1 Guardian and discretes of San Fernando College to the King (and covering letter to the Minister of the Indies), Feb. 26, 1776: Seville, Archivo General de Indias (hereafter AGI), Audiencia de Guadalajara 515 (reel 1667, frames 2–52; 1668, 2–7 on Bancroft Library microfilm); copies in Mexico, Archivo General de la Nación (hereafter AGN), Archivo Histórico de Hacienda, Documentos para la historia de México, ser. 2, t. 4, fol. 1 ff.; México, Museo Nacional, fondo franciscano, t. 123, fol. 627 ff. (both Bancroft Library film); University of California at Los Angeles, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library, Mexican MSS (I am grateful to William E. Conway, supervising bibliographer, for answering an inquiry about this copy).

2 Representation of the Guardian to the Viceroy of New Spain, Dec. 25, 1772, AGI, Guadalajara 512 (reel 1524, fr. 32, Bancroft Library film); also Rome, Pontificio Ateneo Antoniano, Coll. Marcellino da Civezza, bundle 203,14 (University of Arizona Library, Film 305, gift of Rev. Kieran McCarty, O.F.M., 1960).

3 The original Palou manuscript has disappeared, like that of other materials copied into the Documentos para la historia de Mexico in 1792. There are two extant copies of the latter (Ag, Ra in the accompanying stemma); the corresponding volumes of the reported third copy apparently vanished, like the originals, from the Convent of San Francisco el grande at an early date ([ Ramírez, José Fernando and Berra, Manuel Orozco y, eds.], Códice Ramírez [2d ed.; México, 1944], pp. 211-213Google Scholar; Tudelaz, José, Los manuscritos de América en las bibliotecas de España [Madrid, 19S4], p. 69 Google Scholar; Cañedo, Lino Gómez, Los archivos de la historia de América, I [Inst. Panamericano de Geografía e Historia n. 22S, Mexico, 1961], 200-201)Google Scholar. Tudela, who suggests that Ag is the first copy, has an additional list of Crespí journals, drawn from Civezza, Marcellino de, M., O., Saggio di Bibliografía geográfica storica etnografica sanfrancescana (Prato in Toscana, 1879), pp. 132-3 etc.Google Scholar; comparison of the titles quoted by the latter shows that only Ra is meant. The Palou material was printed as volumes 6 and 7, 4th series, of the Documentos, at Mexico, 1857, with silent editing said to have been by Orozco y Berra. There was a separate limited reprint of the Noticias in two and four volumes by John T. Doyle and the California Historical Society, San Francisco, 1874. (Doyle’s set of the Mexican edition, with corrections intended for his typesetters but unfortunately ignored by them, is in the Stanford University Library.) Bolton’s, H. E. translation (Historical Memoirs of New California [3 vols.; Berkeley, 1926]Google Scholar; the Crespí material reprinted as Fray Juan Crespí Missionary Explorer on the Pacific Coast 1769–1774) is based on his own copy of the Mexican copy of the “Documentos,” with a few corrections (e. g. Hist. Mem. II, p. 380, notes 78, 87) from the editions, whose gross discrepancies he also collates.

4 “An Unpublished Diary of Fray Juan Crespí, O.F.M.,” The Americas, III (1946), 102–114, 234–243, 368–381. The qualities of this manuscript are discussed below, note 46.

5 In “ The Arrival of the Franciscans in the Californias—1768-1769, According to the Version of Fray Juan Crespí, O.F.M.,” The Americas, VIII (1951), 209–218, Geiger has printed the introductory portion of one new text and briefly discussed the questions raised by comparing one journal entry with the Palou text. The present study attempts to answer Geiger’s questions.

6 Reasons for attempting this description, which is merely from the sewing and register of the leaves apparent on the film, will appear. Ff. 81–84 must have been sewn onto 60–80 with the same string used for the center of the gathering, for the string has pulled through near the head, and parts of words near the margin in the addition and before it are lost in the binding. It is not clear how the final six leaves are sewn.

7 It is not mentioned in his Saggio di Bibliografia … sanfrancescana, published in 1879 before his first collecting tour in the New World.

