AUGL-ST 15, 1895] 



NA TURE 



o-'o 



unimportant manner ... by the direct action of ex- 

 ternal conditions . . ." This passage is considered by 

 Osbom to pro\c that the progressive tendency towards 

 the explanations of Lamarck and Buffon which he beheves 

 Darwin exhibited from 1859 onwards -cuhninated at 

 he close of his life. But the sixth edition appeared in 

 1872, and the date 1880 is merely that of a reprint. The 

 words in question were certainly written before the former 

 date, and e\cn in the fifth edition (1869) Darwin inserted 

 the word "chiefly" to qualify an expression of confidence 

 which might have been interpreted as a belief in the all- 

 sufficiency of natural selection. 



The fact appears to be that there was no progressive 

 change in Darwin's attitude on this subject, but that his 

 opinion fluctuated as various classes of evidence were 

 brought before him, and at the very end of his life his 

 belief in the direct action of external conditions was 

 seriously shaken by the results of Hoftmann's experiments. 

 The effect produced on him is well shown in his letter to 

 Semper, written July 19, 1881, less than a year before his 

 death (" Life and Letters," vol. iii.). But although 

 Darwin's opinion fluctuated as to the relative value of the 

 supposed causes of evolution other than natural selection, 

 liis views as to the paramount importance of the latter 

 ne\er varied in any of his published utterances. The 

 words which conclude the Introduction of the 1859 

 " Origin " are repeated without change in each succeed- 

 ing edition and reprint. " Furthermore, I am convinced 

 that natural selection has been the main, but not the 

 exclusive means of modification." 



The printing and general get-up of this interesting 

 work leaves nothing to be desired, being far abo\c the 

 average that obtains in scientific publications. It may 

 confidently be predicted that the book will be widely 

 read and greatly appreciated. E. B. P. 



THE ELEMENTS OF ARCHITECTL'RE. 



Architcclitrc for General Readers^ ^c. By H. Heathcote 

 Statham. Svo. (London : Chapman and Hall, 1895., 



THE aim of this treatise, as stated in the preface, ig 

 certainly a good one, namely, to supply the 

 "general reader' with the means of criticising architec- 

 ture in an intelligent manner, and principally by giving 

 an analysis of the two most logical and complete styles 

 that have ever existed, namely, the Greek and the 

 C.othic; the former representing the trabeated, and the 

 latter the arcuate system of building. Our author, how- 

 ever, very properly does not confine his attention to 

 these two styles and their later developments, but also 

 makes wide digressions in the direction of Egyptian, 

 Byzantine, and Mahommedan structures, all of them 

 being copiously illustrated and discussed at considerable 

 length. The work exhibits throughout the author's great 

 and varied acquaintance with his subject, and cannot but 

 be of much interest and value to any reader who desires 

 to dive more deeply than amateurs are accustomed to do 

 mto the principles which ought to guide the professional 

 architect, and which, indeed, do guide all those who 

 achieve anything worthy of the art in which they practise. 

 In page 20 the importance of planning is properly 

 insisted on. The plan is shown to be the very " back- 

 bone' of the stioicture, and the attention of the "general 

 NO. 1346, VOL. 52] 



reader" is rightly called to this. It may be doubted, 

 however, whether the general reader is prepared for the 

 minute criticism, which we find a little further on, respect- 

 I ing certain competition designs, which criticism is 

 rendered the more difficult to follow, in consequence of 

 the small scale of the plans by which these designs are 

 illustrated, and he may, perhaps, wish that he had been 

 led into such deep water more gently. In page 31, with 

 reference to the proportions of buildings as affecting the 

 eye, the author ap])ears to doubt whether — with the 

 exception of the late Mr. W. \V. Lloyd's discovery of the 

 system which prevails in the Parthenon — any definite and 

 clear case has been made out for the establishment 

 of proportion theories. The author is probably quite 

 justified in his refusal to accept any general adoption of 

 a system for proportioning buildings "on the basis of 

 geometrical figures, especially triangles of various angles.'' 

 There could not possibly be any ;esthetic value in con- 

 fining the main lines of the architecture within such 

 limits ; but rectangular proportions in low numbers (of 

 which nature are the proportions of the Parthenon) are 

 on a different footing, and it is e.xtremely probable that 

 they do produce harmonious effects. They are to be 

 found in man)- other (ireek examples besides the Par- 

 thenon, and in one Gothic building at least, namely, the 

 work of Bishop Grosetete in the nave of Lincoln 

 Cathedral (see the Transactions of the Arch;eological 

 Institute of Great Britain, &c., for 1848), where rectan- 

 gular proportions of this character come out without any 

 "coaxing" with remarkable exactness ; and as Bishop 

 Grosetete, besides being a great ecclesiastic, was one of 

 the most prominent philosophers of his day, there is 

 the more reason to accept it as having been intentional. 



In p. 34, the chief characteristics of the Egyptian, the 

 Greek and the Clothic are summed up in a few words, as 

 .Mystery, Rationalism, and .Aspiration. In p. 43, the 

 meed of merited praise is given to Mr. E. L. Garbett's 

 excellent little treatise on " The Principles of Design in 

 Architecture." In p. 58, doubt is thrown on the wooden 

 origin of the Greek entablature. The reader, however, 

 may be referred to M.M. Perrot and Chipiez' recent work 

 on " The Arts of Primitive Greece," in which this deri- 

 vation is shown from the remains at Tiryns, Mycen;e, and 

 Orchomenus. In p. 73, the Corinthian example of the 

 temple of Jupiter Olympius at Athens should not be 

 attributed to a Roman source ; it dates from .'Vntiochus 

 Epiphanes, the Greek founder, and the prototype of the 

 capital is found in the tholos at Epidaurus, a pure Greek 

 building. No doubt at the time the .Athenian temple was 

 built, about 170 B.C., Rome was pushing her way towards 

 the East, and .Vntiochus himself had been sent as a 

 hostage to Rome after the defeat of his father by .Scipio. 

 There may have been something political in his employ- 

 ment, as we are told of a Roman citizen as his architect, 

 but the architecture itself, at that date, could not but 

 have been thoroughly Greek. 



In p. 78, the author well illustrates his argument, show- 

 ing the superiority of constructive simplicity in a design 

 over another decorated with meaningless architectural 

 detail, by the contrast of London and Blackfriars Bridges; 

 but it is not so clear, as maintained in the previous page 

 that the combination of columnar and arcuate design in 

 the same wall is a " Roman sham.' It is no doubt a 



