SWANTONI INDIAN TRIBES OF THE LOWKR MISSISSIPPI V.Vl.LKV 11 



and in Xovt'iiihor of that year the whole controversy to date was 

 noticed at length in 71ie Kansas City Review (vol. ix, no. 4, 

 pp. 2r)3-2r)4). The most thorough history of the case, however, 

 embracing the earlier chapters, that had hardly been touched 

 upon so far, was written by Prof. Julien Vinson under the title 

 La Langue Taensa^ in January, 188G, and published in the April 

 issue of the Revue de Liny u'lst'i que et de PhUologie Conipavee. Al- 

 though he had first introduced Parisot to the public and was largely 

 responsible for the publication of the grammar by Adam, Vinson 

 now sided with Brinton, at least in the belief that the authenticity 

 of the work had not yet been established. The Revue for January, 

 1888, contains a letter from Doctor Brinton, entitled Linguistique 

 Amencaine, in which he refers to several ditferences of opinion be- 

 tween himself and Doctor Gatschet, and closes with another reference 

 to the Taensa aproi)os of the introduction furnished by the latter 

 gentleman. This brought out a RepUque from the noted philologist, 

 in which he for the first time enters the Taensa controversy in person, 

 and a counter rejoinder in the October issue. The whole question was 

 reviewed once more by Brinton in a special chapter in his Essays of 

 an Americanist (pp. 452^67, 1890), and here the active controversy 

 practically ended, apparently with neither side convinced. So much 

 doubt was thrown upon the new material, however, that in making up 

 his linguistic map of North America north of Mexico Powell excluded 

 it from consideration, and it is probably regarded as fraudulent by 

 most prominent ethnologists. At the same time, until very recently 

 sufficient evidence had not been brought forward to absolutely 

 discredit the grammar of Parisot and remove it from the category 

 of possibilities. In determining the ethnological complexion of the 

 lower Mississippi tribes and attempting so far as possible to recover 

 their past history, it is most impleasant to have to deal with a possi- 

 bility of such radical importance, and it is therefore of the utmost 

 consequence, if not to demonstrate the fraudulent or genuine character 

 of the grannnar, at least to properly classify the language of the 

 Taensa tribe itself. Rather unexpectedly material has recently come 

 into the writer's hands which he believes to be decisive. 



Having reviewed the course of the controversy in outline it will 

 be in order, before bringing in this new evidence, to take up the 

 points brought forAvard pro and con in the articles above mentioned. 

 Those adduced by Brinton in his initial attack were that no scholar 

 of standing had had access to the original manuscript from which 

 the material was taken; that the language could not have been re- 

 corded by a Spaniard, as claimed, because from the time when the 

 Taensa tribe w\as first known until their destruction " as minutely 

 recorded by Charlevoix '' in 1730-1740 they were under French in- 

 fluences entirely ; no Spanish mission was among them, and no Span- 



