learned as frivolous. Should it do no more than throw additional light on the beauties of Homer, the admirers of that first and best of poets will be grateful.

That the Pelasgi were the original inhabitants of Peloponnesus, appears to have been generally believed by the ancients. Further than this, however, they did not pretend to trace them; but, according to the usual practice of those times, made them auró Boves in a certain part of the Peloponnesus-some representing Achaia as their original country, others Arcadia. Modern writers, who have a different way of accounting for the production of an ancient people, have represented them, says Dr. Marsh, as "Egyptians, Philistines, Phoenicians, Bactrians, Scythians, Goths, and Celts, according as it best suited their respective systems." It is the author's object, in the first chapter of the present work, to ascertain, as nearly as circumstances will allow, the real origin of the Pelasgi; to determine the point at which our actual knowledge concerning them must necessarily cease, and beyond which we must depend wholly upon conjecture. And as he observes,

66

Though we cannot obtain the certainty of historical evidence for the origin of so ancient a people, we may obtain something more solid, than mere conjecture: we may at least derive the benefit of historical induction. To give this historical induction the weight of which it is capable, we must collect all the accounts, which can be obtained of the Pelasgi, from the writings of the Greeks themselves; we must arrange those accounts in such an order, as will best enable us to trace the Pelasgi upwards, as high as our data will carry us; and then consider what probable conclusion may be drawn."

This is what we are to expect on this branch of the subject; and the promise held out is well fulfilled. By a chain of quotations, from the Greek authors who have treated of ancient Greece and its inhabitants, we perceive distinctly, that, whatever be the place from whence the Pelasgi originally proceeded, "they gradually spread themselves over the whole Peninsula, which was thence originally called Pelasgia ;" and that " Greece likewise, without the Isthmus, was originally occupied by these same Pelasgi." By these arguments, and by an express assertion of Strabo's, we are induced to acquiesce in the Professor's conclusion, that the Pelasgi once occupied the whole of Greece. In the same masterly manner he shows that they also inhabited Macedonia and Thrace. Beyond this we have no means of tracing them; and we can only suppose, that their settlement in Europe was caused by some migration of the overflowing population of Asia.

"By means of the data, collected in this chapter, we may trace

the Pelasgi throughout the whole of Greece, and onward through Thrace to the Hellespont. The Greek writers, as we have seen, represent either Arcadia, or Achaia, as the original seat of the Pelasgi: whence they are supposed to have migrated to Thessaly, and from Thessaly to Thrace. The question how the Pelasgi came to be the first inhabitants of Peloponnesus was easily resolved, by making them avtoxlors. But as we know, that Europe was peopled from Asia, either the first settlers in Peloponnesus traversed the Ægean Sea, in which case Greece might have been peopled from South to North: or the first migration from Asia Minor to Europe was across either the Hellespont or the Thracian Bosphorus, in which case Greece was peopled from North to South. Now it is infinitely more probable, that the first settlers in Thrace should have crossed the Hellespont, where the land on one side is visible from the land on the other, and that Greece should have been peopled from Thrace, than that the first settlers in Greece should have come immediately across the Ægean Sea, and have consequently embarked in Asia, without knowing that an opposite coast was in existence. We may therefore fairly presume that Thrace was the first European settlement of the Pelasgi, and that they gradually spread themselves southward till they had occupied the whole of Greece. Indeed Thrace was the original seat of Grecian song and Grecian fable. Thamyris, who is said to have challenged the Muses, was a Thracian. So was Orpheus; so was Musæus. And the Mysteries of the Cabiri were celebrated in Samothrace, before the temple of Delphi existed."

