Page images
PDF
EPUB

aggerated senses, so as to mislead any readers who are not cautious and quick-sighted in remarking the progress of his representations. The assertions of Herodotus, and of all the ancient historians, who enter upon the subject, only imply that the Pelasgians, being gradually incorporated with the more powerful Hellenians, gradually adopted the Hellenic language.

But. Dr. Marsh argues, that the Pelasgi must have spoken Greek, because, as Herodotus informs us, they called the Gods EOI, as having founded all things, OENTEE tà πάντα πρήγματα. "Now," says he, "if the Pelasgi not only called the Gods EOI, but so called them from OEN, the root of Tin, what better evidence can we have, that the Pelasgi spake Greek?"-To this argument we might reply, either by repeating our former observation, that the language, adopted in consequence of the ascendancy of the Hellenic family, probably retained a mixture of Pelasgic words; or by supposing that the Hellenic and Pelasgic, like the modern Persic and German, or Greek and Sanscrit, though they were so different from one another as to be accounted distinct languages, were derived from the same original source, and had many words in common.

"But there is no argument," Dr.Marsh proceeds, "which so clearly evinces the language of the Pelasgi, as that which is derived from the Latin language." That the similarity," he continues, "between the languages and letters of Greece and Rome, was owing to the intervention of the Pelasgi, is unanimously asserted both by Latin and by Greek writers who have treated of Roman antiquities.' We shall briefly examine the proofs of this assertion.

In the first place, Dr. Marsh produces quotations from Livy, Tacitus, Pliny, and Solinus, who assert that the Pelasgi, having emigrated from Arcadia under Evander, first brought letters, or alphabetic writing, into Latium. But what proof does this circumstance furnish that the Pelasgi had any material influence upon the language of Latium? According to the principle of this argument, we might expect, in all countries where alphabetic writing is practised, to find the inhabitants speaking but one language in different dialects, because the alphabets which they employ are all modifications of one alphabet only.

In the next place, Dionysius of Halicarnassus states the fact, that colonies of the Pelasgi migrated into Italy. These migrations, Dr. Marsh infers, "laid the foundation of the similarity which subsists between the Greek and Latin

languages." To warrant this inference, he ought to have shewn that that similarity did not subsist previously to the migrations of the Pelasgi; and that there was no other probable way in which it could have been produced. But these suppositions are, we conceive, entirely baseless. The probability is, that the language of Latium bore some resemblance to Greek before the Pelasgi reached that country; because, upon examining all the languages of Europe, both ancient and modern, of which we have any knowledge, we discover among them a universal resemblance, proving that they belong to one family, and are derived from one common stock. To prove that the language of Latium was affected by the migrations of the Pelasgi, it ought to have been shewn, that the peculiarities which distinguished the ancient Latin tongue from the languages of other European tribes or nations, existed in the language of the Pelasgi; but of their language we know almost nothing, and consequently cannot draw such an inference.

We might point out various additional instances, in which Dr. Marsh appears to us to give incorrect representations of the assertions of ancient authors, or to derive from them unjustifiable conclusions; but it is more gratifying to ourselves, and, we trust, will be more interesting to our readers, to close our remarks upon this second chapter with the following extract, in which the learned author, in an ingenious and satisfactory manner, accounts for the mixture of dialects in the poems of Homer.

"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 to Englishmen, if they found in the same sentence of an English poet, the Lancashire or 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. When the Ionians left Attica to settle in Asia, à considerable portion of Eubœans (o'vx inaxiorn

* The reader may find much interesting information pertaining to this subject in the Edinburgh Review, vol. xiii. p. 366-381, written by a linguist, (Dr. Murray, editor of the octavo edition of Bruce's Travels, &c.) whose early and lamented death has prevented him from diffusing a flood of light over these curious subjects.

poipa, as Herodotus says, I. i. c. 146) was mixed with them. Now the Euboeans spake the Eolic dialect, as appears from Strabo, lib. viii. p. 333. Further, says Herodotus in the same chapter, that the Arcadian Pelasgi (Apnadeç Пeλacyol) were mixed with these same Ionians, when they first settled in Asia. Let us now consider when this settlement took place. According to Strabo, (lib. xiii. p. 582,) these Ionians settled in Asia Minor four generations; that is, about 130 years after the Æolians had sent a colony to Asia Minor, which settled in the country called after their name Æolis. And it appears from the same page of Strabo, that this Æolian colony settled in Æolis sixty years after the Trojan war. Consequently the Ionians must have settled in Asia Minor about 200 years after the Trojan War; and as they were mixed with so large a proportion of Euboans and Arcadians who spake the Æolic dialect, their immediate descendants must have spoken a language which was a compound of both. When we consider, therefore, that Homer could not have lived many generations after the settlement of this mixed colony in Asiatic Ionia, the language of his countrymen must have been such as we find in his own poems." (p. 51—53.)

[ocr errors]

(To be continued.)

ART. IV.-Verses to the Memory of the late Richard Reynolds of Bristol. By JAMES MONTGOMERY, Author of the Wanderer of Switzerland, &c. London, Longman and Co. 1816. 8vo. pp. 31.

