sinan`s autobiographies and the hagia sophia

SINAN’S AUTOBIOGRAPHIES AND THE HAGIA SOPHIA
JOSEF ENGEMANN
A - Salzburg, Moosstrasse 145a
UDK: 726.2(560.118 Istanbul)
72 Sinan, M.
Izvorni znanstveni članak
Primljeno: 21. V. 2010.
The edition of Sinan’s autobiographies by Crane and Akin indicates that it
seems imperative to define the role of the poet Mustafa Sa’i Çelebi. The Hagia
Sophia in Istanbul represents a high point of world architecture. However, it’s a
well known fact that two essential static problems existed in this building. It had
too flat a dome, replaced after its collapse in 558 by a higher structure. The second
problem results from the two different support systems of the main dome. In spite
of their important static relevance, two of Sinan’s mosques in Istanbul are not
mentioned in his autobiographies: the Rüstem Pascha Mosque (1561-1563), with
its eight piers under the dome and the Mirimah Sultan Mosque (ca.1563-1570)
showing a dome above the square. The quoted autobiographical texts concerning
the Süleymaniye illuminate Sinan’s conviction that as architect of this building
he has proven himself already superior to the builders of the Hagia Sophia.
Since 2006 we find ourselves in the possession of a critical TurkishEnglish edition of Sinan’s autobiographical writings edited by Howard
Crane and Esra Akin. Due to this publication several passages have been
made accessible, so far neglected in English literature when writing about
the works of this great Ottoman architect. I should like to share with you,
dear colleague Emilio Marin, the results of my readings, focussing on the
Hagia Sophia in Istanbul.
When around 1960 I began to occupy myself with the architecture
and history of the Hagia Sophia, some years prior to my approach Ernst
Egli had published his book on Sinan, citing a passage from Tezkiretū`lBūnyăn (TB)1, where a relation between Sinan’s Selimiye mosque in Ed1. EGLI 93-94.
817
Kačić, Split, 2009.-2011., 41-43
irne2 and the Hagia Sophia3 is being established. In the new translation
by Crane und Akin the text from TB reads as follows4, “And one [reason]
the people of the world said [such a construction] was beyond human
capability was that no dome as large as that of Hagia Sophia had been
built in the lands of Islam. [Thus] those who passed for architects among
the sinning unbelievers used to say, ‘We have scored a victory over the
Muslims.’ Their statements in accord with their perversely false views, to
the effect that, ‘The construction of a dome such as that is very difficult.
Were it possible to build one like it, they [the Muslims] would have done
it.’ pained and endured in the heart of this humble servant. I exerted myself in the construction of the above-mentioned Friday mosque, and, with
the help of God, the Lord, the Judge, showed my capabilities during the
reign of Sultan Selim Khan and made this exalted dome to exceed that
one by six cubits (ziră‘) in height and by four cubits (ziră‘) circumference.” Egli in 1954 didn’t go into the details and restricted himself to the
comment that the text of Sinan’s autobiography is to be attributed to the
poet Sa`i5. I was satisfied with this statement since I could not conceive
that the great Osman architect himself should have established a comparison between two structurally entirely different buildings.
For that reason I was amazed to learn from Crane and Esra that “... it
seems justifiable, therefore, to refer to all five texts, both drafts and completed versions, as Sinan’s autobiographies”6. Prior to devoting myself to
the technical incompatibility of the domes of the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul
and the Selimiye in Edirne and furthermore, to Sinan’s personal interest in
the architecture of Justinian’s church, I am presenting several commentaries from literature pertaining to the afore mentioned passage from TB. In
1976 Marcell Restle corrects the size relations and states that the wrong
measures shatter Sa`i’s credibility: “nobody would dare to claim that Sinan
- having worked at the Hagia Sophia during these years - was unaware of
the actual size of her dome7.” Aptullah Kuran places again the proper measurements of both domes in juxtaposition: Selimiye diameter 31,28 metres,
2. GOODWIN 1971, 260-269; SÖZEN 236-261; FREELY 36-40. 126-127. 142-143;
GOODWIN 1993, 69-71; KUBAN; GÜNNAY 83-90; YERASIMOS 2000, 270-273; ERZEN 89-91; NECIPOĞLU 2005, 238-256.
