Tag Archives: the Noble Savage

The French in Canada: a “Distinct” Society

07 Monday Nov 2022

Posted by in Canada, Canadian Confederation, France, Language Laws

≈ Comments Off on The French in Canada: a “Distinct” Society

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Return from the Harvest Field by Marc-Aurèle de Foy Susor-Coté, 1903 (National Art Gallery of Canada)

—ooo—

The Treaty of Paris, signed on 10 February 1763, was a tragic event for the citizens of New France, the Canadiens. Jacques Cartier discovered Canada in 1534, and Port-Royal (Acadie) was settled in 1605, three years before the city of Quebec was settled. Therefore, in 1763, Nouvelle-France had been a French colony for 229 years. In fact, France possessed a large territory in North America, where it barely settled. Canadiens lived on the shores of the St Lawrence River, where they were censitaires, seigneurs, members of the clergy, habitants, and voyageurs. Censitaires paid “cens et rentes” to their seigneur as well as la dîme (tithe) to their curé, Parish priest. They had tilled their “thirty acres” since the early 1620s. Habitants were a new social type. They owned their house, farmed, and some engaged in the fur trade. They were “Americans.” (See Habitant, The Canadian Encyclopedia.)

Le régime seigneurial a engendré un nouveau type social dont il consolide les intérêts: l'habitant indépendant, exempt d'impôt personnel, propriétaire de sa terre, très mobile à cause de la traite et de l'abandonnance des terres, libérés des corvées seigneuriales et sur le même pied que le seigneur vis-à-vis les pratiques communautaires.[1][2]

Many were the legendary voyageurs who travelled to the countries above, “les pays d’en Haut” (1610-1763), in canoes Amerindians built. By and large, the people of New France had a good relationship with future Canada’s Amerindians. Given Nouvelle-France’s cold climate, the French needed Amerindians to settle and earn their living. They never colonised the Indigenous people of North America, but sins were committed. Canadiens gave trinkets and alcohol to Amerindians in return for precious pelts. Amerindians guided explorers and voyageurs and opened up the North American continent. In fact, voyageurs married Amerindians. When the beaver neared extinction, the French still went to the countries above, “les pays d’en Haut.” They were bûcherons, lumberjacks, and draveurs, river drivers.

New France exemplifies Montesquieu “théorie des climats,” and, to a large extent, Nouvelle-France is also one of the birthplaces of the Noble Savage. Le bon sauvage is le baron de Lahontan‘s Adario, a Huron.

Le Bon Sauvage also inhabits Philippe-Joseph Aubert de Gaspé‘s Les Anciens Canadiens, a novel belonging to La Patrie littéraire, a homeland of literary and historical works, but also other achievements. Le bon Sauvage illustrates that virtue need not stem from religious convictions, a dilemma for missionaries. 

Adario le Sauvage discute avec Lahontan le civilisé; et ce dernier a le mauvais rôle. A l'Évangile Adario oppose triomphalement la religion naturelle. Aux lois européennes, qui ne cherchent à inspirer que la crainte du châtiment, il oppose une morale naturelle.
[Adario the Savage discusses with Lahontan, the civilized; and the latter plays the bad role. To the Gospel, he opposes, triumphant, natural religion. To European laws that seek only to instill fear, he opposes a natural moral.][3]

Besides, not only had France been in North America for two centuries, but the Battle of the Plains of Abraham lasted less than a half-hour, and it was fought between uneven forces. Should such a battle cost so much to a nation? New France was a nation. During the Seven Years’ War, France and its allies were waging war against the British and their allies, each side seeking world hegemony.

In the days of empires and colonies, the loss of New France and France’s vast territory in North America was mostly collateral damage Colonies were forgettable. The Duc de Choiseul hoped France would regain its North American colonies, but France “needed peace.” (See Treaty of Paris 1763, Wikipedia.) So, the Thirteen Colonies would soon declare their independence while a foreigner entered New France. The first rule had been to assimilate the French in Canada, and the first résistance would be a struggle to preserve the French language manifested in Quebec’s current language laws. Bill 22, 1974; Bill 101 (the Charter of the French Language, 1977); and Bill 96 (2021). Moreover, the “foreigner” inhabits the mind of members of the Patrie littéraire and Félix-Antoine Savard’s Menaud maîre-draveur (1937), the literary schools created after Lord Durham stated that Canadiens lacked history and literature. Works associated with the Patrie littéraire, the literary homeland listed on Canadiana.2 page.

Jeffery Amherst could not understand the Canadien‘s grief. He was British, and the British had won the war. He would be returning to Britain, which would soon be a large empire. As for France, it would remain France and survive a regicidal Revolution.

Much land that had been owned by France was now owned by Britain, and the French people of Quebec felt greatly betrayed at the French concession. The commander-in-chief of the British, Jeffery Amherst noted, “Many of the Canadians consider their Colony to be of utmost consequence to France & cannot be convinced … that their Country has been conceded to Great Britain.”

(See Jeffery Amherst quoted in Treaty of Paris, 1763, Wikipedia.)

Under the Treaty of Paris (1763), France chose to cede Nouvelle-France, a colony and a province of France. It also ceded land east of the Mississippi River, part of Louisiana. France kept two small islands off the coast of Newfoundland, Saint-Pierre and Miquelon. These would accommodate French fishermen. France also kept sugar-rich Martinique and Haiti. The British had won the Seven Year’s War. However, France had ceded a small nation to Britain.

Earlier, in 1713, at the Treaties of Utrecht, or Peace of Utrecht, France had ceded Acadia, one of the two provinces of New France, Newfoundland, and territory bordering the Hudson Bay. Between 1755 and 1758, the British expulsed Acadians. Imperialism was ruthless. The Expulsion may have been caused by conflicts between priests from France and New Englanders mainly. Father Le Loutre’s War lasted between 1749 and 1755, the year the Acadians of Grand-Pré were deported. The map below shows the territory lost in 1713 (mauve) and the territory ceded at the Treaty of Paris in 1763 (blue).

Map of the British and French settlements in North America in 1750, before the French and Indian War (1754 to 1763), which was part of the Seven Years’ War (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

—ooo—

The Quebec Act of 1774: a Period of Grace …

It was not altogether a “period of grace,” but James Murray and Sir Guy Carleton were kind to the defeated Canadiens. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 directed James Murray to assimilate the Canadiens. However, after the Treaty of Paris (1763), only a few British Americans moved to the former New France, so few that many Canadiens did not notice they had lost their land. Besides,

As governor of the former New France, Murray opposed repressive measures against French Canadians, and his conciliatory policy led to charges against him of partiality. Although exonerated, he left his post in 1768 and was appointed governor of Minorca in 1774.


(See James Murray, Britannica.)

These British Americans exacerbated Governor James Murray and Sir Guy Carleton, James Murray’s replacement. Britannica describes these “British Americans” as follows:

Their bourgeois mentality and repeated demands for the “rights of Englishmen” tended to alienate the conservative British officers who administered the colony. 


(See Early British Rule, 1763-1791, Britannica.)

Moreover, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 directed James Murray, the Governor of Britain’s new French-speaking subjects, to assimilate the people he governed.

James Murray may have been inclined to spare the Canadiens, who had just fallen. In Philippe Aubert de Gaspé‘s Les Anciens Canadiens, governor Murray is touched when he hears that aristocrats returning to France perished off the coast of Cape Breton island. They were returning to France aboard a frail ship named l’Auguste. (See Chapter XV, Le Naufrage de l’Auguste; Chapter XIV, The Shipwreck of the August.)

No sooner did New France fall to Britain than it attempted to assimilate its new subjects. Governor James Murray failed because the Canadiens were too numerous. Besides,

He [James Murray] was recalled in 1766, but he was exonerated. His replacement was Guy Carleton, (later) 1st Baron Dorchester), who was expected to carry out the policy of the proclamation. However, Carleton soon came to see that the colony was certain to be permanently French. He decided that Britain’s best course was to forge an alliance with the elites of the former French colony—the seigneurs and the Roman Catholic church.

(See James Murray, Britannica.)

Sir Guy Carleton’s Quebec Act, 1774 (Britannica)

—ooo—

Seigneurial System: New France’s River Lots (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

James Murray’s replacement, Sir Guy Carleton, negotiated the Quebec Act of 1774 with Seigneurs and the clergy. It restored the Seigneurial System and excluded the Test Acts. One did not have to renounce Catholicism to enter the civil service or hold public office. It pleased seigneurs and the Clergy, whose income it guaranteed, but censitaires begrudged the Quebec Act. They would have to pay cens, rente and la dîme (tithe), an obligation not rigidly observed during l’Ancien Régime in New France. Except for the conditions of his tenure, there were times when the censitaire showed complete independence in his relationship with the master of the mansion. He did not recognize his authority, and seigneurs exerted no influence on his opinions:

[H]ors des conditions de sa tenure, le censitaire possédait en fait et manifestait à l'occasion une pleine indépendance à l'égard de son maître du manoir. Il ne lui reconnaissait ni autorité sociale, ni emprise sur ses opinions.[4]

Yet, flawed as it was, the Quebec Act of 1774 can be seen as the Bill of Rights granted Canadiens. It placed the censitaires under the rule of seigneurs and the clergy, an unfortunate precedent. But it also put French-speaking and English-speaking citizens of an enlarged Province of Quebec on an equal footing, or almost. In earlier posts, I have compared the Quebec Act of 1774 to the Royal Proclamation of 1763. In both cases, these are letters patent for both Amerindians and the defeated French.

