BORN AGAIN:
Chapter One
THE DESAUTELS NAME by E. Jay Desautels The name Desautels has been used for at least 650 years when it could be foundin the mid-1300’s in Burgundy. It was written as “desAutels” and isindexed in many European books under the letter A. “DES”is the contracted plural form of two French possessive words: “de”meaning OF and “les” meaning THE (plural). The Frenchword for altar is “autel” and the plural is “autels”. In French, the possessive article (des) must agree with the noun (autels)which designates both as a plural form. (The singular formwould be “de l’autel” – or “of the altar”.) Strictlytranslated into English desAutels is “of the altars”. The name appears with several military men during that period who were in theemploy of the Duke of Burgundy or his vassal, the Count of Charolais. Underthe feudal system the nobility gave lands to their military commanders therevenues from which were used to provide the military person with not only hisown expenses but often those of men under him. The land was worked by theserfs and sometimes independent tradesmen who provided the labor or productswhich produced these revenues. Near Charolais there is a city today called LeCreusot. This commercialcenter has eclipsed the town of Montecenis which is the seat of the localbarony. This is located at the foothills of the Morvan mountain range. Ithappens to be in the same area where the earliest known Desautels home waslocated and in the same area where old geographic maps show an area called”les autels”. It is at 4 degrees 27 minutes west by 46 degrees 40minutes north – or at Montcenis/LeCreusot. As a geographic designation, lesautels would have been used in old France to designate tablelands (the altaris a table), or plateaux. In the foothills of the southern Morvan mountainsthis feature is not uncommon. Many travel and tour books show pictures ofMount St. Vincent (which is not too distant from Montcenis) and it is aperfect example of the type of tableland in the region. This is just south ofMontceaux-les-Mines. There are other areas in France with similar designations: les Autels St.Basile (60 KM south of LeHavre); les autels (halfway between Reims andCharleroi); and Beaumont les Autels (70 KM northeast of LeMans). It isunlikely that there is any family connection to these locations since noDesautels has been noted with any connection to them but there is always apossibility. Surnames were not officially hereditary until the early 1500’s in Francealthough the custom had begun to be practiced in the 1400’s. Prior to thatonly landed nobles and military personages passed on their”surnames” which were, in effect, titles. The Desautels surname,used by several people in the same area during the period preceding widespreador mandated usage would have been one of them. Ecclesiastics often used thenames of their cities or parishes or Dioceses but, of course, these were notpassed on to their heirs (of which there should have been none). Ordinarycitizens used names which indicated their profession, some personalcharacteristic or appearance or perhaps a feature of the land where theylived. These were not permanent or hereditary until early in the 16th century.If a baker became a blacksmith, so too his name changed. A person who builtchurches or crafted altars would certainly have used the name desAutels but hewould not have continued the use of that name as a soldier, a tailor, etc. Instudying the many truly outstanding, magnificent basilicas, cathedrals,churches and shrines in and around southern Burgundy which was one of the mostimportant centers in all of Christendom, it would have been both plausible andprideful that the construction accounts would mention even one reference to adesAutels – but, alas, they do not. We must, I am afraid, resign ourselves toa military-political- geographical origin for the name. In the New World the name is not attached to any significant landmark. Inaddition to a few streets on both sides of the US-Canada border from Montrealto the far west, the name is honored only by a small town in northeasternWashington State and not only is the town considered a “ghost town”but the name is spelled Disautel. This was settled by French-Canadians whomostly married into the Spokane Indian tribe. It is located on Route 155 onthe Omak River between the towns of Omak and Nespelem. Canadians referto the descendants of these early settlers as “metis”. Theintermarriage of French and Indian was not only common and widespread but wasalso without prejudice to race. Many examples of intermarriage can be foundwhere nobles, officials and prominent Frenchmen married Indians all acrossNorth America. One of the most perplexing issues to face the person researching the Desautelsfamily is the multitude of various spellings in use over the centuries. Thesecan be found in both public and church records and in both French and Englishareas of North America although the majority of the problems seem to haveoccurred when the French left Quebec for other areas – primarily the UnitedStates during the 1800’s. This was due to several factors: the illiteracy ofsome Frenchmen; lack of ability to communicate between French and English;English speaking civil clerks who lacked knowledge of the French language.Many of these misspellings became the eventual version of the name used bywhole branches of the family. As a result, we now have variations of the namesuch as Disotel, Dezatell, Deshotel and others which are even lessrecognizable. Birth records were often filled out (if at all) by a doctor or apriest. In addition to making mistakes in spelling, they sometimes did not usethe correct first names for either the parents or the child. They oftenrecorded more common or “nicknames” on every type of legal andchurch document. Also, a name like Marie Antoinette in Quebec wouldprobably become simply Mary or Nettie or Etta on the American side of theborder. My great-grandfather Cleophas became John in Vermont. Add to that the widespread use of “dit” names. These were somewhatof a reversion to the old European custom of calling someone by what they did,where they lived or what they looked like. The word “dit” (“dite”for a female) translates to “said” or “called” in English.The dit name for Desautels was Lapointe. This is the name our forefather,Pierre Desautels the pioneer at Montreal in 1653 was given when he receivedhis land grant at Longue Pointe, Montreal in 1665 (or, more accurately, thesouthern end of Longue Pointe at Cote St. Martin). This point of land – which juts into the St. Lawrence River and which is now a part of the Port ofMontreal at the end of Viau Street – is shown on older maps as moreprominent than it is today. It is now less recognizable as a truepoint of land since being developed (reconfigured) to accomodate thedocking of large ships. I have often wondered if Pierre did not havesome sort of residence at this point prior to it being granted to him byMaisonneuve. This would account for his absence from early censusrecords since the land was officially in the hands of another”habitant” previous to being granted to Pierre and the fact that theLapointe name as a dit name for Pierre first appears in Maisonneuve’s ownhandwriting on the document granting this tract to Pierre – even before hetook actual possession. Pierre used the name Desautels but his descendants also used thename Desautels dit Lapointe and Lapointe. One must be careful with theLapointe name since most of the Lapointe’s today descend from the Audet andTousignan families as well as others. Also, there are records of persons namedLapointe who arrived in the New World with that name. At least two came withthe Carrignan-Salieres Regiment in the 1660’s. If you care to use your imagination, you could easily construct a name usingany of the possibilities below and probably not be the first to use thatversion: D: d, TE: a, iS: ss, zAU: o, a, i, ho, hos, hau, haus, Au, aulT: havn’t found any version without this letterE: ei, – (sometimes not used at all)L: llS: e, es, z, – (sometimes not used at all)note: the ELS can be found as LES (as in Desautles) And this does not include the name d’Autel which you will find later in thisrecord. We have noted several willful changes of the name such as Doty, Dewey andOtell and have observed census entries as absurd as Tassotel and Dasseltel. We can conclude that some family members will never be found or connected dueto these factors. Perhaps the “Smith” or “Jones”next door has a paternal lineage going back to some Desautels ancestor whosimply became weary of trying to keep his name correct once he left thecultural safety of the Quebec region. This would account for the manypages in this book where a particular branch or family simply disappear intohistory. One surname listing gives the origin as an absurd deviation of Sautelle(little drunkard) which was undoubtedly a dit name for the “scholar”who penned it.
Chapter Two
THE DESAUTELS COAT OF ARMS by E. Jay Desautels To many Americans the idea of a coat of arms brings visions of knights inshining armor on white horses; gallant heroes saving everyone from everything.The story is not complete without the damsel in distress who is, of course, aprincess. And her father, the King, sallies forth from his castle with a hostof knights to welcome his daughter and gratefully offer her hand in marriage -and half his kingdom – to her rescuing hero. Those were the days. Or werethey? Even Americans, however, know a fairy tale when they hear one. Theproblem arises when cultures clash – or at least diverge which they do herebetween the French and the English. Most of us know the myths of Camelot where the banners of the Knights of theRound Table assured us of their true nobility. And the English would have usbelieve that only a noble is entitled to display a coat of arms which is, ofcourse, a fact. That is perhaps why Burke’s book on peerage of Englishnobility is a large enough book to contain the telephone directories of everycity in Britain. While the English went to the trouble of ennobling everyonewho was then entitled to display their coat of arms, the French were not someticulous. The French did not associate coats of arms strictly with nobilitynor do they associate them with the accompanying Anglo-Saxon myths. Early armsin France were used by soldiers who, wearing armor, needed some way toidentify themselves – especially in combat. These arms usually denoted thefief or lands under the control of the bearer or his liege lord. It was not long before arms were adopted by the nobility. Eventually commonersbegan to use them in spite of edicts issued by the king which strictlyprohibited this. Even clerics and women were known to have their own coats ofarms but they generally differed in the trappings which normally accompaniedthe arms. About the only prohibition which was strictly enforced was the banon the use of the fleur-de-lis on any but the royal banners. Other than that,the ancient do’s and don’ts of heraldry (which was born and codified inFrance) went by the wayside in both their design and display sometime around1400. The early Desautels seem to have been military men if not knights(chevaliers). They would undoubtedly have displayed some banner under whichthey fought. If it was not a banner of their own then they would have foughtunder a banner signifying the Count of Charroles or the Duke of Burgundy.A coat of arms was registered under the Desautels name at the French NationalArchives in 1696 the year the King issued an edict which permitted thewholesale registry of arms to any and all who could afford it. The King neededmoney for the treasury which had been depleted by incessant wars. This was sosuccessful that the Kings’ registrars quickly made the purchase of armsmandatory. They even went so far as to design the arms and “bestow”them on a person who not only had not ever had arms, had not requested armsbut now had to pay out a large sum of money for the privilege of having them.In some cases, clerics were presented with arms which denoted themes whichwere anything but religious and were – as the rest of the populace, forced topay for them. The abuse was so unpopular that the edict was rescinded in 1701. When the registry of arms was offered “for sale” the family had beenaround for hundreds of years and it is fair to say that they did not fightunder the arms recorded in 1696. Also, this was 43 years after the arrival ofPierre Desautels of Malicorne-sur-Sarthe in Montreal in 1653 so, in allprobability, he can be ruled out as the registree. This means that some personnamed Desautels remaining in France would have registered either an armspre-existing but not before registered or one that was designed at the time.It is probable that the latter is the case since: a). the altar (autel)portrayed on this banner would have had no symbolism for the first recorded(known) Desautels who had been around for at least 300 years and had noapparent direct connection to the church or to the building of churches oraltars and b). the best-guess geographic origin of the name has apreponderance of merit to establish the area of “les Autels” inBurgundy as the source of the titular name of desAutels and also c). the factthat there is no Desautels of prominence who has been noted in the late 1600’swho would have earned these arms. Had that Desautels of 1696 known then what we know today, any authentic armswould probably have been a little less “French” (azure blue) andwould have been more militarily symbolic and might have included a geographic(mountain/tableland/plateau) symbol rather than a religious one. It would mostlikely indicate some connection to its long Burgundian affiliation and/or toCharrolais. Although I am convinced that the coat of arms registered in theFrench National Armory is contrived and without merit, it nonetheless doesexist and so is presented here as an historical fact. It is described as “D’AZUR A UN AUTEL D’OR SURMONTEE D’UN COEUR DU MEME”.This translates to “Azure (a distinct shade of blue) having an altar ofgold surmounted (overhead) by a gold heart”. A motto has been attributedto it by some sources but in the sources I have seen it was not included. Itis “Plutot mourir que changer”. “Rather die than change”seems to be the translation which is appropriate to a lot of Desautels but Iam informed that it translates as “Ready to die rather thansurrender”. If that is correct could we then return again to the militaryconnection? Apparently not. If these were military arms the crest (shield)would, by armorial standards, have a crown (helmet) over the crest. It doesnot. If the motto is in fact a part of the registered crest, I would like topicture some Desautels hapless enough to have had an extra “livre”in his pocket for the king’s registrars to grab but being courageous enough toinsist on an offhanded sarcasm in adding the motto “….. even after myBurgundy has been dead for 200 years, I still would……rather die thanchange”. Many people use the term “family crest” to refer to their coatof arms. This is inaccurate since a crest (a helmet or other adornmentsurmounting the shield) is a specified addendum which had strict prohibitionsfor use other than military. There is compelling evidence that theearliest Desautels were men-at-arms. Even this probably contrived 1696coat of arms does not contain a provision for any external ornamentation tothe shield in the official registration specifications. The following is my depiction of the arms. With the one exception notedbelow it is as plausible a version of the registered standard as any other. No “proscribed” visual depiction exists and it is left (as it wasmeant to be) to the artistic touch of any who would care to manufacture one. It would be highly characteristic of the French to embellish their arms withaccents, colors and symbolism not necessarily contained in the registereddescription. In accord with this tradition I have chosen to include inthe altar design three gold fleur-de-lis on a white background. Thestandard of the king of France was a white banner with three gold fleur-de-lis(“The White and The Gold”). Including this on any arms otherthan his was strictly forbidden. In the 21st century he is no longerable to present his objections. I have broken the taboo…..Pierre wouldhave recognized this symbolism even if he would not have known that the banneritself was indicative of his family name and heritage. In addition to this I have chosen to include sparingly as accents and borderstwo other colors. Bronze is used solely as a contrasting effect to goldand blue. Burgundy accents are not accidental. The color addsrichness and life to an otherwise stark rendering. Moreso, the colorburgundy has a nominal significance: the House of Burgundy isthe ancestral fidelity of the early men who carried the desAutels name.
