OPSERVATIONS ONTHT 
i e e n e e eneie e ine 
e en e e e e e ene eneien 
le en ne e ene h e e enen eie elede 
i e ene e n ene en enene 
e e e e enen e one ene nde e ea ben 
sen ene e e e e ede en in eni e no ie 
selene en ehe e ene e e e he an e e ene e 
teisie e enhn e ne ehe e e e e ene ene ein 
hene en ne hehenge o eie o hih he hndelanenelie ad. 
ehe e he ne i ehi einei eninshe nehoe eis n enieg and alo enein, 
Ce and an ile to forner s ndent he chre later s ligin or er hi ovn ine agres 
etedh vel ih hetine hi wring opofng ito hare beninthereign df Augutis. 
I must he aloved here is lome focein thele arguanents, but hey cnnot be sid o bentirchy conduive, 
for the irdt aguinentonly proves hat Virwvius did not write nuch before the tine of Augustns, and in no 
wife renders it evident that he did not vritelong after. Ir he mentions none of those buildings that were erected 
during or after the réign of Augustus, it may be suposed he had no ocasion to mention them, they mighit 
not be the examples he wanted. 
Iy ansier to the second argument, it may be faid, that though Vitruvius does not treat of amphitheatres, 
vet neither does he treat of circuses, which were buildings equally worthy of description, and had been in ule 
some ages before the time of Augustus. But, as he mentions both these kinds of buildings, it is certain that 
amphitheatres wère in ule in his time. Why he did not describe them we know not; however, his not 
describing them is no proof that they were unknown when he wrote; on the contrary, his manner of mentioning 
them, implies they were in common use in his days: and, as we know by history that those buildings were 
not in common use till near the time of Titus, it consequently amounts to a proof on the other side the question, 
viz, that he did not write till near that time. 
THE third argument is answered by observing, that the theatre of Pompey, being the first built of stone, 
might of course be called the Stone Theatre at its first building, to distinguish it from all others, which at that 
time were of wood; and, having obtained that appellation at first, might ever after retain it. So, in our days, 
Newgate still retains the name of one of our old city gates, and Pont Neuf of an old bridge at Paris, though the 
circumstance from which they first obtained those names, (viz. their being then new) no longer exists. It is 
true we cannot be certain that this was the case with Pompey's theatre; but neither can we be certain that it 
was not the case. This argument, therefore, is balanced; and is conclusive neither on one side nor the other. 
THE fourth argument is not more conclusive than the former ; for the manner in which Vitruvius mentions 
the authors there named, agree as well with the time of Titus as with that of Augustus; for, as there was 
only a term of sixty-five years between the reigns of those two emperors, and as Vitruvius was old when he 
published his books, he might well confider the former two of those authors as ancient, in comparison of the 
latter three, who might have been living in or near his own time. 
THE arguments on the contrary side the question are, 
ist, THE answer before made to the second argument concerning amphitheatres. 
(*) See the seventh chapter of the first book,