Matters would change. After the American Revolution, United Empire Loyalists, the citizens of Britain’s former Thirteen Colonies who had remained loyal to Great Britain, sought refuge in British North America and elsewhere. United Empire Loyalists wanted to live in Quebec the way they had lived in the former Thirteen Colonies, where their Rights as Englishmen had been recognized. Besides, Quebec’s Civil law (Code civil) differed from the Common law. The Quebec Act was as intolerable to them as it had been to the British Americans who wanted to secede from England.

Although France was defeated at the Battle of the Plains of Abraham and Nouvelle-France ceded to England at the Treaty of Paris of 1763, Guy Carleton, later 1st Baron Dorchester, passed the Quebec Act of 1774. The Quebec Act restored Nouvelle France’s Seigneurial System. Censitaires were disgruntled, but the Quebec Act empowered seigneurs and the Clergy. However, it had been conciliatory with the French, a defeated nation. United Empire Loyalists insisted on redress, which was a legitimate request. United Empire Loyalists had been loyal to Britain and had left their home to remain British subjects. (See Constitutional Act of 1791, Wikipedia.)

As governor in chief of British North America (1786–96), Guy Carleton promoted the Constitutional Act of 1791, which helped develop representative institutions in Canada at a time when the French Revolution was threatening governments elsewhere.

(See Guy Carleton, 1st Baron Dorchester, Britannica.)

The British parliament passed the Constitutional Act of 1791. The Constitutional Act separated a down-sized Province of Quebec into Upper and Lower Canada. Most English-speaking citizens would live in Upper Canada under the Common law. Lower Canada would be home to Canadiens and would keep its Civil law. However, Lower Canada’s Eastern Townships would belong to United Empire Loyalists who, initially, did not allow Canadiens to settle in the Townships, a policy that changed when factories opened in the Townships, creating a need for employees. These were French Canadians and the Irish who had been driven away from their homeland by the Great Famine, a potato famine.

Until 1791 the region was organized under the seigneurial system of New France. In 1791 the region was resurveyed under English law. It was divided into counties, which were in turn subdivided into townships. (Eastern Townships, Wikipedia)

(See Eastern Townships, Wikipedia.)

Britannica’s entry on the Constitutional Act of 1791 suggests a “fear of egalitarian principles.” Despite the distance and limited literacy, the citizens of New France were familiar with the French Enlightenment. Louis-Joseph Papineau, who replaced Pierre-Stanislas Bédard as the leader of le Parti canadien, Canada’s first political party, renamed le Parti patriote, had read Voltaire. Louis-Joseph Papineau led Lower Canada’s patriotes during the Rebellions of 1837-1838.

The Act of Union

  • Robert Baldwin and Louis-Hippolyte LaFontaine
  • Lord Elgin (James Bruce, 8th Earl of Elgin)

French Canadians had feared the union of Upper and Lower Canada. In his Report on the Rebellions of 1837-1838, Lord Durham recommended the union of Upper and Lower Canada. The Act of Union was voted into law in 1840. However, Robert Baldwin and  Louis-Hippolyte LaFontaine succeeded in creating a bilingual Province of Canada. (See Editorial: Baldwin, LaFontaine, The Canadian Encyclopedia.) Much was accomplished during the “great ministry.”

In 1848, Lord Elgin (James Bruce, 8th Earl of Elgin) established a responsible government in the Province of Canada. Moreover, Baldwin and LaFontaine passed the Rebellion Losses Bill. It was given royal assent by Lord Elgin. An “English-speaking mob” (See Lord Elgin, Wikipedia) set Montreal’s Parliament Buildings afire. (See Burning of the Parliament Buildings in Montreal, Wikipedia.) The Baldwin-LaFontaine great ministry had created a bilingual Canada.

Confederation (1867)

  • John A. Macdonald
  • Residential schools
  • “Uniform” schools
  • French Canadians are minoritised

When Canadian provinces federated, Manitoba had as many English-speaking citizens as it had francophones. However, John A. Macdonald, the father of Confederation, acted as though Canada had just begun. He did not negotiate the entry of Manitoba into the Canadian Confederation. Land surveyors arrived at the Red River unannounced and prepared to transform long, narrow lots abutting a river into square lots. The river was a highway: a canoe in summer, a sleigh in winter, not to mention skating blades. Louis Riel embodies a flawed Confederation. The Canadian government simply arrived. Moreover, in 1867, Manitoba had separate schools, French and Catholic (the French were Catholics) and English. John A. Macdonald also began applying Macaulayism.

In the infamous Residential Schools, Indigenous children were punished if they spoke a native language. So harsh a fate did not befall French Canadians. Still, as Canada unfolded westward, the children of immigrants had to attend “uniform” schools or schools where the language of instruction was English. John A. Macdonald minoritised the French in Canada. Moreover, French Canadians could not leave the province of Quebec if they wanted their children to be educated in French. He, therefore, created the “schools” question and the “Quebec” question. He made the “Canada” question.

In the eyes of Europeans, the defeat of France on the North American continent may have been, as I have named it: “collateral damage.” Although the French and their allies lost the Seven Years’ War. France remained as it was. As for New France, it was a colony in the eyes of European belligerents in the Seven Years’ War, the European theatre of the French and Indian War. Besides, at the beginning of the French and Indian Wars, New France was home to 60,000 settlers. (See French and Indian War, Wikipedia.)

Americans view the French and Indian War as more than the American theater of this conflict; however, in the United States the French and Indian War is viewed as a singular conflict which was not associated with any European war. French Canadians call it the guerre de la Conquête (‘War of the Conquest’).

(See French and Indian War, Wikipedia.)

Comments

Confederation hurt Canada. Minoritising French-speaking Canadians jeopardised their survival. As immigrants arrived in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and elsewhere, their children were educated in “uniform” schools, schools where the language of instruction was English. If Québécois wanted their children to be educated in their mother tongue, they remained in Quebec. It is difficult to ascertain whether John A. Macdonald was aware that he was introducing Macaulayism in Canada, thereby creating the “Quebec question.” He was an Orangeman from Ontario.

Louis Riel was a Métis and a Catholic, educated in Montreal. He is a controversial and tragic figure. He embodies a flawed Confederation and the “schools” question. In 1867, Manitoba had “separate” schools. Moreover, Riel did not expect surveyors to arrive at the Red River ready to cut long and narrow lots abutting a river into square lots. These river lots were used as a highway. During the summer, a boat sat on the river. In winter, a sleigh replaced the ship. These were New France’s river lots.

So, Riel formed a provisional government and allowed the execution of Thomas Scott, which would cost him his life. It is difficult to ascertain whether John A. Macdonald was aware of Macaulayism. In Residential Schools, Indigenous children were punished if they were caught speaking a native language. As Canada unfolded westward, the children of immigrants had to attend “uniform” schools. The “schools” question begins in Manitoba, where language and religion cloud the issue. The French were Catholics. In Ontario, the debate is about language.

The Ontario schools question was the first major schools issue to focus on language rather than religion. In Ontario, French or French-language education remained a contentious issue for nearly a century, from 1890 to 1980, with English-speaking Catholics and Protestants aligned against French-speaking Catholics.

(See Ontario Schools Question, The Canadian Encyclopedia.)

Quebec was the victim of John A. Macdonald’s “uniform” schools or schools where the language of instruction was English. Quebec was the only province where children could be educated in French. So, the children of immigrants to Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and elsewhere entered English-language or “uniform” schools. The “schools” question was fought in Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick and elsewhere. “Uniform” schools created an imbalance. Most Canadians spoke English only.

After Confederation, French Canadians could not leave Quebec if they wanted their children to be educated in French. Consequently, Québécois view Quebec as their province. Moreover, historically, Quebec is the older Canada. Therefore, Quebec passes language laws to build a workplace in Quebec.

A “DISTINCT” SOCIETY

There has been no formal separation of Quebec from Canada, but John A. Macdonald separated Quebec from other provinces of Canada. The “schools” question justifies unilingualism. Besides, Quebec is a “distinct society,” despite hesitancy. (See Quebec as a Distinct Society, The Canadian Encyclopedia.) I doubt that Québécois see Québec as a province. A unilingual province within a bilingual country is a province. However, the view that Quebec is a “distinct” society has often been expressed. But this view has opponents. 

In fact, the Supreme Court Act provides that three of the nine judges on the Supreme Court of Canada must come from Quebec, in order to represent the civil law tradition in the Court. 
(See Quebec as a Distinct Society, The Canadian Encyclopedia.)

RELATED ARTICLES

Sources and Ressources

https://educaloi.qc.ca/en/ ←
Language Laws and Doing Business in Québec
(Canada, Early British Rule, 1763-1791, Britannica.)

Les Anciens Canadiens (ebooksgratuits.com). FR
Cameron of Lochiel (Archive.org ), Sir Charles G. D. Roberts, translator. EN
Cameron of Lochiel is Gutenberg [EBook#53154], Sir Charles G. D. Roberts, translator. EN

_________________________

[1] Denis Monière, Le Développement des idéologies au Québec des origines à nos jours, Éditions Québec/Amérique, 1977.
[2] Jean-Pierre Wallot, « Le Régime seigneurial et son abolition au Canada » (Canadian Historical Review, l, 4, décembre 1969, p. 375.) (Quoted by Denis Monière, p. 61.)
[3] Paul Hazard, La Crise de la conscience européenne, (Paris: Fayard, 1961), p. 12.
[4] Gustave Lanctôt, Le Canada et la révolution américaine (Montréal: Beauchemin, 1965), p. 82. (Quoted by Denis Monière, p. 103.)

