Have you heard of animism? According to its theorists and disciples, there is life in everything.
Sir Edward Burnett Tylor
It would appear that Sir Edward Burnett Tylor, an anthropologist, is the first person to have used the word animism. His book, entitled Primitive Culture, was published in 1871. Sir Edward Burnett Tylor defines animism as “the general doctrine of souls and other spiritual beings in general.” (Wikipedia)
Animism and Various Disciplines
The term and concept have been used by anthropologists, such as Claude Lévi-Strauss; sociologists: Émile Durkheim, the father of sociology; philosophers and psychologists: Jean Piaget. However, it is a broad concept and very ancient. Totemism comes other the general heading of animisme (Wikipedia, French entry).
We have bestowed life upon objects for thousands of years. We pray in churches in front of statues. Representional works of art re-present. What they re-present is given a new life by the artist.
I have been very busy putting together my blogs that deal with the history of Canada. If there is an * after the title, I am speaking about a novel, but a novel that has historical value. If there are two **, the post deals with a battle, one of the battles that lead to the Battle of the Plains of Abraham.
My blogs are now protected by an official copyright, which indicates that they are my intellectual property. They may be quoted, but the source has to be given.
Yet, it is important for me to provide information to people who are not in a position to seek that information. The Internet is becoming an important source of information, information one can rely on. For people who are not able to get out and find this information in libraries, this is marvellous.
I often think of people whose mobility is impaired. Why should they be deprived of informative yet entertaining posts? They need a presence in their lives as I need the presence of others in my life.
So here is my Canada list, but it may not be complete. I may have forgotten a few posts. But we now have a little bundle, all wrapped up. However, voyageurs posts are missing, but they will be compiled. It’s a matter of time.
The order of this list goes from the more recent post to the oldest. There is a chronology.
In an earlier post, I suggested that a responsible government could rectify the problems that had led to the Rebellions of 1837-38. In other words, the Parliamentary system could bring about responsible government.
The British Constitution had been a blessing to Canadiens. Let me quote, once again, my anonymous Canadien praising Britain in Le Canadien, a newspaper created on 22 November 1806. On 4 November 1809 or anonymous Canadien, i.e. French-speaking Canadian, wrote:
“Depuis cette époque le règne des lois a graduellement établi son Empire, et nous jouissons maintenant d’une Constitution où tout le monde est à sa place, et dans laquelle un homme est quelque chose.” [i]
(Since that time when the rule of laws has gradually established its empire, and we now enjoy the benefits of a constitution where everyone has a place and where a man is something.)
Consider, for instance, what might have happened to Nouvelle-France, New France, if New France had still been under French rule during the French Revolution. Many French priests had sought refuge in England to escape the guillotine, but there was not much for them to do in England where Catholicism was not the only religion. That problem was resolved when England offered to send them to ‘its’ French colony in North America where they could be Good Shepherds, as priests, educators and organizers, not to mention that they felt validated by their work. (See Related Articles, at the foot of this post.)
Le Bon Pasteur by François Baillairgé, circa 1775, guilded and painted wood sculpture. (photo by Patrick Altman/courtesy Musée du Québec and The Canadian Encyclopedia).
Remember Thomas Chandler Haliburton and l’abbé Sigogne (father Jean-Mandé Sigogne) organizing Nova Scotia. L’abbé Sigogne had learned English during the years he had spent in England and he and Haliburton were both refined and well-educated gentlemen. (See Related Articles,at thefoot of this post.)
But what of the seigneurs? Louis-Joseph Papineau was a seigneur.Would he have been guillotined? However, let us examine the Seigneurial System.
The Seigneurial System
We are acquainted with one seigneur:Louis-Joseph Papineau, but we know that Philippe-Joseph Aubert de Gaspé, the author of Les Anciens Canadiens, 1862, had been a seigneur. However, the Seigneurial System had been abolished, when Aubert de Gaspé published his novel, perhaps the most popular work written by a Canadien whose purpose was to prove that Lord Durham wrong in his assessment of French-speaking Canadians. They had a literature and a history, which they did not have in Lord Durham’s opinion.
