No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Şeyh Murad Mescidi at Constantinople1
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 September 2013
Abstract
The chance discovery of a unique unpublished nineteenth-century photograph in the archive of the BSA has led to the re-discovery of one of the lost Byzantine churches of Constantinople. The church, known as the Seyh Murad Mescidi, was destroyed by 1880, and is preserved only through two lithographs and descriptions. These sources are re-accessed in the light of the BSA photograph, and a Comnene date for the main part of the building is proposed, with Palaeologan additions. Previous attributions concerning the church's Byzantine dedication are examined and found wanting. An alternative dedication, to the Prophet Elisha, is suggested.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1990
References
2 The photographs were found inside a copy of A Letter to the Right Honourable Lord Aldenham upon the subject of a Byzantine Evangelien by Edwin Freshfield, catalogued at IV a 121 No. 5576. The print in question measures 30.5 × 24.5 cm and is signed by the Peran photographer G. Berggren.
3 The modern Turkish version of this name is derived from Bildlexikon (202 with bibliography).
4 Paspates plate facing 382.
5 Virtually nothing is known of this building's history as a mosque or when it was converted from a church.
‘᾿Ολίγιοτα λέγει ὁ Σεὶδ Αλη̄ς περὶ τοῦ τεμένους τούτου, μεταβληϑέντος ϰατὰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν αὐτοῦ, ἀπὸ ἐϰϰλησίαν. ᾿Αγνωστος ειἶναι ϰαὶ δ τάφος τοῦ Σεὶχ Μουράδ. Περὶ τοῦ ἔτους τῆς μεταβολῆς, οὐδὲν λέγει.’ (Paspates 382). The Ottoman source to which Paspates refers is the Hadikatu ‘l-Cerami or Garden of the Mosques by Effendi, Hüsseyin (Constantinople 1864–1865, 277).Google Scholar
6 For the destruction of the church see Churches 313 and Bildlexikon 202. For descriptions and illustrations see Ein Sommer 236; Paspates 382–383 (with plate facing 382); and Broken Bits 51.
7 Bildlexikon Lageplan sq D4 No. 16. The site of the church is at the north-east corner of the present Kopça Sokaǧi and Asik Paşa Sokaǧi (I am grateful to Dr Johann Strauss for this information). A cistern to the south of the church, noted by Paspates, also locates the church. For the cistern see Forcheimer, P. and Strzygowski, J.Die Wasser behälter von Konstantinopel (Wien 1893) 72–73 No. 14Google Scholar and Bildlexikon Lageplan sq D4 No. 4 Zisterne D4/2. Paspates (382), was mistaken in placing the church to the north of Gül Camii.
8 ‘τὸ ϰτίριον εἶναι σταυροειδὲς’ (Paspates 382).
9 Ein Sommer 236.
10 Paspates 382.
11 cf note 8. This Interpretation was first proposed by Mathews (Churches 313–314).
12 Ein Sommer 236; Paspates 382.
13 Ein Sommer 236. Here von Warsberg must be referring to the eastern apse of the church.
14 Bildlexikon 202.
15 Megaw, A.H.S.DOPapers 18 (1964) 291 figs. 10–11.Google Scholar
16 Churches 15. This church has been recently dated to the ninth century. See Mathews, T.F. and Hawkins, E.J.W.Notes on the Atik Mustafa Paşa Camii in Istanbul and Its Frescoes DOPapers 39 (1985) 125–34 (128).Google Scholar
17 Mango, C.The Date of the Narthex Mosaics of the Church of the Dormition at Nicaea DOPapers 13 (1959) 249–50 n. 38–61Google Scholar; See also Mango, C.Byzantine Architecture (New York 1976) 14.Google Scholar
18 Churches 313.
19 Paspates 382. Camii, Kilise; Churches 390 pl. 40–5 and 40–7.Google Scholar
Pantocrator; Idem 71 and 73 pl. 10–1.
Koimesis; Mango, DOPapers 13 (1959) 251 fig. 12.Google Scholar
20 Camii, Kilise; Churches 390 pl. 40–4 and 40–5.Google Scholar Kalenderhane Camii; Idem 176 pl. 18–4.
21 Churches 390 pl. 40–5 and 40–7. Buchwald (JOBG 26 (1977) 290 note 95), suggested that St. John's dates to the ninth century, on the basis of masonry types, but the similarity between it and the Şeyh Murad Mescidi and the apse interior masonry of St Abercius at Kurşunlu (dated 1162), would suggest a retention of the twelfth century date. See Mango, C.The Monastery of St Abercius at Kursunlu (Elegmi) in Bithynia DOPapers 22 (169–76) (170–172 fig. 9).Google Scholar
22 Şeyh Murad Mescidi c. 15.00 × c. 13.00 m. (after Paspates). St.John-in-Trullo c. 16.00 × c. 9.50 m. (After Van Millingen op. cit. 206 fig. 70).
