Guide to Documents Relating to French and British North America in ...

ff. 107, 114 (Fish, ff. 68, 73). Dec. 12, 1641. Another relation on Canada by the same prefect.
ff. 108, 113 (Fish, ff. 69-72). Oct. 17, 1641. The same prefect sends a map of New France, made by
a priest who lived there three years.
ff. 122, 127. Dec. 30, 1641. Christopher of Holy Trinity reports on New France and Pacifique's
projects. (Omitted by Fish)
ff. 346-351 (Fish, ff. 216-218). Various items. Letter of Carlo Rossetti, Nuncio in England, to
Propaganda, of Sep. 7, 1641. Notes of fourteen candidates considered for the mission of Maryland. A
relation of Maryland, undated. Notes by Propaganda on the whole dossier.
ff. 356, 363 (Fish, f. 222). Nov. 12 (1641). Decree of the Sacred Congregation on the expedition of
missionaries to Maryland.
Fish's Guide is, by modem standards, incomplete and riddled with errors. It has also been
superseded, as far as Canada and the United States are concerned, by the present Calendar (1622-
1799) and by Finbar Kenneally's United States Documents. 41 And yet, used with care, it still stands as
the only clue to a number of repositories for the history of the continent in general and of nineteenthcentury
Canada in particular.
By contrast, it is impossible to put to good use Achille Gingras's doctoral dissertation, which
should, according to its title, list all documents of Canadian interest in the archives of Paris, Rome and
London. 42 In the section devoted to Propaganda (pp. 238-323), he, like Fish, briefly surveys the history
of the Congregation and then lists the most important archival series. He immediately falls into two
traps. He confuses the series SOCG and Congressi,43 and assigns 416 volumes,44 as does Fish,4s to
Memoriali, now (as was the case when Gingras compiled his thesis) part of SOCG and consisting of
36 volumes only (vols. 382-417). These two serious errors are of course repeated throughout the list
of documents.
Gingras's calendar differs from Fish's only in that the former employed a chronological approach,
while the latter used an archival approach and listed the archival volumes according to the subject
treated, noting (in theory) their date, series, volume number and folios. The result, as one can judge
from the sample below, is puzzling:
Relation sur les provinces et couvents des Franciscains, addressee au Cardinal Barberini,
leur protecteur.
Memoire h I'usage des nonces de France pour empecher les heretiques de penetrer au
Canada (19 janvier 1635).
Etat des missions du Canada.
Scritt. Rif. [Le., SOCG], ff. 30-60, 109 a 115. 46
Furthermore, Gingras sometimes omits the date, sometimes the folio or item number, sometimes
even the archival series. All this does not happen by chance. Gingras has merely copied Fish's list,
leaving out all documents that (on the basis of Fish's summaries only) had no interest for Canadian
religious history. When one tries to actually use Gingras's Repertoire, it becomes immediately evident
that it cannot be used without the help of Fish. Moreover, Gingras employs the old folio numbers that
were in use in Fish's time, but that had long been superseded in 1958. Lastly, there is not a single
document cited by Gingras that does not already appear in Fish's Guide. In practice, what Gingras has
done, as far as Propaganda was concerned, is to add his own errors and omissions to Fish's.47 His
Repertoire is therefore completely useless.
45