ANCIENT HISTORY OF MEXICO. XXxi 



" to affirm, except that the Mexican empire was governed 

 " by Montezuma, at the time that the Spaniards landed 

 " on the Mexican coaft." This is the manner of fpeak- 

 ing of a philofopher of the eighteenth century. No- 

 thing more can we be permitted to affirm ? And why not 

 doubt alfo of the exiftence of Montezuma ? If we are 

 permitted to affirm this, as it is afcertained by the tefti- 

 mony of the Spaniards who faw that king, we find the 

 atteflation of the fame Spaniards to a vail many other 

 things belonging to the ancient hiflory of Mexico which 

 were feen by them, and further confirmed by the depofi- 

 tions of the Indians themfelves. Such particulars there- 

 fore may be affirmed, as pofitively as the exiftence of 

 Montezuma, or we ought alfo to entertain a doubt of it. 

 If there is reafon, however, to doubt of all the ancient hif- 

 tory of the Mexicans, the antiquity of moft other nations 

 in the world will come equally in queflion ; for it is nor 

 eafy to find another hiflory, the events of which have 

 been confirmed by a greater number of hiftorians than 

 thofe of the Mexicans ; nor do we know that any people 

 ever publiflied fo fevere a law againfl: falfe hiflorians as 

 that of the Acolhuas mentioned in our eighth book. 



Dr. Robertfon, though more moderate than Pi.aynal, 

 in his diftrufl of their hiflory, and furnifhed with more 

 Spanifh books and manufcripts, has fallen into more er- 

 rors, and contradictions while he endeavoured to pene- 

 trate further into the knowledge of America and the 

 Americans. To make us defpair of being able to obtain 

 any tolerable knowledge of the inftitutions and cuftoms 

 of the Mexicans, he exaggerates the negligence of the 

 conquerors, and the deflrudlion made of the hiflorical 

 monuments of that nation by the fuperflition of the firft 

 rniffionaries. In confequence,'* fays he, " of this fana- 



" ticai 



