18 March 1865
A gap of some three and one-half months intervenes between this sketch and the previous one. On 4 December 1864 Clemens deserted San Francisco for a three-month stay in the mining camps of Calaveras and Tuolumne counties—an important moratorium that followed what he called his “slinking” days in chapter 59 of Roughing It. He spent most of his time at Angel's Camp and Jackass Hill, usually with Jim Gillis and Jim's fellow pocket miner Dick Stoker. This visit to the southern mining camps on the Mother Lode eventually produced Mark Twain's most famous sketch, “Jim Smiley and His Jumping Frog” (no. 119), but it also provided the raw material for “An Unbiased Criticism,” which was Clemens' first publication after his return to San Francisco and which resumed his series of sketches in the Californian. The present sketch anticipates the more famous “Jumping Frog” story in its setting at Angel's Camp, and especially in its vivid monologue by Coon—a distinct forebear of Simon Wheeler.1
Like most of Clemens' earlier work for the Californian, this sketch takes its rise in part from a topical event reported in the newspapers. And like “A Touching Story of George Washington's Boyhood” (no. 95), it is an elaborate digression from the announced topic: paintings on exhibit in the new California Art Union. The prestigious Art Union, which Clemens mentions only in the opening and closing passages of his sketch, had Governor Frederick F. Low for its president and William C. [begin page 135] Ralston for its treasurer. Since the opening of its doors on 12 January 1865, the gallery had occupied the second-floor rooms at 312 Montgomery Street, where, for twenty-five cents, one could see a collection of about one hundred and thirty paintings by such artists as Charles Nahl, Frederick Butman, Thomas Hill, and Virgil Williams. A five-dollar annual fee entitled members to free admission at all times as well as to complimentary prints or engravings once a year.2
In response to the opening of the gallery, the city newspapers blossomed with art criticism—often ponderously moral or literary—which was evidently written by local art lovers who wished to remain anonymous, like the Evening Bulletin's Kuzzilbash or the Morning Call's Magilp. Magilp's review of Thomas Hill's recently completed “Scene from the Merchant of Venice,” the only painting Clemens mentions in his sketch, discoursed fulsomely on Shylock's moral and intellectual features as revealed by his gesture and expression.3 Sometimes readers responded to the critics, and sometimes the critics themselves warred. Out of this minor furor came the framework of Clemens' sketch. By carefully avoiding any hint of art criticism, Clemens declined to parody Magilp or any other critic, but the sustained irrelevance of what he did write constitutes a clever comment on the mediocre quality of the newspaper reviews.
Clemens explained his long digression—the main body of the sketch —by saying he wanted to demonstrate “that we were in the habit of reading everything thoroughly that fell in our way at Angel's, and that consequently we were familiar with all that had appeared in print about the new Art Union rooms.” Coon's memorable description of the miners' reading habits bears this out, but it soon leads into the narrator's burlesque account of a local election in which the miners' most trivial reading defines the election issues. The men divide into political factions: modern counterparts of Swift's Big Endians and Little Endians. They argue over the relative merits of rival sewing machines and iron safes, or the propriety of the Christian Commission's having refused a cash contribution because the money was raised by an amateur “parlor theatrical.” The leaders of these factions are bitter enemies on the hustings but cronies in the evenings. They are masters of political invective and patriotic propaganda.
[begin page 136]The sketch ultimately descends from one of Clemens' lost Josh letters, in which he parodied a Fourth of July oration given in Esmeralda, as well as from his long Third House address of 1863.4 It also reflects Clemens' recent reporting of the Lincoln and McClellan presidential campaigns. Mark Twain's rousing speech at the Union Hotel in Angel's Camp is perhaps no more hollow nor more fraudulently manipulative than some of the real speeches Clemens had summarized for the Call a few months before. It catches the rhythms, the clichés, and the appeals to prejudice of contemporary political oratory. Yet the satire is neither sharp nor bitter. Clemens takes an obvious delight in his miners, who occupy the realm of conscious fantasy. The portrait of Coon and his fellows is sympathetic, for beneath their bickering—which even they do not take seriously— lies a sound combination of decency, rugged individualism, shrewdness, and mutual respect. They are members of what Henry Nash Smith has called the vernacular community, and it is the narrator—a visiting outsider, after all—who is the chief demagogue.5
Clemens revised “An Unbiased Criticism” only once, in the Yale Scrapbook. But he, or more probably Webb, decided to reprint only Coon's memorable speech about the “mighty responsible old Webster-Unabridged” in the 1867 Jumping Frog. There it was called “Literature in the Dry Diggings,” and Clemens reprinted it again in 1872 and 1874, although he declined to include it in Sketches, New and Old in 1875.
