THE CHATEAU ST. LOUIS, AS BUILT 1720-1745

BY

R. L. WAY

JANUARY 6, 1961

(Fortress of Louisbourg
Report H C 01)

SPECIFICATIONS

I. MASONRY SHELL

The intent, expressed in the initial specifications of 1717, was that the main block and its terminating wings would constitute three perfect rectangles, but this was not achieved in actual construction. Since neither historians nor anyone else can dispute the evidence of undisturbed French foundation walls uncovered by archaeology, the ground dimensions of the structure are based upon archaeological findings. Furthermore, because the consolidation of the Chateau's walls undertaken in the 1930's distorted the exterior of exposed foundations, internal measurements have been relied upon. No allowance has been made for the thickness of exterior walls or interior partition walls which are assumed, with some exceptions, to have been built to the average thickness of the originally specified two pieds.

1. Ground Dimensions

Extreme length of building, inside measurements, including wings and measured at top of ground floor plinth, but not including thickness of exterior walls:

• - West side - 358' 8"

• - East side - 358' 3 1/2"

Wing G

• - Interior length of exterior east-west wall - 47' 9 1/2"

• - Interior length of interior east-west wall (abutting main block) - 47' 10"

• - Interior length of west exterior wall (i.e. running north-south) - 40' 11"

• - Interior length of east exterior wall (i.e. running north-south) - 41' 6 1/2"

Wing I

• - Interior length of exterior east-west wall - 47' 9"

• - Interior length of interior east-west wall (abutting main block) - 47' 7"

• - Interior length of west exterior wall (i.e. running north-south) - 41' 2"

• - Interior length of east exterior wall (i.e. running north-south) - 40' 5"

Main Block

Inside width of main block (i.e. east-west measurement, exclusive of exterior walls)

• - Measured near north wing - 40' 2 1/2"

• - Measured across room Sb 17 - 40' 2"

• - Measured across south end of chapel - 40' 8"

• - Measured near south wing - 40' 6"

2. Footings

The footings for the foundation walls varied considerably in depth and width throughout the Chateau depending, apparently, on the incidence of bed-rock and the degree of stability thought desirable. In certain rooms notably Gbl, Gb2, Sb 19, Sb 20, Sb 21 and Sb 32, footings showed above the original cobble stone flooring. 

3. Excavations 

The cellars of the Chateau were excavated to varying depths, depending upon the incidence of bedrock and ground water. Maximum depth to which each cellar was ever excavated, including footing, has been established by archaeology as follows (please note that certain cellars were filled in subsequent to initial construction): 

• - Cellar Ib 28 - 10' approx. 

• - Cellar Ib 25 - 10' approx. 

• - Cellar Sb 24 - 10' approx. 

• - Cellar Sb 21 - 10' approx. 

• - Cellar Sb 20 - 9' approx. 

• - Cellar Sb 17 - 7' approx. 

• - Cellar Sb 16 - 6' approx. 

• - Cellar Sb 13 - 4' 6" approx. 

• - Cellar Sb 14 - 6' approx. 

• - Cellar Sb 15 - 7' approx. 

• - Cellar Sb 18 - 7' approx. 

• - Cellar Sb 19 - 9 ' approx. 

• - Cellar Sb 22 - 9' approx. 

• - Cellar Sb 23 - 10' approx. 

• - Cellar Ib 26 - 9' approx. 

• - Cellar Ib 27 - 10' Approx.

• - Chapel No cellar

• - Cellar Ob 9 - no cellar

• - Cellar Ob 10 - no cellar

• - Cellar Ob 7 - 4' 6" approx. 

• - Cellar Ob 5 - 6' 6"approx. 

• - Cellarn Gb 4 - 5' 6" approx. 

• - Cellar Gb 2 - 5' approx. 

• - Cellar Gb 1 - 5' approx. 

• - Cellar Gb 3 - 4' approx. 

• - Cellar Ob 6 - 5' approx. 

• - Cellar Ob 8 - 6' approx. 