You might remember from earlier posts (See Related Articles) that, in 1628, Cardinal Richelieu of France had founded the Compagnie de Cent-Associés (The Company of One Hundred Associates [Wikipedia]), and had the land divided into narrow but deep lots on the shores of the St Lawrence River which was Nouvelle-France’s highway. The following is copied from the Company of One Hundred Associates entry in Wikipedia:
“From 1629 to 1635 Champlain was the company’s commander in New France. Under the Ancien Regime in France, every community was governed by a lord and a priest plus a magistrate appointed only with the lord and priest’s concurrence. As such, a component of the charter given the company provided for Roman Catholic priests to be part of all settlements and explorations and priests were given governing authority in conjunction with any appointed intendants. The charter also required the company to bring an average of 160 settlers to New France over the next twenty five years and to support their settlement for the first three years.”
Seigneurial System: land division (please click to enlarge the picture)
The Seigneurial System
According to the Canadian Encyclopedia’sentry on the Seigneurial System, [ii] the system was established in 1627, and abolished in 1854. The seigneur, usually leased his land from a member of the Company of One Hundred Associates founded by Richelieu) and, in turn, the tenants called censitaires, but also referred to as habitants, leased his thirty acres from the seigneur on the basis of duly notarized contracts. The land therefore belonged to the King of France.
A seigneurie measured 5 x 15 km in size. Land was allocated as the member of the Compagnie des Cent Associés pleased and was usually leased, not sold, to influential colonists:
the nobility,
religious institutions (in return for educational and hospital services),
military officers, etc.
Seigneurs and Censitaires
Normally, the Seigneurie was farmland divided into
river lots (rangs, or rows), linked by
montées, roads going from one rang to another.
Censitaires or habitants paid rent (cens)and banalités. According to Wikipedia, banalitéswere “taxes levied on grain, which the tenant had to grind at his seigneur’s mill. He [the seigneur] also usually granted hunting, fishing and woodcutting licences.” The seigneur used that money to run the mill, the Church, keep roads open, etc.
In the eighteenth century, it was also customary for habitants to contribute a certain numbers of hours of work to his seigneur. This was called la corvée, the chore. Each habitant cultivated about thirty acres of land, which he leased. As for the seigneur,
he was under the obligation of providing a common mill.
Some Canadiens settled in cities and many engaged in the fur trade. These Canadiens usually belonged to a parish, but 75-80% of Canadiens were habitants. So Canadiens belonged to 1) seigneuriesor 2) parishes, and communities were usually closely knit.
Seigneuries and Parishes
There were roughly 200 seigneuries and they covered virtually all the inhabited areas on both banks of the St Lawrence River between Montréal and Québec and beyond on the north side. On the south side, they extended to the Gaspé area. By and large, that land was arable and having sons helping on the farm was beneficial. However, to what extent can one divide up thirty acres of land? But that is another story.
In short, for the time being, we have, as noted above, two leaders. They are, on the one hand, the seigneurand his censitaires, farming communities and, on the other hand, the curé, the parish priest, and his parishioners. When the seigneurial system was abolished, the habitant remained on his thirty acres, but Canadiens also lived in townships or cantons grouped into parishes. In other words, with the abolition of seigneuries, the Canadiens were grouped into parishes. The parish became the main organizational element.
Let us read the Canadian Encyclopedia [iii]on the subject of the seigneurial system:
“The system of land tenure, which placed rural inhabitants close to one another, and in the early 19th century the village, were the foundation upon which the family, neighbour relations and community spirit developed. The closeness of this agricultural society to the soil led naturally to a feeling that land was included in one’s patrimony, to be passed from generation to generation.”
The Conquest and the Abolition of the Seigneurial System
After the conquest of Quebec, or the Treaty of Paris (1763), the system became an obstacle to colonization by British settlers as the Quebec Act of 1774 left the Canadiens undisturbed. Under the terms of the Quebec Act, French civil law was retained and so was the seigneurial system. The seigneuries were arable land and, therefore, prime land. Some seigneuries were bought by English-speaking Canadians.
According to Wikipedia, “[t]he system was finally abolished when the last residual rents were repurchased through a system of Quebec provincial bonds.” By the way, some seigneuries belonged to women.
It could well be that the seigneurial system was abolished as it dissolved. As noted above, to what extent can land be divided? The fact is that the Canadiens ran out of land. That story is told in Ringuet’s (Philippe Panneton) Trente Arpents (1938). Some tried to make arable land of land that was not arable. Louis Hémon’s Maria Chapdelaine(1914), a French author who spent a winter in the Lac Saint-Jean area and provided a lasting account of what was called colonisation.
But, this is where we must pause as a whole chapter of Canada’s history is over. Other stories begin.
Much of the above information is based on the contents of my lectures on French-Canadian literature. But I wish to acknowledge that I have also used the Canadian Encyclopediaand, to a certain extent, Wikipedia.
