against the two nations, as to the higher sciences, I am convinced that cultivation of mind is more general in England than in France: It is indeed the bright side of English society. That conceited ignorance, forward loquacity, heedless and loud argumentation, which fill the common intercourse of men in France, is comparatively unknown here; and with so much better reasoning faculties, I do not think there is half so many logical attempts. A person of sense once remarked that he never heard the concluding formula Donc introduced in a Parisian conversation, without expecting something excessively absurd to follow immediately. "There is undoubtedly in the English abord a coldness and reserve which discourage and repel at first sight; in the French, on the contrary, a warmth and an openness which invite confidence, and put you at ease instantly. The historian, Gibbon, said once, in speaking of French society, "I know that generally there is no depending much on their professions, yet, as far as I was concerned, I really believe they were sincere." This exception the historian makes in his own favour may well excite a smile; yet his error was in the general opinion he had formed, not in the individual one. The kindness shown to strangers, and expressions of interest lavished upon them, are really felt at the moment. Their feelings might not last long, nor bear the test of any great sacrifice of private interest or convenience. Those who express them are inconsiderate and frivolous, but not insincere. I do not know whether I might not choose to live with the English, but I should undoubtedly find more pleasure in visiting the French. The reserve and coldness of the former wear off in time; the warmth of the latter cools, and the two manners meet at last, à la tiédeur, which is the common and usual degree of interest, and all you can really hope to inspire in general and mixt society. The advantage of superior and more general cultivation, of a greater range of ideas and surer taste, must, however, remain on the side of the English." Vol. ii. p. 300. In giving our readers an account of these volumes, we have purposely abstained from entering into the merits of the long financial and political discussions which they contain. Though of many of the principles which they involve, we certainly approve, some are still rather too American to suit our taste. It cannot reasonably be expected that a native of France, who has resided for twenty years in the United States, should enter into the composition or the spirit of our English constitution, or of our English politics. In some of his expressions our author is peculiarly happy; one in particular caught our attention, where he speaks of the "laborious simplicity" of Mr. Fox's attempt at history. He has also well conceived the views of Shakespeare in the Tragedy of Macbeth, acknowledging, that on the French stage they have no no such terrific beings as the Weird Sisters: to this part of the Tragedy he does not unaptly apply the term of "low sublimity." We do not conceive that he possesses a deep insight into human nature, nor a very extensive power of analysing the motives and principles of the heart. He observes appearances quickly, and notes them with accuracy; but into the causes he rarely enters. Still there is much merit in the volumes before us, and we can recommend them as an entertaining and enlarged portrait of the manners and customs of the country as they appear depicted upon the eye of a stranger and a foreigner; and excepting a few occasional blemishes in the national character, the existence of which we must confess, every Englishman will feel proud of the picture, which is thus impartially drawn. ART. III. Hora Pelasgica. An Inquiry into the Origin and Language of the Pelasgi, &c. By Herbert Marsh, D.D. Margaret Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge. 8vo. pp. 146. Murray. 1815. IF it be the duty of a literary tribunal to detect the fallacies of imposture, and to expose the absurdities of ignorance, much more is it within its province to assert the claims of genuine scholarship, and to defend the cause of injured merit. It is not our practice on any common occasion to drop the character of a judge, and to enter the lists with our cotemporaries; it is sufficient for us simply to declare our opinion, and to state the grounds upon which it is formed. Controversial criticism is always intricate, often tedious. There are cases, however, of unwarrantable oppression, in which some interference appears to be demanded at our hands; in those especially, where the diguity of the tribunal adds weight to the injustice of the decision, and where the