SWANTONl TXDTAX TRIBES OF THE LOWER MISSISSIPPI V.M.I.KV 13 



uini»lo is niiulo to iirow in the Louisiana swamps, tlio hroad-loavcd niamiolia 

 ami tlu> Hxiiiy in Minnesota. The latter is (ieserii)e(l as tiie laiiil of the myrtle 

 and the former of the vine. The northern warrior l)rinj,'s feet riuK>< and infant 

 clothinj: as presents, while the southern bride knows all ahout hoilinii mai)le 

 sap and is liice a white birch. Uut the author's knowledfje of al)orif;inal cus- 

 toms stands out most prominently when he has the up-river chief come with 

 an ox cart and boast of his cows! After that passage I need say nothing more. 

 He is, indeed, ignorant who does not know that not a single draft animal and 

 not one kept for its milk was ever found among the natives of the Mississipi)i 

 valley." 



In conclusion the writer recalls the grammar of a fictitious Formosa 

 lanoiiaao brought forth by George Psalmanazar, and adds the state- 

 ments of I)e Montigiiy. (Jravier, and I)u Pralz to the etTect that the 

 Taensa spoke the Natchez language, which is known to be entirely 

 distinct from that contained in the Taensa Grannnar. " ^Moreover," 

 he says. "• we have in old writers the names of the Taensa villages 

 furnished by the Taensa themselves, and they also are nowise 

 akin to the matter of this grannnar. but are of Chahta-Muskoki 

 derivation." ^ 



Two of the three brochures which contain M. Adam's reply to this 

 attack show in their titles a confession of weakness, since they 

 merely maintain that the grammar had not been forged in all portions. 

 In fact, M. xVdam at once abandons any defense of the " texts," saying : 

 " In my own mind I have always considered them the work of some 

 disciple of the Jesuit fathers, who had taken a fancy to the Taensa 

 poetry." " The brochures also contain copies of correspondence be- 

 tween ^Or. Adam. Parisot. and others relative to the original manu- 

 scrij)t which Adam demanded and Parisot declared to be no longer in 

 his possession. It further developed that M. Haumonte, M. Parisot's 

 maternal uncle, among Avhose papers the Taensa manuscripts were 

 supposed to have been found, was no linguist, and could have had 

 nothing to do with the documents. Parisot furthermore admitted 

 that the originals were not all in Spanish, and that he had written 

 out and altered the grammar, besides augmenting the vocabulary 

 with terms which had been translated only by conjectures. Not only 

 was Parisot unable to produce the original, but a thorough search 

 among the family papers on the part of his father failed to reveal 

 anything of the sort. Nevertheless, M. Adam explained the presence 

 of the manuscripts among M. Haumonte's papers by supposing that 

 they had been left there by some visitor, M. Haumonte having kept a 

 lodging house, and proceeded to defend the grammar itself by reply- 

 ng to the philological objections raised by Doctor Brinton. He 

 supported his position by means of a letter from the noted German 

 philologist, Friedrich Midler, who also gave it as his opinion that the 

 grammar was not altogether fraudulent. 



"Amer. Antiq., vii, 112-113. "Ibid., 113. 'See p. 10. 