3. KÄHLER; MÜLLER-WIENER 84-96; THODE; MAINSTONE 1988.
4. CRANE/AKIN 130.
5. EGLI 93.
6. CRANE and AKIN 1.
7. RESTLE 1976, 503: “denn daß Sinan, der in diesen Jahren an der Hagia Sophia
gearbeitet hat, über deren Kuppel und ihre tatsächliche Größe im Unklaren gewesen sei,
wird wohl niemand behaupten wollen.”
818
J. Engemann, Sveta Sofija i Sinanove autobiografije
height 43,40, Hagia Sophia diameter 30,90/31,80, height 55,60. In the end
measurements were not the issue, “The Selimiye must have been a source
of pride for Sinan not so much because its dome equalled the dimensions
of the Byzantine church, but because, by it, he had achieved a surpassingly striking and meaningful expression of spatial integrity and structural
cohesiveness8.” Kuran did not go into the technical difference between the
Selimiye dome (Octagonal system) and the dome of Hagia-Sophia (Square
basis system). Stéphane Yerasimos added 1990 to the quotation of the text
in question solely a correction of the measurements9. In 1993 Godfrey
Goodwin cites an assumed statement by Sinan, „But it is probably true that
he himself said that the Şehzade mosque was his apprentice work and the
Süleymanye the achievement of his yourneymanship, but that the Selimiye
was his masterpiece10.” Gülru Necipoğlu contradicts, “... there is no suggestion in these sources [i.e. the autobiographies] to lend support to Sinan’s
having uttered a saying reported by the seventeenth-century traveller Evliya Çelebi, which he allegedly heard from his father11. John Freely rightly
added 1993 to a correction of the measurements the statement, “But the
important thing is not whether Sinan could build a dome higher and wider
than that erected by Justinian’s architects. It is that in developing classical
Ottoman architecture to its logical conclusion he could design and build an
edifice that compared in its grandeur with the great Byzantine cathedral12.”
I myself detect a decisive progress in the statement of Marcell Restle,
1994. He attributes the wrong measurements to Sinan’s Biographer Sâ’i,
“... Sinan, these years being in charge of the Hagia Sophia’s restauration
and safeguarding works, surely should and would know better13.” Above
all Restle’s indication is important, that in the strictest typological sense the
Selimiye type dome octagon has nothing to do with the Hagia Sophia14. In
1997 Doğan Kuban, working on the autobiographical text of the Selimiye,
presents the corrected measurements15 while commenting on the wrong
statements, “It is unthinkable that Sinan could not measure correctly the
diameter or circumference of the Hagia Sophia dome. (…) These dimen8. KURAN 169.
9. YERASIMOS 1990, 240-241.
10. GOODWIN 1993, 76.
11. NECIPOĞLU 2006, XI; cf. Id. 2005, 145.
12. FREELY 37.
13. RESTLE 1994, 124: “... Sinan, der die Sicherungs-und Restaurierungsarbeiten an
der Hagia Sophia in diesen Jahren leitete, wird und muß es besser gewußt haben.”
14. Idem 125.
15. KUBAN 245 note 30.
819
Kačić, Split, 2009.-2011., 41-43
sions must have been added by Sai Çelebi16.” Stéphane Yerasimos adopted
this thesis in 2000, repeating however, Goodwin’s assumption of Sinan’s
development in the indicative17. Jale Neydet Erzen, 2004, in regards to
Sinan’s autobiographies emphasizes specifically, “The authors of Sinan’s
books were poets. All texts are written in alternating prose and poetic form.
This use of language indicates a special relation to the world18.” In 2005
Gülru Necipoğlu stresses the fact that the Hagia Sophia’s dome is higher
than the Selimiye’s only when measured from ground level and not from
the dome’s base19.
As I now turn to the edition of Sinan’s autobiographies by Crane and
Akin it seems imperative to define the role of the poet Mustafa Sa’i Çelebi.
In the introduction his function as author finds repeated attention, “From
evidence internal to the texts, it is established that both TE20 and TB21 were
composed by Sinan’s friend, the poet-painter Mustafa Sa’i, while the structure and content of TM22, RM23, and AR24 leave little doubt that these were
Sa`i’s work as well25.” These three texts TM, RM, and AR are considered
as “sketchy drafts that never reached the public eye”26. In TE as well as in
TB are parts indicating they were “probably based on Sinan’s oral testimony, which was then reworked by Sa`i into literary form27.” Sa`i’s own
introduction to TB is quite clear, “One day, the chief of the fortunate padishah’s architects, Sinan son of Abdūlmennan, having become a weak old
man and wishing that his name and reputation endure on the pages of time,
enjoined this broken hearted servant without protector, the humble Sa`i, to
record his conversation in verse and prose so that he would be remembered
with prayers and blessings28.”
