Sinan's Autobiographies: Five Sixteenth-century Texts

657 Pages·2006·94.67 MB·English

by  Esra Akin

`
S NAN’S AUTOBIOGRAPHIES
STUDIES AND SOURCES
IN ISLAMIC ART
AND ARCHITECTURE
SUPPLEMENTS TO MUQARNAS
Sponsored by the Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture at Harvard University
and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
series editor: gülru neci·poÅlu
managing editor: julia bailey
VOLUME XI
`
S NAN’S AUTOBIOGRAPHIES
FIVE SIXTEENTH-CENTURY TEXTS
INTRODUCTORY NOTES, CRITICAL EDITIONS, AND TRANSLATIONS
BY
HOWARD CRANE
AND
ESRA AKIN
EDITED WITH PREFACE BY
` >
GÜLRU NEC PO LU
BRILL
LEIDEN •BOSTON
2006
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Sinan’s autobiographies: five sixteenth-century texts / Howard Crane and
Esra AkÌn.
p. cm. — (Studies and sources in Islamic art and architecture.
Supplements to Muquarnas, ISSN0921-0326 ; v. 11)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 9004141685 (cloth : alk. papier)
ISSN 0921-0326
ISBN 90 04 14168 5
© Copyright 2006 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill Academic Publishers,
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written
permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal
use is granted by Brill provided that
the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright
Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910
Danvers MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
printed in the netherlands
preface v

CONTENTS
Preface: “Sources, Themes, and Cultural Implications of Sinan’s Autobiographies” by
Gülru Necipoqlu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Authors’ Notes and Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii
Note on Transcription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Synopsis of Relationships between Texts and Manuscripts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Works Cited. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Adsæz Risale (AR) [Untitled Treatise]
Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Transcription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Ris¸letü’l-Mi{m¸riyye (RM) [Treatise on Architecture]
Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Transcription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Tu¥fetü’l-Mi{m¸rºn (TM) [Choice Gift of the Architects]
Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Transcription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Tezkiretü’l-Ebniye (TE) [Record of Buildings]
Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Transcription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Tezkiretü’l-Büny¸n (TB) [Record of Construction]
Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Transcription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Collations of Tezkiretü’l-Ebniye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Collations of Tezkiretü’l-Büny¸n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
Note on the Format of Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
Appendix I: Citation Index of Buildings Listed in Tezkiretü’l-Ebniye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
Appendix II: Sequence of Citations in Inventories Listed in Tezkiretü’l-Ebniye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370
Appendix III: Comparison of Prose Introduction in AR, RM, TM, and TE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392
Facsimiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403
TKS Ar×ivi, D 1461/3 (AR). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405
TKS Ar×ivi, D 1461/4 (RM, TM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415
Ayverdi Manuscript (S) of TE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467
Süleymaniye, Hacæ Mahmud 4911 (Hm 4911) of TB. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 521
Süleymaniye, Nuri Arlasez 81/1–2 (NA) of TB, TE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627
muqarnas_suppl11-1.indd v 3/23/2006 1:14:34 PM
vi preface
muqarnas_suppl11-1.indd vi 3/23/2006 1:14:37 PM
preface vii
PREFACE
SOURCES, THEMES, AND CULTURAL The need for a critical edition of these five texts,
IMPLICATIONS OF S~NAN’S accompanied by reliable English translations, became
AUTOBIOGRAPHIES apparent to me as I was writing a book on Sinan that
includes an analysis of his autobiographical narra-
The autobiographical memoirs of the Ottoman chief tives and their implications for Ottoman architec-
architect Sinan (d. 1588), narrated shortly before his tural culture.1 At that time I collected the microfilms
death to the poet-painter Mustafa Sa{i Çelebi (d. 1595– of some manuscripts with the hope of overseeing the
96), have come down to us in five versions. Preserved publication of a scholarly volume in the series Sup-
in the Topkapæ Palace archives, three of them are plements to Muqarnas, which I would edit. Howard
incomplete drafts whose crossed-out lines and inser- Crane, who published two primary sources on Otto-
tions testify to an extensive editing process in which man architecture in the same series, was an ideal can-
Sinan collaborated with his biographer: a text without didate for such a collaborative enterprise.2 I am grate-
a title, traditionally known as Adsæz Risale (henceforth ful that he agreed to undertake this timely project, for
abbreviated AR, Untitled Treatise), the Ris¸letü’l- which he assiduously assembled the remaining manu-
Mi{m¸rºyye (RM, Treatise on Architecture), and the scripts recorded in library catalogues, in addition to
Tu¥fetü’l-Mi{m¸rºn (TM, Choice Gift of the Architects). locating others through persistent detective work.3
Unlike these sketchy drafts that never reached the This volume, jointly prepared by him and Esra Akæn,
public eye, the two subsequently edited versions of brings together for the first time all five autobiograph-
Sinan’s autobiography are highly polished texts that ical texts, providing critical editions, translations, and
circulated widely, judging by their numerous surviv- the facsimiles of selected manuscript copies. Since the
ing copies: an abridged edition titled Tezkiretü’l-Ebniye authors discuss in their introduction the content, struc-
(TE, Record of Buildings) and a longer version called ture, interrelationship, authorship, and likely dates of
Tezkiretü’l-Büny¸n (TB, Record of Construction). each text, I will consider here the sources, themes,
Written in the second half of the 1580s, these five and broader cultural implications.