In addition to the cellars, a chamber or pit, to receive the counterbalance of the bascule bridge at the main entrance, was provided for in the construction of the basement walls. This chamber was 6' 3" deep (measured downwards from the surviving original cobblestones in the passageway), 11' long and 6' 7" wide. (For detail see accompanying Plan Nos. 5 and 21)

4. Masonry walls

(a) Perimeter Walls, Footings to Roof Plate 

For the general lay-out of these walls refer to accompanying Plan Now. 1, 2 and 3. The perimeter foundation walls, with the exception of the foundations of the wings exposed to the ditch, were vertical. Archaeological evidence indicates that on the average they were constructed to the specified thickness of 2' 1 9/16" (2 pieds), although it must be noted that there is historical documentation of an increase in thickness of 6 3/8" (6 pouces) in the foundation walls of the chapel and those of the central passageway. In the two wings, the foundation walls exposed to the ditch had, according to historical evidence, a batter on the exterior face of approximately 3/1. Because of the repair work of the 1930's, archaeology has not been able to prove or disprove this batter. 

When the Chateau was built, construction was begun at the north end and archaeological and historical findings are compatible with an elevation for the ground floor in the north half of 35' 5" above sea level. This was also the elevation of the top of an ornamental brick plinth, presumed to be the thickness of three bricks laid on the flat, which girdled the structure along its north, east and south facades. The plinth must have projected beyond the rubble masonry wall at least one inch to allow for rough-casting, while the batter of the foundations of the wings terminated beneath it. 

As originally constructed, the perimeter Walls, averaging 2' 1 9/16" in thickness, were raised 17' 6/8" (16 pieds) from the top of the ground floor plinth to the bottom of the wall plate. In the north half of the Chateau, with the exception of rooms Sg 13 and Sg 14, the elevation of the first floor, measured at the level of the flooring itself, was 8' 7 7/16" (8 pieds, 1 pouce) above the level of the top of the ground floor plinth. The attic floor was also 8' 7 7/16" (8 pieds, 1 pouce) above the level of the first floor. Elevation of the first floor was, therefore, 44' 7/16" and the elevation of the under side of the attic floor was 52' 5 6/8". The lower surface of the planks of the attic floor were level with the bottom of the wall plate. In other words, the specified interior height of perimeter walls above the ground floor was divided evenly to produce equal ceiling heights for both ground and first floors. (See Plan Nos. 16 to 21). 

A second decorative brick plinth, similar to the ground floor plinth, was inserted in the masonry walls of the north, east and south facades, with the top at the level of the first floor flooring i.e. elevation 44' 7/16". While it may be logical to assume that plinths also existed on the west facade of the structure, no historical evidence has yet come to light to prove or disprove this assumption. 

There is very strong archaeological and some historical evidence for a difference in floor levels between the north half of the Chateau and the south half. By the time construction, which had commenced at wing I, had progressed to the area of the central passageway, it would seen to have become apparent that the ground floor elevation of 35' 5" was inadequate to cope with drainage problems created by the slope of the terreplein. Historical sources indicate that water entered ground floor doorways in the soldiers' barracks and, seeping through to the basement, created as much as a foot of water in rooms like the bakery (located in cellars Sb 19, Sb 20, Sb 21 and Sb 22). Measures to contend with this situation led to the establishment for the central passageway, and presumably also for the adjoining guard rooms (Sg 13 and Sg 14) of an archaeologically-proven elevation of 35' 9". During the subsequent construction of the entire south half of the Chateau, including wing G, an elevation of 35' 11 3/8" would appear to have been chosen for the ground floor. While the 6 3/8" (6 pouces) higher elevation of the ground floor of the south half did not alter the elevation of the decorative plinths or the wall plate, it had the effect of decreasing ceiling heights throughout the southern half of the building. Historical specifications for partitions in officers' rooms and for plastering of walls specify a height of only 7 pieds 8 pouces as against the ceiling height of at least 7 pieds 11 pouces in the soldiers' barracks and wing I. Other historical evidence is in accord with the archaeological indications of a difference in elevation of the ground floor between the north half and the south half of at least six pouces. (See Plan Nos. 16, 17 & l8). 

The west foundation wall of the north half of the Chateau, because of the depth of its footings - bed-rock is at a low elevation in this area - was sustained against the pressure of the earth of the terreplein by seven counterforts. These counterforts, 2' 1 9/16" square (2 pieds) and supposed to be 9' 7 1/8" (9 pieds) high on the basis of historical evidence, occurred on the exterior side of the west foundation wall and were to be centred upon cellars Sb 16, Sb 17, Sb 20, Sb 21, Sb24, Ib 25, and Ib 28. None of the counterforts appears above the level of the terreplain. 

