Sie sind auf Seite 1von 495

From

Boulduc
to

Bolduc,
through

Louis Boulduc (Bosleduc)


our Ancestor.

Work compiled by Yan J. Kevin Bolduc on 17 February 2011


(latest update: 5 December 2020),
with the invaluable help of Pierre Bolduc, Richard Bolduc,
Matthew Bolduc, Dany Bolduc, and the great generosity of
Dr. Christian Warolin, and Mr. Yves Delamarre.
Table of Contents
Boulduc Apothecaries Dynasty, by Dr. Christian Warolin [Translated with permission]: p. 3
Pierre Boulduc p. 4
Louis Boulduc p. 15
Simon Boulduc p. 19
Gilles-François Boulduc p. 21
Jean-François Boulduc p. 26
Pierre Boulduc (elder brother of Louis) p. 31
Pijart Alliances p. 33
Parisian Apothecary Dynasties, by Gustave Planchon p. 37
Apothecary Members of the Royal Academy of Sciences, by Paul Dorveaux p. 43
Science and Social Status: Members of the Académie des Sciences, by David J. Sturdy p. 46
Eighteenth-Century Chemistry as an Investigative Enterprise, by Frederic Lawrence Holmes p. 50
Affinity, that Elusive Dream, A Genealogy of the Chemical Revolution, by Mi Gyung Kim p. 54
Medallions of the Pharmacy Faculty of Paris: Gilles-François Boulduc, by Marcel Chaigneau p. 58
Academician Eulogies of the Royal Academy of Sciences, by Dortous de Mairan p. 59
Threadneedle Street, London p. 64
Various Boulleduc’s p. 72
Bolduc Definition p. 73
Capuchin Jacques Bolduc, by Willibrord-Christian van Dijk p. 75
Jean-Baptiste Zacharie Bolduc, Priest/Missionnary of the Columbia p. 76
The Origins of the Bolduc Family in Old France, by Lucien E. Bolduc, Jr. p. 82
Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online: Louis Boulduc, by André Vachon p. 83
The King’s Daughters in New France, by Silvio Dumas p. 84
National French Canadian Dictionary: Louis Boulduc, by the Drouin Genealogical Institute p. 85
The French Quarter: The Epic Struggle of a Family – and a Nation – Divided, by Ron Graham p. 86
Our French-Canadian Ancestors: Louis Bolduc, by Thomas J. Laforest p. 87
Marriage Contract of Louis Boulduc and Isabelle Hubert, in 1668 p. 91
Great Ancestral Families, by Louis-Guy Lemieux p. 93
Louis Boulduc (1648-1701), Bolduc Ancestor in America, by Hélène Routhier p. 98
Count Frontenac, by Henri Lorin p. 108
Louis Bolduc: Our Ancestor, After All, by Mr. Yves Delamarre p. 117
Genealogy of the Bolduc Families, Beauceron Memories, by Charles Bolduc p. 169
Documentary Videos, by Dany Bolduc p. 179
Appendix p. 205

2
[Note from Yan J. Kevin Bolduc (yanbolduc@hotmail.com): the purpose of this work is to freely
share the wealth of the BOLDUC Heritage to everyone interested. I have compiled them in
honor of my father’s memory, Joseph Réginald O. Bolduc, Physiologist (PhD ès Plant
Physiology, Purdue University), who had wanted to know more during his life. He was the son
of Wilfrid Bolduc and Lucienne Deslongchamps.
All translations from the original French texts are done by myself, and are liberal efforts prone to
corrections or modifications. Each word or expression was translated under reserve, according
to context, while trying to maintain as accurately as possible the original intent of the authors.
All notes, comments and anecdotes in brackets are from me.]

The Boulduc Dynasty


Apothecaries in Paris,
XVIIth and XVIIIth Centuries
by Christian Warolin

The study of the Boulduc dynasty was addressed by G. Planchon1, former Director at the Superior School of
Pharmacy of Paris, who died a century ago. This famous Parisian family counted four Apothecaries from father
to son: Pierre, Simon, Gilles-François and Jean-François. Simon and Gilles-François were members of the
Royal Academy of Sciences and Apothecaries to the King. The last of this lineage, Jean-François, was also the
King’s Apothecary.

G. Planchon found that at the origin of the lineage, there was a Spicer Louys (or Loys) Boulduc, who was
received as a Master on 11 May 1595 by "Practical Examination", which implies that he was not a Spicer’s
son2. This fact is confirmed through a marriage contract found at the National Archives. Received as Master
Spicer, Louys, who practiced at the Halles on Marché-aux-Poirées, engaged to marry Françoise Lebrun. Their
marriage contract3, signed on 6 August 1595, says that he was the son of deceased Symon Boulduc, Merchant
Draper at Senlis, and Jacqueline Debonnaire. Therefore it is to the trade of drapery that this ancestor of the
family applied himself in the XVIth century.
3
Françoise Lebrun and Louys Boulduc had three children: Pierre, future Apothecary, Louis, Spicer, and Marie,
who married twice, first with Jacques Parent – they will have a daughter named Françoise – then with Gilles
Gond4

After the death of Louys Boulduc5, his property inventory was begun on 25 June 1622, at the request of his
son Pierre. Louys was the owner of a House at the Marché-aux-Poirées under the ensign of the Soleil d’or
[Golden Sun]6, whose descendants will inherit.

Pierre Boulduc, Apothecary-Spicer, Warden of the Community (1607 - 14 may 1670)

Portrait No. 74 – Pierre BOULDUC

Received as Master Apothecary in 1636, he was Warden from 1661 to 1663. His portrait, dated 1663, represents
him at the age of 56. He was the father of Simon Boulduc (Portrait No. 67).
During the restoration of 1811, the coat of arms of Pierre were re-colored without concern for accuracy or color,
and even in contradiction with the heraldic art, which is a heresy. It reads: Gold, with a chevron of Silver (sic)
mounted with three stars of same (sic), along with three Dukes of ... each placed on a ball of red. In fact, according
to the Armorials of Rietstap, the analogy between Pierre and Gilles-François, his grandson, should have been:
Silver, with a chevron of azure [blue] mounted with three stars of Gold, along with three Dukes (birds) of gules [red]
each placed on a ball of sable [black].
We can easily guess that we are in the presence of Canting Arms, including Simon’s with the balls (boules) and
Dukes (Boulduc).
Source: ‘the room of the Faculty of pharmacy-Paris V acts' (Committee of renovation), directed by Annette Pâris-
Hamelin, 1996. Portrait Photographer: John Rochaix
Source: ‘ La salle des actes de la faculté de pharmacie-Paris V ’ (Renovation Community), realized by Annette
Pâris-Hamelin, 1996.

The grandson of Symon Boulduc, Merchant Draper, son of Louys, Spicer, Pierre Boulduc was born in 16077.
The after death inventory of his property, started on 21 March 1671, indicates that he died on 14 may 16708.
Accomplished both at the request of Gillette Pijart, his wife – guardian the children Louis, Simon, Gilles and
Jacques – and of Pierre, the eldest son, this important inventory provides many references to Acts and includes

4
transcripts of the Will of the deceased. Surprising revelations are made on their son Louis who had started a
career in Quebec.

The same day, 11 February 1622, Pierre and Louis, the two sons of Louys, were received as Master Spicers
by examination9, but Pierre leaned towards the apothecary field. His apprenticeship document was signed on 6
October 162610. On the following 20 November, he undergoes review allowing the Wardens to judge if he was
able to be received as an Apprentice11. Ten years later – normal curriculum – on 7 October 1636 he was
registered to attend review for Master12. Finally on 2 December the same year, he signed the Codex of
Concordat13, the last Act allowing him to exercise his trade. He seems to have been Apothecary Companion in
Montpellier: a Pierre Boulduc "said from Beaulieu", a native of Paris, was registered there on 28 November
163114. The words added to his surname remains obscure. Another question – perhaps related to the previous
one – which remains unanswered. In fact, the role of Merchant Spicers and Apothecaries of Paris established
on 5 December 165515 makes reference to two Pierre Boulduc, one received as Master Spicer in 1622 – the son
of Louys –, the other in 1636. This other one is unknown to us.

Pierre Boulduc was Warden of the Community of Apothecary-Spicers in 1661, 1662 and 1663. His Arms
bearing portrait, exposed in the Salle des Actes of the Faculty of Pharmacy of Paris-V16, bears the following
inscription: "Petrus Boulduc Pharmacop. Paris. Præfectus annis 1661,62,63. Ætatis 56 anno 1663."

The Arms of the Boulduc: three Dukes (birds) grasping under their legs a ball of sand, are illustrated17.

In 1642, Pierre Boulduc was elected Councilor of the jurisdiction consular18. He was also one of the
Apothecary Garden’s Director in the suburb of Saint-Marcel, and was responsible in 1652 of collecting from his
"fellow gentlemen" funds committed for the installation of necessary water supplies to the Garden19. The
special account that he established for this occasion mentions the names of seventy Apothecaries constituting
the entire Community20.

In 1662 he was Inspector of the Consular election for Paris21. This is not surprising because, that same year,
he was Warden of the Community, and as such a member of the Board of the Six-Guilds, and we know the
interrelationship which existed between the Court and this privileged Board.

Pierre Boulduc practiced his business on Saint-Jacques Street, where he was already installed back in June
163922. Was it in the house of l’Image Notre-Dame [Image of Our Lady] that he rented23 – or renewed his rent
– on 16 November 1649 for six years? It was an important domain "consisting of a dual dwelling, one in the
front and one behind", with a store, a court, a well, belonging to a Marie Hubert, daughter of Jean Hubert,
Apothecary, and spouse of Nicolas Cappon, Doctor-Administrator at the Faculty of Medicine of Paris. Located
on the census terrain of the city of Paris24, on the side of St-Jean-de-Latran, and having behind the College of
Trois Évêques, or College of Cambrai, she was close to the entryway of the mass grave [charnier] of Saint-
Benoît-le-Bestourné. Repulsive neighborhood, no doubt, but our Apothecary, who was Council Member in
charge of the construction of the Church Saint-Benoît25, had only to cross Saint-Jacques Street in order to
exercise his charitable work!

This house was taxed in respect of the cleaning of the streets, following the Royal Declaration of 9 July 1637,
but the name of the occupant is altered as Pierre Barleduc26.

[Anecdote: another mention of this house can be found in the book Le Cadre de Vie des
Médecins Parisiens aux XVIe et XVIIe Siècles, by Françoise Lehoux (1976). Here is the excerpt,
page 375:
(…) L’image Notre-Dame1 [Saint-Jacques Street], (...), was a dual-dwelling domain (...). (...) on
16 November 1649 (...) Nicolas leased the entire house, for six years, to Pierre Boulduc,
Apothecary-Spicer, averaging 710 l. in rent and 3 l.t. annuity to "Gentlemen of Sorbonnes"2.
5
Notes:
1 No house ensign is mentioned in the leases of 1641 and 1649, infra. But in the inventory of Marie Hubert (inv. 70,
fol. 6) is the lease of 1649 in these terms: "lease made ... to Mr. Pierre Bolduc (sic) ... to a house in Paris, St. Jacques
Street, under the ensign of l’Image Nostre-Dame, towards the mass grave of St. Benoist".
2 16 November 1649. Lease by Nicolas Cappon, "living on Tirechappe Street", to Pierre Boulduc, living on Saint-
Jacques Street "in here declared house" of "a house consisting of two bodies of lodging, one in front and one behind
... to said Sir, the leaser being Marie Hubert, his wife ". The leaser is committed to "have a stone sink made in the
camber of the second or third room watching the court, with a lead discharge, at said renter’s choice". XLIII, 59.]

In January 1655, Boulduc acquired the connecting side under the ensign of the Trois cochets [Three Young
Cocks], at the price of 8,000 l.t., a sum that he gave to the creditors of François Fléau, Attorney to the
Parliament Court27. In this house, also located on the census of the City28, he will henceforth live, and die on 14
may 1670. The house had a store, well furnished judging by the long list – 23 pages of inventory – of goods
and popular tools, after the death of Pierre, by the Apothecary Louis-François Desréaux29. We will publish this
inventory later. Pierre Boulduc had inherited from his parents half of the home of the Soleil d’or at the Marché-
aux-Poirées, the other half being given to his sister Marie30.

He formed several Apothecary companions: Toussainctz Gorenflos31, Emmanuel d’Estas32 and Nicolas de
Saincte-Beufve33. With two other Parisian Apothecaries, he ordered in 1639 bronze mortars from Pierre
Mobon, Master Caster living on faubourg Saint-Marcel Street, Saint-Médard parish34.

On 27 December 1639 Pierre Boulduc married Gillette Pijart, daughter of Adam Pijart, Goldsmith, and of
Jacqueline Le Charon, who gave her a dowry of 9,000 l.t., an honorable sum at the time. Endowed with an
6
annuity of 200 l.t., she benefited from a privileged allocation of 500 l.t.35. In the home of Gillette and Pierre,
were born five sons. The elder Pierre was Practitioner, a Clerk at the Châtelet, and in 1667, he bought an office
of Applicant Attorney at the Châtelet and jurisdiction of auditors36. During a transaction which occurred in
1701 with his brother Simon, he was qualified as "Lieutenant Policeman of the King’s Armies"37. Curious
evolution!

Two other sons, Jacques and Gilles, chose the spiritual life and were Professed Religious at the convent of the
Augustins-Déchaussés [Discalced Augustinians] in Paris, torn down during the Revolution (it would have been
situated at the Place des Petits-Pères).

[Anecdote: in a satirical song in the book Recueil dit de Maurepas, Leyde 1865 Tome III, there
is a verse (about the Augustins déchaussés, said the Petits Pères de la place des Victoires, in
Paris) on page 43, relating of a certain "Amable" (first name) named Bosleduc, son of an
Apothecary of Paris, exiled at Clairefontaine in Beauce. It was common at the time that certain
adopt an unknown name for their new religious life.]

Louis and Simon had a completely different destiny as we shall see.

[Anecdote: we can also read in the Revue Militaire Suisse, published in Lausanne (1897), a note
numbered 2 at the bottom of page 399:
The invention of the "percussion rifle" has for origin the use of fulminate of mercury for its
trigger, and this employment is due to modern advances in chemistry. The first chemical
research relating to detonating compounds date back to 1699, and they are due to Pierre Boulduc;
Nicolas Lemery did, from 1712 to 1714, research on this topic; Bayen, Chief Pharmacist of the
Army under Louis XV, made known, in 1774, the fulminate of mercury and its explosive
properties, but they did not have the idea, at the time, to use this fulminate, in any way, for
firearms.]

7
(1598)

8
(1642)

(1638)

9
BOULDUC FAMILY
(Latest Senlis discoveries made possible thanks to Richard Bolduc on 5 September 2011, and Pierre Bolduc on 1 December 2012, from the website http://archives.oise.fr/archives-en-ligne/etat-civil/)

[Table I]

(The Boulducs of Senlis, France [See Note 3])

Gauthier de Belleduc Jean Boulduc Jehan Boulleduc


Resident of Senlis in 1262. Occupies the house “Les Deux Anges” [The Two Angels] in 1480. Occupied Carrefour des Tisserands before 1522.
Laurens de Bouleduc Henri Boulduc Jehan [Jacques] Boulduc
Bourgeois of Paris in Occupies the house “La Torche Rouge” [The Red Torch] in 1486, and Inherits house “Le Mouton Rouge” [The Red Sheep] occupied by Loys Thierry
1418. owns a garden behind “L’Aigle d’Or” [The Golden Eagle] in 1485. in 1507.
[See Note 2] Marie Boulduc
Daughter of Henri, spouse of Jean Malenvoge, inherits garden by Jacques Boulduc [Same as above]
Loys Boulleduc 1506. Loys Thierry (In stead of Jacques Boulduc) owes debt to this house in 1522.
b. about 1520
Henry Boulduc Simon Boulduc
Avowed Religious at
Inherits house “Les Trois Écuelles” [The Three Bowls] by 1507. Occupies “Le Mouton Rouge” in 1531.
Saint-Nicolas Convent,
Novice, in 1553, Senlis. Lambert Boulduc † Éloy Boulduc
[See Note 4] Son of Henry, must pay debt to this house in 1522. Daughter passes on “Le Mouton Rouge” to her son Jacques Dugaast in 1607.

Henry Boulduc [Boulleduc], b. about 1500 X Marguerite Lobry


Mentioned Bourgeois Merchant at Senlis in Godmother of Katherine Boulduc in 1560.
1556 & 1557. [See Note 4]

Marie Boulduc Prisce Boulduc Jacques Boulduc Henry Boulduc Jeanne Boulduc, b. 11 August 1541 Simon (Symon) Boulduc Charles Boulduc, b. 21 April 1545
[b. about 1525, [b. before 1530] Godfather of [b. about 1539] [† after 23 June 1625] [See Note 3] b. 19 April 1543 † October 1590 [See Note 6]
† after 1570] X Pierre Darras Jacques Darras, X Marie Roussel Spouse of Loys Bruslé † between 28 Aug 1579 Merchant in Paris in 1585, &
X Henry Coquin Godmother of son of Prisce [† before 1595] & 6 Aug 1595 [See Note 8] Innkeeper in Paris on Bourg-l’Abbé
in 1541. Katherine Boulduc Boulduc in 1557. Godmother of Symonne Boulduc in Merchant Draper in Street. Godfather of Charles
in 1560. 1565. Senlis. Boulduc on 23 March 1585.
X X
Katherine (Catherine) Boulduc Pierre Boulduc Jacqueline de Bonnaire Marie de Verberie
b. 9 May 1560, † in 1583 in Senlis b. 29 June 1562 b. 8 March 1548 Godmother of
[See Table II]
X Louis Dugast († in 1583) on 15 July 1581 X Hélène Joye in 1589 [† after 20 July 1599] Nicolas Boulduc on
Godmother of Marguerite Boulduc on 2 August 1572. in Senlis. [See Note 1] 23 September 1575.

[There’s a Jacques Boulduc mentioned in Symonne Boulduc Henry Boulduc Jacques Boulduc
Imprimeurs & Libraires Parisiens du XVIe b. 5 December 1565 b. 31 October 1567 b. 11 August 1569
siècle, Philippe Renouard, 1979, p. 506, stating Godfather: Jean Lobry Godfather: Martin de [† 1574?]
him as a Merchant Draper, and Godfather of Godmothers: Simonne de Bonnaire & Bonnaire
Jacques Constant on 18 July 1564, in Paris.] Jeanne Boulduc spouse of Loys Bruslé Godmother: Jeanne Lobry

10
Louis (Loys) Boulduc X Françoise le Brun Marguerite Boulduc Jacques Boulduc Nicolas Boulduc Antoine Boulduc
b. 1 October 1570 Marries Loys Boulduc on 6 b. 2 August 1572 b. 31 August 1574 b. 23 September 1575 b. 10 January 1577
Merchant Spicer at the August 1595 in Paris. Godmothers: Symonne de Godfather: Symon de Godmother: Marie de Weigher for the King &
“Marché aux Poirées” [The Bonnaire & Catherine Bonnaire Verberie Merchant Spicer, Paris.
White Market] in Paris. Boulduc daughter of Henry [See Note 7]
Godfathers: Louis Brusley & [See Table II] Boulduc Godfather: Jean Lobry, the
François Lobry Young

Jacques Boulleduc Robert Bolduc


Jacqueline Boulduc Charles Boulduc Geneviève Boulduc Draper and Group b. 5 December 1605
b. 30 January 1579 b. 23 March 1585 b. 23 January 1588 Commander of fifty (Parish of St. Aignan)
Godfather: Charles Boulduc, habitants in Paris. Senlis
Merchant in Paris Lived near St. Lieu-St. Father: Henri Bolduc
Gilles Church in 1571. [Same as Henry b. 1567 above?]
[See Note 5] Mother: Marguerite Coussains
[There is also mention of a Henri Boulduc,
Godfather to a Sébastien du Val in April
1556, in the same Parish of St. Aignan.]

* **
NOTE 1: The parents of Jacqueline de Bonnaire were Simon de Bonnaire and Colette Fouques. Her Godmothers were Marie de Bonnaire spouse of Jacques Sauvage & Catherine Fouques,
daughter of † Jean Fouques (8 March 1548). Jacqueline was made Godmother on 20 July 1599 in Senlis (Senlis Archives).
Here “b.” stands for “Baptised”.
Only Godfathers and Godmothers with surnames of interest are noted.
The records go as far back as October 1539 for the parish of Ste. Geneviève and May 1543 for St. Pierre. Thus nothing can be confirmed beyond those dates.
There is also a great gap in the archives of Ste. Geneviève between September 1548 and July 1565.
NOTE 2: Source: Bulletin de la Société des Antiquaires de l’Ouest, Quatrième Série, 1844, page 204.
NOTE 3: Sources: Maisons et Enseignes de Senlis, du XIVe au XVIIIe Siècle, Volumes 1-5, 1984-88.
NOTE 4: Sources: Comité Archéologique de Senlis, Comptes-Rendues et Mémoires, Deuxième Série, Tome V, 1880, page 127 (Henry Boulleduc), & Tome VIII, 1884, page 98 (Loys
Boulleduc).
NOTE 5: Sources: Registre des Ordonnances, Mandemens, Assemblées, Deliberations et autres Expeditions Faictes au Bureau de la Ville de Paris, 1883, page 375, and Journal de Pharmacie
et de Chimie, Sixième Série, Tome Premier, 1895, page 283.
* Coat of Arms of Pierre and Gilles-François Boulduc. Source: Pharmaciens au Muséum, Philippe Jaussaud, 1998.
** Coat of Arms as re-painted on the portrait of Pierre Boulduc, with erroneous colors.
Source of all three Coat of Arms in color: La salle des actes de la faculté de pharmacie-Paris V, Comité de rénovation, 1996.
NOTE 6: In 1930, a Parisian bookseller sold a manuscript (46 pages) dated 21 October 1590: “Inventory of the property of Charles Boulduc, Innkeeper in Paris, Bourg-l'Abbé Street, made at
the request of Marie de Verberye, his wife, and his other heirs.” (The inventoried hotel was at the angle of Bourg-l'Abbé Street and Garnetat (Gretena) Street, an area absorbed today by the
Sébastopol Boulevard. The inventory incorporated the cellars, court, kitchens, hotel rooms, paintings, books, weapons, etc.) [Source: L’Église réformée de Paris sous Louis XIII : de 1621 à
1629, Jacques Pannier, 1931, p. 264, note 80.]
NOTE 7: Sources: Glossaire du Droit François, Tome II, 1704, page 228; Le Bibliographe Moderne, Courrier International des Archives et des Bibliothèques, 1905, page 249; Centre
historique des Archives nationales à Paris, 1613-1623/AN ET-LXXXVI-312, P.617; Archives nationales de France, Minutes et répertoires du notaire Jean II Chapellain, 9 juillet 1610-
décembre 1623 (étude XXIV) & Centre historique des Archives nationales à Paris, 01/01/1644-04/30/1644/AN ET-XXXIV-89, P.108.
NOTE 8: Minutes et répertoires du notaire Jean CHAZERETZ (étude I), janvier - 1579, décembre MC/ET/I/4. Accord d'héritage entre frères concernant Jacqueline DEBONNAIRE,
11
femme de Simon BOULDUC, 28 août 1579. Archives Nationales (France).
BOULDUC FAMILY
(SIMPLIFIED GENEALOGY)
[Table I]
[Table II]

Charles Boulduc X Marie de Verberie Symon Boulduc X Jacqueline Debonnaire


[See Table I] [See Table I] Ysambert Le Brun X Perette Conseil
Bourgeois Merchant
[?] in Paris

Laurent Boulduc
Merchant in the Palace of Paris Loys Boulduc X Françoise Le Brun Guillaume Le Brun Geneviève Le Brun
(Cousin of Loys) [See Table I] Bourgeois Merchant
in Paris
Adam Pijart X Jacqueline Le Charon
Goldsmith

Marie Boulduc Louis Boulduc Pierre Boulduc X Gillette Pijart


1 X Jacques Parent Spicer Apothecary
2 X Gilles Gond 1607-14.05.1670

Claude Hubert X Isabelle Fontaine


Attorney at the
Parliament of Paris

Pierre Boulduc Louis Boulduc X Élisabeth Hubert Simon Boulduc X Marie-Élisabeth de Lestang Gilles Boulduc Jacques Boulduc
Lieutenant at the Maréchaussée King’s Procurator Apothecary of the King Religious Religious
X Mrs Barbié Provostship of Member of the Royal
Quebec Academy of Sciences
1652-22.02.1729

Gilles-François Boulduc Simon-Charles Boulduc Marie-Élisabeth Boulduc Marie-Madeleine Boulduc


Apothecary of the King Canon at Lisieux X
Member of the Royal Academy of Sciences Guy Érasme Emmerez
BOLDUC 20.02.1675-17.01.1742 Dr. at the Faculty of Medicine X
Canadian Dynasty 1 X Marie-Anne Alexandre † 1714 of Paris François Spire Chastelier
2 X Edmée Catherine Millon Procurator at the Châtelet

Jean Boulduc Jean-François Boulduc


[1697] [See Appendix, First Apothecary of the King
page 207.] 20.02.1728-18.08.1769
No Descendants

12
13
(1681 [London])
14
(1728 [London])
Louis Boulduc, Merchant, King’s Attorney at the Provostship of Quebec

Source: http://pistard.banq.qc.ca From Marriage Certificate.

The after-death Property Inventory of Pierre Boulduc and his Will transcribed in that inventory38, refers to the
settling of his son Louis in Quebec, Canada. This has led us to consult the Dictionary of Canadian
Biographies39 and the Genealogical Dictionary of Canadian families40, kept at the Cultural Service of the
Canadian Embassy in Paris.
According to these two books, Louis Boulduc, born c. 1648–1649, landed at Quebec on 17 August 1665 as a
soldier of the Andigné de Grand-Fontaine company of the Carignan Regiment. Three years later, he married on
20 August 1668 Elisabeth Hubert, daughter of Claude Hubert, Attorney in the Parliament of Paris, and Isabelle
Fontaine, living on Tisseranderie Street, Parish of Saint-Gervais. The marriage contract41 was done 8 August
1668 before the notary Lecomte at Quebeq (sic) following the custom of Paris in the presence of many
personalities. The bride brought a dowry of 4 l.t. in furniture, clothes, rings and jewelry.

Source: http://www.troupesdemarine.org/traditions/uniforme/pgs/un000011.htm
[Anecdote: we find an interesting detail in the book The Good
Regiment, 1665–1668) by Jack Verney (1991) concerning the surname
of Louis Boulduc, page 159, Appendix B:
NOMINAL ROLL
Table 4
Company Rosters
(Noms de guerre [War Names] shown in parentheses)
GRANDFONTAINE COMPANY
Rank Name Biographical Notes
Soldier Louis Boulduc Settled in Canada in 1668.
(Bosleduc)

There is an important piece of information concerning the Noms de guerre: they are normally given by
the rest of the troops as part of an initiation rite. This could mean that our ancestor might not have
chosen the name of Bosleduc (contraction of Bois-le-Duc) himself, which was the name of the town of
’s-Hertogenbosch, also known as the “Swamp (Marsh) Dragon” to military leaders, because of its
strategic location in the low marshes of Holland (See Appendix in this document, pages 218-220).]
On the Count of Frontenac’s recommendation, Governor General of Canada (1672), Louis was appointed by
Royal letters dated 15 April 1676 Attorney for the King in the Provostship of Quebec. Victim of local political
intrigues, Boulduc was "accused of misappropriated funds in every houses that has suffered his presence, of
depravity, and a continuous crook"! He was judged yet still as "a mischievous one ever to have suffered in such
a function." As the favorite of Frontenac, he was accused of embezzlement, was dragged in front of the
Sovereign Board, and deprived of his Office on 20 March 1682, a decision confirmed by the King on 4 June
1686. His wife having returned to France in 1685, Louis then followed her and died in his native country
between 8 February 1700 and 2 April 170142. Their eight children43 remained in Canada and took the name of
Bolduc. Their descendants are considerable, if we acknowledge that the thousands of Bolduc registered in the
15
phone book of Quebec and its surroundings have the same origin. They are numerous in Montreal, and can be
found in the United States. In the 1930s, the most famous female Quebec singer, Mary Travers, was dubbed
"Bolduc"!

(1660)
What can we make of the charges of embezzlement against Louis Boulduc in Quebec? Are they based on
facts? In the Will that Pierre Boulduc wrote on 30 April 1666, while Louis had been eight months in Quebec,
he begged and implored his wife Gillette Pijart "to one day have the kindness to forgive all the bad past
behavior of Louis Boulduc, our son, as I have forgiven him, if with the great grace of God, as I hope, having
come to terms in recognizing all the errors of his past, will submit to all the required and necessary submissions
for such instances, and in so doing, that you will charitably and reasonably assist him with good advice and
counsel (…)". He finally asks his wife to not disinherit their son.
We have no records of action identifying any misconduct by Louis, sins of youth no doubt, because he was
only eighteen years when his father wrote his will, but serious enough to a devout father’s eyes when two of his
sons were joining the religious order. A few deeds listed in Pierre Boulduc’s property inventory44 refers to
purchases destined for Louis or sums of money that were advanced for his settlement in Quebec:
* On 5 September 1665, a Paris merchant, François Meslier, gave a receipt to Pierre Boulduc for 300 l.t. 45 for
furnitures made to Louis Boulduc who had arrived in Quebec.
* In a message dated 17 may 1669 to Pierre Boulduc, Paul Ragueneau acknowledged that Gillette Pijart gave
him 1,000 l.t. to send to her son Louis in Kébec (sic) towards the purchase of a house. We know that Louis will
acquire in Charlesbourg on 7 October 1669 a forty acres lot belonging to Jacques Bédard for the price of 800 l.t.
16
* On 18 may 1669 Louis, being in passage in Paris, stayed with his parents and "getting ready to return to
said city of Kébec", begged them "to kindly assist him with something to make his settlement and the trade of
goods". He received 1,500 l.t. in advanced heritage rights46.
* This same 18 may, Pierre Boulduc requests a merchant of Rouen to supply goods to his son Louis valued at
500 l.t., to include transportation, and undertakes to have it settled in July.
* On 23 July the same year, under a privately sealed act, Paul Ragueneau acknowledges having received
from Mrs. Boulduc 250 l.t. for the 500 pounds that he has advanced to Louis.
* The last document, undated, refers to a compiled list of goods supplied to Louis Boulduc from Reverend
Father Ragueneau’s order.
Born in Paris in 1608, Father Ragueneau arrived in Quebec in 1636, and was General Superior of the Jesuits’
Mission in Quebec. Returned to France in 1662, he was Prosecutor of the Mission in Paris and died on 3
September 1680 in the capital. Two uncles of Louis Boulduc, both Jesuits, participated in the Quebec Mission.
They were the sons of Claude Pijart and Geneviève Charon. The eldest, Claude Pijart, was born in Paris in
1600, came to Quebec in 1637, and remained there until his death on 16 November 1683. He taught theology,
philosophy and humanities in the Jesuit College of Quebec. His brother Pierre was also of Parisian origin, born
in 1608, was able to reach Quebec in 1635, but left the Mission and returned to France in 1650. He died in
Dieppe on 26 May 1676.
It is likely that the subsidies delivered to the Reverend Father Ragueneau, and intended to Louis Boulduc,
arrived to Quebec through the intermediate of the Parisian and Quebec Jesuit Missions.
Louis had a third religious uncle. Sébastien Pijart, brother of Gillette, doctor of theology and living in the
convent of the Religious Ursulines Dames of the Saint-Jacques Commune. He made the donation of his goods
to his sister in 165647.
In 1431, Master Guillaume de Villon, Canonical Law Repeater, became chaplain of this church now vanished,
whose choir, oriented to the West, justifies the nickname “badly oriented”. That year, François de
Montcorbier was born: a destitute orphan, entered at six or seven years old in the service of the good chaplain,
and the future poet harvested the memories of his cherished adoptive father, whose name he will make famous.
First a chorus child, he became Batchelor at age 18, and licensed in arts in 1452. He fills the space of his
youth unbridled, being more attracted to taverns and girls than for a scholastic life. From brawls to pilferage,
he must exile himself from the capital, and his traces become lost after 1463: “Fellow humans, who after us
will live, Have not your heart against us hardened…”
Richard Bolduc
(2010)

Photo:

(Saint-Benoît Church) 17
[Note: After studying many different documents, I have found a few possible theories to explain
the meaning of the Coats of Arms of our Boulduc ancestors. Among the details carved in the
Church of Saint-Benoît, where Pierre Boulduc was Churchwarden in 1646 and 1648 (The years
when his two sons Pierre and Louis were born?), there were Crests which decorated the arches
on the ceiling. Looking up at them, it is possible that he found the inspiration for his own Coat
of Arms right there above him, in this church. Here is an actual example from the Church of
Saint-Benoît, alongside a “restored” version of his portrait:

Having interests in wanting to work inside a church, it would be sensible to think that he was
very religious. It is already known that he had the gift of forgiveness (especially concerning his
son Louis, our common ancestor [See page 16]), and being in this church probably made him
feel comfortable. Thus looking straight up, above him under these arches, he could have
considered those Coat of Arms, and I think that by this act of looking towards the heaven he
would have had the idea to choose Religion as the theme for his own Arms. The choice to have
Canting Arms would have come naturally or by suggestion.

The significance of having a blue chevron with golden stars could represent the celestial
heaven for him. Why a chevron? Because a chevron points to the sky, just as he did when
looking up under the arches of the Church. For background, he could have chosen silver (grey),
which would represent the color of what Churches are made of: stone (In French “pierre”, his
name!). Finally, why did he choose red for the birds (duc)? Possibly for the Blood of Christ.
Now why reproduce the birds with the spheres three times: for the Trinity? Taking all in
perspective, this Shield could have thus become a kind of religious symbol for Pierre.

While maintaining the Canting Arms of his father, Simon, by contrast [Page 19], could have
chosen gold to represent Science, his passion to know. He might also have chosen black for the
color of his birds possibly to represent lead. The greatest dream for men of science was to
discover the way of transforming lead into gold. As an anecdote, gold is not exactly a rare
material in churches, so his own Coat of Arms might have in this way complemented that of his
father’s. And in his chevron, he could have chosen white stars for the zodiac stars of the
universe.

Finally, Gilles-François [Page 21] would have adopted the Coat-of-Arms of his grandfather,
knowing he was in heaven. In this fashion and perhaps many others, his grandfather was still
alive.]
18
Simon Boulduc, Apothecary-Spicer, Member of the Royal Academy of Sciences (1652-22 February 1729)

Portrait n° 67 – Simon BOULDUC

Received as Master Apothecary on 8 November 1672, he was Warden from 1687 to 1689, Consul in 1698, Judge
in 1707. As Royal Apothecary, he was Demonstrator in chemistry at the Royal Garden (Jardin du Roi) (1695) and
member of the Royal Academy of Sciences. He was the son of Pierre Boulduc (portrait No. 74).
The Armorial of d’Hozier states: Of Gold with a chevron of azure, mounted with three Silver stars and
accompanied by three Dukes (birds) of sable, each resting on a ball of same. Simon, son of Pierre, has simply
changed the colors from the overall look.
Source and photography: ibid.

If Pierre Boulduc, when drafting his Will48, was vehement against the actions of his son Louis, on the other
hand, he manifested a real affection for Simon, promised for a distinguished Apothecary career. Here’s in a few
terms: "I bequeath (…) To Simon Boulduc, my son, in consideration of his good obedient services and respect
given me, and for the good of love and affection, that I give all of my books on humanity and having them both
in print and manuscripts, concerning medicine, pharmacy, pharmaceutics and chemistry, and of surgery, Latin,
Greek and French, and all other small published writings affecting these matters, which books and writings are
all in my Office or elsewhere (…) to the condition and if he continues his original purposes and will, of further
educating in the art of apothecary and that effectively he reaches, one day, to the Mastery.".

Simon will be a privileged beneficiary of his parents property. On 27 January 1692, Gillette Pijart made a
report to her sons49 Louis and Simon on the guardianship of their property and to Pierre, the eldest son, on the
management of his assets, since the death of their father on 14 may 1670. The three brothers were heirs, each
for a third of all assets, concerning their religious brothers’ share, Gilles and Jacques, since as a result of their
status were considered to be "dead to the world", and were assimilated as such. Thus their successions were
open. A month later, on 26 February, Gillette gave the totality of all movable and immovable property to
Simon which belonged to her, or which will belong to her on the day of her death50. Amongst the rules and
conditions imposed on the recipient, included a pension plan for the benefit of the House and Convent of the
Jesuits in Canada of 100 l.t. to the capital of 2,000 pounds. After the death of their mother, a little before April
1701, a friendly transaction was negotiated on 2 April 1701 between Pierre and Simon51 – Louis having died –

19
in order to avoid judicial expenses weighing between them to queries from the Palace Hotel. The estate not
having produced anything and Simon not being a debtor, it was decided that he would receive the shares from
their parental estate in any property, and the two brothers decided to withdraw from any court procedures.

[…] His portrait is exposed in the Salle des Actes of the Faculty of Pharmacy Paris-V58, and bears the
following inscription: "Simon Boulduc Parisiens. Pharmacop. Regius e Regia Scientar. Academia praefectus et
Consul. Obiit anno 1729."

He practiced his business on Boucheries-Saint-Germain Street, in the suburb of Saint-Germain, Saint-Sulpice


Parish. We do not know on what date he settled there, but during the marriage of his daughter Marie-Élisabeth,
in February 1691, he was living there. Contrary to what says P. Dorveaux, this was not "the home of his
ancestors" because, as we have said, his father had lived on Saint-Jacques Street, first at L’image Notre-Dame,
then in the house under the sign of the Trois cochets59.

The after-death Property Inventory of Simon Boulduc, started on 3 March 172960 – he died February 22 on
Tournon Street –, reports the disposal of his shop’s contents to his son, Apothecary Gilles-François, on 1 April
1702, without any other specifications.

[…] Simon married Marie-Élisabeth de Lestang, daughter Bénigne de Lestang and Élisabeth Herne (or
Hervé). The marriage contract was signed on 12 June 167462 and Marie-Élisabeth was endowed by her mother,
widow of Lestang, with 7,000 l.t. which she kept two thirds as her own. They had four children: Gilles-
François, Simon-Charles, future Canon at the Cathedral Church of Lisieux, Marie-Madeleine and Marie-
Élisabeth, already mentioned. This fifteen year-old engaged by marriage contract of 12 February 169163 to
marry Guy-Érasme Emmerez, doctor of medicine at the Faculty of Paris. The large dowry of 12,000 l.t. which
she benefitted was at the image of the enviable situation her father occupied. On a noteworthy observation,
high nobility personalities attended the signing of the contract: the Duchess Bénédicte de Brunswick, Charlotte
and Amélie de Brunswick-Lüneburg, her daughters, Princess of Mecklenburg, and friends. Bénédicte de
Brunswick was the daughter of Anne de Gonzague, Princess Palatine. Was also present Dupin, Intendant of the
House of Affairs of the Duchess Bénédicte, after being responsible for the stewardship of the House of Princess
Palatine, who left her by testament 12,000 pounds.

[…] Simon Boulduc died on 22 February 1729 in a house on Tournon street, Parish of Saint-Sulpice,
belonging to the Hôpital-Général64. His assets and those of his wife, who died in May 1700, were taken and
their movable goods sold65. Two houses were left in heritage. The Trois cochets house66, on Saint-Jacques
Street, purchased by Pierre Boulduc in 1655, was appraised at 18,000 l.t., when it had been purchased at 8,000
l.t. At the Marché-aux-Poirées, the house of Soleil d’or67, bought by the ancestor Louys Boulduc, and having
been the subject of a first inheritance between Pierre Boulduc and his sister Marie, now only half of it entered
the succession at the price of 10,000 l.t. Finally the total estate value amounted to 53 652 l.t., and each of the
four heirs received the equivalent of 13,413 l.t. Gilles-François was the sole recipient of half of the house on
Saint-Jacques Street, the other half being distributed between his Canon brother in Lisieux and a sister. Half of
the Soleil d’or was divided between his two sisters.

[…]

20
Gilles-François Boulduc (20 February 1675 – 17 January 1742)

Portrait n° 62 – Gilles-François BOULDUC

Received as Master Apothecary on 14 March from 1695 to 1711, Consul in 1717, Alderman in 1726, First
Apothecary of the King and Queen, Demonstrator in chemistry at the Royal Garden (1729), member of the Royal
Academy of Sciences. He was the son of Simon Boulduc (portrait No. 67).
The armories of Gilles-François are the same as Pierre’s.
Source and photography : ibid.

In a previous article68, we have shown that Gilles-François Boulduc was the eldest of four children of Simon
Boulduc and Marie-Élisabeth de Lestang. His brother Simon-Charles was Canon at the Cathedral Church of
Lisieux. His two sisters entered honorable marriages, Marie-Madeleine Boulduc married François-Spire
Chastelier, Attorney at the Châtelet of Paris, Marie-Élisabeth Boulduc married Guy-Érasme Emmery, doctor of
the Faculty of Medicine of Paris (see pedigree chart).

The research we've conducted at the National Archives has helped to find the after-death property Inventory
of this Royal Apothecary and other pieces of archives. The Inventory was started 3 February 174269 at the
request of his wife Edmée-Catherine Millon, guardian of Jean-François Boulduc, their minor single son.
Present were Master Pierre de Beauvais, lawyer at the Parliament of Paris, subrogate guardian of Jean-François,
and Claude Pia, Apothecary Merchant, the partner of Gilles-François, as we shall see.

Born 20 February 1675, died 17 January 1742 in Versailles, Gilles-François accumulated many titles and
honors as did his father Simon, and even surpassed him, as he also became Alderman of the city of Paris in
1726. This charge ennobled him, and allowed him to grab the title of "Squire". This rich background was
described by G. Planchon70 and P. Dorveaux71,72, from the documents preserved in the archives of the former
School of Pharmacy of Paris (BIUP). The following table lists the titles, functions and mandates of both father
and son.

21
Functions occupied by Simon and Gilles-François Boulduc.
Simon Gilles-François
1652 20 February 1675
22 February 1729 17 January 1742
Master Apothecary 8 November 1672 14 March 1695
Warden of the Community 1687-1689 1709-1711
Director of the Apothecary Garden 1722
Privileged Apothecary Artist–Apothecary of the King Apothecary of the King
(Louis XIV and Louis XV) (Louis XIV and Louis XV)
Since 1712
Apothecary of Madam Apothecary of Madame
Princess Palatine Princess Palatine
1705-1722
Apothecary of the Queen Apothecary of the Queen
Dowager of Spain Marie Leczinska 1735-1742
Consulate Jurisdiction Consul in 1698 Consul in 1717
Judge in 1707
Squire Office Squire in 1726
King’s Garden Chemist Demonstrator Chemist Demonstrator
Royal Academy Academician-Chemist 1694 Assistant for Chemistry 1716
of Sciences Resident-chemist 1699 Associate-Chemist 1727
Veteran 1723

Let’s also add that as a Royal Apothecary, Gilles-François was named by Louis XV member of the Medical
Examination Commission of secret remedies (25 October 1728 and 17 March 1731 edicts).

[…] The portrait of Gilles-François is exposed at the Salle des Actes of the Faculty of Pharmacy of Paris75.
It bears the following inscription: "Aegid. Francisc. Boulduc Parisinus Regis et Reginæ Pharmacop. Primarius e
regia Scientiar Academia Dudum præfectus consul et Œdilis."

His medallion is placed on the right side of the façade of the Faculty of Pharmacy76.

Family life of Gilles-François Boulduc

He lived just like his father on Boucheries Street at the suburb of Saint-Germain, Saint-Sulpice Parish, in a
house belonging to a Henry Millon, Haberdasher, Consul and former Alderman of the city of Paris (1732). The
lease of this house, under the ensign of the Balcon [Balcony], was renewed in favor of Gilles-François by an
Act of 24 January 173977 for nine years, starting at the Saint-Jean-Baptiste (24 June) of the year 1740, for the
price of 2 220 l.t. (including 20 pounds of street cleaning tax and the maintenance of public lanterns). It was a
large dwelling with five floors (approximately twenty rooms), three boutiques, a carriage entrance, court and a
well.

If Gilles-François was only a tenant of the house where he lived, he was co-owner of the house under the
ensign of the Trois cochets, on Saint-Jacques Street, after it entered the family heritage when purchased by
Pierre Boulduc, his grandfather, in 1655. At the death of his father Simon Boulduc, Gilles-François had
inherited half of this house, the other half being distributed between his brother Canon at Lisieux, and his sister
Marie-Madeleine78.

22
On an amicable licitation of 6 July 172979, he acquired his brother’s share with the intent to sell the home
quickly. Indeed, on 27 September 1729, he handed it over with his brother-in-law François Chastelier, husband
of Marie-Madeleine, to Fiacre Corbon, surgeon of Monsignor the Duke of Gesvres, at the price of 18,000
pounds80,81.

Gilles-François Boulduc married twice. On his first wedding, he married Marie-Anne Alexandre, daughter of
François Alexandre, Hosier Merchant in Paris, and Marie Mignon his wife, living on Quincampoix Street. High
nobility was represented at the signature of the marriage contract on 23 April 170782 by Ms. Princess Palatine,
wife of Philippe d'Orléans, Louis XIV's brother (she signed: Élisabeth Charlotte), and also by Mrs. the Duchess
of Orléans, Françoise-Marie de Bourbon, wife of Philippe II d’Orléans, Duke of Montpensier (she signed:
Marie-Françoise de Bourbon). There were also other personalities: François Dupin, Intendant of the Houses
and Businesses of the Duchess of Brunswick – he had already attended the signing of the marriage contract of
Marie-Élisabeth Boulduc83–, Mr. Voille de Lagarde, Queries Master and SAR Commanding Secretary of
Madam Flory Essarts, Treasurer of France, etc. The parents and friends of the bride were all of modest
surroundings, representing the crowd’s upper class: the marriage was homologous to the gathering of everyone
present for that young woman, who came with a dowry of 15,000 l.t. The prefix dower was made up of 300 l.t.
annuity and her personal share set at 2,000 l.t. Seven years later, in January 1714, Marie-Anne Alexandre died.
Indeed, Gilles-François will record on his second marriage contract that "Lady Marie-Anne Alexandre died in
the year one thousand seven hundred and fourteen, that of this marriage there remained but one son who is also
deceased". Therefore, after twenty years of widowhood and at nearly sixty years of age, Gilles-François
remarried with Catherine-Aymée Millon, living on the Seine Street in the suburb of Saint-Germain, daughter of
deceased Lucien Millon, Bourgeois of Paris, and Jeanne Adam. The marriage contract was signed 27 March
173484 in the strictest of privacy. In fact, this was a marriage of necessity, as their son Jean-François, born 25
February 1728, was six years old. He was therefore a natural son who was ensured a social position. He would
be the only descendant of this lineage of Boulduc.

This future wife brought with her in dowry the sum of 4,000 l.t. "from her earnings and savings", which she
kept half for herself. Gilles-François endowed her with 700 l.t. in annuity, and assigned for each other a net
share of 3,000 pounds.

[Anecdote: Gilles-François was mentioned in Court concerning a Henriette Mellin (wife of


Herbolt Beisselt, m. May 1724) born in August 1697 in Liège, daughter of the widow 'le Comte'
(Marie-Marguerite Soulas, French actress recognized as a very good singer, especially in Italian).
The girl Henriette (she had an elder sister named Marie-Anne, born in September 1696, wife of
Taffar Tanneur, all from Liège) wanted simply to be recognized as being the legitimate daughter
of the Baron of Simeony, who had been courting for a very long time her mother, and who was,
for all practical reason, the biological father of both girls. Problem is, no one could verify or
confirm this. The reason for which the Baron could not marry 'la le Comte', was because she
would have told him that she was already married, to a Gilles-François Bolduc (sic). The Baron
said in court:
"After the death of the first husband of la le Comte, she was legitimately remarried to Gilles-
François Bolduc, aged 18 years, son of an Apothecary in Paris.
"The wedding occurred in the Church of the RR. PP. Jesuits in Hildesheim near Hanover, by
Father Bertrand Trestay, Missionary and Theologian; (...)"
The Baron adds that they would have married in 1693 or 1694. Boulduc would then have
apparently left his wife, but no one could prove any of this, and Gilles-François along with
Marie-Marguerite did not participate in any of these procedures. Ultimately the Court gave
reason to Henriette on 9 August 1727, and the Baron was obliged to recognize her as his own
and give her payments.
An interesting detail in all this comes in the form of a letter written by a Marie Anne de Blerel,
wife of "Sir Apothecary to the King", who wrote on 6 July 1725 to the Baron of Simeony:
23
"I believe, Monsignor, that you have way too much consideration for Mrs. le Comte, to have
fully abandoned a girl who is not the cause of her own misfortuned birth. I must confess that I
am very surprised that you have disowned her as your daughter; the mother could have followed
a happier fortune in discharging herself from her duties; but her mad compassion for the
yearning of passion, and for the liberties which you have seized upon her, did not help her follow
her husband Bolduc (sic), a very nice man; her fault is your own work. In case of need, I will be
obliged to give evidence to the truth."
What can we believe in all this story? The details are in the book Causes célèbres et
intéressantes, avec les jugements qui les ont décidées (Famous and Interesting Causes, and their
Verdicts) compiled by Mr. Gayot de Pitaval, lawyer in the Parliament of Paris, Tenth Volume
(1768), Amsterdam, under the Chapter Fille qui veut changer son état de Légitime, contre celui
de Bâtarde (Girl who wants to change her Legitimate state, for that of a Bastard) (pages 291-
380).]

Professional life of Gilles-François Boulduc

[…] In his Mémoires, Saint-Simon refers several times to a "Boulduc", without specifying the first name, but
there is no doubt that it is Gilles-François. As a note, they were both of the same age.

Saint-Simon, in relating the death of Louis, second Dauphin, Duke of Bourgogne, on 18 February 1712,
writes94: "Wednesday, 17th, he was still growing worse. I heard news of him continually from Cheverny, and
when Boulduc could leave the room he came to speak to me. Boulduc was an excellent apothecary to the king,
who, succeeding his father, had long been and still was ours, with great attachment to us. He knew at least as
much as the doctors, as we had found by experience, and with his knowledge he had much spirit and honor,
discretion and judgment. He hid nothing from Mme. de Saint-Simon and me."
[Source of text in English: http://www.google.com/books?id=FQcZAAAAYAAJ]

G. Planchon, who also referred to this text of Saint-Simon relating to the death of the Dauphin, identified the
"excellent apothecary to the king" as Gilles-François95, a belief shared by Yves Coirault, editor of the Mémoires
in the Library of La Pléiade96. However, in wrongly believing that Gilles-François was not yet a Royal
Apothecary in 1712, was asking under what title was he in the Dauphin’s room97. In fact, G. Planchon had
indicated that Gilles-François had been appointed First Apothecary to the King in 171298, and M. Bouvet had
stated that he had succeeded Philbert Boudin in this charge in April 171299. Accordingly, the second
Apothecary cited by Saint-Simon could only be Simon Boulduc100.

However, P. Dorveaux considered that the King’s Apothecary who was called to the bedside of the dying
Dauphin was Simon Boulduc101. In this case, we should admit that the previous apothecary of Saint-Simon was
Pierre Boulduc, father of Simon, which is wrong. Pierre Boulduc was never a Royal Apothecary and died in
1670, five years before the birth of Saint-Simon. He even mentions in his Mémoires a "Boulduc" on the
occasion of the deaths of the Dauphine Marie-Adélaïde102 and of the Duke of Berry103. It is clear that this is still
Gilles-François, and not Simon.

These deaths appeared suspect in the eyes of Jean Boudin, ordinary physician to the King and son of Philbert
Boudin, of Guy Fagon, First Doctor to the King, but also of Gilles-François Boulduc and many other members
of the Court, all convinced that there had been poisoning going on. The Duke of Orléans, Philippe II, was
suspected: was he not mysteriously involved in experiences of chemistry in his cabinet with Wilhelm
(Guillaume) Homberg, his First Doctor? He also was the son-in-law of the physician to the Duke of
Bourgogne. But the autopsies had apparently not revealed any poisoning, the deaths being related to measles or
the scarlet fever, and the matter was dropped.

24
Note that in order to stop the large vomiting which the Duke of Berry suffered in his death throes, the
Apothecaries gave him "eau de Rabel [alcoholic mixture of sulfuric acid], up to three times"104!

Boulduc was cited two more times by Saint-Simon. In a dialogue dated 29 or 30 June 1720 between Saint-
Simon and the Duke of Orléans, who wanted to dismiss Trudaine, Provost of the Merchants of Paris for a
questionable history of public papers, Saint-Simon reminded him that he had given "approval for an Alderman
seat to Boulduc, King’s Apothecary, very distinguished in his business", that Trudaine refused "with great
violence"105. Was it concerning Simon Boulduc, as stated again by P. Dorveaux?106 We do not believe,
because Saint-Simon was constantly referring to Gilles-François. In any case, he was admitted as Alderman in
1726, and gave oath of loyalty to the King on August 18107.

On 31 July 1721, the King [Louis XV] fell ill and went to bed. The next day Saint-Simon who came for
news was admitted to the Royal Chamber at the moment where Boulduc, "one of his apothecaries, was offering
him something to take"108. Louis XV, who’s disease was short-lived, was cared for by Jean Boudin and Jean-
Claude-Adrien Helvétius.

[…]

[Anecdote: Gilles-François was present when the King Louis XIV was dying. You can read in
the paper Biography universal (Michaud) ancient and modern book, Volume 26 in Paris (1854),
this note #3 at the bottom of page 155:
(3) Boulduc, First Apothecary of the King (see Boulduc), spread an atrocious slander against
Madame de Maintenon (wife of Louis XIV), which we would not speak of had it not been
repeated by Saint-Simon. He claimed that after the King’s last words, Madame de Maintenon
had returned the courtiers, and said: "See the pretty promises that he gives me! This man has
never loved but himself." This story is neither proven nor likely.
In the book, this quote is found in the Mémoires secrètes sur le règne de Louis XIV, La régence
et le règne de Louis XIV (The Secret Mémoires on the Reign of Louis XIV, The Regency and
Reign of Louis XV) by Duclos in Paris (1865), we find under the notes Écrites par M. l’abbé de
Vauxcelles, sur son exemplaire des Mémoires secrets (Written notes by Mr. abbot Vauxcelles, on
his copy of the secret Mémoires) on page 422:
Bolduc (sic), First Apothecary, has assured me that she (Madame de Maintenon) had said
while coming out: " See the pretty promises that he gives me, this man has only loved but
himself." (Page 95)
Mister Duclos, the Apothecary Bolduc who was a man of merit, and who’s children I knew,
did not hear those words attributed to Madame de Maintenon. He has heard them on the faith of
someone, like you would have on the faith of him. I believe that this was thought up from
someone’s imagination as a bragging farce, where sometimes we like to imagine silly tales.
The reference on page 95 (Mémoires de Duclos) includes this:
(…) This discourse I wouldn’t guarantee, because the main servants didn’t like him much, and
would be more from the mouth of the widow Scarron than from a Queen. (…)]

(1775) 25
Jeton de Présence
Bois-le-Duc
Jean-François Boulduc
20 February 1728 – 18 August 1769

In a previous article on the Boulduc dynasty devoted to Gilles-François Boulduc111, we have indicated that
during his marriage with Catherine-Aymée Millon, in 1734, Jean-François, their son, born February 20, (same
day as his father) 1728, was already six years old. He was therefore his natural born son which is clarified in
his baptismal extract of the Archpriestal Saint-Séverin Parish Church in Paris. This excerpt is annexed to a
form of "last survivor" rental clause dated 2 June 1734 established in favor of the young Jean-François112.

We had previously no studies concerning him except for two short notes, one from G. Planchon113 stating that
he had obtained the staying power of his father’s Royal Apothecary charge, the other of M. Bouvet114 indicating
that he had received the exclusive rights of 30,000 pounds in 1756, and the enjoyment of a non-constructible
land situated at Marly, near the watering fountain, on 20 November 1764.

Our research undertaken in the Central Parisian Notaries Repertory in the National Archives gave us a list of
seals115, to include one affixed to the domicile of Jean-François after his death on Boucheries Street, Parish
Saint-Sulpice, when his Property Inventory116 started on 26 August 1769. The inventory was established at the
request, on one hand, of Jacques-Louis Courdoumer, Squire and Wardrobe Valet of the King, living on
Boucheries Street, executor of Jean-François Boulduc’s Will, First Apothecary of the King, and on the other
hand, of Master François-Simon Chastelier, lawyer at the Parliament, Honorary Commissioner at the Châtelet,
as the single heir of the deceased, his first-cousin. There was therefore no direct descendant of Jean-François,
and no marriage contract was found.

[…] Jean-François Boulduc had acquired a house with garden and dependencies in the village of Marly-le-
Roi, on Abreuvoir Avenue, by an Act drafted at Versailles by the Parisian Notary René Poultier on 23 August
1764, at the price of 18,000 pounds, including 2,000 pounds of furnitures125. […]

The property had about two acres and was enclosed in walls, and consisted of a house between a court and a
garden, with a first floor, two stories, four rooms per floor, shed, stable with a house for the gardener and a
servant, a vegetable garden, a greenhouse and a small building behind the garden with fruit trees. But all was in
a very poor condition and required extensive repairs.

The Inventory created in Marly in August 1769, exactly five years after the acquisition of the property by
Jean-François Boulduc, made us discover its destination site. There were 12 rooms, certain decorated with
many paintings, wardrobes, offices, a kitchen, dining room, billiard room, a "company room", a wine cellar.
This one was generously supplied in bottles: 2 drums (of 114 to 140 l.) of Bourgogne de Tonnerre wine, 2
drums of the same wine but from the last harvest, many bottles of white wine of Tonnerre, of Malaga, of
ratafia, etc. Boulduc knew how to receive! The small house behind the garden served as a Royal Apothecary
laboratory. It included various pharmaceutical utensils worth 245 pounds: furnaces, stills, funnels, bottles,
flasks, mortars, scales, weights, and stoves for jams126. Drugs and compositions were stacked in two rooms on
the first floor of the house. The number of jars containing drugs was impressive: 300 jars of "glass crystals"
(200 l.t.), 200 jars of the "animal and coral realms" (600 l.t.), 1,500 "shells" (1,000 l.t.), 1,340 jars of the
"vegetable realm" (800 l.t.). All the goods came to 5,316 pounds127. The Inventory specifies yet that the effects
of Boulduc "which were in Versailles (…) were brought to the house in Marly", which confirms that he shared
his Royal Apothecary activities between the two places.

[…] The Inventory has no indications relating to any publications by Boulduc, who was not a member of the
Royal Academy of Sciences. Having a sure taste for natural sciences, he had subscribed to the purchase of a
thousand drawings on sciences, arts, trades and products132. He had possessed a remarkable Natural History
collection, and an avid amateur Conchologist, having a beautiful collection of shells133.

26
Jean-François Boulduc had achieved an enviable Apothecary career under Louis XV and his Court, but he
never reached the scientific reputation of his father and grandfather.

Michel Depène still lived on Boucheries Street in 1783. Indeed, on 26 July of that year, he declared before
the Châtelet Notaries that he owned a House with shop and a boutique in the back on Boucheries-Saint-Germain
Street on the census of the Abbey of Saint-Germain-des-Prés, taxed at 19 sols parisis134.

Thus concludes the study of this famous Parisian Apothecaries dynasty. Since attaining, by Pierre Boulduc
his great-grandfather, the level of Master Apothecary in 1636, until the death of Jean-François, one hundred and
thirty-three years had passed. Four Apothecaries of the Parisian community succeeded each other from father
to son, of which three were Royal Apothecaries, and two were members of the Royal Academy of Sciences.
His great-uncle Louis Boulduc, Procurator of the King at the Provostship of Quebec, is the source of the
Canadian branch of the family.

NOTES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. G. PLANCHON, "Dynasties d’apothicaires parisiens: les Boulduc", J. Pharm. Chim., 1899, 6th series, p. 332-336.
2. BIUP, Register 7, f° 164, 11 May 1595. The sons of Masters were dispensed from Practical Examinations.
3. AN, MC, I, 25, 6 August 1595. Marriage contract between Louys Boulduc and Françoise Lebrun. She was the daughter of
Isambert Lebrun, deceased Merchant Bourgeois of Paris, and Perrette Conseil, who had remarried with Loys Mauclerc, Merchant on
Saint-Denis Street. The dowry was at 500 pieces of gold, the dower 166 pieces 2/3, and she had a privileged allocation of 100 pieces.
4. AN, MC, XXXV, 261, 20 June 1649. Marriage contract between Françoise Parent, daughter from the first marriage of Marie
Boulduc, sister of Pierre Boulduc, with Rodolphe Gaudeau, Spicer. Were present Gilles Gond, Spicer in the Marché-aux-Poirées, and
Marie Boulduc now his wife, previously widow of Jacques Parent.
5. AN, MC, LXX, 25 January 1622, deficit year. After-death Property Inventory of Louys Boulduc, cited in the Property
Inventory of his son Pierre, note 8, f° 35 v°, item 15. The furniture goods were sold on the following 29 August.
6. Louys Boulduc bought the house at the Marché-aux-Poirées under the ensign of the Soleil d’or on 22 April 1612. This Act
passed in front of the Notary Ménard (Study XXXIX) was not found. This acquisition is cited in the inventory of Pierre Boulduc, v.
note 8, f° 36, item 18, and in the one of Simon Boulduc, v. note 60, f° 14 v°, item 7. The Mud Tax of 1637, BN, ms. fr. 18794, f° 32
and AN, KK 1025, f° 37, was imposed on this house belonging in half to Gilles Gond. At the death of Louys Boulduc, Pierre Boulduc
and his sister Marie inherited the house of Soleil d’or. This house was situated on the East bank of the Marché-aux-Poirées, and was
the twelfth from Fers Street going up towards Cossonnerie Street.
7. The year of 1607 is calculated from two data’s: he was 56 years old when his portrait was done at the Salle des Actes of the
Faculty of Pharmacy of Paris V in 1663 (see note 16), and he was 18 years old at the signature of his Apprenticeship Contract on 6
October 1626 (see note 10).
8. AN, MC, XXXV, 431, 21 March 1671. After-death Property Inventory of Pierre Boulduc.
9. BIUP, Register 7, f° 105 v°, 11 February 1622. Acceptance to the Mastery level of Spicer by examination of Louis and Pierre
Boulduc, sons of deceased Louys Boulduc.
10. AN, MC, X, 60, 6 October 1626. Apprenticeship Patent of Pierre Boulduc, roughly age 18, minor son of deceased Louis
Boulduc and of Françoise Lebrun, presented by Jacques Boulduc, Merchant living at the Tonnellerie in Paris, guardian of Pierre.
Placed in Apprenticeship at Simon de Séqueville, Master Apothecary-Spicer living on Saint-Martin Street, parish of Saint-Nicolas-
des-Champs, for four years, at the price of 350 pounds.
11. BIUP, Register 21, p.16, 20 November 1626. Apprenticeship registration of Pierre Boulduc.
12. BIUP, Register 7, f° 146 v°, 7 October 1636. Registration to the Master Apothecary examination of Pierre Boulduc presented
by Jehan Nicolas, Merchant Apothecary-Spicer.
13. BIUP, Register 44, signature of the Concordat Register by Pierre Boulduc on 2 December 1636.
14. Louis Dulieu, La Pharmacie à Montpellier, 1973, p. 98.
Here is the transcript of the text conserved in the Departmental Archives:
"I, Pierre Boulduc said of Beaulieu, native of Paris, Apprentice Companion living with Mister Bastise, Master Apprentice in
Montpellier, having been examined as much on the selection and the preparation of medicine as in the practical art of Pharmacy by
Mister Durand, judged Master, after which having made me give the Oath to observe the reputation of their School, have allowed me
in paying the commonplace rights, enlisted myself on this present record book. Done in Montpellier this 28th September one thousand
six hundred and thirty one.
Boulduc said of Beaulieu."
The signature of Boulduc is identical to the ones found on other Acts.
I thank Mme Colette Charlot for kindly having addressed to me the reproduction of this Register.
27
15. C. WAROLIN, "Les apothicaires et la maîtrise d’épicerie à Paris. I - Deux listes de réception en 1655 et 1671", Rev. Hist.
Pharm., 1990, n° 286, p. 295-302.
16. C. WAROLIN, "Les portraits d’apothicaires et de pharmaciens", in La Salle des Actes de la Faculté de pharmacie Paris V,
edited by the Renovation Comity and ECN Editions, Paris, 1996, p. 52-53. The portrait of Pierre Boulduc was given n° 74.
17. M. CHAIGNEAU, ibid., p. 66 et 69. Description of the Armories represented on the portraits of the Salle des Actes, but also
the Apothecary Armories not represented on the paintings.
18. BIUP, Register 21, p. 29, 31 January 1642.
19. G. PLANCHON, Le Jardin des apothicaires de Paris, Paris, 1895, p. 68-70.
BIUP, Register 28, piece 14.
20. C. WAROLIN, Le Cadre de vie professionnel et familial des apothicaires de Paris au XVIIe siècle, Doctorate Thesis,
University of Paris IV, Sorbonne, 3 March 1994, t. I, p. 170-171 ; t. Il, p. 173-175.
21. G. DENIÈRE, La Juridiction consulaire de Paris, Paris, 1872, p. 518.
22. See the mortar transaction done on 9 June 1639, see note 34.
23. AN, MC, XLIII, 59, 16 November 1649. Lease of the house of l’Image-Notre-Dame, Saint-Jacques Street, for six years
averaging 710 pounds the rent, and 3 pounds annuity to "Misters of Sorbonne".
24. AN, Ql 1099 l. Terrier de la ville de Paris, 4th notebook, n° 61.
The Tenure Register indicates the nouns of the owners of l’Image-Notre-Dame between 1526 and 1728. The name of Boulduc does
not appear. However, two Apothecaries are mentioned: in 1567 Godefroy Roussel, and in 1610 Jean Hubert.
25. AN, MC, XLIII, 52, 25 April 1647. Pierre Boulduc Council Member of the Church Saint-Benoît.
26. BN, ms. fr. 18788, f° 47 and AN, KK 1024, f° 61. Roll of the Mud Tax in execution of the King’s Declaration of 9 July 1637.
"The house under the ensign of La Belle image is against the wall of Le Mortier where Pierre Barleduc, Master Apothecary, is
living: one hundred and twelve sols tournois."
See: C. WAROLIN, Le Cadre de vie professionnel et familial des apothicaires de Paris au XVIIe siècle, op. cit., t. I, p. 130-152 ; t.
II, p. 113, and plan 16, p. 151.
27. AN, MC, XX, 283, 17 January 1655. Purchase of the house les Trois cochets, Saint-Jacques Street, by Pierre Boulduc.
28. AN, Ql 1099 l. Terrier de la Ville de Paris, 4th notebook, n° 60.
The Tenure Register indicates the nouns of owners of les Trois cochets between 1507 and 1655, year of the house’s acquisition by
Pierre Boulduc. Gillette Pijart, his widow, claimed possession on 2 July 1671.
29. Inventory of the store’s content of Pierre Boulduc, see note 8, f° 11 v° - 22 v°.
30. On 5 June 1658, the co-owners of the Soleil d’or — house bought in 1612 by Louys Boulduc, see note 6 — declared it to the
King’s Domain, see note 60, f° 14 v°, item 7.
Pierre Boulduc, Pierre Parent and Rodolphe Gaudeau, guardian of his minor children and of deceased Françoise Parent, his wife,
and Isabelle Parent, major daughter, declared that the house of the Soleil d’or belonged to them as inheritors, to know : Pierre Boulduc
of deceased Louys Boulduc and of Françoise Lebrun his father and mother, Pierre Parent and Isabelle Parent, and the Gaudeau minors,
as inheritors of deceased Marie Boulduc, wife of Gilles Gond on the day of her death and widow of Jacques Parent.
A report done at the Soleil d’or on 12 January 1650, rated Zlj 269, and followed by a verdict on 25 July, proves that Marie Boulduc
was still alive and was remarried to Gilles Gond.
31. AN, MC, XLIII, 39, 4 April 1643. Service contract for two years of Toussainctz Gorenflos, son of an Apothecary from
Angevin, without disbursements. Terminated on 2 April 1644.
32. AN, MC, XLIII, 43, 12 May 1644. Service contract for two years of Emmanuel d’Estas, son of a Merchant from Compiègne,
without disbursements. Terminated on 21 July 1644.
33. AN, MC, LXXIII, 382, 6 January 1646. Service contract of Nicolas de Saincte-Beufve, son of Jacques de Saincte-Beufve,
Apothecary in Paris. Price of 400 l.t. for two years. Discharged on 31 January 1648.
34. AN, MC, XLIII, 27, 9 June 1639. Transaction of mortar done between Pierre Boulduc, from Saint-Jacques Street, Pierre
Berger, Apothecary-Spicer, Parish and street of Saint-Gervais, Nicolas Bovin, Apothecary (probably privileged), Grande rue du Four
Street at Saint-Germain-des-Prés, and Pierre Mobon, Master Caster, Faubourg Saint-Marcel Street, Parish Saint-Médard. The three
Apothecaries provided part of the metal from old "broken" mortars. The Master caster brought the "excess metal from a bell" at the
price of 35 l.t. for every 100 pounds-weight, plus 15 l.t. of basic matter for every 100 pounds-weight of worked mortar. Delivery time
one month.
35. Marriage Contract of Pierre Boulduc and Gillette Pijart on 27 December 1639 analyzed in Pierre Boulduc’s inventory, see note
8, f° 26 v°, item 3. The archives of the Notary Anceaume (Study LXIII) were destroyed in 1871.
36. AN, MC, XXX, 68, 13 January 1667. Sell of Office to Pierre Boulduc, son.
37. AN, MC, I, 218, 2 April 1701. Transaction between Pierre Boulduc son and Simon Boulduc, his brother, heirs to Pierre
Boulduc and Gillette Pijart.
38. Will of Pierre Boulduc dated 30 April 1666, integrated in the inventory of his goods, see note 8, fos 24 v° to 26 v°, item 2.
Let us remember that he died on 14 May 1670.
39. Dictionnaire biographique du Canada, Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 1966, t I, p. 92-93.
40. Dictionnaire généalogique des familles Canadiennes, Abbé Tanguay, Province of Quebec, 1871, vol. 1, p. 64-65.
41. National Archives of Quebec, Quebec, Laval University, Notary Lecomte, Marriage Contract of Louis Boulduc and Isabelle
Hubert, 8 August 1668 (microfilmed). [The original document can no longer be found.]
42. Transaction between Pierre Boulduc, son, and Simon Boulduc. It is noted that Louis Boulduc was deceased; see note 37.
28
43. Dictionnaire généalogique des familles Canadiennes, op. cit., v. note 40, p. 64-65. There is a disagreement between the
different genealogical dictionaries on the number of children, which may be explained by the deaths at a young age of some of them.
44. Property Inventory of Pierre Boulduc. See note 8, fos 34 v° and 35.
45. AN, MC, XLIII, 117, 5 September 1665. Receipt to Pierre Boulduc, in debt.
46. AN, MC, XLIII, 131, 18 May 1669. Pre-inheritance donation to Louis Boulduc.
47. AN, MC, XLIII, 83, 27 December 1656. Donation from Sébastien Pijart to Pierre Boulduc and his spouse Gillette Pijart,
brother-in-law and his sister, of all of his belongings and inheritance, for a pension. Act sealed at the Châtelet in Paris, Y 194, 27
December 1656, f° 81 v°.
48. Will of Pierre Boulduc, see note 38.
49. AN, MC, I, 195, 27 January 1692. Account between Gillette Pijart and her children.
50. AN, MC, I, 195, 26 February 1692. Donation in whole of the goods of Gillette Pijart to Simon Boulduc.
51. Transaction between sons Pierre Boulduc and Simon Boulduc, see note 37.
[…]
58. C. WAROLIN, "Les portraits d’apothicaires et de pharmaciens", op. cit., see note 16, p. 50-51. The portrait of Simon Boulduc
received n° 67.
59. Simon Boulduc had become sole owner of the house the Trois cochets (see notes 27 and 28) after the death of his mother
Gillette Pijart, thanks to the donation she gave him of everything she owned (see note 50).
60. AN, MC, C I, 274, 3 March 1729. After-death Property Inventory of Simon Boulduc.
[…]
62. Marriage contract of Simon Boulduc and of Marie-Élisabeth de Lestang, see note 60, fos 12 v° and 13, item I. The Notary
Delvoyes was not identified.
63. AN, MC, I, 193, 12 February 1691. Marriage contract of Marie-Élisabeth Boulduc, daughter of Simon Boulduc and Marie-
Élisabeth de Lestang, with Guy-Érasme Emmerez.
64. Death of Simon Boulduc, Tournon Street, on 22 February 1729 (and not on the 23rd as indicated by P. Dorveaux), see note 60,
f° I v°.
65. AN, MC, CXXII, 585, 23 June 1729. Sharing of the goods of Simon Boulduc and of Marie-Élisabeth de Lestang.
66. House of the Trois cochets, see notes 27, 28 and 59.
67. House of the Soleil d’or, see notes 6, 30.
68. C. WAROLIN, "La dynastie des Boulduc, apothicaires à Paris aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles", Rev. Hist. Pharm., 2001, no 331,
p. 333-354.
69. AN, MC, VIII, 1045, 3 February 1742. After-death property inventory of Gilles-François Boulduc.
70. G. PLANCHON, "Dynasties d’apothicaires parisiens: les Boulduc", J. Pharm. Chim., 1899, 6th Series, p. 385-387 and 470-
474. Planchon errs on the date of the death of Gilles-François: 1742, and not 1744.
71. P. DORVEAUX, "Apothicaires membres de l’Académie royale des sciences, Gilles-François Boulduc", Rev. Hist. Phar.,
1931, no 74, p. 113-117.
72. P. DORVEAUX, "Les Boulduc, apothicaires de la princesse Palatine", Rev. Hist. Phar., 1933, no 82, p. 110-111.
[…]
75. C. WAROLIN, "Les portraits d’apothicaires et de pharmaciens", in: La Salle des Actes de la Faculté de pharmacie de Paris-V,
edited by the Community of Renovation and ECN Editions, Paris, 1996, p. 23-58, portrait no 62, p. 48.
76. M. CHAIGNEAU, Les Médaillons de la Faculté de pharmacie de Paris, Louis Pariente Editions, 1986, p. 39-41. The
medallion is situated on the facade, the third to the right of the clock.
77. AN, MC, L, 347, 24 January 1739. Lease on the house under the ensign of the Balcon.
78. See note 1, Rev. Hist. Phar., 2001, no 331, p. 341.
79. AN, MC, CXXII, 586, 6 July 1729. Amicable sale by licitation. Gilles-François Boulduc became proprietor of five sixth of
the house, and kept 15,000 pounds of the 18,000 l. sale price.
80. AN, MC, CXXII, 586, 27 September 1729. Selling of the house.
81. AN, MC, Q1 10991, 4th notebook, no 60. Registry of the city of Paris.
82. AN, MC, XXXIX, 242, 23 April 1707. First marriage contract of Gilles-François Boulduc. He declared that his goods
consisted in the sum of 12,000 pounds in merchandise, furnitures, silverware, utensils and boutique supplies. Of that sum, 4,000
pounds were entered into the Community, the surplus would remain his own. Of the 15,000 pounds in dowry, the third would enter
the Community and the surplus would belong to the future spouse.
83. See note 1, Rev. Hist. Phar., 2001, no 331, p. 341.
84. AN, MC, XIV, 288, 27 March 1734. Second marriage contract of Gilles-François Boulduc.
[…]
94. SAINT-SIMON, Mémoires, Yves Coirault Edition, Pléiade Library, Gallimard Editions, t. IV, p. 411.
95. G. PLANCHON, "Dynasties d’apothicaires parisiens: Les Boulduc", op. cit., p. 474.
96. SAINT-SIMON, op. cit., t. IV, p. 1234, note 9.
97. ibid., t. IV, p. 1234, note 10.
98. G. PLANCHON, "Dynasties d’apothicaires parisiens: Les Boulduc", op. cit., p. 473.
99. M. BOUVET, "Apothicaires royaux", Rev. Hist. Phar., 1930, no 67, p. 37.
100. SAINT-SIMON, op. cit., t. IV, p. 1234, note 11.
29
101. P. DORVEAUX, "Apothicaires membres de l’Académie royale des sciences, Simon Boulduc", Rev. Hist. Phar., 1930, no 67,
p. 5-15. The connection of Simon Boulduc as being the Apothecary of the Duke de Saint-Simon in 1712 and 1714 (p. 11) is wrong. It
is actually Gilles-François.
102. SAINT-SIMON, op. cit., t. IV, p. 444.
103. Ibid., t. IV, p. 766.
104. Ibid., t. IV, p. 767.
105. Ibid., t. IV, p. 681.
106. P. DORVEAUX, "Apothicaires membres de l’Académie royale des sciences, Simon Boulduc", op. cit., p. 12.
107. A. TRUDON DES ORMES, "Notes sur les prévôt des marchands et échevins de la ville de Paris", Mémoires de la Société de
l’histoire de Paris et de l’Île-de-France, 1911, t. 38, p. 128.
108. SAINT-SIMON, op. cit., t. VII, p. 808.
[…]
111. C. WAROLIN, "La dynastie des Boulduc, apothicaires à Paris aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles, Gilles-François Boulduc (20
février 1675-17 janvier 1742)", Rev. Hist. Pharm., 2002, no 335, p. 439-450.
112. AN, MC, XIV, 288, 2 June 1734. Rental regulations to Jean-François Boulduc. This rent of 21 l. 8 s. 6 d.t. was drawn by the
Provostship of Merchants and Aldermen of Paris at the last 14 (sic), averaging to the sum of 300 tournois pounds. The baptistery
extracts of the of baptism records of Saint-Séverin, annexed to the rental regulations, is as follows:
"Year 1728, Wednesday February 25th, was baptized Jean-François, born 20th of the same month, natural son of François Boulduc,
Bourgeois of Paris, and Catherine Millon, his father and mother, the Godfather being Mister Jean-François de Bruyère, Squire, living
on Saint-Joseph Street, Parish of Saint-Eustache, the Godmother being Damoiselle Anne Le Breton Demonville, daughter of deceased
Mister Demonville, Bourgeois of Paris, living on Saint-Joseph Street, Parish of Saint-Eustache. The father is absent. The said child
was presented to us by Mr. Grégoire, surgeon and "midwife", whom declared having delivered the baby at his place on Petit Pont
Street, of same Parish. Signed in the official Act of Delabruière, Le Breton, Grégoire, and with the vicar Thomas.
Collected in the original the present extract by myself, undersigned depositary priest of registries in said Church, in the absence of
the regular depositary and in Paris, this 11th December 1733."
113. G. PLANCHON, "Dynasties d’apothicaires parisiens: les Boulduc", J. Pharm. Chim., 1899, 6th series, p. 474-475.
114. M. BOUVET, "Les apothicaires royaux. Les apothicaires de Louis XV. Quartier d’avril", Rev. Hist. Pharm., 1930, no 70, p.
202.
115. AN, Y 13 542. Seals affixed on 18 August 1769 after the death of Jean-François Boulduc, in an apartment on the first floor of
a house on Boucheries Street, Saint-Sulpice Parish. The next day they were also affixed on the country house he owned in the village
of Marly.
116. AN, MC, XLV, 537, 26 August 1769. After-death Property Inventory of Jean-François Boulduc, who died 18 August 1769.
[…]
125. AN, MC, XXXIII, 553, 23 August 1764. Sale contract of the house at Marly. By the Châtelet of Paris sentencing of 8 May
1765, the House with its garden and dependencies was awarded to J.-F. Boulduc, and by the deeds of 27 July, 22 August and 7
October of the same year, the due principal and interest were paid and registered.
126. Property Inventory of J.-F. Boulduc at Marly, op. cit., see note 6, fos 15 and 15 vo.
127. Property Inventory of J.-F. Boulduc at Marly, op. cit., see note 6, fos 20 and 21 vo.
[…]
132. Property Inventory of J.-F. Boulduc, science drawings, op. cit., see note 6, fo 26.
133. DUREAU, Bull. Soc. Hist. VIe arrondissement de Paris, 1898, t. 1, p. 78 and 80. Has been cited by G. Planchon (see note 3).
134. AN, S 2840, Abbey of Saint-Germain-des-Prés, Boucheries-Saint-Germain Street, 26 July 1783.

