_Lord Curryfin._ (_who, having observed Mr. MacBorrowdale's determination not to be drawn into an argument, amused himself with asking his opinion on all subjects_). What is your opinion, Mr. MacBorrowdale? _Mr. MacBorrowdale._ I hold to the opinion I have already expressed, that this is as good a glass of port as ever I tasted. _Lord Curryfin._ I mean your opinion of modern music and musical instruments. _Mr. MacBorrowdale._ The organ is very good for psalms, which I never sing, and the pianoforte for jigs, which I never dance. And if I were not to hear either of them from January to December, I should not complain of the privation. _Lord Curryfin._ You are an utilitarian, Mr. MacBorrowdale. You are all for utility--public utility--and you see none in music. _Mr. MacBorrowdale._ Nay, not exactly so. If devotion is good, if cheerfulness is good, and if music promotes each of them in proper time and place, music is useful. If I am as devout without the organ, and as cheerful without the piano, as I ever should be with them, that may be the defect of my head or my ear. I am not for forcing my tastes or no-tastes on other people. Let every man enjoy himself in his own way, while he does not annoy others. I would not deprive you of your enjoyment of a brilliant symphony, and I hope you would not deprive me of my enjoyment of a glass of old wine. _The Rev. Dr. Opimian_: 'Très mihi convivae prope dissentire videntur, Poscentes vario multum diversa palate'{1} 1 Three guests dissent most widely in their wishes: With different taste they call for different dishes. _Mr. Falconer._ Nor our reverend friend of the pleasure of a classical quotation. _The Rev. Dr. Opimian._ And the utility, too, sir: for I think I am indebted to one for the pleasure of your acquaintance. _Mr. Falconer._ When you did me the honour to compare my house to the Palace of Circe. The gain was mine. _Mr. Pallet._ You admit, sir, that the Greeks had no knowledge of perspective. _The Rev. Dr. Opimian._ Observing that they had no need of it. Their subject was a foreground like a relievo. Their background was a symbol, not a representation. 'No knowledge' is perhaps too strong. They had it where it was essential. They drew a peristyle, as it appeared to the eye, as accurately as we can do. In short, they gave to each distinct object its own proper perspective, but to separate objects they did not give their relative perspective, for the reason I have given, that they did not need it.