the house of Israel. These amusing stories and speculations have their counterpart in the more or less frivolous theories which are put forward in later times without the excuse of being warped by a religious purpose. The Celtic theory is supported upon characteristic grounds. It is based upon the idea that our old friend the Welsh prince Madoc, son of Owen Gwynedd, established his colony in Mexico, and the proof of this startling assertion is threefold. "First, the Mexicans believed that their ancestors came from a beautiful country afar off, inhabited by white people; secondly, they adored the cross; and, thirdly, several Welsh names are found in Mexico." In further corroboration various stories are told which are supposed to point to existing traces of the Welsh colony. A story of this kind, appearing in the "Gentleman's Magazine" for 1740, is told by the Rev. Morgan Jones, and illustrates the heavy drafts that have so frequently been made on public credulity. Along with five companions, the reverend gentleman was taken prisoner by the Tuscarora tribe. Being about to be killed, his life was saved by the accident of a soliloquy in his native tongue. The Indians were able to converse freely in Welsh, and Mr. Jones remained among them for four months, and "did preach to them in the same language three times a week." Again, in 1801, a certain Lieutenant Roberts met an Indian chief at Washington who spoke Welsh as fluently "as if he had been born and brought up in the vicinity of Snowdon." This Indian said this was the language spoken by his tribe, the Asguaws, who preserved the tradition of an origin from beyond sea, and conformed to a law which forbade the acquisition by their children of any other speech till after twelve years of age. Several instances of a similar character are cited in support of the pretensions of the Scotch and Irish to be the progenitors of the Americans, and all one can say is that these claims are just as strong as those, for instance, of the Hellenes and Pelasgians.

But all these theories of the origin of the American races from an Israelitish stock, or from a Kymric or a Gaelic, may be safely dismissed as the fruits of misguided enthusiasm and perverted ingenuity. There remain, then, three hypotheses, each of which has its strenuous advocates, namely: First, that the American races are autochthonic, and this was held by Agassiz, in accordance with his doctrine of multiple centers of creation; second, that they are of one blood with the races inhabiting the Eastern Continent, from whom they were separated by the subsidence of the intervening

land; third, that they represent a migration from Asia via Behring Strait or across the Pacific in lower latitudes. Either of the first two hypotheses, could it be proved, would harmonize many apparently conflicting circumstances connected with Mexican civilization. At the same time it would give to that civilization the peculiar interest which must attach to an independent development, presenting a curious and suggestive parallel to that with which we are familiar. True, there are striking resemblances between the architectural styles of America and of several Old World countries, and slight, but seemingly real, though in fact fortuitous, points of affinity in language, while a consensus of traditions shows an aboriginal knowledge of certain countries beyond the sea inhabited by "white-faces." But this is not overwhelming evidence against either the Altantis or the autochthonic theory, and is as nothing indeed compared with the proof that can be adduced against any of the other theories. On the other hand, as has been suggested, the strangeness of the implied connection between the Old World and the New disappears if we admit the possibility-no very unlikely contingency of stray vessels having found their way at various times to these distant shores. To this slight admixture of foreign elements we might not unreasonably attribute certain striking points of identity existing between the artistic forms of the Eastern and the Western Continent, and which could hardly have had a separate origin in both. They are but few in number, and chief among them are to be named the sphinx-like statues at the base of the pyramid at Izamal, and the representation, on pottery, of elephants equipped for war purposes.

It is difficult to say whether we may expect much new light to be thrown on this phase of the subject from future investigation; but we can rest assured that a nearer approach will be made to the truth on the acquisition of fuller and clearer knowledge. Until comparatively recent years, in the absence of any well-authenticated account of the remains of Mexican civilization, there was a disposition to regard as apocryphal the glowing descriptions of Cortes and the Spanish chroniclers. Dr. Robertson, the historian, lays it down "as a certain principle that America was not peopled by any nation of the ancient world which had made considerable progress in civilization." In other words, the civilization of America began with the Spanish conquest! In saying this, Dr. Robinson is only repeating the commonly accepted opinion of his time; and it may be pleaded in excuse of such an opinion that the ruined monuments of

Central America, which impress us so vividly as the signs of a bygone prosperity and civilization, were then unknown. The extent and power of that civilization we have had some means of estimating, but no satisfactory conclusion has yet been arrived at regarding its age. It is remarked by Mr. Hubert H. Bancroft that "the tendency of modern research is to prove the great antiquity of American civilization as well as of the American people; and, if either was drawn from a foreign source, it was at a time probably so remote as to antedate all Old World culture now existing, and to prevent any light being thrown on the offspring by a study of the parent stock." This is a curious commentary on the "certain principle" of the distinguished author of "The History of America." Yet there are many, again, who would join issue with Mr. Bancroft on the vexed questions he so ably raises, and on which we have so many and diverse opinions recorded by explorers within the past century. It is, indeed, only within this recent period that we hear of any notable efforts to elucidate the subject of the antiquities. The existence of some of the more important ruins was first discovered in 1750, when a party of Spaniards, traveling in Chiapas, stumbled upon the so-called Casas de Piedras, subsequently named Palenque, after the neighboring village. It was not till 1786 that the King of Spain dispatched the expedition of which Captain Del Rio took charge. To Rio's report was added a commentary by Dr. Paul Felix, in which the people were derived from the Egyptians. This document, after being neglected or withheld by the Government, fell into English hands after the revolution, and an English version was published in 1822. This, the first account of the antiquities given to Europe, failed to awaken public interest, partly, no doubt, because the whole narrative was too novel and startling, too full of gorgeous and vivid tints, to be at once accepted with general credence. Meantime Charles IV of Spain had sent out another expedition, under Captain Dupaix, who was aided by a secretary, a draughtsman, and a detachment of dragoons. The expedition lasted over three seasons, from 1805 to 1807. The drawings and MSS. went out of sight at the time of the revolution, and, some time after, were almost accidentally discovered in the Cabinet of Natural History in Mexico. Twenty-eight years after the date of the expedition, in 1834-35, Dupaix's work saw the light in the shape of four costly volumes. Then followed Lord Kingsborough's still more expensive work, which, as regards its material, is little more than a rehash of Dupaix, and in respect of its opinions is a storehouse of analogies

