“Privateers in Time of War are a nursery for Pyrates against Peace.”
A General History of the Pyrates
Captain Charles Johnson
I think that most pyrate enthusiasts would agree that A General History of the Pyrates by Captain Charles Johnson is a must-read (at least once) and a must-have-on-hand pyrate book. It’s a classic for many reasons. I consider it an integral tool in my research chest because of the publication date: 1724.
The Golden Age of Piracy is considered to span from roughly 1650 to 1730. May 1724, this book’s publication date, is six years before the closing of the Golden Age. When yer researchin’, anything and everything that is contemporary is an artifact. Even if a document has errors, or a portrait is more (or less) flattering than it should be, or if a book is an embellishment, these artifacts still have great value. Why? They reflect what was happening THEN with how it was created, why it was created, who created it, where it was created…I think you get the gist. Contemporary Artifact. Let’s move on…
A General History of the Pyrates is often dismissed as entertainment with little to no historical value. It has been said many times that the author took great liberties with “history” and that Johnson’s “facts” are embellished half-truths. History experts advise that, while it’s nice to have on your bookshelf, it’s best to not actually use it as a reliable source for any kind of history, pyrate or otherwise.
Well, bah and humbug to that, you scurvy dogs! What is the actual issue with the text? Is it that A General History of the Pyrates is just too fantastical; or, is it because there are actual facts which disprove what Johnson wrote? The former is the usual reply. Too outrageous. Unrealistic. No proof. In fact, many MANY argue that Charles Johnson isn’t even the actual author, and if we don’t know who the author is…well…it just makes the entire book a candidate for criticism.
Let’s look at that for a bit.
It’s been alleged that Johnson is a pen name either for Daniel Defoe or a collection of writers from that time who were probably journalists. I’ve read some Daniel Defoe titles, and um, A General History of the Pyrates, to me, is vaguely, (as in “not really”), like Defoe’s writing. Yes, I know that he could have adopted a completely different writing style and author voice for A General History of the Pyrates, but…why? He could have been paid to publish under a pseudonym, that’s true as well.
There are quite a few reasons why Defoe might have written as Captain Charles Johnson, but I am not a believer that it’s Daniel. I haven’t come across anything that has 100% convinced me that Captain Charles Johnson is Daniel Defoe.
And yes, I’ll gladly change my mind if it’s ever proven that they are one and the same.
Why is there even this debate about the author? Why does that somehow make the text of the book suspect? We’ll plunder that next time…
Virginia Chandler 