[90] “Others call him Tharypas or Tharypos. If we examine this name carefully, we find already a trace of the change, seen in the modern Greek, of an oblique case into the nominative, as ὁ πατέρος—it is one of the many traces which shew that, properly speaking, Epirot and Macedonian forms constitute the foundation of modern Greek, and that the latter is not the same as the popular language of the ancient Greeks, as is commonly imagined by the modern Greeks. My dear friend, Count Capo d’Istria, is not free from this prejudice, though he admits that, e.g., at Athens a different dialect was spoken. The Italians in the middle ages, especially Aretinus, entertained a similar opinion; they maintained that Cicero spoke Italian, that Latin was only the language of the learned, an artificial and improved Italian; and that Latin was indeed written, but that the people spoke Italian. But the Greeks confound the circumstances, and pretend to know more than is generally true. Many proofs, for example, may be adduced that a kind of modern Greek was spoken at Alexandria in the time of the first emperors; but that language was derived from the Epirot, Macedonian and Thessalian dialects; it is pure Greek, but at the same time has many peculiarities, many of which have passed into the Latin language. Thus _Areus_, the name of the Spartan king, is written _Areas_ in Livy, which, therefore, should not be altered, but is quite correct; in the same manner we have _Crotona_ for _Croton_, and in German _Mailand_ for Milano.” [91] One MS. here has “the Ambracians and Chaonians;” the probable reading is, “the Thesprotians and Chaonians,” according to the geographical succession. The apparent contradiction in the statement that Ambracia was dependent on Epirus and at the same time in the power of Philip, must be understood of successive periods, the former being the earlier, and the latter the subsequent condition. Comp. _Hist. of Rome_, vol. iii. p. 165.—ED. [92] Comp. _Lect. on Ancient Hist._ vol. ii. p. 346.—ED. [93] Comp. _Hist. of Rome_, vol. iii. p. 457, foll.; _Lect. on Rom. Hist._ vol. i. p. 421 foll. 3rd edit. [94] “The whole of this part of history is still obscure; I mean the period from the death of Alexander until the time of Polybius. If God spares my life, I contemplate writing this history as a supplement to ancient history.”