What do you think?
Rate this book
The History of Emily Montague
This book was converted from its physical edition to the digital format by a community of volunteers. You may find it for free on the web. Purchase of the Kindle edition includes wireless delivery.
414 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1769
15 people are currently reading
198 people want to read
About the author
Frances Brooke
57 books6 followersBritish novelist, playwright, and translator Frances Moore Brooke sometimes used the pseudonym Mary Singleton, Spinster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
August 31, 2019
This mediocre epistolary novel is memorable principally for its vivid and insightful descriptions of Quebec in the decade after Montcalm's defeat on the Plains of Abraham. It also has some sensible things to say about marriage, and at least one of the letter writers--the charming Arabella Fermor--possesses an original and attractive voice.
After each character becomes engaged to the proper person and the whole crew returns to England, however, the novel loses power and interest. This is a shame, for all this occurs at the end of the third and penultimate volume, when there is still about 40,000 words to go. The author then uses manufactured complications, the infuriating (though noble) scruples of the principal lovers, poorly motivated reticences, and the interpolated narrative of an uninteresting minor character in order to pad the novel to four volume length--the fashionable standard of the time.
February 20, 2012
A History of Emily Montague would have been a far better read had it been about 350 pages shorter.
The book can be (roughly) summed up as follows: a handful of sentimental 20-somethings are living in 18th-century Quebec, and, for fun, they send each other epistles in which they hyperbolically expound upon their personal love lives.
That being said, I enjoyed the first 100 pages or so: there are some serious romantic intrigues, and Brooke’s descriptions of the New World are fascinating. By the time the characters are each married to their respective partners, however, the novel is seriously flagging. The letters, at this point, are pretty much just one character writing that “my wife is the most divine, bashful woman on the planet,” to which another responds, “no, my dear friend, my wife is surely the most virtuous and beautiful creature alive…” Etc., etc.
A few things in favour of the book: 1) it is Canada’s “first ever novel”; 2) despite a degree of racism and sexism, A History of Emily Montague still comes across as slightly more modern than many 18th-century texts – see, for instance, Brooke’s passionate belief that marriages should be chosen for love. (Although it is perhaps a slight exaggeration when the back blurb describes the novel as “[e]ntertaining, innovative, and infused with feminist ideas.”)
Also, the afterword by Lorraine McMullen reads like a bad high-school English paper.
The book can be (roughly) summed up as follows: a handful of sentimental 20-somethings are living in 18th-century Quebec, and, for fun, they send each other epistles in which they hyperbolically expound upon their personal love lives.
That being said, I enjoyed the first 100 pages or so: there are some serious romantic intrigues, and Brooke’s descriptions of the New World are fascinating. By the time the characters are each married to their respective partners, however, the novel is seriously flagging. The letters, at this point, are pretty much just one character writing that “my wife is the most divine, bashful woman on the planet,” to which another responds, “no, my dear friend, my wife is surely the most virtuous and beautiful creature alive…” Etc., etc.
A few things in favour of the book: 1) it is Canada’s “first ever novel”; 2) despite a degree of racism and sexism, A History of Emily Montague still comes across as slightly more modern than many 18th-century texts – see, for instance, Brooke’s passionate belief that marriages should be chosen for love. (Although it is perhaps a slight exaggeration when the back blurb describes the novel as “[e]ntertaining, innovative, and infused with feminist ideas.”)
Also, the afterword by Lorraine McMullen reads like a bad high-school English paper.
March 22, 2014
A generally fun read, although once the group returns to Britain the work gets far more boring. The epistolary form here is far more light-hearted and conversational than other works like Clarissa, or, the History of a Young Lady or Les Liaisons Dangereuses. Another complication is the distance between characters, who are often writing overseas. At times, the epistolary form feels strained or forced, but in general it works well, especially in portraying multiple perspectives of an event.
More interesting, however, are the representations of Canada. As often happens in CanLit, nature is overwhelming, awe-inspiring, and terrifying; frozen waterfalls recall the sublime, the ice coming off the St. Lawrence River is captivating, and even the sheer abundance of greenery is impressive. The observations of the various characters are particularly amusing; Canadians are lazy, but the land is so productive even their extreme indolence doesn't bring on poverty, Pygmalion's statue is a frozen noblewoman in Canada, British people are (predictably) the best. My favourite anecdote is a complaint about the beavers mis-predicting how harsh the winter was going to be; Arabella Fermor, the best character in the work, complains "I will never take a beaver's word again as long as I live . . . I thought beavers had been people of more honour."
