2\i ) 
turn p0de > But we are to note, that the Coppy of F^i^ 
truvm where it dtfcribes the nieafures of the Dido- 
roa is vicious ^ end is to becorrecfied by IHiny ^ and 
had iioc^'^^>r^W/^i's Commentatour been more a friend 
to his Author than to truth ^ he had nor perfwaded 
the contrary for the Brick? themfelves do demon- 
firate at this day Plmfs meafures to be right , 
and not thofe of Vitruvius^ as they are extant ^ which 
makes me much wonder at the confidence of Darnel 
Barbarus affirming the Bricks no v to be found , are all 
according to Vitruvius and not Vliny^ meafures; for all 
that I ha:ve yet feen with us in £«^/^/7^ are of ?//>2/s mea- 
fures as at Leifier'm the l{pman Rume chere^ called ihe "Jews 
WaU'^ at St. Albans, as I remember, and herewith usac 
Tork^ And to go no farther for Arguments than this very 
Chapter of Vitruvius^ the DipUfithij Parietes in ]^me were 
againftlaw, and the fingleErick all was onely allowed 
as Standard^ a foot and a half thick WalL or one 
w^;? Brick a lengthy as was above noted. 
P//>2y lived fometitne after Vitruvius^ and being a pro- 
fefled Tranfcriber, and as it appears from this very place,, 
having taken the whole bufinefs of Brick almofV i;^ri?i////^ 
out of him and not difFtring in any one thing ia 
the whole Chapter , but in this , or the meafure 
of the Didorofh And the Bricks demonftrating the 
truth of that diflFerence, it is but reafonable we fliould 
m^kt l itruvim*^ longumpede latum femipede^^ fault oiVitru^ 
vim CoppyerS. 
I ftiall conclude this difcourfe with this remark>that pro- 
portion,and a plain uniformityjeven in the minuteft parts of 
building, is to be obferved, as this miferable xxM^i^man 
wprkmanfliip fliewf; Inour Gothick Buildings there is a To- 
tal negledl of the meafure, and proportion of the Courfes as 
tho that was not much material to the beauty of the whole, 
whereas indeed in Natures works it is from the Sym- 
mietry q£ the very Grain, whence arifes much of the 
beauty 
