152                              APPENDIX.
to affect the credibility of his story, the reader must judge. Champlain undoubtedly believed it when he first related it to him. He probably had no means then or afterwards of testing its truth. In the edition of 1632, Brule's story is omitted. It does not necessarily follow that it was omitted because Champlain came to discredit the story, since many passages contained in his preceding publications are omitted in the edition of 1632, but they are not generally passages of so much geographical importance as this, if it be true. The map of 1632 indicates the country of the Carantouanais; but this information might have been obtained by Champlain from the Hurons, or the more western tribes which he visited during the winter of 1615 -16.- Vide •d. 1632, p. 220."
It is quite inconceivable that by Brul6 selling " himself to the English" in 1629 it could affect his narrative as to its reliability, in 1618. Besides, the fact that a part of Brule's story is confirmed in advance by Brul6's Carantouannais guides is, in the foregoing, overlooked by Mr. Slafter. This author also says: "They [Champlain's interpreters] were generally .... adventurers, whose honesty and fidelity had no better foundation than their selfish interests. Of this sort was Etienne Brul6, as well as Nicholas Marsolet and Pierre Raye, all of whom turned traitors, selling themselves to the English when Quebec was taken in 1629" (see vol. Ill, of the Prince Society Publications of Champlain's "Voyages," p. 2i6n). This is certainly a severe arraignment of these men. As to the "selfish interest" of Brule, surely few men living could have had less, judging by his zeal, self-denial, courage, and faithfulness, in carrying out the wishes of Champlain. And it is evident that his patron was abundantly satisfied of his " honesty and fidelity " in all that appertained to his journeys undertaken and carried forward with such indomitable perseverance.
That Champlain had anything to do with the omission of Brule's narrative in his edition of 1632 is doubtful. It was probably done by an "alien hand,"—one who was at least not anxious (and the Jesuits certainly, at that time, were of that class) to give to the world again the particulars of his (Brule's) journey. But if it was the work of Champlain, it must have been prompted by ill feeling towards his interpreter, caused by the latter having gone over to the English at the period of their taking possession of Canada. In conclusion, we may say that the fact of the narrative having been repeated by Brule to the historian Sagard after the lapse of at least six years, substantially as given to Champlain, ought to remove all doubts (if such exist in the mind