[ganong] place-nomenclature OF NEW BRUNSWICK 185 



■3. On the Investigation of P lace-Names. 



To find an origin for a place-name is usually easy, but to find the 

 true origin is often difficult and sometimes impossible. 



The great leading principle in their investigation is this, — to trace 

 them back through the documents to the very earliest discoverable form, 

 if possible to the first written form. Often this gives the origin at once, 

 particularly if it be a name given officially by explorers or legislators ; 

 and where it is not at once plain, reference to contemporary history will 

 usually show for what ruler, patron, or event it has been given. The 

 most satisfactory of all origins to find are those where the author of a 

 name tells us when and why he gave it (>SY. Lawrence, Cocagne). Names 

 given by pioneers and early settlers ai"e often explained by the earliest 

 forms in contemporary documents written before they have had time to 

 change materially. Aboriginal names are not thus explained, of course, 

 but the earliest recorded form is usually much nearer to the true ab- 

 original word than the modern and often greatly altered one. 



Having obtained the earliest form, if the origin is still obscure, the 

 character of the document and its relation to contemporary history must 

 be taken into account and the nature of the other place-names mentioned 

 therein compared, and analogy will supply hints for further search. ISText 

 the aid of philology must be invoked, especially for native names which 

 present the greatest difficulty. Where the native races still survive, one 

 goes, of course, to the most intelligent individuals and by questioning 

 them and comparing the independent answers of several can arrive at 

 certainty in many points. But fiir better than the authority of the 

 natives themselves is that of a trained philologist who knows their 

 language and the localities, for he knows not only their words and how 

 they apply them, but can correlate, compare and apply principles in a 

 way they cannot. Here as elsewhere in human affairs, it is onl}^ the 

 application of the greatest scientific skill, the most critical and judicial 

 methods that can give the best results. The speculations of early writers, 

 before the period of critical investigation, about origins, are of little value. 

 Thus Lescarbot's speculation on the location of Cartier's names are 

 worthless, and those of Cooney and Gesner in New Brunswick cannot 

 fully be trusted. 



In cases where the form of a word is plain but the cause of its ap- 

 plication obscure, contemporary history must be searched, and where this 

 fiails, tradition may be consulted. But tradition is the least trustworthy 

 of evidence, and in affairs beyond the memorj^ of the narrator quite as 

 likely to be wrong as right, while for affairs of ancient date it is worse 

 than valueless. This is chiefly because the mind of man while craving 

 an explanation for remarkable things is satisfied with a reasonable 

 explanation and does not crave conviction as to its correctness. Hence 