Chapter Three
THE DESAUTELS IN FRANCE – THEN AND NOW by E. Jay Desautels The story of the Desautels family may never be traced so as to include everyperson who has used that name but it is my intention to make an attempt to doso. For that reason, I will list in this section as well as various othersections every person with that name or its various spellings of which Ibecome aware in the hope that, in time, all of them will eventually beproperly placed in the branch and family in which they were born. Some of what you will find here is the result of the travels of the late FredW. Desautels of Redford Township, Detroit, Michigan as well as of my ownresearch done here in America. It is by no means perfect, complete or evendocumented in some cases. Much is left to the efforts of future scholars butthis is provided as at least a base from which to start. The earliest persons to use the name were Burgundians located in what is nowcentral-eastern France. Perhaps it is because of Burgundy’s not always pro-frenchallegiances that the family presence seems to have remained provinciallyBurgundian throughout the first 400 years of its recorded existence in Europe.The exception is the Desautels in Malicorne-sur-Sarthe, Maine, France fromwhom the family in America descends. Every other recorded name and event isassociated with persons and locations from Lyon northward toward and includingBelgium. All of these were either under the control of the House of Burgundyor under their influence. In 1253 Henri de Monestoy granted the Barony of Montcenis to Hugues,Duke of Burgundy. It would appear that the earliest Desautels (desAutels) camefrom that area. The Barony of Montcenis was under the Count of Charolles.Montcenis still exists on some maps today but it has in reality been absorbedinto the city of LeCreusot in the southern Morvan mountains known for theircoal deposits and surely the source of the plateau or tableland features fromwhich the “autels” (altars) designation of the family nameoriginates. Montcenis/LeCreusot lies about 28 miles north, northwest of Cluny,about 12 miles south of Autun, about 25 miles north of Charolles and about 70miles north, northwest of Lyon. As a point of curiousity as you will notebelow (see Guillaume), Montcenis is about 50 miles southeast of Vezelay. In alisting for “Les Autels”, one reference gives the map coordinates as4 degrees by 46 degrees – squarely near Montcenis. GUIOT DESAUTELS was the Captain of the Guard at Mount St. Vincent (in theMontcenis area but just south of Montceau les Mines) for the Compte deCharolles in 1380.Also in 1380 ALOF DESAUTELS, a knight with 20 archers and his son SYACRE(Fiacre) were recorded at Burgundy. They would have served under the banner ofCharolles and Burgundy if not their own. Another SYACRE (Fiacre) DESAUTELS, born circa 1500 and died between 1551 and1553 married Anne de Vesure (de la Vesine). They were the parents of GuillaumeDesautels, a writer quite famous in his day. Syacre left his son a chateau andlands “rather noble than rich” at Montcenis. It cannot be leftunsaid that the chateau and lands in question were surely in fief to theBarony of Montcenis since, in 1510 a man named Loys d’Orleans who was also aMarquis, Compte, Prince and Viscompte also carried the title of Seigneur de laBaronnaie de Montcenis. The poverty of the estate could have been due to theloss of these lands by the Duke of Burgundy to the King of France in 1477 -only about 75 years before Syacre’s death. GUILLAUME DESAUTELS (desAutels, desAutelz) is the first person to carry thename about whom much is known. He was born at Montcenis, Charolais, Burgundyin 1529 at the chateau of his father at Puley called the “manoir deVernoble” near Bissy. He died about 1599 at Lyon. Various sources givethe years 1570, 1576, 1579 and 1581 as well as “after 1584”. Onesource says he lived to be 70 years of age and I have chosen to accept thatbased on the fact that his last published work was in 1597. He was married in1548 to Jeanne de Bruyere. Other researchers give the name of Jane de Salle.It is not known if there were any children from this marriage. His mothers’ mother, also named Anne, was the sister of Etienne de Tyard,father of Pontus de Tyard, one of the seven members of the elite group ofFrench poets called the Pleiades. Guillaume would thus have been his firstcousin once removed on his mothers side. Pontus (1521-1605) Seigneur deBissy (Biffy) became the Bishop of Chalon-sur-Saone in 1578 from where he wasdriven in 1590 and his chateau there plundered as a result of his support forKing Henry III of France against the Guise Pretenders. As a youth, Guillaume studied under his governor, Jean Tullerius and at thecollege of Burgundy where he studied the humanities and philosophy until 1542.He then went to Lyon from 1544 to 1546 where he studied with Fontaine andAncais at the school of Marat. He studied law at the university at Valence inDauphine from 1546 until 1549 under Coras. He never practiced the legalprofession although he would have had need for it as judge magistrate at Clunyin later years. While at Valence he made the acquaintance of CardinalBerthelemy Des Places, Melin de St. Gelais and his own cousin, Pontus de Tyard(although he probably already had met him in Burgundy) among others. It wasduring this period he was married to Jeanne de Bruyere whom he left atMontcenis to stay with his father. Apparently lonely at Valence and only 20 years of age, he met a woman namedDenise L’hoste and her husband Jean Chabert of the nearby town of Romans, alsoin Dauphine. He took up residence with them in October 1549 and lived therefor seven months during which time he and Denise developed a platonic loveaffair. She referred to him as “Sainte”. He then returned toMontcenis (which he referred to sarcastically as an “arid desert”)in 1550 where he joined his wife and stayed until 1553. It was during thistime that his father died and apparently left him little but his good name. He left for Paris in 1553 hoping to secure an appointment with the King. Whilethere he befriended Cardinal de Guise who was probably the source (directly orindirectly) of his well-being during these six years in Paris which he left inApril, 1559. He went to Spain in the hope of gaining the favor of theBurgundian-Hapsburg rulers there. For whatever reason he immediately sailedfor Belgium which was also ruled by the same Burgundian-Hapsburg houses. Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and ruler of much of Europe until his abdicationin 1555 was the grandson of Mary of Burgundy who was sole heir to that housewhen her father was killed in battle in 1477 and France absorbed the provinceof Burgundy into the French realm. She married a Hapsburg (probably to saveher remaining power if not her skin). When Charles V abdicated his son PhilipII became King and it was to him at Brussels that Guillaume set his gaze. Hewas there a mere two months when he left Brussels for Antwerp (Anvers, fr.)but was there only a few weeks. He was named Cartographer to the King for thisshort time and was probably so short a time because Philiip II, unhappy atBrussels left permanently for residence in Spain. Guillaume was aided atBrussels by two “beau-freres” brothers-in-law named Diamantius.Since that is not his wife’s maiden name, it would appear that he had siblings- at least sisters – unless these two men possibly were husbands to sisters ofGuillaume’s wife. Guillaume returned to Paris shortly after July 1559 where he stayed until1564. Sometime after that he was at Cluny Abbey where he was appointed JudgeMagistrate and is credited with saving the city and the Abbey for the Churchwhen it was under seige by the Huguenot armies. Guillaume proposed that eachside send out three knights to do battle. The Catholic knights won the fieldand thus saved what was (until St. Peter’s in Rome) the greatest church inChristendom from the hands of the protestants – only to be destroyed 200 yearslater by the republican mobs of the French Revolution. He is known as a minor poet. While he wrote in the french language he is knownfor championing the use of old french in prose and poetry and was againstreplacing it with a more “manufactured” orthography. He wasreknowned for his mastery of Latin and Greek. He wrote in the manner ofRabelais and Ronsard – other members of what we call today “ThePleiades”. Ronsard (as well as another poet, Charles Fontaine), wasundoubtedly his friend and wrote fondly of Guillaume. It is from his work thata reference to Guillaume says that he is “from Vernoble” a referncesince confirmed. Guillaume wrote on occasion under the pseudonyms of Glaumalisdu Vezelet, G. Tesbault and Terhault. It is interesting to note that he used alatin form of his name (“Altario”) and, more interesting, ageographical form: “Terhault” translates to “high ground”or perhaps even tableland. He published works mostly at Lyon but also atParis, Antwerp and Rouen. Claims have surfaced that Guillaume was a member of the Pleiades. This isfalse. There were only seven members (as there are stars in that constellationfor which they are named). For the record, they were: Joachim duBellay andPierre Ronsard (the leaders) and Jean Antoine deBaif, Remi Belleau, Jean Dorat,Etienne Jodelle and our own Pontus deTyard (Thiard). Guillaume would haveknown most if not all of these men and is better known for his support forthem in their use of the French language (as it existed then) in their poetry. Some Desautels in Paris and Lyon today claim to be his descendants. In Paristhe family manufactures dolls. In Lyon they are in silk, wine and electronicsproduction and in engineering. The family silk business goes back manygenerations and it is not a great leap from that to being a tailor of clothingas we shall see later in the Desautels at Malicorne. Indeed, the silk trade atLyon goes back to medieval times and Lyon, the ancient Roman city of Lugdunumwas an important trading center as well as a strategic military post and vitallink in the network of Roman civilization. I am sorely tempted to makephysical anthropological statements regarding strong Desautels family featuresand the striking similarities in Italo-Roman physical characteristics. Fred aswell as myself have been able to find far distant cousins in differentgenerations who are nearly identical to one another. The phenomenon is notrare. The following is as comprehensive a list of Guillaume’s works as I couldassemble from many various sources. Not all were published by him and not allcontain only his works.Traite Touchant L’Ancienne Ecriture de la Langue Francaise et de la Poesie,Contre L’Ortographie des Meygretistes. Lyon, 1548, 1550 Glaumalis de VezeletLe Mois de Mai, par Guillaume Des Autels, Charrolais. Lyon, 1550Repos de Grand Travail. Lyon, 1550Replique de Guillaume Des Autelz, aux Furieuses Defenses de Louis Meigret.Avec le Suite de Repos. Lyon, 1551Amoureux Repos de Guillaume des Autelz, Gentilhomme Charrolais. Lyon, 1553(contains some poetry under the penname G. Tesbault)Recreation des Tristes. LyonHistoire D’Herodiade. 