ITALIAN.—_Descrizione della Luigiana._ Rendered by Casimiro Freschot, and published at Bologna in 1686, with a map. COPIES: =CB.= REFERENCES: Shea, no. 4; Harrisse, no. 157; Sabin, no. 31,356; _Historical Magazine_, vol. ii. p. 346; Carter-Brown, vol. ii. no. 1,326; Ternaux, no. 1,012; Leclerc, no. 900; 60 francs. An abridgment was printed in _Il Genio Vagante_, Parma, 1691, with a map, “Nuova Francia e Luigiana.” Cf. Harrisse, no. 365. In this earliest work of Hennepin the Mississippi, it will be seen by the map, forms no certain connection with the Gulf of Mexico, but is connected by a dotted line, and there is no claim for explorations further south than the map indicates. Hennepin’s later publications have raised doubts as to the good faith of his narrative of discoveries on the Upper Mississippi. Harrisse (no. 150), for instance, says “Cette _Relation_ de 1683 n’est en réalité qu’une pâle copie d’un des mémoires de Cavelier de la Salle;” and goes on to deny to Hennepin the priority of giving the name of Louisiana to the country. La Salle and others of his contemporaries threw out insinuations as to his veracity, or at least cautioned others against his tendency to exaggerate. (Cf. Neill, _Writings of Hennepin_.) The publication of an anonymous account of La Salle’s whole expedition in Margry’s _Découvertes et Établissements des Français_, has enabled Dr. Shea, in his edition of Hennepin, to contest Margry’s views of Hennepin’s plagiarism, and to compare the two narratives critically; and he comes to the conclusion that probably Hennepin was La Salle’s scribe before they parted, and that he certainly contributed directly or indirectly to La Salle’s despatches what pertains to Hennepin’s subsequent independent exploration,—thus making the borrowing to be on the part of the anonymous writer, who, if he were La Salle, did certainly no more than was becoming in the master of the expedition to combine the narratives of his subordinates. It is Shea’s opinion, however, that the Margry document was not written by La Salle, but by some compiler in Paris, who used Hennepin’s printed book rather than his notes or manuscript reports. Margry claims that this _Relation officielle de l’enterprise de La Salle, de 1678 à 1681_, was compiled by Bernou for presentation to Colbert. Parkman thinks, as opposed to Shea’s view, that Hennepin knew of the document, and incorporated many passages from it into his book (_La Salle_, pp. 150, 262). Dr. Shea sided with the detractors of Hennepin in his earlier _Discovery of the Mississippi_; but in this later book he makes fair amends for what he now considers his hasty conclusions then. Cf. further Sparks’s _Life of La Salle_, and the _North American Review_, January, 1845. Mr. Parkman’s conclusion is that this early book of Hennepin is “comparatively truthful.” II. NOUVELLE DÉCOUVERTE.