Read for 18thC epistolary fiction.
More interesting, however, are the representations of Canada. As often happens in CanLit, nature is overwhelming, awe-inspiring, and terrifying; frozen waterfalls recall the sublime, the ice coming off the St. Lawrence River is captivating, and even the sheer abundance of greenery is impressive. The observations of the various characters are particularly amusing; Canadians are lazy, but the land is so productive even their extreme indolence doesn't bring on poverty, Pygmalion's statue is a frozen noblewoman in Canada, British people are (predictably) the best. My favourite anecdote is a complaint about the beavers mis-predicting how harsh the winter was going to be; Arabella Fermor, the best character in the work, complains "I will never take a beaver's word again as long as I live . . . I thought beavers had been people of more honour."
Read for 18thC epistolary fiction.
January 24, 2010
For the plot and narrative devises, it deserves a 2, but for its insight into Quebec City's history and culture right after the Conquest (1760s), it's a valuable novel. Additionally it is an important work for Canadian literature, as the first North American/Canadian novel) and also for the development of epistolary novels.
Read
January 30, 2022If the words ‘epistolary novel published in 1769’ sound like something that might appeal to you, go ahead and read this. If, like me, you are amongst those unfortunate enough to find this on a list of required reading… good luck.
A word of warning before you submit to the inevitability of reading this: This book has very little plot. It consists of 227 letters, written by a handful of characters who are all friends or relatives of each other. They use this as an excuse to inflict a variety of ideas on everything ranging from Canadian politics to their personal love lives on their correspondents whilst constantly congratulating themselves and each other on their superior understanding (and sentiment, this being the eighteenth century). The book ends when they finally run out of things to complain about, but not without presenting the reader with what is perhaps the worst plot twist ever created, a revelation of such ridiculousness that I doubted my reading abilities when I first came upon it.
There are a few moments of lucidity in these people's ramblings, however. Brooke has a lot to say about the inequality women suffered under, particularly their complete dependence on men in almost every aspect of their lives. This book feels protofeminist sometimes in its insistence on women’s right to equal education and political representation.
It is also interesting to read from a postcolonial perspective: The History of Emily Montague is allegedly the first English novel written in Canada and contains some longish descriptions of the lives of indigenous Canadians and early European settlers. These descriptions, while probably not as bad as they could have been, are still exactly as condescending and occasionally racist as you would expect. While the natives are described in a more benevolent way – Brooke loves to make use of the ‘noble savage’ trope – the French Canadians are really at the bottom of her scale of esteem here, with the English of course occupying the top spot.
While the plot is, with all due respect, sentimental and dull, the novel itself is not completely without merit: Brooke is good at writing different voices, Arabella Fermor's being by far the best. She’s a huge flirt and we’re probably meant to prefer the saintly Emily Montague to her, but I think it says a lot that Brooke chose to write about ten times the number of letters from Bell's perspective compared to those from Emily’s. There are also, as I’ve written, some rather modern notions in here – not that I judge the value of a book by how concordant it is with modern values, but it is nice to have proof sometimes that the people of the past did not think as differently as we sometimes assume. Still, the flowery style and endless sentences in which these thoughts are conveyed, while only to be expected from something written in the eighteenth century, make this a tough read for someone from the twenty-first.
I will add an additional half-star for a passage written by an optimistic Englishman about the inhabitants of the ‘old’ North American colonies (‘old' in comparison to the newer acquisition of Canada). He mentions the American protests against the Stamp Act but ultimately concludes that: ‘An equal mixture of mildness and spirit cannot fail of bringing these mistaken people, misled by a few of violent temper and ambitious views, into a just sense of their duty.’
This in a letter supposedly written in 1766. Reader, I laughed.
2.5/5
A word of warning before you submit to the inevitability of reading this: This book has very little plot. It consists of 227 letters, written by a handful of characters who are all friends or relatives of each other. They use this as an excuse to inflict a variety of ideas on everything ranging from Canadian politics to their personal love lives on their correspondents whilst constantly congratulating themselves and each other on their superior understanding (and sentiment, this being the eighteenth century). The book ends when they finally run out of things to complain about, but not without presenting the reader with what is perhaps the worst plot twist ever created, a revelation of such ridiculousness that I doubted my reading abilities when I first came upon it.
There are a few moments of lucidity in these people's ramblings, however. Brooke has a lot to say about the inequality women suffered under, particularly their complete dependence on men in almost every aspect of their lives. This book feels protofeminist sometimes in its insistence on women’s right to equal education and political representation.
