ETBUBIA. Wiag tondltisioiis: — I. The Etroseta or Tasetti laugaage is one nulicaUj ditferent from the ether langoages of Italj by which it was sorronnded. This is in aooonUoce with the express statement of Dionjsios (i. 30) and with several passages of the Roman writecB which represent the Toscan as a Ian- goage whoify nnintelligible to tha Latins. (Liv. ix. 36 ; QelL xL 7). 2. A comparison with the Eugubine Tables proves it to be qoitedistinct from the Umbrian, its neanst neighbour, though they would seem to have had words and inflections common to the two, a circumstance which wonld naturally arise from their proximity, and still more probably fhxn the subjection of a part of the Umbrians by the Etruscans. 3. It contains unquestionably a Greek or PeUsgic ele- ment : this is found so much more strongly in some inscriptioDfl, discovered in the southern part of Etruria, as to raise a suspicion that they are ahnost purely Pelasgic. (Lep^ius, T^rrAen. PeUuger, pp. 4O..43. Donaldson, Varronianu^ pp. 166—170.) This, however, does not apply to the Perugian in- scription, or othen found in the more oentral and northern parts of the country. The existence of this Peksgian or old Qreeic element exphuns the partial success of Lanzi in his elaborate attempt to interpret the Etruscan language by means of Greek anal<^ies {Saggio di Lingua EtruscOf 8 vols. 8vo. Borne, 1789), while its total failure as a whole proves the main ingredients of the language to be radically different 4. Besides these two partial elements, one i^in to the Umbrian, the other to the old Greek, there exists a third, probably the most important of all, wholly distinct firom both, and which may be called the Rasenio element, being in all probability the language of the Etruscans pro- perly so called. Of this we can only assert, in the present state of our knowledge, that although dis- tinct from the Pehugic or Grrak Gunily of lao^uaj^ on the one hand, and from that of the Umbrians, Oscans, and Latins on the other, there are good reasons for believing it to belong to the same great family, or to the cUws of languages commonly imown as the Indo-Teutonic. Some arguments have lately been brought forward to show that its nearest affini»- ties are with the Gothic, or Scandinavian group. (Klenze, PkiloL AbhandL p. 64, note; Schwegler, itom. Gesch. voL 1. pp.173, 268; Donaldson, Korro- jsMMiif, chap, v.) The result of these philological inquiries is in accordance with, and strongly confirms, that of the latest historical researches. Both alike point to the inference that the Etruscans were a mixed people : that the bulk of the population, at least of Southern Etruria, was a Pehisgic race, closely akin to the people who formed the substratum of the popuUtion of Latium, as well as of Southern Italy, but who appear to have been the most cultivated and civilised of the early Italian raceSi and to have preserved most strongly many peculiarities of their original character ud institutions ; but that this people had been subdued, before the period when they first figure in Bonflm history, by a more warlike race from the north, who established their dominion over the previous^ existing popnUttion, whom they re- duced to the condition of serfs (v€¥§aTcdy Diunys. ix. ft.): the conquerors rtained their own language, though not without modification, as well as their saoe^otal and aristocratic institutions, while they received to a great extent the arts and civilisation •f the people whom they conquered. A third eleawnt which must qot be overlooked in the popu- ETBUBIA. 859 lation of Etruria, was that of the Umbriins, whov according to the general tradition of antiquity, er^ the original inhabitants of this part of Italy. (PliA, iiL 5. 8. 8, 14. s. 19; MliUer, Etnukety- vol. i. p. 102.) They are generally represented as subdned or expelled by the Etruscans, biit Pliny says that th^ were driven out by the Pehugians, and these -iii their turn by the Etruscans. In either case it cant not be supposed that the whole people would be 9xpelled or exterminated, and there is reason to believe that the subject Umbrians always oontinued to form a considerable ingredient in the population of Northern Etruria, as the PeUtsgians did in that of the south. (Lepsius, L c, pp. 27—84 ; Schw^ler. Z.C. p.270.) The period, as well as the circumstances, of these successive migrations and conquests are wholly unknown to us. Hellanicus (op. DUmg§, i. 28) represented the Pelaagians as invading the land afterwards called Tyrrhenia from the north, and establishing the seat of their power first at Crotou (Cortona), from whence they gradually spread them'- seiv^ over the whole country. There can be no doubt that the same course was punned by the Uter invaders, the Basena: but it is remarkable, on the other hand, that there exist numerous traditions and knythical legends which point in the Opposite direction, and represent the S. of Etruria, espeeiall/ Tarquinii, as the centre from whence emanated all that was peculiar in the Etruscan rites, customs, and institutions. (Miiiler, Etrmkser^ voL L ppw 72, 73.) The name of Tarquinii itself, and that of its eponymous hero Tarchon, who was represented in some accounts as the founder of all the twelve cities of Etruria (Strab. v. p. 219), present strong analo- gies with those of the Tyrrhenians and Tyraenus. These traditions have been frequently used as argu- ments to show that the Pelasgian or Tyrrhenian population came by sea and settled first on the coast, from whence it extended its infiuence over the ul- terior. But we know that the Tyrrhenians were at an early period spread over the coasts of Latium and Campania as well as thode of Etruria: and there is nothing improbable in the fact that their settlements in a maritime and fertile tract were really the fint to attain to that degree of culture and civilisation which ultimately became common to all the Etruscan cities. The difference of these two dasses of traditions, pointing to two different quarters for the birth-place of the Etruscan polity and their national institutijns, may perhaps proceed trom the cmnbination of two national elements in the people who were collectively designated by the Bomaas as Etruscans or Tuscans, and by the Greeks as Tyrrhenians. But it is impassible for us to separate^ in the historical traditions or legends that have been transmitted to us, the part that refers to the Etruscans properly so called, from what belongs to the Tyrrhenians or Pelasgic races. The same difficulty continually presents itself with regard to their sacred rites, political institutions, arte, uian- nen, and customs. The connection of the Basena or conquering race of Etruscans with the Bhaetians, admitted both by Niebnhr and Mdller, rests principally on the autho- rity of a passage of Livy, in which he tells us that the Alpinenatioiis, particularly the Bhaetians, were un . doubtedly of Tuscan origin, but had lost their ancient civilisation from the nature of the country, retaining only the language, and even that much corrupted. (Liv. v« 33*) The same thing is told us by Ptiny ami'
