The Hagia Sophia: From Church to Mosque

The Hagia Sophia: From church to mosque Essay Research Seminar Roma Aeterna: Medieval Rome and Constantinople Author: Patrick Wanders (4055608) Supervisors: Prof. Dr. Paul Stephenson and Dr. Sven Meeder Introduction The conquest of Constantinople in 1453 by the Ottomans resulted in the conversion of the Hagia Sophia from a church to a mosque. This transition did not go unnoticed by contemporaries, so myths and stories were developed to show how the Hagia Sophia remained a church at heart (for the Orthodox Greek) or had always been a mosque in essence (for the Muslim Ottomans). Gülru has already studied the main architectural changes and narratives for the Ottomans.1 Her focus, however, is the Hagia Sophia as an imperial monument. In this essay the narratives on the religious elements of the Hagia Sophia for both Byzantines and Ottomans will be described and analyzed, trying to show that sometimes the Hagia Sophia needs to be seen as a house of worship first and an imperial program second. The main research question will be: How do the Byzantine and Ottoman narratives in the 15th century convey the image of the Hagia Sophia, especially looking at the opposition and correlation of imperial and religious elements? The Byzantine and Ottoman histories were not so long ago separated and cooperation between these historians was rare, but some additions to the debate show that Byzantine and Ottoman history lend well for cooperation between different historians, for example the papers of a 1982 Dumbarton Oaks symposium.2 This essay will look at both sides and use both Greek and Ottoman sources in translation. In order to help the reader gain a full grasp of the sources, extensive quotation will be used. This is also done to find a healthy balance with the paraphrasing of sources, which can omit important details or create a one-sided image (since the author can emphasise his own point). First, Byzantine narratives on the Hagia Sophia after the capture of Constantinople will be , ‘Th L f f an Im a M n m nt: Hag a S h a aft Byzant m’ n: R b t Ma k and Ahmet Çakmak, Hagia Sophia from the age of Justinian to the present (Cambridge 1992) 195-225. 2 Anthony Bryer and Heath Lowry, Continuity and Change in Late Byzantine and Early Ottoman Society (Birmingham 1986). 1 analyzed. These vary from prophesies which give a central place to the Hagia Sophia, to myths that were developed soon after the loss of the Hagia Sophia for the Orthodox faithful. After this, Ottoman narratives will be described, in particular those in an anonymous Ottoman chronicle which has a section on the city of Constantinople. In the conclusion both sides will be compared and the research question will be answered. Church The Hagia Sophia was the focus for a great number of prophesies which developed before and during the conquest of Constantinople and shortly afterwards the Hagia Sophia became a literary tool to lament the fall of the city. In the eyes of Byzantine observers however, the Hagia Sophia gained a controversial reputation shortly before the conquest of Constantinople. In 1452 the Byzantine emperor, in a desperate measure to gain support from western Christianity, celebrated mass with papal representatives in the Hagia Sophia, a very unpopular move with the devout Orthodox population of Constantinople. A large part of the population would not pray in the Hagia Sophia until a few months later when the Ottomans were besieging the city. In these last days of despair for the population of Constantinople their desperation led them to set aside their qualms. As the centre of Orthodox Christianity the Hagia Sophia was a potent symbol for the last hope of the inhabitants of Constantinople. When the city fell, a great number of people fled to the Hagia Sophia for shelter. The fifteenth-century historian Doukas attributed this action to a popular myth surrounding the building: ‘Wh n th T ks b k n, th Ch st ans sh d t th at Ch h, m nks and n ns, m n and women carrying their babies and abandoning their homes. The street was packed with people making for the church. The reason for their stampede was this: there was an ancient and false prophecy that the city was destined to be violently captured by the