The First Dârulfunun Building with Its Architectural and Decorative Features
The Ottoman education system underwent significant reforms following the declaration of Tanzimat. As part of these reforms, plans were made to establish a new educational institution called Dârülfünun in Istanbul. The chosen location for this institution was near Hagia Sophia, on a site overlooking the Marmara Sea. Construction occurred between 1846 and 1863. Although the Dârülfünun building was designed in the neoclassical style, it was never used for its intended educational purpose. Instead, it served as a courthouse until destroyed in a fire on December 3, 1933. Our understanding of the building’s architecture and interior decorations comes from historical photographs and drawings, as the structure no longer exists today. The building’s design featured two square blocks connected by a central unit, all executed in the neoclassical style. The interior decorations were completed in an eclectic style, incorporating various artistic elements. While the reconstruction of the Dârülfünun building, one of the most significant Tanzimat-era structures in Ottoman architecture, is occasionally proposed in various circles, such proposals warrant careful consideration. Any reconstruction would need to address concerns about potentially overshadowing two of Istanbul’s most important historical monuments: Hagia Sophia and Topkapı Palace.
Mimari ve Süsleme Özellikleriyle İlk Dârülfünun Binası
Osmanlı eğitim sistemi Tanzimat’ın ilanından sonra yapılan reformlarla geliştirilmeye çalışılmıştır. Bu kapsamda İstanbul’da Dârülfünun adında yeni bir eğitim yapısının kurulması istenmiştir. Yeni eğitim yapısının Ayasofya’nın Marmara Denizi’ne bakan alana inşa edilmesine karar verilmiştir. Yapı 1846-1863 yılları arasında Mimar Gaspare Fossati ve Mimar Ahmed Efendi’nin çalışmalarıyla Neoklasik üslupta inşa edilmiştir. Bir eğitim yapısı olarak tasarlanmış ve inşa edilmiş; ancak önce Maliye Nezareti, daha sonra Evkaf ve Adliye Nezaretleri tarafından kullanılmıştır. II. Meşrutiyet döneminde Meclis-i Mebusan olarak işlevlendirilmiştir. 3 Aralık 1933 yılında yanıncaya kadar Adalet Sarayı olarak kullanılmıştır. Günümüze ulaşmayan yapının mimarisi ve iç mekân süslemeleri hakkında eski fotoğraflardan ve çizimlerden bilgi sahibi olunmaktadır. İki kare blok ve blokları birbirine bağlayan birimden meydana gelen yapının Marmara Denizi’ne bakan cephesinde üçgen alınlıklı tasarım, iyon tipi sütun başlıkları, pencere kemerleri ve mimari detaylarıyla döneminin en anıtsal Neoklasik yapılarından biri olduğu söylenebilir. Ayrıca yapının iç mekânını gösteren fotoğraflar ve çizimlerden kalem işi süslemeleri takip edilebilmektedir. Bezemeler Eklektik (karma) bir üslupta işlenmiş olup yapının uzun süren inşa faaliyetine uygunluk göstermektedir. Osmanlı mimarisinin İstanbul silüetinde en etkili Tanzimat yapılarından biri olan Dârülfünun binasının yeniden inşa edilmesi bazı zamanlar çeşitli çevrelerce konuşulmaktadır. Yapının yeniden inşa edilmesi İstanbul’da anıtsal yapıların başında gelen Ayasofya ve Topkapı Sarayı’nın silüetindeki yerini gölgede bırakacağı unutulmamalıdır.
Publications exist documenting Dârülfünun, an influential example of 19th-century Ottoman Tanzimat architecture. These works have attempted to analyse the architectural structure and features of this now-lost building through historical photographs and drawings. This study examines rare photographs of Dârülfünun preserved in the Çelik Gülersoy Foundation Istanbul Library, comparing its interior and exterior features with other examples of 19th-century architecture.
The promulgation of the Tanzimat Edict in 1839 initiated a period of substantial transformation within the Ottoman Empire, particularly in educational policy. In response to these reforms, the Ottoman administration established a new institution of higher education designated as Dârülfünun. The selected site for this institution was situated adjacent to Hagia Sophia, overlooking the Marmara Sea, on a terrain that had historically accommodated a section of the Byzantine Grand Palace. Historical records indicate the presence of a church at this location, which, following the Ottoman conquest, was repurposed as a “lion house” and a nakkaş (court painter) workshop.
Construction started in 1846 under the direction of Architect Gaspare Fossati, using the site of the aforementioned church, which had presumably ceased to exist by the early 19th century. Contemporary sources document that the project was allocated 750,000 kuruş; however, construction activities were temporarily suspended due to irregular disbursement of payments. Before the project’s completion, Architect Fossati’s contract was terminated, necessitating the appointment of Architect Ahmed Efendi to complete the remaining construction work. The Dârülfünun building was ultimately completed in 1863.