—ooo—

Love to everyone 💕

© Micheline Walker
7 November 2022
WordPress

The Old Smoker, by
M.-A. de Foy Susor-Coté, 1926
National Gallery of Canada (NGC)

Les Anciens Canadiens & the Noble Savage

15 Thursday Jul 2021

Posted by in Aboriginals, Canada, Colonialism, Enlightenment, Justice, Quebec history

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Aubert de Gaspé’s old manoir at Saint-Jean-Port-Joli, where he wrote Les Anciens Canadiens at the age of 76.

In Chapter X/IX of Les Anciens Canadiens, monsieur d’Egmont speaks about an Iroquois who does not like a building located in New York. In the large building an Iroquois examines, “sauvages” who have not paid the white man are incarcerated and cannot therefore catch beaver pelts to repay their debt. Their hands are tied. However, I have not quoted the Good Gentleman’ full statement. The bon gentilhomme believes that civilization thwarts the human mind, in which the novel uses the myth of the Noble Savage :[1]

Une chose m’a toujours frappé : c’est que la civilisation fausse le jugement des hommes, et qu’en fait de sens commun, de gros bon sens, que l’on doit s’attendre à rencontrer dans la cervelle de tout être civilisé (j’en excepte pourtant les animaux domestiques qui reçoivent leur éducation dans nos familles), le sauvage lui est bien supérieur. En voici un exemple assez amusant. Un Iroquois contemplait, il y a quelques années, à New-York, un vaste édifice d’assez sinistre apparence ; ses hauts murs, ses fenêtres grillées l’intriguaient beaucoup : c’était une prison. Arrive un magistrat.
– Le visage pâle veut-il dire à son frère, fit l’Indien, à quoi sert ce grand wigwam?
– C’est là qu’on renferme les peaux-rouges qui refusent de livrer les peaux de castor qu’ils doivent aux marchands.

Les Anciens Canadiens (X: p. 232)

[“It has always struck me that civilization warps men’s judgment, and makes them inferior to primitive races in mere common sense and simple equity. Let me give you an amusing instance. Some years ago, in New York, an Iroquois was gazing intently at a great, forbidding structure. Its lofty walls and iron-bound windows interested him profoundly. It was a prison. A magistrate came up.
“‘Will the pale face tell his brother what this great wigwam is for?’ asked the Indian. The citizen swelled out his chest and answered with an air of importance: “
“‘It is there we shut up the red-skins who refuse to pay the furs which they owe our merchants.'”]

Cameron of Lochiel (IX: 147-149)

One can understand that Aubert de Gaspé (1786-1871) would look upon Amerindians with kindness. Le bon gentilhomme is a fictionalized Aubert de Gaspé. Aubert de Gaspé was too generous and did not realize at which point he started loaning money he did not have. Had monsieur d’Egmont not given his entire property, within ten years, one of the houses he owned would have repaid his debt in full. Authorities waited before incarcerating Aubert de Gaspé, but he was imprisoned and unable to help his two sick children. He was careless and wanted to repay authorities. However, in 1841, after nearly four years of detention, he was heard by authorities and released.

Aubert de Gaspé was not a seigneur during the years he spent in a prison. His mother was the seigneuresse de Saint-Jean-Port-Joli. Quebec had its nobility and many feared being sent back to France. Several died when l’Auguste, a ship, sank as a storm raged. However, Aubert de Gaspé would be a seigneur after his mother’s death. He would be the last seigneur of Saint-Jean-Port-Joli. The Seigneurial System was abolished in 1854, before Aubert de Gaspé published his book (1863).

Interestingly, Aubert de Gaspé fictionalized himself as le bon gentilhomme, the Good Gentleman, the man who was too severely punished, and, as Jules, an image of innocence. It is as though le bon gentilhomme, monsieur d’Egmont, had seen Jules loan money he did not have to a person who had kicked him. To help Dubuc, Jules borrows money from Madeleine who has a debt of gratitude, but gratitude is rare.

The novel is historical and autobiographical. But it is also a cautionary tale. Le bon gentilhomme wants to tell his story to Jules, so Jules’s generosity does not lead him astray (II: pp.22… ) (I: 22-26). (Aubert de Gaspé experienced rulings that did not take into account his good character and extenuating circumstances. In 1841, Aubert de Gaspé was freed after nearly four years of detention. His conviction was not legally unjust, but it was “unfair” and disloyal. Therefore, Aubert de Gaspé uses the myth of the Noble Savage, a soul untainted by civilization. Moreover, the bon sauvage is at hand. Nouvelle-France was home to Amerindians.

Incarcerating a good man, monsieur d’Egmont, le bon gentilhomme, is discordant. Discordant is a term I have borrowed from Maurice Lemire, the editor of my copy of Les Anciens Canadiens. In Les Anciens Canadiens, the uncivilized are Europeans, not the natives of New France. One remembers the Jesuit Relations and Lahontan‘s Noble savage. Les Anciens Canadiens attacks civilized men. Montgomery who orders Arché to burn his friends’ manoir is inferior to the “Noble Savage.” Aubert de Gaspé’s fate, imprisonment, may be legal, but it is disloyal, and given his fault, detention is discordant. We can therefore situate Aubert de Gaspé’s novel among literary works pertaining to the myth of the Noble Savage. It is close to the Enlightenment, Jean-Jacques Rousseau viewed man in the state of nature as good, at times because of a Social Contract, but Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan pictured man in the state of nature as a horrible zoomorphic serpent.

It should be noted, moreover that the wars Nouvelle France fought with or on behalf of Amerindians were exhausting. Our visitor to New York is an Iroquois, an Amerindian confederacy allied to the British. The French were allied mostly to the Hurons-Wendats. In chapter VII/VI, le capitaine d’Haberville is described as battled wearied:

Le seigneur d’Haberville avait à peine quarante-cinq ans, mais il accusait dix bonnes années de plus, tant les fatigues de la guerre avaient usé sa constitution d’ailleurs si forte et si robuste : ses devoirs de capitaine d’un détachement de la marine l’appelaient presque constamment sous les armes. Ces guerres continuelles dans les forêts, sans autre abri, suivant l’expression énergique des anciens Canadiens, que la rondeur du ciel, ou la calotte des cieux ; ces expéditions de découvertes, de surprises, contre les Anglais et les sauvages, pendant les saisons les plus rigoureuses, altéraient bien vite les plus forts tempéraments.

Les Anciens Canadiens (VII: pp. 155-156)

[The Seigneur D’Haberville was scarcely forty-five years old, but the toils of war had so told on his constitution that he looked a good ten years older. His duties as captain in the Colonial Marine kept him constantly under arms. The ceaseless forest warfare, with no shelter,104 according to the stern Canadian custom, except the vault of heaven, the expeditions of reconnoissance or surprise against the Iroquois or against the English settlements, carried on during the severest weather, produced their speedy effect on the strongest frames.]

Cameron of Lochiel (VI: 103-105)

We meet our first Amerindian, a Huron, at Trois-Saumons River. When he arrives at monsieur d’Egmont’s cottage, he is ill. Monsieur d’Egmont and André Francœur look after him for several weeks. Four years later, when he has nearly been forgotten, he visits Monsieur d’Egmont carrying a fortune in pelts, moccassins, and other valuable products the French cherished.

Ce n’était pas le même homme que j’avais vu dans un si piteux état : il était vêtu splendidement, et tout annonçait chez lui le grand guerrier et le grand chasseur, qualités inséparables chez les naturels de l’Amérique du Nord. Lui et son compagnon déposèrent, dans un coin de ma chambre, deux paquets de marchandises de grande valeur : car ils contenaient les pelleteries les plus riches, les plus brillants mocassins brodés en porc-épic, les ouvrages les plus précieux en écorce, et d’autres objets dont les sauvages font commerce avec nous. Je le félicitai alors sur la tournure heureuse qu’avaient prise ses affaires.

Les Anciens Canadiens (X: pp. 224-225)

[“I had entirely forgotten my Indian, when about four years later he arrived at my door, accompanied by another savage. I could scarcely recognize him. He was spendidly clad, and everything about him bespoke the great hunter and the mighty warrior. In one corner of my room he and his companion laid down two bundles of merchandise of great value—the richest furs, moccasins splendidly embroidered with porcupine quills, and exquisite pieces of work in birch bark, such as the Indians alone know how to make. I congratulated him upon the happy turn his affairs had taken.]

Cameron of Lochiel (IX: 143-145)

– Écoute, mon frère, me dit-il, et fais attention à mes paroles. Je te dois beaucoup, et je suis venu payer mes dettes. Tu m’as sauvé la vie, car tu connais bonne médecine. Tu as fait plus, car tu connais aussi les paroles qui entrent dans le cœur: d’un chien d’ivrogne que j’étais, je suis redevenu l’homme que le Grand Esprit a créé. Tu étais riche, quand tu vivais de l’autre côté du grand lac. Ce wigwam est trop étroit pour toi : construis-en un qui puisse contenir ton grand cœur. Toutes ces marchandises t’appartiennent.