It is also interesting to read from a postcolonial perspective: The History of Emily Montague is allegedly the first English novel written in Canada and contains some longish descriptions of the lives of indigenous Canadians and early European settlers. These descriptions, while probably not as bad as they could have been, are still exactly as condescending and occasionally racist as you would expect. While the natives are described in a more benevolent way – Brooke loves to make use of the ‘noble savage’ trope – the French Canadians are really at the bottom of her scale of esteem here, with the English of course occupying the top spot.
While the plot is, with all due respect, sentimental and dull, the novel itself is not completely without merit: Brooke is good at writing different voices, Arabella Fermor's being by far the best. She’s a huge flirt and we’re probably meant to prefer the saintly Emily Montague to her, but I think it says a lot that Brooke chose to write about ten times the number of letters from Bell's perspective compared to those from Emily’s. There are also, as I’ve written, some rather modern notions in here – not that I judge the value of a book by how concordant it is with modern values, but it is nice to have proof sometimes that the people of the past did not think as differently as we sometimes assume. Still, the flowery style and endless sentences in which these thoughts are conveyed, while only to be expected from something written in the eighteenth century, make this a tough read for someone from the twenty-first.
I will add an additional half-star for a passage written by an optimistic Englishman about the inhabitants of the ‘old’ North American colonies (‘old' in comparison to the newer acquisition of Canada). He mentions the American protests against the Stamp Act but ultimately concludes that: ‘An equal mixture of mildness and spirit cannot fail of bringing these mistaken people, misled by a few of violent temper and ambitious views, into a just sense of their duty.’
This in a letter supposedly written in 1766. Reader, I laughed.
2.5/5
October 2, 2023
I curse the man who made me read this...not really he's a good prof, however, I digress. This was one of the more painful reads I've read (It was so boring it aided me in falling asleep more often than not)
August 17, 2018
I enjoyed the book as a representative sample of what literature might be available for readers in the 18th century. The subject matter and presentation - love and marriage in an era of social and economic restriction - seemed almost Austen like to me; I was interested to read a similar comparison while later researching the novel. The writer certainly is English and must be claimed for Britain. However, her reflections and observations of life in Canada at the time are of great interest to me, even within the British Protestant framework that shapes them. Her characters do concede some revisions in how the French are viewed, particularly French women. I may read more of Frances Brooke, if only for comparison with this work specific to the interest of historic Canadian literature.
November 14, 2011
This lovely letter-romance taught me a lot about early settlement in Quebec. The language is enjoyable and the characters loveable, the story, however, not very probable.
October 19, 2021
OMG, je suis content· d'avoir fini le récit, mais c'est à 1 000 lieux du genre d'écrits que j'aime. Une romance épistolaire qui se déroule au Québec, j'ai pris ce livre parce qu'il s'agissait du premier roman canadien ever (en 1769, L'Influence d'un livre est paru en 1837) et c'est un roman écrit au Québec aussi, bien qu'en anglais donc le snobisme des universités françaises a fait en sorte que je n'ai jamais su qu'une femme avait écrit bien bien avant Laure Conan (qui a aussi fait dans l'épistolaire dans la troisième partie du livre).
Bref, je suis tombé sur le nom de Brookes plus de cinq ans après la fin de mes études universitaires, jamais entendu son nom avant de tomber sur ce dernier dans une liste des récits de romance important dans l'histoire littéraire. J'en suis tombé en bas de ma chaise.
Je n'ai pas aimé pour toute sorte de raison, goût personnel, cet essentialisme des nations qui attribues des traits et comportements aux habitants d'une région/pays et qui sont longuement discutés au début du volume (au moins, on s'en éloigne après une soixantaine de page), description qui raviront les historiens et sociologues, mais qui font grincer des dents aujourd'hui (ce n'est pas pire que l'essentialisme des nations en vogue à cet époque, on peut penser aux écrits de Germaine de Staël-Holstein là-dessus, mais ce n'est vraiment pas pour moi.
J'avoue ne pas être trop fan de l'épistolaire entre beaucoup d'interlocuteurs/trices parce que la signature en bas du texte (et souvent sur une autre page) rend un peu confus au niveau de la lecture.
[À ce sujet, une note sur l'édition que je commente: il y a plusieurs fautes et l'édition des textes et des lettres est mal agencée. Plusieurs fois, il y a un saut de page non justifié comme s'il n'y avait jamais eu de relecture avant publication, ça saute vraiment aux yeux et c'est vraiment frustrant. Je ne recommande pas du tout cette édition]
Finalement, la romance ne m'a pas du tout intéressé (alors que ce n'est pas quelque chose que j'ai l'habitude de ne pas aimer à ce point là). Les personnages ne me semblaient pas si développés que ça et je dois avouer m'être perdu· à beaucoup plus d'une reprise dans qui est derrière quelle lettre.