The east and west exterior walls of the chapel were strengthened by interior buttresses, four to each wall and spaced evenly. Original specifications called for there to be 3' 2 3/8" (3 pieds) square but as-found measurements indicate they were built only 2' 9" square. They extended the full height of the perimeter walls and served as supports for the trusses of the chapel's roof. 

There is irrefutable historical evidence for the existence of twelve ornamental brick pilasters on the east facade of the Chateau, rising from the level of the ground floor plinth to the plate, although no detail for their construction is available. (See historical plan of 1731). These pilasters occurred at the junction of cross-walls (which are discussed in the following section) with the perimeter wall and were, apparently approximately three feet wide. An historical sketch of 1758 could be interpreted to give a faint indication of corresponding pilasters on the west facade and it might be assumed that one pilaster was erected on each of the north and south facades. Unfortunately, no contemporary plans have yet been discovered showing the west, north or south elevations of the building. As in the case of the plinths, all pilasters must have projected at least one inch to accommodate the rough-casting of the rubble masonry. 

Exterior angles of the perimeter walls below the ground floor plinth i.e. the angles of the foundation of the wings, had cut-stone quoins, projecting to allow for the thickness of roughcast. Above the ground floor plinth, the perimeter walls, in lieu of cut-stone quoins, had their exterior angles reinforced by the use of flat stone faced with brick to match the pilasters. Needless to say, this brick facing also projected past the face of the masonry wall. 

In 1731, the walls of wing G were raised 6' 4 3/4'' (6 pieds) in order to provide higher ceilings for the Governor's first floor apartments. At the time, the plan was not only to raise the Governor's wing but to balance the structure by raising wing I as well. Perhaps unfortunately from the standpoint of the appearance of the Chateau, the Intendant's wing was never raised and the historical plan of 1731 is indicative only of intent so far as wing I is concerned. There is a possibility that the stone cornice shown on wing G in the 1731 plan was installed when the walls of this wing were raised but historical evidence is nothing more than a passing reference in 1751 to repairs to the masonry of the wing being effected from the plinth to the "entablement" (which might be interpreted to imply the inclusion of a cornice). Analysis of cut-stone found in the Chateau may possibly confirm the existence of a cornice on wing G. It is certain, however, that no historical evidence has been found to substantiate a cornice elsewhere in the building. 

(b) Cross-walls 

With the exception of the area of the chapel (see Plan Nos. 14 & 20), the Chateau was divided by fourteen masonry cross-walls, 2' 1 9/16' (2 pieds) thick. These walls extended from their footings to the ridge and were, of course, triangular in shape above the roof plate. Serving to strengthen the whole structure and to support the weight of the slate roof, the cross-walls created - excluding the chapel and the region of the central passageway - thirteen equal modules within the perimeter walls. 

Fireplaces and chimneys erected in conjunction with the cross-walls will be specified separately, as will the east-west walls of the central passage which were of special design to support the clock tower. 

(c) Longitudinal Separation Wall 

In addition to the divisions created by the cross-walls, the main block of the Chateau - except in the area of the chapel and central passage - was bisected longitudinally by a separation wall. This wall continued into wings G and I but with offsets towards the east of approximately 3' 8 6/8" (3 1/2 pieds) at its junction with the most northerly and southerly cross-walls i.e. the cross-walls bisecting each wing. The effect was that the longitudinal wall of separation terminated in and supported the centre of the north and south perimeter walls.

There is clear proof that the longitudinal separation wall in the south half of the Chateau was built up to the ridge between the cross-wall of wing G and the south wall of the chapel. In the north half of the main block, the longitudinal wall was raised only to the height of the perimeter walls with the exception of that portion of it between the north wall of the passageway and the next cross-wall to the north. This latter section of the longitudinal wall was raised to the ridge in order to buttress the passageway wall which supported the sub-structure of the tower. On the ground floor level between rooms Sg 13 and Sg 14, utilized originally as a corps de garde, this same longitudinal wall was pierced by a sizeable archway connecting the two rooms. (See historical plan of 1729). Research has not produced any specified dimensions for the archway other than the item that when it was filled in in 1750 the masonry required amounted to the cubic measure of 1 toise, 6 pieds. When rooms Sg 13 and Sg 14 were the corps de garde, a 9 9/16" (9 pouces) masonry partition wall, located approximately 4 1/2 ' to the west of the archway, divided the guard room space into the customary separate accommodations for the officer and the men.

(d) Exterior Openings in Masonry Walls 

(i) Windows 

For the placement of windows in each facade of the Chateau refer to accompanying Plans Nos. 1 to 9. 

