And in p. 347, he represents this change as so gradual, that we have at least a scope of ten centuries in which we may sup pose it to have gone on." Here we have an admirable specimen of the Reviewer's mode of construing Greek. In consequence of the ascendancy, which the family of Hellen acquired in Greece (which was not till after the Trojan war) the inhabitants of Greece in general, among the rest therefore the inhabitants of Attica, assumed the title of "Exλnves. There was a μεταβολή és "Exλnvas. But says Herodotus, the Athenians being a Pelasἐς Ἕλληνας. gic nation ΑΜΑ τῇ μεταβολῇ τῇ ἐς Ἕλληνας καὶ τὴν ΓΛΩΣΣΑΝ μετέμαθε. Now we have always been accustomed to construe 'AMA " together with" or " at the same time with.' But the Reviewer has discovered a new meaning for it: instead of expressing what happens at the same time, it expresses in his Lexicon, what may require ten centuries to make it happens There was necessarily some determinate period, when the Athevians first assumed the title of "Exλves; and we know from Thucydides, that this period was later than that of the Trojan war. At the same time with their becoming Exλnvas (says Herodotus, to extricate himself from a difficulty) they unlearned tile γλώσσα Πελασγική, and learnt the γλώσσα Ελληνική. But if after the μεταβολὴ ἐς Ελληνας, ten centuries elapsed before the Athenians spake the γλῶσσα Ἑλληνικὴ, they might have ken the Pelasgic language after Athens had been taken by the Rospomans. Such are the absurdities to which the Reviewer exposes himself in attempting to expose his author.

We will now shew, that the Reviewer himself, notwithstanding his endeavour to contradict the author, has concluded with an argument, which though alleged for the purpose of confuting the author's opinion serves only to confirm it.

"It is worthy of remark that both the Arcadians and Lacedæmonians, who were distinctly of Pelasgian origin and who had less intercourse with foreigners than any other tribes of Greece, retained in their dialects so many barbarisms as to render them scarcely intelligible to the inhabitants of Attica."

The Reviewer here produces some examples of those barbarisms of which his first example is βέρεθρον for βάραθρον, and his second Exλ for Baλw. But do not these very examples prove, that the Pelasgi spake Greek? Would any man infer, that English was not spoken in Somersetshire, because the_common people in that country say zee for see, and zay for say? But if it would be absurd to say that English was not spoken in Somersetshire, because the common people of that country pronounce see, and say, as if those words begun with Z, is it not equally absurd to say, that the Arcadians did not speak Greek, because S s

VOL.IV. DECEMBER, 1815.

they

they likewise pronounce with a Z what the Athenians pronounced with a different letter? In short these examples prove that the Αρκάδες Πελασγοι spake only a different dialect of the same language with the Athenians, who were likewise Пhayo but Πεγασγοι Κράναοι : just in the same manner as the words zee, and zay prove, that in Somersetshire the same language is spoken as in Middlesex, but in a different dialect. But proceeds the Reviewer,

"To enumerate the barbarisms of the Laconic dialect would be to transcribe pages of Hesychius: whoever considers the specimens of it in the Lysistrata of Aristophanes must recognise the traces of the yawoox Bapbag, which Herodotus and Thucydides ascribes to the Pelasgi."

Here is a quibble on the term γλῶσσα βάρβαρα. The Reviewer applies it as if it denoted "barbarous Greek," whereas it means a language, which is not Greek. That this is the sense in which Herodotus and Thucydides use it is manifest from the opposition which they make between the term Bapfag and the term 'Exλvixos. Nay, the Reviewer himself knows that they do so. For he says, in p. 346, that Dr. M. argues

"In opposition to Herodotus and Thucydides, and a tribe of writers, who represent the Pelasgi as having spoken a language essentially different from that, which they suppose to have been used by the Hellenes."