Ma note est vraiment une appréciation personnelle du texte, il est évidemment très riche autrement et il y a aurait long à dire dessus, mais c'est juste pas mon genre au final bien que je suis content· de l'avoir lu et découvert une écrivaine qu'on m'a dissimulée tout ce temps là (je n'ai pas d'autre mot, je ne comprends pas que personne ne parle d'elle).
Bref, je suis tombé sur le nom de Brookes plus de cinq ans après la fin de mes études universitaires, jamais entendu son nom avant de tomber sur ce dernier dans une liste des récits de romance important dans l'histoire littéraire. J'en suis tombé en bas de ma chaise.
Je n'ai pas aimé pour toute sorte de raison, goût personnel, cet essentialisme des nations qui attribues des traits et comportements aux habitants d'une région/pays et qui sont longuement discutés au début du volume (au moins, on s'en éloigne après une soixantaine de page), description qui raviront les historiens et sociologues, mais qui font grincer des dents aujourd'hui (ce n'est pas pire que l'essentialisme des nations en vogue à cet époque, on peut penser aux écrits de Germaine de Staël-Holstein là-dessus, mais ce n'est vraiment pas pour moi.
J'avoue ne pas être trop fan de l'épistolaire entre beaucoup d'interlocuteurs/trices parce que la signature en bas du texte (et souvent sur une autre page) rend un peu confus au niveau de la lecture.
[À ce sujet, une note sur l'édition que je commente: il y a plusieurs fautes et l'édition des textes et des lettres est mal agencée. Plusieurs fois, il y a un saut de page non justifié comme s'il n'y avait jamais eu de relecture avant publication, ça saute vraiment aux yeux et c'est vraiment frustrant. Je ne recommande pas du tout cette édition]
Finalement, la romance ne m'a pas du tout intéressé (alors que ce n'est pas quelque chose que j'ai l'habitude de ne pas aimer à ce point là). Les personnages ne me semblaient pas si développés que ça et je dois avouer m'être perdu· à beaucoup plus d'une reprise dans qui est derrière quelle lettre.
Ma note est vraiment une appréciation personnelle du texte, il est évidemment très riche autrement et il y a aurait long à dire dessus, mais c'est juste pas mon genre au final bien que je suis content· de l'avoir lu et découvert une écrivaine qu'on m'a dissimulée tout ce temps là (je n'ai pas d'autre mot, je ne comprends pas que personne ne parle d'elle).
Read
June 10, 2012Reputed to be the first Canadian novel, published in 1769 by an English woman who lived for several years in post-Conquest New France. It is an epistolary novel set in New France and in England. The letters contain some landscape, some amateur colonial racist anthropology, a little religion, a little politics, and lots and lots and lots of soap operatic romance. A decidedly mediocre book, though I have to admit that even good fiction of this vintage is not really my preference. Provides a moderately interesting window into the particular time, place, and demographic, though.
May 7, 2019
I loved this book! It took me a long time to read because it was written in 1769 (200 years before I was born) and the Old English is very difficult to read. I would read a few pages at a time and would really just get the just of the text. That being said, there was a lot of great reading and it kept me very interested. I found the descriptions of Canada and the people of Canada intriguing and I loved the love stories!
Read
May 1, 2010the first canadian novel? brooke was anything but. what a racist.
October 30, 2010
Review to follow
November 14, 2022
The History of Emily Montague
“I think all the moral writers, who have set off with promising to shew us the road to happiness, have obligingly ended with telling us there is no such thing; a conclusion extremely consoling, and which if they had drawn before they set pen to paper, would have saved both themselves and their readers an infinity of trouble.”
I had so much fun reading this book. It reminded me of the wit and writing of Oscar Wilde, Shaw, and Jane Austin. I had no problem with the book being epistolary, as some reviewers objected to. Because we are reading letters written by the characters, the book is in first person. Normally, I am not a fan of first person accounts, but in this novel it works. We are spared the observations of a narrator that may fall into dullness or useless detail. Okay, there are some letters that are more boring than others, but so many more are filled with wit and thought-provoking points of view. I made over 200 highlights which is a record for any romance, historical novel, or history I have read.
