History, Manners, and Customs of the Indian Nations Who Once Inhabited Pennsylvania and the Neighbouring States.

I have thus finished the work which was required of me by the Historical Committee of the American Philosophical Society. On reading over the printed sheets which have been kindly sent to me from Philadelphia, as they issued from the press, I have noticed several errors, some of which may be ascribed to me, others to the transcriber of the manuscript, and very few to the printer. I regret that there are among them some mistakes in dates and names of places; they are all rectified in the errata.

I am very sensible of the many defects of this little work in point of method, arrangement, composition and style. I am not an author by profession; the greatest part of my life was spent among savage nations, and I have now reached the age of seventy-five, at which period of life little improvement can be expected. It is not, therefore, as an author that I wish to be judged, but as a sincere relator of facts that have fallen within my observation and knowledge. I declare that I have said nothing but what I certainly know or verily believe. In matters of mere opinion, I may be contradicted; but in points of fact I have been even scrupulous, and purposely omitted several anecdotes for which I could not sufficiently vouch. In my descriptions of character, I may have been an unskilful painter, and ill chosen expressions may imperfectly have sketched out the images that are imprinted on my mind; but the fault is in the writer, not in the man.

It is with pleasure that I inform the reader that the parts of Mr. Zeisberger’s Iroquois Dictionary which I have mentioned above, (pages 97, 118,) as being irretrievably lost, have most fortunately been found since this work is in the press. The book has been neatly bound in seven quarto volumes, and will remain a monument of the richness and comprehensiveness of the languages of the Indian nations. Several valuable grammatical works on the same language, by the same author and Mr. Pyrlæus, have been recovered at the same time, by means of which, the idiom of the Six Nations may now be scientifically studied.

When I spoke (p. 136) of the impression made by Captain Pipe’s speech “on all present,” I meant only on those who understood the language; for there were many who did not, and M. Baby, the Canadian interpreter, did not explain to the bystanders the most striking passages, but went now and then to the Commandant and whispered in his ear. Captain Pipe, while he spoke, was exceedingly animated, and twice advanced so near to the Commandant, that M. Baby ordered him to fall back to his place. All who were present must have at least suspected that his speech was not one of the ordinary kind, and that everything was not as they might suppose it ought to be.

I promised in my introduction (p. xxvi.) to subjoin an explanatory list of the Indian nations which I have mentioned in the course of this work, but I find that I have been so full on the subject that such a list is unnecessary.

I have classed the Florida Indians together in respect of language, on the supposition that they all speak dialects of the same mother tongue; the fact, however, may be otherwise, though it will be extraordinary that there should be several languages entirely different from each other in the narrow strip of land between the Carolinas and the Mississippi, when there are but two principal ones in the rest of the United States. It is to be expected that the researches of the Historical Committee will throw light upon this subject.

ERRATA IN PART I

PART II.


A
CORRESPONDENCE
BETWEEN
THE REV. JOHN HECKEWELDER.
OF BETHLEHEM,
AND
PETER S. DUPONCEAU, ESQ.,
CORRESPONDING SECRETARY OF THE HISTORICAL AND LITERARY COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY,
RESPECTING THE
Languages of the American Indians.

The following Correspondence between Mr. Heckewelder and Peter S. Du Ponceau, Esq., Corresponding Secretary of the Historical and Literary Committee of the American Philosophical Society, and subsequently, till his death in 1844, President of that Society, is appended as a fitting sequel to the preceding Account.

INTRODUCTION

The Historical and Literary Committee of the American Philosophical Society, desirous of taking the most effectual means to promote the objects of their institution, directed their corresponding secretary to address letters in their name to such persons in the United States as had turned their attention to similar objects, and solicit their assistance.

Among other well-informed individuals, the Reverend Mr. Heckewelder of Bethlehem was pointed out by the late Dr. Caspar Wistar, President of the Society, and one of the most active and useful members of the Committee, as a gentleman whose intimate knowledge of the American Indians, their usages, manners and languages, enabled him to afford much important aid to their labours. In consequence of this suggestion, the secretary wrote to Mr. Heckewelder the letter No. 1, and Dr. Wistar seconded his application by the letter No. 2. The languages of the Indians were not at that time particularly in the view of the Committee; the manners and customs of those nations were the principal subjects on which they wished and expected to receive information. But Mr. Heckewelder having with his letter No. 4, sent them the MS. of Mr. Zeisberger’s Grammar of the Delaware Language, that communication had the effect of directing their attention to this interesting subject.

