D’IBERVILLE, CHAUSSEGROS DE LÉRY, THE LATERRIÈRES AND TOCQUEVILLE: QUEBEC THROUGH THE PRISM OF ABSOLUTISM, THE ENLIGHTENMENT AND ROMANTICISM

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate

School of The Ohio State University

By

Virginia Rae Donovan, B.A., M.A.

* * * * *

The Ohio State University 2007

Dissertation Committee:

Professor Jean-François Fourny, Adviser Approved by

Professor Mihaela Marin ______

Professor Jennifer Willging Adviser Graduate Program in French & Italian Copyright by Virginia Rae Donovan May 29, 2007 ABSTRACT

Although Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville, Gaspard-Joseph Chaussegros de Léry,

Pierre de Sales Laterrière, Pierre-Jean de Sales Laterrière, and Alexis de Tocqueville were all observers of Canada, their views of Quebec differ greatly one from another because they were from different generations. D’Iberville (1661 – 1706), Quebec’s first national hero, lived during the age of classicism, the reign of Louis XIV and the absolute monarchy. He provides a politico-military perspective of Quebec. Gaspard-Joseph

Chaussegros de Léry (1682 – 1751), Quebec’s chief military engineer and architect, lived and worked in Quebec during a time of transition between the absolute monarchy and the

Enlightenment. He provides an esthetic perspective of Quebec. Pierre de Sales

Laterrière [1743?(47) – 1815], Quebec’s first memorialist, landed on the shores of the St.

Lawrence in 1766 when the Enlightenment was in full bloom. He provides a scientific/literary perspective of Quebec. His son, Pierre-Jean de Sales Laterrière (1789 –

1834), wrote the first treatise that defended French Canadians under British control and domination. His life also encompassed the Romantic Movement in all its glory. He provides a politico-sociological perspective of Quebec. Finally, Alexis de Tocqueville

(1805 – 1859) traveled through Quebec in 1831. Tocqueville’s view of Quebec was shaped by Romanticism, as well as by the political turmoil which was occurring in his native France. He provides a socio-political perspective of Quebec. Each individual

ii featured in this dissertation was an initiator of or a principle contributor to major discourses in Quebec’s imaginary.

This dissertation evaluates the perspectives of these writers through a careful analysis of selected major writings about Quebec. Included are historical documents that were not originally intended to be literature according to the classic definition of the term. Yet these documents bear the mark of the conceptual framework in which they were written, even as does the literature of a given era. This demonstrates that these historical documents provide us with different views of Quebec which mirror not only these individuals’ life experiences, but which also reflect their participation in the dominant literary, philosophical or historical movements in existence at the time that they lived: Absolutism, the Enlightenment, and Romanticism.

iii Dedicated to my devoted husband Dan

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank my advisor, Dr. Jean-François Fourny, Dr. Mihaela Marin and Dr.

Jennifer Willging for their indispensable counsel during the writing of this dissertation.

I am also thankful for the kind guidance and constant support of Dr. Karlis

Racevskis, Graduate Committee Chair, who believes in me.

I am indebted to Mr. Rice, Dr. David Green and Dr. Tony McRae who taught me

French from the beginning. They laid the foundation upon which others have built.

I also wish to thank Colleen Albright for her precious friendship.

Finally, I am grateful for the love and encouragement of my husband Dan, my parents, and my children, without which the writing of this dissertation would not have been possible.

v VITA

1973………………………………………B.A. French, Concordia College Moorhead, Minnesota

2003………………………………………M.A. French, University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, Ohio

2003 – present……………………………Graduate Teaching Associate The Ohio State University

PUBLICATIONS

1. Donovan, Virginia R. “Classroom Activity: Teaching about ‘La Francophonie et les États-Unis.” AATF National Bulletin, September 2006: 21-22.

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: French and Italian

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Abstract…………………………………………………………………………….... ii

Dedication………………………………………………………………………….... iv

Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………….... v

Vita…………………………………………………………………………………... vi

Chapters:

1. Introduction…………………………………………………………...... 1

2. Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville………………………………………...... 12

3. Gaspard-Joseph Chaussegros de Léry……………………………...... 72

4. Pierre de Sales Laterrière ...... ……………………………………………..... 138

5. Pierre-Jean de Sales Laterrière……………………………………………... 194

6. Alexis de Tocqueville………………………………………………………. 218

7. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………... 237

Bibliography……………………………………………………………………….... 243

vii CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Although Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville, Gaspard-Joseph Chaussegros de Léry,

Pierre de Sales Laterrière, Pierre-Jean de Sales Laterrière, and Alexis de Tocqueville were all observers of Canada and left written records of their experiences there, their views of Canadian society differ greatly one from another. These differences of perspective arise in part because the men were from different generations and, thus, were molded by the dominant political frameworks and literary movements that were in existence at the time they lived. For example, d’Iberville (1661 – 1706), Quebec’s first military hero, lived during the age of classicism, the reign of Louis XIV and the absolute monarchy. Chaussegros de Léry (1682 – 1756), Quebec’s chief military engineer and architect whose urban planning and fortification designs were adapted to New France’s topography (Noppen and Morriset 28), arrived in Quebec in 1716, just one year after the death of Louis XIV. Therefore, he lived and worked in Quebec during the regency and reign of Louis XV, a time of transition between the absolute monarchy and the

Enlightenment. Pierre de Sales Laterrière [1743?(47) – 1815],1 Quebec’s first personal memorialist, led an adventurous life and experienced perilous times (Andrès, L’influence des livres 467). He landed on the shores of the St. Lawrence in 1766, only seven years

1 Pierre de Sales Laterrière, hereafter referred to as Laterrière (f.) unless his identity is clear from the context, is the father of Pierre-Jean de Sales Laterrière. 1 after the Conquest, three years after the Treaty of Paris of 1763 in which France signed away to England quelques arpents de neige, and when the Enlightenment was in full bloom (Voltaire, Candide ou l’optimisme 97). His life also spanned the French

Revolution, the Napoleonic Empire, the American Revolution and the War of 1812. His son, Pierre-Jean de Sales Laterrière (1789 – 1834),2 was born at the beginning of the

French Revolution and died just four years after the trois glorieuses and the end of the

Restoration. Laterrière (s.) wrote one of the first treatises3 that defended French

Canadians who lived in the grip of British control and domination (Lemire, et. al. 2: 291).

He lived during the turbulence of the French Revolution, the Napoleonic era, the

Restoration, and the beginning of the July Monarchy of Louis-Philippe, but his life also encompassed the Romantic Movement in all its glory. Finally, there is Alexis de

Tocqueville (1805 – 1859), a Frenchman who traveled through Quebec with his friend

Gustave de Beaumont in 1831, only one year after Laterrière (s.) had written and published his famous treatise. Tocqueville’s view of Quebec bears the mark of

Romanticism, as well as the political turmoil which had occurred and was continuing to occur in his native France.

Of course, these men’s perspectives of Quebec were shaped not only by the dominant political frameworks and literary movements which existed during their lifetimes, but also by their own life experiences. Remarkably, even in simple, concrete ways, each man serves as a transition from his predecessor to the one who follows him,

2 Pierre-Jean de Sales Laterrière, the son, will be referred to hereafter as Laterrière (s.) unless his identity is made clear by the context.

3A Political and Historical Account of Lower Canada; with Remarks on the Present Situation of the People, as Regards their Manners, Character, Religion, &.c &.c by a Canadian. (See Bibliography.) 2 so that their lives and views dovetail. For example, d’Iberville was a military man, specifically, a naval captain, yet Chaussegros de Léry also held the rank of captain in the

French army. The latter had gained fame during military campaigns in France before his deployment overseas, and, furthermore, his function as engineer in New France was to improve military fortifications (Roy, La Famille Chaussegros de Léry 4). Chaussegros de Léry also “s’occupa activement des Forges de Saint-Maurice” (Roy, La Famille

Chaussegros de Léry 5). Interestingly, our next famous Quebecer, Laterrière (f.), also worked at the Forges de Saint-Maurice, being named Director just seven years after his arrival in New France (Casgrain, La Famille de Sales Laterrière 20). The two Laterrières were connected not only by their familial relationship and their mutual vocation as doctors, but both also spent time in England: the elder by force of bad health, the younger due to his medical studies and his subsequent marriage to a wealthy British woman (Casgrain, La Famille de Sales Laterrière 84-5). Finally, each of the men shared a connection to the aristocracy. D’Iberville, the Laterrières and Chaussegros de Léry were Quebec aristocrats and all laid claim to nobility in France as well. D’Iberville’s family was granted nobility by Louis XIV, as was Chaussegros’ family, but no definitive proof has been found to substantiate the Laterrières’ claim to nobility in France

(Beaudoin, 49-50). Tocqueville alone was a French aristocrat de sang. One final similarity lies in the fact that both Tocqueville and Laterrière (s.) wrote political treatises.

What did they all have in common? The basic answer is Quebec, France, the

French language, their fame in society at the time they lived, and their roles as initiators and visionaries in varying degrees regarding Quebec society. However, the different times and places in which they were raised and their different purposes for writing about

3 Quebec contributed to the diverse views revealed in the documents that they created.

D’Iberville wrote glowing accounts of victory on the battlefield, whereas Chaussegros de

Léry wrote professional engineering letters, yet with a very personal spin. Laterrière (f.) wrote his memoirs for the purpose of leaving a personal account of his fantastic—and perhaps fantasized—life for his posterity. Laterrière’s (s.) political treatise targeted the

British reading public and was translated immediately into English, whereas

Tocqueville’s impressions of what he saw in Quebec were of a much more personal nature. It is not certain that he ever intended to publish this personal journal of his travels there.

The main body of this dissertation is divided into five chapters, one for each of the individuals whose writings will be examined. The first section in each chapter contains a brief biographical sketch of the person being studied. In the next section, the documents to be analyzed will be identified, and an explanation will be provided for the reason that these specific texts were chosen from the entire corpus of each man’s writings and of eyewitness accounts of his activities. These documents include d’Iberville’s campaign journals, ships’ logs, memoirs, or others’ eye witness accounts of his military campaigns; Chaussegros de Léry’s collected correspondence; Laterrière’s (f.) memoirs;

Laterrière’s (s.) political treatise; and Tocqueville’s diary of his journey through Quebec.

The next segment in each respective chapter will evaluate the authors’ documents by a careful analysis of these writings about themselves and about Quebec or of first-hand observers’ accounts of their activities. These documents will be evaluated by means of a textual analysis for evidence of the main characteristics of the political framework or literary movement that dominated the eras of their respective lifetimes, specifically,

4 Absolutism, the Enlightenment and Romanticism, and how those frameworks or movements shaped these individuals’ perceptions of Quebec. An important feature of this evaluation will be a highlighting of the manner in which their relationships to other

Quebecers and their perspectives of Quebec itself remained the same, changed, or were modified by their travels and their activities. Finally, we will attempt to discern various aspects of their perceptions of Quebec as they are revealed by their literary self- expression in the documents that they produced or as suggested by eye witness chroniclers who recorded their activities, and will argue that the classic literary/historical frameworks in place when they were writing played a major role in the molding of their views of Quebec.

From our experience within Quebec studies, it is our observation that French

Canadians often use the term first to identify events or characteristics of their people or of their society that they consider to be important. For example, Quebec’s famous archivist,

Pierre-Georges Roy, who managed Quebec’s Archives for many decades, produced a wonderful little series of books, seven volumes in all, entitled, Les Petites Choses de notre histoire. Each and every chapter of the fifth volume is entitled Le premier or La première of somebody or of something, such as:

médecin, exécution capitale au Canada, historien, bataille entre Français et Iroquois, église au Canada, école au Canada, mariage au Canada, Jésuite mort au Canada, charlatan au Canada, cabaret au Canada, miraculé de Sainte-Anne-de- Beaupré, excommunication nominative au Canada, sucre d’érable au Canada, cimetière protestant au Canada, procès pour haute trahison au Canada, etc., etc.

There are 116 chapters in this 300-page volume of Roy’s collection of historical tidbits, each of which relates the facts surrounding a “first.” Accordingly, while acknowledging the presence of Amerindians when the European explorers arrived, when

5 we refer to the men whose perspectives are being analyzed in this dissertation as the

“first” to be or to do something, we necessarily mean that they were the “first” within the context of the Quebec society that was being newly established by Europeans. Therefore, our usage of the term first refers specifically to the newly established Quebec society, and its usage is also validated by the manner in which Quebec historians refer to their province’s past.

Regarding the literary/historical approach of this dissertation, theorist Roger

Chartier asserts that our understanding of history cannot be reduced in hindsight to a canon of major events which he describes using the metaphor of a “faisceau de faits ou d’idées tout ensemble disparates et dispersés” since history exists in a discursive collectivity (Chartier 13). The literature produced in any particular era is one of these discourses. To assign “causes,” “origines,” or the relative importance of one discourse over another requires the faulty notion of omniscience on the part of the historian

(Chartier 13). This after-the-fact selection of discourses necessitates “une reconstruction rétrospective” and risks “proposer une lecture téléologique du XVIIIe siècle” (Chartier

14). Nancy Armstrong agrees with Chartier and restates his disapproval of the “canon- of-major-events” approach to history by writing that, “extremely powerful conventions of

(historical) representation…all reinforce the assumption that history consists of economic or political events, as if these were essentially different from other cultural events”

(Armstrong 567). Both theorists call for a re-evaluation of the meaning of history, of the way it is perceived, analyzed and represented in the twenty-first century.

Modern scholars seek to address a multitude of discourses which, formerly, were regularly omitted from historical accounts. These omitted discourses include those of

6 women, homosexuals, native peoples, and ancient religious writers, to name but a few.

We endorse the freedom of those scholars who are investigating discourses which, in the past, were untapped sources of information, yet which now shed new light on our understanding of history and on our perceptions of the past. For example, regarding the

Amerindian discourse, we wish to acknowledge that native peoples were the first to occupy the land that is now called Canada. The Amerindians were there for millennia before it was “discovered” by Europeans. In addition, we acknowledge that the use of the word sauvages to denote Amerindians is considered to be intolerant by today’s standards, whereas in centuries past, it was not. Likewise, regarding women’s discourse, the contribution of women to the establishment and prosperity of Canada is paramount.

In few words, it is our belief that history is comprised of all discourses—and the voices of all discourses have the right to be heard. Therefore, when pursuing literary/historical research in non-traditional fields, the traditional realm must not be pushed aside or invalidated as being unimportant, overworked or uninteresting. It, too, is a valid discourse that tells a saga from a different time period in history.

Undoubtedly, modern scholars would agree that the discourses of the traditionally under-represented groups supply a unique texture and color that can be woven into the historical tapestry of any given era. Nevertheless, without denying this assertion, we maintain that male-drafted documents about politics, economics, and culture equally portray specific aspects of the culture of the era in which they were written, and reflect components of the collective consciousness in existence at that time. These documents express a perspective from a particular point in time which enhances our understanding of the authors, and of the historical context in which they were written. Therefore, we

7 endorse the freedom to read historical, nonfictional documents as literature, in the broadest sense of the term, and not solely as contributions to the white, male-dominated discourse of politics and economics. Quite simply, there is great value in examining d’Iberville’s, Chaussegros de Léry’s, the Laterrière’s, and Tocqueville’s writings.

Therefore, while neither forgetting nor devaluing the feminine, indigenous or other numerous discourses that contributed to the historical consciousness of the era, we will focus on writings by white, male authors and will use standard, canonical terms such as

“Absolutism,” “Enlightenment,” and “Romanticism.” Additional theoretical support for this research is provided by Bernard Andrès.

In three articles, “La génération de la Conquête: un questionnement de l’archive,”4 “Nature et frontières du récit dans un corpus en émergence (1764-1839)5 and

“Les Lettres d’avant la Lettre: double naissance et fondation”,6 Andrès establishes himself as a predominant Quebec theorist for the exposition of the research that we propose in this dissertation. Moving away from the traditional definition of literature that the work must be primarily fiction, such as a novel; be esthetically appealing, such as a poem; or be produced for appreciation by the public or some group other than the author, such as a play or an autobiography; Andrès advocates a broader interpretation of literature to include correspondence, memoirs and newspaper articles, etc. (“La génération de la Conquête” 279).

4 Hereafter referred to as “La génération de la Conquête.”

5 Hereafter referred to as “Nature et frontières.”

6 Hereafter referred to as “Lettres d’avant la Lettre.” 8 In “La génération de la Conquête,” Andrès sets forth a redefinition of this conceptualization of literature based upon “la distinction de Foucault entre document et monument” from the latter’s The Archeology of Knowledge (278). To paraphrase

Andrès, the traditional method of treating manuscripts is to view them as dusty

“monuments” that are analyzed by specialists who turn them into “documents” that contain information which is used to explain the specialists’ interpretation of history.

However, based on Foucault’s theory, Andrès proposes to turn “documents” into

“monuments” in the sense that

Le document n’est plus un simple relais, une « matière inerte » à travers laquelle on pense autre chose. Il s’agit désormais de penser la trace, d’analyser le tissu documentaire en lui-même, de dégager les principes qui régissent son énonciation. (“La génération de la Conquête” 278)

In the remainder of “La génération de la Conquête,” Andrès elaborates upon the nature of the “monuments,” using the new definition of the word, and maintains that they are essentially fluid components of emerging discourses in history. In this research, we have selected a number of these “monuments,” in Foucault’s terms, which would not be defined as literature according to traditional criteria, yet we propose to analyze them as literature. Thus we are in agreement with Andrès that manuscripts such as we have chosen are indeed fluid between literature, history, cultural studies, and other academic disciplines.

In support of our characterization of these “monuments” as components of

Quebec’s emerging literary discourse, Andrès characterizes un récit as being any writing that tells a story: “toute figuration raconte” (“Nature et Frontières du récit” 351). All of the documents that are evaluated in this dissertation tell a story, such as travel journals,

9 personal correspondence, memoirs, treatises, etc. Andrès continues, “Le récit de SOI se fait récit de NOUS, s’expose à l’AUTRE, mais y découvre aussi un autre NOUS avec lequel il faudra bien composer, se composer une nouvelle identité, raconter un nouveau

RÉCIT, résister à celui de l’AUTRE, etc., etc., etc. [...] le RÉCIT nous cerne de toutes parts” (351). Andrès distinguishes between a scripteur and an auteur in that authors are conscious that they are writing for an audience (354). Scripteurs write for the “first time” about the “first times” in history (355). Andrès continues, “ce qu’il faut retenir, c’est que ces premiers scripteurs n’oeuvrent pas dans un champ constitué ou littéraire, encore moins dans une institution” (356). Certainly, the majority of the scripteurs’ récits analyzed here fit Andrès’ portrayal of early works that comprise the emerging corpus of a discourse, in that only the Laterrières and possibly d’Iberville were conscious of writing for consumption by others than themselves.

Furthermore, in his article “Lettres d’avant la Lettre,” Andrès examines the relationship between history and literature and makes a case for “les notions de double naissance et de polygenèse, de protoscription et de récits premiers” (23). Instead of promoting a strictly “canon of literary history” approach, he also advocates adopting “une conception plus souple de l’institutionnalisation du littéraire, une approche mettant l’accent sur le processus d’émergence plus que sur le produit, sur la constitution des

Lettres plus que sur la littérature instituée” (24). Weaving the two concepts into one,

Andrès establishes the concept of “double naissance” seen from the angle of twinning

(being born together) as well as from the angle of rebirth (being born twice) (24).

Therefore, we concur with Andrès’ metaphor of double naissance as the representation of the interplay between the simultaneous emergence of historical and literary discourses.

10 We acknowledge that the canonical terminology of literary and historical benchmarks such as Absolutism, the Enlightenment and Romanticism is arbitrary, yet it provides a convenient, identifiable context for evaluating the texts chosen for this research. Accordingly, the goal of this dissertation is to demonstrate that the writings of these five individuals provide unique and valuable perspectives of historical Quebec through the prism of Absolutism, the Enlightenment and Romanticism.

11 CHAPTER 2

PIERRE LE MOYNE D’IBERVILLE

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF D’IBERVILLE7

Pierre Le Moyne8 d’Iberville (1661-1706) is Quebec’s beloved first military hero.

He was an extremely complex man whose personal characteristics often appear contradictory and whose inconsistent behaviors reveal a multiplicity of traits. A native of

Montreal, d’Iberville was born in 1661, the year that the Sun King Louis XIV took on sole responsibility for ruling over the kingdom of France. D’Iberville distinguished himself in the French navy and furnishes us with a politico-military perspective of early

Quebec. He participated in or headed several important campaigns against the British fur-trading posts in Hudson Bay (1686, 1688, 1690, 1694, 1697), against Schenectady

(1690), Acadia (1696), Newfoundland (1697), and the Caribbean island of Nevis (1706).

He also discovered the mouth of the Mississippi River and founded the French colony of

Louisiana, establishing posts in the modern day states of Louisiana, Mississippi and

7 Unless otherwise noted, information in this biographical sketch is taken from both Guy Frégault’s Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville and from Nellis M. Crouse’s Lemoyne d’Iberville: Soldier of New France (see bibliography).

8 There are multiple spellings of this first family name of d’Iberville. Various documents and biographies include such versions as “Lemoyne,” “Lemoine,” “Le Moine,” etc. For simplification, I have followed the spelling used by Frégault in his biography, Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville.

12 Alabama (1698 – 1702). In June of 1703, he was named Commander in Chief of the

Louisiana colony by Louis XIV (Margry 632).

D’Iberville’s father, Charles Le Moyne (1626-1685), arrived in Quebec in 1641 as a teenager. Although born a commoner—“sans blason ni particule”—a son of innkeepers in Dieppe, France, he rapidly distinguished himself in New France and became the head of one of the most powerful families in Montreal (Frégault 28). Quebec authors and historians have lavished mythic-type metaphors upon the Le Moyne family, such as the title Les Machabées de la Nouvelle France (Marmette). In recognition of his service to New France, Charles Le Moyne was awarded nobility by Louis XIV: “En mars 1668, il lui confère, ainsi qu’à « ses enfants postérité et lignée » , le titre d’écuyer et tous les honneurs dont jouit la noblesse du royaume des lis” (Frégault, Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville 33). Frégault informs us that Charles had been steadily gaining wealth, prestige and land in Montreal and, “Pour couronner le tout, en 1676, (Gouverneur)

Duchesneau effectue la réunion de ces divers domaines dans le seul fief de Longueuil, « avec tous droits de seigneurie et de justice haute, moyenne et basse »” (Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville 34).

The most illustrious of the eleven Le Moyne brothers was Charles’ third son,

Pierre. Educated for only a few years in a Sulpician seminary, d’Iberville developed only elementary spelling and grammar skills, but also an intense hatred of the English (Crouse

9). Contrary to the assertions of some historians, he did not study at the School of

Maritime Arts in France (Frégault, Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville 44). In 1673, at the age of 12, d’Iberville was named to the position of naval midshipman by Governor Frontenac

(Crouse 11). He sailed to and from France on various ships for ten years, learning

13 navigation and naval tactics, most likely transporting hides for the benefit of his family’s beaver pelt business. In 1683, Governor LaBarre appointed him courier of letters to

France on the king’s ship (Crouse 13). D’Iberville became a highly skilled sailor, was promoted to capitaine de frégate in (1692), and capitaine de vaisseau in (1702). He eventually received orders directly from the Minister of the Navy, and met personally with Louis XIV at Versailles (Crouse 71).

The British Hudson’s Bay Company, established in 1670, had a negative impact on the French fur trade. To counteract its influence, the French created the Company of the North in 1682, but the British/French tension mounted (Crouse 16). In 1686,

Quebec’s Governor Denonville gave orders to Chevalier Pierre de Troyes to rout the

English from their Hudson Bay forts and to arrest renegade coureurs de bois who had defected by selling pelts to the English (de Troyes 5-7). D’Iberville and two of his brothers were officers over seventy Canadians and thirty French soldiers who participated in this mission (de Troyes 19). De Troyes and his crew were successful in capturing Fort

Hayes, renaming it Fort St. Louis (Crouse 27). D’Iberville and his crew also seized an

English ship that was anchored by Fort Hayes, the Craven, and then helped de Troyes and the other Canadians to capture Fort Charles (Crouse 30-31). The last English fort seized was Fort Albany, which was renamed Fort Ste. Anne. De Troyes and his company of soldiers won a complete victory over the British on James Bay on behalf of Quebec and France (Crouse 32-36). This military campaign was also extremely profitable:

50,000 pelts had fallen into French hands. D’Iberville and his men stayed at Fort Ste.

Anne to guard it through the winter (Crouse 37). Although France and England had signed a neutrality agreement in 1686, De Troyes was not aware of it during his

14 campaign (Crouse 18). Therefore, the Hudson’s Bay Company was outraged by the attack. After much political wrangling, France and England agreed to table the dispute until 1689 (Crouse 39). But in the meantime, William of Orange, Louis XIV’s arch- enemy, replaced James II as king of England. After the successful Hudson Bay campaign, d’Iberville and his brother Ste-Hélène returned to Montreal in October 1687.

As is true for most national heroes, d’Iberville had some skeletons in his closet.

In May 1686, just a little over a year after the death of his father Charles and when he was absent from Montreal, having departed on the Hudson Bay expedition, d’Iberville was accused of having seduced a young woman, Jeanne Geneviève Picotté de Belestre, by promising to marry her (Séguin 2: 333).9 Her guardian brought a lawsuit against d’Iberville, demanding that he be arrested, but due to d’Iberville’s family connections, he managed to escape the situation with little more than a slap on the wrist. He returned from de Troyes’ expedition to Hudson Bay as a hero in October 1687 and sailed for

France one week later, thereby avoiding the messy situation. Mlle de Belestre waited five years for d’Iberville to marry her, but in 1693, he married instead Marie-Thérèse la

Combe Pocatière. Six days before the wedding, Mlle de Belestre committed herself to a

Montreal convent where she died in 1721 at age 54 (Séguin 2: 339).

After spending the winter of 1687-88 in France, d’Iberville was given the ship

Soleil d’Afrique for the Company of the North and arrived back in Quebec in June 1688

(Frégault, Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville 80). From there he sailed to James Bay to pick up pelts and return to Quebec. During this second trip to James Bay, he encountered English

9 We wish to specify that our discussions of d’Iberville’s premarital sexual activity are based upon the teachings of the Catholic Church and the cultural values of the society in existence at the time during which he lived.

15 vessels and engaged in various skirmishes and battles. D’Iberville seized more English ships and used them to transport pelts to Quebec. Upon his arrival in Quebec in October

1689 he discovered that the War of the League of Augsburg had begun, due in part to the

French attacks on the English forts in James Bay (Crouse 50). Later, because d’Iberville had distinguished himself so illustriously during the two campaigns in Hudson Bay, he was commissioned as a lieutenant in the French Navy, “an unprecedented honor for a

Canadian” (Crouse 52).

Governor Denonville advocated attacking New York City in retaliation for the

Lachine Massacre of 1689 (Crouse 51). However, he was replaced by Governor

Frontenac who organized an overland campaign with snowshoes in the dead of winter in

February 1690 (Crouse 51, 56). The original target was Fort Orange in Albany, New

York, but in mid-mission, it was changed to Schenectady. D’Iberville and his brother

Ste-Hélène were chosen to be leaders of this campaign (Crouse 59). The Canadians and their Amerindian allies attacked the 400 inhabitants in the middle of the night, massacring all but 50 or 60 (Crouse 60). This caused a scandal. Crouse indicates that d’Iberville showed little concern for “collateral damage” during the attack on

Schenectady; nevertheless, he did demonstrate clemency during other campaigns (Crouse

61). The English attempted to retaliate by means of Phips’ conquest of Port Royal in

Acadia, but Phips’ 1690 attack on Quebec was unsuccessful (Crouse 63).

D’Iberville sailed from Quebec in June, 1690, with orders to capture Port Nelson

(Fort Bourbon), but he was no match for the British in Hudson Bay. Instead, he attacked

Fort Churchill (Fort Severn) which the English burned to the ground to prevent the

French from occupying it; yet d’Iberville managed to rescue the fur pelts (Crouse 65).

16 He sent them to Quebec on another ship while he spent the winter there (Crouse 63-65).

D’Iberville returned to Quebec in October 1691 and sailed again for France (Crouse 66).

The king agreed to a plan to destroy Port Nelson or, as a poor substitute, to rout the English settlers from Newfoundland. For various reasons, the plans had to be postponed in 1691, 1692, and 1693 (Crouse 67 – 72, 86). At about the same time, the

British recaptured the three posts on James Bay: Ste. Anne, St. Jacques, and St. Louis.

These forts never returned again to French control (Crouse 88-89). Nevertheless, d’Iberville’s dream still remained to capture Port Nelson (Fort Bourbon.) In May 1694, he accomplished this goal with the Poli and the Salamander. D’Iberville was praised for the enormous quantity of pelts that he acquired as booty (Crouse 103). However, the

English recaptured Port Nelson in 1696 (Crouse 99).

Therefore, Louis XIV commissioned d’Iberville to head up a three-point campaign in 1696: 1) the destruction of the Fort William Henry at Pemaquid with the motive of keeping the Amerindians loyal to the French, 2) the conquest of

Newfoundland, and 3) the recapture and complete destruction of the posts on James Bay

(Crouse 104). After conquering and destroying Fort William Henry, d’Iberville was ordered to attack Newfoundland in 1696 in cooperation with Governor Brouillan (Crouse

115, 120). The campaign was successful, making a clean sweep of the peninsula, taking

700 civilian prisoners, and either destroying their property and fishing ships, or seizing booty (Crouse 137). The English again cried “Scandal!” They sent a fleet a few months later and regained control of the island. But by that time, d’Iberville had received further orders to sail north to recapture Port Nelson (Fort Bourbon) in 1697 (Crouse 139). He sank a British ship with a stunning naval maneuver, just after he and the British captain

17 had courteously drunk wine and toasted each other’s success, but the Pélican, his own ship, was badly damaged (Crouse 145-46). This successful expedition was d’Iberville’s most spectacular and his last in Hudson Bay (Crouse 154). The Treaty of Ryswick in

1697, which ended the War of the League of Augsburg, guaranteed possession of Port

Nelson to the French (Crouse 154).

D’Iberville’s fabulous naval career in Canada had ended, but he then began an even more brilliant achievement by founding and establishing the Louisiana colony.

D’Iberville (re)discovered the mouth of the Mississippi from the Gulf of Mexico in 1699 and founded Biloxi (Fort Maurepas) in 1699 as well as Fort Mobile in 1700. At first, the

French government was wary of the idea of establishing a colony in Louisiana. However, d’Iberville eagerly convinced the top officials that Louisiana would not only serve as another outlet for the fur trade, but would also establish a barrier of resistance against the

English expansion westward across the North American continent (Crouse 159).

D’Iberville and his men also met with several Amerindians tribes and established friendly relations with them, knowing that the French needed their help to navigate in the wilderness, as well as using them as allies against the English (Crouse 230).

During his second expedition to Louisiana in 1700, d’Iberville sailed up the

Mississippi searching, as always, for a passage to the Pacific and for the proverbial mines of gold and precious jewels. When he returned to France in 1703, the Sun King awarded his diligence by bestowing upon him knighthood in the Order of St. Louis, a rare honor, and he was also named Commander in Chief of the Colony of Louisiana, (Crouse 201).

D’Iberville wrote extensive memoirs explaining his plan to settle mid-America which included moving large Amerindian populations from one region to another, ruling over

18 them with authority rather than engaging them as allies, and breaking their alliances with the British (Crouse 226). Wisely, the Minister of the Navy, Pontchartrain, opposed this colossal undertaking of mass migration (Crouse 246).

At this time, however, d’Iberville’s health began to fail (Crouse 217). Even so, he led still one more campaign, this time against Nevis, an island in the British West Indies.

Louis XIV wanted to establish a military base in the Antilles from which he could attack the Carolinas, New York, Virginia, and could help Acadia and Newfoundland (Crouse

250). Through clever tactics and an ingeniously devised plan, d’Iberville captured Nevis and the English surrendered.10 After his success on Nevis, he disbanded his fleet and sailed for Havana, Cuba where he had planned to gather supplies and more men to accomplish the remainder of the campaign: attacks on the Carolinas, Virginia and

Boston. However, before he could set sail toward the American coast, he died in Havana just before his forty-fifth birthday on July 9, 1706, most likely from a relapse of yellow fever.11 Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville made an enormous contribution to the defense of

10 The battle plan for the attack on Nevis depended upon sending ships as decoys to trick the British colonists into thinking that the troop landing and the main attack would take place on the leeward side of the island, whereas the debarcation of the land troops actually took place on a little bay on the south/southeastern tip of Nevis that was hidden from view of the fort. Referring to this main ruse of d’Iberville’s battle plan, Crouse states, “Colonel Abbott called a council of war; and the council, mistaking Iberville’s intentions, sent the bulk of its troops to the northern part of the island” (257). The English were actually on the northwest side of the island.

11 The location and cause of d’Iberville’s death are unclear and often disputed. Various authors claim that he died from a plague, the “fevers,” yellow fever, “mal de Siam,” etc. According to a document at the Bibliothèque Nationale, “d’Iberville et plus des deux tiers des officiers sont morts en chemin de Nieves a Rochefort.” However, a document at the Archives du Service Hydrographique states that during his third voyage to Louisiana (therefore, he never even set foot on Nevis!), d’Iberville “mourut en route empoisonné, dit-on, par les intrigues d’une nation célèbre qui craignoit un tel voisin” (see Frégault, 272.) However, the most creative and intriguing rendition of d’Iberville’s demise appears in Britain’s Calendar of State Papers (No. 499, 227--see Bibliography): “By a Dane’s slupe from St. Thomas’s I have an acctt. that D’Bervill is dead, one of his great shipps split on a rock near Cuba, and that his squadron is returned to France, […] the Master of the slupe reports he was on board two French shipps bound home who gave him this acctt.” According to Frégault, all that we can be sure of is that there exists a death certificate in Spanish that states the date and place of burial (Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville 272). 19 New France against the British, due to his record of victories during the campaigns that he waged, and he remains to this day a beloved Quebec founding father.

IDENTIFICATION OF SELECTED TEXTS

An extensive amount of writing has been produced about d’Iberville; he truly is a modern-day Canadian hero. Remarkably, much of the existing literature is for juvenile consumption, notably, the works by Achard, Ares, Elie, Marmette, McLeod and Tard.

There are many others. Canada has also produced a television mini-series with d’Iberville as its subject. Most of these texts are filled with inaccuracies or are of the plethora of unscholarly or romantic biographies. Therefore, we are selecting documents that d’Iberville himself wrote regarding his participation in military campaigns or expeditions, his memoirs which served as proposals to Louis XIV, as well as memoirs or journals written by others who are eyewitnesses of the expeditions in which he took part.

Of all the documentation of major military campaigns and expeditions in which d’Iberville participated or spearheaded, we have chosen the following, related documents for analysis:

1. Journal de l’Expédition du Chevalier de Troyes à la Baie d’Hudson, en 1686

The military journal of de Troyes begins on March 31, 1686, the day that the one hundred soldiers left Montreal for Hudson Bay. It ends when de Troyes leaves the

Hudson Bay area in the fall: “Le chevalier de Troyes dut retourner à Québec au commencement du mois d’octobre 1686” (Caron, introduction 9). It was an overland campaign of canoeing and portages following the Ottawa River north to Hudson Bay.

We wish to remind the reader at this point that Canada is still very much frozen in April.

20 It was a remarkable mission which succeeded in part, at least, because it was so audacious and completely unexpected on the part of the British.

In the appendices of editor/annotator Caron’s publication, we find two other published accounts of the Hudson Bay campaign of 1686. One is attributed to Gédéon de

Catalogne in his “Recueil de ce qui s’est passé en Canada au sujet de la guerre, tant des

Anglais que des Iroquois, depuis l’année 1682.” The other account is the journal of

Father Silvy, the chaplain and chronicler of this expedition (Caron, preface IX). We have selected de Troyes’ journal because it is the most reliable and most detailed account in existence today. According to Caron,

Le journal a été écrit par le chevalier de Troyes lui-même, d’après des notes prises chaque jour, au cours de l’expédition. M. de Troyes était un observateur; il nous fait une peinture exacte des régions qu’il a traversées, des événements dont il a été témoin. C’est la narration la plus complète que nous avons de cette mémorable expédition de 1686. (Caron, preface VIII).

D’Iberville himself did not write a memoir of this, his first military campaign.

Nevertheless, de Troyes’ journal paints a precise picture in vivid, colorful terms of young d’Iberville’s actions and conduct during his first opportunity to distinguish himself in the process of becoming the leader that he was.

2. Journal de l’expédition de D’Iberville en Acadie et à Terre-Neuve, par l’abbé

Beaudouin, Lettres de d’Iberville.

In the bibliography of Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville, Frégault makes this comment about the journal of Father Beaudouin, stating that it is “le seul document où un témoin oculaire raconte du commencement à la fin les compagnes d’Acadie et de Terre-Neuve.

Cette pièce de grande valeur a été publiée par A. Gosselin, Les Normands au Canada…”

(10). It is this exact publication by Gosselin that we have chosen to analyze regarding

21 d’Iberville’s activities during this major military campaign. Although Frégault values the journal from an historical perspective, Gosselin makes the following claims about Father

Beaudouin’s literary talents: “Même au point de vue du style, le journal de Beaudouin ne manque pas de mérite : il y a de l’entrain, du piquant, de l’originalité : çà [sic] et la, à travers le récit, une observation juste, une réflexion pleine de sens et d’à-propos” (4). Fr.

Beaudouin’s journal also includes an analysis of the famous dispute between Governor

Brouillan and d’Iberville, as well as its outcome, and provides an observer’s insights of d’Iberville and of his way of relating to the societies and political forces of his time.

Following the journal and in the same publication, Gosselin also published two letters from d’Iberville to Pontchartrain, the Minister of the Navy in 1696, relating the details of the campaign as well as complaining about Brouillan and justifying his own actions.

3. Découverte par mer des bouches du Mississipi et établissements de Lemoyne

d’Iberville sur le Golfe du Mexique (1694 – 1703), Vol. 4 by Pierre Margry.

D’Iberville himself wrote a substantial quantity of ship’s logs, memoirs and letters; as Crouse notes “he was a prolific writer” (9). Many of these documents were collected and transcribed by Pierre Margry in his monumental work Découvertes et

établissements des Français dans l’ouest et dans le sud de l’Amérique septentrionale

(1614 – 1754): Mémoires et documents originaux which was published over a period of years during the second half of the nineteenth century. We have used the fourth volume of this work, which consists of hundreds of pages of letters, ships’ logs and memoirs written by d’Iberville, the Minister of the Navy, and other French and Canadian officials.

Almost all of these documents focus on d’Iberville’s activities regarding his three expeditions to the Gulf of Mexico.

22 4. “Relation de la prise et capitulation de l’isle Nieve appartenant aux Anglois.”

Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville.

This document was originally published as an article in the Mercure galant in May

1706. To our knowledge, it has never been published since. In it, d’Iberville describes his final campaign; he died two months later. The Canadian d’Iberville was to work in partnership with the Chevalier de Chavagnac, a Frenchman. The instructions were clear: d’Iberville was in command and Chavagnac was to be under his leadership. However, d’Iberville also experienced insubordination from Chavagnac, just as he did from

Brouillan. Nevertheless, this account by d’Iberville himself illuminates the portrait of a hero in the full maturity of his brilliance on many levels including strategic and personal.

The beauty of this manuscript is the scope of understanding that it reveals which provides a fitting conclusion to the brief but spectacular life of Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville.

Other original documents relating to d’Iberville mentioned in this dissertation will not be evaluated in depth. For information about the historical context of d’Iberville’s life, we have relied upon Frégault’s Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville and Crouse’s Lemoyne d’Iberville: Soldier of New France.

CHARACTERISTICS OF ABSOLUTISM IN D’IBERVILLE TEXTS

Since d’Iberville’s birth and death both took place within the personal reign of

Louis XIV, the questions may be raised, In what ways do d’Iberville’s writings or other authors’ writings about him reflect the governmental system of his day? How do these documents illustrate conflict between the French nobility and Canadians? How did d’Iberville fit or not fit into the functioning of the absolute monarchy? This includes his

23 participation, or lack thereof, in Louis XIV’s system of bestowing or withholding favor as a means of validating or excluding his subjects. Consequently, how did d’Iberville’s relationship to the absolute monarchy affect his view of Quebec? In order to respond to this inquiry, the selected texts will be analyzed in the following ways:

D’Iberville’s Relationship to the court of Louis XIV, D’Iberville’s Representation as an honnête homme, D’Iberville’s Participation in la galanterie, D’Iberville and l’art de la conversation, D’Iberville and le libertinage, D’Iberville’s Religious Views

D’Iberville’s Relationship to the Court of Louis XIV

The political system of the absolute monarchy was based upon gaining the king’s favor, where personal value and social status were determined by his preferences, whereas up until that time, the validation of aristocratic identity was by rank and bloodline.12 In order to become important and to gain influence in society, it was necessary to please the authorities who were in power through proper etiquette, ceremony and obedience to their edicts, desires, or even whims. In order to accomplish this goal, the most sought-after commodity was access to the king and his entourage where the courtiers could be seen by those in power. Soon, society became a space of competition for inclusion in the inner circles of the king’s power in order to avoid the disgrace of exclusion. Norbert Elias writes,

...etiquette here is not a ghostly perpetual motion machine controlled by no one; from the king’s standpoint, it serves a clear purpose. He does not merely adhere

12 This discussion of the social model of Louis XIV’s court is based upon Elias’ The Court Society. In addition, we wish to cite and thank Dr. Geoffrey Turnovsky for his ideas which we have borrowed that he presented during his Seventeenth Century Survey class regarding the social structures of Louis XIV’s court (see Bibliography). 24 to the traditional order of rank. Etiquette everywhere allows latitude that he uses as he thinks fit to determine even in small ways the reputations of people at court. [...] He uses the competition for prestige to vary, by the exact degree of favour shown to them, the rank and standing of people at court, to suit his purposes as ruler, shifting the balance of tensions within the society as his need dictates. Etiquette is not yet petrified; in the king’s hands it is highly flexible instrument of power (89-90).

The methods used to gain access to the king and his top counselors were often ruses which were calculated to create the desired effect of pleasing them, but d’Iberville’s stunning successes of military-naval exploits also earned the king’s approval as a reward.

In colonial Quebec, there existed a social stratification as well.13 However, these social classes were not based upon the same criteria as in France. The physical space of

Quebec society was organized by a distribution of the land called the seigniorial system.

The seignior built his manor in the middle of his land, but he was also required to divide the rest of his land into lots and give it to colonial homesteaders called censitaires. These plots of land were long, narrow strips, one adjacent to the other, the length of which ran perpendicular to the St. Lawrence so that each colonist could have access to water. This parceling of the land is still in existence today. There was a set of fixed obligations for both the seigniors and the censitaires, so that they were mutually interdependent on an economic level. However, the seigniorial system functioned differently than that of

France. As Hamelin and Provencher note, “La seigneurie, d’abord, n’est pas un cadre de production et le système seigneurial n’est pas le moteur de l’activité économique. Il ne crée pas non plus une société d’ordres, car la propriété seigneuriale ne confère ni la noblesse ni n’exempte des impôts de toutes sortes” (26). The “motor of economic activity” mentioned by Hamelin and Provencher is, of course, the beaver trade and it

13 Our discussion of Quebec’s social structure is based upon Hamelin and Provencher and on lectures by Lise Fournier during her class Arts et Traditions du Québec (see bibliography). 25 refers to the economy of the entire colony. Furthermore, the seigniors also worked the land, just as the censitaires did; they were useful, contributing members of society, unlike the nobility in France. In addition to the seigniors, censitaires, clergy and Catholic sisters, Amerindians and Métis,14 there were several other groups of colonists based upon economic functions. Hamelin and Provencher continue with an excellent detailed description of these different classes and functions of colonists in Quebec society:

Mais les nobles doivent travailler comme les roturiers et ne possèdent pas nécessairement de seigneuries. Ceux qu’on pourrait appeler les bourgeois cumulent plusieurs fonctions dans divers domaines. Et la population en général ne s’identifie pas par le titre ou le rang, mais par la fonction ou l’occupation. L’organisation économique de la Nouvelle-France a introduit de nouvelles formes de partage des revenus. […] Les administrateurs et les fonctionnaires forment plus de 5% de la population urbaine active dans une structure hiérarchisée allant de l’intendant au bourreau. […] Dans la catégorie des commerçants et des négociants, se recrutent les gens les plus riches de la colonie [qui] touchent des fortunes allant de 25 000 à 300 000 livres… [L]es marchands-équipeurs de Montréal qui tiennent la traite des fourrures entre leurs mains laissent à leur décès un héritage moyen d’environ 10 000 livres… Le groupe le plus nombreux est formé de petits commerçants, de voyageurs et de coureurs de bois, auxquels il faut ajouter les pêcheurs de la côte atlantique et les coureurs de côte. […] Les gens de métier—charpentiers, menuisiers, maçons, navigateurs, charretiers, boulangers et bouchers surtout—demeurent peu nombreux… […] Les militaires, eux, se rencontrent dans tous les secteurs d’activité. Groupés autour de la personne du gouverneur, ils cherchent les décorations et le prestige. (34-35)

It is certain that Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville did not belong to the old French aristocracy. His father Charles had come to Quebec as a young teen from a family of innkeepers. Nevertheless, we must not forget that Charles was ennobled by Louis XIV, as was Colbert, and that this new nobility was bestowed upon his children, posterity and lineage. Therefore, Pierre was also considered noble in France, at least officially.

14 The Métis were individuals born of parents where one was Amerindian and one was French. 26 In Quebec, d’Iberville also ranked among the upper class. His family existed too early in the history of Quebec to belong to the “commerçants et négociants” category, since the import-export mavericks emerged as a clearly identifiable group only later, in the eighteenth century. However, Charles Le Moyne and his brother-in-law, Jacques Le

Ber, were deeply involved in the fur trade (Frégault, Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville, 31).

Therefore, d’Iberville’s family belonged to the “marchands-équipeurs” category of society in Montreal. Charles Le Moyne was also the seignior of Longueuil. All of these facts taken together indicate that Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville was an aristocrat, to varying degrees and by varying definitions, on both sides of the Atlantic.

Pierre de Troyes, the commander of the first expedition in which d’Iberville took part and distinguished himself, was a French aristocrat as evidenced by his title

Chevalier. His orders for the expedition include the following instructions:

Pour ce, nous ordonnons à tous officiers, soldats et habitants de la colonie, que nous destinons d’envoyer à ses ordres de reconnaître le dit sieur de Troie pour leur commandant en chef et de lui obéir généralement en tout ce qu’il leur ordonnera pour le service du roi, de le reconnaître en la dite qualité, (Caron, Introduction 7) (underlining mine)

De Troyes was named commander in service of the king, as his orders state, and the accompanying officers and soldiers were commanded to obey him. This obedience to the commanding officer was not only a function of military rigor, but it was also an extension of a subject’s duty to his king, of whom the commanding officer was a representative.

After establishing and implementing several military procedures, de Troyes writes, “ainsi je les assujeti peu a peu a la discipline que demande la regularite du service, et qui seul manque a la valeur naturelle des canadiens” (28). De Troye’s initial comments about the

Canadians’ submission to his authority indicate a certain lack of obedience, although he

27 never criticizes d’Iberville specifically. This is a remarkable microcosm of the macrocosm of obedience and rule-following required in courtly life by Louis XIV, as well as the general attitude in France regarding the Canadian character. Another telling comment by de Troyes appears in his journal five days later:

Je fis attacher un canadien a un arbre pour le punir de quelque sotise qu’il avoit dite; quelques mutins voulurent a ce sujet exciter une sedition, mais je les ramené en peu à leur devoir. Le P. Silvie m’y aida beaucoup, et je connus dans cette occasion le caractère des canadiens, dont le naturel ne s’accorde guère avec la subordination. (31)

De Troyes also describes the behavior of the Canadians at the moment that they arrived at the first English fort: “J’eu pour lors, beaucoup de peine a arrester la fougue de nos

Canadiens qui, faisans de grands cris a la façon des sauvages, ne demendoient qu’a jouer des couteaux” (67). When the officials at the court read descriptions such as these, is it any wonder that Louis XIV and his courtiers did not accept Canadian nobles on an equal footing with their own?

One could argue that all military groups demand obedience by strictly following orders as precisely as they are given, and that the evidence of d’Iberville’s excellent performance within de Troyes’ military unit could be said of any soldier in any army that is not necessarily related to the Absolute Monarchy. In few words, other countries also functioned politically by the control system of top-down hierarchy. Nevertheless, although they never attained the “perfection” of Louis XIV’s regime, they surely would have liked to have done so. Therefore, their imitation of the Absolute Monarchy’s model indicates their conceptual participation in it. On the other hand, in social units such as

Amerindian tribes, for example, the individual braves warred not to gain glory from the

Chief, but for themselves (Havard 150-1). Therefore, evaluating d’Iberville’s

28 participation in de Troyes’ group contributes to our examination of d’Iberville’s relationship to the Sun King’s court since the functioning of the common military model of absolute control mimics that of the Absolute Monarchy.

A list of the officers under de Troyes, including d’Iberville’s brothers St. Hélène and Maricourt, reads as follows:

Aumônier………………Le R. P. Silvie, Jésuite Commendant…………...Le sieur de Troyes Lieutenant……………...Le sieur de St. Hélène Lieut. en second………..Le sieur d’Yberville Major…………………...Le sieur de Maricourt Aide Major……………..Le sieur de la noue Commiss. des vivres…...Le sieur Lallement (19)

De Troyes mentions d’Iberville many times throughout his journal. The first instance occurs as the group approaches the Long-Sault Rapids.15 De Troyes praises

Ste-Hélène and d’Iberville for being skilled in maneuvering canoes. Shortly thereafter, de Troyes sends d’Iberville with a message for the rest of the group to meet de Troyes immediately at a particular place. “Ce qu’ils firent” (25). Evidently, d’Iberville obeyed de Troyes. D’Iberville had also gained the respect of the rest of the group to the extent that they obeyed him, as well. This same ability of d’Iberville to command respect of the men under him is clearly demonstrated later when, on May Day, the Canadians planted a

Maypole and fired a musket salute, as much in honor of de Troyes as “à mrs. de St.

Helenne et d’hyberville” (34). De Troyes further states that it was d’Iberville who found and repaired two lost and broken canoes, thus, making himself useful to the group and to his commanding officer. D’Iberville was then named as the leader of the rear guard, indicating that de Troyes judged him to be a worthy officer (de Troyes 21).

15 Long-Sault is frequently mentioned in Canadian historical writing and is reverently refered to as the place where Dollard and his crew defended Montreal to their deaths against the Iroquois in 1660. 29 De Troyes’ journal reveals that he was a considerate commander. While crossing a stream filled with eddies, d’Iberville’s canoe capsized. Since the other soldier in the canoe couldn’t swim, he drowned. D’Iberville swam ashore, but lost his rifles, clothes and most of his food. Nevertheless, de Troyes gave d’Iberville his own supplies (58). De

Troyes never complains about d’Iberville, but, at a certain point in the journal, de Troyes indicates that Ste. Hélène was not as honorable as his family and name merited:

J’avois donné ordre a mr. de ste helenne de venir en canot avec moy, nonobstant quoy il resta sur le bastiment pour ecrire quelques lettres, conjointement avec le sr. d’hyberville, son frère, et soubz pretexte d’indisposition se rend au fort avec le bastiment, au lieu de me joindre, comme je lui avois dit. Cela me prejudicia, d’autant plus que je me serois servi d’une bousolle qu’il avoit, au deffaut de laquelle je faillis a me perdre. (79)

Disobedience and lying—and getting caught at it—were not desirable characteristics of favored subjects in Louis XIV’s Court, even though the courtiers regularly masked their true thoughts and feelings in order to make a favorable impression on the king. In any case, after observing Ste-Hélène’s deceit, de Troyes neither reprimands him nor alters the glowing reports of his valor. However, because of Ste-Hélène’s disobedience, the

Commander could have died while he and the men with him were en route by canoe to another location. Due to the fact that Ste-Hélène had the compass, they lost their bearing because of a dense fog that shrouded the shoreline (79-80). In 1690, just four years later,

Ste-Hélène died after a cannon ball broke his leg during Phips’ unsuccessful siege of

Quebec. He was greatly mourned by all who knew him (Jodoin and Vincent 142).

De Troyes vividly portrays d’Iberville’s famous, apparently courageous storming of the first fort, where he forced himself inside before his men could get in, brandishing his sword with one hand and firing rounds from his pistol with the other (67-68). The

30 other famous battle, d’Iberville’s attack by canoe on the English ship, is also recorded, where it is said that he climbed aboard and stomped on the deck to wake the sleeping sentry and the others below. When the sentry jumped up, one of the French shot him dead, while d’Iberville slashed those who were trying to climb up to the deck with his sword. Meanwhile, the other French soldiers chopped holes with hatchets in the hull below and rained a hail of bullets inside. The British surrendered (77-78). This reported bravery, coupled with the fact that it targeted the despised British, was a fabulous advance toward earning Louis XIV’s favor. It worked. D’Iberville and Ste-Hélène were chosen to be in charge of the forty men who wintered at the forts in Hudson Bay, but within one week of d’Iberville’s return to Quebec on October 31, 1687, Governor

Denonville sent him on an official mission to relate the events of the expedition directly to Louis XIV at Versailles (Crouse 41). Thus, d’Iberville was “conveniently” absent when the huissier arrived to summon him to court as a result of Mlle Belestre’s delicate condition; many more details of this famous paternity suit will be presented later.

In the nine years between d’Iberville’s return to Quebec in 1687 from de Troyes’ expedition and d’Iberville’s Acadia/Newfoundland campaign of 1696, “Le Cid canadien” was not inactive (La Roncière 1:262). He arrived at Quebec from France with the Soleil d’Afrique in June of 1688, and was ordered to return to Hudson Bay, having been appointed commander-in-chief of operations there by Governor Denonville (Crouse 42).

However, the English were there, as well. The French and the English spent the winter there, each attempting to dominate the other through bluffing and finesse. D’Iberville prevailed, capturing the English ship, the Churchill. In August, 1689, d’Iberville received orders to sail for Quebec with his boatload of furs. Then, in February 1690

31 d’Iberville participated in the campaign against Schenectady. The following June, he sailed again for Hudson Bay. D’Iberville had gained prestige and was starting to move up the military ranks (Crouse 42-52). “Governor Denonville had been so pleased with him that he had requested for him the rank of lieutenant in the navy, an unprecedented honor for a Canadian…” (Crouse 52). D’Iberville received this commission in 1691.

Crouse also informs us that d’Iberville was promoted to capitaine de frégatte in the same year (70). Asking the king for the favor of recognition and promotion is typical of the functioning of the absolute monarchy.

Louis XIV instructed the Sieur Du Tast to sail to Quebec in the early summer of

1691 to drop off much needed supplies and then to head for Hudson Bay to capture Port

Nelson, serving under d’Iberville. But he delayed, using profoundly lame excuses

(Crouse, 70). Crouse comments, “Perhaps, if the truth were known, Du Tast resented the idea of sharing his command and the glory of victory, if he succeeded in capturing the post, with a mere colonial officer like Iberville…” (70). Ever-present jealousy and ever- increasing resentment almost always plague brilliant, dynamic, charismatic people and their successes. Du Tast’s outlandish petulance provided good training in diplomacy for d’Iberville; it was merely a prelude to the difficulties that were to arise during his next campaign.

