Hünkâr Mahfillerinin Ortaya Çıkışı, Gelişimi ve Osmanlı Dönemi Örnekleri

Year 2013, Issue: 29, 61 - 74, 01.02.2013

Mustafa Çetinaslan

Abstract

Bu çalışmada sanat ve mimarlık tarihi terminolojisinde yaygın bir kullanıma sahip olan “maksure/hünkâr mahfili” terimi, hünkâr mahfillerinin ortaya çıkışı, ilk örnekleri ile hünkâr mahfillerinin Selçuklu ve Osmanlımimarlığındaki gelişimi üzerinde durulacaktır. “Toplanılacak yer, toplantıyeri” anlamına gelen mahfil terimi ile cami harimi içerisinde özel konuma sahip alanlar tanımlanmaktadır. Mahfil olarak adlandırılan mimari kuruluşlar, etrafıparmaklıklarla çevrili ya da yerden yüksek olarak yapılmışlardır. Genel olarak farklıişlevlere uygun olarak biçimlendirilmişmüezzin, bey-hünkâr ve kadınlar mahfili olmak üzere üç çeşit mahfilden söz etmek mümkün olmakla birlikte; bu çalışmada sadece hünkâr mahfilleri incelenecektir. Hz. Muhammed döneminde yaptırılan Mescid-i Nebevi’de bulunmayan maksure/hünkâr mahfilleri, halifelere karşıgerçekleştirilen suikast girişimlerinin sonucunda bir zorunluluk olarak doğmuştur. Devlet başkanının hayatının korunmasına yönelik bir mecburiyetin sonucunda ortaya çıkan cami içerisindeki bu birimler, dinin siyasallaşmasısürecinde özellikle 11. ve 12. yüzyıllarda yaygınlık kazanmışlardır. Anadolu’da Selçuklu döneminde inşa edilen camilerde görülmeye başlanan hünkâr mahfilleri, Osmanlıdöneminde Sultanlar tarafından yaptırılan camilerin tamamında yer bulan önemli mimari kuruluşlar halini almışlar ve asıl gelişimlerini de Osmanlımimarlığında göstermişlerdir. Özellikle Osmanlıbaşkentlerindeki camilerde inşa edilen hünkâr mahfilleri, inşa edildikleri dönemin mimari ve tasarım anlayışınıen iyi şekilde yansıtan birimler olmanın yanında; çeşitli sembolik ögelerle de donatılarak, siyasi otoritenin cami içerisindeki yansımasıolmuşlardır.

