Glen Nichols
The French texts of the 1727 and 1797 réceptions translated here were originally published in 1882 in the history of the Hôpital Général, Monseigneur de Saint-Vallier et l'Hôpital Général de Québec [MSV] (263-269 and 472-474). The 1727 text, including the four-line interpolation provided by Burger (ll. 149-152, see L'activité théâtrale au Québec 387), was verified against the MS on deposit at the archives of the Hôpital Général. Other than minor variations in spelling and punctuation, and a couple of minor quibbles over placement or assignment of speeches, no significant problems were discovered in the printed text. The MSS of the other texts were, unfortunately, unavailable for checking.
The Collège de Montréal réceptions were both published in Supplements to the 1864 Annuaire Ville-Marie. Origine, utilité et progrès des Institutions catholiques de Montréal by L.A. Huguet-Latour (II, 244-247; and VI, 293-299). Both are translated as printed, with only minor corrections of typography.
In all four cases, the texts were not published by the authors, but were left in manuscript form until discovered and printed decades later as complements to notable events in the written histories of the institutions. To both the original writers and later historians, the occasion or event for which the plays were written clearly took precedence over the theatricality of the performances themselves; the texts were treated more as documentation of circumstances than as performance pieces. Created explicitly for unique occasions, the texts were not considered of interest once the events were past. From the point of view of the original creators, it would have been absurd to publish them as performance texts since they were created specifically to celebrate particular events and were essentially single-use, disposable theatre.1
In the translations, in addition to the verse-texts themselves, I have included the commentaries and stage directions added by the later editors. Because corroborative material is virtually non-existent, these provide useful contextual information, particularly since at several points they seem to be quoting sources that are no longer available. The stage directions, considering the known layout of the premises and other conditions, seem very reasonable. I have also included the integral "ode" sections leading into the 1797 and 1810 pieces. These are lyrical pieces functioning as introductory preludes praising the "recipient" in the same tone as the subsequent play. These additional segments develop the overall flow of the events, giving a more complete picture of the occasions at which the réceptions were performed.
All the extant réceptions share a common three-part textual structure. Each piece opens with a prologue, usually presented as a monologue. In the central section of the plays, performers take turns paying homage to the selected individual. In later examples, these two sections incorporate more dialogue and character interaction than do the earlier more purely presentational texts. The plays end with a celebratory song and frequently lead into a feast or further celebration.
With the exception of the prologue and the passages written in First Nations dialects in the 1658 text, the extant réceptions are entirely in verse. The dominant line forms are alexandrine and octosyllabic, most commonly arranged in quatrains with a variety of rhyming patterns. These generalizations, however, should not disguise the presence of considerable variety in the verse forms throughout the texts. Some typical examples are the final "sung verses" from the 1797 piece during which each presenter offers a bouquet of flowers symbolizing particular praiseworthy qualities of the Mother Superior. Each stanza is set to a different popular tune of the day, causing each one to have a different verse form.
The variety is not simply random, however, as the careful construction of the verses at the beginning of the 1797 play indicate. Agnès's opening query is in the form of a sestet composed of a rhyming couplet (AA) followed by a quatrain in envelope rhyme (BCCB). Myrtil responds with three quatrains, continuing in envelope rhyme. Both of these speeches use a mixture of short (six syllable) and longer lines, with a pattern of increasing line-length towards the end of the speeches. Chloé's "climactic" explanation of the coming celebration and Agnès's concluding commentary, however, are in rhyming alexandrine couplets regularly broken by octosyllabic lines and concluded with a final envelope rhyme.
The versification of the Saint-Vallier text appears to have been equally carefully arranged as suggested by the prologue, the long explanatory tirade "in Monseigneur's words," and initial addresses to the other "recipients."
The prologue consists of four quatrains in envelope rhyme divided among three speakers: Mlle de St. Michel (two quatrains) and Mlles Angélique and Marie-Joseph Guillimin (one quatrain each). The lines are almost all alexandrines, regularly interrupted with octosyllabic lines.
