The History of Emily Montague

      As the first novel written about and set in Canada, Frances Brooke’s 1769 epistolary novel, The History of Emily Montague, contains surprisingly little insight into the political and socioeconomic realities of post-Conquest Quebec. In fact, what we can deduce is Brooke’s prejudice of colonialization. For example she portrays the land/landscape as both “naturally rich,” thus ideal for English gentleman farmers to cultivate, and as “sublimity” itself, in order to entice their wives to accompany them (letters 22 and 131). The lives of the protagonists are shown to be full of leisure and pleasant company, completely removed from and unaffected by the “squabbling at Quebec” (letter 45). Hence, Brookes assures the English gentry that they can comfortably integrate into Canada without involvement in the inconveniences of “some dregs of old disputes” that they may be wary of encountering (letter 45). Other fears that potential colonists may have, such as of the harsh winters, uprisings by the French, or savageries by the native population, are all diffused. Thus the narrative is framed as an argument for the continued colonization of Quebec by Brooke’s audience: the English elite.

             This ideal settler resembles Ed Rivers and also his correspondent in England, John Temple: single, relatively wealthy, and healthy. Rivers provides his friend many examples as to the advantages of living in Canada which I read as Brooke’s appeal to such men. Even if most of her readers were likely women, Brooke’s narrative gives them arguments to convince their husbands to move to Canada. One such enticement is financial and social betterment. Rivers tells Temple that he “cannot live in England on [his] present income, though it enables [him] to live en prince in Canada” (letter 36, italics in original). Female readers could use this anecdotal evidence to prod their husbands into making the move. If these potential colonists were resistant to the hardships of cultivating the land of Canada, Brooke responds to this argument by emphasizing the fertility and availability of the land; one can be a gentleman farmer even in the New World. In fact, Rivers tells his sister that “the pleasure of cultivating lands here is ... much superior to what can be found in the same employment in England” (letter 7). This is partly due to the “extreme fertility” of the “naturally rich” soil which makes growing crops possible even for the most lazy (letter 22). Furthermore Rivers points out that the land is available to those that come to settle it; again to his sister, Rivers writes that the “far greater part [of the land] remains unpossest, and courts the hand of labour for cultivation” (letter 2). The “wilds” of Canada are thus presented as tameable, even by the least experienced.

            The land beyond the farms and gardens and outside of the city limits is shown to be formidable, yet safe even for young single women to venture into. Here Brooke seems to be directly addressing her educated, leisurely female reading audience. She relieves their fears of the harsh wilderness so that they will not be resistant to their husbands’ plans to immigrate to America and may even encourage them to become colonists. To do so, Brooke has the character Arabella (Bell) Fermor emphasize the awe-inducing aspects of nature and minimize its dangers and hardships when addressing her friend, Ed Rivers’ sister Lucy. The comparison of the landscape and natural phenomena with that of England is one method of making this argument. For instance, s­he claims that the “thousand wild graces” of “bold, picturesque, romantic nature” that “reigns in all her wanton luxuriance” in Quebec “mock[s] the cultivated beauties of Europe” (letter 10). Thus “the thunder is more magnificent and aweful than in Europe, and the lightening brighter and more beautiful than in Europe” (letter 10). Note that here “aweful” takes on its significance of “inspiring awe” (Random House Dictionary 2011). Again describing the “wild magnificence” of Montmorenci Falls, she writes that “you are struck with an awe...from the grandeur of a scene, which is one of the noblest works of nature” (letter 81). Another hardship of Canadian life, that of the long, harsh winters, is also shown to be rather agreeable. Bell assures Lucy that “the season of which you seem to entertain such terrible ideas, is that of the utmost chearfulness and festivity” to such a degree that she considers a winter in Quebec to be “pleasanter ... than that of England” (letter 80 and 52). Winter is not to be dreaded, but rather enjoyed as the “season of general dissipation” in which “amusement is the study of every body” (letter 52). She estimates that there are only a dozen severely cold days in a winter (letter 80), but even these days are bearable because of furs and their “uncommonly warm” houses and carriages (letter 52). These fears are thus dissipated.

            Brooke realizes that others may be wary of entering a hostile political environment. To this end she portrays the French as lazy and ineffectual (See Letter 6 for example). In fact, the English protagonists rarely have to interact with the French so there is no cause for conflict. The C anadians are never shown to be a threat, but rather in need of English influence to overcome their superstitious, backwards religion and their inferior government structures (See Letter 117). As for the natives, although Rivers declares that war is “the business of their lives,” Bell passes an agreeable afternoon with several native women (letter 4 and 16). Anecdotal evidence shows the natives to engage in death dances and drinking the blood of Englishmen (letter 152 and letter 4) leading to the natural conclusion that increased English influence over these “savages” is needed (See letter 152). Thus, the French and the natives alike must be ruled by the English for their own good.