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
NYC

> 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.
>