38 ° 
Hardy on the Great Auk. 
[October 
TESTIMONY OF SOME EARLY VOYAGERS ON 
THE GREAT AUK. 
BY FANNIE P. HARDY. 
Mr. Lucas, in his recent article on the Great Auk, asks if the 
“great Apponatz” of Hakluyt may not be either a misprint or a 
wrong translation of “ grasse Apponatz ,” the fat Apponatz ; and 
further on supposes, for the sake of a question, that the Apponatz 
is the Razor-bill, as if the “Apponatz” and the “great Apponatz” 
were two different birds. That there is no mistake involved, and 
that but one bird, the Great Auk, is meant, can be shown by 
comparing the certain statements of early travellers. 
Unfortunately the notes from which I draw my material were 
taken for quite another purpose, and contain no extracts from 
Cartier, and no copy of his works is at present accessible; but 
as every good library should contain at least the Tross reprints 
of the ‘Bref Recit et Succinte Narration,’ the ‘Discours du Voy¬ 
age fait (en 1534)’ and the ‘Relation Originale,’ his exact 
words can be very easily determined. A few of the very best 
libraries in the country may possibly contain the following as 
well: ‘A. short and || brief narration of the two || Navigations 
and Discoueries || to the Northwest partes called || Newe France :|| 
First translated out of French into Italian by that famous || 
learned man Gio : Bapt: Ramutius, and now turned || into English 
by John Florio : worthy the rea || ding of all Venturers, Trauel- 
lers || and Discouuerers’ || etc. This book, published in 1580, is 
an English translation of Cartier’s work, and is in all probability 
the one quoted by Hakluyt. 
While these four books would decide the question of grande 
and grasse, far more valuable as evidence is a quotation from 
one of them made by Marc Lescarbot in 1609. This I have not 
compared with Cartier, but probably, like most of the quotations 
of that time, it is a paraphrase rather than a verbal reproduction. 
Certainly it is much modernized in spelling. Yet that it is strik- 
ingly accurate anyone may see by comparing the French as here 
given with the English translation from Hakluyt, quoted in ‘The 
Auk for April, p. 129. The great value of this extract as evi¬ 
ISSS.] 
Hardy on the Great Auk. 
381 
dence, lies in the fact that Lescarbot had travelled extensively in 
this country, being as he said himself “temoin oculaire d’une 
partie des choses ici recitdes” ; and so able from his own experi¬ 
ence to correct any misprint in Cartier’s work ; and moreover 
would not have hesitated to do this, as anyone who is acquainted 
with the calm way in which these early travellers appropriated 
each other’s observations will admit. The extract is as follows : 
“ .. . .et approchames de trois iles, desquelles y en avoit deux 
petites droites comme un mur, en sorte qu’il estoit impossible 
d’y monter dessus, et entre icelles y a un petit escueil. Ces iles 
estoient plus remplis d’oiseaux que ne seroit un pre d’herbes, 
lesquels faisoient la leur nids, et en la plus grande de ces iles y 
en avoit un monde de ceux que nous appellions Margaux, qui 
sont blancs et plus grands qu’ Oysons, et estoient separez en un 
canton, et en l’autre part y avoit des Godets ; mais sur le rivage y 
avoit de ces Godets et grands Apponaths semblables a ceux de 
cette ile dont nons avons fait mention [probably his lie des 
Oyseaux, No. 3 of his chart; this Ile des Margaux is No. 46]. 
Nous descendimes au plus bas de la plus petite, et tuames plus 
de mille Godets et Apponaths et en mimes tant que souloumes 
en noz barques, et en eussions plus en moins d’une heure remplir 
trente semblables barques. Ces iles furent appellees du nom de 
Margaux.” (Lescarbot, Histoire de la Nouvelle France, Vol. I, 
p. 231 et seq., ed. 1609; p. 233 et seq., Tross edition.) 
It is extremely improbable that the same verbal error should 
find its way into the three different versions of Cartier and also into 
the four editions of Lescarbot published duringthe latter’s lifetime. 
Hence if Hakluyt, quoting a translation, said “great Apponatz,” 
and Lescarbot, quoting Cartier either directly or indirectly, said 
“grands Apponaths,” the chance that Cartier ever said or meant 
to say “grasse” is exceedingly small. Whatever the bird was, 
we must admit that it impressed the French as being large ; and 
we must remember that this is an absolute, not a relative term. 
In one or two places Mr. Lucas writes “Great Apponatz,” 
beginning the adjective with a capital, as if there might be a 
‘Lesser Apponatz,’ in comparison with which this was large. 
That this could not have been the case, may be seen from the 
fact that Apponatz, or Apponath, was an Indian name, not yet 
naturalized, so that any adjective attached must have been purely 
descriptive, never distinctive in its use. For any other bird some- 
