Editorial problems
In preparing
for the press these Original Journals of the
Lewis and Clark Expedition,
many editorial problems have
arisen, which it is unnecessary here to
discuss in
detail. In brief, it may be said that the abundance
of
material has in itself often proved an embarrassment.
As already stated, the two
captains frequently rewrote
their records; for the most part, only the
definitive form
remains to us, but there are long periods for which we
have
two or more drafts. Then again, each leader freely copied
from
the other, although generally with some variation. In
the case of the
narrative proper, the Editor has, with a few exceptions,
thought best to retain the several
drafts in the order of
their preparation; this method involves occasional
repetition of
statement, but in a publication of the original records it
appears
advisable to exhibit the literary methods of the explorers. With
regard, however, to the statistical and scientific material, it has
not seemed essential to publish the different drafts—the best
only has been presented. In the department of Scientific Data,
it
will be noted that in a few instances some of the tabular matter
has been
co-ordinated, the sources being indicated either by
differentiation in
type or by explanatory foot-notes. Some of
the tables were prepared by the
explorers in a manner quite
impossible of reproduction in type. But
wherever practicable,
we have sought to imitate the original as closel as
the limitations
of typography will
allow.
We have seen that the codices in the possession of the
American Philosophical Society contain many erasures, interlineations,
and emendations—by
Clark, Biddle, Coues, and
an unknown hand. The scientific entries were
generally crossed
in red ink, with the note, "Copy for Dr. Barton;" this
meant
that such matter was to be
reserved for Barton's proposed
volume on the scientific results of the
expedition, which, however,
was not prepared.
The present Editor has disregarded
marks of this character. His method of
indicating to the
reader the various emendations, is explained in the
foot-note to
page 11 of the present volume,
post.
The arrangement of chapters follows the Biddle
edition of
1814. In that narrative the chapters were of proper and
nearly equal length; whereas in this, owing to the greater
extent of
material, they are unequal and some of them abnormally
extended. A new system of chaptering
would have
obviated this difficulty and thus presented a better mechanical
appearance. Nevertheless, it has been deemed best to retain
the
Biddle chapters—they are convenient chronological and
geographical
divisions; they are familiar to scholars, and thus
have acquired a certain
historical and bibliographical standing;
moreover, comparisons between the
Biddle paraphrase and the
Original Journals will be facilitated by their
retention.
