S9i> 



than I should have done fiom his friendly admo- 

 nitions ill private. The point in discussion is, 

 how far the qualities which Mr. Burke has as- 

 cribed to beauty, are applicable to the temple of 

 Tivoli : and it a]>pear.s, that tiie quahties of 

 smoothness and clearness, never could at any 

 time have been applicable to the stone of which it 

 is built, consequently, as far as the stone is con- 

 cerned, i am wrong. But Mr. Burke is not at 

 all implicated in my mistake, which, in9«ed, has 

 been of singular service to his theory ; as Mr. 

 Knight, in his eagerness to convict me of an 

 error in point of fact, has unintentionally given his 

 suffrage and support to the principle, and in a 

 more satisfactory manner, than he could have done 

 by the most direct and decisive approbation : for 

 how cold would any direct praise have been, com- 

 pared with the contemptuous and indignant tone 

 in which he speaks of the opposite qualities to 

 amoothness and clearness I " the colour, which 

 could never have been any other than a dingu 

 broicn! the most rugged, porous, unequal stone 

 ever used in a hi^iily wrought edifice \" As my 

 friend has, on other occasions, dwelt so much on 

 the charms of roughness and dinginess in the coats 

 of animals, and the surface of ground, it gives 

 rae great pIeHsur« to think, that 1 may hencefor- 

 ward consider him as a zealous advocate for die 

 principles of smoothnesii and clearness, wherever 

 highly wrought odificeK ar/^ concerned. 



