same time appear somewhat somewhat unreasonable, that plain citizens, born, some of them at least, before it was the fashion to learn any language but their own, should be set down to a dinner of unintelligible dishes, which they dare not name for fear of a blunder, nor touch lest they mistake an ornament for an eatable, and break down a tin castle when they think they are storming a cream-tart. On such occasions I have beheld most lamentable perplexities and misunderstandings, the company being obliged to offer this, and to point to that, without daring to guess at its name. It seemed to give me some idea of the primitive ages, when language was in its infancy, and nothing could be procured without making signs for it, and when the thing obtained was seldom the thing wanted. But more strongly it reminded me of the practice of children, who learn to distinguish between harmless and hurtful, principally by burning their fingers.

To remedy this evil, therefore, if it must continue, if we must dine in French and Italian, and forbid hunger to speak English, I would propose that the Bills of Fare be printed with a translation in opposite columns, and somewhat in the manner of a Catalogue raisonné, affording the guest not only the name,

but some faint idea of the nature of what he is about to eat. But let it not be thought that, in proposing this translation, I wish to propose any thing disrespectful to my fellow-citizens. I do not mean to represent them as more ignorant than they are, far less to insinuate that their ignorance is blameable. It is surely no shame to be ignorant where Boyer and Chambaud have been silent. In proposing that a good dinner should be " done into English," I have suggested no more than what is practised every week in the highest place of entertainment we have, and among the highest company. I mean the King's Theatre in the Haymarket, where the Operas are printed in Italian and English, for the benefit of those who are so partial to the former language as to think it the only vehicle which Nature has invented to convey sounds to an English ear; and who yet do not think it necessary to look for a meaning, unless they want to know why a hero sings a song, stabs himself, or cuts a caper.

The remedy I have now proposed may perhaps be objected to by our learned Traiteurs. No man wishes to let down his own art; and

familiarity in some instances may breed contempt. It may also be objected, that eating through the medium of a translation would, in

the City, be a process rather too slow for the quantity of business to be dispatched, and that one man would be ready for the haunch before another had conned over the turbot. Reading with a glossary is acknowledged to be very painful; and what more painful than the frequent interruptions which appetite must suffer? not to speak of the invidious distinctions between dunces and clever fellows, which would spoil our social meetings. But all these objections might perhaps vanish after a little prac

tice. Late travellers have informed us that the French are so desirous of acquitting themselves with distinction in dancing, that they seldom go to a ball without a previous interview with their dancing-master. Upon the same prudent principle, and from the same laudable ambition, I am not sure whether some of our Traiteurs might not find a new and profitable employment in waiting on gentlemen in the morning, and teaching them their dinner. A few such lessons would soon enable us to dispense with the awkwardness of translation, and instruct the most illiterate to eat at sight. We ought to venerate every means that can be taken to improve the human understanding; and we must allow, that in a nation so renowned as ours, both for the theory and practice of good

feeding, there can be no species of ignorance more deplorable than that of a man who does not know what he eats, and who, if no glossarial help be at hand, is more afraid of committing a blunder, than of contracting a feit.

THE PROJECTOR. No 36.

A youth of frolics, an OLD AGE OF CARDS." POPE.

October 1804.

THE HE nature of our employment in a future state of existence is among the questions which have interested curious minds in all ages; and it is perhaps unnecessary to inform my readers that we are no nearer to a decision on this important point than when the first inquirer took his pen, and amused the world with his conjectures. There is indeed no other way of accounting for the propensity of some men to search into the mysteries which the great Author of our being has thought proper to conceal,

up

than by referring it to the exquisite pleasure which results from the ingenuity of conjecture, and which is perhaps heightened by periodical returns of inquisitiveness which cannot be satisfied with what is revealed. It is to no purpose that we refer inquirers of this description to the express words of revelation, for their minds are accustomed to reason from the present to the future, and to judge of infinity by the circumscribed affairs of the smallest part. With all that expansion of mind which is the boast of modern philosophers, they have no other measures for great, than for little occurrences; and when they "inspect a mite,” they would have us believe they can comprehend the heavens."

66

Attached thus to the little matters which are within the command of eye and ear, and too wise to give credit to a revelation which has been the belief, the hope, and the consolation of the good and wise in all ages, they have adopted what in their case seems a very proper expedient. They have determined against all faith in a future state either good or evil, and have concluded that existence must terminate with life. But while I am of opinion that this is a very prudent and consistent resolution on their part, it must not be concealed that many