ABBREVIATIONS
AN National Archives, Paris.
MC Minutier Central of notaries at the National Archives.
BN Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris.
BIUP Bibliothèque Interuniversitaire de Pharmacie of Paris.
ARS Royal Academy of Sciences, archives of the Academy of Sciences, Paris.

(1552) (1593)
30
Conseil Souverain Seal
Catherine de Baillon, Investigation into a King's Daughter
Raymond Ouimet and Nicole Mauger (Septentrion Publications, 2001)
(pp. 78-79)
Good news between France and Canada also passed through word of mouth. Perhaps this is how Catherine de Baillon
received information on the situation of his brother Antoine who lived in the surroundings of the Kingdom’s nobles and
on his success. Besides, along with the relationships with the Miville’s, many returned to France on business. For
example, in 1690, Claude Bermen de la Martinière attends a wedding in the village of Gometz-la-Ville, the birth parish of
the mother of Catherine, Loyse de Marle21. In addition, Antoine de Baillon occupied himself in business relationships
with a certain Pierre Boulduc, resident of Paris and brother of Louis Boulduc, King’s Attorney in the Provostship of
Quebec. Could it be that the King's Daughter had through them news of her mother and her sisters? Whatever it is,
Catherine learned of the death of her mother Loyse de Marle very quickly, that is, on the same year of her death.
21. Departmental Archives of the Essone, BMS de Saint-Germain de Gometz-la-Ville, marriage between Thomas Pelé and Marie
Yvon, 30 July 1690. Communication from Ms. Claudine Michaud (Archivist, Archival Department of the Essonne) to the
authors on July 11, 2001.
(pp. 155-156)
This financial ease, Antoine de Baillon got it not using the inheritance left to him by his mother, but thanks to his duties
with the Duke of Verneuil and the Grand Dauphin of France. And he maintained his assets by subscribing to constitutions
of annuities. It was a form of loan that he did not directly owned, because it was accompanied by an interest, a practice
which the religious authorities disliked. The Church however authorized the constitution of pension on the condition that
they be assigned an immovable property (mortgage). Thanks to these investments, Antoine ensured a steady annual
income. For example, he “lent” to Pierre Boulduc, brother of Louis, King's Attorney in the Provostship of Quebec, the
sum of 4,000 pounds against an annuity of 200 pounds and a mortgage on two houses21. (…)
21. National Archives of France, Min. C. Sainfray, Paris, April 6, 1684.
Appendix C, LIST OF INDIVIDUALS
(pp. 221-222)
BOULDUC Louis (Paris, ca 1648, - >1686). Soldier, Settler, Bourgeois, King’s Attorney, born about 1648 or 1649, son
of Pierre Boulduc, Master Apothecary-Spicer on Saint-Jacques Street, Saint-Benoît Parish in Paris, and of Gilette
Pijart. Soldier in the Company of Andigné de Grand-Fontaine of the Carignan Regiment, Boulduc arrived in Quebec
on August 17, 1665. He married, August 20, 1668, Élisabeth Hubert, daughter of Claude Hubert and Isabelle Fontaine,
of Saint-Gervais, Paris. King’s Attorney in the Provostship of Quebec from 1676 to 1682. Died in France, he left in
New-France numerous descendants who took the name of Bolduc.
BOULDUC Pierre (?). Brother of the previous, Attorney at the Châtelet of Paris, husband of a certain Barbié [Note:
according to Jean-Pierre Dagnot (http://julienchristian.perso.sfr.fr/Chroniques/massicoterie.htm), in the papers inventory at
Versailles: contract conceded in 1684, with Pierre Boulduc, and Hélène Barbier his wife, to the profit of Sir Antoine de
Baillon, of 200 pounds of annuity averaging 4,000 pounds, which said sum is for the use in the payment of the price to
half of the parties making 600 in total for a house on Saint Jacques Street acquired from Louis Boulduc, Parliament
Attorney in the town of Kebec …]. He lives on Saint-Martin Street, parish of Saint-Nicolas des Champs, in Paris. He
has an annuity of 200 pounds for Antoine de Baillon, in 1684, by mortgaging 1/6 of a house on Saint-Jacques Street,
1/6 of a house at the Halles of Paris and part of a Prosecutor Office against the sum of 4,000 pounds.
Acts concerning Pierre BOULDUC (ET LXIX 53, 4 February 1702, after-death inventory in front of Claude Vatel & ...)
At the request of Hélène Barbier widow of Pierre BOULDUC, Prévôt général Lieutenant of his Majesty’s Army in
Flanders and former Prosecutor at the Châtelet de Paris, living rue St-Martin, St-Laurent parish, separated from property
and as such creditor of the estate, and also at the request of Simon BOULDUC, Merchant Apothecary, former Consul, and
one of the Royal Academy of Sciences.
The deceased having died recently in Brussels. Inventory only on paper.
Marriage contract 22 May 1674 before Noël De Beauvais (ET XCV). 8,000 pounds in dowries of which 5,000 in cash
and the remainder in three years.
Separation of property by sentence of the Châtelet [purchase] of 2 June 1688, and the husband condemned to return the
8,000 pounds of dowry.
The charge of [being] Prosecutor at the castle bought by Pierre BOULDUC to Pierre Pancot for 9,300 pounds per
contract of 13 November 1667 before Lebert and Guyon.
Said charge sold to Barthélémy Bernard by contract of 16 March 1691 in front of Desprez. Price not indicated.
(Source: http://www.fichierorigine.com/app/recherche/detail.php?numero=250022)

31
(1642) (1650)

Coat of Arms of France and Navarre Canada Royal Standard


(1589 – 1792) (1663 – 1763)

Le Véritable plan de Québec fait en 1663, by Jean Bourdon (1601-1668)


(Source : http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b59689086) 32
The Alliances of Louis Boulduc/Bolduc, King’s Procurator at the Provostship of Quebec in the 17th
Century, with the Pijart Dynasty
by Christian Warolin

Source: REVUE D’HISTOIRE DE LA PHARMACIE, LVI, No 360, 4e TRIM. 2008, 395-400.

Summary:
(This article complements the previous articles about the Boulduc dynasty and the Pijart dynasty. The filiations of Louis Boulduc has
now been established both on the paternal side – the Boulduc dynasty – and the maternal side – the Pijart dynasty. There was no
alliance between the Pijart’s and the Béjart’s. A family tree has been drawn up from these findings.)

***
The publication of my articles on "The Boulduc Apothecary Dynasty of Paris in the XVIIth and XVIIIth
Centuries" has earned me many emails from Canadian, and even American readers, descendants of Louis
Boulduc.

King’s Attorney to the Provostship from 1676 to 1682, he is at the origin of the large lineage of Boulduc’s*.
The requests for information concerns the origin of the dynasty, i.e. the ancestors of Symon Boulduc, Merchant
Draper in Senlis in the XVIth century, and also concerns Gillette Pijart, mother of Louis and wife of the
Apothecary Pierre Boulduc, and their uncles: Sébastien Pijart, priest, Claude and Pierre Pijart, Jesuit, and finally
the alliances with the Béjart’s and Molière.

I will not come back on the abundance of literature concerning the bibliography of Louis Boulduc-Bolduc
developed in Canadian literature and, in particular, the Dictionary of Canadian Biography4 or even the
Genealogical Dictionary of Canadian Families5. I have summarized his tormented life in my previous work6.
The publication of my "Genealogical Study of the Pijart Dynasty, Goldsmiths or Apothecaries in Paris in the
XVIth and XVIIth Centuries" article7 has only partially answered some of the expectations of my correspondents,
which justifies the present work.

* The modification of the surname Boulduc into Bolduc concerns only the progeny of Louis Boulduc. He signed Boulduc on his
marriage contract in Quebec on 20 August 1668, but the State Registry indicates Bolduc. Perhaps this is the origin to the alteration,
but the question remains open.

The descendants of Pierre Pijart and Marie de Mézières


(Sébastien, Gillette, Charles, Louise and Geneviève Pijart, uncles and aunts of Louis Boulduc)
By the Act of 27 December 16568, Sébastien Pijart, priest, doctor of theology, living at the convent of the
Dame religieuses Ursulines of the Saint-Jacques suburb, donated his property to Gillette Pijart, his sister, and
Pierre Boulduc, Apothecary, his brother-in-law, in return for the payment of an annual seven hundred pounds
lifelong pension. Sébastien was heir to a fifth property of their parents, Adam Pijart and Jacqueline Le Charron,
the daughter of Claude Le Charron, Goldsmith, and Gillette Boulanger. Sébastien’s estate rights were
confirmed by the 11 October 1656 award, approved by the First Chamber Queries of the Palace in December.
The procedure was not completed because a contradictory sentence confirming Sébastien’s donation was made
to the Queries of the Palace at the hearing on 10 June 1667 between the joint heirs: Gillette Pijart, Charles
Pijart, Louise, and Geneviève Pijart. Thus, five children of Adam Pijart and Jacqueline Le Charron are
identified.

The descendants of Pierre Pijart and Philippe Dusseau


(Guillaume Pijart, his Jesuit sons Claude and Pierre, "uncles" of Louis Boulduc)
Many books describe the Jesuits in Quebec in the Missions of the 17th century. They provide biographical
data on these two Jesuit brothers, Claude and Pierre Pijart. These books include those of Carlos Sommervogel 9,
Camille Rochemonteix10, and Lucien Campeau11. There is also a List of Jesuits Missionaries in New France12,
and the Genealogical Dictionary of Quebec Families13. According to the latter, the Jesuits Claude and Pierre
were the sons of Claude Pijart and Geneviève Charron, which is an error. Claude was born in Paris on 10
33
September 1600, settled in Quebec on 14 July 1637, where he died on 16 November 1683. His younger brother
Pierre was also born in Paris, on 17 may 1608, he arrived at Quebec on 10 July 1635, but returned to France,
and died at Dieppe on 26 May 1676. The Genealogical Dictionary mentioned above, and many other sources,
ensure that these two Jesuit brothers were uncles of Louis Boulduc. The Lettres du Bas-Canada14, consulted in
the library of the Company of Jésus, in Paris, reveal that the two Jesuits were the son of Guillaume Pijart and
Geneviève Le Charron. Pierre was the youngest of six children including four girls. Their father, Merchant
Jeweler, Bourgeois of Paris, having an assertive piety, was favored in high society, including from the "crowned
heads" (Marguerite de Valois). His wife Geneviève Le Charron died at 91 years! No precision is given in any
form in these Quebec letters regarding a relationship with Louis Boulduc. My genealogical table takes into
account this fact.

Guillaume Pijart and his wife were living in 1614 at the Coupe d’Or [Golden Cup], Parish of Saint-
Barthélémy, but, in 1631, they were living in "the isle of the Palace on the pier facing the Augustins in the
House of the Pot d’Estain [Pewter Pot]", same Parish. It is of course the Orfèvres pier.

Several deeds help determine the family ties of Guillaume. He was the son of Philibert Pijart, Goldsmith, and
Françoise Godefroy, second wife of Philibert. This one, son of Pierre Pijart the eldest and Philippe Dusseau,
was the half-brother of Claude Pijart the eldest, son of Pierre Pijart, from his second marriage to Marie de
Mézières. Guillaume Pijart had two brothers and a sister. Jehan Pijart, living at the College of Montaigu, and
Isabel Frot, his wife – he was separated from her goods – had three children: Isabel, Claude and Charlotte15.
About 20 years old in 1617, Isabel required the advice of her parents, her uncles and aunts, for her religious
entry at the convent of Saint-Étienne-les-Soissons16.

The second brother of Guillaume, Estienne, lawyer in the Parliament, married in 1614 Anne de Vymont17.
Finally, Marguerite, their sister, was the wife of Claude de La Noue, Goldsmith, established on the Pont-aux-
Changeurs18. All four were first-cousins of Adam Pijart.

Guillaume Pijart and Geneviève Le Charron had many children, of which six survived: four girls, where two
were named Marguerite, and Geneviève, Marie, and two sons, future Jesuit Claude and Pierre. Marguerite the
eldest, had married the Goldsmith Antoine Crochet19.

Geneviève Pijart married the Goldsmith Simon Tostee, son of Denis Tostee, also Goldsmith. All the
previously mentioned uncles and aunts were present at the signature of the marriage contract on 6 March
161420. The parents endowed their daughter with 8,000 pounds, of which a third was to remain her own. The
future husband allocated her a fixed dowry of 3,000 pounds and Denis Tostee advanced to his son 8,000 pounds
from his deceased mother’s succession rights.

On 26 April 1626, the marriage contract was created to Marguerite, the young, with the Jeweler Claude
David, son of Simon David also Jeweler, and Jehanne Boullard21. Pierre Pijart, future Jesuit and brother of
Marguerite, was present. From her dowry of 9,000 pounds, Marguerite retained one third. Her fiancé offered
her a dowry of 3,000 pounds. The parents granted their son 6,000 pounds, which were added to the 2,000
pounds he had earned and saved through the "trading and distribution" of diamonds with Dutch merchants.

A few years later, the marriage of Marie Pijart and Pierre Le Maire, Jeweler, son of Martin Le Maire, Jeweler
and regular perfume supplier to the Queen, and of Simonne Tranchard22, was celebrated. The parents of Marie
endowed her with 12,000 pounds, of which one third remained her own. The dowry was set to 400 pounds in
annuities. In her marriage, Pierre Le Maire received from his parents 9,000 pounds in pre-inheritance.

The high amount in dowries demonstrates the wealth of these Parisian dealers in precious metalwork and
jewelry.

34
The children of Guillaume Pijart and Geneviève Le Charron were the first-cousins of Gillette Pijart and
Pierre Boulduc. The two Jesuit brothers, Claude and Pierre Pijart, were therefore Louis Boulduc’s distant
cousins, separated by a degree in relationship. We can consider that Claude and Pierre were Louis Boulduc’s
uncles, but with a generation gap!

Pijart is not Béjart!


So much confusion exists in literature between these two surnames! They have created the myth of an
alliance between Gillette Pijart, her son Louis, and the Béjart’s, Armande’s and Molière himself! Here are
some astounding extracts from a book published by a Canadian descendant of Louis Bolduc: "Gillette Pijart was
the daughter of Adam Pijart, Merchant Goldsmith in Paris, and of Geneviève Le Chavon (sic). She was the
sister of Sébastien, priest, and Joseph (?), spouse of Marie Hervé, from a family of actors." We can also read:
"Gillette Pijart had two Jesuit brothers, Claude and Pierre, both Missionaries in Canada since 1637 (…) The
name of Pijart differs in certain writings. They mention Béjart, Pizart".

However, some Canadian sources agree that Gillette Pijart was not the "sister" of Molière.

Conclusion
The Louis Boulduc/Bolduc family ties with the dynasty of the Pijart’s have been identified both from the
descendants of Pierre Pijart and Marie de Mézières, as from the descendants of Pierre Pijart and Philippe
Dusseau. His uncles and aunts are all identified. Two Jesuit brothers Claude and Pierre Pijart, son of
Guillaume Pijart and Geneviève Le Charron are Louis Boulduc’s cousins, but also uncles, with a generation
gap!

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. C. WAROLIN, "La dynastie des Boulduc, apothicaires à Paris aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles", Rev. Hist. Pharm., 2001, n° 331, p.
333-354.
2. C. WAROLIN, "La dynastie des Boulduc, apothicaires à Paris aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles, Gilles-François Boulduc, 20 février
1675-17 janvier 1742", Rev. Hist. Pharm., 2002, n° 335, p. 439-450.
3. C. WAROLIN, "La dynastie des Boulduc, apothicaires à Paris aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles, Jean-François Boulduc, 20 février
1728-18 août 1769", Rev. Hist. Pharm., 2001, n° 337, p. 103-110.
4. Dictionnaire biographique du Canada, Laval, Les Presses de l’Université, 1966, t. 1, p. 92-93.
5. Dictionnaire généalogique des familles canadiennes, Province du Quebec, Abbé Tanguay, 1871, vol. 1, p. 64-65.
6. C. WAROLIN, "La dynastie des Boulduc…", op. cit., n° 331, p. 337-339.
7. C. WAROLIN, "Étude généalogique des Pijart, orfèvres ou apothicaires à Paris aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles", Rev. Hist. Pharm.,
2007, n° 355, p. 361-370.
8 AN, MC, XLIII, 83, 27 December 1656. Donation from Sébastien to Gillette Pijart and Pierre Boulduc.
9. C. SOMMERVOGEL, Bibliotheca Mariana de la Compagnie de Jésus, Bruxelles-Paris, 1885.
10. C. ROCHEMONTEUX, Les Jésuites de la Nouvelle-France au XVIIe siècle, Paris, 1895.
11. L. CAMPEAU, Les Cahiers d’histoire des Jésuites: la première mission des Jésuites en Nouvelle-France (1611-1613) et les
commencements du Collège de Quebec, Bibliothèque Nationale du Quebec, 1972.
12. Liste des missionnaires Jésuites en Nouvelle-France et Louisiane 1611-1800, Montréal, collège Sainte-Marie, 1929.
13. Dictionnaire généalogique des familles du Quebec, Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal, 1983.
14. Lettres du Bas-Canada: on Claude Pijart, by Léon Pouliot, t. 18, p. 151-161 ; on Pierre Pijart, by Paul Desjardins, t. 20, p.
193-215 et t. 21, p. 19-35.
15. AN, MC, VIII, 589, 2 September 1615. Agreement relating to pensions between Jehan Pijart, guardian of his children, heirs of
Philibert Pijart, Estienne and William Pijart.
16. AN, MC, VIII, 594, 8 July 1617. Parent advice for the religious entry of Isabel Pijart.
17. AN, MC, XIX, 381, 6 September 1614. Estienne Pijart marriage contract with Anne de Vymont.
18. AN, MC, VIII, 577, 27 October 1610. Rental lease of Guillaume Pijart to Claude de La Noue.
19. Marguerite Pijart the eldest married Antoine Crochet. See the marriage contracts of her sisters Marguerite (note 21) and Marie
(note 22).
20. AN, MC, VIII, 586, 6 March 1614. Marriage contract of Geneviève Pijart and Simon Tostee.
21. AN, MC, VIII, 621, 26 April 1626. Marriage contract of Marguerite Pijart and Claude David.
22. AN, MC, VIII, 634, 22 June 1631. Marriage contract of Marie Pijart and Pierre Le Maire.

35
ALLIANCES OF LOUIS BOULDUC/BOLDUC, KING’S PROCURATOR IN QUEBEC, XVIIth CENTURY,
WITH THE PIJART DYNASTY

X1 Pierre Pijart the eldest 2X


goldsmith
Philippe Dusseau Marie de Mézières

François I Pijart Jacques I Pijart Jehan Pijart le jeune Philibert Pijart Claude Pijart l’aînée Claude Pijart le jeune
apothecary goldsmith goldsmith goldsmith goldsmith goldsmith

X X X 1 X Melle Castillon X
Catherine Legros Marie Charreau Anne Rivière 2 X Françoise Godefroy Catherine Lebrun
Claude Le Charron
goldsmith
Jehan Pijart Estienne Pijart Marguerite Pijart Guillaume Pijart Adam Pijart
attorney jeweler goldsmith X
Gillette Boulanger
X X X X X
Isabel Frot Anne de Vymont Claude de La Noue Geneviève Le Charron Jacqueline Le Charron
goldsmith

Marguerite Pijart Geneviève Pijart Marguerite Pijart Marie Pijart Claude Pijart Pierre Pijart Sébastien Pijart Gillette Pijart Charles Pijart Louise Pijart Geneviève Pijart
Jesuit Jesuit priest

X X X X X
Antoine Crochet Simon Tostee Claude David Pierre Le Maire Pierre Boulduc
goldsmith goldsmith jeweler jeweler apothecary

Louis BOULDUC/BOLDUC
King’s Procurator in Quebec

. Boulduc Dynasty, see genealogical table, Rev. Hist. Pharm., 2001, n° 331, p. 335
. Pijart Dynasty, see genealogical table, Rev. Hist. Pharm., 2007, n° 355, p. 363 et 366

36
Parisian Apothecary Dynasties; by MR. GUSTAVE PLANCHON
Journal of Pharmacy and Chemistry. 6th Series. Tome IX. (15 April 1899.) 332-336, 382-387, 470-476

The Boulduc’s.
[…]

The first Boulduc’s mentioned on our registers are Spicers taking on the function of Masters. This is nothing
new. We know that Apothecaries and Spicers once formed a single body. In older documents, for business
meetings of Parisian Spicers and Apothecaries, only the name of Spicer was used as one of the designation of
the Six Guilds. They were generally significant and rich bourgeois: one had to be in order to deal with distant
countries of the East and bring back, after many obstacles, these precious and much sought after spices. One
may even say that it was the trade in exotic commodities which brought wealth and social status to many of
these families, to which science later brought visibility and fame.

In 1595, a Louys Boulduc became Master Spicer through his Practical Examination (1). This last statement
indicates that he was not the Son of a Master; indeed, according to the statutes of the time, children of masters
were only obliged to pass a simple Review: they were not required to produce a Practical Examination, whom
everyone else were obliged to (2). We can, I think, conclude that the Louys in question was, on a professional
viewpoint, the founder of the dynasty.

In 1622, two brothers were received as Master-Spicer on the same day (3). They are brought forth as being
the son of defunct Louis Boulleduc; spelling at the time was so varied that we do not believe to overstep our
advances in identifying their father to Louys Boulduc, made Master in 1595. One of the children, most likely
the eldest, bears the surname of the father; the other is named Pierre: they were both received in the field by
Review, as being Sons of a Master.

Another branch was established in addition to the previous one. Anthoine Boulduc (4) was made Master by
his Practical Examination, on 20 November 1607; the registry states that he was the servant of Loys Boulduc,
which means that for three years he was an apprentice at his house. He took root in the spice industry. Twenty-
five years later, his son was received by Review, as Son of a Master (5).

1° The first among the Apothecary’s name is Pierre Boulduc. He is registered in 1636, in the following
terms:

"Pierre Boulduc, apprentice of the Honorable Simon of Sesqueville, Merchant Apothecary Spicer, was
presented to be registered in his ranks by the Honorable Jehan Nicolas, also Merchant Apothecary Spicer, for
the examination and other necessary acts in becoming Master in his Field, which we have given him after
seeing his apprenticeship rights and receipt, said receipts given on sixth October one thousand six hundred and
twenty-six before the notaries Huart and Haguenier, and the receipt of such Sesqueville dated eighth October
one thousand six hundred and thirty, made in our office this seventh October one thousand six hundred and
thirty six (6).".

"GEOFFROY, DE CAMBRAY. J. THIREMENT (7)."

37
He therefore had spent four years learning at Simon de Sesqueville (1626 to 1630) and spent six years serving
in the pharmacy thereafter: this is the exact application of regulations for aspiring Candidates who were not
Sons of Master. Therefore the pharmaceutical dynasty of the Boulduc’s must be initially traced back to Pierre.

Where does he come from? He must certainly be from the family of Master-Spicers we discussed earlier. I
would even dare to venture that he is the Pierre Boulduc, son of Louis, who was received as Master-Spicer in
1622, at the same time as his brother. It was quite common at the time to see the Apothecaries begin their
profession with the mastery of spices. The only somewhat serious objection to this assumption would be the
age of the Candidate. Pierre Boulduc, according to the writings on his portrait, was born in 1607; in 1622, he
would have only been fifteen years old, and would have been a bit too young to be admitted to the mastery
level. This objection is not however absolutely decisive, especially considering the son and grandson of Simon
Boulduc, whom one will be received at twenty years, the other at eighteen, to the apothecary level of Master,
which required four more years of service than the mastery of Spicer.

In any case, Pierre Boulduc takes a very honorable place in the corporation. Six years after his approval, he
was appointed Advisor to the apothecary in the Council of the Six Guilds (8). In 1652, he is charged by his
fellow workers to centralize the necessary subscriptions to pay for the water expense conduit leading to the
Garden of the Apothecaries, and he does so with a zeal crowned by success and, at the same time, with firmness
and an independent pace, reflecting the authority that he performed within the Company (9). In 1661, he was
elected Warden, and as such was actively involved in the various business deliberations of the Six Guilds.

The portrait of Pierre Boulduc exists in our Salle des Actes. As all the characters of the period of Louis XIII,
Pierre has long hair, falling on his shoulders, a large neck cloth in white, steep, resting on a black dress. He has
also a great presence, with a full figure: brown hair, rich mustache, no stubble. The canvas, painted in 1663,
represents him at the age of 56.

It also bears the following inscription:

Petrus Boulduc, Pharmacop. Paris, Præfectus annis 1661, 62, 63. Ætatis 56 anno 1663.

38
A coat of arms accompanies the portrait. It has been abused greatly by time and by dreadful restorations, so
much that it is now difficult to recognize the true exact coat of arms of the Boulduc: of silver with a chevron of
azure [blue], mounted with three starts of gold and surrounded by three dukes (birds) of gules [red], holding in
their paws a ball of sand [black] (10).

2° Pierre Boulduc had as son Simon, who grew prosperity to the family house. Simon became, in effect,
successively a Master in 1672, Advisor of the Six Guilds in 1674 (11), Warden for the years 1687, 1688, 1689,
Consul in 1698, Judge in 1717. In a more scientific order, he was Demonstrator in chemistry at the Garden of
Plants, and produced numerous and interesting Mémoires written in the various publications of the Academy of
Sciences, where he is successively Student, Associate, Resident and Veteran (12).

[…]

In his portrait at the school, Simon Boulduc shows a figure full of wit and intelligence: his hair, or rather his
wig, under the style of Louis XIV, are dark brown. The large Louis XIII neck cloth is replaced by a
lightweight, translucent fabric, on a black dress giving a false air of an Abbot, like so many other portraits of the
collection. The canvas has the following inscription:

Simon Boulduc Parisiens. Pharmacop. Regius e regia Scientiar. Academia præfectus et Consul. Obiit anno
1729.

[…]

3° Gilles-François was born in 1675. […]

[…]

His portrait in the Salle des Actes bears inscribed on his canvas: Ægid. Francisc. Regis and Reginæ
Pharmacop Parisinus Boulduc. Primarius è regiâ Scientiar. Academia Dudum præfectus consul and Œdilis.
He wears a large gray wig, no mustache or stubble; his lines are strong, pale faced, his physiognomy less alert
and not as vivid than his predecessors.

[…].

4° Jean-François Boulduc was very young when his father died in January 1744. He was only fourteen years
old, but he obtained the survival in his charge while Gilles Boulduc was still living; he was therefore appointed
King's Apothecary. […]

Jean-François Boulduc has not left many remarkable traces, in either the Acts of the school, where we barely
find his signature (25), nor in pharmaceutical societies. He more than likely filled his charge as Apothecary of
the King without great brilliance, and continued his pharmacy management on Boucheries-Saint-Germain
Street. According to Dr Dureau (26), he had amassed a great collection in conchology, which would assume
that he gave much of his time to natural history. The Royal Almanac Lists shows him among the Apothecaries
of the King until 1768. From 1769, there are no mentions of him; it is probable that he died at that time. Thus
dies the Boulduc Dynasty.

[…]

39
Boulduc (Louys)
(Master Spicer in 1595)

Louys Boulleduc Pierre Boulleduc


(Master-Spicer in 1622) (Master-Spicer in 1622)
Probably the same as
Pierre Boulduc
Master-Apothecary in 1636

Simon Boulduc
(Master in 1672)

Gilles-François Boulduc
(1675-1742)
(Master in 1695)

Jean-François Boulduc
(1728-1769)
(Master in 1743)
[Arms of the Company of Apothecaries and Spicers of Paris (1629).]
Source: Histoire de la pharmacie en France, M. Bouvet, 1937.

Notes and Bibliography.


(1) 17 May 1595.
Registry No. 7 of the Archives of the School. – (Registry in parchment paper. – containing many entries from 1576 to 1645, sheet
#164.)
(2) This is the text of Patent letters of Louis XIII with confirmation of new statutes in 29 articles for the Spicer and Apothecary
Guild. – 28 November 1638.
"8. – They will, those who aspire to Mastery, make their learning in the time and space of four whole years for Apothecary Spicers,
and three years for Merchant Spicers, and that while living in the house and store of a Master actually in practice, during which the
qualification will be passed by notaries, strictly controlled by said wardens and registered to be received in his rank, and after which
four years has expired for said Apothecaries and three years for said Spicers, those who wishes to be received as Masters will be
required to bring their registries of apprenticeship, with receipt and certificate from their Masters with whom they have learnt their
trade, as having faithfully and deservedly served; besides the time of learning, those who aspire to be received as Master Apothecaries
will be expected to serve the Masters of that art during the time and space of six years, whether in this town of Paris or elsewhere; and
those wishing to be received as Merchant Spicer, three years, and must bring certificates of such services... This fact will be diligently
reviewed by said Wardens on the fact of the merchandise and the art, and such as in dependence, and will pass the practical
examination which will be ordered and prescribed by said Wardens.
"(In regards to the aspiring Apothecary, he was first to pass a grammatical examination, do his learning, complete his six years of
service, be subjected first to a review on the principles of pharmacy; a second one on plants; then make a practical examination, or a
composition of five different medications.)
"12. – And regarding the children of Merchant Spicers they will be received by receiving from them an examination only, without
the requirement of producing a practical examination.
"13 – And for the children of Master Apothecaries, will only be required to received the first examination and produce a practical
examination which will be ordered by two Wardens, of only two compositions."
(Trades and Corporations of the City of Paris, I, XIVth - XVIIIth centuries. – General Orders. Consumption Trades, by René DE
LESPINASSE. Paris, pages 527-285.)
(3) "Louys Boulleduc son of deceased Louys Boulleduc was received by examination as the Son of a Master on eleven February
1622.
"And on said day was received Pierre Boulleduc son of Louys Boulleduc named above by examination."
(Registry No. 7 page 103, back.)
(4) Ibid., sheet 173, back.
(5) Ibid., sheet 117.

40
(6) Ibid., sheet 146, back.
(7) See page 335, the original with Geoffroy Etienne II’s signature.
(8) School’s Archives, Registry n° 21 (Election of judges, consuls and advisers, page 29).
(9) See G. PLANCHON. – The Apothecaries’ Garden, page 70 and Journal of Pharmacy and Chemistry [5] t. XXIX, 332.
(10) This is the description that our friend M. Boymond wishes to give us. He extracts it from l’Armorial général de J.-B.
RIETSTAP, Gouda, 1884, t. I, page 267, under the name BOULDUC. This was to be the coat of arms originally painted on the
portrait: but most of these shields were missing at the time of the revolution under a coat of paint, and they were reintroduced later
without great concern for accuracy, to the point of view of colors, often even in contradiction with all heraldic art rules. Currently the
background in the shield is yellowish, with a white chevron, the stars of the same color, which is a big heresy; the balls (Boule) are
red, and the birds (Dukes) are completely erased. It is easy to see from the true coat of arms that they were canting arms, the balls and
the dukes forming the name of the Boulduc family.
(11) Ibid. page 49.
(12) History of the Royal Academy of Sciences. Year 1742. Paris, Imprimerie Royale, 1745, page 167.
(13) Registry, n° 21. Ancient Book of Merchant Apothecary and Spicer Registries beginning in the year 1604, page 51.
(14) Book of deliberations (Assembly of 6 March 1722).
(15) There are several Apothecaries of this community who take peculiar pride in having a large assortment of chemical and
pharmaceutical preparations: for example.
Messrs Geoffroy, Bourtibourg street, and Bolduc, Boucheries-Saint-Germain street, who work at the Jardin des Plantes.
(The Livre commode of Paris addresses for 1692, by Abraham du Pradel (Nicolas de Bleigny.) Edit. Paris, Daffis ed., 1818. I, page
165.
(16) History of the Académie des Sciences. Year 1742. Paris 1745, page 168.
(17) Registry 21 of the Archives, pages 56 and 57.
(18) See Journ. of Pharm. and Chemistry, [6] t. VII, 289, 337 vol. IX, 233 and 382.
(19) Deliberation of 30 October 1714.
This day of thirtieth October one thousand seven hundred and fourteen. The Company being assembled in a large enough number to
deliberate on matters which will be proposed, Mister the Wardens have represented that it would be good to prevent following the
challenges that we have seen for some time between the Candidates, the Sons of Masters, ordinary Candidates or aggregates, in the
rank or location that they must have from the Apothecary Spicer Merchants directory, as is the rule that must be followed in
nominating and for every assembly, where brethrens have seating rights and are entitled to voice their deliberations to give their votes;
which challenges come only at the time and date of the different registries and compared to the number and timeframe of those acts
made before or after the registries of each.
The material placed in deliberation of a common voice that the Company has held to propose as a constant rule, and which will be
recognized and followed in the future, are the following articles:
1st When the Son of a Master will be registered as opposed to the examination of a regular Candidate, he will have the right to hold
rank in the Company and on the directory before said Candidate, as long as he accomplishes his examination one month after his
registration, of which same examination the other Candidate may undergo his evaluation on plants, then the Son of a Master will
undergo his practical examination before him and will say the oath first, in front of Mr. Lieutenant General of the Police, as long as
the time between his examination and his practical examination is not more than fifteen days.
2nd When the Son of a Master will be registered only after the two examinations of an other Candidate, he will not be able to claim
rank in the Company or in the directory before said Candidate, under the condition, nevertheless, that said Candidate will make his
practical examination within fifteen days beginning from the registration of the Son of Master, subject to his being presented first to
the delivery of the oath, and will have his rank before said Son of a Master.
3rd For those who will be received by aggregation, if they are registered after a Son of a Master or another Candidate, they will not
hold rank in the Company before said Son of Masters or others and will not be presented to the delivery of the oath before them,
provided that the Son of Masters or others receive their examinations and accomplish their practical examination in the time to follow.
The Son of Masters will receive their examination one month after registration, and fifteen days after will accomplish their practical
examination.
The other Candidates will receive their first examination forty days after their registration, twenty days after their first examination
they will receive their second, and fifteen days after their second examination they will accomplish their practical examination.
Which time distance between examinations and practical examinations mentioned above, won’t take place but in the case of
competition between Candidates for the rank. The Company, by this present deliberation, have fixed the time period for the exercise
of ordinary receptions to the length of three months at the most, for the examinations and practical examinations.
All that has been received and approved above by the unanimous votes in the Company and the fellow Apothecary Spicer Merchants
present to the Assembly have signed, sealed and delivered in our office this thirtieth day of October one thousand seven hundred and
fourteen.
(Livre des Délibérations, n° 37, page 67.)
(20) See in book II of the Archives, Water Concessions, documents # 19 and 23.
(21) Histoire de l’Académie des Sciences pour 1742 (Eulogy of Gilles Boulduc), p. 169.
(22) Saint-Simon. Mémoires. Ed. Hachette, in-18, vol. VI, p. 238.
(23) Registry No. 21, page 82.
(24) Registry No. 22, page 170.
41
(25) Following are the signatures of the last three Boulduc in fac simile: Simon first; the following two François Gilles – one with an
F to distinguish from his father’s, the other without an F after the death of his father; the last one of Jean-François.

(26) Dr DUREAU. Biographical notes on some naturalists who lived in the VIth square (Bulletin of the SOC.) Hist. VIe
arrondissement de Paris. April-Sept., 1898, page 80).

42
Historical Review of Pharmacy, VOLUME I
1930
THE GREAT PHARMACISTS
Apothecary Members of the Royal Academy of Sciences

III. Simon BOULDUC


(by Paul Dorveaux)

[Pages 5 – 15]
Simon Boulduc originated from a family of Parisian Spicers, who’s history Gustave Planchon published in
1899 (1).

His father, Pierre Boulduc, born in 1607, practiced in spices, on Rue des Boucheries, Saint-Germain Suburb,
then became Master Apothecary (2 December 1636), and became Warden of his community (1661-1663). He
obtained in court a function which earned him all the privileges granted to officers of the Royal House, to
include canting arms as seen in the upper-right corner of his portrait (2). His large customer base consisted of
several aristocratic families. Among others, the family of Saint-Simon: the Duke has repeatedly mentioned the
Boulduc’s in his Mémoires.

Born in 1652 (3), Simon Boulduc completed his classical studies, then his father initiated him to the
pharmaceutical profession. He was received in the Master’s degree on 8 November 1672, as a Son of a Master.
The registry of enrollment (4), where the written exams of 1604 to 1711 are kept, does not contain any of the
acts made between 8 October 1666 and 7 February 1673, from the subsequent negligence of the Wardens filling
the functions of secretaries during this time; but the Faculty of Medicine has a registry (5) said "Agreements",
which candidates received as Masters had to sign prior to the swearing of an oath to the Civil Lieutenant, where
we read the following:

I. Simon Boulduc parisinus die VIII. novembris M.DC.LXXII, me professore DLV [de La Vigne].
Ego Simon Boulduc Parisinus in Pharmacopoeorum Parisiensium ordinem aggregatus, sub doctissimis clarissimisque medicis et
pharmaciae professoribus D.D. magistris Petro Perreau, Paulo Courtois et Michaele de La Vigne, polliceor me omnia in articulis
43
contenta servaturum, de quibus doctores medici et pharmacopoei convenerunt. Datum Parisiis die octavo novembris anni millesimi
sex centesimi septuagesimi secundi.
(Signed:) BOULDUC.

[…]

Boulduc’s death. His portrait, his coat of arms.

Simon Boulduc died in Paris on 23 February 1729, leaving an apothecary son, Gilles-François, who was his
colleague at the Academy of Sciences. Fontenelle, in 1699, who took on the future responsibility of writing the
eulogy of the members of the Academy of Sciences, omitted to include Simon Boulduc’s. […]

Gustave Planchon spoke of the friendly relations that existed between the families Boulduc and Geoffroy,
and of the consideration which Simon Boulduc enjoyed in the community of Apothecary-Masters. He has also
described his portrait, located in the Salle des Actes of the Faculty of Pharmacy […]. His portrait carries the
following inscription: Simon Boulduc Parisiensis, Pharmacop . Regius, è Regiâ Scientiar. Academiâ,
Praefectus et Consul, obiit anno 1729. His Arms are not represented, but have been ascribed by d'Hozier as:

Simon Boulduc, apothecary merchant, […], bears gold a chevron of azure, mounted with three silver stars, and accompanied by
three dukes (birds) of sable each resting on a ball of same (17).

[…]

________
(1) PLANCHON (G.). Parisian Apothecary Dynasties. II : The Boulduc’s (Journal of Pharmacy and Chemistry, 6th series, t. 9, pp. 332,
382, 470, 1899).
(2) The portraits of Pierre Boulduc, his son Simon and his grandson Gilles-François, are located in the Salle des Actes of the Paris
Faculty of Pharmacy. Their coat of arms are based on RIETSTAP (Armorial général, t. I, p. 267, Gouda, 1884): "Of silver a chevron of
azure, mounted with three starts of gold and surrounded by three dukes (birds) of gules, holding in their paws a ball of sand."
(PLANCHON, loc. cit., p. 383.)
(3) Simon Boulduc must have, as his son Gilles-François, obtained his Masters at 20 years old, thanks to his being a Son of a Master.
(4) Library of the Faculty of Pharmacy. Apothecary Archives, Register 21.
(5) The "Rules for the Apothecary Masters of Paris", in 12 articles, called "Agreements", which occupies Manuscript #84 in the library
of the Faculty of Medicine, was imposed to pharmacists by the doctors in 1631. According to this agreement, doctors were to preside
all official visits and all Acts concerning reception into "Mastery"; the apothecaries were not to dispense medication without orders
from physicians of the Faculty, and produce no receipt of "originator"; finally, Master's candidates had to sign the Agreement before
being presented to the Civil Lieutenant. In the registry of the Agreement, candidate memberships are written in French until 1648;
Pierre Boulduc’s was written thus: "I promise to maintain the above articles according to form and content. Made this second of
December one thousand six hundred and thirty six. (Signed:) P. BOULDUC." From 1649, most are in Latin. The "Agreement" has been
reproduced verbatim in the Pandectes pharmaceutiques, by Adolphe LAUGIER and Victor DURUY, Paris, 1837, pp. 82-86.
[…]
French Manuscript #32217, National Library. Mr. Maurice Bouvet communication. The description of the Arms of Simon
(17)
Boulduc made by d'Hozier differs slightly from Rietstap, cited above.

[Note: Also in this volume, on page 202, we find this additional information:
Gilles-François Boulduc. – Apothecary of Louis XIV, then of Louis XV, died as we have seen
(other reference on page 37, note (29): "And not in 1744, as Planchon indicated") in 1742 (11).
Jean-François Boulduc. – His son, Jean-François, who succeeded him, has also been in an
important study of G. Planchon.
However, we will remind that on 15 October 1749 by special patent, he is allowed by the King
to stay "in England for six months to see for his business (12)".
In 1756 he receives a patent insurance of 30,000 pounds (13), and on 20 November 1764 (14)
he receives the enjoyment of a land located at Marly, near the drinking well, under the condition
of removing the trees, to surround his property with walls, to not build on it, to not rent, etc.
In 1766, June 19, Claude-Etienne Forgeot is named his survivor in case of death (15).
44
__________
(11) His daughter wife, Marie-Anne Alexandre, aged 27 years, is buried at Saint-Sulpice on 23 May 1714 (she
died on the 22nd) (National Library, French Manuscript 32594, folio 701).
(12) Archives Nationales, O1 93, 1749, folio 295.
(13) Ibidem, O1 100, 1756, folio 273.
(14) Ibidem, O1 108, 1764, folio 487.
(15) Ibidem, O1 110, 1766, folio 276. ]

Historical Review of Pharmacy, VOLUME II


1931
THE GREAT PHARMACISTS
Apothecary Members of the Royal Academy of Sciences

IV. Gilles-François BOULDUC (1)


(by Paul Dorveaux)

[Pages 113-117]
Gilles-François Boulduc was born in Paris on 20 February 1675. His father, Simon Boulduc, Master-
Apothecary on Boucheries street, suburb of Saint-Germain, entered the Royal Academy of Sciences on 7
August 1694, i.e. nineteen years after the birth of Gilles-François. […]

[…]

His portrait is located at the Paris Faculty of Pharmacy, in the Salle des Actes, with those of his father and
grandfather. It was reproduced in 1930, in this publication, following Simon Boulduc’s biography.

[…]
________
(1) All biographies of Gilles-François Boulduc were made from his eulogy by DORTOUS DE MAIRAN, published in the History of the
Royal Academy of Sciences, year 1742 (Histoire, pp. 167-171, Paris, 1745). Gustave PLANCHON has added, in the Journal of Pharmacy
and Chemistry (6th series, vol. IX, pp. 385 and 470, 1899), a few details taken from the archives of the Master Apothecaries of Paris.
In the eulogy of the son Boulduc, DORTOUS DE MAIRAN erred by ascribing him the "history of purgatives", which is the work of his
father (see Journal of Pharmacy History, 1930, pp. 10-15). This error was reproduced by Ferdinand HOEFER, in his History of
Chemistry (1st Edition, t. II, p. 385, Paris, 1843; 2nd Edition, t. II, p. 377, Paris, 1869).

45
Science and Social Status: Members of the Académie des Sciences, 1666 – 1750
by David J. Sturdy
1995
[Original text in English]
Simon Boulduc (1652 – 1729)
[pp. 244–248]
During the 1690s, although several children of academicians and nominees of recently-appointed members
found their way into the Academy, the older practice still continued whereby outsiders exerted their influence to
secure the appointment of ‘clients’. To differing degrees Simon Boulduc, L’Hospital and Sauveur fall into this
category. Boulduc is perhaps the most straightforward case; he is also an excellent illustration of the extent to
which membership of the Académie then could open up career prospects which otherwise would not have
developed.11 His family was Parisian, with a long standing tradition as apothecaries. His father Pierre (1607 –
c. 1670), who had a business in the rue des Boucheries, acquired his maîtrise as an apothecary in 1636, and later
rose to the rank of bourgeois de Paris.12 Among his clients was the Saint Simon family from which came the
great memoirist. Pierre’s eldest son Simon (sic) was brought up on the assumption that eventually he would
inherit and continue the family tradition; there was also a younger son, Pierre (sic), who became a procureur at
the Châtelet. After being trained by his father, Simon qualified as a maître apothicaire in 1672, and when he
married in 1674 chose his wife from another apothecary family:

Marie-Elisabeth de l’Estang (d. 1700) whose deceased father had been a maître apothicaire et épicier,
bourgeois de Paris; she brought a dowry of 8,500 livres.13

During the next phase of his life to the mid-1680s, Simon Boulduc made his reputation among the
apothecaries of Paris, being prominent in their communal affairs: he was elected garde de la communauté des
apothicaires. The episode which, in retrospect, we recognize as having paved the way to the rest of his career
was his appointment by Fagon in 1686 as his suppléant at the Jardin Royal des Plantes (as happened to
Tournefort); Boulduc thereby assumed Fagon’s duties as démonstrateur et opérateur pharmaceutique; he held
this position until 1695 when, in his own right, he was made professeur [démonstrateur] en chimie, a post he
held to the end of his life.14 Boulduc had attracted the attention of Fagon probably because of the aristocratic
clientele which patronized his apothecary’s shop, and because of his role in the guild of Parisian apothecaries.
From 1686 he was, like Tournefort, a Fagon ‘client’, and again like Tournefort was brought into the Académie
des Sciences at Fagon’s behest. When he entered in 1694, Boulduc was only the third apothecary to be
admitted to the Académie. The founder-members had included Claude Bourdelin, but it was not until 1692 that
the second apothecary was appointed (Moyse Charas, shortly to be discussed). Before long others, including
Boulduc’s son Gilles-François, joined; but in the 1690s an apothecary-academician was still a rarity. In 1699 he
was reappointed as a pensionnaire; he became a vétéran in 1723 because of his commitments outside of the
Académie. During the years of his active membership, Boulduc made a lively contribution to its proceedings:
the Histoire de I’Académie Royale des Sciences lists seventeen mémoires and other communications which he
presented between 1700 and 1719.

His duties at the Jardin had taken him into the Académie; the Académie in turn brought other rewards, chiefly
by leading to his being chosen as personal apothecary to the Princesse Palatine, Elisabeth-Charlotte de Bavière,
second wife of Philippe d’Orléans. Along with Homberg, whose association with the regent already has been
discussed, Boulduc found himself with an entrée to this great princely house and enjoying the protection which
it could afford. However, like Sauveur in similar circumstances, Boulduc found it difficult to reconcile the
necessity to remain in Paris as a pensionnaire of the Académie, with his attendance upon the Princesse Palatine.
By the autumn of 1714 he was under pressure to decide between the two; he chose the Académie. On 22
December 1714 Fontenelle read to the Académie a letter from Pontchartrain:

You know, Monsieur, that Sr. Boulduc has been ordered to choose between his post as
apothecary to Madame and that of pensionnaire in the Académie Royale des Sciences, in spite of
46
several requests which Madame has made to the king that he might hold the two posts. His
Majesty has absolutely refused to relax the first article of the Règlement. Thus, Sr. Boulduc has
decided to choose and to resign from his charge with Madame. . .. I felt it necessary to inform
you, so that you may know the intention of the king concerning the Académie des Sciences, and
so that it may set a precedent for the future.15

The Princesse Palatine died in 1722. In 1724 her granddaughter, Louise-Elisabeth (daughter of Philippe
d’Orléans) returned to France from Spain on the death of her husband, Louis I of Spain; she resided at the
château of Vincennes. Late in 1723 plans were being laid for her reception, including the provision of her
entourage. Boulduc was invited to be her apothecary; he accepted and sought from the government lettres de
vêtérance releasing him from his commitments to the Académie. The letters were accorded; he spent the
remainder of his life in the service of Louise-Elisabeth, and effectively ceased to be an active academician,
although he did attend meetings from time to time.

As happened with other academicians, membership of the Académie — which in itself had resulted from the
patronage of Fagon — gave to Boulduc’s career a turn which otherwise it would not have taken. How did it
affect his social standing? Judging by the marriages of his children, they remained in the same social stratum.
Simon and his wife had four children. The daughters — Marie-Elisabeth and Marie-Madeleine — married
Parisians of similar backgrounds to themselves: the former, when she was fifteen, became the wife of a docteur
en médecine de la Faculté de Paris, while the latter was married to a procureur in the Châtelet. When the
contract for Marie-Elisabeth’s marriage was drawn up in 1691 (this was while Boulduc was still Fagon’s
suppléant at the Jardin), he followed the custom of inviting honorable figures to sign as witnesses: the first two
signatories for his daughter were the Duchesse de la Noue and her daughters, Charlotte and Amalie de
Brunswick et Lunebourg who are described in the contract as ‘friends’ of the bride-to-be.16 Clearly, therefore,
even at this stage, Boulduc and his family had a relationship with these aristocrats which was closer than one of
professional formality, and which belied their middling social status. Boulduc provided his daughter with a
dowry of 12,000 pounds; that he was in a position to do so when he also had to educate two sons and find a
dowry for the other daughter is evidence that his financial position was sound as well as his social contacts
being varied. When the elder son, Gilles-François, married in 1707 family circumstances had altered: Simon
was a widower, a pensionnaire in the Académie and apothecary to the Princesse Palatine; moreover, Gilles-
François also was a qualified apothecary and an academician. Nevertheless, he married into a family whose
status resembled that of Boulduc in the 1690s: his wife, Marie Anne Alexandre, was the daughter of a
marchand bonnetier in Paris who gave her a dowry of 15,000 livres.17 The second son, Simon-Charles, did not
marry; he became a priest and by 1729 was a canon at the cathedral of Lisieux. Although both Simon Boulduc,
and later Gilles-François, served the house of Orléans, this did not lead them to acquire marriage partners from
a higher social stratum than that into which they had been born.

Boulduc’s social status, and that of his children may have remained relatively static, but the circle of his
acquaintances was considerably widened through his membership of the Académie and through his services to
the house of Orléans. By this time he was a widower, his wife having died in March 1700.18 He systematically
used his contacts to advance the career of his eldest son Gilles-François. In 1699 the son became Simon’s élève
in the Academic, and soon afterwards joined his father as apothecary to the Princesse Palatine. Sometime in the
early 1700s, Simon turned over the business in the rue des Boucheries to Giles-Francois and moved, first into
accommodation in the rue Coquillière near Saint Eustache,19 and later into the rue de Tournoy in the quartier
Saint Germain-des-Prés.20 The fact that he had divested himself of his business allowed him to concentrate on
the Jardin, the Académie, and (apart from the period 1714 to 1723) the house of Orléans.

His lifestyle during the last phase of his life was simple but comfortable. His rooms in the rue Tournoy
consisted of a cave, a dining room with a small room adjoining, a kitchen, his bedroom next to which was a
smaller room serving as an office, and his library.21 The furniture and other household items which he
possessed were of good, solid quality. Among the more valuable pieces were a clock made by Gaudron and
47
valued at 200 pounds, six tapestries worth 300 pounds (he had others worth much less), and his silver which
was valued at 5,469 pounds. The walls of his bedroom were decorated by two engravings (one being of the
Duchesse d’Orléans) and five paintings, including two depicting the Virgin Mary and another of the Princesse
Palatine; as was usual in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, the financial value of the paintings was
much lower than that of the tapestries: only 16 pounds. When the total of Boulduc’s capital possessions is
calculated, it comes to 37,167 pounds in the following proportions:
pounds
Household goods in the rue Tournoy 1,941 (5%)
Silver 5,469 (15%)
Library 1,757 (5%)
Half house in Marché aux Poirées 10,000 (27%)
House in rue Saint Jacques 18,000 (48%)

The half house in Marché aux Poirées had belonged to the Boulduc family since the early 1600s, and that in the
rue Saint Jacques since 1655; Simon had inherited them from his father. The house in the rue Saint Jacques was
leased at 700 pounds a year, and the half house in the Marché aux Poirées at 250 pounds. Boulduc was
exceptional in that he had no rentes either on the state or on private individuals; his capital was sunk entirely
into property. His income cannot be calculated with any degree of accuracy: the Academic, his patrons in the
house of Orléans, the Jardin Royal, the leases on his houses, all were sources of income; perhaps, too, he also
drew something from the apothecary’s shop in the rue des Boucheries even after he transferred it to Gilles-
François. His annual income must have risen to several thousand pounds, but no accurate figure can be
calculated. When his children in the acte de partage added to Simon’s capital the sums which were owed to
him from various sources, and extracted his own debts, the total of his estate was 53,652 pounds; the children
divided it into four equal parts, each receiving 13,413 pounds.

Boulduc’s library consisted of 1,091 volumes (itemized in the inventory under 105 titles) and four packets of
brochures. The contents are remarkable in that they contain no classical authors and only three titles in Latin;
everything else is in French. Of course, he had received a practical training as an apothecary under his father’s
guidance and, so far as we know, had not attended a school; he had not been raised in the classical tradition
central to so much French education, and this is reflected in the books which he possessed. There are, of
course, many volumes dealing with chemistry, medicine, botany and related sciences; but the two other most
prominent subjects are history (of the Jews, France, England, Peru, Louis XIV, the church, Constantinople, the
Indies, Paris; also histories by De Thou and Mornay) and travel (in France, Africa, Japan, the northern lands and
elsewhere). There are several atlases, dictionaries, and other composite publications (Moréri, Bayle, Trévoux,
works of the Académie des Sciences), authors in modern literature (Corneille, Montaigne, Rabelais), a bible and
a New Testament. It is the library of a savant steeped in modern culture and having little acquaintance with the
classical world.

11
Laissus, ‘Le Jardin du Roi’, 327, 336; Stroup, A Company of Scientists, 38; on Boulduc, see P. Dorveaux,
‘Apothicaires Membres de 1’Académie Royale des Sciences. iii. Simon Boulduc’, in Bulletin de la Société
d’Histoire de la Pharmacie, xviii (1930), 5-15; P. Dorveaux, ‘Les Boulduc, Apothicaires de la Princesse
Palatine’, in Revue d’Histoire de la Pharmacie, 32 (1933), 110-111.
12
A.N., M.C., XXX-261: Marriage, 20 June 1649; he is a witness whose qualité is given as ‘Pierre Boulduc,
marchand apothicaire, épicier, bourgeois de Paris’.
13
A.N., M.C., CXXII-1692: Marriage, 12 June 1674.
14
Laissus, ‘Le Jardin du Roi’, 327, 336.
15
‘Vous savez, Monsieur, que le Sr. Boulduc a eu ordre d’opter entre son poste d’apotiquaire de Madame et
celuy de pensionnaire de 1’Academic Royale des Sciences, quelques instances que Madame ait pu faire au
près du Roy pour qu’il pût conserver les deux postes. Sa Majesté n’a point voulu absolument relâcher de
l’article premier du Règiement. Ainsi le Sr. Boulduc a pris le parti d’opter et de se deffaire de sa charge chez
48
Madame. . .. J’ay cru devoir vous en donner avis, pour vous faire voir par là quelle est l’intention du Roy sur
ce qui regarde l’Académie des Sciences et que cela doit servir d’example pour l’avenir.’ (A. des S., Dossiers
Biographiques: Boulduc.)
16
A.N., M.C., I-193: Marriage, 12 February 1691.
17
A.N., M.C., CI-274: Inventaire Après-Décès de Simon Boulduc, 3 mars 1729.
18
No inventory was drawn up on the death of Marie-Elisabeth de l’Estang; the family decided to wait until the
decease of Simon Boulduc when a comprehensive inventory would be prepared (A.N., M.C., CXII-585:
Partage, 23 June 1729).
19
A.N., M.C., XXXIX-242: Marriage, 23 April 1707.
20
A.N., M.C., CI-274: Inventaire Après-Décès de Simon Boulduc, 3 mars 1729.
21
This and the following information is taken from Boulduc’s inventory and from the subsequent division of
his property by his children (A.N., M.C., CXII-585: Partage, 23 June 1729).

[Note: I had the extraordinary good fortune of discovering and purchasing one of Simon Boulduc’s
books from an antique bookstore:

Les Mémoires de feu Monsieur le Duc de Guise, First edition, Paris, 1668.
(Digital copy: https://books.google.fr/books?id=UshX4-HVsKkC)

]
49
Eighteenth-Century Chemistry as an Investigative Enterprise
by Frederic Lawrence Holmes
1988 (publ. 1989)
[Original text in English]

Lecture 2: The Chemistry of Salts


1. Investigations in the Paris Academy of sciences
[p. 33]
The most conservative member of the group was Simon Boulduc, formerly apothecary to the Queen dowager
of Spain and demonstrator in chemistry at the Jardin du roi, who became an academician in 1694. Boulduc
concerned himself mainly with the traditional objective of improving drugs. As we shall see in the next lecture,
however, he proved to be an innovative investigator.

[pp. 43–44]
A further complication developed when it appeared that the combination of an alkaline earth with an acid
might itself de barely soluble. In 1726 Gilles Boulduc, one of the younger chemists who had joined the
Academy at the beginning of the century but had been generally less active in research than his colleagues,
found when he evaporated a particular mineral water that a substance fell to the bottom in the form of regular
crystals. This mode of formation seemed to Boulduc sufficient to demonstrate that the material was a middle
salt. By melting the crystals with salt of tartar (that is ordinary fixed alkali) and dissolving the product in water,
he precipitated an earth that could be re-dissolved in acids. When he evaporated the remaining solution he
obtained crystals of vitriolated tartar (a middle salt understood to be composed of fixed alkali and acid of
vitriol). He called it selenite because of its similarity to certain crystalline minerals by that name. Besides
identifying a new middle salt, Boulduc also stretched the definition of salts. In the memoir he published on his
discovery he argued that solubility was not essential to the character of salts; for those who might not accept
that argument, he added that he was able to dissolve the crystals in a large amount of warm water.60 The
seemingly self-contradictory proposition that there could be salts insoluble in water was a new vista opened up
by the alternative definition of the middle salt based on its mode of composition rather than on a traditional
property of salts.
60. Gilles Boulduc, "Essai d’analyse en général des nouvelles eaux minérales de Passy," HAS, 1726 [publ. 1728], 306–327.

3. Growth of the Chemistry of Salts


[p. 49]
Occasionally aspiring German chemists went to Paris to study with Louis Lemery, Simon Boulduc, or Jean
Grosse. Most German chemists remained primarily practitioners and teachers in a growing number of
university positions.

[p. 50]
In 1746 Pott pointed out, however, that any calcareous earth combined with vitriolic acid gave not alum but
selenite (the barely soluble salt identified twenty years earlier by Gilles Boulduc).

Lecture 3: Chemists in the Plant Kingdom


2. The Analytic Program of Simon Boulduc
[pp. 68–73]
At the first meeting of the Academy in the eighteenth century–January 9, 1700–Simon Boulduc reported on
analyses he had made of ipecacuanha, a root that had been found to have a specific action against dysentry, as
well as general emetic, cathartic, and astringent effects. After describing the three types of ipecacuanha, he
wrote:

I began by working on the gray [variety], resolving to continue my work on the other two. In order to commence
my analyses I first took the ordinary way, which is that of distillation, proposing to myself, however, to go on from

50
there to other [methods] in order to complete my observations and my research. Therefore, following our regular
order, and degrees of fire, I operated on eight ounces of that root, and I collected three portions.

Boulduc then described the liquids collected successively in the three receivers, the dry black matter left in the
retort, and the fixed fermentable salt he had extracted from this residue after calcining it. He also had applied
"our ordinary tests" on each of the substances obtained, but thought the results too inconsequential to detail.96

From this account it appears that Boulduc had undertaken his investigation by following the standardized
operative procedures that Bourdelin had employed for the analysis of plants for nearly thirty years. Since
Bourdelin had died just four months earlier, it is plausible that the Academy had even expected Boulduc to
carry forward its long-standing project, although Boulduc had already planned the previous spring a large work
on purgatives as his personal project. At any rate, he quickly became disenchanted with his initial approach:97

But since by this distillation analysis ordinarily employed to decompose mixts, I found nothing but the proportions
of the five principles, and my mixt was nevertheless destroyed without enabling me to recognize its virtue either in
its separated parts or in the same parts recombined…I therefore believed that I must proceed by another way, or by
another kind of analysis, which I would call analysis by extraction, through which I could succeed in drawing from
this root some essential part in which I could locate the specific virtue such as it appears to us in the intact mixt.
Taking this view, and being very persuaded, moreover, that the force of this root can only consist of its resinous
part…or its saline part, I believed that I needed only to search for analogous and convenient solvents in order to
extract each of these parts and to perform afterward experiments in order to ascertain in which of them its virtue,
whether emetic or purgative, mainly resides. For that purpose I prepared several infusions and digestions of eight
ounces of gray ipecacuanha with very rectified spirit of wine, the ordinary solvent for resinous parts.

After dissolving out the resinous portions in this way, Boulduc infused the remaining residue in distilled
water to extract the "saline" substances. Reversing the order, he extracted first with water, and found that
afterward spirit of wine extracted very little more material, from which he inferred that gray ipecacuanha
contains much more saline than resinous matter. Boulduc tried out the extracts obtained with spirit of wine and
water on a number of patients suffering from unspecified maladies, and found in some cases that the patient
recovered, or at least that the extract promoted the evacuations so critical in prevailing medical practice.98

On the immediate face of it, Boulduc had done nothing very new. Spirit of wine and water had long been
used to extract resins and salts respectively from plant materials. Nevertheless, his investigative narrative,
contained in the transcript of Boulduc’s presentation to his fellow academicians (and presented in compressed,
less revealing form in his published memoir on the subject) captures the nascent stage of a development that we
can see retrospectively as a watershed in the history of plant chemistry.99 What was most significant about
Boulduc’s move was that he had broken away from the deeply entrenched standard order of analysis, putting in
its place a general procedure of analysis by extraction employing methods that had formerly been applied only
in special cases. Having taken this turn, he pursued his new investigative course with dogged persistence.

Continuing his experiments on ipecacuanha, Boulduc was able to distinguish the composition of the gray and
brown varieties in terms of the proportions of the extracts they yielded to the solid residue they left. In 1701 he
applied his extractive methods to four more purgatives: coloquinth, jalop, gomme goutte, and the celebrated
powerful but dangerous black hellebore. In 1705 he examined the native French plant gratiola, and in 1708 the
juice of aloes. The next year he took up cachou, a thick juice from Asia, followed in 1710 by rhubarb and in
1714 by agaric, a mushroom. Yielding to the weight of custom, he routinely repeated the ordinary distillation
analysis on each plant, even though he regularly reported that it had revealed nothing instructive. With his
extractions, on the other hand, he often varied his basic procedure in order to increase the amount of substance
drawn out or to explore the resulting variations in its properties. Some of the gums that would not dissolve in
spirit of wine he found he could extract in a solution of salt of tartar or other alkali. Distilled vinegar proved a
very effective solvent for some substances. He experimented extensively to ascertain the relative effectiveness
of water at different degrees of heat.100

51
Properties such as color and taste, by which the products of analysis had traditionally been judged, often
served Boulduc as clues to whether or not his products embodied the medical virtues he sought; but he regarded
such criteria as misleading and regularly tested their properties by administering them "with all the necessary
precautions and discretion" to patients.101 From such experiments, he reached the general conclusion that the
purely resinous substances extracted with spirit of wine purged more violently than the crude materials; that the
purely saline extracts had little purging action, but were diuretic; and that saline and resinous portions mixed
together purged most gently and usefully. On the basis of this experience, he could attempt to improve drugs
rationally, retaining those actions he wished to have while eliminating undesirable effects.

In Boulduc’s view, the principles composing a mixt should be recognizable by their medical effects.
Substances obtained by extraction retained properties characteristic of the original material, whereas those
derived by distillation possessed no special actions distinguishing the products of one mixt from those of
another. His results proved, he asserted, that the products of distillation, "which are improperly named
principles, retain none of the virtues of the mixt from which they are drawn: it is not the same for those that
various extractions give us: we know that the products that result from them comprise, as in an epitome, all of
the active principles of the mixt."102

Wilhelm Homberg and Simon Boulduc must have performed some of their analyses on plant matters at the
same time in the same laboratory of the Academy of Sciences. The juxtaposition of their contrasting
investigative trajectories is pertinent to the general themes I outlined at the beginning of this lecture. The
starting point for both was the massive project of plant analysis carried on by their predecessors, but their
relations to it were different. Homberg was asked to evaluate what had already been done. Boulduc tried to
follow the same operating procedures employed in the project for his own special research subject, purgative
drugs. At the beginning, Homberg, like Boulduc, was concerned with the medical usefulness of such analyses;
but whereas for Boulduc the concern was intrinsic to his own central purpose, to Homberg it was probably a
duty imposed by institutional circumstances. As Homberg pursued his problem, he immersed himself
increasingly in more general questions about the composition of plant matters and the adequacy of the
distillation analyses to uncover that composition. Boulduc maintained all the way through his research the
priority of medical criteria of composition.

Homberg has been singled out by historians as the most prominent chemist in the Academy in this period.
He is perceived as a broadly trained, versatile scientist. He, if anyone in that setting, would be expected to
contribute toward the emergence of chemistry as an independent, progressive discipline. Boulduc, on the other
hand, little known to historians, an apothecary to royalty, conservative in his broad orientation, might well
appear to symbolize in the Academy the supposed older subservience of chemistry to medicine. In the realm of
plant chemistry, however, it was Homberg who held more closely to the traditional order of analysis and
Boulduc who opened up a new approach to the problem. He did so because, rather than in spite of, his medical
orientation. As Homberg’s assessment of the project of plant analysis shows, he recognized but was not
personally limited by the inability of chemical analysis to differentiate plants according to their medical
properties. Within the bounds of current analytical methods, he saw room to pursue more basic chemical
questions. For Boulduc, however, the failure of the standard methods to reveal the principles within which the
medical virtues resided was critical. It was that failure that drove him toward the most innovative investigative
pathway followed by a member of the talented group representing chemistry in the Academy of Sciences at the
beginning of the eighteenth century.
95. Homberg, "Observations sur les analyses des plantes," HAS, 1701, 2nd ed. [Paris, 1719], 117–119.
96. Procès verbaux (ref. 85), 19, 1–2.
97. Ibid., 18, 143v, 510–510v, and 19, 22v.
98. Ibid., 19, 2v–6.
99. Boulduc, "Analyse de l’ypecacuanha," HAS, 1700, 2nd ed. [Paris, 1719], 1–5, on 3–4.
100. Boulduc, "Suite des analyses de l’ypecacuanha," HAS, 1700, 2nd ed. [Paris, 1719], 76–78; "Observations analitiques du jalap,"
ibid., 1701, 108–111; "Observations analitiques de la coloquinthe," ibid., 1701, 12–17; "Remarques sur la nature de la gomme gutte et
ses differentes analyses," ibid., 1701, 133–137; "Observations sur la gratiole," ibid., 1705 [publ. 1706], 186–194; "Sur l’aloes," ibid.,

52
1708 [publ. 1709], 54–55; "Observations et analyses de cachou," ibid., 1709 [publ. 1711], 227–232; "Observations sur la rhubarbe,"
ibid., 1710 [publ. 1712], 163–169; "Sur l’agaric," ibid., 1714 [publ. 1717], 27–30.
101. Boulduc, "Analises de la coloquinte, du jalap, de la gomme gutte," HAS, 1701, 2nd ed. [Paris, 1719], 58–62, on 59.
102. Boulduc (ref. 99), 5.

3. The Metamorphosis of a Tradition


[p. 73]
The sharp contrast that Boulduc drew between the positive results of his new analytical program and the un-
illuminating results of his standard distillation methods did not immediately induce other chemists, even within
the Academy, to give up on the older approach. The elder Lemery continued unperturbed to publish
investigations of honey and urine using the standard procedures.103
103. N. Lemery, "Du miel et de son analyse chymique," HAS, 1706 [publ. 1707], 272–283; "De l’urine de vache, de ses effets en
médecine, et de son analyse chymique," ibid., 1707 [publ. 1708], 33–40.

[pp. 75–76]
A mixture of conservatism with a sensible belief that the potential for improving the customary distillation
methods for plant analysis was not yet exhausted may explain the slowness of early eighteenth century chemists
to adopt Boulduc’s approach. Over the course of the first half of the century, however, we can trace a gradual
shift in attitudes and practices. Distillations remained prominent, but the old "order of analysis" centered
around a graduated distillation receded in importance. Meanwhile extractions with spirit of wine and water
were more broadly employed. It is difficult to assess the degree of influence that Boulduc himself had on this
trend. I have so far found no explicit references to his work in this connection in the subsequent contemporary
literature. Yet his work must have been known within the intimate circle of chemists in the Academy, and he
was prominent enough that German chemists included him among those with whom they came to study in Paris.
Reinhard Löw has suggested recently that his methods may in this way have had an impact on one of the
leading German students of Stahl, Caspar Neumann.108

Sent abroad twice to study chemistry, Neumann traveled in 1719 from London to Paris, where he attended
chemical lectures, taught a course himself, and carried out experiments twice weekly with the Geoffroy
brothers. It would be improbable that he would not also during this extended stay have had contacts with
Boulduc. (…) Newmann, like Boulduc, dismissed distillation analyses of these substances as unable to provide
information useful to his purpose.109
108. Reinhard Löw, Pflanzenchemie zwischen Lavoisier und Liebig (Straubing, 1971), 41.
109. Ibid., 57–60; Karl Hufbauer, "Newmann, Caspar," Dictionary of scientific biography, 10, 25–26.

[p. 77]
As these passages imply, Neumann distanced himself from the traditional distillation procedures for motives
similar to Boulduc’s. They did not preserve specific properties characteristic of particular plants.

[p. 80]
By this time [1750] the most popular teacher of chemistry in France was Guillaume-François Rouelle.
Rouelle began giving private courses in pharmacy and chemistry sometime between 1737 and 1740, and public
lectures at the Jardin du roi in 1742, when he succeeded Gilles Boulduc as demonstrator in chemistry there.
Rouelle is best known for having popularized in France through his lectures the chemical doctrines of Stahl.119
119. Rhoda Rappaport, "G.F. Rouelle: An eighteenth-century chemist and teacher," Chymia, 6 (1960), 68–85.

[p. 82]
Simon Boulduc, Caspar Newmann, and Guillaume-François Rouelle each presented extraction analyses as a
replacement for the traditional distillation analyses. The matter was not so straightforward, however, for, as
their own discussions imply, the two methods operated on plant materials at different levels.

53
Affinity, that Elusive Dream
A Genealogy of the Chemical Revolution
by Mi Gyung Kim
2003
[Original text in English]

Chapter 1 The Space of Chemical Theory

1.4 The Académie royale des sciences


[p. 52]
Simon Boulduc (1652–1729), who joined the Academy in 1694, began to criticize the distillation method
openly and to advocate the method of extraction.141
141. Holmes, Eighteenth-Century chemistry as an Investigative Enterprise (Berkeley: Office for History of Science and Technology,
1989), 68–73.

Chapter 2 A Theoretical Moment

2.1 The Reorganization of the Académie


[p. 71]
The reorganization of the Academy in 1699 added Homberg’s longtime acquaintance Nicolas Lemery to the
chemistry section as an associé, along with two élèves: Homberg’s protégé Etienne-François Geoffroy and
Simon Boulduc’s son Gilles-François.13
13. Sturdy, Science and Social Status, 281–292; Holmes, “The Communal Context.”

Gilles Boulduc wished to study the stones formed in human body with different solvents. The existing
members continued their previous works, Bourdelin on the analysis of plants, Homberg on glass and invisible
ink, and Simon Boulduc on purgatives.15
15. PV (procès-verbaux de l’Académie royale des sciences, Paris) 18, 1699, 142r–144r (February 28).

2.4 Chemical Analysis and the Domain of Reality


[pp. 79–80]
The tides began to change quickly after Bourdelin’s death on October 14, 1699. Within three months, Simon
Boulduc pronounced to the Academy the inadequacy of distillation methods in obtaining medically salient
ingredients.37 Through an analysis of ipecacuanha, a root known to have emetic and purgative virtues, Boulduc
showed that the distillation method yielded the usual five principles, but that none had medical value. He
asserted that the products of distillation, “which are improperly named principles, retain none of the virtues of
the mixt from which they are drawn.”38 As an alternative, Boulduc proposed an “analysis by extraction” that
would require digesting the plant in a solvent for a certain period before proceeding with the distillation process.
His method of extraction was similar to Béguin’s special extraction, but he could utilize the sophisticated
knowledge of solvents and their actions that had accumulated over the previous century. Boulduc’s challenge
made it clear that the ineffectiveness of distillation methods threatened the legitimacy of the five principles as
the constituents of all bodies. In the following year, he stepped up his rhetoric, arguing that the “common
method” of distillation gave only a “general & superficial knowledge” of mixts.39 In his long-term project of
analyzing all known purgatives, he consistently used water and spirits of wine as the “two great solvents” for
the saline and the sulphurous or resinous parts of the plants, respectively, to prepare various “extracts” with
strong medical effects.

54
On June 18, 1701, less than two months after Boulduc’s presentation on Jalap,40 Homberg took up the
challenge of answering the most serious question facing the method of distillation: whether the five principles
of plants found in chemical analysis were the “true principles” that composed the mixt before the analysis.
37. Holmes, Eighteenth Century Chemistry, 68–72.
38. “Analyse de l’ipecacuanha,” PV, 19, 1700, 1r–6r (January 9); Histoire, 1700, 46–50; Boulduc, “Analyse de l’ipecacuanha,”
Mémoires, 1700, 1–5.
39. “Analises de la Coloquinte, du Jalap, de la Gomme Gutte,” Histoire, 1701, 58–62; PV 20, 1701, 162r–167v (Jalap, April 30) and
276r–280v (Gomme Gutte, July 30); Boulduc, “Observations Analytiques du Jalap,” Mémoires, 1701, 106–109 and “Remarques sur la
nature de la Gomme-Gutte, & ses differentes Analyses,” ibid., 131–135.
40. See preceding note.

Chapter 3 Affinity

3.7 Phlogiston
[p. 151]
Since Geoffroy was the leading chemist of the Academy by this time, it would make sense if other chemists
followed his suit and mined Stahl’s treatises for curious and useful operations. This assessment is borne out in
the works of Boulduc, Duhamel, and Grosse during the next two decades. Gilles Boulduc, in his sophisticated
analysis of mineral waters, cited Stahl’s Dissertation de Acidulis & Thermis, Specimen Beccherianum, and
Traité des Sels as background to his work. Boulduc’s 1726 reference to the Traité des Sels, which had been
published only in German, suggests that it could have been translated into French well before its publication in
France in 1771. A sudden surge of interest in variety of middle salts is noticeable after the publication of Stahl’s
work on salts. Du Hamel and Grosse, who examined a variety of middle salts systematically in the 1730s,
constantly referred to the “illustrious M. Stahl.”67
67. Gilles-François Boulduc, “Essai d’analyse en général des nouvelles eaux minerales de Passy,” Mémoires, 1726, 306–327; Du
Hamel and Grosse, “Sur les différentes manières de rendre le Tartre soluble,” Mémoires, 1732, 323–342.

