rtrait of Madame de Frontenac, which may still
be seen at Versailles. Of Frontenac himself no portrait whatever
exists. Failing his likeness from brush or pencil, we must image to
ourselves as best we may the choleric old warrior who rescued New
France in her hour of need. In seeking to portray his character the
historian has abundant materials for the period of his life in Canada,
though we must regret the dearth of information for the years which
separate his two terms of office. There is also a bad gap in our
sources for the period which precedes his first appointment as
governor. What we have from Madame de Montpensier and Saint-Simon is
useful, but their statements {155} are far from complete and provoke
many questions which must remain unanswered. His letters and reports
as governor of Canada exist in considerable numbers, but it must remain
a source of lasting regret that his private correspondence has perished.

Some one has said that talent should be judged at its best and
character at its worst; but this is a phrase which does not help us to
form a true estimate of Frontenac. He touched no heights of genius and
he sank to no depths of crime. In essential respects his qualities lie
upon the surface, depicted by his acts and illustrated by his own words
or those of men who knew him well. Were we seeking to set his good
traits against his bad, we should style him, in one column, brave,
steadfast, daring, ambitious of greatness, far-sighted in policy; and
in the other, prodigal, boastful, haughty, unfair in argument, ruthless
in war. This method of portraiture, however, is not very helpful. We
can form a much better idea of Frontenac's nature by discussing his
acts than by throwing adjectives at him.

As an administrator he appears to least advantage during his first term
of office, when, in the absence of war, his energies were directed
against adversaries within the colony. {156} Had he not been sent to
Canada a second time, his feud with Laval, Duchesneau, and the Jesuits
would fill a much larger space in the canvas than it occupies at
present. For in the absence of great deeds to his credit obstinacy and
truculence might have been thought the essentials rather than the
accidents of his character. M. Lorin, who writes in great detail,
finds much to say on behalf of Frontenac's motives, if not of his
conduct, in these controversies. But viewing his career broadly it
must be held that, at best, he