texts on Sinan’s life and works are unique sources Sinan’s autobiographical memoirs reflect his desire
without any equivalent in the history of Islamic archi- to leave a personal mark on history and collective
tecture. Each of them includes a brief biographical memory through self-fashioning. This ambition is elu-
section, outlining Sinan’s recruitment as a Christian cidated in the preface of TB, which praises the reign-
boy from a village of Kayseri under Sultan Selim I (r. ing monarch, Murad III (r. 1574–95), the heir appar-
1512–20) and his initial training in carpentry as a nov- ent Prince Mehmed, and the grand vizier Siyavu× Pasha
ice in Istanbul, followed by his promotion through (g. v. 1582–84, 1586–89, 1592–93):
the ranks of the Janissaries during the reign of Sultan
The reason for the composition of the agreeable book
Süleyman I (r. 1520–66), whom he arduously accom-
and fair ornament [that is like] a black-veiled beauty
panies to “many a ghaza” (war on behalf of Islam) as
is this: One day, the chief of the fortunate padishah’s
a foot soldier, building several bridges and war ships
architects, Sinan son of {Abdülmennan, having become
along the way. The texts then narrate Sinan’s achieve-
a weak old man and wishing his name and reputation to
ments as chief architect under three sultans (Süley-
endure on the pages of time, asked this brokenhearted
man I, Selim II, and Murad III) and group the monu- servant without protector, the humble Sa{i, to record his
ments created during his tenure (1539–88) according conversation in verse and prose so that he be remembered
to various building types. with prayers and blessings. I recorded and made clear [his
muqarnas_suppl11-1.indd vii 3/23/2006 1:14:37 PM
viii preface
account] to the best of my worthless ability and arrived the sultans who honored him with private conversa-
into his joy-meriting presence with an imperfect gift. And tions, but he foregrounds his special relationship with
I gave the title Record of Construction (Tezkiretü’l-Büny¸n) his beloved yet capricious patron, Sultan Süleyman,
to this lofty treatise. It is hoped and requested of those which is likened in TB to the ardent love of Ferhad
friends who read this epic that insofar as possible they for Shirin. Like the legendary Persian sculptor-archi-
veil its defects with forgiveness ...4
tect Ferhad, Sinan, for the love of the Shirin-like
Sa{i, then, presented the “epic” (dast¸n) entitled sovereign, carves water channels “from Mount Bisu-
Tezkiretü’l-Büny¸n as a humble gift to Sinan during tun” and the mountain-like dome of the Süleymaniye
his patron’s lifetime. Likewise, the shorter text of Mosque in Istanbul.