“I hate humility in a man of the world; ’tis worse than even the hypocrisy of the saints: I am not ignorant, and therefore never deny, that I am a very handsome fellow; and I have the pleasure to find all the women of the same opinion.”
“The men here, as I said before, are all dying for me; there are many handsomer women, but I flatter them, and the dear creatures cannot resist it.”
The author, Frances Brooke, is English and the novel reflects her time spent in Canada. She provides an insight into the country and its French, English, and Native inhabitants. Naturally, her observations reflect the prejudices, conventions, and worldview of the era. I don’t believe her intent was to be cruel, although some of her views are grating to my sensibilities. Mon Dieu! Still, I think it would be unkind and a mistake to judge her, neither would we learn about the social and political views of the time.
“…I am not one of those sagacious observers, who, by staying a week in a place, think themselves qualified to give, not only its natural, but its moral and political history: besides which, you and I are rather too young to be very profound politicians.”
There are some very noble themes in the book: Love, Marriage, Filial Duty, Friendship, Women’s Role in Society, Ambition, Vanity, and yes…Sex. The book is written in the language of an 18th century novel, but it is very readable.
“Your ideas of love are narrow and pedantic; custom has done enough to make the life of one half of our species tasteless; but you would reduce them to a state of still greater insipidity than even that to which our tyranny has doomed them.”
“However, she has, in my opinion, done the wisest thing in the world; that is, she has pleased herself.”
“…and as to love, I begin to think men incapable of feeling it: some of them can indeed talk well on the subject; but self-interest and vanity are the real passions of their souls. I detest the whole sex.”
There are a few idioms that were new to me. “Gallantries” are the opposite of being gallant. “Making love” is not necessarily a physical act, other than professing love, flirting, and soothing another’s vanity. “Salamander”, as far as I could tell refers to a woman of heated passion and, perhaps, loose morals.
“Such is the amazing force of local prejudice, that I do not recollect having ever made love to an English married woman, or a French unmarried one. Marriages in France being made by the parents, and therefore generally without inclination on either side, gallantry seems to be a tacit condition, though not absolutely expressed in the contract.”
“I am very fond of him, though he never makes love to me, in which circumstance he is very singular: our friendship is quite platonic, at least on his side, for I am not quite so sure on the other.”
“You judge perfectly well, my dear, in checking the natural vivacity of your temper, however pleasing it is to all who converse with you: coquetry is dangerous to English women, because they have sensibility; it is more suited to the French, who are naturally something of the salamander kind.”
While the views on love are sometimes sagacious, they often are syrupy. I don’t hold this to be a deficiency in the novel and it might have lost some of its romantic flair if it had been toned down. From a structural viewpoint, the novel is not perfect. There is some intrigue, but the story does amble. There are a few asides that occur, and I can’t see how they contribute to the overall story. I also wanted to better know the stories of some of the minor characters. There is one big plot twist that is comparable to an Oscar Wilde play, perhaps on the scale of “The Importance of Being Earnest.”
I would rather have an ordinary tale filled with extraordinary characters, than vice versa. I enjoyed the characters and how they met with each challenge. Their communications and voice made this novel interesting and extremely fun. For me.
“I think all the moral writers, who have set off with promising to shew us the road to happiness, have obligingly ended with telling us there is no such thing; a conclusion extremely consoling, and which if they had drawn before they set pen to paper, would have saved both themselves and their readers an infinity of trouble.”
I had so much fun reading this book. It reminded me of the wit and writing of Oscar Wilde, Shaw, and Jane Austin. I had no problem with the book being epistolary, as some reviewers objected to. Because we are reading letters written by the characters, the book is in first person. Normally, I am not a fan of first person accounts, but in this novel it works. We are spared the observations of a narrator that may fall into dullness or useless detail. Okay, there are some letters that are more boring than others, but so many more are filled with wit and thought-provoking points of view. I made over 200 highlights which is a record for any romance, historical novel, or history I have read.
“I hate humility in a man of the world; ’tis worse than even the hypocrisy of the saints: I am not ignorant, and therefore never deny, that I am a very handsome fellow; and I have the pleasure to find all the women of the same opinion.”
“The men here, as I said before, are all dying for me; there are many handsomer women, but I flatter them, and the dear creatures cannot resist it.”
The author, Frances Brooke, is English and the novel reflects her time spent in Canada. She provides an insight into the country and its French, English, and Native inhabitants. Naturally, her observations reflect the prejudices, conventions, and worldview of the era. I don’t believe her intent was to be cruel, although some of her views are grating to my sensibilities. Mon Dieu! Still, I think it would be unkind and a mistake to judge her, neither would we learn about the social and political views of the time.
