M
malphono
Guest
Bye bye …
- Status
N
Nine_Two
Guest
The use does, not the official name. Constantine refounded Byzantion as “Nea Roma” not “Constantinople”. That was, however, the popular name.
M
malphono
Guest
Fair enough. I’ll buy that.
T
Timothysis
Guest
These are very deep waters that you are stirring. If you apply that same standard to all things then we would find ourselves living in a very, very different world.
What would you say if someone knocked on your door in NYC informing you that the land that you live on was “taken by force from its rightful owners,” and that “by rights, it belongs to” someone else?
A
Aydan
Guest
exactly THE POINT I WAS MAKING I want to fix something I said earlier which someone already pointed out I just finished discussing this with one of my Turkish friends about this and they informed me that Hagia Sophia is open to the public I was unaware of this when I posted earlier. My friend also told me that the Turkish government trying to accommodate the Orthodox Christians on every major Orthodox holiday the divine liturgy is held at Hagia Sophia. When Atatürk had it turned into a museum he made sure that it was open to both Muslims and Christians.
Now I realize that some Christians hate the fact that Hagia Sophia is associated with Islam but I don’t understand what you want here would you rather seize control of Turkish land and give it to Greece? Yes it is unfortunate that Hagia Sophia was acquired the way it was I don’t agree with it. But it is the Ottoman government that did it not the current Turkish Republic. I don’t understand how you can hold this against the current government when they were not responsible for it and they are taking steps to make sure that it is open to Christians and Muslims alike. It does not matter how or when Istanbul acquired the name Istanbul you cannot change it no matter how much you would like to. the fact remains for me personally Hagia Sophia provides a bridge between two very important things in my life Turkey and my Christian faith. You talk about how important your Christian heritage is to you but does that mean that you can deprive me of my own by insisting that Hagia Sophia be turned back into a church because in your mind it’s not part of Turkish heritage and you don’t like the fact that it was turned into a mosque?
T
trophybearer
Guest
You’re Turkish I assume?
A
Aydan
Guest
no I’m not ethnically Turkish unfortunately however I admire Turkey I’m learning the language and as I said earlier because I consider myself to be an Eastern Catholic Turkey is an important link to my Christian faith. Not only that I will be interned the public sector and Atatürk is one of my biggest role models. If given the chance I will pursue duel citizenship that is how strongly I feel about Turkey. And I think it would be morally wrong to make Hagia Sophia back into a church because in my mind that is denying me part of my Christian heritage. After all the apostle Paul preached in Turkey. I’m American by the way.
A
Aydan
Guest
Thanks for the sent off to Mass.
A
Aydan
Guest
I wanted to give you additional information about the origins of Istanbul since there is some debate about its origins.
**[edit] İstanbul
The modern Turkish name İstanbul (Turkish pronunciation: [isˈtanbul]) is attested (in a range of variants) since the 10th century, at first in Azerbaijani and Arabic and then in Turkish sources. It derives from the Greek phrase “εις την Πόλιν” or “στην Πόλη” (i)stimboli
], both meaning “in the city” or “to the city”;[6] a similar case is Stimboli, Crete. It is thus based on the common Greek usage of referring to Constantinople simply as The City (see above). The incorporation of parts of articles and other particles into Greek placenames was common even before the Ottoman period, Navarino for earlier Avarino,[7] Satines for Athines, etc.[8] Similar examples of modern Turkish placenames derived from Greek in this fashion are İzmit, earlier İznikmit, from Greek Nicomedia, İznik from Greek Nicaea ([iz nikea]), Samsun (s’Amison = “se + Amisos”), and İstanköy for the Greek island Kos (from is tin Ko). The occurrence of the initial i- in these names may partly reflect the old Greek form with is-, or it may partly be an effect of secondary epenthesis, resulting from the phonotactic structure of Turkish.
İstanbul was the common name for the city in normal speech in Turkish even since before the conquest of 1453, but in official use by the Ottoman authorities, other names such as Kostantiniyye were preferred in certain contexts. Thus, Kostantiniyye was used on coinage up to the late 17th and then again in the 19th century. The Ottoman chancelery and courts used Kostantiniyye as part of intricate formulae in expressing the place of origin of formal documents, such as be-Makam-ı Darü’s-Saltanat-ı Kostantiniyyetü’l-Mahrusâtü’l-Mahmiyye[9] In 19th century Turkish bookprinting it was also used in the impressum of books, in contrast to the foreign use of Constantinople. At the same time, however, İstanbul too was part of the official language, for instance in the titles of the highest Ottoman military commander (İstanbul ağası) and the highest civil magistrate (İstanbul efendisi) of the city.[10] İstanbul and several other variant forms of the same name were also widely used in Ottoman literature and poetry.[2]
After the creation of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, the various alternative names besides İstanbul became obsolete in the Turkish language. With the Turkish Postal Service Law of March 28, 1930, the Turkish authorities officially requested foreigners to cease referring to the city with their traditional non-Turkish names (such as Constantinople, Tsarigrad, etc.) and to adopt Istanbul as the sole name also in their own languages.[11] Letters or packages sent to “Constantinople” instead of “Istanbul” were no longer delivered by Turkey’s PTT, which contributed to the eventual worldwide adoption of the new name.