On the east, north and south facades, with the exception of the chapel, the general rule was that each room was divided into quarters and one window centered on each of the outer "quarter lines." In other words, each room was provided with two windows spaced 9' 7 1/8" center to center. In the 7' 5 9/16" (7 pieds) projection of each wing to the east of the main block, there was one additional window in the ground and first floor rooms.

Historical evidence indicates that all the stall basement windows or vents, where they occurred, were located on the axis of those on the floors above. Unfortunately, archaeology can only tell us that all basement windows were reconstructed in the 1930's and that their present locations do not conform in some cases with historical documentation.

On the west side the windows on the ground floor had a less symmetrical arrangement. In some cases, a doorway replaced the window opening of the opposite or east facade; in other instances - such as in rooms Ig 28 and Ig 25 - two windows were squeezed closer together in order to provide room for a doorway. Historical and archaeological evidence pertaining to the west facade has been assembled in accompanying Plan Nos. 4, 5 & 6. 

The exterior surrounds of all windows were initially of brick and, from an analysis of window frame dimensions, they can be presumed to have created a recess in the reveals in which the frames were set. All reveals splayed towards the inside of the structure to increase illumination. Window openings were all slightly arched on the exterior at the top and the brick surrounds projected to allow for rough-casting. Window sills were level except in the case of the small basement windows of the two wings where the sills sloped outwards to prevent the ingress of water flowing down the sloping foundation walls. There is evidence of the use of flat stone for the construction of the arches of the basement windows, in rear of the brick surrounds. Provision of a built-in oak lintel, known to have been 16" (1 pied, 3 pouces) wide (we have no measurement of its thickness), behind the slightly arched surrounds of other windows, would seem to indicate a difference in construction technique for all windows above the cellars.

When the walls of wing G were raised in 1731, the windows of the first floor were made larger as being more appropriate with the higher ceilings. At the same time, the brick window surrounds of the first floor windows in this wing were replaced in cut-stone.

In 1745 the chapel had eight large and two small windows spaced evenly between the buttresses on the east and west facades. The small windows were centred in the bay between the cross-wall of the passageway and the first pair of buttresses. They were on the same elevation as the first floor windows of the main block. The eight large windows located in the bays between the remaining buttresses and the south wall of the chapel were uniform in size and were the largest in the Chateau.

The following table, which is based on frame sizes derived from historical statements of work completed, is indicative of the number and size of window openings:

[* Taken from archaeological evidence which also indicates the basement windows, as reconstructed, had interior measurements of 1' 7" width by 2' 2" height]

[ ** There is some manuscript evidence to indicate an intent to increase the size of basement windows in the bakery (rooms Sb 21 and Sb 22) to those of ground floor windows. None of the historical plans confirm execution of this work, nor, because of the 1930's work, can archaelogy. It seems reasonable to assume that they remained the same size as other basement windows, particularly since the bakery was re-located in the town in 1731.]

