Talk:Hagia Sophia

---

Size

Why was this considered the largest cathedral then later mosque?

Or rather, why is it considered the largest enclosed space. Is it still consdiered the largest enclosed space?

What are the measurements of the building? How many square feet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp0 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

nonsense claims

'This application by Mimar Sinan was one of the earliest seismic and geotechnical engineering efforts in the world. Latest research shows that without the counterweight of the minarets, the main structure would tend to collapse.'

Of course it says 'citation needed', I dare anyone to find a reputable source for this implausible and almost certainly purely propagandistic claim. That's nothing but a transparent attempt at hijacking byzantine history by others who presided chiefly over the long decline of an empire that had ascended over centuries in other hands. Questionable motivations aside if no one can find a REAL support for that claim, it should be deleted. The Hagia Sophia has already been desecrated enough in reality, it needn't be desecrated virtually by the same people here also.

sentence grammar

on the last sentence of the first paragraph, it says "Its conquest by the Ottomans at the fall of Constantinople is considered one of the great tragedies of Christianity by the Greek Orthodox faithful."

for me, i dont think it makes sense =[[ anybody can help with that?? like how it's supposed to mean?? chika 17:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

~~ It was the head church for the Greek Orthodox worldwide. The fact that it was taken over by another faith is a great tragedy to them. Just like if Mecca was taken over and converted to a christian church, budhist or a jewish temple, the arab muslims around the world would consider it perhaps a great tragedy. ApplesnPeaches ~~

alternate spelling

I've added the alternate spelling Ayiaa Sophia, as this is now the transliteration most Greeks prefer, and is the one provided on official Greek government literature. The "H" at the beginning represents a breath-mark in ancient Greek that no longer exists in modern Greek, but in any case was likely not pronounced like an English "h" would be. The "g" in the older transliteration represents a gamma, which has a sound somewhat between a "g" and a "y"; however, in this context, it clearly is much closer to a "y". (The shift is somewhat analogous to the Indian government renaming Bombay to Mumbai and the Chinese government renaming Peking to Beijing.) Delirium 07:53 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I have corrected the spelling from "Sophia" to "Sofia". Sophia is the Latin version of the name: proper spelling and usage is Sofia. Elias Bizannes 18:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Here are two references on the Greek rough breathing mark (῾):

There is no letter h in the Greek alphabet, but this sound occurs at the beginning of many Greek words. It is indicated by a mark called a rough breathing or aspiration, written over the first vowel of a word (over the second vowel of a diphthong).

Athenaze: An Introduction to Ancient Greek, Maurice Balme and Gilbert Lawall, p. ix.

Every word beginning with a vowel or diphthong has a rough (῾) or smooth (᾿) breathing. A rough breathing denotes an initial h, a smooth breathing ... the absence of initial h.

Teach Yourself Ancient Greek, Gavin Betts and Alan Henry, pp. 3-4.

(If the breathing marks are hard to see, try increasing the text size.) Cheers. --DavidConrad 00:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Renaming Proposal

The "correction" made is in fact not to the most common English usage. The most common English usage (which is what dictates Wikipedia naming convention; see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)) is Hagia Sophia. Google yields 391,000 hits for Hagia Sophia, but only 76,800 for Hagia Sofia. Additionally, Hagia Sophia is the spelling in both the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium and the Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity.

It is true that that spelling comes from Latin, but then again, so do many English usages regarding Greek subjects. For instance, the Wikipedia article for the sainted hero of the First Council of Nicea is spelled as Athanasius, and not Athanasios. The same goes for Ignatius of Antioch.

This name change should not have been enacted without a discussion first. I've reverted the changes. ——Preost ^talk contribs 01:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for not dıscussing it fırst but I acted because despıte common usage, it is so obviously wrong. Using the other major search engines, wıth the alternate prefixes of agia and ayia, yield higher results for Sofia. Furthermore, the spelling of the name sofia as a sıngle word is more common then Sophia, usıng any search engine. This may be because of the capital of Bulgaria skewıng the results. But lookıng deeper at that, the city of Sofia also got ıts name from a church wıth the same name, ın the city.

Nevertheless, the PH ın the name does stretch the name a bıt, renderıng the pronouncıatıon closer to the orıgınal name ın Greek, as readers saying sofia mıght pronounce ıt as sof-ya, rather than the correct so-phee-a. It ıs still wrong, but arguing over names ıs petty, so do what you want. Elias Bizannes 13:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Common usage is precisely what determines the "right" and "wrong" of spelling in any language. Dictionaries and encyclopedias, after all, simply represent what the consensus is—they can't dictate it. A culture will spell words how it likes, and in this case, English speakers tend to want to spell this subject as Hagia Sophia.

One could just as easily argue (probably with more grounds, in fact) that this name shouldn't be spelled with anything but Greek letters, that Latin letters are inherently wrong. ——Preost ^talk contribs 21:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I offered to end the argument because I am traveling the world and haven't the time. But if you insist. First of all, using SoPHia implies a cultural bias. Secondly, Hagia Sophia is as common as the other variants, rendering the Wikipedia naming convention of common usage not applicable. Thirdly, if there is no commonly used English name, the convention asks for an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language.

Sophia is common usage. But so is the alternate spelling of Sofia. (Using other search engines show a smaller gap). The 'common usage' of the term Hagia Sophia is by no means the majority view. Furthermore your search engine methodology is distorted, because it takes advantage of the three different spellings of 'Hagia' hence splitting the commonly held view of spelling sofia/sophia. Searching Sofia as a single term is by far more 'common usage'. And using the prefixes of agia and ayia, yield higher results for Sofia.

If "English speakers tend to want to spell this subject as Hagia Sophia" why is it there are so many different types of spellings with no dominant and majority view? Despite your attempts to represent the Crusade for how English speakers REALLY want to spell things, the answer to my question is because transliteration is opinion. Opinion is not fact. And in our case, there is not single common usage.

On a direct Greek-to-Latin translation it is 'Agia Sofia' with the 'g' open to interpretation because there is no direct latin character equivilant. The sound is a mix between Y and G. For that reason, I don't argue about Hagia/agia/ayia and leave it to linguists more intelligent than me. But what justification is there to spell it as Sophia rather than Sofia? soPHia is a western european interpretation - the same guys that bagged out anything to do with the Byzantine Empire up until recently. I am not going to go into that, but people who know about Byzantine hisory know it has been distorted. And the spelling implies a cultural bias - like the cultural bias of the Byzantine empire. Whilst English is a western European language, the English encyclopedia is transnational. Seeing as the PH sound is exactly the same as the F sound, why insist on PH, when F is closer to the truth?

Because of the distortion of the search results with the first word, shouldn't we be using common usage for 'sofia' instead? Given the games Google is currently playing with its 'guess how many pages we can index' it may be more accurate to rely on the other engines

"At the same time, when there is no long-established history of usage of the term, more consideration should be given to the correctness of translation, rather than frequency of usage (in a typical example of testing the usage by counting google hits, if one version gets 92 hits, while another one gets 194 hits, it can hardly be decisive)." (source: naming convention)

Hagia Sophia is a recent term with no long term usage - Hagia being a recent addition. And there are also many variations - lest of all because of the reinterpretations of Byzantine history. As I scramble to write this in a Turkish internet cafe, just before I visit yet another Hagia Sofia in eastern Turkey, I propose Hagia Sofia as correct usage.

Elias Bizannes 16:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

There clearly is a long-established history of the term, as it is represented consistently as Hagia Sophia in standard English print publications, such as those noted above. Do you have any comment on that?

In any event, regarding the Google test, let's examine some numbers:

"Hagia Sophia" == 414,000[1]

"Agia Sophia" == 14,500[2]

"Ayia Sophia" == 563[3]

"Aya Sophia" == 27,500[4]

"Hagia Sofia" == 74,900[5]

"Agia Sofia" == 32,900[6]

"Ayia Sofia" == 515[7]

"Aya Sofia" == 45,100[8]

The Google test shows that "Hagia Sophia" has more than twice (414,000) the number of hits of all the other spellings combined (195,978). There is clearly a "dominant and majority view." "Hagia Sophia" doesn't just have a plurality (the most hits), it has a majority (more than half). In fact, roughly 68% of all Google hits (taking into account all the spellings above) are "Hagia Sophia."