1554La Paix Venue du Ciel (dedicated to the Bishop of Arras) with le Tombeau deL’Empereur Charles V Cesar, etc. Antwerp, 1559Encomium Galliae Belgicae. Guillaume Altario Carolate Antwerp, 1559Remonstrance au People Francoys – etc. Paris, 1559Repos de Plus Grand Travail of 1550 was reprinted in 1560 at LyonDeliciae Poetarum Gallorum Hujus Superiorieque Avi Illustrum, 1560 (notentirely his works)Harengue au Peuple Francois – etc. Paris, 1560Le Premiere Livre de Vers de Marc-Claude de Busset. 1561Mitistoire Barragouyne de Fanfreluche et Gaudichon – etc.Lyon, 1574 (or 1576)(reputed to have been written while Guillaume was at Valence)Gelodacyre Amoureuse, Contenant Plusiers Aubades, Chansons Gaillardes, Pavanes.1576La Recreation et Passetemps des Tristes – etc. Rouen, 1595 (and 1597) Due to the wealth of information profferred here, the author deems it helpfulto provide at least a partial bibliography to aid anyone wishing to lookfurther into the life and works of Guillaume.Dictionnaire des Biographies, p. 427 DesAutels; Pierre Grimal, 1958 PressesUniversitaire de FranceA Critical Bibliography of French Literature – The 16th Century Revised (varpps), DesAutelsDictionnaire de Biographie Francaise, Vol. V, pp 1194-1196 DesAutelsSame, Vol. X Prevost and D’Amat, 1948Memoir Pour Servir a L’Histoire des Hommes Illustre Dans la Republique desLettres, Vol. V, pp 14-21 DesAutels by Jean-Pierre Niceron, 1734Biographie Universelle – Ancienne et Moderne Vol. 3, pp 92, 93 Autelz, des;Chalmers, 1811Nouvelle Biographie Universelle, Vol. 3, p. 786 Autelz, des; Hoefer, 1852Chalmers Biographic Dictionary, Vol. 3, pp 197, 198 Autels, des; 1812Index Aureliensis, Prima Pars, Tomus XI, Koerner, Baden-Baden 1996 pp 459-461DesAutelsAlso, I have found many references to what was written about Guillaume invarious sources which refer back to “Les Bibliotheque Francoises de duVerdier et de la CROIX-DU-MAINE”. I have not researched this work sinceI understand that it is available only at Columbia University (in NorthAmerica).
Listed here are other persons who used the name Desautels in France whoseconnections are not known. Some of them would seem to have been contemporariesof our Pierre of Malicorne (see below) and perhaps even of his parents.
MARIE DESAUTELS, d. 1678, wife of Noe Pertois lived in Marne, France which ispart of the ancient Province of ChampagneJEAN DESAUTELS, m. November 13, 1674 at Sandaucourt, Vosges, France to ClairePonel. Vosges is part of the ancient Province of Lorraine.ANNE DESAUTELS, born May 3, 1675 at Vosges, daughter of Jean Desautels andClaire PonelNICOLAS DESAUTELS, chr. September 11, 1677 at VosgesJEAN (m) DESAUTELS, chr. December 15, 1678 at VosgesMARIE DESAUTELS, chr. August 16, 1680 at VosgesANTHOINE DESAUTELS, b. August 31, 1681 at VosgesELISABETH DESAUTELS, b. November 21, 1682 at VosgesJEANNE DESAUTELS, b.c. 1700 at Of, Poyans, Cote d’OrJEANNE DESAUTELS, m.c. 1727, France to Dominique Malisson-Philibert (probablythe same Jeanne) Note that the Dept. of Cote d’Or is just north of the Dept. of Saone et Loire(both of which were part of ancient Burgundy). Saone et Loire is the site ofthe Parish “du Breuil” which is “…dependait de la Baronnie deMontcenis”. Breuil is located in LeCreusot.Also in written records there are persons from Saone et Loire (Burgundy) whowereJEAN DESAUTELS, m. Antoinette Ducarrouge (De Carouges)JEAN DESAUTELS, m. Claude MonnierJACQUES DESAUTELS, b. 1661 m. Marie Dagonneau Listed here are several men who were named d’Autel and whose family connectionis questionable.HUE (Huard, Hubert) d’AUTEL, d. 1415 was the Senechal of Luxembourg in 1363and was a very powerful man in the affairs of both the Holy Roman Empire andFrance. He was killed in the historic battle of Agincourt (on the losingside). His son, JEAN d’AUTEL married in 1387 to Jeanne, daughter of Geoffroyd’Apremont became Senechal of Luxembourg but was banished in 1418. (Dictionnairede Biographie Francoises, Vol. IV, 1948, Prevost and D’Amat) JEAN-FREDERIC d’AUTEL, Comte, baron of Vogelsang, governor and captain-generalof the Duchy of Luxembourg, Knight of the Toisan d’Or; b. September 7, 1645 atLuxembourg and d. August 1, 1716. (Academie Royale des Sciences, des Lettreset des Beaux-Arts de Belgium)JEAN-MARTIN d’AUTEL, published a judicial disputation in 1680. (CatalogueGeneral Des Livres Imprimes de la Bibliotheque Nationale, Tome V, Paris, 1900) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * According to Fred Desautels, there are many Desautels in Paris and Lyon. Ihave seen lists in European books with names spelled with a final z.Unfortunately I cannot offer them here since that information was not recordedby me nor am I able to remember the sources. Those who can be found will beadded. For now, the Who’s Who In France 2000, Dictionnaire Biographique, 31stEdition lists:DESAUTEL, (ROGER, Phillippe, Jean) President de societies. He was b. February17, 1931 at Lyon the 4th son of Emile Desautel, directeur de societes and ofMarie Antoinette Monceau. He married March 25, 1961 to Chantal Pallier, Avocatand they have four children: Jerome, Eric, Pascale and Edouard. He has aninterest in history. Also, in Europe (England) are the following:EDGAR DESAUTELS, b. 1917 North Tonbridge, Kent, England (note this is WorldWar One period) ROBERT DESAUTELS, (1993 list) of Tunbridge Wells, Kent, EnglandETHEL DESAUTELS, (1993 list) of Tonbridge, Kent, EnglandROGER DESAUTELS, (1993 list) of London, EnglandHOWARD DESAUTELS, (1993 list) of Mitcham, Surrey, England The remainder of this collection of the Desautels family in France deals withthose members who lived at Malicorne-sur-Sarthe, Diocese of Mans (LeMans),Province of Maine, France and who are the direct ancestral family of thefather of all the Desautels in the New World. Perhaps some day we will makethe connections to Burgundy, Champagne and Lorraine but for now we must startwith Pierre Desautels the grandfather of our Pierre the pioneer at Montreal in1653. PIERRE DESAUTELS was born about 1565 and died November 28, 1618 at Malicorne.He married about 1592 to Renee Lebrun who was born about 1573 and diedFebruary 9, 1622 at Malicorne. Pierre was a tailor of mens clothing. Pierreand Renee had four known children:1. RENE DESAUTELS b.c. 1593, 1)m. November 28, 1618 at Malicorne to JacquineMartin. She died February 24, 1620 giving birth to a son, Philippe. He 2)m.February 4, 1621 at Malicorne to Renee Brundeau and they had two known sons:Martin (or Charles) b. February 4, 1623 and Pierre b. October 15, 1630 -both at Malicorne.2. ANNE DESAUTELS b.c. 1598 and d. September 4, 1606 at Malicorne3. THOMAS DESAUTELS b.c. 1603, d. September 21, 1663 at Malicorne m. July 10,1628 at Malicorne to Marie Marthe Buisson (Boison, Brisson) who was b. 1603and d. June 22, 1650 at Malicorne. Thomas was also a tailor of mens clothing.Marie Marthe was the daughter of Nicolas Buisson and Jacquine Samolier. Theyhad three known children and possibly a fourth named Thomas but the year givenfor his birth (1664) makes this unlikely.The oldest of these other three was PIERRE: b. April 4, 1631 Malicorne d. November 19, 1708Montreal, New France 1)m. January 11, 1666Montreal, New France – Marie Remy b. 1646 Paris, France d. November 11, 1675Montreal, New France 2)m. November 23, 1676Montreal, New France – Catherine Lorion b. 1636 St. Soule, LaRochelle, France (also said to have been born in Anjou, France d. April 20, 1720 Montreal,New France Pierre came to New France in 1653 and is the onlyDesautels known to have migrated to the New World. He is GenerationI of the Desautels Family in this record. His only certain siblings are:ADRIA(z) b. March 26, 1634 Malicorne and MARTIN b. October 21, 1637 Malicorne4. ANNE DESAUTELS b. January 27, 1608 at Malicorne (last of the known childrenof the above Pierre Desautels and Renee Lebrun. Fred used names in his correspondence which he associated with the Desautelsname of which he never explained the origin or where he found them. They are”Pulay et Geverdey”. I regret that I did not pursue this with him.He used them as titles appended to the name: “…..Desautels du Pulay etGeverdey”. Perhaps he would also have added “et de Vernoble”had he read the reference in Ronsard’s writing regarding our family poetGuillaume desAutels and the confirmation of that in “Memoirs Pour Servir…etc.”by J.P. Niceron, 1734 (available in more recent reprints). It is only recentlythat I have found the verification for and location of the Pulay (Puley)reference. I can only hope that Fred would be so pleased with all of thisinformation that he would be planning his next trip to Europe to “visithis cousins”. In this age of information, the internet almost daily provides new members ofthe family not only in the New World but in the Old: Since this articlewas first assembled, the author has noted several Desautels additions in otherwebsites…among which is francogene. It will only end when somebetter researcher establishes our connection to Adam and Eve Desautels.