Le Jeune Étudiant, Ozias Leduc, 1894 (Photo credit: FR Wikipedia)
L’Enfant au pain (Boy with Bread) by Ozias Leduc 1892-99, National Gallery of Canada
Until the Act of Union, 1840-1841, the former citizens of New France were surprisingly happy with their new masters. They enjoyed the fact that they no longer had to bend their head before an intendant or a gouverneur and, although the Seigneurial system was maintained, British Rule brought a Parliament. Moreover, Canadiens could also express themselves in newspapers and their priests occupied a privileged position.
« Vous avez peut-être vécu dans ces tems malheureux qui on précédé la conquête de ce pays, où un Gouverneur étoit une Idole devant laquelle il n’étoit pas permis de lever la tête. »[i]
Translation
“You may have lived during these unfortunate days that preceded the conquest of this country, when a governor was an idol in whose presence one was not allowed to raise one’s head.”
The above quotation is taken from the 4 November 1809 issue of Le Canadien, a newspaper founded on 22 November 1806. Earlier in the same article, the anonymous Canadien had also praised freedom of the press, which had not been allowed the citizens of New France. Later, in the same article, our anonymous writer would praise the British Constitution.
The Oraison Funèbre (the funeral oration) of Mgr Jean-Olivier Brian
More eloquent, however, is Father Joseph-Octave Plessis‘s (1763-1825) OraisonFunèbre. In his funeral oration, Oraison Funèbre, on the death of Mgr Jean-Olivier Brian, Bishop of Quebec from 1764 to 1784, Plessis apologized on behalf of his people, the Canadiens, for having feared British rule. He said that the people of New France had been rather apprehensive because they could not be persuaded that foreign men, unaccustomed to New France’s land, laws, customs and religion, would be able “to give back to Canada what it had just lost by changing masters:”
« On ne pouvait se persuader que des hommes étrangers à notre sol, à notre langage, à nos lois (laws), à nos usages (customs) et à notre culte (religion), fussent jamais capables de rendre au Canada ce qu’il venait de perdre en changeant de maîtres. »[ii]
Translation
“We could not persuade ourselves that men who knew little about our land, our language, or laws, our customs and our religion could ever return to Canada what it had just lost by changing masters.”
There can be doubt that the Canadiens had much to gain when Sir Guy Carleton, Lord Dorchester made them full-fledged British citizens under the Quebec Act.[III]Nothing had been taken away from Britain’s French subject and they had now gained the right to have newspapers and be members of Parliament.
Under the terms of the Treaty of Paris (1763), it had been negotiated that the Canadiens were to be left undisturbed. But, ironically, the citizens of the Province de Québec (1774) and of the two Canadas, born of the Constitutional Act of 1791, had been provided with the tools that would allow them to regain what they lost when the Act of Union was signed into law: Parliament, as the word suggests.
The Rebellions and the Act of Union
The events of 1837-1838 and the ensuing decision to unite the two Canadas and to prohibit the use of French were regrettable. However, once order was restored, the new United Province of Canada was again enjoying the benefits of the BritishConstitution.
When first appointed Joint Prime Minister of the United Province of Canada, in 1842, Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine, or LaFontaine, was not heading a responsible government, which would cause him to resign, but the United Province of Canada had a Canadien voice and it so happened that this Canadien, Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine, spoke English. You may recall that Lafontaine had travelled to Britain in an effort to avert a call to arms in 1837.
A Bilingual Household
Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine was married first to Lynzee Rickard (1813–1859) who became his wife on 9 July 1831. When Lynzee died (in 1859), Louis-Hippolyte married the widowed Jane Élisabeth Geneviève Morrison (1822-1905) daughter of Charles Morrison. They were married on 30 January 1861 and lived on rue Saint-Denis in Montreal. It was a bilingual household.
As joint Prime Minister of the United Province of Canada, Louis-Hippolyte first addressed the assembly in French and then he and his political partner Robert Baldwin set about returning to Canadiens the right to speak their own language.
In fact, assimilation would have been difficult due to the land tenure system, the seigneurial system. As for those Canadiens who were not farmers they gathered around a priest, in a parish. That was what I like to call the “parochial” system.
Conclusion
So let me close this blog on an optimistic note. In the 1840s, we have fine men in Parliament and their goal, responsible government, had been attained between 1842 and 1848, when Baldwin and Lafontaine became Joint Prime Ministers.