Further, Amazon.com records 23 books with the phrase "Hagia Sophia" in the title, but only 2 with "Hagia Sofia" (which aren't books, but art prints), 1 with "Agia Sofia" (which is in German), and 0 with any of the other spellings. Further, of the many dozens of references that currently exist to this church in Wikipedia, only 7 use the "Hagia Sofia" spelling. 1 uses "Aya Sofia."[9]

"Hagia Sophia" is the spelling used in the Columbia Encyclopedia[10], Encyclopedia.com[11], Britannica[12], the Catholic Encyclopedia[13], and so on. The numbers are in favor of "Hagia Sophia" everywhere, and it is clearly the established usage in numerous English reference works.

Regarding the question of cultural bias, there is indeed a cultural bias at work here, and it is Anglophonic culture, which is what determines spelling. It seems to me that English speakers should be able to determine for themselves how they will spell their words, and the numbers clearly show that English speakers have chosen "Hagia Sophia" as the manner in which to spell the name for this church.

So, my vote on the renaming proposal is a very strong (and well grounded, IMO) keep. ——Preost ^talk contribs 00:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I wish I had the time to put some evidence, but I can't for reasons I have already explained. Your point of view is convincing enough, but I look forward to returning home to Australia at the end of this year to settle it finally. Keep (for now at least). Elias Bizannes 16:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The argument that a particular transliteration is more true to the original seems highly problematic to me. The only correct version would be the original Greek. Regarding "Hagia Sophia", the Latin H is used to represent the Greek rough breathing mark. The modern pronunciation may not reflect this, but the pronunciation of beta, delta, and chi have also changed in modern Greek, as I understand it, so that drachma is pronounced like "thrashma". Should we change the spelling of the Greek currency in the Greece article to reflect that? Latin G is used for Greek gamma, and again the pronunciation of the name may not be as one might expect for the letter G, but it is an accurate transliteration.

Finally, there is PH for the Greek phi, which I would assume you would prefer to write "fi". PH is used for phi not only in Sophia, but in Sophocles, Sophos, Amphiboly, Philosophy, Hephaestos, Ctesiphon, Antiphon, Aristophanes, Iphigenia, Aphrodite, and Xenophon, and many more. You said that, "Seeing as the PH sound is exactly the same as the F sound, why insist on PH, when F is closer to the truth?" If they are exactly the same, how can one be closer to the truth?

The Greek letters phi, chi, and theta were at one time pronounced as aspirated variants of pi, kappa, and tau (Teach Yourself Ancient Greek, Gavin Betts and Alan Henry, p. 2), but the pronunciation of phi and theta changed over time, as beta, delta, and chi have done more recently. This may form an argument in favor of PH, but I would argue more on the basis of tradition.

For myself, I would say that the article should document the pronunciation (which it does), be entitled "Hagia Sophia", and the other proposed titles could be redirects to it if they are not already. --DavidConrad 08:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I propose that you just leave the name of the building blank and don't call it anything. That way, no one will be offended.JGC1010 (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

dates

Hagia Sofia, according to my information, was consecrated by Emperor Justinian in December 563. This does not quite fit with the construction dates in the main page. Does anyone have more accurate information? 203.79.72.140

I wouldn't think any emperor would do the actual consecration; that should have been done by a bishop or patriarch. According to this web site, "on December 27, 537, Patriarch Menas consecrated the magnificent church." That date is also confirmed here. That also says that Hagia Sofia was actually the third temple at that location, and the work done in the 530s was a rebuilding from the foundations. Wesley

Your evidence looks good to me. The reference I have (a guidebook) is that on Christmas Eve, 563, Justinian inaugurated' the Church. (in the last months of his reign). Vignaux

First off, in English we use 'church' rather than 'temple' for Orthodox, Catholic, and most Protestant worship buildings.

Second, Constantine built a Hagia Sophia in the 320s - it was a basilical church, shaped and decorated much like St. Paul's Outside the Walls in Rome (like the 4th century church of St. Peter's and the 4th century Church of St. John Lateran, too, but the first of those was replaced and the second so remodeled you can't tell). Constantine's H.S. was burned in the Nike Riot of 532. The initial rebuilding (in the present form) was complete by 537. The central dome collapsed about 20 years later and was rebuilt. That's where the 563 comes from - so it wasn't consecrated, but re-consecrated (if that). MichaelTinkler

Thanks for the additional history. In my very limited time in the Orthodox Church in America, it's been my experience that buildings are typically called 'chapel', 'temple', or 'cathedral', by native speakers of English. Sometimes 'church' is used as well. Is there any particular reason why the sentence about the mosaics on the floor being uncovered was deleted? Was that thought to be inaccurate or irrelevant? Seems relevant to me, if true. Wesley

The sentence about the mosaics on the floor being uncovered was not deleted, it was just moved to chronological order. Hephaestos

Really? I've walked by a church just east of Lake Calhoun in Minneapolis on which a conspicuous sign says "Saint Mary's Greek Orthodox Church". I think it says that on their web site too. In My Big Fat Greek Wedding the sign on the church said "Greek Orthodox Church" (I think it was preceeded by a name). And when a church across the street from the World Trade Center was nearly (or totally?) destroyed on 9/11/2001, it was identified in a newspaper article I read about it as being a "Greek Orthodox Church" and its priest was quoted as saying something about "my church". Could it be that your experience of Russian-affiliated churches has exposed you to language different from that of Greek-affiliated ones? Michael Hardy 02:45 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)

I think that a variety of uses can be found. For instance, in this list of OCA parishes in Alaska (http://www.oca.org/pages/directory/list_results.asp?location=AK&B1=Submit), you can see the names of various parishes ending with Church, Mission, Deanery, Chapel, Cathedral, and even Community. Looking for Greek Orthodox parishes in California turned up mostly Churches, but also a few Chapels and Cathedrals: http://www.goarch.org/en/parishes/ParishSearch.asp?parish=&clergy=&State=CA&city=&SearchRadius=15&SearchZip=&Diocese=&btnSubmit.x=51&btnSubmit.y=12&offset=10. When it comes to stuff like this, it's not surprising to find a variety of sorts of names in use. But you're right in that there doesn't seem to be any special effort to avoid calling the place a "Church", and to keep this relevant, it looks like the place in question was called the Church of Hagia Sophia. Wesley 16:12 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Being Greek it is my understanding that the best word to use is church. A Greek orthodox "building" of any kind would certainly never be called a cathedral. It is to my best knowledge a word used by every other christian dogma than Orthodoxes for reasons unfortunately not known to me. Communities and missions might have a greek translation but not meaning a church and rather a mission in it's original meaning in English. You could call the really small churches chapels. The original Greek word is 'ekklisia' which is ancient greek and means gathering-in this case as it has been used in christian times, gathering of the people to worship god. In classical Greece and namely in the democratic Athens ekklisia tou dimou (gathering of the citizens) was their means for commonly deciding matters. It is obvious that the popoulation was less!

And by the way tha Ayia Sofia is really magnificent. I've been there and so should every one else.

Hoping to have enlightened you. Gerasimos

A cathedral is a church where the head priest is a bishop. If the Hagia Sophia was used by the bishop of Constantinople, then it is a cathedral. David.Monniaux 07:11, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

True enough, Hagia Sophia _can_ be called a cathedral, as it was the patriarchal church, but the word "cathedral" comes from Latin (cathedera, the bishop's throne), and therefore is rarely used in a Greek context.--oknazevad 09:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually fyi, cathedra is not a Latin term but rather a Greek one ("Kathedra" from "kath-edra" or a "sitting in a chair (of office, or a high official seat)". Check out Liddle and Scott (any edition will do really). So presumable it was the "seat" of either a bishop or an archbishop. Many Latinate terms are from Greek anyway so it's no surprise there.

