354

KÜÇÜK AYASOFYA AND THE FOUNDATION OF

BABÜSSAADE AĞASI HÜSEYİN AĞA

This thesis examines a patron, Hüseyin Ağa (d. 1508), who was serving as the kapu

ağa (the gatekeeper eunuch of the palace) during the reign of Bayezid II, and the

foundation he established at the Byzantine church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus. By

considering the connections between these two phenomena, the thesis tries to

contextualize them from several perspectives. The power, space and the donor

constitute the central focus of this thesis and these are reflected in three parts. First,

the pious foundations that were established by Hüseyin Ağa, his transactions in the

Balkans, the Eyâlet of Rûm, and the lands granted by the Sultan are considered. His

position and wealth suggest a close relationship to Bayezid II. Secondly, to have a

deep understanding about his last foundation, the history of the church is analyzed.

In this context, the conversion of churches conducted by other contemporary

statesmen is discussed, in order to see if Küçük Ayasofya has a unique place among

the converted churches of the period. Finally, the place is examined as a zaviye

(dervish lodge). It is an attempt to see the importance of the place in the eyes of the

palace, statesmen and religious figures.

v

ÖZET

Bu tez II. Bayezid döneminde (1481- 1512) kapı ağalığı yapmış olan Hüseyin Ağa’yı

ve onun son eseri Küçük Ayasofya’yı kendi bağlamı içerisinde incelemektedir. Tezin

iki ana odağını oluşturan kişi ve yere belirli açılardan ele alınmaktadır.İlk olarak,

Hüseyin Ağa’nın kurduğu vakıflar, satın aldığı ve Sultan’ın ona hediye ettiği araziler

bilhassa Balkanlar’da ve Eyâlet-i Rum dahilinde yaptığı alım satımlar ve inşaatları

konu edilmiştir. Böylece, mezkur ağanın yaşadığı dönemde varlıklı ve Sultan’a yakın

bir figür olduğu tespit edilmektedir.İkinci olarak ağanın son inşaat faaliyeti olan

kilisenin çevrilişini daha iyi anlamak için, Bizans döneminden beri süregülen

ehemmiyeti anlaşılmaya çalışılmaktadır. Bu bağlamda Bayezid döneminde kiliseleri

tahvil eden diğer devlet adamlarının yapıları incelenmiş, Küçük Ayasofya’nın bunlar

arasındaki yeri tartışılmaktadır. Son olarak, Hüseyin Ağa’nın zaviyesi olan Küçük

Ayasofya’nın kuruluşundan itibaren nasıl bir mekan olduğu saray, devlet ricali ve

önem taşıyan ilim adamları tarafından ne ifade ettiği incelenmiştir. Mekandan yolu

geçen kişilere bakılmış ve mekan bağlamsallaştırmaya çalışılmaktadır.

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I owe a debt of gratitude to many people for their support and help during the

process of writing this thesis. First and foremost I would like to express my gratitude

to my adviser, Çiğdem Kafescioğlu. I am thankful to her not only for her excellent

guidance and her patience with my mistakes but also for her insightful thoughts,

advice and constant support in my discovery of the beauties of Istanbul. I would also

like to express my thanks to Oya Pancaroğlu, who has been a source of inspiration

since the beginning of my undergraduate years at Boğaziçi University. Her lectures

and comments played a significant role in the formation of my proclivity for

studying the history of art and architecture. I would also like to thank Günhan

Börekçi for reading my thesis and making precious comments for its improvement.

I am grateful and delighted to remember teachers and friends that supported

me, and who directly and indirectly contributed to this thesis in various ways. Sara

Nur Yılmaz always shared my enthusiasm and made valuable comments to help me

resolve ambiguities. Benjamin Fortna is an inspirational professor who gave me

precious suggestions to improve my academic abilities during my internship in the

context of his project in London. Mustafa Koç, Hasan Karataş and Neslihan Asutay-

Effenberger shared their work and illuminating comments with me and made

insightful suggestions on this study.

The kind staff of the Directorate General of Foundations Archives, the

Boğaziçi University Library and the ISAM (Center for Islamic Studies) Library ably

assisted my research. I would also like to express my thanks to personnel at the

manuscript libraries of Topkapı Palace as well as Süleymaniye Mosque that allowed

me access to their collections. I am also grateful to my Arabic teacher, Abdusselam

vii

Kartal, for answering all of my questions during the translation process of the

endowment deeds.

I feel very lucky to have had the friendship of Esra Uğurlu and Sena Fidan

during all the bad times. I thank them for all their emotional support, frequent help,

care and friendship. Seda Gezici, Ubeydullah Kısacık, Dileknur Polat, Kübra

Başpınar, just knowing that you are always there is invaluable.

My greatest debts and gratitude is to my family whose love, instincts and

prayers always help me overcome any challenge. My dear mother and father have

always encouraged and supported me in every direction I wished to go, without any

hesitation. My husband, Ahmed Emre, is an optimistic person who has been sharing

his compassion and knowledge with me since he entered my life. And finally, I need

to mention Furkan, my beloved brother, who departed this life at the age of sixteen

while I was conducting this research. He is the one whom I am sighing for and to

whom I dedicate this thesis. Beyond that, all the faults and deficits of this study are

surely mine only.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

1.1 The place and the patron: Two main subjects of the thesis ............................................... 1

1.2 Questions .................................................................................................................................................. 2

1.3 Sources ...................................................................................................................................................... 4

1.4 Chapters .................................................................................................................................................... 5

1.5 Waqf studies ........................................................................................................................................... 7

CHAPTER 2: AGHAS OF BAYEZID II’S COURT: WEALTH AND PATRONAGE ....... 24

2.1 The time of Bayezid II ...................................................................................................................... 24

2.2 Hüseyin Ağa .......................................................................................................................................... 32

2.3 Firuz Ağa ................................................................................................................................................ 36

2.4 The properties of the kapu ağa .................................................................................................... 37

2.5 Concluding remarks ......................................................................................................................... 51

CHAPTER 3: FROM THE CHURCH OF STS. SERGIUS AND BACCHUS TO THE

CONVENT OF KÜÇÜK AYASOFYA ............................................................................................ 56

3.1 The construction of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus ....................................................................... 56

3.2 Sts. Sergius and Bacchus and the persecution of Monophysites ................................... 58

3.3 Justinian versus Anicia Juliana ..................................................................................................... 63

3.4 The layout of the church ................................................................................................................. 66

3.5 Medieval Sts. Sergius and Bacchus in travel accounts ....................................................... 71

3.6 Çardaklı Hamam ................................................................................................................................. 76

3.7 Hüseyin Ağa’s conversion and the other converted churches ....................................... 84

3.8 Concluding remarks on the converted churches .............................................................. 102

CHAPTER 4: VITAE OF A DERVISH LODGE ...................................................................... 104

4.1 The rise of Ottoman Halvetiye .................................................................................................. 106

4.2 Cemal Halveti or so-called Çelebi Halife ............................................................................... 108

ix

4.3 Küçük Ayasofya as a Halveti zâvîye ......................................................................................... 111

4.4 Muslihiddin Nureddinzade (d.1574) and the prominence of Küçük Ayasofya ... 113

4.5 A story of Küçük Ayasofya in a sixteenth century masterpiece: Muhyî-i Gülşenî’s

Reşahat-ı Muhyî ........................................................................................................................................ 116

4.6 Küçük Ayasofya in the seventeenth century: Ahmed Muhyiddin Efendi’s Tomar-ı

Tekâyâ .......................................................................................................................................................... 120

4.7 The tomb of Hüseyin Ağa and Sheikh Hacı Kamil Efendi (d.1911) ........................... 122

4.8 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 123

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 126

APPENDIX A: IMAGES ................................................................................................................ 130

APPENDIX B: THE PROPERTIES OF HÜSEYİN AĞA ...................................................... 151

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 159

x

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. First page of Firuz Ağa’s vakfiye ........................................................................ 130

Figure 2. The Properties of Hüseyin Ağa in Constantinople ..................................... 131

Figure 3. The plan of Hüseyin Ağa’s bedesten ................................................................ 132

Figure 4. The plan of the Madrasa of Hüseyin Ağa in Amasya ................................. 133

Figure 5. The distribution of Firuz’s and Hüseyin’s properties ............................... 134

Figure 6. The ground plan of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus ............................................... 135

Figure 7. The ground plan of San Vitale in Ravenna .................................................... 136

Figure 8. The text of Çardaklı Hamam’s foundation inscription ............................. 136

Figure 9. The foundation inscription of Çardaklı Hamam ........................................ 137

Figure 10. The quarter of Küçük Ayasofya in the Pervititch’s insurance maps 138

Figure 11. Inside of Çardaklı Hamam ................................................................................. 139

Figure 12. The ground plan of Çardaklı Hamam ............................................................ 140

Figure 13. The ground plan of Firuz Ağa Mosque ......................................................... 141

Figure 14. The ground plan of Atik Ali Paşa Mosque ................................................... 142

Figure 15. The ground plan of Rum Mehmed Paşa Mosque ..................................... 143

Figure 16. The ground plan of Küçük Ayasofya ............................................................. 144

Figure 17. The interior of the mosque ................................................................................ 145

Figure 18. A detail from Byzantine column capital ...................................................... 146

Figure 19. The ground plan of Gül Mosque ...................................................................... 147

Figure 20. The ground plan of Koca Mustafa Paşa Mosque ...................................... 148

Figure 21. The ground plan of Fenari İsa Mosque ........................................................ 149

Figure 22. The page of Tomar-ı Tekaya concerning Küçük Ayasofya ................... 150

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The primary purpose of this thesis is to examine a neglected zâvîye in the studies of

the Ottoman architecture: it is the zâvîye of Babüssaade Ağası Hüseyin Ağa (d.1508),

so called Küçük Ayasofya. I am primarily focused on his endowment deeds (Küçük

Ayasofya Vakıfları) to comprehend and contextualize the changing dynamics of

architectural patronage in the time of Bayezid II (r. 1481- 1512) and how these

dynamics affected the material environment of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth

century Constantinople.

1.1 The place and the patron: Two main subjects of the thesis

Küçük Ayasofya was the former church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus, which was built

by the emperor Justinian (r. 527- 565). It was later converted into a dervish lodge by

Hüseyin Ağa. Although it is accepted that the lodge was dedicated to the Halveti

order beginning with the conversion, there is no extant contemporary source to verify

the authenticity of this assertion. In addition, the earliest known sheikh of the place

was Abdulkerim Kadiri (d. 1544). As his title suggests he might have some kind of

connection with the Kâdirî order. The dedication becomes clear with the arrival of

the sheikh Nureddinzade Muslihiddin (d. 1574) who was a zealous follower of the

Halveti order and passionate enough to create his own sub-branch. Later on, the

lodge faced several phases with other sub-braches of the order: Celvetiye and

Şa’bâniye. Küçük Ayasofya was not the primary lodge for Halveti dervishes but it

hosted prominent figures and devotees of this tariqa.

2

Hüseyin Ağa was the gatekeeper eunuch in the court of Bayezid II. It is

believed that he was together with the Sultan during his princely years in Amasya.

During Bayezid’s sultanate, Hüseyin acquired a great amount of wealth and built

numerous structures on his assets. The larger part of the property, particularly

villages and agricultural land, was granted to him by the Sultan, but he also had an

inclination to acquire property around the urban property given to him, through

purchases from a former pasha or a famous figure. His transactions and foundations

draw an interesting image for the late fifteenth and the early sixteenth century, as he

was not alone in constructing on visible locations. That is why his contemporaries

such as the eunuch Firuz Ağa, the keeper of the imperial treasury, also attract

attention with their assets and edifices. Their close connection to the Sultan is also

another point of attention in that it suggests an understanding of the institutional

framework of the New Palace.Their position and activities present valuable sources

that allow us to make comparisons and to comprehend the changing dynamics of

Bayezid’s rule.

1.2 Questions

As an essay in the history of art and architecture of the Ottoman Empire this study

started with Günay Kut and Turgut Kut’s article on Dergehname, a poetic list of

Istanbul tekkes written by Müminzade Ahmed Hasib in the eighteenth century.1 My

purpose was to identify Küçük Ayasofya among other 107 dervish lodges, but the

text does not mention it. Since Dergehname is a reputable source, the situation

aroused a question:. was Küçük Ayasofya a tekke of the Halveti order? On the other

hand, the bibliography of the mentioned article directed me to Semavi Eyice’s work

1 Kut, “İstanbul Tekkelerine Ait Bir Kaynak: Dergeh-nâme,” 213- 236.

3

on the endowment deeds of Hüseyin Ağa.2 In this article Eyice analyzes and lists the

constructions of the ağa in detail, however, there are unclear points regarding the

contextualization of the patronage, the conversion of the church of Sts. Sergius and

Bacchus and the position of the tekke among the other Halveti zâvîyes. Plus, although

the title uses the word “vakıfları,” the absence of the waqf issue in this study

attracted my attention. So, the first article shows that Küçük Ayasofya had been

among the neglected dervish lodges where the second one gives clues about the

wealth of the patron who once undertook peculiar constructions and who had

numerous assets. These two interpretations –as for Dergehname, indeed, it is the

absence of an interpretation- about the building and the builder creates a sense that

studying Küçük Ayasofya needs a holistic approach. That is to say, Küçük Ayasofya

would be the focus of various questions from different perspectives.

First of all, while Hüseyin Ağa was conducting the construction of Küçük

Ayasofya, numerous patrons connected the palace were also converting other

Byzantine structures and having the privilege of patronizing pious and charitable

foundations. Starting at the time of Bayezid II, together with viziers, imperial

eunuchs and beys could also make themselves visible in the topography of the

capital. They became agents of urban change in Constantinople. So, what are the

changing dynamics of patronage in this period? How did Hüseyin Ağa acquire such

wealth to convert an old prosperous Byzantine church? Apart from political and

cultural dimensions of the constructions, the primary tool to make a patronage is the

waqf institution. It is the tool to erect a building and to mark a particular area within

the city. Therefore before analyzing the foundation of Hüseyin Ağa and Küçük

Ayasofya it would be advantageous to comprehend this phenomenon.

2 Eyice, “Kapu Ağası Hüseyin Ağa’nın Vakıfları”,149- 246.

4

Studying waqf institution also means considering its by-product: the

endowment deed. What kind of information could the vakfıyyes of the ağa provide?

How could we use this information to expand on the current literature, especially the

study of Semavi Eyice on the foundations of Hüseyin Ağa? Is it possible to

understand the boundaries of Hüseyin Ağa’s wealth? If yes, could his situation be

recognized as ordinary for the time?

In this study, I tried to ask several questions from different perspectives by

taking Küçük Ayasofya and Hüseyin Ağa into focus. My first concern is about the

ağa himself, his patronage, pious endowments, and wealth. The second is about his

choice of site for his most visible act of patronage. I wonder if there is a particular

motivation behind the preference of the church of Sts. Sergius Bacchus. This issue

also calls attention to the architectural intervention to the body of the former church

during the process of converting it into a mosque and sufi lodge. It is about what the

ağa chose (or, what was bestowed on him) and what he practiced through his choice.

My third perspective is solely about Küçük Ayasofya. Once the conversion process

was completed a new life of the building started. It turned into a dervish lodge with

its students, sheikhs and other attendees. So, what kind of a place was it? Did the

zâvîye have peculiarities among the other Halveti lodges? What was its meaning for

the people of the city?

1.3 Sources

The vakfiyes comprise my main source of research. An endowment deed stands as a

beneficial source to locate the assets, and to analyze the buildings that he

constructed. In addition, it gives information about employees and beneficiaries, the

income, expenditures, and other related details about the foundation, and provides

5

additional information concerning the patron. An important source that complements

the information provided by the deeds is the city wide waqf survey (tahrir defteri) of

1546. As for other primary sources, I used chronicles of the later fifteenth and

sixteenth centuries and hagiographic accounts such as the Reşahat of Muhyi-i

Gülşeni.3 Plus, there are lists of the Ottoman tekkes of the nineteenth century. In

each chapter I benefited much from the studies of various scholars, among them

Cyril Mango, Semavi Eyice, Alexander van Millingen and İsmail Aydın Yüksel.

1.4 Chapters

In what follows, the first chapter provides a general outline as well as a framework

for my study. I will try to deal with the background of institutional and architectural

patronage as a multi-faceted phenomenon. Given that the main apparatus behind

building projects and founding charitable foundations is waqf, first, I will try to

examine the waqf institution and later vakfiye as its concrete written proof. I will put

emphasis on waqf in the Ottoman context. I will touch upon some alternative

perspectives that are suggested by different scholars. I pay attention to waqf studies

in order to see how my primary sources, that is to say the foundation deeds, attest to

the process of making patronage and its consequences.

The next chapter will focus on the differences between Mehmed II’s (r. 1451-

1481) and Bayezid II’s reign regarding the patronage and the activity of statesmen

regarding pious and charitable foundations. At this point, I will turn my attention to

the role and importance of a kapı ağa in the Palace to understand the life and status

of Hüseyin Ağa and later of Firuz Ağa (d.1512?). Then as the primary focus of this

thesis, I will examine each of the deeds of Hüseyin Ağa and the properties mentioned

3 Muhyî-i Gülşenî, Reşehât-ı Muhyî.

6

in these documents. While doing this, I will also examine the foundations and assets

of Firuz Ağa as far as I can. My intention in doing so is to comprehend the extent the

wealth of an imperial eunuch, how the Sultan supported him and whether or not he

was eager to expand his properties. I include Firuz Ağa in this discussion because he

was a contemporary of Hüseyin Ağa and I believe that analyzing him would help us

understand how officials of Bayezid II’s inner palace organization changed the

material environment of the capital together with changing the shape of other cities.

In the third chapter, I will first try to understand the history of Küçük Ayasofya

beginning with its first construction as the Church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus in the

sixth century. This narrative will continue chronologically up to the conquest of

Constantinople, in order to see whether it had a continuous importance as was the

case of the monastery of St. Andreas in Krisei (later the Mosque of Koca Mustafa

Paşa). Meanwhile, I will describe and contextualize Çardaklı Hamam, as a part of

Hüseyin Ağa’s foundation. Then I will touch upon the conversion of the church into

Küçük Ayasofya and analyze the changes and interventions on its physical

appearance. I will do the same for several other converted churches: Kariye Mosque,

Koca Mustafa Paşa Mosque, Gül Mosque and Fenari İsa Mosque. This is to

understand the position of Küçük Ayasofya among the other converted churches and

to see if there could be any thematic study of them. As the conclusion of this chapter

I will discuss if Küçük Ayasofya has a valuable status among the others or not.

In the fourth chapter I will shift my perspective and try to analyze Küçük

Ayasofya as a dervish lodge. With this purpose I will first discuss the rise of the

Halveti Order. I will touch upon how the order came to scene in the capital and how

other Halveti lodges were established together with Küçük Ayasofya. I will try to

discuss its relations with prominent sheikhs and the dervishes of different orders.

7

In Appendix the reader will see the list of Hüseyin Ağa’s properties as found

in his accessible endowment deeds. Besides, I have prepared two maps to cover the

distribution of Hüseyin Ağa’s properties as well as to see the similarities and

dissimilarities of his foundations as of Firuz Ağa’s. I will also add a list of their

foundations to expand the discussion on the patronage mechanisms of the period.

The approach that I will utilize in my thesis is the method established in the late

decades of the twentieth century. The prominent feature of this methodology is it that

it was derived as an opposition to the formalistic approach based on the physical

descriptions of architectural structures and the other works of art. With this purpose

scholars of this new historiography highlight the importance of social, cultural,

historical context as well as the urban space. Oleg Grabar is known to be the first

scholar who applied this methodology in his studies on Islamic art. The works of

modern day scholars such as Çiğdem Kafescioğlu, Zeynep Yürekli, Oya Pancaroğlu

and Lucienne Thys-Şenocak, mostly nourish my approach to my subject. Their

works with the methodology encourage me to go beyond the borders of formalistic

approach and ask questions about the locations, the reasons and consequences of

each phenomenon, each act of patronage and each construction.

1.5 Waqf studies

It is impossible to understand and appreciate a juridical institution at all

without having considered it beforehand in its natural milieu and without

having pursued its historical evolution.4

It has been almost 70 years since Köprülü wrote this sentence in his article in the first

issue of Vakıflar Dergisi. Legal scholars and historians have intensely scrutinized the

4 Köprülü, "Vakıf Müessesesi ve Vakıf Vesikalarının Tarihi Ehemmiyeti," 4. The paragraph is quoted

in McChesney, Waqf in Central Asia; Four Hundred Years in the History of a Muslim Shrine, 3.

8

waqf institution together with its law and regulations. Their studies investigate the

application of the institution in different and specific contexts, sequences and

consequences of founding waqfs in different societies and economies. So, there are

hundreds of works, which contribute to waqf studies covering a broad chronological

and geographical spectrum and illustrating the diversity of waqf studies. The current

literature as the product of such an extensive effort allows researchers to comprehend

the Islamic phenomenon of endowing. As it is stated in many of studies, the legal

procedures and the rules of making waqf are complicated and have changed

throughout the history. To make this complicated story apparent, historian Miriam

Hoexter presents a historiography of waqf studies by describing how concerns and

dynamics of those studies evolved. She also illuminates different stages of this

development by dividing it into three phases. In the very first phase, covering the

first decades of the twentieth century, historians mostly dealt with the legal aspects

of the waqf. She offers William Heffening’s study as a brilliant example, which

broadly describes the legislature of the institution, differences between various

schools of law in terms of making pious foundations and the other similar topics.5

For Hoexter, in the second stage, discussions on the waqf became more meaningful

and contextualized. From then on, with the contributions of eminent Turkish

scholars, broader implications of the institution became the focus. This was mostly

accomplished in Jerusalem in 1979 by an international seminar where papers about

the formation of waqf, relations between economies, state, and the waqf were

presented. The third stage has been discerned for some decades in these studies. The

studies of that stage based on the material created in the earlier phases and

concentrated on incorporating the institution with ideological, sociological and

5 See Heffening, “Waqf,” 1096.

9

cultural conceptions.6 As an illustration, Oded Peri’s account on the poor kitchen of

Hasseki Sultan in eighteenth-century Jerusalem deals with a fundamental feature of

the waqf. It analyzes how the institution becomes an instrument of public policy,

where the state used it as an apparatus to perform the social welfare, by analyzing the

waqfs of the particular imaret.7

1.5.1 What is “waqf”?

Waqf is an Arabic infinitive means, “to prevent, restrain, stand.” In Muslim legal

terminology, it refers primarily to “protect a thing, to prevent it from becoming the

property of a third person (tamlīk).”8 In practice, firstly, a waqf can be a state land,

which passed to the possession of Muslim community through a treaty9, force or

conquest. Secondly, it is common as the pious endowment. Definition of that kind of

waqf changes according to the Sharia school, but in simple terms, it is a pious act of

founding and funding a charitable trust.10

In the act of establishing a pious endowment, the founder (vakıf) needs to

declare a part of his or her property for making it unalienable (habs, tahbīs) and to

designate persons or public services. Those individuals and things are the

6 Hoexter, “Waqf Studies in the Twentieth Century: The State of the Art,” 474-495.

7 See Peri, “Waqf and Ottoman Welfare Policy. The Poor Kitchen of Hasseki Sultan in Eighteenth-

Century Jerusalem,”167-186.

8 Heffening, “Waqf,” 1096.

9 In this case previous owners have to pay tax and cannot sell it.

10 Heffening, “Waqf,” 1096.

10

beneficiaries of the particular waqf who are to use the revenues coming from the

generator assets.11

The roots of the waqf institution have been bonded to the Prophet. Legists

first make it by referring to Quran, while the Quran includes no direct mention of the

phenomenon. There are several verses that support and encourage the Muslims for

spending their wealth for piety alongside with their alms for the sake of God (fī sabīl

Allah). For example, there are: “And spend in the way of Allah and do not throw

[yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction [by refraining]. And do good;

indeed, Allah loves the doers of good” (2:195). Another verse is:

The example of those who spend their wealth in the way of Allah is like a

seed [of grain] which grows seven spikes; in each spike is a hundred grains.

And Allah multiplies [His reward] for whom He wills. And Allah is all-

Encompassing and Knowing (2: 261).

The Quran also includes several verses related to helping each other and

spend effort for benevolence: “And cooperate in righteousness and piety, but do not

cooperate in sin and aggression. And fear Allah; indeed, Allah is severe in penalty”

(5:2). “They believe in Allah and the Last Day, and they enjoin what is right and

forbid what is wrong and hasten to good deeds. And those are among the righteous”

(3:114).

Most of the legitimacy of the waqf institution comes from the hadith

tradition, the narrations from Muhammad’s life and statements.12 In one of the

narrations the Prophet says: “When a man dies, only three deeds will survive him:

11 Peters, “Waqf,” 59. A generator asset can be anything that produces income for the circulation of

waqf expenditures and revenues of designated beneficiaries. It can be rental income, income of a

particular shop-such as bakery, bathhouse etc.- or surplus of an arable field.

12 This tradition is a core for the Muslim religious law in that for most of the legal schools hadiths are

the second important step of Islamic jurisprudence (fıkıh). The first step is Quran itself as the divine

revelation.

11

continuing alms, valuable knowledge and a child praying for him.”13 In another

account, it is said that once the Prophet wished to purchase gardens to build a

mosque but the owners refused the money and gave the land for God`s sake.14 Here,

the key point for Islamic law is that the Prophet accepts the property without any

refusal. It provides Muslim legists with the permission of deducting the result that

the waqf is an existing and proven Islamic institution. Thus, the believers are

encouraged to perform such rituals.

The waqf, as a pious act, “involves alienation of property both from the

public domain and the former owner’s control.”15Besides, by this alienation, the

private properties and assets become independent of the secular authorities. In order

words, the government has no chance to confiscate (istimlâk) and to modify the waqf

property. Of course, there are odd cases and exceptions found in the history. Rulers

and sometimes notables changed the şurût (stipulations) of a particular waqf due to

necessities or their personal needs. For example, once Sultan Baybars (d. 1277)

demolished waqf shops to build his own madrasa, in their place. Shah Abbas II

(d.1666), on the other hand, made some regulations to control the treasures of the

powerful mütevelli16 and to suppress them.17 There are many instances of the

13 Peters, “Waqf,”59. Peters quotes this hadis from Sahih of Muslim and states that it is among the

often-quoted narrations for the legitimacy of the institution.

14 Heffening, “Waqf,” 1097. Heffening refers to a tradition of Anas b. Malik which is recorded in

Sahih of Buhari.

15 Rogers, “Waqfs and Waqf-Registers: New Primary Sources For Islamic Architecture,” 184.

16 A mütevelli is the trustee of a particular waqf and he is responsible for its management. Most of the

time the endower designated himself as the first mütevelli up to his death.

17 Yediyıldız, “Vakıf,” 482.

12

Ottoman government confiscating or changing the stiulations of the foundations

created by members of the Ottoman elite.18

1.5.2 What is a vakfiye?

A waqf is founded by a declaration of the founder. This statement is often recorded

in a document even though Islamic law does not require it.19Simply, vakfiye is a deed

that is prepared with the request of the founder, includes all regulations and

conditions that the founder stated for his or her endowment. It has to be legal after

the court case mentioned above and after its procession on the kadı sicili it cannot be

jeopardized.

A usual vakfiye starts with besmele (mentioning the name of God), hamdele

(glorification of God) and salvele (blessing the Prophet), dua (prayer) and a

panegyric of the current sultan and the founder himself. This first part, mukaddime is

not part of the official section but stands as a literary aspect of the tradition (see

Appendix A, Figure 1). Therefore, in addition to Quranic verses and hadiths, it

sometimes includes poems. As for the second part, assets of the particular waqf are

mentioned one by one. Then the founder has to elucidate the administration and the

regulations of the endowment. It is the most significant part of a vakfiye, where the

rights and limits of the attendants are described. Especially, in this part, the founder

has to ‘personally mention, by name or by indication, the beneficiaries designated to

receive a prescribed part of the revenues generated from properties that he or she

made possesses and which are specifically intended to produce income for the

18 See Artan, “The politics of Ottoman Imperial Palaces: Waqfs and Architecture from the 16th to the

18th Centuries,” 365-408.

19 Peters, “Waqf,” 61.

13

foundation.’20 Most of the time, the founder of a particular entity has the reservation

of the right to change clauses of the waqf during his lifetime. This part also includes

the detailed description of the attendants and necessities in relation to their working

space. For example, if there is a mosque then there should be an imam, muezzin etc.

to be employed in the foundation. Salaries and the costs of those attendants also

mentioned within their duties.

And in the last part (hatime), a rejection of the founder is presented. Finally,

with all these necessities the vakfiye is written and legally sealed with the presence of

witnesses. That is to say, it becomes irrevocable with the signatures of hazirun, the

people who are ready.

In a vakfiye, the founder needs to foresee and stipulate changes and

replacements as far as possible. For example, he should explain what would be done

in the case of over-exploitation of a field. He should mention them in the foundation

charter “by the nominative mention of persons or institutions to replace the first set

of administrators, beneficiaries, and revenue-generating properties. This process,

theoretically, ensures the endower’s personal hand and vision in the future

configuration and management of the waqf.” 21

The founder, as it is said above, has to make arrangements for the

administration of particular waqf. For this he appoints a mütevelli, a nâzır,a câbi,

and a kâtib.22 The number and duties of these managers depends, on the size, scope

and the utilities of the waqf. ‘According to most law schools, the founder is entitled

20 Deguilhem, “The Waqf in the City,” 923.

21 Ibid., 939.

22 These are the stewards of a waqf. Nâzir is the custodian, câbi is the accountant, and kâtib is the

clerk and the secretary.

14

to administer the waqf himself during his lifetime.’23 He also has the right of

appointing an administrator. ‘By testament he may transfer this right to his

testamentary executor.’24

The mütevelli, as the chief administrator, has the capacity to act and contract

on behalf of the founder. As the most decisive persona of the foundation, his primary

duty is to be interested in the maintenance and exploitation of the waqf property.25

He has to be assisted by the other attendees of the waqf who serve as stewards. This

office is generally to remain in the founder’s family. If the founder has no family

members and offspring then, in the vakfiye, he has to state to whom he would leave

the administratorship. A mütevelli is also responsible and director of the other

attendants. The nazir and the cabi for example, have to inform him about every detail

and ongoing processes.

1.5.3 Waqf in practice

By occupying a central position in Islamic civilization, beyond their religious

aspects, waqf and its products have social, political and cultural dimensions. These

interacted with various social classes in diverse contexts. Waqfs “existed in different

cultural contexts, employed for political and social goals, as tools of financial

ambition as well as the means to legitimacy and status.”26 So to speak, with these in

mind, now it is more conducive to put emphasis on these motivations of the waqf

founders rather than describing the formation, features and legal aspects of waqf.

23 Peters, “Waqf,” 63.

24 Ibid., 63.

25 Ibid., 63.

26 Singer, Constructing Ottoman Beneficence: An Imperial Soup Kitchen in Jerusalem, 25.

15

Thus, this section does not deal with the concept of waqf as an Islamic legal

phenomenon. Rather it will use it as a tool to understand several features of a

particular context of the Ottoman Empire.

In the Ottoman society, just as in the Mamluks, the Fatimids, and the other

Islamicate polities, Islamic charitable institutions have multiple facets. Although the

basic idea behind founding a charitable endowment is piety and the hope to enter

Paradise, there are various procedures and consequences of establishing a waqf. As

Pascale Ghazaleh states, “waqf should be seen above all as a collection of specific

practices that expressed the intentions of a wide variety of users, rather than as a

rigid and unchanging institution.”27 Then waqf as an institution was sufficiently

flexible to fulfill different purposes by serving divergent founders, employees, and

beneficiaries in different contexts.

In the medieval Islamic world, rulers had a claim to maintaining justice

among their subjects and providing them with security against internal and external

threats. “In every big city, there are social formations which have sophisticated

needs.”28 Many of these services, which where performed by today’s municipalities

and governments had been the task of the charitable institutions. The waqf institution

played an influential role in ordering such relations between state and society. 29

Ottoman sultans as well as viziers used waqf as a way of providing the citizens with

the most basic and essential public services.30 So the waqf, first of all, was a serviceproviding

system. It played the role of being the primary force behind public

27 Ghazaleh, “Introduction: Pious Foundations: From Here to Eternity,” 1.

28 Leeuwen, Waqfs and Urban Structures: the Case of Ottoman Damascus, 2.

29 İbrahim, “The Sadir al-Fuqaha’ wa’l-Fuqara’ Endowment (Salah al-Dīn al-Ayyubī),” 73.

30 Peri, “Waqf and Ottoman Welfare Policy,” 167.

16

works.31 What one can count as the services of education, health, water systems etc.

were very often provided by this institution.32 This came through with the creation of

building complexes, opening imarets and endowing soup kitchens. By performing

these activities with the help of the waqf institution the Sultan, his entourage and

statesmen also created public spaces for the subjects of the community. The

establishment of commercial areas from one perspective is a reflection of this point.

