NYHIST-L Archives

April 2007


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Nancy Hyden Woodward <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
A LISTSERV list for discussions pertaining to New York State history." <[log in to unmask]>
Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:34:00 -0400
text/plain (2219 bytes) , text/enriched (2150 bytes)
The first water that Hudson named is Gravesend Bay. The Dutch hired 
Block to retrace Hudson's travel up river so, perhaps Block named it. I 
doubt that the Dutch would have done that!

On Apr 12, 2007, at 10:14 AM, Robert Spiegelman wrote:

> It would be grealy appreciated if David Allen could add more detail to 
> the
> statement that "The English started calling it the Hudson River at a
> fairly early date as a way of asserting their claims to the area." Is
> there any source or dates you can point to on this. Was Hudson their 
> man,
> or a Dutch operative, or England's appropriation of a Dutch operative's
> name? Any light you can shed here is welcome.
> Thank you.
> Robert Spiegelman
>> One advantage of this phrase is that it allows lazy  writers to duck 
>> the
>> more
>> difficult question of how these eponymous places  got their names.  
>> Hudson
>> almost certainly did not name the river after  himself.  The Dutch 
>> used
>> the
>> equivalents of "North River," "River of  Orange," or "Great River of 
>> New
>> Netherland."  The English started calling  it the Hudson River at a 
>> fairly
>> early date
>> as a way of asserting their claims to  the area.  It is not known for
>> certain
>> whether Champlain or Block named the  geographic features that now 
>> bear
>> their
>> names.  As I recall, Lake Champlain  appears on Champlain's 1632 map 
>> of
>> New
>> France, which makes it possible that he  named the lake after 
>> himself, but
>> he was
>> a modest man, and perhaps he was just  going along with somebody 
>> else's
>> suggestion.  The case of Adriaen Block is  also a bit problematic.
>> "Adrian Blox
>> eyland" appears on the 1614 "Adriaen  Block Chart," which is a copy 
>> of a
>> chart
>> by Cornelis Doetsz that Block  apparently modified.  It is certainly
>> possible
>> that Block named the island  after himself, but the name could have 
>> been
>> added
>> by the person who copied the  map.  Incidentally,  Long Island 
>> appears on
>> the
>> Block chart as  "Matowacks."  The Dutch did not start calling Long 
>> Island
>> "t'Lange Eylandt"  until later.
>> David Allen
>> Encinitas, CA
>> ************************************** See what's free at
>> http://www.aol.com.