Keywords

Maksure, Mahfil, Hünkâr mahfili, Osmanlıcamileri, Terminoloji

The Emergence, Development of Hünkâr Mahfils and its Samples in Ottoman Empire

Abstract

This work handle the term of “hünkâr mahfil” which has a big part in art history’s terminology, and the construction that emerged under this term with its first samples and its development in Seljuk und Ottoman architecture. The mahfil has the meaning ‘meeting place’ and defines the special parts in harim of mosque. These architectural constructions were built as being surrounded with banister or higher than other places in mosque. As muezzin, hünkâr und women, there are three kinds of mahfil which were constructed for different functions. The places which are called as “Hünkâr-Sultan Mahfil”’ today, were named as “Maksura, beyt’ül Maksure”’ in Muslim- Arabic communities, where they came out for the first time. These had the names ‘Hünkâr Ma’bedhanesi, Hünkâr Mahfil, Mahfel-i Hazret-i Hüdavendigar or Mahfil-i Hümayun in Ottoman Empire, but in the terminology of today’s art history there are named as Sultan or Hünkâr. After Prophet Mohammed migrated to Medina, he was to have both his own home and a masjid built here which would named as “suffa” later. This masjid was formed by a kind of medresseh and worship place, whose walls made of adobe, and its roof was covered with date boughs. At first, a sign –a line or stone- was put here to show the direction of Mecca and a date log for pulpit orator. In place of these some new places were built in mosque functionally, but among these there wasn’t a mahfil. And it shows us that mahfil was not needed in the time of Prophet. According to many investigators the first maqsuras – Hünkâr mahfils were built essentiality to save the caliphs against the assassinations. There are so many opinions about the building’s time of maksure-Hünkâr mahfil, but it must have been built at the beginnings of the times of Emevi . As İbni Haldun pointed out, this part of mosque must have had a big importance for ruler that it began to be built on every part of Islamic region. The Hünkâr mahfils, which pervaded on the Islamic region in 11th and 12th centuries, were built in different forms in Anatolian before Ottomans. After the first sample in Divriği Kale Mosque , so many Hünkâr mahfils were built in other constructions. The importance of the mahfil in these constructions can be comprehended by being built as an apart flat, by the care to mahfil and pulpit orator and in some constructions by a special door just for it. It possible to say that the custom began with Divriği Kale Mosque and continued with Konya Aleaddin Mosque 1220 , Divriği Ulu Mosque , Niğde Aleaddin Mosque 1223 , Beyşehir Eşrefoğlu Mosque , Niğde Sungur Bey Mosque , Hasankeyf Ulu Mosque it was built in the middle of 11th century and took its last form in 1394 and Aksaray Ulu Mosque . The Sultans in Ottoman Empire were praying on Friday and festal days and on special religious nights in one of the mosques within the city. Because of this, the Hünkâr mahfils were built in the mosques of Ottomans’ capitals as Bursa, Edirne and İstanbul. But in some mosques of the cities such as Amasya, Konya and Manisa, which were at the near of the capitals and were named as prince sanjak, were built Hünkâr mahfils too. The oldest Hünkâr mahfil in Ottoman architecture is present in the quest house within the Bursa Yıldırım Complex, which was to have built by Yıldırım Beyazıd in 1985-99. Except for this Hünkâr mahfil, that is controversial in respect of its position and dimensions, there is another conspicuous sample with its style and ornament in Bursa Yeşil Mosque that was built by Hacı İvaz Paşa upon request of Çelebi Sultan Mehmed in 1419-20. The Hünkâr mahfil envelops a huge area with its other further function places on north side of the mosque and it has an intense ceramic execute. These verify the importance to be given to mahfil. A huge change occurred about the form of hünkâr mahfils after Bursa Muradiye Mosque, which has plainer characteristics than Bursa Yeşil Mosque 1426 . The oldest hünkâr mahfil in Ottoman architecture, which was in the form of being carried by the columns, is present in the Edirne Mosque of 2. Bayezid 1488 . At the times of Seljuk and Beylik, the Hünkâr mahfils was made of wood. And until the late of Ottoman architecture, the material marble was used as well as wood. The hünkâr mahfil was built traditionally in all mosques in İstanbul, which were built upon requests of Sultans, after the Mosque of İstanbul 2. Bayezid. For the first time, mihrab was built in the Şehzade Mosque. After this mosque, mihrab was placed in many contractures, in which hünkâr mahfil was present, as İstanbul Süleymaniye Mosque 1557 , Edirne Selimiye Mosque , Sultan Ahmet 1617 , Eminönü Yeni 1663 and Üsküdar Yeni Valide Mosque. Before the hünkâr mahfil in Sultan Ahmet Mosque , there was no unique lathwork in the hünkâr mahfils of Ottoman mosques. The marble screen wall, which enveloped only one side of east face of hünkâr mahfil in Sultan Ahmet Mosque, was enlarged to envelop two faces of hünkâr mahfil in Eminönü Yeni Mosque 1663 . After the building of a lathwork in Sultan Ahmed Mosque , lathwork was put in the hünkâr mahfils which had no present or unique one. For the first time, the hünkâr pavilion was jointed to mosque in Sultan Ahmed Mosque and this execution was followed later in some mosques as Eminönü Yeni 1663 , Üsküdar Ayazma and Laleli . It is seen that hünkâr pavilion began to enlarge after 18th century and ever enveloped the north faces of the mosque in connection with hünkâr mahfils. The first practice of the hünkâr mahfil was seen in Üsküdar Selimiye Mosque, and hünkâr rounds, as well as hünkâr mahfils on the left side of harim turned to lodges with balcony to the entrance of harim in Nusretiye Mosque 1854 , Ortaköy and Yıldız Hamidiye Mosque . Since 17th century, another considerable work in Ottoman architecture was that hünkâr mahfil was put in the mosques or the constructions, which were a church before a mosque, which were built years ago and had no hünkâr mahfil. Into the constructers, that were already a mosque, were put hünkâr mahfils as Istanbul Haseki Sultan , Vaniköy , Hacı Beşir Ağa , Üsküdar Atik Valide , Mahmut Paşa , Defterdâr İbrahim Paşa 1833 , Bursa Ulu 1740 , Kaymak Mustafa Paşa 1837 and Edirne Eski, and into the mosques which had been a church before the conquest of İstanbul as Galata Arap , Zeyrek in the second half of 18th century , Gül and Ayasofya . The architectural constructers under the term of hünkâr mahfil symbolize a higher stage of the maqsura into a mosque. Particularly, in the mosques, which were to have built by Sultans and by being carried by the columns, have a great importance not only of their architectural characteristics, but also their symbolic specialties

