greatly influences the way his journal is to be interpreted. While Doucet relied heavily on his original personal reflections found in his field notes, the editors argue and demonstrate that Doucet’s journal is a product authored at some distance in both time and space from the events observed. This is reflected in Doucet’s frequent use of the past tense while retrospectively augmenting his present-tense field notes. As a result, there are some factual inconsistencies, such as misnamed individuals, that appear periodically. These instances of confusion are clearly highlighted and explained by Giguère and Evans through explanatory notes as well as the introduction and biographical sketches. The other interesting point of discussion, methodologically speaking, is that of audience. How are events recorded differently when authors are conscious of their audience? The nature of memory and audience in historical writing are factors more commonly associated with oral history, but, as Giguère and Evans demonstrate, these factors feature just as powerfully in the interpretation of written sources. Mon Journal is an example of the careful balance between ensuring the authenticity of primary documents while enabling their accessibility to a wider audience. Giguère and Evans increase the accessibility of this primary source not simply through translation and publication but also by adding the scholarly apparatus needed to allow it to crossover to a popular audience. The detailed appendix, footnotes, and photographs allow a reader with little knowledge of mission history on the Canadian prairies to follow the life and work of this important, yet little-known oblate and, through this entry point, the wider history of late nineteenth-century Canadian missionaries. This book also invites the reader into a discussion of the complexities involved in maintaining the authenticity of an archival document while translating it into English. Throughout the English translation and explanatory footnotes, Giguère and Evans not only extract historical meaning from Doucet’s journal and memoir but also explain the thought process behind their conclusions. This book highlights the daunting and often unexpected challenges of working with a primary document in a way that encourages methodological discussions around the use of historical sources. In providing an effective example of the opportunities and dangers presented by textual sources, Mon Journal will generate engaging conversations and further research. olivia bird University of Saskatchewan

中文翻译：

---

无边的统治：普罗维登斯，政治和加拿大早期长老会的世界观

极大地影响了他的日记的解释方式。尽管杜斯特（Doucet）在很大程度上依赖于他在田野笔记中发现的原始个人想法，但编辑们争辩并证明，杜斯特（Doucet）的日记是在距所观察到的事件在时间和空间上都有一定距离的著作。这反映在Doucet经常使用过去时，同时回溯了他现在时的现场笔记。结果，周期性地出现一些事实上的不一致，例如名字不正确的个体。Giguère和Evans通过解释性注释以及简介和传记素描清楚地突出并解释了这些混乱的情况。从方法上来讲，另一个有趣的讨论点是听众。当作者意识到自己的听众时，事件的记录方式有何不同？历史写作中的记忆力和听众的性质是与口述历史更普遍相关的因素，但是，正如Giguère和Evans所证明的那样，这些因素在解释书面资料方面同样具有强大的功能。《 Mon Journal》是在确保原始文档的真实性与使更广泛的读者可以访问之间达成谨慎平衡的一个例子。Giguère和Evans不仅通过翻译和出版，而且通过添加必要的学术手段来使这一原始资源可以传播到大众，从而增加了该原始资源的可访问性。详细的附录，脚注，借助照片和照片，读者对加拿大大草原的传教历史一无所知，就可以追踪这个重要但鲜为人知的奉献者的生活和工作，并通过这个切入点，了解十九世纪后期加拿大传教士的更广泛历史。本书还邀请读者讨论在将归档文件翻译成英文时，保持归档文件的真实性所涉及的复杂性。在英语翻译和解释性脚注中，Giguere和Evans不仅从Doucet的日记和回忆录中提取了历史意义，而且解释了其结论背后的思维过程。这本书强调了以鼓励使用历史资源的方法论讨论的方式来处理原始文档所面临的艰巨且通常是意想不到的挑战。为了提供有关文本来源所带来的机会和危险的有效示例，《 Mon Journal》将引发有趣的对话和进一步的研究。奥利维亚鸟类大学萨斯喀彻温省