A history of Ottoman architecture (review)

248 Short notices dealing with these chapters unless they already have a very sound grounding in medieval history. John H. Pryor Department of History University of Sydney Doob, Penelope R., The idea of the labyrinth from classical antiquity through the Middle Ages, rpt Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1992; paper; pp. xvii, 355; 25 plates; R.R.P. ? The first printing of this book in 1990 attracted much attention from reviewers and readers, more so among medievalists and Early M o d e m literary scholars than among classicists; although, it was also reviewed in classical journals as a book of considerable interest to the intellectual historian. In fact the book has more to say about the Middle Ages than the classical period, in spite of its title. Most reviewers of thefirstprinting welcomed The idea of the labyrinth and found it full of interesting and provocative ideas and connections, especially about the laybrinthine nature of medieval textuality and the centrality of the labyrinth as a figure in medieval and Early M o d e m literature. However, some found the book's incessant signposting overdone and a little tedious. Others doubted the extent to which various of texts analysed in part three had the labyrinth as then central image. The most common response, however, was to find the book original and suggestive of further lines of enquiry. This, though, is not helped though by the lack of a bibliography. One threads one's way through the learned footnotes. One reviewer even called the book 'magisterial' and 'a classic'. SmaU wonder then that Cornell University Press has been prompted to reissue it as a paperback. Margaret Clunies Ross Department of English University of Sydney Goodwin, Godfrey, A history of Ottoman architecture, rpt, London, Thames and Hudson, 1992; paper; pp. 511; 520 plates, 3 maps, chronological table; R.R.P. AUS$49.45. This book,firstpublished in 1971 and reprinted recently, consists largely of very detailed descriptions of every important Ottoman budding built during Short notices 249 the period from the fourteenth to the early twentieth centuries. Although mosques are the main focus, the study also describes palaces, fortresses, houses, bridges, baths, market places, schools, tombs, and even, such is the thoroughness of its survey, smaU artefacts such as tombstones, wellheads, and door handles. In terms of the sheer quantity and thoroughness of these descriptions the book is most impressive. Reviews of the book at the time of its first appearance were generally favourable, commenting with approval on its comprehensiveness, its wealth of photographs, the successful integration of text and illustrations, its usefulness as a mine of source materials, as a work of 'fundamental scholarship,' and as a guide for travellers. Reviewers, however, were less appreciative of other aspects of the book, such as the inappropriate manner of footnoting, the cumbersome and almost totally useless system of indexing, the failure to indicate the distinguishing characteristics of 'Ottoman architecture' or the links in the chronological development of the buddings. Reviewers also spoke of the book's weakness in the areas of city planning, its naive conception of architectural symbolism, and its failure to give any hint of how the Ottoman architects performed then task. A quarter-century after itsfirstpublication, more serious flaws are apparent. A description of empirical minutiae, detailed to the point of tedium, might be of use to a traveller visiting the sites, but is of less obvious value for scholarly or teaching purposes. The author makes no attempt to interpret the architectural phenomena he describes, nor to relate them to any social, historical, religious or theoretical context. He gives no insights into how or why structure and forms changed in six hundred years. He gives no indication of the symbolic significance of buUding forms and then ornament. H e observes buildings as so many merely formal and isolated objects in atotallyvacant landscape. In the light of notions of 'orientalism' and other postmodernist paraphernalia, Goodwin's explanations of the works of Sinan by reference to Alberti now read as an exercise in ethnocentrism. Goodwin, writing in the sixties, could not be expected to conform to the niceties of the nineties, but nevertheless it seems strange that even in his day a work...