To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This article presents hitherto overlooked documents at Vassar College in the United States relating to the character and reputation of the architect John Soane (1753–1837). The antiquarian and topographic author John Britton (1771–1857), a lifelong friend and associate of Soane, planned to write a ’tell-all’ biography in which he would reveal the malicious nature of the architect, and his obsession with remembrance and veneration, to scandalous effect. The scope and purpose of Britton’s intended exposé are established here through notes and correspondences that describe the resentful microclimate of the architects, writers, employees and family members in Soane’s orbit. A further manuscript by Britton, which satirises his devotion to Soane and the architect’s house museum, is also analysed. In the process, the article broaches the role of architectural journalism in fashioning the reputations of architects and their private and public personas in early Victorian London. It also considers the relationship of temperament to architectural invention and historiographic permutations in the controversial appraisal of Soane.
The potential for future commercialization of glyphosate-resistant wheat necessitates evaluation of agronomic merits of this technology. Experiments were established to evaluate glyphosate-resistant wheat and weed responses to glyphosate rate, application timing, and tank mixtures. Glyphosate at 1,680 g/ha did not injure wheat. Wheat response to glyphosate applied to one- to three- or three- to five-leaf wheat was not different from that of untreated wheat. Wheat was injured more from glyphosate plus thifensulfuron or glyphosate plus dicamba than from individual herbicides at one of six locations, but grain yield was not affected by glyphosate tank mixtures. Glyphosate application timing did not affect control of wild oat or common lambsquarters 56 d after treatment. Glyphosate when applied to one- to three-leaf wheat provided better control of wild buckwheat than later glyphosate application, whereas glyphosate applied to three- to five-leaf wheat provided the best control of green and yellow foxtail, redroot pigweed, and Canada thistle. Weed control with glyphosate tended to be better than with conventional herbicides, and wheat treated with glyphosate produced approximately 10% more grain than wheat treated with conventional herbicide tank mixes.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.