Tezkiretü’l-Ebniye refers to Sinan as still alive, touchingly The chief architect commissioned Sa{i to elevate to
announcing the grand master’s continuing artistic a higher literary level of prose and verse conversations
creativity under Murad III, despite the decrepitude they held about his vita, his artistic aspirations, and
of old age: according to the epitaph Sa{i composed episodes concerning the construction of select impe-
for Sinan’s tomb,5 he died at over a hundred years rial monuments he considered the landmarks of his
of age (over ninety-seven in the solar calendar). The career. Accompanied by lists of numerous monuments,
absence of such phrases as “the late” or “may God Sinan’s autobiographies narrate his life and extraor-
grant him mercy” with reference to Sinan in these dinary deeds from an assertive, first-person point of
texts also shows that he was living at the time they view, testifying to his acute sense of individualism. It
were written. was the growing esteem for architecture in Ottoman
TB, which ends abruptly with a poem eulogizing court culture that nourished this proud sense of indi-
the Selimiye Mosque in Edirne, hints at the sudden vidualism and new self-consciousness, generally associ-
interruption of sultanic patronage with the death of ated with the Renaissance idea of the artist. Although
Selim II (r. 1565–74), after which no imperial mosque the two final editions of the Tezkires were embel-
of the same caliber was commissioned by his successor lished by the poet’s refinements to a larger degree
Murad III. With a poem entitled “Complaint Against than the drafts that preceded them, Sinan’s personal
the Age” Sa{i’s preface laments the present devalu- voice is still recognizable, particularly in TB’s descrip-
ation of talent: “The ignorant and uneducated are tions of engineering feats that use specialized techni-
greatly valued. / The possessors of talent are trampled cal vocabulary (such as the removal and transport of
underfoot. // None respect the masters of the soul. / the Maiden’s Column in Istanbul for use in the Sü -
In truth, skill has now become a fault.”6 Although the leymaniye Mosque, and the construction techniques
poet’s complaint primarily refers to his own field, one of the Kærkçe×me Aqueducts and the Büyükçekmece
wonders whether it also insinuates Sinan’s disappoint- Bridge). Sa{i’s own voice, on the other hand, is sig-
ment with diminished architectural patronage that he nificant because of his visual sensitivity as a painter-
hoped to bring to the attention of the reigning sul- decorator who composed foundation inscriptions for
tan and grand vizier invoked in the preface. If so, TB several monuments built by Sinan. The epitaph he pre-
can be considered a hitherto unnoted example of the pared for his deceased patron’s tomb implies that their
“decline discourse” that emerged in Ottoman histori- relationship was not merely confined to a few conver-
ography during the last quarter of the sixteenth cen- sations but most likely involved a personal intimacy
tury. This conjecture finds support in the epic struc- developed over the years. The poetic images and asso-
ture of TB, which incorporates an abridged chronicle ciations embodied in Sa{i’s architectural descriptions
of the “Golden Age” of Sultan Süleyman, ending with cannot be lightly dismissed as generic literary topoi,
a description of his death in the Szigetvár campaign for he belonged to Sinan’s circle and mirrored con-
followed by the accession dates of his two less glori- temporary mentalities that colored the production
ous successors.7 It is not surprising, then, that five and reception of the chief architect’s works.
of the six architectural projects singled out in TB as The sources compiled in this volume have been
the milestones of Sinan’s career were commissioned endlessly mined as repositories of “facts” concern-
by his greatest royal patron, Sultan Süleyman, who is ing the biography and corpus of Sinan, but they also
idealized as the “Solomon of the age” for whom the provide invaluable insights into the practice and con-
“jinns” and “demons” erect grandiose monuments. ceptualization of architecture during his tenure as
Sinan proudly mentions his personal interaction with chief architect for nearly half a century. Sinan did
muqarnas_suppl11-1.indd viii 3/23/2006 1:14:37 PM
preface ix
not attempt to articulate the theoretical and practi- ence” in contemporary texts, including Sinan’s own
cal bases of his architectural canon for fellow archi- autobiographical narratives, which recount his train-
tects, since the transmission of professional knowl- ing in geometry during his apprenticeship in the craft
edge in the workshop training of the corps of royal of carpentry. The autobiographies provide glimpses
architects that he headed was largely confined to the of an unarticulated theory of proportions, guided by
domain of verbal communication, drawings, and tech- the “science of geometry” that also governs structural
nical manuals. Nor did he attempt to expound the solidity. Sinan’s concern for integrating beautiful form
principles of architectural design to an audience of with solid structure in arcuate constructions that skil-
elite patrons, since the theory and praxis of architec- fully balance domical superstructures with varied sup-
ture remained outside the realm of learned Ottoman port systems is concisely delineated in the TM preface
literary discourse. quoted below. This concern was complemented by a
The second-century BC Roman architect Vitru- concept of decorum, which informed the design of
vius’s De Architectura, which inspired the writing of functionally appropriate building types befitting the
theoretical treatises in Renaissance Italy, was known relative social status of patrons and the graduated rank
in the Ottoman court: a Latin manuscript copy sent of construction sites within imperial geography.
