study is to explore connections and resonance

between early modern Ottoman texts that primarily dealt with the Constantinopolitan

legends and the construction narratives of Hagia Sophia, and their textual impact on

the works that deal with Ottoman monuments. In this section, I will start with Ilyas

fragmentary entry on Süleymaniye mosque, then continue with Sai Çelebi/Sinan’s

narrative for the same monument. Lastly I will try discuss Evliya Çelebi’s

description of Hagia Sophia and the Süleymaniye mosque complex.

To begin with, after Ilyas Arabi finishes his narrative of Hagia Sophia, he

further recounts the imperial mosque complexes and edifices in an abridged manner.

Not unexpectedly, the most punctuated one among Ilyas’ brief entries is that of

Süleymaniye.289 One could tentatively observe that, Ilyas has a sort of hierarchical

assemblage pertaining to Ottoman imperial edifices in his textual framework as it is

observed in his narrative of seven hills at the beginning of his work. To illustrate this

argument, after Ilyas Efendi finishes his narrative concerning the construction of

Hagia Sophia, he briefly mentions the takeover of Istanbul and continues with the

construction of Mehmed II mosque and its adjacent edifices like the semāniye

289 Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des

manuscrits, Turc 147, 43v-43r.

98

madrasa, the hospice, and the hospital.290 Then Ilyas Arabi in sequence recounts the

mosque complexes of Bayezid II, Selim I, Şehzade Mehmed; moreover, Ilyas Arabi

also mentions the mosques of Süleyman’s daughter Mihrimah located at Üsküdar

shore and the mosque complex of Hürrem in Avrat Pazarı and his other son

Cihangir’s mosque at Tophane.291 So, before the colossal Süleymaniye complex,

Ilyas Efendi, as a man of the sixteenth century recounts a century of

monumentalization of the cityscape through the works of the Ottoman dynasty. It is

curious to note that when Ilyas starts to recount the edifices from Süleyman’s time,

he pursues a numerical narrative such as ‘firstly’ (evvelā), ‘secondly’ (sanīyen); the

last one, the sixth building in Ilyas’ narratives being the Süleymaniye, as a

monumental apogee of his time.

On the Süleymaniye, Ilyas Arabi first mentions the four ‘unprecedented’ (binaẓīr)

minarets that are established in a ‘wondrous manner’ (Ꜥacāīb üslūb ve

tertībiyle). In tandem with Evliya’s description, Ilyas again recites one of the

leitmotifs of his narrative; materials brought from various provinces. As a result, one

observes the presence of somāḳḳi in Ilyas Süleymaniye narrative; Ilyas states that the

somāḳḳi columns are mementoes (yādigār) of certain rulers; and in particular, some

of them are from the thrones of the prophet Solomon and of Alexander the great.292

Therefore, as the last section of this tripartite textual comparison will reveal, from

290 “emir eyledi ki şehriñ orta yerinde ve āꜤlā mekānda ol cāmiꜤ şerīfi ve maḳām-ı münīfi yapdılar ve

cāmiꜤiñ ḥavlinde cennet misāl sekiz medrese ki semāniye dimekle meşhūrdır ve her medreseniñ

ardında birer tetimme daḫī mükemmel ve maꜤmūrdır ve bir cānibinde bimārḥāne ve bir cānibinde

maṭvaḫ ve misāfirḥāneler vāḳiꜤ oldı ve ānlarıñ tafṣîli ve cemāli ve cümle tertibātı ve āḥvāli istānbūlda

olanlara ve gözlere şāhid ve müşāhid maꜤlūm ve müekked olduğuna mütekerririne iḥtiyāc yoḳdur”

Risale-i İstanbul, 42v.

291 Risale-i İstanbul, 42-43v.

292 “ol dört bī-naẓīr/ mināresiyle ve ol Ꜥacāīb üslūb ve tertībiyle/ değme pādişāha müyesser , belki rūy-ı

zemīnde kimesneye muḳadder olmuş değildir/ ve anda olan esbāb ve ālāt ve eḥcār ve üsꜤtüvānāt her

biri bir memleketiñ ḥarācı ve bir vilāyetiñ şemꜤi sarācı idi/ ve ol somāḳī Ꜥamūdları birer/ pādişāhıñ

yādigārı idi/ ve bir ḳacı ḥażret-i süleymān peygamber Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām taḥtından ve bir ḳacı iskender

ẕü’lḳarneyniñ/ āynası taḥtından idiler” Risale-i İstanbul, 44r , we observe the same lines in the

Topkapı copy of Ilyas Arabi’s work without alteration, see, Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Tarih-i Kostantiniyye,

Topkapı Palace Museum, H.1640, 54r.

99

Ilyas Efendi to Evliya Çelebi, the connotations with the very ancient and prophetic

materiality echoed textually within a specific pattern of thought; this pattern of

thought directs the reader eventually into the very monument itself through its

layered pasts and the tangible materials which also resonate with the very experience

of observation by these early modern Ottoman authors.

The five auto/biographies of the chief architect Sinan, as it is mentioned at the

beginning of this chapter, testify to a novelty for the early modern Ottoman literary

genres and for the larger early modern Islamicate cultural milieu. Its utilization of

‘first-person point of view’ as Gülru Necipoğlu mentions293 is quite remarkable when

one considers the interventions of the poet Sai Çelebi in the text; in a way, one could

claim that the confluence of the first-person voice of Sinan with the poetic voice of

Sai Çelebi further complicates the textual analysis of this unique work. It can be

discerned that some of the narratological and cultural tropes that emerged with the

Ottoman variations of patriographies resonate with the similar themes that are

situated in Sinan’s autobiographies. This part will particularly deal with Sinan’s and

Sai Çelebi’s narrative of Süleymaniye mosque complex in Teẕkiretü’l-Bünyān.

Before delving into the Süleymaniye narrative of Sai/Sinan, I think it is important to

mention a remark in Tuḥfetü’l-MiꜤmārīn, one of the five autobiographies of Sinan. As

Gülru Necipoğlu notes in her seminal book on Sinan, Sai/Sinan claims that the

edifices he built actually were for the purpose of leaving his mark to history;294 one

of his main drives thus, apart from serving the ruling dynasty and the sultan, was to

be commemorated throughout the ‘pages of history’ (ṣaḥīfe-i rüzgār).295 Throughout

this study, I have endeavoured to demonstrate the importance of being a builder for

the concept of universal sovereignty and the idea of universal empire. However, what

293 Necipoglu, The Age of Sinan, 137.

294 Necipoglu, The Age of Sinan, 138.

295 Crane and Akin, Sinan’s Autobiographies, 78.

100

is observed here is the self-representation of the chief architect of Ottoman Empire

who served three consecutive Ottoman rulers, as a builder of the monuments who has

undertaken these works in order to be remembered. In other words, if one sustains

Necipoğlu’s argument, each edifice Sinan designed or actively engaged in the

building of, was perceived as a memento (yādigār).296 Furthermore, since there are

references to Ignatius, the legendary architect of Hagia Sophia in Tuḥfetü’l-MiꜤmārīn,

it could be tentatively claimed that Sai Çelebi and Sinan were aware of the Ottoman

versions of Patria through textual or oral channels. 297

Turning to Süleymaniye narrative in Teẕkiretü’l-Bünyān, the fifth dispatch in

the series of the auto/biographies, one sees firstly the voice of Sai Çelebi. He claims

to have made a conversation with Sinan pertaining to the monument.298 Following

this section, there is a poetic sequence during which the voice switches into that of

Sinan apparently and the subject turns into ‘I’;

That shah of auspicious fortune commanded

That I build for him a beautiful mosque.

Immediately, I tore down the Old Palace

And set about building the Süleymaniye.299

It is clear from this quoted couplet that the voice belongs to Sinan. And in a boastful

manner he speaks of how he appropriated space from the Old Palace and commenced

the building of the mosque. However, more important than the fluctuation of

personalities, what is observed immediately is that the organization of the materials

that will be utilized for the construction of the edifice. Indeed, as it is encountered in

296 Necipoglu, The Age of Sinan, 127.

297 Necipoğlu, “Sources”, x.

298 “ bu Ꜥabd-i ḥaḳir-i nā-tūvān MiꜤmār Sinān bin ꜤAbdü’l-Mennān bendesini dāvet idüb cāmiꜤ-i şerīf

ḫuṣūṣunda meşveret olunup resm-i binā taꜤyīn ve maḳām-ı cāmiꜤ-i münīf tebyīn olundu” Crane and

Akin, Sinan’s Autobiographies, 149.

299 Crane and Akin, Sinan’s Autobiographies, 122.

101

the construction narrative of Hagia Sophia, the most crucial element is the precious

marbles of different colours. As it is observed in Ilyas’ narrative of the Süleymaniye,

the issue and the presence of spolia is present in Sai/Sinan’s Süleymaniye narrative;

in the first place the text narrates the bringing of the Maiden’s column (ḳızṭaşı) in

Istanbul into the construction site of Süleymaniye. This first column is one of four

reddish granite columns that are highly visible within the interior space of the

Süleymaniye mosque.

Gülru Necipoğlu discusses the transportation of the Maiden’s column with

the help of the constructions of a specific scaffold as a performative spectacle300

which ends up with a feast during which sacrifices are made and distributed to the

poor. Such performative spectacles of sacrifices, feasts, and giving alms to the poor

can be observed in the Ottoman versions of Constantinopolitan and Hagia Sophian

narratives, hence, present yet another thematic and textual connection.

As it is discussed for Ottoman versions of Constantinopolitan and Hagia Sophian

narratives, in Sinan’s auto/biographies one can see references to the prophet

Solomon and his wife Belkıs. The text mentions the marbles of various colours

coming from the palace of Belkıs. Furthermore, the authors put emphasis on the

marbles brought from different provinces as mementoes (yādigār). Interestingly, the

mentioning of white marbles coming from Marmara Island, Proconnesus island,301

resonates with Şemseddin’s and Ilyas Efendi’s narratives of Hagia Sophia, and

inevitably the diegesis of the eighth and ninth centuries. For instance, when one

looks into Şemseddin’s text, one would observe the discussion of white marbles

found in Marmara Island.302 Another practical liaison between Şemseddin’s text and

300 Necipoglu, The Age of Sinan, 142.

301 Crane and Akin, Sinan’s Autobiographies, 149-150.

302 “ ve aḳ mermer maꜤdenin Marmara cezīresinde buldılar” Şemseddin Karamani, Ha-za Tarih beyanı

bina-i Ayasofya-i Kebir, Istanbul Universitesi Kütüphanesi, T.259, 6v.

102

Sinan Autobiographies is the origins of green marbles; both texts mention green

marbles coming from Arabia.303 What does this similarity tell us? It could visibly be

observed that the same topic, that is to say, white marbles from Marmara Island is

utilized in these two texts that belong different eras and genres. Moreover, while

Şemseddin mentions this particular marble during the construction narrative of Hagia

Sophia, Sai Çelebi/Sinan utilizes this for the Süleymaniye mosque complex which

also hints at the continuation of an architectural practice. At this point it is important

to mention that along with representation of monuments in these Ottoman texts we

should also bear in mind that these materials and spolia that are used for the

construction of Süleymaniye are brought from distant places and their transportation

was highly organized. As Ömer Lütfi Barkan explains in his work on the

construction registers of the Süleymaniye, a series of orders were sent to the

governors of provinces from which the materials and marbles from ancient ruins

such as Baalbek were transported.304 Judging from the very archival evidence, it

could be claimed that the textuality of Ottoman versions of Constantinopolitan and

Hagia Sophian narratives operated in different genres and for different monuments.

More crucially, on the one hand they superimpose the implications of their genre on

different texts. On the other hand, their narratives transmit to the other texts through

oral or textual circulation and sustain the phenomena of material and monumental

genealogies on a textual and representational level. This is also observed in the

connection between the texts of Evliya and Sai Çelebi/Sinan. One would briefly

observe that the impact of Ottoman variations of patriographies persisted at least

303 “yeşil mermerler ki ufaḳ ez-nişālarıyla maḥlūṭdur Ꜥarabistān vilāyetinden getirdiler” Karamani, Haza

Tarih beyan-ı bina-i Ayasofya-i Kebir, 6v, Crane and Akin, Sinan’s Autobiographies, 150.

304 See Ömer Lütfi Barkan, Süleymaniye Cami ve imareti inşaatı (1550-1557) vol.1, Türk Tarih

Kurumu yayınlarından, 6. seri, sa. 10 (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1972), 331-350.

103

until the mid-seventeenth century, during which Evliya was writing his grandiose

travelogue.

The title of Evliya for the description of Hagia Sophia apart from its

narrative is telling because he denotes the words such as form (eşkāl) and style of

plan (tarz-ı ṭarḥ).305 Thus, unlike Ilyas Arabi, Şemseddin, and anonymous 1491, he

further highlights his attention to the architectural details of the building as they were

visible to him. Indeed, it could be said that Ilyas Arabi also claimed have used his

observation in his work and one could see this when Ilyas talks about the Justinian’

column and its fate according to his present observation. Nonetheless, such distinct

discussion of the plan and forms of the monument is not as established as it is in

Evliya’s narrative.

Unsurprisingly, Evliya commences his discussion with the great dome of the

monument by putting emphasis on its unsurpassed greatness (kim bu günde eyle bir

ḳubbe-i Ꜥaẓīm binā olunmamışdır). He then mentions the semi domes situated at the

mihrab and apse facet of the interior space. After he mentions the great semi dome

above the Byzantine imperial gate, which Evliya denotes as ḳıble ḳapusı, a gate

showing the direction of Mecca, he describes the glass embellishments from Necef

and Moran surrounding the circle of the great dome (Necef ve Morān camlarıyla

müzeyyendir).

The other element that draws attention of Evliya is the representation of

‘marvellous’ and ‘wondrous’ forms and images on the domes (taṣāvīr ve eşkāl-i

garībe ve Ꜥacībe); in this manner, Evliya also describes the human figures (ādemiyān

ṣūretleri) other than the above mentioned ones. He continues and states that those

who look at them with a ‘scrutinizing gaze’ with their forefinger on their mouth

305 “maꜤbed-i ḳadīm Ayaṣofya-i Kebīriñ eşkāli ve tarz-ı ṭarḥın ve binā-yı muṣannaꜤātı ve ṭūl u Ꜥarżın

Ꜥayān u beyān ider” Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, 51.

104

(engüşt ber-dehen idüb) suppose them to be alive.306 In all the sources this study

excavates and discusses, the issue of looking towards artefacts and monuments have

a certain significance; parallel to this phenomenon, I have discussed particularly in

Ilyas Arabi and Şemseddin Karamani’s text, the idioms such as ‘the eyes have not

seen such thing’ (gözler görmüş değil) are frequently utilized. In her seminal article,

in relation with these issues, Gülru Necipoğlu discusses and analyzes the origins of

‘modalities of the gaze’ in early modern Islamicate cultural milieu with specific

reference to the works of eleventh century book of optics written by Ibn al-

Haytham.307 She states that a specific ‘visual aesthetics’ emerged during tenth and

eleventh centuries during which the figural representation played a pivotal role; also,

it is important to state that Necipoğlu’s remark on wonderment (taꜤaccüb)308 is

analogous to the same idioms that is encountered in the Ottoman variations of

patriographies such as Yanko bin Madyan’s wonderment or amazement with the idol

of Şemsiyye’s father.309

It is apparent that Evliya’s utilization of the idiom ‘scrutinizing gaze’ (imꜤān

naẓarı) is inevitably related with Necipoğlu’s remarks on the same idiom that is

derived from Ibn al-Haytham’s theorization of ‘contempletive gaze’; in this vein,

according to Necipoğlu, Haytham’s theory or in her words ‘way of seeing’ were

utilized as ‘scrutinizing gaze’ within early modern Ottoman mentalities. This notion

also shapes Evliya’s description of Hagia Sophia.

At this juncture, analyzing the naming of the painter by Evliya Çelebi can be

viable due to the fact that it is tentatively related with Necipoğlu’s discussion of the

306 Evliya Çelebi, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, 51.

307 Gülru Necipoğlu, “The Scrutinizing Gaze in the Aesthetics of Islamic Visual Cultures: Sight,

Insight, and Desire,” Muqarnas 32 (2015): 23–24.

308 Necipoğlu, “The Scrutinizing Gaze in the Aesthetics of Islamic Visual Cultures”, 32.

309 Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i İstanbul, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des

manuscrits, Turc 147, 6r.

105

growing interest in the ‘Frankish manner’ throughout the eastern part of the

Islamicate cultural world since fourteenth century.310 Evliya names the painter as

erjenk Freng Mānī; the first word means the collection of paintings of the legendary

painter Mani311 who also established his own religious cult. The second word means

Frank and the last one Mani, speaks for itself. What is interesting for this metaphor

of the painter for the figural representation on Hagia Sophia’s dome is that Evliya

concocts a metaphor of artist that connotes both with the east and the west.

Moreover, since Mani is an ancient figure, it can be argued that although Evliya

follows the description of the tangible architectural components of the monument,

one could observe the insertion of the ancient personalities and monuments that

function as synchronic signifiers and connote the legendary and prophetic layers of

past. That being said, one can read the depiction of the arches that supported the

great dome in this manner. All the four arches are named after ancient figures such as

ḫavernaḳ, an ancient palatial edifice near Euphrates, Kaydefa who is mentioned

earlier in Evliya’s foundation narratives as a dissident ruler during the times of

Alexander the Great.312 The remaining two arches are named after the legendary Qaf

Mountain and Şeddad, the legendary pre-Islamic Arabian personality who belongs to

the idolatrous ꜤAd people. Şeddad bin ꜤAd character is also crucial in the

Constantinopolitan legends due to the point that Yanko bin Madyan, one of the

310 Necipoğlu, “The Scrutinizing Gaze in the Aesthetics of Islamic Visual Cultures”, 41, For a detailed

discussion of ‘Frankish manner’, see, Gülru Necipoğlu, “Persianate Images between Europe and

China: The ‘Frankish Manner’ in the Diez and Topkapı Albums, c.1350-1450” The Diez Albums:

Context and Contents, (Leiden ; Boston: Brill, 2016), 531-592.

311 The meaning of the word is taken by Redhouse Ottoman Turkish dictionary and Steingass’ Persian

dictionary. The word also meand ‘the house of the painter Mani’ but probably this is utilized as an

allusion to his collection of paintings, also on the discussion of Mani in the aesthetic sense see,

Necipoğlu, “The Scrutinizing Gaze in the Aesthetics of Islamic Visual Cultures”, 48-49.

312 Evliya Çelebi, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, 13.

106

builder-rulers, comes from the ꜤAd people and he is actually girded with a sword and

crowned by the hands of Şeddad bin ꜤAd.313

As for the marble columns, Evliya first and foremost mentions the red

sommāḳi marble columns (la’l-gūn ṣommaḳī sütūn-ı mücellālar) which also have a

crucial place within the other texts like Ilyas Arabi and Şemseddin Karamani that

recount the construction narrative of Hagia Sophia. When Evliya proceeds to

describe the doors of the monument, he speaks of 361 doors and 101 great doors; for

101 great doors (bāb-ı Ꜥaẓīm); he mentions their talismanic features. Earlier, I have

mentioned that Evliya denotes the Byzantine imperial gate as ḳıble gate; for this gate,

he mentions that the wood of this ḳıble gate actually contains wood from Noah’s ark.

There, he returns to the construction narrative of Hagia Sophia during which he

names the builder as the daughter of Vezondon, āyaṣofya, a name that inevitably

echoes with Byzantion. In this story, while the building activity is continuing,

through the urging of the prophet Hızır, Vezondon brings the wood from Noah’s Arc

that is located near the Cudi Mountain.314 Last but not least, Evliya points out the

marble revetments that cover the interior walls of Hagia Sophia. According to Evliya

craftsmanship conducted on the marbled columns was still unmatched and

unsurpassed.315

What is observed in Evliya’s description of Hagia Sophia is the continuation

of the hybrid narrative that has been discussed since the first chapter of this study.

Even though Evliya discusses the very tangible materiality of the monument such as

the great ṣomāḳḳî columns situated at the exedrae at which one could still gaze, he

does not hesitate to mention his own version of Hagia Sophia narrative in which the

legendary ruler Vezondon’s daughter Ayaṣofya brings wooden material from Noah’s

313 Risale-i İstanbul, 5v.

314 Evliya Çelebi, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, 51.

315 Evliya Çelebi, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, 52.

107

Ark. As such, it could be argued that this is yet another example of hybridization of

names, places, and temporalities I have discussed in the case of Ottoman versions of

Patria.

In connection with the description of Süleymaniye mosque complex, when

one looks into Evliya’s description of the qualities (evṣāf) of the mosque, it would be

apparent that in tandem with Hagia Sophia, similar visual and aesthetic concepts are

utilized for Süleymaniye too. Nonetheless, the connection is not just with Evliya’s

description of Hagia Sophia, but also there is a palpable textual connection with

earlier Ottoman narratives concerning the construction of Hagia Sophia. For

instance, right at the beginning of Evliya’s narrative of Süleymaniye, one observes

the gathering of craftsmen, architects, and workers from all of the provinces that are

subjected to the Ottoman rule. The connotations with universal sovereignty that is

observed in Ottoman versions of Patria such as the narratives of the city’s foundation

by Yanko bin Madyan and the construction of the Hagia Sophia by Justinian could

also be discerned in Evliya’s narrative of Süleymaniye. Furthermore, the textual and

idiomatic connections are strengthened with Evliya’s mentioning of four ṣommaḳî

columns brought from Egypt; As it is shown during the course of this study, ṣommaḳî

stone is an important textual, material, and monumental signifier within the

narratological framework of Ottoman patriographic works that links the ancient and

Romano-Byzantine notions of monumentality to those of the present.

One of the captivating elements in Evliya’s narrative pertaining to Süleymaniye

mosque complex is that it speaks of a number of individual artists and craftsmen. The

first example is the chief architect Sinan; Evliya mentions him at the moment he

speaks of certain glass types that is scattered around the monument. The second

personality is a glass maker who worked on the glass revetments above the minbar

108

and mihrab, called Ibrahim the Drunkard (serḫoş Ibrāhīm).316 The third artist who is

specifically mentioned in Evliya’s narrative of Süleymaniye is Ahmed Karahisari

who applied the calligraphic programme of the complex in and around. Evliya

denotes him as a ‘skilful pen’ (ḳalem-i şikāfīdir).317 What we understand from this

short section on artists who worked on the different parts of the Süleymaniye mosque

is that along with the perception of the monument, the representation of artists and

architects’ identity in Evliya’s text was also an important point.

4.3 The documentary evidence on the materials of Süleymaniye

In the previous section, we observe how the Süleymaniye was represented by the

early modern Ottoman authors starting with Ilyas Arabi’s text. This section, as a

supplementary one to the formey will discuss the documentary evidence with regard

to the construction process of the Süleymaniye. In particular, we will discuss the

correspondence between the Imperial centre and Ali Paşa, the governor of Egypt

back then, pertaining to the transportation of precious marbles and stones that is

published Ömer Lütfi Barkan’s seminal study on the Süleymaniye. These

correspondences between the centre and the periphery demonstrate the meticulous

organization of the Imperial apparatus in order to bring marbles from different sizes

and features into to Imperial capital. Indeed, the most important among these stones

and marbles are two red granite columns from Alexandria which are gigantic in size.

Along with these two granite columns, there are two other granite columns that

support the main dome of the Süleymaniye.318 The first Imperial order was

316 Evliya Çelebi, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, 62.

317 Evliya Çelebi, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, 63.

318 Necipoğlu, Age of Sinan, 215.

109

dispatched to Ali Paşa in August-September 1550319 and it indicates the presence of

four (dört kıtꜤa) red columns in Alexandria, which are called as ‘serçe-gözi’. Then

the Imperial centre orders Ali Paşa to find out the location of these aforementioned

columns and to estimate the adequate vessel for the transportation of the columns to

the capital.320Furthermore, the imperial order requires from Ali Paşa the assessment

of green and sommaki columns with certain measures (beş-altı arşun) and to be

reported back to the capital immediately. Our next document, is the report on various

marbles written by the architect Bāli. In this list, we observe various kinds of marbles

such as sommaki, white, green (fıstıkī, sebz), and black which are classified by the

architect Bāli and handed over to Ali Subaşı who is a representative of the capital

and charged with the gathering of the precious marbles in the province of Egypt. Ali

Paşa also gave another set of marbles to Ali Subaşı which was kept by the former

governor Davud Paşa.321 So far, what we observe very patently is an effort by the

centre to bring ancient materials, especially granite columns, from Alexandria which

was an important centre of antiquity and had similar legendary foundation narratives

like Constantinople and Rome.

In addition, as can be gleaned from these documents, Ali Paşa as the governor

of Egypt had a crucial part in the transportation of two granite columns from

Alexandria to the Imperial capital. Why are these correspondences important for the

purpose of the story? By and large, it clearly demonstrates that what we have

discussed on the textual level i.e. the narratives of Hagia Sophia’s and Süleymaniye’s

construction actually also have a real aspect on the material level. One thing indeed

319 Since the date give no specific day only writes Shaban 970 of Hijrah, the date corresponds to these

two months.

320 “zikr olunan direkler ne mahalde ve berü gelmelü olıcak ne mikdar nesne ile gelür ve ne asıl

gemiye tahmīl olınur, niçedür tamām aslı ve tafsīli ile maꜤlūm idinüb muꜤaccelen bildiresin” Barkan,

Süleymaniye Cami ve imareti inşaatı (1550-1557), 13.

321 “mukaddema Bender-i İskenderiyye’de merhum ve mağfurünleh Dâvud Paşa zamanında dermahzen

olub…” Barkan, Süleymaniye Cami ve imareti inşaatı (1550-1557), 14.

110

could be confusing for the actual feature of these materials. In Ilyas Arabi’s short

entry on the four granite columns, we see that all of them are depicted as sommaki

whereas in these documents, they are delineated as serçegözi. In her article on the

Süleymaniye, Gülru Necipoğlu, while questioning the actual provenance of the four

granite columns that hold the main dome of the Süleymaniye, argues that the main

importance of all these efforts to bring precious stones from ancient locations such as

Alexandria, and Baalbek with its strong Solomonic connotations, is a symbolic one

and indicates Süleyman’s desire to connect himself ancient and prophetic figures

such as Alexandre and the prophet Solomon, hence the combination of myth and

history that this study consistently discuss in Ilyas Arabi’s and the other early

modern Ottoman texts’.322This effort is also related with Sinan’s endeavour to

compete and refer to the monumentality of Hagia Sophia in his edifices, most

apparent among them being Süleymaniye, with its main dome flanked by two semi

domes on a rectangular layout.

Organization of the procurement of materials also hints at a peculiar culture

and practice in the early modern Ottoman world. In a recent book, Gülsün Tanyeli

discusses the techniques of building in Ottoman architecture. For the stones and

marbles that are used in buildings, while discussing the practice of spolia she

mentions important centres such as white marble quarries in Marmara island, and

spolia from the Kyzikos ancient settlement in Aydıncık that were used constantly

during the construction of the Süleymaniye mosque.323 That being said, these two

places, Marmara Island and Aydıncık, are discussed in this study in the context of

322 Necı̇poğlu-Kafadar, “The Süleymaniye Complex in Istanbul.”, 102-5.

323 For the use and collecting of materials during the construction of Süleymaniye complex see, İlknur

Aktuğ Kolay and Serpı̇l Çelı̇k, “Ottoman Stone Acquisition in the Mid-Sixteenth Century: The

Süleymanı̇ye Complex in Istanbul,” Muqarnas 23 (2006): 251–72.

111

Ilyas and the other early modern Ottoman authors.324 An important remark of Günsül

Tanyeli is that most of the time, early modern Ottomans utilized spolia only after

processing and molding these pieces according to the requirements of their

construction.325

To conclude this section, what we observe in the documentats about the

transportation of the granite columns from Egypt under the supervision of the

governor Ali Paşa suggests that Ilyas Arabi, as a man at the service of Ali Paşa,

could have been involved or at least could have witnessed the process of this

transportation. In addition, if we presume that Ilyas was part of Ali Paşa’s household

he might have moved with Ali Paşa to Istanbul when the latter was appointed as the

grand vizier in 1561. And during this period he might have encountered Hagia

Sophia, Süleymaniye, and the cityscape in general. Considering the date of the

completion of his work i.e. 1562-63, this point could tentatively be presumed.

4.4 The Sultan and the architect/The Emperor and the architect: Sinan and Ignatius

As the last component of this chapter, I will briefly touch upon the textual renderings

pertaining to the relationship between the ruler and the architect through comparing

the intricate relationship between Ignatius, probably an erroneous use of Anthemius

one of the real architects of the Hagia Sophia, and Justin II and Süleyman I and

Sinan. Indeed, unlike the reality of the latter characters, the former figures are related

with the Ottoman narratives of Hagia Sophia and at least Ignatius is a fictional figure.

