# data[].attributes.body
The French colony's where required to send Censuses to the french government on a regular basis. This tells us exactly who was living in the colony at the time.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Plundering and burning of the city of Grimross.  

# data[].attributes.subject
The Plundering and burning of the city of Grimross.  

# data[].attributes.body
Starting in 1755 the British forcibly removed the Acadians deporting them to France and England. The English did this because the Acadians refused to sign a oath of loyalty to England.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
how to screenshot on PC - Google Search - Google Chrome 8_11_2020 1_23_05 PM (3)

# data[].attributes.body
The French colonized Canada to achieve social mobility, avoid religious persecution and gain new territory. While living in French Canada the colonists accepted help from the native people to survive the winter whale exploiting their land and treating them as less than equals.

# data[].attributes.body
This memoir written by Marquis de la Galissoniere accounts the expectations of the colony and he french military in the area.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
December 1750

Motives of honor, glory and religion forbid the abandonment of an established Colony; the surrender to themselves, or rather to a nation inimical by taste, education and religious principle, of the French who have emigrated thither at the persuasion of t he Government with the expectation of its protection, and who eminently deserve it on account of their fidelity and attachment; in fine, the giving up of so salutary a work as that of the conversion of the heathen who inhabit that vast Continent.

Yet we shall not insist on these motives; and how great soever may be the inconveniences set forth in the preceding article, neither will we object to them, the future and uncertain revenues both of Canada and of Louisiana, although nevertheless, these a re extremely probable, since they have for basis an immense country, a numerous people, fertile lands, forests of mulberry trees, mines already discovered, etc.

We shall confine ourselves to regarding Canada as a barren frontier, such as the Alps are to Piedmont, as Luxembourg would be to France, and as it, perhaps, is to the Queen of Hungary. We ask if a country can be abandoned, no matter how bad it may be, or what the amount of expense necessary to sustain it, when by its position it affords a great advantage over its neighbors.

This is precisely the case of Canada: it cannot be denied that this Colony has been always a burthen to France, and it is probable that such will be the case for a long while; but it constitutes, at the same time, the strongest barrier that can be oppose d to the ambition of the English.

We may dispense with giving any other proofs of this than the constant efforts they have made, for more than a century, against that Colony.

We will add, however, that it alone is in a position to wage war against them in all their possessions on the Continent of America; possessions which are as dear to them as they are precious in fact, whose power is daily increasing, and which, if means b e not found to prevent it, will soon absorb not only all the Colonies located in the neighboring islands of the Tropic, but even all those of the Continent of America.

Long experience has proved that the preservation of the major portion of the settlements in the Tropical islands is not owing so much to their intrinsic strength, as to the difficulty of conveying troops thither from Europe in sufficient numbers to subju gate or keep them, and of supporting such troops there; but if the rapid progress of the English Colonies on the Continent be not arrested, or what amounts to the same thing, if a counterpoise capable of confining them within their limits, and of forcing them to the defensive, be not formed, they will possess, in a short time, such great facilities to construct formidable armaments on the Continent of America, and will require so little time to convey a large force either to St. Domingo or to the Island of Cuba, or to our Windward islands, that it will not be possible to hope to preserve these except at an enormous expense.

This will not be the case if we make a more energetic and generous effort to increase and strengthen Canada and Louisiana, than the English are making in favor of their Colonies; since the French Colonies, despite their destitute condition, have always w aged war against the English of the Continent with some advantage, though the latter are, and always have been, more numerous; it is necessary to explain here the causes to which this has been owing. The first is the great number of alliances that French keep up with the Indian Nations. These people, who hardly act except from instinct, love us hitherto a little and fear us a great deal, more than they do the English; but their interest, which some among them begin to understand, is that the strength of the English and French remain nearly equal, so that through the jealousy of these two nations those tribes may live independent of, and draw presents from, both.

The second reason of our superiority over the English is, the number of French Canadians who are accustomed to live in the woods like the Indians, and become thereby not only qualified to lead them to fight the English, but to wage war even against these same Indians when necessity obliges. Hence `twill be seen that this superiority of the French in America is in some sort accidental, and if they neglect to maintain it, whilst the English are making every effort to destroy it, `twill pass into the hands of the latter. There is no doubt but such an event would be followed by the entire destruction of our settlements in that part of the Globe.

This, however serious it may seem, would not be our only loss; it would drag after it that of the superiority which France must claim over England.

If anything can, in fact, destroy the superiority of France in Europe, it is the Naval force of the English; this alone sustained the house of Austria at the commencement of the war of the Spanish succession, as it caused France to lose, at the close of the last war, the fruit of the entire conquest of the Austrian Lower Countries.

We must not flatter ourselves with being able long to sustain an expenditure equal to theirs; no other resource remains then but to attack them in their possessions; that cannot be effected by forces sent from Europe except with little hope of success, a nd at vast expense, whilst by fortifying ourselves in America and husbanding means in the Colonies themselves, the advantages we possess can be preserved, and even increased at a very trifling expense, in comparison with the cost of expeditions fitted ou t in Europe. The utility of Canada is not confined to the preservation of the French Colonies, and to rendering the English apprehensive for theirs; that Colony is not less essential for the conservation of the Spanish possessions in America, especially of Mexico.

So long as that barrier is well secured; so long as the English will be unable to penetrate it; so long as efforts will be made to increase its strength, `twill serve as a rampart to Louisiana, which hitherto sustains itself only under the shadow of the forces of Canada, and by the connection of the Canadians with the Indians.

Should any unforeseen revolution disturb the intimate union now existing between the two Crowns, we should even be able, by means of Louisiana, to share with the Spaniards the profit of the rich settlements they possess in America; but this event appears so distant, that it is the opinion that France, for its own interest, and in order to remove every jealousy, must not seek to extend its possessions Westward, that is to say, towards the Spaniards, but apply all its resources to strengthen itself at the East, that is, in the direction of the English.

In fine, Canada, the fertility whereof is wonderful, can serve as the granary of the Tropical Colonies, which, in consequence of the men they destroy, sell their rich products very dear. It is proved that the number of Canadians who die in these Colonies that are admitted to be the most unhealthy, is much less than that of European French.

All that precedes sufficiently demonstrates that it is of the utmost importance and of absolute necessity not to omit any means, nor spare any expense to secure Canada, inasmuch as that is the only way to wrest America from the ambition of the English, a nd as the progress of their empire in that quarter of the globe is what is most capable of contributing to their superiority in Europe.

