122 W. F. GANONG ON 



pages. "With the latter alone Cartier's course might, though it would be with difficulty, 

 be traced ; with the second alone, it would be scarcely possible ; with Hakluyt alone, quite 

 impossible. And just here is, doubtless, found the chief cause of the confusion of which 

 we have spoken. Those who haA^e used Hakluyt have been misled by some serious mis- 

 translations ; while the edition of 1598, without the light thrown upon it by the " Relation 

 originale," might give very different results to different students. lu tracing the course as 

 it is given in the present paper, all three versions have been carefully compared, and in 

 the case of important passages, this has been done word for word. Each threw light upon 

 the other, and step by step the narrative became clear. 



There are some marked differences between the " Relation originale " and the edition 

 of 1598, but they are only so far treated in these pages as is necessary to our purpose. A 

 very interesting question here arises as to whether a careful study of the former version, 

 and its comparison with the latter in connection with the identification of the places they 

 describe, tend to confirm or otherwise the belief that it really is the original narrative 

 written by Cartier himself The evidence bearing on this point is too long for insertion 

 here. In a word, its tendency is to answer the question in the affirmative very strongly ; 

 in the writer's opinion the evidence is strong enovigh to be conclusive. This much is 

 certain, however, that if it be not the original, it is certainly nearer what Cartier must 

 have written, than is the edition of 1598. 



Cartier was a practical navigator, though, as his narrative shews, no scholar. He was 

 accustomed to judge distances at sea, and those which he gives are in general quite accu- 

 rate. If an average be taken of his estimates of the number of leagues between places of 

 which the identity is unquestionable, it will be found that his league amounted to some- 

 what less than three English miles. It must be constantly borne in mind, too, that all the 

 compass directions in the narrative are given for magnetic and not true north. We might 

 infer beforehand that such would be the case in the log-book of our sailor, but a compari- 

 son of his directions between known places with a modern chart places it beyond question. 

 The writer has been told by an authority upon such subjects, that the variation of the 

 needle cannot be calculated for so far back as 1534, but a rough estimate is generally suffi- 

 cient for our purpose. At the present day the variation is from 36^ near the Strait of Belle 

 Isle, to 22° at Prince Edward Island west of true north. It would seem from Cartier's 

 directions, as if the variation in 1534 was not more than a few degrees difierent from that 

 of to-day. 



The latitudes given in the narrative are, all things considered, quite accurate. In no 

 case does the error exceed 30' to 40', and generally it is much less than this. In the edition 

 of 1598, blanks are always left for the longitude ; this is the case also in the " Relation 

 originale," in all except two instances. In these the error is very great, amounting to 8'. 30' 

 and 11".50' respectively. But we can well understand that, at that time, latitude could be 

 much more accurately calculated than longitude. 



In the preface to the edition of the " Relation originale " of 1867, the editor tells us 

 that the MS. was deciphered with great difficulty. It is probable, then, that some of the 

 apparent differences between it and the edition of 1598 are due to different interpretations 

 of doubtful words by the translator for Ramusio and the editor of the edition before us. 

 While, therefore, the "Relation originale" would be in general more accurate than the 

 edition of 1598, which has undergone two translations, it may be less accurate in the spel- 