He here admits therefore that yλãcoz Bagßag, as used by Herodotus, in his inquiry into the language of the Pelasgi, means a language which is not Greek: yet he himself applies it, in p. 347, as if it meant a language which really was Greek, though in a corrupt dialect. We believe indeed that this is the first time that any man, who calls himself a scholar, would construe yλäóóa Bapßapos, by "barbarous Greek." With respect to any words which Aristophanes may put into the mouth of a Lacedæmonian, they no more prove, that the people of Sparta did not speak Greek, than the words which Goldoni often puts into the mouth of a Venetian, prove that Italian is not spoken at Venice. Even in England, where there is much less scope for diversity of dialect, than there was in Greece, there are few counties which have not some words peculiar to themselves. But would any man conclude that English was not spoken in Cambridge, because a pitcher is called a gotch; or in Cumberland, because oats are called baver? If then either the Arcadians or Lacedæmonians used Εριννύειν for ὀργίζεσθαι, which is one of the examples alleged to prove that they spake a yλoca Bapßapos, does not this example prove the contrary of that, for which it was alleged? "Egan is a word essentially Greek; and it is so connected with "Evès, that if it was not used at Athens, it must have been understood

derstood by Athenians. The Reviewer therefore is absolutely mistaken, when he says, that in such examples we recognize the traces of the yoox Bapßapos, which Herodotus and Thucydides ascribe to the Pelasgi. And the Reviewer must, by his own coufession, know, that he is mistaken, and that the historians use the term to describe a language "essentially different" from the Greek. If he does not, we lament the confusion of his ideasand in this dilemma we will leave him.

The Reviewer then proceeds to notice some other supposed imperfections in the chapter on the language of the Pelasgi. He asserts that Dr. M. makes a gratuitous assumption, in p. 35, that the Pelasgi instead of ug said Fup: Now this was a mere incidental observation, on which no argument was depending for. which we do not think proof necessary. It appears however that it was not made without reason. The passage there quoted from Plutarch, shews that the Delphians used Bingov for Пingov, and the Macedonians Βιλιππον for φιλιππον. Now both Delphians and Macedonians were in their dialect Æolians: and a great number of words, which the Eolians then wrote with B, were written by the old Æolians with F. They said Fearga instead of Bgarga, Fgxxros instead of Bgaxres. Dr. M. infers, therefore, that what the Eolians in the time of Plutarch wrote Pug, was written by the old Æolians Fug, especially as it accounts for the old Gothic and Saxon FYR.

Of the argument deduced from the similarity of the Latin and Greek languages, which Livy, Tacitus, Pliny, Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Solinus ascribe to the intervention of the Pelasgi, the Reviewer says,

"The most probable supposition is, that the affinity of the Latin and Greek language is referable to a later period, when the Pelasgic tribes, were wholly expelled from Italy by colonies, from the shores of the Archipelago; and the testimonies of Livy, Tacitus, Pliny, Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Solinus, are worth little or nothing in a question of this nature."

From what source of information the Reviewer has learnt, that the Pelasgi were wholly expelled from Italy, we cannot guess. Dionysius of Halicarnassus declares (Lib. I. c. 20.) that the Pe lasgic race was not extinct in Italy, even in his time, and he instances Falerii and Fescennia, where some remains of them were still to be found. But Dionysius, it seems, must not be credited, even when he relates facts, which came within his own observation. And with respect to the colonies from the shores of the Archipelago, who effected the total expulsion of the Pelasgi, and then taught Greck to the Latins, we are again at a loss to know where the Reviewer got his information. He gives only one example of this kind. He says, p. 346, "There can be no doubt

that

that the descendants of Eneas imposed their language on the people of Italy, &c." Here then Æneas and his Trojans are made to supply the place of the Pelasgi, in the business of teaching Greek to the Latins, though the migration of Æneas to Italy rests on no better tradition, than the migration of the Pelasgi thither. Nor will the substitution be of any avail, unless the Reviewer can shew, first, that the Trojans spake Greek; and, secondly, that they used the Eolic dialect, a dialect not introduced into Asia Minor, till sixty years after the Trojan war. See Strabo, lib. xiii. p. 582. And though the Trojans certainly came from the shores of the Archipelago," yet, if we may credit tradition (in which the Reviewer here is pleased to confide), they were so far from expelling the Pelasgi, that they entered into terms of friendship with them. Æneas and Evander, were on the best possible terms; and Evander had led into Italy a colony of Arcadians, of whom the Reviewer says, at p. 347, that they were "distinctly of Pelasgian origin."