The next major work to be analyzed for evidence of d’Iberville’s relationship to the French court is Father Beaudouin’s journal, from June 1696 to May 1697, of d’Iberville’s campaign against Pemaquid, Acadia and Newfoundland. Father Beaudouin was the chaplain and chronicler of this expedition. Of particuliar interest in this account

32 is d’Iberville’s handling of the insufferable Governor of Plaisance, Sieur François

Jacques de Brouillan. Gosselin explains,

M. de Brouillan, gouverneur de Plaisance, ‘était un officier expérimenté, ayant de bonnes qualités, mais âpre au gain, d’un caractère difficile, ombrageux et très jaloux de son autorité. Il avait été choqué du choix que la cour de Versailles avait fait du chevalier d’Iberville pour commander l’expédition de Terre-Neuve, qu’il s’arrogeait le droit de diriger, en qualité de gouverneur.’ (38)16

At the time that d’Iberville arrived at Newfoundland, Brouillan had taken authority into his own hands and had already tried to attack St. John’s, for his own glory. He failed; however, he did succeed in alerting the English population to the French military presence, thus, foiling one of d’Iberville’s primary strategic tactics: surprise (Frégault,

Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville 115). Following is a partial list from Beaudouin’s journal of

Brouillan’s outrageous behavior—doubly outrageous since d’Iberville had financed most of the campaign himself:

1. He refused to feed d’Iberville’s newly-arrived troops (38).

2. He challenged d’Iberville’s battle plan of starting overland in the north (39), even

though he knew that d’Iberville was the top commander by order of the King:

“qui estait par les ordres du Roy seul maistre de la guerre d’hyver,” (40).

3. He strongly urged Beaudouin to accompany his troops by sea, but Beaudouin was

engaged specifically by the Canadians (40-41).

4. He insisted that his troops go first, the Canadians behind. But if attacked, his

men were to let the Canadians go first into battle (45).

Remarkably, in number three above, Beaudouin was flattered and interpreted Brouillan’s invitation as a sign of his favor toward him, whereas we propose that Brouillan’s

16 Gosselin is quoting l’abbé H.-R. Casgrain, Les Sulpiciens et les prêtres des Missions-Étrangères en Acadie (1676-1762), page197. See Bibliography. 33 solicitation arose from a spiteful attempt to separate Beaudoin from d’Iberville. In the end, Beaudouin remained with d’Iberville’s troops (41).

At the first display of Brouillan’s contentious behavior, d’Iberville threatened to leave his troops immediately and to sail directly for France (39). Then he made an appeal to the soldiers by reading his orders from the court outloud to them (43). At this point,

Brouillan clearly manifests his personality. Beaudouin writes, “de quoy le sieur de

Brouillan se faschant lui enlève son monde, menaçant avec le sieur de Muis17, de tuer le premier qui refusera de leur obéir, et fait reconnaître le sieur de Muis pour leur commandant…” (43). The reaction by d’Iberville’s Canadian mercenaries18 was swift and sure: “tous les Canadiens disaient tous les jours qu’ils n’iraient jamais sous M. de

Brouillan…” (43). Finally, “Le sieur d’Iberville consent à tout, disant qu’il en ferait ses plaintes à la cour, ayant fait deffences à tous ses gens de rien dire” (43). This appears to be infallible evidence that d’Iberville was in total submission to Louis XIV, at least in the public arena. Not only did he appear to base his actions solely upon the court’s orders, he also made an appeal to these orders when challenged. Moreover, he viewed the court as the seat where ultimate justice would be rendered for having been prevented from carrying out the king’s orders and for having suffered Brouillan’s disdainful treatment.

Obviously, d’Iberville was not accepted by French aristocrats as being on an equal level with them. Perhaps he was perceived in like manner as Molière’s M.

Jourdain in Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme. Yet d’Iberville, the seemingly loyal and faithful

17 According to Beaudouin, de Muis was “capitaine, qui estait venu conduire le détachement canadien à Plaisance…” (40). Evidently, de Muis had become Brouillan’s spokesman as well as his henchman who was assigned to carry out Brouillan’s orders.

18 D’Iberville was such a popular commander that there was a group of Canadian soldiers who followed him and fought for him in any campaign to which he was assigned by the court at Versailles. 34 subject, chose to plead his case before the court. In the twenty-first century, Brouillan’s attitude would be described as intolerant. For proof of this attitude, we need only examine d’Iberville’s letter of October 26, 1696, in which he lodged his complaint about

Brouillan to Pontchartrain. First, he explained Brouillan’s inappropriate naval strategy regarding his failed attempt to take St. John’s. Then, d’Iberville writes in no uncertain terms as he expresses his assessment of the contention: “J’ignorais encore ce qui pouvait causer son froid à mon égard” (Les Normands au Canada 82). As for Brouillan, he omitted d’Iberville’s name from his correspondance with the King’s Lieutenant, demanding that the Canadians, whom d’Iberville had paid, be sent to function under his own command (82).19 D’Iberville knew that the French soldiers were not accustomed to winter combat and, moreover, were inexperienced with snowshoes. Nevertheless, he was shocked when Brouillan refused to turn them over to his command (84). D’Iberville wrote, “L’appréhension que j’avais que toutes ces discussions ne fussent contraires au bien du service me faisait chercher tous les moyens que je pouvais m’imaginer pour les terminer à l’amiable” (84). Nothing more need be added to demonstrate the depth of d’Iberville’s endeavors to negotiate peace with Brouillan and to appear to please the court, even going so far as to avaler la couleuvre. Sadly, there seems to have been no royal retribution for Brouillan’s interference.

D’Iberville frequently demonstrated his submission to the king and his royal agents by stating so in his own letters and battle accounts. For example, in a letter to

Pontchartrain after the capitulation of Fort Pemaquid, he writes, “Je crois, monseigneur,

19 Before d’Iberville’s arrival at Pemaquid, Quebec’s Governor Frontenac, another imported French aristocrat, had meddled with the court’s orders and had mixed fifty French soldiers with the Canadians, and ordered M. de Muis to accompany them to Brouillan’s command (Beaudouin 83 – 84). 35 que vous voudrez bien approuver ce que j’ai fait, et cela étant pour le service du roi” (Les

Normands au Canada 76). Furthermore, in the same letter, he states that his actions are governed by the king’s permission and that he is zealous to accomplish the king’s orders as he has been directed:

J’attends avec impatience tous les hommes qui me doivent joindre, pour commencer sur les ennemis de cette ile ce que Sa Majesté m’a permis de faire. En attendant, je fais découvrir tous les chemins d’ici aux habitation anglaises; et je vais partir dans deux jours pour y aller moi-même, afin de ne rien négliger pour vous faire connaître avec quel zèle je me porte au bien du service,… (80-81) (Underlining mine.)

All points considered, Father Beaudouin’s journal of d’Iberville’s conquest of Pemaquid,

Acadia and Newfoundland is a rich resource of valuable information regarding d’Iberville’s relationship to the court.

The Canadians’ duty to the king was to obey d’Iberville to whom they were sworn, which they did. At this point in time, d’Iberville had suffered the disagreable effects of French aristocrats’ mistreatment of Canadians in Quebec and he experienced it again in Newfoundland. Later, he would similarly suffer after his relocation to France when his fellow countrymen, Canadian aristocrats, would turn on him for his desire to develop the Louisiana Colony (Margry 605). In the final analysis, all facts regarding this expedition indicate that Louis XIV had complete power over his Canadian colonists, but not over his transplanted aristocratic French leaders, such as Du Tast, Brouillan, and, as we shall see later, Chavagnac, who refused to submit to the headship of the Canadian commander, d’Iberville during his last campaign on the Caribbean island of Nevis.

The next major work to be analyzed for evidence of d’Iberville’s relationship to the court in France is the fourth volume of Margry’s monumental collection of original

36 memoirs and documents which pertains mostly to d’Iberville’s expeditions to the Gulf of

Mexico. In Louis XIV’s memoir to d’Iberville of July 1698, where His Majesty authorizes and instructs him regarding his first voyage there with the Badine and the

Marin, precise statements are made of the king’s favor toward d’Iberville. For example,

Les services que le sieur d’Iberville a rendus au Roy dans la conqueste du fort de Bourbon en la baye d’Hudson, dans les années 1695 et 1697, de celuy de Pemkuit sur la coste de l’Acadie et des colonies Angloises dans l’isle de Terre-Neuve en 1696, et les autres entreprises et descouvertes, dans lesquelles il a esté employé par les gouverneurs de la Nouvelle-France, et qu’il a exécutées avec succès, ont engagé Sa Majesté à jeter les yeux sur luy pour aller reconnoistre l’emboucheure du fleuve de Mississipi, dont la descouverte a esté tentée jusqu’à présent avec si peux de succès. (72-73)

In the same memoir, we find another direct statement of the king’s favor shining on d’Iberville, reflected by his trust in d’Iberville’s judgment: “[Sa Majesté] ne luy prescrit rien sur sa navigation, estimant àpropos de luy en laisser l’entière disposition par la confiance qu’elle prend en luy” (73). The final sentence of this memoir repeats this familiar theme of d’Iberville having the king’s favor because he was supposedly submitted to doing his will: “Sa Majesté veut bien luy donner cet ordre pour ne luy laisser rien à désirer, mais elle est persuadée qu’il n’en aura pas besoin, et qu’il aura le bonheur de rendre à Sa Majesté le service qu’elle attend de sa capacité, de sa vigilance et de son application” (73).

Indirect statements of the king’s favor toward d’Iberville are also found in

Margry’s opus in a letter from Pontchartrain, the Minister of the Navy. This letter was addressed to Du Guay, who was evidently responsible for the repair of some traversiers

(small boats) that were to be loaded aboard d’Iberville’s ship when the expedition set sail.

Pontchartrain reproved Du Guay because the repairs were not yet completed: “Si ce

37 retardement causoit quelque inconvénient à l’exécution des ordres dont le Sieur d’Iberville a esté chargé, Sa Majesté auroit sujet de s’en prendre à la négligence et au peu d’affection des officiers du port de Rochefort” (83). It is entirely plausible that Du

Guay’s actions were another manifestation of spite directed toward d’Iberville, in the form of delays, attempting to create animosity on the part of the higher authorities toward the Canadian. In any case, there are numerous statements in this large volume of

Margry’s work, both direct and indirect, which clearly demonstrate that d’Iberville enjoyed the king’s favor. As a final observation, there is no evidence to indicate that d’Iberville was out of favor with the king at any time, except after his death.

D’Iberville’s final expedition involved the capture and pillage of the island of

Nevis in the British West Indies in 1706. The last text that we will examine with regard to d’Iberville’s relationship to the court of Louis XIV is his account of this battle.

According to Frégault, d’Iberville was named commander of a squadron of ships, composed of two divisions, one of which was under his own command, and the other commanded by M. le Comte de Chavagnac (Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville 261). The instructions from the Minister of the Navy were clear: d’Iberville was the supreme commander of the entire expedition (Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville 261). Once again, however, a French aristocrat, Chavagnac, took matters into his own hands and ruined d’Iberville’s chances of a brilliantly successful campaign. Chavagnac dropped anchor at

Martinique on February 3, 1706, but d’Iberville didn’t arrive there until March 26

(Mercure galant 253, 281). While waiting for his leader, and without being ordered to do so, Chavagnac tried unsuccessfully to conquer the island of Nevis. Having failed at that

38 attempt, he went on to attack, pillage and burn St. Christopher20 (Frégault, Pierre Le

Moyne D’Iberville 262-3). D’Iberville’s true goal had been to capture Jamaica which could only have been accomplished by surprise. However, after Chavagnac had made a public spectacle of himself, the English were alerted to the presence of the French squadron, and d’Iberville had to settle for conquering Nevis (Frégault, Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville 260, 263). This time, the fault of d’Iberville’s subordinate was not insubordinate rudeness, as it was with Brouillan, but, rather, foolhardiness. In his

“Relation de la prise et capitualtion de l’isle de Nièves,” d’Iberville does not complain about Chavagnac, but simply gives a factual explanation of the series of actions that took place and mentions Chavagnac’s name only as it relates to his participation in the chronology of events. D’Iberville had learned, professionally-speaking, that it is not wise to criticize his co-workers to his boss.

It is without contest that d’Iberville was extremely useful to Louis XIV, unlike the multitude of courtiers who squatted at Versailles. The king did reward the Canadian corsair21 with a series of promotions such as capitaine de frégate and capitaine de vaisseau, knighthood in the Order of St. Louis,22 and naming him as the first governor of

20 St. Christopher is now called St. Kitts.

21 Corsairs were naval captains who waged campaigns against other countries or their colonies based on specific instructions from a legitimate government. Pirates et Flibustiers by Deschamps defines a corsair as « entrepreneurs de guerre accrédités par les États, notables commerçants en prises, héros nationaux décorés, voire statufiés…» (6).

22 Pour être admis dans l’Ordre de Saint-Louis, il fallait avoir au moins vingt-huit ans de service militaire comme officier ou s’être distingué par quelque action d’éclat, faire le serment de vivre et de mourir dans la religion catholique, d’être fidèle au roi et de lui obéir. […] Le futur chevalier se mettait à genoux, découvert et les mains jointes, devant le gouverneur qui restait debout et couvert et répétait la formule de serment lu par le gouverneur. Le serment prêté, le gouverneur tirait son épée du fourreau et en donnait au récipiendaire un coup de plat sur chaque épaule. Il l’embrassait ensuite en lui disant : “Au nom de Sa Majesté et suivant le 39 the Louisiana colony. Despite being disdained by the French upper class for his

Canadian heritage, he preferred living in France rather than in Canada, which he demonstrated by moving to La Rochelle. He moved because he received his orders—and his glory—more often from France than from his homeland. Plainly, there was no glory in fathering a child out of wedlock in Quebec. Nevertheless, following is an excerpt from

Pontchartrain’s letter of July 6, 1701, to d’Iberville: “J’ay esté surpris de voir par la date de vostre lettre que vous soyez à La Rochelle. Ce n’est pas là le séjour des officiers de la

Marine. L’intention de Sa Majesté est que vous demeuriez à Rochefort, comme les autres officiers du département” (Margry 481). This letter provides evidence that d’Iberville was more comfortable around the workers in the naval shipyards than he was in the company of French officers. Undoubtedly, he preferred to be nearer to the day-to-day activities at La Rochelle so as to better supervise the preparations for his expeditions. In the final analysis, d’Iberville appeared to be totally submitted to playing Louis XIV’s game of competition with other aristocrats for the king’s favor. Even so, because he sometimes brushed aside clear royal instructions, as we shall see later, his relationship to the court was ambiguous.

D’Iberville’s Representation as an honnête homme

An important feature of the manner in which the Absolute Monarchy functioned was l’honnêteté. Therefore, the purpose of the analysis in this segment is to determine whether or not d’Iberville could have been considered an honnête homme by the court, by the Canadians, and by himself. According to the 1694 Dictionnaire de l’Académie pouvoir qu’elle m’en a donné, de par saint Louis, je vous fais chevalier.” Puis il lui remettait la croix de l’Ordre et le ruban couleur de feu (Roy, Les Petites choses de notre histoire 1: 213-215). 40 française, the word l’honnesteté was characterized by the following qualities: bienséance, civilité, manière d’agir obligeante & officieuse, chasteté, pudeur, modestie, etc. (570). In addition, many seventeenth century writers wrote about l’honnêteté.

Several important authors who contributed to defining and describing this concept were

Faret, Grenaille, Guez de Balzac, and Mademoiselle de Scudéry (L’Honnête homme et les sociabilités). Authors as diverse as Pascal in his Pensées, La Rochefoucauld in his

Maximes, and Molière during a conversation between Orgon and Cléante in his Tartuffe, all either wrote directly about l’honnêteté or referred to it (L’Honnête homme et les sociabilités). Each author perceived the concept slightly differently and, therefore, each one approached it from a unique viewpoint in his/her writings. Accordingly, we find the following statement to be accurate: “Le problème que l’on trouve, c’est qu’il est impossible de donner une définition de l’honnêteté – c’est-à-dire qu’elle a une caractéristique flexible” (Définition de l’honnêteté).

Nevertheless, one of the most complete attempts to define and describe l’honnêteté comes from the pen of the Chevalier de Méré, a seventeenth century aristocrat. Therefore, we will compare Méré’s description of an honnête homme with descriptions of d’Iberville’s character in his writings and in others’ writings about him, searching for a social profile of the characteristic traits of an honnête homme in d’Iberville’s life. In his Discours premier, De la vraïe Honnêteté, Méré clearly states that

French society of that era had given the concept a newer and broader meaning: “Il est vrai, que nous lui donnons un nouveau sens, et d’une plus grande étenduë;” (3: 69). Méré continues his observations about l’honnêteté as he explains, “les Latins ni les Grecs n’avoient point de terme propre pour signifier ce que nous entendons par le mot

41 d’honnête-homme. Les Italiens non plus, ni les Espagnols ; les Anglois ni les Allemans, que je sache, n’en ont point” (3: 69).23 Méré then suggests that one of the reasons for the uniqueness of the word and for its absence in other languages is that “la Cour de

France est la plus grande et la plus belle, qui nous soit connuë” (69). Logically, we observe logically that Méré considered himself to be an honnête homme in order to be properly qualified to define the term and its characteristics. Yet La Rochefoucauld makes the following assertion in maxim 203: “Le vrai honnête homme est celui qui ne se pique de rien” (430). Therefore, in comparing Méré’s boasting about Louis XIV’s court with

La Rochefoucauld’s maxim, we understand perfectly the slipperiness of the term as highlighted above by the Définition de l’honnêteté web page.

Méré’s definition of l’honnêteté is frequently referred to by the following condensed formula: “si quelqu’un me demandoit en quoi consiste l’honnêteté, je dirois que ce n’est autre chose que d’exceller en tout ce qui regarde les agrémens et les bienséances de la vie” (3: 70). He continues by engaging in the classic nature-nurture discussion regarding the origin of l’honnêteté, that is, is one born with it or does one acquire it through the learning process? Méré draws the conclusion that because this quality is so rare, a person is born that way, yet proper training and education enhance and augment what nature began (3: 70). It is characterized by a noble heart and a docile spirit, but one must never actually say that one is an honnête homme for fear of becoming the target of envy (3: 70-1). Furthermore, it would be quite useless simply to imitate an honnête homme’s demeanor or facial expressions because l’honnêteté is “le comble et le

23 However, at the end of this sentence, Boudhors, the editor of this edition of Méré’s essays, inserts the following note: “Il semble que le grec ______, le latin ingenuus, l’anglais gentlemen, l’allemand Ehrenmann, ne désignent rien qui soit essentiellement différent de l’Honnête homme français” (188). 42 couronnement de toutes les vertus” (77), and “la quintessence de toutes les vertus […] parce qu’elle consiste à vivre et à communiquer d’une maniere humaine et raisonnable”

(3: 71-2). Moreover, Méré makes the point several times throughout this entire passage of his Discours that it is not necessary to participate in the activities of Louis XIV’s court in order to be an honnête homme (73-4, 76). Other elements of Méré’s definition of l’honnêteté include:

1. “ pratiquer de bonne grace les manieres” (72) 2. avoir un “ genie qui penetre ce qui se passe de plus secret, qui découvre par un discernement juste et subtil ce que pensent les personnes qu’on entretient” (72) 3. “ faire d’un air agréable ce qui nous est naturel” (74) 4. “pratiquer ce qui plaît aux esprits bien tournez” (75) 5. “il sied bien d’être vertueux et de s’en cacher” (78) 6. “ pouvoir répondre, sans se tromper, qu’en toute sorte d’occasions ils feront ce qui dépend du cœur et de l’esprit pour en sortir à leur honneur” (89) 7. “la devotion [religieuse] et l’honnêteté vont presque les mêmes voies, et qu’elles s’aident l’une à l’autre. La dévotion rend l’honnêteté plus solide et plus digne de confiance ; et l’honnêteté comble la devotion de bon-air et d’agrément” (101)

It is difficult to cull from such a broad description the most salient elements that characterize l’honnêteté in order to search for evidence that d’Iberville exhibited its characteristics. However, in few words, we believe that we may reasonably assert that l’honnêteté boils down to common sense, integrity,24 the sincere desire to please others, and an engaging personality.

D’Iberville’s charisma and dynamic personality are easily recognizable. He was perhaps born that way, but these qualities were most likely developed and polished by imitating his father Charles, who demonstrated that he also was extremely valuable because of his service to the fledgling colony. Therefore, this aspect of d’Iberville’s

24 Although in the twenty-first century such concepts as “integrity” are relative, they were idealized as fixed values in the 17th century. 43 character does follow one of Méré’s criteria for being an honnête homme (3: 70). Due to his charisma and dynamism, we assume that d’Iberville functioned just as smoothly among his fighting men as he did among the French courtiers at Versailles, having no evidence to the contrary. His campaign in Acadia and Newfoundland is another example of this—his fighting men were a mix of coureurs de bois and French soldiers. The

Canadian mercenaries seem to have been so devoted to him that he had what could be termed “a cult-like following.” They refused to fight under the leadership of anyone other than d’Iberville, as already mentioned above (Beaudouin 43). Furthermore, his last campaign on Nevis, an important sugar cane island in the British Antilles, was conducted with an even broader mix of troops that included French soldiers, Canadians, volunteers from Martinique and Guadeloupe, and 1,100 Caribbean flibustiers (Mercure galant 285).

Near the end of his Relation about Nevis, d’Iberville comments on each group as follows:

Je ne puis me dispenser de parler de la justice que je dois aux Officiers & aux troupes que j’avois l’honneur de commander. J’ay connu dans cette occasion que j’estois en estat de pouvoir entreprendre toute autre chose ; il est fâcheux que le temps & sa situation ne me le permettent pas.25 Je ne prêtens point ici faire l’éloge de chaque Officier ; mais je diray en general, qu’on ne peut voir plus de conduite , plus de bravoure & de fermeté, s’estant mesme étenduë jusque sur les Soldats. Je puis joindre la Compagnie des Volontaires Canadiens, commandez par Mr de Mousseau , qui en ont donné des marques essentielles ; comme aussi celle des Volontaires de la Martinique & de la Guadeloupe , commandez par Mr de Bragelonne . Les Flibustiers, commandez par Mr. de Moviere, ont aussi donné des marques de leur bravoure ; je n’ay trouvé à redire dans leur maniere de faire la guerre, que le peu d’ordre qui y est établi. (310-11)

D’Iberville’s compliments demonstrate not only his engaging personality but also his common sense. He won the loyalty of his troops by giving credit where credit is due and

25 This is a veiled reference to his missed opportunity to capture larger islands due to Chavagnac’s thoughtless indiscretion. 44 by praising them for a job well done. Common sense dictates that nobody wants to work for a person who can only say negative things about his/her subordinates.

An important source of evidence about d’Iberville’s honnêteté is found in what others say about him. For example, Giraud reports that the intendant Michel “Bégon describes the two brothers [D’Iberville and Sérigny] as enjoying great popularity in the regions of La Rochelle. ‘They are,’ he said, ‘implicitly honest, very peaceable people, who make themselves liked by everybody’” (107-08). Furthermore, in a letter to

Pontchartrain, Governor Ducasse of San Domingue writes the following, “Je crois M. d’Iberville un très honneste homme et bien intentionné pour le service du Roy…”

(Margry 295-96). Remarkably, Ducasse makes this observation in the context of a letter in which he contradicts d’Iberville and urges Pontchartrain to ignore d’Iberville’s viewpoint regarding the colonization of Louisiana. These are only two of many positive comments written about d’Iberville. Therefore, d’Iberville’s contemporaries considered him to have the essential characteristics of l’honnêteté.

Regarding d’Iberville’s integrity, there is some controversy in the literature regarding his ruthlessness during his campaigns. Critics often point to one case in particular, that of his participation in the attack on Schenectady in February, 1690. We could also add his mid-winter campaign on Newfoundland. In both of these examples, civilians either died or were left in the bitter cold to fend for themselves, with their own meager or nonexistent resources, to find food and shelter. On the other hand, the

Canadians conducted the raid on Schnectady for the expressed purpose of retaliating for the 1699 Lachine massacre of 200 Canadian men, women and children by the Iroquois.

Therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude that the French Canadians felt justified in

45 attacking Schenectady. Furthermore, d’Iberville did show clemency on many occasions although at times, this mercy was tempered by his having a double motive. For example, during his first expedition to Louisiana, he took aboard three métis créoles who had deserted from the Spanish settlement at Pensacola in search of food since most of the inhabitants there were dying of la misère. D’Iberville wrote to Pontchartrain in 1699,

Je les ay traitez le mieux que j’ai pu, afin qu’ils puissent se louer des François dans leur pays, qui sera facile à aller piller dans la guerre. Si vous permettez, Monseigneur, que ces gens s’en aillent par l’Espagne, ils auroient besoin de quelques pistoles par charité pour leur conduite” (Margry 126).

D’Iberville was certainly an opportunist in this case, knowing that his clemency would serve to enhance France’s esteem in Spain’s eyes in the long run. But was his mercy invalidated by an ulterior motive? We think not.

Another indication of d’Iberville’s integrity relates to whether or not he did what he said he would do. For example, d’Iberville did keep his word during the attack on

Fort Pemaquid. He writes in a letter to Ponchartrain after the capitulation of the fort, “je fis travailler à la démolition du fort, après avoir fait distribuer aux sauvages les vieilles hardes qui s’y trouvaient, les fusils de service, poudre et plomb, comme je leur avais promis, me l’ayant demandé avant la prise du fort, me faisant connaître que plusieurs de leurs gens étaient mal armés” (Les Normands au Canada 76). D’Iberville had promised to give these supplies to the Amerindians, and he did so.

On the other hand, corsairs like d’Iberville were notoriously corrupt, not only judging by today’s standards, but also judging by the standards of their own era.26 Giraud informs us that after having reached its apogee under Colbert, the strength of the French navy was in decline at the beginning of the eighteenth century: “The available ships were

26 All of the page references in this paragraph and the next are taken from Giraud. 46 often in bad repair and unfit for long journeys, especially during wartime…” (109).

Because of the War of Spanish Succession (1702 – 1713), France had to send supply and merchant ships to her colonies in convoys for safety’s sake (109). Furthermore, these ships were ordered to return to Europe immediately since they were needed by the French navy (109). Captains, officers, and the port administrators padded their own wallets whenever possible. Delays, rotten food supplies, spoiled clothing due to poor packing, and especially theft were common occurrences (111). However, Giraud continues: “Yet these negligences were only minor manifestations of the decline of conscience which was seen among the naval officers” (111). D’Iberville’s illegal trafficking during his last campaign against Nevis impacted his widow, his heirs, his brothers, his officers and crew, and everyone else who had participated in the campaign. The scandal became so public, that, finally, Pontchartrain ordered an official governmental investigation (112).

D’Iberville was found to be implicated in the three counts of indictment set out by the inquest: first, on the sale of the items acquired by capture and of the booty gathered in the course of the campaign; second, on the profits made from trading merchandise exported in spite of the king’s ordinances; and third, on the fraud which had preceded the sailings (112-14).

An entire web of deceit and fraud had been spun; Chavagnac, too, was complicit in the scheme. Pontchartrain reprimanded him “for involving himself in a ‘commerce unworthy of a man of noble birth’ in the hope of ‘sordid gain…’” (Giraud 122).

D’Iberville’s widow, both before and after her remarriage to the Count de Béthune, was also involved in some shifty dealing in order to profit from her late husband’s unscrupulous schemes. Giraud sums up quite tidily the entire situation by stating,

47 These events demonstrated the ease with which almost the entire personnel of a squadron could become involved in fraudulent transactions. They illustrated the slowness of the judicial process and attested to the real weakness of the monarchy by pointing up its inability to enforce obedience to its ordinances, to obtain genuine evidence, and to act with the decisiveness that the circumstances required. […] Pontchartrain no longer believed in d’Iberville’s honesty: he denounced his conduct as being full of “misery” and “disorder” (“not to say anything worse”). (Giraud 122-23)

Evidently, Louis XIV and his advisers were not amused. Nevertheless, we must not forget that corsairs were expected to finance their own expeditions, if they were able, and to claim the booty as wages for themselves and for their crews, since the Sun King felt disposed to spend his meager financial resources on European wars and his opulent lifestyle. We can certainly postulate that at least some fraud was overlooked by the government and that there was a certain amount of tolerance for conduct that did not match the classical ideal of l’honnêteté. However, it appears that our Canadian naval captain went overboard by exceeding too far the legal framework that he knew very well governed his activities. His scandalous conduct was apparently so excessive and so public that it could no longer be kept hidden; the favor of the Court no longer protected him from legal scrutiny. Nevertheless, Louis XIV profited greatly from d’Iberville, both during his lifetime as well as after his passing: a dead man can’t defend himself.

In conclusion, the question remains to be answered: Did d’Iberville’s shady deals prevent him from being ranked by French society among les honnête hommes? After evaluating his multiple activities, the answer is ambiguous, unless he was automatically eliminated from this prestigious category by his being Canadian. Perhaps he was virtuous; if so, he did an excellent job of hiding it.27 Nevertheless, l’honnêteté has virtually nothing to do with honesty, in the modern sense of the word, but, rather, it has

27 See number five in Méré’s list of characteristics of l’honnêteté on page 43. 48 everything to do with appearing to be pleasant, agreeable, articulate, engaging, sensible, unassuming and, finally, having integrity. By disobeying the court’s instructions for the benefit of his personal gain, d’Iberville seemed to be less like a corsair and more like a flibustier in gentlemen’s clothing who smelled nice. The evidence for or against d’Iberville’s honnêté is inconclusive; his character is simply too complex to make a definitive determination.

D’Iberville’s Participation in la galanterie

La galanterie was another important feature associated with the salons of the early and mid-seventeenth century, as well as the absolute monarchy’s court during the age of classicism. La galanterie is similar to l’honnêteté; it is often difficult to distinguish between the two. Méré, who gave us the most commonly agreed upon definition of l’honnêteté, also wrote about the distinction between that and la galanterie:

…un galant homme est plus de tout dans la vie ordinaire, et qu’on trouve en luy de certains agrémens, qu’un honnête homme n’a pas toûjours ; mais un honneste homme en a de bien profonds, quoi qu’il s’empresse moins dans le monde. […] Aussi n’est-on jamais galant homme sans avoir un bon cœur, et bien de l’esprit. Cette vraie galanterie se remarque en cela principalement, qu’elle sçait donner une veuë agréable à des choses fâcheuses. […] …un galant homme n’est autre chose qu’un honneste homme un peu plus brillant ou plus enjoüé qu’à son ordinaire, et qui sçait faire ensorte que tout luy sied bien (1: 18-20).

To paraphrase Méré, a galant homme may have more pleasing social skills, but those of an honnête homme run deeper. A galant homme also has the ability to cast unpleasant things in a pleasant light, and to do so cheerfully. However, it was Madeleine de Scudéry who elaborated a more profound understanding of the concept in her well- known treatise, “De l’air galant,” which first appeared in Artamène ou Le Grand Cyrus

49 in 1653 (43). According to Denis, the editor of Scudéry’s text, although centered upon

“l’agrément et l’art de plaire, faisant de l’enjouement l’un de ses principaux modes d’expression, et le rapport à soi,” la galanterie was not only a primary representation of the seventeenth century concept of engaging in amorous relationships, but it also functioned as a vehicle for creating and maintaining civility in human relationships in society as a whole (43, 48). Scudéry attempts to explain one of the main principles of la galanterie by asserting that it is virtually impossible to describe, since its essence is a certain “je ne sais quoi” (51). Other main principles include: 1) the necessity of having loved or having desired to please in order to acquire it, 2) its characterization as a secret charm, and 3) its existence in one’s mind, speech, actions, even in his/her clothes (53).

Finally, regarding being galant while speaking, Scudéry maintains that:

l’air galant de la conversation, consiste principalement à penser les choses d’une manière aisée, et naturelle; à pencher plutôt vers la douceur, et vers l’enjouement, que vers le sérieux, et le brusque: et à parler enfin facilement, et en termes propres sans affectation. Il faut même avoir dans l’esprit je ne sais quoi d’insinuant, et de flatteur, pour séduire l’esprit des autres : et si je pouvais bien exprimer ce que je comprends, je vous ferais avouer que l’on ne saurait être tout à fait aimable, sans avoir l’air galant (53).

Denis claims that la galanterie “en 1653, n’est pas encore entièrement stabilisée, mais semble constituer un point de convergence névralgique entre art de vivre et littérature, entre pouvoir et société” (47). Although the salons, where the aristocrats displayed their galanterie, or lack thereof, began to disappear with the establishment of the court of

Louis XIV, la galanterie tended to expand into one of the qualities by which one gained access to the king and, ultimately, his favor. It became a tool used for inclusion in or exclusion from the society of the court. Therefore, the analysis of d’Iberville as a galant homme is not superfluous to his relationship to the absolute monarchy of Louis XIV.

50 There is no evidence in the literature that d’Iberville practiced la galanterie when he was at Versailles. Even if he had done so, according to the strictest definition of the concept of la galanterie, d’Iberville could not have been a galant homme at all times. He was a working man, who, for the most part, earned his favor from the king by his audacious naval exploits. But even at sea, a form of galanterie had its day.28

After d’Iberville’s conquest of Newfoundland during the winter of 1696-97, a fleet of ships arrived in Placentia on May 18 carrying new orders. D’Iberville, commanding the Pelican and four other ships, was to leave at once for Hudson Bay to recapture Port Nelson which had fallen again into the hands of the British. D’Iberville was in command of the entire flotilla. Although they arrived near their destination during the third week in July, a season of suffocating heat and humidity in most of the northern hemisphere, “a northerly gale bore down on them, burying the decks and rigging under a coat of ice” (Crouse 141). Ice floes in Hudson Strait caused a delay in entering the bay as well as much damage to the ships. Only the Pelican had entered Hudson Bay; d’Iberville dropped anchor in a harbor and waited for the rest of the French ships to arrive. Finally, he spotted three ships heading toward him, but they were English ships: the Dering, the

Hudson’s Bay, and the Hampshire. D’Iberville’s Pelican was well-manned and well- armed, but the English ships were more so. In an unbelievable show of either bravery or foolhardiness, the Canadian engaged in battle, one ship against three, and managed to hold his own for three hours. Finally, the captain of the Hampshire decided to bring about the final outcome of the battle. He headed directly for the Pelican, but then he stopped. Crouse describes the next scene as follows:

28 The following account of the naval battle is summarized from Crouse, pp. 140 – 148. 51 At this point there took place a curious incident that seems somewhat ludicrous to us today, though it was not entirely out of place in the naval etiquette of those times. As the two ships drew together Captain Fletcher called on Iberville to strike his colors, a command which he, of course, refused to obey. In admiration of his foe’s courage the Englishman then took a glass of wine and drank his health, at the same time inviting him to dine on board the Hampshire at the end of the battle, if he should survive. Iberville replied in kind, drinking a toast to his gallant enemy.29 (145)

Then the English captain sent a massive volley that seriously damaged the Pelican’s rigging. In return, d’Iberville “let loose from his battery a terrific broadside into her [the

Hampshire’s] hull close to the water line. […] The Hampshire broached to, water poured into her hold, and before she had gone three lengths she sank into the Bay carrying the gallant Fletcher with her” (146). Although this incident was standard practice for the protocol of military etiquette, it also demonstrates the “je ne sais quoi” of d’Iberville’s

“galanterie,” as well as that of the English captain. Both men put on the front of being at ease, using sweetness and playfulness in an attempt to seduce the mind of the other.

There is no doubt, given the fact the d’Iberville sank the English ship, that he is the captain “qui sçait faire ensorte que tout luy sied bien” (Méré 1: 20). There is also no doubt that this exploit gave d’Iberville access to the king. Although it was the exploit itself that provided d’Iberville with increased access to Louis XIV, its basis was a form of galanterie, one that could graciously toast the enemy while at the same time plotting the best way to eliminate him. Who can deny that the identical process took place on a regular basis among the courtiers at Versailles?

Other examples of d’Iberville’s galanterie took place at other times and places, in different ways and under different circumstances. To be specific, the literature written by

29 Crouse’s footnote here states that the information is taken from the deposition of two English witnesses. 52 and about d’Iberville mentions many instances where he took part in Amerindian rituals.

For example, during his second voyage to Louisiana, he came in contact with

Amerindians from different tribes in the region. The following quotation describes the manner in which d’Iberville participated in native rituals:

A week later […] they came with the chiefs of several villages and sang their calumet30 of peace, as all the nations do with people whom they have not seen before, but with whom they wish friendship and peace. […] The chiefs of these savages […] came ceremoniously into our fort, singing the while, to present the calumet to M. d’Hyberville, our commander, who did indeed draw some puffs on that calumet after the manner of the savages. Then, as a mark of honor, they rubbed white dirt over the faces of M. d’Hyberville, his brothers, and several other officers. The feast of the calumet lasted three days, during which the savages sang and danced three times a day. On the third day they sank a stake in the clearing in front of our fort and danced around it after they had gone for M. d’Hyberville in the following ceremonious manner: a savage offered his back to M. d’Hyberville, who mounted on the savage’s shoulders while another savage held both his feet; thus they carried him to the clearing about the stake, keeping in cadence to the sound of the chichicois, which are calabashes as big as one’s two fists, filled with small pebbles, and which, when shaken, make a rather mean little noise. […] When they had thus arrived before the stake, they laid M. d’Hyberville on the ground upon a deer skin, and made him sit on it; and one of their chiefs, placed behind him, put his hands on M. d’Hyberville’s shoulders and rocked him as if he had been an infant needing sleep (Pénicaut 5-6).

In the preceeding quotation, one might ask, Who was in whose court? One may safely assume that d’Iberville believed that he was acting on behalf of Louis XIV to create positive relationships with the Amerindians in order to bring the inhabitants of the colony-to-be into subjection to the fatherland, and, thereby, he would find favor in his king’s eyes. He was indeed using a secret charm, a certain galanterie, to please the

Amerindians in order to create and maintain civility in human relationships and in society as a whole. Although the concept of la galanterie pertains to a set time in history and to a specific society, is it not possible, by extension, to draw a parallel between it and the

30 A calumet is a peace pipe. 53 actions in the preceeding quotation since d’Iberville lived during that set time in history and was a representative of that same specific society, which is the court of Louis XIV?

On the other hand, during the events of the above quotation, d’Iberville was also in the “court” of the Amerindians, and, by their “galanterie,” he was being initiated into their society in order to find inclusion in the native court and favor with their chiefs. The mutual respect that was established by pleasing each other through this extension of galanterie was fundamental to the relationship between the French and the Amerindians from which both sides benefited, at least at first. After being initiated into Amerindian society, the French participated in their economic system as well, and not all of the items that were used in trade by the French to the Amerindians were “baubles.” Many were extremely useful and were highly desired by the Amerindians such as metal cauldrons, axes, hatchets, knives and rifles. These objects simplified the Amerindian way of life made their work easier, as Havard affirms, “les objets servent en effet à améliorer matériellement le quotidien” (565). Amerindian women, whose responsibility it was to make clothing, were especially attracted to European clothing as the most coveted objects of trade because, “Il est possible que leur charge de travail ait été globalement réduite

(Havard 569). However, along with the good came the bad: Amerindian society was restructured by their relationship with the Europeans. According to Havard, France’s colonial strategy

consiste à placer les autochtones dans une position de dépendance. Pour transformer les Amérindiens en alliés indéfectibles, il faut en faire des clients—au double sens du terme—c’est-à-dire devenir leur indispensable partenaire. C’est […] le prélude à la dépendance, car, pour contrôler les alliés, il faut s’ériger en régulateur de l’échange (566).

54 D’Iberville’s Mémoire sur l’établissement de la Mobile et du Mississipi of 1702 verifies

Havard’s assertion: “On ordonnera aux Sauvages d’en faire tel nombre que l’on voudra, de beau castor, tant de gras et tant de sec. Ce sera accoustumer ces Sauvages à la dépendance et à faire ce que l’on voudra” (Margry 590). Other European scourges that contributed to the Amerindians’ misery and/or extermination were epidemics and alcoholism, to name only two. The final result, of course, was the Amerindians’ ultimate assimilation and/or domination by the Europeans. This phenomenon was another microcosm of the Sun King’s Court. At first, when aristocrats were included in the Court through galanterie, having the king’s favor was beneficial for them. But along with the good came the bad: bankruptcy from gambling and hypocrisy in interpersonal relationships. Louis XIV’s system eventually restructured society, by attempting to reinvent the definition and nature of the nobility; this resulted, from the aristocrats’ inutilité, in their domination by Louis XIV and their assimilation into his court

(Turnovsky FR 653).

In conclusion, d’Iberville did practice la galanterie; but the times, places, and manners of doing so were related only indirectly to the court. As previously stated, there is no evidence from the literature that d’Iberville was considered to be a galant homme by the court at the times that he spoke directly with Louis XIV at Versailles. Once again, his status as a Canadian most likely prevented him from being perceived as meriting this distinction. However, since we maintain that as a universal concept la galanterie may be dissociated from the physical space of the court of the absolute monarchy, its basic elements appear in various manners, times and places in d’Iberville’s short but brilliant career.

55 D’Iberville and l’art de la conversation

Being able to converse well in public was one of the fundamental traits necessary in order to succeed in the court of Louis XIV. It is again to Madeleine de Scudéry to whom we turn for our understanding of the art of conversation during the seventeenth century. Her first text, known as “De la conversation,” appeared in 1653 in Artamène ou

Le Grand Cyrus (Scudéry 61). This text consists of a role play-type conversation between a number of gens de qualité who had assumed the names of several Greek celebrities or gods. The speakers begin by listing examples of subjects of conversations that are not acceptable in polite society. Some examples of these boring or bizarre topics are:

1. Little domestic problems such as housecleaning and child-rearing 2. Clothes: fit, style, colors, sale prices, etc., which is viewed as low-class talk 3. Women’s love affairs: indiscreet talk about stealing another person’s lover 4. Genealogies and inheritances including property prices 5. Annoying or unfortunate event explained in minute detail 6. A conversation without cheerfulness or with too much laughing 7. A list of pitiable, sad stories bemoaning life’s troubles 8. Neighborhood gossip 9. A deep, dark secret that turns out to be foolishness 10. Political or historical events, sieges, battles with all the gory details (Scudéry, 68-71).

According to Scudéry’s text, the first quality of an acceptable conversation is that it be

“conduite par le jugement,” insisting that any topic in the above list can be the subject of a conversation as long as it is related properly—it all depends on the circumstances (72).

She continues, “La règle principale, reprit Sapho, est de ne dire jamais rien qui choque le jugement” (72). An appropriate conversation “doit être plus souvent de choses ordinaires, et galantes, que de grandes choses, […] libre, et diversifiée selon les temps, les lieux, et les personnes avec qui l’on est: et que le grand secret est de parler toujours

56 noblement des choses basses […] sans affectation (72). “Il faut qu’il y ait un certain esprit de politesse, qui en bannisse absolument toutes les railleries aigres […], qu’on sache si bien l’art de détourner les choses” (73-4). It’s quite simply a question of saying what is “agréable,” “galant,” “judicieux,” using “l’art de plaire, de charmer, et de divertir” (74).

There is no written record of d’Iberville’s conversations at Versailles. There exist only letters that relate the subjects that were discussed. However, on a general basis, we may assume that d’Iberville was a quite persuasive man due in part to his shrewdness and his dynamic achievements, but also due to his ability to articulate convincingly the thoughts and intents of his mind. The unpleasant circumstances of Mlle de Belestre’s condition are a sad testimony to this facet of his character. More agreable evidence of his verbal talents can be found in the seemingly undying devotion of the Canadian mercenaries who followed him by land and by sea on his military expeditions. We may only assume that he showed concern for them and encouraged them as often as he was able. Despite a lack of evidence, it seems unreasonable to deny that d’Iberville possessed the skills to speak what is “agréable,” “galant,” “judicieux,” using “l’art de plaire, de charmer, et de divertir” (Scudéry 74).

On the other hand, d’Iberville used a form of conversation to gain control over the enemy in battle that Scudéry would consider shocking according to her definition: psychological warfare through verbal intimidation (Frégault, Iberville, le conquérant

119). In fact, d’Iberville’s use of words, in this case, was the exact opposite of l’art de la conversation. Undoubtedly, he inherited or learned this ability from his father.

According to Jodoin and Vincent, Charles Le Moyne was hunting in July 1665 when he

57 was surprised by the Iroquois and taken prisoner, “car les Iroquois le détestaient cordialement” (32). All of Montreal grieved and mourned for him, knowing his immense value to the village as an interpreter and also knowing the Iroquois customs of torturing, killing and eating their prisoners. But Charles’ wit and his verbal skill saved him. He is purported to have said, “Tu peux me faire mourir, mais ma mort sera vigoureusement vengée; je t’ai souvent menacé qu’il viendrait ici quantité de soldats français, lesquels iraient chez toi brûler tes villages ; ils arrivent maintenant à Québec, j’en ai des nouvelles

‘assurées’” (Jodoin and Vincent 32-3). Apparently intimidated, terrified, and awe- struck, the Iroquois released him without harming him (Jodoin and Vincent 31-3).

One brilliant example of d’Iberville’s use of this verbal tactic occurred during his siege of the fort at Pemaquid. To summarize Beaudouin, d’Iberville demanded upon arriving there that the English surrender. They refused, of course. The Canadian forces got a good night’s sleep, and then he demanded again the next morning that the British surrender. Another refusal was followed by an exchange of musket and canon fire (35).

Finally, d’Iberville sent a spokesperson who

alla encore sommer et leur conseiller de se rendre: sans quoi ils couraient risque de leur vie, les sauvages estant enragés contre eux de ce qu’ils avaient tué et mis aux fers de leurs confrères dans un pourparler. Aussi les sauvages ne voulaient pas qu’on sommât le fort, espérant de se venger. Les ennemis se rendirent sur les cinq heures du soir, à condition qu’on les mettrait en sûreté des sauvages, qu’on les mettrait à la première coste anglaise : ce qu’on leur accorda. (Beaudouin 35)

The English were well aware that they would be the objects of torture and banqueting if they fell into Amerindian hands. There is ample evidence to support the claim that d’Iberville was a master military strategist and that one of his best tactics was terrorizing the enemy through verbal threats.

58 In addition to Scudéry’s exposition of what constitutes a good conversation, we must also examine d’Iberville’s speech for the seventeenth century phenomenon of la préciosité, a precise vocabulary that was often used in seventeenth century speech as a form of civility in the salons and in the court of Louis XIV. Somaize’s Dictionnaire des précieuses relates an excellent explanation of the phenomenon and provides a list of common words with their translation into précieux words (xxxvii-lxiii). It also lists the names of those who frequented the salons and who used this affected vocabulary. The purpose of la préciosité was to demonstrate a refinement of taste based upon delicacy, modesty and an elegance of manners (Turnovsky FR 652). The artificial nature of la préciosité was obvious to all, but being able to use the jargon of the in-group heightened the user’s status in the estimation of his/her peers. La préciosité was another tool used during the seventeenth century to determine inclusion in or exclusion from the elite society of the day. We have found no evidence in d’Iberville’s writings that he used la préciosité in his speech in an attempt to impress the court. This does not mean, of course, that he did not use this specialized vocabulary; there is simply nothing in his writings or in others’ writings about him that indicates his use of préciosité.

D’Iberville and le libertinage

The concept of libertinage experienced a transformation from the seventeenth to the eighteenth century. Earlier, the term was used to refer primarily to those people who questioned the authority of the Bible and of the Catholic Church, such as Pierre Bayle

(1647-1706). The Dictionnaire de L’Académie française, First Edition (1694) defines the

French word libertin(e) as follows:

59 Qui prend trop de liberté & ne se rend pas assidu à son devoir… Il signifie aussi, Licencieux, dans les choses de la Religion, soit en faisant profession de ne pas croire ce qu’il faut croire, soit en condamnant les coustumes pieuses, ou en n’observant pas les commandemens de Dieu, de l’Eglise, de ses superieurs. Et en ce sens il ne s’employe guere qu’au substantif. (645)

Yet the definition of the word libertinage in the same dictionary, same edition, casts a somewhat different light on our understanding of the concept: “L’estat d’une personne qui tesmoigne peu de respect pour les choses de la Religion … Il se prend quelquefois pour Debauche & mauvaise conduite” (645). An illustration of this secondary meaning is found in a note added to a copy made for Pontchartrain of d’Iberville’s memoir on the necessity of French occupation of the land between the English on the east coast, and the

Spanish in Florida and Mexico. In this 1701 memoir, D’Iberville mentions “Coureurs de bois de Canada” to which the note refers:

Ce sont les restes de ces libertins, contre lesquels on crie depuis si longtemps. On pourroit les arrester, en les establissant sur le Mississipi ou sur les rivières qui y tombent, en leur permettant mesme de se marier avec les Sauvagesses qui se feront chrestiennes. Si on les effarouche, ils pourront prendre party avec les Anglois, et ce sont gens qui, estant bien menés, sont capables de tout entreprendre. (Margry 550)

Although the word was more commonly used in its anti-religious sense, the previous quotation illustrates that by 1701, the connotation of immorality was already firmly affixed to the word, since it is unlikely that the note’s author was referring to the coureurs de bois as being irreligious. Simply stated, the meaning of the word libertinage in 1694 includes both an intellectual repudiation of commonly accepted religious beliefs as well as inappropriate moral conduct that transgressed the social mores of the time.

During the eighteenth century, however, the primary meaning of the term changed to the

60 sense of inappropriate moral conduct. The 1762 version of the Dictionnaire de l’Académie française (Fourth Edition) contains the following definitions:

libertin(e) – (substantif) Qui fait une espèce de profession de ne point s’assujettir aux Loix de la Religion, soit pour la croyance, soit pour la pratique. […] (adjectif) Qui aime trop sa liberté & l’indépendance, qui se dispense aisément de ses devoirs, qui hait toute sorte de sujétion & de contrainte. On dit d’Une personne qui hait toute sorte de sujétion, de contrainte, […] Et d’Une personne qui a une conduite déréglée… libertinage – Débauche & mauvaise conduite. […] Il signifie aussi L’état d’une personne qui témoigne peu de respect pour les choses de la Religion. […] Il s’emploie aussi quelquefois sans aucun rapport à la religion ni aux mœurs; mais pour signifier une inconstance, une légèreté dans le caractère, qui fait qu’on ne s’assujettit à aucune règle, à aucune méthode. (33)

Key examples of literary characters who illustrate the 1762 definition of libertinage are

Manon and Des Grieux in Prévost’s Manon Lescaut of 1734.

In light of these definitions, we propose to analyze d’Iberville’s words and actions for evidence of libertinage in his life. One obvious example is his seduction and impregnation of Mlle de Belestre. When d’Iberville returned to Quebec on October 31,

1687, from his first campaign to Hudson Bay, within one week he was sent to bear the good tidings of the campaign’s success to Louis XIV (Crouse 41). D’Iberville had gained a moment of much-coveted access to the king. At the same time, d’Iberville had managed to elude being thrown into prison because of the paternity suit that had been filed in May 1686 by Jacques Maleray, Sieur de La Mollerie on behalf of his sister-in- law, Mlle de Belestre (Quesnel 1). The lawsuit had been shelved in 1686 since d’Iberville was absent, having already left for Hudson Bay. However, La Mollerie filed new papers on November 6, 1687. It was Governor Denonville himself wrote the following order that same day:

61 SUR CE QUI A ETE REMONTRE par Monsieur le Marquis de Denonville Gouverneur et Lieutenant Général pour le Roi en ce pays, qu’il est nécessaire que le Sieur D’Iberville passe en France, pour aller rendre compte à sa Majesté des affaires de la Baie du Nort d’où il est de retour depuis peu. LE CONSEIL A Ordonné et Ordonne que le dit Sieur D’Iberville poura passer en France, à la charge de constituer un Procureur, et d’être de retour dans l’arrivée des vaisseaux de l’année prochaine, dont il fera ses soumissions, et que cependant il sera procédé aux informations à faire, sur les cas a lui imposez par le Sieur de la Molerie./. (Quesnel 4)

When d’Iberville returned from France to Quebec in June 1688 on the Soleil d’Afrique for the Company of the North, La Mollerie tried again to force d’Iberville to have his day in court. However, the following is quoted from a legal brief filed on d’Iberville’s behalf on June 21, 1688:

…qu’il est chargé par mon dit Sieur le Gouverneur de représenter de la part du Roi qu’il est du service de sa Majesté et d’un tres gros intérêt pour la Colonie que le dit Sieur D’Iberville ne soit pas empêché d’exécuter les ordres qu’il lui a donnez pour le voyage du Nort, et de requérir en son nom pour le service de sa Majesté, que le dit Sieur D’Iberville ne soit inquiété en rien du tout, laissant suffisamment du bien pour l’évenement du procès en question,… LE CONSEIL […] A permis et permet au dit Sieur D’Iberville de faire le voyage de la Baie du Nort, en élizant domicile en cette ville et établissant Procureur, a la charge de se représenter au retour du dit voyage…(Quesnel 8)

We wish to highlight the statement in the preceding quotation “que le dit Sieur

D’Iberville ne soit inquiété en rien du tout,” noting specifically that the “du tout” gives added emphasis to this command. Evidently, there was no concern whatsoever that Mlle de Belestre should have anything to worry about.

As previously stated, one of d’Iberville’s nicknames was “le Cid Canadien.”

Ironically, we find echoes of Corneille’s Le Cid in this unsavory episode of d’Iberville’s life. In the play, King Fernand refuses to execute Rodrigue for killing Chimène’s father because of his heroic valor and his intrinsic value to the kingdom during his military exploits, just as Governor Denonville helped d’Iberville to escape justice, because of his

62 recent participation in the brilliant conquest of Hudson Bay, claiming that his services were needed by the king in France (Corneille 88). In Corneille’s play, Rodrigue honorably offered to die for the murder of Chimène’s father, his future father-in-law, whereas, in contrast, d’Iberville dishonorably refused to fulfill his promise of marriage to

Mlle de Belestre (Corneille 66). He used the following standard rationalization: “pour sa justification à faire informer de la mauvaise conduite de la dite Picotté” (Quesnel 7).

D’Iberville’s attorney continued this line of defense, “protestant que la dite accusation est fausse, sauf respect, calomnieuse et tendante a perdre l’honneur et la réputation du dit

D’Iberville [et] qu’il ne s’agit pas d’une affaire criminelle….” (Quesnel 10). Mlle de

Belestre had charged d’Iberville with kidnapping her, which is indeed a criminal act, before the seduction. Evidently, the charge of kidnapping could not be proved. In the end, d’Iberville was found guilty and sentenced as follows:

…à prendre l’enfant duquel la dite Jeanne Geneviève Picottéde Belestre est accouchée, Et Icelui faire nourir, Entretenir Et Elever En la Crainte de Dieu jusques à ce qu’il ait atteint l’age de quinze ans, où soit autrement pourvu. Laissant à la Mère la liberté de voir son dit Enfant lorsqu’elle le désirera,… (Quesnel 17)

D’Iberville simply did not act honorably in this matter according to the mores of his day.

On the other hand, in Corneille’s Le Cid, the characters are “great” men and women, with noble souls, desiring to live their lives gloriously and honorably. At the end of the last act, King Fernand decrees that Rodrigue must marry Chimène after one year, giving her time to recover from grieving and mourning for her father (Corneille 110).

This was not the case with d’Iberville. As Crouse observes so keenly, “At any rate, he did not have to marry the girl” (43). It was Rodrigue’s value to King Fernand and to his country that determined his future. The same was true for d’Iberville. He had become so

63 valuable to the king that the court provided him with the plausible excuse of participating in military campaigns to put time and distance between himself and this nasty, immoral incident.

Both d’Iberville’s debauchery with Mlle de Belestre and his scofflaw attitude fit the 1694 definition of libertin. There is nothing in the literature to indicate whether or not the legal judgment against d’Iberville ever bothered his conscience. To the court in

France, the child born as a result of this incident would undoubtedly be considered as just another fils naturel, whereas in Quebec, a stricter moral code prevailed. Nevertheless, what is important here is the observation that d’Iberville’s relationship to the court was of paramount importance. He had gained not only access to Louis XIV, but he had also gained his favor—the favor of being sent on military campaigns, which conveniently enabled him to sweep the problems in his personal life under the rug.