In English the name is usually written “Istanbul”. In modern Turkish the name is written “İstanbul” because in the Turkish alphabet dotted i (capital İ) is a different letter from dotless ı (capital I).**
Source:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_Istanbul
this is why I choose out of respect for the Turkish nation and its people as a Catholic Christian I choose to call the city Istanbul and not Constantinople.
**[edit] İstanbul
The modern Turkish name İstanbul (Turkish pronunciation: [isˈtanbul]) is attested (in a range of variants) since the 10th century, at first in Azerbaijani and Arabic and then in Turkish sources. It derives from the Greek phrase “εις την Πόλιν” or “στην Πόλη” (i)stimboli
], both meaning “in the city” or “to the city”;[6] a similar case is Stimboli, Crete. It is thus based on the common Greek usage of referring to Constantinople simply as The City (see above). The incorporation of parts of articles and other particles into Greek placenames was common even before the Ottoman period, Navarino for earlier Avarino,[7] Satines for Athines, etc.[8] Similar examples of modern Turkish placenames derived from Greek in this fashion are İzmit, earlier İznikmit, from Greek Nicomedia, İznik from Greek Nicaea ([iz nikea]), Samsun (s’Amison = “se + Amisos”), and İstanköy for the Greek island Kos (from is tin Ko). The occurrence of the initial i- in these names may partly reflect the old Greek form with is-, or it may partly be an effect of secondary epenthesis, resulting from the phonotactic structure of Turkish.İstanbul was the common name for the city in normal speech in Turkish even since before the conquest of 1453, but in official use by the Ottoman authorities, other names such as Kostantiniyye were preferred in certain contexts. Thus, Kostantiniyye was used on coinage up to the late 17th and then again in the 19th century. The Ottoman chancelery and courts used Kostantiniyye as part of intricate formulae in expressing the place of origin of formal documents, such as be-Makam-ı Darü’s-Saltanat-ı Kostantiniyyetü’l-Mahrusâtü’l-Mahmiyye[9] In 19th century Turkish bookprinting it was also used in the impressum of books, in contrast to the foreign use of Constantinople. At the same time, however, İstanbul too was part of the official language, for instance in the titles of the highest Ottoman military commander (İstanbul ağası) and the highest civil magistrate (İstanbul efendisi) of the city.[10] İstanbul and several other variant forms of the same name were also widely used in Ottoman literature and poetry.[2]
After the creation of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, the various alternative names besides İstanbul became obsolete in the Turkish language. With the Turkish Postal Service Law of March 28, 1930, the Turkish authorities officially requested foreigners to cease referring to the city with their traditional non-Turkish names (such as Constantinople, Tsarigrad, etc.) and to adopt Istanbul as the sole name also in their own languages.[11] Letters or packages sent to “Constantinople” instead of “Istanbul” were no longer delivered by Turkey’s PTT, which contributed to the eventual worldwide adoption of the new name.
In English the name is usually written “Istanbul”. In modern Turkish the name is written “İstanbul” because in the Turkish alphabet dotted i (capital İ) is a different letter from dotless ı (capital I).**
Source:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_Istanbul
this is why I choose out of respect for the Turkish nation and its people as a Catholic Christian I choose to call the city Istanbul and not Constantinople.
M
malphono
Guest
It’s not the same thing; this has absolutely nothing to do with the Ottoman conquest of the land, nor does it concern the political legitimacy of either the Ottoman Empire or its modern successor. Here, rather, we are centering on a particular building, considered one of (if not the) greatest churches in Christendom, which was violated by the Ottomans. Expropriating it and converting it to the use of another religion is perhaps the most insidious thing they could have done.
M
malphono
Guest
Yes, and albeit that I am not Byzantine, I’m one of those Christians. It has, as I said in another [post=6372022]post[/post], nothing at all to do with the territorial integrity of the Turkish Republic. And I have no idea why Greece was brought up. It has no bearing here.
“Holding something against the current government” isn’t really the point. What I found highly objectionable is simply the claim that Hagia Sophia is part of the “Turkish heritage.” And yes, I give Ataturk credit for at least partially righting a grievous wrong. Better that Hagia Sophia is a museum than what it was under the Ottomans.
If I ever had to send mail there, I’d use the modern Turkish name, but only because I would want the mail to be delivered. But in oral discourse, I use the old name and I really don’t care if it’s “politically correct” to do so or not. BTW, I still use “Bombay” and “Peking” and “Burma” etc in lieu of the “politically correct” renames too.