This MS. being written in German, was not intelligible to the greatest number of the members. Two of them, the Reverend Dr. Nicholas Collin, and the corresponding secretary, were particularly anxious to be honoured with the task of translating it; but the secretary having claimed this labour as part of his official duty, it was adjudged to him. While he was translating that work, he was struck with the beauty of the grammatical forms of the Lenape idiom, which led him to ask through Dr. Wistar some questions of Mr. Heckewelder,271 which occurred to him as he was pursuing his labours, and produced the correspondence now published, which was carried on by the direction and under the sanction of the Committee.

The letters which passed at the beginning between Dr. Wistar and Mr. Zeisberger,272 and are here published in their regular order, do not, it is true, form a necessary part of this collection; but it will be perceived, that to the two letters of Dr. Wistar, Nos. 2 and 6, we are indebted for the valuable Historical Account of the Indians, which forms the first number of this volume. It is just that he should have the credit due to his active and zealous exertions.

It was intended that Mr. Zeisberger’s Grammar should have immediately followed this Correspondence, which was considered as introductory to it. But it being now evident that it would increase too much the size of the volume, its publication is for the present postponed.

CORRESPONDENCE
RESPECTING THE INDIAN LANGUAGES.
LETTER I.
MR. DUPONCEAU TO MR. HECKEWELDER.

Philadelphia, 9th January, 1816.

Sir.—As corresponding secretary to the Historical Committee of the American Philosophical Society, it is my duty to solicit the aid of men of learning and information, by the help of whose knowledge light may be thrown on the yet obscure history of the early times of the colonization of this country, and particularly of this State. Our much-respected President and common friend, Dr. Wistar, has often spoken to me of the great knowledge which you possess respecting the Indians who once inhabited these parts, and of your intimate acquaintance with their languages, habits and history. He had promised me, when you was last here, to do me the favour of introducing me to you, but the bad state of his health and other circumstances prevented it, which has been and still is to me the cause of much regret. Permit me, sir, on the strength of his recommendation, and the assurance he has given me that I might rely on your zeal and patriotic feelings, to request, in the name of the Historical Committee, that you will be so good as to aid their labours by occasional communications on the various subjects that are familiar to you and which relate to the early history of this country. Accounts of the various nations of Indians which have at different times inhabited Pennsylvania, their numbers, origin, migrations, connexions with each other, the parts which they took in the English and French wars and in the Revolutionary war, their manners, customs, languages, and religion, will be very acceptable, as well as every thing which you may conceive interesting, on a subject which at no distant period will be involved in obscurity and doubt, for want of the proper information having been given in time by those cotemporaries who now possess the requisite knowledge and are still able to communicate it. I hope, sir, that you will be able to find some moments of leisure to comply, at least in part, with this request, which you may do in any form that you may think proper. If that of occasional letters to Dr. Wistar or myself should be the most agreeable or convenient to you, you may adopt it, or any other mode that you may prefer. I beg you will favour me with an answer as soon as possible, that I may be able to inform the Committee of what they may expect from you. You may be assured that all your communications will be respectfully and thankfully received.

I am, very respectfully, Sir,
Your most obedient humble servant,
Peter S. Duponceau,
Corresponding Secretary.

LETTER II.
DR. C. WISTAR TO MR. HECKEWELDER.

Philadelphia, 9th January, 1816.

My Dear Sir.—Inclosed is a letter from the corresponding secretary of the Historical Committee of our Society, which will inform you of our wishes to preserve from oblivion, and to make public, all the interesting information we can procure respecting the history of our country and its original inhabitants. I believe there is no other person now living who knows so much respecting the Indians who inhabited this part of America, as you do, and there is no one whose relations will be received with more confidence.

I hope you will approve of this method of favouring the public with your information, and we will endeavour to give you no trouble in publishing after you have favoured us with the communications. It will be particularly agreeable to the society to receive from you an account of the Lenni Lenape, as they were at the time when the settlement of Pennsylvania commenced, and of their history and misfortunes since that time; as these subjects are so intimately connected with the history of our State. The history of the Shawanese, and of the Six Nations will be very interesting to us for the same reason. But every thing which throws light upon the nature of the Indians, their manners and customs; their opinions upon all interesting subjects, especially religion and government; their agriculture and modes of procuring subsistence; their treatment of their wives and children; their social intercourse with each other; and in short, every thing relating to them which is interesting to you, will be very instructing to the Society. A fair view of the mind and natural disposition of the savage, and its difference from that of the civilised man, would be an acceptable present to the world.