- WING G - 

Location / No. Openings / Width / Height / Surrounds

East Facade

Basement / 4 / 1'1" */  1' 7" * / brick

Ground / 4 / 3'2 1/2" / 4' 5" / brick

1st Floor / 4 / 3'2 1/2" / 7' 6" / Cut-stone

South Facade

Basement / 4 / 1' 1" * / 1' 7" * / brick

Ground / 4 / 3' 2 1/2" / 4' 5" / brick

1st Floor / 4 / 3' 2 1/2" / 7' 6" / Cut-stone

West Facade

Basement / 0 / 

Ground / 3 / 3' 2 1/2" /4' 5" /brick

1st Floor / 4 / 3' 2' 2 1/2" / 7' 6" / Cut-stone

North Facade

Basement / 0 /

Ground / 1 / 3' 2 1/2'' / 4'5" / brick

1st Floor / 1 / 3' 2 1/2" /7' 6" /Cut-stone

- OFFICERS -

Location / No. Openings / Width / Height / Surrounds

East Facade

Basement / 4 / 1' I" * / 1' 7" * / brick

Ground / 6 / 3' 2 1/2" / 4' 5" / brick

1st Floor / 6 / 3' 2 1/2" / 4' 5" / brick

West Facade 

Basement / 0 /

Ground / 4 / 3' 2 1/2" / 4'5" / brick

1st Floor / 6 / 3' 2 1/2" / 4'5" / brick

- CHAPEL -

Location / No. Openings / Width / Height / Surrounds

East Facade

Principal
Windows / 4 / 4' 9 1/2" / 9'7" / brick

Gallery / 1 / 3' 2 1/2" / 4'5" / brick

West Facade

Gallery / 1 / 3' 2 1/2" / 4'5" / brick 

- SOLDIERS -

Location / No. Openings / Width / Height / Surrounds

East Facade 

Basement / 10 / 1'1" / 1'7" ** /brick

Ground / 12 / 3' 2 1/2" / 4'5" / brick

1st Floor / 12 / 3' 2 1/2" / 4'5" / brick 

West Facade 

Basement / 0 /

Ground / 9 / 3' 2 /2" / 4'5" / brick

1st Floor / 12 / 3' 2 1/2" / 4'5" / brick 

WING I 

Location / No. Openings / Width / Height / Surrounds

East Facade

Basement / 4 / 1' 1" / 1' 7" / brick

Ground / 4 / 3' 2 1/2" / 4' 5" / brick

1st Floor / 4 / 3' 2 1/2" / 4' 5" / brick

West Facade

Basement / 0 /

Ground / 4 / 3' 2 1/2" / 4' 5" / brick

1st Floor / 6 / 3' 2 1/2" / 4' 5" / brick 

North Facade 

Basement / 4 / 1' 1" / 1' 7" / brick

Ground / 4 / 3' 2 1/2" / 4' 5" / brick

1st Floor / 4 / 3' 2 1/2" / 4' 5" / brick

South Facade

Basement / 0 /

Ground / 1 / 3' 2 1/2" / 4' 5" / brick

1st Floor / 1 / 3' 2 1/2"/  4' 5" / brick 

No evidence has been uncovered concerning the elevation of window sills above floor levels except what can be derived from scaling historical plans. On this basis, a rough approximation is that the height of sills above floors was 2' 4" to 2' 6".

(ii) Gateways 

The Chateau was designed so that the sole means of access, not only to the building itself but to the terreplein of the bastion was via the central passage-way. An elaborate ornamental gateway embellished the east facade.

Although not nearly as ornate as many to be found in Vauban-designed works, it clearly had the characteristics of early 18th century gateways to French fortresses. Unfortunately, contemporary detailed plans known to have once existed have apparently not survived (they disappeared when Engineer Boucher's effects were shipped home in 1753) and all that is now known of its design is to be found in the historical plans of 1729 and 1731. These plans indicate clearly enough the presence of Doric columns flanking the gateway and of an entablature, with coping, above it. It is, however, virtually impossible to decipher the detail of the ornamentation above the entablature - although there are individuals who claim to see stone dolphins (symbolic of the importance of sea power) entwined around the central oval and supporting, with their tails, the crown mounted above. All that can be definitely established from manuscript sources is that the entablature was surmounted by the King's Arms cut in stone, the latter having been shipped from Paris to Louisbourg in 1724, and that the arms were, in turn, surmounted by a crown. It is further proven by documents that a tablet, which was centred upon the entablature, bore the inscription "Ludovicus XV F et NRC hanc civitate edificavit ac munuit anno MDCCXX''. This tablet, of black Anjou marble, was 7 pieds 6 lignes long and 5 pieds 7 pouces 6 lignes deep, and was prepared by M. Drieu, marbler of Paris.

From statements of materials used, it can be clearly proven that the ornamental gateway of the east facade was constructed entirely of cut stone. For what help it may be to the architect it can also be stated that the quantities of cut-stone billed for in 1727 and used in building this gateway were:

• (1) Bib of entrance gate - 33 1/3 sq. pieds

• (2) Pilasters & "rear part"- 32 sq. pieds

• (3) Entablature and coat of arms - 63 (approx) sq. pieds 

(iii) Doorways 

Archaeological findings confirm manuscript evidence concerning the cutting of an exterior door into the foundation of wing G in 1731. Its insertion in a facade guarded by a massive gateway and drawbridge is surprising but no doubt had some connection with the known use of the room from which it led (room Gb 1) as one of the Governor's wine cellars. It had, according to archaeology, an interior width of 3' and is the only known exterior doorway in the foundation walls.

On the ground floor of the west side were located five matching doorways in rooms Ig 25, Sg 24, Sg 16, Og 9 and Og 7. No specific evidence concerning the size of these doorway openings is available except that which may be derived from scaling the historical plans of 1729 and 1731. A cross-check on probable sizes is available, however, in the original specifications for the doors involved - each was intended to be 5' 10 1/2" high and 3' 2 1/2" wide and each was to have a transom window measuring 3' 2 1/2'' by 1' 1" and containing five lites of glass 6 1/2" X 8 1/2".

