Would he have survived without the Cathedral Mosque?

There is a widespread consideration uchronic character among scholars of Cordoba main monument, Mosque, who finished permeating almost all the rest of knowledge levels, to the point of becoming a generally accepted common place and which circulates the claim that if he had not built a Renaissance Catholic cathedral inside the mosque would not have survived.

The counterfactual history that represents a vision clearly interested in the history of the monument and an attempt to justify a colossal magnitudes historic attack perpetrated by the owners of the building at one time in its history, not appear to decrease your weight or even today in the general interpretation of the. There is another widespread interpretive point that adds to the defense of the intervention and is likewise clearly false: Construction of the cathedral is warranted to evaluate it within the historical context and the conservative parameters of when it happened.

Both relaxing interpretations are easily removable using the same analytical tool: the history of conflict between the civil and ecclesiastical authorities for the preservation of the monument.

Indeed the relatively abundant documentation on it puts us in touch with a very different reality than the one proclaimed defenders and propagators of ucronía.

An exceptional knowledgeable Monument, Torres Balbás informs us of that date as early as 1263 Alfonso X provided that all the Moors of Cordoba servants work two days a year in the main church, namely, in the old mosque, for what "More saved, nin and can not drop anything destroyed della."Not only that but granted exemption from all taxes four Moors, two carpenters and two bricklayers, who farmed in the same building, privilege confirmed in 1280. (1)

Ie Christian kings were well aware of the architectural value of the monument and especially, of stylistic unity that should be retained in the same. Seems to respond to this reservation by King Fernando III of only a small and eccentric space for Christian worship in the eastern end of the first wall Qibla, Chapel of St. Clement just after the conquest and the consecration, by the time of his son Alfonso X, within an intact first space, the Chapel, Villaviciosa call as cathedral building and immediately attached to it in the Royal Chapel, in Islamic style, though clearly Almohad, more than likely by the hands of Cordoba Moorish builders.

Two centuries later, after several tiny reforms did not alter the monument begins the real conflict between on the one hand ecclesiastical interests, always ready to complete demolition of a mosque that was bothering them with their presence (2) and second, the municipality and the monarchy itself. The beginning of the conflict appears very confusing but what is certain is that if the Catholic queen would not consent the demolition of part (on the ground bond but) Mosque to build a cathedral temple. The fact that 1489 Bishop Iñigo Manrique got permission for the dismantling of the columns corresponding to five ships (Villaviciosa Chapel of the western wall) and narrow space with cross walls to form a Gothic nave, Seems to soften that something got the queen and that had reached this compromise.

But the pressure continued his stubborn claim of the Church have not waive a cathedral commensurate with the importance of the diocese and according to the fashions of the time: Chapel and cruise ship and sumptuous and monumental. On the death of Queen returned to the charge with his grandson Emperor Charles. But this time with whom he had to face the Church was with the City Council of the city he considered a serious attack inherited transforming the building under that steely argument as was one was built in the world, and the work that is dehace quality could re-do in the goodness and perfection that is made (3) .

The polygraph was telling Olivares Rogelio Pérez and his guide The Mosque of Cordoba: Contra thinking Obispo (claiming a church because that place had three hundred years of Christian worship) the people spoke: the people made common cause the Cabildo (municipal), they lack the power to oppose the wishes of the Church, even published that would be condemned to death secundasen workers who desires prelate Don Alonso Manrique. In vain possible compromises or agreements are sought between the ecclesiastical and municipal councils. Either stoutly maintained their positions and after two years of discussion and descry passion without the slightest sign of concord, the resolution of the Emperor Charles V, whom the Bishop had the issue, It was favorable to works. (4)

The hero of this fight was definitely the Corregidor Luis de la Cerda, a currently unknown character in the city despite being a starter since not much the name of the street that runs along the outside wall makes Qibla Mosque. Before the start of the work at the risk of the cathedral chapter meets the municipal council and resolved to seek his arrest until the king was not informed and give their consent. The causes which claims is the monumental eigenvalue of schedule to break down and the fact that before Queen Elizabeth own council refused permission to perform them. Ante the negative dle obispo, Don Luis was absolutely overwhelming, as evidenced by the enactment of the death penalty to the workers to obey the bishop, in their opposition to the partial destruction of the monument and took a chance and came to suffer excommunication, something lethal at the time. This action dismantles another justification fallacies, that the act in accord with the normal standards of the time. The fierce resistance of the mayor and most of the municipal council of what speech is precisely the opposite, interest that partially or completely demolish the building by the Church was opposed to civil conservationist and protectionist logic based on a common sense among the authorities extended the time.