Les Anciens Canadiens (X: p. 225)

[“‘Listen to me, my brother,’ said he. ‘I owe you much, and I am come to pay my debt. You saved my life, for you know good medicine. You have done more, for you know the words which reach the heart; dog of a drunkard as I was, I am become once more a man as I was created by the Great Spirit. You were rich when you lived beyond the great water. This wigwam is too small for you; build one large enough to hold your great heart. All these goods belong to you,’] 

Cameron of Lochiel (IX: 144-145)

Cameron of Lochiel (Gutenberg)

Le bon gentilhomme is moved to tears. Gratitude is a quality lacking in the individuals to whom he loaned money. Our Noble Savage, returns to the Trois-Saumons River carrying precious gifts: pelts, moccasins, and other goods. Monsieur d’Egmont could build a much better wigwam by selling the pelts and other riches the Noble Savage has brought. But he chooses otherwise. A priest will distribute among the needy the riches the grateful Amerindian has brought to thank the God Gentleman.

The War

Ironically, le bon gentilhomme’s cottage will be home to the d’Habervilles after their manoir is destroyed by fire and Quebec City house, destroyed. Arché’s superior, Montgomery, orders Arché to set fire to every house.

– Mais, dit le jeune officier, qui était Écossais, faut-il incendier aussi les demeures de ceux qui n’opposent aucune résistance ? On dit qu’il ne reste que des femmes, des vieillards et des enfants dans ces habitations.

[“But,” said the young officer, who was a Scotchman, “must I burn the dwellings of those who offer no resistance? They say there is no one left in these houses except old men, women, and children.”]

– Il me semble, monsieur, reprit le major 265 Montgomery, que mes ordres sont bien clairs et précis ; vous mettrez le feu à toutes les habitations de ces chiens de Français que vous rencontrerez sur votre passage. Mais j’oubliais votre prédilection pour nos ennemis !

Les Anciens Canadiens (XII: pp. 265-266)

[“I think, sir,” replied Major Montgomery, “that my orders are quite clear. You will set fire to every house belonging to these dogs of Frenchmen. I had forgotten your weakness for our enemies.”
“Every house you come across belonging to these dogs of Frenchmen, set fire to it. I will follow you a little later.”]

Cameron of Lochiel (XI: 169-170)

The Noble Savage has returned:

– Voilà donc, s’écria-t-il [Arché] avec amertume, les fruits de ce que nous appelons code d’honneur chez les nations civilisées ! Sont-ce là aussi les fruits des préceptes qu’enseigne l’Évangile à tous ceux qui professent la religion chrétienne, cette religion toute d’amour et de pitié, même pour des ennemis. Si j’eusse fait partie d’une expédition commandée par un chef de ces aborigènes que nous traitons de barbares sur cet hémisphère, et que je lui eusse dit : « Épargne cette maison, car elle appartient à mes amis ; j’étais errant et fugitif, et ils m’ont accueilli dans leur famille, où j’ai trouvé un père et des frères », le chef indien m’aurait répondu : « C’est bien, épargne tes amis ; il n’y a que le serpent qui mord ceux qui l’ont réchauffé près de leur feu. »

Les Anciens Canadiens (XII: pp. 276-277)

[“Behold,” said he, “the fruits of what we call the code of honor of civilized nations! Are these the fruits of Christianity, that religion of compassion which teaches us to love even our enemies? If my commander were one of these savage chiefs, whom we treat as barbarians, and I had said to him: ‘Spare this house, for it belongs to my friends. I was a wanderer and a fugitive, and they took me in and gave me a father and a brother,’ the Indian chief would have answered: ‘It is well; spare your friends; it is only the viper that stings the bosom that has warmed it.’]

Cameron of Lochiel (XI: 176-177)

CONclusion

Jules and Arché (Cameron of Lochiel)’s friendship will survive the War. However, Aubert de Gaspé needed the bon sauvage. New France’s Amerindians were friends of the French, but there is no entity called the Noble Savage. It is an image and a wish. However, Amerindians have a great deal of common sense. I quite agree with the Jesuits who saw Amerindians as good persons who did not need to be converted. Yet, they continued their work as missionary and a few fell victims to the Iroquois who, as noted above, were friends of the British. La Grande-Loutre is an Iroquois. The Iroquois confederacy were allies of the British and protected by the British. The French were allies of the Hurons-Wendats and protected the Hurons-Wendats.

Aubert de Gaspé went further in the rehabilitation of the defeated French. Not only did he feature the Noble Savage, but he created Cameron of Lochiel, a Scot, whose father fought at Culloden. Arché will move to Canada and have a house built, half of wish will be Dumais’s home. He saved Dumais ‘s life who saved Archie from torture and death when the Iroquois captured him. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 will be the Amerindians’s “precedent,” and is included in the 1982 Constitution Act, Canada.

As for the Quebec Act of 1774,[2] it constitutes a “precedent” to a bilingual Canada. The French in America did not attempt to assimilate Amerindians. Monsieur d’Egmont and André Francœur have in fact left France, Europe being too civilized, to live among natives. Jules and Cameron of Lochiel will remain friends. Some of Aubert de Gaspé’s children would marry the Scots, or the English. It is not treason, but a legitimate and realistic wish to take part in the political life of Canada. Finally, persons whose origins are not the same may fall in love. The French in Quebec were happy to have escaped the French Revolution. This reaction, however, was often dictated by the clergy and the seigneurs. At any rate, Canadians must clean up a mess: Residential Schools, the remnants of Imperialism.

I will write briefly about the Battles, but I have already done so in Canadiana.1. I must include Les Anciens Canadiens‘s Plains of Abraham.

RELATED ARTICLES

Sources and Resources

Les Anciens Canadiens (ebooksgratuits.com). FR
Cameron of Lochiel (Archive.org ), Sir Charles G. D. Roberts, translator. EN
Cameron of Lochiel is Gutenberg [EBook#53154], Sir Charles G. D. Roberts, translator. EN
Une Colonie féodale en Amérique: l’Acadie 1604 – 17 (Rameau, Google Books)

_________________________

[1]Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “Noble savage”. Encyclopedia Britannica, 24 Apr. 2019, https://www.britannica.com/art/noble-savage. Accessed 14 July 2021.
[2]Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “Quebec Act”. Encyclopedia Britannica, 12 Jul. 2016, https://www.britannica.com/event/Quebec-Act. Accessed 14 July 2021.

Love to everyone 💕

Céline Dion chante “S’il suffisait d’aimer” (If love were enough)
The Province of Quebec in 1774.

© Micheline Walker
15 June 2021
WordPress

The Good Gentleman

09 Friday Jul 2021

Posted by in Canadian History, Quebec history, Seigneurial System

≈ 9 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

Job (David’s Common Place)

—ooo—

INNER STORIES

Paul Lemire consider aspects of Les Anciens Canadiens as “discordant.” Aubert de Gaspé‘s Anciens Canadiens tells “stories,” the first of which is La Corriveau. La Corriveau is described as a legend, but a real Marie-Josephte Corriveau was hanged on 18 April 1763, shortly after the Treaty of Paris was signed (10 February 1763). Therefore, the Corriveau’s demise happened after Arché visited the d’Haberville. In his Notes et avertissements to Les Anciens Canadiens (p. 318).[1] Paul Lemire sees the Corriveau episode as an anachronism, but anachronisms are paradox literature. As the author of a historical novel, Aubert de Gaspé depicts New France, but Aubert de Gaspé also knew the aftermath. By virtue of George III’s Royal Proclamation of 1763, Amerindians were protected, but the Royal Proclamation

introduced policies meant to assimilate the French population to British rule. These policies ultimately failed and were replaced by the Quebec Act of 1774.

The Royal Proclamation of 1763, The Canadian Encyclopedia.

The Good Gentleman

Although Les Anciens Canadiens is a historical novel, it is also autobiographical. Le Bon Gentilhomme is monsieur d’Egmont, a Frenchman who carelessly loans money and endorses loans. In fact, he loaned money he did not have and found out was accused of défalcation, embezzlement and moved to Canada with his valet, André Francœur. The two live in a cottage on the Trois Saumons River. Jules visits with him before leaving for Europe to join the French military.

According to monsieur d’Egmont, Jules, a seigneur‘s son, resembles him. In Chapter Two, Jules d’Haberville gives money he does not have to a classmate named Dubuc who fears his father’s anger. Dubuc has kicked Jules, yet Jules does not want Dubuc to reimburse him. As for the money Jules gives Dubuc, it has been given to him by a woman who is grateful to the d’Haberville. It is this kind of behaviour that destroys monsieur d’Egmont’s life and he recognizes in Jules his blind generosity:

Je t’ai vu naître, d’Haberville ; j’ai suivi, d’un œil attentif, toutes les phases de ta jeune existence ; j’ai étudié avec soin ton caractère, et c’est ce qui me fait désirer l’entretien que nous avons aujourd’hui ; car jamais ressemblance n’a été plus parfaite qu’entre ton caractère et le mien.

Les Anciens Canadiens (X: p. 222)

I have watched you from child-hood up; I have studied your character minutely, and that is what has caused me to seek this conversation. Between your character and mine I have found the closest resemblance.

Cameron of Lochiel (IX: 142-143)

Le bon gentilhomme was born to a well-to-do family and received a fine education. He then entered a promising career. However, his generosity destroyed his life. He loaned money to anyone who asked and also endorsed loans. He also loaned money that was not his. So, he was accused of défalcation (embezzlement) and he was jailed.

Mes affaires privées étaient tellement mêlées avec celles de mon bureau que je fus assez longtemps sans
m’apercevoir de leur état alarmant. Lorsque je découvris la vérité, après un examen de mes comptes, je fus frappé comme d’un coup de foudre. Non seulement j’étais ruiné, mais aussi sous le poids d’une défalcation considérable !