“…I am not one of those sagacious observers, who, by staying a week in a place, think themselves qualified to give, not only its natural, but its moral and political history: besides which, you and I are rather too young to be very profound politicians.”
There are some very noble themes in the book: Love, Marriage, Filial Duty, Friendship, Women’s Role in Society, Ambition, Vanity, and yes…Sex. The book is written in the language of an 18th century novel, but it is very readable.
“Your ideas of love are narrow and pedantic; custom has done enough to make the life of one half of our species tasteless; but you would reduce them to a state of still greater insipidity than even that to which our tyranny has doomed them.”
“However, she has, in my opinion, done the wisest thing in the world; that is, she has pleased herself.”
“…and as to love, I begin to think men incapable of feeling it: some of them can indeed talk well on the subject; but self-interest and vanity are the real passions of their souls. I detest the whole sex.”
There are a few idioms that were new to me. “Gallantries” are the opposite of being gallant. “Making love” is not necessarily a physical act, other than professing love, flirting, and soothing another’s vanity. “Salamander”, as far as I could tell refers to a woman of heated passion and, perhaps, loose morals.
“Such is the amazing force of local prejudice, that I do not recollect having ever made love to an English married woman, or a French unmarried one. Marriages in France being made by the parents, and therefore generally without inclination on either side, gallantry seems to be a tacit condition, though not absolutely expressed in the contract.”
“I am very fond of him, though he never makes love to me, in which circumstance he is very singular: our friendship is quite platonic, at least on his side, for I am not quite so sure on the other.”
“You judge perfectly well, my dear, in checking the natural vivacity of your temper, however pleasing it is to all who converse with you: coquetry is dangerous to English women, because they have sensibility; it is more suited to the French, who are naturally something of the salamander kind.”
While the views on love are sometimes sagacious, they often are syrupy. I don’t hold this to be a deficiency in the novel and it might have lost some of its romantic flair if it had been toned down. From a structural viewpoint, the novel is not perfect. There is some intrigue, but the story does amble. There are a few asides that occur, and I can’t see how they contribute to the overall story. I also wanted to better know the stories of some of the minor characters. There is one big plot twist that is comparable to an Oscar Wilde play, perhaps on the scale of “The Importance of Being Earnest.”
I would rather have an ordinary tale filled with extraordinary characters, than vice versa. I enjoyed the characters and how they met with each challenge. Their communications and voice made this novel interesting and extremely fun. For me.
March 31, 2023
I had never heard of this until it was brought up as a potential next read for a book club I go to. It enjoys unofficial status as the “first Canadian novel,” though that title is hotly contested. While about half of the story takes place in Canada (or what was called Canada at the time, which was parts of Ontario and Quebec), Frances Brooke herself was an Englishwoman who lived in Canada for only about 5 years, writing and later publishing the novel on her return to England. The main characters too, are mostly English colonists/visitors to the continent, and while there is at least one named significant French-Canadian character, most of the native inhabitants of Canada (including the Acadians) are viewed through a distinctly western-European lens and judged on their “otherness,” whether as a positive or, more often, as a negative.
The novel takes place in 1763, pre-Canadian confederation, immediately following the Seven Years War. It is epistolary in structure, Brooke having taken inspiration from the technique of her contemporary Samuel Richardson in his work Pamela. But enough of the background. What’s it all about?
It’s a comedy of manners, as per the blurb, with elements of travel narrative woven in. The central conflict is a romantic one, and in case you weren’t sure of that, six of the main characters are paired into couples by the time we get halfway through the book. That’s right–six. We are dealing with not one, not two, but three different romantic couples in this story.
Lest you think that means everything in the book is fluffy and insubstantial, I assure you it is not. There are some very interesting perspectives on politics, religion, society, and even philosophy that various characters claim to espouse in their letters to one another. Perhaps the most relevant to the subject of the story are the views on what is essentially companionate marriage, emphasizing the need for friendship, respect, and mutual interest in one another intellectually rather than just romantically or physically. There are discussions of infidelity and intrigues, much of which has to be understood through the society of the time.
There is also a surprisingly universalist strain running through much of the serious religious discussion, coupled with the underlying assumption that the Church of England is still the best option, if only in matters of tastefulness of the service and ritual. I kid you not, they really said, “Yeah, probably everybody is basically good at heart, and there is no material difference of the intent or effect of any of the religions, but we stan the Anglican aesthetic.” Way to boil down centuries of blood, conflict, and holy wars into nothing more than a basic preference.