By the construction (and by allowing them to be constructed by other individuals) of

new khans, shops, public baths and such facilities the state offered its subjects with

services, an infrastructure of economic activity, and with possibilities for

employment. Of course provision of services varied and qualified according to the

size of the foundation and the wealth of the donor/endower.

Scholars of the waqf institution delineate that the endowments contributed to

the pervasiveness of “tacit bargaining” between the rulers and the society, which was

often accomplished through ulama. This “tacit bargaining” does not mean a contest

between the two sides. Rather it is “a recognition of the widespread popular support

for waqf as an institution and the implicit limits that it placed on the scope of royal

authority.”33 Rulers as the major donors established numerous waqfs as a part of their

public policy. However, according to rules of the waqf institution once an

endowment is founded the property is no more a belonging of the donor. From then

on, it is placed for God’s sake and becomes inalienable. Thus, the endowed property

can be said to become a part of public sphere where community, ulama and the rulers

integrated their efforts for its utilization and management. Despite the fact that the

31 Akar, “The Role of Waqf in Shopping and Preserving Urban Areas: The Historical Commercial

Center of Adana,” 197.

32 Yıldırım, “Dervishes, Waqfs, and Conquest: Notes on Early Ottoman Expansion in Thrace,” 23.

33 Eickelman, 6.

17

state controlled royal endowments, it was also subject to scrutiny and moral

approbation.34 The ongoing process of construction of numerous endowments by the

agents of the state with their funds rather than using the state revenues, “created a

bond of shared values between rulers and society…This bond also contributed to

legitimating the ruler in the eyes of society.”35 According to Miriam Hoexter, this

“tacit bargaining” was an implicit discourse of the Ottoman society and made

prominent by the proliferation of the endowments.36 In this sense by creating waqfs,

the rulers showed their concerns about the well being of their subjects.

In relation to that point, these institutions also contributed to the existence of

many buildings due to the upkeep of facilities of the foundations. Though

innumerable constructions were destroyed for divergent reasons, most of them

survived alterations, natural disasters, and various interventions. This is not only

because of the advanced structural construction techniques but also possible with the

contribution of the upkeep system provided by the endowments.37 The revenue

generated by the commercial structures within the borders of a foundation had been

spent on the maintenance and repair of mosques, madrasas and other buildings.

According to historian Richard van Leeuwen, in order to identify city with its

own terms, a state needs secular power, religious legitimization and economic

organization together. These three elements are necessary to shape the city due to its

own concerns. By founding waqfs, the rulers and the elites used spaces to perform

their strategies concerning religious symbols and make those areas focal points of

34 Eickelman,“ Foreword,” 7.

35 Ibid, 7.

36 See Hoexter, “Waqf Studies in the Twentieth Century,” 119-139.

37 Bakhoum, “Waqf System: Maintenance, Repair and Upkeep,” 17.

18

Islam.38 In the hands of a ruler, the waqf, as an intermediary, gained a sociopolitical

dimension. Moreover, during the Ottoman realm, the institution was also a system of

building new cities or transforming the topography of newly conquered areas. It was

in the formative period of the state when the waqf was employed as an apparatus to

settle especially in Rumelia and the Balkans. After the annexation of a land, the

Sultan distributed a part of this to Sufi leaders as private property. In exchange for

those grants, sheikhs served the government by building hospices that were

financially supported by the revenues of the endowments. Thus the waqf was the

vector of this diffusion.39 Building new imarets and complexes allowed the state to

shape the cities. In the case of Constantinople, to illustrate, Eyüp, Fatih, Süleymaniye

and other sultanic foundations were all constructed to provide a new image and to

expand the urban infrastructure of the city. Consequently, such imarets became the

part of the urban landscape.40

For the purpose of understanding political motivations of the waqf institution,

the re-establishment of Sunni orthodoxy in Egypt could be a good example.

Following the collapse of the Fatimid Shi’ite state in 1171, the Zengid, Ayyubid, and

then Mamluk emirs worked for the proliferation of mosques and madrasas serving

Sunni scholars. By this, they were able to control “the appointments affiliated to

these institutions and establish an economic hold on the local religious elites whose

support, in turn, was integral of their legitimacy.”41 As for Seljuqid Anatolia of the

twelfth and thirteenth century there was a symbiotic relationship between the state

38 Leeuwen, Waqfs and Urban Structures, 2.

39 Yıldırım, “Dervishes, Waqfs, and Conquest,” 24.

40 Peri “Waqf and Ottoman Welfare Policy,” 167. The issue of urban space in the Ottoman

Constantinople will be reconsidered while discussing Küçük Ayasofya and its hinterland.

41 Singer, Constructing Ottoman Beneficience, 27.

19

and local religious elites, which shows parallel features as the Egyptian case. The

difference is that this time the rulers encouraged elites to trigger the territorial

expansion. The utilization of waqf with political motivations is not limited to

supporting scholars and religious elites. A government also has self-interest in

keeping its economy alive. In her study on the imperial soup kitchen of Hürrem

Sultan in Jerusalem, Amy Singer indicates that:

The sultans set up endowments not only for the scholars but to benefit

merchants (and, by extension, the treasury) in the form of numerous large

caravanserais which punctuated the major trading routes across Anatolia,

providing lodging, food, and security for those on the roads.42

For the government, building caravanserais on the main trade roads turns

itself into a benefit of having a vivid commercial activity and growing economy.

This time, the rulers use charitable endowments as a mean of to support themselves

by producing spheres for commerce. So, this and the two cases mentioned above are

the instances where the waqf institution becomes a part of political agenda.

The waqf institution also had the capability of being a vehicle for finance in

Islamic societies. Beyond having a crucial role in the establishment of the

commercial areas, shops and khans, a considerable portion of the subjects of the

Ottoman Empire were employed by the opportunities of the endowments. Besides, it

was possible to establish special kind of foundation, guild waqfs, to support

divergent social groups of artisans, esnafs and other workshops. Although there are

some differences between guild waqfs and mainstream waqf, the former was

specially constructed to serve the needs of a particular guild and its members.

In the Ottoman society, waqf is both an omnipresent and a flexible system. It

is flexible because it may change according to situation and it is omnipresent because

42 Ibid., 27.

20

all levels and groups of the society have recourse to it. These features make it a

significant part of daily life. ‘Almost everyone living in the empire was affected at

some point, during his or her life, by waqf networks which crisscrossed local,

regional and international as well as confessional boundaries.’ 43 People from all

social and religious spheres employed with job opportunities that were provided by

the regulations of the particular waqf. In 1833, for example, Rikne binti Nikola of

Edremit, made a special waqf to provide Yenikapı Mevlevihanesi with olive oil.

With this foundation, Rikne both did a charitable act to serve dervishes and created

an area for people in Edremit to work for her olive gardens and bakeries.44 For the

upper levels of the society, in the Palace, for example, the waqf is also a way of

imperial commitment to stimulate the commercial exchange.45 In order to generate

income waqfs require shops, villages, farms, houses for rent and several sort of

commercial structures. For Dale, besides creating space for employment it provides

the city with financial health and recovery:

The shops or dukkans were often built simultaneously with the construction

of a mosque or tomb and then rented to merchants, whose rent was assigned

in whole or in part to the upkeep of the waqf property and salary of its

employees.46

In this sense, in practice waqf becomes a socio-economic phenomenon rather

than being a religious one.

There are divergent motivations that lead people to establish pious

endowments. These motivations indeed were very correlated with the different

43 Deguilhem, “Waqf”, The Encyclopedia of Islam; New Edition 10 (2002), 90.

44 Kunter, “Türk Vakıfları ve Vakfıyeleri,” 121.

45 Dale, “Empires and Emporia: Palace, Mosque, Market, and Tomb in Istanbul, Isfahan, Agra and

Delhi,” 212.

46 Ibid., 214.

21

dimensions of the institution. The effects of waqf creation were also varied and

brought out different consequences in macro (urban topography, circulation of

wealth) and micro (ex. redistribution of wealth within family groups) levels.47 As

Ghazaleh says “the motives for creating waqf ranged across a broad spectrum

wherein pragmatic and worldly concerns were closely intertwined with desire with

salvation.”48Although it is primarily an act of piety with charitable and religious aims

–where the endower allotted certain sums for the poor etc-, in practice this pious act

evolves into a worldly matter. Of course, the reasons to perform such an act differs

according to social and political status of the endower. When it comes to ordinary

people, the waqf first of all, protected their property against the confiscation of the

rulers. It might be a defensive response to a state, which has the power of

manipulating the law without any hesitation.49 Secondly by making waqfs people

could save and direct their property and its revenues towards their heirs or other

chosen class of beneficiaries. “Waqfs allowed their founders to preserve their capital

while attributing regular stipend to individuals they chose freely.”50In this sense,

waqf served as a legal means to keep family intact through several generations.51 It is

also a way of securing property from future transactions.52

In her article in Encyclopedia of Religion Hoexter summarizes these clauses:

Charity, piety, and the hope for recompense in the world beyond were the

ideological motivations for founding endowments. Several, more practical

47 Ghazaleh, “Introduction,” 10.

48 Ibid., 7.

49 Ibid., 6.

50 Ibid., 11.

51 McChesney, Waqf in Central Asia; Four Hundred Years in the History of a Muslim Shrine, 1480-

1889, 3.

52 Ghazaleh, “Introduction,” 6.

22

reasons are mentioned in the literature to explain the proliferation of

endowments in the Muslim world. Political reasons, such as enhancing their

prestige and securing local support, followers, or clients, were found to have

been at the root of endowments by rulers, governors, high officials, and local

notables. Circumvention of the inheritance laws was a major motive for

establishing waqfs, particularly, though not exclusively, among the common

people.53

1.5.4 Waqf in the Ottoman context

According to Çiğdem Kafescioğlu: “Pious endowments provided an institutional

framework for interactions that connected a range of social groups vertically and

horizontally, creating spaces for charity, patronage, and accommodation. ”54 From

the early years of the Ottoman State, the waqf institution had the role of creating

religious, political, social networks via the foundation of permanent social and

economic linkage between the endowment and its beneficiaries. These features make

the waqf a tool for the state but for the researchers it becomes a system where

various features of the Ottoman civilization could be analyzed.

It is possible to say in the current literature the Ottoman usage of waqf is

understood through two different phases. First was before the conquest of

Constantinople, when the sultans had distributed their new lands to be endowed to

Sufi leaders who had taken part in the military activity. In long-term process this

resulted in a permanent settlement and those leaders served the Ottoman state by

establishing hospices in their properties.

For the second stage, as the state had been growing and turning into a more

sophisticated structure the waqf started to fulfill public duties as civil agents together

with serving the country for military purposes and territorial expansion. In my

humble opinion, the conquest of Constantinople in 1453 also led the institution to

53 Hoexter, “Waqf,” 9676.

54 Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis/Istanbul, 193.

23

transform itself into a much complicated and multi-faceted phenomena. In the time

of Bayezid II, the Sultan continued to support endowments to appropriate the city

into Ottoman dynamics. Numerous sheikhs and Sufi groups were brought to the

capital to settle down in hospices to create new environments. Gradually, these

endowments became entrenched in the social networks of each part of the city and

became much more prominent for conducting public services and social welfare. To

illustrate, the citizens that were brought to the capital immediately became a part of

the economy by attaining job opportunities offered by new endowments.

It is known that immediately after the conquest of Constantinople, the

Ottomans dealt with the adaptation of Byzantine structures. It also means that it

became a city of pious endowments, waqfs. Mehmed II (r. 1451-1481) converted the

most remarkable church, Hagia Sophia, into a mosque. Major structures such as

Zeyrek and Kalenderhane mosques were all converted from prominent Byzantine

monasteries during the reign of Mehmed II. However, after his death, Constantinople

still had a significant amount of glorious Byzantine monuments under the possibility

of being converted into a mosque. This process, which is the subject of the next

chapter, of conversion of churches into the framework of a new religion and a

different cultural identity, moved towards a different pathway in the reign of Bayezid

II.

24

CHAPTER 2

AGHAS OF BAYEZID II’S COURT: WEALTH AND PATRONAGE

2.1 The time of Bayezid II

It would not be accurate to make clear-cut distinctions between earlier years of

Constantinople under the Ottoman realm and the reign of Bayezid II. However, it

should not be neglected that there are some standing differences between the reign of

Mehmed II and that of Bayezid II, his son. The two sultans are different in terms of

personality and their styles of administration, as suggested by a number of particular

points. The reflections of these peculiarities could also be seen in changing

mechanisms of institutional patronage under their respective realms.

First of all, Bayezid II was different from his father in terms of his character.

Contrary to his father’s cosmopolitan proclivity and hostile behavior towards Sufi

groups, Bayezid had a pious disposition and moral self-image. As a sign of his

resentment, he blamed Mehmed II for being an unbeliever. While assuming the title

veli, Bayezid also had a close connection with the Halveti order, and found a place in

the genealogy of the order. The group was led by Çelebi Halife –or Cemal Halveti-

(d. 1494), who was also the spiritual advisor of the Sultan. The sheikh with his

followers was very efficient and helpful in Bayezid’s accession to the throne, which

makes the order’s prestigious position under his reign unsurprising. In turn, his rule

“saw the beginning of a close rapport between the state and the Sufi order, which

made it the dervish order most actively supported by the Ottoman ruling body,

particularly through the sixteenth century.”55A reflection of this can be seen in the

55 Ibid., 221.

25

zâvîyes that were established in Constantinople during Bayezid decades; almost all of

them were patronized to and were headed by various Halveti sheikhs.

The religious disposition of Bayezid II does not imply that he was disregardful

of imperial ideology; rather he reoriented it according to his inclinations. It has been

suggested that Mehmed II was maintaining a collective enterprise with the ruling

elite to monumentalize Constantinople and to create imperial capital.56 This

collaboration also took place during Bayezid II’s reign, but with some alterations.

The realm of Bayezid opened up a space for individuals of higher means57 to convert

former Byzantine structures into new religious spaces for the city’s Muslim

population. This was also possible in the time of the previous Sultan with two

differences. First, the patron of such conversions was the Sultan himself in all cases.

Second, in the time of Mehmed II palace officials and ruling elites often used

churches and such buildings for residential purposes. In each instance, the Sultan

granted these places to individuals.

Under Bayezid’s reign, the domain of patronage expanded from the members

of the divan to palace officials. It was the time for imperial ağas to erect new imarets

and make pious endowments on the sites of former Byzantine structures. They

converted churches into mosques with the goal of changing the city’s Christian

identity and making them part of Ottoman social and institutional setting. In the

meantime the Sultan started to grant lands to viziers and ağas to promote their

56 Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis/Istanbul, 212.

57 I use the phrase “individuals of higher means” to indicate statesmen and the people of the palace

who were below the rank of a vizier and had to stand outside of divan but who were recognized in the

Sultan’s entourage. For example an individual of higher mean could be an ağa as in the case of the

Firuz Ağa the Keeper of the Treasure or Hüseyin Ağa the Gate Keeper Imperial Eunuch It could also

be a bey like İmrahor İlyas Bey, the Commander of Imperial Stables. It is to keep in mind that this

statement has no aim to neglect the patronage of viziers, it is just to explain the difference of

Bayezid’s reign where the people mentioned above were also supported by the Sultan to make pious

endowments and could easily find places for themselves to make constructions.

26

foundations within the urban boundaries of Constantinople and these statesmen had

brought their sheikhs and communities to their hospices.

Imperial eunuchs had the chance to make significant investments to build

moderate level edifices throughout the city. The Sultan supported these ağas,

especially by giving lands from the Balkans and Anatolia. Most of the lands and

revenue generators that were outside of Constantinople had been standing to support

their main foundations in the capital. For example, it could be comprehended from

the endowments deeds of Hüseyin Ağa that his foundations and pious acts were

strongly supported by the palace. That is to say, the Sultan did not only support him

materially, but he also granted the ağa an opportunity to play a role in the

transformation of the city.

Starting with Bayezid’s reign urban properties were frequently bought and

sold among individuals. He also restituted the rights of individuals whose lands were

confiscated by his father. This would have also encouraged the individuals of palace

to perform patronage and to acquire a land to build an edifice or to convert a present

Byzantine structure in their lands.

As for the adaptation of the Byzantine churches within the city, Bayezid’s

reign was more fruitful than his father’s.

The number of churches converted into mosques or charitable institutions

during the reign of Mehmed II was extremely limited, and the founder, in all

cases, was the sultan himself. The wave of conversions, contrary to assertions

made in narrative sources, would come during the reign of Bayezid II. Many

churches, on the other hand, were used for nonreligious purposes. Mehmed,

according to Kritovoulos, gave his grandees beautiful churches as their

residences. 58

58 Ibid., 190.

27

In the time of Mehmed II, these structures were often used for residential

purposes, as storage places or for other utilitarian processes.59 There is no extant

documentation regarding any of standing Byzantine churches being turned into a

dervish lodge by a statesman. In order words, the way the Ottomans used religious

structures of the former Empire evolved during the late fifteenth and early sixteenth

century. Bayezid II’s policies also affected the image of the city. There was a

growing visibility of Sufi convents in the capital. “The most significant difference

between the cityscape at the end of Mehmed’s rule and that illustrated in the 1530s is

that the latter image projects city’s Islamic identity as a central aspect of its Ottoman

character.”60

As stated above, different from the Mehmed’s reign, Bayezid II’s time

represents a period where the architectural patrons could also be found beyond the

members of the imperial council (divan). Besides, those figures did not use former

Byzantine churches for residential purposes by their will; rather the patrons

converted them into mosque-lodges. So, it would not be a mistake to say that a

prominent feature of the patronage of the time is the churches converted into zâvîyes

by the grandees of the Sultan. The dynamics that shaped the physical environment in

the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century Constantinople particularly regarding

Byzantine churches were led by the figures of higher means of the palace.

As for the members of the divan, Mesih Ali Paşa (t.1499-1501) converted the

Myrelaion monastery-church (Bodrum Camii) during his grand vizierate. Atik Ali

Paşa, the next grand vizier of the Sultan, carried out the conversion of the church of

Chora in 1511. Later Koca Mustafa Paşa ( t.1511- 1512), on the other hand, radically

59 For further information, see Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis/Istanbul, 204-205.

60 Ibid., 212.

28

altered the church of St Andrew in Krisei. He converted this famous Byzantine

monastery into the primary lodge of the Halveti order in the capital.

Palace officials of the time were also active in these conversions. The mirahur,

the head of the imperial stables, İlyas Bey remodeled the Studios Monastery as a

mosque. The famous church of Theotokos Khalkoprateia was converted into a masjid

by the arpa emini (a palace official who is responsible for the barley storage)

Hayreddin Ağa in 1484. Two years later the kazasker Fenarizade Alaaddin Ali

appropriated a sepulcher of the Palaiologos Dynasty, the monastery of Constantine of

the Lips. In 1497, like his contemporaries Hüseyin Ağa converted the church of Sts.

Sergius and Bacchus. Built by Justinian (r. 527-565) in the sixth century, it stands as

one of the primary examples of early Byzantine architecture. According to his

endowment deeds, Hüseyin Ağa had many lands and estates in Constantinople,

Amasya, Trabzon, Tokat and the Balkans. This wealth and its relations to Küçük

Ayasofya are complex and need to be understood in its context.

Interestingly, Hüseyin Ağa, Koca Mustafa Paşa, İmrahor İlyas Bey and the

others made interventions and additions to prominent Byzantine structures. It would

be valuable to know whether they chose these places with specific intentions, of if

any careful consideration lay down under these choices. But still, the preferences

suggest that during Bayezid’s reign the patrons tried to select places, which had an

entrenched significance from the former Empire. When thinking about Mehmed’s

creation of a self-image to claim himself as the successor of the Byzantine Empire, it

might be interesting to bond a conversion of a former famous religio-educational

center, as in the case of Koca Mustafa Paşa, to show the continuity of the power and

the glory of old times. Unfortunately, the sources are mostly tacit in telling how the

patrons made decisions on those spaces. Since the conversions were made with the

29

permission of the Sultan, it cannot be neglected that political motives would have

encouraged the patronage.

At this point, certain questions come to mind: Why did Bayezid II not

undertake these major conversions as in the case of his father? How did members of

the lower ranks of the palace hierarchy start to be involved noticeably in

Ottomanizing the new capital?61 What did the imperial eunuchs and the others

achieve by taking a role in shaping the material environment? Although the Christian

complexes mentioned earlier do not carry the same significance as Mehmed’s

conversion of Hagia Sophia and of Pantocrator, they would have also brought

changes of inevitable importance to the lives of Byzantines citizens. Plus, they were

significant places of religion and religious education that were patronized by the

emperors and by the notables. According to historian Edward Mitchell this process

also led to the self-realization of the ruling class. “By participating in the rebuilding

of Istanbul, members of the ruling class were indeed striving to enhance their

individual standing. But they were also collectively constructing the state, the

formalized hierarchy upon which they depended.”62

The rise of imperial ağas, their increased involvement in founding waqfs and

their presence in the evolution of Constantinople’s urban space especially by

converting churches and maintaining the services of their endowments would

probably raise questions about their identity, about the dynamics of the patronage,

and about the court’s goals in changing the topography of newly conquered city. It is

61 By asking these questions I do not intend to ignore the patronage of viziers in the Mehmed’s and

Bayezid’s court. I find quite interesting to see the differences of the dynamics between two reigns. I

compare the two by asking, “who converted which place”. It is true that viziers and some palace

officials made constructions during Mehmed’s reign but it is also true that none of them converted a

Byzantine monastery into a Halveti lodge.

62 Mitchell “Institution and Destitution: Patronage Tales of Old Stamboul,” 251.

30

known that when one of the sultans or leaders established an endowment, he, as a

Muslim ruler, may have done it to legitimize himself, to prove his power to his

subjects and to gain their approval. On the other hand what were the intentions that

lay behind when a chief imperial eunuch made a waqf? Is it solely for salvation, to

save his soul in the afterworld?

As for the palace, in Dale’s terms ‘the waqf served to codify the symbiotic

relationship between palace, mosque and bazaar.’63It explains the phenomenon

concerning the benefit of the public leaders. What happens when members of the

palace hierarchy undertake the foundation of pious endowments, rather than the ruler

himself? How can we trace this symbiosis at other social levels? Many bureaucrats,

statesmen and notables also used their power to transform the cities. By founding

waqfs, patronizing endowments they also left permanent marks in the topography of

the city. So, what does an imperial chief eunuch’s foundations mean for the empire

and its society? It is interesting to see that he made his biggest effort to convert a

church in the area of a former Byzantine palace. His and other conversion activities

of the time give the sense that there should be other dynamics and intention behind

this supported patronage.

To turn back to the differences in Bayezid’s policies regarding architecture, it

would not be a mistake to say that he widened the spectrum of the patronage.

Although his grandees made significant architectural activities in the capital, his own

emphasis was on Edirne and Amasya initially. In 1484, he ordered a number of

constructions; the most prominent of them were a mosque and şifahane complex.

Alongside Edirne, he constructed a mosque and madrasa in Amasya. The mosque of

Bayezid II, as the last construction of the Sultan, “must be accounted the greatest

63Dale, “Empires and Emporia,” 213.

31

monument of his reign. It was once the conclusion of the explanatory work executed

in the provinces at Edirne, Amasya and Tokat, and the final step forward without

which the classical climax could not be reached.”64

In order to see the tendencies of the Sultan, it would be more comprehensive

to look at the location of Bayezid’s complex in Istanbul rather than the layout of its

structures. Kafescioğlu states that the Sultan had an eye on Mese. He started to

change the configuration of the main artery by constructing edifices and by

supporting the patronage that would in the following decades create the Divan Yolu.

He erected a complex for himself at the edge of the Mese and appropriated a

Byzantine forum. During this process, he demolished old Byzantine monuments,

such as the Column of Theodosius. It was pulled down to open a space for Bayezid’s

bath. Moreover, members of his entourage also used the borders of this artery. Firuz

Ağa, for example, built his palace alongside Divan Yolu. The mekteb and the mosque

of this eunuch also underline the centrality of the road. It seems that Bayezid

reoriented the focal points of the patronage. 65

Precisely, the patronage in the time of Bayezid presents some shifts from the

earlier dynamics. The ranks of such activities opened, new concerns and new modes

of appropriation emerged. The interest of this chapter is, however, on the patronage

of an imperial eunuch, Hüseyin Ağa, his conversion and the endowment deeds.

Analyzing Hüseyin Aga’s deeds in relation with other contemporary, analogous

foundations is a good way to comprehend variables. The amount and sources of the

ağa’s wealth, and the support given to him by the palace is visible in his vakfiyes. On

the other hand, by providing clues about the status of the endower, these deeds

64 Goodwin, A History of Ottoman Architecture, 168.

65 Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis/Istanbul, 214-218.

32

somehow illuminate the bureaucratic relations of the palace. By focusing on Küçük

Ayasofya and these vakfiyes, this analysis mainly aims to understand the dynamics of

the patronage in the sultanate of Bayezid II. As a secondary question, it also

addresses how the hinterland is transformed within context.

To establish an analogy and to comprehend the dynamics of the time in an

in-depth manner, I choose to investigate the patronage of another imperial eunuch,

Firuz Ağa. He and Hüseyin Ağa would probably have shared similar opportunities in

the palace. Since they had the means to make large constructions, their participation

in palatial dynamics would also have a reflection in architecture. While having high

ranks among the eunuchs of the Sultan, they also took significant roles in the shaping

of the capital city. Hüseyin Ağa’s conversion of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus, Firuz

Ağa’s underlining Mese as a central area, would be the results of this role.

2.2 Hüseyin Ağa

The gatekeeper eunuchs of the shah of the world

Those are the blessing suns of the time66

Hüseyin Ağa bin ‘Abdulmu’în67 was known as kapu ağası in his endowment deeds

and foundations inscriptions.68. Although there is a paucity of information

concerning this ağa’s life, he would be perhaps one of the closest men of Bayezid II

66“ Kapu ağaları şah-ı cihanun/ Bulardır lutf-ı mihrile zamanun” See Kemalpaşazade, Selatinname,

200.

67 “...Bayezid Han zamanında Kapu Ağasu diye şöhret bulan ve hayrat yaptırmış olan Abdulmuin

oğlu Hüseyin Ağa...” See,Eyice, “Kapu Ağası Hüseyin Ağa’nın Vakıfları,” 155, 162, 168. The

foundations inscriptions of his bedesten and madrasa in Amasya and the mosque in Sonisa all have

similar texts. Since his father’s name was recorded as Abdulmuin, Hüseyin Ağa most probably came

from a Christian or devşirme background.

68 “Hatırlayan ve unutanın katında, Kapu Ağası diye meşhur, ulu, şanlı, yardımlarını esirgemiyen

Hüseyin Bey’in bu yüce binayı yaptırması, bu azametli ve aşılmaz eserin temellerini sağlamlaştırması

ruhlara ferahlık, vücutlara sağlık verdi, bu 909 yılında oldu.” See Eyice, “Kapu Ağası Hüseyin

Ağa’nın Vakıfları,” 191.

33

because of his position in the palace. During the late 15th and 16th centuries a kapu

ağası, so called babüssaade ağası of the Ottoman palace had the highest status

among the eunuchs. In order to be entitled as the kapu ağası a eunuch had to be well

trained and loyal.

Kapu ağası had to be a white eunuch who had the primary role of controlling

all the gates of the palace and the chief duties of being the prominent custodian and

the official of the New Palace. As it can be understood from the title, he also had to

protect and command the Babüssaade (The Gate of Felicity). In the palace’s

organization his status came before the hazinedarbaşı (the keeper of the imperial

treasury), the kilercibaşı (the keeper of the imperial storage), the saray ağası (the

palace eunuch). Until the end of the sixteenth century a kapu ağası had been the

responsible for the management of the entire palace including the Harem. That is to

say, in these decades the position of kapu ağası had also included darussaade

ağalığı, so called kızlar ağalığı. This is one of arz ağaları (who could make a

request of the Sultan); but according to Mehmed II’s kanunname69, the kapu ağası

had to fulfill this duty.70

Due to the palace rules all attendants and eunuchs had to sleep together in

dormitories. However, the kapu ağası was an exception. He had a private chamber

with several servants. His position in enderun had been as significant as the grand

vizier’s outside of the palace. Up to the second half of the sixteenth century while the

grand vizier had been representing the emperor outside the palace, he was the vekil-i

69 “Ve iç halkından kapıağası ve odabaşı ve hazinedarbaşı ve kilercibaşı ve saray-ı amiremin ağası

sahib-i arzdır. Ama kapı ağası olan ihtiyar baştır, ekseriya odabaşı ve kapıağası arz etmek gerektir ve

name ile arz etmek götürü…” See “Fatih Sultan Mehmet Han-ı Sani Kanunnamesi,” 1/6089.

70 Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Devletinin Saray Teşkilatı, 354.

34

mutlak (the deputy) of the Sultan inside the walls. Besides, his rank was above all

other viziers’ and he was the second man in the palace after the grand vizier.71

A historian of the fifteenth century, Kemalpaşazade (d.1534?) praises kapu

ağaları in his Selatinname. In this book, after praising the prophet and his friends, he

starts his narrative from the life of Ertugrul Gazi (d.1281) and closes in 1490 in the

time of Bayezid II. His work includes a special part for the eulogies of the Sultan and

several attendants of the Ottoman Empire. After glorifying the ruler, Kemal praises

the highest officials of Rumeli and of Anadolu, pashas, kazaskers (military judges).

One of the groups of attendants is the eunuchs of the palace. Interestingly in the

sequence of the work the medh-i agalar (eulogy for the eunuchs) comes just after the

eulogy of the Sultan. All the other officials are stated after the eunuchs. In this part

Kemalpaşazade describes the kapu ağaları as the forepersons (server) and the gems

(cevher) of the Sultan.72

Despite the fact that the knowledge about Hüseyin Ağa’s life is highly

limited, it is plausible to deduct from the significance and high rank of a kapu ağası

in the palace, he would be a very vital figure in Bayezid II’s entourage. Moreover in

Künhü’l-Ahbar, the famous work of Mustafa Ali, his name is mentioned as a

mahrem (very close friend of someone) of the Sultan. To order a poetical work from

Zâtî, a famous poet of the time, the Sultan consulted his request to Hüseyin Ağa.

Since there was no known Hüseyin among the palace officials of the time other than

him, it is possible to suggest that this eunuch is same person with the one who

converted St. Sergius and Bacchus into a mosque.73

71 Ibid., 355.

72 Kemalpaşazade, Selatinname, 201.

73“Ve bir zaman ki Sultan Bayezid Han’a faiyye bir kaside virmiş. Bir beyti makbul-ı şehriyari olup

haylice pesend buyurulmuş…Ustadlık kar-ı deryadaki dürer-i şehvarı bulmakdur diyu nice atalar

35

The most comprehensive account about the biography of Hüseyin Ağa is

Ayvansarayi’s Hadikatu’l-Cevami. He mentions the kapu ağası as the patron of

Küçük Ayasofya who was killed in the time of Bayezid II74:

He was the gatekeeper eunuch Hüseyin Ağa who was killed in the time of

Sultan Bayezid and buried there [the site of his mosque]. He has a private

mausoleum. A couplet is written on the wall [of his mausoleum]: The life in

the world is just an hour/ spend that hour for praying and devotion.75

It is known that in his Sicill-i Osmani (written between 1893-97), Mehmed

Süreyya Bey also uses the Ayvansarayi’s account as a source of information on

Huseyin Ağa:

He was the gatekeeper eunuch, who died in the time of Bayezid II. He

converted Küçük Ayasofya from a church into a blessed mosque. He erected a

school. He was buried in his tomb there.76

Beyond these, after a detailed research I still have no valid information about

Hüseyin Ağa’s biography. Unfortunately, Taşköprüzâde’s Eş-Şakâ’ik en-Nu’mâniye

and the other sources that I searched carefully do not mention him.

Several scholars such as Semavi Eyice believe that Hüseyin Ağa was together

with Şehzade Bayezid in Amasya. This seems entirely possible since he had risen to

itmişler.Elbette Zati’ye mansıb görülsün diyu Hüseyin Ağa nam mahremlerine ısmarlamışlar. Vezirler

dahi tefakkud-ı menasib itmişler.” See Mustafa Ali, Künhü’l-Ahbâr’ın Tezkire Kısmı, 216.

74 Hüseyin Ağa is also called Kesikbaş Hüseyin, Hüseyin the Cut Head because of an informal story

about his death. According to narrative the Sultan murdered him by cutting his throat since he had

thought that Hüseyin was a tax smuggler.

