they likewise pronounce with a Z what the Athenians pronounced with a different letter? In short these examples prove that the 'Agnades Пɛλαoyo, spake only a different dialect of the same language with the Athenians, who were likewise Пeλaoyo but Hεyαoyo Kęávao 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 vλwooα Bagßag. 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 BapBag 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."

that

He here admits therefore that γλῶσσα βάρβαρο, 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 who calls himself a scholar, would construe yλãooa any man, Sapßapos, by " barbarous Greek." With respect to any words βάρβαρος, 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 ἐριννύειν for ὀργίζεσθαι, which is one of the examples alleged to prove that they spake a yacoa Bapßapos, does not this example prove the contrary of that, for which it was alleged? 'Eguan is a word essentially Greek; and it is so connected with 'Epmus, that if it was not used at Athens, it must have been un

derstood

derstood by Athenians. The Reviewer therefore is absolutely mistaken, when he says, that in such examples we recognize the traces of the yλãoox Bápßapos, which Herodotus and Thucydides ascribe to the Pelasgi. And the Reviewer must, by his own cou fession, 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 Ingov, 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 Eolians with F. They said Fezrez instead of Beerga, Fezxros instead of Bgenres. 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 Pelasgic 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 Greek 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 $ $ 2

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 Ionic." 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 enorinous 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 Ionians 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 lonians alone. There were mixed with them, says Herodotus (Lib. c. 146.) dvaα woλa: he enumerates Arcadians, Phocians, Eubœans, &c. and adds that they who came from Athens married Carian women. 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. Xagunтnges yλwoons TÉOOEGES · γίνονται. Vivovra. 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 P, 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 P 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

9

former, why should he refuse to give credit to the latter? Is it not as credible that the similarity between the Greek and Latin alphabets was owing to the intervention of some Greek colony, as to the intervention of a Trojan colony? But if the Pelasgi did bring letters into Latium, there is no proof, says the Reviewer, that they used F where the later Greeks used . This Dr. M. has shewn at some length, p. 88-92, and has clearly proved that they really must have done so. But, says the Reviewer, the Greeks, before the introduction of , used ПIH. This also Dr. M. has shewn, and has quoted an inscription with that orthography; but still contending that the most ancient mode of writing such words as Quyn and Onun was FVгA and FAMA. "For if the words, which now begin with P, had been written by the Pelasgi with IIH, the Latins, who learnt to write from them, would have followed their example." Here the Reviewer asks, "How can we tell, that they would?" We answer, that we can tell it for the reason, which Dr. Marsh immediately subjoins, and which the Reviewer has, with his usual candour, suppressed. Dr. M. observes, that no traces of the orthography PH could be found in Latin words, till there was a fresh importation of Greek words into Latium after the conquest of Greece by the Romans, when F had fallen into disuse and which arose out of TIH had taken its place. The Latins then began to write with PH, what they then found written with P or ПIH. Ennius, as Dr. M. has there observed, still wrote Fruges, not Phryges. Since then the Latins, before the conquest of Greece always began with F, the words which afterwards began in Greek with ПH or D, as in fuga, fama, &c. but on the other hand wrote with PH the words which they imported from Greece, where F was laid aside, and ПIH or employed in its stead, as in philosophus, physicus, &c. Does not their adhesion to the Greek orthography in the latter case imply a similar adhesion to it in the former? And that F was a constituent part of the primitive Greek alphabet, the Reviewer himself admits. He says, at p. 348, "The most ancient Greeks had a letter resembling the Roman F." The Reviewer therefore is self convicted in his own assertion, at p. 350, that the orthography of such words as FVTA and FAMA rests ⚫on no other authority than that of Dr. Marsh. And to complete the list of contradictions, with which his criticism abounds, he immediately subjoins: "We do not mean to impugn the doctrine, but only the mode of argumentation by which it is enforced." He owns then, after all his cavilling, that such words as Quyn, Quun, were originally written FVгA, FAMA: and, with the admission of this fact, we are fully content, without asking for his better reasons. Dr. Marsh gives a list of twenty-nine such words and has augmented that list by twenty-one more which in later times began either with a vowel, or with 'P, or B, or .

Now