~~ Indeed. The Term Cathedral is Greek in origin: from Kathedra, "of office" (as in "head seat"). I have heard of some Greek Orthodox Christian Churches be referred to as Cathedrals - "Kathedrikos Naos". Also, the term Catholicism and Catholic are also Greek derived terms. Katholikos = Universal. by ApplesnPeaches ~~

a may 7 anniversary

An event mentioned in this article is a May 7 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment) --User:Maveric149 08:28, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

Link fixed. Graham87 10:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

illustration Blue Mosque

Why in the world is an article on the Hagia Sophia illustrated with a picture of the interior of the Blue Mosque? Why is that image there at all? --Delirium 23:16, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

~~ For comparison. See, teh Ottoman Turks have been known to copying Orthodox Christian Churches in building Mosques. by ApplesnPeaches ~~

translation

I changed this part, because I don't think it's true:

Αγια Σοφια in Greek that means "Holy Wisdom", not "Saint Sophia" except in mistranslation

It can mean either, as Άγια means holy and Σοφία is both wisdom and a Greek name that derives from the word wisdom. Therefore Saint Sophia is written in Greek as Άγια Σοφία. Now whether the church was intended to be named after Wisdom, after St. Sophia, or after both, is another matter, but the translation itself is not incorrect. --Delirium 22:25, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

I object to this statement

"This means that Muslims do not have to confront Christian imagery in the main chamber of the building, which was a mosque for nearly 500 years."

It is an opinion and has nothing to do with Hagia Sophia.

It is not an opinion, it is a perfectly factual statement. Adam 09:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Here is my take about this "crap" : Last time I've been to Ayasofya I don't remember paying anything to go up the stairs. But even IF I had to pay (it's a museum, they may decide to charge if they want) it would not mean that muslims are spared of pictures of a guy who died 2000 years ago. The cause and effect of this sentence is a bit weird don't you think: "you have to pay to go up, so this means muslims don't have to see pictures" ??? If people don't want to see a picture of a saint, then they don't climb upstairs, even if it's free. The sentence in the article sounds like by making it fee-based, they spare muslims or something. I don't even understand what this sentence is trying to tell. Hence, it's a total bullcrap in short. I propose to remove it. I am also not comfortable with other things in the article, but this one is totally stupid, besides the fact that it's POV which doesn't belong here.

It's not POV -- it's conjecture. It's perhaps not written in the clearest fashion, but the conjecture is that only icons in the upper galleries are being uncovered, so as not to offend the iconoclastic doctries of Islam. --—Preost ^talk contribs 19:23, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

There's a little difference btw. conjecture and POV. Here's my conjecture: the mosaics and

icons are being uncovered starting from top to allow for maximum amount of visiting time. Had they started from bottom, nobody could visit the museum. How about this? In 21st century, Turks do not care much about the "iconoclastic doctrines". I propose to remove the conjecture. Also, please see below about restorations.

Update: the following photo was taken in Dec. 2004, showing the entrance. So much for your conjecture. You can reach this photo from the link in the article.

http://www.pbase.com/dosseman/image/37894800

"It was a mosque for 500 years"

Hmmm, it was a church for 1000 years.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.186.65 (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC) 

Restorations

Regarding the discussions about restoration, please read the following documents and modify the article appropriately. The building was NOT "allowed to decay".

http://www.islamicarchitecture.org/architecture/hagia.sophia.mosque.html http://www2.arch.uiuc.edu/research/rgouster/hagiasophia/hs.html http://archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.tcl?site_id=2966 http://www.unesco.org/archi2000/pdf/ozil.pdf

---

I don't dispute that the Christian mosaic above the entrance is visible as shown in the photo, but nevertheless I was told by a Turkish tour guide in 2002 that the reason the majority of the Christian mosaics in the main (ground floor) body of the church had not been uncovered is that this would offend Muslims, since the building was a mosque for 500 years. Adam 05:15, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately there are enough idiots in Turkey as well as in any country and some of them are tour guides for a living. Or maybe he wasn't able to communicate properly, the mosaics were covered as long as the museum was a mosque obviously, but christian mosaics doesn't offend anybody today. Also, if you go through links I provided in restoration above, you'll see that one of the purposes of the restorations was to preserve the different periods of history of Hagia Sophia, and different modifications done to it throughout history. It would offend me if they had gotten rid of everything done to it since 1453, because it is certainly a part of its history and in a museum you should preserve every period. Right now, you can see the influences of different periods in a balanced way.

Is it really necessary or helpful to characterize other editors' sources as "idiots"? One would at least hope that a person making such a characterization could be bothered to register for a Wikipedia account rather than appearing only behind the semi-anonymous mask of a mere IP address. --—Preost ^talk contribs 19:15, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Remaining anonymous is a choice, which shouldn't bother you at all. "sources" is a sensitive subject, citing people's opinions on the street hardly constitutes an objective source. I at least bothered to find objective sources on the internet and listed them instead of writing my own (or somebody else's) opinion. Anybody who's offended by a saint's picture in an old church (or islamic art in an old mosque) is an idiot in my book, and that's my opinion, which I didn't put in the article.

Yes, but you did put it in what ought to be a well-mannered discussion between editors. Additionally, the URLs you posted had no bearing on the question of why the mosaics have been uncovered in the particular way they have. What if others simply characterized your sources as being those of idiots? After all, just because something is on the Internet doesn't make it either objective or accurate.

In any event, I can't say that I put very much stock in the opinions of someone who won't even register for an account and then acts in such a fashion. You even followed me to my weblog and posted an anonymous comment there, as well. I can't say that I find it altogether worthwhile to try to work on this article with you. --—Preost ^talk contribs 20:50, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

If you look at my sources you'll see that they are at least either on university or professional web sites. I have no idea why they started from top, you don't either, that's why we shouldn't put any comments on that in the article. What is a fact today is that a lot of mosaics are uncovered, both at the top and at the bottom, and as I said before, the idea is to preserve all periods, not just one.

Yes I posted something on your weblog, which was my opinion on the subject, and I don't know why you have a problem with that, you made your weblog public but you can remove my comment from it if you want. Being anonymous is my choice and you have to respect that, whether you want to work on any article in wikipedia is your choice. If you decide to work on anything, the least you got to do is to be as objective as you can and think twice before putting something in an article that is baseless and will infuriate people for that reason. This article is far from being perfect, I will read more and try to contribute to it if I have time in future, but I am not planning to respond to your comments, unless they are related to facts.

Like many Turks, I am sick and tired of people who pay couple of visits to Turkey and start thinking of themselves as some kind of an expert. I may have used a few words that are not polite, but I am very frustrated about some of the stuff people write in wikipedia articles about Turkey, it is one thing to "bend" the truth, it's a totally different thing to write something that is plain wrong. These articles should not be about opinions, but facts, and that requires little more effort than just citing a tour guide. After all, I have lived a big part of my life in Turkey, but I still refer to reputable sources when I modify a wikipedia article about Turkey. And I hope this is the end of this little strayed discussion.

Well, at least you have stated your bias forthrightly, i.e., that you are representing a Turkish POV. For that, at least, we can be grateful. --—Preost ^talk contribs 21:48, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Everybody represents their own POV, you, as a devoted Christian, represent your own POV too. I do not, however, include my POV in any article, hence I stand corrected.

What the tour guide said was not that uncovering the mosaics would offend Turks, but that it would offend Muslims. There are other Muslims in the world beside Turks. The guide was not an idiot. As a historian I had a long talk with him about Greek and Turkish history and asked him quite difficult questions, and he was a very intelligent and well-informed person. If I have to choose between his opinion and that of an abusive anonymous editor here on why the mosaics have not all been uncovered, I will choose his, thanks. And I am not a Christian by the way. Adam 01:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did offer an alternate explanation, if you read correctly what I wrote. "It WOULD OFFEND ME if they had gotten rid of everything SINCE 1453" and "EVERY period should be presented in a museum". If a structure is used as a mosque for 500 years, of course you don't want to uncover everything at the expense of islamic art. I am NOT abusive, I am trying to make a point, whether you want to accept or not. I do not understand why being anonymous lessens the value of contribution, had I had a name, would that put more weight on my point? By the way, my comment about being a good christian was to ASDamick, not to you. He was the one to stretch this discussion to places which had nothing to do with my point, and I'm afraid nobody gets my point, so be it.

I was under the impression that the minarets were erected by different sultans (thus, the fact that only two of the four are identical). If so, it would be nice to find out the dates of construction of each minaret and also clarify the following statement:

 ...the old minarets were also demolished, the minarets were added which can be seen today....