If one looks back at a previous [post=6369927]post[/post], you’ll see that’s not what I said. That Hagia Sophia is a museum is fait accompli, which simply isn’t going to change. As I said above, that’s much better than the way things were before Ataturk.
J
Janet1983
Guest
As far as I know the Hagia Sophia is not being used as a mosque anymore. It is a museum. The Christian art has been uncovered in some places. What you see there today is the history of this monumental and very unique building, with its Christian past and its Muslim past.
Kemal Ataturk, who founded the Turkish Republic, declared Hagia Sophia a national museum in 1935.
T
Timothysis
Guest
It is very much the same thing. The fact of the matter is that the Ottomans acquired the city through force of arms, the same way cities and nations have been gained and lost for centuries. Hagia Sophia, as a result, fell victim just as much as the defenders of the city. I think it a shame but it is what it is.
And I think that the Christian Church, throughout the centuries, could also be accused of “expropriating” and “converting” buildings from one purpose to another, too, or are you ok with that?
K
Kielbasi
Guest
The chance of Hagia Sophia becoming a church again is zero.
Not only would the Turkish government suffer the wrath of its islamic constituents if they permitted it, but its just an impractical building for a church in a city with such a small Christian population like Istanbul.
Its not unusual for church buildings to be adopted to different uses after they are no longer practical for their church use. It certainly has happened here in Pittsburgh, where former churches are now restaurants, nightclubs, apartment houses, mausoleums, theatres.
Not only would the Turkish government suffer the wrath of its islamic constituents if they permitted it, but its just an impractical building for a church in a city with such a small Christian population like Istanbul.
Its not unusual for church buildings to be adopted to different uses after they are no longer practical for their church use. It certainly has happened here in Pittsburgh, where former churches are now restaurants, nightclubs, apartment houses, mausoleums, theatres.
A
Aydan
Guest
yes that is true however I have to say there are some limited usage for occasional prayer but it is not a functioning mosque and as I said before my Turkish friend told me that on the major Greek Orthodox holidays the divine liturgy is held there. I simply do not understand why some people just can not except this.
A
Aydan
Guest
I’m asking you a legitimate question that’s the only reason I brought up Greece again I ask you what is its that you want here? Please tell why you cannot except it as a museum like it is today. I understand it is important to you to call it Constantinople for historical reasons and I understand that part of your heritage as a Christian. I’m okay with that. I’m simply telling you why I will not call it Constantinople. I understand that you don’t see Hagia Sophia as Turkish heritage but I do. I ask you again what right do you have to deprive me of my heritage?Yes, and albeit that I am not Byzantine, I’m one of those Christians. It has, as I said in another [post=6372022]post[/post], nothing at all to do with the territorial integrity of the Turkish Republic. And I have no idea why Greece was brought up. It has no bearing here.
“Holding something against the current government” isn’t really the point. What I found highly objectionable is simply the claim that Hagia Sophia is part of the “Turkish heritage.” And yes, I give Ataturk credit for at least partially righting a grievous wrong. Better that Hagia Sophia is a museum than what it was under the Ottomans.
If I ever had to send mail there, I’d use the modern Turkish name, but only because I would want the mail to be delivered. But in oral discourse, I use the old name and I really don’t care if it’s “politically correct” to do so or not. BTW, I still use “Bombay” and “Peking” and “Burma” etc in lieu of the “politically correct” renames too.
If one looks back at a previous [post=6369927]post[/post], you’ll see that’s not what I said. That Hagia Sophia is a museum is fait accompli, which simply isn’t going to change. As I said above, that’s much better than the way things were before Ataturk.
T
trophybearer
Guest
You’re not Turkish- Turkish culture and history is not a part of your heritage.
A
Aydan
Guest
this has nothing to do with being Turkish as I’ve said before as an Eastern Catholic and I have every right to consider myself that especially since I speak Turkish it is part of my Christian heritage because Paul preached in what is now Turkey I never said anything about it being my Turkish heritage. And I hope one day I will be able to pursue Turkish citizenship so that people cannot say I am not Turkish but I have every right to consider Hagia Sophia part of my Christian heritage as an Eastern Catholic.
T
trophybearer
Guest
whatever floats your boat.
M
malphono
Guest
Yes, it is what is is. I said as much earlier in another post.
The only cases I can think of that even partially fits the bill here are of various Greek and Roman temples. The cults of the Greek & Roman gods were pretty much dead by the time those structures were “converted” anyway. The cults certainly didn’t survive in any organized fashion. There was no military conquest involved either. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I don’t even recall such a thing during the Crusades.
Anyway, that’s as much as I’m going to say on this. I’m not sparring for an argument.
- Status