simple form, it differs little from the delineation, according to their means and skill, of the visible part of events: examples will afford the best illustration. An Indian is accidentally separated from his band, perhaps, when they are on their route towards some distant hunting grounds. Following them, at an interval of several days, he finds, at one of the customary places of encampment, (and so disposed, as not to escape his notice,) a little sheet of birch bark, a smooth stone, or a slender piece of wood, prepared for that purpose; on which, he distinguishes the following rudely sketched figures-a bear lying, and with his head down a knife, the point touching the bear, the handle in contact with some part of the figure of a rattle snake-this figure again, in some part, touching the dug of a female beaver. The position in which this record is left, will, in a moment, assure him that it has been intended to attract observation; and the unfrequency with which any travellers, not of his own band, can be supposed to pass that route, will lead him to suspect that its contents concern himself. On examination, his own totem, the designating mark of the family of his father, will meet his eye; and he will, in as little time as a white man would require to read a note containing the same amount of information, become fully possessed of the import of the communication. In the figure of the bear, he will recognise the totem of one of the families of his band; in the attitude of this figure, the drooping of the head, and the position of the knife of the man, called the rattlesnake, the son of the female beaver, he will read that his brother, the son of his own mother, has killed another man; whom by his totem, and some mark added to distinguish him from the other males of the same family, he will immediately single out from all the men of the band. In a community extremely limited in number, and simple in their habits, this method will be adequate to several important purposes. In the instance just given, no words would be required, to convince the hunter that he should immediately provide for his own safety; and the intimation he has received, he cannot easily misunderstand. The fact that a man of the rattlesnake totem, has murdered another, might be too general; as several of that totem might be found in the band, and, by some circumstance, so disconnected, and perhaps hostile to each other, that one would not be pursued for the other's crime; hence it was necessary to introduce the figure of the female beaver; and to show, by bringing the figure of the rattlesnake in contact with her dug, that the murderer was the son of a woman bearing that totem, or distinguishing mark. This, the person addressed, could not mistake for any other than his maternal brother; for whose violent act, he himself is, by the customs of his tribe, held justly accountable.

But, in writings of this kind, if these rude delineations may

be so called, the meaning attached to each figure, must be, in a great measure, conventional and arbitrary. A man, for instance, of the moose totem, wishes to convey to his friends, information that he is perishing of hunger. He is, perhaps, bewildered in his journey, or hopes that some persons may by accident fall upon his trail, and overtake him. He delineates a rude sketch of a moose, and, about the mouth of the figure, he daubs some white clay, or perhaps ashes, or whatever pale looking substance he finds next at hand. This sign, though it has originated in a close observation of nature, which has led these people to remark, that persons in a starving condition, look pale about the mouth, yet would not convey to one uninstructed in this language of signs, any definite information; and, consequently, it would fail of being applicable to any useful purpose.

They have also among them, long poetical compositions, retained in the memory of the author, and communicated to others, by the assistance of figures, which they delineate on parchment, or birch bark; but to learn to read, and comprehend a performance of this kind, not surpassing the length of two hundred lines of English poetry, perhaps a year would be required, of patient attention and close application, in such intervals of leisure, as an Indian hunter may find between his excursions. When once fixed in the memory, the exact meaning, and the words connected in the mind, with each figure, are liable to be forgotten; and are recalled, as may be observed, in those songs used in their religious ceremonies, rather by association with the sound of the tune to which they are sung, than by any necessary significance in the figure itself. Whether the Mexican and Peruvian picture writing, at the time of the discovery and conquest of those countries, was in this rude state, or had made a farther advance towards the construction of an alphabet, by the intermixture among these pictures, of some phonetic signs, remains still to be determined. That they had a knowledge of this method, and did not disdain, on occasion, to make use of it, we have seen; that, without any other, their means of communication, by writing, were extremely limited; and that their records, in case of the irretrievable loss of the traditional glossary, which originally accompanied them, must for ever remain in a great measure unexplained, is, we think, evident.

Among the intelligent and careful men of the Chippeways, disputes sometimes happen, concerning the figures proper to be used, in representing in their religious songs, their female divinity, Mesukkummik Oqui, or the "Mid-earth Female;" some contending it should be that of an old woman, laying down in the middle of the field of parallel lines, representing the earth; others, that of a snake running across the same field; but we doubt whether any key to a rational interpretation of such figures

could be found, after all the lore of the native commentators had perished from the earth. A Father Kircher might find among them, hints for many a fanciful and towering hypothesis; but their original signification would be lost for ever.

. Some discussion respecting the comparative powers and properties of the American and other languages, seems to have been entered upon with some warmth, in the preface to the work before us; and the translator has, perhaps, with more care and explicitness than the case required, replied to some remarks on this subject, in the North American Review, for January 1826. The Baron Wilhelm von Humboldt, has also incurred some displeasure, by calling the process of combination, used in the Indian languages, agglutination. This method of compounding, common to all the languages of the American race, is now well understood; and no doubt differs, in some respect, from that employed in the Sanscrit. But, whether it is to be called synthesis, or agglutination, we are not aware that the philologists, either those who charge it upon the American languages, as a blemish and a defect, or those, on the other hand, who consider it a principal and peculiar beauty, have been careful to point out in what respect it differs from, or agrees with, the similarly denominated character in that much admired eastern language. A native Indian writer, in the first volume of the Asiatic Researches, has, among other instances of compound Sanscrit words, this: Rigyajuhsúmát' harva, which, he says, is made up of Rich, Yajush, Saman, and At' harvan. Wherein does this compounding consist, but in blending together several distinct words, and rejecting from the compound, several syllables, which seem not indispensably necessary to excite the successive ideas the word is intended to represent? And how does this differ, whether it be agglutination or synthesis, from the practice of the Delawares, the Chippeways, or the Menomonies; except, perhaps, that the latter have carried the principle a little farther, by throwing out more syllables? In the American languages, instances are perpetually recurring. We may give one or two in illustration; and, first, the word Kuligatschis, from page 82 of the translator's preface. The component words, are: Ki, thy, (Zeisberger's Delaware Indian Spelling Book, p. 8,) wulit, handsome; wichgat, leg; and schis, a diminutive termination. Kiwulitwichgatschis, pronounced in their ordinary manner of speaking, kuligatschis. The following instances, from the dialects of the Menomonies and Chippeways, show their manner of contracting and blending, in sentences somewhat more complex. Netenainemutchkewuskepe, [Menomonie,] neen, I, tenainetimmenow, think; but this is always used with the inseparable pronoun, and would be more properly written, n'tenainetimmenow; menawutch, a little; okewuskepew, he is drunk. The sentence means, "I think him some