3.8 Laboratory and Industry


[pp. 154–155]
In view of the long-standing tradition of mineral water analysis in the Academy, it comes as no surprise that
Gilles-François Boulduc sought to apply the evolving knowledge of salts to this subject.78 What is remarkable is
the degree of sophistication in his analytic reasoning. Several features of Boulduc’s work deserves particular
attention.

First, Boulduc sought to reconstruct the salts that were present in the natural state of mineral waters from
their distillation products. To circumvent the criticism that “salts are the productions of art with recourse to fire,
& according to their expression the creatures of fire,” he had to devise long, laborious procedures. Even so, he
confirmed his analysis in the end by solution methods. He precipitated all the different salts by successively
applying new portions of spirit of wine that possessed, according to Geoffroy’s table, a higher rapport with
water than salts. The fact that Boulduc felt compelled to design a proof based on displacement reactions to
persuade others indicates that solution methods were regarded as a more natural, less destructive process.

Second, Boulduc used tight experimental reasoning to fret out the principles of middle salts. Notable in this
guesswork was his consideration of the rapports between various acids and alkalis, including a notion of
“double exchange” between the pairs of acids and alkalis belonging to different middle salts. In order to prove
the saline nature of a new middle salt or selenite that he found in the waters, he invoked general traits of middle
salts that one could “change middle salts into different compounds, transport one of their principles to another
body, decompose them, and through this, be assured of which principles they are combined.”79 In other words,
the basic premise of Geoffroy’s table was very much at work in Boulduc’s analysis. Anticipating the objection
that selenite did not dissolve in water and that it thus lacked the essential quality as a salt, Boulduc discounted

55
solubility as the necessary criterion for determining the saline nature of a substance, citing Stahl and Kunckel as
authorities. Although he quickly softened his position by adding that the insolubility was only apparent, and was
caused by excessive earth, he clearly compromised the conventional boundaries of salts by utilizing a new,
compositional definition. He characterized selenite as a middle salt because it was composed of vitriolic acid
and excess earth.

Third, Boulduc’s careful analysis yielded the important discovery that Glauber’s salt, long known only in the
laboratory, existed in nature. The next year, he identified two other natural salts as Glauber’s salt because they
were composed of vitriolic acid and the base of marine salt. These discoveries weakened Glauber’s original
opinion that his salt was not found all formed in nature80 and helped close the gap between the natural and the
artificial salts. In the ensuing years, Boulduc continued to apply his techniques to a variety of subjects in order
to refute the assumption that salts were the artificial products of fire. He hoped to discover a mineral alkali, or a
natural and fossil alkali that existed before the fire analysis. Boulduc’s careful work won esteem among the
academicians. When Boulduc took up the analysis of another mineral water, Fontenelle praised the “precise and
exact” nature of his work:

One has seen in 1726 with what care M. Boulduc has examined the new waters of Passy in order to separate out all the
different matters they contained, which demands much more work, & more ingenious & finer work than one would
ordinarily believe. For one is willingly content with some light & superficial proofs carried out in quite a short time. 81

78. Gilles-François Boulduc, “Essai d’analyse en général des nouvelles eaux minerales de Passy,” Mémoires, 1726, 306–327;
Holmes, Eighteenth Century Chemistry, 43–44.
79. Boulduc, “Essai d’analyse,” 324.
80. “Sur un sel naturel de Dauphiné,” Histoire, 1727, 29–31.
81. “Sur les eaux minérales chaudes de Bourbon-l’Archambaut,” Histoire, 1729, 22–27, at 22.
[p. 156]
Boulduc reported work on corrosive sublimate in 1730 and work on two newly discovered salts of great
medical utility in 1731.87
87. Gilles-François Boulduc, “Manière de faire le sublimé corrosif en simplifiant l’opération,” Mémoires, 1730, 357–362; “Sur un sel
connu sous le nom de Polychreste de Seignette,” Mémoires, 1731, 124–129; “Recherches du sel d’Epsom,” ibid., 347–357.

Although the practical investigation of salts had a heyday during the 1730s, the theoretical treatment lagged
behind. Aside from the implicit uses by Stahl and Boulduc, the only indication that Geoffroy’s table was not
completely forgotten until 1749 comes from Jean Grosse, a German chemist Geoffroy had inducted into the
Academy in 1731.
[p. 158]
By this time, however, the deaths of C. F. Du Fay (1739), F. P. Petit (1741), G. F. Boulduc (1742), L. Lemery
(1743), and J. Grosse (1744) had left Parisian elite chemistry under the leadership of Réaumur, who curbed the
dominance of pharmaceutical chemistry in the Academy.99
99. Eklund, “Chemical Analysis and the Phlogiston Theory.” 41.

Chapter 4 Chemistry in the Public Sphere

4.4 Guillaume-François Rouelle, Teacher


[pp. 189–190]
Guy-Crescent Fagon (1638–1718), initially appointed to the position of démonstrateur et opérateur
pharmaceutique pour l’intérieur des plantes in 1672, acquired greater control of the facility during his year as
intendant. Until 1695, his teaching duty was assigned to Simon Boulduc, who then acquired an additional chair
in chemistry. From this point on, chemistry had two chairs at the Jardin. Simon Boulduc’s new chair passed
down to his son Gilles-François in 1729. Rouelle assumed this position in 1743 under the title démonstrateur en
chimie au Jardin des Plantes, sous le titre de professeur en chimie.102 In parallel with Simon Boulduc’s lectures,
56
Etienne-François Geoffroy, Louis Lemery, and Berger substituted for Fagon over the years until Geoffroy was
appointed démonstrateur de l’intérieur des plantes et professeur en chimie et pharmacie in 1712.
102. Rappaport (G.-F. Rouelle, 9) conjectures that Rouelle began teaching in 1742.

According to this genealogy of the Jardin’s chemistry chairs, E. F. Geoffroy, Louis Lemery, Simon Boulduc,
and G.-F. Boulduc are among the candidates for Rouelle’s chemical teachers, in addition to any private courses
he might have attended (such as Jean Grosse’s). While their lecture notes have not come into light, we know
their specialties from the research papers which indicates some continuities between their works and Rouelle’s
lectures. Simon Boulduc was an expert on vegetable analysis. Gilles-François Boulduc conducted sophisticated
analysis of mineral waters. Geoffroy advocated a move away from the corpuscular excess, while praising
Stahl’s chemical works. Lemery developed a sophisticated conception of solution chemistry and of fire. Grosse
advanced the theoretical understanding of middle salts.

Appendix

Chemistry Teachers at the Jardin du roi (source: J.-P. Contant, L’enseignement de la chimie au jardin royal
des plantes de Paris, A. Coueslant, 1952)
[p. 457]
Professors Date of appointment Demonstrators

A. de Saint-Yon 1695 S. Boulduc


E. F. Geoffroy 1729 G. F. Boulduc

Chemists at the Académie royale des sciences, 1666–1785 (source: Index biographique de l’Académie des
sciences, 1666–1978, Gauthier-Villars, 1979)
[pp. 458–459]
Académicien chimiste

1694 S. Boulduc

Pensionnaire Associé Élève

1699 G. F. Boulduc
1727 G. F. Boulduc

Life Dates and Positions


[p. 460]
Boulduc, Gilles-François (1675–1742); élève 1699, adjoint 1716, associé 1727
Boulduc, Simon (1652–1729); académicien chimiste 1694, pensionnaire 1699

57
Gilles-François BOULDUC
Paris, 20 February 1675 – Versailles, 15 January 1742

Gilles-François Boulduc is the grandson of Pierre Boulduc, accepted as Master-Apothecary in 1636 and the
son of Simon Boulduc, Master Apothecary in 1672. The latter had acquired a great reputation. First as Advisor
to the Bodies Six (1674), he became Guard of the Community from 1687 to 1689, Consul in 1698 and Judge in
1717; meanwhile, he had been named Demonstrator of Chemistry to the King’s Garden and entered the Royal
Academy of Sciences in 1694 to successively become an Associate, a Resident, then a Veteran.

He had been selected as apothecary of Madam - the second wife of Philippe d’Orléans, brother of Louis XIV
- and of the Queen Lady of Spain. His pharmacy was located on the street of Boucheries-Saint-Germain.

Gilles-François received a good education from early on and pursued his studies in physics under the
direction of Mr. Régis as well as in chemistry with his father and Mr. Saint-Yon, professor in the Royal Garden
of Plants. At the age of twenty, in 1695, he is received as Master-Apothecary and follows a similar life to that of
his father in the Community of Apothecaries: Guard from 1709 to 1711, Judge, Consul in 1717. He became
Alderman in 1726.

Without slowing his work in the paternal pharmacy, where he is assisted by the German chemist Jean Grosse,
he is named Apothecary to the King in 1712 and to the Queen in 1735. He is also selected to perform his art as
Advisor to the Duke of Saint Simon who grants him all of his esteem.

Entered into the Royal Academy of Sciences, as a pupil, in 1699, he will become an Associate in 1727.

In rewards to his position as Alderman, he profits from an attribution, in 1734, of four “lignes d’eau”
(approximately a cubic half-meter a day), but he donates it to the Apothecaries’ Garden.

Source: ‘Les Médaillons de la Faculté de Pharmacie de Paris’, Marcel Chaigneau, 1986.

58
Academician Eulogies of the Royal Academy of Sciences,
deceased in the years 1741, 1742, & 1743.
By Mr. Dortous de Mairan
(1767)

Mr. BOULDUC

Gilles-François Boulduc, First Apothecary of the King, former Alderman, former Justice-Consul,
Demonstrator in Chemistry at the Royal Garden, and Associate Chemist in the Academy of Sciences, born in
Paris on 20 February 1675. His father, Simon Boulduc, former Justice-Consul, and Apothecary to the late
Madam, and from departed Dowager Queen of Spain, had also been Demonstrator in Chemistry at the Royal
Garden, and member of this Academy, first as a student, and successively as Associate, Resident and Veteran,
until the year 1729 when he died.

Mr. Boulduc, whom we will talk about, was born, so to speak, into the Academy of Sciences, and had
received a most worthy education fit to one day sit amongst those who make up its occupation. This honor was
always offered by his father, and for the knowledge that he would acquire, and as one of the safest means of
increasing them, and to rectify and put them to good use.

His early studies having been done, he applied himself to the Physics of Descartes under the direction of Mr.
Régis, and made progress which compelled this famous Cartesian [relating to the philosophy of Descarte] to
offer him his treasures.

This was however only the preliminary step to an another science which was mainly in sight, but which in
itself as only the particular physics of the intrinsic layout of the bodies, who had to be preceded and better
informed from the major principles of General Physics. Nothing indeed could better protect themselves against
the mysterious and sublime pretentions of former Chemistry, than the method and the principles of Descartes,
who has for basis and intentions but the clarity of ideas and pure evidence. Also, hasn’t Mr. Boulduc ever given
in to any of these Alchemist reveries still fairly common in the recent past, despite the deadly invasion that
public lessons had brought them and the books of deceased Mr. Lémery.

Finally he gave himself entirely to Chemistry, and studied it under Mr. Saint-Yon, Physician, Professor at the
Royal Garden, and under his father who, as we said, was a Demonstrator there. This attentive father to the
instructions of a son who appeared more and more deserving under his care, observed every day the particular,
by a thousand delicate but sensitive operations, that which only an abstract theory had presented itself into his
mind. The domestic lessons wonderfully helped those of the King’s Garden, and the one with the others were
supported by the vividness and taste of the young artist, soon began to distinguish him in the profession in
which he was being destined. He was received in the Guild of Apothecaries in 1695, at the age of 20 years, and
four years afterwards he entered the Academy of Sciences as a Pupil.

He has since given us several works in Chemistry, and the Academy has inserted most of them in its volumes
published annually: this is a sort of admission and tacit approval that the Academy selectively accords, although
it does not adopt all ideas contained within that is deemed credible for release amongst its Mémoires.

The works of Mr. Boulduc consist for the most part in analyses of different substances. He had undertaken in
this fashion the history of Purgatives, which he gave a essay in 1719 on Wild Cucumbers with a few
observations on the Élatérium de Dioscorides, which is the extract or thickened juice from the fruit of this plant,
and one of the most violent purgatives that the Medicine of old has used; but other engagements prevented him
from pursuing this project. He read the same year at the Academy an analysis of the Spawn of Frogs, and on
the Cinchona tree of America, to which a few authors have related as a seventh Quinine species, and who’s bark

59
has indeed several similar virtues to those of this febrifuge. Mr. Boulduc has also worked extensively on Salts.
In his examination made in 1724 on the Cathartic Salt of Spain, of which a spring produces five quarters of a
league from Madrid, and in 1727 on Dauphin Salt, which is taken in the land near Grenoble, he found that the
one and the other were true natural "Salt of Glauber", Salt which this famous Chemist had made much ado that
he named it admirable, either due to the properties that it gave him, or either that he judged it worthy of his
name because of what it had cost him in meditations and observations. Art has almost never had nothing better
to do than to imitate Nature, but often lacks after having imitated it, of knowing that it only copied it and
nothing more. This is what Glauber had ignored regarding his admirable Salt, but Mr. Boulduc had developed
perfectly. On the other hand, concerning the Polychrest Salt of Rochelle and that of Epsom that he also
undertook to analyze, it wasn’t Nature which needed to be exposed and imitated, but the art hiding in it, and for
good cause.

While Mr. Boulduc was reading his Mémoire on the Rochelle Salt to the Academy, and as he was showing a
crystal that he had made from this salt, Mr. Geoffroy who was also working on the same material, without
having previously known entered the Assembly, recognized the Polychrest Salt on the first inspection of his
crystal, and immediately went and sought the same material which he had also made. The Academy, upon
having seen both supporting evidence, and heard both parties, concluded that this discovery would be given
under both names, as it has been indeed in the history of 1731. There are in every Science principles and
invariable rules, which cannot fail but to lead to the same purpose to those who know how to wield them.

Mr. Boulduc proposed in 1730 a way to make Sublimate corrosive, by simplifying the operation and
subtracting nitrate spirits. We also had from him in 1734 an essay on the analysis of Plants, where he uses
Bourrache as an example, which is one of the most employed in Medicine.

But nothing gives him more honor than his research on the nature of certain mineral Waters. His analysis on
the new Waters of Passy, that he gave in 1726, was observed by the Masters in the Art as a model in this kind.
There soon were many copies into the public, and, which is in no less the least to the merits of his work, the cost
and use of these Waters were substantially increased. He gave in 1729 an analysis on the Waters of Bourbon
l’Archambaud for Mr. le Duc, now deceased, and in 1735 one on the mineral Spring of Forges, named la
Royale for the Queen, to whom these waters had been ordered by the Doctors.

The charge of First Apothecary of the King that he had obtained in 1712, and that of First Apothecary to the
Queen that he received in 1735, did not allow him to attend the Assemblies diligently; but the preparations and
researches that he was obliged to do in Versailles, also turned, as we have just seen, to the benefit of the
Academy and the Public. That is why the Academy, who does not easily allow lapses in attendance, which
presence is required from all its members, requires that their seats be committed whatever the jobs might
prevent them, and did not allow an agreement in 1727 to Mr. Boulduc for one of its Associate seats.

The kindness of the King and Queen, glorious to the fruits and industrious zeal from the attention that Mr.
Boulduc was bringing into their service, thousands of informal care rendered to influential folks of the Court, in
polished and preventive manners, a pleasant exterior with essential qualities of the heart, could not fail but to
bring him favors in a country where only a nice gesture of the Master was enough to make friends. The use that
this brought him most, has been in providing last year to his unique son aged only 14 years, survivalship as First
Apothecary of the King; whereby Mr. Boulduc was extremely keen on, to which one could have believed that
the request had been hasty or indiscrete, had we not known that this son was already showing a mature mind
and intelligence that is rarely found in such youth. Those paternal feelings so wisely established by Nature,
which act to care after oneself in posterity, sometimes with more convenience than self esteem, were acting
with great force on Mr. Boulduc. The most constant and tender of friendship were not unknown to him: he
spent thirty years of his life with Mr. Grosse, a great German Chemist of this Academy, who had lodged with
him, and whose friendship was more and more fortified by character than born from the conformity of their
studies.
60
Although he had a strong temperament and seemed to enjoy a perfect health, he was often struck by fleeting
ailments, and subject to violent heart palpitations. In December 1741 he was struck with Erysipelas in his left
leg, and was treated Methodically, and was cured in appearance; but anxious to return to his duties, he left for
Versailles last 15 January 1742, where he died on the 17, very much missed by their Majesties, and all those
who had the opportunity to know him.

CATALOGUE OF THE WORKS


of Mr. Boulduc

They are all contained in the volumes of History and Mémoires of the Royal Academy of Sciences, that we will
mention in the order of their years.

In Mémoires
1. Mémoires sur la qualité et les propriétés d’un Sel découvert en Espagne, qu’une Source produit
naturellement, et sur la conformité et identité qu’il a avec un Sel artificiel, que Glauber qui en est l’auteur
appelle Sel admirable. 1724
2. Essai d’Analyse en général des nouvelles Eaux Minérales de Passy. 1726
3. Examen d’un Sel tiré de la terre en Dauphiné, par lequel on prouve que c’est un Sel de Glauber naturel.
1727
4. Essai d’Analyse en général des Eaux chaudes de Bourbon-l’Archambaud. 1729
5. Manière de faire le Sublimé corrosif en simplifiant l’opération. 1730
6. Sur un Sel connu sous le nom de Sel Polychreste de Seignette. 1731
7. Recherches sur le Sel d’Epsom. ibid.
8. Essai d’analyse des Plantes. 1734
9. Analyse des Eaux de Forges, et principalement de la Source appelée la Royale. 1735

In History
1. Observations sur le Chacril. 1719
2. Essai de l’Histoire des Purgatifs, et sur l’Élatérium ou Concombre sauvage. ibid.
3. Analyse du Frai des Grenouilles. Read on the same year at the Academy, as shown on the Registers.

We have learned from Mr. Grosse, his dear friend, that he had given some years ago a Dissertation on Mercury.

(1699)
61
(1545)

62
(1658 ca)

63
(Source: https://archive.org/details/registersoffrenc09egli)

64
(Source: https://archive.org/details/registersoffrenc1321egli)

65
[Brothers?]
Jean Bolduc X Michelle Tatincloux
(From Valenciennes, France) 15 Sep 1631 (From Cambrai, France)
Godfather of:
- Catherine Dubois (13 Jan 1633)
- Magdalène Lemers (9 Apr 1637)

Pierre Bolduc Jean Bolduc Jacques Bolduc Marie Bolduc


(B. 12 Jun 1632) (B. 12 Jan 1634) (B. 7 Dec 1635) (B. 17 Nov 1639)

Antoine Legrand
(From Saint-Amand Pierre Bolduc (Feu) Jean deMain
[France or Belgium]) (From Valenciennes, France)

X
Michel Legrand X Jeanne Bolduc Pierre deMain 2 Aug 1635 Marguerite Bolduc
(From Saint-Amand 21 Apr 1635 (From Valenciennes, France) (From near Valenciennes, (Announced) (From Valenciennes,
[France or Belgium]) Godmother of: France) 1 Oct 1635 France)
Godfather of: - Sara Lefebvre (24 Sep 1665) (Married)
- Sara Lefebvre (24 Sep 1665)

Catherine Legrand Marie Legrand Suzanne Legrand Nicolas Legrand Marie Legrand Jeremy Legrand Jean deMain
(B. 8 Jan 1637) (B. 10 Apr 1642) (B. 25 Aug 1644) (B. 22 Feb 1646) (B. 22 Jan 1654) (B. 23 Mar 1656) (B. 26 May 1636)

François Duprié Paul Bolduc

X
Denis Duprié Anne Bolduc
31 Oct 1641
(From Lille, (From Valenciennes,
(Announced)
France) France)
25 Dec 1641
(Married)

Judith Duprié André Duprié Anne Duprié Marie Duprié Jacques Duprié
(B. 29 Sep 1644) (B. 12 Jul 1646) (B. 3 Sep 1648) (B. 16 Nov 1651) (B. 4 Jun 1654)
66
Gilles Mahieu

Pia [The same?] Pia Bolduc 2X Marguerite Mahieu


Boisleduc ↔ (From Douai, 11 Jun 1655 (From London, Pierre Gail &
France) England) Noé Blond Elizabeth Hames

Jacques Boisleduc Jean Bolduc X Suzanne Blond 2X Jean Gaile


(B. 12 Apr 1629) (From Bapaume, 17 Sep 1637 (From London) 30 Aug (From London,
France) 1663 Wilshire County)
Godfather of:
- Jean Robert (29 Aug 1652)

Sara Bolduc Jean Bolduc Pierre Bolduc Marie Bolduc Daniel Bolduc Jeanne Bolduc Ester Bolduc
(B. 27 Feb 1642) (B. 5 Nov 1643) (B. 19 Jul 1646) (B. 10 Oct 1647) (B. 26 Oct 1651) (B. 3 Sep 1654) (B. 29 Mar 1657)

Mathieu Carlie X Jaell Bolduc

Marie Carlie
(B. 17 Oct 1641)

67
(1666)
Threadneedle Street, London
Order in the streets broke down as rumours arose of suspicious foreigners setting fires. The fears of the homeless focused on
the French and Dutch, England's enemies in the ongoing Second Anglo-Dutch War; these substantial immigrant groups became
victims of lynchings and street violence.
The social and economic problems created by the disaster were overwhelming. Evacuation from London and resettlement
elsewhere were strongly encouraged by Charles II, who feared a London rebellion amongst the dispossessed refugees.
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_London)
In Elizabeth's reign "the Anthony's pigs," as the "Paul's pigeons" used to call the Threadneedle boys, used to have an annual
breaking-up day procession, with streamers, flags, and beating drums, from Mile End to Austin Friars. The French or Walloon
church established here by Edward VI. seems, in 1652, to have been the scene of constant wrangling among the pastors, as to
whether their disputes about celebrating holidays should be settled by "colloquies" of the foreign churches in London; or the
French churches of all England.
(Source: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/old-new-london/vol1/pp531-544)
(See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threadneedle_Street & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Protestant_Church_of_London)

(1666)

68
(1572)
69
Bolduc
T his interesting and rare name is of Medieval French origin and
is a metonymic occupational name for a maker of ribbon and
thread, deriving from the French word ‘bolduc’, meaning a
thin ribbon or thread. This name first appeared in English records in
the mid 17th Century at a time when a characteristic group of surnames
was brought to Britain by French Huguenot exiles. These were French
Protestants, who were persecuted for their religious beliefs, during the
reign of Catherine de’ Medici in 16th Century through to the end of the
17th Century, when the trickle of emigrants became a flood, many of
them seeking refuge in England. These French Huguenots and also the
Flemish Protestants, (who entered Britain in the 13th Century and 14th
Century) often brought with them certain skills and crafts unknown in
England at that time, such as weaving, textiles, glass work, etc. One,
Ester Bolduc, was christened on 29th March 1657 at the French
Huguenot Church, Threadneedle Street. The first recorded spelling of
the family name is shown to be that of Pia Bolduc married to
Marguerite Marieu, which was dated 11th June 1655, French Huguenot
Church, Threadneedle Street, London, during the reign of Oliver
Cromwell, ‘The Great Protector’, 1649-1660. Surnames became
necessary when governments introduced personal taxation. In
England this was known as Poll Tax. Throughout the centuries,
surnames in every country have continued to “develop”, often leading
to astonishing variants of the original spelling.
© Copyright: Name Origin Research www.surnamedb.com 1980-2017
http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Bolduc

70
The Book on the Description of Countries
By Gilles Le Bouvier
Paris
1908
Collection of travels and documents to serve for the history of geography
Since the XIIIth to the end of the XVIth century.
XXII
Introduction
Dr E.-T. Hamy
Page 20
Brabant, whom Gilles must have often visited and where we find him, particularly in Brussels in 1450,
provided but little personal elements; he even committed a serious error by confusing the Flemish spoken in one
part of this country with the German which dialect differs markedly, although they are of the same family. It is
true that the nobility, were our King of Arms was visiting, spoke but only French.

On the Description of Countries


Page 107
[…] is the country of Brabant […]. In this country are four good cities: Bruxelles, who is the principal town,
Louvain, Boulleduc, and Liers, and Malines 5 who is not of this Duchy, for it is to the Duke of Bourgogne, and
was formerly of Brebant and joined in the Duchy.
_______
5. Brussels, Louvain, Bois-le-Duc, Lier, Mechelen.

Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII.
by James Gairdner and R.H. Brodie
Vol. XIX.–Part 2.
London
1905
[Original text in English]
General Index.
Names of places and surnames of persons will commonly be found under the most usual modern spelling. The
variations in the text being given in parentheses, with cross-reference from each where it is of any importance; but no
notice is taken of the use of y for i, ss, ƒƒ, or U, for the single letters s, ƒ, or l, or of ssh or ssch for sh.
517
Bois-le-Duc (Buldewike, Bouldewyke, Buldwyke, Bolduk, Bulduc, Bowldewyke) or Hertogenbosch
(Hertzegen Busse), in Brabant ("Stadt van den Bossche,"). [Sixteenth Century]

[Liberal canting arms interpretation by a heraldic agency for ‘Bolduc’, anglicized into “bowl(ing)-duck”.]
71
Registry
Orders, Convocations,
Assemblies, Deliberations, and other Expeditions
Rendered in the Office of the City of Paris
(1883)
1571
CCCCXCVII (CLXXXIV).
(Letter to the “Quarteniers” [commanding officer of a district] to receive pay from latecomers.)
24 September 1571.

374-375
(note 3):
[…] This roll contains 172 names, under which their taxes are found quadrupled. We not only find lesser
fortunates on this list of latecomers, but on the contrary, a relatively large number of rich bourgeois, whose
contributions sums up to a high number. Mentioning rue Saint-Denis: […]; Jacques Boulleduc, cloth merchant,
"cinquantenier" [commanding fifty men], 160 pounds; […].". Signed: "Bachelier". (Proceedings of the City
Office, National Archives, H 1881).

[In the publication Journal de Pharmacie et de Chimie, Sixth Series, First Volume, Paris (1895),
under the section Société de Pharmacie de Paris, Séance du 6 février 1895, Presidency of M.
Villiers, vice-president, an article is found titled Les Apothicaires dans les cérémonies de parade
by M. G. Planchon, where a ‘Note 2’ on page 283 reads:

(2) (…) "(…) for The Joyous entry of His Majesty and for lodging the four of you who are
charged to bring heaven before ‘Saint Lieu Saint Gilles’ Church, by the house of Jacques
Bouleduc [sic] (…).
"Rendered in said city the first day of March 1571." Signed: "Bachelier".

There are other individuals found in the town of Senlis, France, from various publications:
Henry Boulleduc, Bourgeois and Merchant, 1556 & 1557.
Loys/Louis Boulleduc, Religious member (of Saint-Nicolas), Apprentice, 1553.
Others:
Guillaume Boulleduc, Goldsmith in Angers, 1451.
Guillemin de Boulleduc (Bois-le-Duc, Netherlands), Spur-Maker, Tours, 1462 – 1473.
Mathis Canaye, Merchant established in Rouen, native of Boulleduc (Bois-le-Duc) in Brabant,
1525.
Earliest individual known so far with similar surname:
Laurens de Bouleduc, Bourgeois of Paris, 1418.

Other possible origins to the BOLDUC surname which must not be disregarded:
Jacob du Boisleduc, Horseman from Renand Brésille Company in Brittany, 1396 (There is a
small wooded area in Brittany known as “Bois-le-Duc”, not far from Kergloff.)
The Celtic name Pol-duc is known to have changed (“softened”) into Bol-duc from one dialect to
another, according to an 1808 publication.
The book Bibliothèque Historique de la France, by Jacques Lelong (Vols 5 & 3, 1778), mentions
a village near d’Autun (Government of Burgundy, France), called Bolleduc, mentioned in 1564.]
[Also see Appendix, page 206.]
72
Etymological Dictionary of the French Langue
By Mr. Ménage
1750
BOLDUC. Town of the Netherlands, in the Brabant region. This name is the corruption of Bois-le-Duc, &
some are still writing it so; but they err. We say & we write Bolduc. This town is on a plain where there used
to be woodlands, in which the Dukes of Brabant often went hunting & for this reason was named Bois-le-Duc,
Sylva Ducis [in Latin]. Duke Henri, wishing to suppress the games that Gueldres took free liberties on his
lands, had this wood cut down which favored hunting & was thrown in its place the foundations of a town,
which took its name.
Source: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k507912

Encyclopædia, or Reasoned Dictionary of Sciences, Arts and Trades.


By Mr. Diderot
1751 – 1765
BOLDUC, see Bois-le-Duc.
BOIS-LE-DUC, (Geog.) large fortified town, of the Dutch Brabant region, of which it is the Capital, at the
confluence of the Dommel & the Aa rivers which forms the Dies, flowing into the Meuse at Fort Crèvecœur.
The area which it governs is called the district council of Bois-le-duc, divided into four Quarters or districts.
Source: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k50534p

Tournai, Census of the inhabitants of the parish of Notre Dame (1741)


Family Association of Belgian Hainaut - H01
By D. Desqueper
(Tournai, 2002)
List of residents of the city of Tournai in 1741.
Family on the Rue du Thiétard:
• Grégoire Delplancque, Trader, 66 years old.
• Marie Anne Prade, his wife, 64 years old.
• Mary Catherine, not married, 32 years old (daughter of Grégoire Delplancque?).
• Pierre Grégoire Bolduc, her son, 9 years old.
Date of birth of Pierre Grégoire Bolduc: 26 December 1731. Who is his father? Perhaps a soldier garrison or
worker who came from Bois-le-Duc by Antwerp, via the River Escaut.
Possible descendants of Pierre Grégoire Bolduc at Tournai: unknown.
[Thanks to Mr. Apis Tornacensis for this information.]

(1899) (1966) 73
A New Pronouncing Dictionary of the Spanish and English Languages
Compiled by Mariano Velázquez De La Cadena
New York and London
1900
[Original text in English]

Balduque (bal-doo'-kay), m. Narrow red tape, for tying papers. F. Bois-le-Duc (Bolduc).
Belduque (bel-doo'-kay), m. A large, heavy knife (Mexico).
Bolduque (bol-doo'-kay), Bois-le-Duc (a city of the Netherlands).
(Source: http://www.whirlwindtraders.com)

[Note: I believe I’ve found a good explanation as to why no written publication appears to exist
directly [see Appendix, page 226] tying "Boulduc" (compared to Boulleduc) to "Bois-le-Duc".
That reason is probably because our ancestors pronounced their surname of Boulduc in a
"modern" way with only two syllables (in French), as opposed to its ancient form (1450 is the
oldest we know, as shown above) of Boulleduc. In that form, I am quite certain, the surname
was pronounced with a total of three syllables: "boulle-le-duc".

Why does this matter? Here's my "chronological" reasoning:

1 – The town name of Bois-le-Duc (French for ‘s-Hertogenbosch: "the Duke’s forest", erected
in 1185) is pronounced with four syllables: "bo-a-le-duc", and we can further say "bou-a-le-duc",
because we know ‘bois’ is pronounced either "boa" or "boua", depending on the era or region
where French is/was spoken.

2 – The town name of ‘Bos-le-Duc’ (same town), appears after syncope, from the
pronunciation form of "bo-a-le-duc" (where the ‘a’ is dropped), to become "Bol-le-duc"
(maintaining the same style of "sticking" the spoken "l", as the spelled surname of Bolleduc also
exists in old texts), with one less syllable (three in all), the very definition of syncope: " The
dropping of sounds or letters from the middle of a word " (Webster).

3 – The birth of the form Boulleduc, now that we know (according to my assumptions) how to
pronounce it with three syllables instead of two, falls exactly under this same formula, with the
same lost syllable: "bou-a-le-duc" becomes "boul-le-duc". How to write it? = Boulleduc.

4 – Adding one more syncope through the times, our ancestors lose an other syllable, the "le",
and we find "Boulduc", pronounced with only two syllables, just like Bois-le-Duc became
Bolduc.

It would appear that the most popular form retained in time, and I am certain that this was due
to the importance of fabrics created in that city (I am also thinking of a very popularized form of
ribbons appropriately labeled ‘bolduc’), was the most common name of ‘Bolduc’, instead of
‘Boulduc’. Our ancestors must have then retained this other form through the ages.]

74
Father Bolduc of Paris, Jacques, Capuchin.
By Willibrord-Christian van Dijk

We propose 1551 for his approximate year of birth, and surely in Paris; neither the names of his father and
mother are indicated, nor his baptismal name. He once was a counsel to the Parliament of Paris, then joined the
Capuchin order at the age of 30. He received his monk dress probably at Meudon, 15 June 1581, from the
hands of Father Matthias de Sals', top Italian delegate of Rome as organizer of the Capuchins of the province of
Paris. He made his profession at Meudon on 16 June 1682; then "le tout Paris" (personalities of an era having
for habit to attend worldly demonstrations of the capital) were present for the ceremony.

Jacques of Paris studied only theology, and became one of the first "lecturer" (Professor) in the province of
Paris; it is unknown when and where he was ordained priest. On 18 August 1590 he was elected 2nd provincial
Advisor (définiteur) and Guard (Superior) of the Faubourg Saint-Honoré convent in Paris; renewed in his
charges on 29 September 1591 and 27 September 1592; he was simultaneously elected representative of the
province at the General Chapter in Rome, but did not get the opportunity to go there, not having any “general
chapters” in these years.

He was devoted to preaching, especially in Paris, before numerous audiences whom he charmed with his
pleasing speeches and his knowledge, and this preaching impressed the Huguenots who came to hear him.
Then begins a series of Guard duties: in 1602 Guard of Caen; 1610, Guard of Beauvais; 1611, of Auxerre; 1613
he participated in the foundation of the convent of Evreux; in 1615-1616 he is Guard of Etampes; 1617, of
Pouloise; 1618, of Montfort l’Amoury. Then we find him again in Paris: on 13 March 1621 he gives his
approval to the "Mass Treaty" of Father Joseph du Tremblay, just as he had done on 4 November 1613 for the
"Palace of Divine Love" of the mystical Capuchin Laurent de Paris. From 1622 to 1631 Jacques Bolduc
sustains with the Jesuit Lapeyre a theological controversy, concerning ... Melchisedech and of Job! On 15
March 1624, new approval of another book by Joseph de Paris (du Tremblay). It is also probably around this
time that Father Pacifique de Provins would have liked to engage him in missionary project for the Americas...
Here the timeline suffers from a large interruption, as we must wait ‘till 18 January 1634 to find a letter from
Father Jacques Bolduc to Marin, Oratorian, letter kept at the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Baluze
collection, no. 209, p.161. Father Marin was a man of science. The year after, 1635, Father Bolduc is met
head-on by Jesuit Monet concerning Melchisedech! (Municipal library of Amiens, manuscript 230). It is in this
decade, on 27 December 1639, that Pierre Boulduc married Gilette Pijar: it is not known what could have been
the kinship between the Apothecary and the Capuchin; at best, the religious Father could have been the uncle of
the pharmacist...

In any case, it is assumed that Father Jacques was related to Simon Boulduc, First Apothecary of the King
[Louis XIV], who died in 1703 [sic]. Father Bolduc, despite the criticisms he received, continued to write; he
published at Lyon, 1640, in-folio in latin: "... libri III in quibus declaromtus... Eucharistiæ... sacramenta". At
this time the venerable religious fell sick and disabled, which he remained several years, and died at the
Faubourg Saint-Honoré convent in Paris on 8 December 1646.

It was said that he was patient, merry in temperament, open to all. He would have exercised paradox, and
would have used a lot of imagination in his commentaries of the Bible!

This note is composed from numerous indications drawn from the manuscripts of the Provincial Library of
Capuchins of Paris.

Paris, Saturday 22 March 1997.

75
Notices & Voyages of the Famed Quebec Mission to the Pacific Northwest
Being the correspondence, notices, etc., of Fathers Blanchet and Demers, together with those of Fathers Bolduc and Langlois.
Containing much remarkable information on the areas and inhabitants of the Columbia, Walamette, Cowlitz and Fraser Rivers,
Nesqually Bay, Puget Sound, Whidby and Vancouver Islands while on their arduous mission to the engagés of the Hudson’s Bay
Company and the pagan natives, 1838 to 1847.
Englished out of the French by Carl Landerholm
1956
Introduction

Retrieving some forgotten phase of history is the constant challenge of every historian. While doing special
research in the library of the Oregon Historical Society I had occasion to refer to the collection of Roman
Catholic writings pertaining to the Pacific Northwest. Among the books was a set of five volumes bearing the
somewhat uninviting title, Mission de Québec. Though seemingly unrelated to Pacific Northwest history, I
began to look at the first volume, for readings in foreign languages are in themselves attracting to me.

My interest quickened, for within these worn bindings I soon discovered a series of detailed reports to their
superior, the Archbishop of Quebec, from Roman Catholic missionaries dispersed throughout the vast
wilderness of Canada and the Pacific Northwest. The priests for this region were first sent by the Quebec
province at the behest of J. N. Provencher, Bishop of Juliopolis, at the Red River Mission. His request was
made in answer to a plea from the French-Canadians employed by the Hudson’s Bay Company at the interior
forts along the Columbia River system. Seven of these far-reaching reports, which I have translated, run from
1838 to 1847, and are entitled “Mission de la Colombie” – the mighty Columbia River and the core of my own
historical interests! I thus had real purpose for further reading.

This purpose became lively interest upon discovering that – aside from infrequent and necessary comments
by the general editor of the rapports – here were the personal letters of François Blanchet and Modeste Demers
detailing their memorable experiences from the time they left the Red River Mission at Winnipeg in the summer
of 1838. Fortunately both men were somewhat methodical and the dramatic narratives of eight arduous, often
harrowing years of life in the Oregon Country are recorded in minute detail. The notices and letters are
therefore a contribution of the first importance to our understanding of political and social life, as well as the
religious influence of all the denominations on the early frontier.

The later notices contain reports from the less familiar but equally important writings of Fathers Bolduc [Mgr
Jean-Baptiste-Zacharie Bolduc (born in Saint-Joachim 30 November 1818 – died in Quebec 8 May 1889), son
of Joachim Bolduc and Madeleine Lessard] and Langlois, especially on the ocean frontier. The renowned Jesuit
priest Father DeSmet also appears with detailed information regarding the Rocky Mountain missions in Idaho,
which were established by his celebrated order via the American trails out of St. Louis as well as the Cape Horn
route.

In all this I realized that a rich mine of Pacific Northwest history had been to some extent neglected, though
in later years Archbishop Blanchet did publish some collateral reports in the Catholic Sentinel. Unfortunately
foreign languages, unless easily read, often act as a sinister barrier to scholarship, and it would appear that there
has been no previous English translation of these fascinating reports.

Far from being dull or technical these reports are the work of earnest, educated men who wrote fluently and
cogently of the physical as well as spiritual life at the Hudson’s Bay fur trading posts. In reporting to the
archbishop their ministrations to the French engagés and their wives, and thousands of natives, the missionaries
devote much space to relating, in attractive idiom, their passages over impossible trails through tangled forests
and bleak semi-deserts [The Lewis & Clark Expedition conquered the Pacific trail in 1804-1806 with the help
of a French Canadian, Toussaint Charbonneau, husband of Shoshone (Rocky Mountains) Chief’s daughter

76
Sacagawea. Together they had two children, Jean-Baptiste (born on the trail) and Lizette Charbonneau]. Their
tribulations are graphically described as they endure dusty heat, chilling rains and deep snow according to the
season. Their canoes skim over many waters, sometimes amid beautiful scenery, at other times dangerously
embroiled.

The natives (sauvages), individually or in tribes, are fully revealed in their customs and transgressions, and
occasional piety. Throughout the letters one has intimate encounter with Dr. John McLoughlin, Governor
George Simpson, Peter Skene Ogden, James Douglas, and many other notables of the Hudson’s Bay Company.
Accounts of the Methodist missions and some Presbyterian activity in the same areas are recorded. The
mountain eruption are described, and ferocious or curious savages spring to life in every page. All this is
written in agreeable French, from which I hope that my English has not departed too far.

To most students of Pacific Northwest history the Protestant ministers of old Oregon are, I believe, better
known than the Catholic priests. The ministers were Americans, most of whom had journeyed overland from
the older settlements of the United States. They were a part of the tidal wave of immigration inundating the
new land, leaving only fragments of what had been the society of old Oregon. The priests were Canadians,
protégés of the Hudson’s Bay Company, an organization politically and economically suspect of the settlers.
The minister’s political ideology was deeply rooted in British institutions as modified by the American frontier.
The priests perforce acquiesced to British rule and to the strictures of the Hudson’s Bay Company, as was
agreed before their departure from French Canada. Their culture, too, was anchored to France and ancien
régime, and was less essentially democratic in spirit. Finally there was a deep uncompromising religious
cleavage which far too often caused worthy people of dissimilar denominations to turn their backs on one
another.

As a consequence the names of Jason Lee, Daniel Lee, Gustavus Hines, Marcus Whitman and H. H. Spalding
are almost household words, while Blanchet, Bolduc, Demers and Langlois, and other Catholic clergymen,
appear as shadow figures fitting on and off the pioneer stage into forgetfulness.

Sources like this series of reports, which speak authoritatively and bring into sharper focus persons and
figures that time has dimmed, are generally welcomed; and especially so where human worth is dramatically
involved, as in the case before us.

The scope of this translation includes all the reports of the Mission of the Columbia from 1838, when Fathers
Blanchet and Demers first penetrated the Oregon Country, until approximately 1846 when the country was
divided between the United Stated and Great Britain. Within that brief time the mission was transformed into a
full-fledged ecclesiastical province with Francis Norbet Blanchet as its archbishop. Assisting him in this
administration were the newly appointed bishops A. M. A. Blanchet, his Brother, and his dauntless companion
of the early years, Modeste Demers. This unique development also attests the efficiency and enormous activity
of the earliest Catholic prelates in the Pacific Northwest amid the swirl of the Westward Movement.

Carl Landerholm
Vancouver, Washington
June, 1956

Other translations of J.-B. Z. Bolduc’s letters:


Mission of the Columbia, 1937 (https://books.google.com/books?id=BviSMQEACAAJ)
Mission of the Columbia, 1979 (https://books.google.com/books?id=B41sAAAAMAAJ)

77
Jean-Baptiste Zacharie Bolduc, Priest/Missionnary of the Columbia
Illustration by Théophile Hamel, 1841
Photo: Musée national des beaux-arts du Québec

Source: http://www.mnbaq.org/collections/oeuvre/l-abbe-jean-baptiste-zacharie-bolduc-600005944

78
79
(Source: https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/DSI/external/!publish/Stewardship/SIFD_Objectives_Matrix/3_Wildlife/WHA_approved_for_SIFD/WHA_Maps_SIFD/WHA-
1-099_MAMU_Map.PDF.)
(Photos: https://donsadventurerides.wordpress.com/dons-adventure-ride-4-vancouver-island-mt-bolduc-plane-crash/ ,
http://hondatrailcts.yuku.com/topic/2653/Mt-Bolduc-Crash-Site#.Vu3Fh8twWt8 &
http://getonthebeatenpath.blogspot.com/2014/11/remembering-crew-of-mt-bolduc-plane.html )
80
Mt Bolduc Plane Crash (The following story is taken from the Cowichan Leader, dated May 1, 1944)

Bomber Plane Crash Kills Six Airmen on Lake Cowichan Peak


Six R.C.A.F. flyers were given a last resting place at the top of rugged peaks in mountains near Cowichan Lake where their plane
crashed killing them all last Wednesday. They were on a navigational flight from a Vancouver Island Base.
On Tuesday, while two R.C.A.F. Padres read the burial service, comrades of the dead men reverently erected a cairn of stones over
the bodies and left them to their last sleep.
The dead airmen are: FO Ambrose Moynagh, Souris, P.E.I; PO John E. Moyer, St. Catherines, Ont.; Sgt. Harry Maki,
Sudbury,Ont.; WO1 Brinsley Palmer, Saskatoon, Sask., WO2 Lawrence Kerr, Millet, Alta.; LAC Murray Robertson, Patricia Bay,
B.C.
Search for the missing plane and its crew was one of the most intensive carried out in this district. It was marked by the daring of
those who searched from the air and by the hardihood of loggers from Lake Logging Company at Rounds, who risked death or serious
injury in scaling the rugged mountain wall on Saturday and Sunday to reach the 3,500 foot peak where the aircraft crahed. An unusual
feature of the search was the part played in it by a United States Navy dirigible ballon from an Oregon coast station.
Wide Search
Airplane search over a wide area began last Wednesday night when the plane failed to return to its base. Planes from Vancouver
Island and northern Washington stations flew over many districts.
On the following day Mr. David Beech, skidder engineer, and Mr. J.G. Pappenberger, head loader, working on Lake Logging Co.
operations, saw smoke arising from a mountain top approximately five miles southeast of Rounds. They notified the B.C. Police, who
in turn notified the Aircraft Detection Corps. Immediately FO Godwin, R.C.A.F., flew in by sea-plane with a party of Air Force men.
The next morning, Friday, the flyers left their base at Honeymoon Bay and, accompanied by two guides furnished by the Lake
Logging Co., climbed the mountain where it was believed the smoke had been seen. They found nothing so returned to their base.
That night FO Heaslip landed a sea-plane on Cowichan Lake and after receiving directions as to location of the smoke made a short
search. He thought he had located a burned area on a mountain top but had to give up his search owing to darkness.
On Saturday, with Const. Andrew Grant, B.C. Police, and a wireless operator, he set out again in spite of extremely bad flying
conditions, which were so bad that the wireless man became airsick.
See Wreckage
Eventually the searchers spotted a swath cut through the timber at the top of a peak. It was about 200 feet in length. Risking disaster
by striking tree tops the pilot followed this swath and on the top of another peak, one quarter of a mile away, he and his companions
could make out the wreckage of a plane.
The party returned to Honeymoon Bay and made a report. FO Heaslip went on to Vancouver and came back the following morning.
On Saturday night another plane, with a number of R.C.A.F. personnel, with equipment arrived at Honeymoon Bay.
On Sunday morning the airmen and 20 loggers set out for the mountain top where the wreckage was seen. Shortly afterwards a
United States Navy “blimp” appeared over Lake Cowichan. FO Heaslip met it in the air and talked by radio with its pilot. He then led
the balloon to the scene of the wreck, where the balloon hovered and dropped marker balloons.
Find All Men
The ground searchers arrived at a steep and almost perpendicular face below the mountain top. A party led by Mr. William Crapo
and composed of Messrs William Green, Arthur Wayment, Peter Kachnia and Raymond LeFleur, all Lake Logging Co. employees,
set out to scale this face, often clinging like flies to the steep cliff. At 12:15 noon they reached the summit to be met by a ghastly sight.
The wreckage of the big plane was still hot and smouldering. Bodies of two of the crew were found 30 feet in front of the
demolished fuselage. Another body was found at one side and two more were discovered in the wreckage.; Later a sixth body was
found to one side and 50 ft. distant. All must have died instantly.
After making a full investigation, Mr. Crapo and his men made the difficult descent to where the rest of the party awaited them and
reported in detail. The party then returned to their separate bases at Rounds and Honeymoon Bay.
On Monday R.C.A.F. personnel, travelling by an easier but much longer route, went to the scene of the crash for further
investigation which resulted in the decision that it would be practically impossible to remove the bodies for burial. It was then decided
to inter them beneath a cairn at the mountain top.
Dr. Joseph Tassin, acting as coronerÃs physician for Col. J.H. Boyd, coroner, Lake Cowichan, examined the bodies. Following the
burial service on Tuesday, the coroner held an inquiry at Rounds and declared that death of the flyers was accidental.
Operations of the R.C.A.F. at the scene of the crash after discovery of the wreckage on Saturday were directed by Wing-Cmdr.
McNee. R.C.A.F.
Few Cowichan residents noted the arrival of the U.S. Navy dirigible in the district but on its return journey, about 1 p.m. Sunday, it
attracted great interest and aroused much conjecture as to the reason for its appearance over Canadian territory. Few connected it with
the search for the missing plane.
Webmaster Note: Not mentioned in the article was the name of the mountain. It is known as Mt. Bolduc.
(Source: http://www.cowichanlake.ca/2014/05/mt-bolduc-plane-crash/)
81
The Origins of the Bolduc Family in Old France

[Summarized text of Lucien E. Bolduc, Jr., of San Antonio Texas, published in 1991 at the
Société de Généalogie des Cantons de l’Est Inc. in Sherbrooke Quebec, according to research
commissioned to a professional genealogist in France. The double-lettered paragraphs are from
Richard Bolduc’s searches done at the Paris National Archives in July 2010.]

aa- Sep 7, 1693: Genevievre Ferrand widow of Claude Hureau, gives her son Germain Hureau who lives on
Jean-Pain Mollet Street, a rent bought from Louis Boulduc, Advisor and Procurator of the King of the town of
Québecq and from Damoiselle Elisabeth Hubert his wife, by contract passed before Mr. Chuppin on 22
February 1693.

A- Sep 4, 1693: Transport of revenue. Sale of revenue Louis Boulduc [Note from Richard Bolduc: this is the
sale of a pension to Germain Hureau (See Sep 7, 1693).]. Louis and his wife, Elisabeth Hubert, were then “in
Paris, lodging on Jean-Paul Mallet Jean Pain-Mollet Street, at the house under the ensign of the Dauphin, Parish
of St-Médar St. Médéric”.

bb- May 14, 1693: "Louis Boulduc employed in the Fermes of the King [A franchised customs and excise
operation which collects duties on behalf of the King in the form of taxes.], residing on Jean Pain Mollet Street,
Parish of St. Médéric ...".

B- Jan 27, 1692: accounting quote of guardianship. Five sons divided the heritage of their late father Pierre
Boulduc. Pierre, Louis, Simon, Gilles and Jacques.

cc- Jan 27, 1692: "Mr. Pierre Vaubert ... on behalf of Louis Boulduc ... proxy passed at Péronne on 17
November 1691." [See paragraph G]

C- Account given by kind Dame Gilette Pijart, widow of Pierre Boulduc, Merchant Apothecary and Bourgeois
of Paris. Pierre Boulduc died on May 14, 1670; his five sons divided the heritage: Pierre “Prosecutor in
Châtelet”, Louis, Simon “Bourgeois Merchant Apothecary of Paris”, Gilles and Jacques “Religious brothers at
the Capuchins”.

D- Second chapter of receipt. Establishes that Gilette Pijart was the daughter of Adam Pijart “Bourgeois expert
Merchant of Paris” and of Jacqueline Lechavon; that Gilette was the sister of Sébastien Pijart.

E- Third chapter of receipts. Identify a marriage contract between Pierre Boulduc and Gilette Pijart, signed in
Paris on Dec 27 1639. Sébastien Pijart was “priest doctor in theology” who died in Condom on Sept 30 1665:
establishes that Pierre Boulduc was the son of Louis Boulduc and Françoise Lebrun; establishes that Pierre had
a sister, Marie, wife of Gilles Gond.

F- Particular expenditure examination of Louis Boulduc. Note that Louis Boulduc, by “Missive letter of Nov 5
1674 from Kebek in Canada acknowledged receipt of 200 pounds from Gilette Pijart; 500 pounds per notary act
of May 5, 1676 and 133 pounds for his bill on June 17, 1683”.

G- Nov 17, 1691: Government. Louis Boulduc “son of the late Sir Pierre Boulduc, Merchant Apothecary in
life” … “The aforementioned Sir Louis Boulduc living at the village of Feuillères, government of the aforesaid
Péronne being present in this town”; Louis had thus already returned to France.

H- Nov 16, 1649: Lease by Nicolas Cappon, regent in the Faculty of Medicine to Pierre Boulduc, from a house
located on St-Jacques street for 6 years, averaging 700 pound of rent per annum. Establishes that Pierre was “a
Merchant Apothecary and Spicer, Bourgeois of Paris”; the house put in lease by Cappon belonged to his wife
82
Marie Hubert; this means that there was a bond between the families Boulduc and Hubert well before the
marriage between Louis Boulduc and Elisabeth Hubert in Quebec in 1668.

I- Jun 9, 1639: Market by Pierre Maubon,… to Pierre Boulduc… Master Apothecary and Spicer, Bourgeois of
Paris, St-Jacques street, parish of St-Benoit… to deliver… mortar… Establishes that Pierre Boulduc was by
then successful in his profession and already residing in the parish of St-Benoit.

J- Aug 6, 1595: Marriage contract of Loys Boulduc, Merchant Spicer at the Marché aux Poirés street with
Françoise Le Brun passed on August 6, 1595 in front of Master Chazerets. Establishes that the father of “Loys”
Boulduc was “Symon Boulduc”, Merchant Draper, resident of Senlis, who died before August 6, 1595, and
whose mother was Jacqueline Debonnaire, then residing at Senlis.

K- 1522: Lambert Boulduc instead of Henry his father owes 5 sols parisis. (The hotel of the 3 Écuelles was
taxed by the church Notre-Dame of Senlis) There was thus a Boulduc family in Senlis towards the beginning of
the sixteenth century.

L- 1480: Jean Boulduc pays 8 pounds of taxable quota for the house Les Deux Anges [The Two Angels] at
Senlis. Establishes the presence of at least an owner “Boulduc” at Senlis towards the end of the fifteenth
century.

The professional genealogist, who has led this research so well, tells me that he is not optimistic on the
possibilities of furthering the roots of the BOLDUCs in Senlis.

Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online


(2000)
[Original text in English]

BOULDUC, LOUIS, soldier, settler, bourgeois, king’s attorney; b. c. 1648 or 1649, son of Pierre Boulduc,
master apothecary-herbalist of the Rue Saint-Jacques, in the parish of Saint-Benoît in Paris, and of Gilette
Pijart; d. sometime between 1699 and 1701 in France.

Boulduc landed 17 Aug. 1665 at Quebec with Andigné* de Grandfontaine’s company in the Carignan
regiment. On 20 Aug. 1668 he married there Élisabeth Hubert, daughter of an attorney in the parlement of Paris.
The couple settled at Charlesbourg [See page 97], on a piece of land of 40 acres acquired from Jacques Bédard
on 7 Oct. 1669 at a cost of 800 pounds. But Boulduc, city dweller that he was, had only a short-lived interest in
agricultural work. On 18 Nov. 1672 he rented a house at Quebec [See page 114], and on 29 Oct. 1674 he was
mentioned as a bourgeois of that town; meanwhile, on 26 Aug. 1674, he had sold his land for the sum of 850
pounds. Apparently on the recommendation of Frontenac [Buade*], he was given the appointment, by royal
letters dated 15 April 1676, of king’s attorney for the provost court of Quebec, at a salary of 300 pounds. On 31
August following, after taking the customary oath, he was installed in office.

During the period of Frontenac’s first governorship, which was marked by incessant quarrels among rival
factions, one could not with impunity side with the irascible governor. If he did not already know it, Boulduc
was going to learn it to his cost, particularly because Frontenac proposed to use him and the provost court to
check the Conseil Souverain. But the choice of Boulduc was hardly a fortunate one, if we are to believe
Duchesneau*, who was personally involved in the intrigues, and Denonville [BRISAY], who in 1685 had time to
conduct his own inquiry. Boulduc, wrote Duchesneau, “is accused of extortion, theft in all the houses where he

83
is tolerated, continual debauchery and profligacy”; for his part, Denonville considered an out-and-out scoundrel
who should never be tolerated in such an office.”

The councilors never ceased harrying this over vulnerable official, in an attempt to discredit him and thereby
to compromise the provost court. The struggle began in earnest after Louis XIV, in May 1677, had restored the
provost court of Quebec to its original authority, and confirmed the attorney Boulduc in his post. Frontenac’s
protégé could expect some serious opposition. On 13 Nov. 1680 Duchesneau struck the first blow in a letter to
the minister, and in January 1681 Boulduc, accused of embezzlement, was brought before the Conseil
Souverain. Following a complaint lodged against him by a Bayonne merchant who perhaps wanted to take
revenge, Boulduc was soon to see the councilors extend their indiscreet inquiries to his whole life, public and
private. By virtue of a decree of 28 April he was suspended, and replaced temporarily by Pierre Duquet*. This
was the signal for a rare outburst of fury: the factions tore at each other unremittingly in a fight to the finish, for
which Boulduc was in reality scarcely anything more than the occasion and the pretext. Finally, after 14 months
of outright brawling, the council found Boulduc guilty of embezzlement – this was on 20 March 1682 and
declared that he had forfeited his office.

It may be surmised that Frontenac, when back in France, did not forsake his protégé, for by a decree dated 10
March 1685 Louis XIV granted Boulduc’s family one third of his salary, and asked the intendant to restore
Boulduc to his post if he were deemed to have been sufficiently punished. Denonville vigorously opposed the
former attorney’s return, with the result that on 4 June 1686 the king dismissed the wretched Boulduc for good.

Madame Boulduc had gone back to France in 1685, provided with a pass by Denonville, who declared
himself happy to “rid the country of a rather poor piece of goods.” Boulduc followed her, perhaps the year after.
They left behind “children who are dependent upon the charity of honest folk.” The Boulduc’s had indeed three
sons and two (or three) daughters whose ages ranged from 9 to 17 years. The youngest girl, Louise, who may or
may not have been still alive, was Frontenac’s god-daughter. They all remained in the colony and took the name
of Bolduc. As for the parents, they died in France, apparently without seeing their children again.

Who would venture to pass final judgment on Boulduc? Whatever may have been his faults, he was perhaps
above all the victim of a troubled age. Intendant de Meulles seems to have thought so: “Much passion having
been stirred up in this affair, the King would be wise to reinstate this magistrate,” he wrote on 12 Nov. 1686.

ANDRÉ VACHON
(On 8 Feb. 1700, in his son René’s marriage contract, Louis Boulduc – then in France – is described as living
(Greffe Jacob); on 7 Nov. 1701, in the contract of his son Jacques he is described as deceased (Greffe Jacob).
We can then conclude that he died in France between the summer of 1699 and that of 1701. A.V.)
Source: http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ShowBio.asp?BioId=34782

The King’s Daughters in New France


By Silvio Dumas
1972

– 259 –
HUBERT (UBER), Élisabeth or Isabelle (1667), born in Saint-Germain of Paris (Île-de-France) in 1651,
daughter of late Claude and Isabelle Fontaine. She married Louis Bolduc, Procurer of the King, on August 20,
1668, in Quebec. She was a girl of “quality”. Élisabeth Hubert was at Dieppe, on June 17, 1667, and signed,
with other “Daughters of the King”, a protest before her departure for New-France.

84
Bolduc fell in disgrace and being unable to restore his functions as Procurer of the King in the Provostship,
went to France with his wife; their children remained in Canada.

– 218 –
DE LA HAGUE, Michelle (1670), born in Rouen (Normandy), in 1649, daughter of late François and Nicole
L’Épron. […].

This woman appeared before the Provostship, on August 8, 1673, and was sentenced “to return to Élisabeth
Hubert, woman of Sir Bolduc, 1 amber necklace, 1 pair of stockings, 2 pairs of socks, 1 lace blanket, 1 lace
scarf, 1 shirt and 1 bonnet, all for an innocent child by the requestor Hubert for pension claimed for the food of
the child of the aforesaid Hubert”. This was probably about a disagreement concerning a payment of accounts.

NATIONAL FRENCH CANADIAN DICTIONARY


DROUIN INSTITUTE
Published by Drouin Genealogical Institute, 1965.

LOUIS BOULDUC, KING'S ATTORNEY (PROCUREUR) IN QUEBEC, YOUR ANCESTOR

Louis Boulduc was born in Saint-Benoît of Paris. He came from a family whose branch was later ennobled.
He came to Canada with the Regiment of Carignan, Grandfontaine company, in 1665. In 1668 he was dismissed
and he settled in Charlesbourg. The same year, he married Elisabeth Hubert, in Quebec city. In 1674, he sold his
home in Charlesbourg and came to settle in Quebec. Two years later, he was appointed Attorney to the
Provostship of the King of France Louis XIV.

He held this occupation for six years. During this time he had lengthy challenges with the sovereign Council
and in particular with the Intendant Duchesneau. Condemned by the Council, he had to return to France with his
friend and patron Frontenac. Four years later the King officially discharged Louis from his position. Meanwhile,
his wife Elisabeth Hubert, had returned to France with one of their daughters, Louise. Their other children
remained in Canada.

Louis Boulduc was accused of embezzlement of all kinds, and amongst other things having accepted bribes
in the exercise of his function. In a letter to the Minister on 13 November 1680, Intendant Duchesneau wrote the
following: "As occupant of the seat of Attorney to the King, Mr. Bolduc, I do not need to conceal to you that he
is entirely unworthy of his Office. He is accused of misappropriation of funds, of theft from all the houses
which suffered his presence, of debauchery and continuous crook, and without having Mr. the Count of
Frontenac as protector, I would have brought him forth to trial. I have simply, not to displease him, given to said
Attorney to the King, a strong reprimand in the presence of Mr. Lieutenant-General."

As you can see, it was a fairly steep accusation. But to understand all this, we must place ourselves in the
mood of the period. We know of the appalling arguments that existed between Frontenac and his Intendant
Duchesneau. Both wanted each other’s throats, often for mere trifles. But Boulduc was a favorite of Frontenac,
so it follows that Intendant Duchesneau would hardly be fond of your ancestor. It seems that this was due in
good part to the Boulduc case that Frontenac was recalled to France. After his conviction by the sovereign
Council, Louis Boulduc tried repeatedly to reinstate himself back, but this was in vain.

Meanwhile, the Governor-Marquis of Denonville wrote to the Minister the following: "Mr. the Intendant said
that you had ordered him to revert the named Bolduc back into his function as Attorney to the Provostship of
the King, assuming that him and I judged that the discomfort of his long absence was insufficient to have paid
85
for his mistakes; this gave me way to inquire into the life and manners of this Bolduc. I have learned that he is
an accomplished mischief ever to have suffered in such a function. This country, Monseigneur, needs the
punishment for those whose conducts are malicious. His wife leaves this year for France. I willingly gave her
her passport, to deliver this country of a relatively poor piece of work. He leaves us his children who are
reduced to the charity of the people of good will."

It should be noted that these early deforestation were not on the banks of the current river of Montmagny, but
on the edges of the little river of the Caille, where it empties into the River.

What must we think of these charges which were laid against your ancestor? Not much overall, because the
passion which then divided Quebec into two camps was the cause of many differences in tongue, and probably
as much jabbing at the truth, if not at charity.

Louis Boulduc and his wife never returned to Canada. Your ancestor seems to have died in Paris.

The French Quarter:


The Epic Struggle of a Family – and a Nation – Divided
By Ron Graham
1992
[Original text in English]
[…]
[pp. 80–82]
The seven-year war of feuds and recriminations between governor and intendant often brought the colonial
government to a standstill. The vendetta reached a high pitch in early 1681, when a few of the governor’s gang
got into a street fight with Duchesneau’s teenage son. Though the lad insisted that he had been “singing for his
own amusement an air without words” and minding his own business, he was accused of insulting Frontenac
and dragged before the governor, who beat the boy with his cane before servants intervened and the boy fled.
Duchesneau père and fils locked themselves into their house. Bishop Laval traipsed back and forth trying to
prevent an armed clash. Frontenac promised to drop the matter if he got an apology, but when the accused was
brought before him, he put the boy behind bars.

It was the custom of both men to get at each other through their supporters when they couldn’t get at each
other directly. That was why the intendant and his friends went after my ancestor Louis Boulduc, the king’s
attorney at Quebec. The son of an apothecary-herbalist from Paris, Boulduc had come with the Carignan-
Salières Regiment in 1665 on the Aigle d’Or, the same leaky vessel that had brought Mathurin Bernier. He too
had stayed on after three years’ service and married one of the young women the king had sent from France to
domesticate the warriors. But neither Louis nor his bride (described by one official as “a rather poor piece of
goods,” though she was the daughter of a Parisian attorney) was made for farming, and after a couple of years
they had moved from their grant to Quebec. Somehow Louis had climbed into the great governor’s view,
proved himself a loyal Frontenac man, and in 1676 had been appointed public prosecutor. Since the courts were
seen as a device by which Frontenac might usurp the council’s jurisdiction, the new attorney became an object
of suspicion, particularly after he charged a woman for speaking badly of Count Frontenac in public.

“Monsieur Boulduc,” the intendant wrote in 1680, “is unworthy of his post. He has been accused of extortion,
of theft in every house that ever suffered his presence, of continual debauchery and dissipation, and without the
protection given him by Monsieur le comte de Frontenac I would have sent him to trial.” (“What are we to
make of these accusations hurled against your ancestor?” the kind genealogist hastily asks in a note in the
Moncel family record given me by my cousin. “Little, in sum, for the passions that divided Quebec into two
86
camps at that time were the cause of many divergencies of opinion and, no doubt, as many blots on truth, if not
on charity.”)

In January 1681 the council moved against Boulduc and accused him of embezzlement. It was a minor and
uncertain matter, but he was ousted from his job pending a sweeping investigation by Louis Rouer de Villeray,
no less. Furious, Frontenac responded by questioning Villeray’s own honesty and denying him leave to go to
France on business. Then he hastened to explain his action to the king before more slanders reached Paris.

“It’s been eleven months,” Frontenac wrote, “since the king’s attorney in the provost court of his town,
because he was not agreeable to Monsieur Duchesneau, was forbidden to perform his duties by members of the
intendant’s cabal because of a simple accusation by a merchant from Bayonne who trades here and who was
permitted to return to France two months ago, despite the protests that I made, because they saw that he
couldn’t prove the things he had claimed. Nevertheless, though the attorney-general didn’t have the proof he
had hoped for, and asked for an inquiry into the accused’s life and habits during the seventeen years he’s been
in this country as well as the six years since he received his commission as the king’s attorney, without
complaint or opposition, and heard seventy witnesses without finding any evidence worthy of a charge, that
being the case after all the chicaneries that were made to drag out this affair, notwithstanding the large number
of requests by the king’s attorney for a judgment, the last straw was this request by the Sieur de Villeray for
permission to go to France, which he had been just a year ago, which I was obliged to refuse so that the official
can have justice as soon as possible.”

Justice did not come soon, however, and it may not have come at all. On March 20, 1682, the sovereign
council declared Louis Boulduc guilty of embezzlement and banned him from ever holding judicial office. This
was another smack at Frontenac, of course, and he could no longer strike back. The king and Colbert had grown
weary of the rambling rants that arrived with every boat. Weary of the byzantine intrigues and hysterical
quibbles. Weary of trying to figure out who was right and what was going on over there. A few months after the
Boulduc affair, both Frontenac and the intendant Duchesneau were recalled to France.

Louis XIV must have had some regrets during the next few years, for the Atlantic no longer stood between him
and the count’s moods. Back in France, besieged by his moneylenders once again, Frontenac swung between
fury and despair in his demands for a pension or a job. He became a pest, arguing on behalf of lost causes such
as Louis Boulduc. In 1685 the ministry of marine conceded my ancestor an income and even mentioned him
tentatively to the new authorities in Canada, but Canada did not want the “out-and-out rascal.” Soon afterward,
Monsieur and Madame Boulduc gave up on the New World. They returned to France, leaving their half-dozen
children to the mercy of others and their dubious reputation to the judgment of historians.

Our French-Canadian Ancestors


By Thomas J. Laforest
1983
[Original text in English]

Louis Bolduc

Louis Bolduc (Boulduc) came from good stock. His father, Pierre, an apothecary proprietor, lived on the Rue
Saint-Jacques, in the parish of Saint-Benoit, in Paris. His mother, Gillette Pijart, had, it seems, two Jesuit
brothers, Pierre and Claude, who came to Canada. His brother Simon, pharmacist to the Queen of Spain, also
became a judicial magistrate in Paris and received titles of nobility. Born in 1648, Louis became a student in the
City of Light prior to serving his country under the flag and being sent to Canada.
87
SOLDIER OF THE REGIMENT

At the age of 17, Louis enlisted in the Carignan Regiment where we find his name on the roles of the company
of Hector d'Andigné, Sieur de Grandfontaine. With his mates, Louis Bolduc embarked at La Rochelle on a
Wednesday, 13 May 1665, in a 400-ton caravelle. The crossing was long and arduous with many of the soldiers
arriving too sick to fight. Nevertheless, on the following day, M. de Tracy took the review of 8 companies
before the assembled citizenry of Quebec. The Company Grandfontaine, along with 6 others, was ordered to the
Richelieu River forthwith, in order to prevent the Iroquois from using it as a highway to harass the colonists at
Trois Rivières and Montreal. Arriving there on 2 October, they began construction of Fort Saint-Therese and on
the 22nd, M. de Courville ordered the Companies La Motte and Grandfontaine to build a road to connect Fort
Sainte-Therese with Fort Saint-Louis. This work having been completed, the two units were returned to Quebec
to go into winter quarters. Between the end of 1667 and the beginning of 1668, Louis Bolduc received his
discharge from the regiment and elected to remain in Quebec.

A STYLISH MARRIAGE

Sometime during the first two weeks in August, 1668, at 8 o'clock in the evening, a group of two dozen
influential people, among them the Lieutenant-Governor, the Chevalier de Grandfontaine, and Jean Talon, the
Administrator of the colony himself, stood in front of Notary Leconte to hear the recitation of the marriage
contract between Louis Bolduc and Elisabeth Hubert. He was 20 years old and she was 17. The bride, born
around 1650, was the daughter of Claude Hubert, an attorney for the Paris City Council, and Isabelle Fontaine.
She brought a dowry of 400 pounds "for all of her furniture, clothing, rings and jewels." These erudite witnesses
signed with elegant initials. History does not tell us whether Louis knew his dearly beloved in Paris, although
that would seem to be the case. The religious ceremony took place with the same aura of solemnity on the
following 20th of August in the church at Quebec. The marriage was solemnized by Father Henry de Bernières
in the presence of the same notary and the Governor, representing the Carignan Regiment.

Louis certainly knew how to do things in the grand manner. May we conclude that he spent his honeymoon in
France in the fall of 1668? We know for sure that he was in Paris, living in the Rue Saint-Jacques on 19 May
1669. He was said to have "lived normally in the city of Kebec." He obtained 15,000 pounds from his parents as
"an advance" on his inheritance.

THE FARMER

Louis loved the country enough to return and try to live unpretentiously, yet he could not deny his upper-class
origins. He looked for a developed farm with house, barn and out-buildings already in place. He found one at
Charlesbourg owned by Jacques Bédard. Louis bought the place, on 7 October 1669, with the condition that he,
Louis, would provide the planks and nails, and Jacques would repair the floor, build a partition, open up two
doors and close up the barn. The sale price was 800 pounds with not a word being said about livestock or farm
equipment.

Early in 1670 this inexperienced farm couple settled in on the 40 arpents situated between the holdings of
Jacques Galernequ and Michel Chretien. Three weeks later Louis borrowed 700 pounds in cash from the
Reverend Father Joseph Bousier, S. J., for which he mortgaged his assets and his legacy valued at 500 pounds.
The following year he incurred a debt of 133 pounds to Pierre Nolan, to be paid back in cash or furs within a
year. In 1681 he borrowed 190 pounds from the Reverend Father Pierre Raffeix, S. J.

By the end of 1672, Louis had taken on yet another debt of more than 409 pounds for the purchase and delivery
of merchandise from Jean de Peiras. Obviously Louis Bolduc spent more than he either earned or saved! Then
he exchanged "a mother milk cow with a russet coat" in return for 75 pounds and 300 sheaves of wheat.
However he still kept the animal for 3 years, receiving 20 pounds per year in payment for her keep. On the 26th
88
of August 1674, the Bolducs sold their land for 850 pounds to Jean Delquel dit La Brèche. This couple certainly
had no vocation for farming.

THEIR FINEST HOUR

At last, to breathe the air of the town! From September, 1674, the family took up lodgings in Quebec, in the Rue
du Sault-au-Matelot in the Lower Town. They acquired a one-year lease on a new house, belonging to Marie-
Catherine Leneuf, for 106 pounds. On 8 September 1675, Madame Pierre de Joybert and Louis Bolduc signed a
lease on a house with garden and accessories, in the Upper town, for 80 pounds annual rent. An advantageous
piece of business it was! We notice that in the contract, made by Notary Rageot, Louis was called "Bourgeois
de cette ville," a new title created by official act the year before. From then on, he was recognized as belonging
to the middle class, along with great merchants of the town.

We know that on 28 October 1674, the Sovereign Council handed down a judgment in favor of Louis for the
257 pounds still owed him by Nicolas Dupont.

During this period Louis Bolduc was able to ingratiate himself with the Governor-General of New France,
Louis de Buade de Frontenac, who served in that position for the ten-year period from 1672 to 1682. It was no
surprise then when on 31 August 1676, tidings of great joy arrived: "in accordance with the King's letter of
appointment given at Saint-Germain on the 15th of April last. Signed Louis," the Sovereign-Council "gives and
grants to Master Louis Bolduc, the office of Counsellor and Procurator in the regular seat on the Provostship of
this town . . . knowing by his lifetime habits that his religion is Apostolic and Roman Catholic . . ." Our ancestor
took the oath of office and began his duties that same day, under the authority of Louis-Théandre Chartier de
Lotbinière.

His salary was set at 300 pounds per annum. The Provost-ship of Quebec was composed of three members: a
Lieutenant General, a Procurator and a Registrar, "to investigate first hand, all matters both civil and criminal,"
which were to be brought before the Sovereign-Council. Louis applied himself most diligently as a public
servant, a fact which, unfortunately, led to his downfall.

THE GATHERING STORM

The great Frontenac, a man of dark and vindictive character, felt it his duty to control everything in the colony.
In naming his protégé Bolduc as Procurator of the Provostship, Frontenac hoped to weaken the influence of the
Sovereign-Council by placing his spy in their midst, thus keeping himself informed as to their deliberations. In
Quebec, the atmosphere was charged. In 1678-79 for example, Bolduc, in his official capacity as Procurator,
accused Madame Agnes Morin of having spoken about Frontenac in a disrespectful manner and referred the
case to the Sovereign-Council. The latter, in order to let it be known that the law did not concern itself with
trifles, dismissed the charge, thus getting at Frontenac by making Bolduc look silly. In another incident we see
where Counselor Mathieu Damours had obtained a trade permit for the region of Matane. Questioning its
authenticity, Frontenac had him arrested so as to bring one of the Council's own members to trail. To attack
Frontenac frontally was very poor tactics; even Colbert himself complained about the Governor's tyranny. So in
order to get at Frontenac obliquely, the Council declared war on the faithful informant, Louis Bolduc.
Beginning in 1679, the documents of that troubled period indicate guerilla-type skirmishing, finally breaking
out into open warfare.

We pause to note that in the census of 1681, Louis Bolduc was recorded as being 32 years old, father of 6 living
children and owning one firearm and two cows.

THE TEMPEST

89
Frontenac did everything he could to save his favorite from these endless trials and tribulations, even to writing
to France. M. Duchesneau "was informed as to Bolduc's life and habits for the 17 years that he had been in
Canada, although it is 6 years since he has been received into the said position, with not a single complaint nor
opposition, he has had 60 or 70 witnesses heard without having found, in any manner, grounds for
condemnation." But soon Frontenac himself was recalled to France, leaving Bolduc at the mercy of the
Sovereign-Council. On 16 April 1681, a merchant of Bayonne, one Pierre de La Lande, accused Bolduc of
embezzlement. The Sovereign-Council suspended Bolduc from his job on 20 March 1682, pending an
investigation of the charge. Frontenac supported Bolduc in France and even took the case as far as Colbert, but
to no avail. The new Governor, Denonville, did not desire to reconfirm Louis for another term of office in 1686
so as not to exacerbate the situation. The King officially terminated Bolduc's appointment as Procurator on 4
June 1686, five years after all the trouble began.

His wife, probably disgusted by so much animosity against her husband, had gone back to France the year
before. Now her husband went to join her. On 12 November 1686, the Administrator de Meules declared that "
much passion was involved in this affair, the King was correct in replacing his magistrate." Historian Andre
Vachon adds: Bolduc "was perhaps above all, a victim of the troubled times."

THE CHANGING OF THE GUARD

The last years in the life of Louis Bolduc must remain in the shadows. It is the accepted belief, however, that he
returned to France after being terminated from his official magisterial position, abandoning six children to the
charity of the good people of New France. The "why" is a big mystery, but one thing is certain: They all became
honorable citizens. The eldest, Louis, junior, born in 1669, married Louise Caron before Father G. T. Embery
on 3 June 1697 at Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupre. They settled at Saint-Joachim where they received a land grant
from Mgr de Laval in 1697. This farm, nearby La Blondel, remained in the Bolduc family for 6 generations,
until 1940.

In 1697 Marie-Anne, who was born in 1670, married Jean Marsolet, then Jean Primont. Jacques, who was born
in 1671, married Marie-Anne Racine at Sainte-Anne on 7 November 1701. Father G. Morin wrote in the
register, "son of the late Louis and Elisabeth." Did word of the parents demise come from France, or did the
parents return to New France to die there? Who knows? The twins Louis and Elisabeth, born in 1672, were dead
by 1681. Rene, born in 1674, married Marie-Anne Gravel, Louise Sénart and Marguerite Malveuf. Marie
Ursule, born in 1675, married Henri Brault, Jean-Baptiste Drapeau and Richard Tailleur. The fate of Louise is
not known, except that she was born in 1677, the goddaughter of Frontenac himself.

He who had the privilege of having the first priest in the family was Rene, husband of Anne Gravel, and church-
warden at Saint-Joachim in 1718. J. B. Zacharie Bolduc, 6th generation son of Joachim and Madeleine Lessad,
also a native of Saint-Joachim, was ordained there in 1841. He went out to Oregon by way of Cape Horn in
order to carry out his apostolic mission, In 1843 he was curate of Wallamette on Vancouver Island. Returning to
Quebec in 1850, he performed various duties, among which was Procurator of the Archbishopric. He bore the
title of Roman Prelate. Foreseeing his demise, on 8 May 1889, Mgr Bolduc willed a relic Sainte-Anne to the
Shrine of Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupré. In 1670 Mgr de Laval gave the first relic: A finger bone fragment of Sainte-
Anne. The second relic was donated in 1877 by an old priest, Father Napoleon Laliberté. Mgr Bolduc willed the
third.

