The ornaments of architecture must be correct in design, since no degree of costliness in their materials or their workmanship can compensate for any defect in proportion, order, or disposition. The eye of good taste will be equally offended with columns too large or too small, too near or too far apart; in short, with every deviation from the established rules of the respective orders, whether such column be composed of marble, of stone, or of plastered brick-work; the costliness of the material makes no difference in the design; but this is not the case with decorations. The cheapness and facility with which good designs may be multiplied in papier mache, or putty composition, have encouraged bad taste in the lavish profusion of tawdry embellishment. This consideration leads me to assert, that every species of enrichment or decoration ought to be costly, either in its materials or in its workmanship: and if we attend to the common opinion of all, except children and savages, we shall find that no real value is attached to any decoration, except upon this principle; on the contrary, it becomes contemptible in proportion as it affects to seem what it is not *.
*[If a lady of high rank were to decorate her person with gauze and gilt paper, with glass beads, and the feathers of common English birds, instead of muslins and gold lace, diamonds, and the feathers of an ostrich, or a bird of paradise, although she might be equally brilliant, and even dispose her dress with grace and fancied taste, we should pronounce it tromperie, as affecting to seem what it is not.]