Kilise Camii c. 18.75 × c. 10.50 m. (After van Millingen, A.Byzantine Churches in Constantinople (London 1912) 251 fig. 84).Google Scholar The disproportionate width of the Şeyh Murad Mescidi is probably due to the addition of the narthex (see below).
23 The mullions should be compared with those in the Lips north church (ninth century) (Megaw op. cit. fig. 30), and those in the early fourteenth century parekklesion at the Pammakaristos (Camii, Fetiye), Churches 359 pl. 36–25.Google Scholar
24 For a Palaeologan date compare the masonry of the Şeyh Murad Mescidi with that of the Chora (Kariye Camii, Churches 45–47), Manastir Mescidi (Churches 195–97) and Bogdan Saray (Churches 36–39).
I am very grateful to Professor Cyril Mango for drawing my attention to this matter and for reading the proofs of this article.
25 Eleventh and twelfth century narthexes in Constantinople with groin vaults:
Pantocrator (1118–1136); Churches 74 plan; Van Millingen op. cit. plan opposite 240.
Christ Pantepoptes (Eski Imaret Camii, c. 1087), Eso-narthex; Churches 59, 60 plan.
Kalenderhane Camii (twelfth century), Eso-narthex; Churches 171, 183 pl. 18–19.
26 Churches 41 and 386–7 and plan; Mango, C.Byzantine Architecture (New York 1976) 271.Google Scholar See also St. Andrew-in-Krisei (Koca Mustafa Paşa Camii), if we accept Eyice's dating. See Eyice, S.Actes du IXe Congres d'Etudes Byzantines (Athens 1953) 184–90.Google Scholar For Palaeologan narthexes with only one dome see Christ Pantepoptes, exo-narthex, Churches 59 and 60 plan; Lips south church (late thirteenth century), Churches 322 and 324 plan. See also Ousterhout, R.The Architecture of the Kariye Camii (Washington 1987) 101ff.Google Scholar
27 See Mathews, and Hawkins, DOPapers 39 (1985) 130–133Google Scholar for frescoes in the blocked up windows. For doors see the Porta Aurea in Bildlexikon 300 abb. 342.
28 A piece of fifth or sixth century lintel is visible in Fig. 3, decorated with a cross in a medallion. The capitals published by Curtis and noted by Grosvenor (Broken Bits 52–54, 56; Grosvenor, Constantinople (London 1895) ii 470)Google Scholar, were evidently of the early Byzantine period, but they do not necessarily prove the existence of an earlier church on the site. It is more likely that they were re-used spolia. On the capitals see also Kautzsch, R.Kapitellstudien (Berlin 1936) 147 No. 467 and 170 Taf. 34 No. 549.Google Scholar
29 Paspates 383.
30 Paspates 382.
31 Les Èglises et Monasteres 405 and Planche 1 sq 6E–F.
32 Mordtmann, A.D.Esquisse Topographiquè de Constantinople (Lille 1892) 42Google Scholar; Schneider, A.M.Byzanz (Berlin 1936) 71Google Scholar; Papadopoulos, J.StBiz 2 (1927) 60–63.Google Scholar
33 Theophanes Continuatus (ed. Niebuhr, , Bonn 1838)Google Scholar Lib.V Constantine Porphyrogenitos De Basilio Macedone 339 l. 18–19; Constantinople Byzantine 415; Les Èglises et Monasteres 312–314 No. 2.
34 A.M. Schneider and M.I.S. Nomadis Χαρτῆς τῶν Χερσαιῶν Τειχῶν τῆς Μεσαιωνιϰῆς Κωνοταντινουπολεῶς (Galata 1938).
Constantinople Byzantine 415; Les Èglises et Monasteres 146–7.
35 Constantinople Byzantine 310 No. 2; Les Èglises et Monasteres 116 No. 1.
36 Whether the cistern was attached to the church is still unresolved (Paspates 383). Forcheimer and Strzygowski (op. cit. 241–242), tentatively dated the cistern to the Palaeologan period.