"These examples are sufficient to shew, that the Latin F was And hence we may the proper representative of the Greek F. infer, that in those cases, where V is used, the V is merely a substitute for the Latin F, which, though naturally hard in reference to V, acquires in certain cases a softer sound than at other times, and thus becomes more easily exchanged. When the Latin F was followed by the consonants I, r, or the vowels a, o, u, it preserved the hard sound, which naturally belongs to it, and consequently was not so liable to be changed. Thus in Flamma, Fluo, Frango, Frigeo, Fama, Fagus, Follis, Folium, Fuga, Fumus, and others of the same description, the F was not converted into V. But before the vowels e and i, the F acquired a softer sound, and accordingly was often, though not always, changed into V. Hence Festa, Felia, Festis, Fis, Finum, &c. as written according to the Greek form, from which they were taken, became Vesta, Velia, Vestis, Vis, Vinum, &c. On the other hand, in Fera, Fero, Firmus, Filius, &c. the F remained. But when F was placed between two vowels, it necessarily acquired a softer sound: and in such cases it appears to have been always changed into V. Hence ofis, ofum, &c. became ovis, ovum, &c. On a similar principle to that, which changed F into V, when F was so placed as to lose a portion of its natural hardness, V was sometimes changed into F, when it was so placed, P. 98. as to lose a portion of its natural softness."

But not only when followed by e and i was the Greek F changed into a V, we have Φατής, Faτης, Vates. εἰλέω, Γειλ Fω, Volvo, &c.

ne

But however we are inclined to declare the election of V, heartily coincide with Dr. Marsh in throwing out the third candidate W, in whose favour there appears not the vote of a single word. The only apparent argument in favour of the Latin V being pronounced as our W, is, that the Latin V was occasionally represented by the Greek OT. Now, here it is first taken for granted, that the Greek OT was pronounced as the Latin W, which can by no means be proved; nor is it remembered that in many cases B, not OT, is used as the representative of V; as Victor, BixTap; Vitelleius, BITEλλIOS, &c. &c.

The W has been patronised in England by a curious misunderstanding of a passage in Vossius, who, in his De Arte Gram. I. 24. cautions his readers against pronouncing F and V in the same manner, and informs them that they ought to pronounce the Latin V not like their V, but their W. Now, the English have forgotten that Vossius was writing not to them, but to the High Germans, who always pronounce their V like our F, and their W like our V. Every lady of fashion, even in our own country, knows but too well that she ought not to say Waltz, but Valtz. Yet upon the authority of G. Vossius we have all been taught to say Wave, not Vava, or more properly Favaž; Wide, not Vide, &c. &c.

Having

Having thus given our readers an outline of the volume before us, we shall now proceed to animadvert upon those censures, which have been passed with such determined injustice upon its

contents.

The Reviewer commences his attack by a strange misrepresentation of the object, which Dr. M. professes to have in view, in his inquiry into the origin of the Pelasgi. He represents him as having undertaken a task, which is attended with "little chance of success;" because he has no access to information about the Pelasgi, which was not already open to his predecessors. Now if Dr. M. had attempted to go higher than his predecessors in tracing the origin of the Pelasgi, this objection might, we think, have been valid. But if the Reviewer had considered the manner in which Dr. M. has treated the inquiry into the origin of the Pelasgi, and likewise the limit, which he has assigned to this Inquiry, he would have perceived the futility of his objection. The predecessors of Dr. M. have all acted in a very different manner from that, which is adopted in the first chapter of the Hora Pelasgicæ. They set out with a previously assumed opinion; some, that the Pelasgi were Egyptians; others, that they were Phoenicians, &c.: and then they seek for arguments to support the opinion so assumed. But as it was evident from this variety of opinions, that there was no certainty about the origin of the Pelasgi, when we attempted to carry it so high up, it appears to be the determination of Dr. M. by an analytical process, to ascertain how far we could go with safety. He traces therefore the origin of the Pelasgi not downward from any assumed point, as from Egypt or Phoenicia ; but upward, as far as the data, which he has been able to collect from the Greek writers, would carry him. And there he stops. Having traced them up to Thrace, he observes :

"If we cannot obtain any historical data, which enable us to trace them further, we must consider Thrace as the country which, as far as our knowledge extends, was the original seat of the Pelasgi."

And after giving a description of Thrace, Dr. M. concludes the paragraph (p. 16.) by saying,

"Such was Thrace, the primary seat of the Pelasgi in Europe. From that country we may trace their migrations into other countries: but their history, previous to their settlement in Thrace, is to us inscrutable."

Such was the result of the inquiry, which he institutes, in the first chapter, into the origin of the Pelasgi. Now let us hear the Reviewer's own opinion in regard to this result. He says, p. 544,

" Dr.

Dr. Marsh concludes, that the Pelasgi came out of Asia across the Hellespont, and first occupied Thrace, from which they diffused themselves southward through the whole of Greece: which opinion he supports with much learning and ingenuity; and justly remarks, that their history, previous to their settlement in Thrace, s to us inscrutable.'”

In his endeavours therefore to investigate the limit, where our inquiries into the origin of the Pelasgi must stop, he acknowledges, that the result of Dr. Marsh's investigation is a just one. Consequently he acknowledges, that Dr. Marsh has succeeded in the object, which he professes in the very first paragraph to have in view, when he began the Inquiry. Yet, with this acknowledgement, staring his readers in the face, he tells them, that Dr. M. has undertaken a task with "little chance of suc cess."