If I’m not mistaken, Sa`i’s added request for tolerance by his critics was
not commented in particular in the introduction of Crane and Akin. The
poet wrote, “It is hoped and requested of those friends who read this epic
16. Idem 137.
17. YERASIMOS 2000, 270.
18. ERZEN 36.
19. NECIPOĞLU 2005, 144-145.
20. Tezkiretū`l-Ebniye (Record of Buildings).
21. Tezkiretū`l-Būnyān (Record of Construction).
22. Tuhfetū`l-Mārīn (Choice Gift of the Architect).
23. Risăletū`l-Mi’māriyye (Treatise on Architecture).
24. Adsiz Risale (Untitled Treatise).
25. CRANE/AKIN 1.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid. 6; cf. 9.
28. Ibid. 114.
820
J. Engemann, Sveta Sofija i Sinanove autobiografije
that insofar as possible they veil its defects with forgiveness, and that they
not, in accord with the saying ‘He who writes becomes a target,’ make this
humble one a target of their criticism29.” This request points out how selfconscious an author of Sinan’s biography Sa`i really was.
I am unable to comply with the poet’s wish. Not that the measurements
only, cited at the beginning of the Selimiye text, are to be critizised, but the
entire comparison to the Hagia Sophia could be his invention. There’s no
question about the magnificence of Selimiye mosque. But is it at all possible to suspect that an architect of Sinan’s reputation would endeavour a
comparison of domes without even mentioning the fundamental static distinctions between the octagonal structure of the Selimiye mosque and the
cubic base system of the Hagia Sophia? While this discrepancy has been
neglected by some of the above mentioned authors, Müller-Wiener points
out the statical structure of each mosque. Metin and Zeynep Ahubay, when
treating structural influence of Hagia Sophia rightly compare Ottoman
mosques with a dome suspended on four arches and pendentives only30.
Günay in his examination of Sinan’s mosques categorizes them into three
groups according to their characteristics: Square based, Hexagonal based,
and Octagonal based. Erzen is extremely precise in his analysis of the
structural implications of the three geometries of support31. Necipoğlu in
his introduction presents the ground plans of important mosques of the
three groups, warning however against a sole formal distinction of Sinan’s
mosques following a spatial typology of domes resting on square, hexagonal, and octagonal support systems32. But here the emphasis should
rest less on spatial differences than on the distinction between the thrust
supporting systems.
The Hagia Sophia in Istanbul represents a high point of world architecture. However, it’s a well known fact that two essential static problems
existed in this building. It had too flat a dome, replaced after its collapse
in 558 by a higher structure. Mention of this problem is to be found in the
autobiographical text TM, however with the erroneous assumption of the
personal identity of the two domes’ builders - due to identical names33. The
second problem results from the two different support systems of the main
dome. In the east and west of the church semidomes supported the princi29. Ibid.; NECIPOĞLU (2005, 128) translates the saying differently, “The higher you
reach, the harder you fall!”.
30. AHUBAY and AHUBAY passim.
31. ERZEN 84-91.
32. NECIPOĞLU 2005, 17-19.
33. CRANE/AKIN 66.
821
Kačić, Split, 2009.-2011., 41-43
pal arches all the way up (Fig. 1), while the principal arches in the north and
south were free standing, since the accompanying vaulted halls were not high
enough (Fig. 2). Rowland Mainstone described the effects of both different
supporting systems in detail, “The essential feature of this behavior is that
longitudinal thrusts of the dome pass fairly directly through the semidomes
Fig. 1,2 - Hagia Sophia, South and West Elevation, Mainstone, Hagia Sophia, p. 274, 276
and pendentives to the main piers and the secondary piers at the east and
west ends, whereas major parts of the transverse thrusts pass only indirectly
through the deep broad coupled arches at the north and south, thereby thrusting on the main piers not only transversely but also longitudinally34.” Consequently damages caused by earthquakes hurt the eastern or western dome
sections, due to displacements of the principal arches and main piers in north
and south. Important for their stabilisation are the four buttress piers on the
northern and southern side of the building. Earlier the assumption was generally held that they had been added 131735. But it seems more likely that their
lower portion must have been an integral part of the primary structural system
and its completion executed under Justinian, too36. In Van Nice’s drawings of
transverse sections37 the parts above the lateral galleries are marked by thinner lines, corresponding to the minarets38. These parts Mainstone dated into
the construction time of the first dome39, Volker Hoffmann, however, past its
collapse in 55840. The negative aesthetic impact of these attached buttresses
is evident from the outside view (Pl. 1).