Les Anciens Canadiens (X: p. 228 )

My private affairs were so mingled with those of my office that it was long before I discovered how deeply I was involved. The revelation came upon me like a thunderbolt. Not only was I ruined, but I was on the verge of a serious defalcation. 

Cameron of Lochiel (IX: 145-146)

So, Les Anciens Canadiens is both a historical and biographical novel. Jules gives money he does not have by borrowing it from Madeleine who is grateful to the d’Haberville. However, the d’Haberville provided help or “money” they could provide.

It took years for authorities to determine whether or not Aubert de Gaspé should be jailed. Meanwhile, he had found a refuge at his mother’s seigneurie. At that time, he had nine children. During his imprisonment, the family resided near Aubert de Gaspé’s prison. He was jailed from 29 May 1838 until 18 September 1841. (See Aubert de Gaspé, Dictionary of Canadian Biography)

The Noble Savage

Monsieur d’Edmont would have liked to be able to earn the money he owed. This, in 19th-century France, was not possible. Nor was it possible in 19th-Lower Canada. Imprisonment tied his hands. Moreover, Aubert de Gaspé could see from his cell two of his children fall ill, and could not help.

To an Amerindian, earning money to pay one’s debts is acceptable. An Amerindian cannot hunt for beavers if he is incarcerated. He tells about an Amerindian who sees a large building in New York inside which Amerindians who have not paid a debt are confined.

Un Iroquois contemplait, il y a quelques années, à New-York, un vaste édifice d’assez sinistre apparence ; ses hauts murs, ses fenêtres grillées l’intriguaient beaucoup : c’était une prison. Arrive un magistrat.
(…)

– Mais sauvages pas capables de prendre castors ici !

Les Anciens Canadiens (X: p. 232-233)

The Iroquois examined the structure with ever-increasing interest, walked around it, and asked to see the inside of this marvelous wigwam. The magistrate, who was himself a merchant, was glad to grant his request, in the hope of inspiring with wholesome dread the other savages, to whom this one would not fail to recount the effective and ingenious methods employed by the pale faces to make the red-skins pay their debts.

“The Iroquois went over the whole building with the minutest care, descended into the dungeons, tried the depth of the wells, listened attentively to the smallest sounds, and at last burst out laughing.

‘Why,’ exclaimed he, ‘no Indian could catch any beaver here.’

Cameron of Lochiel (IX: 148-149)

We meet the Noble Savage again in Chapter IX/X

Only one of monsieur d’Egmont’s debtors repays him, for which he is immensely grateful. Aubert de Gaspé was compassionate and understanding, in which he stood above others, but not above the law.

Conclusion

Aubert de Gaspé fictionalizes himself as Jules, Chapter II, and as the Good Gentleman in Chapter IX/X. Aubert de Gaspé graces a fall that leads to imprisonment with the naïve but morally correct and natural justice of the Noble Savage. Yet, both the good gentleman and Aubert de Gaspé break the law.

Mon frère pas capable de prendre castors, si le visage pâle lui ôte l’esprit, et lui lie les mains.

Les Anciens Canadiens (X: p. 234)

‘My brother can take no beaver if the pale face ties his hands.’ Why,’ exclaimed he, ‘no Indian could catch any beaver here.’

Cameron of Lochiel (IX: 148-149)

Lève la tête bien haut dans ta superbe, ô maître de la création ! tu en as le droit. Lève la tête altière vers le ciel, ô homme ! dont le cœur est aussi froid que l’or que tu palpes jour et nuit. Jette la boue à pleines mains à l’homme au cœur chaud, aux passions ardentes, au sang brûlant comme le vitriol, qui a failli dans sa jeunesse.
Lève la tête bien haut, orgueilleux Pharisien, et dis : Moi, je n’ai jamais failli.

Les Anciens Canadiens (X, p. 237-238)

Lift up your head in your pride, lord of creation! You have the right to do so. Lift your haughty head to heaven, O man whose heart is as cold as the gold you grasp at day and night! Heap your slanders with both hands on the man of eager heart, of ardent passions, of blood burning like fire, who has fallen in his youth! Hold high your head, proud Pharisee, and say,151 ‘As for me, I have never fallen!’

Cameron of Lochiel (XI: 150-151)

The image at the top of this post features Job, but The Woman caught in adultery and The Prodigal Son demonstrate the same charity. Le bon gentilhomme/Aubert the Gaspé may have fallen unconsciously, but he/they broke the law, just or unjust.

RELATED ARTICLES

Sources and Ressources

Les Anciens Canadiens (ebooksgratuits.com). FR
Cameron of Lochiel (Archive.org ), Sir Charles G. D. Roberts, translator. EN
Cameron of Lochiel is Gutenberg [EBook#53154], Sir Charles G. D. Roberts, translator. EN
Une Colonie féodale en Amérique: l’Acadie 1604 – 17 (Rameau, Google Books)
____________________
[1] Paul Lemire is the editor of my copy of Les Anciens Canadiens ([Montréal: Bibliothèque Québécoise, 1988] p. 318)


—ooo—

Love to everyone 💕

Battle of Quebec (Seven Years’ War)
Christ and the woman caught in adultery by Pieter Bruegel the Elder

© Micheline Walker
8 July 2021
WordPress

Canada’s Residential Schools

26 Saturday Jun 2021

Posted by in Amerindians, Canadian History, First Nations, Racism

≈ Comments Off on Canada’s Residential Schools

Tags

, , , , ,

Amérindien et Habitant (ameriquefrancaise.org)

The picture above is not related to Les Anciens Canadiens, except indirectly. Aubert de Gaspé refers to noble savages in his chapter entitled The Good Gentleman.

I published this photograph in a post about Alexis de Tocqueville and Gustave de Beaumont‘s visit to Lower Canada (1831). We may be looking at an Amerindian selling fur to an habitant. Amerindians loved blankets and, as we can see, haut-de-forme (high) hats. These were made of beaver skin. In Nouvelle-France, Amerindians often wanted alcohol in exchange for their pelts, which quickly led to addiction. Amerindians could not tolerate alcohol. François de Laval (1623-1807), the Bishop of Quebec, threatened to excommunicate persons giving alcohol in return for pelts. This picture is entitled Habitant and Winter Sleigh, which suggests art produced after the “conquest.” Is our habitant holding a bottle?

Residential Schools for Amerindians

A few weeks ago, the remains of 215 Amerindian children were found outside a residential school (un pensionnat) in Kamloops, British Columbia. At Marieval Residential School, in Saskatchewan, 751 bodies have now been found in unmarked graves. These children cannot be identified. Canadians will continue to dig and investigate. Both the Kamloops and Marieval residential schools were operated by Catholic orders.

Canada: Remains of 215 children found buried near Kamloops Indian Residential School – CNN

‘We will not stop until we find all of our children’: Discovery of 751 unmarked graves only the beginning, say Saskatchewan Indigenous leaders | The Star

This happened at a time in history when Amerindians were not considered “civilized.” A Gradual Civilization Act was passed in 1857, but it was not active until the passage of the Indian Act in 1876. Would that we could say that viewing Amerindians as uncivilized has ended.

Conclusion

The native depicted in the image at the top of this post does not look powerless. As for Benjamin West’s native, he is a “Noble Savage.” Did Canada need the Indian Act? We are nearing Canada Day, a celebration of Confederation. But Confederation led to the creation of Indian Reserves and Residential Schools. Moreover, Quebec became the only Canadian province where the language of instruction could be French or English. The British Empire was at its zenith.

—ooo—

Love to everyone 💕

Marc-André Hamelin plays Mozart
The Death of General Wolfe by Benjamin West (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

© Micheline Walker
26 June 2021
updated 27 June 2021
WordPress

La Débâcle / The Debacle

13 Sunday Jun 2021

Posted by in Quebec, Scotland

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

The Passing Storm, Saint-Ferréol by Cornelius Krieghoff,1854 (National Gallery of Canada)

—ooo—

We are skipping material we have already covered. We therefore skip La Corriveau. Our next big event is la débâcle, or the spring break-off of the ice on the St Lawrence. You will remember that the French built their seigneuries on the shores of the St Lawrence River which they used as a road in winter and in summer. During the winter, the ice on the St Lawrence could be very thick. One could cross the river in a horse and carriage, or a sleigh, un traîneau. The St Lawrence was Nouvelle-France’s highway. It took one from Quebec City to Trois-Rivières, and then to Montreal. Lots were narrow but they went back a considerable distance. When the water was frozen, the ice could support a large weight. When the river flowed, one used a boat, often a canoe.

José, a domestic, has driven to Quebec to pick up Jules and Arché, whom Jules’ father wants to meet. However, a huge noise is heard. The ice is breaking and Dumais breaks a leg. He cannot escape unassisted. Events in Les Anciens Canadiens occur on the shores of the St Lawrence River. When the Compagnie des Cent-Associés was formed in 1627, by Richelieu, it was given a mission. The people of New France were to harvest fur, Nouvelle-France’s gold. However, those who paddled canoes had to work under a bourgeois. In other words, voyageurs were hired (engagés). If not, they were called coureurs des bois and were fined if they were caught.

In the seventeenth century, Radisson went as far as the Hudson’s Bay and returned to the shores of the St Lawrence with a hundred canoes filled with precious pelts. Radisson was an explorer, not a voyageur. When he showed his pelts, he was treated like a coureur des bois and his pelts were confiscated. Miffed, he went to England and Prince Rupert sent a ship to the Hudson’s Bay. This led to the establishment, in 1670, of the Hudson’s Bay Company. The Company owned Rupert’s Land which Canada would purchase when Confederation occurred, in 1867.