A FLOWER OF GRATITUDE

Our ancestor Bolduc, an educated, delicate and charitable man, never answered an insult with another insult. He
was crushed and humiliated; he simply disappeared into silence. After three centuries, it seems only just to
place a thought, a flower of gratitude in the name of all the Bolducs of America, on the unknown tombs of these
likable and unfortunate ancestors: Elisabeth and Louis Bolduc.
90
Marriage contract of Parisians Isabelle Hubert and Louis Boulduc
Recorded in Quebec
8 August 1668

By the presence of Jean Leconte, notary in the jurisdiction of Quebec City, and the undersigned witnesses, were
present in their person, Louis Baulduc, son of Pierre Baulduc Master Apothecary and Spicer, residing rue Saint-
Jacques, parish of Saint-Benoît, Archdiocese of Paris, and Gillette Pijart, his wife, his father and mother, on one
hand and Isabelle Hubert, daughter of Claude Hubert, Attorney at the parliament of Paris, residing rue De
Tissandrie, parish of St-Gervais, of said Archbishopric of Paris and Isabelle Fontaine, his wife, his father and
mother, on the other hand, which of their good will, good faith and the consent of their parents and friends, and
in the presence of Sire Daniel de Rémy, Knight, Lord baron of Courcelle, Governor, lieutenant-general in that
country, of Master Jean Talon, King's advisor in His State and private counsels, Intendant of police, justice and
finance in said country, of Lady Marie-Barbe de Boulogne, widow of Mr. Louis Dailleboust, of his living,
Knight, Lord of Coulonges, also present the Governor and Lieutenant General of this said country, of Sir Knight
de Grandfontaine, Captain of the Carignan Regiment, of Sir Prévost, Lieutenant in his Company, of Sir de
Grandfontaine, of Sir de Grandville, officer of said Company, of Damelle, Marguerite Leroux, wife of Sir
Villette, of Sir Dubois, Abbot and Chaplain of the Carignan Regiment, of Sir Dubois, Squire and Sire of St-
Maurice, of said Saint-Maurice, his son, of Sir de Hancourt, Squire and Sire of Baumont, of Sir Dugal, of
Damelle Marie de Franclieu, of Damelle Marie-Charlotte de Poitiers, of Damelle Marie-Angélicus Portas, of
Damelle Fontenay, of Sir Depeiras and of Sir Bernard de Mante. Recognized and confessed having done the
treaties and promises of marriage that follow, it is to say Louis Baulduc promises to accept his wife and spouse,
said Isabelle Hubert, as also that said Isabelle Hubert promises to accept as her husband and spouse said Louis
Baulduc, and their said marriage be devoted in front of her Saint Mother the Holy Apostolic and Roman
Catholic Church, as soon as can be done and that it will be notified and deliberate among themselves, their
parents and friends, if God and Our Mother the Holy Church agree and consents, to the said future spouses for
each other in communal goods, furnitures, acquire and occupy estates, following the customs of Paris. Will not
hold against each other, future spouses, in debts and mortgage, made and created by one or the other prior to the
solemnity of their marriage, and thus, if there are, they will be paid and acquitted by the person who has made
and created them, on their own goods. Will take, said future husband, said future wife with his rights, honors,
reasons and motives, in any place they may be, if and situated and located and nonetheless, said future wife
promises to bear with her future spouse, the day following their wedding, the sum of four hundred pounds, for
all his furnitures, clothes, rings and jewelry. Shall be, the future wife, endowed by the customary dowry,
following Paris’ custom. Shall be granted, equally and mutually, the sum of five hundred pounds, to be taken by
the survivor of the shared goods of the communion following the inventory claim, which shall be for all purpose,
made without reserve. And may be said future wife, in the event of dissolution of said communion, renounce for
herself, and in so doing, reclaim that which she have brought with her said future spouse, her dowry and grant,
as stated above and all that during and throughout their said marriage, will have come to her and befall by
inheritance, donation or otherwise, all frankly and conclusively, without her being required to pay any debt of
said commune, even if she had been obliged or fated. In favor of which marriage and to achieve it, said future
spouses are, by these terms, made an inter vivos irrevocable trust donation to their survivors, in each and
everyone their own goods, acquired and occupied estates, notwithstanding their own, in what places they may be
and found and by which sum they might find themselves increased by. And to have inscribed as all such has
been treated, stipulated, agreed and granted between said parties by making and passing these decrees,
notwithstanding all customs and laws to the contrary, to which such parties have specifically waived and
abandoned past deeds, promising, abandoning and obliging each in law. Done and passed in said Quebec,
afternoon, in the study of said notary, the eighth August one thousand six hundred sixty eight, in the presence of
Jean Levasseur dit Lavigne and Jean Bourdon, usher to the Sovereign Council, witnesses to this requirement,
who have signed with said parents and friends. And said parties and notary have signed. 91
Signé. /
Boulduc
Elisabelle Hubert
Courcelle
M. Leroux
Le chevalier de Grandfontaine
M. B. Deboulogne
Dubois
Duboys
St-Maurice
Nicolas de Hautcourt
DeGranville
Dugal
Fontenay
Marie Portas
Depeiras
M. de Franclieu
Marie Charlotte de Poitiers
Bernard de Mante
J. Bourdon
Provost
Talon
J. Levasseur
LeConte, notaire

Source: http://www.ourroots.ca/e/page.aspx?id=693807

92
Great Ancestral Families
(Quebec newspaper LeSoleil, Sunday 30 July 2006)
[From an article written by Mr. Louis-Guy Lemieux, translated with his permission.]

The origins to the most popular patronymic names in the Capital and Eastern Quebec.

Louis’ Woes
The Bolduc ancestor abandoned his kids, yet they managed to save his heritage.

Louis Bolduc (originally Boulduc) is the only ancestor to all North American Bolducs. His professional
journey to the new continent is a total failure. Yet where he failed, we need to thank his children
(abandoned at an early age) for insuring a legacy to his descendants.

The Bolducs rank 37th on the number of descendants living within the wide region serviced by Le Soleil.
They occupy relatively the same level throughout the Province of Quebec.

The Bolduc families do not have any representative associations or popular liaison bulletins. One can
understand in the light of the ancestor’s ill-fated stay. You could even say bad luck ruled Louis Bolduc’s life.
Certain historians, such as André Vachon which Jacques Lacoursière quotes, believed that Bolduc “was first
and foremost a victim of a troubled period”. Follow me.

Louis Bolduc is a Parisian from the Parish of Saint-Benoît. He is the son of Pierre Boulduc, an apothecary
merchant and Spicer living on Saint-Jacques street, and of Gillette Pijart. Born in 1648, he accomplished some
studies before choosing to serve his country under the flag and was sent to Canada.

He comes to the new country as a simple soldier with Hector d’Andigné of Grandfontaine Company, from
the Carignan-Salière Regiment. He arrives in Quebec on August 18th 1665 on board the ship La Paix. After
contributing to the construction of the Sainte-Thérèse Fort, on the banks of the Richelieu River, he returns with
his Company to spend the winter in Quebec. Next spring, the troops are sent off to battle the Iroquois. In 1668,
once peace is secured, Carignan-Salière Regiment is dismantled. Louis then decides to stay and live in the
colony.

LOUIS MARRIES ÉLISABETH


In mid-august 1668, on the 8th, a good number of lawyers are assembled at Jean LeConte, notary. Louis
Bolduc and Élisabeth Hubert are signing their marriage contract, the value of their dowry set at 400 pounds.
Governor Rémy de Courcelle, steward Jean Talon, chevalier de Grandfontaine and many regiment officers of
Carignan are witnessing the contract’s signing ceremony.

Élisabeth Hubert is a “King’s Daughter” [fille du roi]. Her father, Claude Hubert, had been an attorney in the
Parlement of Paris. Her mother’s name was Isabelle Fontaine. After her father’s death, Élisabeth had been
placed to Paris General Hospital. She came to the country, in 1667, with the company of 19 other filles du roi.
Élisabeth Hubert is a good example of a daughter of good family who would later become a filles du roi through
a case of being in the right place at the right time.

According to Jacques Lacoursière, historian, the couple settles first at Beauport, where their first of seven
children is born. Louis sees the day July 10th 1669, and is baptized four days later in Quebec. On October 7th of
the same year, the Bolduc ancestor buys 40 acres of land from Jacques Bédard located in the Trait-Carré of
Charlesbourg. Having no money to pay the price of 800 pounds, he borrows it all from the Jesuits. “Thus begins
a continuous string of financial woes for Bolduc”, comments Jacques Lacoursière.

93
YEARS OF MISERY
The genealogist Michel Langlois dresses a list of Louis’ debts which are somewhat unsettling. In his
Biographical Dictionary of Quebec Ancestries, he writes: “He (Bolduc ancestor) recognizes his obligations
towards the Jesuits under the notary Duquet, on August 25th 1670, and promises to pay back the total sum by
Christmas, which he is in no way capable of…”

Quickly, he owes money to everyone and anyone. In other words, he owes his pants. The most chilling
illustration of his precarious circumstance is when, on November 18th 1672, in order to pay a 409 pounds debt
to Jean Deperas, he must give up a milking cow valued at 75 pounds and all the wheat of his farm at
Charlesbourg. For a farmer, this is suicide.

Worse yet, he must ultimately part himself from his farm. He sells it August 24th 1674 to Jean Delguel, also
known as La Brèche [The Stiff] for 850 pounds.

What follows is predictable. He moves about with his entire family from one apartment to another, first on
Sault-au-Matelot Street, to finally land in a “dependence house” of Vieux-Quebec [downtown], near the
Ursulines.
SORT OF A MIRACLE
For unexplained reasons, Louis de Buade, Governor of New France and Count of Frontenac, takes Louis
Bolduc under his wings. It would seem that he attempts to put him back on the saddle again.

Under Frontenac’s recommendation, the King Louis XIV grants him the post of procurer for the district of
Quebec at a 300 pounds salary. He enters his new post August 31st 1676.

One could hope that the Bolduc ancestor’s troubled days were over. He must have believed it himself. Well,
not so! This improvement would last five years and some change.

Michel Langlois writes: “His nomination did not please certain connivers amongst the advisory consuls, who
themselves had eyes for his post. They do everything in their power to screw him over. They finally succeed in
1681 when, following a complaint from a merchant of Bayonne, he is summoned to face the Sovereignty and an
official inquiry is initiated on his performances. Accusations brought against him of embezzlement, theft from
every house he came across, of debauchery and continuous villainy by the Intendant Duchesneau, are clear
exaggerations. Final outcome, he is dismissed from his post March 20th, 1682.”

Jacques Lacoursière specifies that a few months earlier to say April 28th 1681, a decree by the Sovereignty
had dismissed him and Pierre Duquet nominated to take his place until formalities were pulled to an end.

The genealogist Gérard Lebel explains in his own way the misfortunes of the ancestor: “The great Frontenac,
vindictive and ill-tempered, wanted to control everything. By nominating Bolduc District Procurer, he
pretended to weaken the powerful influence of the Sovereignty… To attack Frontenac head-on was to risk
much… The Sovereignty decided then to declare war on his faithful partner, Louis Bolduc.”

Frontenac intervenes for the King in Bolduc’s favor. In March 1685, according to Jacques Lacoursière,
Louis XIV authorizes the pay of one installment to the family for a third of the honoraries to which the Bolducs
were entitled while in position.

Élisabeth Hubert, the ancestor’s spouse and mother of his children, could not endure any longer. She quits.
She decides to return to France, leaving her children behind in the colony.

94
When on June 4th 1686 after years of prevarication and despite any help from Frontenac, the King concludes
his dismissal as procurer, and Louis Bolduc also calls it quits. He abandons his kids and returns to France in
Élisabeth’s shadow. The couple still had five living children: three boys and two girls. According to historian
André Vachon, their age varied between 9 and 17 years of age. They lived off “goodwill charity”, and
specifically adopted the name Bolduc, dropping the Boulduc of their father.

[Anecdote: the book Bulletin des Recherches Historiques by Pierre-Georges Roy, Lévis, 1909,
states on page 24, under the heading French-Canadian Surnames, the transformation of
surnames, as established by the signatures or writings of contemporaries where mentioned:

BOLDUC (Louis), who came here with the Carignan Regiment and was Procurator of the
King, signed really well "Boulduc". He is the ancestor of all of today’s Bolduc. It was his
[eldest] son Louis who began signing his name "Bolduc" around 1700.

Here is an actual sample from 1697:

We also know that Marie-Anne, our ancestor’s eldest daughter, spelled her surname "Boulduc"
on her marriage certificate to Jean Marsolet in 1690. Source: http://www.ourroots.ca/e/toc.aspx?id=8979

Source: https://familysearch.org/search/image/index#uri=https%3A//familysearch.org/records/collection/1321742/waypoints]

Jacques Lacoursière believes that both ancestors died in France, at an undetermined date, without ever seeing
their children again.

The Bolduc house at Saint-Joachim where many Bolduc generations lived,


under which we find the land of Louis Bolduc, the ancestor’s eldest son.

95
THE CHILDREN FARE WELL
The five orphans managed remarkably well under the conditions.

The eldest daughter, Marie-Anne, would marry twice. Her first husband, Jean Marsolet, was Esquire of
Bellechasse. The baby sister, Marie-Ursule, wed three times. She would have 10 children in all.

On the boys side, they would all get married and have kids. René, the second, would even marry three times,
just like his sister Marie-Ursule.

Louis was the eldest of the family. On June 3rd 1697, he marries in Beaupré Louise Caron, daughter of Jean
Caron and Marguerite Gagnon. The couple will settle down in Saint-Joachim and have one girl and three boys.
All four will marry.

René would only have kids from his first marriage with Marie-Anne Gravel, daughter of Jean Gravel and
Marie Cloutier. Once widowed, he would remarry in 1711 with Louise Senard, daughter of baker René Senard
and Françoise Philippeau. René marries a third time, in 1717. The spouse, Marguerite Malboeuf, is 22 years old.
The newlywed is 43. Jacques Lacoursière points out that René is the grandfather of Jean-René, who would
marry four times. Jean-René is at the origin of a good number of Bolduc who, today, populates the Beauce
region.

Source: http://bibnum2.banq.qc.ca/bna/cargeo/htm/trba0148.htm#b
96
[Note: Louis Boulduc bought in Charlesbourg the land and farm from Jacques Bédard on 7 October 1669.
Louis sells the property to Jean Delquel dit La Brèche on 26 August 1674. By 1709 (insert) the land
belongs to a Pachot.]

(Concession Acts, 22-28 February 1665.)

97
Louis Boulduc (1648-1701), Bolduc Ancestor in America
L’Ancêtre, Quebec Genealogy Society Periodical, Number 310, Volume 41, Spring 2015, pp. 187-198
(www.sgq.qc.ca/images/_SGQ/revue_lancetre/numero_310_volume41_printemps215pdfR.pdf)
By Hélène Routhier [Extract, translated with permission by Yan J. K. Bolduc]
His origins
Louis Boulduc was born in Paris around 1648. He is the second son of Pierre and Gillette Pijart married in
Paris on December 27th, 1639. His father, born in 1607, is Master Apothecary-Spicer living on Saint-Jacques
Street, Saint-Benoit Parish, Archbishopric of Paris (BAnQ-Quebec. Minutes of notary Jean Lecomte, August 8th, 1668).
Granted Master Apothecary May 5th, 1636, he was Warden from 1661 to 1663. He was a member of the
Academy of Sciences; He died on May 15th, 1670 in Paris. His mother was baptized on March 14th, 1623 at the
Saint-Jacques-de-la-Boucherie church in Paris. She is the daughter of Adam Pijart, Master Silversmith, and
Jacqueline Charron. She died before April 1701.

His paternal grandparents, Louis Boulduc, Spicer, and Françoise Lebrun (Isambert, Merchant in Paris, and
Perrette Conseil) were awarded a marriage contract in Paris on August 6th, 1595 before the notaries Pierre de
Rossignol (1578-1613) and Jean Chazerets (1577-1599). His great-grandparents are Symon Boulduc, cloth
merchant in [Senlis], and Jacqueline Debonnaire [his great-great-grandparents are Henry Boulduc, a bourgeois
merchant in Senlis, and Marguerite Lobry; the lineage cannot be established beyond].

Pierre Boulduc and Gillette Pijart gave birth to four other boys, all born in Paris: Pierre, Attorney at the
Chatelet, and legal expert; Gilles and Jacques, Priests at the Augustinians, and Simon (1652-1729). This child,
their third, is granted Master Apothecary on November 8, 1672, was Warden from 1687 to 1689, Consul in
1698, Judge in 1707. An Apothecary of the King and the nobility, he was Demonstrator of chemistry in the
King’s Garden (1695), a member of the Royal Academy of Sciences (Historical Society of Pharmacy, The Salle des
Actes, www.shp-asso.org/index.php?PAGE=salledesactes4 (accessed November 2014)), Director of the Apothecarie’s
Garden, herbalist, and chemist among others. He did a lot of research, many of which were published.
Christian Warolin calls Simon Boulduc an authentic precursor of experimental pharmacology.

In her ancestry, Gillette Pijart, wife of Pierre Boulduc, comes from a dynasty of goldsmiths. Her father,
Adam, her grandfather, Claude, and her great-grandfather, Pierre, had worked in that field (WAROLIN, Christian,
“Étude de la dynastie des Pijart”, Revue d’histoire de la pharmacie, vol. 94, no 355, 2007, p. 371-370.
www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/pharm_0035-2349_2007_num_94_355_6372 (accessed October 2014)).

Gilles-François Boulduc (1675-1742) followed in the footsteps of his father Simon and his grandfather
Pierre. Granted Master Apothecary on March 14, 1695, he was Warden from 1709 to 1711, Consul in 1717,
Alderman, First Apothecary to the King and Queen, Demonstrator of chemistry in the King’s Garden (1729),
member of the Royal Academy of Sciences (Historical Society of Pharmacy, The Salle des Actes, op cit.). His son Jean-
François (1728-1769) was also Apothecary. They constitute a dynasty of four Boulduc apothecaries and as
many generations.

The portraits of Gilles-François, his father Simon and his grandfather Pierre are exhibited in the Salle des
Actes of the Faculty of Pharmacy in Paris Descartes University in Paris. The portrait of Pierre dates from 1663
and represents him at the age of 56. In this room, there are 91 portraits illustrating apothecary masters,
pharmacy masters, pharmacists and wardens, who were born between 1524 and 1852. In addition to the
Boulduc dynasty, there is also the Godefroy dynasty of apothecaries (Estienne, Estienne, Mathieu-François and
Claude-Joseph), portraits numbers 4, 19, 20 and 24. The portraits of the three Boulduc pharmacists are
numbered 62 (Gilles-François), 67 (Simon), and 74 (Pierre) (Historical Society of Pharmacy, The Salle des Actes,
www.shp-asso.org/index.php?PAGE=sallacts5 (accessed November 2014)). The personal coat of arms of the latter is
shown in the upper right corner of his portrait which bears the inscription: Petrus Boulduc Pharmacop. Paris.
Praefectus annis 1661, 62, 63. Ætatis 56 anno 1663.

Carignan-Salières regiment Soldier


On May 13th, 1665, Louis Boulduc, aged about 17, left La Rochelle aboard the ship L'Aigle d'Or. He began
98
the crossing to New-France with members of the companies Grandfontaine, La Fredyère, La Motte and Salières
of the Carignan-Salières Regiment. They anchor at Quebec City on August 18th after a 97-day crossing. It is
not known since when Louis Boulduc was part of this regiment that traveled from Lorraine to La Rochelle from
February to May 1665. That year, 20 companies composed of about 50 people will head to New-France to
pacify the Iroquois. Between June and September 1665, Marcel Fournier (Le régiment de Carignan-Salières, 2014)
estimates that some 1300 soldiers of the French troops landed in Quebec City.

In the article La dynastie des Boulduc apothicaires à Paris aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles (WAROLIN, Christian, “La
dynastie des Boulduc apothicaires à Paris aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles”, Revue d’histoire de la pharmacie, vol 89, no 331 , 2001, pp.
333-354, www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/pharm_0035-2349_2001_num_89_331_5246 (accessed October 11th,
2014)), Christian Warolin reports that, in Pierre Boulduc’s handwritten will, transcribed in the inventory after his
death on May 14th, 1670 in Paris, surprising revelations are made about [his] son Louis who had embarked on
a career in Quebec.

The will was written on April 30th, 1666, less than a year after Louis left for New-France. Pierre begs and
conjures his wife Gillette Pijart to one day have the goodness to forgive all the bad behaviors of Louis
Boulduc’s past life, our son, as I forgive him, if with the grace of God, as I hope, having turned to remorse by
the acknowledgment of all the faults which he has made, he makes all the required and necessary contributions
in this case and happenstance and, in doing so, that she assists him charitably and reasonably with her good
advices and counsels. He begs his wife not to disinherit their son. However, there is nothing to identify the
faults committed by Louis (Ibid., 338). Did he voluntarily join the regiment or was it imposed on him as a
sanction? Since he seems to have had some serious misconduct, it may well be an imposed sentence for him.

On September 2nd, 1665, the Company Grandfontaine left Quebec for the Richelieu where it participated in
the construction of Fort Sainte-Thérèse, and a path from this fort to Fort Saint-Louis. The captain is Hector
d’Andigné de Grandfontaine (1627-1696), the lieutenants are François Provost and Pierre Joybert from
Soulanges, and Marsan, and the sub-lieutenant is Pierre Bécard de Grandville. At the end of October, the
companies La Motte, Naurois and Grandfontaine are back in Quebec for their winter quarters. In October 1666,
after a few campaigns in native territory, a peace treaty was signed. The Regiment was recalled to France in the
fall of 1668. It is estimated that more than 400 officers and soldiers chose to remain in New-France, including
Louis Boulduc.

Marriage
August 8th, 1668, before the notary Jean Lecomte, Louis Boulduc signs a marriage contract. Louis Boulduc
son of Pierre Baulduc Master Apothecary-Spicer living Saint-Jacques Street Saint-Benoit Parish Archbishopric
of Paris and his wife Gillette Pijart his father and mother on one part and Isabelle Hubert daughter of Claude
Hubert Prosecutor in the Parliament of Paris living Tissanderie Street Saint-Gervais Parish of the said
Archbishopric of Paris and his wife Isabelle Fontesne her father and mother on the other part. The contract is
signed in the presence of Jean Levasseur said Lavigne and Jean Bourdon, bailiffs of the Sovereign Council
witnesses in this request. It concludes with 23 signatures, including those of the Chevalier de Grandfontaine
and Jean Talon. The bride-to-be brings a dowry of four hundred pounds for all her furniture, clothes, rings and
jewels. In the contract, the wife’s name is Isabelle, but she signs Elisabelle. On most documents subsequent to
this one, she is identified as Élizabeth. Maybe, having been usually known as Élizabeth, she automatically
started signing her first name to coincide it with the last part of the name Isabelle.

On August 20th, 1668, Louis and Isabelle married at the Notre-Dame-de-Québec church. This marriage
appears in the register of the parish. The witnesses were Daniel de Rémy de Courcelles, Governor of New-
France from 1665 to 1672, and notary Jean Lecomte, who drafted the marriage contract.
On the year sixteen sixty eight the twentieth day of the month of August after the engagement and the
publication of three banns of marriage of Louis Boulduc son of Pierre Baulduc and Gillette Pijart his father
and mother of the parish of Saint-Benoit of the city and Archbishopric of Paris, on one part, and Isabelle
Hubert daughter of Claude Hubert and Isabelle Fontaine her father and mother of the parish of Saint-Gervais
99
in Paris on the other part; Having discovered no legitimate impediment, I undersigned Clergyman of this parish
married them and gave them the nuptial blessing in the form prescribed by the Holy Church in the presence of
Lord Daniel de Remy Chevalier Seigeur of Courcelle Governor for his Majesty in this country, Nicolas
d’Hautcourt Squire Sub-Lieutenant of a Company of the Carignan-Salières Regiment and Jean Lecomte notary,
De Bernières (www.ancestry.ca, Notre-Dame-de-Québec parish register).

Élisabeth Hubert, a King’s Daughter, was born about 1651. She arrived in New-France in 1667, was about
17 years old at the time of her marriage, and her husband was about 20. The contract and the marriage
registration do not mention that they are minors.

Residential locations in New-France


On October 7th, 1669, Louis Boulduc buys from Jacques Bédard a 40 acres land located at the Trait-Carré de
Charlesbourg. He borrows from the Jesuits the 800 pounds necessary for this transaction (royal notary Pierre
Duquet contract). Brother Boursier pays this amount to the seller, Jacques Bédard. Today, the 8233, 8235 and
8237 addresses of Trait-Carré Ouest are located where the land of Louis Boulduc had access to the trait-carré
of the time (DELAMARRE, Yves, Louis Bolduc, notre ancêtre malgré tout, 2007, p. 23).

On August 3rd, 1670, the baptism of Marie-Anne Bolduc, daughter of Louis, takes place in the chapel of
Charlesbourg. The baptism record of his son René on March 5th, 1674 also confirms the place of residence: son
of Louis Bolduc inhabitant of Charlesbourg. Louis Boulduc and his wife come from French middle class
families. The Boulduc and Pijart parents and ancestors whom we have been able to find on three generations
preceding them are tradespeople: merchants, goldsmiths, draper, spicer, apothecary… As for Élizabeth, her
father was a prosecutor in the Parliament of Paris. They probably do not have the desire or a lot of skills to
cultivate land.

On August 26th, 1674 (notary Gilles Rageot contract), Louis Boulduc sells his Charlesbourg property to Jean
Delguel dit La Brèche (staff officer of the Carignan-Salières regiment) for 850 pounds. The household leaves
this urban area for Quebec. The same day, Louis rented, for a year, a house located Sault-au-Matelot Street, at a
cost of 106 pounds. On October 29th of the same year, in a decision of the Sovereing Council, Louis Boulduc
was described as a citizen of that city (PERRON, Guy, Prévôté de Québec, vol. 4, Transcription of volumes 7 and 8 (civil
registries): 9 January 1674 to 20 December 1675, Longueuil, Éditions historiques et généalogiques Pepin, 2002, p. 205 ). On
September 1st, 1675, he rents a principal building, next to the Ursuline convent, for 80 pounds a year. In 1682,
he will become owner of this house in which he will live until 1686.

At the 1681 census, Louis Boulduc, King’s Attorney, 32 years old and Élisabeth Hubert, 30 years old, are
residents of Quebec City along with their children Louis 12, Marie 10, Jacques 9, René 7, Marie 6 and Louise 4
years. Louis owns a rifle and two cows (BAnQ-Quebec, 1681 Census)

The notarial archives also contain the transactional acts of Louis Boulduc dealt before the Royal Notary
Pierre Duquet on August 25th and November 10th, 1670, and October 18th, 1671, and before the Royal Notary
Romain Becquet, November 18th, 1672, for some loans, acknowledgements and repayments of debts. However,
as they still owe 600 pounds of the sum borrowed from the Jesuits in 1669, Louis Boulduc and Élisabeth
Hubert, mortgage their property before the notary Romain Becquet on April 15th, 1678. They will have to pay
the Jesuits an annual rent of 30 pounds. This act specifies that they have no other debt or mortgage.

How could a loan from the Jesuits for a sum needed to purchase land be justified? Christian Warolin, in the
article cited above, said that in the property inventory of Pierre Boulduc, begun March 21st, 1671, certain acts
mention the advancement of money for the settlement of Louis in Quebec.
- September 5th, 1665: receipt of 300 pounds tournois to Pierre Boulduc for the furnitures made to Louis
Boulduc who had just arrived in Quebec.
- May 17th, 1669: letter from Paul Ragueneau, Jesuit (Paul Ragueneau (1608-1680) arrives in Quebec in 1636 and returns
to France in 1662, [New-France] Mission prosecutor in Paris), to Pierre Boulduc: Father Ragueneau recognizes that
100
Gillette Pijart (mother of Louis Boulduc) gave him 1000 pounds tournois to send to his son Louis in Kébec for
the purchase of a house.
- May 18th, 1669:
1- Louis passing through Paris staying with his parents and “about to return to said City of Kébec” begs
them “to please assist him in any way for his settlement and merchandise trade”. He received 1,500
pounds tournois in advancement of his inheritance.
2- Pierre Boulduc asks a merchant from Rouen to provide goods to his son Louis for the amount of 500
pounds tournois including freight, and agrees to settle it in July.
- July 23rd, 1669: private deed by which Paul Ragueneau acknowledges having received from Gillette Pijart
250 pounds tournois for the 500 he advanced to Louis.
- One last piece, undated, refers to a merchandise statement of case provided to Louis Boulduc by order of the
Reverend Father Ragueneau.

Warolin adds that it is probable that the subsidies given to the Reverend Father Ragueneau and intended for
Louis Boulduc reached Quebec through the Paris and Quebec Jesuit Missions. Two Jesuit Fathers with the
surname Pijart stayed in New-France as early as 1635 and 1637. Claude [Pijart], founder of the parish of
Charlesbourg (Dictionary of Canadian Biography [http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/pijart_claude_1F.html]), baptized the
second child of Louis and Élisabeth in 1670.

Louis Boulduc is found in France on May 1669. His wife probably had to stay in Quebec, since she had
given birth to her first child on July 10th. The trip would probably have been too risky for her. Considering the
usual duration of the crossing of the Atlantic, Louis probably returned to New-France during the summer. On
October 7th, he bought a land in Charlesbourg.

Despite the fact that his parents were generous to him, Louis Boulduc seems to have had difficulties
managing his delongings. The archives contain several excerpts describing complaints, claims and appearances
of Louis Boulduc before the provost court of Quebec, many of which involve debts.

Judicial Detentions in the Courthouse of Quebec


1671: To claim a wine barrel that had been delivered to him empty.
To answer a claim of 38 pounds for the lodging and food from Adrien Michelon.
1672: He is ordered to pay the sum of 270 pounds due to Nicolas Dupont, 9 pounds due to Étienne
L'Anderson, to deliver 4 bushels of wheat to François Blondeau, to pay the court fees for claiming
unpaid debts.
1674: Fine of three pounds for disobedience to subpoena.
Sentenced to pay 53 pounds to Nicolas Durand.
Seizure Order for debts of 432 pounds.
Asks that Éli Jean pays him 20 pounds.
Sentenced to pay 40 sols [coins] to a bailif.
1675: Sentenced to pay 20 sols to Adrien Michelon.
1676: Jacques Manseau must pay him three bushels of wheat.
Sentenced to pay a cartload of wood.

King’s Attorney
On August 31st, 1676, Louis Boulduc became King’s Attorney of the provost court of Quebec at the annual
salary of 300 pounds. He was appointed to this post by Louis XIV, after verifications were made by Councilor
Villeray on his life and customs.
From the thirty-first and last day of August 1676 in the morning. The Council assembled where the Intendant
was Sirs de Villeray, de Tilly, Damours, Dupont, Depeiras and de Vitray Advisers and the present Attorney
General. Shown, the King's letters of provisions given to Saint-Germain on the fifteenth of last April, signed
Louis and on the fold by King Colbert, and sealed with the Great Seal of yellow wax, by which his Majesty gives
and grants to Master Louis Boulduc the office of Counselor and Prosecutor at the common seat of the provost
101
court of that city to enjoy by him the said office, and that henceforth to exercise to the honors, authorities,
prerogatives, exemptions and pledges belonging thereto; the said letters addressed to this Court to place and
institute him by his Majesty in possession of said office, request of said Boulduc …, information on his life and
customs, Apostolic and Roman Catholic religion made by Sir de Villeray Adviser in this Commissioner Court of
this party following the decision of the Court of that day, has heard and is consenting to the Attorney General.
The Court has received and instituted the said Master Louis Boulduc in the possession of the office of
Counselor and Prosecutor at the common seat of the provost court of that city, ordering that said letters are to
be registered at the registry of said city so he may enjoy said office in accordance with said letters, and
summoned by the chamber, has taken the oath to the required position. DUCHESNEAU (BAnQ-Québec.
TP1,S28,P1272).

During Louis Boulduc’s years of residence in New-France, the country was governed by the Sovereign
Council which was established in April 1663 by King Louis XIV. The three main characters sitting at their
posts were the Governor, the Bishop and the Intendant (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Council_of_New_France
(accessed August 2014)).

In May 1666, the provost court of Quebec became the tribunal of New-France. It manages matters of justice,
police, commerce, civil and criminal navigation. In addition to the Lieutenant-General who directs the
courthouse, there is also the Attorney General, the King’s Attorney, the Clerk and the Bailiffs who usually
attend the meetings.

When Louis Boulduc was appointed in 1676, Louis-Théandre Chartier de Lotbinière was Lieutenant-General
(he will be replaced by his son René-Louis in 1677), Denis-Joseph Ruette d'Auteuil (to whom his son François-
Madeleine will succeed and who will occupy this post until 1707) is Public Prosecutor (1674-1679), and the
notary Gilles Rageot is Clerk. Louis de Buade, Count Frontenac and Palluau, is Governor since 1672 and will
be until 1682, then from 1689 to 1698. After the departure of Jean Talon, the first Intendant of the the colony
(1665-1672), Frontenac held the two positions of Governor and Intendant until the appointment of Intendant
Jacques Duchesneau of Doussinière and Ambault who will occupy this position from June 5th, 1675 until
autumn 1682.

On October 20th, 1676, the decision of the Soverein Counc,il as well as the letters of provisions of Louis
Boulduc, are registered so that the latter can enjoy himself according to his requisition. However, this post held
by Louis Boulduc creates discontent. We see in this appointment the protective intervention of Frontenac.
Duchesneau, the Intendant, was not slow to take sides against the protégé, and was followed by Villeray (Louis
Rouer de Villeray, First Counselor of the Sovereign Council from 1663 to 1693. RAPQ, vol.24, 1943-44, p. 104). Barely a month
after taking office, Louis Boulduc's neutrality is in doubt. One of the parties involved in a lawsuit had promised
him a pig. During the winter of 1678-1679, Agnès Morin was cited by Boulduc for the accusation of having
spoken badly of Frontenac. The Magistrates then criticize Governor Frontenac for using Louis Boulduc to
avenge his personal insults.

The enemies of Frontenac pursue Louis Boulduc with their rancor. The Sovereign Council, knowing him so
devoted to Frontenac: nothing will be neglected to render his task impossible. There was a conflict of authority
between the provost court favored by Frontenac, and the Sovereign Council where D'Auteuil was Attorney
General and Duchesneau the Intendant. Both were in bad terms with Frontenac. When Louis Boulduc serves
requests to the Council, they are often denied to him. In 1678, he asked to be able to act as judge instead of
Chartier de Lotbinière, the usual judge. This request will be refused, as well as another made in 1680 during the
trial against François Hazeur where he wanted to change the investigator appointed, the Sieur de Vitray to
whom he has not spoken to for three or four years, having had several quarrels and considerable differences.

Charges are quickly brought against Louis Boulduc. After he was appointed King’s Attorney in the
controversy, they begin his deposition. He is accused of misconduct, as evidenced by this excerpt from a letter
dated November 13th, 1680, from the Intendant Duchesneau to Colbert, Minister of Louis XIV.
102
For the King’s Attorney in that seat named Bolduc, I must not conceal from you that he is quite unworthy of
his occupation, he is accused of concussion, theft in all the houses in which they suffer him, of debauchery and
of continual scorn, and without Count Frontenac protecting him, I would have had him put to trial, I have
contented myself not to be displeasing, to make a strong reprimand to the King’s Attorney in the presence of
Sire Lieutenant-General (BAnQ-Québec. 4M00-1035 C11A 5/fol. 166-167).

Shortly after, in January 1681, Louis Boulduc is formally accused of embezzlement. Pierre de Lalande, a
merchant from Bayonne, also lodged a complaint against him because he would have turned a blind eye to a
certain amount of money he had given him. Louis Boulduc must appear before the Sovereign Council.

The judicial archives contain about fifty documents relating the stages of this trial. Finally, Louis Boulduc
was suspended on April 30th, 1681. Pierre Duquet was appointed King’s Attorney in the provost court of
Quebec, replacing Louis Boulduc. … the Attorney General having served Mr. Louis Boulduc King’s Attorney
in the provost court of that city the decree of personal adjournment against him issued by the decision of the
21st of this month … Pierre Duquet … is committed to perform the functions of King’s Attorney … (BAnQ-Québec
TP1, S28, P2726).

On November 13th, 1681, a letter from Frontenac was sent to Colbert informing him of the trial that d'Auteuil,
Attorney General, brought against Louis Boulduc, his protégé.

LETTER FROM FRONTENAC TO MINISTER COLBERT


I did not wish to mention to you in the first letter that I gave myself the honor to write you that it is eleven
months since the Attorney General had decided to institute a criminal trial against the King’s Attorney of the
provost court of this city, because it is not suitable to Mr. Duchesneau who organized this by means of his
conspirators, and to prohibit him of his occupation, on the simple denunciation of a man of Bayonne who
negotiates here, and have been made to escape to France for two months on the charges I had given him,
because they saw that he could not prove the things he had denounced against him. However, the Attorney
General, who did not have the proof that he was looking for, asked that he be informed of his life and of his
customs for the last 17 years that he has been in this country, even though he had spent six in said office as
King’s Attorney, without any complaints or opposition, and that he has had seventy witnesses, without having
found anything against him, no matter what sentence was laid against him, which is of cause after all the
possible quibbles that have been made to lengthen the investigation of this case, and notwithstanding a large
number of motions brought by the King's Attorney to lead them to trial. Their last request was to turn myself in
to the Reporter, who is the Sire de Villeray, ordered to leave for France, who’s only been back for a year. This
obliged me not to grant his request so that this officer could have more justice, which he was resolved to ask
you about the oppression he claims, made for him, if his trial had been made before the departure of the vessels,
in which he would have had all the elements to bring to you. Frontenac (Archives nationales d’outre-mer (ANOM),
France. Coll. C11A 5/fol. 282, http://bd.archivescanadafrance.org/sdx-222-acf-pleade-2/acf/doc.xps?id=CABAC_PIAF_6384_CABA
C_PIAF_6384&gid=sdx_g3&fmt=tab&base=fa&n=16&root=CABAC_PIAF_6384&ss=true&as=&ai=&from (accessed Novembre
2014)).

Despite this effort from Frontenac, Louis Boulduc will be found guilty. The sentence declaring Mr. Louis
Boulduc suffered and convicted of crimes and malpractices which have deprived and forbid here Boulduc of
said office of King’s Attorney …, preventing him to exercise in the future any judicial office is pronounced
March 20th, 1682. He is stripped of his position of King’s Attorney. Pierre Duquet, Clerk of said office by a
previous decision, will continue to exercise that post until it has pleased the King to provide it.

Élizabeth Hubert returned to France in 1685. That same year, Louis XIV granted her one-third of the slary
given to Louis as King’s Attorney.

On November 13th, 1685, a letter from the Marquis de Denonville (Governor of New-France from 1685 to
1689) to Colbert informs us that the latter had ordered Intendant Desmeules to restore Boulduc to his position as
103
public prosecutor, which he did not like. He informed Colbert: The Intendant said that you had ordered him to
reinstate Bolduc in his position as King’s Attorney to the provost court of Quebec, assuming that he and I
judged that the penalty of his long absence was insufficient to atone his faults. This gave me the opportunity to
inquire about the life and customs of this Boulduc. I have learned that he is a complete scoundrel, never to
suffer in such a position. This country, my lord, needs punishment for those whose conduct is evil. His wife is as
of this year on her way to France. I have gladly given her her passport in order to deliver the country of a
rather poor piece (ANOM, France, Col. C11A 7/fol 99-100).

The King dismisses Louis Boulduc. The following report extract from a Sovereign Council meeting dated
October 24th, 1686 confirms it: … seen by the Council, the King’s state board decision given at Versailles on
June 4th of this year, by which, and for the causes contained therein, his Majesty has broken Louis Boulduc
from the occupation of being His attorney in the provost court of that city (BAnQ-Quebec, TP1, S28, P3532, October
24th, 1686).

Louis Boulduc seems to have joined his wife in France in 1686 or later. Did they return to New-France?
There is no information about the couple [finding them in New-France] after this date. Their children, aged
between 10 and 17, remained in Quebec City. We do not know who cared for them: He leaves us his children
who are reduced to the charity of the good people (Letter from the Governor Denonville to Colbert, November 13th, 1685,
ANOM, France, Coll.C11A 7/fol. 100).

Élisabeth Hubert probably died before November 5th, 1701, in France, according to Yves Landry, or in Saint-
Joachim, according to René Jetté. According to the marriage registration of Jacques Bolduc and Marie-Anne
Racine, November 7th, 1701, the Boulduc couple had died: Jacques Baulduc son of the late Mr. Louis Baulduc
and the late Élisabeth Hubert his father and mother of Saint-Joachim (Genealogy Quebec: The Genealogical Site of
French America, La Prairie (Quebec), Drouin Genealogical Institute, www.genealogiequebec.com, image d1p_30981571.jpg). At
the wedding of René, February 8th, 1700, they were alive. The death of Louis Boulduc thus probably took place
between those two dates.

Descendants
Louis Boulduc and Élisabeth Hubert gave birth to seven children: Louis, Marie-Anne, Jacques, Louis (2),
René, Marie-Ursule and Louise; Jacques and Louis (2) are twins. There is no mention of Louis (2) at the census
of 1681. We can assume he had died.

Jacques, Louis and René settled in Saint-Joachim. Louis was the first son of Louis Boulduc to buy a land of
Monseigneur Laval in 1697. The house erected on this lot has housed several generations of Bolduc until 1940.
In 1701, Jacques settled on the neighboring lot of his brother Louis, and René, two lots east of Jacques. The
three have descendants who ensured the survival of the surname. Marie-Anne had no posterity from her two
unions, while Marie-Ursule gave birth to 10 children from three unions. Louise might have returned to France
with her mother. She is no longer mentioned after the 1681 census.

Children of Louis Boulduc and Élisabeth Hubert (The birth records of all the Boulduc-Hubert couple's children can be
found in the parish register of Notre-Dame-de-Québec)
Louis: born July 10th, 1669, baptized on the 14th by Charles de Lauzon, priest in the chapel of Beauport;
godfather Jean Coste, godmother Jeanne Langlois, wife of René Chevalier. Marriage: Louise Caron (Jean-
Baptiste and Marguerite Gagnon), June 3rd, 1697 in Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupré; died in 1737.
Children: Louise, Louis, Joseph, Pierre, Jean, Marie-Anne, Paul, Prisque and Marie-Françoise.

Marie-Anne: born July 30th, 1670, baptized August 3rd by Claude Pijart, Jesuit, in the chapel of
Charlesbourg; godfather Jean-Baptiste Deperas and godmother Anne Thirement (Tirman according to the act
consulted (Anne Thirement, King’s Daughter, child of Jacques and Marie Hubert, aunt of Élizabeth)). Marriages: Jean
Marsolet (Nicolas and Marie Barbier), May 28th, 1690 in Quebec, and Jean Prémont (Jean and Marie Hubert),
February 19th, 1716 in Quebec City.
104
Jacques (twin): born on October 15th, 1672, baptized on 17th in Quebec by Henri de Bernières, pastor of
Notre-Dame-de-Québec; godfather Jacques Ragueneau and godmother Marie Juchereau, widow of Mr. de la
Combe. Frontenac is present. Marriage: Marie-Anne Racine (Noël and Marguerite Gravel), November 7th,
1701 in Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupré.
Children: Louis, Marie-Anne, Élisabeth and Reine.

Louis (twin): born on October 15th, 1672, baptized on 17th in Quebec by Henri de Bernières; godfather Louis
de Buade, Count of Frontenac Governor for the King in this country, and godmother Madeleine La Guide, wife
of Mr. Perrot, Governor of Montreal.

René: born February 28th, 1674, baptized on March 5th by Henri de Bernières, son of Louis Bolduc inhabitant
of Charlesbourg; godfather René Louis Chartier Sire of Lotbinière (Member of the Sovereign Council, Lieutenant
General of the provost court of Quebec) and godmother Anne Gaultier, wife of Sire Jacques Ragueneau. Marriages:
Marie-Anne Gravel (Jean and Marie Cloutier), February 8th, 1700; Louise Senard (René and Françoise
Philippeau), May 5th, 1711 (notary Jacob contract), and Marguerite Malboeuf (Jean-Baptiste and Marguerite
DesTroisMaisons), January 21st, 1717 in Château-Richer.
Children: Jean-Germain, Marie-Anne, Zacharie, Françoise, Louise, Marguerite and Reine.

Marie-Ursule: born July 5th, 1675 and baptized on the 6th by Henri de Bernières; godfather Jean le Chasseur
and godmother Anne Tirmant wife of Sire Jean Baptiste Dupeiras, Adviser. Marriages: Henri Brault (Jean and
Suzanne Jousseaume), August 11th, 1692 at Quebec; Jean Drapeau (Antoine and Charlotte Joly), August 11th,
1700 at Lauzon, and Richard Taylor (Robert and Mary Wilcher), October 5th, 1712 (notary Dubreuil contract).
Children: Marie, Jean-François and Marguerite Brault; Thérèse, Marie-Jeanne, Jean-Baptiste and Marie-
Ursule Drapeau; Joseph, Marie-Anne and Louise Taylor.

Louise: born December 10th, 1677, baptized on the 12th by Henri de Bernières; godfather Louis de Buade
Count of Frontenac Governor and Lieutenant General for the King in this country and godmother damsel
Catherine Leneuf, wife of Sire Pierre Denis.

The Bolduc Surame


Bolduc is a surname resulting from the contraction of ’s-Hertogenbosch, city in North Brabant from the
Netherlands. By syncope, ’s-Hertogenbosch gave its name to the bolduc, a ribbon used to package gift packs
made in this city, and to Bolduc, common surname in Quebec (fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bois-le-Duc (accessed July 2014)).
In the eighteenth century, “bolduc” then means a ribbon used to string packages. In the form of a bright colored
ribbon (usually made of cotton), it is also used by seamstresses during the composition of fabrics on
mannequins, by transparency, to determine the lines and seams of the prototype garment
(fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolduc (accessed July 2014)).

Boualduc, Boulduc, Balduc, Baulduc, Bosleduc and finally Bolduc are the main written forms of this
surname. Louis Boulduc is the Bolduc ancestor of America. The written form Bolduc is used for the entries
concerning the descendants of Louis Boulduc.

More than 20,000 people with the Bolduc surname are listed in the Genealogy of Bolduc families of America,
published in 2008 by Pierre Bolduc. In the second half of the nineteenth century, several Bolducs, mainly from
the counties of Beauce, Bellechasse, Lévis and Mégantic, immigrated to the United States. They are listed
mostly in Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and also in Minnesota.

According to the Quebec Statistical Institute (http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/default_an.html), in 2006, this surname


was the 63rd most common surname in Quebec. It represents 0.187% of the population of Quebec, and 1.8% of
the population of Robert-Cliché regional county municipality (RCM) is made up of Bolducs
(http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/statistiques/population-demographie/caracteristiques/noms-famille_an.html (accessed 1 July 2014)).
The same source gives the percentage distribution of persons bearing this surname in the 17 administrative
105
regions of the province [see below]. In Quebec, one in four Bolducs resides in the Chaudière-Appalaches
region.

Certain descendants of Louis Boulduc and Élisabeth Hubert have either by themselves, through a child or
their spouse, marked their era. Françoise Bolduc (1708-1771) and her husband Joseph Corriveau are the parents
of Marie-Josephte Corriveau (1733-1763) nicknamed “La Corriveau”; Joseph Bolduc, notary, served as Senator
from 1884 to 1924; Édouard married Mary Travers (Married August 17th, 1914 at the Sacré-Coeur-de-Jésus Parish in
Montreal) (1894-1941) known as “La Bolduc”, a famous performer of folk songs whose works are still frequently
used. Several other Bolduc have distinguished themselves in the artistic, political, scientific or other fields.

Conclusion
The consultation of several archival documents have allowed us to update some facts and actions of Louis
Boulduc. The valuable information contained in the documents kept for more than 350 years shine some aspect
of this ancestor’s personality, who brought forth an imposing descendance. The year 2015 marks the 350th
anniversary of his arrival in New France, as well as that of the soldiers of the Carignan-Salières Regiment.
Three years after his arrival he married Élisabeth Hubert, a King’s Daughter, part of a group of 764 women who
came to New-France between 1663 and 1673.

Marcel Fournier’s list of Carignan-Salières soldiers and of Tracy’s troops lists some 285 individuals who
married in New-France, including 169 with a King’s Daughters. Representatives of these two groups appear in
large numbers in our personal trees.

(Bolduc percentage distribution by RCM)

106
(Source: http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/statistiques/population-demographie/caracteristiques/noms-famille_an.html) 107
Count Frontenac
Study on French Canada at the end of the 17th century.
(Liberal translation by Yan J.K. Bolduc using Google Translate)

Henri Lorin
(1895)

Chapter VI
Frontenac, Intendant and Sovereign Council of Quebec.
(1675-1682)
(pp. 145-165)
The edict of June 5, 1675, which reorganized the Sovereign Council of Quebec, was intended to limit the
authority of the Governor General by constituting, by its side, a body of magistrates directly appointed by the
King. Frontenac understood that he had imposed himself too much in Perrot’s trial, and for three years it does
not appear that he had any serious discussion with the Sovereign Council; he was then entirely occupied on
debates with the Bishop on officiality, on resolves, and handling of alcohol; but at the end of 1678 Mgr. Laval
went to France, leaving Bernières as interim director of the bishopric; Frontenac, whose fighting temper always
seems to draw out adversaries, will engage in violent struggles with the Intendant and the Council, not allowing,
he claimed, the disrespect of the King in his presence.

Not only did Frontenac do nothing to prevent these conflicts, but on the contrary, he sought them out and fed
them with pleasure it seemed; yet the origin of those conflicts went to others, either to Colbert himself, or to the
bureaucrats around him, who persisted in proliferating Civil Servants into Canada, according to the system of
France. The edict of June 5th, 1675, was obviously intended to strengthen the Sovereign Council; another edict,
two years later, came to mitigate its effect by restoring the provostship of Quebec, that is to say, a tribunal of
first order, which existed at the time of the East India Company but had not been completely restored since its
fall. In 1676, we only find in Quebec a Lieutenant-General in charge of the police, Louis Chartier: and, in a
meeting of the Sovereign Council attended by the Bishop, this functionary had to appear, under the assertion of
having released from prison a woman of light morals, imprisoned by order of the Council; he was suspended for
two months, and the councilors established among themselves a weekly rotation to replace him; it was therefore
easy to foresee that by creating a provostship in front of this Council, similar incidents were inevitable. Colbert
did not stop at these considerations: the provostship of Quebec was overhauled by an edict of May 1677,
instituting a Lieutenant-General, a Prosecutor and a Clerk for the pledges of 500, 300 and 100 pounds a year,
“to learn first hand all civil and criminal matters”, the appeal of which will be made to the Sovereign Council; a
police force, consisting of a Provost Marshal and six Archers, was created at the same time “for the search and
punishment of crimes which, having been committed by vagabonds and people of low repute, require greater
justice”; Councilor Chartier de Lotbinière was appointed Lieutenant-General of Quebec, and replaced in the
Council by La Martinière; Louis Boulduc assisted him as Prosecutor, acting as Provost. This last nomination, if
one is to believe Abbot Dudouyt, took place in spite of Frontenac, who recommended a Sieur Le Moine, but
Lotbinière was then on very good terms with the Governor General, and Louis Boulduc showed him, from the
beginning, the greatest dedication.

The creation of this new tribunal gave Frontenac a fulcrum against the Sovereign Council; the magistrates of
this court reproached the Governor-General for using the Procurator of the provost to avenge his personal
insults; thus, in the winter of 1678-79, a lady Agnès Morin was cited by Boulduc, on the charge of having
spoken badly of Frontenac. If it is necessary to consider respect for authority, especially in a country such as
was then New France, we cannot approve Frontenac for having initiated a public action on the occasion of a
crime of this sort; but the concern for common tranquility was doubtless not the essential sentiment which
inspired the protests of the Sovereign Council; Boulduc’s initiative proved the provost’s perhaps excessive
deference to the Governor-General: several Councilors complained vividly, Frontenac retorted, and the clerk of
the Council, involved in these discussions, paid the price with a few days in jail for the bad mood of all.
108
The matter was not to stop there: Frontenac, on the one hand, would like to show the Council that he is the
master; the councilors, on the other hand, will strive to diminish the powers of the Provost of Quebec, and will
pursue their grievances with the Prosecutor Louis Boulduc; Colbert does not admit their pretension of bringing
their causes directly before the Council, without first passing before the Lieutenant-General, like private
individuals; on the other hand, the Council restricted the jurisdiction of this magistrate, by assigning to his
colleague of Trois-Rivières the call of the seigniorial justices of the neighborhood; these are only small
skirmishes; the real battle will begin soon; we will see Frontenac in front of the councilors of Quebec, in the
attitude of a sovereign. La Hontan wrote in 1684: “He treated the members of this parliament as Cromwell
those of England.”

The crisis opened in February 1679: the clerk of the council, Peuvret, was instructed one day by the Governor
General to call him from now on into the minutes of the sessions Chief and President of the Council, and to
modify under this protocol previous forms which don’t conform to it. Peuvret, relaxed by his recent
imprisonment, didn’t ask questions, but on the 27th February Intendant Duchesneau hastened to denounce to the
Council what he regarded as an insolent innovation. Duchesneau claimed to have the title at the same time as
effective role of President, and Frontenac had ordered instead that “Steward, also as Acting President”, be
written henceforth; he wished for Duchesneau to feel his subordinate position; but Duchesneau, tenacious and
exhaustive as a mule, invoques, to resist, Colbert’s intentions, the customs of France, the very terms of his
commission.

The details of the quarrel would be of no interest, if we could not remember how much, in the face of these
rival ambitions of two metropolitan officials, the attitude of the Councilors, long established settlers too little
paid by the King to devote to the affairs of justice the best of their time; all were engaged mainly in agriculture
or commerce; it was from them that the advice of moderation came to start with; the Steward showed his desire
to settle everything without violence, but Frontenac’s passion enabled him to show without danger the most
assuaging intentions; such as the Bishop announcing his eagerness to set resolves, while he knew well how the
negligence of the inhabitants would dispense him from acting according to his words and contrary to his tastes.

From 1675 to 1678, the protocol of the Sovereign Council had not been set; it was undoubtedly not of great
importance, and the variants are not uncommon: on September 23, 1675, Duchesneau is reported as “taking seat
as President”; on September 30, is read: “the Governor head of said Council, the Intendant acting as President
according to the declaration of the King”; elsewhere, it’s a simple enumeration: “present the Governor, the
Bishop, the Steward”; never, however, is the formula as flattering to Frontenac as that before 1675: “the
assembled Council, where presided over high and powerful lord master Louis de Buade ...”; but the Governor-
General was not asking, pleased to be called only chief of the Council, to avoid the repetition of the word
President after the name of the Intendant. In 1678, the provisions change, and is then assignd to that date this
marginal note added to the minutes of the meeting of September 23, 1675: “it should not be read in today’s
register that Mr. Duchesneau held a meeting as Council’s President, but only acting as President.”

Colbert’s intentions were clear; he had wished to limit the role of Frontenac in the military command, and to
leave him in the Council only as an honorary presidence, with the main purpose of “upholding justice and
impressing upon the people the respect and obedience they owe to judgments rendered and to the officers who
bring them.” As for the Intendant, he was certainly for Colbert the true President of the Sovereign Council: the
terms of the universal declaration of June 5, 1675 are formal in this sense; “The Intendant presides over the
Council, asks for opinions, obtains votes and pronounces judgments; he enjoys the same advantages as the first
presidents of the courts of France.” Colbert probably didn’t think that there was any matter for conflict between
the Intendant and the Governor; but the claim on Frontenac appeared to him extraordinary, improbable: “His
Majesty is persuaded,” he wrote to him one day, “that no one other than you in France, being Governor and its
Lieutenant-General in a country, would ask an increase in honors and dignities, the quality of Chief and
President of a Council.” This is typically always the same disappointing enforcement of politics between a
109
metropolis and a colony. And yet Frontenac possessed, like Duchesneau, letters whose message was favorable
to him; he produced royal acts, rigorously authentic, in which he is treated as Chief and President of the
Council; Colbert, usually exceptional in formal matters, wasn’t as much this time; how to solve this problem?

Duchesneau first invokes the three-years old established custom; Frontenac alleges that he didn’t notice until
the day he made his observations to the clerk; but Peuvret, as well as a Sieur Becquet, who replaced him while
he was in jail, affirms that he has brought several times the registers to the Governor to sign the minutes; and we
can scarcely, to excuse Frontenac, imagine that he signed without reading; this would be too contrary to his
habits. The members of the Council, in the midst of which this debate was taking place, had not said anything
yet: Duchesneau, in order to impose a decision on them, called for “the assembly of the Attorney General.”
This one, very wisely, concludes to an amicable arrangement: one will ask the opinion from the King; until
further notice, the minutes will designate Frontenac and Duchesneau only by their personal titles of Governor
and Intendant. It can’t be more obvious that the magistrates were particularly concerned with the speedy
expedition of affairs, and cared little for enforcing themselves between two equally stubborn rivals.

But Frontenac intended to abdicate nothing of his pretensions; no doubt he hoped, by refusing any
compromise, to induce the Council to render a vote on which he could later rely, in his letters to the court. He
therefore rejected the proposal of the Prosecutor, while, by a condescension which did not seemed like him, the
Intendant feigned to abide. A second time, the Council tries to defeat the Governor General; but in vain; we are
in March; the ships of France will not leave until November, Frontenac does not yield. Moreover, he convened
the Council on March 27 for an extraordinary meeting, and there, like Louis XIV in a court of law, he ordered
that he be called in the future “Chief and President of the Sovereign Council.” He adds, with ironic bravado,
that he consents, until the reception of an opinion from the King, to be called only Monsieur the Governor and
not Monseigneur. Then Duchesneau comes out, protesting that the Governor commands him but for war, and
Frontenac, threatening, to reply that he would report the Intendant’s conduct to the King.

The 27th March violence had pit against the Governor the less bellicose of councilors, and Tilly himself, a
friend whom Frontenac had lately solicited, was among the most exalted; Villeray, whose first disputes we’ve
already seen with the Count, and the Attorney General d’Auteuil, whose conduct had so far been very proper,
were the other leaders of the opposition; they felt supported by the Intendant, whose obstinate tone brightened
their grudges. D’Auteuil, however, was preparing a memoir to answer Frontenac; provisionally he had
forbidden the Clerk to write anything on the registers, and this unfortunate scribe, caught between the
Prosecutor who defends and the Governor who orders, cedes to the person who commands the armed force,
while taking care to make it known that he acts only of the express command of Monseigneur. The memoir of
d’Auteuil was completed for the 11 April meeting; Frontenac, knowing that he was not in favor of it, went to
the Council to forbid its reading. The Assembly, he says, does not need to give an opinion, but simply has to
register its wishes. New protests, then an extension of a few days; the councilors seek, in order to present it to
the Governor, another form of accommodation: he will be granted the titles he claims, but an act will be given
to the Public Prosecutor of his opposition. Frontenac still refuses; he attacks the Prosecutor, even against the
counselors who are less directly involved in the case. However, a last attempt takes place on the 3rd of July; the
magistrates pray to the Governor and the Intendant to retire together, even if it means to have the divisive
question examined lated; it is high time for justice to resume its course, for all these incidents have prevented
the Council from performing its proper functions, along with a few trials, which could have been pleaded by
March 4th, have not yet been ordered; as we can see, Quebec councilors went on strike, just like the
parliamentarians persecuted under Louis XV later on. Frontenac finally answers them with three sealed letters:
no longer is the time to offer vague judgments, the time has come to finish this. Villeray, Tilly, d’Auteuil are
exiled to the neighbohoods of Quebec, prohibiting their return to the city (July 4th). The next day, the dissent
Council assembles in the countryside, under the presidency of the Intendant, agrees with the reasons of the
Attorney-General and gives him his due diligence. As for Frontenac, he left for Montreal; trade season has
arrived; it is important for him to watch the great annual fair in which the political relations of the French with
the native nations are settled over the relations of commerce.
110
During the summer, letters were written to the Governor ordering him to return his exile orders; he received
them very badly, neither did a delegation which, upon his return to Quebec, presented him with the same
request. However, the month of October was approaching, and mail from France soon to arrive: it brought
news of a peace deal with Nijmegen [city in the Netherlands], signed the year before. Did Frontenac think that
the King would from now on be more active in Canadian affairs, and was he feeling more independant, now
that the dealings with Europe left Colbert with more freedom? The meeting of October 16th shows that he is
more pacifying with the Council than three months earlier; he finally consents, “so as not to create an incident
and allow the Council to dispatch its business”, to retire at the same time as the Intendant; besides, he accepts
the famous compromise, rejected so scornfully in March; instead of the exiled councilors, who are still absent,
La Martinière and Damours create a draft, and a reading given; from now on, the assembled Council will be
written in the minutes, without naming anyone; or, if the names of the administrators are given, no mention of
any title relative to the Council will be given. In December, Tilly and d’Auteuil have resumed sitting on the
Council; as for Villeray, he went to France to submit to the Court the agreed arrangement. On May 29th, 1680,
the Council of the King gave its formal resolve, registered in Quebec on the following October 24th. The
documents of the Council show us that the protocol thus fixed was rigorously observed: at the time of the
arrival of La Hontan (1683), the Governor and the Intendant sat on the Council opposite each other, the judges
by their side, and “seemed to equally preside”.

Colbert, informed of all that had happened, did not spare the reproaches to Frontenac; he formally forbade
him to call himself Chief and President of the Council; he blamed the exile of the Procurator and the two
Councilors; “If it were not”,"he adds, “that his Majesty still hopes that you will change your conduct, he would
have adjudged to these Magistrates a considerable compensation to be made from your salaries, because he can
never authorize violence of this nature without any foundation”. Indeed, Frontenac had crossed the boundaries
and the first shortcomings were on his side; always haunted by this idea that he represented the King directly
and could not tolerate any encroachment on the sovereign authority of which he was delegated, he was not able,
as Colbert noted, to “take the spirit of union and condescension to prevent all divisions that... are still the main
cause of new colonies’ losses”. – The more important debates concerning the Council are now closed; but,
concerning new issues, hostilities will continue, even more irritating, and Frontenac will continue to quarrel
until the day of his recall to France.

The 1679 ships had barely left, when Duchesneau was about to drop a new conflict between the Governor
and himself; the Attorney General of the Council, d’Auteuil, had just died. His son, Francois-Madeleine
d’Auteuil, Sieur de Monceaux, had been attached to him as a substitute since 1677, by virtue of royal letters;
Duchesneau, on the other hand, possessed with him a blank commission of Attorney General, dated from the
same period, and of which Colbert had allowed him, if need be, to appoint the titular. His choice fell on
Francois d’Auteuil, but this young man, born in 1658, was not old enough to exercise the office of his father; he
needed an exemption letter from the King because of his age, and Frontenac pointed out the necessity of it all
the more willingly because Francois d’Auteuil was at trial with Le Chasseur, his secretary; besides, he added,
the commission which Duchesneau pretended to fill is obsolete. The Council, stuck with this matter, did not
share the same opinion: by provision, and under reserve that the King may confer to dispensate, age need be,
they establish François d’Auteuil as General Prosecutor in the place of his father. The following year, in 1680,
new letters arrived from the Court granting François d’Auteuil the same position as his father’s, and the Council
took advantage of this to proceed with his assignment. But, as these letters don’t say anything about an age
exemption, we must suppose that Colbert was unaware of the death of the former attorney when he signed them,
or that the friends who had solicited their favor for the young d’Auteuil purposefully didn’t inform the minister
of his age. However, the King, warned by Frontenac, had not yet answered on this point by 1681, and
d’Auteuil, meanwhile, remained as Public Prosecutor, as the Council had decided. Frontenac bowed; but
d’Auteuil was too young, too turbulent to manage, while trying to hide this fact, this rather irregular situation;
as early as March 1680 he was seeking trouble from the Procurator of the provost of Quebec, Louis Boulduc.
We knew this person very devoted to Frontenac: nothing was neglected to render his task impossible, and thus
111
to paralyze that jurisdiction of the provost, whose Council was jealous about: didn’t d’Auteuil want to oblige
Boulduc to report to his house, every Saturday, to work under his supervision on ongoing trials and, upon the
refusal of this Prosecutor, involve the Council? Throughout the year 1680 this affair dragged on, the Council
being lenient concerning seeds and harvests, but showing itself malicious, grudging, whenever it chose to.

The following winter, everything starts all over again; it is the off-season of commerce and agriculture, the
time of quarrels and lawsuits. On January 1st, 1681, Louis Boulduc is accused of embezzlement; he is no longer
just reproached for not wanting to subordinate himself to the Council in matters of justice; there’s also a
criminal intention brought against him, at the behest of the abbot Bernières, who was replacing the bishop now
in France, and a former warden of the cathedral of Quebec, Hazeur. As far as can be judged by the documents
of the Sovereign Council, which allude to the facts without always reporting them, the dispute between the
abbot Bernières and Boulduc concerns the very fabric of the parish’s interests: Boulduc, to save time, had
wanted to prevent churchwarden Hazeur from presenting his accounts and, condemned by the Lieutenant
General of the provostship himself, he would have appealed to the Council, which is now in charge of the case.
Villeray, First Counselor, directs the proceedings; as such, he delivers deeds to call witnesses and, throughout
the spring of 1681, a struggle of rules and petty details continues between Frontenac, who does not want to
abandon a friend to whom, he says, a trial is set specifically because of him, and the advisers who intend to take
advantage of this opportunity to further the provostship of Quebec. Villeray dubbed himself Squire on the
procedural documents: Frontenac is contesting his rights; a bailiff, committed to report to the secretary Le
Chasseur, is dismissed by the Governor, because his proceed is not regular, sharply rebuqued by the Intendant
because of his delays, although involuntary; the Council finally ordered that the proceed be drafted as Frontenac
demands: Le Chasseur then appears before Villeray, but there, a new incident occurs; the witness refuses to
answer, if the clerk doesn’t refer him as secretary of Lord – instead of Mister – the Governor. Villeray, in all
seriousness, refers the matter to the Council, while Frontenac, in an ironically disdainful memoir, was mocking
all this nonsense and treated of foolish their directives and procedures, declaring that the Council would have
much better to do than waste time at such trifles. But didn’t he have his own share of responsibility in these
foolish disputes?

However, at the Council, the agreement was no longer unanimous. Some were of opinion, no doubt, that
such conflicts did not deserve to fill an entire session; as early as February 1681, Peyras [Depeiras, Dupeiras],
related to Louis Boulduc [Jean-Baptiste Depeiras’ wife is Anne Thirement, daughter of Jacques Thirement and
Marie Hubert who was the aunt of Elizabeth Hubert. Thus Peyras was cousin by different acts to Elizabeth
Hubert, wife of Louis Boulduc], had been absent; one of his colleagues, Dupont, soon did the same; lastly,
when the last incident raised by Le Chasseur personally involved Frontenac with the issue, Councilor Tilly
declared that he did not wish to sit in a trial in which the Governor General was a part of; d’Auteuil hastened to
launch a strong admonition against these cowardly men, and in spite of these defections, by a decree of April
27th, Louis Boulduc was declared served, which entailed forfeiture of his office: the Public Prosecutor requested
and obtained the nomination to his post of Pierre Duquet, “judge and bailiff of the county of Orsainville and of
the jurisdiction of Notre-Dame des Anges”. The trial of Boulduc, pursued under the direction of Villeray, was
terminated only on March 20th, 1682: the former Prosecutor of the provost, convicted of embezzlement, was
ultimately relieved of his post; Pierre Duquet remained his successor. But before things were thus settled,
Frontenac wrote to Seignelay to complain of the faction which Duchesneau and d’Auteuil were the instigators;
the termination of Louis Boulduc in his duties is explained by him as an act of pure vengeance; that this matter
was politically motivated, much more so than just judicial; Boulduc’s trial is in league with the complex affair
of the coureurs de bois, which is, after all, a matter of external relations with New France; we will better see
these relations in the next chapter.

The Council’s fury against Louis Boulduc had angered Frontenac; this constant opposition, tenuous and
relentless, prevented him from attending, as he would have liked, to the true interests of the colony; but, not
knowing how to sacrifice his personal hostilities to general peace, however legitimate they were, he targeted in
the summer of 1681 one of the magistrates who had sentenced Boulduc: the councilor Damours, provided with
112
a leave of absence from the Governor General, had, in July 1681, journeyed to Matane, on the Lower St.
Lawrence, and had just returned to Quebec, August 12th, on a boat loaded with various goods; as he was
standing on the platform, observing the unloading, he receives a note from Frontenac inviting him to report to
the castle. Damours immediately ascends to the upper town; he has hardly introduced himself to the Governor
when a violent scene breaks out. Frontenac claims that Damours didn’t comply with the terms of his leave, that
he has thus not observed his arrangements; the Counselor replies that he comes from a land that he owns and
that “the King’s intention was that everyone should go freely to his own land. — Go, replied Frontenac, you
shall learn them, the intentions of the King!” And Damours is incarcerated in a room of the castle, not without
having harshly received the full demeanor of the Governor General.

[…].

In 1681-82, which was to be the end of Frontenac’s first government, rival passions had not diminished, and
the Council’s registers bear the trace of numerous disputes; one day, it is the Lieutenant-General of Trois-
Rivieres, Boisvinet, who is quoted by the Council as having, under Frontenac’s instructions, gathered
information against two of the members of that assembly; another day, the Council declares that the Lieutenant-
General of Quebec will have to consult with the advisers in their residences, for matters instructed by them; a
few weeks later, Frontenac complained that the Council waited at the last minute to deal with a serious matter,
that of the Canadian currency; in March 1682, the final sentence of Louis Boulduc was pronounced. […].

[…].

Hontan expresses himself in very lively terms as to how “an ecclesiastical league” was using Duchesneau
against Frontenac. Nicolas Perrot, whose testimony is certainly impartial, also declares that the Intendant, like
the Governor, was the victim of “bad advices given him”: we can ask ourselves from whom Frontenac accepted
his advices; but as far as Duchesneau is concerned, there is no doubt; one just has to read the letter in which the
Abbot Dudouyt speaks of his return to France: “As he has never performed nor suffered, in all that has
happened, but only to satisfy the duties of his office, there is none more praiseworthy before God and before his
men”. There is no mistaking it; this is the homage of a friend, a friend who was docile as much as the adversary
was obstinate. In dismissing Duchesneau, the Minister wished, says the grand vicar, to save the principle of
authority, but the fact alone that the Governor was summoned justifies the Intendant’s conduct. — This fact
could prove two more things: the hindsight of the Intendant, and the greater skill of those who used him: the
Canada-Mission party had won a new battle.

(Complete work [in French]: https://books.google.com/books?id=y0wOAAAAYAAJ)

(1659) 113
➢ 8 novembre 1675 Louis Boulduc rents a corps de logis (“bulk or main part of a building”) neighboring the Ursulines, from Marie-Françoise
Chartier, wife of Mr. Pierre Joybert Demarson; she is his authorized representative for this location. The rental price is 80 pounds a year which
takes effect on 1 September 1675. The House (#1) has a garden and a merchant’s counter. It is situated on the front side to “the street which
tends to go to Saint-Jean” and on one side “to the Great Street”. (Source: See page 130 of Mr. Delamarre’s work.)

➢ In 1674, Louis Boulduc was residing in Quebec, on the North side of Saint-Louis Street, between Sainte-Ursule and the Esplanade, and in 1677
also on Saint-Louis Street, west of Du Parloir Street (nos 50-52-54) (#2). Prior, he lived for five years (1669 to 1674) on a land in Charlesbourg.
(Source: http://www.genealogie.org/club/sglevis/publications/SGLevisV8N1R0.pdf)

(White tracings: 1675 [Source: Centre de Développement Économique et Urbain de la ville de Québec, 2000.] )

N
Ursulines

Rue Saint-Louis or Grande Allée

#1 #2
Satellite images created by GoogleTM Earth.

114
The neighborhood of the Ursulines Convent, following
the Conquest [1759].

A few residences near the Saint-Louis Street, between


the Ursuline’s enclosure and the fortifications.

(Source: Centre de Développement Économique et Urbain de la ville de Québec, 2000.)


115
A View of Quebec from the South East
by J. F. W. Des Barres, published 1770-1781.

116
[Note YJKB: the following section comes from the very extensive work of Mr. Yves Delamarre,
and comprises all known documentation of the period concerning every event surrounding the
ancestor Louis Boulduc of the Seventeenth Century, in New-France.

I’ve only translated (as best I could using www.bing.com/translator and personal editing) the
section on the chronological sequence of events, with appropriate footnotes. To best capture the
scope of Louis’ life and background, I strongly suggest reading the book The Good Regiment,
1665-1668 by Jack Verney, 1991, and also Count Frontenac by William D. Le Sueur, 1906 (or
Count Frontenac and New France under Louis XIV by Francis Parkman, 1877), still available.]

Louis Bolduc
our ancestor,

after all…
a conscious homage

Yves Delamarre

2007

117
Historical Chronology of Events Concerning Louis Bolduc.

Here we describe, chronologically and historically in detail, all that is closely related to Louis Bolduc, and this
without distinction, be it for his private life, his family life, his professional life, his financial situation or his
behaviors. Our goal is to put in context all the events that we have discovered in order to learn more about this
individual in his human aspect, instead of doing a subdivided description of his life. However, relating to his
professional life, either as Procurator [Attorney] of the King in the Provostship of Quebec or in his relationship
with Governor Frontenac and the Sovereign Council, only those facts, directly tied to the trial which was
brought upon him, or which are likely to bring light to these facts, are retained.

Conseil Souverain

1648 “Louis Bolduc (Boulduc) came from good stock. His father, Pierre, an apothecary proprietor, lived on the
Rue Saint-Jacques, in the parish of Saint-Benoit, in Paris. His mother, Gillette Pijart, had, it seems, two Jesuit
brothers, Pierre and Claude, who came to Canada [In fact they are not her brothers, but her distant cousins.]. His
brother Simon (Boulduc), pharmacist to the Queen of Spain, also became a judicial magistrate in Paris and
received titles of nobility [Simon was never ennobled. It is his son Gilles-François who received his title of
Nobility when he became Alderman of Paris in 1726. At that point he could adorn his Coat-of-Arms with a
Helmet and a Mantle.]. Born in 1648, Louis became a student in the City of Light prior to serving his country
under the flag and being sent to Canada.”1

Louis was a well educated, knowledgeable and cultivated person. His writings, although not shy,
demonstrates this just as much as the court proceedings which relates his words and have shown us a
polished and deferent character.

Claude Pijart, Jesuit, brother of Gillette [sic], was a parish priest at Notre-Dame of Montreal (Ville-Marie) from
1650 to 1657.2 He and his brother Pierre, also a Jesuit, had been in New France since 1637.3

118
13 May 1665 Louis embarks on the boat Aigle d'Or [Golden Eagle] with the Carignan-Salières Regiment,
which will be sailing to New France.4 Louis is part of Hector d’Andigné Company, Mr. de Grandfontaine.5

The mission entrusted to the Lieutenant General Alexandre de Prouxville of Tracy, from the Regiment,
consisted of: “... in Canada, to bring war to the Iroquois all the way into their homes in order to exterminate
them entirely.”6

It seems that these orders were not as formal as they seem and didn’t correspond to a genuine willingness to
exterminate, because later, they chose to make peace with the Iroquois.

19 August 1665 L’Aigle d'Or lands in Quebec after 98 days of crossing the Atlantic.7

A crossing of this duration was not uncommon, although generally crossings were shorter.

20 August 1665 Louis goes to wage war with his regiment in the Richelieu region.8

The regiment built 3 forts on the Richelieu, one of which was the Fort Chambly. They kill few Iroquois because
the latter fled when faced with the extent of the French army, but they burn their deserted villages and seize
their reserves.9

None of the written records indicate those who, among these soldiers, actually fought.

2 October 1665 Construction of the Fort Ste-Thérèse begins where Louis’ Company is assigned.10

22 October 1665 Mr. de Courcelle assigns the La Motte and Grandfontaine Companies to the construction of a
path connecting the Fort Sainte-Thérèse to the Fort St-Louis.11

26 January 1666 War is declared between France and England.12

8 July 1667 Peace is reached with the Iroquois.13

The evidence here is made clear that the real purpose of the French was for the trade of fur and not the
extermination of a race.

28 August 1667 Tracy, his mission now accomplished, returns to France. Approximately 400 of his soldiers,
including Louis, remain in Canada.14 Louis receives his leave probably near the end of 1667.15

Louis XIV grants to those who remain “food for a year and rewards. The Intendant Talon will see to it that land
shall be granted them.”16 The gratification is 100 pounds for the soldiers such as Louis.17

We find no documentation demonstrating that Louis had benefited from any of these advantages. The
concession of lands were done before a Notary, and a contract would have been proof. Between his
release from the Regiment, which we cannot specify the specific date, and the date of his marriage
contract, Louis possibly lived at the Château Saint-Louis Garrison located at the current location of the
Dufferin terrace. Since he was provided with provisions for a year and a bonus of 100 pounds (some
argue than the soldiers only received 50 pounds), he was able to live for a few months without sinking
into debt.

