In conversation with AVI's thoughts on misinterpretations in the history of heredity where he brings up the natural philosopher, astrologer and pirate* Sir Kenelm Digby, I thought it would be interesting to review another 17th century natural philosopher who was an alchemist and undercover investigator for the English mint, Sir Isaac Newton.
"As Warden, and afterwards as Master, of the Royal Mint, Newton estimated that 20 per cent of the coins taken in during the Great Recoinage of 1696 were counterfeit. Counterfeiting was high treason, punishable by the felon being hanged, drawn and quartered. Despite this, convicting even the most flagrant criminals could be extremely difficult, but Newton proved equal to the task.
"Disguised as a habitué of bars and taverns, he gathered much of that evidence himself. For all the barriers placed to prosecution, and separating the branches of government, English law still had ancient and formidable customs of authority. Newton had himself made a justice of the peace in all the home counties. A draft letter regarding the matter is included in Newton's personal first edition of Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, which he must have been amending at the time. Then he conducted more than 100 cross-examinations of witnesses, informers, and suspects between June 1698 and Christmas 1699. He successfully prosecuted 28 coiners, including the serial counterfeiter William Chaloner, who was hanged."
He also has an interesting coat of arms.
###
* Wikipedia says he was a privateer, but everyone seems dedicated to thinking of him as a pirate, which is admittedly more sexy.
An era of gentlemen with varied interests! I am fairly sure, however, that “disguised” is serving as a euphemism. The most effective way to disguise yourself as a habitual visitor of taverns is to visit a lot of taverns.
ReplyDeleteNormally I'd be highly inclined to agree, but Newton was notably anti-social. This was probably torture for him, listening to men drone on about ratting dogs, sports, the weather, and their girlfriends, real or imagined, while in his mind silently working out the details of the calculus he needed to describe gravitational attraction.
DeleteThankfully, I will never suffer from such an affliction. I could use a good tavern right now, come to think of it.
There's a pretty good one in Waynesville, if you're ever out this way.
DeleteI’m still not convinced that a privateer isn’t just a subset of pirate. A filibuster in the original sense was the land-based version.
ReplyDeleteI had no idea that filibuster could mean that!
DeleteI can't think of any time I've convinced you of anything, so I'm not getting my hopes up on this point. Still, in the spirit of pushing for anarchism as far as we can, why not abandon these oppressive hierarchical knowledge structures of super- and sub-categories? In a more horizontal knowledge structure like the Venn diagram, I would say there's a good bit of overlap but they still retain their separate identities.
Ok, but even if you want to treat them as separate categories, it's likely that he satisfies both. If "pirate" is "member of a ship-borne raiding band" and "privateer" is member of a ship-borne raiding band operating in the service of a State," that could formalize:
DeletePi=x
Pr=x+y
So, both pirate and privateer even if they're not nested.
You've probably convinced me of things without noticing it; I might well not argue over a point I thought was pretty good.
Well, that logic suggests that US Marines are also pirates. Which, come to think of the Marines I know, may cinch the argument for you ... (Yeah, kinda feeling whimsical today. Nothing I'm saying here should be taken too seriously.)
DeleteBut, to continue, maybe better descriptions would be: privately funded and operated ship-borne raiders who follow the law vs privately funded and operated ship-borne raiders who have no regard for the law. Action according to or in rejection of the law is a necessary condition here, not an incidental one.
Again, the difference between murder and justifiable homicide is my analogy. This analogy may be weak if you see it as moral rather than legal, but isn't there similarly a moral and not just legal difference between pirate and privateer?
In terms of action, beyond merely taking ships, piracy and privateering both entail, e.g., how the target ship's crew and passengers are to be treated, how the target ship and its cargo are to be dealt with, etc. I suspect it was better to be the victim of a privateer, who will treat crew and passengers according to the law, than a pirate, who will do whatever he wants to the crew and passengers.
Again, the difference between murder and justifiable homicide is my analogy. This analogy may be weak if you see it as moral rather than legal, but isn't there similarly a moral and not just legal difference between pirate and privateer?
DeleteAll analogies always break, as I often say; the question is where it breaks, before or after it has sustained the weight you need it to sustain. I this one breaks very quickly, though. If we imagine a world in which there was no State and no legislation, we can see that someone who killed in self defense or defense of his family would probably still be well-regarded by others; one who killed in a predatory manner would likely not be.
(If you want to impose a religious context on top of the social one, one might not have violated the natural law or the divine law but acted in an upright way as a husband or father defending his family; the murderer clearly has sinned through wrath or lust or whatever brought him to the murder. However, since the religious context introduces a sort-of legislation, it might muddy the point to add it.)
