� of �1 31

Invalidating the Jacques Marquette Map:A Map Rehoaxed

Introduction to Marquette Map Hoax Thesis

A continuing controversy erupted in 2005 with a presentation by the current writer to the Chicago Map Society at the Newberry Library, publicized as “sure to stir up a historical hornets nest.”. 1

The “Marquette Map Hoax Thesis” was the principle theme of the Chicago Map Society presentation. It challenged the 17th century antiquity of the Marquette Map. This map (with two 2

other Marquette-related documents) is currently 3

believed by historians to have been “discovered” by Felix Martin, Jesuit Superior in Canada, in 1844.

After having been long “lost to history,” the map was in 1844 immediately heralded as an original document that had been created by Jacques Marquette’s own hand.

Limited Claim of Marquette Map Hoax Thesis

Who today would say that questioning the legitimacy of these documents is not fundamental to a well conceived historical study of the period? Current digital technology affords refinement of document-study technique, however, doing so casts a shadow of skepticism over accepted historical interpretation of certain documents.

The Marquette Map Hoax Thesis does not examine various other documents from the period, except at times in passing . It merely claims that the map — with the Illinois River’s three-sides-of-an-octagon shape — reveals an accuracy appearing on no map for another 140 years. It could

Carl J. Weber, “Marquette Myths” (presentation, September 2005 meeting of the Chicago Map Society, Newberry Library, Chicago, IL, September 22, 1

2005). For announcement, see <http://carljweber.com/images/newberryAnnouncementSept2005.png>.

Jacques Marquette, The Jacques Marquette Map, 1673-74, <http://carljweber.com/images/marquetteMapVeryLarge.jpg>.2

The two other documents are the Montreal Recit and the Journal of the Second Voyage.3

The Marquette Map Hoax Thesis states:

1. features of the map are too accurate — in one case by 140 years, in another by nearly 30 — for its attributed 1674 drafting by Marquette, who is

2. not known to be associated with any other maps,

3. nor known to have had advanced map training.

Figure 1 Idealized Marquette persona, Singer Sewing Machine Calendar, 1903, Lewis and Clark Centennial. Collection of author.

� of �2 31

not, as reason dictates, have been drawn by Marquette, who had no specialized map training and is associated with no other maps. In addition, the Mississippi River, in its “pointy elbowing out,” appears suspiciously similar to the Mississippi on a 1703 map by Guillaume D’Lisle (Figure 4 4

below), published three decades after the supposed creation of the Marquette Map. 5

No Pre-1844 Provenance for the Map

After 1844, the above mentioned Marquette documents — the map and two other items — were claimed to have been discovered by Jesuit Superior of Canada, Felix Martin. But no such claim was made by Martin himself. One of the three documents, the Recit, can be identified as a 17th century-created Jesuit document, with 17th century foundations. That seems certain. The other two documents, one of which is the Marquette Map, the other being the Journal of the Second Voyage, had never been mentioned by anyone before 1844 and are absent any provenance.

There was an inventory by Martin himself of the documents that came into his possession that year. The Marquette documents, that had never been heard of before, that were supposed by future historians to have been among the 1844 “discovered” Martin materials, were not enumerated by Martin in his listing of documents The listing was published in 1940 by Paul Desjardins. 6

Background of “Discovered” Documents

By the brief Dominus ac Redemptor (21 July 1773), Pope Clement XIV suppressed the Jesuit Order, banning their practice in Catholic countries, which included Canada. The last Jesuit of the early Canadian colonial period, Jean-Joseph Casot, died in 1800. Casot, before he died, for safekeeping, deposited some documents into the hands of the nuns at the Montreal hospital, the Hôtel-Dieu. The nuns kept no known records of the documents they received from Casot nor the ones they gave to Martin. Among the documents that were in 1844 incorrectly said to have been left with the nuns were the three Marquette related documents. The Archives of the Jesuits in Canada says, “To our knowledge, there’s not an inventory of the documents that Fr. Casot deposited with the hospital nuns in 1800 nor is there an inventory of what Father Félix Martin received from the nuns in 1844.” 7

On August 7, 1814, Pope Pius VII, by the bull Sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum, lifted the Suppression on the Jesuits. The Jesuit Order was allowed back into Canada in 1842. In 1844, 8

Jesuit Superior Martin learned of, sought after, and came into the possession of documents

Guillaume D’Lisle, Carte Du Canada Ou De La Nouvelle France, Paris, 1703,< http://www.davidrumsey.com/maps4423.html>.4

The Marquette Map is said to have been created over the winter of 1673-74. Its date is sometimes given as 1673, sometimes as 1674.5

Paul Desjardins, Le College Sainte-Marie de Montreal (Montreal: College Sainte-Marie, 1940), 216-17. Read translation by current author of Martin’s 6

original inventory, printed in Desjardins. http://carljweber.com/MarquetteMapNotOn1845Inventory.html

Valérie Grothé, email message to author, Aug 27, 2015. Valérie Grothé is Assistant Archivist, The Archive of the Jesuits in Canada.7

Lucien Campeau has given the year of return as 1847, not 1842. “Les Cartes relatives à la découverte du Mississipi par le P. Jacques Marquette et Louis 8

Jolliet,” Les Cahiers des dix, n° 47 (1992): 49. <https://www.erudit.org/revue/cdd/1992/v/n47/1015591ar.pdf>. This appears to have been a typo, for Campeau, an expert in the details of the period, would have known that the correct year of the return of the Jesuits to Canada was 1842. Nonetheless, this same “1847” typo appears in his, “Regard critique sur la Narration du P. Jacques Marquette,” Les Cahiers des dix, n° 46 (1991): 22.

� of �3 31

deposited with the nuns decades earlier by Casot. But did the documents Martin receive include the map and the the other two Marquette documents? The only inventory was the one made by Martin himself. In it he does not list a map or the other two Marquette documents.

As stated, in the letter/inventory Martin himself wrote, as reprinted by Desjardins, the three Marquette related documents were not on the inventory of documents Martin himself listed as having come into his possession from the Hôtel-Dieu.

Notwithstanding, often cited Jesuit historian Joseph P. Donnelly, in no uncertain terms, claims that Martin did come into possession of the Marquette materials by way of the Montreal nuns. 9

To document this, Donnelly cites the Desjardins pages of Martin in the link above. Martin does not say what Donnelly cites him as saying. Therefore, Donnelly uses a reference for authenticating evidence that does not exist. There is no hint of how Martin came to possess the three documents in Desjardins. Donnelly fosters the unsubstantiated claim that the map had been stored with the hospital nuns. There is no evidence for that claim. The nuns returned the documents, the map was not among them.

Similarly, Lucien Campeau makes the same unsupported claim that Martin received the map among documents from the hospital nuns, but unlike Donnelly, who (erringly) uses Martin’s pages as found in Desjardins, Campeau gives no attestation for the claim whatsoever. 10

The Three Point Marquette Map Hoax Thesis (See link in note for large image of the Marquette Map. ) The Marquette Map Hoax Thesis is 11

intentionally simple. The thesis argument prompts what the current writer believes to be a common sense inference. Discussed in detail below, it postulates that:

(1) the Illinois River, claimed to have been drawn by Marquette in 1674, is depicted on this map with an impressively prescient accuracy. The “three sides of an octagon” shape appears on no other map for 140 years; additionally, the shape of the Mississippi River, in its “pointy elbowing out” aspect, is similar to its appearance on a 1703 map by D’Lisle, the only other historical map sharing this severe angle feature; 12

(2) Marquette is not known to have had any specialized cartographic training, and; (3) Marquette is associated with no other maps.

Joseph P. Donnelly, Marquette’s Explorations (Madison, Milwaukee and London: University of Wisconsin Press, 1970), 32-33.9

Campeau, Les Cartes Relatives,” 49.10

The Jacques Marquette Map, <http://carljweber.com/images/marquetteMapVeryLarge.jpg>. 11

D’Lisle, Carte Du Canada… <http://www.davidrumsey.com/maps4423.html>. D’Lisle’s name is often a problem because of different spellings.12

� of �4 31

The

thoughtful person would be inclined to think:

…well, if a person is not known to have been trained in a particular skill, and he is not identified with any creations showing application of that skill except for only one, and one of the innovations of that creation is 140 years ahead of its time, and another innovation, 30 years, it is not unreasonable to make an inference of inauthenticity.

The Marquette Map Hoax Thesis makes a claim, limited and focused, about only one document — i.e., that the map is a fake. It does not go on to evaluate the authenticity of other documents. The Thesis argument was deliberately kept centered on the map — straightforward and simple.

David Buisseret and Carl Kupfer’s Rebuttal “Incited” by Current Writer

Seven years after the current writer’s presentation to the Chicago Map Society, David Buisseret and Carl Kupfer had been “incited” by the current writer’s Marquette Map findings to defend the claims of the Jolliet-Marquette history. In attempting to refute the thesis, it is not known why David Buisseret and Carl Kupfer, contrary to academic practices, had failed to reveal to their

Figure 2 The Marquette Map with two historical features, much in advance of their appearance on other maps.

