The Congrégation de Notre-Dame, Superiors, and the Paradox of Power, 1693-1796 9780773574724

Citation preview

the congrégation de notre-dame, superiors, and the paradox of power, 1693–1796

m c gill-queen’s studies in the history of religion Volumes in this series have been supported by the Jackman Foundation of Toronto. series two In memory of George Rawlyk Donald Harman Akenson, Editor 1 Marguerite Bourgeoys and Montreal, 1640–1665 Patricia Simpson 2 Aspects of the Canadian Evangelical Experience Edited by G.A. Rawlyk 3 Infinity, Faith, and Time Christian Humanism and Renaissance Literature John Spencer Hill 4 The Contribution of Presbyterianism to the Maritime Provinces of Canada Edited by Charles H.H. Scobie and G.A. Rawlyk 5 Labour, Love, and Prayer Female Piety in Ulster Religious Literature, 1850–1914 Andrea Ebel Brozyna 6 The Waning of the Green Catholics, the Irish, and Identity in Toronto, 1887–1922 Mark G. McGowan 7 Religion and Nationality in Western Ukraine The Greek Catholic Church and the Ruthenian National Movement in Galicia, 1867–1900 John-Paul Himka

8 Good Citizens British Missionaries and Imperial States, 1870–1918 James G. Greenlee and Charles M. Johnston 9 The Theology of the Oral Torah Revealing the Justice of God Jacob Neusner 10 Gentle Eminence A Life of Cardinal Flahiff P. Wallace Platt 11 Culture, Religion, and Demographic Behaviour Catholics and Lutherans in Alsace, 1750–1870 Kevin McQuillan 12 Between Damnation and Starvation Priests and Merchants in Newfoundland Politics, 1745–1855 John P. Greene 13 Martin Luther, German Saviour German Evangelical Theological Factions and the Interpretation of Luther, 1917–1933 James M. Stayer

14 Modernity and the Dilemma of North American Anglican Identities, 1880–1950 William H. Katerberg

22 The Founding Moment Church, Society, and the Construction of Trinity College William Westfall

15 The Methodist Church on the Prairies, 1896–1914 George Emery

23 The Holocaust, Israel, and Canadian Protestant Churches Haim Genizi

16 Christian Attitudes towards the State of Israel Paul Charles Merkley 17 A Social History of the Cloister Daily Life in the Teaching Monasteries of the Old Regime Elizabeth Rapley

24 Governing Charities Church and State in Toronto’s Catholic Archdiocese, 1850–1950 Paula Maurutto 25 Anglicans and the Atlantic World High Churchmen, Evangelicals, and the Quebec Connection Richard W. Vaudry

18 Households of Faith Family, Gender, and Community in 26 Evangelicals and the Continental Canada, 1760–1969 Divide Edited by Nancy Christie The Conservative Protestant Subculture in Canada and the 19 Blood Ground United States Colonialism, Missions, and the Sam Reimer Contest for Christianity in the Cape Colony and Britain, 1799–1853 Elizabeth Elbourne 20 A History of Canadian Catholics Gallicanism, Romanism, and Canadianism Terence J. Fay 21 The View from Rome Archbishop Stagni’s 1915 Reports on the Ontario Bilingual Schools Question Edited and translated by John Zucchi

27 Christians in a Secular World The Canadian Experience Kurt Bowen 28 Anatomy of a Seance A History of Spirit Communication in Central Canada Stan McMullin 29 With Skilful Hand The Story of King David David T. Barnard 30 Faithful Intellect Samuel S. Nelles and Victoria University Neil Semple

31 W. Stanford Reid An Evangelical Calvinist in the Academy Donald MacLeod

39 Religion, Family, and Community in Victorian Canada The Colbys of Carrollcroft Marguerite Van Die

32 A Long Eclipse The Liberal Protestant Establishment and the Canadian University, 1920–1970 Catherine Gidney

40 Michael Power The Struggle to Build the Catholic Church on the Canadian Frontier Mark G. McGowan

33 Forkhill Protestants and Forkhill Catholics, 1787–1858 Kyla Madden

41 The Catholic Origins of Quebec’s Quiet Revolution, 1931–1970 Michael Gauvreau 42 Marguerite Bourgeoys and the Congregation of Notre Dame, 1665–1700 Patricia Simpson

34 For Canada’s Sake Public Religion, Centennial Celebrations, and the Re-making of 43 To Heal a Fractured World Canada in the 1960s The Ethics of Responsibility Gary R. Miedema Jonathan Sacks 35 Revival in the City 44 Revivalists The Impact of American Marketing the Gospel in English Evangelists in Canada, 1884–1914 Canada, 1884–1957 Eric R. Crouse Kevin Kee 36 The Lord for the Body Religion, Medicine, and Protestant Faith Healing in Canada, 1880–1930 James Opp

45 The Churches and Social Order in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Canada Edited by Michael Gauvreau and Ollivier Hubert

37 Six Hundred Years of Reform Bishops and the French Church, 1190–1789 J. Michael Hayden and Malcolm R. Greenshields

46 Political Ecumenism Catholics, Jews, and Protestants in De Gaulle’s Free France, 1940–1945 Geoffrey Adams

38 The Missionary Oblate Sisters Vision and Mission Rosa Bruno-Jofré

47 From Quaker to Upper Canadian Faith and Community Among Yonge Street Friends, 1801–1850 Robynne Rogers Healey

48 The Congrégation de Notre-Dame, Superiors, and the Paradox of Power, 1693–1796 Colleen Gray series one:

G.A. Rawlyk, Editor

1 Small Differences Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants, 1815–1922 An International Perspective Donald Harman Akenson

7

A World Mission Canadian Protestantism and the Quest for a New International Order, 1918–1939 Robert Wright

8

Serving the Present Age Revivalism, Progressivism, and the Methodist Tradition in Canada Phyllis D. Airhart

9

A Sensitive Independence Canadian Methodist Women Missionaries in Canada and the Orient, 1881–1925 Rosemary R. Gagan

2 Two Worlds The Protestant Culture of Nineteenth-Century Ontario William Westfall 3 An Evangelical Mind Nathanael Burwash and the Methodist Tradition in Canada, 1839–1918 Marguerite Van Die 4 The Dévotes Women and Church in Seventeenth-Century France Elizabeth Rapley 5 The Evangelical Century College and Creed in English Canada from the Great Revival to the Great Depression Michael Gauvreau 6 The German Peasants’ War and Anabaptist Community of Goods James M. Stayer

10 God’s Peoples Covenant and Land in South Africa, Israel, and Ulster Donald Harman Akenson 11 Creed and Culture The Place of English-Speaking Catholics in Canadian Society, 1750–1930 Edited by Terrence Murphy and Gerald Stortz 12 Piety and Nationalism Lay Voluntary Associations and the Creation of an Irish-Catholic Community in Toronto, 1850–1895 Brian P. Clarke

13 Amazing Grace Studies in Evangelicalism in Australia, Britain, Canada, and the United States Edited by George Rawlyk and Mark A. Noll 14 Children of Peace W. John McIntyre 15 A Solitary Pillar Montreal’s Anglican Church and the Quiet Revolution Joan Marshall 16 Padres in No Man’s Land Canadian Chaplains and the Great War Duff Crerar 17 Christian Ethics and Political Economy in North America A Critical Analysis of U.S. and Canadian Approaches P. Travis Kroeker 18 Pilgrims in Lotus Land Conservative Protestantism in British Columbia, 1917–1981 Robert K. Burkinshaw

20 Church, College, and Clergy A History of Theological Education at Knox College, Toronto, 1844–1994 Brian J. Fraser 21 The Lord’s Dominion The History of Canadian Methodism Neil Semple 22 A Full-Orbed Christianity The Protestant Churches and Social Welfare in Canada, 1900–1940 Nancy Christie and Michael Gauvreau 23 Evangelism and Apostasy The Evolution and Impact of Evangelicals in Modern Mexico Kurt Bowen 24 The Chignecto Covenanters A Regional History of Reformed Presbyterianism in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, 1827–1905 Eldon Hay 25 Methodists and Women’s Education in Ontario, 1836–1925 Johanne Selles

19 Through Sunshine and Shadow The Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, Evangelicalism, 26 Puritanism and Historical and Reform in Ontario, 1874–1930 Controversy Sharon Cook William Lamont

The Congrégation de Notre-Dame, Superiors, and the Paradox of Power, 1693–1796 colleen gray

McGill-Queen’s University Press Montreal & Kingston London Ithaca G

G

© McGill-Queen’s University Press 2007 isbn 978-0-7735-3227-4 (cloth) isbn 978-0-7735-3284-7 (paper) Legal deposit third quarter 2007 Bibliothèque nationale du Québec Printed in Canada on acid-free paper that is 100% ancient forest free (100% post-concumer recycled), processed chlorine free. McGill-Queen’s University Press acknowledges the support of the Canada Council for the Arts for our publishing program. We also acknowledge the financial support of the Government of Canada through the Book Publishing Industry Development Program (bpidp) for our publishing activities. Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Gray, Colleen The Congrégation de Notre-Dame, superiors, and the paradox of power, 1693-1796 / Colleen Gray. (McGill-Queen’s studies in the history of religion. Series two ; 48) Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn 978-0-7735-3227-4 (bnd) isbn 978-0-7735-3284-7 (pbk) 1. Congregation of Notre-Dame – History – 18th century. 2. Superiors, Religious – Québec (Province) – Montréal – History – 18th century. 3. Monastic and religious life of women – Québec (Province) – Montréal – History – 18th century. 4. Power (Social sciences). 5. Montréal (Québec) – Religion – 18th century. i. Title. ii. Series. bx4331.2.z45g73 2007

271’.97

c2007-900854-2

Typeset by Jay Tee Graphics Ltd. in 10/13 Sabon

To my grandmothers, Rosalia Nieckarz Yashzyn and Ethyl Goatley Gray, who bequeathed to me the legacy of their two solitudes

This page intentionally left blank

Contents

Tables and Maps xiii Acknowledgments xv Introduction 3 part one

the institution

1 The Private World 17 2 The Spiritual Mission in the Public World 29 3 The Economic Mission in the Public World 46 part two

the superiors

4 Becoming a Superior 69 5“La pesante charge” 85 6 As a Bird Flies 127 Conclusion 140 appendices A Congrégation de Notre-Dame Professed Nuns, 1693–1796 145 B Congrégation de Notre-Dame Superiors, 1693–1796 173 Notes 177 Bibliography Index 241

223

This page intentionally left blank

ps

Tables and Maps

tables 3.1 The administrative structure of the Congrégation de Notre-Dame, 1698–1864 60 4.1 Congrégation de Notre-Dame sisters, 1790: birthplace 73 4.2 Congrégation de Notre-Dame sisters, 1790: occupation/status of fathers 74 4.3 Congrégation de Notre-Dame sisters before 1766: birthplace 75 4.4 Congrégation de Notre-Dame sisters before 1766: social group 75 4.5 Congrégation de Notre-Dame superiors, 1693–1796: birthplace 76 4.6 Congrégation de Notre-Dame superiors, 1693–1796: occupation/status of fathers 76 4.7 Congrégation de Notre-Dame superiors, 1693–1796: average age at entry 79 4.8 Congrégation de Notre-Dame sisters and superiors, 1693–1796: average age at death 84 4.9 Other female religious institutions: average age at death, 1693–1764 84 5.1 Congrégation de Notre-Dame: social groups, 1766 109 5.2 Congrégation de Notre-Dame: 1766–72: entrants 110 5.3 Marie Raizenne: kin in the Congrégation de Notre-Dame, 1766–72 111

xiv

Tables and Maps

maps 1 2 3 4 5

Congrégation de Notre-Dame permanent missions, 1693 10 Congrégation de Notre-Dame permanent missions, 1715 10 Congrégation de Notre-Dame permanent missions, 1759 11 Congrégation de Notre-Dame permanent missions, 1796 11 Congrégation de Notre-Dame major property acquisitions, Montreal and environs, 1663–1769 47 6 Sulpician-assisted missions of the Congrégation de Notre-Dame 62 7 Congrégation de Notre-Dame missions, 1766 89

ents

Acknowledgments

I am above all indebted to the late Louise Dechêne for her laughter, her anger, her friendship, her intellectual generosity, and the sterling example of her intellectual rigour. Professors Catherine Desbarats and Dominique Deslandres supported and enriched this study in ways too numerous to mention here, and to them I am truly grateful. Other individuals at McGill University deserve recognition. Professor Faith Wallis provided me with a lively and most memorable introduction to saints, while Georgii Mikula, Colleen Parish, and Mary McDaid were always there at one point or another to assist me, not only with their mind-boggling administrative expertise, but also with support and encouragement. The sisters at the archives of the Congrégation de Notre-Dame, in particular, Soeurs Florence Bertrand and Raymonde Sylvain, welcomed me into their institution, as did Père Noye at the Sulpician archives in Paris. The librarian, Carol Gendren, at the Westmount library, was always ready to offer her assistance above and beyond the call of duty. An fcar grant facilitated the initial stages of my thesis. And finally, Colleen Robson came to the rescue during the final moments of this project, offering her brilliant, good-humoured, and generous technical expertise, transforming otherwise onerous tasks into a true adventure. Many individuals at McGill-Queen’s University Press deserve special acknowledgment. Elizabeth Hulse’s meticulous attention to editorial detail improved many facets of the manuscript. Joan McGilvray was always cheerful and patient. John Zucchi’s encouragement and his uncanny ability to simplify what might appear to others as overwhelmingly complex proved invaluable during many of the different stages of this book. And finally, without the perceptive and generous editorial

xvi

Acknowledgments

advice and coaxing of my editor, Donald Harman Akenson, this final version of my study would not exist. Philip, as my husband, has vicariously experienced my writer’s trauma for many years, and he has held up remarkably well, offering crucial emotional support. His editorial acuity never ceases to amaze and humble me. My two children, Daniel and Jonathan, have grown up into men over the lengthy expanse of this study, and their recognition of my accomplishment in completing it is, in itself, its own reward. I am deeply grateful to Dr Sharon Hackett, who by so generously lending me the keys to her apartment, enabled me to complete numerous chapters of this study in silence and solitude. Gretchen Brabander’s graceful intuition was always there. And finally, I cannot miss this opportunity to thank Charlie, who one day, quite suddenly, just appeared. But how can anyone begin to fathom, never mind name and thank, all of the people involved in the multitude of intricate webs and networks of relationships, both seen and unseen, that one experiences over a lifetime? Every single person who has touched my life in a positive way over the course of my entire life has, to one degree or another, advanced this book, and to all of them I remain truly grateful.

1 The stable school of the Congrégation de Notre Dame, 1658 (Archives de la Congrégation de Notre-Dame [acnd], Album photographique, drawing by Soeur Marie-Elmina [Lachance], n.d.)

2 The second “maison mère,” 1684–1768 (acnd, Album photographique, drawing by Soeur Saint-René [Lachance], n.d.)

3 The Congrégation de Notre-Dame convent, 1684–1768 (acnd, Peintures, watercolour by Soeur Saint-Michel [Henriette Dufresne], nineteenth century)

4 The Congrégation de Notre-Dame convent from rue Saint-Jean-Baptiste, 1684–1768 (acnd, Album photographique, drawing by J.B. Lagacé, 1929)

5 Entrance to the “maison mère,” rue Notre-Dame, 1836 (Bibliothèque et archives nationales du Québec [banq], 2734265, Collection numérique, Albums des rues, E.-Z. Massicotte)

6 Corner of rue Notre-Dame and boulevard Saint-Laurent, 1963 (from R.D. Wilson and Eric McLean, The Living Past of Montreal/Le passé vivant [Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1976], plate 28)

7 Portrait of Marguerite Bourgeoys by Pierre Le Ber (Musée Marguerite-Bourgeoys)

8 Congrégation de Notre-Dame convent plans, 1768–1844 (acnd, 910.230.027)

9 Notre-Dame de la Victoire (drawing by George Delfosse in W.H. Atherton, Le vieux Montréal [Montreal, 1932]; courtesy Rare Books and Special Collections Division, McGill University Libraries)

10 Arched carriageway of the McTavish House, formerly opposite the Congrégation de Notre-Dame convent, rue Saint Jean-Baptiste (from R.D. Wilson and Eric McLean, The Living Past of Montreal/Le passé vivant [Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1976], plate 26)

11 Congrégation de Notre-Dame chapel, Sacré-Coeur de Jésus (acnd, 910.230.027, Soeur Sainte-Justine, “Mémoires,” 1: 8)

12 Jeanne Le Ber (drawing by Soeur Jacqueline Poirier, r.m.; courtesy Les Recluses Missionnaires, Montreal)

13 Notre-Dame de Bonsecours chapel (acnd, 220.110.054, drawing by Manuel du Pellerin, 1848)

14 Congrégation de Notre-Dame nunnery on Île Saint-Paul (banq, 2734450, Collection numérique, Albums des rues, E.-Z. Massicotte)

15 Maison Saint-Gabriel, Pointe-Saint-Charles (drawing by George Delfosse in W.H. Atherton, Le vieux Montréal [Montreal, 1932]; courtesy Rare Books and Special Collections Division, McGill University Libraries)

16 Étienne Montgolfier, ca. 1770 (banq, p560, s2, d1, p911; photo by J.E. Livernois, Quebec)

17 House of the Raizenne family, Lac-des-Deux-Montagnes (from Soeur Saint-Jean l’Évangeliste, Notes généalogiques sur la famille Raizenne [Ottawa: Beauregard, 1917], frontispiece)

18 Bishop Jean-Olivier Briand, ca.1790 (banq, p560, ss, d1, p756; photo by J.E. Livernois, Quebec)

19 Letter from Marie-Josèphe Maugue-Garreau to Bishop Briand, 1766 (aam, 525.101, 766-6)

20 Bishop Jean-François Hubert (banq, e6, s8, p10836-l-5, Inventaire des oeuvres d’art, n.d.)

21 Letter from Marie Raizenne to Bishop Hubert, 1792 (aam, 525.101, 792-5)

22 Extract from the account book of the Congrégation de Notre-Dame, September–December 1766, showing the signature of Superior Marie-Josèphe Maugue-Garreau and those of her administrative council (acnd, 3a/02, Registre des dépenses et recettes générales, 1753–93)

23 Extract from the account book of the Congrégation de Notre-Dame, June 1767, showing the signature of Sulpician superior Étienne Montgolfier (acnd, 3a/02, Registre des dépenses et recettes générales, 1753–93)

24 Congrégation de Notre-Dame convent plans, 1768–1844, no. 7, site of the chambre mortuaire (acnd, 200.100.056, Soeur Sainte-Justine, “Quelques notes sur la maison mère depuis 1825,” 31, plate 4)

the congrégation de notre-dame, superiors, and the paradox of power

This page intentionally left blank

de Notre-Dame, Superiors, and the Paradox of Power

Introduction

R.D. Wilson’s 1963 sketch of the southwest corner of the intersection of boulevard Saint-Laurent and rue Notre-Dame in Montreal starkly and skilfully captures a fragment of the brutally altered site where once stood various convents of the Congrégation de Notre-Dame over the course of the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries (see figs. 1–6).1 In his drawing a dilapidated, narrow building, said to have once been used by the sisters of the congregation as a school attached to the old convent, is almost unrecognizable. Its walls are scarred by signs – arrows point to the car park; bold lettering stipulates hourly rates and advertisements for 7-Up; and above, over the width of the entire building, looms an advertisement promoting “le gaz naturel.” The former school building has become a restaurant, and a large neon sign juts out onto rue Notre-Dame announcing its presence. To the south of the old school and adjacent to it stands the public parking lot. In the distance, the bell towers of Notre-Dame Basilica bleakly remind us of what used to be. The moment captured by Wilson’s sketch has altered slightly over the past forty or so years. As a result of more enlightened thinking, the brutal invasion by the commercial world of this site has been somewhat mitigated. A modern office building has replaced the parking lot adjacent to the former convent school, and the two structures are joined by a passageway. The “gaz naturel” advertisement has been removed to expose the building’s original field-stone wall. A deli has replaced the former restaurant, and its wooden sign, embossed in gold, is more tasteful and in keeping with the quaint and renewed historical character of rue Notre-Dame, and the quarter itself.

4

Congrégation de Notre-Dame, Superiors, and the Paradox of Power

Yet the renaissance of rue Notre-Dame and, in fact, Old Montreal can never retrieve what was. Fires, machinery, progress, the march and vagaries of history have all but obliterated the institution’s historic presence. To be sure, a few plaques commemorate its former existence. A concrete panel on the wall of Bonaldo, a furniture store on the southeast corner of boulevard Saint-Laurent and rue Royer, celebrates the first stable school established by Marguerite Bourgeoys in 1658 (fig. 1). Bourgeoys is pictured here as young woman, her head discretely covered, embracing two children. Directly opposite, on the northeast corner of rue Royer and boulevard Saint-Laurent, another plaque commemorates the site of the now demolished nineteenth-century chapel, Notre Dame de la Piétié, as well as the community’s more ancient chapel, Sacré Coeur de Jésus, where the institution’s and New France’s famous recluse, Jeanne Le Ber, entered her perpetual reclusion in 1695 and remained until her death in 1714. Testimonials these are to the institution’s historic presence in the city. But they are scant, confusing ones at best, representative of the chaotic resonance that is Old Montreal – fragments of a barely perceptible past overlain by commerce, progress, and the din of modernity. Arresting they may be; but they are meagre compensation for the utter obliteration of vanished structures that once must have majestically dominated the neighbourhood (see figs. 1–5). The writing of this history, then, is in part an attempt to come to terms with the awful finality of an almost vanished visible past and to come to grips with the power emanating from it. It is unmistakably magnetic, this power, able to evoke at once both fascination and mourning.2 And yet it is also a paradox because the past from which this power emanates no longer exists. In this sense, this history, this attempt to breathe life into this past, is also a paradox. The writing of this history, however, has more precise meanings and intentions. To begin, it is profoundly centred within the larger framework of many studies surrounding not only the Congrégation de NotreDame but also certain individuals within it. Early in the history of the institution, predominantly hagiographical works venerated both Marguerite Bourgeoys3 and Soeur Marie Barbier,4 mystic and Bourgeoys’s immediate successor as the congregation’s superior in 1693, as well as the famous recluse Jeanne Le Ber.5 More recent scholarship has turned to examine other facets of the community’s founder: Lorraine Caza’s La vie voyagère conversante avec le prochain placed Bourgeoys’s theology within its Catholic Reformation context and underlined the impor-

Introduction

5

tance of such figures as Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet, Saint François de Sales, and Jean-Jacques Olier to her thought.6 More recently, Patricia Simpson’s two-volume study of Marguerite Bourgeoys has emphasized the strict spiritual devotion of this woman and her followers.7 Other scholars have set out in different directions. With the advent of the “new history,” scholars turned away from an examination of elites and histoire événementielle to focus upon popular culture and ordinary, hitherto excluded individuals,8 such as women. The field of women’s studies burgeoned, and researchers began to examine religious women.9 Concomitantly, certain Canadian scholars explored specific facets of the congregation – alone, within wider contexts, or within the comparative framework of other Canadian religious institutions.10 In 1984, for example, A.J.B. Johnston in his Religion in Life at Louisbourg included the congregation in his wider study of religion in eighteenth-century Louisbourg. Two years later Emilia Chicoine’s work La métairie de Marguerite Bourgeoys à la Pointe Saint-Charles outlined the foundations and growth of the community’s farm property and mission at Maison Saint-Gabriel in Montreal. Also in 1986 Micheline d’Allaire’s socio-economic study of dowries, Les dots des religieuses au Canada français, 1639–1800, considered the congregation together with the Ursulines, the Hôtel-Dieu of Quebec and Montreal, and the Hôpital Général of Quebec. And in 1993 the congregation appeared in Louis Pelletier’s wider demographic inquiry into the religious orders of New France.11 Other historians have included the congregation in the broader debate surrounding the position and power of women of the past.12 Marta Danylewycz’s Taking the Veil (1987) examined the congregation and the Soeurs de Miséricorde within the context of the unprecedented growth of entrants into female religious orders in nineteenth-century Quebec. Her view of the vocation of a nun as a “profession” was echoed in Elizabeth Rapley’s work The Dévotes (1990). This study included the congregation in a larger exploration of the proliferation of dévotes and filles séculières within the seventeenth-century French Catholic reform movement. In 1992 Leslie Choquette, in “Ces amazones de grand Dieu,” conveyed an idealized portrait of the congregation sisters together with the Chanoinesses Hospitalières de Saint-Augustin, the Ursulines, and the Hospitalières de Saint-Joseph, as well as lay “devout” women in late seventeenth-century Canada, as powerful women who enjoyed greater freedom in the more “liberated” atmosphere of the New World than did their European counterparts. Mary Ann Foley’s 1991 thesis, however,

6

Congrégation de Notre-Dame, Superiors, and the Paradox of Power

somewhat modified this perspective. By focusing upon the 1698 constitutional foundations of the institution, she demonstrated the constraints imposed upon the congregation sisters by the bishop of Quebec, whose proposed constitution altered the way of life they had established during the first forty years of their existence in Canada.13 Given that much of this scholarship has focused mainly on the seventeenth- and nineteenth-century contexts of the Congrégation de NotreDame,14 this study intends to confront and fill in the eighteenth-century lacuna (1693–1796), with, because of the nature of the sources, a specific focus upon supervisors of the institution. In particular, its attempt to reconstruct the vanished past is also an effort to capture the essential spiritual mission not only of the congregation, but also of Canadian colonial religious men and women. Many studies have concentrated primarily upon the functional or socio-economic aspects of Canadian religious institutions,15 often neglecting to draw upon the rich religious heritage of Quebec or take advantage of advances made by historians who, under the influence of anthropologists, began to examine Christianity from an anthropological point of view.16 My intention has been to build upon the foundations of those scholars who have focused on spirituality in the colony and to ensure that the spirituality of the congregation became an integral feature of a much broader work. 17 Most importantly, however, this history, dealing as it does with women and religion, also seeks to examine the more concrete dimensions of power, for one cannot study women in history without exploring power and its pervasive influence upon them.18 As stated above numerous studies have examined Canadian colonial religious women, and many of them have concluded that they were, indeed, powerful.19 This work, in part, confirms the perspective of much of this research. Unquestionably, the Congrégation de Notre-Dame and the women attached to it were powerful. When Marguerite Bourgeoys (fig. 7), the institution’s founder, emigrated to Montreal in 1653 to convert the infidel, Catholic Europe had been in the throes of a spiritual revival for more than a century, and her endeavour was fortified by and deeply immersed in this movement. The Catholic Reformation was not only a reaction to the challenges posed by Luther and his Protestant doctrines; it also stemmed from an impulse deeply rooted in the humanistic reforming tradition of the church, particularly the Christian humanism of the late fifteenth century.20 Reform expressed itself on two levels: within the changes instituted by the Council of Trent (1545–49, 1562–63), the heir to a conciliar

Introduction

7

tradition originating in the second century whereby synods or councils had congregated periodically to define church discipline and doctrine, and a deep-seated spiritual revival in the secular and religious world of the day.21 One of its key features was the restoration of the papacy, but its influence reverberated far beyond this issue and pervaded the very foundations of the church that the papacy ruled. In the end, it equipped the church with a solid body of defined doctrine and a code of reform that provided the essential inspiration for Catholic renewal.22 This reform spread into every sphere of human activity, and in certain respects, it altered the face of the European medieval world. Art, always a tool for teaching as well as an outlet for the passionate expression of religious feelings, became more austere.23 Gothic arches, so characteristic of many medieval churches, which had led so many individual souls to transcendence, were retained, but a more sombre atmosphere pervaded places of worship. They became more of this world than of the next: the pulpit occupied a central position; the sanctuary became more visible; and the stained glass windows were not as didactic but more transparent, severe, and practical, a vehicle to permit the entrance of light by which an individual could read.24 The Virgin, once a flamboyantly beautiful noble, a crowned and sceptred queen with flowing garments, holding the Infant Jesus in her arms, was transformed into a mature woman, fully clothed from head to toe in sombre black – the Mother of Sorrows.25 Images of martyrs and suffering covered the walls of these churches, representations of death and visions and ecstasies of the mystics.26 Spiritual life among the regular clergy deepened and turned to focus upon reform. Rooted in medieval Christian humanism, particularly the devotio moderna and the principles laid down by the Council of Trent, the reform celebrated the prospect of man and the fruitfulness of his actions, and it began with the perfection of the self through pious exercises, prayer, exhortation, frequent confessions, communion, and charity.27 Reform at first spread throughout the religious orders – the Dominicans, the Franciscans, and the Theatines – and in the wake of this impulse, new religious orders such as the Jesuits and the Oratorians were established,28 individuals dedicated to work in this world29 whose prime task was the apostolate.30 Mystics, such as Saint Ignatius of Loyola, Saint Teresa of Ávila, and Saint John of the Cross, left writings behind which, with the advent of the printing press and the concomitant increase in literacy, encouraged a greater number of individuals to focus upon the interior life, and the strengthening of the spirit.31

8

Congrégation de Notre-Dame, Superiors, and the Paradox of Power

In France, Catholic reform followed a similar pattern. In the first half of the fifteenth century, even before the promulgation of the decrees of Trent, historians have documented a proliferation in religiosity, manifesting itself in, for example, church construction, synodal statutes calling for reform, and an increase in devotional literature.32 Moreover, although the French state did not formally adopt the decrees of the Council of Trent until 1615, research reveals that the bishops openly supported its decrees throughout the latter part of the sixteenth century.33 The work of the Jesuits, who were granted official entry into France in 1561,34 was most influential: they established schools for the education of the clergy and the young, initially in Paris and then throughout the provinces, and fortified their example with works of charity among the destitute, the sick, and prisoners. After 1600 the Jesuits opened up colleges, reformed older orders, and encouraged the foundation of new ones. However, by the seventeenth century other individuals were clearly engaged in the work of reform. Men such as Pierre de Bérulle, who founded the French Oratory, the mainspring of Catholic reform in France, aimed to restore dignity to the priesthood. But his work had far more far-reaching influence. Other individuals, also known as dévots – Jean Eudes, Jean-Jacques Olier, Saint Vincent de Paul, and Saint François de Sales – followed in Bérulle’s footsteps and became reformers in their own right. Missions and schools spread throughout the French countryside, designed to reform the education of the clergy, to remedy social ills, or to catechize the populace. This endeavour involved individuals such as Michel le Nobletz, Saint Peter Fourier, Anthony Yvan, John Le Jeune, and Saint Francis Regis.35 Needless to say, women were not left untouched by the energy unleashed by this movement. In France they offered themselves to the cause of Catholic reform in unprecedented numbers, setting out to catechize the faithful and to do good works. Initially, at the beginning of the seventeenth century, many of them, either as individuals or in groups, lived outside the “traditional” cloistered religious communities. These women – filles seculières, as they were called – over the course of the century became the first active uncloistered congregations living in an intermediate state, part religious and part secular. This was an arrangement that enabled them to work outside the cloister and yet adhere to the religious life. By the end of the seventeenth century, the new secular orders included, among others, the Filles de la Charité, the Filles de Sainte-Geneviève, the Filles de la Providence, the Dames de

Introduction

9

Saint-Maur, the Soeurs du Saint-Enfant Jésus of Reims, and, notably, the Congrégation de Notre-Dame.36 Marguerite Bourgeoys’s journey to Montreal, then, must be viewed within this context. Not an isolated act of this one particular individual, it was an integral part of a broad movement of individuals and nations who, for commercial or religious purposes, for fish or furs, or to convert the infidel, set out for the New World.37 With respect to Montreal, the Société de Notre-Dame had established itself in 1639; three years later Jeanne Mance, a French dévote, had founded the HôtelDieu;38 in 1658 Bourgeoys instituted the first Montreal school for girls in a stable.39 By 1693, the year this book begins, various other religious institutions had established themselves at Montreal and, along with the Congrégation de Notre-Dame, were engaged in teaching, evangelical work, or tending to the ill; these included the Sulpicians in 1657, the Récollets and the Jesuits in 1692, and finally the Hôpital Général, founded by François Charon de La Barre. The last institute would become, in 1747 under the direction of Mère Marguerite d’Youville, the Hôpital Général de la Pauvreté, the third Montreal female religious order in Montreal, otherwise known as the Grey Nuns.40 Shortly after Bourgeoys’s arrival in Montreal, and in the wake of a more established settlement, her original mission, which had focused upon the Natives, transmuted into the task primarily of educating the daughters of the colony’s habitants. From a stable school, her enterprise rapidly expanded over the course of the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. By 1693 Bourgeoys had established a school and a pensionnat, a boarding school, as well as a workshop for poor girls at Pointe-Saint-Charles. In addition to the ambulatory missions scattered throughout the colony’s outlying parishes, permanent missions had sprung up at such locations as the Mountain and Pointe-aux-Trembles on the island of Montreal and Lower Town, Château-Richer, and Sainte-Famille at Quebec (see map 1). By 1715 the main outlines of the institution were consolidated (see maps 2 and 3), which war, the Conquest, the entire destruction of the convent by fire in 1768, and, beginning in the middle of the eighteenth century, the decided diminution in the number of the sisters in the convent, as well as a marked increase in their ages,41 could not fundamentally alter (see map 4). This study explores and affirms the undeniable power of the institution and the women within it. But it also penetrates and analyzes the muted, less clearly defined dimensions of power – the paradoxes, the

10

Congrégation de Notre-Dame, Superiors, and the Paradox of Power

Map 1 Congrégation de Notre-Dame permanent missions, 1693 (Not including ambulatory missions but only those with permanent and legal status at the designated time). sources: 1: Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 1: 55–6, gr. Basset, Donation, 22 Jan. 1658; 2: ibid., 1: 327; 3: ibid., 1: 265; 4: ibid., 1: 302; 5: ibid., 1: 275; 6: ibid. 1: 304; 7: ibid., 1: 295, anqm, gr. Chambalon, Donation, 5 Sept. 1692.

Map 2 Congrégation de Notre-Dame permanent missions, 1715 sources: 1: Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 1: 55–6, gr. Basset, Donation, 22 Jan. 1658; 2: ibid., 1: 327; 3: ibid., 1: 300; 4: ibid., 1: 2.

Map 3 Congrégation de Notre-Dame permanent missions, 1759 sources: 1: Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 1: 55–6, gr. Basset, Donation, 22 Jan. 1658; 2: ibid., 1: 327; 3: ibid., 1: 302; 4: ibid.,1:2.

Map 4 Congrégation de Notre-Dame permanent missions, 1796 sources: 1: Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 1: 55–6, gr. Basset, Donation, 22 Jan. 1658; 2: ibid., 1: 327; 3: ibid., 1: 275; 4: ibid. 1: 304; 5: ibid., 1: 295, anqm, gr. Chambalon, Donation, 5 Sept. 1692; 6: anqm, gr. Tailhandier, Concession d’un emplacement, 7 Mar. 1705; 7: Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 3: 56; 8: Ibid., 3: 232, anqm, Dubreuil. Donation, 5 Oct. 1713; 9: Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 3: 311; 10: Ibid., 4: 35; 11: Ibid., 5: 39, anqm, gr. Lévesque, 13 May 1764; 12: Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 5:368; 13: ibid., 5: 415.

12

Congrégation de Notre-Dame, Superiors, and the Paradox of Power

complexities, and the limitations inherent within it. What was the nature of this power? From where did it arise? How was it maintained, negotiated, and mediated? How was it viewed? How can we understand the power of these women and, in some cases, their lack of it? My analysis is indebted to the Congrégation de Notre-Dame and the careful maintenance of their archives. In spite of numerous fires that ravaged the convent throughout the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries, the existing documents that were salvaged have been meticulously preserved. Such sources as account books and contracts have survived, and while not permitting an extensive economic analysis of the institution, when bolstered by other rich documents, they permitted a demonstration of the administrative and political nature of the position of a superior and ultimately the type of power that she wielded.42 Other sources provided a window onto the social composition of these women and thereby allowed insights into the distribution of power in the institution.43 And written documents, ordinarily pitifully absent for colonial women and although sparse in the congregation archives, do exist, and in such a condition as to enable me to hear the voices of these women and to place their spirituality within a wider interpretive framework.44 Throughout this study, I have, for the most part, retained the spellings of names as they appear in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography. Otherwise, names of individuals are used as they were recorded in the institution’s registre, inconsistent and at times contradictory as they may be. But the inconsistent spellings also speak volumes about the historical context of these women. The various ways their names and those of their family members were spelled was how these individuals were known at the time they entered the institution. The spellings also recognize not only eighteenth-century practice but also values and particularly the fact that individuals had not yet been standardized by what would become in the nineteenth century an ever-encroaching bureaucratic state. The book is divided into two parts. Part one explores the institution. It examines the foundations of its power within the convent itself and the implications of its links to and relationship with the world surrounding it – with government, society, and the church hierarchy. Part two is organized along thematic lines, and the three superiors it examines – Marie Raizenne (1735–1811), Marie-Josèphe Maugue-Garreau (1720–85), and Marie Barbier (1663–1739) – each exemplify the social, administrative, political, and spiritual dimensions of a superior’s

Introduction

13

power in the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century colony. While this section is primarily an investigation of the specified dimensions of the power of these women as superiors, it also intends to be a tribute to the much debated and by now beleaguered historical individual,45 the genesis of this historical endeavour.46

This page intentionally left blank

part one The Institution

This page intentionally left blank

orld

chapter one

The Private World

Architectural plans1 of the Congrégation de Notre-Dame depict the institute as a private entity, secluded from the outside world (see fig. 8). Enclosed behind walls surrounding its entire property, the convent itself lay deeply recessed within this terrain, protected from the busy streets of Notre-Dame and Saint-Paul by a recreational area for its boarders to the north and the convent’s private gardens to the south. Sheltered by the property of the Hôtel-Dieu to its west, only the convent’s lavatories, the storeroom for its laundry, the bedchambers for some elderly nuns unable to access the chapel from the sleeping quarters on the second floor, and most appropriately, the office of the procure, a room reserved for settling worldly matters, overlooked rue Saint-Jean-Baptiste, which aligned its eastern edge. But the heart and soul of the communal life of the convent – its chapel, the dining area, and the communauté – lay deeply protected within its walls. A nineteenth-century painting of the convent in the previous century appears to confirm this impression of privacy and isolation (see fig. 3).2 Fashioned by a congregation nun, Soeur Saint-Michel (née Henriette Dufresne), it depicts a pastoral scene in spite of the institution’s essentially urban location. In this painting, distant black-garbed nuns supervising students are set in the foreground of a lush courtyard, replete with trees and bushes in full bloom. Both representations – the plan and the painting, inspired by reminiscences of individual nuns from a later period – conjure up a vision of the convent as an isolated entity. This chapter explores this “private” world of the convent, focusing upon the roots, the extent, and the implications of this ostensible “isolation.”

18

The Institution

into the cloister Certain historians have considered the first forty years of the institute of the Congrégation de Notre-Dame – from Marguerite Bourgeoys’s arrival in 1653 to its acceptance from Bishop Saint-Vallier of a formal constitution in 1698 – as an idyllic time in its history. During this period, the sisters experienced relative freedom from many of the restraints imposed upon strictly cloistered orders. These early congregation sisters viewed themselves as religious women who did not pronounce solemn vows. They took their rule from the Virgin Mary, who they believed was their heavenly protector and founder. And although, like cloistered nuns, they shared their lives with one another, the sisters remained deeply engaged in parish life. They were, in Bourgeoy’s own words, “women of the parish.”3 Bishop Saint-Vallier abruptly disturbed this situation when, in 1694, he presented the sisters with a written version of a constitution. This document distinctly cloistered the sisters far more than either Marguerite Bourgeoys or the sisters themselves envisioned. Given their more secular existence until this time, it was understandable that they reacted to his constitution with shock and disapproval. Under the superiorship of Marie Barbier, Soeur de l’Assomption, they immediately appealed to Louis Tronson, superior general of the Sulpician seminary in Paris, to intercede on their behalf, pleading with him to convince Bishop Saint-Vallier to modify the constitution. Tronson, in turn, requested that the sisters send him a list of those articles that were offensive to them and the reasons for their objections. This they did, and in no certain terms. Their response, “Remontrance qui est entre les mains de M. Belmont,” clearly outlines the sisters’ misgivings about certain articles of the 1694 constitution. Specifically, they objected to the increased assertion of the bishop’s authority; the nature of their consecration, particularly concerning the taking of solemn vows that included a promise of obedience to the bishop; and the more specific challenges to their secular status posed by the inclusion of the Rule of Saint Augustine, as well as other terminology and practices reminiscent of cloistered life, including, in particular, the imposition of the dowry.4 It is important to emphasize that the sisters’ extreme reaction to Saint-Vallier’s constitution was not due to the fact that they did not want to accept a formal set of rules. On the contrary, the congregation firmly believed that rules would strengthen their status as a permanent institution and that this status would help them to attract students and

The Private World

19

recruits. Notably, by the time Marguerite Bourgeoys handed over the superiorship of the institution to Marie Barbier in 1693, she had succeed in at least regularizing the congregation’s position within the church and the state. By 1671 she had obtained canonical status for the community. Five years later, in 1676, official church approval was forthcoming when Bishop Laval extended his approbation to the institution on the condition that in the future it would have to accept formal rules as prescribed by the church. Laval never did formulate these rules, and twenty years passed between his conditional approbation and Saint-Vallier’s constitution, a period that must have solidified the institution’s views concerning its religious way of life.5 The extreme reaction of the sisters, therefore, must be understood within the context of this more secularized status. Unfortunately for the sisters of the Congrégation de Notre-Dame, history was not to be on their side. In the end, Saint-Vallier would emerge victorious, and for a number of reasons. For one, cloistering had had a lengthy history within the Catholic Church. Deeply embedded in Catholic tradition as one of the strongest bulwarks of the religious life for both men and women, it was supported by specific technical, canonical, and theological justifications. On one level, cloistering was defined as a private space reserved for the religious within an institution that prohibited or severely restricted the entrance of outsiders. On another canonical and theological plane, cloistering was buttressed by ecclesiastical laws that limited or restricted the entrance of strangers into the space reserved for the religious. Its ideal purpose was not entirely the guarding of chastity (although this factor cannot be discounted), but the protection of the prayerful way of life, encouraging union with God, and sheltering the religious from agitations and the potentially disruptive spirit of the external world.6 Monastic reforms promulgated by the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century confirmed cloistering as the cornerstone of the religious life for both monks and nuns. As we have seen in the introduction, groups of women during this time – among whom would be the Congrégation de Notre-Dame – did not conform to this cloistering tradition. Rather, they lived a holy life apart from convents and did not want to take solemn vows. The Council of Trent did not deal directly with these women. Pope Pius v, however, in his 1566 encyclical, Circa pastoralis, invited all these groups of women to pronounce solemn vows and submit to strict monastic cloistering. In France, because of the Crown’s reluctance to accept the canons of Trent, this papal pro-

20

The Institution

nouncement was not rigidly enforced, and local bishops continued to tolerate women who were not strictly cloistered. Inevitably, however, as the centuries passed, the church’s wider institutionalization mission, initiated by the Council of Trent and continuing in Canada through to the nineteenth century, forced women leading a religious life outside formal convents to submit to a more rigidly defined existence, and Bishop Saint-Vallier’s constitution was an expression of this larger, inexorable process.7 But other conditions more specific to the colony itself ensured that Bishop Saint-Vallier would have his way, for unlike in its Gallican counterpart, conflict was not a central feature of the nascent Canadian church. It is true that Saint-Vallier was a forceful, contentious individual whose zealous conduct almost cost him dismissal by the king of France and who managed to ignite the ire not only of the Congrégation de Notre-Dame but also of the cathedral chapter, the Jesuits, the Séminaire de Québec, the Récollets, and the Hôtel-Dieu nuns, as well as government authorities. Moreover, conflict was not the sole preserve of Bishop Saint-Vallier. Pontbriand, bishop of Quebec between 1741 and 1760, who was otherwise known as a moderate individual, also created a certain uneasiness in the community with his openly professed intention of uniting the Hôpital Général of Montreal with the congregation. Pontbriand also clashed with the Séminaire de Québec, which considered itself independent of the bishop of Quebec, as well as with the Jesuits; he interfered with the establishment of the Grey Nuns under Marguerite d’Youville; and although, unlike Saint-Vallier, for the most part, he managed to avoid confrontation with secular authorities, he too jealously guarded his territory and refused to acknowledge the right of the king to set up parishes.8 In contrast to the ecclesiastical situation in France, however, the colonial conflicts appear relatively mild. The Gallican church possessed a tradition of independence from Rome, and it wielded, in turn, enormous political and economic power. But so too did the king, to whom the bishops owed their appointment. The king was accountable to no one but God. In his coronation oath he swore to protect the church and to persecute heretics. Under Louis xiv, the monarchy used the bishops – generally individuals of noble extraction – and the Jesuits in order to construct absolutism. But he also employed the bishops in his battle against the Jansenists, individuals who advocated an austere form of Christianity and a church reform that potentially clashed with royal interests. The struggle over Jansenism in eighteenth-century France is

The Private World

21

as legendary as it was totally disruptive. Religious and political authorities, in their attempt to force the clergy to accept the papal bull Unigenitus, condemning Pasquier Quesnel’s book of propositions, embroiled the French bishops in their actions. The controversy disturbed the religious life of France and in some cases led to popular hostility and dissidence among parish priests against episcopal authority.9 In New France, on the other hand, the clergy and the civil administration worked together to ensure that the internal affairs of the colony ran smoothly. The Sulpicians, for example, attempted to stay on good terms with the bishop – without, however, allowing him to dictate terms to them. These individuals, who were also Jansenists, followed the orders of the Sulpician seminary in Paris. They remained firmly resolved, however, to avoid the conflicts that so ravaged French political and religious life until the expulsion of the Jesuits in 1764. In such a political and ecclesiastical climate, protracted dissension over the congregation’s rules would not have been encouraged.10 Therefore, following Tronson’s intervention with the bishop in 1695–96 and the consultations of his assistant and future Sulpician superior, François Leschassier, with other individuals in France, Saint-Vallier only slightly modified some of the proposed rules of the constitution, which the sisters accepted and signed in June 1698.11

behind convent walls Unquestionably, Bishop Saint-Vallier’s 1698 constitution represented a significant compromise to and a modification of certain aspects of the way of life of the sisters of the Congrégation de Notre-Dame. The réglemens left the absolute powers of the bishop clearly intact and introduced many elements reminiscent of the cloister. The constitution stipulated that the sisters, like cloistered women, take permanent simple vows, as well as a vow of stability. This latter vow carried with it enormous implications. Not only did it mean that the sisters lost their freedom to leave the institution at will, but it also created a hierarchy within the community based upon those women who had made such a vow and those who had not. Also like cloistered women, the sisters had to accept a mandatory dowry for each entrant, and this concession prevented women without means from freely entering the institution. And finally, although the ultimate signed version of the constitution eliminated the Rule of Saint Augustine and the word “cloister” from the text, the sisters, nonetheless, relinquished a certain flexibility in their

22

The Institution

spiritual and aesthetic practices. Most notably, they accepted the precept that they must remain as much as possible “behind convent walls.”12 These regulations do not mean, however, that the 1698 constitution cloistered the sisters in the strict sense of the term. Truly cloistered individuals never left the convent. Although they could receive visitors, they met them in clearly designated areas and often spoke to them from behind an iron grill, through which they could not be seen. Of course, not all these prohibitions uniformly restricted every cloistered religious order, for the degree of restraint depended upon the institution as well as the historic period within which it was set. Jutta Sperling’s work on cloistered orders in Renaissance Italy, for example, has demonstrated that despite strict “clausura” prohibitions, very often convents in that country assumed a salon-like atmosphere where males, musicians, and often women of dubious repute gathered. Certain reforms of the Council of Trent aimed at regulating much of the lax behaviour that seems to have invaded some monasteries. The stipulations proved difficult to enforce, however, and religious institutions exhibited marked variations. In France, for example, one convent’s parloir could resemble a Renaissance salon, while another would be like a prison, with visitors forced to speak to the nuns through an opening covered with two grilles, one reinforced with long points and the other with a thick curtain.13 The 1698 constitution did not imprison the Congrégation de NotreDame nuns in such an extreme way. On the contrary, it permitted the sisters to retain a distinctly visible public presence outside the convent; in many respects, they remained women of the parish. The sisters continued to teach and to travel to and from the mission schools spread throughout the colony’s parishes (see maps 1–4). They journeyed to many of the parish’s churches as they supplemented the institute’s income by decorating and caring for church altars.14 The nuns were also permitted to leave the convent to run errands at local shops. They washed their laundry down the street in the river, and they were allowed to visit individuals in the community. Moreover, the sisters did not receive visitors from within an enclosure behind a grille but in the community’s parloir, where they were permitted to sit on benches lining the walls and meet with their kin or other individuals, face to face. The sisters also continued to interact with the public on many formal occasions. They participated with the community in rogations and other religious festivities. They led their students to parish churches for mass during Lent, and although they possessed their own chapel after

The Private World

23

1695, they also attended special services at the parish church of NotreDame in Montreal on Christmas, Good Friday, and the Octave of the Holy Sacrament. The sisters also buried their dead in the parish church of Notre-Dame, in the chapel of the Infant Jesus, until 1800, a privilege conferred on them initially by the Sulpician priest François Dollier de Casson in 1700 and subsequently renewed by his successor, François Vachon de Belmont.15 This distinct public presence of the sisters – that they were not cloistered in the precise sense of the term – however, mitigates neither the restrictive reality of Saint-Vallier’s constitutional precepts nor the fact that from the outset many facets of their religious existence were deliberately structured to distance them from the external world. This distancing began with a tightly controlled, formal process of ritual separation initiated at the moment a novice entered the convent. She was immediately placed in the novitiate, a room located on the second floor of the convent, only a corridor away from the bedchambers of the professed nuns and distinct from the active internal life of the convent’s first floor. Here, during her first year, the novice wore secular clothing, and under the careful supervision of a mistress of novices, she learned how to adhere to the institute’s routine. A clearly defined and serious process governed her progress to the next stages – the taking of the habit and then the veil. It involved the bishop or an individual chosen by him, who examined the candidate and signed a document at the end of each stage bearing witness to a novice’s worthiness to enter the institution. Also included in the judgment of the novice were the community’s superior and the entire assembly of nuns who had taken their vow of stability. After the first year, if deemed worthy by all these individuals, the novice took the habit, and after the second year in the novitiate, if she remained resolved to enter the institution, she prepared to take the veil and pronounce her vows.16 The taking of the veil and the pronouncement of solemn vows were acts deeply embedded within Catholic church tradition, and they reinforced religious individuals’ separation from the secular world. For the novice, the taking of the white veil meant symbolic removal from the path of ordinary women, as with this act she became the bride of Christ. For the professed nun, the taking of the black veil denoted her embrace of seclusion. Moreover, while it is true that the precepts of poverty, chastity, and obedience – the essence of religious vows – represented prescribed modes of behaviour for all Christians and, to varying degrees, held a place in their lives, when they were pronounced by reli-

24

The Institution

gious individuals, they denoted not only a conviction but an entirely separate way of life.17 But the pronouncement of vows represented more than the perpetuation of ancient time-honoured Catholic tradition. This ritual also possessed a distinctly tangible reality. Enshrined within the community’s constitution, the document a woman promised to obey at her profession, the legal ceremony of the signing of a “profession contract” confirmed a nun’s vows. Completed in the convent’s office of the procure in the presence of the superior, often members of the entire administrative council, the novice’s parents or a guardian, the notary, and the community’s priest, the profession contract also sealed important financial arrangements between the family and the institution in the form of an arranged dowry, whereby the family paid a fixed stipend in exchange for the lifetime support of their daughter or ward.18 These monies, as we shall see, proved crucial to the institute’s maintenance and survival. Thus newly professed, dowried, veiled, and robed in the long black gown distinctive of a congregation sister, with a silver cross hanging from her neck, a congregation nun continued the secluded daily existence in the convent initiated by her entrance into it and confirmed by solemn rituals cementing her legal, moral, and spiritual distance from the secular world. Within this milieu, a nun – whether she had dedicated her life either to teaching children or, if deemed unsuited to this task, to performing the institution’s heavy labour as a soeur du gros ouvrage – spent her entire life carrying out her duties within a monastic routine circumscribed by daily rituals revolving around mass and confession, prayers, spiritual readings and reflections, and the recitation of the rosary. It was an existence that allowed little time for leisure and recreation and demanded lengthy silences, constant self-examination, and prolonged periods of prayer. And while it is true that, unlike strictly cloistered nuns, a professed congregation nun could depart from this ritualized world and enter the parish, precise regulations guided her conduct. She could not leave the convent without the express permission of her superior and, if at all possible, without the company of another sister; nor could she speak to any individual on the street without reporting her conversation to her superior on her return.19 While the institution was not impervious to visitors, its comportment towards outsiders reinforced this secluded existence by circumscribing their presence. Students and servants, for example, who

The Private World

25

resided within the walls of the convent property did so at a good distance from the convent itself. Members of the Congrégation des Externes – usually former students who returned to the community for instruction – attended meetings at their chapel of Notre-Dame de la Victoire, and this structure was safely located at the far end of the property along rue Notre-Dame (see fig. 9). It is difficult to determine from convent plans, however, precisely which areas of the convent were completely off limits to visitors.We do know that the community permitted visitors, such as the notary, the doctor, the surgeon, priests, engagé labourers, and mendicants to enter the convent building.20 The chapel was not entirely closed to outsiders. Priests, of course, said mass and heard confessions in the chapel, but they were not the only outsiders having access to this space. In 1768, when the convent burned to the ground, the chapel served as a schoolroom for pensionnaires.21 At this time, fire also destroyed the church of Notre-Dame de la Victoire, and the nuns permitted the members of the Congrégation des Externes to hold their traditional Sunday meetings in their chapel.22 The convent’s female retreatants, who slept on the third floor of the 1768 convent, which they shared with the novices, must have used the chapel for prayer, reflection, and to attend mass. In fact, the presence of these retreatants somewhat mitigates a view of this convent as a strictly cloistered institution. During an unspecified period of time between December 1753 and March 1754, a Madame Boucherville, for example, paid for a retreat in the convent. Almost nothing is known about this woman, but it is not too far-fetched to presume that a professed nun at the time, Marie-Louise Boucher de Boucherville, Soeur Sainte-Monique, could have been related to her. This possibility leads one to wonder if other retreatants also possessed relatives in the congregation and to ask whether or not the retreat served more than spiritual purposes. Did it enable individuals to meet with their own kin and avoid the restrictions and regulations attached to regular parloir visits concerning time and comportment, to retain more sustained connections to and relationships with them?23 Such a more open view of the convent as an extension of the family is not unusual, of course. Kathryn Burns, for instance, documented a more extreme example of such familial-inclusive practices among the Franciscan nuns of Cuzco, Peru: in some of these convents she examined, certain nuns even raised foster children within the convent walls.24 But other individuals came and went for various reasons. The priest ate in the communauté on feast days. Both the notary and the priest vis-

26

The Institution

ited the procure for the signing of legal documents, and to get there they had to traverse the long corridor spanning the convent’s first floor, which sliced through the community’s living quarters and bypassed the kitchen and the dining hall. The doctor and the surgeon attended to the ill on the convent’s second floor, as did the priest. Workers made repairs to the structure, both inside and out, and cleaned the lavoratories on both the first and second floors. And yet this apparent fluidity of movement is, on another level, deceptive, for no matter who entered the convent, for whatever reason, his or her entrance, as an outsider, was strictly controlled: first by a portière, who would peer at the visitor through an opening cut in the door and assess him or her before either permitting or denying entry, and then by two sisters designated by the superior herself to accompany the visitor to the appropriate destination, and with strict instructions to remain with the individual for the duration of his or her stay.25

conclusion The private life of the Congrégation de Notre-Dame was not “cloistered” in the strict sense of the term, for the sisters possessed certain freedoms denied to most cloistered religious. And yet this does not mean that it was not protected from the secular world: the architectural structure of the convent, a clearly defined rite of passage that involved separation, vows, and a distinctive dress, together with strict rituals and rules regulating its daily routine and the penetration of individuals from the secular world, governed its daily existence and ensured its isolation. Indeed, in many respects, this “sheltered” way of life shaped the lives of the sisters of the Congrégation de Notre-Dame according to traditional monastic strictures, and in this sense, convent life truly restricted their freedom as women of the parish.26 But does this mean that the convent after 1698 disempowered them? Émile Durkheim’s functionalist approach to the role of religion provides a useful theoretical framework for understanding the religious lives of these women. “Belief,” he wrote in The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, “and particularly ritual reinforce traditional social ties between individuals.”27 And did not the convent serve this function? As secluded as it may have been, it was an entire cultural world in itself, possessing its own rules and rituals. It was a self-perpetuating world, doctrinally unthreatened and, as the following chapters will demonstrate, firmly supported by the larger church structure, government,

The Private World

27

and society. The convent offered the nuns within it, both collectively and individually, an ordered, meaningful world, which, in turn, strengthened the structure of the group by encouraging ties among the individuals and fortifying them in their work. But the convent empowered the nuns in another sense, for ideally, cloistering was designed to protect the inner prayerful life. Of course, for centuries, rich spiritual worlds had existed and flourished outside the cloister. In fact, at least since the Middle Ages, and in large measure as a result of the influence of the spiritual movement known as the devotio moderna, silent, individualized prayer thrived outside the monastery. After the Council of Trent, the church sought to emphasize collective piety. The powerful influence of the sixteenth-century Spanish and the seventeenth-century French mystics proved far more significant, however.28 Charles Taylor’s recent discussion of William James and what he identifies as different forms of the “personalized religion of the heart” underlines how this individualized spirituality persisted for centuries both within and outside Catholicism after its full flowering in the seventeenth century.29 Unquestionably, the theology of Marguerite Bourgeoys reflects these currents. Influential in her theology – along with Pierre de Bérulle, founder of the French Oratory, the mainspring of the Catholic Reformation in France, Jean-Jacques Olier, founder of the Sulpician order, and Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet30 – were the works of Saint François de Sales in the seventeenth century. This priest recognized the crucial importance of piety in daily life. In his view, union with God was not the preserve of learned theologians or isolated gifted individuals, but was open to anyone willing to follow precise delineated steps.31 These ideas pervade the writings of Marguerite Bourgeoys, and they defined her emphasis upon the importance of focused prayer in centring an individual: “It seems to me that we do not pay enough attention to prayer, for unless it arises from the heart, which ought to be its centre, it is no more than a fruitless dream. Prayer ought to carry over into our words, our thoughts and our actions. We must strive as much as we can to reflect on what we ask or promise. We do not do this if we do not pay attention to our prayers.”32 Bourgeoys’s theology must have been influential among the sisters before their acceptance of the 1698 réglemens. Certainly, the experiences of Marie Barbier, in her work at the ambulatory mission at Sainte-Famille during the early 1680s, reflect this influence. She engaged in rigorous personal prayer, and she lamented the lack of privacy at the widow Gaulin’s house, where she resided, for she believed

28

The Institution

that it hindered the practice of her private devotions.33 But the acceptance of the 1698 constitution did not signify the eradication of these intense devotional practices. On the contrary, as we have seen, the community’s constitution set aside significant periods of time on a daily basis for individual meditation and prayer. And convent inventories reveal that the sisters continued to read advocates of this “personalized religion of the heart” in the works of de Sales, Louis Bourdaloue, Bossuet, and, most importantly, their founder, Marguerite Bourgeoys, well into the eighteenth century.34 In the end, one’s view of the nature of the congregation’s spirituality depends upon one’s perception of the cloistered monastic life: was its chief purpose to repress and control women, or was it designed to encourage them to flourish as spiritual beings? If we accept the latter precept, then we must also accept that at the very least monasticism must have fortified the spirituality of some of the most truly devout congregation women. This conclusion should not be surprising. Many religious cultures, east or west, whether steeped in Tibetan Buddhism or in Christianity, recognize that spiritual power grows from religious self-discipline,35 and centuries of tradition support this claim. Within the Christian framework, the lives and works of such diverse holy women as the medieval Julian of Norwich and Teresa of Ávila and the more contemporary Saint Thérèse of Lisieux and Edith Stein36 testify to the power of the personal spiritual experience born and nurtured within various monastic environments. There is, therefore, no reason to believe that Bishop Saint-Vallier’s restrictive 1698 constitution deprived the sisters of the Congrégation de Notre-Dame of any of the potential power inherent in the religious way of life.