The pattern changes abruptly when Angélique Guillimin takes up the forty-four line tirade explaining the Biblical conceit of the réception and Saint-Vallier's analogy with Jacob and his son Joseph. This very formal speech, similar in purpose to parts of Chloé and Agnès's dialogue in the 1797 play, is likewise completely in alexandrine couplets.
Following this speech, the presenters address in turn Monseigneur, the poor, Mme Dupuy, and the nuns. These addresses are divided among a number of speakers and involve a variety of line forms and rhymes (envelope and crossed rhymes [ABAB]), but every section ends with a series of rhyming couplets: the first, to Monseigneur, with three; the second, to the poor, with two; and the last, to the nuns, with a single couplet.
The only exception is the address in third position, that to Mme Dupuy; however, this is not the only problem with this speech. Although it is added here to the two quatrains concluding Mlle Cugnet's address to the poor, it does not appear in the MS at this point in the text; rather it is included in a separate MS with the "sung verses." It seems peculiar that Mme Dupuy would be addressed directly at this point, between the poor and the nuns who are the residents of the hospital. This factor, combined with the breakdown in what is otherwise a clearly patterned versification approach, would seem to indicate that the address should be located elsewhere in the réception, perhaps in the "sung verses" section at the very end which recaps each of the main sections of the play.
The Collège de Montréal pieces also vary their verse forms, but tend to exhibit a predominance of classical alexandrine lines interspersed with octosyllabic lines. There are also occasions where the alexandrines are split between two speakers as the conversation demands. An example is this exchange from 1800:
DAPHNIS: Quoi! Ce serait Minerve!
CORYDON: Oui, Minerve elle-même
Qui jadis se voila sous un autre Mentor.
(ll. 84-86)2
The more flexible use of the strict verse forms corresponds to the increased sense of character interaction and the extension of true dialogue throughout these later pieces.
Given the formal versification and the intended purpose of the réceptions, it is not surprising that the tone of the pieces tends to be rather serious and elevated. Each speaker praises the "recipient" in the most glowing terms. In the 1727 piece, Saint-Vallier is called an "illustrious [and] august prelate" and a "noble patron"; the new Intendant and Governor are "adorned with a brilliant array / Of a hundred dazzling virtues," are "two guardian angels," and "too generous and sensitive." On the other side, clearly reinforcing the hierarchical relationship between the "recipients" and the less noble residents, it is telling that the poor of the Hôpital Général are described in equally colourful, though negative, terms: "Wretched outcasts from the rest of humanity!" and are told to "Show a grateful heart."
The other réceptions share this lexical elevation, but contrast with the Saint-Vallier piece in introducing more humour, more sense of joy. The 1797 play pays homage in no less glowing terms, but there is also an aspect of fun implied in the beginning and end not found in 1727. Agnès's innocent puzzlement over the preparations she sees around her, and Myrtil's "What! On this happy day / ... You alone are unaware of the reason / For the beautiful rapture which inspires us..." would elicit at least mild amusement. The final floral presentation is made by Delphine who adds a brief narrative about when, where, and how her confused choice was made. Compared to the rather serious, indeed almost dour, tone of the Saint-Vallier piece, the touches of humanity and personality in these 1797 moments are startling.
These lighter touches are in evidence as early as the 1606 play with, in particular, the "Gascon" Triton, but become more significant in the later plays. The 1800 text opens with essentially the same approach as that for Saint-Alexis with one Shepherd asking what all the fuss is about and then being enlightened by Tircis and Damon. The last text, from 1810, extends the sense of debate throughout the presentation sections, climaxing with a most interesting speech by Palémon. He starts by summarizing the validity of the fine symbolic floral tributes seen so far, and then he adds his own, speaking about the honoured recipient, M. Roque, using his own choice of symbol: the carnation:
The carnation enchants us, and creates such an effect
That it is like an eye [oeil], and we call it "carnation" [oeillet]
So, impressing our eyes [yeux] with his brilliant illumination,
Tircis in this region is the eye [oeil] which enlightens us.