Figure 3 Letter A , figure 2, left, shows the “three sides of an octagon” shape not again to appear on a map until the John Melish map of 1813, above right.

Figure 4 Compare letter B of Figure 2, with “pointy elbowing out” detail of D’Lisle map of 1703. There do not seem to be any other maps except the Marquette 1674 and the D’Lisle 1703 with the pointy elbow feature.

� of �5 31

audiences the role played by the current writer in motivating them to debate the validity of the Marquette Map Hoax Thesis. Their challenge appeared as “Validating the 1673 ‘Marquette Map’,” in the Journal of Illinois History, and other venues cited below. 13

Buisseret emailed the current writer, “Your various messages have incited Carl Kupfer and me to look again at the whole Marquette-Jolliet corpus.” CCs of the message were emailed to Robert Karrow (Newberry Library Map Curator), Russell Lewis (Executive Vice President and Chief Historian, Chicago History Museum), William Mullen (Pulitzer Prize staff writer, Chicago Tribune), and Joseph Garver (Harvard Map Collection). 14

Again, seven months later, “It is quite true that you ‘incited’ us to undertake this study.” 15

Buisseret and Kupfer ambitiously promised to “look again at the whole Marquette-Jolliet corpus,” a body of literature encompassing a staggering amount of peripheral material (notwithstanding that the key documents are limited in number). 16

Yet, Buisseret maintained an alternate explanation to the one wherein he had been “incited” by the current author to embark on the study. In his presentation to the Caxton Club in Chicago, in disclosing how he got interested in defending the map, he told the audience that one of his 17

children saw an item on the internet that put his name in a bad light. That, he said, is what 18

spurred him on, thus reneging on his “incitement” explanation.

Seven years after the 2005 original “Marquette Map Hoax” presentation by the current writer to the Chicago Map Society, Buisseret and Kupfer’s rebuttal to the Thesis was proffered to the Map Society. He entitled it, “The Great Marquette Map Hoax; a Hoax unhoaxed.” In its title, it is a 19

clear, but unacknowledged intimation to the current writer’s presentation six years earlier. The same year, 2012, Buisseret and Kupfer made a second presentation to the Chicago Map Society. It was explained as a continuation of their Map Hoax rebuttal and as a departure into 20

an analysis of 17th century maps.

David Buisseret and Carl Kupfer, “Validating the 1673 ‘Marquette Map’,” Journal of Illinois History, Vol. 14 (Winter, 2011): 261-276. Available on line at 13<http://er.uqam.ca/nobel/r14310/Marquette/Documents/Buisseret2011/ValidatingThe1673MarquetteMap.pdf>.

David Buisseret, e-mail message to author, April, 14, 2011. CCs sent to Robert Karrow (Newberry Library Map Curator), Russell Lewis (Executive Vice 14President and Chief Historian, Chicago History Museum), William Mullen (staff writer, Chicago Tribune), and Joseph Garver (Harvard Map Collection).

David Buisseret e-mail to author, December 2, 2011.15

Buisseret and Kupfer leave out material crucial to the “corpus,” most notably the 1681 Marquette Narrative and Map that were published in Paris by 16Melchisedec Thevenot. These documents reigned unquestioned as “the” authentic Marquette Narrative and Map until 1844, when they were quietly retired. Other documents crucial to the “Marquette-Jolliet corpus” are by the current writer purposely left out of this paper.

David Buisseret, Latest Information on the Marquette Map, DVD, David Buisseret presentation to Caxton Club (January 11, 2011: Chicago, IL), 03:12:0017

Ibid.18

David Buisseret and Carl Kupfer, “The Great Marquette Map Hoax; a Hoax unhoaxed” (presentation, March 2012 meeting of the Chicago Map Society, 19Newberry Library, Chicago, Illinois, March 15, 2012). For announcement, see http://www.newberry.org/03152012-chicago-map-society-david-buisseret-and-carl-kupfer-marquette-map-validated-hoax-unhoaxed

David Buisseret and Carl Kupfer, ”For better and for Worse: The Cartographic Legacy of Jesuit Era Maps of the Upper Great Lakes and the Mississippi 20

River Valley” (presentation bu Kupfer, September 2012 meeting of the Chicago Map Society, Newberry Library, Chicago, Illinois, September 20, 2012).

� of �6 31

Then there followed another challenge to the Marquette Map Hoax thesis, “Validating the 1673 ‘Marquette Map’,” in the aforementioned Journal of Illinois History. Following that, there was that presentation to the Caxton Club, of Chicago, by Buisseret, that was recorded on a DVD.

This current paper is the first organized effort by the current writer to defend the Marquette Map Hoax Thesis against Buisseret and Kupfer.

Buisseret and Kupfer’s Claims

Buisseret and Kupfer claimed there was primary source material describing a Marquette map among “papers — maps, journals, and reports — [that] made their way back to authorities” after Marquette died. There is, however, no evidence to support a claim attesting to the existence of 21

a Marquette map, among any papers, whatsoever, that made their way back to anywhere. This attempt to establish the existence of a Marquette map “among papers” is unsupportable. 22

Buisseret and Kupfer claim, “From 1670 or so onward we read in numerous documents of Marquette’s desire to take part in an expedition to the ‘Mer du Sud’ (Gulf of Mexico) and of his connection to Jolliet.”(Parentheses by Buisseret and Kupfer. ) 23

That the Mer du Sud was the Gulf of Mexico is factually incorrect. This is an error, considerable and embarrassing to cartographical geography. The Mer du Sud was the Pacific Ocean, off the coast of California (Figure 5). It is not the Gulf of Mexico. 24

One of innumerable references to this fact is seen as late as 1672, a year before the Mississippi expedition, when Claude Dablon, Marquette’s superior, in his letter to France, writes of the continuing hope for a shortcut to China. “We expect no less result from the expedition which Monsieur the Count de Frontenac and Monsieur Talon have caused to be undertaken [by Jolliet, Marquette not mentioned], in accordance with his

Buisseret and Kupfer, “Validating,” 261.21

Lucien Campeau had also made this incorrect claim, for which there is no documentation direct or otherwise. Lucien Campeau. See Les Carte Relatives, 49.22

Buisseret and Kupfer, “Validating,” 264.23

Unbeknownst to many historians, Jolliet was commissioned by Intendant Talon in 1672 to go toward the Pacific Coast off Southern California, not the Gulf 24

of Mexico. It wasn’t until the next decade that all hopes for a Columbus-inspired shortcut to China were dashed. That was when LaSalle navigated the Mississippi to its discharge. Notably, contrary to popular history, a Marquette participation had never been mentioned in any government document.

Figure 5 1683 Louisiane, Louis Hennepin. Louis Jolliet was commissioned by Intendant Talon in 1672 to explore toward the South Sea (Mer du Sud). Buisseret and Kupfer mistakenly believe the Mer du Sud was the Gulf of Mexico.

� of �7 31

Majesty’s purposes, for the discovery of the South Sea, which would probably give us access to the great China and Japan seas.” 25

Consequently, there are no “numerous documents from 1670 or so onward,” of a Marquette desire regarding an expedition to the “Mer du Sud,” which is the Pacific Ocean, not the Gulf of Mexico. Nor are there “numerous documents” of a Marquette connection to Jolliet. 26

History of the Map Doubters: Did “Many” Doubt the Authenticity of the Map?

Buisseret emailed the current writer,

Among those who had doubts before you is surely [Francis Borgia] Steck, whose work in the 1920s caused many subsequent commentators to be cautious in their attributions of this map. 27

This is in error on several fronts. Only one (not many) other researcher(s), before this current writer, questioned the Marquette Map. That was, indeed, Steck. But that doubt was in his later work, Marquette Legends (1960) — devoting a chapter to the map as a forgery. Contrary to 28

Buisseret and Kupfer, Steck had not questioned Marquette’s authorship of the map in the 1920s.

Steck’s contribution was that the Marquette Narrative not Written by Marquette 29

As an aside, in the 1920s, Steck had concluded that the origin of the 1673 expedition narrative, long taken for granted to have been written by Marquette, was in fact written by Claude Dablon, Jesuit Superior of Canada. As a game-changing upset to Marquette studies, preeminent, perhaps foremost, 20th century Jesuit historian Jean Delanglez came to agree with Steck’s finding, agreeing with the latter’s conclusion. “It is quite certain it was written by Dablon.” 30

Steck said,

Father Delanglez suggested that “the use of the first person singular is a literate artifice employed by Dablon, the real author of the Recit,” and again a “literary device…to add greater vividness by making Marquette tell the story himself.” The term “artifice” and

Reuben Gold Thwaites, ed., Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, vol 55 (Cleveland: Burrows Bros.,1896—1901), 233-35.25

There are speculations, such as Marquette and Jolliet perhaps struck up a friendship at school in Quebec, and perhaps they were acquainted at the St. 26Lusson pageant at Sault Ste. Marie in 1671. But for there to be a “connection” for planning an expedition based on “numerous documents” is without merit. No document attributable to Jolliet ever mentions Marquette; no document unequivocally attributable to Marquette ever mentions Jolliet.

