ch
gives of the _Ordre de Bon Temps_. To Champlain belongs the credit of
inventing this pleasant means of promoting health and banishing ennui,
but all he tells of it is this: 'By the rules of the Order a chain was
put, with some little ceremony, on the neck of one of our company,
commissioning him for the day to go a-hunting. The next day it was
conferred upon another, and thus in succession. All exerted themselves
to the utmost to see who would do the best and bring home the finest
game. We found this a very good arrangement, as did also the savages
who were with us.'

Such is the limit of the information which we receive from Champlain
regarding the _Ordre de Bon Temps_, his own invention and the life of
the company. It is reserved for Lescarbot to give us the picture which
no one can forget--the Atoctegic, or ruler of the feast, leading the
procession to dinner 'napkin on shoulder, wand of office in hand, and
around his neck the collar of the Order, which was worth more than four
crowns; after him all the {142} members of the Order, carrying each a
dish.' Around stand the savages, twenty or thirty of them, 'men,
women, girls, and children,' all waiting for scraps of food. At the
table with the French themselves sits the Sagamos Membertou and the
other Indian chiefs, gladdening the company by their presence. And the
food!--'ducks, bustards, grey and white geese, partridges, larks, and
other birds; moreover moose, caribou, beaver, otter, bear, rabbits,
wild-cats, racoons, and other animals,' the whole culminating in the
tenderness of moose meat and the delicacy of beaver's tail. Such are
the items which Champlain omits and Lescarbot includes. So it is
throughout their respective narratives--Champlain ever gaining force
through compactness, and Lescarbot constantly illuminating with his
gaiety or shrewdness matters which but for him would never have reached
us.

This difference of temperament and outlook, which is so plainly
reflected on the printed page, also had its effect upon the personal
relations of the two men. It was not that Lescarbot scandalized
Champlain by his religious views, for though liberal-minded, Lescarbot
was not a heretic, and Champlain knew how to live harmoniously even
with Huguenots. {143} The cause of the coolness which came to exist
between them must be sought rather in fundamental contrasts of
character. To Champlain, Lescarbot doubtless seemed a mere hanger-on
or protege of P