Architecture, Ceremonial and Power: The Topkapi Palace in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries.

Gulru Necipoglu. Cambridge: Architectural History Foundation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1991. 138 figs. + 33 pls. + xx + 336 pp. $50.

Few dynasties are as closely associated with a single structure as are the Ottoman sultans with the Topkapi Palace which served them as principal residence and administrative center from the mid-fifteenth through eighteenth centuries. Yet despite this building's central position in Ottoman life, few attempts have been made to present a comprehensive understanding of its structures. The 1931 monograph of Barnette Miller, Beyond the Sublime Porte: The Grand Seraglio of Istanbul, was a pioneering attempt to describe the palace as a functional entity by combining Turkish and European historical accounts with visual evidence, and her account is still useful for its description of daily life in the palace. More recently, the literature, largely in Turkish, has evolved along two parallel lines: historical and architectural. Historical studies based on chronicles and documents have clarified the palace's function as both residence and center of imperial administration; architectural studies, stimulated by restoration of the palace have documented its buildings by making plans and sections, by collecting illustrations from court chronicles, engravings, and historic photographs, and by surveying Ottoman sources for relevant material. The most important historical work is I. H. Uzuncarsili's Osmanli Devletinin Saray Teskilati (The Palace Organization of the Ottoman State, Ankara, I945) in which he documents the palace's administrative structure. Also pivotal are studies of Mehmet II by Halil Inalcik and others who have delineated that ruler's role in creating an imperial culture particularly through his authorship of a Kanunname, or series of decrees, which regulated court life and ceremonial. Among the architect-historians, E. H. Ayverdi documented the palace's principal structures as well as those of an earlier Ottoman palace at Edirne, in his monumental Osmanli Mi'marisinde Fatih Devri (Ottoman Architecture from the Reign of Fatih), 3:236-67 and 4:678-755 (Istanbul, 1973-74). Also impressive was S. H. Eldem's Koskler ve Kasirlar: A Survey of Turkish Kiosks and Pavilions (Istanbul, i964-73) in which he analyzed free-standing structures from both the Edirne and Istanbul palaces and proposed reconstructions for some now-lost buildings. Plans and sections of the palace complex as a whole, some combining description with reconstruction, were published in 1982 along with a brief text by S. H. Eldem and F. Akozan, Topkapi Sarayi: Bir Mimari Arastirma (Topkapi Saray: An Architectural Investigation). Despite the wealth of information contained in these architectural studies, they lack a comprehensive description of the palace and its historical evolution, and fall to integrate findings from other branches of historical investigation.

G. Necipoglu's book has now achieved such a synthesis. It provides a systematic reconstruction of the palace's original scheme as built between 1459 and 1478 by Mehmet II, and links its features and subsequent evolution with the development of court ceremonial. After establishing the outlines of the building's history, the author discusses the palace complex zone by zone. Her analysis is notable for the manner in which it combines various kinds of documentation to explain the building's structure and development. She augments the evidence collected by Ayverdi, Eldem and others with more illustrative material of both European and Ottoman origin, as well as new textual information from European and Ottoman sources, the latter ranging from references to the palace in court poetry to account books which document expenditures for building or repairing the palace. Her book contains many detailed observations which clarify the architectural history of specific parts of the palace complex, but it is the creation of a broader frame of reference for the structure's history which is this book's most important contribution.

European visitors to the palace were often struck by the discrepancy between the building's imposing appearance from a distance and the modest scale of its structures when viewed from within the palace courtyards. Necipoglu explains the first feature as an expression of Mehmet II's will to symbolize his imperial domination of two continents (Europe and Asia) and two seas (the Black Sea and the Mediterranean), and links the second with the military pedigree of its basic plan. Ayverdi, Eldem and others have noted striking resemblances between the Topkapi Palace and a slightly earlier complex erected by Mehmet II in Edirne. Necipoglu carries this analysis a step further by linking the basic scheme of both palaces to the organization of Ottoman army camps, known primarily through literary references. This military analogy provides an explanation for features of both the palace's physical layout and organizational structure. In terms of architecture, it clarifies why the two principal areas of the palace -- its second court which was an administrative center, and the third court where the sultan himself resided, surrounded by his attendants -- were both originally composed of a series of discrete one-story units, each devoted to a particular function. A military heritage is also evident in the organization of palace service personnel who occupied a series of distinct, self-sufficient units which were both functional and residential. Thus the carpenters, stable-hands, cooks and gardeners slept, ate and worshiped adjacent to their place of work.

Structures occupied by the sultans were distinguished by the rich materials used for their construction and by their lavish furnishings rather than by the scale of their architecture. Necipoglu stresses the important role of court etiquette and ceremonial in expressing the power and dignity of the sultan. The buildings in which he lived served only as a "stage," and it was the aloof behavior of the sultan himself attended by his personal slaves with codified, silent rituals which provided the true index of his own majesty.

Necipoglu points out Mehmet II's enthusiasm for Italian art and culture along with the possible role of Italians in the construction and decoration of his palace. Ottoman sources characterize some of the palace towers as "European," but Mehmet's eclectic taste was probably most evident in structures belonging to his private residence in the palace's inner zone. Gentile Bellini may have executed frescoes for one of its pavillons, and Filarete may have helped to design the portico of Mehmet's Treasury. The latter structure apparently housed Christian relics, Byzantine manuscripts and European paintings along with jewel-incrusted objects, silk textiles and Islamic manuscripts. Aside from the portico, which still stands, most of the traces of Mehmet's enthusiasm for Italian taste have vanished. His "infidel" treasures were dispersed by his pious son Bayezid II (r. 1481-1512).

The author has given a clear explanation for the organization of the Topkapi Palace and lucidly documented the evolution of its component parts during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. In so doing, G. Necipoglu has provided a solid foundation for future consideration of matters relating to Ottoman palatial architecture and court ceremonial, a truly admirable achievement.