[They]
heard so often, “There shall stand our home–
“On yonder slope, with vines about the door!”
That the good wives were almost made to see
The snowy walls, deep porches, and the gleam
Of Katie’s garments flitting through the rooms;
And the black slope all bristling with burn’d
stumps
Was known amongst them all as “Max’s
House”. |
– Isabella Valency Crawford,
Malcolm’s Katie
a Love Story 2:247-53
|
Of whatever
it is constructed, except it be solely of fantasy, a
house transforms its portion of space into a place.
As a fixed entity, it is permanently there
unless and until it is demolished. As a building in
a location, it enters the virtual reality of surveys,
maps, postal directories, address books. As a solid
but holey enclosure, it separates its inside from the
outside while permitting entrance, egress, and vistas.
As a place, an entity, a location, an address to visit,
stay, leave, live at or in, it acquires distances to
and from, engenders associations, enters and even inspires
literary texts. Much of this is captured by Martin Heidegger
when he writes in “Building Dwelling Thinking”
that, “by virtue of constructing locations,”
“building ... is a founding and joining of spaces”
(158) and by Wallace Stevens when he writes in “Anecdote
of the Jar” that, when “placed ... upon
a hill,” a jar “ma[kes] the slovenly wilderness
/ Surround that hill” and “takes”
dominion everywhere” (21). Much of it was also
understood by the settlers and builders of early Canada
and by the writers who, like Isabella Valancy Crawford,
responded textually to the buildings and settlements,
villages and cities, that they saw or imagined around
them as aspects of space in the process of being made
into a home place.
What
might have been more difficult for Canada’s early
settlers, builders, and writers to imagine is the way
in which subsequent Canadian history would sometimes
blur the distinction between real and imagined houses
to produce amalgams of the two in which a physical house
is to a lesser or greater extent adapted or even constructed
as a dwelling for the literary imaginary – constructed,
that is, not in the virtual space of a writer or reader’s
mind, but in the material world of the bricks and mortar.
When Adam Hood Burwell “summon[ed] dark futurity
to light” (546) in Talbot Road he, like
Crawford in Malcolm’s Katie, drew on
the houses that he saw around him to envisage “mansion[s]”
that, for all their resemblance to actual structures
built then or since, exist only in the mind’s
eye of the reader:
Blest
spot! Sacred to pure domestic joy,
Where love and duty find their sweet employ!
On every farm a stately mansion stands,
That the surrounding fields at once commands,
Where, oft, the farmer contemplates alone,
The little Eden that he calls his own. |
(615-20) |
When
Henri Lefebvre writes in The Production of Space
of “representational spaces” that they are
“alive” and possessed of an “affective
kernel or centre” because they are known to have
been the “loci of passion, ... action, and ...
lived experience” (42) he is referring, however
unspecifically, to real places and people. Beginning
in the realm of which Burwell and Lefebvre write, the
chapter underway will move by degree towards a discussion
of houses that have gone beyond the logic of real imaginary
in which they originated to become the realized imaginary.
As
may easily be predicted from the preceding chapters,
textual responses to houses as home places or “representational
spaces” possessed of an “affective kernel
or centre” began in earnest with the arrival of
the Romantic sensibility in Canada in the early decades
of the nineteenth century. Thomas Moore’s “Ballad
Stanzas” (1806) is a seminal document in this
regard, for by expressing a strong, emotional response
to the possibilities afforded by a “cottage”
concealed in a “‘lone little wood’”
in Upper Canada (61) it both imagined a locus of “passion
[and] ... action” and called into existence a
“representational space” with an “affective
kernel or centre”: the oak tree between Niagara
and Queenston where Moore was supposed to have composed
the poem was dubbed “Moore’s Oak”
and became an object of poetic and patriotic veneration.
“Moore’s visit was long remembered at Niagara,”
William Kirby would recall in 1897; “a year or
two before his assassination [in 1868],” “Thomas
D’Arcy McGee ... made a pilgrimage to ‘Moore’s
Oak’ while he was here” (Annals of Niagara
128-29).1
Some forty years after Moore’s visit, Sir Francis
Bond Head would make a pilgrimage to another site with
an “affective kernel”: the “lone shanty”
or “hut” near the Rideau Canal where the
Duke of Richmond had died of rabies on August 28, 1819.
After seeking out the hut, Bond Head recalls in The
Emigrant, he “remained for a few minutes
on horseback before the hovel which commemorates, on
the continent of North America, the well-known facts
[of the Duke’s illness and death] [and] deeply
felt ... that there exists in the British peerage no
name that is recollected in Canada by all parties with
such affectionate regard” (98, 105, 107).
Nor
did the “affective kernel” of a place necessarily
derive from the presence or death there of a famous
poet or statesman. While travelling from the Talbot
Settlement to the head of Lake Erie in 1819, John Howison
took shelter from a snow storm in “the remains
of a large Indian wigwam” and, as “the flakes
of snow fell in noiseless succession among the boughs
of the leafless woods” beneath a “sombre”
sky and in “a calmness that amounted to solemnity,”
observed and pondered his surroundings:
Several
fragments of Indian utensils, and likewise the skull
of a deer, lay near me, while the blackness of one
spot of ground showed where a fire had once been.