The Essential Documents of American History was compiled by Norman P. Desmarais and James H. McGovern of Providence College.
Also the Dangers that Threaten Canda and the Means to Remedy Them Also the Memoir on the English Aggression
~~~~~~~~

By Marquis de la Galissoniere

Copyright of Memoir on the French Colonies in North America is the property of Great Neck Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Memoir on the French colonies in North America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
December 1750 Motives of honor, glory and religion forbid the abandonment of an established Colony; the surrender to themselves, or rather to a nation inimical by taste, education and religious principle, of the French who have emigrated thither at the persuasion of t he Government with the expectation of its protection, and who eminently deserve it on account of their fidelity and attachment; in fine, the giving up of so salutary a work as that of the conversion of the heathen who inhabit that vast Continent.

# data[].attributes.body
This source is the Quebec Act,the Quebec act was created by the British parliament to further British control in the area.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WHEREAS his Majesty, by his royal proclamation, bearing the date the seventh day of October, in the third year of his reign, thought fit to declare the provisions which have been made in respect to certain countries, territories, and islands in America, ceded to his Majesty by the definitive treaty of peace, concluded at Paris on the tenth day of February, one thousand seven hundred and sixty three: and whereas by the arrangements made by the said royal proclamation, a very large extent of country, with in which there were several colonies and settlements of the subjects of France, who claimed to remain therein under the faith of the said treaty, was left, without any provision being made for the administration of civil government therein; and certain p arts of the territory of Canada, where sedentary fisheries had been established and carried on by the subjects of France, inhabitants of the said province of Canada, under grants and concessions from the government thereof, were annexed to the government of Newfoundland, and thereby subjected to regulations inconsistent with the nature of such fisheries: may it therefore please your most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, That all the territories, islands, and countries in North America, belonging to the crown of Great Britain, bounded on ...

That it may be enacted: [Boundaries defined, Boundaries of Proclamation of 1763 extended to include territory west to the Mississippi, north to the frontiers of the Hudson's Bay territory, and the islands in the mouth of the St. Lawrence.]

...And whereas the Provisions made by the said Proclamation, in respect to the Civil Government of the said Province of Quebec, and the Powers and Authorities given to the Governor and other Civil Officers of the said Province, by the Grants and Commissions issued in consequence thereof, have been found, upon Experience, to be inapplicable to the State and Circumstances of the said Province, the Inhabitants whereof amounted at the Conquest, to above Sixty five thousand Persons, professing the Religion of the Church of Rome...

It is hereby declared, That His Majesty's Subjects professing the Religion of the Church of Rome, of, and in the said Province of Quebec, may have, hold, and enjoy, the free Exercise of the Religion of the Church of Rome, subject to the King's Supremacy, declared and established by an Act made in the First Year of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, over all the Dominions and Countries which then did, or thereafter should, belong to the Imperial Crown of this Realm; and that the Clergy of the said Church may hold, receive, and enjoy their accustomed Dues and Rights, with respect to such Persons only as shall profess the said Religion.

Provided nevertheless, That it shall be lawful for His Majesty, His Heirs or Successors, to make such Provisions out of the rest of the said accustomed Dues and Rights, for the Encouragement of the Protestant Religion, and for the Maintenance and Support of a Protestant Clergy within the said Province, as he or they shall, from Time to Time, think necessary or expedient....

And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That all His Majesty's Canadian Subjects within the Province of Quebec, the Religious Orders and Communities only excepted, may also hold and enjoy their Property and Possessions, together with all Customs and Usages, relative thereto, and all other their Civil Rights, in as large, ample and beneficial Manner, as if the said Proclamation, Commissions, Ordinances, and other Acts and Instruments, had not been made, and as may consist with their Allegiance to His Majesty, and Subjection to the Crown and Parliament of Great Britain; and that in all Matters of Controversy relative to Property and Civil Rights, Resort shall be had to the Laws of Canada, as the Rule for the Decision of the same; and all Ca uses that shall hereafter be instituted in any of the Courts of Justice, to be appointed within and for the said Province by His Majesty, His Heirs and Successors, shall, with respect to such Property and Rights, be determined agreeably to the said Laws and Customs of Canada,...

And whereas the Certainty and Lenity of the Criminal Law of England, and the Benefits and Advantages resulting from the Use of it, have been sensibly felt by the Inhabitants from an Experience of more than Nine Years, during which it has been uniformly administered; be it therefore further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That the same shall continue to be administered, and shall be observed as Law, in the Province of Quebec, as well in the Description and Quality of the Offense, as in the method of Prosecution and Trial, and the Punishment and Forfeitures thereby inflicted, to the Exclusion of every other Rule of Criminal Law, or Mode of Proceeding thereon, which did or might prevail in the said Province before the Year of our Lord One thousand seven hundred and sixty four; any, Thing in this Act to the Contrary thereof in any Respect notwithstanding;...

And whereas it may be necessary to ordain many Regulations, for the future Welfare and good Government of the Province of Quebec, the Occasions of which cannot now be foreseen, nor without much Delay and Inconvenience be provided for, without entrusting that Authority for a certain Time, and upon proper Restrictions to Persons resident there:

And whereas it is at present inexpedient to call an Assembly: be it therefore enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That it shall and may be lawful for His Majesty,...and with the Advice of the Privy Council, to constitute and appoint a Council for the Affairs of the Province of Quebec, to consist of such Persons resident there, not exceeding Twenty-three, nor less than Seventeen, as His Majesty,...shall be pleased to appoint:...which Council, so appointed and nominated, or the major Part thereof, shall have Power and Authority to make Ordinances for the Peace, Welfare, and good Government of the said Province with the Consent of His Majesty's Governor, or, in his Absence, of the Lieutenant Governor, or Commander in Chief for the Time being...

The Essential Documents of American History was compiled by Norman P. Desmarais and James H. McGovern of Providence College.
Also the Boston Port Act
Copyright of Quebec Act is the property of Great Neck Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WHEREAS his Majesty, by his royal proclamation, bearing the date the seventh day of October, in the third year of his reign, thought fit to declare the provisions which have been made in respect to certain countries, territories, and islands in America, ceded to his Majesty by the definitive treaty

# data[].attributes.body
This source talk about settlers forcing the "savage" natives to convert to Christianity. Even though they relocated to gain religious freedom they did not believe in religious freedom for everyone.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