Mission in the Public World

chapter two

The Spiritual Mission in the Public World

Isolated behind the walls surrounding it, the congregation convent, in the late seventeenth and throughout the eighteenth centuries, was also squarely situated within the world delineated by the fortifications of Old Montreal. In its immediate vicinity, two main thoroughfares – rue Saint-Paul and rue Notre-Dame – marked its southern and northern edges. Its western border met the secluded gardens and buildings of the convent of the sisters of the Hôtel-Dieu, while its eastern perimeter, on rue Saint-Jean-Baptiste, faced the mansion of the late eighteenth-century fur trader–merchant Simon McTavish, where it is said that, to the dismay of the sisters, “quantities of frivolous traffic passed through” its archway (see fig. 10). Further afield, to the west of the convent, was the town market, situated on what is now Place Royale. This was Montreal’s “nerve centre where people gathered once or twice a week,” and the site of the homes and shops of the town’s leading families.1 Like most urban areas in this pre-industrial era, Montreal was dirty and its streets congested. Sanitation ordinances were ignored. The town’s inhabitants – butchers and builders, for example – dumped their refuse on public thoroughfares, but many others routinely emptied their chamber pots from upper windows. Although on the whole a peaceful society, the town was not bereft of its rowdy elements: soldiers were known for their disruptive and often violent behaviour, and brawls in barracks and taverns were not rare.2 Within this milieu, the congregation lived side by side with the city’s elite – the garrison, the merchant houses, other religious institutions, and the royal bureaucracy – and the town’s artisans and day laborers.3 This situation was also true of the congregation’s mission at Quebec, for a certain period at its Louisbourg mission (1727–45 and 1749–58), and in a more sub-

30

The Institution

dued way, in its missions in the outlying rural parishes, where the sisters encountered and served the needs of the timeless world of the colony’s habitants. The following two chapters seek to explore this other, public dimension of the convent and its influence upon the institution’s power. This chapter will examine the congregation’s spiritual links, while the following one will trace its economic ties to this external world.

the teaching mission Soeur Marie Morin, a nun of the Hôtel-Dieu of Montreal and one of the earliest chroniclers of the history of the town, described the pensionnat of the congregation’s 1684 convent as “large and beautiful.”4 Two wood stoves heated the sleeping quarters of the students, and curtains made of voile draped the windows. Elsewhere, a statue of the Holy Infant Jesus decorated a miniscule chapel. Several classrooms contained woodstoves, numerous books, armoires, hourglasses, and bottles of ink were on tables made of pine where students sat and learned how to write. Here, until the 1768 fire destroyed the building, generations of female students received their education from the sisters of the Congrégation de Notre-Dame.5 But it was not only in this pensionnat that the teaching mission was carried out. It also occurred in classrooms throughout the colony, their precise descriptions lost to posterity, either as a result of fires that irrevocably damaged documents or the destruction of the original mission schools themselves. This chapter explores this teaching mission. To focus solely upon this teaching endeavour, however integral it was to the institution, would also be to do it a disservice, for the congregation mission extended beyond the classrooms where the nuns so assiduously taught generation after generation; it penetrated the wider cultural, social, and political life of the colony.

in the classroom At her profession, a congregation nun consecrated herself, with the assistance of the grace of Jesus Christ, to teach individuals of her own sex.6 It was a sacred endeavour for the sisters, this teaching, one that was enshrined in the constitution and the nuns’ solemn vows. And yet the teaching endeavour also comprised other practical dimensions: a congregation education7 was very basic, suitable for girls of a humble station. It

The Spiritual Mission in the Public World

31

consisted of a large amount of religion, reading, writing, elementary arithmetic, and the domestic arts.8 Some of the students attended La Providence in Pointe-Saint-Charles, and here they acquired primarily an education in domestic skills.9 Like students of the Ursuline nuns, congregation students received their education free of charge, although pensionnaires, as they were called, or boarders, in both institutions were required to pay a small stipend to cover their room and board.10 As in all educational institutions during this period, religion resided at the heart of a congregation education. After 1702 the congregation utilized Bishop Saint-Vallier’s Catéchisme du diocèse de Québec11 as a basic pedagogical text. This was a very precise document outlining the fundamental tenets of the Catholic faith. The emphasis upon religion persisted throughout the eighteenth century, as the following directive, written to the congregation on behalf of Bishop Briand by the Sulpician priest Étienne Montgolfier, the vicar-general of Montreal and ecclesiastical superior of the congregation, clearly reveals: “But that all the sisters, in general, should never forget that all arithmetical exercises must be the least part of their teaching: and that they must always give precedence to the science of the principles of religion, by the practice of the pure maxims of a Christian life.”12 Montgolfier’s meaning here is crystal clear: congregation students had to conform to the religious way of life. Doing so meant that they must perform domestic chores in an atmosphere pervaded with silence and prayer. They also had to learn self-discipline and the practice of frugality.13 This focus upon religion, as well as the increased interest in the education of women, was deeply rooted in the congregation’s European past. The Council of Trent and the Catholic Reformation gave momentum to both these developments, for education was viewed as a tool to counteract heresy and to reinstate both lay and clerical church discipline. One of the leading influences on the congregation’s pedagogy was François de Salignac de La Mothe-Fénelon’s Traité de l’education des filles (1687). This manual advocated teaching girls reading, writing, and practical arithmetic and – as long as they were taught with discernment, in small doses, and under strict supervision – literature, history, Latin, music, painting, and the reading of secular books.14 The congregation’s curriculum, as we have seen, did not strictly adhere to Fénelon’s prescriptions; it was far more basic. Its focus upon religious values, however, placed it squarely in the centre of traditional French schooling for girls. Extolling Christian manners, morals, obedience, and piety, it intended to form hearts and souls in orthodox Catholi-

32

The Institution

cism, to lead individuals away from disorder and debauchery, and to prepare them for their future roles as wives and mothers.15 The pronouncements of prelates, as well as their pedagogical treaties, however, only partially disclose the nature of the teaching world of the Congrégation de Notre-Dame; they illustrate the official expectations and orthodox requirements, but they measure neither its success in inculcating orthodox beliefs and behaviours nor its ability to extirpate illiteracy. Marie-Aimée Cliche’s study of the role of religion in New France to 1755, for example, argues that the religious establishment was able successfully to inculcate orthodoxy in the colonists, and from this deduction it is logical to conclude that, as part of the wider church structure, the congregation contributed to this accomplishment.16 And yet this conclusion does not discount evidence of less orthodox spiritual convictions and behaviours anchored in ancient convictions that the post-Tridentine church accepted only hesitantly. Marie Barbier, Soeur de l’Assomption, who served as a congregation superior between 1693 and 1698, healed the ill, interfered with the elements, and increased food supplies.17 In 1768, more than half a century later, a premonition by Élisabeth Prud’homme, Soeur Sainte-Agathe, predicted the fire that devastated the convent.18 Also noteworthy are the fantastic legends surrounding the community’s priest, FrançoisAuguste Magon de Terlaye, at Lac-des-Deux-Montagnes, who in 1777, is said to have been involved in the inexplicable increase of food supplies and the sudden appearance of a spring.19 Were these less orthodox beliefs only rare whispers among the sisters, documented more by chance than design, or did they filter down to their students and become part and parcel of a less orthodox religious world? Priestly pronouncements also do not measure the ability of the congregation to eradicate illiteracy. Some contemporary research, however, indicates that a congregation education was indeed effective. Allan Greer’s study of literacy in Quebec between 1745 and 1899 utilized parish registers for the early period and discovered that literacy rates were high in areas such as, for example, Boucherville, where congregation schools were well established. More generally, Greer also demonstrated that before 1760 literacy rates were higher among women than men.20 A subsequent study by Roger Magnuson, which examined the ability of women in the parishes of Lachine, SainteFamille, Champlain, and Pointe-aux-Trembles to sign the marriage register,21 supported Greer’s findings. However, in the absence of more widespread studies of literacy rates or even diaries or letters, which in

The Spiritual Mission in the Public World

33

fact rarely exist, it is not possible to draw more precise conclusions concerning female literacy in the eighteenth-century colony. To be sure, intense criticism has surrounded female education throughout this period, both from the “elite sectors of the enlightened nobility in France” and from modern scholars.22 Madame de Sévigné’s counsel to her daughter rings loud and clear across the centuries: “Ah my daughter! Keep your child with you. Do not believe that a convent can provide an adequate education either on religious subjects, which the sisters hardly know anything about, or on other things. You will do much better at Grignan when you have the time to apply yourself. You will have her read good books ... and discuss them with you ... I firmly believe that this is better than a convent.”23 This admonition may have been as relevant as the criticisms underlying it. Such attitudes, however, cannot explain how, over the course of its history, the congregation managed to produce an elite cadre of skilled women, both superiors and council members, who capably ran this complex and demanding institution. Nor do they challenge the fact that colonists consistently requested the establishment of congregation schools in their parishes, and that they helped to finance and build them. They also worked to rebuild the schools when they were destroyed by conquest or fire, and for generations, colonists sent their daughters to these institutions.24 It is difficult to believe that so many individuals would have expended such efforts for an inferior, even futile, education. Literate women, armed with a basic knowledge of domestic skills and able, to varying degrees, to read, write, and perform elementary arithmetical calculations, must have emerged from these classrooms. But these women also left the convent school with more than these basic skills. Inculcated with Catholic Reformation ideology, endowed with a sense of an ordered world, and surrounded by the sacraments,25 they were steeped from an early age in the virtues of stability, self-control, and discipline. Stable, hard-working, law-abiding, and secure individuals emerged from these classrooms – future wives and mothers who made ideal material for the perpetuation not only of colonial society but also, through the congregation’s sodality, the Congrégation des Externes, the church’s Counter-Reformation mission itself.

the congrégation des externes Marguerite Bourgeoys founded the Congrégation des Externes in Montreal in 1658. She modelled this confraternity on a gathering of women

34

The Institution

she had attended and perhaps, as a prefect, led in Troyes, France.26 The confraternity quickly spread throughout the colony as the congregation missions were established throughout its parishes. Of course, the Congrégation des Externes was not the only confraternity in New France. Ecclesiastics established several similar confraternities in the colony, so that by the end of the French regime, eight existed in Quebec, and eleven in Montreal.27 Some of these – the Scapulaire de NotreDame-du-Mont-Carmel, the Rosaire and the Sacré-Coeur – were more relaxed and focused primarily upon popular devotion. Others – the Congrégation de la Vierge, the Confrérie de la Sainte-Famille, and notably the Congrégation des Externes – were known for being most rigorous.28 Colonial confraternities should not be confused with their medieval counterparts. Like post-Tridentine confraternities, medieval confraternities devoted their efforts to prayer and good works. Medieval confraternities, however, were notoriously lax: feast days in honour of their patron saints often set the stage for a mixture of boisterous and sometimes uncontrollable celebrations and pious exercises. The clergy in the post-Tridentine world did not tolerate such unruly behaviour. In France, prelates directly managed sodalities: local bishops suppressed some of the more unruly confraternities, strictly supervised others, and placed new ones under exacting and permanent episcopal supervision. French clergy who travelled to New France transplanted this stricter tradition to the New World, and in the new environment, the sodalities, from their inception, came firmly under ecclesiastical authority.29 In general, colonial confraternities encouraged a special devotion to Christ and certain saints. When an individual entered an association that honoured a specific patron saint, he or she then placed him or herself under the saint’s special protection. But the saint was more than a protector; she or he became a model whose virtues members strove to imitate. Sodalities provided colonists with important social and spiritual outlets. Members frequently partook of the sacraments of penance and the Eucharist, they attended mass and processions in a special chapel often built and maintained by the members at their own expense, and they engaged in charitable works. For their efforts, members not only received the protection of their patron saint; they also acquired precious papal indulgences that granted them remission from their sins.30 The Congrégation des Externes belonged to a group of specialized confraternities, and it made heavy demands upon its members. Unlike devotional confraternities, the externes did not accept individuals of

The Spiritual Mission in the Public World

35

both sexes and asked far more of their members than the practice of simple pious exercises. Rather, from the outset, the externes selected their members on the basis of strict criteria, and only after a probationary period: they accepted girls who were over the age of eighteen, many of whom had completed their studies at the convent. These candidates must be still living at home with their parents, without stains upon their reputation, and whose modesty, devotion, and comportment towards members of the opposite sex was above reproach.31 Acceptance into the confraternity was a serious affair and resembled a ritual separation from the world, such as the nuns themselves experienced, involving solemn vows that members renewed each year. These vows marked the members off from the outside world and bound them more closely to other members of the Congrégation des Externes and to the congregation nuns themselves. Once accepted into the confraternity, these girls pledged to practise frequent pious exercises openly and daily, examine their consciences, and engage in spiritual readings. But the externes’ commitment was not confined to intimate personal spirituality. They also pledged to serve as role models and to actively encourage the spread of Christian virtues.32 It is not too difficult to perceive how the Congrégation des Externes served the broader mission of the institution and, indeed, the church, for these women were ritually marked off from the rest of the world. Allied to other members of the sodality and the nuns themselves, they lived strategically in the midst of the community of ordinary citizens and were in an ideal position to spread Catholic Reformation ideology. But the Congrégation des Externes served as more than an important arm of the church’s Catholic Reformation mission. The intimate, personal, and pervasive role this sodality played in the personal lives of many colonial women was a useful tool for royal governments interested in social stability as they consolidated the nation-state and populated and developed this distant colony. The confraternity also gave young girls who had left the convent a place to which they could return and socialize outside the domestic world of their parents’ homes. Many of these girls would have been in a period of transition within their lives – between the convent school and marriage – and here they could consult either the nuns, who had been their mentors, or other young women with whom they had studied concerning the future direction of their lives. For their part, the nuns could encourage those individuals whom they felt had a calling to enter the convent or, if they chose to marry, direct them into the female branch of the Confraternity of

36

The Institution

Sainte-Famille, an association with similar aims, activities, and rituals as the Congrégation des Externes.33 As we have seen, while intimately associated with the convent, externe members were not sequestered from the world in which they lived. Rather, they were encouraged to actively participate in it. Confraternity members engaged in charitable works and in planning the construction and maintenance of their chapels, activities that required involvement with external society and the use of arithmetical skills they had acquired in the convent. The sodality also encouraged its members to express their piety within the wider public spiritual life of the colony, and this requirement firmly integrated these young women into the surrounding society as well. Externe members engaged in devotions to the Holy Sacrament, the Virgin Mary, the Holy Angels, and the Holy Family, devotions that were also widespread among other colonial confraternities.34 Moreover, on at least one occasion, during the War of the Spanish Succession, the externes’ piety assumed a very public profile. In 1711, with the colony under threat of invasion from the English fleet, the externes pledged to build – and indeed, after the English fleet ran aground in the Gulf of St Lawrence, did – a chapel on congregation property in honour of “Notre-Dame de la Victoire” (see fig. 9) commemorating the event. This pledge linked the externes to the much larger French colonial effort to obtain God’s assistance against the English enemy, and it took the form of both personal and public vows, special masses, and public penance.35

links to the profane and the sacred But the Congrégation de Notre-Dame was more than a classroom with its influence extending into the community through its graduates, many of whom formed the Congrégation des Externes. The congregation was itself also a clearly defined and powerful physical entity in the heart of Montreal, possessing profound political, spiritual, and symbolic significance. Links to the Profane From its inception, the convent of the Congrégation de Notre-Dame had served as a refuge for the stranger and, in the process, explicitly assisted the political intentions of the French royal government. Indeed, this was the case, with the filles du roi. Between 1663 and 1673 the

The Spiritual Mission in the Public World

37

institution accepted women whom the French government sent to the colony to increase its population. The congregation welcomed them and provided them with temporary shelter until appropriate husbands could be found.36 The institution also harboured and converted to Catholicism many New England captives who had been brought to Canada, particularly during the seventeenth-century wars between the British and the French. Much ink has been devoted to these captives.37 In particular, James Axtell, in The Invasion Within, has argued that the attractions of Catholicism and French culture convinced fully 45 percent of the individuals of English descent captured by the French during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to remain in New France.38 There also is good reason, however, to suspect that concrete political motives fuelled the French effort behind the captives’ conversions. It is interesting to note how many distinguished individuals, in addition to church officials, were involved with the congregation nuns in the captives’ abjuration and baptismal ceremonies. Many were highly placed government officials, military officers or their kin, or wives of wealthy merchants:39 – individuals such as Marie Élisabeth Le Moyne, daughter of Charles Le Moyne, baron de Longueuil, an officer and holder of the cross of Saint Louis;40 Marguerite Bouat, wife of Antoine Pascaud, a French shipper, who engaged in business with the congregation, and daughter of Marguerite Bouat, the community’s pensionnaire perpetuelle, discussed below;41 Marie-Charlotte Denys, wife of Claude de 42 Ramezay, seigneur and governor of the district of Montreal; François Clairambault d’Aigremont, commissioner of the Marine and the 43 intendant’s subdelegate at Montreal; Jacques-Urbain Rocbert de La Morandière, the intendant’s secretary;44 and Philippe de Rigaud de Vaudreuil, marquis de Vaudreuil, holder of the cross of Saint Louis and governor general of New France.45 These were people whose interests would have been well served by a stable and well-populated colony. But merely listing the individuals involved does not do justice to the potential theatrical effect these baptisms must have exerted upon an unsettled and insecure populace at war.46 A case in point is the baptismal ceremony in 1693 of Mary Rishworth Plaisted, the mother of two New England captives who would remain closely associated with the congregation: Marie-Josèphe de Lestage (see below) and Mary Sayward, who would become a congregation nun under the religious name of Soeur Marie des Anges. Consider the impact of this ceremony presented to the assembled town at the parish church of Notre-Dame in Montreal: the touching sight of a mother and her two young daughters,

38

The Institution

recently torn from their homes in New England, all sheltered and the girls schooled by congregation nuns, women devoted to the service of the Virgin Mary. Attending the ritual of these individuals, who surely must have been dressed in the traditional white baptismal garb, were Mary Rishworth Plaisted’s godparents, Jean-Baptiste Juchereau, the lieutenant-general of the royal bailiwick of Montreal, and his wife, Madeleine Louise. But it is also recorded that Mary Louise Pittman, who had been taken by the Natives in 1689 and adopted by Louis-Hector de Callière, the governor general of New France, was also present.47 Within the ritual of baptism, these individuals, while being purified of original sin, were making a much larger statement. By participating in a ceremony symbolizing the death and resurrection of Christ, they were also stepping out from the realm of the Protestant and heretic enemy, and with the aid of some of the most illustrious members of the colony, amidst war and invasion, were being inducted into the community of believers in the mysteries of the Holy Catholic Church.48 Links to Heaven In the minds of some colonists, at least, the convent also must have represented a sequestered holy world,49 removed from the profane concerns of colonial life. This isolated space harboured virgins, women who had devoted their lives to following the example of the Virgin Mary, women whose presence represented a tradition of renunciation and removal that extended back for centuries within European society. Also within the space of the convent itself was the congregation’s chapel, Sacré-Coeur de Jésus, also known as “le choeur.” This was a holy site among other sacred sites within the colony with which the congregation was also associated. These included the chapel of Notre-Dame de Bonsecours, constructed in 1676,50 which the congregation maintained; the chapel of Sainte-Anne,51 built by Pierre Le Ber in 1698; and its chapel at Pointe-Saint-Charles, which became a temporary sanctuary of the Holy Sacrament in 1723.52 But the chapel directly within the convent, Sacré-Coeur de Jésus (see fig. 11), possessed a particular significance. Considered one of the nine tabernacles of the colony, it was also one of the permanent sites of the Blessed Sacrament,53 as well as of the remains of two of the colony’s holy women, the heart of Marguerite Bourgeoys and the body of Jeanne Le Ber.54 When Bourgeoys died in 1700, people flocked to her funeral; they sought relics that belonged to her, or they reached out to

The Spiritual Mission in the Public World

39

touch her corpse with objects of devotion. It is also noteworthy that the colony’s highest political figures attended her funeral, individuals such as Louis-Hector de Callière and Philippe de Rigaud de Vaudreuil.55 But Jeanne Le Ber (see fig. 12), the famous recluse whose remains also rested in the community’s chapel, was no less venerated at her death. Le Ber was the daughter of the wealthy Montreal merchant Jacques Le Ber.56 In her youth she exhibited an unusual attachment to the Eucharist and increasingly devoted herself to lengthy periods of silence and prayer. When she was eighteen, her parents allowed her to retreat from the world in a room in the family home, which she left only to attend mass. Although not a contemplative order, the Congrégation de Notre-Dame in 1695 agreed to allow Jeanne Le Ber to enter its community as a recluse and to live in a cell attached to the church she had donated to the sisters.57 Through this act, Le Ber was following in the footsteps of many other individuals who, throughout the church’s history, had engaged in the ancient and radical reclusive tradition. These people entered an enclosed cell, usually attached to a local church, and completely left the world behind in a ceremony resembling a funeral. From that time forth, they lived out their lives in this enclosure, praying, fasting, and rarely speaking to anyone. Le Ber devoted her life to the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. Through her actions, she expiated the sins of individuals and society at large, and at the same time she fulfilled her desire to live a holy, ascetic life.58 She wore shoes made of straw and ragged clothing; she prayed, fasted, and engaged in the art of fine embroidery, speaking only to Anne Barrois, Soeur SaintCharles,59 the individual she chose to care for her needs.60 Scholars are only just beginning to explore Jeanne Le Ber’s significance.61 In spite of her rigid seclusion, she played a public role in colonial society during the War of the Spanish Succession: she composed prayers for the defeat of the enemy and attempted to assure the colonists that the Virgin would not permit the colony to be conquered by the British.62 Certainly, Le Ber’s presence in the congregation must have enhanced the institution’s spiritual profile in the community at large and attracted individuals to it. In turn, by associating with her, by permitting her to fulfill her spiritual destiny and enter the congregation as a recluse, and by allowing her to be buried in their chapel, Sacré-Coeur de Jésus, the sisters enabled Jeanne Le Ber’s legacy to thrive within and beyond her own lifetime. In fact, Le Ber’s legacy flourishes in Montreal and Saint-Jerôme to this day. The Montreal-based female monastic religious order, Les Recluses Missionaires, was established in 1943 by

40

The Institution

founders who took Jeanne Le Ber as their model. The community’s mission lies in the adoration of the Sacrament and intercession and in hospitality to retreatants. There is at present a movement within the church for the beatification of Jeanne Le Ber.63 Le Ber’s death in 1714 decisively underlines her significance to the colonists. Her clothing and straw shoes were revered as relics. Colonists travelled to the parish church of Notre-Dame, where, according to Jeanne-Françoise Juchereau de La Ferté, the annalist of the HôtelDieu de Québec, her corpse was on display for public adoration, and the ill touched it, expecting to be healed: “It [her body] was exposed for two days for the devotion and consolation of all of Montreal and its surrounding areas, from which people flocked to admire the holy corpse of this virgin ... people distributed her ragged clothing and her shoes made of straw ... and revered them as relics. Many people afflicted by diverse maladies, approached her coffin, touching it with confidence and faith ... assured that they would be healed. After this grand demonstration, her body was carried to the parish church where a magnificent funeral was held.”64 At her funeral in the parish church of Notre-Dame, François Vachon de Belmont, superior of the Sulpician seminary of Montreal, praised Le Ber in his public eulogy. He linked her to the primitive anchorite tradition, venerated her for renewing this ancient legacy in the New World, and extolled her as the ultimate role model for women of the entire community to emulate for her sacrifice, her virginity, her purity, her innocence, and her intercessory powers.65 Yet more than colonial holy women endowed the convent location with its sacred reputation. Enhancing the holiness of the institution’s physical site was the image of the Virgin Mary, its patron, who was inextricably bound to the congregation in a number of important ways. The sisters had devoted their lives to following the Virgin Mary. Moreover, the congregation’s confraternity, Notre-Dame de la Victoire, was named after the Virgin Mary, as was the sodality’s chapel, which was built upon congregation soil in 1711 to commemorate the French victory over the British during the War of the Spanish Succession.66 Also associated with the congregation was the Notre-Dame de Bonsecours chapel (see fig. 13). Marguerite Bourgeoys had initially advocated its construction in 1657 in recognition of the protection she believed she received from the Virgin Mary during her own early years in the colony. It was annexed to the parish church when the chapel was finally constructed in 1675, but the sisters thereafter remained associated with it: in legend, with respect to the miracles of healing attributable to the

The Spiritual Mission in the Public World

41

Virgin Mary and to its foundation by Marguerite Bourgeoys, and practically, by maintaining its interior for the parish. It became a sacred shrine to the Virgin Mary, and people flocked there to perform their devotions and offer the Holy Mother their prayers.67 The image of the Virgin Mary has been the focus of much recent historical research. Donna Spivey Ellington,68 for example, has argued that the concept of the Virgin Mary underwent a decisive transformation in the late medieval period and that she became less revered for her intercessory role and more worshipped as a model of virtue. On the other hand, French historian Jean Delumeau has contended that religious beliefs and practices from the fifteenth to the eighteenth centuries, in general, and Marian devotion, in particular, reflected a need for security and for sustenance in times of distress.69 This issue of the evolution and the nature of Marian devotion is worthy of further exploration in terms of the Canadian colonists. With respect to the congregation and at least one nun, Marie Barbier, the devotion to the Virgin Mary was intensely personal, a devotion which, as a teacher and later as director of the Congrégation des Externes, she must have passed on to her students and her congréganistes. For Barbier, the Virgin Mary was her protector who enabled her to perform miracles. The Virgin played a vital intercessory role between herself and Jesus. Her advocate and refuge, Mary presented to her “Divine Son” “the offering and sacrifice” that Barbier, in the form of a solemn vow, had made of her will. The Virgin Mary was a very real presence for Barbier. She appeared to her in the form of numerous visions, and her disappearance on one occasion proved to be a cause for violent mourning.70 But the colonists’ devotion to the Virgin Mary, while intensely personal, also possessed a distinct political edge. Both religious authorities and the laity viewed Mary, the patron saint of Ville-Marie, as the saviour of the colony from its enemies, both Native and British alike.71 During the War of the Austrian Succession, the actions of Charles Le Moyne, baron de Longueuil, graphically illustrate this point. At this time, Le Moyne asked his cousin, Jeanne Le Ber, the community’s recluse, to compose the following prayer to the Virgin Mary and to write it upon her image, painted upon a flag: “Our enemies place all their confidence in their arms, but we place ours in the Queen of Angels, whom we invoke. She is as fierce as an army in battle: under her protection, we hope to vanquish our enemies.”72 In a solemn ceremony, in the presence of the entire parish, François Vachon de Belmont, the Sulpician superior at the time, blessed the standard and

42

The Institution

placed it in the hands of Le Moyne in the parish church of NotreDame.73 In light of this incident, as well as the previous discussion, it is not too difficult to envision how the institution’s association with the Virgin Mary tied it deeply to the surrounding society, embedding it profoundly in the spiritual and political life of the colony. Intercessions, Retreats, Refuge But the colonists did not turn to the convent of the Congrégation de Notre-Dame just on exceptional occasions, such as the death of highprofile holy women or in times of political and social turmoil. Rather, they looked to this sacred space for the fulfillment of needs integral to the spiritual life of a Catholic: for intercession and retreats. And these intercessions, these retreats, these links to heaven, often reverberated back to earth and, in turn, possessed precise social and political ramifications. Intercessions Notarial records reveal that certain people of various economic circumstances and stations in the colony believed strongly enough in the intercessory powers of the sisters to endow the congregation with sums of money or in kind, and often quite generously, in exchange for their prayers. These individuals were expressing faith in the Catholic belief that the prayers of one person could be beneficial to another and, more significantly, that God listened to the prayers of consecrated individuals far more than he did to those of the laity. Thus daily or in exceptional circumstances, individuals in society appealed to religious for intercessory prayers for themselves or for souls in purgatory.74 As we have seen, in 1695 Jeanne Le Ber financed the construction of a chapel for the sisters. There she established for herself a reclusoir, a cell attached to the chapel, into which she totally retreated from the world, in exchange for the sisters’ promise to pray for the repose of her soul and that of her family.75 In 1718 a wealthy widow, Madame Biron, created a foundation in honour of the Holy Sacrament and the Sacred Heart of the Virgin Mary. She established this foundation with a sum of 700 livres, on the condition that the sisters not only announce the mass to the general populace but also pray for souls in purgatory – specifically, for individuals who had been devoted in their lifetime to the Sacred Heart of Mary, Madame Biron’s family, and the deceased sisters of the congregation.76 Seigneurs such as François Berthelot of Île

The Spiritual Mission in the Public World

43

Saint-Laurent77 and Nicolas Dupont of Neuville,78 in 1694 and 1713 respectively, donated land in their seigneuries for the building of congregation convents in exchange for masses in their honour. In 1764 two habitants from the parish of Saint-François-du-Sud did the same.79 Moreover, when Bishop Dosquet retired to France in 1735, he donated paintings to the institution in the hope that “this small token of my remembrance will give you reason to think of me before our Lord.”80 Even humble engagés, individuals such as “Le bon homme Pierre Main,” Pierre Guyon, Sansoussie, and Baptiste Giare, who worked on the community’s farms at Pointe-Saint-Charles, on occasion offered their labour for spiritual favours.81 But intercession also fulfilled a specific political function. Throughout the Seven Years War, when the colony was threatened by invasion from the British, the congregation, along with all the colony’s other religious institutions, engaged in collective intercessions as part of Bishop Pontbriand’s comprehensive campaign to bolster the population’s morale through prayers and special services petitioning God to aid the French in their war against their British enemy. These masses were part of a larger effort that included the entire populace in public prayers, processions, novenas, and adorations of the Holy Sacrament.82 For devout Catholics, these services provided consolation; for the congregation, donations as well as an enhancement of its own and the church’s spiritual influence; and for the government, an institution acting in conjunction with the larger church structure during tumultuous times, bolstering the morale of a people living in a state of uncertainty and distress. Retreats and Refuge Certain colonists also retired to this holy space for spiritual retreats. Retreats had a long history in the Catholic Church. They became widespread for the laity in the sixteenth century following the publication of the Spiritual Exercises of Saint Ignatius of Loyola.83 In the seventeenth century in Europe, the spiritual exercises became a general practice, a means of achieving sanctity and of ordering all aspects of an individual’s life according to the will of God. Throughout France, Italy, Germany, the Low Countries and Portugual, Jesuit colleges sheltered retreatants where priests supervised a laity engaging in Ignatian practices. By the second half of the seventeenth century, under the influence of Catherine de Francheville, these retreats quickly spread throughout many parts of France and became more accessible to women.84

44

The Institution

The retreat came to New France with the religious orders. Accepting retreatants into its community was integral to the congregation’s mission and was enshrined in its constitution. In these retreats, individuals left the secular world behind and, for a period of time, entered the sacred space of the convent, adhering to its routine and rules by engaging in prayer and spiritual conversations with a director.85 Most of the individuals who turned to the congregation for retreats are barely identifiable.86 And yet we can infer from the historical context that retreats provided these individuals with spiritual sustenance in a widely recognized holy place. But once again, retreats fulfilled more than a spiritual function. They possessed a social significance in the lives of the women who engaged in them. Retreats offered an escape from domestic or other worldly concerns, a location where an individual could withdraw to a quiet, secluded, female-centred environment, and reflect and refresh her energy. The convent retreat, as we have seen, also served familial needs by offering individuals a place where they could spend a sustained period of time with kin.87 But the congregation also offered permanent refuge to women who had perhaps otherwise nowhere else suitable to go. Usually these individuals were widows or other females who, as a result perhaps of a disability, could not otherwise enter the religious life. These permanent retreatants, called pensionnaires perpétuelles, entered the congregation for a stipulated sum of money. They took simple vows and wore plain clothing. They were not allowed to teach, but these women performed other unspecified duties in the convent and were expected to adhere strictly to the rules of the institution.88 Marguerite Bouat (née de Névellet), for example, came to the colony in 1659 from Troyes. She stayed at the congregation, where she worked for a time with the filles du roi. She married Abraham Bouat, a Montreal merchant, in 1670 and thereafter gave birth to four children. After her husband’s death, she returned to the congregation in 1709 to live among former friends and associates as a pensionnaire perpétuelle.89 Another permanent retreatant was Marie-Josèphe de Lestage (or Esther Sayward, as she had been known in the English colonies before her Catholic baptism), a New England captive. Seized by the Abenakis on 25 January 1692 at the ages of seven and ten from their native York in the American colonies,90 she and her sister were taken to Montreal. Marie-Josèphe left the convent and married Pierre de Lestage, a wealthy Quebec merchant. Upon her husband’s death in 1744, she returned to the institution, where she

The Spiritual Mission in the Public World

45

lived until her own death in 1770 among the nuns, one of whom was her niece, Marie-Anne de Lestage, Soeur Saint-Luc.91

conclusion More than a cloistered institute solely dedicated to the education of poor girls of the colony, the Congrégation de Notre-Dame played a vital role in the spiritual, social, political, and symbolic life of the colony. A useful arm of the church, it inculcated in its young students, its externes, and the individuals who turned to it for retreat the Catholic Reformation message of piety and obedience. But its mission was also supportive of the policies of the French royal government, and it provided stability to colonial society – both French and British – in times of war and peace. In the process of engaging in its mission, the institute, of course, also served the educational and spiritual needs of the settlers. Not only did it educate young girls and offer them, once they had left the convent, opportunities for socialization, reflection, and the consolidation of skills in its confraternities; it also provided prayers for the souls who petitioned for them, shelter for the captured, the immigrant, the spiritually hungry, widows, and the aged, and room for the realization of the destiny of a holy woman. And yet again, the convent possessed an even wider significance. As Clifford Geertz has observed, the holy “bears within it everywhere a sense of intrinsic obligation; it not only encourages devotion, it demands 92 it.” And surely, would not the existence of this sacred presence, the convent, as well as the sisters’ engagement with the holy within it, have accomplished precisely this? And did it not then narrow the purportedly irreconcilable gap, characteristic of the human condition, between the sacred and the profane, as Durkheim so describes it,93 vicariously linking the colonists who believed in it to a more distant, accessible heaven and the convent itself to the more profane spiritual, political, and cultural reality surrounding it?

Mission in the Public World

chapter three

The Economic Mission in the Public World

One wonders if, from the vantage point of Mount Royal, Jacques Cartier could have spotted Nuns’ Island after he had scaled the mountain with the assistance of his Native guides – given the deeply wooded slopes, as they must have been, descending into a forested plain and then into the mighty blue of the river. Certainly, today, from the Mount Royal lookout, it is difficult, if almost impossible, to catch sight of Nuns’ Island floating in the St Lawrence River. High-rises have sprung up beyond the preciously demarcated and protected wooded slopes of Mount Royal, in many places all but obscuring many of the natural geographic features of the river. Ironically, Nuns’ Island, or Île des Soeurs, officially received this name only after it passed on into developers’ hands in 1956.1 From the earliest days of the colony, the island was known as Île Saint-Paul, an appellation that unintentionally masked the Congrégation de Notre-Dame’s increasingly influential involvement with this piece of property throughout the eighteenth century. This chapter continues the discussion of the congregation’s power in the public world, initiated in chapter 2. It begins by tracing its acquisition of this island and its involvement in the surrounding area, and moves to explore its relationship with government, society, and the larger church structure.

île saint-paul It was only through a slow and patient process of gradual aggrandizement over almost one hundred years that the congregation finally acquired the entire seigneury of Île Saint-Paul in 1768 (see fig. 14). In fact, in 1664, when the island, known then as the seigneury of La

The Economic Mission in the Public World

47

Map 5 Congrégation de Notre-Dame major property acquisitions, Montreal and environs, 1663–1769 sources: See notes to section “Île Saint-Paul.”

Citière, was divided into three separate fiefs, the concessions did not include the institution. Rather, the fiefs were ceded to three individuals – Jean de La Vigne, Claude Robutel de La Noue, and Jacques Le Ber. It is noteworthy, however, that two of the initial recipients of the fiefs had or would have kinship connections to the congregation: Claude Robutel de La Noue was the grandfather of Anne-Suzanne Robutel de La Noue, Soeur Sainte-Cécile, a woman who would become a congregation nun in 1690, and Jacques Le Ber was the father of the Jeanne Le Ber, who in 1695 would become the institution’s recluse.2 Some forty years passed before the congregation had an initial direct involvement with the Île Saint-Paul property (see map 5). Meanwhile, only three years after the partition of the island, ownership of the fiefs changed hands, so that by 1668 Jacques Le Ber owned two-thirds of Île Saint-Paul.3 In 1706 and 1707, through two transactions, the institution acquired the remaining third of the island, the Robutel portion, from Catherine Le Moyne and Zacharie Robutel de La Noue, parents of Anne-Suzanne Robutel de La Noue (by this time a professed congregation sister) and the sister and brother-in-law of Marguerite Le Moyne de Sainte-Marie, Soeur du Saint-Esprit, the superior who presided over the official negotiations.4

48

The Institution

This acquisition of what would eventually come to be known as the fief of La Noue was not, however, the institution’s first inroad into the area; nor would it be its last. In the years before and, indeed, following this acquisition, the congregation had been engaged in establishing a visible presence in and beyond the vicinity (see map 5). In 1673 it had acquired, by way of a donation from Zacharie Dupuy, the fiefs of Verdun, Île aux Hérons, and Bon-Pasteur on Île Jésus, north of Montreal.5 Between 1672 and 1706 the institution obtained land at Côte Saint-Martin and Côte Saint-François.6 Then in 1718, through a donation from Jean Cailloud, father of Marie-Gabrielle Caillou-Baron, Soeur de la Nativité, it received land at La Prairie de la Madeleine (Laprairie), the faubourg Saint-Anne, a town property, and Île à la Pierre.7 The congregation also came into possession of Côte de la Visitation in 1726, through the dowry of Marie-Angélique Lefebvre Angers, Soeur SaintSimon.8 And five years later, to round out its acquisitions, it purchased Île à l’Aigle from Charles-Gaspard Piot de Langloiserie, father of MarieMarguerite, Soeur Saint-Hippolyte, and Charlotte-Angélique, Soeur Sainte-Rosalie.9 But the community’s gradual acquisition of property at Pointe-SaintCharles was the most important, particularly with respect to its presence on Île Saint-Paul (see fig. 15). The sisters received their first concession of land in the Pointe-Saint-Charles area in 1662. Thereafter, through a series of purchases of neighbouring properties and strategic exchanges, they managed to consolidate a remarkable piece of riverfront property. By 1723, their Pointe-Saint-Charles acquistion was estimated at between 183 and 212 arpents of prime agricultural land, conveniently separated from their fief, La Noue, on Île Saint-Paul10 by only a narrow channel half a kilometre wide.11 Although the purchase in 1706 and 1707 of the fief of La Noue comprised only one-third of the island (the other two-thirds being held by Jacques Le Ber), it endowed the institution with a 300-arpent foothold that faced the river on two fronts.12 It was also, as pointed out earlier, in close proximity to the congregation’s growing farm at Pointe-Saint Charles and only a short canoe ride from the Montreal convent. Certainly, the institution viewed this acquisition as significant: not only was it willing to part with, among others, its riverfront property in Côte Saint-Martin on the island of Montreal to obtain it, but it paid a total of 3,000 livres in cash to complete the transaction.13 As sole proprietors of La Noue, the sisters invested very little money in the property; they hired a man to watch over the land and to tend the

The Economic Mission in the Public World

49

thirty or forty head of livestock grazing on it. At the time of planting and harvesting, the community’s dépositaire, its accountant, sent engagés, or hired labourers, to work on the island. Most conveniently, sisters living just across the narrow channel at Pointe-Saint-Charles supervised these individuals.14 This ostensibly neglectful approach to their fief, however, belies an attitude on the part of the sisters that was not at all casual. Indeed, on a number of occasions the nuns petitioned the government to protect their acquisition from habitants who, on the pretext of gathering wild fruits and nuts, were, they claimed, damaging their property.15 Moreover, in at least two instances, the colony’s intendants willingly obliged them by issuing edicts protecting the sisters’ Île Saint-Paul property from these incursions. These fiats forbade trespassing on the island and established fines for those who did so.16 It is also noteworthy that between 1707 and 1717, for example, the government, with the intervention of Bishop Saint-Vallier and the Sulpician superior, François Vachon de Belmont, who made petitions on their behalf, also facilitated the institution’s retention of this property by absolving them of the payment of seigneurial dues on the purchase of their portion of the island. This was a privilege accorded not only the congregation but also other religious institutions, such as the Hôtel-Dieu, in recognition of their services to the colony.17 The sisters must have watched carefully as the other two-thirds of the seigneury of Île Saint-Paul changed hands over the course of the eighteenth century. Jacques Le Ber of Senneville had retained possession of his two-thirds of the island until 1735, when it passed to his son, Joseph-Hippolyte Le Ber of Senneville.18 By 1758, however, the increasingly unstable political situation in the colony because of war with the British determined that this fief, which had belonged to the family for almost one hundred years, would pass out of its hands. Joseph-Hippolyte Le Ber’s son, Jean-Baptiste, decided to seek refuge in France, and on 11 August 1758 he sold the seigneury to Ferdinand Feltz, an army surgeon, for 75,000 livres.19 Six years later Feltz sold the property for 41,000 livres, a considerable loss, to an Englishman named Thomas Lynch.20 In turn, on 16 August 1769 Lynch sold the remaining two-thirds of Île Saint Paul to the Congrégation de NotreDame for 16,650 livres, five years after he had purchased this property and the year after fire had devastated the convent. With this acquisition, the institution became the sole proprietor and seigneur of Île Saint-Paul in its entirety.21 This was indeed a shrewd and magnificent

50

The Institution

purchase: acquired at a deflated price, the seigneury consisted of 400 arpents of rich land, some of it cultivated, the rest either forest or plain, and it had, as its centrepiece, a large stone house, a stable, and a barn with a cleared yard and garden.22 Their possession of the entire island, in conjunction with their property at Pointe-Saint-Charles, made the sisters proprietors of what has been described as “a vast agricultural complex.”23 Understandably, the acquisition of the entire island raised more than a few eyebrows. Soon after the sale had been made public, numerous disgruntled citizens, unaware that the existing superior, Marie-Josèphe Maugue-Garreau, Soeur de l’Assomption, had obtained verbal permission from Governor Guy Carleton to purchase the property, journeyed to Quebec to protest the transaction. The governor, however, promptly supported the community’s acquisition by ratifying his verbal consent with an official letter approving the sale.24 Secure in their ownership of the island, the sisters proceeded to make repairs to the house and barn and hired an overseer, Zacharie Boyer, to supervise the entire farming operation, including the house, property, livestock, and the engagés.25 Although it was a strategic and opportune purchase, the timing of the acquisition was most surprising, occurring as it did on the heels of the 1768 convent fire and during a period when the nuns claimed extreme poverty. Bereft of a convent for many months following the fire, they lived and continued to teach in a room sectioned off by curtains in the neighbouring Hôtel-Dieu. In their spare time, they returned to their convent to salvage whatever they could from the wreckage – nails, stones, anything that would be useful in the construction of a new building.26 In the ensuing three years, in order to pay off the debt incurred for the rebuilding of their convent (and, I might add, to purchase Île Saint-Paul), they were forced to borrow money and sell numerous pieces of property acquired over the past century. These included the “terre du bas de notre jardin,”27 the farm properties at Laprairie28 and Verdun,29 and the acquisitions of Île à l’Aigle, Côte de la Visitation,30 and Île à la Pierre.31 In addition, hard times obliged them to part with some of the community’s valuables and dispense, for a period, with the doctor’s services.32 And to add to their difficulties, the Lower Town mission at Quebec, which had been revived after its destruction during the Conquest with the assistance of a generous loan from Jean-Baptiste Amyot, a local merchant, was subsequently threatened with extinction when he suddenly passed away and his inheritors demanded immediate repayment of his 8,000-livre loan.33

The Economic Mission in the Public World

51

Timely assistance from the wider community appears to have facilitated the stabilization of the institution’s financial situation. The legacy bequeathed to the convent by the community’s pensionnaire perpétuelle, Mary-Josèphe de Lestage,34 at her death in 1769 was most opportune. Étienne Montgolfier, the presiding Sulpician superior, made a series of generous loans which, by 1781, were forgiven.35 Funds supplied on a regular basis by the Sulpician priest François-Auguste Magon de Terlaye, ordinarily earmarked for girls without means to enter the congregation, were transferred and helped to finance the rebuilding of the convent, the re-establishment of the mission at Quebec, and the purchase of Île Saint-Paul.36 But other individuals within and outside the church came to the institution’s rescue. Assistance from the church was proffered by Bishop Briand, Pierre-René Floquet, the superior of the Jesuits in Montreal, and Father de Ligneris, the curé of Laprairie;37 while the laity, ordinary citizens, merchants, and even Governor Carleton came forward with material aid at the appropriate moment.38 Throughout the remaining years of the eighteenth century, the sisters carefully managed the seigneury of Île Saint-Paul, as well as the neighbouring property at Pointe-Saint-Charles, and the community’s account book provides a rich litany of the wealth these properties contributed to the institution on a regular basis: beef, poultry, duck, veal, mutton, eggs, milk, butter, wheat, peas, oats.39 No matter what the state of their finances may have been, money could always be found to maintain these properties, even if the sisters at the Neuville mission in Quebec suffered such severe deprivation after the American invasion in 1775 that they incurred a brisk reprimand from the bishop for concealing their situation from him,40 or despite the fact that Marie Raizenne, Soeur Saint-Ignace, the community’s superior in 1792, would write that “our community cannot subsist without the annual rentes.”41 No matter what, funds were always available to invest in their properties – whether to build a house for hens or engagés or stables for livestock or to make repairs to roofs and chimneys42 – even if property had to be sold,43 loans obtained, or payments delayed or even forgiven.44

with links to the here and now Unmistakably, the Congrégation de Notre-Dame was fully engaged as an “actor” in the public world of its day.45 The institution possessed assets and substantial pieces of property from which it collected rentes. It invested capital and engaged in business transactions, negotiating

52

The Institution

contracts, hiring labour, paying seigneurial dues, borrowing and investing money, and astutely acquiring and then retaining property over the course of almost a century, pursuing strategies to do so with all the shrewdness and acumen of any other business. The institution made investments that proved to be profitable. It watched over the Île Saint-Paul property and then acquired it at the appropriate moment, when prices were deflated. The institution protected and prioritized property, at times making sacrifices for it. And last but not least, it comprehended and took advantage of valuable political, religious, and social connections – whether they were with government, the church, or individual colonists – in order to obtain and then retain this property. The following discussion is intended to deepen our understanding of these links with government, the church, and colonists and to explore how the sisters worked to sustain and fortify the institution. Government The congregation’s acquisition of Île Saint-Paul demonstrates how both the French and subsequently the British colonial governments fundamentally supported the institution. This support was undoubtedly a reflection of the benefits they derived from its activities. Hence the French royal government came forward at times to remit the sisters’ feudal obligations and issue edicts to protect their property; the British, too, assisted the sisters in their purchase of Île Saint-Paul, offered aid after the community’s fire, and they too remitted some of their feudal dues. It should be remembered, however, that these governments were not always consistent in their support of the colonial church. The French royal government, for example, did not always encourage the economic development of the colony’s religious institutions, never mind that of the Congrégation de Notre-Dame. Assuredly, before 1663 both the Jesuits and the Sulpicians acquired important pieces of property throughout the colony. After the institution of royal government in Canada, however, French authorities, concerned that the religious establishment would become a financial burden, instituted a series of laws restricting the proliferation of those establishments, as well as gifts and sales of land to them. These laws only went so far, however, for, as we have seen, this restrictive comportment did not prevent the congregation from acquiring property both on the island of Montreal and in its environs.46

The Economic Mission in the Public World

53

At times, the government’s reticent support of the church impacted negatively upon the congregation. For example, in the early years of the eighteenth century, Governor Philippe de Rigaud de Vaudreuil and Intendant Jacques Raudot, disapproving of Bishop Saint-Vallier’s plan to make the congregation into a cloistered community, attempted to obtain from the Crown formal interdiction of this project. But the king’s minister, misinterpreting the concern of these officials, forbade the sisters from taking vows. This interdiction occasioned much distress and instability throughout the superiorship of Marie-Catherine Charly Saint-Ange, Soeur du Saint-Sacrement (1708–11; 1717–19), as the institution viewed the taking of vows as essential for maintaining its prestige and stability in the eyes of society. After much consternation, the issue was finally resolved only on the death of the king and the departure of the comte de Pontchartrain from his position as minister of the Marine in 1717.47 The community’s Louisbourg mission, which the institution only reluctantly established at the insistence of Bishop Saint-Vallier in 1727,48 represents another case in point. The French government marginally supported this chronically ailing mission with funds in 1730, 1737, and 1740,49 but this assistance did little to alleviate the sisters’ financial difficulties. Moreover, funding was immediately withdrawn in 1740, when the institution received a legacy from Isaac-Louis de Forant, the former governor of Île Royale.50 Thereafter, numerous pitiful appeals on the part of the sisters and supportive church and Île Royale authorities for royal assistance were rebuffed before, during, and after the final invasion of the island by the British in 1758.51 This does not mean, however, that the French royal government did not financially support the colonial church. The intendant, at the king’s command, distributed bonuses,52 to the religious orders based on the value of their work. Until the Conquest, these translated into an annual 3,000-livre royal subsidy for its Native mission at the Mountain soon after its establishment in 1676.53 This money built a convent when the mission moved to Sault-au-Récollet in 1701 and eventually sustained the Lac-des-Deux-Montagnes mission from its establishment in 1721 right up to the Conquest.54 And while it is true that the royal government offered insufficient financial support for the ailing Louisbourg mission, local government officials on Île Royale, on numerous occasions, not only lobbied the minister on behalf of the sisters’ economic plight but worked to establish sources of income to mitigate the poverty of this mission.55

54

The Institution

After the Conquest, in keeping with Bishop Pontbriand’s directives,56 the congregation cultivated friendly relations with the new British government. These began with the protection the convent received, under the auspices of Father Gabriel-Jean Brassier, a Sulpician priest, from the invading British army at Lachine.57 By 1766, the community’s account book reveals that the institution had begun to accept the daughters of English colonists as pensionnaires.58 Moreover, at least on one occasion in the same year, the institution even transacted business with “deux Marchands anglois.”59 The institution’s position remained safeguarded by the colonial church’s alliance with the new regime. Not only was the church, and thus the congregation, protected; so too were their properties. To be sure, the relationship between the colonial church and British government proved to be, at times, uneasy.60 Yet, as we have seen, the congregation benefited from the British regime: the new government facilitated the congregation’s acquisition of the Île Saint-Paul property, donated funds to help rebuild the convent after the fire,61 and granted it and other religious institutions remission from seigneurial dues.62 Society The congregation’s presence on Île Saint-Paul also demonstrates the existence of an ambivalent attitude on the part of certain colonists towards the institution. On the one hand, many rose to the occasion and generously donated funds to rebuild its convent after the 1768 fire. On the other hand, the congregation believed that certain colonists were wilfully destroying its property on Île Saint-Paul and filed complaints against them. In the post-Conquest period, certain disgruntled citizens did not hesitate to take their objections to the government at Quebec about the sisters’ acquisition of Île Saint-Paul, a property that they themselves may have wished to have purchased; nor did the successors of the Quebec merchant Amyot concern themselves with the consequences for the institute when, after his death, they demanded immediate and full repayment of this merchant’s generous loan to the congregation.63 The existence of hostility towards the congregation on the part of the colonists is not unusual, nor, given the wider historical context, is it surprising. For centuries, European society had been fractured by rifts within the church and secular revulsion without occasioned by the great wealth and political entanglements of monasteries in the temporal world.64 In spite of the conflict between spiritual and temporal con-

The Economic Mission in the Public World

55

cerns, however, the church also recognized the need for religious establishments to be able to support themselves. Responding to this requirement, the Council of Trent endowed all monastic orders with the right to possess immovable property.65 Although colonists were, on the whole, supportive of the nascent Canadian church,66 incidents indicative of hostility and resentment appeared in both the pre- and post-Conquest periods, manifesting themselves most notably in a refusal to pay tithes.67 But with regard to the congregation, what could have been the root of this hostility? Surely, if one examines the correspondence of the superiors throughout the eighteenth century, it is not too difficult to conclude that the institution experienced real difficulty in making ends meet.68 At the same time, it must be pointed out that the institution also possessed enviable ready assets, connections, and associations of which it could and did take advantage (and Île Saint-Paul is a case in point), and that many of these were well beyond the reach of the ordinary colonist. In this sense, then, it can be argued that the institution held a privileged and potentially enviable place within Canadian colonial society.69 This situation was not peculiar to the congregation. Another female religious order, the Hôpital Général de Québec, also experienced constant financial difficulties. Although, throughout the eighteenth century, the order relied primarily on donations for its survival, it also possessed the seigneury of Saint-Vallier. While this seigneury only furnished the institution with wood and wheat, its administrators viewed it important enough, in spite of its debts, to construct on the property a water mill to replace the old windmill.70 But perhaps the Sulpicians and what Brian Young has dubbed their “corporate empire” of the nineteenth century” offer the most graphic illustration of colonial church privilege. This “empire,” established in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, comprised the seigneuries of Montreal, Two Mountains, and Saint-Sulpice, all acquired through the order’s close seminal links with the French government and the ruling elite, connections duly transferred to the British following the Conquest.71 And yet, as enviable as the congregation’s economic position may have been, certain colonists, in turn, often benefited from it. Individuals were involved in close and apparently undisturbed economic exchanges with the congregation, many of them for prolonged periods of time.72 Certain merchants such as Jean-Baptiste Le Compte Dupré, Pierre Guy, Étienne Augé,73 Jacques Hervieux, and Luc Lacorne had complex and multi-dimensional economic exchanges with the institu-

56

The Institution

tion: not only did they sell goods to the congregation, but they also rented properties from it and, at some point, even sent their relatives to the institution’s pension.74 Many of these individuals must have valued the congregation as a steady customer that paid its bills for a wide variety of goods, year in and year out, for the nuns purchased, on a regular basis, such items as wine, oil, coffee, sugar, molasses, salt, fish, eggs, meat, sugar, tobacco, oats, wheat, peas, beans, butter, rum, building supplies, cloth, paper, and ribbon.75 Étienne Augé, a Montreal merchant and trader represents a good example of apparently harmonious economic exchanges between the institution and the external world. Augé had a long history of dealings with the congregation. This merchant’s relationship with the nuns first appears in what remains of the community’s records in 1730, and it reappears sporadically until 1781.76 Not only did he sell diverse goods to the institution during this period, but he also rented a property from the congregation, and in the 1740s he paid the boarding fees for at least one unidentified individual at the convent school.77 Augé proved his loyalty to the institution, and perhaps his gratitude for his business dealings with it. He lent the sisters money after the fire, and on the occasion of his death in 1780, he left them, among other beneficiaries, a legacy of 3,000 livres from his extensive fortune.78 One of these “other” colonists to whom he left a legacy was Marguerite Augé, his Native slave: loans from this woman to the congregation in the 1790s helped to ease the institution’s financial distress, occasioned by the loss of much of its investment income as a result of the French Revolution.79 But other individuals besides merchants benefited from transactions with the institution. Between 1752 and 1772, someone identified as Belaire, the tanner, dealt with the community: he supplied it with hides for making shoes, as well as other goods.80 He also sent both his niece and his daughter to the pension and even rented property from the congregation.81 Many other colonists experienced less complex, but nonetheless beneficial and often flexible, exchanges with the institution: one individual, referred to as “Sr. Dumay,” sent his daughter to the convent for her education, paying her boarding fees in instalments.82 This appears also to be true of people such as “Sr. Racine,” who rented properties from the institution on what appears to be flexible terms and conditions.83 Other individuals linked to the congregation were the engagés who laboured at the mother house itself and on the institution’s farms. Many of these workers, such as, for example, Jacques Le Macon

The Economic Mission in the Public World

57

(1728–45), the soldier Pierre Dussault (1728–49), Nicolas Binet (1729–49), who also became the community’s overseer, and Pierre Main (1738–58), retained close and long-term connections with the institution.84 Although it appears that the congregation very often treated these individuals in a ruthlessly precise and exacting manner, recording to the finest minutia painstaking details of every exchange,85 no recorded labour disputes arose between these individuals and the congregation. But it is not surprising that disagreements did not arise. In reference to seventeenth-century Montreal, Louise Dechêne has argued there there was “an easily available pool” of labour, which militated against the formation of a specific group of farm labourers who could set their own terms or demands.86 Moreover, in all likelihood, the relationship between the engagés and the institution was, once again, to some degree mutually beneficial. Engagé workers must have been essential to the institute’s functioning; so they had to be treated fairly. They performed tasks beyond either the expertise or the physical capacity of the nuns, or for which their teaching duties left them little time: building, repairing, baking, cleaning, planting, and harvesting. But at the same time, the congregation offered these colonists, often at the lowest end of the socio-economic spectrum,87 much-needed employment in an economy unsettled by war, poor harvests, and conquest.88 Ultimately, hostility to or envy of the institution’s privileged economic position did not impede colonists from openly embracing its mission. This acceptance can only be attributed to the generally supportive attitude of the colonists towards the church, which, as Louise Dechêne has correctly argued, represented their religious identity, as well as to the benefits they reaped from the institution’s economic and spiritual missions.89 Parishes hired the sisters to decorate their church altars; the nuns also made communion hosts, which were utilized in religious ceremonies, and religious objects, which colonists duly purchased.90 Many colonists recognized and appreciated the congregation in other, important ways: not only did they part with their daughters and allow them to enter the institution; they also handed over to the convent the 2,000-livre dowry that became mandatory after 1698. This support replenished the institute’s personnel and endowed the congregation with resources that helped to sustain it. The community’s records are replete with testimonials of annuities, cash payments, and property derived from some of these dowries, which were assets that could be utilized at the appropriate moment.91 The community’s involvement with Île Saint-Paul graphically illustrates how, during the

58

The Institution

period following the fire, the institution sold many properties that had come into its possession over the course of the eighteenth century from the dowries of professed nuns, some of which would again prove useful during the economic crisis of the 1790s.92 But this evidence pointing to supportive colonists serves only as an introduction to the wider sustenance the institution received from them. Beginning in its formative years in the seventeenth century, colonists housed the sisters as they engaged in their ambulatory missions throughout the colony, and this tradition would continue into the eighteenth century.93 Many individuals were also responsible for establishing missions in certain parishes. In 1685, for example, anonymous colonists at Sainte-Famille contributed money towards the acquisition of land for a congregation convent in this parish. The local seigneur, Berthelot, for his part, donated both land and money for the same purpose, while at the same time remitting payment of the sisters’ feudal dues.94 In 1701, in the parish of Lachine, the churchwardens donated land and buildings to the sisters on the condition that they maintain the parish chapel;95 in 1707 the fabrique at Pointe-aux-Trembles donated land to the community;96 and in 1705 and 1713 respectively, the seigneurs of Boucherville and Neuville contributed property to the establishment of a congregation school in these two parishes.97 This tradition continued into the eighteenth century. In 1764, at Saint- François-duSud, habitants contributed their labour free of charge towards the building of a convent on property donated to the community, and in 98 1771 they augmented this earlier donation with another piece of land. In the parish of Saint-Denis, the local seigneur, Claude- Pierre Pécaudy de Contrecoeur, donated property in 1774 to establish a congregation mission.99 Moreover, sources repeatedly record the generous efforts of colonists who, when faced with the extinction of congregation missions in their parishes because of fire, war, or conquest, banded together and demanded the nuns’ return, donating either land or 100 labour to help rebuild the battered or destroyed missions. Other individuals left legacies to the institution consisting of property, money, labour, and even in one case a slave.101 Some of this assistance came from anonymous individuals in the form of alms.102 Other aid took the form of endowments, such as the one left by the Louisbourg officer Isaac-Louis de Forant.103 Merchants offered much assistance to the institution. We have already mentioned the merchant Augé’s bequest in 1781,104 but even before this time, Pierre de Lestage, as one example, had left a generous donation to the community on his

The Economic Mission in the Public World

59

death in 1743.105 The institution also benefited from its association with Madame de Lestage, Pierre’s widow and the community’s pensionnaire perpétuelle: she advanced money in the form of loans or donations on a regular basis106 until her death in 1770. In addition to 107 this assistance, the widow gave a generous amount of money for her yearly board – far greater than that paid by an ordinary boarder108 – and on her death, she left a substantial legacy to the community.109 But then again, the community’s account book bears witness to other merchants110 who also came forward with loans as they were needed, enabling the institution to pay off debts, purchase food in times of shortages, or make repairs to their farm properties.111 The Church The institution’s involvement with Île Saint-Paul has also offered insight into the church’s role in the congregation’s economic mission: church officials, such as the bishops and the Sulpicians, for example, often acted as intermediaries with government to obtain remission from seigneurial obligations, rising to the occasion in emergencies and proffering loans and donations. This is not to argue that the institution never clashed with other religious establishments; it did. Over a period of time the congregation engaged in often bitter disputes with the Jesuits over the fief of Bon-Pasteur on Île Jésus, until the matter was finally settled in 1701;112 with the sisters of the Hôtel-Dieu in 1694 and 1706;113 and with CharlesMarie-Madeleine d’Youville Dufrost,114 priest of the Sainte-Famille mission, in 1743.115 Moreover, conflict with the male church authorities was almost inevitable, for built into the relationship with these individuals was a rigid church hierarchy demanding absolute and unquestioning obedience from the nuns (see table 3.1),116 a factor that added a complex dimension to their relations and one to be more fully explored in chapter 5. For the purposes of the present discussion, however, only the supportive aspects of these relations and their role in contributing to the stability of the institution will be examined. The most important clerics associated with the institution were the Sulpicians, who acted as the congregation’s superiors, priests, confessors, and business advisers. The Sulpicians, men of upper-class origins, came to Canada from France in the seventeenth century. Many of them, such as Gabriel Thubières de Levy de Queylus, François de Salignac de La Mothe-Fénelon, François-Saturnin Lascaris d’Urfé, François Dollier de Casson, and Pierre Rémy, not only possessed large

60

The Institution Bishop of Quebec

Suplician Seminary of Montreal Sulpician superior/vicargeneral of Montreal*

Directors

Confessors

Congrégation de Notre-Dame de Montréal Council

Assistant

Mistress of novices

Assembly

First councillor

Second councillor

Depositaire (not a council member)

Table 3.1 The administrative structure of the Congrégation de Notre-Dame, 1698–1864 sources: Constructed from aam, 525.101, 698–1, Réglemens, art. 32: 66; art. 33: 73; art. 34: 76. According to Danylewycz, Taking the Veil, 46–50, 163, the constitutions of many religious institutions, including that of the cnd, changed in mid-nineteenth-century Quebec on the impetus of reforms instigated by Bishop Bourget. See Codification aux constitution primitives de la Congrégation de Notre-Dame pour assurer un meilleur gouvernement de la communauté, 1864. * The vicar-general of Montreal could also simultaneously be a director of the Sulpician Seminary, as well as the director and confessor of the congregation. See discussion of Étienne Montgolfier below.

private fortunes but, as members of the order itself, as we have seen earlier, controlled valuable propertied assets: the seigneuries of Montreal, Two Mountains, and Saint Sulpice, in addition to all the parishes in the seigneury of Montreal itself. Renowned as exponents of the highest principles of piety and morality of the Catholic Reformation, the

The Economic Mission in the Public World

61

Sulpicians remained rigidly French and exclusionist right into the nineteenth century.117 The order grew during the final decades of the French regime, but its membership dwindled after the Conquest, and it was not to be augmented until the early years of the nineteenth century, when new priests arrived from France.118 The congregation’s relations with the Sulpicians were, on one level, strictly on a business footing. The institution paid for the religious services the Sulpicians furnished,119 as well as seigneurial dues120 and, at times, supplies for the community.121 In turn, the Sulpician priests provided the nuns with opportunities for employment, and the community’s account book reveals that the sisters washed church linen and supplied the order with communion hosts, candles, needlework, and biscuits on a regular basis.122 The congregation’s constitution stipulated that the sisters were required to consult the bishop of Quebec or, in his absence, his vicargeneral of Montreal, who was also the Sulpician superior, in all matters pertaining to business.123 Although it is difficult to determine from the sources the precise role of the Sulpician superiors in the institution’s business affairs, certain documents do attest to their influence: the signature of a Sulpician priest appears routinely on every congregation contract and, on a yearly basis, in the community’s account book. It is unlikely that the sisters would have considered any Sulpician input in their affairs as an intrusion, for the Sulpicians were shrewd business managers in their own right, with powerful connections and possibly important information to which the sisters may not have otherwise been privy. Moreover, the Sulpicians were men of influence who, as seigneurs, could facilitate the nuns’ acquisition of impressive pieces of property at such locations as Pointe-Saint-Charles124 or utilize their connections, as we have seen, to act as intermediaries, petitioning the king on behalf of the sisters for remission of feudal dues.125 The institution’s relationship with the Sulpicians, on the other hand, transcended the confines of a strictly formal business arrangement. As priests and as seigneurs of vast tracts of land, they had an interest in supporting and encouraging the proliferation of an institution such as the Congrégation de Notre-Dame, which proffered not only a religious message that they themselves propounded but also one that, as we have seen promoted a stability essential to the safeguarding of their business interests.126 It is, therefore, no coincidence that the Sulpician priests assisted in establishing many of the congregation missions (see map 6) and also, in some cases, even helped to sustain them.127 The Sulpician

62

The Institution

Map 6 Sulpician-assisted missions of the Congrégation de Notre-Dame sources: 1: anqm, gr. Senet dit Laliberté, Donation, 24 July 1707; 2: Sainte-Henriette, 3: 46; anqm, gr. Adhémar, Donation, 6 Oct. 1701; 3: anqm, gr. Adhémar, 17 Jan. 1707; 4: SainteHenriette, Histoire, 3: 389; 5: ibid., 3: 58–61, anqm, gr. Adhémar, Concession d’un emplacement, 3 July 1705; 6: Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 4: 36; 7: ibid., 5: 418–20.

priest François-Auguste Magon de Terlaye is an important case in point: when the congregation’s Native mission at Lac-des-DeuxMontagnes lost its subsidy after the Conquest, funds provided by him sustained the mission until a formal agreement could be reached with the Sulpician order in 1772.128 But repeatedly throughout the eighteenth century, the records provide examples of individual Sulpician priests rising to the occasion and coming forward to assist the congregation with loans or donations.129 The community’s relationship with Étienne Montgolfier exemplifies the benefits the congregation derived from its association with the Sulpicians (see fig. 16). Born in 1712 at Vidalon, France, Montgolfier had studied at the diocesan seminary at Viviers. After being ordained a priest in 1741, he entered the Sulpician order, and for the next nine years, he taught in various Sulpician seminaries in France. He joined the order at Montreal in 1751. First as a Sulpician priest and then as the order’s superior and the bishop’s vicar-general of the diocese of Montreal between 1759 and 1787, he held authoritative positions at a very precarious time in the history of the colony. Known for his support of and collaboration with the British government, he was 130 a valuable, well-connected ally immediately after the Conquest. On

The Economic Mission in the Public World

63

another level, as already illustrated, Montgolfier stepped in from the moment the institute’s convent burned to the ground in 1768, and he worked hard to sustain the congregation, beginning with numerous loans, which he eventually forgave.131 But his support transcended these much-needed cash donations, and his other efforts bequeathed immeasurable cultural benefits to the community. He worked tirelessly on the sisters’ behalf, beginning with the restoration of archival material that had been destroyed in the fire. On discovering a copy of the institution’s rules in the seminary of Quebec, he transcribed them between 1778 and 1784 and presented them to community.132 During this period (1779–80), he also wrote a biography of Marguerite Bourgeoys, a valuable document preserving the ancient functions and maxims of the institute and the writings of the founder of the congregation herself.133 Montgolfier also edited François Vachon de Belmont’s biography of the institution’s recluse, Jeanne Le Ber,134 and Glandelet’s work on the life of Marie Barbier.135 And finally, he donated paintings, books, and money; the last was utilized to endow the institution’s newly constructed chapel with an archway, a balustrade, and a painting of the Sacred Heart.136 Significantly, the Sulpicians were not the only religious order connected to the congregation.137 We have already seen how the sisters of the Hôtel-Dieu of Montreal offered sanctuary to the congregation nuns after the 1768 fire.138 But the Montreal Hôtel-Dieu nuns were not the only other female religious institution to come forward to lend the institution a helping hand when it was needed. The sisters of the HôtelDieu of Quebec warmly welcomed and gave individualized attention to Marie Barbier when she travelled to that town for surgery in 1700.139 Male religious institutions also had numerous links to the congregation. The Jesuits gave the institution an annuity at the end of the seventeenth century and, as we have seen, proved themselves loyal supporters by donating money to the congregation following the fire.140 But the community also paid seigneurial dues to the Jesuits for their 141 property at Laprairie and, on occasion, washed their church linen. A final recognition of the institute’s relationship with the Jesuits came at the death of the last Montreal Jesuit, Bernard Well, in 1791. JeanJoseph Casot, administrator of the Jesuit estates in Canada, came to Montreal and gave the contents of the monastery to the Hôpital Général and the poor, as well as a sum of money to the congregation, which was to be applied to the dowry of a suitable recruit.142 Récollets

64

The Institution

also engaged in economic exchanges with the institute, and the records reveal that they bought congregation candles and communion hosts.143 Other religious, as individuals, not only facilitated the establishment of the congregation and its mission but supported it too, particularly during its formative period. Paul de Chomedey de Maisonneuve’s donation in 1658 of a stable school gave the institution its first solid footing in the colony.144 Thereafter the institution periodically received other donations and legacies. For example, Jeanne Mance, the renowned founder of the Hôtel-Dieu of Montreal, donated an annual rente to the community.145 Most noteworthy were Bishop Saint-Vallier’s generous endowments to the institution over a period of more than thirty years, some of which provided the congregation with a convent in the Upper Town at Quebec and several precious annuities.146 Religious offspring of the wealthy Montreal merchant Jacques Le Ber proved to be particularly generous benefactors. One of his sons, Pierre Le Ber, for example, on his death in 1707, left the community an annuity, cash, and a portrait of Marguerite Bourgeoys (now restored and hanging in its museum in Old Montreal).147 And, as I have already demonstrated, his sister, Jeanne Le Ber, while leaving an important spiritual legacy to the community, also specified numerous bequests in the form of a chapel, cash, and a foundation to support the education of poor girls.148 Individual priests also came forward to assist in the establishment of congregation missions in their parishes. In the parish of Sainte-Famille, François Lamy donated a house and land for the establishment of a congregation mission in 1687 and 1689 respectively.149 Father Philibert Boy, curé at Batiscan, bequeathed a piece of land in that parish to the institution in 1706.150 Father Jean Basset who had been largely responsible for the establishment of the congregation mission at Neuville, in 1715 provided dowries for girls to enter the institution, forgave the sisters’ debt to him, and donated the convent building and its contents, which included a stove, and the land upon which the convent had been built.151 In 1724 Nicolas Boucher, a priest at the parish of Saint-JeanBaptiste on Île d’Orléans, donated some land in the seigneury of Boucherville to the community,152 and in 1766 Pierre-Laurent Bédard augmented the donations of the local habitants at Saint-François-duSud with land and a convent.153 Once the missions were established, assistance from the wider church, although never as generous as that received from the Sulpicians, could, on occasion, be relied upon, particularly, as we have seen, in emergen-

The Economic Mission in the Public World

65

cies. No other bishop endowed the congregation as generously as did Saint-Vallier, but on his departure from Canada in 1735, Bishop Dosquet, for example, left the congregation what he described as “a famous painting.”154 Moreover, throughout the eighteenth century, certain bishops gave donations to assist the community in its periodic financial difficulties.155

conclusion Cloistered as it was within an exclusively private world, the Congrégation de Notre-Dame was an astutely managed entity, actively engaged in numerous, often complex, relationships and activities in the business world of its day. While some of these, at times, conflicted with individuals or institutions in the surrounding society, the congregation on the whole relied upon and received support from not only the colonists but also government and the wider church structure, all of whom, in turn, benefited from its diverse missionary activities. And in the end, it was precisely this – the strength of its private life and the linkages forged through its public existence – that constituted the foundations of the power of the Congrégation de Notre-Dame in the seventeenthand eighteenth-century colonial world.

