St. John, in his gospel, according to the Hebrew method of adjuration, often doubles the Amen. And the same divine writer, at the beginning of each of his seven epistles, in describing the glorious and transcendant qualities of Jesus Christ, and particularly in the epistle to the church of Laodicea, points at the same custom, “These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.” {49}
The Cheerake use another expression, which bears a strong analogy to the former method of adjuration; though it is not so sacred in their opinion, because of one letter prefixed, and another subjoined. The judge, in small controversies, asks the witness, To e u (sko?) To which he answers, To e u, or To e u hah, “It is very true,” or “a most certain truth.” Such an addition of any letter, or letters, to the vowels of the supposed divine, four-lettered name, seems to proceed from a strict religious custom of proportioning them to the circumstances of persons and things, lest, otherwise, they should blaspheme, or prophane the emblems of the great divine name. And the vowel U seems to allude to אחד, i. e. One—a name of God, figuratively—for, in their dialect, when it is a period, it makes a superlative, according to their usage in applying the rest of the divine appellatives, symbols, or names.
They esteem To e u hah so strong an assent to any thing spoken, that Cheesto Kaiēhre, “the old rabbet,” (the name of the interpreter) who formerly accompanied seven of their head warriors to London,[[24]] assured me, they held there a very hot debate, in their subterranean lodgings, in the dead hours of the night of September the 7th, 1730, whether they should not kill him, and one of the war-chieftains, because, by his mouth, the other answered To e u hah to his Majesty’s speech, wherein he claimed, not only their land, but all the other unconquered countries of the neighbouring nations, as his right and property. When they returned home, they were tried again, by the national sanhedrim, for having betrayed the public faith, and sold their country, for acknowledged value, by firm compact, as representatives of their country; they having received a certain quantity of goods, and a decoying belt of white wampum: but, upon serious deliberation, they were honourably acquitted, because it was judged, the interpreter was bound, by the like oath, to explain their speeches; and that surprise, inadvertence, self-love, and the unusual glittering show of the courtiers, extorted the sacred assent, To e u hah, out of the other’s mouth, which spoiled the force of it; being much afraid, lest they should say something amiss, on account of the different idiom of the English, and Indian American dialects[[XII]]. As there is no alternative between a falsehood, and a lie, they {50} usually tell any person, in plain language, “You lie,” as a friendly negative to his reputed untruth. The cheerful, inoffensive old rabbet told me, he had urged to them, with a great deal of earnestness, that it was certain death by our laws, to give his Majesty the lie to his face; and cautioned them to guard their mouths very strongly from uttering such dangerous language: otherwise, their hearts would become very heavy, and even sorrowful to death; as he would be bound as firmly by our holy books, to relate the bare naked truth, as they were by repeating To e u ah, or even O-E-A—Yah.
[XII]. The strong sentiments, natural wit, and intense love of liberty, which the Indians shew themselves possessed of, in a high degree, should direct our colonists to pursue a different method of contracting Indian covenants than they have commonly used. First, let them consider the general good of the community, who chose them for that end; and then make a plain agreement with the Indians, adapted to their fixed notion of liberty, and the good of their country, without any deluding sophisms. If they do not keep these essential points of amity in view, we shall fare again, as hath Georgia; for, by a childish treaty with the Muskohge Indians, when defeated An. 1715, its most northern boundaries are confined to the head of the ebbing and flowing of Savannah river. We are said to have flourished off very commodious Indian treaties in the council-books, with the Muskohge, which the community know nothing of, except a few plain common particulars, as they some years since declared.
The Chikkasah and Choktah method of adjuring a witness to give true evidence, is something similar to the former attestation, by To e u hah: when they ask them, whether they do not lie, they adjure them thus, Chiklooska ke-e-u Chua? The termination implies a question of the second person, singular number, and the whole oath signifies literally, “Do not you lie? Do you not, of a certain truth?” To which he answers by two strong negative asseverations, Aklooska Ke-e-u-que-Ho, “I do not lie; I do not, of a certain truth.” When the Choktah are averring any thing asked of them, they assert it, by saying Yah. This shews their ignorance of the vowels of the supposed divine four-lettered name, in comparison of the Cheerake; and that they are become less religious, by prophaning the divine name, Yah; which confirms me in the opinion, that the Cheerake Indians were a more civilized people than any of the other neighbouring Indians.
We are told that the northern Indians, in the time of their rejoicings, repeat YO Ha Han; which, if true, evinces that their corruption advances, in proportion as they are distant from South-America, and wanted a {51} friendly intercourse with those who had an open communication with those southern regions[[XIII]]. Living in moderate high latitudes, would naturally prevent them from sinking into effeminacy, and inspire them with martial tempers, (as we are told of the Chili Indians) without being originally a bloodier people than any of the southern nations. However, we should be sparing of credit to what unskilful writers have carefully copied from each other, and transmitted to the learned world.
[XIII]. They who have a desire to see the genuine oratory of the Indians, may find it partly exhibited to the public, by the laborious Mr. Colden, mostly in the manner, as I am told, he found it in the council-books. As that gentleman is an utter stranger to the language and customs of the Indians, it was out of his power to do justice to the original. Their speech, in general, abounds with bolder tropes and figures than illiterate interpreters can well comprehend, or explain. In the most essential part of his copied work, he committed a very material blunder, by writing in the first edition, the Indian solemn invocation, YO Ha Han. I was well assured by the intelligent Sir William Johnson, and the skilful, benevolent, pious, and reverend Mr. John Ogilvie, that the northern Indians always pronounce it YO He A `Ah; and so it is inserted in the second edition. In justice to this valuable luminary of the church, and the worthy laity of the city of New-York, I must observe, that, while the rest of his sacerdotal brethren were much blamed for neglecting their office of teaching, and instead thereof, were militating for an episcopate, that gentleman was universally beloved by all ranks of people. He spent his time, like a true servant of God, in performing the various duties of his sacred office; and had the utmost pleasure in healing breaches, both in public society, and in private families. Great numbers of the poor negroe slaves, were instructed by him in the principles of Christianity, while the other clergymen were earnestly employed in disturbing the quiet of the public, for the sake of their favourite Peter’s pence.
I shall hereafter, under another argument, shew, that the Indians variously transpose, shorten, and lengthen, each syllable of the great divine name, YO He Wah, in a very extraordinary manner, when they are singing and dancing to, and before, the divine essence: and that they commonly derive such words as convey a virtuous idea, from, or compound them with that divine, essential name.
I shall now shew a farther parity, between the Hebrew language, and the Aboriginal American dialects.
Pushkoosh signifies an infant, Neetta a bear, Nassooba a wolf, &c.——By joining the word Ooshe, to the end of the names of animals, it makes a {52} distinction; as Nassoob-ooshe, a wolf-cub, Neett’-ooshe a bear-cub: but though the word Oophe signifies a dog, as an exception to their general method of speech, they call a puppy Ooph-ishik, because he is so domestic, or sociable, as ישק, to kiss, or fondle. In like manner, Pishi signifies milk; and Pishik a woman’s breast, or the udder of any animal; as the young ones, by kissing, or sucking, shade the breast, פי, with their mouth, and thereby receive their nourishment. With the Hebrews,עפך (Oophecha) signifies active, or restless: which, according to the Indian idiom, expresses the quality of a dog; Oophe is therefore the name of this animal, and their period denotes a similarity, according to the usage of the Hebrews.