It seemed almost inconceivable, that human beings
should be permanent inhabitants of this wilderness,
– that domestic ties and affections should often
brighten the gloom of such a solitude, – and
that those leading passions, which agitate the hearts
of all men, should be elicited and brought into action
amidst the appalling loneliness and depressing monotony
of the boundless forest. The decaying vestiges of
human existence, which the wigwam exhibited, made
the scene appear more desert and affecting than it
would otherwise have done. (185-86)
With
Howison’s “decaying vestiges of human existence,”
as with Bond Head’s “lone shanty”
and Moore’s hidden “cottage” (and,
indeed, “Moore’s Oak”), either one
or both of two factors are at work in the apprehension
and creation of a “representational space”
with an “affective kernel”: a “knowledge”
of “what happened at a particular spot or place
and thereby changed it” (Lefebvre 42, 37) and
a disposition to regard it as for some reason –
intellectual, political, literary – as significant
(for Howison, the evidences of “leading passions,”
for Bond Head the death of a “British peer,”
for Moore the attractions of British North America after
a disillusioning visit to the United States, and for
Kirby a poem that had its genesis in these very attitudes).
In all four cases (and in Lefebvre’s words once
again), “imagination ... overlays physical space,
making symbolic use of its objects” so that they
become texts even as they remain objects (39).
A
similar process can be seen at work in the chapter on
“The Duke of Kent’s Lodge”
with which Thomas Chandler Haliburton begins the third
series of The Clockmaker (1840). The Lodge
in question – an ornate structure on Bedford Basin
near Halifax whose only surviving component is a circular
neoclassical music pavilion (see Kalman 1: 132-33) –
was not in fact “owned” by the Duke of Kent,
as Haliburton asserts (Sam Slick 285) but leased
to him during his sojourns in Nova Scotia during the
1790s by the then lieutenant governor, Sir John Wentworth
(MacNutt 297). Nor was it merely “the scene of
[the Duke’s] munificent hospitalities” (Sam
Slick 284), but the residence that he shared with
Thérèse-Bernadine Montegnet (Madame de
Saint-Laurent), his beloved companion for twenty-seven
years prior to his marriage in 1818 to Victoria Mary
Louisa, the mother of Queen Victoria. A Burkean Tory
bent, as observed in the previous chapter, on strengthening
Canada’s ties with Britain as a bulwark against
the United States, Haliburton both elides the scandalous
history of the Prince’s Lodge (as it is more commonly
known) and emphasizes its royal associations. It is
“the only ruin of any extent in Nova Scotia, and
the only spot either associated with royalty, or set
apart and consecrated to solitude and decay” (287).
By virtue of “the long and close connection ...
between them [and Queen Victoria’s] illustrious
parent,” Nova Scotians “feel a ... lively
interest in, and a devoted attachment to,” the
Monarch and “flatter themselves [that] her Majesty
... will condescend to regard them as ‘the Queen’s
own’” (288). “The Duke of Kent’s
Lodge” is, indeed, as Haliburton’s biographer,
V.L.O. Chittick remarks, a “rhapsody to royalty”
and “a creditable example of the graveyard school
of composition” that constitutes an early phase
of British Romanticism (470, 308).
Because
the Prince’s Lodge is a visible sign of “the
bonds of affection” between Nova Scotia and Britain,
its rapid “decay” can only be for Haliburton
a dismaying sign of the disintegration of the imperial
relationship. This is not stated directly in “The
Duke of Kent’s Lodge” but it is clearly
evident in the elegiac tone of the sketch. Everything
about the “ruin,” from its “tottering
fence” to its “silence and desolation,”
“bespeak a rapid and premature decay ... and tell
of ... the transitory nature of all earthly things”
(284-85). “[M]ost depressing” is the speed
with which the wood of which the Lodge was constructed
has decayed. Unlike the “massive” brick
and stone ruins of European “antiquity,”
which “exhibit the remains of great strength,
and though injured and defaced by the slow and almost
imperceptible agency of time, promise to continue thus
mutilated for ages to come,” “a wooden ruin
shows rank and rapid decay, concentrates its interest
on one family, or one man, and resembles a mangled corpse
rather than the monument that covers it. It has no historical
importance, no ancestral record. It awakens not the
imagination” (285). Of course, Haliburton’s
own imaginative response to the “historical”
and “ancestral” implications of the Prince’s
Lodge have already belied these assertions. Wooden it
may be, but in The Clockmaker “the only
ruin ... in Nova Scotia ... associated with royalty”
becomes a bleak memento mori, a resonant symbol
of the mutability and demise of all earthly things,
including “the first and fairest empire in the
world” (287).
“The
Duke of Kent’s Lodge” begins with the hopeful
assertion that “[t]he communication by stream
between Nova Scotia and England will form a new era
in colonial history” (283), but the present and
projected condition of the Prince’s lodge are
an architectural narrative with a very different ending.
