"TO THE AUTHOR OF THE PROJECTOR.

" SIR,

"THERE are few papers, in Mr. Urban's Miscellany, which afford me more amusement or instruction than those which discuss the merits of the antient and modern architecture of this kingdom. I am, indeed, decidedly of that gentleman's opinion who claims what is called the Gothic for the pure invention of this country, and therefore you may suppose me the better pleased with his lucubrations. We always think well of those who think as we do. But, Sir, with all this fortunate coincidence of opinion, perhaps I may carry my dislike to Architectural Innovation farther than he does, because very disagreeable specimens of it meet my eye in places where he is not accustomed to look for themnot in cathedrals, and chapels, and castles, but at the Opera, the theatres, and public assemblies, at routs and breakfasts, in the Mall, on the Esplanade at Weymouth, and on the Steyne at Brighton.

"You may already conceive that I allude to the architecture of the female structure, which has been lately subjected to many innovations, in what Mr. Urban's correspondent would call

the fantastic style. Every old woman, or, to speak more respectfully, every elderly lady, I consider as a fine piece of Gothic architecture; which, although injured by time, still discovers the hand of a master, and is venerable even in ruins. With such sentiments, you may conceive how I am shocked to behold those awkward attempts at repairs, in which there is such a mixture of the orders as cannot

be reconciled to any acknowledged principles of taste. Who, indeed, that fosters my prejudices, can restrain his indignation when he sees one of these antique edifices hid behind a modern Grecian front, beplastered and painted with as little taste as a church displays on that happy day when we first read in golden letters that it was REPAIRED and BEAUTIFIED : Humphrey Wigsby and Jonathan Hod, CHURCHWARDENS!' Who, I say, can behold this, and not deplore the barbarity and confusion which strive to unite the architecture of distant and discordant ages! Yet I am well assured, that, in repairing these edifices, it is always the practice to employ the youngest and most unexperienced architects, who never consider nor wish to study the principles of the building itself, how long it is likely to stand, or whether there would not be a greater pro

priety in repairing defects so as to preserve the style of the age to which it belongs. How common it is to see a new Grecian front, or screen, which is intended to give an idea of a building not above twenty or thirty years old, and yet the owner knows that building to be thrice that age, and the columns, if examined properly, will be found tottering on their bases, and even the roof seems damaged beyond all repair! Such things remind us of those whimsical erections called deceptions, which are intended to take in country clowns, or cocknies, but must appear in their true light to every judicious eye. You observe also, in those modern architectural innovations, a profusion of ornaments, which are so totally out of place, that every child must see they are valuable only in themselves, and not on account of any addition they make to the building, with which, in truth, they have no connexion. But, what is yet worse, the materials are so flimsy that they often disappear in a night, and are so little calculated for our climate as to be affected with very slight variations both of heat and cold. Here is therefore

may

A

expence without profit, and with very little show. The object, I know, is to ornament those buildings with the attributes of Venus,

Juno, Minerva, and other goddesses; but what is this? is it not that introduction of heathen mythology into Christian temples, which every man of taste must censure? Besides, the purpose is not answered; while Infidelity is propagated, Sneerers increase; but where are the true worshipers?

"I am, Mr. PROJECTOR,

"Their methods various, but alike their aim, The SLOVEN and the FOPLING are the same."

YOUNG.

October 1803.

THE HE ingenious Mr. SHENSTONE was a Projector of some eminence in his day, and one of his best Projects was that which had dress for its object, and which, falling in my way a few days ago, suggested the present paper. The

result of his lucubrations he conveys in the following words:

"If dress were only authorized in men of ingenuity, we should find many aiming at the previous merit in hopes of the subsequent distinction. The finery of an empty fellow would render him as ridiculous as a star and garter would one never knighted; and men would use as commendable a diligence to qualify themselves for a brocaded waistcoat, or a gold snuff-box, as they now do to procure themselves a right of investing their limbs in lawn or ermine. We should not esteem a man a coxcomb for his dress, till, by frequent conversation, we discovered a flaw in his title. If he was incapable of uttering a bon mot, the gold upon his coat would seem foreign to his circumstances. A man should not wear a French dress till he could give an account of the best French authors; and should be versed in all the Oriental languages before he should presume to wear a diamond."

On this scheme of my worthy predecessor I cannot refrain from making a remark, which probably has occurred already to most of my. readers, namely, how melancholy a circumstance it is in the fate of us Projectors, that our schemes, whether adopted or rejected, are