In my next post, we will examine the Seigneurial System which was not abolished until 1854. In fact, Louis-Joseph Papineau was a seigneur and, from 1774 (the Quebec Act) until 1854, French-speaking Canadians had both seigneuries and a Parliament.
[I]René Dionne, Les Origines canadiennes (1763-1836), in Gilles Marcotte, dir. vol. 2, Anthologie de la littérature québécoise (Montréal: L’Hexagone, 1994), p. 324.
[II] Op. Cit., p. 331.
[III] The Quebec Act: 1774
The Quebec Act of 1774 was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain (citation 14 Geo. III c. 83) setting procedures of governance in the Province of Quebec. The principal components of the Act were:
The oath of allegiance was replaced with one that no longer made reference to the Protestant faith.
It guaranteed free practice of the Catholic faith.
It restored the use of the French civil law for private matters while maintaining the use of the English common law for public administration, including criminal prosecution.
The oath of allegiance was replaced with one that no longer made reference to the Protestant faith.
It guaranteed free practice of the Catholic faith.
It restored the use of the French civil law for private matters while maintaining the use of the English common law for public administration, including criminal prosecution.
The oath of allegiance was replaced with one that no longer made reference to the Protestant faith.
It guaranteed free practice of the Catholic faith.
It restored the use of the French civil law for private matters while maintaining the use of the English common law for public administration, including criminal prosecution.
Crack Pot, watercolour by Anna Syperek (click on the picture to enlarge it)
Many years ago, I invited Anna Syperek to share lunch with me at my home, in Antigonish, Nova Scotia. I loved her watercolours as well as her etchings and I had begun to paint. I hoped she would look at my work.
She had suggestions to make that were extremely helpful. I had taken several courses on the history of art and a few lessons on how to do watercolours. I therefore knew the basics, but she told me that my work was good enough for me to start painting seriously, and I did.
Antigonish’s Art Gallery is Lyghtesome Gallery. So I started bringing paintings to the Gallery. It’s a very friendly place and many of its artists are very accomplished. Well, there I was showing little paintings at Lyghtesome. I participated in Group exhibitions because, usually, I was also teaching.
I have since left Antigonish. I was overworked out of the classroom, and my case manager at the Insurance Company fooled me into thinking that my application for permanent disability benefits had been accepted. She did not relay to me the instructions of the doctor she sent me to for a second opinion. He had asked her to tell me not to leave my home as I would recover. She said nothing.
When I was told me to leave the classroom, I presented a doctor’s note, but the Chair of my department did not take it seriously. I therefore dragged myself to the classroom and completed my assignment for that particular academic year. So my case manager at the Insurance Company decided I was an imaginary invalid and punished me by not letting me know that I would be able to return to work after an indefinite leave of absence. And she had not told me not sell my house.
When I left Antigonish, I no longer wanted to leave, but the process was in motion. So I moved. In other words, I was worked out of the classroom and fooled into selling my house.
* * *
However, I enjoy blogging. There are days when I can write an informative post. And there are days, like today, when posting a lovely picture and remembering friends is all I can do, which is fine. And now I have new friends: other bloggers and readers. You are a very fine group of people. You even forgive me when I make mistakes. Besides, the internet is a miracle. Thank you WordPress.
This is the link to Lyghtesome Gallery: just press on Lyghtesome Gallery. I am not sending my work to the Gallery anymore, but I just might… Here is Anna’s website: Anna Syperek, CSPWC (Canadian Society of Painters in Water Colour).
I would like to tell you about French-Canadian poet Octave Crémazie (1827-1879). Crémazie wrote « Le Vieux Soldat canadien, » a poem featuring an old Canadien soldier watching the harbour and asking his son whether or not the French can be seen. France returned, but the arrival of « La Capricieuse », in 1855, did not signal a rebirth of New France.
La Capricieuse
As unbelievable as it may seem, it had been ninety-two years since France had visited its former colony. From 1763 to 1855, no French ship had come from France to what was, in 1855, the Province of Canada.
The ship, a Corvette, arrived at Quebec city on the 14 July 1855, Bastille Day, a day which meant very little to French-speaking Canadians. In fact, as devout Catholics, many of them looked upon the French Revolution (1789-c. 1794) as the moment when the French clergy had been imperiled to such an extent that many priests had to flee their native land.
French-speaking Canadians who witnessed the arrival of « La Capricieuse » were overwhelmed. They may have known that, under the terms of the Treaty of Paris (1763), France had chosen Guadeloupe over New France. But it may have been comforting for the former citizens of New France to think that they had simply lost a battle, the Battle of the Plains of Abraham.