25 September 1667 Arrival in Quebec of the vessel Le St-Louis, coming from Dieppe, which was bringing
aboard 109 “King's Daughters”, of whom 84 were from Dieppe, and among which we find Élizabeth Hubert.18
119
Born into a bourgeois family and related to nobility, Élizabeth was the opposite of a “girl of little virtue”
as was claimed by the Baron de Lahontan concerning the Daughters of the King.

8 August 1668 Marriage Contract between Louis Boulduc and Élizabeth (she signed Élisabelle) Hubert before
the notary Jean Le Conte in Quebec City. Élizabeth, “Daughter of the King”, brings with her a dowry of 400
pounds “for all of her clothes, rings, jewelry and furniture”.19

High-ranking figures are present, and sign as witnesses: the Lieutenant-General Governor of New France Baron
Rémy de Courcelles, the widow of the ex-Governor Louis Daillebout, the Intendant Jean Talon of N.F., and
some representatives of the Carignan-Salières Regiment: the Captain De Grandfontaine, the Lieutenant Prévost
and the ensign of Degranville, along with a few other people whose titles are unknown to us.20

It was not exceptional that a few important characters attended the signing of a marriage contract and to
the marriage itself, however, in this case, their number and their rank could specify the value given to
the spouses.

What meaning should we give to the expression “for all of her clothes, rings, jewelry and furniture”? If
we conclude that she brought with her 400 pounds in currency or paper, the household would not have
had much financial difficulties, as they seem to have had a few months later, unless they have led a very
bourgeois life in the meantime. We believe, rather, that the dowry was established on the basis of the
valuables that Élizabeth had brought, hence the need for the enumeration. In any rate, this value, which
corresponded to the annual income of a person of a certain rank or half the price of the farm that they
will acquire later, gives an idea of the lifestyle level that Élizabeth was accustomed to.

Signature of Louis and Élizabeth:21

20 August 1668 Marriage of Louis and Élizabeth at Quebec by Henri Debernières, priest. The parents of the
brides reside in France, and their absence are not listed as deceased as was custom, if applicable. Governor
Rémy Decourcelle, Squire Nicolas Dhautcourt and Flag-Bearer at the Carignan Regiment and Notary Jean
LeConte are witnesses. Several other personalities were present.22

Henri De Bernières was the son of De Bernières Louvigy, founder of a Hermitage at Caens in France,
where Mr. Abbot Montigny, who would become Bishop François de Montmorency Laval, Apostolic
Vicar of New France, spent three years. Henri Debernières arrived at Quebec on the same boat as
Bishop Laval, who ordered him priest in Quebec, and will appoint him as the first priest of Quebec, in
the parish of Notre-Dame de Québec, the first parish to be canonically erected. Debernières will also be
Superior at the Seminary of Quebec.23

He will later baptize five of Louis and Élizabeth’s seven children.

According to André Vachon, they established themselves on a land in Charlesbourg, which they will acquire
later.24 According to Jacques Lacoursière, they settled at Beauport.25 Finally according to Gérard Lebel, 26 they
inhabited their farm house only from the beginning of the year 1670.

None of these authors provided any precision in support of their assertion, and we do not know where
they stayed between the day of their marriage and, either the date of purchase of their farm, or shortly
thereafter, namely at the beginning of the year 1670.
120
19 May 1669 Louis is in Paris and temporarily stays with his parents on St-Jacques Street, where he was born.
There, he “… would have pleaded with the want for their assistance in a way to help him make his
establishment and for the trading of goods (sic) in said place of… “Kébec” ”. Louis “has acknowledged…
receiving from… his father and mother, the sum of 15,000 pounds and of an inheritance advancement
(heritage)…”.27

It is not specified in the Act if these were parisis currency common to Paris or of tournois currency
common to France and Quebec. A Paris pound was worth 25% more than the pound tournois. Was there
an error in the decryption of the Act? This sum appears enormous if we consider that a good size
operating farm with attachments sold for less than 1,000 tournois pounds in Quebec, at that time. It
seems even more exorbitant, in light of Louis’ financial situation, from the events to follow.

Nothing is mentioned if Élizabeth accompanied Louis on his journey to France. The departure of Louis
had to have taken place in April or early in March, taking into account the ice on the Saint Lawrence
River. We doubt that a pregnant woman of five to six months, their first child, would have decided to
take on such a trip with all the risks involved.

10 July 1669 Birth of Louis, their 1st child, baptized on Sunday the 14th by Charles De Lauzon at the Beauport
Chapel.28 [Note: see http://www.civilization.ca/cmc/exhibitions/hist/canp1/ca11eng.shtml, bottom of page.]

7 October 1669 Purchase of a 40 acres land from Jacques Bédard in Charlesbourg, at the cost of 800 pounds.29
Jacques Bédard is the son of Isaac Bédard, the first of his name to arrive in Quebec.30 It is situated between the
lands of Michel Chrétien and Jacques Galarneau. It includes a house, a barn, and dependencies. Since the house
was not yet set up to occupy, the seller is forced to remake the floor, build an enclosure and a small partition31
with two doors to close the barn as long as the buyer provides the wood and nails.

Louis borrows this sum from the Jesuits and Reverend Father Joseph Boursier, who disburses this sum on his
behalf directly to the seller of the land.32

To properly understand what this land consisted of, the first known property of our ancestor, note first
that the dimension is expressed in area as opposed to linear.

The trait-carré square layout is a division of land concept by the Jesuits and consisted in the distribution
of forty lands of equal dimensions, contained in a quadrilateral of 40 acres each side following a radial
cut pattern from the Center and going to the sides, where each lot was to measure 4 acres on the end
(outboard) side and nothing in the centre. In all, each land formed a pointed triangle in one end (the
center), with a four acres spread on the other end (on the side of the square) and an approximate depth
(due to being diagonal) of twenty acres (half the distance of the square). However, the Jesuits reserved
for the community (all the “land-owners”), in the centre of this large square, a square piece of five acres
still called to this day the Trait-Carré. This last square had the effect of removing the tip of each land,
and thus each lot was 90 feet wide on the side of the Trait-Carré. All forty lands were thus reduced to
approximately 39.4 acres of land, but each had its own access to the Trait-Carré. In the center of the
Trait-Carré, another small square was reserved for the Chapel. In February 1665, the Jesuits had
conceded 30 lots on three sides, delaying the time to grant, or to reserve, the lots on the South side, in
other words looking towards Quebec (see picture). The lots of the Trait-Carré had their northern limits
where the Jean-Talon Boulevard is located at Orsainville, and on the South side near the railway (now a
cycling path).33

Many have given credit to Jean Talon on the first allocation of the Trait-Carré lands, but he only arrived
in Quebec on 12 September 1665, or approximately seven months after they were granted.34
121
The lot purchased by Louis Bolduc was numbered 14. Later on, the lot was assigned numbers 377, 378
and 379 on the Charlesbourg land registry. Obviously the lot has been repeatedly chopped and these
days is no longer a land as it once stood. However, the house bearing the civic numbers 8233, 8235 and
8237 and its neighbor on the street of the Trait-Carré No 8245, West, North side (see picture), are
located exactly where the land of Louis had access to the Trait-Carré of the time, the land of these two
houses approximately equaling “the ninety foot facade”. Of course, the original house as well as the
other buildings no longer exist.35

Start of 1670 “The improvised farming couple settled on his land ...”36

The date is not specified. Note that their first born, Louis, is six months old in January and that Élizabeth
is two months into her pregnancy with her second child.

30 July 1670 Birth of Marie-Anne, second child to the couple.37

She was baptized in Charlesbourg by Claude Bijart (Pijart?), Jesuit, [distant cousin] of her grandmother.

122
25 August 1670 Before the Royal Notary Pierre Duquet, Louis acknowledges owing 700 Paris silver pounds,
borrowed from the Reverend Brother Joseph Boursier of the Company of Jesus, before this date. He mortgages
his furnitures, immovable property, the expected leftover inheritance from his deceased father (what was left),
an amount of 500 pounds owed by Claude Hubert, his father-in-law, for the dowry to his daughter Élizabeth,
and any other sum that could come to pass in the future, as a security for the loan. He promises to pay for
everything by Christmas of this year in the “same Paris currency”.38

The contract makes no references to the purchase of the farm in Charlesbourg. However, as it is from the
same lender, it seems quite obvious that Louis acknowledges by this contract that the sum lent is the
payment done on his behalf by Brother Boursier to the purchase of the farm, even if the obligation
therein deals with an amount of 700 pounds instead of 800 pounds, which was the cost of the farm. Does
this difference of 100 pounds come from a payment that Louis would have done? The contract’s
obligations would have said that. It is most probably a sum remitted to Brother Boursier at the time of
the farm’s purchase as a personal installment, that the farm purchase agreement didn’t have to mention.

This contract refers to a dowry of 500 pounds due to the communion of Louis and Élizabeth by the
father of the latter, Claude Hubert, while their marriage contract (see above) specifies that the dowry is
set at 400 pounds. Did Claude Hubert committed to pay a dowry of 500 pounds on top of the dowry that
Élizabeth had brought with herself, of a value of 400 pounds? Strict interpretation of these contracts led
us to this conclusion: Élizabeth came with a 900 pounds dowry. Obviously, we cannot exclude the
possibility of a gross error to the effect that the 500 pounds and the 400 pounds both relate to the same
dowry. Unfortunately, the marriage contract, nor indeed any other papers that we have consulted,
mention the name of Claude Hubert relating to the dowry – although normally it was the parents who
provided dowries to their daughters.

Why was Louis compelled to borrow 700 pounds only a few months after having received a sum of
15,000 pounds from his parents? Had he negotiated as stated as the reason for the request in advance on
his heritage? In this case had he lost so much money? Complete mystery, no hints remain. He didn’t
seem to have chartered any boats, and he was not a recognized merchant either, we would have found
his traces and his merchant title in the notarial acts. Had he lied to his parents in order to receive his
advance? In any case, where was this money spent? Even if we arbitrarily reduce his value to 1,500
pounds, where did it go?

This is the first oddity in the financial situation of our ancestor, but certainly not the last, to say the least.

5 September 1670 Élizabeth, the wife of Louis, raised in the high Parisian bourgeois life, doesn’t seem to
devote herself in all her chores. Indeed, on this date, Louis appeared before the Provostship of Quebec, and he is
entangled with a launderer to whom he is trying to reclaim a skirt that she had taken from his house. Marie
Delastre, wife of Pierre Morterel, will accept to take the skirt back only if he pays her 12 francs (pounds) that he
owes for four months of laundry service, and adds that she would not accept going back to his home because he
had mistreated and insulted her. Louis replies that they have both verbally agreed that Mary would receive 36
pounds per year, payable after the year had passed, for the laundry and denies having mistreated or insulted her.
The judge instructs the launderer to bring the skirt back and to pay the court costs. He orders Louis to pay her
nine pounds in cash or in good wheat or merchandise, depending on the choices that she will make.39

The word “maltraittée” [mistreated], as it appears in the judgment, does not necessarily involve physical
contacts, in this case. With the experience of analyzing dozens of court sentences, we can say that the
judge would have provided details had this happened.

123
Several historians describe in their work the daily lives of those inhabitants, i.e. those possessing farms.
The use in the services of a launderer was not a common practice for this class of people.

10 November 1670 Louis, “usually living” at Charlesbourg, is before the Notary Pierre Duquet in Quebec
City, and acknowledges having borrowed previously, from the bourgeois Pierre Nolan, the sum of two hundred
and thirty pounds tournois in currency from France. He is obliged, by contract, to pay back this amount in
similar currency to Sir Nolan, “or the bearer”, no later than 1 March 1671. As an additional security, he gives
his mother’s address in Paris to honor the commitment.40

This is actually an acknowledgment of debt covered by a bill bearer. The reason for this loan is not
specified. There are no receipts for this debt, unlike what we’ll find later on below. It is possible that the
land purchased the year prior did not provide an adequate return for Louis to meet the needs of his
family, but what seems to stand as probable from this moment on is that he could be living above his
means. Already, in this short time, he has borrowed eleven hundred and thirty pounds.

13 October 1671 Louis is before the Provostship of Quebec. He supports that he was delivered an empty barrel
while he had commissioned from Alexandre Petit, a merchant from France, a wine barrel that this merchant has
specially marked for him according to what he wrote. Louis calls on him to provide his wine barrel, or that he is
given eighty pounds credit. The barrel arrived on the boat “Plume d’or” [Golden Pen] of the Captain Jean
Goeslin (Gosselin), and the Merchant (charterer) of this ship is Daniel Biaille. The Judge orders that the barrel
be delivered to the experts Bazire Lavaltrie Migeon and Pierre Nolan.41

We do not know the rest of this story, which probably settled out of court. At that time a Bordeaux
barrel contained 244 liters, but the barrel type is not explained, and in referencing other sources we learn
that the barrel could contain at least 225 liters. It was certainly not everyone who could afford wine at
this price. A worker in trade such as a Carpenter earned an annual income of approximately 100 pounds.

18 October 1671 Before the Notary Pierre Duquet, Louis acknowledges owing 133 pounds to Pierre Nolan, to
whom he promises to pay on the first of August 1672. This is not a new loan, but a renewed obligation from
Louis towards Nolan for the balance of 133 tournois pounds, which he still owes from his previous commitment
of 10 November 1670.42

Pierre Nolan ran a tavern in the lower town of Quebec on Sault-au-Matelot Street.43

This new transaction perhaps explains the reason for the presence of a big “X” on each of the two pages
of the 10 November 1670 contract.

20 October 1671 Louis had to appear before the Provostship of Quebec to respond to Adrien Michelon’s claim
of owing him 38 pounds and 10 sols for pension and food, but he didn’t present himself to the Court. A
subpoena was delivered to him the day prior. He was reassigned to a date not logged.44

The remainder of this claim is not recorded in the proceedings of the Provostship, because the queries
made in the Provostship of Quebec, as separate pieces which do not lead to a decision, could not be
found. Therefore, this claim period is unknown.

Some important questions arises with this revelation. Did Louis and his wife live in a room with pension
between the date of their marriage and the day where they lived in Charlesbourg? Adrien Michelon,
Cobbler, lived in Quebec.45 Did Louis make extended stays in Quebec while he lived in Charlesbourg?
Such a sum represented several weeks of pension for one or two persons.

124
16 February 1672 Nicolas Dupont, Squire, Sire of Neuville, requests to the Judge of the Provostship of
Quebec to sentence Louis Bolduc to pay him 270 pounds, 12 sols and 6 deniers, leftover sums from two
promises that Bolduc had signed to him, one on 19 October 1671, and another on 9 January 1672. One of these
promises was transported to Mr. Pinguet. Louis is ordered to pay this amount with costs, profits, and interests as
of this date.46

These promises do not appear to have been done before a Notary. No contract or registration relates to
them. It is difficult to monitor all the financial operations of Louis Bolduc, because they interweave.
None, however, seems to be to his advantage.

The Same Day. Raymond Cornu is ordered by the Provostship of Quebec to pay the sum of four pounds with
costs (costs for the court) to Louis Bolduc.47

No explanation appears in the report.

18 March 1672 The Bailiff Levasseur acts as Attorney (common practice at the time) to Louis who was
sentenced to pay 9 pounds and fifteen sols to Etienne Landeron during Easter holidays. Furthermore, Louis
must pay forty sols for assignment costs.48

It is said that during this period: “One pleads for everything and under any pretext; the noble ones for
diversion, the merchants for their trade, and farmers to preserve their heritage.”49 However, Louis must
not have wanted diversions during this time, as he was not present.

26 April 1672 The wife of Louis Lefebvre Battenville demands from Louis Bolduc the sum of fifteen pounds
that he owes from the total of twenty-five pounds agreed for his laundry valued at 100 sols (or 5 pounds) a
month. She had already obtained a judgment against Louis for this same reason before Mr. Claude Bouteroue,
but he didn’t let it come to pass. Louis retorts that he no longer owes her anything because he has given her ten
francs (pounds) and a bar of soap through Brother Joseph (probably Brother Joseph Boursier, Jesuit). The Judge
orders Louis back in court after the seeding season.50

This debt goes back since before 1670, given the previous judgment rendered by Claude de Bouteroue
who was Intendant, and therefore Judge to the Sovereign Council of 1668 until 1670.

15 October 1672 Birth of the twins Louis (second of this name) and Jacques, the couple’s third and fourth
child.51

They will be baptized in Quebec on the 17th by the Priest Henri Debernières. For the baptism of Louis,
the Act mentions the presence of Frontenac and of Perrot, Governor of Montreal.

21 October 1672 Louis files a complaint stating that François Blondeau insulted him while at the miller house
of Sicatteau, at the small mill of Charlesbourg. It is Blondeau’s wife who appears on behalf of her husband
while Louis is present. The judge orders the husband Blondeau to declare to Louis before the miller and the
others who have heard the insults, that: “wrought in ill purpose he has spoken and ask to be forgiven”. The
Judge orders Louis to deliver to Blondeau, through the miller, “to avoid dispute”, four bales [minots] of wheat
cultivated from his farm. Blondeau will have to pay the court costs.52

Louis probably owed four bales of wheat or something of similarly value to Blondeau, and Blondeau
probably reproached Louis for this fact, in offensive terms, in front of the miller and other persons
present. This would explain the sentencing received when the judge approved the complaint.

125
18 November 1672 Before the Royal Notary Romain Becquet, Louis recognizes owing 409 pounds and ten
sols to Jean Depeiras for purchased goods. To repay this debt, he gives him a red-haired milking mother cow
worth 75 pounds, and all the wheat currently stocked in his barn, totaling 300 sheaves, where once beaten will
give, at sixty sols per bale of wheat, an amount which will fulfill the rest of his debt, minus the beating cost and
transport cost to Charlesbourg in Quebec where Mr. Jean Depeiras lives. However if the debt is not resolved
with this transaction, Louis must pay the difference to Depeiras. This new obligation cancels the account that
Mr. Depeiras had sent to Louis on 25 September 1672 for those same goods, and the letter of commitment to
pay.53

Jean-Baptiste Depeiras is one of the witnesses present for the marriage contract ceremony of Louis and
Elisabeth.54 His first marriage was to Anne Thirement, daughter of Jacques Thirement and Marie
Hubert, who was the aunt of Elisabeth Hubert, Louis’ spouse. So Anne was the cousin of Elisabeth.55
Depeiras is Advisor (Member) to the Sovereign Council of New France.56

The specifics on goods purchased is obviously not available. Hitherto, Louis has never been qualified as
a Merchant. Yet the amount of these purchased goods seems higher than what was commonly needed for
one farm, or for one family during this time.

8 August 1673 Elisabeth claims from Michèle Delahaye, wife of Michel Pothier, that she gives her back all the
articles she has lent her for the “montre” [showing] of her child: an amber necklace, a pair of stockings, two
pairs of socks, a lace blanket, a lace scarf, a new shirt and a bonnet, all for the child. The Judge orders Mrs.
Pothier to give the articles back.57

The “montre” of her child probably means the presentation of a newborn for a certain occasion. Our
research did not reveal us what it really was.

20 November 1673 Michel Pothier said Laverdure, husband of Michèle Delahaye, having been the farmer of
Louis, claims through the Bailiff Levasseur , his attorney, the sum of nineteen pounds that Louis owes him. At
the same time, Pierre Jean, who is also present, says that he owes Louis the same sum. The Judge instructs
Pierre Jean to give the nineteen pounds to Pothier.58

This is a common practice to pay sums with bills for the recognition of debts coming from third parties.
We have seen in several judgments of this era that the Judge instructs a third party to “empty their
hands” to the creditor of the accused, i.e. a person (Pierre Jean), who owes money to a second person
(Louis Bolduc) may be ordered to pay the money due to a third person (Jean Depeiras) rather than the
second one, where the second person owes money to the third.

5 December 1673 The previous decision follows up on a query of Pierre Nolan against Louis who still owes
him 193 pounds. Furthermore, Pierre Jean owes 47 pounds, 12 sols and six deniers to Louis. The Judge instructs
Pierre Jean to pay this sum (to “empty is hands”) to Pierre Nolan. Louis must also pay the court fees.59

Louis had therefore not respected his commitment to repay Nolan for the 1st of August 1672, and the
debt is only partially paid off with the decision of this day.

30 January 1674 Louis, who does not appear in court despite his subpoena made on January 26, is sentenced,
by default, to pay the six pounds that Pierre Jean claims as his. In addition, Louis will have to pay the court
costs.60

We have noted that in civil matters, quite often people did not show up to Court hearings despite being
summoned. They were thus convicted by default.

126
28 February 1674 Birth of René in Charlesbourg. He is the fifth child of the couple. He will be baptized
March 5th.61

The service person is Henri Debernières. René Louis Chartier de Lotbinière is the Godfather of René. De
Lotbinière is a member of the Sovereign Council, and will become a Lieutenant General in the
Provostship of Quebec, and employer of Louis Bolduc.

René Bolduc is the ancestor lineage to which the author of this work belongs.

26 August 1674 Louis sells his land in Charlesbourg to Jean Delgel said Labrèche, for the sum of 850 pounds.
This sum is paid to him by Nicolas Dupont of Neuville, Squire and Counselor to the King at the Sovereign
Council, under the name of Delgel. The sum of 850 pounds is thus composed: Dupont pays 394 pounds directly
to Louis, all the while clearing a debt of 306 pounds owed by Louis, and finally he will pay Louis 50 pounds a
year for three years. The sale is approved by Brother Joseph Boursier, who was Louis’ Mortgage Creditor when
he bought the farm.62

Several historians mention this sale, but none reveal the details which allow to learn more about the
financial situation of Louis. He still yet had to pay money to Brother Boursier and also to Nicolas
Dupont. Either that Louis had not paid, to the latter, the 270 pounds that the Court had ordered him to
pay on 16 February and to which an other amount was added, or either he had borrowed a new sum. As
for the debt to Brother Boursier, it didn’t seem to have gone away with this transaction as it had grown
to 700 pounds.

The buyer Delgel (Delgueil) is the father of the second wife of Richard Talard, whom will become the
son-in-law of Louis, by marrying in his first wedding Marie Ursule Bolduc daughter of Louis, to whom
he was her third spouse.63 This also illustrates that at that time, with such a low population, we find in
the same locality, the same people on several contracts, and that many links, difficult to follow, weave
between all these people.

26 August 1674 On this same day, at the Notary Romain Becquet, he rents for one year from Catherine
Leneuf, widow of Pierre Denis de La Ronde (Pierre Denis-de-la-Ronde-de-la-Trinité), at the price of 106
pounds, a house located on Sault-au-Matelot Street in Quebec. Louis must pay 26 pounds and ten sols every
three months starting the 1st of December. The House has two rooms (two pièces), a cabinet, an attic and
utilities. What may seem strange today, is that the lease contract mentions as a condition, that Louis will have to
“behave like a good family father”.64

23 September 1674 A crossed and unsigned contract stipulates that he rents for one year at the price of 20
pounds payable in two installments equal to six months intervals, to Jean Delgel, a “red-haired cow aged seven
years or approximately”. Several historians claim that this was the cow that he had leased from Jean-Baptiste
Depeiras. However, this September 23 contract has never been in force, to which fact no one mentions. We
have noted first hand that the single page contract drafted by Rageot bears no signatures, that it is marked with a
large “X” from top to bottom, and that a clear note on the bottom note reads as such: “Bastonné as void”.65
Bastonné, as it was written at the time, or “bâtonné” [crossed through], means according to Le Petit Littré:
“crossed”, “deleted”.66

Hard to say what really happened as to the ownership of the cow.

29 October 1674 Before the Sovereign Council, Louis Bolduc, bourgeois of Quebec, calls to Nicolas Dupont,
King's Squire, Sire of Neuville, Advisor (Member) to this Council, to pay him the 257 pounds he still owes on
the bill that he had signed to him on 26 August 1674 (see above). The Council condemns Mr. Dupont to pay
this amount in cash or goods, at current price, half immediately and the other half once next year’s ships arrive.
127
The Governor Frontenac was present at this meeting and had chaired. Mr. Dupont had to accept that despite the
conflict of interest which they were at in this case, the Governor and Mr. Louis Théandre Chartier de
Lotbinière, Member of the Board, could judge “although they had named the Children of said applicant”. Mr.
Depeiras, also member of the Board, had to withdraw from this case, being Louis’ cousin by marriage.67

Normally, the case should have been heard before the Provostship of Quebec, but, a member of the
Sovereign Council such as Dupont, could not be tried by an inferior court.

“For three years (1672-1675), the Governor is acting as effective Chairman of the Council, while, by his
charge, he should only be the Honorable Chairman”. “The matter shall be submitted to the King who
severely blames Frontenac”.68 For the period during which Bolduc acted as Attorney [Procurator] (1676-
1681), is it Duchesneau who was the effective Chairman of the Council, as indicated earlier.

Some historians reveal that Louis is qualified or recognized for the first time here as bourgeois. While it
is true that this word appears for the first time concerning Louis, it is necessary to note that, except in his
marriage contract, all documents in which the name of Louis is present since 7 October 1669, he is
always preceded by the title of “sieur” (diminutive of Mister), reserved for people who have as a
minimum the rank of bourgeois. Our research, confirmed inter alia by the definition of the dictionary
Littré, lead us to conclude that the title of bourgeois was usually given to any person who, such as
Merchants, Officers of Justice, etc., without being necessarily Noble, did not exercise manual labor.
Their name was also preceded by the title sieur. In documents and reports, people of simple conditions
are designated by the expressions: “the named So-and-So”, or “known as So-and-So".

“Named the Children” meant, among other things, being the Godfather or Godmother, according to the
Petit Littré69. Frontenac was the Godfather of Louis [was ‘present’ for his baptism] born in 1672
[Jacques’ twin brother], and Lotbinière was the Godfather of my ancestor René, born on March 3rd,
1674.

30 October 1674 By the Provostship of Quebec, Louis is sentenced, by default for not obeying to the summons
to appear that was served by the Bailiff Le Vasseur, to pay Louise Duval, wife of Pascal Lemaître, the sum of
three pounds that he owes. Yet this sum represents an accommodation previously ordered by the Court in this
case.70

9 November 1674 Louis is again sentenced by default by the Provostship of Quebec. This time, he must pay
Nicolas Durand, who was represented by his wife in this case, the sum of fifty sols plus costs.71

29 November 1674 An order of seizure is issued by Judge Chartier de Lotbinière of the Provostship of Quebec,
against Louis, who owes Pierre Nolan the sum of 432 pounds.72

Nolan being a Merchant, we assume that the sum was used for the purchase of goods, which would
confirm the proposition that Louis is also a Merchant. However, we are not able to know what kind of
goods were involved. In any case, we must ask ourselves what is the source of Louis’ income since the
sale of his farm? If he were Merchant, this seizure leaves many open questions on the nature of his
business. This seizure also confirms the significant deterioration of the financial situation of Louis.
Being Merchant or not, he is poorly managing his affairs.

1 December 1674 Pierre Nolan is before the Provostship of Quebec, and demands “that the seizure (from 29
November) is declared of good stance and be validated”. In return, Louis asks that the account be recalculated
concerning his debt to Pierre Nolan based upon the seizure order that he suffered, claiming that he should only
have little left to pay Nolan. The Judge accepts both requests.73
128
The same day before the same Judge, same Pierre Nolan requests that he receives the funds that Louis Bolduc
has yet to pay. He is ordered to see Mr. Nicolas Dupont, who owes money to Louis by decision of 29 October
from the Sovereign Council, to pay (“transport”) 105 pounds to Pierre Nolan, and the rest upon arrival of the
ships, on behalf of Louis. The latter gets, in consequence, a release from the seizure of his belongings,
furnitures and effects.74

By obtaining a release, the seizure cannot continue. However, this does not mean that Louis has
recuperated his furnitures and effects already seized, since this seizure was declared valid. Here are the
Bolduc family, living in a rented house on Sault-au-Matelot Street, where there are no more furnitures!
We do not know how Louis could have refurnished his residence, and even less what were his financial
means in living through such adventures.

4 December 1674 Before the Provostship, Louis requests that Élie Jean be sentenced to pay him the balance of
twenty pounds and x (erased) sols for ten bale of wheat, its transport and four pounds and ten sols for expenses,
against which he has only received nine pounds and eight sols. On his part, Jean claims he has lent Louis thirty
pounds. After Louis’ oath, the Judge orders Élie Jean to pay him twenty pounds and twelve sols of twenty (?)
and three pounds and ten sols of others (?). For the payment of this sum, a withholding of wheat from Saint-
Joseph by Élie Jean but stored in the barn of Raymond Cornu was performed. However, Cornu opposed its
seizure, claiming that the wheat was for him because Jean owes him thirty bales of farmed wheat. The Judge
recognized this as valid, and sentenced Jean and Cornu to work and make the wheat, half in fifteen days and
half in a month.75

It is surprising that an oath was required of Louis concerning his own claim.

This kind of transaction reinforces the idea that Louis Bolduc was a Merchant since it would be
surprising that he or his wife had turned themselves into bread-making. This would not conform with
what we have learned about them, so far. Besides, the quantity of wheat in question seems very
important for one domestic use.

7 December 1674 Again facing the Provostship of Quebec, Louis is sentenced to pay Mr. Guillaume Roger,
Bailiff, the sum of forty pounds plus costs.76

14 December 1674 Pierre Nolan is sentenced, by the Provostship of Quebec, to give back to Louis a shirt
worth twenty sols, that he had seized on 29 November.77

This confirms that the seizure of furnitures and effects actually took place.

15 March 1675 Louis is sentenced by the Provostship of Quebec to pay Adrien Michelon twenty sols to close
out any balance.78

It is not stated what account this is. Could this be a balance of the account in question in the decision of
20 October 1671? More than three years later for a pension and food account?

2 April 1675 First official contact for Louis with the judicial realm, other than for litigations. With Charles
Denis, Squire, Mr. de Vitray, Claude de Bermen, Squire, Mr. de la Martinière, Jean Levasseur, Pierre Biron,
Jean-Baptiste Gosset and François Genaple, he is designated as Certifier, to the result that all procedures has
been compliant with the seizure of the land of François Ripoche, following the request of Mr. Jean-Baptiste
Depeiras (cousin of Louis by alliance), King’s Advisor to the Sovereign Council.79

129
Biron and Gosset were Bailiffs, and Genaple Notary. Only Louis had still no official title among these
certifying officers.

15 April 1675 Letter of provisions from King Louis XIV, given to St-Germain, signed by Louis and Colbert,
sealed by the great seal in yellow wax, whereby his Majesty gives and grants Mr. Louis Bolduc, the office of
Advisor and Procurator at the common seat of Provostship of this city, to exercise forthwith with honor and
authority, and qualify for the privileges, exemptions and salary attached.80

We have liberally summarized this letter of provisions from the King which sailed by a following ship to
New France. It is reported in the deliberations of the Sovereign Council. It will reach its destination
some time later, before 31 August 1676. The original letter cannot be found.

22 April 1675 Excerpt from a letter of the King to Frontenac: “In regards to justice, you must be involved in
only two ways, one as Chief and President of the Sovereign Council by giving and allotting complete
freedom…”.81

This excerpt of admonition from the King gives us an idea on the attitudes of Frontenac, even before the
arrival of Louis Bolduc at the Provostship. As we shall see, the orders of the King will not be followed.

13 May 1675 Another letter to Frontenac, this time from the Minister Colbert, devoted man to the King
regarding, among others, New France. Excerpt: “His Majesty has ordered me again to explain in particular what
is absolutely necessary for the good of His service (…) to soften your concerns and to not judge with too much
severity all the faults that might have been committed either against His service (of the King), or against the
respect which is due to your person and your character (Title) and the obliging reasons to give His Majesty this
report, are so strong and so clearly explained that I do not doubt you will be convinced.”.82

30 May 1675 Finally, and to complete putting everything into context before the arrival of Louis into
Frontenac’s entourage, we refer to another letter of the King addressed to Frontenac on the occasion of the
appointment of Duchesneau of which Colbert adds the following clarifications: “His Majesty wishes to let him
act (Duchesneau) with complete freedom in everything regarding justice, the police and finances without your
involvement…”. In the same letter: “His Majesty has ordered me still to let you know with the same secrecy,
and as yet has not added much faith to what will be expressed here, that there has been a few commerce and
trading of fur on your behalf; you should avoid that none of your servants or anyone who approach you are to
be involved…”.83

In miscellaneous writings that we have consulted, some infers that Frontenac was engaged in the fur
trade. Jacques Lacoursière is adamant about this: “The Royal Order (prohibiting the trade of fur),
especially because Governor Frontenac himself deals in its practice, is not followed. Even the
Ecclesiastics and Missionaries are engaged in the trade of fur”.84

Did Louis Bolduc embark in the fur trade?

5 July 1675 Birth of Marie-Ursule in Charlesbourg, the couple’s sixth child, who will be baptized in Quebec
on the 6th, by Henri Debernières, parish priest, who also became Vicar General of Monsignor Bishop. Her
Godfather was Jean-Baptiste Depeiras and her godmother his wife, Anne Thirement, cousin of her
grandmother.85

8 November 1675 Louis rents a corps de logis (according to Le Petit Littré: “the bulk or the main part of a
building”) neighboring the Ursulines, from Marie-Françoise Chartier, wife of Mr. Pierre Joybert Demarson; she
is his authorized representative for this location. The rental price is 80 pounds a year which takes effect on 1
September 1675. The House has a garden and a merchant’s counter. It is situated on the front side to “the street
130
which tends to go to Saint-Jean” and on one side “to the Great Street”. Louis is familiar with the area because
he has been living in it since the 1st of September. He will have to perform some preparations, if necessary,
which costs will be deducted from the rental price.86
87
The House was precisely located, on
its front end, to what we believe to be
today the Rue St-Ursule, and was at the
corner with the present Rue St-Louis.
Indeed, departing from the Rue St-
Louis, near the Ursulines, “the street
which seems to go to Saint-Jean”
would correspond to the Rue St-Ursule
(Ursulines), which led to the location
mentioned referred to as the area of
Saint-Jean, or Rue St-Jean, which
existed at the time,88 and "the Great
Street" meant in many documents, the
St-Louis Street which was also
designated as the Grande Allée [Great
Alley] of which, like today, was its
extension. We have this confirmation in an “insinuation” (registration) of the Sovereign Council dated
15 September 1683, concerning a concession made to the Reverend Ursulines Mothers, from a location
situated “near the Monastery of the D. Religious Dames … on the street of the Great Alley”.89 So, the
Ursulines Monastery located on the current Parloir Street, which was already designated under this name
at the time,90 was in fact also located, on its front side, on the Rue Saint-Louis, also designated as the
Great Alley in several documents.

This insinuation also specifies that the concession was bordered “on the North-East by Mr. Bolduc”.
This, while confirming what is said above, also tells us that Louis Bolduc and his family still occupied
this house in 1683, because according to our research no other Bolducs lived in Quebec at that time (see
15 September 1683).

It would be difficult or even impossible to locate where the actual spot would be today. Although the
house inhabited by the Bolducs was located with its front face towards the street that we believe to be
currently Sainte-Ursule Street, this does not mean that the house was close to the street itself either. The
land could have been vast.

Louis Bolduc will later become owner of this house (See 27 October 1682).

31 August 1676 At the request of Louis, the Sovereign Council has received and established him into office as
Advisor and Prosecutor in the common seat of the Provostship of this town, and orders that the letters of
provisions of the King of 15 April 1676 (see above) are recorded at the registry of the Provostship. This
decision is made following the “information (survey) of his life and manners, of Catholic, Apostolic and Roman
religion” by Mr. de Villeray, Councilor of this Council and with the consent of the Attorney General, Mr. Denis
Joseph Ruette d'Auteuil. Louis has taken the required oath.91

Louis is not yet in function, as he will have to wait for the recording of his appointment with the clerk of
the Provostship of Quebec. Is the Council giving itself a greater power than that of the King? The King’s
letter of provision specifies that he “gives and grants the office of Advisor and Procurator of the King”
to Louis Bolduc. This appointment was not conditional to the “information of his life and manners …”,

131
nor to the consent of Procurator D’Auteuil. Despite this apparent incongruity, this seemed to have been
the rule which has also been applied to others than Louis.

The Governor and the Bishop are absent during this session.

Many Cases Under the title of Procurator (Attorney), Louis has acted in too many cases in order for us to list
them all. We shall simply report those that shows more interest towards disagreements or professional failures.
We must however bear in mind that we could report the same kind of incidents as much for the predecessor as
for the successor of Louis, or even the Attorney General of the Sovereign Council. In addition, we will report all
events, proceedings of the Council or the Provostship, decisions, orders or reports, having a relation with any
charges brought against Louis Bolduc.

20 October 1676 At last, the Provostship of Quebec orders that Louis’ letters of provision and the Sovereign
Council’s decision are registered so that he can “enjoy (…) following his requisition”.92

Not everyone agreed with this. “Everyone lives in this appointment from the protective intervention of
Frontenac. Duchesneau, the Intendant, took haste in taking the opposite side; he was soon followed closely by
Villeray (…)”.93

Did Louis have any suspicions to what was waiting for him? He was going to find out soon.

23 October 1676 The first presence of Louis Bolduc in a case as Attorney. He will hear his second case on
November 3rd. On November 10th, he will initiate his first decision with Louis Théandre Chartier de
Lotbinière.94

19 November 1676 That day, Louis T. Chartier de Lotbinière, as Judge of the Provostship of Quebec, carries
out an interrogation, from Louis’ query of the 15th of this month. The interrogation continued on 19 November
1676 and 9 January 1677. Louis gives a complaint against Jacques Renaud and his wife. Renaud and Jacques
LeBlanc are in trial before the Provostship. Near the following November 11th, the wife of Renaud says on three
occasions and before different witnesses, that Leblanc is not afraid of losing his trial against them because he
promised a healthy pig or 12 pounds to Louis Bolduc, Attorney at the Provostship, and thus if the LeBlancs
wins against them, it would have been by favoritism. All four witnesses confirm this, and one by hearsay.95

We do not have the text of Louis’ query. Perhaps there aren’t any. We suppose that Louis would not
have pursued Ms. Renaud if this accusation of venality had had the slightest foundation. Moreover, at
the trial which will be given against Louis, later on, this charge will not take part in the procedures.

Already only less than a month in his function has passed and Louis is charged of venality.

Since his appointment, Louis has already acted as Attorney in a few cases. His lack of experience and
lack of legal training do not appear to pose any problems. Moreover, he is not the only one in this
situation. There is no legal training yet in New France, and those who come from France with proper
training, are less than what is needed. The King is then advised, to designate for these positions people
of Quebec who have education, who suffer no less than an investigation in morality. This was the case of
Louis.

20 November 1676 Before the Provostship of Quebec, Louis, as an individual, instructs the miller Jacques
Manseau to pay him “three bales of fair and market bled (wheat)”. Manseau, despite the subpoena given him
made on the 17th of this month, to be present on this date, is not present and the cause is postponed.96

No proceedings relate any follow-ups to this remission.


132
15 December 1676 Before the Provostship of Quebec, Louis, as an individual, is sentenced to pay sixteen
francs and a cart of wood for fifty five sols, to Ignace Bonhomme. However, Louis claiming to owe forty sols
less, will have to justify, but he will have to pay costs.97

It is at least a little strange that Louis, Attorney [Procurator] of the King in this Court, cannot settle his
personal affairs without being made a record. Although within his right, and that he is not the only
officer of justice in this same situation at the time, far from it, since today, this would not appear as
professional.

14 January 1677 The Provostship officers are participating in a meeting chaired by Messrs de Villeray and de
Vitray of the Sovereign Council who are present, the Alderman, and several bourgeois and craftsmen of
Quebec. The purpose of the meeting is to hear the grievances of these representatives of several domains and
provide solutions to the problems raised. Decisions are taken concerning the price of bread, remote surgeons,
firearms control, bourgeois who employ clothes designers, retail sales of nails and the price of wine. Louis
Bolduc, as Attorney for the King, had his say on these topics at the beginning of the meeting.98

1 May 1677 By edict of the King, Mr. Louis Théandre Chartier de Lotbinière, Squire, Advisor, civil, criminal
and general Lieutenant in the Provostship of Quebec, is replaced by his son René-Louis.99

Louis Bolduc will therefore have to collaborate with this new Judge. We cannot determine how
influential this fact will be with the events that will follow.

30 June 1677 Louis, as an individual, bids 110 pounds on a quarter of a seized house in auction. He is the first
to bid, and others will offer higher sums.100

We cannot precisely establish Louis Bolduc’s income as Attorney of the King. As an example, we know
that his superior should have brought in a little more than the Royal Lieutenants of Trois-Rivières and
Montreal, who received each 450 pounds per year, excluding fees that they were allowed to have in
excess.101 We suppose that even with an income of more than 300 pounds, considering his financial
misadventures and obligations, Louis should not have been able to buy this share of the house. His
financial situation remains difficult to follow, but with perhaps added fees allowed with his charge,
which had to be more modest than his daily work, he might also have had unofficial income.

21 July 1677 Louis sues Mr. Gilles Rageot, who has acted as his clerk while taking an inventory and now
refuses to give him his share of the fees. Rageot replicates that he has received a summons by the Bailiff
Levasseur on the part of Mr. Changeon who, for some reason not specified, is protesting against Louis. The
Judge Chartier orders that the fees must be paid and that henceforth it is prohibited for Bailiffs and Clerks to
accept such summons against officers of justice. Moreover, and in adding, according to Louis’ claim, this
summon invoked by Rageot was not signed by a Judge as it should have.102

10 November 1677 Despite protests from Louis (whose details will remain forever unknown, the record being
erased in part), the Judge orders the closure of an inventory that he had done.103

10 December 1677 Birth, in Quebec, of Louise, seventh and last child of the Bolducs. She will be baptised on
Sunday the 12th by Henri Debernières. Frontenac will be her Godfather.104

15 April 1678 Louis and Elizabeth bring before the Notary Becquet, an annual allowance of thirty pounds to
the Reverend Jesuit Brothers, towards their debt of 600 pounds that they still have since 1670 to be paid.
However, all of their movable and immovable property will be put on mortgage for security of payment towards
their annuity. They stated that previously their belongings were not affected in any debt or mortgage.105
133
This contract indicates that, except what he owes to the Jesuits, Louis had no other debts in 1678.

18 April 1678 The Judge Chartier de Lotbinière must refrain from hearing a criminal case in which he would
be in a conflict of interests. Louis asks of the Sovereign Council to act as Judge instead of Lotbinière, only in
this case. This is concerning a charge against the wife of a certain Beaupré, who allegedly uttered insulting
words against the Governor and the father of Louis Théandre Chartier. The Council, following the opinion of its
Attorney General, denies this permission, not only to Louis, but to all the prosecutors of all Provostships. He
orders that they cannot judge in any criminal matter. They may only act as Judge in civil cases, between
individuals, where the King’s or the public’s interest will not be at stake.106

Even if this request from Louis may seem somewhat presumptuous on his part, we may detect from the
Council’s tone, the assertion of an authority which does not tolerate any competition. This request from
Louis is perhaps motivated by the fact that Frontenac is one of the two characters which are the subject
of insults.

This decision confirms that as Attorney of the King, Louis Bolduc may also act as a Judge, particularly
in civil cases between individuals. He will make many decisions of this kind.

8 July 1678 Sentence rendered by the Judge of the Provostship of Quebec in the case opposing Mr. Gilles
Rageot, Clerk, on one hand and René Sénard and Jean Aubry, Bakers on the other hand. This concerns a bill of
a hundred sols given to Rageot by Sénart and Aubray, Bakers. This bill presumably lost, has circulated between
several hands and Rageot ultimately seeks to be honored. The Court decides that Rageot will render the account
to the Attorney, Louis Bolduc, off-court.107

This sentence will be part of the corroborate events cited for the trial against Louis for embezzlement
(See #16 on 20 March 1682). We cannot determine in what way, in this decision, this can be used in the
trial against Louis.108

10 September 1678 Louis, acting as Prosecutor, accuses Jean Brière Lepérigourdin to have “cursed and
blasphemed the Holy Name of God (…) insulted, abused in words (…) hit (…) stunned, thrown in the water
and drowned (…) preventing (…) that said Lebreton, be rescued”. Following the interviews of witnesses and
taking into account the various reports and indictments of Louis, the Judge of the Provostship of Quebec
condemns Lepérigourdin to “be led in his shirt, bare head, rope to the neck, and a torch in hand in front on the
Church’s main gate (…) and then, ask for forgiveness to God, the King and to Justice (…) and then be led to the
large square of the lower-city to be hanged and strangled to a gallow, which for this purpose he will be clad, and
his dead body to remain there until nine o'clock in the evening (…) condemns also a fine of a hundred pounds to
the King and all the trial costs, declared from the surplus of his assets acquired and confiscated to the King
(…)”.109

16 October 1678 Louis buys 20 bales of treated wheat (the best wheat) from Pierre Morteuil, inhabitant of St-
Joseph, at the price of one hundred sols a bale. Half will be delivered to him for Christmas and the other half
February 15, 1679. He gives ten pounds cash and will pay the rest at delivery, in cash or with a bill order. Louis
knows well the wheat of this habitant for having already received some previously.110

Being impossible to know how many pounds of bread could be made with a bale of wheat, it is uncertain
to conclude that this purchase is for family consumption for a certain period of time, or that it was
purchased for commercial sales.

134
5 December 1678 Louis Bolduc presents a request to the Council to the effect of no longer being obliged to
present himself to the house of the Attorney General D’Auteuil, when he has admonitions to be made to the
Council in the course of his work.111

Lets clarify first what is an admonition in order to better understand this decision. The dictionary
Furetière (1690)112 defines this word thus: “Humble supplication made to the King or a superior, to pray
for reflection on the disadvantages or consequences of one of his proclamations or orders”.

Louis justifies his request thus: this practice is contrary to what is done in France, where prosecutors will
go to the Parquet to present their admonitions. But since there is no Parquet in Quebec, it would suffice
that the King’s Attorneys present their admonitions to the Attorney General at the entrance of the
Council; he also says “that to raise the charge of the Attorney General, it seems that it wouldn’t be fair to
do so by demeaning the Procurator of the King”; he adds that he will submit to the Council’s decision.

12 December 1678 The Council gives its reply which is included at the bottom of Louis’ query.113

Given that the decision of the Council will take place later, this response, according to the procedure that
we have observed, had to be to the effect that the query would be submitted to the Attorney General.

8 January 1679 Denis Ruette D’Auteuil, Attorney General, gives his opinion to the Council on this query. He
begins by denying Louis the right to present admonitions to the Council. He says: “there are grounds to be in a
surprise that said Mr. Boulduc pretends to know the law when it comes to things which concerns the King or the
public interest, to bring forth admonitions on his own to the Council, especially since he must surely know that
the functions of his office are bound within the confines in which is purely of simple jurisdiction of said
Provostship (…) unless he also purports to bear the functions of the Attorney General”. He adds: “it seems that
the Mr. Boulduc, by disdain or to demean his Ministry (of D’Auteuil), wants to designate the door to this room
as a Parquet”, and that in the presence of the guards, parties involved, etc., he can hear the attorneys’ advices;
“no one can deny that this was indeed to demean the responsibilities of the Attorney General, and that by such
the said Mr. Boulduc will not be acknowledged.114

23 January 1679 The Council decides that Louis will go “find the Attorney General in his house to let him
know what concerns the service of the King and of the public to make hear the decisions by said Council”. The
Attorney General “will remain in his said house every Saturday morning from ten o'clock until noon, to hear
from the Substitutes (King's Attorneys) on what they will need to relate back”.115

We have noted that the Council did not rule on the right to make admonitions; the Council avoids
making use of this word in its decision. Indeed, why would the Council issue a directive on this subject,
intended for the King’s Attorneys, if it was not allowed to do so.

The gloves are down, henceforth, a covert and subtle struggle between Ruette D’Auteuil, father,
continued on by his son who will succeed him, and Louis, will be pursued until the defeat of the latter.
Once again, Louis appears to be presumptuous and very naive. This request should have been submitted
by an Advisor or by Frontenac, of which we have noted the absence during this session of the Council.

24 March 1679 This sentence made by Chartier de Lotbinière has been recorded in the trial of Louis Bolduc.
In summary, François Hazeur asks the proper execution of the 17 March 1679 decision, with regard to costs. As
it would seem, the Bailiff Roger, following Bolduc’s instructions, would have incurred certain fees not
conforming with the 17 March decision. Roger will have to repay Hazeur, “except for his appeal against said
King’s Attorney (Bolduc)”.116

135
If the Judge takes the time to clarify the possible use of Roger against Bolduc, then there is room for
such an appeal. In the eyes of the Attorney D’Auteuil, there was fault on the part of Louis, since this
decision will be part of the assertions that will be made against him in his trial.

The case dates back to 4 March 1679. Louis Bolduc, as Attorney, addresses a summons to François Hazeur,
“here present, Layman in charge of the Church and parish of Notre-Dame”, in order to pay his debts. On the 5th,
he draws up an indictment accordingly, to Chartier de Lotbinière whom, on the 7th, issues an ordonnance as a
result. On 14 March, Bolduc asks the Court the execution of this order, and the Judge renders the following
decision: “Having fully considered and basing our rights on the indictment of said King's Attorney, we have
ordered the defendant (Hazeur) to warn or notify the King’s Attorney, of the day and time that he will report the
handling that he received of the money belonging to the work and manufacturing of said parish, to be present
and to attend the surrender of the accounts, without however having, in any way, to disturb nor prevent that they
are brought to concern but only as a way of inspecting, except for him in order to appeal in the case of
embezzlement.”117 This case will be continued on the 11, 14 and 18 April 1679, which contributes nothing
relevant to the facts of what we are analyzing.118

None of this seems to give Louis Bolduc any misgivings. However, he takes on an important and
considerable character. This case has been cited for his trial, probably in relation with the fees discussed
above.

27 November 1679 Death of Denis Joseph Ruette D’Auteuil, Attorney General of the Sovereign Council.119
“The Intendant Duchesneau offered to the Governor to insert the name of Ruette D’Auteuil, son, in the
provision letters which he held for two years (the name had been left blank). Frontenac was absolutely opposed.
He brought up, among other things, that the youth D’Auteuil was minor. To the objections of the Governor,
Duchesneau responded that the candidate was naturally endowed, that he had brilliantly studied in Paris, held
titles that he obtained and the experience that he had gained while working with his father made him, in spite of
his youth (he was only 22 years old), the most proper man in the colony to serve as Attorney General. The
matter was brought before the Sovereign Council. “It was decided that the Intendant was entitled to insert the
name of François-Madeleine-Fortuné Ruette D’Auteuil in the letters obtained in 1677, but that this appointment
would only be registered when he receives an age exemption from Louis XIV.” “In the month of June 1680, the
King appointed him Attorney General”.

From this point on ensued continuous quarrels, because D’Auteuil never missed an opportunity to counter
Frontenac. “In November 1681, Frontenac, at the peak of his fury, ordered him to go to France and bring back
(if he could) the age waiver that he had received.” Armed with his waiver, he returned to Quebec in the fall of
1682.120

31 January 1680 François Madeleine Ruette D’Auteuil, Attorney General, substitute in replacement of his
father, requires from the Council that under the judgment of 23 January 1679, Louis Bolduc, King’s Attorney in
the Provostship of Quebec, is required to go to the designated place every Saturdays from 10 hours at midday,
to work on matters relevant to his charge. The Council decides that this request will be communicated to
Louis.121

The judgment of 23 January 1679 does not direct Louis to go to the designated place every Saturday, at
the domicile of the Attorney General, but only when he would have an admonition to bring to the
Council. We can see here that the son D’Auteuil, after just a few months in his role, wants to have Louis
completely subjected to him; it is even more authoritarian than his father was towards Louis. We
suppose that Louis did not comply often, or not at all, to the judgment in question, and nothing tells us
that he has complied with thereafter either.

136
29 April 1680 Louis is in trial against François Hazeur, Merchant. Mr. de Vitray, Advisor to the Sovereign
Council, was appointed as rapporteur (investigator) in this trial. Louis presents a query to the effect that an
other rapporteur be appointed. He requests to the Council: “that the Council should subrogate (replace him
with) some other advisors instead of Mr. de Vitré, whereas since three or four years, he does not speak to him,
having had several disputes and very considerable arguments and thought of coming to hands (fists), that which
he doesn’t disagree with; of which he could be led to believe that said Mr. de Vitré still has resentments”. The
Intendant Duchesneau decided to refer to the Council, and he is resolute that Mr. de Vitré will remain as
rapporteur.

The same day, François Hazeur requests that Mr. Depeiras withdraws as Advisor in order to judge in this trial,
because of his alliance with Louis. The decision of the Council on this matter is postponed.122

Not knowing what matters of discord almost led Louis to using his fists, it is difficult to judge his
character and his relationship with others. However, this is not the first time that he finds himself in bad
terms with people that he frequents. Also, notice that while the Council is very sensitive concerning
conflicts of interest and order, it appears to be more advisable than absolute when it comes to Louis, to
whom it will refuse any request of recusal from an Advisor. Louis seems to have good reason to doubt
the objectivity of Mr. de Vitré for his trial.

8 July 1680 The substitute to the Attorney General, D’Auteuil (actually he was acting as Attorney General
until his appointment by the King and as such, it would be more appropriate to designate him as Attorney
General in the interim, for this word existed at the time according to the dictionary Furetière), here acting as
Attorney for his mother, Claire Françoise Clément Duault, requests that Mr. Depeiras, Advisor to the Council,
withdraws as Judge in the case of his mother against the King’s Attorney in the Provostship of Quebec, Louis
Bolduc, because he had apparently learned that Depeiras is Louis’ cousin by marriage. He argues that Depeiras
“could be influenced with too much zeal, to the support of said King’s Attorney (Louis) at the trial amongst
themselves”. The Council agrees to the application, and Depeiras will have to refrain from giving his
opinions.123

“Mr. Depeiras is linked to said Boulduc because of his deceased wife, to the extent prohibited by the order”.124

Amazing thing is, D’Auteuil, who is Attorney to the Council, will act before this same Board to
represent his own mother. Even if another Attorney General is appointed to this opportunity, there
remains that all members of the Councils are his colleagues and therefore a biased risk in his favor.
Shouldn’t the Council have exceptionally referred this issue to another jurisdiction?

The Same Day. D’Auteuil, having been notified the day before that certain posters in public places had not
been approved to be exposed by a Royal Bailiff, sends Louis Bolduc on the four to five hours of the afternoon
and tells him to remedy this before the next Board meeting of the Council. Louis not having complied,
D’Auteuil asks the Council to have him come and justify. Louis explains that he had only received this notice
around six o’clock in the evening, and he did not have the time to remedy the situation. The Council clears
Louis from this complaint, but he will have to correct the situation with the Lieutenant General of the
Provostship and notify D’Auteuil.125

The Provostship is taken at fault, but we don’t know between Louis Bolduc and Lotbinière who had
ordered the display of the posters, nor from whom this responsibility resided. The Council and the
Provostship are monitoring each other, and Louis, as a protégé of Frontenac, is a bright painted target for
D’Auteuil.

22 July 1680 Following the 8 July meeting, the Council decides that Depeiras will be withdrawn from the
judging concerning the case of Louis Bolduc against Hazeur.126
137
24 October 1680 Reception and insertion of François Madeleine Ruette, Squire and son of Mr. D’Auteuil, in
the position of Advisor to his Majesty and Attorney General, according to the patent letters of the King. It is
agreed (by the Council) that his Majesty will be notified by the Intendant of Mr. D’Auteuil’s age (he is only
twenty-three years old, and one became adult at the age of 25).127

27 October 1680 Louis Bolduc, as Prosecutor, addresses a reprimand to Lieutenant General Chartier de
Lotbinière and to the Attorney General D’Auteuil. He said that “he was given a complaint, two or three days
ago, that the named Denevers (…) allegedly extremely abused, on the beach, the wife of named Corrube,
Seaman, with blows of a stick and his feet with cursing so terrible (…), so that everyone was so outraged that
they councelled said woman and her husband to complain (…) but the fear that she had to disobey those who
had pleaded her to do nothing and to keep herself “in her own business”, was not even in a state to follow-
through and as such did nothing, but the matter being of too great a consequence to leave her unpunished (…)
asks from said King’s Attorney that he must be continuously informed, by said information, to communicate to
him, for a conclusion to be met with reason. In Quebec on October 27, 1680. Boulduc.”128

We have reported the text faithfully, though the wording is heavy and in part almost incomprehensible.

The matter in question here was brought in the alleges of the Attornay General at the trial that he sought
against Louis Bolduc (see 20 March 1682, #14). It is intriguing in several aspects. First, because it
appears to be from an admonition dated 12 March 1681 which bears, above the signature of Louis
Bolduc, the date of 27 October 1680, and even more intriguing, that it was inserted in two parts,
separated without any apparent reason, of the decision regarding a query dated 17 November 1679. All
this comes from a transcript by Mr. Guy Perron, of which we must be content with, as the original
remains impossible to find. Looking at the layout of the texts, one might think that someone has
attempted to insert a record, after the fact, but erred in the placement of its location.

On the other hand, the fact that this piece was brought at the trial, does it concern the dates, because
there are much more than just a few days between 27 October 1680 and 12 March 1681, or does it
concern the fear of lady Corrube of going against those who had ordered her to keep quiet?

29 October 1680 “On the requisition of the King's Attorney on this day, tending, for reasons wherein
contained, that he be advised against the named Denevers Brantigny, of excess committed, and ill-treatment
made to the wife of named Corrube, Seaman, on the beach of this city, together with the profanity and
blasphemy uttered by said Denevers, we have ordered that the witnesses be administered in front of us, at the
request of the King’s Attorney, to be informed of said excesses, abuse and blasphemies.”129

This proceeding, according to Guy Perron’s book, was written afterwards and following a normal
chronological order. This introduces a new date. Instead of the 27 October query of Bolduc, an almost
identical version is thus here dated 29th!

2 November 1680 A query from Louis Bolduc requests that he’s to be informed (that a pre-investigation is
made) to the fact that Pierre de Lalande “did nothing else but to laugh and blaspheme at the holy name of God
and in so dreadful a manner that everyone was scandalized, and all the while such profanity and blasphemy
remained unpunished.130

The Lieutenant General Lotbinière ordered to be kept informed.131

This query brings the assignment of two witnesses: Étienne Péloquin and Jacques Thibault. Here begins
the case of de Lalande, which will lead to the trial of Louis Bolduc.

138
4 November 1680 Étienne Péloquin and Jacques Thibault are sentenced to 100 sols each for failing to report
on November 2nd, to be interviewed as witnesses in the complaint against Pierre de Lalande. They are
reassigned to present themselves on November 6th, of free will or by force.132

5 November 1680 Query of Étienne Péloquin and Jacques Thibault concerning a fine imposed on them for
their failure to appear, on November 2nd, to testify in the case of de Lalande. They plead to the Lieutenant
General Chartier de Lotbinière, who has sentenced them to 100 sols each (see above), to give them back their
money. They recount that when they went to testify following their subpoena, on their way, they met the King’s
Attorney (Louis Bolduc), and that this latter, having been informed of where they were going, “distributed
(told) them that it was unnecessary to go because the case was accomodated (settled)”. Once back to their
homes, they each received a notice of defect to their new assignment and sentence, in the fine of which they
now had to pay right away.133

These comments of Louis Bolduc, reported by Péloquin and Thibault, do not necessarily prove that a
fault has been committed, since the matter of de Lalande could have been resolved in many ways.
However, confronted with the evidence of Pierre de Lalande and the lack of rush on Louis’ part to reach
a conclusion, we will see later on, that they are of prime importance in the charge against Louis.

6 November 1680 Étienne Péloquin testifies. He mentions being approximately twenty-five years of age, he is
a native of Larochelle, he is a Merchant and currently resides in Quebec on Sous-le-Fort Street. First, he asks
the Lieutenant General Chartier de Lotbinière, who holds the questioning assisted by Mr. Gilles Rageot, Chief
Clerk, to kindly dispose of his motion concerning him restoring the one hundred sols that he has paid in fine on
the 4th.

“On the facts contained in said indictment, declares that he knows the young de Lalande only since he has been
in this city, as a punctual man and that he usually only swears the holy name of God by ordinary means, and this
is all he is said to know. Lecture rendered, has persisted and signed”.134

Jacques Thibault testifies. He is aged 26 to 27 years, he is a Merchant, native of Saint-Martin-de-Ré in France,


and is currently located on Sous-le-Fort Street, in Quebec. Just like Péloquin, he asks Mr. Chartier to honor his
request concerning the one hundred sols fine that he had to pay.

“On the facts of charge contained in said indictment, discloses having heard a few times, the swearing of the
young de Lalande, the holy name of God and in particular a feud he had with de Lalande, his brother, where in
which feud, the said young de Lalande sometimes half-swore then took back, saying for God to forgive, and at
other times, swore completely, by blood, adding the holy name of God and that is all he is said to know. Lecture
rendered, has persisted and signed”.135

The charge of Louis Bolduc against de Lalande seems to have a certain basis.

In the questioning of these two witnesses, no question is asked concerning their 5 November query.
Morover, the query contains a statement to the effect that Bolduc had considered the case as settled. If
Péloquin and Thibault had reaffirmed their statement, their testimony would have become unnecessary.
Chartier de Lotbinière, working closely with Louis, his Attorney, could not have ignored that there had
or not been a settlement. The lack of questioning on the 5 November query is at the very least stunning.

13 November 1680 Letter from Duchesneau to Colbert, Minister of the King Louis XIV. “For the King's
Attorney of this seat, Mr. Boulduc, I do not need to hide you that he is completely unworthy of his charge. He is
accused of fraud, of theft from every house in which he frequents, of debauchery and an incessant pest, and
without Mr. the Count of Frontenac to protect him, I would have given him trial. I have simply for not

139
displeasing you, done to said Attorney of the King, strongly reprimanded him in the presence of Mr. Lieutenant
General”.136

Some have spoken of exaggeration concerning this letter. We were able to see that in their formal
exchanges between them, both Frontenac and Duchesneau use a direct language, designating things
crudely, albeit reverently and ceremoniously. However, their correspondences with the King or his
representative Colbert, are more nuanced. It is difficult to believe that Duchesneau, in speaking to the
King, would have given such accusations without proof or evidence. Which does not, however, exclude
that the expression "from every house" could have been an exaggeration.

29 November 1680 According to what was stated by the Attorney General D’Auteuil at the trial, referring to
29 November, the Lieutenant General Chartier de Lotbinière has sent the clerk of the Provostship to Louis
Bolduc to urge him to conclusion the case of de Lalande (see item #10 of the 20 March 1682 date, further on).

According to the order that he received, the Chief Clerk of the Provostship of Quebec, Rageot, presented
himself at the residence of Louis Bolduc in the morning and then the afternoon 26 October “to ask him if he had
concluded the said trial (against de Lalande)” but didn’t get to met him. He returned the following day, the 27,
“and having not found the King's Attorney but the Lady his wife, asked her if she could not tell the Mr. her
husband what he wanted. He told her that he came from our part (Chartier de Lotbinière) to know if said Mr. the
Attorney had concluded said trial, understanding that we accused, him the Clerk, of the negligence of not
having withdrawn such a trial”. On the 28, the Clerk showed up again at the residence of Louis Bolduc “and
having found but said Lady his wife, he asked her if she had taken the time to tell Mr. the King's Attorney what
she had been responsible for the day before, and having answered yes, without saying more, he withdrew”. On
the 29, “he had found said Mr. the King’s Attorney, to whom he had said that he had been going to his house for
three days, under order, to know if he was going to give him the trial that he had brought against the young de
Lalande; to which Mr. the King's Attorney answered that he had still not worked on it.” The same day, the
Judge Chartier de Lotbinière decides: “we once again have ordered said Clerk to go on our behalf to find said
Mr. the King's Attorney and to tell him that we invite him and urge him to give the trial back to the Clerk, with
his conclusions, otherwise, we would be forced to do what our duty commits us to do and to say to Mr. the
King’s Attorney that we have ordered, to the Clerk, in writing, to tell him said above and to give us his
answer.”137

Normally, the Attorney concludes with a report or an indictment within days of receipt of the
interrogation. Here, a total of 25 days goes by before Lotbinière asks Bolduc to conclude. This unusual
delay from Louis to conclude in this case does not plead in his favor. This tends to confirm that he
would have consider this case as settled. Furthermore, the absence of Bolduc from his home on the
second and third visit of the Clerk, without explanation, does not seem justifiable, and even less that he
has not left a message to his wife for the Clerk. For the Lieutenant General to come forth and threaten to
take responsibilities in respect of an officer of the rank of the King’s Attorney, His second-hand man,
indicates that he assumed that without this threat, Bolduc would not have returned his report (here called
trial). Had Lotbinière become suspicious towards his Attorney? Was there a link with the admonitions
that Duchesneau had made to Bolduc in his presence?

4 December 1680 “Upon the King's Attorney indictment of the first of this month, directing, for the reasons
contained therein, that the young de Lalande be assigned to appear in person, before us, to be heard and
interrogated on the facts contained in the information made by us, against him, upon request of said King's
Attorney, this past sixth day of November. We have ordered that de Lalande, the young, will be assigned to
appear before us, tomorrow at two hours of second rising (pm).”138

5 December 1680 Interview of Pierre de Lalande, Merchant of Bayonne, twenty-three or twenty-four years of
age, living while in Quebec with his brother Mr. Jacques de Lalande of Gayon, also Merchant, living on Sous-
140
le-Fort Street. The interrogation is conducted by René Louis Chartier of Lotbinière as Lieutenant General of the
Provostship of Quebec, on the request of Louis Bolduc from 1 December and assisted by the Registrar Gilles
Rageot. Pierre de Lalande has been assigned by Gosset, Bailiff, the day before.

Questioned about if he knows why the King's Attorney has informed (investigated) against him, he replies: “that
he knows that the King's Attorney has inquired against him, some time ago, but that he believed that there
would no longer be any comments about it, as promised by said Attorney of the King”. Questioned about how
the King's Attorney has made him this promise, he responds that on the day when Gosset, Usher, gave the
assignment to Thibault and Péloquin, he went to find Gosset who “told him to go find the Attorney of the King
and bring him something so that he wouldn’t pursue him (…) that the next day said Thibault (one of the
Attorney’s witnesses) sent him to seek and had told him that he was assigned and would be forced to tell the
truth and that he knew that having played together they had sometimes cursed and in so doing had advised him
to go (…) find said Attorney of the King and bring him four or five pistols, to what he responds (de Lalande),
took six white écus [coins] that he put in his pocket with four pieces of forty sols and a few pieces of twenty
sols that he already had and went to the King's Attorney (…) whom he found laid down in bed and had told him
(…) that he came begging him not to pursue him (…) (and) not plead in any way (against him) and that he
would give him what he would ask of him. On which said Attorney of the King had answered him that he didn’t
want any clashes and that he wanted to be his friend (…) and that he would talk to the King’s Bailiff and with
Péloquin and Thibault (…) and that he made good with him (…) that he gave the money he had in his pocket
(…) (that he had left) two pieces of forty sols, a few sols that were missing and a piece of twenty sols that he
gave to the children of said King's Attorney to go and pick up a bottle of wine so they could drink together”.

Lalande affirms that he could have in an outburst against his brother who beat him, had mentioned the name or
holy name of God, but that he had not cursed even if sometimes he could have also said that he would give
himself to the devil or that the devil take him away.139

This witness account is very incriminating. de Lalande’s affirmation against Louis could have been
regarded as given had it not been for the fact that Thibault and Péloquin had declared that Louis Bolduc,
on November 4, while on their way to testify, had told them that the de Lalande’s case was settled
(accomodated).

It will be on this first case that Louis will be charged with embezzlement. This accusation initially
appears inaccurate in its technical formulation. Indeed, according to the dictionary Furetière (1690), the
word malversation has rather the meaning of “misappropriation of funds” and this meaning has not
evolved even to this day. Assuming that the indictment was founded, he would have acted instead of
“corruption” but, however, this would have also changed the nature of the trial. Indeed, in the case of
embezzlement, there is only one accused, that is the one diverting the funds, while in the case of
corruption there is the one who accepts to close his eyes to a money sharing discrepancy; he is the
“corrupted”, and the one who gives the money is the corruptor. Both are guilty, which means that de
Lalande should also have been accused, of which nothing shows in the following procedures. In
addition, the Bailiff Gosset, the witnesses Péloquin and Thibault, the Clerk Rageot and the Lieutenant
General himself would have all been accomplices with their silence.

D’Auteuil has chosen to only accuse Louis Bolduc, omitting the fact that de Lalande would have bribed
him. If it was prohibited for Louis to receive money in this situation, this was also just as much for de
Lalande to have given him the money. It is only to Louis Bolduc, the protégé of Frontenac, that
D’Auteuil was aiming for, and the opportunity offered by de Lalande was too good not to be used. In
fact, although D’Auteuil, as Attorney General, is the accuser, it goes without saying, that it is for the
Council whom Duchesneau, sworn enemy of Frontenac, is the higher authority, to which he hands his
accusations.

141
These considerations however do not undermine the fact that there could have been a fault committed by
Louis Bolduc. Whatever was the exact nature; appearances and three testimonies were against him.

However, why wasn’t Gosset, nor Péloquin and Thibault, further questioned by de Lotbinière? These
two latter, having said that Louis Bolduc could be bribed, didn’t the necessity of their testimony become
apparent? We could have certainly discovered that this was a setup arranged against Louis, or of a
connivance against him. Péloquin, Thibault and de Lalande were all living on Sault-au-Matelot Street,
they knew each other, they had the same age (between 23 and 26 years), they were Merchants from
France, and they had spoken before de Lalande had testified before Chartier de Lotbinière. By revenge
and to exonerate the charge of blasphemy, de Lalande very well could have brought his two compatriots
into providing false evidence. However, could have Gosset also been a part of it? Or have they used
Gosset by giving him an assertion that wasn’t true or that was freely interpreted?

11 December 1680 “Complaints and denunciations, partly from Pierre de Lalande, Merchant of Bayonne,
following his request made to the Council on 11 December 1680 against Mr. Louis Boulduc, Substitute to the
Attorney General in the Provostship of this city, defendant and accused”.

16 December 1680 Sovereign Council Board meeting. It is learned that on December 5th, or no later than the
6th, de Lalande has filed a complaint to the Council against Louis, by a query to Intendant Duchesneau. The
latter decides, on the 6th, to refer this request to the Council, who learns of it on the 11th, and on the 15th the
Attorney General D’Auteuil writes his indictment covering its content.

The Council decides that all procedures performed at the Provostship in this matter, including Péloquin and
Thibault’s requests, will be given to the Attorney General D’Auteuil, who will be kept current and consider
what should ensue.140

The same day, or the day following his questioning with respect to the charge of blasphemy brought
against him, de Lalande adresses the Council to make a complaint against Louis, for embezzlement. He
will not be judged by the Provostship, as it should be, for his cursing and profanity, but the Sovereign
Council welcomes his accusations of embezzlement against Louis. From being the accused, de Lalande
becomes the accuser without further procedures.

Duchesneau and D’Auteuil, or more formally the Council, did they not take this opportunity to embarrass
Frontenac by attacking his protégé? It is quite possible, some writers have stated. However, the Intendant had
the power to investigate and to accuse in such a case as it will be later affirmed: “His Majesty, by His
instructions, states in clear terms, that in case no officers of justice or the Sovereign Council were charged or
convicted of misconduct, he (the Intendant) could interrogate them and give them their trial with said Sovereign
Council, but if they were only suspected, he then could give his notice to His Majesty in order to make the
necessary decisions”.141

1681 In the Census, Louis Boulduc is a resident of Quebec City. Listed are: himself, profession: King's
Attorney, 32 years; Elizabeth Hubert, 30 years; Louis Boulduc, 12 years; Marie Boulduc, 10 years; Jacques
Boulduc, 9 years; René Boulduc, 7 years; Marie Boulduc, 6 years; Louise Boulduc, 4 years.142

The first girl, named Marie, is Marie-Anne and the second is Marie-Ursule. Two children had Louis's
first name and the second does not appear on the list. He is probably deceased because we find no
further traces of him. The address of residence is not mentioned in this census.

13 January 1681 With regards to the complaint of 16 December 1680 (above), and that the documents have
been transmitted, and the indictment of the Attorney General D’Auteuil on the 6th of this month, the Council

142
decides that “Mr. de Villeray, Chief Counsel in this Court, is committed (designated) to immediately inform
(investigate) of the affirmed facts and embezzlement allegedly committed by said King’s Attorney (Bolduc).”143

20 January 1681 Query of Louis to the Council requesting “to be informed of a certain query presented by
Pierre de Lalande against him, and other documents if they exist, and that he be allowed the acte des
protestations that he has of all his spendings, along with damages and interests, with repair, such as there will
be as much against said de Lalande as others if need be”.

The Attorney General D’Auteuil presents his indictment that same day. The Council decides according to this
indictment that the decision on this query will be delayed until the started investigation is completed and
rendered.144

27 January 1681 “Another query on said Boulduc of the 27 of said month of January, concerning that it would
please the Council (to) order that he would listen to the charge of said de Lalande independently of the other
things that tries to discredit him, notwithstanding that said Attorney General did not try to research and find
information concerning his life and habits, as good as he may wish it for his defenses (Louis’) to the contrary,
but that it pleases the Council, above all, (to) provide for his repair, damages and interests, to the charge made
by said de Lalande; concerning which (Louis’ query) is brought to the order of the Council, being made that it
would be communicated to said Attorney General, (on) this applicant”.145

On 20 January, the Council refused to inform Louis of the charges brought against him, at least before
the end of the investigation. Already we could guess that it was not simply of the charge of de Lalande.
By this new query we learn that Louis knew that this was a more extensive investigation and right away,
he tries to isolate the charge brought by de Lalande. Despite the assertion that he will make his defence
with “the information of his life and habits” that the Attorney General is undertaking, which could be a
charade, does he not, precisely, fear this broad inquiry?

All appearances are against Louis in the de Lalande case, but by being judged independently in this case
he may think he’d be cleared one way or another, either completely or with a decision which would not
put his career in jeopardy. However, in being tried on all of his conducts, he might fear for his position.

3 March 1681 “Another query of said Boulduc of 3 March, concerning that it would please the Council (to)
order on the disjunction requested by him, that he would listen to the charge of said de Lalande, as independent
from that made by said Attorney General and that the trial is ready to be reported on the Council’s first day, for
any period. The end being at the bottom of it (of the query), of said day, having that it would be joined along
with the others, for in the judging, will be done right”.146

Louis continues to fight in order to be tried only for the case of de Lalande, but the Council continues to
pursue its broad inquiry and only adds Louis’ query to its records without further comments.

8 March 1681 There is more information (investigations and witnesses hearings), in the Louis’ case by the
Commissioner de Villeray on the 15, 20, 23, 24, 25, 30, and 31 January, 1, 26 and 28 February and this 8
March.147

We could not find the reports of those interrogations. It seems clear that these eleven days had to be
devoted to stories that goes beyond the simple case of de Lalande.

10 March 1681 The Council is studying Louis’ last query (above) in response to the Attorney General
D’Auteuil’s advice. Frontenac is present. Duchesneau, who is ill, is replaced by Louis Roüer de Villeray as
Intendant:

143
“The Council, expecting that Mr. Louis Roüer de Villeray, First Councillor of said Council, Commissioner in
this part (examiner in the case against Louis), has said that he has only received the trial and interrogation
(examination) in question, between his hands, on Friday at ten o'clock in the morning and that he had been
obliged, the next day, to hear the witnesses, he nevertheless promised to report everything on the first day of the
assembly of the Company (Council).”

“The Council has ordered and is ordering that said query shall be attached to the others, for the report of the
interrogation should be done right and with reason for within the week, following Mr. de Villeray’s offers.”148

Concerning the separation of the complaint of de Lalande from the other charges, although the request
from Louis appears very legitimate, the postponement of the decision on this subject, up to the extended
investigation to be completed, does not presume at this time that the separation is denied. In a case of
embezzlement charge, it may be normal to investigate to ensure that it is not an isolated case. Moreover,
the complaint of de Lalande is but the trigger of a wider query on the professional habits of Louis,
ordered by the Intendant, by the powers which are vested in him. This is how we interpret the agreement
given by Frontenac in that decision, because he was not opposed.

However Frontenac will use another way to try and embarrass the Council in this case in particular, and in many
others at the same time: “Mr. the Governor says that since the Court was busy researching the abuses that the
officers may commit in the administration of their duties, he was surprised that the Attorney General D’Auteuil,
who reveals much intensity in being clarified on certain encounters (informed of certain situations), maintains
silence in others and conceals them, though he cannot ignore them. As for him, the Governor, he cannot proceed
in this manner as he would fail in his duties (…) and thus, he cannot prevent but to notify the Company
(Council) of two notable failures made by Mr. de Villeray in a feat (notice of assignment)149 which fell into his
hands and which is similar to many others (…). The first, in which said feat is not presented (detailed)150 and
which is not formulated against which the witness must be heard, although the procedures of the King’s orders
brings (specifies) it expressly, and the second concerning the attributes of a Squire given to Mr. de Villeray
without him producing on this any title which might show proof (…)”.151

This method, which could only have been to slow down Louis’ case, will however lead to epic
disturbances, full of comebacks between the Governor and the Council. However, the strategy of
Frontenac, from which knowing by his experience, that this method could only lead to nothing, seems
shady. Was he looking to save time, for what purpose? Was he looking instead to just embarrass the
Council one more time?

17 March 1681 This day and the following are to be of note in regards to the strained relations between the
Governor and the Council. They occupy each ten pages of reports after being decrypted and printed, and there
are follow-ups. This consists of a long series of conflicting interpretations, arguments, pretentions and retorts
that involve a relentless back-and-forth between the office of the Council and the Governor, who removed
himself from the deliberations following his own decision. One can see the bad faith and the stubbornness of
both parties. These divisions focus on a single subject: the reproaches of Frontenac on two delinquencies in the
notice of assignment of the witnesses, issued by or for Mr. de Villeray. In the background, the investigation on
the charge against Louis Bolduc. We must limit ourselves to the most significant passages and summarize the
rest.