'To live among us without a wife is to live without help, without home, always a vagabond'.[ 1] So declared an Algonquin 'juggler' (or healer, or as the Jesuits had it, sorcerer), Pigarouïch, who was in the process of converting to Christianity in the 1630s. He fretted over the consequences of giving up multiple wives (something acceptable, even desirable, for a powerful healer), should his wife, by choice or necessity, leave him. He found this possibility a powerful deterrent to adopting monogamy; he was not the only one. He was also not simply pointing out, in a sweetly pathetic way, that men could barely survive without their loving wives. Rather, 'to live without help, without home, always a vagabond' was to be a socially, economically and politically disadvantaged man. A man needed a home, and a wife (or wives). Social rank came in part from the ability to live in one' s house, to be a husband and father.[ 2] Such begins to explain why plural unions mattered so much in New France in the seventeenth century.[ 3] Understanding the importance of these unions illuminates much about men - and women - at home.

Even some of the most seemingly avid believers in Catholicism would not adhere to a single permanent spouse, which 'caused us all some trouble', as Jesuit superior Paul Le Jeune later phrased it.[ 4] Historians of these colonial encounters, following the missionaries, have usually focused less on polygyny' s internal dynamics than on how it seemed to Jesuits: an 'obstacle', a 'target', 'disorder' and 'savagery'.[ 5] While early feminist accounts of these encounters argued that polygyny was one of many Native 'freedoms' given up with conversions, more recent work has argued that women converted to Catholicism in part to escape polygyny. Even historians who disagree about how 'Frenchified' or not Natives became in New France, agree that polygyny was an oppressive regime propelling women into Christianity and a European way of life.[ 6] However, what if we refuse to take plural unions simply as an 'obstacle', instead seeing them as an invitation to immerse ourselves in Native American households, in ways rarely possible? Doing so reveals much about masculine status and its relation to households and gender frontiers, as well as conversion. Polygyny - or marriage to multiple wives - took myriad forms, with varying implications for distinct kinds of women and men. Jesuits saw polygyny as a problem in terms of getting indigenous people to live as Christians. Yet among many Native American cultures, including those here, it was part of a larger system, one that frequently privileged larger household and kinship networks over individuals, yet also one that supported masculine authority. Male status in the home, and thus in the wider society, depended on women, especially wives.

Focusing on plural unions reveals a great deal about the critical importance of households as foundational to colonialism and gender identities. Households both comforted and constrained men and women. The intersection of masculinity and domesticity among early modern Native American peoples remains understudied. Native American men can sometimes seem disconnected from households. After all, the French saw key sources of Native masculine identities in war, diplomacy, hunting and trade; historians largely have, too. These areas were crucial. Yet the labour of women in households underpinned all of these areas, in ways that Europeans did not always see or appreciate.[ 7] Men fiercely defended their privileges as husbands. They occasionally had recourse to violence to prevent access by other men to the women in the household. Indian men at home could be loving. They could also be brutally protective of status even as they were themselves constrained by larger imperatives of family.

'Gender frontiers', as Kathleen Brown usefully framed them, existed not just between Europeans and Native Americans but also between Native Americans.[ 8] Yet there has been little attention to differences in gender regimes between neighbouring Indian groups, despite many recent calls from historians for greater understanding of indigenous dynamics on their own terms.[ 9] The emphasis on métissage and liaisons between Native women and French traders shifts the focus to colonisers, as if the only kind of unions involving Indian women worth the attention of historians were those with European men. Such connections were significant, but other relationships were important, too. More recent work has attempted to delineate the outlines of indigenous networks and family life. Heidi Bohaker has helpfully traced the concept of 'nindoodemag, or kinship networks', emphasising their centrality in life and political choices for Anishinaabe in this broad area in the seventeenth century. Bohaker largely casts kinship webs in positive terms, arguing that they 'militated against crisis'.[ 10] Such networks did militate against crisis, but not without cost for individuals, especially wives. As Richard White has noted, 'In marriage coercive authority, elsewhere so weak in Algonquian society, stiffened'.[ 11] This article offers some discussion of how and why such 'stiffening' occurred, seeking to understand what was at stake for men in terms of marriage and power.

Marriage mattered to early modern peoples. It was vital for men - and women - at home. It mattered to Jesuits who did not themselves marry but sought to ensure their converts married 'correctly': that is, in sacramental lifelong monogamy. Such battles for monogamy were critical to the conversion process, as well as to a broader French attempt to impose order, at home and especially in its colonies.[ 12] Marriage also mattered to the Native people whom they met, though for very different reasons. Indigenous Americans in this area did not see marriage as indissoluble or sacramental, but it was very significant in forging political, social and economic bonds. As Bohaker has noted, marriage was 'a crucial institution'.[ 13] The institution in particular linked peoples from different clan lines, weaving webs of political and economic alliances. Brett Rushforth notes that 'People in Miami and Illinois towns traded with and married one another but had no formal political ties beyond the extended kinship cemented by marriage'.[ 14] The dissolution of a marriage could be amicable and easy, but, if ended by a wife' s adultery or by one man stealing another' s wife, it could also be violent and disruptive. Households centred on reproduction and production, and both men and women invested considerably in their shape and power. Men in particular defended their household status fiercely. Wives 'made' men. As one anthropologist has observed, 'In societies without classes or estates, where kinship organises people' s rights and obligations, marriage, as the basis of kinship, organises social inequality'. Marriage, another scholar points out, shapes 'social hierarchy'.[ 15] Plural unions clarify dramatically the gender and rank inequalities that underpinned Native societies.

This article thus delineates in broad terms a variety of plural marriages among several connected peoples, in the period from the early seventeenth century to the early eighteenth century. The terms used to describe these indigenous Americans are variable. This very complication highlights the difficulties of the sources as well as the complex, fluid nature of identities in seventeenth‐century Native America. Algonquian is a very wide linguistic designation. It includes many people, such as those in the wider areas of the Great Lakes and north of the St Lawrence River. The focus here is on three distinct linguistic subgroups in those regions: Algonquin/Algonkin (of the Ottawa River valley), Montagnais and Miami‐Illinois. Each linguistic subgroup included smaller entities identified specifically by the French such as the Peoria Illinois or La Petite Nation Algonquin. These entities were not nation states in a European sense. They were also not tribes. Rather, they were fluid social networks, structured by kinship ties, organised around villages, and linked though language, culture and marriage. In part, family connections profoundly shaped identities and made marriage a vital means of linking communities. A contemporary map shows the northern regions here (see Figure [NaN] ). There was variety within and between them, and in part this article offers discussion of those differences. Still, on the whole, it is possible to identify a distinctive gender and household regime shared by all of these peoples, which marked them out from neighbouring ones such as the Haudenosaunee (or Iroquois) or the Wendat (or Wyandott or Huron).

