and Latin were cognate dialects, and both related nearly in an
equal degreè to the Greek. On the failure of this hypothesis,
Otfried Muller has developed a series of conj ectures which bear
an appearance of great probability. According to his hypothesis
the Siculians and Oenotrians, nearly connected or identified
with the Pelasgi or primitive Greeks, inhabited thebfputhern
region, of Italy, and a great part of the level and maritime
country in all parts; of that penmsulai A more warlike
people in the mountainous and northern parts were the Umbri,
and tribes allied to them in the Apennines, such as the Prisei
Latini or Aborigines* and the Sabines of Amiternum. .Thé
warlike- people from the Apennines ; conquered the weaker
Siculians, who were a pastoral and agricultural racé Unused
to arms, and founded in their country, intermixed wi.th:Sicu-'
lians, the Latin commonwealth, as well-as-the Opio and'Sabel-
lian states^ where the Oscan language continued Icing to pre#
vail. This hypothesis fails, of the ^support, whicfemlgh-tj be
expected to be found in the examination of the Italie di-ateitt^
For in the first place it appears that the Sicuhan^dn^tead.
being principally Greek, contains the barbaric part of the Latin
language;, and secondly, the Umbrian, supposed- g to be “the
idiom of the barbarous conquerors of the Sneulian race, eon-
tains a considerable intermixture, as we have? ; observed, of
Greek forms and words, which has not .been, proved less
in proportion to the other component part of the Umbrian idiom
than is the corresponding portion in the Latin languag&itself,
compared with that which is alien from the Greek.
There are other reasons which might induce a s cautious
reasoner to call in question the prevalent opinion which- re-
solvès the Latin language into two - component parts, and
represents the one of Greek or of Pelasgic origin* and the other
of barbaric-derivation or taken from the: speech o f. some, race
of men distinct from the Pelasgi or old Greeks. We are indeed
ignorant what was the language df the Pelasgi, and any
inquiry respecting it proceeds, upon the supposition of its near
affinity ta the Greek. • When therefore we discover any words
or forms in Latin that arénot Common, to it and: the Greek, we
cannot saywith certainty that they are not derived from the
Pelasgic speech. But if we are to admit these terms as nearly
synpnymouSj if wilUbe.easy tp show that a great part of the
Ijatin language, and of that part which is remote from the
Pela$giq*;is, y e t, IndorEuropeen.., It may likewise be observed
that the,barbaric,on un-gre.ek portion, of Latin is not made up
§f, materials; derived,fr,om any one Indo-European idiom. A
^,onsjf4erab]e.pfaFt,has been proved ,to be eppamon to the Latin
and ^e^tqnic,. languages. . But the'-Slavonic claims-also a
pertain-, propprtjpn, and this is-, considerable, that writers
on theiSlavic .dialects whose knowledge.,of, other idioms was
deficient, havé - even- ePUpludedp that, the Latin .belonged to
thatTamllyHofdaiAgwages.^. - W ^ b and other, Cel tic, philolo-
gers hayierfcome to .a!;similar in feren ce's to the relation of
the, dfUtin^with jC#ltiejrdialects. Moreover it
tq point , out nuroerous instances, qf words-in which there .is a
-.gtaSfpr resemblance between Latimand Sanskrit_tkao there is
betwèên^theee.* iptïguages andf.anyjothdr - Jndjo-Europeau dia|
Je.ct._t Now if jtifis^O! be considered as proved? by the phenq-,
mena o fan a lo g y , thus discoverable,.. that ■ a Teutonic nation?
in Italy^le^ame intermixed with an q|4pl?.elasgie stock? and
Qlnlrihuted .to,;-t.h^Lftjn lan g u ^p vthat portion which
responds with the TeutQhÏQyslhwilb abqb,%®^ceS#ary, in parity
o f reasoning,-ito ^upppseta colony of.-Celis who-contribnted thq
Celtic, -portion, another -of Slavonians who brought-m words,
..analogous to-the Russian and Polish idioms, and likewise a
tf ibe of Indians who brought with them-.their Sanskrit speech.
These ja^e »suppositions of-extreme difficulty.; but what renders
th&,difficulty qf ^admitting such a notion,still greater, and alto-
-gether insuperable, is that a similar hypothesis must be set up
in orderto account for analogous,facts in many other.instances.
In the Slavonic there are words and forms of; inflection eom-
'xnon to it and the Sanskrit,; others .are common to it with
the Gothic, with the Greek, and with the Persian language
ïdusUhe Poles and Russians-,b&p,qnsidered as_a mixed^prqgpny
from all. these r a c e s I t - is, much mopeLprobable that the
affinities discoverable in all fbesq and tfjfc like examples bq^
* See the"remarks ah ihié ‘sühfêet in the.Chapter an the Slavonian nations, t
■ n TheVeader will find in a nota at the Conclusion of .this chapter some short
specials’of analogous words in these several languages, in proof of,what has been
said, which proof however might easily be much more fplly developed.