İdil Özenel

MIT 518E
Readings on History of Architecture II
26.03.2024

Architect Narrative in Usul-i Mi'mari-i Osmani and Ahmet Refik's Turkish Architects

1. Usul-i Mi'mari-i Osmani (Ottoman Architectural Style) and the Description of Architects
Written in 1873 by a commission led by Ibrahim Edhem Pasha, Usul-i Mi'mari-i Osmani
was prepared to be submitted to the Vienna World Expo the same year. This book was sent to the
exhibition along with seven architectural structures including a replica of the Fountain of Sultan
Ahmed III, a bath, a pavilion, and a café building, served as a platform to showcase Ottoman
architectural works and methods to the world. The book consists of fourteen chapters: the
introduction outlines the purpose of the book and the authorization for its publication by the Grand
Vizier, the second chapter of the book, Architectural History, provides a chronological overview
of Ottoman architectural works and architects, starting from the establishment of the Ottoman
State. This section aims to give readers a comprehensive understanding of the development and
evolution of Ottoman architecture over time. In the third chapter, the focus shifts towards
exploring the fundamental principles that form the Ottoman architectural methods, as well as the
practical applications and various types of ornamentation utilized in Ottoman architecture. The
next eight chapters cover more detail about certain buildings that are significant in Ottoman
architectural history. Every chapter focuses on the unique features and building methods applied to
these buildings, with technical drawings included. The book's final two chapters focus on the
ornamental elements, color palettes, and craftsmanship found in Ottoman architectural designs.
Throughout the narrative detailing the architectural principles and technical features of
Ottoman structures in the text, it is not particularly easy to come across traces of the architects.
While Ottoman architectural techniques are praised, the architects who created and developed
these techniques are presented. Their personal lives are not covered in detail, and they are
generally celebrated based on the architectural features of the buildings they built; they have not
been considered independently from their works. Generally, the skills of architects are constructed
based on the superiority and success of Ottoman methods, attributing their talents to being nurtured
within this superior design environment, implying that they are talented because they are Ottoman
architects and their abilities are credited to national architecture. "This skill and talent is inherent
by nature." (Edhem, 125)
In the second chapter, titled Architectural History, we encounter a systematically arranged
account of architects and their creations. Key structures that are defining for Ottoman architectural
principles are placed within a historical timeline, while the architects responsible for these works
are introduced in terms of their roles in the evolution of these principles. The first mentioned
architect, İlyas Ali, is referred to as the founder of the Ottoman architectural style with the Bursa
Green Mosque. His craftsmanship is praised through the detailed architectural features: "In his
architectural works, he showed the utmost attention and meticulousness to the show and delicacy
of the building features." (Edhem, 9) Architect Hayreddin, who came after him, was described as
the architect who developed the method by shaping the capitals of the columns in the Bayezid
Mosque, and Mimar Sinan was referred to as the main regulator of the methods. "In a way, he
became the founder of national architecture." (Edhem, 9)
In the book's fourth chapter titled "The Green Mosque / Bursa," the successful
demonstration of Ottoman architectural principles by Architect Ilyas Ali and his meticulous
approach to the architectural elements of the structure are conveyed. Unlike other sections, this
chapter makes an inference about the motivation of the architect and the emotions he aimed to
evoke through the design and implementation process. In doing so, emphasis is placed once again
on attributing the architects' skills to them inherently. "(...) the delicacy and harmony of its
ornamentation, the care with which even the smallest of the carvings and embroidery ornaments
are handled with the utmost care; (…) it is a magnificent and charming building in which Ottoman
architectural methods are applied at the highest level. (...) It is indisputable that the architect's
greatest wish when he built this beautiful work of art was that it should be one of the holy places in
the angelic realm, a place of eternal peace and pure happiness. This most beautiful wish has always
been attainable by the means available to the power of the human hand." (Edhem, 41)
In the fifth and sixth sections, which cover the Süleymaniye Mosque and Selimiye Mosque
respectively, it is possible to come across some narratives related to the architect, Mimar Sinan.
Previously mentioned as the founder of the national architecture and the main regulator of the
methods, he and his students are praised for their works in Süleymaniye Mosque: "Among the
beautiful works of art created thanks to the superior intellects of Mimar Sinan and his disciples, the
Süleymaniye Mosque is regarded as the most realistic embodiment of Ottoman architectural
methods." (Edhem, p. 99) Technical accomplishments of Sinan are also indicated such as creating
underground passages to facilitate ventilation inside the mosque and gathering acoustics on the
upper floor. Unlike others, the Süleymaniye Mosque chapter contains an interesting fact about
Sinan’s life. After describing the architect's skill and the pioneering architectural features of the
mosque, information about the architect's salary is given: "It is known that Mimar Sinan was one
of the Janissary commanders and received a stipend (salary) as a Chief Janissary as long as he
proudly and honorably served as an architect among the Janissary class." (Edhem, p. 101) In the
following chapter, Selimiye Mosque in Edirne is described as an accomplishment not even Sinan
can repeat. The grandness and holiness of the structure are depicted in connection to its setting and
atmosphere. "Although Ottoman architects made efforts to achieve this influence in other religious
structures they constructed, none, not even Mimar Sinan, could succeed to the same extent in their
other buildings. (...) Proving Sinan's most mature mastery and the extreme care and precision he
displayed" (Edhem, p. 109)