This page intentionally left blank

part two The Superiors

This page intentionally left blank

perior

chapter four

Becoming a Superior

One day in June in the year 1790,1 the sisters of the Congrégation de Notre-Dame proceeded down the long corridor of the main floor of their convent, situated between rue Notre-Dame and rue Saint-Paul in the town of Montreal, towards their chapel, Sacré-Coeur de Jésus,2 for the triennial election of their superior. The procession must have been an impressive sight. At its head were three figures, the bishop and his two assistants, robed in black.3 These dignitaries, in turn, were followed by the sisters themselves – a row of black gowns, black covering hair upon heads, from neck to the floor, arms to wrists, with only a white strip framing faces and large crucifixes gleaming upon each black breast4 – all fifty-nine nuns proceeding in the same order in which they had been accepted into the congregation (see appendix A).5 The procession edged its way towards the chapel, for the election of the superior was a most solemn and a most time-honoured and imposing ritual. Usually it began in early June. At that time, the incumbent mother superior – in this case, Véronique Brunet dit L’Estang, Soeur SainteRose – advised the bishop or his representative, the vicar-general, that it was time to call an election. Three days before the actual voting, Brunet relinquished the keys of the community to her assistant, MarieLouise Compain, Soeur Saint-Augustin, begging God for mercy to forgive her sins and her sisters to pardon her. From this moment until the election of a new superior, Compain acted as the final authority of the institution.6 In the interim, two scrutineers were chosen by secret ballot, and these individuals prepared the ballots for the election.7 Meanwhile, the entire community prepared itself for this event. Throughout the eight days preceding the election, the sisters sang “Veni Creator” during mass or at any other hour of the day. Strictly forbidden to dis-

70

The Superiors

cuss either the upcoming election or the person for whom they would vote, they were required to maintain this silence right up until the very day of the election. On the day of the election, the sisters filed into the chapel and waited for the bishop and his two assistants to celebrate mass. Once this ritual was enacted, certain sisters, such as the novices, who were not allowed to vote, withdrew from the chapel, and its doors were closed. Turning to the assembled, the bishop exhorted the remaining sisters to proceed with the election “according to God and the dictates of their conscience.”8 The voting then officially began. The scrutineers handed out ballots, upon which the sisters – because they were permitted to vote neither for themselves nor for their close relatives – were obliged to write, in addition to their selection, their names and those of “their mother, sisters, aunts, and nieces.”9 Then each sister, one by one, “with respect and modesty,”10 approached the ballot box in the same order in which they had entered the chapel and deposited her choice. The entire community then waited while one of the scrutineers mixed up the ballots, overturned the box, counted out the ballots, and announced the name of the new superior.11 All eyes must have turned at this moment to Marie Raizenne, Soeur Saint-Ignace. In a modest, reserved, and devout manner,12 she proceeded to the altar. Here she pronounced a solemn vow to God, promising to work for the good of the institution and to safeguard its rules. Then, after she received a blessing and a confirmation of her election from either the bishop, if he was present, or his representative, as well as the keys and the seal of the community, each nun came forward, according to the order of her reception into the community, and embraced Marie Raizenne as the new superior.13 This description of the election of a Congrégation de Notre-Dame superior introduces Marie Raizenne, whose subsequent life story will serve as a jumping-off point not only for this chapter’s examination of the twelve women who acted as superiors throughout the duration of this study (see appendix B) but also for its consideration of the larger question: who became superior of this institution? Very few studies have focused upon ordinary institutional superiors in the post-Tridentine era. Much recent research, however, has surrounded exceptional individuals such as Saint Teresa of Ávila14 and, in this Canadian colonial context, Marie de l’Incarnation.15 Certainly, the medieval female superior has received enough attention in recent years,

Becoming a Superior

71

and despite the fact that historians have recognized that these women emerged from diverse backgrounds, the image of the powerful abbess with wealthy social and economic resources at her command is often the one most extensively studied, and no doubt for that reason, this type of nun immediately comes to mind.16 For a later period and within the Spanish colonial context, Kathryn Burns’s study of three cloistered convents in Cuzco, Peru, from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century, also confirms that wealth and influence were important factors for achieving top administrative positions. In this Peruvian setting, contrary to constitutional rules, a hierarchy in the community divided the sisters into nuns of the black and the white veil, and only the former, who had access to wealth and connections, ascended “to positions of control over important convent business,” a situation that perpetuated the convents’ position in the spiritual economy of that country.17 But what about this institution in the Canadian colonial context? What qualities were necessary for a superior to acquire and then retain the position within the Congrégation de Notre-Dame of Montreal?

marie raizenne It must have seemed, to Marie Raizenne at least, a very long way to her election in the community’s chapel. Her parents, Josiah Rising and Abigail Nimbs, from Windsor, Connecticut, and Deerfield, Massachusetts, respectively, were New England captives18 who had been carried off from Deerfield to Canada as Native prisoners on a cold March night in 1704. Like many of the captives taken as prisoners by Natives, they were brought to Sault-au-Récollet, on the south bank of Rivière des Prairies. Here, both Josiah Rising and Abigail Nimbs repeatedly refused all offers of redemption to their homeland in spite of the entreaties of their own parents in New England, Abigail’s brother, and even the Reverend John Williams, the famous father of Eunice Williams, the captive who remained permanently in the Native village of Kahnawake.19 It appears that initially Marie’s parents lived with their Native captors and grew up in this mission “en sauvage.”20 “In a solemn ceremony of adoption,” Josiah was named Shoentakwanni, while Abigail, on another occasion, received the appellation Towatogowash.21 Other sources, however, emphasize that their links with the colonial Catholic Church were far more enduring. At their baptismal ceremonies, they were both given Christian names: Ignace Raizenne and Marie-Élisabeth Nimbs. Marie’s mother had actually attended the

72

The Superiors

congregation school within the Sulpician fort, marrying Josiah Rising in 1715 in a service conducted by a Catholic priest.22 By 1719 the couple had produced two children, and in 1721 they moved to the nearby location of Lac-des-Deux-Montagnes when the Natives were relocated to this site.23 Here they received a grant of land “a short distance from the village.” They moved into a typical habitant dwelling, with its dormered windows and sloping wood-shingled roof, and produced five more children, including Marie (see fig. 10).24 Marie’s parents became cultivateurs, farmers, and apparently fairly prosperous ones at that. Settled on their Lac-des-Deux-Montagnes property (see fig. 17), over the course of the years, in addition to raising eight children, they were able to scrape together sufficient money to send their son, Simon-Amable, to school at the Sulpician seminary in Montreal and subsequently to enter him into the priesthood in 1744. As well, they came up with the requisite dowries to enable two daughters, Marie and her sister Marie-Madeleine, to become congregation sisters. And finally, in the twilight of their lives, they passed their property on intact to their youngest son, Jean-Baptiste-Jérôme.25 Following their relocation to Lac-des-Deux-Montagnes, the family’s ties to the church continued to be close.26 As we have seen, Marie’s brother Simon-Amable and her sister Marie-Madeleine both chose the religious life. Moreover, even those brothers and sisters who chose marriage appear to have maintained the family religious tradition. Among three of them, they produced ten children who entered the colony’s religious institutions. The contribution of Marie’s brother Jean-BaptisteJérôme is noteworthy: seven of his eleven children took up the religious life.27 Some of them, like Marie, achieved notable positions in the church right into the nineteenth century. One daughter, Marie-Clothilde, eventually became the founder of a new religious order, the Congrégation de l’Enfant-Jésus in 1828,28 while two of his granddaughters, as Grey Nuns, ventured into the Upper Ottawa River area with the Oblate fathers in 1866 – “the only women in all that vast country.”29 In all, over the course of forty years, Marie would witness a succession of her relatives or individuals connected to her enter the congregation, so that by the time of this election in 1790, she could claim one sister, five nieces, and a connection to the three Sabourin sisters through her brother’s marriage, as well as six relatives in other religious institutions. Marie Raizenne was fifty-five years old at the time of her election. Yet, almost from the moment she entered the religious life, her passage to the superiorship appears to have been sure and certain. Becoming a

Becoming a Superior

73

Table 4.1 Congrégation de Notre-Dame sisters, 1790: birthplace Town

%

Country

%

Town and country

%

Montreal Quebec Trois-Rivières

16 0 0

28 0 0

22 19 1

38 33 2

38 19 1

65 33 2

Total

16

28

42

72

58

100

District

source: Gray, “A Fragile Authority,” app. 3.4, “Congrégation de Notre-Dame Professed Nuns, 1790.”

novice in 1752 at the age of seventeen and professing as a congregation sister two years later, she slowly but steadily assumed a number of administrative positions. In 1761, when she was twenty-six years old, she was charged with re-establishing the Sainte-Famille mission on Île d’Orléans, which had been closed at the time of the Conquest. Later, in 1769, stringent budgetary measures enabled her to rescue the failing Lower Town mission and establish it on a firm financial footing. It was also during this period, in 1765, that she began her long service, with only a few interruptions, on the community’s administrative council. By 1775 Raizenne was assistant to the superior, Véronique Brunet dit L’Estang, and three years later she herself became superior.30 Raizenne’s first term of office must have been successful, characterized though it was by tough economic times. A combination of luck, external generosity, strict financial management, and deft political manoeuvring must have ensured her not only a place on the council in the interim between the two elections but also this second term of office, which was to last until 1796. And although she was never again re-elected to the superiorship, she remained on the administrative council for at least three years, until 1802. At that time, all records of Marie Raizenne disappear until her death on 28 April 1811 at the age seventy-five.31

who became a superior? Born in the district of Montreal, a daughter of habitant parents who had forged strong links with the church, Raizenne was, on one level, a very ordinary woman who strikingly resembled not only the fifty-eight women in the congregation who elected her in 1790 as far as place of birth (see table 4.1) and social group (see table 4.2) but also with

74

The Superiors

Table 4.2 Congrégation de Notre-Dame sisters, 1790: occupation/status of fathers Numbers

%

Officers/seigneurs/nobility Merchants Craftsmen Farmers Soldiers Unknown from rural areas Unknown from Montreal

5 4 9 9 3 27 1

9 7 15 15 5 46 2

Total

58

100

source: Gray, “A Fragile Authority,” app. 3.4, “Congrégation de Notre-Dame Professed Nuns, 1790.”

respect to the numerous relatives she had within the church. For example, in 1790 alone, three sets of sisters in the congregation were among the women electing Marie: the Audet sisters (Marie-Anne, Soeur SainteMarguerite, and Marie-Françoise, Soeur Saint-Joseph), the Berry des Essarts sisters (Marie-Anne-Charlotte, Soeur Sainte-Radegonde, and Françoise, Soeur Saint-François-de-Sales), and the three Sabourin siblings (Marie-Élisabeth, Soeur Saint-Vincent-de-Paul, Catherine, Soeur Sainte-Ursule, and Marie-Anne-Reine, Soeur Saint-Barthélemy).32 But this was not an unusual situation. Other women at this election could claim even more extensive linkages with the church: Élisabeth Prud’homme, Soeur Sainte-Agathe, had relatives both within the congregation – a sister, two aunts, and a cousin – and outside it – a cousin at the Hôtel-Dieu of Quebec.33 And although Charlotte-Ursule Adhémar de Lantagnac, Soeur Sainte-Claire, possessed no sisters in the congregation, she could claim that five of her sisters had entered other religious institutions in the colony.34 It is important to point out that these patterns were not peculiar to the convent in 1790. As tables 4.3 and 4.4 indicate, the majority of congregation sisters throughout the period covered by this study also came from the district of Montreal and, mirroring the society surrounding it, from habitant backgrounds.35 Moreover, research has demonstrated that the majority of women within the institution before 1766 also possessed numerous links within the congregation, and many of them were connected with other religious institutions within the colony. Families such as, for example, Boucher de Boucherville, Adhémar de Lantagnac, Amyot, Constantin, d’Ailleboust des Musseaux, La Corne des Chaptes, and Jorian, whose members appear in

Becoming a Superior

75

Table 4.3 Congrégation de Notre-Dame sisters before 1766: birthplace District Montreal Quebec Trois-Rivières Outside New France Total

Numbers

%

93 45 20 8

56 27 12 5

166

100

source: Pelletier, Le clergé en Nouvelle-France, 75.

Table 4.4 Congrégation de Notre-Dame sisters before 1766: social group

Seigneurs/officers/nobility/ merchants Artisans/habitants Labourers/soldiers Unknown Total

Number

%

57

34.3

82 1 26

49.4 0.6 15.7

166

100

source: Pelletier, Le clergé en Nouvelle-France, 81.

the congregation throughout the eighteenth century at one time or another, had numerous members in several religious institutions in the colony.36 If Marie Raizenne was a typical congregation sister, she was also a very typical superior. Most congregation superiors – in fact, nine of the twelve – like Raizenne, came from the district of Montreal (see table 4.5). Specifically, five women – Marie Barbier, Soeur de l’Assomption; Marguerite Le Moyne de Sainte-Marie, Soeur du Saint-Esprit; Catherine Charly Saint-Ange, Soeur du Saint-Sacrement; Marie-Angélique Lefebvre Angers, Soeur Saint-Simon; and Marie-Josèphe Maugue-Garreau, Soeur de l’Assomption – were actually born and grew up in the town of Montreal itself. Three women came from areas close to Montreal: MarieMarguerite Piot de Langloiserie, Soeur Saint-Hippolyte, was born in Varennes; Véronique Brunet dit L’Estang, Soeur Sainte-Rose, in PointeClaire; and of course, Marie Raizenne at Lac-des-Deux-Montagnes. Marie-Anne Thibierge, Soeur Sainte-Pélagie, was also included in this Montreal group, for although she was born in Quebec, her family was

76

The Superiors

Table 4.5 Congrégation de Notre-Dame superiors, 1693–1796: birthplace Town

%

Country

%

Town and country

%

Montreal Quebec Trois-Rivières

6 0 0

50 0 0

3 1 2

25 8 17

9 1 2

75 8.3 17

Total

6

50

6

50

12

District

100

sources: See appendix B.

Table 4.6 Congrégation de Notre-Dame superiors, 1693–1796: occupation/status of fathers

Officers Merchants Craftsmen Farmers Total

Number

%

1 4 2 5

8 33 17 42

12

100

sources: See appendix B.

living in Montreal by the time she was seven years old.37 This was also true of Marie-Élisabeth Guillet, Soeur Sainte-Barbe. She was born in the diocese of Trois-Rivières, in Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pérade. This fact, however, can be misleading, for it appears very possible that Soeur Guillet’s father had, by the early 1690s – at least by the time she was ten years old – settled and was doing most of his business in Montreal.38 The two remaining superiors were born outside Montreal: Marguerite Trottier, Soeur Saint-Joseph, in Batiscan in the district of Trois-Rivières and Marguerite Amyot, Soeur de la Présentation, in Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupré in the district of Quebec. Marie Raizenne was not the only superior to emerge from a working family, for most were daughters of farmers, artisans, or small, newly made merchants (see table 4.6). Many of these individuals appeared to be industrious people, often pursuing more than one occupation to make ends meet. Marie Barbier’s father was a habitant who also worked on various occasions as a tax collector, a “master” carpenter, and a surveyor;39 Catherine Charly’s father, in addition to being a habitant, called himself, on numerous occasions, a baker;40 Marguerite Trottier’s father, although registering as a “censitaire,”41 also worked as

Becoming a Superior

77

a wheelwright;42 and Véronique Brunet dit L’Estang’s father, who appears in the archives as a voyageur in the fur trade, must have been a habitant, for his widow, Marguerite Dubois, sold their Pointe-Claire land in 1751 to her son Dominique.43 The artisans’ daughters emerged from similar forward-looking backgrounds, with fathers who pursued a trade but appeared to have set their sights a bit higher. Jacques Thibierge, Marie-Anne’s father, was apprenticed to an armsmaker in Quebec in 1679; eventually he moved to Montreal and became a king’s gunsmith.44 Gentien Amyot, Marguerite’s father, a master locksmith, engaged apprentices and possessed property that he was able to rent out to individuals.45 This pattern follows right through to the merchants’ daughters. Often their fathers began life in quite an ordinary manner, and as time progressed, they became merchants. Jean-Baptiste Lefebvre Angers, father of Marie-Angélique, who in 1707 declared himself to be a “master” carpenter and also, on occasion, worked as a “master surveyor,” became, in the later years of his life, a merchant.46 The working life of Mathurin Guillet, Marie-Élisabeth Guillet’s father, followed a similar pattern. Although known in the sources as a wealthy Montreal merchant, he came from a very ordinary background. In 1684 he declared himself a habitant. However, a subsequent series of transactions raised him to merchant status by 1700.47 This upwardly mobile social pattern is also discernable in the working life of Pierre Garreau dit Saint-Onge, father of Marie-Josèphe. He appears in the notarial records in 1694 as a voyageur, and by 1713 he had begun to contract out crews. Seven years later, he declared himself a merchant. He married Marie-Anne Maugue, daughter of the distinguished notary Claude Maugue, in Montreal, and by 1721 he officially appears in a notarial document as a Montreal merchant, building a stone house for his family.48 In fact, only two of the twelve superiors throughout the entire period could claim elevated social backgrounds: Marguerite Piot de Langloisierie and Marguerite Le Moyne. Piot de Langloiserie came from the Canadian elite. Although her maternal grandfather, Michel-Sidrac Dugué de Boisbriand, died in poverty, he was one of the earliest Montreal seigneurs, first of Senneville and then of Île Sainte-Thérèse near Repentigny. He also served, albeit very briefly, as military commander of Montreal. Marguerite’s father, Charles-Gaspard, seigneur of Île Sainte-Thérèse and Mille-Îles, also had a distinguished career. He was town major of Montreal and then Quebec, with the power to command in the absence of the governor. In 1703 (despite the hint of a

78

The Superiors

scandal), he was made the king’s lieutenant at Quebec, and two years later, he received the cross of the order of Saint-Louis.49 Unlike Marguerite Piot de Langloiserie, Marguerite Le Moyne’s kin did not belong to the nobility. However, many of her relatives pursued distinguished careers as merchants in the fur trade and then eventually became seigneurs. Her uncle Charles Le Moyne began his working life in Canada as an indentured servant to the Jesuit missionaires among the Hurons in the 1640s. He later became seigneur of Longueuil, Châteauguay, Île Ronde, and Île Sainte-Hélène, as well as a wealthy merchant who, with Jacques Le Ber, dominated the fur trade.50 Moreover, Marguerite’s father, Jacques, pursued a career that followed a similar trajectory. At various times between 1658 and 1683, he declared himself to be a habitant, a merchant, a churchwarden, and a keeper of the king’s warehouse. By 1689, nine years before Marguerite’s first term as a superior, he stated that he was a seigneur.51 And finally, like Marie Raizenne, numerous superiors’ families also possessed strong links to the church, a phenomenon not peculiar to the congregation but widespread among many colonial families and well documented in Louis Pelletier’s study Le clergé en Nouvelle-France.52 Specifically within the congregation, only one superior of the twelve, Véronique Brunet dit L’Estang, had absolutely no relative in any religious institution in the colony. Only three others – Marie Barbier, Marie-Élisabeth Guillet, and Marie-Angélique Lefebvre Angers – possessed no kin in the community itself, although some of their relations had entered other religious institutions. On the other hand, each remaining superior could claim at least one or more relative, not only in the congregation itself but also in other religious institutions. For example, three of Catherine Charly’s sisters became congregation nuns, while her nephew, André Joseph de Montenon de la Rue, was ordained a priest in 1713. Marguerite Piot de Langloiserie possessed only one sibling in the congregation, but her older sister and her two maternal aunts had entered the Hôtel-Dieu of Montreal, while a cousin became an Ursuline nun at Quebec.53 Most notable in the ecclesiastical network were Marie-Josèphe Mauge-Garreau, Marie-Anne Thibierge, and Marguerite Le Moyne. A total of six of Maugue-Garreau’s relatives could be found both within the congregation and in other religious institutions in the colony: an aunt, a stepniece, and a cousin were all congregation nuns, another cousin had been a Montreal Hôtel-Dieu sister, and her two brothers became secular priests. Her brother Pierre distinguished himself enough

Becoming a Superior

79

Table 4.7 Congrégation de Notre-Dame superiors, 1693–1796: average age at entry Group

Age at entry

Superiors a b 1790 sisters c Pre-1766 sisters

16.4 19.4 19.8

sources: a: See appendix B; b: Gray, “A Fragile Authority,” app. 3.4, “Congrégation de Notre-Dame Professed Nuns, 1790”; c: Pelletier, Le clergé en Nouvelle-France, 69.

to be appointed vicar-general of Trois-Rivières by Bishop Briand in 1764, an appointment almost coinciding with Marie’s first term as superior in 1766.54 Thibierge’s two sisters were also congregation nuns; three cousins were Hôtel-Dieu sisters, and another cousin became a Récollet priest. Notably, her aunt Marie-Catherine Thibierge led a distinguished religious life at the Hôtel-Dieu of Quebec: on a regular basis until her death in 1757, she was re-elected this institution’s mother superior.55 Marguerite Le Moyne’s connections within the church were the most extensive, however: her cousins Pierre and Jeanne Le Ber, as we have seen, were renowned for their generosity and close links to the community. Moreover, these links to the church were augmented by her two sisters and a niece in the congregation and by two stepnieces, one at the Hôpital Général and the other with the Ursulines at Quebec.56

a separate breed If geographical location, social background, and connections within the church did not make a superior, what qualities distinguished her from the other congregation sisters – the majority – who spent their entire existences far removed from the higher administrative echelons, either teaching or serving as labouring sisters? To begin with, from the very inception of their religious lives, future superiors were distinct. For one, they entered religion at a far younger age than the average congregation sister (see table 4.7). Certainly, the fact that Marie Barbier, Marguerite Le Moyne, Catherine Charly, and Marguerite Trottier entered the congregation at a much earlier age than the norm (14 years) can be explained: at the time of their profession, constitutional stipulations were not in place regulating a novice’s age.57 This fact, however, does not account for Marie-Angélique Lefebvre Angers’s entrance at the age of just 16 years in 1726, as well as the consistently earlier age of the remaining superiors (17.4 years).

80

The Superiors

One can only speculate as to why these women entered the religious life at such a young age.58 Certainly, external factors could have contributed to this decision. Many superiors came from areas where congregation schools were in place, and they would probably have attended them. Marta Danylewycz has noted how, in the nineteenth century, the congregation sisters utilized the classroom as a focal point for recruitment, and there is no reason to believe that this practice did not originate in an earlier period.59 Perhaps in these classrooms their teachers may have noticed and cultivated the incipient intelligence of these girls and their leadership qualities, and in turn may have encouraged them to choose the religious life. Other factors integral to these individuals, however, may have been more crucial to a decision made perhaps against the wishes of families and friends. The lives of the saints are replete with tales of young headstrong girls disobeying the wishes of their parents, often running away to pursue spiritual inclinations – saints such as Teresa of Ávila, Catherine of Siena, and Catherine of Genoa – archetypal patterns long established within church tradition and accessible to any like-minded girl to read about and follow.60 Once these girls professed as nuns, they would, like any other teaching sister, have been sent out into the missions, where many of these future superiors began to distinguish themselves. We have seen how, at the age of thirty, Marie Raizenne was recalled to the mother house from the Sainte-Famille mission, which she had been delegated to re-establish. Subsequently, she was elected to the administrative council, in which she served with impressive success until 1769, when she was sent to rescue the Lower Town school at Quebec. Like Raizenne, Marie Barbier in 1685, at only twenty-two years of age, also became known for her work in the missions as an exemplary teacher of the young girls of the Sainte-Famille community. As well, at about this time she distinguished herself for her intense spirituality, obvious from the beginning of her life as a nun, but which became particularly pronounced at the Lower Town mission between 1687 and 1691.61 Catherine Charly worked at this same Lower Town mission, not merely as a teaching sister but as an assistant to the mission’s superior, at least before she had reached the age of thirty-six in 1702.62 And very early in her working life, Marguerite Trottier proved to be a woman of diverse talents. In 1694, at the age of sixteen, she worked as a missionary at Château-Richer. She returned to the community in 1705 and became its dépositaire when she was only twenty-seven. She remained in this

Becoming a Superior

81

position for twelve years, until her election in 1722. As the principal manager of the convent’s finances, she also demonstrated editorial skills: she collected and transmitted information to Glandelet for his life of Marguerite Bourgeoys.63 This facility with finances, by the way, was not exceptional to Soeur Trottier: at least two other superiors besides Marie Raizenne and Marguerite Trottier – Marie-Elisabeth Guillet and Marguerite Piot de Langloiserie – managed the community’s finances for at least a part of their working lives before their first elections.64 Although no records remain of the formative working life of the remaining superiors, it is clear that ten of these women had distinguished themselves enough early in their working lives to serve on the institution’s administrative council before their first elections.65 Only Marguerite Amyot and Marguerite Trottier do not appear in any sources as council members before their elections. Superiors spent varying periods in these administrative positions. Unlike Marie Raizenne, some could not claim a full six years’ experience in administration before their elections. Marie Barbier, for example, returned from the Lower Town mission in 1692 to become Marguerite Bourgeoys’s assistant for only one year before her election the subsequent year. Véronique Brunet dit L’Estang also acted as assistant to Marie-Josèphe Maugue-Garreau for only one year before her first term as superior in 1772, while Marie-Élisabeth Guillet served as Marguerite Le Moyne’s assistant for only two years before becoming superior in 1734. Most future superiors, however, served longer stints on council, for this administrative experience must have been not only an apprenticeship but also a testing ground for the superiorship. Maugue-Garreau spent three years on council before her election; Marie-Anne Thibierge, Marie-Angélique Lefebvre Angers, and Marguerite Le Moyne served four years; Marguerite Piot de Langloiserie acted as mistress of novices for five years, subsequently holding down the position of dépositaire for another six years before her election in 1751; and Catherine Charly spent a full nine years on council in diverse positions before her first election in 1708.66 Obviously, all council members did not become superiors. CharlotteUrsule Adhémar de Lantagnac, Soeur Sainte-Claire, for example, served on council for eleven years of her working life and was never elected superior; nor was Catherine-Françoise Dugast, Soeur de-laCroix, despite all of her twenty-four years either on this administrative body or as the community’s dépositaire.67 The true difference between

82

The Superiors

these superiors, mission sisters, and council members was, of course, the election, and it was never a reward for service in one’s fading days. Rather, it occurred almost invariably at the prime of an individual’s life. The average age for a first superiorship was forty-six, an age when most of these women had work experience in the missions and on the administrative council firmly behind them and healthy productive days ahead. Eight of the twelve superiors were in their forties on their first election: only Marie Barbier and Marguerite Le Moyne were significantly younger – Barbier was not even thirty years old, Marguerite Le Moyne thirty-six – while Marie-Anne Thibierge and Marguerite Amyot were both well over fifty at the time of their first elections to the position. That these individuals were women of talent becomes even more obvious the more their subsequent working lives are examined. All superiors were re-elected to the position at some point during their lives.68 In fact, with the exception of Catherine Charly, whose first superiorship lasted four years, from 1708 to 1712, every superior held the position for at least an initial two consecutive terms. Such a short first term in Charly’s case, however, was not a reflection of her performance: she was re-elected in 1717 after acting as an assistant for one year. But notably and exceptionally, Le Moyne served as superior for ten years after her first election, six after her second, and seven for her final stint as superior.69 Four other superiors, like Marie Raizenne, returned to the helm and were re-elected after their first superiorship and a brief respite, during which time they invariably served on the community’s council. This was true of Charly, as already pointed out, as well as of Piot de Langloiserie, Brunet dit L’Estang, and Le Moyne. The last superior is most worthy of mention: for twenty-eight years, from 1698 until 1734, she was intermittently elected superior, serving in between these superiorships as either assistant or mistress of novices. Constitutional stipulations determined the length of a superiorship, and no woman, without the permission of the bishop, could remain in the position for more than twelve years.70 However, after they had handed over the keys and the seal of the community to their successors, their working lives were another measure of their talent, for no congregation sister was ever retired from administrative life immediately after her final term as superior.71 Every single one – with the exception of Catherine Charly, who died while in office in 1719, and Marie-Elisabeth Guillet, who passed away only a few months after the end of her superiorship in 1739 – remained in active administrative positions,

Becoming a Superior

83

some even to the final days of their lives. Marguerite Amyot served for two years as a councillor until her death in 1747, Marie-Angélique Lefebvre Angers appeared on council until she passed away in 1766, and Marie-Anne Thibierge acted as an assistant to Piot de Langloiserie for three years before her death in 1757. To be sure, some superiors’ stints on council after their final terms as superior proved brief, and often for no apparent reason. This was true of Marie Raizenne. She remained on council for only three recorded years between the end of her final term in 1796 and her death in 1811. Was she too ill or fatigued to continue in administrative positions? The sources are silent concerning this question. On the other hand, Marguerite Le Moyne’s brief four years on council after her final term are perhaps more easily explained, for they followed a very long working life in the upper administrative echelons of the community. And finally, certain superiors whose terms on council were brief applied their talents to other areas. Marguerite Trottier, for example, sat on council for only one year after her superiorship, when, in 1733, at the request of Bishop Dosquet, she was sent to rescue the failing Louisbourg mission.72 And finally, Véronique Brunet dit L’Estang acted as councillor for only three years after her final term (1790–93), until she passed away in 1810. In the intervening period, however, she was renowned for her assistance of the community’s domestics and for her work promoting the education of poor girls.73 The remaining three superiors spent long and distinguished years on council after their final terms as superior.74 Piot de Langloiserie served on council for nine years, while Maugue-Garreau acted as either mistress of novices or councillor for thirteen years until her death in 1785. But no one could match Marie Barbier’s record of post-superiorship service. This mystic’s final term as superior ended in 1698, but her record of service continued. She was appointed director of the Congrégation des Externes and was elected either councillor or assistant for at least eighteen years until 1731, eight years before her death in 1739.75 The distinctive qualities of these superiors persisted right until their deaths, for every one of these women lived longer than the average congregation sister (see table 4.8). In fact, they also outlived their peers in other religious institutions in the colony between 1693 and 1764 (see table 4.9). Raizenne and Brunet (in the 1790 group) were over seventy when they died. Moreover, the ten superiors who were either not in the convent in 1790 or died before 1766 all surpassed the fifty-year mark. Notably, four – Marguerite Amyot, Marie Barbier, Marguerite Piot de

84

The Superiors

Table 4.8 Congrégation de Notre-Dame sisters and superiors, 1693–1796: average age at death Group

Age at death

Pre-1666 superiorsa Pre-1766 sistersb

69 50.4 80.08 70

1790 superiors (1766–90)c 1790 sistersd

sources: a: See appendix B; b: Pelletier, Le clergé en Nouvelle-France, 100; c: see appenedix B (refers to superiors between 1766 and 1790); d: Gray, “A Fragile Authority,” app. 3.4, “Congrégation de Notre-Dame Professed Nuns, 1790” (refers to sisters in the convent, 1790).

Table 4.9 Other female religious institutions: average age at death, 1693–1764 Institution

Age at death

Hôpital Général Hôtel-Dieu Ursulines

54.8 49.5 54.7

source: Allaire, L’Hôpital-général de Québec, 1692–1764, 141.

Langloiserie, and Marguerite Le Moyne – actually lived beyond seventy years, while Marie-Josèphe Maugue-Garreau, Marguerite Trottier, and Marie-Anne Thibierge were all in their sixties when they passed away. Only Catherine Charly, Marie-Élisabeth Guillet, and Marie-Angèlique Lefebvre Angers were in their fifties when they died.76

conclusion On the surface, a superior of the Congrégation de Notre-Dame proved to be a rather ordinary individual, barely distinguishable from the other sisters who entered the institution throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Yet a closer examination of these women as individuals and as a group reveals that, in fact, they possessed exceptional characteristics. This conclusion challenges notions of an ancien régime in which wealth, patronage, and connections ruled the day and makes way, in this particular situation at least, for the possibility that a person’s individual qualities mattered. Moreover, it also advances our understanding of the nature of the institution’s relationships with external society and establishes the critical and sustaining role for the survival of this institution of an individual capable of bearing the weight of this “pesante charge.”

arge”

chapter five

“La pesante charge”

Nothing illustrates the heart and soul of a superior’s power more than the daily ritual of the locking of the convent doors. Every evening the assistant and the portière would approach the superior in order to obtain the keys to lock the doors in the lower courtyard and those of the convent itself. Immediately thereafter, they would return to the superior and place those same keys back in her hands, and she would guard them until the following morning. At that time these same two individuals would go to her bedchamber to retrieve the keys and to reopen the doors. This was a ritual enacted twice daily, year after year, no matter who held the office of the superior. It was a ritual distinctly demonstrative of the fact that ultimately the superior was the final keeper of this institution’s keys.1 Indeed, it would seem from this description that the position of superior of the Congrégation de Notre-Dame was powerful and prestigious. Ironically, however, it would also seem that, in spite of appearances, Marie-Josèphe Maugue-Garreau, tenth mother superior of the Congrégation de Notre-Dame from 1766 to 1772, did not view her position in such an elevated way. More than once in her letters to Bishop Briand, she referred to the superiorship as either “a heavy burden” or “a load.”2 Elected in 1766, she would write two years later: “I eagerly await the elections to be relieved of this heavy burden that I carry on my shoulders.”3 To be sure, certain historians have viewed the position of a nun in a very different manner from that of this superior. Marta Danylewycz, for example, in her groundbreaking 1987 work, Taking the Veil, placed the vocation of a nineteenth-century nun in what was, at the time, a new and interesting perspective. For Danylewycz, being a nun was not

86

The Superiors

an act of retreat from the world. Rather, the convent was a place where a woman encountered a whole range of opportunities denied to her outside the particular institution she had chosen to enter and offered women an alternative to marriage. It was, she maintained, a “lifelong career within a community,” able “to create its own sense of rank, status and division of labour.” Turning to a description of the life of those who reached the higher echelons in general and the mother superior, in particular, Danylewycz waxed no less effusive: the convent allowed women and members of the lower orders to rise to positions of power and “prestige” unmatched in the secular society of nineteenth-century Quebec, “to enjoy certain political and economic privileges” as a “reward” for being pious and capable.4 Danylewycz’s idyllic characterization of the life of a nineteenthcentury congregation nun and a superior echoed in certain subsequent and often equally positive interpretations of religious women in other centuries. Elizabeth Rapley adopted Danylewycz’s idealistic view in her 1990 examination of the dévotes in seventeenth-century France. She concluded that the filles seculières, the subject of her study, were women engaged in a “professional life, consecrated to social action,” and that their work was “meritorious and satisfying.”5 Research emphasizing the positive dimensions of the religious life seemed to advance an interpretation of the historical nun as a nascent feminist, engaged in a full-fledged “modern” occupation. Subsequent interpretations, however, have somewhat mitigated this view. In 1995 Micheline Dumont concluded that while the religious life resembled feminism in that both were a way to pursue individual development, the two entities were, although parallel in their origin and evolution, separate and distinct.6 Danielle Juteau and Nicole Laurin, in their 1997 study of religious institutions in the twentieth century within the wider context of secular working women, affirmed the veracity of the distinct nature of the religious life. According to their analysis, religious women could not be compared to other types of female workers, for their endeavours were devoted to the glory of God, a conception endowing a specific sense to feminine work. Ultimately, they concluded that the religious life was an occupation as well as a vocation.7 Patricia Simpson’s biography of Marguerite Bourgeoys, published the same year, re-asserted a traditional view of the religious life. For Simpson, the sisters of the Congrégation de Notre-Dame in the seventeenth century, under the leadership of their founder, had strictly devoted their lives to God by dedicating themselves to imitating the perfect life of the Virgin Mary in this world.8

“La pesante charge”

87

With the above studies in mind and taking into account the laments of Marie-Josèphe Maugue-Garreau to her bishop, this chapter considers the power of the superior in the eighteenth-century convent, focusing primarily upon the superiorship of Maugue-Garreau. It will examine in detail the precise nature of her duties9 with two purposes in mind. The first intends to comprehend the nature of her position within its immediate and wider historical context. The second attempts to understand the nature of her laments. Were they a sincere reflection of how she viewed her position? Or were they merely rhetoric, fashioned to impress the bishop with her deep-seated modesty and spirituality, an attempt to appear humble and lowly before him, her superior, by at least outwardly adhering to the precepts of an institution that, theoretically at least, demanded “a renunciation of all of the standards of the world?”10

the mother superior: “comme à leur mère” On the surface, at least, Maugue-Garreau’s position as mother superior11 of the Congrégation de Notre-Dame appears somewhat more impressive than any existence she may well have led had she not made the decision to enter the religious life in 1738 at the age of eighteen. This was a decision, by the way, that increasingly fewer women made in the eighteenth-century colony and a situation that would not change as the century advanced.12 Given that most colonial women throughout this period married in their early twenties, if Maugue-Garreau had not entered the convent, she would have still been living with her parents in the family home and would probably have continued to do so for a number of years.13 During this time, a marriage would have been arranged for her by her parents, undoubtedly to an individual from her own social group.14 Moreover, it probably would have been a favourable one, as a result of certain social advantages that she would have enjoyed derived from her maternal grandfather, Claude Maugue, the Montreal notary,15 and from her father’s position as a prosperous Montreal merchant. As we have seen earlier, her father, Pierre Garreau, had worked his way up in the world, advancing from a humble voyageur to an individual who could finance his own excursions to the pays d’en haut. These excursions enabled him to amass a certain amount of money, to marry well, and eventually to build a solid stone house on rue Saint-Jean-Baptiste in Montreal.16 Moreover, this prestigious position would only have

88

The Superiors

been enhanced as her life progressed, particularly when her brother, Pierre, a secular priest, was appointed to the position of vicar-general of Trois-Rivières in 1766.17 As advantageous as any prospective marriage may have been, however, Marie-Josèphe Maugue-Garreau’s position would have been determined by the stipulations of the Coutume de Paris, which designated her husband, as the head of the household, the absolute controller of all the family assets that were held in common. Within these circumstances, she could neither take legal action nor start her own business. Year after year, in addition to her household duties, she would have given birth to a child at regular intervals. Moreover, if she did not succumb to an early death from childbirth or pregnancy, she might have worked in the family enterprise, possibly even acting, in her husband’s absence, as his authorized representative. Only her husband’s death would have broken this cycle. As a widow, no longer economically and legally dependent upon her spouse, she would have found herself in a comparatively privileged and legally protected situation, able to fully control the family assets or perhaps even run a small business.18 Compared to this possible matrimonial fate, then, Maugue-Garreau‘s religious life, initially as a nun and then as mother superior, appears to have offered a much wider scope. Her entry into the congregation in 1738 at the age of eighteen enabled her, in two short years, to move from a postulant to a novice to a fully professed nun and teacher of the community’s young girls. By 1763, at the age of forty-three, she held a position on the community’s council, which allowed her to participate in important congregation decisions. In 1766, at the age of fortysix, she was elected to the superiorship, the highest position within the congregation,19 in an institution which, by this time, could claim, in addition to the Montreal school, twelve teaching missions spread throughout the colony’s three districts (see map 7). As mother superior of the Congrégation de Notre-Dame, MaugueGarreau was, as we have seen, the keeper of the community’s keys, “mère” to the women in her charge, responsible for the overall management of the entire operation.20 She presided over the community’s administrative bodies, the council and the assembly at large (see table 3.1), and in this capacity, she oversaw major financial and administrative decisions touching upon not only the day-to-day operations of the community but also the very survival of the institution itself.21 This position afforded her many privileges and powers accorded to no one else,

“La pesante charge”

89

Map 7 Congrégation de Notre-Dame missions, 1766 sources: 1: Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 1: 55–6, gr. Basset, Donation, 22 Jan. 1658; 2: ibid., 1: 327; 3: ibid., 1: 275; 4: ibid., 1: 295, anqm, gr. Chambalon, Donation, 5 Sept. 1692; 5: Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 1: 281, 3: 42–4; anqm, gr. Pottier, Donation, 3 Dec. 1701; 6: Sainte-Henriette, 3: 46; anqm, gr. Adhémar, Donation, 6 Oct. 1701; 7: anqm, gr. Tailhandier, Concession d’un emplacement, 7 Mar. 1705; 8: Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 3: 56; 9: ibid., 3: 232; anqm, gr. Dubreuil, Donation, 5 Oct. 1713; 10: Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 3: 311; 11: ibid., 4: 35; 12: ibid., 5: 39; anqm, gr. Lévesque, 13 May 1764.

extending from the more mundane details of everyday life, such as the right to enjoy absolute privacy within her own bedchamber (the other sisters were required to keep their doors open and to permit her to enter their rooms at any time),22 to the larger and more impressive liberty to correspond, on a regular basis, with the major political and religious figures of the day, such as Governor Guy Carleton and Bishop Briand. But her connections also extended beyond the colony in North America to the European continent and the Abbé de L’Isle-Dieu,23 the aging but venerable Parisian protector of the colonial church’s overseas investments.24 Within the framework of this institution, it was Maugue-Garreau who set the daily tone of the community, ensuring that the rhythm of the convent, as stipulated by the constitution, was upheld: that prayers, which she invariably led, were said at the proper times and intervals – in the morning, the afternoon, and the evening; that duties were attended to at the designated time, all enshrined in the stipulated mandatory silences and subdued atmosphere appropriate to convent life.25

90

The Superiors

The congregation’s constitution also endowed her with considerable responsibility and power over the very lives of the women within the convent itself, a charge leaving few aspects of the sisters’ existences untouched. Although the institution’s priests were in complete charge of distributing the sacrament through the ritual of the mass, MaugueGarreau did enjoy some authority over the spiritual development of the nuns entrusted to her. Some of this power would have been shared with the community’s confessor. With him she would make decisions regulating the spiritual life of the nuns for whom she was responsible: together they would determine the frequency of their communion, the occurrence and severity of their bodily mortifications, and the time and the length of their retreats.26 Moreover, if the confessor imposed any penitence upon a sister that contravened the rules of the convent or interfered with her work, it was within the superior’s purview to settle the issue with the sister and perhaps also with the confessor himself.27 In other more mundane, practical areas, however, Maugue-Garreau possessed even more authority. For example, she alone ensured that the ill were attended to and that the dead received the appropriate rituals.28 She could enter the bedchambers of the healthy nuns to inspect them and make certain that no item unstipulated by the constitution was inside.29 She settled daily quarrels and discouraged the development of unfavourable relationships and factions.30 Maugue-Garreau also presided over meetings, some of which took the form of “small conferences” on “pious matters,” held every fifteen days. Throughout these discussions, it was her responsibility to encourage the sisters to speak their minds and to mete out punishment to those who laughed or mocked the confessions of their fellow sisters. She could order the offending individuals to bend before her on their knees in humble and penitent submission and forbid them to rise until she issued a sign.31 She also presided over another type of assembly, the chapitre des fautes, which took place every Friday. These meetings would begin in the community’s chapel with prayers that ended with a moment of silence. At this time, the sisters would ask God for the “grace to admit to their faults with all humility and sincerity possible.”32 Then, with the permission of the superior, the nuns would confess to their own faults and also point out those of others. The superior, for her part, was “particularly obliged to reprimand them with force and charity for their lesser faults, and to issue remedies and penitence that she will [would] judge most useful for the good of the community and the particular perfection of the sisters.”33

“La pesante charge”

91

According to the institution’s constitution, there was very little these women could do on their own without the approval of the superior, for they had taken obedience – along with poverty and chastity and the teaching of young children – as one of their sacred vows.34 It would, therefore, be to the superior herself that the sisters would turn for consent to absent themselves from religious rituals and daily tasks, and to her that they would account for their actions – for their behaviour outside the convent, on an errand or a local visit, or for their comportment in the parloir35 with a visitor whom only the superior could approve and who could only be received when the sister was accompanied by another sister the superior herself had chosen.36 This is not to argue that Maugue-Garreau would have been alone in the exercise of this supreme authority (see table 3.1). I have already mentioned the role of the confessor in the enactment of her spiritual duties. But more significantly, the bishop of Quebec or, in his absence, the vicar-general of Montreal, who was also superior of the Sulpicians, the spiritual and temporal directors of this institution, had to be consulted on all matters.37 Moreover, within the institute itself, a general assembly, consisting of all sisters who had taken their permanent vows, assisted her in the decision-making process, voting on such matters as the reception of girls into the convent, the community’s finances, and the establishment of new missions.38 As well, a council, comprising an assistant, a mistress of novices, and two councillors and elected by the assembly, was required to report to the superior, support her in her duties, and also deal with all other matters “unless this same council judged it appropriate to take them to the assembly.”39 Unfortunately for the historian, it is almost impossible to penetrate the precise details of the day-to-day powers exercised by the superior, for aside from a few fragments scattered throughout the community’s records, the congregation’s council minutes, “the propositions and the conclusions made in council,”40 and the deliberations of the community for the eighteenth century were, for the most part, destroyed in one of the many convent fires. Concomitantly, we know very little about the precise workings of the assembly and the council or the distribution of power and responsibility within both bodies vis-à-vis the superior.41 Also, we have no more than a vague idea, beyond constitutional stipulations, as to the nature of the superior’s relationship with her accountant, or dépositaire. We know, for example, that the superior, with the assistance of this individual, was required to keep track of and account for the state of the institution’s finances to the community as well as to

92

The Superiors

her male religious superiors. Precisely how involved the superior was in the actual accounting process is difficult to determine.42 She was, nevertheless, far more directly concerned with the finances of the community than was her Sulpician superior. According to Brian Young’s examination of the Sulpician Seminary of Montreal in the nineteenth century, “the superior, curé and college principal played central roles in the spiritual, parish and teaching life of the seminary,” whereas the procurator “was the key official in the daily material life of the institution.”43 While my research demonstrates that the position of dépositaire covered extensive ground, she does not appear to have been given the same “free hand” as the Sulpician’s procurator, whose “pervasive influence” penetrated his order’s consulting council, which very often “rubberstamped” many of his requests.44 In the case of the congregation, on the other hand, the dépositaire was not always or automatically a council member. She did not report directly to the community’s council but to the superior, with whom she discussed the community’s financial affairs and who appears, unlike the Sulpician superior, to have been well versed in more than the just “spiritual and teaching life”45 of the congregation. Theoretically, at least, it would appear that the position of mother superior was a powerful and prestigious one indeed, confirming the impression left by the description of the ritual of the convent keys that introduces this chapter and buttressing certain historical interpretations. In this light, then, Marie-Josèphe Maugue-Garreau’s laments to the bishop referring to the superiorship as a “heavy load” appear puzzling indeed. However, by exploring more profoundly the administrative realities of this convent and the concomitant duties of the superior, we can draw closer to a deeper understanding of not only MaugueGarreau’s complaints but also her existence as superior of the Congrégation de Notre-Dame.

the business of the day: à votre monseigneur As prestigious as a superior’s theoretical power may appear to have been she did not exercise it in an absolute fashion, as we have seen. A general assembly consisting of all sisters who had taken their permanent vows assisted her in the decision-making process, as did her council, which was elected by this assembly.46 Moreover, the bishop of Quebec or his representative, the vicar-general in Montreal, had to be consulted on all matters.47 We also have observed how difficult, if

“La pesante charge”

93

impossible, it is to penetrate the inner workings of a superior’s relationship with her assembly and council and to assess its influence upon her position. Maugue-Garreau’s relationship with the bishop, however, presents fewer such limitations. Existing correspondence48 of Marie-Josèphe Maugue-Garreau and Marie Raizenne with the bishop of Quebec49 enables the historian not only to observe the interaction of each of these women with this prelate but also to compare it and then to ultimately assess the nature of the relationship and, more importantly, its impact upon the duties and ultimately the power of a Congrégation de NotreDame superior.50

the correspondence Marie-Josèphe Maugue-Garreau When Maugue-Garreau wrote her first letter to the bishop of Quebec on 23 July 1766, she had only been in the office of superior for less than one month. Bishop Briand was also fairly new to his position (see fig. 18): he had taken possession of his see at the chapel of the Séminaire de Québec only four days earlier. Briand, a native of France and son of a peasant who had served in the Canadian church since 1741, became head of an institution in Quebec that war and conquest had left in a state of uncertainty: with the religion of the civil authority opposed to Catholicism, poverty in the female religious orders, a declining priesthood, and quarrels in the parishes, sometimes erupting into open rebellion over the location of a parish church or the payment of tithes.51 Eleven of Maugue-Garreau’s letters to Bishop Briand survive, and they are not dated at regular intervals: five were written in 1766, four in 1768, and two in 1770 (see fig. 19). Given the nature of the correspondence, in that it dealt with day-to-day convent business, one can safely presume that there must have been other letters which, over the passage of time, were burned in one of the numerous convent fires, were lost, or simply disappeared. Further, we posssess only three of the bishop’s replies. These are not formal letters. Rather, they are undated notes scribbled at the head of the first page of certain letters that she sent to him and he duly returned to her.52 On an immediate level, the letters provide detailed insights into the practical implications of dealing with the bishop. Even a cursory glance at them reveals that this was no small task. The issues the superior was required to bring to his attention were numerous and detailed, and the

94

The Superiors

job of relating information about them could only have been onerous and time-consuming. For example, she informed him about matters of discipline, death, the progress of rebuilding the convent following the 1768 convent fire, and financial matters; she made requests – for his approval of decisions already made by the community, such as the changing of mission personnel, the reopening of the Quebec mission, or allowing a young woman to enter the commuity without a dowry; and finally, she informed him about circumstances surrounding controversies. Either these topics appear isolated in a single letter, or any combination of them can be contained within the framework of a single letter. On one level, Maugue-Garreau’s letters to the bishop clearly confirm the formal nature of their relationship that the description of their respective constitutional positions would lead one to anticipate. In this respect, they are barely distinguishable in their structure and language from the numerous official letters written in, for example, ancien régime France throughout the early modern period.53 The bishop is always “Monseigneur.” Six of the eleven letters conclude with requests for spiritual favours or blessings,54 and all of them, in closing, affirm the superior’s respect and deference for him as his humble and obedient servant, Soeur Assomption.55 The details of the letters also illustrate the tight control the bishop potentially exerted over the enactment of her duties and the potential weight of the numerous issues she was required to draw to his attention, which surely must have added to her work load. Yet an even closer examination of the correspondence reveals another dimension of Maugue-Garreau’s relationship with the bishop – a degree of familiarity – which warrants closer description and more intensive scrutiny. Marie-Josèphe Maugue-Garreau wrote her first letter to Bishop Briand on 23 July 1766, less than one month after her election as superior. It focuses upon an incident that must have been of great concern to the congregation. Apparently, two sisters, Marie-Josèphe Juillet, Soeur Saint-Gabriel, and Élisabeth Arsenault, Soeur Saint-Antoine, had fled the convent in the middle of the night. These women were soeurs du gros ouvrage, labouring sisters, individuals who, during their terms as novices, had been deemed to lack “the requisite qualities for the principal functions of the institute” and were delegated to perform its “heavy labour.”56 Over the course of 1766, Maugue-Garreau wrote five letters dealing primarily with the issue of the flight of these two soeurs du gros

“La pesante charge”

95

ouvrage from the convent.57 On one level, they detail the circumstances of their flight and its disruptive influence upon the community; they reply to Soeur Juillet’s accusations, made to the bishop by the fugitive nun during the course of his interrogation of her at Quebec, that she had been mistreated by the community; and finally, they discuss the resolution of the incident, whereby Soeur Arsenault was permitted, under severe disciplinary measures, to re-enter the community. On another level, however, these letters transcend these factual parameters. Maugue-Garreau’s initial letter to the bishop, dated 23 July 1766, almost less than one month after her election, begins on a deceptively calm and formal note: “No one is more aware or more grateful than I for all of the signs of kindness and charity with which you have deigned to honour our poor community. Permit me then if you please to give you here my very humble thanks, supplicating your Grandeur to wish to continue to accord us the honour of your protection.” She then deftly turns to the issue at hand and broaches it in an equally calm, controlled, and formal manner: “I would believe, Monseigneur, to be remiss in my duty if I would not give you knowledge of what has passed before our elections touching upon the desertion of the two sisters who left by themselves without giving any notice to their superiors.” However, as the letter progresses, Maugue-Garreau’s recounting of the incident begins to change and moves beyond the simple transmission of the facts in a calm, correct manner. Instead, within the framework of this formal structure, it begins to describe the sisters’ departure in a bold and graphic way. According to the superior, they did not simply depart from the convent. No, they chose nighttime to leave, a detail endowing their flight with a dark, premeditated edge, enhanced as it is by an ominous delineation of the history of their conduct. “For a long time,” she contends, “their conduct has threatened ruin; not even gentle reminders served to them were able to make any headway on their spirits and their hearts.”58 Maugue-Garreau’s forthright approach to this incident, as well as to the two offending sisters, only intensifies over the course of the next two letters, becoming more personal, passionate, and denunciatory as they progress. In a subsequent letter, written on 27 August 1766, just over one month later, she openly casts suspicion upon the sincerity of their repentance: “They seem submissive, but is this sincere?”59 And in an ensuing one, this time focusing upon Soeur Juillet, the superior reiterates previous accusations against her, charging that “she has given us

96

The Superiors

enough torment since the time of her novitiate” and openly expressing her opinion. “I don’t believe,” she declares, “that the community can ever take her back, whatever the condition.”60 Maugue-Garreau’s practice of interpolating the familiar within the framework of formal correspondence reappears more obviously in a subsequent letter dated 28 October 1766. Written in response to the minutes, sent to her by Bishop Briand, it details his interrogation of Soeur Juillet, outlines this nun’s allegations that the community had treated her unfairly, and begins, once again, in a most proper way: “I do not know Monseigneur how to express to you my recognition of all of the trouble you have gone to for us. I feel more than anyone the gentleness and the wisdom of your rule.” At this juncture in the letter, the superior does not directly broach the details of the incident, but instead utilizes this formal introduction to reflect upon the wider implications of it, to ruminate upon the times, the state of her own community, and, in particular, her role within it: “There are everywhere difficult spirits to govern; but it seems that the times authorize them to break the yoke of authority; I do not have more it is true of these rebellious spirits ... I tolerate, I wait, I hope and try to encourage those who dare to touch it without, however, shutting out the law of God and those rules which always have been the same and which we always followed and observed.”61 Maugue-Garreau at this point does not limit her discussion to mere reflection, however. Rather, she utilizes the opportunity to launch a denunciatory attack upon the offending women as soon as she broaches the topic at hand. “I do not know Monseigneur what those two girls wish to say ... everything that they have said furthermore is false.” After defending the constitutionality of their treatment, she proceeds to hurl a scathing offensive, hiding neither her anger at their behaviour and ingratitude, her uncharitable and derisory attitude towards the economic status of at least one of them, her absolute conviction that they should never return to the community, or a suspicion that these women had left the convent taking with them articles that belonged to the community. “I am not surprised,” she begins, “to see them persist in their bad tendencies, after having received for such a long time the graces of God and having abused them as they have done, it is very difficult and I would dare say impossible for them to return, above all La juiliette – except for a miracle – I will break her contract with the necessary formalities. I believe that her entire legacy was her person, we have not received a sol ... the community nourished her and

“La pesante charge”

97

maintained her healthy and ill. They have been careful to carry away a good package. We notice considerable diminution in our laundry.”62 The superior’s final letter on this issue was written on 26 November 1766,63 after the bishop permitted one of the women, Soeur Arsenault, to return to the convent – in spite of Maugue-Garreau’s passionate insistence that neither errant sister should not be allowed to do so. Once again, she is all submissive deference: “I am surely aware,” her letter graciously begins, “of all of the trouble that you have taken for the return of that poor errant who arrived here last Saturday with all of the appearances of true contrition. I was touched by it. We have received her with goodness and charity pardoning her for the insult she has made to religion and the entire community.” In spite of her correct approach, however, Maugue-Garreau does not appear to be willing to relinquish the incident without placing her final stamp upon it, without expressing “just my opinion.” “We were far removed from the opinion of giving back to her the habit that she had scorned, however, learning that your Grandeur had granted it to her we found ourselves obliged to comply and give it to her, with a veil of taffeta like the novices; I believe Monseigneur that it would be appropriate to leave her always in that clothing that would serve to keep her humble and to remember her fault, and would serve to others as a brake that would keep them in their work? That’s just my opinion.”64 Maugue-Garreau’s insertion of informal, personal remarks into a formal communication surfaces in the framework of yet an additional convent “crisis.” In this instance, this time in 1768, another sister, Julie Martel, Soeur Sainte-Marie, fled the Lachine mission and returned to her parents’ home after Maugue-Garreau had issued a sharp reprimand to the mission superior for failing to inform her of the death of a mission sister.65 According to Maugue-Garreau, the community had difficulty taking her back, “but the conditions and the penitence she accepted opened the door for her.”66 Apparently, however, Soeur Martel, after an interlude, took advantage of her constitutional rights67 and wrote a letter to the bishop complaining of her treatment. With characteristic formality, the superior responded compliantly to the bishop’s ostensible reprimand (we do not possess these letters), thanking him “sincerely” for “the advice that your Grandeur has the charity to give to me [concerning this issue].”68 However, her secondary and more lengthy response to the presumed reprimand is also distinctly personal – a summation of her “true feelings.” This involves a discussion of her manner of conducting herself as superior, her approach to her

98

The Superiors

duties, her response to criticism, and most telling, who she innately is and what type of reputation she desires: “I do and I will do all that is possible to follow [your advice] and carry out my duty without prejudice to my health, not being able to do one without the other ... I am, however, not so insensitive. I am neither a beast nor a stone ... I have weaknesses and woes like everyone else, perhaps more, perhaps less. In the end I do not want a reputation beyond that of doing good. Here Monseigneur are my true feelings, past and present.”69 It is only after expressing what she calls her “true sentiments” that Maugue-Garreau informs the bishop of the practical details of the situation and her actual role within it. “It is not at all Monseigneur the community that ordered the penitences for Soeur Sainte-Marie. It is Mr Montgolfier. Concerning her habit the community asked that she be deprived of it for some time. We have given it back to her. For me, I do not know what one wishes to say and impute to me on this subject. One never gave her any trouble and actually treats her with all possible charity .... Here is the truth as it is and what one said to your Grandeur is nothing but a falsehood.”70 While one could certainly argue that her breach of the formalities, her intensely personal approach, represents her reaction to the contingencies of emergencies, a perusal of her other letters reveals that this is simply not the case. An opinionated Marie-Josèphe Maugue-Garreau consistently breaks through her correspondence, even when she transmits routine convent business. When writing about the building of the new convent after the fire in 1768, for example, she does not simply detail its progress, stating that “we are in part of our new house [and] that we continue to build two floors.”71 Rather, she appends to this remark the observation that the entire process of rebuilding is not “without troubles and concerns.”72 Her discussions of providence in relation to the day-to-day fortunes of the convent, a familiar topic among individuals of the day,73 are never spare. Instead, she defines it, comments upon it, the way it works, in general and within her own existence, forwarding her particular view of it. Thus through her letters, we discover what Maugue-Garreau herself thought of it: providence is “the design of its divine goodness,”74 a resource to which we attach ourselves and hope;75 it can be “favourable,” “more liberal than expected,”76 and it represents the best support that we have.77 Maugue-Garreau’s personal remarks also surface in her recounting of other routine matters. When, for example, she gives to the bishop a list of the new mission sisters, she is not content with simply submitting

“La pesante charge”

99

the names of these women. Rather, she ends the discussion with a suitably subjective remark: “Next year I will help them and send a third to that mission which I will find very quiet ... I always carry along without worrying too much about my reputation and esteem. I seek to please no one but God alone if I am able.”78 These personal remarks also appear in the superior’s discussion of routine matters of discipline, which are often followed by her own pensive reflections, painted on a wider canvas. Thus, when informing the bishop about the difficulties she is experiencing with certain nuns returning from the missions, she appends to her narrative her own view of the human condition: “For a long time I have noticed that the missions are a very heavy weight [word unclear], permit me some remarks. The knowledge that they acquire, the links and the attachment, divide the heart, I have some proof ... They return to the community, there is boredom, distaste. One throws off the yoke of obedience, complaints about everything, superior, director, nothing is to their liking nor approved by them ... Here are human weaknesses that do not surprise me. Men are men and girls are girls.”79 But it is within the routine notification of the death of Thérèse Gamelin, Soeur Sainte-Barbe, “who finished her career on the third of this month in a very sad way,” that Maugue-Garreau fully engages in a touching personal soliloquy on the life and death of this woman. Apparently afflicted with a form of dementia, Soeur Gamelin had, for an unknown number of years, been confined, under strict supervision, to the convent’s infirmary. The superior begins the discussion of the sister’s death straight from her heart, from her grief, set within the context of her own spiritual journey: “If there is, for me, no other way of redemption than that of the cross I have every reason to hope I’m in the right direction since God prepared for me some new cross to bear for these past fifteen years.” Throughout this letter, she spares few of the tragic details – not the fact that Soeur Gamelin “escaped our watch and the care of those to whom I had given to guard her” in the early hours of the morning, or that, after what must have been a frantic search, she was found in the community’s well; how impossible it was to hide the accident because of the workers in the house and the fact that “everyone knew of her infirmity.” In her sorrow, she turns to Bishop Briand, confiding in him how much she needs “the help of grace” to sustain her in these trials, supplicating him to obtain it for her.80 This personal dimension of Maugue-Garreau’s correspondence with Briand adds an intriguing facet to a superior’s relationship with a

100

The Superiors

bishop, and it warrants further reflection. For the moment, however, it is important to point out that her informality, her bold and forthright approach, was not a feature of all congregation superiors’ correspondence, as the ensuing examination of Marie Raizenne’s letters to Bishop Briand’s successor clearly reveals. Marie Raizenne When Marie Raizenne stepped into the position of superior in 1790 for her second term of office, almost thirty years had passed since MarieJosèphe Maugue-Garreau had penned her letters to Bishop Briand. The intervening period witnessed the consolidation and even the physical expansion of the congregation: the final closing of the Lachine (1784) and Champlain (1788) missions, yet the opening of missions at SaintDenis-sur-Richelieu (1783) and Pointe-Claire (1784) (see map 4).81 During her superiorship, the institution also suffered from a dearth of recruits to fill these missions and serious financial difficulties with its investments in a France embroiled in revolution. Throughout this period, the congregation’s procurator, Jean-Louis Maury, could not guarantee the safety of their investments, nor could he send to the community any revenues.82 Bishop Briand, for his part, had resigned in 1784, and Jean-François Hubert, a baker’s son from Quebec, was consecrated in 1786 at the cathedral at Quebec (see fig. 20). Although Briand had done much to stabilize the Canadian church, Hubert’s challenges would also represent its strengthening within the confines of a suspicious British government that often opposed his measures to do so. 83 Marie Raizenne’s correspondence resembles that of her predecessor on a number of different levels. Between 1790 and 1796, she only wrote fourteen letters to the bishop (see fig. 21). Her letters, like those of Marie-Josèphe Maugue-Garreau, appear at irregular intervals – one in 1790, five in 1791, four in 1792, three in 1793, and one in 1796. Given the nature of the correspondence, we can also safely assume that there must have been others. Five of the bishop’s letters remain. Official letters, two were written 1790 – one in August, the other in September; two more appear on 16 February 1791 and 8 January 1792; and the final one on 6 June 1793.84 Like Maugue-Garreau’s letters, Raizenne’s correspondence deals primarily with various facets of convent business. They detail matters of discipline, problems arising from the dearth of sisters to fill the mission schools, and expressions of gratitude. They make requests, for

“La pesante charge”

101

example, for money, for a new confessor, to receive an individual as a novice into the convent without the stipulated dowry, and for the bishop’s approval of the community’s placement of mission sisters. Moreover, they ask him to help settle controversies – in this case, the one surrounding Father Jean-André-Guillaume Guillimin, the community’s confessor, and the disruption following the bishop’s request for the institution to alter the date of its elections from spring to the winter. These topics can appear either alone or grouped together in a single letter. Raizenne’s letters also resemble those of Maugue-Garreau in that they reflect, in both their structure and their language, the formal boundaries of the relationship. Every letter begins by establishing the bishop’s rank: he is always addressed as “Monseigneur.” Three of Raizenne’s fourteen letters start by extending her “profound respect” and “submission,”85 and two letters conclude with a request for spiritual favours, for “a precious remembrance at the holy altar.”86 All of them end with an expression of her “most perfect submission and most profound respect,”87 “the very humble and very obedient servant, Soeur Sainte-Ignace of the cnd.”88 As similar as Marie Raizenne’s correspondence is to that of her predecessor, however, it is also interesting to observe how very few of her letters transcend these formal barriers, as the following examination will demonstrate. On 16 February 1791, Bishop Hubert wrote a letter to Raizenne informing her that he had promised the Quebec sisters to speak to her about changing the time of the community’s elections. “I promised your Quebec sisters that I would speak to you about changing the time of the elections, they find it so difficult to go down and come back by boat that I would strongly approve changing it ... Think about it, I ask you.”89 Whether this was a contentious issue at this time – either the proposed change (from spring to winter) or the fact that the Quebec sisters had lobbied the bishop concerning this matter, presumably without her knowledge – is not discernable from Raizenne’s gracious and amenable reply: “Our expectation of having the honour and consolation of seeing your Grandeur in Montreal this spring has made us postpone speaking to him about our elections flattering us that your Grandeur being here it will be fixed and arranged by itself [during] the most convenient time in the winter.”90 In due course, a few months later, on 13 June, the community’s council officially approved moving the community’s elections from spring to winter.91

