28 October 1863
This famous hoax was published on 28 October 1863 in the Virginia City Territorial Enterprise, probably under the title adopted here, “A Bloody Massacre near Carson.” Although the Enterprise printing is not extant, three contemporary reprintings from that paper permit a full recovery of the text: on the afternoon of October 28 the Gold Hill News reprinted the item, partly verbatim and partly in paraphrase; the Sacramento Union reprinted it verbatim on October 30; and the San Francisco Evening Bulletin did likewise on October 31. Other western papers picked up the story as well and provide additional textual evidence.1
Judging by these newspapers it seems that the almost universal reaction to the unsigned item was credulous horror, swiftly followed by anger and outrage when the hoax was discovered. The day after it appeared, in fact, Mark Twain himself published a retraction:
i take it all back.
The story published in the Enterprise reciting the slaughter of a family near Empire was all a fiction. It was understood to be such by all acquainted with the locality in which the alleged affair occurred. In the first place, Empire City and Dutch Nick's are one, and in the next there is no “great pine forest” nearer than the Sierra Nevada mountains. But it was necessary to publish the story in order to get the fact into the San Francisco papers that the Spring Valley Water company was “cooking” dividends by borrowing money to declare them on for its stockholders. The only way you [begin page 321] can get a fact into a San Francisco journal is to smuggle it in through some great tragedy.2
This jocular explanation failed to impress Mark Twain's critics. The Virginia City Evening Bulletin characterized it as “even worse than that published yesterday,” and together with the Gold Hill News, the Sacramento Union, and other newspapers condemned the author for sickening his readers, blackening the name of the territory, and betraying journalistic responsibility for truthful reporting.3 For more than a year negative comments continued to appear in the local press, and Mark Twain often alluded somewhat defensively to his infamous item.
The origin of the hoax is of interest to students of Mark Twain's apprenticeship at least in part because of this adverse and (to the author) surprising reaction. Paul Fatout has suggested that a “bottle imp” was responsible for Mark Twain's misjudging his audience,4 but there seems no need to invoke such extenuating circumstances. In fact, it is likely that the hoax originated very much as Mark Twain said in his retraction—as a fiction designed to hoodwink San Francisco papers into publishing a criticism of the Spring Valley Water Company. To be sure, it used the kind of gory detail that was standard fare in Nevada newspapers, drawing specifically on the real ax murders committed by William Cornwell at Reese River the previous July.5 But as the author pointed out, the deliberate errors in his “fiction” were designed to alert any reader “acquainted with the locality”—that is, Nevada residents but not San Franciscans.
In June 1870, seven years after the hoax appeared, Clemens recalled that he had in fact written it as a “scathing satire” exposing the “dividend-cooking system” of California and Nevada corporations, and he indicated that to his chagrin readers “never got down to where the satire part of it began.” Virtually all readers greedily devoured the “horrible details” which he had made “so carefully and conscientiously interesting” that they never [begin page 322] noticed the contradictions, and never understood the “satire part” which came at the end of the piece. There Mark Twain blamed Hopkins' derangement on financial losses from such “dividend cooking,” a practice he defined in 1870 as “increasing the value” of stock so that the trustees could “sell out at a comfortable figure and then scramble from under the tumbling concern.”6 Clemens also recalled that the occasion for his interest in the matter stemmed from the severe criticism heaped upon the Daney Gold and Silver Mining Company by the San Francisco papers for just this practice.