It is curious that the very Balbás, after gathering all these tests, also fall into the unsustainable ucronía the impossibility of preserving the Islamic temple without inclusion in the center of the Catholic when after reviewing the final Gothic Renaissance work, which indeed considered very mediocre, concludes: But we must not murmur excess cathedral temple. In the Middle Ages the Castilian monarchs claimed the existence of Islamic oratory, in modern times only the sacrifice of a part permanently secured the existence of the rest. And the price does not seem excessive. What is not consistent with the evidence that has been given contrary.

The end of the story is well known. The Emperor finally vindicates the Church and in April 1543 begin demolition. Several writers have been telling over the following centuries later how the Emperor regretted having issued the royal decree for the works when, Years after, the visited and put in your mouth the famous words: I did not know it was this, because he had not allowed it to come to the old; because you do what may be elsewhere and you have undone what was unique in the world (5) .

As noted by González Alcantud friction between the cathedral chapter and civil authorities never ceased altogether reaching until today that after being declared a World Heritage Monument of Humanity its heritage protection corresponds to the regional government, which has often felt ecclesial resistance to you meddle in the affairs of its management.

Moreover, the Church has created its own interpretive literature monument to counter secular visions that could erode its absolute right to manage their management or impede the process of total Islamisation of the monument that is always being used thoroughly, but with special emphasis in recent years since the restoration of democracy in Spain.

So, the most voluminous study that has been published on the mosque has been the work of the archivist canon Manuel Nieto Fulfilled, published with the mutilated title The Cathedral of Córdoba. It poured some bold, confused and tendentious theory of the last character of the monument, holder to minimize the footprint and the merit of the original builders and Islamic character of the temple. So, as certeramente Apunta González Alcantud, to the concept of the cathedral mosque is decreased in this work and, above all, expressly disclaims any reference to constructive controversy trailing the same since the sixteenth century: no reference is made to them over more than six hundred pages.

In view of a number of factors we are entitled to think that the Cordoba Mosque could have suffered the same fate as the Great Mosque of Seville Almohad if it had relied exclusively ecclesiastical will. Professor Antonio Almagro has been studied the circumstances of that demolition and subsequent construction of the Gothic cathedral in its solar, Considering the fact that the cathedral chapter was forced to argue strongly 1401 the poor condition of the building as an excuse for demolition. This seems to indicate that there must have been strong resistance to the destruction of the temple Almohad Seville, which were repeated with equal success, although in this case there were a partial demolition, in Cordoba.

Furthermore the recent finding Gipuzkoa convent in a plane with the original design of the Seville Cathedral commissioned by the council catedralico shows that the minaret tower which today forms the main body of the Giralda was scheduled to be demolished. The pressures to stop due to exist logically, and logically should also be significant enough to prevent such attack.

    (1) The. Torres Balbás: The Mosque of Córdoba and Madinat al-Zahra, and. Plus Ultra, 1965 (pg. 102). (Come back)
    (2) González Alcantud, José A. : The Moor. The logic of defeat and the formation of Islamic stereotype, and. Anthropos, 2002 (pg. 83). (Come back)
    (3) Rafael Ramirez de Arellano: Monumental and artistic inventory of the province of Córdoba, Publications Service HE. Provincial de Córdoba, 1983 (1Nd 1904), Appendix A, copy of a page from the book chapter corresponding to the City 1523. (Come back)
    (4) Pérez Olivares, Rogelio: The Mosque of Cordoba, Madrid, 1948. Cited by González Alcantud (pg. 84). The author uses the document entitled Municipal Archives Córdoba Commandment of the City of Córdoba forbidding under penalty of death bricklayers, stonemasons, carpenters and laborers who were working at the construction of the cathedral that was falling apart to form the Cruise, until his Majesty dispusiese what was to be executed. Case C-100, doc. 2 and entitled Real Provision of Charles I by declaring the Royal Chancery that the Lord Vicar of Córdoba was hard not to grant appeals had brought the City in litigation that followed the ecclesiastical Cabildo, as a result of the proclamation that had published, prohibiting continue works Cruise. Case C-100, doc. 3. (Come back)