102

The Superiors

The records are totally silent concerning this issue until October. At this time, a number of teachers from the rural Quebec missions – SaintFrançois-du-Sud, Neuville, and Sainte-Famille on Île d’Orléans – supported by their parish priests,92 individually wrote to Bishop Hubert imploring him to reconsider his decision. These letters clearly reveal not only the strong emotions surrounding this issue but also the concomitant internal animosities it had provoked, as the following quotation illustrates: “We beseech your Grandeur to wish to permit us to testify to him the worry this has caused us, the changing of the time of the elections the distress in which we find our mission does not permit us certainly to furnish the cost of the voyages by land it is surprising that my Soeur Sainte-Claire [Charlotte-Ursule Adhémar de Lantagnac] thinks of nothing but herself forgetting entirely the interests of all of our missions.”93 Marie Raizenne’s subsequent correspondence once again never mentions the issue, which obviously – at least in the rural Quebec missions – had evoked such emotional appeals and about which, at least according to Soeur Julie Martel and Marguerite Gaulin, Soeur de la Présentation, in their letter to the bishop, “they spoke according to the opinion of our community.”94 On the contrary, Raizenne’s next letter, dated 16 October 1791, thanks the bishop for the “alms” he had given to the community,95 while the subsequent one, written on 24 December that year, focuses upon the pressing problem of approaching him for funds to repair the barn at Île Saint-Paul.96 It was, therefore, not until Hubert himself raised the issue in January 1792 that the matter once again surfaced. At this time the bishop, on the one hand, assents and gives the community the funds for which Raizenne had so graciously asked in December. On the other, he clearly expresses his irritation over the entire issue: “But by the letters of the sisters of three missions of that district [Quebec] I see that they did not receive that change with anything but difficulty ... The reasons ... they resist are the same: the poverty of the missions. Those missions, it is true, are not rich; but there would be enough, it seems to me for the voyage of one sister ... that of Sainte-Famille has a farm ... that of Pointe-aux-Trembles has a carriage ... why could it not go right to Montreal?”97 In the end, Bishop Hubert did grant the reversal, but not without issuing the following stern reprimand: “I only forbid all of the sisters to make the journey from Quebec to Montreal or from Montreal to Quebec in any carriage where there would be passengers of a different sex.”98 Marie Raizenne’s response to this incident is very revealing. In a clear and logical manner, totally devoid of any emotion, she expresses

“La pesante charge”

103

her thanks for the bishop’s charity and proceeds to outline the facts as she understands them, extricating both herself and the community from any preference. In the end, she supports the Quebec sisters’ request that the elections remain in June – all without a single expression of a personal opinion or emotion: Some sisters from the district of Quebec wrote to me after having [learned about?] the changing of the date of the elections, that they would not be able to sustain that expense without burdening their missions with debt ... I have in effect indicated to them that I believe that [the expense] would be charged to the missions. But for us, we were indifferent to the time of our elections, ... we also think that very few among the same very young sisters would be in a state to sustain such a long journey in the winter because of their various illnesses that would reduce them to not being able to fulfill their obligations, there could be perhaps some means to put back those journeys by land to the end of the sowing season, your Grandeur whom we hope to have the honour of seeing this spring would wish to arrange that, it will find us always with the most humble and respectful submission.99

This formulaic restraint, Raizenne’s cool, logical approach, is not peculiar to this incident but is characteristic of much of her correspondence, as the following routine letter, written in on 14 February 1791, illustrates. It begins, most appropriately, in a distant and respectful manner: “I dare to flatter myself that your Grandeur would be agreeable that I communicate to him the desire of Marguerite Nivernois dit Benoit [Soeur Saint-Denis] of the parish of Saint-Denis ... to consecrate herself to God in our community.” The letter continues, asking the bishop if he would “wish to give us his advice and permission” for this girl to enter the convent without the requisite dowry. It then turns to the issue of the dearth of individuals to fill the missions “because of the number of aged sisters who are no longer able to work, and many young ones who are ill and remain habitually in the infirmary.” The superior then closes her discussion with a description of the situation of her own sister, Marie-Madeleine Raizenne, Soeur Saint-Herman, who has requested to return to the community from the Lac-des-DeuxMontagnes mission “because of her old age and above all the almost total loss of her vision.” Marie Raizenne duly terminates her letter with the final request that her sister be replaced by Mathilde Drouin, Soeur Sainte-Thècle, “under the good pleasure of Votre Grandeur.”100 This letter is noteworthy because, over the course of it, the superior simply

104

The Superiors

transmits information without a single expression of emotion or a personal opinion. Through it, one does not discover her view of the problems she is facing as head of an institution peopled with ill and aged sisters, unable to replenish itself to fill the mission schools. Nor do we discover her attitude towards her own sister’s progressive blindness and advancing age. Marie Raizenne’s correspondence with Bishop Hubert proceeds like this, often discussing one issue after another in a distant and impassive manner. On another occasion, she reiterates her concerns about the dearth of subjects to fill the missions without comment or complaint, even though this surely must have been a considerable worry.101 Her sister’s subsequent reinstatement at the Lac-des-Deux-Montagnes mission, “despite the weakening of her eyesight,” at the request of the grand vicar and the missionary Guichard, is duly reported, even though Marie-Madeleine Raizenne, had previously requested retirement.102 News of the impending death of Josèphe-Geneviève dit Saint-Germain, Soeur Sainte-Scholastique, although briefly touching, is curtly transmitted in the following manner, accompanied by a plea for the bishop’s prayers: “My Soeur Sainte-Scholastique has fallen essentially into a very sad state, I believe that she can only die in that distressing situation, If your Grandeur wishes well to permit me to recommend that very dear sister to his sacrifices.103 And the community’s often-desperate financial problems are, on one occasion, either referred to discreetly as “our situation”104 or described in an equally impassive tone, accompanied by very little comment. “Elsewhere the latest news from France at the end of October, is very disadvantageous, we have every reason to believe that the bill of exchange that my Soeur Sainte-Rose [Véronique Brunet dit L’Estang] had drawn up in 1789 for 2,800 livres was challenged before the law according to what the correspondent Jean de L’Isle wrote to her from London. We will lose entirely two years’ worth of interest in addition to the cost of the protest. We have a great need to beg for the aid of divine providence.”105 Other critical situations only barely break down the wall of this distant reserve. In a letter written on 6 August 1792, Marie Raizenne describes the difficulties the community was experiencing with its confesseur extraordinaire, Father Guillimin.106 From her correspondence, it appears that this priest was infringing upon the order of the community’s assembly. This must have been a very delicate situation, for the confessor had been appointed by the bishop himself in 1789.107 It must also have been a highly emotional one, not only for the commu-

“La pesante charge”

105

nity as a whole, which depended upon the services of a confessor for its spiritual well-being, but also for Raizenne, who, as superior, also was responsible for the spiritual state of the nuns. And yet, in spite of what was at stake, the importance of the issue, she keeps her obvious irritation tightly in check beneath her outward restraint. She systematically recounts the facts of the disagreement in an impassive, if not very forthright, “I said ... he said” manner, citing precedence and the support of the vicar-general before expressing her personal opinion on this issue. I dare to hope that your Grandeur would wish to permit me to indicate to him that Mr Guillimin came yesterday to convene an assembly. I asked him what assembly he would wish, he did not know how to reply to me ... I told him respectfully that the general assemblies were not ordinarily convened out of order ... never until now has any confessor demanded these things, unless he had been at the same time the superior of the house ... I have been to see the grand vicar who told me that he had given to him neither an order nor advice to that effect ... His conduct and his method are so extraordinary and tire one so that it requires a very strong vocation to remain within the house ... Nevertheless, we remain unhappy.108

This is, of course, not to argue that Marie Raizenne never relinquished her reserve. After 1793, during her second term of office, a more passionate, forthright, and emotional individual begins to emerge from the pages of her correspondence, particularly when she describes matters of discipline. In these letters, Raizenne hides very little of the turmoil within the community. No longer simply informing the bishop about the “scarcity of subjects,” she reflects upon “the sad disposition of many of them,” focusing her attention, in particular, upon MarieAngèle Bissonnet, Soeur Saint-Pierre, and Thérèse Viger, Soeur SainteMadeleine, neither of whom can be “exposed to the missions for their own good and that of our institute.” She does not conceal the problems with Soeur Viger, who refused to take communion and disrupted the house with her “cries and murmurs”; nor the difficulties with Soeur Bissonnet, who could not be placed in any mission because of her “passion for drink which masters her” and spreads “dissipation in the missions”;109 nor does she hide her concerns, in a subsequent letter, over the machinations of Catherine d’Ailleboust de la Madeleine, Soeur de-la-Visitation, who appeared to be manipulating the Quebec superior, Soeur Adhémar de Lantagnac, bringing “her finally and absolutely over to all of her wishes and fantasies.”110

106

The Superiors

Yet, as forthright as these letters may be, as much as Marie Raizenne made no attempt to gloss over certain difficulties she was experiencing, they never expose her heartfelt sentiments about these situations – her possible frustration, her anger, or even her despair. Nor do they offer her an opportunity to ruminate, to place her own stamp upon them. They remain as little more than letters one would expect to read from an inferior writing to her superior – albeit some of them graphic – informing her bishop, as was her duty, about the state of her community. Conclusions The correspondence of both Marie-Josèphe Maugue-Garreau and Marie Raizenne provides precious concrete insights into the working relationship of a Congrégation de Notre-Dame superior with the bishop of Quebec. On one level, it illustrates the formal, businesslike dimensions of the exchange: the enactment of her obligation to consult and interact with both the bishop and his representative, the vicar-general, in all important matters pertaining to the institution in order to obtain approval, in many cases, for decisions crucial to the fulfillment of her duties.111 This must have been a task all of its own, as the detailed nature of the correspondence of both superiors demonstrates. And while it is true that very often the bishop only rubber-stamped decisions already made by the community, a superior’s position, nonetheless, demanded that she answer to him no matter what his actual or potential reaction. Complicating the situation was the fact that the bishop could and did override a superior’s wishes, support factions within the community not always favourable to the superior, issue reprimands, and withhold or proffer precious monetary support. He could also shape the community’s religious comportment by issuing mandements and pastoral letters.112 Moreover, through pastoral visits, he could inspect the convent – its practices, as well as its management – and place his stamp of approval upon the latter with his signature in the official account book.113 The existence of these potential and very real powers surely must have added a strained, uneasy dimension to the relationship and, in turn, to her position as superior. And yet the correspondence of Marie-Josèphe Maugue-Garreau, in particular, reveals that the tight boundaries established by the authoritarian structure of the formal, businesslike exchange did not preclude the development or existence of a more human dimension to the relationship. In short, her correspondence clearly demonstrates her historical

“La pesante charge”

107

agency. What emerges from her letters is a very real individual, one who proffers opinions – “sentimens”;114 a woman who possesses an established world view which she feels completely comfortable exposing to him, as she does her tender and reflectively mournful emotions when she announces to him the “sad end” of Soeur Sainte-Barbe.115 The existence of this forthright stance should not be totally surprising, for while it is true that each sister, the superior included, owed the bishop perfect submission and obedience, he also “took the place of Our Lord on this earth.” He was an individual with whom the sisters – again, the superior included – were permitted, even encouraged, to correspond on matters touching their needs and their troubles.116 Marie-Josèphe Maugue-Garreau’s letters demonstrate the more human parameters of this relationship, just as those of Marie Raizenne illustrate its absence. The dearth of this “personal” element in the correspondence of Raizenne, however, does not mean that a less formal relationship between these two individuals did not exist. It is important to underline that the letters of both women, as sources, are fragmented and incomplete, and they often ask so many more questions than they answer.117 In this case, one wonders if, for example, the lost documents pertaining to Raizenne contain evidence of a less constrained relationship with Bishop Hubert. That these sources do not remain, however, does not signify that she was oppressed by the bishop. Rather, what emerges from the formal, controlled voice of her correspondence is a cool, distant, and above all distinguished woman managing the exigencies of her position in an efficient, businesslike, and above all, dignified manner. In short, Marie Raizenne, like Marie-Josèphe Maugue-Garreau, in her own way, possessed agency. We should be careful, however, to idealize neither Maugue-Garreau’s familiarity with the bishop nor the dignified dimensions of Raizenne’s more formal, distant style, for according to Janet Gurkin Altman, the addressee of a letter is “omnipresent in the text and to a large degree determines its form, its content and the representation of the author’s self.”118 In this respect, it certainly does not take too much imagination to visualize these superiors “representing” themselves in these letters – walking a fine line between a familiarity that was “permitted” and a formality that their respective hierarchical positions “demanded”; editing their correspondence, choosing their words, their sentences, carefully so as not to overstep the boundaries, so as not to offend. As reflective, opinionated, bold, and forthright as the relationship “allowed”

108

The Superiors

Marie-Josèphe Maugue-Garreau to be or as cool and reserved as Marie Raizenne was, ultimately the bishop retained his position, like a king upon a throne. He could at any moment shift the fine line on which they must have walked. Perhaps his authority waxed and waned as a result of the vagaries of time, circumstance, or character. However, it remained legally and, above all, potentially absolute, and intact, a force to be reckoned with in carrying the weight of this “peasante charge.”

“des esprits difficile à gouverner” The flight of the two soeurs du gros ouvrage, Marie-Josèphe Juillet and Élisabeth Arsenault – “des esprits difficile à gouverner”119 – from the convent in the middle of the night in July 1766, at the very inception of Marie-Josèphe Maugue-Garreau’s superiorship, provides a good starting point for an examination of a superior’s duties with respect to the internal workings of the convent. Through the interrogation of Soeur Juillet by Bishop Briand, we learn the reasons for their flight. Theoretically, at least, the institution was supposed to treat these labouring sisters “in all things equal to the other sisters.”120 As we have seen, however, they claimed that they had been overworked; that they had been scorned by the teaching nuns, who had placed them outside the assembly; and that the younger sisters had been allowed to take precedence over them121 (Soeur Juillet was at this time fifty-one years old, while Soeur Arsenault was forty-six). In response to these allegations, Maugue-Garreau, in one letter to the bishop, did not hide her contempt for these women: she claimed that they had received for “a long time the graces of God and ... abused them.” She particularly singled out for remonstrance Soeur Juillet, a woman whom “the community had nourished and kept, healthy and ill.” “I will,” she claimed, “break her contract with the necessary formalities.”122 As we have seen, Bishop Briand, facing many other difficulties in his post-Conquest diocese, chose to take a less aggressive view of the situation.123 He allowed one nun, Soeur Arsenault, to return to the convent, while Soeur Juillet’s request to leave was granted, and she was permitted to “live in the world with her parents in tranquillity.”124 This incident provides a good insight not only into the inner workings of convent life but, more significantly, into the fact that the situation immediately facing Marie-Josèphe Maugue-Garreau, as superior, was far from idyllic and straightforward.125 From these circumstances

“La pesante charge”

109

Table 5.1 Congrégation de Notre-Dame: social groups, 1766 Social group

No.

Seigneurs, military officers, government officials Merchants “Vile persons”

8 8 43

Total

59

note: Social categories derived from Miquelon, New France, 1704–1744, 228. Table compiled utilizing Gray, “A Fragile Authority,” app. 4.1, “Congregation de Notre-Dame Professed Nuns, 1766.”

we can discern the existence of a long-standing discipline problem within the community, unhappiness and discontent among certain members, factionalism not only emanating from the nuns but also – as evinced by her angry comments – apparent in the superior herself, based upon disdain for a group of individuals because of their function within the community. Moreover, as one begins to peel back the layers covering this community and to scrutinize the individuals within it, it becomes apparent that other sources of potential disharmony existed within this convent. The most obvious source of potential conflict is based upon social group. Assuredly, the profile of these women confirms the conclusions reached earlier – that the nuns were a relatively homogeneous group. In 1766, for example, there were fifty-nine women in the congregation, including the superior herself.126 The majority – forty-three, to be precise – were, in the words of the seventeenth-century jurist Charles Loyseau, “vile persons,” daughters of craftsmen, peasants, labourers, and vagabonds (see table 5.1).127 Only eight nuns were daughters of men representing the first order of society (officers, nobles, or seigneurs), while another eight were the offspring of merchants. This pattern, by the way, would not change during Maugue-Garreau’s superiorship; the fifteen girls who entered the institution between 1766 and 1772 would be derived from the lowest social group (table 5.2).128 Appearances, however, are deceptive, for beneath this relatively homogenous surface, a diversity of individuals emerges, many with perhaps distinct claims and ideas of their own. This is the case, in part, for members of the nobility, a group of individuals who by birth believed themselves to have inherited qualities that separated them from others and which justified wealth, honour, and privilege.129 In the colony, the nobility served as officers in the army and in 1685 were

110

The Superiors

Table 5.2 Congrégation de Notre-Dame, 1766–72: entrants Entrant

Date of entry

Audet, Marie-Anne Audet, Marie-Louise Benoît, Françoise Boivin, Thérèse, Boulay, Marie-Josèphe Castonguay, Marguerite Chenier, Marie-Josèphe Compain, Françoise Corriveau-Buteau, Marie-Félicité Drouin, Mathilde Duverger, Louise Foucher, Marguerite Gaulin, Marguerite Molleur, Marie-Charlotte Sabourin, Élisabeth

1767 1772 1770 1769 1767 1767 28 January 1771 1769 1768 1771 1769 1771 22 June 1770 20 June 1769 1767

Total

15

source: Gray, “A Fragile Authority,” 388, app. 7, “Congrégation de Notre-Dame, Professed Nuns, 1693–1796.” note: The occupations of the fathers of these women do not appear in any records. Historians have therefore assumed that they were likely from the lowest social group (i.e., they did not engage in business transactions, etc.).

given the right to trade and enter the civil establishment.130 Dale Miquelon’s study New France: A Supplement to Europe maintained that distinction, individualism, and precedence were the hallmarks of the ancien régime, and there is no reason to believe that this outlook readily disappeared as soon as a woman entered the convent.131 Individual nuns from this group – the first order of society – had fathers with established records of distinguished service to the Crown. The illustrious kin of Marguerite Piot de Langloiserie, Soeur SaintHippolyte,132 have already been pointed out, but others in the convent must have shared her sense of privilege. The father of Claire-Charlotte Bissot de Vincennes, Soeur de l’Ascension, pursued a remarkable career in the colonial troops in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.133 Both these women were daughters of seigneurs, as were Reine Lepage de Saint-Barnabé, Soeur Saint-Germain,134 and Marie-Louise Boucher de Boucherville, Soeur Sainte-Monique. Incidentally, the latter’s grandfather was one of the earliest seigneurs in the district of Montreal, as well as a benefactor of the congregation mission in Boucherville; and, like Marguerite Piot de Langloiserie’s, her father received the cross of the order of Saint Louis in 1758.135

“La pesante charge”

111

Table 5.3 Marie Raizenne: kin in the Congrégation de Notre-Dame, 1766–72 Sister

Relationship

Marie-Madeleine Raizenne Marguerite Castonguay Marie-Josèphe Chenier Marie-Charlotte Sabourin

sister niece niece niece

source: Jetté, Dictionnaire généalogique des familles du Québec.

Claims to distinction, however, must not have been confined solely to the nobility, for many other individuals had noteworthy dimensions to their backgrounds. Certainly, these would have included daughters of merchants. Like the nobility, merchants held a distinctive place in colonial society, although, according to Dale Miquelon, their place was not as clear-cut. Merchants worked, an activity that was considered base, but their labour engaged them in books and intellectual endeavours, and it also placed them in the position of employing others. They also possessed a distinctive way of life, characterized by prudence, hard work, and public service, and their dwellings were more spacious and opulent than those of artisans or habitants. To complicate the situation, there were gradations among their ranks. Exceptional individuals, such as, for example, Jacques Le Ber and Charles Le Moyne, achieved noble status,136 while others left few traces behind. Marie- Anne de Lestage, Soeur SaintLuc, for instance, was the daughter of a wealthy merchant and a royal notary at Quebec.137 Her uncle Pierre de Lestage, on his death in 1743, left a significant legacy to the community,138 while her aunt, Pierre’s wife, Marie-Josèphe, the community’s pensionnaire perpétuelle, also generously endowed the congregation.139 Soeur Lestage’s previous situation before entering the convent, therefore, must have been far more illustrious than that of, for example, Agnès-Françoise Bourassa, Soeur SaintAlbert, whose father was probably only a lesser merchant from Lachine (see appendix A). The Raizenne sisters provide another case in point. Although only daughters of habitants, through their parents they had long-established ties with the congregation and the Sulpicians and by 1766 possessed an impressive network of relatives in the community (see table 5.3). Both Thérèse Amyot, Soeur Saint-François-d’Assise, and Madeleine Thibierge, Soeur Saint-Étienne, could claim as their kin – former superiors of the institute – Marguerite Amyot, Soeur de la Présentation, and Marie-Anne Thibierge, Soeur Sainte-Pélagie,140 while the grandmother of Marguerite-Élisabeth Ranger-Paquet, Soeur de l’Enfant-

112

The Superiors

Jésus, Louise Soumillard, was Marguerite Bourgeoys’s niece, who came to Canada from Troyes in 1672.141 And finally, although the father of Marie-Gabrielle Caillou-Baron, Soeur de la Nativité’s, was only a habitant, on his death, he left a solid legacy to the community, including Île à la Pierre and land at Sainte-Anne and at La Prairie de la Madeleine.142 Obviously, the congregation did not lack individuals with potential claims deserving of special treatment. But the situation could be complicated by the possible formation of groups, cliques that would have to be taken into consideration, won over, and their loyalties then retained. “The young sisters of the first order” mentioned in the accusations of Soeur Juillet143 possessed clear-cut, unconstitutional views of the fugitive nun, which, propitiously for Marie-Josèphe MaugueGarreau, in this instance at least, coincided with her own. But the superior herself, without mentioning any names, also pinpointed another group challenging her authority: the anciennes, the older women. She complained to Bishop Briand about them, of unrest among “some old members” of the community, who were “more good than just [and] accustomed to their old ways, made for themselves a coutumier to their own taste.”144 But other potential factions existed within this convent, and one can readily speculate about them, based on age and perhaps even geographical origin. Discipline, the avoidance of division, the maintenance of “that holy union that they must have together,” must have presented a very real challenge for Maugue-Garreau.145 The picture-perfect image of a convent full of a homogenous group of nuns dutifully saying their prayers and performing their tasks in the name of God, day in and day out without interruption, advocated by much of the traditional literature surrounding the congregation, and perhaps also advanced by the description of cloistering in chapter 1, is representative of the ideal life in community, for which the nuns were professed to strive.146 It belies the entire reality, however. Of course, this is not meant to imply that this convent was a hotbed of discontent, of seething nascent rebellion, only barely held in check by the superior herself. Nothing could be further from the truth, for given the close links of the institution with the church structure and the society at large, a carelessly managed, factious institute could not survive for very long. Yet neither was this convent an idyllic fortress of virtue and harmony, as the scarce documents touching upon this question would lead us to believe. Very real and potential sources of disharmony existed among the ranks of these women living together in such close quarters, year in and year out, and

“La pesante charge”

113

it would have been Maugue-Garreau’s first and foremost task to neutralize potential divisions, to retain the loyalty that the women in her charge had demonstrated by electing her, and to harness the energy at her command; for these women were her workforce, the individuals crucial to the getting on with the business of the day.

the business of the day The Teaching Enterprise From the outset of Marie-Josèphe Maugue-Garreau’s tenure, responsibility for the entire enterprise – both the mother house and the missions – fell onto her shoulders. On the surface, at least, her duties would appear somewhat routine: the choosing of appropriate women to teach, either in the missions or at the mother house, their supervision, and the administration of the mission finances.147 Let us first examine the initial component of her duties: the selection of teaching candidates. This was a task that must have required much insight, patience, and flexibility. No sooner would the superior have taken up the keys to the community than she would have to choose both mission and mother-house teachers.148 This was not simply a matter of randomly pulling names out of a hat. Rather, it was a process repeated every three years, whereby sisters were selected for teaching positions in consultation with the council and with the approval of the bishop or the vicar-general. The individual qualities of each candidate would have to be discussed and agreed upon, and their former performance assessed. As well, their potential compatibility with the sisters who would accompany them would also merit careful consideration.149 Maugue-Garreau’s responsibilities, however, did not end once the sisters, having received “the necessary linen and old clothes,”150 packed their bags and headed out for the missions or assumed their teaching duties at the mother house. Rather, in both instances, they would require careful monitoring to ensure that the teaching enterprise ran smoothly. For the mother house, this must have been a comparatively easy task: a head schoolmistress and a mistress of boarders, both chosen by the superior, were delegated to monitor and supervise the teachers and the pupils and report back to her.151 In addition to this duty, she was responsible for holding conferences to instruct the teachers in pedagogical methods that were expected to be utilized in teaching the children.152

114

The Superiors

At the mother house, Maugue-Garreau’s sheer proximity to the teaching enterprise must have facilitated her task; at any time it was possible for her to slip over to the schoolroom unannounced to ensure all was proceeding correctly, according to a routine that no schoolmistress could alter “without the express permission of the superior, who could never give it without having consulted her council and having spoken with the general schoolmistress.”153 Moreover, at any moment of the day, the teachers were within sight and hearing of the superior – eating under her watchful eye in the dining hall, saying prayers with her in the chapel, following her in the evening procession, always open to her criticism, her approval, and perhaps even her praise.154 At the mission schools, however, Maugue-Garreau’s task was more difficult. Scattered as the missions were across the colony, in places often as far away as Quebec (see map 7), she could not listen to a daily report recounted by a designated individual, summon a wayward sister for reproach, answer questions, or deal with difficulties on the spur of the moment. Rather, her only way to monitor the missions was through correspondence.155 The importance of this correspondence should not be underestimated, for potential problems could arise in the missions for which she would have to answer not only to the bishop of Quebec but also to the respective communities upon which the congregation depended for its pupils. The incident of the sisters at the Lachine mission who, in 1768, failed to inform Maugue-Garreau not only of the illness but also the death of an aging sister, Catherine d’Ailleboust des Musseaux, Soeur des Séraphins, is a case in point and reveals how crucial a superior believed it was to be informed of mission events. As we have seen, the letter Maugue-Garreau sent reprimanding the mission superior, Soeur Marie-Angèle Bissonnet, Soeur Saint-Pierre, was stated “in very severe terms” and so frightened Soeur Martel that she fled the mission and returned to her parents’ home. Only after “lengthy reflections and many difficulties” did the sisters consent to receive her, and then only under severe disciplinary measures.156 But other, more fundamental difficulties could surface in the outlying missions, particularly as a result of the living conditions. Judging from the scarce sources that remain, the conditions were not exactly ideal. To be sure, the nuns had moved a long way from the primitive situations of the seventeenth century, when sisters, such as Marie Barbier conducted ambulatory missions, wandering from settlement to settlement as the needs dictated, often living in birchbark cabins or without privacy in the homes of parish families.157 Rather, by the middle of the

“La pesante charge”

115

eighteenth century, most congregation missions had been established on a more permanent basis, with many of the terms of the agreements between the sisters and the parishes stipulated in notarized contracts which ensured that the teachers and their boarders were provided with solid living quarters.158 Despite these improvements, however, the missions were very often far away from the privacy of the walled convent in Montreal. Isolated in the rural world, the convents were also close to the parish churches and, concomitantly, the priest and the lay community attending services.159 While this proximity may have enabled both the mission sisters and the priest to survey and attempt to improve the general behaviour of the laity in the missions through their pious example, it also appears that the living conditions were very confining. In the missions, the sisters most likely would have been deprived of the comparative privacy of the mother house and such customary activities, described by Marta Danylewycz, as “letting loose.” On these occasions, at certain times of the religious calendar, sisters at the mother house would often spend “all night engaged in all sorts of pranks, wearing costumes and imitating ‘toutes sortes de personnages,’ and acting out ‘toutes sortes de rôles’” – activities presumably designed to alleviate tensions and not expected of a nun by outsiders.160 It is unlikely, however, that the mission sisters would have engaged in such “frustration-venting” activities – not with their boarders often residing in the same dwelling, or at least very nearby, and the priest and members of the laity in such close proximity. A document promulgated by Bishop Dosquet in 1729 outlines the behaviour expected of congregation nuns in the missions and offers some insight into how restrictive living conditions in the missions could potentially be: the sisters were to respect the priest and refrain from familiarity with outsiders, amusements, and walks for pleasure, for their main devotion was to be “the instruction of our children.”161 One must pause to ask exactly what this “instruction” entailed. A great deal, by all accounts. A deliberation written by the congregation sisters to Étienne Mongolfier, the bishop’s vicar-general, during the first superiorship of Marie Raizenne (1778–84) is very revealing. It speaks of the difficulties of teaching these mission children, feeding them, and lodging them; of the “confusion of a multitude upon whom it is not possible to exactly keep one’s eyes”; of the “danger that with such a great number, one does not find some ill-willed spirit for whom it becomes more easy to hide and to disturb the others”; and of the resulting “dissipation and fatigue ... for a mistress obliged to speak almost all day.”162

116

The Superiors

But “teaching” did not only mean simply teaching. It also meant that the presiding sisters ensured that the students performed their duties and that they were disciplined both inside and outside school hours. But then again, “teaching” in the missions comprised more than this. It involved maintaining the mission itself – preparing the meals for teachers and boarders alike, baking the bread, perhaps making the soap and the candles, in addition to sweeping the floors, doing the laundry, and tending the garden.163 Often, as part of their contract with the parish, the sisters cared for and cleaned the parish church and washed the church linen.164 They were also expected to earn money to support themselves and to create a favourable impression on the local people and the priest, for charity had to be relied on to supplement their income.165 True, the constitution stipulated that one mission sister be delegated to perform the household duties;166 when one examines the amount of work involved in maintaining a mission, however, it is possible to surmise that the teaching sisters, who were constitutionally obliged to perform household duties,167 were also engaged in some aspects of the mission’s daily maintenance to ensure that everything was in order and ran smoothly. Is it surprising, then, that MaugueGarreau found the nuns who returned from the missions more independent than those in the mother house – jealous, bored, disgusted, shaking the yoke of obedience, “whispering about everything, superior, directors, nothing is to their taste, nor approved”?168 Administering the mission finances, both routine and urgent, was the final component of the superior responsibilities for the mission enterprise. To carry out this charge, she was obliged to inform the missions sisters as to how they would be fed, kept, and lodged.169 She was also required to confer with her dépositaire des missions concerning the temporal administration of the missions. Together they were expected to keep track of all transactions between the missions and the mother house, ensure that goods and cash were accounted for, and see that the missions were well supplied and running in an orderly fashion.170 In a perfect world, these duties would have been the extent of a superior’s responsibilities to ensure the continuation of the teaching enterprise. Inevitably, however, unpredictable situations arose for which no formula or precedent existed. Who, for example, could have predicted the 1768 fire that completely destroyed the Montreal convent? Or advised Maugue-Garreau as to how to rise to the occasion, even as the mission and the farm enterprises proceeded uninterrupted? Because of the fire, she had to arrange for temporary living quarters for the nuns

“La pesante charge”

117

of her convent within the neighbouring Hôtel-Dieu, as well as ensure that the treasured routine of the convent continued within these cramped quarters, that prayers were said, that morale was kept high.171 During this crisis, Maugue-Garreau had to initiate the process of raising money to rebuild the convent. Doing so meant selling off property,172 but not without first debating the measure and seeking advice from the Sulpicians, the bishop, and the council,173 all the while relying upon the charity of the Sulpicians and the community at large.174 She also had to keep track of the overall operation and, with her dépositaire, the minutiae essential to its rebuilding – the stone, mortar, nails, pots, pans, chairs, and other goods to refurbish the new convent;175 to consult, bargain with contractors over prices, inspect the new building, and organize the move back into it, all the while juggling accounts to pay off loans.176 Indeed, who could have predicted that, just a year later, the Lower Town mission, which in 1768 had been reinstated after its interruption at the Conquest, would be seriously threatened again by the death of the merchant who had loaned the congregation money for its restoration? And how could the community, just emerging from the fire, scrape together the money to pay this merchant’s legatees, who were demanding immediate repayment of this loan? No one, but the superior. To deal with this issue, Maugue-Garreau had to make the trip to Quebec, but only after consulting Montgolfier, the Sulpician superior, debating it in council and with the assembly, turning it over and over, writing about it to the bishop, scraping together the precious funds to call off the creditors, and finally deciding which sisters would be appropriate to bring the mission back from the brink of disaster.177 “Les deptes que nous avons” Even if the congregation had been merely a teaching institution centralized in Montreal, with missions scattered throughout the colony, the task of running it would have been formidable indeed. At the very least, its management demanded leadership, diplomacy, discipline, foresight, organization, insight, patience, tact, and flexibility, qualities which, taken together, elude most mortals. But Marie-Josèphe MaugueGarreau’s responsibilities encompassed far more than simply the individuals within this convent and the teaching enterprise itself. Most importantly, it fell upon her shoulders to ensure that the institution, at the end of the day, met its financial obligations.

118

The Superiors

Clearly, many congregation superiors worried about money. Laments of eighteenth-century superiors of this institution echo throughout the sparse writings they have left behind,178 often as scattered litanies of concerns over lack of funds to make ends meet. Maugue-Garreau was no exception. After the 1768 fire, for example, she wrote to Bishop Briand, wondering “how we [can] pull ourselves from these debts. I see resources only in providence and good conduct.”179 On another occasion, she spoke of “the debts that we have here.”180 Judging by these ruminations alone, it appears that, from her point of view, the institution was experiencing serious financial difficulties. To be sure, considerable expenses were involved in its running. After all, the sisters had to be fed, clothed, cared for when ill, buried when dead, and prayed for thereafter. They had to be kept warm in winter, and the fires had to be fuelled to bake the bread and cook the meals year-round. The buildings, both at the mother house and at the farm properties in Pointe-Saint-Charles, Verdun, and Laprairie and then, after the latter two were sold, at Île Saint-Paul following its purchase in 1769,181 had to be constantly repaired or maintained – the chimneys swept, lavatories cleaned, stonework repaired, roofs recovered, pastures enclosed – and the individuals performing these tasks remunerated for their labour. Bills had to be paid to the local merchants, loan payments met, money scraped together to pay the rentes and the tithes.182 To meet these expenses, the congregation was not without solid resources. From the outlying farms, beef, pork, veal, mutton, chicken, duck, turkey, capon, beans, wheat, peas, oats, and barley must have amply filled the pewter dishes on the convent table,183 while the wheat, oats, and peas the farms provided regularly went towards the seigneurial dues owed to the Sulpicians.184 Moreover, rentes coming in from the various properties the congregation owned grace the pages of the account books, as do moneys received from dowry agreements, boarders’ fees, and at times, sums loaned.185 As well, the institution possessed capital invested in France upon which it drew a steady – albeit, in the period under examination, increasingly diminishing – yearly income.186 As reliable as these sources of income seem to be, appearing as they do year in and year out in the community’s account book, even a cursory glance at this document also immediately reveals that this income must have been insufficient to make ends meet, for, as mentioned earlier, these women were involved in numerous income-generating activities. These continued month after month, year in and year out: making

“La pesante charge”

119

candles and communion hosts for Montreal and many outlying parishes; selling needlework and biscuits to the local merchants for the fur trade; providing feathers, wool, livestock, salted herbs, ashes, salted beans, raisins, and ducks for barter or sale. Moreover, the nuns guarded livestock and housed and sheltered retreatants. They washed church linen, decorated altars, and made and sold statues of Jesus.187 This is not to undermine the certainty that the institution was indeed the wellspring of spiritual power for these women. But at the same time, it was also an industrious location, with a great deal of activity taking place, like clockwork, above and beyond regular teaching and household duties. And yet to merely enumerate these activities is as misleading as it is to visualize the convent within a one-dimensional spiritual framework, for both mask the enormous amount of physical effort expended by these women. For example, what was involved in the washing of church linen? An entry in a register of 18 October 1766 to 12 August 1767 casts some light upon this task: as well as candles provided, which presumably the sisters themselves made, they washed “large and small albs, altar cloths, communion cloths, ... around the altar, basins, ... surplices, tables, cloth, belts ... embroidered cotton, Indian curtains, serviettes, hand towels, much small linen.”188 Most of this would have been done “in 8 large vats, 4 medium and 18 small,” in the lavoir, in the cellar of the convent, facing rue Saint-Jean-Baptiste.189 The laundry would have been retrieved from the parish church, brought into the convent and sorted while the water boiled; it would have been scrubbed, perhaps with soap made in the convent itself, beaten by hand, wrung out, rinsed, and wrung out again. Then it would be laid out to dry, folded, and returned to the parish church. But what about biscuits for the fur trade, or communion hosts, or candles? Many pages could be filled with detailed descriptions of what these tasks entailed, and even then it would still be difficult, if not impossible, for an individual at the beginning of the twenty-first century truly to grasp the enormous amount of physical labour involved. This is not to argue that the nuns themselves performed all the work essential to the running of this institution, for the convent in 1766, as I have pointed out, consisted of only fifty-nine women, including the superior.190 Rather, the congregation relied upon engagé labour. Between 1766 and 1772, for example, approximately 278 engagé contracts were issued,191 either to perform outright work the sisters could not themselves do, such as sweeping chimneys, stonework, carpentry, chopping and transporting wood, and planting and harvesting crops

120

The Superiors

on the community’s farm properties; or for tasks requiring the specialized skills of a blacksmith, tinsmith, or cooper. Other engagés were hired to assist the sisters in their assigned tasks in, for instance, the bakery, the laundry, and the garden at the mother house and the community’s farm properties.192 Certainly, this does appear to be a large number of contracts issued over such a short period of time, and it leads one to ask if perhaps the convent’s fire in April 1768 stimulated the need for more workers. However, a count of the number of contracts issued between April 1766 and 11 April 1768, the date of the fire, between April 1768 and April 1770, the period immediately following the fire, and between April 1770 and April 1772, the time after the fire, does not reveal a vast discrepancy: 78 engagé contracts were issued for the first period, 85 for the second, and 81 for the third.193 The presence of this engagé labour force had two dimensions. On the one hand, it must have lightened the convent’s workload. On the other, as the following examination of an engagé contract will reveal, it also must have increased the superior’s responsibilities in what appears to have been a very industrious place. Tallying the Accounts On 17 July 1766, barely one month after the election of Marie-Josèphe Maugue-Garreau to the superiorship, La Marine, an engagé, was contracted to work for the Congrégation de Notre-Dame for 24 livres per month and a pair of shoes. The dépositaire duly noted on this occasion that this particular engagé owed the institution 25 livres and 1 denier “from an old account.” In the following months, in August, September, and October, the accountant recorded that shoes, ribbons, money, a cover, a blanket, cloth, tobacco, a pair of culottes, and a bonnet were sent to him, and also that he had lost “a half-day’s” work. By 4 October 1766 La Marine had been promised an old harness for his horse on the condition that he work throughout Advent and right up to the spring of 1767. The next entry recorded that he was also given red wine.194 The community’s business with La Marine continued into November. At this time, he received shoes, tobacco, a pair of culottes, a bonnet, cloth, and some cash. In December he was given three cash payments, cloth, and on Christmas Eve some more money, while in January he received red wine, cash, and shoes. On 17 February 1767 the account was finally tallied, and it was recorded that he was owed 4 livres and 5

“La pesante charge”

121

deniers. In March the payments resumed, with the reminder that he had missed a day and a half of work. Paid to him at this time was cash, not only for himself but also for another engagé, Laframboise, to settle a debt, and to “bonne homme St Onge.” On the fourth of October 1767 the entry reads, “account terminated,” and the account was finally settled between October and November 1767. La Marine’s relationship with the congregation did not end with this contract, however. He was hired again on 13 September 1770 at 15 livres per month. For this work, he received shoes, some cash, tobacco, and boots.195 Someone within the convent, probably the dépositaire, hired this man; the two individuals, employer and employee, agreed on an amount of money, the duration of the contract, and, over a period of time, the payments, which were made either in cash or with goods. Moreover, this person kept track of La Marine’s work record, duly recording his absences. Now, if this La Marine had been the only engagé hired by the convent during Maugue-Garreau’s superiorship, the dépositaire’s task would have been very straightforward indeed. But there were others. Between 1766 and 1772, approximately 278 engagé contracts were issued, and this figure may not even represent the full picture. The book of engagé contracts in the congregation archives, although including a few from the mother house, originates at Pointe-SaintCharles. It is possible, therefore, that more engagés were hired for the other farm properties and the mother house itself, their contracts perhaps lost in one of the many convent fires. This volume of hired labour meant a great deal of work for the superior and her dépositaire. To begin with, at least annually, they would have had to determine the convent’s labour needs: how many engagés would be required, in what capacity, where, and for how long. Then the dépositaire would hire each one of the workers on an individual basis. Contracts were not ready-made. Rather, each one was written out separately in the register; each one was different and contained separate arrangements. La Marine, for example, agreed to work simply as a general engagé, for cash and goods, paid either directly to him or to other individuals, such as “bonhomme St Onge” or “Laframboise.”196 Other engagés, however, commanded their own terms. Louis Dubort, for instance, was hired on 7 October 1766 specifically for the bakery; he received money in the form of cash, either paid to him directly or sent to his wife, and shoes, a shirt, and a pair of culottes. Zacherie Boyer was also hired for specific work – as a foreman – for an entire year, and he received only cash payments. On the other hand, Baptiste

122

The Superiors

Girare was hired for only 8 livres per month plus shoes. He also was issued cloth, a shirt, and a pair of culottes, and the sisters did his washing for two months.197 Other individuals were paid with similar items: with wine, rum, brandy, molasses, beef, veal, mittens, toques, shirts, socks, scarves, hoods, blankets, cloth, ribbon, or boots; directly or through the local merchant; and either personally or with cash sent to a mother, a father, a sister, or a wife.198 The task of keeping track of the engagés probably fell upon the shoulders of the dépositaire, who also had to consult with the superior. But many more individuals in the convent must have been involved in this enterprise. Many of the engagé contracts reveal that some of these trade items were purchased or obtained from local merchants,199 but convent inventories demonstrate that other items were manufactured within the convent walls. Shoes, a popular trade item, were made in the community’s cordonnerie, presumably from skin purchased from Bellaire, the local tanner.200 Account books also reveal that the convent sold its own wool, and it is not too far-fetched to presume that at least some of this wool was made into toques, mittens, and caps and exchanged for engagé labour.201 Fabric purchased from the local merchants – cotton and other cloth – could have been used to sew some of the engagés’ clothing.202 In this light, then, is it not possible that the employment of the engagés stimulated activity within and throughout this convent, involving not only their engagement but also the manufacture of goods, activities that demanded careful monitoring and would certainly have increased both the complexity and the burden of MaugueGarreau’s position? “La Recette excede la depense” Each item within the institution’s account book represents an entire world of administrative concerns. Each item, no matter how trivial, had to be systematized, centralized within it.203 Quarterly statements would have had to be prepared, a thousand odds and ends carefully organized and entered into the book, all the money received tallied up, and then, from this total, the expenditures of the community deducted,204 and the result duly signed by the superior herself, her dépositaire, her assistant, her mistress of novices, her two councillors, and, once a year, either the bishop himself or his representative, the vicar-general in Montreal (see figs. 22 and 23).205

“La pesante charge”

123

Like statements pertaining to the vast amount of work performed by these women, the account book also masks as much as it reveals an entire world of concerns – the labour involved in administering the engagé enterprise and keeping track of dowries, rental properties, income from the boarders, or even investments abroad.206 This last responsibility is a case in point. The community’s investments were administered in Paris by an aging churchman, the Abbé de L’Isle-Dieu, in conjunction with Jean-Louis Maury,207 the procurator he had chosen with its approval. This situation posed a number of challenges. On the one hand, Maugue-Garreau could rest assured that at least capable individuals, responsible for the investments of many other Canadian religious communities,208 were taking care of their own; on the other hand, this situation generated yet more work. For one, Maugue-Garreau did not simply relinquish these financial matters to the capable hands of these Frenchmen. Accounts had to be painstakingly pored over with her dépositaire and errors caught and duly pointed out, as Maury himself on one occasion conceded: “You are right Madame, that is an error.”209 The abbé’s advice concerning their investments210 demanded decisions that also involved her usual round of consultation with her council, the bishop, and the Sulpician directors before she could reply. Moreover, these investments required an extensive correspondence that was often as detailed as it must have been physically arduous to accomplish. It demanded, on a regular basis, that the superior take time out of her round of duties, sit down at her desk,211 take her quill pen out of its box, dip it into the ink made within the convent212 (which could freeze on very cold days), and begin her letter to these men in France. She would have to write carefully – only one draft was possible, for paper had to be purchased from local merchants and could not be wasted.213 Errors would be time-consuming. They were either crossed out214 or scraped away with a sharp blade at a shallow angle. Once the letter was completed and the superior’s name signed, she would either wait for the ink to dry or sprinkle it, using a pounce pot, with such substances such as gum arabic or powdered black mica, to absorb the excess ink. When the ink had dried, she would fold the letter sheet to form an envelope, seal it with red hot wax heated by the flame of her candle, press it with the community’s seal, and send it off to France.215 (This was an activity, by the way, which would be repeated for letters to the mission sisters, the bishop, and any other correspondents during her tenure as superior.)

124

The Superiors

As labour-intensive as the investments were, they also generated worry. Would her letter make its long way overseas to Paris? And what about the reply containing crucial information about returns on investments? It could be delayed by ill winds, adverse weather, or captured vessels. Unfortunately, none of Maugue-Garreau’s letters to these individuals remains to directly confirm the extent of her concern. From the correspondence of at least the abbé to her, however, it is not difficult to surmise that these investments provoked anxiety. On one occasion, the venerable abbé, rather testily, addressed her obvious lack of forbearance at his often tardy replies. “I am very sorry,” he wrote, “about your concern over my delay [in writing you, for] ... your affairs are not in danger in this country as a result of the care that I take of them and the correspondent I have chosen for you [M. Maury] ... one of the most honest men, the most intelligent, and the most exacting that I know.”216 But the superior must also have worried about other circumstances: the old abbé himself, with his constant preoccupation with an ever-imminent death,217 and the concomitant administrative vacuum it would leave. But more to the point would be concerns about the steadily diminishing returns, worries that very often she could do nothing about, for like everyone else, the congregation was at the mercy of the French economy and the king, who set the interest rates.218

the way to heaven It is often taken for granted that position, power, and the attainment and holding on to this power and influence are admirable goals, coveted by all humankind.219 From this perspective, then, it would appear that Marie-Josèphe Maugue-Garreau, at least in these terms, was fortunate indeed to hold and, yes, even wield such a great deal of power as superior of the Congrégation de Notre-Dame. And from this standpoint, it is then not a great leap to identify her, in spite of herself, as a precursor of today’s modern, liberated career woman, an individual perhaps unwittingly sowing the seeds for subsequent women who would eventually, as the centuries progressed, attain prized positions running large institutions and corporations, with many individuals working beneath them. But the essential question is: how did Maugue-Garreau view her position and the considerable amount of power at her disposal? Her very brief comments to the bishop lamenting her “heavy burden” would lead one to believe that she did, indeed, disdain what many of us

“La pesante charge”

125

would view as a treasured prize, the pinnacle of any individual’s long and hard-fought career. Besides this very brief glimpse, however, we possess so few remaining indications of her genuine attitude towards her position. True, we could speculate from the sources that MaugueGarreau arrived at the convent with the values of the world in which she had grown up – those of a hard-working merchant who had consolidated for himself a secure position within his own hierarchical world – and that this position would have been viewed in a positive light by the outside world, and by Maugue-Garreau herself as an accomplishment to be emulated. When Maugue-Garreau entered the convent, she was obliged to renounce the worldly standards she had left behind.220 However, as we have seen, the standards of the secular world invaded this convent; potential division, scorn, conflict, and pride in social standing resided within its walls. And yet other evidence, albeit scanty, points to the fact that Maugue-Garreau took the values of the convent world seriously, and she did so because she felt that they were demanded by God. Her papiers intimes,221 idealistic resolutions written by her at an unknown point in her life, reveal her to be the “good” nun, as the following excerpt so poignantly illustrates: “I shall,” she resolved, “offer all my actions to God; ... I shall pay attention to myself, and take care not to hurt others with my dry and indifferent replies; ... I shall be faithful to silence, ... the great silence, ... and every day to think of my faults that hinder my advancement to a perfection that God demands of me ...; I shall be the first at all of the exercises of the houses, never dispensing with any but for a good reason ..., remaining in the great presence of God throughout the day.”222 These resolutions reveal, not an ambitious individual, but an idealistic nun, who not only accepted but also eagerly sought to live for God by the values of the world she had chosen to enter. And so her entry into the congregation must not be interpreted as a step onto the first rung of a ladder leading to worldly success and recognition. Rather, it was one guiding her to the way of perfection, to God. The superiorship was no prize. It was an onerous responsibility, a very “heavy burden,” which she, as a congregation nun, had the duty to shoulder by renouncing the self, by seeking employment in the most disagreeable duties of the house, by choosing the poorest, the most miserable, the least convenient task, and by accepting this task, this work, without murmur or reply. Marguerite Bourgeoys had counselled that the Lord reveals himself to the poor, the mortified, for the way to

126

The Superiors

perfection was “to embrace the Cross”223 within the life one had chosen. And it was precisely this “heavy burden,” this superiorship, that Maugue-Garreau had to carry to reach her Lord. In the end, then, this superior’s words were not rhetoric, masking her pride at her worldly attainments. Rather, they remain the voice of a weary, careworn nun, working her way, through her vocation, to perfection and to heaven.

chapter six

As a Bird Flies I was born to suffer as a bird is to fly.1

It is known that, at least throughout her early life and particularly during her term as superior of the Congrégation of Notre-Dame from 1693 to 1796, Marie Barbier, on a regular basis, engaged in extreme forms of bodily mortification. At certain periods every day, she would whip herself with a belt fortified with iron hooks for half an hour until she was covered with blood. Thereafter she would feel fortified, as if her good angel had assisted her. On one occasion, completely naked, she disciplined herself for one hour with so much force that her entire body was so badly lacerated that blood splattered everywhere. Unwell the following day, she was unable to continue this mortification, but she resumed it the day after.2 Barbier repeated this action daily in order to expiate the offences she had committed against God and to obtain God’s grace for her community. Her tools of discipline – a cross, a crown, a heart, bracelets, and chains made of iron and garnished with points – were formidable and harsh, worn close to her body and intended to pierce her flesh. She wore a hair shirt every day and placed peas between her toes and iron points in her shoes to break open the soles of her feet. When she did go to sleep, it was on a board, often upon an iron cross or a belt studded with points, only covered with her dress. And in the deepest cold, she would approach the fire, not for warmth, but to roast her flesh.3 It is difficult to visualize from this description the precise areas of the convent where Marie Barbier enacted these penitential practices. Certainly, it is safe to assume that the convent’s chapel, Sacre-Coeur de Jésus, was not the sole location. Rather, her mortifications, an integral feature of her life, undoubtedly were engaged in throughout the entire convent within the context of her duties as its superior. The harsh and

128

The Superiors

formidable tools – the cross, the crown, the heart and bracelets made of iron and garnished with points, the hair shirt, the peas between her toes – must have been worn while she was in the procure signing contracts in the presence of the priest, the notary, and her council members, poring over the proverbial account books with her dépositaire, and presiding over chapter meetings, prayers in the communauté, and the communal meals in the réfectoire, as well as in her own bedchamber. Viewed in this way, on one level, Barbier’s extreme forms of bodily mortification provide a rare, albeit extreme, glimpse into the convent as a comprehensive location for the spiritual expressions of this woman. A perusal of plans of both the 1684 and the 1768 convents confirms this all-encompassing view of the convent with respect to the enactment of the less-dramatic but, as previously established, nonetheless empowering spirituality of the majority of congregation sisters throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In both convents, religious imagery – statues of the Virgin Mary, simple crucifixes – were not just exposed in the community’s chapel, Sacré-Coeur de Jésus, or suspended around the professed sisters’ necks;4 they were everywhere. Religious imagery overlooked the simple bedchambers of the sisters and the separate one of the superior; in the novitiate, where girls learned to become nuns; in the réfectoire where they ate; in the communauté, where they took their recreation or the superior’s directives; in the infirmary, where either they convalesced or received the last rites. Religious imagery also pervaded less-likely areas of the convent – the pharmacy, the dispensary, and the worldly office of the procure.5 Moreover, we also know that these women did not just pray in their chapel; they prayed everywhere – in their bedchambers on awakening before the first light of dawn; at the subsequent gathering in the chapel or the communauté; at the commencement and termination of their meals, eaten to the sound of spiritual readings, which also punctuated other periods of a day that terminated, at the strike of the clock, with the recitation of the rosary, followed shortly by a final period of prayer.6 In short, spirituality – expressions of the spirituality of these women – penetrated every aspect of their daily lives, throughout virtually every room of the convent, fortifying them in their mission. It is, however, perhaps more difficult to draw the link between the extreme forms of bodily mortification, as practised by Marie Barbier, and empowerment. Certainly, this is an issue that has sparked more than one passionate debate among scholars for far more than a decade. On the one hand, Carolyn Walker Bynum, in her groundbreaking

As a Bird Flies

129

work, Holy Feast and Holy Fast: The Religious Significance of Food to Medieval Women, extolled the often passionate and extraordinary spirituality of medieval holy women. Bynum viewed such behaviour, centred as it was around feeding and fasting rituals, not as indicative of a diminishment of their physicality, but rather as distinctly female expressions of the possibilities of unifying the flesh with the suffering Christ.7 Other observers have not been as enthusiastic about the spiritual experiences of these women. Simone de Beauvoir, in the Second Sex, labelled their behavior as evidence of “victimization.”8 In keeping with this tradition, certain subsequent feminist scholarship has focused upon the negative aspects of female mystical experience.9 Sarah Beckwith, for example, claimed that female mysticism did not disrupt the patriarchal order. Rather, she claimed, it only enabled it to act out its most sexist fantasies.10 Amy Hollywood challenged the very foundations of Bynum’s thesis itself by arguing that neither Mechthild of Magdeburg nor Marguerite Porete actually experienced her spirituality through her body.11 More recently and in a similar vein, Marie- Florine Bruneau denounced Bynum’s arguments as an idealization of medieval holy women, contending that “mystics” only engaged in these experiences because male authorities “allowed” them power and transcendence through their bodies.12 Certain historians, on the other hand, have attempted to redeem the agency of these holy women. Some have examined them within a wider public framework.13 A study pertaining to the early modern European period by Gabriella Zarri, for example, has examined “living female saints” in late medieval and Renaissance Italy who acted as political and apocalyptic prophets.14 Within the Spanish context, Magdalena S. Sánchez has illustrated how Habsburg women, utilizing devotional practices to acquire a reputation for sanctity, gained an influence in secular and political life.15 With respect to seventeenth-century France, Cynthia Cupples, partly in response to Henri Brémond’s one-dimensional focus upon the contemplative aspect of the religious experiences of French mystical women and also to demonstrate that there was no opposition between contemplation and action, has illustrated the distinctly public role of certain seventeenth-century mystics or, as she called them, “visionaries.”16 With this background in mind, this chapter examines the life of Marie Barbier, Soeur de l’Assomption (1663–1739), nun, mystic, and superior, as chronicled by her biographer, Charles de Glandelet, a priest at the Séminaire de Quebec, sometime before his death in 1725.17 The

130

The Superiors

chapter will examine her spirituality not only by itself but also as it was expressed in her association with Glandelet, her confessor, in order to understand the relationship of her spirituality to her power as a holy woman, sister and superior of the Congrégation de Notre-Dame.

becoming a sister Marie Barbier, baptized on 1 May 1663 at Ville-Marie, was the daughter of Gilbert Barbier, a carpenter and local churchwarden,18 and Catherine de La Vau. As a young girl, she was given to “frivolity.”19 However, following a series of dramatic incidents and frightening dreams, she entered the Congrégation de Notre-Dame at the age of fifteen.20 She received her habit at sixteen, and the following year, in 1679, she became a professed nun.21 Barbier’s entry into the congregation marked the inception of a passionate desire to suffer: “I was greatly touched by God and I wished for nothing more than to suffer for the expiation of my sins.”22 To this end, she begged her mistress of novices to allow her to perform the lowliest tasks of the community, such as guarding the pigs and the cows, making butter, baking bread in the bakery, and preparing the community’s meals in the kitchen.23 It was while working at these menial tasks that Barbier received comfort, refuge, and succour from her devotion to the Infant Jesus and the Virgin Mary. These devotions endowed her, young as she was, with the ability to console her fellow sisters, both young and old alike, to mediate in the healing of the ill of the community, and to perform miracles that facilitated tasks which she described as ordinarily beyond her powers. Prayers to the Infant Jesus or the Virgin Mary would enable her to accomplish seemingly prodigious work, such as baking bread and teaching, simultaneously and effectively. Simple, passionate, and personal prayers would permit her to surmount obstacles. In one instance, they allowed her to overcome the forces of nature: her prayer stirred up a wind that turned the mill and ground the flour needed to make the community’s bread.24 After five years at such menial tasks, Barbier’s existence changed dramatically. A brief stint at the Mountain mission25 was followed by her election in 1685 to a newly formed mission at Île Saint-Laurent. Barbier fervently welcomed this appointment for she believed that the primitive missions offered the most rustic conditions and therefore the greatest opportunities for suffering. Her expectations were amply met. The mission at Île Saint-Laurent was more than she could have hoped

As a Bird Flies

131

for. It was “like an inferno,” offering privacy neither to eat nor to freely practise her devotions. Rather than discouraging her, the adverse conditions only made her “perfectly content,” because she had at last begun to suffer.26 In the spring of 1686, Barbier was called to Quebec to work at La Providence, a mission established by Bishop Saint-Vallier.27 She remained at this mission, except for a brief return to Île Saint-Laurent, until 1691.28 Saint-Laurent may have provided her with an ideal opportunity to suffer, but it was here, at Quebec, that the most important developments in her spirituality unfolded. While Barbier’s devotion to the Holy Infant Jesus and the Virgin Mary continued to sustain her, enabling her to exert a positive influence upon the girls in her care and to continue to perform miracles,29 her spirituality also assumed new directions. At La Providence she encountered and came under the spiritual direction of Charles de Glandelet, her future biographer.30 It was also at La Providence that Barbier’s suffering began to assume intense proportions, manifesting itself in certain physical and spiritual disturbances characterized by severe, often unsustainable pain that would cause her to cry out loud.31 At times she would shun sermons or the company of others, for “what others said about God did not express what she herself felt.”32 Communion, meant to be a source of consolation for Christians, became a focal point of extreme suffering and divided emotions. At times, taking communion would indeed temporarily ease the pain, heal her weakness, and fortify her, but then the pain would return again. On other occasions, Barbier would experience an ardent desire for communion, an extraordinary hunger for the host; but then the certainty of her own corruption and unworthiness would prompt her to avoid it.33 In May 1691 Barbier was recalled to the mother house at Montreal. Initially the object of suspicion and reproach because of reports of her visionary experiences at Quebec, she soon won the confidence of the other sisters through her humble way of accepting the “lowliest duties in the house without thinking of being humiliated by them.”34 Within two years she was elected assistant and then in 1693 superior of the community.35 If suffering had dominated Barbier’s existence at Quebec, it only increased at Montreal under the weight of her responsibilities as superior. She was plagued by feelings of inadequacy and fears that she would bring ruin to the community, fervently wishing to be discharged of her charge.36 Her pains, her suffering, and her despair intensified and

132

The Superiors

were enhanced by the extreme penitential practices described earlier. Barbier’s stint as superior, however, was abruptly interrupted by the discovery of a wound, a “cancer” on her breast,37 caused by her mortification. This illness ushered in another intense period of suffering, which she, with her characteristic zeal for pain, passionately embraced.38 Barbier remained ill from 1698 to 1700. Throughout this period, she constantly sought remedies to cure the wound upon her breast.39 Although she continued with her administrative duties, even in the infirmary, she persisted in the conviction that she had become a burden to her community.40 In June of 1698, much to her relief, Marguerite Le Moyne, Soeur du Saint-Esprit, replaced her as superior. However, to Barbier’s dismay, and despite her illness, she was elected Le Moyne’s assistant.41 By 1700, when all efforts to heal her wound had failed, she journeyed to Quebec to undergo a dangerous operation.42 Four months after her surgery, in September, a completely healed Marie returned to Montreal. Here she continued her search for Christ, pursuing her desire to be with God alone, through her suffering and her penance.43 She resumed her teaching duties, acted as directress of the Congrégation des Externes, and until eight years before her death in 1739, she served on the community’s administrative council as either assistant to the superior or counselor.44

the public and the private mystic Unquestionably, Marie Barbier was a mystic. She was a mystic in the traditional sense of the term, an individual who desired and actually experienced the direct presence of God.45 “I feel,” she wrote, “in my soul, which longs to unite with God.”46 But she was also a mystic in the more comprehensive understanding of the word, an individual who, like so many medieval mystics – very often female – experienced God in a physical way: through suffering and pain.47 This suffering was essential to Barbier’s experience of God.48 Her desire to suffer, as a way to unite herself with God, pervaded every aspect of her existence and manifested itself very often in what may appear to us as strange and grotesque ways: in a relentless concern for her own sins and in an equally relentless search for the most humble, the most vile, the most abject work in the community. This was a search that took her through the kitchen, the bakery, and the pastures of the mother house to the primitive missions of Quebec, to shouldering the burden of the

As a Bird Flies

133

superiorship, even while suffering severely both physically and spiritually. This desire to suffer, to expiate her sins and those of her community, led to extreme forms of bodily mortification, to cries and groans and bouts of tears, and eventually, by her own admission, to the self-inflicted wound upon her breast. Barbier never ceased to embrace suffering. Recovering from surgery, she returned to Montreal and continued living as she always had – searching for Christ through suffering and performing the lowest and most vile tasks within the community. But then again, how are we to understand Barbier’s mysticism? Was it evidence of her victimization, as many scholars have argued, or was it indicative of the empowering possibilities of the flesh? To be sure, her mysticism isolated her from the surrounding world. “My only wish,” she cried, “is to unite with God alone.”49 To this end, she engaged, as we have seen, from a very early age in an intensely private search for God. As a young novice, she separated herself from the other teachers of the community and begged her mistress of novices to allow her to guard the pigs and cows, to prepare meals in the kitchen. Soon she desired to venture into the frontier, into the primitive missions in Quebec. Often shunning the entire community, even ordinary conversations, she chose to suffer in an intensely private manner. This action removed her from human companionship. It drove her to devise more insidious and painful means to suffer, means that enveloped her not only in pain but in bloody sores that would not heal. In a similar vein, Barbier’s spirituality could also be classified as degrading. She beat her body until blood flowed and splattered everywhere, until she inflicted a wound upon her breast that would not heal. And yet her spirituality possessed distinctly empowering features. Certainly, Barbier did not view her spiritual experiences as either isolating or degrading. Her suffering may have confined her to the depths of despair, but for her, this despair was also a source of liberation. It inspired her with a fervid desire to action, to go out into the missions – the desert, as she termed them – and follow the Lord.50 Her suffering led her into the depths of her soul, to a knowledge of the nature of her soul, her sin, and her ability to seek redemption for it. But above all, her suffering was an inherent feature of her being, described in the elegant, flowing, and liberating imagery of a bird in flight, as the quotation at the head of this chapter so eloquently points out.51 Marie Barbier’s mysticism also possessed a distinctly public face. True, she did not resemble the more flamboyant French female visionaries of the early part of the seventeenth century, who routinely inter-

134

The Superiors

sected with and were consulted by not only the elite of French society but monarchs themselves.52 Rather, her influence extended hardly any further than her convent, a few individuals within the male church hierarchy, and those people she dealt with in the immediate and surrounding society. But this does not mean that it did not possess a wider purpose and function. While she was a young nun, her intense spirituality won the confidence of her fellow sisters, both young and old alike. Her devotion emanated beyond herself and enabled her to heal the ill of the community and increase its food supplies, and these miracles of healing and presentiments continued throughout what we know of her life. In spite of her suffering, Barbier served others as a teacher and purveyor of the moral message of the Catholic Reformation. She acted as an administrator, as the assistant and then superior of the community, and until the final days of her life, as a missionary, directress of the Congrégation des Externes, and a member of the community’s administrative council. It was while she was superior that her suffering assumed its most intense forms. It would have been exposed not only to her community but to individuals with whom a superior had to deal: the male church hierarchy, notaries, students, boarders and their parents, the parents of prospective novices, merchants, tradesmen, and engagés. And in the eyes of the world, hers would not have been viewed as a senseless suffering. No, it was imitatio Christi – suffering with a purpose, suffering as Christ suffered, as a means of expiating both individual and collective sins.53

power and veneration A spiritually powerful women Marie Barbier may have been. But when her life is examined from the point of view of her relationship with her biographer and spiritual director, Charles de Glandelet, her power as a holy woman assumes more complex forms. Historians have interpreted the power the priests held over religious women in many ways. Certain traditional church histories have passed over the implications of the enormous amount of power wielded by priests over nuns. Many of these works have idealized the submissiveness of female religious and their veneration of the priests with whom they were associated.54 More recent historians, grappling with these associations, have attempted to broaden the perspective of them. André Vauchez, for example, recognized the important role a confessor played in the lives of certain holy women and demonstrated how some