2. Ahmet Refik and the Description of Architects in Turkish Architects

Ahmet Refik Altınay, considered as one of the foremost popular modern historians, was
born in 1880 in İstanbul. Like many intellectuals of his time, he was educated in military schools,
however, he wasn’t sent to the field due to his young age, instead, he was assigned as a geography
teacher for four years. He was assigned as a French teacher in 1902 and a history teacher in 1908
at the Military Academy. He made important contributions to historical studies during the Second
Constitutional Era, influenced by the political and intellectual climates of different political
periods. He contributed to historical journalism by making it appealing. His writings in the series
"The Ottoman Life in Past Centuries," which he wrote with the belief that "history is an assistant in
the art and science," aimed to make history accessible for all. In 1918, he was appointed as a
professor of Ottoman (Turkish) History at Istanbul University. He took part in the Turkish History
Council and served as the president of this council between 1924 and 1927. Refusing to endorse
the Republic's historiographical narratives that excluded the Ottomans, he was consequently
dismissed from the University in 1933 (Işık). He passed away in 1937 in İstanbul.
The subject matter of his earliest historical works, which are no longer extant today,
consisted of the first Islamic figures and religious battles (Aydoğan). After returning from his trip
to Paris in 1912, where he visited the Archives Nationales, he began his studies in the National
Archives in İstanbul, becoming the first person to systematically review the Ottoman Archives
according to historical methods. In his published articles in Yeni Mecmua starting from 1917,
which was a publication of the Committee of Union and Progress he collaborated with
Köprülüzade Fuad, Ziya Gökalp, and Necmeddin Sadık Bey. Among his works, numbering more
than 150, in addition to books focusing on Ottoman history such as Lale Devri (Tulip Era) (1915),
Cem Sultan (1923), and Sokullu (1924), he also published works covering architectural history,
compiled from documents in the Ottoman Archives, including Architect Sinan (1929), Old
İstanbul (1931), and Türk Mimarları (Turkish Architects) (1936).
The first four chapters of the book Turkish Architects compiled in 1936, are structured
around biographical narratives, focusing respectively on Mimar Sinan, Mimar Davud Ağa, Mimar
Kasım, and Mimar Mustafa. These chapters cover the lives of the architects in detail, as well as
describe the political and economic setting of their projects. The architects are treated as literary
characters, with character studies and dialogue giving them unique personalities. The fifth chapter
titled Construction Works in İstanbul explores topics such as the titles and responsibilities of
architects and masters, urban planning regulations of the period, and architect salaries. In the sixth
chapter, a list is provided of architects who served as chief architects between 1537 and 1830,
along with their works. In the last two chapters, small explanations accompany excerpts from the
archival documents belonging to Mimar Sinan and Mimar Davud, which Refik used as first-hand
