1. Introduction Constantinople until the 18th century lived in the shadow of classical Ottoman architecture and the city’s public image was influenced by the work of the architect Great (Hoca) Sinan, who was Christian in origin. Sinan built the greatest number of buildings in the long history of Constantinople, as chief of the imperial architects’ body. Presently, we shall not delve into the influences that the Ottoman architecture received from its Byzantine counterpart, mainly with regard to copying the dome of Hagia Sophia in order to roof mosques of great size, because referring to one part of the building does not constitute sufficient proof for analyzing typology in a satisfactory fashion. There are many elements one could comment upon, such as the similarities in masonry, the frames of roofs, as well as elements of perspective that provide a functional aspect to the ground plan, such as architectural overhangs; all these constitute elements of the long-lived Byzantine building tradition. Turkish researches undoubtedly accept the fact that the Church dedicated to the Wisdom of God (Hagia Sophia) served as a model for Ottoman masons, especially in the case of Bayazid Mosque.1 2. Architectural style from the Fall of Constantinople until the 18th century Before Sinan, there was a former Sinan called Atik (old) Sinan, who was the Islamized Christodoulos (also known as Sinan Yusuf bin Abdullah), architect of the old Mosque of Mehmed II the Conqueror.2 His grave is located behind the contemporary Fatih Mosque; on the sepulchral inscription of 1471 it is recorded that he was incarcerated and killed by the sultan, when the latter realized that the architect had failed to meet his expectations; he had, unsuccessfully, wished that the building which would bear his name would surpass its model [the Hagia Sophia] in grandeur. A city inhabited by almost half a million people during the mid-17th century, included among the most populated cities in Europe, exuded an image of Balkan wooden architecture and/or mixed constructions of wood and stone recorded by several travellers, notably by S. Schweigger.3 The only all-stone buildings were the mosques along with their appendages, the Top Kapı palace and the mansions of high-ranking officials, such as the one belonging to Damat İbrahim Paşa, now housing the Museum of Islamic Art at the Sultan Ahmed Square (Sultanahmed Meydanı), the construction of which dates back to 1524. The reference to this “urban mansion” is intentional, because very few specimens of private architecture are extant nowadays. Most of the old, non-religious buildings of Constantinople were constructed during the 18th, 19th and the first decade of the 20th centuries; moreover, all the Greek-Orthodox churches are housed in buildings constructed after 1830 and we have no clear picture about them before 1821, when they were destroyed because of the Greek War for Independence [as retaliation]. The only specimens of older Greek-Orthodox architecture are the stone houses of Phanariots on the southern shore of the Golden Horn, as well as the Church of Panagia Mouchliotissa (Kanlı Kilise); the latter is the only example of a Byzantine church that was not transformed into a mosque thanks to the aforementioned Christodoulos, according to Patriarch Constantius I.4. With regard to the Pahanariot houses, very few of them are extant and, obviously, most of them are nowadays used in alternatively. 3. Organizations of the architects and Greek-Orthodox architects 3.1. From the 15th until the mid-16th century During the first stages of establishing the Ottoman state, there were architects serving at the court organized as a separate part of the Janissaries’ army called hassa mimari (hassa mimarı). Before the Fall of Constantinople it was not clear if masons, builders and carpenters constituted a separate body. In the founding charters of wakfs dating before the 15th century the word mimar appears, further categorized to courtly architect (has), provincial architect (eyalet) or urban architect (şehir mimarı).5Non-muslim masons and architects were allowed to be employed in various state services; even folk traditions have survived commemorating the building of the Selimiye Mosquein Adrianoupolis (Edirne) and the builders’ foreman, Elias. This mosque was Sinan’s most famed piece of work.6
