Johnson and Defoe

[Fox]

What ho piratey people,

For reasons best not gone into here I'm looking for any ideas or evidence in favour of Daniel Defoe's having written the General History.

Personally I don't think he did, but I would like to make sure I've heard all the arguments. So, apart from the supposed similarities in style does anyone have any other evidence?

[JoshuaRed]

Do you have the most recently published edition? If I'm not mistaken, David Cordingly writes a nice forward for the edition breaking down the reasons for the theory. I'll dig it out and see what's what.

[Fox]

Yes I have the latest edition. In that and in Under the Black Flag Cordingly gives a brief resume of Moore's arguments. In those and in other works one can get a pretty good overview of Moore's arguments. I've also read the relevant chapter of Furbank and Owens' Canonisation of Daniel Defoe, so I've got what I think is a pretty good idea of Moore's arguments without actually having read them!

In essence I believe his arguments come into two categories; those which show Defoe might have written the General History (he knew a bit about ships, was interested in pirates etc) and those which show he did write it (the similarities in style). The arguments that Defoe might be responsible are compelling but not conclusive, and can mostly be broken down quite easily - yes, Defoe was interested in pirates, but so were a lot of people, and some of Defoe's other accredited works differ in detail from the General History.

The arguments of style I am not qualified to speak on myself (except to say that I've read the General History, Moll Flanders and Robinson Crusoe and I didn't notice any similarities particularly), but Furbank and Owens make some interesting points of logic even the layman can appreciate. For example, when comparing styles Moore often made comparisons based on the general style of the time, ie. he didn't differentiate between what is specifically Defoe's style and what was common to most writers of that period.

More seriously Moore apparently drew many comparisons with other works which he himself had categorized as Defoe - in effect he said "I believe that A is a work by Defoe because it is similar in style to Moll Flanders. B is similar to A therefore B is also by Defoe, and C bears resemblances to both A and B so that is also by Defoe". That's ok provided you're pretty damn sure he's right about A. If D is the General History and is similar to C you're still a long chain of supposition away from showing that it was written by Defoe.

So, yes, I've got the latest edition of the General History. What I'm after is other reason for supposing Defoe to have been Captain Johnson.

[corsair2k3]

Greetings,

Some "at-random-and-unorganized comments"

[A 1000 pardons if I accidentally repeat any of Moore's arguments]

I USED to think that another reason for thinking it was Defoe was that the glimmerings of the unknown author's political attitudes relflected those of Defoe.

That was before I really understood how good Defoe was at talking out of both sides of his mouth simultaneously.

Another point in his favor is that the GHP was clearly not the first work of "Johnson". Whoever did the deed was an accomplished wordsmith --someone who used words for a living--and was very good at it.

Also that the unknown author--while very knowledgeable about maritime matters--was far more interested in details of maritime commerce than he was in other aspects of maritime life. That again fits Defoe.

Some of the "stories" he covers --as well as some he omits--seem to fit extremely well with known facts re. Defoe's travels and interests. Have since learned, however, that many of these "factoids" have alternate explanations that do not involve the "Defoe was Johnson" thesis. And, in point of fact, Johnson's treatment of Kidd is a not-so-bad argument for the proposition that "Defoe was not Johnson"

"And the beat goes on..."

Nowadays, I'm not sure that he can be completely ruled out--unless one gets busy and uses the sort of literary forensic techniques employed by Don Foster (AUTHOR UNKNOWN).

But the argument of "Defoe against the World" certainly cannot be sustained given the available evidence.

Is there a better candidate?

I was told a number of years ago that there is a doctoral thesis by a German claiming that Nathaniel Mist was "Johnson" This makes some sense to me in a number of respects.

But, again, I doubt that the matter can be proven UNLESS some sort of external evidence is recovered--such as a publisher's receipt or other such smoking gun.

Regards,

The Corsair

[JoshuaRed]

One thing that may explain how a sea captain like Johnson was able to write so similar to Defoe may be simply that Johnson,

A: Led a wild rambling life and came across many pirates in his travels.

B: Loved to read, and was a big fan of Defoe in particular.

