choice, or enterprize, or winds, or tides, or any other accident, can convey them towards it? How then came half the islands of the globe to be peopled? and how can we credit the infinitely improbable accounts of Captain Cook and other navigators, who tell us of islands situated in the midst of the vast Pacific Ocean, and yet swarming with inhabitants?-We are sufficiently credulous to believe, that the original Pelasgi (even if they received no instructions from the subjects of the before-mentioned Phoroneus) might set out with the spirit of bold adventurers, or be driven by stress of weather to a shore, which they had not actually seen at the time of their embarkation. If we presume to form any opinion upon the subject, we think it but consistent to admit the fact of their being first settled in Argolis, which is testified by the writers who alone give us information concerning them. We may perhaps venture, from the circumstances furnished by these historians, to draw a probable inference respecting the quarter from which the colonists came to Argolis. Their leader, Pelasgus, was, according to these accounts, the son of Jupiter; but, as we learn from Euhemerus the Messenian, (quoted by Cicero, De Nat. Deor. 1. iii.) from Callimachus, (Hymn. in Jovem,) and various other authors, Jupiter was the King of Crete. Unless, therefore, the whole narrative is fabulous, Pelasgus came to Argos from Crete, his father's country and kingdom. This fact, if admitted, suggests an obvious reason why Jupiter was afterwards regarded by the Greeks as the first of the Gods. The Pelasgi established his worship and oracle in Dodona at a very early period; according to Herodotus, before any other religious institutions were introduced, (see Herod. ii. 52; Strabo, 1. vii. &c.) He had also a famous temple at Larissa, and at other Pelasgic settlements. Heyne, therefore, in a note upon Homer, (11. ii. 233,) justly remarks, that Jupiter was a Pelasgic Divinity.

The

In his second chapter, Dr. Marsh undertakes to solve the interesting question, What was the language of the Pelasgi? He observes, that upon this subject even Herodotus confesses himself unable to give a decisive answer. passage of that historian referred to is as follows, (l.i. c.57.) "What language the Pelasgi uttered, 1 cannot certainly say; but if I may conjecture from the present remains of the Pelasgi, some of whom inhabit the city called Creston, beyond the Tyrrhenians, and who were once neighbours to those now called Dorians, and then inhabited the country which is now called Thessaliotis; and others of whom, hav

ing been once neighbours to the Athenians, built Placia and Scylace on the Hellespont, and various other Pelasgic cities, which have obtained other names;-if I may conjecture from them, the Pelasgi uttered some barbarian language. If, therefore, the whole Pelasgic race did so, the Attic nation, being Pelasgic, must, while they became subject to the Hellenians, have adopted their language also; for the Crestonians and the Placians both speak the same language, and yet neither of them speak a language similar to that of any of the tribes in their vicinity. These circumstances prove that they still preserve that language which they used when they emigrated into their present settlements."

Before we can judge of the argument contained in this passage, it is necessary to fix the situation of the places described in it. Dr. Marsh appears to reason upon the supposition that they were all towns in Thrace, (see p. 12, 20, 22;) but this opinion is not supported by any evidence whatever.

In the first place, we must determine the correct reading of the passage. The printed editions, and the manuscripts which have been collated for them, exhibit the words KpyTova and Kрnotaviτa; but we find from a passage in Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1. i. c. 29,) that the manuscript, or manuscripts, which he employed, had Kporava and KgoTAVITI. On account of the far greater antiquity of his authorities, the latter readings ought to be preferred. The internal evidence also is in favour of this emendation; for, although we know of a region called Crestonia, which, as we learn from Herodotus,* was in Macedonia at the head of the Sinus Thermaïcus, yet we hear of no city called Creston, in any part of the world; and if we inquire where the Tyrrhenians were to be found in the time of Herodotus, we discover them only in Italy, in which country, as Dr. Marsh observes, (p. 60-61,) they had settlements among the Bruttii, where Crotona was situated. Respecting the situation of Placia and Scylace, our information is still more clear and decisive. Pomponius Mela places them to the east of Cyzicum, in Myšia, at the foot of Mount

* L. v. 3, 5 ; vii. 124, 127; viii. 116. Dr. Marsh adduces the first of these passages as a proof that the Crestonians were a ráce of Thracians, only because the Thracians of one particular tribe are said to have lived (vwìp) above, or beyond them. The subsequent passages here referred to afford sufficient evidence that Crestonia was not in Thrace, but in the situation we have described.

Olympus, (1. i. c. 19.) "Post, Placia et Seylace, parvæ pelasgorum coloniæ, quibus a tergo imminet mons Olympus, ut incolæ vocant, Mysius." The same situation is assigned to them by Pliny, 1. v. c. 32. If it should be objected that the towns spoken of by Herodotus were " upon the Hellespont," the explanation of this phrase may be found by referring to the 6th book of his history, ch. 33, where he describes the conquests of the Phenician fleet upon the shore of the Propontis, but conformably to what was probably the Homeric practice, extends to that "broad" and "boundless" sea* the name of Hellespontus. "The navy" says he "setting out from Ionia, took all the towns which lay to the left, when sailing in the Hellespont; (for those to the right upon the continent had been subdued by the Persians themselves ;) now the cities of the Hellespont in Europe are these-Chersonesus, in which are numerous cities; Perinthus, the forts in Thrace, Selybria, and Byzantium." These towns extended, not only through the Hellespont, properly so called, but along the shore of the Propontis, to the Bosphorus of Thrace. Upon the south side of the Hellespont therefore, in the sense in which Herodotus used the term, that is, upon the south side of the Propontis, stood the small Pelasgic colonies of Placia and Scylace.

