Of all these grounds, that adduced from the favourable concurrence of chronological events has the most weight, but proves neither more nor less than the bare possibility of the thing. With respect to the first point, it is not so clearly established. The Tartars are herdsmen, and the quality of the pasture for their cattle implies a fixed residence. Gipseys, on the contrary, are ignorant as to tending cattle, nor have they the smallest idea about breeding them. Further, whether they are Tartars, because they represent themselves as such, or have been declared such by other people; whether Zindelo is a Mongol chan, because his name is easily derived from Zingis; whether the language of the Tartars bears a near affinity to that of the Gipseys, because a native of Tartary was found whose name, Devlet, is perhaps derived from the Gipsey word Devla, and as that word among the Gipseys signifies God, it may possibly among the Tartars signify something like it;—all this must be left to the reader’s discretion. If such assertions are admitted for proofs, then the Gipseys must be Bohemians, because they are called so in France. Thus Chiflet must have been of Gipsey or Tartar descent, because his name may possibly be derived from Devla or Devlet. The Franks, too, are probably derived from the Trojans, because Pharamond, their king’s name, may be formed from Priamus. Dsongari and Zingari compared with each other do coincide, except that the latter is only the Latin termination given by the learned. But, besides all this, if the Gipseys must be Tartars at all events, where are the Tartars’ broad faces?—Where is their courage?—Where are the zealous religious principles with which the Tartars honour the Deity, and, upon occasion, fight for him? Finally, with regard to language, this contradicts rather than supports the opinion we are discussing. The language of the Tartars is Turkish; that of the Gipseys is quite different, as will be hereafter proved.