- Cybjorg 14:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of "de-Islamized image"

Lectiodifficilior is moving this discussion from his talk page and from his revert explanation.

The edit: User User:CristianChirita added the image and text to the right.

File:Hagia Sophia BW.jpg

Artistic representation

Revert explanation: Lectiodifficilior removed the image with rv; we are not putting a "religiously cleansed" image—all muslim traces photoshopped out—on top. Good grief the POV

Talk message from Lectiodifficilior to User:CristianChirita:

The image you posted is not an "Artistic Representation" it's a "cleansed" representation, with all Muslim elements removed. This is the very definition of POV, akin to Photoshopping the Dome of the Rock from Jerusalem, or NYC from Manhattan. I also wonder about its copyright status. I saw that image somewhere once, and I did not have the impression if was GLFD. Lectiodifficilior

Response by User:CristianChirita:

1.Yes indeed the image I've posted is an "Artistic Representation" with a "cleansed" representation, with all Muslim elements removed. I don't consider the umage as POV because was a time when the image of church was looking in this way. It is not something fantastic but an artistic representation of the church before the muslim coquest. I don't think that a recostruction of an image hurt someones feelings.I also wonder about its copyright status: the image is declared PD on orthodoxwiki , the te link on the image page.

Considering the history of the church I don't think taht the reconstruction will hurt muslim feeling, because they must be very proud that the church was preserved almoust 100%.

Q: How can you picture a former Orthodox Greek church? please reconsider the POV, is interesting from historic point of view, and remember that the church was protected and preserved when the Constantinopole fall. CristianChirita 07:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Response by Lectiodifficilior:

Whenever I've seen those images, it has been in decidedly POV contexts. For example, this page has two examples of the genre, together with a lot of spleen directed at the "heathen Turk." Notably, the representations are not of the church as it was, but as it should be or at least in some alternate-reality universe ("Hagia Sophia idealized," "the cross restored", "as it might appear today"). I at least get the unsettling feeling that an "idealized" Istanbul street scene would include mass graves for all the Turks. Similarly, I found image you are posting on an extremely POV site here, together with the minarets reassembled together. The site writes:

The "other half" of the image; the minarets reassembled somewhere else

"The Christian reader will observe that the four minarets that attempt to stifle the dignified and pious elegance of Hagia Sophia have here been removed and bundled. They were erected in defiance of and as an affront to Christianity. The land upon which they were constructed was usurped.
It is suggested that with due care and deference the columns be disassembled by pieces in numerical order and returned to their interested owners for legitimate relocation other than to sites of Christian worship."

(The image, on the right, is placed here on the doctrine of fair use, which allows even copyrighted images to be used in the service of commentary and criticism. I have my doubts about the PD nature of these two images.)

I think both the text and the companion image demonstrate conclusively that it is intended to show Hagia Sophia as it should be not as it was. Thus, in origin, the image is POV.

Origin aside, is it still useful as a way to picture the church "as it was"? I don't think so. If you tell the reader the minarets are added (that would be a good addition to the picture caption), how much trouble is he really going to have picturing it? It should also be noted that a number of other minor architectural features are also of post 1453 origin, mostly there to shore up the edifice against falling down.

Lastly, if we're going to admit this image, I vote we also admit one of the Fossati brothers' pictures of Hagia Sophia/Aya Sofya operating as a mosque, with the lamps, carpets, wooden dividers and etc. This would achive NPOV by balance. Lectiodifficilior 15:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Side note: The current image isn't so good. It's all trees and minarets. I don't think this is a POV issue—a tree-hugging Muslim perhaps? But it would be nice to get something that shows more of the structure. Lectiodifficilior

I'm not insisting in putting the image. I've my opinion that the image of the church how it was it is important. We agree to disagree. If you consider the religios considerations there will be a never ending discussion. But if you are interested of how the work was performed, then the image is interesting. And considering the quality of the two picture I must confess that the building with minarets is more beautifull. And the most important thing is that erasing the images from wiki is not solving the issue, letting the image on the discussion page and explaining why it is POV is solving the situation. CristianChirita 20:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree to agree to disagree. I don't like the provinance of that image, but I don't object in principle to a "reconstruction" image, particularly if the mosque interior is also presented. Sorry not to get back sooner. I was hoping others might have feelings on this topic. Even if we can agree on a compromise, I generally feel two people are too little to decide anything on Wikipedia. Does anyone else have feelings on this? Lectiodifficilior 29 June 2005 22:44 (UTC) You have proved that the image source is not ok. I hope that somone will make a reconstruction someday, maybe some request for images of the interior should be also usefull.CristianChirita 30 June 2005 07:14 (UTC)

I think that the above image settle the issue.CristianChirita 09:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The photoshopped image is not what it looked like in 1453. It still contains structural modifications made by Sinan and others to preserve the structure, and also includes elements added by the Latin Emperors, who I would think would produce greater bile in Greek nationalists, since at least the Ottomans went out of their way to preserve an individual Greek Millet. If you want a non-political projection of the earlier appearance of Hagia Sophia, go to the Byzantium 1200 site, which is excellent and devoid of the childish vitriol this issue seems to produce.

http://www.byzantium1200.com/hagia.html

- John in NYC

~~ Let's be reasonable here. If the Turks were never aiming to injure or hurt the faith of the natives of Constantinople/Istanbul they would have peacefully settled in the city and they would have requested that they build their own mosques and not take over the Head Church for the Orthodox Christians, Aghia Sophia. So, in effect, the minarets are an insult or were an insult to the wounds of the enslaved Christians of the Ottoman Empire. No apologies ever offered or ammends made. Therefore, Orthodox Christians world wide would be highly interested to see images of what the church originally looked like as a christian church and consequently Turks would feel threatened because they took the city illegally. They'd read more into the nostalgic view of christians, which is perhaps understandable. I guess now the issue remains for Gods Wisdom to further fulfill the destiny of his Church. Whether Christians have the christian version posted on their bedroom walls should not in effect upset the Turkish state of affairs. Afterall, people still contain pictures of deceased people with nostlagia and no-one feels threatened. by ApplesnPeaches ~~

Photos

Agia Sofia, April 2002

It's actually quite difficult to get a decent wide-angle photo of Agia Sofia because of the density of the trees in the surrounding parkland. Here is one of mine which shows a little more the building than the one currently used.

On the other issue, I don't see that there is anything wrong of a representation of the building as it looked before 1453 provided it is clearly labelled as such. There is nothing anti-Islamic about this. After all it was built as church and was a church for 1,000 years. It only became a mosque when it was seized by force by the Ottomans. Adam 30 June 2005 07:33 (UTC)

Can the parked vans and such be cropped from the bottom before this goes onto the article? --Wetman 30 June 2005 23:16 (UTC)

I agree that they are not very sightly, but cropping the photo would erase the visual relationship between the church and the ground, and leave it floating above the treetops. The building is located in a modern city, and this is what it looks like. I think altering the image in the interests of beautification would be in effect an editorial statement about what ancient buildings "ought" to look like. Adam 30 June 2005 23:55 (UTC)

100 Most Endangered Sites

I removed this tag, as this structure was misidentified as being on the list. The structure on the World Monuments watchlist is the Little Hagia Sophia, also in Istanbul. BrainyBroad 06:55, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

For those unfamiliar with this recent name (Turkish: Küçuk Ayasofya Camii), the church in question is Sts. Sergios and Bacchos. [14] --Valentinian 22:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

is the hagia sophia on the european or on the asia side of istanbul?

European Dsmdgold 15:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Modern Istanbul is larger than Byzantine Constantinople, which was in Europe alone. The parts of Istanbul today that were in Asia were cities like Chalcedon that were absorbed by Constantinople/Istanbul during the Turkish period.Yahnatan 15:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

what is hagia sophia! is it a church the capital of turkey what is it!

Edited article structure (not content)

I made a fairly major developmental edit to this article. Not that it's not an OK article, but it looks like it had been worked by several people (for which, my appreciation!) and when that happens the structure of an article can get a bit out of whack. I moved text around, but I deleted or changed very little text, just a word or two here and there to improve flow, mostly. The sole block of text that I removed, because I couldn't find a good place to put it back (also it's phrased a bit awkwardly) was:

In the following 400 years, after each successive big earthquake and large-scale city fire, new repairs and renovations of the Hagia Sophia took place, to conserve it until today.