From the Archipelagic colonies, the Reviewer makes an instantaneous transition to the Attic and Ionic dialects. He says,

"We did not expect to find much argument expended upon a point, which no one at present doubts, and which is amply disdiscussed by many scholars, that the Attic dialect was originally the same with the Ionic."

Now the only arguments which we can find to have been expended in the book before us, upon that point, is a quotation from Strabo, which the Reviewer, of all men, should not have censured, as he accuses Dr. Marsh at other times of want of caution. Herodotus having made a two-fold division, and Strabo having made a four-fold division of the Greek dialects, we do not think it superfluous for Dr. Marsh, p. 41, to add another passage from Strabo, which reconciled the two accounts. But though the Attic and Ionic dialects were formerly one and the same dialect, Dr. Marsh is mistaken, it seems, in saying, “that the Ionic was anciently the same with the Attic." We find that he ought to have said, "the Attic was anciently the same with the lonic." And the ground of this refinement is, that "it was the Attic people, who by degrees changed their dialect, while the Ionians retained it nearly in the same form, as it was spoken at time of the migration." And he adds, "these points are now so well established among the learned, that we cannot but wonder at so inaccurate a representation."

We will here resign the reputation of Dr. Marsh to all the punishment due to so flagrant an inaccuracy. But the Reviewer, in his most laudable zeal for accuracy of representation, has expended so much of his attention upon the detection of this enormous blunder, that he has forgotten to reserve a due proportion

of

of it for his own private use. For when he asserts that "the Ionians retained this dialect nearly in the same form, as it was spoken at the time of that migration," he makes an assertion, which is not only most improbable in itself, but is contradicted by the evidence of unquestionable authority. Let any one read the account, which Herodotus has given of the migration of the Ionians in Asia Minor, and he will find it impossible, that the descendants of these Jonians should have continued the dialect of their ancestors, nearly in the same form as it was spoken by them in Attica. The colony did not consist of Ionians alone. There were mixed with them, says Herodotus (Lib. c. 146.) vax oda: he enumerates Arcadians, Phocians, Eubeans, &c. and adds that they who came from Athens married Carian wo

It was therefore quite impossible, that the descendants of such a motley tribe should preserve the dialect unaltered which the Ionians had brought from Attica. And that they did not preserve it unaltered is attested by Herodotus himself. He asserts not only that the Ionic dialect underwent alteration in Asia Minor, but that it branched out into four different characters. He says, in Lib. I. c. 142. Xagunтñges yλwoons TÉOOEGES vívovTa. The passage is translated by Larcher," Sels sont les quatre idiomes, qui characterisent l'Ionien. We leave the Reviewer to settle this point with his friend Larcher.

The Reviewer has nothing to say against the third Chapter of the Hora Pelasgicæ, except that it wants "compression," though we cannot conceive how Dr. M. could have said as much in fewer words, nor how any one else could have said it in so few. We proceed now to his animadversions on Chap. IV. relating to the pronunciation of the digamma. The first objection which he states, p. 349, is, "that many words, which were undoubtedly written with the digamma in Greek, are in Latin spelt with a V." Now we know this as well as himself, and Dr. Marsh knows it also, for he has answered the objection at full length. He objects however to the position, which Dr. M. maintains, that all Latin words begin with F, and now beginning in Greek with, were written with F by those Pelasgi who brought Greek words and Greek letters in Latium. For F was a constituent part of the primitive Greek alphabet, whereas was a late addition to the primitive alphabet." To this the Reviewer replies.

"We have no sufficient proof that the Pelasgi did import letters 'into Latium; the story of Evander's migration rests on no good authority; nor, secondly, that they did use F when the later Greeks used ."

Now since Livy has related both the migration of Æneas and the migration of Evander, and the Reviewer gives credit to the

former,