TO THE REV.  WILLIAM UNWIN.

  “May 3rd, 1784.

“MY DEAR FRIEND,—­The subject of face painting may be considered, I think, in two points of view.  First, there is room for dispute with respect to the consistency of the practice with good morals; and secondly, whether it be on the whole convenient or not, may be a matter worthy of agitation.  I set out with all the formality of logical disquisition, but do not promise to observe the same regularity any further than it may comport with my purpose of writing as fast as I can.

“As to the immorality of the custom, were I in France, I should see none.  On the contrary, it seems in that country to be a symptom of modest consciousness, and a tacit confession of what all know to be true, that French faces have in fact neither red nor white of their own.  This humble acknowledgment of a defect looks the more like a virtue, being found among a people not remarkable for humility.  Again, before we can prove the practice to be immoral, we must prove immorality in the design of those who use it; either that they intend a deception, or to kindle unlawful desires in the beholders.  But the French ladies, so far as their purpose comes in question, must be acquitted of both these charges.  Nobody supposes their colour to be natural for a moment, any more than he would if it were blue or green:  and this unambiguous judgment of the matter is owing to two causes; first, to the universal knowledge we have, that French women are naturally either brown or yellow, with very few exceptions; and secondly, to the inartificial manner in which they paint; for they do not, as I am most satisfactorily informed, even attempt an imitation of nature, but besmear themselves hastily, and at a venture, anxious only to lay on enough.  Where therefore there is no wanton intention, nor a wish to deceive, I can discover no immorality.  But in England, I am afraid, our painted ladies are not clearly entitled to the same apology.  They even imitate nature with such exactness that the whole public is sometimes divided into parties, who litigate with great warmth the question whether painted or not?  This was remarkably the case with a Miss E——­, whom I well remember.  Her roses and lilies were never discovered to be spurious, till she attained an age that made the supposition of their being natural impossible.  This anxiety to be not merely red and white, which is all they aim at in France, but to be thought very beautiful, and much more beautiful than Nature has made them, is a symptom not very favourable to the idea we would wish to entertain of the chastity, purity, and modesty of our countrywomen.  That they are guilty of a design to deceive is certain.  Otherwise why so much art? and if to deceive, wherefore and with what purpose?  Certainly either to gratify vanity of the silliest kind, or, which is still more criminal, to decoy and inveigle, and carry on more successfully the business of temptation.  Here, therefore,