"We have therefore sufficient data to warrant the inference, that the country, where the Pelasgi first established themselves in Europe, was Thrace. And if we cannot obtain any historical data, which may 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. That some of the qu entered Europe by the Hellespont, we may infer from their subsequent intercourse with the Trojans: though other tribes of them may have entered, and probably did enter, by the Thracian Bosphorus. Nor is it improbable that other que λary, or a portion of this uiya ovos, as Strabo calls them, traversed the Northern shores of the Euxine, and entered Thrace across the Danube. For Thrace was a country of very great extent. Διήκει η Θράκη ἀπὸ Στρυμώνος ποταμοῦ μέχρι Ιστρου ποταμοῦ τοῦ ἐν τῷ Ευξείνω πόντῳ, says Scylax in his Periplus. And Herodotus (lib. v. cap. 2.) says, Θρηίκων ἔθνος μέγιστόν ἐστι, μετὰ γὲ Ἰνδοὺς, πάντων ἀνθρώπων. the Thracians bordered on the Scythians is again asserted by Scylax: Μετὰ δὲ Θράκην εἰσὶ Σκύθαι ἔθνος. And that the Scythians were even a race of Thracians is asserted by Stephanus Byzantinus: Σκύθαι ἔθνος Θράκιον. 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."

That

In the second chapter Dr. Marsh undertakes to prove that the language of the Pelasgiof the ἔθνος Πελασγικόν, was the same as that of their descendants—the ἔθνος Ελληνικὸν ; the same in fact, though different in form. This opinion is completely at variance with that of Herodotus, and other Greek writers, who assert that the Pelasgi spoke a barbarous language (βάρβαρον γλῶσσαν.) Thucydides has even reckoned the Per lasgi among the ovn Bágßapa. Dr. Marsh however argues, that the terms ἔθνος Πελασγικόν and ἔθνος Ελληνικών were only different names applied to the same nation, as it existed at different periods; and that this supposed difference in the things signified originated, as in many other cases, solely in the difference of the names. This hypothesis is strongly confirmed, by a consideration of the circumstances attending this alteration in the name of that people-an alteration, which did not take place till after the Trojan war, and which was caused by the superiority acquired by the sons of Hellen over their less powerful neighbours.

"The superiority gained by the "Eλanvis, which led to the general adoption of their name, must have been subsequent to the Trojan war. For Homer describes them as then confined to a district of Thessaly, as Thucydides himself adds in the same place τεκμηριοῖ δὲ μάλιστα Ωμηρος.) Likewise the Greek scholiast to Apollonius Rhodius (Argon. i. 904.) says, "ungos μiar Ostrarías wów oide Thy Exλáda. Even independently of Homer's testimony, it is incredible that the cause should have operated so long before the Trojan war, if, as Thucydides himself declares, the effect was not produced till after the Trojan war. But whatever was the period, when the descendants of Hellen obtained the superiority, which led to the general adoption of their name, there is no reason to suppose that they spake a different language from that which was used in the other parts of Greece, to which they extended their dominion. At that time Greece in general was called Пλaryia: and the very country, from which the "Exλnts came, was distinguished in particular by the epithet Пshayxis. The substitution therefore of one term for another, could not have been accompanied with the substitution of one language for another. And even if the family of Hellen had spoken a different language from that of the Pelasgi, the language of that family could not have superseded the language previously spoken in Greece, unless they exterminated as well as conquered, which no Greek historian has ever asserted." He also shows the absurdity of the contrary opinion, in a very striking manner, by the following observation :

“In the time of Homer, the term γλῶσσα Ελληνική could be applied only to the language spoken in Thessaly; for none but the Thessalians were called "Ελληνες. If then the term γλώσσα βάρβαρος

be applied wherever the term γλῶσσα Ἑλληνικὴ does not apply, which was the mode of reasoning, not only of Herodotus and Thucydides, but of the Greek writers in general, the term ooα BagBagos applied, in the time of Homer, to the very language in which Homer himself wrote. Nay, the whole of the Greek army, which appeared before the walls of Troy, consisted of barbarians, with the exception of the troops which were led by Achilles."

He displays his usual acuteness, in the discovery of the causes of those endless inconsistencies, into which the Greek writers were led, by the supposition they had adopted on so slight a foundation. That a nation should change its name, he shows to be not only a thing that might very well take place, but a thing that has often taken place, and particularly in Athens. But that a whole nation should suddenly, and without any assignable cause, forget its ancient language and learn another, he justly considers as highly improbable. For the numerous arguments which he draws from the works of the Greek historians, in confutation of their own opinions upon this subject, we must refer to the work itself: they will find them not the least interesting or amusing part of the book. Were we to give to our readers all that is interesting and amusing in this volume, it would be necessary to transcribe almost the whole of it.