Actualy with a re-phrasing that ought to go back in. I'm just not sure where.

To summarize my edit:

• Moved the "Description" section to the top. The top section had been "Construction" which discussed elements that had not yet been described.
• Noted that the "Description" and "Construction" section had some repeated information (e.g., the pendentives), but couldn't do too much about that. Both sections need the info. But a better writer than I could make the two sections more complementary.
• Deleted and created section headers as appropriate, leaving this structure:
  • 1 Description
  • 2 Construction
  • 3 History
  • 4 20th Century restoration
  • 5 Restoration controversies
• Tagged the last section for reference. Really, that's a very poor section as it stands, with no references. It sounds like somebody's unsourced sour grapes. I'm not saying that it IS, but that's what it sounds like. It should either be sourced or deleted, in my opinion.
• Moved around text within and among sections to make the article flow in chronological order, as much as possibe. And moved images to format OK with new text.

Herostratus 05:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

More alternate spellings should be added

I can't edit this page myself, but it would be nice to have the following alternate spellings added as redirects:

• Aghia Sophia
• Aghia Sofia
• Agia Sophia

U are right. i made the redirects. Hectorian 00:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Benedict visit

Pope Benedict has just caused controversy in Turkey by kneeling down in the museum. He was viewed as trying to "reclaim" it as a church. Perhaps this incident could be addressed. Badagnani 15:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Haven't heard it yet... Waiting for the news and official statements, and then i guess the incident shall be adressed... Hectorian 15:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a mistake. The people on the news were speaking about Pope Paul VI's action in 1967. Benedict hasn't visited the site yet. Badagnani 00:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

~~ Even if he does kneel in the "museum" what's the problem with that? I see muslims praying in parks in Sydney and I don't think it's a threatening state of affairs. Also, is it an isut if someone sat on the floor in Aghia Sophia? I've never been, just curious. by ApplesnPeaches ~~

The name Sophia

I am not so sure that the description for Saint Sophia is correct

....Although it is sometimes called "Saint Sophia" in English, it is not named for a saint called Sophia - the Greek word sofia means "wisdom.".....

---

From Wikipedia elsewhere:

...(celebrated) on 30 Sept., "St. Sophia, widow, mother of the holy virgins, Faith, Hope and Charity". In some places, on 1 August, St. Sapientia (perhaps distinct from Sophia, see below) is also venerated. In the Eastern Church, the feast is kept on 17 September.

---

The Greek word for 'wise'/'wise one' is sophos. Sophia is a name from the feminine derivative sophi. Similar variations exist for the male equivalent. Churches in the Orthodox faith are named after saints (people usually martyred in the name of the faith) not concepts. The Greek word for saint is (phonetically and by direct transliteration) Agios (male) Agia (female). Therfore, by definition the Church of Agia Sophia is the church of Saint Sophia.

01 Dec 2006 157.140.3.203 13:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. But I've never heard it described as other than the church of the "Holy Wisdom." Is it possible that the Greek words for "saint" and "holy" are very similar or even the same? They are in Spanish, I think. And also that Hagia Sophia could be an exception in how it is named, as it is exceptional in other ways. I'm just saying. Herostratus 01:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Hagia means "holy" in Greek, and is also the honorific given to saints. So in theory Hagia Sophia could mean either "Holy Wisdom" or "Saint Sophia", but it's usually taken to mean the former. --Delirium 06:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Holy= Iερός--> Ieros Saint= Αγιος--> Hagios (Both male) The churches name is "Της του Θεου Σοφιας"--> "Tis tu theoy sofias" which literaly means "Dedicated (not mentioned) to the wisdom of god" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.130.228.38 (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

About the Restoration Contreversy

"Work has reportedly been purposely slow on the Hagia Sophia due to its important position and symbolism within the Eastern Orthodox Church. "

This is just a speculation most probably taken from a POV source. Yes Turkish restoration policies are terrible but it is not exclusive for Orthodox Christian artificats, same applies to Ottoman and Seljuk heritage in Turkey. Besides, why would Turkish authorities specifically leave Ayasofya alone with its fate when it is a major tourist attraction. Whoever added that sentence lacks good faith. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.102.104.48 (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

One question and possible correction. I was always under the impression that the mosaic with the two emperors (Justinian and Constantine) depicted Justinian offering Hagia sofia and Constantine offering the city of Constantinople (quite reasonable since it bears his name and the church was built as a symbol of the city and by extension the empire) not the temple of Solomon that to my knowledge he had no connection. Besides the picture looks more like a town than the temple of Solomon. Is there a inscription on the mosaic itself that explains this, or any historian of the time giving accurate information? I would like to edit the picture description if no one has an argument against it.

What Lies Beneath?

I foudnd particularly interesting the controversy concerning the scaffolding under the calligraphy covering the Pantocratour icon (apologies if that was spelt incorrectly),"assuming it still exists." That raises new questions: have some mosaics in Hagia Sofia decayed beneath the Ottoman additions, were they destroyed in some areas, or do they continue to hide beneath the plaster and calligraphy? Does anyone know?

P.S. If there are mosaics on the floor that cannot be exposed due to any opposition, were they icons? Surely it would be a blasphemous act in the eastern orthodox Church to step on sacred images? Or were they portraits of some kind or genre scenes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.101.96.170 (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

The Pantocrator mosaic is located in the dome, so you wouldn't be stepping on the mosaic, rather you could look up at an image of Christ. I have misplaced the source, but ages ago I read a report about work done on the first quarter of the dome. Apparently, the remains of a pantocrator mosaic exists, but - as could be expected - it is damaged. The vast majority of the Christian imagery was painted over during the Ottoman period, although this didn't happen immediately. In the 17th century, travellers still reported seeing Christian images in the building so at least some of the images must have been covered rather poorly. In any case, the average (Christian) mosaic wasn't repaired for 400-500 years and many of them decayed during this time and began to loosen from the walls. In 1894, the city was struck by a serious earthquake and the most fragile mosaics simply detached from the walls and fell to the floor in a thousand pieces. Luckily, two Swiss brothers were renovating the building around 1850 and they were allowed by the Sultan to record what they found so sketches exist of many of the now-destroyed mosaics. Unfortunately, some of the sketches were made very quickly and somewhat poorly, so an exact reconstruction is not possible. Whenever the Fossati brothers had repaired a section of the walls, they painted over any mosaics again. The first real uncovering was made by an American team in the 1930s after the building had been converted to a museum. Occationally, mosaics are still rediscovered, and most notably a mosaic showing Emperor John V Palaiologos was discovered less than 10 years ago, although in very poor shape due to the earthquake mentioned above. In some parts of the building, very simple mosaics of crosses are still painted over, but I haven't heard about any other obvious candidates for a major find than the dome. The Fossati brothers recorded a large number of mosaics on the north and south tympana showing angels, patriarchs and fathers of the church but most of them must have been destroyed in the 1894 quake. The mosaic of John Chrysostom is one of the exceptions. In addition the Fossatis mentioned a large mosaic of a cross in one of the galleries and a mosaic over what they called "The door of the poor". I am not aware if any trace of either of these have been rediscovered. I can recommend two books: Mango, Cyril (1962). Materials for the study of the Mosaics of St. Sophia at Istanbul, Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks and Teteriatnikov, Natalia B.; Mosaics of Hagia Sophia, Istanbul: The Fossati Restoration and the Work of the Byzantine Institute, Dumbarton Oaks, which you can read in full-text here [15]. You might also want to check out Whittlemore, Thomas: The mosaics of Haghia Sophia at Istanbul 1st -4th preliminary report. Work done 1931-1938, Oxford University Press, 1933-52. Valentinian ^{T / C} 13:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've managed to find a link to the report mentioned above [16]. The text mentions mosaic finds dating from several periods, but - to be the Devil's advocate - the text doesn't explicitly mention the Pantocrator, so the text could be referring to the simple decorative patterns found on the ribs of the dome. If the Pantocrator mosaic is completely missing it must have been destroyed in the 1894 quake since the Fossati collection includes a drawing of the mosaic. Valentinian ^{T / C} 23:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Restoration?