So when he finally decided to write down his accounts, he either was consciously or unconsciously affected by Defoe to the point of sounding like him in his work. Perhaps he thought that by imitating Defoe's style that he would reach a wider audience and make more cash.

I'm not saying Johnson was real, but this is just one explanation if he WAS real.

[Fox]

Great stuff guys, keep it coming!

Can I throw another stick out? Does anyone have any good evidence why Captain Charles Johnson of the General history was not the playwright Charles Johnson (1679-1748), apart from the stylistic difference and the fact that he was a corpulent fellow who never went to sea in his life?

[corsair2k3]

Greetings,

Several reasons:

A. No one in their right mind would have put their real name to that book.

B. The playwright's work bears about as much resemblance to GHP as my work resembles that of Thomas Wolfe (the talented one).

I don't think that GHP was written by a professional sea captain--there isn't enough personal observations of various locales. And, what there description of such is there, can be attributed to cribbing from other sources--eg Atkins etc.

Regards,

The Corsair

[Red Maria]

There is an article in The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America v.98:1 Mar. 2004 pg.21-38 tilted Daniel Defoe, Nathaiel Mist and the "General History of Pyrates" in it the author Arne Bialuschewski surmises that Mist is the author citing registration of the work by Mist in the Staitoners Office (24, June 1724 for Nataniel Mist by his foreman John Wolfe), two anonymous references in a pamphelet (Mist's Closet Broke Open), and a note by an Under Secretary of State.

Again to key in the whole article is not possible for me. If anyone wishes a copy please let me know offline and I will send it to you for cost.

Corsair is the author of this article same as the afore mentioned doctoral theses? The author seems to make a good case for Mist. BTW Defoe wrote for Mist.

[corsair2k3]

Greetings,

The name is very similar to that of the doctoral student which was given to me.

I suspect that the article you cite is a revision of the same doctoral thesis I was told about.

Thanks so much!

The Corsair

[Mission]

I saw that the Defoe authorship issue was raised in the interesting Striving for Accuracy post. Since this topic was around, I wanted to post some info on the subject for the curious.

This will probably add little to the knowledge of the knowledgable in here, but may be helpful to those who are a-questing. It is from a post of mine on another board. I had recently read The Canon-isation of Daniel Defoe by Furbanks and Owen's when I wrote it. I apologize for the length to those looking for a quick answer. (I suppose you could skip to the end. )

[bEGIN QUOTED POST]

Canon~ical Background

First, in order to understand Furbanks and Owens' reasoning behind why they don't think Defoe wrote General History, you have to understand what they think is wrong with the Defoe "Canon". (By canon, they mean the books that are attributed almost unquestionably to Defoe.)

It has been historically difficult to accurately define Defoe's Cannon because 1) he wrote many things anonymously or under a pseudonym and 2) Defoe varied his writing style according to what he was trying to accomplish. He liked to parody styles to poke fun at people and this confuses things greatly. It is also suggested that he was sometimes paid to write on opposite sides of the same issue.

Furbanks and Owens look at six scholars/biographers who tried their hand at creating the body of Defoean works (see list below). They take great pains to point out what is personally wrong with each author as a Defoe scholar and why each author is biased. As much as I disagree with their attacks, I can see where the various scholars’ personal opinions may have colored their research. However, I believe this is true of any researcher, including Furbanks and Owens. It is impossible for the scientist to be truly dispassionate. Even they seem to feel compelled to admit their bias when they state that, "Up to this point, our book has been largely destructive." (p. 125).

Perhaps the biggest problem they identify is that the men who created the various canons were deliberately seeking to expand Defoe's list of attributed works so that they could claim that they had added to the canon. This is another common problem with research; if it isn't positive or doesn't add to the knowledge base in a positive way, it often isn't published. So in this way, Owens and Furbanks are doing us a service.

Just as an overview, I will list the various Defoe Biographers Furbanks and Owens examine, the dates these authors created their list of Defoean works and the number of works they attributed to Defoe.