Chapter Four
PIERRE DESAUTELS AND HIS MONTREAL by E. Jay Desautels A FEW ACRES OF SNOW………AND EVERY TREE AN IROQUOIS Voltaire’s description of Canada (said in derision)as “a few acres of snow” aptly puts into words at least theunofficial attitude of the greater part of the Ancient Regime towardNew France. Few resources were wasted on this empire and the rewardswere commensurate with the efforts. On the other hand, Maisonneuve whowould have founded a city at Montreal “if every tree were anIroquois” (said in defiance) not only epitomizes the best of Canada butthe embodiment of its heart and soul and its reason for being. It ismore than sad to note that he has not been buried in the land which claimedhis heart. Without his tenacity there was no Montreal and withoutMontreal there could be no Canada. The information contained herein has been extrapolatedfrom several sources. It is not presented to make a political statement nor isit meant to be judgmental of the past or the present. It is presented asbackground which the author has selected to portray the life and times ofour Pierre Desautels in the hope of understanding the motivations if not thepersonality of this pioneering ancestor. At times, the author couldnot help but feel the frustration and bitterness Pierre must have felt whileexperiencing the setbacks, tragedies and power struggles all too apparent asthe story of Montreal unfolds. Where offered, commentary is meant toreflect what Pierre himself would probably have felt at the time. Mostof us would find it difficult to permanently and with total finality walkaway from our present lives. Not only did Pierre do this but he livedduring a period which saw profound changes not only occasioned by theexpected and unexpected experiences of frontier life but also by constantinterjections of old world pettiness which would shake the foundations ofhis society, his family, his faith and his very reason for being A Man OfMontreal. Jacques Cartier (under Francis I of France) was the firstEuropean to set foot in Montreal in 1535. He found a friendly Huron villagewhich was stockaded and called it Hochelega. The Indians took him to themountain which sits in the center of the Island and he gave it the name MontReal (Mount Royal). It was from this site that Cartier proclaimed to seewhat he thought to be the Kingdom of Saguenay which, from Indianaccounts of tribes east of the region of what is now Quebec City, hadsounded to him as if it were a highly advanced and rich dominion. Atthe Saguenay River, these Indians had told him of this land and the provinceof “Kanada” which is Huron/Iroquois for “settlement oflodges”. It is worth noting that on his subsequent trip in 1541he makes no mention of the village of Hochelaga. In 1603 Samuel de Champlain reached this same site butfound the Indian village gone. He laid out plans for a settlement on thesite in 1611 which was later to be named Place Royale. It waslocated at a narrows which were formed by the nearly impassablerapids which literally surround the Island of Montreal. The Indianword for narrows was “kebec” which is of course why Quebec City isso named for the narrows there. The term was not applied to Montrealsince the “narrows” there were decisively lethal “rapides”. They were impassable for larger ships and difficult even for smaller ones. They were called “saults” and inferred an almost certain tragicfate to those who would attempt passage through them. It is worth noting here that the Huron (Wyandot) tribe ofthe Iroquois family was primarily sandwiched territorially between theIroquois tribes of the Hudson Valley and the Algonquin tribeslocated to the north. This would have been primarily the area ofsouthern Ontario between the St. Lawrence River and the Ottawa River. The Algonquin lands ran north of the Great Lakes and geographically eastthrough the St. Lawrence Valley out to the Atlantic and down into LongIsland Sound in New York State. They included the Abenaki and Montagnaistribes which, along with the Huron, remained allies of and friendly to theFrench for the most part throughout the nearly 250 years of theirsovereignty over the northern territory of New France. Other tribes ofthe Algonquin family along the east coast had little or no affiliation withthe French and these included the Chippewas, Micmac, Naragansett andDelaware. It would be of help here to note that many of thenames which you will see in this account such as Place Royale, Ville Marie,Longue Pointe, etc. have been replaced over the years by the name by whichthat modern city is known, Montreal…even though the original Mont Realdesignation applied only to the mountain in the center of the island. Ingeneral, in France at that time “Montreal” was not so much aplace but a concept of a wild land to be brought into the Christian,civilized world. Please note also that all directional references usedhere are as found by compass point. Montreal Island lies mostlynorth-south but is usually referred to as east-west by residents there. The Company of One Hundred Associates had beengranted a charter by the king of Frence in 1627 for all of theterritory of New France in the St. Lawrence region including the Island ofMontreal. Among the many partitions of this charter, the Company grantedthe Seigneurie of Montreal to the Sieur de la Chausseu in 1636 althoughthis amounted to little more than an economic giveaway to Chausseu forprofiteering in the fur trade. The Company of Montreal (Societe de Notre Dame deMontreal) was founded in Paris in 1639, notably by Jerome leRoyer, Sieur de la Dauversiere, his friend the Baron de Fancamp – both ofLaFleche – and the Abbe Jacques Olier of Paris. These three who were thefounders of the Company of Montreal were men who had become part of themovement for “montreal” and who, as a result of a near mysticalvision shared nearly identically but independently by Dauversiere andOlier, had bought the rights to the Island. Chausseau relinquished hisseigneural rights in 1639 to the Intendant of the Association, Jean deLauson who, in turn, signed it over to Dauversiere on August 7, 1640. Dauversiere appointed Paul de Chomedey, Sieur deMaisonneuve as the Governor of Montreal. Maisonneuve landed at Place Royaleon May 18, 1642 with about fifty associates. These were the first permanentsettlers and, by some accounts, would today be considered religious zealotsif not cultists. They were contracted for a period of five years. They wereto be paid full wages as per their trade at the going rate and were to begiven room and board. The contract also guaranteed them free passage home atthe end of the term. They were accompanied by Msgr. de Montmagny theGovernor of New France at Quebec who had handed over the rights andprivileges to the sovereign colony of Montreal Island. The onlyexception to this independence was that the Company of One HundredAssociates reserved the right to their monopoly of the fur trade. Thissplit in the sovereinty of Montreal would prove later to be an immense partof the french failure of their North American empire. The men who originally came with Maisonneuve built asmall fort on the site and it was soon named Ville Marie (City ofMary) in honor of the Patroness of the founding society upon hearingthat the Company of Montreal had solemnly dedicated the Island to the HolyFamily under the special protection of the Virgin Mary in February of 1642at Notre Dame in Paris. It was located on the tip of land called PlaceRoyale as originally named by Cartier (later called Pointe a Callieres) onthe east (south if you are a Montrealer who uses the general east-westdirection of the St. Lawrence River as a reference) side of the St.Pierre River (now part of the Lachine Canal) and which is today located alonga plaza called Place d’Youville. Various attached maps show this fort butthe artists rendition is disproportionately large. In reality it wasless than 40 feet by 40 feet (the size of a house by todays standards). The first cemetery for the settlement canbe seen in the basement of the Musee de la Pointe a Callieres (Museum ofArchaeology) which was built over that site. Continuing south(west) from the museum can be found the site for the Chateau of Callieresand further yet the site of the original fort at Ville Marie. (Thisauthor cannot be certain but an attached 1717 map of the area shows aCharron General Hospital just south of the site if not on the site itselfand is commemorated by a park by that name at the end of the said PlaceYouville.) Since it was a religious colony (occasioned by widespreadcounter-reformation fervor in France), their task was to convert “lessauvages” as well as to clear and settle the land. One laterarrival that same year was a carpenter named Gilbert Barbier (called”le Minim”). The late Fred Desautels of Detroit wouldhave been excited and taken a great deal of pride in finding that a pioneerwho might have been related to one of his direct ancestors was among thefirst settlers. He would also have been very surprised to find thatthis Barbier was among this group of staunchly Catholic immigrants andtherefore apparently not associated with the Huguenot ancestors. Gilbert is credited with erecting the first substantial structures which hadany semblance of permanency. Due in large part to the sadly true horror stories of Indianbrutality which found their way back to France as well as to a diminishedzeal there for religious evangelization, the population of Montreal eightyears later (1650) was only 196 – including children who had been born inthe colony. Also, the sieurs of the Company of One HundredAssociates who had been given huge land grants along with their trademonopolies in return for their promise to recruit settlers to populate andclear the land proved to be a charade – nothing more than a front for thoseengaged in the fur trade. The sacred mission of Montreal could notexpect and did not receive any corporal or numerical assistance from theseAssociates. Christianization of the American savages offered littleprospect for profit. And, of course, religious “fanatics”at little Montreal would be a hindrance to the freedom required by these”get rich quick” Associates. Intermittent Iroquois hostilities ravaged the area aroundMontreal from 1642 until 1701. One out of every five settlers was killed bythem. In three years time (1650 – 1653) Montreal lost over half of itspopulation to Indians, fur trading and to disappointment. The Indian menacewas so real that the remaining population was literally under siege and hadcompletely moved inside the walls of the little fort. Maisonneuve hadordered that every man carry a musket and that, when working outside thefort, a protective squad should always be on guard. Without help fromthe French army and from Quebec City, nominal capital of northern NewFrance, the decimated population