75“…Babüssaade Ağası Hüseyin Ağa’dır ki Sultan Bayezid eyyamında maktulen vefat edub anda defn

olunmuşdur. Mustakil turbesi vardır. Duvarında bu beyit yazılmıştır: Saat-i vahidedir ömr-i cihan,

saati taate sarf eyle heman.” See Ayvansarayi, Hadikatü’l-Cevâmi’, 188.

76 “(Hüseyin Ağa)Babüssaade Ağasıolub asr-ı Sultan Bayezid Han-ı Sanide vefat eyledi. Küçük

Ayasofya Camiini kiliseden cami-i şerife tahvil eyledi. Burada mektep yaptı. Orada türbesinde

medfundur..” See Mehmed Süreyya Bey, Sicill-i Osmani: yahud tezkire-i meşahir-i Osmaniye, 182.

36

the position of kapu ağalığı, and since he had patronage activities in Amasya and

Sonisa. 77

Keeping the life of Hüseyin Ağa in mind, aspects of the waqf institution and

policies of the Ottoman state after the conquest in mind, let us move on to an

analysis of the waqf deeds mentioned earlier. The process of establishing a

foundation is more clearly explained in the narrative of these deeds. While

investigating four waqf deeds of Hüseyin Aga that are available in the archives of

Topkapı Palace, I will attempt to identify the revenue of Küçük Ayasofya waqfs in

the Balkans, Anatolia and in Eyâlet-i Rum. In addition I will try to map out the

property, holdings and functions of each endowment and understand the dynamics of

his patronage as a reflection of its context.

2.3 Firuz Ağa

Before passing to the endowment deeds it would be beneficial to introduce Firuz

Ağa, since he was the hazinedarbaşı, and one of the contemporaries of Hüseyin as

imperial eunuch. His high status in the palace was just one step below than the kapu

ağa. It is possible that these two shared the same working space in the palace.

Probably, they were also together in Bayezid’s princely court because just like

Hüseyin, Firuz also undertook patronage and made investments in Amasya. He

erected a mosque, bedesten and madrasa. The mosque, located in Saray district is

also called Kızlarağası Mescidi.78 The title should not be confusing since the ağa

was recognized as the next kapu ağası in 1507.79 He also had various foundations in

77 Eyice, “Kapu Ağası Hüseyin Ağa’nın Vakıfları,” 149- 246.

78 Yüksel, Osmanlı Mimarisinde II. Bayezid, Yavuz Selim Devri, 30, 37, 52.

79 Topkapı Sarayı Arşiv Kataloğu, Fermanlar, 4.

37

and outside of Constantinople. In 1490, he built a mosque, a mekteb in the capital.80

Besides he erected a masjid and a madrasa in Havza (Samsun), a hammam in

Smederevo (Serbia) and another hammam dated to 1485 in Tokat.

Firuz Ağa’s utilization of the main artery might be in reciprocity with the

Sultan’s intention. He did not appropriate a church. Rather he used old imperial

procession road, Mese to underline the constructions and to make them visible.

Moreover, He had a palace behind his mosque, which was lying upon Binbirdirek

Cistern.

The reason why one cannot find any information about persons like Hüseyin

Ağa and Firuz Ağa can be explained by their presence in the harem. With their

higher status in the Palace they were accounted as the inhabitants of imperial

household and had strong ties with the inside harem. Thus, different from a vizier

they were in the private space of the Sultan.

2.4 The properties of the kapu ağa

There are four endowment deeds of Hüseyin Ağa available in the archives of

Topkapı Palace. The longest, dated to 1507/8, as well as the most comprehensive one

is regarding Küçük Ayasofya and the akâr (revenue generating)assets that finance

the entire foundation. According to this deed, Hüseyin Ağa converted the former

church into a mosque along with erecting a zâvîye in the courtyard of the mosque.81

After completing this process, he donated and consecrated his wealth for the

upkeep, goodness, requirements and the expenditure of these edifices.82 The first

80 Ibid., 249-252.

81 TS.MA.d6977, folio.11a.

”.ثم وقف وحبس الأمیر الباني المذكور مصالح الجامع المعمور المسطور ومھمات الزاویة المسفورة وحوائجھما ولوازمھما“ 82

See TS.MA.d6977, folio.11a.

38

revenue generator of Hüseyin Ağa’s waqf is his hammam, which was built by the

endower close to his complex.83 The hammam is the not the only property in the

mosque’s neighborhood. In total, he has eighteen assets mentioned in

Constantinople. Fourteen of them are in the walled city, very close to Hagia Sophia,

Topkapı Palace and the other structures that had been carrying imperial importance.

The rest are in the borders of Galata (see Appendix B).

It seems that these fourteen assets constitute the most important part of

Hüseyin Ağa’s properties. His lands cover the area between the sea and the mosque.

Plus, there are significant pieces of lands from the southeast of the mosque up to the

main gate of the Palace. That is to say, the areas coincide with today’s Cankurtaran,

Küçük Ayasofya and Kadırga quarters. Hüseyin Ağa also had transactions in

Eminönü. He bought several rooms, water well and three ovens from a Jewish

woman called Efemya bint Elyaho. He also purchased the house next to Efemya’s

property. These assets are mentioned in Ibn Çelebi quarter in the deed.84 The mahalle

is also referred as the quarter of Hoca Alauddin Mescidi in the records. According to

Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi, it occupies the area from Fincancılar Yokuşu to the Spice

Bazaar.85Today the quarter is inside the Tahtakale district. Although purchasing

houses from Ibn Çelebi quarter stands valuable, a significant part of Hüseyin Ağa’s

transactions within the walled city concentrate on the area of imperial importance

that mentioned above.86

83 The bathhouse of Hüseyin Ağa will be discussed in the next chapter in detail.

84 TS.MA.d6977, folio.15a. To see the complete list of Hüseyin Ağa’s assets please refer to Appendix

B.

85 Ayverdi, Fatih Devri Sonraların İstanbul Mahalleleri, Şehrin İskanı ve Nüfusu, 24.

86 For more information and the visual representation of Hüseyin Ağa’s properties please refer to

Figure 2, the map of Hüseyin Ağa’s assets in Constantinople.

39

2.4.1 The garden of Çatladı Kasım bin Mehmed

There are two remarkable purchases of the ağa in these districts. First one is the

garden of Çatladı Kasım who was famous with his land ownership in the time of

Mehmed II. He asked the Sultan several times to buy some areas below the

Hippodrome and close to today’s Çatladıkapı. Various fermans are still surviving

regarding his assets. In sum, the Sultan gave him a church attached to his garden, a

house next to the Hippodrome, a ruined church (harab bir kiliseciği) attached to his

garden, a land close to Aya Sirini87 and another property probably situated around

the same district. 88

Mitchell and Kafescioğlu suggest that this Çatladı Kasım bin Mehmed also

built a bath, and unfortunately the Sultan denied him did not give permission to

operate it. The mentioned bath was also close to the Hippodrome.89 Although the

tales about this man is complicated, at least the fermans and the stories suggest that

he was a wealthy person who was able to dominate the area close to the imperial

residence of the Sultan.

When it was the time of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus’ conversion, the garden of

Çatladı mentioned as a ruined and empty place in the endowment deed of Hüseyin

Ağa: “And one of them is the big, ruined land known as Çatladı Garden. It is close to

87 Uğur Tanyeli suggests that indeed this Aya Sirini is the church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus. In the

middle of the fifteenth century the church had been called with this name since the saints Sergius and

Bacchus were from Syrian origins. For more information, see Tanyeli, “Küçük Ayasofya ve

Çevresinin Tarihsel Topoğrafyasına Katkılar,” , 90-94 and Tanyeli, Sınıraşımı Metinleri, 302.

88 Topkapı Sarayı Arşiv Kataloğu, Fermanlar, 2-3. This catalogue includes the summaries of fermans

found in the Topkapı Palace Archives. The purchases of Çatladı Kasım dated back to 1464-1467.

Today Çatladıkapı became a district in Küçük Ayasofya quarter and it is believed that the district

named after Çatladı Kasım.

89 Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis/Istanbul, 264. Mitchell “Institution and Destitution,” 264. Indeed,

Çatladı had a complicated story. In his thesis Mitchell investigates documents regarding Çatladı and

his assets and tries to overcome confusions. For more information, please refer to Mitchell “Institution

and Destitution,” 264, footnote no.35.

40

the Hippodrome ( میدان الفرس ). The donor bought this property from Mehmed b.

Çatladı.”90

After Hüseyin Ağa’s purchase, Ali Paşa91granted him with another land

attached to this garden. The deed continues that he then built the hammam at one of

the sides of this property. The garden had Christian neighbors, and he also bought

their houses to settle in the Muslims and repelled the former population before he

founded the endowment.92 It is interesting to see that the ağa also converted the

population together with the church. In a sense, Hüseyin Ağa might have a

motivation to modify the religious image of the mosque neighborhood because after

this exclusion the next asset was also attached to the garden and it was the house of a

Christian named Himar. To the north, there was the house of the Fisher Yorgi, who

also sold his property to the ağa.93

Mehmed also sold another piece of land to Hüseyin Ağa; it was at the

southern side of the mosque and connected to the sea walls. The ruined church of

Çatladı is also mentioned in the endowment deed in that the ağa bought another land

attached to it. The boundaries of Hüseyin Ağa’s properties reach up to the

Hippodrome because at last, he bought a number of houses attached to it. At the end

he might have collected almost all the lands belonging to Çatladı and endowed them

to serve his zâvîye. It would not be a mistake to say that he would have created a

mahalle for Küçük Ayasofya.

90 TS.MA.d6977, folio.13a.

91 He was probably Hadım Ali Paşa, so called Atik Ali Paşa the grand vizier of Bayezid II, who was

in the service between 1511-1512.

92 TS.MA.d6977, folio.13a.

93 For the house of Himar, see TS.MA.d6977, folio.13a-13b; For the house of Yorgi, see

TS.MA.d6977, folio.14b.

41

2.4.2 İshak Paşa Garden, Hüseyin’s caravanserais and Galata

Aside from his purchases in Küçük Ayasofya quarter and alongside the Hippodrome,

Hüseyin Ağa’s land even reunited with the bath of İshak Paşa (d.1494) who served

Mehmed II and Bayezid II in the office of grand vizierate. Hüseyin Ağa bought the

land with its belongings and ruined building from the inheritors of İshak Paşa. It is

known as Ishak Paşa Garden and mostly surrounded by the other belongings of

Paşa’s waqf. The location of this garden is today Cankurtaran quarter and it is quite

close to the Palace.

In March 1495, Bayezid II issued a fermân to give permission to Hüseyin

Ağa for converting his residence -located between Hagia Sophia and the

Hippodrome- into a caravanserai.94 The document does not only provide information

about the ağa’s property but it also nourishes the reader with a possibility that like

Firuz Ağa, Hüseyin also did own a lavish residence close to the imperial palace.95

Later on, Hüseyin Ağa built another one facing the former and opened shops on the

ground floors of these two. The endowment deed states that it is not necessary to

write down the borders of these khans since there are famous with the name of the

founder. It means that sometime in the fifteenth and sixteenth century there were

places called the Caravanserais of Hüseyin Ağa.

These two are not the only places of commerce of the endower within the

borders of Constantinople. Indeed, he had another waqf in Constantinople, which is

close to Çemberlitaş. The knowledge comes with an undated copy of the endowment

deed. Initially it was sealed by kazasker Ali bin Yusuf Fenari (d. 1497) -probably he

94 Topkapı Sarayı Arşiv Kataloğu, Fermanlar, 5.

95 I will not discuss the palaces of individuals of higher means and compare them with of Hüseyin

Ağa’s with the purpose of limiting my study. Besides since the ferman mentions the place as,

“Ayasofya ve Atmeydanı arasında mülkü olan evini” it is nothing more than a possibility.

42

was the converter of Fenari İsa Mosque- and copied by an unknown Hüseyin bin

Mehmed.96 The deed was dated to December 1486 and known to be the earliest

foundation document of Hüseyin Ağa. It was issued because he built a mosque in the

Eski Et Pazarı or so-called Tavuk Pazarı, which seems to have been constructed

before the conversion of the church.97Consequently, he compensated all of his lands

–granted by the Sultan himself- around the mosque to finance his edifice.98He built

32 shops in total; twelve of them have boundaries with the khan of Süleyman Paşa.99

In 1497, the ağa also found a pious endowment for his monuments in Amasya and in

the Balkans including madrasas, mektebs and mosques -that will be discussed later in

this chapter-. The assets of this foundation also include several shops, houses and

barn close to Hagia Sophia. 100 So, by erecting these shops Hüseyin Ağa expanded

his commercial activities within the city and made his foundation a self-sufficient

corpus.

Returning to the deed of Küçük Ayasofya, the endower made valuable

investments in Galata. By purchasing three large lands, Hüseyin Ağa acquired five

shops two bakeries, various depots and storage places to finance his zâvîye. He also

bought more than five houses. In addition, the endower built a fountain in Galata.

96 “Bu nüshayı i mevla, hatir (?) önde gelen muallimlerden, büyük ilm sahibi, millet ve dine can

veren, o tarihte asakir-i mansura kadı olan Ali bin Yusuf el-Fenari’nin mührüyle mühürlenmiş

aslından naklettim. Arz ettim ve buldum ki bu nüsha noktası noktasına aslına denktir. Ve aralarında

tek bir noktada dahi muhalefet yoktur.

Ve ben vakıfları teftiş ile memur, mevlasına aciz kul Hüseyin bin Mehmed- Allah onları affetsin ve

kusurlarını örtsün.” See, TS.MA.d6996, folio.3b.

97 I will not describe this mosque of Hüseyin Ağa in detail. The structure had experienced a sharp fire

in 1802 and rebuilt by another Kapu Ağa. In terms of architecture nothing is extant from its original

features. See Eyice, “Kapu Ağası Hüseyin Ağa’nın Vakıfları”, 198.

98 TS.MA.d6996, folio.6a.

99 Probably he was a commander of Bayezid II.

100 See TS.MA.d6936 , folio.60a.

43

According to Bayezid II’s edict dated to July 1494, Hüseyin Ağa was permitted to

carry the water, which had its source in Fındıklı, to his fountain.101

The endowment deed mentions that the location of the ağa’s assets is Cami quarter

of Galata.102 According to Ayverdi’s list, this quarter is at the north end of Karaköy

Bridge.103 So, it is presumable that the name Cami refers to Arab Mosque, and

Hüseyin Ağa’s lands had been laying on today’s Tersane Street.

2.4.3 Edirne

The wealth of Hüseyin Ağa was beyond the borders of Constantinople. The deed

mentions a village called Binbucak in İznik and a farm in the same region. At the

west of the capital the Sultan granted three villages and a few acres in the town of

İncüğez located in today’s Kırklareli.104 The above-mentioned deed regarding

Amasya and the Balkans also specifies three villages, four farms and lands in the

same region.105According to the documents these transactions took place between

April 1486 and March 1490.

The ağa also bought several assets in Edirne for the sustenance of Küçük

Ayasofya. As he did in the case of İshak Paşa Garden, the ağa obtained 23 shops out

of 36 in the khan of Çandarlı Halil (d.1453). He bought them from the descendants

of the paşa. An unknown Hüseyin Bey also sold two shops to the endower. Besides,

the Sultan gave him two pieces of land attached to the Kal’a Gate of the fortress.

101 Topkapı Sarayı Arşiv Kataloğu, Hükümler- Beratlar, 107.

102 TS.MA.d6977, folio.16b.

103 It should be the Galata Bridge. Ayverdi, Fatih Devri Sonraların İstanbul Mahalleleri, 67.

104 TS.MA.d6977, folio.22b-23a. Topkapı Sarayı Arşiv Kataloğu, Fermanlar, 4-5.

105See TS.MA.d6936

44

There is also another gate named after Hacı İvaz Paşa (d. 1429). Hüseyin Ağa

purchased a land just out of this gate.106 Interestingly, in addition to permitting him

to possess this land, the Sultan also let him build a başhane (a place of storing and

selling animal giblets and a variety of other meat) and a kapan (stock market of a

particular product) on this land.107

Usually, a kapan stands with the purposes of (1) regulating the taxes of

particular product, (2) to avoid black market, (3) to distribute coming goods

deliberately. Kapans had been in a significant place in the economy almost from the

beginnings of the Ottoman state. There should be specialists in each kapan who

investigates -especially- the imported goods.108 Having the features of such place in

mind, his erection of kapan seems kind of remarkable because this construction is

different than the others. It would have let the ağa have a voice in the economy of an

important Ottoman city. So, Bayezid II might have allowed his chief imperial eunuch

to be active in the regulations of prices, taxes and distribution of some goods in the

Edirne’s market. In my opinion having this opportunity in hand is much more

germane than purchasing hundreds of shops in the same district. It is presumable that

after these transactions and constructions Hüseyin Ağa’s patronage became an

inevitable part of the city.

2.4.4 The Balkans and Firuz Ağa

Bayezid II is known as the consolidator of the Ottoman rule in the Balkans. During

his long reign he made campaigns to various Balkan regions including Herzegovina

106TS.MA.d6977, folio.21b.

107 Topkapı Sarayı Arşiv Kataloğu, Fermanlar, 4.

108 Pakalın, Osmanlı Tarih Deyimleri ve Terimleri Sözlüğü 2, 164.

45

and Belgrade. From the patronage of his entourage in could be understood that he

distributed these lands to keep them safe and to manage their circulation. For

example, in May 1483, the Sultan ordered the qadi of Filibe not to intervene Çaşnigir

village since it belonged to Hüseyin Ağa.109 At this point together with analyzing

Hüseyin Ağa’s deeds it is important to see the patronage of Firuz Ağa in the Ottoman

geography. Although they made constructions in different cities, it would be fruitful

to see the parallels between the acts of two eunuchs.

To begin with Filibe (located in today’s Bulgaria), the city was conquered by

Murad I and had been standing as an important city of the region. Bayezid II granted

two villages of Filibe to the ağa one is Çaşnigir as referred above and the other is

Yakacak. In the endowment deed issued according to the construction of his mosque

in Tavuk Pazarı, it is mentioned that Hüseyin Ağa built a mekteb and a masjid in

Saraçlar Pazarı quarter of the city.110 According to waqf records of the year 1546, he

also had two mills in Filibe. Ömer Lütfi Barkan and Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi notes that

the mosque was demolished.111

Samokov is another city of Bulgaria where Hüseyin Ağa found another

masjid and a hammam. The city was hundred and fifty kilometers away from Filibe

and close to Sofia. The annual income the hammam is 3150 akçes.112 The only

valuable information is concerning these two edifices the stipends of the attendees.

Apart from Bulgaria, the other Balkan properties of the ağa were in the

boundaries of today’s Serbia. The Sultan gave him a number of meadows, fruit

109 Topkapı Sarayı Arşiv Kataloğu, Hükümler, 4-5.

110 TS.MA.d6996, folio.7b-8a; Yüksel, Osmanlı Mimarisinde II. Bayezid, Yavuz Selim Devri, 135.

111 Ayverdi and Barkan, İstanbul Vakıflar Tahrir Defteri 953 (1546), 71.

112 Ibid., 71.

46

gardens, mills and large mortars in Leskovac, Paracin, Ürgüb and Krusevac. Hüseyin

Ağa built a hammam in Leskovac with annual income of 1900 akçes.113

As for the other imperial eunuch, Firuz Ağa, in the Topkapı Palace the only

available endowment deed with his name is dated to 1492.114 Although this deed is

only related to his constructions in Amasya and Constantinople, thanks to the waqf

record of 1546 we know that he has a fountain Smederevo together with a hammam.

Plus, his was the owner of a fountain in today’s Sarajevo. 115Since he had the chance

to build such structures, it is a significant possibility that Bayezid II also granted him

lands around the same city as the custom.

Of course, Hüseyin Ağa and Firuz Ağa are not the only statesmen of Bayezid

II who had properties and construction in Rumeli. İmrahor İlyas Bey, for example,

had a mosque in İoanina.116 According to waqf records, Hadım Ali Paşa, abovementioned

grand vizier had villages, mills and such properties in Mora, Filibe,

Yambol and in the others.117

2.4.5 Imperial eunuchs in the Eyâlet of Rum

The Eyâlet of Rum or so-called Rumiyye-i Suğra had been a state of the Ottoman

Empire up to the second half of the nineteenth century. It consists of various cities

like Amasya, Sivas, Tokat, Trabzon, Çorum and the others. Before his enthronement,

113 Ibid., 71.

114 TS.MA.d6931, folio 1a-70a.

115 Ayverdi and Barkan, İstanbul Vakıflar Tahrir Defteri, 23.

116 Ayverdi and Barkan, İstanbul Vakıflar Tahrir Defteri, 375.

117 For more information, see Ibid., 69-70.

47

Bayezid II held the princely court of Amasya, which was known to be the capital of

the eyâlet 27 for years between 1454 and 1481.118

As it is mentioned the Sultan brought his entourage to the capital and they

made prominent constructions within the city. The patronage of these people went

beyond the borders of Constantinople and as of Amasya after their transportation.

Rather they continued to establish foundations both in Amasya and in the

surrounding vicinities. Although they settled in the capital, their constructions in

Bayezid’s princely court is an indicative of their ongoing ties with their primary

power base.

In his article published in 1978, Semavi Eyice analyzed the Hüseyin Ağa’s

constructions in Amasya. The earliest of them is dated to 1483 and a bedesten in the

commercial area of the city. He concludes that Hüseyin’s bedesten is the core of

cities economic life and was built to support the ağa’s life in Amasya. The structure

is partly destroyed in the nineteenth century and does not preserve its original plan

(see Appendix A, Figure 3).119

Hüseyin Ağa’s most flamboyant construction is probably his madrasa in

Amasya. Built in 1489, it shows a specialty in the Ottoman madrasa architecture.

Because of its octagonal plan Albert Gabriel suggests that a foreign architect of the

Greater Iran should have built it (see Appendix A, Figure 4).120 A later similar

example was constructed by Mimar Sinan and ordered by Rustem Paşa (d.1561). It

was built almost 70 years later than the one in Amasya and this might also honor

118 I chose Eyâlet-i Rum to determine the provinces of patronage because the constructions not only

concentrate on Amasya but also includes the regions such as Sonisa (Uluköy), Ladik, Tokat, Sivas.

119 For more information about the bedesten, see Eyice, “Kapu Ağası Hüseyin Ağa’nın Vakıfları”,

154-159.

120 Gabriel, Monuments turcs d'Anatolie: Ouvrage Publié Sous Les Auspices du Ministère Turc de

L'instruction Publique, 56.

48

Hüseyin’s patronage. 121 If Gabriel’s suggestion is true than Hüseyin Ağa had to be a

real strong and charismatic persona among Bayezid’s entourage and seems to have

the full support of the Sultan. At least, these constructions and the possessions in

Edirne suggest that the Sultan had trusted him to give such opportunities.

As it is mentioned above, in 1495 Firuz Ağa built a bedesten and masjid in

Amasya.122 Unfortunately, these buildings are not extant today. In March 1485

Bayezid declared that assigned the ownership of various field to Firuz Ağa.123

Chronicler Abdizade Hüseyin Hüsameddin states that in 1494 Firuz built his madrasa

in a town called Gümüş, seventy kilometers away from the center of the city.

According to him, the building is made out of stone and in a good condition.124

These eunuchs also had constructions in Tokat. Unfortunately they are not

extant today. Semavi Eyice, Yüksel, Ayverdi and Barkan do not mention Hüseyin

Ağa’s patronage in the city but in the archives of the Topkapı Palace there is an

endowment deed dated to October 1493. The deed also includes his villages in

Mecidözü. The summary of this deed may be translated as follows:

[This document] includes the registration that Hüseyin Ağa built a hammam

an imaret and a madrasa at the center of Tokat and donated all fields and villages in

his possession to these foundations. And he also donated the same villages, field and

the others that recorded in this document to the mosque in Mecidözü.125

121 With the purpose of limiting my research I do not go into detail for contextualizing the madrasa

and describing its architectural features. For more information about its features, please refer to Eyice,

“Kapu Ağası Hüseyin Ağa’nın Vakıfları”, 159-166.

122 Yüksel, Osmanlı Mimarisinde II. Bayezid, Yavuz Selim Devri, 30, 37, 52.

123 Topkapı Sarayı Arşiv Kataloğu, Fermanlar, 4.

124 Hüseyin Hüsameddin, Amasya Tarihi 1, 365; Yüksel, Osmanlı Mimarisinde II. Bayezid, Yavuz

Selim Devri, 141. I was able to reach this information and the account of Abdizade with the help of

Yüksel’s study.

125 “Babüssaade Ağası Hüseyin Ağa'nın, Tokad şehri merkezinde inşa ettirdiği bir hamam, imaret ve

medrese ile kendi tasarrufunda bulunan bütün karye, mezra ve Mecidözü nahiyesindeki cami için,

mezkur karyelerle, defterde isimleri yazılı sair karye ve mezraları vakfettiğinin tescilini havi” See

TS.MA.d10773, folio 1b-41b.

49

With this document it becomes evident that he made patronage in Tokat.126

As for Mecidözü (a province between Amasya and Sivas), the information is unclear

that if he built the mosque or he just directed source to finance its sustenance. In all

cases this document verifies that Hüseyin Ağa also had possession at the east and

west of Amasya.

On the other hand Yüksel mentions a hammam of Firuz Ağa in Tokat, which

was built in 1485 and so called Saray Hamamı; it had an annual income of 12000

akçes in 1546. Besides there were 39 shops in front of that hammam; which means

that just his contemporary Firuz was also active in the economic life of a city;

Tokat.127 Different from Hüseyin Ağa, he also built another hammam together with

three shops in Sivas. This one is not active as the one in Tokat since the annual

income was just 3500 akçes.

As for hammams, in one his endowment deeds, it is recorded that Hüseyin

Ağa purchased a hammam inside the fortress of Trabzon. The ownership of the asset

was divided among several siblings. With the permission of them he bought the bath

from a vekil called Mustafa Bey bin Abdullah. The endowment deed does not

mention the features and surrounding structures of the buildings because of its fame

among the people of the city. 128The income of this hammam is to finance the

foundations in Amasya and Constantinople. Besides it is not mentioned in the waqf

126 Unfortunately, I could not find any information regarding these structures other than the

endowment deed. Then, I checked whether this Tokat would not have covered the boundaries that we

know today but the center of the city was well-known with many monuments like Gök Medrese.

127 Yüksel, Osmanlı Mimarisinde II. Bayezid, Yavuz Selim Devri, 389; Ayverdi and Barkan, İstanbul

Vakıflar Tahrir Defteri, 24.

ومنھا جمیع الحمام الكائن في باطن قلعة طربزون بقرب باب قلعة معروفة بأورتھ قلعة، قد اشتراه الواقف المذكور من مصطفى “ 128

”بك بن عبد لله

See, TSMA.d6936, folio 20a.

50

records and Yüksel’s work. Thus, it is impossible to know the capacity and the

income of the asset.

Firuz chose Havza (a district in today’s Samsun) to built a masjid and

madrasa among his possessions. Yüksel tells that there is no trace related to the time

of establishment of these structures.129 Again all the knowledge comes from 1456’s

waqf record; it shows that Firuz’s müderris (the teacher of the madrasa) had been

receiving 20 akçes per day.130

These two also had some lands in Sonisa district of Amasya. Bayezid II gave

the village called Topnaklar to Hüseyin Ağa with all of its fields, farms and

meadows.131 Hüseyin Ağa canalized all of his income from Topnaklar together with

the other villages in the region such as Sepdelü, Kırca Kerem, Kırca Viran, Ali Fakih

to his foundation.132 The document also shows that he build a mosque since he

stipulates that there should be a hatib (the preacher), an imam and other necessary

attendees in this mosque.133 Eyice states that there is also a madrasa attached to it and

mosque is known as Kurşunlu Camii. It was destroyed in the earthquake of 1942.

134Contrary to Hüseyin, Firuz Ağa just had a village called Omalu in the boundaries

of Sonisa.135 At last both eunuchs had also various other villages in Merzifon, Ladik.

129 Yüksel, Osmanlı Mimarisinde II. Bayezid, Yavuz Selim Devri, 145.

130Ayverdi and Barkan, İstanbul Vakıflar Tahrir Defteri, 24.

131 TS.MA.d6936, folio 21a.

132 Ibid., 21b-26a. For more information, see Appendix 1.

للمسجد الجامع الذي بناه في محروسة صونسا.“ 133 ” See TS.MA.d6936, folio 39a.

134 Eyice, “Kapu Ağası Hüseyin Ağa’nın Vakıfları,” 166-168.

135 Ayverdi and Barkan, İstanbul Vakıflar Tahrir Defteri, 24.

51

2.5 Concluding remarks

There are two patterns that emerge from an analysis of the map of Hüseyin Ağa’s

wealth and patronage. The first one regards the sites of patronage and second is

related to his companionship with the Sultan (see Appendix A, Figure 5).

2.5.1 Different dynamics in different regions

Firstly, it is possible to analyze Hüseyin Ağa’s patronage in two distinct geographies:

the Balkans, and the Eyâlet-i Rûm. Both regions have different dynamics in terms of

architectural and institutinal patronage.

While looking at Hüseyin Ağa’s assets in the Balkans, the most visible thing

is that the points of transactions and constructions create a line as if he was eager to

be active on an already present road. During the time of the conquests, Murad I (r.

1362- 1389) moved towards to the Balkans through three different routes: the north,

the middle, and the south. The middle road, which Bayezid II also utilized in 1483

while moving from Sofia to Constantinople after repairing two castles along the

shores of Tuna River136, has a great match with the cities including Hüseyin’s assets.

It has marks from Constantinople to Bosnia including the towns of Edirne, Samakov,

Filibe and Sofia. The presence of middle and left roads dated back to the Roman and

Byzantine times.137

To turn back to the waqf record of 1546, while keeping the three directions

in mind, it suggests that Koca Mustafa Paşa’s assets were extending on the south

road. His assets were starting from Constantinople up to the Vlore, the southwest

136 “Sultan hazretleri de 1483’te Sofya’dan Filibe’ye, Filibe’den Samakov’a, Samakov’dan

Edirne’ye, Edirne’den saltanat merkezi İstanbul’a gelip, istirahate çekildi.” See Matrakçı Nasuh,

Tarih-i Sultan Bayezid , 55.

137 For more information, see The Via Egnatia Under Ottoman Rule 1380-1699, xıı- 45.

52

coast of the Balkans. While moving to the latter city, he made waqfs in

Didymoteicho, Gotse Delçev (former Nevrekop), Drama, Serez, and Thessalonica.138

These cities draw a line through the south shores of the same region.

As for the Eyâlet of Rûm, making constructions in the area, especially in

Amasya and Tokat is different from those in the capital and in the Balkans. In

Amasya for example, it was not possible to introduce new insitutions and patronage

networks within the city because it had a past full of earlier Islamic structures from

the Selkujids, other medieval Turko-Islamic dynasties and the Ottomans. One had to

accommodate himself to the present social and physical topography and the edifices.

In this perspective according to Uğur Çelik’s research Hüseyin Ağa’s bedesten in

Amasya was built by preserving the established commercial and historical axis of the

earlier monuments including Burmalı Camii (b. 1247) and other khans.139 Another

point is that the ağa’s madrasa in the same city, with its unique plan and layout,

might also be a result of the desire to create a more visible structure. He did not build

it in the capital, in the Balkans or in Tokat but he chose Amasya to for this project.

The other city in the Eyâlet of Rûm, Tokat does not contain any of Hüseyin

Ağa’s edifices today. However, the point is that there is an earlier figure, a statesman

of Çelebi Mehmed (r. 1413- 1421). Hacı İvaz Paşa was active in the city both as an

architect and as a soldier. As Hüseyin Ağa started his career in Amasya and made the

most prominent patronage in the capital, İvaz Paşa was also known for his proximity

to Mehmed I. He was born in Tokat and contributed to a paramount construction in

the former capital, Bursa.

138 Ayverdi and Barkan, İstanbul Vakıflar Tahrir Defteri, 68.

139 Çelik, “Amasya Kapu Ağası Hüseyin Ağa Bedesteni Restorasyon Önerisi,” 13.

53

2.5.2 Hüseyin Ağa, Hacı İvaz Paşa and Tokat

Hacı İvaz Paşa’s father was the spiritual advisor of Çelebi Mehmed during his

princely years in Amasya. İvaz himself was also in the court of the Sultan and helped

him in his struggle to the throne. In 1414, he successfully defended the castle of

Bursa from the Karamanids. He also served Murad II (r. 1421-1451) as a vizier.

Although he was an active politician and a soldier his service as an architect and as a

lieutenant of the Sultan, make his relationship with Çelebi Mehmed similar as of

Hüseyin’s with Bayezid II. He was not the patron himself but he made a palace in

Edirne and most importantly oversaw the construction of the Yeşil Complex in Bursa

for his Sultan. While İvaz is known to have been involved in the construction of

Mehmed I’s complex in Bursa, his exact role in the planning and design of particular

aspects of the buildings remain unclear.