A large doorway, 7' 2 1/2" high by 4' 7 1/2" wide was to lead to the chapel from the terreplein. The principal doorway to Wing G on the west facade (room Gg4) is also known to have been larger than the average exterior door. No detailed specifications for it are available, although it can be assumed to be at least the size of the west chapel door. It might also have been reasonable to suppose that the doorway to room Ig 28 was larger than average since it was the main entrance to wing I, although neither archaeological evidence nor historical plans have been found to confirm this supposition. Some evidence, based on quantities, indicates a wider opening of 4' 4" for the doorway providing access to the bakery (wall Sg 20 w), presumably the objective being to facilitate the entry of bulky baking supplies. Another exterior door on the ground floor of the west facade led to the council chamber; no manuscript gives its size but archaeology indicates a width of 3'.

Only one exterior doorway is known to have existed on the first floor of the Chateau. It led through Gf 2w to a balcony and its door was originally specified to have a height of 8' 6" and a width of 4' 9 1/2". 

The surrounds of all exterior doorways were of brick except in the case of principal entrances i.e. those of the chapel and Wing G, which were faced in cut-stone. Sills of all exterior doorways were cut-stone. 

(e) Interior Openings in Masonrv Walls 

Provision was made for a limited number of connecting doorways between basement rooms. In the longitudinal separation wall between rooms Gb l and Gb 2, a doorway was established by archaeology with a measured width of 2' 9". Between rooms Sb 19 and Sb 20 two archways were also discovered in the longitudinal wall, one of which had been blocked by masonry at some stage. Both arches were found to be 5' 8" wide; the elevation to the spring of the arch in each ease was 33' 4" and the elevation of the soffits of the arches was 33' 10". Between rooms Sb 21 and Sb 22 another doorway was located. It measures 3' 0" wide on the side of room Sb 21, 3, 9" wide on the side of room Sb 22 and its threshold would appear to have been at an elevation of 28' 2". The last of the connecting doorways located in the longitudinal separation wall of the basement was found between rooms Ib 27 and Ib 28. It measures 2' 10" wide on the side of room Ib 28 and 3' 6 1/2" wide on the side of room Ib 27 and is almost exactly centred on the wall in which it is located. It was restored in the 1930's with brick jambs. 

Between rooms Sb 20 and Sb 21 was discovered the only interior basement doorway undisturbed by the restoration work of the 1930's. It is located in a cross-wall and measures 3' 1 1/2" wide on the side of room Sb 20 and 3' 7 1/2" wide on the side of room Sb 21. The 6" difference in doorway widths from one side of the wall to the other was taken up by 2 1/2" offsets on each jamb, plus a 1/2" splay between each of the offsets and the extreme doorway width. Two surviving 1" pintles for hinges set close to the offset on the northerly side are clear testimony that the door was originally hung in the off-set. This doorway measures 5' 2" from the base of the brick-work of its surround to the spring of its arch, the elevation of the base of the brick-work being 29'. Maximum height of the doorway, measured from the base of its brickwork to the seat of the arch is 5'5". The original brick surround is still in situ in this doorway and should be studied most closely for size, texture and coursing of brick. 

Archaeological investigation confirms, with one exception, the existence and location of all ground floor interior doorways located in the longitudinal separation wall in the south half of the Chateau, as indicated in the 1731 historical plan. The sole exception is the connecting doorway between rooms Gg1 and Gg2 which was impossible to locate since it existed immediately above the incomplete doorway between the cellars below. In the north half of the Chateau, the consolidation of the ruins of the longitudinal wall does not indicate the existence of doorways and archaeology has been unable to reprove or disprove their construction. Historical research, on the other hand, provides strong evidence that the ground floor plan of 1731 was executed as shown. 

In the case of cross-walls in the south half of the Chateau, a comparison of archaeological evidence with the 1731 plan confirms - again with one exception - the doorways shown on the 1731 plan. The unconfirmed doorway is that shown between Og 10 and the chapel, which would be located in a section of wall that has been entirely rebuilt. In the light of indisputable historical evidence that this doorway existed, it can only be deduced that it was missed by the restorers of the 1930's. It is interesting to note that archaeology confirms even the curious oblique doorway shown on the 1731 plan between rooms Og 8 and Og 10. Another corroborating fact is that archaeology indicates the existence of a doorway between room Og 9 and the chapel - a doorway not shown on the 1731 plan and which historical documentation proves to have been walled up in 1727.