The difficulties of pinpointing particular identities and practices highlight the challenges of narrating the experiences of people who left few written sources. Understanding even the most basic aspects of marriage and inequality in Native American societies in the seventeenth century requires innovative methodologies. This article thus uses a variety of kinds of sources, including linguistic ones, in part to recover the experience of Native women, who are the least well documented. The written sources we have are mainly from Europeans. As Richard White warned: 'Even when the most careful and sensitive of the European observers talked about the status of women and sexual relations, therefore, they eliminated much of the actual social world that gave those relations their meaning'.[ 16] Restoring the contours of that world is challenging. There are secular travel narratives, but there are relatively few for the earlier period. They are also not without limitations, repeating tropes (such as the stoicism of Native women) in unverified ways.[ 17] However, they are important sources, as are religious accounts, mainly by Jesuits.[ 18] From the early 1630s to 1658, 'proponents of a distinctive, enthusiastic, and uncompromising socioreligious utopia', namely Jesuits and Ursulines, held sway in New France.[ 19] Like many officials who left abundant writings about people who left few, Jesuit missionaries recorded in order, ultimately, to obliterate much of the behaviour they were recording.[ 20] So such texts, whether published or not, reveal a great deal, but they must be used with caution. The emphasis on the sacramental nature of monogamous marriage was part of a larger reforming and missionary impulse, and this concern colours these sources in distinctive ways.[ 21] The sources that have received the most attention are The Jesuit Relations. They were the reports written by individual priests 'in the field', edited by their superior and sent back to Paris, to be edited again and published, in order to rally support.[ 22] They also had to pass inspection from Church and crown authorities.

This article makes use of these better‐known texts, but it also relies on the far less well‐known sources of Jesuit translation dictionaries, largely still in manuscript.[ 23] They were intended not for publication but as a guide for new missionaries. They were sometimes organised by French alphabetical order, sometimes by Algonquian‐language alphabetical order. Such dictionaries, which translate native languages mainly into French, are dialogues but not between French and Native Americans. They were dialogues between earlier missionaries and later ones. Their seemingly neutral alphabetical categories embed pathways for conversions. They recorded how to recognise the phrase 'I have two wives' largely so that they could identify those who were actively undermining the sacrament of marriage. As one scholar of empire has noted, 'the colonial politics of exclusion was contingent on constructing categories'.[ 24] They did not record so as better to appreciate the household choices of Native Americans or so as to preserve cultures. They also put things into categories familiar to French sensibilities, not necessarily in terms that Indians would have recognised. Dictionaries also imply timelessness of meaning, but the worlds they revealed were very much in motion. Nevertheless, they are the closest we can get to the voice of Native people in this time and place - quite literally so. Deploying these little‐used dictionaries, as well as other accounts, it is possible to build up something like a picture of plural unions.[ 25]

Before turning to polygyny, it is helpful first to understand more about these cultures and the place of households, kinship and marriage in them. The exigencies of a harsh northern climate and limited resources had long shaped the nature of family and community life among the most northerly people, especially those north of the St. Lawrence River. Outside of the abundant summer season, groups needed to be small in order for resources in a given area to support all of the people in them. Consequently, these smaller units, made up of families, constituted the larger entity. Anthropologists have contended that 'such a set of regional groups shared a sense of common identity, language, and culture; exploited contiguous hunting ranges; and was linked by ties of kinship and marriage'.[ 26] Resources were more abundant in more western and southern areas, especially south of the Great Lakes, with more settled and larger networks. Nevertheless, for all of these peoples, small‐scale politics depended on strong family links, or, as Bohaker has phrased it, 'evidence from a wide range of sources ... all speak to the importance of these [kin] networks'.[ 27] Marriage had a critical place in politics, diplomacy and economics since marriages across different clans tied peoples together and allowed for diplomatic, political, social and economic allegiances.[ 28]

Bilateral kinship, or a system in which lineage ties through both the father and the mother were socially significant, provided the foundation for political and economic structuring, though descent was predominantly patrilineal.[ 29] Marriage patterns were usually patrilocal (or virilocal) - that is, those in which wives left their families and went to live with their husbands' families, often at some distance from their own.[ 30] Linguistic sources confirm what has been a matter of speculation. One dictionary states the word for a wife living with her husband' s family (elle est chez les parens de son mari/ nahanganae8a). A 1662 Algonquin dictionary records ways to say 'wife of my country' as opposed to a wife of other countries.[ 31] Dictionaries gave phrases, spoken only by wives, such as: 'I am married outside my country, into another nation (je suis mariée hors du pays, en autre nation/ni nahatchichi8in)'.[ 32] There is also a way to describe a 'foreign woman married into this country (femme étrangère mariée en ce pays/nahahisk8eu)'.[ 33] Such precision suggest that these distinctions remained salient to people.[ 34] To be among kin was important, yet the expectation was that sometimes, especially for wives, such connections could be at a distance.

Within a larger nexus of kinship connections, sibling relations were a central source of identity. Siblings sometimes set up households together: for instance, two brothers and their wives and children, or as when two sisters married one man. They also in some cases had influence on marriage choices.[ 35] Households usually consisted of two or more related nuclear families, frequently father and son, brothers or brothers‐in‐law; usually, houses were conical or round lodges.[ 36] Sources make clear that, as in France, the agents of marriage were not always or only the bride and groom. Marriages were family affairs. There were also economic implications, just as in France. In general, these were cultures in which families exchanged gifts on marriage, with the groom' s family in particular giving gifts to the bride' s family (the reverse of early modern France' s dowry culture). The involvement of relatives was critical. There are phrases for 'I marry off my daughter' (je marie ma fille/ni8echika nitana) as well as 'I marry off my son' (je marie mon fils/nita8i8miha nic8issa).[ 37] The expectation was that the bride needed to give her consent, but so did her family. Marc Lescarbot' s early‐seventeenth‐century account noted that a man had to prove himself a valiant hunter and court the woman to win her approval, but that the woman' s father also had to approve the match. Other writers also emphasised that the woman' s consent was needed, but also that of relatives, though sometimes it was the brother, or mother and father, who had to approve the match.[ 38]