Keywords

Maksure, Mahfil, Hünkâr mahfili, Ottoman mosque, Terminology The type of research: Research

References

• ALGÜL, Hüseyin (2004). Mescid-i Kubâ. Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi (Cilt: 29, s. 279-280). Ankara.
• Ahmed b. Ali Kalkaşendî (1987). Subhu’l-Aşa fi Sına’ati’l-İnşâ. Cilt: 4, Beyrut.
• ANONİM (1997). Mahfil. Eczacıbaşı Sanat Ansiklopedisi (Cilt: 2, s. 1153). İstanbul.
• ARSEVEN, Celal Esat (1966). Mahfil. Sanat Ansiklopedisi (Cilt:3, s. 1260). İstanbul.
• BARIŞTA, H. Örcün (2009). Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Dönemi İstanbul Cami ve Türbelerinde Ağaç İşleri. Ankara.
• Selçuk Batur ve Doğan Kuban, “Hünkâr dairesinin caminin kuzey cephesinde konumlanması ve cami ile bütünleşerek alan olarak camiyi
• geçmesinin, dinin simgeselliğinin sultanın simgeselliğinin arkasında kalmasının dolaylı bir göstergesi olduğunu” düşünmektedirler. Bkz. Kuban
• 643; Batur, 1970: 97–112.
• BARKAN, Ömer Lütfi (1972-1979). Süleymaniye Cami ve İmareti İnşaatı (1550–1557). Cilt: 1-2, Ankara.
• BATUR, Selçuk (1970). “Ondokuzuncu Yüzyılın Büyük Camilerinde Son Cemaat Yeri ve Hünkâr Mahfili Sorunu Üzerine”, Anadolu Sanatı Araştırmaları, Cilt: 2, s. 97-112.
• BAYRAM, Sadi-TÜZEN, Adnan (1991). “İstanbul-Üsküdar Ayazma Camisi ve Ayazma Camisi İnşaat Defteri (Üsküdar, Sultan 3. Mustafa Camisi)”, Vakıflar Dergisi, Sayı: XXII, Ankara, s. 199–288.
• Belâzurî (1987). Fütuhu’l-Buldan. (Çev. Mustafa Fayda), Ankara.
• CRESWELL, K. A. C. (1979). Early Muslim Architecture. Volume 1, Part 1, Newyork.
• ÇAM, Nusret (1997). İslamda Sanat Sanatta İslam. Ankara.
• ÇAMAY, Nil (1989). “Mimar Sinan’ın İstanbul’daki Camilerinde Mahfiller”. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Fen Bilimler Enstitüsü.
• ÇAYCI, Ahmet (2008). Selçuklularda Egemenlik Sembolleri. İstanbul.
• DOĞAN, Mehmet (2003). Müezzin mahfili. Büyük Türkçe Sözlük. (s. 995). Ankara.
• DÜNDAR, Abdulkadir (2000). Arşivlerdeki Plân ve Çizimler Işığı Altında Osmanlı İmar Sistemi (XVIII. ve XIX. Yüzyıl). Ankara.
• Esad Efendi (1979). Osmanlılarda Töre ve Törenler (Teşrifât-ı Kadime). (Sadeleştiren Yavuz Ercan), İstanbul.
• ETTINGHAUSEN, Richard and GRABAR, Oleg, (1994). The Art and Architecture of Islam (659- 1250). New Haven and London.
• Evliya Çelebi b. Derviş Muhammed Zıllî (1996). Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi Topkapı Sarayı Bağdat 304 Yazmasının Transkripsiyonu-Dizini. (Haz. Orhan Şaik Gökyay), İstanbul.
• GRABER, Oleg (1998). İslam Sanatının Oluşumu. İstanbul.
