397 



ence or distinction between them. Now it 

 seems to me that this is precisely what lie 

 sets out by declaring; for after having 

 given it as his opinion, that the distinction 

 which I have made is imaginary, he says 

 " the picturesque is merely that kind of 

 beauty which belongs exclusively to the 

 sense of vision, or to the imagination guided 

 by that sense." I really have considered 

 this definition with the best attention I 

 have been able to give it, and I can only 

 understand from it, that the picturesque is 

 merely the beautiful in visible objects, that 

 the word cannot be applied to the beauti- 

 ful in sounds, smells, &c. but that with 

 those exclusions, it is the very same as the 

 beautiful, and of course may be applied 

 on all occasions where visible beauty is 

 talked of ■ for after all " that kind of beauty 

 which belongs exclusively to the sense of 

 seeing," can mean nothing more than is 

 expressed in the two words — visible beauty. 

 If this be So, (and I do not comprehend 

 how it can be otherwise) the picturesque, 

 according to Mr. Knight's own definition, is 



VOL. III. E E 