You have long been a member of the Society; may we ask of you to communicate to us what you know and think ought to be published, respecting the wild animals, or the native plants of our country. The original object of our association was to bring together gentlemen like yourself, who have a great deal of information in which the public take an interest, that they might publish it together; and while an intercourse with you will give us all great pleasure, it will perhaps be a very easy way for you to oblige the world with your knowledge, as we will take the whole care of the publication. The information respecting our country which has been obtained by the very respectable Brethren of Bethlehem, and is contained in their archives, will, I believe, be more perfectly offered to the world by you at present, than probably it ever will afterwards by others; I therefore feel very desirous that you should engage in it.

The facts which Mr. Pyrlæus recorded there, relative to the confederation of the Six Nations, are so interesting that they ought to be made public.

In a few days after my return to Philadelphia, last autumn, I presented in your name to the Society the several books with which you favoured me. They were much gratified, for they considered them as truly valuable, and the secretary was requested to acknowledge the receipt of them, and to thank you in the name of the Society. I have constantly regretted the attack of influenza which deprived me of the pleasure of seeing more of you while you were last in Philadelphia. But I hope we shall meet again before a great while, and I shall be sincerely pleased if I can execute any of your commissions here, or serve you in any way; my brother joins me in assuring you of our best wishes, and of the pleasure we derived from your society.

With these I remain, your sincere friend,

C. Wistar.

LETTER III.
MR. HECKEWELDER TO DR. WISTAR.

Bethlehem, 24th March, 1816.

My Dear Sir.—Last evening I was favoured with a letter from you, covering one from the corresponding secretary of the Historical Committee of the American Philosophical Society, dated 9th January, and a book, for which I return my best thanks. If an apology for not having written to you since I left Philadelphia can be admitted, it must be that of my having been engaged in all my leisure hours, in completing my narrative of the Mission, a work of which, even if it is never published, I wished for good reasons, to leave a manuscript copy. I have now got through with the principal part, but have to copy the whole text, and in part to write the notes, remarks, and anecdotes which are intended for the appendix. While writing, it has sometimes struck me, that there might probably be some interesting passages in the work, as the speeches of Indians on various occasions; their artful and cunning ways of doing at times business; I had almost said their diplomatic manœuvres as politicians; their addresses on different occasions to the Great Spirit, &c., which are here noticed in their proper places. I think much of the true character of the Indian may be met with in perusing this work, and I will endeavour to forward the narrative to you and your brother for perusal, after a little while.

Were I still in the possession of all the manuscripts which I gave to my friend the late Dr. Barton, it would be an easy matter for me to gratify you and the Philosophical Society in their wishes, but having retained scarcely any, or but very few copies of what I sent him, I am not so able to do what I otherwise would with pleasure; I shall, however, make it my study to do what I can yet, though I am aware that I shall in some points, differ from what others have said and written. I never was one of those hasty believers and writers, who take the shadow for the substance: what I wished to know, I always wished to know correctly.

I approve of the mode proposed by the secretary of the Historical Committee, to make communications in the form of letters, which is for me the easiest and quickest mode. In the same way Dr. Barton received much interesting matter from me within the last 20 or 30 years. He often told me that he would publish a book, and make proper use of my communications. Had he not told me this so repeatedly, I should long since have tried to correct many gross errors, written and published, respecting the character and customs of the Indians. The Lenni Lenape, improperly called the Delawares, I shall, according to their tradition, trace across the Mississippi into this country, set forth what people they were, what parts of the country they inhabited, and how they were brought down to such a low state: perhaps, never did man take the pains that I did for years, to learn the true causes of the decline of that great and powerful nation.

The Grammar of the language of the Lenni Lenape, written by David Zeisberger, is still in my hands. By his will it is to be deposited in the Brethren’s Archives in Bethlehem, but he has not prohibited taking a copy of it. Will it be of any service to the Society that it should be sent down for a few months for perusal, or if thought necessary, to take a copy? If so, please to let me know, and I shall send it with pleasure. It is, however, German and Indian, and without a translation will be understood but by few. I may perhaps find other documents interesting to the Society, as for example, copies of letters on Indian business and treaties, of which many are in the possession of Joseph Horsfield, Esq., son of the late Timothy Horsfield, through whom they have come into his hands, and who is willing to communicate them.273 I am, dear friend,

Yours sincerely,

J. Heckewelder.

P. S.—Will you be so good as with my respects to mention to the secretary that I have received his letter, and shall shortly answer it—my best wishes also to your brother Richard, whom I highly esteem.

J. H.

LETTER IV.
FROM THE SAME TO THE SAME.

Bethlehem, 3d April, 1816.

My Dear Friend.—With Captain Mann, of your city, I send David Zeisberger’s Grammar of the Language of the Lenni Lenape, (otherwise called the Delaware Indians.) As the book is not mine, but left by will, to be placed in the Library at Bethlehem, I can do no more than send it for perusal; or, if wished for, to have a copy taken from it, which, indeed, I myself would cheerfully have done for you, were it not that I must spare my weak eyes as much as possible.

