Page images
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

for how much candour and accuracy they are conspicuous. “It is not (he says p. 342) the general opinion of the Greek

writers, that the Pelasgi were the first inhabitants of Pelopon

mesus. Strabo only says, that they were the oldest of those who
were powerful there. . He here alludes to his quotation, p. 1.
rāv rapi roy ‘EXX& 8vvZorsvaavrov 3pxxiétaro. But to sup-
pose, that Strabo meant to distinguish between the oldest inha-
bitants, and the oldest powerful inhabitants is really trying to
split hairs. Besides this passage in Strabo is not quoted by Dr.
M. for that purpose; there are other passages to that point in
note 4, all of which are passed over in silence. Again he says,
that Dr. M. is mistaken in supposing, that any Greek writer
ever placed Pelasgi in Achaia. For though according to Dio-
nysius of Halicarnassus they first occupied the Axalixów "Apyos,
yet Dionysius “meant Argos in Argolis.” Undoubtedly he did
so, nor has Dr. Marsh questioned it. But if the country, of
which the District Argolis made a part, was called Achaia, the
inhabitants of the former were of course inhabitants of the
latter. It is true, that the country which the Romans called
Achaia Propria, extended only to the borders of Argolis, and did
not include that district. But that the term Achaia was used by
Homer in such a sense, as to include Argos, is evident from IL.
B. 562. T. 82, as well as from Odyss T. 251. Nor could Argos.
have ever acquired the epithet 'Axxixby, unless the country,
where it was, had been then called Achaia, But even if we
take the term Achaia in the strictest possible sense, and confine
it to the country bordering on the Corinthian bay, the Reviewer
is still mistaken in saying, that no Greek writer ever placed Pe-
lasgi in Achaia. For the ancient name of Peloponnesus in gene-
ral was IIexaoyiza IIEAzoyls, and they who inhabited the northern
shore of Peloponnesus, or Achaia properly so called, were named
IIexzo:/oi Aiyiz.éss. All this was proved in Ch. 1. p. 3, 4. by .
i.". from various Greek writers. But all these authorities
the Reviewer suppresses, in order to have the pleasure of contra-
dicting a position, which those quotations establish. -
But the Reviewer, in the next page, (p. 343.) in reference to
the assertion, that Peloponnesus was originally called Pelasgia,
says, - -
“This necessarily implies, that those parts of Peloponnesus, over
which they diffused themselves, were not inhabited previous to
their settling in them, which does not appear to be the case. The
expression of Herodotus (I, 146.) Agios II.xzayoi, clearly indi-
cates, that there were other Arcadians, who were not Pelasgi;
which inference, we are rather surprised, that Dr. M. did not per-
ceive.” P. 4. - - - -

Now Dr. M. has justly asserted, that Peloponnesus WaS o -- * - 4. nally

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

nally called Pelasgia; 1st, because the scholiast in Apollonius
Rhodius, says of Peloponnesus, to "rozov IIEAzoys ixzatiro,
2dly, because Strabo quotes Ephorus, to shew that Pelopon.
nesus was once called IIs Naoyuz; aud, 3dly, because we know of
no name of Peloponnesus which is more antient. But the Re-
viewer is surprised, that the expression 'Agx&öss IIexagyoi did
not lead him to a different conclusion; for that expression, he
says, indicates, that there were other Arcadians, who were not
Pelasgi. Suppose that the expression does indicate, that at the
period to which Herodotus refers, the Pelasgi were not the only
people then settled in Arcadia, it is no necessary consequence
that the other people (whoever they were, and of whom we have
never heard) were more antient than the Pelasgi. And without
this gratuitous assumption, the Reviewer may torture the expres-
sion as much as he pleases, it will never speak what he wishes to
make it speak. Nor does Herodotus in the place where he uses
that expression, appear to make the distinction, for which the
Reviewer contends. Herodotus is there describing the migra-
tions of the Ionians to Asia Minor; he observes, that people
from various parts of Greece were mixed with them; as Abaites
from Euboea, Minyabans from Orchomenus, and Dorians from
Epidaurus, &c. It is among these different people that Hero.
dotus reckons the 'Agkøss IIex2ayoi, by which he probably
meant nothing more, than to give a general character of the
Arcadians. But whether he did so or not, the Reviewer's ob-
jection has been shown to be futile. The example, however,
shows the spirit with which he is animated: it shows, that there
is no refinement to which he has not recourse, in order to dis-
cover some ground of objection. -
Further, says the Reviewer, in the same paragraph,

“That many parts of Greece were anciently occupied by Pelasgi, and thence called Pelasgian, is true; but this by no means establishes Dr. M.'s assertion, that Greece, without the Isthmus, Attica, Boeotia, &c., was originally Pelasgic. Herodotus distinctly asserts this tribe to have been foreigners.” P. 58.