As a Bird Flies

135

mystics, such as Saints Catherine of Siena and Brigitte, in return, influenced the men who advised them. In a similar vein, Ernest McDonnell emphasized the transformative influence of these women. He argued that by writing the biography of Mary of Oignes, Jacques de Vitry was converted from cold scholasticism to a deeply religious faith. Other historians have not viewed the bonds between priests and holy women in such a favourable light. Darcy Donohue and Ottavia Niccoli have contended that the association between priests and holy women changed over time, becoming more authoritarian and male-dominated. Jodi Bilinkoff challenged this perspective, however, by claiming that the relations between holy women in Spain between 1500 and 1650 and their directors were both complex and mutually beneficial.55 With respect to Marie Barbier, Charles de Glandelet unquestionably possessed absolute power over her. Within the medieval world view, power descended from God in a hierarchical manner, and as a male priest within the church hierarchy, he was for her God’s representative on earth. Legally, Barbier had no power over Glandelet. Through her vows, she had sworn absolute obedience to individuals in the male hierarchy who were above her. This obedience was enshrined in the philosophy of the institution’s founder, Marguerite Bourgeoys, and the community’s constitution. It pervaded the legal, spiritual, and political realities of Barbier’s world.56 As her confessor, Glandelet could potentially control every aspect of her spiritual life. He could completely deny her the sacrament of communion, for example, or even regulate the frequency with which she took it.57 He directed not only her religious experiences but also her retelling of them in the form of the written word. Barbier wrote at his insistence and direction, many times even against her will, in obedience to him.58 The implications of an individual exerting this type of absolute power over the written word of another are potentially enormous and warrant closer inspection. Many of Marie Barbier’s writings are autobiographical – not in the sense that they are a distinct narrative life story, as are the Vidas of Saint Teresa of Ávila. Rather, they are autobiographical in that they are, in the words of Christopher Abbott, “overtly dedicated to the representation of spiritual experience.”59 Autobiography has for more than a decade become a complex and hotly debated topic. Scholars have evolved from viewing it as a simple act by an autonomous individual writing about his or her life from a distance to a post-structural perspective that totally annihilates any sense of human agency in the autobiographical act.60 According to this latter perception, the autobio-

136

The Superiors

graphical text becomes “a space in which discourses interact to create meanings that are seemingly independent of the author.”61 While this view offers fascinating avenues for exploration, I argue that many dimensions of Marie Barbier’s writings fall within the Augustinian autobiographical tradition. According to the philosopher Charles Taylor, Saint Augustine introduced inwardness as a step towards God; he made “the first-person standpoint fundamental to our search for truth,” and he bequeathed this tradition to Western thought.62 Following Saint Augustine’s Confessions, subsequent autobiographical works by saints, mystics, and church figures, both male and female, recount an individual’s spiritual pathway to God. This act is an essential one within the Christian tradition, the expression of an individual’s attempt to come to know a Creator who at once embraces and rejects his creation. Many of these testimonials appear as cries in the darkness. They are as ancient as biblical texts such as the Psalms, from which they are, in many respects, also descended. Such writing is a deeply and intensely personal, elemental, and fundamental act of a human being, and it was one that was controlled, shaped, and directed by Glandelet. And yet Glandelet’s biography of Marie Barbier offers no evidence that she resented his power over her. On the contrary, the document reveals that she venerated him; that she venerated him in the sense that she had formed a deep emotional bond with him. He was her spiritual adviser in a very special way, a man about whom, very early in her religious life, she had experienced a premonition that he would be her confessor. She noted how their first meeting occasioned a “great desire to have him for a director.” Thereafter he became crucially and personally involved in her spiritual life. He counselled her throughout her violent physical and spiritual disturbances. He regulated her mortifications and interpreted her visions. He remained deeply involved in the events surrounding the treatment of the “cancer” on her breast. And although for a greater part of the time he was situated at Quebec and Barbier at Montreal, they continued their correspondence concerning the most intimate details of her spiritual experiences.63 By Barbier’s own account, Glandelet was central to her spiritual life. In times of need, she desperately turned to him, to help her along her true path. “You are,” she wrote, “able to understand more or less my state and what is useful for my advancement, seeing that it is you who must conduct me in my true path I confide in you, I am needy, do not delay, I beg you ... Be my guide after my guardian angel.”64 Barbier recognized that Glandelet knew her deeply and intuitively. “O my

As a Bird Flies

137

father ...,” she told him, “as you know my soul, I hand over everything to you: ... I have many things to tell you about my soul ... you know its needs.”65 And she needed him, with a need that did not diminish with distance or with the passage of time, as the following extract, written seven years after her return to Montreal, vividly reveals: “I have the consolation to write to you as my true father. In that quality I ask you for your blessing and the continuation of all of your paternal kindness. Pardon me, if I invoke the past. I address myself to my friends of whom I believe you to be the best ... I believe that the present does not efface the memory of those who are absent for me. I will never forget your kindness to me. Every day on leaving prayer I throw myself at the feet of the very holy virgin in a small chapel dedicated in her honour asking her for a blessing for you in particular and for all of my friends.”66 Venerate Glandelet Barbier obviously did. But the question arises: did he alter her writings to inflate his position within her spiritual life? Given the genre within which he was working, that of the vita or saint’s life, and the absolute control that a priest traditionally exercised over the construction of these documents, it is entirely possible.67 And yet at least two factors challenge allegations that he may have radically tampered with her writings. Firstly and quite simply, Barbier’s language reads sincerely; one feels its passion, as the following lines clearly reveal: “Hey what? My father do you not remember that I am the most abominable of all creatures? If my heart could express what it feels it would break against the earth like those small worms.”68 Secondly, and more importantly, Glandelet allowed information into this biography that challenged him as a priest and an ecclesiastical authority, that reproached him for actions she viewed as “lax.” “I am at ease,” she wrote, “with the good you have done in the countryside, but why have you allowed a comedy to play at Quebec? It was forbidden here [in Montreal] ... even though the actors were ready ... and so many other things that you have allowed! What are you thinking? Are you not the masters?”69 The relationship between this man and woman, however, was not entirely based upon Barbier’s veneration of Glandelet. In the biography, he was no distant spectator on the sidelines directing her spiritual pursuits. Rather, he was her companion on her spiritual journey. “It seems to me,” she wrote, “that you must be convinced enough of the sincere union of our souls.” “It seems to me,” she commented on another occasion, “that we are at the feet of that loving mother [the Virgin Mary] and that we will be so close to her that it is impossible for her to refuse us the grace that we ask of her.”70

138

The Superiors

Furthermore, Glandelet himself venerated Marie Barbier. In a letter written in 1700, he expresses a quiet longing for her, “who knows him better than he knows himself.” “Tell me,” he says by way of introduction, “if this does not conform to what you feel.” And then he gently asks her to take charge of his soul, to help him, by her advice, her prayers, and her suffering. “It has been some time, he writes, “since I received your letter of the 29 of the past month which consoled me very much ... you have at another time charged me with your soul, is it not the time that I charge you with mine, or rather, do you not feel that God wishes that you will remain so charged ... It seems so to me. Then act with me following the power that his lovable providence gives you over me. You know me better than I know myself ... I rejoice because you will help me by your advice, your prayers, and your suffering. Inform me if what I tell you does not conform with what you feel ... you ask me to send to you my guardian angel, you have one hidden in your soul sustaining it imperceptibly in its abandonment and its distress.”71

conclusion Undeniably, Marie Barbier’s extreme forms of bodily mortification possessed powerful public and private dimensions. But her spirituality possessed other facets, strikingly illustrated with respect to her relationship with Charles de Glandelet, her spiritual director. This relationship, while containing undeniable authoritarian dimensions, was complex, for it also involved mutual veneration and exchange. In spite of these findings, however, one must be wary of idealizing the power of Barbier’s spiritual experiences, the fluidity of the power binding this man and woman together, or the extent of the concomitant mutual veneration among priests and nuns . It is essential to remember that these men, these priests, like the bishop in the previous chapter, in theory, possessed complete power over the religious women for whom they were responsible, a power which, while potentially fluid, remained absolute and always potentially enforceable. We must also recognize that Marie Barbier was an exceptional individual. She was a holy woman, a mystic, a descendant of an established tradition extending back to medieval times, and her death in 1739 marked the end of the existence of the phenomenon of such holy women engaged in extreme spiritual experiences, at least within the known framework of this institution. Michel de Certeau has docu-

As a Bird Flies

139

mented that although the seventeenth century has been dubbed the zenith of French mysticism, by its end and throughout the eighteenth century, mystics also began to experience the constraints imposed upon them by an institutional church more concerned with objective works than inner inspiration.72 The colonial church was no exception to this process, and this instance testifies to its success. No other woman in the eighteenth century congregation openly practised extreme forms of bodily mortification, and if they had done so, such behaviour would not have been viewed favourably. One has only to refer to Marie Raizenne’s disapproving reaction to the “cries and whispers” of Thérèse Viger, Soeur Sainte-Madeleine, surrounding communion.73 They were not revered, as Marie Barbier’s agonies were viewed as holy. Rather, they were perceived as a nuisance, an obstacle to getting on with the business of the day. This does not mean, however, that this process which encouraged a more subdued spirituality disempowered these women. As we have seen, the convent remained a comprehensive location for the development of a more tame, yet no less empowering, spirituality throughout the eighteenth century and beyond. But these nuns no longer passionately “hungered” for mass, as had Marie Barbier and so many of the medieval counterparts who preceded her. Rather, in their own more sedate manner, they only longed to “hear” it.74

de Notre-Dame, Superiors, and the Paradox of Power

Conclusion

A long corridor called “L’Ange gardien” led to a miniscule room on the second floor of the 1768 convent of the Congrégation de Notre-Dame. It was known as the chambre mortuaire, and it was the resting place for congregation sisters who had recently died (see fig. 24). Here, in the glow of lighted candles and the whispered prayers of their fellow sisters, the dead would be exposed in preparation for the final ceremonies that would lay them to rest.1 It is, I believe, appropriate to terminate this study with this description of the convent mortuary, for it ends this history, as it began, with a discussion of obliteration, of death. The convents of the Congrégation de Notre-Dame in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Old Montreal are no more. They have long since vanished, and along with them, the individuals who inhabited them and so much of the past to which they were all so integrally connected. As historians and as human beings, we can only mourn their passing. And then, with whatever shreds of evidence that remain and with the tools of our discipline in hand, we can attempt to reconstruct that world – the setting, the characters, and their meaning – in the face of absence, loss, fragility. This history, then, in part, represents an attempt to reconstruct this vanished world, its built structures, and the rituals enacted within them. But it is also an effort to grapple with issues surrounding it – power and its illusive, paradoxical qualities. There can be no question that the sisters of the Congrégation de Notre-Dame were powerful women. All the nuns appearing in this book had pledged themselves to a life within an institution firmly grounded in an impressive worldly operation that was also integrally connected to heaven. Part of a wider historic mission within the church, they were purveyors of the Catholic

Conclusion

141

Reformation message of piety and obedience, and they shaped, through this ideology, generations of colonial girls into women. But this historic mission penetrated beyond the classroom, into the wider spiritual, cultural, symbolic, political, and economic life of the surrounding society, engaging the institution in an intricate web of links and exchanges that served to support and sustain it. Not only were these nuns “women of the parish,” as Marguerite Bourgeoys had characterized them; they were, indeed, women of their day, involved to one degree or another in the wider activities of their society, destined to become an integral part of its legends and its history. Assuredly, the power of these women was nurtured and bred in the convent. The convent sustained them. Its structure and rituals empowered and enabled them to accomplish their mission. But the power of these women can no more be assessed in isolation from behind convent walls than can the heart of a human be examined apart from the rest of the body. The essence, the heartbeat, of the institution the convent may have been. But the very existence of the external world was pivotal to its inception, its unfolding, its perpetuation; the institution received sustenance from the surrounding world, which in turn the convent, in part, sustained. The superior’s rule within this convent was sacred and supreme. She was the keeper of the convent keys, and the nuns under her direction were sworn to absolute obedience. Women of mainly humble origins, superiors acquired their power not through clientage or influence but through talent, a strong constitution, and a forward-looking capacity for hard work. But even then, this power possessed less clear-cut dimensions. A superior’s power could be challenged by very real and potential hierarchical divisions within the community itself. It was also diffused among the superior’s council, the assembly that elected her, and, more importantly, the more powerful male church hierarchy, to whom, in turn, she owed absolute obedience. With respect to the last, it is true that very often the rules embedded within these structures were not enforced. Moreover, it is also correct to believe that the relationship of some of these women with the male priests with whom they were associated possessed flexible, humane dimensions. Nevertheless, authoritarian rules were always potentially enforceable. No study of religious women – or, for that matter, women of the past – can circumvent the implications of these powerful patriarchal structures. As we have seen, they shaped both the theoretical and the practical dimensions of the relationship of Marie Barbier with her confessor, Charles

142 Congrégation de Notre-Dame, Superiors, and the Paradox of Power

de Glandelet, and that of both Marie Josèphe Maugue-Garreau and Marie Raizenne with the bishop of Quebec. With respect to the latter two women, patriarchy fashioned the power of these women as well as their wielding of it; but it also resonated in a more subtle manner throughout their lives – in the tone of the letters they wrote, the words they selected, the stance they “chose” to assume with the individual, the bishop, who, in the end, set the terms of the relationship and ruled the day. At every turn, power in this world was paradoxical: it was clearly defined; it radiated dignity, prestige, and privilege; it was sacred. But power was also distinctly profane, negotiated, mitigated, diffused; and at times its edges were blurred and murky. Power was at once a privilege and a “pesante charge,” a cross one bore, on the way to heaven.

appendices

This page intentionally left blank

de Notre-Dame Professed Nuns, 1693–1796

appendix a

Congrégation de Notre-Dame Professed Nuns, 1693–1796

This is a master list of all congregation sisters in the convent between 1693 and 1796. It was compiled using acnd, Le registre générale. The spelling of names as they appeared in the acnd records has been retained, except for those individuals appearing in the DCB. Of invaluable assistance in the compilation of this list of nuns during the French regime was Pelletier, Le clergé en la Nouvelle-France. The Programme de recherche en démographie historique at the Université de Montreal was another important source used in the compilation and the checking of data on sisters in the post-Conquest period. In the following list of professed nuns, the first line gives the birth name and religious name. Line 2 provides the place and date of birth, followed by the place and date of death. Line 3 gives the date the individual entered the convent (er), followed by the date of profession (p). The final line provides the names of both parents, as well as the profession of the father. Where data is missing, the information could not be found. Adhémar de Lantagnac, Charlotte-Ursule, Soeur Sainte-Claire Quebec, 1736 – 7 February 1800 er 1754 p 16 August 1756 Daughter of Chevalier Gaspard Adhémar de Lantagnac (captain) and Geneviève-Françoise Martin de Lino Ailleboust, Madeleine d’, Soeur de l’Incarnation Montreal, 9 March 1673 – Montreal, 13 November 1759 p 1 July 1698 Daughter of Charles Joseph d’Ailleboust des Muceaux (officer, seigneur) and Catherine Legardeur de Repentigny

146

Appendix A

Ailleboust de la Madeleine, Catherine d’, Soeur de-la-Visitation Montreal, 16 January 1749 – Deschambault, 1806 er 14 June 1770 p 1772 Daughter of François-Jean-Daniel d’Ailleboust de la Madeleine (merchantvoyageur) and Marie-Charlotte Godfroy de Linctot d’Alençon Ailleboust des Musseaux, Catherine d’, Soeur des Séraphins Montreal, 19 November 1694 – Lachine, 5 May 1768 Daughter of Jean-Baptiste d’Ailleboust des Muceaux (merchant) and Anne Le Picard Alinaud, Marie-Charlotte, Soeur Saint-Etienne Ile Jésus, 16 February 1757 – Montreal, 20 October 1826 er 1776 p 6 June 1780 Daughter of Antoine Alinot and Agathe Dubreuil Amyot, Marguerite, Soeur de la Présentation Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupré, 5 January 1675 – Montreal, 1 August 1747 er 1693 p 25 June 1698 Daughter of Jean Amyot (locksmith) and Marguerite Poulain Amyot, Marie-Anne-Thérèse, Soeur Saint-Augustin Sainte-Anne, 9 February 1693 – Quebec, 22 January 1759 Daughter of Jean Amyot (locksmith) and Marguerite Poulain Amyot, Thérèse, Soeur Saint-François-d’Assise Quebec, 3 July 1686 – Montreal, 9 March 1771 er 1701 p 1703 Daughter of Jean Amyot (locksmith) and Marguerite Poulain Archambault, Marie, Soeur de l’Enfant-Jésus Pointe-aux-Trembles, Montreal, 11 December 1688 – Montreal, 9 July 1714 Daughter of Laurent Archambault (carpenter) and Anne Courtemanche dit Jolicoeur Arsenault, Élisabeth, Soeur Saint-Antoine Acadia, 1722 – 27 May 1787 er 1750 p 28 March 1754 Daughter of Abraham Arsenault and Jeanne Gaudet

Congrégation de Notre-Dame Professed Nuns, 1693–1796

147

Asselin, Françoise, Soeur Sainte-Thérèse Sainte-Famille-de-l’Île d’Orléans, 25 January 1682 – Montreal, 2 June 1766 Daughter of Jacques Asselin (farmer) and Louise Roussin Asselin, Madeleine, Soeur Saint-Ignace Sainte-Famille-de-l’Île-d’Orléans, 30 June 1673 – Montreal, 7 December 1749 p 5 June 1698 Daughter of Jacques Asselin (farmer) and Louise Roussin Audet, Marie-Anne, Soeur Sainte-Marguerite Sainte-Famille-de-l’Île-d’Orléans, 13 August 1743 – 7 January 1824 er 1767 p 21 December 1769 Daughter of Joseph Audet and Marie-Anne Terrien Audet, Marie-Louise, Soeur Sainte-Catherine Saint-Jean-de-l’Île-d’Orléans – Montreal, 14 January 1815 er 1772 Daughter of Jean-François Audet-Lapointe and Marie-Josephte d’Alleret Audet-Lapointe, Marie-Françoise, Soeur Saint-Joseph Sainte-Famille-de-l’Île-d’Orléans, 23 March 1756 – 13 March 1798 er 1774 Daughter of Joseph Audet-Lapointe and Marie-Anne Terrien Barbier, Marie, Soeur de l’Assomption Montreal, 1 May 1663 – Montreal, 19 May 1739 er 1678 p 25 June 1698 Daughter of Gilbert Barbier (habitant) and Catherine de La Vau Barrois, Anne, Soeur Saint-Charles Laprairie, 26 May 1674 – Montreal 28 March 1768 er 1703 Daughter of Antoine Barrois (habitant) and Anne Le Ber Benoît, Françoise, Soeur Sainte-Thérèse-de-Jésus Montreal, 11 December 1752 – 24 July 1799 er 1770 p 16 July 1772 Daughter of Claude Benoît (doctor) and Thérèse Baby

148

Appendix A

Benoît, Marguerite, Soeur Saint-Denis Saint-Denis (Richelieu), 16 October, 1771 – Montreal, 11 May 1848 er 24 June 1791 p 1793 Daughter of Joseph Benôit Livernois and Marguerite Guertin Berry des Essarts, Françoise, Soeur Saint-François-de-Sales Montreal, 31 May 1710 – 5 May 1802 er 1728 p 6 November 1730 Daughter of François Berry des Essarts (officer) and Marie-Anne Lemaître-Lamouille Berry des Essarts, Marie-Anne-Charlotte, Soeur Sainte-Radegonde Montreal, 25 March 1719 – 30 September 1801 er 1734 p 9 January 1736 Daughter of François Berry des Essarts (officer) and Marie-Anne Lemaître-Lamouille Bissonnet, Élisabeth, Soeur Saint-Basile Montreal, 21 March 1737 – Montreal, 18 April 1762 er 1757 p 12 February 1759 Daughter of Louis Bissonnet (habitant) and Geneviève Binet Bissonnet, Marie-Angèle, Soeur Saint-Pierre Montreal, 28 January 1739 – 19 April 1825 er 1762 p 17 December 1764 Daughter of Louis Bissonnet (farmer) and Geneviève Bient Bissot de Vincennes, Claire-Charlotte, Soeur de l’Ascension Quebec, 6 May 1698 – Montreal, 25 April 1773 er 1718 Daughter of Jean-Baptiste Bissot de Vincennes (officer) and Marguerite Forestier Bleau, Marie-Josèphe, Soeur Saint-Thomas Montreal, 25 March 1706 – Canada, 2 April 1776 er 1737 p 29 July 1739 Daughter of François Bleau (baker) and Catherine Campeau Boileau, Louise-Angélique, Soeur Saint-Arsène Saint-François-de-Sales-de-l’Île-Jésus, 26 August 1759 – 3 February 1807

Congrégation de Notre-Dame Professed Nuns, 1693–1796

149

er 1778 p 1780 Daughter of Louis-Pierre Boileau (merchant) and Louise-Céleste Lefebvre Duchouquet Boivin, Thérèse, Soeur Saint-Gilbert Saint-Vincent-de-Paul-de-l’Île-Jésus, 19 November 1748 – Montreal, 23 June 1826 er 1769 p 1771 Daughter of Joseph-Pascal Boivin and Thérèse Lalande dit Mauger Bombardier, Marguerite, Soeur Saint-Philippe Pointe-aux-Trembles, Montreal, 17 January 1719 – 6 May 1791 er 1741 p 21 March 1743 Daughter of André Bombardier (habitant) and Marguerite Demers Bony, Catherine Rouen, Normandy, 1637 – Montreal, 22 April 1712 er 1674 p 1676 Bouchard, Marie-Françoise, Soeur Saint-Paul Quebec, 27 October 1659 – Montreal, 29 April 1739 p 25 June 1698 Daughter of Etienne Bouchard (surgeon) and Marguerite Boissel Boucher de Boucherville, Marie-Angélique, Soeur Sainte-Monique Boucherville, 22 July 1697 – Montreal, 12 February 1721 er 1714 Daughter of Pierre Boucher de Boucherville (seigneur) and MargueriteCharlotte Denis Boucher de Boucherville, Marie-Louise, Soeur Sainte-Monique Boucherville, 16 November 1702 – 5 September 1788 er 1721 p 13 September 1723 Daughter of Pierre Boucher de Boucherville (seigneur) and MargueriteCharlotte Denis Boucher de Montbrun, Françoise, Soeur Sainte-Placide Boucherville, 13 July 1704 – France, 17 September 1745 er 1756 p 29 April 1722 Daughter of René-Jean Boucher de Montbrun (captain) and Françoise-Claire Charest

150

Appendix A

Boulay, Marie-Josèphe, Soeur Sainte-Gertrude Montreal, 13 July 1742 – 20 April 1809 er 1767 p 1769 Daughter of Nicolas Boulay (wigmaker) and Marie Marillac Bourassa, Agnès-Françoise, Soeur Saint-Albert Laprairie, 14 June 1716 – Montreal, 25 September 1779 er 1735 p 21 May 1737 Daughter of René Bourassa (merchant) and Agnès Gagné Bourgeoys, Marguerite, Soeur du Saint-Sacrement Troyes, France, 17 April 1620 – Montreal, 12 January 1700 er 1653 p 25 June 1698 Daughter of Abraham Bourgeoys (merchant) and Guillemette Garnier Bricault, Catherine-Amable, Soeur Saint-Raphaël Pointe-aux-Trembles-de-Montreal, 15 November 1730 – Montreal, 11 May 1763 p 28 March 1754 Daughter of Jean-Baptiste Bricault (habitant) and Pétronille Janot Brunet dit L’Estang, Véronique, Soeur Sainte-Rose Pointe-Claire, 13 January 1726 – Montreal, 12 June 1810 er 1744 p 22 June 1746 Daughter of Jean Brunet dit L’Estang (voyageur-habitant) and Marguerite Dubois Caillou-Baron, Marie-Gabrielle, Soeur de la Nativité Laprairie, 21 August 1689 – Montreal, 28 March 1772 er 1704 – p 1 December 1708 Daughter of Jean Caillou dit Baron (habitant) and Marie-Marguerite Touchard Caron, Marie-Ferdinande, Soeur Saint-Raphaël Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupré, 22 November 1757 – Montreal, 8 February 1809 er 1778 p 11 December 1780 Daughter of Ignace Caron and Marie-Elisabeth Roy Carpentier Marie-Jeanne, Soeur Sainte-Geneviève Cap-de-la-Madeleine, 25 November 1676 – Montreal, 2 June 1747 Daughter of Noël Carpentier dit Larose (habitant) and Jeanne Toussaint

Congrégation de Notre-Dame Professed Nuns, 1693–1796

151

Cartier, Marguerite, Soeur Saint-Amable Quebec, 3 March 1692 – 16 March 1749 Daughter of Paul Cartier and Marie-Barbe Boyer Castonguay, Marguerite, Soeur Saint-Bernard Lac-des-Deux-Montagnes, 20 August 1751 – 8 November 1820 er 1767 p 16 January 1769 Daughter of Pierre Castonguay (blacksmith) and Anastasie Raizenne Charlebois, Marguerite-Amable, Soeur Sainte-Suzanne Pointe-Claire, 25 November 1761 – 6 December 1837 p 22 August 1781 Daughter of Jacques-Christophe Charlebois and Marguerite-Amable Roy Charly Saint-Ange, Marie-Catherine, Soeur du Saint-Sacrement Montreal, 3 June 1666 – Montreal, 25 January 1719 er 1679 p 25 June 1698 Daughter of André Charly dit Saint-Ange (baker) and Marie Dumesnil Charly Saint-Ange, Élisabeth, Soeur Sainte-Françoise Montreal, 3 June 1659 – Montreal, 18 February 1713 er 1700 Daughter of André Charly dit Saint-Ange (baker) and Marie Dumesnil. Entered religion after the death of her spouse, Joseph de Montenon, who was killed by the Iroquois in 1690. Chartier, Marie, Soeur Sainte-Marguerite Montreal, 23 February 1676 – 27 August 1729 Daughter of Guillaume Chartier (tailor) and Marie Faucon Chenier, Marie-Josèphe, Soeur Sainte-Jeanne-de-Chantal Lac-des-Deux-Montagnes, 1 January 1753 – 11 April 1801 p 28 January 1771 Daughter of Joseph Chenier (merchant) and Suzanne Raizenne Chesnay La Garenne, Madeleine, Soeur Sainte-Anne Quebec, 22 July 1674 – Montreal, 19 August 1760 er 1697 p 1699 Daughter of Bertrand Chesnay dit La Garenne (merchant) and Elisabeth Aubert

152

Appendix A

Compain, Françoise, Soeur Saint-Benoît Montreal, 1750 – 19 August 1827 er 1769 p 1771 Daughter of Pierre Compain dit L’Espérance (wigmaker) and Françoise Vacher Compain, Marie-Louise, Soeur Saint-Augustin Montreal, 28 January 1747 – Montreal, 2 May 1819 er 1764 p 13 January 1766 Daughter of Pierre Compain dit L’Espérance (wigmaker) and Françoise Vacher Constantin, Geneviève, Soeur Saint-Louis-des-Anges Quebec, 8 January 1715 – 26 March 1784 er 1735 p 20 March 1737 Daughter of Denis Constantin (brewer) and Louise Bacon Coron, Marie, Soeur de la Victoire Pointe-aux-Trembles, Montreal, 14 May 1676 – Montreal, 11 November 1732 p 25 June 1698 Daughter of Jean Coron (master turner) and Anne-Michelle Lauzon Corriveau-Buteau, Marie-Felicité, Soeur Saint-Charles Saint-Vallier, 4 May 1751 – Canada, 16 November 1778 er 1768 p 21 December 1769 Daughter of Jacques Corriveau and Marie Buteau Courtemanche, Élisabeth, Soeur Sainte-Claire Montreal, 13 August 1670 – Montreal, 8 September 1748 Daughter of Antoine Courtemanche and Élisabeth Haguin Courtois, Marie-Thérèse, Soeur Saint-André Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pérade, 11 November 1740 – 3 November 1825 er 1764 p 16 March 1768 Daughter of Gabriel Courtois and Marie-Josèphe Baril-Duchesnay Couturier, Marguerite, Soeur Saint-Amable Pointe-aux-Trembles, Montreal, February 1733 – 20 May 1800 er 1750 p 1752 Daughter of Pierre-Jean-Baptiste Couturier (carpenter) and MargueriteJeanne Beauchamp

Congrégation de Notre-Dame Professed Nuns, 1693–1796

153

Cressé, Charlotte, Soeur Sainte-Pélagie Trois-Rivières, 28 August 1680 – Montreal, 11 March 1701 er 1697 p 1699 Daughter of Michel Cressé (merchant) and Marguerite Denis Crevier de Bellerive, Marie-Barbe, Soeur Sainte-Hélène Trois-Rivières, 1665 – Montreal, 5 November 1711 Daughter of Nicolas Crevier de Bellerive (habitant) and Louise La Loutre Crevier de Bellerive, Marie-Jeanne, Soeur Sainte-Hélène Cap-de-la-Madeleine, 2 February 1689 – Montreal, 23 February 1726 Daughter of Nicolas Crevier de Bellerive (habitant) and Louise La Loutre Crolo, Catherine, Soeur Saint-Joseph Lauzon, France, 1619 – Montreal, 28 February 1699 er 1659 p 1 July 1698 Damours de Clignancourt, Angélique, Soeur Sainte-Ursule Port-Royal, 1697 – Montreal, 24 December 1749 Daughter of René Damours, Sieur de Clignancourt (merchant), and Françoise Le Gardeur de Tilly Dandoneau, Françoise, Soeur Sainte-Apolline Trois-Rivières, 29 September 1677 – Quebec, 6 October 1709 Daughter of Pierre Dandonneau dit Lajeunesse (farmer) and Françoise Jobin Daniel St-Arnaud, Marie-Madeleine, Soeur Saint-Arsène Montreal, 15 January 1699 – France, 5 July 1764 er 31 October 1717 p 1719 Daughter of Jean Arcaud (merchant) and Marie Truteau Delisle, Marguerite, Soeur Saint-Charles Deschambault, 1770 – Montreal, 4 March 1847 er 1787 p 5 May 1789 Daughter of Joseph de L’Isle and Marguerite Perrault Demers (or Dumay), Marie-Anne, Soeur Sainte-Catherine Montreal, 24 October 1689 – Montreal, 14 December 1749 Daughter of Jean-Baptiste Demers and Cunégonde Masta

154

Appendix A

Deneau, Marie-Anne, Soeur Saint-Gilbert Montreal, 30 March 1710 – Montreal, 11 April 1739 Daughter of Joseph Deneau dit Des Taillis (bourgeois) and Jeanne Adhémar Deneau des Taillis, Madeleine, Soeur Sainte-Apolline Montreal, 28 April 1706 – Montreal, 7 May 1763 p 8 January 1733 Daughter of Joseph Deneau des Taillis (bourgeois) and Jeanne Adhémar DeNiger, Marguerite, Soeur Sainte-Marthe Sorel, 1677 – Montreal, 28 June 1720 er 1703 Daughter of Bernard DeNiger dit Sanscoucy (farmer) and Marguerite Raisin Des Gouttins, Angélique, Soeur Sainte-Scholastique Cape Breton, 1722 – Canada, 27 October 1748 er 27 January 1739 p 19 February 1741 Daughter of François-Marie Des Gouttins (royal counsellor) and Angélique Aubert Desroussels, Marie-Madeleine, Soeur La Nativité Saint-Jean-de-l’Île-d’Orléans, 12 June 1758 – Montreal, 12 April 1822 er 1775 p 11 November 1777 Daughter of Louis Desroussels and Marie-Josèphe Drouin Diel, Amable, Soeur Saint-Ambroise Sainte-Anne-du-Bout-de-l’Île, 30 January 1736 – Île Perrot, 20 April 1822 p 6 June 1758 Daughter of Jacques Diel (toolmaker) and Marie-Anne Crépin. She fled the convent in 1785. Doré, Marie-Angélique, Soeur Saint-Henri Saint-Augustin, 11 September 1725 – Montreal, 26 February 1760 p 8 November 1753 Daughter of Pierre-Louis Doré and Catherine Cocquin Latourelle Drouin, Marthe, Soeur Sainte-Hélène Sainte-Famille-de-l’Île-d’Orléans, 21 March 1726 – Montreal, 14 April 1807 er 1741 p 19 November 1743 Daughter of Pierre Drouin (habitant) and Louise Létourneau

Congrégation de Notre-Dame Professed Nuns, 1693–1796 Drouin, Mathilde, Soeur Sainte-Thècle Sainte-Famille-de-l’Île-d’Orléans, 5 September 1751 – 19 August 1828 er 1771 p 28 October 1773 Daughter of Pierre Drouin and Madeleine de Blois Ducharme, Thérèse, Soeur Saint-Paul Lachine, 9 March 1725 – 6 July 1804 er 1743 p 16 June 1745 Daughter of Joseph Ducharme (habitant) and Thérèse Trottier Dugast, Catherine-Françoise, Soeur de-la-Croix Montreal, 3 November 1720 – 17 April 1787 er 1738 p 1740 Daughter of Joseph Dugast and Geneviève Catin Durand, Claude, Soeur de l’Ascension Paris, France, 1643 – Montreal, 12 April 1723 er September 1672 p 25 June 1698 Dutaud, Marie-Françoise, Soeur de la Vierge Champlain, 4 January 1693 – Montreal, 15 March 1767 Daughter of Charles Dutaud (habitant) and Jeanne Rivard-Lavigne Dutaud, Marie-Josephte, Soeur de la Trinité Champlain, 19 March 1695 – Quebec, 20 May 1730 Daughter of Charles Dutaud (farmer) and Jeanne Rivard Lavigne Dutaut, Marie-Marguerite, Soeur des Anges Champlain, 12 January 1691 – Château-Richer, 15 August 1726 Daughter of Charles Dutaut (habitant) and Jeanne Rivard Lavigne Duverger, Louise, Soeur Saint-Michel Montreal, 1754 – 18 March 1837 er 1769 p 1771 Daughter of Michel Duverger and Elisabeth Leclerc Foucher, Marguerite, Soeur Saint-Raphaël Sainte-Marie, 29 May 1749 – 11 July 1807 er 1771 p 28 October 1773 Daughter of Augustin Foucher and Angélique Giguère

155

156

Appendix A

Gagnon, Françoise, Soeur Sainte-Marthe Château-Richer, 12 February 1695 – Montreal, 7 April 1778 er 1720 p 4 November 1722 Daughter of Germain Gagnon and Jeanne David Gagnon, Marie, Soeur Saint-Joachim Sainte-Famille-de-l’Île-d’Orléans, 7 July 1668 – Montreal, 10 March 1747 p 25 June 1698 Daughter of Robert Gagnon (labourer) and Marie Parentelle Gagnon, Marie-Angélique, Soeur Sainte-Marie Château-Richer, 20 January 1691 – Montreal, 26 March 1758 er 1708 Daughter of Noël Gagnon and Geneviève Fortin Gagnon, Marie-Renée, Soeur Sainte-Agnès Sainte-Famille-de-l’Île-d’Orléans, 27 February 1678 – Boucherville, 14 February 1703 Daughter of Robert Gagnon (labourer) and Marie Parentelle Gamelin, Thérèse, Soeur Sainte-Barbe Saint-François-du-Lac, 10 January 1726 – Montreal, 5 October 1768 er 1744 p 23 July 1746 Daughter of Joseph-Jacques Gamelin (merchant) and Jeanne-Angélique Giasson Gannensagouas, Marie-Thérèse pays-en-haut, 1667 – 25 November 1695 er 1679 p March 1681 Daughter of Gannensagouas and Claire Kadendio Tsonnontwame Gariépy, Marguerite, Soeur Saint-Augustin Quebec, 22 March 1660 – Montreal, 13 February 1723 er 1680 p 25 June 1698 Daughter of François Gariépy (cabinetmaker) and Marie Oudin Gariépy, Marie, Soeur Sainte-Ursule Quebec, 8 July 1658 – Montreal, 3 August 1713 er 1680 p 6 August 1698 Daughter of François Gariépy (cabinetmaker) and Marie Oudin

Congrégation de Notre-Dame Professed Nuns, 1693–1796

157

Garnaud, Marie-Madeleine, Soeur Saint-Stanislaus Pointe-aux-Trembles, Quebec, 1764 – 7 June 1841 er 1791 p 16 October 1793 Daughter of L’Ange Garnaud and Madeleine Mercure Gaulin, Marguerite, Soeur de la Présentation Sainte-Famille-de-l’Île-d’Orléans, 10 July 1747 – 26 February 1819 er 22 June 1770 p 15 July 1772 Daughter of Jean-Baptiste Gaulin and Marguerite Blouin Gaulin, Thècle-Élisabeth, Soeur Sainte-Brigitte Sainte-Famille-de-l’Île-d’Orléans, 18 October 1715 – 1 May 1784 er 1737 p 2 July 1738 Daughter of Robert Gaulin and Elisabeth Létourneau Gaulin, Ursule, Soeur Sainte-Françoise Sainte-Famille-de-l’Île-d’Orléans, 12 May 1702 – Canada, 4 May 1741 er 1726 Daughter of Robert Gaulin and Elisabeth Létourneau Gauthier, Monique, Soeur Sainte-Marthe Varennes, 3 December 1750 – Montreal, 29 June 1821 er 1778 p 1780 Daughter of Claude Gauthier and Catherine Choquet Genest, Marie Sainte-Famille-de-l’Île-d’Orléans, 3 November 1670 – Kamouraska, 7 January 1761 Daughter of Jacques Genest Labarre (toolmaker) and Catherine Doribeau. Left the community in June 1698 and married Jean-Baptiste Martin in 1710 Gerbaut, Marie-Josèphe, Soeur Saint-Gabriel Rivière-du-Loup, 26 September 1684 – Montreal, 31 March 1734 Daughter of Christophe Gerbaut de Bellegarde and Marguerite Lemaître Gervaise, Jeanne, Soeur Saint-Exupère Montreal, 24 February 1699 – Montreal, 23 May 1763 p 20 July 1720 Daughter of Louis Gervaise and Barbe Pigeon

158

Appendix A

Gingras, Françoise, Soeur Sainte-Anne Pointe-aux-Trembles, Quebec, 12 January 1746 – 6 December 1807 er 1762 p 7 March 1765 Daughter of Jean-Baptiste Gingras and Angélique Grenier Godbout, Madeleine, Soeur Saint-Laurent Saint-Laurent-de-l’Île-d’Orléans, 3 June 1754 – 16 December 1831 er 1775 p 1 November 1777 Daughter of Antoine Godbout and Marie-Anne LeClair Gourdon, Jeanne, Soeur de la Résurrection Lachine, 8 March 1680 – Montreal, 22 July 1724 er 1695 p 25 June 1698 Daughter of Jean Gourdon dit Lachasse and Michelle Perrin Guénet, Jeanne, Soeur Sainte-Agnès 19 January 1694 – Montreal, 15 December 1749 Daughter of Jean Guénet (merchant) and Étiennette Hurtubise Guillet, Marie-Élisabeth, Soeur Sainte-Barbe Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pérade, 3 September 1684 – Montreal, 23 October 1739 Daughter of Mathurin Guillet (merchant) and Marie-Charlotte Lemoyne Guillory, Marie-Louise, Soeur Sainte-Suzanne Lachine, 24 October 1700 – Montreal, 25 January 1727 p 1 June 1723 Daughter of Simon Guillory (merchant) and Marie Aly Guyon, Elisabeth, Soeur Saint-Laurent Quebec, 21 August 1669 – Montreal, 14 September 1743 Daughter of Claude Guyon (farmer) and Catherine Colin Guyon, Madeleine, Soeur Saint-Joseph Sainte-Famille-de-l’Île-d’Orléans, 14 June 1720 – Montreal, 6 November 1773 er 1739 p 5 March 1742 Daughter of Claude Guyon and Catherine Blouin Guyon, Marie-Anne, Soeur de la Passion Château-Richer, 18 May 1666 – Montreal, 12 December 1743 p 6 August 1698 Daughter of Claude Guyon (farmer) and Catherine Colin

Congrégation de Notre-Dame Professed Nuns, 1693–1796

159

Haguenier, Marie-Thérèse, Soeur Sainte-Suzanne Montreal, 12 March 1721 – Montreal, 23 May 1764 p 16 June 1745 Daughter of Pierre Haguenier (cabinetmaker) and Louise Couturier Hautmesnil de, Catherine-Chrétienne, Soeur de la Visitation Montreal, 20 November 1675 – 31 March 1746 er 22 April 1691 p 25 June 1698 Daughter of Jean-Vincent-Philippe Dumesnil (merchant) and Marie-Catherine Lambert de Baussy Hervieux, Marie-Geneviève, Soeur Sainte-Gertrude Quebec, 15 February 1686 – Montreal, 1 December 1753 er 1707 p 5 February 1709 Daughter of Isaac Hervieux (bourgeois) and Marie-Anne Pinguet Jahan-Laviolette, Catherine, Soeur de la Croix Sainte-Famille-de-l’Île-d’Orléans, 30 January 1676 – Montreal, 21 April 1734 p 25 June 1698 Daughter of Jacques Jahan-Laviolette (tanner) and Marie Ferra Jalot, Marguerite, Soeur Saint-Ambroise Champlain, 21 February 1680 – Montreal, 17 January 1755 Daughter of Jean Jalot (surgeon) and Marie-Antoinette Chouard Janis (Sicard-Antoine), Marguerite, Soeur Saint-Bernardin Montreal, 22 October 1735 – Montreal, 16 December 1788 er 1752 p 30 September 1754 Daughter of Antoine Janis dit Sicard-Antoine (wigmaker) and Catherine Tessier Joly, Madeleine, Soeur Sainte-Julienne Laprairie, 17 January 1726 – Montreal, 5 February 1809 er 1753 p 1755 Daughter of Nicolas Joly and Marie Saint-Jean Jorian, Françoise, Soeur Saint-André Quebec, 24 September 1706 – Montreal, 31 May 1764 p May 1731 Daughter of André Jorian (cooper) and Barbe Charlotte Albert dit Lafontaine

160

Appendix A

Jousset, Agathe, Soeur Saint-Gabriel Montreal, 25 September 1682 – Quebec, 20 December 1702 Daughter of Mathurin Jousset dit la Loire (farmer) and Catherine Lothier Juillet, Marie-Josèphe, Soeur Saint-Gabriel Pointe-aux-Trembles-de-Montreal, 8 September 1717 – er 1735 p 3 May 1737 Daughter of Blaise Juillet and Marie-Madeleine Forestier. She left the convent in 1768. la Bertache, Élisabeth de, Soeur Sainte-Catherine Dijon, France, 1634 – Montreal, 6 October 1710 er September 1672 p 25 June 1698 la Bruère, Renée-Françoise de, Soeur Saint-François-Xavier Boucherville, 12 January 1742 – 27 March 1826 er 1756 p 27 November 1758 Daughter of René de la Bruère and Louise-Renée Pécaudy de Contrecoeur La Corne de Chaptes, Marie-Madeleine de, Soeur du Saint-Sacrement France, 1700 – Canada, 13 March 1762 er 1718 p 1720 Daughter of Jean-Louis de La Corne de Chaptes (officer) and Marie Pécaudy de Contrecoeur la Lande de, Marguerite, Soeur Saint-Gilbert Montreal, 12 February 1722 – Montreal, 9 April 1763 p 5 January 1741 Daughter of Jean de la Lande (merchant) and Elisabeth Gareau dit Saint-Onge Lamarche, Louise-Élisabeth, Soeur Saint-Raphaël Montreal, 22 January 1728 – 11 May 1763 Daughter of Julien Baribault dit Lamarche and Louise Becquet Larrivée, Marie-Françoise, Soeur Saint-Alexis Boucherville, 29 March 1679 – Montreal, 3 January 1762 er 1695 p 25 June 1698 Daughter of Pierre Larrivée (farmer) and Denise Beauchamp

Congrégation de Notre-Dame Professed Nuns, 1693–1796

161

la Rue, Marguerite-Barbe de, Soeur de l’Enfant-Jésus Champlain, 21 January 1690 – Quebec, 21 June 1706 Daughter of Guillaume de la Rue (notary) and Marie Pépin Laurent de Beaume, Perrette, Soeur Sainte-Marie-Anne Paris, 1637 – Montreal, 30 October 1698 er 1672 p 1676 Lefebvre, Marie, Soeur Saint-Michel Montreal, 22 July 1681 – 10 May 1717 er After the death of her husband Jacques Picard Daughter of Jean-Baptiste Lefebvre and Cunégonde Gervaise Lefebvre, Marie-Angèle-Michelle, Soeur du Sacré-Coeur Quebec, 4 May 1692 – Montreal, 27 January 1742 Daughter of Jean Lefebvre (tanner) and Marie Savard Lefebvre Angers, Marie-Angélique, Soeur Saint-Simon Montreal, 25 October 1710 – Montreal, 28 April 1766 er 1726 p 21 November 1730 Daughter of Jean-Baptiste Lefebvre Angers (merchant) and GenevièveFrançoise Faucher Lefebvre-Belle-Isle, Marie-Josèphe, Soeur Saint-Benoît Quebec, 9 November 1693 – Montreal, 31 January 1769 er 1716 Daughter of Henri Lefebvre (surgeon) and Catherine de Mosny Lefebvre Duchouquet, Jeanne, Soeur du Sacré-Coeur Montreal, 17 October 1714 – Montreal, 2 October 1769 er 1741 p 19 November 1743 Daughter of Louis Lefebvre Duchouquet (merchant) and Angélique Perthius Lemaire dit Saint-Germain, Josèphe-Geneviève, Soeur Saint-Scholastique Lachine, 15 December 1739 – Montreal, 10 February 1804 er 1754 p 21 May 1756 Daughter of Hyacinthe Lemaire dit Saint-Germain (merchant) and Geneviève Tessier

162

Appendix A

Lemaître, Marie-Exupère, Soeur Saint-Félix Trois-Rivières, 27 May 1702 – Montreal, 17 May 1731 Daughter of Pierre Lemaître-Lamorille (lieutenant) and Anne Chenaye Le Moyne, Jeanne, Soeur Saint-Charles Montreal, 30 April 1668 – Montreal, 27 March 1703 p 1 July 1698 Daughter of Jacques Le Moyne de Sainte-Marie (merchant) and Mathurine Godé Le Moyne de Sainte-Marie, Marguerite, Soeur du Saint-Esprit Montreal, 3 February 1664 – Montreal, 21 February 1746 er 1680 p 25 June 1698 Daughter of Jacques Le Moyne de Sainte-Marie (merchant) and Mathurine Godé Lenoir, Marie-Françoise, Soeur Sainte-Élisabeth Montreal, 15 April 1695 – Château-Richer, 2 May 1756 Daughter of Vincent Lenoir (miller) and Charlotte Bloys Lenoir, Marie-Louise, Soeur Saint-Herman-Joseph Montreal, 18 September 1706 – Montreal, 29 June 1726 p 8 April 1725 Daughter of Vicent Lenoir (cabinetmaker) and Marie Galipeau Lepage de Saint-Barnabé, Reine, Soeur Saint-Germain Saint-Germain-de-Rimouski, 3 November 1717 – Montreal, 3 April 1774 er 1741 p 31 August 1743 Daughter of René Lepage de Saint-Barnabé (seigneur) and Marie-Anne de Trépagny Lepage de Saint-Germain, Marie-Agnès, Soeur Saint-Barnabé Saint-Germain-de-Rimouski, 15 March 1706 – Montreal, 25 November 1762 er 1728 p 9 November 1730 Daughter of René Lepage (seigneur) and Marie-Madeleine Gagnon Lestage de, Marie-Anne, Soeur Saint-Luc Quebec, 20 November 1695 – Montreal, 18 July 1768 er 1720 Daughter of Jean de Lestages (merchant) and Catherine-Anne Vermet

Congrégation de Notre-Dame Professed Nuns, 1693–1796

163

Létourneau, Marguerite, Soeur Saint-Pierre Sainte-Famille-de-l’Île-d’Orléans, 17 September 1675 – Montreal, 3 October 1721 p 25 June 1698 Daughter of David Létourneau (habitant) and Françoise Chapelain L’Isle de, Marie-Anne, Soeur Saint-Barnabé Deschambault, 1775 – 19 January 1812 er 1793 p 13 June 1795 Daughter of Joseph de L’Isle and Marguerite Perrault Longley, Lydia, Soeur Sainte-Madeleine Groton, Massachussetts, 12 April 1674 – Montreal, 20 July 1758 er December 1696 p 16 September 1699 Daughter of William Longley and Delivrance Crisp (stepmother) Marchand, Marie-Charles, Soeur Saint-Bernard Montreal, 11 June 1709 – Montreal, 11 February 1756 er 1728 p 1731 Daughter of Nicolas Marchand and Charlotte Etiennette de Beaumont Marmotte-Champagne, Geneviève, Soeur Saint-Basile Lachine, 1759 – 22 November 1819 er 1779 p 22 August 1781 Daughter of Nicolas Marmotte-Champagne (soldier) and Geneviève Bissonnet Marois, Élisabeth, Soeur Saint-Clément Quebec, 27 February 1729 – Montreal, 20 July 1770 er 1750 Daughter of Charles Marois and Jeanne Boudreau Martel, Julie, Soeur Sainte-Marie Saint-Pierre-de-l’Île-d’Orléans, 3 August 1742 – Montreal, 3 November 1813 er 1757 p 12 November 1759 Daughter of Antoine Martel and Marie-Françoise Raté Martimbault, Marie-Marguerite, Soeur Sainte-Rosalie Boucherville, 24 October 1719 – Montreal, 13 August 1780

164

Appendix A

er 1750 p 1752 Daughter of Jean Martimbault (habitant) and Marguerite Gareau-St-Onge Maugue, Marie, Soeur Sainte-Marguerite Montreal, 15 November 1680 – Canada, 26 May 1766 Daughter of Claude Maugue (royal notary) and Louise Jousset Maugue-Garreau, Marie-Josèphe, Soeur de l’Assomption Montreal, 29 December 1720 – Montreal, 16 August 1785 er 1738 p 22 December 1740 Daughter of Pierre Gareau dit Saint-Onge (merchant) and Marie-Anne Maugue Mercerot, Marguerite, Soeur Saint-Hyacinthe Champlain, 4 April 1691 – Montreal, 9 February 1762 er 1712 p 1714 Daughter of Pierre Mercerot (carpenter) and Henriette Dandonneau Mercier, Marie-Dorothée, Soeur Saint-Martin Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupré, 17 February 1758 – 24 January 1811 er 1781 p 13 February 1783 Daughter of Joseph Mercier (habitant) and Marie-Josèphe Caron Molleur, Marie-Charlotte, Soeur Saint-Alexis Saint-Étienne-de-Beaumont, 1733 – Montreal, 15 December 1823 er 20 June 1769 p 18 July 1771 Daughter of Jean-Baptiste Molleur and Marie-Françoise Bourbeau Morneau, Marie-Josèphe, Soeur Sainte-Cécile Saint-Roch-des-Aulnaies, 25 October 1755 – 29 October 1821 er 1774 p 16 December 1776 Daughter of Alexis Morneau and Marie-Françoise Caron Nafréchoux, Marie, Soeur Saint-Dominique Montreal, 4 June 1675 – Montreal, 25 March 1755 Daughter of Isaac and Catherine Le Loup Nepveu, Marguerite, Soeur Sainte-Marguerite Quebec, 29 May 1699 – Quebec, 17 June 1734 Daughter of Philippe Nepveu (tailor) and Denise Sevestre

Congrégation de Notre-Dame Professed Nuns, 1693–1796

165

Nepveu, Marie-Josèphe, Soeur Sainte-Françoise Montreal, 12 April 1718 – 19 January 1797 er 1744 p 5 December 1745 Daughter of Jean-Baptiste Nepveu (merchant) and Françoise Legras Paillé, Marie-Madeleine (or Paillart), Soeur Sainte-Gertrude Beauport, 19 October 1681 – Quebec, 20 December 1702 Daughter of Léonard Paillé (carpenter) and Louise Vachon Papineau, Catherine, Soeur Saint-Olivier Montreal, 10 April 1754 – 25 April 1801 er 1773 p 22 November 1775 Daughter of Joseph Papineau (master cooper) and Marie-Josèphe Beaudry Paradis, Brigitte, Soeur Saint-Luce Saint-Pierre-de-l’Île-d’Orléans, 3 November 1760 – 11 March 1813 er 1782 p 1 February 1785 Daughter of Ignace Paradis and Thérèse Gaulin Paré, Catherine, Soeur Saint-Louis-des-Anges Lachine, 28 August 1698 – Montreal, 7 February 1778 er 1728 p 9 October 1735 Daughter of Jean Paré (carpenter) and Marguerite Picard Parent, Élisabeth, Soeur Sainte-Agnès Beauport, 23 January 1733 – 13 January 1790 er 1754 p 13 June 1756 Daughter of Joseph Parent (carpenter) and Jeanne Françoise de Mosny Patenôtre, Catherine, Soeur Sainte-Rose Batiscan, 26 August 1681 – Montreal, 7 April 1703 Daughter of Damien Patenôtre dit Quatresols (farmer) and Nicole de Bonin Patenôtre, Marie, Soeur Sainte-Thècle Laprairie, 1720 – died at sea, 9 August 1758 er 1758 Daughter of Jean-Baptiste Patenôtre and Marie-Renée Le Ber Périnault-Lamarche, Marie-Josèphe, Soeur Sainte-Geneviève Montreal, 4 September 1756 – 6 April 1807

166

Appendix A

er 1774 p 1776 Daughter of Jean-Baptiste Périnault (merchant) and Angélique Harel Pineau-Laperle, Louise, Soeur Saint-Louis Cap-de-la-Madeleine, 1665 – Montreal, 8 December 1749 p 25 June 1698 Daughter of Pierre Pineau (farmer) and Anne Boyer Piot de Langloiserie, Charlotte-Angélique, Soeur Sainte-Rosalie Montreal, 2 August 1696 – Montreal, 1 May 1744 p 29 April 1722 Daughter of Charles-Gaspard Piot de Langloiserie (officer) and Marie-Thérèse Dugué de Broisbriand Piot de Langloiserie, Marie-Marguerite, Soeur Saint-Hippolyte Varennes, 11 February 1702 – Montreal, 10 February 1781 er 1720 – p 29 April 1722 Daughter of Charles-Gaspard Piot de Langloiserie (officer) and Marie-Thérèse Dugué de Boisbriand Piton-Toulouse, Angélique, Soeur Saint-Félix Verchères, 1693 – Montreal, 5 August 1709 Daughter of Simon Dominique Piton-Toulouse (stonemason) and Marie de Brissac (or Brissach) Prémont, Marie, Soeur Saint-Jean-Baptiste Sainte-Famille-de-l’Île-d’Orléans, 13 March 1676 – Montreal, 17 February 1761 p 25 June 1698 Daughter of Jean Prémont (habitant) and Marie Aubert Prud’homme, Cécile, Soeur Saint-Pierre Montreal, 9 October 1699 – Montreal, 17 October 1757 p 8 May 1724 Daughter of Pierre Prud’homme and Marie-Anne Chasle Prud’homme, Élisabeth, Soeur Sainte-Agathe Montreal, 14 March 1719 – Montreal, 5 March 1809 er 1734 p 4 July 1737 Daughter of François Prud’homme (habitant) and Marie-Anne Courault

Congrégation de Notre-Dame Professed Nuns, 1693–1796 Prud’homme, Élisabeth, Soeur Saint-Jean-l’Évangéliste Montreal, 23 January 1708 – 30 November 1786 er 1728 p 9 December 1730 Daughter of François-Xavier Prud’homme (habitant) and Cécile Gervaise Prud’homme, Jeanne, Soeur Saint-Michel Montreal, 2 April 1697 – Montreal, 14 September 1767 p 8 November 1719 Daughter of François-Xavier Prud’homme (farmer) and Cécile Gervaise Prud’homme, Marie-Anne, Soeur de la Trinité Montreal, 23 July 1723 – 25 April 1784 er 1732 p 15 June 1734 Daughter of François Prud’homme and Marie-Anne Courrault Puybaro-Maisonneuve de, Madeleine, Soeur Sainte-Geneviève Trois-Rivières, 8 September 1682 – Montreal, 5 April 1703 er 1698 p 1700 Daughter of Jean de Puybaro and Marie-Madeleine Beaudry Quenneville, Marie-Louise, Soeur Sainte-Brigitte Montreal, 4 April 1694 – Montreal, 15 September 1721 Daughter of Jean-Baptiste Quenneville (beadle) and Louise Lauzon Racine, Catherine, Soeur Sainte-Agathe Château-Richer, 30 November 1685 – Montreal, 3 June 1734 Daughter of Etienne Racine and Catherine Guyon Raimbault, Geneviève, Soeur Sainte-Euphrasie Montreal, 12 May 1703 – Montreal, 23 February 1775 er 1720 p 16 August 1722 Daughter of Pierre Raimbault (royal notary) and Jeanne-Françoise de Saint-Blain Raizenne, Catherine-Élisabeth, Soeur Saint-Simon Lac-des-Deux-Montagnes, 1763 – Montreal, 4 June 1819 er 1779 p 1 February 1781 Daughter of Jean-Baptiste Raizenne (habitant) and Charlotte Sabourin Raizenne, Marie, Soeur Saint-Ignace Lac-des-Deux-Montagnes, 14 July 1735 – Montreal, 20 April 1811

167

168

Appendix A

er 1752 p 25 January 1754 Daughter of Josiah Rising (Ignace Raizenne) (habitant) and Abigail (Marie-Élisabeth) Nimbs (Nims) Raizenne, Marie-Madeleine, Soeur Saint-Herman Sault-au-Récollet, 21 October 1716 – Montreal, 28 May 1796 er 1731 p 27 August 1733 Daughter of Josiah Rising (Ignace Raizenne) (habitant) and Abigail (Marie-Élisabeth) Nimbs (Nims) Ranger-Paquet, Marguerite-Élisabeth, Soeur de l’Enfant-Jésus Montreal, 30 January 1699 – Montreal, 29 January 1772 p 1716 Daughter of Pierre Ranger-Paquet (mason) and Marguerite Fortin Rémy, Thérèse, Soeur de l’Annonciation Saint-Sauveur, Paris, France, 1661 – Montreal, 1 September 1741 er 1678 p 25 June 1698 Daughter of Michel Rémy and Elisabeth Lemoyne Richard, Louise, Soeur Saint-Bernard Langres, France, 6 September 1658 – Montreal, 16 September 1728 er 1682 p 25 June 1698 Daughter of Didier Richard and Anne Laujarrois Robichaud, Marie, Soeur Saint-Vincent-de-Paul Acadia – France, 1766 Robineau de Portneuf, Marguerite, Soeur Sainte-Hélène Montreal, 12 February 1712 – Quebec, 1 May 1740 er 1730 p 5 June 1732 Daughter of Pierre Robineau de Portneuf (officer) and Marie Le Gardeur Robutel de La Noue, Anne-Suzanne, Soeur Sainte-Cécile Montreal, 27 March 1690 – Montreal, 9 February 1717 Daughter of Zacharie Robutel de La Noue (seigneur) and Catherine Le Moyne Rochon, Catherine Sainte-Famille-de-l’Île-d’Orléans, 9 February 1674 – Daughter of Gervais Rochon (mason) and Marie-Madeleine Guyon. Left the community 25 June 1698 and married Étienne Audibert, 19 August 1699.

Congrégation de Notre-Dame Professed Nuns, 1693–1796

169

Roy, Marguerite, Soeur de la Conception Laprairie, 4 June 1674 – Montreal, 13 December 1749 er 1689 p 25 June 1698 Daugher of Pierre Roy (farmer) and Catherine Ducharme Sabourin, Catherine, Soeur Sainte-Ursule Sainte-Anne-du-Bout-de-l’Île, 20 July 1739 – Montreal, 14 March 1825 er 1754 p 25 October 1756 Daughter of Jean-Baptiste Sabourin and Sarah-Catherine Henneson Sabourin, Marie-Anne-Reine, Soeur Saint-Barthélemy Sainte-Anne-du-Bout-de-l’Île, 25 December 1735 – Montreal, 14 April 1827 er 1754 p 25 October 1756 Daughter of Jean-Baptiste Sabourin and Sarah-Catherine Henneson Sabourin, Marie-Élisabeth, Soeur Saint-Vincent-de-Paul Lac-des-Deux-Montagnes, 26 April 1745 – Saint-Laurent, 14 April 1809 er 1767 p 14 March 1769 Daughter of Jean-Baptiste Sabourin and Sarah-Catherine Henneson Sabourin, Marie-Charlotte, Soeur Sainte-Élisabeth Sainte-Geneviève, 24 August 1746 – 13 December 1815 er 1765 p 19 January 1767 Daughter of Jean-Baptiste Sabourin and Marie-Anastasie Raizenne Sayward, Mary (Marie-Geneviève), Soeur Marie des Anges New York, 11 April 1681 – Quebec, 28 March 1717 er 1698 p 1700 Daughter of William Sayward (farmer) and Mary Rishworth Sénécal, Marguerite, Soeur Saint-André Montreal, 19 January 1685 – Montreal, 5 December 1721 Daughter of Jean Sénécal (habitant) and Catherine Deseine Sénécal, Marie-Thérèse, Soeur Saint-Michel Montreal, 30 December 1674 – Montreal, 17 March 1703 p 25 June 1698 Daughter of Jean Sénécal (habitant) and Catherine Deseine Sicard, Catherine, Soeur Sainte-Rose Montreal, 18 December 1686 – Montreal, 23 March 1756 Daughter of Jean Sicard (miller) and Catherine Lauzon

170

Appendix A

Sicard, Marie, Soeur Saint-Anselme Montreal, 5 September 1691 – Montreal, 14 January 1772 er 1712 p 12 May 1714 Daughter of Jean-Simon Sicard (miller) and Catherine Lauzon Soumillard, Catherine, Soeur de la Purification Troyes, France, 1656 – Montreal, 16 August 1699 er September 1672 p 1676 Daughter of Orson Soumillard (soldier) and Marie Bourgeoys Tailhandier, Madeleine-Angélique, Soeur Saint-Basile Boucherville, 4 August 1698 – Montreal, 12 April 1748 Daughter of Marien Tailhandier dit La Beaume (royal notary) and Madeleine Baudry Tailhandier, Marie, Soeur Saint-Augustin Boucherville, 1699 – Château-Richer, 13 October 1728 Daughter of Marien Tailhandier dit la Beaume (royal notary) and Madeleine Baudry Tardy, Marie Besançon, France, 1657 – Besançon, 10 September 1695 er 1682 ec 1691 Testu du Tilly, Françoise, Soeur Saint-Raphaël L’Ange-Gardien, 2 September 1682 – Montreal, 10 December 1749 Daughter of Pierre Testu du Tilly (merchant) and Geneviève Rigaud Thaumur, Marie-Jeanne, Soeur Sainte-Cécile Montreal, 27 September 1700 – Montreal, 29 October 1757 Daughter of Dominique Thamur de la Source (surgeon) and Jeanne Prud’homme Thibierge, Catherine, Soeur Sainte-Véronique Montreal, 17 May 1697 – Montreal, 1 December 1763 er 8 November 1719 Daughter of Jacques Thibierge (gunsmith) and Marie-Anne Joly Thibierge, Madeleine, Soeur Saint-Etienne Quebec, 21 December 1693 – Canada, 6 September 1776

Congrégation de Notre-Dame Professed Nuns, 1693–1796

171

er 1714 Daughter of Jacques Thibierge (gunsmith) and Marie-Anne Joly Thibierge, Marie-Anne, Soeur Sainte-Pélagie Quebec, 15 May 1690 – Montreal, 21 March 1757 Daughter of Jacques Thibierge (gunsmith) and Marie-Anne Joly Tillière, Marie-Anne, Soeur Saint-Jean Montreal, 1764 – 7 April 1825 er 1786 p 5 May 1788 Daughter of Mathieu Tillière dit Saint-Jean (shoemaker) and Catherine Beaumont Tonty, Marie-Hélène de, Soeur Saint-Antoine Montreal, 19 October 1690 – Montreal, 14 June 1748 Daughter of Alphonse de Tonty (officer) and Marie-Anne Picoté de Belestre Trottier, Catherine, Soeur Saint-François Batiscan, 1674 – Montreal, 8 July 1701 p 6 August 1698 Daughter of Jean-Baptiste Trottier (wheelwright) and Geneviève de La Fond Trottier, Marguerite, Soeur Saint-Joseph Batiscan, 21 April 1678 – Quebec, 6 October 1744 er 1692 p 6 August 1698 Daughter of Jean-Baptiste Trottier (wheelwright) and Geneviève de La Fond Turcot, Thècle, Soeur Saint-Anselme Sainte-Famille-de-l’Île-d’Orléans, 9 July 1759 – 16 May 1825 er 1781 p 24 September 1783 Daughter of Pierre Turcot and Marguerite Gendron Verreau, Madeleine, Soeur Saint-Régis Château-Richer, 27 December 1762 – Montreal, 23 January 1841 er 15 August 1780 p 13 February 1783 Daughter of Barthélemy Verreau and Madeleine Gaudin Viger, Thérèse, Soeur Sainte-Madeleine Montreal, 17 May 1744 – 10 February 1804

172

Appendix A

er 1764 p 13 January 1766 Daughter of Jacques Viger (shoemaker) and Marie-Louise Ridday-Beauceron Vinet, Marie-Charlotte, Soeur de la Nativité Boucherville, 14 January 1678 – Montreal, 8 April 1703 Daughter of Jean Vinet (habitant) and Jeanne Étienne

de Notre-Dame Superiors, 1693–1796

appendix b

Congrégation de Notre-Dame Superiors, 1693–1796

The following list of superiors was compiled from acnd, Registre général, a complete list of all the entrants into the institution from the beginning to the present day, and acnd, 3a/12, Contrats de profession. Supplemental sources included Pelletier, Le clergé en la Nouvelle-France, and the Programme de recherche en démographie historique at the Université de Montréal. Spellings of names as they appear in the archival document were retained, except for those individuals who appear in the DCB. Marguerite Bourgeoys, the founder of the institution, was not included in the list, as she was never elected to the position. No entry or profession dates were available for Marie-Elisabeth Guillet and Marie-Anne Thibierge. The first line in each entry gives the birth name and religious name. Line 2 provides the place and date of birth, followed by the place and date of death. Line 3 gives the date the individual entered the convent (er), followed by the date of profession (p). Line 4 indicates the dates during which the individual acted as superior. The final line provides the names of both parents, as well as the profession of the father. Where data is missing, the information could not be found. Amyot, Marguerite, Soeur de la Présentation Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupré, 5 January 1675 – Montreal, 1 August 1747 er 1693 p 25 June 1698 Superior 1739–45 Daughter of Gentien Amyot (locksmith) and Marguerite Poulin Barbier, Marie, Soeur de l’Assomption Montreal, 1 May 1663 – Montreal, 20 May 1739 er 1678 p 25 June 1698 Superior 1693–98

174

Appendix B

Daughter of Gilbert Barbier (habitant) and Catherine de La Vau Brunet dit L’Estang, Véronique, Soeur Sainte-Rose Pointe-Claire, 13 January 1726 – Montreal, 12 June 1810 er 1744 p 22 June 1746 Superior 1772–28; 1784–90 Daughter of Jean Brunet dit L’Estang (voyageur/habitant) and Marguerite Dubois Charly Saint-Ange, Marie-Catherine, Soeur du Saint-Sacrement Montreal, 3 June 1666 – Montreal, 25 January 1719 er 1679 p 25 June 1698 Superior 1708–12; 1717–19 Daughter of André Charly dit Saint-Ange (baker) and Marie Dumesnil Guillet, Marie-Élisabeth, Soeur Sainte-Barbe Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pérade, 3 September 1684 – Montreal, 23 October 1739 Superior 1734–39 Daughter of Mathurin Guillet (merchant) and Marie-Charlotte Lemoyne Lefebvre Angers, Marie-Angélique, Soeur Saint-Simon Montreal, 25 October 1710 – Montreal, 28 April 1766 er 1726 p 21 November 1730 Superior 1757–63 Daughter of Jean-Baptiste Lefebvre Angers (merchant) and Geneviève-Françoise Faucher Le Moyne de Sainte-Marie, Marguerite, Soeur du Saint-Esprit Montreal, 3 February 1664 – Montreal, 21 February 1746 er 1680 p 25 June 1698 Superior 1698–1708; 1711–17; 1719–22; 1723–24; 1727–34 Daughter of Jacques Le Moyne de Sainte-Marie (merchant) and Mathurine Godé Maugue-Garreau, Marie-Josèphe, Soeur de l’Assomption Montreal, 29 December 1720 – Montreal, 16 August 1785 er 1738 p 22 December 1740 Superior 1766–72 Daughter of Pierre Garreau dit Saint-Onge (merchant) and Marie-Anne Maugue

Congrégation de Notre-Dame Superiors, 1693–1796

175

Piot de Langloiserie, Marie-Marguerite, Soeur Saint-Hippolyte Varennes, 11 February 1702 – Montreal, 10 February 1781 er 1720 p 29 April 1722 Superior 1751–57; 1763–66 Daughter of Charles-Gaspard Piot de Langloiserie (officer) and Marie-Thérèse Dugué de Boisbriand Raizenne, Marie, Soeur Saint-Ignace Lac-des-Deux-Montagnes, 14 July 1735 – Montreal, 20 April 1811 er 1752 p 25 January 1754 Superior 1778–84; 1790–96 Daughter of Josiah Rising (Ignace Raizenne) (habitant) and Abigail (Marie-Élisabeth) Nimbs (Nims) Thibierge, Marie-Anne, Soeur Sainte-Pélagie Quebec, 15 May 1690 – Montreal, 21 March 1757 Superior 1745–51 Daughter of Jacques Thibierge (gunsmith) and Marie-Anne Joly Trottier, Marguerite, Soeur Saint-Joseph Batiscan, 21 April 1678 – Quebec, 6 October 1744 er 1692 p 6 August 1698 Superior 1722–24; 1728–29 Daughter of Jean-Baptiste Trottier (wheelright) and Geneviève de La Fond

This page intentionally left blank

Notes

abbreviations used in the notes aam aaq acnd anqm asq assp

Archives de l=Archdiocèse de Montréal Archives de l=Archdiocèse de Québec Archives de la Congrégation de Notre-Dame Archives Nationales du Québec, Montreal Archives du Séminaire de Québec Archives du Séminaire Sulpicien, Paris DCB Dictionary of Canadian Biography gr. greffe (notarial record) prdh Programme de recherche en démographique historique, Université de Montréal

introduction 1 Wilson and McLean, The Living Past of Montreal, 28. 2 For a discussion of the historian’s encounter and relationship with death, see Certeau, The Writing of History, 5–6. 3 Glandelet, Life of Sister Marguerite Bourgeoys; Ransonnet, La vie de la soeur M. Bourgeoys; Montgolfier, La vie de la venerable Marguerite Bourgeoys; Faillon, Vie de la soeur Bourgeoys; Jamet, Marguerite Bourgeoys, 1620–1700. 4 asq, ms. 198; assp, ms. 1233; Rumilly, Marie Barbier. 5 assp, ms. 1216; Faillon, The Christian Heroine of Canada; Deroy-Pineau, Jeanne Le Ber. 6 Caza, La vie voyagère conversante, avec le prochain.

