243 



to be l^eautiful, and if the substituting of 

 those which he has assigned to tlie sublime, 

 Mould give them that character and no 

 other — then the distinction he has made, is 

 founded in truth and nature. 



This leads me to consider, whethe^ by 

 rendering such buildings jiicturesque, we 

 should not equally destroy their beauty. 

 For the purpose of this inquiry, I could 

 >vish that any person who was desirous of 

 attending to the subject, and v/ho had be- 

 fore him the print of the sea-port I have 

 been mentioning, would reflect on a circum- 

 stance which I have not dwelt upon in the 

 distinction between the beautiful and the 

 sublime — that of symmetry. I wish him 

 to observe, how the continuity, succession, 

 and correspondence of the lines and parts, 

 make the eye glide easily from one to the 

 other. Fu'st, let him attend to the unbroken 

 syrcession of the columns in the round 

 portico, and that of the cornice and the 

 balustrade on the top o^it ; then the sym- 

 metry of the two square towers in the fur-' 



R 2 