There were also cases in which İvaz was the both the patron and the architect

of the buildings. He had foundations in the Balkans, such as the mosque in

Didymoteicho. Moreover, it is believed that he built himself a palace in Edirne

together with a mosque. In addition there was also a neighborhood in Edirne with his

name, which might have been named after the founder’s mosque and residence.

Interestingly, Hüseyin Ağa also made transactions around the İvaz Paşa Gate of

Edirne city walls. What mostly shows parallels between İvaz Paşa’s patronage and

Hüseyin’s constructions is the former’s building activities in Tokat. Like Hüseyin,

İvaz Paşa also had a madrasa and a mosque in the city. Later on, the madrasa was

considered to be among the highest ranking educational institutions within the

Empire.140 As for Hüseyin’s foundation in Tokat, although there is a paucity of

information, the endowment confirms the presence of teachers, sheikhs, muezzins

140 All of my information about Hacı İvaz Paşa comes from Diyanet Vakfı’s Encyclopedia of Islam.

See Özcan, “Hacı İvaz Paşa,” 485-486.

54

and a number of students. The case of İvaz Paşa shows that Hüseyin Ağa was not

unique for his time and his positions; there could be other cases where a figure had a

great proximity to the ruler by serving in numerous offices.

All in all, most of the structures mentioned above are not surviving today. If

there had been a chance for physical investigation, it would be possible to offer more

concrete interpretations regarding them. It seems that Firuz, Hüseyin and İvaz Paşa

had a range of properties from Balkans up to Trabzon but the intersection point is

Amasya and Constantinople. 141

Throughout this chapter it is described that Hüseyin Ağa made numerous

transactions to expand his holdings. The archival documents and endowment deeds

show that he made these purchases in a period of almost twenty years between 1483

and 1500. This suggests that he might have acquired these properties to establish his

later foundation: Küçük Ayasofya. He then made necessary stipulations and got his

endowment deed sealed. Around the time that he was purchasing the garden of

Çatladı Kasım, he also built another masjid in the Balkans and purchased a hammam

in the Eyâlet-i Rum. During his office as a kapu ağa he did not stop his economic

and architectural activities; he was remarkably consistent in developing his land

ownership. Did he get acquire the wealth that enabled him to make these purchases

because he was a Babüssaade Ağası? Was this a projection of the Sultan’s affiliation

to Hüseyin?

To answer these questions one may take a look at Firuz’s foundations. It is

true that his mosque is in an exceptional location in Constantinople, at the beginning

of Divan Yolu but he did not convert a Byzantine church; he did not make purchases

of the possessions of prominent people such as İshak Paşa or Çandarlı Halil Paşa. It

141 For the locations of Firuz’s and Hüseyin’s assets, see Appendix A, Figure 5.

55

is also true that Firuz had various constructions in Amasya, which I think also stand

for his affiliation with the Sultan. Bayezid II must have also supported his land

ownership, but Hüseyin Ağa’s madrasa with its unique design may attest to the

latter’s relative prominence in comparison to Firuz. Still, since all of Firuz’s deeds

are not completely accessible, we cannot make clear-cut deductions and have to

avoid a possible underestimation of Firuz Ağa’s patronage.

At this point I think Hüseyin is the person who corresponds with

Kafescioğlu’s statement:

As the creation of a new monumental order gave concrete form to a

resignification of urban space, minor focal points, in less conspicuous ways,

contributed to that process [the process of the Ottomanization of the capital]

which would at once manifest the political order within the city and be

instrumental in its reproduction.142

Naturally, Bayezid gave a material support to his entourage by granting them

villages, lands and other mansions but I think that the immaterial motivations behind

Hüseyin’s activity have to be understood from other perspectives. His contribution to

the process of adaptation of Constantinople, investments to minor focal points of

other cities give me a sense that he was acquiring property in a competitive manner,

creating his image as a patron. An examination of the waqf records of 1546 in terms

of the involvement of other statesmen of the reign of Bayezid II in such projects, it

appears that with the exception of some grand viziers, no official was able to acquire

an amount of land comparable to the acquisitions of Hüseyin Ağa. At least, it is true

that he remained an influential figure up to his death.

142 Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis/Istanbul, 189.

56

CHAPTER 3

FROM THE CHURCH OF STS. SERGIUS AND BACCHUS TO THE CONVENT

OF KÜÇÜK AYASOFYA

In this chapter, I first focus on the construction of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus and its

history up to the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople. I then turn to its conversion

into a lodge-mosque under the patronage of Hüseyin Ağa and want to look at the

peculiarities of this this period in the building’s history. Later on, in this chapter, I

will examine the processes of several contemporary conversions to see if one could

suggest a pattern in the Ottoman conversions of churches into mosques during the

same period. I would like to see if Küçük Ayasofya has a unique place among the

fifteenth and sixteenth-century mosques. From a broader perspective, I hope this will

nourish the study by highlighting the boundaries of the appropriation process that

took place during the reign of Bayezid II.

3.1 The construction of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus

As a significant structure among the buildings of the Emperor Justinian, the

underlying problem about the church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus is that there has

been an ongoing debate about the reason for and the exact date of its construction.

Several scholars have studied it to put emphasis on a number of assertions. In this

context the chapter aims to comprehend how and in what circumstances the church

of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus was built. Moreover, it seems that there is a gap in the

history of the building, as the situation of the church during the medieval centuries

and its life before the Ottoman intervention has attracted little scholarly attention.

57

In the year 518 Justinian, the nephew of Emperor Justin, was the heir

apparent to the throne and with his wife Theodora they started to reside in the

mansion of Hormisdas. 143 When he became the Emperor, in 527, the couple moved

to the Imperial Palace.

During these nine years, the political career, activities and the patronage of

Justinian, regarded to be glorious, have been topics of discussion among the

historians of the Byzantine Empire. While he had been living in the Palace of

Hormisdas, he also took the highest honorific titles and positions of Byzantine

palace. In 525 he became the caesar, 144 the junior emperor. It is also known that in

the meantime he had involved in other building activities. Some of Justinian’s

churches are St. Acacius, St. Plato, St. Mocius, St. Thecla, St. Thyrsus and others

outside the city.145

Among his constructions as an emperor, of course, the most important was

Hagia Sophia. He and his wife were also recognized as the patron of Sts. Sergius and

Bacchus. It is the church that may be compared with Hagia Sophia in terms of

structure and interior illumination.146 According to Alexander Van Millingen “Sts.

Sergius and Bacchus and Hagia Sophia still reflect the splendor of the spacious days

143 In 323, Roman Emperor Constantine I helped Persian Prince Hormizd to escape to Constantinople

and gave him a palace along the seaside. From then on this place called the Mansion of Hormisdas.

The place was close to the Imperial Palace and there was an ongoing debate between scholars about

its integration to the Palace. Contrary to the others Cyril Mango believes that it did not at any time

form an integral part of the Imperial Palace. It was a separate but a prestigious residence. For more

information see: Mango, “The Church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus Once Again,”: According to

Alexander van Millingen “it seems unavoidable to conclude that the Palace and Harbour of Hormisdas

were the Palace and Harbour of Bucoleon, under an earlier name.” See Millingen, Byzantine

Constantinople, 278.

144 “A caesar immediately created a separate court ceremonial with associated dignitaries. To express

his elevated status, a caesar needed his own palace for himself and family his own staff and resources,

his own ceremonial.” See Croke, “Justinian, Theodora and the Church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus,”

29.

145 Ibid. , 29.

146 Schibble, Hagia Sophia and the Byzantine Aesthetic Experience, 85.

58

of Justinian the Great; days in which men still dreamed of the restoration of the

Roman Empire to its ancient bounds…”147

As mentioned before, there has been a debate about the date and function of

Sts. Sergius and Bacchus in Constantinople. Various historians discuss the topic with

different assertions to solve the question.148 The exact construction date of the church

is unknown, but scholars have agreed that it roughly spanned five years between 527

and 532.

3.2 Sts. Sergius and Bacchus and the persecution of Monophysites

Cyril Mango’s examination mostly depends on the account of John of Ephesus, a

Monophysite monk who was in Constantinople during the détente.149 Although

Ephesus’ record150 did not mention Empress Theodora as the patron, Mango believes

that she was responsible for the construction. He strengthens his point with the

dedication of the church. Saint Sergius was a prominent Monophysite monk and for

Mango, without the help of Theodora, it would have been impossible to build such a

church dedicated to such a monk without a cult in that particular city. Saint Sergius

was not only a Monophysite saint precisely; Chalcedonies, and indeed all Christians

147 Millingen, Constantinople, 156.

148 Bardill, “The Church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus in Constantinople and the Monophysite

refugees”; Croke, “Justinian, Theodora, and the church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus”; Krautheimer,

“Again Saints Sergius and Bacchus at Constantinople”; Mango, “The Church of Sts. Sergius and

Bacchus at Constantinople and the alleged tradition of octagonal palatine churches”; Mango, “The

Church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus once again”; Shadid, “The Church of Sts. Sergios and Bakhos at

Constantinople, Some New Perspectives.”

149 A period of relaxation between Orthodox christians and Monophysites.

150 John of Ephesus, “Lives of the Eastern Saints,” 145-150.

59

revered Sergius.151 Therefore, some scholars find Mango’s argument superficial and

shaky.

Mango also strengthens his case on Monophysite settlement in Sts. Sergius

and Bacchus by questioning Justinian’s proclivity of building a second church in his

former residence. “And why the dedication to St. Sergius, a saint who had no cult at

Constantinople, but whose enormous prestige in the Oriental provinces needs no

commentary?”152 According to Mango after the death of Theodora in the year 548,

defilement emerged with the perpetuations of provocative agents among the

Monophysite monks. “The community, which Justinian had vowed to protect, was

then transferred.”153

During Monophysite persecution, Pope Vigilius, who had placed himself in

open opposition to the emperor, found himself a sanctuary either in the church of Sts.

Peter and Paul or in Sts. Sergius and Bacchus. Because of this confusion and such

cases of the time in the palace and –somehow- among the rulers, Mango believes that

it is unlikely that this church should have formed at the time an integral part of the

Imperial Palace.154 Monophysites gained Theodora’s patronage during a persecution.

It is because “a community of Monophysite monks, numbering at its height as many

as 500, is installed under Theodora’s auspices in the Palace of Hormisdas.”155

According to Procopius, Justinian built the church of Sts. Sergius and

Bacchus. For several scholars such as Irfan Shadid, Procopius’ veracity becomes

151 Shadid, “The Church of Sts. Sergios and Bakhos at Constantinople, Some New Perspectives,” 468;

He quotes from Elizabeth Key Fowden, The Barbarian Plain: Saint Sergius between Rome and Iran,

(Berkeley: 2003).

152 Mango, “The Church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus Once Again”, 388.

153 Ibid., 386.

154 Ibid., 387.

155 Ibid., 386.

60

apparent with the inscription that circulated the church. It leaves no doubt that

Justinian built it. On the other hand, Theodora is mentioned at the end of the

inscription with an invocation as the divine consort of the Emperor.156

Contrary to the Mango’s arguments, it is also believed that rather than

Theodora, it was Justinian who built the church on their residence before her

husband’s monarchy; that is to say before 527. In this narrative, 157 Justinian was

blamed for a betrayal of his uncle, Justin. Thus he had to be punished by the

Emperor, but Justin had a dream; he saw St. Sergius convincing him about the

innocence of Justinian. Then he forgave his nephew. Consequently, Justinian

dedicated a church to SS. Sergius and Bacchus as a sign of his gratification.

In several scholars’ argument, such as Thomas Matthews, after his

coronation, Justinian renovated the Mansion of Hormisdas and incorporated it to the

main complex of the Imperial Palace.158 However, according to Cyril Mango, “Sts.

Sergius and Bacchus at Constantinople was not built as a palace church, but in

connection with auspices of the empress Theodora.”159

In general point of view that SS. Sergius and Bacchus cannot have been

completed earlier than 527. This opinion came from the church’s inscription, which

mentions Justinian as “emperor.” Since he became sole augustus on 527, before this

date he could not be referred as “emperor”. For this reason Mango argues that the

Empress handled construction. She built it quickly to serve Monophysite monks who

had fled persecution in the East.

156 Shadid,“The Church of Sts. Sergios and Bakhos at Constantinople”, 469; Mango,“The Church of

Sts. Sergius and Bacchus Once Again”, 386.

158 Mathews, The Early Churchs of Constantinople: Architecture and Liturgy, 47.

159 Mango, “The Church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus Once Again”, 387.

61

The dedicatory inscription carved around the nave of the structure says:

Other sovereigns have honoured dead men whose labour was unprofitable,

but our sceptered Justinian, fostering piety, honours with a splendid abode the

Servant of Christ, Begetter of all things, Sergius; whom not the burning

breath of fire, nor the sword, nor any other constraint of torments disturbed;

but who endured to be slain for the sake of Christ, the God, gaining by his

blood heaven as his home. May he in all things guard the rule of the sleepless

sovereign and increase the power of the God-crowned Theodora whose mind

is adorned with piety, whose constraint toil lies unsparing efforts to nourish

the destitute.160

Jonathan Bardill provides another side of the discussion. He revisits the topic

several decades later and suggests a close reading of John of Ephesus’. According to

Bardill this account suggests that the surviving church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus

may have been built to replace a collapsed hall in Hormisdas, which had been used

as a chapel.161 Krautheimer’s and Mathews’ observation is also a similar one. For

them the Monophysite arrangement in Hormisdas was an emergency situation and in

that case, there was no time to build such a beautiful church.

It seems that there is an obscurity about how and in what circumstances these

monks used exactly the church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus during the détente. With

the paucity of information both Krautheimer’s, Mango’s and to an extent Bardill’s

arguments are hard to prove and delimitate the boundaries of the research.

For Brian Croke, Bardill’s and Mango’s assumptions on Monophysite

persecution are mistaken. There are two phases of the event: one in the early to mid-

520s, and the other from 536/7. Fortunately, John of Ephesus is the essential

eyewitness of each phase. According to Croke, the persecution does not solve the

160 Translation taken from Mango, “The Church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus at Constantinople and

the alleged tradition of octagonal palatine churches”, 552; Bardill, “The Church of Sts. Sergius and

Bacchus in Constantinople and the Monophysite Refugees,” 2.

161 Bardill, “The Church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus in Constantinople and the Monophysite

Refugees”, 8.

62

problems, rather clarifying the nature and timing of this imperial action reopens

fundamental questions about the date, purpose, and original context of the church.162

After analyzing two phases of the persecution, Croke asserts “up to 530 or so

there was simply no need to find a suitable home in Constantinople for hundreds of

displaced Monophysite monks. Even if large numbers of monks had arrived in the

imperial capital during the height of the persecution from 519 to 526, there would

not have been room for them in the Palace of Hormisdas, which had been occupied

by Justinian, Theodora, and their household.”163 That is to say, it is highly unlikely

that Sts. Sergius and Bacchus was constructed for Monophysite monks. Brian Croke

is the last scholar who wrote his article in 2006; he has the chance to analyze all the

previous arguments and studies on the topic. Rather than the problems with

Monophysites, his assertion is about Justinian’s vigorous architectural activities. For

him, Justinian designed Sts. Sergius and Bacchus to entrench his political and

religious standing. At the end of the study, he concludes, “the church is best

explained as a programmatic response to Anna Juliana and the overt imperial

ideology of her St. Polyeuctus church.”164 His deductions seem more satisfactory

than the others. In my opinion looking through the church from this perspective is

more illuminating than struggling to attach the reason of construction to highly

complicated and indefensible stories.

162Croke, “Justinian, Theodora, and the church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus,” 32.

163Ibid., 36.

164Ibid., 62.

63

3.3 Justinian versus Anicia Juliana

In the sixties, Martin Harrison made the excavation of Church of Polyeuktos that was

built by Anna Juliana. This investigation also articulates a new dimension to the

discussion of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus. The question “Why it was built?” again

came to the scene. After his work Harrison concluded, “Justinian’s erection of the

third church of Hagia Sophia in 532-537 on the ashes of the second is best seen as

Justinian’s decisive answer to -this- challenge.”165 Recent research by different

scholars such as Brian Croke and Irfan Shadid suggested that the impetus for the

construction of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus could also be found in this rivalry during

the early mid-520s. According to them construction of the church was also a part of

this competition.

Anicia Juliana (d.527/8) was the daughter of Western Roman Emperor

Olybrius. At the court of Constantinople, she was considered as the wealthiest

aristocrat of the city. Besides, she was one of the non-reigning patrons of art. As a

distinguished noblewoman, she built the church of Hagios Polyeuktos. The

construction of her church decisively shaped the architectural developments of the

sixth century Constantinople. The church might have been completed presumably

completed not earlier than 522 and many scholars recognize it as the direct precursor

of Justinianic foundations. It is indicated that together with Sts. Sergius and Bacchus,

Hagia Sophia and Hagios Polyeuktos were closely connected regarding style, layout

and decoration. But still, among them, Juliana’s church was the most embellished

one.166 Moreover, as it is suggested Justinian’s construction of two edifices was to

165 Harrison, Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul.

166 For more information, see Harrison, A Temple for Byzantium: The Discovery and Excavation of

Anicia Juliana’s Palace-Church in Istanbul.

64

defeat Anicia Juliana in their imperial and architectural rivalry.167 In Croke’s point of

view, the answer to St. Polyeuktos was not Hagia Sophia; it was Sts. Sergius and

Bacchus.168 Add to the point, for Carolyn Connor, although Justinian’s construction

might be a response to Anicia Juliana, Juliana’s primary motivation was not to show

her piety and generosity to the Emperor. Instead, she wanted to build this church

adjacent to her residence to “provide herself a final resting place, through which she

intended to claim an enduring place in history, to achieve immortality.”169 But still, it

was enough to an emperor like Justinian, for accepting a construction like Hagios

Polyeuktos as a threat for his glory.

In this point of view, the erection of the church was related to the outbreak of

the first Persian War. Justinian had been planning the reconquest of Eastern fronts,

and the occurrence of the war had to alarm him. Shadid explains the relevance of the

church to the war.

Sergios was military saint, hence he was the right kind of saint to invoke in

the context of the war with the archenemy Persia…. He could possibly have

fought the Persians, perhaps in the army of Galerius during the latter’s

campaign against the Persians, a few years before the saint was martyred.170

The author also suggests that apart from Sergius no better Saint could have

been invoked as palladium of Byzantium against infidel Persia. Moreover, Sergius

has been particularly attractive to the emperor because of his military mission. He

belonged to the Guards, which was an elite group in the army. Justinian’s favorite

commander Belisarios had also been a Guardsman and was very successful on the

167 Croke, “Justinian, Theodora, and the church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus,” 26.; Harrison, A Temple

for Byzantium,40; Shadid, “The Church of Sts. Sergios and Bakhos at Constantinople,” 475.

168 See Croke, “Justinian, Theodora and the Church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus.”

169 Connor, Women of Byzantium, 107.

170Shadid, “The Church of Sts. Sergios and Bakhos at Constantinople,” 470.

65

Eastern Front. The church was to honor this privileged soldier. According to Shadid

this may explain why Justinian dedicated a church to Sergius and why he built it in

his residence.171

Justinian also built a church dedicated to the Apostles Peter and Paul. It has

been suggested that this church with Sts. Sergius and Bacchus formed a double

sanctuary, sharing continuous narthex and the same atrium. For Croke, Justinian also

constructed the latter with the former.172 Both churches are equal in size and the

materials used in two constructions exhibited the same richness. Together they

shaped one of the chief ornaments of Constantinople. In Millingen’s opinion, Sts.

Peter and Paul’s location must have been the north side of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus.

This deduction was derived from remnants of spur walls, which can be still seen at

the northeast corner of the latter church.

There was, however, one striking difference between them; Sts. Sergius and

Bacchus was a domical church, while Sts. Paul and Peter was a basilica.

Styles of ecclesiastical architecture destined soon to blend together the

grandeur and beauty of Saint Sophia were here seen converging towards the

point of their union, like two streams about to mingle their waters in a

common tide.173

According to Millingen and for the most of the others, the construction of Sts.

Peter and Paul started in 519 before the enthronement of Justinian. The date of

erection is evident with the Justinian’s letter to the Pope Hormisdas, in which the

writer asks for some relics of Sts. Peter and Paul to glorify his erection. The Pope

immediately granted Justinian’s request.174

171Ibid., 472.

172 Croke, “Justinian, Theodora, and the church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus,” 27-29, 38.

173 Van Millingen, Byzantine Churches in Constantinople, 63.

174 Ibid., 65.

66

Presumably, the church of Sts. Peter and Paul was built before the church of

Sts. Sergius and Bacchus. The inscription on the entablature of the latter assigns the

building to Justinian and Theodora, to the time when they were already enthroned.

By this, one could say that Sts. Peter and Paul and Sts. Sergius and Bacchus were

two separate projects, which uniformed with the construction of the latter. Besides,

the church is mentioned in the acts of the council that took place in Constantinople in

May 536, so the construction was certainly completed by the same year.175

Millingen states that the church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus was one of the

sanctuaries of Constantinople that the Emperor paid an annual visit in state.

Upon his arrival at the church he proceeded to the gallery and lighted tapers

at an oratory, which stood in the western part of the gallery, immediately above the

Royal Gates, or principal entrance of the church. He went next to the chapel

dedicated to the Theotokos, also in the gallery, and after attending to his private

devotions there, took his place in the parakypticon, at the north-eastern or southeastern

end of the gallery, whence he could overlook the bema and follow the public

service at the altar.176

3.4 The layout of the church

In the city walls, a little to the west of Tchatlady Kapou, opposite the

beautiful Church of SS. Sergius and Bacchus, is a small postern, opened,

doubtless, for the use of the monastery attached to that church. Its side-posts

are shafts of marble, covered with a remarkable inscription, and were

evidently brought from some other building, when the postern was

constructed or repaired.177

175 Mango, “The Church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus at Constantinople,”191. Mango, “The Church of

Sts. Sergius and Bacchus once again,” 385. Schibble, Hagia Sophia and the Byzantine Aesthetic

Experience, 86. Van Millingen, Byzantine Churches in Constantinople,63.

176 Millingen, Byzantine Churches in Constantinople, 65-66.

177Ibid., 262.

67

The church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus is a splendid, domed church built above the

sea walls, on the south side of Constantinople. Its location is at southwest of the site

of the old imperial palace, “beneath the towering substructures of the curved of the

Hippodrome, just inside the sea walls along the shores of the Marmara.”178

According to R. Janin, it was the western limit of the mansion of Hormisdas (see

Appendix A, Figure 6).179

The church is a near-square building, roofed with a central dome. It has a

narthex along the west side. The distinguishing architectural feature of the building is

its irregular ground plan with an octagonal core. “The core of the building is

composed of eight wedge-shaped piers that mark the corners of the octagon and that

are connected with eight broad arches, forming the sides of the octagon.”180 Between

each wide arch there are two embellished columns. Of those column pairs, which

situated at the corners created four exedras. This form gives a semicircular shape to

the octagon and widens the central area. The columns of the octagon follow this

form; create colonnades on the second floor and merge into spherical drum to

buttress the dome. These columns are alternatively made of green Thessalian and red

Synnada marble. The dome rises upon the main arches, divided into “16 alternating

concave and flat segments, of which the latter are pierced by windows.”181

According to Thomas Mathews’, the skewed plan of the church might be a

result of different building campaigns. 182 Moreover, for Millingen “it might be due

178 Bardill, “The Church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus in Constantinople”, 1.

179 Janin, Constantinople Byzantine: Developpment Urbain er Repertoire, 334.

180 Schibble, Hagia Sophia and the Byzantine Aesthetic Experience, 86.

181 Ibid., 86.

182 Mathews, The Early Churchs of Constantinople: Architecture and Liturgy, 44.

68

to sloven work or the product of the effort to adapt the church to the lines of the

earlier church of Sts. Peter and Paul, with which it was united.”183

The church originally opened through many entrances on the north side into

the mansion of Hormisdas and on the south side to the church of Sts. Peter and

Paul.184 Later on, all windows and doors of the church had been altered by the

Ottomans. They are now rectangular instead of showing semicircular heads, which

had been the case before the church’s conversion. The biggest Ottoman intervention

to the church is the addition of a portico (son cemaat yeri) in front of the west side of

the building. 185 This portico also represents the old atrium of the church; “and to the

rear of the portico is still found the ancient narthex.”186 At the south end of this old

narthex there is a staircase leading to the second floor. The arch at the foot of this

staircase is decorated with the fragments from the old pieces of the church.187

As for the interior decoration, Van Millingen narrates that the walls of Sts.

Sergius and Bacchus once gleamed with marbles and glittered with mosaics. 188

Procopius defines the church of Sergius and Bacchus together with the church of Sts.

Peter and Paul and says “indeed each equally outshines the sun by the gleam of its

stones, and each is equally adorned throughout with an abundance of gold and teems

with offerings.”189 So to speak, at first, the church would have been embellished with

mosaics. Destruction of such decorations might be related to iconoclastic

183 Van Millingen, Byzantine Churches in Constantinople, 71.

184 Schibble, Hagia Sophia,86; Mathews, The Early Churches of Constantinople, 42-51.

185 Details of Hüseyin Ağa’s construction will be discussed later in this chapter.

186 Van Millingen, Byzantine Churches in Constantinople, 71.

187 Ibid., 71.

188 Ibid., 75.

189 Procopius, Buildings, 45.

69

controversy. It is known that the church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus had been a

prominent place during the years of iconoclasm. Patriarchs used the church as a

center of their movement.190

Apart from the issue of mosaic decoration, the beauty of the church is

embedded in its column capitals and stone carvings around the nave. Firstly, the

capitals represent the type known as ‘Pseudo-Ionic.’ The church is a perfect example

of sculptural decorations that cover beautiful vegetal compositions with expressive

forms of acanthus with scrolling branches. Such carvings go beyond the capitals

cover the nave, the architrave, both beneath and above the dedicatory inscription. In

the center of each capital the monogram of the title Basileus, or of Justinian or of

Theodora is carved.191

The plan of central domed core with encircling ambulatories makes Sts.

Sergius and Bacchus a kind of miniature version of Hagia Sophia. Since Hagia

Sophia is a product of following building activity, it is also believed that the church

was an experimental model for its greater version.192Although its association with the

Great Church is important, it is also germane to look at other churches of Justinian’s

time.

It is said that the octagonal church with a central dome was a favorite type of

ecclesiastical architecture of the time.193 This form could be seen in a contemporary

construction; in San Vitale of Ravenna. It was probably found between 526- 532.

There are obvious differences between the plan of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus and San

190 Müller-Wiener, İstanbul’un Tarihsel Topografyası, 179.

191 Van Millingen, Byzantine Churches, 75.

192 Mathews, The Early Churches of Constantinople, 42.

193 Van Millingen, Byzantine Churches, 70.

70

Vitale; however, it is not a mistake to say that the one in Italy adopted the

Constantinopolitan features of Byzantine architecture. Like Sts Sergius and Bacchus,

San Vitale’s structure is in the shape of double-shell octagon and it is unique among

the other churches of Ravenna. The exception is that its outer shell is also an octagon

instead of a square. Besides, all sides of the inner octagon created exedras with half

domes but the southeastern bay (see Appendix A, Figure 7).

The interior of San Vitale appears much steeper than that of Sts. Sergius of

Bacchus. Because of the steepness of its drum –with the help of more exedras- the

windows that are set vertically into the drum create light impression that enhances

the sense of verticality in San Vitale.194 Besides splendid mosaics of the church,

including one depicting the emperor Justinian and the empress Theodora, are among

the rich decoration of the church.

There can be no doubt that the church of San Vitale drew inspiration from the

architectural innovations and the new styles in the Byzantine capital. As an

architectural example from the other end of the Byzantine Empire, San Vitale

thus reflects the wider validity of the aesthetic of light that defined the

development of ecclesiastical architecture in the sixth century.195

It would not be a mistake to say that in the layout of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus

one can observe the principles of Justinianic architecture. Whether the application of

such this double-shell, central dome to Hagia Sophia is derived from his church in

the mansion of Hormisdas or not, by using these forms several times, I think

Justinian would sign the core formula of many feature constructions even including

Suleymaniye Mosque. From this point of view, Sts. Sergius might be the precursor of

this architectural form.

194 Schibble, Hagia Sophia, 88-90.

195 Ibid., 90.

71

3.5 Medieval Sts. Sergius and Bacchus in travel accounts

After the age of Justinian, Byzantine Constantinople faced several adverse

experiences. During the seventh century the Avars and the Bulgars attacked the city

from the West. As for the East, the Sassanids and later on the Arabs sieged the city

and shattered its walls and monuments. Up to the prelude of the Comnenian period in

the early eleventh century a decisive Iconoclastic Controversy took place. In 726, the

Emperor Leo III was against the images and ordered the destruction of a statue of

Christ since many treasures and buildings of the city were damaged and burned.

Later on, during the last decade of the twelfth century the Crusaders attacked

the city. They occupied Galata and created a tension between the citizens and the

rulers. When the Emperor Alexius V fled, the Latins took over the control. Under

their control up to 1261, the city and its buildings had declined.

The presence of crusading army not only culminated in a violent sack that

dispersed and destroyed the accumulated wealth and culture of centuries; it

was accompanied by three terrible fires that ravaged through the whole

northern and central sections of the city, and it resulted in the establishment

of a Latin regime that set off a steady exodus of Constantinopolitans to the

Greek centers of the government in exile. Far from restoring the damaged

done in 1203-4, the impoverished Latin emperors melted down the statues for

coin and sold the lead from palace roofs, while the Venetians, who now

controlled much of the city, exported their declining profits, along with

choice relics and architectural spolia for their churches.196

The last Byzantine phase of the city before the Ottoman Conquest was the

Palaiologan Period. Michael VIII Palaiologos achieved the recovery of the former

number of the citizens but in the fourteenth century the Black Death spread to

Constantinople. It also caused a sharp decline in the city’s population.

196 Magdalino, “Medieval Constantinople: Built Environment and Urban Development,” 535.

72

Unfortunately, the two centuries of Palaiologan rule in Constantinople were

not fruitful for the urban construction of the city since their resources were

inadequate.197

The external impression which Constantinople left on its inhabitants and even

more on visitors to the city was at best contradictory, and sometimes

catastrophic. Large urban areas remained undeveloped and uninhabited. The

existing building stock was outdated. Many buildings were practically in

ruins and could only be partly used, if at all. In fact, discrepancy between the

city’s aspirations and reality was hardly ever greater than in the late

Byzantine period.198

During the Palaiologan times monuments of the city were thwarted and many

of the biggest churches including Hagia Sophia faced an inevitable decline.

Moreover, beyond being run out of economic resources the cities’ cisterns ran dry.199

Alice-Mary Talbot, with her study on the reign of Michael VIII Palaiologos, explains

that although the emperor had spent efforts to restore the city by making changes in

numismatics, taking care of public works, these were not enough for development

because of that inadequacy.200Later on, his son Andronikos II was a much more

active patron of churches in that he restored monasteries of Lips and Sts. Kosmas

and Danian, Chora, Pammakaristos, Christos Philanthropos and several others as

well.201

To the best of my knowledge, with this general outline although

Constantinople was a glorious and prestigious center, it had been declining, losing its

shine and somehow experiencing a sharp deprivation during its medieval life. My

197 Ibid., 535.

198 Matschke, “Builders and Building in Late Byzantine Constantinople,” 315.

199 Magdalino, “Medieval Constantinople,” 536.

200 Talbot,,“The Restoration of Constantinople Under Michael VIII,” 243- 261.

201 Ibid., 257.

73

question aroused from this case is what the church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus’

condition was at this chaos? How had people and visitors observed it?

It seems hard to draw a clear image of the church’s state between the years of

its construction and Hüseyin Ağa’s conversion under the reign of Bayezid II.

However, although Constantinople had been losing its wealth, this had not prevented

its position as an important religious and political center. It had welcomed thousands

of pilgrims and visitors. Thus, medieval travel accounts became the most fruitful

sources that give clues about the presence and the usage of the church are.

Thanks to George Majeska, one can read accounts of several Russian

travelers who visited Constantinople in fourteenth century. One of them is

Alexander the Clerk; he probably came to the city in around 1391. His visit was

because of religious purposes and according to the story; Alexander entered all the

churches that he was able to visit. In each church he touched the relics and prayed for

salvation. Among these churches Sts. Sergius and Bacchus also took its place:

“Near the imperial palace of Constantine is the Monastery of SS. Sergius and

Bacchus, [and] among the relics [are] both their heads.”202

Another fourteenth century pilgrim Stephen also narrates their trip to

Constantinople and visits the church for kissing the heads. “The Monastery of

Sergius and Bacchus where we kissed their heads is nearby [the Great Palace]. All

this is if you follow the direction of the sun, keeping the city wall along the sea on

the left hand.”203

There is also Ignatus, who made his way to Constantinople from Russia in

1389. As mentioned before, in this period, the city was a relic of its former glories.

202 Majeska, Russian Travelers to Constantinople in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries,164.

203 Ibid., 38.

74

Many of great churches, ecclesiastical monuments of past greatness including St.

