With regard to the embellishments of this work, it is but fair to say, that, though not highly finished, they seem to give correct representations of objects and places; and the author assures us, that her purpose has been to shun the ordinary practice of artists, to sacrifice truth to their own notions of the picturesque.

ART. III. Hora Pelasgica: Part the First. Containing an Inquiry into the Origin and Language of the Pelasgi, or ancient Inhabitants of Greece; with a Description of the Pelasgic, or Eolic Digamma, as represented in the various Inscriptions in which it is still preserved; and an attempt to determine its genuine Pelasgic Pronunciation. By HERBERT MARSH, D.D. F.R.S. Margaret Professor of Divinity in Cambridge, and now Lord Bishop of Llandaff. PP. 146.

THE title of this work clearly explains its nature and design; the subject will be allowed by every liberal reader to be one of great interest; and, although the researches of scholars, and their division of opinion, have hitherto taught us not to form sanguine hopes of any correct information respecting the earliest history of the Pelasgi, a new stimulus is given to our curiosity, when the inquiry is commenced by an author, whose former publications have raised a very high idea of the powers and endowments of his mind.

The treatise before us consists of four chapters. The first chapter relates to the origin of the Pelasgi. Its principal object is to prove, that, although we cannot trace them any farther, we are able to ascertain that the Pelasgi first settled in Thrace, and thence migrated southwardsinto the different parts of Greece.

The first testimony cited by Dr. Marsh, is that of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who represents it as the common opinion of the ancients, that the Pelasgi were so called from a king of that name; and that they had no fixed habitation, but that their first residence was in Peloponnesus, round about Argos. Dr. Marsh, indeed, by a strange mistake, (see p. 2, 3, 12,) understands the expression of Dionysius, τὸ καλούμενον νῦν ̓Αχαϊκὸν Αργος, to signify Achaia Proper. But who ever heard of an Argos in that quarter? The capital city of Argolis is doubtless intended by the historian. The epithet 'Axinov was applied to it as early as

the time of Homer, who often uses 'Axaio to denote the Greeks in general. But (what is of more importance to our present enquiry) the whole of Peloponnesus was called Achaia, after it became a province of the Roman Empire. Hence, in the time of Dionysius, the ancient and celebrated capital of Argolis was called 'Αχαϊκού Αργος, Achaian Argos, to distinguish it from other cities or territories having the same name, such as Argos Hippium in Apulia, ̓Αμφιλοχικον "Αργος in Epirus, and Πελασγικον Αργος in Thessaly. The testimony of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who took more pains than any other Greek writer to investigate the origin and history of the Pelasgi, is therefore clear and express, that they were first settled, according to the assertion of the generality of the historians, in the district of Argos. Nor is the testimony materially weakened by a fanciful passage in favour of Arcadia, produced by Dr. Marsh from Plutarch, who says, that "the Arcadians are somewhat like the oak, because this was the first tree, and they were the first men who sprung out of the ground." The allusion of a writer, who bore the character of a philosopher and orator, much more than that of an historian and antiquarian, ought to have little weight in opposition to the plain information of Dionysius. Dr. Marsh likewise produces, as evidence that some of the ancients represented Arcadia to have been the original seat of the Pelasgi, a passage from Pliny, and another from Pausanias, in which those authors merely state, that Arcadia was once called Pelasgia. Even if there were any validity in the tenor of such an argument, it would be refuted by the more abundant testimonies of other writers, by whom the same name is given to Argolis. These testimonies may be seen in a learned note of Spanheim upon Callimachus, (Lav. Pall. v. 4.), to which Dr. Marsh refers, but, by another unaccountable error, appeals to it for proofs, that Pelasgia was the ancient name, not of Argolis, but of Peloponnesus. The proper names, Argos, Argivi, &c. it is true, were sometimes used in reference to the whole Peninsula. But the authors, quoted by Spanheim, evidently employ them in their proper and restricted sense; and nothing can be more clear, than that this critic cites them for the sole. purpose of proving that Argolis was frequently called Pelasgia,

* See Heyne Excurs. ad II. B. 101. et Not. ad II. B. 684.

+ See Heyne, ubi supra. Vet. Schol. in Pind. Isthm. ii. 15. Spanhem, in Callimachi Hymn. in Delum. v. 73.

CRIT. REV. VOL. V. Jan. 1817.

E

and its inhabitants Pelasgi. If, therefore, the evidence which lies before us can be depended on at all, the only conclusion to be derived from it is, that the Pelasgi first settled in Argolis, and at a very early period colonized the contiguous district of Arcadia. The division, thus separated from the original stock, is mentioned by Herodotus (1. i. c. 146.) under the name of ayol 'Apnades, the Pelasgians of Arcadia. The same author (1. vii. c. 94.) speaks of another colony by the name of Πελασγοί Αιγιαλέες, the Pelasgians of Egialus. He says, that they inhabited the territory which, in his time, was called Achaia. It extended along the northern shore of Peloponnesus, on which account, as we are informed by Pliny, Strabo, and Pausanias, it was called Ayakas, the shore. Dr. Marsh adds, that "whatever part of Peloponnesus they first occupied, they gradually spread themselves over the whole Peninsula, which was thence originally called Pelasgia His proofs of these assertions are very far from being satis factory. In Peloponnesus we cannot trace them beyond Argolis, Arcadia, and Achaia.