Ö. L. Barkan has published catalogues with the names, places of origin and wages of those employed in the construction of the mosque in question,7 where many Christian Orthodox names of builders come up. What was most important for non-Muslim masons was not the wish to occupy a clerical position as architects, but to be excluded from the payment of the protection tax or head tax, as employees in the service of the sultan.8 The service of imperial architects is estimated by C. Orhonlu to number from 1526 to 1689 between 15 and 42 members of the architects’ guild, not all of them Muslim.9 They worked under the command of the chief of architects, who was appointed by the guild members; this office was usually assigned, at least for the last 30 years of the hassa mimarları body, to either Muslim-born people or converts to Islam.10 Armenian masons are also recorded in recent studies, the most celebrated of which being the six members of the Balyan family,11 of three different generations; they had a significant part in creating the official building production and the public image of Constantinople in the 19th century, mainly by introducing the empire style, i.e. the eclecticism of the second half of the 19th century. 3.2. From the mid-16th until the late 17th century During the classical time for the organization of imperial architects (hassa mimarları), that is from the mid-16th until the late 17th century, more than 40% of them were Christians; moreover, when the Nur-u Osmaniye Mosque was constructed (1748-1755), 80% of its builders, as well as its architect Simeon Kalfa,12 were the sultan’s Christian subjects (zimmi).13 Besides designing and executing the construction of all kinds of buildings in size and operation [such as large building complexes (külliye), large (cami) and small (mescid) mosques, mausoleums (türbe) and barracks (kışla)], these architects were also responsible for building orphanages and other charitable foundations, schools (medrese, mekteb), mansions of various sizes (saray, konak, kasır, yalı, köşk), caravan serays, as well as constructions for retaining and conveying water, such as dams, aqueducts, water-fountains and bridges. They also drew budgets for the purchase of materials and the payment of wages for the construction of public buildings, they checked the plans for stores, houses, inns and other buildings erected by private citizens and monitored the prerequisites for the issue of work permit for several artisans involved in construction, such as builders, plasterers, carpenters etc. The master builder took out the construction permit and paid the respective tax to the head of the architects (mimar-başı), one of whom was located in every major city, this being his only occupation.14 Moreover, the representatives of pious foundations (wakfs) also needed the permission of public architects in order to repair their buildings.
Because these men were registered in catalogues of the Treasury that included masons’ wages according to “ulûfe” salaries (daily and monthly wages of the janissaries), a fact proving their close relation to the sultan’s court, we now know their names from the archives of the Topkapı Palace.15 In these archives, one comes upon the names of [a] Argyros (Arkiroz), who in 1049 (1640) repaired the waqf of Sinan Paşa, along with the merameci (artisan) Constantin [b] Photis Kalfa,16 who in 1218 (1809) repaired the house of Ahmed Efendi, the confidential secretary of the sultan Sekim III and [c] Nikolas, who along with Şaban in 1001 (1592) drew up the budget for the completion of sultan Selim III’s buildings, for whom he served as an architect. 3.3. From the 18th until the mid-19th century Unfortunately, sources citing the names of Greek-Orthodox architects are scarce and references are sketchy, especially to those unfamiliar with the “language” of archives. Their responsibilities were defined by the position they had as part of a separate body. The Arkitekt journal from the Interwar period onwards17 makes references to Greek-Orthodox architects that had served the central administration during the 18th century, with the arrival of western trends and styles, as well as the introduction of baroque and rococo;18 one of the architects mentioned is Simeon Kalfa, who is introduced as the designer of the Νur-u Οsmaniye (1748-1755), along with the mimar-başı Çelebi Mustafa. The Laleli Mosque (1759-1763) is also recorded, with Simeon mentioned again as its architect along with Sermimar Elhac Ağa and Kalfa Kör (the Blind) Yani (Ioannis/John). The latter is also mentioned as co-architect of the Conqueror’s new mosque (Fatih 1767-1771) with the mimar-başı Mehmet Tahir, when the old construction was destroyed in 1766 from an earthquake; indeed, the fact that the aforementioned architects were the ones designing these glorious Muslim buildings without the inclusion of Muslim architects was condemned [by the journal].19 These first two mosques constitute the best examples of the implementation of baroque style in Ottoman architecture; the Νur-u Οsmaniye Mosque, especially, was greatly admired by foreign travellers at the time of its reconstruction, while Turkish researchers regard its construction as a transitional stage towards westernization.