sources for his text. The target audience of this text, originally published in sections in journals,
was the general public, to provide detailed introductions to significant architects.
Inspired by the Turkish National Movement, Ahmet Refik produced historical,
biographical, and research articles aiming to help Turks see their place in the world (Türk). Traces
of this movement can be seen in the narrative throughout the text of Turkish Architects. In the
biographical section of Mimar Sinan, the period of his childhood is conveyed through this
perspective. His military background is mentioned, highlighting his contribution to the nation:
"Kings, queens, and lords bowed down before the greatness of Turkish power, all this glory and
victory had a great effect on Sinan's soul. In Istanbul, the greatest monument of these brilliant
victories was to be erected by a janissary in the Turkish army who shared all these victories. And
that was Kalfa Sinan of Kayserili, the horse-drawn janissary." (Refik, p. 5) Again, this is seen in
the scene of the opening of the Süleymaniye Mosque in an excerpt significantly using dialogues:
"Mimar Sinan finished the Süleymaniye Mosque in seven years (1556). He handed over the key.
Sultan Süleyman was very pleased: -It would be better for you to open this house of Allah with a
prayer, he said. Koca Sinan, who opened the paths of victory for the Turks, had the honor of
opening a door of prayer for them." (Refik, p. 10)
The main purpose of Turkish Architects text is to make the lives of historically significant
architects engaging for the reader to learn about and to introduce these architects to them. Refik,
while doing this, did not merely use architects as figures whom he praised for their abilities based
solely on the structures they built. Instead, he delved into their life stories, childhoods, and also
examined their character and personality. In the chapters covering Architect Kasım and Architect
Mustafa, besides the professional work of the architects, biographical elements and internal
relations within the palace are included. In addition to the events of the constructions, there are
character analyses as one would expect in a literary work. The book tells that when Architect
Kasım was imprisoned for playing politics among the grand viziers while he was the chief
architect, Architect Mustafa became the new chief architect. Refik dramatically conveys these
events: "During the reign of Sultan Ibrahim, Kasım Ağa was accustomed to feuding with the
viziers and showing his influence in the palace, and there was one thing he loved more than
construction and construction works: Politics. Advising the viziers, bringing them to line, and
speaking wise words to them was one of Mimar Kasım's favorite tasks." (Refik, p. 35) After
Architect Kasım was imprisoned and replaced by Architect Mustafa, the return of Architect Kasım
to office with the support of Cinci Hoca, who had an important place in the palace, is described in
detail. In this narrative, it is mentioned that Architect Kasım was brought back to office because a
barn built by Architect Mustafa cost much more than a barn built by Architect Kasım. Sultan
Ibrahim is quoted saying, "Kasım was right. We deposed him unjustly" (Refik, p. 34).