In a similar absence of law, there appears to be no difference at all between the pirate and the privateer. Nor is there a clean break between, e.g., how they treated captives. Some pirates were quite gentle especially if the other ship surrendered without a fight (the difference between the 'black flag' and the 'red flag'); some privateers, especially the corsairs from Barbary, viciously enslaved captives. Even the British "impressed" captive sailors pretty often, and not just their privateers but even their navy.
As the pirate said to Alexander, how dare you molest the whole world? There's no obvious distinction.
In a similar absence of law, there appears to be no difference at all between the pirate and the privateer.
DeleteWouldn't that depend on the morality of the war the privateer was involved in? After all, we don't have privateers during peace time. If the privateer was on the unjust side of the war, then that's unjust, but if on the just side, then just. Pirates would always be unjust, wouldn't they?
I think this ends up in a discussion of the ethics of warfare. We could say that a naval vessel is no different from a pirate or privateer. Why not?
If the objection is the difference between national warships and private warships, that is, national vs private military power, what about knights? They were private military as well. Yet they are honored here.
As for gentle pirates, that's hardly an ethical example: If you give up your rights, we won't murder you.
And the Barbary privateers didn't enslave people because they were privateers but because they were Muslims and within Islam it's OK to enslave non-Muslims in that way.
The British impressing sailors was predominantly done by the British navy, the pirates!
Pirates would always be unjust, wouldn't they?
DeleteArguably not. Pirates could be raiding the shipping of an evil government as a means of sustaining a free and democratic society. There's no reason to think they would necessarily be morally worse than the governments they were opposing; they could well be better. The pirates of the 17th century did many bad things, but they didn't keep slaves like the governments did, and protected others of their citizenry doing; the pirates often freed slaves, slaves who regularly joined them of their own will in order to keep themselves out of the control of such governments as had permitted (indeed profited from) their bondage.
If the objection is the difference between national warships and private warships, that is, national vs private military power, what about knights? They were private military as well. Yet they are honored here.
DeleteThat wasn't the objection. I thought I was making the point that service of the state wasn't in any sense a moral qualifier. There's no objection to private arms, or warships, or knights errant (as opposed to knights sworn to the service of some king). The opposite, if anything.
The problem you have is one of relativity. Whose law? For example, in the case of Barbary Pirates, the laws of the West, or the laws of Islam? Whose government, and are they a government of the people or of a ruler? That they might be funded by a government hardly bestows righteousness in itself. You really have to make case by case arguments, don't you?
DeleteYes, douglas, that seems to be where I end up as well. It all depends.
DeleteThis was a fascinating story, and my introduction to Newton's career as Warden at the Royal Mint, and his "counter-counterfeiting" detective work v. William Chaloner.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6437943-newton-and-the-counterfeiter
Highly recommend!
That looks fantastic! I'll get a copy and check it out.
DeleteTD, if you do read it, lemme know how you like it (or not), k? I'm always curious how my book recommendations are judged/evaluated by other readers, but few follow up to let me know.... Thx, CC
DeleteIt will probably sometime this summer. If I remember, I'll post a short review.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRe: privateers, and slightly off topic:
ReplyDeleteIn the way back, like 1998, a former Navy pilot, turned lawyer, turned military-fiction author, published a book titled "Balance of Power," the plot of which revolved around a modern-day President v. Congress disagreement over issuance of "Letters of Marque" to a private enterprise for recovery of a merchant ship stolen by (IIRC) East Asian pirates.
Again IIRC, the author included much discussion about the legalities involved. It's been a long time since I read the book & I don't recall the details of it all, but if anyone has the time and interest, it might prove ...interesting..., given that it's been a long, long time since LoM have been used "for realz" (as they once were wont to say.)
Or it might not. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1214697.Balance_of_Power
Looks like a good tale! I'll add it to my list ... Though, I'm unlikely to read it for a while. The Newton book will come earlier, and I already have a long list for the summer.
DeleteIt seems that part of the issue is definitions. For example, when Grim says: Pirates could be raiding the shipping of an evil government as a means of sustaining a free and democratic society, my initial reaction is that that isn't piracy. It would be called piracy by the evil government, but that's hardly proof that it actually is piracy. I mean, who believes the evil government on such matters?
ReplyDeleteFor me, then, I realize that I have an unstated assumption that pirates are primarily self-interested and are willing to commit violence and theft purely to enrich themselves. This isn't part of any formal definition, though, and there's no particular reason anyone else has to include it in their definition.
Privateers (again, for me) may be similarly motivated, or they may be patriots. A robber's greed may be part of their character, but is not necessarily so.
It's always interesting to discover your own unconscious assumptions.