David Buisseret, e-mail message to author, March 15, 2012. 27

Francis Borgia Steck, Marquette Legends (New York: Pageant Press. Inc., 1960) , Chapter 10. For online book, <https://archive.org/details/28

marquettelegends000324mbp>.

Francis Borgia Steck, The Jolliet-Marquette Expedition, 1673 (Quincy, IL: Franciscan Fathers, 1928), 306. “The author of the narrative as it exists in 29Thevenot's [1681 narrative] and the [1844] Montreal [narrative] and the Paris [1857 narrative] manuscripts can not be Marquette”.

Jean Delanglez, “Marquette’s Autograph Map of the Mississippi River,” Mid-America, 27 (1945): 31. This same acknowledgement appears in various 30

Delanglez articles.

� of �8 31

device” with the qualifying adjective “literary” may sound better; but if we wish to be accurate in our use of terms, we must call Father Dablon’s composition of the Narrative a fabrication or a forgery. 31

Who were the “Many” Who Doubted the Map?

In a lecture announcement, Buisseret said, “[The Marquette Map] thought by many to be a relatively recent forgery [italics not in original].” 32

The current writer responded with a query to Buisseret, “Who are these ‘many’? There were not any subsequent commentators [who challenge the map] based on Steck's map work of the 1920s. Steck had no such doubts in the 1920s as you contest, about Marquette's authorship of the map.” 33

Avoiding the fact that Steck had not doubted the map in the 1920s, Buisseret says,

See for instance the book by W. P. Cumming, Skelton and Quinn, The Exploration of North America (New York 1974) pp. 36-37, or, most recently, Raymonde Litalien and others, Mapping a continent (Québec 2007) p. 100. 34

Buisseret cited these two books. Neither of them suggests the map to be a forgery. Cumming said, on the page cited by Buisseret: “This manuscript map is the only known extant document by a member of the Jolliet-Marquette expedition which descended the Mississippi in 1673.” These are not the words of a doubter.

Again, Buisseret and Kupfer are factually incorrect that there were “many” doubters of the map. There have been only the current writer and, in his later development, Steck. In his earlier years Steck did not doubt that the map was Marquette’s. This earlier work “doubt” concluded that the Marquette narrative was written by Claude Dablon. That’s all.

Summary of Buisseret and Kupfer’s Preliminary Claims

There were not numerous documents, which included a Marquette map, that “made their way back to authorities”; no documentation indicates Marquette and Jolliet had together long contemplated an expedition; there were not “many” who had questioned Marquette’s authorship of the map — only the current writer and Steck, not in the 1920s, but in his later work.

Steck, Marquette Legends, 263 fn 217.31

David Buisseret, “David Buisseret Corpus Christi (1955) to speak on the Marquette Map Hoax at the Newberry Library Library, Chicago,” Cambridge in 32America, October 11, 2011, http://carljweber.com/images/cambridgeAnnounce.png

David Buisseret e-mail message to author, March 15, 2012. 33

David Buisseret e-mail message to author, December 2, 201134

� of �9 31

All these arguments hope to find a friendly historical context for Marquette’s authorship of the map. In light of the actual facts, these claims are supported by no evidence or are simply misinformed.

Buisseret and Kupfer Addressing the Three Point Thesis

Marquette’s Advanced Map Training?

Speaking of the three point Thesis, “upon reflection,” argue Buisseret and Kupfer, “it will be seen that none of those points [of the Marquette Map Hoax Thesis] is valid.”

They continue, “It may be true that Marquette had not received formal training as a cartographer, but, like his colleagues, he had passed through the standard Jesuit intellectual training, which placed a considerable emphasis upon mathematics and its applications.” The training he and his 35

fellow Jesuits received, they say, was sufficient for them to go out into the world and often produce great maps.

Although Marquette is by Buisseret and Kupfer likened to, or hinted at, by the mere fact of his being a Jesuit, as among “incomparable,” “sophisticated mapmakers,” and “highly competent cartographers” — Buisseret and Kupfer provide no evidence of Marquette’s capabilities for us to reflect upon except the fact that on various continents over the globe over the centuries there had been many excellent maps produced by Jesuits — and Marquette was a Jesuit. Accordingly, they reason with great effort, Marquette could very well have made the map.

Gilbert J. Garraghan, Jesuit historian, says, “Geography, including the type known as ‘mathematical geography, which dealt with longitude, latitude and cognate topics, was a conspicuous feature of the specialized colleges, Henri IV and Louis-le-Grand program of studies.” Marquette attended neither. 36

Buisseret and Kupfer argue that Marquette was “like his colleagues,” who over the centuries around the world made great maps. Simply being a Jesuit, the basis of his colleagueship, with nothing documented about him specifically (for example his courses and grades in school, or testimonials) cannot corroborate Marquette’s cartographic abilities. 37

Marquette was not Associated with Other Maps

The Thevenot Map

Buisseret and Kupfer, “Validating,” 266.35

Gilbert J. Garraghan, “Some Newly Discovered Marquette and LaSalle Letters,” Archivum. Historicum Societatie Jesu (Rome) 4 (1935): 276.36

Buisseret and Kupfer in their footnotes do not specifically provide time and place citations for Marquette’s education, the purpose of footnotes. Instead they 37

provide an impressive, but nearly useless, bibliography on Jesuit education over five centuries. They might very well have directed the reader to a google search for “Jesuit education” to attest to Marquette’s qualifications to draw maps.

� of �10 31

Was Marquette associated with other maps? Based on the lack of historical evidence, the answer is that he was not. This, in spite of the fact that, yes, from 1681 to 1844, he was known among historians as the author of the now-called Thevenot Map (Figure 6). This was the original “true Marquette map.” The attribution of this 38

map to Marquette was peacefully terminated when the “true” Marquette map, the subject of this article, entered history.

As a result of this mis-attributed authorship prior to 1844, there had to Marquette’s name accrued a formidable prestige based on his assumed authorship of the Thevenot Map. The authorship is now rejected. On the Library of Congress Website, for historical continuity, Marquette is still cited as the creator of this map (also listed is the engraver, Liebaux).

The Lake Superior Map

That Marquette was not associated with other maps is one of the three points of the Marquette Map Hoax Thesis. The refutation of this point is by Buisseret and Kupfer not handled with confidence at all. They substitute for credible evidence a conjectural “perhaps” he was. They 39

base this “perhaps” defense of the map’s authenticity on the fact that Marquette was in the Lake Superior region when the Lake Superior Map (Figure 7) was created. So, they state, he 40

“may well have been” one of the two hitherto 41

unknown authors of this somewhat well known map.

In analyzing the argument used by Buisseret and Kupfer, it is seen they now attempt to strengthen their “perhaps” conjecture by artfully assigning identities to the two unknown Jesuit mapmakers, who were said by Claude Dablon, then Jesuit Superior in Canada, to have made the map. Dablon does not name the authors of the Lake

Thevenot Map, Paris 1681, https://www.loc.gov/item/2003627092/. Listed as contributors are Marquette and Liebaux (the engraver).38

Buisseret and Kupfer, “Validating,” 266. 39

This map is commonly also referred to as The Jesuit Map or The Tracy Map.40

Buisseret and Kupfer, “Validating,” 267.41

Figure 6 The Thevenot Map. Marquette’s reputation as great map maker was from 1681 to 1844 based on the attribution of this map to him.

Figure 7 Lake Superior Map, 1670, by two anonymous Jesuits. Line rendering by Carl J. Weber, 2001.

� of �11 31

Superior Map. Nevertheless, Buisseret and Kupfer make it appear that Dablon identifies Marquette as one of the authors of this map.

Buisseret and Kupfer’s footnote for Dablon’s quote/idea is inserted after the last word of the sentence, “Marquette” (Figure 8). Whereas in standard academic practice the footnote belongs after Dablon’s word, “intelligence” — to avoid the obvious misconstruction. Dablon is ostensibly paraphrased by Buisseret and Kupfer to include Marquette. However, Dablon does not mention Marquette in connection with this map (or any map), here or anywhere.

Again, as presented by Buisseret and Kupfer, Marquette does, indeed, seem to be so suggested and alluded to as a likely author of the map. He had the talent, because his abilities at map making were (“perhaps”) verified, the verification is seen in the Lake Superior Map. 42 43

Progressing now from Marquette “may well have been” one of the Lake Superior Map creators, and jumping to the assumption that he was, in fact, one of the creators, Buisseret and Kupfer ask, “did Marquette make other maps?” [emphasis added]. “Perhaps,” they answer. The careful 44

reader may ask, “other than what map(s)?” Marquette’s authorship of the Lake Superior Map is erroneously boosted from several “perhaps” musings to a fait accompli.