Here the Reviewer has again exhibited an example of the same injustice to his author. In chap. i. p. 4, where }. Marsh observes, that Greece likewise without the Isthmus appears to have been originally inhabited by these same Pelasgi, he quotes Herodotus, lib. i. c. 57. who says, that the inhabitants of Attica were Svos II:320-yızov, that they occupied Boeotia, Phoecis, and Euboea. Dr. Marsh also shows, by quotations from Apollomius Rhodius, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and (to pass over many quotations given in pages 5, 6, 7) he appeals to Herodotus for the assertion, that Greece in general was anciently called

- - - - a;

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

this testimony of Herodotus, he confirms by an appeal to Thucy-
dides, at p. 8. But all these quotations, with the exception of
one, which the Reviewer thinks objectionable, are suppressed :
and instead of them, a reference is made to Herodotus, i. 58.
a chapter relating merely to the language of the Pelasgi, and
which is fully considered in another place, though the Reviewer
has there passed it over in silence. The quotation which he
thinks objectionable, is taken from Strabo, lib. v. p. 220, where
he says, that the race of the Pelasgi, xzz3 roy ‘EAAAAA
TIAXAN irizéxagg, where Dr. M. construes ‘EAAAAA
TIAXAN the whole of Greece, but which the Reviewer, p. 944,
construes the whole of Hellas; and taking Hellas in the confined
sense in which it was used by Homer, argues, that Strabo meant
the reverse of what Dr. Marsh supposes. Now that neither
Herodotus nor Thucydides, nor any other Greek writer after
their time, used “EXX&s in any other sense than that of Greece
in general, is a thing so notorious, that we wonder how any
scholar could suppose the contrary. Besides, if he had con-
sulted Strabo himself, he would have seen from what follows the
quoted passage, that Strabo could not in that place attach any
other meaning to the word “EXX&s, than that which is usually
attached to it. For he establishes his position, that the Pelasgi
extended themselves work row ‘Exxzöz zãozy, by observing, in
the next page, that beside Thessaly, they occupied also Arcadia,
with the whole of Peloponnesus; also Epirus, Attica, Lesbos,
Imbros, Lemnos, &c. Yet the Reviewer pretends, that Strabo
confined the Pelasgi to a district of Thessaly. And, what is still
more strange, he so far forgets himself at p. 346, as to assert
the very thing against which he had previously argued. For he
there says of the Pelasgi, that they “were once diffused over
the whole of Greece.” - -
Having finished his criticisms on such of the quotations as he
thought proper to select from the first seven pages, he proceeds.
at one bound to a quotation in the thirty-eighth page, without
giving his readers the least intimation, that the passage there
quoted, was quoted for a purpose totally different from that to
which the other quotations were applied. And how can any
reader know, whether a quotation is applicable or not, unless be

knows why it is quoted f The passage was quoted in the second

chapter, which relates to the language of the Pelasgi: it was introduced for the purpose of explaining the relation, which is known to subsist between the Greek and Latin languages, and which Latin writers themselves ascribe to the intervention of the

- Pelasgi.

Pelasgi. Dr. Marsh accordingly quotes the account, which Dionysius of Halicarnassus, has given of the migration of the Pelasgi from Thessaly, in the time of Deucalion. And having previously quoted another passage relative to a supposed former migration, to which Dionysius himself (as Dr. M. observes) appeared to attach no credit, he says of the passage quoted in p. 38, that “no exception could be taken to the account of the second migration, which was from Thessaly.” But, says the Reviewer, p. 344, “To us it appears just as credible as the history of Brute.” He further says:

“It was impossible that this account could have descended to posterity in any other way than tradition, the uncertainty of which will appear from considering that these Pelasgi evacuated Italy in less than two hundred years, and returned into Attica,” &c.

