After the War of 1812 the Moravian brother, Rev. C. F. Dencke, who, ten years before had attempted to teach the Gospel to the Chipeways, gathered together the scattered converts among the Delawares at New Fairfield, Canada West. In 1818 he completed and forwarded to the Publication Board of the American Bible Society a translation of the Epistles of John, which was published the same year.

He also stated to the Board that at that time he had finished a translation of John's Gospel and commenced that of Matthew, both of which he expected to send to the Board in that year. A donation of one hundred dollars was made to him to encourage him in his work, but for some reason the prosecution of his labors was suspended, and the translation of the Gospels never appeared (contrary to the statements in some bibliographies).

It is probable that Mr. Dencke was the compiler of the Delaware Dictionary which is preserved in the Moravian Archives at Bethlehem. The MS. is an oblong octavo, in a fine, but beautifully clear hand, and comprises about 3700 words. The handwriting is that of the late Rev. Mr. Kampman, from 1840 to 1842 missionary to the Delawares on the Canada Reservation. On inquiring the circumstances connected with this MS., he stated to me that it was written at the period named, and was a copy of some older work, probably by Mr. Dencke, but of this he was not certain.

While the greater part of this dictionary is identical in words and rendering with the second edition of Zeisberger's "Spelling Book" (with which I have carefully compared it), it also includes a number of other words, and the whole is arranged in accurate alphabetical order.

Mr. Dencke also prepared a grammar of the Delaware, as I am informed by his old personal friend, Rev. F. R. Holland, of Hope, Indiana; but the most persistent inquiry through residents at Salem, N. C., where he died in 1839, and at the Missionary Archives at Bethlehem, Pa., and Moraviantown, Canada, have failed to furnish me a clue to its whereabouts. I fear that this precious document was "sold as paper stock," as I am informed were most of the MSS. which he left at his decease! A sad instance of the total absence of intelligent interest in such subjects in our country.

The Rev. Abraham Luckenbach may be called the last of the Moravian Lenapists. With him, in 1854, died out the traditions of native philology. Born in 1777, in Lehigh county, Pennsylvania, he became a missionary among the Indians in 1800, and until his retirement, forty-three years later, was a zealous pastor to his flock on the White river, Indiana, and later, on the Canada Reservation. His published work is entitled "Forty-six Select Scripture Narratives from the Old Testament, embellished with Engravings, for the Use of Indian Youth. Translated into Delaware Indian, by A. Luckenbach. New York. Printed by Daniel Fanshaw, 1838." 8vo, pp. xvi, 304.

After his retirement in Bethlehem, he edited, in 1847, the second edition of Zeisberger's "Collection of Hymns," the first of which has already been mentioned.

A short MS. vocabulary, in German and Delaware, is in the possession of his family, in Bethlehem, and some loose papers in the language.

One of the most recent students of the Delaware was Mr. Matthew G. Henry, of Philadelphia. In 1859 and 1860 he compiled, with no little labor, a "Delaware Indian Dictionary," the MS. of which, in the library of the American Philosophical Society, forms a thick quarto volume of 843 pages, with a number of maps. It is in three parts; 1, English and Delaware; 2, Delaware and English; 3, Delaware Proper Names and their Translations.

It includes, without analysis or correction, the words in Zeisberger's "Spelling Book," Roger William's "Key," Companius' Vocabulary, those in Smith's and Strachey's "Virginia" and various Nanticoke, Mohegan, Minsi and other vocabularies. The derivations of the proper names are chiefly from Heckewelder, and in other cases are venturesome. The compilation, therefore, while often useful, lacks the salutary check of a critical, grammatical erudition, and in its present form is of limited value.

Some of the later vocabularies collected by various travelers offer points for comparison, and may be mentioned here.

In 1786 Major Denny[154] at Fort McIntosh, Ohio, collected a number of Delaware words, principally from Shawnee Indians. A comparison shows many of them to be in a corrupt form, owing either to the ignorance of the Shawnee authority, or to the inaccuracy of Major Denny in catching the sounds.

While engaged on the Pacific Railroad survey, in 1853, Lieut. Whipple[155] collected a vocabulary of a little over 200 words from a Delaware chief, named Black Beaver, in the Indian Territory, which was edited, in 1856, by Prof. Turner. It is evidently a pure specimen, and, as the editor observes, "agrees remarkably" with earlier authentic vocabularies.

In the second volume of Schoolcraft's large work[156] is a vocabulary of about 350 words, obtained by Mr. Cummings, U. S. Indian Agent. The precise source, date and locality are not given, but it is evidently from some trustworthy native, and is quite correct.

Some small works for the schools of the Baptist missions among the Delawares in Kansas were prepared by the Rev. J. Meeker. They appear to be entirely elementary in character.

It will be observed that in this list not a single native writer is named. So far as I have ascertained, though many learned to write their native tongue, not one attempted any composition in it beyond the needs of daily life.

To make some amends for this, and as I wished to obtain an example of the Lenape of to-day, I asked Chief Gottlieb Tobias, an educated native on the Moravian Reservation in Canada, to give me in writing his opinion of the Delaware text of the Walum Olum, which I had sent him. This he obligingly did, and added a translation of his letter. The two are as follows, without alteration:—

Moraviantown, Sept. 26, 1884.

The drift of Chief Tobias' letter is highly important to this present work, though his expressions are not couched in the most perfect English. It will be noted that he recognizes the text of the Walum Olum to be a native production composed in one of the ancient southern dialects of the tongue, the Unami (Wonami) or the Unalachtgo (Wonalatoko). I shall recur to this when discussing the authenticity of that document on a later page.

§ 2. General Remarks on the Lenape.

The Lenape language is a well-defined and quite pure member of the great Algonkin stock, revealing markedly the linguistic traits of this group, and standing philologically, as well as geographically, between the Micmac of the extreme east and the Chipeway of the far West.

These linguistic traits, common to the whole stock, I may briefly enumerate as follows:—

1. All words are derived from simple, monosyllabic roots, by means of affixes and suffixes.

2. The words do not come within the grammatical categories of the Aryan language, as nouns, adjectives, verbs and other "parts of speech," but are "indifferent themes," which may be used at will as one or the other. To this there appear to be a few exceptions.

3. Expressions of being (i.e., nominal themes) undergo modifications depending on the ontological conception as to whether the thing spoken of is a living or a lifeless object. This forms the "animate and inanimate," or the "noble and ignoble" declensions and conjugations. The distinction is not strictly logical, but largely grammatical, many lifeless objects being considered living, and the reverse. This is the only modification of the kind known, true grammatical gender not appearing in any of these tongues.

4. Expressions of action (i. e., verbal themes) undergo modifications depending on the abstract assumption as to whether the action is real or conjectural. If the latter, it is indicated by a change in the vowel of the root. This leads to a fundamental division of verbal modes into positive and suppositive modes.

5. The expression of action is subordinate to that of being, so that the verbal elements of a proposition are secondary to the nominal or pronominal elements, and the subjective relation becomes closely akin to, or identical with, that of possession.[157]

6. The conception of number is feebly developed in its application to inanimate objects, which often have no grammatical plurals. The inclusive and exclusive plurals are used in the first person.

7. The genius of the language is holophrastic—that is, its effort is to express the relationship of several ideas by combining them in one word. This is displayed: 1, in nominal themes, by polysynthesis, by which several such themes are welded into one, according to fixed laws of elision and euphony; and 2, by incorporation, where the object (or a pronoun representing it) and the subject are united with the verb, forming the so-called "transitions," or "objective conjugations."

8. There is no relative pronoun, so that the relation of minor to major clauses is left to be indicated either by position or the offices of a simple connective.

9. The language of both sexes is identical, those differences of speech between the males and females, so frequently observed in other American tongues, finding no place in the Algonkin.

10. No independent verb-substantive is found, and, as might be anticipated, no means of predicating existence apart from quality and attribute.

§ 3. Dialects of the Lenape.

Two slightly different dialects prevailed among the Delawares themselves, the one spoken by the Unami and Unalachtgo, the other by the Minsi. The former is stated by the Moravian missionaries to have had an uncommonly soft and pleasant sound to the ear[158], and William Penn made the same remark. It was also considered to be the purer and more elegant dialect, and was preferred by the missionaries as the vehicle for their translations.

The Minsi was harsher and more difficult to learn, but would seem to have been the more archaic branch, as it is stated to be a key to the other, and to preserve many words in their integrity and original form, which in the Unami were abbreviated or altogether dropped. The Minsi dialect was closely akin to the Mohegan.

How far the separation of the Delaware dialects had extended may be judged from the subjoined list of words. They are selected, as showing the greatest variation, from a list of over one hundred, prepared by Mr. Heckewelder for the American Philosophical Society, and preserved in MS. in its library.

The comparison proves that the differences are far from extensive, and chiefly result from a greater use of gutturals.

COMPARISON OF THE UNAMI AND MINSI DIALECTS.

What differences there were have been retained and perhaps accentuated in modern times, if we may judge from the names of consanguinity obtained by Mr. Lewis H. Morgan on the Kansas Reservation in 1860. These are given in part in the annexed table, and the Mohegan is added for the sake of extending the comparison.

A noteworthy difference in the Northern and Southern Lenape dialects was that the latter possessed the three phonetic elements n, l and r, while the former could not pronounce the r, and their neighbors, the Mohegans, neither the l nor the r.

The dialect studied by Campanius and Penn, and that in southern New Jersey presented the r sound where the Upper Unami and Minsi had the l. Thus Campanius gives rhenus, for lenno, man; and Penn oret, for the Unami wulit, good.

The dialectic substitution of one of these elements for another is a widespread characteristic of Algonkin phonology. Roger Williams early called attention to it among the tribes of New England.[159]

Tracing it to its origin, it clearly arises from the use of "alternating consonants," so extensive in American languages. In very many of them it is optional with the speaker to employ any one of several sounds of the same class. This is the case with these letters in Cree, which, for various reasons, may be considered the most archaic of all the Algonkin dialects. In its phonetics, the th, y, l, n and r are "permuting" or "alternating" letters.[160]

Often, too, the sound falls between these letters, so that the foreign ear is left in doubt which to write.

That this is the case with the Delaware is evident from some of the more recent vocabularies where the r is not infrequent. The following words, from the vocabulary in Major Denny's Memoir, illustrate this:—

Even Mr. Lewis A. Morgan, who had considerable practice in writing the sounds of the Indian languages, inserts the r in a number of pure Delaware words he collected in Kansas.[161]

Another difficulty presents itself in the sibilants. They are not always distinguished.

Mr. Horatio Hale writes me on this point: "In Minsi, and perhaps in all the Lenape dialects, the sound written s is intermediate between s and th (the Greek Θ). This element is pronounced by placing the tongue and teeth in the position of the theta, and then endeavoring to utter s".

The guttural, represented in the Moravian vocabularies by ch, was softened by the English likewise to the s sound, as it appears also to have been by the New Jersey tribes.[162]

In connection with dialectic variation, the interesting question arises as to the rapidity of change in language. With regard to the Lenape we are enabled to compare this for a period covering more than two centuries. To test it, I have arranged the subjoined table of words culled from three writers at about equidistant points in this period. Each wrote in the orthography of his own tongue, and this I have not altered. The words from Campanius are from the southern dialect, which preferred the r to the l, and this substitution should be allowed for in a fair comparison.

COMPARISON OF THE DELAWARE AT INTERVALS DURING 210 YEARS.

COMPARISON OF THE DELAWARE NUMERALS.

I have no doubt that if a Swede, a German and an Englishman were to-day to take down these words from the mouth of a Delaware Indian, each writing them in the orthography of his own tongue, the variations would be as numerous as in the above list, except, perhaps, the ancient and now disused r sound. The comparison goes to show that there has probably been but a very slight change in the Delaware, in spite of the many migrations and disturbances they have undergone. They speak the language of their forefathers as closely as do the English, although no written documents have aided them in keeping it alive. This is but another proof added to an already long list, showing that the belief that American languages undergo rapid changes is an error.

The dialect which the Moravian missionaries learned, and in which they composed their works, was that of the Lehigh Valley. That it was not an impure Minsi mixed with Mohegan, as Dr. Trumbull seems to think,[163] is evident from the direct statements of the missionaries themselves, as well as from Heckewelder's Minsi vocabularies, which show many points of divergence from the printed books. Moreover, among the first converts from the Delaware nation were members of the Unami or Turtle tribe, and Zeisberger was brought into immediate contact with them.[164] We may fairly consider it to have been the upper or inland Unami, which, as I have said, was recognized by the nation as the purest, or at least the most polished dialect of their tongue. It stood midway between the Unalachtgo and Southern Unami and the true Minsi.

§ 4. Special Structure of the Lenape.

The Root and the Formation of the Theme.—As they appear in the language of to-day, the Lenape radicals are chiefly monosyllables, which undergo more or less modifications in composition. They cannot be used alone, the tongue having long since passed from that interjectional condition where each of these roots conveyed a whole sentence in itself.

Whether they can be resolved back into a few elementary sounds, primitive elements of speech, I shall not discuss. This has been done for the Cree roots by Mr. Joseph Howse,[165] and most of the radicals of that tongue are identical with those of the Lenape. Some of his conclusions appear to me hazardous and hypothetical; and certainly many of his supposed analogies drawn from European tongues are extravagant.

As in other idioms, so in Lenape, two or more radicals may be compounded to form a combination, which, in turn, performs the offices of a radical in the construction of themes.

This combination is formed either by prefixes or suffixes. The prefixes are generally adjectival in signification, while the suffixes are usually classificatory. A number of these are secondary roots, which are themselves capable of further analysis.

As so much of the strength of the languages depends on this plan of word building, I have drawn off a list of a few of the more frequent affixes of the Lenape, with their signification:—

Lenape Prefixes.

awoss-,  beyond, the other side of.
eluwi-,  most, a superlative form.
gisch-,  see page 102.
kit-,  great, large.
lappi-,  again, indicates repetition.
lenno-,  male, man.
lippoe-,  wise, shrewd; as lippoeweno, a shrewd man.
mach-,  evil, bad, hurt.
matt-,  negative and depreciatory;
as mattaptonen, to speak uncivilly.
ni-,  see page 101.
ochque-,  she, female.
pach-,  division, separation; pachican, a knife;
pachat, to split.
pal-,  negative, as dis- or in-,
from palli otherwheres.
tach-,  pairs or doubles.
tschitsch-,  indicates repetition.
wit-,  with or in common.
wul-, or wel-,  see page 104.

Many of these are abbreviated to the extent that a single significant letter is all that remains, as min in msim, hickory nut; pakihm, cranberry; and so acki to k, hanne to an, as kitanink (Kittanning), from gitschi, great; hanne, flowing river; ink, locative, "at the place of the great river."

Lenape Suffixes.

-ak,  wood, from tachan;  kuwenchak, pine wood.
-aki,  place, land.
-ammen,  acceptance, adoption; wulistamen,
I accept it as good, I believe it. See page 104.
-ape,  male, man. From a root ap, to cover (carnally).
In Chipeway applied only to lower animals.
-atton,  or hatton,  to have, to put somewhere.
The radical is ãt.  Also a prefix, as,
hattape,  the bow; lit., what the man has.
-bi,  tree; machtschibi,  papaw tree.
-chum,  a quadruped.
-elendam,  a verbal termination, signifying a disposition of mind.
The root is en, ne, ni,
I; "it is to me so."
-goot,  a snake; from achgook,  a serpent.
-hanna,  properly hannek,  a river;  from the root,
which appears in Cree as anask,  to stretch out along
the ground;  mechhannek,  a large stream.

Heckewelder derives this from amkamme, a river. The terminal k is, however, part of the root, and not the locative termination. The word is allied to Del. quenek, long.

-hikan,  tidal water; kittahikan,  the ocean; shajahikan,  the sea shore.
-hilleu,  it is so, it is true; impersonal form from lissin.
-hittuck,  river, water in motion.
-igan,  instrumental; also shican and can.
A participial termination used with inanimate objects.
-in  or ini,  of the kind; like; predicative form of the demonstrative pronoun.
-ink  or unk,  place where.
-is  or -it,  diminutive termination.
-leu,  it is so, it is true.
-meek,  a fish; maschilamek, a trout.
-min,  a fruit.
-peek,  a body of still water; menuppek, a lake.
-sacunk,  an outlet of a stream into another; also saquik.
-sipu,  stream; lit., stretched, extended.
-tin,  with, or in common.
-tit,  diminutive termination; amentit, a babe.
-wagan,  abstract verbal termination;
machelemuxowagan,  the being honored.
-wehelleu,  a bird.
-wi,  the verb-substantive termination, predicating being;
tehek,  cold; tehekwi,  he or it is cold.
-wi,  negative termination in certain verbal forms.
-xit,  indicates the passive recipient of the action;
machelemuxit,  the one who is honored.

The analysis of a series of derivatives from the same root offers a most instructive subject for investigation in the Lenape. Not only does it reveal the linguistic processes adapted, but it discloses the psychology of the native mind, and teaches us the associations of its ideas, and the range of its imaginative powers. By no other avenue can we gain access to the intimate thought-life of this people. Here it is unfolded to us by evidence which is irrefragable.

These considerations lead me to present a few examples of the derivatives from roots of different classes.

 EXAMPLES OF LENAPE DERIVATIVES.

Subjective Root  NI,  I, mine.
 1. In a good sense.
Nihilleu, it is I, or, mine.
Nihillatschi, self, oneself.
Nihillapewi, free (ape, man = I am my own man).
Nihillapewit, a freeman.
Nihillasowagan, freedom, liberty.
Nihillapeuhen, to make free, to redeem.
Nihillapeuhoalid, the Redeemer, the Saviour.

 2. In a bad sense.
Ni´hillan, he is mine to beat, I beat him.
Nihil´lan, I beat him to death, I kill him.
Nihillowen, I put him to death, I murder him.
Nihillowet, a murderer.
Nihillowewi, murderous.

 3. In a demonstrative sense.
Ne, pl. nek, or nell, this, that, the.
Nall, nan, nanne, nanni, this one, that one.
Nill, these.
Naninga, those gone, with reference to the dead.

 4. In a possessive sense.
Nitaton, in-my-having, I can, I am able, I know how.
Nitaus, of-my-family, sister-in-law.
Nitis, of-mine, a friend, a companion.
Nitsch! my child! exclamation of fondness.

The strangely conflicting ideas evolved from this root already attracted the attention of Mr. Duponceau[166]. That the notions for freedom and servitude, murderer and Saviour, should be expressed by modifications of the same radical is indeed striking! But the psychological process through which it came about is evident on studying the above arrangement.

Objective-intensive root GISCH or KICH (Cree, KIS or KIK).