Not only has the “vegetable decomposition”
of its wood made it “deformed, gross, and repulsive,”
but “[th]e forest is … reclaiming its own
so fast that in a “few years ... all trace of
it will have disappeared for ever” (285). Already
in 1828, less than ten years after the Duke of Kent’s
death, the eaves of the Lodge are full of “luxuriant
clover” and “coarse grasses,” and
its wooden “portico ... present[s] a mass of vegetable
matter, from which ha[s] sprung up a young and vigorous
birch-tree, whose strength and freshness seem ... to
mock the helpless weakness that nourishe[s] it”
(285-86). The near-bathetic bathos of these statements
and an accompanying note stating that between 1828 and
1840 both “porch and tree ... disappeared”
(286) indicates the depth of Haliburton’s dismay
at the “relapse into nature” (286) that
he continued to find at the Prince’s Lodge. What
future could there be for the British presence and the
imperial connection “in a climate where the living
wood grows so rapidly, and the dead decays so soon,”
where the residence of the “commander-in-chief
of the [British] forces in th[e] colony” could
so quickly have become the “mouldering”
abode of “the ill-omened bat” (286, 184,
287)? Small wonder that in 1856 Haliburton emigrated
to England and, as a Tory parliamentarian and pamphleteer,
continued to argue “for the development of a colonial
empire with an improved communication system”
(Cogswell 355).
More
important than this proleptic aspect of “The Duke
of Kent’s Lodge,” however, is its rôle
in giving the Prince’s Lodge a virtual existence
that has persisted long after all but a portion of what
the sketch describes, interprets, and theorizes. Of
course, the prominence if not the persistence of Haliburton’s
sketch as a component of Canadian literature and culture
is contingent on its literary merit, the esteem in which
its author is held, and, hence, on the vicissitudes
of taste and reputation. To Archibald McMechan, writing
as a conservative and anti-Modernist in the nineteen
twenties, “The Duke of Kent’s Lodge”
was the “finest essay in serious prose”
of one of the world’s great humorists (see 39
and 188), but to R.E. Rashley, writing in the ’fifties
after the Modernist cry for newness had reverberated
through Canadian culture, it was remarkable only for
a “feeling of inferiority [that] helps to account
for the absence of real feeling from immigrant verse”
(10). When Sir Arthur Conan Doyle visited Canada in
the early ’twenties he was delighted by the “villages
and villas” that “adorn[ed]” “the
beautiful shores of the St. Lawrence” but dismayed
to discover the “small house of stone ... in which
Tom Moore dwelt and where he wrote the ‘Canadian
Boat Song’” bore “[n]o medallion”
to commemorate the event (qtd. in Colombo 99). When
John Robert Colombo collected material for Canadian
Literary Landmarks in the early ’eighties
the house had been transformed by the Victorian Order
of Nurses into a restaurant called Au P’tit Café.
Today, Haliburton’s house in Windsor, Nova Scotia
is a heritage building, but it is unlikely to draw as
many visitors as it did in the eighteen eighties and
nineties when the Windsor and Annapolis Railway was
touting tours of “The Land of Evangeline”
that included a “visit [to] the home of the immortal
‘Sam Slick,’ known at his own fireside as
Judge Haliburton.”2
As will shortly be seen, this would not be the last
time that a house became home to a literary character
for the purpose of attracting tourists and boosting
the local economy.
More
common than houses that have been written into some
degree of cultural permanency by authors who are otherwise
not associated with them (The Prince’s Lodge)
and houses that are associated with characters created
by celebrated authors who actually lived in them (the
Haliburton House) are houses in which such authors resided
either before or during the creation of an important
literary work. Like “Moore’s Oak,”
such houses are sought out by cultural tourists for
three primary reasons, all of which stem from a knowledge
of what (in Lefebvre’s sense of the term) they
“represent”: (1) a desire to pay homage
to an author, (2) an urge to “connect” with
him or her by spending time in the same “space,”
and (3) a wish to see the place that is reputed to have
inspired the virtual place of a written work. Almost
certainly a combination of these reasons (as well as
Irish patriotism) motivated McGee’s “pilgrimage”
to “Moore’s Oak,” and when the Sara
Jeannette Duncan (1861-1922) scholar, Thomas E. Tausky,
travelled from London, Ontario to Duncan’s home
town of Brantford in 19723
he doubtless did so in a similar spirit and with the
specific intention of seeing the original of “Elgin”
and “the ‘Plummer Place’” (14)
in The Imperialist (1904). In the latter instance,
he found a bitter-sweet example of adaptive re-use:
the house at 96, West Street where Duncan was born and
lived until 1885 had become the Thorpe Brothers Funeral
Home.
Although,
as Tausky observes, “the Plummer Place”
resembles Duncan’s childhood home more in “character
and distinction” than in “architectural
details” (322), it is an extraordinarily rich
component of a novel that makes consistent and sophisticated
use of elements of the built environment. Generally
known in Elgin by the name of the immigrant from England
who built it some twenty-five years earlier, “the
Plummer Place” is home in the novel’s present
day (circa. 1902-03) to Mr. and Mrs. John Murchison,
more recent immigrants from Scotland whose six children
include Lorne, “the imperialist” of the
title. Situated in “an unfashionable outskirt”
of the town, it is nevertheless “a respectable
place” for a hardware-store owner and his family
to live; indeed, its “ornamental grounds,”
physical fabric, and, especially, its large coach barn
require more money and manpower than the Murchisons
can provide: “a fountain ... with a plaster Triton”
in the “middle of the lawn” is “difficult
to keep looking respectable,” “the cornice
... in the library” is but one of a number of
things that continually need attention, and “the
barn [is] ... outside the radius of possible amelioration”
and “pass[ing] gradually, visibly, into decrepitude”
(14, 22, 23). To Haliburton all this would have been
dismaying evidence of the decay in Canada of the English
upper-class traditions that the house embodies, but
to Mrs. Murchison, who shares her husband’s middle-class
liberal values, it is a regrettable but necessary result
of the family’s financial situation that is consistent,
moreover, with the value of Elgin – which is to
say, English-Canadian – society. She “often
wishe[s] [that] she could afford to pull … down”
the coach barn, not just to remove a useless eyesore,
but also because, like most people in Elgin, she recognizes
the incongruity between the class-system represented
by “the Plummer Place” and the more democratic
values of early twentieth-century Canada:
The
house was admired – without enthusiasm –
but it was not copied. It was felt to be outside the
general need, misjudged, adventitious; and it wore
its superiority in the popular view like a folly.
