ARTICLE II.

Two Effays. The former, a Defence of the ancient Greek Chronology; to which is annexed, a new Chron logical Synopfis: The latter, an Enquiry into the Origin of the Greek Language: By Samuel Squire, M. A. Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge.

T

HIS Book is dedicated to the Archbishop of Canterbury: "For to whom," Mr. Squire fays, "could he appeal, when he diffents from fo CL great a Man as Sir Ifaac Newton, whofe Au thority prejudices almoft every Reader in his Faແ vour, but to Him, who fo early diftinguished "himself by the deepest Knowledge in the Anti"quities of Greece, whofe Judgment all Men con"sent to reverence, and to whofe Determination, "we may prefume, Sir Ifaac Newton himself, were "he living, would fubmit." Further, " to whofe "Judgment could he more properly refer his En"quiry into the Origin of the ancient Language of "Greece, than to His, whofe celebrated Skill in the

*It were well if Authors would specify their Patrons a little more particularly than they ufually do. A Reader is often obliged to enter into a Chronological Enquiry, before he can know to whom a Treatife is infcribed, or tell who is the Subject of thofe fine Compliments and Applaufes which are commonly to be met with in Dedications. To the King, to the Queen, to the moft Reverend Father in God John Archbishop of Canterbury, and the like, are all Equivocals, and fignify no determinate Perfons: Whereas, we are very well acquainted with William the Third, or George the Second; with Queen Anne, or Queen Caroline; with Dr. John Potter, A. B. of Canterbury, &c. If Authors are too elegant to be thus explicite, let them at least condescend fo far as to date their Addresses, which may fomewhat shorten the Labour of finding out whom they are directed to.

"Eastern

"Eaftern and Western Literature conftitutes him "the most able Judge." Mr. Squire will efteem himself extremely happy, if his Grace, "whofe "Hours are fo well known to be devoted to the "most important Services of this Church and Na"tion, will pardon the Interruption of this Offer« ing.

The Preface to thefe Effays is a Bill of Fare, in the first Lines of which Mr. Squire fays, "The "Reader will not be perhaps difpleased to know "beforehand, what fort of Entertainment he may "expect to meet with in the following Sheets." And thereupon he tells him, that in the first Efay he will find an Attempt towards vindicating the Credit of the ancient Greek Chronology, by endeavouring to fhew," that the prefent Syftem of that Chro "nology has all the Evidence for its Support, that "it can reasonably be expected to have that it "is founded in the almoft univerfal Confent of the "whole learned World for above three thousand "Years, and that it was, in all Probability, origi"nally collected and compiled from authentic Re"cords, hiftorical Monuments, Infcriptions, &c." In the next Place, the Author proceeds to strengthen what he has advanced, by examining particularly feveral Objections that have been made ufe of in order to invalidate it, and hopes he has fully proved, that when rightly explained and understood, they carry little or no Force with them against the Authority of our received Syftem.

As for Sir Ifaac Newton's grand Objection against the Credit of the old Geecian Chronology, taken from the mean Length of Generations and Succeffions-Mr. Squire examines it to the Bottom, nor does he in the leaft doubt but he has evinced, that it has no Foundation in Hiftory for "its Support; that the Greeks never did, at leaft "till their latter Ages, make ufe of the Technical "Method

C 4

"Method of computing, mentioned by this great "Philofopher; that their Chronology is however "in all Refpects agreeable to fuch Generations and "Succeffions, as far at leaft as may be determined "from fo vague and uncertain a Medium of "reckoning, much more fo than the Hypothesis "he would eftablish in its room.

The laft Argument against the ancient Greek Chronology that the Author confiders, is the famous Aftronomical one of the fame great Mathematician:" But this he thinks fo manifeftly de"fective in every Part of it, that the bare ftating of it will be fufficient for its Confutation with every intelligent Reader." He has notwithstanding endeavoured, though very briefly, to fhew, "that as Sir Ifaac's Premifes have not the leaft E«vidence for their Support from Antiquity, his "Conclufion cannot poffibly be admitted.