Mr. de Villeray declares himself ready “to report the interrogations made before him as Commissioner in this
part, at the request of the Attorney General against Mr. Louis Boulduc King’s Attorney in the Provostship of
this city and for that purpose (has) placed on the desk said interrogation which, even so, on said last day (last
meeting), he was placed but in just one pleading [exploit] along with several similar others, and there were two
deficiencies, and became necessary to look at these (because) some invalidity were introduced, it would be to
determine whether such information would be reported in the state they’re in, or repeated (…). Has been said
144
(the Council decides), that he shall proceed in the judgment of incidents (the two deficiencies) concerning the
matter in question prior to come to the bottom [conclusion]."

Mr. de Villeray requests to the Council that Mr. Depeiras, parent of Louis, refrain from judging concerning the
subject of said pleadings affected by the two deficiencies because “said Mr. Depeiras could, for the interest of
said Mr. Boulduc, skew so that such pleadings were declared null and void (…). Has been said that said Mr.
Depeiras will refrain from the judgment of said incidents.152

We have seen above that the wife of Mr. Depeiras was the cousin of Louis by alliance.153 However, this
degree of kinship is a cause of recusal according to the order of the King.

Still in the same session of the Council, concerning the two deficiencies, Mr. de Villeray asks: “that the Council
be informed that he has committed no abuse or violation, that he believes to have (shown) sufficiently by the
reports that he has placed in the hands of the Attorney General, however, as he has subject (motives) of fearing
that Mr. the Governor, having been warned as he has shown (having a bias), was still not, if he was attending
the review that the Council would make of said responses, it pleased the Council (to) please ask my said Mr. the
Governor to abstain himself from assisting to said review and to which will therefore be ordered of said answers
and to leave the Company in a state to opinionate (judge) with freedom.” The Governor counters concerning the
decision asking Mr. Depeiras to not judge. The Council decides that Mr. Depeiras “will refrain from assisting
and opinionate on said query.”154

Discussing the query concerning the deficiencies criticised by Frontenac, the Attorney General “has said that
being (according to) the order, when there are a few requests to ask that a judge refrain from judging on a case,
he withdraws to know if indeed he will be judged (decided) as needing to withdraw. This is why he urges my
said Mr. the Governor to have the agreeability to do it (…). On which the Governor has said that in order not to
bring trouble, without prejudice to rank, that he has pleased the King (to) have given him in the Council, nor in
what he is obliged to carry out, he withdraws, protesting to give notice to His Majesty of how business was
addressed in the Council, so that it would please to give order.”155

After discussion, the Council decides that “Mr. Governor will plead very modestly on the part of the Company
by Messrs D’Amours and de la Martinière, Advisor in it (the Council) to please refrain from the judgment of the
things used in his admonition”. Upon their return the designated Messrs “have reported that he (Frontenac ) had
said that he would give notice to His Majesty of the compliment (!) that the Company was sending him to
do”.156

Considering the admonitions made by Mr. the Count of Frontenac, the responses provided by Mr. de Villeray
and the indictment of the Attorney General (see next paragraph), the nobility titles inventory of Mr. de Villeray,
and the pleading assignment given by the Bailiff Roger to Mr. Jean Lechasseur Secretary of the Governor, the
Council decides to delegate again Messrs D'Amours and de la Martinière with Frontenac for “kindly allowing
the course of the trial against Boulduc to continue towards the request of said Attorney General, if necessary by
such pleadings such as the one in question, as long as it is not contrary to order, and concerning the nobility of
Mr. de Villeray, that the examination of such be delayed until we have learnt the will of His Majesty concerning
the nobility thiefs of this country”.157

Essentially, the very elaborate responses of Mr. de Villeray to the admonitions of Frontenac, are
summarized thus: concerning the wording of the pleading, he has ordered the Bailiff Roger to assign
Lechasseur who has utilized the usual formula, and the Attorney General, who must approve these
orders, saw nothing in particular; concerning the titles of nobility, he has not used them in the pleadings
since waiting for His Majesty’s decision and if He has given them, it would only have been done by the
Bailiff without having to ask for His advice. The Council has accepted its justifications while turning its

145
efforts on the details of nobility title verifications, for which no one in the colony is nominated as only
the King may appoint a Judge to this effect.

The indictment of the Attorney General on the admonitions is more precise. He says concerning the wording of
the pleading, that “him, the Attorney General, did not believe or was forced to believe until now that this
formality was necessary, the order didn’t request it under penalty of being void in a criminal case of this
importance, which demands great secrecy, as much to preserve, in some way, the reputation of an officer of this
consequence (and as much for) as the witnesses are not subjected by the acclaim or acquaintances that an officer
usually has under such a charge. The King doesn’t mention that he wishes that these formulas have the force of
law, other than the fact that the Judges have not always felt compelled to follow them, (that) even the Council
didn’t felt tied to it. Moreover, Mr. de Villeray, while not responsible for what a Bailiff does (…) being him, the
Attorney General who has given these orders to the Bailiff (…)”. In brief, concerning the nobility titles of Mr.
de Villeray, he says that it is true that the decision of the Council on the state of the King defends the taking of
other qualities than those which are recorded but in the acts and the docket registries of the Council, which
would not be the case of a pleading. He elaborates at length on the powers to assign, verify and to judge these
titles.158

If it appears to us that Frontenac went there in a drastic manner by bringing these admonitions as
measures that we find only to cause delay, D’Auteuil did not hesitate to use a quite literal interpretation
of the Royal convocations and shady arguments, even suggesting that a pleading would not be
submitted, and did not hesitating to say that he had directed himself for the Bailiff to deliver this
pleading while Mr. de Villeray had claimed that it was him who had made it; it even bore his signature
and his title. On the other hand, de Villeray said that the Bailiff utilized the usual formula, and D’Auteuil
invoked arguments to the effect that the wording was designed specifically to protect the reputation of an
officer such as Bolduc. The case of Louis is therefore used as a pretext for a fight for power.

18 March 1681 Messrs de la Martinière and D'Amours give report of their visit at the Governor, to whom they
read the Council’s decision from the day prior, concerning two admonitions made against Mr. de Villeray. “The
Governor gave his reply that he had not allegedly prevented that the procedure ensued, although there was a
lack in the pleading, something against the disposition of the order, concerning the formulas, and that he only
wanted to represent to the Company, so that it was remedied in the future. As to the quality of a Squire taken by
Mr. de Villeray, it was somewhat surprising that the Council had been able to speak in the manner it did,
considering the order that he (Frontenac) had sent not to take (the quality), which it claimed to prevent, and that
the Council could not touch his order, not being justifiable of said Council”.

After that visit, the clerk of the Council came to inform the Governor to kindly attend the Council meeting. The
Governor told him “that as he thinks they could speak, this morning, of the trial of Mr. Boulduc, King’s
Attorney in this city, and (that we) think of him as favorably for him, that the Company has imagined yesterday,
that it should be unfavorable to Mr. de Villeray, to remove any suspicion, made sure to be there, and asked that
the reason for which he will be absent be marked on the registry".

Frontenac, to come to Louis Bolduc’s defence, his protégé, after having initiated the use of questionable
delays, that he abandons in part (concerning the writing metods), now decides to no longer participate in
the trial judgment, for fear of being accused of favoritism. He does not however abandon the fight as can
be seen later on.

At that meeting, the Attorney General D’Auteuil reports the skirmishes concerning the assignment of
Lechasseur, Secretary to the Governor, last witness to hear the case against Louis Bolduc: 1° the Governor
allows the assignment; 2° Lechasseur, instead of presenting himself, “contented himself to merely send an
officer of my said Mr. Governor, to say to Mr. de Villeray, that being at work on the matters of Mr. the
Governor, he couldn't find himself at the assignment, but that if Mr. de Villeray was willing, he only had to go
146
to the Castle after having heard the other witnesses and that he would hear him there”; 3° the Governor said to
D’Auteuil, who will see him shortly, that Lechasseur can be assigned at any time; 4° order is given to the Bailiff
to assign Lechasseur again; “which Bailiff having returned, told us that my said Mr. the Governor had told him
that not only he didn’t allow him, but that he prohibited him” to assign Lechasseur; 5° D’Auteuil goes again to
the Governor who tells him “that it was true that he prohibited it as well as to the Bailiff, and that we will not be
allowed to do it”.159

The behavior of Frontenac seems to be erratic. This inconsistency is surely not the most effective way to
exonerate Bolduc of the charges weighing against him. You might think that the Governor didn’t know
what means to use to pull his protégé from the claws of the Council. And, this quirky hindrance that he
places on the testimony of his secretary leaves some doubts on what the latter could reveal. Were there
schemes between Frontenac and Bolduc where Lechasseur would also be involved or a witness to?

On Louis’ query requesting the separation of the complaint from de Lalande from the other grounds of
investigation that the Attorney General is pursuing, learning that the Council could decide upon, Louis
“reportedly went to Mr. the Intendant begging him not to be present to the visit (the inquiry) of said
interrogation nor (be) his judge in this case, expecting the prevention (opinion or prejudice) that he had testified
having against him, which would have been as far as to deny him his order to receive his wages, that he
couldn’t have been purged (judged innocent) before, as if he had been secured of a conviction (as if the
intendant would have been certain of his guilt), (it is) why he urgently begged him to strip himself from all
knowledge in this matter”. The intendant replied that he would submit his request to the Council. Issuing then
his opinion to the Council on this query, he declares “that he had always been far removed from having any
deterrence against anyone, and particularly against justice officers (…) and notably the King’s Attorney of the
Provostship, since from several encounters, he had shown (reproached) him and even had requested him to
carry well his charge, and that shortly after receiving the orders of the King from last year, believing himself
obliged to summon the justice officers to urge them to fulfil well their duty, he warned said King’s Attorney, in
the presence of Mr. Lieutenant General (Chartier de Lotbinière) and of the Clerk of said Provostship, to take
care from a few unfortunate rumors running about him being complained against, and that he should change his
conduct if he was guilty, that he would be upset to do something against him”.160

Was Louis so naive as to believe that the Intendant, who had accepted the charge of accusation of de
Lalande and had extended the inquiry to cover all of his behaviour, would withdraw the judgment of his
case in consideration to the fact that the Governor had removed himself as well? He had good reason to
fear the trial because of the lack of sympathy that some members of the Council appeared to have
against him, but were there other reasons too? Judging from his approach, he appears to be desperate.

It is hard to believe that the Intendant would have concocted the rumors about Louis and the complaints
that he previously received. Without knowing their nature, their revelation tends to show that Louis had
perhaps good reasons to fear his trial and to use all means at his disposal to be tried only on the charges
from de Lalande. However the statements made by the Intendant and the reference to a convocation
from the King, suggests to us nevertheless that Louis was not the only one who’s behavior was not
above reproach. The habits of the time surely tolerated a few escapades with the law, notably concerning
the fur trade, and other more or less lawful means to round out modest incomes.

Following his presentation to the Council concerning the query of Louis, the Intendant asserts that concerning
the order for payment of his wages, considering the rights attributed to him given by His Majesty, “he should
feel obliged to (…) take into account his conduct but only to the King, on this point”.161

We cannot say since when Louis was no longer receiving his wages but the fact remains there, he now
was no longer being paid for some time. What are his financial resources to make ends meet for him and
his family?
147
The Council returns to the proceeding of the Attorney General concerning the assignment of Lechasseur, and
decides that “Messrs D’Amours and the Attorney General will shift towards Mr. the Governor, to make him see
said proceeding and to get from him his wishes on it”. “And having been reported that Mr. the Governor is at
Church, he was caught up with upon his return to find him amongst his representatives”.

20 March 1681 The Attorney General and Mr. D'Amours give a report of their visit to the Governor. “He
would have told them that before moving on to other things, he wished to see the report to the Council by said
Mr. D'Amours and of Mr. de la Martinière on their selection of the preceding day, not pretending there were no
talks about it, but, however, having been given the report by said Attorney General of his proceeding, he (the
Governor) would have found it true in its entirety, except that he said that the Attorney General would have
forgotten to put, in him, that he was defending him just as well as he had done to the Bailiff, to have given
deeds in the resultant interrogation against said King’s Attorney in the Provostship of this city, while the quality
of Squire would be given to Mr. de Villeray. To which said Attorney General told him that he would like to put
in his proceeding what he was saying, as long as it would show that it would appear to come from the Governor
who would be saying it, and not by the Attorney General, not having memory that it was said by my said Mr.
the Governor, anything else than what is contained in said proceeding, but however, my said Mr. the Governor
would have continued to request that the report of said Messrs D'Amours and de la Martinière was reported
back to him”.162

Who’s telling the truth? D’Auteuil certainly defies the Governor with daring, but even if he is right, he
will find remorse.

Later that same day, the Clerk, returning from seeing the Governor, who had held him back to give him
documents intended for the Council, which will merit him the reproaches of the Intendant, since the Council
was waiting for him, presents these papers to the Intendant, saying that “Mr. the Governor would like that this
was the first thing to which the Council worked on, my said Mr. the Governor was unable to”. This paper only
continues the long squabble concerning the prohibition identified by Frontenac, of questioning Lechasseur as
long as the deed didn’t clarify the wording, and that de Villeray was identified as Squire of the King. Frontenac
confirms that he was part in his ban of the Usher Roger, to the Attorney General, to Messrs de la Martinière and
D'Amours, and has even sent it in writing to Mr. de Villeray. He added that “if the Council had been informed,
either by the Attorney General or by Mr. de Villeray of the defense we made to the latter, to take the quality of
Squire, it (the Council) was too cautious to be wanting to establish justice in our orders that we only had to
answer for the King and as such the Council shouldn’t find strange that we could not receive the proof that was
being made on the subject (the decision of the Council based on the proceedings of the Attorney General) (…)
And even in the position that we are, we did not feel the need of a witness to add faith to things of this nature,
where no one can have any interest than us, and which therefore cannot be challenged but to bad intent towards
ourselves, however, as chance has found that there were a few persons…”.163

Follows, in the Council, the declaration of the witnesses cited by the Governor. The Bailiff Roger confirms the
affirmation of the Governor. However, he mentions that in his report to the Attorney General, he did not
mention the reasons for the ban. Depeiras, who was in the antechamber of the Governor and “watching Messrs
de Tilly and Boulduc play Trictrac164” heard the Governor forbade the Attorney General to send similar deeds
where the wording was incomplete and where the title of Squire was given to Mr. de Villeray. Depeiras also
says that he has mentioned to the Attorney General that the motives for the ban did not appear in his
proceeding. The Clerk gives his own version, being present along with Messrs D'Amours and de la Martinière
during their visit to the Governor. He confirms the version of these gentlemen, and adds that the Governor has
said that if the Council had been warned by the Attorney General and Mr. de Villeray of his defense in the latter
to use the title of Squire, he would not have dared to speak up on this subject such as displayed in the
proceedings that was sent to him. Messrs D'Amours and de la Martinière confirm this version, but denounce the
addition that states that if the Council had been warned by the Attorney General and Mr. de Villeray, it would
148
not have ruled on the subject. The Intendant requires the views of all members present to know if Mr. Depeiras
and the Clerk are telling the truth, and in summary, it has been found that those who say as the Governor has,
are not credible. The Clerk is blamed for this addition. Then Mr. de Villeray establishes by the testimony of
Bailiff Roger that he has not given order and he did not know that the title of Squire was given to him in the
forbidden deeds. This long day ends after subtle questioning on whether the Council members were aware of
the order given in writing to Mr. de Villeray by the Governor to the effect that he had banned him from taking
the title of Squire, and unanimously they have said to ignore it.165

The Attorney General only remembers what suits him. The Council is clearly divided into two clans:
those who normally support the Governor, and those who follow the Intendant and the Attorney General.
In the proceedings that we have studied, the clan of the Intendant always wins. The positions of
Frontenac are not always the most sustainable. Bolduc, in all of this, serves as a pretext and has no
equity necessary to an objective investigation.

21 March 1681 We are continuing on the same subject. The Attorney General gives his replies to the statement
received by the Governor yesterday, and his view on the testimony of Mr. Depeiras. In short, he persists in his
offer to the Governor concerning inserting in his proceeding, from the visit that he had made, the prohibition
that the Governor claims to have pointed out to not send any deeds in which the wording would not be explicit
and where the title of Squire would be given to Mr. Depeiras, provided it is mentioned that it was the Governor
who added such insertion, because the Attorney General has no recollection of it. Concerning the testimony of
Mr. Depeiras: “He cannot, either, give evidence of anything whatsoever concerning said trial, since he has great
interest to weaken everything that said Attorney General does in this case which continues against his parent,
supporting said Attorney General that said declaration is contrary to the truth in both matters (…)” He asks the
Council to join him in asking the Governor not to prevent the investigation, either pursued or that it be reported
in his state, i.e. without the testimony of Lechasseur.166

D’Auteuil doesn’t dare say that the Governor is lying, he says instead that he has no recollection of his
declarations, but for the testimony of Mr. Depeiras, in short he says that he cannot tell the truth, being
biased, so he lies.

The Council decides then that Messrs D’Amours, de la Martinière, the Attorney General and the Clerk will
inform the Governor of the proceedings of the previous day, and of the answers from the Attorney General to
know what will be advised. Frontenac responds “that from now on we shouldn’t know to bring too much
caution on the selections (…) and on the answers that he would have to give”, he asks that he should be given a
copy of the proceedings and of the answers from the Attorney General in order to “respond with more leisure”.
The Council agrees to his request.167

24 March 1681 The Clerk went to urge the Governor to attend the meeting of the Council, and him being in
bed, presents a paper to the Clerk asking him to deliver it to the Council. This paper is his response to the
selection of Messrs D'Amours, de la Martinière and of the Attorney General the day before. Essentially, he
repeats that he advised Messrs D'Amours, de la Martinière and the Attorney General, not only of his
prohibition, but also on the motives concerning the delivery of deeds such as the one sent to Lechasseur, his
Secretary. Having read the proceedings of the Council on this subject, given him by Messrs the Representatives,
he says: “such is great the force of truth, which establishes itself at times even in areas where we seek to destroy
it”.

On this, the Council decides that Lechasseur will be convened in the manner ordered by the Governor.168

27 March 1681 “Certain proceedings made by said Advisor Commissioner (deVilleray) on the 27th of said
months and years (March 1681), in working on said interrogation and on the pretensions of Mr. Jean Lechasseur

149
Secretary of my said Mr. the Governor assigned to be heard in testimony, of which (proceeding), is the order of
said Advisor Commissioner, as long as he refers to the Council.”169

14 April 1681 “Decision reached (by the Council) on said injunction on the following 14 April, and all the
charges made as a result, consisting of the transport (meeting) of Mr. Mathieu D’Amours and Claude de
Bermen de la Martinière, Councilors, with the Clerk to Mr. the Governor. Their report.”170

21 April 1681 The Governor responds to the selection of Messrs D'Amours and de la Martinière of the 14th of
the same month: “Let’s say that the injunction that Mr. de Villeray is making is such a great waste of time
(niaiserie), that the Council should have instead dealt with resolving ongoing cases, than to consume itself in
such trivia, which only serves to illustrate the brilliance of Mr. de Villeray and to mark the weak consideration
that he has for our character (title or position) in any areas that he may find. Done in Quebec on 16 April 1681.
Signed, Frontenac.”

Still in the same meeting, the Council decides that Messrs D'Amours and de la Martinière, with the Clerk, will
go see the Governor “to urge him, whereas by what he has written, he doesn’t explain on the quality that he
wishes, in the evidence that must be given by said Lechasseur, his Secretary, in front of Mr. de Villeray, to
clearly make known to the Company, of his intention on this.”. He also mentions that the Bolduc case “is one of
the most considerable matter that the Council could have, since it concerns the rationale or the conviction of an
officer, and that every delay made to prevent it being reported are very harmful to the public and everyone
involved”.

To this new declaration, the Governor “replies that he has nothing else to say than what is delivered in his
writing, if otherwise, to add that when he had qualified the injunction of Mr. de Villeray as a waste of time and
trivial, he never heard (the intention to) talk about the lawsuit filed by the Attorney General against Mr.
Boulduc, but only of the difficulty that Mr. de Villeray had made on the testimony of his Secretary, as it is easy
to see in the terms written thereof which we couldn’t give further explanations”.

The Governor admits that the Bolduc case isn't a niaiserie.

Not satisfied with this response, the Council decides that Messrs D’Amours and de la Martinière, with the
Clerk, “will go anew” and urge the Governor to specify the quality that he wants to be given in the testimony.
Does he wants that Lechasseur be qualified of “Secretary of Mr. the Governor where one contends to just be
treated as a Secretary of Mr. the Governor, pursuant to the decision of the Council of His Majesty who adjusts
the quality of those attending the Council”? The Governor “again reiterated that he has nothing else to say than
what he has said this morning, and what is in his writings, the matter at hand is undeserving any other
response”.

Faced with this last response, the Council decides that Lechasseur will be assigned and “in case the same
difficulty arises, in writing down the quality that must be given to Mr. the Governor and that it does not
displease my said Mr. the Governor to make known his intention on it, that the interrogation (investigation)
which is (in) question will be reported in the state that it is, except for directing an additional interrogation, if
must be done”.

The Governor, informed of this decision, “replied nothing back otherwise that he was angry that this was giving
them such trouble”.171

24 April 1681 During the previous meetings, Messrs de Tilly and Depeiras have requested to withdraw
themselves from the deliberations of the Council, for all causes. They claim that the Council has given itself the
right to judge the acts of the Governor by accepting to intervene in the case of de Vaultier, a servant of the
Intendant that the Governor had imprisoned. They had presented an admonition to the Council to that effect,
150
and requested it to be considered in priority, which was denied to them, and had merited them a severe warning.
They are therefore not present in deciding on the final report of de Villeray concerning the assignment of
Lechasseur, who recommends that the trial is continued without the questioning of Lechasseur, which is
approved by the Council. The Advisor Dupont, being also a witness in the Bolduc case, and Governor refusing
to interfere, the number of Judge-Advisors does not meet the minimum required for the Council. Moreover, a
substitute Advisor is not available, and an other has to be appointed. The Council finally decides that the Bolduc
case will be postponed to the following Monday in the state where it is.172

28 April 1681 “The Council has ordered and is ordering that said Boulduc will be postponed to appear in
person, to be heard and questioned on said charges and interrogations. Mr. Louis Roüer de Villeray, Chief
Counselor, Commissioner for this purpose, to this matter is reported and ordered (after which) will be told what
will belong. That said queries (of Louis, concerning the complaints separation of de Delalande and of the
Attorney General) will be and shall remain attached, so in judging, will have respect for reason; and concerning
the Bailiffs Roger and Gosset, in so far as they may have complicity in one of the mentioned and said
interrogation, suspended to pronounce (decided with the report) the questioning and personal answers of said
Boulduc; and is retained, regarding said Roger and Gosset, shall not be delivered with regards to said Boulduc”.

So far in this investigation, we put aside the possibility to investigate concerning the alleged complicity
of Roger and Gosset.

With respect to the trial between Mr. Louis Bolduc and the Clerk Gilles Rageot, also of the Provostship of
Quebec, the report of the Advisor D'Amours will be delivered to the Advisor de la Martinière, who will act in
this case as Attorney General.173

30 April 1681 Louis Bolduc is replaced as King’s Attorney in the Provostship of Quebec: “By which was
brought about by the Attorney General, having signified to Mr. Louis Boulduc, King’s Attorney in the
Provostship of this city, the personal adjournment decree (assignment to appear) against him from the judgment
of the 27th of this month, in consequence of which, he is in full right prohibited (to practice) following the order,
and being necessary to substitute him (a person), for the good of justice, he (D’Auteuil ) is required to this
purpose, he is to be committed in said office of King's Attorney until said Boulduc is purged of the
circumstances imposed (has finished with the studies in his current files). Has been said (it has been decided), as
need be, that Mr. Pierre Duquet, Judge Bailiff of the County of Orsainville and of the jurisdiction of Notre-
Dame-des-Anges, is made (designated) to serve these functions (…)”.174

After four years and a half of service, Bolduc is prohibited to practice and relieved of his duties as
Attorney of the King, until he is sentenced or cleared on the charges brought against him.

5, 7, 8 and 10 May 1681 Louis is questioned by the Commissioner de Villeray (see June 23).

23 June 1681 Concerning his interrogation, Louis declares and states that: “it would have been satisfying to
have heard from Mr. the Commissioner that he be allowed to have the right by the charges found against him,
and that he be informed of the result of the interrogations sustained by him, coming to any conclusion as good
as he seems. Has been said (the Council has decided) that the query shall be communicated to the Attorney
General for his reply, seen (after having looked at) what will be ordered to be”.175

14 July 1681 New query from Louis who requests again the communication of the examination that he has
received.176

19 July 1681 Other query from Louis in the same matter.177

151
21 July 1681 The Council decides: “In the light of the charges and interrogations, the interrogation by said
Boulduc from Mr. Louis Roüer de Villeray, First Advisor Commissioner in this part of the fifth, seventh, eighth,
and tenth of this last May, (the) query of said Boulduc of 23 June and 14 of this month (July), (and the) query of
said Attorney General around which everything was communicated, has been decided that before giving (the)
right, said Boulduc will repeat his interrogations, before said Commissioner Advisor, to do right and
communicate to said Attorney General and report as having done right and for truth”.178

What has happened for the questioning to be repeated? No justification is provided in the proceeding.
Did D’Auteuil want to delaying the trial yet again, just like Frontenac had done? Were Louis’ answers
incomplete, dubious or insufficiently incriminating? Were they looking to obtain his confessions?

29 July 1681 “Repeat of the interrogation on the 29th of said month, done by the said Commissioner to said
Boulduc, upholding his refusal to answer, and the order of said Commissioner, from the refusal, that he would,
by him, be referred to the Council.”179

4 August 1681 Louis was notified on 28 July that his interrogation would be taken up, which takes place the
day after: “Repeat of the interrogation of said defendant (Louis) restarted on the 29th of the same month,
containing his refusal to answer, order to be then referred, and the report of said Mr. Commissioner. Has been
said that said repeat (…) will be communicated to the Attorney General (…)”.180

Louis was not given the proceeding of his first interrogation, and they want to re-interrogate him. Do
they want to make him stumble over his own answers? His refusal to answer can certainly be
understood.

26 August 1681 Mr. de Villeray has to report to the Council in the case against Louis. However, the Governor
and the Bishop were absent, Mr. D’Amours being imprisoned by order of Frontenac, Mr. Depeiras being in
conflict of interest and Mr. Dupont being one of the witnesses, the number Advisor is insufficient to reach a
minimum needed for the assembly. Concerning Mr. de Tilly, he “has said that he had reasons which he had
explained, for which he could not be one of the Judges in this matter, and urged the Company that he would be
withdrawn. Having heard of this, the Attorney General, and since said Boulduc, who had told the truth, there
has been two months that he had not spoken to Mr. de Tilly, that however, he had no difficulty in remaining his
Judge, if it was only that he had no knowledge of the statement of the trial, having not attended the Council in
the time passed. And said Boulduc was removed.” The Council decides that two new Judges will be appointed
to supplement the missing Advisors and shall participate in the decision of the removal of Mr. de Tilly.181

This is the first time, in a proceeding, that it is mentioned that Louis Bolduc shall attend a meeting of the
Council in connection with his trial.

30 August 1681 Turn-around of Louis concerning the removal of Mr. de Tilly. He presents the following
query: “Request of said Boulduc on this day submitted that, for causes within contained, and expecting that he
exposes that he could not help but have some concerns and suspicions if said Mr. de Tilly remaining his Judge,
having done his possible in coming to him with intelligence, to which he (didn’t) want to hear, but on the
contrary, (Louis) knows that he does not wish him well and that in many meetings, he had spoken about him to
his disadvantage, (as) witness, yesterday, [to] Duluth, where Nolan lives, where he deciphered him (talked bad
about) in a strange manner, (it is) why he asked, that without stopping further on this incident, he would proceed
along to the lecture of his queries, so as for conclusions (be) made on them, and adjudge him.”

Mr. de Tilly “has said that he had already asked by grace to the Company to dispense him from attending the
judgment of the trial of said Boulduc, who is not a bad mouth and that, without some considerations, he would
ask for the restoration of said query, and that if said Boulduc marked in which terms he claimed that he had
spoken ill of him, he would bring the truth.”
152
“And said Boulduc being asked, to which being brought to hear what was alleged by said Mr. de Tilly, has said
that one of his friends had reported in confidence and without any particularization, that yesterday he had said
many things to his disadvantage, which gave rise to this friend to withdraw, and that it seems enough by what
Mr. de Tilly has said, that said Boulduc has good interest that he is not one of his Judges.”

“The Attorney General having heard of this, and Mr. de Tilly having returned, of the above mentioned lecture,
Mr. the Intendant would have told him that there was no capital intimidation, which is one of the reasons of the
order to prevent being a Judge. Mr. de Tilly has added that by everything which is written above, it seems
enough that there is hatred between him and said Boulduc and that even, he (of Tilly) has opened (has admitted)
in several meetings of the opinion there would be if he were his Judge. Said Attorney General having heard
anew the case in deliberation, has said that Mr. de Tilly will abstain from the judgment of the trial of said
Boulduc.”

Louis is certainly not in harmony with several members of the Council: he has already almost come to
blows with de Vitré, he has asked the Intendant to withdraw stating that he was against him, and now it
is Tilly who is openly against him.

1 September 1681 The Council decides that “said Boulduc will be interrogated again and questioned once
more on the resulting charges and inquiry made against him, that others may be supplied in the office by said
Commissioner, on which said Boulduc will reply positively and this until (until now), suspended to be allowed
the queries made by him”.

On August 14 Louis had already refused to answer again the questioning he received in May.

5 September 1681 “The Council has given its break until the following twenty October, that the Company will
honor, except to assemble on the extraordinary prosecution by the Attorney General against Mr. Louis
Boulduc’s trial, King’s Attorney in the Provostship of this city, and only on the other criminal trials and
businesses that will require haste”.182

The Council is caught up in this trial since December 1680.

17 October 1681 “Seen at the Council, the repeat of the interrogations (…) of this past 13, 15, 16, 19, 20 and
22nd of September (…) the Council has enabled and allows said Attorney General to inform by addition (add
new testimonials) before said Mr. de Villeray, ordered solely for this purpose, said Attorney General will
ceaselessly bring the witnesses that he claims to be heard, for this matter and reported (after which) to be (will
be) ordered that which will be justice”.183

Louis’ position seems clear: on one hand, the Council refuses to answer to his queries, and on the other,
Louis has received a first interview which lasted four days; he refuses to give further collaboration. The
Council moves on and allows the pursuit of the investigation.

2 and 23 October 1681 The Attorney General informs by addition and prepares his indictment.184

24 October 1681 “Seen by the Council (…) The interrogation, confessions and denials of said Boulduc,
judgments of the past twenty-first of July and first of September, repetition as a result, containing his refusal
and the summations and request to answer by him by the said Councilor Commissioner, the addition of an
interrogation containing the hearing of two witnesses from yesterday and before, three queries mentioned in
said judgment of said first day of September, an other query of said Boulduc of the twentieth of this month
(and) conclusions of the Attorney General who had knowledge of all: the Council, without stopping at said three
queries, has ordered and orders that the witnesses heard and said interrogation will be reassembled (confronted
153
with) in their testimonies, and if necessary, confronted with said Boulduc. For these purposes, committed (is
designated) Mr. de la Martinière. To make things right as well as for truth, yet however, prohibition of said
Boulduc to communicate with the witnesses, by him, nor by anyone else, directly or indirectly, under arbitrary
penalty, and being caught and convinced (recognized as guilty) of the cases imposed on him (the charges) and
that said request will remain attached to the trial for judging, for such regard as to the truth”.185

We only know as witnesses, heard by the Commissioner, in addition to de Lalande, only the names of
Dupont, Roger, Gosset and possibly Lechasseur. Frontenac will assert that there had been close to
seventy witnesses (see below), we are however unable to find any such reports or proceedings, on the
interrogations conducted by the Commissioner of the Council.

To confront the witnesses with their testimonies, the Council appoints an other Counselor other than the
one who has collected these testimonies, and he judges that it is not mandatory that they be confronted
with the accused Bolduc.

25 October 1681 The sentencing of the Council, from above, is served to Louis.186

29, 30 and 31 October, 3, 4, 5 and 7 November 1681 The witnesses were confronted with their testimonies
and have also been faced with Louis by Mr. de la Martinière.187

13 November 1681. Letter of Frontenac addressed to Colbert, Minister of the King Louis XIV, concerning
Louis Bolduc: “I did not wish to point out to you, Mister, in my first letter, that I am giving myself the honor to
write to you eleven months ago that the Attorney General advised to bring a criminal charge against the
Attorney of the King in the Provostship of this city, because it is not pleasant to Mr. Duchesneau who has done
this by means of his faction, and prohibiting him of his charge simply on the denunciation of a man from
Bayonne who is negotiating here and since two months has been released to go to France, against my resistance,
because they saw that they could not prove the things that they had brought forth against him. However, since
the Attorney General did not have the evidence that he had hoped, requested to be informed of his life and
habits from his 17 years in this country, although it has been only six since receiving his charge as Attorney of
the King, without any complaint or objection, and he has provided seventy witnesses without having found, in
what is said, any matter to establish a conviction against him, which is cause after all the squabbles made to
extend the matter in this case, and notwithstanding a large number of queries submitted by the Attorney of the
King to ascertain, their last query was to have their tattletale who is Mr. de Villeray ask from me to take leave
for France where he’s only been back from in a year, which has obliged me to refuse, in order for this officer to
have justice, in which he was resolute, Mister, to go and ask you, on the oppression pretending to be under, if
his trial had been tried before the departure of his ships, and could have brought to you all sorts of evidence.”
Frontenac.

188

“I understand that some have been sending to France signed shipments of interrogations against the King's
Attorney, but none of his interrogations are sent, nor his confrontations that can justify what he’s being accused

154
of. If it only is, Sir, for you to know, you shall see by this the good faith, and the cunning of those with whom
he’s up against.” Frontenac.189

Almost everything said in this letter would justify what we emphasize, but our attention is drawn to a
new information. According to Frontenac, this entire process is but a vast conspiracy by Duchesneau to
lose Louis Bolduc.

15 December 1681 Query of Louis to the Council. He is saying that in accordance with the 24 October
decision of the Council, he had been confronted to witnesses who had been presented to him “without the
Attorney General (de la Martinière in lieu of D’Auteuil) had taken the time to conclude and put the trial in a
state deemed to be conclusively judged or even give his opinion to the query that he, said King's Attorney, had
presented to the Council on the 20th of said month of October”. The query submitted by Louis on the 20th was to
be informed of the escape of said de Lalande, “his accuser and informant”. By this query Louis was also asking
that he was allowed “to seize and stop all the money and effects that he would find in this country belonging to
said de Lalande for the safety of his costs, damages and interests”. Louis adds: “for the false accusation by him
(de Lalande) implicating him, said King’s Attorney, which delay can be seen as that said Attorney General
(D’Auteuil, prior to his departure), had no other wishes, in every prosecution, than to molest and torment said
Attorney of the King (Louis, himself) and not to justify him, because far from having taken facts and causes (to
defend him), it appears (that) through all the procedures that have been made, he had no other desire than to
seek his ruin, if he (would have) been possible and if all (the facts) was that he would have been able to prove
all the slanders that have been so maliciously charged against him; to which he did not succeed, he was forced
in order to be satisfied to have dragged said trial for eleven whole months, to the detriment and honor and (the)
reputation of the said King’s Attorney (Louis) and his businesses, whose very large family, as the Court can see,
suffers significantly and cries out revenge. And (it is) why he has recourse to the Court to provided (decide) and
please (the Court), (to) order that said trial shall be brought to the first meeting day of the State (heard by the
Council)”.

We must honestly report that the delays accumulated in the study of this trial are not solely because of
the Intendant or of the Attorney General; Frontenac has an at least equal liability.

Mr. de la Martinière says that he has only been fulfilling the functions of Attorney General since when
Frontenac has given the order to D’Auteuil to go to France in November 1681.190 And since, in these
circumstances, he did not have the time, that the Council had not met, that he was unable to predict that he
would occupy these functions, and that he had not considered that in this capacity, he could have been aware of
this case. Therefore, he had asked the Council knowledge of the query and of the entire trial to entail (to accuse
or not), or present to the Council what it may consider him to do.

The Council decides that all parts of the dossier and procedures made against Louis Bolduc by the Attorney
General D’Auteuil will be communicated to Mr. de la Martinière “to finally conclude if fact had been (if this
has not been done) by said Mr. D’Auteuil or seek what he will advise.”191

Actually the acting Attorney General admits that he knows little in the Bolduc case, that he had not
foreseen this replacement, and that he was not ready to proceed on this 15 December 1681 day and
requests that he’s handed over the entire dossier.

18 December 1681 Standing before the Notary Romain Becquet, Louis Bolduc acknowledges owing 190
pounds, money borrowed from the Reverend Jesuit Fathers, “necessitated for the urgent needs” (of his family).
He promises to repay the amount in the next eighteen months. This loan is in addition to the pension which they
have promised to pay the Jesuits annually on 16 April 1678 (see above).192

155
5 January 1682 “The answer on January 5th of Mr. de la Martinière, Advisor to the Council, stated at the
bottom of said query (Louis’s query of 15 December 1681), being as it may, or need to be on the functions of
Attorney General of the King, held in his absence, on what the query mentioned above him had been placed in
his hands, the trial made together (with the query), against said Boulduc, Substitute, as a result of said ruling on
15 December, since the Attorney General is absent, and given that said Attorney General had definitively
concluded on said trial, in which there were other queries tending (to the) same purposes, he [Mr. de la
Martinière] did not believe he had to conclude (on the) other query of said Boulduc, brought while the trial was
on his desk, suggesting that he should be granted news of the charges and revelations made against him as well
as the questioning rendered, to make as good a decision as he could (take).”193

In sum, D’Auteuil had figured everything, and de la Martinière, who did not have the time to really
study the documents, endorsed his conclusions, even saying that the last query that Louis had presented
was to the same effect as the previous ones. The numerous queries submitted by Louis are all rejected
and there is no disclosure of his testimony nor from the witnesses.

16 March 1682 “Mr. de Villeray said that although the Company is not accustomed to assemble after the
Monday preceding the Holy Week, however, as he is in a state to bring about the trial of Mr. Louis Boulduc, the
Substitute of the Attorney General in the Provostship of this city, he would gladly do it if it would please the
Company to assemble for a few days this week, as an emergency measure, in consideration to how long ago it
was begun. Has been said that the Council shall meet tomorrow and the following days if necessary for the
attending and the judging of said trial.”

17, 18 and 20 March 1682 – The Trial.194 The Council attends in the morning and afternoon. Are present: the
Bishop Monseigneur de Montmorency Laval, the Intendant Duchesneau, the Councillors Louis Roüer de
Villeray, Mathieu D’Amours and Claude de Bermen. The quorum of five is barely there. The absence of
Frontenac is to be noted. Also to be pointed out that it is Mr. de Villeray, Chief Counsel, who is acting as
Attorney General in place of François Madeleine Ruette D’Auteuil, sent to France on Frontenac’s order.
However, as it will emerge in the trial, he [de Villeray] only presents D’Auteuil’s dossier.

Let us note the absence of the accused who cannot defend himself. The main accuser is also missing
since he has escaped prison. However, these absences are not exceptional, this was rather usual for the
Council at the time. The word “trial” was not necessarily in the same sense that we know it today, but
this method of procedures takes its roots from that time period, especially when the Council is to review
a decision made by an other instance. However, in this case, it was not an appeal, but what could be a
real trial.

The Attorney General accuses Mr. Louis Boulduc, King’s Attorney in the Provostship of Quebec, of crimes and
embezzlement based in part on a complaint, and the accusation of Pierre de Lalande, Merchant of Bayonne,
dated 11 December 1680.

The proceedings report that the Attorney General details a very long list of proceedings from Council
meetings or from the Provostship, of decisions, orders, judgments, queries, reports, requisitions,
interrogations, etc., that he connects to the case of Louis Bolduc. However, let’s note that these are not
necessarily evidence of acts or actions by Louis, but a list of events in which the Attorney General
makes Louis a part of, without specifying in what way he is affected. They are therefore not alleged
materials, considerations or motives. These are pieces submitted by the Attorney General who
summarizes some, but with no elaboration. It is possible if not probable that the Attorney has filed
written account concerning at least the witnesses’ interrogations, but these written accounts are to be
found nowhere today. What is obvious, is that Louis Bolduc was not present nor represented, and there
were no witnesses to be heard. Moreover, in the proceeding, there is no mention of the content to any
testimony, or the name of any witness, as such.
156
The Attorney General invokes or refers to the following items, which are given verbatim, but with our modern
spellings and punctuations, while adding a few parentheses to clarify certain words and listing them numerically
for convenience. Unfortunately, we find the repetition of several events reported earlier, but we wanted to
mention the proceedings of the trial in its entirety, without omitting a single word:

1. “Seen by the Council, the trial is given and instructs of its order, to the query of the Attorney General of
the King (D’Auteuil), plaintiff in crimes and malpractice”;
2. “complaints and accusations, in part by Pierre de Lalande Merchant of Bayonne, following his query
made to the Council on 11 December 1680, against Mr. Louis Boulduc, Substitute* of the Attorney
General in the Provostship of this city, defendant and accused”

* In the Provostship, Louis is still designated as Attorney of the King, while members of the Council are
designating him as Substitute of the Attorney General of the King;

3. “verdict (of the Council) on 13 January 1681 given as a result of the query of said Attorney General
(D’Auteuil ) for the sixth of said month, by which (verdict) Mr. Louis Roüer de Villeray, 1st Advisor,
would have been committed (designated) to inform (investigate) of the alleged facts and of the
embezzlements allegedly committed by said Boulduc,”
4. “the cases of the trial begun by the Lieutenant General (Chartier de Lotbinière) in said Provostship, at
the query of said Boulduc in his quality of Substitute, mentioned said indictment, (namely) a query from
said Boulduc on 2 November 1680 suggesting that he was to be informed* of what said de Lalande was
accomplishing nothing else than swear and blaspheme the Holy Name of God, and in so dreadful a
manner that everyone was scandalized, and at the same time that such swearing and blasphemy had
remained unpunished.”

* The procedure can be summarized thus: following a complaint, the King's Attorney requests to be
informed, i.e. requires that a sort of preliminary investigation is carried out by the Judge, and following
the report, Louis [the “Procurator”, or Attorney] decides if there is matter for prosecution, and if such is
the case, carries out a complaint and writes an indictment meant for the Judge.

5. “Decree of said Lieutenant General on the same day (2 November) on what he (Louis Bolduc) would be
informed”
6. “deed (exploit) signed by Gosset on the 4th of said month (November), bearing summons for the query
[requête] of said Substitute to the named Étienne Péloquin and Jacques Thibault (witnesses in the case
of de Lalande), Merchants, to submit in front of said Lieutenant General (Chartier de Lotbinière), in
virtue of his said decree [ordonnance]”;
7. “offence on said day, fourth of November, against them (Péloquin and Thibault ) for their failure to
appear, with a conviction of 100 sols fine each, and that they would be reassigned”
8. “query of said Péloquin and Thibault to said Lieutenant General of the fifth of said month so that said
fines that they had been forced to pay, were repaid, as they had done said offence but on the word of
said Substitute (Louis Bolduc).”
9. “Examination made by said Lieutenant General, on six of said month, concerning the testimony from
said Péloquin and Thibault, his order (of the Lieutenant General) of said day written below, with that it
would be communicated to said Substitute along with the said query (of Péloquin and Thibault, on the
5th), and a copy be given to him, to require (accuse or not) from these (the) informations and respond to
such query (of the 5th) what good he will advise”
10. “certain proceedings of said Lieutenant General of the 29th of said November, including, among other
things, the dispatch of the Clerk of said Provostship to said Substitute (Louis Bolduc), to urge him to
conclude on said interrogation (concerning de Lalande)”

157
11. “And query of said Substitute being thus from the first December of said year (1680), suggesting that
said de Lalande be assigned to appear in person”;
12. “Interrogation done by the Lieutenant General to said de Lalande on 5 December as a result of his order
on the previous day, bearing that he would be adjourned (assigned to a given day) to appear personally.”
13. “Other cases taken from the Clerk of said Provostship by the said Attorney General, namely; an excerpt
from the registry signed by Rageot, concerning the attendances of said Substitute to the hearings of said
Provostship, and his absences since 11 April 1679 up to 18 January 1681.”
14. “Query of said Substitute on 29 October 1680, suggesting that he should be continuously informed about
the named Denevers for having mistreated the wife of named Coruble, and to have uttered appalling
swearings.”
15. “Order of said Lieutenant General (Chartier de Lotbinière) of said day of consequence, bearing that the
witnesses would be administered to the query of said Substitute in order to be interrogated”
16. “Certain sentence of said Lieutenant General on 8 July 1678 made between said Rageot, Clerk of the
Provostship, on one hand, and René Sénard and Jean Aubray, Bakers, on the other (hand), by which on
what said Rageot would have concluded that said Bakers be sentenced (to) give him count (return the
money) of 100 sols brought as a bill, lost by him, adjudicated bill signed by Lechasseur and dated 25
March of said year (1678), addressed to Mr. de la Ferté and given to the named Lafontaine. The parties
(having) heard, them (they) brought out of court, except said Rageot to withdraw by the side of said
Substitute to account to him if such is the case.”
17. “An other sentence of said Lieutenant General on 24 March 1679, delivered between François Hazeur,
Merchant, bourgeois of this city, here Parish member of labor and estate of Notre-Dame of this city
(Quebec), on one hand, and Guillaume Roger, Usher, of said jurisdiction, on the other hand, and said
intervening Rageot; on the other hand, by which, for the causes within contained, said Roger is
sentenced (to) reimburse to said Hazeur, fifty sols, same sum to said Rageot and twenty sols to the Usher
Hubert, except said Roger, his appeal against said Substitute (Louis Bolduc) as he will advise and order
(that) the paper remain in the registry.”
18. “Other extracts of the registers of said Provostship on 25 November 1680 whereby said Boulduc,
Substitute, acknowledges receipt of said Clerk, the interrogation made from the query of Pierre Gilbert,
Merchant, against Jean Garros, including four parts listed by first and last, and the addition of the
interrogation of two witnesses by a query.”
19. “The verdict on 20 January 1681 made upon a query submitted to the Council by said Substitute,
suggesting to have news of the query, presented against him, by said de Lalande, and other cases, if
there were any, and that he was granted an act of protestation of what he was doing, at his own expense,
damages and interests, with the appropriate repair, as much against said de Lalande, as others, if need
be, asking the concurrence of said Attorney General, who orders the verdict, said done according to the
queries of said Attorney General, that he would be delayed to pronounce until the information was
completed and reported”
20. “Other query from said Boulduc on 27 January of said month of January, suggesting that it would please
the Council (to) order to be heard on the charge of said de Lalande independently of the other things that
were looked into in order to discredit him, notwithstanding the added research and information that said
Attorney General is doing research and information on his life and habits, as well as good it deems, his
defenses (Louis’) to the contrary, but that it would please the Council, above all, (to) provide for his
repair, damages and interests, for the accusation made by said de Lalande; at the bottom of which
(Louis’ query) is reported the order of the Council, given that it would be communicated to said
Attorney General, (on) this applicant”
21. “Other query of said Boulduc on the 3rd March following, suggesting that it would please the Council
(to) order on the disjuncture requested, that it would hear the accusation of said de Lalande, as
independent from that made by said Attorney General and that the trial was put in a state to be reported
on the first day of the Council, for any period. The verdict being at the bottom of it (the query), of said
day, providing that it would be attached along with the others, to be taken into consideration, done
justly.”
158
22. “Other verdict on the 10th of said month, intervening on the query of said Boulduc, of said day, bearing
that said query would be attached to the previous ones, for the report of informations, done justly.”
23. “Other verdict of same day, reached on a reprimand made by Mr. the Governor concerning two
shortcomings that he said was made by said Commissioner (the Investigator Mr. de Villeray) in a deed
(notice of subpoena to testify in the case against Louis), which had fallen into his hands and was similar
to many others, as to what he had learned, given accordingly to the orders of said Commissioner on the
same topic, said verdict relating, among other things, to said Attorney General who would be kept
current in all.”
24. “The four verdicts of the following 17th (17 March) rendered on said reprimand, together, the responses
made by my said Mr. the Governor to the members (members or advisors) of the committee of the 18th,
after which was brought what Mr. the Governor would have told the Council by the Registrar.”
25. “Verdict of said Council on same day, and of its proceedings dated 12 of said month of March in the
morning and of the rise (in the afternoon), bearing that Messrs Dupont and Depeiras were continuing to
be absent from everything concerning the interrogations made against said Boulduc.”
26. “Other verdict of said day as a result of (the) query from said Boulduc, suggesting that it would please
the Council (to) grant him the very humble plea that he was giving Mr. the Intendant to refrain from
being present at the visit (study) of said interrogations and of the judgment that could come about as a
result. Together, on the answers of my said Mr. the Intendant, here mentioned, by what (which?) the
Council would have declared inadmissible the causes of objection alleged by said Boulduc against my
said Mr. the Intendant, and ordered that he would remain Judge and stayed to decide on the fine.”
27. “Certain proceedings made by said Commissioner Advisor (de Villeray) on 27 of said months and years
(March 1681), in proceeding to said interrogations, and by being a part of them on the claims made by
Mr. Jean Lechasseur, Secretary of my said Mr. the Governor assigned to be heard in the testimony,
under which (proceedings), is the order of said Commissioner Advisor, bearing that he would refer to
the Council.”
28. “Verdict reached (by the Council) to said referred on the following April 14 and all the prosecutions
rendered accordingly, consisting of the visit of Mr. Mathieu D'Amours and Claude de Bermen de la
Martinière, Advisors, with the Clerk, to Mr. the Governor. Report of them (their report).”
29. “Responses of my said Mr. the Governor on said proceedings of which had been given him the
expedition as requested by him; said responses dated of the 16th of said month and to the Registrar on
the 21st.”
30. “Affirmation of said Commissioner, given as a result of said answers and affirmation of said
Commissioner of said day 21st.”
31. “Other visit of said Messrs D’Amours and de la Martinière with the Clerk to my said Mr. the Governor,
pursuant to said verdict”
32. “Other verdict of said day 21st, delivered as a result of the answer of my said Mr. the Governor and the
report of said members; the Attorney General hears, other visits of said Messrs to Mr. the Governor to
the desire of said verdict”
33. “Response of my said Mr. the Governor; verdict reached in consequence on 21 April.”
34. “Other visit (meeting) of said members to Mr. the Governor desired by said verdict; their report.”
35. “Other proceedings of said Commissioner on the 23rd of said month of April being then inquired (from
27 March?).”
36. “Finally, said interrogation on the appearance of said Lechasseur, assigned to be heard anew in
testimony, comprising of the admonitions of said Commissioner Advisor (de Villeray) on the claims of
said Lechasseur; his referred order of said day and verdict of 24 April.”
37. “Interrogation made by said Commissioner Advisor on 15, 20, 23, 24, 25, 30 and 31 January, 1, 26 and
28 February, 1, 3, 5, and 8 March 1681.”
38. “Certain record signed Rageot, dated 16 March 1679, mentioned in the testimony of the 30th on said
interrogations and in said above sentence, dated 24th of said month of March 1679, by which it appears
(that) said Roger, Bailiff, having receiving (would have received) of said Hazeur, seven pounds, ten sols,
at the bottom of which (journal), (it) is ordered of said Roger by said Lieutenant General (to) reimburse
159
said Hazeur, fifty sols, after his tax on said journal, penciled ne varietur (so it can’t be altered) on 28
February 1681, signed Hazeur and Roüer de Villeray.”
39. “Verdict of the 28th of said month of April (1681) bearing that said Boulduc would be adjourned to
appear (at a given date) in person to be heard on said charges and informations. To that effect said Mr.
de Villeray Clerk (is designated) and that said queries would remain joined.”
40. “Significating deed made by said Boulduc, of said verdict, being at the bottom of it (of the latter), at the
query of said Attorney General, with assignment to appear in person, within the week, in the criminal
room of said Provostship, before said Commissioner, to be heard on the charges and informations. Said
deed (convocation) dated on said day 28th, signed Métru.”
41. “Other verdict of the 30th of said month rendered as a result of what would have been brought by said
Attorney General of the King, in which Mr. Pierre Duquet was committed (designated) to perform the
functions of said charge of Attorney of the King.”
42. “Interrogation lent (received) by said Boulduc, before said Commissioner Advisor on the dates of 5, 7, 8
and 10 May, including his responses, confessions and denials; order of said Commissioner, from him
reported, at the bottom.”
43. “Other verdict on 23 June, intervened on the application of said Boulduc, including that pursuant to his
subpoena that had been given to him on the 28th of said month of April, to appear before the
Commissioner Advisor, he (would) have met and have been heard; query of him being given
communication of his interrogations, to collect such conclusions as fit he would seem; said verdict
bearing that said query would be communicated to the Attorney General for his conclusions, seeing he’s
given what belongs to him.”
44. “Other query from said Boulduc of 14 July, also suggesting that he’s to be ordered that he should have
communication of the interrogations sustained by him, as well as the charges brought by the
interrogations made against him, to give rise to justify himself of the false charge made against him by
said de Lalande and the slanders given him by said Attorney General, that he would do more easily
knowing that he was never capable of such actions and that he would not find any witnesses, his
accusations seen, who could have said that they had seen him give injustice to an honest man.”
45. “Order of said Council, on said day, placed at the bottom of said query (July 14), showing his mark.”
46. “Query of said Attorney General of the following 19th.”
47. “Verdict on 21 of said month (July), bearing that before (to) doing right, said Boulduc would have
repeated in his interrogations before the Commissioner Advisor, to this fact, and communicated to said
Attorney General and reported having acted right.”
48. “Deed of assignment accordingly given to said Boulduc, to appear before said Commissioner on the date
of 24 of said month, signed Métru, being at the bottom of said verdict.”
49. “Repeat interrogation on 29 of said month made by said Commissioner to said Boulduc, including his
refusal to answer, and the order of said Commissioner, after the refusal, that he would, by him, be
referred to the Council.”
50. “Verdict given according to said referral, on the following 4 August, stating that said repeated
interrogation begun would be communicated to said Attorney General, for him to deliberate, on such
conclusions or queries that he would consider appropriate.”
51. “Verdicts on 26 and 30 of said month and year (August 1681), on which, for the causes contained, have
been ordered that Mr. de Tilly, Advisor, shall refrain from the verdict of the trial of said Boulduc.”
52. “Verdict on 1 September, with three queries within mentioned, bearing the one on 21 July would be
executed and in so doing, that said Boulduc would be repeated in his interrogations and questioned again
both on the facts resulting from the charges and informations, made against him, that others could
potentially be made into office by said Commissioner, on which said Boulduc responded positively, and
up to, the right to stay on the queries presented by him.”
53. “Deed of delivery of said verdict to said Boulduc, on the 5th of said month (August), signed Métru, at the
bottom of said verdict.”

160
54. “Continuance of repeat interrogations of said Boulduc on the past 13, 15, 16, 19, 20 and 22 September
(1681), including his refusal to answer, admonitions and arraignment of said Commissioner, in
consequence, and no answer, confession and disclaimer of said Boulduc.”
55. “Order of said Commissioner, then afterwards, bearing to show himself on said day, 22 September.”
56. “Verdict on 20 October (1681), by which, it is permissible of said Attorney General to inform by
addition.” (To continue to proceed after a first interrogation is close and decreed (Littré. Op. cit. (#31)).)
57. “Interrogation by addition of the 22nd and 23rd of said month of October (questioning of witnesses)”
58. “Other verdict on 24 of the same month.”
59. “Three queries of said Boulduc.”
60. “And the preparatory conclusions of said Attorney General on the 23rd of said month, mentioned in said
verdict with an other query on the 20th,”
61. “said verdict bearing that without stopping on said queries, the witnesses heard and said interrogations
would be recollés (confronted) in their evidence and if necessary, confronted to said Boulduc. To these
purposes, committed (is designated) said Mr. de la Martinière, Advisor to said Council, and as such be
ordered, to what is reason; with the defense of said Mr. Boulduc to communicate with the witnesses, by
him, not by a third party, directly or indirectly, under arbitrary penalty and having been convinced of the
cases against him; and that said query would remain part of the trial.”
62. “Deed of delivery of said verdict to said Boulduc on the 25th of the same month, signed Marandeau.”
63. “Gathering of the witnesses heard and said interrogations and confrontations from them to said Boulduc
on 29, 30 and 31 of said month of October, 3, 4, 5, and 7 November.”
64. “verdict on 15 December on (the) query of said Boulduc here mentioned, bearing that said Mr. de la
Martinière would have communication of said query and of all the procedures done against said
Boulduc, to conclude if action had been rendered by Mr. Dauteuil, Attorney General for this work, and
everything delivered in the hands of said Mr. de Villeray, (and) having done right to his report. The said
query suggesting that he was ordered that said trial would be reported in the state it is in, on the first day
of the Council, to be judged conclusively and that however, he shall be continuously informed of the
escape of said de Lalande, and having him allowed for the safety of his expenses, damages and interests,
to seize all the money and effects that he would find in this country, belonging to said de Lalande.”
65. “The dictums of Mr. de la Martinière, Advisor to the Council of the past 5 January, being at the bottom
of said query, concerning what had been done, or shall be done, the functions of Attorney General of the
King, expected in his absence, on what the above query having been handed to him, together (with the
query), the trial made against said Boulduc, Substitute, as a result of said verdict of this past 15
December, in order to reach a conclusion, if rendered had not been done by the Attorney General, and
expected that said Attorney General had definitively concluded on said trial, in which there were other
queries suggesting to (the) same purposes, he did not believed having to conclude (nor on the) other
query of said Boulduc, brought, in the trial being delivered, suggesting that he’s to be awarded
communication of the charges and examinations made against him as well as the interrogations by him
subjected, in order to collect such right he should (support) as being good.”
66. “Conclusion of said Attorney General (D'Auteuil) on this past 10 November”
67. “the report of said Commissioner Advisor (Martinière)”;
68. “and everything that has been carefully considered and examined during the 17, 18 and 20 March (1682)
both in the mornings as in the rise (afternoon)”
69. “Has been said by the Council, that the trial is about to be judged, without the need to inform
(investigate) on the truth of the denials found as invalid, and without consideration to the testimony of
the witnesses not gathered nor confronted and also without having regards to all the queries of said
Boulduc, above mentioned, and for reason of the resulting trial, the said Council, has declared and
declares the said Boulduc caught and convicted of crimes and embezzlements, (is) why, (it) is
depriving and deprives here said Boulduc from said office of King’s Attorney in said Provostship,
preventing him from future exercises in any judicial office.”

161
70. “And however, the said Council has ordered and is ordering that Mr. Pierre Duquet, be committed to the
exercise of said office of King's Attorney, following said verdict of the past 30 April (1681), will
continue to exercise (…);”
71. “Done in said Council held in Quebec, on Friday 20 March 1682.”

20 March 1682 (Same Day) “as soon as the verdict was rendered and for the delivering to said Boulduc, the
Council has brought Roger, First Bailiff, and has ordered him to go notify said Boulduc to come to the room
and said Roger being back, reported that he had sought him in his house and through the entire city without
being able to know where he was”.195

21 March 1682 “And the next day, twenty-one, eight o'clock in the morning, the Council assembled,
Marandeau, Bailiff of the Royal Provostship of this city, serving in Roger’s place, First Bailiff, excused, was
brought in, to whom the Council ordered to notify said Boulduc to come to the room and said Marandeau being
back, reported that he went in (his) search at his home and through all the city, as much in upper town as in
lower town, and that he could not learn of his wherabouts. To which, the Council has ordered said Marandeau to
notify said Boulduc to be present on Tuesday following the Sunday (of) Easter [quasimodo], at the start of the
Council and that the verdict will be brought to the desk by the Commissioner Advisor”.196

7 April 1682 Marandeau reports to the Council “that said Boulduc had asked him if this order was written
down and having responded no and that this order was a verbal one, said Mr. Boulduc left saying that he will
not go and that he will give him his reply in writing, but that however, he did not do so. To which the Council
has ordered that despite said Boulduc not appearing, the said verdict would be notified to his person or domicile
and a copy delivered by the Clerk of the Council”.

The Same Day. “Notified the present verdict and of which left a copy to said Mr. Boulduc, at his home, in
talking to Anne Boulduc, his daughter, by me the Clerk under order of the Council following his verdict of
today, in Quebec, the seventh of April one thousand six hundred and eighty-two, three o'clock in the rise
(afternoon [relevé]). Signed Peuvret”.197

Louis Bolduc had been judged by the Council, in his absence and without anyone to ensure his defense,
but it seems primordial to the Council that he’s to be present for the delivery of his sentence!

Marie Anne Bolduc was only 12 years old.

24 October 1682 Louis acknowledges owing to Anne Mariet (Marier), de Larochelle, widow and authorized
representative of Jean Guillaud, who herself has appointed Jean Berchaud as proxy holder, the sum of 183
pounds remaining from an initial sum of 275 pounds for the purchase of a House. This House had been sold to
him by Jean Dubuc, who from what is seen in the Act, still owed it to Anne Marier. The sum of 275 pounds had
been paid by Nicolas Dupont for Louis, at the time of purchase. Dupont was still in court against Louis to
recover what he owed him. By this Act, Louis becomes clean towards Dubuc and Dupont, and frees himself
from prosecution. He becomes indebted only towards Jean Berchaud, Attorney of Anne Marier.198

We were unable to retrace the deed of sale for this property.

15 September 1683 Louis and his family are still living on the corner of St-Louis Street and St-Ursule (see 8
November 1675, above). This is what is revealed to us in an implication of the Sovereign Council concerning
the “concession by Mr. Lefebvre de la Barre and of Meules to the Reverend Ursuline Mothers of Quebec, from
a location situated near the monastery of the Religious Dames (…) bordered on the Southeast side to Jean
Lemire, and the other, Northeast side, to Mr. Boulduc, on the side of the Great Alley, and further, to the lands of
said Religious Dames…”.199

162
This implication is perfectly coincident with the location of a corps de logis [main part of a building]
performed on 8 November 1675, and can only be that of Louis Bolduc since according to our extensive
research, he was the only adult Bolduc, to reside in New France at that time. It was indeed so until his
children settled.

There was a certain Pierre Bolduc whose name appeared on 20 October 1670 in the proceedings of a
decision from the Provostship of Quebec sentencing him to pay six pounds and ten sols to Antoine
Simon. Pierre Bolduc was present and had “concluded with expenses”. He cannot be the father of Louis,
who died on 14 May 1670. He was probably a seafarer or anyone else passing through since his name
doesn’t appear on any other records.200

25 November 1683 In the past, Louis had commissioned some poultry from a Jean Boesmé of Charlesbourg to
have them delived to the Governor Frontenac. They were for a total of nine pounds, including hay and transport.
The servant of Frontenac was then Charles de Couagne. Boesmé never was paid for his poultry. Boesmé now
owes to de Couagne, for other reasons, forty-four pounds and ten sols and would like to have the nine pounds
deducted. The Bailiff orders him to pay the forty-four pounds, and to claim from the right people his nine
pounds, if he so wishes.201

The Bailiff is a Judge at the Seigneurial Justice level. Several Seigneuries posessed this level of justice.
The litigants had then the opportunity to be heard either at the Bailiwick or the Provostship, in cities like
Quebec where there were one. The Seigneurial Justice was usually geographically closer to the people.

This decision, which could have been omitted from our study, illustrates that between Louis and
Frontenac, existed some non-professional relationships. There were sellers of poultry in Quebec, not far
from the Castle where lived Frontenac, and the latter did not need Louis as a servant. It would rather
appear to us that Louis was acting on friendship.

1685 Élizabeth Hubert, wife of Louis, is back in France.202

10 March 1685 By decree, the King Louis XIV grants Élizabeth Hubert the third of the salary that Louis had
as an Attorney.203

Between March 1685 and June 1686 Letter of Marquis de Denonville, Governor of New France (1685–
1689), to Colbert, Minister of the King. “Mr. the Intendant (Desmeules 1682–1686) said that you would have
ordered him to restore the named Boulduc in his charge as King’s Attorney of the Provostship of Quebec,
assuming that he and I would judge that the sentencing of his long absence was insufficient (sufficient?) to
atone him of his mistakes. This has given me reason to inquire into the life and habits of this Boulduc. I have
learned that he is a complete rascal, to never suffer in such a charge. This country, Sir, is in need of punishment
for those whose conduct is malicious. His wife returns this year to France. I willingly gave her her passport to
deliver this country of a relatively poor piece of furniture. He [sic] leaves us his children who are reduced to the
charity of good folks”.204

To write to Colbert (Jean-Baptiste), Minister and Major Collaborator to King Louis XIV, is equivalent to
writing to the King himself. Moreover, the King had already ordered the Governor of New France to
first adress Colbert. Denonville, who had succeeded Frontenac after de La Barre, had he grounds for
hating or seeking revenge on Louis Bolduc? This seems unlikely, or at least we have no written accounts
that would suppose so. Would have Denonville dared to lie to the King under the influence of certain
Advisors such as de Villeray, still member of the Council? Had the Governor given such a negative
judgement and utilized harsh words, not leaving any room for doubt, without serious and proven
grounds? It is difficult to believe that all those who were not in favour of Bolduc were dishonest enough
to be able to lie to the King. Besides the roles had been reversed. It is the Intendant Desmeules who had
163
transmitted the Commission of the King, permitting the Governor and the Council to restore Louis in his
functions, and it is the Governor who is opposed to it.

Good impressions of Bolduc must have been made to the King or Colbert since the latter, who is a
parent of Duchesneau, as well as Denonville,205 on the other hand, orders the (conditional) reinstatement
of Louis while Duchesneau had done everything to banish him.

The response of Denonville comes in addition to the statements and testimonies of Duchesneau, Ruette
D’Auteuil, de Villeray, de la Martinière, de Lalande, Péloquin, Thibault and possibly many others who
were interrogated, but of which we do not have any other proceedings of interrogations. Could all of
them have lied?

As for the modern authors who have written that the Bolducs have abandoned their children behind in
order to leave for France, we must strongly put our disagreement to this interpretation. Although we do
not possess any evidence, we believe that Louis and Élizabeth took provisions with acquainted
individuals, to provide for the future of their children, who have, by the way, all become successful
socially and in possessions.

4 June 1686 Verdict of His Majesty (Louis XIV) who effectively terminates the named Bolduc of his charge of
Procurator for the Provostship of Quebec: “… the King, being in His Council and having been informed that the
named Boulduc, Attorney for His Majesty in the Provostship of Quebec, who has already been banned from
such function by the Sovereign Council of said place, has continued his misconducts and thus become
unworthy, not only to be restored in the said function, but even of the grace that His Majesty had given him, in
giving by decision of His Council on ten March one thousand six hundred and eighty-five, the third of his salary
of said office to his family, and being necessary to continuously provide to this charge, and to fill this position
with a person who shall perform with dignity, His Majesty, being in His Council, has terminated said Boulduc
from the said charge…”206

Between the verdict rendered by the Sovereign Council on 20 March 1682, demoting Louis from his
post, and this termination ordered by the King, it seems obvious, even then, that procedures had been
undertaken in order to restore him in his functions. Frontenac, back in France since 1682, has possibly
interceded in his favor. Yet nothing gave, and on the contrary, the letter of Denonville could have served
the King in helping him reach his decision, yet other informations must have been provided to the King
since Denonville had declared that Louis had continued to behave inappropriately.

Since the King affirmed that Louis Bolduc had continued to misbehave, it is obvious that he was
referring to his conduct in Quebec. He was therefore still present in this city in 1686. The King would
certainly not have been ignorant of the presence of Bolduc in France, at the time of writing his verdict.

28 February 1700 In the marriage contract of their son René with Marie Anne Gravel, before the Notary
Étienne Jacob, in Beaupré, Louis and his wife Élizabeth are referred to as “once living in this country”.207

7 November 1701 At the wedding of their son Jacques with Marie Anne Racine, Louis and Élizabeth are
mentioned as being deceased.208

Louis Bolduc would, therefore, have died before the age of 52 years, and his wife before 49 years.

1
Laforest, Thomas J. . "Our French-Canadian Ancestors". Volume II (Revised), 1990, p. 27.
2
Lalancette, Claude. Adhémar. Database of group research on Montreal. "Chronology of the parish priests of Montreal".
http://cca.qc.ca/Adhemar/chroncures.stm. (maj. 00-03-01) (c. 06-09-27).