Sophia and of the Holy Apostles were in such a bad state of repair. For example,

some parts of St. Sophia were closed off and Holy Apostles was not safe to visit.

Even part of the imperial residence had been serving as a prison.204 In his account

Ignatus does not directly mention the church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus, rather he

confused the location of the heads of two martyrs. Ignatus locates them in the

Pantocrator Monastery by mistake.205

In his book Bauten in Konstantinopel, historian Vassilios Kidonopoulos’

studies positions, histories and current situations of monasteries, churches, chapels,

palaces, houses and public places of Constantinople between 1204 and 1328.

Unfortunately, he does not specify the church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus. There is

only one reference to the church and that is to explain the location of the

Hippodrome.206

As for earlier times one can see references from the eighth century. It was the

iconoclastic Emperor Constantine V (r. 741- 775) who was against the monks and

had notorious hatred for monasticism, and he referred its practitioners ‘the

unmentionables’.207

Here again, a pious and edifying tale contrives to make the great persecutor of

icons and monks reluctant patron of religious foundations, in this case the

monastery of the Hodegoi, the cult center of the famous icon of the Virgin

Hodegetria. After recounting the legend of the foundation of the original

church by the empress Pulcheria, the story tells how a monastic community

204 Ibid., 13.

205 Majeska, “The Journey of Ignatus of Smolensk to Constantinople”, 184.

206 See page 198 in Kidonopoulos, Bauten in Konstantinopel 1204- 1328.

207 Magdalino, Studies on the History and Topography of Byzantine, IV 8.

75

became attached to it in circumstances arising from the breakdown of a

mechanical clock…208

Constantine V was appended to this mechanical clock. After its breakdown

the only person found with the technical ability for repairing the clock was a monk

called Hypatios. He could not achieve the duty. The emperor overlooked the monk’s

failure and he even promised him a monastery if he could repair the clock. He had

three choices.209 One of these monasteries is Sts. Sergius and Bacchus. Although it is

impossible to know why Constantine suggested the church as a gift still it is

interesting to see the church in this story. This reference as a clue tells that the

church had been used as a monastery in the eighth century.

Moreover, the church of St. Sergius and Bacchus also played a major role

between 9th and 11th centuries. As Alexander Müller Wienner refers from chronicler

Georgios Cedrenos (d. early twelfth century), the church was also as the settlement

of Iconoclastic Controversy patriarchs during their movement.210

Byzantine bureaucrat and chronicler John Skylitzes (d.1101) also provides us

with similar information. During the reign of Michael III (d.867), his mother

Thedora (d.855) examined the question of iconoclasm. Although her husbands

Theophile and later Manuel the Armenian were iconoclasts, the Empress venerated

the icons. She had survived a harsh policy to restore the images. Firstly, she made an

assemble in the Palace of Theoktistos to discuss the matter of orthodoxy. During this

senate, the majority of bishops and senators changed their ideas related to icons. At

the end of the meeting the Empress exiled the people who had chosen to remain as

iconoclasts. One of these iconoclast patriarchs was Jannes, known as knavish person

208 Ibid., IV 9.

209 Ibid., IV 9.

210 Müller-Wiener, İstanbul’unTarihsel Topografyası, 178.

76

was closed in a monastery. Skylitzes states that this Jannes was one of the priests

who was advanced in years in the church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus. 211

Although there is no firm proof, with the information in hand it might be said

that before the Ottoman Conquest, that is to say during the fourteenth century the

church of Sergius and Bacchus was still active. It had a community of monks and

was used as a monastery. However, it was not among the most famous sites of

pilgrims and travelers because most of the people who visited Constantinople cite

Hagia Sophia, Justinian Statue, Hippodrome and the Pantocrator Monastery among

important places to see in the city.212 As for the church it is only a topic of discussion

for more religious people like Alexander and Stephen. It had been known as a shrine

and a part of Christians’ pilgrimage.

3.6 Çardaklı Hamam

And the whole new hammam which the vakıf (God’s favor will be upon him)

built close to the blessed mosque (May God extends its life till the Day of

Judgment) is one of [the assets of Hüseyin Ağa]. There is no need to mention

its (hammam’s) characteristics since it is famous with a distinguished

name.213

While founding the Küçük Ayasofya endowment, Hüseyin Ağa also built a doublebath,

Çardaklı Hamam to finance his convent-mosque. There are some plates and

remnants in and on the building suggesting that it has a connection with an old

211 Skylitzes, Empereurs de Constantinople, 76.

212 For more information, see Majeska, Russian Travelers to Constantinople.

213

”ومنھا جمیع الحمام الجدید الذي بناه الواقف المشار لله أنعم لله تعالى علیھ في قرب الجامع المبرور عمره لله إلى آخر الدھور

المستغني عن التحدید لاشتھاره باسمھ الكریم.“

See, TS.MA.d6977, folio.11b. All translations from Hüseyin Ağa’s endowment deeds into English are

mine.

77

Byzantine bath. That is why it might be substantial to analyze this structure together

with the church.

The bath is mentioned as a “hamam-ı çifte der nezd-i câmi’-i mezbûr,” a

double-bath next to the –aforementioned- mosque- in the waqfs register of the year

1546.214 The annual income of the bath was 42500 akçes, which seems like a good

amount comparing to the baths of other state officials recorded in the same

register.215

There is an inscription on the main entrance of the hammam, with an

interlaced writing. It was built it in 1503/4 (see Appendix A, Figures 8-9). Together

with his endowment deed and Tahrir Defteri it is obvious that it was constructed in

conjunction with the conversion of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus. In 1571/72 and 1575/6

there was a renovation of Çardaklı Hamam, carried out by an imperial architect

named Omer bin Veli. A later renovation also took place in 1600/1 by the architect

Mehmed bin Uveys.216

In 1918, the hammam was still in service.217 Around the 1920s, art historian

Heinrich Glück defines this bath as one of the most interesting and peculiar

edifices.218Later on, the hammam became private property.219 Between 1935-1940,

214 Ayverdi and Barkan, İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrir Defteri, 16.

215 For example, the annual income of Mahmudpaşa Bath was 63000, the bath of Atik Ali Paşa was

32000, the bath of Nişancı Mehmed Paşa (the last vizier of Mehmed II) was 40000 akçes. In this

record the avarage income of public baths is between 3000-9000 akçes. For more information, see

Ayverdi and Barkan, İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrir Defteri 953 (1546) Tarihli.

216 Orgun, “Hassa Mimarları,” 338-339.

217 Koçu, “Çardaklı Hamam,” 3750. In his assertion about this date, Koçu refers to Rehnumayi Zabıta,

a book by Mustafa Galib Bey, which was finished in 1918.

218 “Es ist eine der interessantesten und eigentümlichsten Anlagen.” See Glück, Probleme des

Wölbungsbaues Die Bader Konstantinopels,102.

219 In Diyanet Ansiklopedisi Semavi Eyice notes that “Bu vakıf eserin ne zaman özel mülkiyete

geçirildiği bilinmemekle beraber İstanbul’un idarî makamlarda bulunmuş önemli bir şahsiyeti olan

78

the building had been used as a storage and atelier of texture. Unfortunately, during

these years, precious marble decorations, basins and such remnants were displaced

and sold. Several decades later it was converted into a little factory (imalathane) and

the inner part of the building was changed permanently.220 Mehmet Kemal Aru noted

that around 1949, it had been used as a winding factory.221 In 1976, Semavi Eyice

established a new survey of the hammam. He was not able to complete this task since

the women’s section had been devastated. All he could do is to correct some

mistakes of Heinrich Glück’s plan.222 In the Istanbul’s cadastral maps; Pervititch

drew the Küçük Ayasofya section of the city in 1922-23. According to this map,

several decades before the study of Eyice, the women’s soğukluk is a ruin (see

Appendix A, Figure 10-11). As İsmail Aydın Yüksel in his work on the architecture

of Bayezid II’s time, notes during 1982 “we have learned that the building is closed

and will be renovated.”223

Today the structure is abandoned and there is a restaurant in front of the

men’s entrance. Almost half of the shares of Çardaklı Hamam belong to the Fahrettin

Kerim Gökay Foundation. However, since the other inheritors of the waqf could not

be found, now there is no way to revive or renovate the building.

During his investigation, Eyice realized that primarily the building was

designed as a single bath. This assertion comes from an adjacent wall, which

connects the men’s section to the women’s. There are tracks of windows that joined

sahibinin onu yok etmek için büyük gayret gösterdiği anlaşılmaktadır.” Eyice, “Çardaklı Hamam,”

225-6.

220 Ünver, “Türk Hamamları,” 189-203; Koçu, “Çarşı Hamamlarımız,” 12.

221 Aru, Türk Hamamları Etüdü, 70.

222 Eyice, “Kapu Ağası Hüseyin Ağa’nın Vakıfları,” 194.

223 Yüksel, Osmanlı Mimarisinde II. Bayezid, Yavuz Selim Devri, 267.

79

into the wall by laying bricks. Yüksel finds Eyice’s assertion eligible because it is

impossible for Ottoman baths to have windows between men and women’s sections.

This external wall was converted into an adjacent one between two sections.224 So,

according to this view, later on, the women’s section was built and the hammam was

transformed into a double bath.225 Today it is partly demolished and ruined that

makes almost impossible to verify Eyice’s and Yüksel’s thesis. Besides, if it is true,

then it is problematic to give an exact date for a later construction. Since it is

mentioned in 1546’ waqf registers as a çifte hamam, it might take place sometime in

the first decades of sixteenth century. At last, the endowment deed does not specify a

detail related to the extension of the first hammam.

Almost all of the information about Çardaklı Hamam comes from Gluck’s

work Probleme des Wölbungsbaues.226 According to Eyice, while Glück was

processing this research in Istanbul around 1916, he learned a rumor related to

Çardaklı Hamam. Greek habitants of the Küçük Ayasofya quarter told Glück that,

the bathhouse had belonged to the time of Emperor Constantine.227 Glück does not

specify any information about this story. What Glück’s work covers indeed is the

explanation of the layout and the architectural forms of the hammam in detail.

Indeed, he was in a prestigious position since the marble decoration was present and

the bath had been functioning during the first decades of the twentieth century. Thus,

224 Ibid. ,268.

225 Eyice, “Çardaklı Hamam,” 225-6.

226 Glück, Probleme des Wölbungsbaues, 102-106, 169.

227 Eyice, “Kapu Ağası Hüseyin Ağa’nın Vakıfları”, 192.

80

he was able to draw the plan and cross-sections in detail. Apart from this, Glück’s

account is a formalistic narrative and description of the building.228

There are various reasons why Eyice and several scholars –İsmail Aydın

Yüksel, Çiğdem Kafescioğlu- presume the hammam’s relation with Byzantine

architecture. First of all, there is a plate placed above the men’s entrance below the

foundation inscription. Although no relevant information is present regarding this

plate, it is apparent from its style and decoration presumably it is a Byzantine piece

of work. Eyice also notes an identical plate, which was found later. In 1944,

Fahrettin Kerim Gökay gave this second piece to Hagia Sophia Museum.229

Secondly, for Eyice some properties of the hammam remind a Byzantine

bath. For example, the sıcaklık of men’s section is in the shape of Greek cross (see

Appendix A, Figure 12). According to the author, such a form is not common for

Turkish baths.230 This suggestion seems irrelevant because it is easy to comprehend

that this form was quite common in Ottoman baths of the fifteenth and sixteenth

century with the help of a brief survey. One could see the Greek cross shaped

sıcaklık in various constructions such as the bath of Yakup Ağa in Samatya, Çukur

Hamam (constructed by Mehmed II) in today’s Fatih district, the bath of Gedik Paşa,

as well as in the bath of Bayezid II’s own complex.231

In my humble opinion, what is more appealing than men’s sıcaklık in terms

of layout is the women’s sıcaklık. Under normal circumstances, it has to protect its

axiality from the main entrance up to the sıcaklık. Each user should be able to pass

228 For more information, refer to Glück, 102-106, 169.

229 Eyice, “Kapu Ağası Hüseyin Ağa’nın Vakıfları,” 193.

230 For more information, refer to Ibid., 195.

231 To analyze the plans of Turkish baths of classical period refer to Mehmet Kemal Aru, Türk

Hamamları Etüdü, ITU Mimarlık Fakultesi, İstanbul 1949.

81

through all sections without turning right or left. Interestingly in Çardaklı Hamam

one has to turn left to enter women’s sıcaklık since the plan is skewed. Although I

have no information why it has been the case for the hammam however this is more

unusual than having a cross-in-square sıcaklık. Beyond that the form of this section is

also normal as it can be seen in the bath of Mahmutpaşa and Yenicuma bath in İznik.

The assumption Byzantine past becomes more exciting when I revisit the

foundation inscription. It includes a phrase saying that Hüseyin Ağa also

strengthened the matrixes (temel) of this sturdy/insurmountable edifice. It supposes

that as if he was not only built a new hammam but also renovated a present building

together with the mosque. In this point of view, it is germane to add that together

with the mosque, the site of Çardaklı Hamam was a place for Byzantine Imperial

residences. 232 It might be the case that there had been a Byzantine bath before

Hüseyin Ağa’s hammam. As an alternative estimation, it is also entirely possible that

there was a use of spolia and the mentioned plate could be brought from another

Byzantine structure.

As it is understood from the present knowledge, the historians of the late

Byzantine Empire never mention the hammam. For example, Wolfgang Muller-

Wiener who studies the historical topography of Istanbul says “There is no

information about Constantinople’s bathhouses for the period between 13th and the

15th centuries. On the other hand, it is known that Latin colonies of the city also had

their own bathhouses already in the twelfth century.”233 Although his study stands as

a canonical work about the Byzantine structures in the city, Müller-Wiener can only

mention the name of several Byzantine baths. They are the Kalenderhane Bath,

232 The mansion of Hormisdas and the Palace of Boukeleon.

233 Müller-Wiener, İstanbul’un Tarihsel Topografyası, 48.

82

Private Bath and the Baths of Zeuksippos.234 As for Çardaklı Hamam, he categorizes

it under the baths of the Bayezid II’s time.235

Historian Albrecht Berger, in his work Byzantine baths, states that it is

impossible to make an investigation of Constantinople’s baths between fifth and

seventh centuries. In his suggestion during the seventh century, there were several

thermae’ s in the city but since the water supply ran dry these baths could not serve

the population. As Müller-Wiener, he cautions that after the beginnings of seventh

century the only well-known Byzantine bath was the Baths of Zeuksippos.236 Finally,

for him analyzing several monastery baths in today’s Greece could give clues about

the medieval and late Byzantine baths.237

Slobodan Curcic, the editor of Secular Medieval Architecture in the Balkans,

conducts such a study. He also admits the point that the knowledge of Middle and

Late Byzantine baths is virtually null.238 The exceptions are the Byzantine bath in

Thessaloniki and bath buildings of Kaisariani Monastery. In the chapter of this book

related to the public baths, these two baths are analyzed by six scholars together with

two Ottoman hammams in today’s Greece and Skopje. As he summarizes “while the

Roman emphasis on public bathing relied on the presence of monumental, statefunded

thermae (baths), Ottoman hammams (baths) were considerably smaller in

scale, and were privately endowed. Conceptually, and possibly physically as well,

234 Ibid., 48-52.

235 Ibid., 325.

236 Berger, “Bizans Çağında Hamamlar,” 68-69.

237 Ibid. ,78.

238 Curcic, “Public Baths,” 309.

83

the Ottoman baths appear to have resembled types of semi-private baths introduced

in late antiquity.”239

Precisely, it is true that Çardaklı Hamam shows some peculiarities in its plan

with its two different sıcaklıks, but is not enough to assert that one side of it was a

Byzantine construction. Additionally, although it might be a cursory statement, two

Byzantine baths help to see that there is no accurate resemblance to prove a

connection between their plans and as of Hüseyin Ağa’s double-bath.240

As for the layout of the hammam, normally it has two entrances; one is for

men241 and the other is for women. For each entrance, there are soğukluks covered

with a dome. Men’s soyunmalık is bigger than women’s as usual, but for the rest of

the bath, soğukluks, sıcaklıks and other parts are almost in the same size. Glück

draws an ablution fountain in men’s soyunmalık but in Eyice’s records, it does not

exist today.242

As mentioned above, one property of the bath is that its sıcaklık of women’s

side has a heptagonal shape. From this part one can pass to another halvet hücresi.

According to Eyice this passage from the sıcaklık to another hücre is peculiar to

Çardaklı Hamam.243 Add to the point, the name of this hammam also comes from an

architectural feature. There is an arbor, çardak, situated over the entrance of men’s

sıcaklık. That is why the bath is called Çardaklı Hamam.244

239 Ibid., 309- 331.

240 For more information, refer to Curcic, 312, 313, 316.

242 Eyice, “Çardaklı Hammam,” 226.

243 Ibid., 226.

244 For more information on Çardaklı Hamam refer to Yüksel, Osmanlı Mimarisinde II. Bayezid,

Yavuz Selim Devri , 66-269.

84

To conclude, if the new hammam was constructed on a former Byzantine

structure –which is very normal in early sixteenth-century Constantinople since there

had been various Byzantine structures- it would not be a mistake to say that the

Byzantine past was also preserved with Çardaklı Hamam. Hüseyin Aga did not only

convert the church, but he also attached another edifice to his convent. Although

there are controversies about its construction, the bath has still been preserving its

importance among the contemporary structures.

3.7 Hüseyin Ağa’s conversion and the other converted churches

Despite various influences, technological advancement and beyond surface

ornamentation, the idea of reposeful, simple interior space encasement by four

walls, which is surmounted by a modest dome remained the commondenominator

of early Ottoman mosque architecture.245

In his book related to the evolution of Ottoman Turkish mosque Aptullah Kuran

explains the nature of Ottoman mosque up to 1506, when the Mosque of Bayezid II

in Istanbul was inaugurated. This mosque –together with the nonexistent mosque of

Mehmed II -is considered as being the first of the monumental Ottoman mosques.

According to Kuran mosques of the previous period were modest and experimental

buildings. They must precede the peak and prepare the groundwork for the

masterpieces.246

It is true that with the conquest, Mehmed II not only made critical changes in

the social and administrative structure of the Ottoman state he also opened a way to a

new architectural vocabulary. This architectural vocabulary did not come into being

spontaneously, rather; it was shaped by new constructions as well as by the

245 Kuran, “Basic Space and Form Concept in Early Ottoman Mosque Architecture,” 187.

246 Kuran, The Mosque in Early Ottoman Architecture, 3.

85

conversions from Byzantine structures. After 1453, Ottoman architectural practice

was influenced and transformed not only by medieval Anatolian traditions but also

Byzantine, and particularly Constantinopolitan, forms of ecclesiastical architecture

such as the half-done and the conch. With those in mind Kuran tried to show the

evolution of patterns in the early Ottoman mosque up to the emergence of the mature

and rational “classical” style in the time of Suleiman the Magnificent.

According to Kuran, the common denominator of early Ottoman mosque

architecture and the backbone of classical architecture is the domed-square unit.

In this unit “the dome completely dominates the interior and draws the space toward

the center.” 247 By being acutely aware that any generalization has its exceptions and

that there would always be odd examples, Kuran made a typological study of the

Ottoman mosques. He divided the Ottoman mosques into three groups: The first

group (single-unit) has a square-shaped prayer area with a single dome and three-bay

portico. As for the examples of Constantinople, one could show the Firuz Ağa

mosque, which has a perfect square interior with a dome, sits on pendentives. This

structure can be seen as the ideal example of Kuran’s typology (see Appendix A,

Figure 13).

The second group is what he calls traditional great mosque (multi-unit). It is

more spacious with divided compartments by means of columns and piers which

make it easier to establish domes on the roof. As for multi-unit mosque, one can

observe more than one domed-squares comprised the formal prayer area of a

particular mosque. It would not be an exaggeration to say that it was also quite

common to expand the area of the building not by multiplying the domed-square unit

but by joining dissimilar units around a central dome as in the case of Atik Ali Paşa

247 Kuran, The Mosque in Early Ottoman Architecture, 27.

86

Mosque in Istanbul (see Appendix A, Figure 14). In this mosque 'in addition to twounit

side sections, there is a rectangular area surmounted by a halfdome in front of

the domed central unit.'248

Mehmed II's mosque in Istanbul can also be an example of this type.

Although it has two massive piers underneath the biggest, central dome, the spatial

plan still serves as a formal prayer area without interruption.

The third group is also called Bursa type or T-shaped mosque (eyvan-type).

This type represents a combination of open madrasa that surrounds the main prayer

hall with four eyvans and an enclosed courtyard. The mosque of Has Murad Paşa and

the Mosque of Rum Mehmed Paşa are two clear examples of this type erected in

Constantinople (see Appendix A, Figure 15).249

In Kuran’s opinion 'this basic unit is used in a variety of ways in all three

types of mosques [single-unit, eyvan-type and multi-unit]. The domed-square

structure, with the addition of a porch and a minaret, establishes the basic mass of the

typical single-unit mosque.”250 This form as the most distinctive element differs the

Ottoman mosques from Anatolian Seljuk mosques. In Anatolian Seljuk mosques,

space is broken up by vertical supports. However, a typical Ottoman mosque is a

combination of domed-square units without having adjacent walls. This quality

supplies the users with wider and uninterrupted prayer area.251

The common element in all types is that along with to be oriented to the

qibla, the prayer area has to be not interrupted as possible. Even if we think of

248 Kuran, The Mosque in Early Ottoman Architecture, 139.

249 For more information, refer to Kuran, “Basic Space and Form Concept in Early Ottoman Mosque

Architecture,” 28.

251 It is to keep in mind that this objective cannot be fulfilled all the times. Firstly because there are

arches and piers in the prayer area and secondly it is not always possible to create such a space. For

example, it is case for the layout of Ulucami in Bursa.

87

minuscule masjids such as Yatağan Mosque in Ayvansaray one can see the mihrab

and the minbar immediately and without any visual disruption as he enters the prayer

hall. These necessities are recorded or counted in any sources but are understood by

surveying and analyzing the plans of various mosques. I observed that although the

architecture had become more sophisticated, as the time passed by, the idea reposeful

prayer hall remains the same.

It is true that the Ottoman architectural agenda entered into a new phase with

the conquest of Constantinople. It provided the Ottoman architect with the

opportunity of studying Byzantine structures. But still, the issue of formal prayer

space had been the main focus of attention for Ottoman patrons and architects. The

conversion process of Koca Mustafa Paşa Mosque, which I will discuss, could be an

example of the presence of this phenomenon. When analyzing the converted

mosques, it seems to me that the inner space becomes more important than the outer.

Kuran states “repetition of like units gives the interior space sense of repose.

Accentuation of the central area by two or large and high units gives a sophisticated

and dramatic quality to the building.”252 When taking a former church into

consideration this would not be the case. The structure stands with its own

characteristics and the architect has to make it convenient for Islamic prayer. In my

opinion for the converted structures it is hard to speak of three typologies. Rather

there should be a new type like the appropriated mosques.

The church of St. Sergius and Bacchus was one of the important structures

that were converted during the reign of Bayezid II. In the endowment deed related to

Küçük Ayasofya Mosque the mosque is mentioned as follows:

252 Kuran, The Mosque in Early Ottoman Architecture, 138.

88

Originally it was a church; the noble master expelled the Christians out by a

proper ( شرعي ) way and made it one of the priceless mosques. And he

supplied the mosque with all of its necessities such as a straight minaret, a

mihrab, a minbar and a mahfîl. And he embellished it with lights and oil

lamps. 253

It is difficult to imagine the building’s life in the period between the conquest

of Constantinople and its conversion. The phrase “he expelled the Christians”

suggests that it had been used as a church before Hüseyin Ağa’s construction. The

former Sultan might have let the Christians to perform their rituals. Moreover,

Hüseyin Ağa’s transactions that are recorded in the deed include the lands of

numerous Christians. For example, there was Yorgi the Fisher and a zimmi called

Himar. 254That is to say, these people living in the vicinity of the church would need

their own place of worship. Moreover, it is already mentioned that the famous

Çatladı had important transactions in the district and bought parcels of lands around

the church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus but he did not touch the church.

Beyond that the scope of this construction is obscure in terms of archival

material. It seems that after the conversion the main body of the former church was

not intervened except some necessary changes in the entrances and addition and

changes of windows. Semavi Eyice suggests Şehrizade Mehmed Çelebi as the

performer of these alterations in the windows and doors.255 However, he mistakenly

states that Çelebi’s intervention took place in the time of conversion. Ayvansarayi

also confirms Çelebi’s attempts but it occurred at the eighteenth century.256

253 TS.MA.d6977, folio.10b. “ الذي كان في الأصل من الكنائس فأخرجھ العامر الكریم من أیدي النصارى بطریق شرعي

وجعلھ من الجوامع النفائس وألحقھ علٮھ/بمالھ جمیع ما لزم فیھ من محض منارة من المحراب والمنبر والمحفل وزینھ بالمصابیح

.”والقنادیل

254 TS.MA.d6977, folio.11b-16a. For more information, see Appendix 1.

255 Semavi Eyice, “Küçük Ayasofya Camii”, TDIA 26 (2002), 521.

256 Ayvansarayi, Hadîkatü’l-Cevâmi , 252.

89

As mentioned before, one of the Ottoman interventions is the addition of a

portico (son cemaat yeri) to the west façade of the building. This portico has five

sections each covered with a small dome. The dome in the middle is higher than the

others with the main entrance under it. The main prayer hall of Küçük Ayasofya also

seems well preserved after the construction in that there is not any trace of significant

intervention to its architecture. The marble columns and engraved capitals are still

present in the mosque. Nothing is known in terms of decoration of the church, since

the Ottoman times it has been embellished as a regular mosque.

The church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus did not experience any sharp change

through Hüseyin Ağa’s construction. His conversion was much more related to the

addition of new structures. One of the primary additions is the skewed U-shaped

zaviye (see Appendix A, Figures 16-18):257 "Then he also built an honorable zâvîye

known as sûfîhâne258 close to the blessed mosque."259

According to Ayvansarayi, this zâvîye had 36 rooms (hücerât).260 However,

as Eyice states only 32 of them could be determined.261 It is believed that later on, it

was used as madrasa rather than a zâvîye. The details of shuttling between two

257 This zâvîye and other parts of Küçük Ayasofya such as the tomb of Hüseyin Ağa will be discussed

in the next chapter in detail.

258 During my research I did not come across with the word sûfîhâne as a proper name. It is

presumable that the term is a compound word derived from the form and purpose of zâvîye because

the physical structure of this place is a hane that hosting the Sufis. But still there is a room for the

opposite possibility because in the endowment deed the phrase “the zâvîye known as sûfîhâne” is used

three times. This let me estimate that the place would have been called Sufi Hane among the local

population after its completion. This case seems quite possible because the sûfîhâne was built around

1498 and the endowment was completed in 1507. So, the time was quite sufficient for the structure to

become famous with such a secondary name.

259 TS.MA.d6977, folio.11a. ". "ثم بنى ھو أیضا في جوار الجامع المبرور زاویة شریفة معروف بصوفي خانھ

260 Ayvansarayi, Hadîkatü’l-Cevâmi’, 252.

261 Eyice, "Küçük Ayasofya Camii," 522.

90

institutions will be discussed in the next chapter in detail. Mübahat Kütükoğlu

records from waqf registers that it was active and serving 55 students in 1869.

Around 1914 it housed 25 students.262 She refers to Cedvel-i Medaris-i Asitane ve

Bilad-ı Selase, an archival register from Konya Koyunoğlu Library. According to

this document the patron of the madrasa of Küçük Ayasofya is Mehmed II.263 I have

searched for this record specifically but I was unable to find it. I have also checked

the endowment deeds of Mehmed II, published by Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü in

1938, to verify the accuracy of that information.264 In these sources, I have not come

across any connection between Küçük Ayasofya and the Sultan.

This zâvîye together with the mosque and bath, constitute Hüseyin Ağa’s

expanded complex. In addition to converting a church to establish a foundation, by

building these dervish rooms the endower created a much more active place.

As far as I understand, the architect of Hüseyin Ağa’s conversion did not

make any sharp intervention to the core architectural forms of the church. Although

there are alterations of windows and some changes on the facades, qıbla orientation

and other inner aspects of the church remained unaltered. Then the questions appear,

what are the basic architectural interventions take place during the conversion

processes of this period? How did the conversion process of other churches take

place? What aspects of the building was changed, and under what circumstances? Is

there any typology of conversion that we can distinguish? To comprehend the

262 Kütükoğlu, XX. Asra Erişen İstanbul Medreseleri, 80.

263 Ibid., 80.

264 Türkiye Vakfiyeleri No.1, Fatih Mehmet II Vakfiyeleri.

91

phenomenon of conversion of churches into mosques during this period, I will make

a quick thematic survey.

According to Robert Ousterhout “the standard approach to Byzantine

architecture has been typological- that is, building are classified according to ground

plan, definition of space, and other formal criteria.”265 With this and Kuran’s

typology in mind, is it possible to suggest a typology of these churches regarding

their conversion processes? Is it possible to consider them in relation to the mosque

typologies suggested by Kuran? To pursue my questions, I pick up several

impressive edifices converted during Bayezid II’s reign; Kariye Mosque (Chora

Church), Gül Mosque (Church of St. Theodosia), Koca Mustafa Paşa Mosque

(Monastery of St. Andreas in Krisei) and Fenari İsa Mosque (Lips Monastery). These

structures are converted by statesmen of higher rank. The reason why I choose these

particular mosques has several points. I select Kariye because of its interesting

architecture coming from Byzantine times and its splendid mosaic decoration that

has been preserved much more carefully even after its conversion. I choose Gül

Mosque because its history is interesting and full of obscurities. In addition, it serves

a good example for seeing how the Ottomans used this monumental building due to

their necessities. Finally, I will mention Fenari İsa Mosque since its architectural

history is much harder to follow –even for the Ottoman era- and it is an assembly of

three different constructions. While doing this, my main sources are Semavi Eyice’s

articles in Diyanet Ansiklopedisi, Müller-Wiener’s book İstanbul’un Tarihsel

Topoğrafyası and Istanbul’s waqf registers from 1546, and studies that address

aspects of the particular buildings in question. One may also take a look at Semavi

265 Ousterhout, Master Builders of Byzantium, 25.

92

Eyice’s comprehensive book Son Devir Bizans Mimarisi.266 This study is a

compilation of his studies on Palaiologan churches. Since the articles in the

encyclopedia are much more comprehensive, I prefer to use them instead of the

book. In addition, I refer to Van Millingen’s book on Constantinople’s churches and

Dumbarton Oaks’ collection of Byzantine pious endowments if necessary.

3.7.1 Kariye Mosque (Chora Church)

Kariye Mosque was a part of a big monastic complex and formerly a church

dedicated to Jesus Christ. Although the information about its history is limited the

church attracts attention because of its irregular architectural form and splendid

mosaic decoration. It is believed that the monastery was first built in 742 with the

name of a Byzantine governor whose children had imprisoned in the monastery

because of his rebellion against the Emperor. The second time, the church is

mentioned in the registers of the eleventh century. Maria Dukaina, the mother-in-law

of Emperor Aleksios Komnenos I, renovated the devastated complex. Aleksios’ son

Isaakios Komnenos also made a repair and prepared a burial place for himself in the

inner vestibule of the church. In the thirteenth century, during the Fourth Crusade the

monastery was demolished. A time later, Byzantine statesman Theodokos

Metokhites made a full construction and changed the decoration of the church. He

also had a special chamber for himself in the monastery.

The site had been used as a monastery and dynastic cemetery until the

entrance of the Ottomans to the city. Kariye Mosque was one of the first structures

captured during the conquest. After then it had remained empty until the grand vizier

Atik Ali Paşa (d.1511) converted the Church of Chora Monastery into Kariye

Mosque.