Clemens' memory is corroborated by the files of the San Francisco Evening Bulletin and by C. A. V. Putnam, a colleague of the author on the Enterprise. Putnam recalled in 1898 that C. L. Low, an old friend and San Francisco businessman in 1863, told him that two editors of the Bulletin (George K. Fitch and Lorin Pickering) “had been roped in . . . to the amount of $65,000” on bogusly inflated Daney mine stock. In retaliation the editors had published spiteful slurs on Comstock mines in general, including the irreproachable Gould and Curry. Low suggested that Putnam defend the honor of the local mines in the Enterprise, and that he urge the Bulletin to “confine its criticism to corporations whose property was nearer at home which resorted to ‘cooking dividends.’ ” Low had a particular San Francisco company in mind: the Spring Valley Water Company, which he said “had hired the money to pay its last three dividends,” thereby inflating its stock, a fact for which he could vouch. Putnam, however, was at a loss how to dramatize the facts in a way that would be copied by the “thick-skinned San Francisco journals,” and so turned to Clemens for help. A few hours later Clemens told him “he had solved the problem,” but that he had had “to manufacture a diabolical murder in order to work out his plot.” Putnam's response was to say “all right; go ahead,” and “A Bloody Massacre near Carson” was the result.7
Clemens also recalled in 1870 that the San Francisco press “while abusing the Daney . . . did not forget to urge the public to get rid of all their silver stocks and invest in sound and safe San Francisco stocks, such as the Spring Valley Water Company.”8 This is an exaggeration, however, probably deriving from the fiction of his own hoax: one of the editors of the San Francisco Bulletin “who had suffered pecuniarily by the dividend-cooking system as applied to the Daney Mining Company” was allegedly responsible for advising Hopkins to trade his silver stocks for those of the water company. The Bulletin had, in fact, severely criticized the situation with the Daney mine, [begin page 323] and had even cast aspersions on the Gould and Curry, but nowhere advised a general transfer of investment funds. At least one Bulletin article suggested that the editors knew personally what it felt like to be victimized: “To hook a big fat fish is very fine,” they wrote, “but it isn't very pleasant to be pulled in, taken down, and gobbled up.” And still another article emphasized the cardinal sin of mining-company trustees: inflating stock values in a poor mine before selling out at great profit to themselves.9
Mark Twain's hoax also exaggerated the financial difficulties of the Spring Valley Water Company. While he asserted that the newspapers of San Francisco had neglected their watchdog role, the fact was that the Bulletin had itself criticized the company for failing to supply adequate water to the southern districts of the city. The company's policy of turning off the water overnight, it was alleged, created a danger in case of fire, was the cause of coffeeless breakfasts, and, ironically, improved the purity of locally marketed milk.10 This policy may reflect financial difficulty not otherwise documented: after the Bulletin published its criticism the company's stock fell from eighty points to forty. But some recovery was made, and the stock never “went down to nothing” as Clemens asserted in the hoax.11
From Abram Curry Ⓔexplanatory note, who arrived here yesterday afternoon from Carson, we have learned the following particulars concerning a bloody massacre which was committed in Ormsby county night before last. It seems that during the past six months a man named P. Hopkins, or Philip HopkinsⒺexplanatory note, has been residing with his family in the old log house just atⒶemendation the edge of the great pine forest which lies between Empire City and Dutch Nick'sⒺexplanatory note. The family consisted of nineⒶemendation children—fiveⒶemendation girls and fourⒶemendation boys—the oldest of the group, Mary, being nineteenⒶtextual note Ⓐemendation years old, and the youngest, Tommy, about a year and a half. Twice in the past two months Mrs. Hopkins, while visiting in Carson, expressed fears concerning the sanity of her husband, remarking that of late he had been subject to fits of violence, and that during the prevalence of one of these he had threatened to take her life. It was Mrs. Hopkins'Ⓐemendation misfortune to be given to exaggeration, however, and but little attention was paid to what she said. AboutⒶtextual note Ⓐemendation Ⓐemendation tenⒶemendation o'clock on Monday evening HopkinsⒶemendation dashed into Carson on horseback, with his throat cut from ear to ear, and bearing in his hand a reeking scalp from which the warm, smoking blood was still dripping, and fell in a dying condition in front of the Magnolia saloon. HopkinsⒶemendation expired in the course of five minutes, without speaking. The long red hair of the scalp he boreⒶemendation marked it as that of Mrs. Hopkins. A number of citizens, headed by Sheriff Gasherie, mounted at once and rode down to Hopkins' house, where a ghastly scene met their gaze. The scalpless corpse of Mrs. [begin page 325] Hopkins lay across the thresholdⒶemendation, with her head split open and her right hand almost severed from the wrist. Near her lay the axⒶemendation with which the murderous deed had been committedⒶemendation. In one of the bedroomsⒶemendation six of the children were found, one in bed and the others scattered about the floor. They were all dead. Their brains had evidently been dashed out with a club, andⒶemendation every mark about them seemed to have been made with a blunt instrument. The children must have struggled hard for their lives, as articles of clothing and broken furniture were strewn about the room in the utmost confusion.