Turks, who would slaughter the Christians as far as the column of Constantine the Great. At that point, however, an angel bearing a sword would come down and hand over the sword to an unknown man, a very plain and poor man, stand ng b s d th mn.’3 The notable thing about this account is the stampede to the Hagia Sophia. This was probably seen as the safest place to reside until the prophecy would fulfil, since in another version of this myth the Ottomans would be stopped on the Forum Tauri.4 Despite not being the site on which either version of this prophecy was located, the church was nonetheless seen as the safest place to wait for salvation, rather than the actual location at which this prophecy was supposed to take place. In a different account by fifteenth-century historians Sphrantzes and Critobulus the Ottomans entered the church and started pillaging. At the last moment, some monks took relics and fled towards a wall, which opened and closed behind them.5 These monks are said to reside there now until the Hagia Sophia becomes Orthodox again. This narrative is used to emphasise the continuing presence of Christianity in the mosque. The narrator wants to impress upon fellow Christians that the Hagia Sophia is supposed to be a church, signified by the monks being in the fabric of the building. Another example of this is the following passage of Nestor-Iskander, who was present during the siege of Constantinople, gives another account on the role of the Hagia Sophia after the conquest:6 ‘Th h was welcomed by some Serb, who brought to him [the sultan] the head of the emperor.... He [Mehmed II] sent it to the patriarch to encase it in gold and silver and preserve 3 Donald Nicol, The immortal emperor : the life and legend of Constantine Palaiologos, last emperor of the Romans (Cambridge 1994) 100. 4 Nicol 100-101. 5 Steven Runciman, The fall of Constantinople: 1453 (Cambridge 1969) 147. 6 There is some discussion on which side of the walls Nestor Iskander was present during the siege. Traditional scholarship places him on the side of the Ottomans, but Philippides and Hanak argue that he was an Ottoman captive who broke free and entered the city somehow. In both cases he was sympathizing with the Byzantines however and provides valuable insight to Byzantine narratives. Marios Philippides and Walter Hanak, The Siege and the Fall of Constantinople in 1453: Historiography, topography and milita ry studies (Surrey 2011) 112-137. it, as it was well known. The patriarch took it and placed it in a silver chest. It was gilded and was th n n a d nd th a ta f th at Ch h’7 Here the former emperor is used in almost the same role as the aforementioned monks. The Byzantine emperor is permanently part of the fabric of the building, giving the Byzantines more cause to say that the building remains a church, even when the Ottomans converted it to a mosque. The emperor rests under the altar and will remain there to serve as a reminder to the former users of the building. This fragments adds a political element, the emperor is now a part of the rhetoric used to emphasise the continuing presence of Byzantine Orthodoxy in the Hagia Sophia. Two refugees from Constantinople give another account on the events after the Ottoman conquest of the city: ‘It m: Wh n n w h [Constantine XI], who had been the emperor of Constantinople, was killed, he [sc. Mehmed II] then took the grand duchess of the imperial state who was with child, a son of the crown, to whom the title was given. Afterward [sc. Mehmed II] took his daughter, a very beautiful [girl], led her on to the high altar of Hagia Sophia and lived with h n hast y.’8 This account is a good example for the lamentation of the loss of Constantinople. The imperial family, including a fictitious daughter and empress, is torn apart and the most holy of churches is used against the emperor. The Hagia Sophia is now used by the sultan for his unholy deeds, which caused great lamentation for the Byzantines. The account is taken further by Italian humanists, who describe the sultan raping the daughter of the former emperor Constantine XI on the altar of the Hagia Sophia. This is a reference to the sack of Troy and 7 Philippides and Hanak 288. This book provides an extensive list of Greek, Italian, Latin, Russian and German sources with both the original text and English translation. The book covers a wide range of subjects, among which the myths and prophecies which existed in Constantinople at that time and the development of new narratives after the sack. The original notes in brackets by Philippides and Hanak have been left in, since no other explanations were necessary. 