interest of the subject will repay the reader for the labour of his attention. Our review of the Hore Pelasgica was scarcely finished, when our attention was arrested by an article upon the same subject in a literary journal*, which, both for the principles which it inculcates, and the ability with which it is conducted, stands deservedly high in the estimation of the public. It is not, however, because we disagree upon the merits of an indifferent work, that we would constitute an appeal from that tribunal to * Quarterly Review, No. XXVI. our our own; but it is because we disagree upon the merits of a work, the author of which is Dr. Marsh; because the work itself opens a wide field for the most interesting and scholar-like discussion, and because the objections advanced are of such a nature as to prejudice the cursory or superficial reader. They require, therefore, a distinct and particular answer; and till they are answered, they will remain with a very undue influence upon the public mind. In replying then, point by point, to these animadversions, we are assured that we shall not only draw the attention of the literary reader to one of the most acute and learned dissertations which has appeared in the present age, but that we shall establish the character of its author as a luminous, profound, and accurate scholar. Before, however, we proceed to defend its principles against the objections of its opponent, we shall present the reader with a general view of the design of the work, and of the plan upon which it is conducted. As it is impossible, however, to give a precis of a work where every sentence forms a link in the argument, and every citation illustrates and confirms its truth, our readers must be contented with but an imperfect sketch, which will not, however, have been drawn in vain, if it shall have directed their attention to the masterly original. The first chapter contains an inquiry into the origin of the Pelasgi. Dr. Marsh upon this point collects all the accounts which he could obtain of this celebrated tribe, and arranges them in such a manner, as to trace them upwards to the highest point which his data will allow. We have the authority of Herodotus, Strabo, and other Greek authors, that they were the first noted and known inhabitants of Peloponnesus; we know also that they were in possession of Bentia, Phocis, and Euboea, and of the western side of Greece, of Epirus also, and of Thessaly. The whole of Hellas, indeed, was called Pelasgia according to Herodotus; and Thucydides himself asserts that the former name was not applied to Greece in general till after the Trojan war. From thence they may be traced through Thessaly to Thrace, even to the Hellespont. Now, as there is much greater probability that the first settlers in Thrace should have crossed the Hellespont, and then gradually found their way into Greece, than that they should have gone across so much wider a passage as the Egean Sea, Dr. Marsh infers, that Thrace was the first European settlement of the Pelasgi, from whence they gradually spread themselves southward, till they occupied the whole of Greece. As Dr. Marsh cites the most ample authorities for every step he takes, and as he can find no authorities on which he can found their history previous to their settlement in Thrace, he concludes that their history previous to that period is inscru table. table. So little does Dr. Marsh indulge either in dogmatism or conjecture; hypotheses non fingo appears to have been his rule; we follow him, therefore, with pleasure, because we follow him with certainty. The following is the acute and masterly mode in which he has disposed of the conjectures of those who have preceded him with respect to the origin of their name. 66 "On the other hand, though we cannot trace, by the aid of history, the Pelasgi beyond their original European settlement, attempts have been made to trace them further by the aid of etymology. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and indeed most Greek writers, derive the name of Pelasgus from a king of that name; though it appears to have been a witticism among the Athenians, that they were πελασγοί quasi πελαργοί. Some modern writers have derived their name from Thayos, on the supposition, that the Pelasgi came from Asia across the Egean sea: a supposition highly improbable in itself, and which, even if true, would carry us no further in our history of the Pelasgi, than we were before. Others derive it from πέλας oι πελαστής, which again throws no light on their ancient history. But an etymology proposed by Salmasius (de Hellenisticâ, p. 342.) appears at least to carry us to the fountain head. He