164
3
Canada Library and Archives. "Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online". www.biographi.ca (c. 05-10-31).
4
Campeau, Charles Aimé, archivist, Montreal . "Vessels who came to New France, seafarers and passengers, from origins to
conquest", http://www.axelnelson.com/skepp/saint 05-09-09 (05-11-01).
5
Lebel, Gérard. Op. cit. (#1). P. 17.
6
Lacoursière, Jacques. "Popular History of Quebec, from Origins to 1791". Tome I, Septentrion Edition, 1995, p. 106.
7
Campeau, Charles Aimé. Op. cit. (#4). We have chosen this date and this reference which appear to be more factual. According to
Gérard Lebel, (Op. cit. #1) it would be on the 17th at 10 hours in the evening; according to "Dictionary of our Ancestors, Quebec
Origins", Drouin Institute, it would have been on the 18th; and finally according to the Society of the King’s Daughters and of the
Carignan Cie Soldiers, on his website on the page Regiment of Carignan \ Ships of Carignan
http://www.fillesduroi.org/French/About_Us/about_us.html (c. 06-02-10), it would also be on the 18th. These latest sources seem to
determine the date of arrival by deduction only.
8
Lebel, Gérard. Op. cit. (#1). P. 17.
9
Lacoursière, Jacques . Op. cit. (#6). Pp. 107-108.
10
Lebel, Gérard. Op. cit. (#1). P. 17.
11
Ibidem.
12
Lacoursière, Jacques . Op. cit. (#6). P. 109.
13
Ibidem. P. 111.
14
Lacoursière, Jacques. Op. cit. (#6). P. 111.
15
Lebel, Gérard. . Op. cit. (#1). P. 17.
16
Jacques Lacoursière. Op. cit. (#6). P. 111.
17
Bolduc, Charles Émile. "Journal of a Family Life", 2002, Distrib. Librairie de A à Z, p. 6.
18
Campeau, Charles Aimé. Op. cit. (#4).
19
Library and National Archives of Quebec (BAnQ). Judicial archives. Palace of justice of Quebec. Registry of notaries. Notary Jean
LeConte.
20
Society of the Canadian Museum of Civilizations. "A contract of marriage". http://www.civilization .ca (maj. 01-08- 2) (c. 05-10-
17).
21
BAnQ. Op. cit. (#19). Copy of the original marriage contract on microfilm, Drouin Pedigree Institute.
22
University of Montreal, "Historical Demography Research Program (PRDH)" Act Statement #66782.
23
Gosselin, Auguste, Abbot. "The Normans of Canada, Henri De Bernières, first parish priest of Quebec". Printing of the Eure,
Évreux, 1896, p. 44-45.
24
Vachon, André. Canada Library and Archives. "Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online". Quick biography searches. Boulduc,
Louis. (http://www.biographi.ca/009004-119.01-e.php?&id_nbr=660&interval=25&&PHPSESSID=jodbna50j5q2asn9jkf57bonp3)
(maj. 05-09-29) (c. 06-02-10).
25
Lacoursière, Jacques. Op. cit. (#6). "Our Roots, the Living History of the Québécois". Leaflet No. 9. "Our Great Families".
26
Lebel, Gérard.. op cit. (#1). P. 18.
27
Devant Bonodat and Quarre. Nat. Arch. (France) Central Min., XLIII, 131. Cited in: "Journal of a Family Life " by Bolduc,
Charles Émile. Op. cit. (#17). P. 8 (Full copy of the deciphered document). - Lebel, Gérard. Op. cit. (#1). P 18.
28
PRDH. Op. cit. (#22). Act Statement #58320.
29
BAnQ. Op. cit. (#19). "Deeds Collection of Marcel Trudel", Microfilm M136/7 – Image No. 270.
30
PRDH. Op. cit. (#22). Act Statement #4327.
31
The right word should have been "refend", which according to "Le petit Littré", Galimard, Hachette, 1873 Edition, re-edited in
1959, p. 1890: "refend wall or simply a refend, a wall that separates the rooms inside of a building".
32
BAnQ. Op. cit. (#19). Registry of Notary Pierre Duquet , Act deciphered.
33
Villeneuve, Cécile. "Charlesbourg, its History". United Collections. Edit. Copie de la Capital 2000. Passim. And our
interpretation.
34
Civilisation.ca. "Jean Talon the Builder". http://www.mef.qc.ca/Talon.htm. (c. 06-09-27).
35
Interrogation obtained at the Société historique de Charlesbourg with the collaboration of Ms. Ruth Giroux Allaire, Chairman.
36
Lebel, Gérard. Op. cit. (#1). P. 18.
37
PRDH. Op. cit. (#22). Act of Baptism #58449.
38
BAnQ. Op. cit. (#19). Registry of Notary Pierre Duquet. Copy of the original contract on Drouin microfilm that we've deciphered.
39
Perron, Guy. "Provostship of Quebec" (P. of Q.). Pépin Historical and Genealogical Editions. Our National Heritage Collection.
Tome II. Pp. 47-48.
40
BAnQ. Op. cit. (#19). Registry of Notary Pierre Duquet. Copy of the original contract on Drouin microfilm that we've deciphered.
41
Perron, Guy. (P. of Q.). Op. cit. (#39). Tome II. P. 350.
42
BAnQ. Op. cit. (#19). Registry of Notary Pierre Duquet, copy of the original contract on Drouin microfilm that we've deciphered.
43
Beauregard, Denis. French Genealogy in North America. "This is the family of Pierre Nolan said Chevalier, and Catherine Houart
or Ouert". http://www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec/000/652.php (c. 06-09-27).
44
Perron, Guy. (P. of Q.). Op. cit. (#39). Tome II. P. 361.
45
BAnQ . Op. cit. (#19). Pistard website. Cote TP1, S28, P1168.
46
Perron, Guy. (P. of Q.). Op. cit. (#39). Tome III. P. 27.
47
Ibidem.
165
48
Perron, Guy. (P. of Q.). Op. cit. (#39). Tome III. P. 47.
49
Dickinson, J.-A., "Justice and Litigants, Civil Procedures in the Provostship of Quebec, (1667-1759)", Quebec. Laval University
Press. Pp. 3-4.
50
Perron, Guy. (P. of Q.). Op. cit. (#39). Tome III. P. 78.
51
PRDH. Op. Cit. (#22). Acts #58790 and #58791.
52
Perron, Guy. (P. of Q.). Op. cit. (#39). Tome III. P. 207.
53
BAnQ. Op. cit. (#19). Registry of Romain Becquet. Copy of the original contract on Drouin microfilm that we've deciphered.
54
Ibidem. Judicial Archives. Quebec Palace of justice. Registry of Notaries. Notary Jean LeConte.
55
Noble and Bourgeois Parisian families. Hubert Family. "The sharing of Nicolas Hubert’s estate, King’s Advisor, War General
Commissioner, at the residence of Larochelle, given in front of Mr. Morlon, Notary in Paris, on 28 December 1692 (CARAVAN
Assessment: ET/V/221)" (http://site.voila.fr/géneolivier/noblesse/paris.html#P_HC_02). (c. 05-10-08).
56
Quebec Legislature. "Judgments and Deliberations of the Sovereign Council of New France." (JdCSNF). Vol. II. P. 481.
57
Perron, Guy. (P. of Q.). Op. cit. (#39). Tome III. P. 393.
58
Ibidem. Pp. 474-475.
59
Ib. P. 484.
60
Perron, Guy. (P. of Q.). Op. cit. (#39). Tome IV. P. 18.
61
PRDH. Op. cit. (#22). Act #59017.
62
BAnQ. Op. cit. (#19). Registry of Notary Rageot. Copy of the original contract on Drouin microfilm that we've deciphered.
63
PRDH. Op. cit. (#22). Part #5917.
64
BAnQ. Op. cit. (#19). Registry of Notary Becquet. Copy of the original contract on Drouin microfilm that we've deciphered.
65
BAnQ. Op. cit. (#19). Registry of Notary Rageot. Copy of the original contract on Drouin microfilm that we've deciphered.
66
Petit Littré. Op. cit. (#31). P. 170.
67
Legislature of Quebec. (JdCSNF). Op. cit. (#56). Vol. I. P. 876.
68
Vaugeois, Denis; Lacoursière, Jacques; Provencher, Jean and collaborators. Boreal Express team. "Canada-Quebec-summary
history". Renouveau Pédagogique Editions Inc. 1973. P. 106.
69
Petit Littré. Op. cit. (#31). P. 1450.
70
Perron, Guy. (P. of Q.). Op. cit. (#39). Tome IV. P. 176.
71
Ibidem. P. 189.
72
Perron, Guy. (P. of Q.). Op. cit. (#39). Tome III. P. 203.
73
Ibidem.
74
Ib. P. 205.
75
Ib. P. 206.
76
Perron, Guy. (P. of Q.). Op. cit. (#39). Tome III. Pp. 208-209.
77
Ibid. P. 212.
78
Ib. P. 247.
79
Ib. Tome IV. P. 267.
80
Legislature of Quebec. (JdCSNF). Op. cit. (#56). Vol. II, Pp. 29-30.
81
Report by the Archivist of the Province of Quebec (RAPQ). Vol. 7 (1926-1927). P. 80.
82
Ibid. P. 83.
83
(RAPQ). Op cit. (#81). P. 85.
84
Lacoursière, Jacques. Op. cit. (#6). P. 158.
85
PRDH. Op. cit. (#22). Act #59237.
86
BAnQ. Op. cit. (#19). Registry of Notary Rageot. Copy of the original contract on Drouin microfilm that we've deciphered.
87
The first Convent of the Ursulines was built in 1642. This illustration by Joseph Légaré is an overview (courtesy of the Ursuline
Convent). (http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=F1SEC872849). (c. 07-03-12).
88
Quebec City. "Toponymy". Toponymy Commission. Quebec. "Odonymie after 1680". (http://www.toponymie.gouv.qc.ca/). (c. 01-
02-08).
89
Pierre-Georges Roy. "Inventory of the Insinuations of the Sovereign Council of New France". Archives of the Province of Quebec.
Beauceville. L’éclaireur Limitée, Editor. 1921. P. 69.
90
Quebec City. "Toponymy". Op. cit. (#88).
91
Legislature of Quebec. (JdCSNF). Op. cit. (#56). Vol. II. P. 29.
92
Perron, Guy. (P. of Q.). Op. cit. (#39). Tome IV, P. 111.
93
RAPQ. Op. cit. (#81). Vol. 24. (1943-44). P. 104.
94
Perron, Guy. (P. of Q.). Op. cit. (#39). Tome V. P. 114.
95
BAnQ. Op. cit. (#19). Pistard website. Cote TL5, D129. Copy of the interview that we’ve deciphered.
96
Perron, Guy. (P. of Q.). Op. cit. (#39). Tome V. P. 161.
97
Perron, Guy. (P. of Q.). Op. cit. (#39). Tome IV. P. 182.
98
Ibidem. Tome V. P. 197-198.
99
Roy, Pierre-Georges. Archives of the Province of Quebec. "Orders, Commissions, etc. of the Governors and Intendants of New
France". Beauceville. l’Éclaireur Limitée, editor. (1924). Vol. 1, P. 39.
100
Perron, Guy. (P. de Q.) Op. cit. (#39) .Tome IV. P. 282.
166
101
Quebec Justice. History. "Justice Officers in Canada." [http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/francais/ministere/histoire/officiers.htm]
(maj 05-09-20) (c. 07-02-13).
102
Perron, Guy. (P. de Q.) Op. cit. (#39). Tome V, Pp. 302-303.
103
Ibidem. P. 362.
104
PRDH. Op. cit. (#22). Act #59603.
105
BAnQ. Op. cit. (#19). Pistard website. Registry of Notary Becket. Copy of the original contract on Drouin microfilm that we've
deciphered.
106
Legislature of Quebec. (JdCSNF). Op. cit. (#56). Vol. II. P. 191.
107
Perron, Guy. (P. de Q.) Op. cit. (#39). Tome VI. P. 193.
108
Legislature of Quebec. (JdCSNF). Op. cit. (#56). Vol. II. P. 777.
109
Perron, Guy. (P. de Q.) Op. cit. (#39). Tome VI. P. 14.
110
BAnQ. Op. cit. (#19). Pistard website. Registry of Notary Gilles Rageot. Copy of the original contract on Drouin microfilm that
we've deciphered.
111
Legislature of Quebec. (JdCSNF). Op. cit. (#56). Vol. II. P. 270.
112
Furetière, Antoine. Universal Dictionary. (1690).
113
Legislature of Quebec. (JdCSNF). Op. cit. (#56). Vol. II. P. 270.
114
Ibidem.
115
Legislature of Quebec. (JdCSNF). Op. cit. (#56). Vol. II. Pp. 270-272. Passim.
116
Perron, Guy. (P. de Q.). Op. cit. (#39). Tome VII. Pp. 41-42.
117
Ibidem. Pp. 34-35.
118
Ib. Pp. 46, 53 and 54.
119
PRDH. Op. cit. (#22). Act Statement #67692.
120
"Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online". Op. cit. (#3). Ruette D’Auteuil de Monceaux, François-Madeleine-Fortuné.
(http://www.biographi.ca/009004-119.01-e.php?&id_nbr=1083&interval=25&&PHPSESSID=pmj8t9kjfuqt4rh26b1ll5jjg3). (maj
05-05-02) (c. 06-10-03).
121
BAnQ. Op. cit. (#19). Pistard website. Cote TP1, S28, P2286. Copy of the interview that we have deciphered.
122
Legislature of Quebec. (JdCSNF). Op. cit. (#56). Vol. II. Pp. 389-390.
123
Ibidem . Pp. 397-398.
124
Ib. P. 542.
125
Legislature of Quebec. (JdCSNF). Op. cit. (#56). Vol. II. Pp. 398-399.
126
BAnQ. Op. cit. (#19). Pistard website. Cote TP1, S28, P2350. Copy of the interview that we have deciphered.
127
Ibidem. Cote TP1, S28, P2398. Summary only.
128
Perron, Guy. (P. de Q.). Op. cit. (#39). Tome VI. Pp. 350-351.
129
Perron, Guy. (P. de Q.). Op. cit. (#39). Tome VI. P.362.
130
BAnQ. Op. cit. (#19) . Pistard website. Cote TP1, S777, D113. Copy of the interview that we have deciphered.
131
Perron, Guy. (P. de Q.). Op. cit. (#39). Tome VI. P. 363.
132
BAnQ. Op. cit. (#19). Pistard website. Cote TP1, S777, D142. Copy of the interview that we have deciphered, and Perron, Guy.
Op. cit. (#39). Tome VI. P. 363.
133
Ibidem. Cote TL5, D3236. Copy of the interview that we have deciphered.
134
Ib. Cote TL5, D142. Copy of the interview that we have deciphered.
135
BAnQ. Op. cit. (#19). Pistard website. Cote TL5, D142. Copy of the interview that we have deciphered.
136
Drouin Institute. "The National Dictionary of French Canadians". Complement of my genealogical tree. Historical part. Tome III,
Pp. 1423-1424.
137
Perron, Guy. (P. de Q.) Op. cit. (#39). Tome VI. Pp. 364-365.
138
Ibidem. P. 365.
139
BAnQ. Op. cit. (# 19). Pistard website. Cote TL5, D142. Copy of the interview that we have deciphered.
140
Legislature of Quebec. (JdCSNF). Op. cit. (#56). Vol. II. P. 448.
141
Legislature of Quebec. (JdCSNF). Op. cit. (#56). Vol. II. P. 780. Cited at the trial.
142
PRDH. Op. cit. (#22). Statement of offence #98417.
143
Legislature of Quebec. (JdCSNF). Op. cit. (#56). Vol. II. P. 460.
144
Ibidem. P. 463.
145
Ib. P. 778. Cited at the trial.
146
Legislature of Quebec. (JdCSNF). Op. cit. (#56). Vol. II. P. 777. Cited at the trial.
147
Ibidem. P. 780. Cited at the trial.
148
Legislature of Quebec. (JdCSNF). Op. cit. (#56). Vol. II. P. 478.
149
It is stated later in the proceedings that this assignment was addressed to Jean Lechasseur, Secretary of Frontenac.
150
Later, when he will produce his written admonitions, Frontenac will add that this is to avoid that the witnesses shouldn’t be
surprised that the pleading should be detailed.
151
Legislature of Quebec. (JdCSNF). Op. cit. (#56). Vol. II. Pp. 478-479.
152
Legislature of Quebec. (JdCSNF). Op. cit. (#56). Vol. II. P. 481. See also reference #55.
153
PRDH. Op. cit. (#22). Act #69997.
167
154
Legislature of Quebec. (JdCSNF). Op. cit. (#56). Vol. II. P. 482.
155
Ibid. P. 483.
156
Ib.
157
Ib. P. 484.
158
Legislature of Quebec. (JdCSNF). Op. cit. (#56). Vol. II. Pp. 485-490. Passim.
159
Legislature of Quebec. (JdCSNF). Op. cit. (#56). Vol. II. Pp. 490-493.
160
Legislature of Quebec. (JdCSNF). Op. cit. (#56). Vol. II. Pp. 493-494.
161
Ibidem.
162
Legislature of Quebec. (JdCSNF). Op. cit. (#56). Vol. II. Pp. 500-501.
163
Ibidem. Passim.
164
A game played with checkers and dices on a table with two compartments, the ancestor of the jacquet [Similar, but not the same as
Backgammon].
Bibliorom Larousse. Le Petit Larousse illustrated 1999. © Larousse, 1998.
165
Legislature of Quebec. (JdCSNF). Op. cit. (#56). Vol. II. Pp. 502-507. Passim.
166
Ibidem. Pp. 508-509. Passim.
167
Legislature of Quebec. (JdCSNF). Op. cit. (#56). Vol. II. Pp. 515-516. Passim.
168
Ibidem.
169
Ib. P. 779.
170
Ib.
171
Legislature of Quebec. (JdCSNF). Op. cit. (#56). Vol. II. Pp. 530-533. Passim.
172
Ibidem. Pp. 541-542. Passim.
173
Legislature of Quebec. (JdCSNF). Op. cit. (#56). Vol. II. Pp. 549-550.
174
Ibidem. P .559.
175
Ib. P. 593.
176
Legislature of Quebec. (JdCSNF). Op. cit. (#56). Vol. II. P. 781.
177
Ibidem.
178
Ib. P. 606.
179
Ib. P. 781.
180
Ib. Pp. 614-615.
181
Legislature of Quebec. (JdCSNF). Op. cit. (#56). Vol. II. P. 674. Passim.
182
Legislature of Quebec. (JdCSNF). Op. cit. (#56). Vol. II. P. 691.
183
Ibidem. P. 699.
184
Ib. P. 782. Cited at the trial.
185
Ib. Pp. 703-704.
186
Legislature of Quebec. (JdCSNF). Op. cit. (#56). Vol. II. P. 782. Cited at trial.
187
Ibidem.
188
West Indies company seal, stamp of 1670. National Archives of Canada, MG 18, 64 H.
189
APQ, Op cit. (#81). (1926-1927). P. 140.
190
"Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online". Op. cit. (#3). Ruette D’Auteuil de Monceaux, François-Madeleine-Fortuné.
(http://www.biographi.ca/009004-119.01-e.php?&id_nbr=1083&interval=25&&PHPSESSID=pmj8t9kjfuqt4rh26b1ll5jjg3). (maj.
05-05-02) (c. 06-10-03).
191
Legislature of Quebec. (JdCSNF). Op. cit. (#56). Vol. II. Pp. 735-736.
192
BAnQ. Op. cit. (#19). Registry of Notary Becquet. Copy of the original contract on Drouin microfilm that we've deciphered.
193
Legislature of Quebec. (JdCSNF). Op. cit. (#56). Vol. II. P. 783. Cited at the trial.
194
Legislature of Quebec. (JdCSNF). Op. cit. (#56). Vol. II. Pp. 776 to 784.
195
Legislature of Quebec. (JdCSNF). Op. cit. (#56). Vol. II. P. 784.
196
Ibidem.
197
Legislature of Quebec. (JdCSNF). Op. cit. (#56). Vol. II. P 784.
198
BAnQ. Op. cit. (#19). Archives of Quebec. Gilles Rageot, Notary. Booklet #16. No 2476.
199
Roy, Pierre-Georges. Op. cit. ( #89).
200
Perron, Guy. (P. of Q.). Op. cit. (#39). Tome II. P. 69.
201
Lafontaine, André. "The Bailiwick of Notre-Dame-des-Anges". Sherbrooke. 1988. P. 7.
202
Drouin Institute. "The National Dictionary of French Canadians". Supplement to my Genealogical Tree. Historical part. Tome III,
A-Z, pp. 1423-1424.
203
Roy, Pierre-Georges. Op. cit. (#89). Pp. 67-68.
204
Drouin Institute. Op. cit. (#202). Pp. 1423-1424.
205
Dubé, Jean-Claude. "The Intendants of New France". Fleur de Lys Collection. Fides. P. 25.
206
Roy, Pierre-Georges. Op cit. (#89). Pp. 67-68.
207
BAnQ. Op. cit. (#19). Registry of Notary Étienne Jacob. Copy of the original contract on Drouin microfilm that we've deciphered.
208
PRDH. Op. cit. (#19). Act #28411.

168
Genealogy of the Bolduc Families

Beauceron Memories and the Bolduc Families

Preface

The veneration of our forefathers constitutes a major part of a good citizen’s heritage and I’ve tried to
make a respectful body of work on the scattered Bolduc names to organize a healthy tribute to all of them.

With this work, rendered possible thanks to the genealogical volumes of Brother Éloi-Gerard, Marist, I
hope to provide an invaluable help to all those of the great family of Bolduc’s who has preserved the veneration
of our forefathers. Your children will thus learn the names of their ancestors, the various branches of their
family will reveal pathways about each other and thus be able to live a few moments with their “Ancestors” and
to admire their courage and their faith.

I received much pleasure with working in the company of the “Ancestors” and I thank all those who have
helped me in this interesting research.
Charles Bolduc, c.s.v.
Seminar of Joliette
April 2, 1972

Foreword

This work is divided into four parts:

First part

It is the history of the Bolduc’s until the migration of the two sons of Zacharie Bolduc, having left Saint-
Joachim towards Beauce. The first, Jean, arrived there in 1754; the second, Joseph-René, arrived in 1762. There
will also be a mention of Beauce and the first inhabitants. Pages 1 to 9

Second part

Starting from these two pioneers, we will give the descendants of Jean for the counties of Beauce,
Frontenac and Dorchester. Pages 10 to 31

Third part

We will give in the same way the descendants of Joseph-René for same the counties. Pages 32 to 50

Fourth part

Descendants to the eldest of Ancestor Louis Bolduc’s three sons, Louis Jr, who are now numerous in
Beauce. Pages 51 to 65

In order to find ourselves more easily in the numbering system used, simply locate your name either
among the descendants of Jean, 2nd part, those of Joseph-René, 3rd part, or those of Louis, 4th part.

169
Take the number to the left and then going up find the same number on the right where the father’s name
is found along with those of the uncles and aunts. To find the name of the grandfather follow the same system
always going up - and so on to the first common ancestor.

GENEALOGY OF THE BOLDUC’S AND NOTES ON BEAUCE AND ITS FIRST INHABITANTS

Origin of the name Bolduc: this name comes from a town in Holland, Bois-le-Duc, located in a wooded
plain where the Duke of Brabant enjoyed hunting. Was our ancestor a guard of this field so he would bear its
name? Are we thus of Dutch origin?

In either case, the first Bolduc of which we know the name is Pierre, Master Apothecary, member of
Academy of Sciences, living in the Saint-Benoît parish of Paris, on Saint-Jacques street, and married to Gilette
Pijart, sister to Molière’s wife [sic]. Note from Yan J. K. Bolduc: this is a recurring error as Pijart is sometimes
mistaken for Béjart. Gilette Pijart had two Jesuit brothers, missionaries in Canada.

The elder son of Pierre Bolduc, Simon [sic], was a professor of chemistry in the Garden of the King, a
pharmacist and a judge-consul in the Court of Paris.

He was admitted in the Royal Academy of Sciences and died in 1729.

His work gave him a great reputation and contributed to the progress of science within the history of
medicine. He was a physician of the Queen of Spain and the Duchess of Orleans. His armorials are registered in
the Generality of Paris. In a book titled “The Court of Louis XIV” Saint-Simon mentions him about a supposed
poisoning of the Dauphine: “The Faculty received a King’s order to investigate. Doctor Fagon and Boudin
didn’t question the poison; Doctor Boulduc appeared convinced”.

Simon had a son named Gilles who was also a physician like his father and his grandfather Pierre. He was
First Apothecary to King Louis XV and member of the Academy of Sciences, Alderman of Paris and thus
ennobled, allowing him to mount his Coat of Arms with the crown of a Count.

It is then false to say that our ancestors were ignorant and came from obscure families. Such is not the
case of the Bolduc family.

The one who interests us the most is the second son of Pierre Bolduc and Gilette Pijart, Louis. Louis came
to Canada with the famous regiment of Carignan. Indeed, at the time of his marriage in Quebec in 1668, at 19
years of age, he declares belonging to the Company of Captain Hector d'Aubigné of Grandfontaine, Carignan
Regiment. This officer disembarked in Quebec with his troop on August 17, 1665. He had left LaRochelle on
the vessel l’Aigle d’Or, on May 13, 1665.

Louis Bolduc is the ancestor of all the Bolduc’s in both Canada and the United States.

The Regiment of Carignan was raised in France by the Prince of Carignan. It distinguished itself in a great
number of engagements.

After the peace of Pyrénées, in the aim of finding tranquility with the original colony always exposed to
perish at the hands of the Iroquois, the King decided to send twelve hundred soldiers of this elite Regiment.
They embarked in LaRochelle in May 1665. With their arrival in Quebec, the Canadians are ecstatic. The
arrival of so many fresh soldiers puts joy in all the hearts. One now hopes for a brighter future. Effectively these
brave men pacified the Iroquois and obtained for some time a beneficial peace for the colony. Louis Bolduc also
took part in the construction of the Fort Sainte-Thérèse on the Richelieu, under the command of Mr. de Salières.

170
After the peace treaty with the Iroquois, the Regiment of Carignan was dismissed and returned to France,
except for approximately four hundred soldiers and thirty officers who preferred settling themselves in the
colony. They settled mostly on the edges of the Richelieu who had been the theatre of their exploits, and also in
the surroundings of Quebec.

Such was the case of Louis Bolduc. Dismissed in 1668 he settles in Charlesbourg, on a 40-acre land,
acquired from Jacques Bédard by paying 800 pounds. The same year he married in Élisabeth Hubert in Quebec,
daughter of Claude Hubert, prosecutor in the Parliament of Paris, and Isabelle Fontaine, of the Saint-Gervais
parish, in Paris.

Their marriage contract, written by the notary LeComte, is summarized as follows: “The said contracting
parties recognize and confess to have made the treaties and promises of marriage which have followed, which is
to say that the said Louis Baulduc (sic) promises to take for woman and wife the known Isabelle (sic) Hubert as
also the aforementioned Isabelle Hubert promises to take for husband and spouse said Louis Boulduc into
solemn and done marriage facing our Mother Catholic Church, apostolic and Roman, as soon as possible, and
that it shall be advised and deliberated amongst themselves, their parents and friends if God and Our Mother the
Holy Church agrees to it and consents to be common engaged couples in goods and property and
accommodations according to the habit of Paris”.

This document is signed by several notables of the period as it was to customs: Louis Boulduc, Isabelle
Hubert, Jean Bourdon, Courcelles, le Chevalier de GrandFontaine chief of his Company, Talon stewart,
Provost, Levasseur and the notary LeComte.

Note that our ancestor signed Boulduc.

In 1674 Louis Bolduc sold his dwelling at Charlesbourg to a Jacques LaBrèche at the cost of 850 pounds
and settled in Quebec, Saint-Louis street. Frontenac, then Governor, named him Bourgeois [‘townsperson’, as
opposed to colonist ‘colon’] in the town of Quebec. Two years later he was named Prosecutor to the King in the
Provostship with a $1200 a year salary.

The Provostship was an authoritative court for all causes, civil as well as criminal, and whose services
needed to report to the Sovereign Council.

It is known that harmony did not reign between these two courts of justice. D'Auteuil was Director of
Public Prosecutions to the Sovereign-Council and Dushesneau was the Intendant. They were both sworn
enemies of Frontenac who supported the Provostship in which Louis Bolduc was its Prosecutor. Also nothing
was spared to paralyze the jurisdiction of the Provostship of which the Sovereign-Council was jealous and to
oppose Louis Bolduc in the performance of his duties. Not daring to attack the powerful Governor head-on, his
friends were incessantly badgered.

Louis Bolduc was accused by d’Auteuil of not following his orders and to have set in motion all sorts of
legal hiatus in the judicial system of Frontenac in the matter of a certain lady Agnès Morin cited by Bolduc of
impeding against the person of the Governor.

The Sovereign-Council gave Louis a lawsuit but, in spite of the 70 witnesses called to depose against him,
none of the charges could be sustained and none could substantiate a judgment. However Louis Bolduc was
none the less deposed of his functions and cost him the burden in the discord which reigned within the Saint-
Louis Castle.

It was on April 16, 1681. He had been Prosecutor for the Provostship for six years.

171
In spite of the judgment pronounced against him, Louis Bolduc was not obliged to pay the expenses of the
lawsuits however considerable, and moreover, the King granted his wife Elisabeth Hubert, one-third of the
wages towards her husband, to say $400.

Thereafter Frontenac and Mister de Meules, successor to Duchesneau, insisted upon the King that Louis
Bolduc was to be restored in his functions, but without success. They wrote to the King: “Everyone had placed
a lot of passion in the matter of Louis Bolduc, the King would be wise to restore this magistrate”. It is also
known that Mister d'Auteuil himself was relieved of his functions under the second administration of Frontenac
“to have been the principal cause of disorder and discord which had reigned in Quebec”.

Louis Bolduc then went on for a while in the fur trade, but in 1697 went to settle with his family in Saint-
Joachim. Later Louis Bolduc would return to France with his wife and youngest of their daughters, Louise.
They died, we believe, in Paris.

Of the marriage between Louis Bolduc and Élisabeth Hubert were born three sons and four daughters:

Louis, born on April 14, 1669. In 1697 he owns a land in S.-Joachim. This land has since belonged to
the Bolduc’s.

René, born in Quebec on March 5, 1674. He married successively Marie-Anne Gravel, Louise Sénat,
and, in Château-Richer, Marguerite Malboeuf. In 1702 he is the owner of a farm bought from the
Seminar of Quebec, in S.-Joachim. It is there that he died in 1720.
René is the grandfather of Jean who settled in Beauce in 1754 and of his brother, Joseph-
René, who arrived there in 1762.

Jacques, born in 1676. He marries Marie-Anne Racine in 1701 at Ste-Anne de Beaupré.

M.-Anne, born on August 3, 1670. She married in Quebec Jean Marsolet in 1690 and died at S.-François de
Sales.

Ursule, born in 1675. She married, in Quebec, Henri Breault, and in Lévis, Jean-Baptiste Drapeau.

Louise, born in 1677 and held in baptismal by the Count Frontenac while her father was Prosecutor to
the Provostship. She would return to France at the same time as her parents.

The three sons of Louis Bolduc and Élisabeth Hubert will take roots in Canada. We will omit however the
descendants of Jacques to concentrate only on those of René and Louis.

Second generation

Of the marriage between René Bolduc and Marie-Anne Gravel were born:

Marie-Anne, who married Étienne Rémillard in 1726.

Zacharie, who took for woman Jeanne Meunier at S.-Joachim, on August 23, 1728. Born in 1700, she died
on November 7, 1770 at S.-Joachim.

Francoise, who married Joseph Corriveau in the same locality.

Of his second marriage, with Louise Sénat, René had a girl:

172
Louise, married first to Étienne Simard then, second, to Bonaventure Lessard.

From its third marriage, with Marguerite Malboeuf, were born:

Marguerite, who married, on June 27, 1742, Étienne Lebrun.

Reine, married to Ignace Lessard on May 3, 1743, at Ste-Anne; and to Pierre Provost, in 1762, at S.-
Joseph de Beauce.
Reine Bolduc and her first husband Ignace Lessard lived at S.-Joseph since 1744. We can
thus regard her as the first of the Bolduc family to take up residence in Beauce.

Third generation

Of the marriage between Zacharie Bolduc and Jeanne Meunier were born:

Zacharie, born in 1730, he married Marie-Anne Poulin at S.-Joachim, in 1750. He had a son named
Zacharie, married to Geneviève Morel. He in turn had a son named Joachim, who married
Madeleine Lessard in 1818. One their son became Mgr Jean-Baptiste-Zacharie Bolduc who was
the first priest to reach Vancouver island, accompanying Sir Douglas who founded there the
Victoria Fort. He celebrated there the first mass on March 17, 1843. At the time of his death in
1889 he was Prosecutor to the Archbishop of Quebec.

Louis-Amable, married to Marguerite Bolduc at S.-Joachim. Those first two children of Zacharie Bolduc
will remain in S.-Joachim while the four others will remain at S.-Joseph de Beauce.

Marthe, married to Pierre Poulin on August 5 1778. She lived in S.-Joseph where her husband had been a
resident since 1750.

Marguerite, born in 1734, she married François Quirion at S.-Joachim. She then occupied a land, with her
husband, in the lower estate of Rigaud-Vaudreuil.

Jean, born in 1732, he took for spouse Louise Quirion, sister of François, at S.-Joachim. In 1754 he
goes to Beauce where he becomes the owner of a land situated at lot n° 1465 of the official land
register of the Parish of S.-François. This land has since belonged to Bolduc’s. Today it is
inhabited by Paul Bolduc, son of Antonio.
Jean is the ancestor of Olivier Bolduc, father of Abraham, married to Marguerite Barbeau.

Joseph-René, married in 1764 to Marguerite Létourneau, S.-Joseph, then to Marie Perreault in 1867, then to
Angélique Blanchard, and, lastly to Marie-Anne Gagné. Born in 1742 at S.-Joachim, Joseph-
René arrived in Beauce at 20 years age, in 1762. He is the Great-Grandfather of the honorable
Joseph Bolduc, Senator, and of Charles Bolduc who was Town Clerk to the Municipal
Corporation of the county of Beauce.

Before pursuing further our work let’s stop for a few moments to pay homage to these bold Settlers who
first cleared the land, our ancestors, who did not retreat at the prospect of leaving beautiful farms, located along
the St. Lawrence, to penetrate new lands. Let us visualize them, forging paths bordering the Chaudière river,
stopping for a moment on the heights of Lévis to throw a last glance on the coastline of Beaupré which they
were never to see again.

On each side of the river untamed wilderness still dominated in all of its brutality. The marks of civilized
man was scarce. Here and there appeared some insolated clearings. The frail huts of the colonists were spread
173
out in the middle of these breaks amongst rare bell-towers, extremely modest, preaching hope pointing towards
the sky.

On these barely visible roads, Jean Bolduc and his wife Louise Quirion, courageous, led their steps to
some fifty miles inside the land, to Saint-Joseph, just as his brother Joseph-René will do, a few years later.

It is into 1756 that the first estates in Beauce were conceded. The first three Overlords were Thomas-
Jacques Taschereau, François Rigaud of Vaudreuil and Joseph Fleury of Gorgentière. To make good in their
engagements they called out to colonists especially from the coastline of Beaupré and the Island of Orléans.
Some Acadian families, driven out of their small fatherland by the English in 1755, will come to take refuge in
Beauce. Such are the Poirier, Thibodeau, Bourque and Toulouse.

Why was the name of Beauce given to our area? The richness of the land and the softer climates than
those near the banks of the Saint-Lawrence river at the heights of Quebec supported the culture of corn with
great success from the very start. And as such we quickly made the comparison to the Beauce of France, also
nicknamed the Attic of France.

Located on southern side of the Saint-Lawrence river, Beauce carries its limits to Maine, over one hundred
miles from the river. The valley of the Chaudière is the most productive. It reaches in certain areas a width of
one hundred acres. Gradually, of each side, fertile fields rises on the foothills, thickets of fir trees or vast areas
of maple trees. The large Mégantic and Saint-François lakes and numerous others of lesser importance shade
their waters rich in fish under the strong foliage of our forests.

The territory of Beauce was cleared away until the conquest by the Récollets. But by that time they were
already thinking of building a temple worthy of God. There were only a score of inhabitants (numbered in the
twenties) when the undertakings to build a church started. But in this shady built temple they would come pray
to God and rejuvenate their courage. The divine offices were observed there from 1765 to 1783. One could see,
during religious ceremonies, a great number of Abénakis praying on one side of the nave while the Whites
occupied the other.

This sanctuary was on the site later occupied by Mr. Charles Bernard in Elzéar, and today by Roland
Bernard.

Around 1880, the faithful required that the church be built in the middle of the estate. This change raised
many protests on behalf of the former manufacturers of the first chapel. Finally the change took place and the
site of the current church of Beauceville was selected.

The task of any colonist arriving in the region of Beauce was to clear a small piece of land to build within
a small round wood house, covered with cedar barks and raise a stone chimney. Once the hut was built, it was
necessary to cut down the secular forest to create a heritage. Clearing was made. Then the ground was pick axed
before entrusting it with seed. Once the seeding finished, the axe again got busy with no respite. When the
temperature didn’t allow agricultural work, the colonist was to manufacture himself all his pieces of furniture as
well as his daily articles.

The strong faith of our ancestors always put them in the presence of God. Any important task was initiated
with the sign of the cross, and also, our fathers knelt on the plowed field to say a prayer before throwing out on
the ground the first grain of seed.

The wife got busy with household chores. Always occupied she could do everything. In the summer she
was busy with work in the kitchen garden, the farmyard, and still found time to run to the fields, to handle the
sickle or the rake to help her man. And in the evening, humming a song from France while smiling to her last-
174
born child in the cradle, she spun wool, knitted mittens, socks, waistcoats and shawls or tailored clothes for the
entire family.

“Our mothers were pious, able to smile, able to sing with teary eyes so amongst their surroundings
courage remained firm and that God may be blessed”. (abbot L. Groulx)

Our ancestors worked through the day bitterly, entertained themselves with the family in the evenings and
celebrated with the community in festive days. They sang, laughed, danced, went from the cradle to the tomb
with muscles of Titans and hearts of children.

Second part

Descendants of Jean Bolduc and Louise Quirion

First Generation in Beauce

Jean Bolduc, having arrived in Beauce in 1754, had six sons. For clarity we will list separately each
posterity from each of his sons.

This Jean Bolduc was not only a farmer but also a militia Captain for the Parish of Saint-François.
Moreover, he was a bailiff, i.e. in charge of monitoring the streets from criminals. These tasks were not
lucrative but conferred honor to those in charge, like the free use of the first bench in church; he would also be
the first to receive the blessed bread as it was customary for overlords.

Jean, m. 1750 to Louise Quirion, S.-Joachim

His children are:

1st- Pierre, m. 1775 to Josette Doyon, S.-Joseph


2nd- Zacharie, m. 1779 to Marie-Ange Roy, S.-Joseph
3nd- Jean-Baptiste, m. 1781 to Louise Boivin, Ste-Marie
4nd- Ignace, m. 1786 to Catherine Lachance, S.-Joachim
5nd- Joseph, m. 1805 to Cécile Huart, S.-Joseph
6nd- Joseph-Marie, m. 1802 to Angélique Poulin, S.-Joseph
Angélique, m. 1777 to Thomas Roy, S.-Joseph

[…]

Third part

Here now are the descendants of Joseph-René, brother of Jean, who settled in Beauce in 1762, on a land
currently occupied by Mr. Léo Grondin.

These descendants, today a distant relationship to that of Jean, was however crossed by subsequent
marriages.

Indeed four of Séraphin Fortin’s daughters married to Bolduc’s. they are:

Eulalie, who married Charles Bolduc, son of Rémi


Marie, who married Charles Bolduc, son of Abraham
Joséphine, who married Charles Bolduc, son of Hilaire
175
Eugenie, who married Jean Bolduc, son of Hilaire

Séraphin Fortin had for noteworthy ancestor Julien Fortin, Esquire of Bellefontaine, Overlord of the coast
of Beaupré and the island of Orléans, conceded to him by the governor Charles de Lauzon in 1657.

The new Overlord committed himself to develop his lands to tax payers. This is what Overlord Fortin did
but managed however to keep for himself two beautiful lands located at the foot of Cape Tourmente.

He had married in 1652 Geneviève Gamache, daughter of Nicolas Gamache, overlord of Islet. He died in
1687 and was buried in S.-Joachim.

First generation in Beauce

1- Joseph-René, m. 1768 to Marie Perreault, S.-Joseph -2


m. 1773 to Angélique Blanchard, S.-Joseph -2a
m. 1776 to Marie-Anne Gagné, S.-Joseph -2b

Various authenticated contracts show us that Joseph-René increased considerably his property by the
purchase of several lands and was able to improve them before passing them to his two sons.

Second generation

2- Jean-Marie, m. 1794 to Marie Veilleux, S.-François -3


2a- François, m. 1797 to Marie-Louise Roy, S.-François -4
2b- Charles, m. 1802 to Geneviève Doyon, S.-François -5
2b- Augustin, m. 1807 to Catherine Doyon, S.-François -6
2b- Catherine, m. 1818 to François Bélanger, S.-François
2b- Louis-Amable, m. 1826 to Charlotte Meneclier,
- Louis-Amable became Sheriff in Joliette.

Augustin Bolduc and his son Jean-Balaam are among the founders of S.-Victor. It is during a hunting
party on the river Le Bras that they discover, in 1836, the low grounds (fonds) of the 2nd row of Tring. With
Alexis Poulin and François Doyon they hastened to mark a section of “fonds” for each, where they started
clearing on the next spring.

3- Jean, m. 1819 to Marguerite Boucher, S.-François -7

4- François, m. 1827 to Marguerite Morency, S.-François -8


Rémi, m. 1830 to Henriette Rancourt, S.-François -9

Children of Charles Bolduc and Geneviève Doyon: (5)

5- David, m. 1835 in Basilisse Roy, S. - François -10


Rémi, m. 1837 in Angélique Vachon, S. - François -11
1846 in Catherine Verreault, S. - François -11a
Augustin, m. 1838 in Louise Rodrigue, S. - François -12
Joseph, m. 1840 in Catherine Grondin, S. - François -13
François-X., m. 1846 in Apolline Bolduc, S. - François -14
Charles, m. 1847 in Nathalie Cloutier, S. - François -15

176
Apolline Bolduc, married to François-Xavier, was the half-sister of Abraham Bolduc, spouse of
Marguerite Barbeau.

A noteworthy matter concerning François-Xavier deserves to be brought to light. During the troubles of
1837, a cry of freedom had resounded in the entire province of Quebec. Spirits were high and Papineau, chief of
the revolt, counted a great number of partisans in Beauce. Colonel Oliva commanded a military station there
and in his capacity as representative of the English authority had the right to arrest all those he suspected of
being enemies to the King. The inhabitants of Beauce, free and independent in character, hardly liked this
situation.

Tradition dictates that a young beauceron got the strength, in front of a few witnesses, to seize the station
of Oliva and to destroy its guards, in the company of a few men such as F.-X. Bolduc.

These rebellious matters didn’t take long to reach the Governor who had them arrested on January 26,
1839. François-Xavier hid, but his father Charles, threatened to have his property set on fire, asked him to turn
himself in. Thanks to the intervention of Mr. Henry Pozer all were given their freedom after two months of
imprisonment.

Children of Augustin Bolduc and Catherine Doyon: (6)

6- René alias Rémi, m. 1843 to Sophie Pépin nicknamed Lachance, S.-François -16
Augustin, m. 1846 to Marguerite Provost, S.-Henri -17
Jean-Balaam, m. 1840 to Anastasie Bernard, S.-François -18

Jean-Balaam, a pioneer from S.-Victor with his father Augustin, is also the author of the nickname of
Cap-Son spread throughout the Beauce region.

Here is the origin. Not having a practicable way between S.-Victor and S.-François where there was a
flour mill, Jean-B. one day left through the woods with his grains on his shoulders. Upon his return he had
the misfortune of losing the entire contents of a bag of “son” (bran) on a “cap” (promontory). From this the
name Cap-Son Bolduc was given to this valiant settler and his descendants.

[…]

Fourth part

Let’s remember that our ancestor Louis Bolduc had three sons: Louis, René and Jacques. Up until now we
mentioned only the descendants of his second son, René. The descendants of his first son, Louis, being also
very numerous, becomes opportune to mention.

Louis, elder to the ancestor Louis Bolduc and Élisabeth Hubert, married in 1697, to Louise Caron at
Sainte-Anne de Beaupré. The same year he is the owner of a land at Saint-Joachim, property which is still today
in the possession of the Bolduc’s.

Children of Louis Bolduc, son, and of Louise Caron:

1- Jean-Germain, m. in 1725 to Marie-Anne Filion, at S.-Joachim


2- Louis, m. in 1725 to Marguerite Poulin, at S.-Joachim
3- Joseph, m. in 1727 to Thérèse Poulin, at S.-Joachim
4- Pierre, m. in 1728 to Josette Leblond, at Ste-Famille
5- Paul, m. in 1738 to Marthe Racine, at Ste-Anne de Beaupré
177
- The posterity of Paul is established today especially in the area of Joliette.

[…]

Conclusion

One enjoys to compare the genealogy of a family with a majestic thousand-year-old tree where autumn
returns regularly. The leaves fall, but the robust branches remain and grows continuously by constantly
supporting a more abundant foliage.

The tree of the Bolduc family didn’t escape this cycle. It is tall and straight, proud and vigorous within the
large forest of human families like this family album portrays.

We have applied, throughout the course of these pages, to reconstitute in a faithful table the genealogy of
the families which bear the name of Bolduc. There our task stops. If we have been able somehow to render
service to the new generation, we shall be amply rewarded for the work that we’ve asserted ourselves in
bringing to light this genealogical volume.

Some errors might have slipped here and there. We excuse ourselves in advance if such is the case. It was
impossible for us to control in an adequate way all the families in question in this volume considering the extent
of the task and the limited resources we had.

The author greets all the Bolduc families and thanks them for the reception that they held at the time of
our meeting.

178
Videos
[Here are some internet links of videos created by Dany Bolduc, these documentaries touch
different areas concerning our ancestors, filmed on-site.]

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzCFSCROAAQ Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SffqijHx6o

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Svf09oLtXY Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faXI6EyFEd8

(See: http://www.youtube.com/user/bolduc99 )

Lecture given Saturday 26 August 2017 by Yan J. K. Bolduc, for the last Louis Bolduc Day celebration
(under new management by Executive Director Mr. Geoff Giglierano) at Ste. Genevieve, Missouri:

(Picture taken by Linda L. Bolduc)


Source: https://www.facebook.com/42942974051/videos/10156470498764052
179
http://www.vacationfun.com/WowGet.html?clientID=content155
&vidById=http://www.vacationfun.com/mp/video/Genevieve.flv [1914 Postcard]

Louis Bolduc House, 123 South Main Street, Sainte Geneviève, Ste. Geneviève County, MO

Source: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/index.html

[Signature of Louis Bolduc in 1797.]


[Anecdote: The Bolduc presence in the USA was already established since before the signing of
the Declaration of Independence on 4 July 1776, through the settlement of Louis Bolduc of Saint-
Joachim, to Ste-Geneviève, Missouri, in the early 1760s. He married in 1765, and on 11 June
1770 "Louis Boisleduc" concludes a contract with a Louis Boulet to construct a habitable house
before 30 September 1771 (it was rebuilt further up, to its present location, after the great floods of
1785). It has been fully restored to its original condition in 1956-57, and is now preserved as a
National Historic Landmark since 1970. He was the son of Zacharie Bolduc, second generation of
our common ancestor. Source: Louis Bolduc, his family and his house, by Carl J. Ekberg (2002)]
180
(Visit: https://www.frenchcoloniallife.org)
(Source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/10/ste-genevieve-missouri-national-park-french-colonial-history/)

181
(Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=r47NlSdIrYgC)
182
183
(New England 2000 census data that treats ‘French’, ‘French- (All three categories together.)
Canadian’ and ‘Canadian’ as different groups.)

(See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Canadians & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Canadian_Americans)


184
(1613)
185
(1581)

186
Herman Hugo’s translation The Siege of Breda by the Armes of Phillip the Fourth (Obsidis Bredana, sub Ambrosio Spinola),
an eye-witness account of the ten-months siege of the fortress of Breda in 1625 by Spanish forces.

(1627)
187
(1619 ca)

188
(1619 ca, detail)

189
(1649 [Milan])

190
191
(1700 [Oxford])
(https://www.flickr.com/photos/timfinch/8096203439)

(See: https://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/55881) (1712 [London]) 192


(1671, Balduc, & Bosco Vecchio [Old Forest])

(1635, Bolduc) 193


(1596)

194
(1574)
195
196
(1676 [London]) 197
198
199
(1721 [London])
(1638)

200
201
(1746 [London])

202
(1759 [London])

203
(Quebec, 1763)
(1735 ca)

(1733 ca)

204
Appendix

(1609 coin from Bois-le-Duc, during the Spahish reign. The town was won over in 1629.)

(City Hall roof of Bois-le-Duc. Photo taken by Yan J. K. Bolduc, 28 April 2007.)
205
(p. 24)

(p. 174)

(p. 185)

Source: https://archive.org/details/oldtownhalllibra00leiciala

206
RECORDS OF ENTRIES OF THE CHÂTELET IN PARIS
Analytical inventory
Y327
compiled by Michèle Bonnot
written by Armande Perlot
National Archives
Paris
2012

Y//327
Registry of entries: donations and substitutions.

Register in-f°, 297 pages, paper.

Y//327, folio 103 verso


Marie Mignot, widow of François Alexandre, middle-class merchant, former Chief Judge Consul of Paris:
donation to the children of Marie-Angélique Alexandre, her daughter, wife of Étienne Vannier, button-maker
merchant; to the children of Louis François Alexandre, her son; to Jean Boulduc, child of Marie Anne
Alexandre, her daughter, on her death, wife of François Boulduc, First Apothecary of the King; all her
grandchildren.
June 12, 1723
Names of Notaries not recorded in the entries
(Source: http://en.geneanet.org/archives/livres/673468/16)

François Alexandre x Marie Mignot, they have three children:


1- Marie-Angélique Alexandre, x Étienne Vannier; they have children, but are not named.
2- Louis-François Alexandre, x (spouse not mentioned), they also have children, not named.
3- Marie-Anne Alexandre, x Gilles-François Boulduc; they had one child, Jean Boulduc, apparently still
alive by June 12, 1723. However, we do not know when he died, because according to the article by Dr.
Christian Warolin: “from this marriage he only had one son who is also deceased”, on the death of his first
wife in January 1714 (only seven years after their marriage. According to Paul Dorveaux [page 202,
footnote 11, published in 1930], she died aged 27 on May 22, 1714, and buried the next day).

To his second marriage, Gilles-François Boulduc x Edmée Catherine Millon on March 27, 1734; they
had had Jean-François Boulduc prior, on February 20, 1728.

(Discovered by Richard Bolduc, July 23, 2013.)

207
[Interesting anecdote concerning the British Crown in Canada:
Canada’s Head of State
In today’s constitutional monarchy, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and
Canada’s Head of State. She is the personal embodiment of the Crown in Canada.
In Canada’s system of government, the power to govern is vested in the Crown but is
entrusted to the government to exercise on behalf and in the interest of the people. The Crown
reminds the government of the day that the source of the power to govern rests elsewhere and
that it is only given to them for a limited duration.]
(Source: https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/crown-canada/about.html)

[Here is a stamp commemorating the Royal visit on 18 June 1959 of Queen


Elisabeth II to Canada for the opening of the St. Lawrence river seaway, stamped
‘Bolduc’ at the post office of Saint-Martin village in the Beauce region of Quebec
province. The post office of Saint-Martin was named “Bolduc” from circa 1900
until shortly after 1963, in honor of Senator Joseph Bolduc of St-Victor. He was
Senator in Ottawa, Canada, from 1884 ‘till his death in 1924 (Source: La Grande
Coudée, 1982, by Robert Bolduc]
208
209
210
[Saint-Martin]

211
(The Encyclopedia Americana, Volume 23, 1956)
212
213
(The Encyclopedia Americana, Volume 5, 1956)
214
(The Encyclopedia Americana, Volume 5, 1956)
a selection of
flags of the french regime
1534-1760

Royal Banner of France French Merchant Flag French Merchant Flag

French Merchant Flag White Flag of the French Navy Drapeau de Carillon

Regiments

Carignan-Salière Compagnies franches de la Marine Royal-Roussillon

La Reine Béarn Guyenne

Languedoc La Sarre Berry

(Source: https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/flags-canada-historical/posters.html)
216
(Portland Pirates Military Appreciation Night jersey worn by #49 Alexandre Bolduc on November 8th 2014.)

(Similar situation a few years earlier, in Canada.)

(https://www.familyforce.ca/EN/Pages/default.aspx)
217
(Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Drakenfontein_%27s-Hertogenbosch)

(Dutch comic
book, 1994)

(Train Station,
circa 1930)

(Train Station
today)

218
(1944)
219
Dragon’s Fountain ('s-Hertogenbosch, Bois-le-Duc)
The Dragon’s Fountain is the most famous fountain of the municipality of 's-Hertogenbosch. The image on
the fountain allows for a dragon. Originally it would have to be a drinking fountain, but that feature was never
fulfilled. The fountain is located on the very busy intersection of the Stationsweg and Queens Avenue, right in
front of 's-Hertogenbosch station.
Introduction
The statue was placed in 1903 and was part of a contest, which was issued by the municipality. Jonkheer
Bosch van Drakesteijn, Queen's Commissioner in North Brabant from 1856 until his death in 1894, had
entertained a bequest to the municipality of 's-Hertogenbosch, at a memorial for his twin daughters, who in
1881 at the age of 17 had died. The statue would initially be just in front of the station, but it is slightly further
East, in the direction of the town.
There was a competition held. The brothers the lion from Nijmegen won this, but the Dragon is not made to
their design. Architect Vincent Jules Dony was instructed to make a design for the Dragon fountain. The
Dragon and the little dragons are manufactured at the firm F. W. Bam in Delft. The plinth is made by the firm
n. Glaudemans, a stone masonry.
In 1959, the tunnel under the Dragon. The tunnel connected the King Road with the Queen Emma square,
allowing car traffic that went from North to South, or vice versa, had no interference of other traffic to and from
the station. The fountain was then temporarily moved from the station. The cuts in the column are still visible
and are still silent witnesses of this event. After the tunnel was finished, the Dragon’s Fountain was completely
rebuilt.
Why a dragon?
There are two stories that explain why the image on the fountain is a dragon:
-Dragon of a city
's-Hertogenbosch was partially — and still is — in a swamp area. The area of the city was easily under
water. The city was therefore called the Swamp Dragon and gold was used for the statue as symbol of an
impregnable fortress. Frederick Henry wanted 's-Hertogenbosch back in 1629. The inhabitants of 's-
Hertogenbosch were initially not worried because of the soggy ground, but Frederick Henry was able to drain
the city anyways.
-Commissioner Bosch van Drakensteijn
Another story is that there is a dragon, because of the last name of the legislator. This also, because the
Dragon is holding a shield with the coat of arms of Bosch van Drakensteijn.
2000 and 2001
On 12 October 2000, the Dragon fell off its pedestal and the city had to do without its Dragon. No one was
injured. Though it hit and damaged one of the four bronze dragons that are on the ground. The reason the
dragon fell was the result of rust formation at the attachment of the steel skeleton, which is quite normal after 97
years. The restoration would initially last for six months.
Finally on december 14, 2001, the Dragon was gilded and made whole again. In the replacement, there is in
the tail of the Dragon a time capsule. In that capsule is a drawing, a photograph and a gold leaf. So it will be
possible in the future for the dragon to be restored to its original design.
Nicknames
• About the Bosch folks who still exist near 's-Hertogenbosch, there is the prejudice that they have a big
mouth. In the region of 's-Hertogenbosch there went the joke that the municipality no longer favor the Dragon,
but would replace it by a golden hippopotamus: which has a larger mouth. As the restoration was happening,
this joke became more popular.
• The image is popularly also called the statue of mother-in-laws.
[See page 15] (Source: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drakenfontein_(%27s-Hertogenbosch), roughly translated September 2015
from Dutch by Yan J. K. Bolduc, using: http://www.microsofttranslator.com)
220
(Source: Wikipedia)
221
(2018)

(Sources: Wikipedia)
222
(1609)

223
(1681)

224
Annals of the Archeological Circle of Mons
Tome II
1859

Varieties
(pp. 436-444)
Ancient Signs, in Mons. – Signs of the past were, in a certain manner, proper names given to houses.

The religious denominations were often preferred for hostels, especially for pilgrims. The homes of clerics
were often generally names of Saints. Many bourgeois also felt happy to live in a house under the patronage of
a Saint. Merchants and artisans usually took for Signs allegories, attributes of their trade, of their craft. Plants,
animals, stars, locality names, professions, tools, furniture, clothing, provided, as nowadays, matters for Signs.
Fantastic subjects, witticisms, clever words and allusions, naturally grabbed attention, and merchants didn’t fail
to find inspiration in the selection of a Sign, and sought to be trendy in this fashion, despite the proverb: A bon
vin, pas d’enseignes [If your merit is great, there is no need to advertise]. Also, one borrowed from historical
values; but they were rare in Mons.

The ancient Signs were usually carved in stone in the facades of houses. However there were wooden or
metal ones that could be transported from one place of the city to another. These Signs did not benefit from the
rigidity of the permanent ones, and there are hardly any left, and the former are true manifests of the kind that
have survived in part to the many changes brought about by demolitions, and especially the resurfacing of many
storefronts.
(…)
Finally, we shall give you the names of ancient Signs which have disappeared for a long time, or who, for
many, are hidden; either behind modern paneling or plaster, and which locations are not well known to us. We
have arranged them according to the streets where they are mentioned in certain ancient documents.
(…)
Cantimpret Street. – Aux trois Boulets, À Ste Marguerite, Au Boulduc.
(…)
Source: http://www.google.com/books?id=Ni0FAAAAQAAJ

[Hypothetical Sign, by Yan J. K. Bolduc]

225
[Letter written in Bois-le-Duc (here spelled “Boulduc” with only two syllables) by François Rougier de Malras,
Baron of Ferralz, Officer of the Court to the Netherlands from 1568 to 1571, Advisor and Maître d'hôtel
ordinaire (Lord Steward) of Charles IX and his resident Ambassador in the Netherlands.]
(Manuscript: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b90602457/f202.zoom)
(Info: https://archive.org/details/lettresdecatheri10cathuoft & http://books.google.com/books?id=A2USAAAAYAAJ)
[Discovery by Yan J. K. Bolduc on October 18th 2013.] 226
Bosch's Mystery: this is why Den Bosch
has several names
• March 7, 2020
• Renee Vievermans

Photo: Den Bosch neighborhood

Den Bosch and 's-Hertogenbosch, two names for one city that are both used. Did you
know that these are not the only names for Den Bosch? Why is this actually so? Time
for a history lesson!

Little Rome, Harze van Buske and Buscoducal. Over the years, Den Bosch has known more than
one hundred and ten different names. Erfgoed 's-Hertogenbosch has drawn up the following list
of names . Where these names come from has to do with the language in which people wrote
and the development of the city at that time. Consider, for example, the Spanish and French
time. Figurative names were also used, of which Oeteldonk is a well-known example. Opponents
made up names like the Invincible Swamp Dragon or even better, El Dragón del Pantano.

Des Hertogen Bosch


From the list of names of Erfgoed 's-Hertogenbosch, we see that the forest and the duke form a
common thread in various forms and languages. It is clear that 's-Hertogenbosch is a direct
1
derivative, or an upgrade of Des Hertogen Bosch. However, the first official name of our city is
Den Bosch. Only in 1996, eight hundred years after the first mention of the name 's-
Hertogenbosch, was the name 's-Hertogenbosch officially recorded.

A difference between writing and speaking


According to language society Onze Taal , Den Bosch is mainly used in spoken language and 's-
Hertogenbosch is written. There is a society that disagrees completely. The Society for the
Promotion of the Use of the Name 's-Hertogenbosch has long been committed to preventing
confusion between two names. The mission of this society is to ensure that there is more unity
in the use of the name 's-Hertogenbosch.

Confusion abroad
With all those different names abroad, it can sometimes be difficult to explain where you come
from. Try these translations next time.

• Silva Ducic – Latin;


• Bois-le-Duc – French;
• Herzogenbusch – German;
• Bolduque – Spanish;
• Boscoducale – Italian.

Do you remember a Bosch Mystery? Do you sometimes walk through the city and think:
what is this? Why is that standing/hanging/lying/floating/floating there? Send an email
to denbosch@indebuurt.nl and we will look into it for you!

subjects

• Enjoy Den Bosch

• mysteries

• Then in Den Bosch

Share this article

Source: https://indebuurt.nl/denbosch/genieten-van/dit-is-waarom-den-bosch-twee-namen-heeft~105204/

2
1/3/23, 6:07 PM More than 110 names for Den Bosch/'s-Hertogenbosch - NU Current

More than 110 names for Den Bosch/'s-Hertogenbosch

 TLPST  March 27, 2020 Level : Havo/vwo lower/lower/lower Vmbo Source : TLPST 66

Have you ever heard of Silvae-ducensis, Boulduc or Hartzevan Buske? All three are names for the city of 's-Hertogenbosch, a name that was
only officially recorded in 1996.

Over the centuries , more than 110 names have been used for Den Bosch .
The forest and the duke form a common thread for the naming of the city in
various languages, including Spanish and French.

Perhaps you know the name Den Bosch best, the unofficial name that you
hear most often . But not everyone is happy about that. For example, the
Society to promote the use of the name 's-Hertogenbosch strives for
everyone to use only 's-Hertogenbosch. 

Questions
1a Which name comes to mind first when someone asks you what the capital of North Brabant is?

1b What do you think the Society to promote the use of the name 's-Hertogenbosch thinks of this?

Answer question 2 for yourself first and then discuss the answer in class.

2 The Society to promote the use of the name 's-Hertogenbosch wants, among other things, to prevent confusion abroad if people
keep calling the city differently. Do you think that is a good enough reason to only say and write 's-Hertogenbosch from now on?
Justify your answer.

3 If you could choose a completely new, international name for the city, what would you call it? (Tip: You can also choose a well-
known Dutch female name!)

Look for the answers in TLPST no. 66

Source: TLPST No. 66

Would you like to know more about our New Dutch method?

To the website 

https://nuactueel.noordhoff.nl/meer-dan-110-namen-voor-den-bosch-s-hertogenbosch/
1/3/23, 6:25 PM Names of the city and 'Search' | Heritage 's-Hertogenbosch

City names and 'Search'

The official name of the city is 's-Hertogenbosch. This was approved by the city council in 1996.
A society has also been set up to promote the use of that name. But what people want to call the
city can of course not be controlled from above. It never worked that way, and it hasn't for over
800 years.

Bracelet of a Bossche city piper, on which the name of the city heart-eyes-BOSSCHE is applied in
rebus shape with symbols and letters in silver. (Source: Noordbrabants Museum
(http://collectie.hetnoordbrabantsmuseum.nl/Details/collect/3197) )
https://www.erfgoedshertogenbosch.nl/verhalen/namen-van-de-stad-en-zoeken 1/7
1/3/23, 6:25 PM Names of the city and 'Search' | Heritage 's-Hertogenbosch

Why so many names?

Many different names are used for the city in the archives and in publications.

This has to do with, among other things:

the development of the settlement/town over time and the environment;


the political situation;
the language in which people wrote during that period;
but sometimes also with little knowledge of the language used for the word;
unfamiliarity with the city and country;
uncorrected writing errors;
copied texts from incorrect scans and translation machines;
the development of the Dutch language.

Also, in the course of time, the city has had several consecutive names in the same language, but
also different names used simultaneously. The period and the language therefore also determine
which word to pay attention to. Think Spanish time, French time, etc.

Furthermore, figurative names were also used:

who, for example, provided a sketch of the environmental situation or


should have been terrifying.

Names used (especially by opponents) were those of: “Invincible Swamp Dragon”, or in Spanish:
“El Dragón del Pantano” or “El Dragón de los Pantanos”. These names referred to the swamp
environment of 's-Hertogenbosch where further flooding led to a better starting point for the
defense and made approach to the city almost impossible.

But 'Oeteldonk', the carnival name of the city, is also a figurative name.

https://www.erfgoedshertogenbosch.nl/verhalen/namen-van-de-stad-en-zoeken 2/7
1/3/23, 6:25 PM Names of the city and 'Search' | Heritage 's-Hertogenbosch

Explore and discover

If you are researching something, you can 'easily' obtain all kinds of information through various
sources. But if you want to discover more about the city, you have to look further and deeper.
When searching you will then have to use all kinds of spellings of terms and names - otherwise
you will not find 'everything'.

Unfortunately, many of the archive search engines are not set up for alternate spellings. This
means that if you search for <'s-Hertogenbosch>, you will not always find the hits of.
Furthermore, different search engines return different numbers of results. google.nl and
google.de or google.es also give different results!

Useful search tips can be found via Google Inside Search.

To illustrate, the results for a few keywords.

When you search for two words in Google.nl, you will see the differences. Den Bosch, den
bosch, “Den Bosch”, “den bosch” yield successively: 36,700,000, 36,900,000, 16,700,000,
16,700,000 results found. The first two provide many wrong search results and are not
special enough. So you might as well search without capital letters, because Google doesn't
pay attention to that. So the last keyword is best.
The same applies to the keywords: 's-Hertogenbosch, "'s-Hertogenbosch", Hertogenbosch,
hertogenbosch. These yield sequentially: 11,800,000, 11,800,000, 12,800,000, 12,800,000
results. The difficult typing of <'s-> yields nothing extra. That is therefore better left out –
also because mistakes are made with this in many documents. Also for this: the last
keyword is the best.
Finally, a few misspellings: 'shertogenbosch, hertogenbos, hertochenbosch, yield
successively 2,200,000, 12,800, 434 search results. These keywords are incorrect or not
specific enough or too limited. Yet there are dozens of other incorrect spellings that are
printed in all kinds of books (see, among other things, the pdf-appendix

https://www.erfgoedshertogenbosch.nl/verhalen/namen-van-de-stad-en-zoeken 3/7
1/3/23, 6:25 PM Names of the city and 'Search' | Heritage 's-Hertogenbosch

(https://assets.citynavigator.nl/kuma-
erfgoedshbosch/uploads/media/594a9af70fb2b/naamvarianten-s-hertogenbosch-
v10.pdf) )!

Trying out all the alternative spellings is a lot of work. You would prefer that there was a
relationship table or thesaurus, which automatically ensures that - if one of the alternative
spellings is used during the search - search results of all included alternatives are also shown.
And preferably sorted by alternative. But we are not there yet.

Some archives and libraries (including those of the 's-Hertogenbosch Heritage department) are
working on including this in the heritage system, but it is a very extensive work. There are at least
20 to 40 different spellings for each toponym or place name alone. There are often more than 70
variants of objects, and unfortunately the same applies to personal names!

The method of search

Information about the correct use of terms and logical operators (eg AND, OR, exclusion) can be
found on the internet. Some knowledge of it increases finding the right results enormously. It is
important to systematically search, sort, exclude and check off what you have already had.

Words that can lead to good search results are not only used as a proper noun, so as a noun. You
will also encounter them as an adjective, for example Bossche, busche, etc. These are also
possible keywords.

Keywords

Some of the names of the city of 's-Hertogenbosch have been collected. The overview is by no
means exhaustive and the correctness of using one of these languages ​is debatable. However,
this is what was found in a short survey of writers of chronicles, histories, manuscripts, etc.

https://www.erfgoedshertogenbosch.nl/verhalen/namen-van-de-stad-en-zoeken 4/7
1/3/23, 6:25 PM Names of the city and 'Search' | Heritage 's-Hertogenbosch

It is noteworthy that there:

different letters are not handled very accurately and


one time, for example, two words, with or without a dash, and the other time they are
written together.

Several groups of names have emerged over time. A first division of this is formed by the columns
in the PDF attachment. This list can form a basis for further etymological, comparative and
historical linguistic, as well as historical research.

Many of the names can be identified when they were first used. And from which language area
they originally come. For example, consonant combination 'gh' is typical of the 16th and 17th
centuries, and was only used before the vowels 'e' and 'i'. And the use of 'ts' occurred in both the
German and Dutch language areas. It means oa's or te, and was mainly used in the 15th century,
but was used from the 14th to the 16th century.

The title of duke of Brabant was not used until 1183. So from then on the city names with duke in
them came into being. Duke of Lower Lorraine (the legal predecessor of Duke of Brabant, and
therefore much older as a title) has not yet proved relevant in the explanation of the use of 'duke'
in the name of the city.

Below you will find a selection with different names.

Opidi de Buscis, Orthen cum Busscho, nova civitate apud Silvam, Novum oppidum super Silvam
iuxta Orten, Orten que nunc Silva dicitur, Silva Ducis, Buscoducis, Bois-le-Duc, Boisleducq,
Bolduque, Bolduc, El Dragón del Pantano , Den Bossche , The city of Ortduijnen,
Tshertoghenbossche, Des Hartogen Bosch, Buscoducale, Busso-ducis, Herzogenbusch, s-
Hertengebosch, The Buske, Hartzevan Buske

https://www.erfgoedshertogenbosch.nl/verhalen/namen-van-de-stad-en-zoeken 5/7
1/3/23, 6:25 PM Names of the city and 'Search' | Heritage 's-Hertogenbosch

There are more than 110 different words that can be searched for. You can add dozens of other
names to this, namely the incorrect spellings, mistakes and other variants. In the PDF attachment
(https://assets.citynavigator.nl/kuma-
erfgoedshbosch/uploads/media/594a9af70fb2b/naamvarianten-s-hertogenbosch-v10.pdf) you
will find even more names of 's-Hertogenbosch, sorted by language, period of origin, etc..

Please note that some names are not often used synonyms that sometimes also have a different
meaning, and therefore produce the wrong results.

Another nice name from someone who doesn't know Latin and still tries: 'Busco Dulcis' (meaning
'the forest of the sweet'…). Give it a try and you'll discover new things!

Written by: Jack Theuns

More about

research (/verhalen?theme_filter%5Btags%5D%5B%5D=50)

toponyms (/verhalen?theme_filter%5Btags%5D%5B%5D=51)

https://www.erfgoedshertogenbosch.nl/verhalen/namen-van-de-stad-en-zoeken 6/7
Naamvarianten ‘s-Hertogenbosch

Naamvarianten van ‘s-Hertogenbosch

Vele namen

In de archieven en in publicaties worden heel erg veel verschillende namen gebruikt voor de stad.
Ben je iets aan het onderzoeken, en wil je méér over de stad ontdekken, dan moet je vérder en dieper
zoeken. Bij het zoeken zal je dan gebruik moeten maken van allerlei schrijfwijzen van begrippen en
namen – anders vind je niet ‘alles’. Hieronder een eerste aanzet daartoe.

Latijn (*)
Oudste Bos- ‘Nieuwe stad’ Stadsnamen bij Stadsnamen vanaf Figuurlijke
namen - vóór namen - namen Orthen hertogdom (1) namen
de stad
nova civitate nova civitate iuxta
Busloth (2) Busco Silva Ducis
apud Silvam Ortinum
Novum oppidum
civitas apud
Buschlot (2) Buscu super Silvam iuxta Silva-Ducis
sylvam
Orten (8)
Novas civitas
Buscus Silvaducis
apud Ortdunum
Nova civitas apud
Buscum Ortdunum, qua Sylva ducis
Silva dicitur
Civitas de
Boscus Sylva-ducis
Ortduno
Orthen cum Ordunum quod
Sylvaducis
Buscho nunc Silva dicitur
Orthen cum Orten que nunc
Silvaducensis
Busscho Silva dicitur (7)
Opidi de
Silvaeducensis
Buscis
Silvae-ducensis
Busco Ducis
Buscoducis
Boscum Ducis
Buscum Ducis (6)
Buscoducum
Buschoducis
Buscho Ducis
Ducis in Busco
Ducis in Buscho

Duits
Oudste Bos- ‘Nieuwe stad’ Stadsnamen bij Stadsnamen vanaf Figuurlijke
namen - vóór namen - namen Orthen hertogdom (1) namen
de stad
Herzogenbusch
s-Hertengebosch
Thertogenbosch
Tschertogenbusch

Versie: 1.0 Pagina 1/3 Erfgoed ’s-Hertogenbosch


Jack Theuns
Naamvarianten ‘s-Hertogenbosch

Frans (*)
Oudste Bos- ‘Nieuwe stad’ Stadsnamen bij Stadsnamen vanaf Figuurlijke
namen - vóór namen - namen Orthen hertogdom (1) namen
de stad
Dragon des
Bois-le-Duc
Marais (3)
Boisleduc
Boise-le-Duc
Bois-le-Duq
Boisleduq
Bois-le-Ducq
Boisleducq
Bolduc
Bolduq
Bolducq
Bolleduc
Boulleduc
Bosleduc
Bosleducq
Boulduc
Boulduq
Boulducq
Boselduc
Bosseduc
Boilduc

Spaans
Oudste Bos- ‘Nieuwe stad’ Stadsnamen bij Stadsnamen vanaf Figuurlijke
namen - vóór namen - namen Orthen hertogdom (1) namen
de stad
El Dragón del
Bolduque
Pantano (3)
El Dragón de los
Bolduq
Pantanos (3)
Bolduc
Bolducum

Italiaans
Oudste Bos- ‘Nieuwe stad’ Stadsnamen bij Stadsnamen vanaf Figuurlijke
namen - vóór namen - namen Orthen hertogdom (1) namen
de stad
Boscoducale
Buscoducale
Boscoduca
Busso-ducis
Buscioduca

Engels
Oudste Bos- ‘Nieuwe stad’ Stadsnamen bij Stadsnamen vanaf Figuurlijke
namen - vóór namen - namen Orthen hertogdom (1) namen
de stad
Marsh Dragon
Den Bosch ’s-Hertogenbosch
(3)
The Buske Hartzevan Buske

Versie: 1.0 Pagina 2/3 Erfgoed ’s-Hertogenbosch


Jack Theuns
Naamvarianten ‘s-Hertogenbosch

Nederlands (*)
Oudste Bos- ‘Nieuwe stad’ Stadsnamen bij Stadsnamen vanaf Figuurlijke
namen - vóór namen - namen Orthen hertogdom (1) namen
de stad
De nieuwe
De nieuwe stad bij
’s-Bosch stad bij den ’s-Hertogenbosch Moerasdraak (3)
Ortduynen
Bossche
De nieuwe
stad bij
Ortduynen die De stad van Onoverwinnelijke
sBosch ’s-Hertogenbosche
den Bossche Ortduijnen Moerasdraak (3)
genoemd
wordt
De stad van
Busch Des Hertogen Bosch Klein Rome (4)
Ortduinen
Rome van het
Den Bosch Des Hartogen Bosch
Noorden
Den Bos Schertogenbosch Oeteldonk (5)
Den
’s Hertogen-Bussche
Bossche
Orthen, nu
Bosch ’s Hartogen-Bosch
genoemd
Tshertoghenbossche
Shertoghenbossche
Tshertoghenbusche
Tshertoghenbussche
Tshertoghen
Bossche
Tshertogen Bossche
Tshertogenbosch
tsHertogenbosch
Tsertoghenbosche
tSertogenbosch

 Als in de naam van de stad een streepje (-) staat, komt deze ook voor in de betreffende bron(nen).
1- vanaf 1183
2- Niet bewezen
3- Tijdens de 80-jarige oorlog
4- Vanaf 1579 werd deze naam gebruikt – soms betrekking hebbend op de stad, soms alleen op het
gedeelte rond de Hulst, waar veel kloosters stonden
5- Stadsnaam tijdens Carnaval
6- Vanaf 1243
7- Vanaf 1204
8- 1195

Namen van de stad en ‘Zoeken’.


Dit overzicht hoort bij het artikel: Namen van de stad en ‘Zoeken’.
www.erfgoedshertogenbosch.nl

Versie: 1.0 Pagina 3/3 Erfgoed ’s-Hertogenbosch


Jack Theuns
(Source: https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/nl/collectie/RP-P-OB-82.910) 227
(1657)

(Jeton de ville)

228
(1567)
229
(1706)


230

Two French forts, build by Ribaut in 1562 and Laudonniere in 1564, are here both titled “Karel Slot”.
(Source: https://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/57448)

231
Construction of Fort Caroline-Jacksonville, Florida.
Image showing the commencement of construction on Fort Caroline on the River Maij (May), the first French Colony in what would become the
United States, in the vicinity of Jacksonville, Florida. One of the earliest obtainable images of a European settlement in the modern day US.

Built in 1564 and destroyed by the Spanish the following year, the fort was laid out in a triangular format and constructed of mounded earth and
logs.
(Source: http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/47680mp2)

(1591)
232
French Fort Caroline, Florida, by Théodore De Bry (Frankfurt, 1591).
Image of Fort Caroline, the first French Colony in what would become the United States, in the vicinity of Jacksonville, Florida. One of the
earliest obtainable images of a European settlement in the modern day US.
Built in 1564 and destroyed by the Spanish the following year, the fort was laid out in a triangular format and constructed of mounded earth and
logs.
A French expedition, organized by Protestant leader Admiral Gaspard de Coligny and led by the Norman navigator Jean Ribault, landed at the
site on the River of May (now the St. Johns River) in February 1562, before moving north to Port Royal Sound. There, on present-day Parris Island,
South Carolina, Ribault left twenty-eight men to build a settlement known as Charlesfort. Ribault then returned to Europe to arrange supplies for
the new colony, but was arrested in England due to complications arising from the French Wars of Religion, which prevented his return.
Without supplies or leadership, and beset by hostility from the native populations, all but one of the colonists sailed back to Europe after only a
year. During their voyage in an open boat, they were reduced to cannibalism before the survivors were rescued in English waters. Meanwhile,
René Goulaine de Laudonnière, who had been Ribault’s second-in-command on the 1562 expedition, led a contingent of around 200 new settlers
back to Florida, where they founded Fort Caroline (or Fort de la Caroline) atop St. Johns Bluff on June 22, 1564. The fort was named for the
reigning French king, Charles IX. For just over a year, this colony was beset by hunger, Indian attacks, and mutiny, and attracted the attention of
Spanish authorities who considered it a challenge to their control over the area.
In June of 1565, Ribault had been released from English custody, and Coligny sent him back to Florida. In late August, Ribault arrived at Fort
Caroline with a large fleet and hundreds of soldiers and settlers and took command of the settlement. However, the recently appointed Spanish
Governor of Florida, Don Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, had simultaneously been dispatched from Spain with orders to remove the French outpost,
and arrived within days of Ribault’s landing. After a brief skirmish between Ribault’s ships and Menéndez’s ships, the latter retreated 35 miles
south, where they established the settlement of St. Augustine. Ribault pursued the Spanish with several of his ships and most of his troops, but he
was surprised at sea by a violent storm lasting several days. In a bold stroke, Menéndez marched his forces overland, launching a surprise dawn
attack on the Fort Caroline garrison which then numbered about 200 to 250 people. The only survivors were about 50 women and children who
were taken prisoner and a few defenders, including Laudonnière, who managed to escape; the rest were executed.

As for Ribault’s fleet, all of the ships either sank or ran aground south of St. Augustine during the storm, and many of the Frenchmen onboard
were lost at sea. Ribault and his marooned sailors were located by Menéndez and his troops and summoned to surrender. Apparently believing that
his men would be well treated, Ribault capitulated. Menéndez then executed Ribault and several hundred Frenchmen as Lutheran heretics at a place
now known as Matanzas (“massacres”) Inlet. This atrocity shocked Europeans even in that bloody era of religious strife. This place is known today
by a fort built much later, Fort Matanzas. This massacre put an end to France’s attempts at colonization of the southeast coast of North America.
The Spanish destroyed Fort Caroline, but built their own fort on the same site. In April 1568, Dominique de Gourgues led a French force which
attacked, captured and burned the fort. He then slaughtered all his Spanish prisoners in horrible revenge for the 1565 massacre. The Spanish
rebuilt, but permanently abandoned the fort the following year. The exact location of the settlement is not known.
(Source: http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/45424)

(1591)
233
(Recto)

234
(Verso)
235
(Fort Caroline on the St Johns River, 1671 [London])

236
(1658 (1660) [London])

(1668 (1671) [London])

[See pages 294, 336 & 337]

237
Sir Francis Drake’s Raid on St. Augustine, by Théodore De Bry (Frankfurt, 1599).
Early engraving of Sir Francis Drake’s raid on St. Augustine, which includes the earliest obtainable city plan of any city within the United
States, published in Frankfurt, by Matthias Merian, as part of the continuation of De Bry’s Grand Voyages.
Important early view of St. Augustine, showing the raid of Sir Francis Drake during his famous West Indian voyage of 1586. The image
appeared in the 8th Part of De Bry’s Grand Voyages, and is based upon Baptista Boazio’s 1588 plan of St. Augustine. The plan is the earliest
obtainable map of any city within the United States and is preceded only by two earlier (and unobtainable) Boazio plans of St. Augustine.
Drake’s raid on St. Augustine occurred during the Anglo-Spanish War. Drake and his raiding party captured the Spanish settlement of St.
Augustine, followin a brief skirmish. This was part of Francis Drake’s Great Expedition and was the last engagement on the Spanish main
before Drake headed north for the Roanoke Colony. The expedition also forced the Spanish to abandon any settlements and forts in present-
day South Carolina.
Drake had been indirectly commissioned by Queen Elizabeth I to lead an expedition to attack the Spanish New World in a kind of
preemptive strike. Drake struck first at Santiago in November 1585, then across the Atlantic in Santo Domingo, which Drake captured in
January 1586. He next attacked Cartagena in February 1586.
Drake then turned north, with designs on raiding another Spanish settlement, before visiting Virginia. On May 27, 1586, a small fort was
spotted on the shore, with a small inlet close by. This was the location of St. Augustine, the most northerly town in Spain’s New World
Empire, and the oldest permanent colonial settlement in North America. Drake knew of the place and was also aware of the fact that the
Spanish, under Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, had ordered all of the French Huguenot colonists that had tried to settle in the area executed.
Drake decided on one final opportunity to raid and plunder, and a chance to avenge his fellow Protestants, which resulted in the capture and
razing of St. Augustine.
(Source: http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/45473)

(1599)
238
(1591)
239
French Discoveries along the Coast of Florida in 1562.
De Bry's map is based upon an original drawing by Jacques Le Moyne. This map depicts the arrival of the French
expedition under Jean Ribaut, depicting the expeditions entry into the River of May (St. John's) in Florida.
This work was published by Theodor de Bry from manuscript notes and drawings made by Jacques le Moyne de
Morgues, an illustrator and explorer, who sailed with René de Laudonnière on the 1564 Huguenot expedition to Florida.
A French expedition, organized by Protestant leader Admiral Gaspard de Coligny and led by the Norman navigator
Jean Ribault, landed at the site on the River of May (now the St. Johns River) in February 1562. Ribault explored the
mouth of the St. Johns River in Florida and erected a stone monument there before leading the party north and
establishing a settlement on Parris Island, South Carolina. He then sailed back to France for supplies while Laudonnière
took charge of the colony. Finding conditions unfavorable on Parris Island, Laudonnière moved back to Florida where
they founded Fort Caroline on the St. Johns Bluff, in what is now Jacksonville.
Ribault then returned to Europe to arrange supplies for the new colony, but was arrested in England due to
complications arising from the French Wars of Religion, which prevented his return.
(Source: http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/45304)

(1591)
240
French Discoveries on the Georgia Coastline.
View on the Georgia Coastline, based upon original watercolor paintings by Jacques Le Moynes de Morgues,
an official French artist, who accompanied two important French Expeditions to North America in the 1560’s.
The images show the French explorations on the Georgia Coastline, which were first published in 1591, by
Théodore de Bry. Taken from the publication of the reports of Jean Ribault (1562) and René Goulaine de
Laudonnière (1564) expeditions, entitled Brevis narratio eorum quae in Florida Americœ provincia Gallis
acciderunt…
On the first French voyage to the region which would be described as French Florida, the crew, led by Captain
Jean Ribaut, landed at a promontory which later become Fort Augustine. Following the coast north from there,
Ribault’s expedition discovered a broad river, which they called May. After exploring the region, they
proceeded further and sailed farther up the coast until they reached another river which Captain Ribaut deemed
worthy of exploration. He called this river the Seine. After a brief investigation, the expedition continued a
short distance north, before encountering another large river. This river was explored in two small boats.
Ribault named this river the Somme or Axona, which is about six miles from the Seine. The river marked on
the engraving ‘F. Axona, Iricana’ is evidently the Somme, but has the suffix Iracana, after the Indians on this
river. Today, it is known as St. Andrews Sound, Georgia, at the mouth of the Saltilla River and Jekyll Island.
The fish-pens, shown in the river estuary, are ‘reed enclosures made in the form of a labyrinth’ by the Indians,
and from which the fish found it almost impossible to escape.
(Source: http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/39084)

(1591)
241
French Discoveries along the Coast of Georgia in 1562.
De Bry's map is based upon an original drawing by Jacques Le Moyne. The text describes discovery by French
explorations of six rivers, which they named the Loire, Charente, Garonne, Gironde, Belle, and the Grande. The first of these,
the Loire, is not marked on the engraving but is thought to be Altamaha Sound. The others are marked respectively Charenta
(Sapelo Sound), Garumna (St. Catherines Sound), Gironda (Ossabaw Sound) and Bellum (Wassaw Sound).
This work was published by Theodor de Bry from manuscript notes and drawings made by Jacques le Moyne de Morgues,
an illustrator and explorer, who sailed with René de Laudonnière on the 1564 expedition to Florida.
Le Moyne accompanied the French expedition of Jean Ribault and René Laudonnière in an attempt to colonize northern
Florida. They arrived at the St. Johns River in 1564, and soon founded Fort Caroline near present-day Jacksonville. Painting
in the Calvinist style, he is mostly known for his artistic depictions of the landscape, flora, fauna, and, most importantly, the
inhabitants of the New World. His drawings (as primarily known through the engravings of De Bry, which were copied from
Le Moyne's work), are largely regarded as some of the most accessible data about the cultures of the Southeastern Coastal
United States. During this expedition he became known as a cartographer and an illustrator as he painted landscapes and
reliefs of the land they crossed.
(Source: http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/44450mp2)

(1591)

242
Port Royal, South Carolina and St. Augustine, Florida, by Théodore De Bry (Frankfurt, 1591).
Early engraved views, based upon original watercolor paintings by Jacques Le Moynes de Morgues, an official French
artist, who accompanied two important French Expeditions to North America in the 1560’s.
The images show the French landings at Port Royal, South Carolina and St, Augustine, Florida, on a single sheet (front and
back), which were first published in 1591, by Théodore de Bry. Taken from the publication of the reports of Jean Ribault
(1562) and René Goulaine de Laudonnière (1564) expeditions, entitled Brevis narratio eorum quæ in Florida Americœ
provincia Gallis acciderunt…
On the first French voyage to the province of Florida, the crew, led by Captain Jean Ribaut, landed at a promontory
surrounded by densely wooded and extremely tall trees. In honor of France, the captain of the fleet named it Cape François,
and noted its position as about 30° North from the equator. Following the coast north from there, they found a wide and
pleasant river at whose mouth they dropped anchor, so that the next day they might explore more closely.
The map on page 173 shows the French discoveries along the coast of South Carolina, made several days after the sighting
of what was originally named Cape François, but which on the second voyage under Laudonnière would be called the River of
Dolphins (Fluvius Delfinum).
After sailing north, the Ribault’s expedition discovered a broad river, which they called May. After discovering six rivers
along the Georgian coast, they proceeded further north, where they discovered a river 3 miles wide, which they called Port
Royal (page 174), marked on De Bry's engraving as Portus Regalis, sive F.S. Helenæ. Ribault’s crew anchored within the
mouth of the River, in ten fathoms of water, and later sailed up its northern tributaries to explore. After twelve miles they
came across a group of Indians roasting a lynx, so they call that part Lynx Point, marked on the engraving Prom. Lupi.
These two images represent, among the earliest and most iconic maps / views drawn from actual observations in North
America.
(Source: http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/38913 & http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/46718mp2)

(1591)
243
French landing at Libourne on the Florida-Georgia Coastline.
The text describes the location of an island named Libourne where the French placed a column claiming the land for France. They saw two enormous stags, but they
were ordered not to kill them by their captain. The image shows two ships send out a boat to land on Cedar Island. Another island near it is marked with a column and
the letter F. The exact location of this column intended to mark the northern boundary of French territory is not known, but may be near Beaufort, South Carolina.
A French expedition, organized by Protestant leader Admiral Gaspard de Coligny and led by the Norman navigator Jean Ribault, landed at the site on the River of
May (now the St. Johns River), in February 1562, before moving north to Port Royal Sound. There, on present-day Paris Island, South Carolina, Ribault left twenty-
eight men to build a settlement known as Charlesfort. Ribault then returned to Europe to arrange supplies for the new colony, but was arrested in England due to
complications arising from the French Wars of Religion.
Without supplies or leadership, and beset by hostility from the native populations, all but one of the colonists sailed back to Europe after only a year. René Goulaine
de Laudonnière, who had been Ribault's second-in-command on the 1562 expedition, led a contingent of around 200 new settlers back to Florida, where they founded
Fort de la Caroline atop St. Johns Bluff, on June 22, 1564. The fort was named for the reigning French king, Charles IX. For just over a year, this colony was beset
by hunger, Indian attacks, and mutiny, and attracted the attention of Spanish authorities who considered it a challenge to their control over the area.
In June of 1565, Ribault had been released from English custody, and Coligny sent him back to Florida. In late August, Ribault arrived at Fort Caroline with a large
fleet and hundreds of soldiers and settlers, and took command of the settlement. However, the recently appointed Spanish Governor of Florida, Don Pedro Menéndez
de Avilés, had simultaneously been dispatched from Spain with orders to remove the French outpost, and arrived within days of Ribault’s landing. After a brief
skirmish between Ribault's ships and Menéndez's ships, the latter retreated 35 miles south, where they established the settlement of St. Augustine. Ribault pursued the
Spanish with several of his ships and most of his troops, but he was surprised at sea by a violent storm lasting several days. In a bold stroke, Menéndez marched his
forces overland, launching a surprise dawn attack on the Fort Caroline garrison which then numbered about 200 to 250 people. The only survivors were about 50
women and children who were taken prisoners, and a few defenders, including Laudonnière, who managed to escape; the rest were executed.
As for Ribault's fleet, all of the ships either sank or ran aground south of St. Augustine during the storm, and many of the Frenchmen onboard were lost at sea.
Ribault and his marooned sailors were located by Menéndez and his troops and summoned to surrender. Apparently believing that his men would be well treated,
Ribault capitulated. Menéndez then executed Ribault and several hundred Frenchmen as Lutheran heretics, at a place now known as Matanzas (“massacres”) Inlet.
This atrocity shocked Europeans even in that bloody era of religious strife. This place is known today by a fort built much later, Fort Matanzas. This massacre put an
end to France's attempts at colonization of the southeast coast of North America.
(Source: http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/45390) (1591)
244
French Discoveries along the Coast of Florida in 1562.
De Bry's map is based upon an original drawing by Jacques Le Moyne.
The image show Admiral Jean Ribaut and his men landing in Florida, paddling canoe in river with crocodiles and islands at the
site of Fort Caroline where Indian king Ouade and his brother Covexis accept their petition for food.
This work was published by Theodor de Bry from manuscript notes and drawings made by Jacques le Moyne de Morgues, an
illustrator and explorer, who sailed with René de Laudonnière on the 1564 Huguenot expedition to Florida.
(Source: http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/45344)

(1591)
245
Native American settlement.
Early Native American settlement surrounded by a wooden palisade, based upon original watercolor paintings by
Jacques Le Moynes de Morgues, an official French artist, who accompanied two important French Expeditions to North
America in the 1560’s.