in support of the Hebrew theory. Colonel Galendo was the only other practical investigator in the field up to the time of Waldeck's expedition, which lasted over two years, and the funds for which were provided by an association in Mexico. All previous work, however, was far surpassed in excellence by that of Stephens and Catherwood, the accurate, lively narrative of the former being in every way worthy of the remarkable drawings of the latter. During their two visits to the country, they accomplished, by their individual efforts, infinitely more than any of the previous expeditions, bringing to our knowledge upward of forty ruined cities, besides making the most painstaking examination of Copan, Quiche, Palenque, and Uxmal. The region embracing Yucatan, Guatemala, and Nicaragua has also been ably treated by Mr. E. G. Squier, and in the same territory, at Uxmal and Chichen Itza, Waldeck has been carefully supplemented by the labors of M. Désiré Charnay. In our own time we find the number both of theoretical and practical workers increased so largely that we can do no more than name a few such, as Dr. Scherzer, Dr. Boyle, Rosny, Dr. Bernonitti, Stephens Salisbury, Jr., and Larrouza, whose important work in five volumes was published in Mexico, 1875-79. Last, but of the first importance, we will name Mr. Hubert H. Bancroft's careful work, which is an admirable cyclopædia of the whole subject.

One of the distinctive features of Mexican architecture is the pyramidal form of the buildings or their substructures. On this account, chiefly, an attempt has been made to trace a connection between America and Egypt, in civilization if not in race; but, as Fergusson points out, the two kinds of pyramids are widely different. The towering structure of Mexico, as a matter of fact, is not a pyramid at all in the conventional sense. It is distinguished by the fact that it almost invariably forms the basis of some superstructure. It is, indeed, little more than an arrangement of gradually diminishing terraces; where this is not the case the pyramid is a truncated mound, intended, it is generally thought, as a place of sacrifice. Most of the ruined towns have such mounds, but the great pyramid at Izamal is peculiar in consisting of two pyramidal piles of masonry, one on the top of the other, the base of the whole measuring no less than eight hundred and twenty feet on each side, and the first platform six hundred and fifty feet. The pyramidal form is also finely seen in the Casa del Gobernador at Uxmal, which is described as, of all the structures of the kind, the most stately in form and proportions. Here three successive terraces form the

base which holds aloft the grand ornate building, and add to its look of spacious magnificence. The sculptured ornament at Uxmal is of a special character. It resembles arabesque in its general appearance, but is richly diversified, the parts being wrought into a sort of "sculptured mosaic," having possibly a symbolical meaning. According to Stephens, the carved work is equal to the finest of the Egyptian. It would be impossible, he says, with the best instruments of modern times, to cut stone more perfectly. And yet, as far as is known, the ancient sculptor was ignorant of the existence of iron, and had to rely in the formation of his tools upon chaystone or flint. Add to this the difficulty of quarrying large masses of stone, conveying them long distances through a rough country, and of raising them to great altitudes, and the construction of these vast edifices seems truly marvelous. But it is not our present intention to discuss at length the subject of Mexican civilization, aware as we are that matters of the greatest interest would arrest the attention at every step. We must leave the antiquities to the future consideration of M. Charnay.

Yet, for the benefit of readers who may be unacquainted with the results of antiquarian research in Yucatan and the neighboring states of Mexico and Central America, we will venture upon a rapid sketch of the ruins of Uxmal, and also note a few of the principal objects of interest to be found at Palenque.

The site of Uxmal is in the northwestern portion of Yucatan, about latitude 20° 25′ north, and longitude 89° 45' west. It is as yet impossible to determine with any approach to certainty the ends which its ruined edifices were designed to serve, but it is at least highly probable that they were originally palaces, temples, councilhalls, and courts of justice; possibly some of them may even have been monasteries or community-houses in which the ascetics of a religion analogous to that of Buddha lived in common. But this is a problem which can be solved, if at all, only by a thorough exploration of the fast-crumbling ruins, and patient discussion of the results by competent archæologists.

The buildings at Uxmal have received from the people names supposed to express the character of their original occupancy. Thus we have the House of the Governor, that of the Nuns, that of the Dwarf, and so forth. Or they bear names founded on some peculiarity of their ornamentation or architecture, as the "House of the Old Woman," so called on account of a stone figure of an old woman found on the ground in front of it; or the "House of