350 



served. I will now proceed to give the 

 particular instances of those points in which 

 we differ. 



Mr. Gilpin observes, that a piece of 

 Palladian architecture may be elegant in 

 the last degree; the proportion of its parts, 

 the propriety of its ornaments, the sym- 

 metry of the whole, may be highly pleas- 

 ing ; but, if we introduce it in a picture, it 

 immediately becomes a formal object, and 

 " ceases to please," He adds, " should we 

 wish to give it picturesque beauty, we 

 must, from a smooth building, turn it into 

 a rough ruin." 



Mr. Gilpin's first point was to shew 

 that a building to be picturesque, must 

 neither be smooth nor regular ; and so far 

 we agree. But then, to shew how much 

 picturesque beauty (to use his expression) 

 is preferred by painters to all other beauty, 

 nay, how unfit beauty alone is for a pic- 

 ture, he asserts, that a piece of regular and 

 finished architecture becomes a formal 

 object, and ceases to please when intro- 