The text describes how the natives build their fortified towns by building palisades around them. Sentries who are
adept at smelling the enemy are stationed in small huts full of slits and holes by the entrance. When they detect enemies,
they shriek and chase after them.

Taken from the publication of the reports of Jean Ribault (1562) and Rene Goulaine de Laudonniere (1564)
expeditions, entitled Brevis narratio eorum quae in Florida Americœ provincia Gallis acciderunt . . .

On the first French voyage to the province of Florida, the crew, led by Captain Jean Ribaut, landed at a promontory
surrounded by densely wooded and extremely tall trees. In honor of France, the captain of the fleet named it Cape
François, and noted its position as about 30° North from the equator. Following the coast north from there, they found a
wide and pleasant river at whose mouth they dropped anchor, so that next day they might explore more closely.
(Source: http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/47635mp2)

(1591)
246
(1610 ca) 247
(1627)

248
(1627 [Detail])

249
(1636 [London])

250
(1646 [London])
251
(1644)

252
(1665)
253
(1703)

254
255
(1716)
256
257
(1710 ca [London])
(1730 ca [London])

258
(1730 ca, Detail [London])
259
(1733 ca [Amsterdam])

260
(1733 ca [London])
Green – Indian Countries; Red – English; Yellow – Spanish; Blue – French; Purple – Dutch
(Source: http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/54237)

261
(1733 ca [London])

262
263
(1794 [London])
Source: http://books.google.fr/books?id=8AcYAAAAMAAJ

264
HUMAN HISTORY OF THE BOLDUC’S

Your chapter of the human story is ready to be told. The results of your Genographic Project test reveal
information about your distant ancestors, including how and when they moved out of Africa and the various
populations they interacted with over thousands of years of migration. How do we do this? By tracking
markers—random, naturally occurring, changes in your DNA. The mutations act as a beacon and can be mapped
over thousands of years (on the Y-chromosome for paternal lines and mitochondrial DNA for maternal lines).
When geneticists identify such a marker, they try to figure out when it first occurred, and in which geographic
region of the world. In the report below, you will see the group with which you share genetic markers on your
paternal side. This is called your “haplogroup,” and is expressed in numbers and letters.

INTRODUCTION TO YOUR STORY

We will now take you back through the stories of your distant ancestors and show how the movements of their
descendants gave rise to your lineage.

Each segment on the maps below represents the migratory path of successive groups that eventually coalesced
to form your branch of the tree. We start with the marker for your oldest ancestor, and walk forward to more
recent times, showing at each step the line of your ancestors who lived up to that point.

What is a marker? Each of us carries DNA that is a combination of genes passed from both our mother and
father, giving us traits that range from eye color and height to athleticism and disease susceptibility. As part of
this process, the Y-chromosome is passed directly from father to son, unchanged, from generation to generation
down a purely male line. Mitochondrial DNA, on the other hand, is passed from mothers to their children, but
only their daughters pass it on to the next generation. It traces a purely maternal line.

The DNA is passed on unchanged, unless a mutation—a random, naturally occurring, usually harmless
change—occurs. The mutation, known as a marker, acts as a beacon; it can be mapped through generations
because it will be passed down for thousands of years.

When geneticists identify such a marker, they try to figure out when it first occurred, and in which geographic
region of the world. Each marker is essentially the beginning of a new lineage on the family tree of the human
race. Tracking the lineages provides a picture of how small tribes of modern humans in Africa tens of thousands
of years ago diversified and spread to populate the world.

By looking at the markers you carry, we can trace your lineage, ancestor by ancestor, to reveal the path they
traveled as they moved out of Africa. Our story begins with your earliest ancestor. Who were they, where did
they live, and what is their story?

(Spanish Netherlands silver & copper coins, 1629;


“Wesel torn from the enemy. ’s-Hertogenbosch was overcome.”)
265
BRANCH: M42
AGE: ABOUT 75,000 YEARS AGO
LOCATION OF ORIGIN: AFRICA

The common direct paternal ancestor of all men alive today was born in Africa around 140,000 years ago.
Dubbed “Y-chromosome Adam” by the popular press, he was neither the first human male nor the only man alive
in his time. He was, though, the only male whose Y-chromosome lineage is still around today. All men,
including your direct paternal ancestors, trace their ancestry to one of this man’s descendants. The oldest Y-
chromosome lineages in existence, belonging to the A branch of the tree, are found only in African populations.

Around 75,000 years ago, the BT branch of the Y-chromosome tree was born, defined by many genetic
markers, including M42. The common ancestor of most men living today, some of this man’s descendants would
begin the journey out of Africa, to India and the Middle East. Small groups would eventually reach the Americas.
Others would settle in Europe, and some from this line remained near their ancestral homeland in Africa.

Individuals from this line in Africa often practice cultural traditions that resemble those of their distant
ancestors. For example, they often live in traditional hunter-gatherer societies. These include the Mbuti and
Biaka Pygmies of central Africa, as well as Tanzania’s Hadza.

As M42-bearing populations migrated around the globe, they picked up additional markers on their Y-
chromosomes. Today, there are no known BT individuals without these additional markers.

POINT OF INTEREST
The M42 branch is shared by almost all men alive today, both in Africa and around the world.

266
BRANCH: M168
AGE: ABOUT 70,000 YEARS AGO
LOCATION OF ORIGIN: AFRICA/ASIA

As humans left Africa, they migrated across the globe in a web of paths that spread out like the branches of a
tree, each limb of migration identifiable by a marker in our DNA. For male lineages, the M168 branch was one of
the first to leave the African homeland.

Moving outward from Africa and along the coastline, members of this lineage were some of the earliest settlers
in Asia, Southeast Asia, and Australia. Some from this line would even travel over the land bridge to reach the
Americas.

The man who gave rise to the first genetic marker in your lineage probably lived in northeast Africa in the
region of the Rift Valley, perhaps in present-day Ethiopia, Kenya, or Tanzania. Scientists put the most likely date
for when he lived at around 70,000 years ago. His descendants became the only lineage to survive outside of
Africa, making him the common ancestor of every non-African man living today.

But why would man have first ventured out of the familiar African hunting grounds and into unexplored lands?
The first migrants likely ventured across the Bab-al Mandeb strait, a narrow body of water at the southern end of
the Red Sea, crossing into the Arabian Peninsula soon after M168 originated—perhaps 65,000 years ago. These
beachcombers would make their way rapidly to India and Southeast Asia, following the coastline in a gradual
march eastward. By 50,000 years ago, they had reached Australia. These were the ancestors of today’s Australian
Aborigines.

It is also likely that a fluctuation in climate may have contributed to your ancestors’ exodus out of Africa. The
African ice age was characterized by drought rather than by cold. Around 50,000 years ago, though, the ice sheets
of the northern hemisphere began to melt, introducing a short period of warmer temperatures and moister climate
in Africa and the Middle East. Parts of the inhospitable Sahara briefly became habitable. As the drought-ridden
desert changed to a savanna, the animals hunted by your ancestors expanded their range and began moving
through the newly emerging green corridor of grasslands.

Your nomadic ancestors followed the good weather and the animals they hunted, although the exact route they
followed remains to be determined. In addition to a favorable change in climate, around this same time there was
a great leap forward in modern humans’ intellectual capacity. Many scientists believe that the emergence of
language gave us a huge advantage over other early human species. Improved tools and weapons, the ability to
plan ahead and cooperate with one another, and an increased capacity to exploit resources in ways we hadn’t been
able to earlier, all allowed modern humans to rapidly migrate to new territories, exploit new resources, and replace
other hominids such as the Neanderthals.

POINT OF INTEREST: This male branch is one of the first to leave the African homeland.
267
BRANCH: M89
AGE: AROUND 50,000 YEARS AGO
LOCATION OF ORIGIN: SOUTH ASIA OR WEST ASIA

The next male ancestor in your ancestral lineage is the man who gave rise to M89, a marker found in 90 to 95
percent of all non-Africans. This man was born around 50,000 years ago in northern Africa or the Middle East.

The first people to leave Africa likely followed a coastal route that eventually ended in Australia. Your
ancestors followed the expanding grasslands and plentiful game to the Middle East and beyond, and were part of
the second great wave of migration out of Africa.

Beginning about 40,000 years ago, the climate shifted once again and became colder and more arid. Drought
hit Africa and the grasslands reverted to desert, and for the next 20,000 years, the Saharan Gateway was
effectively closed. With the desert impassable, your ancestors had two options: remain in the Middle East, or
move on. Retreat back to the home continent was not an option.

While many of the descendants of M89 remained in the Middle East, others continued to follow the great herds
of wild game through what is now modern-day Iran to the vast steppes of Central Asia.

These semi-arid grass-covered plains formed an ancient “superhighway” stretching from eastern France to
Korea. Your ancestors, having migrated north out of Africa into the Middle East, then traveled both east and west
along this Central Asian superhighway. A smaller group continued moving north from the Middle East to
Anatolia and the Balkans, trading familiar grasslands for forests and high country.

Today, geneticists have found the lineage in 1 to 2 percent of Pakistani and Indian populations. However, it is
about 4 percent of some Austro-Asiatic-language-family-speaking groups in India. It is about 9 percent of some
Dravidian-language-family-speaking groups in India, and it is 9 to 10 percent of male lineages in Sri Lanka. In
Borneo, it is about 5 percent of the population. In Malaysia, it is about 6 percent of the population.

(1629,
The town of ’ s-Hertogenbosch freed of the foreign soldier, by the Netherlands Confederate States, on 21 September 1577.) 268
(Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=_1kGTmp1SOEC)
BRANCH: M170
AGE: ABOUT 20,000 YEARS AGO
LOCATION OF ORIGIN: EUROPE

When the last glacial maximum ended, groups containing men from this line migrated across Europe from
refugia near the Balkans.

BRANCH: M253
AGE: 5,500 – 26,000 YEARS AGO
LOCATION OF ORIGIN: EUROPE

When ice covered much of Europe, the cold and lack of food sources forced groups containing men from this
lineage into refugia. It was from these refugia on the Iberian Peninsula, to the north of the Black Sea, and
elsewhere, that members of this lineage emerged around 10,000 years ago.

Emerging from the refugia, groups expanded across Europe and back toward West Asia in successive waves.
The highest frequencies of this lineage are in Scandinavian countries. This may be due to early founders during a
time of extremely small settling population groups.
269
Today, this lineage is present throughout Europe. It is about 40 percent of the population of Norway. It is
present in Finland at around 35 percent of male lineages. In the British Isles, it is between 10 and 22 percent of
male lineages. It is between 10 and 11 percent of French and about 18 percent of German male lineages. It is
about 4 percent of the male population of Spain, between 2 and 3 percent of the male population of Italy, and
about 2 percent of the male population of Greece.

In West Asia, it is present in trace frequencies of less than 1 percent. However, it is about 2 percent of male
lineage in Lebanon and about 4 percent of male lineages in Jordan.

NOTABLE PEOPLE
Swedish statesman Birger Magnusson and Russian writer Leo Tolstoy were both from this lineage.

HEATMAP FOR M253

This next step in your journey is a map showing the frequency of your haplogroup (or the closest haplogroup in
your path that we have frequency information for) in indigenous populations from around the world, providing a
more detailed look at where some of your more recent ancestors settled in their migratory journey. What do we
mean by recent? It's difficult to say, as it could vary from a few hundred years ago to a few thousand years ago,
depending on how much scientists currently know about your particular haplogroup. As we test more individuals
and receive more information worldwide, this information will grow and change.

The colors on the map represent the varying percentage frequencies of your haplogroup in populations from
different geographic regions—red indicates high concentrations, and light yellow and grey indicate low
concentrations. The geographic region with the highest frequency isn’t necessarily the place where the
haplogroup originated, although this is sometimes the case.

You may find that your map shows a wide distribution for your haplogroup, with large portions of the world
highlighted, or unusual places far from where you live. Does this mean you’re related to people in all of those
places? Distantly, yes! We are all connected through our ancient ancestry.

270
Your results shown here are based upon the best information available today—but it is just the beginning. As
we learn more, we may add new markers to your path, or modify your results to be more specific over time.

DNA markers require a long time to become informative. While mutations occur in every generation, it
requires at least hundreds—normally thousands—of years for these markers to become windows back into the
past, signposts on the human tree.

A fundamental goal of the Genographic Project is to extend these arrows further toward the present day. To do
this, Genographic has brought together renowned scientists and their teams from all over the world to study
questions vital to our understanding of human history. By working together with indigenous peoples around the
globe, we are learning more about these ancient migrations.

WHO AM I?

We are all more than the sum of our parts, but the results below offer some of the most dramatic and fascinating
information in your Geno 2.0 test. In this section, we display your affiliations with a set of nine world regions.
This information is determined from your entire genome so we’re able to see both parents’ information, going
back six generations [the information below applies more specifically to my first-cousin, son of my father’s
elder brother, Bertrand Bolduc and Lili Gagné, married in 1950]. Your percentages reflect both recent influences
and ancient genetic patterns in your DNA due to migrations as groups from different regions mixed over
thousands of years. Your ancestors also mixed with ancient, now extinct hominid cousins like Neanderthals in
Europe and the Middle East or the Denisovans in Asia. If you have a very mixed background, the pattern can get
complicated quickly! Use the reference population matches below to help understand your particular result.

271
Mediterranean: 41 % Northern European: 39 % Southwest Asian: 17 %

41%

MEDITERRANEAN

This component of your ancestry is found at highest frequencies in southern Europe and the Levant—people
from Sardinia, Italy, Greece, Lebanon, Egypt and Tunisia in our reference populations. While not limited to these
groups, it is found at lower frequencies throughout the rest of Europe, the Middle East, Central and South Asia.
This component is likely the signal of the Neolithic population expansion from the Middle East, beginning around
8,000 years ago, likely from the western part of the Fertile Crescent.

39%

NORTHERN EUROPEAN

This component of your ancestry is found at highest frequency in northern European populations—people from
the UK, Denmark, Finland, Russia and Germany in our reference populations. While not limited to these groups,
it is found at lower frequencies throughout the rest of Europe. This component is likely the signal of the earliest
hunter-gatherer inhabitants of Europe, who were the last to make the transition to agriculture as it moved in from
the Middle East during the Neolithic period around 8,000 years ago.

272
17%

SOUTHWEST ASIAN

This component of your ancestry is found at highest frequencies in India and neighboring populations,
including Tajikistan and Iran in our reference dataset. It is also found at lower frequencies in Europe and North
Africa. As with the Mediterranean component, it was likely spread during the Neolithic expansion, perhaps from
the eastern part of the Fertile Crescent. Individuals with heavy European influence in their ancestry will show
traces of this because all Europeans have mixed with people from Southwest Asia over tens of thousands of years.

Note: In some cases regional percentages may not total 100%.

WHAT YOUR RESULTS MEAN

Modern day indigenous populations around the world carry particular blends of these regions. We compared
your DNA results to the reference populations we currently have in our database and estimated which of these
were most similar to you in terms of the genetic markers you carry. This doesn’t necessarily mean that you
belong to these groups or are directly from these regions, but that these groups were a similar genetic match and
can be used as a guide to help determine why you have a certain result. Remember, this is a mixture of both
recent (past six generations) and ancient patterns established over thousands of years, so you may see surprising
regional percentages. Read each of the population descriptions below to better interpret your particular result.

YOUR FIRST REFERENCE POPULATION: DANISH

This reference population is based on samples collected from people living in Denmark. The dominant 53%
Northern European component likely reflects the earliest settlers in Europe, hunter-gatherers who arrived there
more than 35,000 years ago. The 30% Mediterranean and 16% Southwest Asian percentages arrived later, with
the spread of agriculture from the Fertile Crescent in the Middle East over the past 10,000 years. As these early
farmers moved into Europe, they spread their genetic patterns as well. Today, northern European populations
retain the links to both earliest Europeans and these later migrants from the Middle East.

273
YOUR SECOND REFERENCE POPULATION: GREEK

This reference population is based on samples collected from the native population of Greece. The 54%
Mediterranean and 17% Southwest Asian percentages reflect the strong influence of agriculturalists from the
Fertile Crescent in the Middle East, who arrived here more than 8,000 years ago. The 28% Northern European
component likely comes from the pre-agricultural population of Europe—the earliest settlers, who arrived more
than 35,000 years ago during the Upper Paleolithic period. Today, this component predominates in northern
European populations, while the Mediterranean component is more common in southern Europe.

YOUR HOMINID ANCESTRY

When our ancestors first migrated out of Africa around 60,000 years ago, they were not alone. At that time, at
least two other species of hominid cousins walked the Eurasian landmass: Neanderthals and Denisovans. Most
non-Africans are about 2% Neanderthal. The Denisovan component of your Geno 2.0 results is more
experimental, as we are still working to determine the best way to assess the percentage Denisovan ancestry you
carry.

Source: https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com (December 2013)


274
CHAPTER XXV

AMERICAN HERALDRY

(pp. 317-325)
Many people imagine—and none are more loud in the assertion than
Americans themselves—that in the great Western Republic the species
of gentilitial registration denominated Heraldry is uncared for. This,
however, is far from being the fact. Even amongst the partisans of
political equality there is a large majority anxious to exhibit their
individual superiority. In proof of which, I may mention that a
gentleman connected with the College of Heralds recently informed
me that the fees received from America constitute one of the most
important sources of the revenue of that Institution.

The Aristocracy of America derives its origin principally from three


sources: from the Knickerbocker Families of New York—the VAN
BURENS, the STUYVESANTS, the VAN CAMPENS, the RENSELLAERS, the
VAN DAMS; from the Cavaliers who founded the Colony of Virginia—
the BEVERLEYS, the FAIRFAXES, the HARRISONS, the SEDDONS, the
BERKELEYS; and from the Puritans of New England—the APPLETONS,
the WINTHROPS, the RICHMONDS, the LATHROPS, the CHAUNCYS, the
WADES, the FOSTERS, &c. It is no matter of surprise that Americans,
particularly those of the Eastern States, with all their veneration for
Republican principles, should be desirous of tracing their origin to the
early settlers, and of proving their descent from those single-hearted,
God-fearing men who sought in a foreign land that religious liberty
which was denied them at home. True, that when they landed in
America they shot down the natives, and took forcible possession of
their land, without remorse. That, however, was simply a matter of
detail, and is still the inevitable consequence whenever strength and
civilisation are opposed to weakness and barbarism. Æsop's Wolf and
the Lamb is a Parable, not a Fable.

It should be remembered, moreover, that the early Colonists of New


England were, with but few exceptions, men of family; for, in those
days, a large sum of money was required to equip a vessel for a long
(Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=6z1kuj40sh0C) voyage, and provide the means of subsistence when they were arrived
[Notes in brackets are from Yan J.K. Bolduc.] at their destination.
275
At the same time, it must not be forgotten that during the Sixteenth 281.] Many American gentlemen consequently engrave their Plate,
and Seventeenth Centuries many persons were ‘deported’ to the and adorn the panels of their carriages, with heraldic insignia to which
Colonies on political grounds, nominally as labourers, but really as they have no right whatever: and this, too, though they may have an
slaves. Many of these, however, may have been of good families, hereditary claim to Arms as ancient and honourable as those of a
though reduced in circumstances by their adherence to the losing Talbot or a Hastings. Nor have native professors of the science been
cause, whether of politics or religion. It is a matter of much difficulty behindhand in distributing their worthless favours. The names of
to trace the connection of such emigrants with their English paternal Thomas Johnson, John Coles, and Nathaniel Hurd, are notorious in
stem. [This paragraph was added in the fourth edition.] New England as those of manufacturers of fictitious Arms and
Pedigrees; and in New York at the present day are many self-styled
It is curious to note, amidst the simplicity of the Puritans’ lives,—a Heralds who, having failed in honest trades, have fallen to Pedigree-
simplicity which has passed into a proverb,—the tenacity with which making, as they might have to Fortune-telling, to make a living.
they clung to certain Old-World customs. Their Seals, probably
brought from England, and much of their Plate, were engraved with So, too, with regard to their Corporate Heraldry: it is much to be
their Arms; and the same, with the addition of the title Armiger, are regretted that no competent authority should have taken cognisance of
inscribed on many of their tombstones. the Arms borne by the individual States. The National Arms are at
once dignified and eloquent:
Not the least commendable characteristic of the Pilgrim Fathers was
the scrupulous accuracy with which they recorded the births and
marriages of their children. These documents were carried down to
the period of the Revolution, when, for about twenty years, their
continuity was somewhat broken. But when the Republic was firmly
established, and order once more obtained, the records were continued,
though under different auspices. Thus it follows that, if a descendant
of the early settlers can trace his ancestry as far back as the middle of
the Eighteenth Century, there is seldom much difficulty in clearly
determining to what English Family he is allied.

Unfortunately, there is not in the United States of America any


Institution analogous to our College of Heralds [Still, to this day.]; the
consequence is, there are probably more Assumptive Arms borne in
that country than anywhere else. Nor are the bearers of such Arms to
be so much blamed as the unscrupulous self-styled Heralds who
supply them. The advertising London tradesmen who profess to find
Arms are for the most part less anxious to give themselves the trouble An Eagle with wings displayed, holding in its dexter claw a sheaf of
of examining the requisite documents,—even if they possess the Arrows, and in its sinister a Thunderbolt, all proper; on the breast a
necessary ability to do so, which many certainly do not,—than they are Shield argent, charged with six Pallets gules (constituting the thirteen
of securing the fee. If, therefore, they cannot readily find in the printed original States, i.e. seven white and six red); on a Chief azure, forty-
pages of Burke, they do not hesitate to draw from the depths of their four Stars of the first (the present number). Motto: E pluribus unum.
imagination. [See the examples on the following pages, 277 through
276
The Flag is equally well conceived: in this, the Pallets are Barrulets, incorrect: at the same time, many other carriages, which bore a simple
and for the Chief is substituted a Canton, on which are as many Stars Monogram, might with propriety have been emblazoned with Arms.
as there are States. But what shall be said of the Devices assumed by Americans are an eminently practical people; and inasmuch as there is
the separate States? […] no competent authority to regulate the bearing of Arms, many who are
entitled to the distinction refuse to avail themselves of their
[See original publication for full comments.] prerogative.

Already an attempt has been made in America to restrain in some The United States has many earnest and capable genealogists, but,
measure the indiscriminate bearing of Arms. The question has been as far as I know—and I have taken pains to inform myself—there is
raised in Congress whether it would not be advisable to compel all absolutely no professional worthy of the title. The New England
those who use Arms to register them in the United Stales Court, and to Historic Genealogical Society, and the Historical Society of
pay an annual tax for the same, as in England. It is also proposed to Pennsylvania, have done good and worthy service. Of W. H.
inscribe at the bottom of the Shield the date when such Arms were first WHITMORE, and especially of JOHN WARD DEAN, both of Boston,
granted or assumed; any infraction of the law to be punished by a fine. America may well be proud. In the same State of Massachusetts are
Wholesome as this regulation would be in restraining the too general Henry FitzGilbert Waters, W. S. Appleton, Hon. R. C. Winthrop, J. R.
use of Arms, it falls short of what it should be; for, according to the Rollins, Edward Russell, E. B. Crane, and others: nor should the name
proposed law, any one will be at liberty to adopt whatever Arms he of the late John Savage be omitted from the honourable list. The State
may please, provided he pay his ten or twenty dollars a year. No of New York can boast of Hon. Levi Parsons, James Gibson, George
provision is made for new grants, or for examining the authenticity of Burnaby, and R. Woodward: in Connecticut are Ashbel Woodward,
alleged claims; it is simply a device to increase the revenue of the and Charles A. White: and little Rhode Island has two worthy
country. Nevertheless, it is calculated to be productive of much good, representatives in Ira B. Peck, and John Osborne Austin. These, and
and is probably but the precursor of a legally-established College of others whom I could mention, are earnest and honest workers in the
Heralds. fields of historical research, but unfortunately they are not
professionals. The number of privately-printed Genealogies which
The following incident—which I believe actually occurred some have been issued during the past few years conclusively shows that the
years ago—aptly illustrates the light in which Armorial Bearings are commendable pride of Ancestry has a great hold on Americans—as,
regarded by many wealthy Americans. During the residence of our indeed, it has on anyone who values the reputation of his parents—and
Ambassador, Mr. Crampton, in Washington, a carriage which he that it would be a national boon if some incorruptible authority,
brought from England was sent to a carriage builder’s to be repaired. analogous to our College of Heralds, could be established among
Sometime afterwards, on Mr. Crampton going to the factory, he was them.
surprised to see several buggies, sulkies, and wagons, each bearing his
Arms. In astonishment, he turned to the attendant, and directing his I know J. W. Bouton, of 8 West 28th St., N. Y., Bookseller, to be a
notice to the carriages in question, inquired if they were built for him. capable man to advise with, but he is not, nor does he profess to be, a
“I reckon not, sir,” was the reply; “you see, when your carriage was Herald.
here, some of our citizens admired the pattern of your Arms, and
concluded to have them painted on their carriages too!”

During a recent visit to the United States I noticed many carriages


with Arms painted on their panels. Some of the Arms I knew to be
277
HERALDRY IN AMERICA.
BY EUGENE ZIEBER.
WITH OVER NINE HUNDRED AND FIFTY ILLUSTRATIONS.
PUBLISHED BY
THE DEPARTMENT OF HERALDRY OF
THE BAILEY, BANKS & BIDDLE COMPANY,
PHILADELPHIA.
1895.

(pp. 77-81)
RULES TO GOVERN HERALDRY IN AMERICA.

THE ENGLISH RULES PREFERRED.

It is not within the province of this book to dictate rules for the government of an American heraldry; that,
indeed, would be “assumptive and presumptive” in the superlative degree. But it may be permissible to make
such suggestions as will have a tendency to direct the attention of those interested to the necessity of some
system by which the bearing of arms in this country shall be regulated. The difficulty in formulating such a
plan is apparent.

In England the population is homogeneous, and therefore governed by a common heraldic rule; and so of
Germany, France, Russia, Italy, Spain, etc. But in the United States the population is heterogeneous and
composed of the descendants of English ancestors who settled throughout the country, of the patriotic French
who gave such valuable aid in establishing American independence, of the Dutch who settled along the Hudson,
of the Swedes and Danes upon the Delaware, of the Spaniards in Florida, and of Germans who came here about
the time of the Revolution. The living descendants of these early settlers are Americans, and we may presume
that they bear the arms of their ancestors exactly as such came into their possession.

It is very evident that, as the English rule has, in a measure, heretofore guided Americans of English descent,
they will not depart from it. It may be assumed that if an arms-bearing German takes up his residence here, he
is entitled to bear his devices according to the rule which established them. And it is very natural that if a
Frenchman, Italian, Spaniard, or Russian of long residence here should desire to trace his family arms and bear
them, he would do so in accordance with the heraldic rule of his own country, if he were to follow any rule at
all.

This all forms a very good theory, but, like many other theories, it is not confirmed in practice. For there
have been in America no rules to follow; and it is certain that the rules of all nations cannot govern the heraldry
of one. The result of this absence of a general rule, and the assumption of arms ad libitum, places the heraldry
of America in practically the same position as the heraldry of the eleventh century, and for some time later,
when no law or order regulated the bearing of arms, and each man adopted such devices as best pleased his
fancy, or copied from others. This method naturally produced much confusion as the number of arms
increased; the same devices were borne by several knights, and the necessity of some regulation became
apparent. Out of this chaotic condition of affairs grew system and order only as nations adopted certain rules to
regulate the use of arms and protect those who were entitled to them. It is an indisputable fact that from the
assumptive arms came many of the coats of arms of the nobility of the Old World.

The question now arises, how can the bearing of arms be regulated in America? And it admits of the
suggestion that the English rules, which are clear, precise, and positive, should govern American heraldry as far
as possible. By this proposal it is intended to convey the idea that the peculiar conditions of the United States
forbid a blind following of the heraldic laws of any one country, and the bearing of arms here can only be
governed by a general knowledge of heraldry, an appreciation of circumstances, and the exercise of sound
278
judgment and good taste in the treatment of each individual case. Any treatment must be guided by certain
laws, usages, and customs. For example, let us say that the general rules of English heraldry shall
fundamentally govern heraldic bearings in America,—to this there will be the exceptions providing for due
recognition of Continental arms, which should be treated apart if necessary; but as far as possible they also
should yield priority to English laws. Three reasons are offered for this course:
1. It is agreed that the time has come, owing to the increasing popularity of heraldry and the consequent
much greater usage than heretofore, that some system should be established for guidance, if in any way
possible; otherwise chaos must still reign, the confusion increase, and the science fall into disrepute.
When rules conflict, some must yield. When Continental peculiarities can be simply engrafted without
conflict, that may be done; but it is apparent that in forming a system out of discordant elements something
must give way.
2. Probably ninety per cent, of the descendants of armiger ancestors in America are of British origin.
Majority rules!
3. Each of the original thirteen Colonies forming the American Union was at the time of the Revolution an
English possession, under English law as to ranks, degrees, titles, etc., and the heraldry was governed
accordingly. Of this ample proof exists. The original heraldic laws of this country were British, and there are
today more English, Scotch, and Irish arms borne here than those of all other nations combined. Our legal as
well as our blood ancestry is British, and we are in a manner required to recognize the fact. Of course the
French and Spanish colonists were under laws governing those nations; and in the Southwest and South they
still have representatives who undoubtedly will be glad to bear their arms as Americans,—rules once
established,—for Americans they are. Persons who have come into the country since its national origin ought
not to change the fundamental principles. The cases of such persons should be exceptional.

An example of the practical superiority of the English rule may be in place. The German rule, following
custom, that charges and crests may face dexter or sinister, which of course would result in the helmets facing
either way, might be adversely commented upon by the French; for, according to Palliot (1661), the French
helmet when borne alone and turned to the sinister is a mark of illegitimacy. The English in all cases turn their
crests and charges to the dexter. It is here that the adoption of the English rule is certainly preferable for
American application, for if crests and charges all face the dexter they will be in conformity with the heraldic
laws most approved by all nations, and thus be open to no justly unfavorable criticism.

The Germans permit color upon color. When it appears so in France it is excused by the term cousu (sewed
to); while the English follow the original idea of distinctness, and consider color on color a great fault, for it is
very confusing.

Then there are occasions where the English rule cannot affect the American arms, and we are thrown entirely
upon our own resources. In England the eldest son is the shining light, and a mark of cadency upon his coat of
arms so testifies. In America all sons are equal, and thus the rules of cadency can never be applied to the use of
arms in the United States, the marks of cadency here appearing in many instances as an integral part of the
arms, as a result of the custom of bearing arms and transmitting them as first brought to this country. In fact,
the constitutional abrogation and prohibition of the law of primogeniture has introduced into American heraldry
a factor little short of revolutionary.

The marshalling of arms by quartering is comparatively unknown in the United States, but in other countries
it is often faithfully executed, and thus preserves a record of marriages of the male line with heiresses or
otherwise. The correct marshalling of arms in America would be difficult and almost impossible (wholly
impossible in some instances), a difficulty due to the confusion caused by the occasional bearing of the paternal
arms by the female as well as by the male descendants.

For these reasons the following suggestions are offered, and it is hoped may not be amiss:

279
1. Apply the English rules to heraldry in America whenever it is possible to do so, especially as to the
following:
2. Metal upon metal, color upon color, should be avoided.
3. All charges and crests should face the dexter.
4. Men should avoid the bearing of such helmets as designate technically a rank not possessed by them.
The use of the esquire’s helmet is permissible and advised.
5. Great care should be taken against the bearing of the coronet of an English duke, a French count, a
German prince, or other foreign nobleman. Coronets indicate the rank of the bearers. The crest coronet (ducal
coronet) is the exception.
6. For individual use omit supporters. If belonging to an ancestor they may be portrayed in an original
copy of his arms, but upon personal seals, plate, etc., they would be out of place, as they indicate a rank. In
England, with few exceptions, supporters are borne by peers, and inherited by the
eldest son only.
7. The garter decoration, which is peculiar to Knights of the Garter, around arms, should not be used by
those not members of that Order.
8. Retain original marks of cadency if desired, in cases where they have been borne in the family arms for
several generations, and thus have practically become part of the arms.
9. A husband may impale the arms of his wife. The impaled arms can be borne by both, or by the survivor
of either, but these arms should not be borne in the form of impalement by the children.
10. If the tinctures of a coat of arms have long been reversed in accordance with heraldic law, do not change
them. The arms are possibly thus differenced for some just purpose. If they are unintelligibly reversed, it is
better to conform them to the original blazon.
11. Ladies who desire to conform to the laws of English heraldry will omit the helmet and crest at all times,
and unmarried ladies, or widows, will bear their heraldic devices in a lozenge. Mottoes are also denied ladies
by heraldic law, the Sovereign alone excepted. In both cases the English rule is advised.
12. A widow may bear her husband’s arms in a lozenge, either separately or impaled with her own; but if
she marries again, the arms of her late husband should be discarded.
13. In the United States, in which it has been the custom for all branches of a family to bear the same coat of
arms without change or modification, and in which a coat of arms may be said to be preserved as a family
tradition, the coat of arms of the mother as well as the father is sometimes used and cherished by the children,
male and female, and their descendants, without question. Thus, in America, coats of arms of maternal
ancestors (not heiresses) are occasionally borne by descendants as paternal arms, simply because they have been
handed down the paternal line for several generations.
By prescriptive right, it may be considered proper to continue the bearing of such arms. But to search
out a mother’s coat and adopt it as one’s own is contrary to heraldic laws, unless she was an heiress.
14. In carving, engraving, or designing arms, for any purpose, the tinctures should be indicated by heraldic
marks and lines, unless the device is borne proper. Failure to thus indicate the tinctures will create false
heraldry.
15. Do not guess at any thing. Be sure your crest is a martlet, not a Cornish chough, or that a charge is a
trefoil, not a cross, etc. Charges and crests are often changed by misinterpretation, and create different arms.
The distinctions in some instances are very trifling, but important enough to demand careful attention.
16. DO NOT ASSUME THE ARMS OF ANOTHER simply because the names are similar, or relationship is
imagined. Do not take unlawful possession of the property of another. When heraldry is better understood such
action will prove embarrassing.
17. If you are uncertain of your claim to a coat of arms, apply to any competent genealogist. If he cannot
trace the connection, DO NOT BEAR ARMS.

[For full publication see: https://books.google.com/books?id=k1FWAAAAYAAJ]

280
College of Arms

The College of Arms is the official heraldic authority for England, Wales, Northern
Ireland and much of theCommonwealth including Australia and New Zealand.
As well as being responsible for the granting of new coats of arms, the College maintains registers of arms,
pedigrees, genealogies, Royal Licences, changes of name, and flags. The heralds, besides having ceremonial
duties, advise on all matters relating to the peerage and baronetage, precedence, honours and ceremonial as well
as national and community symbols including flags.
Coats of Arms
Coats of arms belong to specific individuals and families and there is no such thing as a coat of arms for a
family name. From their origins in the twelfth century to the present day arms have been borne by individuals,
and by corporate bodies, as marks of identification. They have also been used to denote other characteristics,
which have changed over the centuries as society and culture have evolved. New coats of arms have since the
fifteenth century been granted both to individuals and corporate bodies by the senior heralds in Royal service,
the Kings of Arms.
Enquiries
If you have an enquiry on a heraldic, genealogical or other relevant topic, you should in the first instance
contact the Officer in Waiting.
© College of Arms 2018
12/29/2018
[Site: https://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk]
281
APPLY FOR A COAT OF ARMS, FLAG, BADGE
In Canada, the Canadian Heraldic Authority manages the official creation of coats of arms, flags and
badges. All Canadian citizens and organizations (municipalities, schools, associations, etc.) can contact the
chief herald of Canada to have heraldic emblems created for them. A grant of armorial bearings is an
honour conferred within the Canadian Honours System in recognition of service to the community.

1. Opening of the file


Duration: 2 to 4 weeks
o You send your request to the Canadian Heraldic Authority (CHA). Which documents do I need
to include with my request?
o As the creation of heraldic emblems is part of the Canadian Honours System, you need to have
contributed to the well-being of your community to be granted heraldic emblems.
o The chief herald of Canada reviews your request and makes a recommendation to the deputy
herald chancellor, who then signs a warrant permitting the grant to be made to you.
o An invoice for the processing fee is sent to you. Consult the Price List.
2. Research and written concept
Duration: 1 to 3 months
o A herald works with you to determine the themes to be included in your emblems.
o The chief herald of Canada reviews and approves the concept developed by the herald.
o A written proposal, including all of the design elements and their significance, is sent to you for
your approval.
3. Preliminary artwork
Duration: 2 to 3 months
o You sign a contract with an artist of the CHA.
o The CHA artist creates a colour illustration of your arms, flag and/or badge.
o This preliminary artwork is sent to you for your approval, along with the artist’s invoice.
4. Final art and calligraphy of the grant document
Duration: 3 to 4 months
o You choose one of two formats for the grant document.
o You sign two contracts for artists of the CHA to do the final painting and the calligraphy on the
grant document.
o The artist paints your heraldic emblems; the artist’s invoice is sent then to you.
o The calligrapher adds the text to the grant document; the calligrapher’s invoice is then sent to
you.
o The chief herald of Canada signs and seals the document.
5. Mailing and publication
o The grant document, symbolism page and photographs of the emblems are mailed to you once
all payments have been made.
o In the following 6 to 12 months, a notice of the grant is published in the Canada Gazette and the
emblems are added to the online version of the Public Register of Arms, Flags and Badges of
Canada.

[March 2019]

[Sites: http://www.heraldry.ca/main.php?LANG=en & http://www.gg.ca/en/heraldry/apply-coat-arms-flag-badge]


282
283
284
285
286
287
288
[Color purple added freely by Yan J. K. Bolduc]

289
• Guy du Bolduc
o The following device associated with this name was registered in January of 1985 (via
Atenveldt):
Azure, two alembic flasks, spouts crossed in saltire argent, and a base wavy Or, overall a
trident inverted counterchanged.

[Approximate rendition by Yan J.K. Bolduc]

Guy du Bolduc (submitted as Guyon du Bolduc). Azure, two alembic flasks, spouts crossed in saltire argent,
and a base wavy Or, overall a trident inverted counterchanged.
NOTE: According to Brigantia, Guyon is in the objective case. The nominative form, which is what one would
use as a given name, is Guy.
DISCUSSION: The heraldic alembick, or limbeck, is a peculiar charge resembling a portcullis. Master
Wilhelm instituted the term “alembic flask” to describe the common distilling apparatus.

290
• Aubry du Bolduc
o The following device associated with this name was registered in August of 1985 (via
Atenveldt):
Azure, a bend cotised Or between two alembic flasks, spouts crossed in saltire, and a thimble
argent, all within a bordure Or.

[Approximate rendition by Yan J.K. Bolduc]

Aubry du Bolduc. Azure, a bend cotised Or between two alembic flasks, spouts crossed in saltire, and a thimble
argent, all within a bordure Or.
DISCUSSION: Du Bolduc is French for ‘of the colored ribbon’.

Sources: http://oanda.sca.org/oanda_desc.cgi?p=ALEMBIC%20AND%20RETORT
https://heraldry.sca.org/loar/1985/01/lar.html

291
King’s Daughters and Founding Mothers:
The Filles du Roi, 1663-1673
By Peter J. Gagné
2004
[Original text in English]
[pp. 303-304]
Hubert, Élisabeth
Élisabeth is one of the noble girls sent to marry the officers and gentlemen of New France. She was born
about 1651 on the Rue de la Tissanderie in the parish of Saint-Gervais, Paris, the daughter of Claude Hubert,
procurator to the Parliament of Paris and Isabelle Fontaine. Élisabeth was a boarder at the Hôpital Général de
Paris, possibly placed there after her father’s death. On 17 June 1667, shortly before leaving Dieppe, Élisabeth
and 19 other girls from the Salpêtrière signed a complaint against the Compagnie des Indes Occidentales (see
below).

On 20 August 1668, Élisabeth married Louis Bolduc in Québec City. Both spouses signed the marriage
contract drawn up 18 August by notary Lecomte, signing their names “Boulduc” and “elisabelle hubert” (the
names Élisabeth and Isabelle were often interchanged at that time [sic]). Louis was a soldier with the
Grandfontaine Company of the Carignan Regiment, and Captain Grandfontaine signed his marriage contract as
a witness, as did the company’s lieutenant, ensign, chaplain and the regimental gunnery captain, suggesting that
Louis may have been a gunnery soldier. In addition to these military officials, Governor Courcelles, Intendant
Talon and Barbe de Boullogne (the widow d’Ailleboust) added their signatures as witnesses.

Louis was born about 1649 on the Rue Saint-Jacques in the parish of Saint-Benoît in Paris, the second son of
merchant-apothecary and herbalist Pierre Bolduc[sic] (member of the Académie des Sciences [This information
is false, he was instead garde de la Communauté; his son Simon, however, was the first in the Boulduc dynasty
to be a member of the Académie royale des sciences.]) and Gillette Pijart (sister-in-law of Molière [This
information is also false, proven not to be the case by Dr. Christian Warolin.]). He arrived in Canada with the
Grandfontaine Company on 17 August 1665, aboard the Aigle d’Or. In service, Louis took part in the
construction of Fort Sainte-Thérèse on the Richelieu River.

The couple first settled at Charlesbourg. Son Louis was baptized 14 July 1669 at Québec City, followed by
Marie-Anne (03 August 1670), and twins Jacques and Louis (17 October 1672 [Governor Frontenac was Louis’
godfather]). Unfortunately, this second Louis died some time before the 1681 census. In 1674, the family
moved to Québec City, where Louis became a bourgeois. René was baptized 05 March 1674 at Québec City,
followed by Marie-Ursule on 06 July 1675. on 15 April 1676, Louis was appointed King's attorney in the
Prévôté de Québec, with an annual salary of 300 livres. Daughter Louise was baptized 12 December 1677, with
Governor Frontenac [also] as her godfather.

Louis became the protégé of Frontenac and was therefore caught up in the internal power struggle of New
France. Among other slanderous accusations, he was accused of embezzlement by merchant Pierre de La
Lande and on 30 April 1681 the Conseil Souverain forbade him from exercising his functions as attorney of the
Prévôté de Québec. He was found guilty on 20 March 1682, was restored to his duties by Frontenac in 1685,
but dismissed by the King on 04 June 1686. Intendant De Meulles wrote, “Since much passion has been put
into this affair, the King would be wise to reestablish this magistrate,” but it was not to be.

Élisabeth had already returned to France in 1685, given a pass by Governor Denonville, who added insult to
injury by declaring that he was glad to “rid the country of a rather poor piece of goods.” Shortly after his
dismissal, Louis also returned to France, but the children chose[?] to remain in Canada. Louis Bolduc died in
Paris between 08 February 1700 and 07 November 1701. Élisabeth Hubert also died some time before this last
date.

292
[p. 617]
Girls Who Signed the Acte de Protestation 17 June 1667 at Dieppe
The following Filles du Roi from the Hôpital Général de Paris signed a
complaint against the Compagnie des Indes Occidentales, drawn up by notary
Antoine Lemareschal:
Name Birthplace (with Province)
1. Carcireux, Sylvine St-Ursin (Berry)
2. Conflans, Françoise Conflans-Ste-Honorine (Île-de-France)
3. De Belleau, Catherine St-Aignan de Pommerroy (Picardy)
4. De Lostelneau, Catherine Agen (Gascony)1
5. De Portas, Marie-Angélique Brie-Comte-Robert (Brie)2
6. Grangeon, Marie-Madeleine Nogent-sur-Seine (Champagne)
7. Hubert, Élisabeth St-Gervais de Paris
8. Lepage, Marie-Rogère Clamency (Nivernais)
9. Lequin, Élisabeth St-Germain-l’Auxerrois, Paris
10. Martin, Reine unknown
11. Pasquier dite Defranclieu, Marie Brie-Comte-Robert (Champagne)
12. Renaud, Marguerite Ligny-en-Barois (Lorraine)
13. Sageot, Geneviève St-André-des-Arts, Paris
14. Turbar, Ursule-Madeleine Chaumont-en-Bassigny (Champagne)3
Twenty girls signed the protest, but six of the signatories are nowhere to be found in the archival records of
Québec, leading to the assumption that they either did not make the voyage or died at sea. The names of these
girls are:
15. Conflet d’Abancourt, Pérette
16. De Marillac, Marthe
17. Fosset, Michelle
18. Gervais, Catherine
19. Pasteur, Marie
20. Simon, Marie
_________________________
1
Marriage contract. The marriage register lists her as from St-Nicolas de Champs, Paris.
2
Marriage contract. The marriage register lists her as from St-Nicolas de Champs, Paris.
3
Marriage contract. The marriage register lists her as from St-Séverin in Paris.

(Landing of the Girls sent out as Brides in 1667 at Québec, by Arthur E. Elias.) 293
(1614 (1652))

294
(1642 ca)
295
(1676 [London])

296
(1590, Pomeiooc Indian Village)
297
(1671 [London]) 298
(1690 [Amsterdam]) 299
(1700)

300
[Oyse River]

(1620) 301
(1534)

302
(1537)

303
(1544)

304
(1545) 305
(1566)

306
(1548)
307
(1597)

308
(1597) 309
(1602)

310
(1583) 311
(1592 ca) 312
(1680) 313
(1594, Girolamo Benzoni as he approaches the Caribbean on his voyage to the New World in 1541.)

314
(1672, Havana City)

315
(1599)

(1666)

316
(1681 [London]) 317
(1616 (1635) [London])

318
(1624, region first settled by Walter Raleigh at Roanoak Island [London]) 319
(1625 [London])

320
(1669 [London]) 321
(1675 ca)

322
(1675 ca, detail)

323
(1626 [London]) 324
(1674 [Paris])
325
(1685 [London])

326
(1695 ca)
327
(Louis XIV Seal)

SAINT JOHN THE BAPTIST


Messiah Precursor,
French-Canadian Patron,
Pray for us!

(Marine Merchant Ensign


of New France
1600-1663)
[Source: Wikipedia]

328
(1770)

(Dutch Ship)

(1720)

(1626 ca) 329


(1671)

330
(1671) 331
(1720 ca)

332
(1747 [London]) 333
(1590)

334
(1702)

335
(1658 (1660) [London])

336
(1668 (1671) [London]) 337
(1656 (1659) [London])

338
(1669 [London])
339
(1671 [London])

340
(1678 (1681) [London])
341
(1687 [London]) 342
(1680 [London])

343
(1700 [Oxford])

344
(1700 [Oxford])
345
(1700 ca [Oxford])

346
(1703 (1708) [Paris]) 347
(1710 [Paris])

348
(1711 [London])
349
(1719 [London])

350
(1719 ca [London])

351
352
(1759 [London])

353
(1730 ca [London])

354
(1772 [Paris]) 355
(1635 ca)

356
(1660) 357
(1666)

358
(1661 (1666)) 359
(1676 [London])

360
(1685 (1695 ca) [London]) 361
(1700 [Amsterdam])

362
(1688 [London])

(1710)

(Source: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b530327048)

363
(1715 ca [London])

364
!

(1755 [London]) 365


(1775 [London])

366
(1794 [London]) 367
(1716 [Nurmberg])

368
(1719 (1734)) 369
(1721 [London])

370
(1721 [London]) 371
372
(1720 ca [London])

373
374
(1731 ca [London]) 375
376
(1755 [London]) 377
378
(1755 ca [London]) 379
(1755 (1758) [London])

380
(1765 ca version)

381
382
(1776 [London]) 383
(1794 ca [London])

384
(1794 ca [London]) 385
(1700 ca [Amsterdam])

(1711)

City of London (1598)

(Map credited to Nicolas Sanson drawn directly from Robert Morden’s New Map of the English Empire In America,
first published circa 1698 in London.) [Source: http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/37047]
386
(Mermaids welcoming The English arrival in New England)

(1655) 387
(1681 [London])

388
(1728 [London])
389
(Canada or New France, 1681 [London])

390
(1755, English propaganda map in French [London]) 391
(1755, British anti-gallican (francophobia) pretentious map [London])
[Read: The Anti-Gallican; Or, the History and Adventures of Harry Cobham, 1757, at
https://books.google.com/books?id=QEViAAAAcAAJ]

(Source: https://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/55049)
392
The Congress of Vienna settlement formed
the framework for European international
politics from Napoleon’s defeat until WWI.
(See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_Vienna)

1830, British Political Cartoon concerning the Congress of Vienna (London)

393
394
(1734 ca [Dublin])
395
(1770 [London])

396
(1776 [London])

397
(1656)

398
399
(1735)
(1757 [London])

400
(1797)
401
402
Inverted

(1761 [London])
403
(1719)

404
(Seutter’s Mississippi Bubble Map, 1720 ca) 405
(1720 ca [Augsburg])
406
John Law and the Mississippi Economic Bubble
The most interesting feature of Matthaus Seutter’s Mississippi Bubble Map is the elaborate title cartouche. It
depicts an allegorical, satirical scene of the Mississippi [economic bubble] investment system with a female
personification of the Mississippi River pouring jewels and riches forth, while she is perched precariously upon
a bubble. Cherubs above the cartouche are issuing stock for the company, and another group is blowing
bubbles in the foreground surrounded by piles of worthless stocks. In the background, desperate investors
climb a small tree and fling themselves out of it, and in the foreground more disconsolate investors wail and
bemoan their fates as one tries to impale himself on his sword. Above them, a cherub upends an empty money-
bag.
(Material loosely taken from: http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/54324)

[Excerpts from Wikipedia:]


John Law was a Scottish economist who believed that money was only a means of exchange that did not
constitute wealth in itself and that national wealth depended on trade. He was appointed Controller General of
Finances of France under the Duke of Orleans, Regent for the youthful King, Louis XV.

Law was [also] a gambler and a brilliant mental calculator. He was known to win card games by mentally
calculating the odds. He originated economic ideas such as “The Scarcity Theory of Value” and the “real bills
doctrine”. Law’s views held that money creation will stimulate the economy, that paper money is preferable to
metallic money, and that shares are a superior form of money since they pay dividends.

On 9 April 1694, John Law fought a duel with another British Dandy, Edward “Beau” Wilson in Bloomsbury
Square in London. Wilson had challenged Law over the affections of Elizabeth Villiers. Law killed Wilson
with a single pass and thrust of his sword. He was arrested, charged with murder and stood trial at the Old
Bailey. He appeared before the infamously sadistic ‘hanging-judge’, Salathiel Lovell and was found guilty of
murder, and sentenced to death. He was initially incarcerated in Newgate Prison to await execution. His
sentence was later commuted to a fine, upon the ground that the offence only amounted to manslaughter.
Wilson’s brother appealed and had Law imprisoned, but he managed to escape to Amsterdam.

In 1716 Law established the Banque Générale in France, a private bank, but three-quarters of the capital
consisted of government bills and government-accepted notes, effectively making it the first central bank of the
nation. He was responsible for the Mississippi Company bubble and a chaotic economic collapse in France,
which has been compared to the early-17th century tulip mania in Holland. The Mississippi Bubble was
contemporaneous with the South Sea Company bubble of England.
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Law_(economist))

[Wikipedia excerpt translated in English:]


In December 1720, John Law, ruined, was forced to flee the [French] kingdom. Under the unofficial
protection of the Regent [Philippe d’Orléans], Law fled to Venice.

His system had impoverished or ruined about 10% of the French population, mainly the wealthy
shareholders. A few, benefiting from first-hand information, were able to enrich themselves considerably.
However, even if his system had lost its reliance in paper money and in the State, it had paradoxically
remediated the State’s debt by putting it under the control of numerous investors. The country’s economy was
preserved at a time when the country was paralyzed by widespread debt and a shortage of liquidity. Economic
agents became freed from chronic debt, and inflation had made it possible to alleviate private debts by at least
50%. The big losers were the annuitants — apart of real estate — but, a contrario, the common peasants saw
their overall situation improve.
(Source: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Law_de_Lauriston) Armes de la
Compagnie
Book about John Law: Française
The Mississippi Bubble: A Memoir of John Law, Adolphe Thiers, 1859. des Indes
Orientales et
(https://books.google.com/books?id=BT29fzY0-vUC) Occidentales.
(1720 ca) 407
(1717 ca)
(1721)

408
(1721 [London]) 409
(1775 [London])

(Detail)

410
(1775, detail [London])

411
(1776)

412
(1776)
413
414
(1776 [London])

415
(1783 [London])

416
(1807 [London]) 417
(1814 [Philadelphia])

418
(1814 [Philadelphia])
419
(1823 [Philadelphia])

420
(1823 [Philadelphia])

(See: https://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/50183)

421
(1819)

422
(1829) 423
["Duke’s Forest",
1490]

Ancient Topographical Map of Brabant (XVth Century).

(Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=s6ZBAQAAMAAJ)

[1865]
424
(http://maambolduc.com)
425
George Washington’s route from Williamsburg to Lake Erie in 1754.
Map of Western Virginia, based upon George Washington's 1754 map of the
region, illustrating his route through the region and showing a number of western
settlements in Virignia.
The map is drawn from the map of the Western part of Virginia which appeared in
The Journal Of George Washington, Sent By The Hon. Robert Dinwiddie ... To The
Commandant Of The French Forces On The Ohio . . . (London, 1754) and was one
of the first American maps to appear in the London Magazine. The map
accompanied an excerpt from George Washington's journal.
Washington's route from Williamsburg to the French fort on Lake Erie is shown.
References: Jolly, Maps of America in Periodicals before 1800: 48. Phillips,
Virginia Cartography: p. 49.
(Source: http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/47639)

(1754 [London]) 426


(1755 [London])

427
(1951 American historical drama film set in 1837 in a fictional account of the Patriots Rebellion, 428
sought to make Lower Canada (Quebec) a republic independent from the British Empire.)
Brief history of the Patriots
By Gilles Laporte
2015
[Original text in French]
[p. 75]
[…]. In 1838, Taché seeks the help of the Six Beaucerons network that organizes the escape of Patriots to the
United States.
The epic saga of the Six Beaucerons
The issuance of arrest warrants against the Patriots leaders on November 16, 1837, force many of them to flee
Montreal for a more secure area and eventually move to the United States. The preferred route then passes
through Pointe-aux-Trembles, Varennes, Saint-Denis, to St-Hyacinthe and from there to Farnham and the
United States. This is the path followed by Nelson, Papineau, Rodier and, with them, roughly a hundred of
Patriots then found around Lake Champlain.
At the end of 1837, this route is compromised by a tightening of British operatives at the border. The route to
exile becomes much more laborious, and so passes for a while by Yamaska, up the Saint-François River to New
Hampshire. Soon this route is in turn closely monitored, particularly in Drummondville by the volunteers of
George F. Heriot.
The last safe route therefore consists of a long detour by Quebec and, thence, by the Kennebec route, along
the Chaudière river, on to Maine: a route crossing the vast wild, impassable without the assistance of
experienced guides.
If they are not so eager to rebell, the Patriots of the Chaudière-Appalaches will be however quick to rescue
their countrymen to help them move to the United States under the nose of the British authorities. Several
depositions thus refer to a network of six inhabitants of Beauce who will take charge in guiding Patriots on the
run: François Bélanger, Jean-Baptiste Carrier, John Heath, Xavier Bolduc [François-Xavier Bolduc, son of
Charles Bolduc and Geneviève Doyon], Alexis Rodrigue and Augustin Doyon notably. We must also add the
Patriot of Yamaska and brother-in-law of Bélanger, Jean-Olivier-Caïus Arcand, who organizes a few gatherings
in Bellechasse in addition of joining the clan of beaucerons smugglers. It is in this network that the priest
Étienne Chartier, Patriot of Saint-Benoit, and Louis-Joseph-Amédée Papineau, son of the Patriots leader, must
have been able to safely take, through Kennebec, to reach the United States. The best exploit of the Six
Beaucerons is, however, of having facilitated the escape of two death-row convicts…
Edward Alexander Theller and William W. Dodge, both Americans, were tried for their involvement in the
insurgency in Upper Canada. Waiting to be shipped to England to be hanged, they were both detainees at the
Citadel of Quebec. On the night of 15 to 16 October 1838, they managed to escape from the Citadel with the
help of the Patriot Delegate of Saguenay, Charles Drolet, who undertook to intoxicate their jailer. The Six
Beaucerons network then took over, allowing Theller and Dodge to cross three sentinel posts without attracting
attention and then reach the border.
Furious by the escapes, the Quebec police deploys a network of spies, including Bill Hutton, and especially
the commander of the Kennebec river post, Thomas-Casimir Oliva, who immediately formed a company of
volunteers to launch a pursuit of the Six Beaucerons. Rather than be intimidated, the Beaucerons apparently
attempts to turn tables on Oliva himself, and to kidnap him. The event finally settles with a few arrests. Later
on, more will emerge from the investigation which will reveal that several others had also contributed to the
escape of fellow Patriots.
(Source: http://www.1837.qc.ca/UQAM/breve.pdf)
429
430
(1756)
(Source: http://www.old-maps.com/vermont/vt-state-dir.htm)
431
Le Fleurdelisé, No 3 Vol. 2, Spring 2011.

[Original text in French]


95. 10 November – Édouard-Elisée-Talentin Malhiot brings together 1000 Montarville Patriots who seized
the Manor of Lord Bruneau and plan to take Sorel or Chambly. The dispersal of the camp the following
day marks the end of the Patriot rebellion. Thus begins, for hundreds of them, flight, exile, prison and
sometimes death.
96. 16 November – Charles Drolet organizes the spectacular escape of five Patriots imprisoned in the Citadel
of Quebec, and succeed in gaining the United States through Beauce.
97. 18 November – The conspiracy of the Six Beaucerons around J.-O. Caïus Arcand, who help the Patriots
cross the border by the Kennebec route under the nose of the local police.
(Source: http://www.1837.qc.ca/index.shtml)

(Citadel of Quebec, 1849) 432


(1815) 433
(1737)

434
(1720 ca) 435
(1760 [London])

436
(1765 [London])
437
Arrival of the Englishmen in Virginia.
Detailed map of the area of Dare County, North Carolina, centered on the Roanoke Colony, site of the
first ever English attempt to create a chartered English Colony in North America.
Other place names on the map include Weapemeoc, Pasquenoke, Dasamonquepeuc, Secotan, Hatorask,
and Trinity Harbor.

In 1585, Governor John White was part of a voyage from England to the Outer Banks of North Carolina
under a plan of Sir Walter Raleigh to settle “Virginia”. White was at Roanoke Island for about thirteen
months before returning to England for more supplies. During this period he made a series of over seventy
watercolor drawings of indigenous people, plants, and animals. The purpose of his drawings was to give
those back home an accurate idea of the inhabitants and environment in the New World. The earliest images
derived from White's original drawings were made in 1590, when Theodor De Bry made engravings from
White's drawings to be printed in Thomas Hariot's account of the journey.

The Roanoke Colony grew from Elizabeth I’s attempt to establish a permanent English Settlement in the
New World. Originally financed and organized by Sir Humphrey Gilbert, it would be Sir Humphrey's half-
brother, Sir Walter Raleigh, who would finally pursue the royal charter to create the colony through his
delegates Ralph Lane and Richard Grenville, Raleigh's distant cousin. On March 25, 1584, Queen Elizabeth
I granted Raleigh a charter to create a colony. This charter specified that Raleigh needed to establish a
colony in North America, or lose his right to colonization.
(Source: http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/44417mp2)

(1590)
438
Unicorn

(1671 [London]) 439


(1706, English colonization of Plymouth in 1620.)

440
(1676 [London]) 441
(1597 ca)

442
(1701)

443
(1733 [London])

444
(1733 ca [London]) 445
(1783 [London])

446
(1755) 447
(1779 [London])

448
(1779, detail)

449
(1795 [Philadelphia])

450
(1813) 451
(1816 ca)

452
(1816 ca, detail)

453
(1820) 454
(1820, detail)

455
(1823)

456
(1823, Detail)

457
(1755 [London])

458
(1845 [London])
459
(1790)

460
(1854)

461
(1797 [London])

462
(1697 [Paris])

463
(1755 (1757) [London])

464
(1755 (1771) [London]) 465
(1784)

466
467
(1890)

468
(1890, detail)

469
(1784, details)

(Illustration published in NAVA News #190 April-June 2006, 18th Century Survey of US Flag Images, by D. Martucci, 2000.)
[Sources: http://www.vexman.net & https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/us-frali.html#french]

Franco-American Alliance
(1778-1800)
The Treaty of Alliance with France or Franco-American Treaty was a defensive alliance between France
and the United States of America, formed in the midst of the American Revolutionary War, which promised
mutual military support in case fighting should break out between French and British forces. The alliance was
planned to endure “indefinitely” into the future. Delegates of King Louis XVI of France and the Second
Continental Congress, who represented the United States at this time, signed this treaty at the hôtel de Coislin
and the Franco-American Treaty of Amity and Commerce at the Trouard hotel in Paris on February 6, 1778.
The Franco-American alliance would technically remain in effect until the 30 September 1800 Treaty of
Mortefontaine, despite being annulled by the United States Congress on 7 July 1798 after George Washington
gave his Neutrality Proclamation speech saying that America would stay neutral in the French Revolution.
(Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-American_alliance & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Alliance_(1778))

Alliance Flag published in 1781, by Alliance Flag published in 1782, by


Louis-Joseph Mondhare (1734-1799). the Lotter family (1740~1789).
(See: http://data.bnf.fr/14531157/louis-joseph_mondhare) (See: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobias_Conrad_Lotter)
“13 five-pointed W stars on a B canton, arranged 3- “13 six-pointed W stars on a B canton arranged 3-
3-3-3-1 (even with last star centered) plus one white 3-3-3-1 (even with last star centered) plus one gold
Fleur-de-lis at the center top of the canton.” Fleur-de-lis at the center top of the canton.”
(Source: http://www.vexman.net/13stars) (Source: http://www.vexman.net/13stars)
470
471
(1860)

472
(1860, details)

[The Customs Pavilion carries the vertical red stripes. The 1st Commodore has a blue-tipped flag with
white stars, the 2nd red, the 3rd white, with[?] blue stars. The Health Pavilion is all yellow.]

473
(Texas State Capitol Dome. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_flags_over_Texas)
474
(See: https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/msf01)

(Source: (Source: https://texasalmanac.com/sites/default/files/flags.jpg?1306926589)


https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fla04) 475
SIX FLAGS OVER TEXAS
A Report by the Texas Historical Commission
Reprinted from the June 20, 1997 Texas Register, volume 22, pages 5959 to 5967

The Reverse of the Texas State Seal


MOTION ADOPTED JULY 19, 1996
Through its general powers and duties granted in the Texas Government Code, §442.005(a), the Texas Historical
Commission (THC) approves the designs, shown as Exhibit A of this notice, for the six national flags of Texas
history. THC has reviewed these designs and determined that they represent the appropriate flags of the six nations
at the time of each claim to this soil, with the exception of the current flag of the United States of America. THC
urges that these standard designs be adopted for display in all appropriate locations. THC gratefully acknowledges
the assistance of Charles Adkin Spain and Dr. Whitney Smith for their research of these designs.

BACKGROUND
The “Six Flags” sets purchased by the state, businesses, and individuals are generally the flags manufactured in mass
quantities by the six largest U.S. flag manufacturers (Annin, CF, Collegeville, Dettra, J.C. Schultz, and Valley Forge).
Two of the flags in these sets, Spain and Mexico, are historically inaccurate because they do not represent a flag that
flew over Texas during the time those two nations claimed sovereignty over Texas. The French flag is also oftentimes
historically incorrect. It is, however, economically infeasible to display the historically correct flags because the flags
would have to be custom manufactured.
The only practical way to purchase a correct “Six Flags” set is for the State, acting through the commission, to specify
the proper designs of the “Six Flags” and to request the major flag manufacturers to make this historically correct set
once existing supplies have been sold.
The art for the proposed designs has been provided by Dr. Whitney Smith of the Flag Research Center in
Winchester, Massachusetts, who is the world’s leading expert on flags. Dr. Smith was an adviser to the State
Preservation Board and Office of the Secretary of State when the reverse of the state seal was redesigned in 1991-
1992, and an adviser to the Texas Department of Transportation when it featured color art of the “Six Flags” in
the travel publication A Quick Look at Texas. The proposed designs are basically the same designs that appear in the
current version of the reverse of the state seal. Dr. Smith has agreed to allow the commission to use the art for the
proposed designs as long as a copyright acknowledgment is published in the Texas Register.

KINGDOM OF SPAIN
Spain has had four significant flags during its occupation of the New World. The royal banner of Castile and Leon,
bearing two lions and two castles, was used as a state flag from circa 1230 to circa 1516. This flag, although widely
used in “Six Flags” displays, predates any Spanish presence in Texas: the first Spanish mission, Ysleta Mission in
present El Paso, was established in 1681.
From 1516 to May 28, 1785, Spain used a state flag consisting of a modified red saltire on white to signify the
House of Burgundy. A variant of the state flag existed from 1580 to 1640 that depicted the complete Spanish coat of
arms on a white field. Although displaying the Burgundian saltire as a “Six Flag” would be historically correct, few
people would recognize the flag.
King Charles III established the familiar Spanish flag containing horizontal stripes of red-gold-red and the simple
arms of Castile and Leon as the Spanish state flag on land effective March 8, 1793, and this flag was used until April
27, 1931. This flag appears in the reverse of the Texas state seal and would be the logical choice for inclusion in the
“Six Flags.”

2
KINGDOM OF FRANCE
The flag of France that was allegedly carried by René Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle in 1685, was probably a
plain white flag strewn with fleurs-de-lys. This flag (circa 1643 to October 31, 1790) was a simplified version of the
French state flag that bore the entire royal arms superimposed over numerous fleurs-de-lys strewn on a white field.
Another French flag frequently (and incorrectly) included in the “Six Flags” contains three or more fleurs-de-lys on a
blue field; this was the French state flag from circa 1370 to circa 1600. The fleurs-de-lys flag on a white field without
the royal arms appears in the reverse of the Texas state seal. Technically, the heraldic description of the flag is “white,
semé [strewn) of gold fleurs-de-lys,” so the actual number of fleurs-de-lys is indeterminate and they would bleed off
the four edges of the flag.

UNITED MEXICAN STATES


In April 1823, Mexico adopted its first republican flag, which was used until 1863. This flag is similar to the current
Mexican flag with vertical stripes of green-white-red. Both flags contain an eagle holding a serpent in its mouth and
standing on a nopal or cactus, but the current Mexican flag depicts a stylized Aztec eagle rather than the natural
eagle in the 1823 flag. The 1823 Mexican flag appears in the reverse of the Texas state seal.

REPUBLIC OF TEXAS
Texas had two official national flags for use on land during its existence: the 1836 national standard and the 1839
national flag that became the state flag. Some authorities also erroneously claim that Lorenzo de Zavala designed
a Republic of Texas flag (usually portrayed as a blue field with white star of five points central and with the letters
“T-E-X-A-S,” one letter between each star point).
The first official flag for use on land, the “National Standard of Texas,” was adopted by the Congress and approved
on December 10, 1836. It consisted of an azure ground with a large golden star central. This flag, known as David
G. Burnet’s flag, served as the national flag until January 25, 1839.
The second official flag for use on land, the Lone Star Flag, was adopted by the Texas Congress and approved on
January 25, 1839: “[T]he national flag of Texas shall consist of a blue perpendicular stripe of the width of one third
of the whole length of the flag, with a white star of five points in the centre thereof, and two horizontal stripes of
equal breadth, the upper stripe white, the lower red, of the length of two thirds of the whole length of the flag.” This
flag later became the state flag.
Although it would be historically correct to display David G. Burnet’s flag in the “Six Flags,” the Lone Star Flag
appears in the reverse of the Texas state seal and would be the logical choice for inclusion in the “Six Flags.”

CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA


The Confederate States of America had three principal flag designs during its existence. The first, known as the Stars
and Bars, was chosen by a legislative committee of the provisional government as the national flag and was raised
over the capitol in Montgomery, Alabama on March 4, 1861. The flag consisted of: “a red field with a white space
extending horizontally through the center, and equal in width to one-third the width of the flag. The red space above
and below to be the same as the white. The union blue extending down through the white space and stopping at the
lower red space. In the center of the union a circle of white stars corresponding to the number with the States in the
Confederacy.” The Stars and Bars was never adopted by legislation, but served as the Confederate flag for more than
two years. Texas was the seventh state to join the Confederacy.

3
Because of the Stars and Bar’s similarity with the United States flag, it was unsatisfactory for use as a battle flag.
The most famous Confederate battle flag was the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, a square having a
red ground with a blue saltire bordered with white and emblazoned with white five-pointed stars corresponding in
number to that of the Confederate States. The design of this battle flag was used in the second national flag of the
Confederacy, the Stainless Banner. This flag flew from May 1, 1863, to March 4, 1865, and consisted of a white field
with the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia in the canton.
The Stainless Banner was revised on March 4, 1865, in part because naval officers objected that the flag looked both
like a flag of truce and the British White Ensign. The revision added a vertical red stripe to the flag’s fly. This third
national flag was short-lived as the Confederacy surrendered in April 1865.
Another Confederate flag that is sometimes displayed in Texas today is a rectangular version of the battle flag of the
Army of Northern Virginia. This flag was the Confederate naval jack as it appeared after May 26, 1863, and was
similar to the battle flag of the Army of Tennessee that was issued in 1864.
It would be historically correct to display either the seven-star Stars and Bars, the Stainless Banner, or the 1865
revision of the Stainless Banner in the “Six Flags.” The Texas State Seal Advisory Committee choose to use the seven-
star Stars and Bars when the committee updated the design of the reverse of the Texas state seal in 1992 because the
Stars and Bars is the most recognizable and least inflammatory of the three Confederate Flags. The seven-star Stars
and Bars would be the logical choice for inclusion in the “Six Flags.”

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA


The last of the “Six Flags” to fly over Texas is the flag of the United States. Texas entered the Union on December 29,
1845, as the 28th state. The 27 star United States flag was first raised in Texas on February 19, 1846, when the state
government was organized in Austin. The 28 star United States flag flew only from July 4, 1846, to July 3, 1847,
after which Iowa’s admission necessitated the addition of another star. A 28 star United States flag appears on the
reverse of the Texas state seal to avoid the necessity of changing the reverse should another state be admitted in the
future, but it would make economic sense to use the current United States flag in the “Six Flags.”
The “Six Flags Over Texas” are shown in the following Exhibit A.

EXHIBIT A
The artwork in Exhibit A on the following pages was produced by Graham Bartram, based on original drawings
provided by Dr. Whitney Smith. Permission is granted for this artwork to be reproduced in connection with the “Six
Flags,” including the manufacturing of flags.

Texas Historical Commission


P.O. Box 12276
Austin, TX 78711-2276
512.463.6100
fax 512.475.4872
thc@thc.state.tx.us 4
KINGDOM OF SPAIN
March 8, 1793 to April 27, 1931

KINGDOM OF FRANCE
circa 1643 to October 31, 1790

5 APPENDIX A
UNITED MEXICAN STATES
April 1823 to 1863

REPUBLIC OF TEXAS / STATE OF TEXAS


January 25, 1839 to present

6 APPENDIX A
CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA
March 4, 1861 to May 1, 1863

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA


July 4, 1960 to present

7 APPENDIX A
Genealogy of the
England
American Flag
Since 1277
The nine segments on Benjamin
Franklin’s famous 1754 cartoon
probably inspired the 9 stripes in Great Britain
the original Sons of Liberty Flag. Red Ensign

○ c1621-1707



LO ○

CA ○

LF ○

LA ○

G ○ Scotland

TR ○

AD ○

Since the
ITI ○
○ 1200s
ON ○












○ Great Britain



○ Red Ensign


○ 1707-1801



Massachusetts Bay ○


1634-c1686 ○


○ © 2001 David B. Martucci


○ 240 Calderwood Rd

○ Washington ME 04574-3440 USA


○ (207) 845-2857

○ vex@vexman.net



Sons of Liberty ○


1765 ○









○ GR

○ EA

○ T
New England ○

○ BR
Ensign AM ○ ○ ○ ITA
c1686-c1775 ER ○ IN
Sons of Liberty IC ○ ○ ○
1775 A ○

Continental
Colors
1775-1777 Stars and Stripes
1777

New England
South Carolina Navy
Ensign
1775
1775-Present

1781

1782

Massachusetts
Navy 1779
1775-1971
1783
After 1784
1779
1814
TS
N
IA

1820
R
VA
F

1851 1796
O
S
D
N
SA
U
O
TH

1861
1870

1908 1912
Since 1960

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen