275 



in detail, would be to talk a volume ; but, 

 in reality, you have yourself explained a 

 very principal distinction between the two 

 characters : the set of objects we have been 

 looking at, struck you with their singula- 

 rity; but instead of thinking them beau- 

 tiful, you were disposed to call them ugly : 

 now, I should neither call them beautiful, 

 nor ugly, but picturesque ; for they have 

 qualities highly suited to the painter and 

 his art, but which are, in general, less at- 

 tractive to the bulk of mankind ; whereas 

 the qualities of beauty, are universally 

 pleasing and alluring to all observers/' 

 c " I must own," said Mr. Seymour, 

 <fi that it is some relief to me to find, that, 

 according to your doctrine, I am not forced 

 to call an ugly thing beautiful ; yet, still, 

 by the help of a middle term, may avoid 

 the offence I must otherwise give to paint- 

 ers. But what most surprises me, and 

 what I wish you to explain, is, that those 

 objects which you and Howard so rnuch 

 admired, and which he called beautiful, 

 not only appeared to me ugly, but very 