The Battle of the Plains of Abraham
The Battle of the Plains of Abraham was a fifteen-minute battle fought on 13 September 1759. Yet, the short battle claimed the life of its two commanding officers: 32 year-old Major-General James P. Wolfe and 47 year-old Louis-Joseph de Montcalm. French-speaking Canadians look upon that defeat as the catastrophe that caused New France to become a British colony. The defeat is a major factor in this narrative, but it doesn’t tell the full story. It is better for French-speaking Canadians to think they were defeated, than ceded to England. Under the terms of the Treaty of Paris (1763), France chose to cede New France in order to keep Guadeloupe.
The Literary Movement of Quebec: Octave Crémazie
Octave Crémazie, baptized Claude-Joseph-Olivier,[i] (1827-1879) was the leading member of a literary school created in the wake of Lord Durham’s remark to the effect that French-speaking Canadians did not have a history and lacked a literature. That remark had been offensive to French-speaking Canadians and the decision to assimilate them was also unacceptable. They had been living in on North-American soil since the 1600s, tilling their thirty acres of land.
When he was appointed Prime Minister in 1842, (1827-1879) addressed the assembly in French and French-speaking Canadians set about to prove Lord Durham wrong. François-Xavier Garneau (1809-1866) wrote a three-volume Histoire du Canada, published between 1845 and 1848. Moreover, a literary movement was created in Quebec city, calledLe Mouvement littéraire de Québec (the Literary Movement of Quebec or the Patriotic School of Quebec.)
Octave Crémazie was the leader of that particular school and was one of the founders of l’Institut Canadien. Although he declared bankruptcy and had to seek refuge in France, in 1862, never to return to Canada, these circumstances did not tarnish his reputation as a poet. He is considered the father of French-Canadian poetry. During his years of exile in France, he kept in touch with members of group. He and Henri-Raymond Casgrain wrote to one another. But he had become Jules Fontaine and died in poverty.
The Encyclopædia Britannica on Crémazie
In TheEncyclopædiaBritannica, the “national bard,” is described as “[a]n extraordinarily learned man, educated at the Seminary of Quebec [who] started a bookshop in 1844 that became the centre of an influential literary circle later referred to as the Patriotic School of Quebec (or the Literary Movement of Quebec).” Writers and historians met in “la boutique à Crémazie,” Crémazie’s shop.
Britannica also tells us that “[i]n 1861 Crémazie and his friends began issuing a monthly magazine of literature and history, Les Soirées Canadiennes, to preserve the folklore of French Canada” and that among Crémazie’s most “famous patriotic poems are ‘Le Vieux Soldat canadien ’(1855; ‘The Old Canadian Soldier’), celebrating the first French naval ship to visit Quebec in almost a century, and ‘Le Drapeau de Carillon’ (1858; ‘The Flag of Carillon’).”[ii] At Carillon, New France won the battle.
Le Vieux Soldat canadien
However, the poem we are looking at is “Le Vieux Soldat canadien.” The old soldier is certain France will return and keeps asking his son whether or not the ships can be seen on the horizon. Each eight-line decasyllabic (10 syllables) stanza ends with a haunting: Dis-moi mon fils ne paraissent-ils pas? (Tell me, my son, are they not within sight?). As he was dying, (« mais en mourant ») the old soldier was still telling his crying son ( « il redisait encore » ) that he, the son, would see the dawn (« l’aurore ») of that great day, when they would return (« Ils reviendront ! »), but that he [the father] would no longer be alive (the full text is online).
Mais en mourant, il redisait encoreÀ son enfant qui pleurait dans ses bras:« De ce grand jour tes yeux verront l’aurore,« Ils reviendront ! et je n’y serai pas ! »
(But as he was dying, he kept saying
To his child who was crying in his arms:
“Of that great day your eyes will see the dawn
They will come back! but I will not be there!”)
The people of Quebec city were delighted to see “La Capricieuse.” The French had sent a gift of books for the Institut Canadien, its Montreal branch, I should think. But the French were in Canada to conduct business.
La Patrie Littéraire or The Literary Homeland
Crémazie’s poem is an example of literary homeland (patrie littéraire) literature as is Philippe-Joseph Aubert de Gaspé Anciens Canadiens.[iii] (For the Wikipedia, entry click on Philippe-Joseph Aubert de Gaspé.) French-speaking Canadians had lost their Lower Canada and built a “literary homeland.” They created the history and literature which, Lord Durham had reported, they did not have. Writing became their salvation.