It is not accidental that the historian of architecture D. Kuban, in order to stress the importance of Greek masons cites the Frenchman Ch. Pertusier, who in 1815 wrote that all buildings for which the Ottoman central administration could boast were actually constructed by Greek-Orthodox architects. In the case of Simeon “the architect”, as he was called by Athanasios Komnenos Ypsilantis,20 Greek sources are also available; specifically, in 1775 he appears to be helping the Patriarch Cyril to fight the prelates asking for his deposition, as one of the representatives of the Greek-Orthodox Community Committee21 and “at the same time to be building the mosque known as Νur-u Οsmaniye”. The same historian [Athanasios Komnenos Ypsilantis], however, attributes the construction of the Laleli Mosque to “the architect Constantine” (1760).22Gedeon, on the other hand, refers to the unpublished –at the time– work of Caesarius Daponte “Book of Reigns”. In it, Daponte “introduces [us] his friend Constantis the mason”,23 who “also build him (sultan Mustafa) a mosque”; this is further documented by Miltiadis Polyviou with additional data from Constantis’ self-inscribed inscriptions and lists, that also prove that he constructed a model for the chapel of the Xeropotamos monastery, thus stating that he was at least the co-creator of the mosque in question.24 These two Greek-Orthodox masons served as the intermediary cultural links, since they succeeded in assimilating western standards of style to architectural features that were theocratic in character.
Gedeon salvaged the names of various masons/architects, chiefly the following: [a] Haci Andreas from Madytos. He lived towards the end of the 18th century and in 1788 reconstructed the Holy Sepulchre, [b] Haci Komnenos the mason, who rebuilt the church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem (1809-1911). He lived in Arnavutköy (Mega Revma) and also built the Naval Yard, [c] Markis the mason (1759-1858), who in 1802 built the not so grand (at the time) Grande Porte and the royal kiosk of Aynalıkavak and also supervised the reconstruction of the (old) Hospital of Galata (1818); his grave is located in the churchyard of Agios Dimitrios (St Demetrius) of Kurtuluş (Tatavla), along with the one of Vasileios Ioannidis the mason (1821-1903), who was his grandson,25 [d] Haci Nikolis Nikitiadis (…-1841) from Leros, who supervised the construction or completion of four churches dedicated to Agios Gerogios (St George): the patriarchal and sepulchral ones in Fener (Fanari), as well the one in Edirne Kapu and Agios Gerogios (St George) Kyparissas (of the Cypresses) in Ypsomatheia (Samatya). He also worked on the church of the Ascension, the church in Cibali dedicated Agios Nikolaos (St Nicholas) and the mausoleum of the sultan Hamid I, [e] the Gaitanakis brothers from Madytos: Haci Stefanis, Haci Dimitris and Hacii Savvas, who entered the palace circles when the “benevolent and noble sultan Abdülmecid I (1839-1861)” ascended to the throne; out of the three, Dimitris completed the building of the Grande Porte.26 3.4. From the mid-19th to the 20th century The masons of the period were living in a multi-ethnic empire and were obliged to construct any kind of building with no distinctions, hence creating a common “language” especially in the large urban centres, were the exchange of forms, styles, and even typological elements was favoured. Consequently, the Greek-Orthodox religious architecture was incorporating elements from its Ottoman counterpart and Greek-Orthodox masons were building mosques with the same skill as they were building churches.
The need to found schools where officials of a modern state would be educated arose in the 18th century, in the context of a general westernization within the Ottoman Empire, which was apparent in the foundation of a printing press, the modernization of the fleet and the training of naval officers and naval architects at the School of Engineering (Mühendishane) this last development began in 1773, during the reign of the sultan Mustafa III.27 As a result of the 1882 “reforms” the Academy of Fine Arts was founded including a separate department of architecture following the footsteps of the French Académie des Beaux-Arts and staffed with foreign professors.