It was in Elgin, but not of it; it represented a different
tradition; and Elgin made the same allowance for its
bedroom bells and its old-fashioned dignities as was
conceded to its original master’s habit of a
six o’clock dinner, with wine. (23-24)
What
Mrs. Murchison does find attractive about “the
Plummer Place” is “the large ideas upon
which it ... [was] built and designed” (23). As
Duncan prepares to register the impact of the house
on John Murchison, she places it in relation to the
social strata and eclectic tastes that are evident elsewhere
in Elgin’s built environment:
The
architectural expression of the town was on a different
scale, beginning with ‘frame,’ rising
through the semi-detached, culminating expensively
in Mansard roofs, cupolas and modern conveniences,
and blossoming, in extreme instances, into Moorish
fretwork and silk portières for interior
decoration.4
The Murchison house gained by force of contrast:
one felt, stepping into it, under influences of less
expediency and more dignity, wider scope and more
leisured intention; its shabby spaces had a redundancy
the pleasanter and its yellow plaster cornices a charm
the greater for the numerous close-set examples of
contemporary taste in red brick5
which made, surrounded by geranium beds, so creditable
an appearance in the West Ward. John Murchison in
taking possession of the house had felt in it these
satisfactions, … the more perhaps because he
brought to them a capacity for feeling the worthier
things of life which circumstances [in a northern
Scottish town] had not previously developed. (24)
The
architectural forms, interior decorations, and floral
adornments of the other houses in Elgin betoken the
conventionality, fashion consciousness, and constricted
lives and minds of most of the town’s residents.
In contrast, “the Plummer Place”/“Murchison
house” was conceived and built, Mrs. Murchison
imagines, by “a person of large ideas,”
and its effect on her husband is expansive and inspiring:
he takes “acute pleasure … [from] seeing
the big horse-chestnuts in flower”; he derives
continual satisfaction from feeling the “weight”
of the hall door; and he resolves to “supplement
the idiosyncracies” of the house by filling the
bookcase in its “library” with “English
classics” (22, 24).
The
house also has a positive effect on the Murchison children,
especially Lorne and his older sister Advena, for it
stimulates their imagination and thus strengthens the
faculty that will enable them to see beyond the horizons
of Elgin and, indeed, Canada:
…
the place … was pure joy to the young Murchisons.
It offered a margin and a mystery to life. They saw
it far larger than it was: they invested it, arguing
purely by its difference from other habitations, with
a romantic past. “I guess when the Prince of
Wales came to Elgin, mother, he stayed here,”
Lorne remarked as a little boy. Secretly he and Advena
took up boards in more than one unused room, and rapped
on more than one thick wall to find a hollow chamber;
the house revealed so much that was interesting, it
was apparent to the meanest understanding that it
must hide even more. It was never half lighted, and
there was a passage in which fear dwelt – wild
were the gallopades from attic to cellar in the early
nightfall, when every young Murchison tore after every
other, possessed, like cats, by a demoniac ecstasy
of the gloaming. And the garden, with the autumn moon
coming over the apple trees and the neglected asparagus
thick for ambush … – these were joys of
the very fibre, things to push ideas and envisage
life with an attraction that made it worthwhile to
grow up. (25-26)
“[I]f
I were asked to name the chief benefit of the house,”
writes Gaston Bachelard as he embarks on his phenomenological
“topoanalysis” of the house and its components
in The Poetics of Space, “I should say:
the house shelters daydreaming, the house protects the
dreamer, the house allows one to dream in peace….
If it has a cellar and a garret, nooks and corridors,
our memories have refuges that are all the more clearly
delineated. All our lives we come back to them in our
daydreams” (6, 8). There can be little doubt that
Duncan’s lengthy description of the responses
of the Murchison children to the house and garden of
“the Plummer Place” contains elements of
memory and daydream (reverie) or that she would
have accepted Bachelard’s claim that the house
occupies a central place in “the metaphysics of
consciousness” and the “phenomenology of
the imagination” (7, 17). In the Duncan house
at 96, West Street in Brantford lay seeds of “the
Plummer Place” in The Imperialist and
in “the Plummer Place” the seeds of Lorne’s
capacity to envisage imperial unity and Advena’s
willingness to become the wife of a missionary in White
Water, Alberta (258).6
In both cases lies the fundamental truth that to imagine
a house is always in some sense to (re-)create it and,
for better or worse, to change a part of the world from
what it is or was to what it might be or could become.
