DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.786#0300
chap, xivu.] PECULIARITY OF THE POLYGONAL TYPE.
283
ever masonry had the stamp of peculiarity it is this.
Not the regular isodomon of the Greeks, nor the opus reti-
culatum of the Romans has it more strongly marked. I
could as readily believe that the Corinthian capital was
invented by every nation by which it has been adopted,
as that this style of masonry had an independent origin in
every country where it has been found.7
The question next arises, to what particular race is this
peculiar masonry to be ascribed. No doubt when once
introduced, the fashion might be adopted by other tribes
than that which originated it,8 but the type, whose source
alone we are considering, would still be proper to one race.
Now at the risk of being thought to entertain old-fashioned
opinions, I must confess that I can refer it to no other than
7 The adoption of this style fcy the
Romans in the pavements of their
high-ways, in no way affects the ques-
tion. The earliest of these roads, the
Via Appia, was constructed only in the
year 442 (b.c. 312) —ages later even
than those polygonal cities which are
sometimes ascribed to the Romans;
and it may be that they but imitated
the roads of their predecessors. Still
less can the use of polygonal pavement
by the modern Florentines, be admitted
as an argument against the peculiarity
of the type, as Micali would fain have
it. Ant. Pop. Ital. I. p. 197. They
have but adhered to the style which
was handed down to them from anti-
quity, while the modern Romans have
preferred the opus reticulatum, as the
model for their pavements. And though
Micali contends for a constructive ne-
cessity, it is completely set aside by
the fact, which he mentions, that the
stone for the pavement of Florence is
brought from the heights of Fiesole;
for the horizontal cleavage of that rock
is most manifest and notorious.
Nor can the existence of polygonal
masonry in the fortresses and other
structures of the aboriginal Peruvians,
be regarded as opposed to the pecu-
liarity of the type. Too great a mys-
tery hangs over the origin of that
singular race, and of its civilization,
for us to admit them as evidence in
this question. The style seems to have
differed from that of the polygonal
masonry of the old world, resembling
it in little more than the close-fitting of
the masses. If anything is to be learned
from these structures, it is that they
contradict the doctrine of a constructive
necessity; being of granite or porphyry,
which have no polygonal cleavage ; and
are rather suggestive of a traditional
custom. See Prescott's Conquest of
Peru, I. pp. 16, 143.
8 Chevalier Bunsen maintains that
many of the polygonal fortifications of
Italy were raised by the Volsci, iEqni,
and Hemici. Ann. Inst., 1834, p. 142.
But if this be admitted, it does not
prove that the type originated with
them.
283
ever masonry had the stamp of peculiarity it is this.
Not the regular isodomon of the Greeks, nor the opus reti-
culatum of the Romans has it more strongly marked. I
could as readily believe that the Corinthian capital was
invented by every nation by which it has been adopted,
as that this style of masonry had an independent origin in
every country where it has been found.7
The question next arises, to what particular race is this
peculiar masonry to be ascribed. No doubt when once
introduced, the fashion might be adopted by other tribes
than that which originated it,8 but the type, whose source
alone we are considering, would still be proper to one race.
Now at the risk of being thought to entertain old-fashioned
opinions, I must confess that I can refer it to no other than
7 The adoption of this style fcy the
Romans in the pavements of their
high-ways, in no way affects the ques-
tion. The earliest of these roads, the
Via Appia, was constructed only in the
year 442 (b.c. 312) —ages later even
than those polygonal cities which are
sometimes ascribed to the Romans;
and it may be that they but imitated
the roads of their predecessors. Still
less can the use of polygonal pavement
by the modern Florentines, be admitted
as an argument against the peculiarity
of the type, as Micali would fain have
it. Ant. Pop. Ital. I. p. 197. They
have but adhered to the style which
was handed down to them from anti-
quity, while the modern Romans have
preferred the opus reticulatum, as the
model for their pavements. And though
Micali contends for a constructive ne-
cessity, it is completely set aside by
the fact, which he mentions, that the
stone for the pavement of Florence is
brought from the heights of Fiesole;
for the horizontal cleavage of that rock
is most manifest and notorious.
Nor can the existence of polygonal
masonry in the fortresses and other
structures of the aboriginal Peruvians,
be regarded as opposed to the pecu-
liarity of the type. Too great a mys-
tery hangs over the origin of that
singular race, and of its civilization,
for us to admit them as evidence in
this question. The style seems to have
differed from that of the polygonal
masonry of the old world, resembling
it in little more than the close-fitting of
the masses. If anything is to be learned
from these structures, it is that they
contradict the doctrine of a constructive
necessity; being of granite or porphyry,
which have no polygonal cleavage ; and
are rather suggestive of a traditional
custom. See Prescott's Conquest of
Peru, I. pp. 16, 143.
8 Chevalier Bunsen maintains that
many of the polygonal fortifications of
Italy were raised by the Volsci, iEqni,
and Hemici. Ann. Inst., 1834, p. 142.
But if this be admitted, it does not
prove that the type originated with
them.