34. MAINSTONE 1992, 166.
35. KÄHLER 24, MÜLLER-WIENER 91; MANGO XLV.
36. EMERSON/VAN NICE 413-423; MAINSTONE 1988, 202 (with fig. 231a.b.) 209.
37. VAN NICE 1986, Pl. 4. 36; id. 1992, Pl. 4. 36.
38. In the horizontal sections (VAN NICE 1986, Pl. 27 and 28) no difference is marked.
39. MAINSTONE 1988, 205. 209.
40. HOFFMANN 2005, Text to Pl. 35 (Updating of VAN NICE Pl. 4).
822
J. Engemann, Sveta Sofija i Sinanove autobiografije
Pl. 1. Hagia Sophia, Kähler Fig. 1
Pl. 2. Şehzade mosque, Günay p. 48
Even before Sinan’s time mosques in Istanbul have been erected, following the model of Hagia Sophia: the no longer existing Mosque of Fatih
Mehmet II from 1463-147041 and the Mosque of Bayezit II (1501-1505)42.
Here possible static problems were eliminated by piers of sufficient height
and thickness at the corners of the square base. In the autobiographical
draft TM Sinan seems to hold these buildings in less esteem than his own
Şehzade Mosque from 1543 (Fig. 3; Pl. 2), “To the engineers of the age
and overseers of auspicious monuments it is manifest and apparent that
although [formerly] buildings constructed in the style of Hagia Sofia did
not possess elegance, this servant perfected the noble Friday mosque of
Şehzade Sultan Mehmed - may God illumine his tomb - which was the
model for the noble building complex [and mosque] of his majesty Sultan
Süleyman Khan43.”
The problems of thrust transfer in the Hagia Sophia must have been
well known by Sinan, because he doubly ensured the dome structure of his
Şehzade Mosque (1543-1548/9): by half domes in all four directions and
with four high piers at the corners of the basic square44. These piers are in
their upper part securely connected to the pendentives and the base of the
41. MÜLLER-WIENER 405-411; GOODWIN 1971, 122-130; YERASIMOS 2000,
213-215; NECIPOĞLU 2005, 84-88.
42. MÜLLER-WIENER 385-390; GOODWIN 1971, 122-130; YERASIMOS 2000,
246-249; ERZEN 12-13; NECIPOĞLU, Age 88-92.
43. CRANE and AKIN 74; cf. text and commentary NECIPOĞLU 2005, 139. This
lack of elegance corrects Sinan in TM with his Şehzade mosque, “The building gradually
emerged from the ground and its domes raised up their heads like bubbles of the sea of
elegance.” (Ibid. 117).
44. MÜLLER-WIENER 479-483; GOODWIN 1971, 206-211; SÖZEN 98-113; FREELY 23; GOODWIN 1993, 33-36; GÜNAY 25. 48-52; YERASIMOS 2000, 253-257;
ERZEN 78. 84; NECIPOĞLU 2005, 197-207.
823
Kačić, Split, 2009.-2011., 41-43
Fig. 3.
Şehzade
mosque,
Axonometric
drawing,
Necipoğlu,
Age, p. 193
dome. Sinan’s efforts are reflected in the autobiographical texts; prose in
TB45, verses in TE46, “At that point, he (i.e. Sultan Süleyman) appointed
me imperial architect and also commanded that I build an edifice for the
Şehzade. At once, I designed a graceful Friday mosque. It was much applauded by the shah. I laid its foundation with consummate care, and spent
endless effort and exertion completing it. By the grace of God, I worked
for many days. Its completion with blessings became facilitated by God.”
