Page:TASJ-1-1-2.djvu/214

 erection need not he more than ordinarily massive to make it capable of resisting any shock not of extraordinary violence. But in stone houses it is absolutely necessary that the masonry should be executed in a proper manner, the great point to which attention must be given being that a perfect bond is maintained throughout the entire building. Mr. Mallet in his history of the Neapolitan earthquake of 1857 gives many proofs of the truth of this. He says—“When the masonry consisted of round lumpy quadrated ovoids of soft limestone, the whole dislocation occurred through the enormously thick ill-filled mortar joints and almost all buildings thus formed fell together in the first movement in indistinguishable ruin”—“Where the masonry was of the best class, and such as would be so recognized in England, the buildings thus constructed stood uninjured in the midst of chaotic ruin. Some examples of this will be found in the second part, none more striking than the Campanile of Atena, a square tower of 90 feet in height and 22 feet square at the base, in which there was not even a fissure while all around nearly was prostrate.” “Indeed it was evident that had the towns generally been substantially and well built or rather the materials scientifically put together, very few buildings would have actually been shaken down even in those localities where the shocks were most violent. Thus the frightful loss of life and limb were as much to be attributed to the ignorance and imperfection displayed in the domestic architecture of the people, as to the unhappy natural condition of their country as regards earthquakes.” A very striking example of the advantage of solid construction over lightness and want of strength was seen not many years ago at Manila, when an earthquake levelled almost the entire town and left the Stone Lighthouse at the harbour, which is a column of masonry of great height, standing by itself perfectly unharmed. From the vast and handsome edifices which may be seen in most countries in Europe liable to earthquakes, we may conclude that their inhabitants have acknowledged the correctness of this principle, and it cannot therefore be urged on sound grounds