Dumais, who is caught in the ice, seems a Métis. There were métis. The French lived with Amerindians and they married Amerindians. Moreover, the notion of the noble savage originates, to a large extent, in the Jesuits’s Relations. The Jesuits realized that one could be a good person without being baptized. It was a shock for the Robes Noires and it led to the emergence of a character called the Noble Savage. Lahontan, a French aristocrat, wrote about the Noble Savage. He named him Adario. So, Dumais’s ancestors could include Amerindians. Although Amerindians would torture the whites, many were “nobles.“ But our Dumais, whatever his ancestry, is cought in the ice and would die, were it not for the skills of an athletic Scotsman, Arché. Arché saves Dumais life.

The Noble savage, in literature, an idealized concept of uncivilized man, who symbolizes the innate goodness of one not exposed to the corrupting influences of civilization.

Britannica [1]

La Débacle / the Debacle

Arché saves Dumais’ life

Dumais cannot help himself. He will die, but Arché proves a heroic Scot.

« Capitaine, je nage comme un poisson, j’ai l’haleine d’un amphibie ; le danger n’est pas pour moi, mais pour ce
malheureux, si je heurtais la glace en l’abordant. Arrêtez-moi d’abord à une douzaine de pieds de l’îlot, afin de mieux calculer la distance et d’amortir ensuite le choc : votre expérience fera le reste. Maintenant une corde forte, mais aussi
légère que possible, et un bon nœud de marin. »
Arché au capitaine Marcheterre (V: p. 97)
[“Captain, I am like a fish in the water; there is no danger for me, but for the poor fellow yonder, in case I should strike that block of ice too hard and dash it from its place. Stop me about a dozen feet above the island, that I may calculate the distance better and break the shock. Your own judgment will tell you what else to do. Now, for a strong rope, but as light as possible, and a good sailor’s knot.”]
Arché to captain Marcheterre (IV: 68-69)

Dumais, malgré son état de torpeur apparente, malgré son immobilité, n’avait pourtant rien perdu de tout ce qui se passait. Un rayon d’espoir, bien vite évanoui, avait lui au fond de son cœur déchiré par tant d’émotions sanglantes à la vue des premières tentatives de son libérateur, mais cette espérance s’était ravivée de nouveau en voyant le bond surhumain que fit de Locheill s’élançant de la cime du rocher. Celui-ci avait à peine, en effet, atteint la glace où il se cramponnait d’une seule main, pour dégager, de l’autre, le rouleau de corde qui l’enlaçait, que Dumais, lâchant le cèdre protecteur, prit un tel élan sur sa jambe unique, qu’il vint tomber dans les bras d’Arché.
(V: p. 102)
[Dumais, in spite of his apparent stupor, had lost nothing of what was passing. A ray of hope had struggled through his despair at sight of Lochiel’s tremendous leap from the summit of the rock. Scarcely had the latter, indeed, reached the edge of the ice, where he clung with one hand while loosening with the other the coil of rope, than Dumais, dropping his hold on the cedar, took such a leap upon his one uninjured leg that he fell into Archie’s very arms.]
(IV: 71-72)

Dumais is very thankful. How can Dumais repay? He will.

– Comment m’acquitter envers vous, dit-il, de ce que vous avez fait pour moi, pour ma pauvre femme et pour mes pauvres enfants !
Dumais à Arché (V: p. 106)
[“How can I ever repay you,” said he, “for all you have done for me, for my poor wife, and for my children?”]
Dumais to Arché (IV: 73-74)

Our noble Arché tells Dumais that he need simply recover.

– En recouvrant promptement la santé, répondit gaiement de Locheill.
Arché à Dumais (V: p. 106)
[“By getting well again as soon as possible,” answered Lochiel gayly.] 
Arché to Dumais (IV: 74)

A Night Among the Savages

Dumais saves Arché’s life

Dumais will repay Arché. He will save him from being tortured by Amerindians. To Amerindians, Arché must be tortured. First, Dumais tells la Grand’ Loutre that Arché is not an Englishman. He is Scottish.

– Que mon frère écoute, dit Dumais, et qu’il fasse attention aux paroles du visage-pâle. Le prisonnier n’est pas Anglais, mais Écossais ; et les Écossais sont les sauvages des Anglais. Que mon frère regarde le vêtement du prisonnier, et il verra qu’il est presque semblable à celui du guerrier sauvage.
Dumais à la Grand’ Loutre (XIII: p. 291)
[“Let my brother heed my words,” said Dumais. “The prisoner is not an Englishman, but a Scotchman, and the Scotch are the savages of the English. Let my brother observe the prisoner’s clothing, and see how like it is to that of a savage warrior.”]
Dumais to Grand-Loutre (XII: 185-186)

Dumais then tells Grand-Loutre that the prisoner, Arché, is the one who saved Dumais’ life.

– Eh bien ! reprit Dumais en se levant et ôtant sa casquette, ton frère déclare, en présence du Grand-Esprit, que le prisonnier est le jeune Écossais qui lui a sauvé la vie !
Dumais à la Grand’Loutre (XIII: p. 302)
[“Very well!” replied Dumais, rising and taking off his cap, “thy brother swears in the presence of the Great Spirit that the prisoner is none other than the young Scotchman who saved his life!”] (XII: 192-193)

Conclusion

The novel is binary. In Chapter V (FR), Arché has saved Dumais’s life. In Chapter XIII (FR), Dumais saves Arché’s life. It is near-perfect symmetry. Moreover, we are witnesses to a friendly, brotherly, relationship between the French and New France’s natives. The French could not arrive in North America as conquerors. They were dying of scurvy. Nor could they harvest precious pelts, without a canoe and snow-shoes. As for Scottish explorers, they needed voyageurs and Amerindians. There is considerable truth to Montesquieu‘s théorie des climats.

Dumais’s comment according to which the Scots are the savages of the English is extremely funny. But Dumais must be understood. La Grand’Loutre would not hurt a person of is considered a savage by the English. Nor would he hurt a person who saved his “brother.” But one could say that Dumais is Les Anciens Canadiens‘ voyageur or Métis.

RELATED ARTICLES

Sources and Ressources
Les Anciens Canadiens (ebooksgratuits.com). FR
Cameron of Lochiel (Archive.org ), Sir Charles G. D. Roberts, translator. EN
Cameron of Lochiel is Gutenberg [EBook#53154], Sir Charles G. D. Roberts, translator. EN

_________________________
[1] Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “Noble savage”. Encyclopedia Britannica, 24 Apr. 2019, https://www.britannica.com/art/noble-savage. Accessed 13 June 2021.

Cornelius Krieghoff (to Scottish music)
Aubert de Gaspé‘s manoir, restored (fr Wikipedia)

© Micheline Walker
13 June 2021
WordPress

Americans in Paris: George Washington

20 Tuesday May 2014

Posted by in France, History, United States

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

La Fayette as a Lieutenant General, in 1791. Portrait by Joseph-Désiré Court

Lafayette as a Lieutenant General, by Joseph-Désiré Court, 1791

The French and the American Revolutionary War

A Desperate situation
Valley Forge
The Marquis de Lafayette
A hesitant Louis XVI

Lafayette[i] (6 September 1757 – 20 May 1834) arrived in Philadelphia in July 1777. Consequently, he was in the future United States a year after the American Declaration of Independence (14 July 1776) and a year before France’s Treaty of Alliance (1778) with Americans seeking independence from the motherland: Britain. In fact, when La Fayette  arrived in North America, the Founding Fathers needed substantial help to win the American War of Independence, also called the American Revolutionary War. No country was mightier than Britain, so the American dream seemed impossible to achieve. At Valley Forge, “[s]tarvation, disease, and exposure killed nearly 2,500 American soldiers by the end of February 1778.” (See Valley Forge, Wikipedia.)

In other words, when Marie-Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier de Lafayette, Marquis de Lafayette[i] left France, both France and the future United States were in a desperate situation. Benjamin Franklin was in Paris seeking financial and military support for the Thirteen Colonies, but Louis XVI (23 August 1754 – 21 January 1793) was hesitant. The Seven Years’ War and Louis XV‘s extravagant and irresponsible reign had drained France. The French could not afford to enter into a war, but the future United States needed reliable allies.

Moreover, the French military was eager to support the Americans. The duc de Choiseuil  (28 June 1719 – 8 May 1785), the Chief Minister of the French King and Foreign Minister of France during the Seven Years’ War, had been deeply humiliated by the Treaty of Paris (1763), and so had French military. Therefore, such men as La Fayette hoped to serve in North America and regain the prestige France had lost in 1763. The French military had regrouped and replenished its supplies, so all it needed was an “opportunity.”

The Treaty of Alliance with France (1778)

At his wit’s end, de guerre lasse, but heartened by the American victory at the Battles of Saratoga, Louis XVI signed the above-mentioned Treaty of Alliance with France, on 6 February 1778, at the Hôtel de Crillon in Pairs, providing George Washington, the commander-in-chief of the Continental Army (the American army), with men, ammunition and other army supplies. Other countries, for instance the Netherlands, also accepted to fight for the American cause.