Doorways found in the cross-walls throughout the north half of the Chateau are in accordance with the locations shown on the 1731 plan. The single additional doorway established by archaeology between rooms Sg 13 and Sg 16 is known from historical evidence to have been walled in by 1727 - this explains why this particular doorway is not to be found on the 1731 plan.

Because the work of the 1930's resulted in a rebuilding of all the ground floor doorways, historical evidence is considered to be more reliable for the size of interior doorways. All interior doors, with the exception of wing G, the chapel and the corps de garde, were specified in 1730 to be 6' 5" high and 3' 2 1/2" wide. Beyond the fact that those of the Governor's quarters were referred to as being "larger" than those specified, research can add nothing. The great doorway between the central passageway and the chapel was 7' 1" high by 5' 10 1/2" wide and its surrounds were cut-stone (19 square pieds of cut-stone entered into its construction.) A doorway between the chapel and Sg 10 (the sacristy) was indicated to be 6' 5" high and 3' 2 1/2'' wide. Another doorway from the central passage, that leading to the officers' guard room (wall Sg 13s) was 3' 2 1/2" wide by 6' 5" high while the door leading to Sg 14 from the passage was supposed to be 3' 2 1/2" wide and 6' 8" high. Both these latter doors had surrounds of cut-stone which must have projected to allow for the fact that the central passage is known to have been roughcasted.

It is regrettable that no contemporary plan has been found which establishes the location of interior doorways on the first floor level. All that is certain is that the longitudinal separation wall and the cross-walls continued up to the level of the plate, or beyond. It is logical to assume, however, that first-floor doorways in these walls - except in wing G - paralleled those of the ground floor and certain manuscript evidence points to that conclusion. In the case of wing G, it may be deduced that the raising of the roof and the known enlargement of windows in 1731 was accompanied by a corresponding increase in height of doorways.

Manuscripts refer to connecting doorways between each of the attic rooms. These doorways were to be 5' 3 15/16" high by 2' 1 9/16" wide and were to be located in the cross-walls, adjacent to the longitudinal separation wall. The evidence is not clear, however, concerning the arrangement of attic doorways in that section of the Chateau where the longitudinal wall was not built up to the ridge i.e. north of the first cross-wall north of the central passage. Documentary evidence also refers to a "small door" leading from the attic of the Officers' quarters to the "attic" of the chapel (the area above the chapel ceiling) but specific information concerning the size and location of this latter door is not available. 

(f) Fireplaces Ovens and Chimneys 

The rooms of the Chateau were heated by means of sixty-one fireplaces and at times by a number of stoves, including the one shown in the 1731 historical plan in room Sg 14. The fireplaces were all incorporated in ten of the structure's cross-walls, with the exception of three fireplaces in the attic of wing G that are presumed to have been built originally in conjunction with the longitudinal wall. The distribution of ground floor fire places is believed to be as shown in the 1731 plan, their location having been confirmed by archaeology. No historical evidence is available concerning the placement of fireplaces on the first floor and unless further information is found it must be assumed, on the basis of flues detailed on a 1720 plan and what was typical as well, that the first floor fireplaces were situated approximately above those on the ground floor.

Flues of fireplaces, with the exception of those in the attic of wing G, were incorporated in twenty chimneys built into the cross-walls and passing through the roof approximately mid-way between the eave and the ridge. A plan of 1720 indicates the intended number of flues per chimney. It is of interest that the Governor's wing, the Officers' quarters and the wing built for the Intendant were to have fourteen more flues than were required to service the fireplaces, while the soldiers' barracks - when we allow for the flues of the bake-ovens have exactly the same number of flues as fireplaces. Historical evidence corroborates the use of both iron and brick stoves, but this luxury was obviously not intended for men in the ranks. 

The two chimneys that serviced the three fireplaces in the attic of wing G proved unsatisfactory in that they created leakage. For that reason, De Forant had them taken down to roof level in 1739. No evidence has been found that they were ever re-erected. 

The fireplaces and chimneys were supported on substantial masonry bases, many of the original French foundations still being in situ in the Chateau's basement. All chimneys were built of brick, were capped in brick and plastered on the inside. Repeated historical reference to the need for repairing chimney caps makes clear that complaints about the quality of the local brick were justified. 