The
architectural form as well as the geographical location
that Duncan gives to “the Plummer Place”
are further indications of its rôle as an encouragement
to ideas and vision. “[A] dignified old affair,
built of wood and painted white,”7
it has “wide green verandahs compassing …
[its] four sides” (22) that allow the Murchisons
and their children to look east (towards Britain), south
(towards the United States), and north and west (towards
the sites of Canada’s burgeoning prosperity such
as Alberta).8
Situated in the West Ward (and thus oriented towards
Canada and the future) and, more precisely, where “the
plank sidewalk finishe[s]” and the “wheatfields”
begin, it occupies a liminal – and therefore creative
– position “betwixt and between” different
realms, a site of “possibility” where cultural
gives can be “deconstruct[ed]” and “reconstructed”
into new units and combinations (Turner 159-60). That
the house is indeed such a site of creative destruction
is abundantly evident, not least in the “frayed
air of exile from some garden some garden sloping to
the sea” exuded by the “plaster Triton”
on the lawn and by the Murchison’s early attempts
to find a practical use for the horse barn: “at
one time [they] kept a cow in [it], till a succession
of ‘girls’ left on account of the milking,
and the lane was useful as an approach to the back yard
by the teams that brought the cordwood in the winter”
(22-23). (Perhaps the “cornstacks … [that]
camp … around [the house] like a besieging army”
in the “autumn” [22] are to be read as figures
for the forces in the Canadian environment that militate
against persistence without adaptation of upper-class
British traditions in North America.) When Duncan’s
narrator later discloses that she has “embarked
... upon an analysis of the social principles in Elgin”
the “clue or two more” that she “leave[s]
… for the use of the curious” confirm that
“the Plummer Place” is paradigmatic of British
Canadian society:
No
doubt [Elgin’s social] rules had their nucleus
in the half-dozen families, among whom we may count
the shadowy Plummers, who took upon themselves, …
by the King’s pleasure, the administration of
justice, the practice of medicine and of the law,
and the performance of the charges of the Church of
England a long time ago. Such persons would bring
their lines of [class] demarcation with them, and
in their new milieu of backwoods settlers
and small traders would find no difficulty in drawing
them again. But it was a very long time ago. The little
knot of gentry-folk soon found the limitations of
their new conditions…. They took, perforce,
to the ways of the country…. Trade flourished,
education improved, politics changed…. The original
dignified group broke, dissolved, scattered….
It was a sorry tale of disintegration with a cheerful
sequel of rebuilding,9
leading to a little unavoidable confusion as the edifice
went up. Any process of blending implies confusion
to begin with; we are here at the making of a nation.
(40-41)
With
“wheatfields ... billow[ing] up to its fences”
in the summer (22), “the Plummer Place”/
“Murchison house” is Duncan’s architectural
microcosm of the edifice of British North America/Canada.
“Building and thinking are, each in its own way,
inescapable for dwelling,” writes Heidegger, but
they are also “insufficient for dwelling so long
as each busies itself with its own affairs in separation
instead of listening to one another” (160-61).
In The Imperialist, as will be seen again in
the next chapter, “building and thinking”
most definitely listen to each other and “belong
to dwelling.”
Four
years after the appearance of The Imperialist in
book form in 1904, the novel that has done more than
any other to change a portion of Canada was published
in New York. Anne of Green Gables (1908) by
Lucy Maud Montgomery (1874-1942) contains an interlocked
trio of elements whose impact on the perception, landscape,
economy and “image” (not to say “brand”)
of its setting was to prove immense: Anne herself, the
red-haired orphan whose power to transform people as
well as landscapes in and through her imagination prefigures
the effect of the numerous novels in which she would
eventually appear; Green Gables, the house of Anne’s
adoptive parents Matthew and Marilla Cuthbert which
and whom Montgomery based on the house of her cousins,
the Webbs; and the landscape and seascape of the area
around Cavendish, which figures in the novel as Avonlea.
As indicated by the opening description of it, Green
Gables is as inseparable from its environs as it becomes
for its imaginative young occupant:
the
big, rambling, orchard-embowered house where the Cuthberts
lived was a scant quarter of a mile up the road from
Lynde’s Hollow…. Matthew Cuthbert’s
father, as shy and silent as his son after him, had
got as far away as he possibly could from his fellow
men without actually retreating into the woods when
he founded his homestead. Green Gables was built on
the furthest edge of his cleared land and there it
was to this day, barely visible from the main road
along which all the other Avonlea houses were so sociably
situated. (3-4)
Located
at a point of balance between the human and the natural
realms on the “edge” of a field and the
forest, Green Gables recalls “the Plummer Place”
in its liminality, but with some important differences:
whereas the Murchison’s house is a part of the
built environment that is undergoing a process of “disintegration”
and “rebuilding” in response to its Canadian
circumstances, the Cuthberts’ house is apart from
the built environment and represents the persistence
across generations of a bucolic – indeed, pastoral
– harmony between human beings and the natural
world that will prove utterly congenial to Anne’s
post-Romantic sensibility. Not only are its gables green,
but the east window of its kitchen, “whence you
g[e]t a glimpse of the bloom white cherry-trees in the
left orchard and nodding, slender birches down in the
hollow by the brook, [is] greened over by a tangle of
vines” (4-5).
