h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Little Hagia Sophia Mosque, Istanbul, Turkey - A87849319
Author: Gnomon - U151503

Another building I saw on my recent trip to Istanbul.

Fascinating to hear that there was a Saint called Bacchus.

You conclude with general rules for visitng a mosque - what is the usual attitude to photography? Should you refrain completely from taking photos or does this vary from mosque to mosque?

There's no problem at all taking photographs in Turkish mosques as long as you don't disturb the people praying.

An interesting Entry

In the section about Architecture, could you link to my Entry about Concrete A158609 when talking about the Pantheon? It is actually one of the examples I wrote about, so it would fit perfectly.

I would mention not only that theconstruction was not like the Pantheon but actually out of bricks (I think?) to make really clear it's not concrete.

I don't know if you really explain the Architecture correctly. I am not familiar with this particular church but heard about the Hagia Sophia in various lectures. The special thing is not as you say a 'double shell' but the so-called Pendentive. The outer rectangular walls at the Hagia Sophia were added later because the whole thing was falling apart, it was not really intended to look like that.

Your mention of a 'double shell' in fact confused me at first because a doble-shell dome is something usually associated with the Renaissance age. It made me think the dome itself consists of two shells (http://image.slidesharecdn.com/renaissance-121013225411-phpapp02/95/renaissance-architects-influences-works-14-728.jpg?cb=1350169046). Is it an official term for this church? Otherwise I suggest to change it. The floor plan also doesn't really look doble-shelled to me. More like a dome on a square building.

But it seems the little Hagia Sophia does not have a Pendentive. The construction seems in fact completely different. To me it seems like yes, the little Hagia Sophia and the Hagia Sophia have something to do with each other in the way that the architects tried to create similar interiors, but they did it in completely different ways.

'The dome sits on the tops of the arches.'
Mh... this made me imagine the ribs each lead directly to the top of one arch, which doesn't seem to be the case. What is true is that the weight of the dome is carried by the arches (which lead the force into the columns etc).

You could also make clearer how the 'umbrella dome' works. Basically it's a skelleton construction. The ribs take the main weight while everything between them is just there to close the wall. That's how they were able to make windows into the dome without problems. You don't mention these.

Also the church seems to have 2 storeys, with a gallery around the central space where you can walk around. You don't mention that, too.

Thanks, Tavaron. I'll try and look through your points and how I have described the building over the weekend.

I thought that to be a recognised Saint, you either have to be:
a.) Martyred for your faith (so Saints Sergius and Bacchus qualify) or,
b.) Canonised, which involves the Saint in question interceding with two officially-recognised miracles, either in life or after death. After the first miracle, the person in question is beatified.
Although anyone whose soul enters Heaven becomes a Saint, whether they are recognised or not.
Mind you, I'm not Catholic or Orthodox, so I might be mistaken...

<BB<

You're right, Bluebottle, but I didn't think what I said in the entry was in any way contradicting what you've said here.

Nah, probably not. This isn't an entry about Saints after all, so no point in going too .

<BB<

I've removed the term "double-shelled", Tav, since it is a cause for confusion. I have seen this term used to describe the design, but it is not "official" as the only official statements about the church are in Turkish.

I'll have to think about my description of the dome and how it is supported by the arches, as I'm not entirely clear on it myself. I know that many descriptions of the dome such as the one on Wikipedia appear to be inaccurate.

I don't think I said that the Great Church Hagia Sophia used the same techniques as Little Hagia Sophia, just that they were both attempts to solve the same problem. The similarity of names may be confusing because Little Hagia Sophia only got that name a thousand years after it was built.

I'll continue working on this when I get the time and try to resolve these issues.

Ok, the building... building shapes like these were quite fashionable at the time the Little Hagia Sophia (and the Hagia Sophia) was built. In German it's called Zentralbau, there seems to be no English word for it.
An example would for instance be this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_of_San_Vitale

As you say, the unusual thing seems to be that the Little Hagia Sophia is not polygonal on the outside like it is on the inside, but is a square, or rectangle. Other than that it is basically the same.
The construction is not really anything special, as far as I can see. It's just a dome resting on pillars. On every arch there seem to rest two 'ribs' of the dome.

Not unusual when comparing it with later churches, perhaps, but it was unusual for the early 6th Century.

The shape as such is not unusual for that period.

I'll try to find out more...

They say it's an umbrella dome, which also fits to the description. The definition of an umbrella dome is that it is a ribbed dome (meaning the weicht is mainly carried by these ribs you see) with the special feature that the space between the ribs is curved outward. I read somewhere that this is the case for every second 'field' here, but I can't see if that's right when looking on the pictures. Maybe you know. There's also a window in every second field, that may have something to do with it. I would think it's easier to put windows into non-curved walls.

(I don't expect you to write about everything I mention here, I just try to gather information)

I got the impression when I was there that the dome is actually made from 8 sections rather than 16. Although there are 16 stripes painted on the ceiling, I thought these were for decorative purpose.

Looking at photographs on the web I see that I may have been wrong. I'll study my own photos when I get home.

I'm surprised that you say that an octagonal or roughly circular design was normal for the period, as I've only been able to find one other example, San Vitello in Ravenna.

Sorry, I meant San Vitale, Ravenna.

Holy cow!

I found something which you may find interesting: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/29077/29077-h/29077-h.htm
(there's a section about 'THE CHURCH OF SS. SERGIUS AND BACCHUS, KUTCHUK AYA SOFIA' ) No idea how accurate it is of course.

That's interesting, Tav. I think all the history about Justinian has been shown to be pure speculation, but the detailed description of the dome tells me that it is in 16 sections rather than 8.

I've rewritten the "Architecture" section. It's quite different. I hope it now makes more sense and is less misleading.