266 Eyice, Son Devir Bizans Mimarisi.

93

This conversion of Ali Paşa was a part of his foundation dated to the last

decade of the fifteenth century. Kariye Mosque is among three major constructions

of the vizier in Constantinople together with Atik Ali Paşa Mosque –which was also

known as Sedefçiler Mosque- in Çemberlitaş and Zincirlikuyu Mosque in the district

of Beyceğiz close to Edirne Gate.267

In the waqf registers dated to 1546 Kariye Mosque is mentioned as Kenise

Mosque in Balat. As Ayverdi mentions this mosque is the Kariye Mosque and the

mahalle of it is still known as ‘Ka’riye-i Atik Ali Paşa.’268

The mosque is not the only property of the donor in the district of Kariye, Ali

Paşa has six new rooms close to the mosque (höcerat-ı cedide der nezd-i Cami’-i

Kenise) and Cemal’s house with its basement (hâne-i Cemmâl ma’a bodrum). His

waqf had been receiving 1500 akçes from these assets annually.269

In 1546 total daily expense of the mosque recorded as 16 akçes. This amount

includes the regular salaries of muezzin, imam, kayyum, siraci (man who burns the

candles), and the cost of candles and the other necessities of the building.270

According to Robert Ousterhout part of the beauty of the Kariye’s

architecture was its breaking of the established rules. Monumentality is replaced by

267 Ayverdi and Barkan, İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrir Defteri, 67.

268 Ibid., 67.

269 Ibid., 68.

270 Ibid., 70.

“Be-cihet-i cemaa’at-i Cami’-i Şerif der Balat

Cihet-i hitabet 4 akçes par day

Cihet-i imamet 3 akçes

Cihet-i tez’in iki neferen 6 akçes

Cihet-i kayyım be sirâcî 1 akçe

Cihet-i ta’rif 1 akçe

Cihet-i behâ-i revğan be şem’ ve buriya 1 akçe”

Total annual cost is 5760 akçes.

94

complexity in the building’s design. There are individual functional units, which are

clearly identified on the exterior and given a visual integrity. "In plan, axial

symmetry is avoided, and where axiality is employed, the axes appear unrelated, and

symmetry is not maintained around them."271

But irregularity may speak as eloquently as regularity. Architecture speaks in

many languages and responds to many needs. Buildings achieve their final

form by intention, not by lack of intention, and an understanding their visual

vocabulary-their style- helps us to determine what those intentions might

have been, and how the building was meant be interpreted in its own day.272

In the sixteenth century, Austrian cleric Stephan Gerlach visited Kariye

Mosque and recorded that it was fully embellished with frescos and mosaics.273

Evliya Çelebi also describes the mosque as a former artful church; ‘evvelce bir

sanatlı kilise’. 274 These accounts give the idea that after its conversion decoration of

the church was not covered and rather it was preserved.

It is hard to guess how Atik Ali Paşa intervened in the architecture of the

building. According to Semavi Eyice, today one can see traces of diverse

constructions of different centuries. The center of the building with four buttresses

and architrave are probably dated to the building activity of Isaakios Komnenos. In

the fourteenth century, Metokhites built a chapel to the south and an outer vestibule

to the west side of the building. His constructions are certain because of monograms

inscribed on the arches. So to speak, there are no specific alterations dated back to

271 Ousterhout, "Reading Difficult Buildings: The Lessons of the Kariye Camii," 97.

272 Ibid., 105.

273 Gerlach, Türkiye Günlüğü 1577- 1578 2, 592.

274 Semavi Eyice, "Kariye Camii," 496.

95

the churches conversion. The minaret standing today was built in 1894 after a

devastating earthquake and it has nothing to do with the main architectural form. 275

3.7.2 Gül Mosque (Church of St. Theodosia)

There is a paucity of information related to the first patron of this church in

Byzantine times and its converter to Gül Mosque under Ottoman the realm. It is

mostly believed that it was the Church of St. Theodosia inside Evergetis Monastery

where the body of St. Theodosia has reposed. "The generally accepted location for

the shrine of St. Theodosia on the slope leading down to Aya Kapı, a gate in the sea

walls along the Golden Horn, is confirmed by the topographical notes of Russian

pilgrims", says George Majeska.276 In one of the travel accounts translated by

Majeska translated, Alexander the Clerk locates the church close to the Pantocrator:

"Nearby [the Pantacrator Monastery] is the body of Theodosia the Virgin."277An

anonymous Russian pilgrim also tells that one should go to east from the church of

St. Cosmas and Damian to reach the church.278

As far as I understand these statements of travelers are not enough to mark

Gül Mosque as the former church of St. Theodosia. The identification might be right

or it might be wrong. At least there is also a contradictory idea that rejects the idea

that accepts Gül Mosque, as the former church of St. Theodosia. Neslihan Asutay-

275 Ibid., 497.

276 Majeska, Russian Travelers,347.

277Ibid., 162.

278 Ibid., 150.

96

Effenberger for example, believes that Gül Mosque is neither St. Theodosia nor

Evergetis Monastery.279

Ayvansarayi states that firstly Gül Mosque had been used as a storage place

after the conquest. According to him Selim II (r. 1566-1574) ordered its conversion

and it had been financed by the waqfs of the same sultan.280

However, the mosque is mentioned as "Câmi-i Gül" in the waqf registers of

the year 1546.281 It means that the construction took place most probably before the

reign of Selim II. It was at least 30 years before his enthronement.

The source of the mosque’s name is also unknown. One narrative says that

when the Ottomans surrounded the church it was the anniversary of a Christian

festival by which they have been celebrating the sanctity of St. Theodosia with

millions of roses. So, later the Ottomans named it Gül for this occasion. Secondly, it

is believed that there is the shrine of a saint, Gülbaba, placed in the mosque at the

right side of mihrab.282 Gerlach’s account also corroborates to first possibility, since

he mentions Gül Mosque as the former St. Theodosia, and tells the story of the same

festival took place on May 29, 1453.283

279 Neslihan Asutay-Effenberger, e-mail message to author, March 6, 2016. For more information,

refer to Asutay-Effenberger, "Überlegungen zum Christos-Evergetis-Kloster und zur Theodosiakirche

am Goldenen Horn," 435- 443.

280 “Câmi-i mezbûr kilisadan münkalibdir. Fi’l-asl Tersâne-i âmire’nin âlât ve levâzımât-ı sâ’iresi

içün mahzen olub, ba’de Sultân Selîm Hân-ı Sâni hazretlerinin emriyle minare ve sâir malzemesi binâ

olunarak câmi-i serif kılınmışdır. Vazîfesi anın vakfından verilür.” See Ayvansarayi, Hadikatü’l-

Cevami, 250.

281 Ayverdi and Barkan, İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrir Defteri, 2, 56, 124, 269, 282, 398, 402, 433.

282 Majeska, Russian Travelers, 223.

283 Gerlach, Türkiye Günlüğü, 599. "Bugün Aya Theodosia adındaki eski bir Rum kilisesi olup

sonradan camiye çevrilen ve Gül Camii denilen yere gittim. Bu büyük, geniş ve tepesi kurşunla kaplı

bina, şimdilerde Türklerin kullanımına tahsis edilmiş bulunuyor. Bu kilisede (29 Mayıs 1453

tarihinde) ayin yapıldığı sırada, kilisenin bulunduğu deniz kıyısındaki kapıdan Türkler kente

girmişler."

97

Semavi Eyice analyzed architectural features of the building. He concludes

that the original church was in cross-in-square plan. Around four main buttresses

there are galleries each with two arches. The narthex was devastated and a wooden

one was built accordingly. Eyice believes that the arches of the galleries are Ottoman

construction since they have sharp-ending corners. 284

The building has three apsides; the one serving the altar is in the middle and

bigger than the others. There are many patches in the brickwork, which Eyice

suggests were the results of later renovations dating to the 13th and 14th centuries (see

Appendix A, Figure 19). 285

Gül Mosque has a spacious prayer hall as a former church with a cross-insquare

plan. In terms of inner space not much has changed. The building is suitable

for the qıbla orientation and the addition of a minbar and a mihrab solved the case.

One problem in terms of conventions of Ottoman mosque layout is that the two side

aisles remained unconnected from the main area. But still, the space beneath the altar

and the dome is quite spacious and provides the performers with an uninterrupted

prayer area and the aisles do not attract attention.

In all, the Ottoman intervention was mostly related with the outside of the structure

and resulted in a permanent change. Two facades were reconstructed with additional

windows. There are three domes with heptagonal drums and are also Turkish

construction.286

284 Semavi Eyice, "Gül Camii," 224.

285 Ibid., 224.

286 Ibid., 224.

98

3.7.3 Koca Mustafa Paşa Mosque (Monastery of St. Andreas in Krisei)

Koca Mustafa Paşa, the grand vizier of Bayezid II, converted the former

monastery of St. Andreas into a mosque-lodge. It is believed that it was first built by

Princess Arcadia during the fifth century. After Iconoclastic Controversy Emperor

Basileios I renovated the church. Later on, in the thirteenth century Michael VIII

Palaiologos’ niece Theodora Raouleina reestablished the monastery and the church.

Eyice states that this establishment took place just after 1284 and spolia was used in

this reconstruction. From then on, this monastery had been recognized as an

important religious and educational space of the city.287

A few decades after the conquest, the church’s faith changed completely. In

1486, with Koca Mustafa Paşa’s construction the place was recreated with significant

architectural modifications. Among the other converted mosques of Bayezid’s time,

Koca Mustafa Paşa Mosque has a unique place because of structural interventions

during the conversion process (see Appendix A, Figure 20).

The task of the architect was a tough one since he had to change the direction

according to the qıbla and place the mihrab as visible as it could be. To achieve this,

he changed the orientation of the building axially, by this avoided creating a skewed

plan. So, three aisles of the former church were oriented towards the east, the south

wall beyond a side aisle was now used as the mihrab wall, hence the building was

now oriented towards the south. Accordingly, the main entrance was also transported

from the west façade to the northern one. A son cemaat yeri with 5 domes was built

adjacent to this wall. The architect opened secondary entrances under the first and

the fifth domes of the portico.

287 Eyice, "Koca Mustafa Paşa Camii," 133.

99

The structure as it stands today has four main piers with a heptagonal central

dome above, in the prayer hall. The architect also reconstructed the vaulting system

and columns. Some columns were pulled down to widen the praying space. This

created a new gallery. Additionally, two half domes were built at the sides of the

central dome on the north-south axis. Following earlier practice, the minaret was

erected at the right side of the qibla wall.

As for the exterior new windows and entrances were opened according to the

necessities and the new orientation. The significant aspect about the exterior is that

the architect went one step further and enveloped all sides with stonewalls to that

altered the general outlook of the brick building. At the end, the main original

architectural forms of the earlier church that remained visible were piers and the

pendentives between them.

As a result of this construction Koca Mustafa Paşa Mosque has a much more

different appearance than the other converted churches of the time, in that it seems

more like a regular Ottoman mosque rather than a converted Byzantine church.

According to Eyice, this mosque is a pioneer for the later mosques, mostly for the

Bayezid Mosque, which was built two decades later.288 It would not be a mistake to

say that the architect was highly successful in creating an Ottoman edifice from a

Byzantine structure. His interior and exterior modifications follow the architectural

agenda of its time in a remarkable fashion.

3.7.4 Fenari İsa Mosque (Lips Monastery)

Fenari İsa Mosque was the former church of Lips Monastery built by the Byzantine

admiral Constantine Lips in the first decade of the tenth century. Beyond this

288 Eyice, "Koca Mustafa Paşa Camii," 135.

100

construction nothing is known of the site. Three centuries later, after Michael VIII

Palaiologos’ death his wife Theodora undertook the restoration of the foundation and

erected a new church adjacent to the present one and revived the monastery.

Following her construction, the site became the mausoleum of the Palaiologan

Dynasty.

The typikon, endowment deed, of the monastery still survives with some

absences. The empress was the author of the deed and she also refers to the

construction of her tomb inside the monastery.289 Her descendants, including sons,

grandsons’ and their wives were also buried there.290

During the fourteenth century new ambulatories were added to expand the

burial area of the church. Finally, the last recorded burial in the church, of the

Russian Princess Anna, took place in 1417.291 The anonymous Russian traveler

translated by George Majeska also mentions the church as an active convent.292 It

means that the monastery had survived almost up to the conquest.

A brief history of the structure in Ottoman hands could be summarized as

follows:

The structure that housed both of the foundation’s churches has survived

down to our own times in modern Istanbul. Circa 1460–80, Alaeddin Ali of

the Fenari family converted the south church of St. John into a mescid, a

mosque without a pulpit, under the name Fenari Isa Camii, to which a minaret

was added on the southwest corner. The tombs located in the former south

church were cleared of human remains, while those in the nave, narthex, and

exonarthex of the former north church were left undisturbed until they were

rediscovered by Theodore Macridy in 1929. A general conflagration that

swept through Constantinople in 1633 damaged the building. In 1636, the

289 Talbot, "Lips: Typikon of Theodora Palaiologina for the Convent of Lips in Constantinople,"

1254.

290 Eyice,"Fenari İsa Camii," 338; Talbot, "Lips: Typikon of Theodora Palaiologina for the Convent

of Lips in Constantinople," 1254.

291 Ibid., 1255.

292 Majeska, Russian Travelers, 310.

101

Grand Vizier Bayram Pasha restored the mescid as a regular mosque,

instituting some important changes to the exterior architecture and removing

the interior decoration. The former north church was put to use as a tekke for

dervishes. There was another fire in the eighteenth century, perhaps in 1782.

The damages were not repaired until 1847/48. A final fire damaged the

structure in 1917 and left it in ruins. The Turkish Ministry of Mosques began

the work of restoring the interior of the structure in 1960, and the work on the

exterior was continued by the American Byzantine Institute under Arthur

Megaw. In recent times the building has been returned to use as a mosque.293

Fenari İsa Mosque is composed of three adjacent parts, which are the

products of different construction phases. It had its own peculiarities already before

its conversion into a Muslim prayer space (see Appendix A, Figure 21). It is a double

sanctuary with a Greek cross church –the former part- and a basilica type church.

During the conversion, the north side (one in the form of Greek cross) was turned

into a tekke as Talbot states. On the other hand the south church was used for placing

the minbar and mihrab and became a mosque. Two more supportive arches were

added inside the mosque vertical to the qibla wall after the conflagration in 1633.294

The mosque differs itself from Gül Mosque and Koca Mustafa Paşa Mosque

in that it does not serve spacious place for religious rituals. Rather it is a complicated

result of different forms of Byzantine architectural agenda. Various arches and

columns interrupt the vision of minbar and reduce the size of praying lines (saf)

during the rituals. Interestingly, instead of making significant intervention to the

church’s plan the Ottomans had used it in respect to the former shape. However,

there is no trace to understand the reasons behind this attitude. From that perspective,

I think Fenari İsa Mosque is a good place to observe the differences between the

mosque and the church architecture where one can see the importance of the prayer

hall in Islamic rituals. In addition, it could be a case where the adaptation of a place

293 Talbot, "Lips: Typikon of Theodora Palaiologina for the Convent of Lips in Constantinople,"

1255.

294Eyice, "Fenari İsa Camii," 338.

102

into other terms might be problematic. It also reminds me the accomplishment of

Koca Mustafa Paşa’s architect in creating a regular mosque from a cross in square

type church. He could create the space that provides the necessities of the regular

prayer hall of a mosque.

3.8 Concluding remarks on the converted churches

With this brief survey, I tried to discuss the manner in which Ottomans changed the

architecture of the former churches according to their necessities and religious

tendencies. In terms of decoration, they sometimes demolished and/or covered the

mosaic and frescos with mortar as in the case of Kariye Mosque, whose frescoes

were covered possibly in the seventeenth century. Although they gained these places

as a result of an occupation, which could have destructive results for some of the

structures, it seems that the central tendency behind their architectural intervention

was to make those places more utilitarian. If the former church with its architecture

is suitable for Islamic prayers and qibla orientation then they conserved the place in

its original form. In the case of Küçük Ayasofya for example, the principal area

together with its columns have been surviving in their original configuration. Fenari

İsa Mosque complicates the task of interpreting and offering a typology on the

converted churches, since the interior is highly different than the others. Of course, it

should be added that the absence of radical interventions to the fabric of a building

might also be due to economic reasons and availability of construction materials.

I believe the conquest opened a fresh lane for the Ottoman architecture and

the Byzantine churches might be the main provider of new forms. The idea of

obtaining a Hagia Sophia in the later constructions, which is most apparent in

Süleyman the Magnificent’s edifice might be the best echo of this contribution.

103

While converting a former church, the duty of the architect is much more different

than creating a new plan. He had to make changes according to necessities. He

sometimes accomplished this mission successfully and was sometimes stuck with the

obstacle of the church’s layout as in the case of Gül Mosque. I think among the

converted churches, Küçük Ayasofya stands in an excellent position because its

architect allows the structure to preserve its heritage while appropriating it into the

necessities of Islamic prayer space.

104

CHAPTER 4

VITAE OF A DERVISH LODGE

It is presumable that the octagonal inner form of early Byzantine architecture

found in the plan of specific martyriums and the churches of orders, which

housed some circular processions as religious rituals, had an impact on the

tekke architecture beginning by the early 16th century through the hands of

Halvetis when they started to use the church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus (the

mosque and tekke of Küçük Ayasofya) as tevhîdhâne [the main space for

rituals in a dervish lodge].295

It was the late fifteenth century, 1497, when Hüseyin Ağa converted the church of

Sts. Sergius and Bacchus into a mosque and built dervish cells around the structure.

This period, which coincides with the reign of Bayezid II, also offers another

dimension to the picture. It is also the time for the Halveti order to install in and

accommodate itself to Constantinople with the great support of the Sultan. Together

with the Ottoman government, the visual image of the capital and the Halveti order

transformed themselves in tandem. With the changing the face of the Empire and the

conversion of the churches profoundly affected the community in that with the

establishment of Koca Mustafa Paşa Convent in 1486, it gained a new impetus. This

situation also signals the changing dynamics of Sufism and Sufi brotherhoods within

the empire. In this context, new branches and sub-branches emerged and created

relationships both with the Ottoman community and with the palace. Such bonds

between an order and political power, which often assumed ideological facets, have

not yet been adequately studied.

295 “Erken dönem Bizans mimarisinde, alelade kiliselerden farklı biçimlerde kullanılan birtakım

dairevi procession lara sahne olan tarikat kiliseleriyle aziz kültlerine bağlanan martyrion larda

gözlenen sekizgen tasarım şemalarının, İstanbul’da XVI. Yüzyılın başlarından itibaren Halvetiler

tarafından tevhidhane olarak kullanılan Aziz Sergios ve Bakhos Kilisesi (Küçük Ayasofya Cami-

Tekkesi) yoluyla tekke mimarisine ulaştığı tahmin edilebilir.” See Tanman, “Osmanlı Mimarisinde

Tarikat Yapıları/ Tekkeler,” 341.

105

John Curry, in his article “The Meeting of the Two Sultans” suggests three

types of relationship between political figures and prominent Sufi leaders. (1) In

vanguard theory rulers support Sufi leaders to establish local institutions and act as

vanguards, (2) in civil society theory Sufi leaders are highly praised by rulers and

stand as de facto representatives of the political power. (3) There is also politicalreligious

orthodoxy theory where Sufi orders are efficient in keeping both religious

doctrine and the legitimacy of the state alive.296 It could be said that the conquest of

Constantinople with the arrival of Halvetiye to the city the relationship between the

order and political authority evolved in a manner that encompasses all three

approaches. From then on Sufi leaders became much more than guards of local

institutions, as they started to play decisive roles in mahalles where their lodges were

located. It began to have greater significance for rulers to have influential Sufi

leaders by their side, and in return they provided these figures with political and

social privileges. And it started to be more crucial for Sufis to situate themselves

within the molds of Orthodoxy, in order not to conflict with the ilmiye.

As the quotation from Tanman at the beginning of this chapter suggests,

Hüseyin Ağa’s zâvîye of Küçük Ayasofya, which was a lodge of an ascendant Sufi

order, would probably have a part in this mobile environment. Although it was not

the asitâne (the primary lodge) of the Halveti order, I still wonder what the position

and the role of Küçük Ayasofya was. How was it affected by the religio-political

currents, and how was it used in the sixteenth century? Was it was a privileged

convent among the other houses of Halvetiye? With these questions in mind, in this

chapter I will make a survey on a number of primary sources including

hagiographies to see how and in what contexts Küçük Ayasofya and its sheikhs

296 See Curry, “The Meeting of the Two Sultans.”

106

appeared and were described. Before starting this discussion, however, it would be

illuminating to see the fate of the order under the reign of Bayezid II.

4.1 The rise of Ottoman Halvetiye

Halvetiyye is an Azerbaijan-based Sufi order that was founded in greater Iran and

strengthened itself in the Ottoman domains mostly during the time of Bayezid II. It

was divided into main branches in consequence with the death of its second founder

Seyyid Yahya Şirvani (d.1466). After him, his caliphs initiated the expansion of his

doctrine.297 Yahya Şirvani is also an important figure in the Ottoman lands since he

is recognized as the founder sheikh of the order for the silsile (the chain of

succession) of the Ottoman Halvetiyye.298

Indeed, the relations with the Ottoman court and the Halveti dervishes began

before Bayezid II’s reign. It was probably Dede Ömer (d.1487), who as a Halveti

sheikh encountered the Ottoman palace by taking a scholarly position at the madrasa

of Çelebi Sultan Mehmed.299 Although this meeting took place before his devotion to

the order, later on, his branch was named after his successor, İbrahim-i Gülşenî and

became a powerful branch in Egypt and Diyarbakır.

Yahya Şirvani also sent another of his successors to the Ottoman lands. It was

Aladdin Halveti, who was called to Edirne by Mehmed II:

Alaaeddin Halveti (d. 1463), another successor of Yahya-yı Şirvani who was

active in the Ottoman Empire during the reign of Sultan Mehmed II after his

conquest of Constantinople. In another part of the work, Hulvi explains that

Alaeddin had gone to Şirvan to escape the “confusion” of the Karamanoğlu

dynasty in southern Anatolia in the years preceding its conquest and

incorporation into the Ottoman Empire. After completing his training with

297 See Sarı Abdullah Efendi, Semerâtü’l-Fuad, 144-150.

298 Curry, The Transformation of Muslim Mystical Thought, 55.

299 Ibid., 60.

107

Yahya in Baku, he was sent to Anatolia to spread the order’s teachings, and

was apparently so effective at winning followers among the Sultan’s

entourage that he aroused suspicion among the other factions at the court and

eventually fled the scene, leaving a successor by the name of Ma’sûd Rûmî in

the lodge built for him on the banks of the Tunca river near Edirne. He then

returned to his home region of Aydın, before returning to Larende in

Karaman to become powerful figure at the Karamanid court shortly before its

collapse to Mehmed’s forces.300

It is quite interesting to see the connections between politics and the

Halvetiyye from the earlier years of the Empire when these Sufi figures had been

making moves among the courts of the Karamanids, the Akkoyunlus and the

Ottomans as the sources suggest. To illustrate, Dede Ömer died as a sheikh in the

Akkoyunlu Dynasty but his successor İbrahim Gülşenî established himself in Cairo

to escape the harsh political environment of the same court.301 Although these people

ended up in a different geography rather than Anatolia, the effects of the Gülşenî

sub-branch should not be neglected as the Ottoman conquest of Egypt created an

inevitable intersection.

The role and position of the sub-branch could also be understood by the two

hagiographic accounts of Muhyî-i Gülşenî (d.1605) that will be discussed below in

this chapter: Menakıb-ı İbrahim-i Gülşenî and Reşahat-ı Muhyî.

However before coming to this discussion, it would be significant to mention

Cemaliyye branch of the Halveti order. Apart from having a complicated

relationships with the Ottoman court as in the case of Gülşenîyye, Cemaliyye is

recognized as more influential in the Ottoman circles. 302 Besides this branch was

300 Ibid., 62.

301 Ibid., 63.

302 Ibid., 64- 65.

108

founded directly within the capital. The scholar John Curry describes this position of

the Cemaliyye as “the shift of the Halveti order into the Ottoman Empire”.303

4.2 Cemal Halveti or so-called Çelebi Halife

The founder of the Cemaliyye sub-branch, Cemal Halveti (d.1494) was born in

Amasya as a descendant of an elite family. His great grandfather Cemaleddin

Aksarayi (d.1388), was a pivotal Amasya-based Sufi and scholar who was mostly

famous for his work on the interpretation of Ibn Sina. He also raised the first

Ottoman şeyhülislam Molla Fenari (d.1431). Şeyhulislam Zenbilli Ali Efendi

(d.1526) and Selim I’s vizier Piri Paşa (d.1533) were also members of the same

lineage.304

In the early years of his life, Cemal Halveti attached himself to Sheikh

Abdullah, one of the principles of Alaeddin el-Halveti’s followers.305 After

completing his training with Abdullah, Cemal moved to Tokat and became a disciple

of the illiterate sheikh Tahirzade. While he was performing his duties under the

guidance of this master, unfortunately he passed away before Cemal’s completion.

According to John Curry, the death of the second sheikh was a turning point in his

life because “once Tahirzade died… he made a fateful decision to follow in the

footsteps of his predecessors and head eastward to seek out Yahya-yı Şirvani.”306

Unfortunately, the sheikh had died before Cemal finished his way to Baku.

Then he completed the Sufi training with one of Şirvani’s disciples named

303 Ibid., 65.

304 For more information about the life of Cemal Halveti and his family refer to, Küçükdağ, II.

Bayezid, Yavuz ve Kanuni Dönemlerinde Cemali Ailesi.

305 He was a successor of Yahya Şirvani based and preaching in Karaman.

306 Curry, The Transformation of Muslim Mystical Thought, 66.

109

Muhammed el-Erzincani. However still, “the variant narratives suggest a desire by

some later hagiographers to tie Cemal el-Halveti directly to Yahya [instead of

Erzincani] as a means of giving him additional legitimacy.”307

At this point one of Erzincani’s followers, Pir Ahmed also found a place in

Mehmed II’s court. Curry finds it interesting that there is another relationship

between Aksarayi family and the sheikh Erzincani in that Ahmed was married to a

woman from Cemal’s family. According to Curry, this may also explain his

diplomatic activity.308

A few decades later Cemal found himself in Amasya and attracted the

attention of Prince Bayezid. When Mehmed II died in 1481, Bayezid asked Cemal

for spiritual support to cope with his struggles for the throne. So, following the

victory of Bayezid II, Cemal and his followers settled in the capital, gained the full

support of the palace and Halveti order became one of the most prominent Sufi

orders within the Empire. Grand vizier Koca Mustafa Paşa converted a Byzantine

church into a lodge for Cemal Halveti and it became the primary lodge of the order.

In his brief survey B. G. Martin summarizes the following years of the order

as follows:

The thirty-year reign of “Sufi Bayezid” (1481-1551), was the real heyday of

the Khalwati order in Ottoman Turkey. The sultan himself attended Sufi

exercises, and his presence doubtless attracted many persons to the order who

thought that membership in it would be useful handhold in the climb to a

higher career. It may be that the tradition of Khalwati membership among

certain urban classes of the Ottoman military, the upper ranks of the civil

service, and aristocratic persons generally began in this era. Basking in royal

favor, the Khalwatiya had no need to anything but orthodox. Political

activism was no longer a requirement of the moment. Chelebi Khalifa saw it

that the order consolidated its position. As a royal request, the headquarters of

the order moved from Amasya to Istanbul, and when Chelebi Khalifa and his

men reached the capital, they were presented with a former Byzantine church

307 Ibid., 66.

308 Ibid., 67.

110

to remodel into a tekke or Sufi lodge. Royal favor for Khalwatiya could not

have been more marked: the rebuilding of the former church was entrusted by

Bayezid to his vizier Koca Mustafa Pasha, and the tekke, to be the citadel of

Khalwatis in Istanbul for a very long time, was known by the minister’s

name. Bayezid turned over his son Ahmad to Chelebi Khalifa to be educated.

Thus Bayezid repaid the huge political debt he owed to the order.309

The situation of the order was shattered when Selim I ascended the throne.

Although the Halveti dervishes were still active on the political scene the new

sultan attempted to demolish the central lodge. Fortunately, his wife Hafsa Sultan

(d.1576) was influential in returning back the favor of the palace when the sheikh

Merkez Muslihiddin (d.1551) treated her illness. “This alternation of dynastic favor

and disfavor continued in the seventeenth century as the Kadizadeli movement

twice challenged their existence.”310

Martin’s interpretation of “citadel” seems apt to me when I consider the

position for Küçük Ayasofya. The citadel was found and the order settled in the city

now. As Derin Terzioğlu finds the individuals - such as Cemal Halveti - instrumental

in conveying the “norms and values that were deep rooted among the urban elites of

the Islamic heartlands.” 311 I think once the order is institutionalized enough by the

prominent figures then it is new lodges’ turn to convey the dogma and to affect the

religious landscape of a particular city. In the case of the Halveti order, the

“plantation” process took place in Amasya, and then the order was transported to

another center. 312

309 Martin, “A Short History of the Khalwati Order of Dervishes,” 282.

310 Karataş, “Ottomanization of the Halvetiye Sufi Order by the City of Amasya in the Fifteenth and

Sixteenth Centuries,”; The Kadızadeli movement and the quarrels between the ilmiye and the Sufis

are not my point of attention. That is why I do not go further to discuss the details about the

circumstances.

311 Terzioğlu, “Sufis in the Age of State-Building and Confessionalization,” 90.

312 For more information, see Karataş, “Ottomanization of the Halvetiye Sufi Order.”

111

4.3 Küçük Ayasofya as a Halveti zâvîye

Hüseyin Ağa’s convent is one of the Halveti lodges founded in this context. The

period is quite early in that if the founder directly transformed it into a lodge of the

Halveti order then Küçük Ayasofya would probably be among the earliest ones

within Constantinople. The endowment deed does not give enough clues to identify

the first sheikh but it states that Hüseyin Ağa made this charity for the interest of

devoted Sufis who reside in the zâvîye.313

Moreover, there is a stipulation that a sheikh should be present in the sûfîhâne

–or in Sufi Hane- with his circle, disciples and followers. These people need to be

Sunni Muslims and avoid worldly inclinations and perpetuation of bid’at. The sheikh

has to reside in the lodge on the rug of guidance (seccâde-i irşad) and teach his

disciples the details of the tariqa and occupy them with prayings and zikir.314

Another stipulation is regarding the stipends of this sheikh and his dervishes.

The sheikh should receive 5 dirhams per day from the income of the endowment. As

for his disciples together they receive fifteen dirhams per day in total to spend for

their sustenance and personal requirements. 315

These are the only parts of the document that indicate the presence of a

dervish community in the lodge. It seems these are enough to conclude that Hüseyin

Ağa paid attention to a certain dervish community and provided them with necessary

material environment to perform their practices. With the construction of this

ووقفھا على مصلحة سكنى الصلحاء الموحدین من أھل الطریقة والسلوك المتصوفین.“ 313 ” See TS.MA.d6977, folio.11a.

وشرط ھو أیضا أن یسكن في زاویة المزبورة المعروفة بصوفي 314

خانھ شیخ مرشد مع أصحابھ ومریدیھ وأحبابھ من أھل السنة والجماعة لا من أھل الأھواء والبدعة یجلس ھو على سجادة الإرشاد

ویرشد من عنده من الزھاد ویشغل كلھم فیھا بالطاعات والدعوات أو العبادات مع الأذكار والأوراد. ” See TS.MA.d6977,

folio.29a.

ویصرف إلى من یكون شیخا مرشدا في الزاویة المذكورة المعروفة بصوفي خانھ كل یوم خمسة دراھم وإلى مریدیھ وأصحابھ “ 315

جمیعا كل یوم خمسة عشر درھما یصرفونھ إلى حوائج أنفسھم ووجوه معیشتھم. ” See TS.MA.d6977, folio.33a.

112

sûfîhâne and other essential parts such as the kitchen316 Küçük Ayasofya became a

self-sufficient microcosm where the circle that Hüseyin Ağa mentions in his

endowment could find necessities of daily life.

Apart from the foundation deed the earliest mentioning of the zâvîye is in

Nevizade Atai’s addendum to Taşköprüzade’s work Şakaik-i Nu’maniye. He

mentions Abdulkerim Kadiri (d. 1544)317 of Suleyman I’s time. Abdulkerim is the

sheikh who was sitting on seccade-i irşad in Küçük Ayasofya. As an intelligent

person he was well educated in religious sciences. The Sultan granted him with the

privilege of issuing fatwas as the şeyhülislam. His daily income for this duty is a

hundred akçes.318 This position of Abdulkerim also indicates a close connection of

the lodge with the palace. Zeynep Yürekli interprets the case as the indicator of

religious legitimacy of the convent and states that Küçük Ayasofya was “known for

its orthodoxy.” 319

The next person in Şakaik in relation with Küçük Ayasofya is Mehmed bin

Sinaneddin. In the earlier years of his life Mehmed was under the service of the kadi

of Constantinople. Then he changed his mind and became a follower of Arabzade

Abdulbaki (d.1544). According to Atai, he followed his father’s footsteps and then

attached himself to Merkez Efendi (d.1552). The interesting point about Mehmed is

that his father Sinan Erdebili died when he was the sheikh of Küçük Ayasofya in

1544. 320 It is known that Dede Ömer educated Sinan and sent to Constantinople to

316 TS.MA.d6977, folio.33a.

317 Atai does not give information if Aldulkerim has a relation with the Kadiri order.

318 Nevizade Atai, Şakaik-i Nu’maniye ve Zeyilleri I, 517.

319 Yürekli, “A Building Between the Public and Private Realms of the Ottoman Elite: The Sufi

Convent of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha in Istanbul,” 183.

320 Atai, Şakaik II, 87.

113

be a follower of Çelebi Halife. He had a tekke close to Hagia Sophia, which was also

known as Caferiye Tekkesi.

4.4 Muslihiddin Nureddinzade (d.1574) and the prominence of Küçük Ayasofya

To the best of my knowledge, Küçük Ayasofya attained much more prominence and

became a stronger point of attraction when Nureddinzade, a prestigious sheikh of the

Balkans and a disciple of Sofyalı Bali –a second generation student of Çelebi Halife-

(d. 1553) settled in Constantinople. After an investigation, the grand vizier and the

şeyhülislam Ebussuud Efendi understood Nureddin’s accuracy in religious sciences

and assigned him to Küçük Ayasofya as preacher. Nureddinzade attracted the

attention of Sokollu Mehmed Paşa (d.1579)321 According to Atai “vezir-i azam

Mehmed Paşa ahz-ı tövbe ve inayet ve padişah-ı alim ve arz-ı iradet ve muhabbet

etmişler idi.”322 That is to say, the grand vizier devoted himself and became a

disciple of the sheikh. As Atai continues, Mehmed Paşa invited the sheikh to the

palace frequently and loved to listen to his suggestions.323 Yürekli states that

“contemporaneous and later sources account…that Sokollu, endowed the convent in

Kadırga for his own spiritual advisor Nureddinzade Musluhiddin…”324

Unfortunately the sheikh died before the completion of the convent.

Nureddinzade was in charge of a few mosques in the capital as a preacher.325

Yürekli states that “He himself preached in several prestigious locations in Istanbul,

321 Atai, Şakaik, 212.

322 Ibid., 213.

323 Ibid., 213.

324 Yürekli, “A Building Between the Public and Private Realms,” 162.

325 Atai, Şakaik II, 213.

114

and his sermons were attended by prominent ulema.”326 His effect in the Balkans is

even more powerful. In Silsiletü’l- Mukarrabin, Münir-i Belgradi asserts that since

he had numerous successors Nureddinzade was considered to have founded his own

branch of the order.327

The sheikh was also important for the Suleiman I. It is known that there are

“a number of accounts of Halveti shaykhs joining in the Ottoman campaigns in

Rumili.”328 According to Belgradi Suleiman chose him as a religious escort.329

Hüseyin Vassaf verifies this information and adds that Nureddinzade was also

together with the Sultan during his campaign to Zigetvar.330

The connection between Küçük Ayasofya and Nureddinzade is a minute

detail, but it carries a sort of significance because such an influential figure had his

first office in the zâvîye of Hüseyin Ağa. Nureddinzade and his master Sofyalı Bali

are “known for the support they lent to the Ottoman Sunni ideology against certain

dervish groups in the Balkans considered heretical by the state, and also against the

Safavids.”331 This situation would also have attached a sort of popularity to the

zâvîye. Although we do not know later relations between the convent of Sokollu

Mehmed Paşa and that of Hüseyin Ağa, we can presume that Nureddinzade’s school

continued to be present in Küçük Ayasofya.

326 Yürekli, “A Building Between the Public and Private Realms”, 163.

327 “Zamânında çok hulefâ nasbeyledi. Ve tarîkat kendiye nisbet olunup, Nûreddînzâde tarîkatı diye

diyâr-ı Rûm’da şeyû’ buldu(r.h).” See Bitiçi, “Münir-i Belgradi ve Silsiletü’l-Mukarrebin Adlı Eseri,”

198.

328 Yürekli, “A Building Between the Public and Private Realms,” 183.

329 Bitiçi, “Münir-i Belgradi,” 197.

330 Vassaf, Sefine-i Evliya III, 343-344.

331 Yürekli, “A Building Between the Public and Private Realms,” 162.

115

Tatar İbrahim Efendi (d. 1590/93 or 1634) completed his Sufi training under

the guidance of Nureddinzade. He was preaching at Cerrahpaşa Mosque for a while

and became the sheikh of Küçük Ayasofya immediately after his master’s death. Just

as his master, he was the spiritual advisor of the Sultan; Murad III (d.1595). 332

Selaniki Mustafa Efendi describes him as a man of wisdom and perfection. His

funeral prayer took place at the Mosque of Mehmed II. Selaniki states that viziers, a

lot of statesmen and scholars were present at his funeral.333

Hüseyin Vassaf mentions Tatar Efendi as the caliph of Aziz Mahmud Hüdayi

(d. 1628), the founder of the Celveti branch of the Halveti order.334 Hüdayi had also

closely connected to the palace in that he was also the spiritual advisor of a number

of sultans. In the early years of his career, şeyhülislam Hoca Sadeddin (d.1599)

directed him to Küçük Ayasofya and Hüdayi had served as the sheikh of the zâvîye

for eight years.335 Meanwhile, he was also preaching at the mosque of Mehmed II.

Later on, he purchased the land of his own tekke at Uskudar and moved there

permanently.336

Küçük Ayasofya was directly affected by the teachings of Aziz Mahmud

Hüdayi in that for the later decades of its history the zâvîye was known for its

dedication to his branch. Some sources mention it as a lodge, where Celveti methods

332 Bitiçi, “Münir-i Belgradi,” 188-189.

333 Selaniki, Tarih-i Selaniki I, 306.

334 Vassaf, Sefine-i Evliya III, 11.

335 I presume that Hüdayi’s Küçük Ayasofya years would probably took place before Nureddinzade’s

arrival.

336 Yılmaz, “Aziz Mahmud Hüdayi,” 338.

116

of Sufism were followed. One of these is from 1888; Seyyid Ahmed Munibi notes it

as a Celveti tekyesi.337

It seems that Küçük Ayasofya would be a popular place for religious

education in the late nineteenth century. Two years before the composition of

Munibi’s Mecmua-i Tekaya , şeyhulislam Ahmed Esad ordered an investigation on

Hagia Sofia and Küçük Ayasofya. According to this document there were 41 resident

students in Hagia Sophia who were previously resident in Küçük just had. There

were also followers who visited the two locations each day but did not reside within

the zâvîyes. The number of such students in Hagia Sophia is 72. Interestingly this

figure for Küçük Ayasofya is 92. Although this equation is incomplete because of the

absence of hundreds of such institutions, the numbers still suggest a possible

comparison with Ayasofya. 338

4.5 A story of Küçük Ayasofya in a sixteenth century masterpiece: Muhyî-i

Gülşenî’s Reşahat-ı Muhyî

Looking at the history of Küçük Ayasofya in the sixteenth century suggests some

similarities with the church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus’ situation in the medieval

Byzantine context. One could easily find information about the zâvîye in

hagiographies of the Halveti figures at it has been happening throughout this chapter.

However, there is also a hagiography of the Nakşi order, which tells a story about a

Halveti lodge.

337 Bandırmalızade, “Mecmua-i Tekaya,” 192.

338 “Dersaatteki Medaris-i İlmiyyede Bulunan Talebenin Müfredat Defteri”, Osmanlı Kaynaklarına

Göre İstanbul: Cami, Tekke, Medrese, Mekteb, Türbe, Hamam, Kütüphane, Matbaa, Mahalle ve

Selatin İmaretleri, 675-681.

117

Muhyî-i Gülşenî is a Halveti dervish who was born in Edirne in 1529. When

he was eight years old a Nakşi leader adopted him. In 1552 he moved to Cairo as a

state officer and became a disciple of İbrahim Gülşenî’s (1534) son Ahmed Hayâlî.

He was buried in the shrine of İbrahim Gülşenî.

As it is known Ibrahim was a famous disciple of Dede Ömer and he was the

founder of the Gülşenî branch of the Halveti order. He settled in Cairo and

interpreted the order differently. As Side Emre states Gülşenî Sufism is an adaptation

of the Islamic frontier and the translation of “the Halveti heritage into a voice of

one’s own.”339

Muhyî is an inventor of one of the first constructed languages, Baleybelen.

His language was discovered at the end of the nineteenth century and could not be

decrypted by a number of scholars. Later on, Mustafa Koç analyzed it after five years

of study in 2005. Muhyî’s invention is a unique one that speaks of his intelligence.340

The relationship between Küçük Ayasofya and Muhyî started with his

master’s request. Ahmed Hayâlî wanted him to translate a silsile (geneaology) titled

Reşehat-ı Aynü’l-Hayat. Written by Safi Fahrüddin Ali b. Hüseyin (d.1533) in

Persian this work was accepted as the only reliable source of the Ahrarî branch of the

Nakşibendi Order. In the meantime, the number of disciples had been increasing,

especially in Constantinople, which made it necessary for Reşahat to be translated

into Turkish.341So, upon the master’s request Muhyî translated the work by making

significant additions related to information about the Nakşibendi sheikhs. One of

339 Emre, “İbrahim Gülşenî (ca. 1442-1534): Itinerant Saint and Cairene Ruler,” 92.

340 On Muhyî’s life, see Karaismailoğlu, “Muhyî-i Gülşenî,” 79-81.

341 Muhyî-i Gülşenî, Reşehât, 10.

118

these additions is Zencir-i Zeheb. In this pamphlet he also describes his own

meetings with the masters.

The founder of the Ahrarî branch, Ubeydullah Ahrar (d.1490) determined his

little son Muhammed Yahya as the next leader of the order. Yahya was killed in a

political chaos and left two successors: Hâfız Muhammed-i Semerkandî and

Muhammed-i Lâciverşûy. These two found themselves in Constantinople and Muhyî

had a chance to meet them separately.

On March 17, 1546, Muhyî went to Küçük Ayasofya to see Hâfız

Muhammed-i Semerkandî. The date was the anniversary of Muhammed Yahya’s

death, so the sheikh was yearning for his master. Muhyî was impressed by

Muhammed’s mood and felt very upset. Muhammed relieved Muhyî and told him

that he would be a very blessed person with a high spirituality and his seventyseventh

age would be the age of spiritual discoveries. 342

In Muhyi’s narrative Muhammed had lodged in Küçük Ayasofya for a

particular time period. It was not a permanent position, and he did not perform

activities as a sheikh. However, it is certain that he lodged there for a while and then

moved to Egypt to perform the hajj. His accommodation in Küçük Ayasofya does

not seem to be a very short one. Muhyi states that he visited Muhammed to serve

him.343 Muhyi also speaks about three friends of Muhammed who were also coming

to Küçük Ayasofya to be in the service of him. Moreover, the tune of the text also

suggests that Muhammed-i Semerkandî was not active in Küçük Ayasofya as a

sheikh. During the narrative, Muhammed admitted that he did not perform the duties

of a Sufi master. Even though Muhyî was a Halveti dervish and did not follow the

342 Ibid., 120; “Saña dahı yetmiş yedide çoķ haķâyıķ nasîb olsa gerek.”

343 “hıdmetlerıne vardum.” See Ibid., 120.

119

Nakşî-Melamî path, Muhammed also suggests him helping people by attending a

zâvîye as a sheikh.344

Muhyî’s story in Küçük Ayasofya ends at this point. The last connection

between the two is a letter sent from Mecca. In this letter the sheikh advises him

about the Nakşi doctrine.345 Later in his story Muhyî understood the spiritual power

and effect of Muhammed-i Semerkandî.

Baba Haydar (d.1550) was a caliph of Ubeydullah Ahrar and was teaching at

Eyüp. Together with Muhyî’s, Muhammed also sent a letter to this sheikh. He felt an

extreme happiness by receiving Muhammed’s message and said: “if God does not

want me to stay blind, his letter would be enough to make me see again.”346 For him,

Muhammed’s spiritual and non-worldly abilities were sufficient to reshape the fate.

Almost two centuries ago, a Christian counterpart of Muhammed-i

Semerkandî, Alexander the Clerk entered the church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus.

There were also Christian pilgrims who had visited the church as Stephen the

Pilgrim. Muhyî’s story directs me to two points. First, Küçük Ayasofya was still

carrying the medieval characteristics by being a stop in location for pilgrims. Second,

just as in the case of Nureddinzade, an important Nakşi sheikh also had a connection

with the zâvîye. There emerge unanswerable questions: Why did Muhammed-i

Semerkandî choose this location to reside? How was his relation with the dervish

community and the sheikh of the zâvîye? If Muhyî would have told us more about

Küçük Ayasofya, then we would be able to comprehend the situation. All I can say

undoubtedly is that somehow it became a spot of intersection for two orders. The

344 Ibid., 121.

345 Ibid., 25.

346 Ibid., 122.

120

zâvîye did not only house Halveti dervishes, but it was also a place where the

devotees of the Nakşi order could find a place for themselves. It is possible that there

would be more circles as Semerkandî’s or there were more wandering dervishes like

Muhyi.

4.6 Küçük Ayasofya in the seventeenth century: Ahmed Muhyiddin Efendi’s

Tomar-ı Tekâyâ

At the end of the nineteenth century, the Ministry of Pious Foundations was

established in the Ottoman Empire. This caused oppression on the zâvîyes since they

were financed by the pious endowments because from then on their financial

management was in the hand of that ministry. To solve the problem Meclis-i Meşayih

(The Chamber of Sheikhs) was founded. The chamber needed to check all zâvîyes

within the Empire, especially the ones located in the capital. Consequently, various

people started to list the lodges and record details about them.

In this context, the head of Meclis-i Meşayih and the Kadiri Şeyh Muhyiddin

Efendi (d. 1909) prepared one of these works called Tomar-ı Tekaya. He

meticulously collected information about the foundations and at the end the work

included 252 zâvîyes in total, mostly of Constantinople together with some primary

lodges in Kırşehir, Konya, Edirne and Kastamonu. 347

347 For more information on Muhyiddin Efendi’s work refer to Mahmut Erol Kılıç, “Yedi Tepeli

Şehrin Tekkeleri ve Muhyiddin Efendi’nin “Tomâr-ı Tekâyâ”sı,” 259-277.

121

Küçük Ayasofya is the eighty-second zâvîye in the list. One folio is allocated

to it and briefly describes the building together with eleven sheikhs. The earliest of

them is Abdulkerim Kadiri (d.1738)348. Second sheikh İsmail Efendi passed away a

year after the first one and interestingly he was also the preacher of Hagia Sophia,

the most iconic and one of the most famous mosques in the Empire.

The list also records Ruşen Efendi (d.1788/95), another postnişin of Küçük

Ayasofya. According to the text, he was the sheikh of the Hüdayi asitâne in Üsküdar.

His father Abdurrahman Efendi (d. 1751) was the previous postnişin of Küçük

Ayasofya. As a family their Sufi lineage comes from İsmail Hakkı Bursevi, a Bursabased

famous Halveti sheikh of the seventeenth century; Ruşen’s grandfather

Mustafa Efendi had built a zâvîye in Bursa.

The last sheikh in the list is Cemil Efendi. He was recorded as şehbender

(consul) and a person among the circle of Bab-ı Ali (Sublime Porte).

Apart from the sheikhs, Tomar-ı Tekaya also provides information about the

plan and usage of the zâvîye. There were 36 rooms, 11 of them were reserved for

sheikhs. The rest was divided into two; 13 rooms for mekteb and 12 had been using

as cemiyyethane.349 These numbers do not correspond to the rooms of the plan in

Pervititch’s cadastral maps. Almost twenty years after Muhyiddin’s study he drew

just 24 cells.350

All in all, the Tomar is a work suggesting that in the eighteenth century the

sheikhs of Küçük Ayasofya were among the important figures that sometimes had

348 As far as I understand he was not the sheikh Abdulkerim who died in 1544.

349 Tomar has a tough writing to read. Besides, the text was corrupted and that makes it harder to

understand the letters. I read the word as cemiyyethane but could find any equivalent in terms of

meaning.

350 Unfortunately, I could not find why there is such a difference between two accounts. Either the

remaining 12 rooms were demolished in the first decade of the twentieth century or one of the authors

made a counting mistake.

122

dual positions together with their duty in the zâvîye. One was preaching at Hagia

Sophia; the other was serving as a consul. Most importantly, it seems that there

might be a keen relation between the lodge of Hüdayi as the center of the Celveti

branch and Küçük Ayasofya. Küçük Ayasofya might be a step in the career line of

Celveti sheikhs. For example, just as Aziz Mahmud Hüdayi himself, primarily Ruşen

Efendi was the sheikh of Küçük Ayasofya then appointed to the main lodge.

4.7 The tomb of Hüseyin Ağa and Sheikh Hacı Kamil Efendi (d.1911)

As it is noted in the first chapter, Ayvansarayi states in Hadika that Hüseyin Ağa was

murdered and buried in his private tomb next to his mosque.351

Ayvansarayi finished his book at the end of the eighteenth century. A century later,

in 1911 Hüseyin Ağa started to share his tomb with Hacı Kamil Efendi.

The mausoleum of Hüseyin Ağa is a modest one with an octagonal plan and

contains these two sarcophagi. It has no inner decoration and is covered by a wooden

roof. The entrance has a simple arch, and it is steeper than the usual. According to

İsmail Aydın Yüksel, the place of the door and some windows of the structure had

been changed during some of the restorations because he noticed traces of

modification in one of the windows.352

Hacı Kamil Efendi, the next and the only person not buried in hazîre but

inside the tomb, is an interesting case to analyze. Firstly, this figure is not known to

be a sheikh of the zâvîye, rather he was a hücre-nişîn (a person who lodges one the

rooms) and was praying alone and restraints himself from worldly pleasures. He was

born in Edremit and moved to Constantinople to complete his education. From then

351 Ayvansarayi, Hadikatü’l-Cevâmi’, 188.

352 Yüksel, Osmanlı Mimarisinde II. Bayezid, Yavuz Sultan Selim Devri, 265.

123

on he started to live in Küçük Ayasofya and continued the lessons of Büyük Kazım

Efendi in the madrasa of Bayezid II. Later on, he completed his training with a

teacher of Fatih’s madrasa and started to be known as a Şa’bâni sheikh.353 It is

possible that Kamil had his own circle in Küçük Ayasofya. Hüseyin Vassaf tells in

Sefine that he was in Kamil’s circle and benefited from his spiritual experiences.354

4.8 Conclusion

The enthronement of Bayezid II designates a new epoch in the construction of the

capital. This construction was not only a material one; it also had significant

elements of religious institutions. If converting a church into a dervish lodge is a

physical action, then settling the dervishes and creating new circles of religious

education mean constructing a new environment and new dynamics in the social life

of the Ottoman community.

I believe that the time of adaptation of Constantinople to the Ottoman elements

coincides with the expansion of the Halveti order. New lodges furnished the city and

new pious foundations were established, that is to say, more dervishes and sheikhs

found a place for themselves in the growing community. The conversion of the

Byzantine churches may have been intimately intertwined with the arrival and the

taking roots of the Halveti order in the newly conquered Ottoman capital.

This development of the order was interrupted during the reign of Selim I (r.

1512- 1520) since:

Most of the scholarly activity of the period was aimed at extirpating heretical

beliefs and practices, and Sufi orders like the Halveti who came from eastern

origins and had nominal links to Safavid ancestors came under increased

353 Vassaf, Sefine-i Evliya IV, 137.

354Vassaf, Sefine-i Evliya V, 317.

124

scrutiny, and could become targets of suspicion in the eyes of the Ottoman rulers

and scholars.355

İbrahim-i Gülşeni for example was imprisoned in Cairo for a similar

reason.356Later on, they were able to protect the equilibrium between their Sufi paths

and the state. An appearance of this, as Yürekli suggests, could be the construction of

Sokollu convent in Kadırga in the last quarter of the sixteenth century. The vizier

went beyond the usual tevhîdhâne in Constantinople and separated it from the

mosque by erecting an individual building within the complex “The coupling of a

madrasa with a convent in the architectural program should be evaluated against the

background of the close and relatively unproblematic relation of the Cemali-Halvetis

to the 'ilmiyye.”357

Moreover, most of the prominent Halveti sheikhs were coming from scholar

backgrounds in his career as in the case of Dede Omer, Abdulkerim Kadiri,

Nureddinzade and Aziz Mahmud Hüdayi. They were also keeping good relations

with the palace by advising the Sultan spiritually and serving him during campaigns.

Particularly in the time of Suleiman the Magnificent and during the vizierate of

Sokollu Mehmed Paşa (1565-1579) the Halveti community became well planted in

the Balkan domains.

The Nureddinzade School in the Balkans takes the discussion again back to

Bayezid II’s reign where the Sultan provided statesmen with huge lands in the same

region. He was a driving force behind the growth of the Halveti order. To illustrate

Hüseyin Ağa was granted with lands in Filibe, Leskofça, Somakov, Toplica and in

the others. In turn, he built madrasas, mosques and zâvîyes in these territories.

355Curry, The Transformation of Muslim Mystical Thought, 73.

356 Ocak, Osmanlı Toplumunda Zındıklar ve Mülhidler, 315.

357Zeynep Yürekli, “A Building Between the Public and Private Realms,” 172.

125

Indeed, Bayezid’s support was not limited to the Sunni Sufi orders. His reign

was also a critical period for the early institutionalization of the Bektashi order.

Derin Terzioğlu describes the case as follows:

The writing down of the hitherto oral traditions about Hacı Bektaş, the

renovation of the lodge of Hacı Bektaş, and the reorganization of the

administrative structure of the order by the sheikh Balım Sultan all took place

around this time. Even though Bayezid’s role in each of these developments

remains unclear, his conciliatory policies may have laid the foundation for the

subsequent accommodation of various nonconformist Sufis under the

Bektashi umbrella.358

When Cemal Halveti arrived the capital and Koca Mustafa Pasha established

his foundation the convent became the primary lodge of the Halveti Order. A few

years later, at the end of the fifteenth century, Hüseyin Ağa turned the church of Sts.

Sergius and Bacchus into a Halveti lodge. Among the others, Küçük Ayasofya stands

like a usual Halveti tevhîdhâne. However, it has its own properties, which attach it a

sort of particularity. The zâvîye seems like a junction where various prominent

figures lodge for a period during their careers. As far as I understand from the

available sources, Nureddinzade and Muhyî are among the most important of them.

358Terzioğlu, “Sufis in the Age of State-Building,” 93.

126

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

This thesis focused on a former Byzantine church, Küçük Ayasofya, which was later

converted into a mosque and sufi lodge by the patron Babüssaade Ağası Hüseyin

Ağa. The primary purpose is not only to understand the dynamics that lay behind the

conversions activated by the statesmen of Bayezid II, but also to see how these

people, especially Hüseyin Ağa gathered the property that was instrumental in the

creation of his foundation. Thus, the power relations, the spatial dynamics, and the

donor constitute the central foci of this thesis and are explored in the three main

chapters.

First, as being kapu ağa, an endower and as a patron Hüseyin Ağa made

numerous transactions, purchased many villages and lands within the borders of the

Ottoman State that made him the owner of affluent assets. Bayezid II, as the supreme

ruler, on the other hand, did not only allow the ağa, but he also issued decrees that

granted him more properties. Moreover, Hüseyin Ağa is not the only person who

enjoyed the Sultan’s support. Different from Mehmed II’s reign, now, in the time of

Bayezid, statesmen and palace members outside of the divan could also make

prominent acts of patronage and had privileges of deploying spaces of imperial

significance. The conversion of former Byzantine structures was among these acts.

Thus, apparently, Bayezid II had a more flexible approach to his subjects of higher

means or he had a different imperial vision than that of his father. The case of İvaz

Paşa shows that there are earlier examples comparable to Hüseyin’s case regarding a

proximity to the ruler which also entailed participation in significant construction

activity. Moreover, this study also reveals that prominent figures of Bayezid’s court

127

included eunuchs, who shared a past with him in Amasya. For example, this would

not be case for the reign Süleiman the Magnificent, where the viziers were much

more visible with their patronage and transactions. It could be said that Bayezid’s

reign witnessed the rise of imperial ağas, a phenomenon that would again become

visible beginning in the final decades of the sixteenth century.

Although there is a paucity of information concerning the biography of

Hüseyin Ağa, he has a significant position in the formation of Ottoman

Constantinople with his conversion of the church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus and

with his erection of a nearby dervish lodge. Plus, he constructed a monumental

edifice in Amasya, a madrasa of a particular plan. It is the city to which his Sultan

attached a special significance and where he also established a complex in his own

name. Hüseyin and Firuz Ağa preferred, for their acts of patronage, such cities of

regional importance as Amasya and Filibe. As a result they made visible transactions

in the Balkans and in Eyâlet-i Rum.

Second, it is mentioned numerous times that during the reign of Bayezid II,

statesmen were the actors of important conversions. Koca Mustafa Paşa ,for

example, converted a prominent nunnery of the late Byzantine Empire. Aladdin Ali’s

patronage as another case covers a huge monastery with a Byzantine imperial

graveyard. If a statesman did not convert a former church, then he positioned his

buildings on highly visible places such as Firuz Ağa’s construction at the beginning

of Divan Yolu. The situation arouses a question: What does the location and the

history of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus tell us in terms of the long term history of the

Byzantine and the Ottoman city?

Indeed, the church had a complicated history, but it shows a kind of

continuing significance through the Byzantine period, with its own peculiarities. It

128

was home to the iconoclastic controversy and the Monophysite détente. In addition,

it was a place of religious visits with its relics during the last centuries of the

Byzantine Empire. During its conversion, Hüseyin Ağa did not intervene in the

architecture of the building as far as possible. So, what aspects of the buildings did

other Ottoman patrons preserve while making constructions on former Byzantine

sites? Is it possible to discern a consistent approach?

The answer to the second question seems a “no” since it is not possible to

observe a particular tendency in the several conversions such as Kariye Mosque, Gül

Mosque, Koca Mustafa Paşa Mosque and Fenari İsa Mosque. At least, it is analyzed

whether the former church with its interior architecture was suitable for Islamic

prayers and qibla orientation or not, the place was conserved in its original form to

the degree that it conformed to the requirements of Muslim prayer. In the case of

Küçük Ayasofya for example, the principal area together with its columns has

survived in its original state.

In the third chapter, the focus shifted to the later times when Küçük Ayasofya

functioned as a Halveti lodge. The site stood as a prominent place of education, in

addition to keeping its feature of hosting influential individuals. Famous members of

the ulema were educated in the lodge or sat as the sheikh before passing to their next

step in their career lines. As the church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus had housed

Monophysites, Küçük Ayasofya was a sanctuary for Hafız Muhammed Semerkandi

and his circle. Muhyi’s menakıbname and other such sources show that the lodge

became a sort of junction during the sixteenth century.

Finally, studying Küçük Ayasofya is not an easy task. I could say that at least

this thesis stands as a compilation of stories regarding Küçük Ayasofya’s life,

regarding the social and political networks that underlay its foundation and later life,

129

the making and transformations of its architectural fabric, and its connection to its

urban and imperial context. But still, it must be admitted that there are aspects of this

history that have not been revealed, and documents about the complex that have not

been unearthed or deciphered yet. A further research regarding an analogy of the

patronage of imperial eunuchs of different centuries could be conducted to have a

broader vision on the subject.

130

APPENDIX A

IMAGES

Figure 1. First page of Firuz Ağa’s vakfiye (TS.MA.d6931, folio 5a.)

131

Figure 2. The Properties of Hüseyin Ağa in Constantinople (the basic map is taken

from Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis/Istanbul.)

132

Figure 3. The plan of Hüseyin Ağa’s bedesten (from Semavi Eyice, “Kapu Ağası

Hüseyin Ağa’nın Vakıfları,” 206.)

133

Figure 4. The plan of the Madrasa of Hüseyin Ağa in Amasya (from İsmail Aydın

Yüksel, Osmanlı Mimarisinde II. Bayezid, Yavuz Selim Devri, 46. )

134

Figure 5. The distribution of Firuz’s and Hüseyin’s properties (the basic map is taken

from Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis/Istanbul.)

135

Figure 6. The ground plan of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus (from Alexander van

Millingen, Byzantine Churches in Constantinople, 80.)

136

Figure 7. The ground plan of San Vitale in Ravenna (from

http://www.artandarchitecture.org.uk/images/conway/7b9c30f1.html accessed in

September 2, 2016.)

Figure 8. The text of Çardaklı Hamam’s foundation inscription (from Heinrich

Glück, Probleme des Wölbungsbaues Die Bader Konstantinopels, 105.)

137

Figure 9. The foundation inscription of Çardaklı Hamam, photo taken by the author

138

Figure 10. The quarter of Küçük Ayasofya in the Pervititch’s insurance maps (from

Jacques Pervititch Sigorta Haritalarında İstanbul, 67.)

139

Figure 11. Inside of Çardaklı Hamam, photo taken by the author

140

Figure 12. The ground plan of Çardaklı Hamam by Eyice based of Gluck’s version

(from Semavi Eyice, “Kapu Ağası Hüseyin Ağa’nın Vakıfları,” 243.)

141

Figure 13. The ground plan of Firuz Ağa Mosque (İsmail Aydın Yüksel, Osmanlı

Mimarisinde II. Bayezid, Yavuz Selim Devri, 249.)

142

Figure 14. The ground plan of Atik Ali Paşa Mosque by Arben N. Arapi (from

http://archnet.org/media_contents/49208 accessed in September 2, 2016.)

143

Figure 15. The ground plan of Rum Mehmed Paşa Mosque (by Ekrem Hakkı

Ayverdi, http://archnet.org/media_contents/7782 accessed in September 2, 2016.)

144

Figure 16. The ground plan of Küçük Ayasofya, together with zâvîye and the tomb

(from Semavi Eyice, “Kapu Ağası Hüseyin Ağa’nın Vakıfları,” 220.)

145

Figure 17. The interior of the mosque, taken by the author

146

Figure 18. A detail from Byzantine column capital, taken by the author

147

Figure 19. The ground plan of Gül Mosque by Alexander van Millingen (from

Alexander van Millingen, Byzantine Churches in Constantinople, 179.)

148

Figure 20. The ground plan of Koca Mustafa Paşa Mosque (by Alexander van

Millingen, http://mapio.net/o/3122349/ accessed in September 2, 2016.)

149

Figure 21. The ground plan of Fenari İsa Mosque by Alexander van Millingen (from

Alexander van Millingen, Byzantine Churches in Constantinople, 119.)

150

Figure 22. The page of Tomar-ı Tekaya concerning Küçük Ayasofya, folio 183

151

APPENDIX B

THE PROPERTIES OF HÜSEYİN AĞA

1. In TS.MA.d6977

CONSTANTINOPLE

• Hamam-ı Cedid (New Bathhouse) constructed by the donor in the

neighborhood of the mosque (fi qurb al-cami). It is so-called Çardaklı

Hamam.

• 16 dukkans/shops close to hammam mentioned above. 3 of them (a butcher, a

barber and a shop for bozahane) are at the right side of the hammam’s door.

The others (13 of them) are at ( واقعة في مقابلة وراء الطریق في الجانب الأیسر ) at the

across and the beginning of the road situated on the left side of the hammam.

Those have borders with the main road ( بالطریق العام شرقا وقبلة ) from the east

and the southern sides, and with the property of Uveys bin Karagöz from

north, and the asset of Hasan bin Abduhu (…) Al-Qadiri from the western

side.

• And one of them is the land of the big, ruined garden known as Çatladı

Garden. It is close to the Hippodrome ( میدان الفرس ). The donor bought this

property from Mehmed b. Çatladı. Then built the hammam at one of the sides

of it. Ali Paşa (Probably Atik Ali Paşa, who later became the grand vizier in

1501) gave a land to Hüseyin Ağa, which is attached to the aforementioned

garden. The donor also bought adjacent land (close to Çatladı Bahçesi) from

Christians with their houses. He sold them before his waqf and repelled the

Christians then gave it to Muslims after once the endowment is founded ( ثم

باع الأبنیة قبل الوقف ودفع عرصتھا إلى المسلمین بعد الوقف ). The city walls, surround this

land from south, the main road from southeast ( قبلة وشرقا ), the houses of the

Christians from the west side.

• Another piece of land is next to the Çatladi Garden. It is in south and

surrounded by the main road from all sides. The donor bought it from a zimmi

called Himar.

• And there is another land of the houses at the eastern side of the mentioned

garden and behind the road, which is connected to the Hippodrome. The

donor bought this land from its previous owners. It has a boundary with

mentioned meydan from the eastern side, with the main road from west and

south and with the asset of Muhammed, whose father is Qasım al-Fera359

from north.

فراء 359 : a dealer in or dresser of furs

152

• Another piece of land is close to mentioned garden from the northern side.

The donor bought it from Yorgi the Fisher ( بوركي السماك ). This land is

surrounded by main road from the southeastern and southern sides ( العام قبلة

360 (وجنوبا , by the mentioned garden from west and by the asset of Muhammed

bin Çatladi by North.