In the 1930s, Hagia Sofia was reportedly restored by members of the so-called American Byzantine Institute. Are there any societies dedicated to the restoration/preservation of this ancient, beautiful monument? From some other entries in this discussion, it seems that without any help from the Turkish government, such help is desperately needed? Is the American Byzantine Institute still existent, or is there a university somewhere that would help continue the restoration or preservation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.101.96.121 (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Why the "reportedly"? You can check for yourself in Teteriatnikov, Natalia B.; Mosaics of Hagia Sophia, Istanbul: The Fossati Restoration and the Work of the Byzantine Institute, Dumbarton Oaks (full text version here: [17]). The American Byzantine Institute was dissolved after the death of Mr. Whittlemore and its archives transferred to Dumbarton Oaks which is part of Harvard University. When the building was converted into a museum, the museum authorities seem to have accepted any help they could get, so this must be why the institute was able to work there for so long. The museum no longer receives aid the same way, and the situation has also become more complex since then. Many Christians would like to see the building restored completely, while some Muslims would like to see it return to being a mosque. Any way, it is a great pity that the museum is so short of cash. Good thing they started by fixing the roof. Valentinian ^{T / C} 00:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"So called" destroyed mosaics

Just show a proof, a single mosaic which was destroyed by Turks by their own will, by the rule of the Sultan. There is any, not a single one. If you can not prove that in a week, Im gonna change the article about mosaics.

Thank you.

3 days left, I've got no answer.--hnnvansier 12:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're directing that address to me since I wrote most of the the paragraph in question, I copied much of the first line from the previous version, since material I've examined relates to the 17th century and later. I simply noticed that the statement in question had been unmodified several months, which is why I didn't examine this issue any closer. The paragraph grew bigger than I initially intended, but the previous version stating that the Fossati brothers had destroyed a large number of images in 1847-49 is complete nonsense. I've read detailed description of their work, so I added a little information about it. As I remember the description, the Fossatis removed one image which was beyond any chance of repair. In recent history, the biggest destruction was probably due to the 1894 quake. Regarding the four seraphim / cherubim; four of these images appear at least one Swedish depiction of the building's interior dating from the 1600s but two of them disappear on later depictions. The architecture of the building also makes it obvious that this group must originally have contained four images. So one way or the other, two of these images disappeared somewhere along the line. That the plastering of the bigger images wasn't completed in one go is also well documented by the accounts of Western travellers from the 16th - 18th century (Mango, "The Mosaics of Saint Sophia in Istanbul"). But the question about the building's fate in the first period of Ottoman rule is interesting. In this context, it would be interesting with some more information about quakes in Istanbul. If one quake trashed many of these images, another could have done the same, but be poorly recorded. Do you know any details regarding previous quakes? Repairs of the building might also have played in, if somebody felt he had to replace a larger section of masonry. But I very strongly doubt the story that Ottoman sultans routinely removed the plaster and repaired the mosaics. Valentinian ^{T / C} 13:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Most probably Sultans did not remove the plaster and repair the mosaics unless the plastic itself broke down. I agree with your writing above, but in the front page, the paragraph tells that Turks are the ones who destroyed the mosaics. It gives the idea that after the conquest, Turks removed the mosaics by their own will.

If we consider that age, 600 years ago, if that was another army who took the control of the Haghia Sophia, most probably they'd do more than just plastering the mosaics. And if it was a crusader army invading a Muslim state, Im sure they would remove every crescent, every Kuran and every writing about Allah and Muhammad from the mosques, ofcourse if they would not use the mosques as massacre places or burnt them down totally.

So, what I see in Highia Sophia is Turkish "mercy" for the Christian society. They could not live the biggest building in the city as a church, and a mosque can not have images inside, so they just plastered the mosaics, living them "alive" but "hidden". Thank you. --hnnvansier 18:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

When the images were covered up, I don't think it was the intention that the mosaics should have ever been revealed again - something which indeed puts Sultan Abdülmecid's permission to the Fossati brothers in perspective. Perhaps the explanation might be as simple as the state being short of funds, in which case simply plastering the images over would have been both the cheapest and easiest way of getting them out of sight. That is my 2 cents anyway, we'll probably never know for sure. It is unlikely that somebody would ever find a copy of a firman explaining when and why this was done. Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem here is, you are talking about the strongest King (Sultan) of that age. An army with 250.000 men. Ofcourse they had enough funds. But also, it is known that the Sultan Mehmed II was tolerated against Orthodox Church and what I believe is, they leave the mosaics under cover. They dont think that one they those mosaics would show up again, however they kept them. So, the article in Wikipedia is one sided.--hnnvansier 23:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I did know that Mehmet II had a large army, but I know little about how full his treasury was. An army of 100,000 men or more would in most countries completely drain the treasury of funds. Anyway, if you believe the article is incorrect or if you have more material, then update it accordingly. The entire article could still use a lot more material and better referencing. Valentinian ^{T / C} 08:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Most probably he had, 'cause Byzantium was just a city, Ottomans was a great Empire. Anyways, he had enough fund or not, that is not a point for the mosaics. 15-20 men were enough to remove them all, but he did not. --hnnvansier 19:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Phrasing: "Early Christian Church"

Not to be anal but what is meant by the phrasing of the first sentence?

Hagia Sophia (Greek: Ἁγία Σοφία; Holy Wisdom), now known as the Ayasofya Museum, was an early Christian Church and later an Eastern Orthodox church which was transformed into a mosque in 1453 by the Turks, and converted into a museum in 1935.

First, by conventional historiography "early Christianity" ends by the 3rd or 4th century CE which obviously was hundreds of years before the Hagia Sophia was built. If you are using "early" in a more colloquial sense I get it but it seems worth being a little more careful.

Second, "early Christian Church and later an Eastern Orthodox Church" is a strange phrasing. It seems to imply that the Church changed hands between two religions there which obviously is not true. Also since the Church was created during the time before the Schism why is it necessary to even say "Eastern Orthodox"?

Why not something like

Hagia Sophia (Greek: Ἁγία Σοφία; Holy Wisdom), now known as the Ayasofya Museum, was the greatest Christian cathedral of the Middle Ages, later converted into an imperial mosque in 1453 by the Ottoman Empire, and into a museum in 1935.

--Mcorazao 14:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

As of today (14 June 2007) the first sentence reads "Hagia Sophia ,now known as the Ayasofya Museum, was the greatest Muslim mosque of the Middle Ages,[1][2] later converted into an imperial mosque in 1453 by the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II,[3] and into a museum in 1935." Apparently this sentence has been changed and no longer mentions that Hagia Sophia was the greatest cathedral in Christendom for almost 900 years.

160.136.109.105 13:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Markenoff

This was apparently vandalism on the part of 88.245.73.209 that somebody corrected soon afterward. However someone else has again stripped this entire phrase.

--Mcorazao 15:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

As for it being considered an early Christian Church, the current structure is 6th century, but the first structure was built in the 4th century. It was destroyed twice by riots, but quickly rebuilt. So in a sense, it was built in the 4th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.185.97 (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

on the thrace?

shouldn't it be "in thrace"???--70.90.48.125 02:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Repair architect and the mosaics

The architect who repaired the church is refered to as "Sinan" is actually an Armenian who have been taken from his parents and made a moslem. His name is Sinanyan. It should be noted that although it is impossible to prove who destroyed the mosaics as precisely as a modern criminal police report would do, it is obvious that it was destroyed by the Ottomans. The reasons are; Christians Greeks wouldn't even think of doing it, and, paintings and pictures of any and everykind is absolutely forbidden in islam.

Re: Repair architect and the mosaics

For your information, he was not "Sinanyan" and he was of Greek origin, not Armenian.

He was raised as a Muslim Turk though.

Even the mothers and wives of Ottoman sultans were mostly Christian, but it's more important "how" they were raised (under which language, identity, customs and religion).

Genetically speaking (in DNA terms) most present-day Turks of Turkey have at least some Christian ancestors from Anatolia, the Black Sea region and the Balkan peninsula. We already know it. So what?