Recent studies have published lists of names that locate the architects who were active in both the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey. In fact, the self-employed and the public servants were recorded separately between 1869 and 1922, on the basis of the annual commercial review, equivalent to the contemporary “Yellow Pages”.28 These constituted two separate categories: [a] imperial architects: 1. Vasilakis bey Ioannidis, 1889-1901, (the dates refer to the years the names were published at the review and correspond to information from the previous year) is called architecte du palais impériale. The completion of the church dedicated to the Holy Trinity in Taksim was based on his designs between 1876 and 187929 and he also undertook the construction of the “Ioakeimeio” Girls’ School in 1879.30 He is regarded by the contemporary Turkish Northern Sea Area Command Base as the architect of the Command building of the Naval Service, located at the Golden Horn Shore – one of the finest examples of Orientalism in architecture.31 2. Yagos bey Ioannidis, 1897-1908, is called architecte en chef de S.M.I. le Sultan. Son of the former, he served in the Naval Service as a supervising architect in 1901, as an official of the Lighthouse Directorate in 1903-1904 and 1905-1920, as well as an inspector for the Office of mechanical engineers in 1903-1904. He also undertook the construction of the “Zappeio” Girls’ School as an architect,32 while simultaneously serving as a member of the Greek Philological Association of Constantinople.33 According to the former study, Yagos Bey was relieved of his duties in 1907. [b] Architects of Public Services, in: [b1] Ministry of Imperial Waqfs, Directorate of Construction and Reconstruction: 1. Theodoris Efendi, architect-engineer, 1911-1920. 2. Georgiadis Efendi, architect, 1911-1920. 3. Othon (Otto) Efendi (Andreadis), architect, 1911-1920. 4. Vasil(is) Efendi, architect, 1911-1920. [b2] Ministry of Education: Pavli Efendi, architect, 1911-1913. [b3] Ministry of Postal Services, Telegraph and Telephone: Dimitrakis Efendi, architect in the Directorate of Postal Services and Telegraph, 1903. [b4] Municipalities: 1. M(ichalis) Boyatzoglou, architect, 1906-1909. 2. Georgios Fragiadis, architect, 1914. If there is something defining the activities of Greek-Orthodox architects is the polymorphism and multilingualism, both literally and morphologically. The same architect may present difference in style according to the demands of the client – either private persons or public services; a great example is Vasilakis Efendi Ioannidis. All these attempts to find a new means of expression are part of the “spirit of the time” that the fin-de-siècle architects believed they represented, in contrast to their predecessors who were held captive to the rules and regulations of their closed profession, the knowledge of which was transmitted orally, thus binding – if not their hands – definitely their thought.34 |
1. Tokalak, İ., Bizans – Osmanlı sentezi. Bizans Kültür ve Kurumlarının Osmanlı üzerindeki etkisi (Istanbul 2006), p. 482. 2. Aydın Yüksel, İ., “Azad edilmiş bir köle: Azadlı Sinan”, Sanat Dünyamız 73 (İstanbul 1999), pp. 143-147. There, it is recorded that in the Inventory Books for the Wakfs of Constantinople (İstanbul Vakıflar Tahrir Defterleri), the construction of two buildings was attributed to Sinan : (a) the Kumrulu Mescid in the Kıztaşı district (1464), where Sinan is mentioned as “Sinan Yusuf bin Abdullahü’l- Atiku’l- mimar” and (b) the teke at the Aşık Paşa Mahallesi district (1468), where the name “Hoca Sinanüddin Yusuf bin Abdullahü’l-Atiku’l-mimar el emiri” is recorded. The word atik has two meanings: firstly, the status of a freedman and, secondly, that of the “old” imperial architect, in order to differentiate him for the Great Sinan (Koce Sinan). Abdullah, which means servant of Allah, is considered as indicating Christian origin. Moreover, Patriarch Constantius I’ refers to him with the following: “[The Church of Hagioi Apostoloi (St Apostles)] was demolished by Mehmed II, and with the material salvaged from it and other destroyed buildings, the architect Christodoulos constructed on the same location and based on the design of Hagia Sophia, the greatest Mosque with its surrounding imaret, namely soup kitchen. See Κωνστάντιος ο Σιναΐτης, Πατριάρχης Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, Κωνσταντινιάς παλαιά τε και νεωτέρα, ήτοι, Περιγραφή Κωνσταντινουπόλεως απ’ αρχής μέχρι του νυν καθιστορούσα γενικώς τα της πόλεως ταύτης, τας πέριξ αυτής τοποθεσίας, τας τε αντιπροσώπους δύω παραλίας των Στενών του Βοσπόρου και τας παρακειμένας νήσους τη πόλει ταύτη Β (Θεσσαλονίκη 1979), p. 76. 3. Schweigger, S., Reisebeschreibung aus Deutschland und Jerusalem (Nüremberg 1608). 4. Κωνστάντιος, ο Σιναϊτης, πατριάρχης Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, Κωνσταντινιάς παλαιά τε και νεωτέρα, ήτοι, Περιγραφή Κωνσταντινουπόλεως απ' αρχής μέχρι του νυν καθιστορούσα γενικώς τα της πόλεως ταύτης, τας πέριξ αυτής τοποθεσίας, τας τε αντιπροσώπους δύω παραλίας των Στενών του Βοσπόρου και τας παρακειμένας νήσους τη πόλει ταύτη (Θεσσαλονίκη 1979), vol. I, p. 91. 5. Cengiz Orhonlu, based on the Archives of the Prime Minister, supports that from the second half of the 17th century some positions in the architectural services of cities in the countryside were held by non-Muslims, mainly by Greek-Orthodox, as in the cases of Komotini, Smyrna, Tire, Kuşadası, Philadelphia (Alaşehir) and by Armenians as in the case of Bilecik. All these terms –titles of servitude– such as the ones of chief-architect and the mimar-başı, were quite fluid in meaning and their use deteriorated as years went by. See Orhonlu, C., Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda şehircilik ve ulaşım üzerine araştırmalar (İzmir 1984), pp. 1-26. 6. Παπαθανάση-Μουσιοπούλου, Καλ., Συντεχνίες & επαγγέλματα στη Θράκη, 1685-1920 (Αθήνα 1985), p. 104. The guilds of masons, carpenters and builders should be more than the two mentioned here (Filipoupolis and Adrianoupolis/Edirne). Moutsopoulos records that guilds of Macedonian builders were traveling through Asia Minor and were constructing buildings deep in the mainland of Anatolia. See Μουτσόπουλος, Ν., Η αρχιτεκτονική προεξοχή «το σαχνισί», συμβολή στη μελέτη της ελληνικής κατοικίας (Θεσσαλονίκη 1988), pp. 135, 141. 7. Barkan, Ö. L., Süleymaniye Camii ve İmareti inşaatı, 1550 – 1557, vol. I (Ankara 1972) και vol.II (Ankara 1979), p. 63. Moreover, in the building site at hand 83% of the builders were Greek. Out of a total of 451 artisans from the Romelia region and the islands, about 300 were Greeks. 8. Orhonlu, C., Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda şehircilik ve ulaşım üzerine araştırmalar, vol. IIII΄ (İzmir 1984), p. 18. Refik also publishes a document from 1728, with the code 131: With reference to the exclusion from the head tax of the naval chief-architect Dimitris, we read that he was experienced in his trade and “architect” of the new karavele [caravelle] and kalyon [galleon] (these were types of old battle ships, so Dimitris was, in fact, a ship-builder as well) and that he is excluded from the “cizye” (head tax) with the condition that he annually contributes 100 okas (Ottoman measure of mass) of olive oil for fuelling the lamps burning at the imperial naval base. See, Refik, A., Onikinci asr-ı hicri’de İstanbul Hayatı 1689-1785 (İstanbul 1988), pp. 101-102. 9. Orhonlu, C., “Town arhitects”, Atti del secondo Congresso Internazionale di Arte Turca, (Napoli 1965), p. 705. 