CANADA, ETC.
(Vol. vii., pp. 380. 504.)
My former Note on the origin of this name suggests a question, which, if you think it worthy of a place in "N. & Q.," may interest many besides myself, viz. At what period and by whom was that part of North America called Canada?
To the French it appears always to have been known as "La Nouvelle France." La Hontan, who quitted the country 1690, I think, calls it Canada. Lajitan certainly does, as well as many other old authors.
In a map of North America, date 1769, the tract bordering on the St. Lawrence, lately called Upper and Lower Canada, is designated "The Province of Quebec;" whilst the region to the northward, lying between it and Hudson's Bay, has the word Canada in much larger letters, as if a general name of the whole. That the name is slightly altered from an Indian word is probable, but not so that it was used by the Indians themselves, who, in the first place, were not in the habit of imposing general names on large districts, although they had significant ones for almost every locality; the former were usually denominated the land of the Iroquois, of the Hurons, &c., i. e. of the people dwelling, on, and in possession of it. Even allowing that the Indians may have had a general name for the country, it is very unlikely that one so unmeaning as "Kanata" would have been imposed upon it by a people whose nomenclature in every other case is so full of meaning.
Moreover, although the Mic-macs of Gaspé may have called themselves Canadians according to Lescarbot, yet we are told by Volney, that—
"The Canadian savages call themselves 'Metoktheniakes' (born of the sun), without allowing themselves to be persuaded of the contrary by the Black Robes," &c.—Vol. ii. p. 438.
The following, to the same purpose, is from the Quarterly Review, vol. iv. p. 463.:
"'Tapoy,' which we understand from good authority to be the generic appellation by which the North American tribes distinguish themselves from the whites," &c.
Now I should imagine both Lescarbot and Champlain, knowing nothing of the language, and probably having very bad interpreters, must have made a great mistake in supposing the Gaspésiens called themselves Canadians, for I have questioned several intelligent Mic-Macs on the subject, and they have invariably told me that they call themselves "Ulnookh" or "Elnouiek," "Ninen elnouiek!—We are Men." But Mic-mac? "O, Mic-mac all same as Ulnookh." The latter word strictly means Indian-man, and cannot be applied to a white. Mic-mac is the name of their tribe, and, they insist upon it, always has been. Again, Kanata is said to be an Iroquois word, and, consequently, not likely to have been in use amongst a tribe of the Lenape family, which the Mic-macs are. It does not appear that we have any authority for supposing the country was ever called Canada by the Indians themselves.
It is curious enough that as Canada was said to derive from an exclamation, "Acá nada!" so the capital has been made to take its name from another; "Quel bec!" cried one of Champlain's Norman followers, on beholding Cape Diamond. As in the former case, however, so in this, we have evidence of more probable sources of the name, which I will enumerate as briefly as possible. The first, and a very probable one, is the fact, that the strait between Quebec and St. Levi side of the river, was called in the Algonquin language "Quebeio," i. e. a narrowing,—a most descriptive appellation, for in ascending the river its breadth suddenly diminishes here from about two miles to fourteen or fifteen hundred yards from shore to shore.
The little river St. Charles, which flows into the St. Lawrence on the northern side of the promontory, is called in the Indian language (Algonquin?) Kabir or Koubac, significant of its tortuous course, and it is from this, according to La Potherie, that the city derives its name of Quebec.
Mr. Hawkins, in his Picture of Quebec, &c., 1834, denies the Indian origin of the word, since, as he says, there is no analogous sound to it in any of their languages; and he assumes a Norman origin for it on the strength of "Bec" being always used by the Normans to designate a promontory in the first place; and secondly, because the word Quebec is actually found upon a seal of the Earl of Suffolk, of historical celebrity temp. Hen. V. and VI., which Mr. Hawkins supposes to have been the name of some town, castle, or barony in Normandy.
Such are the pros and cons, upon which I do not presume to offer any opinion; only I would observe, that if there are no analogous sounds in the Indian languages, whence come Kennebec and other similar names?
A. C. M.
Exeter.
Surely in the "inscription on a seal (1420), in which the Earl of Suffolk is styled 'Domine [?] de Hamburg et de Quebec,'" the last word must be a misprint for Lubec, the sister city of Hamburg. Mr. Hawkins's etymology seems to rest on no more substantial foundation than an error of the press in the work, whichever that may be, from which he quotes.
Jaydee.