“Commander Paul-Henry de Belvèze proceeded by steamer and train to Montréal, Toronto and Ottawa before leaving Québec for France on August 25. His mission was to report on the prospects of trade with Canada, made possible by Britain’s proclamation of free trade and by the Anglo-French alliance of 1854. The result was the opening of a French consulate at Québec in 1859, followed by mutual, short-lived tariff concessions and the development of a modest trade. However, the visit is remembered chiefly as the official endorsement of the Franco-Canadian cultural rapprochement that had been gathering impetus since the 1830s.”
If I am tired, I make mistakes. There are days when I should not get out of bed for fear of having a car accidents or pushing the wrong button. Well, I just trashed my last post, but WordPress features a restore application. So, it has been published again. This is unforgivable, but it is, alas, all too human.
To continue the story, yesterday I was tired yet writing a post on what constitutes for me a sensitive subject: the linguistic kerfuffles of my beloved Canada.
I was born to a French-Irish family (on my father’s side) and, although French is my mother tongue, I speak the two languages of my country and other languages. In fact, I have developed the ability to figure out the meaning of so-called foreign words.
But let me go back to my original story: making mistakes. If the subject is a sensitive issue, I make spelling errors, I repeat what has already been said. I displace letters, i.e. “sacred” become “scared” and mais (French for “but”) becomes amis or sami or masi, etc.
So, I don’t know how I managed to publish my post. Yet, I think it is important for people to know how we got from the past to the present and a lot of people cannot afford an education.
At any rate, the linguistic malaise in Quebec is, to a large extent, an inherited burden. The Rebellions of 1837 are indeed a key moment not only in the growth of responsible government, but also in the growth of certain less-than-perfect movements. I know people who believe that the patriotes (Fr) and patriots (En) are patriotes.
In their eyes, there never was a William Lyon Mackenzie who had to go into hiding longer than any other rebel. Nor was there a Lount, a Matthews or a Doan who were hanged because they were patriots and not by French-speaking Canadians. It’s perturbing.
Then I hear the other side. Yes, little John was at Bishop’s, in Lennoxville, Quebec for four years and never had to use a word of French “which is how it should be.” That too is rather perturbing. I spent most of my life outside Quebec and to buy a loaf of bread, I had to call it a loaf of bread. Not that little John should have known the word pain. There is nothing wrong with being unilingual. But in order for little John to get his bread in English from a French-speaking person, that person had to know English.
Again, there is nothing wrong with being unilingual, but is it necessary to boast about it and to say that this is how it should be? By what standard may I ask?
So now you know why, whenever this subject comes up (i.e, bilingual Canada), I forget to feed the cat, who fortunately has a powerful language of his own and returns me to my senses, but I also lose, temporarily, my ability to concentrate. So, will you please forgive me for making mistakes.
I will end this frivolous post by telling you a little story. Once, “qualified” (they were members of the union) Ottawa translators who were preparing documents that would be distributed to persons participating in a summit, yes a summit, translated “pool of secretaries” so correctly that they wrote “piscine (swimming-pool) de secrétaires.” It’s a slippery subject. The moral of that story is that if you want a document translated, ask a bilingual person to do the job.
The last time we discussed Canada, the Rebellions of 1837 had been crushed and, in Lower Canada, 58 men had been deported to Australia, 12 were executed and the leaders had fled. In Upper Canada, where the Rebellion had been less severe, Lount, Matthews and Doan were executed and the leaders fled fearing reprisals and, possibly, death.
Carrying a Canoe to the St Maurice River, by Cornelius Krieghoff
Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine was appointed Prime Minister in 1842, a year after the Act of Union, with Robert Baldwin leading the western part of the new Canada. Lafontaine resigned in 1843 because Lord Metcalfe was opposed to responsible government, but opposition would not last. On the contrary, colonial officials were prompt to grant more autonomy to a people whose struggle for greater autonomy they had repressed in a very punitive manner.
For instance, in 1843, the year he opposed responsible government, Lord Metcalfe pardoned the rebels who had been exiled, which was unexpected. Louis-Joseph Papineau remained in France for two more years, until 1845, but in 1843 the fifty-eight rebels who had been sent to Australia returned to Canada, now the United Province of Canada.
