This is just a stray thought, but in the course of these past few years of research, I am struck by the difference between the contents of exploratory field journals compared with the published works based on those field journals. Specifically, I am referring to the phenomenon whereby published journals and travel narratives contain more embellishments and details that are not found in the original field journals.
After going through a few journals by Richard Francis Burton, I am struck by how much more detail is found in his published works than are in his field journals. I found a similar pattern after reading Samuel White Baker’s journals during my first research trip some years back. This is to say nothing of John Petherick’s oeuvre, namely his apologia over claims of his involvement in the Nile slave trade.
I am having a hard time reconciling this fact. Were these explorers so good at retaining these narrative details that they did not bother recording these events in their field journals? Maybe something else? However, my more cynical take is that some of the embellishment never occurred in the first place, being added in the course of publication to “spice things up.”
My view can be best summed as: “you’d really think someone would do that, just publish a travel narrative and tell lies?”
After reading Raymond John Howgego’s lecture “Invented and Apocryphal Narratives of Travel from Ancient Egypt to the Present Day,” I think there’s some reason to be skeptical as to the veracity of these narratives, given that the reading public (and certainly the scientific community) would have a hard time verifying these claims.
However, I think the one aspect that made it difficult to fib was what can be termed “geographic data,” such coordinates, place names, ethnographic information, etc. Given the discussions and debates moderated by the Royal Geographical Society or the Athenaeum over controversies regarding place names or field research, I do wonder if the potential to verify such data gave license to explorers to embellish (or outright lie) about their deeds and adventures in far off lands. After all, the existence of geographical features like lakes and rivers, along with botanical and ethnographic data would be verifiable by future explorers. But how would one verify specific encounters with “greedy” natives? Or the “heroics” in defending English pride to an uncouth chieftain? Or in felling an especially ferocious beast? Truth be told, it’s not possible.
There’s no way to know for sure what’s truth and what’s fiction regarding these narratives. But it does open up the question as to why details are added or omitted in travel narratives, especially in the case of travel narratives that also serve scientific ends.