In reference to the accounts quoted from the Greek authors in chap. i. concerning the Pelasgi, the Reviewer says,

"We cannot help expressing a wish in limine, that in collecting and disposing these accounts, Dr. Marsh had noticed, with due respect, the labours of preceding scholars, who had cleared the way before him, and had performed the most laborious part of his task."

Who the authors are, that had previously performed the most laborious part of his task, we really do not know. That the very numerous Greek quotations, which appear in that chapter, appear there for the first time, is a thing which we will not assert. Some authors have quoted one passage, and some another passage. But we should not conceive that the well known accuracy of Dr. M. would trust to the quotation of any man, but would have always had recourse to the originals. And the greater part of them certainly appear, by the context, to be the result of his own research; though we cannot vouch, in any given case, that such passage or passages had not been found in other writers. And even if all of them can be found scattered in different quotations in different modern writers, is there no merit in bringing them together into one point of view? We are assured that no scholar has yet seen so large a collection of quotations relating to the Pelasgi in one place before, nor did he ever see them arranged in the same order, or employed to the same purpose. The object of Dr. Marsh indeed seems to be quite different from that of any of his predecessors. They have argued synthe tically he has argued analytically. As some set out with the supposition, that the Pelasgi were Egyptians; others, that they were Phoenicians; others, that they came from Peleg, &c.: and as there could be no prospect of reconciling these discordant opinions,

opinions, Dr. Marsh seems to have had it in contemplation to discover some general touch-stone, by which those opinions might be tried. And for that purpose he has endeavoured to ascertain the limit of our actual knowledge in regard to the origin of the Pelasgi. The result of the analysis instituted in the first chapter is such as to preclude all the hypotheses stated at the beginning of it. To this result the reviewer himself subscribes, by saying, p. 344, that the author "justly remarks that their history, previous to their settlement in Thrace is to us inscrutable. But if the history of the Pelasgi before that time is inscrutable, it follows of necessity, that they who attempt to go higher in the history of the Pelasgi, and to shew, either that they came from Egypt, or from Phoenicia, or Bactria, &c. are building on the sand. Since then he has endeavoured to shew, that such hypotheses are devoid of foundation, and have come to a different result, with what consistency cau the reviewer assert that his predecessors have "cleared the way” which he himself has gone?

An attempt however is made to substantiate the charge by an appeal to Stillingfleet's Origines sacrae, b. iii. c. 4. and to Larcher's Chronologie d'Herodote, tom. vii. p. 215, and a complaint is made, that no mention is made of these works in particular. But neither of these writers can have shewn Dr. Marsh the way, which he has chosen: for both of them have gone a different way. Stillingfleet derives the Pelasgi from Peleg; an opinion which is combated in the Hora Pelasgicæ: he makes likewise the language of the Pelasgi different from the language of the Greeks, an opinion which is also combated. Dr. Marsh, indeed, coincides with Stillingfleet in the opinion that the Pelasgi were the first inhabitants of Greece: but this opinion the reviewer himself combats. Nor does our author appear more indebted to Larcher for the way which he has marked out; Larcher represents the Pelasgi as peopling Greece from south to north; from Argolis to Arcadia, from Arcadia to Thessaly, and from Thessaly to Thrace; whereas Dr. Marsh contends for a totally different way of migration. Larcher again represents the Pelasgi, as of Phoenician origin, an opinion which is alluded to at the very beginning of the first chapter. But as it is an opinion which is not adopted, no obligation is due to Larcher on that score. The examples therefore which are brought to prove neglect in acknowledging obligations, tend only to shew that no acknowledgment was due.

We should have thought it the fairer mode of proceeding had some general notion been given by its opponent of the general object of the work. As we however have supplied that deficiency, we shall follow the reviewer through his series of attacks upon detached passages, leaving the reader to determine

for

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 nesus. Strabo only says, that they were the oldest of those who were powerful there. He here alludes to his quotation, p. 1. τῶν περὶ τὴν Ἑλλάδα δυναστευσάντων ἀρχαιότατοι. But to suppose, that Strabo meant to distinguish between the oldest inhabitants, 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. Mis mistaken in supposing, that any Greek writer ever placed Pelasgi in Achaia. For though according to Dionysius of Halicarnassus they first occupied the 'Aziïnóv "Apvos, 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 Jatter. 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. F. 82, as well as from Odyss F. 251. Nor could Argos have ever acquired the epithet 'Azzizov, 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 Pelasgi in Achaia. For the ancient name of Peloponnesus in general was Πελασγία & Πελασγις, and they who inhabited the northern shore of Peloponnesus, or Achaia properly so called, were named Πελασγοί Αἰγιαλέες. All this was proved in Ch. 1. p. 3, 4. by guotation from various Greek writers. But all these authorities the Reviewer suppresses, in order to have the pleasure of contradicting 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,

The

"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. expression of Herodotus (I. 146.) 'Açnude, Heracy, clearly indicates, that there were other Arcadians, who were not Pelasgi; which inference, we are rather surprised, that Dr. M. did not perceive." P. 4.

Now Dr. M. has justly asserted, that Peloponnesus was origi