8 Mexico, Museo Nacional, Instituto de Antropología e Historia, biblioteca, sección de MSS., fondo franciscano, t. 69, fol. 18v (on microfilm, Bancroft Library, University of California at Berkeley) : “ Caxon 5° … Legajo 6° Contiene los Diarios delas Expeds. de Mar y Tierra de Monterrey. 1. Diario delas de Tierra del P. Crespi .” In the same hand on the manuscript are the corresponding librarian’s mark and title.

9 The Guardian of the College at this time was Rafael Verger (later bishop of New Leon), whose heavily-documented complaints to the government led naturally to the college’s report to the King. Some marginal notes in our manuscript are in the same hand—presumably that of one of the Guardian’s five amanuenses—which glossed Crespí’s letter to the Guardian of Feb. 8, 1770, and drafted the latter’s complaint to the Viceroy, July 26, 1770 (Mexico, Museo Nacional, fondo franciscano, t. 66, ff. 1–2); the letter was used in a report to the Fiscal of the Council of the Indies, Aug. 3, 1771 (Boston Public Library, Rare Book Dept.; copies elsewhere). The notes refer to the parallel Costansó journal; one seems to reflect the Guardian’s interest in the “ pinewood ” (redwoods) of San Francisco Bay. Copies of Crespí’s letters also accompanied, and are cited by, the Guardian’s memorials to the Viceroy, Oct. 27 and Dec. 22, 1771, and to the Franciscan Commissary-General, Aug. 6, 1771. The Fiscal’s reply, Jan. 22, 1772, speaks of his pleasure in perusing the expedition journals in idle moments, while “ the journals ” are twice referred to by Verger; but only the Costansó journal is cited by name in any of these documents. Piette, C. J. G. M., Évocation de Junípero Serra, (Brussels, Montreal & Washington [1946]), p. 276 n. 184Google Scholar, thought the reference was to Serra’s journal. It could not have been to Crespí’s; probably the journal of Captain Portolà is meant.

10 Museo Nacional, fondo franciscano, t. 65 (Antigua Colección Lancaster Jones, Documentos relativos a las misiones de Californias, Vol. 1), ff. 163 (179), 219–220 (256–257) (Bancroft Library microfilm); also cited by Thickens, Virginia E. and Mollins, Margaret, “Putting a Lid on California,” Calif. Historical Society Quarterly, XXXI (June, 1952), 114, 124.Google Scholar

11 Anonymous relation of the sail of the San Antonio, Huntington Library, Huntington MS. 323; Bancroft Library Transcripts under dates June 5 and Feb. 15, 1769, from Depósito Hidrográfico de Madrid, Californias y costa NO. de América, t. 1.

12 México, Archivo General de la Nación, Californias, t. 66, fol. llv (Bancroft Library microfilm). This and the letter next mentioned can be conveniently consulted in translation in Bolton, Fray Juan Crespi, pp. 38–48, 49–56.

13 Writings of Junípero Serra, I (Washington, 1956), 212, 214. The incident has been retold and commented on by Geiger, , “The Arrival … ,” p. 211; Palóu’s Life of Junípero Serra (Washington, 1955), p. 382, note 39Google Scholar; and by Piette, , “An Unpublished …,” pp. 103-104; Évocation, p. 205.Google Scholar

14 Palou, , Noticias, parte 2a, cap. viii; Writings of Serra, Vol. I, p. 238 Google Scholar. This autograph copy is not known to survive.

15 In a large volume (formerly in the G. R. G. Conway Collection) containing material on northwestern explorations from 1766 to 1774. The Crespí section–titles are given in six entries, pp. 31–32, of Strout, C. L., A Catalog of Hispanic Documents in the Thomas Gilcrease Institute [of American History and Art], mimeographed, Tulsa, 1962 Google Scholar; photostat excerpts in the Newberry Library, Ayer Collection, and in the Bolton papers, 82, 83, 89, Bancroft Library. (Some of the same material—originals, and copies in the same hand—seems to be in the National Library of Mexico among material from Franciscan convents.) The last page of the copy of the Crespí journal, compared with the Rome text, shows one simple error of repetition with loss (homoioteleuton at end of line), and reproduces an accidental omission of underlining.

