li^ht and airy, and, as far as such a term is appli- 

 cable to such objects, of a delicate frame ; tliat is, 

 the opposite of a massy one. Its lightness, airi- 

 ness, and delicacy, considered in the point of view 

 I have mentioned, depend on the columns ; on 

 their proportion and anongemv nt ; on the free 

 space between one column a;;i! another; and be- 

 tween them all and the central tower : but should 

 you build up tlie spaces between the columns, 

 however thin the walls, there would be an end of 

 every appearance of lightness, airiness, or delicacy 

 of frame. As to the rock on which the ruin is 

 placed, and the vast sjustruction of arches, See. 

 on which Mr. Knight lays so much stress, they 

 se6m to me to have about as much to do with the 

 character of the building itself, considered as a 

 beautiful piece of architecture, as piles would 

 have had, if they had been necessary for the foun- 

 dation. 



The comparative smallness of the temple is 

 now to be taken into consideration. " Compared 

 with the Pantheon, or the temple of Peace," 

 says Mr. Knight, " it was certainly small; but 

 compared with any edifice of similar plan (the 

 proper object of comparison) it was by no means 

 so ; for though smaller in diameter than that of 

 the same goddess at Rome, it appears to have 

 been altogether a larger, more massive, and more 

 considerable building, than that, or any of the 

 kind known." The most material part of what 

 has hisjt been quoted, is contained between the 

 hooks— (" the proper object of comparisou") — 