Louis C. Karpinski, describes the map:

“No one can examine this fine delineation of Lake Superior… without amazement at the amount of scientific exploration and careful observation which made it possible.” Buisseret and Kupfer 45

cite Karpinski, concurring with him in lauding the Jesuits of the Great Lakes as “incomparable map makers.” Yet one can easily raise an eyebrow at the “amazement” Karpinski describes in 46

designating the map as incorporating “careful observations,” etc. Even a superficial comparison of the southern edge of Lake Superior on the Lake Superior Map with a modern Google image (Figure 9) suggests that the meaning of “fine delineation” is here a rather subjective one.

ibid.42

The Newberry Library also misconstrued Dablon’s “two intelligent missionaries,” mentioning without citations, attributing the map to Dablon and Claude 43Allouez, in this case Marquette not mentioned. <http://publications.newberry.org/smith/exhibits/fe/fe1.html>.

Buisseret and Kupfer, “Validating,” 267.44

Louis C. Karpinski, Bibliography of the Printed Maps of Michigan 1804— 1880 (Lansing: Michigan Historical Commission, 1931), 99.45

Buisseret and Kupfer, “Validating,” 267.46

Figure 8 From Jesuit Superior, Claude Dablon, quoted by Buisseret and Kupfer to make it appear that Marquette was likely one of the authors of the Lake Superior Map — accomplished by placing footnote 17 after Marquette’s name, instead of after the word “intelligence.

� of �12 31

Buisseret introduced this map to his Caxton Club audience with the preface “astonishing accuracy and fidelity.” 47

The anonymously created Lake Superior Map is the only authentically Jesuit-based map of the period. Buisseret and Kupfer suggest otherwise — that there were “numerous” Jesuit-created astonishingly accurate maps of the Upper Lakes. Hence, a great map by Marquette, as one of 48

numerous produced Jesuit maps, would not be unexpected. This is an inference in search of evidence, and there is no evidence of any kind. There were no other authentically Jesuit maps.

The John Melish Maps, 1813 and 1819, and the Marquette Map

On the Caxton DVD, Buisseret presents to his Caxton Club audience an absurd belief he attributes to the current writer, without naming him: that “a Jesuit could not have constructed a map.” He tells his audience, “it’s an illusion to suppose that these Jesuits were incapable of 49

drawing maps.” To attribute that an inability of Jesuits to make maps is an illusion that is 50

maintained by the current writer (and Steck who died in 1962) is bizarre. Of course Jesuits could draw maps.

Buisseret goes on to project on a screen, for the audience, images of several fine Jesuit maps, from different parts of the world, from different periods. These, to establish what nobody doubted: that Jesuits could draw fine maps.

Then the Marquette Map is projected, as if legitimately belonging in the sequence of associated fine maps. Begging the question, Buiserret points out the geographically correct shape of the Illinois River on an 1819 map by John Melish. Buisseret argues for the recognition of the 51

masterly training Marquette had to have received to be capable of drawing the map, features of which nobody was able to duplicate for 140 years (figure 10); and not only was he capable, but he went ahead and drew it.

Buisseret, Caxton, DVD, 0:09:35.47

ibid.48

Buisseret, Caxton, DVD, 0:08:30.49

Buisseret, Caxton, DVD, 11:48.50

John Melish, Map of Illinois, 1819, <http://publications.newberry.org/lincoln/items/show/223>.51

Figure 9 Comparison of the southern edge of Lake Superior on the Jesuit’s Lake Superior Map (bottom) and the google image (top), of the same geography. To characterize this feature on the Lake Superior Map as a “fine delineation” suggests it is a characterization that might require no small amount of flexible subjective judgement.

� of �13 31

Buisseret and Kupfer negligently failed to mention and elaborate, in their argument for the validity of the map, that one of the three Thesis Points against the map is that the three-sides-of-an-octagon accuracy of the Illinois River was not attained for another map for 140 years. The “140 years too accurate” has always been mentioned by the current writer in conjunction with the “too accurate” characterization of the map. Buisseret and Kupfer simply say the current writer’s point is that the map is “too accurate,” tossing away the140-years-too-early predication.

Then they go on to cleverly manipulate the current writer’s research against him — using a John Melish map of 1819 to prove how astonishing were Marquette’s abilities, so astonishing that he could attain such an accuracy 140 years before anyone else. The current writer used the century-and-a-half too accurate idea in the Marquette Map Hoax Thesis to seriously question the legitimacy of the map; whereas Buisseret and Kupfer use it to validate what an incomparable map maker Marquette was — “even more accurate than critics said it was” — and authenticate the superior training of Jesuit education in map making.

With this circularly reasoned argumentation, Buisseret and Kupfer posit on the one hand the precision of the Illinois River on the Marquette Map as evidence of the unexcelled map making training provided by the Jesuits; on the other, the unexcelled training provided by the Jesuits is evidence how Marquette could have produced such an exquisite map. Whereas, for the current writer, the existence of the 140-years-too-early feature on the map makes his authorship highly

Figure 10 Slide from Buisseret and Kupfer’s DVD of 2012 Caxton Club presentation, juxtaposes the Marquette Map, left, with the Melish map right. The red arrows are the three “sides” of the Illinois River. The evidence, as they present it, is intended to show that Marquette was so amazingly accurate that it wasn’t until the Melish maps that we see again corroborated the high precision exercised by Marquette 140 years earlier. (Buisseret and Kupfer erred in their graphic by failing to properly include the upper stretch of the Illinois River.)

Figure 11 The current writer’s Marquette/Melish exhibit, as shown in his 2005 Marquette Myths presentation to the Chicago Map Society and in his Jacques Marquette Map Hoax, presentation to the Conference on Illinois History, in 2006, Springfield. It shows the juxtaposition of the Marquette Map, left, with the Melish Map of 1813, right. Hundreds of maps had been researched to identify the earliest three-sides-of-an-octagon configuration. Buisseret and Kupfer have found a way to leap frog over all of this writer’s research and arrive at the very same John Melish. Instead of using the current writer’s 1813 map, which they were clearly aware of, they instead used one of Melish’s from a few years later, obviating issues of source attribution. The evidence as they present it is intended to show that the 1674 Marquette Map was so astonishingly accurate, that it wasn’t until the Melish maps that we see again corroborated the high precision exercised by Marquette 140 years earlier.

� of �14 31

doubtful — especially in light of no record of advanced map training, and no association with other maps.

The current writer had been pointing out for at least ten years the significance of John Melish — he is, on his 1813 map, the earliest cartographer, as researched by the current writer, to have the three-sides-of-an-octagon Illinois River shape on a map.

A Second Spurious Jesuit Map: The Raffeix Map 52

Carte des regions les plus occidentales du Canada, by Pierre Raffeix (Figure 12), the current writer dates from the mid-1680s. It is incorrectly dated by the Catholic Encyclopedia as 1676, 53

incorrectly because in the text itself, on the map, is a reference to LaSalle’s activities in 1681, at letter D. This map, not what it professes to be, will be shown in its main waterways features, plagiarized from another map.

It is easy to understand why Raffeix did not use as a template the Marquette Map, easy to understand if it can be postulated the Marquette Map did not exist. If it did exist, why didn’t Raffeix avail himself to it and incorporate at least some of its features? The Jesuits, like all map making enterprises, in consideration of the purposes to which a map is intended to be put, leave maps as historical footprints. They can over time be tracked, compared with other Jesuit maps, and, too, contrasted with non-Jesuit maps.

Buisseret says of the Jesuits, “They constructed hundreds of maps of the regions to which they were sent… ” 54

Where might any of these be? There is only one authentic Jesuit map of the Upper Great Lakes region — the Lake Superior Map.

With this in mind, it is to the benefit of Buisseret and Kupfer’s argument that they did not in their study include the Raffeix Map. They would not have been able to use it to support their claim that the Marquette Map was drawn in 1674. This, in consideration of the fact that the Raffeix Map, drawn a decade later, omits any cumulative cartographical Jesuit

Pierre Raffeix, Raffix Map, c. 1685, <http://carljweber.com/images/1683raffeixVeryLarge.jpg>.52

“Pierre Raffeix,” New Advent, <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12633a.htm>.53

Buisseret, “Latest Information,” 10:20.54

Figure 12Map, Carte des regions les plus occidentales du Canada, by Jesuit Pierre Raffeix, mid-1680s, a second spurious Jesuit map.

� of �15 31

experience that might have been gleaned from the Marquette Map and passed onto the Raffeix Map. A map-making enterprise is iterative: each next map generally starts where a former left off.

The Raffeix Map can be seen to have aspects of its river-shapes like those of the LaSalle/Bernou Map (figure 13). For this reason it can not be construed a Jesuit Map, but rather, a map whose 55

major aspects appear to have been plagiarized from a non-Jesuit map.

Buisseret and Kupfer’s Armchair Cartographers

Buisseret and Kupfer say that during those 139 years (1674-1813) — when, in retrospect, and after being discovered — the Marquette Map was the only known map with the Illinois River carrying the three-sides-of-an-octagon design. They say, “Marquette's successors in cartography were generally what the French call 'cartographeres de cabinet,' or 'armchair cartographers'.” Buisseret and Kupfer continue, “Small wonder that they lost the original precision.” An 56

appraisal of the history of cartography could not easily concur with this brazen marginalization of no small number of cartographers.

Buisseret and Kupfer Add a Fourth Point to the Marquette Map Hoax Thesis!

