The History of the Pyrates (Vol. 2 of the Gen. History)

[Mission]

I have been trying to find the earliest edition of the Volume II of the General History. It was such a confounded mess that I thought I'd share this fascinating journey with you all so no one else has to try it (or their patience.)

I started in WorldCat search for the title: "The History of the pirates, containing the lives of those noted pirate captains, Misson, Bowen, Kidd, Tew, Halsey, White, Condent, Bellamy ... and their several crews" or, in order not to limit the search in case all that garbage didn't get entered correctly in the library records, "The History of the pirates, containing" WorldCat gave me:

1) an 1814 edition, 2) an 1825 edition, 3) an 1827 edition, 4) an 1829 edition, 5) an 1834 edition, 6) an 1835 edition

Since that all seemed 100 years past the expiration date, I tried a search for the title "Of Captain Mission". This gave me (surprise!) a 1728 edition! Of course, pirates is spelled with a 'y' in this edition.

Curiously, searching for "The History of the Pyrates" does NOT produce this edition, but gives you several links to the Volume I or The General History! Someone needs to be shot, preferably through the head.

If you want to see an actual copy of the 1728 edition, you will find it here, although it does not appear in a nice, downloadable PDF form, which I find irritating. You can pull up a text version there, but they appear to have updated various bits in that. Such being the case, I don't see why I shouldn't just go ahead and use the PDF version of the 1829 Edition which can be retrieved here. (A PDF of the 1834 edition is also available here.)

[Mission]

Speaking of the second volume - other than Captain Misson, which pirate accounts are fictional?

[Fox]

Thats a second edition. It is, in fact, the very same book I linked to in this thread in Feb 2009... FWIW, I held that actual book last year...

There are three completely fictitious chapters in the second volume: Misson, Lewis, and Cornelius. Lewis and Cornelius' chapters are tricky because they are not proveably false and like Misson's chapter, contain a number of references to real people and events, which give all three an unwarranted verisimilitude. Tew's chapter is, of course, based on a real person and contains some real events from his life, but is also filled with stuff about Misson, so the chapter is at least 50% fictional. Corroborative records are fairly sparse for most of the pirates in the second volume, and by the time Johnson wrote about them the events he describes were 20+ years old, so it's difficult to assess how accurate they are. The chapters on Condent and Bellamy, who were active much closer to the time of writing and about whom there are more sources, are the usual mix of truth, error, and fanciful embellishment that we associate with the worst chapters of the first volume.

[Mission]

Trying to untangle the Misson narrative from Tew is pretty challenging. It seems to spread all throughout. Some of the events described that include Misson and Caraccioli appear to be based on real events. I think.

So far this book is not nearly as rich in details as the first book.

[Mission]

You know, I have noticed a marked difference in the style of writing in this book from the General History in several place. The 1728 Edition is credited to Charles Johnson like the first book. In the end of his introduction to Volume 1 (2nd Edition), Johnson mentions that "he intends to venture upon a second Volume." However some of the text has a different feel to it - almost as if it were written by a different author.

[Fox]

FWIW, I'm firmly convinced, more or less for the reasons you state, that the chapters on Mission and Tew were not written by the same author. The rest of it could be put down to it being cobbled together quickly and for much of it being about pirates active a long time before writing, giving the author less source material to work with and more room for imagination, but it certainly does read differently.

[Mission]

In accordance with what you just said, I am reading the chapter on Captain White and that does seem more like the GHoP and not like the Tew chapter. The Tew and Misson chapters are more verbose and scattered in their narrative. Interesting, don't you think?

[Fox]

Very. A real giveaway is that time in the Mission/Tew chapters is recorded in 'glasses', whereas everywhere else in both volumes it's recorded in hours.

Oh, and you're quite right, several of the events and characters mentioned in the Mission/Tew chapters are real events or people.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Is it actually impossible that all Ghop editions could have many writers? Or that that writer was just really Charles Johnson and had no

code name at all?