178

Notes to pages 5–6

7 Simpson, Marguerite Bourgeoys and Montreal, 1640–1665, and Marguerite Bourgeoys and the Congregation of Notre Dame, 1665–1700 Other recent biographies include Saint-Damase-de-Rome, L’intendante de Notre-Dame; and Plante, Marguerite Bourgeoys, fille de France. 8 Burke, New Perspectives on Historical Writing, 1–12, and especially the article by Giovanni Levi, “On Microhistory,” ibid., 93. For a more recent collection reflective of advances in this field, see Through a Glass Darkly, ed. Hoffman, Sobel, and Teute. Certain historians, however, have protested against what has been termed the “tyranny of the history of popular culture,” whereby a vicarious relationship to the oppressed of the past serves as a pretext for contemporary pretensions to dominance.” See, for example, LaCapra, “Is Everyone a Mentalité Case?” 72. 9 Nicols and Shank, Medieval Religious Women; Norberg, “The Counter Reformation and Women: Religious and Lay”; Johnson, Equal in Monastic Profession; McNamara, Sisters in Arms. These works built upon earlier general studies of medieval religious women, beginning with Eckenstein, Women under Monasticism; Power, Medieval English Nunneries, 1275–1535; and Knowles, The Religious Houses of Medieval England. 10 Some of these studies of religious institutions in Europe and the United States focused upon specific institutions or certain facets of a number of religious orders and examined their functions, their finances, or their socio-economic compositions. See, for example, Devos, La vie religieuse féminine et société; Jegou, Les Ursulines du Faubourg St. Jacques à Paris, 1607–1662; Jones, The Charitable Imperative; L’Hermite Leclercq, Le monachisme féminin dans la société de son temps; Rapley, “Profiles of Convent Society in Ancien Régime France.” 11 Johnston, Religion in Life at Louisbourg, 1713–1758, 86–108; Chicoine, La métairie de Marguerite Bourgeoys à la Pointe Saint-Charles; D’Allaire, Les dots des religieuses au Canada français, 1639–1800; Pelletier, Le clergé en Nouvelle-France. 12 Formative works in this area include Lerner, The Creation of Patriarchy and The Creation of Feminist Consciousness. See also, for example, Noel, “New France: Les femmes favorisées”; and Dumont, “Les femmes de la NouvelleFrance”; as well as Dumont’s more recent works Les religieuses, sont-elles féministes? and Découvrir la mémoire des femmes. Another work worthy of mention is Laurin and Juteau, Un métier et une vocation. For a detailed discussion of the issue of power and a nun’s position, see chapter 5 below. 13 Danylewycz, Taking the Veil; Rapley, The Dévotes; Choquette, “Ces amazones du grand Dieu”; Foley, “Uncloistered Apostolic Life for Women.”

Notes to pages 6–7

179

14 For example, Rapley, The Dévotes; Choquette, “Ces amazones du grand Dieu”; Danlylewycz, Taking the Veil. 15 Allaire, L’Hôpital-général de Québec, 1692–1764, Les dots religieuses, and, most recently, Les communautés religieuses de Montréal; Johnston, Religion in Life at Louisbourg; Dumont, Girl’s Schooling in Quebec, 1639–1960; Magnuson, Education in New France; Dufour, Histoire de l’éducation au Québec. See also Allard, L’Hôtel-Dieu de Montréal, 1642–1973. Most recently, Gourdeau’s work Les délices de nos coeurs has reconstructed a detailed and vivid portrait of the material conditions of the daily life of the Ursulines. 16 A notable influence in this respect is the groundbreaking work of Carolyn Walker Bynum in Holy Feast and Holy Fast. Other works in this area include Bell and Weinstein, Saints and Society; Vauchez, Sainthood in the Later Middle Ages; Goodich, Vita Perfecta; Kieckhefer, Unquiet Souls; Bell, Holy Anorexia. 17 The pioneering work of Dominique Deslandres is noteworthy in this respect. See, for example, her most recent contribution, “In the Shadow of the Cloister.” See also Greer, Mohawk Saint. 18 This study of power acknowledges a considerable debt to the work of Michel Foucault, especially, The History of Sexuality, vol. 1, Power/Knowledge. 19 Especially, Rapley, The Dévotes, and Choquette, “Ces amazones du grand Dieu.” 20 Janelle, The Catholic Reformation. 21 Lynch, The Medieval Church, 15; Mullet, The Catholic Reformation, 2. 22 Mullet, The Catholic Reformation, 68. For a view of the Catholic Reformation as an imposition, see, for example, Delumeau, Catholicism between Luther and Voltaire, and Schmitt, “Les superstitions,” 416. However, historians generally agree on its success. See, for example, Mullet, The Catholic Reformation, 68; Delumeau, Catholicism, 8; and Hoffman, Church and Community in the Diocese of Lyon, 1500–1789, chap. 4. 23 Janelle, The Catholic Reformation, 138, 196. 24 The differences between a gothic and a baroque cathedral have been taken from Janelle, The Catholic Reformation, but modified by visits to the thirteenth-century cathedral Notre-Dame-de-Paris and the sixteenth-century churches of Saint-Sulpice and Saint-Etienne-de-Mont in Paris. 25 For a good, concentrated collection of medieval Virgins in painted wood, stone, or ivory of various sizes and grouped together, see the Musée National du Moyen Age, Paris, especially salle 14. The contrast between the two periods is obvious and immediately exemplified by the statue of Mary the Mother of Sorrows, by Edme Bouchardon, in the church of Saint-Sulpice.

180

Notes to pages 7–12

26 Janelle, The Catholic Reformation, 206, 202. 27 Most scholars would agree on the Christian humanist roots of this movement. See, for example, Dickens, The Counter Reformation; Delumeau, Catholicism between Luther and Voltaire, 2; Janelle, The Catholic Reformation, 111. 28 Janelle, The Catholic Reformation, 111, 112, 225, 113, 115. See Dickens, The Counter Reformation, for a perspective that does not focus upon Jesuit domination of the early movement. 29 Mullett, The Catholic Reformation, 23. 30 Janelle, The Catholic Reformation, 119. 31 For more on this subject, see especially Chartier, A History of Reading in the West. 32 Venard, “La grande cassure,” 195, 204–5, 207, 220, 221. 33 Ibid., 298, 301. 34 Ibid., 309. 35 Janelle, The Catholic Reformation, 275–301. 36 Rapley, The Dévotes, 78, 95, 120, 126, 130, 100. 37 For an examination of the broader context of this movement, see Deslandres, Croire et faire croire. 38 Codignola, “Competing Networks,” 540–1, 544–5, 558, 565, 563. 39 Sainte-Henriette, Histoire,1: 55–6. 40 Lahaise, Les edifices conventuels du Vieux Montréal, 27, 103, 223, 329, 363, 387, 423. 41 Gray, “A Fragile Authority,” 46, table 1, “Congrégation de Notre-Dame, Soeurs in Convent, 1700, 1725, 1750, 1775, 1790,” and table 2, Congrégation de Notre-Dame Soeurs, 1700, 1725, 1750, 1775, 1790: Average Ages.” 42 acnd, 3a/02, 3a/03, 3a/04, 3a/07, and 3a/08; anqm, Notarial records, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; aam, 525.101, 698–1, Réglemens. The only surviving coutumier – a document describing the daily practices of the nuns after 1768 – can be found in Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 5: 131–5. This document was collected and revised by Soeur Marie-Josèphe Maugue-Garreau. A comprehensive collection of convent plans for numerous religious institutions in Montreal can be found in Lahaise, Les édifices conventuels du Vieux Montréal, and acnd. 43 acnd, Registre général. prdh, a comprehensive database located at the Université de Montréal, has systematized the entire population of the colony to the eighteenth century. See also Godbout. Nos ancêtres au XVIIe siècle; Tanguay, Dictionnaire généalogique des familles canadiennes; Jetté, Dictionnaire généalogique des familles du Québec. 44 Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, vols. 1–6; aam, 525.101; as well as, for example, asq, ms. 198, and assp, ms. 1233.

Notes to pages 13–21

181

45 For more on the controversy surrounding the historical individual, see, for example, Geertz, “Thick Description: Towards an Interpretive Theory of Culture,” in his The Interpretation of Culture; Foucault, “The Subject and Power”; and Ortner, Culture/Power/History. In particular, Linda Alcoff’s article “Cultural Feminism versus Post-Structuralism” discusses the implications of this debate for feminist theory. 46 Davis, The Return of Martin Guerre and, especially, Women on the Margins.

chapter one 1 acnd, 910.230.027. 2 Ibid., Peintures, watercolour by Soeur Saint-Michel (Henriette Dufresne). 3 Rapley, The Dévotes, 110, 111; Foley, “Uncloistered Apostolic Life for Women,” 43–88; 203–10. Choquette, “‘Ces amazones du grand Dieu,’” 627, also has advanced a view of religious women in seventeenth-century New France as being generally more liberated than their continental counterparts. 4 Rapley, The Dévotes, 110, 111; Foley, “Uncloistered Apostolic Life for Women,” esp. 90, 97–103, 105–14, 115–25. 5 Foley, “Uncloistered Apostolic Life for Women,” 45, 46, 89–90, and especially chap. 4, which compares the Saint-Vallier version of the 1694 constitution, the sisters’ subsequent objections to it, and the final version, which became the 1698 “Réglemens.” 6 Émile Jombart and Marcel Viller, “Clôture,” in Dictionnaire de spiritualité, 2: 979–99; Van Kessel, “Virgins and Mothers between Heaven and Earth,” 150–6. Historical works that view that cloistering from the perspective of control and chastity include McNamara, Sisters in Arms, 298; and L’Hermite Leclerq, L’Église et les femmes dans l’Occident chrétien. 7 Jombart and Viller, “Clôture,” in Dictionnaire de spiritualité, 2: 1002–3. Hubert, Sur la terre comme au ciel, 2. 8 Rambaud, “La Croix de Chevrières de Saint-Vallier, Jean-Baptiste de,” in DCB, 2: 328–34; Jean-Guy Lavallée, “Dubreuil de Pontbriand, Henri-Marie,” ibid., 3: 193, 195; Claudette Lacelle, “Dufrost de Lajemmerais, Marie-Marguerite,” ibid., 4: 234–8; 9 Bell, “Culture and Religion,” 78–104 and esp. 80–8; Bossenga, “Society,” 55; Van Kley, “Catholic Conciliar Reform in an Age of Anti-Catholic Revolution,” 53, 58, 59, 74, 131, 132. 10 Dechêne, Habitants and Merchants in Seventeenth-Century Montreal, 261, 263. 11 Foley, “Uncloistered Apostolic Life for Women,” 95–6. There is very good reason to suspect that financial incentives contributed towards the sisters’

182

12 13

14

15

16

17

18

19 20 21 22

Notes to pages 22–5

eventual capitulation to Bishop Saint-Vallier’s constitution. Beginning in 1688, this bishop donated a convent in Quebec City to the institution and three annuities, one in 1693, just one year before he presented them with their rules, another in the same month – June 1698 – that the sisters signed their constitution, and a final one in 1720. See anqm, gr. Genaple de Bellefonds, Donation d’une maison située en la haute ville de Québec à la Congrégation de Notre-Dame ... 1688; gr. Adhémar, Fondation d’une rente par Jean-Baptiste de La Croix de Saint Vallier ... 7 Sept. 1693; gr. Adhémar, Fondation et don d’une rente annuelle et perpétuelle par Jean-Baptiste de Lacroix de Saint Vallier ... 14 June 1698; gr. Dubreuil, Donation de rentes constituées, 11 June 1720. Foley, “Uncloistered Apostolic Life for Women,” 102–3, 110–11, 113, 121, 122. Jombart and Viller, “Clôture,” in Dictionnaire de spiritualité, 2: 993–1002; Sperling, Convents and the Body Politic in Renaissance Venice, 14; Reynes, Couvents de femmes, 205. Based upon a document written by Marie-Josèphe Maugue-Gareau detailing “certains petits usages de la Communauté,” in Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 5: 133. Evidence of the sisters working in local churches also appears throughout acnd, 3a/02. Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 5: 132–4. But the sisters also utilized the laundry room within the convent. See Lahaise, Les edifices conventuels du Vieux Montréal, 143, 146; aam, 525.101, 698–1, Réglemens, art. 25: 51; art. 24: 49; art. 31: 61–6; anqm, gr. Basset, Convention entre Jeanne Leber de Villemarie et la Congrégation Notre-Dame de Montréal, 4 Aug. 1695. For a description of the process whereby an individual enters a religious institution and definitively relinquishes the world of the “profane” for the “sacred,” see Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, 38–9; aam, 525.101, 698–1, Réglemens, art. 35: 84. A. Donahue, “Veil,” in New Catholic Encylopedia, 14: 590; Michel Mollat, “Pauvreté chrétienne,” in Dictionnaire de spiritualité, 12, 1: 614–58; Alexandre Willwoll, “Chasteté,” ibid., 2: 777–809; Jean-Marie-R. Tillard, “Obéissance,” ibid., 11: 555. aam, 525.101, 698–1, Réglemens, art. 24: 50. Details of the profession contract taken from an examination of numerous profession contracts in anqm. aam, 525.101, 698–1, Réglemens, art. 3: 2–6; art. 15: 32–5; art. 24: 49–51. Ibid., art. 24: 49–51. Lahaise, Les édifices conventuels du Vieux Montréal, 155. Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 5: 171.

Notes to pages 25–8

183

23 acnd, 3a/02, Dec. 1753–27 Mar. 1754; aam, 525.101, 698–1, Réglemens, art. 25: 51–3. 24 See Burns, Colonial Habits, esp. 101–31, “Reproducing Colonial Cuzco,” for an illustration of nuns adopting and raising children inside the cloister, thereby reproducing, within the convent, external familial structures. See chapter 2 below for the congregation’s involvement in raising New England captives. The practice of taking such children into the convent was also prevalent among the Ursulines at Quebec. See, for example, Oury, Les Ursulines de Québec, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133. 25 Lahaise, Les édifices conventuels du Vieux Montréal, 143; aam, 525.101, 698–1, Réglemens, art. 25: 51–3; art. 24: 50. 26 Foley “Uncloistered Apostolic Life for Women”; Rapley, The Dévotes. Rapley modified this view of the convent in her most recent work, A Social History of the Cloister. 27 Durkheim quoted in Geertz, “Ritual and Social Change: A Javanese Example,” in Interpretation of Cultures, 142. 28 Pierre Debongnie, “Dévotio Moderne,” in Dictionnaire de spiritualité, 3: 727–47. The devotio moderna was a spiritual movement founded by Gérard Groote (1340–84) in the Low Countries. It developed over the course of the fifteenth century, eventually taking the form of two religious institutions: the Brothers and Sisters of the Common Life and the Regular Canons of the Congregation of Windesheim. See also Lynch, Medieval Church, 340–1, which identifies this movement as a “school”; and Lebrun, “Two Reformations,” 71. 29 Taylor, Varieties of Religion Today, 17, and esp. chap. 1. 30 Caza, La vie voyagère, 82 31 Sales, The Love of God, esp. chap. 6, “Concerning the Exercises of Holy Love in Prayer.” For a discussion of collective and personal piety see Lebrun, “The Two Reformations.” 32 Bourgeoys, Writings, 169; as well as, for example, the section entitled “Primacy of the Interior Rule,” 93. 33 asq, ms. 198, 38: “I found myself in an inferno, obliged to be continuously with people.” On the following page (39), Glandelet explains how the crowded conditions of the widow Gaulin’s house made it very difficult for the sisters to engage in their “exercises” without restraint. 34 aam, 525.101, Réglemens, art. 15: 32–5; Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 3: 239 and 5: 275. See also acnd, series D, Livres anciens. 35 Ortner, “Thick Resistance: Death and the Cultural Construction of Agency in Himalayan Mountaineering,” in The Fate of Culture, 155. “It is by disciplining themselves through meditation and other practices that the lamas gain the powers that allow them to control the gods.”

184

Notes to pages 28–32

36 Julian of Norwich, Revelations of Divine Love; Teresa of Ávila, The Interior Castle; Thérèse of Lisieux, The Little Way; Stein, Essential Writings.

chapter two 1 Wilson and McLean, Living Past of Montreal, 26, 4; Dechêne, Habitants and Merchants, 199. 2 Dechêne, Habitants and Merchants, 204–5. 3 Dickinson and Young, A Short History of Quebec, 91, 98, 102. 4 As quoted in Lahaise, Les edifices conventuels du Vieux Montréal, 127. 5 Ibid. 6 aam, 525.100, 698–1, Réglemens, art 1: 1. Very few sources remain surrounding the pedagogical mission of the sisters in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Unlike the correspondence of the Ursulines and the Hôtel-Dieu, which has been utilized to form a picture of their teaching methods, congregation sources are almost totally silent in this respect. See, for example, Deslandres, “Femmes missionnaires.” The description of a congregation education was derived from less-direct sources, primarily the community’s constitution and secondary material describing girls’ schooling in the early modern period. See Dumont, Girls’ Schooling in Quebec, 1639–1960 7 I am using the term “congregation education” throughout this description to differentiate it from the type of schooling offered by, for example, the Ursulines at Quebec. A congregation education was much more basic than an Ursuline education, which was tailored to suit the needs of offspring of the nobility or wealthy merchants and included, for example, such skills as painting. See Deslandres, “Femmes missionnaires.” 8 aam, 525.101, 698–1, Réglemens, art. 7: 14. 9 Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 1: 327. 10 aam, Réglemens, art. 7: 15; Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 5: 191, 331. 11 Saint-Vallier, Catéchisme du Diocèse de Québec. There are few studies dealing with the catechism in Quebec in the pre-Conquest period. See, for example, Dawson, “La législation sur l’enseignement du catéchisme”; and Brodeur, Catéchisme et identité culturelle. 12 Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 5: 355–60; Etienne Montgolfier, “Ordonnance au sujet de l’arithmétique qui doit être enseignée dans les écoles de la Congrégation,” Montreal, 12 June 1783; quotation on 357. 13 aam, 525.101, 698–1, Réglemens, art. 7: 13–16. 14 Sonnet, L’éducation des filles au temps des Lumières, 15, 16. 15 Ibid., 16, 264, 287, and especially chap. 6. 16 Cliche, Les pratiques de dévotion en Nouvelle-France, 26.

Notes to pages 32–7

185

17 asq, ms. 198, for example, 19, 21, 26–9, 51–3, 54, 55. For more on the spirituality of Marie Barbier, see chapter 6. 18 Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 5: 123. 19 Ibid., 5: 292–4. 20 Greer, “The Pattern of Literacy in Quebec,” 297–300, 331–2. 21 Magnuson, Education in New France, 141. 22 See Fauré, Democracy without Women, 60, 61. 23 Quotation from ibid, 60. 24 See chapter 3 for more precise information concerning the issue of societal support for the congregation. 25 Delumeau, Catholicism between Luther and Voltaire, 194. 26 Cliche, Les pratiques de dévotion en Nouvelle-France, 166; Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 1: 322–4. Bourgeoys’s confraternity was the first to be established in the colony. See Caulier, “Les confréries de dévotion à Montréal,” 24. 27 Caulier, “Les confréries de dévotion à Montréal,” 24, 137. 28 Cliche, Les pratiques de dévotion en Nouvelle-France, 136; Caulier, “Les confréries de dévotion à Montréal,” 24. 29 Caulier, “Les confréries de dévotion à Montréal,” esp. 137. 30 Cliche, Les pratiques de devotion en Nouvelle-France, 138–43. 31 aam, 525.101, 698–1, Réglemens, art. 28: 58. 32 acnd, Règlement de la Congrégation des Demoiselles de N.-D de la Victoire, 7–13, 19; acnd, 220.100: 1–8, Anciens documents historiques sur la Congrégation de N.-D. de la Victoire. 33 Cliche, Les pratiques de dévotion en Nouvelle-France, 166, 167–8; Caulier, “Les confréries de dévotion à Montréal,” 62. According to Caulier, it is difficult to state precisely when the female branch of the confraternity of Sainte-Famille was established. The confraternity itself was founded at Montreal in 1663 and at Quebec the following year. 34 Cliche, Les pratiques de dévotion en Nouvelle-France, 167. 35 Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 3: 154–5. 36 See, for example, Landry, Orphelines en France. 37 Recent works pertaining to the captives include Burnham, Captivity and Sentiment; Hartman, Providence Tales and the Birth of American Literature; Turner Strong, Captive Selves, Captivating Others; and Snader, Caught between Worlds. 38 Axtell, The Invasion Within, 289. See also Vaughan and Richter, “Crossing the Cultural Divide.” Demos, in The Unredeemed Captive, xii, investigated one particular female captive, Eunice Williams, and her family, quite simply to tell a story and to explore the “larger business of ‘contact’” and “encounter” between different human groups.

186

Notes to pages 37–9

39 For a more complete list of prominent individuals involved in the conversions of captives, see Gray, “Narratives and Identities in the Saint Lawrence Valley,” 193–205, appendix A. 40 Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 3: 28, Abjuration of Elisabeth Price, 25 Aug. 1705. 41 Ibid., 3: 35, 45, Baptismal certificate of Martha French, 23 Jan. 1707; Abjuration of Sarah Tarbel, 1 May 1708. Marguerite Bouat’s connections found ibid., 4: 16. 42 Ibid., 3: 139, Baptismal certificate of Marie Sylver, 2 Feb. 1710. 43 Ibid., Baptismal certificate of Martha French, 23 Jan. 1701. 44 Ibid., 3: 45, Baptismal certificate of Sarah Tarbel, 23 July 1708. 45 Ibid., 3: 139, Baptismal certificate of Marie Sylver, 2 Feb. 1710. 46 Gray, in “Narratives and Identities in the Saint Lawrence Valley,” has commented upon the multiple meanings of these conversions. Specifically, her section “Religious Symbolism as Borderland Discourse” (291–8) discusses their psychological and symbolic value. 47 Accounts of the baptism of Mary Rishworth Plaisted vary. Gray, in “Narratives and Identities in the Saint Lawrence Valley,” 22, contends that the girls were baptized among the Abenakis, where they initially lived after their captivity. However, other accounts claim that they were baptized at the parish church of Notre-Dame at Ville-Marie. Whatever the case, the girls were undoubtedly present and on display at their mother’s ceremony – either renewing their baptismal vows, as do all the baptized during this ceremony, or actually being baptized themselves. See, for example, Baker, True Stories of New England Captives, 79, 82; Hèléne Bernier, “Sayward, Mary,” in DCB, 2: 601; and Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 3: 277. 48 R. Daeschler, “Baptême,” in Dictionnaire de spiritualité, 1: 1218–40. 49 For a discussion of regional or local shrines in France, which attracted a steady stream of pilgrims, see Lebrun, “The Two Reformations.” 50 Sainte Henriette, Histoire, 1: 311–21, 3: 154–8. For a discussion of the foundations of this chapel, see below. 51 Ibid., 5: 82. The chapel of Sainte-Anne was demolished in the eighteenth century as a result of vandalism; ibid., 5: 71. 52 Ibid., 5: 82–3. The other tabernacles of the colony included chapels at the Fort (1642) and the Hôpital Général (1644), at the first parish church (1656), and at the Jesuit (1692) and Récollet seminaries. 53 Ibid., 5: 82–3. 54 Ibid., 3: 188, 2: 178. 55 Ibid., 2: 176–8. 56 C.J. Jaenen, “Le Ber, Jeanne,” in DCB, 2: 376–7.Yves Zoltvany, “Le Ber, Jacques,” ibid., 2: 374–6. Biographies of this recluse also include Faillon, The

Notes to pages 39–41

57 58

59

60 61 62 63

64 65 66 67

68

69

187

Christian Heroine of Canada; and most recently, Deroy-Pineau, Jeanne Le Ber. See also Dominique Deslandres’s discussion of the holiness of this woman in “In the Shadow of the Cloister.” anqm, gr. Basset, Convention entre Jeanne Leber, de Villemarie, et la Congrégation Notre-Dame de Montréal, 4 Aug. 1695. Marie-Christine Chartier, “Reclus,” in Dictionnaire de spiritualité, 13: 222–7; Venarde, Women’s Monasticism and Medieval Society, 178. The earliest known recluses were the fathers of the Egyptian desert. See M.C. McCarthy, “Recluse,” in New Catholic Encyclopedia, 12: 128. According to McNamara, Sisters in Arms, 61, the first female exemplar of the anchoritic life was Mary Magdalene. Linda Breuer Gray has challenged Anne Barrois’s identity as cousin of Jeanne Le Ber. Gray has made a strong case establishing this woman as a New England captive who was originally baptized in the Dutch Reformed church at Albany. See Gray, “Narratives and Identities in the Saint Lawrence Valley,” 193–205. Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 3: 261–71, Necrology of Jeanne Le Ber. Deslandres, “In the Shadow of the Cloister”; Deroy-Pineau, Jeanne Le Ber. Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 3: 154–6. I am grateful to Sister Cécile Viau and Sister Monique Béland of Les Recluses Missionnaires for their clarifications to the information concerning Jeanne Le Ber. Taken from the memoirs of Mère Juchereau in Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 3: 187–8. See Juchereau, Les annales de l’Hôtel-Dieu de Québec. Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 3: 189–201, “Oraison funèbre de Mlle Le Ber.” See also assp, ms. 1216. Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 3: 157. Ibid., 1: 311–21, 3: 154–8. For an account of the construction of another chapel named Notre-Dame de Bon-Secours at the institution’s Champlain mission as early as 1683, see ibid., 1: 290–2. Ellington, From Sacred Body to Angelic Soul, 249, 250, 263. Ellington disagrees with Carolyn Walker Bynum’s contention that female medieval spirituality focused more on the suffering body of Christ than the image of the Virgin Mary. Rather, she argues that “Mary’s birth-giving and bodily unity with Jesus were always a central, forceful and positive force.” Gibson, The Theatre of Devotion, and Coletti, “Purity and Danger,” also maintain that Jesus and the Virgin Mary were both positive influences in female medieval spirituality. See also Van Kessel, “Virgin Mothers between Heaven and Earth.” Delumeau, Rassurer et protéger, esp. 261–80, “La Vierge au grand manteau.”

188

Notes to pages 41–4

70 asq, ms. 198, 87, 104–5. 71 Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 1: 320–1, Louis Tronson, superior of the Sulpician Seminary at Paris to Jean Frémont, Sulpician missionary [n.d.]: ”You are correct to attribute the preservation of Canada to the very Holy Virgin. Continue to beg for her aid; you know that it is particularly due to her auspices that the settlement at Montreal was undertaken.” 72 Ibid., 3: 156. 73 Ibid. 74 Lynch, The Medieval Church,131–2. 75 anqm, gr. Basset, Convention entre Jeanne Leber, de Villemarie, et la Congrégation Notre-Dame de Montréal, 4 Aug. 1695. C.J. Jaenen, “Le Ber, Jeanne,” in DCB, 2: 376–7. For more on Jeanne Le Ber, see below. 76 anqm, gr. Lepailleur, Donation d’une somme d’argent, par Marie-Jeanne Dumouchel, veuve de Pierre Biron, marchand bourgeois, de la ville de Villemarie, à la Congrégation Notre-Dame de Montréal, 6 Feb. 1718. 77 anqm, gr. Chambalon, Acceptation et obligation entre la Congrégation Notre-Dame de Montréal et François Berthellot, seigneur de l’île et comté St-Laurent, 13 Oct. 1694. 78 anqm, gr. Dubreuil, Donation de terre en la seigneurie de Neuville, 5 Oct. 1713. 79 Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 5: 38–9. 80 Ibid., 4: 12, Bishop Dosquet to Soeur Sainte-Barbe, 13 Oct. 1735. 81 See, for example, acnd, 3a/06, Le bon homme Pierre Main, 1765: 45; Pierre Guyon, 1766: 65; Sansoussie, 1768: 77; Bourguignon, 1770: 104; Baptiste Giare, 1770: 106. 82 Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 4: 249–5, 306. 83 Ignatius of Loyola, The Spiritual Exercises. 84 Manuel Ruiz Jurado, “Retraites spirituelles,” in Dictionnaire de spiritualité, 13: 423–34. 85 aam, 525.101, 698–1, Réglemens, art. 21: 43. 86 acnd, 3a/02. It is very possible that the community kept a separate book, which was destroyed by fire, recording the retreats of these individuals. It is certain that the community’s accountant used a separate book to register its boarders. One accountant, in acnd, 3a/08, 313: 87, refers to another book registering these girls. It too must have been destroyed in one of the community’s fires. 87 See chapter 1. 88 aam, 525.101, 698–1, art. 38: 90–1. 89 anqm, gr. Adhémar, Convention entre Marguerite Nevellet, veuve de Abraham Bouat, bourgeois de la ville de Villemarie, et la Congrégation

Notes to pages 44–8

90 91

92 93

189

Notre-Dame de Montréal, 6 Oct. 1709. For a good study of the options open to widows in New France, see Brun, “Le veuvage en Nouvelle-France.” See also Young, “... ‘sauf les perils et fortunes de la mer.’” Hélène Bernier, “Sayward, Mary,” in DCB, 2: 601. Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 4: 73. Other captives associated with the congregation include Elisabeth Price, Martha French, Elisabeth Nims, Sarah Tarbel, and Marie Adélaïde Sylver. See ibid., 3: 28, 35, 41, 45, 139. For Anne Barrois, see note 59 above. Geertz, “Ethos, World View and the Analysis of Sacred Symbols,” in his Interpretation of Cultures, 126. Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, 36–40

chapter three 1 Lacoursière, L’Île-des-Soeurs, 114. 2 Act cited in Sainte-Henriette, Histoire 3: 63–4, Paris, France, 1 Jan. 1664; ibid., 3: 64–6, gr. De Mouchy, 14 Nov. 1664, Montreal. 3 Ibid., 3: 68, gr. Vallon, Donation de partie de l’île Saint-Paul à Marie Le Ber par Sieur Jean de la Vigne, 14 Feb. 1669; ibid., 3: 67–8, gr. Becquet, Donation par Marie Le Ber à Jacques le Ber, son frère, 11 Oct. 1668. 4 anqm, gr. Adhémar, Echange d’une terre entre la Congrégation Notre-Dame et Zacharie de Robutel ..., 16 July 1706; gr. Adhémar, Vente du tiers du fief appelé de Lanoue situé dans l’île St Paul ... à la congregation Notre Dame ..., 25 May 1707. See also Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 3: 82. 5 anqm, gr. Basset, Donation de biens meubles et immeubles; par Zacharie Dupuy, écuyer et major de l’île de Montréal et Jeanne Groisard, 12 Nov. 1673. 6 Chicoine, La métairie de M. Bourgeoys, 117. 7 anqm, gr. Lepailleur, Donation de biens d’héritage mobiliers et immobiliers; par Jean Cailloud dit Baron et Marie-Marguerite Touchard, 11 Mar. 1715; gr. Lepailleur, donation de biens meubles et immeubles; par Marie Touchard, veuve de Jean Cailloud dit Baron, 8 Mar. 1718. 8 anqm, gr. Raimbault, 20 Nov. 1730, Convention portant obligation par Jean-Baptiste Lefevre dit Angers, 20 Nov. 1730. 9 anqm, gr. Raimbault, Vente d’une île dite a Laigle, 17 Apr. 1731. 10 Act reproduced in Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 3: 71–3, Titres du fief La Noüe comprenant un tiers de l’île Saint-Paul, 18 July 1676. 11 For the progression of this and other acquisitions at Pointe-Saint-Charles, see Chicoine, La métairie de Marguerite Bourgeoys, esp. part two, chaps. 1 and 2. 12 Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 5: 214

190

Notes to pages 48–50

13 anqm, gr. Adhémar, Echange d’une terre ..., 16 July 1706; gr. Adhémar, Vente du tiers du fief appelé de Lanoue ..., 25 May 1707. 14 Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 5: 74, 215. 15 Ibid., 3: 80–1; 4: 394. 16 Ibid., 3: 80, Ordinance of Jacques Raudot, Intendant, Montreal, 29 July 1708; ibid., 4: 394, Ordinance of Gilles Hocquart, Intendant, Montreal, 27 June 1730. 17 Ibid., 3: 228–32, Lettre de Mgr de Saint-Vallier à Messieurs les Directeurs de la compagnie des Indes [n.d.]; Réponse de Messieurs les Directeurs du Domain d’Occident à Mgr de Saint-Vallier, 10 June 1717, Paris; and Réponse de Messieurs les Directeurs du Domaine d’Occident à M. de Belmont [n.d., n.p.]. 18 Ibid., 4: 393. 19 Ibid., 4: 395, Vente par M. Jean-Baptiste le Ber de Senneville à M. Ferdinand Feltz, 11 Aug. 1758. 20 Ibid., 5: 211. 21 acnd, 4a/04, Contrat de Vente ... d’une partie de l’Ile St paul Aux sisters, 25 Aug. 1769. The selling price is given in acnd, 3a/02, Sept.–Dec. 1769: the congregation paid 16,650 livres for the property, spending an additional 258 livres for legal expenses and a journey by Soeur Maugue-Garreau to Quebec. For the devastation of the Canadian economy following the Conquest, see Greer, The People of New France, esp. 116. 22 Act reproduced in Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 3: 73–4, gr. Basset, Aveu et dénombrement de partie de l’île Saint-Paul par M. Jacques Le Ber, 16 Sept. 1676. 23 Andrée Désilets, “Maugue-Garreau, Marie-Josèphe,” in DCB, 4: 530. 24 Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 5: 214, Letter from Guy Carleton, governor of the province of Quebec, 20 Oct. 1769, Quebec. See also ibid., 5: 212, 213–14. 25 Ibid., 5: 215; and, for example, acnd, 3a/02, Mar.–June 1770: “Pour avoir fait faire une cloture dans Lisle St Paul.” 26 Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 5: 126. 27 acnd, 3a/02, June 1768–Sept. 1768. 28 anqm, gr. Panet de Méru, Vente d’une terre située à La Prairie, 18 Feb. 1769; and acnd, 3a/02, Mar.–June 1769, “Recue sur la vente de notre terre de La Prairie La Somme de ...” 29 anqm, gr. Panet de Méru, Vente d’une terre nommée Verdun ... la Congrégation, 20 Dec. 1769. 30 Île à l’Aigle: anqm, gr. Panet de Méru, Vente d’une île dite à l’aigle ..., 23 Oct. 1771; Côte de la Visitation: gr. Panet de Méru, Vente d’une terre située à la côte de la Visitation, 18 Nov. 1773. Other properties sold at this time

Notes to pages 50–1

31 32 33

34 35 36 37 38

39 40 41 42

43

191

include one in Montreal: anqm, gr. Panet de Méru, Vente d’une terre située en la ville de Montréal, rue Notre Dame ..., 1 Aug. 1768. Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 5: 196–7. Ibid., 5: 174–5. The only information concerning the revival of this mission appears ibid., 5: 209–10. However, Soeur Sainte-Henriette cites September 1769 as the date that the inhabitants of the town requested the revival of the mission. This is not possible, given that on the following page Marie Raizenne, Soeur Saint-Ignace, is said to have succeeded Marthe Drouin, Soeur Sainte-Hélène, and Charlotte-Ursule Adhémar de Lantagnac, Soeur Sainte-Claire, at the mission on 29 June 1769. Whatever the case, the money owed to the inheritors of the merchant Amyot would have been due during the unstable period following the fire. anqm, gr. Panet de Méru, Donation d’une somme d’argent ..., 8 Aug. 1769. Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 5: 140, 337. Ibid., 5: 140, 291. Ibid., 5: 135, 140. Ibid., 5: 140. Evidence of the generous support of religious officials, merchants, and anonymous donors or lenders of money appears throughout the community’s account book in the post-fire period. See acnd, 3a/02, beginning June 1768. acnd, 3a/02, various years after 1770. Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 5: 294–6. Ibid., 6: 20, Soeur Saint-Ignace to Monsieur Maury, 9 Oct. 1792. Ibid., 5: 296–7, Métairies, 27 June 1773, 10 Aug. 1774, 4 June 1777; ibid., 5: 372, Extrait des délibérations du chapitre, 10 July 1782, 13 July 1783; ibid., 5: 423, Métairies, 23 Apr. 1787, 31 May 1789, 3 Jan. 1790; ibid., 6: 39–40, Île Saint-Paul and Pointe Saint-Charles, 1 Aug. 1790, 31 Aug. 1790, 1791, 1792–93, 8 May 1794. For the period surrounding Marie Raizenne’s laments, see acnd, 3a/05. This document demonstrates that in spite of the community’s straightened circumstances, it found money during this period to pay workers to make many repairs and additions to the Île Saint-Paul and Pointe-Saint-Charles properties; this work involved carpenters, joiners, and labourers and building supplies such as nails, beams, and wood. See also Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 6: 39–4, “note,” which summarizes work completed at Île Saint-Paul and Pointe-Saint-Charles during this period. Sainte Henriette, Histoire, 5: 372, Extrait des délibérations du chapitre, circa 1783. See also ibid., 6: 40, Emplacements divers.

192

Notes to pages 51–4

44 Ibid., 5: 297–8, Métairies, 17 Dec. 1775, 4 June 1777. Also ibid., 5: 423, Métairies, and ibid., 6: 39, État des établissements, Île Saint-Paul, 1 Aug. 1790, 22 Nov. 1795. 45 For works pertaining to the economic activities of convents, see, for example, Jane Tibbets Schulenburg, “Women’s Monastic Communities, 500–1110: Patterns of Expansion and Decline,” in Sisters and Workers in the Middle Ages, ed. Bennett, et al.; L’Hermite Leclerq, Le monachisme féminin dans la société de son temps; Rapley, “Profiles of Convent Society in Ancien Regime France”; Venarde, Women’s Monasticism and Medieval Society, and especially, most recently, Burns, Colonial Habits. 46 Jaenen, The Role of the Church in New France, esp. 69–73. For a good discussion of the detrimental effect of royal policy upon female religious institutions in France in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, see Rapley, “The Shaping of Things to Come.” 47 Hélène Bernier, “Charly Saint-Ange, Marie-Catherine,” DCB, 2: 132. The correspondence concerning this issue appears in Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 3: 108–37. 48 Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 3: 348–55. 49 Johnston, Religion in Life at Louisbourg, 96–7. 50 Copies of documents concerning this foundation appear in Sainte Henriette, Histoire, 4: 94–9. See also Johnston, Religion in Life at Louisbourg, 97. 51 Johnston, Religion in Life at Louisbourg, 99–102. This correspondence appears in Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 4: 142–8, 267–8, 368–9, 371–5. 52 Jaenen, The Role of the Church in New France, 72. 53 Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 3: 25, 41. This subsidy was replaced in 1772 with an agreement between the sisters and the Sulpicians at this mission. See ibid., 5: 288–91, Conventions entre les Messieurs du Séminaire et les très honorées Sœurs de la Congrégation du Lac, 14 July 1772. 54 Ibid., 1: 257, 267; 3: 41; 5: 42. 55 Johnston, Religion in Life at Louisbourg, 96, 99, 100, 100–1. 56 Jean-Guy Lavallée, “Dubreil de Pontbriand, Henri-Marie,” in DCB , 3: 197. 57 Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 4: 328; 5: 78–9. 58 The names of English girls sent to the convent appear sporadically from the 1760s to the 1790s throughout acnd, 3a/02. See, for example, ibid., Sept.–Dec. 1766. 59 Ibid., 1766: 134. 60 Dickinson and Young, A Short History of Quebec, 59–60, 78–9; Greer, The People of New France, 117. See also André Vachon, “Briand, Jean-Olivier,” in DCB, 4: 94–102, and Gilles Chaussé, “Hubert, Jean-François,” in DCB, 4: 370–4.

Notes to pages 54–6

193

61 Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 5: 140. 62 Ibid., 5: 339–40; also ibid., 5: 341, Frédéric Haldimand, Remise du droit d’amortissement ... pour l’acquistion ... du fief Saint-Paul, 20 Feb. 1781, Québec. 63 Ibid., 4: 395; 5: 179, 213–14, 209. Throughout the 1720s and 1730s, another individual, François César, refused to pay rent owed to the institution at Boucherville; see ibid., 3: 389–93. 64 Little, Religious Poverty and the Profit Economy in Medieval Europe, chaps. 5–8. 65 Ibid. Many of the reforms touched upon and were designed to protect church property. See Buckley, The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent; for example, session xxiv, chap. xi; session xxii, chap. xiv and especially session xxv, chap. iii: “All Monasteries which are not herein excepted may possess real property.” 66 Dechêne, Habitants and Merchants, 269. 67 Ibid., 268–9; Greer, Peasant, Lord, and Merchant, 133. 68 Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, vols. 2–6. 69 For a moving and vivid description of the monumental effort and hardships involved in establishing a farm by individuals without connections in seventeenth-century Montreal, see Dechêne, Habitants and Merchants, 152–96. 70 Allaire, L’Hôpital-général de Québec, 44–5. 71 Young, In Its Corporate Capacity, xii. 72 For example, transactions with Étienne Augé began in 1730 and continued to 1768; Mon Guy’s account began in 1733 and persisted after his death in 1748 and into the 1760s with his wife; a Mon. Cardinal appears before 1742 and continues into the 1770s. See acnd, 3a/07 and 3a/08. 73 José Iguarta, “Augé, Étienne,” in DCB, 4: 34–5. 74 acnd, 3a/02. 75 These items appear throughout acnd, Livre des recettes et depenses, 1753–93. 76 acnd, 3a/07, 1406: 194; 3a/02, Mar.–June 1781: “de feu Mon. Augé pour leg pieux, 3000 l.” 77 acnd, 3a/07, 1406: 194. 78 acnd, 3a/02, Sept.–Dec. 1769, June–Sept. 1770, June–Sept. 1771, Sept.–Dec. 1771, Mar.–June 1781; Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 5: 297–8. 79 acnd, 3a/02, Sept.–Dec. 1790, “Emprunter a Marg. Augé ... ” 80 acnd, 3a/08, and 3a/02, June–Sept. 1767: “Du Sieur Bélair pour une année de rente ... ”; Dec. 1771–Mar. 1772. 81 acnd, 3a/02, Mar.–June 1779, June–Sept. 1779, Sept.–Dec. 1780, Dec.1780–Mar.1781.

194

Notes to pages 56–8

82 Such entries as, for example, ibid., June–Sept. 1788, 316: “Du Sr dumay pour reste de pension de sa niece,” pertain to other individuals throughout this document. 83 For example, ibid., June–Sept. 1788: “Sr Racine pour reste de sa rente.” 84 acnd, 3a/07 and 3a/08. 85 For more on the engagé within an administrative context, see chapter 5. 86 Dechêne, Habitants and Merchants, 196. 87 Ibid., 225–6. 88 Ibid., 188–9; Greer, The People of New France, 116. 89 Dechêne, Habitants and Merchants, 269. See also Cliche, Les pratiques des devotions en Nouvelle-France, for an affirmation of the success of the church’s mission in the colony. 90 Evidence supporting the existence of these activities appears throughout acnd, 3a/02. 91 For example, anqm, gr. Basset, Donation d’un emplacement situé en la ville de Montreal et d’une somme d’argent pour servir de dot à Marie Barbier, 20 Dec. 1684; gr. Lepailleur de LaFerté, Constitut de rente annuelle et perpétuelle; par Pierre Boucher, 13 Sept. 1723; gr. Raimbault de Piedmont, Constitution de rente annuelle et perpétuelle par François de BereyDessessard, 5 Nov. 1730; gr. Raimbault, 8 Nov. 1730, Constitution de rente annuelle et perpétuelle, 8 Nov. 1730; gr. Raimbault, Donation dune terre située proche de la ville de Montréal, 9 Dec. 1730; gr. Raimbault, Constitution de rente annuelle et perpétuelle par Marguerite Daneau de Muy, 4 June 1732; gr. Raimbault, Constitution de rente annuelle et perpétuelle par François de Berey-Dessard, 12 Dec. 1736; gr. Simonnet, Cession d’une somme d’argent par François Bleau, 26 July 1739; gr. Janvrin dit Dufresne, Constitution de rente annuelle et perpétuelle, 22 Dec. 1740. 92 See discussion in the section “Île Saint-Paul.” 93 For the seventeenth century, see asq, ms. 198, 39; Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 1: 257–8; and for the eighteenth century and Pointe-Claire, see Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 5: 417. 94 anqm, gr. Chambalon, Acceptation et obligation entre la Congregation ..., 13 Oct. 1694; Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 1: 295–6. 95 Act reproduced in Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 3: 42–4, Compte-rendu d’une assemblée, 25 Sept. 1701, Lachine. See also anqm, gr. Adhémar, Dépôt d’une donation d’un terrain dépendant de la Fabrique de la paroisse des Saint anges de Lachine; par la Fabrique de la paroisse Sts-Anges-de- Lachine, à la Congrégation Notre-Dame de Montréal, 23 Feb.1702. 96 anqm, gr. Senet, Donation de terre située au bourg de la Pointe au Tremble, 24 July 1707.

Notes to pages 58–9

195

97 anqm, gr. Tailhandier, Concession d’un emplacement situé dans le bourg de Boucherville par Pierre Boucher ... à la Congrégation Notre-Dame de Montréal, 7 Mar. 1705; gr. Dubreuil, Don de terre, 5 Oct. 1713. 98 anqm, gr. Levesque, Fondation d’un circuit de terrain situé à St. Fran de Salle de la Riv Sud par Joseph Morice dit larrivee et Marie Josephe Boutin son epouse, de la seigneurie de Bellechasse, paroisse St. Fran de la Riv sud a la cnd de Montréal, 13 May 1764; gr. Rousseau, Donation de terre située en la paroisse de St Francois, 7 Apr. 1771. Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 5: 40. 99 anqm, gr. Jehanne, Concession d’un emplacement situé en la paroisse et seigneurie de St Denis, par Pierre-Claude Pecaudy de Contrecoeur ... à François Cherrier, prêtre curé, de la paroisse St Denis ..., 8 Apr. 1774; Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 5: 366–8. 100 Lachine: Sainte-Henriette, Histoire 1: 281–2, Extract of a letter written by the Lachine parish assembly following the return of the sisters to Montreal after the destruction of the fort by the Iroquois in 1689; Sainte-Famille (1761): ibid., 4: 378–80; Lower Town (ca. 1766): ibid., 5: 209; Neuville (Pointe-aux-Trembles, Quebec, 1761 and 1775): ibid., 4: 386–88 and 5: 294–6. 101 For a list of notarized donations to the congregation, see Gray, “A Fragile Authority,” 428, appendix 2.1, “Notarized donations to the Congrégation de Notre-Dame, 1662–1784.” For example, anqm, gr. Foucher, Donation d’une esclave nommee Diane negresse de nation ... par Jacques Finger, 20 Apr. 1784. 102 Appearing sporadically throughout acnd, 3a/02; for example, Sept.–Dec. 1766, 134; June–Sept. 1778, 277; Mar.–June 1779, 234; June–Sept. 1786, 298; and Dec. 1784–Mar. 1785, 283. 103 Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 4: 92. For example, Isaac-Louis de Forant, the former governor of Louisbourg, established eight places for officers’ daughters at the congregation school, stipulating that in the absence of any such individuals, the money would return to the congregation. See Johnston, Religion in Life at Louisbourg, 97. 104 acnd, 3a/02, Mar–June 1781. 105 Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 4: 74–5, Extrait des registres du conseil Supérieur de Québec, 7 Jan. 1744, Montréal. 106 These appear periodically in ANCD, 3a/02, beginning Dec. 1754–Mar. 1755. 107 Ibid; for example, Dec. 1754–Mar. 1755; Mar.–June 1755; Sept.–Dec. 1755; Mar.–June 1756; June–Sept. 1756; Dec. 1769–Mar. 1770; Mar.–June 1770. 108 For example, Madame de Lestage paid 599 livres, presumably for her boarding fees for the period of Mar.–June 1768, while the widow L’Esperance paid

196

109

110

111 112 113 114

115 116 117

118 119

120

121

Notes to pages 59–61

only 56 livres and 10 deniers for the same period; see ibid. The entry ibid., Mar–June 1757, fixes Madame de Lestage’s yearly board at 1,500 livres. anqm, gr. Panet de Méru, Donation d’une somme d’argent; par Esther Sayer, veuve de Pierre lestage, de Montréal, à la Congrégation Notre-Dame de Montréal, 8 Aug. 1769. For example, a Madame Prud’homme proved to be most generous following the fire and the purchase of Île Saint-Paul; see acnd, 3a/02, Sept.–Dec. 1769; Mar.–June 1770; June–Sept. 1770; Dec. 1770–Mar. 1771. This generosity was also demonstrated by the above-mentioned Marguerite Augé, the former slave of the merchant Étienne Augé, during the financial crisis of the 1790s: See ibid., Sept.–Dec. 1790 and June–Sept. 1791. See the above discussion of, for example, Étienne Augé. anqm, gr. Adhémar, Accord et délaissement du fief du Bon Pasteur situé dans l’île Jesus, 12 Aug. 1701; Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 3: 30. anqm, gr. Adhémar, Accord entre l’Hôtel-Dieu de Montréal et la Congrégation Notre-Dame de Montréal, 8 July 1706. It is unclear from this context of this source whether this priest was Charles-Marie-Madeleine d’Youville Dufrost or his brother, Joseph-François d’Youville. Quite likely, it was the former, who, according to Claudette Lacelle, “Youville, Charles-Marie-Madeleine d’,” in DCB, 4: 779–80, signed his name “Ch. Youville Dufrost ... to distinguish himself from his brother Joseph-François, who signed Youville.” Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 4: 101–2, Ordonnance de Mgr Henri-Marie de Pontbriand aux Soeurs de Sainte Famille, 28 June 1743. aam, 525.101, 698–1, Réglemens, art. 6: 9; 33: 73. Dechêne’s assertion that the “seminary did not accept any Canadian priest before the end of the eighteenth century” (Habitants and Merchants, 264) is mostly correct, but for the exception of Jean-Andre-Guillaume Guillimin, who was born at Quebec in 1750. See Gauthier, La compagnie de Saint-Sulpice au Canada, 58. Dechêne, Habitants and Merchants, 261–4; Young, In Its Corporate Capacity, xii, 3–19. acnd, 3a/02; for example, Dec. 1755–Mar. 1756: “10 messes pour dittes sœurs ... ”; Mar.–June 1767: “aux dits [mrs du Seminaire] pour dimes, 4 messes de fondation et 20 pour nos Srs defuntes.” Appearing throughout ibid.; for example, Mar.–June 1754: “Payé au Mess du sém pour dimes ...”; ibid.: “A mes sudits Mess [Sulpicians] pour rentes de nos terres et emplacements de ville, celle de ...” Ibid., Sept.–Dec. 1766: “A Mr Favard pour 8 cordes de Bois ... ”; Mar.–June 1770: “payé aux Mess. Du Sem. En argenterie pur du Bled ...”

Notes to pages 61–2

197

122 Appearing throughout ibid. ; for example, 27 Mar.–27 June 1754: “Recue des mess du sem. Pour ouvrages deguille, fournitures d’hosties et de biscuits la somme de ...” 123 aam, 525.101, 698–1, Réglemens, art. 26: 53–5. This influence would have varied greatly given the situation. For example, Étienne Montgolfier would have exerted a significant influence not only as the Sulpican – and the community’s – superior between 1759 and 1787 and the bishop’s vicar-general during the same period, but also as the community’s confessor between 1774–88. See Lucien Lemieux, “Montgolfier, Étienne,” in DCB, 4: 542–4; Gauthier, La compagnie de Saint-Sulpice au Canada, 119, 120. 124 This assistance manifested itself in other situations. See, for example, Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 3: 227, which documents that circa 1711–17, a Father de Chaumaux asked M. Leschassier, superior of the Sulpician seminary at Paris, for a concession of land at the Lachine mission to furnish the sisters with heating fuel and to feed a cow. 125 For example, ibid., 3: 227, 1704, for property on the island of Montreal; ibid., 3: 25, 1787; and 5: 419–20, for land at the institution’s Pointe-Claire mission. 126 Interests that have been well document in both Young, In Its Corporate Capacity, and Tremblay, “La politique missionnaire des Sulpiciens.” 127 With the exception of Lac-des-Deux-Montagnes, Louisbourg, and Lower Town; see Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 3: 388–9, 350. For example, in the 1690s the Sulpicians built a convent at Pointe-aux-Trembles, Montreal, and François Dollier de Casson donated money to the mission (ibid., 1: 275); Louis Geoffroy, founder of the Champlain mission, in 1701 donated a convent to the sisters, which they could dispose of as they wished (anqm, gr. Adhémar, Donation d’un emplacement situé à Champlain ... par Louis Geofroy, 6 Oct. 1701); Pierre Rémy assisted the sisters at Lachine (anqm, gr. Adhémar, Echange de la jouissance d’une terre située au fort Remy de Lachine, 17 Jan. 1707); and Benoît Roche donated land at the Pointe-aux-Trembles mission at Montreal (anqm, gr. Senet dit Laliberté, Donation d’une terre ... par Benoît Roche ... de la paroisse du St Enfant Jesus de la Pointe au Tremble ... Montréal, 24 July 1707). 128 Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 5: 288–91, 291–4. For more on de Terlaye’s generosity to the community, see below. 129 Examples of Sulpician generosity can be cited throughout the eighteenth century. Simon Saladin worked tirelessly to secure the legacy left to the sisters by the priest Pierre-Rodolphe Guybert de la Saudrays at Boucherville on his death in 1721 (ibid., 3: 389); François Vachon de Belmont remembered the congregation, among other religious institutions, at his death in 1732 (ibid., 3: 386–8; 4: 6–7); in his will in 1774, Gilbert Favard, the community’s con-

198

130 131

132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142

143 144 145 146

Notes to pages 62–4

fessor, left numerous religious works and icons to the community (ibid., 5: 274–5); Pierre Sartelon, through a generous donation in 1787, enabled the sisters to transfer their Lachine mission to the more favourably located Pointe-Claire (act reproduced in ibid., 5: 418–20). But an examination of the community’s account book also reveals that the Sulpicians lent money to the institution on a regular basis right through to the 1790s. See, for example, acnd, 3a/02, June–Sept. 1755: “Mr [François, 1709–81] Piquet, argent prete”; Sept.–Dec. 1766: “Payé a Mr [Gabriel-Jean, 1729–98] Brassier pour argent a nous prêté ... ” The generosity of François-Auguste Magon de Terlaye, mentioned above, is particularly notable and appears consistently throughout the 1750s, 1760s, and 1770s in acnd, 3a/02. Lucien Lemieux, “Montgolfier, Étienne,” in DCB, 4: 542–4; Gauthier, La compagnie de Saint-Sulpice, 119, 120. Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 5: 135, 140, 337–8. Quittance de Montgolfier, ibid., 338. These sums of money appear in acnd, 3a/02, beginning June 1768. Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 5: 324–5. Montgolfier, La vie de la vénérable Marguerite Bourgeoys. assp, ms. 1216. assp, ms. 1233. Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 5: 140. Gray, “A Fragile Authority,” 429, app. 2.2, “Notarized Church Donations to the Congrégation de Notre-Dame, 1673–1723.” Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 5: 135. asq, ms. 198: 187. anqm, gr. Chambalon, Constitution de rente annuelle par la Compagnie de Jésus, 6 Aug. 1699. For example, acnd, 3a/02, Mar.–June 1756; Dec. 1778–Mar. 1779. Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 6: 26–7. At a meeting of the community’s council on 12 May 1794, it was decided that Père Casot’s endowment would be given to Marie-Anne de L’Isle, Soeur Saint-Barnabé, for her keep during the period of her novitiate; see ibid., Lettre de Mgr Hubert à Soeur Saint-Ignace, 27. For example, acnd, 3a/02, Sept.–Dec. 1755; Mar.–June 1757. Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 1: 55–6, gr. Basset, Donation, 22 Jan. 1658. anqm, gr. Basset, Constitution de rente annuelle par Jeanne Mance ..., 3 Nov. 1673. anqm, gr. Genaple de Bellefonds, Donation d’une maison située en la haute ville de Québec ... à la Congrégation Notre-Dame, ... 1688; gr. Adhémar,

Notes to pages 64–9

147 148

149 150 151 152 153 154

155

199

Fondation d’une rente par Jean-Baptiste de Lacroix de Saint Vallier ..., 7 Sept. 1693; gr. Adhémar, Fondation et don d’une rente annuelle et perpétuelle par Jean-Baptiste de Lacroix de Saint Vallier ..., 14 June 1698; gr. Dubreuil, Donation de rentes constituées, 11 June 1720. Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 3: 36; 5: 71–2. C.J. Jaenen, “Le Ber, Jeanne,” in DCB, 2: 376; anqm, gr. Basset dit Deslauriers, Convention entre Jeanne le Ber de Ville Marie et le cnd, 4 Oct. 1695; gr. Adhémar, Donation d’une somme d’argent par jeanne le Ber ..., 27 Sept.1699; gr. Adhémar, Fondation d’une messe par Jeanne le Ber, 25 Oct. 1708; gr. Lepailleur, Fondation par jean leber à la cnd, 9 Sept. 1714. anqm, gr. Duquet de Lachesnaye, Donation d’une habitation, 25 Sept. 1687; and gr. Rageot, Donation d’une terre, 6 May 1689. anqm, gr. Adhémar, donation d’une terre située à Batiscan, 17 July 1706. anqm, gr. Barbel, Donation d’une terre ..., 1 Aug. 1715. anqm, gr. Adhémar, Donation de terres situées en la seigneurie de Boucherville ..., 26 May 1724. anqm, gr. Lévesque, Donation d’une maison, 20 Oct. 1766. Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 4: 12–13, Bishop Dosquet to Soeur Sainte-Barbe, 13 Oct. 1735. Apparently, there was more than one painting, although neither Dosquet nor the community’s historian provides precise details concerning their artists or subject matter. The community’s historian claims that he donated “plusieurs peintures remarquables,” which the 1768 fire destroyed. In the same year, Dosquet also donated paintings to the Hôtel-Dieu of Quebec and Les Mères de l’Hôpital-général. This assistance is particularly noticeable during the financial troubles of the 1790s. See acnd, 3a/02, Dec. 1791–Sept. 1792.

chapter four 1 See aam, 525.101, 698–1, Réglemens, art. 34: 76. 2 acnd, 910.230.027. Location of election derived from acnd, Marie-deLiesse, “Anciens usages,” 51. 3 The community’s constitution stipulated that the bishop – in this case, JeanFrançois Hubert – be present at the institution’s elections. In his absence, he would have been replaced by the vicar-general of Montreal, Étienne Montgolfier. See aam, 525.101, 698–1, Réglemens, art. 34: 79. 4 This description of the nuns’ costumes was derived from the painting of Marguerite Bourgeoys by Pierre Le Ber, on display at the Musée MargueriteBourgeoys, Old Montreal.

200

Notes to pages 69–71

5 For example, aam, 525.101, 698–1, Réglemens, art. 34: 82. For a complete profile of the individuals in the convent in 1790, see Gray, “A Fragile Authority,” app. 3.4, “Congrégation de Notre-Dame Professed Nuns, 1790.” 6 aam, 525.101, 698–1, Réglemens, art. 34: 76, 77. 7 Ibid., 78. 8 Ibid., 77, 79. 9 Ibid., 79. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 In her reflections on the “Conditions for Admission to the Congrégation de Notre Dame,” Marguerite Bourgeoys advised that after a woman had been received into the institution, “her words, gestures and movements ought not to seem giddy or foolish, but modest, reserved and devout.” See Writings, 5. 13 aam, 525.101, 698–1, Réglemens, art. 34: 81, 82. Research concerning convent elections is scanty, but this absence is not surprising, considering that the process was secret. Laura Mellinger, in “Politics in the Convent,” 529, utilizing chapter minutes, reconstructed the political infighting characteristic of certain convent elections. Craig Harline also discusses the factionalism surrounding convent elections in The Burdens of Sister Margaret. Unfortunately, chapter minutes were not available for this study of the congregation’s election. 14 See, for example, Bilinkoff, The Avila of Saint Teresa; Weber, Teresa of Avila and the Rhetoric of Femininity; Slade, St Teresa of Avila; Ahlgren, Teresa of Avila and the Politics of Sanctity. 15 Deroy-Pineau, Marie de l’Incarnation; Théry, “Marie de l’Incarnation, intimée et intime”; Gourdeau, Les délices de nos coeurs; Zecher, “A New World Model of Female Epistolarity”; Deslandres, “L’éducation des Amérindiennes d’après la correspondance de Marie Guyart de l’Incarnation” and “Qu’est-ce qui faisait courir Marie Guyart?”; Bruneau, Women Mystics Confront the Modern World; Zecher, “Life on the French-Canadian Hyphen.” 16 See Johnson, Equal in Monastic Profession. 17 Burns, Colonial Habits, 8 and esp. chap. 5. 18 Coleman, New England Captives, 2: 107, 104. 19 Demos, The Unredeemed Captive; Coleman, New England Captives, 2: 104; Beaubien, Le Sault-au-Récollet, 208; Saint-Jean l’Évangéliste, Notes généalogiques, 6. 20 Quotation from Father Quéré found in Coleman, New England Captives, 2: 107.

