Stanley, Emin, Jameson, Barttelot, Parke, Troup, Hoffman and Ward all published accounts of the EPRE, but none precisely follow their contemporary handwritten diary entries written at least two years earlier, and all were edited to put the authors in the best possible light. This is no surprise – few people would publish some dark secret about themselves if they wanted the world to think well of them – but if we want to know the truth of what happened, rather than what the authors would like us to believe happened, we must go back to the earliest versions in the chain of creation and stress test the evidence.
As a general rule, an honestly written contemporary account tends to be closer to the truth than a later version and the further in time from the actual event that the account is written, the less reliable it becomes. This is because a period of reflection tends not to enhance recollection and often results in memory being augmented by the supervening influences of other people’s recollections and by the process which our brains go through to try to make sense of the original events. It is still crucial to understand that the surviving notebooks are not necessarily the definitive “true” accounts, although they may be the best accounts available.
Stanley’s archive
Stanley wrote about the expedition in his best-selling book “In Darkest Africa” (IDA) but most of his notebooks, drafts, diaries, jottings and other handwritten documents as well as some artefacts, are kept by the Museum of Africa at Tervuren in Belgium. Anybody spending significant time with the original material will quickly come to appreciate that Stanley’s published accounts of his expeditions – particularly IDA - are extremely unreliable. This has been recognised for many years - Professor Ian Smith has written that “Among the deliberate omissions, the veiled references, and the false trails which Stanley made about the expedition when it was all over – and most obviously and assiduously in his book about it – one can occasionally perceive the glint of truth...” He never did explain which parts of IDA he could confidently say were unambiguously accurate.
Stanley went back to his field diaries long after the expedition was over as he tried to make sense of the catastrophe, so there is a huge amount of unpublished material available, but it is dangerous to rely on any part of his archive without taking into account two crucial issues. The first is that as well as writing prodigiously, Stanley - and after his death his wife Dorothy - went through a process of revision, editing out material they did not want posterity to see or which in their view would not reflect well on his reputation.
The second issue is that a lot of the writing is undated and difficult to fit into the chronology of creation. For example, there is a pocket notebook containing comments and assessments of the officers of the EPRE written in the present tense as if during the journey, but the book itself was printed for 1894, so the entries must have been written at least four years after the expedition was over.
Stanley used his notes to refresh his memory when he came to write up both a two-volume journal and his book IDA. Some researchers have wrongly assumed that the journal was contemporaneous with the events it describes, but internal evidence shows it must have been written shortly after the end of the expedition and before preparation for IDA got underway in Cairo.
The journal discloses that Stanley was very bitter that the EPRE Committee had never supported his Congo route, but by the time his book was published, this bitterness had been replaced by a casual indifference as to the choice of route, which does not ring true. It is also clear from the journal that Stanley wanted to credit himself with forebodings about the behaviour of Barttelot and Jameson and was setting up Bonny as a reliable witness of events. When revelations about Barttelot’s “madness” were made public in October 1890, Stanley used his journal as his principal source of reference but interestingly, Bonny went out of his way to correct him on the detail. Had Bonny originally misled Stanley or had Stanley misunderstood what he was being told, or was Stanley just making stuff up? We cannot be sure, but Stanley’s narratives cannot be more accurate than his single source – Bonny – and since the latter was constantly changing his account, it follows that none of the facts asserted by either man can be assumed to be true in the absence of corroboration.
Emin’s archive
Emin’s original diaries are held by the Staartsarchiv Der Senat Der Freien und Hansestadt in Hamburg but they have not been much reviewed by English speaking researchers. The best effort was made by Judge Grey in the 1940’s published in translation in the Uganda Journal. Most researchers have relied on two books published in the 19th century – “Emin Pasha in Central Africa” which does not cover the EPRE, and “Emin Pasha, His Life and Work” written by his cousin after Emin was killed in Africa. The latter is the source for his early life, but the cousin was trying to put Emin in the best possible light and a lot of his assertions cannot be taken at face value, as when he assures us that Emin did not “marry” his employer’s widow, when the obvious conclusion is that he did. As we know from the Vizetelly -v- Mudie's Select Library, the English published version was censored.
Jameson’s archive
In 1890 Jameson’s dairy was published as “Jameson’s Story of the Rear Column” and has been used as a primary source by everybody writing about the EPRE and all have assumed it was one holograph document handed to the publishers and printed pretty much verbatim. The error has led to a fundamental misunderstanding about Stanley’s use of his diary in 1889. The Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford holds his archive which comprises eight notebooks, sketchbooks and journals and a few copy letters. It is an extraordinary archive, full of colourful and important paintings of people, landscapes, birds and animals. They also hold some of his ethnographic specimens from South Africa and the Congo region.
The painting to the right is of a superb knife that Jameson purchased and painted into a notebook on 30 January 1888 while he was at Yambuya. The owner had asked to be paid in cloth, but Jameson had none to give and offered his powder flask which was accepted. The original knife is not among the ethnographic items donated to the Pitt Rivers Museum, but is in Herbert Ward's huge collection at the Smithsonian in Washington (accession number 67312) which makes one wonder how it got there. It is possible that he gave it Ward, but it is more likely that Ward "appropriated" it from Jameson's effects in August 1888.