Other family members beyond husband and wife continued to shape marital life. Age and rank, as well as gender, mattered a great deal in household settings. Households could take different shapes. When a new couple lived with a husband' s family, then it would have been a mother‐in‐law and sisters‐in‐law who likely initiated a young wife into the ways of that household, clan and community. These households were places of labour, and the senior matron could be as much a strict manager of economics as a motherly figure. When brothers set up households together, the wives of the brothers might well exert authority over a new bride. Some of these households could also include polygyny, especially for leaders. It was a form of marriage which both demonstrated and bolstered political, economic and spiritual authority among powerful men.[ 39]

Dictionaries trace out the ubiquity of polygyny across all of these cultures, though it could take different forms. In all cases, it benefited the husband. The forms included sororal polygamy (sisters marrying the same man), non‐sororal polygamy and polygamy involving captives. The earliest extant dictionary, an Algonquin one from 1662, includes phrases such as 'I have two wives' (jay deux femmes/ninrioukoueoue) as well as for 'the wife (or wives) of my husband' (la femme de mon mary/nikik pl. k8ek). It even includes the word polygamy (poligamie/nintiouiouesaïn).[ 40] These phrases reappear in other Algonquin sources, as well as Montagnais and Miami‐Illinois ones, for the entire period.[ 41] Among Miami and Illinois peoples, sororal polygamy seems to have been a common form.[ 42] One French writer, Pierre‐François Xavier de Charlevoix, claimed, 'A plurality of wives is allowed of ... and it is common enough to marry all the sisters; this custom is founded on a persuasion, that sisters must agree better than strangers. In this case all the women are upon an equal footing; but amongst the true Algonquins there are two orders of wives, those of the second order being the slaves of the first'.[ 43] Sororal polygyny maintained critical sibling relations; it also meant that a wife moving away brought family and status with her. Most observers agreed it was thought to enhance harmony between wives. Louis Hennepin maintained that Indians married sisters because the assumption was that sisters would get along better.[ 44]

There were also plural marriages involving unrelated women. One sojourner noted that 'many men ... have two wives ... who yet live in quite harmonious manner, although not relatives - for when the women are such they always live together without any strife'.[ 45] In many cases, the women seem to have had a choice in the matter. Some refused, as Montagnais dictionaries offered phrases such as 'I do not marry a married man' (je ne marie pas un homme marié/nama ni 8ish8n) and 'I will not marry a man who already has a wife' (Ie ne mariray pas Luy qu a desia femme/88isk8n).[ 46] Part of this refusal may have stemmed from the fact that secondary wives generally had a subordinate status. While Charlevoix' s point about non‐sororal polygyny was probably an exaggeration, it does seem that in non‐sororal settings, the first wife usually enjoyed considerable status, but that subsequent wives had less. Other travellers echoed this sense, noting, for instance, that 'The old wives are the mistresses of the meat and peltries and so console themselves when they see the favours of their husband shared with others'.[ 47] There is linguistic evidence of the jealousies that might be expected to attend such plural unions. The phrase for 'I am the second wife' (je suis 2e femme/nita8ic8issi) is linguistically similar to 'I look upon him with jealousy, hate' (je le regarde avec jalousie, haine/nita8ic8ssi ng8eta8a).[ 48]

The final form of plural unions involved captive women. Male war captives tended to be killed, though not always. Female captives, and children, tended to be integrated into households. Such women could become 'chore wives', secondary wives who did not have much choice about marrying, who lacked kin and who did the most menial tasks in the household. Such women would have been the lowest‐ranking adults in the household, on whom the greatest burden of physical service would have fallen. They would have done the hardest labour, and received the least reward. For such women, life could not have been easy. Among more western people, such systems of marriage with enslaved captives became especially pronounced.[ 53] Yet even in earlier times, and far to the east, Jesuits reported on one Haudenosaunee captive woman who assumed she would be 'commanded' to marry. They also contended that 'many a young man will not hesitate even to marry a captive, if she is very industrious; and thereafter she will pass as a woman of his country'.[ 54] The ability of such a wife to 'pass as a woman of his country' depended partly on her industriousness in realms of both production and reproduction.

Whether wives were enslaved or free, their productive and reproductive labour underpinned and indeed created households and supported the status of husbands. Indeed, one dictionary offered a single word for 'I make him his house, he is my husband' (je luy fais sa cabanne, c est mon mary/ni8ikiha). There was a corresponding word for 'this is my wife, she makes my house, she gives me a place to live, she cares for me, she gives me food' (c'est ma femme, elle fait ma cabanne, elle me loge, a soin de moy, me donne a manger/ni8ikieg8a).[ 55] We have already seen the fear of becoming a 'vagabond' expressed by a powerful leader, Pigarouïch. A word existed for 'a man without a wife' (il est sauf femme/rikinouaba).[ 56] A man who lost his wife, whether through divorce, captivity or death, might literally become a vagabond, moving between other men' s households. He would be cut off from a chief source of strength and status. He would no longer be able to offer hospitality to visitors, ambassadors and trading partners, a vital aspect of this culture.[ 57] Indeed, he would likely rely on the hospitality of others. He would jeopardise his social, economic and even political position, unable to demonstrate his ability to maintain a household. Indeed, the word 'vagabond' appears in the dictionaries, too. One of them differentiated between a vagabond outside of his country (vagabond, sans lieu, sans feu hors de son païs/ki8nag8sita), as well as for a vagabond among his own people (vagabond mais dans son païs/ki8i8itchikita).[ 58] Yet the definition included the phrase 'vagabond, without place, without fire', a way of stating contemptuously in seventeenth‐century French that a man had absolutely nothing.[ 59]

Polygyny was in part a form of masculine insurance, so as to prevent a powerful man being reduced to such vagabondage. One early French observer, Pierre Biard, explained why Native leaders were so loath to give up polygyny. He contended that it was 'not because of lust (for this nation is not very unchaste) but for two other reasons'. First, Biard explained they sought 'to retain their authority and power by having a number of children; for in that lies the strength of the house'. Second, Biard continued, 'is their entertainment and service, which is great and laborious'. He concluded: 'now they have no other servants, slaves, or mechanics but the women. These poor creatures endure all the misfortunes and hardships of life'.[ 60] Female or 'squaw' drudgery was a common trope for travel writers, a way of castigating indigenous men for laziness and tyranny. It is best to avoid taking such assertions literally. However, undeniably, women did a lot of work in these households. The labour of wives, as providers of both hospitality and children, was highly significant in supporting 'authority and power' and 'the strength of the house'.