With erudition and accuracy our author has cited passages from Greek writers of the highest authority, to prove that, beyond the isthmus of Corinth, the Pelasgi settled in Attica, Baotia, Eubea, Phocis, Epirus, and Thessalia. Relying upon the testimony of Justin, who says of Macedonia," Populus Pelasgi, regio Paonia dicebatur;" he has also traced them across the chain of Mount Olympus; and he has shewn, that they colonized the islands of the Egean Sea, as far northward as Lemnos, Imbrus, and Samothrace. But in his endeavours to prove that they existed "from the earliest ages" in Thrace, which is the most essential object of this chapter, he appears entirely to fail.

In order to establish this important point, Dr. Marsh adopts a conjecture of Heyne, founded upon the order, in which Homer, in his Catalogue, enumerates the Trojan auxiliaries. Having mentioned the troops raised from the neighbourhood of Troy, the poet passes over to the continent of Greece, and enumerates the auxiliaries from the other side of the Hellespont in the following order :-1st, The tribes of Pelasgians, who inhabited the fertile Larissa. 2dly, The Thracians, established upon the shores of the Hellespont. 3dly, The Cicones; and 4thly, the Poonians. (II. B. 840-860.) In describing the three last nations, the poet proceeds regularly from east to west. Hence Heyne conjectures, that the first-mentioned nation inhabited some

· district still further to the eastward; and, to support this hypothesis, he suggests, that there may have been a Pelasgic city, called Larissa, in that part of Thrace, although it was afterwards deserted, and its name forgotten. We know, however, that there was, upon the banks of the Péneus, a district called Larissa, which was certainly peopled by Pelasgians. Instead therefore of imagining a city, for whose existence we have no historical authority, it is much more reasonable to understand Homer as speaking of Larissa in Thessaly; and the argument of Heyne appears weaker than those which his candour, learning, and good sense, have usually suggested, because Larissa on the Peneus was not in a line with the other three countries, bút to the south of them, and consequently must have been mentioned either before or after them, without any reference to its situation eastward or westward. Indeed Heyne only professes to suggest a conjecture; "Suspicari licet inter Thraces Europe consedisse turmas Pelasgorum.' But the language of Dr. Marsh is much more decided: "Since then Homer proceeds westward in his description from the Hellespont to Mount Hæmus, and includes the Pune Hɛλæoyüv in this description, we must conclude that, like the Cicones, they then inhabited some part of the extensive country called Thrace." Equally positive, but (suspicari liceat) equally inconclusive are the remaining observations of our author, according to whom, "we may safely infer, that the Pelasgi had possessions on the continent of Thrace,” because, as we are informed by Herodotus, they occupied three islands, Lemnos, Imbrus, and Samothrace, in its vicinity, and "built Placia and Seylace upon the Hellespont.

Having discussed the evidence, produced by Dr. Marsh, to prove that the Pelasgi had settlements in Thrace, we shall take the same liberty with the inference, which he has derived from that fact, supposing it to be established. His object is to prove that the Pelasgi did not migrate, as all the ancients assert, from the south northwards, but from the north southwards; that they extended themselves not from Peloponnesus to Thrace, but from Thrace to Peloponnesus.

"It is infinitely more probable (says he) 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 Egean 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." (p. 13–14.)

Here we must not omit to notice the assumption, which is essential to the force of Dr. Marsh's argument, that the Pelasgi not only inhabited Thrace and Greece, but were "the first settlers" in those countries. Upon this point he offers no proof, and we have some ground for believing that the fact was otherwise. Dionysius of Halicarnassus asserts, (1. i. c. 17.), that the Pelasgi, when they first established themselves in Thessaly, expelled its former inhabitants; and Apollodorus (1. i. c. 1.) states, that Niobe, the mother of that Pelasgus, who conducted the Pelasgi to Argos, and from whom they derived their name, was the daughter of Phoroneus, king of all Peloponnesus, which of course was previously inhabited. Whoever were the first settlers in Thrace, it is not improbable that they crossed the Hellespont, as Dr. Marsh supposes the Pelasgi to have done, because at Abydos it is so narrow, that a man may with ease swim over it. But granting for a moment that the Pelasgi existed in Thrace, we cannot admit, without evidence, that they were the first settlers in that country.

Since, as Dr. Marsh allows, the ancients agree in representing Peloponnesus to have been the residence of the Pelasgi previously to their appearance in the North of Greece, he ought not to have advanced a contrary opinion without weighty and substantial reasons. When adducing their testimonials to establish the dispersion of the Pelasgi through the various Grecian territories, he appears to place in them the most implicit and absolute reliance. After such appeals to their authority, it is surely inconsistent to dismiss them as undeserving of any further credit. At least, an author ought to be very cautious, and very confident of the soundness of his objections, before he adopts such a

course.

Does then the argument above quoted possess the strength and clearness requisite to justify such a departure from direct historical testimony? Far from it: an argument, which supposes almost insuperable difficulties in crossing any navigable piece of water, except where the opposite coast is visible, appears to us perfectly puerile. What necessity is there that a country should be seen by a band of mariners at the commencement of their voyage, before either