As for the "Muslims aren't allowed to do paintings" claim, I suggest you to check out the Ottoman and Persian miniatures, and famous Ottoman artists like Osman Hamdi Bey.

The golden mosaics of the Hagia Sophia and other Byzantine churches in Constantinople (Istanbul) were largely destroyed by the Latin Crusaders during the Fourth Crusade (Sack of Constantinople) in 1204. Actually many of those mosaics are displayed in Venice today, particularly at the Saint Mark's Basilica and its Treasury section.

Regards. Flavius Belisarius 21:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Rephrase on introductory sentence?

JoJan, I see that you changed the opening sentence from

Hagia Sophia' (Greek: Ἁγία Σοφία; Holy Wisdom), now known as the Ayasofya Museum, was the greatest Christian cathedral of the Middle Ages, later converted into an imperial mosque in 1453 by the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II, and into a museum in 1935.

to

The patriarchal basilica Hagia Sophia (Greek: Ἁγία Σοφία; Holy Wisdom), now known as the Ayasofya Museum, was the culmination of early Chrisitian architecture. It was later converted into an imperial mosque in 1453 by the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II, and into a museum in 1935. It is located in Istanbul, Turkey, on the Turkish Thrace. [This has since been copy-edited a bit but the gist is the same]

Breaking it into two sentences arguably makes it more readable (some would take offense to its status as a mosque not being mentioned in the first sentence ...). But I don't know why you chose to minimize its importance during the Middle Ages. Certainly this viewpoint is not controversial (certainly not any more so than what your phrasing says). The Hagia Sophia was constructed during the Middle Ages and was in fact the largest (i.e. literally "greatest") Christian building throughout the Middle Ages era (indeed it was the largest building in the world when constructed and one of the largest throughout the Middle Ages). For at least the first half of the Middle Ages it was virtually universally regarded as the de facto seat of power for the Christian Church (its power being challenged by the rise of Charlemagne). It would not be until the Renaissance/modern era that comparable structures would again be built in Christendom.

Granted some of this is discussed more in the later text but I see no reason to weaken the opening sentence. Please explain.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao 15:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I should mention also that your phrasing is histiographically incorrect. The "Early Christian" era ended with the reign of Constantine I in the 4th century. The Hagia Sophia (that is, the final one) was built in the 6th century. --Mcorazao 15:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Technically, speaking about an early Christian era, you are correct. However the term "Middle Ages" is rather used in historical contexts, while in architecture one would use phrases such as Romanesque style or Gothic style. Furthermore the Byzantine Empire saw itself as the continuation of the Roman Empire and Roman culture. The term "Early Middle Ages" applies to Western Europe and the start of this period is still a matter of discussion (see Middle Ages#Periodisation issues. To resolve this discussion, I propose using this expression : "the culmination of Early Byzantine architecture". I don't think anyone could object to this. JoJan 13:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to attempt a reworking of the intro. Please let me know what you think. Slac speak up! 02:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This looks fine to me JoJan 12:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

iconoclasts

These sentencee are not quite right: "In 726 the Emperor Leo the Isaurian condemned iconoclasm, ordering the army to destroy all icons. At that time, all religious pictures and statues were removed from the Hagia Sophia. After a brief reprieve under Empress Irene (797-802), the iconoclasts made a comeback." An iconoclast is someone who destroys (or, I suppose, is in favor of destroying) images etc. in the belief that worshiping such is idolatry. So if Leo ordered the army to destroy icons, he would be an iconoclast, and not one condemning iconoclasm. Correspondingly in the last sentence. 165.170.128.65 14:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I've changed the wording. JoJan 18:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

still a mosque?

I may be wrong, but a teacher of mine gave me the strong impression that the Hagia Sophia is still used for prayers and as such would not be exclusively a museum. Has anyone (preferably one with strong familiarity of Muslim prayer) who's visited the site seen prayer occur in the Hagia Sophia?

The Hagia Sophia is officially a museum. During my visit, two months ago, I saw no one praying. The Süleymaniye Mosque, close by, is still a true mosque used for prayer. JoJan 14:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it's a museum (secular building) since the mid 1930s. Flavius Belisarius 19:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There have been a few cases over the years when some people tried to pray there as a protest, but they were not allowed. There is only a small room for prayer which is mostly used by the staff. --85.97.17.252 14:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a secular museum. However, in 1965(?) Pope Paul VI caused and international incident when he was visiting Haiga Sophia that he broke from his tour guide and openly said a prayer at what ws the altar (been removed, right?). The following day some Turkish students protested the visit with a banner claiming that Haiga Spohia will always be a mosque. Anyone know more about this and would care to add it to the page? Dinkytown (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: change to introduction

The introduction stated that Hagia Sophia was the largest Cathedral for more than a thousand years until the completion of Seville Cathedral in 1575, during the Renaissance.

In the interests of accuracy I have changed this to say that Hagia Sophia was the largest Cathedral for nearly a thousand years, until the completion of the Medieval Seville Cathedral in 1520.

Reasons

• Seville Cathedral was a complete and huge building by 1520. It was Medieval, not Renaissance. (Although parts of Italy were building Renaissance churches, the rest of Europe was still building Gothic churches). Seville is the largest Medieval church in the world, and to refer to the time-frame as Renaissance is misleading.
• When in the late 1500s, the Capella Real (completed in 1575) was added to Seville Cathedral, Seville had already surpassed every other Cathedral in the world in size.
• Even so, Seville can only be called "the largest cathedral" as a technicality. St. Peter's Basilica is larger, but is not a cathedral. And St Peter's itself has now been surpassed by a church in Africa.

--Amandajm 14:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Your reasoning is sound. Though I didn't write this sentence, I must have overlooked this fact while rewriting the article. I've visited the Seville cathedral some years ago and it is really huge. As a matter of fact, I've deleted the word "built" in this sentence because it is superfluous. JoJan 15:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sarcophagi

There are sarcophagi outside the building. I figured it would be pretty easy to find out who was buried there. Wrong. Can't find anything on the web. Any ideas? Maybe they are not important. Student7 02:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

They might be some of these anonymous, supposedly imperial tombs: [18] Iblardi 01:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There are several of them and they are Ottoman Sultan's tombs. Don't recall who but I have it some place. Will find them. Dinkytown (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought the sarcophagi were generally considered to be Byzantine, as Grierson does in his article. Are there any new insights, then? Iblardi (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

New Introduction?

The current introduction states:

Hagia Sophia (Greek: Ἁγία Σοφία; "Holy Wisdom", Turkish: Ayasofya) is a former patriarchal basilica, later a mosque, now a museum, in Istanbul, Turkey. Famous in particular for its massive dome, it is considered the epitome of Byzantine architecture. It was the largest cathedral in the world for nearly a thousand years, until the completion of the Medieval Seville Cathedral in 1520.

I have a couple of problems with this statement. First, I think the first sentence still tries to convey too much information. I also believe that the phrase "epitome of Byzantine architecture" is inaccurate. The Hagia Sophia has no architectural equivalent, especially in later Byzantine architecture. See, Cyril Mango, Byzantine Architecture (Rizzoli International Publications, 2d Ed. 1985) at 59-60. It does, however, have strong precedents in late Roman architecture. Id. But it would be fair to say it presages later Byzantine structures, especially in the use of pendetives and dome. Id. As a final point, I would suggest beginning the article with a descriptive introduction to the building and add a little more meat to grab the reader. That should also help quell concerns about the history and its interpretation. With that in mind, I would begin as follows:

The Hagia Sophia (from the Greek Ἁγία Σοφία or "Holy Wisdom"; in Turkish: Ayasofya) is widely considered one of the last, greatest monuments of late Antiquity. See, Procopius, De Aedificiis, VI vii. 17; see also generally, Cyril Mango, Byzantine Architecture (Rizzoli International Publications, 2d Ed. 1985) at 12, 59-61. It combines many of the precedents of late Roman architecture with forms and construction techniques that were to become familiar to later Byzantine builders. See, Cyril Mango at 12, 59-61, 65. The building is most famous for its dome, its single crowning visual and technical achievement; the result of the architects’ highly innovative synthesis of structural antecedents. See, Id. at 61-65, 79. The dome was the largest constructed since the Pantheon, and would not be rivaled until Filippo Brunelleschi completed Santa Maria del Fiore, the cathedral of Florence, during the Early Renaissance. The building itself was the biggest basilica in Christendom, until Seville Cathedral was finished in 1520, a thousand years later.

