« 上一頁繼續 »
often in the Indian. From this term comes the word written by our early French explorers, QUACHITA (now the WASHITA or WICHITA). We find what is perhaps identically the same thing in a French transcript of a Polish name—OUCHITZA. The name CANOOCHEE of the Aboriginal American, and which is very like the Asiatic word CANOJIA, gives us a descriptive epithet which is evidently borrowed from the Greek. There are more than a score of the Indian names applying to rivers bordered by the canes-names having in their structure the Greek canna. We shall refer to them again.
The above examples--selected at random, and without any effort to give the fullest analogies in the Indian nomenclature to those of the Old World-certainly convey the idea that the river names of America were not devised in utter ignorance of the language of the Old World. Countless other testimonies could be adduced showing the verbal analogies of the Indian to those of the civilized people of the Eastern Continent. The occasional use by the Indian of similar syllabic expressions, or even coincident phrases and complete words found in the speech of unknown people in remote countries, could be accounted for on the ground of accidentality or otherwise. Yet the nomenclatures of the Red man-his “appellations”
-are too full of similarity and actual identity with the words of the Old World for us to doubt for a moment the earliest colonist's knowledge of the pre-existent models. We must confess that there is revealed by the Indian names a knowledge of the historical languages and their etymological laws governing the coinage of words.
We have seen some of the examples of the Indian familiarity with terms having origin in languages antedating the Latin. Let us now see if his knowledge extended through, or embraced, the speech of the Romans. Let us see if we can detect in the river nomenclature of American Aborigines a knowledge of idioms and phrases that cannot be traced beyond the limits of the Latin into an anterior tongue. When we shall have seen the testimonials relating to the origin of the earliest colonists of America as they are revealed by the LANGUAGE of those people, we shall then consider the analogies existing in CHARACTER and ART.
11.—THE LATIN TERM.
We shall consider next the Term for Water or River, used by the Romans.
It must be admitted that the Roman geographers were familiar with antecedent literature—with antecedent river nomenclature especially. But notwithstanding the fact that the Latin was a composite language, there are many words therein, the existence of which were unknown until the Roman language had its birth and became fixed in the literature of the world. Among these words was the well-known term AQUA, with its peculiar Latin pronunciation. Although a cognate of the Sanscrit and the Celtic terms, the equivalent of our word for water or river, its birth is at a well-defined historical period.
And yet if we accept the testimonies of the early explorers of America, this word AQUA was well and thoroughly known, and correctly spoken, by the native peoples here wherever the foot of the pioneer trod.
The very first river names recorded by Columbus and the secretaries of his expeditions reveal the word AQUA. The revelations come to us tinged with the Spanish of the writers, and very naturally so too, in the garb of “agua”—this being the Spanish writing of the Latin term. But the examples are recorded as “native words." Among others are XAGUA, XARAGUA, CUBAGUA, and YAGUA or Yagui.*
The initial X in these examples is but the Spanish representation of our English Ch: an English transcript of the same syllabic sounds would give the word XARAGUA as CHARAQUA.
Columbus records many of the aboriginal river or water names wherein the Celtic term ACHA is apparent, in the writing “aca”-as JAMAICA, MACACA, etc.—The words CARIB and CARIBA—and about which the discoverer evinced so much concern—are also easily located in the Latin language which contains Caribus (from the Greek); this being the Roman word for sea-crabs or turtles. The world knows how famous the West India Islands have long been for immense crustaceans, the celebrated green turtles. In the word we see the origin of “Carabean"_“Caribbean Sea.”
There is a long list of aboriginal river names (and other words having analogous origin) showing the term AQUA in purity. There are countless others rendered with so slight an infringement upon the correct orthog. raphy of the word, we can readily understand that the corruption is due not to the aboriginal pronunciation but to the versions of modern scribes; as for instance, “ acqua," “aquo," “ aqui," “aque,” and “ agua," instead of merely AQUA, in such names as ACQUASCA, AQUOKEE, AGUACHAPA, etc., etc.
Again: we often labor under difficulty in determining what is an aboriginal name or a mere Spanish one in those sections of the New World that were long under Spanish domination. There is one fact, however, that assists in removing doubts. The modern Spanish ideas in the appli
* See Irving's “ Columbus,” vol. 1., p. 154.
cation of river names in America, were not always based upon the aborig. inal models heretofore referred to. The priesthood accompanying the expeditions of early colonization had much to do in the coinage of nomenclatures here. Hence, names not purely Indian are often found with a prefix indicative of the Spain of three hundred years ago. We have numerous Saints in the “Sans,” and other titles pertaining to ecclesiasticism,* in the Spanish names in America. “Rio," also, often appears in connection therewith; while words that evince a conformity to the Indian models may be safely written as “native names,” even though they do at times indicate the Spanish idioms.
