LIFE OF VITRUVIUS. 
The circumstances mentioned of C. Julius having possessons about the town of Imuc, and his being the 
guelt of Vitruvius (in whatever way that may be understood) in his house or his tent, argue that he was not 
the son of a king, but rather a private man of that country. 
It has before been remarked that Vitruvius was well acquainted with the buildings of Greece and Asia, and 
had therefore probably been a traveller in those countries. But, when his profession is recollected, this is ac¬ 
counted for: being an engineer, he of course accompanied the army into different countries. If he was with 
Velpasian in Africa, it is not unlikely that he also attended him when sent to command in Greece and the 
Eastern countries, where Vespasian was when elected to the empire: Vitruvius might therefore have at that 
time seen and become acquainted with the Grecian edifices. This supposition at least agrees with all the 
other arguments here advanced ; and it accounts for that acquaintance he claims in his dedication with the 
father of the emperor he addresses. 
T am here obliged to take notice of a circumstance mentioned by Galiani, in the life of Vitruvius prefixed to 
his translation. He says that Vitruvius is not knovn to be mentioned by any classic author except Pliny, who names 
bim in bis catalogue of antient writers; and by Frontinus, who mentions him as the author of the Quinarian Module, at 
the same time saying that Augustus introduced that module. 
The fact is, Pliny no where mentions Vitruvius, as I can find: the catalogue of ancient authors annexed 
to his history was not made by himself; but, as his commentator Hardouin observes, by some copyiss, who 
names Vitruvius in that catalogue of his own authority; believing that Pliny copied Vitruvius in some passages 
in which they both write similarly. I may, for the same reason, suppose that Vitruvius copied Pliny. The 
latter generally names the author from whom he copies, and in his address to Titus professes so to do; vet 
he has, in several passages, used almost the same words as Vitruvius has written, without mentioning him: it 
is therefore a presumptive evidence that he did not copy from him, and consequently that Vitruvius did not 
publish his work prior to Pliny's time of writing. 
Frontinus, it is true, does mention Vitruvius; saying, some supposed him, and some Agrippa, to be the author of 
the Quinarian Modulé : but he does not say that it was introduced by Augustus, or in his time. 
Frontinus wrote in the reign of Trajan, between whom and Titus were only Domitian and Nerva: his 
naming Vitruvius, therefore, adds to the probability that the time of Vitruvius could not be later than that 
of Titus. 
On the foregoing arguments readers will form their own judgment: it may be thought a point of no 
great importance. The ascertainment of it, however, may not be entirely useless; as numerous conclusions are 
and have been drawn from the presumption of the time of Vitruvius being coincident with that of Augustus, 
which, with all their consequences, will be erroneous, should not that be the fact; and this has induced me to 
bestow some attention on the discussion. 
(6*) The table of contents of the books of Pliny is defective in 
all the manuscripts: it cannot be that compiled by Pliny; because 
it is divided into chapters, a mode of division the antients never 
used. Pliny, in his dedication to Titus, says that he had subjoined 
the contents of the several Books: he also mentions the number of 
books to be thirty-six; but the copyists, numbering the table of 
contents made by themselves as the first book, have made the 
whole work to consist of thirty-seven. In this table the name of 
Vitruvius is inserted with those of other authors; but it is not to be 
found in the text of Pliny, at any of those places to which the re- 
ference is made, nor in any of the thirty-six books of Pliny.