of less than 100 souls was about to abandonthe settlement out of despair when, in 1653, Pierre Desautels arrived. During a short lull in the Indian attacks Maisonneuve hadleft for France (1651) to recruit reinforcements without which Montreal wasto be abandoned. He recruited as many as 153 men by some accounts butonly 118 (111 by some accounts and 103 by others) embarked on theship. There were also a few women and families who made the voyage attheir own expense including Pierre’s future second wife, CatherineLorion. (As many as eight of the recruits died en route and wereburied at sea. A few others died at Quebec City). The St.Nicolas de Nantes, a pinasse (three-masted ship used also for north Atlanticfishing) under the command of Captain Pierre LeBessou (LeBesson) sailed fromSt. Nazaire, France and (after stopping at La Rochelle by some accounts) sailedfor New France on June 20, 1653 but had to return to an offshore island forrepairs after taking on too much water far out at sea. An offshoreisland was chosen in an attempt to keep the now terrified passengers fromabandoning the crossing and it has been reported that two or three didexactly that. The ship again set sail July 20 and arrived at Quebec twomonths later on September 22. Having run aground at what is now amarina to the west of Quebec city just off the Plains of Abraham, at Bois deCoulonge the ship was burned after attempts to refloat it had failed. The passengers continued on after a short stay at Quebec in smaller craftthey were forced to build themselves as the governor refused to assist them. He had, in fact, tried to convince, cajole and even order Maisonneuve toremain permanently at Quebec. That is what accasioned Maisonneuve tostate that he would go to Montreal “if every tree were anIroquois”. These smaller boats and canoes were better suited totravel on the St. Lawrence River especially in the waters around Montrealdotted with dangerous rapids. Arriving at Ville Marie on November16, 1653, these passengers brought the population of Montreal to 201men, 15 women and 7 children not including priests and nuns. These newarrivals have been referred to as “The Great Recruit of 1653” andas “Les Flecheois”. The first reference would have been moreappropriately The Great Rescue of 1653. Although Pierre was oneof only a few who survived long in the new land, the numerical boost whichthey brought was sufficient to raise the morale of the colony and to insureits survival. Besides tending to the provisioning of the settlement andmaking preparation for the long winters, the men of Ville Marie were mostlyinvolved with the defense of the small community, farming, fishing orhunting or with one or another aspect of the fur trade. If theywere not themselves “coureurs du bois” or “voyageurs”they were assuredly involved at times with the procurement of trade goods orthe shipment of furs back to France. At first, the friendly Indiansbrought their pelts to Montreal. This was an affront to the Iroquois who hadbeen the middlemen between the western tribes and the Dutch at New Amsterdamfor these same furs. They were fiercely merciless to their fellownative Americans and warred upon them in an attempt to stop thiscompetition. There had been bad blood between the Iroquois and the Indianallies of the French for many years prior to this and they had also notforgotten the shock of seeing one of their chiefs felled by Champlain withan arquebus. The _expression “…friend of my enemy is myenemy” would come to mind here. Eventually the French had to make forays into the westernwaterways and forests to obtain the furs. This took them further andfurther west finding new tribes and new sources for the furs. Ottawais an Algonquin word meaning “to trade”. The records showthat many men were contracted (“engage”) to go to”8ta8ois” or “Ottawa” This could have referred tothe Ottawa River or the Ottawa tribe – but it always meant “totrade”. The present Ottawa River was nearly always the route westand always by canoe. Those who headed west for any length of time followed therivers. They did not go as settlers and did not bring their families. (The 19th Century saw a change to mass migrations of entire families). There were many young men who not only found a home among the Indians butrelished the freedom of the wilderness and undoubtedly the companionship of Indianwomen since European females were in short supply in New France. Amongthese men who remained in the west and lived their lives among the Indianscan probably be counted a Pierre Desautels (born in 1701 and vanished after1729, he was the son of Pierre Desautels and Angelique Thuillier andgrandson of our Pierre, the pioneer). Some married Indian women and raised families there. The French never placed a racial stigma on the Indians and for the most parttreated them with respect…a fact which made this coexistence possible. On the contrary, it was the Indians who, although awed by the variety andavailability of European goods, were “amused” by the generallysmall physical stature of the French. Even Iroquois Indians couldfreely roam the streets of Montreal and could be found drinking in the manytaverns. This would never have been permitted in the British coloniesto the south. The early men of the woods and later western”settlers”, who fathered families there and their descendants werecalled the “metis”. In the early days of Montreal these wererare but as time went on they became more numerous and daring: the”gold rush” in beaver pelts could make a man wealthy in one luckyseason…especially if he could earn the respect of the Indians and providethem with the goods they desired…often whiskey. At this time the settlement began to expand outside thefort at Ville Marie on the west side of the St. Pierre River and ran northalong the St. Lawrence River on a bush path later named St. Paul Street.There were about 40 houses on one acre allotments which straggled along intwo rows facing each other across this rough tract. Off and on for thenext 40 years these and all other dwellings in and near the settlement weretargets of the Iroquois as were the populace of St. Martins’ Hill at LonguePointe who were to become – if fortunate enough to survive – Pierre’s futureneighbors. In 1660 the population of Montreal was only 472. The newsieurs of the Company of Montreal had also not succeeded in theirobligation to bring enough new settlers to make Montreal a strong colony andthe older Company of One Hundred Associates had failed to populate the restof Canada with enough settlers to give much credence to the French claim tomost of North America. With no military assistance either from Quebec Cityor from France itself, survival was doubtful for any individual or family. During the last half of 1661 at least 80 Frenchmen were killed or capturedon their own farms by the Iroquois enemy tribes which included the Seneca(most westerly of the five enemy tribes and most savagely evil), Cayuga,Onondega, Oneida and Mohawk (called “Agniers” in French). Capture usually meant the most hideous tortures imaginable and few prisonerssurvived. The Iroquois were masters of prolonged torture which couldlast for days – with each day a different degree and form of pain inflictednot only by the warriors but also shared by the women and children when aprisoner was unlucky enough to survive a return trip to the villages. Seven years or 70 years old made no difference to the Iroquois. Agediscrimination never occurred to them. Neither did sex discrimination. To hack off a captive womans breasts was only one step in that direction. Roasting the prisoner alive was the ultimate in ritual pleasure. Deathusually was followed by cannibalism. Father Isaac Jogues survived onesuch unspeakable captivity but not his second. In fairness, barbaricbehavior was not solely an Iroquois prerogative. It is fair to saythat theirs was more widely recorded than others if not more extreme. In 1662 Jeanne Mance, founder of the Hospitalers of St.Joseph left for France to obtain help since Maisonneuve was illegally beingprevented from doing so by Quebec. Their governor was at odds withMaisonneuve’s prohibition regarding the sale of whiskey to the Indians. It was due to Jeanne’s efforts in France that Montreal would be cededby the Company of Montreal (which was now a mere handful of members andbarely in existence) to the Order of St. Sulpice. 1663 – 1665 THE PIVOTAL YEARS: For Montreal, TheEnd; For The Desautels Family, a Beginning The Jesuits along with the Recollets had struggledto serve the immigrants as well as to convert the indians (and had been welcomedby some of them with torture and martyrdom). The more recently arrived secularSulpician priests felt compelled to have a bishop appointed toMontreal. Secular priests always function under a bishop whereasreligious orders such as the Jesuits operate under a Superior who does nothave the authority vested in a bishop. The Abbe Gabriel de Queylus hadbeen brought to Montreal in 1656 as the Superior of the 3Sulpician priests who accompanied him. He was named Bishop by a FrenchEcclesiastic whose authority to do so was questionable. Not to beoutflanked and undermined, the Jesuits then had a hand in the appointment ofthe Abbe de Montigny, Francois Xavier de Laval Montmorency as Bishop of allCanada who arrived in Quebec City in 1659. The ensuing “battle”between Queylus and Laval, between “frontier town” Montreal andthe “Old World” Quebec City and between the Jesuits and theSulpicians was all rolled into one in this struggle. Laval, with hissuperior credentials both from the Church and the King was triumphant.Queylus was sent back to France. The Sulpicians maintained theSeigneurie of Montreal even though, as priests and supposed proprietors ofthe independent Island of Montreal, they now found themselves under a bishopheadquartered in Quebec City. Perhaps since they were relatively new to thecountry, it was not as difficult a pill for them to swallow. But, for anyoneof authority and the general population of Montreal as a whole who had beenthere for any length of time, it must have been a real blow. In 1663, Louis XIV withdrew the charter of the Company ofOne Hundred Associates. He established direct royal control over allCanada with the appointment of a Sovereign Council located at Quebec andheaded by the Governor of Canada, the Bishop of Canada and an Intendant(personal representative of the King). He officially named the Orderof St. Sulpice to the seigneurie of Montreal. In fact, the Order inFrance had been invited to take control of Montreal in 1657 but it did notbecome a reality until March 9, 1663 when the Company of Montreal handed itover. The Colony of the City of Mary was now on itsway to become the “Ville de Montreal” of the colony of NewFrance ruled by Quebec. While Maisonneuve was still governor