by the Duke of Milan to the Hungarian king Matthias The concept of decorum is inherent in the hier-
Corvinus in the late fifteenth century had entered Sul- archical ordering of lists of monuments in the auto-
tan Süleyman’s imperial library at the Topkapæ Palace biographies according to the rank of patrons (moving
after the conquest of Hungary in 1526.8 Sinan likely from sultans and the royal family to the viziers and
had access to printed and illustrated editions of this lesser grandees) or location (starting with Istanbul to
work and to other architectural treatises published stress the primacy of the capital over the provinces).11
in Europe: he was, after all, the chief architect of a The classification of these lists in terms of building
multiethnic and multilingual empire whose territories types, on the other hand, reveals the overt privileging
extended to the gates of Vienna and included Chios of Friday mosques, which are always enumerated first.
and Cyprus, islands recently conquered from Italian The descriptions of mosques combine an emphasis on
powers. Nevertheless, the resonance of Vitruvius’s trea- difficult engineering feats, innovative aesthetic forms,
tise and its early modern counterparts remained rel- and distinctive decorative programs (comprising callig-
atively limited beyond the orbit of European human- raphy and ornamentation in multiple media). Sinan’s
ist culture. Ottoman “humanism” was not steeped in preoccupation with structural solidity and formal refine-
homage to the Graeco-Roman tradition of literature, ment also extends to other building types, which he
even though philosophical and scientific classics inher- creatively transforms with new combinations of func-
ited through medieval Islamic translations were reg- tions. For instance, the Maqlova Aqueduct, hailed as a
ularly updated with commentaries. In the realm of masterpiece of monumental stone sculpture, uniquely
literature, the preferred models were Turco-Persian combines the functions of aqueduct and bridge: each
and Arabic “classics.” of its three tiers features “a road like a bridge, [and]
Sinan must have had access to major works on one can cross it on horseback.”12
the mathematical sciences, judging by the fact that The literary genre of autobiography was a rarity in
the imam and muezzin of the masjid he endowed the late-sixteenth-century Ottoman world, and there
in Istanbul had in their possession an important col- is no precedent in the Islamic lands for an architect’s
lection of manuscripts on “the sciences of astron- biography. Sa{i drew upon the existing genres of the
omy and geometry” once owned by the scholar Molla biographical memoir (tezkire) and the treatise (ris¸le).
Lutfi (d. 1495); an imperial decree of 1578 orders Although Sinan’s autobiographies, so unusual in their
that this collection be transferred to the royal obser- use of the first-person point of view, differ from the
vatory in Galata.9 The absence of Vitruvian treatises short entries found in the biographical compendia of
in the Ottoman context does not justify the prevalent poets, calligraphers, and painters, they rely in their
presumption that Sinan’s architecture lacked a theo- conception of architectural monuments as mementos
retical basis and was entirely rooted in an empirical of divinely bestowed creative power on previously for-
approach to design.10 Such a conclusion ignores the mulated artistic authorship paradigms.13
importance of orality in Ottoman architectural culture In addition, their narratives particularly recall books
and the elevated estimation of architecture as a “sci- of deeds (men¸qæbn¸mes) recounting the miraculous
muqarnas_suppl11-1.indd ix 3/23/2006 1:15:23 PM
x preface
exploits of Sufi saints and ghazis (fighters for Islam), relate stories about Justinian’s architect, Ignatius, and
some of which are also written in the first person.14 It Sinan’s predecessor and namesake Atik Sinan (the
is therefore not a coincidence that the autobiographi- architect of Sultan Mehmed II’s mosque complex in
cal memoirs of Sinan enumerate the many campaigns Istanbul [1463–70]), left a deep imprint on Ottoman
he participated in as a ghazi during the reign of Süley- architectural culture.18 They were clearly among the
man, the quintessential sultan of the ghazis. More- sources of Sinan’s autobiographies, which allude to
over, TB recounts the construction of the Selimiye them several times. For instance, the preface of TM