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED: (Origin: Rafael Ramirez de Arellano: Monumental and artistic inventory of the province of Córdoba, Publications Service HE. Provincial de Córdoba, 1983 (1Nd 1904), Appendix A, Paper copies of the corresponding chapter of City Hall 1523.)

1. Cabildo 29 April 1523. Presiding Luis de la Cerda, Mayor.

2. Cabildo 4 May 1523.

3. Bando Cabildo 4 June

4. Resolution of Charles in favor of the Church.

Be Sociable, Share!


  1. This fight between Moors and Christians on today indisputable fact that the building is a mixture, has a loser unfair it is Hernán Ruiz. It bothers me and I do not understand that denigrates the Renaissance church Balbás.
    For me the work of Ruiz is flawless, Leaving aside the debates. It's so respectful intervention even miraculously left arches. he does not break the space and prospects, what happens is that today we can not appreciate the unfortunate placement of the choir, which is what really takes things.
    Hernán Ruiz value what you have between your hands and remember the Cordoba minaret is inside the bell, and the Giralda, I was going to be demolished, all it does is put the auction.
    True, He must to the task of breaking the mosque, but you may be cursing why, because their work is or has been excellent, if he had not blocked with dark black choir and.

  2. Damn It! This is serious. I like a lot. I'll slowly reeled much good information. Maybe learn.
    Then, I would comment parmito own which barely knows little, little. I do not think any intervention (as here it is) made on a site of this magnitude throughout history is negative. I argue this because we can not judge in terms of “today” I made it in time. We have what we have and this is “our” heritage, the all. Much less can we afford to roll back time and pretend to situate five, eight or ten centuries ago. That's a nuisance, with all due respect.
    Argentines have a popular phrase “This is the meal that you can make bread”. Good, apologizing, I request you take into account the humble opinion of a lego.

    • Good, friend, precisely what I have tried to show is that not from today's terms, but precisely from terms of the time the destruction of the central part of the mosque and the construction of a huge Gothic-Renaissance cathedral at its center, was an aberration from all points of view. If you read carefully what is stated in this entry will see that only the church hierarchy had interest in it. At that time, City Hall, the people, part of the cathedral chapter itself, which does not appear on the entry, but that seems to be true, and the monarchy itself were perfectly aware that seriously alter the structure of the wonderful building that had inherited was that: an aberration. The death sentences handed down by the magistrate who dared speak collaborate in this fierce defense of the idea.

      Judging the actions of specific individuals with decision-making and effective in a particular historical moment is not so difficult. Just to contrast with the views and alternatives that opposed him.

      Another thing would be that since today were intended to amend it done, there has been until recently supporters. In the years 70 there were some leading specialists who proposed the dissociation of both, removing the cathedral and moving it to another location. But that is material for another entry.

  3. Added value to the old mosque is the construction of cruise, Monument makes a unique example of mixing architectures, fall into the simplicity of considering a cultural attack is as if planteasemos the demolition of St. Vincent also be so in his day.

  4. Very interesting, but the Seville example just seems to point in favor of this theory Uchronics: if it had not authorized any reform, perhaps the Church itself would have occupied the building deteriorate or, anyway, would have continued to exert pressure, perhaps using the argument that deterioration, to finish demolishing the whole building, as in Sevilla.

    You say that only the Church was in favor of outrage… but is that the Church was the other great power, with the king. In fact I refer, the one Church, was able to get away with it. Namely, it was the power most capable and organized.

    We will never know what would have happened if he had not authorized the work at that time, but it does not seem far-fetched hypothesis that the end would have been worse, precisely because of the immense ecclesiastical power and perseverance centennial.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.