4803.] 
‘never be converted into our fch, or our &. 
I have lately obferved, that fome of our 
writers have borrowed from the numerous 
French books on Egypt and the Eaft the 
{pelling of the word pacha, which has 
introduced among ignorant people the 
grofsly erroneous pronunciation of patka. 
Undoubtedly our old way of fpelling ba- 
foaw gives the right found in Englith 
letters, unlefs the 5 ought to be changed 
for the kindred p, which I can neither af- 
firm nor deny. 
The French # being a found peculiar to 
the language, they always, in proper 
names, render the z of the Germans and 
other people into oz; thus, they write 
Hambourg, Strafoourg, &c. When the 
name is not familiar to us, we are apt, in 
tranflating from the French, to copy this 
fpelling, and with it the lengthened found 
of oz, or 00, which is often wrong. When 
the long zu is the real found, it is better 
written in Englith oo than oz, which laft 
we often pronounce ow. 
The German fpelling is alfo a frequent 
fource of miftake. The foliowing rules 
are effential to be obferved in pronouncing 
their proper names:—the g is always 
hard, like the old Englifh; thus Ge/zer 
is Ghefner, and not Djefuer : the feb is our 
fs, and not 2; thus itis Shellenburg, not 
Skellenburg ; Shwwerin, not Skwerin: the 
German aw is our ow; their é is our z; 
and their ze our ee. 
Ali the nations of Europe differ fo ra- 
dically from us in the pronunciation of the 
vowels that, notwithfanding fome diffe- 
rences among themfelves, the following 
general rules may be laid down :—Of the 
three founds of the firft vowel, ai, ah, 
and aw, they have only the two latter ; 
their long e anfwers to our ai; their long 
#, to our ee: the German and Italian z is 
nearly our og. 
Mok of thefe obfervations, Mr. Editor, 
I am fenfible will be nothing new to many 
of your readers; but if they are likely 
to afford any utility to the greater part, I 
prefume you will not refufe them a place 
in your juftly popular Mifcellany. 
Yours, &c. 
PHILOPREPONe 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
RAVELLING lately in the county 
of Berks, I had the good fortune to 
meet with and purchafe a beautiful mi- 
niature of Aijexander Pope, the poet ; it 
is mounted in a brafs carved and gilt 
frame: the back was feldered down, 
Portrait of Pope. 
403 
which, upon removing, had this infcrip- 
tion, ** Benj. Arlaud, pinxit, 1707,” {0 
muft have been painted in his eighteenth 
ear. 
I take it this piéture was in the pof- 
feffion of his patron, Sir William Trum- 
bull, of Eatthampflead, Berks, and being 
painted in the fame year he wrote the 
Windfor Foreft, had a wreath of oak- 
leaves curioufly engraved on the back of 
the pitture:in compliment to the bard. 
Nothing can exceed the luftre expreffed in 
the eyes and countenance of this enga- 
ging portrait, and it is perfectly characte- 
riftic of the tender and feeble tiate cf 
body all his biographers defcribe him to 
have had. It differs from all the pi@ures 
of a more advanced age, and it muft be 
almoft impoffible to conceive a true like- 
nefs from them, as they are all too large. 
featured.—He is dreffed in a bright blue 
velvet coat, with gold buttons; his face 
perfectly round ; the hair white, witha 
tinge of the red, and the eyes hazel. 
I have been endeavouring to find fome 
further particulars of the artit; he is 
quite unknown to Mr. Walpole, but I 
fhould fuppofe he is of the fanily of James 
Anthony Arlaud, an artift of uncommon 
merit, who, I believe, was born the yeart he 
poet was born; of whom there is a long 
and curious article in the Anecdotes of 
Painting. 
Benjamin Arlaud, befides the above, 
had the felicity of painting another great 
genius, Shakefpeare, which T thould fup- 
pofe mult be a true likenefs, though it 
is overlooked. It is the portrait prefixed 
to Rowe’s Shakefpeare, publithed in 1709, 
painted by B. Arlaud, and engraved by 
Duchange. This edition, at the time ie 
was publifhed, was confdered a fplendid 
one, in which were united the belt talents 
both literary and graphic.* 
In this edition, Mr. Pope had fome fhare: 
therefore Mefirs. Pope and Rowe would not 
authorife, without well-attelted conviation, 
‘‘ painted from the life’’ to be put at the 
bottom of of the plate, without its being a 
genuine portrait. ‘The original, I prefume, 
was the portrait Mr. Pope left by will, 
The above is all I have been able to 
colle&t 
* Mr. George Stevens, in his edition to 
Shakefpeare, ornamented and enriched with 
numerous portraits, now in the pofleffion of 
Earl Spencer, fays ‘© From the following fee , 
ries of plates all ideal and theatrical repree — 
fentations were meant to be excluded; the 
cuts, however, to Rowe’s Shakefpeare are 
here 