ofMontreal it was at the will of the Society of St. Sulpice and with certainpowers curtailed by a Crown to which Montreal owed next to nothing. The injection of royal power came along with a new deluge of laws andregulations which greatly inhibited the freedom Montreal had earned andenjoyed as a distinct colony. Pierre and his fellow”habitants” could well sense the loss of their established way oflife. For the next two years all political and religious powerwas at Quebec. When Montreals’ popular governor, Paul de Chomedey(Maisonneuve) was involuntarily removed in 1665 it was the proverbial laststraw. The last vestige of Montreal sovereignty was dead. Onecan easily understand that the people of Montreal would have a difficulttime to accept in their hearts this dominion emanating from Quebec City. Fortwenty years Montreal had been born and had stubbornly survived without realassistance of the motherland or of the often assumed arm of Frenchauthority in Canada – Quebec City…the city which turned blind eyes anddeaf ears to the day-in-and-day-out tragedies of Montreal…a city whichcould not spare soldiers for Montreal’s defense (they were needed forpomp, social occasions and mostly imagined fears of British attack)…a citywhich could easily have passed for any foppish provincial capital back inthe Old Country…a city which sat on the heights of Abraham andwatched as the real world suffered and triumphed. Quick to arrogantlyassert nonexistent authorities over Montreal it was quick to insert littlemore than additional headaches to the citizens there who are reported tohave held a rather widely used _expression posed something akin to thequandary: “….what is worse, Quebec or the Iroquois?”. This struggle between the liberal Gallic church and royalauthority in the north of Quebec against the more conservativeCatholic, papal-centered (called ultramontanist) mindset of theMontreal region in the south of Quebec will be played out again 200years later involving another Desautels: Msgr. Joseph Desautels (1814-1881)of Varennes, Vercheres, Diocese of Montreal who not only championed CatholicChurch rights against British attempts to dictate Church affairs but whoalso fought unsuccessfully for the establishment of a truly independantMontreal University. One can just picture our Pierre standing on the cornerof Sts. Paul and Joseph (later St. Sulpice) Streets making his condolencesto friends who had recently lost a son to the indians. Suddenly he turns hishead and his _expression turns to disgust as a Quebec “dandy”visiting Montreal passes them on his way from his ship. As he goes by,Pierre’s lips can be seen to silently mouth the words…”je me souviens”.It would not have been difficult for Pierre to remember his”heritage” of the first few years of Montreal: the heritageof a hard-fought and costly success of his wilderness outpost with littlemore than the support of the Company of Montreal, the Church, theSieur de Maisonneuve and each other. A great earthquake shook all “Kanada” onFebruary 5, 1663 and aftershocks occurred for several months (some quitesevere). According to the Jesuit Relations, reports were received fromQuebec, Montreal, Three Rivers, western and eastern smaller settlementsthroughout New France including Acadia (now New Brunswick). According tothese reports, entire mountains disappeared; whole forests were uprooted,buried or lost; rivers changed their courses; the clay bed of the St.Lawrence River shifted in places so as to create waterfalls where nonelogically should be; great fissures opened in the earth; houses,fortifications and buildings swayed and bent and were damaged or destroyed;citizens stood in the streets in shock, horror and disbelief while othersknelt in prayer. The most devout later claimed this was the vengeance of Godfor selling alcohol to the Indians and thus making it difficult to civilizeand christianize even the friendly tribes. 1665 was the most pivotal year for Montreal. From June through September of 1665 the spirits of the indian-weary settlerswere given a tremendous lift by the arrival of a 1200 man force of the famedCarignan-Salieres Regiment from France commanded by Alexandre de Prouville,Sieur de Tracy. The size of the force dictated that it be landed at morethan one location. They embarked at Quebec City, Three Rivers and Montreal.To mount the great expedition against the savage Iroquois the threesettlements also raised militias to accompany the soldiers. Pierre wouldhave gone as a member of the militia called the Soldiers of the Very HolyVirgin. Quebecs’ militia were the “red” coats; Three Rivers the”white” coats and Montreal the “blue” coats. Theyaccompanied the troops on forays into Vermont and New York. Although theypenetrated into the heart of the Iroquois nation, the indians had fled theirvillages so that, in reality, there were no bloody battles and gloriousvictories. Destruction of their food supplies however, was enough totemporarily convince them that the French would no longer tolerate theirwanton and murderous behavior. The negative side of the arrival ofthis army is that it was their commander, the Sieur de Tracy who wasdirectly responsible for Maisonneuve’s humiliating dismissal. The combined forces were led by Charles LeMoyne who wascreated “Baron de Longueuil” in 1700 – a title recognized by theBritish 60 years later when they took Canada and is still recognized by themtoday. Two of his sons, Pierre LeMoyne, Sieur d’Iberville(1661-1706) and Charles LeMoyne, were the founders of Louisiana in1699 although the post they established was actually at what is now Biloxi,Mississippi. The family seigneurie at Longueuil, across the St. LawrenceRiver from Montreal and at one time its rival for population, social andeconomic importance gradually faded due to the superior geographic locationof Montreal plus the fact that Montreal was the center for political andreligious life in that region. The population of Montreal had grown to only 766 in 1667.In an attempt to increase the population of New France, the King decreed in1668 that an annual stipend of 300 livres be paid to parents who had tenchildren in holy wedlock and 400 livres to parents of twelve children. Onthe other hand, parents were to be fined if they did not insure the marriageof their sons at or before age 20 or their daughters at or before age 16.This decree was never fully in effect or enforced. The little fort at Place Royale afforded littleprotection to the colonists living outside the close proximity of thesettlement. A citadel about 50 feet high was built just to the north of thesettlement near what is now Dalhousie Square. The settlement had spread onthe west side of the St. Pierre River and mostly to the north. In 1672 thefort (on the east side of the river) was demolished, leaving the settlersonly two stone buildings on St. Paul Street (including the citadel) capableof withstanding an indian attack. In 1685 the settlement itself was looselyfortified with ramparts and palisades. For a dozen years the hostile Indianslurked outside the very doors of the settlers at night hoping for a victim.The new fortifications were built to roughly encompass St. Paul Street. Thesite of the old fort at Place Royale later became known as Pointe-a-Callieresafter the French governor (named Calliere)of 1684 erected a grand chateau onthe site. In 1689 the Iroquois massacred the entire population ofsoldiers and settlers at Lachine, an outpost on the island of Montreal onlya short distance south along the St. Lawrence River. This ishistorically important since it was the basis for much of the French andIndian Wars. Since the British had funded and instigated their Indian alliesto attack Lachine and no mercy was shown, the animosity of the French towardthem lasted for centuries. While Montreal was located at a point on theriver where navigation to the Atlantic was unimpeded, Lachine was the centerfor handling all trade in the western St. Lawrence (furs going to Montrealfor shipment to France; supplies going west to the “voyageurs” andfor trade with the friendly Indians) – unreachable by seagoing vessels whichcould not navigate the Lachine Rapids. Since horses were rare in those days,the French depended on water transportation throughout the vast rivernetwork in New France. From Montreal and Lachine west the canoe was king andmany of them were large enough to hold several dozen men. In 1717 work was begun on a stone wall for thecity, parts of which still exist today. It was built along the approximatelines of the 1685 fortifications. It covered an area of about one andone-third miles (1200 toises) north to south by one-third of a mile east towest (although it was narrower at the northern end). The wall was finishedin 1723 and was 18 feet high with bastions, gates and sally-ports. By thistime the indian menace had ended and the great walls were never used indefense of the city against the indians, the English in 1760 or theAmericans in 1775. A 1717 map of the city (before the stone walls werebuilt) shows the basic configuration of the 1685 fort with severalfacilities including the residence of Montreal Governor deCallieres outsidethe walls of this fort but at the old Place Royale. It does not showany trace of the cemetary on the point itself or of the original Ville Mariefort. This 1717 map does show a Charron General Hospital in the areajust south of the governors chateau but if it is at all proportionatelycorrect, this hospital would have been to the south of the first fort. While the 1642 settlers were considered to be highlymotivated by religious zeal, later arrivals – including the recruits of 1653- were considered to be less so. In his lifetime Pierre would havewitnessed a proliferation of taverns said to be on every corner in thesmall town. Since the city was open to the wanderings of the local andvisiting indians (friendly or not), it became necessary for Maisonneuve toissue a decree against providing them with alcohol. Also during Pierre’s lifetime the mode of transport whichhad been at first by foot (snowshoes in winter) or by boat (usually canoe)changed about the turn of the century to a plethara of equine transportation(horseback, carriages and sleighs) so much so that authorities had to placerestrictions on their use due to the damage they caused to the primitiveroads of the time. Our Pierre was one of the last surviving members of theGreat Rescue. Because he could read and write, his name does appear onmany documents and registries. But, aside from showing hisparticipation and interest in these activities he left no written indicationof his personality. What we can learn is that Pierre was respectableif not remarkable; a man of principle if not of influence; a man whoseseeming mediocrity, practicality and realism speaks volumes to hisworthiness to be a Man For The New World.