Yet there may be other conditions in d’Iberville’s life which could be termed libertins. For example, could d’Iberville be classified as a pirate? According to

Deschamps, the distinctions between a pirate, forban, boucanier, flibustier and corsaire are sometimes blurry (5-6). To summarize his definitions, pirate and forban have the same meaning: they engage in an armed expedition by sea without previous authorization of a government; in other words, they perform thievery at sea for their own benefit, in complete absence of moral scruples (5-6). A flibustier is a variety of semi- domesticated pirate, who “limitaient leur pillage aux Espagnols ; ils se réclamaient d’une autorisation donnée par leur gouvernement [n’importe lequel …] pour ne pas être traités en pirates (44). There is a distinction between a boucanier and a flibustier: the former survived by hunting wild cattle and wild boars, whereas the flibustiers “étaient de loyaux

64 sujets du roi, tant que le roi respectait leurs intérêts” (45). What follows is a vivid description of the boucaniers by Œxmelin, an engagé in the Antilles turned flibustier, who actually possessed the ability to read and write:

Leur aspect saisissait. « Ils n’avaient pour tout habillement, dit Œxmelin, qu’une petite casaque de toile, et un caleçon qui ne leur venait qu’à la moitié de la cuisse. Il falloit les regarder de près pour savoir si ce vêtement étoit de toile, ou non ; parce qu’il étoit imbu du sang qui dégoute de la chair des animaux qu’ils ont coutume de porter. Outre cela ils étoient bazannés ; quelques uns avoient les cheveux hérissés, d’autres noués ; tous avoient la barbe longue, et portoient à leur ceinture un étui de peau de crocodille, dans lequel étoit quatre couteaux avec une bayonnette. » Leurs fusils à long canon ne manquaient jamais leur coup ; leur distraction favorite était, à cent vingt pas, de mettre une balle dans une piastre ou d’abattre une orange en coupant la queue. Les Espagnols, pour s’en débarrasser, entreprirent d’exterminer les troupeaux sauvages. Ils s’en repentirent car les boucaniers sans emploi se firent flibustiers, et des hommes aussi infaillibles aux armes, habitués à une vie aussi rude, furent les plus coriaces de leurs adversaires ; dans les grandes expéditions on les envoyait en éclairceurs ou on les utilisait pour réduire par leur tir les positions trop fortes. La plupart des flibustiers ne se présentaient guère sous des dehors moins farouches. (Deschamps 40-1)

In contrast, corsaires were

entrepreneurs de guerre accrédités par les États, notables commerçants en prises, héros nationaux décorés, voire statufiés, ils n’ont pas leur place dans notre histoire de brigands. Il n’y a doute sur la qualification, corsaire ou pirate, que lorsque l’autorisation est donnée par un gouvernement pirate. Car il est parfois difficile de qualifier avec certitude un gouvernement. (Deschamps 6)

When one considers d’Iberville’s activities—seizing upon booty, pillaging and burning villages, murdering civilians, and participating in illegal dealings for his own personal enrichment both before and after setting sail—his level of corruption brings him closer to the definition of a flibustier than his admirers would perhaps care to admit.

D’Iberville’s Religious Views

65 It is impossible to peer into another person’s soul. We cannot judge d’Iberville, but based upon his words and actions, we may be able to identify certain elements which seem to indicate his piety or the lack thereof. It appears that d’Iberville participated in

Catholic rituals regularly and willingly. For example, de Troyes reports in his journal that during the siege of Fort Albany, when the French themselves were out of food,

…je leur proposé a tous de faire un voeu a Ste Anne, a quoy aiant consenti, nous recitames les litannies de cette ste, a qui nous promîmes chacun quarent solz pour les reparations de son eglise de la coste de beaupré et d’y apporter le pavillon qui estoit arboré sur un des bastions du fort, la priant, au surplus humblement, de nous estre favorable dans notre entreprise (88).

Undoubtedly, d’Iberville was a part of this corporate prayer. Suddenly, the wind direction shifted, allowing the ship that d’Iberville had commandeered to draw near and fire several cannonballs which entered the English commander’s living quarters while the commander, his wife, and the minister were eating supper. One flew under the arm of a servant who was pouring himself something to drink, and two crossed directly in front of the commander’s wife’s face. The Minister dropped his glass, the servant dropped the pitcher, and the lady fainted (de Troyes 88-9). All those who were present ascribed the success of this cannon volley to St. Anne, to whom they had prayed. The English surrendered immediately (Crouse 35).

A priest, a Jesuit or a Récollet,31 was always selected to follow the commanders and soldiers to keep a journal of the activities of any military campaign. In addition to their assignment of chronicling the expedition, these priests would hold mass, lead prayers, and administer the last rites to dying soldiers. D’Iberville regularly participated in the masses. For example, Père Silvy celebrated mass many times during the 1686 de

31 The Franciscan Récollets were the first Catholic priests to arrive in Quebec. 66 Troyes campaign to Hudson Bay. During the 1696-97 Pemaquid, Acadia, Newfoundland campaign, Fr. Beaudouin relates that on August 15, the Day of Assumption, d’Iberville came ashore two hours before daybreak to participate in the mass before he commanded his troops to set in place the canons, cannonballs, mortars, and bombs in preparation for the day’s bombardments of Fort Pemaquid (37). On Nevis, after d’Iberville himself had marched at the head of his men, he stopped at 10:00 a.m. to allow his troops to participate in the Easter Sunday mass before resuming their march to attack the English who were only a short distance away (Mercure galant 302).

In September, 1694, during one of d’Iberville’s campaigns in Hudson Bay to seize

Port Nelson, the young Le Moyne de Châteauguay, d’Iberville’s brother, was killed by the British. Father Marest, the chaplain and chronicler of that voyage, describes d’Iberville’s reaction as follows: “He was very much affected by the death of his brother whom he had always loved tenderly, but he resigned himself to God in whom he placed all his confidence” (Crouse, 98). From all available evidence, Fr. Marest’s observation appears to be well-founded. These examples are just a few of the many references to d’Iberville’s participation in the Catholic Church’s rituals. Therefore, the evidence is convincing that d’Iberville was a religious man based upon his participation in and his devotion to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Nevertheless, d’Iberville was not above criticizing Catholic priests as he did in a letter to Pontchartrain in June 1699. While exploring Louisiana, d’Iberville was searching for proof of the elusive fork in the Mississippi River which was reportedly seen by the Recollet Father Hennepin, but whose existence was denied by the Amerindians:

67 Ces Bayogoulas…me dirent que la rivière ne se fourchoit point ;… Me voyant si haut,32 sans avoir de preuve certaine que ce fust le Mississipi et qu’on me diroit en France que ce ne l’estoit pas, n’ayant veu aucune nation dont les François eussent parlé dans les relations, j’ay cru devoir aller aux Oumas33, où je sçavois que Tonty avoit esté… (Margry 120)

When d’Iberville arrived at the Oumas village, he reasoned, from the many pieces of evidence that he had collected, that the fork in the Mississippi did not exist, and that the explorer Tonty had sailed downstream and had returned upstream on the same waterway.

In his ship’s log of March 14, 1699, d’Iberville describes his official reaction to this revelation: “Ce que je ne pouvois faire cadrer avec les relations qu’ils en avoient faites, surtout le Récollet, auquel je croyois devoir adjouster le plus de foy” (Margry 168). As he related in his letter to Pontchartrain mentioned above, he left the Ouma village with his crew to return to the Gulf “bien fasché contre le Recollect d’avoir fait une relation et exposé faux et trompé tout le monde, par là engagé des gens à bien souffrir et faire manquer une entreprise par le temps, que l’on consomme en recherches des choses supposées et fausses, qui m’a fait un très grand tort” (Margry 122). It is incontestable that d’Iberville was outraged by Hennepin’s false report.

In the entry of March 14, 1699, of his ship’s log, d’Iberville expresses himself even more freely on this subject, even going so far as to call Hennepin a liar:

revenant tousjours à la relation du Pere Récollet, qu’il avoit faite sur cette rivière, ne pouvant croire qu’il eust esté assez malheureux d’avoir exposé faux à toute la France, quoyque je sçeusse bien qu’il avoit menty en bien des endroits de sa relation sur ce qu’il disoit du Canada et de la Baye d’Hudson, où il mentait impudemment.” (Margry 168)

32 In other words, he had traveled so far north on the river.

33 The Oumas were an Amerindian tribe who lived farther north along the Mississippi than the Bayogoulas. 68 As he continues to write in his ship’s log, d’Iberville does not relax the tenor of his words as he explains the locations of the various Amerindian tribes along the Mississppi River:

“Ces Sauvages et les autres, que j’ay questionnez, placent les nations qui sont sur le

Mississippy bien différemment de ce que rapport le Père Chrestien dans son deuxième tome de l’Establissement de la Foy, sur le rapport du Père Zenobe, compagnon du voyage du sieur de La Salle…» (Margry 180). This comment is an expansion of d’Iberville’s previous statements in three ways—first, by mentioning another priest who was less than truthful, second, by satirizing Hennepin’s hypocrisy by calling him “le Père Chrestien” while drawing attention to his lies, and finally, by implicating La Salle’s voyages in the priestly misconduct.

D’Iberville was a Canadian, but La Salle was a French aristocrat. Some of the latter’s traveling companions, namely M. de Beaujeu, whom d’Iberville mentioned by name in his journal entry of March 22 (Margry 182), were carefully watching d’Iberville’s words and actions in order to denounce him. For example, Beaujeu wrote negative letters to Villermont, casting aspersions on d’Iberville’s accomplishments.

Following are excerpts from three of these letters:

Je sçavois aussi les relaschemens de d’Iberville, qui ne luy peuvent faire que plaisir, car il estoit party deux mois plustost qu’il ne falloit, qui estoit la mesme faute que nous avions faite. Dieu veuille qu’il réussisse, mais j’appréhende bien que ce ne soit comme M. de La Salle. (November 8, 1698) (Margry 293)

Je ne vous dis pas ce que je pense sur l’affaire de d’Iberville, mais je n’ay pas bonne opinion non plus, quoyque tous ses relaschemens aient meillioré son affaire, car il estoit party trois mois plustost qu’il ne falloit, lesquelz il lui auroit fallu passer à Saint-Domingue à manger ses vivres, et lorsqu’il seroit arrivé dans le golfe de Mexique, il luy auroit fallu songer à s’en revenir ; l’eau luy jouera aussi un meschant tour, s’il n’y prend garde. (November 19, 1698) (Margry 293)

69 Je ne sçay que dire, car il y a si peu de seureté à faire sur tout ce que disent les Canadiens, qu’on ne peut asseoir un véritable jugement sur leurs relations, qui sont le plus souvent pleines de hableries et de menteries;… (July 13, 1699) (Margry 299)

If Beaujeu were d’Iberville’s only enemy, he may have well be able to shrug it off.

Sadly, there were many others who also disparaged him, even from his own Quebec, whose pettiness must have affected his view of his homeland. D’Iberville tried to defend himself against these false accusations. For example, in a letter to the Minister of the

Navy in 1703, he complains about the way that the Quebecers are filling the

Amerindians’ heads, and the heads of others as well, full of lies:

...car on y continue d’insinuer à ces Sauvages de ne rien escouter de ce qui vient des gens du bas du Mississipy. On est si prévenu en Canada contre moy et tous les gens qui ont quelque rapport au Mississipy, qu’il suffit qu’ils m’appartiennent pour devenir suspects aux puissances. Une des principales choses, qu’on ait recommandées aux deux députés, a esté de se méfier de moy et de ne me pas voir […] et ce qu’ils ont à dire contre moy pour dire partout que j’insinue des Traités de ce pays et ne cherche que la ruine du Canada et mon intérest particulier. (Margry 621).

Nevertheless, spite, like vengeance, is never satisfied. Although d’Iberville’s only recourse, being a religious man, was to forgive his enemies, there is no evidence on record to demonstrate that he did, or that he did not.

D’IBERVILLE’S PERSPECTIVE OF QUEBEC

D’Iberville’s perceptions of Quebec were clearly altered by his becoming an instrument of the court of Louis XIV. While he was not a courtier, he apparently demonstrated the mentality of a subject submitted to the radiant king of an absolute monarchy. As a result, d’Iberville viewed Quebec as an appendage or satellite of the true seat of power: France. Because of his exploits, d’Iberville was fabulously wealthy. This

70 demonstrates that he also viewed campaigns in Quebec or elsewhere as a source of personal enrichment. D’Iberville’s unrealistic plan to effect mass migration of native populations highlights his insensitivity toward the Amerindians and his view of a colony as a place where France could exercise its power and control through his governing leadership. Since he had established a military career, it is natural that he would view

Quebec as a commodity, a precious possession of France to be protected—or exploited—at all costs.

In the final analysis, d’Iberville’s campaigns, his tactics, and his decisions all reveal a man who was driven to achievement and who viewed Quebec, as well as other

French colonies, as commodities to conquer in order to obtain favor from the king for his personal enrichment. Being Canadian, he was rejected by his own countrymen because of their fear that Louisiana would become the preferred destination for the beaver pelt trade, and because of their negative reaction to his brilliant accomplishments. Therefore, he was no longer accepted in Canada, nor in France; he essentially became a man without a country. As a result, his plans for settling Louisiana became more urgent and even outlandish since he viewed the new colony as the only place where he could be; he had to create his own “country.” D’Iberville’s perception of Quebec is a classic example of a loyal subject who was submitted—for his own benefit—to an absolute monarch, and in the end, this submission cost him his life.

71 CHAPTER 3

GASPARD-JOSEPH CHAUSSEGROS DE LÉRY

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF CHAUSSEGROS DE LÉRY

Gaspard Chaussegros de Léry is honored in Quebec as the first influential Chief

Engineer and Architect. He provides us with a spatio/esthetic view of Quebec.

Chaussegros came from a family of distinguished soldiers and military engineers.34 His father Gaspard Chaussegros designed and built the fortifications of Toulon (3).

Chaussegros de Léry, the son, distinguished himself on the field of battle, at the siege of

Turin in 1706, where he was wounded (3). In 1708, he followed the corsair Forbin’s fleet of ships that was bringing James II to Scotland during his failed attempt to reconquer the

English throne. Following that campaign, he was given command of a company of soldiers in the Sault Infantry Regiment (3). Chaussegros wrote a massive volume entitled

Traité de fortification divisé en huit livres, which he completed in 1714, consisting of over 400 pages and 132 meticulous illustrations, drawn by his own hand (Traité 1).

When Chaussegros de Léry was sent to Quebec in 1716 as Chief Engineer, his instructions were to draw blueprints and maps of the fortifications that existed at the time of his arrival and to propose what remained to be done. He was also responsible for

34 Unless otherwise noted, the historical facts in Chapter 3.1 are taken from Pierre-Georges Roy’s, La Famille Chaussegros de Léry to which the page numbers refer. Roy was the chief archivist for decades at the Archives of Quebec.

72 drafting a proposal for building a protective stone wall around the perimeter of Montreal

(4). He stayed in Quebec for one year and then returned to France at the end of the summer of 1717 with his drawings and his plans for new construction (4). Chaussegros attempted to sail back to Quebec in 1718, but due to problems with the ship, the voyage was terminated en route, and he was forced to return to France (4). In order to stay in

Quebec permanently with his Canadian wife whom he had married in 1717, he used his family ties and the aristocratic pressure of the Duke de Penthièvre to lobby the court to obtain permission to do so (4-5). When Chaussegros de Léry arrived again in Quebec in the spring of 1719, he remained in New France until his death in 1756, functioning as

Quebec’s Chief Engineer, yet without ever having received the brevet en forme (5).35

Chaussegros de Léry was well-known and well-respected, at least at the beginning of his career, on both sides of the Atlantic, with the exception of a few of the other

French aristocrats who had been exported from France to Quebec. The number of maps and projects that Chaussegros proposed or worked on is enormous. According to Roy,

Toutes les fortifications militaires, les forts, les édifices publics de la colonie, de 1716 à 1751, furent faits d’après ses plans et sous sa direction. Citons parmi ses constructions ou ses réparations: les fortifications de Québec, l’enceinte de

35 In order to substantiate the point that Chaussegros lacked an official commission from the French government, Roy states in La Famille Chaussegros de Léry, published in 1934:

Le mémoire d’instructions signé par le maréchal d’Estrées, qui fut remis à M. Chaussegros de Lery avant son départ, disait: ‘Le roi voulant prendre une résolution décisive au sujet des Fortifications de Québec, le Conseil de Marine a choisi le sieur Chaussegros pour faire les plans des ouvrages déjà faits et de ceux qui restent à faire’ (4).

It appears that Roy copied directly from François Daniel’s 1867 book, Le Vicomte C. de Léry, which contains the identical version of D’Estrées’ instructions. This alleged quotation from D’Estrées is also precisely reproduced by Wendling, who undoubtedly copied it from Roy, or Daniel, or both (61-62). Following is the exact quote as found in Roy’s compilation entitled Inventaire des papiers de Léry, vol. 1, 1939: Le Roy voulant prendre une résolution certaine et stable sur les fortifications à faire à la ville de Québec, le Conseil de Marine a choisy le S. Chaussegros pour faire les plans des ouvrages qui y sont déjà faits et ceux du terrain de cette place avec les profils, élévations et dévelopemens (10). 73 Montréal, le fort de Chambly, le Château Saint-Louis de Québec, le fort de Niagara, le fort de la Pointe à la Chevelure, etc., etc. (5).

Furthermore, after the great fire of Montreal of 1721 when 138 houses were destroyed,

Chaussegros de Léry was instrumental in proposing solutions in order to protect the village from suffering another such disastrous event (Roy, Les Petites choses de notre histoire 110.) Based upon his recommendations, an ordinance was passed that in the future, all houses must be built of stone rather than of wood, and all roofs must be covered with tile or slate rather than with combustible shingles (Roy, Les Petites choses de notre histoire 110-11.) Moreover, Chaussegros de Léry was instrumental in the establishment and maintenance of the Forges de Saint-Maurice (5). He received the title of Capitaine in 1720 (Chaussegros de Léry, Inventaire des papiers de Léry 1: 53). In

1741, he was awarded the Cross of the Order of Saint-Louis (5). Since Chaussegros de

Léry had a high social standing, he took upon himself the privilege of communicating with and receiving orders directly from the Minister of the Navy in France, rather than from the Governor36 and the Intendant37 in Quebec (6). Because of Chaussegros’

“hotline” to the court, the normal channels of communication through the hierarchy of command were bypassed which was one of the main causes for the rancor that seethed continually between Chaussegros and the Vaudreuil/Bégon regime. However, toward the end of his life, he no longer had high connections at the court because of his supporters’

36 Philippe de Rigaud, Marquis De Vaudreuil, Governor from 1703 – 1725 Charles de Boische, Marquis De Beauharnois, Governor from 1726 – 1747 Roland-M. Barrin, Count De La Galissonnière, Governor from 1748 – 1749 J.-P. De Taffanel, Marquis De Jonquière, Governor from 1749 – 1752 Ange Duquesne, Marquis De Menneville, Governor from 1752 – 1755

37 Michel Bégon, Intendant from 1712 – 1726 Claude-Thomas Dupuy, Intendant from 1726 – 1728 Gilles Hocquart, Intendant from 1729 – 1744 François Bigot, Intendant from 1745 - 1760 74 deaths and, therefore, he no longer had protection. He was forced to submit to the ironfisted rule of François Bigot, whose character and leadership qualities were less than desirable (6). As Roy informs us, “Bigot avait la main dure et les employés de l’administration qui osaient lui résister étaient vite renvoyés du service” (Bigot et sa bande 7). Furthermore, Chaussegros de Léry had lost the confidence of the court due to seemingly endless delays and unfinished projects. Desloges writes, “Les travaux aux fortifications avancent lentement et la cour n’a plus confiance en lui” (69). Moreover,

“On two occasions at least, the minister suspected Chaussegros of collusion with contractors for personal profit […] and ordered investigations, but nothing was proved”

(Thorpe, “Chaussegros de Léry” 2). Finally, in 1752, the court sent the engineer

Franquet to Quebec to inspect Chaussegros de Léry’s work which was undoubtedly humiliating for him (Thorpe, “Chaussegros De Léry” 2).

Chaussegros de Léry married Marie-Renée Le Gardeur de Beauvais on October

13, 1717 (6). According to La Famille Chaussegros de Léry, the Intendant Hocquart conceded a large seigneurie to the engineer and his wife in 1733; the concession was ratified in 1735 (6).38 The de Lérys had eleven children; thus, they were the progenitors of a virtual Canadian dynasty, not unlike the Le Moynes. The de Lérys’ second child,

Joseph-Gaspard, born in 1721, became the son who continued the legacy of the lineage

(7). He was named sous-ingénieur under his father from 1739 until 1749. He also

38 However, in his article about Chaussegros, Thorpe adds to Roy’s information, stating that “…he [Chaussegros] possessed two lots in the town of Quebec, one on Rue Sainte-Famille purchased in 1726 from the seminary, on which his house was located, the other granted to him in 1732. Also, he possessed the seigneury on the Richelieu, granted in 1735, with a frontage of two leagues and a depth of three,…” (Dictionary of Canadian Biography, p. 3). It appears that Roy copied erroneously from Daniel who states, “En 1733, il avait obtenue sur la rivière Chambly, une concession de deux lieues de front sur trois de profondeur” (Le Vicomte C. de Léry 20).

75 distinguished himself several times on the battlefield, including during combat in the

Louisiana Colony in 1739, under the command of Le Moyne Bienville, founder of the city of New Orleans and d’Iberville’s brother (15). In the end, Gaspard Chaussegros de

Léry passed away in 1756,39 just three years before the famous capitulation of Quebec to the British in 1759 on the Plains of Abraham. At this critical moment in Canadian history, the fortifications were still not finished. Yet, since other engineers had begun building the fortifications before him, one architectural historian remarks, “The shortcomings of Quebec’s fortifications about the time of his death cannot all be laid at the door of Chaussegros de Léry: he had inherited bad work and had had to follow indifferent policies” (Thorpe, Chaussegros de Léry, Gaspard 2).

IDENTIFICATION OF SELECTED TEXTS

The selected texts for this analysis are the collected correspondence of Gaspard-

Joseph Chaussegros de Léry and related documents that are found in the Inventaire des papiers de Léry conservés aux Archives de la Province de Québec which was published in 1939 and 1940 by Pierre-Georges Roy.40 The original documents were given to the

39 Gaspard Chaussegros de Léry did not pass away in 1751, as Roy states in La Famille Chaussegros de Léry, and which Wendling also asserts in his 1941 article, evidently copying from Roy. However, this time, neither Roy nor Wendling propagated an inaccuracy from Daniel. The latter correctly affirmed, “Il mourut à Québec au mois de Mars 1756, dans la soixante-quatorzième année de son âge,…” (Le Vicomte C. de Léry, 23). For further evidence, in the Inventaire des papiers de Léry, we find many letters written by Chaussegros de Léry after 1751. For example, in vol. 2, page 129, we note that Chaussegros wrote a letter to the minister on October 12, 1754, in which he states, “Dans ma jeunesse javois fait un traité de fortification divisé en huit livres que jay ecrit et desiné moy meme….” This statement must have been written by Gaspard Chaussegros and not by Joseph Chaussegros. Because of this letter, therefore, we are certain that Gaspard was alive in 1754.

40 Hereafter, this publication will be referred to simply as Inventaire. Quotations from the Inventaire will be referenced by volume number and page number. Furthermore, we wish to note that all quotations from the Inventaire in this dissertation are reproduced exactly as they appear, with no changes to the punctuation or the spelling. 76 Quebec Archives by the Chaussegros de Léry family (Inventaire 1: 3). Our research indicates that a significant amount of scholarly work has been published, both in print and on the internet, regarding Chaussegros’ projects and writings from an architectural and engineering perspective. However, our literary/historical analysis of his correspondence and related papers will present evidence of the effects of the transitional time in which he lived. To our knowledge, there is no better source of information available about Chaussegros de Léry than the Inventaire, the collection of letters, memoirs, project proposals, etc., as well as the replies from others to his writings, from which to gather information about his relationship to and his view of Quebec.

TRANSITIONS BETWEEN ABSOLUTISM AND THE ENLIGHTENMENT

Gaspard-Joseph Chaussegros de Léry arrived in Quebec in 1716, just one year after the death of Louis XIV and at the beginning of Phillipe d’Orléans’ regency of Louis

XV. During this period, there was a backlash in France against the firm grip of Louis

XIV’s Catholic piety, as evidenced by his subjects’ scandalous rejoicing in the streets when he died. The aristocracy, financially stretched by the Sun King, was ruined a few years later by the collapse of John Law’s banking system and the rush at Quimcampoix.

The fledgling Enlightenment, which was beginning to hatch at the end of the seventeenth century, as evidenced by the writings of Bayle and Fontenelle, started to emerge and take flight. For example, Montesquieu’s Lettres Persanes (1721), Marivaux’s Jeu de l’amour et du hasard (1730), Prévost’s Manon Lescaut (1731), Voltaire’s Lettres Philosophiques

(1734), and Diderot’s scandalous Les Bijoux indiscrets (1747) were all published during

Chaussegros de Léry’s lifetime. Although we have found no evidence that Chaussegros

77 de Léry came into direct contact with the specific works mentioned above, we assert that the literature of the era affected France’s intellectual collective consciousness which, as a by-product of the court’s correspondence with Chaussegros, also affected him. As a result, we propose to analyze Chaussegros de Léry’s collected writings and their associated documents from the perspective of some of the general characteristics of the period of transition between Absolutism and the Enlightenment.41 Therefore, the following topics will serve as areas of investigation for the remainder of this chapter:

Chaussegros de Léry’s Aristocratic Identity Chaussegros de Léry and the Economy Chaussegros de Léry and Libertinism Chaussegros de Léry and Religion Chaussegros de Léry and Political Systems Chaussegros de Léry as a Scientist

Chaussegros de Léry’s Aristocratic Identity

Since Chaussegros de Léry’s family was from Provence and had been ennobled by Louis XIV, the questions may be raised, What was his relationship to the court? Did his nobility help him or hinder him in his professional capacity as engineer in Quebec?

One might also search for evidence of Chaussegros’ view of the bourgeois class. An especially important avenue of investigation is the evaluation of whether or not the nature of his nobility changed after he took up permanent residence in Quebec. If it did, we will examine the nature of that change.

A multitude of literary works was produced during Chaussegros’ lifetime that reflects a questioning of social status. For example, as stated above, we maintain that

41 We wish to cite and thank Dr. Geoffrey Turnovsky whose ideas we have borrowed from his Eighteenth Century survey class FR 653, AU05 (see Bibliography). 78 literature such as Montesquieu’s satire of the French aristocracy (among other topics) in his Lettres Persanes and Marivaux’s portrayal of the exchange of social roles in his Jeu de l’amour and du hasard had an impact, direct or indirect, on France’s collective intellectual consciousness, and that it also impacted Quebec because of its frequent contact with and its dependence on the fatherland. Of course, unless we have specific proof that Chaussegros de Léry came into personal contact with these works, we cannot claim that this literature affected him directly in specific ways. However, an examination of his writings does demonstrate that it reflects some general trends of the changes that were occurring in society at the time that he lived.

The first and most important evaluation of the impact of the aristocracy in transition on Chaussegros de Léry involves his relationship to the court. Since the top- down hierarchical structure of command was still in existence in 1716, it was

Chaussegros’ responsibility to submit to the leaders’ wills. This submission would necessarily include the Governor and the Intendant of Canada who functioned as agents of the court in the Colony of Quebec. However, it has already been mentioned that because of his nobility, Chaussegros believed that he was justified in writing directly to the highest advisers of the king in France and, thereby, skipping over the normal chain of command that was established. As Charrois affirms, “il est vrai que Gaspard fait preuve d’un peu trop de liberté face aux autorités coloniales” (25). Yet in a memoir to

Chaussegros from the Council of the Navy in June 23, 1716, that served as his official instructions during his stay in Canada, the Marechal d’Estrées clearly and unequivocally stated, “Il [Chaussegros] communiquera la présente instruction à Mrs. de Vaudreuil et

Bégon et agira en tout sous leurs ordres” (underlining mine) (l: 13). This memoir was

79 written even before Chaussegros had left France. By way of this statement, D’Estrées declared in no uncertain terms that Chaussegros was to be subservient and obedient to the

Governor and the Intendant of Quebec. Charrois gives the following summary of the manner in which the France-Quebec hierarchy functioned:

L’ingénieur fait partie de la vaste organisation administrative royale. Lorsqu’un projet est conçu, l’ingénieur ne le transmet pas directement au ministre. Il doit d’abord le soumettre à l’approbation de l’intendant et du gouverneur-général, représentants du roi dans la colonie. Ceux-ci prennent connaissances du document, y apportant d’éventuelles modifications. Le projet est ensuite acheminé au ministre qui en fait part au roi. Le roi, avant de prendre une décision quant à la réalisation, ou non de ce projet, le soumet à un comité consultatif de conseillers. Mais, tous les cas échéants, seul le roi est autorisé à prendre les décisions. Lorsqu’un parti est adopté à la cour, le ministre en avertit le gouverneur et l’intendant qui transmettent la décision à l’ingénieur. Les modifications qui ont été apporté [sic] au projet initial doivent alors être respectées par l’ingénieur. (23-4)

Based upon the Maréchal d’Estrées’ statement above, it is reasonable to assert that the high governmental authorities had already noticed in Chaussegros a certain propensity toward stubbornness, insistance on doing things his own way, and perhaps even a tendency to behave as a male prima dona. One scholar has stated that Chaussegros was

“indépendant, fier et coléreux” (Charrois 24). Ten years later, the President of the

Council of the Navy found it necessary to repeat his order to Chaussegros that he submit to the colonial authorities: “…je suis bien aise de Vous dire que l’Intention de Sa

Majesté est que sur tout ce que vous ferés vous receviés les ordres du Gouverneur et de l’Jntendant, chacun en ce qui les concerne, et que Vous ne fassiés rien sans les avoir pris”

(1: 138). Therefore, although Chaussegros was in direct communication with the court, his orders were to do everything by approval of Quebec’s governmental leaders.

80 On the other hand, Vaudreuil and Bégon were ordered to be as helpful to

Chaussegros as possible, not just once, but several times. Three examples follow:

Elle [Sa Majesté] souhaitte aussy que par rapport aux ouvrages des fortifications vous donniés au sieur Chaussegros tous les secours qui pourront luy être necessre, tant en détachements de troupes et ouvriers qui peuvent etre dans les compagnies qu’en telle autre chose que ce soit chacun en ce qui vous concerne. (1: 38)

Elle leur [Vaudreuil et Bégon] marque aussi de donner au Sr. Chaussegros les détachemens des troupes et des ouvriers qui seront dans les compagnies et tous les autres secours dont il pourra avoir besoin pour l’avancement la perfection et l’oéconomie des travaux à quoi led. Sr. Chaussegros apportera aussi tous ses soins et toute son aplication. (1: 44)

L’intention de Sa Mate. est que le Sr de Vaudreuil donne au Sr de Chaussegros tous les détachemens de troupes et d’ouvriers qui seront dans les Compagnies et qui pourront estre necessaire pour les ouvrages et que led. Sr. de Vaudreuil et le Sr. Bégon luy donnent aussy tous les autres secours dont il pourra avoir besoin pour l’avancement, l’oeconomie et la perfection des travaux. (1: 47).

It is curious that the French authorities found it necessary to repeat their orders three times to Vaudreuil and Bégon that they should be helpful to Chaussegros. Did they know that the Governor and the Intendant were difficult to deal with? Competent administrators know their subordinates well, and they repeat their orders either when they have not been obeyed, or when they have cause to believe that they will not be obeyed.

Whatever the reason, Vaudreuil and Bégon were clearly commanded to work as team members with Chaussegros.

Vaudreuil’s and Bégon’s first reports about Chaussegros’ work were glowing. In response to d’Estrées’ memoir of June 23, they wrote a letter in October 1716 that contained the following statement regarding their assessment of Quebec’s new engineer’s work:

81 Depuis l’arrivée du Vau. du Roy en ce pais sur lequel jl est venu jl a travaillé avec une diligence et une attention toute particulière aux plans, profils, dévelopements et mémoire qui luy ont eté demandés sur le projet des fortiffications de cette ville, nous avons l’honneur de les envoyer au Conseil dans une boette de fer blanc, le peu de tems qu’jl a employé a ce travail nous fait juger que personne n’est plus capable que luy de mettre a Execution ce qui sera approuvé. (1: 17)

According to Vaudreuil and Bégon, Chaussegros was a diligent and persistent worker.

His supervisors’ assuring the court that Chaussegros was fulfilling his responsibilities and praising him was an important and necessary element of the means by which an aristocrat maintained a good relationship with the court.

In exchange for his loyalty to the court, Chaussegros expected to receive the court’s approval for his activities in Quebec, which he did, at least early in his career.

For example, a memoir of June 26, 1717, from the king to Vaudreuil and Bégon states,

“Elle [Sa Majesté] a veu avec plaisir le compte qu’ils ont rendu du zele du Sr

Chaussegros auquel Elle a accordé une gratiffication de 1500 l. et Elle souhaitte quils luy donnent toujours par raport aux ouvrages tous les secours qui pourront dependre d’eux”

(1: 22). A year later, Chaussegros once again received the court’s approval in a memoir from d’Estrées that states: “Le Conseil a êté satisfait du compte que le Sr Chaussegros luy a rendu des fortiffications qu’il estime nécessaire de faire à la ville de Québec…” (1:

35). In the same memoir, d’Estrées also orders Vaudreuil and Bégon to send to France a yearly accounting statement of the manner in which the king’s funds are being spent, “et le Conseil souhaitte que ces bordereaux soient signés du Sr. Chaussegros” (1: 37). It is apparent from this instruction that the government believed in Chaussegros’ integrity and that his signature on the statements reflected its confidence in his honesty. Later, in

82 1727, Maurepas stated in a letter to Chaussegros, “Elle [Sa Majestie] a esté satisfaite de vos soins et de la diligence avec laquelle vous avez conduit cet ouvrage” (1: 174).

Chaussegros also received approval from other dignitaries. For example, the

Prince of Bourbon writes in 1741, “Je vous prie d’estre persuadé que lorsque l’occasion se presentera je seray fort aise de vous marquer Monsieur l’estime que j’ay pour vous./”

(2: 11). Even as late as 1751, the Prince of Bourbon states, “j’en ay beaucoup à vous assurer, Monsieur, de la veritable estime que jay pour vous” (2: 117). Therefore,

Chaussegros did receive approval from the court; nevertheless, it was a mixed message due to the fact that it was tempered by stinging rebukes, as will be demonstrated later.

Obedience is another characteristic of a good courtesan, and the court in France expected its edicts to be obeyed. In his Memoire et etat de la ville de montreal of August

10, 1717, Chaussegros de Léry demonstrated his submission to the Court (1: 28). This is merely one of many examples in the Inventaire of his loyalty to the French government.

The issue is centered on the desire of the Governor and the Intendant that several homes in Montreal to serve as a part of its protective wall. Chaussegros argued that if that were the case, there would be doors and windows on the outside of the wall where anybody could enter and leave at any time, and “de plus cet endroit seroit sans deffence, ce qui a eté toujours contre les ordres du Roy et contre les règlements qu’il a fait…” (1: 31). This disagreement clearly indicates that Vaudreuil and Bégon want to accept neither

Chaussegros’ engineering expertise nor his proposals as being the best way to enclose

Montreal. It also demonstrates that Chaussegros wished to follow the king’s royal orders.

Chaussegros’ memoir continues, “…Mesrs. les gouverneurs veulent que ces maisons servent de cloture il supplie tres humblement le Conseil de décider” (1: 31). Therefore,

83 our engineer also asked the Council to decide this issue, which had evidently become a dispute between his supervisors and him. In fact, the nature of the issue is plainly identified as a matter of contention in the next paragraph of the memoir: “J’ay veu un reglement de Sa Majesté chez Mr. le Maral. de Vauban par lequel il étoit ordonné aux ingenieurs d’informer la cour des difficultés qui se rencontrent en fortifiant. La cour sen reservoit la décision” (1: 31). Regarding another question, Chaussegros demonstrates his submission to the court by writing, “J’ay l’honneur d’envoyer le plan au Conseil et j’attendray la décision” (underlining mine) (1: 32). Therefore, our engineer did attempt to conform to the court’s orders.

Nevertheless, Chaussegros was not always obedient to his superiors. During the difficult Intendance of Dupuy (1726-28), Chaussegros refused to sign off on Dupuy’s unauthorized expenses for refurbishing his residence. When he refused to go to the

Intendant’s palace when he was summoned there, Dupuy even sent his lackeys in person to fetch Chaussegros, threatening to bring him by force. Chaussegros defended himself to the President of the Council of the Navy by writing, “Si Monsieur Dupuy souhaitait me parler, il n’avait qu’à me le faire dire, j’y aurais été comme j’ai toujours fait, sans m’envoyer trois archers” (1: 198). The President’s response was swift and sure: “… je nay point aprouvé que vous ayez refusé d’aller au Palais lorsque M. Dupuy vous a envoyé chercher. Je vous recommande d’estre moins jnsubordonné a l’avenir, de vous renfermer a emplir les devoirs de votre employ et dans l’execution des ordres qui vous seront donnez” (1: 213). Chaussegros would certainly have been humiliated at being dragged through the streets of Quebec, an experience to which neither his noble status nor his human dignity would permit him to submit. On the other hand, his refusal to go

84 also provides evidence of his disregard for the established structure of command.

Moreover, as late as 1742, Chaussegros was still circumventing the hierarchy of command for which he was sharply rebuked by the President of the Council of the Navy:

Jl n’y a dans les Colonies aucun offer. qui ne Soit subordonné aux chefs qui sont chargés de leur administration generale; Et c’est mal a propos que vous prétendez etre le Maitre du detail des fortiffications en Canada. C’est a Mrs. de Beauharnois et hocquart que vous devez remettre les plans et les devis estimatifs que vous dressez des ouvrages projettés, pour que les observations dont ils accampagnent ces plans et ces devis en me les envoyant, je puisse prendre les ordres du Roy pour l’execution si Sa Majesté la juge necessaire ou convenable. C’est ensuite a l’Jntendant a faire les marchés et adjudications lorsqu’il y a lieu. L’Jngenieur dirige l’ouvrage. […] Telle est la regle. Je Suis persuadé que vous vous y conformerez. (2: 19-20)

Therefore, Chaussegros held to the belief that he could function in Quebec, to a certain extent, as he pleased. In the final analysis, the Inventaire paints the portrait of an engineer who did obey the hierarchical structure at times, but at other times, did not.

Related to Chaussegros’ statement above that engineers were ordered to inform the court of difficulties that they encountered during their fortification work, he exhibited another form of loyalty to the court, that of tattling on the misdeeds of others whose inappropriate actions were not performed in the best interests of the king. For example, in a letter to the Council of the Navy of October 25, 1721, Chaussegros described a sorry state of affairs in Montreal. Earlier, in 1717, he wrote that the entire village was enclosed by a wooden post enclosure about 15 feet tall, complete with doors, platforms and sentry boxes (1: 80). When he returned in 1720, the enclosure was open for a length of 400 toises42 and about 2000 poles were missing (1: 80). Furthermore, Chaussegros claimed that Vaudreuil and Bégon had never ordered troops to guard the fortifications; in fact, no watchmen had been posted since the sentry boxes had been stolen (1: 81). Later, when an

42 A toise is a measure of distance about 6 feet long. 85 Iroquois attack was imminent, Vaudreuil wrote an ordinance that the enclosure should be repaired at the king’s expense, a copy of which Chaussegros attached to his letter (1: 81).

In a different letter in October 1722, Chaussegros informed the Council of the Navy that

Vaudreuil did not ask for enough money to support the engineering work because he did not ask for an estimate from Chaussegros before making his request (1: 89). From the above quotations, and there are many other such statements in his collected correspondence, Chaussegros demonstrated his loyalty to the court, which he presumed to be for his own benefit in the long run. He even stated so, writing, “il etoit bon que ie me mis a couvert du coté de la cour en executant les ordres de Sa Maiesté” (1: 100).

However, not all turned out to be advantageous for Chaussegros de Léry.

In a May 1725 letter, the President of the Council of the Navy wrote that M. de

Chazelles, a third neutral party, would be sent to inspect the ongoing fortification work since Vaudreuil had written and had complained that it was all of poor quality (1: 128).

The President knew that Vaudreuil disliked Chaussegros because the latter refused, correctly, to divert funds away from their destined projects in order to embellish the

Governor’s mansion (1: 128). Furthermore, the President knew that Vaudreuil was snubbing Chaussegros, and that Mme Vaudreuil had launched a verbal outburst at him (1:

128). Consequently, Chaussegros, “qui est provençal”, wrote the President, was angry at

Vaudreuil and he spoke to the Governor rudely and wrote inconsiderately about him (1:

128). Chazelles’ mission was to discern the truth of the matter and to warn Chaussegros not to be at odds with Vaudreuil, nor to treat him with less respect than he deserved (1:

129). This is merely one of the rebukes that Chaussegros received from the President.

Perhaps Chaussegros’ most stunning complaint about Vaudreuil appears in his letter of

86 September 30, 1723, to the Council of the Navy where he indignantly describes events that took place at the funeral of Morville, the sous-ingénieur:

…il est arrivé qu’à l’enterrement de Mr. de Morville, ingénieur en second, Mr. et Mde. la Marquise de Vaudreuil ordonnèrent qu’il n’aurait que des enseignes qui tiendraient le coin du drap, Mr. de Louvigny, lieutenant de Roi de la Place, leur représenta que le défunt était lieutenant dans les troupes, ce devrait être des lieutenants et que Messieurs ses enfants devraient y être, que c’était un mépris qu’on faisait de cet officier, il fut répondu: nous n’aimions point cet homme (1: 95-6).

What could possibly have been the response of the Council of the Navy to this aristocratic offense? In a 1724 letter, the Minister writes to Vaudreuil,

On pretend qu’à L’Enterrement du feu S. de Morville Lieutenant et Sous Jngenieur, Le poesle ne fut porté que par 4 Enseignes quoy quen sa qualité de Lieutent. Jl auroit deut Lestre par 4 Lieutenants, Je veus croire que vous n’en avés pas esté averty mais Je vous prie de donner des odres [sic] de maniere que cela narrive plus ce sont des minuties qui availlissent [sic] le caracter des offers. ce qu’il convient dempecher. (underlining mine) (1: 104)

Yes, eighteenth century France knew how to cover up the misdeeds of her ranking diplomats: according to the Minister, Vaudreuil simply did not know, of course. In another squabble, Mme de Vaudreuil and Bégon accused Chaussegros of trying to divert funds from the building of Sault St. Louis to the building of a new gunpowder depot in

Quebec, whereas Chaussegros claimed just the opposite, that it was they who had diverted the funds (1: 106). Astoundingly, the President of the Council of the Navy knew that Vaudreuil had caused the delay: “…cet Jngenieur se plaint des oppo’ns que M. de

Vaudreuil a aporté a L’Execution de cet ouvrage et Je ne saurois en douter par Le long retardement qu’on a eu d’en faire Ladjudica’on…” (1: 107), yet he scolded Chaussegros for possibly being at fault: “Je Serois fort mécontent de vous si vous estiez capable d’en

Jmposer et Je vous recommande de ne point tomber dans ce cas” (1: 106). Chaussegros

87 had thought that his noble status and the truth were his best weapons with which to “fight city hall.” However, by going over the heads of his immediate supervisors, he incurred reproaches for not understanding how to play the political game. The rebukes became so humiliating over time that we are clearly justified in asserting that his relationship to the court and the value of his aristocratic status changed, definitely for the worse, after he settled in Quebec. For example, near the end of Chaussegros’ career, the President of the

Council of the Navy informed him that a new engineer and another second engineer were being sent to Quebec. Based, undoubtedly, upon the President’s past experience with

Chaussegros’ frequent lack of diplomacy, he deemed it necessary to warn him, “Je compte qu’il n’est pas necessaire de vous rien recommander Sur l’union qui doit regner entre vous et ces jngenieurs” (1: 76). Chaussegros’ less-than-humble reply was: “Je suis charmé que Monsr. Boucher vienne servir dans ce pays, C’est un de mes amis il y a vingt neuf ans que je fis a Paris le Plan en Relief de Louisbourg, il m’aida a le faire, le pere de

Monsieur de Couagne etoit aussi de mes amis et parent” (2: 79).

At the height of his career, when Beauharnois was Governor and Hocquart was

Intendant, Chaussegros seemed to get along well with his Quebec supervisors, at least at the beginning of their tenure in Quebec. Nevertheless, the court’s approval that he enjoyed at the dawn of his career turned into disapproval by the time of his retirement.

The possible causes for this change are multiple: he came to be viewed as a Quebecer by the French court which, as a result, meant that he merited less esteem; his supervisors were master-manipulators; or, quite simply, he was an annoying oaf. Charrois affirms this observation as follows: “Ainsi, au fil des années et des frustrations, loin de s’intégrer

88 au système administratif de la colonie, Gaspard en souffre” (28). For whatever the cause, life became more and more difficult for Chaussegros as he advanced in age.

Chaussegros de Léry’s correspondence demonstrates that he believed that his aristocrat status and his work for the colony authorized him to receive certain favors from the king. These favors existed in many forms, such as promotions, material gain, extra authority, awards, etc., and receiving them was an integral part of an aristocrat’s relationship with the court. For example, in a letter to the Council of the Navy in October

1720 Chaussegros asked for a higher appointment and its commensurate salary, so as to be able to afford to keep horses, as had Levasseur, one of the previous engineers (1: 59).

Another favor that Chaussegros requested from the king was that of a brevet for a higher rank of engineer in New France (1: 111). A brevet was a certificate entitling the bearer to a post that also included certain rights, powers and authority. Charrois provides a detailed explanation of the hierarchy of engineers in France:

Hiérarchie du corps des ingénieurs militaires: Son organisation repose sur la division du territoire française en provinces et en places-fortes, la province se composant d’une ou de plusieurs places. […] Le directeur général des fortifications a la charge de tout le royaume. Le directeur des fortifications, qui est sous les ordres du directeur général des fortifications, s’occupe d’une province. […] L’ingénieur en chef est chargé d’une ou de quelques places-fortes d’une province, […] Le nombre d’ingénieurs ordinaires et de sous-ingénieurs varie en fonction de l’importance de la place. De plus, seul le directeur des fortifications d’une province n’est pas soumis, dans cette province, à l’autorité de l’intendant, alors que les ingénieurs en chef et les ingénieurs ordinaires le sont. (30-1)

Chaussegros argued that the engineers in France are called “Directeur des fortifications” when they are in charge of an entire province. They are put on the “King’s Statement” but they are not given a brevet (1: 111). However, Canada, he said, is like an enormous province, almost like a new kingdom, and the engineers who had served in Quebec before

89 him had these brevets (1: 111). It is obvious, as Charrois affirms, “qu’en trente ans au moins de carrière, Gaspard n’a pas progressé,” and that getting promoted would provide

“plus de prestige et d’autorité dans la colonie. […] Gaspard a le sentiment d’avoir été oublié” (33). Therefore, for all of the above reasons, he requested to be granted a brevet.

This request was never fulfilled. However, in an arrest dated May 12, 1741, the following reference is made: “…Sr. Chaussegros de Lery jngenieur de Sa Masjesté en

Canada…” (2: 13). Furthermore, Beauharnois and Hocquart wrote about him, referring to his position as “Ingenieur en chef qu’il occupe en ce pays” (1: 265). Therefore,

Chaussegros did enjoy the appropriate title, but he had neither the paperwork to back it up, nor its commensurate income. Certainly, it is the latter which more clearly demonstrates the court’s appreciation of his services, or its lack thereof.

As another example of a desired favor from the king, Chaussegros sent a letter to the Council of the Navy in 1719 asking to be promoted to the rank of Capitaine. We are reproducing the entire letter below in order to highlight the various persuasive techniques that Chaussegros used while making his case for a promotion:

J’ai l’honneur de représenter au Conseil qu’il a été de tout temps en usage dans la colonie de donner des compagnie aux ingénieurs; comme il n’y eu point de vacante, je supplie très humblement le Conseil de me donner le rang de capitaine, je suis obligé de faire travailler les troupes aux fortifications, c’est pourquoi il est nécessaire pour le service du Roi que j’aie le rang qu’ont eu tous ceux qui m’ont précédé vu que les Srs De Morville et Catalogne, ingénieurs, sous Lieutenants dans les troupes, et moi, ayant l’honneur d’être chargé de l’exécution de tous les ouvrages qui se feront dans la colonie; il parait extraordinaire dans le pays, que je n’aie pas le rang qu’avait Mrs Levasseur, Beaucour et L’hermite, je supplie le Conseil de m’accorder ce que j’ai l’honneur de lui demander. (1: 49)

He begins his argument in the first sentence, making reference to the standard practice of giving a company of soldiers to engineers during that era. Then he states that he is

90 required to work with French troops; therefore, he needs the higher rank in order to have authority over them. He comments that he is in charge of all construction to be done in the colony, implying that he has an enormous responsibility, but wisely refraining from giving himself the title of Chief Engineer, for which he had not received the brevet.

Finally, he makes specific references to the engineers that preceded him, making an appeal for the same rank as they. A simplified version of his appeal would read as follows: “It is always done that way, I need it, I have to have it for business purposes, and everyone else has one.” From his well-developed capacity in the art of persuasion, we discern that Chaussegros was gifted in self-promotion. In response to his request, he received the following brevet du roi:

Sa Mate. estant bien aise d’accorder au Sr. de Chaussegros Ingenieur en la Nouvelle France, le rang et l’ancienneté de capitaine de compagnie d’infanterie audt. pays ainsy qu’aux autres capitaines pourveus de commission, Sa Mate. de l’avis de Monsieur le duc d’Orleans, son Oncle, Regent, a ordonné et ordonne, veut et entend qu’a commencer de ce jourdhuy Il ait le rang, et l’ancienneté de capitaine de compagnie audt. pays. Mande Sa Mate. au Gouverneur et lieutenant général dud. pays. et à tous autres officiers quil appartiendra, de tenir la main à l’execution du présent ordre. Fait a Paris le XVIe. avril 1720./. (vol. 1, 53)

Vaudreuil and Bégon were notified in a letter dated June 7, 1720, by the Council of the

Navy of Chaussegros’ promotion (1: 56). However, by as late as September 1723 he still hadn’t been commissioned to the rank. Chaussegros complained to the Council of the

Navy that the omission was due to Vaudreuil’s scorn (1: 95). Once again we ask, what could possibly have been the response of the Council of the Navy to Vaudreuil’s disobedience to the king’s orders? The Minister’s order to Vaudreuil in 1724 states:

Jl m’est revenu qu’on ne donne point lordre au Sr. de Chaussegros quoy quoutre Sa qualité d’Jngenieur en Vertu de laquelle jl doit l’avoir, Jl ait encore dans La Colonie Le rang de Capne. Je Suis persuadé que c’est a Votre Jnsceu qu’il en est

91 privé depuis 8 ans quil sert dans le pais mais Jl est necessaire que vous donniez des ordres si precis que cela narrive plus et que Lordre luy soit regulierement donné dans les places de La Colonie ou jl se trouvera. (underlining mine) (1: 104)

Then, in a letter to Chaussegros, the President of the Council of the Marine uses the same excuse:

Jecris a Mr. Le marquis de Vaudreuil qu’en qualité d’Jngenieur lordre doit vous estre donné que vous avez de plus Le rang de Capne. Je suis persuadé que si on ne vous la pas donné depuis que vous este dans la Colonie ca esté a son Jnceu vous deviez vous en plaindre a Luy… (underlining mine) (1: 105-06).

According to the authorities in France, these oversights happened unbeknownst to

Vaudreuil, of course. Obviously, one of the reasons for the disfavor into which

Chaussegros fell as he advanced in age was that he was frequently in contention with others. It was also the direct result of Vaudreuil and Bégon, and, later, of others, who constantly wrote negative comments about him, and who also conceived of plots in order to humiliate him in public. Eventually, the French authorities began to believe what they were reading.

Although Chaussegros did become a capitaine, Vaudreuil managed to strip him of any authority over most troops (1: 112). The Governor claimed that it is the company that gives honors and commands and not the commission of the king that bestows this power (1: 113). Chaussegros writes,

Jay lhonneur de vous representer Monseigneur que lordre du Roy cy ioint na pas eu lieu suivant les reglemens de Sa Maiesté ce qui rend un officier meprisable dans un pays éloigné ou on ne sçait pas bien les ordonnances ie vous suplie Monseigneur quil soit fait sur ce sujet ce que Sa Maiesté souhaite ou bien de me faire avoir une autre commission soit dans ce pays ou dans la marine comme on a donné aux Jngénieurs comme moy qui dependent du ministre de la marine. (1: 113-14).

What follows is the President’s response to Chaussegros’ plea:

92 Lordre que le Conel. de marine vous fit accorder en 1720 pour avoir Rang de Capne. dans la Colonie ne vous donne aucun droit ny encienneté pour Commander les troupes et Mr. Le Marquis de Vaudreuil est dans la Regle de vous le refuser, vous neste ny Capne. ny offer. dans ces troupes et vous ne devés point les commander. (1: 130)

As if the preceding sentences were not strong enough, the last paragraph of the same letter contains this resounding rebuke from the President, as well as a veiled threat:

Les propositions que vous me faites d’Inquietude et dinsubordination que d’un Zele pour le Service viennent plutost d’un Esprit danimosité, renfermés vous dans vos fonctions ayés pour le G’nal Le respect que vous luy devés c’est Le moyen de vous maintenir dans votre Employ. (1: 131).

In 1728, the President spelled it out again, this time to Beauharnois because the new

Governor had written to the President on Chaussegros’ behalf in order to procure some troops for him to command:

Je n’ay pas jugé quil convint de luy [Chaussegros] accorder la Compagnie que vous avez demandé pour luy, Je vous diray mesme quil n’y a point d’officier Major n’y autre dans la Colonie qui Soit traitté aussi favorablement que cet jngenieur qui jouit de 2420 l. d’appointemens de logement et de chauffage Sans avoir de grandes peines.” (1: 187-88)

One might well imagine that Chaussegros was crushed—but perhaps not as crushed as when he was informed of the President’s explicit slap in the face in his letter of 1731 to

Beauharnois:

Les difficultez que firent les officiers des Troupes de Canada detachés pour les travaux des fortiffications d’obeir au Sr. de Chaussegros de Lery Jngenieur aud. pays determinerent le Roy de luy donner le rang de Capitaine pour prevenir le derangement quil pourroit y avoir dans ces travaux, Mais l’jntention de Sa Majesté ne fut point quil Jouit de ce rang dans d’autres occasions que celles ou il S’agiroit du Service des fortiffications, il m’est cependant revenu qu’il pretend rouler avec les Capitaines en pied dans les places, et que mesme vous avés en quelque maniere autorisé Ses pretentions en l’admettant a l’exclusion de quelques capitaines en pied au Conseil de guerre tenu a l’occasion du Sr de Lignery, Je suis persuadé que vous avés jgnoré les jntentions de Sa Mate. a cet égard, Je suis bien aise de vous expliquer qu’elle Sont que le Sr. de Chaussegros ne doit point rouler avec les officiers en pied ny avec les officiers reformés dans les places pour le

93 Commendement des troupes a l’Exception des cas ou il S’agira de travaux des fortiffications quil ne doit pas non plus estre admis aux Conseil de guerre que lorsquil ne se trouvera pas un nombre suffisant d’officiers en pied ou reformés et que dans ces cas il ne doit y avoir rang et Seance qu’apres lesd. officiers en pied et reformés qui assisteront ausd. Conseils, vous aurés Soin de l’expliquer a cet officier et de vous y conformer. (1: 237-38)

Perhaps the Council disapproved of Chaussegros because they were frustrated that he had told the truth about the Governor’s and the Intendant’s misdeeds. Chaussegros learned too late that he should have kept quiet. In addition, the Council may not have appreciated being squeezed by Chaussegros’ family connections to allow him to stay in Quebec. By the President’s comments about Chaussegros to Beauharnois, we know that the Council was irritated with Chaussegros because of his continual begging for favors and for troops.43 Moreover, the Council was highly displeased that the progress on the fortifications was so slow. We do not know and we cannot know whether or not these hypotheses are accurate, except when authentic documents give us clues. All the same, speculations have value in literary analysis when they are acknowledged as such. They add to the richness of our understanding not only of the literature, but also of the historical/social context in which the literature was produced.

Finally, Chaussegros de Léry desired from the king the favor of being awarded the Cross of the Order of St. Louis. He asked for it repeatedly. When Vaudreuil died on

October 10, 1725,44 the Marquis de Beauharnois became the new Governor of Quebec.

43 “Je vous diray mesme quil n’y a point d’officier Major n’y autre dans la Colonie qui Soit traitté aussi favorablement que cet jngenieur qui jouit de 2420 l. d’appointemens de logement et de chauffage Sans avoir de grandes peines” (1: 187-88).