• İbni Haldun (2004). Mukaddime. (Haz: Süleyman Uludağ), Cilt:1, İstanbul.
• KUBAN, Doğan (1993). Batıya Göçün Sanatsal Evreleri. İstanbul.
• KUBAN, Doğan (2007). Osmanlı Mimarisi. İstanbul.
• KURAN, Aptullah (1992). “The Evolution of the Sultan’s Pavilion in the Otoman Imperial Mosques”, Islamic Art IV: 1990-1991, New York, s. 281-300.
• KÜÇÜKAŞÇI, M. Sabri – BOZKURT, Nebi (2004). Mescid-i Nebevi. Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi (Cilt: 29, s. 281–290). İstanbul.
• ÖNGE, Yılmaz (1969). “Divriği Ulu Camisi’nin Hünkâr Mahfeli”, Önasya, Cilt: IV, Sayı:49, Ankara, s. 8- 9-20.
• ÖNKAL, Ahmet (1998). Hicret. Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi (Cilt: 17, s. 458–462). İstanbul.
• ÖZ, Tahsin (1997). İstanbul Camileri. Cilt: 1-2, Ankara.
• PAKALIN, Mehmet Zeki (1983). Osmanlı Tarih Deyimleri ve Terimleri Sözlüğü. Cilt: 2, İstanbul.
• PEDERSEN, Johannes (1960). Mescid. İslam Ansiklopedisi (Cilt: 8). İstanbul.
• SERTOĞLU, Midhat (1986). Osmanlı Tarih Lûgatı. İstanbul.
• SUDALI, Muzaffer (1958). Hünkâr Mahfilleri. İstanbul.
• ŞEHSUVAROĞLU, Haluk Y. (ty). Asırlar Boyunca İstanbul. İstanbul.
• TANMAN, M. Baha (1994). Hünkar Mahfilleri. Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi (Cilt: 4, s. 483-484). İstanbul.
• TANMAN, M. Baha (2003). Mahfil. Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi (Cilt: 27, s. 331– 333). İstanbul.
• YAVUZ, Ayşıl Tükel (1978). “Divriği Ulu Camisi Hünkâr Mahfeli Tonozu”, Divriği Ulu Camisi ve Darüşşifası, (Derleyenler: Yılmaz Önge, İbrahim Ateş ve Sadi Bayram), Ankara, s. 139-144.
• YAVUZ, Ayşıl Tükel (1987). “The Presence of the Sultan’s Mahfil in Pre-Ottoman Anatolian Mosques”, Ars Turcica I. Atken des VI. Internationalen Kongresses for Türkische Kunst, München, s. 351-361.
• YETKİN, Suut Kemal (1959). İslam Mimarisi. Ankara. GÖRSELLER 1. Fotoğraf: Beyşehir Eşrefoğlu Camisi bey mahfilinin genel görünüşü.
• Fotoğraf: Edirne 2. Bayezid Camisi hünkâr mahfili genel görünüşü.
• Fotoğraf: İstanbul Süleymaniye Camisi hünkâr mahfili genel görünüşü.
• Fotoğraf: İstanbul Sultan Ahmed Camisi doğu cephesi ve hünkâr köşkünün görünüşü.
• Fotoğraf: İstanbul Eminönü Yeni hünkâr mahfili mihrabiyelerinin görünüşü. 6. Fotoğraf: İstanbul Sultan Ahmed Camisi korkuluk ve kafes levhalarının görünüşü.
• Fotoğraf: İstanbul Küçük Mecidiye Camisi hünkâr mahfilinin genel görünüşü. 8. Fotoğraf: İstanbul Üsküdar Ayazma Camisi hünkâr mahfili kavukluğunun görünüşü.
• Fotoğraf: Ayasofya Camisi hünkâr mahfilinin genel görünüşü.