I believe I have closed my last letter to you, without answering to the question you put to me, respecting, “wild animals and the native plants of our country.” On this head I do not know that I could be of any service, since the animals that were in this country on the arrival of the Europeans must be pretty generally known; and respecting the native plants, I do not consider myself qualified to give any information, as all I have attended to, has been to collect plants for botanists, leaving it to them to examine and class them. But my friend Dr. Kampman of this place, who is, I believe, one of the most attentive gentlemen to botany, has promised me for you a copy of the botanical names of those plants which he, and a few others of his friends, have collected, within a great number of years, in the Forks of Delaware, with some few from New Jersey, to the number (he thinks) of about five hundred; all of which plants are in nature carefully laid up by him. Probably in two or three weeks, I shall have the pleasure of transmitting to you this promised catalogue.

I am, &c.

LETTER V.
FROM MR. DUPONCEAU TO DR. WISTAR.

Philadelphia, 14th May, 1816.

Dear Sir. ash;When you write to your friend Mr. Heckewelder, I beg you will request him to answer the following questions:

1. What name did the French give to the Delaware nation?

2. I find in Zeisberger’s Vocabulary, page 11, that Gischuch means the sun. In the Grammar, I see that the Delawares divide their year by moons, and call them anixi gischuch, &c. So that gischuch signifies moon as well as sun, how is it?

3. I find in the Grammar that the pronoun nekama or neka means he, but it does not appear to have any feminine. What is the proper word for she in the Delaware, and how is it declined?

I am, &c.

LETTER VI.
FROM DR. WISTAR TO MR. HECKEWELDER.

Philadelphia, May 21st, 1816.

My dear Friend.—I am much obliged by your kind letters, which are very interesting, and will, I hope, obtain from274 us some of the valuable information which has been left unpublished by our ingenious colleague the late Dr. Barton. The Grammar of your venerable friend, Zeisberger, is regarded by Mr. Duponceau as a treasure. He thinks the inflections of the Indian verbs so remarkable that they will attract the general attention of the literati. Inclosed is a letter from him, by which he expects to open a correspondence with you on the subject. I will be much obliged by your writing to him as soon as your convenience will permit.

We expect soon to have materials for publishing a volume of Historical Documents, and I have proposed that we shall prefix to those which relate to Pennsylvania, all the information we can collect respecting the Indians who were here before our ancestors. The Committee agree that this will be the proper method, and my dependence for authentic information is on you; as I have never met with any person who had any knowledge to compare with yours, respecting the poor Indians. I was delighted to find that your enquiries have been directed to the history of the Lenni Lenape before they settled in Pennsylvania. The removal of the Indian tribes from our country to another is a very interesting subject. If you can tell us where they came from and what forced them away; who were here before them, and what induced their predecessors to make war for them, we shall be much obliged to you. There is no book I shall read with more pleasure than yours.

The causes of their downfall, I believe, are well known to you, and will of course have a place. The manner in which they were treated by the Six Nations, after their conquest, will be an interesting article, as it will shew the Indian policy. An account of the political rights which were still allowed them, and, in short, of everything which is connected with their conquest, will add to the interest of the work. As occupants of Pennsylvania before the whites, ought not the Shawanese and the Six Nations also to be described?

I have been told that the Shawanese were more refined than any other Indians in this part of America, and that the place where Chilicothe now stands, was the seat of Indian civilisation.

I have the pleasure of forwarding to you an instructing work by Dr. Drake, a physician at Cincinnati, which he sends you.

He also sends a small package and a letter to Mr. Steinhauer.

I send them by a wagon which goes from Mr. Bolling’s, but I am not without some expectation of paying another visit to Bethlehem very soon, where it will be a great gratification to meet with my friend.

Affectionately yours,

Caspar Wistar.

LETTER VII.
MR. HECKEWELDER TO MR. DUPONCEAU.

Bethlehem, 27th May, 1816.

Dear Sir.—I was this morning favoured with a letter from my friend Dr. Wistar, inclosing some questions which you wish me to answer. I lose no time in complying with your desire.

Your first question is, “what name the French did give to the Delaware nation?”

I believe the Baron de La Hontan meant them when he spoke of the Algonkins, whom he describes as a people whose language was understood by many nations or tribes. So is certainly that of the Delawares.

While I was residing on the Muskingum, between the years 1773 and 1781, I cannot precisely remember the year, there came a French gentleman who was travelling on some business among the different Indian tribes, and could speak more or less of several Indian languages, among which was that of the Delawares. I had much conversation with him respecting the Indians, and observed that he called the Delawares les Lenopes, (a word evidently derived from their real name Lenni Lenape.) He told me that the language of that nation had a wide range, and that by the help of it, he had travelled more than a thousand miles among different Indian nations, by all of whom he was understood. He added, that the Baron La Hontan, when speaking of the Algonkins, must either have alluded to that nation, or to some one descended from them. In other instances, in the course of the four years that I resided in Upper Canada, I generally heard the French Canadians call them Lénôpé, while the English called them Delawares. Nevertheless, I do not doubt but that they have been called by different names by the French and other travellers, and if my memory serves me, some of the French people called them les Loups, a name probably derived from one of their tribes called the Wolf, if it is not a corruption of Lenape or Lenope.

Your next question is, “whether the Delaware word gischuch, signifies the sun or moon, or both together?” The Indian name “gischuch,” is common to “the two great luminaries which send down light from above.” The moon is called “nipawi gischuch,” as it were “the sun which gives light in the night.” It is also called in one word “nipahum.” “Gischuch,” singly, is often used for the moon; the Indian year is divided into thirteen lunar months, and in this sense, the word “gischuch,” is used; as for instance, “schawanáki275 gischuch” or, in the Minsi or Monsey dialect, “chwani276 gischuch” the shad moon, answering to the month which we call March, at which time the fish called “shad” passes from the sea into the fresh water rivers. The inferior “stars” have a different name; they are called in the singular alank; plural, alankewak, and by contraction, alanquak.

Lastly, you ask whether the Delawares have a word answering to the English personal pronoun “she,” and what it is? I beg leave to answer you somewhat in detail.

In the Indian languages, those discriminating words or inflections which we call genders, are not, as with us, in general, intended to distinguish between male and female beings, but between animate and inanimate things or substances. Trees and plants (annual plants and grasses excepted) are included within the generic class of animated beings. Hence the personal pronoun has only two modes, if I can so express myself, one applicable to the animate, and the other to the inanimate gender; “nekama” is the personal pronominal form which answers to “he” and “she” in English. If you wish to distinguish between the sexes, you must add to it the word “man” or “woman.” Thus “nekama lenno,” means “he” or “this man;” “nekama ochqueu,” “she” or “this woman.” This may appear strange to a person exclusively accustomed to our forms of speech, but I assure you that the Indians have no difficulty in understanding each other.

Nor must you imagine that their languages are poor. See how the Delaware idiom discriminates between the different ages of man and woman!

Note “len” or “lenno” in the male, and “que” or “queu” in the female, distinguish the sexes in compound words; sometimes the L alone denotes the male sex, as in “pilapeu,” “mihilusis,” &c.

The males of quadrupeds are called “lenno wéchum,” and by contraction “lennochum;” the females “Ochqueu wéchum,” and by contraction “ochquéchum,” which is the same as saying he or she beasts. With the winged tribe, their generic denomination “wehelle” is added to the word which expresses the sex; thus, “lenno wehelle” for the male, and “ochquechelle” (with a little contraction) for the female. There are some animals the females of which have a particular distinguishing name, as “Nunschetto” a doe, “Nunscheach” a she bear. This, however, is not common.

Thus I have endeavoured to answer your questions, and I hope, have done it to your satisfaction. I shall always be willing and ready to give you any further information that you or the Philosophical Society may require; I mean, always to the best of my knowledge and abilities.

I am, &c.

LETTER VIII.
MR. DUPONCEAU TO MR. HECKEWELDER.

Philadelphia, 10th June, 1816.

Dear Sir.—Your favour of the 27th ult. has done me the greatest pleasure. I am very thankful for the goodness you have had to answer the questions which I took the liberty of putting to you through our common friend Dr. Wistar. I shall not fail to avail myself of your kind offer to answer such further questions as I may ask, as in so doing I shall fulfil a duty which the Historical Committee of the Philosophical Society has imposed upon me, and at the same time I am satisfied that I shall derive a great deal of pleasure to myself. But I must acknowledge that I am entirely ignorant of the subject on which I have been directed to obtain information from you, so much so that I am even at a loss what questions to ask. As I have, however, undertaken the task, I must endeavour to go through it as well as I can, and rely on the instruction which I shall receive from your letters, to point out to me further enquiries. I am fortunately employed in translating the late Mr. Zeisberger’s Grammar of the Lenni Lenape, which will lead me a little into the right path, and I read at the same time such books as I can find in our scanty libraries respecting the languages of the American Indians. This study pleases me much, as I think I perceive many beauties in those idioms, but the true enjoyment of those beauties is, I presume, only accessible to those to whom the languages are familiar.

From what I have above stated, you will easily perceive that my questions to you must necessarily be desultory, and without any regular order or method. But you will diffuse light through this chaos, and every thing at last will find its proper place.

I cannot express to you how delighted I am with the grammatical forms of the Indian languages, particularly of the Delaware, as explained by Mr. Zeisberger. I am inclined to believe that those forms are peculiar to this part of the world, and that they do not exist in the languages of the old hemisphere. At least, I am confident that their development will contribute much to the improvement of the science of universal grammar. About fifty years ago, two eminent French philosophers published each a short treatise on the origin of language. One of them was the celebrated mathematician Maupertuis, and the other M. Turgot, who afterwards was made a minister of state, and acquired considerable reputation by his endeavours to introduce reform into the administration of the government of his own country. M. Maupertuis, in his Essay, took great pains to shew the necessity of studying the languages even of the most distant and barbarous nations, “because,” said he, “we may chance to find some that are formed on new plans of ideas.” M. Turgot, instead of acknowledging the justness of this profound remark, affected to turn it into ridicule, and said he could not understand what was meant by “plans of ideas.” If he had been acquainted with the Delaware language, he would have been at no loss to comprehend it.

I presume that by this expression M. Maupertuis meant the various modes in which ideas are combined and associated together in the form of words and sentences, and in this sense it is to me perfectly intelligible. The associations expressed by words must be first formed in the mind, and the words shew in what order of succession the ideas were conceived, and in what various groups they arranged themselves before utterance was given to them. The variety of those groups which exist in the different languages forms what M. Maupertuis meant by “plans of ideas,” and indeed, this variety exists even in one and the same language. Thus when we say, “lover,” and “he who loves,” the same group of ideas is differently combined, and of course, differently expressed, and it may well be said that those ideas are arranged “on different plans.”

This difference is strongly exemplified in the Delaware language; I shall only speak at present of what we call the “declension of nouns.” What in our European idioms we call the “objective cases” are one or more words expressive of two prominent ideas, that of the object spoken of, and that of the manner in which it is affected by some other object or action operating upon it. This is done in two ways; by inflecting the substantive, or by affixing to it one or more of those auxiliary words which we call “prepositions.” Thus when we say in English “of Peter” and in German “Peters,” the same two principal ideas are expressed in the former language by two words and in the latter by one, and the termination or inflexion s in German conveys the same meaning as the preposition “of” in English. It is clear that these two ideas, before they were uttered in the form of words, were grouped in the minds both of the German and the Englishman; in the one, as it were at once, and in the other successively: for it is natural to suppose that they were conceived as they are expressed. Again, when you say in Latin amo Petrum, (I love Peter,) the termination um is expressive of the action of the verb love, upon the object, Peter. In the English and German this accessory idea is not expressed by sound, but still it exists in the mind. In every language there are more ideas, perhaps, understood, than are actually expressed. This might be easily demonstrated, if it were here the place.

Let us now consider how the same ideas are combined and expressed in the Delaware language, according to Mr. Zeisberger. When the accessory idea which we call “case” proceeds from the operation of a verb upon a noun or word significant of an object, that idea is not affixed as with us to the noun but to the verb, or in other words, it is not the noun but the verb that is declined by inflexions or cases. Thus when you say “getannitowit n’quitayala, I fear God;” the first word, getannitowit, which is the substantive, is expressed, as we should say, in the nominative case, while the termination of the verb yala, expresses its application to the object. It is precisely the same as if in Latin, instead of saying, Petrum amo, I love Peter, we carried the termination um to the verb, and said Petrus amum. Does not this shew that many various combinations of ideas may take place in the human mind, of which we, Europeans by birth or descent, have not yet formed a conception? Does this not bid defiance to our rules or canons of universal grammar, and may we not say with M. Maupertuis, that in extending our study of the languages of man, we shall probably find some formed upon “plans of ideas” different from our own?

But I perceive that instead of asking you questions, as it is my duty to do, I am losing myself in metaphysical disquisitions; I return, then, to my principal object. A very interesting German book has lately fallen into my hands. It is entitled “Untersuchungen ueber Amerikas Bevœlkerung ans dem alten Kontinente,”277 and it is written by Professor Vater, of Leipzig. The author, after justly observing that the language of the Delawares is exceedingly rich in grammatical forms, and making the same observation on that of the Naticks, from the venerable Eliot’s translation of the Bible into that idiom, says that, on the contrary, that of the Chippeways is very poor in that respect. “Die Chippewæer,” he says, “haben fast keine formen.”278 This appears to me very strange, because on examining the various Indian languages from Nova Scotia to Chili, I have been surprised to find that they appear all formed on the same model, and if Professor Vater is correct, the Chippeway dialect will form an exception. I beg, therefore, you will inform me whether there is such a great difference as he states between that and the Delaware. I am much inclined to think that the learned Professor is mistaken. I must take this opportunity, however, to express my astonishment at the great knowledge which the literati of Germany appear to possess of America, and of the customs, manners and languages of its original inhabitants. Strange! that we should have to go to the German universities to become acquainted with our own country.

Another German Professor, of the name of Rudiger, has compiled an interesting work, in which he gives specimens of all the languages in the world, as far as they are known, and among them does not forget those of the Indian nations of America. He gives the numerals of the Delaware language, from a vocabulary of that idiom, printed at Stockholm, in 1696, and made while the Swedes were in possession of that part of this country which they principally inhabited. I find a considerable difference between those numerals and these given by Zeisberger. That you may see in what it consists, I insert them both.

DELAWARE NUMERALS.

Now, there can be no doubt that these two sets of numerals belong to the same language, but I am astonished at seeing the same words written so differently by a Swede and a German, when there is so little difference in the powers of the alphabetical signs of their languages. I am particularly struck with some words that are written with R by the Swede and with L by the German author. In all Zeisberger’s Grammar I have not been able to find the letter R in one single Delaware word, neither is it to be found in any of the words of his Delaware spelling book. No doubt you can inform me of the reason of this difference.

A greater one is still to be found in the Algonkin numerals given by the Baron La Hontan, and those of the Delaware proper. I place them here again in opposition to each other.

There is certainly a family resemblance between some of these words, while in others no kind of similarity can be traced. As you believe that the Delawares and the Algonkins are the same people, I beg you will be so good as to point out to me the cause of the difference which I have observed.

I am, &c.

LETTER IX.
FROM THE SAME TO THE SAME.

Philadelphia, 13th June, 1816.

Dear Sir.—I take the liberty of submitting to you a few questions, which have occurred to me in perusing Mr. Zeisberger’s Grammar. I beg you will be so good as to answer them at your leisure.

I am, &c.

Queries.

1. In Mr. Zeisberger’s Grammar, double consonants are frequently used, as in Pommauchsin, Lenno, Lenni Lenape.

Quære: Are the two consonants fully and distinctly sounded, thus: pom-m-auchsin—Len-n-o, as in the Italian language, or is only one of the consonants heard, as if it were thus written: pomauchsin, leno. In this latter case what is the reason for using two consonants, if only one is sounded?

2. Mr. Zeisberger frequently puts a comma or apostrophe (’) before or after the letter N in the present of the indicative verbs, ’npommauchsi, and sometimes n’pommauchsi. Sometimes he writes the word without: ndappiwi, ndappiwitsch; what is the reason of this variation? Is there any necessity for the comma before or after the N in the first person, or after the K and W, in the second and third? Is it not best to simplify as much as possible the orthography of such a difficult language?

3. What is the difference in pronunciation between ke and que; say, pomauchsijenke and pomauchsijeque? Is the latter sounded like cue or kue, or is it sounded as ke?

4. The conjunctive mood is expressed in German by “wenn;” does it mean in English “if” or “when”? Does “n’pomauchsijane,” mean “when I live” or “if I live,” or both? I find it sometimes expressed “wenn,” oder “da,” oder “als,” which inclines me to think it signifies both “when” and “if.”

5. I find some terminations in the tenses of the verbs, sometimes written “cup,” sometimes “kup,” and sometimes “gup;” thus epiacup, “where I was,” elsijakup, “when or if I was so situated;” and pommauchsijengup, “if or when we have lived.” Are these different sounds, or does this difference in writing arise from the Germans being accustomed to confound the sounds of K and G hard?

6. I find some words written sometimes with one I and sometimes with two; thus elsia, and elsija. Are the two i’s separately articulated, or do they sound only as one?

7. I find the second person of the singular in verbs sometimes written with a K, sometimes with a G, thus kneichgussi, du wirst gesehen (thou art seen); kdaantschi, du wirst gehen (thou wilt go); gemilgussi, dir wird gegeben (it is given to thee). Why is it not written kemilgussi? see query 5. I find sometimes a double aa—Is it merely to express length of quantity, or are the two a’s sounded distinctly?

8. What is the difference in sound between ch and hh, do they both represent the same guttural sound like ch in German? If so, why express this sound in two different ways; if otherwise, what is the real difference between the two sounds?

EXAMPLES.

Achpil, bleibe du (remain thou); achpichtique, wenn sie nicht da sind (if they are not ere); ndahhenap, wir waren gegangen (we had gone); kdahhimo, ihr gehet (you go).

I am, &c.

LETTER X.
MR. HECKEWELDER TO MR. DUPONCEAU.