The architectural composition of Dârülfünun, comprising two substantial blocks connected by a linking section, exemplifies the Neoclassical style. This architectural movement emerged in Europe following the mid-18th century excavations of Pompeii and Herculaneum, where unearthed Ancient Greek and Roman ruins provided fundamental design principles. Within Ottoman territories, the Neoclassical style maintained its prominence from the reign of Sultan Selim III through the end of the 19th century.
Scholarly discourse presents diverse interpretations regarding the selection of the European architectural style for the Dârülfünun building. One significant perspective that the design choice was intended to mitigate students’ perceived need to pursue education abroad, as concerns existed regarding the exposure of Ottoman students to potentially subversive ideologies while studying in Europe. The Neoclassical design was thus implemented to create an environment reminiscent of European academic institutions. However, this architectural decision later faced criticism during rising nationalist sentiments. Particularly contentious was the engagement of foreign architect Gaspare Fossati for the project, a choice that scholars deemed problematic given the Ottoman Empire’s distinguished architectural heritage, exemplified by monumental complexes such as the Süleymaniye.
The Dârülfünun building’s monumental façade and imposing architectural presence established it as a dominant feature within Istanbul’s maritime skyline along the Marmara Sea. Despite its original educational purpose, the structure’s expansive scale led to its appropriation for administrative functions. The building subsequently housed multiple governmental institutions, including the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Foundations, and the Ministry of Justice, until the establishment of the Second Constitutional Monarchy. Following this political transition, it served as the Parliament building, and during the Republican period, it functioned as the Palace of Justice until its destruction by fire on December 3, 1933.
Contemporary periodicals documented the conflagration that ultimately led to the building’s demise. Following its ruination, the structure was demolished and the site cleared. The French scholar Ph. Lemerle conducted subsequent archaeological investigations, with comprehensive surveys undertaken by Ali Saim Ülgen, the architect of the Archaeological Museums. While Ülgen’s surveys remain unpublished, Semavi Eyice published select architectural drawings from these investigations.
The architectural and decorative characteristics of this no longer extant edifice can be analysed through extant historical photographic documentation and architectural drawings. The structure represents a significant exemplar of Neoclassical architecture, distinguished by its monumental façade featuring a triangular pediment, Ionic capital columns, round-arched fenestration, and refined architectural detailing. Comparable architectural elements, particularly the triangular pediment design employed on the Marmara-facing façade, can be observed in another of Fossati’s works: the current Faculty of Political Sciences building of Istanbul University, which faces the Golden Horn.
Analysis of the visual materials preserved in the Çelik Gülersoy Foundation Istanbul Library provides insight into the building’s interior decorative program. The protracted construction period appears to have resulted in the implementation of two distinct decorative styles: Neoclassical and Orientalist. The wreath motif, characteristic of Neoclassical ornamentation, emerged as a prominent decorative element during the reign of Sultan Mahmud II and became increasingly prevalent in architectural embellishment thereafter. The Orientalist influence manifests in floral compositions incorporating distinctive elements of Islamic decorative vocabulary, including salbekli sunburst motifs, rumi patterns, and palmettes.
Due to the presence of two distinct styles, it can be argued that the hand-drawn decorations in the building reflect an eclectic, or selective, approach. This article aims to bring the old photographs and drawings from the Istanbul Library archive into scholarly literature. The wreath motif, characteristic of the Neoclassical style, is evident in certain inscription examples, 19th-century tughra designs, and ceiling decorations. Wall decorations featuring salbekli sunburst motifs and floral patterns are observed in numerous buildings. In the halls of the Ministry of War (now the Istanbul University Rectorate building), framed sunburst motifs with sales are prominently featured. Similar decorative elements can also be identified in the old photographs of Zeynep Hanım Mansion, a structure that has not survived to this day.
The Dârülfünun building is one of the most significant examples of the Tanzimat architectural approach in Istanbul during its construction period. Its monumental façade, Neoclassical style, and intricate architectural details were so striking that they overshadowed two iconic landmarks of the Istanbul skyline, Hagia Sophia and Topkapı Palace. After the building was destroyed by fire and did not survive to this day, Hagia Sophia and Topkapı Palace regained their prominence in the skyline. Discussions occasionally arise about reconstructing the Dârülfünun building; however, such a project would once again overshadow these historical landmarks. Furthermore, the reconstructed building would appear incongruous with the city’s silhouette, akin to an imposition. It is also important to consider that any potential reconstruction could reduce the city’s most vital tourism area and intensify environmental challenges.
