57. _Pimokhasuwi_ (Stirring About) was next chief, and
then the Tallegwi were much too strong.

58. _Tenchekensit_ (Open Path) followed and many towns
were given up to him.

59. _Paganchihilla_ was chief,--and the Tallegwi all went
southward.

After the earliest mention of the Tallegwi in verse 50 of the First
Chronicle there are about fifty chieftains enumerated, and characterized
with their successive reigns before the entrance of the white
discoverers of the continent at the end of the Second Chronicle. In this
it is stated at verse--

56. _Nenachipat_ was chief toward the sea.

57. Now from north and south came the _Wapagachik_ (white
comers).

58. Professing to be friends, in big birds (ships). Who
are they?

And with this dramatic climax the ancient picture record closes.

What is known as the Modern Chronicle, a fragment, begins with the
answer, "Alas! Alas! we know now who they are, these _Wapinsis_ (East
People) who came out of the sea to rob us of our lands."

And that the modern chronicle shall be certainly correct the successor
of _Lekhibit_ (the compiler of the ancient story) is assisted by
critical philologists, and Rafinesque takes issue with Holm touching a
Swedish suffix in an Indian name. "Mattanikum was chief in 1645. He is
called 'Mattahorn' by Holm, and 'horn' is not Lenapi!"

It is difficult to adjust one's credulity to accept as history this
singular Indian picture-record. Its authenticity is supported by the
great scope of the system and the reputed subtlety and close accuracy by
which abstract ideas, the origin of things, the powers of nature, the
elements of religion, could be expressed and read by those conversant
with the mnemonic signs,--as easily, Heckewelder says, as a piece of
writing. The noted antiquary Squier, however, who in this connection has
lauded Rafinesque's industry, scientific attainments, and eager
researches, states that since writing in this vein he has seen fit to
read this author's _American Nations_ and finds it "a singular jumble of
facts and fancies," and adds that it is unfortunate that the manuscript
in question should fall in this category. To praise, even with
qualifications, the author without reading all his work on the subject,
while certainly more amiable, is hardly more conducive to an impartial
estimate than to disparage on hearsay, according to that travesty of
critical judgment: "'_Que dit