8 Philippides and Hanak 207-208. Cassandra who suffered a likewise fate.9 The narratives by the Byzantines did not remain in isolation but were spread to the west, in particular Italy, where many Byzantine refugees fled to after the fall of Constantinople. These refugees spread their stories in their new environments, to emphasise the Christian nature of the Hagia Sophia. The Byzantines thus seem to prefer remembering the Hagia Sophia as a sacred building rather than as imperial monument, indicated by the passive role of the emperor, possibly because of the deference of the emperor to the Roman church or his death during the sack. Mosque When Mehmed II approached the Hagia Sophia for the first time he is reported to have poured earth over his turban as a sign of humility to God and when he entered the building he stopped the pillaging of the church.10 The Hagia Sophia was quickly converted into a mosque by the addition of a mihrab, a wall-niche indicating the direction of Mecca and a minbar, a prayer pulpit from which the imam could speak to the faithful. Later n M hm d’s gn two minarets were added indicating this was no simple mosque, but an imperial mosque. The narrative of the relationship between the Hagia Sophia and its new possessors is heavily dependent on the sources used in research. In tales about the life of the sultan, the ruler is portrayed as having had a very outspoken role in the conversion and life of the Hagia Sophia. In chronicles, on the other hand, the timeframe is obviously extended however, so individual emperors like Mehmed II have smaller roles. In these chronicles the mythical origin of the city of Constantinople, its past (inclusive of Christian elements even in Muslim sources) and its relation with the Muslim faithful are the dominant factor. Connecting these different 9 Philippides and Hanak 208-209. Runciman 148-149. 10 narratives is the continuous reference to the religious aspects of the Hagia Sophia, the idea that the Hagia Sophia is the centre of religious experience in Constantinople.11 An anonymous chronicle written in 1491 describes the history of Constantinople and its most important monument. The translation of Friedrich Giese is still a useful read and the more recent French translation is based on this translation.12 In the following passage the prophet Salomon is searching for a suitable place to build a castle (or palace). ‘Der Profet Salomo gebot den Deven, Peris, Menschen und Dschinnen, daß sie einen Platz a ss ht n, d ss n L ft s hön nd d sagt . […] S h ß h fand n s d s ägä s h n M w das Pa ad s s . ‘D t ba t m m Land Rūm, das h t s n n P atz m t s hön n h h s S h ß’ h n and heißt, am Ufer L ft […] D a ht Sä n a s S maḳi-Marmor, die in der Aja Sofia sind, haben die Deve vom Berge Kaf gebracht.’13 For the Muslims, Muhammad was the last of the prophets, but not the only prophet. Other prophets who originated from other Abrahamistic faiths played an important role in the Islamic world. Salomon, a prophet much respected in Muslim liturgy, is connected here with the Hagia Sophia. Even though he did not build the temple, his influence is still seen in the presence of the eight marble columns, associated with his legend, in the Hagia Sophia. The narrative uses the earlier prophets to contribute to the glory of the Hagia Sophia. This is also seen in the following fragment from the same chronicle: 11 For the seventeenth-century reception of the Hagia Sophia, see the writings of Evliya Celebi, who was muezzin of the Hagia Sophia in this time. Two examples of analyses on Evliya Celebi: William Emerson and R b t van , ‘Hag a S h a and th F st M na t E t d aft th C nq st f C nstant n ’ American Journal of Archaeology 1 (1950) 29-30; John Freely, The grand Turk: Sultan Mehmet II, conqueror of Constantinople, master of an empire and lord of two seas (London 2009) 46. 12 199. 