of thus forming and denominating moccasins is local and partial, or that the nation itself was known under its present name long before any part of it had migrated to the banks of the St Louis, the Mississippi, or Rainy lake.

There is still less authority for the term 'neenawesik,' by which it is said the whole nation is known, and which is stated to signify natural language.' Neenawesik' is a garbled form of the expression nee eenowaysik enuh, which implies literally, he does not speak correctly! It is manifestly the reply to a misconceived question.

Kauween nin neeinowaysee, I do not speak correctly.

Kauween kee neeinowaysee, You do not speak correctly, &c. Ojibwamoong is the term by which this nation denominate their own language, or as the term strictly implies, tongue or voice. Hence,

Neen Dojibwaam, I speak Chippewa.

Kee Dojibwaam, You speak Chippewa.

Ojibwaamoo, He speaks Chippewa, &c. This mode of forming neuter verbs from substantive roots, is among the striking characteristic features of the language.

We had prepared a considerable list of other errors in that part of the Narrative which relates to the language of the Chippewas, but our limits oblige us to omit them. One or two observations only we deem it important not to pass over.

At page 389, vol. I, Boines' is stated to be the Chippewa term for the Sioux nation. Bwoin, not Boines,' is the singular number. It has its plural, not in s, but in ug. The term is derived from the Chippewa verb abwa', to roast. Hence abwain, roast thou; abwoinok, a stick upon which flesh is roasted; and is in allusion to the practice of the Sioux, of impaling their prisoners before a fire. The more common term, however, for the Sioux, as stated in a previous article,* is naudowaysee, our enemies,' a phrase which, from long application to them, has become almost specific in its import.

Ossin, and not 'assin' (vol. II. p. 71), is the name for a stone; and the Stone Sioux are hence denominated Ossinabwoin, and not' Assinaboines.' Lord Selkirk, who, in allusion to this tribe and the river they inhabit, bestowed the name of 'Ossinaboina' upon his Red river colony, had taken pains to ascertain the Indian mode of pronunciation, and was determined by popular and correct usage.

The etymology of Winnepeek,' as given at p. 81, vol. 11, * North American Review, No. L. Art. Indians of North America.

6

is fallacious in its data. There is no adjective'we,' signifying muddy, in the language. The word is derived from weenud, dirty, and neebeg, waters, and the full name is, Weeneebeg' o saugy'egun, that is, lake of dirty waters. Winnabago, is a term derived from the same roots, implying that the tribe who bear this name, dwell on dirty waters, in allusion to the Mississippi. The words 'oton,'onik,' 'okat,'osit,' okan,' (odoan, onik, okaud, ozid, okun,) do not mean respectively, mouth, arm, leg, foot, bone; but his mouth, his arm, his leg, his foot, his bone. An error has existed on this subject, from the days of Lahontan to the publication of the work before us. Although the Indians utter their pronouns as if they were inseparable from their nouns and verbs, yet they are not uniformly so, and the amalgamated aspect, which their language usually bears when put upon paper, is greatly attributable to the haste, or carelessness of travellers, particularly of our earlier travellers, most of whom have acquired but a slender reputation, either for rigorous research or profound erudition. Precedent is allpowerful, and it requires an effort to break through established customs, however ill-founded, trivial, or absurd. The following tabular view of substantives embraces their most common and least concrete forms. While it exhibits a principle which has hitherto been very obscurely defined, it affords a further illustration of a remark made in a preceding review,* respecting the original monosyllabic character of the language.

Sheem sister

brother Nee si ä

Kee si ä

O geen †

O sia-un † (elder)

Nee sheem 'a Kee sheem 'a O sheema-un † (younger s.or br.)

* North American Review. No. L. Art. Indians of North America. These, being nouns animate, have the objective inflections, een, un. VOL. XXVII.-NO. 60.

15

Verbs, as well as substantives, are thus employed, and may, for the most part, be traced back to monosyllabic or disyllabic

But it is time to close these researches into the curious philology of our barbarous brethren. We are aware, that to a portion, perhaps the larger portion, of our readers, the theme is uninviting. There is, however, a class of inquirers in the country, respectable in numbers, and still more respectable for the characters of the men who compose it, to whom this subject has for some time been, and still continues to be, one of growing interest. Among the savans of continental Europe, there are few topics connected with America, which are considered more curious and important; and we have reason to believe, that no portion of our pages has been more acceptable to them, than those which we have devoted to the aboriginal. languages of the country. When we consider how scanty are the means for tracing the history of tribes like those of this continent, which possess no literary memorials, we cannot but allow, that the most ought to be made of the few within our reach. Their languages, considered in their structure, diversity, and affinity, are unquestionably the most important of these means. To these we must look for our chief aid in ascertaining the consanguinity of the various tribes, while we have scarce any other clue to guide us to the solution of the still more important problem of the original peopling of America. We therefore trust, that while we give up the greater part of our pages to the general reader, he will not complain, that a due proportion of the North American Review is devoted to the languages of the North American Continent.