44 In a letter to the President of the Council of the Marine dated October 29, 1725, Chaussegros writes, “J. de Vaudreuil est mort le 10 de ce mois. M. de Longueuil, qui est un homme désintéressé, belle qualité pour une personne en place…” The terse report of Vaudreuil’s death juxtaposed to the praises of Longueuil provided a sharp contrast and illustrated well Chaussegros’ contrasting attitudes toward those 94 Beauharnois also asked repeatedly that Chaussegros be awarded this honor. The first request was placed in 1725. After further requests, the President of the Council of the

Navy wrote to Beauharnois, “J’aurois voulu procurer encore cette marque d’honneur au

Sr. de Lery Ingenieur; Mais S. M. n’a pas jugé a propos de la lui accorder cette année” (1:

280-81). Finally, Maurepas informed Chaussegros in May 1741, “Le Roy a bien voulu,

Monsieur, approuver la proposition que je luy ay faite de vous donner la croix de St.

Loüis; Et j’envoye a M. Le Marqis. de Beauharnois la croix et les ordres pour votre reception” (2: 13-14). After sixteen years of waiting, Chaussegros’ dream had finally materialized.

Chaussegros’ comments on urban planning reflect his aristocratic identity and demonstrate that he was not always particularly sensitive to the needs of the lower classes. For example, in his Memoire et etat de la ville de Montreal of August 10, 1717,

Chaussegros attempted to convince the Council to approve of his suggested placement of the soldiers’ barracks which was near the weapons depot. There were some colonists living on the land that he specified, but, according to Chaussegros, “les maisons qui sont dans cet endroit étant de peu de chose” (1: 32). The previous statement demonstrates a lack of compassion and understanding that “a man’s home is his castle.” However, our twenty-first century concept of tolerance did not exist in the eighteenth century.

Therefore, Chaussegros was merely acting according to his perception of correct social mores that were in existence at the time he lived. On the other hand, in a dispute with the

Dupuy over renovations at the Intendant’s Palace that Chaussegros had not approved, he advocated on the workers’ behalf that they should be paid for the work that they had two men, the effect of which undoubtedly did not go unnoticed by the Council of the Navy. Chaussegros would have done better not to have expressed himself so transparently. 95 performed: “Comme il a paru juste que de pauvres ouvriers fussent payé de ce qu’ils ont fait au Palais, ayant travaillé, pour dire vrai, par force, […] ils étaient hors d’état de vivre avec leur familles, si on n’avait pas la charité de les faire payer…” (1: 198-99). These comments indicate a concern for those who were not wealthy. Therefore, Chaussegros did not totally scorn the lower classes.

By way of concluding our evaluation of Chaussegros de Léry’s relationship to the court, the best that can be said is that it was fluid and often strained. This segment has demonstrated that at times he received approval, while at others, strong disapproval. In the same way, at times he obeyed orders, whereas at others, he did not. Furthermore, there is a clear message in the fact that the court waited sixteen years from the first time it was asked to bestow upon Chaussegros the Cross of the Order of St. Louis until it finally did so. The Court also refused to publish his Traité de fortifications when asked to do so, although this was due in part to the expense involved (1: 184, 192). Chaussegros was able to use his aristocratic connections to procure a permanent appointment in Canada.

Yet, it appears that later in his career, he was not always personally respected, neither by the court nor by the ruling officials in Quebec. In brief, the value of his nobility was transformed into the paradox of his being helped and hindered by it at the same time.

Chaussegros de Léry and the Economy

The condition of the economy both in France and in Quebec had a significant impact on Chaussegros de Léry’s professional activities as well as on his personal life.

Whereas Colbert’s mercantilist dream was to create colonies for the enrichment of the fatherland, in reality, as far as Quebec was concerned, it was the French treasury that was

96 responsible for financially sustaining the colony. This subchapter will to respond to questions such as: Was Quebec affected by the failure of Law’s banking system? Did

Chaussegros’ residence in Quebec affect his income differently than if he had lived in

France? If so, in what way? Did Enlightenment literature have any effect on France’s and Quebec’s economies? For example, is there any evidence that Voltaire’s praise of the English commerce-based economic system in his Lettres Philosophiques had an impact in Quebec on Chaussegros de Léry, especially since he was an aristocrat, the class that traditionally did not work? Was Chaussegros honest in business or did he stretch the truth in order to accomplish his goals?45

The economic situation in France had a profound effect on the economic stability of Quebec. In fact, there were direct repercussions on Quebec from the failure of the banking system of John Law and the rush at Quimcampoix in January 1720. D’Estrées specifically states in a letter to Chaussegros dated June 7, 1720, “Il [le Conseil] compte que vous employerés cette année utilement aux travaux de l’enceinte de la ville de

Quebec les fonds à ce destinés, Le Conseil n’en remet point pour les travaux de 1721. à cause des diminutions sur les especes…” (underlining mine) (1: 57).

Prior to that economic disaster, the President of the Council wrote many times in different communications that the finances of the King were not in a condition to finance whatever project was under discussion. Even before the arrival of Chaussegros in 1716, a memoir revealed the following about the king’s treasury, “l’état de ses finances ne lui permettant pas de les aider dans cette occasion” (1: 5). For this reason, the instructions directly warned Chaussegros to be careful not to spend money on projects that were not

45 We acknowledge that the concept of honesty in the twenty-first century is relative, but we are referring to it in the context of the time in which Chaussegros lived. 97 approved: “Mais il ne fera aucun nouvel ouvrage, changement ny augmentation en quelque manière que ce soit ny de quelque facon quil puisse être sans en avoir un ordre expré de Sa Majesté” (1: 36). Even when the work was approved, Chaussegros was required to spend no more than had been budgeted. Therefore, when Chaussegros’ work on the Chateau St. Louis went over budget by double, he received a firm rebuke from the

President of the Council of the Navy: “Je suis tres mecontent que vous ayés excedé Le fons qui avoit esté fait de pres du double” (1: 129). In addition, a memoir from the king informed Vaudreuil and Bégon to repair only what was absolutely necessary at the Palais and to spend as little as possible in doing so (1: 23). Moreover, this memoir also stated,

“Les fonds pour ces ouvrages doivent etre pris sur ceux accordés pour la batisse du

Palais, ainsy cela ne doit point diminuer ceux des fortifficaitons de l’employ desquels Sa

Mate souhaitte que les Srs de Vaudreuil et Bégon rendent un compte exact année par année…” (1: 23). There was to be no withdrawal of funds to pay for expenses incurred that were not related to the use for which the funds were intended. Although the wall surrounding Montreal was extremely important for the safety of its inhabitants, the king was every bit as sparing with the funds that he allocated to build it as he was with funds for other important projects. The slogan that became associated with Montreal’s wall—it was repeated many times throughout the Inventaire—was that it should be built “avec le plus de Solidité et d’Economie quil sera possible” (1: 1, 17, 47, 228). In his initial proposal for Montreal’s wall, Vaudreuil informed the Council that the best way to finish the project quickly was that, “le Conseil voulut bien contribuer d’un fond de quatre mille francs par an jusques à l’entiere perfection de cette fortification” (1: 1, 21). However, the

Council’s response was to encourage Vaudreuil and Bégon to persuade the citizens of

98 Montreal to organize groups of workers to accomplish the task themselves (1: 1, 24).

The Council’s reason for this instruction was as follows:

Si Sa Mate étoit en situation de pouvoir donner un fonds de 4000 l. par année pour cette enceinte outre les dépenses qu’elle fait pour la colonie, elle sy determineroit volontiers mais l’état de ses finances ne le luy permettant point il faut travailler à mesure des fonds qu’on recevra et les Srs de Vaudreuil et Bégon rendront de cette enceinte un compte séparé des autres fortiffications. (underlining mine) (1: 24).

The President also maintained that as long as the citizens provided quarters for the soldiers assigned to Quebec, the King was spared the expense. Therefore, Chaussegros’ suggestion of building barracks met with resistance from the Council, even though the amount needed to maintain the soldiers after the barracks were built was only 2,000 l. per year (1: 176). From the preceding examples, as well as many others in the Inventaire, it is clear that the feeble French economy had a direct impact on Quebec and its people.

The first and foremost of Chaussegros’ economic needs was the ability to support himself and his family while he was on permanent assignment in Quebec. In a letter to the Maréchal D’Estrées in October 1716, Vaudreuil and Bégon mentioned Chaussegros’ fundamental dependance on the court since it was responsible for subsidizing his living expenses while he was on assignment in Quebec:

Nous avons l’honneur de representer au Conseil que son zele mérite au moins qu’jl ne reste pas icy a ses depens et que les 1500 l., qui luy ont eté ordonnés, et sur lesquels jl dit n’avoir reçeu qu’environ 1300 l. à cause du dixieme qui luy a été retenu ne suffisent pas pour la depense qu’jl sera obligé de faire dans le tems present ou tout est a un prix excessif. (1: 17)

The phrase “ou tout est a un prix excessif” clearly indicates that the cost of supplies needed for daily life was very high. This is typically the case for communities that are isolated from other markets and are not capable of growing food products, raising livestock, or manufacturing the goods that are necessary for normal human subsistence.

99 Almost all desirable products had to be imported, since there was no heavy industry in

Quebec until 1741 when the Forges de St. Maurice was opened. Therefore, maintaining a positive relationship with the court was the best way to keep a steady stream of capital flowing across the Atlantic not only into Chaussegros’ projects, but also into his personal wallet. As has already been determined, this was not an easy task for the engineer.

Furthermore, the court was also responsible for providing the cash necessary to construct walls and fortifications, build new structures, and repair other buildings that were in need of upkeep, unless, of course, the court decided that the Quebecers should foot the bill or should do the work themselves. Moreover, securing capital funding for his projects also provided job security for Chaussegros. Therefore, he needed to be diplomatic enough to sell his ideas for urban improvement and fortification in order to maintain both his income and his employment. All of these points taken together, it is not difficult to understand how completely dependent Chaussegros was on the fatherland’s opinion of his work and of him personally.

Remarkably, the Court had allocated the sum of 1,500 livres to Chaussegros for his appointements during his first year on the job which was a substantial sum (1: 17).

Even more interesting, we find in a letter dated July 15, 1718, from the Council of the

Marine to Vaudreuil and Bégon that Chaussegros was given 2,000 livres per year as his personal salary (1: 39). However, Chaussegros continually wrote letters to the Court, asking for money to be reimbursed for his travel and other personal expenses that he incurred for the projects that he was overseeing. Although it is reasonable that the French government should provide an expense account for Chaussegros, our engineer was not shy about asking—or begging—to receive his portion from the pot. It is likely that this

100 habitual behavior irritated and annoyed the powers that were in command. Most often

Chaussegros was paid back for his trips to oversee the various construction projects, but sometimes he was not. Yet even when he was reimbursed, Chaussegros complained many times that the monetary amount was significantly less than what was reimbursed to the engineers in France or even to other engineers in Canada. For example, in a letter to the Minister of October 8, 1749, he claimed:

Il y a plus de trente ans que je fais les fonctions de directeur des fortifications, sans en avoir les appointemens, Mr. Le Verrier qui a fait fortifier Louisbourg il avoit 6000. l. d’apointemens et outre cella il touchoit ceux de france et moy jay en tout 2000. l. 300 . pour mon logement, trente cordes de bois et trente livres de chandelle. Voyés Monseigneur la difference il n’avoit qu’une place a fortifier et moy jay toutes celles de la Colonie. (2: 92)

Furthermore, in 1743, he wrote to the Ministre that he would like the sous-ingénieurs in

Quebec46 to be “sur le pied de ceux qui commancent a servir en france…” (2: 34).

Minister Maurepas’ peremptory response reads as follows: “Il ne peut pas estre question de l’arrangement que vous avés proposé en faveur des sous-ingenieurs qui servent en

Canada; Et il seroit inutile que vous insistassiés sur cela” (2: 39). If Chaussegros had been more tolerant of such unfair treatment, he would have earned much more respect from the French officials. To illustrate our point, we wish to quote from a letter by M. de

Longueuil47 to the Council of the Navy. Although his words were written in a different context, we believe that they apply beautifully in this case to Chaussegros: “…ce sont des pleureux qui ne valent rien” (1: 143).

46 Chaussegros’ son, Joseph-Gaspard, was sous-ingénieur from 1739 – 1748.

47 De Longueuil, d’Iberville’s nephew, was Governor of Montreal. 101 Chaussegros was forthright not only regarding his personal financial needs, but he was also quite direct in the way he dealt with economic issues of a broader nature. He was particularly interested in the preservation of the fortifications that he proposed and built. For example, in a letter to the Council of the Navy in October 1721 he wrote,

J’ay l’honneur de representer au conseil que Mesrs. les Gouverneurs en france repondent et ont grande attention a la Conservation des fortifications. Il est arrivé que des Regimens et habitans des villes ayant degradé les ouvrages on a fait une retenue aux troupes et fait reparer par les habitans ce quils avoient endomagé. Je supplie le Conseil de donner des ordres pour que ce qui sera degradé ou enlevé soit retably au depens de ceux qui lauront fait de mordonner d’en avertir le Conseil C’est le seul moyen dempecher dans cette Colonie le deperissement des fortifications sans qu’oy il en coutera tous Les ans a Sa Majesté de grosse sommes comme il est arrivé pour remplacer ce qu’on aura enlevé et retablir les degradations le meme ordre doit setendre sur les batimens du Roy et Lartillerie. (1: 82).

Chaussegros continued by saying that Montreal must be enclosed and guarded to be protected from theft, in order to avoid what happened in Quebec, where the poles and platforms as well as some iron works were stolen (1: 82). Chaussegros was bluntly stating here what needed to be done and why: to spare the King from increased expenditures. The last page of his letter made an appeal for enclosing the city of

Montreal by directly addressing the cause of the great Montreal fire of 1721 (1: 83).

Chaussegros reported that some people maintain that a misdirected rifle shot ignited the roof of the Hôtel Dieu (1: 83). The rifle shot theory has been promulgated by E.-Z.

Massicotte, who states that he quoted “l’abbé Faillon, dans son excellent ouvrage sur

Jeanne Mance” (51). Massicotte also used documents found in the Palace of Justice, of which all but one were unpublished, as a basis for his article (56-7).48 However, our

48 These documents include a map by Chaussegros, a list of the destroyed houses and buildings, a deposition and an ordinance by François-Marie Bouat (Lieutenant General of Montreal), and four ordinances by Bégon (Intendant of Quebec). 102 engineer, based upon his own observations, set forth a quite different version regarding the theory of the rifle shot as the cause of the Montreal fire:

ce qui a paru surprenant est que cette ville a eté embrazée dans le moment en plusieurs endroits le feu ayant eté contre le vent […] Le 10. Juillet on apercut le matin que le feu etoit a une Lucarne de la Maison de Made. Mantet qu’on eteignit quelques heures apres on trouva un pieu de la cloture de son jardin qu’on avoit fendu au dedans on avoit mis du Charbon de pierre allumés dans le meme tems on apercut de la fumée dans le bucher. cetoit aussy du charbon de pierre allumé couvert de coupeaux ce qui paroit avoir eté mis expres par quelques incendiaires (1: 83).

Whatever the cause of the fire, Chaussegros asserted that these events happen whenever a city is not enclosed and protected from strangers who enter in and stay there unawares (1:

83). He also attached a map to his letter that showed the areas that had been destroyed by the fire. There is no doubt that his argument received serious attention from the court.

Later, the king provided an extraordinary 20,000 l. for the speedy completion of the wall.

As is plainly evident, Chaussegros’ common sense suggestions were aimed at sparing unnecessary expenditures from the king’s treasury.

Chaussegros communicated in a direct manner with the court about broader economic issues, as well. For example, he informed the Minister that good wood for construction is cheaper in Canada than in France, especially because of the expense of shipping it across the ocean (2: 14). He also suggested that since the Foundry of St.

Maurice was producing more iron than could be made into bars, he suggested that the

King use the excess product for cannon balls (2: 7). Earlier in his career, Chaussegros’ letter in December 1718 to the Council of the Navy suggested how the court’s monetary contributions to the colony should be allocated. Chaussegros stated that the 15,000 l. that was sent to pay for the building of prisons and asylums in Montreal provided more than

103 enough funds to complete those projects. He therefore recommended that, “ce qu’il pourra rester de ce fonds, les prisons faites, soient employés aux fortifications de l’enceinte de Montréal,…” (1: 41). He also suggested, “comme à Québec une garnison pour la garde du château est inutile puisqu’on n’y en tient point, le fonds destiné pour cette garnison serait certainement mieux employé pour la sûreté de la colonie à la construction de l’enceinte du Montréal qu’au profit de la personne qui en profite,…” (1:

41). It may be safely assumed that “la personne qui en profite” in the previous sentence is either Vaudreuil or Bégon. No doubt, Chaussegros’ suggestion was another thinly- veiled tattling. In any case, near the end of his career, after the fall of Louisbourg in

1745, Chaussegros recommended that the colony build des brûlots49 in order to burn any

English ships that may sail up the St. Lawrence to attack Quebec. He also recommended that the citizens find hiding places in the woods where they could hide themselves and their possessions. Often, his recommendations were disregarded. However, for some of his suggestions, Chaussegros received praise. Following is a portion of a letter to

Chaussegros from the Prince D’Orleans: “…je vous remercie de vôtre attention, et ne doutant que Sa Majesté et ses ministres ne fassent un usage convenable de vos observations, je me bornerai a loüer vôtre affection au bien de l’Etat, et à vous assurer que je suis bien sincerement….” (2: 73). Therefore, overall, Chaussegros received a certain amount of respect for his professional observations. Nevertheless, it seems that his manner of communicating “too” directly cast a shadow over his career which worked to his disadvantage in the end.

49 Des brûlots were unmanned “fire ships” that were ignited and floated toward the enemy flotilla. 104 As for the Governors and the Intendants, the correspondence in the Inventaire does not paint a pretty picture regarding their handling of money matters, in which

Chaussegros was frequently tangled, as the situation of payment for “une garnison pour la garde du château” in the previous paragraph indicates. First, the king ordered them to

“faire garder en caisse les fonds qui ne seront pas employés et ils seront consommés dans les années où les travaux seront ordonnés” (1: 24). Furthermore, as previously mentioned, Vaudreuil and Bégon were required to submit on a yearly basis a detailed statement of the way in which the king’s money was spent on the fortification projects.

This statement was to be signed by Chaussegros. The Inventaire contains at least four letters in which the Governor and the Intendant were instructed to submit this statement

(1: 37, 38, 44, 48). Nevertheless, in a letter dated June 7, 1720, the Council soundly rebukes Vaudreuil and Bégon for not complying with this order:

Le Conseil n’a pas trouvé joint à vostre lettre du 14 november le bordereau des dépenses faites en 1717, 1718, 1719. Sur les fond ordonnés pour les fortiffications, vous avés mesme laissé en blanc dans vostre lettre la somme qui restoit en caisse sur ce fonds; c’est une obmission très grande, et le Conel. vous recommande d’avoir à l’avenir plus d’exactitude et plus d’attention. Jl a remarqué que l’état que vous avés envoyé pour les fonds a remettre pour les ouvrages de 1721 n’est pas Signé du Sr Chaussegros; Vous observerés à l’Avenir de luy faire signer tous ceux que vous envoyerés. (1: 54, 56).

Not only did they neglect to send the required statements for three years, but

Chaussegros’ signature was lacking on the one that they finally did send. This type of secrecy and lack of communication regarding money matters in which Vaudreuil and

Bégon participated raises supervisors’ eyebrows, and creates the suspicion of mismanagement of funds, at best, and embezzlement, at worst. Moreover, the Council

105 specifically warned Bégon on at least two occasions not to divert funds from their intended use to pay for other approved or unapproved projects:

1. Son intention n’est point qu l’on employe a d’autres depenses sous quelque pretexte Montreal. jl recommande a Mr. Begon de ne pas y toucher absolument (1: 71).

2. Le Conseil ecrit a M. Begon de ne point employer ces fonds a d’autres usages sous quelque pretexte que ce soit” (1: 72).

Vaudreuil and Bégon were not the only supervisers in Quebec who were accused of mismanaging the royal assets. In his letter of October 30, 1742, to the Minister,

Chaussegros complained about Hocquart50 for several reasons. First, when Chaussegros showed him the plans to landscape the yard of the Intendant’s Palace, as well as plans to construct a shipyard, Hocquart didn’t even send them to the Minister in France.

Chaussegros writes,

Quand j’ay communiqué a M. Hocquart ce que vous me marqueés il ni fit aucune attention et me dit qu’il etoit Intendant des fortifications que je luy étois subordonné et que je devois faire les ouvrages comme il souhaiteroit je pris la liberté de lui representer qu’il n’étoit pas Ingénieur, et au fait des travaux y ayant plus de quarente ans que ien conduisois en France et dans les armées et comme ie m’apercu qu’il s’emportoit ie fermé la bouche. (2: 25)

In the same letter, Chaussegros then asked to receive his orders directly from the

Minister, just as the engineers in France served directly under Le Marechal d’Asfeld.

Next, he informed his boss of the Intendant’s function regarding the Engineer: the

Intendants of fortifications write orders and deliver the Engineer’s work certificates to the workers—they do not meddle at all with the construction, not being capable, and even more so regarding a trench. Furthermore, he claimed that Hocquart believed that he would save the king’s money by shortening the laborers’ work day and paying them less.

50 Gilles Hocquart was intendant from 1729 – 1744.

106 But Chaussegros maintained that “…un ouvrier qui n’est pas bien payé fait semblant de travailler…” (2: 26). In essence, Chaussegros made his appeal based upon the old adage,

“You get what you pay for.” Next, Hocquart wasted the king’s money on the roof of the

Intendant’s Palace by buying slate that could not withstand the Canadian freezes year after year. When the slate disintegrated into powder, he bought tin shingles, but rather than overlapping them with nails, they were soldered together. Neither could that roofing material withstand the Canadian cold. Moreover, Hocquart made several workers travel, but did not pay them for their expenses. Hocquart also altered some of the dimensions of the fortification work that was in progress in Montreal, ostensibly to save money—or to steal it by keeping for personal use the remainder of the funds allotted. At the end of this lengthy list of accusations, Chaussegros hinted that he could serve, if need be, as a

“capitaine d’artillerie la plupart des Jngénieurs scavent ce qui a raport a la Guerre” (2:

28). The engineer even went so far as to request to be transferred. As all of the above information indicates, Chaussegros did not like Hocquart’s methods of operating. Sadly,

Chaussegros’ difficulty in dealing with Hocquart was only a foretaste of the problems that he was to have when François Bigot served as Intendant from 1745 – 1760.51

When Bigot arrived, this time it was Chaussegros who was accused of fraudulent business practices. In a particularly stinging letter of November 3, 1748, written to the

Minister,52 Bigot complained that Chaussegros communicated his plans with the

Governor de La Galissonière, but not with Bigot himself. The Intendant wrote,

51 All of the information in the above paragraph regarding Hocquart is taken from Chaussegros’ letter to the Minister in the Inventaire (2: 24-9).

52 Quotations and paraphrases of Bigot’s letter in this paragraph are from the Inventaire (2: 82-5).

107 “…j’ignore si M. hocquart avoit mis M. de leri sur le pié de ne luy point rendre compte. il agit en consequence mais je le prierai de le faire a savoir quand je le verai et sil me repondra, car il ne parle point.”53 In the same letter, Bigot furthered his argument by asserting that the engineers at Louisbourg did not behave that way, and he recommended keeping a close watch over the work on the fortifications. Finally, he stated that he had informed Chaussegros, “qu’il faloit l’année prochaine payer les terres a la toise” (83).

Rather than paying for the volume of dirt moved, payment was made per trip of the carts in which was transported only “une poignée de terre” (83). In order for this pay-per-trip arrangement to work correctly, Bigot says, the engineers must be there to supervise continually to ensure that the carts are completely filled. However, the engineers were part-owners of the carts. Therefore, they were lax in inspecting the quantity of dirt moved, since they, too, profited from each trip. Finally, Bigot plainly states, “Tout le monde connoit que le roy est extremement volé dans ces deblays il n’y a que les parties interessées qui ne disent mot” (84). At this point, Bigot’s double allegation of

Chaussegros’ guilt is clear: he doesn’t talk of transporting the dirt and he also doesn’t talk to Bigot. The reply from the President of the Council of the Navy was swift and sure: “Les operations de cet jngenieur ainsi que celles de son fils paroissent trop

53 We find it somewhat bizarre that Chaussegros refused to speak with Bigot. From an in-depth study of Chaussegros’ texts, there is no other person to whom he refused to communicate. If Bigot had insulted Chaussegros, it is likely that the engineer decided that the best way to maintain his own dignity and to keep the peace was to avoid contact with him. According to Roy, “Le sieur Bigot n’était peut-être pas d’une famille de vieille noblesse mais les Bigot avaient été anoblis par les charges qu’ils occupaient et ils jouissaient d’une grande considération dans les Parlements et même dans la noblesse” (Bigot et sa bande 14). However, neither was Chaussegros from the old nobility. Charrois claims, “Gaspard père [du Québécois] parvint à la fortune. Au début du 18ème siècle, vers 1704, il est même anobli. Il devient alors Gaspard Chaussegros co-seigneur de Léry, titre que ses enfants porteron désormais” (8). Therefore, the animosity between Chaussegros and Bigot did not stem from a difference in social standing. 108 Suspectes pour n’estre pas approfondies; Et S. M. veut que vous preniez de justes mesures pour les verifier et que vous rendiez compte de ce qui en est” (2: 87).

Chaussegros then wrote a letter in self-defense of Bigot’s accusations and in which he also asked the Minister to use Beauharnois and Galissonière as personal references for his conduct (2: 90). Regardless of Chaussegros’ indignant denials, Bigot continued his accusations in a letter to the Minister the following year (1749) (2: 94).

The Intendant claimed that the soil removal was now being paid for by la toise, and that he had told Chaussegros to be there to supervise the operations. According to Bigot, “il n’avoit point eté de cet avis jusqu’a ce jour la, mais voyant que c’etoit tout de bon il l’approuva, Celui a qui cette entreprise fut adjugé dit tout haut devant lui qu’il faisoit gagner au Roy plus de 60.m.l.” (2: 95). Bigot’s letter continues with what our twenty- first century understanding would call age and/or disability discrimination against

Chaussegros: “Il nous faudroit Monseigneur un ingenieur actif et entendu celui dont je viens de vous parler n’est plus en état d’aller et de venir” (2: 95). Bigot states that the workers did as they pleased. Those who were hired at a fixed salary per day worked just one hour for the king, and then they went to work for a private citizen who undoubtedly paid them by the hour. Bigot protests, “J’ai beau m’en plaindre l’ingenieur ne répond rien. Ils le font sous mes yeux au palais je juge qu’ils en agissent de meme ailleurs…Il est incroyable comme le Roy est volé…” (2: 95). Of all the letters and documents in the

Inventaire, those written by Bigot are the most pointed, biting and deleterious to

Chaussegros’ reputation and, therefore, to his career as well.

For Bigot, however, the adage, “what goes around, comes around,” proved to be most certainly true. To use another adage for illustration, Bigot’s accusations of

109 Chaussegros were akin to “the pot calling the kettle black.” After the conquest of 1759, and France’s abandonment of Canada to the British, Bigot and many others were put on trial at the Châtelet de Paris for profiteering during the Seven Years’ War.54 This trial was called L’Affaire du Canada. Bigot held various posts in France, each being more prestigious than the previous one. In 1739, he was appointed Assistant Intendant at

Louisbourg which is where he began his fradulent, self-enriching practices. After the fall of Louisbourg in 1745, he returned to France, but was sent back overseas in 1748, as

Intendant of New France. To his credit, he was hard-working, organized, and detail- oriented. Although the expenses in the colony began to rise sharply, he was always able to justify them by precise, irreproachable accounting statements. Roy explains,

C’est que l’intendant agissait avec une habileté consommée. Il était l’âme dirigeante de toutes les sociétés ou associations formées pour accaparer le commerce du pays, mais son nom n’apparaissait nulle part. Il était représenté dans ces entreprises par des comparses qui y faisaient leur fortune tout en augmentant celle de leur chef. Détail étrange, Bigot tenait tous ses associés sous sa dépendance sans avoir avec eux de contrats écrits. […] Il avait sans doute le moyen de tenir ses créatures en laisse en leur enlevant le patronage au moment voulu si elles ne faisaient pas son affaire. […] La bombance cessa avec la chute de Bigot. (Bigot et sa bande 17-18, 20).

Although Bigot departed from Quebec on October 18, 1760, he wasn’t arrested and imprisoned in the Bastille until October 13, 1761. Bigot was judged to be a model prisoner; it seems that he was more clever than Chaussegros. The other prisoners continually asked for favors, as Chaussegros did of the Minister of the Council of the

Marine, whereas Bigot did not bore the warden with repeated demands in order to soften his punishment. Roy’s commentary on his stay in the Bastille is priceless: “Le diable en vieillissant se fit ermite” (Bigot et sa bande 23). Apparently, Bigot became devout and

54 All of the historical information in this paragraph is summarized from Roy’s Bigot et sa bande, pages 3 – 40. 110 requested to attend mass. In the end, he was found guilty of abuses, embezzlement, unwillingness to execute the duties of his position and disloyalty. His sentence was banishment in perpetuity from the kingdom of France, confiscation of his goods, one thousand livres for punishment, and 1,500,000 livres for restitution to the king. The place of his exile and eventual death is unknown.

Obviously, Bigot’s criminal activities were much more serious than those of

Chaussegros. The worst offenders are often those who criticize others the most, as is certainly the case with Bigot’s treatment of Chaussegros. Even so, it is not possible to verify the validity of Bigot’s accusations of our engineer or the extent to which

Chaussegros was dishonest, if at all. When Chaussegros tattled on various governors and intendants, his action of good conscience was to earn favor from the court. On the other hand, when Bigot tattled on Chaussegros, his goal was to distract the court in order to divert attention from his own swindling.

In the final analysis, France was most certainly aware of the unethical financial practices going on in Canada, since parties from various sectors were accusing one another of fraudulent practices. Due to the fact that it appears likely that most Quebecers in important positions were guilty of some type of illegal financial dealings, it is no small wonder that the French government was often hesitant to dispense money from its dwindling treasury to support the colony, since it was unable to verify how it was spent.

Regarding France’s chronic shortage of cash, in a 1753 letter to Duquesne and Bigot, the

President states his assessment of the king’s finances as plainly as possible:

“S. M. n’y [au fortifications du Québec] pourra destiner des fonds qu’autant que la Caisse sera soulager de ces depes. extraordres. dont elle se trouve si surchargée

111 depuis quelque années Malheureusement toutes les matieres me ramenent a cet objet de depes. extraordres” (2: 124).

The intricate economic relationship between France and Quebec was marred by the frequent mismanagement of funds, and there is no doubt that this affected Chaussegros de

Léry on both a personal and a professional level. We propose that Chaussegros was basically honest, which would account, in part, for the other governmental officials’ railings against him. The dishonest dislike the honest because the latter shed light on the former, thereby exposing their works for what they are. But the effects of the economy on Chaussegros were much more complex. From many angles, the lack of funds played a key role in shaping Chaussegros de Léry’s life and his view of Quebec.

Chaussegros de Léry and le libertinage

By the first half of the eighteenth century, the term libertinage was transformed from primarily denoting a questioning or a rebelling against the commonly accepted theological beliefs of the day to a main emphasis on acting upon this questioning or rebelling.55 In this section, we propose to examine Chaussegros de Léry’s correspondence to find evidence of whether or not he embraced le libertinage. One might ask, was Chaussegros de Léry a libertin similar to Prévost’s character Des Grieux in Manon Lescaut? Can it be determined if Chaussegros was corrupted, as was Des

Grieux, by the lust for pleasure and the necessity of gaining money by whatever means possible in order to pay for it? Did he have Manon’s and Des Grieux’s fatal passion that led to their eventual downfall? As the definitions in Chapter 2 demonstrate, the words encompass several different nuances of meaning, but which can be distilled into three

55 See the definitions of libertinism in Chapter 2, pages 60-61. 112 main categories: not submitting to the laws of religion, living without adherence to a moral ethic, and having a weakness or an inconsistency of character.

There is no doubt that in Quebec there was an attempt to enforce a code of moral conduct, modeled after the teachings of the Catholic Church, which was generally agreed upon as the accepted standard for society. Even so, no society is perfect. The Inventaire provides evidence of scandalous public adultery that Vaudreuil had neither punished nor eliminated:

Monsr. Leveque de Quebec s’est plaint du Scandale que cause dans la Colonie les deux adulteres publics des Srs de mousseaux et de La malotieres freres avec la Reaume et la Berloget Jl a marqué en meme tems Les soins que vo’ et Made. de Vaudreuil vous etes donnez pour les faire cesser mais Jnutilement Jecris a Mr. Robert a ce sujet et Je vous recommande de donner de Votre part tous vos soins pour reprimer Le desordre et le Scandale…. (1: 104-5)

However, in studying the Inventaire, we find no evidence of debauchery or sexual indiscretion on the part of Chaussegros. On the contrary, Chaussegros appeared to disapprove of such misconduct when, in 1724, he urged the Council of the Navy to make use of the barracks that he had built for the soldiers:

le corps de garde que jay fait faire cette année aux trois rivieres iy logeray la garnison de la ville ce qui est un grand soulagement pour les peuples et en meme temps les soldats etant ensemble vivent avec plus daissance, et on est en etat de les mieux discipliner et ne peuvent faire des desordres les nuits dans la ville, dans toutes les Places du Royaume ou il y a de cazernes faites on y loge touiours les soldats tant pour decharger l’habitant que pour tenir les troupes dans la dicipline. (underlining mine) (1: 94)

Although Chaussegros did not specify debauchery in the above quotation, it is certainly understood that the expression “des desordres les nuits dans la ville” includes frequenting women of ill repute, among other activities. The President responded by assuring

Chaussegros that he had instructed Vaudreuil to keep the soldiers in line, a task which the

113 Governor was most likely unable to accomplish (1: 105). Regarding libertines in

Quebec, the Inventaire contains the following statement from the Minister in a 1730 letter to the Governor and the Intendant: Elle [Sa Majesté] a reglé quil ne seroit point envoyé cette année de libertins dans la Colonie, Je feray en Sorte que les envoys de gens de cette espece Soient entierement Suprimés puisquils causent du desordre (1: 227). Undoubtedly, the soldiers were consorting with these libertins that were being sent to New France from the homeland.

Nevertheless, in 1727, the Inventaire records a different type of libertinage that was occurring, as found in the last part of its definition as quoted above: “mais pour signifier une inconstance, une légèreté dans le caractère, qui fait qu’on ne s’assujettit à aucune règle, à aucune méthode” (33). During his tenure as Intendant, Dupuy wrote a scathing indictment to the Minister of the fraud and corruption among the soldiers and among the officers, as well. He states that Montreal

est ouverte à la fraude et à la contrebande […] Tout Montréal est infesté […] et l’on passe les marchandises jusque sous la robe et la jaquette.56 Si quelque chose a contribué à attirer l’anglais, c’est cette honteuse connivence des officiers qui en font l’objet de leur fortune. […] Je me contente donc…de vous représenter que la colonie est à la veille de sa perte si nous ne sommes secourrus d’hommes et d’argent” (1: 178-79).

Little did Dupuy know that his observations were truly visionary. Furthermore, it is clear that the soldiers were demonstrating the libertinage of not obeying the law in their illegal trading activities. Even so, there is no evidence that Chaussegros was involved with them. Moreover, Dupuy himself was a libertine by his inconstance regarding the rules that he was to obey. He criticized Chaussegros’ architectural and engineering proposals:

56 A double meaning: the reference is woman/man as well as magistrates/military. 114 La Citadelle de Québec, qui vous est proposée, Monseigner, est un ouvrage de longue haleine et de la nature de ceux qu’on commence et qu’on ne finit pas. […] Une simple muraille, avec quelques dehors nous mettrait à couvert du côté du Cap […] mais il est indispensable de mettre les batteries en état et de faire des affuts à nos canons. (1: 179)

Dupuy, like Bigot, displayed the character defect of complaining about others and, at the same time, not having the capacity to recognize his own failings. The Intendant either did not understand or could not accept the obvious differences between Quebec and

France. Inside the Intendant’s Palace, and without Chaussegros’ approval, he engaged carpenters to duplicate the ornate woodwork of French manors, which Chaussegros correctly labeled as a fire hazard (1: 196). He also hired workers to recreate a formal

French garden in his backyard, complete with canals and fountains which, as

Chaussegros so astutely observed, “sont très inutiles dans ce pays, puisque toutes ces fontaines et canaux seront gelés pendant plus de six mois de l’année” (1: 196). The point is that the repair of the Palace was now “un ouvrage de longue haleine et de la nature de ceux qu’on commence et qu’on ne finit pas” which, of course, is an irony of Dupuy’s own criticisms of Chaussegros’ proposal for a citadel (1: 179). Doubly ironic was the fact that Dupuy was correct on both counts. In the end, it was Dupuy who exhibited the libertinage of weakness of character and of refusal to submit himself to working by the rules through the proper channels. However, at a later date, the Minister instructed

Hocquart to secretly investigate Chaussegros’ business practices because the Minister had heard that the architect was submitting inflated estimates (1: 217). But once again, there is no clear evidence that Chaussegros participated in corrupt practices. Therefore, in the final analysis, to the best of our knowledge, Chaussegros was not a libertin.

115 Chaussegros de Léry and Religion

Scholars generally agree that one of the predominant characteristics of the

Enlightenment was the questioning of the authority of the church and the public debate of religious absolutes, due, for the most part, to the writings of Enlightenment philosophers.

In this subchapter, we propose to examine Chaussegros de Léry’s religious views as they are revealed in the Inventaire. One might ask if he were a devout Catholic, or if he questioned the religious authority of the Church, thus, agreeing with Montesquieu in his

Lettres Persanes that the Pope is a “magicien?” (60). If Chaussegros were Catholic, what was his view of Protestants? The answers to these questions are not revealed clearly in the Inventaire. However, from certain comments that Chaussegros de Léry wrote and allusions that he made to religion and to religious people, it is possible to make some observations about his religious views.

The original plan for funding the fortified wall around Montreal is found on the very first page of the Inventaire in an anonymous text entitled Enceinte de Montreal, dated May 5, 1716. In 1713, the late Louis XIV had ordered Vaudreuil and Bégon to have the wall built at the expense of the inhabitants of Montreal since

l’état de ses finances ne lui permettant pas de les aider dans cette occasion. Pour y parvenir on propose du Canada d’imposer pour cette dépense une somme de 6000 l. sur les habitants de Montréal dont le tiers sera payé par Messieurs du Séminaire qui sont seigneurs censiers de la ville et de toute l’ile de Montréal. (1: 5)

The next reference in the Inventaire to the plan for funding this wall is found in a letter by Chaussegros in 1718 to the Council of the Navy. In it, Chaussegros suggests how to reallocate money that had been distributed to the colony in order to increase funding for

Montreal’s wall. Chaussegros hinted at his opinion of the Messieurs when he wrote:

116 et comme messieurs du Séminaire St-Sulpice, gens riches et seigneurs de la ville et de toute l’île, le tout leur rend au delà du nécessaire pour l’entretien des prêtres, ces messieurs ne contribuent que peu, ne donnant que 200 livres par an pour cette enceinte le Conseil leur donne tous les ans, à ce qu’on m’a dit, 6000 livres, l’on pourrait employer cette somme à la fortification de la ville... (1: 41)

From Chaussegros’ description of the Sulpicians as being the wealthy seigneurs of the entire island, yet only contributing 200 pounds per year for the building of the wall, he is essentially labeling them as being miserly. These religious people seemed greedy and, therefore, hypocritical to Chaussegros. His courageous comments indicate that he has a strong sense of justice and is indignant that the Sulpicians are bearing “bad fruit.”

Another comment about religious people in the Inventaire is made in 1717, early during Chaussegros’ tenure as Chief Engineer and after the king had seen Chaussegros’ preliminary proposals to fortify Quebec. The following statement is recorded in the king’s memoir to Vaudreuil and Bégon: “Sa Mate. ne veut point qu’il soit pris aucun terrain du Jardin des Pères Jésuites jusques a ce quelle ait connu par Elle meme si la chose est absolument nécessaire pour la seureté de la place” (1: 22). Based upon this instruction, it seems likely that Chaussegros had drawn the placement of the wall without respect for current ownership of the property through which it would cross. Evidently, the basic premises of the concept of eminent domain were alive and well even in the eighteenth century. Therefore, Chaussegros’ work shows a certain disregard for the

Jesuits’ property; yet this may or may not reflect his attitude toward religious people.

However, Chaussegros’ earlier comments about the Sulpicians taken together with the placement of the Quebec wall seem to indicate a certain negativity on his part toward religious people, at least those who act contrary to their professed beliefs.

117 The Sulpicians were not the only religious order whose deeds were brought under the spotlight of scrutiny. In a letter dated October 22, 1720, 57 to the Council of the Navy,

Chaussegros also relates a sad story about some of the Jesuit Fathers in Quebec.

Apparently, Chaussegros had seen a letter from the Council of the Navy stating that 2000 l. had been allocated to the Jesuits to build a wooden fort at the Sault St. Louis mission.

Furthermore, these Fathers were asking that an additional allocation of 1000 l. be given to them as well to support the fort during the next year. However, Chaussegros had spoken to M. de Longueil, Governor of Three Rivers, who had assured him that at the time of his trip there the previous month, no fort existed nor had the construction of any fort even been started. Chaussegros then asked the Jesuits for a statement of how the money was spent. They could not provide him with one and, moreover, several people at the mission had spoken to him in like manner as M. de Longueil. According to Chaussegros, a fort of this type does not amount to a large expenditure, it is useless in time of war because it cannot withstand an enemy attack, and it only takes five or six days to build it. Although our engineer does not say so directly, his comments make his opinion perfectly clear.

Therefore, we assert that Chaussegros’ letter implies that the Jesuits were stealing from the King’s treasury. Once again, the concept of avarice is tied directly to two of the

Catholic orders that were operating in Quebec at that time.

By 1722, however, in a letter of October 17 to the Council of the Navy,58

Chaussegros writes that he has learned that the “Messieurs les ecclésiastiques du

Séminaire St. Sulpice” are obligated to furnish any lands that are necessary for the wall as

57 All information in this paragraph is taken from this letter, found in the Inventaire, (1: 63-4).

58 Information in this paragraph is taken from the stated letter in the Inventaire, (1: 89-91). 118 well as three or four acres in area inside the wall for other royal purposes. However, the

Sulpicians had sold some of the land designated for the wall to private citizens who, in turn, sold it to others. Evidently, unscrupulous land developers are not a phenomenon solely of the modern era. In any case, the private citizens complained, demanding repayment for their loss. Chaussegros was making his appeal to the Council to declare that the land belonged to the king (another instance of exercising of eminent domain) so that his building could continue uninterrupted. It is fair to propose that the Messieurs, when they became aware a few years earlier that a new engineer had arrived in Quebec for the purpose of constructing a wall around Montreal, had investigated its proposed location. They undoubtedly sold the parts of their land that would be used for the wall, which they knew would become worthless, to unsuspecting dupes before this land became devalued and unsaleable: timing is everything. Nevertheless, Chaussegros’ letter does not even give a hint of a suggestion of any shady dealing: his sole purpose is to stop the opposition to the accomplishment of his task. Therefore, we cannot state any conclusions about Chaussegros’ religious views from this letter. Nevertheless, based upon his other comments about religious people in the Inventaire, and since he was an able-minded man, we find it highly unlikely that Chaussegros hadn’t considered the probability that the Sulpicians had had some ulterior motives at the time that they sold the particular parcels that were destined for the wall.

On the positive side regarding his views of religious people, Chaussegros mentioned that during a dispute with Vaudreuil, a certain “pere la Chasse superieur des

Jesuites” functioned as a negotiator.59 Vaudreuil had forbidden Chaussegros to work on

59 Information in this paragraph is taken from a letter of May 1724, in the Inventaire, (1: 100). 119 the construction of the fort at Sault St. Louis that the King had instructed him to build.

Chaussegros insisted on doing the work because if “ces ouvrages ne se faisant point cette année on croiroit en france que ce seroit ma faute.” The Jesuit’s excellent suggestion was that Vaudreuil should give to Chaussegros an order in writing, commanding him not to do the work. Vaudreuil agreed. Chaussegros had it notarized and attached a copy of it to the letter to the minister in question. In this case, the Jesuit performed an admirable service for Chaussegros and there is no indication in Chaussegros’ letter that he saw any problem with the Jesuit’s behavior. Therefore, we can assume that any negative comments about religious people that Chaussegros made were tempered by at least one positive experience.

Just a few months later, however, the pendulum of Chaussegros’ assertions about clerics swung the other way.60 Apparently, the communautés owned a large portion of the land that was not close to the new wall that Chaussegros was constructing. On these lands were situated the religieux’ (euses’) monasteries, gardens, courts and other places that they deemed necessary. When a public street divided two of these communities, the religious people sold lots which were between the community and the street to private citizens. However, there were some major requirements to which the purchaser was forced to agree in order to validate the sale. First, his house had to be only one story tall so that he and his family could not see over the top of the community’s wall. Second, if his house were more than one story, the purchaser could not place any windows or even any openings on the side that faced the street, for the same reason. Chaussegros sharply criticized the placing of these conditions on the sale of land within the city. After

60 Information in this paragraph is taken from a letter of October 1724 (Inventaire 1: 114 –15).

120 claiming that he has never seen any such thing in Paris or in any other city in France, he wrote, “cette clause me parait extraordinaire et […] je crois, Monseigneur, qu’elle ne devrait pas avoir lieu, les communautés n’ayant qu’à élever leurs murs de cloture s’ils ne veulent pas être vus comme il se pratique dans toutes les villes de france,…” The

President’s response affirmed Chaussegros’ position on this matter. He wrote to

Vaudreuil and Chazelles instructing them to explain to the communities that placing such conditions on the sale of the land was unacceptable. From this appeal to reason,

Chaussegros demonstrated that he was not afraid to oppose religious people nor to criticize their inappropriate demands upon the laity. Apparently, Chaussegros did not agree with the religious people and that he was not shy about stating so.

An even more unpleasant disagreement is recorded in the Inventaire in a letter dated October 22, 1731, from Chaussegros to the President of the Council of the Navy (1:

248-51). M. Chèze, a priest at the seminary, wanted to enlarge the placement of the

Montreal wall so that it completely enclosed the Charon General Hospital and his land.

M. Chèze indicated to some citizens who were interested in buying lots from his land that the placement of the wall would be changed. He even had them sign a petition in favor of the change and he came to Chaussegros several times to advocate this change in the placement of the wall. Chaussegros claimed that he explained the engineering problems and other difficulties to M. Chèze, not the least of which was the enormous increase in the cost of the wall to the king. Finally, near the end of his letter, Chaussegros revealed what he perceiveed to be the priest’s ulterior motive for wanting the Charon General

Hospital and his land enclosed in the wall: “il est le maitre mais il est certain, qu’ils ne seront pas vendus si cher que s’ils étaient enfermés dans la ville” (1: 250). The engineer

121 appears to be an astute observer of human nature, and demonstrated once again his boldness in declaring his observations to the authorities in France. Chaussegros makes no distinction between the clergy and the laity; when his sense of justice is offended, he speaks forth. As for d’Iberville, he was offended when the Recollet Hennepin described an imaginary fork in the Mississippi, and doubly so, since he ought to have told the truth because of his status as a religious person. On the other hand, Chaussegros makes no such distinction in his writing; he is equally offended by injustice whether perpetrated by the religious or by the non-religious.

One of the projects that the king ordered Chaussegros to oversee was the repair of the Episcopal Palace (2: 12). He received the instructions in 1741 and he wrote to the

Minister in October 1743 that the renovations were completed, sending him the plans (2:

33). While describing the newly refurbished residence, he made quite a striking comment: “Monsr. l’Eveque merite d’etre bien logé car cest un digne prelat” (2: 33).

This statement is important for several reasons. First, Chaussegros had judged that the man was digne of having a nice place to live. We assert that this means that Chaussegros had found him to be congenial and that the Bishop was a religious person whose manner of living reflected his religious beliefs. We have already seen incidents in Chaussegros’ life where he had to deal with the opposite type of religious person: those whose lives did not show evidence of what they believed. In this comment, Chaussegros made a distinction between the two. Second, Chaussegros made a connection between personal and professional integrity and proper living accommodations. He seems to be saying that righteousness deserves a reward. Finally, we interpret Chaussegros’ comment to mean that he was well-adjusted to his function in society as one that served others. He

122 designed others’ spaces, to the best of his ability, to match their specifications and to fit their space as suitably as possible into the harmony of the whole.

In summary, from the evidence found in the Inventaire, we cannot say that

Chaussegros was a devout Catholic. Yet neither can we find any indication that he questioned the authority of the Church as did the philosophers of the Enlightenment.

Neither is there any reference to Protestants in Chaussegros’ collected correspondence.

Nevertheless, of the eight situations regarding religion or religious people from the

Inventaire that have just been described above, two experiences are positive, two are neutral, and four are negative. Of the four negative experiences, Chaussegros describes greed, fraud, deceitful a power-play, and an attempt at price gouging. Furthermore, both of the two positive experiences involve only one individual each, whereas of the negative experiences, three out of the four involve a collusion with the religious community.

Finally, the majority of these situations involved the love of money which “is the root of all evil.”61 Since Chaussegros found it necessary to write to the Minister to expose these schemes, we are safe in asserting that he did not participate in them and that he was honest enough to expose such unfair practices. Nevertheless, these deductions are based upon indirect evidence since Chaussegros does not make any direct statements about his religious views.

Chaussegros de Léry and Political Systems

The eighteenth century was a time of change. Political turmoil was particularly prevalent during that century which culminated in the French Revolution. The

61 Recorded in the Christian Scriptures, I Timothy 6:10. 123 fundamental question that often undergirds political turmoil is, “Who is in charge here, and why?” The desire for change through political turmoil by those who are struggling for it comes from the belief that when they gain supremacy they will establish a better method of governing society. The struggle for authority over self (internal), over one’s family (relational), over one’s environment (spatial), over one’s society (governmental) and over one’s planet/universe (spiritual) are all categories of contention that feed into political turmoil. All parties involved in the struggle are convinced that their own modus operandi is best. The times of Chaussegros de Léry were no exception, especially since his lifespan (1682 – 1756) covered the first part of the eighteenth century, a time of transition between the absolute monarchy and the Enlightenment.

In this portion of the chapter, Chaussegros de Léry’s correspondence will be analyzed for indications of this time of transition by searching for evidence of political turmoil and the struggle for authority. One might ask questions such as, Was

Chaussegros involved in the Enlightenment’s questioning of political systems? Did the literature of that era have an impact on him? For example, although Montesquieu’s De l’esprit des lois (1748) appeared in Chaussegros’ old age, did its precursor, the story of the Troglodytes in Lettres persanes, shape his political views? Did he struggle with those who were in authority in order to establish his own autonomy? Since social identity during the monarchy was intricately linked to nobility,62 we have already addressed some of these issues in the part of this chapter about Chaussegros de Léry’s aristocratic

62 Consider this contrasting quote from Jaucourt’s article entitled Noblesse in Diderot’s Encyclopédie:

“Democracies have no need for nobility, they are even more peaceful when there are no noble families; for then one considers the thing proposed and not the individual proposing it; or when it happens that the individual is taken into account, it is only to the extent that he might be useful to the business at hand, and not because of his coat of arms and genealogy” (see Bibliography.) 124 identity. Therefore, we will provide brief mention of some of the material that has been previously introduced, but we will present new perspectives, as well.

The Governor and the Intendant were Chaussegros de Léry’s supervisors.

Therefore, they functioned as representatives of the king’s court and had authority over him. Even so, Chaussegros tangled with them on numerous occasions. We have previously documented Chaussegros’ battles with Vaudreuil and Bégon, with Hocquart, with Dupuy and, last but not least, with Bigot. Regrettably, since Chaussegros was required to submit his proposals to them before they were forwarded to France, he was unable to avoid contact with these men for business reasons. It is without contest that

Chaussegros’ frequent disputes were based upon his commendable difficulty in allowing illegal or unethical activities to take place without speaking out against the perpetrators who were his supervisers, not to mention his normal, human inability to graciously accept mistreatment from them on a personal level.

Yet Chaussegros’ behavior, whether appropriate or not, was indeed a form of questioning the established political bureaucracy. His supervisers were in authority over him; the system had no provision for his questioning why they had the right to abuse him personally or to commit illegal acts. When a political system feels highly threatened, it lashes out against the insurgent(s) with direct rebukes. As the previous quotations have demonstrated, the reproaches to Chaussegros from France were very strong. When a political system senses a moderate threat, even on the individual level, it typically responds by drawing attention to its structure in order to strengthen itself. One type of drawing attention to its structure is simply to not answer a communication sent by a subordinate to an authority that is higher than his immediate superviser(s). One of

125 Chaussegros’ letters demonstrates this lack of communication as he writes, “J’ai eu l’honneur, Monseigneur, de vous en écrire l’année passée et comme Je n’ai reçu aucune réponse, je suis persuadé par ce silence de vos intentions qui sont qu’on continue l’enceinte suivant le projet de 1718 ce que Je vais faire l’année prochaine” (1: 250).

Another method for drawing attention to organizational structure is to mention official channels of communication in a written document within the context of a different situation. For example, in a 1732 letter from the President to Chaussegros, we find a clear example of this: “J’ay vu tout ce que vous m’avés marqué […] j’ay rendu Compte du tout au Roy et je fais Scavoir a Mrs. de Beauharnois et hocquart les jntentions de Sa

Majesté Sur cela” (1: 254.) Unmistakably, the President is demonstrating that he is acting through the political system’s established channels of communication by stating that he will not reply directly to Chaussegros, but he will give the information to the colony’s officers. Three years later, Maurepas became even more explicit: “Je leur explique les intentions du Roy sur les fortifications; et ils vous les feront sçavoir pour ce qui vous regarde dans l’exécution” (1: 269). This time, Maurepas adds that Chaussegros must get his information from his bosses, and that some of the information that he communicates to Chaussegros’ bosses does not pertain to him. A political system that feels menaced also uses the tactic of warning and threatening what it believes to be the source of the problem. Many of Chaussegros’ rebukes from the leaders in France appear earlier in this chapter, but in order to support our argument, we are repeating one of the most acerbic:

Les propositions que vous me faites d’Inquietude et dinsubordination que d’un Zele pour le Service viennent plutost d’un Esprit danimosité, renfermés vous dans

126 vos fonctions ayés pour le G’nal Le respect que vous luy devés c’est Le moyen de vous maintenir dans votre Employ. (1: 131).

Obviously, the President’s thinly-veiled threat to fire Chaussegros was aimed at frightening him into silence, compliance and submission.

In the final analysis, Chaussegros’ actions did demonstrate a questioning of political systems. He may have believed that he was serving the king by the manner in which he conducted his business affairs or dealt with his supervisers, but in the end, it resulted in a disadvantage. There is no direct evidence that Chaussegros’ contact with literature written by political philosophers of the Enlightenment affected his thinking or his behavior. However, based upon Chaussegros’ words and deeds, we do find evidence that one of the basic components of the Enlightenment, the questioning of political systems, occurred in Quebec as well as in France.

Chaussegros de Léry and Science

One of the most predominant characteristics of the Enlightenment was the transformation in western thought regarding the source of the authority for truth, which shifted from the Bible to humankind. This transition changed humankind’s intellectual perspective from one of searching for truth in a source outside oneself to one of searching for truth inside oneself. It also changed society’s generally accepted perception of truth from being absolute to being relative. Dependence upon God was replaced with dependence upon oneself and one’s own aptitudes. Man’s ability to reason and his capacity to observe became the bases for scientific investigation and for human improvement. Accordingly, one might ask if there is evidence in Chaussegros de Léry’s

127 correspondence that demonstrates his use of science or of scientific principles in his work as engineer and architect. Do his letters document his use of reason, as advocated by the philosophers of the Enlightenment? Did he view his ability to reason and to make scientific observations as the basis for his profession, or did he view his profession as a function of the will of the French government—or of the Quebec government? This section will analyze Chaussegros’ correspondence for evidence leading to answers to these questions, attempting to discern whether or not science played a major role in his professional life as Quebec’s first engineer/architect who designed and shaped Quebec’s urban space.

