swA.NToNl TXDTAN THIBKS OF TITK T.OWER MISSISSIPPI VALLHV 21 



lio was killed 1)\ a C'iiitiiiiaclia war pai't y Avhcii on his way to Biloxi.'* 

 For one reason or another no furlher missionary ell'orts \vere made 

 among the Natchez or Taen.sa excej)! incidentally in connection with 

 white congregations, and it is evident that of all nuMi De Montigny 

 and St. Cosme, especially the latter, were best fitted to pass upon the 

 relationship of Natchez to the hinguage of its neighbors. As ah'eady 

 noted, we have the direct or indirect opinion of both of these men on 

 the (juestion before us, but, what has hitherto not been known, we 

 have their opinion expressed a second time and in a way to which the 

 same objections can not be applied as were raised by Gatschet. 



At the Fifteenth Congress of Amei'icanists hehl in Quebec in 1900, 

 M. I'abbe Amedee Gosselin, professor in Laval University, presented 

 a paper entitled, " Les Sauvages du Mississijn {1698-1708) (Tapres la 

 Corves pondance dcs Mlss-ionnaires des Missions Etrangeres de Que- 

 bec.'''' ^ The information contained in this is drawn partly from the 

 original documents published by Shea, but in greater part from letters 

 which still remain in manuscript, as they were sent by the missionary 

 priests to their superior, the Bishop of Quebec. From these most val- 

 uable information is adduced regarding the population, languages, re- 

 ligion, government, warfare, character, manners, and customs of the 

 tribes of that region, nuich of which will be quoted in this paper. 

 The only reference to the language of the Taensa, however, is to the 

 effect that "the Tonicas [Tunica], the Taensa, and the Natchez spoke 

 the same language, but it differed from that of the Chicachas 

 [Chickasaw] and that of the Akansas [Quapaw]."*' As authority 

 for this statement the letters of De Montigny of January 2 and 

 August 25, 1()99, are cited. The coupling of Tunica with the other 

 two languages being at variance with statements in De Montigny's 

 letter of January 2, and so far as Tunica and Natchez are concerned 

 at variance with known facts, the writer supposed that the missionary 

 must have expressed different views in his unpublished letter of 

 August 25. In order to settle this question, and if possible to elicit 

 further information regarding the linguistic position of the tribe 

 under discussion, he addressed a letter to Professor Gosselin, calling 

 attention to the matter and asking for any excerpts relating to the 

 language of the Taensa which the unpublished letters might contain. 

 Professor Gosselin very kindly and ])romptly rejjlied to his request. 

 He explained that the erroneous statement was the result of an un- 

 fortunate confusion in his own notes and did not exist in the origi- 

 nals. In answer to the second query he inclosed several extracts in 

 the original which are of the utmost value and contain the decisive 

 information alluded to. It is to be hoped that the whole of these 



" La Harpe, Jour. Hist., 101, 1831. 



"Compte Rendu Cong. Internat. des Amer., loth sess., i, 31-51. 



" Ibid.. 38. 