Encouraged
by the appearance between 1909 and 1920 of several sequels
to Anne of Green Gables as well as a movie
of the novel (1919), tourists eager to visit the house
and landscape in which it is set were already visiting
Prince Edward Island in considerable numbers in the
nineteen twenties, but the transformation of the novel’s
settings into tourist sites did not begin in earnest
until the mid-’thirties. Perhaps inspired by the
thriving tourist industry that had been developed in
late nineteenth-century Nova Scotia around Longfellow’s
Evangeline: a Tale of Acadie (1847) and, to
a lesser extent, Haliburton’s Sam Slick,
the federal government began to expropriate the seashore
east and west of Cavendish for the Prince Edward Island
National Park, which is configured so as to embrace
the town and include the Webb house. This too was acquired
by the federal government and, in a curious (even uncanny)
mixture of authenticity and inauthenticity, equipped
with green gables, an Edwardian girl’s bedroom,
and other period accoutrements as an appropriate physical
dwelling for Montgomery’s fictional character
so that it became a there (or here) inhabited by the
materialized spectre whose presence (presumably) can
be felt by visitors.10
As employees of Parks Canada have been known to observe
wryly, Green Gables is “the house in which the
girl who never lived never lived” (qtd. in Struzik
3). By 1973 when Green Gables was opened to the public,
there had been two more Anne movies (1934, 1941) and
Anne of Green Gables: the Musical (1965 and
almost every summer thereafter). Further encouraged
by the alluring 1985 television series directed by Kevin
Sullivan and starring the brilliantly chosen Megan Follows,
the transformation of north-central P.E.I. into an Anne
of Green Gables theme park was virtually complete: the
saddle of the Island is now known as the “Land
of Anne” or “Anne’s Land”
and, much to the horror of many tourists and residents,
now contains everything for the Anne fan from “The
Enchanted Castle” in “The Enchanted Lands”
and “Avonlea, Village of Anne of Green Gables”
to “The
Anne of Green Gables Store” and “Anne’s
Tea Party.” “This area needs no introduction,”
reads the Prince Edward Island Handbook for
tourists (2000 edition); “it is the region that
has made P.E.I. famous around the world through Lucy
Maud Montgomery’s feisty fictional character,
Anne of Green Gables … plan to stay for a while”
(50).11
In part a consequence of the tourist industry in which
Anne of Green Gables looms so large, the construction
of the Confederation Bridge (1993-97) between the Island
and New Brunswick can only add further impetus to the
Annification of a province in which tourism comes second
only to agriculture in economic importance.
Although
the creation of a representational space on the basis
of what happened there to a fictional character rather
than a real person is not unknown in other countries
(39, Baker Street quickly comes to mind), it is relatively
unusual and appears all the more freakish in light of
the fact that the actual house in which Montgomery lived
and wrote in Cavendish is a subterranean ruin that attracts
only a small fraction of the touristic interest generated
by Green Gables. A pilgrimage to the ruin is worthwhile
for at least two reasons, however: like a journey to
Saint-Marie among the Hurons as described by E.J. Pratt
(1883-1964), it brings the visitor to “the exact
spot where [Montgomery] wrote and read” and may
engender “an emotional experience … akin
to the feeling which a parent would receive standing
near the soil under which a child had been buried”
(121); and for those who have had this experience of
its “affective kernel or centre,” it deepens
the realization that the treatment of Montgomery’s
fiction as if it were reality – indeed, the embodiment
of it in material forms – constitutes a gross
violation of the Victorian principles whereby the excesses
of fancy to which Anne is given are methodically chastened
by experience until her Romanticism is aligned with
a mature sense of duty and responsibility. Perhaps an
even stronger sense of presence and infidelity may result
from a visit to Montgomery’s
grave in a small cemetery adjacent to the Royal
Atlantic Wax Museum, which contains “109 life-size
wax figures” of movie stars, British royals, American
presidents, and the like (Prince Edward Island Handbook
58). Little wonder that Cynthia Brouse has invoked Jean
Baudrillard’s McLuhenesque concept of the “simulacrum”
(36) – the likeness that becomes more real than
the thing it purports to represent – in relation
to all but a few elements of “The Land of Anne.”
But
why, it may be asked, has “Anne” of all
literary characters become the centerpiece of the largest
assemblage of simulacra in Canada? Why was she rather
than Montgomery herself chosen as a primary means of
attracting tourists to Prince Edward Island? The very
obvious answer – that a widely known and loved
character has eclipsed her somewhat colourless creator
– should not be allowed to obscure other factors,
including the preference in popular culture for easily
identifiable (and thus marketable) characters and images
over the writers and texts from which they spring, and
the absence in Prince Edward Island of appealing (and
again marketable) alternatives in such realms as history,
folklore, and archaeology. No doubt, similar factors
lay behind the constitution of Evangeline and Sam Slick
as real figures in late nineteenth-century Nova Scotia,
the result being a continuity of incarnating the literary
imaginary in the Maritime provinces that, once recognized,
can be seen to include two other examples: that of La
Segouine, the literary character created by Antonine
Maillet (1929- ) in her 1974 novel of the same title,
who now has the “House of her Dreams” in
a mock village that was created around her in the early
’nineties on an island in New Brunswick’s
Bouctouche River12
and that of The Lone Shieling, a Scottish cattle or
sheep herder’s summer hut that was built in Cape
Breton, not as a home for a fictional character, but
to give physical form to three words in a stanza of
a poem whose author is unknown.