Pacing-wise, this book is very inconsistent, but generally it tends to move forward fast enough to keep you interested. At times, who is writing what letter to whom is a little hard to follow, but it is amazing how Brooke juggles her characters and manages to keep the story straight, while still conveying the confusing reality of having to wait for weeks for letters to arrive. Most of these letters are going back and forth across the Atlantic by ship so news is old by the time the recipient has gotten it, let alone had time to formulate and send their response.
With some incredibly unique and mesmerizing voices represented among the letter-writers, the humour reminds me of the subtlety of an Austen novel. Characters pivot and move within the confines of their societal roles and stations, while commenting on the restrictions of convention. They navigate expectations, ruminate on learned behaviours and human nature, and formulate personal beliefs in an attempt to reconcile their personal and public lives.
While Brooke is an early adopter of some novel writing cliches (such as having a romance develop with the “right” man while the woman is already engaged to one who turns out to be the “wrong” man, and a convenient unexpected inheritance plot after unknowingly reuniting with an estranged family member), I feel as though she is also an early innovator in other respects.
The whole novel, while primarily a romance, also spends considerable time developing the dynamic of a complex friend group: the women are besties, they all have unique personalities, fall for extremely different men, who also develop interesting comradeship with each other through the women they love. It’s so ingrained in the novel that I didn’t notice how intentional it was until I was literally thinking about it now, but I love the depth of this friendship theme, which extends from the importance put on friendship in marriage and into friendship in addition to/outside of marriage.
I found this book surprisingly enjoyable and informative as it presents aspects of the life, education, and opinions of the 18th century in a way that I haven’t often read, partly because it may be representative of Brooke’s own ideas or opinions rather than those of the common society. The drama, while contrived, was never extended so long as to be exhausting, and the miscommunications are logically resolved by the fact that, surprise, these people are actually very skilled communicators. And while there were some episodes between our primary pair of lovers that waxed purple and nigh-hysterical, they were eventually reined in by the humour and practicality of their friends, or by the intrusion of an external plot.
If you are interested in colonial, British, Canadian, epistolary, or comic-romantic literature, this volume provides something of all of the above, written in an accessible yet skillful way by a very intelligent and educated woman.
The novel takes place in 1763, pre-Canadian confederation, immediately following the Seven Years War. It is epistolary in structure, Brooke having taken inspiration from the technique of her contemporary Samuel Richardson in his work Pamela. But enough of the background. What’s it all about?
It’s a comedy of manners, as per the blurb, with elements of travel narrative woven in. The central conflict is a romantic one, and in case you weren’t sure of that, six of the main characters are paired into couples by the time we get halfway through the book. That’s right–six. We are dealing with not one, not two, but three different romantic couples in this story.
Lest you think that means everything in the book is fluffy and insubstantial, I assure you it is not. There are some very interesting perspectives on politics, religion, society, and even philosophy that various characters claim to espouse in their letters to one another. Perhaps the most relevant to the subject of the story are the views on what is essentially companionate marriage, emphasizing the need for friendship, respect, and mutual interest in one another intellectually rather than just romantically or physically. There are discussions of infidelity and intrigues, much of which has to be understood through the society of the time.
There is also a surprisingly universalist strain running through much of the serious religious discussion, coupled with the underlying assumption that the Church of England is still the best option, if only in matters of tastefulness of the service and ritual. I kid you not, they really said, “Yeah, probably everybody is basically good at heart, and there is no material difference of the intent or effect of any of the religions, but we stan the Anglican aesthetic.” Way to boil down centuries of blood, conflict, and holy wars into nothing more than a basic preference.
Pacing-wise, this book is very inconsistent, but generally it tends to move forward fast enough to keep you interested. At times, who is writing what letter to whom is a little hard to follow, but it is amazing how Brooke juggles her characters and manages to keep the story straight, while still conveying the confusing reality of having to wait for weeks for letters to arrive. Most of these letters are going back and forth across the Atlantic by ship so news is old by the time the recipient has gotten it, let alone had time to formulate and send their response.
With some incredibly unique and mesmerizing voices represented among the letter-writers, the humour reminds me of the subtlety of an Austen novel. Characters pivot and move within the confines of their societal roles and stations, while commenting on the restrictions of convention. They navigate expectations, ruminate on learned behaviours and human nature, and formulate personal beliefs in an attempt to reconcile their personal and public lives.
