Prichard admits that “his (Dionysius’s) arguments weigh heavily against the credibility of this story.” For reasons too lengthy to be given here, I wholly disbelieve the Lydian tradition. On the contrary, I lay what many may consider undue stress upon the account of Livy, who says that “the dominion of the Tuscans was widely extended before the prevalence of the Roman arms; their power was predominant on the two seas which embrace Italy on both sides. Of this the names given to these branches of the Mediterranean afford a proof; for the nations of Italy have given to one of these seas the name of Tuscan, from the common appellation of the people, and to the other that of Adriatic, derived from Adria, a Tuscan colony. The Greeks term them Tyrrhenian and Adriatic. The Etruscans, in either territory, possessed twelve cities. Their first settlements were on this side of the Apennines on the lower sea; they afterwards sent out as many colonies as the original country contained principal towns, and these colonies occupied all the country beyond the Po, as far as the Alps, except the corner belonging to the Veneti. The same people, doubtless, gave origin to some of the Alpine nations, particularly to the Rhæti; who, by the nature of the country which they occupy, have been rendered barbarous, and retain nothing of their ancient character, except their language, and that in a corrupt state.” The analysis of this extract will verify its importance. The last sentence contains a statement in the way of evidence, and an opinion in the shape of an inference. I admit the former, and demur to the latter. The statement as to the language of the Rhæti being Etruscan, is that of an author whose advantages of time, place, and circumstances were great. As a native of Padua he was as well-placed for knowing how the Rhætian differed from the Latin as a Lowland Scot is for giving evidence to the distinct character of the Gaelic. On the other hand, he was the adviser and reviewer of an antiquarian work of the Emperor Claudius on the very subject of Etruscan history; so that, his testimony on this point, is that of no common author. He speaks to what he had the means of knowing, and he speaks to a cotemporary fact.