397 



larger, if be did know of them, it was not hi* 

 business to produce them. The only temple he 

 has named is that of Vesta at Rome: and even 

 that being unfortunately larger in the diameter, 

 (a very material circumstance in the size of a 

 round building) he has vaguely alluded to the sub- 

 structions, arches, and solid basement of the tem- 

 ple at Tivoli, and says of it, that " it appears to 

 have been altogether a larger, more massive, and 

 more considerable building than either that, or 

 any other of the kind known." He really seems 

 to have felt no small embarassment on this point; 

 and allowing him to have every thing entirely his 

 own way, I do not see how he can get out of it: 

 for let all square temples be excluded, because they 

 are not round : and let no round temple be ad- 

 mitted if not dedicated to Vesta, and of a similar 

 plan to those that are; in short, let the temple of 

 Vesta at Rome, the only one he has named, be 

 the only proper object of comparison; still this 

 object of comparison chosen by himself, is, as 

 he himself informs us, larger in diameter than 

 its rival at Tivoli ! how then is the temple at Tivoli 

 to be proved larger? by means, as I imagine, of 

 " a projecting point of rock enlarged into a square 

 area by vast substructions of arches, supporting a 

 basement of solid stone above forty-five feet in 

 diameter, and nearly eight feet thick!" but is 

 all this in the plan of the Roman temple i no 

 more I believe than the enlarged rock itself: then 

 either the two temples are not of similar plans, 



