Talk:Vitruvius

---

Link removed

The item I removed was misbilled, i.e., it is not what it claims to be (influence on garden design); and (b) partial: it's merely a partial translation of the de Architectura. There are dozens of those; and this one looks like one of those junk sites, to boot. If someone feels up to it, a valid link would be to the complete translation by Morgan. Bill 20:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for removal

"Whether these writings were actually written by one author or whether they were compiled by later librarians and copyists, remains an open question." this should be removed from the page. If all ten books are read then it is apparent all were written by one person. He lists why he used ten books, lists all his references and describes in advance and references back to various portions of the ten book set. In addition the voice in all writtings are consistant.Granite07 01:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

In book viii ch ii there is a discussion on the formation of wind due to thermal air currents, similar to modern science. In book i there is a full description of the diffrent winds and their sources with no mention of the science. Though this seems to be given lip service and not true belief by the author. Possibly the later discussion is more controversial and so buried in book viii rather than more prominant in book i. Another thought is this indicates two authors or a change in scientific knowledge during the books writting, diffrent translations. Granite07 02:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

From Vitruvius's own books it is fairly clear that he was a very senior praefectus fabrum of the Roman Army. I think we can safely remove the conditional clause "possibly" from the page introduction. A conclusive solution could be to review an early translation to see if he uses the term praefectus fabrum and has subsequently been translated to english as army engineer.Granite07 07:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"See also's" removed

A See Also section, as here, is a sign of an ill-written article; I got rid of as many as could be legitimately removed. Julius Caesar is already linked in the article; there is no indication, either in this article or in the article Mamurra, why they might be related; and the Antikythera mechanism is but one example among many, of a type of ancient machinery. Vitruvius never mentions anything like it, nor is the Antikythera device known to have anything to do with Vitruvius.

• User talk:Bill Thayer#Vitruvius —Preceding unsigned comment added by Granite07 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Campbell, on the other hand, is marginally tolerable; he is, mind you, but one of a long list of Vitruvius editors and commentators, and "Vitruvius" is not infrequently part of their pen names or the titles of their works. It would be more useful — if someone is casting about for a project — to add an annotated bibliography on these Renaissance and classical Vitruvists. Bill (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Technology

I have added this section because V is frequently quoted in studies of Roman technology, and the article as it stands doesn't address this important part of his writings at all (or barely). Much more could be added, especially on the materials he describes, especially cements, pigments and also the quality of water. It cannot be an article just devoted to architecture or landscape gardening! Peterlewis (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, Vitruvius gives detailed descriptions of many construction related topics. The ten books cover basic science, materials, design, engineering, construction methods, suppliers, management, labor relations and politics. Each of these topics is an individual field today with entire bodies of related knowledge and in the case of Wikipedia entire categories.

There are two Vitruvius pages Vitruvius and De Architectura, the Vitruvius page is more focused on the man while De Architectura focuses on the man's work. Since there is only one written document and a couple references in literature from that time, it is difficult to glen much about the man himself. There is much circumstantial information since he was intricately involved in well-documented historical events.

The discussions on the nature of man and the contest for wealth or merit, the same debate that every university professor likely has at one time or another asked themselves, why do I not take the money and give up credibility. A section drawing from these passages in De Architectura and compiling them into a coherent and contextual synopsis would have merit in the Vitruvius article as insight into the man.

Vitruvius is obviously much more than an unemployed/retired army engineer who wrote some books in exchange for a grant. 128.12.170.194 (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

only in that they are listed here

"This theme runs through Vitruvius’s ten books repeatedly and here in the chapter seven introduction he illustrates this by naming some of the most talented individuals in history that are known today only in that they are listed here:" what is the objection to this sentence? It seemed to be a major point made by Vitruvius, he spent an entire section on it.128.12.170.11 (talk) 17:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)