Among these are AGUAPAHEE, AGUILA, AHAGUA, AGUADEELA—and many others. (Pronunciations given in these words are not always the foreign writings thereof.) The “ahee” of these names reminds us of the Germanic AHA, and la is evidently LI or RI.
In addition to names already written showing the presence of AQUA in the Indian nomenclature, we may cite the following:
AQUIA (of Va.); AQUIRAS (Brazil); AGAQUA (Tenn.); TALAQUAH (in various places in the South); CHATAQUA and CHAPAQUA (N. Y.); COFAQUA (Mexico); AQUEHONO (Texas); ALAQUA (Florida); ATCHALAQUA (Ga.); TAMAQUA (Pa.); TELAQUA (Tenn.); AQUAKANNOCK (N. J.); AQUALA (Ga.); AQUONA (N. C.); PISCATAQUA (N. H.); MAAQUA (N. Y.); INCTAQUA (N. C.); SADAQUADA (N. Y.). The list might be extended.
AQUANA is the same as ABANA. Both names are found in the Indian. The SADAQUADA was written also by the French SAUQUOIT. It is one of the tributaries of the Hudson or MAAQUA (through the Mohawk).
In words like the following it is difficult to determine to which root the Indian name belongs—whether to the Latin AQUA, with its Spanish rendering, or to the Sanscrit OGHA (which is perhaps the true parent of the later word). The evidences, however, are in favor of the Latin, from the fact that in the Old World, among all the titles given to the rivers, this version or pronunciation of the Sanscrit word is rarely if ever found :
NICARAGUA, AUTAUGUA, WATAUGA, SAGUANA, CHICKAMAUGA, CONNESAGUA, PARAGUA (or PARAGUAY), and URAGUA. We have also such names as CHICAGO (Chuckagua, one of the early names of the Mississippi), CANADINAGUA, and many other “aguas.” What is supposed to be one of the earliest writings of the name now written CONNESAGUA is in Canasaqua. (Ramsey's “ Annals of Tennessee," p. 26.)
M, V, Moore. * FLORIDA was discovered on Palm or Easter Sunday, a day celebrated by the Church-hence the name.
(To be continued.)
LEE'S CAMPAIGN AGAINST POPE IN 1862 The campaign of Lee against Pope, covering the two weeks from the middle of August to September 1, 1862, or if we include the preliminary operations of Jackson, covering the six weeks from the middle of July to September 1, was one of the most interesting and exciting of the war. Though much has been written about it, great confusion still exists as to the military problems presented in this campaign, the ends had in view by the combatants, and the means by which these ends were to be attained. This confusion has, in no small part, grown out of the angry controversies to which this campaign gave rise, controversies in which were involved a number of the leading Federal officers connected with it. General Pope was relieved of command at its close, and his report and subsequent writings have been in large part a defense of his plans, and an attempt to show how these plans were made to fail by the shortcomings of others. Then the Fitz John Porter controversy, while it has been useful in bringing out clearly facts that otherwise might have remained obscure, has absorbed a vastly disproportionate share of the attention of most historians, and has led to many distorted and partisan views of the whole campaign. The parts played, too, by Generals Halleck and McClellan have been subjects rather for angry declamation or bitter criticism, than for calm historical discussion. The result has been confused and conflicting accounts, in which the leading features of the campaign have been lost sight of in the effort to set in a good light the reputation of this or that prominent officer.
Let us glance at the situation in Virginia in the middle of July, 1862. General McClellan was at Westover (or Harrison's Landing) on the James River, where his gunboats rendered a strong position practically unassailable, and gave him easy command of the river for supplies. His army had lost in the “Seven Days" more heavily in morale than in men, and though now suffering from the climate it was still 90,000 strong and McClellan was urgently asking for re-enforcements in order to renew his advance on Richmond. General Pope had, on June 26, been placed in command of the three corps of Fremont, Banks and McDowell, which as separate commands Jackson had defeated in succession in the Shenandoah Valley between the ist of May and the middle of June. Pope had early in July collected his troops (except King's division, which remained for
the time at Fredericksburg) on the headwaters of the Rappahannock. He proposed to move thence against Gordonsville and Charlottesville, and having thus cut Lee's direct communication with the Shenandoah Valley, to threaten the rear of the Confederate army at Richmond. Pope had 50,000 troops. The Confederate army under General Lee was concentrated in front of Richmond. When Jackson had been withdrawn from the Valley, about the middle of June, to aid in the attack on McClellan, but a single brigade of cavalry had been left in that region to observe the movements of the troops now under Pope. All the rest were with Lee, who was resting and recuperating after the sanguinary conflict of the “Seven Days," and carefully watching the movements of the two adversaries with whom he had to deal. His force was about 70,000 men.
Lee's obvious policy was to prevent the two Federal armies from acting