As for William Lyon Mackenzie, he remained in the United States until the Amnesty Act was passed in 1849. He was the one rebel who had not been pardoned by Lord Metcalfe. But, most importantly, in 1848, Lord Elgin, the Governor General of the Province of Canada, asked Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine to resume his duties as Prime Minister of the Province of Canada, leading a responsible government.
A Responsible Government
An Habitant’s Farm, by Cornelius Krieghoff
It is difficult to understand why, having crushed the 1837 Rebellions, colonial officials would agree to responsible government. Robert Baldwin and Louis-Hippolyte La Fontaine were moderate reformers, and it could be that colonial officials knew their resolve and took them seriously. Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine, a member of Papineau’s assembly, had travelled to Britain in an effort to avert a call to arms.
Lord Durham: questions left unanswered
As for Lord Durham, there can be little doubt that he had harmed French-speaking Canadians. The Rebellions happened in both Canadas, which meant they could not be dismissed as yet another episode in the very long history of enmity, in Europe, between the English and the French. Such thinking was an oversimplification on the part of Lord Durham and too many questions remained unanswered. In all likelihood, there was patriotism on both the part of the French-speaking inhabitants of Lower Canada. However, among the rebels, several were English-speaking Canadians and Britain had helped itself to money levied in the two Canadas. As well, William Lyon Mackenzie was the last rebel to be pardoned.
In other words, it would be my view that Lord Durham oversimplified the causes of the rebellions. Besides, his trivializing French-speaking Canadians was injudicious. However, he cannot be brought back from the dead to put his finger on the more complex and true causes of the rebellions, i. e. a struggle for responsible government. Nor can he take back his statement to the effect that French-speaking Canadians were an inferior people who did not have a history, and lacked a literature. So may he rest in peace.
Sir Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine, joint premier of the Province of Canada, 1848-51(Oil on canvas, by June Forbes McCormack (courtesy the Government of Ontario Art Collection and the Canadian Encyclopedia)
Let us now return to Robert Baldwin and his political partner, Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine who “led the first responsible ministry in Canada, regarded by some as the first truly Canadian government.” [i]Baldwin and Lafontaine were not elected, but appointed to their office on the recommendation, in the early 1840s, of Charles Poulett Thomson, 1st Baron Lord Sydenham PC (Privy Council), the first governor of the Province of Canada. Although Lord Sydenham was anti-French, it would appear he was a good judge of character.
Lafontaine’s achievements are too numerous for me to list in a post. But I will note that he worked at granting amnesty to the persons who had been exiled as a result of the Rebellions of 1837. Louis-Joseph Papineau waited two more years before returning to Canada, but most rebels had come home in 1843, when Governor General Metcalfe issued a special pardon to the Rebels of 1837. In fact, when the Amnesty Act was proclaimed, on February 1, 1849, the only rebel still at large was William Lyon Mackenzie. According to the Canadian Encyclopedia “[o]nly William Lyon MACKENZIE, the one rebel who had not been given a special pardon in 1843, returned to Canada under the Act.” [ii]
Rebellion Losses Bill
I will also note that Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine introduced the Rebellion Losses Billin November 1849. It was passed, but Loyalists protested and burned down Parliament in Montreal. They were now nationalists, which may suggest that they had embraced Lord Durham’s assessment of the Rebellions: an ethnic conflict, and saw the Canadiens as the hereditary enemy of the British. But it may also be in everyone’s best interest to remember that, in 1848, there were nationalistic uprisings in a large number of European nations.
The French Language
Finally, I will also note that “[t]he Lafontaine-Baldwin government, formed on March 11, battled for the restoration of the official status of the French language, which was abolished with the Union Act, and the principles of responsible government and the double-majority in the voting of bills.” [iii] In other words, Lord Durham’s recommendation that French-speaking Canadians be assimilated was not implemented.
According to the Canadian Encyclopedia, Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine “insisted on speaking French in the Assembly, and because of his action the imperial government later repealed the ACT OF UNION clause prohibiting official use of French.” [iv]
As for the idea of a possible annexation with the United States, it died down. In fact, what colonial authorities now feared, as did Loyalists, was an invasion from the south. United Empire Loyalists had fled north in 1776, when the Thirteen Colonies declared independence from Britain: 4 July 1776.
So what followed the Act of Union was a return to order and a growing motivation to expand and secure Canada. The goal was to extend its provinces from sea to sea: A Mari Usque Ad Mare. It would therefore be necessary to build a railroad, but that story will be told later. [V]
Caravaggio (Milan, 28 September 1571 – Porto Ercole, 18 July 1610) introduced chiaroscuro to the world of fine arts. But the above painting is chiaroscuro in reverse: the backdrop is pale. Usually, the backdrop is dark.
