Reliability of Charles Johnson?

[Tartan Jack]

It came up in another thread, again.

Many have STRONG opinions on the topic, I'd LOVE to see a long discussion specifically on Johnson.

Is it reliable at ALL?

If so, how much?

What areas are pretty reliable?

What were his sources?

What parts are questionable?

What parts are utter non-sense?

And:

What about the illustrations in the various editions?

Should/could we rely upon them?

If so, to what extent?

[TheBlackFox]

It came up in another thread, again.

Many have STRONG opinions on the topic, I'd LOVE to see a long discussion specifically on Johnson.

The Library of Congress lists it as fiction.

I have a full 1926 version in which the editor's notes call out that "Nor, beyond a general remark in the Preface, is there any hint of the sources whence the author got his information." It's also pointed out that there are remarkable comparisons between the description of Captain Avery in the book and a certain Captain Avery, hero of "The Successful Pirate" a play by a dramatist named. . . . Charles Johnson.

The book is interesting as a whole but in my opinion it might as well have the name "Daniel DeFoe" as the author as to its authenticity.

[MadMike]

I wouldn't dismiss the book out of hand, since it's an excellent source for period information. Johnson states in some chapters that his information was from eyewitnesses, captive pirates, and others (compare the book to the media today, for example) . The notion that the book was written by Defoe is nonsense.

I highly recommend the edition by Manuel Sconhorn, Dover Publications.

[TheBlackFox]

I wouldn't dismiss the book out of hand, since it's an excellent source for period information.

There's a lot of fiction written during the same period. . . it's the validity of the information that's in question.

Johnson states in some chapters that his information was from eyewitnesses, captive pirates, and others

but he never lists these eyewitnesses, captive pirates or others as sources. . .no names, no documentation. . .nothing

The notion that the book was written by Defoe is nonsense.

I agree. I said it "might have well," meaning it's as much fiction as anything DeFoe wrote, not that DeFoe wrote it . . . damn good fiction with a wealth of period atmosphere. . .but fiction nonetheless as authenticated by the Library of Congress "FIC" notation.

[MadMike]

You obviously haven't bothered to read Volume I and II.

Yours, Mike

[BILLY BONES]

It's my opinion that Captain Johnson took much of his information from transcripts of trials, personal interviews, and in some cases, first hand knowledge (as in his chapter on Bartholomew Roberts.) Naming your sources wasn't stressed back in 1724, and naming living pirates or ex-pirates wasn't good form---or even healthy. Once again, the values of 300 years ago can't be judged by ours. Also remember, that much of his information was hearsay, and probably to some extent, contained the embellishments of the person being interviewed. If you were putting down the history of contemporary piracy (Somali pirates), you'd use current newspapers and trial transcripts (often written with bias by officiating clergy in Johnson's time), as Johnson did, and would try to interview those individuals that figured in it as best you could. You might make it a little more lurid, for the pleasure of your readers, but I think you'd have it all based on a good foundation of fact. Johnson was a contemporary of "the Golden Age". How far off could he be? Would you print a volume of lies about the current piracies, with no fear of being found out? No one really knows who Johnson was, or if his real name was even Johnson. He seems to have a working sea knowledge, and there are some who believe he may have been a participant in the sweet trade to a certain extent. Remember also, that other than Bucaniers of America a century earlier, there had been no comprehensive collection of piratical occurrences. He may of had an inkling that his book might be received well, but I'm not sure he would have had the motivation to write a totally fictional volume of made up stuff.

[TheBlackFox]

You obviously haven't bothered to read Volume I and II.

Yours, Mike

Obviously you don't know much about the book. The 1926 copy is the reprint of the fourth edition and combines both volumes in one. I have several versions of the book including two of the twopenny portions from 1734 (kept in the safe deposit box) and two other more modern versions of the volumes which I've yet to crack open (I use the 1926 version most often, as it contains crib notes on the pages that my grandfather jotted onto as a boy, growing up in NC).This version was edited by Arthur L. Hayward and not the 1925 version of which Philip Gosse said that there were "old documents which have proved his (Johnson's) good faith."

The widely-respected historian Robert Moore convinced the world that Defoe was Johnson in 1939. It wasn't until the late 1980s that anyone challenged that notion. In my opinion, I tend to agree with Gosse's idea that Johnson was probably a pirate himself and the embellishments in the book are based on fact (based sometimes very, very loosely on facts). I think a lot of this info is spelled out in the newer paperback Lyons Press version, edited by David Cordingly (2002).

I've been working with an author on an article about Captain Charles Johnson for a future issue of The Pyrates Way . . . which is why I've got the info at my fingertips. Of course I'm always open to a good argument and a view of opinions other than mine. . .opposition always reveals the truth!

Edited April 25, 2009 by TheBlackFox

[The Doctor]

And certainly portions were indeed outright fiction. The tale of Captain Misson for instance is too detailed, too moralising, to be anything but a fable.

[Fox]

For the Library of Congress to list the GHP as fiction is ridiculous. Certainly it is far from reliable, and elements of it are entirely fictional, but it is not, and was probably not intended to be a work of fiction.

It would be very interesting to go through the GHP and meticulously determine what proportion of the information it contains can be verified or dismissed by other primary sources. It would be a mammoth work, so perhaps half a dozen case studies of individual chapters would suffice.

It must be said that in general the first volume is far more accurate than the second - and in a way this helps confirm the accuracy of the first volume. Vol. 1 contains biographies of pirates who, with one exception, were all active in the eight years preceeding the publication. Vol 2 on the other hand is mostly made up of biographies of earlier pirates, two or even three decades removed. If Johnson had essentially made up his stories then there should be no disparity between the two volumes, but since the first is demonstrably more accurate than the second the logical conclusion is that for more recent events Johnson had access to relatively reliable sources.

And we can say with some degree of confidence what some of those sources were. Much of Johnson's information can be found readily in the published trial transcripts and newspapers of the day. Johnson himself named surgeon John Atkins as one of his sources, and Colin Woodard has argued that a careful reading of the GHP inescapably leads to the conclusion that Woodes Rogers was consulted. I'm not sure I'd say it was inescapable, but it would certainly make sense and Rogers was in London in the months leading up to the book's publication. The relative accuracy of chapters concerning pirate crews, some of whose members were imprisoned in London at the right time, suggests more than a possibility that Johnson consulted them. Possibly the most accurate chapter is that concerning Roberts: much of Johnson's information about Roberts' crew undoubtedly came from John Atkins, but at least two members of the crew (Walter Kennedy and Thomas Jones) were imprisoned in the years before publication. IIRC, the information about Thomas Anstis was changed between editions at the same time as his crewmen William Ingrams and Bridstock Weaver were in the Marshalsea.

On the other hand, for the biographies of the earlier pirates in vol. 2, and for that of Henry Every in vol. 1, Johnson was clearly relying to a great extent on memory and myth as much as the fewer printed sources that were available to him. He had little or no access to anyone who had been a witness to the events described. Johnson was forced to pad the stories out to some extent, and had no way of checking the information, and the result is a tangible difference in accuracy between the two volumes.

Because of the relative inaccuracy of vol. 2, and the inevitable errors and embellishments in both volumes, the GHP can't be relied on to be accurate unless supported by other sources. It's far from reliable, but it's a long way from being fiction too.

The notion that the book was written by Defoe is nonsense.

I agree. I said it "might have well," meaning it's as much fiction as anything DeFoe wrote, not that DeFoe wrote it . . . damn good fiction with a wealth of period atmosphere. . .but fiction nonetheless as authenticated by the Library of Congress "FIC" notation.

Authenticated by the same Library of congress that says it was written by Defoe?

[Brit.Privateer]

Johnson's history stands in that unique area. It has parts of fiction and parts resource supported fact. But I think we have to remember that Johnson was also trying to sell to an audience, and I think the thrilling way these books were written, as seen in volume II especially, that we can verify that a more general audience was trying to be appealed to here.

[Dutchman]

this goes in conjunction with the article on Edward Salter, but could again show Johnson was off the mark. Lets start with whats at hand.

-King's warrant for payment of rewards to Capt. Brand and Capt. Gordon and their crews for the arrest of the survivors of Blackbeard's crew include Edward Salter, common sailor. Other names on list of survivors include John Martin and Joseph Brooks, Jr., but not James Robins.

- James Robins, John Martin, Joseph Brooks, Jr., and cooper Edward Salter appear in the deeds of Bath Town for years after their purported hanging.

-There is no official record or extant primary source which conclusively states that James Robins, John Martin, Joseph Brooks, Jr., and cooper Edward Salter were hanged. Johnson's GHP is the only source.

-200 years later, eastern NC folklore links Edward Salter's granddaughter to Blackbeard and his pirates.

-In 1986, human remains were disinterred on property formerly owned by Edward Salter near the foundation of the substantial residence once owned by Gov. Eden, and later by Salter. The remains (Identified as Edward Salter) were examined by a forensic anthropologist who concluded they belonged to a man who performed significant manual labor with his right arm during his lifetime, consistant with a cooper- but many other trades as well. It is estimated that the person was about 40-years-old at the time of death. The construction and materials of the crypt are dated to the first half of the 1700s. If DNA can match the remains to known descendants, then Edward Salter would represent one of the few identifiable pirate burials in the U.S., and it would provide compelling evidence that Charles Johnson and established history has been in error regarding the hangings of at least some of Blackbeard's crew.

[TheBlackFox]

Johnson's history stands in that unique area. It has parts of fiction and parts resource supported fact. But I think we have to remember that Johnson was also trying to sell to an audience, and I think the thrilling way these books were written, as seen in volume II especially, that we can verify that a more general audience was trying to be appealed to here.

In the same vein that Gone with the Wind was based on facts. The War Between the States DID happen. . . Johnson's fictional accounts based on facts is very similar. Using Johnson/DeFoe's book as a reference will absolutely call an author's claim of "factual data" into question.

[Tartan Jack]

Johnson is more "accurate" than Gone with the Wind, but less than a primary-source document.

GWTW is rooted VERY closely in several mansions and persons in the Atlanta area. Local historians can name-names. Tara is closely based on the Mitchell family's plantation, but with elements of others thrown in. One of the influencial people/places is Jonathan Norcross and his mill-town north of Atlanta and one forgot the name) south of downtown that WAS in the general area of what is now the Atlanta airport. Yet, Tara, Rhett Butler, the O'Hara family, et cetera never lived. It is a dialogued instance of what would now be called "historical fiction" with a fictional person based on one or several real people in real events. I was surprised that GWTW is as accurate as it is. Yet, it wouldn't hold up to some of the better present standards of "historical fiction." It was a fictional novel written CLOSELY based on real people, places, and events. She was not attempting to write history, but fiction.

That said, Johnson lacks a central plot to drive historical inaccuracies, lack (in general) central characters that serve to "engage" the reader. Fictional people are in the manner of Capt. Mission, who are likely a morality tale rather than historical entities. Johnson and Mitchell had different motives in what they wrote that influenced HOW they wrote them, though BOTH aimed at actually selling books.

Mitchell wrote fiction rooted closely in real history, while Johnson wrote popular contemporary history.

What I think:

Johnson TRIED to write history, using what he could get his hands on. He did better to question his resources than Heroditus,, who wrote EVERY myth and legend (ie-> EVERY good story) he knew or could find. BUT, he did worse than many modern historians would have found even CLOSE to barely acceptable in a scholarly work. If it was a PhD paper, he would have failed.

So, Johnson is (like folks above have said) somewhere in the middle.

He used good sources, though those sources were often altered and embellished before HE got his hands on them or talked to them. Also, many of his sources had their OWN agendas at play when he talked to them. Former pirates either downplayed their own actions and blamed others or "upped" the reps of those fellow pirates they admired. Pirate hunters and prosecutors would up-play the evilness of those they brought to "justice," to both encourage what they did and elevate their own hero status, as well as to justify any of their OWN "pushes" of the law to stop the "evil" men being captured, imprisoned, and hung as pirates.

Now, this book is one of the few contemporary sources still available to most readers. Primary and news sources are difficult to locate, IF they survived the last 300-ish years. So, many modern writers look to Johnson as the "Gospel of Piracy" and don't even BOTHER to look for what should lie behind Johnson's book, namely primary source materials. They just glean a summary of Johnson as "history" and write it ALL as fact.

I started this as I was curious how ya'll felt/studied, and if ya'll knew specific parts that WERE more reliable and those that weren't.

Also, this discussion should (hopefully) aid a new non-historian background person to learn to question his/her sources and see the complexity of contemporary materials, which Johnson IS. It was written on the tail end of the events recorded and within a decade of many of them.

Aside:

It is remarkable to me how quickly the fascination and "birth" of the mythical pirate image emerged after the events themselves. The roots already are beginning in Johnson. Of course, THAT is whole DIFFERENT discussion, namely the arising of the popular myth of pirates, counter to historical pirates.

[Joe Pyrat]

The Library of Congress has Johnson listed as fiction? Well they also have him listed as being Defoe so I may need to reevaluate what weight I give to their opinions in the future. Based on current research I would suggest neither conclusion is justified although the Johnson is Defoe argument is still under discussion.

While Johnson did take certain liberties, as many modern historians do, most of what he has written is substantiated by the records of the time and if we are going to classify his General History as fiction we must also assume Johnson was lying when he, speaking in the third person, stated in the preface to the first edition:

Those facts which he himself was not an eye-witness of he had from the authentic relations of the persons concerned in taking the pirates, as well as from the mouths of the pirates themselves after they were taken, and he conceives no man can produce better testimonies to support the credit of any history.

[Fox]

...most of what he has written is substantiated by the records of the time and if we are going to classify his General History as fiction...

If it's fiction then presumably all those substantiated facts are just fantastic coincidence

[TheBlackFox]

...most of what he has written is substantiated by the records of the time and if we are going to classify his General History as fiction...

If it's fiction then presumably all those substantiated facts are just fantastic coincidence

Agreed. . . . what's history if not a linear series of fantastic coincidences?

[Fox]

Agreed. . . . what's history if not a linear series of fantastic coincidences?

Ah, well, such a view denies the possibility of cause and effect, so I find it very difficult to agree. But this is a rather abstract argument with little or no relevance to the reliability of the GHP.