10. Μaurice Cerasi believes that this was the case until the end of the 18th century, when the Armenian Kirkor Balyan (1764-1831) was appointed as chief-architect. See Cerasi, Μ., “Late –Ottoman architects and master builders”, Muqarnas 5 (1988), p. 90. 11. Pars Tuğlacı proves that Kirkor had been appointed to the office of chief-architect, based upon the inscription of his grave located in the Bağlarbaşı cemetery in Skutari (Üsküdar) “Ebniye-i Hassa-i Şâhâne Kalfası Kirkor Kalfa”; the same title was also possessed by his grandson Sarkis bey Balyan (1831-1899), the last official of the Ottoman state who was appointed the title from 1872; the chief-architect supervised building sites, where 6,000 builders were daily employed. See Tuğlacı, P., Osmanluı mimarlığında Balyan Ailesi’nin rolü (İstanbul 1993), pp. 5, 430. 12. Doğan Kuban writes that “the sultan Mahmud I ordered the submission of designs of famous churches in the west and selected one of them for the construction of the mosque, but as he was met with reactions from the ulema clergy, he was made to abandon his plans – as the English traveller Dallaway records. The construction was completed in 1755, during the reign of Osman III, and according to general consensus by both Turkish and foreign researchers, the architect was Simon or Simeon Kalfa. See Kuban, D., Türk barok mimarisi hakkında bir deneme (İstanbul 1954), p. 27 and Dallaway, J., Constantinople, ancient and modern: with excursions to the shores and islands of the archipelago and to the Troad (London 1797). 13. Cerasi, M., “Late –Ottoman architects and master builders”, Muqarnas 9 (1988), p. 90. 14. Μουτσόπουλος, Ν., Η λαϊκή αρχιτεκτονική της Βέροιας (Αθήνα 1967), p. 51. 15. Zarif Orgun, M., “Hassa mimarları”, Arkitekt 12 (1938), pp. 333-342. 16. Manouil Gedeon writes that tradition gave us the name of “Haci Photis Kalfa, powerful within the Turkish administration, who contributed … to the punishment and gradual annihilation of the Turkish tyrants pillaging Greeks in Thrace. See Γεδεών, Μ., Μνεία των προ εμού 1800-1863-1912 (Αθήνα 1936), p. 423. 17. Kumbaracılar, İ., “Türk mimarları”, Arkitekt 2-3 (1937), pp. 59- 60, 85-86. 18. Arel, A., Onsekizinci yüzyıl İstanbul mimarisinde batılılaşma süreci (İstanbul 1975), pp. 59-68. 19. Altan, K., “Mimar Mehmet Tahir” Arkitekt 7 (1937), pp. 193-195. 20. Κομνηνός Υψηλάντης, Αθ., Τα μετά την Άλωσιν (1453-1789) (Κωνσταντινούπολη 1870), p. 371. Gedeon reproaches him by saying that “a ‘royal’ architect [was] also Simeon, who unfortunately supported the despicable Patriarch Cyril V”. See Γεδεών, Μ., Μνεία των προ εμού 1800-1863-1912 (Αθήνα 1936), p. 424. 21. The Community Committee was the predecessor of the National Permanent Mixed Council of the Patriarchies that was active from 1862 to 1923. Γεδεών, Μ., Μνεία των προ εμού 1800-1863-1912 (Αθήνα 1936), p. 427. 22. “The architect Constantine that was constructing the sultan Mustafa mosque in Laleli and the kaziklaman and reclamation of the sea (upon which many houses were built), outside of the called Yeni Kapı gate on the Propontis…” Γεδεών, Μ., Μνεία των προ εμού 1800-1863-1912 (Αθήνα 1936), p. 385. 23. Gedeon cites from Daponte: “… … … …outside the wall he reclaimed the sea, and created a village sea of 72,000 cubits as he told me, a miracle for the builders; He also built him a mosque; for the needs of the mosque he built this village, and for animal husbandry.”See Γεδεών, Μ., Μνεία των προ εμού 1800-1863-1912 (Αθήνα 1936), pp. 422-423. 24. Πολυβίος, Μιλ., Το καθολικό της Μονής Ξηροποτάμου (Αθήνα 1999), pp. 57-62. 