The situation of the places mentioned by Herodotus being determined, we perceive the force of his argument. Two colonies, one in Italy and the other in Mysia, both of Pelasgic origin, speak the same language; but their language. differs from that of all the tribes around them; it may, therefore, be presumed to have been the language spoken by the race, from which they sprung, since they are so remote, that they can scarcely be supposed to have had any intercourse, with one another. But theirs is a barbariant language, that is, a language not spoken in Greece: hence it follows, that the language of the Pelasgi in general was barbarian, or that it differed from the language of the Greeks. This reasoning appears luminous and conclusive; Dr. Marsh, however, entirely evades it, and (omnia miscens et turbans) thinks it sufficient to reply, that the Thracians were the last people where one might expect that the language of the Pelasgi would remain unaltered, because they were mixed with numerous colonies from other nations.

Πλάτος Ελλήσποντος. Ελλησποντος απείρων. HOMER. ↑ Not as Dr. Marsh translates it" a barbarous language."

The above-cited passage respecting the language of the Pelasgi, is immediately preceded by another, which Dr. Marsh employs to establish his system, and which therefore it is necessary to produce. It is as follows:

"Croesus found upon inquiry, that the Lacedæmonians of Doric, and the Athenians of Ionic origin, were the most powerful among the Greeks; for they had the pre-eminence in ancient times, the one being a Pelasgic, and the other an Hellenic nation; and the one never migrated, but the other very frequently changed their situation; for under King Deucalion they inhabited Phthiotis, and under Dorus, the son of Hellen, the country beneath Ossa and Olympus, called Histœotis, being expelled thence by the Cadmeans, they dwelt at Macednos in Pindus; thence again they passed to Dryopis, and having at last come from Dryopis into Peloponnesus, they were called Dorians."

In order to introduce this account of the migrations of the Lacedæmonians, or Dorians, which required, for the sake of perspicuity, to be placed at the end of the sentence, Herodotus inverts the order in which he has first introduced them. Although, after mentioning "the Lacedæmonians and the Athenians," he says, "the one was a Pelasgic, and the other a Hellenic nation;" the context makes it evident, that he intends to represent the Athenians as Pelasgic, and the Lacedæmonians as Hellenic. This transposition being understood, the passage is clear and intelligible. Plain as it is, however, Dr. Marsh derives from it a variety of senses, which it does not appear, by the most distant allusion, to warrant. He asserts, (p. 23,) that Herodotus means by εvos Пελæσynov "the ancient inhabitants of Greece," and by εvos Exλvinov, "the Greeks of his own time," and that those terms were commonly employed by subsequent writers to express the same distinction. Having assumed these facts, he observes, that "an opposition in names is almost always followed by a supposed opposition in the things." Hence he concludes, that the use of two names to denote the Greek nation, as existing at different periods of time, led to the supposition of two distinct nations, having two different languages. By such a chain of reasoning,-a sorites, in which every link is so weak as to separate as soon as it is taken up to be inspected,-does Dr. Marsh endeavour to set aside the explicit and repeated testimonies of the ancients to the existence of the Pelasgi and Hellenians as two distinct tribes.

The account given by the Greek historians is, that the inhabitants of Greece were anciently called Pelasgi, and

the country itself Pelasgia'; but that, after the descendants: of Hellen had become numerous and powerful, their name was extended to all its inhabitants; and also that the original language of the Pelasgi was gradually lost, while the Greek, or Hellenic was substituted in its place. This Dr. Marsh (p. 25) affirms to be impossible, because the language of the Hellenians "could not have superseded the language previously spoken in Greece, unless they exterminated as well as conquered, which no Greek historian has ever asserted." But why should we suppose extermination requisite? When two nations, speaking different languages, are completely intermingled, a change of language will be the necessary consequence. Whichever nation exceeds the other in numbers and in power, will probably obtain the ascendancy with respect to language: the speech of the greater party will by degrees become universal, and will supplant the other, deriving from it, however, a variety of terms and phrases, and probably some new modifications of its declensions and syntax. If, therefore, the relations of the Greek historians are deserving of credit, the probable inference from them is, that the Hellenic supplanted the Pelasgic language, adopting, however, a considerable number of its terms and forms of construction, and thus producing the Greek language still extant in the writings of the ancients.

In his further observations upon the last cited passage of Herodotus, Dr. Marsh, neglecting to notice the inversion of names, which we have pointed out, argues (p. 27-28,) that the Pelasgi must have spoken Greek, because Herodotus says that the Lacedæmonians were Pelasgi, and every one knows that Greek was their language. In consequence of the same misunderstanding, our author charges Herodotus with inconsistency in his account of the Athenians. But this invaluable historian has not exposed himself to any such accusation, uniformly representing the Athenians to have been of Pelasgic, as the Lacedæmonians were of Hellenic origin: he accounts for the prevalence of the Greek language at Athens, by saying, that "the Attic nation, although of Pelasgic origin, when it became subject to the Hellenians, also adopted their language." But, says Dr. Marsh, "a whole nation, all at once forgetting its former language and learning a new one, is a phenomenon of which history affords no example." Such is our author's manner, (for we are sorry to find the examples very numerous,) of putting upon the words of the ancients new or exCRIT. REV. VOL. V. Jan. 1817.

F