Now if we were to ask the Reviewer by what means he knows that the Pelasgi evacuated Italy within two hundred years after their arrival there, he can say only—by tradition. He objects therefore to the account of Dionysius, because it is founded on tradition, and yet appeals to tradition himself. He adopts as a ground of his objection, the very principle to which he objects. Whether all the circumstances attending the migration of the Pelasgi to Italy, as given by Dionysius, are true or false, is a matter of no importance. Nor does Dr. M. undertake to vouch for all these circumstances, though the Reviewer has strained the words to a sense, which, we are clearly of opinion, was not intended. Whoever impartially attends to the reasons, which he gives in p. 37, why he believed in the migration of the Pelasgi from Thessaly to Italy, in the time of Deucalion, will see that he had merely the migration itself in contemplation. Whether they landed at this or at that port of Italy, or even whether they went by land or by sea, is quite immaterial to the purpose, for which the quotation is made. Nor does the reality of this mi

gration depend merely on the account of Dionysius. The same

thing is asserted also by Strabo, to whom the Reviewer attaches some importance. It is asserted also by Pliny, and from both of these writers quotations are given at p. 89, which the Reviewer has left unnoticed. Nay, the Reviewer himself must believe in the fact of the migration, or it is absurd to say that “ these Pelasgi evacuated Italy in less than two hundred years." If therefore the story, that the Thessalian Pelasgi arrived in Italy, is no less absurd, than the story of Brute arriving in England, the

Reviewer has involved himself in that absurdity. Next comes the sweeping condemnation, that Dr. Marsh com" siders all the Greek historians as being of equal credibility. The injustice of this charge is evident from the care which Dr. Marsh - appears

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

appears to us to have taken in comparing and collating the seve-
ral accounts in the Greek writers, especially in the first chapter.
Though we would sooner believe in the facts, which Herodotus
and Thucydides relate from their own knowledge, we would not
reject every thing, which had been preserved only by tradition :
for in that case the annals of the world would be reduced to a
very narrow compass. Facts preserved only by tradition, if they
are not improbable in themselves, and serve to explain other
facts of which there is no doubt, are not at once to be rejected,
merely because they are not recorded by contemporaneous
writers. The Reviewer undoubtedly believes in the story of
Pisistratus, who is said to have brought the poems of Homer,
into the state in which we now have them. But the most
learned and the most acute defender of this position can produce
for it no authority, which is not later than the time of Pisistratus
himself, by at least five hundred years. See Wolf's Prolego-
mena, § xxxiii. note a. He even believes (as appears from
p. 348.) that the Iliad and Odyssey were first committed to wri-
ting in a later age, than that of Homer himself. But it surely
requires a much stronger faith, to believe in this unattested and
incredible fact, a fact never suspected either by Herodotus or
by Aristotle, than to believe even in the minute circumstances
attending the migration of the Thessalian Pelasgi to Italy. Nay,
the story of Brute himself is more easy to be credited: for it is
at least within the limits of possibility: whereas it is not within
the limits of possibility, that two poems, containing together
nearly thirty thousand verses, should be transmitted as a whole
to posterity viva voce. . . . . . . -
We will now proceed to the observations of the Reviewer on
the chapter which relates to the language of the Pelasgi.
He seems very indignant that Dr. Marsh should presume to
differ in opinion from Herodotus and Thucydides, in asserting
that the language of the Pelasgi was Greek. . Now, when we
find that even Herodotus acknowledges (lib. i. c. 57.) that he
could not say with certainty what language the Pleasgi spake,
and that he attempts only to draw some probable conclusion
from arguments which he adduces in the same chapter, Dr.
Marsh may surely, with all due deference to Herodotus, examine
whether the reasons which he assigns will bear him out in his
conclusion. He has examined those reasons; and shown that
they did not warrant the inference which Herodotus has drawn:
nor has the Reviewer attempted to show that they do warrant
the inference. Thucydides indeed has merely repeated what
Herodotus had said before: he calls the Pelasgi čovos 34p;3agoy:
but he has assigned no new reason for the opinion. Dr. Marsh
has here shewn the difficulties to which the opinion leads: he

« PreviousContinue »