It seems that Sinan wanted to express his conviction having followed his
own advice, given to architects in TM and added to the report about the collapse of Hagia Sophia’s first dome47, “In like manner no doubt, this slave,
Sinan of Kayseri, too has suffered many troubles during the completion of
each [of his] buildings, all of which, no doubt with the help of God, came
into existence due to the auspicious government and lofty patronage of the
kingdom-conquering Ottoman dynasty and the bountiful sincerity of our
heart. In short, there is no art more difficult than architecture, and whosoever is engaged in this estimable calling must, to begin with, be righteous
and pious. He should not begin to lay the foundations if the building site is
not firm, and when he sets out to lay the foundations he should take great
care that his work be free from defect and he reach the firm ground. And, in
45. CRANE and AKIN 117.
46. COUPLETS 32-36, CRANE and AKIN 89.
47. Ibid. 66; cf. text and commentary NECIPOĞLU 2005, 138-139.
824
J. Engemann, Sveta Sofija i Sinanove autobiografije
Fig. 4.
Süleymaniye
mosque,
Axonometric
drawing,
Necipoğlu,
Age, p. 206
proportion to the abundance or paucity of piers, columns, and buttresses, he
should close up the domes and half domes that are on top of them, and bind
the arches together in an agreeable manner, without carelessness. And he
should not hurry in important matters but should endure...”.
As mentioned before, the Şehzade mosque in the TM draft is described
as model for the Süleymaniye mosque (Fig. 4; Pl. 3). For this great building
(1548-1559)48 Sinan made use only of two half domes on the sides of the main
dome, imitating the Hagia Sophia. Süleymaniye’s dome is quite extensive: diameter 27,50 metres, hight 49,50 metres. As in the Şehzade mosque here also
the four heavy main piers are connected to the pendentives and to the dome’s
base. The drafts RM and TM praise in identical phrases the craftsmanship of
the architect49, “He was the servant of three illustrious kings. During each of
those three reigns he built many buildings and attained in his art [great] skill.
And in the Friday mosque of the sainted Sultan Süleyman his abilities in this
science he did perfect, fearlessly, with but the least of his art. In TM details
of the building are singled out, among them the domes50, “And although the
preparation of its domes and half domes was work [fit] for demons, thanks
48. MÜLLER-WIENER 464-469; GOODWIN 1971, 215-240; SÖZEN 151-171;
FREELY 26-33; GOODWIN 1993, 36-45; GÜNNAY, 26-28; 52-63;YERASIMOS 2000,
260-269; ERZEN 81-83; NECIPOĞLU 2005, 207-222.
49. CRANE and AKIN 59. 65.
50. Ibid. 75.
825
Kačić, Split, 2009.-2011., 41-43
be to God, all of them were feasible for humankind.” TE emphasizes in connection with the
Süleymaniye Sinan’s architectural
accomplishment, “On it as well I
spent endless effort and exertion.
In short, art reached its limit in
it. Men of talent, from beginning
to end, understand the arts manifested in it51.” Considering the
irritating impact of the four large
buttress piers when focussing on
the Hagia Sophia’s northern and
southern outside view (Pl. 1),
Sinan’s satisfaction when contemPl. 3. Süleymaniye mosque,
plating his Süleymaniye mosque
Yerasimos, Konstantinopel, p. 265
is easily understood.
The last quoted sentence from TE is being repeated in TB52, and extensive explanations devoted to the course of construction and to the furnishings of the mosque follow53. The comparison between Süleymaniye’s
dome and the vault of heaven appears in TB, “... its highest dome is like
the revolving heavens54.” This image is known already in Roman literature
(e.g. Martial55, and Dio Cassius56).
In spite of their important static relevance, two of Sinan’s mosques
in Istanbul are not mentioned in his autobiographies: the Rüstem Pascha
Mosque (1561-1563)57, with its eight piers under the dome already pointing
towards the Selimiye Mosque in Edirne, and the Mirimah Sultan Mosque
(ca.1563-1570) showing a dome above the square, its thrust not being supported by half domes in any direction58.
51. Ibid. 89.
52. Ibid. 122.
53. Ibid. 123-124.
54. Ibid. 124.
55. Martial, Epigr. 8,36.
56. Cassius Dio, hist. 53,27.
57. MÜLLER-WIENER 453-455; GOODWIN 1971, 249-252; SÖZEN 189-195;
FREELY 33; GOODWIN 1993, 105-106; GÜNNAY 79-82; YERASIMOS 2000, 282283; ERZEN 85-89; NECIPOĞLU 2005, 321-331.
