389 



tures might not have been made, if he had 

 considered who was the speaker. There 

 are places where it is a matter of in- 

 difference ; it was perfectly immaterial, for 

 instance, whether the blunder came from 

 Mr. Seymour, or Mr. Hamilton, as I cer- 

 tainly did not mean that either of them 

 should speak like a madman, or an ideot ; 

 but the character of the speaker is by no 

 means indifferent where he accuses me 

 (perhaps by way of recrimination for a si- 

 milar charge on my side) of having used the 

 epithets beautiful and lovely as synony- 

 mous, and denned the one by the other.* 

 As love, however, has always been the na- 

 tural effect of beauty, and as the goddess of 

 beauty is also the goddess of love, I should 

 not feel much ashamed, if I had been con- 

 victed of having made this synonym and 

 definition in my own proper character, or 

 through my representative, Mn Hamilton ; 

 but my antagonist ought to have observed, 

 that it is not Mr. Hamilton, but Mr. Sey- 



* Analytical Inquiry , part 2. chap, g sec. 79, at th© end. 



▼ 01. III. 



D I) 