Nonetheless, as it is indicated in the previous sections, transitions between Ottoman

versions of Constantinopolitan and Hagia Sophian narratives, and the other early

324 Tanyeli, Hiçbir Üstad Böyle Kar Etmemişdir, 33.

325 Tanyeli, Hiçbir Üstad Böyle Kar Etmemişdir, 38-40.

112

modern Ottoman literary genres is quiet apparent. Furthermore, it is also important to

bear in mind that Sinan’s autobiographical work was a very unique one in itself that

bears some of the thematic echoes from Hagia Sophian legends.

As Gülru Necipolu suggests and as it is observed in Sinan’s autobiographies

there is a constant comparison, in aesthetical and monumental terms between Sinan’s

edifices and Hagia Sophia’s architectural configuration, most crucial component of

these comparisons being the Hagia Sophia’s great dome. The refined feature of

Sinan’s mosque complexes compared to Hagia Sophia is one of the most important

remarks in Evliya’s Süleymaniye narrative and in Sinan’s autobiography. According

Gülru Necipoğlu, Sinan’s filtering of the Hagia Sophia’s architecture results in a

positive aesthetical response to its monumentality. As such, this ‘refinement’326 of

Hagia Sophia’s architectural configuration contributes to the making of a certain

Ottoman architectural idiom in the context of sixteenth century.327 As Necipoğlu

states also in her book on Sinan, experimentation in the making of the Ottoman

imperial image took place concurrently with the ‘institutionalization of royal

architects and centralizing bureaucratization of the imperial apparatus. Thus, one

could interpret the ever-increasing the spatial centralization of mosques as such.

According to Necipoğlu, it could also be asserted that, Hagia Sophia’s monumental

grandeur remained in the cityscape but it remained as a memento of imperial

grandeur to be adopted and appropriated into the current Ottoman imperial

discourse.328

By and large, Evliya Çelebi underlines the issue of ‘refınement’ in his section

on the Süleymaniye. In an anecdotal narrative, Evliya recounts the amazement of

326 For Sai/Sinan’s emphasis on ‘refined’ feature of Sinan’s edifices see, Crane and Akin, Sinan’s

Autobiographies, 85-86.

327 Necipoglu, The Age of Sinan, 139-140.

328 Necipoglu, The Age of Sinan, 83-4.

113

visitors from the west by the monumentality of Süleymaniye; in this narrative, Evliya

recurrently utilizes the idioms he does for the Hagia Sophia. That is to say, he

mentions how these Frankish ‘infidels’ (Frenk kefereleri) who are well-known in

their knowledge of engineering and architecture, are amazed by the monument and

bite their fingers in amazement (engüşt ber-dehen).329 During this short narrative,

Evliya’s reference to the arch of Chosroes (ṭāk-i Kisrā) is also worth to mention due

to the very patent connection with his description of Hagia Sophia in which one of

the arches in the Hagia Sophia that supports the great dome is described through its

resemblance to ṭāk-i Kisrā. In the following section, Evliya asks the visitors how

they find the building and the visitors praise the building for its technical and

architectural quality. When Evliya rhetorically asks them to compare Süleymaniye

with the Hagia Sophia, the visitors define Süleymaniye as more ‘beautiful’, ‘elegant’,

and ‘refined’ than the Hagia Sophia.330 The issue of the utilization of words such as

‘beauty’ (leṭāfet), ‘elegance’ (ẓerāfet), and ‘refinement’ (neżāket) as aesthetical

idioms by Evliya Çelebi is discussed by Çiğdem Kafescioğlu in her article ‘Itinerant

gaze’.331 In this article, she compherensively analyzes the aesthetical implications of

the utilization of such idioms and its further implications for the architectural culture

of early modern Ottomans.332

How is the relationship between Sinan and Süleyman I depicted in these

narratives then? In addition, how is the depiction of this relationship is associated

with the portrayal of the relationship between Ignatius and Justin II in Ottoman

329 Evliya Çelebi, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, 65.

330 “Ammā leṭāfet ve ẓerāfet ve neżāfetde (neżāket) ve şīrīnkārlıḳda bu andan muṣannaꜤ binā-yı Ꜥibretnümādır”

,Evliya Çelebi, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, 66.

331Kafescioğlu mentions the story of westerner who visitSüleymaniye and asked by Evliya to compare

it with that of Hagia Sophia. see Cigdem Kafescioglu, “Itinerant Gaze: Ottoman and Medieval

Anatolian Architecture in the Book of Travels,” Evliya Çelebi et al., Evliya Çelebi Studies and Essays

Commemorating the 400th Anniversary of His Birth, (İstanbul: Turkey Ministry of Culture and

Tourism Publications : The Banks Association of Turkey, 2012), 310-326.

332 Kafescioglu, “Itinerant Gaze”, 315-316.

114

versions of Constantinopolitan and Hagia Sophian narratives? To recount Ilyas’

narrative briefly, when Justin II ascends the throne after his uncle Justinian, he

blames Ignatius for the cracking of the dome and he prepares a plan whereby

Ignatius would be stuck at the top of the column that Justin built for his uncle; with

the help of his wife Ignatius escapes from the column and leaves Constantinople.333

As it is evident from the sharpness of the story, there is an antagonistic relationship

between the ruler and his architect. When one peruses into the anonymous text of

1491, it could be well observed that this antagonistic relationship gives way into a

more hostile one in the Ottoman context. The anonymous text of 1491 portrays the

brutal details of how the architect of Mehmed II mosque complex, Sinan-ı Atik was

killed334 because he had shortened the marble columns and therefore had built a less

monumental edifice than the Hagia Sophia. Having conveyed this antagonistic

relationship, Evliya recounts a different version of the story during which the

unfortunate architect’s hands were chopped off by the sultan himself.335

How could we relate these two cases with that of Sinan the chief architect in his

auto/biographies? In a parable like narrative, when Süleyman finds out that Sinan is

neglecting the construction of his monument, he reminds the latter briefly of the fate

of his namesake.336 Nonetheless, the relationship between Sinan and Süleyman I is

quite different than that of two abovementioned ones. Neither legendary nor an antiimperial

text, Sinan’s autobiographies smoothly tackles this trope of hostile

relationship by attesting to the extraordinary talent of Sinan and his completion of the

Süleymaniye within a short time span after Süleyman’s admonishment. Sinan’s

333 Risale-i İstanbul, 40-41v.

334 Stefanos Yerasimos, Kostantiniyye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri trans. Şirin Tekeli (İstanbul: İletişim

Yayınları, 2012), 46-47.

335 Evliya Çelebi, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, 58-59, for a brief account of socio-political context of

the issue within the context of anonymous 1491 see, Yerasimos, Kostantiniye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri,

208-231.

336 “Ceddüm Sulṭān Meḥemmed ḫan miꜤmārı saña nūmūne yitmez mi?”, Crane and Akin, Sinan’s

Autobiographies, 151.

115

humbling in front of the Sultan with an unwavering loyalty towards him and his

family demonstrates to us both the pro-imperial attitude of Sinan and his selfrepresentation

as the loyal servant of the dynasty. Thus, the narrative continues with

the opening ceremony of Süleymaniye during which the Sultan gives the keys of the

mosque to Sinan as an overt symbolic gesture that compromises the trope of the

belligerent relationship between the architect and the ruler that originates in the

‘distant’narrative of Ignatius and Justin II.

4.5 Conclusion

In this chapter, I have tried to relate my discussion on Ottoman versions of

Constantinopolitan and Hagia Sophian narratives with that of Sinan’s

autobiographies and Evliya Çelebi’s descriptions regarding Hagia Sophia and the

Süleymaniye mosque, two important texts for the perception of architecture by early

modern Ottoman intellectuals. Owing to the comparison among Ottoman versions of

Constantinopolitan and Hagia Sophian narratives, Evliya’s travelogue, and Sinan’s

autobiographies, I have tried to unearth some of the preliminary textual and idiomatic

implications of Ottoman versions of Constantinopolitan and Hagia Sophian

narratives on other literary genres in the early modern Ottoman cultural milieu. In

doing so, I have tried to identify the idioms and expressions that were transmitted

and transposed all the way from the eight and ninth century Diegesis to Ottoman

versions of Constantinopolitan and Hagia Sophian narratives and to the other early

modern Ottoman texts. As a secondary aim, in tandem with the recent historiography

that investigates the identity of artists, architects, and engineers in broader early

116

modern Islamicate societies337, I have tried to delve into the textual expressions of

architect as an artist and as a craftsman vis-à-vis the ruler. Indeed, in the case of

Sinan, it is apparent that it is the case of self-expression and self-representation,

interwoven with that of Sai Çelebi’s poetic interpolations into the text. In the final

analysis, what is observed is the prolongation of textual and aesthetic tropes

pertaining to the perception of the monumental structures by early modern Ottoman

authors. Parallel to this, one of the most important channels through which these

textual and aesthetic tropes were evolved is the narratives that circulated and were

read in Ottoman versions of Constantinopolitan and Hagia Sophian narratives. It

could be asserted that textual circulation was regular within the early modern

Ottoman intellectual milieus, but as Gülru Necipoğlu suggests, one should not

neglect the phenomenon of oral transmission of knowledge and narrative among

these circles338. I think the perpetuity and the variety of such particular narratives

pertaining to the city’s legendary and contemporary histories and the similarity

between the narratives of past and present monuments derives from the accelerated

dissemination of these narratives, also via oral culture.

Last but not least, as an interesting appendix to this chapter, in the Topkapı

copy of Ilyas Arabi’s work there is a commentary in the last two pages of the text.

This commentary comprises of the proportions of the monuments (Ꜥarżen, ṭūlen)

starting from Noah’s arc to the Süleymaniye mosque. What is captivating in this

commentary is that the scribe claims to have taken these proportions from the

337 A recent example among them is the studies edited by Kishwar Rizvi that looks into the cultural

developments that took place in three early modern Islamicate empires, see, Kishwar Rizvi, ed.,

Affect, Emotion, and Subjectivity in Early Modern Muslim Empires: New Studies in Ottoman, Safavid,

and Mughal Artand Culture, (Leiden ; Boston: Brill, 2018).

338 Necipoğlu speaks of this issue in the context of Ottoman architectural culture but I extend it to the

realms in this part, Necipoglu, The Age of Sinan, 147.

117

biography of the chief architect Sinan.339 From this short section in a midseventeenth

century copy of Ilyas Arabi’s work, one could assert that the circulation

of texts are not one-sided; Sinan and Sai Çelebi’s late-sixteenth century

auto/biographies could find a place in the mid-seventeenth century copy of a midsixteenth

century text.

339 “merḥûm ḳoca miꜤmār başınıñ tezkiresinde ber-vechile naḳl ve iḫrāc olunmuşdur” Tarih-i

Kostantiniyye, 56r.

118

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

Although it is not possible to get an all-encompassing grasp of early modern

Ottoman attitudes towards Constantinopolitan and Hagia Sophian narratives, I have

tried to shed light on the patterns of thought of Ottoman authors I have chosen for

this study, the primary focus being on Ilyas Arabi’s mid-sixteenth text. Throughout

this study I have utilized the term ‘mentality’ to delineate patterns of thought;

nonetheless, most of the time I used the term in its plural form ‘mentalities’ to

implicate that there is no monolithic and homogenous early modern Ottoman

mentality. That being said, it has become visible during the course of this study that

even among the authors of the Ottoman versions of Constantinopolitan and Hagia

Sophian narratives, it is observed that the political and literary attitudes of the

authors varied according to their social, political, and intellectual leanings.

The preliminary conclusion pertaining to this study could be two-fold; in the

first instance, through demonstrating the tangible textual connections and attitudes, I

have tried to show how material and monumental genealogies operated between the

perceptions of different layers of pasts i.e. the legendary, the prophetic, and the

Greco-Roman past. Solomon who played a pivotal role within the prophetic past

prophetic past is a familiar figure to the Ottoman authors due to the medieval

Islamicate liaison of the narrative. Yanko bin Madyan, a literary figure from the

legendary past in these texts, also was a Ottoman addition to Constantinopolitan and

Hagia Sophian narratives, as we have discussed it with reference to Stephanos

Yerasimos’ work. Nonetheless, the narrative concerning the construction of Hagia

Sophia and the ancient columns such as the Serpent column or üç başlu ejderhā in its

119

Ottoman idiom is in a way a different from the aforementioned themes in the sense

that the Ottoman authors’ grasp of these artefacts and monuments are inevitably

different from that of their Byzantine counterparts. When they encountered the

Serpent column, the Hippodrome, and even the Hagia Sophia I think they perceived

them as mementoes (yādigār) from an ancient and foreign culture even though these

monuments were partially domesticated and appropriated by Ottoman imperial

discourse during the time when Ilyas Arabi was writing his work.

Secondly, I have tried to unearth how these material and monumental

genealogies have an impact on the narratives of Ottoman dynastic edifices as I have

tried to discuss in particular in the narratives of Evliya Çelebi and Sinan’s

autobiographies. The very materials such as ṣommaḳī stone and the green columns

constituted a material connection between the city’s ancient past and the Ottoman

present both materially and textually. The enunciation of such materials in the

legendary Byzantine and Ottoman texts is essential for the main premises of this

study. That is to say, these Ottoman texts starting from the main source of this study,

Ilyas Arabi’s history of Constantinople, present a textual and mental effort to think

about city’s past, its ancient topography and monumentality as well as experiencing

the monumentalities within the cityscape palpably. I have also tried to supplement

these material connections between the Hagia Sophia and the Süleymaniye by giving

the documentary evidence taken by Ömer Lütfi Barkan’s work to demonstrate that

such connections do not take place only at the textual level.

Last but not least, although I have tried to unravel a glimpse towards the

perception of Hagia Sophia and its narratives by early modern Ottoman authors, the

overall picture will appear only insofar as further comprehensive in-depth reading of

early modern Ottoman sources along with their possible connection with that of

120

Byzantine and medieval Islamicate textualities are carried on. Nonetheless, these

textual connections do not mean that Ottoman versions of Constantinopolitan and

Hagia Sophian narratives are mere translations and adoptions of earlier literary

traditions. On the contrary, Ilyas Arabi and the other early modern Ottoman authors

paraphrased and sometimes they made their own additions to the Constantinopolitan

and Hagia Sophian narratives. Moreover, as we have observed in Ilyas Arabi’s case,

they extended the idioms and themes that were present in earlier Constantinopolitan

and Hagia Sophian narratives to the narratives of Ottoman dynastic edifices. Thus,

they by and large Ottomanized the genre of Constantinopolitan and Hagia Sophian

narratives that were adopted from the Byzantine and Medieval Islamicate literary

traditions. As a result, they created yet another distinctive genre as one of the

manners in which early modern Ottoman authors imagined the city and its

architectural legacy. Moreover, we have endeavoured to analyse this topic by

focusing on a sixteenth century author, Ilyas Arabi, who wrote his book several years

after the completion of the Süleymaniye mosque, and added a fragmentary section on

the Süleymaniye in his text on the Constantinopolitan and Hagia Sophian narratives.

To reiterate my argument in the previous section, the fact that Ilyas Arabi was in the

service of the grand vizier of the time Ali Paşa who was also the governor of Egypt

at the time and who organized the transportation of two granite columns from

Alexandria to Istanbul to be used for the construction of Süleymaniye mosque is a

vivid connection that links the text to the monument and to its materials, as well as

Ilyas Arabi to the monument and the materials.

121

APPENDIX

TRANSLITERATION OF THE ILYAS ARABI’S RISALE-YI ISTANBUL340

1v sepās-ı bedīꜤü’l-esās ve ḥamd-i bī-ḥadd-i ḳıyās ol āꜤẓm-i kerīm hażretlrine olsun

ki/ bünyād-ı Ꜥālem pāy-ı şıyet/ ve dīvār yitirdi/ ve ḳubbe-i felek aꜤẓamī ḥareket

üzerine/ ve kürre-i ḥāki ber-ḳarār etdi/ ve ṣalavat ṭayyibāt ve teslimāt ve ẕākiyyāt ol

ḫātime-i enbiya/ ve ḥabīb-i rabbi’l Ꜥālemīn el-şarḳ-be-şarḳ/ ve mā (………..) erraḥmetü’l-

Ꜥālemîn/ muḥammed seyyidü’l mürselīn/ ve aḳrebü’l ḳarīb üzerine olsūn

ki/ āl ve iḳbāl ve eṣḥāb ber-kemāl birle binā-yı şehr-I din/ ve ḥisār-ı imān ve taꜤyin

te’sis ve Ꜥimāret/ ve żabt ve cür’et eyledi تعالي علیھ و سلّم و رض عنھم عن تعھم من › صلّ ّْ

اناتیمي ایلھم ع لي من تب عھم با حس ان الي یوم اعلرض و امل یز ان āmmā bꜤad çün müḳteżā-yı fezā-yı

Ꜥibretnümā و في الارض ایا ت الو قنین ف وي انفس كم اقلا tebaṣṣurūn budur ki/ rāh-ı dünyāda

misāfir olan evlād-ı ādem/ ve menzil-i gūn ve fesāda nāzıl olan/ efrād-ı Ꜥālem

kendülerden evvel konub/ göçüb giden/ kārbānlarıñ menāzil-i ḫāliyālarına/ ve āsār-ı

bālyalarına Ꜥayn-ı iꜤtibār ve baṣar-ı iftikâr birle/ tebaṣṣur ve tefekkür ve tefehhüm ve

teẕbīr ideler/ وان اثار نا تدلّ علینا فا نظرو بعد نا الي الاثار / ve maꜤlūm

2r ve muḥaḳḳaḳ ve meşhūr ve muṣaddıḳdır ki/ ḥāliyā şehr-i ḳosṭanṭiniyye › وحرسھا ّ

تعالي عن الافات و خفظ صاحبھا عن البلیّھ اشھر ممالك و اكبرانصار ve içinde/ ve ṭışında olan

binālar/ ve eski ve yeni Ꜥimāretler Ꜥacebü’l-Ꜥacāyib rüzgârdır/ ve bu zamānda ki ḥażret

resūlullah Ꜥaleyhisselāmıñ/ hicret-i şerīfelerinden ṭoḳuz yüz yetmiş yil munḳażż

olmışdı. Bu ḥaḳīr-i muꜤterifü’l-taḳṣīr/ Ꜥali el-Ꜥarabī ilyās el-faḳīr el-muꜤallim fī-

ḫidmet-i ḥażretü’l-vezir/ āꜤyni’d-destūr el-āẓam ve ṣāḥibü’l-efḫam ve’l-ekrem/ el-

ḳāīm tebdīrü’l memālik fī-ṭarīḳü’l-inṣāf/ āꜤdil’ül-mesālik maẓharü’l-fażl ve’limtinān/

mażhar feḥvā-yı anna āllah yamara bi’l-Ꜥadl ve’l-iḥsān/ Ꜥilmü’l-hedĪ kehfü’l-

340 Source see. Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des manuscrits, Turc 147

122

veri muḥibbü’l fużalā/ mürebbiyü’l-ulemâ sāḥlü’l seyf ve ṣāḥibü’l-ḳalem/ melāzü’l-

ḫalḳ ve melcā-yü’l-emem didüğim/ ḥażret-i Ꜥali paşa ṣāne rabbenā Ꜥan el-feḥşâ ve

ābdu’llah teꜤāla eyyām-ı devletü’l-Ꜥalīyye/ ve sebet-i esās rıfꜤata ve saꜤātü’l-seniyye

mā imtidā el-zamān/ ve iḫtilaf el-ekvān bâb-ı saꜤādet menāb ve iꜤtāb-ı devlet

āşiyānlarınıñ/ çākeri adına olub لا ح بل ع ندك تدھییھا و لا مرا و لیسون النطق ان لم س یعد الح ال

muḳteżāsınca/ bir muḫaṣṣar tuḥfe binā idub/ bu türkī risālede

2v şehr-i istānbuluñ ibtidāsından bu zamāna gelince vākiꜤ olan aḥvālini ve āya

ṣofyanıñ/ ve baꜤżı meşhūr ve ẕikri lāzım/ olan/ binālarıñ/ tafṣilātını kimi tevārīḫden

ve kimi ağızdan/ ve kimi müşāhededen tenḳīḥ ve taḥrīr ve tebyīn ve taḳrīr idüb/

ṣāḥib-i saꜤādetiñ cenāb-ı naꜤamü’l-māīllerine/ ḥiẕmet-i ḥaḳīrāne eyledim emindir ki/

melālet-i nuẓul ile baḳmayub/ kirişme-yi lüṭf birle müṭālaꜤa buyuralar/ ḳıṭꜤa/

آیر خقل گر امی ا نس ت

تسحین کند ھرچ ھ یب نند

گربید ابند خو ب س از ند

ور خو ب سزیا یخو ش یگوند

pes şimdi gerü maṭlūbe şürūꜤ idelim/ ḫāliḳi içün tevekkül ḳılalım ve allahü’lmüsta

Ꜥān/ ve Ꜥaleyhü’l-teğelān ibtidā-yı binā-yı şehr-i ḳosṭanṭiniyye عن كلّ › حماھا ّ

البلّیھ / rāvīyān-ı aḫbār ve ḫākīyān-ı tevārīḫ-i rüzgār/ şöyle rivāyet iderler ki ebū elbeşir

hażret-i ādem peygamber/ ṣall’āllahü teꜤāla Ꜥaleyhi ve Ꜥalā nebiyinnā/ yere hubūṭ

eyledikden ṣoñra beş bîñ yetmiş iki yıl/ geçdikde bu istānbuluñ yeri ada idi deñiz ebū

eyyüb/ enṣārī cānibinden geçüb yedi ḳule ṭarafından aḳdeñize ḳarışub/ ve şehir üç

köşelü cezīre idi ki/ bir köşesi sarāy-ı Ꜥāmireniñ burunı/ ve bir köşesi/

3r tekfūr sarāyıdır ki eğriḳapusı/ ḳurbındadır ve bir köşesi/ yedi kule cānibindedir/ ve

içinde yedi tağ var idi ki/ biri āya ṣofya yerinde idi ve ikincisi/ ṭavuḳ bazarında ki

dikili ṭaş yerindedir ve üçüncüsü/ eski sarāy yerindedir ve dördüncüsü/ sulṭān

123

muḥammed cāmiꜤi yerinde idi ve beşincisi/ sulṭān selim cāmiꜤiniñ yerinde idi ve

altıncısı/ türkmen tekyesi dimekle maꜤrūf mekānda idi/ ve yedincisi edirne kapusı

yerinde idi. ol sebebden Ꜥarab ve Ꜥacem vilâyetinde cezīre-i heft cebel/ dimekle

meşhūr idi/ ve tārīḫ-i mezbūrda/ vazendū nām pādişāh bu cezireyi begenüb içinde bir

muḫaṣṣarca ḥiṣār yapdı ki/ ḥāliyā sarāy-ı Ꜥāmireniñ yerinde idi/ ve ol ḥiṣāra vazendū

deyü ad kodılar/ ve şehir yeri yapıp çevre tā deñize varınca/ hep bağ ve bağçe idi ve

meẕkūr/ vazendū bunı/ yapdıḳdan ṣoñra/ gerü ḳalan memleketi terk idüb bunı/ taḥt

idindi ve kendüsi vefāt/ eyledikden ṣoñra kendü neslinden altı yüz bir yıl miḳdār

vazendū evlādı/ pādişāhlıḳ sürüb/ bunda ḥākim oldular/ ṣoñra anlarıñ nesli kesildi

ḳaldı/ ve meẕkūr pādişāhıñ dört veziri var idi/ ve maraż-ı mevtinde kendüye ṭanışub

3v senden ṣoñra bize bir pādişāh/ taꜤyin eyle dediler pādişāh eyitti/ memleketiñ

erkānı/ sizlersiz ve cemīꜤi emr u nehy ve ḥall ve Ꜥaḳd-i saī’re rāciꜤdir ol günki ben

āḫirete intiḳāl eyliyem/ beni defn eyleyüb erte temcīd vaḳtinde/ Edirne kapusından

taşra çıḳasız/ ve benim tācımı bile alasız ve en evvel şehre gelen/ ademe diyesiz ki

pādişāhımız fevt oldu/ ve biz anıñ vezirleri idik bu tācı olur ki / al ve her ḳangimize

göñlüñ düşerse/ başına giyür, ol kimesne tācı kime giydirirse/ anı pādişāh eylesiz/ ve

cān u dilden sāmiꜤ ve muṭīꜤ olasız ḥāṣılı/ meẕkūr pādişāh fevt olduḳdan ṣoñra/

vezirleri anıñ vaṣiyetini yerine getürdiler ve ṭañ vaḳtinde tācını götürüb/ şehirden

taşra çıḳdılar ve ṭurub yollar gözettiler ittifāḳ en evvel şehre gelen bir çoban imiş ki

şehre süd götürür imiş anıñ yolın/ aldılar ve mācerāyı söylediler/ meger ziyāde

Ꜥāḳıllu adem imiş/ ḳażiyye-i fehm eyledikden ṣoñra vezirlere eyitti/ şimdi bu tācı her

kime giydirsem anı pādişāh ider misiz?/ anlar daḫi eyittiler/ bizim pādişāhımızıñ

vaṣiyeti böyledir/ elbette ana muḫālefet etmeziz didik de/ heman çoban tācı ḳaldırub/

124

4r kendü bāşına giydi ve eyitti/ her ḳangıñıza giydirse idim gerü ḳalanıñız bī-ḫużūr

olsañız gerek idi/ pes olası budur ki beni pādişāh yerine ṭutasız/ güyā ki pādişāhıñız

olmamışdı/ ve sizler/ evvelki ḥaliñüz üzerine olasız/ ve ben sizlere muḫālefet

itmezim ve her ne murādıñız var ise/ anıñ üzerine olam anlar daḫī çār nā-çār/ ḳāīl

oldular ve meẕkūr çobanı taḥta geçürdiler/ ve dimek isterler ki ḫayli zamān

pādişāhlıḳ sürüb ve şimdiki zamānda yeñi ḥāṣeki/ ḥammāmı ḳurbında bir ḳadim binā

vardır ki/ aña cebe-ḥāne dirler ve bir āꜤlā ḳubbesi vardır ve anıñ kemeri altından

geçerler/ meẕkūr çoban pādişāhın sarāyı idi/ soñra etrāf pādişāhları bu ḥāle vāḳıf

oldular/ ne münāsib bir coban pādişāh ola deyü anıñ / memleketine göz dikdiler/ ve

istānbūlı elinden almağa teveccüh itdiler/ ve ittifāḳ ol zamānda Ꜥīsā peygamber

Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām vücūda geldi ve ḳosṭanṭin/ nām pādişāh ki ol eyyāmda roma-ü’lkübrā/

pādişāhı idi ve hażret-i Ꜥīsā peygamber Ꜥaleyhi’s-selāmıñ aḫbārını ve

muꜤcizātınıñ āsārını işidüb hüsn-i iḥtiyār ile varub anıñ dinine girdi/ ve Ꜥīsā nebī

Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām aña ḫaber-i duꜤā kıldı/ ve buyurdı kendü dinine tābiꜤ olān/ padişahlar

4v ḳamūsı/ aña sāmiꜤ ve muṭīꜤ ve tābiꜤ olalar/ ve andan ṣoñra meẕkūr ḳosṭanṭin ḫalḳı

Ꜥīsā peygamberiñ/ dinine daꜤvet eylemege başladı/ ol ki iḥtiyār ile dine girdi kendü

memleketinde muḳarrer eyledi/ ve ol ki iṭāꜤat eyleyûb temerrüd eyledi/ Ꜥasker çıkub

nām ve nişānı nā-bedīd eyledi/ ve tārîḫ-i meẕkūrda çobanın memleketinde/

putperestler ve gayri dürlü milel-muḫālefe çoḳ idi/ ve ḳosṭanṭin/ anları Ꜥīsā

peygamberiñ/dinine ḳoyundırırdı birbiriyle/ ittifaḳ idüb iṭāꜤat eylemedikleri içün/

üzerlerine ‘asker cerrâr ve muḳātele-i bişumār ile/ meşriḳden ve magribden ve

ḳaradan ve deñizden çıkub ḥaḳ teꜤāla ḥażretleriniñ/ Ꜥināyinle ve dinü’llahıñ iꜤānetle

zamān-ı ḳalīlde istānbulı fetḥ eyledi/ ve meẕkūr tevāifiñ reislerini/ ḳırdı ve

ḳalāillerini/ cümleten Ꜥīsā peygamberiñ dinine ḳodı ve ḳosṭanṭin bunı aldıḳdan ṣoñra

125

yerini begendi/ ve cezīre iken aña ḳaradan nesne gelmek mümkün değil idi/ heman

deñize mevḳūf eydi vāfir māl ve ricāl ve turāb ve aḥcār cemꜤ idüb/ deñizi ebū eyyûb

cānibinde ṭoldırdı ve anı/ ḳaraya yol eyledi ve ḥiṣārını büyüttü/ ve min-bꜤad anı taḥt

edindi/ ve ol zamāndan bu ḥīne gelince degin taḥt oldı/ ol sebebden ḳosṭanṭin/ adına

nisbet idüb/ ḳosṭanṭiniyye dirler āmmā gayrı rāvīler

5r şöyle naḳl iderler ki/ ḳaçan ḥażret-i süleymān peygamber Ꜥaleyhu’ṣ-ṣalavat ve’sselām/

meşriḳ ve magribi alub cinne ve inse/ ve ṭayra ve rīḥa mālik ve ḥākim olduḳda

ḳaṣd eyledigi/ ārāzī-yi maꜤmūreniñ bir yerinde şehr yapub taḥt eyleye ki/ berrden ve

baḥrden ve cihānıñ/ dört yanından aña gelmek mümkün oldı/ ḥikmetü’llahıñ bu

istānbulıñ yerini görmezden evvel/ aydıncık didikleri şehir ki aḳdeñiz kenārında

miḫâliç cânibinde derānı görüb begendiler/ ve ol zamān içinde cin üstādları ve ins

māhirleri/ eṭrāf-ı cihāndan ve bulduḳları/ mekāndan kereste ve ālāt/ ve aḥcār ve

Ꜥimārāt ḥażırlayub bir Ꜥaẓîm şehir yapdılar/ ve ḥālīyā andan istānbula ve gayrıya

sürülüb gelen mermerlerini ve māhya ṭaşlarını/ ve ālātlarını gören kimesne ezelden

ne mertebede idügini/ istidlāl ider ṣoñra/ süleymān Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām/ bu istānbul yerini

gördü gayetle begendi/ ve ḳaṣd eyledi ki/ taḥtını aydıncıkdan buna naḳl eyleye/

āmmā vaḥy ile bilmişdi ki eceli yaḳındır ol sebebden/ muḳayyed olmadı āmmā

ḥālīyā sarāy-ı Ꜥāmireniñ/ yerinde bir āꜤlā köşk yapdırdı/ ve eṭrāfında vāfir bağ ve

bağçeler/ eylediler ve gāhi şikāre çıkub bunda gelüb/ eglenürdi ve ḳarşu/

5v yaḳada şimāl cānibinde bir ḥiṣār yapdı ki/ ḥālīyā galaṭa yerindedir ve galaṭa/

istānbuldan evvel yapılmışdır/ āmmā istānbuluñ galaṭadan/ evvel/ begenilmişdir/

soñra yanko nām pādişāh süleymān peygamber Ꜥaleyhi’s-selāmıñ/ ḳavlini fiꜤile

götürüb istānbulı yapdı/ ve taḥtı buña naḳl eyledi/ ve meẕkūr yānḳo şeddād nejād/ ve

Ꜥamlāḳ āṣl-ı Ꜥimād idi ve şeddād bin Ꜥādı görmüş ve tācı andan giymişdü ḳılıcı/ andan

ḳuşanmış idi/ ve çoḳ yaşadı/ buḫtu’nnaṣr hindüstān ṭarafından/ gelüb ḳudüs-ı şerife

126

hücūm eyledi ve benī isrāīl/ ṭāīfesini ḳırub helāk eyledi/ ve beytü’l-muḳḳaddesi ḥarāb

idûb ve mıṣırı/ daḫī dürlü dürlü ḥilelerle/ adı meẕkūr yankodan/ gayrı kimesne aña

muḳāvemet eylemedi/ niçe kızañla/ ṭutuşûb ceng eyledi Ꜥāḳıbet-i meẕkūr yanko

buḫtu’nnaṣrını ṣaddı ve beytü’l-muḳḳaddesi/ elinden kurtardı ve mıṣır ve şāmı/ ve

tegallüb eyledügi yerleri/ çıkub aldı ve hindüstāna gerü ḳaçurdı ve ḳudüs-ı şerif ve

şām ve mıṣır ve magrib zemini/ ve yunan ve freng/ ve rus ve rum ve üngürüs/ ve

bulgar ve çerkes ve türkistān ve fārs/ ve çin ve maçin/ ve garb ve Ꜥacem ve hindüstān

deñizine varınca/ ve’l-ḥāṣıl ārāżī-yi maꜤmūreniñ/ ekseri meẕkūr yankonuñ

taṣarrufunda/

6r idi ol sebeb ile/ kim ḥażret-i süleymān Ꜥaleyhi’s-selāmdan soñra gelen pādişāhlarıñ

her biri süleymān gibi/ cemīꜤ dünyāya ḥākim olurdı ve bu/ üslūb üzere ḫayli zamān

sürüldü āmmā şeddād bin Ꜥād/ baş ḳaldırub/ başḳa oldı ve meẕkūr/ yanko ol zamāna

yaḳın idi soñra giderek bu ḥāle geldi/ ve meẕkūr aydıncık şehrinde süleymān

Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām/ içün bir āꜤlā sarāy ve bir muꜤallā köşk/ yapmışlardı ki yeryüzünde

irem ẕātü’l-Ꜥimād gibi maꜤdūmü’l-misal idi/ ve her gelen pādişāh-ı tebarekān ve

temennā anda sākin olurdı/ ittifāḳ meẕkūr yanḳo zamānında/ zelzele vāḳiꜤ oldı/ ve

meẕkūr köşküñ baꜤzı yerleri münḥedim oldı/ anı meremmet/ ider iken yerde

gömülmüş bir put buldular ki/ dürlü dürlü ṣanaꜤtlar/ ve envāꜤ māhyalar birle

muṣannaꜤ/ ve ḳıymetlü laꜤl ve cevāhir ve ağır bahalu altun ve maꜤādenle muraṣṣaꜤ

olub/ anı gören kimesne ṣanurdı ki/ henüz üstādānıñ naḳşından fāriğ olmuş ola/ belki

ekser ruꜤāꜤa(?) ẓan ider ki/ anda cān vardır yanḳo andan ziyāde taꜤccüb eyledi/ ve

yanında olan efāżılın ve ehl-i maꜤrifetiñden/ anıñ aṣlı sordı/ fikr ū ferāsetle/ ve ḥads

ve kıyāsetle bildiler ki süleymān peygamber Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām ḥātūnuñ düzdürdüğü

putdır/ ḥażret-i süleymān anıñ avcından

127

6v Ꜥitāb-ı külli/ ve imtiḥān-ı āṣlī vāḳiꜤ olmuşdur/ ve hikāyeti budur ki ḳaçan süleymān

Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām/ yer yüzüne mālik oldu ve ک ت وری memālik/ pādişāhlarından/ ṭavꜤān ve

kerhān ḥarāc alurdı meger frengistānda bir cazīre-i aṭa var idi ki anda Ꜥankūr nām

freng pādişāhı/ var idi ki ḥaṣānet-i maḳarr ve metānet-i Ꜥaskerine ṭayanub/ ḥażret-i

süleymān Ꜥaleyhi’s-selāma tābiꜤ olmadı/ ol sebebden aña ins u cinden berr ve baḥrden

bıraḳalar/ ve Ꜥaskerler ve periler ve ejderhālar gönderüb/ meẕkūr cezīreyi deñiz gibi

kuşatdılar ve ṭarafetü’l-Ꜥayn içinde alub fetḥ etdiler ve meẕkūr Ꜥankūr pādişāhile

cemīꜤ ehl ve Ꜥiyālin dutsaḳ eyleyüb ḳayd û bend ile/ ḥażret-i süleymān Ꜥaleyhi’sselāmıñ/

naẓar-ı şerīfine götürdüler/ aña iꜤmān Ꜥarż eyledi ḳabūl etmedi/ tekrar iḳdām/

idüb süleymān ölmesine ḳaṣd itdi müfīd olmadı/ āḫirü’ül-emr başını/ kesdi ve nām

ve nişānı nā-bedīd aldı/ ve anıñ ehl ve Ꜥiyālinden ol ki iꜤmān ḳabūl eyledi ḥażret-i

süleymān Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām/ kendü ehl-i Ꜥiyāline/ ḳatdı/ ve ol ki sābıḳa-yı şaḳāvet

hükmünce küfr üzerine ḥaṣr oldı/ kendü re’islerine ilḥāḳ itdi/ ve meẕkūr Ꜥankûr bir

mihr ū raḥşān ve mehtābān şemsiyye/ nām ḳızı var idi ḳılıc ḫavfından iꜤmāna geldi/

āmmā küfr niyetini ve Ꜥadāvet-i dinīyyesini/ iẓhār itmeyûb göñlünde/ bāḳī/

7r ḳalmışdı/ ve ḥażret-i süleymān Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām/ meẕkūre ḳızı ziyāde/ beğendi ve

şerꜤ buyuruğunca nikāḥla aldı/ giderek añâamuḥabbeti ziyāde oldı ḥatta cemīꜤ

ḥāṣekileriñ/ üzerine geçürdi ve ol sebebden ki el-nisā-yı ḥibâlü’ş-şeyṭān ḥadis-i ṣaḥīḥ

beyt من شرالشیاطین á انّ النساء شیاطین خلقن لھا نعوذ با ّ naḳl-i ṣarīhdir ve derler ki/ şeyṭān iş

bişdiremedügi yerde/ Ꜥavret bahānesiyle iḳrār ider. ḥażret-i süleymān meẕkūr

şemsiyyeye/ gāyet muḥabbeti ziyāde oldı/ ve cemīꜤ dedügine/ sāmiꜤ ve istedügine

rāgıb oldı/ ve ḥāṭırını gözedirdi bir gün/ ḥażret-i süleymān Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām ḥāṭr-ı

mustaḳīm ile anı görmeğe vardı/ ve ḥāṭırını ṣordı/ ve şemsiyye daḫī ol fırṣatı

gözedirdi hemān yüzün yurtardıve güzel ḫayurlu ṣūretin gösterdi/ temāruż iẓhār

eyledi ve ḥażret-i süleymān/ aña merḥamet yüzünden biraz acındı ve Ꜥilletiniñ/ āṣlını

128

ṣordı/ ol daḫī bahāne ile ḥażret-i süleymāna/ şöyle arż-ı ḥāl eyledi ki bir/ maraż-ı

sevdā ve bir āfet/-i vesvâs baña Ꜥārıż olmuşdur ve andan göñlüme/ ziyāde gamm ve

Ꜥiżah gelmişdir ḥażret-i süleymān Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām/ eyitdi her marażıñ bir menşe’i ve

her Ꜥarażıñ bir mebde’i vardır/

7v eger bu ḫastalıgıñıñ āṣlına vāḳıf/ ve bu teşvişiñ / sebebine Ꜥārif olursaḳ maḳdūr

ḫayrı ṣarf eyleyelim ve bu /Ꜥārıża/ mümkün oldudıgı ḳadar Ꜥilāc bulalım/ şemsiyye

eyitdi şöyle maꜤlūm ḥażret/ ola ki küçükden berü babam ile ziyāde/ ulfet

bağlamışdım/ ve Ꜥaḳıl ve fikirde anıñ ḫayālini ṭutmuşdum/ ve anıñ şaḫṣ-ı naẓarımdan

gāīb olalı/ cemīꜤ ḥavāṣım şaşdı ve düğeli āꜤżām/ sust oldu ve ḳorḳarım ki bu maraż

gitdikce ziyāde ola/ ve Ꜥāḳıbet beni öldüre ve yāḫūd divāne eyleye/ ḥażret-i süleymān

Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām/ bu ḳażiyyeden ziyāde münḳariż ve ol ḥālden/ tamam te’essüf ḳıldı

andan ṣoñra biraz fikr eyledi/ şemsiyyeye talṭif birle eyitti/ bundan gamm çekme ve

bu ārâzı kimseye/ âçma ins ḥekimleri ve cinn ḥabīrleri görsünler ve saña her/ ne

vechile mümkün ise/ Ꜥilāc itsünler şemsiyye eyitdi ben kendü Ꜥilācımı bilürim andan

gayrı vechile/ ḳābl ve imkān degildir eger dedigüm/ olursa fehā vāllā baña Ꜥilāc

etmesün ve yoḳ yere/ zaḥmet/ çekmesün/ süleymān Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām eyitti Ꜥilācıñ nedir

görelim ve murādıñ ne ise di idelim/ ḥātūn eyitti murādım budur ki cihān üstād-ı

kāmilleri ve māhir naḳḳāşlar/ ve ṣūretgerleri benim babamıñ ṣūretin/

8r ve şekil ve endāmın ve naḳşını düzüb/ ṣūretini benimle bile ḳoyarsız/ tā ki baña

mūnis ola/ve anıñ fikri ve ve hevesi ḫayālimden gide ve ol zamānda/ anlarıñ dininde

ṣūret/ düzmek ve taṣvīri evde ve Ꜥibādetḥānede ḳomaḳ cāīz idi ve ḥażret-i süleymān

Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām/ meẕkūreye ziyāde muḥabbeti olmagla/ bir sözü gibi/bir sözüñi iki

eylemezdi Ꜥale’t-teꜤcīl/ buyurdu ki/ cinn gavvāṣları cerrden/ laꜤl ve cevāhir ve ins

ṣabbāgları/ berü maꜤādinden vāfir çıḳardılar şemsiyyeniñ/ babası şeklinde ve hey’et/

ve endāmında bir ṣūret düzeler/ anlar daḫī ḥażret-i süleymān Ꜥaleyhi’s-selāmıñ

129

buyrugın ganīmet bilûb/ bir āꜤlā şekil ve ṣūret ve bir raꜤnā taṣvīr ve hey’et düzdiler ki

aña naẓar eyleyen/ kimesne ḥüsn ve leṭāfetden medhoş/ ve üzerinde muraṣṣaꜤ olan

cevāhir maꜤādini/ müşāhede eyleyenler ḫayrān veya hoş olurlardı/ ḥāṣīlı ḥātūn-ı

meẕkūre bu/ ṣanīyi yanına alub/ gice ve gündüz aña naẓar idüb/ eğlenürdi/ ve ansız

bir ān olmazdı/ meger anıñ murādı babasınıñ ṣūretiyle eglenmek değil idi/ belki anıñ

babalarınıñ ve dedeleriniñ/ dini put/ berestlik idi meẕkūr ṣūreti/ bahāne ile düzdirüb

anıñ Ꜥibādetine meşgūl olmaḳ isterdi/ fe-āmmā süleymān Ꜥaleyhi’s-selāmıñ

ḥāṣekīleriyle/

8v sarāyıñ içinde olurdu/ ve istedüği gibi Ꜥibādet idemezdi/ ol sebebden/ süleymān

Ꜥaleyhi’s-selāma tażarruꜤlar idüb kendüye maḥṣūṣ başḳa bir yerceğiz istedi/ ḥażret-i

süleymānıñ/ aña muḥabbeti ziyāde olmağın/ bu söz kendüye mūvāfıḳ geldi/ zamān-ı

ḳalīlde kendüye/ bir āꜤlā köşk yapdırdı ve meẕkūr köşküñ/ ḥālīyā aydıncıkda

nişānları vardr ki/ aña ḳaṣr-ı süleymān dirler/ ve Ꜥavām galaṭ idüb/ taḥt-ı süleymān

dirler ve meẕkūr köşk/ yapdıḳdan ṣonra şemsiyyeyi ḥāṣekiler arasından/çıḳarub anda/

ḳoydı/ ve emr eyledi ki ḥātūnıñ istedügi kimesneden/ gayrı ol köşke girmeye ve

şemsiyye-i meẕkūre/ köşkde tenhā ḳalub gice/ ve gündüz puta Ꜥibādet itmege meşgūl

ve müdāvim oldı/ ve ḥażret-i süleymān Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām/ kendü Ꜥāleminde olub/ gāhī

aña ziyārete varırdı ve ins ū cinniñ/ ve ṭayr ve vaḥşıñ ve cemīꜤ Ꜥālem ḫalḳınıñ aḥvālin

görüb müṣāliḥini/gözetmekden ḥālī olmazdı/ ve kendüniñ daḫī/ Ꜥibādeti var idi aña

müteveccih olub/ meẕkūre şemsiyyeniñ aḥvālinden/ ḫaberdār olmazdı ve puta

Ꜥibādet/ eyledüginden āgāh düşmezdi/ fe-āmmā ki kendüsi hem peygamber ve hem/

9r pādişāh idi ve bu ṣıfatlarıñ/ birisiyle mevṣūf olân kimesne/ lāzımdır ki/ cemīꜤ

ḫalḳıñ aḥvālini göre ve ḥaḳḳ teꜤālanıñ Ꜥibādetine/ ḳandıra ve emre iṭāꜤat

eylemeyenleri ṭogrı yola getüre/ ḥażret-i süleymān ol Ꜥavrete meyl idûb/ kendü

hevāsına ṣalıyurub aḥvālini (……) ve tefeḳḳud eylemeğe/ muḳayyed olmadugıçün

130

ḥaḳḳ teꜤāla aña Ꜥitāb ṣavtında/ bir miḥnet-i Ꜥaẓīm gumāşte eyledi vesāīr peygamberān/

hādī-yi sebil ve enbiyā-ı evvelīyü’l-Ꜥazm mine’l-resul/ ḳavmleri elinden ve ümmetleri

avcundan çıka geldikleri gibi şedāīd ve mulimmāt / ve beliyyāt ve eẕiyyet gibi/ berr u

baḥr ve ins ū cinn ve ṭayr u vaḥş ve kāniyān üzerine ḥākim ve müteꜤarrif ve ḳādir ve

mālik iken/ ol mertebeden/ maꜤzūl olub/ imtiḥāna döndü zübde-i ḥikāyeti ve Ꜥumde-i

rivāyeti oldur ki ehl-i tefsīriñ/ ekseri ve ḳıṣaṣ-ı enbiyānıñ rāvīleri/ taḳrīr ve taḥrīr ve

tenḳīḥ ve tasṭīr eylediler/ ve icmāli daḫī budur ki/ erbāb-ı kemāl ve fażl ve ehl-i şerꜤ/

ve eṣḥāb-ı Ꜥaḳl ḳatında rūşen/ ve متبر ھنّ بلكي كالشمسن في نھاد الضیّف aşikār ve

mübeyyendir ki/ ḥażret-i süleymān Ꜥaleyhi’s-selāmıñ/ pādişāhlıgı vesāīr ḳāīl ins ū

cinn/ ve cemīꜤ esnāf ṭayr u vaḥş/ ve ẕevīyyü’l-Ꜥuḳūl/

9v ve gayrıhum üzerine ḥākim ve müteꜤarrif oldugı/ mühr-i şerifiñ ḥāṣṣa idi/ zirā kim

ol mühr cennetden çıkmışdı/ ve içinde ḥaḳḳ teꜤālanıñ ism-i āẓamı yazılmışdı/ ve

ḳaçan ḥażret-i süleymān Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām/ anı barmagına giyerdi ve ins u cinn ve ṭayr

u vaḫş / ve yel ve cemīꜤ maḫluḳāt iḥtiyārsız demur mıḳnāṭısa muḳterib ve cevr-i cevb

kahr-bāye münceẕib olduğu gibi ism-i āẓama musaḫḫar ve munaḳḳal/ ve ḥażret-i

süleymān Ꜥaleyhi’s-selāma tābiꜤ muṭlaḳ bī-taꜤarruż Ꜥibād olurlardı ve ol mühri/ dāīm

ṭahāret üzerine giyerdi/ ve ḫelāya girdügi zamānda ve cimāꜤ eyledügi / kendüde

ḳomazdı belki aña/ bir cāriye taꜤyīn eyledi ki adı āmine idi/ ve meẕkūr olan

zamānlarda āmineye/ teslīm iderdi ve āmine mühri ṭururdı/ tā ḥażret-i süleymān

ḥācetinden fāriğ olub/ ṭahāret eyleyince/ andan ṣoñra aña teslīm iderdi ve baꜤżı

ḳıṣāslar rivāyet iderler ki mühr-i şerīfe kendüden gayrı/ kimesne yapışmazdı āmmā

cevāhirler/ muraṣṣaꜤ dürr-i meknûndan/ ḥoḳḳa gibi ẓarfı var idi/ ve ṭahāretsiz/ olduğı

zamānda ol ẓarfıñ içine/ ḳordı ve meẕkūre āmineyi anı gözetmeğe taꜤyīn eylemişdi/

tā ki tahāretsiz olunca gözede ṭura/ vâllâ āmine kendüsi/ mühre yapışmazdı ve ve

āllah-ı ālem/ اي ذ ل ك قدك ا ن

131

10r اكملّ انسان ve Ꜥaḳl-ı nevꜤ-i ādemiyāne/ muḥaḳḳaḳ ve maꜤlūm ve mücerreb

mefhūmdur ki/ cin ṭā’ifesi ve peri heykelleri/ āteşden olub/ ve āteşe ḥükm-i ḳāhir ve

ḳarr-ı ḳāhir olmayınca/ ḥāk üzerine serkeş olur/ ve dāīmā aña istiꜤlā ve sevab ḳaṣd

ider ve ol sebebden/ ḥażret-i süleymān Ꜥaleyhi’s-selāmıñ ḥiẕmetinde olan cinnīler/ ve

taḥt-ı ḥükümetinde olan periler egerçi mühr ḳuvvetiyle/ iżṭirārı iṭāꜤat iderlerdi feāmmā

kendü tabīꜤatlarına göre şeyṭānlıḳlarını ḳomazlardı/ ve cinn ṭā’ifesinden bir

şeyṭān azgun ve dīv-i melꜤūn/ var idi ki aña ṣaḥr bin ḳāhirü’l-cinnī dirlerdi/ ve

meẕkūr ṣaḥr ol zamānda sāīr cinnīleriñ mürebbīsi/ idi/ ve kendüyi süleymān

peygamber Ꜥaleyhi’s-selāmla/ berāber ṭutardı ve her ḥuṣūṣda tekebbür ve Ꜥinād iderdi/

ve şeyṭān Ꜥaleyhü’l-laꜤnet daḫī anı ḳandırırdı ve ekser dīvler aña vesves iderlerdi/ ve

ol melꜤūn ḥażret-i süleymān Ꜥaleyhi’s-selāmıñ/ fırṣatını gözedirdi āmmā mühür

heybetinden ḫavf iderdi/ ol sebebden żarar değirmege veyāḫūd bir reng itmeğe ḳādir

olmazdı soñra/ mühri ugurlamaga ḳaṣd eyledi ve muttaṣıl aña çalışurdı/ fe āmmā ki

ḥaḳḳ teꜤālanıñ ḳudreti yetişdi/ ve dīv-i melꜤūnuñ fırṣatı düşdi ve ḥażret-i süleymān/

ḳalb-i selīm ve ḥāṭır-ı müstaḳīm/

10v birle ṭahāret-ḥāneye girdi/ ve mühr-i şerīfi Ꜥādet üzerine āmineye/ teslīm eyledi/

āllahu teꜤālanıñ irādetiyle ḥelāda biraz eğlendi ve ṣaḥr-ı laꜤīn fırṣatı ganīmet bilüb/

fî’l-ḥāl ḥelānıñ içinden ḫāşā ḥażret-i süleymān Ꜥaleyhi’s-selāmıñ/ şekline girdi ve

anıñ giydügi ḳaftānlar ṣūretin/ üzerine giydi ve ānıñ başındaki dülbendini ve tācını

Ꜥaynīyle beñzetdi/ başına aldı ve sözüne ve kelimetine taḳlīd iderdi/ āmineniñ üzerine

çıḳa geldi ve āmine anı süleymān ṣandı evvelki Ꜥādet üzerine/ ḫātemi aña teslīm

eyledi ve ol melꜤūn mühri barmagına geçürüb/ ol şekl ve endāmla geçüb/ taḥt

üzerinde oturdı/ ber-vechile ki āṣlā kimesne şekk eylemezdi/ süleymān Ꜥaleyhi’sselām

kendüsi ola/ ve dāima ḥażret-i süleymān Ꜥaleyhi’s-selāmıñ/ ḫidmetinde ṭurub

cemīꜤ ḥükm ve taṣarrufātı ve vusꜤı ve tedbīrātını görürdi ve kuteri aḥvālinden/

132

ḫaberdār idi/ yine ol üslūb üzerine ḥükm ve ḥükümete/ ve emr vaḥy itmeğe başladı/

ve cemīꜤ ins u cinn/ ve ṭayr u vaḥş ve rīḥ u bi’l-cümle/ süleymān Ꜥaleyhi’s-selāma

iṭāꜤat eyleyin/ eşyānıñ cümlesi bu daḫī sāmiꜤ ve muṭīꜤ oldular ol sebeble ki mühr

anıñ/ elinde idi ve anlar ism-i

11r āꜤẓime musaḫḫar idiler ve ḫātemi gözedirlerdi/ çār u nā-çār mühr ṭutana/ tābiꜤ

olurlar idi/ ve ol zamānda meẕkūr laꜤīn her ne istese/ idi iderdi āmmā ḥaḳḳ teꜤālanıñ

ḥikmeti ve peygamberlik/ maḳāmınıñ heybeti şöyle iḳtiżā eyledi ki/ süleymān

Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām/ miḥnete düşüb/ ol felāketden ḥalāṣ bulunca meẕkūr ṣaḥrü’l-cinni

anıñ taḥtında ṣūret-i cemāl gibi tururdı/ ve ḥażret-i süleymānıñ şerꜤinden ve

buyrugundan/ ḥāric bir ẕerre ḳadar taṣarruf/ itmeğe ḳādir olmazdi/ ḥaḳḳ teꜤālanıñ

ḫafẓ u ḥirāseti ve Ꜥavn ū ḥimāyetle bu cānibde ḥażret-i süleymān Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām ki/

ṭahāret-ḥâneden çıḳub/ āmineyi bulamadı ve mührden ve mācerāsından/ ḫaberdār

olmadı sarāyda arayub āmineyi buldı ve andan mühri istedi/ āmine eyitti sen kimsin

ve benden ne istersin mühri süleymān aldı/ ve sarāy ḫalḳı bu ḥāli ṭuyunca segirttiler

gördiler ki taḥt üzerinde/ süleymān ṭuru turur/ ve buna kimi Ꜥayyārdır/ ve kimi

dīvānedir didiler ḥāṣılı süleymān/ Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām bu ḳażiyye görünce/ ziyāde bī-

ḥużūr oldu ve ne ḳadar/ söylediyse inanmadılar/ ol daḫī ḥāl ne idüğin bilüb

11v لیقضي لله امراً كان مفعولا müḳteżāsınca rıżā ve teslīm ve āṣīr ve mā ṣabrıñ illā

bi’llah/ mefhūmiyle Ꜥāmil olub/ çār-nā-çār başın alub/ çıḳub gitdi terk-i diyār eyledi/

bu cenābetde/ āṣaf duran meẕkūr dīviñ aḥvālini/ müşāhede iderdi/ giderek baꜤżı şerꜤe

muḫālif/ nesneler işlemeğe ḳaṣd ider oldu/ eğerçi elinden gelmezdi āmmā fikri ve

re’yi/ bāṭıl cānibine nāẓır idi ve ekser cinn ṭā’ifesine/ mā’il olurdu ve gördi ki/

ṭurmayub/ eşini azdırdı bā-ḥuṣūsān ki/ sābıḳā āmine/ ḳıṣṣasına ve süleymān Ꜥaleyhi’sselām/

sarāyında mühr avcunda vāḳiꜤ olan aḥvāle vuḳūf bulmuşdı/ fikr u ferāsetle

bildiği/ taḥtda oturan/ süleymān değildir ve muḫıfça sarāy ḫalḳından/ istifsār-ı aḥvāl

133

eyledi/ ve anlar daḫī ṭuymuşlardı ve Ꜥavretleri/ ve cāriyeleri didiler ki ol ḥayż

gördüğümüz/ zamānda yanumuza/ ugramazdı/ şimdi temiz olduğımız vaḳtin bize

gelmez/ ḥayż gördüğümüz vaḳtin gelüb/ bizimle yatmaḳ ister biz daḥī ḳaçarız/ ve

daḥī gördiler ki/ yemek yemez ve’l-ḥāṣıl cemīꜤ aḥvālini āṣafa didiler/ ve āṣaf ism-i

āẓimi bilürdi ve sihirde ve gayrda māhir

12r idi/ aña göre tedārik idüb/ meẕkūr laꜤīniñ yıḳması ḳaṣdına ism-i āẓim oḳumağa/

başladı ve bu niyetle ki/ eğer süleymān değil ise ḥaḳḳ teꜤāla bizi andan ḳurtara/ ve

eğer süleymān kendüsi ise ḥaḳḳ teꜤāla anı iṣlāḥa götüre/ ve āṣaf ism-i āꜤẓim/

oḳuyunca melꜤūn meẕkūr taḥtıñ yanına/ uğramaz oldı ve gördü ki cemīꜤ işleri

baglandı ve şeyṭānlıgı ṭuyuldı/ hemān ḳaçdı gitdi ve mühri deryā-yı muḥīṭiñ çāḳ orta

yerinde bıraḳdı/ ve cinn ṭā’īfesine sizi süleymānıñ ḥükmünden ḳurtardım didi/ anlar

daḫī tārumār oldular/ ḥaḳḳ teꜤālanıñ irādetiyle/ mühri balıḳ yutdı/ yutduğı birle helāk

oldı/ ḥaḳḳ teꜤālanıñ taḳdīriyle mevc ol balıgı deñiz kenārına atdı/ ḥażret-i süleymān

Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām felāketle aç/ ve ẕelīl görünüyordı/ āḫirü’l-emr deñiz kenārına irişdi/

ve ḳaṣd eyledi ki bir kıyıya binüb/ ırāḳ memlekete baş alub gide ittifāḳ gemi

bulunmadı/ ve birḳac gün deñiz yalısında gezdi/ yürüdi bir gün muḥkem ac ḳalmışdı/

ve yanında yiyeceği yoğ idi/ mecrūḥü’l-ḳalb münkesir-i ḥāṭır gezindi/deñiz kenārında

bir balıḳ buldı/ ve cevꜤ belāsından/ ḳaṣd eyledi ki ol balıği gıdā idine/ içini

temizleyüb/ ḳarnını yarduğı/

12v birle mühr çıḳageldi/ ve gün gibi gözüne ve ḳalbine żiyā verdi hemān/ bildi ki

miḥnet nihâyetin buldı/ ḥaḳḳ teꜤāla ḥażretine vāfir şükürler/ eyledi ve mühür yuyub/

öpdü başına ḳodı/ barmagına geçürdi/ ve secde-i şükr içün başın yere ḳodı/ henüz

başını yerden ḳaldırmadan cemīꜤ ins u cinn ve ṭayr u vaḫş evvelki Ꜥādet üzerine/

üstüne cemꜤ/ oldu/ ve başını secdeden ḳaldırub/ öyle emr eyledi varub/ taḥtını getüre

bir anıñ içinde/ yanında ḥāżır eyledi ve āṣaf ḥażretleri ve cemīꜤ ekābir āꜤyān-ı insden

134

ve cinnden/ taꜤẓīm ve tekrīm birle memleketi ṭonadub/ ḥażret-i süleymān Ꜥaleyhi’sselāmı/

istiḳbāl eyledi/ ve cānına Ꜥavret eyledügi gibi/ girü evvelki ḥāline rücūꜤ

eyledi/ ve melꜤūn ṣaḥrü’l-cinnī/ mühri deryā-yı muḥiṭe bırâḳdın ṣoñra baş alub yedi

deryānıñ öte ucunda/ bir ṣarb mekāna ḳaçdı/ gitdi idi/ hemān ol ḥīnde cinn azgunları/

ve şeyāṭīn/ ṭayyārları aña yetişüb/ ḳayd ū bend ile ṭutub ḥażret-i süleymān Ꜥaleyhi’sselāmıñ/

ḫāk-pāyine dürlü dürlü zecr ū Ꜥiḳāb ile götürdüler/ ol daḫī aña vāfir ḫaşm ū

Ꜥitāb eyledikden ṣoñra/ emr eyledi ki/ meẕkūr laꜤīniñ şānına lāyıḳ/ ve boynuna

muvfıḳ bir büyük

13r ṭagdan yekpāre ṭaş kesdirdi/ve anıñ içini mücevvef eyleyüb meꜤlūnı/ ol ṭaşıñ

içinde/ ḥabs eylediler ve ṭaşıñ agzını ḳūrşūn ile/ berkidüb muḥkem eyledikden ṣoñra

üzerine/ mühr-i süleymān Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām urub/ ve cinn ve şeyāṭīn anı götürüb/

deryā-yı muḥīṭiñ orta/ yerinde bıraḳdılar/ ve ḥażret-i süleymān Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām

miḥnetde iken meẕkūr/ şemsiyye Ꜥibādet eyledüği putı/ yere gömüb çıḳdı gitdi idi/

bundan esbaḳ ḥażret-i süleymāndan ḳudüs-i şerīfe/ icāzet almışdı/ ḥatta dirler ki/

ḥażret-i süleymānıñ miḥneti ol putdan ötürü/ olmuşdı ve hem ḳudüs-i şerīfe/ icāzet

isteyince ḥażret-i süleymāna ḳatī güc kıldı/ zīrā ki ayrıldugı maḳbūl değildi/ anıñçün

ḥaḳḳ teꜤāla aña miḥnet virdi/ tā ki minbaꜤd ḥażret-i ḥakkdan gayrıya meyil eylemeye/

ve dünyā-yı fānīniñ alçaḳ nesnelerine/ göñül vermeye/ ve miḥnet zamānı geçüb

meẕkūre ḥāline vāḳıf olunca/ şemsiyye gitmişdi/ hemān fevrī ardınca adem gönderdi

ki yoldan/ döndüreler ve ḥaḳḳ teꜤālanın yoluna ḳandıra/ veyāḫūd ḥaḳḳından gele

āmmā āllahu teꜤālanıñ taḳdīri ile/ varan adem aña irişmeden kendü eceliyle/ fevt

oldu/ ve żamm meẕkūr aydıncıkda gömülü ḳaldı/ ve kimesne/

13v andan ḫaberdār olmadı/ tā ol zamān ki meẕkūr yānḳo ḳaṣr-ı süleymānı/

meremmet itdirdi yeri ḳazarken buldılar/ ve ol esnāda yānko bundan ziyāde taꜤaccüb

eyledi ve vezirlerine/ eyitdi süleymān Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām ki/ bu deñlü binālar yapdı ve

135

bu ḳadar yādigārlar Ꜥālemde/ ḳodı ādem oglānı idi/ yoḫsa fırışte mi/ idi ne idi zirā

eyitdi ol daḫī bizceleyin ādem idi/ āmmā ḥaḳḳ teꜤāla aña hem peygamberlik ve hem

pādişāhlıḳ virdi/ ve ol vezirleriñ arasında/ bir ziyāde uṣlu ve tamām Ꜥāḳıllu bir vezir

var idi ki/ aña ḳantor dirlerdi ve meẕkūr/ ḳantor/ çoḳ tevārīḫ bilürdi ve ḳudüs-i şerīfi

görmüşdi ve ḥażret-i süleymān Ꜥaleyhi’s-selāmıñ/ binā eyledüği mescid-i āḳṣāyı

bilürdi/ anıñ aḥvālinden biraz söyledi ve ḥażret-i süleymān Ꜥaleyhi’s-selāmıñ/

ḥikāyetini ve mācerāsını/ tafṣīl ile taḳrīr eyledi andan ṣoñra eyitdi/ ey pādişāh-ı cihān

sen daḫī zamānıñ süleymānısın/ seniñ ḫaritanıñ ve memleketiñ ve ḳudretiñ ve

miknetiñ/ andan ḳalmaz eğer anıñ gibi/ Ꜥālemde añılmaḳ istersen/ sen de bir yādigār

eyle ki seniñ adıñ/ daḫī süleymānlan ẕikr oluna/ yanḳo ḳantoruñ böyle dediğinden

ziyāde ḥaẓẓ eyledi ve āferīn ve taḥsīn ḳıldı/ ve eyitdi çāḳ benim

14r göñlümdeki fikrimi söyledîñ/ ve gizlü żürremi āşikāre eylediñ/ imdi şimdi nekr ū

fikr eylediñ ve ḥāṭrıñızı/gayb cānibine müteveccih ḳılıñ/ ve bu gice size/ ḥāṭıra olursa

yarın baña iꜤlām eyleyiñ/ umarım ki ḥaḳḳ teꜤāla bize bir ḫayırlu iş göstere/ ve bu

dünyāda ḫayırla yād olunacaḳ Ꜥamel sevḳ idivere/ ḥāṣulı ol gice vezirlerin her birisi

bir dürlü fikr eyledi/ ve Ꜥaḳlına ve ẓannına ve idrākına ve himmetine göre bir re’y

ḥażırladı ve erte cümlesi divāna geldi/ ve her biri ḥāllü ḥālince ve maḳāmlu

maḳāmınca/ pādişāha duꜤā senālar ḳıldılar ve cemīꜤsiniñ fikri bunuñ üzerine ḳarār

eyledi ki/ bir Ꜥaẓīm şehir binā eyleyüb/ anı taḥt ideler/ ve girü ḳalan memālikden

ḫayli/ ricāl ve ẕeḫāir ve emvāl getüreler pādişāh anlarıñ/ ṭogri fikirlerine taḥsīn ve

bülend himmetlerine āferān eyledi/ āmmā hiç birisi yapılacaḳ şehir ne yerde ola ve

ne cānibde münāsib düşe deyü/ fikr eylemedi ve pādişāh bunı sū’āl eyleyince bir

aguzdan cevāb virdiler ki/ pādişāh ḥażretleri yek bilür/ buyruk senden ve ḥiẕmet

bizden didiler bir gice daḫī yanḳo/ düş Ꜥāleminde didiler ki/ seniñ yapacagıñ şehir

ḳaradeñizden aḳdeñîze aḳub gelen ḫalīciñ kenārında olur/ ve bunı erte vezirlerine/

136

14v açdı ve şimden gerü arayub/ tefaḥḥus eylen dedi ve anlarıñ her birisi kendü

maṣlaḥatlarına/ ve bildüğine göre bir yer ḳolavazdı / ve ikisi bir ḳol üzerine ittifāḳ

idemediler bir gice/ pādişāh taḥtından gā’īb oldu/ bir rivāyet de anı taḥtından döşek

ile ḳapdılar/ ve şimdiki istānbul yerinde bıraḳdılar ṣabāḥ uyandı/ gördü kendüsi

yapayalñız bir ṣaḥrāda yatur ki/ anda diyārdan nām ve nişān yoḳdur/ müteḥayyīr

olub/ ayağ üzerine ḳalḳdı/ ve ṣagına ve ṣoluna göz ucıyla/ baḳub iskeleye geldi ve

ḥālīyā sarāy-ı Ꜥāmireniñ yerinde ki/ sābıḳā süleymān peygamber Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām anda

bir köşk yapmışdı/ ṣoñra vīrāne olmuşdu ve içinde/ kimesne/ olmazdı/ ittifāḳ meẕkūr

köşküñ yerini beğenüb cevre yanına/ gezerken galaṭadan bir kimesne meğer av

avlamaga çıḳub/ bu yerlerde gezerler idi/ meẕkūr pādişāhı ırāḳdan görüb/ cānavar

ṣandılar seğirderek yanına geldiler gördüler ki/ yabayalñız bir mükellef ādem yayān

gezer/ vardılar beğlerine ḫaber virdiler ol daḫī atına binüb/ baḳub görse ki memleket

pādişāhı/ yanḳodur hey/ sulṭānım bunda yalñız neden düşdün deyüb/ atından inüb

seğirtdi pādişāhıñ ayağına düşdi/ ve ol garīb ḥālinden ṣordı/ pādişāh daḫī mācerāsını

Ꜥilām eyledi/ ve anlarla/

15r buluşdugına ziyāde üns bagladı/ ve fî’l-ḥāl aña bir āꜤlā at çıkdılar/ ve gereği gibi

hiẕmet etdiler/ ol daḫī ata binüb/ ve galaṭa beğini yanına alub cezīreniñ eṭrāfını

ṭolaşdı/ ḥāṣıl-ı kelām gāyet beğendi ve düş Ꜥāleminde/ baña işāret olunan yer budur

didi/ ve ol ḥīnde aydıncığa ulaḳ gönderdi ki/ taḥtını ve raḥtını getüreler ve vüzerā ve

erkānı çagıralar anlar daḫī ṣabāḥ ḳalḳub/ pādişāhı taḥtında bulamadılar/ ve aña ne ḥāl

oldı bilemediler/ her ṭarafa ādem ṣaldılar ve her nāḥiyeye ḫaber gönderdiler/ nāgāh ol

varan ulaḳ irişdi/ ve pādişāhdan ḫaber virdi anlar daḫī ziyāde sevinüb/ vāfir nefāīs ve

regā’īb ve tertībāt ve Ꜥacā’īb birle/ ḳalḳub pādişāha/ yetişdiler ve taꜤẓīm ve tekrīm

şarṭlarını yerine getürdiler/ ve taḥt ve ḥaşm ve ṭabl ve Ꜥilm geldikden ṣoñra vezirlere

eyitdi/ düş Ꜥāleminde bize işāret olunan yer bu imiş/ hemān şehri bunda yapmaḳ

137

gerek/ vüzerā daḫī seḥnā ve iṭiꜤnā deyüb/ pādişāhıñ/ fikr û ferāsetine ve ṭāliꜤ ve

kıyāsetine/ medḥ ve senālar itdiler/ ve bu yeri fevḳa’lꜤade beğendiler/ ve eyitdiler ay

pādişāh-ı rūy-ı zemīn seniñ ṭāliꜤiñ işledi/ ve devletiñ yekīn geldi süleymān

peygamber Ꜥaleyhi’s-selāmın beğendüği maḳām-ı Ꜥaẓīm/ saña naṣīb oldı ve aña

müyesser olmayan/

15v kār-ı cesīm saña el virdi/ andan ṣoñra binā aḥvāline meşgûl oldılar/ ve aña göre

tedārik itmeğe başladılar/ ve yanḳo ol ḥīnde düğeli eṭrāf beğlerine/ vesāīr memālik

pādişāhlarına elciler ve ḥükümler/ gönderüb/ şöyle iꜤlām eyledi ki baña şunuñ gibi

ḥāl oldı/ ve bu cezīrede bir şehir ve maḳām-ı kerimi yapmaga işāret olundı/ sizler

daḫī dostluḳ/ muḳteżāsınca/ himmet idesiz ve memleketiñizde olan/ üstādlardan ve

miꜤmārlardan ve bildüğiñiz diyārda bulunan/ dülgerlerden ve ırgādlardan ve kereste/

ve ālāt ve levāzım mühimmāt/ ne ḳadar mümkün olur ise/ bu cānibe gönderesiz/ ve

ḳalb-ū-ḳalble himmet idüb bu ḫayırlu/ maṣlaḥatda bile bulunasız/ ve bana yardım

eyleyesiz ve hindüstāna/ ve ḫaṭā ve ḫıtay/ ve çin ve maçine ve deşt-i ḳıbcak ve rus

ve/ bulgar ve üngürüs ve rūm ve frenk/ ve magrib ve zengbār ve ḥicāz ve baḥreyn ve

mıṣr ve şām/ ve Ꜥırāḳeyn ve cemīꜤ vilāyetiñ beğleri/ ve düğeli eṭrāfıñ/ ḥākimleri ḥāllü

ḫālince ve miḳdārlu miḳdārınca üstādlar ve miꜤmārlar ve ırgādlar/ ve ālāt ve

zevādeler gönderüb/ temām kereste yığıldıḳdan ṣoñra binā urmağa/ başladılar yāft-ı

ḳubbe-i der-zīr-i zemīn ve kerkesān ve ol zamânda iꜤtiḳādları bu idi ki/

16r dünyā ṭuralı ol yere kimesne/ el urmamış ve ol mekāna kimesne binā yapmamış

ola/ ve en evvel çevre ḥiṣār temelini ḳazdılar/ baꜤżı yerde ḳaya çıḳardı ve baꜤżı yerde

yumuşaḳ/ ṭopraḳ olmağın ḳırḳ/ arşun miḳdārı temel ḳazdılar/ tā kim binā mühkem

ola ittifāḳ bir yerde/ ḳırḳ arşun miḳdarı/ ḳazılınca bir eski yapu bulundı/ ve anda/ bir

āꜤlā ṭaşlar çıḳdı anıñ ardınca oldılar/ ve daḫī ziyāde ḳazdılar añsızın yer altında bir

ḳubbe peydā oldı ki/ devri ḳırḳ arşun/ ve boyu aña göredir/ ve eṭrāfını ayırtladılar ve

138

çalışaraḳ ḳapusını/ buldılar/ ve dürlü dürlü ḥileler ile açdılar/ ve içine girdiler/

gördiler ki ḳubbeniñ bir köşesinde/ altı kerkes ḳuşunuñ ṣūretleri vardır ki ḥikmet

balçıgından düzülmüş ve yünleri/ ve ḳanadları yerde laꜤl ve elmās/ ve yāḳūt-ı bed-

ḫoşāndan her kerkesiñ üstünde/ biñ dāne ṭaş faṣṣ gibi yapışdırılmışdı/ āmmā beş ṣūret

tamām düzülmüş/ ve altıncısınıñ endāmı henüz nā-tamām ṭurur/ ve anıñ/ öñünde bir

altun taḥta vardır/ ve ol taḥtada bir Ꜥacaīb yazı yazılmışdır/ bu ḥālden ziyāde taꜤaccüb

itdiler/ ve ol kerkesleriñ ḥikmetini bilemediler ve ol taḥtada ki yazuyı/ oḳuyamadılar

ve ol zamānda/

16v eflāṭūn ḥekīmiñ şākirdlerinden ve andan oḳumuş/ ādemlerden baꜤżı kimesneler/

var idi anlarıñ bir ḳaçını getürdüb/ kerkesleri ve yazuyı gösterdiler/ anlar daḫī fikr u

Ꜥaḳl u müşāhede-yi naḳl ile bildiler ki/ niçe zamāndan evvel bu yerde bir Ꜥaẓīm şehir/

ve memleket var idi ve dünyā ṭuralı ve ḥażret-i ādem peygamber Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām

mevcūd olalı/ ne ḳadar gelmiş pādişāh var ise/ her biri Ꜥālemde bir nişān ḳoyub

kerkes ḳuşuñ/ biñ yıl yaşaduğı içün/ anıñ ṣūretinde timsāl düzüb/ her yıl geçdikçe

üzerine bir faṣṣ yapışdırırlar/ imiş biñ yıl temām olunca bir kerkes tamām olub/

andan ṣoñra birin daḫī/ düzerler imiş/ ve bu aḫvāli tafṣīl üzerine ol altun taḥtanıñ/

içinde yazmışlardı ve her gelen pādişāh/ ol ḳubbeyi żabṭ idüb/ taḥtadaki yazuyı

oḳuyub/ ol şerāīṭ üzerine Ꜥamel iderlerdi/ tā kim bir zamān muḥkem zelzele gelüb

götüri yerleri/ ḥarāb eyledi ve ol ādemlerden kimesne ḳurtulmadı/ ve ḳubbe-i meẕkūr

yer altında olmağın bozulmadı ḳaldı ṣoñra gelen/ ādemlere Ꜥibret ola ve ḥaḳḳ

teꜤālanıñ ḳudretine/ ve Ꜥaẓmetine/ ve bu dünyā-yı ḳadīmın niçe olduğuna/ istidlāl

eyleyeler/ ve yanḳo ol ḥālden ziyâde taꜤaccüb eyledi/ ḥaḳḳ teꜤālaya fevḳü’l-ḥadd

şükürler eyledi/ ve meẕkūr kerkesleriñ ṭaşlarını ve altununı bozub /

17r ḫaylī ḥazīne ḥāṣıl oldu/ ve ḳubbeniñ eḥcārını ve ālātını bināya ṣarf/ eyledi andan

ṣoñra/ ḳırḳ biñ miꜤmār ile/ iki yüz biñ ırgād defter olundı ve binā urmağa başladılar/

139

ve müneccimler ittifāḳ eylemişlerdi ki/ bir sāꜤat vardır ki/ otuz yılda bir kez vāḳiꜤ

olur/ ol sāꜤat raṣadü’l-tevb binā olunursa/ ol memleket āṣlā ḥarāb olmaz/ ve aña

ziyān-ı Ꜥavārıżdan/ żarar itmez ol sāꜤati gözetmeğe başladılar/ ve ḥiṣārıñ çevresinde

mināre şekillü miller yapdılar/ ve her birisiniñ üzerine birer nāḳūs ḳodılar ki sāꜤat-i

meẕkūr/ irişdüği gibi müneccimler ḫaber vireler ve ol çañlar bir ağızdan çalunı

miꜤmārlara ve ırgādlara/ icāzet olub/ bir yerden bünyāda el uralar/ āmmā ḥaḳḳ

teꜤālanıñ taḳdīriyle/ العبد یدبر ولله یقدّر muḳteżāsınca/ çañ bekleyen ādemlerden biri

gayb eylemişken/ bir leğlek yılan ulıyub ol mīl üzerinde ḳoydı/ ve yimege başladı

yılan cān acısından/ ḥareket idüb çaña ṭoḳındı ve gerü ḳalan bekciler çañ ötdüğîn

işidüb ṣandılar ki müneccimler/ destūr virdi/ cümle bir ağuzdan çaldılar ve miꜤmārlar

ve irgādlar/ ḥāżır ṭururlardı çañ ötdüğün işidince/ bir yerden binā urdılar/ ve

müneccimler bu ḥāli görüb/ feryād itdiler ve pādişāha seğirdüb/

17v gözetdüğiniz sāꜤat henüz irişmeden/ bu āṣl-ı ḥāl oldı/ pādişāh/ ṭuyub bu aḥvāle

vāḳıf olunca değin/ ḫayli temel yapılmış ve çoḳ/ kereste ṣarf olunmuşdu/ pādişāh fikr

eyledi ki ḥaḳḳ teꜤālanıñ irādeti/ böyle ola/ ḥaḳḳ teꜤālanıñ taḳdīriyle/ Ꜥabdiñ tedbīri

fāīde eylemez/ ḥāṣılı bu fikrde ḫayrān ḳaldı/ ve ne eyleyeçeğini bilemedi āḫrü’l-emr/

gördi ki bir işdir oldı tekrār anı bozub/ ḳaldırmaga/ muḳayyed olmadı/ ve eyitdi

böyle olsun niçe idelim ḥaḳḳ teꜤālanıñ irādeti böyle olmuş biz çalışdıḳ/ bizim

didüğimiz olmadı āllahu teꜤālanıñ istedüği/ oldı/ ittifāḳ şenbe güni üçünci sāꜤatde ki

mirrīḥ/ sāꜤatidir/ binā uruldı ve ol sāꜤatiñ/ ṭāliꜤyini gördiler ve aḥkāmını çıḳardılar/

gördiler ki/ ṭāꜤūn eksik olmaya ve anda sākin olan kimesne/ gamm u guṣṣadan ḥālī

olmaya/ ve āñ ṣoñ ḫalḳı zelzeleden ḳırılub ve ḥarāb olması andan ola/ āmmā devlet

ve Ꜥizzet yeri ola ve cümle dünyānıñ mālları ve āꜤlā tuḥfe ve yādigārları/ aña celb

olunub/ ṭopṭolu māl ola/ hele bu ḥāline naẓar eylediler/ ve gayrı belāsından bu

140

miḳdār ile tesellī buldılar/ ve yarınınıñ üsti var deyub/ geleçeğe/ baḳmayub/ çār-nāçār

ḳāīl oldılar ve bi’l-cümle/ ḳırḳ bin miꜤmār ve iki yüz/

18r bîñ ırgād şehriñ bünyādını/ ḳırḳ günde tamām eylediler/ ve ḥiṣārını/ cevirdiler/ ve

ḥiṣārıñ dāīresinde üç yüz altmış burgaz eylediler ve her/ burgazıñ arasında otuz

beden eylediler/ ve ḥiṣārda altmış ḳapu/ açdılar ve şehir içinde altmış biñ ev/ ve bin

kilise ve yüz ḥammām ve beş yüz/ kārbān-sarāy yapdılar/ andan ṣoñra eṭrāf

memālikden/ Ꜥarabdan ve Ꜥacemden/ ve rūmdan/ ve frenkden vesāīr yanḳo pādişāhıñ

ḥükm eyledüği/ vilāyetden çoḳ ehl u Ꜥiyāl ve vāfir erzāk ve emvāl/ ve ḥaşm ve ricāl

sürüb/ kimini mālından ve rızḳından/ ve kimini yerinden ve yurdundan/ ve kimini

ḳavminden ve ḥıṣmından ayırdılar zār-ū-zār ağlatdılar/ ol sebebden her ṭāīfe dillü

dilince ve ḥāllü ḥālince/ ḥaḳḳa tażarruꜤ idüb bu şehre bed-duꜤā itdiler anıñçün/ ṣoñra

zelzeleden ḥarāb oldı/ nitekim ẕikr olunur/ göre inşā-āllahu teꜤāla ve çün/ şehir

tamām oldı pādişāhıñ adını/ aña ḳodılar yanḳo oldı/ andan ṣoñra şehir eṭrāfında ve

deşt/ ū ṣaḥrāsında/ üç yüz altmış pāre ḳalꜤa yapdılar/ tā kim cemīꜤ Ꜥasker anda sākin

olalar/ ve sefere gitdikleri zamānda/ eṭrāfından cemꜤ olmağa/ iḥtiyāc olmaya ve hem

sürgün ādemleri ṭağılmağa ḳomayalar/ ve daḫī şehriñ içinde bir Ꜥaẓīm kilise yabdılar

ki/ aşağa ve yukaırnda rāst bîñ ḥücresi vardır/

18v ve her bir ḥücrede ol zamānıñ/ din ve meẕhebince oḳumuş/ yedi biñ ṭālib-i Ꜥilm

kimesne ṭururdı ve ol zamānda/ ḥażret-i Ꜥīsā peygamber Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām/ henüz

ẓuhūra gelmemişdi/ āmmā ekseri hūd peygamber Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām dininde olub/ ṣaḥif

oḳurlardı/ ve kimi dāvud nebī Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām dininde olub zebūr/ oḳurlardı ve kimi

yıldıza Ꜥibādet iderdi/ ve kimi aya ve güneşe ve kimi/ puta ve kimi āteşe ṭapardı/ ve’l-

ḥāṣıl çoḳ meẕheb var idi ve dimek isterler ki ol zamānda hūd peygamber Ꜥaleyhi’sselām

ṣaḥābesinden bir ehl-i fażl kimesne mevcūd idi/ ve ḳudüs-i şerīfde olûrdı/ ve

beş yüz yıl yaşamış idi/ ve meẕkūr âdemi yanḳo ḳudüs-i şerīfden/ götürüb/ ve

141

meẕkūr kiliseye re’īs eyledi/ ve her gün anı ziyāret iderdi/ ve anıñ meclisinde/

otururdı ve ve icābet-i Ꜥilmiyye/ ve kelimāt ḥükmiyyesinden istifāde iderdi ve derler

ki/ meẕkūr ādem bu ḳadar yaşamağa sebeb/ bu imiş ki zeytūndan gayrı yemek

yimezmiş/ ve her gün bir ḳac dāne/ zeytūn yiyüb anıñla geçinürmiş/ ve daḫī magrib

vilāyetinde bir kāmil/ kimesne var idi/ ve ol daḥī ārisṭo şākirdlerinden/ ve magribde/

çoḳ ṭılsımlar ve dürlü ve drülü māhyalar/ işlemiş idi/ çünkim/

19r istānbulıñ aḥvālini işitdi/ ve meẕkūr kiliseniñ tertībātını ḫaber/ aldı magribden/

hicret idüb istānbula geldi ve anda peydā eylemedüği Ꜥacāyib ve garāibini gördi ve ol

daḫī ḳaṣd eyledi ki/ bir māhya eyleye ve Ꜥālemde bir nişān ḳoya/ pādişāha buluşub

icāzet/ aldıḳdan/ ṣoñra altundan/ ṣığırcıḳ ḳuşı endāmında bir ṭılsım düzdi ve anıñ

gözlerini yāḳūt-ı aḥmerden eyledi/ ve daḫī elmās ṭaşından zeytūn/ ḳadar üc dāne

düzdi ve birini meẕkūr kûşıñ/ minḳārında ve birini/ ṣağ ayağında ve birini ṣol

ayağında ḳodı/ andan ṣoñra bir yüksek mīl/ mināre gibi yapdı/ ve meẕkūr ṭılsımı anıñ

üstünde ḳodı ve Ꜥaynını düzüb üzerinde bildüği/ esmā ve ṭılsımātı eyledi ve her yıl

zeytūn zamānında meẕkūr ḳuş ṣığırcıḳ gibi ötmeğe başlardı/ ve her ne yerde ki

ṣığırcıḳ ḳuşı vardır gayrı memleketden/ ve bulunduğı yerden üç dāne zeytūnı birin

ağzında/ birin ṣağ ayağında birin ṣol ayağında getürüb istānbula götürüb/ meẕkūr

ṭılsım üzerinde bırağurlardı ve andan evvel istānbūlda/ ve götüri rūm vilâyetinde

zeytūn bulunmazdı/ ve meẕkūr ṭılsımdan her yıl bir ānbār/ zeytūn cemꜤ olub ḫaylî

ẕühre ḥāṣıl olurdı ve meẕkūr kiliseniñ/ ekser ḥarcıı andan olurdı/

19v ve daḫī frengistān vilāyetinde/ bir kāmilü’l-vücūd ḥekīm var idi ki/ aña ārganūs

hekīm dirlerdi ol daḫī ṭılsım düzmekde/ gāyet pehlivān/ idi meẕkūr ṣığırcıḳ/

māhyatın işidince frengistāndan gelüb seyr eyledi/ ve pādişāhdan icāzet etdi/ ve ḳum

ḳapusı cānibinde/ deñiz kenārında bir māhya yapdı/ ve tevḥīdden hāvan gibi bir

müdevver/ leğen eşildi/ ve ani jīve ile ṭoldurdı/ ve altun ve maꜤādinden bir balıḳ

142

ṣūretin düzdi ve ol jīveniñ/ içine ṣalıverdi/ ve deryā üzerinde/ mināre şekillü bir mīl

yapdı ve meẕkūr ṭılsımı/ anıñ üzerinde ḳodı ve bildüği/ efsūnları ve tesḫirātı üstüne/

oḳudı ve ol mīliñ deyninde bir ḥavż yapdı/ ve her gün güneş/ ṭoğduğulın/ jīve

ḥarekete gelürdi ve içindeki/ altun balıḳ/ oynamağa başlardı/ ve ol ḥīnde ẕikir

balıḳları büyükden ve küçükden/ hep ol yaḳāda cemꜤ olurlardı/ güyā ki Ꜥibādetgāhları

ol idi/ ve cümle ṣu yüzünde ṭurub ol māhyaya/ baḳarlardı ve ol esnāda biribirin

yemeğe başlardı/ ve uvaḳları büyüklerinden ḳaçub/ cān ācısından ṣudan ṭaşra atılub/

meẕkūr ḥavżıñ içine düşerlerdi/ ve her gün/ andan vāfir balıḳ ḥāṣıl olurdı/ ve ḫayli

der-āmed gelürdi/

20r ve cümleten meẕkūr kiliseye/ ve içinde olan Ꜥulemāya ṣarf olunurdı/ kimin tāze

ve kimin ḳurudub yerlerdi/ andan ṣoñra meẕkūr pâdişâh çoḳ yaşadı/ ve her gün ol

kiliseye varub/ meẕkūr Ꜥazīzi/ ziyāret iderdi ve cemīꜤ papaslar ve paṭrīḳler/ anıñ

öñünde cemꜤ olub/ bildikleri/ Ꜥulūm ve fünūn oḳurlardı ve bi’l-cümle/ ziyāde māhir

oldı/ ve götürü oḳuduḳlarını öğrendi/ ve kendüsi ziyāde Ꜥaḳıllı kimesne idi ṣoñra/

meżhebini azdırdı ve ve ḥāliyā āya ṣofyanıñ olduğı yerde bir deyr yapdı/ ve anıñ

öñünde mīl ḳodı ve sābıḳā meẕkūr/ olan putı ol mīlin üzerinde ḳodı/ ve sarāydan

çıḳub/ kiliseye varub geldüği zamānda/ ol puta ṭapardı ve ḫalḳ aña taḳlīd idüb/ ṭapar

oldılar giderek ḫalḳı igvā itmeğe/ başladı evvelā putıñ yanına çıḳub ṭurırdı/ ve bir

reng ile yovtı söyledirdi/ ve ḫalḳa emr u nehy buyururdu ḥâṣılı/ ḫalḳı/ puta ṭapdırdı

ve kendüsi/ vāsıṭa gibi oldı ve kendüsi el-nebevvet daꜤvāsın eyledi/ ol sebeble ki üc

yüz yıl yaşadı/ ve bu deñlü/ müddetiñ içinde bir maraż ve bir Ꜥarż görmedi/ ve her ne

murād idinse murādı ḥāṣıl olurdı/ ve her memālik pādişāhları aña münḳād ve muṭiꜤ

20v olmuşlardı/ el-Ꜥiyāẕü bi’llah şeyṭān gaddār/ ve ṭabꜤ-i gaddār kendüye/ böyle sevḳ

eyledi ki/ tangrılıḳ daꜤvāsın eyleye/ bir gün puta/ şöyle söylendi ki şimden gayru/

yānḳo el-nebevvet mertebesine/ irişdi ve ben anı size/ ḫalīfe eyledim bu günden

143

ṣoñra anı/ ilah bilüñ ve aña ibādet idiñ/ deyü andan ṣoñra putı giydirdi ve her gün

kendüsi/ evvelki Ꜥādet üzerine mīliñ üzerine çıḳub/ ḫalka ḳarşu gelürdi ve istedüği

gibi/ emr u nehy iderdi/ تعالي لله عمایقول الظّالمونعلّواً كبیراً امّا الدیّان مھل ولا یھمل

mukteżāsınca/ müddet-i Ꜥömrü nihāyet buldı/ ve vaꜤde-i cezā ب م ا كناو یا مع لون vaḳti

irişdi/ ittifāḳ yılda bir kez nev-rūz gününde bir Ꜥaẓīm cemꜤiyyet olub/ üç yüz altmış

kāfir beğleri/ ve beğzādeler/ ḥāżır olurlardı ve yıldan yıla yanḳonuñ aḥkāmını ve

şerāꜤını ve ne eşleyüb/ ve ne eşlemeyeçeklerini meẕkūr kilisede ki/ yedi biñ keşiş

bunlara taꜤlīm iderlerdi/ tā ki yıldan yıla anuñla/ Ꜥamel ideler/ ve her yıl anlar başḳa

aḥkām ve tertībāt/ buyurub/ keşişlere taꜤlīm iderdi/ ve anlar daḫī cemꜤiyyete ḥāżır

olan ādemlere / öğredirlerdi/ ve bu ḥāl üzerine her nevrūzda/ şöyle iderlerdi

21r meẕkūr yānḳo kendüsi çıḳub/ mīliñ üzerinde ṭururdı/ ve ẕikr olân beğler/

kiliseden aña ṭapu ḳalurlardı/ ve semeꜤnā ve eteꜤnā deyüb gerü memleketlerine

giderlerdi/ ittifāḳ bir nevrūẓda bu deñlü ādem ve beğler ve şehzādeler/ kilisede cemꜤ

olub/ küfr ū ḍelāletde/ ḥumḳ ū cehāletde iken/ bir Ꜥaẓīm bād-ı ṣarṣar ḳopdı/ ve ḥarāb

idici seyller ve mühlik yağmurlar ve ṭolular yağdı/ ve bir hāīl zelzele vāḳiꜤ oldı ki/

meẕkūr kilise hep yıḳıldı/ ve ṭaşları ṭopraḳları/ içindeki emleriñ āꜤiżżāları/ ḳarış ve

ḳarış oldı/ ve düğeli şehriñ bināsı ve ḥiṣārı/ ve türābı ve ehcārı tārūmār oldı/ ve baꜤżı

emkine yere geçdi ve baꜤżısı rūy-ı zemīn ile/ birebir oldı ve ol eṭrāfında/ bulunan

ādemden ve ḥayvānātdan/ bir cān ḳurtulmadı/ ve yānḳodan ve gayrıdan bir ṣavt ve

ṣedā peydā olmadı ve bi’l-cümle yabānda bulunan/ efrāddan gayrı/ hep yapu altında

ḳırıldılar/ ve ṭaşrada bulunan kimesneler başların/ alub tārūmār oldılar ve her biri/ bir

memlekete ṭağıldılar ve bu zelzelede çoḳ memleket ḥarāb oldı/ ve ḫayli ārāżī yere

geçdi/ ve bu vāḳıꜤa-yı ḥavādis-i Ꜥaẓām/ ve meşhūr ḥavāṣ Ꜥavām ebedī neꜤüzı bi’llah

min/

144

21v saḫṭu’llah ve bu belā-yı Ꜥaẓīm vāḳiꜤ olunca/ şehir ıssuz ḳaldı/ ve yabān

cānavarlarına mesken oldı/ ve içinde bir maꜤmūr yer/ ḳalmadı/ ve baꜤżı rivāyet de

gelmişdir ki meẕkūr zelzelede yalñız/ istānbul ḫalḳından/ bellü başlu yüz otuz biñ

ādem/ helāk/ oldı/ tüvvābiꜤ ve levāḥıḳından gayrı fe āmmā ki üfürtmeğeñ ādemler ve

derme ve düşürme olanlar ḥadden/ ve ḥesābdan ḥāricdir/ ve meẕkūr yanḳonuñ bir

oğlu/ vâr idi ki ādına buzanṭin dirlerdi ol zamānda/ Ꜥasker ile üngürüs vilāyetine

gitmişdi/ meşhūr zelzelede bulunmadı ve babasınıñ tevābiꜤndan/ helāk

olmayanlardan şundan bundan cemꜤ olub/ buzanṭini pādişāh eylediler ve anıñ emrine

muṭīꜤ ve sāmiꜤ ve ḥükmüne tābiꜤ oldılar/ ve ḥaḳḳ teꜤāla aña taḥt ve Ꜥömr-i devlet virdi/

tā üngürüs ve macar ve mosḳov ve bosna ve baꜤżı frengistān vilāyetini alub ḳırḳ yıl

beğlik sürdü/ ve ol esnāda istānbul ḥarāb olub ejderhālara/ ve ayartıcı cānavarlara

mesken oldı/ ṣoñra buzanṭin ḳuvvetlenüb Ꜥasker ve reꜤāyā ve ḫalḳ ū berāyā/ cemꜤ

idüb/ yine istānbulı taꜤmīr eyledi/ āmmā zelzele ḫavfından yeri ḳazub/ kiliseler ve

ḥammāmlar ve kārbānsarāylar/ ve anıñ gibi muḥkem kārgīr bināları/

22r zīr-i zemīnde yapub/ andan ṣoñra yeryüzünde/ Ꜥādetce olur ve maḥalleler yapılır/

tā ki zelzele vāḳiꜤ olduḳda zīr-i zemīne ḳaçub/ helāk olmayalar/ ve şimdi/ istānbuluñ

neresinde ḳazılsa muḥkem temeller ve dürlü binālar ki bulunur hep andan ḳalmışdır/

ve meżkūr buzanṭin gāyet mücessem ve ḳuvvetlü/ ādem idi ḥatta ki/ at anı

götürmezdi dāīmā file binerdi/ ṣoñra meẕkūr babasınıñ sābıḳā yâpdığı mīliñ/ evvelki

yerinde bir mīl daḫī/ yapdı ve kendü ṣūretin düzüb/ mīliñ üstünde dike ḳodı ve /

ḫalḳı aña ṭapdırdı/ ve ol kimesne ki imtināꜤ idüb Ꜥibādet/ itmezdi/ mīliñ üzerinden/

atub helāk iderdi giderek fitne ve fesādı ziyāde oldı ve ẓülm ve fısḳa başladı/ ve ol

sebebden/ ḥaḳḳ teꜤāla anlara bir Ꜥaẓīm ṭāꜤūn gönderdi ki/ bir uğurdan hücūm eyledi/

ve ḫalḳ ol deñlü ḳırıldı ki/ bir uğurdan on bölügünde yeri/ ḳalmadı/ ve andan

ḳurtulan ādemler ṭağılub/ her biri bir memlekete gitdi ve şehir/ yine ıssuz ḳaldı/

145

andan ṣoñra iskender rūmī vücūda geldi/ ve cemīꜤ meşriḳ ve magribi alub żabṭ

eyledikden ṣoñra/ bunı taꜤmīr eylemek istedi/ āmmā zamāna müsāiꜤd olmadı ve çoḳ

yaşamadı/ anıñçün/ şehir muꜤaṭṭal ḳaldı/ ve iskender zamānında meẕkūr buzanṭin

neslinden/

22v kīr/ miḫal adlu bir beğ var idi/ iskenderiñ yanında muḳarrib ve muꜤteber idi/

iskender fevt olduḳdan ṣoñra kīr-miḫal bunı/ taꜤmīr eylemek istedi āmmā eṭrāfında

olan memleket ḫalḳı istemediler/ ol sebebden ki kendülerin/ sürüb ṭaşında/ ve

ṭopraḳında ḳullanırlardı/ ve mālların ve rızḳların çıkub ẕaḫīre iderlerdi/ ve meẕkūr

kīr-miḫal üngürüs ḥākimi idi ve anda/ ḳuvvet oldı ve anıñ oğlı Ꜥalā’īye babası/ yerine

beğ oldı/ ve ol dahī ādem ve Ꜥasker sürüb/ bunı yapmağa ḳaṣd eyledi lakin gerü

memleket ḫalḳı/ istemediler ve ol zamānda rūm pādişāhı heraḳl idi/ ve heraḳliñ taḥtı/

ḳayṣariyye idi ve meẕkūr heraḳl zamānında/ ḥażret-i Ꜥīsā peygamber Ꜥaleyhü’ṣ-

ṣalavat ve’s-selām/ vücūda geldi ve anıñ dini ekser memālikde/ az zamānda/ şāyīꜤ

oldı ve meẕkūr Ꜥalā’īye/ istānbuluñ taꜤmīrine iḳdām idüb mübāşeret etmişken/

memleket ḫalḳı cemꜤ olub heraḳla şikāyet itdiler/ ve aña şöyle/ añlatdılar ki eğer

Ꜥalā’īye/ istānbulı taꜤmīr idecek olursa/ seniñ memleketüne küllī żarar ve reꜤāyā

ṭā’īfesine/ ziyāde şurüş ḥāṣıl olur belli ki anıñla taḥaṣṣun eyleyüb/ pādişāhlığı elinden

ala/ heraḳl/ bundan ziyāde mütefekkir oldı ve menꜤine elçi gönderdi/ bu daḫī

muḳayyed olmadı ve taꜤmirine muṣırr oldı/ tekrar heraḳla şikāyet itdiler ve bir daḫī/

23r menꜤ eylemesine Ꜥasker gönderdi/ ve bu daḫī muḳayyed olmadı lakin heraḳl

emiretti ki/ eğer elügele ve az gelse gücle ḳomayalar/ ḥāṣılı heraḳl Ꜥaskeri gelüb/

Ꜥalā’īye ile/ ḥayli ceng ū cidāl vāḳiꜤ oldı āḫirü’l-emr/ Ꜥalā’īye deñizden geçüb mıṣıra

vardı/ ve mıṣırda ol vaḳtin Ꜥīsā peygamber Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām ḥavāriyyūndan şemꜤūn

adlu bir Ꜥazīz/ var idi ve cemīꜤ/ memālik/ pādişāhları ve eṭrāf ḥākimleri/ aña iꜤtiḳād

iderlerdi ve duꜤāyīn iltimās iderlerdi/ Ꜥalā’īye varub/ anıñ üzerine düşdi/ ve aḥvālini

146

Ꜥale’t-tafṣīl söyledi ve eyitdi maꜤlūm-ı ḥażretdir ki/ istānbul benim babalarımıñ ve

dedelerimiñ ocāğıdır ve aña niçe/ māl ve ḥazīneler ḥarac eylediler/ ve ḥālīyā bināsı

yerinde ṭurur āmmā içinde ādem yoḳdur/ ve ben ḳaṣd eyledim ki maꜤmūr eyliyim ve

evvelki/ gibi gerü açim/ fe āmmā ki heraḳl baña māniꜤ oldı ve benim niyetim/ ḫayrdır

ve murādım ıṣlāḥdır/ sizden ricām budur ki bu ḫayr-ı niyete müsāꜤade buyurasız/ ve

şemꜤūn Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām istānbuluñ aḥvālini/ ve yanḳonuñ ve evlādınıñ ḳabīḥ efꜤālini

işitmiş idi/ Ꜥalā’īyeye eyitdi bildim ki seniñ murādıñ eyüdir/ ve niyetiñ ḫayırdır āmmā

senden evvel vāḳiꜤ/ olan fitne ve fesādları bilürsen/ ve putlara Ꜥibādet itdiklerin

işitmişsen ve heraḳl ol sebeble anıñ taꜤmīrine māniꜤ oldı/ āmmā eğer min-baꜤd ol

ḍelāletden/

23v ferāgat idüb ḥażret-i Ꜥīsā peygamber Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām/ dinini ḳabūl iderseñ/ ben

daḫī saña muꜤāvenet ideyin/ ve heraḳlden icāzet aluvere ben/ daḫiñ Ꜥalā’īye daḫī bu

şarṭı ḳabūl idüb buña göre ḳavl ū Ꜥahd eyledi şemꜤūn daḫī mıṣırdan bile çıḳub

ḳaradan/ heraḳl ḳaṣdına teveccüh itdiler ittifāḳ yolda iken/ Ꜥalā’īye helāk oldı ve anıñ

bir oglı var idi ki/ aña kosṭanṭīn dirlerdi/ ve ol daḫī böyle idi şemꜤūn anı bilince

götürüb heraḳle buluşdurdı ve babasınıñ/ ḳıṣṣasını taḳrīr itdi ve eyitdi istānbul bunuñ

babalarınıñ/ ve dedeleriniñ taꜤmīri ile olmuşdur/ ve aña niçe ḥazāīn ve emvāl

çevirteler ve ḥāliyā bināsı yerinde ṭurur/ āmmā içinde ādem yoḳdur ve anıñ gibi/

Ꜥaẓīm şehir şöyle ıssuz ḳalmaḳ münāsib değildir ve bunlar/ şimdi ḥażret-i Ꜥīsā

peygamber dinine girdiler/ şimdin gerü kendülere māniꜤ olmayasın ve

müverrislerine/ taꜤarruż itmeyesin tā ki varub baba ve ecdādınıñ ocağını maꜤmūr

eyleye niḳāḥ-ı ḳosṭanṭīn-i ṣafiyye duḫter-i heraḳl heraḳl şemꜤūnuñ dileğini ḳabūl

eyledi ve kendüniñ ṣafiyye adlu bir ḳızı var idi/ an daḫī şemꜤūn ḥāṭır içün ḳosṭanṭīne

virdi/ ve andan māꜤadā māl vāfir ve Ꜥasker mütekāsire birle/ istānbula gönderdi ve

kendü memleketinden/ ḫayli yerleri kimn ḳosṭanṭīne

147

24r żīmme eyledi ve kimin ḳızına bağışladı/ ve bi’l-cümle meżkūr ḳosṭanṭīn/ ḳuvvet

buldı/ ve geldi istānbulı maꜤmūr eyledi ve evvelki binā ve ḥiṣārdan/ yıḳılmayan yeri

ḥāli üzerine ḳodılar ve evvelki meremmete muḥtacdır meremmet/ itdiler ve ḥāliyā

istānbuluñ çevresinde olan/ ḥiṣār meẕkūr ḳosṭanṭīn meremmet idüb taꜤmīr

eyledüğiden/ anıñ içün aña nisbet idüb ḳosṭanṭīniyye didiler/ ol zamânlarda ıssuz

ḳalmışdı vāfir yılānlar ve mūẕī ḥayvānlar/ içinde cemꜤ olub/ mesken idinmişler idi/

ve şehir ḳātī büyük olduğundan/ meẕkūr olan ḥayvānātı ḳırub ve yāḫūd içinden/

sürüb çıḳarmağa ḳādir olamadılar/ ol sebebden at meydānında tucdan ol üc başlu

ejderhā ṣūretin düzdiler ve üzerine/ efsūnlar ve duꜤālar oḳudular ve yılanlar ve

ejdehālar/ defꜤine ṭılsım itdiler ve ḳalan mūẕī nesneleriñ żararı defꜤine yine at

meydānında/ ol dört köşelü /sūrı dikilü ṭuran ṭaşı düzüb/ üzerinde ol mūẕīleriñ

ṣūretlerini ve gayrı esmā ve ṭılsımāt naḳş itdiler/ ve daḫī ol Ꜥavrat bāzārında ki/ ṭaşı

düzüb üzerinde düşmen Ꜥaskerleriniñ defꜤine ve ḳaṣd idici żararlarıñ ḳalꜤine ṭılsımāt

ve eşkāl raṣad idüb/

24v naḳş itdiler ḥatta bundan ṣoñra/ istānbulda yılan bulunmaz idi ve mūẕī ḥayvānāt

ve mużırr ḥaşerātdan żarar gelmez idi/ ve gayrı yerden Ꜥasker gelüb almasına ḳādir

olmadı ve şimdi/ daḫī baꜤżı āsarları müşāhededir/ ḥāṣılı meżkūr ḳosṭanṭīn/ ihtimām

idüb bu şehri evvelkiden/ daḫī āꜤlā yâpdı ve anı taḥt idüb içinde/ ḳarār eyledi ve eṭrāf

memālikden ādem ve ẕaḫīre sürüb/ bu ḥāle gördi, ve āllah-u āꜤlem ṣoñra meẕkūr

ṣafiyye ḥātūn ki heraḳliñ ḳızı/ ve meẕkūr ḳosṭanṭīniñ ḥātūnıdır/ ḥasta oldı/ mālı ve

menāli ve rızḳ ve emlākı çoğ idi/ kimi babasından ve kimi ḳosṭanṭīnden/ ve kimi

gayrı yerden vāfir emvāl ve ḫazāīni var idi şöyle vaṣiyyet eyledi ki cemīꜤ/ mālını ve

mülkünü/ bir Ꜥibādetḥāneniñ bünyādına ṣarf ideler ve kendüyi anıñ/ bir bucağında

defn ideler vefāt eyledikden ṣoñra anıñ mālıyla küçük āya ṣofyayı yapdılar/ anıñ

adına nisbet idüb āya ṣofya didiler üstünyānū ṣāḥib-i āya ṣofya-yı kebīr ve meẕkūr

148

ḳosṭanṭîn fevt olub/ yüz elli yıl geçdikden ṣoñra anıñ neslinden/ üstünyānū nām

pādişāh/ ḥākim oldı ve meẕkūr ḳatī tāze imiş āmmā Ꜥilm ve ḥikmete/ Ꜥibādet ve ṭāꜤate/

ziyāde māyil idi ve babaları/ ve dedeleri semti üzere/ Ꜥīsā peygamber dinine tābiꜤ idi

ve bunda ḳadīmden/

25r putperest ṭā’īfe var idi ki/ anlara āryāno dirler idi ve bunlar/ sābıḳā puta ṭapmağa

öğrenmiş ṭā’īfeleriñ/baḳāyāsından idiler ve baꜤżı ânlarıñ nuḫsend ādemleri/ anlara bir

mehl vażꜤ ḳomuşlardı ki anlarıñ cümlesi ānı şerꜤ bilürlerdi ṣoñra ḥażret-i Ꜥīsā

peygamber Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām/ ve Ꜥalī benīyyetā ve sellem/ şerīꜤatı ẓuhūr oldı ve naṣāra

ṭā’īfesi mutaṣṣıl āryāno ile ceng ū cidāl iderlerdi/ ve şerꜤ aḥkāmından ve din

bābından/ baḥs ū nizāꜤ ḳoparırlardı ol sebebden/ üstünyānū emr eyledi ki cümlesiniñ/

re’īsleri ve Ꜥuḳalāsı ve ehl-i fużalāsı cemꜤ olub imtiḥān/ olalar bir gün taꜤyin idüb/

cümlesi at meydānında ḥāżır oldılar/ baḥs itmeğe başladılar ve āryānolarıñ delīlleri

żaꜤīf muḥabbetleri vāhī/ ve naṣāra ṭā’īfesiniñ burhānları şerꜤ ehli olduğundan/

āryanolar mağlūb ve mülzem oldılar/ ol harāretle gavga ḳopardılar ve birbirine dik

gelüb/ muḥkem nizāꜤ ū cidā itdiler/ Ꜥāḳibet iki cānibden/ ḳılıc ḳılıca ve bıçaḳ bıçağa

olub/ bir sāꜤatiñ içinde beş bîñ ādem helāk oldı/ ve üstünyānū bu ḳażiyyeden/ ziyāde

bī-ḥużūr oldı/ ve Ꜥaskerine ve ḥavāṣına emr eyledi ki āryānoları hep ṭutub öñüne

getüreler/ bir bir cümlesin bağlayub getürdiler/ ve/

25v söyletti gördi ki/ muꜤānnidler ve küfr üzerine muṣırr olub/ ḳābil değildir/ ol

damda putlarını/ deñize atdırdı ve cümlesini ḳılıçdan geçürdi meğer birḳāçı Ꜥīsā

peygamber Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām/ dinine tābiꜤ oldılar ve/ ḳalanları kimi ḳaçub/ perākende

oldılar ve meẕkūr āryānolar ṭā’īfesiniñ bir Ꜥibādetḥāneleri var idi ki/ āya ṣofyanıñ

yerinde idi ve üstünyānū anı yıḳmağa ḳıymazdı/ ol sebebden ki azlardan dedeleriniñ/

eyyāmından ḳalmışdı anı görüb Ꜥibret alurlardı/ ve anlarıñ rūḥları içün incitmezdi/

belki taꜤẓīm ve tekrīm iderdi ve ana virirdi/ āmmā meẕkūr āryānoları ḳırduğı gün/

149

anlara ziyāde bī-ḥużūr oldı ve ḳaṣd eyledi ki/ol ṭā’īfeñiñ/ nām ū nişānını nā--bedīd

eyleye ol gice düşünde gördi ki/ bir müşekkel āḳ ṣaḳallu ve nūrānī bir pīr/ bir güzel

ata binüb sarāyıñ ṭamları üzerinde gezer ve üstünyānū bundan ziyāde taꜤaccüb eyledi/

ve şekline ve endāmına baḳub ḫayrān ḳaldı/ ol pīr ṭolaşarak pādişāhıñ öñüne vardı

selam virdi/ üstünyānū selāmıñ âldı ve eyitdi/ ay Ꜥazīz bunda neylersin ve ne

maṣlaḥatıñ vardır deyü ṣordı/ pīr daḫī eyitdi saña bir ḫayırlu maṣlaḥat ḳulavızlığa

geldim/ pādişāh eyitdi/ buyur hey Ꜥazīzım/ seniñ didüğini cānıma minnet bilürim pīr

eyitdi put/

26r perestleriñ dinini bī-bünyād/ ve maḥż-ı küfr ve Ꜥināddır eyü vardıñ ki anları

ḳırdıñ/ āmmā tamām budur ki anlarıñ deyrini yıḳasın ve anıñ yerine bir āꜤlā

Ꜥibādetḥāne yapasın ki/ Ꜥālemde gün gibi meşhūr/ ve sāīr/ memālikde irem ẕātü’l-

Ꜥimād gibi meẕkūr ola tā ki/ ḥażret-i Ꜥīsā peygamber Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām/ dini şāyiꜤ ve rāīꜤ

olub anıñ tābiꜤleri sāīr/ edyān üzerine gālib olalar/ hemāndem uyandı ne pīr ve ne

gayrı gördi/ āmmā didüği sözüñ ṣūreti ṣaḥīfe-yi dilde münaḳḳaş ḳaldı/ ve ol demde

neẕr eyledi ki/ eğer ḥaḳḳ te‘āla ecelden aman ve Ꜥömre zamān virirse/ elbette bu

vāḳıꜤayı yerine getüre ve bu işiñ ḥuṣūlünde/ başım üzerine seğirdem didi/ ve ol

ṣabāḥda bir dīvān-ı Ꜥaẓīm ve cemꜤiyyet-i cesīm eyleyüb/ vüzerāya ve erkānına ve

āḥbā ve āꜤvānına bu düş vāḳıꜤasını söyledi ve ol üzerine/ iltizām eyledüği neẕri beyān

eyledi anlar daḫī gāyet maꜤḳūl gördiler/ ve pādişāhıñ bülend fikrine ve Ꜥālī naẓīrine

taḥsīn itdiler/ ve ol zamānda düğeli rubꜤ-ı meskūnuñ pādişāhları istānbul pādişāhına

muṭīꜤ/ ve sāmiꜤ ve nāṣır ve tābiꜤ idiler/ nitekim yuḳaruda beyān olunmuşdur/ ve ol

zamānda rūm ili ve ānāṭolı yaḳasında ne ḳadar/

26v pādişāh ve ḥākim var idi/ ḳosṭanṭīn pādişāhına ya ḥarāc virirdi veyā dostlaşub/

hedīye veyā tuḥfe gönderirlerdi/ mutaṣṣıl üstünyānūya emvā ve ḥazāīn ve erzāḳ ve

maꜤādin/ aḳub gelürdi hemān ol vāḳıꜤa göndere/ her cānibine elciler taꜤyin idüb

150

hindüstān/ ḫaṭāy ḫotan ve Ꜥarab ve Ꜥacem ve rūm deylem/ ve türkistān beğlerine ve

frengistān ḳrāllarına birer ḥükm gönderdi ki her nerdeki direk/ veyā üsṭüvāne mermer

veyā eḥcār melevven veyā füṣūṣ maꜤden buluna/ yerinde ḳoparub ḳaradan Ꜥarabalar

ile ve deñizden gemiler ile/ gönderüb istānbula yetiştireler ve sevābda bulunalar/ ve

herkes kendü ḥāline ve ḳudretine göre/ cidd ū ihtimām ve saꜤy-ı iḳdām ideler/ ve

memleket pādişāhları/ daḫī bu fırṣatı ganīmet bilüb her birisi ḥiẕmeti/ ziyāde ideyin/

ve sevābda artıcaḳ bulunayın ve fevḳü’l-ḥad ve’s-saꜤāde-yi cidd ū cehd eylediler

evvelā sekiz somāḳī direk ki/ ḥālīyā āya ṣofyanıñ içerü dört köşesinde ikişer ikişer

vāḳiꜤ olmuşlardır/ kimi ṣağ ve kimi hicrānludır bunları/ çāk medāīn cānibinde bir

vīrāne Ꜥibādetḥāne içinde bulmuşlardır ve meẕkūr vīrāne/ ḥarrān nām terrāsnıñ şehriñ

içindedir/ ve anı urlayū nām pādişāh yâpmışdı ki/ ḥażret-i ibrāhīm peygamber

Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām/ zamānında idi ve garūr laꜤīn helāk/ olduḳdan ṣoñra meẕkūr urlayū

ibrāhīm ḫalīl Ꜥaleyhi’s-selāma/ çoḳ riꜤāyyetler eyledi

27r ve meẕkūr Ꜥibādetḥāneyi/ ḥażret-i ḫalīlü’llah içün yapdı/ soñra meżkūr

Ꜥibādetḥāne vīrāne oldı ve ẕikr olan/ direkleri andan çıḳarub bunda getürdiler/ ve

dimek isterler ki direkler anda on dāne idi/ āmmā söküb çıḳardıḳları zamānında/ ikisi

yerinde uvanub ḫurde ḫurde olmuşlardı ve sekizini bundan getürdiler/ ve bunlarıñ

daḫī ekseri saḳaṭ/ āmmā gayrı yerde anda eş bulunmadı/ anıñçün baḳır ile ḳuşadub

üzerine/ binā itdiler/ ve baꜤżı kimesneler zuꜤm iderler ki somāḳī ṭâşıñ/ maꜤdeni ḳāf

ṭağından gayrı yerde bulunmaz/ ve baꜤżılar dimek isterler ki Ꜥacem vilāyetinde hicrāt

şehriniñ ḳurbunda/ bir ırmaḳ vardır ki aña āb-ı āmū dirler meẕkūr ırmağıñ garb

kenārında somākī ṭaşı maꜤdeni vardır/ ve anda gelürmiş āmmā henüz maꜤdende iken

biraz mülāyim olur/ ve kesmeğe ve yonmağa el virir āmmā eskindiçe/ ziyāde bek

olur ve sengtrāş āletleri andan Ꜥāciz ḳalur/ ve baꜤżı kimesneler dirler ki sābiḳā anıñ

maꜤdeni var idi āmmā şimdi hiç bir yerde yoḳdur/ ve baꜤżı Ꜥāḳıllar dirler ki somāḳī

151

direkleri ṭaş değildir/ belli ki eczādan terkīb olunmuş nesnedir ki ṣırçayı düzülür ve

ol zamān hekīmleri/ altundan ve gümüşden ve ṣırçadan ve bir ḳac eczādan cemꜤ idüb

ḳaynadırlardı/ ḳaynayub tamām müteḥayyil/

27v olduğı gibi kum ile ḳarışdırub/ ve istedükleri direğiñ veyā gayrı dürlü ṭaşıñ

ṣūretinde/ ve endāmında balçıḳdan ḳalıb düzdüler/ ve meẕkūr eczāları/ ol ḳalıbıñ

içine tükrülür ve ṭöküb ṣu döḳdün ṣoñra/ ḳalıbı üstünden bozub/ çıḳarırlardı ve bu

zamānda anıñ ṣanꜤatına/ kimesne ḳādir değildir ve esrārın daḫī vāḳıf olamaz/ ve bu

söz baꜤīd değildir ve ḳalan direkler ki ekseri yeşile māīlleriñdir ve baꜤżısına/

serçegözi dirler āyāsluḳ nāḥīyesinden kesmişlerdir/ ve aḳ ve ṣaru mermerler daḫī

vardır ki/ ḳızıla māīldir/ ol daḫī miḥālīc cānibinden gelmişdir ve şeffāf mermerler ki

ṣāfī/ aḳ olub/ ṣufrete māīldir yunān/ vilāyetinden gelmişdir ve ol yeşil mermerler ki

bileyuna beñzer ve kiminiñ içinde dürlü dürlü/ naḳşlar ve Ꜥacā’īb ve garāīb ṣūretler/

görünür/ çāk ḥabeşe vilāyetinden kesmişlerdir/ ve’l-ḥāṣıl her ḳangi memleketde ki

āꜤlā ṭaş/ ve muḥkem direk bulundıysa ṭavꜤān ve kerhān istanbūla sürülüb āya ṣofya

içün naḳl olundı/ ve meẕkūr eḥcār ve reꜤāyā ve kereste ve lüzum mühimmāt iḥżār

olunub cümle olunca/ yedi yıl altı ay geçdi/ andan ṣoñra bināya el urdılar ve

yapmaḳda daḫī sekiz yıl on ay eylendiler ve üstünyānıñ/ bir miꜤmār başısı var idi ki/

dib frengistāndan gelmişdi ve ziyāde/ hünermend kāmil ve fenni hendesede/

28r ḥāẕiḳ ve fāżıl idi/ ve anıñ ismi ignādyūs idi ve anıñ taḥt-ı taṣarrufunda yüz üstād

bennā ve meẕkūr/ üstādlarıñ her birisiniñ ḫidmetinde/ yüzer dülger ve irgād ve ṭaşcı

var idi ki/ cümleten on biñ yüz bir ādem iderler/ andan ṣoñra yapmağa başladılar ve

añ evvel/ meẕkūr putperestleriñ deyrini yıḳdılar/zīrā ki üstādlarıñ ittifāḳıyla ve

mühendisleriñ re’yile direk yerini bakınub/ anıñ yerinde temel bıraḳmağa ḳaṣd

itmişlerdi/ ve hem sābıḳā düşünde gördüği vāḳıꜤayı yerine getürmek istedi hemān

başdan ayağa varınca yıḳdılar/ ve anıñ çevre yanında olan maḥallāt ve buyūt ve

152

Ꜥimārātı/ eṣḥābından aḳçe ile alub/ aña ḳatalar tā ki bu deñlü yapı yapmağa ḳābil ola/

ve meẕkūr üstünyānū gāyetle Ꜥādil ve Ꜥilmle Ꜥāmil pādişāh idi ve şöyle emr eyledi ki

hiç kimesneniñ/ evini Ꜥanfla müft eyleyeler ve ol ki/ iḥtiyār ile evini veyā mülkini

āllah içün bağışlıya/ andan ḳabūl ideler vāllā istedüği ḳadar ḥazīneden bahāsın vireler

ol eṭrāfda olan/ evler ve mülkler cümle alındı/ meğer ḳıble cānibinde/ bir faḳīre

Ꜥacūzeniñ evceğizi/ var idi ol ḳadar çalışub elinden alamadılar/ ve aña vāfir māl ve

menāl/ beẕl itdiler ḳabūl eylemedi/ ve andan gāyet Ꜥāciz ḳaldılar Ꜥāḳibet/

28v üstünyānū varub tevāżıꜤlar eyledi/ meẕkûr ḳārı çün pādişāhıñ bu mertebe göñül

alçaḳlığını göricek/ ayağına düşdi/ ve öñünde yer öpdi/ ve çoḳ duꜤā eyledi ve Ꜥiẕẕed

diledi/ ve eyitdi āy pādişāh-ı rūy-ı zemīn/ bu ḳadar ṭayanduğım ve oy teslām

eyledüğim Ꜥinād içün değildir ve yāḫūd dünyādan/ ötürü itmiş olam böyle değildir ve

benim/ pādişāhdan gayrı vārisim yokdur/ ve ol daḫī anıñ baꜤżı mālındandır fe āmmā

seniñ Ꜥadlüñi ḫalḳa iẓhār eylemeğe ḳaṣd eyledim/ tā ḳıyāmete dek seni añub/ diyeler

ki ḥaḳḳ teꜤālanıñ rıżāsıçün/ bir faḳīrenıñ ayağına vardı/ ve hem senden bir murād

vardır ve beni saña buluşdurmazlardı ki/ murādım saña/ deyim çün Ꜥināyet itdüñiz

vaḳdim/ rencīde ḳılduñız şimdi maḥallī geldi/ eğer iḥsān buyurulsa deyim pādişāh

eyitdi hey Ꜥazīze murādıñ her ne ise virelim/ ve göñlüñ ne ile ḫoş ise anı idelim

pīrezen eyitdi/ bu üdekliğe cemīꜤ māl ve emlāğım ve esbāb ve ālātım/ bu

Ꜥibādetḥāneye vaḳf olsun/ ve anıñ Ꜥavaṣından bir āḳçe ve bir ḥabbe istemezim/ fe

āmmā ki murādım budur ki bu eviñ bir köşeceğîn/ bu faḳīreye taꜤyin eylesiz ki/

öldüğüm/

29r zamānda beni anda defn ideler/ umarım ki bu buhāne ile ḥaḳḳ teꜤālanıñ

Ꜥaẕābından ḥalāṣ bulam sevāba/ müsteḥaḳe olam/ üstünyānū böyle didüğinden

ziyāde/ ḥaẓẓ eyledi ve emr eyledi ki ḳarınıñ beğendüği/ yeri kendüye/ taꜤyin

eyleyelerve aña mertebe yapalar/ fevt olduğu zamānda anda gömeler/ ṣoñra meẕkūr

153

pīrezen evini ve emlāğını/ cemīꜤ ālāt ve esbābını ḥaḳḳ teꜤālanıñ yoluna ḳodı/ ve

kendüsi bel bağlayub ırgādlarla āya ṣofyanıñ taꜤmīrine evvelince çalışdı/ ve fevt

olduğı zamānda taꜤẓīm ve iḫtirāmla/ ve tekrīm ve ihtimām ile techīz ve tekfīn

eylediler/ ve pādişāh ve aña bir cemīꜤ ḫalḳ anıñ/ cenāzesine ḥāżır oldılar/ ve kendüyi

taꜤyin idüb/ istedüği yerde defn eylediler andan ṣoñra bināya el urdılar/ ve ol günki

temel ḳazmağa/ başladılar pādişāh emr eyledi ki/ ne ḳadar baṭrīḳ ve ḳeşiş var ise/ ol

yerde cemꜤ olalar duꜤālar ve senālar ideler/ tā ki ḥaḳḳ teꜤāla ol işi āsān eyleye/ ve daḫī

emr eyledi ki beş biñ ḳoyun/ ve iki yüz ṣığır ve yüz deve ve aña göre/ ḳaz ve tavuḳlar

boğazlayub bir Ꜥaẓām żiyāfet eylediler/ ve ṭaꜤām yiyüb duꜤādan fārīğ olunca fuḳarāya

ve gurebāya/ ve müsteḥaḳ olanlara biñ altun ṣadaḳa eyledi ve eyitdi cān ū dilden duꜤā

oḳuñ/ ve himmet ile yardım/

29v ideñ inşā’llahu teꜤāla/ eğer ecelden āmān bulursam/ neẕrim olsun ki/ tamām

olduğu gün/ üç yüz biñ altun ṣadaḳa idüb/ ve götüri esīrleri ki benim memleketimde

vardır/ āzād ideyim memleketlerine ṭuyum/ göndereyim bu niyetle duꜤāya el

ḳaldırub/ her biri kendü ḥāline ve bildüğine göre duꜤā ve gınā oḳudılar andan ṣoñra

pādişāh kendüsi eteğin beline ṣoḳub eline ḳazma aldı/ ve temel ḳazmağa başladı/ ve

cemīꜤ ḫalḳ anı görüb/ cān u dilden ḳazmağa başladılar temel tamām ḳazıldıḳdan

ṣoñrâ/ aña bir münāsib sāꜤat gözedüb/ kireçini ve ṭaşını yine en evvel üstünyānū

kendü eliyle bıraḳdı/ ve miꜤmār ve bennālar anıñ ardınca/ bir yerden başladılar ve

ittifāḳ ḳıble ve meşriḳ cānibini ṣom ḳaya imiş ol ṭarafıñ/ temelini çāk ṭaşıñ üzerinde

yapdılar ve şimāl ve garb cānibini yumuşaḳ ṭopraḳ olmağla/ ḳırḳ arşun miḳdārı artıḳ

eksik ḳazub ur ṭaşından/ ve büyük Ꜥaẓīm ḳayalardan ṭoḳsan iki ṣıra yapdılar/ tā ḳıble

ṭarafıyla birebir olunca temel çün/ yeryüzüne/ çıḳdı bu aralıḳda üstünyānū emr eyledi

ki/ bir muḥtaṣarça dīvānḥāne yapalar tā kendüsi/ anda dīvān eyleyüb mutaṣṣıl binā

üzerine ola/ ḥālīyā sarāy-ı Ꜥāmireniñ içinde idi ki/ āya ṣofya ḳurbunda bir ḳubbe/

154

30r vardır ki aña cebheḥāne dirler/ añ evvel anı yapdılar ve pādişāhıñ/ sarāyından ol

ḳubbeye dek yeraltından bir lağım eylediler/ ve üstünyānū ol lağımdan/ sarāyına

varub gelüb ve kimesne anı ṭuymazdı/ ve her gün anda dīvān iderdi/ ve dīvān

ṭağıldıḳdan ṣoñra aḫşama dek çıḳub/ iskemleniñ üzerinde otururdu/ ve ırgādlara ve

miꜤmārlara baḳarlardı/ ve iş üzerine ḳındırırdı ve ḳaçan birisinden/ artutcıḳ ḫıdmet

görse/ aña baḫşiş virirdi ve ziyāde inꜤām ve iḥsān iderdi ve bu vechile/ ırgādlar cān u

göñülden çalışırlardı ve pādişāh dāīmā ol ḳubbede oturub/ sarāyına girdüğin kimesne

görmezdi/ şöyle ṣanurlardı ki mutaṣṣıl anda ola aña göre çalışub iş işlerdi/ ve çün

temel olub/ binā yeryüzüne çıḳdı üstādlarıñ/ her birisi bir vażꜤ iḥtiyār idüb/miḥrāb ve

nīm-ḳubbeler ve köşeler/ ve pençereler ve vaṣfında birer kārnāme düzüb/ pādişāha

Ꜥarż eylediler lakin/ hiç birisi göñlüne maḳbūl gelmedi/ yine tekrār ṣunꜤların tagayyür

idüb/ üzge vechile resm eylediler ḥāṣılı rāst bir hafta miḳdārı bu ḥāl üzerine/ oldılar

hiç birisi/ bir vażꜤ beğendiremedi/ yedinci gice pādişāh bu fikr ile yatur gördüğü

30v vāḳıꜤada bir güzel ak ṣaḳallu/ yeşil ḳaftānlu şekl-i ādem binā yerini seyr ider ve

elinde bir gümüş/ levḥa vardır ve ol levḥada/ bir kārnāme taṣvīri olunmuşdur

üstünyānū eyitdi/ ay Ꜥazīz bunda neylersin/ ve bu eliñdeki levḥa nedir pīr eyitdi/ bu

levḥa āya ṣofyanıñ kārnāmesidir/ pādişāh eyitdi/ āya ṣofya didiğiñ nedir pīr eyitdi/

āya ṣofya didüğim bu yerde yapılaçaḳ Ꜥibādetḥānedir ki/ anıñ ezel-i āzālda adı budur

ve ṣūreti daḫī bu levḥadaki ṣūretdir/ ve tā ḳıyāmete dek anıñ adı ve ṣūreti bu olsa

gerekdir/ üstünyānū ol isimden ve resmden ziyāde/ ḥaẓẓ eyledi/ ve ol levḥayı eline

alub/ içindeki ṣūreti gāyet beğendi/ ve ḥāṭīrına aldı/ ve ziyāde sevindüğinden

ṣıçrayub uyanı geldi ne pīr ve ne levḥa buldı āmmā kārnāmeniñ/ ṣūreti ḥāṭrında ḳaldı/

ve endāmı ve heybeti fikrinde münaḳḳaş oldı ve ittifāḳ/ ol gice daḫī miꜤmār bāşı

ignādyūs/ Ꜥaynı ile ol vāḳıꜤayı gördi ve ol naḳş-ı ṣūret/ ḥāṭrında maḫfūẓ ḳaldı ve bir

levḥanıñ üzerine/ naḳş/ eyledi ve henüz elinde iken/ pādişāhdan çavuş geldi/ ve

155

ignādyūs istedi tā ki/ pādişāh düşünde gördüği/ vāḳıꜤayı aña diye ve ol ṣūret

ḥesābınca bir kārnāme peydā eyleye/ ol ḫod görmüş ve ṣūretin yazmışdı/

31r hemān elindeki levḥa götürüb/ pādişāhıñ naẓarına vardı/ pādişāh eyitdi seni

neden ötüri çağırdım bilür misin/ ignādyûs eyitdi/ bilürüm pādişâhım/ üstünyānū

eyitdi şimdicik vāḳıꜤada şöyle gördüm/ ignādyūs eyitdi ben daḫī/ Ꜥayniyle ol vāḳıꜤayı

gördüm ve ol kārnāmeyi pādişāhıñ naẓarına gösterdi/ baḳsa görse kendüniñ vāḳıꜤada

gördüği/ naḳş ve ṣūretdir andan daḫī ziyāde ḥaẓẓ eyleyüb ḥażret-i ḥaḳḳa çoḳ şükürler

eyledi/ ve ol ism ū resm ḥaḳḳ teꜤāla cānibinden olduğına/ şād-ḫandān oldı ve ol ṣūreti

cemīꜤ üstādlara gösterdi anlar teslīm idüb/ ziyāde beğendiler ve aña/ göre yapu

tedārikin eyleyüb/ maṣlaḥat üzerine oldılar ve rāviler şöyle rivāyet iderler ki āya

ṣofyanıñ āşağıki dīvārları ve direkleri ve nīm ḳubbeleri/ ve’l-ḥāṣıl fevḳāniyeye

varınca yapılub/ fevḳāniyeye/ ve büyük ḳubbeye henüz şürūꜤ itmeden miꜤmār başı/

ignādyūs ki emr ü nehy ve ḥıll ū Ꜥaḳd/ anıñ elinde idi/ ve emirsiz bir ṭaş ḳomazlardı/

bir gice gā’īb oldı ve kimesne andan ḫaber bilmedi ve binā şöyle muꜤaṭṭal ḳaldı/ ve

beş yıla değin gāīb olub/ binā ḥālī üzerine ḳaldı/ ve bir rivāyet de on sekiz yıl gā’īb/

31v olmuşdur/ ṣoñra çıḳageldi ve pādişāha buluşdı/ ve Ꜥizzin beyān eyledi ki bunuñ

gibi ağır binā tā ki ḳoruyub/ oturuşmadan bir uğurdan fevḳāniyesi ve ḳubbesi üstüne

yükleneçek olursa aşağa duymaz/ belki zamān-ı ḳalīlde bozulub/ ḥarcı żāyiꜤ olur ve

eğer böyle gaybet eylemeseydim elbette pādişāhıñ bülend heybetince ḥāṣıl olduğın/

iḳtiżā iderdi andan ṣoñra bināyı ölçdi/ gördü ki dört arşun miḳdārı eksik olmuşdur/ ol

sebeble ki muḥkem ḳurmuş ve oturuşmuş / pādişāh bundan yine ḥaẓẓ eyledi/ ve ol

demde emr eyledi ki maṣlaḥat üzerine olalar yine evvelki üstādlar ve ırgādlar/

fevḳāniyye nīm ḳubbeler ile ve direkler ile tamām yapub hemān büyük ḳubbe ḳaldı/

bir gün yazıcılar ve nāẓırlar ve defterdārlar muḥāsebe eylediler/ ve gördiler ki iki biñ

dört yüz elli kendinār altun ḥarc olunmuş ve kendinār didikleri/ ol zamānıñ

156

ḥesābınca/ on biñ altun olurdı/ ve bu meblağ yalñız üstünyānū ḥazīnesinden

çıḳmışdır/ bu memālik pādişāhlarınıñ gönderdikleri/ direklerden ve ṭaşlardan ve

yādigārlardan/ ve tuḥfelerden gayrıdır ve eğer cümle kendüden/ ve gayrıdan olan

ḥarc-ı ḥesāb olsa ḳītı çoḳ olur/ ve bu muḥāsebe tamām olunca ḥazīnedār/ pādişāhıñ

öñünde/

32r secde eyledi ve eyitdi/ pādişāh ḥażretleri ṣağ olsun/ ḥazīnede altun ve aḳçe

cinsinden bir dāne ve bir ḥabbe ḳalmadı/ üstünyānū bundan müteşevviş oldı/ ve baş

aşağı eyleyüb biraz fikr eyledi/ ve eyitdi bu Ꜥibādetḥāneniñ taꜤmīri/ cānib-i ḥaḳḳdan

oldı eğer bizim ḥazīnemiz aña vefā etmediyse/ āllahu teꜤālanıñ ḥazīneleri ṭopṭoludur/

umarım ki ḥaḳḳ teꜤāla bunuñ evvelin müyesser eyledüği gibi/ āḫirin daḫī āsān eyleye

ve bu ḥāle gelmişken/ şöyle muꜤaṭṭal ḳoymaya andan ṣoñra bir ḳac gün binā ḳursun

deyü tā ḫayr idüb/ ḥāṭrında niyyet eyledi ki ḳaçan ḥarāc mālı gele/ yine mübāşeret

idüb itmām eyleye bir iki gün binālar ve dülgerler ve ırgādlar eşlediler/ üçünci gün

yapucı şakirdden birisi bennā yânında ṭurub ālāt-ı bināyı beklerdi/ bir yüzi nūrlu/

müşekkel fürüşteye beñzer ādem gelüb bināyı seyr eyledi/ ve ol oğlana eyitdi/ niçün

bunı tamām eylemezler oğlan eyitdi/ pādişāhıñ ḥazīnesi/ dökündi ve memleket ḥarācı

gelince/ şöyle muꜤaṭṭal ḳalsa gerek/ didi pīr eyitdi var ustañı baña çağırın aña/ bir

yerde māl gösterin çıḳarsunlar ve buña ṣarf eylesünler/ ve bu ḳadar (…..) nesne içün

şöyle muꜤaṭṭal ḳālmasun/ oğlan vardı ustasına ḫaber eyledi

32v ol daḫī bir iki ādemle gelüb gördiler ki/ oğlanıñ didüği gibi bir ādem ṭurır/

hemān bunları gördüği gibi ırāḳdan/ barmağla bir yere işāret eyledi ve eyitdi/ bu yeri

ḳazıñ ve her ne bulursañız bunıñ Ꜥimāretine ve levāzımına ṣarf eyleyiñ/ ve bunlar ol

ḥālden taꜤccüb idüb Ꜥacabā didüği gerçek mi ki/ yoḫsa efsāne mi ki diyüb işāret

eyledüği yere/ baḳışdılar ṭurdılar ve anlar bu ḥālde iken meẕkūr ādem gā’īb oldı/ ne

bilürler ki/ göğe çıḳdı yoḫsa yer içine yatdı/ eyle olsa bildiler ki ḥaḳḳ teꜤāla

157

cānibinden olmuşdır/ hemān didüği yeri ḳazmağa meşgūl oldılar ve bī-nihāye māl

buldılar/ ve pādişāha seğirdib ḫaber eylediler pādişāh/ daḫī nefse ẕikr olunan yeriñ

üzerine geldi gördi ki kendüniñ ḥarac eyledüği māldan/ iżꜤāf-ı mużāꜤaf var idi ḥaḳḳ

teꜤālaya ziyāde şükr eyledi ve meẕkūr mālı/ hep żabṭ eyledi ve āya ṣofyanıñ

Ꜥimāretine ḥarc eyledi ve bir rivāyet de gelmişdir ki ḳaçan ki üstünyānıñ/ ḥazīnesi

dökündi/ ol gice bī-ḥużūrluğundan uyudı ṣābaḥa ḳarşu biraz agır gitdi vāḳıꜤasında/ ol

muḳaddemā düşünde gördüği pīri gördi ki/ yeşil ḳaftānlar giyüb/ binā üzerinde

gezüb/

33r aşağı yuḳārı seyr ider/ üstünyānū öñüne seğirdib eyitdi/ hay Ꜥazīz ḳanda ben seni

çoḳdan ederim/ ol tenkīri ḥaḳçün ki mevcūd anıñ/ serçeşme-yi ḥayātını Ꜥadamı-ı

ẓulmetden vücūd-ı ṣaḥrāsına/ aḳıtdı size kim dirler ve bunda niye geldiñ/ deyü

tażarruꜤ eyledi pīr eyitdi ben hażretinde ve destgīr ve fürūmendeyim/ ve bunda

anıñçün gelim ki/ bu Ꜥibādatḥāne maṣlaḥatını görem/ üstünyānū ay Ꜥazīz ḥūb seyret

ve ay kāmil ṣāḥib-i ḳudret/ ḥażrete ḫod maꜤlūmdur ki bu Ꜥibādetḥāne/ bu ḥāle gelince

cümle ḥazīnelerümi ḥarc eyledim/ ve ḥāliyā benim mülkimde bir aḳçe ve bir ḥabbe

ḳalmadı ve ẓulümle kimeaneniñ mālını almaḳ bañâ revā değildir/ ve bu ḫuṣūṣda

ziyāde ıżṭırābım vardır/ ve ne eyliceğim bilemezim pir eyitdi gamm çekme/ ve bu

cüzvī nesneden ötüri/ bī-ḥużūr olma yarın silīvri ḳapusından ṭaşra çıḳub/ falān yerde

üc depecik vardır ve ol depeleriñ garb cānibinde gök mermerden/ bir direk vardır ol

direği ḳoparıñ/ ve altında her ne bulursañız buña ḥarc eyleyiñ didi üstünyānū/ ziyāde

sevindüğinden/ uyanı geldi görse ki ṣabāḥ olmuşdır/ ḥāṣ ādemlerinden bir ḳaçını/ bile

alub silivri ḳapusından çıḳub/

33v ẕikr olunan yere varub/ gördi ki pīriñ didüği gibi üc depe/ vardır/ ve anlarıñ gar

yanında bir direk pāresi dikülüb/ ṭurur/ pādişāh emr eyledi fevri ḳopardılar/ meğer ki

ol direk ḳapu imiş ve anıñ altında kehrīz gibi bir serdāb/ çıḳageldi bal mumların

158

yāḳūb içine/ girdiler gördiler ki/ serdābıñ dökündüği yerde bir demür ḳapu vardır/ ve

üzerinde bir Ꜥaẓīm kilid urmuşlardır/ miftāḥı yanında aṣılub/ ṭurır/ bismi’llah deyü

kilidi açdılar ve içine girüb gördiler ki/ tucdan yedi küb vardır ki/ altunla ṭopṭolu

ṭururlar/ ḥażret fevḳü’l-ḥadd ḥamd ü şükürler eyitdiler ve şehirden/ develer ve

ḳatırlar getürdüb bulunan altunı/ yükledüb şöhret/ ve ṭārāt birle alub şehre getürdiler

ve pādişāhıñ/ ḥazīnesi bi’l-külliye ḥarāb olmuşken/ maꜤmūr ve memlū itdiler andan

ṣoñra at meydanında bir Ꜥaẓīm donanma itdiler/ ve ümerāya ve Ꜥulemāya ve fuḳarāya

ve gurebāya/ ve cemīꜤ şehir olan/ ādemlere Ꜥālī ṭaꜤāmlar ve nefāīs bişürüb żiyāfet

itdiler ve ol māldan/ elli bîñ filori oluşdurdılar andan ṣoñra çün bu ḳadar māl

bulundı/ ve ḥaḳḳ teꜤāla cānibinden āya ṣofyanıñ itmâmına işāret olundı mühendisler/

ve miꜤmārlar cümle ittifāḳ/

34r eylediler ki/ ḳubbeniñ devrini gāyet ḫafîf ṭoprakdan düzmek gerek/ zirā kim

ḳubbe hem boldır ve hem yüksekdir/ ve ne ḳadar yeni olsa āfet iḫtilālinden baꜤīd

olur/ öyleye her memleketiñ ṭoprağından götürdiler ve bir ḳalıb düzüb/ ol ḳalıbla her

ṭopraḳdan birer miḳdār/ kerbiç kesdiler andan ṣoñra başḳa başḳa bişürdiler/ ve

birbiriyle ṭarttılar ittifāḳ rodos aṭasınıñ ṭoprağı/ cümlesinden ḥafîf geldi/ ḥatta dirler

ki rodos/ ṭoprağınıñ ṭoḳaz kremidi istānbul ṭoprağınıñ bir kiremidi âğrınca geldi/ ol

icmāꜤyı eylediler ki ḳubbeyi/ andan/ yapalar hemāndem rodos beğine hükm yazub/

bir ḳac kiremidci usta kār ile vāfir/ ırgādlar rodosa gönderdiler tā ki/ varub anda

kiremid işleyüb bunda göndereler/ rodos beği daḫī anlara taꜤẓīm ve tekrīm eyleyüb/

beğendikleri yerden ṭopraḳ ḳazdılar ve fırunlar düzüb bişürmeğe başladılar/ ve her

gün rodos beği nefse varub/ ırgādlar üzerine/ ṭururdı ve anlara kendü reꜤāyāsından

niçe yardımcılar ḳoşdı ve gemiler ḥażırlayub/ mutaṣṣıl aşladıklarını istānbula

gönderirlerdi/ ve bir rivāyet de gelmişdir ki āya ṣofyanıñ ḳubbesini somāḳī

mermerden yapmışlardır/ ve’l-ḥāṣıl ḳubbeniñ kirecini/

159

34v ve ḫorāsānını ve kiremidini/ tamām eyledikden ṣoñra ignādyūs emr eyledi ki

büyük ḳazganlar getürdiler ve içlerin/ lisānü’l Ꜥüṣfūr adlu bir maꜤrūf ağacık

köpüğiyle/ arpa ṣuyla bişürdiler tutḳal gibi oldı/ andan ṣoñra kireci anuñ ile

yoğurdılar/ ve ḳubbeyi andan bünyād etdiler/ ve evvelā ol dört kürsīñin ki ḳubbe

anlarıñ üzerinde yapılmışdır/ ol vechile yapdılar anıñçün muḥkem olub ḳubbeyi

götürdi/ fe āmmā ki miḥrābıñ üstünde ki/ nīm ḳubbeyi ve kemeri gayrı/ ṭopraḳdan

yapmışlar anıñçün ṭayanmadı çökdü/ nitekim beyān olunsa gerek/ inşāꜤāllhu teꜤāla ve

ḳubbe tamām olunca anıñ dāīresinde olan cam kemerlerini gümüşden eylediler/ ve

büyük ḳubbeleriñ ve bi’l-cümle haremiñ iç yüzüni eşfadan eylediler/ ve çoḳ yerde

şimdi görünür ḥuṣūṣān fevḳāniyyede baꜤżı yerler vardır henüz işlenmiş gibi gelür/ ve

daḫī ḳandīller aṣmağçün zincīrler ve ḫalḳaları/ hep gümüşden eylediler ve ol

mermerler ki dīvārlar üstünde ḳonulmuşdur taban tamām olduḳdan ṣoñra mermer

ṭaşlarını iki biçerlerdi/ ve içlerinden dürlü dürlü reng ve ṣūretler çıḳardı ve ikisi

endāma ḳoyub bir bir yānında/ ber-vechile ḳorlardı āksiniñ ictimāꜤından bir naḳş

veyā bir ṣūret peydā olurdı/ ve daḫī ḥaremiñ döşemesini melevven mermerlerden ve

mevaac ṭaşlardan itdiler ki ādem baḳub/ ḫayrān olurdı/

35r ve eşfa mermer içinde dört köşede dört şems füṣūṣ kārī eylediler ki/ aña naẓar

iden kimesne leṭāfetden/ ve ḥüsnetden baḳamazdı/ ve ḥāliyā âāa ṣofyanıñ maḥfili

ḳurbında/ ḥaṣīr altından nişānları vardır ve daḫī miḥrābıñ / ṣağ yanında baṭrīḳ içün

yedi gümüşlük direk üzerinde bir muṣannaꜤ ḳubbe yapdılar ki/ ṣāfī altundan/ eyleyüb

birbirine ṭolaşdırub/ ḳubbe gibi çatdılar ve eşfa direkden dir ki/ altun müşebbek

eylediler ve meẕkūr ḳubbeniñ üstünde ṣāfī altundan/ bir ṣalīb ḳodılar ki anda yāḳūt

rummānī ve elmās bedḫoşānī/ ve laꜤl ve cevāhir muraṣṣaꜤ olmuşdı ki ādem aña baḳub

hayrān olurdı ve ḳubbeniñ orta yerinde/ çepcevre cevāhirden ve maꜤādinden elvān-ı

mülevveneden ve eḥcār-ı mütenevviꜤyeden/ meyveler çiçekler ve dürlü dürlü/ şekiller

160

naḳş itdiler ki gözler görmüş değil/ ve dimek isterler ki meẕkūr ḳubbe/ altı yüz kere

biñ altuna olmuşidi/ ve daḫī miḥrābıñ ṣol ṭarafında ṣāfī yeşim ṭaşından bir nerdbān

düzdiler ve üstüni billūr ṣāfīden itdiler ve billūrıñ/ üstünde yine altundan cevāhir ile

muraṣṣaꜤ bir büyük ṣalīb ḳodılar ve miḥrābıñ üstünde ḥażret-i Ꜥīsā peygamber

Ꜥaleyhi’s-selāmıñ ṣūretin ṣāfī altundan bir gümüş ḥācıñ üstünde yapışdırdılar/ ve anıñ

gibi yanında on iki ḥavariyyūnıñ

35v ṣūretlerini birer gümüş kürsī üzerinde/ yine ṣāfī altundan eyledilerve her/ bir

ḥavâriyyûnıñ öñünde birer zer-nişān kürsī/ ve her bir kürsīniñ üstünde/ altn ḥalıyla

yazılmış ve cildleri/ ṣāfī altun ve laꜤl ve cevāhirle muraṣṣaꜤ/ incīl ḳodılar ve her

birisiniñ üzerinde āꜤlā çatma ḳūmāş bir de ḳodılar/ ve daḫī miḥrābıñ iki yanında dört

şamdān ḳodılar ki/ yuḳaruları billūrdan ve aşağıları/ altundan ve dört şamdān daḫī/

ṣāfī gümüşden cümle miḥrābıñ ṣagında ve ṣolunda sekiz şamdān oldı/ ve meẕkūr

şamdānlarda ḳalem işiyle raꜤnā naḳş olmuş şekiller var idi ki/ ādem buḳduğı vaḳtin

bī-ḫod olurdı/ ve her bir şamdānıñ içinde birer fār-mūde yāż kāfūrdı mmmlar ḳodılar

ki/ mutaṣṣıl gice ve gündüz yanardı ve daḫī henüz furuşte ṣūretleriniñ ekserleri vardır

ḳubbeniñ dört ṭarafında ṭurur/ ve her birisiniñ altında ṣāfī gümüşden birer kürsī

ḳodılar ve her bir kürsiniñ üzerinde birer incīl ḳodılar ki cild ve kürsīleri laꜤl ve

cevāhir ile muraṣṣaꜤ ve ḥaṭları altun ve bīrūze cedvellerle musannaꜤ idi/ ve her bir

incīle on bir keşiş taꜤyin olunub gice ve gündüz nöbet ile mutaṣṣıl/ oḳurlardı ve her

birisiniñ

36r öñünde birer buḥūrdān ḳodılar/ ve aşağı ve yuḳarısında altun ve gümüş ḳandīller

ve ṭūb âynalar ḥadden ziyāde idi/ ve miḥrābıñ ḳarşusında olan büyük ḳapunıñ

suddesini ḥażret-i nūḥ peygamber Ꜥaleyhi’s-selâm sefīnesi ağacından eylediler ve bir

rivāyet de gelmişdir ki/ medrese cānibinde ki dış ḳapularınıñ meşriḳ ṭaradında ki/

ḳapudır ve şimdiki zamānda ḫalḳ vāfir yonmuşlardır/ ḥatta üzerinde tuc ḳapladılar/

161

yine ḳābil değildir tucıñ altından bile yunub çıḳarlar/ ve meẕkūr ḳapu altun ile ṣallīs

ve laꜤl ve cevāhir ile muraṣṣaꜤ idi/ ḥatta bir ağır ḥazīne değirdi āmmā merhūm/ sulṭān

meḥemmed Ꜥaleyhü’r-raḥmet min āllahü’ṣ-ṣamed/ istānbulı fetḥ idüb/ sābıḳā içinde

olan kefere beğlerine çıḳub gitmeğe icāzet virdiler yedi barça mālla ṭopṭolu idüb/

deñizden çıḳdılar gitdiler ve ol zamānda/ meẕkūr ḳapuyı ve ekser āya ṣofyada olan

māhyalarıñ/ görülmeğe ḳābil olanı hep bile alub gitdiler ve daḫī yuḳaru

fevḳāniyyeniñ kenārında/ (…….) vardı olan direkleriñ arasında direkden direğe ṣāfī

gümüşden meşebbeḳler düzmeğe ḳaṣd itmişlerdi/ fe-āmmā erkān-ı devlet ve āꜤyān-ı

ḥażret aña rāżī olmayub eyitdiler ki/ bu deñlü ḥarc gidüb ve bu ḳadar ziynet/

36v var iken gümüşden ṭrabuzunlar/ işlemek zāīddir/ ve pādişāh-ı meẕkūr bülend

himmet idi/ elbette olmaḳ gerek didi ve ol esnāda hindüstān mühendislerinden birisi

ki üstād-ı kāmil/ ve feylesof-ı fāżıl ve niçe dürlü kemālāta Ꜥārif/ ve fünūn ṣanaꜤtlara

vāḳıf idi/ ve ‘acā’īb ve garāīb māhyalar işlemeğe ḳādir/ ve pādişāh ḳatında maḳbūl

ve ṣanaꜤtında māhir idi/ üstünyānūya eyitdi ay pādişāh-ı rūy-ı zemīn/ seniñ şānıña ve

Ꜥaẓametiñe lāyıḳdır eğer/ bu ṭrabuzunı gümüşden ve altundan/ veyā laꜤl ve cevāhirden

idesin/ fe-āmmā bir budur ki aşağadan iken görünmez/ ve bir bodur ki altuna ve

gümüşe ṭamꜤ artuçağdır/ elvere ki ṣoñra yer ṭamaꜤkār kimesne pādişāh olub/ māl

ṭamaꜤından ötüri ḳopara ve iḥtimāldir ki/ andan bu Ꜥibādetḥāneye żarar-ı küllī ve

ḫayrıñız żāyiꜤ ola/ ve faḳīr bir ṣanaꜤt biliyorum eğer buyurulmaḳta bir ḳac dürlü

maꜤādinden ḫalṭ idüb/ size bir āꜤlā meşḳ-i ṭrabzun ideyim ki/ ḥarcı cüzī ola ve

kimesne aña tamꜤ itmeye zīrā ki bundan gayrı işe yaramaz/ ve hem limꜤāni ve şefāfī

ve endāmı şöyle laṭīf ve maḳbūl ola ki/ gümüşden ve altundan daḫī ziyāde mergūb

ola/ üstünyānū bu muḳavele sözden çıḳmadı/ ve ol

37r üstāda emr eyledi ki/ ṣanaꜤtını ve maḳdūrını ṣarf eyleyüb/ didüğiñi yerine getüre

ol daḫī baḳırdan ve ḳalaydan/ ḳurşundan bir miḳdār alub/ ve anlara cüzūī altun ve

162

gümüş/ ḳatdı ve baꜤżı cevāhir ḫalṭ itdi ve ocāğa ḳoyub/ eritdi ve meżkūr direkleriñ/

arasında direkden direğe ḥikmet balcığından meşebbek ḳālıblar düzdi ve meżkūr

ḳālıbıñ/ dış cānibinden baꜤżı laꜤl ve cevāhir dürlü dürlü maꜤādin yapışdırdı ve meẕkūr

uçuḳda ki/ eczālar vardu ki birle teꜤlīf ve tażammunla meẕkūr olan/ ḳālıblarıñ dökdi

ve ḳālıbda olan cevāhir ṭoñduğulın/ yüzünde muraṣṣaꜤ ḳaldılar ṣoñra meẕkūr ḳālıbı

üstünden bozub çıḳardı içinden/ raꜤnā cevheri melevven ṭrabzun çıḳageldi ki/ gözler

görmüş değildir andan ṣoñra meẕkūr ṭrabzunuñ yüzini bir rāḫt eyledikden ṣoñra/ bir

cevheri şeffāf ve laꜤl ve cevāhir ile muraṣṣaꜤ māhya/ oldı ki gözler aña baḳduğı vaḳtin

ḳamaşur ṭururdı ve andan baḳmağa ṭoymazdı/ belki ṣāfī gümüş veyāḫūd altun olsa/ ol

ḳadar mergūb düşmezdi ṣoñra sābıḳā meẕkūr olan putperestleri/ bundan çıḳardıḳdan

ṣoñra bir daḫī şundan bundan cemꜤ olub biraz ḳuvvet buldılar/ ve istānbul

37v üzerine Ꜥasker çıkub gelüb/ Ꜥīsevīler elinden alub niçe zamān ḥākim oldılar/ ve

meẕkūr ṭrabzunı ḳıymetlü nesne ṣanub/ cümlesini ḳopardılar aldılar ve daḫī her ne

yerde ki/ altun ve gümüş var ise bozub aldılar/ ṣoñra aḳ mermerden eşlediler nitekim

şimdi görünüyor/ ve didüğimiz ḳażiyyeler Ꜥale’t-tafṣīl āya ṣofyanıñ içinde şarḳ

ṭarafında bulunan yazusıyla yazılmışdır bir ḳac mermer taḥtaları/ vardır anlarıñ

içinde ḳazılmışdır ve daḫī āya ṣofyanıñ/ dört yanında dört ḳapu var idi ki birbirine

muḳābil vāḳiꜤ olmuşlardır/ ve her birisiniñ yanında yeşil mermerden yonulmuş birer

āꜤlā ḥavż ṭurır/ ve her birisiniñ içinde bir dürlü nesne vardır/ birinde ṣu ve birinde

şarāb ve birinde ṣüd ve birinde şeker şerbeti māl-ā-māl ṭurırdı/ ve her kim günāh

işlese idi anlarıñ baṭrīḳi ḥāline göre/ ve günāhı ḥasebince bir cürümiye emr iderdi ol

daḫī cürümiyesin getürüb kilīseniñ ḳadılarına virirdi anlar daḫī anıñ muḳābelesinde

ol ḥavżlardan/ içirirlerdi ve böyle itmekle günāhı Ꜥafv olur deyü/ iꜤtiḳād iderlerdi ve

daḫī āya ṣofyanıñ çāk orta yerinde/ bir ḳac somāki ṭaşından sekiz köşelü yek pāre

ḥavż var idi ve sekiz yüzünde/ sekiz dāne ser ū ṣūretleri ḳazılmış/

163

38r ḳazılmış idi/ ve ol ḥavżıñ üzerinde bir ḳubbe yapılmışdı/ ve ol ḳubbeniñ/ çevre

yanında Ꜥīsā peygamber Ꜥaleyhi’s-selāmıñ/ ve on iki ḥavariyūnıñ ṣūretleri yazılmışdı/

ve daḫī üstünyānū zamānında değin/ ne ḳadar pādişāh geçdiyse her biriniñ/ ṣūreti

meẕkūr ḳubbeniñ üstünde naḳş olmuşdı ve ḳubbe-yi meẕkūre tā islām zamānına

değin mevcūd idi ve merḥūm sulṭān meḥemmed Ꜥaleyhiü’r-raḥmet ālī el-ābd istānbulı

fetḥ eyleyüb/ āya ṣofyayı küfr esrinden pāk eyleyüb/ cāmiꜤ eyline gördiler ki meẕkūr

ḳubbe orta yerinde/ mużāyaḳa virir ve üstünde ki naḳş ve ṣūretler āmedi gücile

yıḳdırub ḫāzıḳların/ Ꜥadam-ı ḥuşūꜤna bāꜤis olduğundan/ ortadan götürdiler ve meẕkūr/

ḥavż-ı somāḳī ḥālā sarāy-ı Ꜥāmireniñ içinde yatur/ ve daḫī şimdi ḥālde āya ṣofyanıñ

medresesi yerinde/ iki büyük ḥavżlar var idi/ ve anlar ilceḳ ṣuyla dāīmā ṭopṭolu

iderlerdi/ ve yaz zamānında ikindin şehriñ ekser ḫalḳı anda cemꜤ olub/ kimi ṣoyunub

ḥavż içinde yüzer/ ve kimi ayağ üstünde ṭurub seyr iderdi/ tā aḫşam olunca seyrān

iderlerdi ve daḫī dirler ki/ āya ṣofyanıñ çevre meyānında üc yüz ḥücre var idi/

bābāslara ve keşişlere taꜤyin ve mesken/ ḳılınmışdı/

38v ve ṣabāḥ ve aḫşam yimekleri çāk/ ayaḳlarına gelürdi ve mutaṣṣıl vāḳfıñ rūḥı içün

incīl oḳurlardı ve sevābını aña hediye eylerlerdi ve fevḳāniyye bütün yalñız ehl-i

Ꜥilmlere/ maḥṣūṣ idi ki mutaṣṣıl anda muṭālaꜤa-yı Ꜥulūm ve mubāḥese-i fünūn

iderlerdi/ ve bi’l-cümle eğer āya ṣofyanıñ cemīꜤ aḥvāli ve tertibātı ẕikr olunacak

olursa taṭvīl-i kelām/ ve taṣdīꜤ-yi rus-ı feham olurlardı/ pes olası budur ki ḫayrü’l

kelām mefhūmiyle/ Ꜥāmel olub iḫtimām bula/ ve çün meẕkūr Ꜥibādetḥāne-yi dilpezīr

ve binā-yı āꜤlā-yı bī-naẓīr tamām oldı/ üstünyānū emr eyledi ki āya ṣofyanıñ çāḳ orta

yerinde meẕkūr somāḳī ḥavżıñ/ öñünde taḥtı ḳurdılar/ ve kendüsi anıñ üzerine geçüb

oturdı ve sağında/ ve ṣolunda vüzerā ve umerā ve āꜤyān ve küberā/ ve Ꜥulemā ve

fużelā ve āꜤyān-ı devlet/ ve erkān-ı memleket/ yerlü yerinde ve maḳāmlu maḳāmında

ṭurub/ bir Ꜥaẓīm dīvān eylediler/ ve ḥaḳḳ teꜤāla ḥażretine ḥamd ū şükr eylemeğe

164

başladılar/ ve pādişāhıñ sayꜤ-ı cemīline āferīn ḳıldılar/ ve ol gün daḫī on bîiñ ḳoyûn/

ve dört yüz ṣığır ve altı yüz kebg ve üc biñ ḳaz ve ördek ve bîñ dāne ḥoros/ ve beş

biñ tavuḳ boğazladılar/ ve aña göre nefāīs ṭaꜤāmlar/ ve raꜤnā sağırı ḥelvālar ve dürlü

dürlü yemişler/

39r ve yemekler ve içmekler cümle ḥażırlayûb/ ḥāṣṣa ve Ꜥāmma iḥsān şāmil ve

żiyāfet-i Ꜥāmm eylediler/ ve üç yüz biñ altun fuḳarāya ve gurebāya ve bi’l-cümle

müsteḥaḳḳ olanlara nisār eyledi andan ṣoñra/ zamānıñ baṭriḳi üç yüz keşiş birle ki/

her biriniñ bir büyük bal mumı yanar/ bu vechile pādişāhıñ taḳdīsine geldiler/ ve

pādişāh daḫî baṭrīḳe istiḳbāl idüb/ elini eline alub miḥrāba dek böyle yürüdi ve ol

keşişleriñ her birisine bir hiẕmet taꜤyin idüb/ uꜤlūfe buyurdı ve baṭrīḳ/ daḫī miḥrābıñ

ṣağında ki/ ḳubbeniñ üzerine çöḳüb/ ḥaḳḳ teꜤālaya ḥamd ū şükür eyledi ve geçmiş

peygamberler/ ervāḥa ṣalavāt virdi/ ve andan ṣoñra/ üstünyānūya vāfir medḥ söyledi/

ve ana çoḳ duꜤā ve senālar oḳudı/ ve āya ṣofyanıñ taꜤmīrini ẕikr eyledi/ ḥāṣılı/ yedi

güne değin bu ḥāl üzerine oldılar/ andan ṣoñra vaḳfnāmesini yazdılar ve üzerine ḥarc

eyledikleri/ mālı ḥesāb eylediler cümle hedāyādan/ ve bīşkeşlerden ve eṭrāf

pādişāhlarınıñ gönderdikleri ālātdan ve maꜤādinden gayrı bu deñlü 12000000000

kerre altun ḥarc olunmuş buldılar/ andan ṣoñra ḥaḳḳ teꜤāla ḥażretleriniñ taḳdīriyle/

altı ay miḳdārı yaşadı ve aña añsızın hādimü’l-ẕāt/

39v ve müferrıḳü’l-cemāꜤāt peki irişüb/ āḫirete intiḳāl eyledi ve ittifāk kendüniñ ṣalī

oğlı yoğidi/ āmmā ḳarındaşı oğlı var idi ki/ üstīnyüs dirler/ ve dünyādan göçüb

gitmeği muḳarrer bildi/ aña berü āꜤyānı ve efāżıl ve erkānı cemꜤ idüb/ şöyle vaṣiyyet

eyledi ki kendüden ṣoñra üstīnyusı pādişāh eyleyeler/ ve daḫī āya ṣofyanıñ öñünde

bir direk dike ḳoyalar/ ve ol direğiñ üstünde kendüniñ ṣūretini/ tucdan ve atını

baḳırdan taṣvīr idüb/atına bindirüb direk üstünde ḳoyalar ve bir elinde altun elma ve

bir elini/ şöyle açuḳ ḳoyalar/ ve meẕkūr ṣūret/ henüz cemşīd-i zamān ve iskender-i

165

devrān ḥażret-i sulṭān süleymān ḥān/ zamānına değin ḳalmışdı/ ve āya ṣofyanıñ çarşu

cānibinde olan/ ḳapusı öñünde ṭurırdı/ āmmā zelzeleden düşdi/ ve çoḳ yerleri ḥarāb

oldı ḥāṣıl-ı kelām/ üstünyānū dār-ı āḫirete intiḳāl eyledi/ ve erkān-ı devlet ve āꜤyān-ı

memleket/ anıñ vaṣiyyetini ṭutub üstīnyüsi/ pādişāh/ eylediler/ ve didüği gibi direği

ve ṣūreti dīke ḳodılar andan ṣoñra iki yil miḳdārı geçince/ bir Ꜥaẓīm zelzele vāḳiꜤ oldı

ve āya ṣofyanıñ büyük ḳubbesi bir yerinden düşdi/ ve içinde olan māhyalarıñ/

40r ekseri bozıldı/ ve bu ḳadar emek çekdikleri ṣanāyiꜤ żāyiꜤ oldı/ āmmā

fevḳāniyesine āṣlā żarar ṭoḳunmadı/ ḥikmetu’llahıñ cemīꜤ māhyaları ṣağ ḳaldı ve

iğnādyūs/ daḫī ḥayâtda idi bir daḫī rodosa ādemler gönderüb/ kiremid kesdirdiler ve

çalışub ḳubbe yine tekrār yapdılar ve üstīnyus şöyle fehm eyledi ki ḳubbeniñ/

çökmesi/ iğnādyūsuñ taḳsīrindan ola/ ol ḫuṣūsdan iğnādyusa muḥkem gażab eyledi/

ve nefsinde şöyle niyet eyledi ki/ bir vechile oldura kimesne anı ṭuymaya/ ve bu

fikrini kimesneye dimedi hele ḳubbe tamām olunca ṣabr eyledi andan ṣoñra/

iğnādyūs emir eyledi ki ḳoya ve iğnādyūs daḫī/ bu maṣlaḥata mübāşeret eyledi āmmā

bütün direk bulunmaduğıçün somāḳī direk pāreleri var idi/ birbirine/ uydurub/

ṣanaꜤtla tavuḳ bāzārı ḳurbında olan/ dikili ṭaşı yapdı ve tamām olduğından

ṣoñra/üstīnyusuñ ṣūretini ve atını düzdikden ṣoñra/ bir uzun nerdbān eylediler ve

dikili ṭaş üzerine ṭayandırdılar ve iğnādyūs/ ol nerdubānıñ üzerine çıḳub meẕkūr

ṣūreti/ düzüb ṭurduğın üstīnyus eṣmerlemişdi hemān/

40v nerdubānı yıkdılar/ ve iğnādyus ṭaşıñ depesinde ḳaldı ve ol zamānda meẕkūr

dikili ṭaşıñ/ eṭrāfında Ꜥimāret ve maḥalle yoğundı/ hemān ṣaḥrā yerāydı ḥāṣılı

iğnādyūs/ bu ḥālī müşāhede eyleyince ṭuydı ḳażiyye nidüğin añladı āmmā gāyet

Ꜥāḳıl/ ve fāżıl ve cihāndīde merd-i kāmil idi/ bu ḥālden cezaꜤ itmedi ve ḳażāya rıżā

gösterdi/ baş aşağı eyleyüb ṭaş üzerinde/ yatdı ve kendüniñ/ bir Ꜥāḳıla ehl-i tedbīre

ḥātūnı var idi/ iğnādyusuñ bu ḳażiyyesi işidince feryād iderek/ seğirtdi ṭaşıñ altına

166

gelüb/ ağlayub zādīlıḳ itmeğe başladı iğnādyūs kendü/ Ꜥavretiniñ āvāzını işitdi/ ve

yāḳūb aña işāret eyledi ki ḫalḳ ṭağılduğından/ ṣoñra yalñız gelesin/ saña

söyliyeceğim vardır deyü Ꜥavret daḫī biraz eglendi/ ve ḫalḳ yatdıḳdan ṣoñra ṭaşıñ

altına geldi iğnādyūs yuḳarıdan baḳdı gördi ki/ kimesne yoḳdır Ꜥavrete eyitdi yārın

baña irişmeden bir ip düzesin şöyle ki/ yeni ve ince ola andan ṣoñra başdan başa zift

ile/ ṭalā idesin ve yarın gice ḫalḳ yatdıkdan ṣoñra/ götdürüb gelesin ve bu rāzı

kimesne açmayasın Ꜥavret daḫī erte(….) didüği gibi gece/ irişmeden bir uzun inçe

muḥkem idib/

41r düzüb ve ziftle yağladı/ ve aḥşam ḫalḳ yatdıkdan ṣoñra belince/ alub ṭaşıñ altına

vardı gördi ki/ iğnādyūs aña ḳatlanub/ ṭurır ve anıñ cebinde bir inçecik sicīm var idi

ki/ miꜤmārlar anı götürüb üstüne yapu yaptılar ol sicīmi ṣarḳıtdı ve ḳārı elindeki ipiñ

ucunı ol sicīme bağladı/ ve iğnādyūs cekdi/ ipiñ uçunı yanına adı/ ve yuḳarı ṭaş

başında ṭolayub muḥkem/ eyledi andan ṣoñra iki eliyle ḳaruyub/ ṣıyrılub esenliğle

aşağı indi/ ve yanında çaḳmaḳ ḥāżır ṭurırdı/ fî’l-ḥāl od yaḳub meżkūr ibiñ uçını

ṭutuşdururdu bir ağuzdan yandı/ gitdi ve ol sāꜤatde/ tebdīl-i ṣūret/ eyleyib şehirden

çıḳub gitdi/ ve niçe olduğın kimesne ṭuymadı/ ve bir ḳac yıl geçdikden ṣoñra keşiş

ṣūretinde yine istānbula geldi/ ve ṭop ḳapusından ṭaşra bir āyāzma var idi/ varub

içinde mücāveret aldı/ ve meẕkūr üstīnyus haftada bir gün/ varub meẕkūr āyāzmayı

ziyāret iderdi/ bir gün Ꜥādetince āyāzmanıñ içine girdi ve iğnādyūs fırṣatını gözedüb

ṭurırdı/ keşiş ṣūretinde değirdüb pādişāhıñ/ eteğin öpdi ve çoḳ duꜤā ve senālar

41v eyledi üstīnyus eyitdi/ ne maḳūle ādemsin ve ne murādıñ vardır iğnādyūs

tebessüm iderek eyitdi ben ol kimesneyim ki/beni helāk itmeğe ḳaṣd eylediñ/ āmmā

ḥaḳḳ teꜤāla beni ḳurtardı/ ḥāṣılı kelām mācerāsını bir bir söyledi ve Ꜥizz diledi pādişāh

bundan ziyāde taꜤaccüb eyledi/ ve itdüğine pişmānlıḳ itdi ve iğnādyūsa/ ziyāde taꜤẓīm

ve tekrīm eyleyüb evvelki Ꜥulūfesinden ve reꜤāyatdan daḫī ziyāde eyleyüb/ ṣoñra

167

cümlesi āḫirete intiḳāl eylediler/ ve āya ṣofya ol ḥāl üzerine ḳadı/ ve cemīꜤ

memālikden aña (……) u ṣadāḳat çekülüb gelürdi/ ve her yıl eṭrāfından aña cemꜤ

iderlerdi ṣoñra/ nūşūrvān-ı Ꜥādil ki ārāżī-yi maꜤmūreniñ/ bilād-ı muꜤaẓẓamı anıñ

ḥükm-i taṣarrufunda idi ve istānbul daḫī anıñ tevābꜤından idi/ her yıl istānbula gelüb

hac ve ziyāret iderdi/ ittifāḳ ol yıl ki ḥażret-i risālet penāh ve karīnde-i ḫalḳ e’sseyyīd

el-mürselīn/ ve ḥabīb rabbü’l-Ꜥālemîn faḥze’l-enbiyā/ ve ḫātim-i eṣfayā

muḥammed muṣṭafa Ꜥaleyhü’ṣ-ṣalavat ve’s-selām min āllah el-mülk el-Ꜥallām/

vücuda geldi meẕkūr nūşirvān bunda āya ṣofya/ ziyāretine gelmiş idi ol gice ki/ faḫr-ı

Ꜥālem vilādet olundı/ āya ṣofyanıñ ḳubbesinde salis miḳdârı ki ḳıble cānibindedir on

dört cam kemeri birle secde eyleyüb yere düşdi ve ānūşirvān-ı

42r Ꜥādil bunda bulunmağla/ anıñ ḥarcını ve levāzımını görüb/ gerü yapdırdı/ āmmā

evvelki üslūbuna uydurmamışlardır/ nitekim şimdi āya ṣofyayı görene maꜤlūmdır/ ve

bu ḳażiyye muğcerāt kitāblarında beyān olunmuşdır/ ‘ale’t-tafṣīl ve bir rivāyet de

naḳl olunmışdır/ ḥażret-i resūl ṣalla’llahu Ꜥaleyhi vesellem/ vilādet olunduğı gicede/

bīḳalān ānūşirvānıñ eyvānı idi ki/ Ꜥacem memleketindedir/ ve ḳızılbāş evbāş

memleketine virān görmüşlerdir/ ve āllahu āꜤlem bi’l-ḥāl ve’leye el(…….) el-māl/ ve

çün āya ṣofyanıñ tārīḫ-i bināsından bin ṭoḳuz yüz/ otuz yıl geçdi ki resūlu’llah

ḥażretleriniñ hicret-i şerīfinden/ sekiz yüz elli yıl geçmişdi/ merḥūm ve mağfūr ve

mecūr ve mebrūr/ sulṭān meḥemmed ḥaṣṣa āllah teꜤāla bi’l-raḥmet ve’l-fuğrān ve

rūḥ-ā-rūḥa el-muḳaddese fī Ꜥarifü’l-ḥannān/ rūmili cānibinden Ꜥasker cerrād ve cünūd

pişmārla/ yürüyüb istānbūl üzerine geldi ve bunıñ gibi muꜤaẓẓam ḥiṣārı ve muḥkem

diyārı/ fetḥ eyledi ve ḳaradan gemiler donadıb ḳāsım pāşā ile/ ḥāṣköy arasında

Ꜥarabalar üzerinden yüridüb/ ve ṭob ejderhālarla bahādır nihengler ile ṭoldurub fenar

ḳapusına ṭoğrı/ deñize ṣaldılar ve ol ṭarafıñ ḥiṣārı zīr u zīr itdiler ve ol raḫneden/

şehre girüb yürüdiler/

168

42v ve ḥaḳḳ teꜤālanıñ Ꜥavniyle/ ve din-i islāmıñ bereketiyle zamān-ı ḳalīlde aldılar

ṣoñra/ emr eyledi ki şehriñ orta yerinde/ ve āꜤlā mekānda ol cāmiꜤ şerīfi ve maḳām-ı

münīfi yapdılar/ ve cāmiꜤiñ ḥavlinde cennet/ misāl sekiz medrese ki semāniye

dimekle meşhūrdır/ ve her medreseniñ ardında birer tetimme/ daḫī mükemmel ve

maꜤmūrdır ve bir cānibinde bimārḥāne ve bir cānibinde maṭvaḫ ve misāfirḥāneler/

vāḳiꜤ oldı ve anlarıñ tafṣīli ve cemāli ve cümle tertibātı ve aḥvāli istānbulda/ olanlara

ve gözlere şāhid/ ve müşāhid maꜤlūm ve müekked/ olduğuna/ mütekerririne iḥtiyāc

yoḳdur/ ve baꜤdehu saꜤīdü’l-ḥayāt ve şehīdü’l-memāt/ ṣāḥibü’l-fażl el-mezīd ḥażret-i

merḥūm sulṭān bāyezīd/ eski sarāyıñ ḳıble cānibinde bir cāmiꜤ muꜤallā ve medrese-i

āꜤlā/ bir maṭbaḫ ve misāfirḥāneler ve iḥsāniyât ve ḫayrāt vāfireler tecdīd/ ve tebyid

eyledi ve anlarıñ/ daḫī ḥāla menẓūr ve maꜤlūmdur/ ve beyāna iḥtiyāc yoḳdır ve

şimdiki zamānda sulṭānü’l-islām ve’l-müslimīn/ ṣāḥibü’l-Ꜥizz ve’l-naṣīr ve’l-temkīn

mülkü’l-şarḳīn ve’l-garbīn ve mālikü’l-berrīn ve’l-baḥrīn ḥalīfetü’l-Ꜥarab/ ve

kesrayü’l-Ꜥacem ve ḥāḳānü’l-türk/ ve rājü’l-hind ve’l-deylem ve ḳayṣerü’l-rūm/ ve

iskenderü’l-yunān Ꜥazīz- mehr/ ve şehdād

43r ‘ül-yemin ve necāyişü’l ḥabeşe ve’l-sādān/ ve süleymānü’l-zamān żābṭü’l-āḳālīm

e’s-sebaꜤa/ be-ṭarāfü’l benān ḥażret-i sulṭān/ süleymān ḥān ادام لله تعالي علي المسلمین ایّامھ

وف ر ة بالح یور ش ھور و اعو امھ bu şehirde itdüği/ ḫayrāt yapduğı cāmiꜤ ve medāris/ ve

Ꜥimārāt/ iẓhar min eş-şems ve eşher min el-emsdir/ evvelā merḥūm ve mağfūr ve

mebrūr ve müşkūr vālidları ḥażret-i sulṭān selīm ḫān Ꜥaleyhü’r-raḥmet ve’r-rıżvān

min āllahü’l Ꜥazīz el-Ꜥalīm rūḥiçün bir cāmiꜤ-i muꜤaẓẓam/ ve maḳām-ı mükerrem ve

türbe-yi Ꜥālīye ve medrese-yi sāmiye ve ‘imārat-ı Ꜥaẓīme ve ḫāyrāt-cesīme/ bünyād ve

nihād buyurdılar/ ve sanīyen kendüleriñ veled-i Ꜥazīzi şehzāde sulṭān meḥemmed

Ꜥaleyhü’r-raḥmet min el-ezel/ ile’l-ebed rūḥiçün daḫī/ bir cāmiꜤ-i muꜤaẓẓam Ꜥālī erkān

ve medrese-i nefīse-yi Ꜥaẓīm’ş-şān ve Ꜥimārāt-ı Ꜥāmire ve ḫayrāt-ı mütekāsire/ taꜤmīr

169

ve tevḳīr eylediler ve sālisen duḫter-i muꜤaẓẓame ve bint-i mükerreleri meryem-i

Ꜥiffet/ ve belḳīs-ı Ꜥaẓamet ve Ꜥāyşe-i kerāmet ve fāṭma-yı ḥürmet/ ḥażret-i ḫānım

sulṭān sevābı içün/ ḳarşu üsküdārda cāmiꜤ-i sāmī/ ve bir medrese-yi nāfī taꜤmīr

eylediler/ ve rābiꜤan ḥāndān-ı ṭāhire/ ṣāḥibetü’l-ḫayrāt el-vāfire/

43v ḥāṣekī sulṭān taꜤmīr-hā āllahu teꜤāla/ bi’l-raḥmet ve’r-rıżvān ḥāṭıriçün/ Ꜥavret

bāzārı ḳurbunda bir cāmiꜤ şerīf/ ve medrese-yi münīf ve bīmāristān-ı laṭīf/ taꜤmīr

buyurdılar ve ḥāmisen merḥūm ferzend āḫyar ve şehzāde-yi bī-naẓīr/ sulṭān cihāngīr

Ꜥaleyhü’r-raḥmetü’l-mülk el-ḳadīr cānıiçün/ ṭopḫāne cānibinde bir cāmiꜤ-yi āꜤlā/ ve

maḳām-i sīmī yapdılar sādisen ol gurre-yi rūy ū ḥürrem/ ve ḥarem-i çehārüm-i

müslimīn ki ehl-i fażl ve iꜤtibār ve eṣḥāb-ı Ꜥilm ve Ꜥaḳl-ı vaḳārdır ki taꜤẓīmen ve

tekrīmen ve temayyüzen ve tefhīmen/ süleymāniye dirler ve bu nisbet-i sevālif-i

selāṭīn-i Ꜥaẓām ve sevābıḳ-ı pādişāh/ ẕevīyyü’l-fażl ve’l iḥtirām üslūbı üzerine/ vāḳiꜤ

olmışdır nitekim iskenderiyye ve ḳāhīre ve gayrı-hā dirler ve meẕkūr cāmiꜤ-i āꜤẓam/

ve Ꜥimāret-ı efḫam ve ḫayrāt-ı dilpezīr ve medāris-i bī-naẓīr ki biri tefsīr-i Ꜥaẓīm ve

ḫadīs-i kerīm içün/ ve dördi daḫī Ꜥulūm-ı uṣūl ve fürūꜤ/ ve envāꜤ-ı fünūn-ı maꜤḳūl ve

meşrūꜤ içün/ ve biri Ꜥilm-i ṭıbb ve ḥikmet ve ḳalanı/ fünūn-ı ādāb ve ḳırāt içün taꜤyin

ve binā olunmışdır/ ve anlara tābiꜤ olan vücūh-ı ḫayrāt/ ve eṣnāf-ı müberrāt ve

bimārḥāne-yi żiꜤafe ve mesākīn ve misāfirḥāne hāy ū zār ve idrārāt-ı Ꜥulemā ve erzāḳ-

ı

44r fuḳārā ve iḥsaniyyāt-ı erāmil/ ve ṣadaḳāt-ı yetāmi kā şems fī tenevvür-i nehāran

ẓāhir ve āşikāredir/ ve ol binā-yı Ꜥāle’l-erkān/ ve cāmiꜤ-yi bedīꜤ-i el-vażꜤ/ ve muḥkem

el-benān ol dört bī-naẓīr/ mināresiyle ve ol Ꜥacaīb üslūb ve tertībiyle/ değme pādişāha

müyesser , belki rūy-ı zemīnde kimesneye muḳadder olmuş değildir/ ve anda olan

esbāb ve ālāt ve eḥcār ve üsꜤtüvānāt her biri bir memleketiñ ḥarācı ve bir vilāyetiñ

şemꜤi sarācı idi/ ve ol somāḳī Ꜥamūdları birer/ pādişāhıñ yādigārı idi/ ve bir ḳacı

170

ḥażret-i süleymān peygamber Ꜥaleyhi’s-selām taḥtından ve bir ḳacı iskender

ẕü’lḳarneyniñ/ aynası taḥtından idiler/ یور ثھا من یشاء من عیاده و العاقبة ê قل انّ الارض

للمتقّین و باقي احوال علي التفصیل meẕkūr cāmiꜤ-i şerīf ve ḥavlinde olan/ emākin-i münīfi

seyr eyleyen kimseniñ lüṭf-i naẓarına ḥavāle olundı/ ve anıñ ibtidā-yı bināsına 957

cāmiꜤü’l-āḫyār vāḳiꜤ oldı ve itmām-ı nihāyetine 964 ḫayr-ı mecāmiꜤ düşdi/ ve ḥāliyā

āṣaf-ı zamān ve ṣāḥib-ḳırān āꜤẓam-ı vüzerā-yı el-enām efḫam ḫalife-yi e’s-selātīnü’l

Ꜥaẓām/ ḥāfıẓü’l-ḳalem ve ḥāmilü’l-seyf ve nāşirü’l-Ꜥadl/ ve ḳāhirü’l-ḥayf velī-yi taꜤm

(…….)

44v ve mevlī ihsānina/ ve el-muꜤarrif el-(…..) min gayr redd/ fī zamānına bu yiğir

maḥalll-i Ꜥömr-i Ꜥadālet-i osmān حای ع ل ي مھ اب ت سیمّى اسد لله الغالب سرّي المشارك والمغارب

حضرت ع ل يپا ش ا انعم لله تع الي ع لیھ بم ا یش ا س ای ر خ یر ات و حس نا ت م تك اث ر ات و و قف ا ثا ر ص الح ات و

لحوا ق ص دقا ت bī-nihāyetinden māꜤadā edirne ḳapusı/ cānibinde ve gāyet gerek olacaḳ

maḥallinde/ ve yerinde bir medrese-yi Ꜥaẓīm ve ḫayr-ı celīl el-esamī taꜤmīr ve tevṭīd

ve tecdīd buyurdılar ki/ anıñ bināsı Ꜥacaīb ve üslūb-ı laṭīf garīb ve rıfꜤat mekānı ve

tertīb-i Ꜥaẓīm elşānı ve içinde vaḳf olan Ꜥulūm-ı şerꜤiyyeniñ kitābları ve fünūn-ı

āṣliyye ve ferꜤiyyeniñ ālāt ve esbābları bir yerde mevcūd değildir/ belki düğeli

medārisde yoḳdur ve bu deñlü/ fażīlet ve kerāmet bir ferde müyesser ve bir āḥde

muḳadder olmuş değildir/ ferżā-yı ṭalebe-yi Ꜥilm gelme bilgi medreseleri bile senin

ve şuhūr ve āꜤvām-ı duhūr medreseden çıkmayalar ve āṣlā bir nesneye iḥtiyāc

çekmeyeler/ ve ḳangi yerde bunıñ gibi miknet ve esbāb/ veyā ḳangi ṣāḥib-i ḫayr bu

deñlü sevāb ḳazanmağa ḳādir ola/ ḥāşā ki saꜤādet-i Ꜥaẓīme gayrı yerde

45r buluna/ ما رأینأ شبیھاً فى مكان ولا بثلھ سمعنا و مدرسھ مزكوره فایقھ یھ bu ḳıṭaꜤ-yı fārsī-yi

lāyīḳā vāḳī oldu tārīḫü’l muḥarrere fī-ḥaḳḳü’l medrese āṣaf –ı ṣāḥib ḳırān-ı zamān/

مانكھ درد و جھان سعادتمند سراھل مر علي پاشا صدد كشور كشاي دشمن بند كرده این مان علم را بنیاد حقّا

كھ تعزّر امد و لطیف و بلند حق قیلوش كناد و خیر دمد با شد ش ص ید ك ام دل یكم ند و قت اتم ام ھ أت ف غ یب ش

171

كتفم تار یخ خ ی ربي م انند sene 967 ḥaḳḳ subḥāne teꜤāla ṣāḥib-i saꜤādetimiziñ ẓill-i rāftını

Ꜥibād üzerine memdür/ ve binā-yı ẕāt-ı şerīflerin/ ك االبیت العمور و الس قف المر فوع ایدي idi

قد وقع الفراغ من تحرر ھدا الرسّالھ من شھور (……) اسیّ دالمرس لین(……) امین / (………) (..……)

شھر جمازى الاوّل سنھ ثالث و اربعین و الف من ھجرة النبيّ علیھ الصلوة و لسّلام كتبھ الفقیر الضعیف

ولااس تادیھ والس ایر( ………) المحتج الى رحمت دیّر اللطیف رضوان بن عبدالمنّان غفرلله

املؤم نینو املؤم نات الاح ی اء م نھر و الاموت غ یر ھم

172

REFERENCES

Primary Sources

Ahmet Bican, Demirtaş, A. (2009). Dürr-i meknûn: inceleme, çevriyazı, dizin,

tıpkıbasım (1. baskı). İstanbul: Akademik Kitaplar.

Âli, M. bin A., Eravcı, H. M., & Şeker, M. (2014). Nusret-nâme. Ankara: Türk Tarih

Kurumu.

Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Risale-i Istanbul, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département

des manuscrits, Turc 147.

Ali el-Arabi İlyas, Tarih-i Kostantiniyye, Topkapı Palace Museum, H.1640.

Berger, A. (Ed.). (2013). Accounts of medieval Constantinople: The patria.

Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Gökyay, O.Ş., ed.(1996), Evliya Çelebi seyahatnamesi, Istanbul, Yapı Kredi

Yayınları.

Şemseddin Karamani, Ha-za tarih beyan-ı bina-i Ayasofya-i Kebir, Istanbul

Universitesi Kütüphanesi, T.259.

Secondary Sources

Afyoncu, E.,‘Semiz Ali Paşa’ in TDV Islam ansiklopedisi.

Atcil, A. (2010). The formation of the Ottoman learned class and legal scholarship

(1300–1600) (Ph.D.).

Barkan, Ö. L. (1972). Süleymaniye Cami ve imareti inşaatı (1550-1557). Ankara:

Türk Tarih Kurumu.

Berlekamp, P. (2011). Wonder, image, and cosmos in medieval Islam. New Haven

Conn.: Yale University Press.

Buhl, F. (2012), ʿĀd, in Encyclopaedia of Islam, second edition, eds. P. Bearman,

Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs.

Burke, P. (2009). Popular culture in early modern Europe , Farnham, England ;

Burlington, VT: Routledge.

Cerasi, M. (2005). The urban and architectural evolution of the Istanbul dı̇vanyolu:

Urban aesthetics and ideology in Ottoman town building. Muqarnas, 22,

189–232.

173

Crane, H., Akın, E., & Necipoğlu, G. (2006). Sinan’s autobiographies: Five

sixteenth-century texts. Leiden ; Boston: Brill.

Curcic, S., (1992), Design and structural innovation in Byzantine architecture before

Hagia Sophia”, in Mark, R., Çakmak, A.,S., (eds. )Hagia Sophia from the Age

of Justinian to the Present, Cambridge University Press.

Dagron, G. (1984). Constantinople imaginaire: Études sur le recueil des Patria.

Paris: Presses universitaires de France.

Dankoff, R. (2006). An Ottoman mentality: The world of Evliya Celebi. Leiden ;

Boston: Brill.

Flavius, J., (1950), Jewish antiquities: Books V-VIII. Loeb Classical Library Harvard

University Press.

Fleischer, C., H.(1986), Bureaucrat and intellectual in the Ottoman Empire: The

historian Mustafa Ali (1541-1600).Princeton: Princenton University Press.

Fleischer, C., (2009). Ancient wisdom and new sciences:Prophecies at the Ottoman

court in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries.in Farhad, M., Bağcı, S., &

Mavroudi, M. V. (Eds.). Falnama: The book of omens. London: Thames &

Hudson.

Gonnella, J., Weis,F. Rauch,C., (2016). The Diez albums:Contexts and contents.

Leiden ; Boston: Brill.

Hagen, G., (2006). Afterword: Ottoman understanding of the world in the

seventeenth century in Dankoff, R. An Ottoman mentality: The world of

Evliya Celebi Leiden ; Boston: Brill, 215-257.

Hagen, G..(2012).The order of knowledge, the knowledge of order: Intellectual life,

in Faroqhi,S., Fleet, K.(eds). The Cambridge history of Turkey vol.2: The

Ottoman empire as a world power 1453-1603. Cambridge University Press

Hagen, G., (2014) .Ottoman historical thought, in Duara, P., Murthy, V., & Sartori,

A..(eds) A companion to global historical thought. Chichester: Wiley-

Blackwell, 92-107.

Inalcık, H., (1962). The rise of ottoman historiography,in Lewis, B., & Holt, P. M.

(Eds.). Historians of the Middle East. London: Oxford University Press.

Jevtic, I., & Yalman, S. (2018). Spolia reincarnated: Afterlives of objects, materials,

and spaces in anatolia from antiquity to the Ottoman era. Istanbul: Anamed.

Kafadar, C. (1996). Between two worlds: The construction of the Ottoman state.

Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

174

Kafadar, C. (2007). Introduction: A Rome of one’s own: Reflections on cultural

geography and identity in the Lands of Rum. Muqarnas, 24, 7–25.

Kafescioglu, C. (2010). Constantinopolis/Istanbul: Cultural encounter, imperial

vision, and the construction of the Ottoman capital .University Park, Pa: Penn

State University Press.

Kafescioğlu, Ç. (2012).Itinerant gaze:The representation of Ottoman and Medieval

Anatolian architecture in the Seyahatname Evliya Çelebi, Tezcan, N., Tezcan,

S. S., & Dankoff, R. (eds.), Evliya Çelebi Studies and Essays

Commemorating the 400th Anniversary of his birth (1st ed). İstanbul: Turkey

Ministry of Culture and Tourism Publications : The Banks Association of

Turkey.

Kafescioğlu, Ç., (2014).Viewing, walking, mapping :Istanbul ca.1580. Mitteilungen

des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz, 17-37.

Kafescioğlu, Ç., (2016) . Eyüp, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, third edition, Edited by:

Kate Fleet, Gudrun Krämer, Denis Matringe, John Nawas, Everett Rowson

Kafescioğlu, Ç., with Babaie, S., (2017). Istanbul, Isfahan, and Delhi: Imperial

designs and urban experiences in the early modern era in, Flood,F.B. and

Necipoğlu, G. (eds.), A Companion to Islamic art and architecture, vol.II:

From the Mongols to modernism Wiley Blackwell, 846-874.

Kastritsis, D. J. (Ed.). (2017). An early Ottoman history: The Oxford anonymous

chronicle(Bodleian Library, Ms Marsh 313). Liverpool: Liverpool University

Press.

Kolay, İ. A., & Çelı̇k, S. (2006). Ottoman stone acquisition in the mid-sixteenth

century: The Süleymanı̇ye Complex in Istanbul. Muqarnas, 23, 251–272.

Kuran, Aptullah, (1987). Sinan : The grand old master of Ottoman architecture,

Washington, D.C. : Institute of Turkish Studies ; Istanbul : Ada Press

Publishers.

Kut,G. (1985). Türk edebiyatında acâibü’l mahlükat tercümleri üzerine, in Beşinci

Milletlerarası Türkoloji Kongresi Bildiriler, Istanbul Üniversitesi Türkiyat

Araştırma Merkezi, 183-93.

Lassner, J., (1993), Demonizing the queen of Sheba:Boundaries of gender and

culture in postbiblical Judaism and medieval Islam, The University of

Chicago Press.

Mainstone, R. J. (1988). Hagia Sophia: Architecture, structure, and liturgy of

Justinian’s great church. New York, N.Y: Thames and Hudson.

Mango, C. (1993). Studies on constantinople Aldershot, Hampshire, Gt. Brit. ;

Brookfield, Routledge.

175

Mathews, T. F. (1976). The Byzantine churches of Istanbul: A photographic survey.

University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Melville, C. (Ed.). (2012). Persian historiography: A history of Persian literature.

London ; New York: I.B. Tauris.

Necipoğlu, G.,(1985). The Süleymaniye complex in Istanbul: An interpretation.

Muqarnas, 3, 92–117.

Necipoğlu, G., (1992). The life of an imperial monument: Hagia Sophia after

Byzantium, in Mark, R., & Çakmak, A. S. (Eds.). The Hagia Sophia: From

the Age of Justinian to the Present. Cambridge ; New York, NY, USA:

Cambridge University Press, 195-225.

Necipoğlu, G., (1993). Challenging the past: Sinan and the competitive discourse of

early modern Islamic architecture, Muqarnas 10, 169-180.

Necipoğlu, G., (1996). Dynastic imprints in the cityscape: The collective message of

imperial funerary mosque complexes in Istanbul in. Bacqué-Grammont, J.-L.,

Tibet, A., (Eds.). Cimetières et traditions funéraires dans le monde

islamique: Actes du colloque international du Centre national de la

recherche scientifique organisé par l’Université Mimar Sinan sous les

auspices du Comité international d’études pré-ottomanes et ottomanes, en

collaboration avec la Société d’histoire turque, l’Institut de recherche sur

l’histoire, la civilisation etl’art islamiques (IRCICA) et l’Institut français

d’études anatoliennes, Istanbul, 28-30 septembre 1991. Ankara: Türk Tarih

Kurumu.

Necipoğlu, G., (2005) The Age of Sinan: Architectural culture in the Ottoman

Empire, London: Reaktion Books.

Necipoğlu, G., (2012). Visual cosmopolitanism and creative translation: artistic

conversations with renaissance Italy in Mehmed II’s Constantinople.

Muqarnas, 29(1), 1–81.

Necipoğlu, G., (2013). “Virtual archaeology” in light of a new document on the

Topkapı Palace’s waterworks and earliest Buildings, circa 1509. Muqarnas,

30, 315–350.

Necipoğlu, G., (2015).The scrutinizing gaze in the aesthetics of Islamic visual

cultures: Sight, insıght, desire, Muqarnas 32, 23-61

Nora, P. (1989). Between memory and history: les lieux de mémoire.

Representations, (26), 7–24.

Ousterhout, R. ,(1995). Ethnic identity and cultural appropriation in early Ottoman

architecture. Muqarnas, 12, 48–62.

Ousterhout, R. ,(2004). The east, the west, and the appropriation of the past in early

Ottoman architecture. Gesta, 43(2), 165–176.

176

Özbaran, S. (2004). Bir Osmanlı kimliği: 14.-17. yüzyıllarda Rûm/Rûmi aidiyet ve

imgeleri.Beyoğlu, İstanbul: Kitap.

Piterberg, G. (2012). Aşıkpaşazade, in, Encyclopaedia of Islam, third edition,

eds.Kate Fleet, Gudrun Krämer, Denis Matringe, John Nawas, Everett

Rowson, Brill.

Raby, J. (1987). Mehmed the Conqueror and the equestrian Statue of the augustaion.

Illinois Classical Studies, 12(2), 305–313.

Redford, S. (1993). The Seljuqs of Rum and the antique. Muqarnas, 10, 148–156.

Rizvi, K. (Ed.). (2018). Affect, emotion, and subjectivity in early modern Muslim

Empires: New studies in Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal art and culture.

Leiden ; Boston: Brill.

Scribner, B. (1989) Is a history of popular culture possible?.History of European

Ideas, 10(2), 175–191.

Sezgin, U., (2012) al-Waṣīfī, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, second edition, Edited by:

P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs

Stephenson, P. (2016). The serpent column: a cultural biography (1 edition). New

York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Silay, K. (1992). “Ahmedi’s history of the Ottoman dynasty”, Journal of Turkish

Studies 16 , 129-200.

Şahin, K., (2010). Constantinople and the end time: The Ottoman conquest as a

portent of the last hour. Journal of Early Modern History, 14(4), 317–354.

Şahin, K. (2013). Empire and power in the reign of Süleyman: Narrating the

sixteenth-century Ottoman world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sariyannis, M., (2015). Ajāʾib ve gharāʾib: Ottoman collections of mirabilia and

perceptions of the supernatural. Der Islam 92, no. 2, 442–467

Streck, M. and Morony, M., (2012).al-Madāʾin, in: eds. P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis,

C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs Encyclopaedia of Islam,

second edition.

Tanyeli, G., & Ekrem, B. (2017). Hiçbir üstad böyle kar etmemişdir: Osmanlı inşaat

teknolojisi tarihi. İstanbul: Akın Nalça Kitapları.

Terzioğlu, D., (2013). Sufis in the age of state-building and confessionalization in

Woodhead, C. (Ed.). The Ottoman World (1 edition). Routledge, 86-103.

Woodhead, C. (2017). Celalzade Mustafa Çelebi. Encyclopaedia of Islam, third

edition.

177

Yerasimos, S., trans.Tekeli, Ş. (2012). Kostantiniye ve ayasofya efsaneleri =: La

fondation de Constantinople et de Sainte-Sophie dans les traditions turques

(5. Baskı 2012, İstanbul). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.

Yıldız, S.N., & Peacock, A. (Eds.). (2016). Islamic literature and intellectual life in

fourteenth- And fifteenth-century Anatolia. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag.

Yürekli, Z. (2012). Architecture and hagiography in the Ottoman Empire: The

politics of Bektashi shrines in the classical age. Farnham, Surrey : Burlington,

VT: Ashgate.

Yürekli, Z. (2017), Architectural patronage and the rise of the Ottomans in,. Flood

,F.,B.and Necipoğlu, G.,A companion to Islamic art and architecture, vol.II:

From the Mongols to modernism Wiley Blackwell.