364 



NATURE 



[August 15, 1895 



<ief)arture from primitive simplicity, but there seems no 

 reason for calling it a sham, in cases where both t\'pes 

 are used constructively. The " general reader " may 

 certainly be justified in passing over the "approximate 

 theory-" of the strains of arches, but the subject of pen- 

 dentives (in p. 95) is more to the point, having very impor- 

 tant relation to the construction of cupolas. Much more 

 seems to be made in the criticism on the shams of St. 

 Paul's (p. 98) than the subject warrants. The design is 

 blamed because the interior cupola is distinct from the 

 «.\ternal. There would be as much reason to blame the 

 magnificent central towers of some of our cathedrals 

 because the open lantern chamber over the crossing does 

 not rise to the summit of the tower or spire. The autKor, 

 however, duly praises Sir Christopher Wren's first design, 

 the Greek cross plan, of which a good judge, the late 

 Rev. J. L. Petit, has maintained that if this design had 

 been executed it would have been the finest interior in 

 the world. On the subject of vaulting (pp. 107-116), the 

 development of which is well and clearly followed out, it 

 is stated that the pointed arch was invciilcil for the pur- 

 pose of facilitating the construction. This could hardly 

 have been the case, because the pointed arch had been 

 used in the East long before the period referred to ; but 

 its great applicability to that favourite architectural feature 

 was then recognised, and when once introduced for con- 

 structive reasons, it soon began to influence the whole 

 stnicture. 



In p. 125 commences a chapter on the theory and use 

 of mouldings, which play so important a part in archi- 

 tectural design that it is quite essential that an amateur 

 who desires to form a right judgment on architectural 

 subjects, either historically or critically, should study 

 their development and application ; he will find the sub- 

 ject clearly and logically explained in this chapter. In 

 chapter v. are some judicious remarks on ornament, 

 showing on the one hand that however valuable a help it 

 may be, the art is really independent both of sculpture 

 and carved ornament, and that the latter is inferior in 

 expression to mouldings properly used. In pp. 184-188 

 .are some just views on the combination of architecture 

 with scener)'. Without going so far as to say that a spire 

 •on a hill — such, for instance, as Harrow — must necessarily 

 Tje ill-placed, the statement of the incongruity of this 

 feature in a mountainous country may be supported by 

 •citing the example of incongruous effect of the .\mble- 

 -.ide spire in a Westmoreland valley. 



The work ends with an historical sketch, which shows 

 ■much thought and learning. The author can, however, 

 scarcely be correct in speaking of such structures as the 

 Treasury of Atreus at Mycen.x as formed of large blocks 

 of masonr>' with no architectural details whatever. It 

 is possible that the ornate elaboration of the Beehive 

 nombs at Mycenic and Orchomenus, as shown in Pcrrot 

 and Chipiez' work, before referred to, may be a good 

 deal exaggerated ; but there certainly exists evidence 

 for a very considerable amount of architectural embellish- 

 ment. In speaking of the derivation of Ihc Corinthian 

 capital, it seems unnecessar>-, with the small amount of 

 evidence to the contrary which exists, to relegate to the 

 regions of fable the touching little story told by Vitruvius 

 (chapter iv. p. i) of its invention by Callimachus, 

 especially ai the earliest known example, in the temple . 

 NO. 1346, VOL. 52] 



at Bassa:, was the work of a contemporary, and probably 

 a friend of the reputed inventor. 



In p. 255 the very important derivation of the dome is 

 traced from the Pantheon, of which the date (in the 

 reign of Hadrian has lately been established, and then 

 the addition of the spherical pendentivc by Justinian's 

 architect i.Anthemius of Tralles) in the great church of 

 St. Sophia. To this is added the derivation of the 

 architecture of the Western churches — which is traced— 

 following Prof. Baldwin Brown (" from the Schola to 

 Cathedral ") : from the Roman house, of which the 

 atrium and peristylium became the forecourt or parvis 

 and the porch, whilst the basilica supplied the apse, ;ind 

 the widening of the basilica on each side of the tribunal 

 gave the germ of the transepts of our c.ithedrals. fn 

 the summary of the different contributions made by the 

 European nations to Ciothic architecture, Italy is denied 

 altogether a specimen of true Gothic — and yet it possesses 

 in Milan Cathedral an interior perhaps more impressive 

 than that of any other church. 



" PA R TL 'RIL 'NT MOSTESr 

 The Story of the Plants. By Grant .Allen. (London: 

 George Newnes, Limited, 1895.) 



MR. GR.ANT .\LLE\ tells the story of plants in a 

 readable and very inaccurate manner. The key- 

 note to his work is struck in his preface, in which he 

 informs his reader that he has " wasted comparatively 

 little space on mere structural detail," and, later on, that 

 he makes "trivial sacrifices of formal accuracy" in order 

 to expound general biological relationships. It is true 

 that he apologises for these amiable little weaknesses, 

 but adds, in the same breath, that he lays before his 

 " untechnical readers all the latest results of the most 

 advanced botanical research." It is impossible to avoid 

 giving some samples of these "latest results." 



Kor Mr. Grant .Allen, the plant is essentially the {,v<<7/ 

 plant, and the essential function of this plant is con- 

 structive metabolism. On the other hand the animal is 

 the very opposite of this, " he is a destroyer, as the plant 

 is a builder." But we fancy most people will hardly 

 admit this antithesis nowadays. Plants and animals 

 both exist by breaking down complex bodies to simple 

 ones, but plants as a whole can get the energy required 

 for first building up these complex bodies at a less 

 expensive outlay than animals, and the green plants, as 

 Mr. .Allen perfectly correctly observes, jirc further able 

 to make use of sources of energy {i.e. vibrations of ether) 

 from which their less fortunate relatives are debarred. 

 But to draw the distinction just quoted as the essential 

 difference between the two kingdoms, is obviously mis- 

 leading. However, Mr. Allen is at least consistent in 

 his views, since he states that the first plants "must have 

 been green." 



In the account given of the niintiis I'piraniii of the 

 building up of organic matter in the pl.mt, the author's 

 claims to up-to-date knowledge will, we fear, hardly be 

 admitted. Cl)l(iri)plnll is said to be the active agent in 

 splitting up (under the influence of sunlight) the carbon 

 dioxide and water to form starch. Now every student 

 knows that chlorophyll can do no such thing, and further 

 he knows, or should know, that starch is certainly not a 

 primary product of assimilation. The latter, i)erhaps. 