Bethlehem, 20th June, 1816.

Dear Sir.—Your favors of the 10th and 13th inst. have been duly received. I shall now endeavour to answer the first. The second shall in a few days be attended to.

I am glad to find that you are so much pleased with the forms of our Indian languages. You will be still more so as you become more familiar with the beautiful idiom of the Lenni Lenape. It is certain that many of those forms are not to be found either in the German or English; how it is with the other languages of Europe, Asia, and Africa, I cannot say, not being acquainted with them, and never having made philology my particular study. I concur with you in the opinion that there must be in the world many different ways of connecting ideas together in the form of words, or what we call parts of speech, and that much philosophical information is to be obtained by the study of those varieties. What you observe with regard to the verbs being inflected in lieu of affixing a case or termination to the noun is very correct, but the ground or principle on which it is done, is not perhaps known to you. The verbs in the Indian languages are susceptible of a variety of forms, which are not to be found in any other language that I know. I do not mean to speak here of the positive, negative, causative, and a variety of other forms, but of those which Mr. Zeisberger calls personal, in which the two pronouns, governing and governed, are by means of affixes, suffixes, terminations, and inflections, included in the same word. Of this I shall give you an instance from the Delaware language. I take the verb ahoalan, to love, belonging to the fifth of the eight conjugations, into which Mr. Zeisberger has very properly divided this part of speech.

INDICATIVE, PRESENT, POSITIVE.

Now for the personal forms in the same tense.

FIRST PERSONAL FORM.
I.

SECOND PERSONAL FORM.
THOU.

THIRD PERSONAL FORM.
HE, (or SHE.)

FOURTH PERSONAL FORM.
WE.

FIFTH PERSONAL FORM.
YOU.

SIXTH PERSONAL FORM.
THEY.

In this manner verbs are conjugated through all their moods and tenses, and through all their negative, causative, and various other forms, with fewer irregularities than any other language that I know of.

These conjugations, no doubt, you have found, or will find in Mr. Zeisberger’s grammar, but the few examples that I have above put together, are necessary to understand the explanation which I am about to give.

The words you quote are: “getannitowit n’quitayala,” I fear God, or rather, according to the Indian inversion, God I fear. Your observation is that the inflection or case of the noun substantive God, is carried to the verb. This is true; but if you enquire for the reason or the manner in which it takes place, you will find that ala is the inflection of the second or last person of the verb, in the first personal form; thus as you have seen that n’dahoala means I love him, so n’quitayala, in the same form and person means I fear him; it is therefore the same as if you said God I fear him. This is not meant in the least to doubt or dispute the correctness of your position, but to shew in what manner the combination of ideas is formed that has led to this result. You have now, I believe, a wider field for your metaphysical disquisitions.

I pass on to the other parts of your letter. I believe with you that Professor Vater is mistaken in his assertion that the language of the Chippeways is deficient in grammatical forms. I am not skilled in the Chippeway idiom, but while in Upper Canada, I have often met with French Canadians and English traders who understood and spoke it very well. I endeavoured to obtain information from them respecting that language, and found that it much resembled that of the Lenape. The differences that I observed were little more than some variations in sound, as b for p, and i for u. Thus, in the Delaware, wapachquiwan means a blanket, in the Chippeway it is wabewian; gischuch is Delaware for a star, the Chippeways say gischis; wape in Delaware white; in the Chippeway, wabe. Both nations have the word Mannitto for God, or the Great Spirit, a word which is common to all the nations and tribes of the Lenape stock.

There is no doubt that the Chippeways, like the Mahicanni, Naticks, Wampanos, Nanticokes, and many other nations, are a branch of the great family of the Lenni Lenape, therefore I cannot believe that there is so great a difference in the forms of their languages from those of the mother tongue. I shall, however, write on the subject to one of our Missionaries who resides in Canada, and speaks the Chippeway idiom, and doubt not that in a short time I shall receive from him a full and satisfactory answer.

On the subject of the numerals, I have had occasion to observe that they sometimes differ very much in languages derived from the same stock. Even the Minsi, a tribe of the Lenape or Delaware nation, have not all their numerals like those of the Unami tribe, which is the principal among them. I shall give you an opportunity of comparing them.

You will easily observe that the numbers five and ten in the Minsi dialect, resemble more the Algonkin, as given by La Hontan, than the pure Delaware. I cannot give you the reason of this difference. To this you will add the numerous errors committed by those who attempt to write down the words of the Indian languages, and who either in their own have not alphabetical signs adequate to the true expression of the sounds, or want an Indian ear to distinguish them. I could write a volume on the subject of their ridiculous mistakes. I am, &c.