Ⓐemendation Julia and Emma, aged respectively fourteenⒶemendation and seventeenⒶemendation, were found in the kitchen, bruised and insensible, but it is thought their recovery is possible. The eldest girl, Mary, must have taken refuge, in her terror,Ⓐemendation in the garret, as her body was found there,Ⓐemendation frightfully mutilated,Ⓐemendation andⒶemendation the knife with which her wounds had been inflicted still sticking in her side. The two girls,Ⓐemendation Julia and Emma, who had recovered sufficiently to be able to talk yesterday morning, state that their father knocked them down with a billet of wood and stamped onⒶemendation them. They think they were the first attacked. They further state that Hopkins had shown evidence of derangement all day, but had exhibited no violence. He flew into a passion and attempted to murder them because they advised him to go to bed and compose his mind.Ⓐemendation CurryⒶemendation says Hopkins was about forty-twoⒶemendation years of age, and a native of Western Pennsylvania;Ⓐemendation he was always affable and polite, and until very recently weⒶemendation had never heard of his ill treating his family. He had been a heavy owner in the best mines of Virginia and Gold HillⒶemendation, but when the San Francisco papers exposed the game of cooking dividends in order to bolster up our stocksⒶemendation he grew afraid and sold out, and invested to an immense amount in the Spring Valley Water CompanyⒺexplanatory note ofⒶemendation San Francisco. He was advised to do this by a relative of his, one of the editors of the San Francisco Bulletin Ⓔexplanatory note, who had suffered pecuniarily by the dividend-cookingⒶemendation system as applied to the DaneyⒶemendation Mining CompanyⒺexplanatory note recently. Hopkins had not long ceased to own in the various claims on the Comstock lead, however, when several dividends were cooked on his newly acquired property, their water totally dried up, and Spring Valley stock went down to nothing. It is presumed that this misfortune drove him mad and resulted in his killing himself and the greater portion of his family. The newspapers of San Francisco permitted this water company to go on borrowing money and cooking [begin page 326] dividends, under cover of which cunning financiers crept out of the tottering concern, leaving the crash to come upon poor and unsuspecting stockholders, without offering to expose the villainy at work. We hope the fearful massacreⒶemendation detailed above may prove the saddest result of their silence.Ⓐemendation
A Bloody Massacre near Carson] P1, P2, and P3 all vary markedly in the title used. Mark Twain's title in the Enterprise printing has been conjectured from the following item in the Austin (Nev.) Reese River Reveille supplement for 7 November 1863 (p. 1):
A Canard.—Some of the papers are expressing astonishment that “Mark Twain,” the local of the Territorial Enterprise, should perpetrate such a “sell” as “A Bloody Massacre near Carson,” a pretended account of which recently appeared in the columns of the Enterprise. They don't know him. We would not be surprised at ANYTHING done by that silly idiot.
About] P3 has a paragraph break here and at 325.22, but P1 and P2 accord against P3 in both cases. The case against a break is weakened somewhat by the way P1 combines paraphrase with extract, but the absence of paragraph breaks in P1 and P2 accords with the general practice of the Enterprise, and we have adopted it.
The first printing in the Virginia City Territorial Enterprise for 28 October 1863 is not extant. The sketch survives in three contemporary reprintings of the Enterprise:
P1 “Horrible,” Gold Hill (Nev.) News, 28 October 1863, p. 3.P2 “Bloody Massacre,” Sacramento Union, 30 October 1863, p. 1.
P3 “The Latest Sensation,” San Francisco Evening Bulletin, 31 October 1863, p. 5.
Copies: PH from Bancroft. The sketch is a radiating text: there is no copy-text. All variants are recorded in a list of emendations and adopted readings, which also records any readings unique to the present edition, identified as I-C.
The independence of P1 is guaranteed by its date of publication: the afternoon of the day the item appeared in the Enterprise. Neither P2 nor P3 can derive from P1 because they reprint so much more of the text. It is barely possible that P3 derived from P2 instead of from the Enterprise, since it appeared one day later. Two superior readings in P3—“just at” instead of “just to” and “Daney” instead of “Dana” (324.6 and 325.31)—suggest, however, that P3 derives independently from the Enterprise: it seems unlikely that the P3 compositor could have known to correct the error “Dana” and that he coincidentally shared Mark Twain's preference for “just at” and altered the readings of P2 accordingly. Although the evidence is not absolutely conclusive, we have conjectured that all three printings derive independently from the lost Enterprise, and each may therefore preserve authorial readings among its variants.
Three additional reprintings of the sketch have been set aside as probably derivative from P2 or P3. A paraphrase in the Grass Valley (Nev.) National, 31 October 1863 (p. 2), might easily derive from P2; another brief extract in the Visalia (Calif.) Delta, 5 November 1863 (p. 2), could also derive from either P2 or P3; and the text printed by Albert Bigelow Paine in MTB (3:1597–1599) clearly does derive from P3, not from the Enterprise.
The diagram of transmission records all known contemporary reprintings, including the derivative texts, but the list of emendations and adopted readings records only the variants among the independently radiating texts.