The Isle of Pines | Page 7

an opportunity to sail for
the West Indies, our author heard a very strange story of the origin of
the Pines, a story then quite notorious at Lisbon. Then follows, with
some embroidery, a version of the Neville pamphlet, which is not like
any German translation seen by me, but so full as to extend over ten
pages of the volume. It ends with a reiteration of the wholly false
manner in which this story had been obtained. So bold an appropriation

of the narrative, with a provenience entirely new and as fictitious as the
story itself, and its bodily inclusion by an editor in a work of
recognized merit, where it is between two true recitals, cannot be
defended.{1}
1 Mocquet's work originally appeared in Rouen in 1645, and a Dutch
translation was published at Dordrecht in 1656. A second French issue,
apparently unchanged in text, was put out at Rouen in 1665, and in
1618 Schoeben's edition, printed at Lûneberg by Johann Georg Lippers,
preceded by eight years an English translation made by Nathaniel
Pullen. The Pine tract appears, of course, only in Schoeben's volume.
[ 18 ]The tract passed to Cambridge, Massachusetts, before or early in
September, and it would indeed be interesting to know how and
through whose hands it passed before reaching Marmaduke Johnson--to
his undoing. Hezekiah Usher was the only bookseller in Boston at the
time, and possibly his son, John, may have been associated with him.
They ordered what they desired from London booksellers and
publishers, and may have received voluntary consignments of
publications from London. That would be a somewhat precarious
venture, for nothing could be more different than the reading markets in
Boston and in London, especially in the lighter products of the press.
Had it come through the Ushers, the title-page might state that it had
been printed "by M. J. for Hezekiah Usher," but in that event Usher
would have suffered for not obtaining the needed license. The
probability is that Johnson was alone responsible and was tempted by
the hope of gain.
These were all contemporary issues, coming from the press within six
months of the first appearance of the tract in London. So startling a
popularity, so widely shown, was a tribute to the opportunity rather
than to the contents of the piece. And the European interest continued
for a full century. In Germany it was included in a number of
collections of voyages, in Denmark it was printed in 1710 and 1789,
and in France Abbé Prévost took it for his compilation of 1767 on
discoveries. The English republication of 1778 has peculiar interest, for
it was due to no other than Thomas Hollis, the benefactor of the library

of Harvard College, who saw more in the tract than can now be
recognized, and induced Cadell to reprint it.

THE S.G. NOT A CAMBRIDGE IMPRINT
[ 19 ]In the absence of any positive objection, the conclusion of the
auction expert--that the S. G. imprint was one of Samuel Green of
Cambridge, Massachusetts--remained unquestioned. But a study of
editions and of the chronological sequence of the English issues offers
a decided negative to such a conclusion. The first part was licensed
June 27, 1668. Van Sloetten dated the second part July 22, 1668, and
the issue of the combined parts was licensed five days later, July 27. In
the space of just four weeks all three trads were licensed, and the actual
publication must have occurred within the same period of time. Such
had been the start obtained by the first part that on the continent it was
used for reprint and translation, almost to the neglect of the second part,
and, as we have seen, most of these translations appeared before the
end of 1668. Now the tract was not known in Massachusetts until
discovered by the inquest on printers in September, and a S. G. or
Samuel Green edition could hardly have come from the press before
October, even if not delayed by the proceedings against Johnson. Yet
on die title-page of the Dutch translation issued at Rotterdam in 1668,
the printer states at length that it is from a copy from London, by S. G.
for Allen Banks and Charles Harper, in the Lily near Cripplegate
Church, and in his note "To the Reader" he expressly repeats that he
obtained a copy of the work from London, in order to correct a faulty
issue by another Dutch printer.
[ 20 ]If S. G. was Samuel Green, we must suppose that one of his
Cambridge issues was shipped to Rotterdam in time to be translated
and reprinted before the end of the year. In point of time the thing could
be done, but in point of probability it was impossible. Apart from his
own statement, there