It is principally from a consideration of the Latin language, that Dr. Marsh endeavours to determine the language of the. Pelasgi. He mentions the two great migrations of the Pelasgi into Italy, and attributes the resemblance described by Quintilian between the Latin language and the Æolic dialect of the Greek, to the fact of the Pelasgi having used that particular dialect. This fact he is at great pains to prove by a reference to all the accessible authorities-particularly to Dionysius, who is minute in his description of the dialect which the Pelasgi brought with them into Italy. He supports his opinion by a concise examination of the different dialects, as they are divided and classed by ancient writers; and appeals to the inscriptions upon coins, medals, tablets, and statues, which ingenious men have from time to time discovered and preserved. Thus he incontestibly proves, that the Pelasgi used the Æolic dialect, and also "that characteristic mark which distinguishes the Æolic, as well as Doric, from all other Greek dialects." He proceeds thus:

"The character, therefore, which distinguishes the Æolic dialect, might properly be called the Pelasgic Digamma. The whole of Greece, as we have already seen, was once called Пayin; and that the use of the Digamma was not in ancient times confined to a particular race of Greeks, appears from the manner in which

Dionysius of Halicarnassus describes it. He speaks in general terms (lib. i. c. 20.) of the Digamma, as cules Tois APXAIOI "Exano, whence we may consider the Digamma as the pristine character of the Greek language. Indeed the Greek F was a constituent part of the primitive Greek alphabet. It corresponded, as well in form as in alphabetic order, to the sixth letter of the Phænician, or Samaritan alphabet. The sixth letter of the Samaritan alphabet, as it still appears in the Samaritan manuscripts of the Pentateuch, is a double Gamal, as the sixth letter of the Greek alphabet was a double Gamma. The difference, therefore, which afterwards subsisted between the Æolic, and the other dialects, was not occasioned by an insertion on the part of the Eolians, but by an omission on the part of the other Greeks. Sometimes they dropped the F, without making any compensation for it, saying 12 for FIZ, ANAZ for FANAE, OIKOZ for FOIKOZ, &c. At other times they made compensation by the substitution of H, which in the primitive Greek alphabet, like the corresponding letter in the Samaritan and Latin alphabet, was an aspirate. Thus they substituted HOPΜΟΣ for FOPΜΟΣ, ΗΟΣ for Fox suus, ΗΕΚΑΣΤΟΣ for FEKAETOE, &c.; in the same manner as the Spaniards substitute H for F, in words derived from the Latin. At what period the Greek F began to be omitted, or exchanged for H, by the Dorians, Ionians, and Athenians, is a question, which we have no data to determine. That it had fallen into disuse among the Ionians, when Herodotus wrote, can admit of no doubt. But had it fallen into disuse among them, when Homer composed his Iliad and Odyssey? Probably not. Homer's Ionic is very different from that of Herodotus; for it contains a mixture of dialects. But we cannot suppose that Homer patched up his verses by culling sometimes from one dialect, sometimes from another, as he wanted a long or a short syllable to suit the metre. Such a liberty must have appeared no less extraordinary to Homer's countrymen, than it would be to Englishmen, if they found, in the same sentence of an English poet, the Lancashire and Exmoor dialect jumbled with the dialect of London. The language used by Homer, was undoubtedly the language which was generally spoken in the country where he lived: and the language spoken by the Asiatic Ionians in the time of Homer must have been exactly such, as we find in the Iliad and Odyssey."

There is one argument remaining, and that founded upon the names by which the Greeks were known among the Romans. He observes, that

"The very circumstance, that the Pelasgi brought the term Teamoi into Italy (which is proved by the fact of the Latins using the term Græci,) shows that Пeλaryol and reaixoei were only different names of the same people. Further, it appears from the Greek Chronicle on the Arundel Marbles, that the term reaxoi was not confined to the neighbourhood of Dodona, but that it was generally