Notes and Queries, Number 190, June 18, 1853

"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.

SELLING A WIFE

(Vol. vii., p. 429.)

The popular idea that a man may legally dispose of his wife, by exposing her for sale in a public market, may not improbably have arisen from the correlation of the terms buying and selling. Your correspondent V. T. Sternberg need not be reminded how almost universal was the custom among ancient nations of purchasing wives; and he will admit that it appears natural that the commodity which has been obtained "per æs et libram"—to use the phrase of the old Roman law touching matrimony—is transferable to another for a similar consideration, whenever it may have become useless or disagreeable to its original purchaser. However this may be, the custom is ancient, and moreover appears to have obtained, to some extent, among the higher orders of society. Of this an instance may be found in Grimaldi's Origines Genealogicæ, pp. 22, 23. (London, 1828, 4to.) The deed, by which the transaction was sought to be legalised, runs as follows:

"To all good Christians to whom this writ shall come, John de Camoys, son and heir of Sir Ralph de Camoys, greeting: Know me to have delivered, and yielded up of my own free will, to Sir William de Paynel, Knight, my wife Margaret de Camoys, daughter and heiress of Sir John de Gatesden; and likewise to have given and granted to the said Sir William, and to have made over and quit-claimed all goods and chattels which the said Margaret has or may have, or which I may claim in her right; so that neither I, nor any one in my name, shall at any time hereafter be able to claim any right to the said Margaret, or to her goods and chattels, or their pertinents. And I consent and grant, and by this writ declare, that the said Margaret shall abide and remain with the said Sir William during his pleasure. In witness of which I have placed my seal to this deed, before these witnesses: Thomas de Depeston, John de Ferrings, William de Icombe, Henry le Biroun, Stephen Chamberlayne, Walter le Blound, Gilbert de Batecumbe, Robert de Bosco, and others."

This matter came under the cognisance of Parliament in 1302, when the grant was pronounced to be invalid.

Now, we may fondly believe that this transaction, which occurred five hundred and fifty years ago, was characteristic alone of that dark and distant period, and that no parallel can be found in modern times (at least in a decent class of society, and recognised by legal sanction) to justify the lively French dramatists in seizing upon it as a trait of modern English manners. A transaction, however, came before the public eye a month or two ago, which, should you think the following record of it worth preservation as a "curiosity of legal experience," may lead your readers to a different conclusion:

"A young man, named W. C. Capas, was charged at the Public Office, Birmingham, Jan. 31, 1853, with assaulting his wife. The latter, in giving her evidence, stated that her husband was not living with her, but was 'leased' to another female. Upon inquiry by the magistrate into this novel species of contract, the document itself was produced in court, and read. It ran as follows:

"'Memorandum of agreement made and entered into this second day of October, in the year of our Lord 1852, between William Charles Capas, of Charles-Henry Street, in the borough of Birmingham, in the county of Warwick, carpenter, of the one part, and Emily Hickson, of Hurst Street, Birmingham aforesaid, spinster, of the other part. Whereas the said William Charles Capas and Emily Hickson have mutually agreed with each other to live and reside together, and to mutually assist in supporting and maintaining each other during the remainder of their lives, and also to sign the agreement hereinafter contained to that effect: now, therefore, it is hereby mutually agreed upon, by and between the said William Charles Capas and Emily Hickson, that they the said, &c., shall live and reside together during the remainder of their lives, and that they shall mutually exert themselves by work and labour, and by following all their business pursuits, to the best of their abilities, skill, and understanding, and by advising and assisting each other, for their mutual benefit and advantage, and also to provide for themselves and each other the best supports and comforts of life which their means and income may afford. And for the true and faithful performance of this agreement, each of the said parties bindeth himself and herself unto the other finally by this agreement, as witness the hands of the said parties, this day and year first above written."

Here follow the signatures of the consenting parties. The girl Hickson was examined, and admitted that she had signed the document at the office of a Mr. Campbell, the lawyer(!) who prepared it, and that his charge for drawing up the same was, she believed, 1l. 15s. The latter promised her, at the same time, that if the wife of Capas gave her any annoyance he would put in that paper as evidence. The magistrates, considering the assault proved, fined Capas 2s. 6d., and "commented in very strong terms on the document which had that day been brought before them." (See Birmingham Journal, Jan. 5th, 1853.) Has a similar transaction come before the notice of your correspondents?

I may add that we are informed by the Birmingham Argus for March, 1834, that in that month a man led his wife by a halter to Smithfield Market in that town, and there publicly offered her for sale.

    William Bates.

Birmingham.

ENOUGH

(Vol. vii., p. 455.)

This word, when written or pronounced enow, is regarded as a plural, and relates to number. In this sense it is employed in Northampton and other Midland counties, and is found in old writers. If the word was always pronounced enow, it must be long since. The distinction above hinted at prevailed in Waller's time, and he conforms to it in the examples quoted. Butler, in Hudibras, has both:

"This b'ing professed we hope enough,
And now go on where we left off.'

    Part i. canto 2. 44.
Again, line 1153. of the same canto:

"For though the body may creep through,
The hands in grate are enough;"

an apparent exception, but not really such. (See also canto 3. 117. 285., where it rhymes with "off," as also line 809. At line 739. it written enow, and rhymes with "blow.")

And again, 873:

"My loss of honour's great enough,
Thou needst not brand it with a scoff."

Other examples may be quoted from the same author.

In a song, written upon the Restoration of Charles II., we have the following:

"Were not contented, but grew rough,
As though they had not won enough."

    Loyal Arms, vol. i. p. 244.
In the Lamentable Tragedy of Cambises, written early in the reign of Elizabeth, the word occurs:

"Gogs sides, knaves, seeing to fight ye be so rough,
Defend yourselves, for I will give ye bothe inough."

In Lusty Juventus, a Morality, temp. Edward VI., is the following:

"Call them Papistes, hipocrites, and joyning of the plough;
Face out the matter, and then good ynough."

Here certainly the distinction disappears, as in the next and last example from Candlemas Day, "Ao. Do. 1512," where Joseph is speaking:

"Take hym in your armys, Mary, I you pray,
And of your swete mylke let him sowke inowe,
Mawger Herowd and his grett fray:
And as your spouse, Mary, I shall go with you."

It would seem therefore, that this word has had its present pronunciation about three centuries. Its derivation is directly from the Saxon genoh, but the root is found in many other languages, as the German, Dutch, Danish, &c.

    B. H. C.

Mr. Wright supposes there has been a change in the pronunciation of this word, and inquires when it took place. Now, if my conjecture be correct, there may have been no change, and these are two words,—not one pronounced differently. Both the instances quoted by him are in conformity with my opinion, viz. that where the sense is "a sufficient quantity," either in substance, quality, or action, we should make use of enough; yet where a sufficient number is intended, we should pronounce and write enow. I recollect (being a native of Suffolk) that I was laughed at by the boys of a school in a western county, nearly seventy years ago: but I was not then laughed out of my word, nor am I likely now to be argued out of it.