Lafayette had distinguished himself from the start and had been named major-general. He distinguished himself at the Battle of Brandywine (11 September 1777), a British victory, but not altogether conclusive. He and American troops had also won the “Battle of Barren Hill” (28 May 1778). Lafayette then went to France to ask for greater support, a “6,000-man expeditionary army,” and proved convincing. On his return to America, in April 1780, Lafayette was named commander of the army in Virginia, “forced” Lord Charles Cornwallis to retreat across Virginia and “entrapped” him at Yorktown. He was then joined by a French fleet and several additional Americans, so General Cornwallis surrendered on 19 October 1781. According to Britannica, at this point the British cause was lost.”[ii]

However, France had recognised the independence of the United States after the Battles of Saratoga (19 September and 7 October 1777), three years before the Siege of Yorktown, which ended in 1781. (See Surrender of General Burgoyne, Wikipedia.) When it entered the American War of Independence, France transformed the war into a world war.

John Trumbull

The Surrender of Lord Cornwallis (19 October 1781), by John Trumbull, 1819-1820 (on the left side are the French and on the right, the Americans) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Surrender of General Burgoyne at the Battle of Saratoga, by John Trumbull, 1822

The Surrender of General Burgoyne (7 October 1777) at the Battle of Saratoga, by John Trumbull, 1822 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

George Washington in Paris

After the Siege of Yorktown, Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette was a hero. Upon his return to France, in 1782, he was therefore promoted to maréchal de camp (brigadier general). In 1784, he returned to the United States and became a citizen of several states. However, not only did Lafayette possess superior military acumen, but he had grown an exceptional and lasting friendship with George Washington, as he would later with Thomas Jefferson. Lafayette named his son Georges Washington. Moreover, although an aristocrat by birth, he became a Freemason. (See List of Freemasons, Wikipedia.) 

As I have noted in an earlier post, Freemasonry recognized a nobility of the mind. Haydn and Mozart were Freemasons. Viennese aristocracy would not have considered them “aristocrats.” Therefore, in the future United States, beginning with George Washington, the first President of the United States, a large number of American Presidents would be Freemasons. It was an aristocracy based on merit. 

The Enlightenment

Moreover, George Washington was a Protestant, yet a man of virtue and merit. The Age of Enlightenment advocated the separation of Church and State and, by the sametoken, it also promoted virtue without a formal adhesion to a religion: laïcité (secularism). 

George Washington was a good man in an age, the Age of Enlightenment, that advocated the separation of Church and State and, by extension, also promoted virtue per se rather than virtue rooted in a religion. During his stay in France as American Minister, Jefferson, the main author of the American Declaration of Independence, helped La Fayette, its principal author, draft the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (26 August 1789), a document that can be described as a product of the Enlightenment. Again a Protestant was working with a Catholic and vice versa. In fact, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, issued in late August 1789, resembles the American Declaration of Independence (4 July 1776), whose main author was Thomas Jefferson. Both declarations are products of the Enlightenment and John Locke‘s influence. (See Americans in Paris: Thomas Jefferson.)

1) The Enlightenment separated nobility (hereditary) and merit (earned nobility, or nobility in itself). George Washington was not an aristocrat, but he had a noble and superior mind, as did the untitled Thomas Jefferson, the main author of the American Declaration of Independence (4 July 1776). There would be a nobility of the mind.

2) Moreover, the Enlightenment separated virtue and religion. A Protestant could be virtuous and so could a Catholic. Adhesion to a religion was not the standard by which morality and virtue were to be measured. Lafayette discovered virtue in Protestant George Washington, and was therefore motivated to entrench tolerance of non-Catholics in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789). There would also be a nobility of the spirit, regardless of creed.

Article 10 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen reads as follows:

“No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.”  (See Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, Wikipedia.)

The Edict of Versailles (1787)

Furthermore, impressed by George Washington, Lafayette, who had become a Freemason, asked King Louis XVI to revoke the Edict of Fontainebleau, promulgated by Louis XIV on 22 October 1685. The Edict of Fontainebleau had revoked the Edict of Nantes (1598), an edict of religious tolerance between Catholics and French Calvinist Protestants, the Huguenots. The Edict of Nantes had been promulgated by Henri IV, king of Navarre and king of France, who had been a Huguenot but had converted to  Catholicism in order to be king of France. And now, in 1787, following La Fayette’s advice, Louis XVI promulgated the Edict of Versailles. Times had changed.

Conclusion 

George Washington in Paris
The Nobility of the spirit
Moral superiority
Lafayette
The Edict of Versailles
 

So I will conclude by saying, first, that Lafayette

  1. distinguished himself in America, as a soldier; 
  2. that he was the main author of Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen;  
  3. that, immensely impressed by a virtuous and good George Washington, a Protestant, he asked Louis XVI, king of France and Navarre, to promulgate the Edict of Versailles, an edict of tolerance of non-Catholics and Jews. Lafayette was again very convincing. Louis signed the Edict of Versailles on 7 November 1787, and it was registered in the parlement of the Ancien Régime, on 29 January 1788. On the advice of La Fayette, Louis XVI ended the persecution of French Calvinists, the Huguenots.
  4. and that, because he was influenced by George Washington, a good person, he led Lafayette to join Freemasonry, which advocated the recognition of superior talent and merit.

Second, I will suggest

  • that George Washington, a Protestant and a Freemason, can be looked upon as our third American in Paris, brought to the French capital by Lafayette;
  • that his legacy is one of the spirit, or moral superiority;
  • that, because of his friendship with Lafayette, George Washington earned support for the future United States;
  • and that, because George Washington was a Protestant, yet a man whose moral integrity could not be questioned, he led Lafayette to ask Louis XVI to end the persecution of French Protestant Calvinists.

The “alliance” between France and the United States was broken only once. France opposed the War in Iraq. Iraq was and is a sovereign nation and entering a sovereign nation is a violation of International Law, a law rooted, at least in part, in the American Declaration of Independence and in its French counterpart, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, which is very ironic. However, the United States’ ties with France have been reaffirmed by President Obama, the current President of the United States of America and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. These ties date back to Treaty of Alliance signed by Louis XVI, King of France, in 1778. In my opinion,  this is an excellent record.

—ooo—

Allow me to add a few words. Pierre-Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais, the author of The Marriage of Figaro (1784), a play transformed into an opera buffa (a comic opera) by  Mozart (1786), recruited soldiers wishing to fight in the American Revolutionary War.  Pierre Charles L’Enfant, an architect and civil engineer, was recruited by Beaumarchais.

After the war, L’Enfant settled in New York where he was initiated into Freemasonry. In 1791, he was appointed, by George Washington, to design the layout of the future capital of the United States. L’Enfant incorporated Masonic symbols into L’Enfant Plan. One of his supervisors was Thomas Jefferson, who had immersed himself in architecture and designed his home at Monticello, his primary plantation. Hence, my inserting into this post a portrait of Beaumarchais and music from Mozart’s Marriage of Figaro.

My kindest regards to all of you.

Monticello, Jefferson's home designed by Jefferson

Monticello, Jefferson’s home designed by Jefferson

 

Portrait de Pierre-Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais, by Jean-Marc Nattier

Pierre-Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais, by Jean-Marc Nattier

RELATED ARTICLES

Sources and Resources

____________________

[i] “Marie-Joseph-Paul-Yves-Roch-Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette”. Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2014. Web. 19 May. 2014 <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/327692/Marie-Joseph-Paul-Yves-Roch-Gilbert-du Motier-marquis-de Lafayette> 

[ii] Ibid.

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (27 January 1756 – 5 December 1791
The Marriage of Figaro

Leopold, Wolfgang, and Nannerl. Watercolour by Carmontelle, c. 1763–64

Leopold, Wolfgang, and Nannerl, by Carmontelle, c. 1763–64

© Micheline Walker
19 May 2014
WordPress 

Chateaubriand’s Atala

24 Thursday Apr 2014

Posted by in French Literature, Romanticism, The French Revolution

≈ 11 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

The Funeral of Atala, by Girodet (1808)

The Funeral of Atala, by Girodet, 1808 (Photo credit: Wikipedia) 

An “American” novella: Atala (1801)

In 1791, François-René, vicomte de Chateaubriand, an impoverished aristocrat fleeing revolutionary France, travels to America where he spends nine months an lives in  Philadelphia, Baltimore, New York and the Hudson valley. Born of this stay in America are Atala, René, Les Natchez and Voyage en Amérique, an EBook.

These works were written in England, as was L’Essai sur les Révolutions. Upon his return to Europe, Chateaubriand joined l’Armée des Princes (the Army of Princes) and, after being wounded in battle, he settled in England where he earned a meagre living teaching French mainly. Despite this painful exile, not only did François-René write the afore-mentioned works, but he also became familiar with English literature and, in particular, with seventeenth-century author John Milton‘s Paradise Lost (1667), a work Chateaubriand would later translate into French. (See Chateaubriand, Wikipedia)

Chateaubriand returned to France in May 1800 when an amnesty was issued émigrés. In 1801, he published Atala, and, the following year, René. Both novellas are incorporated in Le Génie du Christianisme (The Genius of Christianity), a large work published in 1802 and available online. In René, Chateaubriand described “le mal du siècle”[i] or, more precisely, the “vague [from vagueness] des passions,” the form of melancholy experienced by sensitive souls who know they are “fallen gods”  (Lamartine, see Le Mal du siècle). Their sorrows bestow superiority on such characters.

“Morbid sadness was mistaken for the suffering of a proud and superior mind.” (See Mal du siècle, Wikipedia.)

