In his paper on “The Travels of Jonathan Carver,” read before the
American Historical Association in Chicago, December 29, 1904, Prof. E.
G. Bourne of Yale University, presented the results of an investigation
as to the originality and authenticity of the second part of this famous
book, which is devoted to giving a systematic account of the manners and
customs of the Indians in the Northwest, and of the animals and products
of the soil.
The Professor brought to light the fact that as early as 1792 Oliver
Wolcott, then Comptroller of the Treasury in Philadelphia, wrote the
geographer Jedidiah Morse, that he had been informed on good authority
that the book was written under very inauspicious circumstances; adding
that Carver was an ignorant man, incapable of writing such a work, and
that there was reason to believe it to be a compilation from other
authors.[26]
Next, he cited contemporaneous but entirely independent criticisms by
Schoolcraft in 1823,[27] and by Keating in 1824,[28] both of whom assert
that the author of the _Travels_ drew considerably from Lahontan. In
addition, Schoolcraft declared that material was also derived from
Charlevoix’s _Travels_. More detailed and more positive still, were the
assertions of Greenhow, the historian of Oregon, that the second part of
Carver’s _Travels_ was a compilation from Charlevoix, Hennepin, and
Lahontan.[29] Greenhow was familiar with Keating’s views, but apparently
not with Schoolcraft’s, whose _Memoirs_ were published in 1851, or with
Wolcott’s, whose letter first saw light in 1846. These early criticisms
appear to have escaped the notice of later writers who have written upon
Carver’s _Travels_, for neither Moses Coit Tyler, in his _History of
American Literature_, nor the authors of the articles on Carver in the
various cyclopædias, breathe any suspicion as to the authenticity of the
work.
In the second part of his paper, Professor Bourne gave the results of
his attempt to test the correctness of the assertions of Wolcott,
Schoolcraft, Keating, and Greenhow. He cited a few passages showing how
the author of the _Travels_, whoever he might be, drew from books
information which a genuine traveller would not think of going to books
for. For example, the description of the personal appearance of the
Indians was taken from Lahontan; of their keenness in detecting a trail,
from Charlevoix; of their game of lacrosse partly from Charlevoix and
partly from Adair’s _History of the American Indians_. The description
of the Indian sled (or toboggan), with which the real Carver must have
been perfectly familiar, is taken word for word from Charlevoix. Again,
the real Carver must have many times seen Indians scalp prisoners, for
he was a veteran of the French and Indian War, and one of the survivors
of the Fort William Henry massacre; but notwithstanding such presumable
personal observation, the author of Carver’s _Travels_ borrows word for
word Adair’s account of the process of scalping. The accounts of the
animals are largely from Charlevoix. “The short vocabulary of the
Chippeway Language” is almost entirely taken from Lahontan’s “Dictionary
of the Algonkin Language.” Some of the changes are pure blunders of
hasty transcription, which one familiar with the language, as Carver
pretended to be, could not have made; as, for example, where Carver
gives _Sheshikwee_ for “dart,” when Lahontan gives it as the name of a
particular kind of dance; or again, where Carver gives the word for
“heart” which Lahontan gave for “hart.”
Professor Bourne’s conclusion was, that the second and larger part of
Carver’s _Travels_ is not an original work, but a literary compilation,
like Sir John Mandeville’s _Travels_ or Benzoni’s _History of the New
World_; and that the first part was probably put together by the same
writer, from Carver’s notes or oral recollections. As to the extent or
reality of Carver’s journey up the St. Peter’s (or Minnesota) River,
Professor Bourne felt disposed to accept the view of Keating, who
apparently had studied the question very thoroughly on the ground, that
Carver had entered the river but did not ascend it as far as he
pretended.