58. MÜLLER-WIENER 441-443; GOODWIN 1971, 252-255; SÖZEN 189-195;
FREELY 33. 36. 122. 136-139; GOODWIN 1993, 66-67; GÜNNAY 37-40; YERASIMOS 2000, 280-281; ERZEN 87; NECIPOĞLU 2005, 305-314.
826
J. Engemann, Sveta Sofija i Sinanove autobiografije
The exterior view
of Edirne’s Selimiye
mosque (Fig. 5; Pl.
4) - a highlight of Osman architecture - easily reveals how carefully and gracefully the
eight main pillars are
buttressed on the outside. The dome reaches
a height of 43.40 metres from the pavement
(Hagia Sophia 55.60,
Süleymaniye 49.50).
I doubt that Sinan allowed a lesser hight
to Selimiye only due
Fig. 5. Edirne, Selimiye mosque,
to static precautions59,
Axonometric drawing, Necipoğlu, Age, p. 240
as he could have reinforced higher piers and buttresses as well. However, unlike the four piers
in a mosque like Süleymaniye the eight pillars in the octagon are standing
very close to each other - any further elevation would have ruined the harmony of the interior.
The versified introduction to TE offers some couplets60 for this mosque,
indicating what has been treated in the long passage in TB quoted in the
beginning as starting point for my contribution61. The comparison between
the Moslem Selimiye Mosque and the Hagia Sophia of the sinning unbelievers is being mentioned briefly once again in the following poem62. Furthermore this text contains an extensive description of Sinan’s opponent’s
claim that the mosque would never be completed, and finally a detailed “Encomium for the noble Friday mosque”63. Here a whole sequence of comparisons is presented: the mosque and its dome versus buildings and poetic
pictures of Islamic tradition. Crane and Akin are to be commended for their
commentary in the notes. The already introduced comparison between Süleymaniye’s dome and the vault of heaven appears in TB once more for Se59. YERASIMOS 2000, 270.
60. CRANE and AKIN 89, couplets 53-57.
61. Ibid. 130.
62. Ibid. 131.
63. Ibid. 131-133.
827
Kačić, Split, 2009.-2011., 41-43
limiye, “Its exalted dome
is like the highest heavenly sphere64.” This, however, is surpassed by another, three times repeated
picture for the “floating”
dome in Edirne. In TE,
“In truth, beneath the
[heavenly] vault, unsupported by columns, that
dome became a suspended
sphere”65, in TB almost
identical, and then again in
TB, “Its dome seems suspended from the mosque
of the spheres with the
Milky Way66.” With this
image as well as with the
measurements Sa’i strives
for a comparison with
Hagia Sophia, since it is
amazingly similar to ProPl. 4. Edirne, Selimiye mosque,
cop’s statements about JusYerasimos, Konstantinopel, p. 272
tinian’s church. He wrote
about his spherical dome (σφαιρoειδὴς θόλoς), “Yet it seems not to rest
upon solid masonry, but to cover the space with its golden dome (σφαίρᾳ)
suspended from Heaven67.”
Just as the adaptation of such images cannot be attributed to the architect Sinan and indicates Sa’i’s fantasy, it goes without saying that the equation of the dome above eight piers (Selimiye) with the dome above the four
arches of a basic square (Hagia Sophia) is a poet’s idea. The above quoted
autobiographical texts concerning the Süleymaniye (e.g. “art reached its
limit in it”) illuminate Sinan’s conviction that as architect of this building
he has proven himself already superior to the builders of the Hagia Sophia.
64. Ibid. 131.
65. Ibid. 89.
66. Ibid. 131.
67. Procopius, Buildings 1.1.46 (Loeb ed. 7,20-21).
828
J. Engemann, Sveta Sofija i Sinanove autobiografije
LITERATURE
AHUBAY, METIN and ZEYNEP, Structural Influence of Hagia Sophia on
Ottoman Mosque Architecture, in: MARK and ÇAKMAK, 179-194.
BURELLI, AUGUSTO ROMANO and GENNARO, PAOLA SONIA (Eds.),
Die Moschee von Sinan, Ausstellungskatalog Frankfurt/Main 2008 (Tübingen 2008).
CRANE, HOWARD and AKIN, ESRA, Sinan’s Autobiographies (Leiden 2006).
EGLI, ERNST, Sinan, Der Baumeister osmanischer Glanzzeit (Stuttgart 1954).
EMERSON, W. and VAN NICE, ROBERT L., Hagia Sophia, Istanbul: Preliminary Report of a Recent Examination of the Structures: American Journal of
Archaeology 47, 1943, 403-436.
ERZEN, JALE NEJDET, Sinan. Ottoman Architect. An Aestetic Analysis
(Ankara 2004).
FREELY, JOHN and BURELLI, AUGUSTO ROMANO, Sinan, Architect of
Süleyman the Magnificent and the Ottoman Golden Age (London 1992).
GOODWIN, GODFREY, A History of Ottoman Architecture (Baltimore 1971).
GOODWIN, GODFREY, Sinan. Ottoman Architecture and its Values Today
(London 1993).
GÜNAY, REHA, Sinan, the architect and his works (Istanbul 1998).
HOFFMANN, VOLKER (Ed.), Der geometrische Entwurf der Hagia Sophia
in Istanbul, Ausstellung Istanbul / Berlin 2005 (Bern 2005).
KÄHLER, HEINZ, Die Hagia Sophia (Berlin 1967).
KUBAN, DOĞAN, Sinan’s Art and Selimiye (Istanbul 1997).
KURAN, APTULLAH, Sinan. The Grand Old Master of Ottoman Architecture (Washington D.C. 1987)
MAINSTONE, ROWLAND J., Hagia Sophia (New York 1988).
MAINSTONE, ROWLAND J., Questioning Hagia Sophia, in: MARK /
ÇAKMAK 1992, 158-176.
MANGO, CYRIL and ERTUĞ, AHMET, Hagia Sohia, a Vision for Empires
(Istanbul 1997).
MARK, ROBERT and ÇAKMAK, AHMET Ş. (Eds.), Hagia Sophia from the
age of Justinian to the present (Cambridge 1992).
MÜLLER-WIENER, WOLFGANG, Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbuls
(Tübingen 1977).
NECIPOĞLU, GÜLRU, The Age of Sinan (Princeton u.a. 2005).
NECIPOĞLU, GÜLRU, Preface, in: CRANE and AKIN 2006, VII-XVI.
RESTLE, MARCELL, Reclams Kunstführer Istanbul, Bursa, Edirne, Iznik
(Stuttgart 1976).
RESTLE, MARCELL, Die Hagia Sophia und die Istanbuler Moscheen, in:
VOLKER HOFFMANN (Ed.), Die Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, Akten Kolloquium
Bern 1994 (Bern 1998), 109/26.
SÖZEN, METIN, Sinan, Architect of ages (Ankara 1988).
829
Kačić, Split, 2009.-2011., 41-43
THODE, DIRK, Untersuchungen zur Lastabtragung in spätantiken Kuppelbauten (Diss. Darmstadt 1975).
VAN NICE, ROBERT L., Saint Sophie in Istanbul. An Architectural Survey
(Washington D.C. 1986).
VAN NICE, ROBERT L., Appendix, Selected Survey Drawings of Hagia Sophia, in: MARK/ÇAKMAK 1992, 227-249.
YERASIMOS, STÉPHANE, Légendes d’empire. La fondation de Constantinople et de Sainte-Sophie dans les traditions turques (Paris 1990).
YERASIMOS, STÉPHANE, Konstantinopel. Istanbuls historisches Erbe
(Köln 2000).
SAŽETAK - SUMMARIUM
SVETA SOFIJA I SINANOVE AUTOBIOGRAFIJE
Sinanove autobiografije (ur. Crane i Akin) pokazuju da je nužno odrediti
ulogu, koju je u opisu arhitektova djela, imao pjesnik Mustafa Sa’i Çelebi. Sveta
Sofija u Istambulu, premda predstavlja vrhunsko djelo svjetske arhitekture, ipak
je imala dva bitna statička problema: preniska kupola (koja je bila zamijenjena
višom, nakon što se ona prvotna bila srušila 558.) i dva različita sustava podupiranja glavne kupole. Unatoč svojoj statičkoj važnosti, dvije Sinanove džamije u
Istambulu nisu spomenute u njegovim autobiografijama: Rüstem Pašina džamija
(1561.-1563.), s kupolom i svojih osam potpornih stupova, ni Mirimah Sultanova Džamija (ca.1563.-1570.) s kupolom nad četverokutnom osnovom. Navedeni
autobiografski tekstovi u svezi Sulejmanove džamije, pokazuju Sinanovu samosvijest da se kao njezin arhitekt već dokazao sposobnijim od graditelja Svete Sofije.
830