To this Effay the Author has annexed a Chronological Synopfis, in a Method quite new: Where the moft remarkable Facts of both facred and profane Antiquity are collected, and their Æras placed in Columns oppofite to them, according to the best Authority both ancient and modern, the Marbles, Eufebius, Uber, Petavius, Marshall, and Sir Ifaac Newton.

In the fecond Efay, as we are told by Mr. Squire, the Reader is conducted into the remotest Ages of the Greek Antiquity. The Defign of the Author, in this Differtation, is to give an historical Account of the Origin of the Greek Language. His firft Inquiry, therefore, naturally is, who were the primitive Planters and Poffeffors of this Country : and thefe, after a proper Examination, he concludes to have been the famed Pelafgi. But what Language did they make use of? This cannot be certainly known, till it be firft determined from what Country they came into Greece; and this appears to

have been Afia. "Their Language therefore muft have been originally Afiatick; and the fame "with that of the People in the midft of whom "they were respectively born, and had their Edu"cation, and with whom they must have long ." converfed before their Migration. It muft "therefore have borne a great Affinity to the He"brew, as all the other Languages of that our "Parent Country ever did, and are known to do "to this Day; and, like them therefore, must either originally have been derived from the Hebrew, as a Dialect from its Mother-Tongue, or, "what is exactly the fame Thing to our Author, they muft all of them, the Hebrew, Pelafgic, "Egyptian, and other oriental Languages, be "looked upon equally as fo many Dialects derived "from the fame common, though unknown Foun"tain." He is more throughly confirmed in this Notion," from that ftrong material Conformity "or Refemblance between the primitive Language "of Greece and Paleftine, that ftill fubfifts between them through all the various Remains of the Pe

lafgic Tongue, as they are found extant in the "ancient Rites and religious Ceremonies of the "Cabirical Religion, in the first and oldest Names "of the Countries and Towns of Greece, and in "the Speech of the Ofcans or old Latins their undoubted Colonies.

་

Having fettled this firft and leading Point, our Author proceeds in the next Place to confider what Affinity there was between the Pelafgia and Hellenic, between the ancient and latter Languages of Greece. And this he finds to have been very great: The Difference between them " being little more in re"ality than what a long Series of Years, a large

and extended Commerce with Foreigners, new Improvements in Arts and Sciences, with other

Acci

"Accidents of a fimilar Nature, must of themselves "have gradually introduced.

In Confirmation therefore of all he has hitherto advanced, he goes on next to examine whether any Remains of its Afiatic Original are ftill preferved in the Greek Language; and he finds thefe are innumerable, far more than could have been expected, confidering the great Innovations that muft neceffa rily have been introduced into it after the Greeks began to apply themselves to the Study of Poetry, to the Cultivation of Arts and Sciences, and to the Advancement of Commerce. "The Roots or

Themes of the Hebrew and Greek Languages,

ftill retain a manifest and most furprifing Con"formity to each other." And this is all the Likenefs Mr. Squire contends for. "Their prefent "Grammars are moft undoubtedly very different " from each other; tho' perhaps not fo different,

but that a judicious Obferver may even yet re"mark fome Traces of their Refemblance, tho "not fuch strong and confpicuous ones as he "might have done, had he the Greek Language,

as fpoken in the Days of Cecrops, to compare

with the Hebrew." But it may be here afked, Might not the Affinity obferved between thefe Tongues be owing to fome Phenician Words accidentally introduced into Greece by Cadmus, or by Eastern Merchants trading thither? This Queftion, Mr. Squire fays, is fully anfwered in the fixth Section. The feventh endeavours to give an Account of the Origin of the four more general Dialects amongst the Greeks: As the laft inquires into the first Introduction of Letters into that Country.

This is the general Account Mr. Squire himself has given of thefe Effays; we will now view them a little more particularly; going regularly through the feveral Sections of each.