bits of rock, or rude ftones, arching over the coves beneath them; that both these banks, if not within view of the windows, were within the circuit of the home walk: Would you, by way of making the two parts of the fame character, and the whole more ftrictly beautiful, destroy these rough projecting trees, the rude ftones, the broken ground with its accompaniments, and all their varied reflections in the water? Were you to hint that fuch a thing were poffible, you must abdicate the first part of your title. You might say, however, that being there you would not destroy them. But could you with a wish make the whole foft and beautiful could you make it fo without the expence of new work, and the rawness of its effect, and at once give it the fringe and mellowness of the other part; would you do it? would you give up the variety and contraft of the two characters, and the relief G they they would give to each other? would you not rather preserve to each its distinct style, and be careful how you introduced too much foftness and fmoothness into the ruder fcene? would you not confider how to make the most, both of the effect of contrast, and of connection; by fometimes going abruptly from one scene to the other, and by fometimes gradually foftening the picturesque into the beautiful, and infenfibly blending the one with the other? would you not do the fame by any other scenery of the fame kind? Were a wild entangled dingle, with rocks, and a headlong torrent, near the house; would you not be cautious how you deprived it in too great a degree, of its rude, and even entangled look? and would you not, while you facilitated the communication, avoid the appearance of doing fo, and the conftant parade of a walk; would you not think yourfelf lucky, if from a dressed part of the plea fure fure-ground-from out of a flower-gardenyou could fuddenly burst into a scene of this kind?-Should you tell me that near the house, and, where the walks extended, you would wish all this to be fmooth and undulating, and every mark of roughness and abruptness destroyed-I would freely fay, that no profeffed improver ought ever to be admitted, except where a profeffed improver had been before; and where the Coffacks had been rifling, the Pandours might be allowed to plunder. Thefe, however, are fcenes in which the picturesque ftrongly prevails; but there are a number of others, where the whole is in a high and prevailing degree beautiful, but where there are touches of the other character which give spirit to its softness; and this is what in many parts of my Effay I have endeavoured to point out. For instance, in the most fimply beautiful river the cur G2 rent rent will partially undermine the banks, and in places discover the foil, the roots of trees, or beds of rocks; there will be places where cattle come down to the water, and where stones and broken gravel will be left on the fhore; there will be various interruptions to softness and smoothness, which instead of destroying, or weakening, enhance their charms: but if you renounce the picturefque, and make choice of unmixed beauty only, all these must either be destroyed, or in a great measure concealed: and after all, we should never forget that the beautiful is no more the immediate refult of smoothness, undulation, and ferpentine lines, than the picturesque is of roughness, abruptness, and fudden variation; and that beauty, the most free from any thing rough, is ftill very different from what Mr. Brown intended for beauty, as I hope to fhew more fully towards the end of this Letter. Perhaps you will tell me I have mistaken your meaning; that by beauty you do not mean to confine yourself to what is merely fmooth and undulating, nor to to exclude many of those natural circumftances which though rough and abrupt, yet when not too prevalent, accord with, and add to the general effect; which effect is beauty. Should you fay fo, you will fay precisely what I have faid throughout my book: but in that case what is the difpute about? You agree with me in my distinction between the two characters; they must be either mixed or unmixed: if you take beauty alone, separated from the picturesque, you must not admit of any thing rough or abrupt with what is fmooth and undulating, (except where nature has indivifibly mixed them together, or where they are foftened and disguised by other circumstances) else it is not unmixed beauty according to our notions. If you G 3 once |