This is the name the current writer gives to this map, with the hypothesis that it was a map LaSalle brought to the King and for which he was greatly 55rewarded. The fact that there is on the map reference data to Jolliet, notwithstanding. The handwriting on the map is unambiguously that of Claude Bernou, a Paris confidant of LaSalle’s. The map is known in the Newberry Library map collection as Ayer 48.

Buisseret and Kupfer, ”Validating,” 267.56

Figure 13 It appears obvious that the above two maps have features in common, i.e., the angles and placement of the Mississippi and its tributaries at letters A, B, and C, and the similarity of drawing at letter D — these give signs of dependency, one on the other, or both on a third map. Even more evidential is that the arrowed rivers show the same latitudes at the Mississippi on each map: Ohio 37°, Illinois 39°, Wisconsin 42°. These can be seen in detail in the links to the maps elsewhere in this study.

� of �16 31

Buisseret and Kupfer deemed it fitting to append a fourth point to the three point thesis, unauthorized by the current writer, and in effect transforming its simplicity. There never had 57

been a fourth point mentioned in the Marquette Map Hoax Thesis in any of the hundreds of communications from the current author, some of them to Buisseret. Buisseret and Kupfer insert as the “Fourth Point,” the issue of the Mississippi River on the map being named “Rio de la Conception.” The current author has in his communications discussed the naming of this river, mostly in connection with Steck’s thoughts, as part of a wider perspective, but never as part of a reasoning process to deem the map to be fake. One is stymied how the presence or absence of the name could make the map more authentic or less so. This does nothing but muddy the waters. It has no logical place in the reasoning-thread of the three point thesis.

A baffling complication introduces itself — which the current writer does not wish to address here — related to the fact that when the map was first published, in 1852, by John Gilmary Shea, the “Rio de la Conception” was indeed on the map, but it was not on his table of names: “Comparative Table of the names on the Map published by Thevenot, and Marquette’s real Map.” 58

Louise Phelps Kellogg

Buisseret and Kupfer cite Louise Phelps Kellogg to support Marquette as “obsessed from boyhood” with his need to recognize the Virgin Mary — thus explaining why the name is on 59

the map. Contrary to Buisseret and Kupfer’s statement about what she says, Kellogg says nothing at all, directly or indirectly, of Marquette’s boyhood in her article. As an additional 60

note, she would not concur with Buisseret and Kupfer’s notion that Marquette was the author of the 1844 discovered Marquette Map. Kellogg concludes, writing in 1906, the “real” Marquette 61

map was the Thevenot Map. 62

Buisseret says, “that from the time he was a boy of sixteen, he, too was obsessed by the concept of the Immaculate Conception… frequently writing about it.” There exists nothing, directly or 63

indirectly, to support this claim. There is no “frequent writing” by Marquette extant in the historical record of the Immaculate Conception, or of anything, from his boyhood.

Ibid., 265.57

John Gilmary Shea, The Discovery and Exploraton of the Mississippi (RedField. Clinton Hall, New York), 268. A study of this comparative table, checking 58it against the maps from which it lists the names to compare, shows not just a few, but many errors. The table is also found in Jesuit Relations, 59: 294.

Buisseret and Kupfer, “Validating,” 268.59

Louise Phelps Kellogg, “Marquette’s Authentic Map Possibly Identified,” Proceedings of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin…1906 (Madison: State 60Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1907), 183-93. <carljweber.com/kellogg.pdf>

ibid. 193.61

This is the map mentioned above as having been considered the “true” Marquette map from 1681 to 1844. It is also called The Manitoumie Map and The 62Parkman-5 Map)

Buisseret, Caxton Club DVD, 0:14:57.63

� of �17 31

“Documents about Marquette are conserved in huge numbers in the Jesuit Archives in Rome.” 64

It’s a mystery just what these “huge numbers” of Marquette related documents in Rome might be. There are none — unless they are his not unexpected school and housekeeping Jesuit Order records. We can assume we are limiting the search to documents contemporary to Marquette. If such documents existed, they would have found voice in countless books dealing with Marquette. None such are to be found.

In a presentation by the current author in 2006, The Jacques Marquette Map Hoax, at the Conference on Illinois History, no such “fourth point” connection between the Immaculate Conception and the Marquette Map Hoax Thesis was made, nor was the Immaculate 65

Conception even mentioned. There was no fourth point, as Buisseret and Kupfer insinuate.

Expanding Arguments Defending the Marquette Map's Authenticity

What other defensive claims are there by Buisseret and Kupfer to challenge the Marquette Map Hoax Thesis? Recalling the above, they addressed each of the three points of the Hoax Thesis: 1. the map too accurate by 140 years, 2. no advanced training, 3. associated with no other maps. The current author’s rejoinders, as written above, have been very specific.

Following are three document considerations brought in by Buisseret and Kupfer to undergird the supposition that the map is what it purports to be — a map as prepared by Marquette over the winter of 1673-74, after he got back to Green Bay.

Marquette’s Own Mission not on Map

On a side note, Steck pointed out, “It appears incredible that Marquette — if he drew the map — should have either forgotten or neglected to indicate and label this important mission [St. Francis Xavier at Green Bay]… the very mission where Marquette was staying when he drew his map.” (Figure 14) 66

Buisseret, Caxton DVD 14:4064

http://carljweber.com/marquetteMapHoaxConferenceOnIllinoisHistory.html65

Steck, Marquette Legends, 183.66

Figure 14 On the left is a detail of an iteration of the Lake Superior Map at Green Bay, showing the St. Xavier Mission. On the right is the same detail from the Marquette Map, the mission where Marquette supposedly stayed over the winter of 1673-74, when he drew the map. The mission is not on his own map when he drafted it. (The word on the Marquette Map transliterates: Potawatomi.)

� of �18 31

Three Document Considerations in Into-Summary

1. The fonds Brotier-159 is the 17th century document that was found in Paris in 1857. It had its counterpart in Canada, the Montreal Recit (figure 15), that had, without a chain of 67

possession, found its way into Felix Martin’s files in 1844. The Canadian and Paris documents each have three chapters that, when compared, show that the Canadian and Paris documents had a reliance on each other (or both on a third). The first chapter of each is the actual “Recit” (or “report”) i.e., the narrative of the 1673 voyage. As footnoted above, distinguished 20th century Jesuit scholar Jean Delanglez agrees with Steck that the words of the narrative were not Marquette’s. Rather, it was Marquette’s Jesuit Superior, Claude Dablon, who wrote the account of the voyage. He wrote it in the first person, as if Marquette had himself written it. The chain of possession from Dablon to Casot, to the nuns, to Martin, to Martin’s library remains undocumented.

2. Water marks considerations? There are no watermarks on the map, as Buisseret and Kupfer say there “likely” were. Raphael Hamilton wrote about watermarks on other Marquette documents, but says nothing about them on the map.

3. A Jesuit map was created within one or two years after the Marquette Map. The Jesuit Map was claimed to have taken critical aspects from the Marquette Map. Noted Jesuit historian Campeau in 1992 had set forth the exact same lines of thought in many specifics 68

as did Buisseret and Kupfer in 2012. Buisseret and Kupfer were familiar with the Campeau work, citing it in their footnotes for some minor point, but failing to mention it in the much broader connections. All three are in error. Buisseret had e-mailed the current writer that he had, himself, discovered this map in Paris — notwithstanding that the map was discussed by Parkman in 1865, and had been printed in more than a few works subsequent to that. This map is a 69

spurious creation. Its most important feature, the shape of the Mississippi, is taken directly from the 1703 D’Lisle map, Carte du Mexique et de La Floride, discussed below. The Jesuit map had not used the Marquette Map as a template in the mid-1670s, and then been sent right to France, as had Campeau said in 1992 and had Buisseret and Kupfer in 2012.

The fonds Brotier

Buiserret and Kupfer talk about Steck’s “absolutely fatal flaw.” They mistakenly say, “Steck may not have known [of the fonds Brotier] when he began his work in the late 1920s.” This is not 70

The Recit can be seen, as posted online by the current author, <http://carljweber.com/montrealRecit.html>. 67

Lucien Campeau, “Les Cartes relatives,” 41-90.68

Francis Parkman, France and England in North America, Vol I, Library of America, 1983 New York, 1045-46. (New Edition of Parkman’s 1865 work.)69

Buisseret and Kupfer, Invalidating, 264.70

� of �19 31

correct — Steck was well aware of it when he published his early work, and he also alludes to 71

it in his later work. 72

Buisseret and Kupfer have overlooked the fact that the fonds Brotier — i.e., more specifically, fonds Brotier-159 — is also known (as Steck refers to it), as Marquette-5 and the Roman Manuscript. During WWII, it was archived in Chantilly France, and was called the Chantilly Manuscript. And finally, it is frequently spoken of as the Paris Recit, linguistically symmetrical with the Montreal Recit.

Buisseret and Kupfer say, “[the copy in France] has certainly been in the fonds Brotier since the 17th century.” On face value of basic research, this is false. The fonds Brotier did not come into 73

existence until 1762. Might this oversight be indicative of the depth of Buisseret and Kupfer’s 74

agility in handling of the documents?

