zoo THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



gigantic museum, there would be no complaints, no fault-findings, 

 no grumblings. If houses were not to live in, architects could 

 pursue their occupations without inconvenience, and design fronts 

 and windows and turrets and all sorts of knickknacks to their 

 hearts' content. Unfortunately, this ideal state can never be real- 

 ized ; and, as people must conform to the designs of architects 

 must have turrets where they do not want them, windows where 

 they are least needed, and all sorts of beautifications because they 

 are in the latest style there is constant conflict between builder 

 and occupant, between architect and client. Nor could anything 

 else be expected when buildings are judged solely by their aes- 

 thetic appearance. The history of architecture carries the com- 

 forting assurance that structures can be both beautiful and use- 

 ful ; and, in fact, in the best buildings the two elements are so 

 closely united as to be scarcely distinguished. In our time, how- 

 ever, attention is paid to only one of them, and it is, therefore, 

 impossible to obtain satisfactory results. 



Writers on architecture make a broad distinction between 

 construction and architecture, claiming that they are two differ- 

 ent things, and that, while all architecture is construction, all 

 construction is not architecture. Never was a difference pro- 

 ductive of more perverted ideas. A factory is not architectural, 

 because it is plain, unadorned construction. Put on some orna- 

 ment, add a fancy roof, a cornice, and a balcony, and it at once 

 becomes architectural, though none of these things have aught 

 to do with the uses of the building, but frequently conflict with 

 them. Such a definition may be maintained in order to have 

 certain limitations, but it is clearly absurd to say that a building 

 only properly comes within the province of architecture when 

 certain adjuncts are added to it which, while they may increase 

 its aesthetic appearance, detract from its usefulness. 



The history of architecture is the story of the attempt of man 

 to adapt his life to the environment in which he is placed. The 

 Abipone under his mat, the Assyrian in his thick-walled house 

 of brick, the Roman in his conveniently arranged villa, the 

 mediaeval baron in his castle, the French monarch in his richly 

 appointed palace, are but so many instances of the influence of 

 climate and geological conditions, nature of the soil, products of 

 the land, extent of intercourse with other peoples, temperature, 

 rainfall, manner of living, and many other phenomena which 

 have caused the evolution of various grades of society, and 

 which thus express themselves in visible form. In Assyria the 

 buildings were of clay, because that was the only substance the 

 land afforded. In Greece they were of stone, because it was 

 abundant and easily obtained. The mediaeval baron intrenched 

 himself in a heavily guarded fortress, because the country was 