Men could not be 'at home' without women to 'make [their] homes'. Understanding plural marriage better helps us to understand this fundamental point about masculine rank. Both masculine and feminine rank, indeed the status of an entire household, were also considerably bolstered by 'having a number of children'. 'The more they beare children the more they are respected', declared one traveller.[ 61] Another noted: 'One sees Savages who have two or three wives pregnant at the same time; it is their greatest joy to have many children'.[ 62] In a land so cold and forbidding for so much of the year, people privileged the survival of their children over other needs. Mothers nursed babies for two to three years. If a mother' s milk dried up because she became pregnant, it could endanger the suckling baby. So, husband and wife were also expected to avoid having penetrative sex during this period. 'When the women are nursing, their husbands do not ordinarily have commerce with them. As they have several [wives], they manage it easily'.[ 63] French observers saw what this arrangement meant to husbands, but they did not dwell on what it meant to wives and to other children.

Wives in plural unions presumably lost a portion of a husband' s sexual attentions, but this limitation was not without possible advantage, especially in periods of pregnancy and nursing. It also meant that women could help to take care of each other' s children and could raise a lot of siblings. In Miami‐Illinois languages, the word for 'mother' could also mean 'maternal aunt'. In households with sisters married to one husband, it seems likely that the childen looked upon the adult women as caretakers and indeed even as mothers, whether they were biologically so or not. Indeed, the same word for 'mother' could even mean all female descendants of a maternal uncle.[ 64] These linguistic conflations suggest the close connections that could exist between these female relatives, as well as the enduring importance of sibling relations. A child might call 'mother' a considerable range of female relations, in polygynous households and in other ones.

Having many siblings was an advantage; children in larger households, whether, for instance, those with multiple brothers or a single man with multiple wives, enjoyed the connections, though also of course suffered the rivalries, of having many siblings. Language picked out distinctions in the sex and age of siblings in careful ways; one' s position depended on one' s relationship with brothers and sisters.[ 65] There is no evidence that children in plural unions had a hierarchy based on their mother' s status, as in some other cultures with plural unions. Indeed, we know from many sources that even captive children became fully integrated into households and families; the background of parents does not seem to have marked children out.[ 66] Households with more siblings offered a child a multitude of connections, even if the child' s mother had been enslaved. Larger households, with more children, more relations and more labourers, enhanced the prestige of all of those in it, even the lowliest members internally, such as captive wives.

Households bolstered the standing of those in them in myriad ways, since households were economic centres as much as social ones. Husbands also gained much from the economic contributions of wives. As noted, it was mainly women who performed household labour; thus, in this way, too, they 'made homes' for men. One early Jesuit summarised: 'The women know what they are to do, and the men also; and one never meddles with the work of the other.' He continued: 'The men make the frames of their canoes, and the women sew the bark ... Men go hunting, and kill the animals; and the women go after them, skin them, and clean the hides. It is they who go in search of the wood that is burned'.[ 67] The preparation of anything that could be sewn, cleaned, cooked or burned: such was the province of women. In the seventeenth century, the labour of many Native women became increasingly market‐oriented in ways not always appreciated.[ 68]

Discussions of the early fur trade tend to focus on men: French traders who bought the furs and indigenous men who did the hunting.[ 69] In fact, the fur trade depended on the labour of men and women; it was work for households, not simply for individuals. Market orientation increased pressures on women as well as men, and could propel an increase in polygamy in some contexts, as among the Comanche in the nineteenth century.[ 70] Beaver and other 'raw' materials required processing before they could be shipped to Europe. By and large, women did this work. Women retrieved and eviscerated animals. They scraped away flesh with serrated bone knives. They cleaned the fur (and sometimes even chewed it to soften it).[ 71] The processing time was limited. So when winter hunts brought in lots of animals, women had to work long hours to ready them for trade. Anthropologists remind us that in predominantly hunter‐gatherer societies, 'A hunter who is not attached to a gatherer is a hungry man; a man who catches [animals] will have a pile of rotten flesh on his hands (and no clothing on his back) if he cannot find a woman who will process his catch'.[ 72]

Male status depended on the way the household looked, as well as on the labour, productive and reproductive, that women did - as wives, as mothers, as sisters, as daughters, as captives. One word in Montagnais summarised the conflation of the subordination of many women: 'nitichk8emak', (mes filles, mes femmes, mes servantes) which could be translated as my daughters/girls, my wives/women, my servants.[ 73] It may be that some Frenchmen saw them all in the same way; it may also be that some Montagnais men did. For some women, first wives who managed whole households, this system could enhance their status. They could be 'mistress of all'. Also, the relations between wives, who worked together on a daily basis and frequently with the husband away for hunting or war, may have been at least sometimes positive. One word that a wife could use for 'the other wife of my husband' was 'my companion' (ma compagne, l'autre femme de mon mari/niisk8). This word implies friendship and familiarity, as well as a relationship of service between wives of similar status.[ 74] Service would certainly have been part of many, if not most, of these relationships. Men depended on this service, too.

Historians have puzzled over the shocking brutality of these punishments for female adultery, especially in cultures in which women appear to have had some degree of sexual autonomy. Brett Rushforth has argued that it was enslaved wives who provoked this kind of belligerent behaviour in part because they lacked the protection of kin.[ 83] Certainly, enslaved wives could suffer violence. Yet there is limited evidence to suggest that it was exclusively enslaved women who endured such punishments. In part, the extreme violence of people in this time and place may have been connected with a greater likelihood that wives were captives, but even this point is not entirely clear. As we have already seen, even non‐enslaved wives were often at some distance from natal kin. Sources imply simply that violence, and the threat of violence, surrounded women who violated household norms, whether they were enslaved or not. For both captive and non‐captive wives, such warnings were powerful deterrents to adultery. Archaeologists working on an earlier period have identified a high degree of cranial trauma among reproductive‐age women in some of these areas going back centuries. These findings led them to argue that the likeliest explanation is that such women were captives and/or survivors of household abuse (from husbands or other wives). The fact that such bodies seem to have been accorded no special treatment in burial suggests that these forms of violence did not mark permanently altered status. In other words, it was not necessarily a population of enslaved women with a distinctive status who suffered aggression. Rather, there was an endemic if low‐lying level of violence against reproductive‐age women which put them, as these scholars conclude, 'in harm' s way'.[ 84]