The Jesuit Relations and Thwaites’ Error and Misreading

Buisseret and Kupfer make the common error of thinking the Montreal Recit and the fonds Brotier-159 were each comprised of three documents. In fact, each is one document comprised of three chapters. There are three chapters, clearly marked, in a continuous handwriting. There are

Steck, The Jolliet-Marquette Expedition, 268-69.71

Steck, Legends, 229-30.72

Buisseret and Kupfer, “Invalidating,” 264.73

Raphael N. Hamilton, Marquette’s Explorations (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1970), 41. See also, Archives françaises de la Compagnie 74

de Jésus (Archives de la Province de France), <http://blogs.bu.edu/emenegon/files/2012/01/Menegon-Archives-de-la-Province-de-France-Intro.pdf>.

Figure 15 This is the top of the first page of the Montreal Recit, which is the first chapter of the 17th century document that came to light in 1844. It includes the 1673 Expedition Narrative. It is the counterpart to the French archived fonds Brotier-159. The above translates: Report of the Voyages and Discoveries of Father Jacques Marquette of the Company of Jesus in the year 1673 and of those Following. (The word “Découvertes” might sometimes be better understood as “Explorations.”)

� of �20 31

not three distinct documents. This “one not three” is clarified by one of Buisseret and Kupfer’s cited experts, Raphael N. Hamilton:

In handling the Montreal Recit, [and the fonds Brotier] which narrates events that took place from 1673 to 1677, Thwaites’ method of editing is responsible for having confused many who have written about Marquette after the publication of his Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents… the illusion is created that Thwaites has printed three separate 75

manuscripts about Father Marquette rather than parts of a unified whole [footnotes by 76

the current writer].

Buisseret and Kupfer are among the “many confused” as explained by what Hamilton is saying about the method of editing used by Thwaites. One should know from examining the “Marquette-Jolliet corpus,” that these Marquette related materials are part of continuous flowing unified whole. This can be verified by examining the Montreal Recit on line. 77 78

An even more grievous error — to the enduring detriment of French Colonial studies — was committed by Thwaites when he affirmed that “the first voyage (1673) [was written] in Marquette’s handwriting.” 79

Thwaites’ Jesuit Relations is very well known to Canadian colonial studies. It possesses such a celebrated reputation that a beginning researcher, in the face of the impressive and imposing 73 volume collection, might with trustful enthusiasm look to Thwaites and quote him with unbridled confidence.

Buisseret and Kupfer bear this confidence when they speak of the Recit and related documents as “undoubtedly authentic.” In this they are in accord with Thwaites’ grievous error concerning the handwriting. They endorse The Jesuit Relations as “beyond reproach.” The conviction that 80

Marquette, in his own handwriting, wrote the three chapters of the Montreal document is a conviction oblivious to the fact that the second chapter of the Recit concerns the death of Marquette.

The association of the Marquette Map with the Montreal Recit is critical to the dangling thread of Buisseret and Kupfer’s argument — which might be stated: because there is a historical relation of some kind between the fonds Brotier-159 and the Montreal Recit, and since there is a (so they say) true association of the Marquette Map with the Montreal Recit. i.e., and both

Reuben Gold Thwaites, ed, Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents (Cleveland: Burrows Bros., 1896-1901). The is a collection of 17th century Jesuit 75documents.

Hamilton, Marquette’s Explorations, 53.76

ibid.77

http://carljweber.com/montrealRecit.html. The current author appreciates the assistance from the Archives des Jésuites au Canada in obtaining the Recit.78

Thwaites, 59: 29379

Buisseret, Caxton DVD, 0:36:56.80

� of �21 31

(allegedly) came from the nuns — the map is validated on the basis of its association with the Montreal Recit, and on the latter’s association with the fonds Brotier.

But there is no evidence, as repeated above, that there were any Marquette documents, which would include the map, that had been exchanged between Martin and the nuns. How the documents got into Martin’s files is open to question. Consequently, there is totally lacking a provenance for the Marquette Map. There is no record of it before 1844 (nor any record of the Journal of the Second Voyage). These two documents had never been heard of, not even so much as a mention by the comprehensive Jesuit historian Charlevoix, when he published in 1744 his history of the Jesuits in New France. He’d had unhindered access to all the Jesuit archives. The 81

three chapters of the Recit, on the other hand, have every sign of being authentic, even though not on Martin’s inventory.

Water Marks

Bringing up the subject of watermarks is always interesting when talking about ancient documents. What of the documents sharing “roughly similar watermarks?” — a statement it 82

seems to the current writer as being equivalent to “roughly similar fingerprints.” Buisseret and Kupfer assert, “it is likely that the paper of the map also contains one of the watermarks [shared with other documents], but that cannot be checked because the document is mounted in a permanent frame.” “Likely” is another “perhaps” kind of argument. “Perhaps” Marquette was 83

one of the anonymous authors of the Lake Superior Map; and on the basis of this “perhaps,” “perhaps” he drew other maps.

Why the map would be “likely” to be associated with other documents by watermarks is no more than a hunch based on a predetermined conclusion. In fact, though, that likelihood is nil. This is not to say that the conjectural “perhaps” and “likely” have no place in historical writing. But they are far short of a firm foothold when the conjectures — such as “perhaps” and “likely” — far outdistance any momentum, if any at all, a path of evidence might provide.

Watermark examination of the relevant documents (those discovered in 1844) seems, to the current writer, certain to have been performed, as cited in Hamilton, by Desjardins and 84

Campeau before the map was sealed.

Buisseret and Kupfer urge the reader to examine the watermark analysis in Hamilton, who bases his assessment on his communications with Desjardins and Campeau. But none of these experts

Pierre Francois Xavier Charlevoix, Histoire et Description General de la Nouvelle France (Paris: Didot, 1744), 3 Volumes. 81

Buisseret, Caxton DVD, 0:19:28.82

Buisseret and Kupfer, “Validating,” 270.83

Hamilton, Marquette Explorations, 69-73.84

� of �22 31

talks about watermarks in relation to the map. They discuss them on the other 1844-discovered documents, yes, but not the map. 85

Desjardins and Campeau had done watermark examination of Marquette documents before the map was sealed. That examination had apparently not been studied by Buisseret and Kupfer, 86

who give the impression they are the first to ever study the map. If there were identifying watermarks on the map, wouldn’t Desjardins and Campeau have reported them? Of course they would have. All the same, there was nothing said by Desjardins and Campeau about watermarks with reference to the map. Although the map had become separated from the other 1844 documents, apparently, for cataloging purposes in the Jesuit archive access system, they all had always been in the same archive.

If one looks in Hamilton, as urged by Buisseret and Kupfer, Hamilton concludes from the work of Desjardins and Campeau, “There can be little doubt that the paper on which all these documents are written belong to the seventeenth century.” That is not saying very much, and 87

those documents did not include the map.

Another Map

Another Spurious Document This map, that Buisseret and Kupfer call the Jesuit Map (Figure 16), is the third spurious Jesuit 88

map discussed in this paper. The Jesuit Map is claimed by Buisseret and Kupfer to have been drafted using the Marquette Map as a template. They echo everything that had been said about it by Campeau. They all say it was drawn within a year or two after the Marquette Map’s 89 90

supposed 1674 creation. They all claim that in as much as the Jesuit Map was based on the Marquette Map, the Jesuit Map validates the Marquette Map as a 17th century document. But this is not so.

The rejection of a 1670s creation for the Jesuit Map, and a rejection of its authenticity itself, derives from evidence on the map:

Figure 16 A. the Falls of Saint Anthony (saut) was made known by Louis Hennepin in 1683. In 1675-76 the Falls were not known; 91

i.e., The Montreal Recit (with its three chapters) and the Journal of the Second Voyage are the other two documents.85

email to author from Valérie Grothé, Assistant Archivist, The Archive of the Jesuits in Canada, October 8, 2015. “Unfortunately, I cannot be precise about 86the moment that the Marquette map was framed. We find some correspondence which estimate the date between the 1970s until the late 1990s”. Correspondence from 1954 between Desjardins and Hamilton, and from 1961 between Campeau and Hamilton about the watermarks, is documented in Hamilton, Marquette Explorations, 69-72. The watermarks had been available for viewing.

Hamilton, Marquette’s Explorations, 73.87

for large zoomable image, see <http://www.carljweber.com/images/1703JesuitMap.jpg>.88

Campeau, Les Cartes Relatives, 64-7. 89

The Newberry Library misattributes this map to Claude Bernou. <http://www.biblioserver.com/newberry/index.php?90m=search&id=&ftype=data&q=BSH%20B%204044-47>. The only possible connection to Bernou would be that he was the copyist, but his beautiful script is not to be seen on this map.

Louis Hennepin, Description de la Louisiane (Paris: 1683). 91

� of �23 31

Figure 16 B. the Jesuit mission at the Arkansas River, indicated by a cross, was not established until after 1700, in which year the first Catholic Mass was celebrated; 92

Figure 16 C. the Mississippi River shape (the final nail in the coffin of legitimacy), is plagiarized directly from D’Lisle’s 1703 Carte du Mexique et de La Floride. Most 93

graphically, see Figure 20.

The Marquette Map has been, by the current writer, considered to be spurious for more than ten years. It is in this current paper, however, that the Raffeix Map and the Jesuit Map are discussed for the first time as spurious. The Raffeix Map plagiarizes the shapes and latitudes of the Mississippi and its major tributaries from the the LaSalle/Bernou Map (so named by the current writer).

And the Jesuit Map is not what Buisseret, Kupfer and Campeau think, i.e., a map from the mid-1670s based on the

Marquette Map. The map was, at the earliest, drafted in 1703. The significant feature of the Mississippi is plagiarized from D’Lisle’s Carte du Mexique et de La Floride of that year. The spurious Jesuit Map can not stand as a support of validation for the Marquette Map.

Buisseret said that he had discovered the Jesuit Map

Buisseret had emailed the current writer, “At first we thought that your idea might be correct. But then the evidence began going the other way, and culminated in our discovery at Paris of a version of the Marquette map that had been there since the 1670s…” This is an embarrassing 94

Roman Catholics, The Encyclopedia of Arkansas History and Culture, second paragraph <http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-92

detail.aspx?entryID=343>.

Weems Collection, Guillaume De’Lisle, Carte du Mexique et de La Floride, 1703. <http://weemscollections.com/18th-century>.93

Buisseret e-mail message to current writer, December 2, 2011.94

Figure 16 The Jesuit Map could not have been drafted before 1703. A., “saut” indicates falls of St. Anthony, not known in 1670s; B., cross, indicates Jesuit Mission established after 1700; C., shape of Mississippi River taken from 1703 map by D’Lisle.

� of �24 31

Figure 17 1703 Detail from D’Lisle, Florida and Mexico. This is one of two by D’Lisle maps that year. The other, Carte du Mexique et a Florida, is the one with the “pointy elbow” at the 40th degree of latitude at the Mississippi discussed above. The arrows point to the thicker Mississippi and the thinner DesMoines. Buisseret, Kupfer, and Campeau had not observed that on Jesuit Map, Figure 19, the Des Moines River become misconstrued as the upper reaches of the Mississippi.

Figure 18 This is an 18th century iteration of the above 1703 D’Lisle map, seen as Plate LXIII, Sarah Jones Parker (footnoted below). The Illinois River, red curve, shares the same two-sided angle feature in all three figures. Although The Jesuit Map copies features of D’Lisle, it remains a mystery why the Mississippi, the right arrow, is made thinner here than in figure 17. Even more puzzling is that the true Mississippi is left out altogether in The Jesuit Map.

Figure 19 The Jesuit Map. Whoever designed this map had borrowed the scheme of the Mississippi from the D’Lisle map, Figure 17, above. It is easy to observe that the Jesuits mistook the Des Moines River for the Upper Mississippi. Father Maynard had died on the Mississippi in the 1660s. Above the red arrow it says, “Here died Fr. Meynard.” Buisseret, Kupfer, and Campeau unknowingly accepted this error.

� of �25 31

flub, in as much as the map has long been known to historians. As explained above, it was not in Paris since the 1670s — waiting to be discovered by Buisseret and Kupfer; or in the case of Campeau, discovered in the mid-20th century (see below).

River Depiction Shows egregious Error

Of note, on the map from Sarah Jones Tucker (Figure 18), the two small arrows point to the 95

Upper Mississippi and the Des Moines Rivers. These are also indicated on the D’Lisle map (Figure 17). But on the Jesuit Map (Figure 19), the original Upper Mississippi from D’Lisle (small right arrow) is not seen — eliminated for some unknown reason — and the Des Moines River is mistaken for the upper Mississippi. Buisseret, Kupfer and Campeau are unaware of this error, and blindly accept this considerable blunder. The certainty of this error is reinforced by the notation on the river, on the Jesuit Map (arrow, the first notation below the saut), of where Father Maynard died — who died on D’Lisle’s Mississippi, not on his Des Moines.

Sarah Jones Tucker, Indian Villages of the Illinois Country, Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers 2(1). Pt. 1. Springfield, 1942. Plate LVII.95

Figure 20 If the 1703 D’Lisle map, right, were used as a template for The Jesuit Map, center, which seems the case, then The Jesuit Map could not have been earlier than 1703. The defenders of the Marquette Map authenticity have argued that the middle map, the Jesuit Map, was drawn only one or two years after the Marquette Map, 1674, left, and that the Jesuit map was patterned on the Marquette Map and then sent immediately to Paris. Noteworthy also, the extreme out-bulge, or “elbowing out” of the Mississippi of The Jesuit Map takes it latitude of 40°from the D’Lisle map, not from the 39°of the Marquette Map.

� of �26 31

Shortcomings of Buisseret and Kupfer’s Five Reasons for Validating the Marquette Map 96

1. They say, “The map forms part of a set of five documents, three of which are undoubtedly authentic.” This reflects Thwaites’ error.

A more correct statement is, “the map forms part of a set of three documents, one of which is undoubtedly authentic.” The one document, the Montreal Recit, made up of three chapters (not three distinct documents), is without dispute a 17th century document because of the existence of the fonds Brotier. But to claim the words are in the hand of Marquette, as in Buisseret and Kupfer’s confidently stated, “undoubtedly authentic,” is a claim ridiculous bordering on the miraculous — the second chapter relates to Marquette’s death! Thwaites had made this error in his Jesuit Relations, which Buisseret and Kupfer regard, as “beyond Reproach.” The other two of the three documents, the Marquette Map and the Journal of the Second Voyage, had been unknown to history before their discovery in the mid-1800s, and lack a chain of possession chronicling how they came to settle in Jesuit Superior Martin’s library.

2. “There is nothing suspicious about the map’s physical characteristics.”

This is a curious conclusion. If by “physical” is meant to include the ink, Buisseret and Kupfer write, “The ink has not been analyzed, but appears to be similar to the ink of the other documents.” Such an off-the-cuff conclusion to prove the authenticity of a map, in a serious 97

academic study, is feeble.

3. “The Marquette Map shares some of the same problem in calculating latitude as does the well known and slightly earlier Jesuit Map of the Great Lakes (i.e., the Lake Superior Map)… , thus suggesting that they were the work of similarly trained cartographers, if not indeed of the same person, possibly employing the same defective instruments.” These are some rather difficult leaps.

Displaying similar incorrect latitudes hardly “suggests,” as if by a flash of insight, “that they were the work of similarly trained cartographers, if not indeed of the same person, possibly employing the same defective instruments,” one of whom was, it goes without saying, Marquette. Such a chain of inferences overlooks the fact that the Lake Superior Map had been published by the Cramoisey Press in Paris, in 1671. It was available in Canada at the time of 98

the supposed creation of the Marquette Map, that is, over the winter of 1673-74.

Buisseret and Kupfer, “Validating,” 276.96

Buisseret and Kupfer, “Validating,” 271.97

Relation de ce qui s’est Passe (Paris: Cramoisey Press, 1671).98

� of �27 31

These shared incorrect latitudes could better be suggested by the fact that, if Marquette did make the map, he simply took information from the slightly older map. This theory was specifically stated by Delanglez. 99

The suggestion that the problem of calculating latitudes was the result of using defective instruments is not new to Buisseret and Kupfer. It was a suggestion made long ago by L. G. Weld in 1903, and by Campeau in 1992. Another consideration here is that Buisseret and Kupfer 100 101

concern themselves with comparative latitudes. From citing the works of Delanglez and Campeau, they knew of their work. But they seem to have ignored their efforts. Delanglez and Campeau both charted out comparative latitudes hoping to kindle meaningful inferences. Notwithstanding, in the 17th century primary source material, there appear to be no references whatsoever to navigation “instruments” of any kind. That’s not to say they did not use any. In Buisseret’s 2012 presentation to the Chicago Map Society, attended by the current writer, Buisseret included among Marquette’s techniques for calculating distances, ostensibly for making maps, “counting the paddle strokes.”

4. “Distinctive elements of the Marquette Map are found on a map preserved in Paris since the seventeenth century [the Jesuit Map]. The map contained not only material derived from the Marquette Map, but also elements from subsequent explorations.”

Notwithstanding the fact that there were no “subsequent explorations.” If there had been such explorations, they would have been duly recorded in the Jesuit Relations. This map, “preserved in Paris, since the seventeenth century,” the Jesuit Map, is a far cry from what Buisseret, Kupfer and Campeau announce it to be.

This map, which Buisseret unabashedly e-mailed the current writer that he had discovered, on the contrary, plagiarized the charting of the major waterways from the 1703 D’Lisle map, Carte du Mexique et de La Floride (above, Figure 20). In consequence, the Jesuit Map was not based on the Marquette Map. Campeau also blundered in not sufficiently researching this (spurious) Jesuit map and thus learning it was well known in the 19th century. It was not discovered by a 102

retired professor from Loyola University, and sent to him as a Xerox copy. This is a mystery, 103

because Campeau should have known the map was familiar to Francis Parkman, Justin Winsor, and Sarah Jones Tucker, to name a few.