Signification—successful action.
 1. Applied to persons.
A. Initial successful action.
Gischigin, to begin life, to be born.
Gischihan, to form, to make with the hands.
Gischiton, to make ready, to prepare.
Gischeleman, to create with the mind, to fancy.
Gischelendam, to meditate a plan, to lie.
B. Continuous successful action.
Gischikenamen, to increase, to produce fruit.
Giken, to grow better in health.
Gikeowagan, life, health.
Gikey, long-living, old, aged,
C. Final successful action.
Gischatten, finished, ready, done, cooked.
Gischiton, to make ready, to finish.
Gischpuen, to have eaten enough.
Gischileu, it has proved true.
Gischatschimolsin, to have resolved, to have decreed.
Gischachpoanhe, baked, cooked (the bread is).
 2. Applied to things.
A. Initial successful action.
Gischuch, sun, moon, day, month. The idea appears
to be the beginning of a period of time with the
collateral notion of prosperous activity. The
correctness of the derivation is shown by the next word.
Gischapan, day-break, beginning day-light.
From wapan, the east, or light.
Gischuchwipall, the rays of the sun.
Gischcu, or Gisckquik, day.
B. Continuous successful action.
Gischten, clear, light, shining.
Gischachsummen, to shine, to enlighten.
Gischuten, warm, tepid.

Numerous other derivatives could be added, but the above are sufficient to show the direction of thoughts flowing from this root. Howse considers it identical with the root kitch, great, large[167]. This would greatly increase its derivatives. They certainly appear allied. In Cree, Lacombe gives kitchi, great, and kije, finished, perfect, both being terms applied to divinity[168].

{L}
General Algonkin root 8{N} I.  Abnaki, 8RI; Micmac, 8E´LI,
{R}
Chippeway, GWAN-; Del., two forms, WUL and WIN.
It conveys the idea of pleasurable sensation.

 A. First form, wul.
Wulit, well, good, handsome, fine.
Wullihilleu, it is good, etc.
Wuliken, it grows well.
Wulamoe, he truth-speaks.
Wulamoewagan, truth.
Wulistamen, to believe, to accept as truth.
Wulenensin, to be fine in appearance, to dress.
Wulenensen, to be fine to oneself, to be proud.

 B. Second form, won or win.
Winu, ripe, good to eat.
Wonita, he is ripe for it, he can, he is able.
Wingan, sweet, savory.
Winktek, done, boiled, fit to eat.
Winak, sassafras. From its sweet leaves.
Wingi, gladly, willingly.
Winginamen, to delight in.

The figure 8 in the above represents the "whistled w," like the wh in "which," when strongly pronounced.

From this root, as I have already said, is derived also the word Walam, red paint, from the sense "to be fine in appearance, to dress," as the Indian accomplished that object by painting himself.

Grammatical Structure of the Lenape.

It would not be worth while for me to enter into the intricacies of Lenape grammar, particularly as I can add little to what is already known.

The Delaware Grammar of Zeisberger remains our only authority, and in spite of its manifest shortcomings and state of incompletion, the unprejudiced student must acknowledge, with Albert Gallatin[169], that it is "most honestly done," and showed the Delaware as it actually was spoken, though perhaps not as scientific linguists think it ought to have been spoken.

A few general observations will be sufficient.

As in other languages of the class, the theme is indifferently nominal, verbal or adjectival; that is, it performs the functions of either of these grammatical categories, according to its connection.

Nominal themes are either animate or inanimate. The characteristic of all animate plurals is k (ak, ik, ek). Inanimate plurals are in al, wall or a. As usual, the distinction between animate and inanimate nouns is partly logical, partly grammatical, various objects being conceived as animate which are in fact not so.

The possessive relation is generally indicated by placement alone, the possessor preceding the thing possessed, as lenno quisall, the man's son; but one could also say lenno w'quisall, the man his son.

Adjectives precede nouns, and when used attributively assume a verbal form by adding the termination wi, which indicates objective existence (like the Chip. -win). Thus, scattek, burning; scattewi w'dehin, a burning-heart—literally, it-is-a-burning-thing his-heart.

The degrees of comparison are formed by prefixing allowiwi, more, and eluwi, most. Both of these are from the same radical ala which may perhaps come from the admirationis particula, ala' (Abnaki, ara') found in the northern dialects as expressive of astonishment[170].

There being no relative pronoun in Delaware, dependent clauses are either included in the verbal of the major clause, or include it as a secondary.

The scheme of the simple sentence is usually subject-verb-object; but emphasis allows departures from this, as in the following sentence from Bishop Ettwein's MSS.:—

Jesus  wemi  amemensall  w'taholawak.
  Jesus   all   children   he-loved-them.

Of the formal affixes, the inseparable pronouns are the most prominent. They are the same for nouns and verbs, and are—

1st. n,  I, my, we, our.
2d.  k,  thou, thy, you, your.
3d.  w  or o,  he, she, it, his, their.

Past time is indicated by the terminal p, with a connective vowel, and future time by tsch, which may be either a prefix or suffix, as—

N'dellsin,    I am thus.
N'dellsineep,  I was thus.
N'dellsintschi,   }
or            }  I shall be thus.
Nantsch n'dellsin, }

The change or "flattening" of the vowel of the root in suppositive propositions, was recognized as a fact of speech, but not grammatically analyzed by Zeisberger.

Its effect on verbal forms may be seen from the following examples from his Grammar:—

Examples of Vowel Change in Lenape.

Another omission in his Grammar is that of the "obviative" and "super-obviative" forms of nouns. These are used in the Algonkin dialects to define the relations of third persons. They prevent such obscurity as appears in the following English sentence: "John's brother called at Robert's, to see his wife." Whose wife is referred to is left ambiguous; but in Algonkin these third persons would have different forms, and there would be no room for ambiguity. In his writings in Lenape, Zeisberger makes use of obviatives, with the terminations al and l, but does not treat of them in his Grammar.

As a question in philosophical grammar, it may be doubted whether the Lenape has any true passive voice. Cardinal Mezzofanti was accustomed to deny the presence of any real passives in American languages; and he had studied the Delaware among others.

The sign of the Delaware passive is the suffix gussu or cusso. In the Cree dialect, which, as I have already said, preserves the ancient forms most closely, this is k-ussu, and is a particle expressing likeness or similarity in animate objects[171]. Hence, probably, the original sense of the Lenape word translated, "I am loved," is "I am like the object of the action of loving."

CHAPTER V.

Historical Sketches of the Lenape.

§ 1. The Lenape as "Women"
§ 2. Recent Migrations of the Lenape
§ 3. Missionary Efforts in the Provinces of Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

§ 1. The Lenape as "Women".

A unique peculiarity of the political condition of the Lenape was that for a certain time they occupied a recognized position as non-combatants—as "women," as they were called by the Iroquois.

Indian customs and phraseology attached a two-fold significance to this term.

The more honorable was that of peace-makers. Among the Five Nations and Susquehannocks, certain grave matrons of the tribe had the right to sit in the councils, and, among other privileges, had that of proposing a cessation of hostilities in time of war. A proposition from them to drop the war club could be entertained without compromising the reputation of the tribe for bravery. There was an official orator and messenger, whose appointed duty it was to convey such a pacific message from the matrons, and to negotiate for peace[172].

Another and less honorable sense of the term arose from a custom prevalent throughout America, and known also among the ancient Scythians. Its precise purpose remains obscure, although it has been made the subject of a careful study by one of our most eminent surgeons, who had facilities of observation among the Western tribes[173]. Certain young men of the tribe, apparently vigorous and of normal development, were deprived of the accoutrements of the male sex, clothed like women, and assigned women's work to do. They neither went out to hunt nor on the war-path, and were treated as inferiors by their male associates. Whether this degradation arose from superstitious rites or sodomitic practices, it certainly carried to its victims the contempt of both sexes.

In their account of the transaction the Delawares claimed that they were appointed as peace-makers in an honorable manner, although the Iroquois deceived them as to their object.

The Lenape account is as follows:—

 "The Iroquois sent messengers to the Delawares with the following speech:—

"'It is not well that all nations should war; for that will finally bring about the destruction of the Indians. We have thought of a means to prevent this before it is too late. Let one nation be The Woman. We will place her in the middle, and the war nations shall be the Men and dwell around the Woman. No one shall harm the Woman; and if one does, we shall speak to him and say, 'Why strikest thou the Woman?' Then all the Men shall attack him who has struck the Woman. The Woman shall not go to war, but shall do her best to keep the peace. When the Men around her fight one another, and the strife waxes hot, the Woman shall have power to say: 'Ye Men! what do ye that ye thus strike one another? Remember that your wives and children must perish, if ye do not cease. Will ye perish from the face of the earth?' Then the Men shall listen to the Woman and obey her.'

 "The Delawares did not at once perceive the aim of the Iroquois, and were pleased to take this position of the Woman.

 "Then the Iroquois made a great feast, and invited the Delawares, and spoke to their envoys an address in three parts.

 "First, they declared the Delaware nation to be the Woman in these words:—

 "'We place upon you the long gown of a woman, and adorn you with earrings.'

 "This was as much as to say that thenceforward they were not to bear arms.

 "The second sentence was in these words:—

"'We hang on your arm a calabash of oil and medicine. With the oil you shall cleanse the ears of other nations that they listen to good and not to evil. The medicine you shall use for those nations who have been foolish, that they may return to their senses, and turn their hearts to peace.'

 "The third sentence intimated that the Delawares should make agriculture their chief occupation. It was:—

 "'We give herewith into your hands a corn pestle and a hoe.'

"Each sentence was accompanied with a belt of wampum. These belts have ever since been carefully preserved and their meanings from time to time recalled."[174]

Opinions of historians about this tradition have been various. It has generally been considered a fabrication of the Delawares, to explain their subjection in a manner consoling to their national vanity. Gen. Harrison dismisses it as impossible;[175] Albert Gallatin says, "it is too incredible to require serious discussion;"[176] Mr. Hale characterizes it as "preposterous;"[177] and Bishop de Schweinitz as "fabulous and absurd"[178].

On the other hand, it is vouched for by Zeisberger, who furnished the account to Loskiel, and who would not have said that the wampum belts with their meaning were still preserved unless he knew it to be a fact. It is repeated emphatically by Heckewelder, who adds that his informants were not only Delawares but Mohegans as well, who could not have shared the motive suggested above[179].

There can be no question but that the neutral position of the Delawares was something different from that of a conquered nation, and that it meant a great deal more. They undoubtedly were the acknowledged peace-makers over a wide area, and this in consequence of some formal ancient treaty. This is distinctly stated by the Stockbridge Indian, Hendrick Aupaumut, in his curious Narrative:—[180]

"The Delawares, who we called Wenaumeen, are our Grandfathers, according to the ancient covenant of their and our ancestors, to which we adhere without any deviation in these near 200 years, to which nation the 5 nations and British have commit the whole business. For this nation has the greatest influence with the southern, western and northern nations."

Hence Aupaumut undertook his embassy directly to them, so as to secure their influence for peace in 1791.

To the fact that they exerted this influence during the Revolutionary War, may very plausibly be attributed the success of the Federal cause in the dark days of 1777 and 1778; for, as David Zeisberger wrote: "If the Delawares had taken part against the Americans in the present war, America would have had terrible experiences; for the neutrality of the Delawares kept all the many nations that are their grandchildren neutral also, except the Shawanese, who are no longer in close union with their grandfathers."[181]

When at the close of the French War, in 1758, the treaty of Easton put a stop to the bloody feuds of the border, "the peace-belt was sent to our brethren, the Delawares, that they might send it to all the nations living toward the setting sun,"[182] and they carried it as the recognized pacific envoys.

The Iroquois, however, assumed a most arrogant and contemptuous tone toward the Delawares, about the middle of the eighteenth century. In 1756 they sent a belt to them, with a most insulting message:[183] "You will remember that you are our women; our forefathers made you so, and put a petticoat on you, and charged you to be true to us, and lie with no other man; but now you have become a common bawd," etc.

Two years later, the Cayuga chief, John Hudson, said, at a council at Burlington,[184] "The Munseys are women, and cannot make treaties for themselves."

These were but repetitions of the famous diatribe of the Onondaga chieftain, Canassatego, at a council at Philadelphia, in 1742. Turning to the representatives of the Lenape, he broke out upon them with the words:—

"How came you to take upon you to sell land? We conquered you. We made women of you. You know you are women, and can no more sell land than women. * * * We charge you to remove instantly. We don't give you the liberty to think about it. We assign you two places to go to, either Wyoming or Shamokin. Don't deliberate, but remove away; and take this belt of wampum."

And as he handed the belt to the Lenape head chief he seized him by his long hair and pushed him out of the door of the council room!

It was notorious at the time, however, that this was a scene arranged between the Governor of the Province, Mr. George Thomas, and the Iroquois deputation. The Lenape had been grossly cheated out of their lands by the trick of the so-called "Long Walk," in 1735, and they refused to vacate their hunting grounds. The Governor sent secret messengers to the powerful and dreaded Six Nations to exert their pretended rights, and paid them well for it.[185]

What could the Lenape do? They were feeble, and undoubtedly had been brought under the authority of their warlike northern neighbors. They found themselves in the position of the Persian chieftain Harmosar, as he stood before the caliph Omar, and heard the latter revile the patriot cause:

"In deinen Händen ist die Macht,
Wer einem Sieger widerspricht, der widerspricht mit Unbedacht."
—Van Platen-Hallermunde.

Such were the respective claims of the Lenape and Iroquois. Instead of discussing the antecedent probability of one or the other being true, I shall endeavor to ascertain from the early records the precise facts about this curious transaction. It is certain that toward the close of the sixteenth century the unending wars between the Delaware confederacy and the Iroquois had reduced the latter almost to destruction. The Jesuit missionaries tell us this.[186] The turning point in their affairs was the settlement of the Dutch on the Hudson. Quick to appreciate the value of firearms, they bought guns and powder at any price, and soon had rendered themselves formidable to all their neighbors.[187] About 1670 they attacked successfully that family of the Minsi called the Minisink.

This was probably the victory to which the Five Nations referred at a treaty at Philadelphia, in 1727, when they stated that their conquest of the Delawares was about the time William Penn first landed, and that he sent congratulations to them on their success—an obvious falsehood.[188]

They were certainly at that period pressing hard on the Susquehannocks and destroying their remnant in the valley of that river. Mr. William P. Foulke is quite correct in his conclusion that, "Upon the whole we may conclude that the Lancaster lands fell into the power of the Five Nations at some time between 1677 and 1684."[189]

Yet their conquest of the Minsi was not complete. The latter had the mind and the will to renew the combat. In 1692 they appealed to the government of Pennsylvania to aid them in an attack on the Senecas, but the Quakers declined the foray. The next year the Minsi asked Governor Benjamin Fletcher at least to protect them against these Senecas, adding that with assistance they were ready to attack them, for "although wee are a small number of Indians, wee are Men, and know fighting."[190]

Evidently there was neither subjection nor womanhood with the Minsi at that date.

