same time that they feed on the luxury of complaint, and to declare that they are unhappy from the very circumstances which seem to afford them the greatest pleasure. Whatever other indulgence may be allowed, this wayward disposition certainly ought to be checked; nor ought they upon any account to be permitted to complain that they are exposed to laughter or pity, since one or other of these emotions is inseparable from the lot of all who are so happy as to experience none of the real calamities of life, and so miserable as to substitute petty vexations and ridiculous distresses. THE PROJECTOR. No 80. "Qui timet his adversa, fere miratur eodem Quo cupiens pacto: pavor est utrobique molestus.” HOR. "If weak the pleasure that from these can spring, PEOPLE POPE. February 1808. EOPLE OF FASHION, is a title given to few, arrogated by many, and envied by all. There is, however, a considerable and an acknowledged difficulty in understanding precisely what it means, and who are the happy persons thus separated from the majority of their fellowcreatures. Many attempts indeed have been made, to draw a line of circumvallation around them, by means of such a definition as shall secure their privileges, and exclude all pretenders. But although no combination of words has yet been formed that can render the matter so plain to the meanest capacity, as to prevent mistakes and disputes; we all are apt to think that we know People of Fashion when we see them and have the still greater presumption to think we know what we mean when we speak of those beings whom Nature or Art has placed beyond our reach, and only occasionally within our horizon. There are many grounds for supposing that in both cases we should be very much perplexed to explain our meaning, and to make that known to others, which, until the question is put, we think so familiar to ourselves. One reason for this loose species of incommunicable knowledge is, that we have lately taken it into our heads, that People of Fashion are become exceedingly numerous, and that their numbers may be at all times easily increased. Hence we no longer think it necessary to retain in our memories those nice distinctions which indicate a more confined sect. We fancy that it would be quite superfluous to explain what is obvious to the senses; and that to ask what is a Person of Fashion would be as childish as to ask what is an Englishman, or to what country Frenchmen, Germans, or Italians, belong. People of Fashion is almost the only combination in which the word People is used in a superior, genteel, and commanding sense. All other people are those "whom nobody knows," and may be classed with the multitude, the mob, the canaille, or the vulgar. But by adding the magic words " of Fashion," People assumes a higher tone, becomes the mouths of the most beautiful, as well as of the most eloquent speakers, and is not thought unworthy to stand in the same line with the most lofty titles known in the Heralds' Office. As I have stated that there are great difficulties in the way of those who would wish to illustrate People of Fashion by a definition, it may be supposed my duty to take care that this important matter shall be no longer in the dark. But in order to achieve this purpose, after all due deliberation and examination of many documents, I question whether I can recommend to my curious readers any other method than first to inquire what Fashion imports. Perhaps it may be urged that this is only evading one difficulty, by plunging into another; but if this be the case, it is not my fault that terms are so often used either with, out a meaning, or with one very difficult to be explained. The method now proposed, I am willing to own, may not appear the easiest; yet I am certain it is the only infallible one, according to all the rules of logick. In other cases it has never been known to fail. When, we wish to know the character of a man of learning, or a woman of sense, we have only to go to our dictionaries, or consult our intelligent friends as to learning and sense, and the question is immediately put in a train to be deeided. I say put in a train to be decided, for I am not ignorant that even learning in men, and sense in women, have their peculiar difficulties, although they may be removed a little sooner than the unintelligible mysteries of Fashion. We shall not perhaps advance very far on this subject, by stating, what nevertheless is very true, that Fashion is the custom of the few, for the admiration of the many. It will still be asked, what is that custom, and who are the few? and thus we shall be moving round, but not going forwards. For my own part, I am inclined to think that Fashion is one of those personages, or things, which are composed partly of what is visible, and partly of what is invisible. The visible part of Fashion is so constantly changing, that he who is required to say what it is, may justly plead that it never stays long enough be examined. As to the incorporeal part, its influence, government, or tyranny, of the great numbers who feel it, few are able to say in what manner it |