Daniel Defoe (1660 - 1731)

George Chalmers, 1790, 81 attributions to Defoe

Walter Wilson, 1828, 210 attributions to Defoe

William Lee, 1869, 254 attributions to Defoe

James Crossley, ~1869/Not Published, 60 additional attributions to Defoe

W.P. Trent, ~1920s/Not Published, 382 attributions to Defoe

John Robert Moore, 1960, 570 attributions to Defoe

You can see that the list has grown and swollen, almost alarmingly, to the point where Defoe is credited with having written 570 different books and pamphlets. Two points to consider here. First, note that the first version of the canon occurred 61 years after Defoe died. That's a long time to reach back and untangle what Defoe did and didn't write. Second, Furbanks and Owens make it very clear that they have no use whatsoever for Moore's list, motivation or methods. This is of crucial importance to this discussion because it was Moore who attributed General History to Defoe.

A General History of Pirates

They make quite a case against Moore personally and his attribution of General History to Defoe. In fact, they spend the entire chapter about Moore discrediting this attribution in particular. Since this is what interests most people on this site who have read this far, let's review some of their reasons:

1. Biolgraphical Inaccuracies?

Part of the reasoning behind the attribution of the General History to Defoe is that biographer William Lee claimed that Defoe worked for Applebee's Journal which "specialized in the lives and dying speeches of criminals [such as pirates]." ..."Applebee and his deputies had access to Newgate [a prison], and thus Defoe got into the habit of visiting and questioning prisoners there..." (p. 73) However, this may or may not be true. They further note that "...Lee has produced no hard evidence for it whatever - not even for [Defoe's] having been associated with Applebee." (p. 73)

That's a crucial blow to the General History attribution IMO. I have seen this "fact" sited as the reason Defoe must surely have written General History on the web several times.

2. Disagreeable Facts

Defoe has been credited as the author of The King of the Pirates, a pamphlet about Henry Avery. This pamphlet disagrees in both fact and tone with General History. Of course, William Lee was the person who credited this pamphlet to Defoe, so who knows if Defoe really wrote this or not?

Another pamphlet Lee put down as being by Defoe was about pirate John Gow called An Account of the Conduct and Proceedings of the Late John Gow. This disagrees with some facts in General History, even though History quotes parts of this pamphlet.

So Defoe has been given credit for works that disagree with each other. This may or may not be enough to remove credit from Defoe. As noted previously, his works sometimes contradicted each other when he thought it was humorous, he changed his mind on a subject or possibly when he was paid to write for the opposing viewpoint. Still, why change your mind about the facts of a pirate's life?

3. Personal Bias

Furbanks and Owens also note that Moore had a huge vested interest in maintaining that General History was written by Defoe despite the facts. They claim he was a proud man who would become very upset when this attribution was questioned. I personally don't much care for this line of reasoning and inclined not to weight it too heavily.

4. An Accumulation of Defoean Style

One of the things that made me change my mind about the authorship of History was the style question. Because Defoe was apt to copy styles, many of the biographers who chose to assigned published material to him attributed works that are markedly different in style than those that Defoe publically claimed. To compound the error, as biographers added new works to Defoe's canon, they often said (in essense), "While this style is not like Robinson Crusoe (or whatever) it is like the style of this other work attributed to Defoe, so it must also be Defoe", even when the "other works" hadn't been fully proven to be by Defoe.

In their book, they quote Rodney Brine on this particularly poignant point, "Not only did Mr. Moore fail to distinguish between what is peculiarly Defoean and what is merely conventional in contemporary narrative style and idiom; he also drew for his parallels upon works which have been since shown to works by others." (p. 108).

5. Temporal Anomolies

Perhaps the most damning evidence in my mind is that Moore was the first person to assign General History to Defoe when none of the previous biographers had thought to do so. Moore first proposed this in Defoe in the Pillory and Other Studies in 1939, more than 200 years after the events took place!

In Sum

All in all, I am inclined to agree that Defoe did NOT write General History, although I do not much care for some of Furbanks and Owens' methodology in this book.

Their worst crime, in my mind, is that after they put the fox among the hens, they don't follow through. They spend their whole book complaining about the history and final accepted canon for Defoe (the one written by Moore) and then don't provide us with a revised list. They only say that "our own estimate is that [the number of Works almost definitely by Defoe] might at most amount to some 150 of the over 570 works currently in the cannon." (p. 173) and "Our own, very incomplete investigation suggests that the number of works qualifying as [Works probably -but not definitely- by Defoe] might amount to over fifty, but would probably not be as many as a hundred." (p. 174)

This raises yet another problem I have often seen in academic research: the researcher doesn't really have to produce results. If they were doing this research for industry (which is, of course and unfortunately, absurd), they would have had to identify the problem (Defoe didn't write 570+ works), prove it (of which I believe they have done a reasonable job) and then offer a solution.

Instead of providing such a solution, Furbank and Owens cop out with, "...the production of a new Defoe bibliography would be a formidable undertaking, not to be entered upon lightly. Our only concern here has been to sketch out a possible structure which might enable the attribution issue to be dealt with adequately. It will be obvious that a host of other problems would have to be considered by those with the temerity to embark on such an undertaking." (p. 174) In other words, they don't seem to me to want to be bothered with (or aren't willing to risk) revealing their thoughts on the "true" canon. They'll tear things down, but won't rebuild them.

(However I have learned a great deal about attributing material to authors from reading this book. Who knew that Defoe was such a big question mark?)

[END QUOTED POST]

[Fox]

A General History of the Robberies and Murders of the Most Notorious Pyrates, by Captain Charles Johnson first went on sale in May 1724. Since then it has been reproduced in a number of editions, at least three in Johnson's own lifetime, and at least three in the 20th century. Johnson's General History, as it is usually known, has become the classic text for the study of the history of piracy. No other source from the time of the Golden Age gives us as much material in so readable a form. The general history contained the stories of classic pirates like Avery and Blackbeard, but also lesser known, and no less shocking pirates like Bonny and Read, whose stories printed in the General History caused a sensation.

Captain Charles Johnson is himself though one of the greatest enigmas facing the student of pirate history. Nobody knows for sure who he was. Various theories have been put forward and rebuffed, but the one which has stuck the best is the one first really propounded in 1939 by John Robert Moore's Defoe in the Pillory and other studies. Moore argued, based on his own studies of the Defoe canon, that Captain Johnson was none other than the celebrated novelist Daniel Defoe (1660-1731). So convincing were Moore's arguments that many libraries re-catalogued the General History as Defoe's work.

In 1988 P.N. Furbank and W.R. Owens published a work which rocked academia as much as Moore's had in 1939. Their The Canonisation of Daniel Defoe was ostensibly written to call for a re-evaluation of just how many works were attirubted to Defoe by different biographers and bibliographers, but was in a large part an attack on Moore and his assertion that Defoe wrote the General History. Their work is so completely damning that it is difficult to believe Defoe had anything to do with Johnson's work.

However, many books, periodicals and websites still refer to the General History as having been written by Defoe or by "Captain Johnson (most likely Daniel Defoe)".

***********************************************************

Now, the destruction of Moore's theories does not necessarily mean that the basic premise was incorrect, but it does mean that new evidence must be presented to support Defoe as Johnson before the idea can be accepted.

For my own part I suspect that Johnson's General History, especially the second volume, was a collaborative effort of more than one author - perhaps, but not necessarily, including Defoe.

What thoughts does anyone else have?

[Salty]

smacks some wot o the question of was shakespeare really written by shakespeare, unfortunenetly we shall never know what was writtien by whom, however it is fun to try an figure it out based on information.

[doctor syn]

Having read Defoe's "faction"..Journal of the Plague Year & Memoirs of a Cavalier....both of which were thought to be real memoirs...I have no problem assigning him the honours...seems fitting such a colourful character should write about such colourful characters..................

Steve

[Lily Alexander]

Being new to the study of pyracy, I should probably just stay in my hiding hole, but since I just read this same subject matter in "Blackbeard" by Angus Konstam, 2006 pgs. 2-4. I'll give you his words.

"Who ever Captain Charles Johnson was, he was certainly an experienced seaman. His description of how sailing ships of the time operated and how they performed, and of what conditions on board were like, all suggest that the author was not only well versed in seafaring, but that he also spoke with some authority. He also described sea battles like a grizzled vetran. This alone precludes Daniel Defoe, who, although he was well traveled, was no professional seaman". p3

Climbing back into my hiding hole to read as much as I can. Someday I'll be able to give you my own opinion.

[JoshuaRed]

Personally I never could buy into the "Defoe was Johnson" theory....General History never really "felt" like Defoe to me. But I'm by no means a literary historian.

[Fox]

I'm the same Josh - it just doesn't feel like Defoe... I think for me the most telling pointer though is that there are a lot of contradictions between the General History and other works attributed to Defoe by J.R.Moore. Moore seemed to want every unattributed book of the period to have been written by Defoe, and I think it clouded his reason and judgement.

I'm still not ready to preclude Defoe as having written a chapter or two of the second volume though...

[doctor syn]

Suppose a compromise could be Defoe being the "Ghost writer"?....Dunno about the lack of knowledge...He wasn't a Royalist Cavalry man either...didn't stop "Cavalier" sounding right....guess I just want him to be involved!

Steve

[Fox]

It's not impossible Steve, but there's really very little - if anything - to link Defoe with the General History. The only solid connection is probably the fact that the work was entered into the Stationer's Register in the name of Nathaniel Mist. Mist produced a newspaper (Mist's Weekly Journal) and Defoe was one of the people who worked for him so probably knew about the book.

You make a good point about people being able to write of things of which they have little or no direct experience. Ned Ward, for example, had made only a few voyages as a passenger on merchantment, but was able to write with some authority about life aboard ship (in fairness though, he did spend a lot of time talking to seamen).

[doctor syn]

C'est la vie.....just one of those urban historical myths I would have liked to be true...good mood today,finally got a new copy of MacDonald fraser's "The Pyrates" to replace the one I lent out 20 years ago......

Steve

[kass]

Personally I never could buy into the "Defoe was Johnson" theory....General History never really "felt" like Defoe to me. But I'm by no means a literary historian.

Me too, bro. Number one, doesn't sound like Defoe's work -- at least not purely his work. Number two, because I am not a literary scholar, I tend to believe the word of those who are. So I believe Furbank and Owens.

[Fox]

C'est la vie.....just one of those urban historical myths I would have liked to be true...good mood today,finally got a new copy of MacDonald fraser's "The Pyrates" to replace the one I lent out 20 years ago......

Steve

You didn't buy a second-hand copy off whoever nicked mine did you?

[Red Maria]

There is a very interesting article in Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America v.98 no. 1 March 2004 pgs 21-38 by Arne Bialuschewski titled Daniel Defoe, Nathaniel Mist, & "General History of the Pyrates".

Bialuschewski contend that the radical Jacobite publisher Nathaniel Mist was responsible for GHP. He gives such evidence that Mist registered GHP with the Stationers Company. If an author planned on making any money on a book it was registered with the Staioner's Comapny. It was an early form of coyright. The entry for GHP states "24 June 1724 for Nathaniel Mist by his foreman John Wolfe."

Mist was in and out of jail for his radical rantings and publications. He spent time in Newgate (1721). Enough time to get friendly with people.(if you know waat I mean ) He finally had to leave the country. After he left an anonymous book was published titled Mist Closet Broke Open with a chapter title "Sea News from Capt. Charles Johnson to Mist". There were other references linking Mist to Capt. Johnson.

An odd bit in the article is the fact the Defoe work for Mist for awhile. But they parted ways, acrimoniouysly, before GHP was written. If anyone is interested I can photocopy this article and send it to you if you can spare the change to copying in postage (sorry it's long for a freebee). Or you can try going to your local library and see if they can get it as a document on demand. Whatever is less expensive. If you want a copy from me please PM me.

Edited January 3, 2007 by Red Maria

[Fox]

It is also interesting to note that many advertisements for the GHP (including the earliest advert for the second volume that I know of) were published in Mist's newspapers. PM on its way.

[doctor syn]

Foxe,

I have a theory that there are only 6 copies of "Pyrates" ...which have circulated 'thro the re-enactment world for years..........

Steve

[Fox]

That's a theory with some merit Steve!