Chapter Five
PIERRE DESAUTELS AND HIS MONTREAL: THE FIRST GENERATION Most of the foregoing is the background for the life andtimes of Pierre Desautels, the Pioneer at Montreal in 1653 who constitutesthe sole member of Generation I of this record. The following providesinformation more specific to Pierre and his family. The same statisticalinformation for Pierre also appears in the section titled “TheDesautels In France” since Pierre is our link from the Old to the NewWorlds. PIERRE DESAUTELS, son of Thomas Desautels and MarieMarthe Buisson of Malicorne-sur- Sarthe, Diocese of Mans, Province of Maine,France born April 4, 1631 Malicorne-sur-Sarthe, died November 19, 1708 Montreal,New France. His funeral was conducted by three priests: Rev. AntoineDevalens, Rev. Pierre Remy and Rev. ? Priat.1)marriage January 11, 1666 Montreal, New France see page- Marie Remy 2.10born 1646 Paris, France died November 11, 1675 Montreal, New FranceThe witnesses at their wedding were Honore Langlois and Pierre Chauvin. 2)marriage November 23, 1676 Montreal, New France- Catherine Lorion born 1636 at St. Soule, La Rochelle, France, died April20, 1720 Montreal, New France They were married by Father Lefebvre. The witnesses werePierre Pigeon, Guillaume Bouchard, Antoine Regnaud, Jean Delpue, JeanRaynaud, Gilles Perot and Mathurin Lorion, his father-in-law.On May 4, 1653 at La Fleche, France at the age of 22, Pierre enlisted tocome to New France as an “engage” (hired hand). From hisvillage of Malicorne-sur-Sarthe in the Province of Maine also came PierrePiron who was born in 1636. Their contracts were for 5 years. Likehis father and his grandfather Pierre was a tailor of men’s clothingbut he did not list that as his profession. On June 20, 1653 he received anadvance of 101 livres (french pounds) on his promised annual salary of 65livres. He sailed on June 22, 1653 from St. Nazaire, France on the St.Nicolas de Nantes. As stated before, the ship had to return toFrance for repairs and had a second departure date of July 20, 1653. They finally arrived at Quebec City (in reality not a very large settlementat that time) on September 22, 1653. After a few weeks at Quebec theycontinued their journey up the St. Lawrence River. They arrived at VilleMarie (as Montreal was named by the immigrants in 1642) on November 16,1653. Pierre was oneof only four of the men arriving on that ship who could read andwrite. This influx brought the population of Montreal to 210 men, 15 womenand 7 children plus priests and nuns. Depending upon which source youmight reference, the actual numbers of those on the ship and the populationfigures are in question but they show basically that Montreal was afledgling pioneer colony. Little is known of Pierre between 1653 and 1663. In fact, it is not known ifhe ever practiced his trade as a tailor or if he used his abilities atreading and writing to make a living. It is more than probable that he wasinvolved in the fur trade during these years as most unattached men wouldhave been. During these years Maisonneuve’s colony enjoyed nearlyisolationist freedom by contrast to that afforded both in the mother countryand at Quebec. If much has been made of the negative relationshipbetween Quebec and Montreal it is to establish that it was not until the1663 – 1665 period of Pierre’s life that we see a change in his life. It is more than probable that the establishment of direct royal control overMontreal contributed to Pierre settling down to the routines of family andcommunity life. One needs to ask if Pierre would have continued beingan “engage” or “coureur de bois” or – in todays terms, afree spirit – without this imposition of imperial authority. Or, wouldhe have married at the advanced age of nearly 36 a Marie Remy neatlyprovided by a king and society advancing the established conventions of thetimes. If not for the intervention of the Sun King, would there be aDesautels family in the New World? He was a witness at three marriages during thatperiod: 1658, 1659, 1660 (and on December 14, 1665 between Antoine Baudryand Catherine Guyard). He is on a list of persons being confirmed at NotreDame Church, Montreal on August 24, 1660 along with GovernorMaisonneuve. On January 27, 1663 he was elected to an honor society calledthe Brotherhood of the Holy Family of Jesus, Mary and Joseph. On February 1,1663 he enlisted in a militia called the Soldiers of the Holy Family.There were 20 squads. Pierre was in the seventh squad which had a corporaland six men. This was just four days before the “GreatEarthquake” which was mentioned earlier. Pierre survived. Pierre wouldhave gone as a member of that militia with the French forces under LeMoyneand the Carrignan Regiment sent by the King to attack the Iroquois inVermont and New York in 1665. He was the first Desautels to set foot in theGreen Mountain State (and, in fact, what was later the United States)discovered by Champlain nearly 60 years earlier. Nearly 200 years afterthis 1665 expedition (1863) my great-great-grandfather, Francois Xavierwould cross this same border into Vermont with his 13 children – six of whomwere already married – but this time to stay. When he enlisted to pioneer at Montreal, Pierre waspromised a land grant when he married if he decided to remain in New France.However, he received a grant of 30 arpents (27-30 acres) on May 3, 1665- the year before his first marriage but long after his original fiveyear contract had been fulfilled. This was written by Paul de Chomedey,Sieur de Mainsonneuve himself while still at least nominally the governor ofMontreal before his departure. The grant was only approved officially onFebruary 23, 1666 when it was recorded by the notary Desailles. (Itcan be seen on microfilm 6556, number 992 and subsequent entries in the St.Sulpice collection at the Quebec National Archives in Montreal). It was located outside the main part of the settlement north along the riverat a place on Rue Ste. Marie (or Notre Dame) called Cote St. Martin atLongue Pointe. Pierre’s land was located two-thirds of a lieu (about one andone-half miles) south of the actual point of Longue Pointe. It isshown on a map published by the Pointe a Callieres Museum (together withlater adjacent acquisitions) as the property of his son Gilbert and islisted as number 5042. This map obviously shows the ownership of theselands subsequent to the 1718 settlement between Gilbert and his olderbrother Pierre when Pierre sold his interest to Gilbert. Interestingly, the land granted to Pierre was sandwichedbetween those belonging to a mother and son. On the one side was aSuzanne Guilbault, widow of Claude Fezeret who had been killed in his homeby the Iroquois just nine days prior to Pierre’s grant. On the otherside was her son Rene. While Rene kept his concession at least through1710, Suzanne must have sold or forfeitted hers sometime after 1665. It was acquired by Pierre in 1673 for 500 livres as property reverting tothe Seigneurie by reason that the current landholder named Hardouin had diedwithout heirs. This acquisition, together with a second concession tohim by the Order of St. Sulpice in 1670 and another in the name of his twoyoungest sons in 1692 would result in a total holding of 150 arpents (threeat the lakefront by fifty deep) before his death. An arpent has beenvariously quoted as equivalent to between three-fourths of an acre to oneand one-half acres depending on the source and historical variations of bothmeasures. Most sources give it as the equivalent of one acre but Ibelieve it is more accurately about 92 percent of an acre. Pierre put most of this land under cultivationgrowing mainly wheat. In the census of 1666 for “menage #130” healready had seven and one-half acres under cultivation. If the history booksare accurate and the land at that time was heavily forested, that was quitea feat in one year unless, of course, the land had been cleared by theprevious tenant. In the census of 1667 he is listed as householdnumber 130. His age is given as 32 (actually he was 36) and his wife, MarieRemy whose age seems to be correct at 21. They are listed as having adaughter, aged one year. Actually, this was their first son Joseph who wasborn in 1666. Even then, census information was not any more accurate thanit appears to have been on both sides of the US-Canada border two hundredyears later – and perhaps 300. In an attempt to display a side to Pierre which might nototherwise be evident, provided here is an abbreviated list of the recordedsocio-religious functions which he attended or in which he was a participant(roughly during this time period): 1-31-1667 baptism at Notre Dame Church,Montreal: 2-24-1668 marriage at Notre Dame: 11-17-1668 marriage at NotreDame: 12-31-1668 marriage at Notre Dame: 12-26-1671 baptism at Notre Dame:2-29-1672 marriage at Notre Dame: 8-11-1672 marriage at Notre Dame:6-20-1678 marriage of M. Charlotte Millet (Pierre is “beau-pere”or father-in-law): 10-29-1681 marriage of Leonard Simon (Pierre is his”beau-pere” or father-in-law): 1-31-1684 marriage of NicolasMillet at Pointe-aux- Trembles: 2-25-1686 marriage at Pointe-aux-Trembles:11-10-1687 burial of sister-in-law Marie Lorion at Pointe-aux-Trembles:2-23-1688 marriage of Jacques Millet at Notre Dame: 1-30-1691 baptism atNotre Dame (Jacques Millet): 7-9-1691 marriage of Renee Lorion atPointe-aux- Trembles: 9-28-1693 marriage of his son Joseph at Pointe-aux-Trembles: 1-17-1695 marriage at Ste. Anne de Varennes: 5-2-1695 marriage ofNicolas Millet (Pierre is father in-law): 1-26-1697 marriage of Jean Lorion(Pierre is father- in-law): 9-19-1697 marriage of Jean Ferre Lachappelle(Pierre is listed as an uncle): 12-4-1698 marriage at Notre Dame (with hissons Pierre and Gilbert): 5-30-1699 baptism. He and Catherine are godparents11-23-1699 marriage of grandson Francois Raynaud at Pointe-aux-Trembles. These undoubtedly are not the only activities in whichPierre was involved but these are recorded. They show him to be sociallyactive and in contact with his family by both of his marriages and theextended family of the children of his second wife by her previoushusbands. They also help (if this is necessary) to point out the depth andbreadth of the Catholic religion in the everyday lives of Pierre, his familyand his community. In old Montreal, society itself was predominantlyinfluenced by the church and the local priest usually had no hesitation tostep in and speak up in what are regarded today as private matters. This initself was the prime reason why the American royalist expatriates who fledto or were exiled to Canada from the newly independent United States ofAmerica split Ontario (Upper Canada) from Quebec (Lower Canada): they couldnot abide the liberties and rights accorded to the Church by theBritish as part and parcel of the governance of the French people andterritories of what had been New France. The British discovered quickly thatthe French population of Canada could not be ruled by the laws of Britainand acquiesced to the established French laws, customs and influences. But,of course, that comes much later: the British took New France in 1760. Theliberties accorded to the French in Quebec were in sharp contrast to thebarbaric treatment accorded to the unfortunate French Acadians by these sameBritish in 1755 – only a few years earlier. That story can only bebranded as genocide. Since it was common in early pioneer days to refer to aperson using a sort of “nickname” by which his land holding(“les rangs”) was generally known or by his occupation or someother outstanding characteristic or event in his life, Pierre was called”LaPointe” since his land was located on a point of land along theSt. Lawrence River. The addended name would have read Desautels ditLapointe. The “dit” (or “dite” for a female) translatesinto English as “said” or “called” (from the French verbdire…”to speak”). There is no record of him using that”dit” name before 1663 and the first record of that name is foundin the land grant of 1665. Lapointe was used as a “dit” name byother families such as Clement, Godard, Robin, Simon, Trouillard and mostnotably by Audet and Tousignan. There is a street named Desautels inMontreal north of that area today and there is a parallelstreet named Lapointe a short distance away but these are not in referenceto our pioneer ancestor. They are located south of the Lafontaine Tunnelnear the St. Jean de Dieu Hospital and they cross Hochelega Blvd. The next few years (until 1673) Pierre was occupied withfamily matters. His first three sons were born during this period (1666,1668 and 1671) and the first one had died (1667). On March 26, 1673 he madean exchange of lands with Elie Beaujean at Longue Pointe. As part of thisagreement, Pierre donated money to the vestry-board (fabrique) of the parishchurch of Montreal. He apparently became disenchanted with this exchange andon June 15, 1673 he negated the agreement. On December 5 of that year hepaid a head tax of one livre. In 1674 his 4th child