16 Writings of Serra, I, 160.

17 See his correspondence translated in Bolton, Historical Memoirs, IV, 361, 365.

18 Palou’s Life of Serra, pp. xxiv, 95, 214.

19 Ibid., p. 313 note 29, p. 380 note 19.

20 Letter from the Reverend Maynard J. Geiger, Oct. 31, 1961. Cf. Piette, Évocation, p. 288.

21 The entry in the archive inventory (note 8 above) is for cajón 5, legajo 6, no. 13, “ [Diarios] de los Ps. Junipero y Crespi. ” The item was added to the bundle on top of documents running up to 1779. A photograph showing the corresponding library mark and archivist’s title on the cover of the manuscripts may be seen in the first volume of the Copley History of Diego, San, Pourade, R. F., The Explorers (San Diego, 1960), p. 119 marginGoogle Scholar. The translation used in this and all other books so far published is, however, Bolton’s, from Palou’s text.

22 Vol. I, pp. 38–122; Geiger, “ The Arrival,” and Pourade, The Explorers, give the archivist’s title for the codex.

23 This is the journal printed by Piette (note 4 above; final entries also translated into French, Évocation, pp. 105–106). Two sentences quoted from the journal were published in 1787, in Palou’s Relación histórica de la vida y apostólicas tareas del venerable padre Fray Junípero Serra, cap. xxii.

24 Palou’s Life, p. 214.

25 Distances are very often written over once, twice, or even three times. The marginal place-note, “ La punta dela Concepcion,” is put prematurely twice (Aug. 18, 20, 1769) before the true point was found (Aug. 26); the only corrections are a marginal note under Aug. 20 and the striking out of the name in the text. Elsewhere many dimensions given in Spanish yards are clearly too small by a factor of ten (e.g., Salinas River, Oct. 1, 1769, not repeated in Rome): the author’s final zeroes are vanishingly small even in the text. Under Sept. 2, 1769, some nonexistent mountains must be from a note misplaced one entry.

26 Here is a list of changes in ten consecutive entries that have not been greatly reworded. Oct. 18, 1769, remarks on mountain forests. Oct. 19, seafowl on an inlet. Oct. 20, account of sick men’s recovery after a rain, transferred from Nov. 20 in the Mexico text; first madrone-trees seen. (Oct. 21–22, lying by; short entry inserted for 22d.) Oct. 23, New Year’s Point so called; remarks on wood and water; omits account of visiting Indians with story of a harbor and ship to north. 24th, striking clothing of natives; abandoned villages. (25th-26th, lying by, no entries.) 27th, short entry, no change. 28th, entry much shortened to avoid repetition. (29th, lay by.) 30th, identification and description of “ Harbor of San Francisco ” transferred from later entries and made more definite; reason for Indians’ burning off of country. 31st, some rewording; a gulch full of fleas. Nov. 1, wind scattered fires; rumor of ship deleted from scouts’ news.

27 For its remission from San Diego a little more than a year after the other journals, see Noticias of the Port of San Francisco … in the Year 1772 (correspondence translated by Mrs. E. E. Ayer) (San Francisco, 1940); Writings of Serra, I, 252. In 1789 its library description at San Fernando College was Cajón 5, legajo 6, “ 4. [Diario] de la Expedizn. al Puerto de S. Franco, pr. el P. Crespi … 1772.”

28 A key to the texts is given in Fig. 3. Sv, Ci and Mn all purport to be copies of the Guardian’s report, but the last two and Sk (all made at the College and obviously from the retained copy) stand together against Sv, not in any way that can be attributed to the fact that the latter is a copy from the viceregal secretariat. Sv has some additional phrases in the body of the report, and (with reference to M ) some better readings in the journal under Mar. 29, 30, and possibly Apr. 5; worse readings Mar. 22, 30, 31; other small differences Mar. 21, 24, 25, 31, April 5. Under Mar. 24 in Sv there is a marginal comment by the Guardian on the redwoods. Ci is a very rough copy, undated and omitting the exact date of the original; Mn was made in 1774; neither Mn nor Sk descends from Ci, though at least in punctuation Sk is more like Ci.

29 Mar. 21, description of plain; lack of wood; Mar. 22, lack of wood; measure of water in creek; “ three or four ” for “ two or three ” villages; willows; lack of trees; Mar. 23, Indian trails; Mar. 27, lack of wood; Mar. 28, heard whales spouting; Mar. 30, detour to top of hills; mention of map (not in Sk); further remarks on crossing bay; prayer for enlightenment; Apr. 5, closing prayer.