(ll. 67-70)
The translation cannot capture the word-play with "oeil" and "oeillet" complemented by the development of the "sight" metaphor of the words "lumière" (illumination) and "éclair" [enlightens]. I think this speech represents well the typically playful, yet "serious" joyfulness which characterizes the tone of the réceptions in general.
The variety of verse forms along with the sometimes surprising tonal modulations do much to create the complementary qualities of formality and joyfulness characteristic of the réceptions. This duality enhances the double nature of the plays both as theatrical celebrations of happy events and as self-conscious representations of intricate social contracts between important public figures and the institutions they serve. With verse forms built on "serious" metres and rhymes, the tone is dominantly reverential; but the use of popular musical tunes, puns, and character lightness bring out the playfulness reflecting the celebratory nature of the occasions.
Considering the versification and tonal aspects, my approach to the translation process emphasized source accuracy over target appropriateness. That is to say, given that the new versions are more important as windows into the historical originals than as contemporary performance pieces themselves, I was more interested in making translation choices that reflected the sense of the original than in creating a text that might sound as if it had been written for an audience today.
The original French is quite formal, with heavy ecclesiastical overtones and often difficult syntax arranged to meet the demands of the rhyme scheme. The translation abandons the use of regular rhyme and generally modernizes the syntax in order to generate a more easily read text. Otherwise the formality and flavour are maintained wherever possible. The result should be a translation which reads well in English, but which sounds somewhat old-fashioned and "churchy," similar to the way the French sounds to modern ears.
The nature of the original performances, sadly, remains elusive. No pictorial data was recorded, and since the texts were seen primarily as literary exercises, they contain very few staging indications. However, using evidence of the locations, timing, and the limited internal evidence, a shadowy picture of the events is possible.
For eighteenth-century visitors from Quebec, the distance of the Hôpital Général (approximately two kilometres from the St. John Gate) meant that attendance at performances required considerable effort, especially for the January performance in 1727. It was indeed a mini-pilgrimage in honour of the special occasions. Added to this was the effect of the pleasantness of the site itself on the banks of the St. Charles River, described in 1690 as "luxuriant, fertile, comfortable [commode], prosperous [aisé]; the view, wonderful, wide, and very pleasing; the air is extremely pure and healthy" (LeClercq I:156-7).3 Some of the guests may well have stayed overnight at the convent. For example, Mgr Denaut and Mother Superior Saint-Alexis's family members had come up from Montreal for the anniversary in 1797 and would have needed accommodations. All this must have added to the festive air, contributing to the singularity of the occasion and affecting the receptiveness of the invited audience to the little plays.
The former Recollet monastery purchased by Saint-Vallier in 1692 to house the Hôpital Général was described in 1720 as "the most beautiful [religious] house in Canada... and it would not mar our greatest cities in France."4 The two-storey buildings were arranged around an ample cloister and anchored in the south-east corner by the impressive convent church and side chapels. The main entrance at this time was off the east wall of the cloister, leading into a reception area. The church and chapels were to the left, with the convent community hall just beyond that along the south wing. As indicated in the 1797 text, these would have been the areas used for the celebrations, the little plays being performed in the community hall where the special meal for the poor was served.
Having made the trip to the convent and confronted the rather formidable appearance of the exterior of the buildings, the audience would have had to pass through the church and chapels before coming into the community hall. The religious significance of the occasions must have been heightened as a result of this act of pilgrimage, which would also have influenced how the little pieces were received ... with a sort of "holiday" joy of course, but also with reverence for the space in which they were performed.
