I came across a discussion about the Byzantine monuments in Istanbul in this e-mail group I am part of. Too bad I missed the first half of the discussion, but the second half looked interesting and relevant enough to post here. Here are some parts from this discussion. By the way, the participants are all historians in the field of Byzantine Studies; I only used their initials. I tried to respect the order these passages appeared, but kept out the parts that were not really relevant to what I wanted to share.
....
I am not quite sure what your point is here.
I too am not happy with the state of the Pantokrator (or various other churches, or even some churches now functioning as mosques such the SS Sergius and Bacchus).
I suspect that you may be implying this is the fault of the Turkish authorities, but I think the situation is rather more complicated than you think.
1. Istanbul is a monument-rich city with huge social and economic problems. Some places are well maintained, others are not. The Sultanahmet Mosque, for instance, is beautifully kept up, but the Sulimaniye is distinctly less manicured.
3. The ownership of former Byzantine churches which are now mosques is rather complicated. As far as I can figure out (and I hope someone can clarify, the mosques are owned by various waqfs. Some of these are well endowed, and maintain there buildings well, others seem to be very poor, and no longer attracting worshippers. Their buildings are in a bad state of repair because of that.
4. In March, I tried to visit every surviving Byzantine Church. Some I could not get into, but in many cases, local children would fetch the mosque's door keeper or imam, who would pen the door. I had no difficulty in "making a donation" for this service. In all cases (including at the Pantokrator), the doorkeeper or imam knew what I was looking for, and helped me locate the various Byzantine remnants.
5. At the Pantokrator, this involved moving quite large carpets, and in one case the floor boards as well. As is usual in Turkey, people were exceptionally kind, polite, and helpful. I realize that this is not the historic experience of subject minorities in the Ottoman empire, but it is the usual experience of visitors today. [And even in the past, the Ottomans were not the only ones to blame. In the 19th century, when the Sultan removed certain disabilities from Istanbul's Jews, it was the Greeks and the Armenians who protested!]
6. The Turks are not the only ones to mangle monuments. Whatever one thinks of the Ottomans, their achievements in architecture were impressive, and spread throughout the Empire. In Rhodes town at least two mosques are visible, but are fairly decrepit. In Athens, one would never know there was once a Turkish population since, apparently, (in a move that surely had Freudian overtones) all the minarets were chopped down.
For many pictures I took of Byzantine churches on a visit to Istanbul in March, see
http://www.unf.edu/classes/byzantium/istanbul/ByzantineChurches/
P.H.
...
At 06:38 AM 8/29/01 -0400, P.H. wrote:
> In Athens, one would never know there was once a Turkish population
since, apparently, (in a move that surely had Freudian overtones) all the
minarets were chopped down.
...beginning with those that once stood on the Acropolis. Stuart and
Revett's
Antiquities of Athens published in 1787 clearly shows a number
of Turkish houses and a mosque, all of which disappeared in 1831, in order
to reveal such buildings as the Erechtheion or the Parthenon.
F.
....
At 11:52 AM 8/29/01 -0500, CDK wrote:
>It is intriguing to see how swiftly was the discussion diverted from the
>Church of Christ Pantocrator to the Acropolis. A remarkable analogy
>indeed!
Correct me if I am wrong, but I see nothing intriguing. The comparison was
meant to place side by side Turkish attitudes towards Christian (i.e.,
Byzantine) monuments and Greek attitudes towards Turkish (i.e., Ottoman)
monuments. In both cases, negligence and ignorance are to be condemned. And
in both cases, at stake is nationalism. Am I wrong?
F.
....
Hmm, I thought we were discussing the realities and ethics of monument
preservation, not politics.
I have no objection to what you say, it is just not really congruent with
what I though we were discussing. In other words, I see nothing persuasive
in the position that Turks should preserve and maintain Christian
structures, but that Greeks can be forgiven for destroying Muslim ones. I
see it as far more persuasive to argue that such monuments of the past
should be preserved by whoever is in charge.
I was upset, for instance, to hear about the recent destruction of Byzantine
era monasteries in Macedonia, and earlier destructions in Kosova. Given that
there is apparently not a mosque left standing in Serbska, however, I think
certain people do not have any very good standing to complain.
Mosques can of course be turned into churches. The Dome of the Rock once
function as such, and Seville Cathedral still functions to this day.
P.H.
....
I know the Ottomans could be crass and cruel, but I have to say that
compared to the havoc and destruction wrought by nationalism from Trieste to
Gaza, one cannot sometimes help thinking things would have been better if
the multi-ethnic empire had survived. I gather , the last Sultan's daughter
still lives in London. Perhaps she should be called in to the modern
political arena....
P.H.