Bolton, Fray Juan Crespi, pp. 277–278, prefixes a translation of the introduction to his translation of Palou’s version of the journal. Evidently (pp. lxiii, Ixiv) a parallel printing of the Sk and Palou versions in translation was planned; the notes remark that the two versions “ tell essentially the same story, but they supplement each other at many interesting points ”; only two footnotes are given to variants, pp. 281, 285. Bolton’s general remarks on the 1772 and 1774 journals are: “ Of the other diaries there are manuscripts in the Archivo General de Indias, at Sevilla. Several copies were usually made of such documents, but they were seldom identical in all respects, and so it was with these. Although in essentials they are not greatly different, the archive versions vary from the Figueroa [AGN Palou] texts in numerous minor particulars.” These remarks do not distinguish between originals, copies and epitomes; Sk is called “the original official draft,” pp. lxiii and 276.

30 Additional material in the Fages journal is densest for the entries covering the new discoveries. Bearings are the same; distances may be independent. Additional details are given of Indian encounters in which Fages took a leading part (Mar. 23, 30, Apr. 1); instructions to scouts and their reports (Mar. 27, 31); and some descriptions seem slightly incompatible with or at least very different from Crespí’s (Mar. 27, islands; 29, view of bay; 30, Indians). But sometimes Fages’ descriptions are merely longer and Crespí telescopes them in the same terms (Mar. 28, 31, Apr. 2, Indian villages). Some (especially April 1) sound very like Crespí’s work. Also in the Apr. 1 entry, Crespí describes his accidental discovery of a spring branch while on a particular errand near camp; the Captain merely remarks that the soldiers named it Father Juan’s Creek—which is more or less in line with his giving the soldiers’ names for the other campsites.

31 In AGI, Guadalajara, 512 (reel 1524, fr. 13) are notations by the ministers Arriaga and Grimaldi—the document was returned to the former on Aug. 1, 1774, “ con su plano.” The map has been often reproduced from a small cut in H. R. Wagner’s The Spanish Southwest', adequately, from the original in Seville, as no. 2 in Harlow, Neal, The Maps of San Francisco Bay … (San Francisco, 1950), between pp. 32-33.Google Scholar

32 It is not the original, as speculated by Wagner, and others; now reproduced in Cartografia de Ultramar (Madrid, 1949–1957), carpeta 2a, n. 120.Google Scholar

33 A letter to the Fiscal of the Council of the Indies speaks of the map sent the Viceroy as “ the embryo of the map, that I have limned, governed by the observations and advices communicated me by Fr. Preacher Fray Juan Crespi, … who was with the first expedition of the year ’69, and this last-mentioned. … [My] being no practitioner of the subject, will excuse the many faults, that the judgment of the expert will find with it. But I am content to have done what lies within my rude capacity,” etc. Shorter remarks to the same effect are in the letters to the Viceroy and the Marquess. The title of the more elaborate map reads “ Mapa … sacado por el diario, y observaciones del R. P. fr. Juan Crespi ”; the other, “ Carta … formada por el Diario del R. P. Fr. Juan Crespy.” Also Palou, Noticias, pte. 3a (Documentos 7, p. 46).

34 Writings of Serra, I, 262.

35 “Este es el ultimo termino andado en esta Expedicion: veré si puedo dar una mala figura de este Estero, y Ryo grande, que baya junto con este diario, para que se conjeture lo que es.” The phrasing is sufficiently like Crespí’s.

36 “ Explicacion del gran brazo de Mar, ô Estero; … todo lo qual ire explicando por numeros, que indicaran la cosa como son [sic] en si; segun se vera por la figura. …” There are legends for 24 or 25 key numbers, with notes on distances. The short Indice extracto of possible mission sites refers to numbered paragraphs, clearly in the journal’s final copy.

37 The manuscript, containing about 17,200 words, is in the AGI, Papeles de Estado, legajo 43 (Audiencia de Guadalajara 1) (reel 264 on Bancroft Library microfilm). Printed in Publications of the Historical Society of Southern California, Vol. II, pt. I (1891 [1892]), pp. 143–176, accompanied by a translation and a printing of the De la Peña journal, the autograph of which is in the same location. Wagner’s, H. R. remark about this edition is misleading (“ made from copies in the Sutro Collection, which were copies of copies in the Archives of Seville ”—The Cartography of the Northwest Coast of America to the Year 1800 [Berkeley, 1937], I, 173).Google Scholar

38 The prefatory material is somewhat shorter in the Palou version, and the entries for June 6 to 10 are shortened. Entries June 11 through July 9 are from the Peña journal; the July 10 entry is mixed, drawn from both journals. Thence to the end Palou’s text is the same as the holograph, save for two phrases (Aug. 17, “y se dejo ver este mayor luminar ”; Aug. 22, “ que nos parecian pinos ”) that may well have been dropped by a copyist.