the california art union — its moral effects upon the youth of both sexes carefully considered and candidly commented upon.
The Editor of The Californian Ⓔexplanatory note ordered me to go to the rooms of the California Art Union and write an elaborate criticism upon the pictures upon exhibition there, and I beg leave to report that the result is hereunto appended, together with bill for same.
I do not know anything about Art and very little about music or anatomy, but nevertheless I enjoy looking at pictures and listening to operas, and gazing at handsome young girls, about the same as people do who are better qualified by education to judge of merit in these matters.Ⓐhistorical collation
After writing the above rather neat heading and preamble on my foolscap, I proceeded to the new Art Union rooms last week, to see the paintings, about which I had read so much in the papers during my recent three months' stay in the Big Tree region of Calaveras countyⒺexplanatory note; [upⒶhistorical collation there, you know, they read everything, because in most of those little camps they have no libraries, and no books to speak of, except now and then a patent-office report, or a prayer-book, or literature of that kind, in a general way, that will hang on and last a good while when people are careful with it, like miners; but as for novels, they pass them around and wear them [begin page 138] out in a week or two. Now there was CoonⒺexplanatory note, a nice bald-headed man at the hotel in Angel'sⒶtextual note Ⓐemendation Camp.Ⓐemendation I asked him to lend me a book, one rainy day: he was silent a moment, and a shade of melancholy flitted across his fine face, and then he said: “WellⒶhistorical collation, I've got a mighty responsible old Webster-Unabridged, what there is left of it, but they started her sloshing around, and sloshing around, and sloshing around the camp before I everⒶhistorical collation got a chance to read her myself, and next she went to Murphy'sⒺexplanatory note, and from there she went to JackassⒶhistorical collation, and now, by G—dⒶhistorical collation, she's gone to SanⒶhistorical collation AndreasⒺexplanatory note, and I don't expect I'll ever see that book again; but what makes me mad, is that for all they're so handy about keeping her sashshaying around from shanty to shanty and from camp to camp, none of 'em'sⒶhistorical collation ever got a good word for her. Now CoddingtonⒺexplanatory note had her a week, and she was too many for him—he couldn't spell the words; he tackled some of them regular busters, tow'rd the middleⒶhistorical collation, you know, and they throwed him; next, DyerⒺexplanatory note, he tried her a jolt, but he couldn't pronounce 'em—Dyer can hunt quail or play seven-up as well as any man, understand meⒶhistorical collation, but he can't pronounce worth a d—nⒶhistorical collation; he used to worry along wellⒶhistorical collation enough, though, till he'd flush one of them rattlers with a clatter of syllables as long as a string of sluice-boxes, and then he'd loseⒶhistorical collation his grip and throw up his hand; and so, finally, Dick StokerⒺexplanatory note harnessed her, up there at his cabin, and sweated over her, and cussed over her, and rastled with her for as much as three weeks, night and day, till he got as far as R, and then passed her over to 'LigeⒶhistorical collation PickerellⒺexplanatory note, and said she was the all-firedestⒶhistorical collation dryestⒶtextual note reading that ever he struck; well, well, if she's come back from San Andreas, you can get her and prospect her, but I don't reckon there's a good deal left of her by this time; though time was when she was as likely a book as any in the State, and as hefty, and had an amount of general information in her that was astonishing, if any of these cattle had known enough to get it out of her;” and ex-corporal Coon proceeded cheerlessly to scout with his brush after the straggling hairs on the rear of his head and drum them to the front for inspection and roll-call, as was his usual custom before turning in for his regular afternoon nap:] butⒶtextual note as I was saying, they read everything, up there, and consequently all the Art criticisms, and the “Parlor Theatricals vs. Christian Commission” controversy, and [begin page 139] even the quarrels in the advertising columns between rival fire-proof safe and sewing-machine companiesⒺexplanatory note were devoured with avidity. Why, they eventually became divided on these questions, and discussed them with a spirit of obstinacy and acrimony that I have seldom seen equalled in the most important religious and political controversies. I have known a Grover & Baker fanatic to cut his own brother dead because he went for the Florence. As you have already guessed, perhaps, the county and township elections were carried on these issues alone, almost. I took sides, of course—every man had to—there was no shirking the responsibility; a man must be one thing or the other, either Florence or Grover & Baker, unless, of course, he chose to side with some outside machine faction, strong enough to be somewhat formidable. I was a bitter Florence man, and I think my great speech in the bar-room of the Union HotelⒺexplanatory note, at Angel'sⒶemendation, on the night of the 13th of February, will long be remembered as the deadliest blow the unprincipled Grover & Baker cabal ever got in that camp, and as having done more to thwart their hellish designs upon the liberties of our beloved country than any single effort of any one man that was ever made in that county. And in that same speech I administered a scathing rebuke to the “Lillie Union and Constitution Fire and Burglar Ⓐemendation Proof Safe Party,” (for I was a malignant Tilton & McFarland man and would break bread and eat salt with none other,) that made even the most brazen among them blush for the infamous and damnable designs they had hatched and were still hatching against the Palladium of FreedomⒺexplanatory note in Calaveras county. The concluding passage of my speech was considered to have been the finest display of eloquence and power ever heard in that part of the country, from Rawhide RanchⒺexplanatory note to Deadhorse Flat. I said:
“Fellow-Citizens: A word more, and I am done. Men of Calaveras—men of Cuyoté FlatⒺexplanatory note—men of Jackass—beware of Coddington! [Cheers.] Beware of this atrocious ditch-owner—this vile water-rat—this execrable dry-land shrimp—this bold and unprincipled mud-turtle, who sells water to Digger, Chinaman, Greaser and American alike, and at the self-same prices—who would sell you, who would sell me, who would sell us all, to carry out the destructive schemes of the 'Enlightened [Bah!] [begin page 140] Freedom & Union Grover & Baker Loop-Stitch Sewing Machine Party' Ⓐemendation [groans] of which wretched conglomeration of the ruff-scruff and rag-tag-and-bob-tail of noble old Calaveras he is the appropriate leader—bewar-r-e of him! [Tremendous applause.] Again I charge you as men whom future generations will hold to a fearful responsibility, to beware of Coddington! [Tempests of applause.] Beware of this unsavory remnant of a once pure and high-minded man!* [Renewed applause.] Beware of this faithless modern Esau, who would sell his birthright of freedom and ours, for a mess of pottageⒺexplanatory note!—for a mess of tripe!—for a mess of sauer-kraut and garlic!—for a mess of anything under the sun that a Christian Florence patriot would scorn and a Digger Indian turn from with loathing and disgust!† [Thunders of applause.] Remember Coddington on election day! and remember him but to damn him! I appeal to you, sovereign and enlightened Calaverasses, and my heart tells me that I do not appeal in vain! I have done. [Earthquakes of applause that made the welkin tremble for many minutes, and finally died away in hoarse demands for the villain Coddington, and threats to lynch him.]
I felt exhausted, and in need of rest after my great effort, and so I tore myself from my enthusiastic friends and went home with Coddington to his hospitable mansion, where we partook of an excellent supper and then retired to bed, after playing several games of seven-up for beer and booking some heavy election bets.
The contest on election day was bitter, and to the last degree exciting, but principles triumphed over party jugglery and chicanery, and we carried everything but the Constable, (Unconditional Button-Hole Stitch and Anti-Parlor Theatrical candidate,) and Tax Collector, (Moderate Lillie Fire-Proof and Fusion Grover & Button-Hole Stitch Machines,) and County Assessor, (Radical Christian Commission and Independent Sewing Machine candidate,) and we could have carried these, also, but at the last moment fraudulent handbillsⒶemendation were suddenly scattered abroad containing sworn affidavits that a Tilton & McFarland safe,
*He used to belong to the Florence at first.M. T.
†I grant you that that last part was a sort of a strong figure, seeing that that tribe are not over-particular in the matter of diet, and don't usually go back on anything that they can chaw.M. T. [begin page 141] on its way from New York, had melted in the tropical sunshine after fifteen minutes' exposure on the Isthmus; also, that the lock stitch, back-stitch, fore-and-aft, forward-and-back, down-the-middle, double-and-twist, and the other admirable stitches and things upon which the splendid reputation of the Florence rests, had all been cabbaged from the traduced and reviled Button-Hole Stitch and Grover & Baker machines; also, that so far from the Parlor-Theatrical-Christian-Commission controversy being finished, it had sprung up again in San Francisco, and by latest advices the Opposition was ahead. What men could do, we did, but although we checked the demoralization that had broken out in our ranks, we failed to carry all our candidates. We sent express to San Andreas and ColumbiaⒺexplanatory note, and had strong affidavits—sworn to by myself and our candidates—printed, denouncing the other publications as low and disreputable falsehoods and calumnies, whose shameless authors ought to be driven beyond the pale of civilized society, and winding up with the withering revelation that the rain had recently soaked through one of Lillie's Fire and Burglar-Proof safes in San Francisco, and badly damaged the books and papers in it; and that, in the process of drying, the safe warped so that the door would not swing on its hinges, and had to be “prized” open with a butter-knife. O, but that was a roughⒶhistorical collation shot! It blocked the game and saved the day for us—and just at the critical moment our reserveⒺexplanatory note (whom we had sent for and drummed up in Tuolumne and the adjoining counties, and had kept out of sight and full of chain-lightning, sudden death and scorpion-bile all day in Tom Deer'sⒺexplanatory note back-yard,) came filing down the street as drunk as loons, with a drum and fife and lighted transparencies, (daylight and dark were all the same to them in their condition,) bearing such stirring devices as:
“The Florence is bound to rip, therefore, let her rip!”
“Grover & Baker, how are you now?”
“Nothing can keep the Opposition cool in the other world but Tilton & McFarland's Chilled Iron Safes!” etc., etc.
A vast Florence machine on wheels led the van, and a sick Chinaman bearing a crippled Grover & Baker brought up the rear. The procession reeled up to the polls with deafening cheers for [begin page 142] the Florence and curses for the “loop stitch scoun'rels,” and deposited their votes like men for freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of conscience in the matter of sewing machines, provided they are Florences.
I had a very comfortable time in Calaveras county, in spite of the rain, and if I had my way I would go back there, and argue the sewing machine question around Coon's bar-room stove again with the boys on rainy evenings. Calaveras possesses some of the grandest natural features that have ever fallen under the contemplation of the human mind—such as the Big Trees, the famous Morgan gold mineⒺexplanatory note which is the richest in the world at the present time, perhaps,Ⓐhistorical collation and “straight” whisky that will throw a man a double somerset and limber him up like boiled maccaroni before he can set his glass down. Marvelous and incomprehensible is the straight whisky of Angel'sⒶemendation Camp!
But I digress to some extent, for maybe it was not really necessary to be quite so elaborate as I have been in order to enable the reader to understand that we were in the habit of reading everything thoroughly that fell in our way at Angel's,Ⓐemendation and that consequently we were familiar with all that had appeared in print about the new Art Union rooms. They get all the papers regularly every evening there, 24 hours out from San Francisco.
However, now that I have got my little preliminary point established to my satisfaction, I will proceed with my Art criticism.
The rooms of the California Art Union are pleasantly situated over the picture store in Montgomery street near the Eureka TheatreⒺexplanatory note, and the first thing that attracts your attention when you enter is a beautiful and animated picture representing the Trial Scene in the Merchant of Venice. They did not charge me anything for going in there, because the Superintendent was not noticing at the time, but it is likely he would charge you or another man twenty-five cents—I think he would, because when I tried to get a dollar and a half out of a fellow I took for a stranger, the new-comer said the usual price was only two bits, and besides he was a heavy life-member and not obliged to pay anything at all—so I had to let him in for a quarter, but I had the satisfaction of telling him we were not letting life-members in free, now, as much as we were. It touched him on the raw. I let another fellow [begin page 143] in for nothing, because I had cabined with him a few nights in EsmeraldaⒺexplanatory note several years ago, and I thought it only fair to be hospitable with him now that I had a chance. He introduced me to a friend of his named Brown, (I was hospitable to Brown also,) and me and Brown sat down on a bench and had a long talk about Washoe and other things, and I found him very entertaining for a stranger. He said his motherⒶemendation Ⓐhistorical collation was a hundred and thirteen years old, and he had an aunt who died in her infancy, who, if she had lived, would have been older than his mother, now. He judged so because, originally, his aunt was born before his mother was. That was the first thing he told me, and then we were friends in a moment. It could not but be flattering to me, a stranger, to be made the recipient of information of so private and sacred a nature as the age of his mother and the early decease of his aunt, and I naturally felt drawn towards him and bound to him by a stronger and a warmer tie than the cold, formal introduction that had previously passed between us. I shall cherish the memory of the ensuing two hours as being among the purest and happiest of my checkered life. I told him frankly who I was, and where I came from, and where I was going to, and when I calculated to start, and all about my uncle Ambrose, who was an Admiral, and was for a long time in command of a large fleet of canal boats, and about my gifted aunt Martha, who was a powerful poetess, and a dead shot with a brickbat at forty yards, and about myself and how I was employed at good pay by the publishers of The Californian to come up there and write an able criticism upon the pictures in the Art Union—indeed I concealed nothing from Brown, and in return he concealed nothing from me, but told me everything he could recollect about his rum old mother, and his grandmother, and all his relations, in fact. And so we talked, and talked, and exchanged these tender heart-reminiscences until the sun drooped far in the West, and then Brown said “Let's go down and take a drink.”Ⓐemendation Ⓐhistorical collation Ⓐhistorical collation
The parlor theatrical vs. the Christian Commission controversy. On 6 February 1865 the Bulletin published a letter from “Verbum Sat” asserting that a donation of ninety dollars raised at an amateur parlor theatrical had been rudely refused, solely because of its origin, by the treasurer of the Christian Commission, a national organization for aiding sick and wounded Union soldiers through voluntary public contributions. “Verbum Sat” asked a series of scathing questions along this line: “Is the ‘Christian Commission’ a body organized for charitable ends, or for the purpose of obtruding on the community the pharisaical doctrines which its officers may happen to entertain on questions of religion or morality?” This attack was especially sensational because its target was the well-known San Francisco banker Peder Sather. The following day “Verba Sap” acidly responded in defense of Sather. Before the controversy concluded in a kind of uneasy understanding, the Bulletin had published eight additional letters, including those from officials of the Christian Commission, the amateur actors, and assorted ironic and sarcastic readers (San Francisco Evening Bulletin: “The Financial Agent of the Christian Commission Sitting in Judgment on ‘Parlor Theatricals,’ ” 6 February 1865, p. 3; “The Parlor Theatricals and Christian Commission Question,” 7 February 1865, p. 3; “The Christian Commission and Parlor Theatricals,” 8 February 1865, p. 2, accompanied by two additional letters; “The Christian Commission and Parlor Theatricals Again,” 9 February 1865, p. 2, accompanied by four additional letters). The controversy spread to the Call as well (“The Christian Commission and the Drama,” San Francisco Morning Call, 10 February 1865, p. 2; “The Christian Commission,” ibid., 11 February 1865, p. 1).
The fire-proof safe controversy. At 6:00 a.m. on 4 February 1865 three adjoining hay stores at the water's edge near Sacramento and Market streets burned to the ground. Five days later the Bulletin ran an advertisement from Joseph W. Stow, agent for Lillie's “Celebrated Chilled Iron Safes”: “Lillie's Safe versus Tilton & McFarland. A Trial by Fire! Home Testimony!” Supported by affidavits from two of the burned-out companies, the advertisement asserted that the Lillie safe, red hot from the fire, had perfectly preserved its contents of papers and books, but that the contents of a Tilton and McFarland safe were saved from burning only by its falling into the bay when the floor gave way. On February 14 F. Tillman, agent for Tilton and McFarland safes, responded with a counter set of affidavits and blazing headlines. The controversy ended inconclusively with Stow's advertisement requesting the public to view the Tilton and McFarland safe at his store and judge for themselves (San Francisco Evening Bulletin: “Large Fire This Morning,” 4 February 1865, p. 3; “Lillie's Safe versus Tilton & McFarland,” 9 February 1865, p. 2; “Tilton & McFarland's Safe the Only Protection against Fire,” 14 February 1865, p. 2; “The Tilton & McFarland Safe! Recently Burned on Market Street Tells Its Own Story,” 17 February 1865, p. 2).
The sewing-machine controversy. For many years sewing-machine companies had advertised their products prominently in San Francisco newspapers. Grover and Baker, Florence, Folsom, Singer, Howe, Wheeler and Wilson, Taggart and Farr, Williams and Orvis, Ladd and Webster, and New England Family made strong claims and often supported them by testimonials and affidavits. Almost every year brought a skirmish, but early in 1865 the Grover and Baker and the Florence companies waged an all-out war over the credentials and honesty of the awards committee appointed at the Oregon State Fair and consequently over which machine deserved the blue ribbon. Charges of bribery, suppressed evidence, bogus reports, and illegal committee members flew back and forth. Of the three controversies, this one engendered the most joy of battle. The headline of one Grover and Baker advertisement for its “Celebrated Elastic Stitch Sewing Machine” adequately conveys the general tone: “The Lie Nailed! Ventilation of the Gross Mis-statements of the Florence Sewing Machine Agent. Trickery! Knavery! Deception, Lies, Are of No Avail! The Grover & Baker Sewing Machine Unscathed and the Miserably Imbecile and Grossly False Statements of the Agent of the Florence Sewing Machine Exposed! Gross Fraud upon the Public!” (For examples of advertisements see the Golden Era 13 for these dates: 22 January 1865, pp. 6, 7; 29 January 1865, p. 8; 12 February 1865, p. 8; 19 February 1865, p. 8. The Californian 2 [21 January 1865]: 14 is taken up entirely by the companies' conflicting statements and affidavits.)
Historical Collation
Texts collated:
Cal “An Unbiased Criticism,” Californian 2 (18 March 1865): 8–9.YSMT Clipping of Cal, from “but” (138.36) to the end, revised by Mark Twain in the Yale Scrapbook.
“Literature in the Dry Diggings” in the following JF1 Jumping Frog (New York: Webb, 1867), pp. 82–84. Reprints the part of Cal not now in the Yale Scrapbook with authorial and editorial revisions.
JF2 Jumping Frog (London: Routledge, 1867), pp. 76–78. Reprints JF1 without substantive error.
JF3 Jumping Frog (London: Hotten, 1870), pp. 58–59. Reprints JF2 with several errors.
JF4 Jumping Frog (London: Routledge, 1870 and 1872), pp. 70–72. Reprints JF2 with several errors.
MTSk Mark Twain's Sketches (London: Routledge, 1872), pp. 352–353. Reprints JF4 with possibly authorial corrections but no revisions, as well as several errors.
MTSkMT Copy of MTSk revised by Mark Twain, who made no changes in this sketch but deleted it in the table of contents.
HWa Choice Humorous Works (London: Hotten, 1873), pp. 438–439. Reprints JF3 without substantive error.
HWaMT Sheets of HWa revised by Mark Twain, who made two changes in this sketch.
HWb Choice Humorous Works (London: Chatto and Windus, 1874), p. 426. Reprints HWa with authorial revisions from HWaMT.
HWbMT Copy of HWb revised by Mark Twain, who canceled this sketch.
The first printing in the Califomian 1 (18 March 1865): 8–9 is copy–text. Copies: Bancroft; PH from Yale; PH of the Yale Scrapbook, pp. 17–18.
Reprintings and Revisions. Only a part of this sketch, retitled “Literature in the Dry Diggings,” was reprinted in JF1: the section about Coon and his “mighty responsible old Webster–Unabridged.” The printer's copy for the JF1 printing was drawn from the Yale Scrapbook, where Mark Twain revised a clipping of the Califomian printing. Only the portion not reprinted in JF1 (from “but” at 138.36 to the end) survives in the scrapbook; it is preceded by three page stubs, indicating that the scrapbook pages that once held the preceding portion of the clipping were scissored out to serve as the printer's copy. Mark Twain demonstrably revised that portion of the scrapbook clipping which remains intact, substituting “fearful” for “rough” (141.22), deleting “which is the richest in the world at the present time, perhaps” (142.11–12), and correcting one typographical error, at 143.7. This evidence suggests that at least some of the variants in the JF1 printing reflect changes Mark Twain made on the now lost printer's copy: only he would be likely to change “Jackass” to “Jackass Gulch” (138.9), and it was probably he who deleted the exclamation “by G—d” (138.9) and substituted “cuss” for “d—n” (138.19). Nevertheless, some changes can more plausibly be attributed to the compositor: the transposition of “ever I” from “I ever” (138.7) and the omission of “me” from “understand me” (138.18). The revised scrapbook clipping suggests that the author's intention in January or February 1867 was to reprint the entire sketch. The decision to include only a small portion of it in JF1 was therefore probably made by Charles Henry Webb, who was then obliged to make some further adjustments in order to isolate the section about Coon and his dictionary. Webb presumably deleted the introductory portion (137.1–12), gave the sketch its new title, and supplied a revised version of the first sentence in the third paragraph: “Although a resident of San Francisco, I never heard much about the ‘Art Union Association’ of that city until I got hold of some old newspapers during my three months' stay in the Big Tree region of Calaveras county. “Although it is conceivable that the author made these revisions, or helped Webb make them, one circumstance strongly implies that Webb acted more or less independently. When Mark Twain revised the text of “Literature in the Dry Diggings” in HWaMT (1873), he deleted this revised sentence—perhaps because he recognized it as not wholly authentic. In any case, the JF1 text contains variants that are almost certainly Mark Twain's work, as well as some that must be attributed to his editor and to his compositor.
The reprinting of the JF1 text is described in the textual introduction. Routledge reprinted JF1 in 1867 (JF2), and Hotten in turn reprinted JF2 in 1870 (JF3). Routledge also reprinted JF2 in 1870 (JF4a) and, using the unaltered plates of JF4a, reissued the book in 1872 (JF4b). Although none of these texts was revised by the author, a number of minor errors were introduced by the compositors of JF3 and JF4a: for example, “We'll” instead of “Well” (138.4), “Sam” instead of “San” (138.9), and an added comma after “all-firedest” (138.26). When Mark Twain prepared the printer's copy for MTSk in March or April 1872, he presumably marked a copy of JF4a. Collation suggests that he made no revisions in this sketch, but may have corrected some of the obvious errors introduced by the JF4a compositor. Even so, the MTSk compositor made four additional errors, such as “well well” for “well” (138.19), “loose” for “lose” (138.21), and, as in JF3, an added comma after “all-firedest.”
One year later (1873) Hotten reprinted the JF3 text in HWa. When Mark Twain revised this book for Chatto and Windus in the fall of 1873 (HWaMT), he canceled the sentence first introduced in JF1 (discussed above) and deleted the comma that had been supplied after “all-firedest.” The HWaMT changes were made in the plates of HWa and were incorporated in HWb, which was published in 1874 and made no further errors or sophistications.
When in 1875 Mark Twain prepared the printer's copy for SkNO, he canceled this sketch in HWbMT and indicated, by canceling the entry “Literature in the Dry Diggings” in the table of contents for MTSkMT, that he did not intend to reprint it (see figure 24 in the textual introduction, volume 1, p. 638). He did not list the sketch in the Doheny table of contents, and he did not subsequently reprint it.
The diagram of transmission is given below.