In addition to joining the ranks of whoever faked the map, Buisseret, Kupfer and Campeau, make the monumental error of mistaking the Des Moines River of the 1703 D’Lisle map for the upper

Jean Delanglez, “Marquette’s Autograph Map of the Mississippi River,” Mid-America, 27 (1945): 3699

L.G. Weld, “Jolliet and Marquette in Iowa,” The Iowa Journal of History and Politics,” 1903, 12-13.100

Campeau, “Les Cartes Relatives,” 50.101

Campeau, Les Cartes Relatives, 64.102

ibid.103

� of �28 31

reaches of the Mississippi. It seems to follow that the Jesuit Map can not be argued to “preserve distinctive elements” of the Marquette Map.

5. “Some of the tribal names included on the Marquette Map, and not elsewhere, subsequently found their way onto Jesuit and other maps of the later seventeenth century.” There is no basis for this vague claim. There were no other Jesuit maps (except for the Lake Superior Map) of the Upper Lakes in the later 17th century. A “tribal names” claim has no probative value without documentation of what tribal names are being specified and which subsequent maps they “found their way onto”. Most ruinous to the notion that the Jesuit Map relied on the tribal names of the Marquette Map is a simple comparative examination of the tribal names on each map. The way they are arrayed on each have nothing to do with each other.

Gross Errors Regarding Marquette Map in the Encyclopedia of Chicago

The Marquette Map article in the Encyclopedia of Chicago, drawn 104

up by the Newberry Library, is replete with place name errors (Figure 22) — apparently with assistance from the Chicago Map Society. Also curious is the Newberry Library’s statement regarding the map. “Marquette drew a continuous stream from the Illinois River to what is now called Lake Michigan, probably because he had passed during high water from the South Branch of the Chicago River through Mud

Lake, into the Des Plaines River, and then to the Illinois River.”

This is twofold problematical. There would not have been a “continuous stream” in the dry late summer — toward the end of the 1673 expedition — i.e., no “high water” when Jolliet and Marquette supposedly passed

through. That they “probably had passed during the high water,” mischaracterizes the effect of the seasons on the Chicago Portage at the time of year Jolliet and Marquette are said to have passed through — late summer. Not only low water, no water at all. This seems like an 105 106

attempt to retrofit the seasons to accommodate the map.

Another problem with the Newberry Library’s statement is they have Marquette voyaging in the opposite direction to that which he would have traveled, when he “passed through,” if in fact he did pass through. He did not start at Lake Michigan and end at the Illinois River. He had started at the Illinois River and ended at Lake Michigan.

Marquette’s Map, The Encyclopedia of Chicago, <http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/3603.html>.104

Robert Knight and Lucius H. Zeuch, The Location of the Chicago Portage Route of the Seventeenth Century, (Chicago: Chicago Historical Society, 1928), 10525-26.

Libby Hill, The Chicago River, A Natural and Unnatural History, (Chicago: Lake Claremont Press, 2000), 13-14.106

Figure 21 Encyclopedia of Chicago has Map errors

� of �29 31

Map “of Some Importance,” Unmentioned by Buisseret in his Books on the Subject

In their announcement for their Chicago Map Society presentation, in March of 2012, cited above, “The Great Marquette Map Hoax; a Hoax unhoaxed,” Buisseret and Kupfer say, “The question [of authenticity] is of some importance, since this would be the first European mapping of the Mississippi valley.”

Yet in Buisseret’s book of maps, Mapping the French Empire in North America,” the 107

importance of the “first European mapping” lacked any consideration, for there is no mention at all of this Marquette Map. Similarly, in his book, Historic Illinois from the Air, in the section 108

on ancient maps, there is no hint of the existence of this important map, the Marquette Map, and the part it played in the mapping of the French Empire.

Buisseret Misinforms the Chicago Map Society about the Marquette Map

David Buisseret, Mapping the French Empire in North America (Chicago: The Newberry Library, 1991).107

David Buisseret, Historic Illinois from the Air (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990).108

Figure 22 Rendering of the Marquette Map sourced to Newberry Library with nine place name typo errors.

� of �30 31

At the Buisseret/Kupfer presentation to the Chicago Map Society in March, 2012, “The great Marquette Map Hoax; a Hoax unHoaxed,” the current writer was in attendance. Buisseret failed to mention the current writer, who “incited” him and Kupfer to undertake the study. To the consternation of the current writer, who knew he was misrepresenting the facts, Buisseret told the audience that there was a “precise” copy of the Marquette Map (not to be confused with the Jesuit Map) in Paris. Because that map would have been in the company of the 17th century fonds Brotier, that accompaniment would have affirmed that the Marquette Map was also a 17th century-based document.

The fact that Buisseret had told the Chicago Map Society audience that a copy of the Marquette Map had been in France with the fonds Brotier since the 17th century was fact documented by the current writer by means of a recorded interview with Buisseret. He again asserted the 109

misinformation that the Marquette Map had existed as a “precise” duplicate in France since the 17th century. If true, as certain it was to the audience that evening, the Marquette Map Hoax Thesis was indeed silly.

In future lectures and writing after March, 2012, Buisseret and Kupfer no longer maintained that a “precise” copy of the Marquette Map, or any copy whatsoever, had been in France since the 17th century. The Marquette Map Hoax Thesis rebounded from being indeed silly.

Conclusion

Buisseret and Kupfer reasoned in circular fashion about the Illinois River’s three sides of an octagon shape. This feature was not seen on a map until John Melish, 140 years after the Marquette Map, put it on his. The three sides of an octagon shape on the Marquette Map, long before its time, Buisseret and Kupfer argue, is proof positive the Jesuits provided highly advanced map training to those who passed through its educational regimen and; inversely, the excellent map training provided by the Jesuits explains as proof positive the highly advanced abilities of Marquette as expressed in the map. The great training is evidence for how a great map could be made — a great map is evidence that the Jesuits in fact provided great training.

Was Marquette associated with other maps? No evidence, only the conjectural “perhaps,” and an unconvincing attempt to shoehorn Marquette in as one of the creators of the Lake Superior Map. Did Marquette receive training to make such a map? If all the Jesuits received training sufficient to draw such a map, then where are other maps? Buisseret and Kupfer speak of numerous maps of the Upper Great Lakes. Except for the anonymously drafted Lake Superior Map, there are none. There are three spurious Upper Great Lakes Jesuit maps: the Marquette Map, The Raffeix Map, and the Jesuit Map — these last two recognized in this current paper for the first time as bogus.

“Buisseret confirms17th century antiquity of Marquette Map,” Audio File, collection of current writer.109

� of �31 31

Were there “many” who doubted the authenticity of the Marquette Map, as Buisseret and Kupfer propose? No. Only the current writer and Steck ever doubted the map. But Steck had not doubted the map in his early book, Marquette Legends, in 1928, as Buisseret and Kupfer maintain. Was there a map among numerous Marquette documents that “made their way back to the authorities,” after Marquette died? No such record of one exists. Was the Montreal Recit written in Marquette’s own “undoubtedly authentic” handwriting, or with his own words? The second chapter is about Marquette’s death.

There are other challenges to the preparedness of Buisseret and Kupfer to discuss the Marquette Map. The Mer du Sud was not the Gulf of Mexico, it was the Pacific Ocean. The fonds Brotier can not confirm the 17th century authenticity of anything, because the fonds Brotier did not come into existence until 1762. Did the Montreal Recit consist of three distinct documents, a belief found in the Jesuit Relations, which is “beyond-reproach”? Or, on the contrary, was the Montreal Recit one document, not three. Buisseret and Kupfer’s confusion was clarified by Hamilton. It was one document. Did Kellogg speak about Marquette’s numerous writings in his youth concerning the Immaculate Conception — she wrote nothing at all in this connection. Was the Jesuit Map patterned, in the mid-1670s after the Marquette Map? No, its waterways were plagiarized from a 1703 D’Lisle map.

Current Writer’s Scholarship Discounted by Buisseret

A Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter for the Chicago Tribune wrote of the current writer in 2005, “… his pursuit of historical truth has resulted in some very unusual discoveries. They will merit some basic revisions in the historical record.” Some newspaper headline 110

acknowledgements: “Canadian History Treasure May be a Hoax” ; “History Professor Says 111

Marquette Map a Fraud” ; “Professor Alleges Marquette Map a Fraud.” 112 113

When asked by a member of his audience at the Caxton Club if there were any scholars currently who believed the map was not authentic, Buisseret momentarily pensive, replied, “I don’t think there probably are.” One might wonder why the current writer did not experience at least 114

minor indignation to this answer.

William Mullen e-mail message to author with attachment, January, 24, 2005.110

“Canadian Historic Treasure May be a Hoax,” Canwest News Service, June 22, 2006, http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=81fdd3b2-709c-4f0d-a177-111aeedb65d4fd0.

“History Professor Says Marquette Map a Fraud,” Michael Smothers, The Journal Star, June 11, 2006.112

“Professor Alleges Marquette Map a Fraud,” UPI, June 12, 2006.113

Buisseret, Caxton DVD, 0:44:23.114