The contexts for the two Collège de Montréal/Petit séminaire réceptions contrast notably with the Quebec experience. The two locations (Place Jacques Cartier before the fire of 1803 and St. Paul near King Street after 1806) are centrally located less than a kilometre from old Montreal. Although run by the Church, the buildings were not cloistered and did not have the same formidable cachet as the Augustinian convent. The events associated with the plays, the name-day celebrations of the headmasters, are more secular and public in nature. All in all, the conditioning of the audience for the performances was very different, much more typically theatrical than the very religious orientation of the more private Hôpital Général réceptions.
The impact on the performers should also be considered. It was, of course, the boarding school girls who performed the réceptions in 1727 and 1797. In the early years, the convent welcomed about ten boarding students per year. The 1727 réception involved seven girls of various ages and so required virtually the entire student body. The nine performers required in 1797 was a smaller but still significant relative percentage of the thirty-one boarding students registered that year.5 With this much involvement, the production of these plays was a major undertaking. Eighteenth-century children, like children in our own age, would have enjoyed the break in routine from classroom studies to practice, and would have experienced a strong sense of group spirit as participants in these (literally) all-school endeavours.
The college performances once again contrast sharply. More than a hundred students were enrolled during the period and the performers were drawn from only a few selected classes (humanities and rhetoric in particular). Although the characters represented the students at large and the affection for the headmasters was said to be general, the actual production efforts would have been limited to relatively fewer members of the student body than those experienced by the convent students, participation reflecting a more evidently "elite" identity for the performers. Indeed this sense is apparent in the plays as "junior" characters like Daphnis (1810) happily defer to the judgements of their more experienced seniors.
As for the actual appearance of the performances themselves there is very little evidence. The 1882 historian quotes in her introduction to the Saint-Alexis piece that "all the actresses ... were done up with curly hair and crowned with white roses and lilies." She uses a special typeface which suggests she is quoting a source now not available. Otherwise, costume information is purely speculative and based on what appears in other réceptions. Lescarbot, for example, keeping in mind the European tradition he is drawing on, is specific about the appearance of Neptune and his cohorts; likewise, the characters of the 1658 piece, in particular the representative First Nations speakers, the allegorical "Génie universal de la Nouvelle-France," and the "Génie des Forêts," would very likely have been identified with appropriate costumes. The 1800 and 1810 texts follow a similar pattern in that they identify the speakers very carefully as pastoral shepherds, demanding no doubt a conventional period depiction in costume, hence the lack of need for specific indications to that effect. The result of this is that we can say only that some sort of representative costuming was likely used, the figurative nature of the "characters" demanding symbolic rather than individual costuming.
The 1727 piece, once again, appears to be an exception. The speakers are not identified by their "characters" but rather by their own names. Given the presence of important dignitaries and the formality of the occasion, all that can be conjectured here is that the girls were at least not dressed simply in their everyday clothes, but in some sort of finery, perhaps coordinated.
As for staging questions, other than the fact both of the eighteenth-century pieces appear to have been performed in the dining hall of the convent, just prior to a special meal, no staging information is indicated. Certainly no "set" was used, as there is no represented "place"; the site of the performance represents itself. The 1810 text, which follows a very similar pattern to that of 1797, includes a diagram of how the presenters were arranged around the head table where the "recipient" was seated. Something along this line could certainly have been used at the Hôpital Général as well. In any case the staging would have been non-illusionistic, and symbolic in nature.
As for props, it is not even possible to assume that the characters carried real bouquets of the flowers they presented to Mother Saint-Alexis in 1797 and to M. Roque in 1810. Although the pansies, carnations, myrtil, marigolds and strawflowers would have been no problem for the late July and August performances, and it would have been possible to find a second flush of wild rose blooms, the iris would have been long past their blooming time, and the jasmine, a temperate-climate plant, would have had to have been cultivated indoors. Again, the props may have had to be symbolic, not realistic. No props are mentioned for the 1727 or 1800 pieces, but with the strong shepherd motif in the latter example, it is hard not to imagine at least some of the actors carrying shepherds' crooks.