088

Atala, illustrated by Gustave Doré (Photo credit: Project Gutenberg [EBook #4447)

Atala, illustrated by Gustave Doré (Photo credit: Project Gutenberg [EBook #44427])

Atala, 1801

Atala, a novella, or short novel, was published in 1801, a year before René. However, although published in 1801, Atala features René, a Frenchman who left France in 1725 and found refuge among the Natchez. The Natchez are a tribe of Amerindians living near the Mississippi and friendly to the French. In Atala, they are near the Ohio River. Chactas could be a “noble savage,” but he is not depicted as such. He is a blind Sachem and a Natchez whose nobility seems to stem from the fact that he is not altogether a “savage.” In a later appearance, Chactas is in France and meets the king.

If Chactas has nobility, which he does, it is mostly because he was brought up by Lopez, the Spaniard who rescued him from the Muscogulges. Lopez also fathered Atala whose mother is a Muscogulge, enemies of the Natchez. Atala’s mother weds the tribe’s magnanimous leader, Simaghan. When Chactas leaves Lopez’ home, he is again captured by the Muscogulges. He is freed by Atala. At this point, le père Aubry, Father Aubry, its fourth (René, Chactas, Atala) and most eloquent character, enters the novella.

Painting by Anne-Louis Girodet de Roussy-Trioson.

F.-René de Chateaubriand, by Anne-Louis Girodet de Roussy-Trioson (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Chactas’ Story

In Atala, Chactas, who has befriended René, tells him his story. After leaving the home of Lopez to rejoin his people, Chactas is captured by Muscogulge Amerindians who quickly prepare to torture and kill him. Kind Atala, a Christian, takes pity on Chactas. She has fallen in love with him and unties him so he can escape torture. The two flee the tribe’s encampment but are caught in a terrible thunderstorm. They then hear the sound of a bell and, suddenly, a dog approaches followed by Father Aubry, a French missionary.

Father Aubry takes Atala and Chactas to his grotto. The priest wants his protégés to wed. However, this prospect saddens Atala profoundly. Atala’s mother made a promise. Her child, Atala, was sick, so she vowed that if Atala survived, Atala would remain a virgin. On her deathbed, Atala’s mother extracted the same promise from Atala herself. Atala does not tell Chactas and father Aubry about her vow of chastity.

While Father Aubry and Chactas are visiting the mission, Atala takes poison. On their return, Chactas and father Aubry find Atala lying down, in agony. She tells her story and Father Aubry quickly explains that the oath she has made to her dying mother can be undone. But it is too late.

Ô ma mère ! pourquoi parlâtes-vous ainsi ! Ô religion qui fais (sic) à la fois mes maux et ma félicité, qui me perds et qui me consoles ! (pp. 52-53)[ii]

(O my mother, why spake you thus? O Religion, the cause of my ills and of my felicity, my ruin and my consolation at the same time!) (“Félicité,” felicity) means “bonheur” (happiness).

Ambivalence towards Christianity is expressed.  A grief-stricken Chactas is indignant and, after rolling on the ground in Amerindian fashion, he says: “Homme prêtre, qu’es-tu venu faire dans ces forêts ?” (Man-priest, why did you come into these forests?). “To save you,” replies the old man who shows considerable anger defending Christianity and then absolves Atala of her suicide. It is not a sin, because she did not know her suicide was a transgression. She is “ignorant.”

“[A]ll your misfortunes are the result of your ignorance. Your savage education and the want of instruction have been your ruin. You did not know that a Christian cannot dispose of his life.”

We then witness Atala’s agony, together with Chactas and le père Aubry. Atala dies but is buried discreetly at the “Groves of Death.” Later, Father Aubry dies when his mission is attacked by Cherokee Amerindians who torture him to death. He will be buried near Atala, and René will come to collect the bones of both Atala and Father Aubry.

Chateaubriand’s Savage: not so Noble

Note that le père Aubry is a white man and that “everything about him was calm and sublime.” Chactas was brought up by Lopez, a Spaniard and a Christian. Moreover, Lopez is Atala’s father. As for René, to whom Chactas told his story, he is a French émigré who moved to Louisiana in 1725. It would appear, therefore, that Atala’s savages are not altogether “savages.”

Atala was “proud” of her Spanish blood and “resembled a queen in the pride of her demeanor, disdained to speak to these warriors.” Until she met Chactas, she felt those “warriors” who surrounded her were not worthy of her. Je n’aperçus autour de moi que des hommes indignes de recevoir ma main; je m’applaudis de n’avoir d’autre époux que le Dieu de ma mère. (p. 53) (I saw myself surrounded by men unworthy of receiving my hand; I congratulated myself upon having no other spouse than the God of my mother.) Obviously, the natives Atala knows seem inferior to Europeans. Yet, the Natchez are René’s refuge. Could this be the case if Chateaubriand considered them irredeemably uncivilized?

Alfred de Musset

Atala is a bittersweet chapter in the tale of the “Noble Savage.” Chateaubriand’s savage is not a noble savage, at least not consistently. In particular, he is extremely cruel. Savages, Iroquois, allies of the British, tortured and burned alive Jesuit missionary Jean de Brébeuf and other missionaries, in 1625. But Chateaubriand is among émigrés who escaped the savage Reign of Terror: 1793. Robespierre and company were barbarians.

However, the setting confers a degree of exoticism to Atala and it allows Chateaubriand feats of style. The Amerindians bring food to our Europeans and Chactas is dressed in bark, etc. It’s called “couleur locale” and it is all the more colourful since Chateaubriand was not closely acquainted with Amerindians.

It is difficult not to agree with Alfred de Musset that  “[t]he entire malady of the present century stems from two causes: the nation that lived through 93 [la terreur or the reign of terror] and 1814 [Napoleon’s defeat: the Battle of Paris] had its heart wounded twice. All there was is no longer; all that will be has yet to come. Seek nowhere else the secret of our ills.” (See Musset’s Confession of a Child of the Century, Preface by Henri Bornier of the French Academy, Project Gutengerg [EBook #3942].

At any rate, as she is dying, Father Aubry tells Atala that life is a painful journey. “Remerciez donc la bonté divine, ma chère fille, qui vous retire si vite de cette vallée de misère.” (p. 52) “Thank, therefore, the Divine goodness, my dear daughter, for taking you away thus early from this valley of misery.”[iii]

Indeed, a “valley of misery” it is for René who lives in exile, as do all émigrés and will those Natchez, the Amerindians who had adopted René and have survived the destruction of their encampment, Father Aubry’s mission. They are leaving, carrying the bones of their ancestors. Leading the cortège are the warriors, and closing it, women carrying their newborn. In the middle are the older Natchez. There is nobility to these “savages.”

“O what tears are shed when we thus abandon our native land!—when, from the summit of the mountain of exile, we look for the last time upon the roof beneath which we were bred, and see the hut-stream still flowing sadly through the solitary fields surrounding our birth-place!”

Oh ! que de larmes sont répandues lorsqu’on abandonne la terre natale, lorsque du haut de la colline de l’exil on découvre pour la dernière fois le toit où l’on fut nourri et le fleuve de la cabane qui continue à couler tristement à travers les champs de la patrie.” (p. 73)

—ooo—

The final paragraph of Atala is very revealing, and on these words, I will end this post.

“Unfortunate Indians!—you whom I have seen wandering in the deserts of the New World with the ashes of your ancestors;—you who gave me hospitality in spite of your misery—I could not now return your generosity, for I am wandering, like you, at the mercy of men; but less fortunate than you in my exile, I have not brought with me the bones of my fathers.”

Indiens infortunés que j’ai vus errer dans les déserts du Nouveau-Monde avec les cendres de vos aïeux ! vous qui m’aviez donné l’hospitalité malgré votre misère ! je ne pourrais vous la rendre aujourd’hui, car j’erre, ainsi que vous, à la merci des hommes, et moins heureux dans mon exil, je n’ai point emporté les os de mes pères ! 

Anne-Louis%20Girodet-Trioson-497497

atalacloseupfigs

RELATED ARTICLES 

Sources and Resources

Chateaubriand
Atala FR is an online publication Wikimedia Commons FR
Atala EN is Project Gutenberg publication [EBook #44427] EN, illustrations by Gustave Doré
René EN & Complete Works
The Genius of Christianity EN 
Les Martyrs FR, illustrations by Jean Hillemacher 
Mémoires d’outre-tombe EN
Tome I is Project Gutenberg publication [EBook #18864] 
Tome II is Project Gutenberg publication [EBook #23654] 
See Internet Archives
 
Alfred de Musset
Confession of a Child of the Century EN is Project Gutenberg publication [EBook #3942]
 
____________________

[i] The term mal du siècle was coined by Alfred de Musset. Chateaubriand uses the words vague des passions. 

[ii] François-René de Chateaubriand, Atala, René, Le Dernier Abencérage, Les Natchez (Paris: Librairie Garnier Frères, n.d.), pp. 52-53. (a very old edition)

[iii] François de Malherbe (1555 – 16 October 1628), Consolation [Lament] à Monsieur du Périer sur la mort de sa fille. (See Consolation). Malherbe expressed a related thought in Consolation à Monsieur du Périer. This is an instance of intertextualité.

Herb Weidner (composer)
Mémoires à Atala  

self-portrait-1824(1)_jpg!Blog

— Anne-Louis Girodet de Roussy-Trioson, self-portrait (1824), drawing in pencil and Conté crayon, Musée des Beaux-Arts, Orléans, France (Photo credit: wikiart.org)

© Micheline Walker
24 April 2014
WordPress