That
poem is the “Canadian Boat-Song,” which
was first published anonymously in the “Noctes
Ambrosianae” section of Blackwood’s
Magazine (Edinburgh) in September 1829 and has
since generated more scholarly discussion than any other
poem written in or about Canada.13
One reason for this is that the poem’s anonymity
has prompted numerous authors to suggest and defend
candidates for its authorship, a roster that includes
John Galt and William “Tiger” Dunlop. The
other is its second stanza, four lines whose poignant
expression of “the regret of the immigrant at
the loss of his familiar home” (R.E. Rashley 4)
have led to its inclusion as an independent poem in
numerous novels and anthologies such as Robert Louis
Stevenson’s The Silverado Squatters (1883)
and Field Marshall, Lord Wavell’s Other Men’s
Flowers (1945). Spoken as if by the collective
voice of an exiled community, the “Lone Shieling”
stanza of the “Canadian Boat-Song” speaks
of enormous physical barriers transcended by feelings
and imaginings whose origins lie deep in the identity
of Scottish exiles and emigrants:
From
the lone shieling of the misty island
Mountains divide us, and
the waste of seas –
Yet still the blood is strong, the heart is Highland,
And we in dreams behold
the Hebrides…. |
(qtd.
in Bentley, “‘The Canadian Boat-Song’”
69) |
Whatever
its authorship, this stanza makes masterful use of rhythm,
diction, and imagery to reinforce its themes and moods.
Particularly notable is the shift from somewhat irregular
rhythms that accompany the expression of division in
the opening two lines and the more regular rhythms in
which the transcendence of division is expressed in
the lines beginning with “Yet.” So, too,
are the evocative vagueness of “the misty islands,”
the desolate expansiveness of “the waste of seas,”
and the confident affirmation of “the heart is
Highland.” And, of course, at the imagistic focal
point of the poem is the affective and, for many readers,
mysterious figure of “the lone shieling.”
Although
“The Lone Shieling” stanza must have had
its effect on men and women of numerous national and
ethnic groups it has inevitably exerted an especially
powerful influence on people of Scottish extraction,
one of whom initiated the architectural project that
Ian McKay has described as the “oddest event”
in the construction of Nova Scotia as an essentially
Scottish province in the years surrounding the Second
World War (“Tartanism Triumphant” 34), namely,
the construction of the Lone Shieling that now stands
beside the Cabot Trail in northern Cape Breton. As McKay
records in “Tartanism Triumphant: the Construction
of Scottishness in Nova Scotia, 1933-1954,” the
project was instigated in 1934 by a bequest to the Crown
of a hundred acres by a former Dalhousie University
professor named Donald S. MacIntosh, who requested in
his will “‘that the government of [Nova
Scotia] maintain a small park [on the property] ...
and ... build there a small Cabin which will be constructed
in the same design or plan as the lone shieling on the
Island of Skye, Scotland’” (33). (The echo
in MacIntosh’s request of W.B. Yeats’s “The
Lake Isle of Innisfree” [“I will arise and
go now, and go to Innisfree, / And a small cabin build
there, of clay and wattles made” (44)] is but
one indication of its participation in the pastoral
yearnings of antimodernism.)14
Because the premier of Nova Scotia at that time was
Angus L. Macdonald, a Liberal with a conservative bias
and a regional vision who, in McKay’s neo-Marxian
(Foucauldian, Gramscian) terms saw “pre-Capitalist
Highland culture” as a bulwark against modernity,
MacIntosh’s bequest was accepted by the Province
and used to strengthen the case for the establishment
in 1937 of the park whose very name – Cape Breton
Highlands National Park – attests to the “naturalization”
of Macdonald’s belief in Nova Scotia’s “inherently
Scottish” identity (“Tartanism Triumphant”
34). The fact that Macdonald had earlier alluded to
“The Lone Shieling” stanza in a speech at
the “Memorial to the late Bishop MacEachern of
Prince Edward Island, 1929”15
makes his enthusiasm of MacIntosh’s bequest especially
understandable. A bronze plaque carrying details of
the bequest and an unlineated version of “The
Lone Shieling” stanza was unveiled in Cape Breton
in 1947 by Fiona McLeod of McLeod (see McKay, “Tartanism
Triumphant” 34).
McKay’s
research into “the Construction of Scottishness
in Nova Scotia” is brilliantly illuminating, but
not everyone will agree that the project that helped
to establish a large national park on Cape Breton, to
secure a lasting source of tourist revenue for Nova
Scotia, and to enhance the economic prospects and local
pride of many Maritimers (and, indeed, Canadians) was
quite as sinister and risible as he suggests.16
(The “tartanization” of Scotland itself
has been similarly ridiculed and denounced by critics
of the Left, but it, too, has had many positive effects.)
It is true that the Lone Shieling that stands in Cape
Breton Highlands National Park is inauthentic (“Tartanism
Triumphant” 33), but, as argued elsewhere, this
does not prevent it from having educational value or
serving as a reminder of past events and past conceptions
between Canada and Britain.17
Moreover, it joins Green Gables as an extraordinary
instance of the imaginary realized in such a way as
to create a “representational space” and
a visitable space – indeed, to “found …
and … join … spaces” and to make “the
slovenly wilderness / Surround” the place on which
it stands.
Notes
- For
further discussion of “Ballad Stanzas”
and the other enormously influential poetic product
of Moore’s visit to Canada, “A Canadian
Boat Song” (1806) see Bentley, Mnemographia
Canadensis 1:70-77 and 408-11 and Near the
Rapids: Thomas Moore in Canada.”