Notes to pages 72–4

201

21 Ibid., 2: 104, 107, 106; Beaubien, Le Sault-au-Récollet, 193. 22 Beaubien, Le Sault-au-Récollet, 144, 163, 193, 195; Coleman, New England Captives, 2: 103, 104. 23 Jaenen, The Role of the Church in New France, 75. 24 Coleman, New England Captives, 2: 108, 109; description taken from Saint-Jean l’Évangéliste, Notes généalogiques, frontispiece photo of the Raizenne house at Lac-des-Deux-Montagnes. 25 anqm, gr. Danré de Blanzy, Contrat de reception de Marie Rizenne, 25 Jan 1754; gr. Raimbault, Reception de Marie-Madeleine Sayars, Soeur St Herman, 9 Oct. 1733; gr. Panet de Méru, Depot d’un acte d’accord ... entre Ignace Raizenne et Jean-Baptiste Raizenne, 19 Mar. 1762. 26 Gray, “A Fragile Authority,” app. 3.2, “Marie Raizenne: Kin in Congrégation, 1754–1796”, and app. 3.3, “Marie Raizenne: Kin in Other Religious Institutions, 1754–1796.” 27 Saint-Jean l’Évangéliste, Notes généalogiques, 8; Jean-Baptiste-Jérôme Raizenne: prdh, no. 163187. The number of Raizenne children sired by Jean-Baptiste varies by account. Robert J. Scollard, “Raizenne, Marie-Clothilde,” in DCB, 6: 627, claims seven out of ten children entered religion, while prdh registers eleven children. 28 Scollard, “Raizenne, Marie-Clothilde,” in DCB, 6: 627–8. 29 Coleman, New England Captives, 2: 111. 30 For Marie Raizenne’s profile as a superior, see appendix B; for an outline of her administrative life, see Gray, “A Fragile Authority,” app. 3.8, “Congrégation de Notre-Dame Superiors: Administrative Experience, 1693–1796.” See also anqm, gr. Danré de Blanzy, Contrat de Reception de Marie Rizenne, 25 Jan. 1754; André Désilets, “Raizenne, Marie,” in DCB, 5: 703–4; Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 5: 129–30. 31 Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 5: 129–30; Désilets, “Raizenne, Marie,” in DCB, 5: 703. 32 Marie-Anne and Marie-Françoise Audet: Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 7: 82; 6: 106; Marie-Anne and Marie-Françoise Berry des Essarts: Pelletier, Le clergé en Nouvelle-France, 282; Jetté, Dictionnaire généalogique, 85–6; Marie-Élisabeth Sabourin: Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 6: 202; Catherine Sabourin: Pelletier, Le clergé en Nouvelle-France, 290; Marie-Anne-Reine Sabourin: Pelletier, Le clergé en Nouvelle-France, 290. 33 Élisabeth Prud’homme: Pelletier, Le clergé en Nouvelle-France, 289, 288, 256; Jetté, Dictionnaire généalogique, 951. 34 Charlotte-Ursule Adhémar de Lantagnac: Pelletier, Le clergé en Nouvelle-France, 279, 259, 293, 269; Jetté, Dictionnaire généalogique, 3.

202

Notes to pages 74–7

35 Dechêne, Habitants and Merchants. In fact, the congregation itself roughly mirrored the structure of the colony, with the minority, the nobility, at the top and the majority of the population, the habitants, at its base. 36 Names derived by cross-referencing individuals in Pelletier, “Repertoire biographique des prêtres, missionaries et religieuses, 1615–1765,” in Le clergé en Nouvelle-France, 169–304; they represent individuals with four or more siblings in the colony’s religious institutions at any one period. See Gray, “A Fragile Authority,” app. 3.5, “Congrégation de Notre-Dame Soeurs before 1766: Links within the Institute.” 37 anqm, gr. Duquet de Lachesnay, Apprentissage, 6 Nov. 1679; gr. Genaple de Bellefonds, Vente d’une maison, 30 June 1703. 38 anqm, gr. Adhémar, Obligations, 21 Oct. 1689, 13 Sept. 1693, 22 Sept. 1694. 39 Gilbert Barbier: anqm, gr. Basset, Quittance, 29 July 1658; gr. Adhémar, Concession d’un emplacement, 3 Dec. 1684; gr. Cabazie, Contrat de mariage, 12 June 1684. 40 André Charly: anqm, gr. Saint-Père, Vente d’un maison, 12 Mar. 1656; gr. Basset, Vente de terre, 25 June 1659. 41 A “censitaire” refers to anyone who paid “a cens for a concession which he could not subgrant.” See Harris, The Seigneurial System in Early Canada, viii-ix. According to Harris, “censitaire” is a problematic term in the colony. In France it was synonymous with “peasant.” In Canada, on the other hand, some censitaires could also be seigneurs, but “neither seigneurs nor censitaires were necessarily habitants.” In this case, however, Trottier was, indeed, a habitant. 42 Jean-Baptiste Trottier: Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 4: 124. 43 Jean Brunet dit L’Estang: anqm, gr. Lepailleur, Obligation, 15 Sept. 1717; gr. Lepailleur, Engagement, 15 Apr. 1721; gr. Adhémar, Vente d’une terre, 11 June 1751. 44 Jacques Thibierge: anqm, gr. Duquet de Lachesnaye, Apprentissage, 6 Nov. 1679; gr. Genaple de Bellefonds, Vente d’une maison, 30 June 1703. 45 Gentien Amyot: anqm, gr. Rageot, Apprentissage en qualité de serrurier de Joseph-Alphonse-Martel ... à Gentien Amiot, 8 Feb. 1690; gr. Chambalon, Vente d’une maison, 18 June 1692; gr. Lepailleur, Bail à loyer d’une portion de maison ... par Gentien Amiot, Maître serrurier et bourgeois, 17 July 1702. 46 Jean-Baptiste Lefebvre Angers: anqm, gr. Adhémar, Vente d’un emplacement, 25 Oct. 1701; gr. Adhémar, Procuration, 24 Sept. 1729; gr. Adhémar, Contrat de mariage, 16 Apr. 1731; gr. Adhémar, Obligation, 21 Mar. 1733; gr. Adhémar, Obligation, 22 June 1738. 47 Mathurin Guillet: anqm, gr. Rageot, Compromise entre Mathurin Guillet, habitant, 21 Feb. 1684; gr. Adhémar, Various obligations, 13 Sept. 1693, 22

Notes to pages 77–80

48

49

50

51

52 53

54 55 56

57 58

203

Sept. 1694, 21 Oct. 1689, 20 Mar. 1700; gr. Raimbault, Accord entre Mathurin Guillet, marchand, 11 Aug. 1704; Sainte Henriette, Histoire, 4: 1–2. Pierre Garreau dit Saint-Onge: anqm, gr. Adhémar, Engagement en qualité de voyageur, 18 Sept. 1694; gr. Lepailleur, Various obligations, 24 Sept. 1707, 2 Oct. 1708, 19 Apr. 1710, 28 Apr. 1712, 19 Apr. 1710, 24 Apr. 1712, 3 Aug. 1720; gr. Adhémar, Engagement en qualité de voyageur de Joseph Cusson ... à Marie Guertin espouse ... de Pierre Garreau, 3 June 1713; gr. Lepailleur, Contrat de mariage, 12 Feb. 1720; gr. David, Obligation, 11 Aug. 1721; Jean-Jacques Lefebvre,” Mauge, Claude,” in DCB, 1: 498. W. Stanford Reid, “Dugué de Boisbriand, Michel-Sidrac,” in DCB, 1: 295; “Piot de Langloiserie, Charles-Gaspard,” in DCB, 1: 526; anqm, gr. Senet de la Liberté, Vente d’une part de terre, 27 Apr. 1714; gr. Adhémar, Vente d’un emplacement, 22 Mar. 1696; gr. Adhémar, Procuration, 18 Sept. 1700; gr. Genaple de Bellefonds, Vente d’un emplacement, 11 Aug. 1708; gr. Genaple de Bellefonds, Vente du fief et seigneuries de l’Île Ste-Thérèse, 20 Nov. 1706. Jean-Jacques Lefebvre, “Le Moyne de Longueuil et de Châteauguay, Charles,” in DCB, 1: 463–5. For a description of his activities in the Montreal fur trade, see Dechêne, Habitants and Merchants, 116–17. Jacques Le Moyne: anqm, gr. Basset, Bail à ferme de terre, 29 Sept. 1662; gr. Basset, Bail de terre, 25 Apr. 1663; gr. Basset, Obligation, 20 Jan. 1669; gr. Basset, Engagement, 19 Nov. 1670; gr. Basset, Aveu et dénombrement, 17 Sept. 1676; gr. Maugue, Bail d’un emplacement, 4 Sept. 1683; gr. Maugue, Concession de terre, 1 Dec. 1683; gr. Adhémar, Contrat de mariage entre Zacharie Robutel ... et Catherine Le Moyne, fille de Jacques Le Moyne, seigneur, 17 Apr. 1689; gr. Adhémar, Bail à loyer ... par Jacques Le Moyne, marchand, 15 June 1699. Pelletier, Le clergé en Nouvelle-France, 80. Gray, “A Fragile Authority,” app. 3.6, “Congrégation de Notre-Dame Superiors, 1693–1796: Kin in Other Religious Institutions,” and 3.7, “Congrégation de Notre-Dame Superiors, 1693–1796: Kin in Congrégation.” Raymond Douville, “Garreau dit Saint-Onge, Pierre,” in DCB, 4: 287. Jean-Pierre Asselin, “Thibierge, Marie-Catherine,” in DCB, 3: 625. Gray, “A Fragile Authority,” app. 3.6, “Congrégation de Notre-Dame Superiors, 1693–1796: Kin in Other Religious Institutions,” and 3.7, “Congrégation de Notre-Dame Superiors, 1693–1796: Kin in Congrégation.” aam, 525.101, 698–1, Réglemens, art. 1: 4, stipulates that a girl had to be at least sixteen years old to enter the institution. Works exploring the question as to why women entered convents include Rapley, “Women and the Religious Vocation in Seventeenth-Century

204

59 60

61 62 63

64

65 66 67

68

Notes to pages 80–2

France”; Baernstein, “In Widow’s Habit”; Diefendorf, “Give Us Back Our Children”; Baker, “Female Monasticism and Family Strategy”; and Sperling, Convents and the Body Politic. See Danylewycz, Taking the Veil, 116–18, for a discussion of recruiting patterns among the cnd in the nineteenth century. For example, Saint Teresa of Ávila left home with her brother, Rodrigo, at the age of seven with the intention of going to Moorish territory to be beheaded for Christ. An uncle interceded, but only a few years later she reappeared, this time running away to enter the Carmelite monastery of the Incarnation of Ávila. See O. Steggink, “Saint Teresa of Avila,” in New Catholic Encyclopedia, 13: 1014. Saint Catherine of Genoa appears to have followed a similar path (P.L. Hug, “St. Catherine of Genoa,” ibid., 3: 254–5). At the age of thirteen she attempted unsuccessfully to enter the religious life and was subsequently married off to a “wayward self-indulgent” man before her religious transformation. Saint Catherine of Siena’s rebellious nature is also noteworthy in this context: at the age of seven she vowed her virginity to Christ and cut off her hair when her mother urged her to care for her appearance with a view to marriage (P.L. Hug, “St. Catherine of Genoa,” ibid., 3: 259). assp, ms. 1233, 22, 26, 31–49, For a more detailed examination of Marie Barbier’s spirituality, see chapter 6 below. Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 1: 329, 233. Marguerite Trottier: ibid., 4: 124; 3: 205. For an outline of her administrative life, see Gray, “A Fragile Authority,” app. 3.8, “Congrégation de Notre-Dame Superiors: Administrative Experience, 1693–1796.” See also Glandelet, Life of Sister Marguerite Bourgeoys. Officially, however, the community’s dépositaire was not a council member and was not involved in council decisions unless simultaneously elected to a council position. See Gray, “A Fragile Authority,” app. 3.8, “Congrégation de Notre-Dame Superiors: Administrative Experience, 1693–1796.” Ibid. Ibid. Charlotte-Ursule Adhémar de Lantagnac: Sainte Henriette, Histoire, 5: 194–5; acnd, 3a/02, 1776–83, 1785–86, 1787–88; anqm, gr. Descheneaux, 1 Feb. 1785, 4 May 1787, 4 May 1789, 22 Dec. 1788. Catherine-Françoise Dugast: acnd, 3a/02, 1753–57, 1762–68, 1772–84; Sainte Henriette, Histoire, 5: 129–30, 121–2, 138, 176; anqm, gr. Panet de Méru, 8 Aug. 1769, 20 Dec. 1769. For the profile of these two women, see appendix A. Gray, “A Fragile Authority,” app. 3.8, “Congrégation de Notre-Dame Superiors: Administrative Experience, 1693–1796.”

Notes to pages 82–7

205

69 The normal length of one term was three years. See aam, 525.101, 698–1, Réglemens, art. 34: 76. 70 Ibid., art. 34: 76, 78. 71 Gray, “A Fragile Authority,” app. 3.8, “Congrégation de Notre-Dame Superiors: Administrative Experience, 1693–1796.” 72 Ibid.; Andrée Désilets, “Trottier, Marguerite,” in DCB, 3: 629; Sainte-Henriette, Histoire 4: 125, Letter of Bishop Dosquet, n.d. 73 Andrée Désilets, “Brunet, dit L’Estang, Véronique,” in DCB, 5: 117–18; Sainte Henriette, Histoire, 6: 205. 74 Gray, “A Fragile Authority,” app. 3.8, “Congrégation de Notre-Dame Superiors: Administrative Experience, 1693–1796.” 75 Ibid. 76 See appendix B.

chapter five 1 aam, 525.101, 698–1, Réglemens, art. 24: 50. 2 Ibid., 525.101, 766–2, Marie-Josèphe Maugue-Garreau to Bishop Briand, 23 July 1766. 3 Ibid., 768–4, 25 Oct. 1768. Maugue-Garreau was not the first congregation sister to express such sentiments. In 1723 Marguerite Trottier, believing that she was not qualified, informed Bishop Saint-Vallier that she wished to be discharged from the position. The bishop quickly brushed off her hesitations: “It is for the providence of God to place in that position those whom he has destined for it, and for us to submit.” See Saint-Vallier to Soeur Saint-Joseph, 12 Jan. 1723, in Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 3: 325. Nor would Maugue-Garreau be the last superior to express such sentiments. In 1793 Marie Raizenne referred to the superiorship as a “tiresome ... burden.” See aam, 525.101, 793–2, Marie Raizenne to Bishop Hubert, 23 July 1793. 4 Danylewycz, Taking the Veil, 106, 100. 5 Rapley, The Dévotes, 194. 6 Dumont, Les religieuses, sont-elles feminists?, 8, 9, 183. 7 Juteau and Laurin, Un métier et une vocation, 3, 11, 162. 8 Simpson, Marguerite Bourgeoys and Montreal, 1640–1665 9 Eckenstein, Women under Monasticism, remains a classic source for anyone searching for a detailed description of convent life in the medieval period. For a much more recent study, see Cosman, Women at Work in Medieval Europe, esp. chap. 3: “Lady Bosses: Ruler of Manors and Monasteries,”

206

10 11 12

13

14 15 16

17 18

19

Notes to pages 87–8

where Cosman describes the duties of a superior from a strictly constitutional point of view. Bourgeoys, Writings, 5. The phrase “comme à leur mère” is taken from aam, 525.101, 698–1, Réglemens, art. 34: 82. Pelletier, in Le clergé en Nouvelle-France, 21–30, discusses the issue of decline in the number of individuals in both male and female religious institutions. See also Gray, “A Fragile Authority,” 46. Demographer Hubert Charbonneau, in La vie et mort de nos ancêtres, 165, estimated that between 1700 and 1729, half the brides in New France were older than twenty-two. José Igartua, in “Le comportement démographique des marchands de Montréal vers 1760,” 432, estimated that at this period, merchants and their wives married later than the rest of the population – males were over thirty, while females were twenty-five on average. Clio Collective, Quebec Women, 65. Jean-Jacques Lefebvre, “Maugue, Claude,” in DCB, 1: 498. Andrée Désilets, “Maugue-Garreau, Marie-Josèphe,” ibid., 4: 529. Pierre Gareau Saint-Onge: anqm, gr. Adhémar, Engagement, 19 Sept. 1694; gr. Lepailleur, obligations, 24 Sept. 1707, 2 Oct. 1708, 19 Apr. 1710, 24 Apr. 1712, 24 May 1717, 3 Aug. 1720; gr. Lepailleur, contrat de mariage, 12 Feb. 1720; gr. J. David, obligation, 11 Aug. 1721. Raymond Douville, “Garreau, dit Saint-Onge, Pierre,” in DCB, 4: 287. Brun, “Le veuvage en Nouvelle-France.” Kathryn A. Young’s article “... ‘sauf les perils et fortunes de la mer,’” discusses merchant women and how widowhood, spinsterhood, and absent husbands could provide business opportunities. For a good discussion of the Coutume de Paris, see Dechêne, Habitants and Merchants, 240–4. Allan Greer has also treated the Coutume de Paris in Peasant, Lord, and Merchant, 53–7, and points out certain advantages for women. Plamondon, “Une femme d’affaires en Nouvelle-France,” provides a colourful reconstruction from notarial documents of the business dealings of a colonial widow between 1745 and 1781. Natalie Zemon Davis, in “City Women and Religious Change” and “Women on Top,” in Society and Culture in Early Modern France, modifies the portrait of the powerless woman in pre-industrial Europe, providing amusing and important insights into her existence. However, she too concedes that “women suffered for their powerlessness in both Catholic and Protestant lands in the late sixteenth to eighteenth centuries as changes in marriage laws restricted the freedom of wives even further.” See “City Women,” 94. Désilets, “Maugue-Garreau, Marie-Josèphe,” in DCB, 4: 529; acnd, 3a/02, 1763–66.

Notes to pages 88–92 20 21 22 23

24

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

35 36 37 38 39 40 41

42

207

aam, 525.101, 698–1, Réglemens, art. 6: 9–13. Ibid., art. 32: 66–73; art. 26: 53–5. Ibid., art. 11: 23. Segments of the abbé’s correspondence can be found in L’Isle-Dieu, “Correspondance.” They provide a good insight into this individual’s role in the colonial and post-Conquest church. See, for example, her correspondence to Guy Carleton in Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 5: 212; aam, 525.101, 766–1–770–2, Maugue-Garreau to Briand, 1766–72; L’Isle-Dieu to Maugue-Garreau, in Histoire, 5: 112, 118, 120, 142, 162, 181, 186. Correspondence concerning the institution’s investments in France runs throughout the entire eighteenth century. See Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, vols. 2–7. The other sisters were permitted to correspond privately with the bishop, their confessors, and the Sulpician superiors of the institute on matters touching upon their needs and their troubles without consulting their elected superior. See aam, 525.101, 698–1, Réglemens, art. 6: 11. aam, 525.101, 698–1, Réglemens, art. 15: 32–6; art. 13: 27–30. Ibid., art. 18: 38–42; art. 19: 42. Ibid., art. 17: 38. Ibid., art. 12: 25–6. Ibid., art. 11: 23. Ibid., art. 11: 22, 23. Ibid., art. 20: 43. Ibid., art. 22: 45. Ibid. Bourgeoys, Writings, 89; aam, 525.101, 698–1, Réglemens, art. 6: 10: The sisters were obliged to obey her “as promptly and faithfully and cordially ... as their mother, doing nothing without her permission.” The area in the convent reserved for visitors. aam, 525.101, 698–1, Réglemens, art. 6: 11; art. 23: 49; art. 24: 40–51; art. 25: 52. Ibid., art. 6: 11. Ibid., art. 32: 69–70. Ibid., art. 32: 70, 71, 72. Ibid., art. 32: 72. The extant printed fragments of the eighteenth-century council minutes that appear sporadically throughout Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, were, according to Soeur Florence Bertrand, the community’s archivist, the only evidence salvaged from the convent fires. The original documents no longer exist. aam, 525.101, 698–1, Réglemens, art. 26: 53–7.

208 43 44 45 46 47 48

49

50

51

52 53 54 55 56 57

58 59 60

Notes to pages 92–6

Young, In Its Corporate Capacity, 22. Ibid., 24. Ibid., 22. aam, 525.101, 698–1, art. 32: 69–70. Ibid., art. 6: 11. For a good overview of female letter-writing in the medieval period, see articles in Cherewatuk and Wiethaus, Dear Sister. See also Goldsmith, “Authority, Authenticity, and the Publication of Letters by Women”; Melançon and Popovic, Les femmes de lettres; Duchêne, “The Letter”; Planté, L’épistolaire, un genre féminin?, 11–152; and Doglio, “Letter Writing, 1350–1650.” Of most recent interest and pertaining to religious women is Beach, “Voices from a Distant Land.” aam, 525.101, 766–2, 766–3, 766–5, 766–6, 766–7, 768–1, 768–2, 768–3, 768–4, 770–1, 770–2, Marie-Josèphe Maugue-Garreau to Bishop Briand, 1766–70; ibid., 790–6, 791–1, 791–2, 791–3, 791–10, 791–11, 792–1, 792–3, 792–4, 792–5, 793–1, 793–2, 793–4, 796–1, Marie Raizenne to Bishop Hubert, 1790–96. Théry, “Imaginaire et pouvoir”; Foley, “Uncloistered Apostolic Life for Women”; and Choquette, “Ces amazones du grand Dieu”; have examined the relationship of Canadian colonial female religious with the bishop of Quebec. André Vachon, “Briand, Jean-Olivier” in DCB, 4: 94–102; Neatby, Quebec, 107–24; Voisine, Histoire du catholicisme québécois, vol. 1; Lemieux, Les années difficiles, 1760–1839, 15–26; Plante, L’Église catholique au Canada, 177–215. aam, 525.101, 768–4, 770–1, 770–2, Marie-Josèphe to Briand, 25 Oct. 1768, 30 Mar. 1770, 19 June 1770. Official correspondence found in Grillon, Les papiers de Richelieu, vols. 1–6. aam, 525.101, 766–2, 766–7, 768–1, 768–2, 768–3, 770–1, 23 July 1766, 26 Nov. 1766–67, 18 Aug. 1768, 20 Sept. 1768, 8 Oct. 1768, 30 Mar. 1770. For example, ibid., 766–2, 23 July 1766: “La tres humble et tres obeissante Servante Sr Lassomption spre de la Cgnd.” Ibid., 698–1, Réglemens, art. 2: 3, 4. Ibid., 766–2, 766–3, 766–5, 766–6, 766–7, Maugue-Garreau to Bishop Briand. Document 766–5 is unsigned, but the content as well as the handwriting points to the superior as its author. Ibid., 766–2, 23 July 1766. Ibid., 766–3, 27 Aug. 1766. Ibid., 766–5, n.d. For lack of any evidence to the contrary, I am accepting the archives’ sequencing of this undated letter.

Notes to pages 96–101 61 62 63 64

65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73

74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84

85

86

209

Ibid., 766–6, 28 Oct. 1766. Ibid. Ibid., 766–7, 26 Nov. 1766. Ibid. “C’est bien mon sentiment.” It is noteworthy, moreover, how she tempers her opinion, as if to dilute its force, by completing what appears to be a final statement with a question mark. An account of this incident appears in Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 6: 211, and briefly in aam, 525.101, 768–1, 18 Aug. 1768, and 768–4, 25 Oct. 1768. aam, 525.101, 768–1, Maugue-Garreau to Briand, 18 Aug. 1768. Ibid., 698–1, Réglemens, art. 6: 10–11. Ibid., 768–4, Maugue-Garreau to Briand, 25 Oct. 1768. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., 768–2, 20 Sept. 1768. Ibid. For a good discussion of the importance of providence in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century England and colonial America, see Hartman, Providence Tales and the Birth of American Literature. aam, 525.101, 768–4, Maugue-Garreau to Briand, 25 Oct. 1768. Ibid., 770–2, 19 June 1770. Ibid., 768–4, 25 Oct. 1768. Ibid., 766–7, 26 Nov. 1766. Ibid., 768–2, 20 Sept. 1768. Ibid., 768–4, 25 Oct. 1768. Ibid., 768–3, 8 Oct. 1768. Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 5: 420, 296, 415–20. Ibid., 6: 9–11. aam, 525.101, 791–1, 791–2, Marie Raizenne to Hubert, 14 Feb. 1791, 24 Feb. 1791. André Vachon, “Briand, Jean-Olivier,” in DCB, 4: 102; Gilles Chaussé, “Hubert, Jean-François,” ibid., 4: 370–4. Mgr Hubert to Marie Raizenne, 6 Aug. 1790; Sept. 1790; 8 Jan. 1792; 6 June 1793, in Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 6: 1–3, 16–17, 27. See also aam, 525.101, 791–1, 15 Feb. 1791. aam, 525.101, 790–6, 791–11, 792–4, Marie Raizenne to Hubert, n.d., 24 Dec. 1791, 24 Sept. 1792. For example, 24 Sept, 1792, 792–4: “J’ose esperer que Votre Grandeur voudra bien agréer que j’ai lhonneur de lui presenter mon tres profound respect et celui de toute la Communauté.” Ibid., 791–1, 793–4, 14 Feb. 1791, 18 July 1793. For example, 791–1, 14 Feb. 1791: “je Supplie Vôtre Grandeur de vouloir bien m’accorder La faveur d’un précieux Souvenir au St Autel et me Croire avec Le respect Le plus profond.”

210

Notes to pages 101–4

87 Ibid.; for example, 791–2, 24 Feb. 1791: “J’ai Celui d être avec Le respect Le plus profond et La Soumission La plus parfaite.” 88 Ibid.; for example: “La très humble et très obeissante Servante, Sr St ignace de la cnd.” 89 Ibid., 791–1, 16 Feb. 1791. 90 Ibid., 791–2, 24 Feb. 1791. 91 Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 6: 16. 92 aam, 525.101, 791–5, Bedard to Hubert, 3 Oct. 1791; 791–6, Soeur SainteElisabeth and Soeur Saint-Michel to Hubert, 1 Oct. 1791; 791–7, Soeur Saint-Oliver (Catherine Papineau) and Soeur Sainte-Cecile (Marie-Josèphe Morneau) to Hubert, 10 Oct. 1791; 791–8, Soeur Sainte-Marie (Marie-Julie Martel) and Soeur de la Présentation (Marguerite Gaulin) to Hubert, 12 Oct. 1791; and 791–1, Gatien to Hubert, 13 Oct. 1791. 93 Ibid., 791–6, Soeur Sainte-Elisabeth and Soeur Saint-Michel to Hubert, 1 Oct. 1791. 94 Ibid., 791–8, Soeur Sainte-Marie and Soeur de la Présentation to Hubert, 12 Oct. 1791. 95 Ibid., 791–10, Marie Raizenne to Hubert, 16 Oct. 1791. 96 Ibid., 791–11, 24 Dec. 1791. 97 Hubert to Marie Raizenne, 8 Jan. 1792, in Sainte Henriette, Histoire, 6: 17. 98 Ibid. 99 aam, 525.101, 792–1, Marie Raizenne to Hubert, 21 Jan. 1792. 100 Ibid., 791–1, 14 Feb. 1791. 101 Ibid., 791–2, 24 Feb. 1791. 102 Ibid., 791–3, 13 June 1791. 103 Ibid., 793–4, 18 June 1793. 104 Ibid., 793–1, 1 June 1793. 105 Ibid., 791–11, 24 Oct. 1791. Marie Raizenne is referring here to the yearly annuities that the institution received from its property in France. At this time, its entire financial fortunes were in limbo as a result of the spoliation of properties belonging to the clergy in France. Between 1791 and 1802, the community heard nothing from the procurator who took care of their investments in that country. See Andrée Désilets, “Raizenne, Marie,” in DCB, 5: 703–4. 106 A confesseur extraordinaire visits a convent at least four times a year. On these occasions, the religious must present themselves to him, if not to confess, then at least to receive a blessing. See M. McCartney, “Extraordinary Confessor,” in New Catholic Encyclopaedia, 4: 144. Jean-André-Guillaume Guillimin was born at Quebec on 10 June 1750. He became a Sulpician priest in 1774 and arrived at Montreal in 1785. In addition to his appointment as

Notes to pages 104–8

107

108 109 110 111 112

113 114 115 116 117

118 119 120 121

211

confessor of the community, he was also director of the Congrégation de Notre-Dame de la Victoire. He died on 11 June 1800 at the age of fifty. See Gauthier, La compagnie de Saint-Sulpice au Canada, 5, 17, 58, 120, 129. On 11 May 1789, “Le révérend père Well, MM. Poncin, Curratteau, Dézèry, Marchand and Borneuf” were named confesseurs extraordinaires by Bishop Hubert, along with Father Guillimin (aaq, Registre D.f.191r, Montreal, 11 May 1789). M. Brassier, the vicar-general, subsequently reported to Hubert on 17 Sept. 1792 that the sisters’ discontent stemmed from the fact that “they are obliged to address themselves to different confessors ... most of them are opposed to M [Jean-André Guillemin]” (aaq, Cartable des grands vicaires, 39). aam, 525–101, 792–3, Marie Raizenne to Hubert, 6 Aug. 1792. Ibid., 793–2, 3 July 1793. Ibid., 793–4, 18 July 1793. Ibid., 698–1, Réglemens, art. 6: 11. Taschereau, Mandements, lettres pastorales et lettres circulaires. Many of the mandates pertaining to the institution can be found in Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, vols. 2–6. acnd, 3a/02. aam, 525.101, 766–7, Maugue-Garreau to Briand, 26 Nov. 1766. Ibid., 768–3, 8 Oct. 1768. Ibid., 698–1, Réglemens, art. 33: 73; 6: 9, 11. For more on this issue, see, for example, Geertz, “Thick Description: Towards an Interpretive Theory of Culture,” in Geertz, The Interpretation of Culture; Foucault, “The Subject and Power”; and Ortner, Culture/Power/History. Quotation found in Cherewatuk and Wiethaus, Dear Sister, 4. aam, 525.101, 766–6, Maugue-Garreau to Briand, 23 July 1766. Ibid., 698–1, Réglemens, art. 2: 4. Ibid., 766–4, Interrogation of Soeur Juillet by Mgr. L’Evêque, 30 Sept. 1766. Marguerite Bourgeoys noted a similar division in the seventeenth-century convent in that “one part of the sisters looks upon the others as servants of the house.” See Bourgeoys, Writings, 106. It appears as if these soeurs du gros ouvrage, although undoubtedly justified in feeling scorned and overworked, were misinformed concerning the precise nature of their position. For one thing, the original 1698 constitution gave them an active voice in the assembly, enabling them to vote for the superior and her council. It also allowed them to be sent out into the missions of the diocese, along with the teaching soeurs. See aam, 525.101, 698–1, Réglemens, art. 2: 4; art. 34: 78. These privileges were, however, revoked in the eighteenth century by Bishop Dosquet (ibid., 770–3, Précis d’ordonnance

212

122 123

124 125

126 127 128

129 130 131 132 133 134 135

Notes to pages 108–10

de Monseigneur Dosquet, 7 Mar. 1731); and according to Véronique Brunet dit L’Estang, it was “for good reasons” (ibid., 790–1, Soeur Sainte-Rose to Monseigneur, 8 Apr. 1790). The flight of Marie-Josèphe Juillet and Elisabeth Arsenault may, however, have worked to the advantage of these labouring sisters, for their original constitutional privileges were reinstated in a subsequent 1770 revision of the constitution. See ibid., 770–3, Extrait abrégé des règles des Soeurs de la congregation par Mgr Briand, Évêque de Québec vers 1770. aam, 525.101, 766–6, Maugue-Garreau to Briand, 28 Oct. 1766. In 1766, discussing the departure of two nuns from their convent, he asserted to his vicar-general that “at present we must not be too rigid on certain occasions: formerly that could work. Today things have changed, you know.” Quoted in André Vachon, “Briand, Jean-Olivier,” in DCB, 4: 100. aam, 525.101, 766–7, Maugue-Garreau to Briand, 26 Nov. 1766; ibid., 766–4, Interrogation of Sœur Juillet, 30 Sept. 1766. Many of the works written by priests about the congregation sanitize the daily lives of these women. See especially Montgolfier, La vie de la vénérable Marguerite Bourgeoys, and Rumilly, Marie-Barbier. On the other hand, Craig Harline’s The Burdens of Sister Margaret provides a graphic illustration of disturbances, factionalism, and struggles with the bishop within a convent in seventeenth-century Belgium. But numerous other historians have exposed the less than formal atmosphere that could prevail within convents. See, for example, Brown, Immodest Acts; and Daichman, Wayward Nuns in Medieval Literature. See Gray, “A Fragile Authority,” app. 4.1, “Congrégation de Notre-Dame Professed Nuns, 1766.” Quotation taken from Miquelon, New France, 228. Social categories were derived from Pelletier, Le clergé en Nouvelle-France, 78–9, and modified for this discussion utilizing the more flexible stratification found in Miquelon, New France, 237–8. Dewald, The European Nobility, 1. Dechêne, Habitants and Merchants, 217. Miquelon, New France, chap. 11, esp. 258. Nive Voisine, “Piot de Langloiserie, Charles-Gaspard,” in DCB, 1: 526–7. Yves F. Zoltvany, “Bissot de Vinsennes, Jean-Baptiste,” ibid., 2: 68. Reine Lepage de Saint-Barnabé: Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 5: 304. anqm, gr. Tailhandier, Concession d’un emplacement situé dans le bourg de Boucherville par Pierre Boucher, écuyer et seigneur de Boucherville, à la Congrégation Notre-Dame de Montréal, 7 Mar. 1705. In collaboration, “Boucher de Boucherville, Pierre,” in DCB, 3: 80–1.

Notes to pages 111–14

213

136 Miquelon, New France, 228, 240, 242; Dechêne, Habitants and Merchants, 221. 137 Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 5: 225–31. 138 Dale Miquelon, “Lestage, Pierre de,” in DCB, 3: 393–4. 139 For more on Marie-Josèphe de Lestage, see chapter 2. 140 Pelletier, Le clergé en Nouvelle-France, 279, 291. 141 Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 5: 238. 142 anqm, gr. Lepailleur, Donation de biens d’héritage mobiliers et immobiliers; par Jean Cailloud dit Baron et Marie-Marguerite Touchard, 11 Mar. 1715; gr. Lepailleur, donation de biens meubles et immeubles; par Marie Touchard, veuve de Jean Cailloud dit Baron, 8 Mar. 1718; Sainte Henriette, Histoire, 5: 246. 143 aam, 525.101, 766–4, Interrogation of Soeur Juillet by Mgr. L’Evêque, 30 Sept. 1766. 144 Ibid., 766–7, Maugue-Garreau to Briand, 26 Nov. 1766. The superior is probably referring here to her task of consolidating the institution’s coutumier, the customary rules and rituals by which the community functioned. This endeavour had been in the drafting stage since 1725 and appears to have fallen upon her to complete. In the summer of 1767, she sent it to the bishop for his approval, and it was, according to the community’s records, instituted “in full force the year of the fire” (1768). See Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 5: 134. 145 aam, 525.101, 698–1, Réglemens, art. 11: 19. 146 Ibid., art. 11: 19–24. 147 Ibid., art. 7: 14; art. 31: 62–6. 148 Ibid., art. 31: 62; art. 7: 14–15. 149 Ibid., art. 31: 63; For example, ibid., 768–2, Maugue-Garreau to Briand, 20 Sept. 1768: “My soeur Ste Claire and my soeur Ste Hélène for the Quebec mission ... M de Montgolfier has approved the choice.” 150 Ibid., 698–1, Réglemens, art. 31: 63. 151 Ibid., 34: 83. 152 Ibid., 7: 15. 153 Ibid. 154 Details of the convent are based on plans found in acnd, 910.230.027. 155 aam, 525.101, 698–1, Réglemens, art. 34: 63, 64. 156 The account of this incident is derived from Julie Martel’s necrology in Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 6: 211–12. Maugue-Garreau’s original letter to the mission sisters unfortunately does not remain. It does, however, appear rather strange that this sister would flee the mission simply because of a reprimand issued, not directly to herself, but to the mission superior. The necrology

214

157

158

159

160

161 162

Notes to pages 114–15

attributes her behaviour to her “youth,” and in the absence of other evidence to the contrary, we must accept this verdict. Soeur Martel was stripped of her voice at the assembly, a measure that placed her on the same level as the soeurs du gros ouvrage. Moreover, she was forced to wear “a petticoat and short cape until it would be judged appropriate to return her holy habit to her (ibid., 12). Apparently, Julie Martel believed her punishment to be too severe, and she complained to the bishop about her treatment. See aam, 525.101, 768–1, Maugue-Garreau to Briand, 18 Aug. 1768. Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 1: 247–310. In certain missions, however, the conditions were still primitive in the eighteenth century. As late as 1721, the sisters of the Lac-des-Deux-Montagnes mission were housed in “cabanes” (ibid., 3: 312); by 1732, however, accounts reveal that they had moved inside the Sulpician fort (ibid., 388). For example: Sainte-Famille: anqm, gr. Duquet de Lachesnaye, Donation d’une habitation, 25 Sept. 1687, and gr. Chambalon, Donation de deux terres, 05 Sept. 1692; Lachine: anqm, gr. Pottier, Donation d’un terrain; par la Fabrique de la paroisse Sts-Anges-de-Lachine, à la Congrégation, 3 Dec. 1701; Laprairie: anqm, gr. Adhémar, Concession d’un emplacement, 3 July 1705; Pointe-aux-Trembles, Montreal: anqm, gr. Senet dit Laliberté, Don d’une terre, 24 July 1707; Pointe-aux-Trembles, Quebec: anqm, gr. Barbel, Donation d’une terre, 1 Aug. 1715; Saint-François-du-Sud: anqm, gr. Lévesque, Fondation d’un circuit de terrain, 13 May 1764. Contracts for the Saint-Laurent mission could not be located. However, according to SainteHenriette, Histoire, 1: 272–5, the sisters of this mission were, by 1732, in a house “on the north side of the church” (ibid., 4: 36). This was true of Pointe-aux-Trembles, Montreal (anqm, gr. Senet dit Laliberté, Don d’une terre, 24 July 1707); and Laprairie, where because of the proximity of the church and the presbytery, the contracts stipulated that the proprietors could never have buildings or sites or any tavern built on the property (anqm, gr. Adhémar, concession d’un emplacement, 3 July 1705). I am presuming that this “letting loose,” described as a “customary” activity among the nuns of the congregation throughout the nineteenth century by Danylewycz in Taking the Veil, 49, originated at an earlier period. It did, at the very least, extend back to 1840, as at that time “Mgr. Bourget suggested that the revelling end by ten o’clock in the evening” (ibid.). Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 3: 370. Ibid., 5: 332–3.

Notes to pages 116–18

215

163 Many of the missions had plots of land attached to them where presumably the sisters grew their own produce. The duties enumerated in the missions were surmised from numerous visits to Musée Saint-Gabriel, PointeSaint-Charles, Montreal. 164 This refers, in particular, to the Lachine mission (anqm, gr. Pottier, Donation de Remy, 26 Sep. 1701) and Lac-des-Deux-Montagnes (Conventions entre les Mess. du Séminaire et les très honorées Soeurs de la Congrégation du Lac, 14 July 1772, in Sainte Henriette, Histoire, 5: 288–9). 165 aam, 525.101, 698–1, Réglemens, art. 31: 63, 62. 166 Ibid., art. 31: 62. 167 Ibid., art. 23: 47. 168 Ibid., 768–4, Maugue-Garreau to Briand, 25 Oct. 1768. 169 Ibid., 698–1, Réglemens, art. 31: 62. 170 Ibid., art. 31: 65, 62–3. 171 Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 5: 122–8. 172 acnd, 3a/02, 145, 147, 149, 159; aam, 525.101, 768–4, Maugue-Garreau to Briand, 25 Oct. 1768. 173 aam, 525.101, 698–1, Réglemens, art. 26: 53, 54. 174 acnd, 3a/02: 146, 148, 145. 175 Ibid., 148, 149. 176 Ibid., 157. aam, 525.101, 768–2, Maugue-Garreau to Briand, 20 Sept. 1768. 177 Sainte-Henriette, Histoire 5: 209–10; acnd, 3a/02: 157; aam, 525.101, 786–1, 768–2, 770–2, Maugue-Garreau to Briand, 18 Aug. 1768, 20 Sept. 1768, 19 June 1770. 178 For example, aam, 525.101, 762–2, Saint Simon to Briand, 25 Nov. 1762: “I have noticed that the harm to our missions comes from nothing more than excessive poverty which often reduced the Sisters to neglecting their main obligations in order to meet their needs.” Marie Raizenne, in a letter to Bishop Hubert, also spoke of the institution’s “needs” in another context: “Although these days are not the time to speak of business, I dare however to hope that one can have some audience of your Grandeur on this subject when the need is present” (ibid., 791–1, Raizenne to Hubert, 14 Feb. 1791). The anxiety-ridden correspondence of Raizenne to the community’s business agent, Maury, and then Périnault (1790–96), the individuals responsible for its French investments, which had been disrupted by the French Revolution, reveals just how precarious these women viewed their financial situation to be. See Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 6: 4–14; 18–21. 179 aam, 525.101, 770–2, Maugue-Garreau to Briand, 19 June 1770. 180 Ibid., 770–1, 30 Mar. 1770: “les deptes que nous avons.”

216

Notes to pages 118–22

181 Laprairie: anqm, gr. Panet de Méru, Vente d’une terre située à La Prairie, 18 Feb. 1769; Verdun: anqm, gr. Panet de Méru, Vente d’une terre nommée Verdun, 20 Dec. 1769; Île Saint-Paul: acnd, 4a/04, Contrat de Vente ... d’une partie de l’Ile St paul Aux sisters, 25 Aug. 1769. 182 acnd, 3a/02, 1766–72, 133–42, 144–60, 162–70. 183 Ibid., 132–41, 143–50, 153, 155, 156, 158, 159, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170. 184 Ibid.; for example, “Payé au Mess du Sém pour dimes de 960 minots de bled.” 185 Ibid., 132, 134, 135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 142, 143, 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 152, 153, 154, 156, 158, 159, 160, 161, 163, 165, 167, 169. 186 Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 5: 112, 120, 142, 149, 150, 162, 181, 183, 184, 186, 189, 206. 187 acnd, 3a/02, 1766–72, 132, 134, 135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 142, 143, 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 152, 153, 154, 156, 158, 159, 160, 161, 163, 165, 167, 169. 188 acnd, 3a/04, Comptes de la Paroisse, 18 Oct.–12 Aug. 1767. 189 Lahaise, Les édifices conventuels, 146. 190 Gray, “A Fragile Authority,” app. 4.1, “Congrégation de Notre-Dame, Professed Nuns, 1766.” 191 These were not notarized contracts but presumably verbal agreements made between the dépositaire, on behalf of the community, and the engagé. The terms were then entered into the dépositaire’s daybook. See acnd 3a/06. It is almost impossible to give an accurate number of the actual engagés working for the congregation during this period. Two hundred and twenty-seven names appear in the book, but many of them are so similar to one another that they could have been the same person; for example, there were many individuals with the names of Michel, Michel Roy, or roy alone; jacques, petit Jacque; amable, amable roy, and so on. As a result, a more accurate picture was formed by counting the actual number of agreements made between the dépositaire and the workers. 192 For example, acnd, 3a/02, 136, 138, 140, 141, 144, 145, 148, 144, and acnd, 3A/06, 59, 61, 69, 102, 125. 193 acnd, 3a/06, 1766–72. 194 Ibid., 57, 58, 59. 195 Ibid., 62. 196 Ibid., 58. 197 All ibid.; Louis Dubort: 69; Zacherie Boyer: 96; Baptiste Girare: 97. 198 Ibid., 34–142; 735–53. 199 Ibid., 48, 66; for example,”chez Mr Gamelin.”

Notes to pages 122–5

217

200 acnd, 3a/08, 350–69, 1766. Shoes were also purchased from merchants. See, for example, the account of Jean Lilles in acnd, 3a/07, 733. 201 acnd, 3a/02, 32. 202 acnd, 3a/07, 733, Compte de Sieur Jean Lilles; acnd, 3a/08, Compte de Racine, 1771. 203 aam, 525.101, 698–1, Réglemens, art. 26: 53–5. 204 The expression “La recette excede la depense” was invariably utilized throughout the convent’s account book at each quarterly summary of the institution’s economic activities. See acnd, 3a/02. 205 Names appeared strictly in that order in acnd, 3a/02. 206 Sainte Henriette, Histoire, 5: 112, 120, 142, 149 150, 162, 181, 183, 184, 186, 189, 206. 207 Maury, barrister and business agent for the Sulpician Seminary at Paris, took charge of the community’s financial affairs in France in 1768. See ibid., 5: 142. 208 L’Isle-Dieu, “Correspondance.” 209 Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 5: 160. 210 Ibid., 5: 142, 144, 145. 211 Lahaise, Les édifices conventuels du Vieux Montréal, 140. 212 Recipe for this ink appears on the back cover of the community’s general account book; see acnd, 3a/02. 213 “une Main de papier”: acnd, 3a/07, 734, Compte de Mr Pollier, 13 May 1766. 214 See, for example, aam, 525.101, 766–2, Maugue-Garreau to Briand, 23 July 1766. 215 This account of the process of letter-writing in the eighteenth century is based on Harrison, Until Next Year, 16. 216 Sainte Henriette, Histoire, 5: 162, 163. 217 Ibid., 5: 189. 218 Ibid., 5: 183. 219 Much of the literature categorizing the position of a nun as a “career” is guilty of this assumption. See especially Danylewycz, Taking the Veil, and Rapley, The Dévotes. 220 Bourgeoys, Writings, 5. 221 Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 5: 106–9. 222 Ibid. For a comparison of her writings and those of Marguerite Bourgeoys, see Gray, “A Fragile Authority,” app. 1, “Comparison of the Papiers Intimes of Marie-Josèphe Maugue-Garreau and the Writings of Marguerite Bourgeoys.” 223 Bourgeoys, Writings, 98.

218

Notes to pages 127–9

chapter six 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

11

12

13

asq, ms. 198, 195. Ibid., 89–90. Ibid., 91, 92. As shown in the painting of Marguerite Bourgeoys by Pierre Le Ber, on display at the Musée Marguerite-Bourgeoys, Old Montreal. Lahaise, Les édifices conventuels du Vieux Montréal, 148, 150, 144, 146, 142, 145, 120. aam, 525.101, 698–1, Réglemens, art. 13: 28; art. 15: 34, 35. Bynum, Holy Feast and Holy Fast, 180 and esp. 73–186. Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 630–8. The following discussion does not intend to argue that all feminist scholars viewed physical-centred spiritual experience in a negative manner. See, for example, Warne, “Speaking/Creating Reality.” In this article, Warne celebrated Naomi R. Goldenberg’s, Returning Words to Flesh for its recognition of the importance of the body in human knowing. Beckwith, Christ’s Body. More recently, Julie B. Miller, in “Eroticized Violence in Medieval Women’s Mystical Literature,” has also contended that Bynum’s celebration of the suffering of these women only reinforced the patriarchal values that feminists are supposed to be critiquing. Hollywood, The Soul as Virgin Wife. Mary A. Suydam, in “The Touch of Satisfaction,” also argued that while Hadewijch’s religious experiences centred on the body, some of the language she used to describe her experiences appear as a Platonic desire to transcend her body. Bruneau, Women Mystics Confront the Modern World. For a general overview of this issue, see Neill, “From Generation to Generation,” 102. Among other recent works concerning holy women, Grace Jantzen, in Power, Gender, and Christian Mysticism, views mysticism in the context not only of gender but also of colonial power; Richard Lowes, in “Psychological Disorder and the Autobiographical Impulse,” argues that psychological disorder contributed to the writing of spiritual autobiography; Rosalynn Voaden and Stephanie Wolf, in “Visions of My Youth,” have examined the childhood reminiscences of visionaries; and Lisa Vollendorf has approached the issue of women and violence in general in Reclaiming the Body, demonstrating how the writing of Maria De Zaya describing rape and beatings was not designed to exploit women but to challenge the society that tolerated such behaviour. See, for example, Phyllis Mack’s study of Quakers, Visionary Women, which argues that “women as prophets enjoyed the only taste of public authority they would ever know” (5). Other studies focusing upon visionaries include

Notes to pages 129–32

14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

219

Niccoli, Prophecy and People in Renaissance Italy; Kagan, Lucrecia’s Dreams; and Kagan, Dangerous Talk and Strange Behaviour. See Westerkamp, Women and Religion in Early America, for a discussion of how mystical religion allowed Puritan women an opportunity to move outside the domestic sphere and into the reform movements of nineteenth-century America. Zarri, Donna disciplina. Sánchez, The Empress, the Queen, and the Nun. Cupples, “Âmes d’élite,” 10. asq, ms. 198. According to Glandelet’s biography. But he also appears in the records as a habitant, a tax collector, a “master” carpenter, and a surveyor. See anqm, gr. Basset dit Deslauriers, Quittance, 29 July 1658; gr. Basset dit Deslauriers, Concession d’un emplacement, 3 Dec. 1684; gr. Cabazie, Contrat de marriage, 12 June 1684. aqs, ms. 198, 2. Ibid., 5, 6, 7, 8. Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 2: 6. asq, ms. 198, 11. Ibid., 12. Ibid., 10, 11, 26–9, 19–20, 21. The Mountain mission was located in the towers guarding the Sulpician fort, now the Sulpician Seminary on Sherbrooke Street in Montreal. After 1676, the sisters taught the local Natives here with an endowment from the king. See Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 3: 25, 41. asq, ms. 198, 31, 34–5, 36, 37, 38. La Providence at Quebec was modelled on the Montreal school at Pointe-Saint-Charles, which taught housekeeping skills to poor girls. See Sainte-Henriette, Histoire 1: 213, 257. asq, ms. 198, 49, 84. Ibid., 51–5, 57–8. Ibid., 49, 208. Ibid., 66. Ibid., 80. Ibid., 69, 70, 71, 72, 79, 81. Ibid., 84. Ibid. Ibid., 101. Ibid., 163. Glandelet describes Barbier’s affliction as a “cancer,” a term that may have possessed a different meaning in the seventeenth century. No mat-

220

38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

46 47

48

49 50 51 52 53

Notes to pages 132–4

ter what it was, by Barbier’s own admission, it was a self-inflicted wound (ibid., 183), which, the text clearly indicates, would not heal. Ibid., 163–93. Ibid., for example, 173, 187. Ibid., 169, 177. Ibid., 173. Ibid.,187. Ibid., 194, 197, 208. Gray, “A Fragile Authority;” app. 3.8, “Congrégation de Notre-Dame Superiors: Administrative Experience, 1693–1796.” As advanced by Henri Brémond, in Histoire littéraire du sentiment religieux en France, 2: 586, and most recently, by Bernard McGinn, in The Presence of God, 1: xxv. asq, ms. 198, 102. Bynum, Holy Feast and Holy Fast. Unlike Brémond and McGinn, Bynum embraces the physical manifestations of the mystical experience – the suffering, the visions, the presentiments, the pain – as integral components of the mystical experience itself. See also Kieckhefer and Bond, Sainthood, 12, for the role of asceticism in medieval spirituality. William James’s description of the transformative power of many of the dimensions of the religious experience, as discussed in Taylor, Varieties of Religion Today, 34–5 – the melancholy, the horror, the acute sense of personal sin – pertain to Marie Barbier and are worthy of further examination. For a good discussion of religion and the problem of suffering, see Clifford Geertz, “Religion as a Cultural System,” in Geertz, The Interpretation of Culture, 88. See also Boisset, “Souffrir: Un Chemin”; and Bruneau, Women Mystics. asq, ms. 198, 102. Ibid., 197. Ibid., 195. Cupples, “Âmes d’élite.” An immensely popular book in this regard is Thomas à Kempis, The Imitation of Christ. For the importance of imitatio Christi to medieval female spirituality, see Bynum, Holy Feast and Holy Fast, esp. 211–12, 255–9; 274–5. Bynum perceives the imitation of Christ for medieval women as a means to fuse with Christ’s agony on the cross. While Marie Barbier may have viewed her suffering in this manner, she also alluded to it as a way of expiating her individual sins and the collective sins of others. As superior, she wanted only to “abandon myself to all types of deaths for the expiation of sins committed in such great number, wishing to live only to suffer in my body and in my

Notes to pages 134–8

54 55

56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67

68 69 70 71

221

soul” (asq, ms. 198, 86). On another occasion she repeated her bloody mortification in order to expiate sins she had committed against God, but also to obtain grace for her community (ibid., 89–92). Glandelet viewed this suffering as beneficial. He rejoiced in it “because you will help me by your advice, your prayers and your suffering” (ibid., 189–90). For example, Montgolfier, La vie de la vénérable Marguerite; Rumilly, Marguerite Bourgeoys. Vauchez, Les laïcs au Moyen Âge, chap. 21, esp. 252; McDonnell, The Beguines and Beghards in Medieval Culture, 21–5; Donohue, “Writing Lives,” 230–9; Niccoli, “The End of Prophecy”; Bilinkoff, “Confessors, Penitents and the Construction of Identities in Early Modern Avila,” 83. aam, 525.101, 698–1, Réglemens, art. 6: 9, 10; Bourgeoys, Writings, 69–70. aam, 525.101, 698–1, art. 17: 37, 38; art. 18: 38–42; art. 19: 42. asq, ms. 198, 51–2, 74; assp, ms. 1233, 10. Abbott, Julian of Norwich, 5. For a comprehensive overview of the evolution of autobiographical theory, see Smith, A Poetics of Women’s Autobiography. Ibid., Taylor, The Sources of the Self, 130, 131, 132, 139. asq, ms. 198, 49; for example, 165, 170–1, 194, 111–33, 105–6. Ibid., 105–6. Ibid., 165. Ibid., 208–9. The saint and his or her vita have been the subject of a number of diverse and fascinating studies. Early treatments include Mecklin’s, The Passing of a Saint, and Delooz’s Sociologie et canonisations. More receent studies have viewed saints’ lives as a rich source of popular medieval piety. These include Brown, The Cult of Saints; Goodich, Vita Perfecta; Bell and Weinstein, Saints and Society; Vauchez, Sainthood in the Late Middle Ages; Kieckhefer, Unquiet Souls; Kieckhefer and Bond, Sainthood; and Lewis, The Cult of St Katherine of Alexandria in Late Medieval England. With respect to the Canadian colonial scene, see Greer, Mohawk Saint. This interest in holy women is not confined to the medieval, early modern, or Catholic Reformation periods. For a study of sainthood in the twentieth century, see, for example, Bell and Mazzoni, The Voices of Gemma Galgani. asq, ms. 198, 196–7. For more on Marie Barbier’s voice and language, see Gray, “Imaging a Colonial Saint.” asq, ms. 198, 199. Ibid., 199, 198. Ibid., 189–90.

222

Notes to pages 139–40

72 Certeau, The Mystic Fable, 1: 257. 73 aam, 525.101, 793–2, Marie Raizenne to Bishop Hubert, 3 July 1793. 74 asq, ms. 198, 69; Sainte-Henriette, Histoire, 6: 191. In her final years, Madeleine Joly, Sœur Sainte-Julienne, had no other desire than to “hear mass.”

conclusion 1 acnd, 200.100.056, Soeur Sainte-Justine, “Quelques notes sur la maison mère depuis 1825,” 31, plate 4; aam, 525.101, 698–1, Réglemens, art. 12: 25–6.

Bibliography

archival sources Archives de l’Archdiocèse de Montréal 525.101. Religieuses: Congrégation de Notre-Dame. 1698–1850 525.101, 698–1. Réglemens des Soeurs Séculières de la Congrégation de Notre-Dame établie à Ville Marie pour honorer la très Ste Vierge et imiter ses vertus

Archives de l’Archdiocèse de Québec Registre D Cartable des grands vicaires

Archives de la Congrégation de Notre-Dame, Montreal 3a: Administration générale 3a/01. Registre des Possessions et rentes, 1714–63 3a/02. Registre des Dépenses et recettes générales, 1753–93 3a/03. Montréal, Registre d’inventaires, 1723–1891 3a/04. Registre de Comptes de la fabrique de Ville-Marie, 1759–1843 3a/05. Registre de Dépenses en construction: églises, batisses, 1693–1860 3a/06. Recettes et Dépenses de nos terres: Pointe-Saint-Charles, Verdun, Laprairie, 1742–80 3a/07. Registre de comptes des éngagés à la maison mère et sur nos terres et Pointe-Saint-Charles, 1740–63

224

Bibliography

3a/08. Registre de Comptes des éngagés à la maison mère et sur nos terres, 1740–1856 3a/12. Contrats de Profession, 1679–1800 3a/14. Cens et Rentes dus à Saint-Sulpice et à la Compagnie de Jésus, 1715–1863 4a/04. Île Saint-Paul Serie D: Livres anciens Le registre général

manuscripts Anciens documents historiques sur la Congrégation de N-D. de la Victoire, Congrégation des Filles Externes à Sainte-Famille, Île-d’Orléans. Marie-de-Liesse, Soeur. “Anciens usages recueillis d’après la tradition par ss Marie-de-Liesse, 1919.” Sainte-Eulalie de Barcelone, Soeur (née Saint-Jacques), aidée par Soeur Saint-Marcel. “Miettes d’histoire.” Sainte-Justine, Soeur. “Mémoires. Souvenirs anciens de la Congrégation de Notre-Dame, avec notes sur les usages etc.” Sainte-Marthe, Soeur (née Adélaide Restitue Morin). “Réminiscences du passé de la Congrégation de Notre-Dame.” Sainte-Ursule, Soeur (née Mary Ann Gibson). “Mémoires.” – “Notes diverses.” – and Mère Sainte-Justine. “Les notes Vénérées de Mères Sainte-Ursule et Sainte-Justine.”

books Règlement de la Congrégation des Demoiselles de N.-D de la Victoire Érigée a Montréal par la Vénérée Soeur Bourgeoys en 1658. Montreal: J. Chapleau & Fils, 1882.

Archives Nationales du Québec, Montreal Notarial records, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries

Archives du Séminaire de Québec Ms. 198. Glandelet, Charles de. “Recueil touchant la S[oeur Marie Barbier], fille séculière de La Congrégation de Notre-Dame.”

Bibliography

225

Archives du Séminaire Sulpicien, Paris Ms. 1216. Belmont, François Vachon de. “La Vie de la venerable soeur Jeanne Le Ber, fille recluse dans la Maison des Soeurs de la Congrégation de Notre Dame Decedée En Odeur de Sainteté à Montréal l 3 oct 1714.” Ed. Étienne Montgolfier. Ms. 1233. Montgolfier, Étienne ed., “Mémoires sur la vie de la soeur l’Assomption recueillis par Mr Glandelet prêtre du séminaire de Québec et son principal directeur.”

Université de Montréal Programme de recherche en démographie historique

published sources Abbott, Christopher. Julian of Norwich: Autobiography and Theology. Studies in Medieval Mysticism, vol. 2. Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer, 1999. Ahlgren, Gillian T.W. Teresa of Avila and the Politics of Sanctity. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996. Alcoff, Linda. “Cultural Feminism versus Post-Structuralism: The Identity Crisis in Feminist Theory.” In Culture/Power/History: A Reader in Contemporary Social Theory, ed. Sherry Ortner. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. Allaire, Micheline d’. Les communautés religieuses de Montréal. Vol. 1, Les communautés religieuses et l’assistance sociale à Montréal, 1659–1900. Montréal: Méridien, 1997. – Les dots des religieuses au Canada français, 1639–1800: Étude économique et sociale. Montréal: hmh Hurtubise, 1986. – L’Hôpital-général de Québec, 1692–1764. Montréal: Fides, 1971. Allard, Michel. L’‘Hôtel-Dieu de Montréal, 1642–1973. Montréal: hmh Hurtubise, 1973. Axtell, James. The Invasion Within: The Contest of Cultures in Colonial North America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985. Baernstein, P. Renée. “In Widow’s Habit: Women between Convent and Family in Sixteenth-Century Milan.” Sixteenth-Century Journal 25 (1994): 787–807. Baker, Charlotte. True Stories of New England Captives Carried to Canada during the Old French and Indian Wars. Greenfield, Mass.: E. Hall, 1897.

226

Bibliography

Baker, Joanne. “Female Monasticism and Family Strategy: The Guises of Saint Pierre de Reims.” Sixteenth-Century Journal 28 (1997):1091–108. Beach, Alison I. “Voices from a Distant Land: Fragments of a TwelfthCentury Nuns’ Letter Collection.” Speculum 77 (January 2002): 34. Beaubien, Charles-Philippe. Le Sault-au-Récollet: Ses rapports avec les premiers temps de la colonie: mission/paroisse. Montréal: C.O. Beauchemin & fils, 1898. Beauvoir, Simone de. The Second Sex. Trans. and ed. by H.M. Parshley. New York: Vintage Books, 1989. Beckwith, Sarah. Christ’s Body: Identity, Culture and Society in Medieval Writings. New York: Routledge, 1993. Bell, David A. “Culture and Religion.” In Old Regime France, 1648–1788, ed. by William Doyle. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Bell, Rudolph M. Holy Anorexia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985. Bell, Rudolph M., and Christina Mazzoni. The Voices of Gemma Galgani. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003. Bell, Rudolph M., and Donald Weinstein. Saints and Society: The Two Worlds of Western Christendom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982. Bennett, Judith M., Elizabeth A. Clark, Jean T. O’Barr, B. Anne Vilen, and Sarah Wesphal-Wihl, eds. Sisters and Workers in the Middle Ages. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984. Bilinkoff, Jodi. The Avila of Saint Teresa: Religious Reform in a Sixteenth-Century City. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989. – “Confessors, Penitents and the Construction of Identities in Early Modern Avila.” In Culture and Identity in Early Modern Europe, 1500–1800: Essays in Honour of Natalie Zemon Davis, ed. Barbara B. Diefendorf and Carla Hesse. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1993. Boisset, Louis Félix. “Souffrir: Un Chemin.” In L’itinéraire mystique d’une femme, Marie de l’Incarnation,” ed. Jean Comby. Paris: Le Cerf, 1993. Bossenga, Gail. “Society.” In Old Regime France, 1648–1788, ed. William Doyle. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Bourgeoys, Marguerite. The Writings of Marguerite Bourgeoys. Trans. Sister Mary Virginia Cotter, cnd. Montreal: cnd, 1976. Brémond, Henri. Histoire littéraire du sentiment religieux en France depuis la fin des guerres de religion jusqu’à nos jours. Vol. 1, L’humanisme dévot, 1580–1660; vol. 2, L’invasion mystique, 1590–1620. Paris: A. Colin, 1967–68. Brodeur, Raymond. Catéchisme et identité culturelle dans le diocèse de Québec de 1815. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 1998.

Bibliography

227

Brown, Judith. Immodest Acts: The Life of a Lesbian Nun in Renaissance Italy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986. Brown, Peter. The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christendom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981. Brun, Josette. “Le veuvage en Nouvelle-France: Genre, dynamique familiale et stratégies de survie dans deux villes coloniales du xviie siècle, Québec et Louisbourg.” PhD dissertation, Université de Montréal, 2000. Bruneau, Marie-Florine. Women Mystics Confront the Modern World. New York: State of New York University Press, 1998. Buckley, Theodore Alois, trans. The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. London: George Routledge and Co., 1851. Burke, Peter, ed. New Perspectives on Historical Writing. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992. Burnham, Michelle. Captivity and Sentiment: Cultural Exchange in American Literature, 1682–1861. Hanover: University Press of New England, 1997. Burns, Kathryn. Colonial Habits: Convents and the Spiritual Economy of Cuzco, Peru. Durham, nc: Duke University Press, 1999. Bynum, Carolyn Walker. Holy Feast and Holy Fast: The Religious Significance of Food to Medieval Women. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987. Caulier, Brigitte. “Les confréries de dévotion à Montréal du 17e au 19e siècle.” PhD thesis, Université de Montréal, 1986. – Enseigner le catéchisme: Autorités et institutions: XVIe-XXe siècles. Sainte-Foy, Qué.: Presses de l’Université Laval, 1997. Caza, Lorraine. La vie voyagère, conversante avec le prochain. Montréal: Cerf, 1982. Certeau, Michel de. The Mystic Fable. Vol. 1. The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Trans. Michael B. Smith. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. – The Writing of History. Trans. Tom Conley. New York: Columbia University Press, 1988. Chartier, Roger. A History of Reading in the West. Trans. Lydia Cochrane. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999. Charbonneau, Hubert. La vie et mort de nos ancêtres. Montréal: Presses de l’Université de Montréal, 1975. Cherewatuk, Karen, and Ulrike, Wiethaus, eds. Dear Sister: Medieval Women and the Epistolary Genre. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993. Chicoine, Emilia, cnd. La métairie de Marguerite Bourgeoys à la Pointe Saint-Charles. Montréal: Fides, 1986.

228

Bibliography

Choquette, Leslie. “Ces amazones du grand Dieu: Women and Mission in Seventeenth-Century Canada.” French Historical Studies 17 (1992): 627–55. Cliche, Marie-Aimée. Les pratiques de dévotion en Nouvelle-France: Comportements populaires et encadrement ecclésial dans le gouvernement de Québec. Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval, 1988. Clio Collective. Quebec Women: A History. Trans. Roger Gannon and Rosalind Gill. Toronto: The Women’s Press, 1987. Codignola, Luca. “Competing Networks: Roman Catholic Ecclesiastics in French North America, 1610–58.” Canadian Historical Review 80 (1999): 539–84. Coleman, Emma Lewis. New England Captives Carried to Canada between 1677 and 1760 during the French and Indian Wars. 2 vols. Portland, Maine, 1925. Coletti, Theresa. “Purity and Danger: English Mystery Cycles.” In Feminist Approaches to the Body in Medieval Literature, ed. Linda Lomperis and Sarah Stanbury. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993. Cosman, Madeleine Pelner. Women at Work in Medieval Europe. New York: Facts on File, 2000. Cupples, Cynthia Jean. “Âmes d’élite: Visionaries and Politics in France from the Holy Catholic League to the Reign of Louis xiv.” PhD dissertation, Princeton University, 1999. Daichman, G.S. Wayward Nuns in Medieval Literature. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1986. Danylewycz, Marta. Taking the Veil: An Alternative to Marriage, Motherhood and Spinsterhood in Quebec, 1840–1920. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1987. Davis, Natalie Zemon. The Return of Martin Guerre. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983. – Society and Culture in Early Modern France. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1975. – Women on the Margins: Three Seventeenth-Century Lives. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995. Dawson, Nelson-Martin. “La legislation sur l’enseignement du catéchisme en France, aux xviie-xviiie siècles: Rencontre diverses volontés.” In Enseigner le catéchisme: Autorités et institutions XVIe-XXe siècles, ed. Brigitte Caulier and Raymond Brodeur. Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval, 1997. Dechêne, Louise. Habitants and Merchants in Seventeenth-Century Montreal. Trans. Liana Vardi. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1992. Delooz, Pierre. Sociologie et canonisations. Liège: Faculté de droit, 1969.

Bibliography

229

Delumeau, Jean. Catholicism between Luther and Voltaire. London: Burns & Oates, 1977. – Rassurer et protéger: Le sentiment de sécurité dans l’Occident d’autrefois. Paris: Fayard, 1989. Demos, John. The Unredeemed Captive: A Family Story from Early America. New York: Knopf, 1994. Deroy-Pineau, Françoise. Jeanne Le Ber: La recluse au coeur des combats. Montréal: Bellarmin, 2000. – Marie de l’Incarnation: Marie Guyart, femme d’affaires, mystique, mère de la Nouvelle-France, 1599–1672. Paris: Éditions Robert Laffont, 1989. Deslandres, Dominique. Croire et faire croire: Les missions françaises au XVIIe siècle (1600–1650). Paris: Fayard, 2003. – “L’éducation des Amérindiennes d’après la correspondance de Marie Guyart de l’Incarnation.” Sciences religieuses/Religious Studies 16 (1987) 1: 91–110. – “Femmes missionnaires en Nouvelle-France: Les débuts des Ursulines et les Hospitalières à Québec.” In La religion de ma mère, ed. Jean Delumeau. Paris: Cerf, 1992. – “In the Shadow of the Cloister: Representations of Female Holiness in New France.” In Colonial Saints: Discovering the Holy in the Americas, 1500–1800, ed. Allan Greer and Jodi Bilinkoff. New York: Routledge, 2003. – “Qu’est-ce qui faisait courir Marie Guyart? Essai d’ethnohistoire d’une mystique après sa correspondance.” Laval théologique et philosophique 53 1997: 285–300. Devos, R. La vie religieuse feminine et société: L’origine sociale des Visitandines d’Annecy aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles. Annecy: Académie Salesienne, 1973. Dewald, Jonathan. The European Nobility, 1400–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Dickens, A.G. The Counter Reformation. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1969. Dickinson, John A., and Brian Young. A Short History of Quebec: A Socio-Economic Perspective. 3rd ed. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2002. Dictionary of Canadian Biography. Vols. 1–5. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1966–. Dictionnaire de spiritualité ascétique et mystique: Doctrine et histoire. Ed. Marcel Viller, F. Cavallera, and J. de Guibert. 17 vols. in 19. Paris: Beauchesne, 1932–95.

230

Bibliography

Diefendorf, Barbara. “Give Us Back Our Children.” Journal of Modern History 68 (1996): 265–307. Doglio, Maria Luisa. “Letter Writing, 1350–1650.” In A History of Women’s Writing in Italy, ed. Letizia Panizza and Sharon Wood; trans. Jennifer Lorch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Donohue, Darcy. “Writing Lives: Nuns and Confessors as Auto/Biographers in Early Modern Spain.” Journal of Hispanic Philology 13 (1989). Duchêne, Roger. “The Letter: Men’s Genre/Women’s Practice.” In Women Writers in Pre-Revolutionary France, ed. Colette H. Winn and Donna Kuizenga. New York: Garland Publishing Inc., 1997. Dufour, Andrée. Histoire de l’éducation au Québec. Montréal: Boréal, 1997. Dumont, Micheline. Découvrir la mémoire des femmes: Une historienne face à l’histoire des femmes. Montréal: Les Éditions remue-ménage, 2001. – “Les femmes de la Nouvelle-France: Étaient-elles favorisées?” Atlantis 8 (1982): 118–24. – Girls’ Schooling in Quebec, 1639–1960. Trans. Carol Élise Cochrane. Ottawa: Canadian Historical Association, 1990. – Les religieuses, sont-elles féministes? Montréal: Bellarmin, 1995. Durkheim, Émile. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Trans. Carol Cosman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Eckenstein, Lina. Women under Monasticism: Chapters on Saint-Lore and the Convent Life between A.D. 500 and A.D. 1500. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896. Ellington, Donna Spivey. From Sacred Body to Angelic Soul: Understanding Mary in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe. Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 2001. Faillon, Étienne-Michel. The Christian Heroine of Canada; or, Life of Miss Le Ber. Trans. from the French. Montreal: J. Lovell, 1861. – Vie de la Soeur Bourgeoys, fondatrice de la Congrégation de Notre-Dame de Ville-Marie en Canada, suivie de l’histoire de cet institut jusqu’à ce jour. Villemarie: cnd, 1853. Fauré, Christine. Democracy without Women: Feminism and the Rise of Liberal Individualism in France. Trans. Claudia Gorbman and John Berks. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991. Foley, Mary Anne, cnd. “Uncloistered Apostolic Life for Women: Marguerite Bourgeoys’ Experiment in Ville Marie.” PhD thesis, Yale University, 1991. Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality. Vol. 1. Trans. Michael Hurley. New York: Pantheon, 1978. – Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977. Ed. and trans. Colin Gordon. New York: Pantheon Books, 1980.

Bibliography

231

– “The Subject and Power.” In Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, ed. and trans. H. Dreyfus and P. Rabinow. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982. Gauthier, Henri. La Compagnie de Saint-Sulpice au Canada. Montréal: Séminaire de Saint-Sulpice, 1912. Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Culture: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books, 1973. Gibson, Gail Murray. The Theatre of Devotion: East Anglian Drama and Society in the Middle Ages. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989. Glandelet, Charles de. Life of Sister Marguerite Bourgeoys. Trans. Florence Quigley, cnd. Montreal: cnd, 1994. Godbout, A. Nos ancêtres au XVIIe siècle: Dictionnaire généalogique et bibliographique des familles canadiennes. Québec: s.n., 1955–60. Goldenberg, Naomi R. Returning Words to Flesh: Feminist Psychoanalysis and the Resurrection of the Body. Boston: Beacon Press, 1990. Goldsmith, Elizabeth C. “Authority, Authenticity, and the Publication of Letters by Women.” In Writing the Female Voice: Essays on Epistolary Literature, ed. Elizabeth C. Goldsmith. London: Pinter Publishers, 1989. Goodich, Michael. Vita Perfecta: The Ideal of Sainthood in the Thirteenth Century. Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1982. Gourdeau, Claire. Les délices de nos coeurs: Marie de l’Incarnation et ses pensionnaires amérindiennes, 1639–1672. Sillery: Septentrion, 1994. Gray, Colleen. “A Fragile Authority: Power and the Religious Life in the Congrégation de Notre-Dame of Montreal, 1693–1796.” PhD thesis, McGill University, 2004. – “Imaging a Colonial Saint: Reflections on Representation and the Individual.” Studies in Religion/Sciences religieuses 35 (2006): 307. – “Power, Position and the ‘Pesante Charge’: Becoming a Superior in the Congrégation de Notre-Dame, 1693–1796.” Social History/Histoire sociale, May 2007. Gray, Linda Breuer. “Narratives and Identities in the Saint Lawrence Valley, 1667–1720.” PhD thesis, McGill University, 1999. Greer, Allan. Mohawk Saint: Catherine Tekakwitha and the Jesuits. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. – “The Pattern of Literacy in Quebec, 1745–1899.” Social History/Histoire sociale 11 (1978): 297–300; 331–2. – Peasant, Lord, and Merchant: Rural Society in Three Quebec Parishes, 1740–1840. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985. – The People of New France. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997.

232

Bibliography

Grillon, Pierre, ed. Les papiers de Richelieu: Section politique intérieure, correspondance et papiers d’État. Paris: A. Pedone, 1975. Harline, Craig. The Burdens of Sister Margaret: Inside a Seventeenth-Century Convent. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. Harris, Richard Colebrook. The Seigneurial System in Early Canada: A Geographical Study. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1984. Harrison, Jane E. Until Next Year: Letter Writing and the Mails in the Canadas, 1640–1830. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1997. Hartman, James D. Providence Tales and the Birth of American Literature. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999. Hoffman, Philip T. Church and Community in the Diocese of Lyon, 1500–1789. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984. Hoffman, Ronald, Mechal Sobel, and Fredrika J. Teute, eds. Through a Glass Darkly: Reflections on Personal Identity in Early America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997. Hollywood, Amy M. The Soul as Virgin Wife: Mechtild of Magdeburg, Marguerite Porete, and Meister Eckhart. Southbend: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995. Hubert, Ollivier. Sur la terre comme au ciel: La gestion des rites par l’Église catholique du Québec: fin XVIIe-mi-XIXe siècle. Sainte-Foy, Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval, 2000. Ignatius of Loyola, Saint. The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola. Trans. Elisabeth Meier Tetlow. Lanham: University Press of American, 1987. Iguartua, José. “Le comportement démographique des marchands de Montréal vers 1760.” Revue d’histoire de l’Amérique française 33 (déc. 1979): 427–45. Jaenen, Cornelius J. The Role of the Church in New France. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1976. Jamet, Albert. Marguerite Bourgeoys, 1620–1700. 2 vols. Montréal: La Presse catholique panamericaine, 1942. Janelle, Pierre. The Catholic Reformation. Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Co., 1963. Jantzen, Grace. Power, Gender, and Christian Mysticism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Jean, Marguerite. Évolution des communautés religieuses des femmes au Canada de 1639 à nos jours. Montréal: Fides, 1977. Jegou, Marie-Andrée. Les Ursulines du Faubourg St. Jacques à Paris, 1607–1662. Origine d’un monastère apostolique. Bibliothèque de l’école

Bibliography

233

des hautes études, section des sciences religieuses, vol. 82. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1981. Jetté, René. Dictionnaire généalogique des familles du Québec. Montréal: Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal, 1983. Johnson, Penelope D. Equal in Monastic Profession: Religious Women in Medieval France. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991. Johnston, A.J.B. Religion in Life at Louisbourg, 1713–1758. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1984. Jones, C. The Charitable Imperative: Hospitals and Nursing in the Ancien Régime and Revolutionary France. New York: 1988. Juchereau, Mère. Les annales de l’Hôtel-Dieu de Québec, 1637–1716. Québec: Hôtel-Dieu de Québec, 1939. Julian of Norwich. Revelations of Divine Love. Trans. Clifton Wolters. London: Penguin Books, 1966. Juteau, Danielle, and Nicole Laurin. Un métier et une vocation: Le travail des religieuses au Québec de 1901–1971. Montréal: Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal, 1997. Kagan, Richard. Dangerous Talk and Strange Behaviour: Women and Popular Resistance to the Reforms of Henry VIII. New York: St Martin’s Press, 1996. – Lucrecia’s Dreams: Politics and Prophecy in Sixteenth-Century Spain. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990. Kieckhefer, Richard. Unquiet Souls: Fourteenth-Century Saints and Their Religious Milieu. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984. Kieckhefer, Richard, and George Bond, eds. Sainthood: Its Manifestations in World Religions. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988. Knowles, David. The Religious Houses of Medieval England. London: Sheed and Ward, 1940. LaCapra, Dominick. “Is Everyone a Mentalité Case?” In Rethinking Intellectual History: Texts, Contexts, Language, ed. Dominick LaCapra. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983. Lacoursière, Jacques. L’Île-des-Soeurs: D’hier à aujourd’hui. Québec: Les Éditions de l’homme, 2005. Lahaise, Robert. Les édifices conventuels du Vieux Montréal: Aspects ethno-historiques. Ville La Salle, Qué.: Éditions Hurtubise hmh, 1980. Landry, Yves. Orphelines en France, pionnières au Canada: Les filles du roi au XVIIe siècle; suivie un répertoire biographique des filles du roi. Montréal: Leméac, 1992. Lebrun, François. “The Two Reformations: Communal Devotion and Personal Piety.” In A History of Private Life, vol. 3, Passions of the

234

Bibliography

Renaissance, ed. Roger Chartier. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University, 1989. Lemieux, Lucien. Les années difficiles, 1760–1839. In Histoire du catholicisme québécois, vol. 1, ed. Nive Voisine. Montréal: Boréal Express, 1984. Lerner, Gerda. The Creation of Feminist Consciousness: From the Middle Ages to Eighteen-Seventy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. – The Creation of Patriarchy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986. Levy, Giovanni. “On Microhistory.” In New Perspective on Historical Writing, ed. Peter Burke. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992. Lewis, Katherine J. The Cult of St. Katherine of Alexandria in Late Medieval England. Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer, 2000. L’Hermite Leclerq, Paulette. L’Église et les femmes dans l’Occident chrétien des origines à la fin du Moyen Âge. Paris: Brepols, 1997. – Le monachisme féminin dans la société de son temps: Le Monastère de La Celle (XIe-début du XVIe siècle). Paris: Éditions Cujas, 1989. L’Isle-Dieu, Abbé. “Correspondance.” In Rapport de l’archiviste de la province de Québec. Québec: Imprimeur de Sa Majesté le Roi, 1935–38. Little, Lester K. Religious Poverty and the Profit Economy in Medieval Europe. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1978. Lomperis, Linda, and Sarah Stanbury, eds. Feminist Approaches to the Body in Medieval Literature. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993. Lowes, Richard. “Psychological Disorder and Autobiographical Impulse in Julian of Norwich, Margery of Kempe and Thomas Hoccleve.” In Writing Religious Women: Female Spirituality and Textual Practice in Late Medieval England, ed. Denis Renevy and Christiania Whitehead. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000. Lynch, Joseph. The Medieval Church: A Brief History. New York: Longman, 1992. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1991. McDonnell, Ernest W. The Beguines and Beghards in Medieval Culture with Special Emphasis on the Belgian Scene. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1954. McGinn, Bernard. The Presence of God: A History of Western Christian Mysticism. Vol. 1, The Foundations of Mysticism. New York: Crossroads, 1991. Mack, Phyllis. Visionary Women: Ecstatic Prophecy in Seventeenth-Century England. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992. McNamara, Jo Ann. Sisters in Arms: Catholic Nuns through Two Millenia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996. Magnuson, Roger. Education in New France. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1992.

Bibliography

235

Mecklin, John Moffat. The Passing of a Saint: A Study of a Cultural Type. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1941. Melançon, Benoît, and Popovic, Pierre. Les femmes de lettres: Écriture féminine ou spécificité générique?Actes du colloque tenu a l’Université de Montréal, le 15 avril 1994. Montréal: Centre universitaire de lecture sociopoétique de l’épistolaire et des correspondances, Université de Montréal, 1994. Mellinger, Laura. “Politics in the Convent: The Election of a Fifteenth-Century Abbess.” Church History 63 (1994): 529ff. Miller, Julie B. “Eroticized Violence in Medieval Women’s Mystical Literature: A Call for a Feminist Critique.” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 15 (1999): 25–49. Miquelon, Dale. New France, 1701–1744: A Supplement to Europe. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1987. Mitchell, Nathan. “Revisiting the Roots of Ritual.” Liturgy Digest 1: 4–36. Montgolfier, Étienne. La vie de la venerable Marguerite Bourgeoys, dite du Saint-Sacrement. Ville-Marie: William Gray, 1818. Mullet, Michael A. The Catholic Reformation. London: Routledge, 1999. Neatby, Hilda. Quebec: The Revolutionary Age, 1760–1791. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1966. Neill, Emily R. “From Generation to Generation: Horizons in Feminist Theology or Reinventing the Wheel.” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 15 (1999): 102–10. New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vols. 3, 4, 13. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Niccoli, Ottavia. “The End of Prophecy.” Journal of Modern History 61 (1989): 667–82. – Prophecy and People in Renaissance Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990. Nichols, John A., and Lillian Thomas Shank, eds. Medieval Religious Women. 3 vols. Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian Publications, 1984–87. Noel, Jan. “New France: Les femmes favorisées.” Atlantis 6 (1981): 80–98. Norbert, Kathryn. “The Counter Reformation and Women: Religious and Lay.” In Catholicism in Early Modern History, ed. John W. O’Malley. Saint Louis: Centre for Reformation Research, 1988. Ortner, Sherry. Culture/Power/History: A Reader in Contemporary Social Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. – The Fate of Culture: Geertz and Beyond. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. Oury, Dom Guy-Marie. Les Ursulines de Québec, 1639–1953. Sillery: Septentrion, 1999.

236

Bibliography

Pelletier, Louis. Le clergé en Nouvelle-France: Étude démographique et répertoire biographique. Montréal: Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal, 1993. Plamondon, Lilianne. “Une femme d’affaires en Nouvelle-France: Marie-Ann Barbel, veuve Fornel.” Revue d’histoire de l’Amérique française 31 (1977): 165–86. Planté, Christine, ed. L’épistolaire, un genre féminin? Études réunies et présentées par Christine Planté. Paris: Honoré Champion Éditeur, 1998. Plante, Abbé Hermann. L’Église catholique au Canada (1604–1886). Trois-Rivières: Éditions du Bien Public, 1970. Plante, Lucienne, cnd. Marguerite Bourgeoys, fille de France: 1620–1653. Montréal: cnd, 1978. Power, Eileen. Medieval English Nunneries, 1275–1535. Cambridge: The University Press, 1922. Ransonnet, Francois. La vie de la soeur M. Bourgeoys, institutrice, fondatrice et première supérieure d’une communauté des filles séculières établie en Canada sous le nom de la Congrégation de Notre-Dame. Avignon and Liège: Barnabé, 1728. Rapley, Elizabeth. The Dévotes: Women and Church in Seventeenth-Century France. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1990. – “Profiles of Convent Society in Ancien Regime France.” In De France à Nouvelle-France: société fondatrice et société nouvelle, ed. Hubert Watelet. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 1994. – “The Shaping of Things to Come: The Commission des Secours, 1727–1788.” French History 8: 420–41. – A Social History of the Cloister: Daily Life in the Teaching Monasteries of the Old Regime. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2001. – “Women and the Religious Vocation in Seventeenth-Century France.” French Historical Studies 18 (1994): 613–31. Reynes, Geneviève. Couvents de femmes: La vie des religieuses cloîtrées dans la France des XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles. Paris: Librairie Arthème Fayard, 1987. Rumilly, Robert. Marguerite Bourgeoys. Paris: Éditions Spes, 1936. – Marie Barbier: Mystique canadienne. Montréal: A. Lévesque, 1935. Saint-Damase-de-Rome, Soeur, cnd, L’intendante de Notre-Dame: La bienheureuse Marguerite Bourgeoys et son administration temporelle. Montréal: cnd, 1958. Sainte-Henriette, Soeur. Histoire de la Congrégation de Notre-Dame. Vols. 1–7. Montréal: cnd, 1910–13. Saint-Jean l’Évangéliste, Soeur (Guillemine Raizenne). Notes généalogiques sur la famille Raizenne. Ottawa, 1871.

Bibliography

237

Saint-Vallier, Jean-Baptiste de, La Croix de Chevrières de. Catéchisme du diocèse de Québec. Montréal: Les Éditions Franciscaines, 1958. Sales, Francis de, Saint. Introduction to the Devout Life. Trans. Michael Day. London: J.M. Dent and Sons, 1961. – The Love of God: A Treatise. Trans. and introd. by Vincent Kearns. Westminster, Md.: Newman Press, 1962. Sánchez, Magdalena S. The Empress, the Queen, and the Nun: Women and Power at the Court of Philip III of Spain. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. Schmitt, Jean-Claude. “Les superstitions.” In Histoire de la France religieuse, vol. 1. Paris: Seuil, 1988–92. Simpson, Patricia. Marguerite Bourgeoys and Montreal, 1640–1665. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1997. – Marguerite Bourgeoys and the Congregation of Notre Dame, 1665–1700. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2005. Slade, Carole. St Teresa of Avila: Author of a Heroic Life. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995. Smith, Sidonie. A Poetics of Women’s Autobiography: Marginality and the Fictions of Self-Representation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987. Snader, Joe. Caught between Worlds: British Captivity Narratives in Fact and Fiction. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 2000. Sonnet, M. L’éducation des filles au temps des Lumières. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1987. Sperling, Jutta Gisela. Convents and the Body Politic in Renaissance Venice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999. Stein, Edith. Essential Writings. Ed. John Sullivan. Maryknoll, ny: Orbis Books, 2001. Suydam, Mary A. “The Touch of Satisfaction: Visions and the Religious Experience According to Hadewijch of Antwerp.” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 12 (1996): 5–27. Tanguay, Cyprien. Dictionnaire généalogique des familles canadiennes depuis la fondation de la colonie jusqu’à nos jours. 7 vols. Montréal: B. Sénécal, 1871–90. Taschereau, Cardinal. Mandements, lettres pastorales et lettres circulaires des évêques de Québec. Québec: Têtu et C.-O. Gagnon, 1893. Taylor, Charles. The Sources of the Self. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989. – Varieties of Religion Today: William James Revisited. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002.

238

Bibliography

Teresa of Avila, Saint. The Interior Castle. Trans. and ed. by Allison Peers. New York: Doubleday, 1944. Thérèse of Lisieux, Saint. The Little Way of Saint Thérèse of Lisieux: Readings for Prayer and Meditation. Comp. and introd. by John Nelson. Liguori, Mo: Liguori, 1998. Théry, Chantal. “Imaginaire et pouvoir: Nécromancie et parole alternative dans les récits des religieuses de la Nouvelle-France.” In Les productions symboliques du pouvoir, XVIe-XXe siècle, ed. Laurier Turgeon. Québec: Éditions du Septentrion, 1990: 125–35. – “Marie de l’Incarnation, intimée et intime, à travers sa correspondance et ses écrits spirituels.” In Discours et pratique de l’intime, ed. Manon Brunet and Serge Gagnon. Québec: Institut québécois de recherche sur la culture, 1993. Thomas à Kempis. The Imitation of Christ. Ed. Harold C. Gardiner. Garden City ny: Image Books, 1955. Tremblay, Louise. “La politique missionnaire des Sulpiciens au xviie et début du xviiie siècle, 1668–1735.” ma thesis, Université de Montréal, 1981. Trevarthen, Colwyn. “Neurological Development and the Growth of Psychological Functions.” In Development Psychology and Society, ed. J. Sants. London: Macmillan Publishers, 1980. Turner, Edith. “Encounter With Neurobiology: The Response of Ritual Studies.” Zygon 21 (1986): 219–32. Turner, Victor. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. New York: Aldine Publishing Co. 1969. Turner Strong, Pauline. Captive Selves, Captivating Others: The Politics and Poetics of Colonial American Captivity Narratives. Boulder: Westview Press, 1999. Van Gennep, Arnold. Les rites de passage. Paris: É. Nourry, 1909. Van Kessel, Elisja Schulte. “Virgin Mothers between Heaven and Earth.” In A History of Women in the West, vol. 3, ed. G. Duby and M. Perrot. Paris: Plon, 1991. Van Kley, Dale. “Catholic Conciliar Reform in an Age of Anti-Catholic Revolution: France, Italy and the Netherlands, 1758–1801.” In Religion and Politics in Enlightenment Europe, ed. James E. Bradley and Dale K. Van Kley. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001. Vauchez, André. Les laïcs au Moyen Âge: Pratiques et expériences religieuses. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1987. – Sainthood in the Late Middle Ages. Trans. Jean Birrell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Bibliography

239

Vaughan, Alden, and Daniel Richter. “Crossing the Cultural Divide: Indians and New Englanders, 1605–1763.” Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society 90 (1980): 23–99. Venard, Marc. “La grande cassure.” In Histoire de la France religieuses, ed. Jacques Le Goff and René Rémond, Vol. 2, Du christianisme flamboyant à l’aube des lumières. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1991. Venarde, Bruce L. Women’s Monasticism and Medieval Society: Nunneries in France and England, 890–1215. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997. Voaden, Rosalynn, and Stephanie Volf. “Visions of My Youth: Representations of the Childhood of Medieval Visionaries.” Gender and History 12 (2000): 665–84. Voisine, Nive. Histoire du catholicisme québécois. Montréal: Boréal Express, 1984. Vollendorf, Lisa. Reclaiming the Body: Maria De Zayas’s Early Modern Feminism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001. Warne, Randi R. “Speaking/Creating Reality: Religion, Feminism and Cultural Transformation.” Feminist Theology 30 (2002): 52–60. Weber, Alison. Teresa of Avila and the Rhetoric of Femininity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990. Westerkamp, Marilyn J. Women and Religion in Early America, 1600–1850: The Puritan and Evangelical Traditions. New York: Routledge, 1999. Wilson, R.D., and Eric McLean. The Living Past of Montreal/Le passé vivant de Montréal. Rev. ed. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1976. Young, Brian. In Its Corporate Capacity: The Seminary of Montreal as a Business Institution, 1816–1876. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1986. Young, Kathryn A. “… ‘sauf Les perils et fortunes de la mer’: Merchant Women in New France and the French Transatlantic Trade, 1713–1746.” In Rethinking Canada: The Promise of Women’s History, ed. Veronica Strong-Boag, Mona Gleason, and Adele Perry. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2002. Zarri, Gabriella. Donna disciplina, creanza cristiana dal XV al XVII secolo. Rome: Edizioni di storia et letturatura, 1996. Zecher, Carla. “Life on the French-Canadian Hyphen: Nation and Narration in the Correspondence of Marie de l’Incarnation.” Québec Studies 26 (1998–99): 38–50. — “A New World Model of Female Epistolarity: The Correspondence of Marie de l’Incarnation.” Studies in Canadian Literature 21 (1996): 89–103.

This page intentionally left blank

Index

Abbott, Christopher, 135 absolutism, 20 account book(s), 12, 51, 54, 59, 61, 106, 118, 122, 123, 128 Adhémar de Lantagnac, Charlotte-Ursule (Soeur Sainte-Claire), 74, 81 102, 105 agency, 107, 129, 135 Ailleboust de la Madeleine, Catherine d’ (Soeur de-la-Visitation), 105 Ailleboust des Musseaux, Catherine d’ (Soeur des Séraphins), 114 Allaire, Micheline d’, 5, 84 alms, 58, 102 Altman, Janet Gurkin, 107 Amyot, Jean-Baptiste, 50, 54 Amyot, Marguerite (Soeur de la Présentation) 76, 77, 81, 82, 83, 84, 111 Amyot, Thérèse (Soeur Saint-François d’Assise), 111 ancien régime, 84, 94, 110 angel, 128; guardian, 136, 138 Arsenault, Élisabeth (Soeur SaintAntoine), 94, 95, 97, 108 artisans, 30, 56, 75, 76, 77, 111, 122 assembly, administrative, 23, 60, 88, 91, 92, 93, 104, 105, 108, 117, 141 assistant, administrative, 60, 69, 73, 80, 81, 82, 83, 91, 122, 132 Audet, Marie-Anne (Soeur SainteMarguerite), 74 Audet, Marie-Françoise (Soeur Saint-Joseph), 74 Augé, Étienne, 55–6, 58 Augé, Marguerite, 56 Augustine, Saint, 18, 19, 21, 136

autobiography, 135–6 Axtell, James, 37 baptism, 37, 38, 44, 71 Barbier, Marie (Soeur de l’Assomption), 4, 13, 18, 19, 27, 32, 76, 78, 79, 80, 82, 127–39; administrative experience, 81, 82, 83, 132, 134; and ambulatory missions, 114; as assistant, 131, 132; autobiography, 135–6; and bodily mortification, 127–8, 133, 136, 138; and cancer, 132, 136; and communion, 131, 135; and the Congrégation des Externes, 41, 132, 134; death, 83, 132, 138; and devotions, 41, 130, 131; entry into the Congrégation de Notre-Dame, 80, 130; exceptionality of, 138; formative religious life, 81, 131; and Glandelet, 63, 129, 134–8, 141–2; and God, 133; as holy woman, 138; and Hôtel-Dieu of Quebec, 63; illness of, 132, 133, 136; influence, 133–4; language of, 137; and miracles, 130, 131, 134; as mystic, 83, 132–4, 138; mysticism of, 133; as novice, 133; and penance, 132; and power, 132–9; and prayer, 130; and presentiments, 134, 136; spirituality of, 80, 127–39; and suffering, 130–4, 139; as superior, 32, 75, 127–8, 129, 131–2, 134; as a teacher, 41, 80, 134; teaching mission of, 41, 80, 134; and veneration, 134–8; and the Virgin Mary, 41; and visions, 136; and vows, 41, 135; and writing, 135; as a youth, 130

242

Index

Barrois, Anne (Soeur Saint-Charles), 39 Basset, Jean, 10, 11, 64, 89 Beauvoir, Simone de, 129 Beckwith, Sarah, 129 Bédard, Pierre-Laurent, 64 Belmont, François Vachon de, 18, 23, 40, 41, 49; biography of Jeanne Le Ber, 63 Berry des Essarts, Françoise (Soeur Saint-François-de-Sales), 74 Berry des Essarts, Marie-Anne-Charlotte (Soeur Sainte-Radegonde), 74 Bérulle, Pierre de, 8, 27 Bilinkoff, Jodi, 135 Biron, Madame, 42 bishop (s), 6, 8, 18–23 passim, 28, 31, 34, 43, 49, 51, 52, 54, 59–70 passim, 79, 82, 83, 85, 87, 89, 91, 92, 93–108, 112–18 passim, 122, 123, 124, 131, 142; authority of, 18, 106–8, 138; donations to the congregation, 65; French, 8 Bissonnet, Marie-Angèle (Soeur Saint-Pierre), 105, 114 Bissot de Vincennes, Claire-Charlotte (Soeur de l’Ascension), 110 Bon-Pasteur, Île Jésus, 47, 48, 59 Bossuet, Jacques-Bénigne, 5, 27, 28 Bouat, Marguerite, 37, 44 Boucher, Nicolas, 64 Boucher de Boucherville, Marie-Louise (Soeur Sainte-Monique), 25, 110 Boucherville, Madame, 25 Bourassa, Angès-Françoise (Soeur Saint-Albert), 111 Bourdaloue, Louis, 28 Bourgeoys, Marguerite, 4, 5, 6, 9, 18, 19, 27, 28, 64, 81, 112, 125–6, 135, 141; and the Congrégation des Externes, 33; death, 38–9; Glandelet’s biography, 81; Montgolfier’s biography, 63; and Notre-Dame de Bonsecours chapel, 40–1; Simpson’s biography, 5, 86; and the Virgin Mary, 40, 130, 131, 137 Boy, Philibert, 64 Boyer, Zacharie, 50, 121 Brassier, Gabriel-Jean, 54 Bremond, Henri, 129 Briand, Bishop François-Olivier, 31, 51, 79, 85, 89, 93–100, 108, 112, 118 Brigitte, Saint, 135 Bruneau, Marie-Florine, 129

Brunet dit L’Estang, Véronique (Soeur Sainte-Rose), 69, 73, 75, 77, 78, 81, 82, 83, 104 Buddhism, Tibetan, 28 Burns, Kathryn, 25, 71 Bynum, Carolyn Walker, 128–9 Cailliou-Baron, Marie-Gabrielle (Soeur de la Nativité), 48, 112 Cailloud, Jean, 48, 112 captives, New England, 37–8, 71–2 Carleton, Governor Sir Guy, 50, 51, 89 Cartier, Jacques, 46 Casot, Jean-Joseph, 63 Catherine of Genoa, Saint, 80 Catherine of Siena, Saint, 80, 135 Catholicism, 6, 27, 31, 37, 42, 43, 72, 93; Gallican, 20 Catholic Reformation, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 27, 31, 33, 35, 45, 60, 134, 140–1; ideology, 35 Caza, Lorraine, 4 Certeau, Michel de, 138 chambre mortuaire, 140 Chanoinesses Hospitalières de Saint-Augustin, 5 chapel (s), 34, 36; of the congregation, 17, 22, 23, 25, 30, 38, 39, 42, 63, 64, 69, 70, 90, 114, 128, 129, 137; Infant Jesus, 23; Notre-Dame de Bonsecours, 38, 40; Notre-Dame de la Piété, 4; Notre-Dame de la Victoire, 36, 40; Sacré-Coeur de Jésus, 4, 38, 39, 69, 70, 71, 127, 128; Sainte-Anne, 38; of the Séminaire de Québec, 93 Charly Saint-Ange, Marie-Catherine (Soeur du Saint-Sacrement), 53, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 91 Charon de La Barre, François, 9 chastity, 19, 23, 91 Chicoine, Emilia, 5 Choquette, Leslie, 5 Christ, 23, 34, 38, 129, 132, 133, 134 Christian, Christianity, 6, 7, 28, 131; manners, 31; tradition, 136; virtues, 35 church, 6, 7, 8, 19, 20, 22, 23, 27, 35, 43, 46, 52, 53–7 passim, 64, 71–4 passim, 78, 79, 80, 89, 93, 100, 116, 119, 139, 140; Catholic, 7, 8, 19, 23, 24, 38, 43, 71–4 passim, 79; conflict with, 59; discipline, 7, 31; Gallican, 20; government support of, 52–3, 65; hierar-

Index chy, 13, 59; histories, 134, 136; medieval, 7; post-Tridentine, 32; reform, 20, 33, 35; structure, 26, 32, 43, 60, 112 churchwarden, 58, 78, 130 circa pastoralis, 19 Cliche, Marie-Aimée, 32 cloister, 8, 18, 21, 27 cloistered, cloistering, 8, 20–8, 45, 53, 65, 71, 112 colonists, 33, 45, 54, 55, 57; relationship to the congregation, 54–9, 65. See also habitant(s) colony. See New France communauté, 25, 60, 128 communion, 90; hosts for, 57, 61, 64 community, 4, 19, 21–6 passim, 33, 35–40 passim, 44, 48–59 passim, 63, 64, 65, 73, 79, 80, 81, 83, 88–124 passim, 130–5 passim, 141 confesseur extraordinaire, 104 confessor(s), 59, 60, 90, 91, 101, 104–5, 130, 134, 135, 136, 141 confraternities, 33, 34, 35, 36, 40 Congrégation de Notre-Dame: administrative structure, 60; and the church, 59–65, 112; connections, 52; constitution, 6, 18, 19–24, 28, 30, 44, 60, 61, 71, 79, 82, 89, 90, 91, 94, 96, 97, 112, 116, 135, 141; economic mission, 46–65; economic and spiritual mission, 29–70; farm properties, 120, 121; financial problems, 104, 118; and government, 52–5; investments, 100, 123, 124; and legacies, 51, 53, 56, 58, 59, 64, 96, 111, 112; and literacy, 32, 33; and merchants, 55–6; mission of, 45, 141; and Montgolfier, 63; as a physical entity, 36–45; in the private world, 17–28, 65, 141; property acquisitions, 47, 48; in the public world, 29–65, 141; and the purchase of Île Saint-Paul, 49; and recruitment, 80; sisters, 70, 86; and society, 54–9, 112; sources of income, 118–19; and the Sulpicians, 61–3. See also superior(s) of the congregation Congrégation des Externes, 25, 33–6, 41, 45, 83, 132, 134; function of, 35–6 Conquest, British, 9, 33 50, 53–62 passim, 73, 93, 117; post- Conquest, 54, 55, 108, 118

243

convent(s), 3, 9, 12, 22–30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 40–5, 58, 63, 64, 75, 81, 83, 84, 89–101 passim, 103, 106–12 passim, 115–25 passim, 127, 128, 134, 139, 140, 141; administrative dimensions, 92, 118–24; business, 100; crises, 94–8; factionalism, 109–13; fires, 12, 25, 50, 52, 54, 56, 57, 63, 69, 91, 92, 94, 98; life, 89; infirmary, 99; as an opportunity, 86; and penitential practices, 127; plans, 17, 25, 128; private world, 17–28, 141; Peruvian, 71; as a prison, 22; public dimensions, 29–64; rules of, 90; and the secular world, 125, 141; sources of income, 123; spiritual dimensions, 128, 139, 141 cordonnerie, 122 Côte de la Visitation, 47 Côte Saint-François, 47 Côte Saint-Martin, 47 council, administrative, 24, 33, 60, 73, 80–3, 88, 91, 92, 93, 101, 113, 114, 117, 123, 128, 132, 134, 141; members, 33, 82; minutes, 91 Council of Trent, 6–7, 8, 19, 20, 22, 27, 31, 55 councillor (s), 60, 83, 91, 122, 128 Cross of the Order of Saint-Louis, 37, 78, 110 Cupples, Cynthia, 129 Dames de Saint-Maur, 8–9 Danylewycz, Marta, 5, 60, 80, 85–6, 115 death, 4, 7, 38, 39, 40, 42, 44, 45, 51, 53, 54, 56, 58, 59, 64, 74, 79, 83, 84, 88, 94, 97, 99, 104, 111, 112, 114, 117, 124, 130, 132, 138 Dechêne, Louise, 57 Delumeau, Jean, 41 dépositaire, 49, 80, 81, 122, 128; des missions, 116; duties, 91–2; and engagé contracts, 120–2; and relations to superior, 91–2, 116, 117, 121–2, 123 dévotes, 5, 86 devotio moderna, 7, 27 devotions, 28, 36, 41, 129, 131; to the Holy Angels, 36; to the Holy Family, 36; to the Holy Sacrament, 36; to the Infant Jesus, 130, 131; to the Virgin Mary, 36, 130, 131 Dollier de Casson, François, 23, 59

244

Index

Dominicans, 7 Donohue, Darcy, 135 Dosquet, Bishop Pierre-Herman, 43, 65, 83, 115 dowry (ies), 5, 18, 21, 24, 48, 57, 58, 63, 64, 72, 94, 101, 103, 118, 123 Drouin, Mathilde (Soeur Sainte-Thècle), 103, 110 Dufresne, Henriette (Soeur Saint-Michel), 17 Dugast, Catherine-Françoise (Soeur de la Croix), 81 Dumont, Micheline, 86 Dupuy, Zacharie, 48 Durkheim, Émile, 26, 45 education: and the Catholic Reformation, 8; and the congregation, 30–3, 45, 56, 64, 83 election(s) in the congregation, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 81, 82, 85, 94, 95, 101, 102, 103, 120, 130; controversy over, 101–3; rituals, 69–70 Ellington, Donna Spivey, 41 engagés, 25, 43, 49, 50, 51, 56–7, 119–22, 134; administration of, 119–23; contracts, 119–22; duties, 119; relations with the congregation, 57 Eudes, Jean, 8 Fénelon, François de Salignac de La Mothe, 31, 59 feudal obligations, 52, 58, 61, 118 fiefs, 46, 47; Bon-Pasteur, 48, 59; Île aux Hérons, 48; Île Saint-Paul, 46–51, 102, 118; La Noue, 48; Verdun, 48, 50 Filles de la Charité, 8 Filles de la Providence, 8 Filles de Sainte Geneviève, 8 filles du roi, 36, 44 filles séculières, 5, 8–9, 86 Floquet, Pierre-René, 51 Forant, Isaac-Louis de, 53, 58 Fourier, Peter, Saint, 8 France, 8, 19–22 passim, 28, 37, 43, 44, 45, 49, 52, 59, 61, 62, 86, 94, 100, 104, 118, 123, 129; authorities, 52; bishops, 21; Catholic reform, 5; clergy, 35; culture, 37; dévots, 8–9, 27, 28; economy, 124; exclusionism, 61; Gallicanism, 20; government, 36, 37,

45, 52, 53, 55; mystical women, 129; mysticism, 139; mystics, 27, 129; Oratory, 8, 27; regime, 34, 61; Revolution, 56, 100; schooling, 31, 33; society, 134; state, 8; visionaries, 133 Francheville, Catherine de, 43 François de Sales, Saint, 5, 8, 27, 28 François Regis, Saint, 8 Gallican church, 20 Gamelin, Thérèse (Soeur Sainte-Barbe), 99, 107 Garreau dit Saint-Onge, Pierre, 77, 87 Gaulin, Marguerite (Soeur de la Présentation), 102, 110 Geertz, Clifford, 45 Glandelet, Charles de, 81, 131, 134, 135; and Marie Barbier, 63, 81, 129, 130, 131, 134–8, 141–2 God, 19, 20, 27, 36, 42, 43, 69, 70, 90, 103, 108, 112, 125, 127, 130–5 passim government, 13, 26, 43, 46, 49, 52–4, 55, 59, 65; authorities, 20; assistance, 52, 65; British, 52, 54, 62, 100; and the colonial church, 52, 54; French, 49, 52, 53, 55, 59, 109; and Louisbourg mission, 53; officials, 109 grace, 108, 127, 137 Greer, Allan, 32 Grey Nuns, 9, 20 72 Guillet, Marie-Élisabeth (Soeur Sainte-Barbe), 76, 77, 78, 81, 82, 84 Guillet, Mathurin, 77 Guillimin, Jean-André-Guillaume, 101, 104–5 habitant(s), 9, 30, 49, 58, 64, 71–8 passim, 111, 112 heart, 17, 31, 37, 85, 95, 99, 127, 128, 138, 142; of Marguerite Bourgeoys, 38; religion of the, 27, 28; Sacred, 42, 63 hierarchy, 21, 71; church, 13, 59, 134, 135, 141 Hollywood, Amy, 129 holy, holiness, 45, 139; Infant Jesus, 131; Sacrament, 23; life, 19; union, 113; woman/women, 28, 129, 130, 134, 135, 138–9 Hôpital Général: de la Pauvreté, 9; of Montreal, 9, 20, 63; of Quebec, 5, 55 Hospitalières de Saint-Joseph, 5

Index Hôtel-Dieu: of Montreal, 5, 9, 17, 20, 29, 49, 50, 59, 63, 64, 78, 79, 84, 117; of Quebec, 5, 40, 63, 74, 79 Hubert, Bishop Jean-François, 100–8 Ignatius of Loyola, Saint, 7, 43 Île à l’Aigle, 47 Île à la Pierre, 47, 48, 50, 112 Île aux Hérons, 47 Île des Soeurs (Nuns’ Island), 46 Île Jésus, 47, 48, 59 Île Royale, 53 Île Saint-Paul, 46–52, 54, 55, 57, 59, 102, 118 imitatio Christi, 134 indulgences, papal, 34 infermerie, 128 intendant, 37, 49, 53 intercessions, 42–3 James, William, 27 Jansenism, 20–1 Jerome, Saint, 39 Jesuits, 7, 8, 9, 20, 21, 51, 52, 59, 63, 78 Jesus, 119; as Infant, 7, 30, 130, 131 John of the Cross, Saint, 7 Johnston, A.J.B., 5 Juchereau de la Ferté, Jeanne-Françoise, 38, 40 Juillet, Marie-Josèphe (Soeur Saint-Gabriel), 94–6, 108, 112 Julian of Norwich, 28 Juteau, Danielle, 86 laity, 41, 42, 43, 51, 115 Lamy, François, 64 La Prairie de la Madeleine, 47, 48, 112 Lascaris d’ Urfé, François-Saturnin, 59 Laurin, Nicole, 86 Laval, Bishop François de Montmorency, 19 Le Ber, Jacques, 39, 47, 48, 64, 78, 111 Le Ber, Jeanne, 4, 38, 39–40, 47, 79; and adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, 39; and anchorite tradition, 40; beatification, 40; Belmont’s biography, 63; death, 39, 40; donations to the congregation, 42, 64, 79; and the Eucharist, 39; and intercession, 42; and prayer, 39, 41; significance, 39–40; and War of Austrian Succession, 41; and War of Spanish Succession, 39

245

Le Ber, Pierre, 38, 64, 79 Lefebvre Angers, Jean-Baptiste, 77 Lefebvre Angers, Marie-Angélique (Soeur Saint-Simon), 48, 75, 78, 79, 81, 83, 84 Le Jeune, John, 8 Lemaire dit Saint-Germain, Josèphe-Geneviève (Soeur Sainte-Scholastique), 104 , 110 Le Moyne, Catherine, 47 Le Moyne, Charles, baron de Longueuil, 37, 41, 42, 78, 111 Le Moyne de Sainte-Marie, Marguerite (Soeur du Saint-Esprit), 47, 75, 77–84 passim, 132 Le Nobletz, Michel, 8 Lepage de Saint-Barnabé, Reine (Soeur Saint-Germain), 110 Leschassier, François, 21 Lestage, Marie-Anne de (Soeur Saint-Luc), 45, 111 Lestage, Marie-Josèphe de (Esther Sayward), 37, 44, 51, 58–9, 111 Lestage, Pierre de, 44–5, 58–9, 111 L’Isle, Jean de, 104 L’Isle-Dieu, Abbé de, 89, 123–4 Louis xiv, 20 Loyseau, Charles, 109 Magnuson, Roger, 32 Magon de Terlaye, François-Auguste, 32, 51, 62 Maisonneuve, Paul de Chomedey de, 64 Maison Saint-Gabriel, 5 Mance, Jeanne, 9, 64 Marie de l’Incarnation (Marie Guyart), 70 Martel, Julie (Soeur Sainte-Marie), 97, 98, 102, 114 Mary (Virgin Mary), 7, 18, 36–42 passim, 86, 130, 131, 137; concept of, 41; devotions to, 3, 6, 41; historiography , 41; image, 40, 41; political role, 41–2; Sacred Heart of the, 42; statues, 128 Mary of Oignes, 135 mass, 23, 24, 34, 36, 39, 42, 43, 69, 70, 90, 139 Maugue, Claude, 77, 87 Maugue-Garreau, Marie-Josèphe (Soeur de l’Assomption), 13, 50, 75, 78–9, 81, 83, 84, 85–126; administrative experience, 81, 83; age at death, 84; agency

246

Index

of, 107; and the bishop, 93–100, 106–8, 142; and convent finances, 116, 117–24; correspondence, 93–100, 101, 106–8, 118, 124; and the coutumier, 112; and the dépositaire, 116; and discipline, 108–13, 116; duties, 108–24; entry into the convent, 125; formative religious life, 88; formative years, 87–8; papiers intimes, 125; place of birth, 75; and power, 124–6; and providence, 98, 118; relatives in religion, 78; as superior, 50, 85–126; spiritual authority, 90; spirituality, 97, 124–6; as teacher, 88; and the teaching enterprise, 113–17; view of the superiorship, 124–6; vocation, 124–6 Maugue-Garreau, Pierre, 88 Maury, Jean-Louis, 100, 123, 124 McDonnell, Ernest, 135 merchants, 37, 51, 55, 56, 58, 59, 74–8 passim, 87, 109, 111, 117–25 passim, 134; English, 54, 58–9 Miquelon, Dale, 41, 42, 109, 110, 111 miracles, 40, 41, 130, 131, 134 mission(s), 8, 9, 22, 34, 35, 40, 44, 45, 57, 58, 62, 64, 65, 80, 82, 89, 91, 94, 99, 100–5 passim, 113–16, 117, 128, 133, 141; administration of, 113–17; ambulatory, 9, 10, 27, 58, 114; and Catholic Reformation, 33, 35; church, 20; conditions of, 114–16; economic, 46–65; economic and spiritual, 57; establishment of, 58; finances, 113; Native, 9; permanent, 9, 101, 112, 124; poverty of, 102, 103; and retreats, 44; rural, 30, 102; sisters in, 82, 96, 98, 101, 115, 116, 123; spiritual, 6, 29–45; Sulpician-originated, 61–2; teachers, 113; teaching, 30–6, 87, 91, 115–16 missions, individual: Batiscan, 64; Boucherville, 10, 11, 62, 89, 32, 58, 64, 110; Champlain, 11, 32, 62, 89, 100; Château-Richer, 9, 10, 11, 80; Kahnawake, 71; Lac-des-DeuxMontagnes, 11, 32, 53, 62, 72, 89, 103, 104; Lachine, 10, 11, 32, 54, 58, 62, 89, 97, 100, 114; Laprairie, 10, 11, 51, 62, 63, 89; La Providence, 31, 131; Louisbourg, 5, 11, 29, 53, 83; Lower Town, Quebec, 9, 10, 11, 50, 73, 80, 81, 94, 117; Maison Saint-Gabriel, 6;

Montreal, 10, 11, 89; Mountain, 9, 10, 53, 130; Neuville, 10, 11, 43, 51, 58, 64, 89, 102; Pointe-aux-Trembles, Montreal, 9, 10, 11, 32, 58, 62, 89; Pointe-aux-Trembles, Quebec, 102; Pointe-Claire, 62, 100; PointeSaint-Charles, 9, 10, 11, 31, 38, 43, 48, 49, 50, 59, 61, 89; Quebec, 29, 51, 94, 102, 103, 114, 132, 133; Saint-Denis-sur-Richelieu, 11, 58, 100; Sainte-Famille, 9, 10, 11, 27, 32, 58, 59, 64, 73, 80, 89, 102; Saint-Françoisde-Sales, 11, 89; Saint-François-du-Sud, 43, 58, 64, 102; Saint-Laurent, 11, 62, 89, 130, 131; Sault-au-Récollet, 10, 53, 71; Upper Town, Quebec, 64, 132, 133 missionaries, 78, 81, 104, 134 monasticism, 27, 28, 54, 63; cloistering, 19; environments, 28; life, 28; reforms, 19; religious orders, 40; routine, 24; strictures, 26 Montenon de la Rue, André Joseph, 78 Montgolfier, Étienne, 31, 51, 60, 62–3, 98, 115, 117 Montreal, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 23, 29–40 passim, 44, 47, 48, 51, 52, 55–64 passim, 69–78 passim, 101, 102, 115, 119, 122, 131, 132, 133, 136, 137, 141 Morin, Marie, 30 mortification, 90, 127–9, 132, 133, 136, 138, 139 mother house(s), 57, 113–21 passim, 131, 132 mysticism, 129, 133, 134; of Marie Barbier, 132–4; and empowerment, 133–4; female, 129; French, 139; and patriarchy, 129; public face of, 133–4; and victimization, 133 mystics, 7, 84, 129, 132, 135, 136; female, 132; French, 27, 129, 139; medieval, 138; seventeenth-century, 129; Spanish, 27 Native(s), 9, 38, 46, 71, 72; mission to, 54, 62; slaves, 56 New France, 9, 20–2, 30, 32, 33–44, 46, 49, 52, 58, 62, 64, 72, 74, 75, 78, 83, 109, 114, 117 Niccoli, Ottavia, 135 Nimbs, Abigail (Marie-Élisabeth), 71–2

Index Nivernois dit Benoit, Marguerite (Soeur Saint-Denis), 103 nobility, 33, 74, 75, 78, 109–10, 111 notarial records, 42, 77 notaries, 24, 25, 87, 111, 128, 134 Notre-Dame, rue, 3, 4, 17, 25, 29, 70 Notre-Dame de Bonsecours, 38, 40–1; parish church of, 23, 37, 40, 42 Notre-Dame de la Piété, 4 Notre-Dame de la Victoire, 15, 36, 37, 40 novice(s) 23, 24, 25, 70, 73, 79, 88, 94, 97, 101, 122, 133, 134; mistress of, 60, 81, 82, 83, 91, 130, 133 novitiate, 23, 96, 128 nuns, 17, 19, 22–38 passim, 45, 61, 64, 69, 70, 78–80 passim, 88, 90, 99, 105, 108, 109, 110, 112, 114–19 passim, 128, 135, 139, 140, 141; cloistered, 18, 24; as feminists, 86; Franciscan, 25, 71; Grey, 20, 73; Hôtel-Dieu, 20, 64; nineteenth-century, 86; position of, 85; professed, 23, 73, 74, 84. See also sisters Nuns’ Island. See Île des Soeurs obedience, 18, 23, 31, 45, 91, 99, 107, 116, 135, 141 Olier, Jean-Jacques, 5, 8, 27 Oratorians, 7 Oratory, French, 8, 27 Paris, 8, 18, 21, 123, 124; Coutume de, 88 parish(es), 9, 18, 21, 22, 24, 26, 30, 33, 34, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 57, 58, 60, 64, 92, 93, 102, 103, 115, 116, 119, 141, 119; churches, 22, 23, 94, 119 parloir, 22, 25, 91 patriarchy, 129, 142 Pelletier, Louis, 5, 75, 78, 84 penitence, 90, 97, 98 pensionnaires, 25, 31; English, 54; perpétuelles, 44, 51, 59, 111 pensionnat, 9, 56; description of, 30 piety, 27, 31, 36, 45, 60, 141 Piot de Langloiserie, Charles-Gaspard, 48, 77 Piot de Langloiserie, Charlotte-Angélique (Soeur Sainte-Rosalie), 48 Piot de Langloiserie, Marie-Marguerite (Soeur Saint-Hippolyte), 48, 75, 77, 78, 81, 82, 83, 110

247

Pointe-Saint-Charles, 9, 43, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 61, 118, 121; chapel, 38 Pontbriand, Bishop Henri-Marie Dubreuil de, 20, 43, 54 Porete, Marguerite, 129 portière, 26, 85 post-Tridentine church, 32; confraternities, 34; era, 70 poverty, 23, 50, 53, 77, 91, 93, 102 power, 4, 5, 6, 9, 65, 86, 90, 124, 130, 134, 135, 136, 138, 140–2; of Marie Barbier, 127–39; bishops’, 21, 92–108; church, 20; distribution of, 12; fluidity of, 138; foundations of, 12, 65; institutional, 9; intercessory, 40, 42; medieval view of, 135; and mortification, 138; nature of, 4, 12, 142; and paradox, 4, 9, 140, 142; and patriarchy, 141–2; priestly, 134–5; private dimensions, 17–28; public dimensions, 29–45, 46–65; religious, 28; spiritual, 28, 119; and spirituality, 26–8; superiors’, 12, 13, 85–126, 141–2; and veneration, 134–8 prayer, 6, 7, 24, 27, 28, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 89, 90, 104, 112, 114, 117, 128, 130, 138, 140 processions, 34, 43, 69, 114 priest(s), 21, 24, 25, 26, 31, 32, 43, 51, 54, 59, 61, 62, 64, 72, 78, 79, 88, 90, 102, 104, 115, 116, 128, 129, 134, 135, 137, 138, 141; and holy women, 134–5; power of, 134–5, 137, 138, 141; and the vita, 137 Prud’homme, Élisabeth (Soeur Sainte-Agathe), 32, 74 procure, 17, 24, 25, 26, 128 profession, 5, 30, 79; contract, 24 providence, 98, 104, 118 Quebec, 5, 6, 9, 10, 20, 32, 34, 44, 50, 51, 54, 60–4 passim, 73–80 passim, 86, 91–5 passim, 100–6 passim, 111, 114, 117, 131, 132, 136, 137, 142 Raizenne, Ignace (Rising, Josiah), 71–2 Raizenne, Marie (Soeur Saint-Ignace), 13, 51, 70–3, 75–83 passim, 111, 139; administrative experience, 72–3, 81, 82, 83; agency of, 107; biography, 71–3; and the bishop, 100–8, 142; and confessor controversy, 104–5; corre-

248

Index

spondence, 100–8; and dearth of recruits, 105; and discipline, 105; and election controversy, 101–3; links to the church, 73; and providence, 104, relatives, 71–2; religious life, 72–3; social origin, 73; as superior, 51, 70, 72, 73, 77, 78, 100–6, 115 Raizenne, Marie-Madeleine (Soeur Saint-Herman), 72, 103, 104, 111 Raizenne, Simon-Amable, 72 Ranger-Paquet, Marguerite-Élisabeth (Soeur de l’Enfant Jésus), 111–12 Rapley, Elizabeth, 5, 86 Raudot, Jacques, 53 recluse, 4, 39, 41 Recluses Missionnaires, Les, 39–40 reclusion, 5, 39 reclusoir, 42 Récollets, 9, 20, 63–4, 79 réfectoire, 128 registre, 12 réglemens, 21, 27 religious, 43, 54; authorities, 42; beliefs, 41; calendar, 115; Canadian, 123; ceremonies, 58; communities, 9, 123; comportment, 106; connections, 52; experiences, 129, 136; faith, 135; figures, 89; French female, 8–9; identity, 57; imagery, 128; institution(s), 29, 43, 49, 52, 54, 60, 63, 73, 86; life, 8, 19–20, 21, 32, 44, 72, 85–6, 87, 88, 136; name, 38; objects, 57; orders, 39, 44, 53, 54, 55, 63, 93; rituals, 91; services, 61; subjects, 33; superiors, 92; tradition, 73; values, 31; women, 86, 135, 138, 142; world, 32 Rémy, Pierre, 59 rentes, 51, 64, 118 retreatants, 25, 40, 43, 44 retreats, 25, 42, 43–4, 90 Rigaud de Vaudreuil, Philippe de, 39, 53 ritual(s), 23, 24, 26, 35, 70, 90, 91, 140, 141; communion, 90, 105, 119; of the dead, 90; election, 69–70; of locking convent doors, 85; of mass, 22, 34, 36, 39, 42, 43, 90; of penitence, 90, 97, 98 Robutel de La Noue, Anne-Suzanne (Soeur Sainte-Cécile), 47 Robutel de La Noue, Claude, 47 Robutel de La Noue, Zacharie, 47 rosary, 24, 128

rules: congregation, 18, 19, 21, 26, 44, 63, 90, 96, 141; Franciscan, 71 Sabourin, Catherine (Soeur Sainte-Ursule), 74 Sabourin, Marie-Anne-Reine (Soeur Saint-Barthélemy), 74 Sabourin, Marie-Élisabeth (Soeur Saint-Vincent-de-Paul), 74 sacrament(s), 23, 33, 34, 36, 38, 42, 43, 90; of communion, 105, 131, 135, 139; of the Eucharist, 34; of the last rites, 128; of penance, 34 Sainte-Anne, property of, 48, 112 Sainte-Henriette, Soeur, 10, 11, 17, 62, 89 saints, 34, 80, 129, 136; lives of, 80; patron, 34. See also names of individual saints Saint-Vallier, Bishop Jean-Baptiste de la Croix de Chevrières de: and Catéchisme du diocese de Québec, 31; and cnd constitution, 18, 21, 23, 28, 31, 49, 53; donations to the congregation, 64, 65; and La Providence, 131 Sánchez, Magdalena S., 129 Sayward, Mary (Soeur Marie des Anges), 37 seclusion, 23, 39 seigneurial dues, 49, 52, 54, 55, 59, 61, 63, 93, 118 seigneurs, 37, 42, 49, 58, 61, 74, 75, 77, 78, 109, 110 seigneury(ies), 43, 46, 49, 50, 51, 55, 58, 60, 64 Séminaire de Québec, 20, 93, 129 Sévigné, Madame de, 33 silence, 24, 31, 39, 70, 89, 90, 125 Simpson, Patricia, 5, 86 sin(s), 24, 31, 39, 70; and Marie Barbier, 130, 132, 133, 134 sisters: aged, 103, 104; and Augé, 56; and Bonsecours, 40; congregation, 3, 5, 6, 18, 30, 42, 72, 74, 75, 79, 80, 84, 86, 109, 128; desertion of, 94–7; feudal obligations, 52; and the holy, 45; Hôtel-Dieu, 29, 59, 63; and Île Saint-Paul, 48–51; intercessory prayers, 42; labouring, 79, 94, 108; Lachine, 114; and Jeanne Le Ber, 39, 42; mission, 82, 95, 100, 101, 115, 123; and Montgolfier, 62–3; Peruvian, 71; and

Index priests, 64; of Quebec, 101, 102, 103; and Marie Raizenne, 111; and Sulpicians, 61–2; teaching, 31–3, 79, 113, 116; and the Virgin Mary, 40; young, 103, 108, 112. See also nuns Société de Notre-Dame, 9 society, 13, 27, 29–46 passim, 53, 54–9, 65, 74, 84, 86, 109, 110–12 passim, 134, 141 sodality, 33, 35, 36, 40 Soeurs de Miséricorde, 5 soeurs du gros ouvrage, 24, 94–7, 108–9 Soeurs du Saint-Enfant Jésus of Reims, 9 soul(s), 7, 17, 31, 42, 45, 85; and Marie Barbier, 132, 133, 137, 138 spiritual, 27, 36, 39, 54, 64, 80, 93, 135; adviser, 136; conversations, 44; development, 90; direction, 131; directors, 91, 134; disturbances, 131, 136; economy, 71; exercises, 43; experiences, 129, 133, 135; expressions, 128; favours, 43, 94, 101; framework, 119; influence, 44; life, 36, 42, 90, 92, 135, 136, 137, 141; mission, 29–45, 57; needs, 45; pathway, 136; power, 28; pursuits, 137; readings, 129; retreats, 44; state, 105; sustenance, 44; well-being, 105 Spiritual Exercises (Saint Ignatius of Loyola), 43 spirituality, 6, 12, 26–8, 35, 87, 128, 129, 131, 133, 134, 138, 139; and Marie Barbier, 127–39; of Marguerite Bourgeoys, 80; and Jeanne Le Ber, 39; and Marie-Josèphe Maugue-Garreau, 87; medieval, 129; personal, 36; and power, 130 Stein, Edith, 28 Sulpician(s), 9, 21, 28, 31, 49–56 passim, 59–63, 64, 72, 111, 117, 118, 123; as business advisers, 59; and Catholic Reformation, 60; as confessors, 59; and the Conquest, 61; and economic assistance, 62, and privilege, 55; as procurators, 92; properties, 60; seminary, 18, 21, 40, 72; superiors, 21, 31, 40, 41, 49, 51, 59, 60, 61, 63, 91, 92, 117 superior(s) of the congregation, 4, 12, 13, 23, 24, 26, 32, 33, 48, 51, 70, 73, 78, 80, 82, 84, 91, 93, 96, 99, 103, 109–17 passim, 124, 127, 128, 131, 141; administrative experience of,

249

80–4; age at death, 83–4; age at election, 82; age at entry, 79–80; and assembly, 93; and the bishop, 87, 93–108; and chapitre des fautes, 90; and chapter meetings, 128; and cliques, 112; conduct , 97 –8; correspondence, 55, 89, 93–108, 114, 123, 142; and council, 91, 92, 93; and dépositaire, 121–2, 123; and discipline, 99, 100, 108–13; duties, 23–6, 87, 88–124; election, 69–70, 73, 81, 94; and engagé contracts, 121–2; financial duties , 91–2, 117–24; and financial woes, 118; geographical origins, 75–6; length of term, 82; links to the church, 78–9; medieval, 70–1; mission, 97; and missions, 113–17; nineteenth-century, 86; and pious conferences, 90, 114; position of, 12, 85, 141–2; and power, 13, 85, 86, 87, 88, 92, 124, 130, 141, 142; qualities, 79–84, 117; re-election, 82; and teaching, 113–17; theoretical powers, 88–92; as a separate breed, 79–84; social origins, 76–8; spiritual responsibilities, 90; working lives, 82–3. See also names of other orders superiorship, 18, 19, 53, 72, 73, 85, 87, 88, 92, 108, 100, 110, 116, 120, 121, 125, 126, 133; nature of, 125–6 Taylor, Charles, 27, 136 teacher(s), 80, 88, 102, 113, 114, 115, 116, 133, 134 Teresa of Ávila, Saint, 7, 28, 70, 80, 135 Theatines, 7 Thérèse of Lisieux, Saint, 28 Thibierge, Madeleine (Soeur Saint-Étienne), 111 Thibierge, Marie-Anne (Soeur Sainte-Pélagie), 75, 77, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 111 Thubières de Levy de Queylus, Gabriel, 59 Tronson, Louis, 18, 21 Trottier, Marguerite (Soeur Saint-Joseph), 76, 79, 80–1, 83, 84 Ursulines, 5, 31, 78, 79, 84 Vauchez, André, 134–5 veil, 5, 23, 24, 60, 71, 85, 97 Verdun, 47, 48, 50, 118

250

Index

vicar-general (grand vicar), 31, 60, 61, 62, 69, 79, 88, 91, 92, 104, 105, 106, 113, 115, 122 Viger, Thérèse (Soeur Sainte-Madeleine), 105, 139 Vigne, Jean de, 46–7 Vincent de Paul, Saint, 8 visionaries, 129, 133–4 visions, 7, 41, 136 vita, 137 Vitry, Jacques de, 135 vows, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 30, 35, 41, 53, 70, 91, 92, 135; of the externes, 35–6; permanent, 91, 92; sacred, 91; simple, 21, 22, 44; solemn, 30, 35, 71; of stability, 21, 23; superior’s, 71

Well, Bernard, 63 Wilson, R.D., 3 women, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 18–23 passim, 26, 28, 31–40 passim, 43, 44, 70–4 passim, 75, 80–6 passim, 93, 94, 96, 97, 99, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113, 118, 119, 123, 124, 128, 129, 134, 135, 138, 141, 142; holy, 38, 40, 42, 134, 135, 138, 139

war, 9, 37, 38, 45, 57, 58; of the Austrian Succession, 41; Seven Years, 43, 49, 93; of the Spanish Succession, 36, 39, 40

Zarri, Gabriella, 129

Young, Brian, 92 Youville Dufrost, Charles-Marie-Madeleine d’, 59 Youville, Marie-Marguerite d’ (Dufrost de Lajemmerais), 9, 20 Yvan, Anthony, 8