Chaussegros de Léry’s work as chief engineer involved many different skills and responsibilities. According to Charrois, “l’ingénieure […] doit être tout à la fois militaire et maître de guerre, arpenteur, dessinateur, cartographe, architecte, urbaniste et administrateur” (37). From the training he received from his father and from the expertise he gained on the job, there is no doubt that Chaussegros fulfilled all of these functions. He was a military expert on war, having participated in several campaigns during the War of Spanish Succession and having been appointed captain by the French government. As a surveyor, Chaussegros was responsible for observing the lay of the land and assessing its suitability for whatever construction for which it was intended. He was then required to translate his observations onto paper in the form of drawings and estimates in order to support his proposals to his supervisors. He drew maps of Quebec’s terrain and designed buildings that were custom fitted to the topography of the land.

Charrois concurs by stating, “Etant à la tête d’un projet architectural, il fait tout ce qui est en son pouvoir pour l’adapter aux conditions physiques de la ville sans négliger pour cela

128 le côté esthétique et monumental de l’ensemble. Il donne aux Canadiens des plans- modèles d’architecture qu’ils suivront” (6). Chaussegros also fulfilled the function of city planner, especially for Montreal, by advising where houses could be built and plotting street grids in relation to the wall around Montreal. In addition, after the devastating 1721 fire of Montreal, he proposed that all roofs be covered with tin instead of wooden shingles. Although Chaussegros’ correspondence does not contain the words science or scientist, the elements of scientific observation coupled with reason permeate it significantly. Chaussegros himself often stood his ground based upon his scientific knowledge and his ability to reason. For example, we are reproducing here a previously quoted passage from Chaussegros’ letter to Council regarding his dispute with Hocquart regarding the manner in which to upgrade the interior of the Intendant’s Palace:

Quand j’ay communiqué a M. Hocquart ce que vous me marqueés il ni fit aucune attention et me dit qu’il etoit Intendant des fortifications que je luy étois subordonné et que je devois faire les ouvrages comme il souhaiteroit je pris la liberté de lui representer qu’il n’étoit pas Ingénieur, et au fait des travaux y ayant plus de quarente ans que ien conduisois en France et dans les armées et comme ie m’apercu qu’il s’emportoit ie fermé la bouche. (2: 24-5)

Chaussegros stated very plainly in the above quotation that he had the authority to direct his works based upon his scientific knowledge. Certainly, his ability to reason is displayed in the Inventaire by more proofs than can be counted. Suffice it to say that his superior ability to reason was unmistakably revealed by his decision to keep quiet when his boss was emotionally enraged. Nonetheless, we will cite evidence of the use of scientific principles—observation and reason—in his activities related to Charrois’ list of engineering/architectural functions: “militaire et maître de guerre, arpenteur, dessinateur, cartographe, architecte, urbaniste et administrateur” (37).

129 As an expert in military engineering, Chaussegros’s correspondence demonstrates his vast scope of knowledge. In it, he refered to various memoirs that he wrote, including one in 1739, for example, entitled, “memoire pour servir a prendre un fort sauvage ou disposition d’attaque” (2: 3). Furthermore, one need only read even a small portion of his

Traité de fortifications divisée en huit livres in order to grasp the depth of his knowledge of fortification. As an adherent to the school of modern fortification, Chaussegros’ treatise is an in-depth presentation of Vauban’s “new” theoretical model for fortification.

Noppen, et al., explain Vauban’s model as a

système, où bastions et courtines se succèdent doublés par des tranchées, des glacis, des tenailles, des demi-lunes, permet de soutenir un siège en assurant une protection supplémentaire aux murs. Les canons ennemis ne peuvent atteindre l’enceinte proprement dite, tandis que l’adversaire est continuellement exposé au tir des assiégés dès qu’il approche de la place forte. (Québec: trois siècles d’architecture 30)

In addition, Noppen, et al., state that “Les projets de Chaussegros de Léry sont d’une grande qualité” (Québec: trois siècles d’architecture 30). Another evidence of

Chaussegros’ military expertise is found in his memoir “Dispositions de la manœvre que feront les Brulots remises a Monsieur le Marquis de Beauharnois, Gouverneur Général, au commencement de l’année 1745. par Monsieur de Léry, premier ingenieur” (2: 61). In this memoir, he described how to construct and use fireships most effectively.63

Chaussegros also expressed his opinion on the best way for Quebecers to prepare for an

English military attack, such as how to hide their animals, their food and themselves in

63 However, in 1754, Chaussegros defends his idea to use fireships against the English by asking the English what they think of it. He writes, “Les anglois qui sont venus a Quebec a la paix pour léchange des prisonniers mont assuré que ce qui les avoit empecher dy venir cetoit les brulots il y en avoit dix darmées, ils me dirent que pour les descentes cetoit fortune de guerre mais d’etre brulé la chose merite reflection” (2: 128). Given the contentious history between the English and the French, we submit that prudence would dictate not to speak with the enemy even in times of peace. This is one time when Chaussegros did not use his reason. 130 the dense Canadian forest. He recommended placing lookouts on the banks of the St.

Lawrence using fire by night and smoke by day to send signals. He also suggested having many horses and birch bark canoes on hand so that the population could make a speedy escape (2: 54-59). All in all, Chaussegros’ understanding of military strategy was outstanding.

Chaussegros’ expertise as a surveyor is also evident in the Inventaire. Precise measurements were mandatory when establishing streets, lots, and, especially, the

Montreal wall. Furthermore, Chaussegros’ surveying ability was involved in the selection of the site for a new shipyard in Quebec. He stated that there would be obstacles to overcome with the location that the majority had chosen: the land was too narrow, the water was too shallow even at high tide, it was too close to houses in case of fire, and the logs had to be stored in front of the palais and then transported to the vessel which cost more (2: 25). Later, in a 1744 letter to the Minister regarding the site of the shipyard, Chaussegros wrote,

Ils ont pris la resolution de ne pas construire a l’avenir dans cet endroit sinon de petits batimens, pour la calle ils disent qu’un vaisseau dre [sic] 60 canons ne peut y entrer faute d’Eau et d’autres choses que je leurs ay predit qui sont arrivées vous verrés par la Monseigneur que iavois pensé juste je n’ay pas eté ecouté (2: 43).

Chaussegros was a multi-talented man, not the least of which was his ability to measure the physical spaces available and envision their suitability for the proposed projects.

Chaussegros’ talent as an artist was also extraordinarily fine. His Traité de fortifications divisée en huit livres contains 132 illustrations that Chaussegros himself produced. In a 1754 letter to the Minister, Chaussegros writes, “Dans ma jeunesse javois fait un traité de fortification divisé en huit livres que jay ecrit et desiné moy meme” (2:

131 129). It is undeniable that Chaussegros had a spectacular drawing talent. Even

Duquesne, Governor of Quebec from 1752 to 1755, gave his artistic ability a back- handed compliment: “je crois que le Sr. de Lery est un fort honneste homme, mais je le juge meilleur dessinateur qu’ingenieur” (2: 125). He also prepared two plans en relief

(miniature models of a city or a terrain) that were shipped to France (Mayrand 19). They were so large that they could not be unloaded at La Rochelle and transported to Paris by a vehicle with wheels. Therefore, they had to be rerouted to the north of France and sailed up the Seine which took an extra six months of shipping time (Mayrand 20, 22).

Apparently, these plans en relief were extremely detailed and the court was pleased with

Chaussegros’ artistry since he was compensated 500 l. for his efforts.

Chaussegros was a prolific mapmaker, as well. The court frequently instructed him to draw maps of cities or of various regions of New France. When he arrived in

1716, the first order of business was to draw a map of Quebec. In 1732, he drew a map of Lake Champlain so that Beauharnois and Hocquart could make land concessions around it (1: 260). It is from Chaussegros’ cartography that he dabbled in Canada’s first civil engineering projects and developed concepts such as soil mechanics in Quebec

(MacKenzie 2). He also investigated the possibility of digging a canal in order to bypass the Lachine rapids, and work on it was begun by the St. Sulpice Seminary (1: 260-61).

Chaussegros’ architectural contributions to Quebec were numerous: his principal designs are the bishop’s palace at Quebec, Notre Dame of Montreal, the Intendant’s

Palace and the Chateau St. Louis (Thorpe, “Chaussegros” 1). However, the quality of his designs is disputed among architects. Noppen and Morisset contend that his

“contribution la plus significative” lies in the fact that “Chaussegros de Léry a codifié

132 l’expression formelle d’une première architecture urbaine proprement canadienne, au début du XVIIIe siècle” (Québec de roc et de pierres 23). Yet not all modern-day architects speak highly of Chaussegros’ designs. Ramsay Traquair, late Professor of

Architecture from McGill, simply states the following:

Chaussegros de Léry, “ingenieur du Roy”, was also a military engineer. He was a man of good family and held an important public office. He is responsible for the front of old Nôtre Dame at Montreal erected in 1722, and later worked at the Basilica in Quebec. If the front of Nôtre Dame is to be taken as a good example of his quality as an architect, his knowledge and designing abilities were very slight indeed (94).

Yet Traquair does not elaborate on his opinion and does not relate the reason for his distaste for Chaussegros’ “designing abilities.” Therefore, let the reader decide.

The urbanization of New France was directly affected by Chaussegros’ function as principal city planner. Noppen and Morissett explain the impact of his work as follows: “La contribution la plus significative de Gaspard Chaussegros de Léry est la mise en forme d’une architecture urbaine, appropriée au contexte socioéconomique de la

Nouvelle-France” (28). We have already stated that Chaussegros devised important preventive building techniques as solutions to the devastation from the Montreal fire, and that his solutions were codified into law by the Intendant Bégon. In 1727 when the

Intendant’s Palace burned, Chaussegros conceived of more preventive measures that were established as law, and “Chaussegros de Léry entreprend de reconstruire le palais de l’intendant, qui servira à illustrer les règles dont il fait la nomenclature [...] utiles aux ouvriers responsables de la construction des maisons et qui, dans bon nombre de cas, ne sont pas en mesure de lire un texte” (Noppen and Morissett 29-30). The Quebec housing model consisted of four-story row houses with attics, each one separated by firewalls into

133 which the chimneys were built, and were constructed of stone with tin roofs (Noppen and

Morissett 30). As was previously mentioned, Chaussegros also standardized the streets in

Montreal, laying out the plots of land where the inhabitants could build or not build in relation to the plans for the placement of Montreal’s wall. Chaussegros’ urban planning function also impelled him to recommend experimenting—a very scientific activity—with the suitability of a newly discovered lode of clay for manufacturing roofing tiles in the colony (2: 26). Some officials did not heed Chaussegros’ message of caution and his appeal to reason. They manufactured the tiles, applied them to a roof, but were forced to clean up the mess when the tiles disintegrated into powder during the first year (2:27). Chaussegros’ indelible mark of urbanization is imprinted throughout Quebec to this day.

All in all, Chaussegros de Léry is a very important figure in the history of Quebec due to his numerous projects that altered the colony’s physical space. His multi-faceted profession laid the foundation for Quebec’s visual appeal that is appreciated today. All facets of his professional prism—military expert, surveyor, designer of drawings, mapmaker, architect and urban planner—demonstrated Chaussegros’ excellence and expertise. Moreover, each of these facets was based in science and reason, an exaltation of humankind’s skills and capacities.

CHAUSSEGROS DE LÉRY’S PERSPECTIVE OF QUEBEC

Chaussegros de Léry was a Canadian/French aristocrat whose life was significantly impacted by the economy, political questioning, and the emerging paradigm of scientific thought based upon reason, but was only moderately impacted by the

134 polemics of libertinage and religion. Clearly, his relationship to the court suffered from the vicissitudes of having or not having its favor: at times he was praised, and at others, he was rebuked. In like manner, he was obedient at times, and at others, he was not. In short, his nobility led to confusion and uncertainty regarding his relationship to the court, especially regarding his economic compensation from France. Since Quebecers often participated in fraudulent practices which did not improve the French government’s opinion of them, their claims were often suspect. Chaussegros’ correspondence displays a fundamental honesty, with perhaps a few minor inconsistencies. But the effects of the economy on Chaussegros and on his view of Quebec were far more complex. He was tangled in a snare: the manner in which systems functioned in France was not necessarily the same as in Canada. Despite his brilliant adaptation of fortifications and architectural designs to Canadian geographical topography, his frequent disputes with his supervisors indicate that he was unaware or unwilling to make social adaptations to Canadian hierarchical topography. He had unrealistic expectations about Canadian life in that he assumed that he could operate the same way in the “country” as in the “city.” In

Chaussegros’ personal life, there is no evidence that he participated in officially disapproved of practices akin to libertinage. We find no indication that he questioned the authority of the Church as did the philosophers of the Enlightenment. Nevertheless, the correspondence does contain some critical comments about religious people or situations, most of which revolved around the misuse of money. In addition, Chaussegros’ actions demonstrate a questioning of political systems due to his frequent verbal altercations with his local supervisers. Finally, Chaussegros’ reliance on his mental faculties and his

135 methodical investigations plainly manifest his professional adherence to the emerging paradigm of science and reason during the first half of the eighteenth century.

Obviously, Chaussegros de Léry was extremely important as a founding father of

Quebec. Yet through all of the preceding analyses of his correspondence in this chapter, one last, major item must not be overlooked: his appreciation for beauty. There is no doubt that Chaussegros’ correspondence expresses emotion and passion or, in Charrois’ terms, Chaussegros was “indépendant, fier et coléreux” (24) Yet so far, we have only observed his stubborn, tempestuous side. Consequently, we are quoting below several of the observations that he wrote down regarding his perception of the connection between beauty and Quebec.

Volume 1 (All bold emphasis in the quotes below is mine.)

Les ingénieurs sont obligés d’informer la cour de ce qui peut empêcher les établissements des villes comme d’y bâtir de belles maisons,…(114)

Ce qui nuit à l’établissement et à la décoration des villes (repeated twice) (115)

Ayant marqué que les armes de Sa Majesté n’étaient dans aucun endroit dans cette colonie et qu’on avait oublé [sic] de les mettre au dessus des portes des Bâtiments et Forts de Sa Majesté, je les ai fait faire complétés par un sculpteur et je les ai fait placer au dessus des principales portes,… Comme je l’ai fait sans votre ordre, je vous supplie, Monseigneur, de l’approuver (136).

J’ay eté charmé de voir la beauté des terres qui entourent le lac Champlain et de celles qui sont autour du nouveau fort qui est situé par les 43. degrés 35. m. Le climat y est beau c’est la Provence du Canada… (271)

Volume 2

(Regarding the bishop’s palace) – J’ai l’honneur de vous en envoyer les plans vous verrés Monseigneur que c’est un beau batiment avec une belle cour, basse cour et Jardin.... Il est convenu avec Monsr. l’ltendant [sic] de ne point retablir la Chapele elle merite de lettre car elle est belle ayant un beau portail de pierre de taille orné d’un ordre d’architecture (33).

136 cette Ville est fortifiée a la moderne, la fortification est bien flanquée ce sera une belle place de Guerre (93).

In the final analysis, we submit that Chaussegros de Léry fought passionately for what he believed in: the fortification and beautification of his beloved Quebec. After all, he moved there, he married there, he worked there and he died there. Yet, as is true more often than not, spirited behavior, even though it be for the common good, draws negative attention.

137 CHAPTER 4

PIERRE DE SALES LATERRIERE

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF LATERRIERE (f.)64

Pierre de Sales Laterrière (f.)65 is considered to be Canada’s first memorialist. He was born near Albi, France, in 1743(1747?), and studied near his hometown at the Royal

College of Toulouse around 1760. During this time, his Uncle Rustan returned from

Canada to visit his family and convinced the young Pierre to emigrate to Quebec. First, however, Laterrière decided to continue his education by moving to La Rochelle where he studied mathematics under Mathieu Mounier.

During his stay at La Rochelle, Laterrière traveled to Paris and London. His memoir confirms Voltaire’s assertion in his Lettres Philosophiques that commerce, skillfully practiced in England is the source of a country’s liberty and grandeur (66).

Laterrière was supposed to accept a commission in the French navy, but he was not interested in a military career. Rather, he studied medicine with Dr. Rochambeau in

Paris. Finally, Laterrière left for Quebec. Upon his arrival in 1766, he described in minute detail the foliage and the countryside he saw, marveling over blueberries and ground cherries which were unknown in Europe. At this point in his life, he experienced

64 The source for all information in this biographical sketch is Laterrière’s Mémoires. See Bibliography.

65 In this chapter, the name Laterrière will refer to the father Pierre unless specifically stated otherwise. 138 his first contact with Amerindians, the Micmacs. Later, Laterrière described a visit that he made to a Jesuit/Iroquois village named Lorette where domicilés66 lived. He was so enthralled with what he saw that he exulted afterwards, “Why wasn’t I born Iroquois?”

Laterrière characterized himself as “jeune, ingénu, et franc comme la nation à laquelle j’appartenois.” He claimed that the Amerindians are neither deceitful nor duplicitous, and were to be pitied because of the corruption that they experienced from contact with

European culture, a stance reminiscent of Rousseau’s claims about the bon sauvage in his

Discours sur l’inégalité de l’homme.67 He further commented that Canadian women are careful with money and are tender, faithful spouses for their husbands.

Soon after his arrival in Quebec, Laterrière also traveled to Montreal and Trois

Rivières. He described Montreal as a wealthy city because of trade with the

Amerindians. Laterrière participated in many soirées and enjoyed Quebec social life, commenting that he never knew a people that liked to dance more than the Canadians, evidently himself included. Laterrière began work as a businessman for Alexandre

Dumas, an associate of Uncle Rustan and another businessman, Christophe Pélissier.

Dissatisfied with his work in commerce, he returned to his love of medicine and worked with Dr. DuBergès near Quebec for two years. Later, in 1771, he became commissioner of the Foundry of Saint-Maurice in Quebec. Laterrière earned a living from his position at Saint-Maurice as well as from practicing medicine which, he boasts, he understood

66 Domicilés were Amerindians who had converted to Christianity and lived in small villages with the Jesuits or the Récollets who had evangelized them.

67 “Voilà les funestes garands que la pluspart de nos maux sont notre propre ouvrage, et que nous les aurions presque tous évités, en conservant la maniére [sic] de vivre simple, uniforme, et solitaire qui nous étoit prescrite par la Nature” (Discours sur l’origine, et les fondemens de l’inégalité parmi les hommes 138). 139 perfectly. Later, in 1775, he was promoted to inspecter at Saint-Maurice. All in all,

Laterrière was very pleased with his experience in Canada, calling it a paradise.

Nevertheless, paradise has its counterpart. During this time period, he fell in love with Catherine Delezenne whose father had promised her in marriage to Pélissier.

According to Laterrière, the sad wedding took place, but Catherine despised her husband who was decades older than she. It was Laterrière who fathered their child, Dorothée, in

1778. Not long after, Pélissier kidnapped his wife and kept her under guard from

Laterrière. The melodrama continued: Laterrière stole her back when Pélissier was away on business, kept her locked in a trunk to hide her, and then stashed her among hay bales in a barn. Finally, Pélissier left for Europe, abandoning her to Laterrière, and the two were together for the rest of their lives, marrying in 1799.

But Laterrière and Delezenne did not always live happily ever after. During the

American Revolution, Pélissier, who sympathized with the Americans, plotted to implicate Laterrière as being disloyal to the British by conning Governor Halidmand.

Pélissier produced false witnesses and Laterrière was condemned to prison for three and a half years (1779-1782) during which time he lost most of his fortune. To pass the time while in prison, he built a “machine,” a replica of the fortifications of Quebec, including

60 canons, as well as the Forges of Saint-Maurice where he had worked, complete with furnaces, a windmill and a saw. When the guards took it to Haldimand, it struck his fancy. In correspondence with Haldimand, Laterrière requested his release from prison and it was granted to him.

Upon his release, Laterrière was forced into exile from Quebec, so he traveled to

Newfoundland, where he also hoped to restore his good health that had been damaged in

140 prison. He took his daughter Dorothée with him, but decided to disguise her as a boy, calling her “Jacky.” While on Newfoundland, at Hâvre-de-Grâce, he took an excusion by boat to the capital, St. John’s. The return trip should have taken only four hours, but due to contrary winds, the vessel was blown out to sea. The eleven lost travellers passed day after day without consuming food or water, since the salted cod and the wine made them sick. They were reduced to eating their shoes and boots, as well as drinking their own urine. One of the passengers even suggested killing and eating one of the weakest passengers since he was fat. Finally, the winds turned, blowing them back to land and they recovered from their ordeal. After returning to Hâvre-de-Grâce, Laterrière used his medical training to save the life of a young woman, eight months pregnant, whose placenta covered the cervix. He delivered the placenta, broke the bag of waters so that the infant was born, and both mother and baby survived.

When he returned from Newfoundland, Laterrière built a cabin in Belle-Vue where he lived with Catherine and Dorothée. It was at this time that his medical practice started to take root. Catherine’s parents came to live nearby, but her mother died shortly thereafter. However, the British government demanded that all doctors present their diplomas and certificates of apprenticeship, but Laterrière’s was lost. Even though he passed a difficult oral examination in Quebec, the government refused to license him for practice. His only choice was to return to medical school and earn another diploma.

Therefore, he headed for Boston, guided by an Amerindian named César, and began his studies at Harvard under the noted anatomy professor, Dr. Warren. Laterrière depicts

Boston as a quaint town whose women were more beautiful than any others in America.

British soldiers were often dead drunk in the streets, something that one never saw among

141 French soldiers, he says. Furthermore, after being asked by a fellow student to abort the baby of his mistress, he refused. During his medical studies, Laterrière writes that criminals who had been hung were used as cadavers on which to practice dissection. One night, however, the medical students stole the corpse of a big, fat lady out of her grave, who, writes Laterrière, dissected beautifully. After a year of intense study, he graduated with a degree in medicine. During his trip back to Canada, he claimed that his horse,

Pégase, was undoubtedly a cross between a horse and a moose, which, according to

Laterrière, was not an uncommon occurrence in Canada. Back home in 1789, he also saw, for the first time, his son Pierre-Jean, who had been born in his absence. He submitted to an oral re-examination by the medical board and was finally granted a license to practice medicine in Canada. After all the trouble that he had gone through in order to be certified by the British-ruled Canadian government, he complained in his

Mémoires that the reason that he had had to fulfill so many requirements is that the

British authorities could not believe that a francophone could be as good a doctor as an anglophone. In 1800, he moved to Quebec in order to send his sons to school, but also to find a noble husband for his daughter rather than marrying her to a simple habitant.

Sadly, Laterrière picked the wrong man to wed his Dorothée. Shortly after her marriage to Lehoulier, which was allegedly not consummated, he began to abuse her, beat her and treat her like a domestic servant. He even attempted to force her to commit adultery with another man. In the meantime, Laterrière moved back to Trois-Rivières.

Since divorce in Quebec was not permitted by the Catholic Church, Lehoulier’s goal was to drive his wife away from him, claiming that she had abandoned him, in order to retain her dowry. Lehoulier was no less cruel to his father-in-law, calling him figure de pendu

142 behind his back. Finally, Laterrière moved back to Quebec, witnessed his son-in-law’s outrageous ruthlessness, and stepped in to help his daughter. He appealed to the courts for a legal separation which was finally granted to his daughter. She moved back to

Trois-Rivières with Laterrière and her mother where she lived for the rest of her life without remarrying.

Sometime thereafter, Laterrière received a letter from France notifying him of the passing of his father and that he must return to the land of his birth to accept his share of his father’s estate. Thus began the last and most difficult voyage of Laterrière’s life. He and his youngest son Marc-Pascal set sail for France, but landed instead in Portugal. The

Napoleonic Wars had begun and Laterrière, being Canadian, was considered to be a subject of the English Crown. Napoleon’s edict was that all English subjects, whatever their nationality, who were found in Portugal must be arrested. After some politicking,

Laterrière managed to find passage to London.

While in London, Laterrière fell ill, but he continued his association with medicine, and even gave a lecture at the British Society of Arts at the Adelphi. His illness became very grave, to the point that he desired a priest for confession. He managed to hang on in London for many months and was finally able to set sail for

Canada in 1808. Laterrière’s journal of the voyage depicts a long, turbulent and painful journey due to his broken health. However, always the businessman, Laterrière imported at the same time enough merchandise to pay his debts in London, to send one son to school in England, the other to school in the United States, and to buy the seigneurie des

Eboulemens. After his sons graduated, they took over their father’s commercial enterprises. When the war of 1812 broke out, they served in the British army.

143 The last paragraph of Laterrière’s memoirs consists of a tirade against a certain

Dr. Agronome who did not understand the proper use of anesthesia and who also claimed that abortion is not murder. The final two words of Laterrière’s Mémoires are,

“Exécrables principes!” Thus ends the story of a doctor, businessman, traveler and colonist whose memoirs have preserved for us a lively and witty glimpse of life in

Quebec during the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth centuries.

IDENTIFICATION OF SELECTED TEXTS

In the context of French political history, Laterrière’s (f.) life spanned the turmoil of the French Revolution, Napoleon’s empire, Waterloo, and the 100 days. Yet in the context of literary movements, this time period includes the height of the

Enlightenment, pre-Romanticism and the beginnings of Romanticism. Therefore, I propose to analyze Laterrière’s Mémoires in the light of these conceptual frameworks.

His Mémoires have been published three times, the most recent edition appearing in

2003, edited by Bernard Andrès, which also includes his correspondence. Andrès has also published about fifteen articles regarding Laterrière and has written his romantic biography, as well.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT, PRE-ROMANTICISM AND ROMANTICISM IN LATERRIERE’S TEXT

Documents other than his Mémoires that were penned by Laterrière include his correspondence, a discourse on the cultivation of Canadian hemp, various legal documents regarding his business enterprises and his masonic affiliation, his

144 “Dissertation on the Puerperal Fever” written at Harvard, a newspaper article, and various pamphlets68 (Laterrière, Mémoires 313-15.) Nevertheless, it is his Mémoires that are his most personal writings. Some authors, such as Ruelland, insist, in other terms, that

Laterrière was essentially a pathological liar: “Le personnage est regardé avec méfiance, et ses mémoires ne semblent jouir d’aucune crédibilité. [...] Laterrière a menti sur son nom, sur la noblesse de sa famille, sur sa date de naissance, sur sa prétendue formation médicale antérieure à son arrivée au Canada, et sur d’innombrables détails des

Mémoires” (119). These are strong assertions coming from a scholar. Yet Ruelland quite explicitly falls prey to psychologizing when he states, “on peut penser que Laterrière [...] souffrait d’un complexe d’infériorité intellectuelle...” (108), explaining this “complex” ten pages later as the result of Laterrière’s being “celui qui se croit érudit et qui ne parvient à en persuader que lui-même” (118). On the other hand, Andrès argues that he has been able to authenticate the vast majority of Laterrière’s claims: “Ma longue fréquentation des archives (de et sur) Laterrière m’a permis de confirmer la plupart des assertions couchées dans ses mémoires” (Les aventuriers des Lettres 31). Nevertheless,

Andrès himself admits, “Littérairement parlant, on le sait, écrire c’est mentir un peu”

(Nature et Frontières 354). This scholarly wrestling match between Ruelland and

Andrès embodies the classic posturing between the search for historical accuracy and either its supposed authentication or its obvious distortion through written representation.

Yet this teleological struggle must necessarily take place with a view toward the confines

68 The existence of these pamphlets is documented, but, to date, we have been unable to locate them. In a 1937 article entitled “The Library of the Association Canado-Américaine,” author Edward B. Ham states, “The A. C.-A. also has copies of somewhat rare French texts of the anti-Catholic diatribes of Pierre de Sales Laterrière and le père Chiniquy” (see Bibliography). The ACA’s library has undergone a recent recataloguing through the tireless and competent efforts of librarian Marie-Jeanne Chaput. Via several telephone and e-mail communications, Chaput has stated that these valuable pamphlets cannot be found in the ACA’s library. We wish to thank her for her assistance. 145 of the specific historical period in which Laterrière lived, and must account for

Laterrière’s own limited horizon, that is, Bourdieu’s habitus. Plainly, Laterrière had read important Enlightenment works to which he refers in his Mémoires and of which they undoubtedly bear the mark. Consequently, we propose to evaluate his Mémoires for elements of the conceptual frameworks in existence during his lifetime: the

Enlightenment, pre-Romanticism and Romanticism. Therefore, the analysis in this chapter will be structured according to the following subchapters:

Laterrière as a Scientist Laterrière and Society Laterrière and Education Laterrière as a Philosopher of the Enlightenment Laterrière Politics and Liberty Laterrière and Religion Laterrière Pre-Romanticism and Romanticism

Laterrière as a Scientist

Humankind’s dependence on reason and science as the basis for its existence and progress rather than on the metarécits set forth by organized religion was one of the main characteristics of the Enlightenment. In addition, according to Ruelland,

La science, au 18e siècle notamment, est une activité qui englobe toute la connaissance. À cette époque, un scientifique n’est pas seulement—comme il le deviendra au 19e siècle—un individu très spécialisé qui connaît les sciences dites “exactes” [physique, chimie, mathématique, etc.]—et plus souvent une seule de ces sciences plutôt que plusieurs—, mais aussi celui qui est familier avec toutes sortes de domaines: littérature, philosophie, histoire, politique, économie, médecine, astronomie.... (163)

One might ask if Laterrière had expertise in some or all of the domains of study in

Ruelland’s list. Is there evidence in his Mémoires that Laterrière advocates the use of reason and science, especially regarding his participation in the medical profession? Was

146 his study of medicine based upon science and reason? Was he interested in making scientific precepts accessible to the general population, as did Fontenelle in his Entretiens sur la pluralité des mondes? What was his view regarding the scientific study of nature?

A close examination of certain passages of Laterrière’s Mémoires provides ample evidence for the answers to these questions.

Perhaps Laterrière’s first recorded experience of a scientific nature, where he failed to observe properly before acting, took place while he was in Bordeaux, soon after he left his family home near Albi. While staying at an inn, he took a bottle of nitric acid, which he thought was perfume, and generously splashed its contents on his sleeves. The chemical promptly ate through his garment and seriously burned his forearms (Mémoires

46). Laterrière claimed to have learned his lesson well: “Mais ce fut une leçon pour moi, si bien imprimée que je n’ai touché à rien d’autrui depuis; [...] à savoir de ne jamais désirer ce qui n’est pas à soi, surtout ce dont on ne connoît pas la nature” (Mémoires 46).

It is possible that Laterrière’s burns did enhance his penchant toward reason and observation of his immediate environment and instilled a sincere aversion to theft or misuse of another’s property. However, his actions did not match his claims of never desiring what did not belong to him with regard to his personal relationships. He did indeed take Catherine Delezenne to be his concubine even though she was married to

Pelissier. Nonetheless, Laterrière’s innate tendancy toward scientific observation became more highly developed as time passed, as the remainder of this discussion will demonstrate.

After his arrival in La Rochelle, Laterrière articulated his assessment of his own capacity for observation when he wrote, “Je me mis à observer la ville, son beau port et

147 sa rade; ce fut mon premier essai méthodique. Tout ce que je voyois me donnoit sujet à réfléchir, et les pourquoi se présentoient sans cesse en foule à mon imagination”

(Mémoires 55). This eighteenth century mindset asks the question, What do I think of what I observe, rather than the mindset of the seventeenth century which asks, What would/does the king think of what I observe?

When Laterrière arrived in Paris and became an apprentice to Dr. Rochambaux, who was a partisan of the système des urines, Laterrière was a nearby spectator at the first and last “scientific” experiment of transfusion performed by a certain M. Denis. The doomed subject of the experiment, a criminel, was given calf’s blood, from which, mercifully, he expired relatively quickly. Laterrière condemned the practice as follows:

“Ainsi le même jour vit la naissance et la mort sans resurrection de cette infâme transfusion,” not knowing that a resurrection of transfusion, properly performed, would one day save millions of lives (Mémoires 68). However, he immediately recast the nature of scientific experiments in the following manner: “Certainement, rien ne m’intéressoit autant que les essais de toutes sortes tendant au bien et à l’augmentation des connaissances de l’homme” (Mémoires 68). This sentence is a precise exposition of

Laterrière’s perspective that it was science and reason which should provide for the expansion of human knowledge. Even more precisely, he continues, “Mes études se soutenoient bien d’une expérience à une autre, parce que je prêtois une exacte attention à toute chose” (Mémoires 68). Laterrière’s capacity for meticulous observation and his belief in progress through science is plainly evident.

Laterrière’s observations of and professions of appreciation for nature are manifold in his Mémoires. For the sake of expediency, we will mention only one. When

148 Laterrière was exiled on Newfoundland, he stated, “Comme de coutume, je ne manquai pas d’examiner et observer attentivement l’aspect de ce païs, appelé Côte du nord de l’île” (Mémoires 152). Laterrière’s beautiful description of Quirpon is a fine example of his keen power of observation coupled with his literary ability to express what he perceives in a compelling manner:

De là nous gagnâmes Quirpon, fréquenté par des navires françois de Saint-Malo. Une ville sera bien là plus tard: le havre est sûr, abrité contre tous les vents: c’est une belle et profonde rivière qui sort à l’entrée d’une petite baie en forme de demi-lune, justement à l’opposite du détroit de Belle-Isle, parce que ce Quirpon projette beaucoup en mer, ce qui lui aura fait donner le nom breton de Tierpon. Le sol autour du havre est jaune et fertile, les prairies sont belles et le jardinage y réussit bien à ce que me dirent les navigateurs et pêcheurs françois, avec qui nous commerçâmes pendant 5 à 6 jours que le vent contraire nous retint à cet endroit. Quirpon et la baie de Toulinguet m’avoient charmé, et si j’avois été mal reçu à Québec, je serois retourné à l’une ou l’autre de ces deux places; car je m’y croyois être en France” (Mémoires 157-8).

Andrès has commented on “la façon dont il en décrit le paysage. Quand il découvre le panorama canadien, il oppose ce qu’il voit ici avec le souvenir des terres européennes.

Ces dernières étaient ‘bien cultivées’, certes, mais celles lui ‘paroissoient écorchées comme un bœuf auquel le boucher a levé la peau’” (“Sur les utopies québécoises” 20).

Andrès is correctly quoting another passage in the Mémoires that establishes a comparison between Quebec’s landscape and that of France.69 However, the passage describing Quirpon contradicts Andrès’ point: “A cette vision atterrée de la terre européenne, s’oppose chez Laterrière la figure utopique d’une nature encore vierge [au

Québec]” (“Sur les utopies québécoises” 21). Yet, the article’s point, that Laterrière’s view of Quebec was conditioned by the writings of Enlightenment philosophers to search for a utopia in Quebec, is sound and well defended by other documentation.

69 This passage is found on page 48 of Laterrière’s Mémoires. 149 Laterrière informs us, regarding his professional life, that his first love is medicine. As a new arrival in Quebec, he refers to himself as “élevé dans la médecine, science plus libérale, je faisois ce que je pouvois spontanément, mais, sans espérance de devenir jamais commerçant consommé;” (Mémoires 90). He is also not shy in the least about characterizing his medical talents in superlative terms. Shortly after becoming

Director of the Foundry of Saint-Maurice, he affirmed, “Je ne tardai pas à établir doublement ma réputation, surtout comme médecin, car j’entendois parfaitement la médecine” (Mémoires 97). Regarding the benefits that Laterrière derived from his scientific profession, he claims, “ma qualité de médecin me faisoit du bien sous le triple rapport physique, moral et politique” (Mémoires 111).

However, one might ask if his practice of medicine was based upon science and reason. Ruelland seems to oppose the use of the term “doctor” for Laterrière and raises the supposition that he was a charlatan. While admitting that Laterrière had learned the

“rudiments de la médecine,” Ruelland takes issue with his practice of medicine without a license in Quebec after the conquest (Mémoires 120). Perhaps Laterrière’s dilemma arose from his need to provide for his family through business dealings, especially after his incarceration of 1779-82, during which he lost his fortune. Although he preferred to practice medicine, it was not nearly as profitable as sales, so he combined the two.70 In the winter of 1784, he built an enormous sleigh with a display area in the front and a living/sleeping/eating arrangement in the rear. Ruelland uses the term colporter to describe Laterrière’s intended activities, and we find that we must concur with this assessment (Mémoires 162).

70 “...le négociant Alexandre Dumas, [...] lui propose de jumeler le commerce à la médecine” (Beaudoin, “Pierre de Sales Laterrière, médecin, mémorialiste et prototype de l’aventurier des lettres” 44). 150 Nevertheless, after being banned from medical practice without a license by the government, studying medicine at Cambridge in 1788-89 and receiving his medical diploma from Harvard, the British examining committee in Canada accepted it as sufficient proof of competence. However, before beginning his Harvard studies, while en route to the United States, he observes and comments on an Abénakis village:

Je les ai souvent traités dans leurs maladies, et j’ai même suivi, l’été, leur docteresses dans les bois. Ils m’ont toujours paru francs, de bonne foi, et, pour ce qui est de la connoissance des plantes, dont toute leur médecine est formée, bien supérieurs aux Européens. Cette connoissance leur suffisoit anciennement pour le soulagement de leurs maladies:...” (Mémoires 169).

This passage appears to contradict Laterrière’s love of science and reason. It would not be scientific to recommend a remedy simply because it is effective, without having subjected it to the rigors of scientific experiments based upon reproducible results that validate its efficacy. Furthermore, if science is the source of knowledge, it is doubly illogical to promote the opinion that medicine based upon knowledge of plants is better than European medicine which is based upon scientific experiments, since Amerindian medicine had not been validated scientifically.

In his medical practice, Laterrière was a staunch partisan of bleeding patients.

One of the many examples of this treatment that Laterrière recorded took place while he was en route to Boston. Although two other doctors, to whom Laterrière referred as charlatans, had attempted to treat a young man, “Le malade déliroit si fort qu’il fallut le tenir pour le saigner; la saignée rendit copieusement, et le soulagea tout de suite”

(Mémoires 174). However, this practice could not be termed efficacious as a result of scientific experiments, yet Laterrière’s belief in it remained firmly entrenched in his mind

151 even to the end of his life. Therefore, Laterrière’s dependence on science, observation and reason in his medical practice was limited by his personal choices.

The attraction of social prestige also played into Laterrière’s love of medicine, perhaps more so than medicine’s scientific merits. Regarding a patient whom he had earlier brought back to health, Laterrière commented, “Cette cure me donna beaucoup de réputation dans l’endroit, à ce point que l’on m’engagea à m’établir parmi cette nouvelle population” (Mémoires 173). Furthermore, the young patient in the previous paragraph, whom he had bled, made a full recovery “(ce) qui portèrent aux nues le French Doctor”

(Mémoires 175). In addition, while a student at Harvard, he asked other students if he could replace them on their hospital detail which “me rendoit moi-même plus recommandable aux yeux de nos professeurs; à ce point que quand il se faisoit quelque opération soit dans l’une ou l’autre ville, le malade étoit laissé à mon soin. Lecteur, jugez du bon effet! Ma réputation y gagna tellement...” (Mémoires 184). There are many other examples of this type of self-promotion in his Mémoires, which, as a literary endeavor, is clearly one of the personal benefits of authoring this type of work. Nevertheless, in the final analysis, Laterrière’s arrivisme is plainly evident.

Laterrière writes freely on several occasions of his dissection of cadavres and of his use of them for scientific research and for teaching others. For example, he reports,

“Quatre pendus nous fournirent ample matière à dissection. Je n’en perdis pas un cheveu; j’analysois chaque pièce à l’amphithéâtre, et je l’emportois dans ma chambre pour la dépeindre sur le papier” (Mémoires 185). On the other hand, another account of one of Laterrière’s dissections is shocking and disturbing because he cut a business deal with a gravedigger at a local church. When a fat lady in Boston died suddenly, Laterrière

152 and his cronies bribed the sexton who, as agreed, dug only a very shallow grave. On a dark night, they snatched away the body, but they were seen, and the police were notified. The parents demanded that the governor call an inquest, but since he was on the board at Harvard, he did nothing. Laterrière exults, “Nous disséquâmes la vieille fille secrètement et à notre aise; ce fut un sujet superbe!” (Mémoires 185). However,

Laterrière’s most famous dissection took place in public in 1792 on Marie Brisebois, who was convicted as an accomplice to murder and was hanged. Laterrière complains bitterly about the public outrage that ensued his scientific exhibition, claiming that it was proliferated by “les personnes ignorantes et foibles, qui sont les plus nombreuses au

Canada et qui sont soutenues dans leurs préjugés par des gens de mauvaise foi et par un clergé fanatique qui n’attend son bonheur que de l’ignorance” (Mémoires 208). This precise statement of the antithesis between enlightenment through science and continued ignorance through belief in organized religion is a classic representation of one of the primary polemics during the eighteenth century.

Remarkably, however, although Laterrière played “fast and loose” with others’ bodies, he was exceptionally protective of his own. After his failed attempt to enter

France in 1807 due to the Napoleonic wars, he took refuge in London during which time he fell ill and was even near death several times. He was desperate to return to Quebec for the following reason:

je ne voulois pas être la proie des scélérats de marchands de chair humaine appelés Resurrection Men, qui m’auroient vendu pour être disséqué après que j’aurois eu reçu les prières de l’enterrement dans ma chambre d’un prêtre et que j’aurois été repris par un ministre, et conduit dans le charriot noir au cimetière dans la forme de sa paroisse, afin que ce ministre ne perdît pas son droit. Un évêque, le pape lui-même, mourroit en cette isle qu’il ne seroit pas enterré autrement. (Mémoires 251)

153 Evidently, it was only the deaths of Catholics that were handled in this manner in

London. Even so, Laterrière conveniently forgot that he had purchased the body of the

Boston lady in exactly the same fashion, except that his purchase was more reprehensible, having been accomplished through bribery. His text gives no indication that he had even the slightest twinge of conscience at that time for the anguish of the deceased woman’s parents. Apparently, scientific research stopped for Laterrière when it became a question of his own skin.

Laterrière’s Mémoires record two major occasions when he participated in discussions with other scientists, once in Cambridge and once in London. While yet at

Harvard, Laterrière attended a series of lectures presented by the Englishman Webster:

Sa première lecture fut sur le pouvoir d’attraction des corps. Il nous développa, en en faisant les expériences, toutes les découvertes modernes, et nous indiqua la distance où nous nous trouvions des anciens, tant sous le rapport des idées, des faits, que des principes. Il nous exposa le système newtonien, et combien Descartes étoit inférieur à Newton avec son système de la pression. (Mémoires 186)

Webster’s scientific presentation was truly “cutting-edge” for its time. The second of Dr.

Webster’s lectures addressed the latest discoveries regarding our solar system, and the topic of the third was a discussion of creation versus evolution. There is no indication that Laterrière had read Fontenelle’s Entretiens sur la pluralité des mondes. Nonetheless,

Laterrière comments that we should wait for “d’autres découvertes plus frappantes touchant l’universalité des mondes, --d’autres systèmes aussi bien établis et constitués que les nôtres, aussi conciliables avec les règles du bon sens” (Mémoires 186). Although

Laterrière makes no statement of his purpose to disseminate this scientific information to a less-educated readership, the inclusion of the accounts of these lengthy discussions in

154 his Mémoires accomplishes the same goal as Fontenelle’s conversations with the charming Marquise in the garden on a starry night. The second close association by

Laterrière with other men of science occurred in London where he attended a meeting of

“cette grande et respectable académie de la Grande-Bretagne connue sous le nom de l’Adelphi,” (Mémoires 148). He was invited to prepare a presentation on the cultivation of hemp in Canada. This speech and its ensuing discussion lasted six hours. Laterrière stated that he was so well received that the members voted to extend to him an honorary membership (Mémoires 250).71 Based upon these accounts, we must concur with

Ruelland who, despite labeling Laterrière a liar and a charlatan, concedes, “Laterrière

était certainement un homme d’une très grande intelligence” (124).

In conclusion, the evidence found in Laterrière’s Mémoires confirms that he professed a belief in science, observation and reason. He was a skilled observer of his environment, urban or rural, as well as an accomplished, detailed describer of what he saw. His participation in complex interactions with other scientists and his delight in discovery and progress through science are commendable. However, his strict adherence to scientific principles was tempered by a few distractions. For example, Laterrière displayed preconceived notions about native medicine based upon anecdotal evidence rather than upon the scientific results of reproducible experiments. He also was distracted by the need to earn money when he peddled apothecary products on his

“souped-up” sleigh. Another major distraction for Laterrière was his concern for the status of his reputation in the societies in which he lived. The final distraction for

71 Andrès confirms the accuracy of these statements: “Il s’agit de la société savante anglaise fondée en 1753 par William Shipley: ‘royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce’ (RSA). On trouve dans ses archives le discours prononcé par Laterrière en décembre 1807” (Mémoires, note 71 284). 155 Laterrière was a certain inability to follow his professed beliefs to their logical conclusion, as evidenced by his willingness to dissect others, while denying the use of his own body for dissection. In the end, Laterrière’s Mémoires reflect very well the scientific conceptual framework of his era, but his personal adherence to these precepts was less than thorough.

Laterrière and Society

Society, rank, proper social standing, etiquette, etc. were extremely important to

Laterrière. One might ask if he viewed himself as a Quebec aristocrat as well as a member of the French nobility and in what way this self-perception reveals itself in his

Mémoires. One might also ask if he endorsed or opposed class structure, considering all humankind to be equal, according to the precepts promoted by the Enlightenment, and, as a result, if he advocated tolerance of all types: racial, nationality, economic, etc. Some scholars such as Fauteux and Ruelland contend that Laterrière was not of noble birth, whereas Beaudoin insists that he was indeed an aristocrat (“Pierre de Sales Laterrière, médecin, mémorialist” 49). That Laterrière took great care to precisely reproduce his baptismal certificate at the beginning of his Mémoires provides evidence of the value that he assigned to his aristocratic position if, as Beaudoin suggests, one can place confidence in the validity of the document (“Pierre de Sales Laterrière, médecin, mémorialist” 49).

Laterrière’s position as an aristocrat extended to him a carte blanche invitation to all types of social activities in France as well as in Quebec. While still in France, at

Bordeaux, he related that “nous fîmes connaissance de MM. des plus agréables en société, tant à table qu’à la conversation” (Mémoires 46). At La Rochelle, he found

156 himself to be the center of attention in the high society to which he had been introduced, deciding “mettre à bien m’acquitter de tout en général mon honneur de gentilhomme” and “rien ne pouvoit être plus flatteur pour moi, et que je ne manquerois pas d’accepter d’aussi honorables et généreuses invitations” (Mémoires 54, 55). Immediately afterward, one of the ladies effused, “Il est jeune, mais il deviendra aussi galant que son aimable oncle de Rustan, et nous voilà, maman, un cavalier pour nous accompagner à la comédie”

(Mémoires 54). Ce qu’il fit. The result was, “Ma société avec mesdames Taché et sa mère me procura beaucoup de connaissance...” (Mémoires 56). Upon leaving La

Rochelle, he received recommendation letters from leaders at the academy where he had been studying, attesting as to “comment je m’étois comporté à LaRochelle, et que j’y avois été admis dans la bonne compagnie et les bonnes maisons” (Mémoires 58). While studying medecine in Paris with Dr. Rochambaux, Laterrière continued his social festivities, reporting, “Ce n’étoit que festins et promenades!” (Mémoires 65). Regarding his success in his medical studies, “je faisois des progrès [...] par mes manières mesurées, douces et polies (Mémoires 67).

After arriving in Quebec, There is no doubt that Laterrière’s nobility in France opened doors of opportunity for him. Uncle Rustan’s business partner, Dumas, promised

Laterrière that “je vous introduirai ces jours-ci dans les meilleures maisons” (Mémoires

83). Laterrière adored Canada from the very beginning and immediately began to find ways to fit into the high society into which he was introduced: “on auroit juré que j’étois

Canadien, tant je me faisois aux usages du païs, et l’empressement que j’avois à les copier, me méritoit l’estime de tous ceux qui me connoissoient. Je passai l’automne et

157 une partie de l’hiver dans la joie, les bals et les plaisirs” (Mémoires 83). From the evidence presented, Laterrière plainly enjoyed aristocratic status on both sides of the

Atlantic.

Laterrière appeared to cling firmly to his noble principles. For example, while in prison, he constructed a model of the fortifications of Quebec and of the Saint-Maurice

Foundry. Haldimand, the governor of Quebec at the time, heard about it, and sent the prison guards to take it from Laterrière so that he could see it. When Haldimand liked the model so much that he asked to buy it from Laterrière, his reponse was that, “les talens d’un gentilhomme n’étoient pas à vendre” (Mémoires 144). His prudent reply won him his freedom. Later, while in Cambridge, an acquaintance asked him to perform an abortion on his mistress. Laterrière answered that “je suis né gentilhomme, et que je suis incapable de commettre un crime” (Mémoires 183). From these examples, it is clear that

Laterrière’s behavior bore the mark of his aristocratic upbringing.

Laterrière makes little comment about class distinctions in his Mémoires, but what remarks he does write are quite revealing. First, he bemoans the loss of his fortune, largely due to the sale of his goods by his unscrupulous servants:

...un beau ménage fut laissé aux soins de mon domestique; les granges pleines de grains et de foin, les étables pleines d’animaux, aux soins de ce fermier Bergeron. De tout ces biens, je n’ai rien retrouvé à ma sortie de prison. Les animaux étoient morts, et le fermier s’étoit emparé du reste pour prix de ses prétendus soins. [...] Mon ménage, à la garde d’un coquin de domestique, avoit fondu dans ses mains; il l’avoit tout fait vendre, disant qu’il avoit des ordres de moi; [...] Le coquin s’en est carré pendant deux ans: étant venu à Québec, vêtu de mes hardes et de mes bas de soie, son audace piqua tellement mes amis [...] Huit jours après, j’appris qu’il étoit enfermé dans la prison commune pour ces choses: il y resta un an, pendant que j’étois prisonnier d’État, après quoi, faute de preuves, il fut élargi; mais six mois après on le pendit à Halifax pour de nouveaux méfaits. (Mémoires 135-36)

158 From the above quotation, it is evident that there was still a clear distinction in Quebec between a master’s garments and those of a servant, and, thus, between these two social roles, as well.72 Another important social observation occurred on his return trip to

Canada, after receiving his medical diploma from Harvard. He spent two days at a

Meeting House in Concord, Massachusetts, where he noted, “Il n’y a guère de distinctions et de rangs dans ces intérieurs, et maîtres et domestiques y mangent à la même table” (Mémoires 193). Although Laterrière makes no further mention about social hierarchy at Concord, there were clear distinctions between masters and servants in

Quebec. Undoubtedly, his remark is reminiscent of his betrayal by his own servant.

Although we have already seen that Quebec’s seigniorial system functioned differently from the feudal system in France, there existed in Quebec an attitude on the part of the seigniors of social distinction between themselves and the habitants.

Laterrière expressly states, “En outre, ma fille, déjà grande, commençoit à se disposer à

écouter les fleurettes des cavaliers de ces endroits; et je n’aurois pas désiré d’en faire l’épouse d’un simple habitant” (Mémoires 215). In addition, when Laterrière returned from London in 1808, gave his business to his sons and settled into retirement at Les

Éboulemens, he makes a point of referring to the social status of his sons:

Si j’ai acheté les Éboulemens, ce n’est pas que le nom de De Sales, qui égale ceux des familles au premier rang par la naissance en Europe, fût méprisé, ni que j’aie voulu donner un nom de seigneur à mes enfans. Leur position matérielle, morale et politique étoit élevée dans le païs de leur naissance, d’autant plus qu’ils descendoient d’une famille noble au sang pur, qu’aucune mauvaise action n’a fait

72 These events took place in 1779, well after the performances of Marivaux’ Le jeu de l’amour et du hasard, but only five years before Beaumarchais’ Le mariage de Figaro appeared on stage. Both plays use the exchange of appropriate attire between masters and servants in order to draw attention to and to question class distinctions. Molière’s Les Précieuses Ridicules also used this technique, but not in order to focus on social class, but, rather, to satirize la préciosité, l’arrivisme, and the lack of good sense. 159 dégénérer depuis que son chef a le titre de comte, titre qui fut sans doute la récompense de l’honneur et de la vertu. (Mémoires 272).

From the preceding passages, Laterrière clearly considers himself and his family to be aristocratic both in France and in Quebec by indicating that it was not necessary to buy a seigneurie in order to ennoble them.

There is no mention in Laterrière’s Mémoires of any salons in Quebec such as those that served in France as a social meeting place for conversation and exchange of ideas. Nevertheless, the esprit of the salons was truly present during Laterrière’s voyage from London to Canada according to the following description:

Ces discussions faisoient beaucoup rire le lieutenant-gouverneur, car fût-ce aux cartes ou ailleurs, sur le pont, c’étoient toujours quelque débat nouveau, quelque nouvelle comparaison des anciens avec le modernes, et les pourquoi ne finissoient pas. L’art militaire, l’histoire, la robe, la politique, les connaissances géographiques nationales, étoient sans cesse par voie et par chemin afin d’émoustiller les gens et d’occuper le tems et l’empêcher d’être ennuyeux et assoupissant, pendant que le navire voguoit vers l’ouest sur différens bords, au travers les vagues de l’océan. Pour faire diversion, nous examinions les astres, la couleur de l’eau, les poissons et les oiseaux se jouant dans leur élémens: le soir, surtout lorsque le vent fraîchissait, notre plaisir étoit grand à considérer les phosphores occasionnés par le frottement du vaisseau en traversant les rotations des courants qui se croisoient dans tous les sens,... (Mémoires 77)

These shipboard conversations did not belong to the galanterie or préciosité of d’Iberville’s era, whose purpose was to draw attention to gracious manners and eloquent locutions in order to gain the favor of the king. The verbal exchanges were indeed the basis of a social event, yet they were also the venue for the free exchange of ideas as well as the creation of new ones, a primary component of eighteenth century society.

Regarding Laterrière’s tolerance—or lack of tolerance—for what is legally termed today “protected classes” such as race, nationality or gender preference, the

160 Mémoires are rich with illustrations. For example, as a new arrival in Quebec, he visited

Lorette, a village of domicilés, and described what he experienced in very positive terms:

Le chef Athanase, chez qui nous arrivâmes, nous reçut fort civilement, nous servit un excellent souper et nous donna de bons lits à la française, pendant que lui et toute sa famille couchoient à leur mode sur des nattes. Les hommes de cette nation sont bien faits, obligeants, vifs et braves. [...] Leurs femmes ne le cèdent pas en beauté aux Canadiennes; toutes brunettes, teint espagnol ou portugais, les yeux et les cheveux noirs; elles aiment fort les étrangers. (Mémoires 84)

Laterrière’s descriptions follow closely Rousseau’s idea of le bon sauvage: “Ces bonnes gens, ces enfans de la nature n’ont jamais montré que de la débonnaireté; l’art de tromper et la duplicité ne sont point connus chez eux. [...] ...ces sauvages nous [surpassent] en simplicité, étant naturellement ingénus et bons” (Mémoires 84-5). In the end, he was so enraptured with what he saw, that he exulted, “Pourquoi ne suis-je pas né Iroquois?”

(Mémoires 84). In addition, Laterrière’s respect for the Amerindian medical system has already been documented. There is no indication in his Mémoires of any lack of tolerance toward those of races other than his own.

As for Laterrière’s tolerance of other nationalities, the Mémoires describe

Laterrière’s appreciation of the British and their institutions early in his life, but as he grew older, negative superlatives tended to replace the positive superlatives of his youth.

For example, while in London, just before his departure for Quebec, Laterrière extols

British commerce, the glorious gardens and the succulent dishes that he encounters, expressing “du ravissement où j’étois de voir à quel point tous les arts libéraux y étoient cultivés;” (Mémoires 74). However, near the end of his life, when he was forced to remain in London and, being Catholic, dreaded falling into the hands of the Resurrection

Men, he laments, “Telle est sur ce point la tolérance d’un païs qui se vante d’être si

161 libre!” (Mémoires 251). In addition, his behavior could be characterized by a formal politeness toward the British in his youth, but a cynical sarcasm in his old age. For example, he was received graciously by an English friend’s family before leaving for

Quebec. Then in Quebec, the relations became a bit more strained, yet still maintained the outward manifestations of cordiality toward the British. For example, at a party one evening, a jealous British mercenary began to denigrate the French name and honor, whereupon Laterrière and his friend picked him up and ejected him through a window.

