100 



HISTORY OF MEXICO. 



times of the patriarch Jofeph. If we mean to make a 

 comparifon of their ufages mentioned in the facred books 

 with thofe of the Mexicans, inftead of any fimilarity, 

 we {hall find the ftrongeft difference between them. 

 Laftly, we do not pretend to demonftrate the opinion of 

 Siguenza to be falfe, but only to (hew that it is not a 

 truth upon which we can fafely rely. 



The extravagant M. de P. fays, that the Mexicans 

 derive their origin from the fouthern Apalachites ; but 

 he neither does nor can offer any reaion to make fuch a 

 fuppofition probable; and, although it were true, the 

 difficulty would remain ftill unrefolved with regard to 

 the origin of the Apalachites themfelves. It is true, 

 that author finds little difficulty, as he fometimes gives 

 us to underftand that he is not unfavourable to the ro- 

 mantic fyftem of La Peyrere. 



With refpecl: to the opinion we have ventured to form 

 ourfelves, we fhall explain it in the following conclufions. 



I. The Americans defcended from different nations, 

 or from different families, difperfed after the confufion 

 of tongues. No perfon will doubt of the truth of this, 

 who has any knowledge of the multitude and great di- 

 verfity of the American languages. In Mexico we have 

 already found thirty- five: in South America there are 

 ftill more known. In the beginning of the lafl century 

 the Portuguefe counted fifty in Maragnon. It is true, 

 that there is a great affinity between fome of thofe lan- 

 guages, which fhews that they are fprung from the fame 

 parent, namely, the Eudeve, Opata, and Tanahumara^ 

 in North America, and the Mocobi 9 Toba, and Abipona 

 in South America; but there are many others alfo, as 

 different from each other as the Illyrian from the He- 

 brew. We can fafely affirm, that there are no living 



or 