[Fox]

Yep, either of those things are possible.

[Mission]

The first book has a more consistent feel to it IMO except for the parts where letters are quoted or the author specifies that someone else has contributed material which he is using. The second one, not so much.

[Brit.Privateer]

I think some clarification is needed on "editions" of the original Charles Johnson's History. There were four editions of the first volume and one of the second volume that were actually done by whoever Charles Johnson was (most likely Nathaniel Mist) from 1724 to 1728. Each of the new editions of the first volume had some form of editing or addition of information or new chapter. The second volume did not go beyond one edition. After 1728, any further editions through to today were either reprints, or combinations of the two volumes and/or remixes of previous vol.1 editions. Some publications of the 1720s and 1730s outright stole chapters from Johnson, including works on famous criminals, highwaymen and so on. If you want the best representation of the whole History, I suggest the edition edited by Schonhorn in 1972. It includes notes on when particular lines and chapters appeared in this work and historical notes on the information in the History. One notable change that comes to my mind between editions is the name of Blackbeard. In edition one, its Thatch, but in edition two its Teach. Also, if I remember correctly, the origins of Blackbeard change between editions.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

I think some clarification is needed on "editions" of the original Charles Johnson's History. There were four editions of the first volume and one of the second volume that were actually done by whoever Charles Johnson was (most likely Nathaniel Mist) from 1724 to 1728. Each of the new editions of the first volume had some form of editing or addition of information or new chapter. The second volume did not go beyond one edition. After 1728, any further editions through to today were either reprints, or combinations of the two volumes and/or remixes of previous vol.1 editions. Some publications of the 1720s and 1730s outright stole chapters from Johnson, including works on famous criminals, highwaymen and so on. If you want the best representation of the whole History, I suggest the edition edited by Schonhorn in 1972. It includes notes on when particular lines and chapters appeared in this work and historical notes on the information in the History. One notable change that comes to my mind between editions is the name of Blackbeard. In edition one, its Thatch, but in edition two its Teach. Also, if I remember correctly, the origins of Blackbeard change between editions.

I have been wondering why " Charles Johnson" can't be writers real name? I am not saing that I would believe so but I have been wondering. Without much study on the writer of Ghop I would say that Mist is most likely.

[Fox]

There's no reason that Charles Johnson can't be the writer's real name. It's just unlikely that it is. There's no evidence at all that he existed, apart from the name on the cover.

On the other hand, the government at the time, other authors, and the reading public all believed that "Johnson" was Nathaniel Mist.

[Mission]

There's no reason that Charles Johnson can't be the writer's real name. It's just unlikely that it is. There's no evidence at all that he existed, apart from the name on the cover.

On the other hand, the government at the time, other authors, and the reading public all believed that "Johnson" was Nathaniel Mist.

Really? Why did the government care who published it at all?

I figured people thought it must be a pen name because Moore went so far out of his way to prove it was written by Defoe and forever altered the public impression that it was written by Johnson. But if when it was published the public thought it was a pen name, the authorship questions must have begun there.

I don't know why, but I find Schornhorn's treatment dull. I've picked it up and set it down four times in the last three years. I wouldn't call the original writing sparkling, but somehow reading it in the contemporary typeface makes it seem more interesting to me. (Well, except the chapter on Roberts, which is long and repetitive and the chapters on Misson and Tew which are sort of hard to follow at times for reasons I mentioned previously.)

[Fox]

Really? Why did the government care who published it at all?

They didn't really care who wrote the GHP per se, but they did care about Nathaniel Mist's activities since he was a notorious Jacobite subversive, and thus kept track of his activities as far as they could. Also, all published works are entered in the Stationer's Register - much like in America all new books today get entered in the Library of Congress catalogue - and in the case of the GHP it was entered by Mist's foreman.

I figured people thought it must be a pen name because Moore went so far out of his way to prove it was written by Defoe and forever altered the public impression that it was written by Johnson. But if when it was published the public thought it was a pen name, the authorship questions must have begun there.

Yes and no. In 1724, it was known that Johnson was a pen name, but there was no authorship question, it was public knowledge it was Mist.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Ok

Mist is really really likely the man behind the GHoP.

In his book "The Republic of Pirates" by Colin Woodard states:

Arne Bialuschewski of the University of Kiel in Germany has identified a far more Likely Candidate ( to be writer of Ghop): Nathaniel Mist, a former sailor, journalist, and publisher of the Weekly Journal. The book's first publisher of record, Charles Rivington, had printed many books for Mist, who 'lived just a few yards from his office. More importantly, the General History was registered at Her Majesty's Stationery Office in the Mist's name. As a former seaman who 'had sailed the West Indies, Mist, all of London's writer-publishers, was uniquely qualified Thurs have penned the book ... Also a Mist was a committed Jacobite ... Which Could explain the General History's not Entirely unsympathetic account of the maritime outlaws.

All things fit to bill. I think that it was Mist. ( That maker was a former sailor gives some more credibility to book). I think the whole Defoe as the writer of GhoP thing is a widespread lie.

This is interesting ( yeas found on Wiki but ....):

"Nevertheless, the government did, indeed, worry about Nathaniel Mist, and they worried about him so much That they put Daniel Defoe in his employ To Be his friend and have him spy, write for him, and persuade him away from the most damaging articles. In 1718, Daniel Defoe claimed That they had personally spiked stories That would have published Mist and Mist That was under his control. Although this was almost Certainly an exaggeration, Defoe said later That they had gotten out of jail Mist is at Least Three occasions. When Defoe left off working with Mist Entirely in 1724, they complained in Applebee's Journal That Mist had Fought with him (physically), and insulted him, and in 1730 they complained That Mist had harmed his career (probably by Revealing Defoe's acting as a government agent to Other printers). "

Edited April 29, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Brit.Privateer]

For the Nathaniel Mist thing, the article you will want to read is:

Bialuschewski, Arne. “Daniel Defoe, Nathaniel Mist, and the General History of the Pyrates.” The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America. 98, no. 1, 2004: 21-38.

He explains how Mist was involved with the book's publication. The general conclusion appears to be that Mist was by far the person most responsible for getting this book published, if not the author himself. Evidence seems to point towards Mist very much. Also, to counter the ideas that it was Daniel Defoe, consider this. Mist is pretty responsible for publishing this book. In 1720, Mist and Defoe had a falling out relating to a libel case and Mist's newspaper (I won't go into details here). There is no indication that the two worked together after that. If Defoe had written General History, no evidence has come to light yet that the two reunited to work on the book's publication. To explain why Defoe has been considered at all, look to 1930s Defoe biographer John Robert Moore. He appears to be the first one to make the claim, and thanks to him Defoe's name is even listed as General History's author in the U.S. Library of Congress. Moore also claimed many other anonymous works had been written by Defoe. You would think that Defoe wrote practically everything written in Great Britain from 1700-1730 (unless it was written by Johnathan Swift) if you listened to Moore. In the late 1980s, P.N. Furbank and W.R. Owens published works that demonstrated that a lot of the works attributed to Defoe were not written by him afterall.

For the use of a pen name, a lot of authors did this during the early eighteenth century. For one thing, there were libel cases to consider. Also, "factual fiction" or writings based on facts but has fiction mixed in was controversial, and General History has plenty of factual fictions. It's part of the reason why the word "history" was added to titles to works at the time. It made the book seem more legitimate. People of the upper classes during the period seemed to be concerned about if they were reading the truth or not (or at least period writings about the subject expressed that idea). Even fiction about the lower class and their immoral activities was controversial, like the book Moll Flanders. To be reading such books or to be associated with such writing was not considered a classy thing to do (but that doesn't mean they didn't read such works of course...).

Want to know more about writing of the period, here is where I got my knowledge on the subject:

Davis, Lennard J.

Factual Fiction: The Origins of the English Novel

. New York: Columbia University Press, 1983.

Watt, Ian.

Rise of the Novel: Studies in Defoe, Richardson, and Fielding

. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1957.

Zimmerman, Everett.

Boundaries of Fiction: History and the Eighteenth-Century British Novel

. London: Cornell University Press, 1996.

[Fox]

Accepting that this may not be the best place to discuss the authorship debate, I'd like to add a little to BP's post. (Besides, it's a long time since the question came up...)

When Moore put forward his theory that Defoe wrote the GHP in the 1930s it was widely accepted for two reasons: 1. Moore was the world's leading Defoe scholar (so he must have been right, huh?), and 2. there was no other candidate proposed. However, Moore's theory was entirely based on his the fact that he could instinctively recognise Defoe's hand, and the GHP showed similarities with other works that Moore believed were written by Defoe. He also produced some circumstantial evidence that supported his idea, such as the fact that Defoe worked for John Applebee, who specialised in true crime publications and apparently had special access to criminals locked up in Newgate.

Furbank and Owens, in the 1980s, debunked the Defoe idea, by pointing out that it was Moore himself who had identified Defoe as the author of works with similarities to the GHP, and that in fact the same similarities in style could be found in books known to have been written by other authors - ie, those styles highlighted by Moore should be considered traits of early 18th century writers in general, not Defoe specifically. More recently, they have published papers debunking the idea that Defoe worked for Applebee - another "fact" that Moore first hypothesised.

To that I would add that whether Defoe worked for Applebee or not is irrelevant since anyone had access to Newgate if they wanted it and most pirates were incarcerated in the Marshalsea prison anyway.

Bialuschewski, when readdressing the question of the GHP, pointed out that not one single piece of documentary evidence links Defoe with the GHP, but that three independent documents name Mist: the entry in the Stationer's Register, a note from the Secretary of State, and a satire linking Mist and "Johnson". He also pointed out lots of circumstantial evidence that supports the Mist theory, such as Mist being a sailor and, more pertinently, Mist being a Jacobite. In several places the GHP contains subtle Jacobite references, and Defoe was NOT a Jacobite. Also, several references to the GHP in Mist's newspaper.

Since Bialuschewski published, yours truly uncovered a fourth piece of documentary evidence: when the GHP was published it was serialised in several newspapers, without the permission of the author. One, Parker's London News, prefaced the first installment with an apology to "Mr Mist" for stealing his work.

Thus, four pieces of documentary evidence name Mist as the man behind the book, and not a single other document has been found suggesting anybody else, including Defoe.

So here's my question:

If, in 1930, John Robert Moore had published a theory that Mist was the author of the GHP, based on four independent pieces of documentary evidence, plus a whole load of circumstantial evidence, what would have been the reaction if Bialuschwski (or anyone else) had later published a paper saying it was Defoe, based on nothing more than their instinct? Would we even be having this debate?

I doubt it.

[Mission]

FYI (and as a reference to keep all the related info on the Defoe vs. Johnson debate connected) the original discussion of who wrote the General History is in the thread Johnson and Defoe, as originally started by Foxe.

A real giveaway is that time in the Mission/Tew chapters is recorded in 'glasses', whereas everywhere else in both volumes it's recorded in hours.

I hadn't really been paying much attention to this before you mentioned it, but in the chapter on Condent (which is pretty much in the style of the first volume) he refers to Condent firing "a broadside and a volley of small arms, which began a smart engagement for the space of three glasses". (p. 125) So that doesn't seem like a reliable tell. Since whomever wrote it seems to have borrowed copiously from other accounts, I suspect the terminology in the factually-based accounts may depend at least in part on whatever source the author was using.