sga 



and therefore, by his own restriction, not proper 

 objects of comparison, or, as far as the plans are 

 similar, the Roman temple is, by his own ac- 

 count, the larger. 



I have hitherto endeavoured to shew, that 

 Mr. Knight's charges are not well founded: 

 one mistake however, I must acknowledge. 

 I had chosen to imagine from the elegant 

 character of the temple at Tivoli, that the 

 stone of which it was built must have accorded 

 with it : but 1 can have no doubt that the material 

 employed, was the common rough stone of the 

 country : and the natural inference, which every- 

 one must draw from Mr. Knight's account of it 

 is, that the colour and surface of the temple must 

 always have been the exact reverse of what I had 

 supposed: for he says, " the colour is that of the- 

 rough Tiburtine stone, which never could have 

 been any other than a dingy brown" and that 

 te so far from being smooth, it is . . . . » 

 built of the most rugged, porous, unequal stone, 

 #ver employed in a highly wrought edifice." I 

 have always been fully sensible of the advantages 

 1 should have received, in having my errors cor- 

 rected, while only in manuscript, by such a friend 

 as Mr. Knight, instead of having them sought for 

 and attacked, after they had appeared in print, by 

 such an adversary; on the present occasion, how- 

 ever, I am not sure whether I rmjy not derive 

 «iore advantage from this public hostile attack. 