ART. VI.-Essai sur l'Art d'Etre Heureux, par JOSEPH DROZ, de l'Académie Française. 4 Edition. 12mo. pp. 335. Paris.

1225.

THE author of the little work before us has not attempted any regular definition of happiness; but assuming that we all know pretty well what it is, has employed himself principally on inquiring how we may attain it. We are not sure that a more thorough investigation of the nature of the end would not have modified in some degree the notions of Mr Droz, in regard to the means. However this may be, it appears that he has made, as he conceives, some important discoveries, or at least greatly simplified and improved upon received notions. He has methodized his principles into a series of rules, which he entitles The Art of Being Happy; and he believes that by a steady and judicious application of them, a man may realize the summum bonum with a good degree of certainty. The subject is of so much importance, that all theories respecting it are worth examining, should they even turn out to be somewhat less original and valuable than they are considered by their authors.

Mr Droz commences by expressing his surprise at the apparent indifference of most persons to their own good.

'Our object, in life,' he remarks, is happiness. One would think this a sufficiently familiar truth; but how often is it overlooked or despised! To see the restlessness and agitation of many persons, one would suppose that the great affair was not to be happy, but to be rich, or to obtain some office.'

And again;

'Make happiness the principal object of your life. When one of your neighbors says to you, "My speculations are successful; I shall certainly become immensely rich;" and another, "I shall doubtless carry my election, and am on the high road of political advancement;" reply with equal self-satisfaction, "As for me, I hope to enjoy many happy days."

Although the mass of mankind, in aiming at various unsubstantial objects of pursuit, overlook, in the opinion of our author, the search after happiness, he admits that there are some illustrious exceptions; and reckons among them our countryman Dr Franklin, of whom he speaks in the following high terms.

'We see, from time to time, appearing among us, some of those rare individuals whom nature intended as models of moral beauty.

Such was Benjamin Franklin, the pride of the new world. I have often perused the pages in which he describes his plan for aiming at moral perfection, and which he concludes as follows. "Although I have not attained the perfection at which I aimed, and have even fallen very far short of it, my endeavors have nevertheless rendered me better and happier than I should have been if I had not made the attempt, as a person who tries to improve in penmanship by imitating a copperplate model, although he should not equal the correctness and elegance of the engraving, may yet acquire a more easy and legible hand than he had before. It may be interesting to my posterity to know that I owe, under Providence, to this little artifice, the happiness which I have constantly enjoyed up to my seventy-ninth year, in which I write these lines. Should the rest of my life be disturbed by misfortunes, the recollection of the preceding period will enable me to support them with resignation."

While we perfectly agree with Mr Droz, in his estimate of the character of our illustrious townsman, and particularly in his approbation of the doctrine contained in the above extract from his Memoirs of his own life, we cannot but remark that it does not appear to confirm, so explicitly as our author supposes, his favorite notion of the great importance of making the direct pursuit of happiness the principal object. Dr Franklin assures us in this passage that by the use of certain means, which he describes, he had lived happily up to a very advanced age. But what were these means? Did they consist in making happiness the direct and principal object of pursuit? Quite the contrary, as appears from the showing of Mr Droz himself. 'I have often perused,' says our author as above quoted, 'the pages in which Franklin describes his plan for arriving at moral perfection.' Moral perfection, then, was the mark to which our philosopher directed his view. By aiming not immediately at happiness, but at moral perfection or virtue, he succeeded, it appears, in making himself, to a certain extent, both virtuous and happy. The conclusion is (as far as a single example can be depended on) that if a man would be happy he must endeavor to be virtuous, and that if he succeed tolerably well in this, happiness will come of itself. Mr Droz, on the contrary, advises that we should aim directly and immediately at happiness, leaving moral perfection (of which, indeed, he says but little) to come in by the way, as it may or can. Waving any inquiry into the respective merits of the two systems, we cannot but remark that the example and precepts of Franklin, instead of confirming, as