3. Similarities and Contrasts

In Usul-i Mi'mari-i Osmani, a criticism of the foreign influences is made, highlighting their
negative impact on Ottoman techniques, in the discussion of the characteristics of foreign
architectural movements within the context of Ottoman architectural principles. This narrative,
however, lacks identification as it doesn't define the structures and doesn't give examples of them.
While the Ottoman buildings discussed in the text are thoroughly described in the parts dedicated
to them, there is no comparison of them with other architectural creations. This absence can be
attributed to the book's purpose as a propaganda tool: it aims to present Ottoman architecture to the
globe while disregarding comparison and critical analysis of the architectural achievements of
other states. In the fourth section (Green Mosque), it is mentioned that the architect İlyas used
spolia Corinthian capitals purposely in the dark parts of the Mosque. "In this respect, they do not
harm this beautiful work of Ilyas the Architect, which is pleasing to the heart." (Edhem, p. 41) In
the second part (History of Architecture), it is explained that the Baroque style ornaments of the
architects brought from France in the 17th century distorted "the specialties and beauties of
Ottoman architectural methods." (Edhem p. 7)
In the context of Turkish Architects, the focus shifts from promoting and exalting Ottoman
architecture to introducing readers to the architects themselves, thus placing the architects in the
forefront before architectural structures. Consequently, narratives and stories are conveyed in the
architects' own words. In the section on Selimiye, the narrative describes how Sinan managed to
surpass Hagia Sophia in terms of dimensions, as recounted by Sinan himself. He speaks as an
individual, as an identity. The narrative of the Selimiye Mosque exceeding the dimensions of the
Hagia Sophia dome is processed in a way that appeals to national feelings: "Here is the only reason
why Sinan praised the Edirne Mosque even more than Süleymaniye: Nationality... Sinan says:
'Since the minarets of this mosque are both delicate and have three ways; one of the reasons why
the minds of the people of the world say that it is very difficult is that a dome like the dome of
Hagia Sophia has never been built in an Islamic state', the so-called architects of the sinful
heathens used to say, 'We have superiority over Muslims'. It remained in the heart of this unworthy
servant that it was very difficult to keep such a dome standing. With the help of Allah and the
power of the shadow of Sultan Selim Han, I made this dome six zira longer and four zira deeper
than the dome of Hagia Sophia." (Refik, pp. 12-13)
An important difference between the two texts appears in the identification of the architect
of the New Mosque. In Usul-i Mi'mari-i Osmani, while Architect Kasım is mentioned as the
architect of the New Mosque, biographical information and subjective opinions about the building
are also presented: "The Albanian architect Hoca Kasım, one of the relatives and compatriots of
the famous Architect Sinan, who built the New Mosque, was able to give the interior appearance
of the mosque the required and desired size, but he could not make it so spectacular on the
outside." (p. 113) However, Refik especially underlines that the architect of the mosque was not
Mimar Kasım and dwells upon the wrong information: "Upon the death of Davud Aga, Diver
Ahmet Çavuş was appointed in his place. He took care of the construction of the mosque until
1603 (...,) It is strange that the New Mosque is still mentioned as having been built by the architect
Kasım Ağa, when this fact is established by all documents. Even 56 years after the construction of
the mosque was suspended in 1603, it was not left to the architect Kasım Ağa to start its
completion. He was not the Chief Architect at that time; he was the Valide Turhan Sultan's
chamberlain." (p. 30)
Overall, the comparative analysis of Usul-i Mi'mari-i Osmani and Ahmet Refik's Turkish
Architects sheds light on the evolving narrative approaches within the field of architectural
discourse in the late Ottoman and early Republican periods. The primary focus of Usul-i Mi'mari-i
Osmani is on the buildings themselves rather than the architects who built them. It was created as a
marketing tool for promoting Ottoman architectural accomplishments to a worldwide audience.
Although it offers a methodical chronological overview of Ottoman architectural development, it
fails to fully explore the architects' individual stories. Turkish Architects, on the other hand, takes a
more biographical approach, putting the architects at the forefront and exploring their individual
lives and relationships within the sociopolitical setting of the time. Seeking to engage readers,
Refik portrays architects as people with complex lives and identities in addition to being the
creators of structures, reflecting a more human-centered perspective.

Bibliography:

(2011). Usul-i Mimari-i Osmani. İstanbul: Çamlıca Basım Yayın.

Ahmet Refik (Altınay). (2020). Türk Edebiyatı İsimler Sözlüğü.

https://teis.yesevi.edu.tr/madde-detay/ahmet-refik-altinay

Aydoğan, O. (2006). Ahmet Refik Altınay Hayatı ve Sanat Tarihi Çalışmaları. Master’s Thesis,
Marmara Üniversitesi.

Çelik, Z. (1992). Displaying the Orient: Architecture of Islam at Nineteenth-Century World's

Fairs. Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford: University of California Press.

Işık, Y. T. (2002). Ahmet Refik Altınay (1880-1937) and his views as a transition period historian.
Master’s Thesis, Hacettepe Üniversitesi.

Refik, A. (2013). Türk Mimarları. İstanbul: Kapı Yayınları.

Türk, İ. C. (2011). Osmanlı Son Dönem Tarihçi - Eğitimcisi Ahmed Refik (Altınay) ve Tarih
Eğitimi. History Studies, 3(3).