was born but it died thesame day. If this child were male then Pierre did not have any daughters bythis or his second marriage. His first wife, Marie Remy died in 1675 and he marriedhis second wife, Catherine Lorion the following year. The Church permittedthe bans to be read only once. Two days before his second wedding he signedhis marriage contract. It was a busy day for both of them. Each signed anact of care and guardianship for their own children. Elie Beaujean wasnamed guardian of Pierre’s two surviving sons by his first marriage whilePierre himself was officialy made responsible for their education. Twodays after the marriage he posted an inventory of his estate held jointlywith the late Marie Remy. In his statement he certified that he had disposedof about 200 bundles of wheat chaff and had received 160 livres from thissale. At the census of 1681 under the name “Deshostels” he waslisted as having one musket, 5 beasts of burden and 27 acres of land. Hishousehold consisted of himself, (age 50), his wife, Catherine Lorion, (age45), three sons (Gabriel, 11, Pierre, 4, and “Gilberte” (Gilbert),2) and Jean, “domestique”, age 7. This last was the youngest ofthe Millet children. Pierre was listed as a citizen of Montreal(population 1,418; remainder of seignuerie 1,281). Longue Pointe was thenand is again today considered a part of Montreal, although the Longue Pointedesignation is mostly lost. His oldest son, Joseph, by his first marriagewas 13 years old and was not listed as living in the household. It ispossible he was apprenticing at a trade where he would be staying with histradesman or, more probably, was under the care of his legal guardian, ElieBeaujean who was also a neighbor of Pierre. None of the other Milletchildren was listed as residing in the household. They would have ranged inage from perhaps 10 through 23. Not listed under Pierre in that census were theproperties of the late Nicolas Millet and his wife, Catherine Lorion. OnDecember 29, 1681 Pierre posted a notice of intent to sell this property butwas apparently denied permission to do so since it was a security for theMillet children. For the next ten years he is on record as having rented outthese and other properties: September 29, 1682 – land and house on St. PaulStreet for three years; May 15, 1689 (just seven weeks after his 16 year oldson Gabriel died) – the Millet property for one year; September 18, 1689 -house on St. Paul Street for one year. On August 22, 1691 just 5 days beforethe capture of the eldest Millet son by the Iroquois the Millet property atthe corner of Sts. Paul and Gabriel Streets were declared to be(posthumously) ceded by Millet to Dollier de Casson, Sieur de Montreal (aSulpician priest), and granted to Pierre and Gilbert, the two youngest sonsof Pierre the pioneer. Millet had owned several other properties in thesettlement and these would have undoubtedly been in the hands of thenow-married Millet children at this time. The cessions of properties came two years before thefollowing events: 1693 appears to be the year when 62 year old Pierre bailedout his 25 year old son, Joseph. On June 14 he paid off his debts; on July 2Joseph sold his rights of inheritance to his half-brothers Pierre andGilbert for 200 livres. As a part of this settling of accounts, Pierresenior made a land grant to Antoine Corbett dit Desjardins. Pierre seniorwas, however, a witness at Joseph’s wedding on September 28, 1693. OnNovember 22, 1693 he acknowledged an obligation to Pierre Perthius and thesame on January 4, 1698 to M. LeBer. These two last actions are probably notrelated to the financial arrangement regarding Joseph. It is more thanprobable that Joseph’s prospective in-laws would not permit the marriageunless his finances were straightened out. Also, since Joseph settled a fewmiles north of Longue Pointe at Pointe-aux-Trembles (after first trying hishand on property on the north side of Longue Pointe), it is possible thatJoseph simply wanted to start with a clean slate and needed financial helpfrom his father as a sort of “grubstake”. But, that is allspeculation. As stated earlier, Pierre added through purchase andgrants to his original 30 arpents to the extent that, at his death, histotal was 150 arpents although some of this was in the name of his twoyoungest sons still in residence. These properties were in anelongated rectangle of about 3 arpents (1,000 feet) wide at the St. LaurenceRiver by 50 arpents (approximately 15,000 feet) running inland. It was at or near the present Blvd. (Rue) Viau (a stop on the”underground” or Metro). Extending inland it would appear toextend to the Olympic/Maisonneuve Park if not into the Park itself.Interestingly, this property probably included a rather peculiar point onthe St. Laurence and we cannot help but wonder if this is the point whichgave Pierre the “dit” name of Lapointe. The land furtherinland was wooded and a pond was located on the property. The last recorded activities of Pierre before his deathcame on April 8, 1701 when he sued the three surviving Millet children forownership of the remainder of their fathers estate. He was awardedthree-fourths while they received the other one-fourth in the settlement.Sometime between that time and 1708 he gave all of his property to his twoyoungest sons, Pierre and Gilbert, who agreed to partition the propertybetween themselves on July 14, 1708. This was just four months beforePierre, senior died. This gift was in return for their guarantee of theircare for himself and Catherine as long as they lived. This was thestandard procedure in place at that time to provide for retirement. The eldest surviving son, Joseph had died in 1705 but his children did notreceive any part of the estate since their father had sold his inheritance. The inventory of July 14, 1708 describes Pierre’s house onthat site. It was a plank structure with few windows or doors andwould have been located near the St. Lawrence River and facing it on RueNotre Dame. It would have been little more than fifteen feet wide byabout thirty five feet in length (18 X 40 pieds) with an attached stableextending the length another sixteen feet. The house most likely wasone large room on the ground level with lofts to accomodate his sons. The lower level most probably would have had non-permanent divisions and,since by this time Pierre junior had five small children, it would belogical to assume the attached “stable” had been converted toliving quarters. Any need for a stable could have been met by anextremely large barn and a cow shed. The house had two chimneys as onechimney could hardly be expected to heat a room of that size. MARIE REMY: She was the daughter of Nicolas Remy andMarie Vinet of Paris. She arrived in Montreal in 1665 with Governor Remy (noknown relationship) and many girls arriving to marry the pioneers. She wasone of the “Filles de Roi” or Daughters of the King who wererecruited starting in 1663 (until 1673) to come to New France to becomebrides and mothers. They were outfitted and financed by the King who alsoprovided them with a dowry of 50 livres upon marriage. An aside regardingthe death of Marie Remy is appropriate here. Like many others who havereported this event, this researcher had accepted the exact translation ofthis as recorded in the parish register for Notre Dame Church at Montreal. It clearly states in longhand the year 1676. An examination of thebook (facsimile) however, reveals that this was written in error. Itis recorded as an entry at the end of the year 1675 and is followed byentries for the beginning of the year 1676. This is well worth notingsince it could escape no ones minds eye the different image of a man whowould remarry a few days after the death of a wife or one who remarries ayear later. Future researchers would do well to note the presence ofnotables such as a priest and governor of the name of Remy in such a smallcommunity as was New France of the mid-17th century. CATHERINE LORION: She was 17 when she left France in 1653and sailed on the same ship that brought Pierre. Although she came alone onthat voyage, her father, Mathurin Lorion, her stepmother, Jeanne Bisette(her mother was Francoise Morinet), and two younger half-sisters, Marie andMarie Jeanne joined her only a few years later. Her marriage to Pierre washer fourth. Catherine is also said to have been born at Anjou, France and tohave died at St. Martin, Quebec. The latter undoubtedly is a correctreference to Cote St. Martin or St. Martin’s Hill at Longue Pointe. She is included as a “First Lady” of Montreal as she precedes thearrival of the Daughters of the King. One cannot help but be awed by herfaith and raw courage as well as that of her father, Mathurin, who dared tobring his entire family to a remote wilderness settlement whose remaininginhabitants were on the verge of a near certain vicious end at the hands ofone of histories most evil and ruthless societies. Catherine’smarriages and children before Pierre are: 1)m. October 13, 1654 at Montreal- Pierre Villain of Poitou, France d. January 19, 1655 at Montreal (killedby a tree) 2)m. June 21, 1655 at Montreal – Jean Simon de Magnac d. November24, 1656 (drowned) son Nicolas Leonard Simon de Magnac b. September 3, 1656m. October 29, 1681 – Mathurine Beaussaint He had many children. At Leastthree of his sons married. He was adopted by Nicolas Millet (below) in 1657but used the name Simon at his 1681 marriage. 3)m. April 9, 1657 – NicolasMillet dit le Beauceron b. 1632 d. March 9, 1674 (when his house burned) Healso arrived in Montreal with Pierre in 1653. In the census of 1666 he had18 (?) acres/arpents under cultivation and two beasts of burden. Hischildren were: Catherine Millet dite Beauceron b. 1658, m. January 7,, 1681to Jean Raynaud: Nicolas Millet dit Beauceron b. August 14, 1660, 1)m.January 31, 1684 Pointe-aux- Trembles to Catherine Chaperon who died January9, 1695 (in the church) and 2)m. May 2, 1695 to Catherine Gauthier at CoteSt. Antoine, Varennes: Marie Charlotte Millet dite Beauceron, b. November25, 1662, m. June 20, 1678 to Jean Lacombe: Pierre Millet dit Beauceron b.January 12, 1665, d. December 1, 1666: Jacques Millet dit Beauceron b. March30, 1667, m. February 23, 1688 to Elisabeth Hubert (it is believed that hewas the only Millet son to have male heirs): Hugues Millet dit Beauceron(uncertain): Francois Millet dit Beauceron b. c. 1671: Jean Millet dit(e)Beauceron b. January 6, 1674 at Montreal (the year that Nicolas Milletsenior burned to death). She is listed as a “domestique” livingwith Pierre in the 1681 census. The year following her marriage toPierre, Catherine’s sister Marie Renee Lorion was married to Jean Delpue/Pariseauwho had been a witness at Pierre’s wedding. I list here for historical background the officials withwhom Pierre would have come into contact.Governors of Montreal (1641 – 1700): 1641 – 1663 Paul de Chomedey, Sieur deMaisonneuve 1665 Zacharie Dupuy, Commandant 1669 Pierre de St. Paul de laMotte, Commandant 1670 Francois-Marie Perrot 1684 Henault desRivaux 1684Hector de Callieres 1698 Jean Baptiste de Vaudreuil, Bouillet de laChassaigne, ChevalierIntendants (personal representative of the King) 1665 – 1672 Jean TalonSulpician head of the Church at Montreal Dollier de Casson, Sieur deMontrealMOST QUEBEC LOCATIONS MENTIONED IN THIS AND SUBSEQUENT CHAPTERS(GENERATIONS) CAN BE FOUND ON AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING MAPS WITH THEIRACCOMPANYING LISTS.
Chapter One Addendum
This will be a new page for the Desautels Family Book OfLife…..Born Again. I thought you might be interested in thispreview. The page will contain a map of the constellation. Itwill be inserted in the section of the book on The Desautels Name. Although this page is not pertinent to the name DESAUTELS(of the altars) it does provide an interesting aside to the name itself andI would have perhaps been tempted to look in this direction for analternative name to “Born Again” had I been aware of thisreference. ARA, often called the “altar star” is, inreality, a constellation. Ara is the Latin word for altar even thoughmodern or “church” Latin generally uses the word “altare”. It is one of the original 48 constellations as described by Ptolemy (nearly2200 years ago) and was called Ara Centauri. It was identified inassociation with the centaur Chiron by the ancients. Ara is bordered by the Ptolemaic constellations CoronaAustralis, Scorpius and Triangulum (australe)….all still so named….aswell as by the modern constellations of Norma, Apus, Pavo and Telescopium. It is over 8,000 light years from our solar system and is at 17.39 inheight, right ascension and minus 53.58 degrees of declination. Its brightest star, Beta Arae is located near the centerof the constellation and is apparently the body referred to as the”altar star”. There are more than 15 other bodies inthis constellation which are noteworthy. Most are designated by the Greekalphabetical terms (alpha, beta, etc.) followed by Arae.