The next day, by way of a message via his aides-de-camp, the British colonel, “fait ses compliments [aux MM. Laterrière et son ami], et les prie de vouloir faire connoître les particularités des faits qui ont donné lieu à la sortie prompte et poliment forcée du capitaine un tel par les fenêtres de M. Pétrimoulx” (Mémoires 113). In the end, the entire francophone group was invited to dine with the British colonel, who appreciated the

Quebecers’ prudence in not soundly thrashing the offending soldier (Mémoires 114).

Finally, however, during Laterrière’s forced stay in London when he fell pitifully ill, he attempted to walk in order to meet with a sea captain about his passage back to Quebec.

En route, he became so sick that he was forced to immediately retrace his steps. He explains, “J’eus beau demander des lieux73 en chemin, car je me trouvois mal, on me rioit au nez. Belle humanité de Londres!” (Mémoires 251). From the examples provided, it is evident that there is a degeneration in the nature of Laterrière’s comments from tolerance to intolerance of the British throughout the course of his Mémoires.

Regarding Laterrière’s tolerance of homosexuality, however, his Mémoires paint a different portrait. His daughter Dorothée was married to a homosexual, but Lehoulier’s

73 The context of this passage makes clear that the “lieux” refer to “les toilettes.” 162 sexual preference was not known until after the wedding. In fact, Beaudoin refers to

Lehoulier as “un homosexuel brutal” (Pierre de Sales Laterrière, médecin, mémorialiste

52). Laterrière laments,

Comment nos yeux ne nous avoient-ils pas prévenus?...Cette figure plate, ce teint plombé, ces dehors qui accusent les foiblesses les plus odieuses!...À quelles bassesses il pouvoit descendre pour en imposer! [...] Il étoit entièrement dépourvu d’éducation; né dans une abjecte fange, il en étoit sorti menteur, fourbe, lâche, avare et ennemi secret d’un sexe aimable et chéri de tout l’univers. Et tous ces vices étoient cachés sous le masque le plus fardé! (Mémoires 217-18)

The accounts of the beatings and the many other injustices perpetrated against his beloved Dorothée consume almost twenty pages of text. At one point, Laterrière reports that Lehoulier declared about Catherine and him, “Je les hais maintenant tous les deux: jamais je ne consommerai le mariage, parce qu’il en naîtroit quelque monstre qui leur ressembleroit” (Mémoires 223). Sometime later, Laterrière reproaches Lehoulier for not having performed his conjugal duties toward Dorothée: “Il y a quatre ans que vous êtes marié avec ma fille, et elle n’est encore votre femme que de nom, comme lorsqu’elle est entrée pour la première fois dans votre maison!... Quelle froide insulte!... Ne vous mériteroit-elle pas une balle dans la tête?” (Mémoires 226). Laterrière’s text provides only the slightest indication of any mercy on his part toward his son-in-law. During an outing, after Laterrière had thrown him out of the carriage, “[Lehoulier] continua son chemin en pleurant, ce qui, malgré tout, me fit pitié, et je l’attendis pour le reprendre”

(Mémoires 226). The text clearly displays Laterrière’s animosity toward Lehoulier, but the cause for the animosity cannot be laid solely at the feet of Lehoulier’s homosexuality.

The latter’s insane rantings as well as his physical and psychological abuse of Dorothée contributed just as much to Laterrière’s abhorrence of him as did his lack of being

163 physically attracted to his wife. In addition, Laterrière’s intolerance was rooted in his experience with only one homosexual, and also in that one man’s abusive treatment of his daughter. Based upon the textual evidence, Laterrière was intolerant of homosexuality, yet this intolerance was mainly directed toward one man. Furthermore, such views were also standard within the conceptual framework of the era in which he lived.

In conclusion, Laterrière’s Mémoires indicate that his place in society was a key issue in his life both in France and in Quebec. He referred to himself at least twice as a

“gentilhomme” and attempted to behave accordingly. Furthermore, Laterrière wrote about the clear distinctions between masters and servants, and he also wanted the best for his children: an aristocratic husband for Dorothée and a respectable social status for his sons. His Mémoires portray Quebec society as being a part of the eighteenth century

Enlightenment, complete with salon-type experiences and racial tolerance, which was tempered, however, by a lack tolerance of the English and of homosexuality.

Laterrière and Education

Without a doubt, Laterrière valued education highly. In his Mémoires, he makes multiple references to his excellent instruction. In fact, while attending school in La

Rochelle in his youth, he claims that his education won him friends: “mon goût pour l’étude et mes succès surprenants m’attirèrent ensuite la société des écoliers rochelois”

(Mémoires 52). Furthermore, Laterrière states that applying himself to his studies will endear him to his family: “...je ne pouvois devenir cher à mes parens et estimé de mes semblables que par la carrière des talens...” (Mémoires 56). Also while in La Rochelle,

Laterrière muses about becoming an actor, but rejects the idea, knowing that he did not

164 yet have enough education and that he truly liked what he was studying (Mémoires 54).

Therefore, he made what he defines as “des progrès surprenants” in his academic endeavors (Mémoires 55). In fact, it was at La Rochelle that he gave himself over to

“une application sans relâche à toute espèce d’étude!” (Mémoires 56).

Laterrière penned a vivid description of his intellectual awakening in La Rochelle:

Plus mes connoissances augmentoient, plus j’avois de nouvelles pensées et de nouveaux désirs. [...] Les beaux ouvrages érudits et historiques que j’eus occasion de lire dans la belle bibliothèque de mon protecteur, émoustillèrent tellement mon génie inexpérimenté et flottant, que le dessein d’examiner et de commenter entra pour la première fois dans ma fort jeune cervelle. (Mémoires 55)

As has already been noted in our discussion of Laterrière and science, he did indeed become an avid observer and describer of his environment. When in London for the first time, which he visited just before embarking on his voyage to Quebec, he comments on the English economy as follows:

Allez à la Bourse aux heures d’affaires et vous entendez parler toutes les langues connnues sur la terre, suivants les différens intérêts commerciaux qui s’y traitent; car c’est de cette partie de son industrie, supérieurement pratiquée, que découlent les richesses de l’Angleterre. (Mémoires 73-74)

Laterrière’s perspective is strongly reminiscent of Voltaire’s Lettres Philosophiques of

1734, with which Laterrière was undoubtedly familiar. Voltaire wrote, “Le commerce, qui a enrichi les citoyens en Angleterre, a contribué à les rendre libres, et cette liberté a

étendu le commerce à son tour; de là s’est formée la grandeur de l’État” (66). Laterrière further comments on the British themselves, stating that “ils sont tous éduqués (ils ont leurs doctes et leurs savants) naturellement doux et fort obligeants envers les étrangers”74

74 The word éduqués is italicized in the text established by Andrès. In addition, as has been previously demonstrated, Laterrière’s perception of the English changed dramatically during his second stay in London. 165 (Mémoires 73). In a later passage regarding Quebec, Laterrière also mentions two important chroniclers of early Quebec, the Baron de La Hontan and Father Charlevoix, and he evidently has a good understanding of their works.

During Laterrière’s imprisonment (1779-82), he shared physical space with two other notable personalities of the late eighteenth century: Mesplet and Jautard, whose name Laterrière misspells in his Mémoires as Jotard. Remarkably, as Laterrière describes them, their levels of education are the first identifying characteristics that he mentions. Regarding Jautard, he writes, “L’éducation de ce Jotard étoit solide sans être accomplie” (Mémoires 139). On the other hand, Laterrière states, “Mesplet différoit de

Jotard par l’éducation: son talent, c’étoit d’être ouvrier imprimeur;” (Mémoires 140).

Somewhat later, another prisoner arrived, a Scotsman named Charles Hay, Quebec’s master barrel maker, who was “bien éduqué au collège d’Edinbourg,” according to

Laterrière (Mémoires 140). These descriptions provide evidence that the character and quality of one’s education was a critically important asset not only to Laterrière, but also within eighteenth century Quebec society. The value placed on education is easily substantiated by Laterrière’s stay at Harvard in order to earn his diploma in medecine.

When he returned to Quebec, passed another oral examination and finally received his license “to practise in Physic, Surgery and Pharmacy,”75 he complained, “les objections faites par les messieurs de la commission en médecine n’étoient-elles pas mal fondées? ...

N’étoit-ce pas, de leur part, vouloir loger toutes les connoissances humaines dans le trésor de l’orgueilleuse nation angloise au préjudice des autres nations? (Mémoires 204-

75 Remarkably, one of the Conseillers who signed Laterrière’s medical license is J. Ch. de Léry (Joseph Chaussegros de Léry), Gaspard’s son (Mémoires 204). 166 5). Laterrière, by the preceding quotation, stated that education and intellectual development must be made available to all peoples. Directly afterwards, he describes the rural Quebecers of his day as being

un peuple chrétien, bon, mais mal instruit. [...] Voilà justement où en sont réduits ces honnêtes et bons Canadiens faute d’instruction. Et leur [aux curés] parler d’écoles, c’est se montrer du coup leur ennemi: ils soutiennent que les ignorans sont plus honnêtes et plus dévots que les hommes qui ont des connaissances. (Mémoires 205-6)

Although Laterrière qualifies this rebuke of the leaders of the Quebec Catholic Church by stating that not all priests and clergy are against educating the laity, his point that the

“Messieurs” deliberately kept their parishonners uneducated is unmistakable.

The circumstances surrounding Laterrière’s public dissection of la pendue

Brisebois created other events related to the value of education. Shortly afterward, a traveller selling cod arrived at the Laterrière home. When he entered and saw the body parts on the table, he made a hasty retreat to the nearest inn without his cod and even without payment. The innkeeper started spinning a yarn about the Laterrières, indicating that they seize anybody who comes near as the next victim to dissect, whereupon the poor young man fainted. He never came back to that region of Quebec. Laterrière’s comment about the entire escapade was, “et voilà l’effet de l’ignorance et de la peur” (Mémoires

209-10). This statement fervently and boldly denounces superstition in connection with the remains of Mme Brisebois. On the other hand, Laterrière himself gives credence to the same superstition that he reproaches in the following account of what took place when he moved to another house across a large lake. When the vessel was loaded, a violent squall arose that threatened to sink the boat. Laterrière explains: “Chose extraordinaire! la caisse des os de la Brisebois arrive et est mise à board: à l’instant

167 même le calme se fait comme par miracle” (Mémoires 211). Later, when en route, the same storm lashed out against Laterrière’s boat for five days and nights, but they made it safely to land. The boat’s crew “étoient persuadés qu’ils devoient leur salut à un miracle qui s’étoit opéré par la vertu du squelette de la Brisebois, qu’ils regardoient comme une sainte. Ce qu’il y a de certain, c’est que depuis qu’elle est en ma possession, il ne m’est arrivé aucun accident” (Mémoires 211). Plainly, Laterrière had come to assign supernatural powers to the bones of Mme Brisebois. Nevertheless, Laterrière defends the dissection of Brisebois and insists that the lady served very well for the instruction in medecine of his sons (Mémoires 211).

With regard to the education of his children, Laterrière makes several statements about the place of importance that it held in his life. Not long after the episodes concerning Mme Brisebois, he writes that the time had come for him to consider his sons’ education. At that time, “ils ne pourroient prétendre qu’à l’état d’honnêtes habitans terriens” (Mémoires 212). Since there were no schools in the country, he decided to move in order to place his sons in the school in Quebec (Mémoires 212). The education offered by the city of Quebec was at the “petit séminaire,” and his elder son, Pierre-Jean, was only “en second au collège,” whereas the younger son, Paschal, was still too young to enter school (Mémoires 213-14). However, at the time of his unfruitful voyage to

France to settle his father’s estate, Laterrière mentions that another motive for the trip was the placement of his son Marc-Pascal at the medical school at Montpellier: “Je me déterminai à emmener avec moi le cadet, afin, si je réussissois à rentrer heureusement dans tous me droits, de le faire reconnoître par mes parens et de le placer à l’université de

Montpellier pour accomplir ses études en médecine” (Mémoires 234-35). Laterrière

168 makes no mention whatsoever about educating his daughter Dorothée, although he claims to be “entièrement dévoué à l’intérêt de mes enfans” (italics mine) (Mémoires 212).

From the example of the Laterrière family, it is evident that the education of women in late eighteenth century Quebec was considered to be neither important nor necessary.

Laterrière also professes to assent to sacrificing all for the sake of his male children’s education, “à l’exemple de mes parens d’Europe qui n’avoient rien épargné pour me faire instruire [...] puisque je n’en voulois pas faire des terriens” (Mémoires 212-13). He even refers to his desire of seeing his children educated as “un glorieux motif” due to the fact that without a proper education his children would “grandir dans l’ignorance et tomber ainsi dans une sorte de dégénération (Mémoires 212, 215). All points considered, receiving an excellent education was extremely important to Laterrière with regard to himself and his sons, but not to his daughter.

Laterrière as a Philosopher of the Enlightenment

The philosophers of the Enlightenment were instrumental in articulating and propagating the new conceptual frameworks that were being conceived of and developed during the eighteenth century. One might ask if Laterrière’s text demonstrates that he possessed certain characteristics of a philosopher of the Enlightenment. In order to establish a working definition of the characteristics of an eighteenth century philosopher, what follows is a summary of the entry entitled Philosophe in Diderot’s Encyclopédie

(Philosophe) as well as information about Enlightenment philosophers from Ruelland

(161-175).

169 According to the anonymous author of the entry Philosophe in the Encyclopédie, the philosopher does not act by habit or by movement of passion, but “brings causes to light to the degree that he is able” by use of his reason, and, as such, “the philosopher, even in his passions, acts only after reflection” (Philosopher). The philosopher also is an observer, a gatherer of data, and makes no decision based upon inadequate evidence. His thinking process consists of the discernment of facts that leads to “judgment” and

“precise thinking [... and] to this precision are then joined flexibility and clarity”

(Philosopher). The Philosopher is also a social creature “who wishes to please and to make himself useful” and, therefore, values honor and integrity (Philosopher). He is not a lazy meditator, neither is he ascetic, but desires to enjoy the pleasures of life as much as any other man. In brief, reasoner, observer, flexible discerner of evidence, useful member of society and connoisseur of pleasure, taken together, form an accurate description of the attributes of an eighteenth century Philosopher based upon the entry in

Diderot’s Encyclopédie.

Ruelland’s comments about the characteristics of a philosopher of the

Enlightenment are very helpful. For example, he states that eighteenth century philosophers were éclairé and then defines éclairer as being equivalent to “permettre [au plus grand nombre possible de personnes] d’acquérir des notions nouvelles en se servant de leur raison” (162). Furthermore, Ruelland equates eighteenth century philosophy with

“l’étude de la nature,” a part of science, as it was understood in that era (162). However, an Enlightenment philosopher “s’intéresse aux sciences, mais aussi à la politique, aux mœurs, à la morale, à l’éducation, à la littérature, à la poésie, aux arts en général, bref, à toutes les formes d’expression de l’esprit humain. La pensée de cet homme ou de cette

170 femme est éclectique...” (Ruelland 163). One might ask if Laterriére’s view was eclectic, or if he was narrowly focused on only one domain. In his youth, Laterrière refers to himself as being “fort peu éclairé” when he first left home, arrived in Bordeaux, and was dazzled by the big-city sights of cathedrals and jewels in the market square (Mémoires

47). Yet from the context, he could be simply referring to himself as naive and inexperienced rather than using the word “éclairé” according to its eighteenth century definition that is associated with an Enlightenment philosopher.

However, when Laterrière encountered the Amerindian village at Lorette, his writing clearly reflects, as already mentioned above, Rousseau’s philosophy of the bon sauvage. At the end of the second part of his Discours sur l’origine, et les fondemens de l’inégalité parmi les hommes, Rousseau declares:

Il suit de cet exposé que l’inégalité étant presque nulle dans l’Etat de Nature, tire sa force et son accroissement de développement de nos facultés et des progrès de l’Esprit humain, et devient enfin stable et légitime par l’établissement de la propriété et des Loix. (3: 193)

In comparison, Laterrière writes regarding the Amerindians:

Ces bonnes gens, ces enfans de la nature n’ont jamais montré que de la débonnaireté; l’art de tromper et la duplicité ne sont point connus chez eux. Leur somme de besoins est bien inférieure à la nôtre; conséquemment peu de ressources leur suffisent, et si ce n’était cet intérêt, vil et sordide, des Européens à leur fournir de l’eau-de-vie et du rhum, qui les enivrent et les rendent presque fous, ces sauvages nous surpasseroient en simplicité, étant naturellement ingénus et bons. D’industrie, ils n’en manquent pas, puisque ce n’est que d’elle et par son moyen qu’ils vivent; cependant je dois dire que la facilité qu’ils ont à se procurer de ces esprits-poisons est cause que leur population diminue visiblement, d’autant que la politique européenne n’a jamais cherché aucunement à les civiliser. (84-5)

It appears that Laterrière attempted to propagate the same representation as Rousseau of the Amerindians’ inherent goodness in their natural state. However, the main point of

Rousseau’s discourse is that society is the culprit that has corrupted the good, natural

171 essence of mankind that is found in native peoples. Therefore, when Laterrière rebukes

France for not having helped to civilize the Amerindians, his statement stands in contradiction to Rousseau’s argument.

Laterrière’s Mémoires not only provide evidence of his acquaintance with

Rousseau’s discourses, but Laterrière’s life also reflects somewhat the plot of Rousseau’s novel Julie ou La Nouvelle Héloïse (Rousseau 2: 5-793). In the latter, Julie was forced by her father to marry M. de Wolmar, a man much older than she, whom she did not love.

She was, in fact, in love with Saint-Preux, her former tutor. At first she protested her father’s proposed match:

Pour la première fois de ma vie j’osai résister en face à mon père; je lui protestai nettement que jamais M. de Wolmar ne me serait rien, que j’étais déterminée à mourir fille, qu’il était maître de ma vie, mais non pas de mon cœur, et que rien ne me ferait changer de volonté. (Rousseau 2: 348)

However, in the end, she acquiesced to her father’s will, writing in a letter, “Je veux aimer l’époux que tu m’as donné. Je veux être fidèle, parce que c’est le premier devoir qui lie la famille et toute la société” (2: 357). She told her father that she wanted to love the man that he had chosen for her, but her heart was still yearning for Saint-Preux. After the fateful day of her wedding, she wrote to her true love, “Oui, mon bon et digne ami, pour nous aimer toujours il faut renoncer l’un à l’autre. Oublions tout le reste et soyez l’amant de mon ame [sic]. Cette idée est si douce qu’elle console de tout” (2: 364).

In comparison to Rousseau’s Julie, Laterrière’s first choice for a Canadian wife was Angélique Duhamel. When he asked the advice of his co-worker M. Dumas if he should marry her, the response was so negative that Laterrière retreated from his previous advances that he had made toward her. The Mémoires state that she was

172 digne d’un meilleur sort que celui qu’elle a eu avec le laid et méchant bijou qu’elle fut forçée de prendre pour mari par son père, marin au caractère dur; le désespoir et sa situation, voyant que je pouvois pas l’épouser, achevèrent de la décider, et je la perdis, mais non son amitié, car nous étant juré une amitié éternelle aux pieds du Bonheur, cela ne pouvoit plus jamais s’effacer!” (Mémoires 98).

The similarity between Laterrière’s situation and that of Saint-Preux is striking: They both loved a woman who was forced to marry an unattractive, older man, but they agreed to keep their relationship alive through sharing a profound friendship. Such, however, was not the case with the next romantic episode in Laterrière’s life. His new choice for a spouse, Catharine Delezenne, was being reserved for the

vieux veuf Pélissier, homme fort riche, de qui ils [les parents de Delezenne] espéroient de grands secours. De son côté, Pélissier, âgé alors de 66 ans, n’osant pas se remarier à une nymphe de 14 ans, avoit conçu le dessein de m’engager à l’épouser, et pour cela de m’appeler auprès de lui aux forges afin de m’y faire c...... !76

When Catharine was forced to marry the elderly widower, Laterrière took her from him to be his concubine, which was considered to be scandalously adulterous behavior.

Consequently, apart from what he wrote, certain events in Laterrière’s life exemplify that of a philosopher of the Enlightenment, in that he was a questioner of social customs, and, according to the definition from the Encyclopédie, a connoiseur of pleasure. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assert that one of his purposes for writing his

Mémoires was to disseminate his beliefs among the general public. He states as much in the following passage: “je reprends le fil de mon histoire pour la curiosité des mes enfans et des lecteurs qui m’auront connu ou auront entendu parler de moi et qui voudront me

76 In an editorial note, Andrès states that an elipsis of six dots in the text signifies that that spot in the original manuscript is illegible. Based upon the context, we propose for the illegible spot to supply the French word cocu. 173 lire. As a final characteristic of an eighteenth century philosopher, Laterrière’s use of reason and observation has already been documented under our discussion of science.

Laterrière, Politics and Liberty

The topics of politics and liberty were key concepts that were debated during the eighteenth century. The questioning of monarchical authority that Montesquieu initiated by way of satire in his Lettres Persanes was elucidated many years later in his De l’esprit des lois. The American and French Revolutions were major events that restructured the social order during Laterrière’s lifetime. One might ask if he were interested in advocating one political view over another. Did he believe in the liberties of free speech or the press, the rights of women, the latter freedom being codified much later, of course?

Did Laterrière believe that Quebec was in need of judicial reform? An examination of his Mémoires provides evidence that he did participate in the political debates of his time.

Laterrière’s first experience with the French judicial system took place even before he arrived in Quebec. He had shared a room at an inn at Orléans with a man who turned out to be a thief and a counterfeiter. By the time the group of travelers arrived in

Paris, the authorities were already aware of the incident (Mémoires 59). After being exonerated, Laterrière’s uncle explained:

Vous voyez, cher neveu, le contraste de la vertu avec le vice. Ce juge sait tout; avant qu’aucun de votre troupe partît de La Rochelle, il vous connaissoit tous et vos affaires à Paris. Vous êtes acquitté et libre, parce que vous étiez innocent. Quoiqu’il le sût, la forme vouloit que vous et le messager vous fussiez entendus; l’équité et la justice ne punissent que les coupables. (Mémoires 61)

In his more mature years, we know that Laterrière discovered through personal experience that sometimes the innocent are incarcerated, especially when the governor

174 conquered colony is Haldimand.77 Later, while touring Paris, Laterrière remarked that

“L’enchaînement des quatres Rois, sur la place de la Victoire me désoloit, parce qu’il ne pouvoit pas m’entrer dans l’idée que l’on osât enchaîner un roi!” (Mémoires 62). At least at this early stage in his life, Laterrière displayed a certain respect and esteem for royalty.

After arriving in Quebec, Laterrière witnessed the annual assembly of

Amerindians at the Pointe de Lévi in order to receive their annual present from the

Crown (Mémoires 85). What he had actually observed was the mechanism of bondage foisted upon the Amerindians by the European government. As is evident, the politics of

Britain, as well as of France which initiated this practice, were bent on removing liberty from the Amerindians. As for his own liberty, Laterrière hints at being similar to a frondeur. After his initial introduction into polite society in Canada, M. Dumas asked him to help one of his salesmen, Calville, at a Montreal store front. Disliking Calville and having no taste for sales, Laterrière grumbles, “Mon amour de la liberté ne pouvoit pas s’accommoder longtemps d’une dépendance servile et de dure digestion pour un gentilhomme non rompu ni destiné à un tel état,...” (Mémoires 91). The expression non rompu connotes a certain free-spirited, stiff-necked insistence on getting one’s own way, and, because gentilhomme denotes nobility, the aristocrat-frondeur metaphor is clear.

Laterrière’s three-and-a-half-year incarceration is central to our discussion of his perceptions of politics and liberty. According to Laterrière, Pélissier was a “grand partisan de John Wilkes et de son système de liberté” and, therefore, was a supporter of

77 Laterrière claimed to be absolutely innocent of helping the Americans during their revolution against Britain. Having no evidence to the contrary, we shall allow his profession of innocence to stand, although some later historians such as Maximilien Bibaud claim that he was indeed involved in this treason: “Laterrière (de Sales), famille canadienne qui a fourni un directeur des forges de St-Maurice, chaud partisan des Américains en 1775,...” (151). 175 the American colony’s revolt against Britain (Mémoires 109). The Mémoires report that the cuckolded Pélissier and others plotted to denounce Laterrière to the fledgling British government in Quebec, which was the cause of his arrest and imprisonment. Laterrière’s summary of the plotter’s methods reads as follows: “Ces soupçons, ces fausses dénonciations devoient nécessairement produire de fort mauvais résultats” (Mémoires

109). How true it is that a victim of false accusations has no liberty. Even before his arrest, Laterrière complained about the horrible personal price that he had to pay because of misguided, perverted public opinion:

Un fort préjugé cependant existoit toujours dans le public à savoir que j’avois été, comme Pélissier, influencé par les républicains bostonnois, et ce faux préjugé a toujours fourni à mes jaloux ennemis des moyens de me nuire auprès des différens gouverneurs: ces derniers ne m’ont pas exactement fait du mal, mais je n’en ai jamais pu obtenir ni bien, ni faveur. Ma conscience étant pure, n’ayant trahi ni voulu trahir d’aucune façon un gouvernement qui me protégeoit, je n’étois guère ému de la mauvaise mine que d’aucuns me faisoient pour mieux faire leur chemin, suivant la coutume ordinaire des lâches; je n’en pris d’autre souci que d’éviter ces gens-là avec le plus grand soin. (Mémoires 117).

Even Catherine Delezenne commented on the net result of the constant spreading of rumors about Laterrière: “nous sommes observés de près et continuellement...”

(Mémoires 124). Later, Laterrière found out from a friend that an entire group of informers “avoient depuis longtemps des ordres du gouverneur Haldimand de me guetter et de profiter du moindre, du plus spécieux prétexte pour m’arrêter” (Mémoires 128).

When he was formally arrested, his complaints focused on the governor himself:

“Haldimand étoit d’un caractère dur, avare, vindicatif, et se plaisant à faire souffrir l’humanité: aussi a-t-il fait en trois ans une grande fortune, et le diable à présent s’en doit-il réjouir avec lui” (Mémoires 126). Greed and sadism are common root motives of

176 people who attempt to crush the innocent, just as Haldimand attempted to crush

Laterrière. However, Laterrière saved his most virulent rhetoric for the clergyman

Saint-Onge, who was without question a tartuffe:

Aussi profita-t-il de ce que j’étois arrêté prisonnier d’État pour me diffamer, d’autant que dans les actes d’État jamais les dénonciateurs ne sont connus. Il avoit [...] la liberté de tout dire et d’écraser chrétiennement qui il vouloit; et c’est un grand malheur qu’il ait eu tant d’influence en Canada. Quoiqu’il ne se soit pas montré à découvert, il m’a porté les coups les plus traîtres (Mémoires 129-30).

While in prison, Laterrière depicts the characters and personalities of his cellmates, Du

Calvet, Mesplet and Jautard, all three of whom were also accused of crimes against the

State. It is at this juncture that Laterrière’s rendition of events rings hollow. First, he supports Du Calvet as being innocent of having contact with the American enemy

(Mémoires 138). However, Du Calvet wrote letters to a certain M. Lotbinière78 in which he addresses him as “Monsieur et cher Compatriote,” which is a clear indication of his sentiments against British control of Quebec (Du Calvet). On the other hand, Laterrière insists that Jautard and Mesplet are guilty,

inculpés le premier d’être rédacteur et le second imprimeur d’un papier connu sous le nom de Tant pis, tant mieux, du genre libellique, qui se permettoit d’attaquer la sage politique de gouvernement anglois et surtout de combattre le despotisme du Suisse Haldimand.” (Mémoires 139)

Laterrière’s reference to la sage politique appears to be little more than an attempt to distance himself from Jautard and Mesplet and to justify himself—past, present and future—from any suspicion that he had commited any act worthy of imprisonment.

Another thorny issue for Laterrière regarding politics and liberty was his being forced to spend a year in Cambridge to earn a medical degree before he could practice medicine in Quebec. After returning from the United States, diploma in hand, the British

78 Lotbinière was the son-in-law of Gaspard Chaussegros de Léry. 177 members of the medical commission refused to accept his American diploma. Standing before four British bureaucrats, he quoted their law:

Tout candidat diplômé dans une Université où la médecine étoit enseignée; et un tel diplômé n’est tenu qu’à faire enregistrer ses patentes. Mais ils firent tous la sourde oreille, parce qu’à leurs yeux ce qui n’étoit pas sorti d’une école angloise ne valoit pas la boue. [...] Il fallut m’y soumettre, et en dépit de la loi. (Mémoires 201)

The commission demanded that he submit to a difficult oral exam, which he passed with flying colors. Having no reason to deny him a license, the commission issued one to him.

Laterrière’s remark about the commission’s actions reads as follows: N’étoit-ce pas, de leur part, vouloir loger toutes les connoissances humaines dans le trésor de l’orgueilleuse nation angloise au préjudice des autres nations? [...] et mon blâme ne tombe que sur une espèce d’égoïstes demi-savans, aux prétentions les plus sublimes” (Mémoires 205). It is without contest that Laterrière’s complaint is a cry for justice and freedom from oppression on behalf of the newly-conquered former French colony.

Apart from the two major events of imprisonment and the Harvard medical studies in Laterrière’s life which elicited comments in his Mémoires about politics and liberty, toward the end of his life, he makes other political observations about the times in which he lived. For example, after being forced to go to England rather than entering

France to settle his father’s estate because of the Napoleonic wars, he observes, “Toutes les villes où nous passâmes me parurent commerçantes, industrieuses, mais empreintes d’une profonde mélancolie par les inquiétudes politiques du tems” (Mémoires 243). No doubt, political upheaval takes a heavy toll on those who must be involved in it, as

Laterrière’s statement so aptly portrays. A few days later, he complains bitterly about not even being able to communicate with France regarding his legal matters:

178 Je n’avois aucune nouvelle de mon affaire de succession en France; aucune communication n’étoit permise ou possible d’Angleterre en France, que par la voie de quelque ambassadeur, et d’ordinaire ces fonctionnaires ne se mêloient d’aucune autre affaire que de celles de leur nation. Point d’espérance de négociations, tant la haine et l’orgueil des peuples étoient montés haut! (Mémoires 245)

As the above passage indicates, Laterrière seemed to become visionary in the sense that he comprehended on a personal level that the foolishness of continual suspicion on the part of individuals who wreaked havoc in his own life has an equally deleterious effect when it occurs on a national level, thus destroying diplomacy. On his return voyage to

Quebec, Laterrière fell extremely ill and wanted nothing more than a short transatlantic trip and a speedy landing on Quebec’s shore. However, he lamented in his travel journal that the ship was forced to go to Cork “par des raisons politiques des authorités, pour avoir des nouvelles de la guerre ou de la paix avec l’Amérique” (Mémoires 259). As one approaches death, time is of the essence: Laterrière’s distress was real. Yet as the ship neared Laterrière’s beloved Quebec, he philosophized about the individual citizen’s personal response to the many political vicissitudes that occur between countries:

Il n’est pas étonnant que les nations aient entre elles des différends: dans notre petit royaume, nous sommes forcés à tort et à travers de tout déférer à Sa Majesté, qui a ses mignons; de sorte que nous voilà exposé aux sophismes contradictoires, ou il faut nous taire. C’est ce dernier parti que je prends comme le plus sage. (Mémoires 268)

In conclusion, Laterrière experienced prison, exile to Newfoundland, and prolonged stays in Cambridge and in London due to political machinations and a lack of liberty in Quebec after the conquest. Earlier in his life, he wrote, he spoke, he stood firm, but as he grew older, he believed that keeping silence in the face of sophismes contradictoires was the best practice. On the whole, Laterrière’s perspicacious

179 observations of human nature, and especially his own, add to the charm of his Mémoires as much as do his accounts of historical events.

Laterrière and Religion

Sprinkled throughout Laterrière’s Mémoires is a multitude of diverse comments regarding religion. One might ask what Laterrière’s religious persuasion was, perhaps

Catholic, Protestant, Deist, and if his writings reflect a tolerance of religions that were not his own. What textual evidence is there of his view of religious fanaticism? Did he deny or endorse the need for religion in society? As his statements reveal, Laterrière had quite definite opinions about religion and about its effects both on society and on individuals.

His first comment about religion in his Mémoires occurs during his trip from

Bordeaux to Orléans. He claims that the trip was uneventful, “si ce n’est un père Carme et un père Récollet qui ne pouvoient pas se souffrir et étoient toujours aux prises avec autant de furie que deux fanatiques de croyances différentes” (Mémoires 59). This insightful comment expresses well his propensity toward avoidance of extremes in regard to religion. There are other such statements in Laterrière’s Mémoires that reveal a distinct aversion to fanaticism. For example, when en route to Cambridge, he was reproached by a local colonist for traveling on a Sunday, thus breaking the Biblical commandment, “Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy” (The Bible Exodus 20:8). In the end, Laterrière’s assessment of the man was, “Bon homme, mais attaché au fanatisme méthodiste” (Mémoires 176). Yet Laterrière was repulsed not by Protestant fanaticism alone; his reaction was identical to fanaticism within the Catholic Church, as well. After returning from Cambridge and while in the process of establishing his medical practice,

180 he remarked: “J’étois bien avec les curés, et c’est tout dans ces lieux où un seul homme gouverne les autres, surtout à la faveur de préjugés religieux fanatiques, extraordinairement puissans chez un peuple chrétien, bon, mais mal instruit” (Mémoires

205). Finally, the very last topic that he addresses in his Mémoires is that of medical fanaticism. A certain Dr. Agronome “dit que c’est un crime de faire souffrir longtems une pauvre malade...avec l’assurance qu’il donne à ses patiens qu’il les envoie en paradis comme prêtre de Dieu...; c’est de l’enchantement, du fanatisme” (Mémoires 274).

Laterrière refers to Agronome as a charlatan and takes serious offense because “Il a pour doctrine que, physiquement parlant, il n’y a pas de crime à faire avorter une femme; que l’on ne commet pas de meurtre puisqu’il s’agit d’un corps que l’on ne voit, ni ne sent, ni ne comprend” (Mémoires 274-75). Therefore, in no matter what form, Laterrière’s text castigates fanaticism as a lack of common sense, whenever it arises.

The Mémoires also seem to imply that in Laterrière’s youth, he considered that

Catholicism and Protestantism were simply different perspectives of the same religion.

When he arrived in England, Laterrière was shocked during his first meal in Dover to see no napkins on the table and forks with two tines instead of three or four as in France. His companion explained that the differences were the simple result of English-French rivalry: “Rappelez-vous ce qu’a dit Voltaire, que sitôt que la France se feroit protestante, l’Angleterre se fera catholique romaine” (Mémoires 72-3). Later during their voyage,

Laterrière further states that they stopped at Canterbury “où je vis pour la première fois un évêque anglois officier suivant le rite protestant, et dans cette cathédrale qui porte encore l’empreinte vivante du catholicisme, où cette religion s’exerça avec toute sa pompe jusqu’au changement d’Henri VIII” (Mémoires 73). By these two comments,

181 Laterrière indicates that the Christian denominations of Catholicism and Protestantism are more similar to each other than either religion would like to admit.

Upon his ship’s arrival near Quebec, the sight in the spyglass of the natural beauty of the Canadian shoreline inspires thoughts of God in Laterrière: “Les [terres], examinées avec la longuevue, dans toute leur naturelle beauté, laissoient bien voir qu’elles sortoient des mains d’un sage, parfait et divin ouvrier; je n’en pouvois rien attribuer au hasard, qui travaille sans ordre ni régularité!” (Mémoires 79). Although

Darwin had not been born yet, it is evident from Laterrière’s comment about the world being established by chance, that the basic precepts of evolution were already in existence during his lifetime. Laterrière comments more precisely while at Harvard:

“Pour moi le hasard qui a créé et disposé l’univers, je l’appelle Dieu” (Mémoires 190).

From this statement, it appears that Laterrière’s god was akin to an impersonal force.

As far as the ugly side of religion is concerned, Laterrière minces no words.

When Pélissier returned to reclaim his rightful wife, Laterrière’s concubine, the former arranged to have her secretly imprisoned in the city of Quebec. She was subjected to what Laterrière labels “ces barbares soins” of not being allowed to be seen by or to speak to anyone, nor even to go near the windows (Mémoires 104).79 Moreover, Laterrière explains,

79 The manner in which Laterrière discovered the whereabouts of his beloved Catiche is nothing less than remarkable (Mémoires 104). One night as he passed by the place of her captivity, a handkerchief, bundled with a rock and a note inside, was tossed from a second story window and landed directly in front of him. Laterrière even claims to have heard someone singing, “Ramasse! ramasse!” (Mémoires 105). The note, which had been scratched onto paper by pinpoint, explained in detail Catherine’s sufferings. Of course, the similarity between Agnes’ method of contacting her heartthrob Horace in Molière’s L’École des Femmes and Catherine’s is unmistakable. We suggest that this portion of the Mémoires is a fanciful rendition of actual events and that Laterrière was as well-read in Molière’s comédies as he was in Rousseau’s discours or Voltaire’s contes philosophiques. 182 on étoit après elle pour lui faire prêter serment que je l’avois prise de force; prêtres, récollets et autres, par la peur superstitieuse des peines de l’enfer, la tourmentoient sans cesse, la menaçoient, lui disoient qu’elle n’auroit sa liberté [à moins qu’elle ne quitte Laterrière...]. –Avouez, lui disait un récollet, qu’il vous a prise de force; dites-le, déclarez-le seulement, et vous êtes libre” (Mémoires 104).

After Catherine’s stout refusal to capitulate to the version of events that the clergy was trying to extract from her, she stated, “Allez rapporter à celui [Pélissier] qui vous paie si bien tout ce que je vous dis” (Mémoires 105). Evidently, bribed clerics ranked low on

Laterrière’s list of favorite people. Furthermore, Laterrière’s wording la peur superstitieuse des peines de l’enfer (underlining mine) provides a clear signal that

Laterrière does not take the teachings of the Catholic Church nor of the Bible literally which do indeed speak of personal torment in an actual lake of fire. Later, during his exile in Newfoundland, Laterrière relates the circumstances of the two medical doctors in

Havre-de-Grâce. One was a Breton who had married une religieuse whom he had snatched from a convent, and the other was an Italien who was living with a young

Marquise that he had whisked away in like manner from Spain—whether from a convent or a husband, Laterrière does not elaborate (Mémoires 146-47). The next paragraph begins, “Après que j’eus répondu aux bonnes et aimables invitations de ces familles respectables, ...” (Mémoires 147). Referring to these doctors’ family situations as respectable is another indication that Laterrière is quietly justifying his extra-marital living arrangement and that he, once again, does not take the teachings of the Catholic

Church nor of the Bible literally which proscribe fornication.

As for other hypocritical religious-types, in addition to the Recollet who threatened Catherine during her imprisonment, Saint-Onge’s skulduggery has already been mentioned above. Although not a cleric, Laterrière’s poison-pen also targeted Judge

183 Rouville, stating that he was, “un parfait tartuffe” (Mémoires 129). Father Tonnancour was another of Laterrière’s least favorite people, an unscrupulous con man masquerading as an agent of righteousness. Laterrière describes him as:

un génie à toutes farces. [...] ...il suivit son penchant en nous trahissant sous main: lorsqu’il nous parloit, vous auriez juré que c’étoit le meilleur ami que nous eussions. [...] Tonnancour étoit...jésuite comme un chien et ne pardonnant jamais. [...] Vivant et tenant son magot en Harpagon.... [...] Il est mort: si le diable s’empare des hommes faux, Tonnancour est bien avec lui” (Mémoires 128-29).80

However, nothing in the Mémoires can compare with Laterrière’s vitriolic denunciations of Lehoulier, not the least of which includes, “on le voyoit sans cesse dans les églises, pharisien frénétique, n’ayant de la religion qu’une ombre impure” (Mémoires 217).

When Laterrière wrote about the subject of religion, it is clear that he considered himself to be a Catholic, at least for the purposes of writing his memoirs. For example, he stated that the captain of the ship from Newfoundland that was blown out to sea “était un Irlandois catholique, et notre divine religion toucha son cœur;” (Mémoires 151). The word notre is an inclusive word that specifies Catholicism as Laterrière’s religious affiliation. On the other hand, the existence of pamphlets that he penned, which a modern-day scholar characterized as “anti-catholic diatribes” must not be forgotten.81

How, then, can a man who professes to be Catholic write pamphlets against what he believes in? We submit that the answer lies in his membership in freemasonry. Andrès has documented in his book chapter “Les manuscrits d’un Albigeois: d’un signature maçonnique dans les pétitions québécoises de Pierre de Sales Laterrière (1778 – 1782)” that Laterrière was a freemason. The booklet La Franc-maçonnerie by Louis

80 Laterrière’s references to Harpagon and Tartuffe add to the credibility of our earlier assertion that he was well-acquainted with Molière. The memorialist had read at least three of his works.

81 See note 69 on page 145. 184 Chaussegros de Léry is only one of a multitude of works denouncing freemasonry that have been penned by Catholics. It is common knowledge that freemasonry, being a secret society, is not well-received within the Catholic Church. Therefore, Laterrière was adept at creating a religious image for himself in whatever situation he happened to find himself. When he was practicing medicine in the Quebec countryside, he portrayed himself as a fervent Catholic, but while wearing the hat of a freemason brother, he struck a different religious pose.

Often in his Mémoires, the text demonstrates that Laterrière became more and more preoccupied with thoughts of God as he wrote about death or as he approached it himself. His remark about the hanging death of la Brisebois is a case in point: “Si les prières ont l’effet qu’y attribuent les saintes Écritures, cette victime, morte en se repentant de son crime, a obtenu son pardon du Père de toute miséricorde!” (Mémoires

211). In addition, Laterrière’s travel journal, written toward the end of his life during his excruciatingly painful physical maladies while in London and during the return voyage to

Quebec, documents that he called upon the name of God more and more frequently. The examples of these written appeals are numerous; following is but a partial list:

[Cela me fit] prier Dieu de tout mon cœur de me conserver encore quelques années à ma famille, qui avoit tant besoin de moi. Je m’aperçus visiblement de l’assistance du divin protecteur. (247)

Le matin, étant encore malade, mon bon ami, le prêtre Lymphris vin me voir; je lui dis que j’avois un extrême désir de me confesser, que je devois prendre tous les moyens de remercier Dieu de la grâce qu’il me faisoit à mes maux, d’une espèce si dangereuse. (255)

...j’ai trompé la mort, et j’espère sous la sauvegarde de Dieu, la tromper longtems encore. (256)

185 Dieu veuille nous rassembler tous et nous favoriser d’un bon vent pour continuer notre course. (259)

Dieu ait pitié de moi! [...] J’ai recours à Dieu seul, qui est ma seule ressource: sa sainte majesté fera ce qu’elle voudra de moi, j’adore en silence ses très-sacrées volontés et m’y soumets avec joie, bien convaincu que les biens et les plaisirs de la terre ne sont que de pures illusions, de dangereuses amorces. Ce qui m’afflige, c’est d’avoir pensé de même si tard... (260)

Dieu veuille, s’il lui plaît, nous donner du vent. (261)

Dieu ait pitié de nous! Mon côté me fait bien mal et m’inquiète. (261)

Dieu veuille nous continuer ses grâces! (262)

Dieu me préserve d’un abcès à cet endroit! (262)

Ce soir, je dormirai tranquille avec l’aide de Dieu. (263)

Espérons du bon vent! Que Dieu sous la garde de qui nous sommes veuille nous l’accorder! (264)

Excellent vent, Dieu merci. (268)

From the above quotations, it is evident that Laterrière’s final voyage from London to

Quebec was one of the most difficult experiences of his life and, as a result, he turned more and more to faith and prayer as the days wore on.

In the final analysis, Laterrière’s Mémoires contain many and varied discussions of religion and of its place in society. His writing exhibits a firm stance against fanaticism, both Catholic and Protestant, as well as against the manipulative control of les habitants by the powerful Catholic Church. Laterrière’s text is particularly caustic with regard to hypocrisy in matters of religion, especially when it was coupled with medical practices—or malpractices. On the other hand, the Mémoires also express in many different passages an appreciation for God’s work of creating nature’s beauty. However, for Laterrière himself, the nature of his own faith was much more slippery: he appeared

186 to be an on-again, off-again Catholic, depending upon the context of which he was writing. Yet in the end, as he approached death and as he suffered intense pain associated with his illnesses, his text clearly demonstrates a deep humility and a profound meditation of his personal status in the eyes of his God.

Laterrière, Preromanticism and Romanticism

The end of Laterrière’s life and the writing of his Mémoires in 1812 encompassed what can be termed the Pre-Romantic period of the classic literary canon. The Oxford

Companion to English Literature defines Romanticism as:

a literary movement, and profound shift in sensibility, which took place in Britain and throughout Europe roughly between 1770 and 1848. Intellectually it marked a violent reaction to the Enlightenment. Politically it was inspired by the revolutions in America and France and popular wars of independence in Poland, Spain, Greece, and elsewhere. Emotionally it expressed an extreme assertion of the self and the value of individual experience (the ‘egotistical sublime’), together with the sense of the infinite and the transcendental. Socially it championed progressive causes, though when these were frustrated it often producd a bitter, gloomy, and despairing outlook. The stylistic keynote of Romanticism is intensity, and its watchword is ‘Imagination.’ (842-3)

In addition, Virgil Nemoianu describes Romanticism’s two opposing major elements as

“the great fantasies and visions of the revolutionary age (high romanticism) and the more perplexed and disappointed musings, sentimentalities, aspirations, and ironies of the post-

Napoleonic era” (1). One might ask if the Mémoires contain evidence of a tendency toward Preromanticism or even Romanticism. Does Laterrière view liberty romantically, so that it becomes a refusal of rules, rather than a freedom to function within the framework of rules? Do sensitivity, passion, and melancholy exist in his Mémoires? Are these characteristics simply described as in Preromanticism or are they exalted in a

187 Romantic manner? This segment of the current chapter will also attempt to discern

Laterrière’s personal lyricism and imagination that belong to Romanticism. We will examine not only the content of the Mémoires, but also its method of literary expression.

In the end, the evidence indicates that Laterrière’s Mémoires definitely reflect Pre-

Romanticism and that they also contain passages that are clearly Romantic.

Regarding the Mémoires’ depiction of liberty, there are many examples of

Laterrière’s Romantic refusal to live within the confines of society’s rules. Several of these incidents or circumstances in Laterrière’s life have already been addressed in previous sections of this chapter. The most glaring example of this refusal of rules is his living in concubinage with Catherine Delezenne, which was plainly contrary to religious rules, as well as contrary to the social customs of the day. Another example of

Laterrière’s refusal of rules is the bribery of the sexton and the graveyard robbery of the lady’s body which he and his cohorts used for dissection. One could even propose that his penchance for thievery harkened back to his days in La Rochelle when he and his schoolmates stole pears while pretending that the fruit was pilfered by ghosts from the local cemetery. In addition, his public dissection of Mme Brisebois could also be considered a breaking of rules, yet of a somewhat different type: that of tactlessness and offense of public sensibilities. Although Laterrière did not break the Catholic Church’s rule against divorce, he certainly advocated that divorce be allowed. Following is his final commentary about the excruciatingly painful marriage of his Dorothée to Lehoulier:

En effet, ceux qui ont l’autorité en cette matière refusent d’admettre le divorce dans ce païs, rempli de fanatisme et de préjugés, et laissent périr les innocens faute de leur accorder ce prudent et sage secours. Que d’âmes, au contraire, ils mettroient par là en paradis, qui vont remplir l’enfer! (Mémoires 234)

188 As a final example, or possible example as the case may be, of breaking the rules, we must add Laterrière’s alleged complicity in the support of and selling of arms to the

American patriots.

On the other hand, Laterrière functioned within the rules of society as well as the laws of the land whenever it was absolutely necessary. For example, he maintained a positive rapport with the powerful clergy. The Mémoires are also filled with examples of his self-described social adeptness and proper etiquette. On a legal level, he spent a year in Cambridge in order to earn a medical degree that was mandated by the ruling British government. In addition, he was quick to obey the terms of his release from prison which included an extended exile from Quebec. Nevertheless, the instances of Laterrière’s living outside of the rules largely overshadow his willingness to adhere to the rules, thus providing evidence of a tendency toward Romanticism in Laterrière’s Mémoires.

It is undeniable that Laterrière’s Mémoires reflect sensitivity, passion and melancholy, as conventionally defined. Even in the very first few pages of the text, not only the content, but the manner of expression demonstrates a heightened emotionalism.

For example, as Laterrière was about to leave the family nest with his first cousin to follow his Uncle Rustan, he describes the moment of parting from their families: “Que les adieux furent tristes pour deux jeunes enfans qui ne s’étoient encore éloignés de leurs foyers que pour aller aux écoles! Quelle douleur de quitter ainsi un bon père, une bonne mère, des tantes, des cousins avec qui nous étions intimement liés!” (Mémoires 45). The content of the preceding text plainly evokes melancholy. In addition, Laterrière frequently used exclamation points to punctuate his Mémoires, which magnify the

189 intensity of the passions being described, as in the previous quotation. Shortly after leaving his family, enroute to La Rochelle, Laterrière writes overtly of his melancholy:

L’éloigement de la maison paternelle et la prompte et inattendue séparation d’avec mon oncle, à qui je m’étois vite et sincèrement attaché, occupoient seuls mon esprit et mon cœur, avec le chagrin de me voir seul et m’en allant chez des étrangers de qui j’ignorois comment je serois reçu; cette dernière pensée augmentoit ma mélancholie. (Mémoires 47)

When he arrived in La Rochelle, Laterrière comments that he could hardly sleep, “tant mon cœur étoit agité” (Mémoires 49). Moreover, after being assigned a room in a boarding house, and being told that he would have to pass through the master bedroom in order to reach his quarters, “Je répondis que j’y étois des plus sensibles, que ma conduite et mon respect pour elle et pour lui les convaincroient qu’ils ne s’étoient pas trompés à mon égard” (Mémoires 51). In this passage, Laterrière directly labels himself as being a sensitive young man. Finally, when his schooling in La Rochelle was finished and he was leaving that port city, he states, “En passant la Port-Royale avec 40 autres cavaliers, je dis à haute voix: Adieu, belle Rochelle!” (Mémoires 58). Laterrière’s verbal farewell is an emotional display, a Romantic gesture of passion bordering on the maudlin. For a final example, when in London, Laterrière extols the superbe English gardens: “...je n’ai point vu de plus beaux jardins en aucun autre pays, ni de plus beaux légumes de toutes sortes. Ô dieux! jusqu’à des jardins d’hiver des mieux créés!... Les inventions de verre n’y manquent pas. En janvier, j’ai mangé à Londres de belle asperges, et fort bonnes.

(Mémoires 74). The use of exclamation points, the appeal to the gods, the thrill of succulence, all expose the pre-romantic—bordering on Romantic—passion through which Laterrière perceived his experiences. The passages that have been cited are all

190 found near the beginning of the Mémoires. To avoid redundancy, we are providing no more examples, as this content and style of writing remain constant throughout the work.

Laterrière often uses a self-reflexive technique in his Mémoires which reveals his personal lyricism that is also frequently used in movie-making.82 When a character in a film looks directly at the camera, the fictional narrative is broken and the spectator is invited to participate in self-examination regarding the circumstances at that moment on screen.83 Likewise, Laterrière frequently stops his first person narrative in his Mémoires to address the reader directly. For example, after his arrival in Montreal, when discussing his negative first impression of the physical appearance of Canadians, he stops the narrative and writes directly to the reader: “ô voyageurs, que les choses vous apparaissent souvent tout autres, lorsque votre ignorance est effacée par des connaissances sûres et vraies!” (Mémoires 81-2). This particular statement engages in moralizing, whereas other such self-reflexive statements contain, for example, warnings, effusive exaltations of Canada’s natural beauty, or they simply serve to capture the reader’s interest. An example of the last purpose, that of attention-getting, reads as follows: “Lecteur, puisque je te parle ici des indigènes du Canada, il ne faut pas que j’oublie de te dire un mot de l’assemblée qu’ils font tous les ans à la Pointe de Lévi aux fins de recevoir leurs présens de la Couronne” (Mémoires 85). In another passage,

82 We wish to cite and thank Dr. Judith Mayne for her ideas on cinematic self-reflexivity from her French Cinema class FR 672, AU03 (see bibliography).

83 To provide a very famous example, at the end of Truffaut’s “400 Coups”, the character Antoine faces the camera: “Truffaut follows his protagonist onto the shore until, with the waves behind him he turns as if to confront the camera and is caught suddenly, his face entirely open and expectant, in a freeze- frame. [...] Truffaut seems to open this as a question at the end. He offers an admission of artifice, effecting an abrupt rupture of the identification with Antoine which we have doubtless experienced. The personal history freezes, questioning its own possibility, and the medium in which it is produce” (Wilson 27). 191 Laterrière’s personal lyricism and imagination are clearly displayed as he exalts his intimate passions in the context of his interaction with Canada’s Amerindians:

“L’enthousiasme, l’extase où je me trouvois, me faisoit dire et penser en moi-même:

Pourquoi ne suis-je pas né Iroquois?” (Mémoires 84).

There is no doubt that Laterrière’s text demonstrates the Pre-Romantic/Romantic period in which it was written. All of the key components—the liberty of refusing rules, sensitivity, passion, melancholy, personal lyricism and imagination—can be found in

Laterrière’s Mémoires either in the form of descriptive narrative or in the form of effusive, emotional outbursts which create the effect of exalting the passions being portrayed. Therefore, Laterrière’s Mémoires express elements of both Pre-Romanticism and Romanticism.

LATERRIERE’S PERSPECTIVE OF QUEBEC

From the evidence presented in this chapter, we assert that Laterrière considered himself to be a Canadian. He affirms: “je suis une fois et demie plus Canadien-Anglais que François” (Mémoires 45). He firmly believed in the use of science and reason to effect progress, especially in his beloved Quebec. Laterrière took pride in his accomplishments in the field of medicine and attempted to use his profession to help his fellow Quebecers wherever and whenever needed. He also viewed himself as an important player in Quebec society due to the fact that he was an aristocrat and that he regularly refered to the many Quebecers with whom he had contact as “my good friend so-and-so.” Therefore, his unconventional relationship with Catherine Delezenne was tolerated in Quebec society, despite the existence of very strict Catholic moral rules.

192 Laterrière also viewed Quebec as a place that desperately needed improvement through educational, judicial and religious reform. He functioned as a philosopher of the

Enlightenment in Canada, desiring to disseminate new ideas that were being proposed on the European stage. He was passionate in his beliefs, yet sensitive and articulate in their expression, due to the fact that his life straddled the end of the Enlightenment and the beginning of Romanticism. At the very beginning of Laterrière’s life in Canada, he exclaimed, “Je me croyois en paradis, tant le Canada étoit agréable à mes espérances”

(Mémoires 82). Through all the years that he lived in Quebec, his Mémoires indicated that he never changed his mind.

193 CHAPTER 5

PIERRE-JEAN DE SALES LATERRIERE

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF LATERRIERE (s).84

Born in Baie-du-Febvre, Quebec, Pierre-Jean de Sales Laterrière was the elder of the two sons of Pierre de Sales Laterrière (f.) and Catherine Delezenne. In 1800,

Laterrière (f.) moved to Quebec City in order to enroll his sons in school. Pierre-Jean studied at the Petit Séminaire de Québec as the same time as Louis-Joseph Papineau and

Philippe Aubert de Gaspé (père), two other well-known and extremely influential

Quebecers of their time.85 Pierre-Jean then studied medicine in London, and returned to serve in the capacity of surgeon for the British army (the Canadian Voltigeurs) during the

War of 1812. It was in 1815 that he left Canada to claim his family’s inheritance in

France, but he, too, was unsuccessful in his attempt to enter France, just as his father was, also due to Napoleon’s activities; this time it was the Cent-Jours. Laterrière ended up in

London, in like manner as his father did fifteen years earlier. While there, he proposed to and married a love interest from his previous stay in London, Mary Ann Bulmer, who

84 All references to Laterrière in this chapter refer to the son, Pierre-Jean, unless otherwise noted. In addition, all information in this brief biography is taken from Andrès’ and Lespérance’s commentary entitled “Éditer l’intime” in Fortune & infortunes d’un dandy canadien, from Laterrière’s (p.) Mémoires and from Casgrain’s La Famille de Sales Laterrière (see Bibliography).