Chiaroscuro is a painterly, rather than linear, approach to creating dimensionality in a painting or grisaille.
I believe this is my shortest blog ever. Let the picture speak for itself. I hope it will bring you pleasure.
Allegory, Boy Lighting Candle in Company of Ape and Fool by El Greco
El Greco (1541 – 7 April 1614)
This painting was inserted in my last post and was supposed to grow larger when one clicked on the picture. It didn’t. So I have reintroduced El Greco’s “Allegory” as it is a fascinating example of candlelight chiaroscuro.
El Greco’s manneristic paintings are characterized by elongated and occasionally distorted elements, such as somewhat mishapen body limbs. His paintings are also busy, which is not case with neo-classical works. Moreover, in the painting featured above, El Greco uses a form of chiaroscuro, but mannerism, a movement, does not have to feature chiaroscuro.
Caravaggio (29 September 1571 – 18 July 1610)
Caravaggio(le Caravage) is the artist who introduced chiaroscuro, and there are degrees of chiaroscuro. Tenebrism is its strongest expression. I suspect, however, that the historical importance of Caravaggio lies more in his effort to give objects relief or dimensionality, which was a chief concern of Renaissance realism and which situates the introduction of chiaroscuro at a specific moment in history.
The moment is the Renaissance. The Renaissance is its birthplace, as it is the birthplace of the point de fuite or the vanishing point. But it remains that, as a technique, chiaroscuro will be a lasting legacy, as will the vanishing point and perspective in general, whereas movements will follow the whims of fashion. To a large extent, chiaroscuro will in fact be a matter of choice, which differentiates it from perspective, a more permanent feature. Yet, it remains a technique.
Other artists are associated with the use of chiaroscuro (light-dark, or vice-versa). The following is a quotation from the Encyclopædia Britannica: “The single most important painter in the tradition was the Frenchman Georges de La Tour, though echoes of Caravaggio’s style can also be found in the works of such giants as Rembrandt van Rijn and Diego Velázquez.” [i]
So there are forms of chiaroscuro. There are paintings where a light emanating from a candle makes an area of the painting light. Georges de La Tour uses this technique frequently, but he is not a mannerist.
As indicated in the Encyclopædia Britannica, the use of chiaroscuro is prevalent in the paintings of Georges de la Tour (1593-1652). But La Tour is a realist. Moreover, here we are looking at the above-mentioned candlelight chiaroscuro. On an excellent internet site devoted to La Tour’s realism, Misty Amanda Vandergriff, writes that La Tour is also considered “to be a follower of Caravaggio [29 September 1571 – 18 July 1610] due to his dependency on specific elements of the Caravaggesque style (most notably the use of chiaroscuro and tenebristic techniques).” [ii]
Contemporaries
Also associated with the use of chiaroscuro are Italian artists such as Artemisia Gentileschi (July 8, 1593–1652), Spanish artist Jusepe de Ribera and Dutch artists Gerrit van Honthorst and Dirck van Baburen. Honthorst and Baburen were Utrecht artists.
In other words, the history of Fine Arts presents similarities with the history of literature and with history in general. When Caravaggio introduced chiaroscuro, he was innovating. Renaissance imperatives called for as faithful a depiction of reality as could be achieved. This led to the development of certain techniques, some of which ended up overriding the moment and movements.
We have long left the Renaissance, but the use of chiaroscuro has lasted. Moreover, we still have the grisaille, a monochrome, chrome meaning colour, form of chiaroscuro. But, the time has come to close this post. So let’s look at David’s use of chiaroscuro andalso look at one of his grisailles and then walk away from the computer.
Jacques-Louis David (1748 – 1825)
Jacques-Louis David‘s (30 August 1748 – 29 December 1825) “Death of Marat” does indeed demonstrate the enduring usefulness of chiaroscuro. “The Death of Marat” dates back to 1793. The years had therefore madechiaroscuroone of many tools used by artists to achieve an aesthetic goal. In the case of Jacques-Louis David’s depiction of the “Death of Marat,” chiaroscuro lends drama to David’s painting and serves to explain why “La Mort de Marat” is considered a masterpiece. But, I am also including “Patroclus,” a grisaille by David, where chiaroscuro is achieved to a large extent by the use of a beam of light, another form of chiaroscuro.