Mosque as an architectural ghaza, through which Sinan quoted below mentions the embarrassing collapse
scores a personal victory over the architects of the “infi- of the dome of Hagia Sophia, which Ignatius built
dels” who challenge the ability of Muslim builders to with much difficulty in fourteen years, and TB refers
equal in size the dome of Hagia Sophia. Besides repre- to the execution of Atik Sinan, who shortened the
senting him as a ghazi, the autobiographies liken the colossal columns supporting the dome of Mehmet II’s
elderly Sinan to a Sufi saint, often referring to him as mosque without asking for the sultan’s permission.19
a “saintly old man,” the “spiritual master (pºr) of the When rivals gossip about Sinan’s fear of removing the
dervish convent of the world,” and the “patron saint” of wooden centering of the dome of the delayed Süley-
architects, and comparing him to the sage Lokman with maniye Mosque, the impatient Sultan Süleyman threat-
eningly reminds the architect of the tragic fate of his
his God-given wisdom and to the saint Hæzær (Khidr)
namesake—yet another allusion to mythical texts that
in his working of miracles. Sinan’s uncanny ability
attribute the collapse of the Hagia Sophia dome to
to detect hidden sources of water under the ground
the untimely removal of its centering because of Jus-
is a leitmotif in the men¸qæbn¸mes of some Sufi saints
tinian’s impatience.20 Sinan is careful to indicate in
renowned for discovering holy springs. The compar-
TB that only with the sultan’s permission was one of
ison with the immortal Hæzær—alleged to have discov-
the four colossal columns supporting the Süleymaniye
ered the water of life and revealed the plan of Hagia
dome cut down to match the others.21 This indirect
Sophia to the emperor Justinian’s legendary architect
reference to the unauthorized shortening of compa-
Ignatius (Agnados or Ignadyus)—underscores Sinan’s
rable columns in the failed mosque of the ungrate-
skill as a hydraulic engineer who miraculously discov-
ful ruler Mehmed II draws attention to the display in
ers “life-giving” springs for the Kærkçe×me Aqueducts
the Süleymaniye of Sinan’s artistic superiority over his
and the waterwheel of a royal garden.15 The compar-
namesake. It also highlights Süleyman’s greater jus-
ison also underlines Sinan’s superiority to the archi-
tice as a patron who gratefully honors his chief archi-
tect of Hagia Sophia, a masterpiece “without equal in
tect by having him open the gate of the Süleymaniye
the world” with which he competes throughout his
during its inauguration ceremony.
career. Unlike Ignatius, Sinan, who is acknowledged
Intertextual cross-references to former books of
by “all the world” for building his works “with saintli-
deeds not only accentuate the difficulties inherent
ness” (vel¸yetle), does not need the assistance of Hæzær
in the architect’s profession but also acclaim Sinan’s
in designing the Selimiye Mosque, thanks to his own
ingenious ability to overcome professional obstacles
miracle-working powers: “They say that Hæzær Hagia
in the construction of monuments that eclipse the
Sophia designed. / Do not think this Hæzær-like man
masterpieces of his Byzantine and early Ottoman pre-
a mere mason to be.”16
decessors. His boastful sense of pride in his unprec-
The writer Cafer Efendi explains that he penned his
edented accomplishments is advertised in TB by the
Ris¸le-i Mi{m¸riyye (Treatise on Architecture), a biogra-
claim that he created in the Selimiye Mosque a dome
phy of Sinan’s student Mimar Mehmed Aqa, because
both larger and more artistically refined than that of
it had become customary to compose men¸qæbn¸mes
Hagia Sophia, along with minarets higher and more
for some chief architects.17 In addition to the auto-
elegant than the celebrated triple-galleried minaret of
biographies of Sinan, he must have been thinking the Üç Øerefeli Mosque in Edirne. In similar fashion,
of semimythical texts on the construction of Hagia TM confidently asserts that the Mosque of Øehzade
Sophia, modified Turkish and Persian translations of Mehmed in Istanbul (the chief architect’s first royal
the ninth- or tenth-century Diegesis peri tes Hagias Sofias commission from Sultan Süleyman) surpasses in artis-
(Narrative concerning Hagia Sophia). These popular tic refinement early Ottoman sultanic mosques awk-
late-fifteenth- and early-sixteenth-century texts, which wardly constructed in the “style of Hagia Sophia” and
muqarnas_suppl11-1.indd x 3/23/2006 1:15:23 PM