Such violence extended beyond the individual household. Aggression against women who flouted household rules formed one way in which men occasionally demonstrated status to each other. Consider the phrase: 'go get my wife' in the dictionary. This phrase suggests that the husband was rallying others to aid him in finding and punishing the wife. A similar hideous mobilisation occurred in the gang rapes. We can and must see such actions as acts centrally against wives, but we must also confront the grim fact that they were a potent, terrible form of male sociability. On such occasions, the husband apparently said to the wife: 'As I know that you are fond of men, I offer you a feast of them - take your fill'.[ 85] Such an offer was a gruesome inversion of those 'eat‐all feasts', so important in these cultures and so despised by the Jesuits: a display of male hospitality for other men, supported by women' s labours. Such acts depended on the homosocial bonds forged elsewhere, in hunting and warfare: two major arenas of male accomplishment. Such actions were on the extreme end of coercion, but coercion was in force to maintain household and kin relations as well as to demonstrate and confirm male status.

Yet even in situations not involving captives, coercive measures could still surround household relations. In part, it was a means of protecting larger systems of kinship. Often, senior members of households, including women, patrolled the boundaries of acceptable behaviour in such settings. For instance, matrons maintained rules and rituals relating to widowhood, an especially common occurrence in the seventeenth century, marked as it was by epidemics and war. The power of matrons is evident in the Great Lakes area, 'if the husband dies, the wife cannot marry again unless the man is one to the liking of the mother‐in‐law, and after two years of mourning'. Indeed, the widow had to accept the choice of new husband by her parents‐in‐law 'without the power to refuse him - for the parents of the deceased are masters of her body'.[ 90] Yet conversely, a widower had also to observe two years of mourning and also had to take as a spouse the choice of his mother‐in‐law.[ 91] The consequences of refusal were profound. However, it was the new wife, not the husband, who suffered for such infractions: 'If he disobeyed this rule all the relatives of his deceased wife would heap a thousand indignities on the woman whom he had taken without such consent; and if he had two wives, they would do the same to the other one'. One French observer claimed that the brothers of the deceased wife might go so far as to 'carry away his new wife and violate her; and this act would be considered by disinterested persons as having been legitimately perpetrated'. Here was another display of the power of the siblings, but also another gang rape and show of force between men over the larger household unit and its sanctity.[ 92] Women unduly paid the price for the violation of household order, but both women and men lived under the power of this larger unit and its inexorable demands, as well as the authority of siblings and senior members.

For reasons unclear, Miami and Illinois cultures seem to have been more hierarchical than others, violence more common.[ 93] The greater number of resources in those areas may have meant that there was more over which to compete, and female household labour became especially critical. Also, in this land well to the west of the St Lawrence River areas, there may well have been less integration and influence of Wendat and Haudenosaunee peoples. They did not practice formal polygamy and altogether were cultures in which women arguably enjoyed higher status. Influences from the west and south, such as from Plains Indians, may have pushed in the other direction, as such groups tended to be less egalitarian. They were cultures in which fierce male rivalries over access to women were much more common.[ 94] So, it may have stemmed from resources and geography. It might also indicate a change from the earlier to the later seventeenth century, the ongoing effects of colonialism and the amplification of violence throughout this region. The more desperate need to forge social bonds between men, and to emphasise status, may have been outcomes of war and colonial disruptions. In any case, while the Miamis and the Illinois were at one end of a gender spectrum, other peoples shared much in terms of the practice of marriage and household.

Despite these differences, there were certain commonalities between these distinct Algonquian cultures. In all of them, a system that prioritised kinship and household relations exacted a toll on individuals, especially women. Seniority mattered, for both women and men. At the same time, wives helped to make men, in many respects. Male status in these cultures depended on the way the household looked, as well as on the work that women did - as wives, as daughters, as captives. The labour performed by women in these households may help to explain the fact that historians have differed so profoundly in their views of polygyny and the status of native women in New France. Some have seen women giving up freedom and authority to the French and Catholicism; others have seen desperate female drudges eager to escape not just into Catholic monogamy but into celibacy altogether. Both perspectives are correct. For some women, especially those who ruled households, larger households, including plural unions, could offer benefits, including the labour of other women, some of whom might have been captives. Sisters who married the same man might have helped each other to run the household, to protect each other and to help care for each other' s children. Altering this system would have diminished their status. Even secondary wives might benefit for the status gained by an entire household. For other women, especially captive ones, plural unions, and households in general, brought slavery: a system of coercive labour that also involved natal alienation and social death. In all cases, husbands gained from these systems.

'Gender frontiers', then, usually cast solely as a product of interactions between Europeans and indigenous people, existed also between Algonquian‐speaking peoples and what scholars have called the 'Nadouek' (comprising the Haudenosaunee, the Wendat and other groups).[ 95] There were commonalities. In Algonquian, Wendat and Haudenosaunee cultures, broadly construed, women, especially senior women who ruled households, could be powerful decision‐makers; women, especially young ones, could also be subordinate and even enslaved. However, the institution of permanent plural unions marked out Algonquian peoples. Neither the Haudenosaunee nor the Wendat practised formal polygyny, yet virtually every Algonquian‐speaking group for whom we have evidence did. Neighbouring Wendat apparently recognised formal wives: arenonha, and asqua, or companion/concubines (for whom a marriage ceremony did not take place and whose status was time‐limited, usually to hunting trips or similar). The status of an asqua, almost always a non‐Huron woman, 'vis‐à‐vis other Huron women was more or less that of a slave'.[ 96] The Haudenosaunee were matrilocal, exclusively monogamous and more egalitarian, with matrons enjoying a formal political role.[ 97] To my knowledge, no one has considered what effects this contrasting set of indigenous gender regimes had on their interactions, including warfare and captivity. Yet these differences are significant. We do not know how much individuals knew about the household structures of other cultures. However, if people were aware of these contrasts, it might help to explain the fierceness of war between Algonquian‐speaking people and Iroquoian ones. People on both sides were perhaps not fighting simply for furs or even for captives; they may have been fighting for a whole way of life. Haudenosaunee women, who had the power to declare war and peace, might have found the prospect of being a captive secondary wife especially novel and troubling. More work on this issue remains to be done. Placing Native practices squarely at the centre of focus, though, begins at least to suggest new questions.