In these days of advertising and ostentatious benevolence, it is more than usually gratifying to meet with an instance of pure self-denying charity, not because instances are more rare than formerly, but because the contrast is more striking. Most of those who appropriate large sums to public subscriptions have at least an eye homewards in their donations; for the announcement of their names in all the newspapers is not only gratifying to their vanity, but generally useful to their interests. It is not to be denied, that in consequence of these publications the amount obtained is enhanced, but it does not follow that the relief afforded to the distressed is proportionably great: the object of real charity is two-fold, as applied to the giver and to the receiver, but the advantage to the former, by the modern practice, is almost entirely destroyed, since his purpose generally ceases to be to remove suffering, and changes itself into something worse even than the mere love of notoriety: he may be literally said to be "by his own alms impoisoned," and instead of "doing good by stealth, and blushing to find it fame," his design is not half so much to confer benefits, as to

let the world know that he can afford to do so. Whether the other purpose of charity is much advanced is another question, and may with some fairness be disputed by those who know the enormous sums paid for advertisements, and the consequent laxity in the distribution occasioned by this carelessness of disburse in the outset: it is a fact that has come within our own immediate knowledge, that the more important wants of that large proportion of the poor of the metropolis consisting of emigrant Irish, were supplied during a whole winter by a less sum than has been paid to a single newspaper for the insertion of the subscriptions for the sufferers in Spitalfields.

The practice of the individual whose recent death occasioned the small production on our table, was directly at variance with this modern system of benevolence; and among other proofs, it is recorded, that when Mr. Butterworth, the Member for Coventry, applied to him for a subscription for the sufferers in Germany by the late war, he complied by giving a small sum, to which his name was annexed in the newspapers; soon afterwards an anonymous subscription for 500l. was received from Bristol, where Mr. Reynolds then resided, which was some time afterwards ascertained to have been paid out of his pocket. Several other instances of the same disinterested and retiring benevolence are recorded by Mr. Montgomery, on the authority of the individuals to whose knowledge they had come, and who mentioned them at a meeting held at Bristol in October last, to commemorate the death of Richard Reynolds, by the formation of a society to continue the benefits he had conferred upon his distressed fellow-creatures in his life-time. Our readers will with pleasure peruse the following extract.

"Dr. Pole gave the following account:-'It is well known, that he (R. Reynolds) made it his constant practice, from religious principle, annually to spend the whole of his income. What his moderate domestic establishment did not require, he disposed of in subscriptions and donations for promoting whatever was useful to society, as well as to lessen the sufferings of the afflicted, without regard to names, sects, or parties. At one particular time, (if I am rightly informed,) he wrote to a friend in London, acquainting him that he had not that year spent the whole of his income, requesting that if he knew of any particular cases claiming charitable relief, he would be glad to be informed. His friend communicated to him the distressing situation of a considerable number of persons confined in a certain prison for small debts. What did this humane and generous philan

thropist do on this representation?-He cleared the whole of their debts. He swept this direful mansion of all its miserable tenants, He opened the prison doors, proclaimed deliverance to the captives, and let the oppressed go free.'

"Dr. Stock said, that he had heard, from what he considered good authority, the particulars of an act of princely liberality, mentioned by a gentleman before him.

"Mr. Reynolds, at the period alluded to, (1795,) resided at Coalbrook Dale. He addressed a letter to some friends in London, stating the impression made upon his mind by the distresses of the community, and desiring that they would draw upon him for such sum as they might think proper. They complied with his request, and drew, in a very short time, to the extent of eleven thousand pounds. It appeared, however, that they had not yet taken due measure of his liberality: for in the course of a few months he again wrote, stating, that his mind was not easy, and his coffers were still too full. In consequence of which they drew for nine thousand pounds more!" (p. 10-12.)

In the whole 20,000l., from the pocket of a private individual! If 5,000l. from the purse of a Prince for the Spitalfields weavers be received with such gratitude, and his generosity lauded to the skies, where shall we find language sufficient to do justice to the unequalled generosity of Richard Reynolds of Bristol? To be silent is the only and the best acknowledgement; our words would be even more idly spent than those which eulogized a trifling payment from a fund annually supplied out of the taxes upon the nation at large.

Mr. Montgomery is a man of considerable genius, and therefore a man of a liberal and enlightened mind: on this account we are sorry to observe in the preface to this poetical tribute a sentence that may bear a construction which we are sure he never intended: after mentioning that Richard Reynolds was a Quaker, he adds with a but, "that as far as human judgment can extend, he was one of those who also are Christians, not in word only, but in deed." Shakspeare makes his Clown remark, that "af is your only peace-maker;" precisely the reverse may be said of but, as it is used by Mr. Montgomery; he could not, however, mean to cast a general censure on a society, remarkable we may say for its benevolence and charity: if its alms are confined more particularly to its own sect, it never requires donations from those who do not belong to it; and if the wholesome regulations observed by the Quakers were introduced into other societies, poor-houses (mis

« PreviousContinue »