Bolton remarks as follows on the differences between the “ Sevilla MS.” (the holograph) and the Palou version, which he translates: “ Down to July 14 … the entries differ greatly in length, and in the incidents mentioned. So long as they were out on the high sea minute entries were treated as of little consequence. But beginning with July 14, the two versions run very close together. It is noticeable that in the Sevilla MS. the captain is sometimes given credit for taking the latitude, whereas in the Figueroa MS. ‘ los pilotos ’ instead of the captain are mentioned.” (Bolton, Hist. Mem., III, 394, note 55, and Fray Juan Crespí, p. 379, note 15.)

39 Writings of Serra, II, 154–156, 162, 176, 180, 184, 188, 192. Palou’s précis exists in the Conway manuscript (note 15 above) and in Ci (Fig. 3).

40 There is a photograph of this page of the original in Bolton, Hist. Mem., Vol. III, between pp. 208–9 (not in Fray Juan Crespi, not translated).

41 Presumably, then, Palou’s redaction was made from Crespí’s rough log, which was then or later discarded because of its messiness and bulk. In 1789 there was a copy of the Peña journal in the San Fernando College archive, whereas the Crespí journal was already absent from the Mexico collection and the rest of the archive. (Piette, Éinvocation, p. 280, and “ An Unpublished … ,” p. 103, claims that the journal was not in the New York copy of the Mexico manuscript because it had no connection with Serra’s and Palou’s missionary ambitions: but even after 1780 this was not so.) Palou (Noticias, pte. 2a, cap. xlvii; AGN, Historia, t. 22, fol. 136v) merely states that he copied the journal at some unspecified time and, vaguely, that copies of both journals had gone to the College in 1774. This last statement is definitely in the past tense (“tendría … llegaron”). Bolton (Hist. Mem., III, 207), by translating it as future, makes it appear that Palou’s account was strictly contemporary. On August 30–31, Serra had feared that the remission of Peña’s original journal would leave no copy for the College, but within a day or so a duplicate had been made “ in all haste.” On Sept. 9 Serra was planning to send it there; instead, on Sept. 11 he directed it by sea to the Viceroy’s secretary, asking that one of the originals or a copy be furnished the College. Therefore, Palou can have had access to the Peña journal only during the week before Sept. 11 while working on his precis, and after 1785 in Mexico.

42 “ Two Unknown Manuscripts Belonging to Early California,” The Americas, III (1946), 91–101.

43 California under Spain and Mexico (Boston, 1911), p. 393: “each part by a separate missionary and with a prologue by Crespi.”

44 From a priced copy of the sale catalogue, Bibliotheca mexicana … formed by the late senor don José Fernando Ramirez … to be Sold by Auction by messrs. Puttick and Simpson … [London, 1880], in the Stanford University Library, p. III: “ Viajes apostolicos en California. … Such is the title which the late Mr. Ramirez placed at the beginning of this most interesting volume. We consider it impossible to exaggerate the value of this volume … which sooner or later must find its way into print.” The pencilled prices are believed to be those actually paid: letter from Zeitlin & Ver Brugge, Booksellers (donors of the catalogue), Feb. 18, 1959. The dealer Quaritch bought most of what Bancroft did not: Barlow, R. H. in Memorias de la Academia Mexicana de la Historia, II (1943), 189-200.Google Scholar

45 Bancroft, , Literary Industries [Works of Hubert Howe Bancroft, vol. XXXIX] (San Francisco, 1890), pp. 194-196.Google Scholar

46 There are 317 numbered leaves with 24 lines per page in a very regular lateeighteenth-century hand, probably of a professional copyist; religious names are commonly misspelled. The notes and emendations of the original are all omitted, a line is dropped about every 1500 words on the average, the punctuation is exceedingly irrational, and miscopyings frequently yield incoherent or ridiculous phrases. See also Piette, Évocation, p. 284; “ An Unpublished … , pp. 104–105. Piette claimed that the copy was made for San Fernando College by the order of Francisco Palou as Guardian (Évocation, pp. 103, note 54, 280; “Two Unknown … ,” pp. 98–101). However, there is no mention of it in the 1789 archive inventory, and it is not the text used by Palou for his Noticias. (E. g., misplaced folio 84 has been copied in proper order; again under Nov. 5, 1769, a phrase is omitted that appears in the Palou version— “ ceruelas ” was altered to “ cerezas ” in the original, not very legibly.)

47 Butler, Ruth Lapham, A Check List of Manuscripts in the Edward E. Ayer Collection (Chicago, 1937), pp. 126-7Google Scholar. Father Piette, between 1946 and his death in November, 1948, was planning an edition of the journals from the New York (Ramírez) and “ Chicago ” (Ayer Collection photostat) copies, which he believed to be “ direct and independent reproductions of the same original.” Since they reflect respectively the Mexico and Rome holographs, the edition would have been substantially complete, if necessarily unclear in details.

48 Marcellino da Civezza Collection, 203,11 (see note 2 above). The copy (a moderately good one) extends over 21 folios and a fraction, from the title to the Mar. 29, 1769 entry, in which it breaks off. It is surrounded by other San Fernando College material, 1764 to 1783; one folio of a 1773 document is in the handwriting of Francisco Palou.

49 Noticias, parte 2a, cap. xlvi, speaking of the 1774 journal.

50 He shortened the latter to half its original length, notwithstanding the accompanying remark “ me ha parecido copiar[lo] á la letra ” (Noticias, pte. 2a, cap. xxxi).

51 Writings of Serra, I, 214.

52 The late Harrington, J. P., “ Exploration of the Burton Mound at Santa Barbara, California,” 44th Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology … 1926–1927 (Washington, 1928), p. 36 Google Scholar, printed an entry from each journal in parallel and called attention to the “ amazing fact ” that one writer must have seen the other’s work. Also Stanger, F. M., South from San Francisco (San Mateo, 1963), p. 4 Google Scholar. Bolton, in translating Palou’s version, exactly filled the gap in the Sept. 1769 entries by drawing from Costansó’s text.

53 “ Mas dificil es establecerla [la identidad] de las relaciones, ó Diarios contenidos en este MS. con los que copia el P. Palou y que dice ser los del P. Crespi.—Concuerdan en todas las noticias, mas presentan notables variantes, ya de impresion, ya de aumento. Tal vez proceden del redactor que tomaba de los otros Diarios lo qe. juzgaba conveniente.”—Advertencia to the New York copy. This introduction is thoughtful and, in the main, accurate; Piette’s translations from it are hasty notes, not quotations.

54 E. g. Engelhardt, Zephyrin, San Buenaventura, The Mission by the Sea (Santa Barbara, 1930), pp. 7-10—aGoogle Scholar doublet running to about 700 words.

55 Nor of course can he be blamed for atrocious copyists’ mistakes in the published texts, such as, in the preceding entry, “ Blucia de Sulermo ” for S Lucia de Salerno.

56 The Santa Ana River is said to have been so named by the soldiers, though the original texts do not mention the name at all. It first appears in San Gabriel Mission records for 1772. In 1776 not only Pedro Font (too often wrong on these matters) but Juan Bautista de Anza attributed it to the first expedition. Since the scouts reached there the eve of St. Anne’s day, Palou’s addition is, no doubt, correct. The same arguments apply to Palou’s Santa Rosa for the Santa Ynez River, called San Bernardo by Crespí.

57 For a possible indication that the Crespí journals in the Noticias were compiled after 1784, see note 41 above. Another is that the Mexico manuscript was foliated after the Serra and Crespí journals were put together; before or in binding (when the archivist’s title page was presumably added), folio 84 was misplaced so as to come between ff. 82 and 83; the Noticias version has a gap corresponding to much of the material on fol. 83 (Sept. 20–24, 1769), and the rest is from other sources.

58 Piette, Évocation, pp. 119 and 287, characterizes the styles of Palou’s writings and of the supposed Crespí texts in unconsciously similar terms (“réquisitoire de juge d’instruction”; “narration … terne et impersonnelle … froide” etc.).