At the same time, as it happens, centring Native American households reveals two major points about much‐discussed Native‐coloniser relations. First, investigating plural unions suggests that there may be something of a false dichotomy between those who argue for the integration of French men into Indian households through intermarriage and those who have argued, more recently, that Indian women in intermarriage were 'Frenchified'.[ 98] Intermarriage had long been occurring for these Algonquian‐speaking women, whether by choice or by force. Wives in these cultures had long married out, integrating themselves into novel social environments. These connections nurtured alliances between people, to be sure, but women paid a price in moving into a foreign country.[ 99] Such wives continued to leave home when they married French men. The ties they forged could bring French men into Indian circles, but of course they could also function to bring Indian women into French ones. In some times and some places, for instance early‐eighteenth‐century Kaskaskia, it tended toward the latter; elsewhere, the former held true. It is ironic yet plausible that in becoming French, such women were acting like Algonquian‐speaking people: marrying in patrilocal cultures and accepting the mores of their husbands' communities, yet simultaneously forging dense webs of interconnections around actual and spiritual kinship. Marriage had long been a bridge between distinct peoples, with different languages and customs, with wives joining new families and communities.

Second, centring Native households helps to explain the shape of conversion efforts. The Jesuits had begun their mission in New France with the belief that winning over a powerful male leader would effect the conversion of a whole people. They soon learned otherwise, especially when those leaders proved among the most resistant to adopting the ways of life the Jesuits demanded. Pigarouïch and other men gained status from their wives and households. To them, these connections had little to do with their Christian faith; they saw nothing incompatible in being a Christian and having two or three wives. For them, plural unions represented only one small part of a much larger system of organising men and women, and of privileging clans over individuals. Time after time, then, the Jesuits bumped into this 'obstacle'. After mid‐century, as they moved west, Jesuits started targeting women more often for conversion, a strategy that proved more successful.[ 100] Some women, especially captive secondary wives in Miami‐Illinois cultures, found Christianity and different household regimes appealing. Yet it is best to be wary of the assumption that any and all women converted to Christianity in order to escape oppressive polygyny. There was no monolithic quality to polygynous relations.

Nevertheless, women' s labours 'made homes' for men, whether in polygamy or monogamy. There was one strong consistency across the variety of plural (and other) marriages: male status in these cultures depended fundamentally on wives and their work. Such homes underpinned masculine authority, hospitality and rank. Men depended on the activities of their wives to broadcast messages about power and inequality. Marriage, that 'crucial institution', was central to hierarchies of gender and rank, those 'stiffened' sinews of authority. For most women, marriage involved services and labour: whether to a husband, a fellow wife, a sister‐in‐law or a mother‐in‐law. Senior members of households, men and women, could and did threaten and enact violence against junior members, whether in singular or plural unions. Violence and the threat of violence kept individuals in check in myriad ways. They did so often to protect larger systems: of labour, of reproduction, of kinship lines. Yet women, especially captive ones, paid a high price. Their labours, sometimes coerced, grounded and bolstered men, who thus, as Pigarouïch observed, enjoyed help, housekeeping and indeed 'home' itself.
6 French colonial historians have debated whether indigenous women in the Great Lakes region had greater freedom in pre‐colonial societies or in Catholic ones. For those taking the former position, polygamy, like divorce, was one of many Native 'freedoms'; for those arguing the latter, women became Catholic in part to avoid the exploitation of restrictive polygyny. For the former argument, see Karen Anderson , Chain Her by One Foot: The Subjugation of Women in Seventeenth‐Century New France ( London : Routledge , 1991 ), especially pp. 75 - 6 , 102; Carol Devens , Countering Colonization: Native American Women and Great Lakes Missions, 1630-1900 ( Berkeley : University of California Press , 1992 ), pp. 26 - 7. For the argument that Catholicism gave freedom to women, see Susan Sleeper‐Smith , Indian Women and French Men: Rethinking Cultural Encounter in the Western Great Lakes ( Amherst : University of Massachusetts Press , 2001 ), especially pp. 23 - 4 and also Leavelle, The Catholic Calumet, chapter 7. Although Robert Morrissey disagrees with Sleeper‐Smith on assimilation, he likewise argues that Native women converted to Christianity to escape 'unfavorable' polygamy. See, Robert Michael Morrissey , ' Kaskaskia Social Network: Kinship and Assimilation in the French‐Illinois Borderlands, 1695-1735 ', William and Mary Quarterly 70 ( 2013 ), pp. 103 - 46 , here p. 117. 25 The only systematic use of these dictionaries to elucidate kinship of which I am aware is: David J. Costa ' The Kinship Terminology of the Miami‐Illinois Language ', Anthropological Linguistics 41 ( 1999 ), pp. 28 - 53. I consulted a range of dictionaries, either in original or in photocopies at the Powell Library of Anthropology, Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C. (except where noted otherwise, below). They are all manuscript materials, usually giving the French translation (though occasionally Latin) of Native languages. These include: Anon, French‐Algonkin Dictionary (1662); Anon, Racines de la langue 8ta8aise (1669); Louis André, Dictionnaire Algonquin (1688-91); Jacques Gravier and Jacques Largillier, Dictionnaire Illinois‐Français, (c.1690s), Watkinson Library, Trinity College, Hartford Connecticut and also see Jacques Gravier , Kaskaskia Illinois‐to‐French Dictionary , tr. and ed. Carl Masthay ( St. Louis, Missouri : Carl Masthay , 2002 ); Antoine Silvy , Dictionnaire montagnais‐français (c.1678-1684) ( Québec : Presses de l'Université du Québec , 1974 ); Bonaventure Fabvre , Racines montagnaises ( Québec : Université Laval , 1970 ); Antoine‐Robert LeBoullenger, Dictionnaire Français‐Illinois (1704-1744?), John Carter Brown Library; Pierre Du Jaunay, Dictionarium Gallico‐Outaouakum (1748), McGill Library, photocopy; Jean Claude Mathevet, Vieux dictionnaire algonquin‐français (1750); Guichard, French‐Algonkin Dictionary (1760); Jean‐Baptiste de la Brosse, Radicum Montanarum Silva (1766-72) (Ottawa: Deschâtelets Archives, unpublished, transcription by John Bishop). Many thanks to John Bishop for sharing his transcription. 35 The influence of a brother on his sister's marriage choice and the fact that both the bride's consent and that of her brother were required for a marriage to take place are detailed in Pierre Deliette, 'Memoire concernant le pays d'Illinois', in Memoranda on French Colonies in America, including Canada, Louisiana, and the Caribbean, 4 vols, Ayer MS 293, VAULT, Newberry Library, pp. 264-362, here p. 298.
Graph: I. Rouillard, Carte générale de la Nouvelle France ou est compris la Louisiane, Gaspesie et le Nouveau Mexique avec les Isles Antilles , (Dechert Collection, Kislak Center for Special Collections, Rare Books and Manuscripts, University of Pennsylvania, 1691).

Graph: image_m/gend12152-fig-0001-m.png

Graph: image_n/gend12152-fig-0001.png

Graph: image_t/gend12152-fig-0001-t.gif

~~~~~~~~

By Sarah M. S. Pearsall

Copyright of Gender & History is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Native American Men - and Women - at Home in Plural Marriages in Seventeent...: EBSCOhost

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
'To live among us without a wife is to live without help, without home, always a vagabond'.[ 1] So declared an Algonquin 'juggler' (or healer, or as the Jesuits had it, sorcerer), Pigarouïch, who was in the process of converting to Christianity in the 1630s.

# data[].attributes.body
This is a map of French Canada in 1744 post colonization