85 Louis-Joseph Papineau was an eloquent orator—he was speaker of the Lower House of Commons for twenty years—and political agitator who played a major role in the 1837-38 rebellion in Canada (from <.http://famousamericans.net/louisjosephpapineau/>). Philippe Aubert de Gaspé was a lawyer and scholar, father of Philippe-Ignace-François Aubert de Gaspé, Quebec’s first novelist (Lemire, et al., La Vie Littéraire au Québec 2: 89). See also . 194 possessed a dowry more than generous enough to make up for the loss of his inheritance in France. Sadly, soon afterward, he received word that his father had died. Leaving his new wife in England, he returned to Quebec to settle his father’s estate and to take over the family’s commercial activities. Mary Ann also came to Quebec at that time, but she despised the isolation of les Eboulements, the Laterrière’s manoir. Later, the married couple returned to London, but Pierre-Jean yearned for his homeland, Quebec. He wrote his major work, A Political and Historical Account of Lower Canada; With Remarks on the Present Situation of the People, as Regards their Manners, Character, Religion, &.

&, in London, which was published in 1830.86 Pierre-Jean returned to Quebec, only to pass away in 1834 at the age of forty-five.

IDENTIFICATION OF SELECTED TEXTS

Laterrière authored several works during his lifetime. These include a number of travel journals which have been published and expertly analyzed by editors Bernard

Andrès and Pierre Lespérance within the context of a research project named Archéologie du littéraire au Québec (ALAQ). The first of Laterrière’s journals published by ALAQ, entitled Fortune & Infortunes d’un Dandy canadien, relates the events of his aborted

1815 voyage to France when he was forced to flee to London during Napoleon’s brief come-back to political power. The second group of journals from his later voyages of

1824, 1826, 1827 and 1829 is entitled En Quête d’Origines. However, Laterrière’s A

Political and Historical Account of Lower Canada is the only work that was specifically produced for public consumption.

86 Hereafter, for the sake of brevity, Laterrière’s book will be referred to as A Political and Historical Account of Lower Canada. 195 As Laterrière’s A Political and Historical Account of Lower Canada is not well known, we are providing a brief summary of the work here.87 Laterrière begins with a preface that includes a personal statement in which he indicates that his main goal for writing the work is to provide correct information to the English-speaking public in

Britain in order to clear up misunderstandings regarding the French-speaking population of Canada (preface vi). He also states his desire that the British government grant

“justice to an injured people” (preface vii). Laterrière’s book is a response, in part, to another work by an anglophone author, John Fleming, entitled Political Annals of Lower

Canada, being a Review of the Political and Legislative History of that Province &c. &c.

; by a British Settler, that, according to Laterrière, served to “foment the animosity of the different parties” (preface x, xi).88 Laterrière’s book begins with an account of the founding of Canada, including its boundaries and a geographical description. Chapter I moves quickly through history, stating, “The object of the present work is to give a succinct detail of the government of the country thus described, from the epoch of its passing under the dominion of the English, down to the period of the termination of Lord

Dalhousie’s administration, in the year 1828” (A Political and Historical Account of

Lower Canada 4).89 Chapter II describes the structure of the Canadian government. The executive branch consisted of the office of the Governor for which the appointments were

87 This summary is based, in part, on Lemire, et al. 2: 288-291.

88 The complete title of Fleming’s book is Political Annals of Lower Canada ; Being a Review of the Political and Legislative History of that Province, Under the Act of the Imperial Parliament, 31, Geo. III. Cap. 31, Which Established a House of Assembly and Legislative Council ; Showing the Defects of this Constitutional Act, and Particularly its Practical Discouragement of British Colonization. With an Introductory Chapter on the Previous History of Canada, and an Appendix Document, &c. (1828) (Lemire, et al., 285).

89 Hereafter, a citation of page numbers alone in parentheses will automatically refer to A Political and Historical Account of Lower Canada, unless the context states that a different work is being cited. 196 of varying mandates and the Executive Council. The legislative branch consisted of the

Governor, the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly. Finally, the judicial branch was composed of an assortment of judges of diverse ranks. Chapter III consists of a detailed exposition of the tenures of all of the governors beginning in 1791 and ending with Lord Dalhousie’s administration. Laterrière boldly exposes corruption within the governmental tenures of various governors, yet he also praises good and honest governors, as well. Chapter IV presents a benevolent description of French Canadians regarding their customs, traditions, religion and manner of living. At the beginning of this chapter, Laterrière makes a statement that gives credence to our assertion that historical, non-fictive documents easily lend themselves to literary analysis. With regard to his exposition of the French Canadian life style, he writes, “This task I have not undertaken from any feelings of partiality or vanity; nor, in fact, with an expectation of gaining the good will of my reader by attempting to please him” (111). It is obvious from the author’s stated intention in his preface that his purpose for writing this book did indeed derive from his partiality toward his birth land and toward his fellow colonists, and that his primary motive for writing it was to gain the good will of the English who would be reading it, so as to sway their opinion in favor of the French Canadians.

Therefore, Laterrière’s statement is fictitious, which lends itself to literary scrutiny.

Chapter V is a brilliant exposition of the appalling state of education in Canada. It also includes suggestions for establishing high quality schools and universities in order to rectify the situation. The next chapter highlights the problematic distinctions between the

French system of using land, fief et seigneurie, and the English system of free tenure and soccage. Chapter VII serves as a summary of Laterrière’s arguments and also proposes

197 solutions for improving relationships between the English and French as well as methods for correcting injustices against the French because of Canada’s skewed political structure. Finally, Laterrière includes a massive appendix of XVI chapters where he places various types of documentation to support his arguments in the main body of his text.

CHARACTERISTICS OF ROMANTICISM IN LATERRIÈRE’S TEXT

It is undeniable that Romanticism is an enormously broad concept. Gilles

Gallichan concurs, stating:

Lorsqu’on parle de romantisme, il faut toujours se souvenir qu’il ne s’agit pas d’un phénomène simple et uniforme. Le XIXe siècle a connu « des » romantismes qui se sont exprimés de diverses façons selon les cultures et les milieux et qui n’ont pas connu une même chronologie. On peut cependant y reconnaître partout un rejet des règles du classicisme héritées de la Renaissance, l’apparition d’un nouvel esthétisme, l’expression d’une sensibilité intérieure et près de la nature et, enfin, l’abandon d’un rationalisme rigide, cher à plusieurs esprits du XVIIIe siècle. (120)

We will limit our investigation to the specific manifestations of Romanticism that occurred in Canada and specifically in Laterrière’s A Political and Historical Account of

Lower Canada. Referring to Laterrière’s book, Lemire, et al. state, “Laterrière est un des premiers à formuler un discours favorable aux Canadiens dans une perspective historique” (2: 291). This book is, in fact, a masterpiece of persuasion. It was originally written in French and believed to have been translated immediately into English by H.

Labouchere. A Political and Historical Account of Lower Canada was published only in

English since Laterrière’s goal was to appeal to the British people for leniency, clemency and change in Quebec in the face of political oppression. He reveals a certain mal du

198 siècle by assessing the then current condition of the legislative and judicial system in

Canada, showing that what operates fairly in England is unjust in Quebec. His appeal is logical, yet emotional, even passionate. Laterrière’s descriptions of Quebecers and their customs are idealized, a necessary deviation from reality in order to support his cause, which is to seek the liberation of his beloved homeland from the oppression of British injustice through judicial reform. Therefore, we propose to analyze Laterrière’s political treatise for evidence of the elements of Romanticism.

As was previously stated, Romanticism is an enormously broad concept. In fact,

“Romanticism eludes definition because of its own rich diversity,” as Nemoianu’s text explains. It could be viewed as a sense of being that permeated the culture or that was even simply “in the air.” Nevertheless, for the sake of scholarly analysis, we propose to evaluate Pierre-Jean de Sales Laterrière’s major work by way of the following loosely defined categories:

Rebelling, Revolutionary Romanticism Passionate Romanticism Romanticism’s Exaltation du moi Romanticism’s mal du siècle Romantic Imagination, Sensitivity and Idealism

Rebelling, Revolutionary Romanticism

It is commonly agreed that Romanticism and politics are inextricably linked.

Gallichan agrees, stating, “La politique, comme la littérature, a été un lieu privilégié d’expression pour les idées romantiques” (120). As a model for our analysis, we propose to apply his approach to the subject, focusing on “cinq questions fondamentales: l’éducation pour tous, la liberté de la presse, la résistance à l’oppression, l’autorité du

199 peuple à travers ses représentants et les droits fondamentaux à la paix et au bonheur”

(121). One might ask if there is evidence in Laterrière’s work provides documentation that he was a romantic revolutionary. Does he appear to be a defender of the people, a combatant seeking to change society by turning social class upside-down? Without a doubt, the subject matter of Laterrière’s writing encompasses all of the above categories.

The first of the five categories, education, is more than adequately addressed in

Laterrière’s book, having an entire chapter devoted to it. Laterrière admits that the improvement of the quality of education in Canada has not kept pace with that of the

United States. However, he firmly dispells a common myth, one that continues to circulate to this day, that the lack of educational opportunities in Quebec was due to the

Catholic clergy, who were “accused of a desire to keep the people in ignorance, inasmuch as they hope thereby to maintain a command over their opinions and their conduct”

(151). Laterrière continues his defense of the clergy by stating that “had it not been for the arduous endeavours of the Roman Catholic clergy, the people would, of necessity, have been far more ignorant than at present” (151). He praises the Jesuits, who owned about one million acres of land at the time of the conquest, as being prime examples of clergy who desired to educate the people, having “built in Quebecan [sic] immense college, or seminary of instruction for the Canadian youth” (151). Laterrière’s argument, however, stems from the historical fact that the order was suppressed in 1764. The

English government allowed the Jesuits in Quebec to possess their lands and use the revenue from renting them to fund the schools that they had built until the last Jesuit died in 1800. At that time, the ownership of the land “devolved to the crown of England,” and the income was diverted to governmental coffers, thus leaving Canadian instruction

200 destitute (152). Schools were closed; one was converted for use as a barrack (153).

Laterrière makes the following passionate appeal: “Whether are we to account for the superior intelligence of the people of the United States, by the difference in the conduct of their religious instructors, or by the difference in the conduct of their government?

The reader must answer this question for himself” (155). This example of Laterrière’s rhetoric is representative of his style of writing as he presents his arguments to the reader.

His insight is keen, his remarks vivid, and his implications pristine.

Laterrière outlines several logical guidelines that the House of Assembly proposed for the establishment of a high-quality educational system in Quebec. These guidelines called for local school in every parish, under the auspices of the parents and the clergy alike, who would manage the school and would be in charge of hiring and overseeing the teacher (155). Nevertheless, the government established a Royal

Institution, an organization that placed management of the school system and choice of the teacher under government control (156). After a lengthy rebuttal of this illogical action, Laterrière sets forth the structure of the educational system that he advocates: first, many elementary schools equally dispersed throughout the country, and, second, a few institutions of higher learning for those who wish to continue their education (161).

Laterrière perspicaciously addresses the main purpose of education: “The grand end then should be, to convey the greatest possible quantity of knowledge in the elementary schools” (161). He discusses in depth the roles of the instructor, of the parents, of the government, subjects to be taught, time, money and, in the end, proposes that an education tax be levied (163-4). Thus, Romanticism’s characteristic emphasis on education is present in Laterrière’s A Political and Historical Account of Lower Canada.

201 In his book, ample evidence can be found demonstrating that Laterrière supports the concept of liberty of the press. Regarding the status of Canadian literature in general, he states in the preface that “advances in literature have, amongst us, of necessity been far from rapid,” due to the fact that a Canadian’s primary activity was earning a living and growing enough food during the summer for sustenance during the long winter to come (viii). On the other hand, Laterrière continues: “In spite of this absence of motives to literary excellence, however, some few remarkable exceptions are to be found; men who, in any country, would be respectable for their literary attainments, but who, when their means of instruction are considered, must be esteemed men of wonderful acquirements”90 (ix). Laterrière also comments on the “Many pamphlets [that] have been published in Quebec and Montreal on the same subject,” that is, on the subject of A

Political and Historical Account of Lower Canada (vi). In a direct comment about the press, Laterrière states that by a proclamation issued by the King of England, “the liberty of the press, as it existed in England, became ipso facto a part of the law of the land” (5-

6). However, these statements about publication in Canada are merely a prelude to the detailed account found in Chapter III, which is devoted to the narration of the specific details of the tenures of the British-imported governors.

James Craig, Governor-General from 1807 to 1811, created a hostile environment by openly supporting the Anti-Canadian party, “and an English editor of a newspaper, entitled the Quebec Mercury, under the same patronage, indulged in every species of sarcasm against the manners, the habits, the religion, the political feelings, and, above all, the loyalty of the Canadians” (29). Certain French Canadians promptly purchased a

90 It is regretable that Laterrière does not identify the individuals to whom he is referring. 202 printing press and launched Le Canadien, a weekly newspaper aimed at refuting the

English attacks (29-30). Laterrière labeled what followed as “the paper war” (30). In response, Craig “maltreated, degraded, and, in the end, without form or legal process, imprisoned a number of persons” (30). Andrès comments, “Au plan politique, les esprits s’échauffent, tout comme l’auteur qui a du mal à contenir son indignation” (Nouveau monde et Américanité dans le discours historiographique au Canada français 37).

Although these “suspects” were later released, Craig eventually shut down the printing press, confiscated the printed materials, and jailed other French Canadians, those who were involved in the printing process (30). They, too, were eventually released, and the printing press was returned to its owners. By that time, Craig was recalled to France and the new Governor smoothed over the ruffled feathers (31). When Craig departed,

Laterrière even goes so far as to state, “The province at this time, was almost in a state of revolt” (34). Although this report of historical events takes place within the context of the narration of the tenures of the British Governors in Quebec, its importance is not diminished thereby. It is apparent that the issue of the freedom of the press is vital to

Laterrière’s romantic, rebelling conceptual framework. Therefore, support of freedom of the press can be found in Laterrière’s book.

The next category that Gallichan establishes, that of resistance to oppression, is the fundamental theme of A Political and Historical Account of Lower Canada. At the beginning of Chapter I, Laterrière establishes a passionate summary of the political circumstances current in Canada at that time which he terms “the legislative proceedings of the Imperial Parliament” (4):

203 I flatter myself that an exposition of the conduct of this specimen of colonial administration will not be entirely destitute of interest, even to the English reader: it will give him an insight in to the workings of a vast, and, in my mind, an ill- constructed machine of government: it will prove to him the pernicious consequences of having irresponsible rulers, and the utter impossibility of a well- organized administration being composed of persons drawn from a distant country, ignorant of the manners and situation of the people they are destined to rule, and careless of those intersts with which they are but temporarily connected: it will exhibit to him a scene of complicated and vexatious oppression, on the one side; of unsuspecting confidence and willing obedience, changed by ill-usage into distrust and opposition, on the other: it will prove how the best intentions on the part of the English people have been constantly defeated, by the avarice and despotism of petty officers: it will teach him, in short, how a whole people have been checked in the progress of improvement , enthralled, ill-treated, abused, and then misrepresented, by the evil influence of a handful of grasping functionaries. (underlining mine) (4-5)

In conclusion, we believe that the volume of information in support of this hypothesis— that resistance to oppression is one of the main themes of A Political and Historical

Account of Lower Canada—is so abundant that to continue to provide textual evidence beyond Laterrière’s self-explanatory, opening statement above would be tedious and repetitive.

In regard to Gallichan’s fourth category, there is no doubt that Laterrière was keenly aware that the French Canadians suffered from not having a voice in the government due to a lack of legislative representation. Chapter II contains an exposition in minute detail of the structure of the Canadian government. Earlier, in Chapter I,

Laterrière relates that the royal proclamation mentioned above in regard to liberty of the press served to restructure drastically the form of government to which the Canadians had been accustomed and, in addition, “no language but English was permitted in the law proceedings” (6). The French Canadian hue and cry was so great that in order to rectify the situation the British government passed the Quebec Act of 1774 which “served to rob

204 the people of expectations which they fondly entertained, upon their coming under the dominion of England, viz. that a representative government would be conferred on them, as soon as circumstances permitted” (7). In Chapter II, Laterrière relates how the Act of

1791, which divided the Province of Quebec into Upper and Lower Canada, included the provision that each of the Canadas should have its own government (12). Each government was to be composed of three Legislative components, which were the

Governor, the Legislative Council (equivalent to England’s House of Lords), and the

House of Assembly (equivalent to England’s House of Commons); an Administrative component, made up of the Governor and an Executive Council (equivalent to England’s

Privy Council); and the Judiciary (14). Laterrière persuasively argues that England’s

Privy Council is vastly dissimilar to Canada’s Executive Council in that “There is no law in the colony which regulates the exercise of their functions; they receive their instruction from the King, and are considered as merely the agents of the Treasury” (17). Laterrière’s argument begins with the observation that England’s House of Lords is composed of the aristocracy, who have large land holdings and

whose interests and prosperity are inseparably connected with those of the nation; thus, equally independent of the Crown and the people, they form the strongest possible barrier against the abuse of power, which is necessarily vested in the Crown and its servants, and the violence of popular feelings; and they afford the best security for the permanency of the constitution and the inviolability of property” (18).

His argument continues by noting that the Legislative Council in Canada is not composed of the landed aristocracy, but, rather, he asserts that there is no aristocracy in Canada so that its mediative function is greatly diminished. In addition, the Executive Council members “have also undertaken to discharge the duties of the House of Lords [called the

205 Legislative Council in Canada]” (17). Therefore, since the Legislative Council was not composed of aristocrats, its members had no vested interest in the land and they were weak, an easy prey for the Executive Council. Regarding the Executive Council,

Laterrière writes, “of the whole number, there is one that is a native of Lower Canada,91 the rest are from different parts of the King’s dominions, the greatest portions of them are natives of other colonies and the late colonies” (16). It is this Executive Council that was corrupt and that forced the Governor and the other legislative branches to bend to its will.

In Chapter III, Laterrière goes into minute detail about the machinations of the Executive

Council throughout the chronology of the gubernatorial regimes, all of which serve to support our assertion that A Political and Historical Account of Lower Canada does indeed cry out against the suppression of the people through lack of effective representation.

One notable exception to the string of governors who became puppets of the

Executive Council, according to Laterrière, was Sir George Prevost, whose tenure was from 1811-1815. Apparently, when the Executive Council and other francophobes perceived that Prevost treated the French Canadians with respect and dignity, he became the target of slander: “The reproaches that have been heaped upon him, are pretended to be grounded on his ill success in his military expeditions: this ill success is but a pretence, the real cause of displeasure being his impartial behaviour towards the whole people whom he governed” (39). Burdened by accusations, Prevost was ordered to return

91 Laterrière provides a list of the names of the Executive Council at the time of the publication of his book. These names are: Sewell, Stewart, Richardson, Kerr, Percival, Smith, Hale, Stewart, Cochran, Stuart and C. G. Delery (16). We believe that we are correct in assuming that the last name listed is the one French Canadian member of the Executive Council and that this man was a grandson or great-grandson of the gentleman who provided the subject matter for our second chapter. 206 to England to testify regarding his conduct. He passed away en route. Laterrière explains, “The fatigues of his painful voyage, combined with a delicate constitution, and the inquietude of mind caused by the accusations brought against him, caused his death, before opportunity was afforded of justifying his conduct” (41). There is no doubt that

Laterrière attributes slander, indeed a powerful weapon, as one of the direct causes of

Prevost’s premature demise. The author even quotes J.-J. Rousseau’s Ode sur le Prince de Conti in tribute to Prevost:

Peuples, dont la douleur aux larmes obstinée[s],

De ce Prince chéri déplore le trépas,

Approchez, et voyez, quelle est la destinée

des grandeurs d’ici bas. (42)

Gallichan’s final category, the right of all men and women to enjoy the fundamental right to peace and happiness is also plainly expressed in A Political and

Historical Account of Lower Canada. Laterrière advocates most clearly for these rights in Chapter VII, entitled Remedies Proposed. On the last page of this chapter, Laterrière makes his case for the similitude of all humanity, listing the common desires of both the

English and the French settlers: “All I want, all he wants is, to be peaceful and undisturbed in our honest vocations” (204). In addition, when Laterrière advocates for fair and just political representation of all people in the colony, he makes the following plea to the House of Assembly: “A perfect representation is essential to the happiness of the great majority of the nation; and, as that nation’s representatives, it is your duty to strive stedfastly for its attainment” (204). Therefore, by juxtaposing the common desires of both the English and the French inhabitants of Canada, it is plain that Laterrière

207 esteems peace and happiness to be inalienable rights of all men and women in Canada, regardless of their ethnic or cultural origin.

Passionate Romanticism

One of the most easily recognizable aspects of the Romantic Movement is the expression of emotions and passions. In this section of the chapter, we are searching for manifestations of this type of expression in Laterrière’s book. One might ask, for example, if it contains evident emotional appeals, perhaps by an explosion of metaphors functioning as the space of subjectivity and demonstrating a strong passion for the subject about which Laterrière is writing.

From the outset, Laterrière denies any such authorial intent of creating a subjective manuscript. Rather, he professes to present factual data that will lead to logical, rational thinking which will serve as a basis for making decisions about his beloved homeland: “to endeavour, as far as lay in my power, to expose the complicated causes of our complaints [...] since I have attached myself strictly to the truth, without reference either to persons or parties [...] no personal feelings have interfered” (preface vii-viii). Laterrière also declares on the same page, “I have no desire to attack them as individuals, and that my reflections regard solely their public functions” (viii). Despite his good intentions, Laterrière does make a very personal comment about Fleming when he writes, “his prejedices have got the better of his reason” (xi). Laterrière also states that his main technique for achieving his stated aims is persuasion: “and should I succeed in creating an impression favourable to the cause of my country and my compatriots, I shall consider myself amply rewarded for my trouble” (preface viii). In other words, his goal

208 is to bring about a change of mind within British collective consciousness regarding the

French Canadians and the sociopolitical circumstances that existed at that time in

Quebec. In addition, Laterrière does not shrink from describing the emotional reactions of the French Canadians to various activities of the ruling British government as a means to appealing to his British readers’ emotions. For example, he refers to the emotional state of affairs between franco- and anglo-Canadians as “those heart burnings which are now so continued and so bitter” (35). Regarding the initial shift from the French system of political rule to that of the British, he writes, “Surprised, angered, and in many cases, ruined by their influence, our ancestors, after a few years of silent suffering, at length raised their voices,” (6). Furthermore, as these injustices began to be eliminated by a succession of British rulings, he states, “The joy created by the first ordinance among all classes of people, was extreme;” (7). Therefore, although Laterrière claimed otherwise, his appeal to the British takes the form of an appeal to their emotions.

Romanticism’s Exaltation du Moi

Romanticism changed the focus of human attention from the Enlightenment’s emphasis on the progress of society or of man in general to a highlighting of personal lyricism. One might ask if Laterrière’s style or content demonstrate a type of exaltation du moi, or a strong personal lyricism, reflecting an expansion of man’s inner mind and soul. In Chapter IV, the tone of Laterrière’s writing suddenly shifts from a logical, reasoning treatise and adopts a striking literary quality, swelling into a poetic lyricism as he describes night fishing on the St. Lawrence. What follows is a lengthy, but poignant narrative of Laterrière’s appreciation of Canadian nature:

209 In the spring, the fish usually run up into the thousand small creeks (in England they would be called rivers), which fall into the St. Lawrence; these being oftentimes shallow, permit a man to wade across and along them; one carries a bundle of dry pine or cedar bark splinters lighted, and used as a torch; another follows with a barbed spear, having a handle eight or ten feet long, and, by aid of the torch-light, he is enabled to see the fish as they lie along the bottom of the stream to which fish he cautiously approaches, and transfixes with his spear: when the water is too deep for him to wade, a canoe is procured; a light iron grate is placed in the bow, and filled with dry pitchy pine splinters, which blaze vehemently, and cast a bright and ruddy glow through the water, to many yards distance. The fish, as before, are by this means discovered lying at the bottom of the stream, and are caught in the same manner. Great dexterity is often evinced in the management of the spear; and I have often seen fish of four or five feet in length caught in this manner. In the calm evenings of summer, as the night comes gradually on, canoe after canoe, with its bright and waving light, may be seen putting silently from shore, and gliding rapidly and noiselessly along the still and glossy river; with one touch of the paddle the canoe is impelled to the spot pointed out by the gesture of the spearsman, who, waiting till the fish be within his range, darts his weapon with admirable precision upon the devoted prey, lifts it as quietly as possible into the canoe, and proceeds onward in search of further sport. The water of the St. Lawrence, clear beyond that of almost all the rivers I have seen, is admirably fitted for this purpose; and will allow a dexterous sportsman to seize his prey, if it be tolerably large, even when the water is ten or twelve feet in depth. There are few scenes in Canada more peculiar and striking than this night fishing. Often have I stood upon the banks of the broad and beautiful St. Lawrence, and contemplated with rapture the almost fairy picture it afforded. The still and mighty expanse of waters, spread out in glassy calmness before me, with its edges fringed by a dark mass of huge forests sweeping to the very brink of the river; and the deep purple shade of night closing over all, have, together, conjured up a scene that has held me for hours in contemplation. The song of the voyageur floating over the smooth and silent water, and mellowed by distance, has, in my imagination, equalled the long-lost strains of the Venetian gondolier; the glancing multitudes of waving lights, belying the homely purpose to which they were applied, have seemed a nocturnal festival; and by the aide of a little romance in my own feelings, have not seldom cheated me into half poetical musings. The “garish eye of day,” luckily, invariably dispelled the hallucination by robbing the scene of its enchanting but temporary beauty. I would, however, recommend the traveller, in those distant regions, to view the scene in a calm night of June; and, I doubt not, but that in a short time he will discover himself more romantic than he deemed. (134-6).

Not only the last sentence of the passage, but also the author’s choice of expressive adverbs and adjectives render this passage a Romantic exaltation of nature. As examples,

210 the following phrases illustrate our point: “canoe after canoe, with its bright and waving light may be seen putting silently from shore, and gliding rapidly and noiselessly along the still and glossy river” and “the still and mighty expanse of the water.” Several other portions of the passage could also have been used. In addition, the sentence, “Often have

I stood upon the banks of the broad and beautiful St. Lawrence, and contemplated with rapture the almost fairy picture it afforded” Laterrière demonstrates a literary participation in the imagination and emotionalism inherent to Romanticism.

Another example of Laterrière’s use of personal lyricism, although shorter but equally as sensitive, is found in a passage describing Canadian agriculture in Chapter IV.

As Laterrière portrays the change of season in Canada as follows:

When the spring comes, there is a general rush of business: a few days, nay, often a few hours, changes the whole face of the country. The river, which was a white and even sheet of ice, covered with snow, suddenly breaks up, and assumes life and motion; the snow, under which the whole earth lay buried, disappears as if by magic; the tepid airs of summer succeed at once to the biting gales of their almost polar winter; vegetation bursts abroad; the summer birds at once make their appearance, and the country is suddenly transformed from a polar to almost a tropical scene. (123)

This literary symphony in honor of spring sings of Romanticism. If we may play upon a fanciful musical metaphor, the nouns life, motion, magic, airs and gales form the basic rhythmic structure of this ode to nature. In addition, the verbs changes, breaks up, assumes, disappears, succeed, and bursts provide the foundational bass notes, whereas the adjectives whole, tepid, biting, transformed, polar and tropical serve as ornamental mezzo-soprano trills. This passage demonstrates Laterrière’s lyric portrayal of Canadian springs, which targets the expansion of each reader’s inner mind and soul.

211 Romanticism’s mal du siècle

A well-rounded sketch of Romanticism’s primary characteristics must include the concept of mal du siècle. This component addresses the dark side of the waves of passion that were frequently exalted in Romanticism. Mal du siècle is typified by an uneasiness or a melancholy. It may also include an exploration of dreams and nocturnal space, arising from the domain of the subconscious. Therefore, we propose to evaluate A

Political and Historical Account of Lower Canada for the presence of a mal du siècle and its various qualities.

On the first page of the preface, Laterrière makes a direct reference to his uneasiness over the complicated and painful relationship between French Canadians and the British in Lower Canada. Regarding his native country, he states, “Her present political situation has occupied a large portion of my thoughts; the want of correct information among the people of England, respecting that situation, has been long to me a subject of deep regret and solicitude;” (v). Later in the preface, Laterrière reveals another aspect of discomfort related to writing of the injustice that existed in Lower Canada at that time: “The task of blaming the proceedings of the various individuals composing or connected with the Local Government, is to me too painful to have been undertaken lightly” (vii).

Romanticism’s Imagination, Sensitivity and Idealism

The imaginative descriptions and sensitivity of expression that are prevalent in

Romantic writing are also manifested in Laterrière’s A Political and Historical Account of Lower Canada. Although the primary characteristic of the work is a systematic

212 exposition of facts relating to the political unrest in Lower Canada, the language used to depict these facts or to comment on them is, at times, clearly Romantic. For example, when condemning the high-handed, illegal activities of the Executive Council,

Laterrière’s censure takes the following form:

The great offenders must, almost of necessity, be either members of the Executive and Legislative Councils, or intimately allied to them. They have, among themselves, a brotherly love; an affection begotten by a similarity of interests. One councillor, therefore, naturally stands by and supports another; need we hope that they will expose a brother’s failings, more especially when the secret whisper of conscience tells them that their brother’s failings are common to themselves?” (63).

The “secret whisper of conscience” is the author’s rhetorical device that makes an emotional appeal to the reader in the midst of a logical presentation which, in turn, renders Laterrière’s argument highly persuasive.

The anecdote is another form of imaginative description used by Laterrière. In several places in the text, he relates a story to illustrate his point rather than using cold, hard, objective facts. For example, in one footnote, he even makes the following statement: “I will relate an anecdote, which will serve instead of volumes” (65). Another example of Laterrière’s use of anecdotes is found in another footnote. He writes: “For the purpose of exhibiting a specimen of the conduct of certain portions of the English society in Quebec, I will relate a few anecdotes: and describe the serious consequences of one of them, as regarded the society at large” (146). Although the anecdotes are based in fact and are not stories that Laterrière has imagined, it is clear through their use that he is appealing to English emotions rather than to their intellect.

Idealism connected to every facet of French Canadians’ lives and activities is not difficult to uncover in A Political and Historical Account of Lower Canada. In fact, after

213 careful reading, we are unable to provide examples of serious criticisms or negative comments about Canada or French Canadians, with a few minor exceptions.92 Laterrière purports “to convey a correct conception of the country and its inhabitants; [...] to show that the Canadians are, although of French extraction, not French, nor even Iroquois, nor

Germans, nor English, nor Scotch, nor Yankees, but that they are, assuredly, Canadians” yet realistically speaking, we submit that no one group of human beings can be accurately depicted in 100% positive terms (111-12). Among the multitude of examples of these idealistic portrayals available, the few illustrations provided are taken from Chapter IV in which Laterrière discusses the character, manners, customs, etc. of the French Canadians.

First, Canada is described as a type of utopia. The concept of utopia in Canada is thoroughly and admirably addressed by Andrès in his book chapter entitled, “Sur les utopies québécoises, des Lumières aux Révolutions cotinentales” (Utopies en Canada

[1545-1845] 11-33). Discussing the evolution of the sense of the word utopia, he writes,

On passe de la construction fantaisiste d’univers sans lendemain à des projets raisonnés de sociétés qui ne manqueront pas (pense-t-on) de se réaliser bientôt. Les fantaisies deviennent conséquentes et leur gravité aboutit aux révolutions. Par la suite, au XIXe siècle, l’utopie deviendra même synonyme de système. Dans les Amériques, des collectivités nouvelles s’emparent de certaines de ces utopies et s’essaient à les réaliser (11).

92 There are three exceptions. The first is the remnant of the former French aristocracy, whom he refers to as “this fading generation, both in political and social life [...] being idle, they consequently became wretchedly poor” and “neglected the education of their children; [...] Their titles are no longer known; [...] The descendants of the nobility are to be found confounded with the poorer classes of the inhabitants; and, their former ideas of grandeur having long since departed, they oftentimes may be seen serving in their little shops in the country, and gaining an honest livelihood in this humble avocation.” (116-17). The second is a comment found in a footnote about a derogatory term used by French Canadians for poor immigrants: “A very ingenious, though somewhat wicked appellation, has been given by the Canadians to the poorest part of the emigrants: they call them Bas de Soie, from their not having, or never choosing to wear, any stockings. It is quite usual to hear: Tiens, voilà une cargaison de Bas de Soie qui arrive, when a great number of emigrants are seen on board of a ship coming into port” (120). The third concerns Laterrière’s criticism of the French Canadian habit of drinking liquor: “The inhabitants know all the mischiefs derived from their use, but still they feel the necessity of a stimulant” (130). 214 It is impossible to ascertain whether or not one of Pierre-Jean’s motives for writing A

Political and Historical Account was to incite a movement in Quebec to rebell against oppression in order to create a New World utopia. Nevertheless, the utopic idealism is clearly manifested as he writes, “the soils now in cultivation are, for the most part, highly fertile; and the Canadian farmer, with a few months’ labour, and little skill, obtains all he finds necessary to his enjoyments” (122). Then, although the husbands work to cut a supply of firewood and the wives card, spin and weave fabric which they make into garments, wintertime is represented as a season of continual festivities: “not only is there a cessation from labour, but a constant round of parties, and dancing, of which the whole people are passionately fond. At these parties, abundance of good things is always manifest. [...] they dance with spirit, and they eat with vigour” (122, 133-4). Regarding their practice of Catholicism, Laterrière states, “the people are a pious people, and set an extraordinary value upon the rites of their religion” yet there is also “the most perfect cordiality [...] between the priest of the parish and his jewish neighbour (121, 137-8). He describes the Catholic clergy as “gentle, modest, and benevolent” (139). Thus, he believes that the French Canadians live at ease and are an honest people: “property is perfectly safe, both from petty pilfering and open attacks” and “the traveller never meets with a refusal to give him assistance” (136-7).

Even for subjects that could be considered unpleasant, Laterrière finds a way to convert them into positive aspects of Canadian life. For example, although cheese is unknown and butter is mediocre, he suggests that all that the Canadians need is to be taught how to make it (128). Canadian flour is darker and coarser than what would be desired and “the bread, throughout the country, is universally sour” (128-9).

215 Nevertheless, these “trifling particulars” do not have any bearing on Canadians’ contentment (129). Many times, Laterrière comments on the comfort and ease in which the Canadians live in terms of food, clothing, and shelter. Although they have a “bold spirit of independence, [...] they are courteous in their manners, polite in their address, they offend not by rude and rough familiarity, [...] they preserve an even simplicity and honest straightforwardness of manner” (128). From this collection of quotations,

Laterrière’s idealistic view of French Canadians is unmistakable. He also writes negatively on several occasions about the Irish, Scottish, Americans and, needless to say, the British. Nevertheless, this disparity between the nationalities is a necessary part of his persuasive argument: the French Canadians are a wonderful people who are suffering an outrageous injustice that must be remedied. Therefore, Romantic idealism plays an integral part of Laterrière’s political treatise.

LATERRIÈRE’S VIEW OF QUEBEC

In the final analysis, Laterrière’s A Political and Historical Account of Lower

Canada is an excellent example of a non-fictional historical document that exhibits a strong current of the literary movement in vogue at the time that it was written—in this case, Romanticism. Andrès concurs:

Le livre comporte un grand nombre de passages où l’auteur compare ainsi les nations et leurs coutumes, tout comme les climats et leur effet sur l’«ame» et l’«industrie» des populations. [...] Toutes ces considérations assez «romantiques», en effet, le ramènent inéluctablement à un peuple qu’il idéalise quelque peu et qui lui inspire sûrement les plus belles pages de son volume (“Nouveau Monde et Américanité dans le discours historiographique au Canada français: le cas de A Political and Historical Account of Lower Canada de Pierre-Jean de Sales Laterrière (1830) (39-40).93

93 In a footnote related to this statement, Andrès draws the reader’s attention to Laterrière’s description of night fishing on the St. Lawrence on a starry, starry June evening. 216 Beautiful pages, indeed they are. Yet the book also demands justice for the oppressed

Canadian people while declaring their right to the freedoms of education, the press, just representation, peace and happiness, and the freedom from oppression. Laterrière’s portrayals of the French Canadians, although idealized, are certainly based upon his own observations. A Political and Historical Account of Lower Canada is a highly personal work in which Laterrière’s writing exemplifies not only the spirit of the age, but also expresses a spirit of passions, heartaches, melancholy and sensitivity. As one of the elite in Canada, he is well-educated, well-traveled, well-beloved and articulate. There is no doubt as to his view of Quebec. It is his homeland, it is in trouble, and his writing reflects his aspiration to protect and correct, to comfort it and cover it with a healing balm.

217 CHAPTER 6

ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF TOCQUEVILLE

Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859), a French aristocrat of great renown in literary, historical, and sociological circles of our day, traveled through Quebec in 1831 with a companion, Gustave de Beaumont. His memoirs of their voyage provide a French perspective of his philosophical and intellectual perceptions of Quebec after almost three- quarters of a century under British rule. In a letter to his mother in June of 1831,

Tocqueville reveals, for example, that he is struck by the notion that Quebec is like

France, preserved intact, where the customs and language spoken are like those of the reign of Louis XIV (Corbo 48). His comments are colored, in a sense, because his primary objective was to analyze America’s penal system rather than Canada’s cultural or political status, because his stay in Quebec was brief, and because he had limited contact with some of the important Quebecers of the era (Corbo 36-38). Nevertheless, his memoirs are sensitive and profound, mirroring the Romanticism of the era in which they were written. Due to the fact that Tocqueville is extremely well-known, instead of providing a detailed personal biography, we are substituting a summary of his travels in

America and in Canada after he left New York.94

94 This summary of Tocqueville’s travels through the northern United States and Quebec is taken from Regards sur le Bas Canada, Ed. Corbo (see Bibliography). 218 As Tocqueville traveled westward across the southern edge of the Great Lakes, he kept a personal diary of his experiences in America which, after it had been revised, he entitled “Fifteen Days in the Desert.” Tocqueville’s first commentaries regarding the

Amerindians were written as he observed a large group gathered in Buffalo to receive money in payment for the lands that they had ceded to the United States government. He states that their race is doomed to inevitable destruction. Later, on the other hand, when

Tocqueville and Beaumont arrive in Detroit, he remarks that the Amerindians are at least beginning to become “civilized” and that in order to get the truth out of them, they must be maneuvered. Nevertheless, the two travelers rent horses in Buffalo and headed off for the wilderness. They come across an authentic log house, guarded by two semi-savage dogs, and speak with the pioneer who lived there. Upon entering the abode, Tocqueville describes in detail the rustic living conditions that he observed. The author’s commentary on the man who lived there emphasize his individualism and solitude, but also his strength and self-assured perseverance. According to Tocqueville, the pioneer was hospitable as well as reasonable and adventuresome, but worried. His wife and children were weakened from the difficult life that they were living, trying to subsist from the land.

When they arrive at Pontiac, Tocqueville and Beaumont meet the proprietor of a local inn who considers the two travelers to be very odd and not at all suited to the pioneer life. When they tell him that they want to buy some land, he informs them that in

France, labor is cheap and land is expensive, but in America, just the opposite is true.

Land can be purchased for next to nothing, but the price of manual labor is exorbitant.

The proprietor then explains all the steps necessary for a pioneer to settle a homestead.

219 The next day Tocqueville and Beaumont arrive at another settlement where they meet Mr. Williams. From this man’s mouth, for the first time, Tocqueville hears a positive comment about the Amerindians. Afterwards, as they travel on toward their destination of Flint River in the company of an Amerindian who was mysteriously following them, they reach the hut of another European. This man prefers Amerindian company to that of the White Man. Riding on, they arrive at the log house of another pioneer where they spend the night. Their host provides them with two Amerindians to guide them to Flint River. The guides are expert woodsmen without which the two

Frenchmen would not have survived. One of the Amerindians is a bois-brûlé, that is, the son of a Canadian and Amerindian couple and he speaks French fluently.

Finally, they arrive in Saginaw, the furthest European outpost in the Michigan territory, a small community of about thirty people. Tocqueville marvels at the fact that the Europeans had completely adopted the customs, apparel and life-style of the wilderness in order to survive there. In addition, he criticizes the deceitful manner in which the Europeans treated the Amerindians, scorning and cheating them during bartering. Tocqueville comments that the Eternal Being made all men everywhere the same, but that men have divided themselves into different religious groups which despise one another. However, for Tocqueville, the Amerindian is more tolerant than them all, living a simple life off the land, despite the European’s prejudice that he is a pagan.

Tocqueville is stunned by the splendor of the raw, natural beauty of the virgin forest, as he also would be when he saw Niagara Falls, but he was quickly brought back to reality by his Amerindian guide. The Métis was walking mincingly through the fields to avoid stepping on rattlesnakes; the two Frenchmen appreciate his prudence and follow suit.

220 After their brief stay in Saginaw, Tocqueville and Beaumont then travel eastward through Quebec on the northern side of the Great Lakes. Tocqueville depicts Quebec as a new society in the process of formation that was composed of the ruling British, the conquered French colonists, the displaced Amerindians and, of course, the Métis. On a steamboat that makes stops at Detroit, Mackinac, and travels across Lake Huron,

Tocqueville begins jotting down ideas in a stream of consciousness style. Frequently, the recurring theme of the fading away of native cultures emerges. This theme reappears later in a conversation with a Canadian. According to this Canadian, the Amerindians much prefer the French over the English, and although the native culture was disappearing, the French were maintaining their national identity, in spite of being forced to live under British domination.

In Montreal, Tocqueville records a conversation with a Sulpician Father and two lawyers. They paint a rosy picture of the benefits of living under English rule such as liberty of the press and freedom to practice the Catholic religion. The lawyers indicate that the clergy in Canada is not in league with the government as in France, and they often advocate on behalf of the common people who respect and love them. Tocqueville becomes aware, however, that even though the Francophone population outnumbers the

Anglophone population at a ratio of nine to one in Lower Canada, the latter controls the economy and the language of the country. He senses trouble brewing in the future, and expresses the hope that the French Canadians would some day be freed from British rule.

During his conversation with a British merchant, Tocqueville records his perception of a clear scorn and disdain toward the French on the part of this British merchant.

221 While in Quebec City, Tocqueville observes that the population appears happy, strong, healthy, and the Canadian women do not appear delicate and sickly as did those in the United States. Furthermore, he perceives an undercurrent of French solidarity, but realizes that there is no strong leadership at the moment for such a movement. Corbo postulates that while he was in Canada, Tocqueville and Beaumont did not meet Louis

Joseph Papineau, and probably did not know of his critical role in the political circumstances of the day (178).

Tocqueville’s conversation with John Neilson, who was born in Scotland but emigrated to Canada and became the editor of the Quebec Gazette, painted a vivid portrait of life in Quebec. Neilson described the nature of the Quebec farmer as well as the workings of the seigneurial system in place at that time. Tocqueville stated that the

Canadians were inferior to the Americans in matters of the head, but were superior in matters of the heart: in other words, he believed that Americans were better educated than the French Canadians. Nevertheless, Tocqueville’s main point was that English domination of the North American continent was a permanent feature of American demography. On the other hand, there were some Anglophones, like Neilson himself, who were linked with the Francophones in opposition to the British.

IDENTIFICATION OF SELECTED TEXTS

It is common knowledge that Alexis de Tocqueville was a prolific writer. He is perhaps best remembered for his massive political treatise Democracy in America.

Therefore, we are limiting our reflections on his opus to his observations of Quebec only.

The selected text for our analysis is Regards sur le Bas-Canada: choix de textes et

222 présentation de Claude Corbo. Within Corbo’s 269 page book, we are eliminating 1.

Project de voyage, 2. « Quinze jours dans le désert » and 3. Sur les Grands Lacs et aux chutes du Niagara (pages 47 – 135.) Similarly, we are also omitting pages 213 – 231 as these latter pages refer mainly to Louisiana and the United States and not to Canada.

Finally, the appendix of Gustave de Beaumont’s observations of Lower Canada has also been eliminated from our discussion.

Although Tocqueville’s “Fifteen Days in the Desert” is not a part of the texts to be analyzed, we nevetheless wish to pay homage at this point to his brilliance as a

Romantic author. The following three passages from “Fifteen Days in the Desert” exemplify his sensitivity, wit and perspicacity, as well as his ability to express all three with precision and lucidity. The first passage reflects Tocqueville’s reaction of reverent awe to Michigan’s virgin forest, the second portrays his witty desperation when besieged by a certain winged insect, and the third expresses his insightful melancholy regarding the status of the Métis in America. Upon reading these passages, more than any others, we appreciated Tocqueville’s authorial talent; we present them here as a tribute to it and for the reader’s pleasure.

Le désert était là tel qu'il s'offrit sans doute il y a six mille ans aux regards de nos premiers pères ; une solitude fleurie, délicieuse, embaumée ; magnifique demeure, palais vivant, bâti pour l'homme, mais où le maître n'avait pas encore pénétré. Le canot glissait sans efforts et sans bruit ; il régnait autour de nous une sérénité, une quiétude universelles. Nous-mêmes, nous ne tardâmes pas à nous sentir comme amollis à la vue d'un pareil spectacle. Nos paroles commencèrent à devenir de plus en plus rares ; bientôt nous n'exprimâmes nos pensées qu'à voix basse. Nous nous tûmes enfin, et relevant simultanément les avirons, nous tombâmes l'un et l'autre dans une tranquille rêverie pleine d'inexprimables charmes. D'où vient que les langues humaines qui trouvent des mots pour toutes les douleurs, rencontrent un invincible obstacle à faire comprendre les plus douces et les plus naturelles émotions du cœur? Qui peindra jamais avec fidélité ces

223 moments si rares dans la vie où le bien-être physique vous prépare à la tranquillité morale et où il s'établit devant vos yeux comme un équilibre parfait dans l'univers : alors que l'âme, à moitié endormie, se balance entre le présent et l'avenir, entre le réel et le possible, quand, entouré d'une belle nature, respirant un air tranquille et tiède, en paix avec lui-même au milieu d'une paix universelle, l'homme prête l'oreille aux battements égaux de ses artères dont chaque pulsation marque le passage du temps qui pour lui semble ainsi s'écouler goutte à goutte dans l'éternité. Beaucoup d'hommes peut-être ont vu s'accumuler les années d'une longue existence sans éprouver une seule fois rien de semblable à ce que nous venons de décrire. Ceux-là ne sauraient nous comprendre. Mais il en est plusieurs, nous en sommes assurés, qui trouveront dans leur mémoire et au fond de leur cœur de quoi colorer nos images et sentiront se réveiller en nous lisant le souvenir de quelques heures fugitives que le temps ni les soins positifs de la vie n'ont pu effacer. (120-121)

L'animal qu'on appelle mosquito en anglais, et maringouin en français canadien est un petit insecte semblable en tout au cousin de France dont il diffère seulement par la grosseur. Il est généralement plus grand et sa trompe est si forte et si acérée que les étoffes de laine peuvent seules garantir de ses piqûres. Ces petits moucherons sont le fléau des solitudes de l'Amérique. Leur présence suffirait pour y rendre un long séjour insupportable. Quant à moi je déclare n'avoir jamais éprouvé un tourment semblable à celui qu'ils m'ont fait souffrir pendant tout le cours de ce voyage et particulièrement durant notre séjour à Saginaw. Le jour ils nous empêchaient de dessiner, d'écrire, de rester un seul moment en place, la nuit ils circulaient par milliers autour de nous ; chaque endroit du corps que vous laissiez découvert leur servait à l'instant de rendez- vous. Réveillés par la douleur que causait la piqûre nous nous couvrions la tête de nos draps, leur aiguillon passait à travers ; chassés, poursuivis ainsi par eux nous nous levions et nous allions respirer l'air du dehors jusqu'à ce que la fatigue nous procurât enfin un sommeil pénible et interrompu. [...] La chaleur était étouffante comme à l'approche d'un orage et les moustiques plus gênants encore que de coutume. Nous ne marchions qu'environnés par une nuée de ces insectes auxquels il fallait faire une guerre perpétuelle. Malheur à celui qui était obligé de s'arrêter. Il se livrait alors sans défense à un ennemi impitoyable. Je me rappelle avoir été contraint de charger mon fusil en courant, tant il était difficile de tenir un instant en place. (109, 123)

Assise au milieu de l’appartement [d’un cabane rustique de métis], les jambes croisées sur une natte, une jeune femme travaillait à faire des mocassins; du pied elle berçait un enfant dont le teint cuivré et les traits annonçaient la double origine. Cette femme était habillée comme une de nos paysannes, sinon que ses pieds étaient nus et que ses cheveux tombaient librement sur ses épaules. En nous apercevant elle se tut avec une sorte de crainte respectueuse. Nous lui demandâmes si elle était Française. « Non, répondit-elle en souriant. –Anglaise ? –Non plus, dit-elle ; elle baissa les yeux et ajouta : Je ne suis qu’une sauvage. »

224 Enfant de deux races, élevé dans l’usage de deux langues, nourri dans des croyances diverses et bercé dans des préjugés contraires, le métis forme un composé aussi inexplicable aux autres qu’à lui-même. Les images du monde lorsqu’elles viennent se réfléchir sur son cerveau grossier, ne lui apparaissent que comme un chaos inextricable dont son esprit ne saurait sortir. Fier de son origine européenne, il méprise le désert ; et pourtant il aime la liberté sauvage qui y régne. Il admire la civilisation et ne peut complètement se soumettre à son empire. Ses goûts sont en contradiction avec ses idées, ses opinions avec ses mœurs. Ne sachant comment se guider au jour incertain qui l’éclaire, son âme se débat péniblement dans les langes d’un doute universel. Il adopte des usages opposés ; il prie à deux autels ; il croit au Rédempteur du monde et aux amulettes du jongleur ; et il arrive au bout de sa carrière sans avoir pu débrouiller le problème obscur de son existence. (116)

Romanticism in Tocqueville’s Texts

Our method of analysis of Tocqueville’s observations of Quebec will be similar to that which was used in the previous chapter. It will include, among others, evaluations of the text for Romanticism’s rebelling revolutionary rhetoric, emotional appeals, subjectivity, metaphors, exaltation du moi and personal lyricism, mal du siècle and melancholy, and imagination, sensitivity and idealism.

Romanticism’s Rebelling Revolutionary

One might ask if Tocqueville’s text about Quebec shows any evidence that he advocated social upheaval or a political restructuring of the government. On the contrary, rather than arguing on behalf of a particular course of action to pursue for improving Canadian society and its government, we affirm that the nature of

Tocqueville’s writing simply reflects the content of his conversations and his reaction to them. For example, as far as the fate of the Amerindian nations in Canada was concerned, Tocqueville records in his “Conversation avec un Canadien” that the

225 Canadian stated, “Les Hurons ont presque disparu. Les Iroquois à moitié détruits aussi, se sont fondus presque tous avec les Chippeways. [...] Je pense qu’ils sont beaucoup meilleurs quands ils n’ont point de contact avec nous, et certainement plus heureux”

(137). Remarkably, the Canadian indicates, in reply to Tocqueville’s question, that the

Amerindians have no idea that the inevitable march of the White Man across the North

American continent will eventually destroy their culture: “Ils ont une incroyable insouciance de l’avenir” (138). Therefore, Tocqueville functions far more as a pollster rather than as an inflamed agitator. In Chapter 5, Tocqueville writes in a letter to his father about the raw North American wilderness: “C’est le plus extraordinaire spectacle que j’aie vu dans ma vie. Ces lieux, qui ne forment encore qu’un immense désert, deviendront un des pays les plus riches et les plus puissants du monde. On peut l’affirmer sans être prophète” (142). Tocqueville makes predictions, but he does not use impassioned persuasion in order to effect a change, neither to society nor to the government.

In an interview with M. Quiblier, an important director of the Montreal seminary,

Tocqueville asks questions about social and political issues, but does not dispute his answers with him. Quiblier states regarding the French, “Je ne crois pas qu’il y ait un peuple plus heureux au monde que le peuple canadien. Il a des mœurs très douces, point de dissensions civilies ni religieuses et ne paie aucun impôt” (150). Based upon the information in the book that Laterrière (s.) published just one year before Tocqueville’s trip to Quebec, it appears that Quiblier is either telling a Frenchman that all is well by sweeping problems under the rug, or the cleric is completely out of touch with the

Canadian people. Tocqueville’s continued queries adopt the topics of a political

226 journalist—liberty of the press, religious discrimination, “l’animosité entre les deux races,” education, etc.—but he never responds to Quiblier’s replies (151-152).

On the same day (August 24, 1831), Tocqueville’s conversation about the

Canadian government with the Mondelets, lawyers from Montreal, broaches the topic of the economy and newspapers. To begin, the lawyers inform him that “presque toute la richesse et le commerce est dans les mains des Anglais” (153). Tocqueville then asks about French language newspapers and if they have much influence; the answer is in the affirmative. Then Tocqueville asks them if the clergy have a penchant toward politics.

The lawyers express their belief that there may be “en lui une tendance secrète à gouverner ou diriger, mais c’est très peu de chose” (153). The Mondelets finish by stating that the Catholic clergy lead the fight against the English Protestants’ attempts to oppress their religion and that they also promote education of the Francophones as much as possible (154). At no time does Tocqueville advocate any rebellion or sedition against the British government. His impressions written on August 25 state that the English are the dominant class and that, “Je doute qu’il en soit longtemps ainsi” (157). He also wrote that he hopes that “les Français, en dépit de la conquête, arriveront un jour à former à eux seuls un bel empire dans le Nouveau Monde” (157).

On August 27, Tocqueville judges the newspaper Le Canadien by its epigraph:

“notre Religion, notre langue, nos lois. Il est difficile d’être plus franc. Le contenu répond au titre. Tout ce qui peut enflammer les grandes et les petites passions populaires contre les Anglais est relevé avec soin dans ce journal” (162-63). However, just a few sentences later he states, “Je n’ai encore vu dans le Canada aucun homme de talent, ni lu une production qui en fît preuve. Celui qui doit remuer la population française, et la lever

227 contre les Anglais n’est pas encore né” (163).95 On the same day, Tocqueville engaged in a lively conversation with John Neilson which will be addressed later in this chapter. The next day, August 28, Tocqueville made the following startling predictions:

Nous arrivons au moment de la crise. Si les Canadiens ne sortent pas de leur apathie d’ici à vingt ans, il ne sera plus temps d’en sortir. Tout annonce que le réveil de ce peuple approche. [...] Un homme de génie qui comprendrait, sentirait et serait capable de développer les passions nationales du peuple aurait ici un admirable rôle à jouer. Il deviendrait bientôt l’homme le plus puissant de la colonie. Mais je ne le vois encore nulle part” (182-3).

Of course, the 1837-38 rebellion is a well-known event in Canadian history, and once again, Tocqueville demonstrates that he is unaware of Papineau’s influence and popularity. Yet in all of these comments, Tocqueville does not promote or advocate a

French Canadian rebellion against the ruling British government. He simply states his views.

It must not be forgotten that these comments were written in private journals and were not published until after Tocqueville’s death in 1859. It is reasonable to assert that if Tocqueville’s motive for writing these comments was to advocate social unrest and political upheaval, he would undoubtedly have taken the step of having them published immediately. Nevertheless, the spirit of the age is prevalent in his writing because of the types of questions he asked, the observations that he made and the nature of his personal reflections in response to the interviews he conducted.

Romantic Passion

95 Corbo correctly comments that Tocqueville had not met or did not know of Louis Joseph Papineau whom he eventually met in Paris in 1839 (160-61). 228 It is commonly agreed that passionate appeals, emotional discourses, metaphors and generalized subjectivity were common elements of the Romanticism that pervaded many level of society at the time that Tocqueville and Beaumont were in Quebec. We propose to analyze the selected texts for evidence of these specific manifestations of

Romanticism. Tocqueville’s writing conveys the most emotional eloquence as he endeavored to depict the grandeur and sheer beauty of nature in the North American landscape. For example, in a letter to his father describing what he observed near Sault-

Ste-Marie, he enthused,

L’ensemble, cependant, produit une impression profonde et durable. Ce lac sans voiles, cette côte qui ne porte encore aucun vestige du passage de l’homme, cette éternelle forêt qui la borde : tout cela, je vous assure, n’est pas seulement grand en poésie. C’est le plus extraordinaire spectacle que j’aie vue dans ma vie” (142).

Remarkably, Tocqueville characterized his experience in literary terms linking the scenery with poetry. At Niagara Falls, another spectacular site, Tocqueville again portrayed the stunning magnificence of nature in North America in literary terms, referring to it in linguistic imagery:

À deux lieues, le bruit de la chute ressemblait déjà à un orage. Niagara en indien veut dire Tonnerre des eaux. On ne pouvait trouver une expression plus magnifique ni plus juste. Les langues indiennes sont pleines de ces sortes d’images, et bien autrement poétiques que les nôtres. [...] Je ferais nécessairement du pathos, ma chère maman, si j’entreprenais la description du spectacle que nous eûmes alors sous les yeux. La chute du Niagara est, à mon avis, supérieure à tout ce qu’on en a dit et écrit en Europe, ainsi qu’à toutes les idées que l’imagination s’en forme d’avance. (146).

Significantly, by his use of the term “pathos,” Tocqueville states precisely that he is making an emotional appeal in an attempt to capture on paper a sense of the majestic panorama before his eyes.

229 Tocqueville’s writing demonstrates that he was perfectly comfortable with dabbling in the realm of subjectivity. For example, after his conversation with an anonymous British businessman, he assessed the man’s inner feelings and then penned an astute adage: “En parlant des Canadiens il se peignait sur la physionomie flegmatique de

M... un sentiment de haine et de mépris très visible. Il est rare qu’on parle avec tant de passion de ceux dont on ne redoute rien” (159). Furthermore, Tocqueville was equally at ease identifying his emotional responses to events of which he was an eyewitness. For example, after observing the use of French and English during a trial in a Quebec court, he made the following assessment:

L’ensemble du tableau a quelque chose de bizarre, d’incohérent, de burlesque même. Le fond de l’impression qu’il faisait naître était cependant triste. Je n’ai jamais été plus convaincu qu’en sortant de là que le plus grand et le plus irrémédiable malheur pour un peuple c’est d’être conquis. (165)

Finally, one of Tocqueville’s most eloquent emotional appeals is recorded in a letter to his brother Edouard after his stay in Canada and while he was on a steamboat en route to

Cincinnati. Regarding France’s inability to successfully maintain control of its colonies in the New World, he describes France’s failure in highly passionate terms: “Leur abandon est une des plus grandes ignominies de l’ignominieux règne de Louis XV”

(211). Tocqueville even refers to the signing away of Canada in the Treaty of Versailles as “le honteux traité de 1763” (212). The words ignominieux and honteux lend a sense of power to his discussion due to the emotions evoked and they create a sense that he is using a subjective appeal in a persuasive manner to undergird his argument.

Romanticism’s exaltation du moi

230 The transformation in literary works from focusing on society in general to emphasizing the individual is one of the major characteristics of Romanticism. Although

Tocqueville’s essays about Quebec do contain this literary feature, the major focus is on

Quebec society. The vast majority of his commentary is sociological in nature, concentrating on groups of people rather than on individuals. Tocqueville’s investigation revolves around social groups’ customs, attitudes, beliefs, characteristics, their similarities and differences, etc. His famous statement, “Nous avons retrouvé ici le

Français d’il y a un siècle, conservé comme une momie pour l’instruction de la génération actuelle” is an excellent example of the fact that his primary interest is in evaluating social groups (143). Tocqueville’s exaltation du moi as typified by personal lyricism is expressed as he writes about his own sentiments. Although Tocqueville’s self-expression will be addressed in the rest of this chapter, we maintain that for the most part his writing exemplifies an exaltation du moi only to a minor extent.

Romanticism’s mal du siècle

The element of fear is a commonly recurring theme in Tocqueville’s texts about

Quebec. For example, Tocqueville asked the first Canadian whom he interviewed,

“Avez-vous quelque chose à craindre des Indiens en commerçant avec eux?” (137).

Tocqueville also asks an anonymous British businessman, “Pensez-vous avoir quelque chose à craindre des Canadiens?” (158). Moreover, during one of his conversations with the eminent John Neilson, Tocqueville again brings up the topic of fear as he questions

Neilson about his link to the French Canadiens: “Ne craignez-vous rien d’une si grande masse d’électeurs?” (173). Tocqueville is also not shy about expressing his own inner

231 fears. For example, in an insightful analysis of Quebec society, he astutely identifies a new class of citizens that was created after the conquest:

Il existe déjà à Québec une classe d’hommes qui forme la transition entre le Français et l’Anglais : ce sont des Anglais alliés à des Canadiens, des Anglais mécontents de l’administration, des Français en place. [...] C’est elle que je crains le plus pour le sort futur de la population canadienne. Elle n’excite ni sa jalousie, ni ses passions. Au contraire elle est plus candienne qu’anglaise d’intérêt parce qu’elle fait de l’opposition au gouvernement. Au fond, cependant, elle est anglaise de mœurs, d’idées, de langue. Si elle prenait jamais la place des hautes classes et des classes éclairées parmi les Canadiens, la nationalité de ceux-ci serait perdue sans retour. Ils végéteraient comme les Bas-Bretons en France. (183).

Another commonly recurring theme in Tocqueville’s prose is the question of how the French Canadians tolerated living under British domination after the Conquest. The answers he received from various parties were diverse. For example, during his conversation with the first Canadian, he asks, “Comment les Français du Canada souffrent-ils la domination anglaise?” (139). The Canadian replied, “Comme un mal inévitable. Mais nous ne nous fondons point. Nous restons deux people distincts” (139).

During his interview with Quiblier, Tocqueville inquires, “Y a-t-il de l’animosité entre les deux races? –Oui. Mais pas vive” was Quiblier’s reply (151). The fact that

Tocqueville consistently posed questions on this topic to various Quebecers demonstrates an apprehension on his part that either all was not well or would not be well in the future between these two populations. However, the relations between the Francophones and

Anglophones in Canada were not his only concern. After experiencing the splendor of

Niagara Falls, he expresses his profound melancholy in a letter to his mother on August

21:

D’après cette description et l’admiration que nous avons ressentie à Niagara, vous croyez peut-être, ma chère maman, que nous nous trouvons dans un état d’esprit

232 for tranquille et fort heureux. Il n’en est rien, je vous jure. Jamais, au contraire, je ne me suis senti en proie à une mélancolie plus profonde.... (147-148)

The reason for Tocqueville’s unease, he states, is his concern for the political turmoil in

France which, if civil war were to erupt, would necessarily be perilous for his aristocratic family: “je ne puis me voir, sans une profonde tristesse et une sorte de honte, occupé à admirer des cascades en Amérique, tandis que la destinée de tant de personnes que j’aime est peut-être, en cet instant même, compromise” (148).

Romanticism’s Imagination, Sensitivity and Idealism

Tocqueville expresses an intuitive sensitivity to the French Canadian personality.

He analyzes its characteristics in the following manner: “Comme le Français, le paysan canadien a l’esprit gai et vif, il y a presque toujours quelque chose de piquant dans ses reparties” (184). In fact, Tocqueville makes broad, sweeping generalizations regarding the French personality as well as that of the English: “Enfin les Anglais se montrent au

Canada avec tous les traits de leur caractère national, et les Canadiens ont conservé tous les traits du caractère français” (189). In another assessment of the French Canadian character, Tocqueville states, “Ils ont conservé la plus grande partie des traits originaux du caractère national, et l’ont mêlé avec plus de moralité et de simplicité” (182). This standardized portrait where all stereotypical characteristics of a nationality are idealized and presented as part of a series of valid observations is one of the multitude of identifiable manifestations of Romanticism. Tocqueville is careful to record another idealizing of the French Canadien character that occurred during his conversation with

John Neilson. When commenting on the pureness of French Canadian social customs, he

233 states, “Les enfants naturels sont une chose à peu près inconnue dans nos campagnes. Je me rappelle la conversation de XX (j’ai oublié le nom) ; depuis deux cents ans on n’en avait pas vu un seul ; il y a dix ans un Anglais était venu s’y établir, séduisit une fille ; le scandale fut affreux” (170). Although to our knowledge no statistics exist on the subject, it is perhaps likely that there was very little premarital sexual activity in French Canada, although the fact remains that two of the men featured in this dissertation did indeed give free reign to their passions— d’Iberville and Laterrière (f.)—and both men lived between

1631 and 1831. However, Tocqueville’s assessment of one of the major differences between the French Canadian and the American is perhaps the most noticeable imaginative idealization. During one of the outings with Neilson, Tocqueville and

Beaumont had the opportunity to observe French Canadians in the country. Tocqueville comments, “Au total, cette race d’hommes nous a paru inférieure aux Américains en lumières, mais supérieure quant aux qualités de cœur” (180). In the end, Tocqueville states,

Somme toute, ce peuple-ci ressemble prodigieusement au peuple français. [...] Fais, vifs, railleurs, aimant la gloire et le bruit, intelligents, éminemment sociables, leurs mœurs sont douces et leur caractère serviable. Le peuple est en général plus moral, plus hospitalier, plus religieux qu’en France. Il n’y a qu’au Canada qu’on puisse trouver ce qu’on appelle un bon enfant en France. L’Anglais et l’Américain sont ou grossiers ou glacés” (190).

Therefore, idealized statements about the French or negative statements about the

English and Americans such as Neilson’s and Tocqueville’s are highly imaginative.

TOCQUEVILLE’S PERSPECTIVE OF QUEBEC

234 Alexis de Tocqueville was a French aristocrat. He was born French and he remained French. He functioned as an investigative journalist, interviewing colonists, reporting their comments, and then adding his own observations and opinions. Clearly,

Tocqueville views Quebec in the context of comparison with France. Although his perspective is primarily sociological, he writes a sensitive political analysis of the

Canadian government not only during its current state while he was there, but also under the Ancien Régime. He claimed that there was no nobility, the Church was weak, feudal traditions had been obscured and judicial power was no longer rooted in old institutions and customs. For Tocqueville, the absence of aristocrats in Canada further subjected the inhabitants to the power of the government. Yet it has been demonstrated earlier in this dissertation that a noble class in Quebec did exist, although it was not defined by the same rules as was the French nobility to which Tocqueville belonged. In addition, from his French viewpoint, Tocqueville perceived a weak Church as one that exercised no political power in the government since in France the Catholic Church was heavily involved in the administration of the state. However, the Catholic Church in Quebec did exercise enormous control over the common people through superstition and fear.

Tocqueville viewed Quebec as a land of conquered peoples, both French Canadian and

Amerindian, and his writing expresses an uneasiness about Quebec’s ability to establish a satisfying and stable culture and government.

As was documented in the section of this chapter about the Romantic rebelling revolutionary, Tocqueville did not advocate a social upheaval or an overthrow of the government, and thus, his texts do not display a propensity toward inflamed rhetoric or persuasive techniques. Neither do they focus on Tocqueville himself in the sense that his

235 primary purpose in writing was to engage in an exploration of his personal mind and soul.

Yet, on the other hand, his personal lyricism is evident in his exquisite portrayals of the effects of North America’s natural beauty that he recorded in his texts.

Tocqueville was a traveler who passed through Canada and who left his observations in the form of a written record for later generations to read and to ponder.

Understood simply from a sociological or political standpoint, his writings are keenly perceptive and discerning. However, when they are understood also from the added dimension of the literary standpoint of Romanticism, they blossom into a stunning portrait of a newly formed country that was going through the inevitable growing pains.

In the depictions of his observations, Tocqueville’s text clearly expresses emotional, subjective appeals, a melancholy and an uneasiness about possible problems in Canada’s future and a hopeful sensitivity as he mused about the manner in which positive changes for the French Canadians could take place in the future. Considering Tocqueville’s

Quebec texts from the perspective of Romanticism significantly enhances one’s appreciation of its prevalence in all manner of texts and of Tocqueville’s understanding of the Canadian sociopolitical circumstances of his time.

236 CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSION

Five men from varying generations, social standings and homelands have produced eyewitness accounts of the establishment and development of New France.

They all were deeply involved with Quebec and impacted its future—for better or for worse. The research for this dissertation demonstrates that their writings about Canada provide us with different views that reflect not only their personal perspectives, but which also reflect their participation in the dominant literary and philosophical movements in existence at the time that they lived: Absolutism, the Enlightenment, and Romanticism.

What follows are some conclusions about each of these men that can be drawn from this research.

Pierre Le Moyne s’Iberville’s spectacular naval expertise and his amazing ability to command the respect both of the court and of the common people—such as the crew composed of flibustiers, colonial militia, French soldiers and Canadian mercenaries that fought for him in the Caribbean, for example—was remarkable. Living under the absolute monarchy, he provides us with a military perspective, the space of borders, boundaries and conquests. Therefore, d’Iberville initiated a mythic warrior discourse for

Quebec. The only other possibility of a Quebecer who preceded d’Iberville’s lifetime and who might fit this assessment was Champlain, but the role he played in Quebec’s

237 history was far more administrative than military. D’Iberville’s mythic warrior discourse has been embellished and romanticized through the years by way of the proliferation of fictionalized biographies to the point that his name has come to embody a sense of patriotic nationalism in Quebec. The following quotation amply illustrates this point:

D’Iberville ! quel nom glorieux dans les annales de la Nouvelle-France ! Ce héros était vraiment de la race des Forbin, des Duguay-Trouin, des Jean Bart, des Tourville ; et s’il n’a pas laissé dans l’histoire une trace aussi lumineuse que celle qu’ont laissé ces illustres contemporains, c’est que ses exploits n’ont pas eu l’Europe pour théâtre. (Gosselin, preface 13)

In contrast, d’Iberville’s name does not enjoy the same renown in France. Louis XIV and the court at Versailles were engaged in what they considered to be the far more important issues and activities taking place on continental Europe. Colbert’s mercantilism and the centralization of power also limited the court’s capacity to reason politically so as to perceive the value of d’Iberville’s perspective of the value of the colonies in the New

World. Events taking place there were somewhat of a distraction to them from those that were taking place on the “more critical” European stage. French author Serge Fleury eloquently expresses this circumstance:

Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville mérite sans conteste d’occuper une place très particulière dans l’histoire de la Nouvelle-France en raison de ses vertus militaires, de son esprit d’initiative et de sa profonde générosité. Il aurait sans aucun doute été placé à la hauteur des plus hardis guerriers de tous les temps, mais il aurait fallu pour cela que ses glorieuses batailles, au lieu de s’être disputées dans les profondeurs de la forêt canadienne ou sur des mers lointaines, eussent été remportées en Europe.96 (41)

All things considered, Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville began a mythic warrior discourse for

Quebec and still retains the honor of being revered as one of Quebec’s venerated founding fathers of their illustrious past.

96 Stamped on the title page of Fleury’s book is the phrase, “Exportation au Canada interdite.” 238 Chaussegros de Léry, who lived in a transitional time between the absolute monarchy and the Enlightenment, illustrates the paradigm shift within the macrocosm from one conceptual framework to another by the microcosm of his personal struggle between subservience and autonomy, as well as the emerging redefinition of the status of an aristocrat. Chaussegros de Léry was the king’s engineer and architect for forty years during the first half of the eighteenth century. His work was foundational to the development of Quebec’s physical space, not only in terms of fortification, but also in terms of architecture in that he designed official governmental structures such as the

Chateau St. Louis and the Intendant’s Palace as well as urban housing forms.

Chaussegros’ work, because it negotiated the manner in which the colonists saw and related to Quebec’s physical space, initiated an aesthetic discourse. In his correspondence, he comments several times on the beauty that he sees in his surroundings and also expresses his desire to create beautiful structures not only to honor the king, but also to build valuable fortifications by which to gain advantage and win military battles.

As we have argued earlier, his unique contribution to the initiation of Quebec’s aesthetic discourse is his design of structures using both sound engineering and architectural theories of his day, as well as conceiving of adapting those theories as necessary in order to accommodate specific topographical conditions. Within the context of Chaussegros’ dedication to engineering, architecture and aesthetics, his correspondence expresses the continual fluctuation between his submission to the king’s will and his insistence on the independence to perform his work according to the best theories of his day.

Pierre de Sales Laterrière, who lived during the Enlightenment and the period of pre-Romanticism, provides us with a perspective of Quebec’s

239 scientific/economic/personal space, thereby initiating one of several literary discourses of his time, that of the memoir. Pierre’s personal adventures as revealed in his memoirs are, on the surface, highly entertaining. Yet the perspective of Quebec that they provide during that time is invaluable. Woven throughout his memoirs is the representation of

Quebec in the latter half of the eighteenth century, when the Enlightenment was in full bloom. As a result, the memoirs demonstrate various characteristics of the

Enlightenment as they were manifested in Quebec. Regarding his contribution to a scientific/economic discourse, for example, there can be no doubt that Pierre’s practice of medicine and his dealings in commerce were not like those in France—they were unique to Quebec. Like Chaussegros de Léry’s correspondence, Pierre’s memoirs were also transitional: they mirror the full bloom, then the wilting of the Enlightenment, as well as the germination of Romanticism. Since Pierre de Sales Laterrière is Quebec’s first memorialist and thereby initiated Quebec’s discourse of personal memoirs, the perspective of Quebec that he provides for us is unique in that it encompasses a broad vision of important sociocultural conditions and historical events from a personal point of view.

Pierre-Jean de Sales Laterrière (s.), who lived during the latter part of the

Enlightenment and during Romanticism, provides us with a perspective of Quebec’s politico-social space, thereby initiating a political discourse for Quebec from a social perspective. His “Other,” in the sense of an inverse of perspective, is Tocqueville. The sense of vacillation between submission to authority and a struggle for autonomy that is evident in Chaussegros de Léry’s personal life was merely a precursor to what Pierre-

Jean Laterrière stated directly on the level of society in his book, A Political and

240 Historical Account of Canada. After the Conquest, the French Canadians as a social unit, while, for the most part, desiring to live subserviently in the context of their newly adopted status as subject of the English crown, became involved in a wrestling match with their British-ruled government for fair legislative representation, equitable education and humane treatment on a personal level, to name just a few of the demands. Pierre-

Jean’s book is first and foremost a political treatise. The author explains in great detail the legislative, judicial and executive mechanisms of the government of Lower Canada and how those branches were not functioning honestly with regard to all parties involved.

Although Pierre-Jean’s method is political, his appeal for change is passionate and his reason for advocating improving the political structure is a social one. He adeptly uses portrayals of the French Canadian habits, customs and character as a persuasive technique to support his argument for political reform. Pierre-Jean also does not hesitate to depict the splendor of the St. Lawrence to reinforce his position. Therefore, the manifestation of Romanticism in Pierre-Jean’s political discourse from a sociological perspective is unmistakable.

Alexis de Tocqueville, who lived during the time periods of Romanticism and

Realism (but wrote about Quebec only during Romanticism), provides us with a perspective of Quebec’s socio-political space, thereby initiating a social discourse from a political perspective. There were other Quebecers as well who wrote on political and social topics such as Fleury Mesplet, Pierre du Calvet and Valentin Jautard, to name a few, but their work was mainly in the form of pamphlets near the end of the eighteenth century. However, Tocqueville is the first French native to initiate a romantic social discourse from a political perspective. His cousin, Chateaubriand, wrote his famous

241 Atala twenty-six years earlier, but his work was fiction, not an historical analysis.

Tocqueville’s “Other” is Laterrière (s.) in that Tocqueville’s perspective is the inverse of

Pierre-Jean’s. Whereas Pierre-Jean established a political discourse from a sociological perspective, Tocqueville established a sociological discourse from a political perspective.

His insightful evaluations of the French Canadians and his Romantic portrayals of their glorious natural terrain form the basis of his political observations. Clearly,

Tocqueville’s powers of observation molded by the Romantic spirit that pervaded society at that time laid the foundation for his initiating a sociological discourse for Quebec from a political perspective.

These five men were hybrids, each different from one another in many ways, yet alike in that they were all cross-pollinated between France and Quebec. Furthermore, some of these men’s views of Quebecers and Quebec changed during the course of their lifetimes. Moreover, the major philosophical/literary movements in Europe that dominated during their lifetimes had a major impact on their words, actions, writings, and perspectives of Quebec. In other words, each of the five men was caught in a web of assumptions and expectations that was unique to the time in which they lived. They were unable to recognize that this web existed, and, therefore, they were unable to step out of, or to even question, their own frames of reference, that is, in Bourdieu’s terms, their habitus. Nevertheless, each perspective furnishes us with a new approach for comprehension that enables us to trace changes that took place over time due to historical events and due to the evolution of cultural patterns, which, in the final analysis, contributes to the diversity of our understanding of Quebec.

242 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Achard, Eugene. Le Corsaire de la Baie d’Hudson (Exploits d’Iberville). Montréal: Librairie générale canadienne; Quebec: Librairie de l’action catholique, 1941.

Andrès, Bernard (ed.) “Archéologie du littéraire au Québec.” Voix et images, no. 59, 1995, 274 – 293.

---. “De l’archive au corpus: problématique d’une archéologie du littéraire au Québec (1764-1815).” Principes du Littéraire au Québec (1766-1815) no. 3. Ed. Bernard Andrès. Montréal: ALAQ, Université du Québec à Montréal, 1993.

---. “Du haut fourneau au bistouri: itinéraire de Pierre de Sales Laterrière (1743-1815).” Portrait des arts, des lettres et de l’éloquence au Québec (1760 – 1840). Les collections de la République des Lettres. Dir. Bernard Andrès and Marc André Bernier. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 2002, 141-152.

---. “D’une mère patrie à la patrie canadienne: archéologie du patriote au XVIIIe siècle.” Voix et images, no. 78, 2001. 474-497.

---. Écrire le Québec: de la contrainte à la contrariété. Montréal: XYZ éditeur, 2001.

---. “Épistolaire et pensé des Lumières au Québec et au Bas-Canada (1784 – 1793)”. Penser par lettre. Actes du colloque d’Azay-le-Ferron (mai 1997). Ed. Benoît Melançon. Montréal: Fides, 1998, 189 – 203.

---. “L’Influence des livres: figure du savoir médical chez Pierre de Sales Laterrière et Philippe Aubert de Gaspé fils.” Voix et images, 1994, 57, 466-486.

---. “La génération de la Conquête: un questionnement de l’archive.” Voix et Images, vol. XX, no. 2 (59), 1995. 274 – 293.

---. “La réception de l’’étrange’ au Québec. Pierre de Sales Laterrière (1743-1815).” Critique et littérature québécoise. Eds. Annette Hayward and Agnès Whitfield. Montréal: Triptyque, 1992, 199-216.

---. L’Enigme de Sales Laterrière. Montréal: Éditions Québec Amérique Inc., 2000.

---. “Le relais américain dans l’émergence des lettres au Québec (1764-1793).” Principes du Littéraire au Québec (1766-1815) no. 3. Ed. Bernard Andrès.

243 Montréal: ALAQ, Université du Québec à Montréal, 1993.

---. “Le texte embryonnaire ou l’émergence du littéraire au Québec, 1764-1815.” Eds Claude Duchet et Stéphane Vachon. La recherche littéraire: Objets et méthodes. Montréal/Paris: XYZ/Presses universitaires de Vincennes, 1993. 29 – 39. (Re- edited in 1998, XYZ, 38-50.)

---. “Les aventuriers des Lettres au Québec et en Nouvelle-Angleterre à la fin du 18e siècle.” L’Aventure de lettres. Mélanges en l’honneur de Roger le Moine. Eds. Michel Gaulin and Pierre-Louis Vaillancourt. Orléans, Ontario: Éditions David, 1999. 27-48.

---. “Les Lettres d’avant la Lettre: Double naissance et fondation.” Littérature. Paris: Larousse, no. 113, 1999. 22 – 35.

---. “Les manuscrits d’un Albigeois: d’un signature maçonnique dans les pétitions québécoises de Pierre de Sales Laterrière (1778 – 1782).” Inventaire, lecture, invention: Mélanges de critique et d’histoire littéraire offerts à Bernard Beugnot. Paragraphes. Eds. Jacinthe Martel and Robert Melançon. Montréal: Université de Montréal, Département d’études Françaises, 1999. 119 – 152.

---. “Nature et frontières du récit dans un corpus en émergence (1764 – 1839).” L’Amérique française: Introduction à la culture québécoise. Dirs. Alain Bélanger, Nubia Hanciau and Sylvie Dion. Rio Grande, Brésil: EDGRAFURG/AIEQ, 1998. 369 – 384.

---. “Nouveau Monde et Américanité dans le Discours Historiographique au Canada français: le cas de A Political and Historical Account of Lower Canada, de Pierre-Jean de Sales Laterrière (1830).” Les discours du Nouveau Monde au XIXe siècle au Canada français et an Amérique latine: Actes du colloque tenu du 29 septembre au ler octobre 1994 à l’Université d’Ottawa dns le cadre de l’accord d’échange entre l’Université d’Ottawa (Canada) et l’Universidad Nacional deRosario (Argentine). Eds. Marie Couillard and Patrick Imbert. Ottawa: Legas, 1995. 29-42.

---. “Originaux et détraqués de la fin du XVIIIe siècle québécois.” Tangence: Littérateurs atypiques et penseurs irréguliers. 57, 1998, 53 – 71.

---. “Quelle France pour quel Québec? Ou la nationalisation des lettres chez Camille Roy et Lionel Groulx.” L’identitaire et le littéraire dans les Amériques. Eds. Bernard Andrès and Zila Bernd. Littérature(s). Dir. Guy Champagne. Québec: Éditions Nota Bene, 1999.

---. “Statut de l’écrit intime dans une littérature en émergence: le cas des Mémoires de Pierre de Sales Laterrière (1743 – 1815).” Tangence: La littérature personnelle:

244 l’illusion de vrai? 45, 1994, 91-106.

---. “Sur les utopies québécoises, des Lumières aux Révolutions continentales.” Utopies en Canada (1545-1845). Figura Textes et Imaginaires n˚ 3. Eds. Bernard Andrès and Nancy Desjardins. Montréal: Université du Québec à Montréal, 2001, 11-33.

---. “Y a-t-il un intellectuel dans le Siècle? ou Penser au Québec à la fin du XVIIIe siècle.” L’inscription sociale de l’intellectuel. Dirs. Manon Brunet and Pierre Lanthier. Québec: L’Harmattan, les Presses de l’Université Laval, 2000. 43 – 60.

Andrès, Bernard and Pierre Lespérance (Eds.) Fortune & infortunes d’un dandy canadien: Journal de voyage (1815). Montréal: Université du Québec à Montréal, Département d’études littéraires, Projet de recherche “Archéologie du littéraire au Québec,” (Cahiers de l’ALAQ, no. 3), 1994.

---. En quête d’origines. Pierre-Jean de Sales Laterrière: nouveaux journaux de voyage (1824, 1826, 1827 & 1829). Montréal: Université du Québec à Montréal, Département d’études littéraires, Projet de recherche “Archéologie du littéraire au Québec,” (Cahiers de l’ALAQ, no. 4), 1995.

Andrès, Bernard et Pascal Riendeau (Eds.) La conquête des lettres au Québec, 1766 – 1815. Montreal: Université du Québec à Montréal, Département d’études littéraires, Projet de recherche “Archéologie du littéraire au Québec,” (Cahiers de l’ALAQ, no. 1, [1993]), 1997.

Arès, Richard. D’Iberville. Collection Ville-Marie, no. 10. Montréal, Imprimerie du Messager, 1941.

Armstrong, Nancy. “Some Call it Fiction: On the Politics of Domesticity.” Literary Theory: an Anthology, 2nd Ed. Eds. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004).

Bayle, Pierre. The Age of Enlightenment. Second Ed. Eds. Otis E. Fellows and Norman L. Torrey. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1971. 67 - 89.

Beaudoin, René. “L’énigmatique Laterrière: le personnage et ses mémoires.” Portrait des arts, des lettres et de l’éloquence au Québec (1760 – 1840). Les collections de la République des Lettres. Dir. Bernard Andrès and Marc André Bernier. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 2002, 119-140.

---. “Pierre de Sales Laterrière, médecin, mémorialiste et prototype de l’aventurier des lettres.” Principes du Littéraire au Québec (1766-1815) Cahiers de l’ALAQ no. 2. Ed. Bernard Andrès. Montréal: ALAQ, Université du Québec à Montréal, 1993.

245 Beaudouin, Jean. Les Normands au Canada: D’Iberville—Journal de l’expédition de D’Iberville en Acadie et à Terre-Neuve. Ed. August Gosselin. Evreux: Imprimerie de l’Eure, 1900.

Beaumarchais. “Le Mariage de Figaro.” Théatre complet: Lettres relatives à son théâtre. Eds. Maurice Allem and Paul Courant. Bibliothéque de la Pleiade. Paris: Éditions Gallimard, 1957. 231 – 364.

Bergeron, Gérard. Quand Tocqueville et Siegfried nous observaient…. Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec, 1990.

Bertrand, André. “De l’utopie aux répercussions de la Révolution de Juillet 1830 au Québec.” Utopies en Canada (1545-1845). Figura Textes et Imaginaires n˚ 3. Montréal: Université du Québec à Montréal, 2001, 119-144.

Bertrand, Camille. Histoire de Montréal. 2 vols. Montréal: Beauchemin, 1935 – 1942.

Bibaud, Maximilien. Le Panthéon Canadien: choix de biographies. Nouvelle édition, revue, augmentée et complétée jusqu’à ce jour par Adèle et Victoria Bibaud, nièces de l’auteur. Montréal: Jos. M. Valois, 1891.

The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Testaments: King James Version translated out of the original tongues and with the former translations diligently compared and revised. USA: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1990.

Blumenson, Martin and James L. Stokesbury. Masters of the Art of Command. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1975.

Bourassa, Yves. “L’Enigme de Sales Laterrière.” Voix et Images: Littérature québécoise. 79 2001, 134-136.

Bryce, James. The Predictions of Hamilton and de Tocqueville. Municipal Government History and Politics. Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science. Vol. V. Ed. Herbert B. Adams. Baltimore: N. Murray, 1887. 325 – 381.

Bureau, Luc, comp. Pays et Mensonges: Le Québec sous la plume d’écrivains et de penseurs étrangers, Anthologie géo-littéraire. Québec: Les Éditions du Boréal, 1999.

Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series. America and West Indies 1706 – 1708, June. Ed. Cecil Headlam. M.A. Herefore, England: His Majesty’s Stationery Office and The Hereford Times, Ltd., 1916.

Caron, Ivanhoe. Introduction. Journal de l’expédition du Chevalier de Troyes à la Baie

246 d’Hudson, en 1686. Beauceville: L’Éclaireur, 1918.

Caron, Ivanhoe. Preface. Journal de l’expédition du Chevalier de Troyes à la Baie d’Hudson, en 1686. Beauceville: L’Éclaireur, 1918.

Casgrain, H.-R. Biographies of G. B. Faribault et Laterrière. Montréal: Beauchemin, 1917.

---. La famille de Sales Laterrière. Québec: L. Brousseau, 1870. Microfiche. Ottawa: Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions, 1979. CIHM/ICMH Microfiche series no. 00518.

---. Les Sulpiciens et les prêtres des Missions-Étrangères 1676-1762. Québec: Pruneau & Kirouac, 1897.

Charrois, Geneviève. Gaspard Chaussegros de Léry 1682-1756: L’homme, l’ingénieur militaire, son travail pour la ville de Québec. Mémoire d’histoire de l’art, Université de Bourgogne, 1990. Dijon: n.p., 1990.

Chartier, Roger. Les Origines Culturelles de la Révolution française. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1990.

Chaussegros de Léry, Gaspard-Joseph. Inventaire des papiers de Léry conservés aux Archives de la Province de Québec par Pierre-Georges Roy. 3 vols. Québec: Archives de la Province de Québec, 1939.

---. Traité de fortifications divisé en huit livres. Microfilm. Archives Public du Canada. MG 18, K2.

Chaussegros de Léry, Louis. La Franc-maçonnerie. Ma Paroisse no. 6. Montréal: Les Éditions Bellarmin, 1954.

Colby, Charles W. Canadian Types of the Old Régime: 1608 – 1698. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1910.

Corneille, Pierre. “Le Cid.” Ed. Georges Griffe. Univers des Lettres Bordas. Dir. Fernand Angué. Paris: Bordas, 1984.

Crouse, Nellis M. Lemoyne d’Iberville: Soldier of New France. 1954. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2001.

Daniel, François. D’Iberville ou le Jean-Bart Canadien et la Baie d’Hudson. Montréal, 1868. CIHM/ICMH Microfiche series no. 02655.

---. Le Vicomte C. de Léry: Lieutenant-général de l’empire français, ingénieur en chef

247 de la grande armée et sa famille. Eusèbe Senécal, Montréal, 1867. November 8, 2005, http://www4.bnquebec.ca/numtxt/329551.pdf.

Définition de l’honnêteté. Honnêteté. April 5, 2006. http://www.mml.cam.ac.uk/ aspects/assets/na229/public_html/projet2/honnetete.html.

Deschamps, Hubert. Pirates et flibustiers. « Que sais-je? » le point des connaissances actuelles. No. 554. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1962.

Desloges, Yvon. Gaspard Chaussegros de Léry et les fortifications de Québec, 1745 – 1754: théorie et réalisation. Ottawa: Parc de l’artillerie, 1976.

Desmazures, Adam Charles Gustave. Histoire du Chevalier d’Iberville: 1663 – 1706. Montreal: J. M. Valois Librairie-Éditeur, 1890.

Dictionnaire d’Autrefois, ARTFL Project, University of Chicago, 1st Edition, (1694). http://colet.uchicago.edu/cgi-b bin/dico1look.pl?strippedhw=honnestet%E9&dicoid=ACAD1694. April 8, 2006.

Diderot, Denis. Les Bijoux Indiscrets. Ed. Antoine Adam. Paris: Garnier-Flammarion, 1968.

Dion, Stéphane. “La Pensée de Tocqueville—l’épreuve du Canada français.” Revue d’histoire de l’Amérique française 41 (1988) : 537-552.

Doughty, A. G. and N. E. Dionne. Quebec Under Two Flags: A Brief history of the City from its foundation until the present time. Quebec: The Quebec News Company, 903.

Du Calvet, Pierre. Letter to Lotbinière, dated November 5, 1784. Microfilm. New York Historical Society, Canada Lotbinière Papers.

Du Ru, Paul. Journal of Paul du Ru. Trans. Ruth Lapham Butler. Chicago: The Caxton Club, 1934.

Elias, Norbert. The Court Society. Trans. Edmund Jephcott. Oxford: Blackwell, 1983.

Elie, F. Pierre le Moyne d’Iberville : héros national. Montréal: 1924.

Fleury, Serge. Les fougueux bâtisseurs de la Nouvelle France. Figures canadiennes 2. Tours, France: Mame, 1960.

Fontenelle, Bernard le Bouvier de. The Age of Enlightenment. Second Ed. Eds. Otis E. Fellows and Norman L. Torrey. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1971.

248 39 – 67.

Foucault, Michel. Introduction. L’Archéologie du savoir. Paris: Gallimard, 1969. 13- 15.

Fournier, Lise. Lectures in Arts et Traditions class, University Laval, summer 2004.

Fournier, Marcel. “L’intellectuel, le militant et l’expert.” L’inscription sociale de l’intellectuel. Dirs. Manon Brunet and Pierre Lanthier. Logiques Sociales. Dir. Bruno Péquignot. Quebec: L’Harmattan, les presses de l’Université Laval, 2000. 25 – 30.

Frégault, Guy. Canadian Society in the French Regime. The Canadian Historical Association, Booklet No. 3. Ed. S. R. Mealing. Trans. W. M. Conacher. Montreal: The Quality Press Limited, 1962.

---. “L’enfance et la jeunesse de Pierre Le Moyne, sieur d’Iberville.” Mid-America 1941 23 : 3. 214 – 235.

---. Iberville, le conquérant. Montréal: Société des Éditions Pascal, 1944.

---. Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville. Collection Fleur de Lys: études historiques canadiennes. Fides: Montréal, 1968.

Gallichan, Gilles. “Le Romantisme et la Culture Politique au Bas-Canada.” Le Romantisme au Canada. Colloques. Dir. Maurice Lemire. Quebec: Nuit Blanche Éditeur, 1993. 119-131.

Garneau, François-Xavier. Histoire du Canada. 8e édition entièrement revue et augmentée par son petit-fils Hector Garneau. 8 Vols. Montréal: Éditions de l’arbre, 1944.

“Gaspard Chaussegros de Léry.” Canadian Civil Engineering History and Heritage. Ed. Alistair D. MacKenzie. 2002. Canadian Society for Civil Engineering. June 2, 2006.

Gilbert, Roger Paul. De l’arquebuse à la bure: Le récit des péripéties au Canada à Cuba et dans les Antilles de Samuel de Champlain, Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville, William Albert Charles Ryan, William Van Horne, James Wilson Morrice, Frère Marie-Victorin. Montréal: Éditions du Méridien, 1999.

Giraud, Marcel. A History of French Louisiana: Volume One, The Reign of Louis XIV, 1698 – 1715. Trans. Joseph C. Lambert. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1974.

249 Greely, A. W. Men of Achievement: Explorers and Travellers. New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1894.

Guay, Martin. The fortifications of Quebec. Parcs Canada. Quebec: Editions Continuité, 1998.

Guérin, Léon. Histoire maritime de France: comprenant l’histoire des provinces, des villes maritimes, des colonies, des voyages et des combats de mer depuis la fondation de Marseille, 600 ans avant J.-C., jusqu’à l’année 1850. 6 vols. Paris: Dufour et Mulat, 1852.

---. Les Marins illustres de la France. Paris: Morizot, 1861.

---. Les Navigateurs français: histoire des navigations, découvertes et colonisations françaises. Paris: Belin-Leprieur et Morizot, 1847.

Ham, E. B. “The Library of the Association Canado-Américaine.” Modern Language Notes. 52 : 7, Nov. 1937. 542-544.

Hamblet, Edwin. La Littérature canadienne francophone. Profil Formation. Ed. Georges Décote. Paris: Hatier, 1987.

Hamelin, Jean and Jean Provencher. Brève histoire du Québec: Nouvelle Édition. 2nd ed. Louiseville, Quebec: Les Éditions du Boréal, 1997.

The Harvard Medical School in 1788-89: Mémoires de Pierre de Sales La Terrière et de ses traverses. Harvard Medical Alumni Bulletin, Oct. 1960. 20 – 25.

Havard, Gilles. Empires et métissages. Sillery, Quebec: Les Éditions du Septentrion, 2003.

Holmes, Jack D. L. “Pierre Lemoyne, Sieur d’Iberville et d’Ardillières.” The Louisiana Governors: From Iberville to Edwards. Ed. Joseph G. Dawson III. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1990.

“L’Honnête homme et les sociabilités.” Gallica, BNF. April 5, 2006. http://gallica.bnf.fr/themes/LitXVII8.htm.

Hubbard, Vincent K. Swords, Ships & Sugar: History of Nevis to 1900. 1992. Corvallis, Oregon: Premiere Editions International, Inc., 1998.

D’Iberville, Pierre Le Moyne. An Abstract of his Memorial on the Country of the Mississippi. Collections of the Minnesota Historical Society, Vol. I: Being a Republication of the Original Parts, Annals, Issued in 1850-51-52-52-56, also Reprinted in 1872. St. Paul, MN: Pioneer Press Co., 1902.

250 ---. Iberville’s Gulf Journals. Trans. and Ed. Richebourg Gaillard McWilliams. Alabama: The University of Alabama Press, 1981.

---. “Relation de la prise et capitulation de l’isle Nieve appartenant aux Anglois.” Mercure de France, May, 1706. Microfilm. Paris: A.C.R.P.P., 1958. Reel 52, 1706 May-Oct.

D’Iberville, Pierre Le Moyne and Jean-Jacques-Blaise d’Abbadie. A Comparative View of French Louisiana, 1699 and 1762: The Journals of Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville and Jean-Jacques-Blaise d’Abbadie. The USL History Series No. 13. Ed. and Trans. Carl A. Brasseaux. Lafayette, Louisiana: Center for Louisiana Studies, University of Southwestern Louisiana, 1981.

Jardin, André. Tocqueville: A Biography. Trans. Lydia Davis with Robert Hemenway. New York: Farrar Straus Giroux, 1988.

Jodoin, Alex, and J. L. Vincent. Histoire de Longueuil et de la famille de Longueuil avec gravures et plans. Montréal: Gebhardt-Berthiaume, 1889.

Jouan, René. Histoire de la marine française: avec dix-huit croquis. Bibliothèque Historique. Paris: Payot, 1950.

LaChiusa, Chuck. Old Fort Niagara. History of Buffalo. Ed. Chuck LaChiusa. Buffalo, NY. June 2, 2006. http://ah.phpwebhosting.com/h/ftNiag/index.html

Lamarche, Jacques. Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville. Célébrités/Collection biographique. Montréal: LIDEC, inc., 1999.

Laterrière, Pierre de Sales. A dissertation on the puerperal fever : delivered at a public Examination for the degree of bachelor of medicine, before the Reverend Joseph Willard, S.T.D. president, the medical professors, and the governors of the University at Cambridge, in America. Boston: Samuel Hall, 1789. Microfiche. New York: Readex Microprint, 1985. First series, no. 21915. (Early American Medical Imprints No. 1124, Reel 59).

---. Les Mémoires de Pierre de Sales Laterrière suivi de Correspondances. Ed. Bernard Andrès. Montréal: Triptyque, 2003.

Laterrière, Pierre-Jean de Sales. A Political and Historical Account of Lower Canada; with Remarks on the Present Situation of the People, as Regards their Manners, Character, Religion, &.c &.c by a Canadian. Trans. believed to be H. Labouchere. Sabin Unit 88, 39157, Louisville, KY: Lost Cause Press (1982) : fiches 1 – 5, A-82, 188-82, 192.

---. Preface. A Political and Historical Account of Lower Canada; with Remarks on the

251 Present Situation of the People, as Regards their Manners, Character, Religion, &.c &.c by a Canadian. Trans. believed to be H. Labouchere. Sabin Unit 88, 39157, Louisville, KY: Lost Cause Press (1982) : fiches 1 – 5, A-82, 188-82, 192. v-xii.

---. En quête d’origines : Pierre-Jean de Sales Laterrière : nouveaux journaux, 1824, 1826, 1827 & 1829. Cahiers de l’ALAQ, no. 4. Eds. Bernard Andrès and Pierre Lespérance. Montréal: l’Université du Québec à Montréal, 1995.

---. Fortune & infortunes d’un dandy canadien: Journal de Voyage (1815). Cahiers de l’ALAQ, no. 3. Eds. Bernard Andrès and Pierre Lespérance. Montréal: l’Université du Québec à Montréal, 1994.

Leclercq, Jean-Michel. “Alexis de Tocqueville au Canada.” Revue d’histoire de l’Amérique française 22.3 (1968) : 353-364.

Lemire, Maurice, Aurélien Boivin, Anne Carrier, Jacques Cotnam, Gilles Dorion, Kenneth Landry, Hélène Marcotte, Pierre Rajotte, Lucie Robert, Denis Saint- Jacques, comps. La Vie Littéraire au Québec: Le projet national des Canadiens. 5 vols. Sainte-Foy, Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 1991.

Lemire, Maurice, comp. Le Romantisme au Canada. Colloques. Québec: Nuit Blanche Éditeur, 1993.

---. Les Écrits de la Nouvelle-France. Cap-Saint-Ignace: Éditions Nota bene, 2000.

Le Moine, Roger. “Francs-maçons du régime français et de la ‘Province of Quebec.’” Principes du Littéraire au Québec (1766-1815) no. 3. Ed. Bernard Andrès. Montréal: ALAQ, Université du Québec à Montréal, 1993.

Lespérance, Pierre. “Altérité et identité dans les voyages de Pierre de Sales Laterrière fils (1815 - 1832).” Portrait des arts, des lettres et de l’éloquence au Québec (1760 – 1840). Les collections de la République des Lettres. Dir. Bernard Andrès and Marc André Bernier. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 2002, 239 – 260.

MacKenzie, Alistair. “Canadian Civil Engineering History through the National Historic Civil Engineering Sites.” History Notes. Spring 2001, Canadian Civil Engineer. Ryerson University. http://www.ryerson.ca/~amackenz/pdf/spring01.pdf August 10, 2006.

Major, Jean-Louis. “Saint-Denys Garneau ou l’écriture comme projet de soi.” Voix et Images Vol. XX, no. 1 (58), 1994. 12 – 25.

Mancini, Matthew. Alexis de Tocqueville. Twayne’s world authors series. French

252 literature. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1994.

Margry, Pierre. Découverte par mer des bouches du Mississipi et établissements de Lemoyne D’Iberville sur le Golfe du Mexique (1694 – 1703). Vol. IV. Paris: Imprimerie D. Jouaust, 1880.

Marivaux. “Le Jeu de l’amour et du hasard.” Théâtre Complet. Ed. Bernard Dort. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1964. 274 – 292.

Marmette, Joseph. Les Machabées de la Nouvelle-France: Histoire d’une famille canadienne, 1641 – 1768. Québec: Imprimerie de Léger Brousseau. 1878.

Massicotte, E.-Z. “L’Incendie du Vieux Montreal, an 1721.” The Canadian Antiquarian and Numismatic Journal. XII : 2, 1915. 51 – 92.

Mayne, Judith. Lectures in Class FR 672, French Cinema after WWII, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. AU03.

Mayrand, Pierre. “Les Plans en relief de la Nouvelle-France.” Revue d’histoire de l’Amérique française 22.1 (1968) : 17-23.

McSpadden, J. Walker. Pioneer heroes. New York: Thomas Y Crowell Co., 1929.

Mercure galant. Mercure de France, 1706 May-Oct. Paris: A.C.R.P.P., 1958, Microfilm reel 52.

Méré, Antoine Gombault, chevalier de. Oeuvres complètes du chevalier de Méré. 3 vol. Paris: F. Roches, 1930.

Molière. “Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme.” Œuvres Complètes. Vol. 2. Ed. Maurice Rat. Bibliothèque de la Pléiade. Paris: Librairie Gallimard, 1956. 511 – 592.

---. “L’École des femmes.” Œuvres Complètes. Vol. 1. Ed. Maurice Rat. Bibliothèque de la Pléiade. Paris: Librairie Gallimard, 1956. 441 – 519.

---. “Les précieuses ridicules.” Œuvres Complètes. Vol. 1. Ed. Maurice Rat. Bibliothèque de la Pléiade. Paris: Librairie Gallimard, 1956. 217 – 244.

Montesquieu. Lettres persanes. Ed. Fabrice Fajeau. Étonnants Classiques. Paris: Flammarion, 1999.

---. De l’esprit des lois. The Age of Enlightenment. Second Ed. Eds. Otis E. Fellows and Norman L. Torrey. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1971. 143 – 205.

253 Moogk, Peter N. La Nouvelle France: The Making of French Canada—A Cultural History. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2000.

Nemoianu, Virgil. The Taming of Romanticism: European literature and the age of Biedermeier. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984.

Nicholas, Louis. Histoire de la marine française. Que sais-je: le point des connaissances actuelles. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1949.

Noppen, Luc. Chaussegros de Léry, Gaspard-Joseph. The Canadian Encyclopedia. Ed. James H. Marsh. 2006. Historica Foundation of Canada. June 2, 2006.

Noppen, Luc and Lucie K. Morisset. Québec de roc et de pierres: La capitale en architecture. Sainte-Foy, Québec: Éditions MultiMondes; Québec: Commission de la capitale nationale du Québec, 1998.

Noppen, Luc, Claude Paulette and Michel Tremblay. Québec: trois siècles d’architecture. Québec: Libre Expression, 1989.

The Oxford Companion to English Literature. Fifth Edition. Ed. Margaret Drabble. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985.

Pénicaut, André. Fleur de Lys and Calumet: Being the Pénicaut Narrative of French Adventure in Louisiana. 1953. Trans. and ed. Richebourg Gaillard McWilliams. Tuscaloosa, Alabama: The University of Alabama Press, 1988.

Philosopher. The Encyclopedia of Diderot & D’Alembert: Collaborative Translation Project. Encyclopédie, vol. 12:509. Tr. Dena Goodman. Product of the Scholarly Publishing Office of the University of Michigan Library and DLXS. December 15, 2006. http://name.umdl.umich.edu/did2222.0000.001

Pierson, George Wilson. Tocqueville in America. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996. Rpt. of Tocqueville and Beaumont in America. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1938.

Poirier, Monique. The Fortifications of Montreal 1717 – 1744: Development and and Implementation of the Plan. Art History Thesis, Concordia University, Canada. n.p.: n.p., 1991.

1726 – 1759: Portal to the West. Old Fort Niagara. 2004. Old Fort Niagara Association. June 2, 2006.

254 “The Post of King’s Engineer.” Chartrand, René. Canadian Military Heritage. 3 vols. Montreal: Art Global, 1993. Canadian Military Heritage. June 20, 2004. Government of Canada. June 2, 2006. http://www.cmhg.gc.ca/cmh/en/page_159.asp Prevost, l’Abbe. Manon Lescaut. Ed. Pierre Mac Orlan. Le Livre de Poche. Paris: Gallimard et Librairie Générale Française, 1959.

Quesnel, Albert. Le Proces de Pierre Lemoyne escuyer, sieur d’Iberville accusé de rapt et de séduction de Jeanne Geneviève Picotte de Belestre le 6-11-1687. Ottawa, published privately, 1976.

Reed, Charles B. The First Great Canadian: The Story of Pierre Le Moyne Sieur D’Iberville. Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Co., 1910.

La Rochefoucauld. Œuvres complètes. Bibliothèque de la pléiade, 24. Eds. L. Martin-Chauffier and Jean Marchand. Tours, France: Éditions Gallimard, 1964.

Rogers, Norman McLeod. Pierre Le Moyne D’Iberville. The Ryerson Canadian History Readers. Ed. Lorne Pierce. Toronto: The Ryerson Press, 1928.

La Roncière, Charles G. M. B. de. Histoire de la Marine française. 6 vols. Paris: E. Plon, Nourritt et cie, 1906.

Rousseau, Edmond. Les Exploits d’Iberville. Québec: C. Daveau, 1888. CIHM/ICMH Microfiche no. 12677.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Œuvres complètes. 4 vols. Bibliothèque de la Pléiade. Dir. Barnard Gagnebin et Marcel Raymond. Genève: Éditions Gallimard, 1964.

Roy, Antoine. Les Lettres les sciences et les arts au Canada sous le régime français: essai de contribution a l’histoire de la civilisation canadienne. Diss. Université de Paris, 1930. Paris: Jouve, 1930.

Roy, Pierre-Georges. Bigot et sa bande et l’affaire du Canada. Levis: n.p., 1950.

---. La Famille Chaussegros de Léry. Quebec: Levis, 1934.

---. Les Petites choses de notre histoire. Bibliothèque Nationale de Québec. 5431 doc. 1986. Microfiche. SEM105P746.

Ruelland, Jacques G. Figures de la philosophie québécoise à l’époque de la Révolution Française: Vol. 1 Fleury Mesplet, Pierre du Calvet, Valentin Jautard, Pierre de Sales Laterrière. Cahiers Recherches et Théories. Dir. André Vidricaire and Harel Malouin. Montréal: Université du Québec à Montréal, Département de Philosophie, 1989.

255 Salone, Émile. La Colonisation de la Nouvelle-France: Étude sur les origines de la nation Canadienne française. Troisième Édition. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Reprint Library, N.D.

Scudéry, Madeleine de. “De l’aire galant” et autres conversations: pour une étude de l’archive galante. Ed. Delphine Denis. Sources Classiques 5. Dir. Philippe Sellier. Paris: Honoré Champion, 1998.

Séguin, Robert-Lionel. La vie libertine en Nouvelle-France au XVIIe siècle. 2 vol. Ottawa: Lemeac, 1972.

Smith, Taylor J. “The French and Indian War.” Avon, Ohio: Theories of History and Science. June 2, 2006. .

Somaize, Antoine Baudeau de. Le dictionnaire des précieuses, par le sieur de Somaize. 2 vol. Paris: P. Jannet, 1856.

Stacey, C. P. Quebec, 1759: The Siege and the Battle. Toronto: Macmillan, 1959.

Stanley, George F. G. New France: The Last Phase 1744 – 1760. The Canadian Centenary Series. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart Limited, 1968.

Suhonen, Katri. “Le Canadien entre chimère et bonheur: étude de deux dialogues de propagande politique à la fin du XVIIIe siècle.” Utopies en Canada (1545-1845). Figura Textes et Imaginaires n˚ 3. Montréal: Université de Québec à Montréal, 2001, 103-118.

Taillemite, Etienne. “Claude Forbin-Gardanne.” Net Marine. April 11, 2006. June 6, 2006.

Tard, Louis-Martin. Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville: le conquérant des mers. Les grandes figures. Montréal: XYZ éditeur, 1995.

Thorpe, F. J. “Chaussegros de Léry, Gaspard-Joseph.” Dictionary of Canadian Biography. 15 vols. University of Toronto, Université Laval, 1966 to present. October 19, 2004. Library and Archives of Canada. June 2, 2006.

---. “Franquet, Louis.” Dictionary of Canadian Biography. 15 vols. University of Toronto, Université Laval, 1966 to present. October 19, 2004. Library and Archives of Canada. June 2, 2006.

De Tocqueville, Alexis. Regards sur le Bas-Canada: Choix de textes et présentation de Claude Corbo. Montréal: TYPO, 2003.

256 ---. Tocqueville au Bas-Canada. Ed. Jacques Vallée. Montréal: Éditions du Jour, 1973.

Traquair, Ramsay. The Old Architecture of Quebec: A Study of the Buildings Erected in New France from the Earliest Explorers to the Middle of the Nineteenth Century. Toronto: Macmillan, 1947.

De Troyes, Chevalier Pierre. Relation et Journal du voiage du nort par un detachement de cent hommes commendes par le Sieur de Troyes en mars 1686. Ed. Ivanhoe Caron. Beauceville: La Compagnie de “L’Éclaireur”, 1918.

Turnovsky, Geoffrey. Lectures in Class FR 652, Survey of Seventeenth Century Literature, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. WI04.

Turnovsky, Geoffrey. Lectures in Class FR 653, Survey of Eighteenth Century Literature, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. AU05.

Voltaire. Lettres Philosophiques. Ed. René Pomeau. Paris: Garnier-Flammarion, 1964.

Voyage d’Iberville: Journal du voyage fait par deux Frégates du Roi, La Badine, commandée par M. d’Iberville et Le Marin par M. E. Chevalier de Surgères, qui partirent de Brest le vendredi, 24 octobre 1698, où elles avaient relâché, étant parties de Larochelle le 5 septembre précédent. Montréal: E. Sénécal, 1871.

Wach, Joachim. Types of Religious Experience Christian and Non-Christian. Bristol, England: The University of Chicago Press, 1951.

Webb, David Knowlton. A Short Account of the Chillicothe, Ohio, Iberville stone, found April 29th, 1951. Chillicothe, Published Privately, 1951.

Weiss, Jonathan and Jane Moss. French-Canadian Literature. The Association for Canadian Studies in the United States (ACSUS). Eds. Joseph T. Jockel and Victor M. Howard. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1996.

Wendling, André V. “Le premier ingénieur de la Nouvelle France: le Vicomte Gaspard Chaussegros de Léry.” Bulletin des études françaises 7 (1942) : 61-71.

Williams, Alan. F. Father Baudoin’s War: D’Iberville’s Campaigns in Acadia and Newfoundland 1696, 1697. Ed. Alan G. Macpherson. St. John’s, Newfoundland: Memorial University of Newfoundland, 1987.

Wilson, Emma. French Cinema Since 1950: Personal Histories. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999.

257