25. Markis is one of the commissioners of the Greek-Orthodox Community Committee, as is apparent from an entry dating to 1816 in the School Register. See Μελισσηνός Χριστόδουλος (Επίσκοπος Παμφίλου), Τα Ταταύλα ήτοι ιστορία των Ταταούλων (Κωνσταντινούπολις 1913), pp. 141-42, 188-90. Moreover, the names Komnenos and Markis as builders are mentioned at the Tuğlacı report for the Command building of the Naval Service in Kasibasa, as members of the committee formed to control the static adequacy of the old building, along with Kirkor Balyan and Nikolis Kalfa in 1818. See Tuğlacı, P., Osmanluı mimarlığında Balyan Ailesi’nin rolü (İstanbul 1993), p. 10. It is possible that Vasilakis Kalfa (Ioannidis) was one of the three creators of the new building of the Naval Service, along with Anastasis Kalfa and Sarkis Balyan in 1863. See Saner, T., 19 yüzyılın İstanbul mimarlığında «Orientalizm» (İstanbul 1993), p. 70. 26. Γεδεών, Μ., Μνεία των προ εμού 1800-1863-1912 (Αθήνα 1936), pp. 423-35 and Μήλλας, Α., Η Χάλκη των Πριγκιπονήσων (Αθήνα 1984), pp. 196-199 and Παπαθανάση-Μουσιοπούλου, Καλ., Συντεχνίες &επαγγέλματα στη Θράκη, 1685-1920 (Αθήνα 1985), p. 86. 27. Τσιλένης, Σ., «Αναδρομή στην αρχιτεκτονική εκπαίδευση στην Τουρκία», Σύγχρονα Θέματα 63 (Αθήνα 1997), pp. 131-138. 28. Kuruyazıcı, H., İstanbul’un unutulmuş mimarları, τομ. 30, (İstanbul 1999), pp. 52-54. Τσιλένης, Σ., « Οι ρωμίοι “αρχιτέκτονες” καλφάδες της Πόλης, 1869- 1945», Σύγχρονα Θέματα 74-75 (Αθήνα 2000), pp. 166-179. Τσιλένης, Σ., «Οι Έλληνες αρχιτέκτονες της Κωνσταντινούπολης το πρώτο μισό του 20ου αιώνα», Πρακτικά εκλαϊκευμένων ομιλιών με θέμα Τα επαγγέλματα των Ρωμιών της Πόλη, Σύνδεσμος των εν Αθήναις Μεγαλοσχολιτών (Αθήνα 2001), pp. 64-129. 29. Vasilakis Efendis designed an elaborate “plan based on the old foundations”, constructed in 1867 on the designs of the architect Potessaros. The church’s custodian remembers that the architect –he probably means Ioannidis– “had made a wooden model of the church under construction, the spitting image of its contemporary design in scale”. Unfortunately it isn’t extant because it was used by pilgrims as a coffer for the optional contribution to the constructed Church of Emilianos (Bishop of Militos). Ιστορικόν υπόμνημα επί τη πεντηκονταετηρίδι του εν Σταυροδρομίω Ιερού Ναού της Αγίας Τριάδος (1880-1930) (Κωνσταντινούπολις 1930), pp. 46-47. 30. Ιορδάνογλου, Α., Το Εθνικό Ιωακείμειον Παρθεναγωγείον Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, 1882-1988 (Θεσσαλονίκη 1989), p. 22. 31. Saner, T., 19 yüzyılın İstanbul mimarlığında «Orientalizm» (İstanbul 1993), p. 70 and Batur, A., “Bahriye Nezareti binası”, στον Prof. H. Kemalî Söylemezoğlu’na, (istanbul 1982), p. 46. 32. Ioanna Drakou-Psaropoulou records that “I. Ioannidids undertook the task of construction as the architect”, without clarifying the exact date; further down she transcribes the text written upon the marble slab, specifically upon the right door-post “During the reign of the Sultan Abdülhamid Han II, with Constantinos Zappas as benefactor and Oikonomou as architect, this Zappeion Girls’ School was constructed, in the year of grace αωπε’ (1885); from the above it emerges that Ioannidis probably acted as constructor or had designed the initial plans, not the ones upon the building was eventually erected. See Ιωάννα Δόκου-Ψαροπούλου «Η ίδρυση και τα πρώτα πενήντα χρόνια λειτουργίας του Ζαππείου» in Το Ζάππειο Παρθεναγωγείο Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, 1875-1995 (Αθήνα 1996), pp. 61-62. 33. Τσιλένης, Σ., « Οι ρωμίοι “αρχιτέκτονες” καλφάδες της Πόλης, 1869- 1945», Σύγχρονα Θέματα, 74-75 (Αθήνα 2000), p. 171. 34. This article was based on a paper by the author. See Τσιλένης, Σ., «Ρωμιοί αρχιτέκτονες παρά τη Υψηλή Πύλη», Πρακτικά Γ΄ επιστημονικής ημερίδας με θέμα Ρωμιοί στην υπηρεσία της Υψηλής Πύλης, Εταιρεία Μελέτης της καθ’ ημάς Ανατολής (Αθήνα 2002), pp. 183- 236. |