While Brooke is an early adopter of some novel writing cliches (such as having a romance develop with the “right” man while the woman is already engaged to one who turns out to be the “wrong” man, and a convenient unexpected inheritance plot after unknowingly reuniting with an estranged family member), I feel as though she is also an early innovator in other respects.
The whole novel, while primarily a romance, also spends considerable time developing the dynamic of a complex friend group: the women are besties, they all have unique personalities, fall for extremely different men, who also develop interesting comradeship with each other through the women they love. It’s so ingrained in the novel that I didn’t notice how intentional it was until I was literally thinking about it now, but I love the depth of this friendship theme, which extends from the importance put on friendship in marriage and into friendship in addition to/outside of marriage.
I found this book surprisingly enjoyable and informative as it presents aspects of the life, education, and opinions of the 18th century in a way that I haven’t often read, partly because it may be representative of Brooke’s own ideas or opinions rather than those of the common society. The drama, while contrived, was never extended so long as to be exhausting, and the miscommunications are logically resolved by the fact that, surprise, these people are actually very skilled communicators. And while there were some episodes between our primary pair of lovers that waxed purple and nigh-hysterical, they were eventually reined in by the humour and practicality of their friends, or by the intrusion of an external plot.
If you are interested in colonial, British, Canadian, epistolary, or comic-romantic literature, this volume provides something of all of the above, written in an accessible yet skillful way by a very intelligent and educated woman.
December 17, 2020
Idk why I feel the need to write this review but here I go. I really do appreciate this book for what it is, namely the first novel written in Canada and the first novel to be set in Canada, but neither the author nor the main characters ended up settling in Canada; instead they all return to England. The descriptions of Montréal, Québec, and the stunning natural landscape of the region are all very intriguing. Despite the melodrama displayed by each character they are all believable and I really was invested in how each of them would fare in the end. The thing I really couldn't stomach from this book was how blatantly superior to everyone else the English characters acted. I'm sure England is great but Brooke took every opportunity to remind her readers how superior England was to the rest of the world, and how much better their customs are. It's not surprising considering this novel was published in 1769 for a British audience. Basically, there is enjoyment to be found in this novel but you really need to be patient with the characters and the author.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 28, 2023
The first Canadian novel was published in 1769 and set in Quebec, one of my favorite cities. It's a sentimental epistolary novel. My volume is a secondhand one and was owned by someone in Kingstone around 1984. The owner wrote "Admiration for Freedom of Indian Women," which is genuine. Brooke, in many places, discusses how First Nation women have more freedom, including political freedom.
I liked the character of Arabella Fermor; in one place, she mentions what's the point of religious intolerance and fighting; we have the same goal, and what differs is the means which contingent upon the country's context. Emily is also a strong character, if not like AF.
In another letter, the character Ed Rivers states equality between husband and wife in marriage is vital to happiness and not a master-slave relationship!
The book should have ended with them leaving Quebec - 25% shorter.
Those are very liberal thinking considering it was written in the 1700s!
I liked the character of Arabella Fermor; in one place, she mentions what's the point of religious intolerance and fighting; we have the same goal, and what differs is the means which contingent upon the country's context. Emily is also a strong character, if not like AF.
In another letter, the character Ed Rivers states equality between husband and wife in marriage is vital to happiness and not a master-slave relationship!
The book should have ended with them leaving Quebec - 25% shorter.
Those are very liberal thinking considering it was written in the 1700s!
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 4, 2025
Regarded as the first Canadian novel ever published, Em Montague is a tale of romantic entanglements a la Jane Austen but without Austen's sharp wit. Brooke's novel actually predates Austen, but I'm sure there were lots of these novels of "sensibility" being written around this time by British authors... and yes, Brooke was British, so she writes about the experiences of herself and other expats in this strange new land of Canada. It's smart and wise and the author uses the format to show how different characters view the same incidents, but it felt long and is ultimately a bit of a slog. So I can't say it's one of the Best Canadian Novels Ever Written, but as the first it's certainly not an embarrassment.
May 27, 2025
Kind of a combination sentimental novel, travelogue and accidental list of colonial prejudices.
I would read this if you’re interested in it historically, probably not worth going out of your way just as a book.
I would read this if you’re interested in it historically, probably not worth going out of your way just as a book.
April 17, 2021
I love how over-the-top everything is in this book, and Brooke's wry humor only makes it a lot better. My only problem is the racism - but it's going to be fun to write about and analyse at least.
October 4, 2021
Historical fiction
January 24, 2022
Had to read this for class. It was a pain to get through and I was "the happiest of human beings" to finally be finished.
November 12, 2024
3.5 stars
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews