114 



treated, to mix afew observations on smooth- 

 ness with some farther remarks I have to 

 offer on the opposite quality of roughness. 

 I am indeed highly interested in the ques- 

 tion, for if this principle of Mr. Burkes 

 should be false, if smoothness should not 

 be an essential quality of beauty, if ob- 

 jects be as generally beautiful where rough- 

 ness, as where smoothness prevails, and 

 lastly, if, as many have supposed, all that 

 strongly attracts and captivates the eye be 

 included in the sublime and the beautiful, 

 my distinction of course must fall to the 

 ground. I cannot help flattering myself, 

 however, that the having considered and 

 compared the three characters together, 

 has thrown a reciprocal light on each ; 

 and that the picturesque fills up a vacancy 

 between the sublime and the beautiful, and 

 accounts for the pleasure we receive from 

 many objects, on principles distinct from 

 them both ; which objects should therefore 

 be placed in a separate class. 



In the last chapter I have endeavoured 