13 Friedrich Giese, Die altosmanischen anonymen Chroniken (Leipzig 1925) 101-102. Giese has translated his text directly from the Ottoman sources. To prevent any misinterpretation, the German translation will be used in this essay and will not be translated to English, since I have no knowledge of Arabic. For the Arabic, see the first part of his publication, which was published in 1922 using the same name. The original notes are in parentheses (since this is the form which Giese used for his notes), my notes are in brackets. ´Es heißt, daß jetzt, wo Konstantinopel muslimisches Land ist, die dem Mihrab (der Aja Sofia) gegenüberliegenden Türen aus dem Holze der Arche Noahs sind.´14 The ark of Noah, the salvation of mankind and all other creatures, is here explicitly connected with the entrance of the Hagia Sophia. The mihrab is connected with the remains of the ark of Noah and the material surroundings of the Hagia Sophia are connected with the prophets. This evokes a strong sense of continuity and a glorious past for the current mosque. But all of these references are surpassed by the following one however: ‘Als der Profet [Muhammad] in der Nacht auf den Dienstag den 12. Rebi`-ül-evvel auf die Welt kam, da stürtzte die Kuppel des Taq-I-Kisra Nuschriwans ein und in Persien erlosch das F d F t m nd b annt n ht m h , das Wass v n Sāwa t kn t a s nd d große Kuppel der Aja Sofia fiel herunter. In jener Nacht fielen die Kuppeln von 1001 Kirchen herunter. Was Hirkil [ruler of Constantinople at that time] auch mit der Aja Sofia anfing, sie hielt nicht. Schließlich überlegte er und schickte Gesandte mit allerlei Geschenken. Sie erlangten die Erlaubnis vom Profeten. Ehe sie nicht die Erlaubnis hatte, stand sie (die Kuppel) nicht. Denn in der Nacht, als der Profet zu Welt kam, fiel die Kuppel von 1001 Kirchen zu Boden. Wie sie es zu Anfang gemacht hatten, wurde es nicht. Dennoch wurde die Aja Sofia vollendet. Durch den Segen der Flucht des Profeten sollte sie auch später seiner Gemeinde zu teil werden.’15 At first glance, this quotation has no specific implication for the Hagia Sophia. After all, the domes of many churches collapsed and there were other buildings said in sources to have been affected by the birth of Muhammad. But the specific mention of the church Hagia Sophia is particularly interesting for this research. Of all the buildings and places mentioned in this passage, only the Hagia Sophia gains extra attention. In this narrative the emperor 14 15 Giese 125. Giese 134-135. recognises the need to appease the new prophet, who apparently could bring down the dome of the most important church of Christianity. Although not specifically mentioned, the approval of the prophet was probably gained due to his knowledge of the future: Constantinople would later be a Muslim stronghold and by this merit should have the dome restored.16 In this way the Hagia Sophia was shown to have been worthy of special attention from the prophet Muhammad himself though, with another material element, the dome. This event makes sure that the Hagia Sophia has a special meaning for the Muslim faithful, foreshadowing the importance of the Hagia Sophia as a mosque,. This last point is elaborated on later in the narrative, when one of the companions of Muhammad, Abu Ayyub al-Ansari is described visiting the church during a siege of Constantinople. ‘Es wird vom Profeten berichtet daß er gesagt habe: “Ein jeder, der in Konstantinopel in der Aja Sofia ein Rik´at gebetet hat, kommt ins Paradies”.’17 After this, Abu Ayyub al-Ansari prayed in the church himself. In this passage, the narrator tries to create an example of a worthy Muslim predecessor who prayed in the Hagia Sophia, on instigation by the prophet Muhammad himself. A tomb dedicated to Abu Ayyub al-Ansari in Constantinople was restored by the sultan Mehmed II during his reign and this could be the reason this passage was included in the chronicle. The Hagia Sophia is portrayed as the holiest of all buildings in Constantinople in this narrative, a viewpoint also present in other writings. We find this perspective in a compilation of ghazi traditions presented to the heir of Mehmed II (Cem Sultan) in 1474. Here an adviser urges Mehmed II to do the following: ‘If y s t [ nq C nstant n ]b t a wa a nd Ayas fya and d st y th st.’18 Int st ng t n t h s th s f-ass d a nt by , wh a a h as s th s v nt. In h a nt th h t m st d f n t v y gav h s a va , wh h s m st k y, b t ta n y n t d t y nf m d by th t t and sh d b stat d w th s m s v . 