The Hagia Sophia has served many roles throughout its history, including as the Patriarchal Cathedral of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, a mosque, and finally, a museum. Needless to say, it has always lain at the heart of empire, and much of the tumultuous history of the region is bound up in its past. [Need citation?]

I believe this introduction would do a better job of introducing the Hagia Sophia as a building, and help the reader to get a flavor of its greater importance before moving deeper into the article. Thoughts? Mikhelos 20:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that the first sentence has to say *what it is*. And to be honest, I believe the intro needs to be more prosaic than your version, more broad, and with fewer cites. Slac speak up! 22:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. The cites can, obviously, be removed. My preference would be to make them endnotes. The "what it is" can be answered by placing the last sentiment first. So, it would be:

The Hagia Sophia (from the Greek Ἁγία Σοφία or "Holy Wisdom"; in Turkish: Ayasofya) is a basilical-style building located in the city Istanbul, Turkey, formerly known as Constantinople. It has served many roles throughout its history, including as the Patriarchal Cathedral of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, a mosque, and finally, a museum. Needless to say, it has always lain at the heart of empire, and much of the tumultuous history of the region is bound up in its past.

The Hagia Sophia is widely considered one of the last, greatest monuments of late Antiquity ....

Could you be a little more specific as to what you mean by "prosaic" and "more broad"? Are you suggesting, perhaps, that some of the material needs to be deeper in the page? Thanks. --Mikhelos 23:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The second version of this new introduction looks fine to me. The references should be made inline refs. JoJan 13:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Mikhelos, thanks very much for your efforts. I want to have a closer look and make some more detailed comments when I get the chance. Could you please hold off inserting the new introduction for a little while? Thanks. 01:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacrimosus (talk • contribs)

Sure. My goal was to have a concensus before I jumped into the article. --Mikhelos 05:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I'll try to express myself as well as I can, let me know if something is unclear. I don't think it's descriptive enough to call it a "basilical style building". I think that, if I was trying to tell somebody what it is, I'd say something like "it's a former church that was turned into a mosque that was turned into a museum". That, I think, is the direction in which the opening sentence should run. "Building" to me doesn't capture the importance straight away. I'm working from the basis that the *principal* importance is historical, followed very closely by architectural. And historically, its most significant role has been as a Church, since that was what it was originally built for, and what it remained for the longest period. So I think "former Church" is something close to what we want.

When I talk about being prosaic, the sentence:

"Needless to say, it has always lain at the heart of empire, and much of the tumultuous history of the region is bound up in its past."

. . . seems a bit too "conversational" to me, and not specific enough. How can we tell, objectively, whether something has tumultuous history bound up in its past or not? And it's a little non-specific. What is tumultuous about it? I know that that is meant as a "hook" to make people read on, but unfortunately in an encyclopedic context IMHO we want to be specific and avoid flourish. We can list that previous churches on the site were burned to the ground - a matter of specific historical fact, that doesn't openly make a judgement over whether or not that was tumultuous. Similarly, things such as "last" and "greatest monument" aren't easily verifiable as historical fact. Admittedly, "epitome of Byzantine architecture" is probably also a little bit on the vague side, but I believe with that specific wording we are likely to be able to find a source that says pretty much exactly that. Slac speak up! 02:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

How big is the dome?

Just wondering. I couldn't find the size of the dome in the article! Thanks. Pschelden 08:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Photomontage

The media "Photomontage of the Hagia Sophia during Byzantine times " should be removed, it is not an encycclopedic picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.254.216.224 (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

And why not? Gryffindor 19:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Byzantium 1200 website

Apparently the links to Byzantium 1200 has been taken out of some Constantinople articles. Does anyone have serious objections to this very informative website being included? I cannot find any issues, copyright or others. Gryffindor 10:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Picture Captions

At the bottom of the article there is a series of photographs; under the photograph of two Arabic medallions, the caption reads: "Large medallions by the Fossati brothers, proclaiming the name of Allah and his prophet" These medallions do not have the name "Allah" or "Muhammad" written on them. The one on the left says "Uthman" (the third Rightly-Guided Caliph); the one on the right says "Hassan" (a grandson of Muhammad). Additionally, there is a small honorific there ("Radiy Allahu 'anhu") which is reserved for use when speaking about Companions of Muhammad; it would not be there if the medallion read "Allah" or "Muhammad".

Perhaps the text could be adjusted to simply read:

"Large medallions by the Fossati brothers with Arabic script." --Filfilksq (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the caption. JoJan (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

New Mosaic Photos

I have some photos of the mosaics that are better than some of the current ones. If no one objects I will replace them. I will upload some examples as soon as I get permission... SBarnes (talk) 07:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of these photos were made by me (in rather difficult circumstances) and a few by others. If your photos are really better, upload them to the Commons and feel free to replace the existing ones. JoJan (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate Sentence

"In 726 the Emperor Leo the Isaurian issued a series of edicts against the worship of images"

The Orthodox don't worship images, so I'm going to change that to veneration. Any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.173.198 (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Column Size and Weight

The Haghia Sophia has 107 columns 64 of which are enormous size. The largest columns in the Haghia Sophia are supposed to be 20 meters tall and solid. They are clearly at least 1.5 or 2 meters diameter. They are supposed to be made out of granite. and 8 of them were transported from Baalbek. Granite is about 3 tons per cubic meter. If they are 2 meters diameter and 20 meters tall they would be 64 cubic meters (2x2x20x0.8=64). This would mean that they are up to 192 tons. I hesitate to put this estimate on the article without confirmation of the size and that they are one solid peice. Does anyone know the dimensions? I could site half a dozen sources but they are all vague. This would not be unprecidented there are many examples where the ancient civilizations have moved colossal stones but there are many exagerations too and I don't want to add to that. The following site shows pictures of some of the larger columns:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Istanbul.Hagia_Sophia048.jpg

Zacherystaylor (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Enrico Dandolo

In the TV serises "Byzantium: the Lost Empire" the narator stated that Enrico Dandolo's grave within Hagia Sophia was broken into following the reconquest of 1261 and that his bones were thrown into the streets and that "...even the dogs wouldn't eat them". The question comes up, does anyone have a source as to what happened to Enrico Dandolo's grave (and bones) after the Byzantine retaking of Constantinople in 1261 and can we get this sourced? I heard serveral accounts: 1) the above statement; 2) that the Turks destroyed the grave sometime after 1453, and; 3) that the present marker was put in that location during the renovation of the 1800's, but was not the exact location. Hope to hear from somebody - take care... Dinkytown (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question. The current marker is apparently only the lowermost part of an original slab.[19] Iblardi (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow - they put a chain around the slab... I had the opportunity to symbolically step on his marker when I was there in 1999 (I'm a Byzantinophile myself). How did you hear that it was part of the original slab and when did you hear that they did that? Dinkytown (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the "apparently" was based on my own speculation. I couldn't tell if it is part of the original tomb's slab, but it seems probable that the object was cut up (and possibly relocated) at some point in time. It would be difficult to explain the pattern of the engravings otherwise. You would expect the vertical lines in the slab's margins to go on to form a frame which captured an engraving of some sort, perhaps including a cross. (The object between the words "Henricus" and "Dandolo" looks like the lower part of one.) Iblardi (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There seems to exist an article on the problem of Dandolo's tomb by one Rodolfo Gallo, aptly entitled "La tomba di Enrico Dandolo in S. Sofia di Constantinopoli", in the 1927 issue of a periodical named Rivista della città di Venezia, but I haven't been able to get a hold of it. Iblardi (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be a good article to read/translate. Looks like we're nt the only ones asking these questions, or even before... Dinkytown (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The slab is not original. It was put in place there in nineteenth century, during Fossati's restoration. Alex2006 (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be consistent with what I read in the LMA, i.e. that no trace of the grave was found during the archaeological expedition of 1880. But why is it only partial? Iblardi (talk) 11:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ecumenical Councils

Were any of the ecumenical councils held in Hagia Sophia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.191.120 (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)