says, Pelasgorum To ToλUTλárov appellatio Phaleg ostendit, quæ divisionem sonat: Pelasgos autem per totam fere Græciam dispersos fuisse Græcorum monumenta testantur. He then quotes the following passage from Epiphanius de Scythismo. panen nai Ραγαῦ, οἵτινες ἐπὶ τὸ τῆς Εὐρώπης κλίμα νενευκότες, τῷ τῆς Σκυθίας μέρει και τοῖς αὐτῶν ἔθνεσι προσεκρίθησαν. And he adds, " Pelasgos quoque in Thracia vixisse, Græci auctores testantur, et Graios quoque inde venisse. Hæc sunt quæ tuto possumus derivare in his quæ ad Græcorum originem et appellationem pertinent." Now the testimony of so late a writer as Epiphanius to the travels of Peleg and his son Reu into Europe, when the book of Genesis affords no rea-son to suppose that they ever quitted Asia, cannot be of any value. It appears from Gen. xi. 18-26. that Reu the son of Peleg, was the grandfather of Nahor, who was the grandfather of Abraham. It is true, that Peleg had other sons beside Reu, and also that Reu had other sons beside Serug, the father of Nahor. But of these other sons of Peleg and of Reu, Moses has mentioned neither the history, nor even their names. We can go therefore no further, than to say, it is possible, that descendants from Peleg and Reu, calling themselves after the names of their two great an. cestors (as the Hebrews in another line called themselves from the father of Peleg) migrated westward, till at length, after a succession of ages, they found themselves settled in Thrace. But can this possibility be raised to a probability? That the word ab in Hebrew signifies divisit, will not attach it to the Pelasgi in particular: for in the early ages of the world migration was common to all nations. And even if it be true, that Peleg was the common Rr VOL. IV. DECEMBER, 1815. ancestor ancestor of all the Pelasgi, we obtain from the discovery no more knowledge of their history antecedent to their settlement in Thrace, than by saying, that they were descended from Peleg's ancestor Noah, or from Noah's ancestor Adam." P. 16. The second chapter treats on the language of the Pelasgi. Herodotus owns that he is unable to give a decisive answer upon the point, but infers that they spoke some barbarous language, Báj Capov yhãoσav, from the remnant of the Pelasgi, who occupied the town of Creston, the inhabitants of which, as appears from himself, were originally Thracians. Dr. Marsh, however, conceives that the Pelasgi spoke the same language with the Hellenes, though in a more antiquated form; as there is no reason for, and every reason against, a change of language at the time of their change of name under the yoke of the sons of Hellen. This is argued in a most ingenious manner, from the inconsistency of Herodotus upon this point with himself. Indeed, Herodotus himself, though he opposes the language of the Hellenes to the language of the Pelasgi, has afforded us the means of proving, that γλῶσσα Πελασγική, and γλώσσα Ελληνική, are only different terms for the same language. In the very chapter (Lib. I. cap. 56.), where he draws the line between the 00s Пexasγικόν, and the ἔθνος Ελληνικὸν, he makes another division of the Greeks, and likewise in reference to their language. This division is the Γένος Δωρικόν, and the Γένος Ιωνικόν. The Γένος Δωρικόν, he adds, belonged to the Ἔθνος Πελασγικὸν : and moreover he adds at the end of the chapter, that this very term ANPIKON, was given to the ἔθνος Πελασγικόν when it settled in Peloponnesus, (ἐς Πελοπόννησον extòr Awpixòr éxλú0n.) Is not this an admission, that the Pelasgi spake the Doric dialect, and consequently a dialect of that very language, which was used by Herodotus himself? Further, says Herodotus in the same chapter, that as the Pelasgic nation included the Dorian genus, so the Dorian genus included the Lacedæmonians. But who has ever doubted whether the Lacedæmonians spake Greek? "In regard to the Athenians, whom he likewise mentions in the same chapter, Herodotus himself is reduced to a difficulty, from which he endeavours to extricate himself by the most improbable supposition, that ever was made. As he refers the Lacedæmonians to the Dorian genus, so he refers the Athenians to the Ionian genus; the former included in the Pelasgic nation, the latter in the Hellenic nation. But, in the next chapter (Lib. I. cap. 57.) he examines (as we have already seen) the question, whether the language of the hayol was the same with the language of the "Eve. And having decided in the negative, he immediately feels the difficulty attending his classification in the foriner chapter. For if the Athenians belonged to the ἔθνος Πελασγικὸν (as he admits in c. 57.) and the rs IIλasyxor spake a different language from |