what drunk ;" and is pronounced like two words. Anosomiegawbouid, [Chippeway,] in which we distinguish anosomie, before, used always in composition, and nebouid, the person standing. Anosamahbid, from the same anosomie, and namattahbid, the person sitting. "Before him standing;" "before him sitting;" one peculiarity in these languages being the constant, and as it were, unavoidable noticing of the situation of the person or thing spoken of. The gun belongs to him sitting;" "the canoe floats before him standing;" or "lies on the ground before him sitting." They say not, "the canoe is in the water," or "on the land," perhaps for want of the verb substantive; but there appears also, in all their conversation, an accurate and careful designating of place and circumstance, dependent in some measure upon the genius of their language. An example from the version of the Bible, by Mr. Eliot, (a store-house of invaluable materials to any one, who would inquire into the character of the American languages,) in the rendering of our vague preposition before, will a little illustrate this point; and show also, that the Indian languages, whatever may be their defects, are not entirely destitute of logic. Anaquabit, this form is followed by the name God, which Eliot did not attempt to translate; the expression in the English version is, "before God." Anaquabenit wetamoh, "before his brethren." Anaquoshik nepawz, "before the sun. Anaquotag Pihahiroth, "before Pihahiroth," Exodus, xiv. 2. ut anaquabhettit, "before their eyes," Ezek. xxxvi. 28. All these, and perhaps many more, are applicable to the translating one word before, in allusion to situation; before, in time, is rendered by asquam, still a different word.

But to return to the consideration of that peculiarity which Mr. Duponceau considers "the most curious thing, that exists in the language of the Indians," namely, "the manner in which they compound their words," we would gladly be more particularly informed, wherein it differs in principle from the compounding which we meet in the Greek, to some extent in the Latin, and perhaps in all other languages. We find in the American, as in the Sanscrit, the English, the German, and even we believe in the Hebrew, and its cognate dialects, though with less frequency than in any other family, words compounded from several simple ones, parts of which are omitted. But whether or not it be entirely peculiar to the American languages, it is not, we conceive, when used as it is by our Indians, a defect chargeable upon the genius of the language, since in most instances at least, any who are too critical to be pleased with it, are at liberty to take in preference the more circuitous way, and may separate the component words, each of which have furnished something to the compound, and pronounce each at full length; for instance, the Chippeway hunter, in his medicine song, or prayer to NanabouVOL. III.NO. 6.

51

jou, the hunter's god, may, if he chooses, substitute for the neat and sonorous word nemukquiosa, its constituents, as pronounced in common discourse-neen, mukquaw papahmosa, "I walk a bear;" but would he gain any thing by the exchange? In place of one word, which we may call beautiful, since it is pleasant to the ear, and expresses with certainty the meaning, "I walk in the disguise of a bear, and that disguise so craftily worn, that I am really a bear, or mistaken for such by all who see me"-he is compelled to use three words, expressing not a whit more, nor with any greater precision; he has to form about twice the number of articulate sounds, without getting an inch farther forward in his discourse. To us, many expressions of this kind, with which the Indian languages abound, appear faultless, following the natural order of the ideas in the speaker's mind, and presenting each to the hearer as clearly, as definitely, and in some instances as briefly, as is in the power of language.

The American languages, despised as they have been, and poor as they truly are in respect of a multitude of words, common enough in the languages of more polished and artificial societies, yet present to the candid observer many features deserving admiration. We will not say there are in these languages many refinements; perfections there certainly are, which our own, in the parallel expressions, cannot equal. A single instance of comparison may be taken from the more familiar naming of one of our simple ideas. It is common, among us, to hear a person say, "I am cold," "the cold is very severe,' "he perished of cold," and "cold has done this or that." There is certainly an ambiguity in some of these expressions, to which nothing but long use can have reconciled us. Could a Chippeway, familiar with all the doctrines of the philosophers, and chemists, on the subject of cold, and knowing our language as well as any among us can be supposed to know his, hear our commonest phrases into which this word cold enters, would he not cry out barbarians, and pity a people compelled to use so rude and unintelligible a language? In his own dialect, the most general and indefinite word, corresponding to our substantive "cold," is kissenah; but if one of them, perfectly understanding our language, would translate our common expression, it is cold, he would say kissenahmuggut, which is saying explicitly, "the weather is cold." But were he to say, "I am cold," or "I experience the sensation occasioned by cold," he would use quite another word, nekakutch, or in another dialect, nepeengaje, or in another, nebaketchimmenow. To water unfrozen, he would apply a word differing from that used in speaking of the severe cold of winter: entering another's lodge, and asking for cold water, he would say, takekummew attai nuh? "Is there cold water ?" Here ta-ke is used for cold, which closely resembles the Delaware