[back]
- The
advertisement for the “Land of Evangeline”
route of the Windsor and Annapolis Railway from which
these quotations are taken appears in Charles
G.D. Roberts’s The Canadian Guide-Book:
The Tourist’s and Sportsman’s Guide to
Eastern Canada and Newfoundland (1891). See also
my “Charles
G.D. Roberts and William Wilfred Campbell as Canadian
Tour Guides” 85-86. [back]
- Information
from personal conversation. [back]
- The
OED defines, “portière”
as “[a] curtain hung over a door or doorway,
to prevent draught, to serve as a screen, or for ornament.”
[back]
- As
Tausky notes, when The Imperialist was serialized
in The Queen (London, England) in 1903 the
“bricks” were not “red” but
“white” (322), white being the term for
the yellow clay bricks that are common n southwestern
Ontario. [back]
-
“The Murchisons were all imaginative”
declares the narrator in the opening chapter of the
novel, adding later that “[i]magination ...
is a quality dispensed with of necessity in the practice
of most professions, being
that of which nature is, for some reason, most niggardly”
(10, 82, and see 109, 124, 135, 147, 188-89, and 216).
[back]
- There
are, of course, the colours of the houses favoured
by Loyalists in John MacTaggart’s taxonomy (see
previous chapter), but there is no indication that
the Plummers were other than what they are several
times implied to be: emigrants who came directly to
Canada from Britain. Duncan also observes of “the
Plummer Place” that its spacious wooden
verandahs reflect a time in which “the builder
had only to turn his hand to the forest” for
materials (22). [back]
- A
study of the metaphysical geography of The Imperialist
remains to be written, but would be supported
by a large amount of evidence in the novel, including
the locations of houses and characters in various
wards and, as will be seen in Chapter
6: The Centre in the Square, by Duncan’s
description of Elgin’s town square. As indicated
by her later depiction of Lorne “on the top
of an omnibus lumbering west out of Trafalgar
Square” in London, England (114; emphasis added),
Duncan’s metaphysical geography at times makes
itself apparent even in her choice of verbs. [back]
- See
my “Breaking the ‘Cake of Custom’:
the Atlantic Crossing as a Rubicon for Female Emigrants
to Canada” for a discussion of the transformative
effect of trans-marine migration. [back]
- In
“Anne of Red Hair: What Do the Japanese See
in Anne of Green Gables?” Calvin Trillin
writes that “[t]he houses visited by Anne fans
look pretty much the way they did when … Montgomery
was visiting them, and they look like the houses down
the road. All this may make it somewhat less
likely that someone who is shown ‘Matthew’s
room’ at one of the Anne sights will respond
by saying, ‘Matthew was imaginary. He didn’t
have a room’” (217-18). “The fact
that … Montgomery is sometimes difficult to
distinguish from her heroine adds to the commingling
of fiction and reality which is part of celebrating
Anne of Prince Edward Island,” he adds, “so
that being married in the parlour where Maud was married
almost seems to put a couple into the book”
(218). [back]
- See
Carole Gerson, “‘Dragging at Anne’s
Chariot Wheels’: the Triangle of Author,
Publisher, and Fictional Character” 50-52 for
a well-nuanced account of the economics of the Anne
phenomenon. Trillin observes that in “a survey
taken by a Japanese travel magazine in 1992 “Prince
Edward Island ranked with New York, Paris, and London
as a place that the Japanese most wanted to visit.
See also Yoshiko Akamatsu, “Japanese Readings
of Anne of Green Gables” for an analysis
of Anne’s status in Japanese popular culture. [back]
- In
“Le Pays de la Sagouine,” Bernard Poirier
provides a succinct account of the genesis and components
of the theme park, concluding that New Brunswick now
has its equivalent of Anne of Green Gables as a legendary
character and tourist attraction. See also International
Contract Magazine, “First Nations Design
and the Quiet Revolution,” July 1993, for a
discussion of the work of the project’s architect,
Élide Albert, as a manifestation of Native
sensibilities. [back]
- For
a sampling and bibliography of this discussion, as
well as a reprinting of the portion of “Noctes”
in which the poem appeared, see my “‘The
Canadian-Boat’: a Mosaic.” [back]
- See
also McKay’s The Quest of the Folk: Antimodernism
in and Cultural Selection in Twentieth-Century
Nova Scotia where “Tartanism Triumphant”
is incorporated into a discussion of the larger cultural
phenomenon of which the construction of the Lone Shieling
was a part. [back]
-
“We spring from the same soil, you [the residents
of Prince Edward Island] and I ... we honour
the same heroes, we venerate the same names.... The
call of the blood is strong and our hearts are still
Highland” (qtd. in McKay, “Tartanism Triumphant”
26). [back]
- “Over
a million tourists were welcomed [to Nova Scotia]
in 1980,” observes James H. Morrison in “American
Tourism in Nova Scotia, 1871-1940,” and “tourism
is now [in 1982] recognized as Nova Scotia’s
leading resource industry. In a province of just over
800,000 people, tourism [in 1980] provided more than
24,000 jobs and contributed over $500 million annually
to the provincial economy” (40). Many of
those tourists were welcomed to Nova Scotia by bagpiper
who was installed for that purpose as part of the
“tartanization” of the province that McKay
places on view (see “Tartanism Triumphant”
30). [back]
- See
Mnemographia Canadensis 1: 262-63 for evidence
of it serving these functions. [back]
|