Customer Reviews

Byzantium Rediscovered

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

As an ardent reader of Byzantine history, political, military, artistic and architectural, I was thrilled that someone had taken up the gauntlet and attempted to present a lucid exposition of the greatness of Byzantium's contribution to architecture.

On the face of it, this book is beautifully illustrated and clearly written....but don't pay too close attention to the text.

What, for instance does the purported homosexuality of Ralph Adams Cram have to do with his later post-gothic Byzantine phase in architectural design. What does it have to do with anything in this book?!

Now Ludwig II of Bavaria was also purported to be homosexual, and I honestly didn't realize he had a "unconventional,close and sentimental relationship" with Richard Wagner....not an image anyone interested in Byzantinism needs in their head....but aside from the fact that he was also likely quite out of his mind....again, what has that got to do with his architect's expression of later 19c romantic Byzantine Revival architecture. There may be a more substantial connexion here, but I think the author fails to make it.

I have always felt that errors in a text, outside of the occasional "spell-check" transgression say something about the authors thoroughness and attention to detail. What does one say to "Henry HOBHOUSE Richardson". Even if I didn't work for the firm that Henry HOBSON Richardson founded in the 1870's, as a student of architectural history, I'd never make that glaring a mistake or let it past my review and into print. That begs the question.....what else has J. B. Bullen misinterpreted or gotten totally wrong? Where are the other less glaring errors?

The pictures are great, but BEWARE OF THE TEXT!!!!

This book has wonderful photographs, and introduced me to some buildings that I didn't know about. That's about all I can say about the book that is in any way positive. As an amateur architectural historian I found many errors - including consistently misnaming Henry HOBHOUSE Richardson. How could the author and the editors not find such an obvious mistake? This is not an insignificant "typo." Henry Hobson Richardson was one of the most important architects of the nineteenth century. Anyone with the slightest interest in architectural history knows his name and his major works. If the author made such an obvious error, what other errors did he make that I didn't pick up?