and gloriosissime, occur in the Codex, lib. i. tit. 1. I cannot but think that these are sufficient authorities for Milton's use of it. The word, as we have seen, was used in a good sense in the time of Tiberius, if not of Plautus; and it did not cease to be so used in the time of Justinian. It seems not altogether impertinent to add, that Suetonius has, "Non minus gloriosi quam civilis animi" (in vita Claudii, c. i.); and Valerius Maximus, "Gloriosum militis spiritum" (lib. viii. c. 14.); and that it would be difficult, as I apprehend, to give a solid reason why we may not say, vir gloriosus, as well as gloriosus animus, or gloriosus spiritus viri. Dr. Johnson has told us, that Salmasius, in his reply to Milton, (which was published by his son in the year of the Restoration) being probably most in pain for his Latinity, endeavours in the beginning to defend his use of the word persona: "But if I remember right," says the Doctor, "he misses a better authority than any that he has found, that of Juvenal in his fourth satire : -Quid agas, cum dira et fœdior omni But the old scholiast has, "Non homo sed persona ;" and he would not, I think, be much out of the way, who should assert, that the word persona, in this place, answers to our word character. "Qui de personis Horatianis scripserunt, aiunt Mænium scurrilitate notissimum Romæ fuisse." (Vet. Schol. in Hor. lib. i. sat. 3.) But the satire would, I think, be heightened, if we consider the word in Juvenal as expressive of rank and dignity: Nil fuerit mf, inquit, cum uxoribus unquam alienis; HOR. 1 Sat. ii. 57. "Persona dignitatis est nomen; sic et Cicero dicit esse qui sentiant philosophiam indignam esse persona. Cornelius Celsus plene splendidam dicit personam; modo matronam dicit personam; præsertim vero honoratiorem." (Baxter, ad locum.) Hence undoubtedly the word parson; which is now (such is the mutability of language!) almost a term of reproach. I have never seen Salmasius's Reply, and therefore do not know what authorities, for his use of persona, he may have quoted; but, upon looking into Valerius Maximus on this occasion, I have met with four passages which an inattentive reader might think much to his purpose; which, however, in my judgment, do not come up to the point. "Suspecta matris familiæ persona." lb. viii. c. I. 12. Here the word signifies character." Neque haustum sui cum aliquo personarum discrimine largum malignumve præbet," &c. lib. iii. cap. 3, ad fin. Here it means rank or condition.—“Ne ego in tua persona et accusatoris, et testis, et judicis partes egisse videar." lib. iv. c. I. 10. Here also it seems to signify rank or condition.--"Ac ne quid in persona sua novaretur, ibid. And here it may very properly be translated, one of his rank and quality. Ainsworth has given two instances in which he thought persona was used for person; and yet it may be questioned whether either of them fully answers his purpose. "Prospicias-ecqua pacifica persona desideretur, an in bellatore sint omnia." (Cic. ad Attic. viii. 12.) "Heroicæ persone Medea et Atreus." (Cic. de Nat. Deor. lib. iii. 29.) I see no reason why the word may not be interpreted character in both places. At first sight one is struck with the following passage as an unexceptionable proof of this word in Salmasius's sense; Qui illum Persam, atque omnes Persas, atque omnes per sonas, Male dii omnes perdant. Plauti Pers. And yet it is possible, after all, that the author meant no more than the dramatis persona. Seneca will, however, furnish us with a passage that will undeniably prove that Milton was mistaken if he meant to insinuate that persong was never applied as we apply the word person. "In mea tamen persona non pro te dolet." Conşol. ad Helviam, c, xvii, It is clear that Milton has not said that persona signifies only a mask. His words are, "Quid enim, quæso, est parricidium in persona regis admittere, quid in persona regis? quæ unquam Latinitas sic locuta est? nisi aliquem nobis forte Pseudophilippum narras, qui personam regis indutus nescio quid parricidii apud Anglos patraverit; quod verbum verius opinione tua ex ore tibi excidisse puto. Tyrannus enim quasi histrionalis quidam rex, larva tantum et persona regis, non verus rex est." (Præf.) In persona regis does not necessarily signify in the king's person. Salmasius might have defended himself by saying, he only meant in one of royal rank. And Milton may possibly have intended no more than to express his doubts whether parricidium admittere in p. r. was good Latin for to commit a parricide on one of royal rank. "Ne quid turpe in se admittere," is the language of Terence; but, "Ne quid turpe in alio admittere," if such a passage could be found, would, I suppose, be generally understood to signify conniving at a crime, not committing it, or indeed suffering under it. Pœnas reponit Nemesis. Catul. 1786, July. NEMESIS. XCIV. On the promiscuous use of the Articles A and an. MR. URBAN, As your Miscellany will probably survive as long as the English language itself shall exist, you will not, I presume, receive with indifference any communication which may conduce to its propriety or tend to its improvement. There is an inconsistency, frequently practised by our best writers, which deforms our language, and greatly embarrasses foreigners who wish to learn it; and this isthe promiscuous use of the particles a and an, before words which begin with the letter h. The confusion arising from this inaccuracy is the greater, because it is not occasioned. solely by different authors varying from each other, but by the same author not unfrequently differing from himself in this matter. I will beg leave to state a list of examples in proof of what I have just advanced: and will request your permission to subjoin to that list some remarks and reflections subject at large. upon the This list of examples might be extended to an enormous length. Many of them are contradictions of the same author to himself. Those which I will venture to subjoin, shall be wholly such.. A Homer casts them away Giving us an Homer. Your readers, Mr. Urban, will wish to see the question determined as to the comparative propriety of the two preceding and opposite columns. They cannot both be right: unless it be right that the English nation should use a confused and incongruous jargon, rather than a regular language defined by known and precise rules. 66 a In order to lead to this determination, let it be remarked, that the letter H is in the English, as in other languages, note of aspiration, sounded only by a strong emission of the breath, without any conformation of the organs of speech." If this definition be just (and I see no reason to distrust its correctness), it seems that the usage of the particle a (and not an), immediately before words beginning with the letter h, ought universally to prevail in our language. I will beg leave to state two cases, in which it seems absolutely necessary to observe this regulation, viz. (1st) of those who are to read aloud in public, and (2dly) of all public speakers whomsoever. For first, as to him who is to read aloud in public, in order that he may produce this strong emission of the breath, it seems necessary that he should make a short pause before he pronounces such words as require this aspiration. Now the words which require this aspiration are, according to the definition just stated, those which begin with the letter h. But if the experiment shall be made, it will, I believe, be found much more difficult to afford this strong emission of the breath in reading loud, and of course much less practicable to give due force to this note of aspiration, in cases where an author has placed the particle an immediately before the words in question, than it would be were the other particle a made the prefix to them. In the former case, the |