An account of Jameson’s first hunting trip to Mashonaland with Frederick Selous is also in the Museum catalogued under the "Crook" papers. It focusses on an incident when a lion broke into their camp and in the confusion a young man Ruthven was shot dead. Although the story is known about from Selous’ private correspondence, this is the most detailed account by an actual eye-witness.
Documents in Jameson’s own hand fall into two distinct types of record. He made notes and wrote up a day by day account into rough books or into whichever of his artistic sketchbooks he might have had to hand and it was only when he had the time and inclination that he would “fair copy” the entries as well as some of his paintings into a separate clean, well ordered two volume journal which was intended to be a personal record of his time on the expedition. It was this journal which he intended to be the “authorised” version, to be read by him and his family as a nicely illustrated souvenir and it is quite likely that he intended to publish it in that form. His family used this version as the source for the published book, although they asked a professional artist to re-work most of his original illustrations.
Volume 1 covers the period 19 March to 31 December 1887 and was the diary in Jameson’s private tin box when it was commandeered by Stanley. Volume 2 covers the period from 1 January to 10 June 1888 and is the most controversial, originally containing an account and paintings of the murder of a slave child. Volume 2 got back to England in 1888 shortly after Jameson’s death and was never seen by Stanley, but it explains why his family were so anxious about Assad Farran’s public disclosures. Volume 3 which was largely written up by Jameson in one go in August 1888 while he was at Stanley Falls and about to embark on his final journey down river, arrived back in London with Volume 2.
His published diary was edited by his family in some very significant respects which means that it is not an entirely truthful account of his experience. As to what has become of the original sketches Jameson made of the murdered slave child, we cannot be sure, but they were carefully cut out of Volume 1 and torn from the relevant field notebook which suggests they were destroyed by Jameson’s family.
Barttelot’s archive
A collection of letters, dairies, note-books and press cuttings was put together by his family in 1888 as they struggled to respond to Stanley’s gratuitous assault on the Major’s reputation The archive, which remains in the Barttelot family and can only be visited with their permission, also contains a couple of original drawings by Ward and the original of a plan of Yambuya camp which was drawn by Werner and published in his book of 1889.
for his own book but he gave it to the Barttelot family in 1890
His letters are full of interesting information and observation, but he was not a natural diarist and unlike other officers, only wrote up one version (in two volumes) which he did not bother to transcribe into a fair copy journal. His Congo diary miraculously survived, water stained by the river and in a very delicate condition, so when it found its way back to England, his family arranged for a fair copy to be written out for the sake of legibility.
Most of the time the copy follows the original and when Barttelot’s older brother Walter prepared “The Life of Edmund Musgrave Barttelot” for publication in 1890, he relied to a great extent on Edmund’s letters, supplemented as necessary by the transcribed copy of the diary. This was then edited in some crucial respects, mainly to avoid causing unnecessary controversy. The haste with which the editing was done makes for some very puzzling passages in the published version which can only be understood by looking at the original diary.
The archive also contains a daybook written by Walter Barttelot (Edmund’s elder brother) in the press crisis of September 1888, as well as some very significant correspondence between the Barttelot and Jameson families which throws a new light on how the press publicity was managed and controlled in 1888 and 1890.
Bonny’s archive
Bonny wrote four notebooks/journals which Stanley purchased in 1899 and are now to be found as part of Stanley’s archive in the Royal Museum of Africa in Belgium. Bonny has always been considered a relatively minor figure in the story of the EPRE, but it was essential to examine his papers carefully to understand how much of Stanley’s account simply cannot be truthful.
He did not publish a book of his experiences, although he was intending to do so. Four handwritten notebooks survive and are kept in the Stanley archive in Belgium but they are more complex to unravel than those of the other men. Bonny appears to have written up at least the first part of his story in fair copy which is drawn from memory and (possibly) original notes which have now been lost. It seems to be the draft of a book written at least two years after the events it purports to describe.
tesimony, but knew that he was a liar.
The second volume, which deals extensively with the death of Major Barttelot, appears at least in part to have been the earliest version he wrote, but it was certainly not written day by day as the events occurred. Several days and even weeks were written up at a time and in some cases, it is obvious that they were written up a considerable time after the actual events being described which is why even his original diary entries must be treated with the greatest caution and constantly “sense checked” before we can accept that what he wrote down was in any way truthful. Four pages covering the crucial period in July 1888 were removed and the entries rewritten and three separate accounts of the murder of Major Barttelot were created. They read like nothing so much as the thinking process of a man who is trying to get his alibi straight.
Bonny’s versions of events are not confined to what he wrote in his diary since within weeks of the murder had written to the Barttelot family; to a Belgian official; to Mackinnon; he edited what became known as the official “log” and gave both oral and written accounts to Jameson and Stanley, both of whom wrote down what he told them at the time. In November 1890 he gave two further statements to the press at Stanley’s prompting. All versions contain significantly different details, which is a challenge for anyone trying to establish what exactly happened because when someone gives a series of different versions of the same event, all of them cannot be true. This is the main reason to doubt almost everything Bonny wrote.
Furthermore, where he made himself a hero of events, he must be treated with very great scepticism given that he was universally regarded as both incompetent and stupid. He does write candidly about his own sexual adventures and of the occasions when he was being criticised by Stanley and it is possible that here, at least, he might be telling the truth. Nothing else can be assumed to be true in the absence of corroboration. This is a very serious problem because it inevitably throws into doubt not just his own public statements but also a huge part of Stanley’s account which depends on him having given a single, honest version of events.
Stanley used his evidence selectively in his book and in the media battles in November 1890, but privately he was sceptical, aware that Bonny was an extremely unreliable witness who held a deep animus against everybody and Major Barttelot in particular. Nevertheless, by November 1890 Stanley had become so affronted by the way in which the Barttelot family attacked his book and reputation that he saw no reason to disavow Bonny’s “evidence” and when Bonny died a few years later, Stanley quietly arranged to buy up his diaries to keep them away from inconvenient public scrutiny.
Mounteney Jephson’s archive
Jephson’s diary is hugely important for any understanding of the progress of the Advance Column. The original exists in Ireland, but a microfilm copy is kept in the library at SOAS. It was reliably edited by Dorothy Middleton in the 1960’s and reference to her book ought to be sufficient for most purposes. Jephson published an account of the time spent in captivity with Emin Pasha but kept details of the terrible bloodshed caused by the Advance Column to the privacy of his diary. He also wrote a book for children which contains some interesting if rose-coloured insights into life at Fort Bodo. Because his diary was never intended for public consumption, it reveals very frank details of conduct which he never expected to be made public.
Dr Parke’s archive
Parke’s “fair copy” journal is kept in the Mercer Library Royal College of Surgeons Dublin. His original day books no longer exist and the journal has obviously been edited to remove the material which was embarrassing or dangerous.
His published account “My Personal Experiences in Equatorial Africa as a Medical Officer of the EPRE” (1891), is remarkable for what it leaves out rather than for what it reveals. In 1994 J B Lyons proved that the book had been ghost written by one of Parke’s colleagues and although based on his diaries, had been very heavily self-censored. However, it is apparent that even the version of the diaries which Lyons studied is not the first one written by Parke and appears to be his equivalent of the “fair copy journal” which Jameson had created. Although Lyons wrote a much more accurate account of Parke’s experiences using the fair copy journal, he also edited the material and left out references I thought significant – probably because in 1994 it would not have been considered appropriate to publish anything which might have raised inconvenient controversies about this brave and hardworking man.
Nelson’s archive
Nelson’s original diary was sold to America in 1973 and is in the Russell E Train collection in the Smithsonian along with some interesting letters and objects. A microfilm copy of the diary is retained by the British Library but it was badly photographed and is exceptionally difficult to read. Such entries as are legible tend to be limited to how well or badly he slept, but it may be that if it is subjected to scientific examination, more interesting details will emerge.
MacKinnon’s archive
MacKinnon had an important role in the history of East Africa and was the main sponsor of the EPRE so his papers are of crucial importance for anybody wanting to understand how the expedition was financed and managed. They are kept in the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London and are divided in to several subsections including one relating exclusively to the EPRE. This does not contain the entire material relating to the EPRE and important overlooked material is to be found in the section devoted to his personal correspondence.
Stair’s archive
Stair’s original diaries and papers are in Nova Scotia and he followed followed the same pattern as Jameson and Parke, keeping rough notebooks and writing up a fair copy journal sometime after the actual events. It was not until 1998 that the five volumes were finally edited for publication by the then Canadian Minister of Trade, Roy Maclaren, who seems to have done a thoroughly good job. His book “African Exploits – The Diaries of William Stairs 1887 – 1892” is the version I used. Stairs comes across as a candid and truthful witness, but we must assume that some editing was carried out between his rough notebooks and fair copy journal to remove possibly more embarrassing details.
Hoffman’s archive
Hoffman published a book about the EPRE many years after it was over, but it is an unreliable history and adds little to our knowledge of the expedition. He was poorly educated and struggled with his account, as can be seen in the early drafts of his book which are contained in the Wellcome collection.
Ward archive
Ward became a well known sculptor after he returned from Africa and the Smithsonian Institution has a large collection of his African pieces and of his huge collection (over a thousand pieces) of ethnographical material.
Separately, the Smithsonian holds a number of drawings by Ward including several subjects which both he and Jameson drew or painted, including this drawing of Jameson's hut at Yambuya and the goat which was dispatched for dinner. Ward let Jameson copy his drawings of local natives and of the starving men in camp. Jameson always acknowledged when he was copying Ward's originals.
Text © Marcus Rutherford 2024. Photographs by Marcus Rutherford from the archives at British Library, Pitt River's Museum and the Barttelot archive with kind permission of the family.