For the following translations, I have tried to note as much biographical and situational information as possible; however, I include the material as textual notes following each translation rather than extend the introduction. I have also supplied line numbering (along the right margin) and indicated (on the left margin) the pagination of the original source texts. In addition, the editorial additions included here for contextual and staging information are indicated in italics.
NOTES
1 Only Le théâtre
de Neptune, the first of the six extant réceptions, was
actually published by its author. Lescarbot included the text in his collection
of poetry, Les muses de la Nouvelle France, quite clearly not as
a play for repeated performance, but sandwiched between two poems of farewell.
Return to Article
2 What! He would be Minerva!
/ Yes Minerva, herself. / Who long ago disguised herself as another Mentor.
Return to Article
3 The Hôpital Général
de Québec site is now well within the borders of modern Quebec City
at 260 boulevard Langelier. The site no longer fronts the St. Charles River
since canalisation in the 1930's straightened the channel which now flows
several hundred metres to the north of the hospital.
Return to Article
4 R.P. Charlevoix, "C'est la plus belle maison du Canada... et elle ne déparerait point nos plus grandes villes de France." (MSV 252)
Return to Article
5 Letter from Juliette
Cloutier, AMJ, Archivist for Hôpital Général, September
26, 1996.
Return to Article
SELECTED SOURCES
Allaire, L'Abbé, J.-B.-A. Dictionnaire biographique du clergé canadien-français. Vols I-V. Montréal: L'Ecole Catholique des Sourds Muets, 1910-32.
Beaudet, Louis. Québec, ses monuments anciens et modernes. Québec, 1890. Rpt. Société historique de Québec, 1973.
Cameron, Christine and Jean Trudel. Québec au temps de James Patterson Cockburn. Québec: Garneau, 1976.
Carrier, Maurice and Monique Vachon. Chansons politiques du Québec. Tome 1, 1765-1833. Montréal: Leméac, 1977.
Chevalier, Jean, ed. Dictionnaire des symboles. Paris: Laffont, 1969.
Delaney, John J. Dictionary of Saints. New York: Doubleday, 1980.
Dictionary of Canadian Biography [DCB], vols.I-IV. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1966-.
Gravelaine, Frédérique. Encyclopédie des prénoms. Paris: Laffont, 1989.
Hôpital Général de Québec. Du convent des Recollets à aujourd'hui: 300 ans d'histoire. (pamphlet series, #1-13) October 1992 - October 1993.
Jetté, Renée. Dictionnaire généalogique des familles du Québec des origines à 1730. Montréal: Univ. de Montréal, 1983.
Lahaise, Robert. Les édifices conventuels du Vieux Montréal. Montréal: Hurtubise, 1980.
Le Clercq, Chrestien. Établissement de la foy dans la Nouvelle France. 2 vols. Paris: Amable Auroy, 1691.
Malo, Charles. Les chanson d'autrefois. Paris: Jules Laisné, 1861.
Maurault, Olivier. Le Collège de Montréal 1767-1967. 2me édition (revue et mise à jour par Antonio Dansereau). Montréal: [n.p.], 1967.
Maurault, Olivier. Le Petit Séminaire de Montréal. Montréal: Derome, 1918.
Nissard, Charles. Des chansons populaires chez les anciens et chez les français. Paris: E. Dentu, 1867.
Oury, Guy-Marie. Monseigneur de Saint-Vallier et ses pauvres 1653-1727. Sainte-Foy: Éditions La Liberté, 1993.
Tanguay, Cyprien. Dictionnaire généalogique des familles canadiennes depuis la fondation de la colonie jusqu'à nos jours. 7 vols. Montréal: E. Sénécal, 1871-90.
Volpi, Charles P. de. Québec: Recueil iconographique / A Pictorial Record. Trans. Jules Bazin. London: Longman, 1971.
Vries, Ad de. Dictionary of Symbols and Imagery. London: North-Holland, 1974.
Yonge, Charlotte M. History of Christian Names. London: Macmillan, 1884.