All fireplaces, except those of wing G were built of brick and the standard size appears to have been 4' 3" of width, 4' 4" of height with an arched top rising to a maximum of 4 1/4" above the latter measurement. One document refers to the acquisition of iron back-plates for thirty fireplaces, the back-plates being described as 2' 8" high by 2 ' 1 1/2" wide. The back-plates were said to be needed because the poor-quality brick was not standing up to the heat of the fires. No plans or documents have been found which provide the precise detail of fireplace designs and it would seem that resort must be made to the typical.

In the case of wing G, there were obviously some elaborations and refinements in fireplace construction. For example, it is stated in a 1744 document that the fireplace in the kitchen was made ''large" in that year and that it was rebuilt in stone. Conceding the use of stone in the kitchen of wing G, it is reasonable to suppose that at least some of the principal rooms of the Governor's apartments had fireplaces of stone, particularly since the use of cut-stone for window surrounds in this wing is confirmed. Some archaeological corroboration for this hypothesis is to be found in the pieces of a fluted stone mantel-piece that were discovered in the south half of the Chateau and are now on exhibition in the museum.

Such evidence as is available indicates that most hearths were constructed of brick, although this may not hold true for wing G. None of the specifications for the Chateau indicate how brick work was to be coursed or bonded, which could have been Dutch, English or Flemish. Reference must be made to what was most common in 18th century French construction.

Two large bricks ovens for the baking of bread were located in Sb 21 and Sb 22 respectively. They were of the bee-hive type and their remains were consolidated in the restoration of the 1930's. The vault of the oven in Sb 21 must have originally partially sustained the fireplace base above it, but at some time subsequent to the abandonment of the bakery in 1731 (likely faulty consolidation of ruins) the fireplace base was placed inside the oven, creating an impossible situation from the standpoint of baking bread. The doors of the ovens extended through the cross-walls into rooms Sb 19 and Sb 20 i.e. into the fire-backs of two large fireplaces, from the tops of which the flues ascended. This very common arrangement, with an oven in rear of a fireplace, existed also in the bakery of the Louisbourg hospital and is clearly shown on Boucher's plan of this building.

(g) Masonry of Clock Tower 

No plan has been located detailing the substructure of the tower and the only clues as to its construction are to be found in statements of work completed. Accompanying Plans Nos. 17 & 21 are an attempt to synthesize from these meager references the possible nature of the tower's base.

The masonry structure of the tower would appear to have been sustained by a vault (barrel-shaped like those of the casemates) for which the cross-walls of the central passageway served as piers. To counter-act the outward thrust of this arch, the south wall of the passageway was reinforced by two substantial buttresses, which may have merged into one above the great door of the chapel. The north passageway wall was strengthened by the abutting longitudinal partition wall of the Soldiers' barracks.

Bases of the buttresses of the south passageway wall are still in situ within the chapel and measure 2' 9" deep by 3' 10" wide. In their height the buttresses were diminished in width by a series of off-sets, the lowest of which appears to have been at the level of a gallery in the chapel, the supporting brackets of which rested on the top of the off-set. The elevation of the barrel-vault required to support the east and west walls of the tower is not clear, although the existence of an armoury upon the first-floor level above the central passageway, makes it likely that the spring of the arch was approximately at the level of the roof-plate. 

It is believed on the basis of contractor's quantities that the plan of 1733 (Copy attached) was followed in the construction of the tower and belfry above roof-level. Evidence other than the 1733 plan confirms the use of cut-stone for quoins, coping, a chamfered base and arcatures in the construction of the tower. A document of 1745 also mentions a large stone dial, apparently contained within a stone frame. The rubble masonry of the walls is known to nave been rough-cast. It is not stated how access was obtained to the clock tower, although this might have been contrived through an opening at attic level in either of the cross-walls of the passageway.

The elevation above sea-level of the top of the masonry structure of the tower is estimated to be 71' 9 1/2".

(h) Paving 

At least the central passageway, the floors of the cellars Gbl and Gb2 and the walk paralleling the west facade were paved with cobbles. Much of this paving is still in situ and was uncovered by the archaeologists. 

In addition to cobbled paving there is indisputable historical evidence that the floor of the Soldiers' guard room (room Sg 14) was paved in free-stone set in mortar. In 1728, the floors of the bakery (presumably Sb 19 and Sb 20) were reported to have been paved but the type of paving is not stated.