• Another empty land, which is close to neighborhood of the mentioned

garden, which is at the southern side of the mentioned mosque that is

connected to the walls (by the sea). Hüseyin Ağa bought it from Muhammed

bin Çatladi. It has boundaries with mentioned two walls (close to the sea)

from south ( قبلة وجنوبا ), with the road from the west side, with a well (kuyu,

البئر المعمول بھا ) from east.361

• There is another empty land at the west of the specified garden which is

surrounded by a private road from south, from the land of a ruined church

وبعرضھ الكنیسة المنھدمة) ) from east and north, and land of the Head of the Poor

رئیس الأعسرین) ) from west and from the property of the Water-Carrier ( (السقا

from south.

• Another land of a big ruined garden known as İshak Paşa Garden, which is

closed to İshak Paşa Hamamı. Hüseyin Ağa bought this land with its

belongings and ruined building from the inheritors of İshak Paşa ( الخربة من

ورثة الأمیر المذكور ). It has limited by the building of Sarachane Commandership

بالداري الأمیریة المعروفة بسراج خانھ) ), garden of al-Hac Avs ( الحاج عوص ), garden of

Kara Hıdır ( قره خضر ) the military zone (al-muhassar al-askerî) from south,

the mentioned İshak Paşa bath (muhavvata), shops of İshak Paşa, the property

of Beni al- Bustani from east, the asset of Zağanos al-Kethuda362 and the

asset of Ahmed the (from the/son of) Quilt-maker (al-Lahhâfî), the asset of

Hamza the Yarn Maker (al-Hayyat), the asset of Davud bin Idris from north,

by the asset of Ghabî, the asset of Mustafa who is known as Karaderzi (?) and

the asset of Oruc Hatun binti Ahmed from west.

• All of the big houses in Ibn Çelebi district (Constantinople). The donor

bought them from a Jewish woman called Efemya bint Elyaho. This asset

includes various second-floor and ground-floor rooms ( .(بیوت متعددة علویة وسفلیة

There are 14 lower rooms and seven higher rooms surrounded by well and

various toilets ( على على كنف متعددة ) and a water wall, and three bakeries. The

asset is limited by road from west, with the asset of Semirye (?) bin Davud

from south, and the asset of two brothers who are called Yusuf and Munahim

الأخوین المعوین یوسف ومناحم) ) and the asset of Yaho from east, with the asset of

Safa Hatun from north.

360 As far as I understand, katib uses قبلة to refer the South. This time he uses both قبلة and جنوب . That

is why I translated the former as the Southeast.

361 As far as I understand, there is the Çatladı Garden at the North of this empty land.

362 I think it could be Zağanos Paşa. But in the text the word kethüda is open to be read differently.

153

• And there are other houses in the same district (Ibn Çelebi Mahallesi). Which

is close to mentioned house ( بقرب من الدار المزبورة ), and the enclosed road of a

lower house. It has borders with the mentioned road, with another road, with

the asset of Yaho and with the asset of Semriye(?). The donor bought them

from Efemya.

• There are two khans in Constantinople, facing each other, and there is road

between them. The donor built them close to Ayasofya. In the upstairs, there

are rooms ( الحجرات العلویة ) and on the first floor there are shops ( (والدكاكین السفلیة

and there is barn363. It is not necessary to write down the borders of these two

khans since there are known with the name of the founder.

• All of the houses ( جمیع الدار ) that are close to mentioned (two) khans. This

asset includes a house, a chamber ( حجرة ), a room, and a barn, another three

lower houses, a toilet and surrounded by wall. It has boundaries with the

main road from north, with the asset of Esma the Singer/ the Emir of the

Singers ( أسما المطرب ) from south, with the imperial water?? ( (وبمسیل الماء الخاقاني

from west and the asset of the Cook/or the soup kitchen ( الطباخ ) from east.

GALATA

• The houses in the Galata’s Cami quarter. The donor bought them from

lumberjack al-Hac Seyyid Ahmed ( خَشَّاب ). The asset includes two mahzens,

two shops, and another mahzen, a high house with another higher house on it

with two toilets and a kiler.364 Above the latter there is another higher house

with oven and kiosk/shade ( ظلة ). The asset has boundaries with the asset of

Silver ( سلور ), with the asset of Aişe, with the main road and a house (which

Hüseyin Ağa bought from Ferhad as-Sallah –the weapon maker).

• The houses in Galata, common with mentioned Ferhad ( المشتراه من فرھاد المومى

إلیھ ). The asset includes two mahzens, three shops and a well; above them

there are three upper houses ( وبئر فوقھا ثلاث علویات ) with kiosk ( صفة 365 ) and an

oven. And above them there are two higher houses ( فوقھما بیتان علویان ) with

kiler and another kiosk ( صفة ). It is bordered with the house mentioned earlier,

with the asset of Balaban the Carrier ( الحمال ), with the asset of Şir Merd, with

the asset of al-Hac Muhammed.

• There houses in the same district ( .(جمیع الدار الكائنة أیضا فیھا في محلھ أغابي

Hüseyin Ağa bought them from Berry bin Thomas al- Afranci ( بري بن توماز

والأفرنجي ). The asset includes a mahzen and two houses on it ( مخزن فوقھ بیتان

علویان ). It has boundaries with the asset of Minvel al-Nasrani, with the House

إصطبل 363 :barn

- building to shelter farm animals like cows, horses, etc, or building for a fleet of buses, vans, etc

- a place for breeding the cattle or keeping horses

صفة 365 :kiosk

- a light open pavilion in Turkey and Iran

- long seat of stone in a public park, etc

- narrow horizontal surface projecting from a wall, etc; cornice; rack

154

of Commandership/ the house of the emir?? ( وبالدار الأمیریة ) and with the main

road from two sides.

• There three floors ( الدور الثلاث ) in Galata in that district. The donor bought

them from Antoine bin Yakomi. But the first house is comprised of two

mahzens and two floors on it. It has boundaries with the asset of Shevma bin

Ani ( شوما بن اني ), and private road, and main road from two sides. And the

second house is comprised of two connected lower houses ( (بیت سفلیة متلاصقین

and two floors on it. It has boundaries with the asset of Bernardo bin Hazo

پرناردوبن حازو) ) and with the asset of Yakomi the Baker ( یاقومي الخباز ), with the

main road from two sides. The third house/asset is comprised of a mahzen

and two floors on it. It has boundaries with the Waqf of Ayasofya, with the

asset of Rani the Baker ( راني الخباز ), and with the waqf of al-Hac Huseyin Ağa

and with the main road.

• The big garden in Galata at the place called Kozlu Bekkar (?)( .( قوز لوبكار

Hüseyin Ağa bought it from Yahşi Bey bin Ahmed Bey, the emir of Hamid

Sancağı (in Isparta and Eğirdir???) with the agreement of his sales

representative ( بعقد وكیلھ بالبیع ) Şadi bin Abdullah(?). - كما نطق بھ صك البیع - This

asset includes various fruit trees, with a house and a room on it ( بیت فوقھ

366 (غرفة , a kiosk ( ظلة ), and another wooden but strong house ( وبیت آخر من حشب

اما مرصفة ), and a water well, and a chamber ( حجرة ), and two ponds known as

dolab ( وحوضین معورفین بدولا ). The asset has boundaries with the garden of

Dimitri al-Nasrani from east, a road adjacent to sea from south, the wells of

Bostani İskender from west, and the vineyard of İlyas the Bachelor ( بكرم إلیاس

.(العزب

EDIRNE

• A big share ( حصتھ الشائعة ) from a big khan in Edirne, which is at the bazaar of

Carpenters/Lathers ( في سوق الخراطین ثم ) which is later known as Halil Paşa367

Hanı. The shops are connected with the mentioned khan. Hüseyin Ağa has 23

shares. The total of the khan is 36. He bought this asset from the descendants

of Halil Paşa.

• Two shops in Edirne at Hamam Bazaar. The donor bought them from

Huseyin Bey Emirü’l-Alem Es-Sultani. It has boundaries with the asset of

Yusuf the amir of the cooks, with two sultani shops, with the main road from

two sides.

• The land close to Yeni Cami in Edirne. The donor bought it from mentioned

Huseyin Bey. It has boundaries with main road from all four sides with the

butcher that the donor built near a side of the waqf of mentioned İbrahim

Pasha, and attached to another shop from other that coherent to the waqf of

Mevlana Fahreddin Acemi. And there are other buildings that are not related

to the waqf. Their rental price is equal to the half of their income.

367 He is Çandarlı Halil Paşa (d.1453)

155

• There is a land close to the right side of Kal’a Gate. Sultan Bayezid II gave it

to the donor. From one side this land is attached to the fortress’ wall and the

main road. As for other three sides, together with the butcher (and to other

shop-the donor built them-, it is attached to main road.

• There is another land piece at the left side of Kal’a Gate. It is in the face of

the mentioned land (number 22). It has boundaries with an oil shop ( بالأرض

الأمیریة التي فیھا دكان یاغي ) from east, with main road from remaining three sides.

This land piece was also given to the donor by Sultan Bayezid II. النشور مع

الدكانین المتلاصقین اللذین بناھما الواقف في الأرض المذكورة بعد تملكھ إیاھما

• There is a land out of the Hacı Pasha Gate at the end of the Carpenters’

Market. It has boundaries with a trench from south, a main road and a bridge

from west, and main road from north, with shoe shop from east. This land is

also given by the mentioned Sultan. This is also attached to the previously

mentioned one. The donor built new shops after the Sultan gave the land to

him.

• There is another land that is close to the previous one, outside of the Al-Hac

İvez Paşa Gate. The height of it is sixty arms ( ذراع ) and the width of it is

twenty arms. It has boundaries with the bridge mentioned above, an empty

land and main road from two sides. This piece of land is also given by the

Sultan.

• And the entire village of Binbucak ( بنبوجاق ) in the İznik region. The donor

bought this village from Hadice Hatun. There is no need to describe that

village since it is known with its place and to its people. There is also a

Doğancı Çifliği ( طوغانجي جفتلكي ) in the borders of that village.

• There three villages in the town of İncüğez ( أنجوكز ). These are given by the

Sultan. Once one of these villages sometimes called the asset of Karaca

Kerameddin and sometimes the New Village ( قریة جدیدة ). The second is called

the village of Ali Fakih and the third is the village of Murad Fakih.

• There are three other arable lands in İncüğez. The first one is close to

Constantinople and called Köse Aslıhan, second is the land of Köse Adil, and

the third is the land of Kolağız (or Kılağuz) ( .(قولاغوز

• Other three lands located in different positions in the area of İncüğez. One of

them is known as the land of Aziz, the second is the land of Hüseyin, and the

third is known as the land of Uğurlu. These lands are given the Sultan. All of

them are known by the people of the area with their locations, limits.

• The endower also donated 100000 dirhams.

156

2. In TS.MA.d6996

CONSTANTINOPLE

• The donor built a mosque at Eski Et Pazarı.

• The land in the place called Otluk Pazarı ( أوتلوق بازارى ). It has borders with a

main road from two sides, with the asset of Başçı Hacı Evi, with a main road

that is attached to the asset of Hallac Mustafa, with the asset of Borkcü

Muhammed, with the asset of Hoca Buri? ( بُرَى ), with the asset of Hoca

Dursun, with a well-known main road which ends with the fountain of ???

چشمھء التوكلت) ). The donor built 20 shops in this land.

• There are 12 shops and a house opposite to mentioned 20 shops. It has

boundaries with the khan of Süleyman Paşa, with the asset of Huseyin Alufi

حسین علوفي) ), with the shops of the Sultan, and with a main road which end

with the previously mentioned fountain ( .(چشمھء التوكلت

• There are 89 rooms ( حجرات ) and a piece of land close to the mosque that the

donor built.

THE BALKANS

Samokov (Bulgaria), Filibe (Plovdiv in Bulgaria), Leskofça (Leskovac in Serbia),

Parakin (Paraćin in Serbia, براكین ), Ürgüb ( Toplica in Serbia), Alaca Hisar

(Kruševac in Serbia). (These assets are all granted by Sultan Bayezid II)

• Filibe: Two villages called Çaşnigir Köyü ( چاشنكیر كویي ) and Yakacak ( (یقاجق

with their farms and fields. The donor built a mosque and a school in Filibe.

• Samakov: The donor built a hammam and shops close to the mosque.

• Leskofça (in district of Niş, ناحیة قضاء نیش ): The donor built a hammam and a

number of mills ( والطاحونیة المتعددة ) in this town. He has a small meadow called

Hıdır Ağa. A mill and a dipper ( دنك ) near the river of Morava ( نھر موراوا ), and

a meadow.

• Parakin: He has a number of dippers ( دنك ), a mill and a meadow.

• Ürgüb: A big meadow called Ormanı Dipli?? ( (أورماني دپلي

3. In TS.MA.d6936

Amasya ( He built a bedesten and a madrasa)

• Dar al-Bezzazin ( دار البزازین ) with four shops ( (الحوانیت الأربعین

• The land of an old bazaar ( (البزازیة العتیقة

157

ناحیة سیمرة) • )A village called Kordani ( قورداني ). The donor bought it from

İskender Çelebi and Şehsuvar Çelebi bin Mahmud Çelebi bin al-Hac İlyas

Ağa.

• ¾ of the Yuva village in (…) ( فلوات ) district of Amasya.

• The entire village called Çiftlik in Ladik district.

• Two attached villages called Bozoklu and Şehriman in Osmancık province

قضاء) ) of Amasya.

• A village called Yıkan ( یكان ) and a farm called Güngörmez in the province of

Zile ( .(زیلھ

• A village called Lab ( لاب ) in Kazaya( قازآیا ) province.

• Kırca Viran ( قرچھ ویران ) village in (…).

• Half of the village called Öhömro ( أوخمره ) in Zile?? ( (أعمال زیلة

• A farm. The donor bought it from Şah Paşa Hatun bint(?) Kasım Çelebi.

TRABZON

• The bathhouse in the citadel of the city. It is situated close to the door of the

citadel, which is called Orta Kale. The donor bought this hammam from the

family of Mustafa Bey bin Abdullah.

SONISA (the ağa built a masjid)

• The entire village called Topnaklar ( طوبنا قلر ) with a stream for rice ( .(جدول ارز

Sultan Bayezid II gave this asset to the donor.

• A village called Bayat Burnu known as Sonlu ( .(صونلو

• A village called Sepdelu ( سپدلو ) in (…) ( فلیند ) district of Sonisa. The donor

bought it Ali Çelebi bin İskender.

• A village called Kanaryaltı ?? ( كناریالتي ). Vakıf bought it from Hamza Bey ibn

Ahmed.

• Half of the village of Karabük ( قرة بوك ) and half of the two fields called

Behram Şah which is known as Örencik ( اورانجك ) and the other is the field of

Ilıca ( إیلجة ). The donor bought them from the biggest follower ( خلفي الأكبر ) of

Torak ( طوراق ) Çelebi bin Mahmud Çelebi bin Mehmed Çelebi bin Ali Çelebi

bin Mahmud Çelebi Ali.

158

• Seyyid Yahya ibn merhum Seyyid Zeyn al-Abidin. All of them are in Ladik

لاذیق) ) district of Amasya.

NIKSAR

• A village called Tazılar ( تازیلر ) and a field ( مزرعة ) called Endeksi?? ( .(اندكسي

The donor bought them from Hamza Bey ibn Ahmed Ali. These are in Niksar

district.

MERZIFON

• A village called Şıh Yeki ( .(شیخ یكي

İNCÜĞEZ PROVINCE (it is close to Constantinople, Bayezid II gave these

assets to Hüseyin Ağa)

• A field called the Field of Aslıhan.

• The field of Köse Adil.

• A field called Kılavuz ( (قولاوز

• The field of Keramuddin.

• The land of Aziz, the land of Hüseyin and the land of Uğurlu.

• The land of Kırca ( قرچھ ) Keramuddin and the New Village ( .(القریة الجدیدة

• The village of Ali Fakih.

• The village of Murad Fakih.

CONSTANTINOPLE

• Two houses close to Ayasofya, including shops, rooms and a barn.

3. In TS.MA.d10773

TOKAD AND MECİDÖZÜ

He has a bathhouse, an imaret and a madrasa in Tokad.

• Various villages and lands in Mecidözü province and in Tatoz Özü ( (طانون أوز

province.

159

REFERENCES

ARCHIVAL SOURCES

TSMA.D.6996, Babüssaade Ağası Hüseyin Ağa'nın Vakfiyesi, 1486.

TSMA.D.6931, Firuz Beg Vakfiyesi, 1492.

TSMA.D.6936, Hüseyin Ağa bin Abdulcelil Vakfiyesi, 1499.

TSMA.D10733, Hüseyin Ağa Vakfiyesi, 1493.

TSMA.D.6977, Hüseyin Ağa Vakfiyesi, 1510.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SOURCES

Abdizade, H. H. (1912-1928). Amasya tarihi (Vol. 1). Istanbul: Necm-i İstiklal

Matbaası.

Akar, T. (2011). The Role of Waqf in Shopping and Preserving Urban Areas: The

Historical Commercial Center of Adana. In Held in Trust: Waqf in the Islamic

World. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press.

Artan, T. (2015). The politics of Ottoman Imperial Palaces: Waqfs and Architecture

from the 16th to the 18th Centuries. In Michael Featherstone, Jean-Michel

Spieser, Gülru Tanman, Ulrike Wulf-Rheidt (Eds.), The Emperor's House:

Palaces from Augustus to the Age of Absolutism, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Aru, M. K. (1949). Türk Hamamları Etüdü. Istanbul: ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi.

Atai, N. (1989). Şakaik-ı nu'maniye ve zeyilleri (A. Özcan, Ed.). İstanbul: Çağrı

Yayınları.

Ayvansarayi, H. (1865). Hadikatü’l-Cevâmi’. Istanbul: Matbaa-i Amire.

Ayverdi, E. H. (1958). Fatih Devri Sonraların İstanbul Mahalleleri, Şehrin İskanı ve

Nüfusu. Ankara: Doğuş Limited Şirketi Matbaası.

Bakhoum, D. I. (2011). Waqf System: Maintenance, Repair and Upkeep. In P.

Ghazaleh (Ed.), Held in Trust: Waqf in the Islamic World. Cairo: The

American University in Cairo Press.

Bandırmalızade, S. M. (2003). Mecmua-i Tekaya. In A. N. Galitekin (Ed.),

Tekaya”,in Osmanlı Kaynaklarına Göre İstanbul: Cami, Tekke, Medrese,

Mekteb, Türbe, Hamam, Kütüphane, Matbaa, Mahalle ve Selatin İmaretleri.

Istanbul: İşaret Yayınları.

Bardill, J. (2000). DOP 54. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library

and Collection.

160

Barkan, O. L., & Ayverdi, E. H. (1970). İstanbul vakıfları tahrîr defteri: 953 (1546)

târîhli. İstanbul: Baha Matbaası.

Behrens-Abouseif, D. (2002). Waqf. In The Encyclopedia of Islam (New Edition 10

ed.).

Berger, A. (2012). Bizans Çağında Hamamlar. In N. Ergin (Ed.) & A. Ö Erozan

(Trans.), Anadolu Medeniyetlerinde Hamam Kültürü: Mimari, Tarih ve

İmgelem. İstanbul: Koç University Publications.

Bilmen, Ö N. (1969). Hukuk-i İslamiyye ve Istılahat-ı Fıkhıyye Kamusu (Vol. 4).

İstanbul.

Bitiçi, T. (2001). Münir-i Belgradi ve Silsiletü'l Mukarrebin Adlı Eseri (Unpublished

Ph.D. thesis). Marmara University.

Çelik, U. (2008). Amasya Kapu Ağası Hüseyin Ağa Bedesteni Restorasyon Önerisi.

(MA Thesis). Gazi University.

Connor, C. L. (2004). Women of Byzantium. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Croke, B. (2006). Justinian, Theodora and the Church of Sts. Bergius and Bacchus.

Dumbarton Oak Papers, (60).

Curcic, S. (1997). Public Baths (E. Hadjitryphonos, Ed.). In S. Curcic (Ed.), Secular

Medieval Architecture in the Balkans. Thessaloniki: AIOMOS.

Curry, J. J. (2012). The Meeting of the Two Sultans. In J. Curry & E. S. Ohlander

(Authors), Sufism and Society: Arrangements of the Mystical in the Muslim

World 1200- 1800. London: Routhledge.

Curry, J. J. (2010). The transformation of Muslim mystical thought in the Ottoman

Empire: The rise of the Halveti order, 1350-1650. Edinburgh: Edinburgh

University Press.

Dale, S. F. (2010). Empires and Emporia: Palace, Mosque, Market, and Tomb in

Istanbul, Isfahan, Agra, and Delhi. Journal of the Economic and Social History

of the Orient, 53.

Deguilhem, R. (2008). The Waqf in the City (R. Holod, A. Petruccioli, & A.

Raymond, Eds.). In S. K. Jayusi (Ed.), The City in the Islamic World. Leidin:

Brill.

Eickelman, D. (2002). Foreword: The Religious Public Sphere in Early Muslim

Societies. In M. Hoexter & S. N. Eisenstadt (Eds.), The Public Sphere in

Muslim Socities. Albany: State University of New York Press.

161

Emre, S. (2009). Ibrahim-i Gulseni (ca. 1442-1534): Itinerant Saint and Cairene

Ruler (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Chicago.

Eyice, Semavi. Çardaklı Hamam. TDIA, 8.

Eyice, Semavi. (1995). Fenari İsa Camii. TDIA, 12.

Eyice, Semavi. (1996). Gül Camii. TDIA, 14.

Eyice, Semavi. (1978). Kapu Ağası Hüseyin Ağa’nın Vakıfları. EFAD, (Özel Sayı),

9th ser.

Eyice Semavi. (2001).Kariye Camii. TDIA, 24.

Eyice, Semavi. (2002).Koca Mustafa Paşa Camii, TDIA, 26.

Eyice, Semavi. (2002). Küçük Ayasofya Camii.TDIA, 26.

Eyice, S. (1980). Son Devir Bizans Mimarisi. Istanbul: Turing ve Otomobil Kurumu.

Fatih Sultan Mehmet Han-ı Sani Kanunnamesi, in Külliyat-ı Kevanin, 1/6089.

Gabriel, A. (1931). Monuments turcs d' Anatolie: Ouvrage Publié Sous Les Auspices

du Ministère Turc de L'instruction Publique 2 (Vol. 2). Paris: E. de Boccard.

Galitekin, A. N. (2003). Dersaatteki Medaris-i İlmiyyede Bulunan Talebenin

Müfredat Defteri, in Osmanlı Kaynaklarına Göre İstanbul: Cami, Tekke,

Medrese, Mekteb, Türbe, Hamam, Kütüphane, Matbaa, Mahalle ve Selatin

İmaretleri. İstanbul: İşaret Yayınları.

Gerlach, S. (2007). Türkiye Günlüğü. 1573-1576. Istanbul: Kitap Yayınevi.

Ghazaleh, P. (2011). Introduction: Pious Foundations: From Here to Eternity. In P.

Ghazaleh (Ed.), Held in trust: Waqf in the Islamic world. Cairo: American

University in Cairo Press.

Glück, H. (1921). Probleme des Wölbungsbaues Die Bader Konstantinopels. Wien.

Goodwin, G. (1987). A history of Ottoman Architecture. New York: Thames &

Hudson.

Harrison, M. R. (1986). Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul. Washington:

Princeton University Press.

Heffening, W. (1934). Waqf. In The Encyclopedia of Islam: A Dictionary of The

Geography, Ethnography and Biography of the Muhammadan Peoples (Vol.

4).

Hoexter, M. (1998). Waqf Studies in the Twentieth Century: The State of the Art.

Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 41.

162

İbrahim, N. (2011). The Sadir al-Fuqaha’ wa’l-Fuqara’ Endowment (Salah al-Dīn al-

Ayyubī. In P. Ghazaleh (Ed.), Held In Trust: Waqf In the Islamic World. Cairo:

The American University in Cairo Press.

Janin, R. (1950). Constantinople Byzantine: Developpment Urbain er Repertoire

Topographique. (p. 334). Paris: Institut Français D' etudes Byzantines.

John of Ephesus, “Lives of the Eastern Saints”. (2010). In A. Kaldellis (Ed.) & A.

Kaldellis (Trans.), Prokopios, The Secret History with Related Texts.

Cambridge: Hackett Publishing.

Kafescioğlu, C. (2009). Constantinopolis/Istanbul: Cultural Encounter, Imperial

Vision and The Construction of the Ottoman Capital. Pennsylvania:

Pennsylvania State University Press.

Karaismailoğlu, Adnan. Muhyî-i Gülşenî. TDIA,31.

Karataş, H. (2011). The City as a Historical Actor the Urbanization and

Ottomanization of the Halvetiye Sufi Order by the City of Amasya in the

Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries (Unpublished master's thesis). University of

California, Berkeley.

Kazıcı, Z. (2003). Osmanlı vakıf medeniyeti. İstanbul: Bilge Yayınları.

Kemalpaşazade. (2001). Selatinname(1299-1490). Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu.

Kidonopoulos, V. (1995). Bauten in Konstantinopel 1204- 1328. Wiesbaden:

Harrassowitz Verlag.

Kılıç, M. E. (1997). Yedi Tepeli Şehrin Tekkeleri ve Muhyiddin Efendi’nin“Tomâr-ı

Tekâyâ”sı. In İstanbul Armağanı 3: Gündelik Hayatın Renkleri. Istanbul: İz

Yayıncılık.

Koçu, R. E. (1958). Çardaklı Hamam. İstanbul Ansiklopedisi, (7).

Koçu, R. E. (1954). Çarşı Hamamlarımız. TTOK Belleteni, 155.

Köprülü, M. F. (1938). Vakıf Müessesesi ve Vakıf Vesikalarının Tarihi Ehemmiyeti.

Vakıflar Dergisi, (1).

Krautheimer, R. (1974). Again Saints Sergius and Bacchus at Constantinople.

Jahrbuch Der Österreischen Byzantinistik, (23).

Kunter, H. B. (1938). Türk Vakıfları ve Vakfıyeleri. Vakıflar Dergisi, (1).

Kuran, A. (1965). Basic Space and Form Concept in Early Ottoman Mosque

Architecture. In Atti del Secondo Congresso Internazionale Di Arte Turca.

Napoli.

163

Kuran, A. (1968). The mosque in early Ottoman architecture. London: University of

Chicago Press.

Kütükoğlu, M. S. (2000). XX. Asra Erişen İstanbul Medreseleri. Istanbul,: Türk

Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.

Leeuwen, R. V. (1999). Waqfs and urban structures: The case of Ottoman

Damascus. Leiden: Brill.

Magdalino, P. (2002). Medieval Constantinople: Built Environment and Urban

Development. In A. Laiou (Ed.), The Economic History of Byzantium.

Washington.

Majeska, G. P. (1984). Russian travelers to Constantinople in the fourteenth and

fifteenth centuries. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and

Collection.

Mango, C. (1972). The Church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus at Constantinople and

the Alleged Tradition of Octagonal Palatine Churches. JÖB, (21).

Mango, C. (1975). The Church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus Once Again.

Byzantinische Zeitschrift.

Martin, B. G. (1972). A Short History of the Khalwati Order of Dervishes. In N. R.

Keddie (Ed.), Scholars, Saints and Sufis. Berkeley: University of California

Press.

Mathews, T. (1971). The Early Churchs of Constantinople: Architecture and Liturgy.

London: The Pennsylvania Press.

Matrakçı, N. (2015). Tarih-i Sultan Bayezid. Reha Bilge (Ed.) İstanbul: Arvana

Yayıncılık.

Matschke, K. P. (2001). Builders and Building in Late Byzantine Constantinople. In

N. Necipoğlu (Ed.), Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments, Topography and

Everyday Life. Leiden: Brill Publications.

McChesney, R. D. (1991). Waqf in Central Asia: Four hundred years in the history

of a Muslim shrine, 1480-1889. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Mehmed Süreyya Bey. (1890-93). Sicill-i Osmani: Yahud Tezkire-i Meşahir-i

Osmaniye 2. Istanbul: Matbaa-i Amire.

Mitchell, E. B. (1993). Institution and destitution: Patronage tales of old Stamboul

(Unpublished Ph.D.'s thesis). University of California.

Müller-Wiener, W. (2001). İstanbul’unTarihsel Topografyası (Ü Sayın, Trans.).

Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.

164

Mustafa Ali (Ed.). (1994). Künhü’l-Ahbâr’ın Tezkire Kısmı. Ankara: Atatürk Kültür

Merkezi Yayını.

Ocak, A. Y. (1998). Osmanlı Toplumunda Zındıklar ve Mülhidler: 15.-17. yüzyıllar.

(p. 315). Istanbul: Toplumsal Tarih Vakfı.

Orgun, Z. (1938). Hassa Mimarları. Arkitekt, (12), 338-339.

Ousterhout, R. G. (1999). Master builders of Byzantium. Princeton: Princeton

University Press.

Pakalın, M. Z. (1983). Osmanlı Tarih Deyimleri ve Terimleri Sözlüğü. Istanbul: Milli

Eğitim Basımevi.

Peri, O. (1992). Waqf and Ottoman Welfare Policy. The Poor Kitchen of Hasseki

Sultan in Eighteenth-Century Jerusalem. Journal of the Economic and Social

History of the Orient, 35(2), 167.

Peters, R. (2002). Waqf. The Encyclopedia of Islam, 11.

Rogers, M. (1976/1977). Waqfs and Waqf-Registers: New Primary Sources For

Islamic Architecture. Kunst Des Orients, 11.

Sarı Abdullah Efendi. (1967). Semerâtü’l-Fuad (Y. K. Necefzade, Trans.). Istanbul:

Yeni Şark Yurdu Matbaası.

Schibble, N. (2014). Hagia Sophia and the Byzantine Aesthetic Experience. Ashgate

Publishing.

Selâniki Mustafa Efendi. (1989). Tarih-i Selâniki. İstanbul: Edebiyat Fakültesi

Basımevi.

Shadid, I. (2003). The Church of Sts. Sergios and Bakhos at Constantinople, Some

New Perspectives. In Byzantium State and Society: In Memory of Nikos

Oikonomides. Athens: Institute for Byzantine Studies.

Singer, A. (2002). Constructing Ottoman Beneficience: An Imperial Soup Kitchen in

Jerusalem. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Skylitzès, J. (2003). Jean Empereurs de Constantinople (B. Flusin, Trans.). Paris: P.

Lethielleux.

Talbot, A. M. (2000). Lips: Typikon of Theodora Palaiologina for the Convent of

Lips in Constantinople. In J. Thomas (Ed.), Byzantine Monastic Foundation

Documents:A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders’ Typika and

Testaments. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks.

Talbot, A. (1993). The Restoration of Constantinople under Michael VIII.

Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 47.

165

Tanman, B. (2005). Osmanlı Mimarisinde Tarikat Yapıları/ Tekkeler. In A. Y. Ocak

(Ed.), Osmanlı Toplumunda Tasavvuf ve Sufiler. Istanbul: Türk Tarih Kurumu.

Tanyeli, U. (1990, August). Küçük Ayasofya ve Çevresinin Tarihsel Topoğrafyasına

Katkılar. Tarih Ve Toplum, 80.

Tanyeli, U. (2015). Sınıraşımı Metinleri. p. 302. Istanbul: Bek Tasarım ve

Danışmanlık.

Terzioğlu, D. (2012). Sufis in the Age of State-Building and Confessionalization. In

C. Woodhead (Ed.), The Ottoman World. London: Routhledge Publishing.

Ünver, S. (1950). Türk Hamamları. Tarih Dünyası, 1, 189-203.

Uzunçarşılı, I. H., Baybura, I. K., & Altindağ, U. (Eds.). (1985). Topkapı Sarayı

Müzesi Osmanlı Saray Arşivi Kataloğu. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.

Van Millingen, A. (1912). Byzantine Churches in Constanitnople. London:

Macmillan.

Van Millingen, A. (1899). Byzantine Constantinople: The Walls of the City and The

Adjoining Historical Sites. London: J. Murray.

Vassaf, H. (2006). Sefine-i Evliya. Istanbul: Kitap Yayınevi.

Yediyıldız, B. (2012). Vakıf. TDIA, 42.

Yıldırım, R. (2011). Dervishes, Waqfs, and Conquest: Notes on Early Ottoman

Expansion in Thrace. In P. Ghazaleh (Ed.), Held In Trust: Waqf In the Islamic

World. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press.

Yılmaz, H. K. (1991). Aziz Mahmud Hüdayi. TDIA, 4.

Yüksel, I. A. (1983). Osmanlı Mimârîsinde II. Bâyezid, Yavuz Selim Devri. İstanbul:

İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti.

Yürekli, Z. (2003). A Building Between The Public And Private Realms Of The

Ottoman Elite: The Sufi Convent Of Sokollu Mehmed Pasha In Istanbul.

Muqarnas, 20(1), 159-185.