28 GANONG ON ST. LAWEBNCE 



had a book containing a map, " which is agreeable to the booke of lacques Cartier," that 

 it "is made in maner of a sea chart,'" and that his two sous had it with them in 

 Canada. Again he says : — " I can write nothing else iiuto you of any thing that I can 

 recover of the writings of Captain laques Cartier, my uncle disceased, although I have 

 made search in all places that I could possibly in this Towne ; saving of a certain booke 

 made in in maner of a sea Chart, which was drawne by the hand of my said uncle, 

 which is in the possession of master Cremeur, which booke is passing well marked and 

 drawne for all the River of Canada." Some inscriptions on the maps are also quoted. 

 (3) Some of the maps we are presently to consider, show plainly that they did not 

 copy their topography, one from another, but must have taken it from a common source. 

 That source could not have been Cartier's narrations, for aside from the inaccessibility of 

 the latter (none of them having been published until after the dates of some of the maps 

 in question), the maps are too accurate and too much alike to have been drawn from 

 materials which have puzzled modern historians who had accurate charts of the Gulf 

 before them. The appearance in these maps, also of certain words which occur in 

 Cartier's narrations not as place-names, but as used in describing places, seems to indicate 

 that they are fragments of inscriptions taken from some other map. Such inscriptions 

 would hardly have been placed there by any other than Cartier. There can be no 

 reasonable doubt, in the face of this evidence, that Cartier left maps, showing his 

 explorations.^ 



In considering the cartographical work of old explorers and map-makers, we must 

 endeavour to place ourselves as far as possible in their mental position. Sitting in our 

 studies, with our correct modern charts before us, we cannot, from our standpoint, see 

 why they did many things that they did, or did not do many things they could or should 

 have done. We are always in danger of interpreting their actions from our age rather 

 than from theirs. It is singular how the idea we get of the topography of a place from 

 visiting it, differs from that derived from a chart. Islands a short distance off appear joined 

 together, and in an archipelago we seem to be land-locked. To know an island is not a 

 peninsula, we must go around it ; that a bay is not a curved strait, we must go to the 

 head of it ; that a passage is navigable, we must go through it. Anyone who has long 

 studied a map of a place of complex topography before an anticipated visit, will remem- 

 ber how surprised he was to find how little he knew of the place, and how different it was 

 in most respects from what he had pictured. "We must remember that Cartier and his com- 

 panions visited the places ; we, for the most part, study the correct maps. Then we must 

 take into account other things which they experienced, but which the maps do not show us, 

 mirages, fogs and misty weather, strong currents, storms. They were superstitious, badly 

 educated, often careless in writing. Their maps were mostly made upon a very small 

 scale, and an important place, however small in extent, had to be I'epresented, so that 

 small islands and rivers often appear vastly larger than they should and proper proportion 

 is quite lost. In short, in considering these ancient narratives and charts, we must, as far 

 as possible, place ourselves in the position of their makers and try to view things as they 

 had to, not as we do. Then by a comparison of that standpoint with our own correct 

 knowledge, we may gain truthful and therefore consistent results. 



' Allefonsce may have had this or a copy to consult when he wrote his Cosmographie. 



- Indeed, Dr. Kohl, (op. cit., p. 344) considers this so certain that he takes it for granted without discussion. 