200. 17 Giese 138. 16 This fictitious conversation between advisers and the later conqueror of Constantinople marks, aside from the obvious contempt for the city, the high regard in whi h th M s ms h d th Hag a S h a. Th wh f th s adv s . af s ty s s n as s nf , n y th Hag a S a g s that th s k nds f t ts w as h a s w th sav ng s dt t s th sultan, by referring to the wisdom of Constantine for example.19 In this interpretation, we might read this fragment as suggesting that the sultan should perhaps focus more on the spiritual wellbeing of the city, indicating that the Hagia Sophia was already the focus point of salvation and thus well established as a mosque worthy of veneration. Conclusion The Hagia Sophia remained a building held in high esteem by the Byzantines, even after the role in the short religious union of the emperor and the Roman Catholics. Neither did the a t and nv s n by th Ott mans v t b th fata b w f th b d ng’s st g in the eyes of the Byzantines. The Ottomans converted the Hagia Sophia to a mosque, despite the Christian past of the building and its central role in Orthodox liturgy. The fifteenth century narratives give a good overview of this attempts at appropriation with at the one hand Byzantines trying to show how the Hagia Sophia will remain a church in Muslim hands and on the other hand Ottomans arguing that the Hagia Sophia had an important place in Islam before its conversion to a mosque. Both sides obviously thought the Hagia Sophia was a very powerful rhetorical tool which should be used for their own purposes, in some cases against their own ruler. The behaviour of the emperor was subject of scrutiny, but the Hagia Sophia always seemed to harbour positive connotations. The imperial aspects of the Hagia Sophia are often coupled to or used for the enhancement of the status of the Hagia Sophia, as seen by the d m af s u, Constantinopolis/Istanbul: cultural encounter, imperial vision, and the construction of the Ottoman capital (Pensylvania 2009) 174. 19 af s 173-174. Constantine I was held in high esteem by the Ottomans and sultans were sometimes compared to this ruler. Criticism developed caused by the slow repairs of Constantinople after the siege. It unfortunately goes beyond the scope of this research to analyze this comparison between an arguably Christian emperor and the sultan by his Muslim subjects. 18 example provided by Nestor Iskander. In the case of the Ottomans, prophets are used by the narrative to strengthen the holy status and Muslim claim of the Hagia Sophia. An interpretation which points at the religiosity of the building will be most useful here, since both Orthodox Christians and Muslims wanted their religion to be the most important in the history and future of the Hagia Sophia. The Hagia Sophia as a house of worship thus evoked more support than the Hagia Sophia as an imperial monument. Bibliography Bryer, Anthony, and Heath Lowry, Continuity and Change in Late Byzantine and Early Ottoman Society (Birmingham 1986). Emerson, William and R b t van C nq st f C nstant n ’ Am , ‘Hag a S h a and th F st M na t E an J na f A ha t d aft th gy 1 (1950) 28-40. Freely, John, The grand Turk: Sultan Mehmet II, conqueror of Constantinople, master of an empire and lord of two seas (London 2009). Giese, Friedrich, Die altosmanischen anonymen Chroniken (Leipzig 1925). af s , d m, Constantinopolis/Istanbul: cultural encounter, imperial vision, and the construction of the Ottoman capital (Pensylvania 2009). Nec , Gülru, ‘Th L f f an Im a M n m nt: Hag a S h a aft Byzant m’ n: Robert Mark and Ahmet Çakmak, Hagia Sophia from the age of Justinian to the present (Cambridge 1992) 195-225. Nicol, Donald, The immortal emperor : the life and legend of Constantine Palaiologos, last emperor of the Romans (Cambridge 1994). Philippides, Marios and Walter Hanak, The Siege and the Fall of Constantinople in 1453: Historiography, topography and military studies (Surrey 2011). Runciman, Steven, The fall of Constantinople: 1453 (Cambridge 1969).