There is also positive evidence that the Five Nations at that time regarded the Delawares as a combatant nation, and worthy of an invitation to join a war. On July 6th, 1694, Governor Wm. Markham met in conference the famous chief Tamany and others; and the Delaware orator, Hithquoquean, laid down a belt of wampum, and said:—[191]

"This belt is sent us by the Onondagas and Senecas, who say: 'You Delaware Indians do nothing but stay at home and boil your pots, and are like women; while we, Onondagas and Senecas, go abroad and fight the enemy.'"

"The Senecas would have us Delaware Indians to be partners with them, and fight against the French, but we, having always been a peaceful people, and resolving to live so; and being but weak and verie few in number, cannot assist them, and having resolved among ourselves not to go, doe intend to send back, this their Belt of Wampum."

The Lenape, therefore, did not, at that date, occupy any degrading position, although they were under the general domination of the Iroquois League.

Both these points are proved yet more conclusively by the proceedings at a conference at White Marsh, May 19th, 1712, between Governor C. Gookin and the Delaware chiefs. Gollitchy, orator of the latter, exhibited thirty-two belts of wampum, which they were on their way to deliver to the Five Nations, adding "that many years ago they had been made tributaries to the Mingoes." He also shewed "a long Indian pipe, with a stone head, a wooden shaft, and feathers fixt to it like wings. This pipe, they said, upon making their submission to the Five Nations, who had subdued them, and obliged them to be their tributaries, those Nations had given to these Indians, to be kept by them." All the tribute belts, however, were sent by the women and children, as the speaker explained at length, "as the Indian reckons the paying of tribute becomes none but women and children."[192]

Fortunately, however, we are able to fix the exact date and circumstances of the political transformation of the Delawares into women. It is by no means so remote as Mr. Heckewelder thought, who located the occurrence at Norman's Kill, on the Hudson, between 1609 and 1620; [193] and it was long after 1670, which is the date assigned by Mr. Ruttenber,[194] from a study of the New York records.

It was in the year 1725, and was in consequence of the Delawares refusing to join the Iroquois in an attack on the English settlements.

These data come to light in a message of the Shawnee chiefs, in 1732, to Governor Gordon, who had inquired their reasons for migrating to the Ohio Valley.

Their reply was as follows:—

"About nine years agoe the 5 nations told us att Shallyschohking, wee Did nott Do well to Setle there, for there was a Greatt noise In the Greatt house and thatt in three years time, all Should know whatt they had to Say, as far as there was any Setlements or the Sun Sett."

"About ye Expiration of 3 years affore S^d, the 5 nations Came and Said our Land is goeing to bee taken from us, Come brothers assistt us Lett us fall upon and fightt with the English. Wee answered them no, wee Came here for peace and have Leave to Setle here, and wee are In League with them and Canott break itt."

"Aboutt a year after they, ye 5 nations, Told the Delawares and us, Since you have nott hearkened to us, nor Regarded whatt we have said, now wee will pettycoatts on you, and Look upon you as women for the future, and nott as men. Therefore, you Shawanese Look back toward Ohioh, The place from whence you Came, and Return thitherward, for now wee Shall Take pitty on the English and Lett them have all this Land."

"And further Said now Since you are Become women, He Take Peahohquelloman, and putt itt on Meheahoaming and He Take Meheahoaming and putt itt on Ohioh, and Ohioh He putt on Woabach, and thatt shall bee the warriours Road for the future." (Penna Archives, Vol. I.)

The circumstances attending the ceremony were probably pretty much as Loskiel relates.

The correctness of this account is borne out by an examination of law titles.

That the river tribes at the time of Penn's treaties (1680-1700) could not sell their lands without the permission of the Iroquois has never been established. Mr. Gallatin states that William Penn "always purchased the right of possession from the Delawares, and that of sovereignty from the Five Nations."[195] This may have been the case in some later treaties of the colony, but certainly there is no intimation of it in the celebrated "First Indian Deed" to Penn, July 15th, 1682.[196] Furthermore, in the Release which the Iroquois did give of their Pennsylvania lands in 1736, the boundaries are defined as "Westward to the Setting of the Sun, and Eastward to the furthest springs of the Waters running into the said River," i. e., the Susquehannah;[197] and to do away with any doubt that the tract thus defined included all the land in this part to which they had a claim, the Release goes on to recite that "our true intent and meaning was and is to release all our Right, Claim and Pretensions whatsoever to all and every the Lands lying within the Bounds and Limits of the Government of Pennsylvania, Beginning Eastward on the River Delaware, as far Northward as the s^d Ridge or Chain of Endless Mountains." In other words, although the Six Nations advanced no claim to land east of the Susquehanna watershed, the Proprietors chose to include the Delaware watershed so as to avoid any future complication. It seems to me this Release does away with any "right of sovereignty" of the Iroquois over the Delaware Valley south of the mountains, and brands Canassatego's remarks above quoted as braggart falsehoods.