Coming across Christian cathedrals, they are very detectable with the architectural style and depictable with the interior design. The Hagia Sophia was built in Istanbul, Turkey 537 AD by the Byzantine emperor Justinian I. It was initially a Christian cathedral known for its famous massive dome architecture. It was rebuilt in 1453 by the Ottoman Empire and was decided to be converted to a mosque. Why don’t we see this act of architectural conversion in other religions, why didn’t the Ottoman Empire destroy the Hagia Sophia?
Early Christian architecture was built symmetrically along with arches and mosaics techniques used in large windows. Interior designs in early Christian cathedrals emphasize open spaces with narrative wall paintings, and these paintings were visually meaningful explaining the authorities of Christianity. The conversion of the Hagia Sophia turning into a mosque was interesting since Islamic religion does not use human icons since they are prohibited and these icons were left untouched by the Ottomans.
Eliminating symbolic buildings destroys history and symbolism that can be useful to learn from other groups and see their perspective of religion. Due to the combination of ideologies inside the Hagia Sophia, we can determine that this architectural piece has many different features for people of Christian and Muslim backgrounds that help include them while not destroying the others practices.
Christian architecture had a specific building structure for religious practices. Christian architects respected tradition forms towards buildings. The Hagia Sophia was a Byzantine church, “domed churches of central plan frequently replaced old churches of the basilica plan with wooden roofs” (Grabar, 8). Having a dome in a Christian church brought a hemispherical covering which suggested the canopy of heaven. Most of Christian architecture was built symmetrically giving a balance connection to God and the person. Christian churches had many symbolic relics, adding the tomb of Jesus Christ making cathedrals a holy place. This helped “popularize the different types of central-plan shrines and maintained the centuries of a monument” (Grabar, 7). This is how the Hagia Sophia became well known and abandoned the use of basilica and became predominant to modern time. Architects wanted to design cathedrals with a substantial size and beauty for common worship as Grabar said in Christian architecture.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Christian architecture is particular for worshiping having forms represent symbolisms and adding relics to the structures and variously changing floor plans representing Christianity with vast open space and massive domes creating a place of worship still sufficient for the Islamic religion only focusing on the architecture of the open space being able to practice their religion. Both of these groups can learn from each other’s religions and not destroy their worship while one of them is practicing. The Hagia Sophia is a colossal monument for both religions, and from this act, some scholars believe that well managed built buildings can be useful for different religions to share a space of practice while respecting and seeing different perspectives of religion.
In Christianity visually meaning was a significant factor in their religion. Various icons were used as symbolism and narrative storytelling. In the Hagia Sophia interior design was one of the essential elements for worship; it displayed the religion all over the cathedral and showed the symbolic icons of Christianity. This is how groups connected to their practice “The frontality also enhances the visual connection between the images and the worshippers in the sanctuary, where other ceremonies were performed” (Teteriatnikov, 9). Images of these mosaics were found in the arches of the church. The decorations of these mosaics were “large-scale artistic production in Constantinople during the fourteenth century” (Teteriatnikov, 24). The decoration of this was important cause it brought proximity to the sanctuary. “The arches considerable height and width its images could easily be seen by worshippers standing on the floor” (Teteriatnikov, 9). These images throughout the day would be affected by the light creating a new atmosphere and emphasizing on symbolic icons on the walls, and some of these images would move on the angles of the light, comfortably standing in the dome the audience can connect very quickly with their religion, adding a strong statement on Christianity. These designs in the walls of the Hagia Sophia creates a story on Christianity, and anyone who walks in this mosque can understand and differ the religion — but still being able to practice their religion in such a vast built space fit for both religions. Having the Christian worshippers connect with mosaics and icons while Muslims use the dome to practice their worship and effortlessly to be able to pray and using the dome for their prayer calls. The Islamic religion is restricted on using humans as icons but still used the Hagia Sophia, even though there were many human icons inside the cathedral this did not seem to bother the religion from destroying the icons and still used the building as a safe place for their practices.
The Ottoman Empire rebuilt the conversion of the Hagia Sophia, and the Ottomans turned the cathedral into a mosque. By converting the church, they added elements to the mosque such as the minaret and mihrab, the conversion had minimal transformations still today the name remained the same. They had a reason for doing this since they wanted to show the “transformation and appropriation of the building and also signal the victory of Islam” (Al-Asad, 41). This gave the Ottomans confidence of their religion where the world was mostly Christian. However, by being ruled over Christianity, they still did not destroy important symbolic icons in the mosque, knowing they do not use human icons in their religion. By not destroying the cathedral “the Ottomans felt in relation to the Christian world. The Hagia Sophia had an enormous influence on the architecture” (Al-Asad, 4). Christian architecture had an important building type that the Ottomans used in mosques. In the Byzantine interior paintings and mosaics were left intact “a mosaic of the Virgin and child in the apse and a fresco of the last judgment at the entrance” (Ousterhout, 8). The original interior was emphasizing Christian elements but was later understood by more religiously generations, but still, the interior stayed intact. This group still did not destroy the imagery of Christianity in the mosque and kept it all these years and kept the history it brought and added more to it. The Ottomans brought monuments and received “increasing attention and appreciation among architectural historians” (Al-Asad, 5). By having appreciations by historians, it helps both of these groups to come to respect and be able to share a place where both can practice their religion. The Ottomans kept both of the religions in the Hagia Sophia and did not feel threatened by the human symbolism in the mosque. This new mosque addition to the Hagia Sophia made an impact on a non-destroyed conquer and shows that many features of different religions can still be manageable in a monument with history.
Overall, the Hagia Sophia is symbolically significant for both religions any contemporary person walking in the mosque will understand their perspective of religion while not disturbing the other worships. This shows that the Hagia Sophia has different features that have different meanings to two different religions adding the features of Islamism and the walls of Christianity. Being able to identify as both a church and a mosque. Also still being symbolic as a monument of conquest and having minimal destruction. Having both Christians and Muslims worship their practice under the same roof. Creating both groups knowledge of other religions and creating a monument that became hybrid as known today.
Works Cited
- Al-Asad, Mohammad. “Encounters: A Preliminary Anatomy”. Gesta, vol. 43, no. 2, 2004, pp.177–181. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25067104
- Grabar, André. “CHRISTIAN ARCHITECTURE, EAST & WEST”. Archaeology, vol. 2, no. 2, 1949, pp. 95–104. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41662292
- Ousterhout, Robert. “The East, the West, and the Appropriation of the Past in Early Ottoman Architecture”. Gesta, vol. 43, no. 2, 2004, pp. 165–176. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25067103
- Teteriatnikov, Natalia B. “The Mosaics of the Eastern Arch of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople: Program and Liturgy”. Gesta, vol. 52, no. 1, 2013, pp. 61–84. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/669685 .
Stuck on your essay?
