A Dialogue in Hades A Parallel of Military Errors, of Which the French and English Armies Were Guilty, During the Campaign of 1759, in Canada — Themes and Context

A Dialogue of the Dead as Military Apologia

Johnstone adopts the classical dialogue-of-the-dead form, popularized by Lucian and later by Fontenelle, to stage a post-mortem debate. Montcalm and Wolfe speak from Hades, each justifying his own actions and blaming the other. This device lets Johnstone air grievances without writing a straightforward memoir. Montcalm’s speeches are notably defensive: he complains of “scandalous, atrocious lies and calumnies” spread by “vile, mercenary souls” who put greed before honor. The emotional register—Montcalm calls his accusers “vermin”—reveals a personal vendetta beneath the tactical analysis.

The Cove and the Deserter: A Chain of Blame

A key argument in the dialogue concerns Wolfe’s landing at Anse au Foulon (Wolfe’s Cove). Johnstone has Montcalm claim that deserters from the French army revealed the weak point, enabling the British to ascend the cliffs. He writes that “the deserters caused you to make a last attempt” and that a vigilant officer at that post might have prevented the desertions. This shifts responsibility from Montcalm’s dispositions to a subordinate’s failure. The passage ties a single tactical oversight—a neglected guard post—to the loss of Canada, illustrating Johnstone’s method of tracing large outcomes to small, preventable errors.

Historical Context and the Author’s Perspective

The introductory note explains that Johnstone was a Scottish Jacobite who fled after Culloden and obtained a commission in the French army. He served in Canada from 1748 to 1760, acting as Montcalm’s aide-de-camp during the 1759 campaign due to his knowledge of the Beauport defenses. The note also states that Johnstone “differs in toto” from other French officers regarding the Canadian militia’s conduct, crediting them with saving part of the army on September 13. This context is essential: the dialogue is not an impartial account but the argument of an insider with a stake in Montcalm’s reputation.

Style and Structure: Prolixity and Quotation

The editor’s note describes Johnstone’s style as “prolix, sententious, abounding in quotations from old writers.” The excerpts bear this out: Montcalm cites Ferdinand of Aragon’s campaign against the Moors to justify attacking at difficult points. The prose is dense, with long sentences and classical allusions. Johnstone’s English is noted as imperfect—he had “forgotten or had never thoroughly known the language”—which gives the text an idiosyncratic, sometimes awkward rhythm. Readers should expect a challenging but distinctive voice, not a polished narrative.

Because the excerpts are incomplete, the full scope of Johnstone’s argument remains unclear. The dialogue may cover other battles or continue the blame-shifting. Readers should treat Montcalm’s speeches as Johnstone’s advocacy, not verbatim record. The work is best approached as a primary source for the French perspective on 1759, filtered through a loyal aide’s memory and grievance.