Dissecting GAoP costume Part 1: Reade and Bonny

[Gentleman of Fortune]

I thought this would be a good exercise to have us all discuss and make comments on Authentic Pirate costume.

Foxe makes an excellent point when he makes the claim that: "While we assume that the person making the engraving is intimately familiar with sailors and pirates, chances are they are an artist working back in England and far removed from Pirates and Piracy".

Even though, these are the best records we have for determining what is authentic costume for GAoP.

We have the added benefit of an eyewitness description of Reade and Bonney from the testimony of Dorothy Thomas who was on a ship that was attacked by R&B.

Her description of Reade and Bonny during their trial is as follows:

...the two women... were then on board the said sloop, and wore mens jackets, and long trousers, and handkerchiefs tied about their heads...

(I screwed the pooch and posted a 19C pic which messed up my point.)

I believe that these are the ones from the 1724 General History.

If anyone has a better picture than this, please post it...

[JoshuaRed]

Funny, they're actually near identical. Both have a brace of pistols on their baldrics, a cutlass and axe. Both have slops/trousers, shoes, short jackets, and something on their heads that could be kerchiefs, but obviously aren't being used to constrain hair.

[JoshuaRed]

Although done in 1896, this engraving is pretty good. I haven't seen this one till now.

You can easily see here the influence Pyle was having already, even among his contemporaries.

Now, according to The Mariner's Museum in VA, the engraving you posted Greg, was done in 1829 for "The History of the Pirates: Containing the Lives of Those Noted Pirate Captains, Misson, Bowen, Kidd, Tew, Halsey, White, Condent, Bellamy, Fly, Howard, Lewis, 1829 "

[dasNdanger]

Okay - if the dates on the engravings are in question - then what about the eyewitness accounts? I don't have anything on the ladies (not interested in dames, as a rule... ), so if anyone can post the account of how Reade and Bonny were attired, I'd appreciated it.

Just as with illustrations and engravings of Native Americans, artists were known to take liberties when it came to clothing, hair styles, and facial features. Not sure if any of it can be trusted 100%. Eyewitness descriptions should be more reliable...as long as there isn't any embellishment. But even there you are dealing with individual perspectives, prejudices, and faulty memories. So, how does the saying go?? 'Don't believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see'?? Something like that...

das

[JoshuaRed]

Yeah I think that's a pretty healthy attitude to take with this, das. Well said!

[Gentleman of Fortune]

This is not going exactly where I wanted it too so let me try again.

The picture I posted was from my copy of Johnsons... but not the right picture.

I will get the correct one from the first edition and post it later.....

[Fox]

I think we need some clarification on the Bonny and Read pictures. I'm given to understand that the ones GoF posted can be found in the 1725 Dutch edition of Johnson (Historie der Zee-Rovers).

Are these the first English edition pictures?

Just to throw some more pictures into the melting pot:

Detail from the hanging of Stede Bonnet, as depicted in the 1725 Dutch edition of Johnson.

Detail from the hanging of Captain James Lowry, 1752. A bit late, but nonetheless a pirate related picture, heavily based on the Bonnet picture.

Detail from a contemporary engraving of Woodes Rogers' privateers at Guayacil

Detail from a contemporary engraving of Woodes Rogers' privateers at Guayacil

English seamen in the frontispiece to England's Safety; or a Bridle to the French King by Captain Geroge St. Lo, RN, 1693. I'm pretty sure those are checked aprons they're wearing.

[Fox]

I've just remembered that I know a fella with a first edition of the General History. I've emailed him asking if he could scan the Bonny and Read pictures. If he does I'll post 'em here.

[dasNdanger]

This is not going exactly where I wanted it too so let me try again.

Sorry... (it's ALL JR's fault!!)

Actually, I DO know where you were going, and sorry about the pooch...

Thanks for the eyewitness quote, too!

Some things I find interesting:

According to Dorothy Thomas, the women wore LONG trousers. Hmmm...could this be because they were shorter than the men, and therefore the slops were longer on them? Or where they wearing something other than sailor's slops?

In the pictures, it shows their breasts practically bare - were they likely to be so exposed, or could that be a bit of artistic license?

In both sets of pictures their hair is unbound. Why? Again - is this a way for the artists to show that they were women? If these two 'passed' for men, then wouldn't the flowing hair be a dead givaway to their sex unless male pirates also wore their hair in a similar fashion??

das

[Fox]

According to Dorothy Thomas, the women wore LONG trousers. Hmmm...could this be because they were shorter than the men, and therefore the slops were longer on them? Or where they wearing something other than sailor's slops?

It almost certainly means they were wearing the long trousers which were becoming fashionable amongst seamen at that time. See the Guayacil and Bonnet execution engravings I posted above.

In the pictures, it shows their breasts practically bare - were they likely to be so exposed, or could that be a bit of artistic license?

It's probably artistic licence to show they are women, but just possibly it might be a depiction of shirts with very open necks.

In both sets of pictures their hair is unbound. Why? Again - is this a way for the artists to show that they were women? If these two 'passed' for men, then wouldn't the flowing hair be a dead givaway to their sex unless male pirates also wore their hair in a similar fashion??

In Swift's "Gulliver's Travels" of 1726 Gulliver is tied to the ground by his long hair, indicating that at least one GAoP period seaman had long and loose hair

[Gentleman of Fortune]

I guess this has only just caused more confusion instead of less.

The picture I originally posted was from the back cover of CJ 's GH. I assumed that it was from the original edition and posted it.

After Josh's inquiry, I opened up the book and posted the ones that were in the text.

So assuming the ones above in post one are correct....

I would imagine that, as Foxe has said time and time again, the artist who depicted the women were far removed from the carribean and from piracy and probably lived somewhere in England.

The sensation of 2 women dressing like men and turning to piracy was just too incredible and fasinating for the citizenry of the early 18th Cent. So I would imagine that the hair and the naked boobs is just playing in to that.

Regarless.

They are wearing shoes, not boots and the tounges do not seem too high. The buckles are small though wich meshes with what we know about period shoes.

We know that trousers for sailors are starting to come into fashion sometime in the early 18th Century and, Thomas's testimony and the engravings bear this out. The are button front with small buttons exposed. The length seems to be above ankle, below calf and are relatively straight.

Both seem to have the standard shirt type for the period. It is not lace up the front but probably ties at the top. I imagine that their shirts are not tied in order to show us that they are women (look boobs). Although some of the men I have seen at events dressed as pirates have bigger boobs than those depicted here

Coat: The coat seems resonably short and has what appear to be medium small cuffs. Can anyone make out any more details here?

Hats.... Peter the Great style? They certainly are not headscarves. The scarves they are wearing are around their neck.

Anyone else?

[Fox]

The cuffs look to me like mariners' cuffs. The seem to have small openings at the wrists like partially unbuttoned mariners' cuffs, but since I can't make out any buttons going further up it's difficult to say.

The hats I've always taken to be battered felt round hats, since that's exactly what my battered felt round hat looks like. Beyond that I can only speculate. They might be the so called "Peter the Great" style, but I don't see it myself. :)

[dasNdanger]

The sensation of 2 women dressing like men and turning to piracy was just too incredible and fasinating for the citizenry of the early 18th Cent. So I would imagine that the hair and the naked boobs is just playing in to that.

Regarless.

Ah - see you might not be too concerned about this little bit, but as a woman, I am. I always figgered they tried to conceal the boobage, but according to these pictures, they didn't. That has a lot of bearing on how low the neckline of my shirt should be, because I have passed up several low cut ones like that 'cause of the BCs...

Also, a hair style has as much to do with authentic appearance as anything. Again, I have long hair and have wondered if it should be tied back in a queue, or allowed to hang freely. If I go according to these pictures, then free-flowing hair would be correct.

Which brings me to the scarves vs. hat thing. If the eyewitness account said they wore 'handkerchiefs tied about their heads..', then the hats may have been an artist's interpretation and not really what they wore.

Now - about those scarves. Any idea HOW they would be tied? Like a traditional 'fantasy' pirate ties one, like a Russian grandmother, or like Madonna, c. 1984? Any thoughts?

das

[JoshuaRed]

Foxe thanks for posting that pic of Woodes Roger's men..that is a classic that I was just looking at the other day in one of my books. One of the few spot on pictures that shows just what we're looking for. I just wish I could find a large version!

Greg, I always thought the Bonny/Read pic you posted originally WAS from Johnson's GH...but the source I found today says different, not that it really matters, as the picture seems pretty accurate. Hooray for small buckles and low tongues! If anyone needs small buckles, I recommend G.Godwin, a dealer in Valley Forge. I bought 1" buckles from him and they are great.

Back to the Bonney and Read art. It is most definitely sensationalized, with the long hair and boobs. Although there is an account of Anne Bonney flashing her boobs to all the ships in New Providence harbor as Rackham put to sea once.

[dasNdanger]

Although there is an account of Anne Bonney flashing her boobs to all the ships in New Providence harbor as Rackham put to sea once.

Does that mean it would be historically accurate to do the same at the next faire or re-enactment???!!

Hmmm...I wonder if Mardi Gras beads are historically accurate, too...

Okay, lemme be serious for a moment.

I would like to know more about the trousers. In pictures they are usually light in color...would they have ever been dark? Brown or black, perhaps?? Or only the lighter colors? In that year, what would they have been made out of? Linen? And can anyone tell if these ladies are wearing stockings of any sort?

Another thing I noticed is that in all four pictures, the women are carrying or holding axes. Was that an artist's addition, or is it likely that they did tote them around (this would be a good thing since I got a nice one last summer).

das

[JoshuaRed]

A boarding axe is just as likely if not more likely than a hanger. It was a heavily favored sea weapon. That is entirely accurate.

[Francois]

Sailor's did not begin to wear persceibed uniforms until the late 17th century. While officers wore uniforms, seamen often did not. One item of clothing that many many seamen had was a kerchief. It was a useful item to wipe away the sweat in the cramped quarters, especially among the gun crew in men-of-war. The kerchiefs worn by these sailors were highly varied.

Tradition has it that British seamen began wearing black kneckerchiefs as a mourning badge when Admiral Nelson was killed at Trafalgur. This British Naval hero was revered on both sides of the water, and even though the flegling American Navy was separated from the British Navy and in fact, in conflict with it, the American Navy continued the use of this to use this folded scarfe. The Americans even adopted the black silk.

Made as it is of tough silk of very light weight, this kerchief has been found to be of great value as a first aid appliance to stop hemorrhage, sling a fractured arm or bind up a broken head. And so its continued use in the modern Naval uniform has the support of both tradition and custom, and of the medical authorities who see in it a first aid appliance of the very highest emergency and greatest utility.

Some women did not hide the fact that they were women. This is why you see photos with thier breasts showing and thier hair is down. Understand there were also whole families that were pirates including women children aunts uncles and so on. It made sense for the family to stay together and protect each other and work together to share there bounty.

The pants you see her wearing could have been a venetian breeches or dutch slops. they may have been too long for her this could be why they are down to her ancles. It was typical for them to have button flys and a tie in the back to allow for growth so that you could get more years out of them.

The cap is similar to a Smeerenburg cap, knitted of white (actually slightly off-white) wool, this type of cap was found at a Scandinavian burial site dating to the early to mid 17th century. It's the equivalent of the Monmouth cap.

The shoes could have been a type of gentalmen shoe with the open top and large gold buckle. They had differant types and hight heels. BTW for those of you looking for a cheep similar style go to the store Bon Ton. womens shoe. It looks almost exactly like a period shoe the only differance is it is a flat shoe and you and the buckle as it could fit to the shoe. $45.00 if they still carry them.

In my opinion I do not belive that the photo is artistic license or sensationalized. The artists back then (if the print is in period) wanted to capture the true person as did the person being painted. This was the only form of preseving time so the person being painted wanted a true portrait of themselves.

Francois

[Fox]

Bonny and Read art: The two small coloured pictures are the ones that appeared in the first edition of Johnson's General History, uncoloured. The ones currently displayed in GoF's first post I believe to be from the 1725 edition as I stated earlier. I've been sent a scan of the Bonny and Read engraving from an actual first edition of Johnson, so that clears that up at least.

Das: I'm not convinced those are low cut shirts, rather I think they have long slits down the front. And yes, nobody can argue if you wear your hair down, though I doubt anyone would if you wore it up either. I've come across quite a few references to canvas trousers, as well as cotton ones. While the pictures do tend to show light coloured trouser I think anyone would be hard pushed to prove that darker or coloured ones aren't authentic As to how to tie scarves...how do you tie a piece of string? the engravings from Johnson do show scarves though (and they're the only period depictions of pirate head scarves I know of), so copy them and you can't go too wrong.

Francois: Which navy are you thinking of when you talk about uniforms? The Royal Navy had no uniform at all until the mid-18th century for officers and mid 19th for ratings. I don't know of earlier naval uniforms for other nations, but I could be wrong.

I've got a load more pictures of period sailors' clothing, but I'll post them in a seperate message...coming soon...

[Mission]

In the pictures, it shows their breasts practically bare - were they likely to be so exposed, or could that be a bit of artistic license?

It's probably artistic licence to show they are women, but just possibly it might be a depiction of shirts with very open necks.

I have to believe that's just dramatics as suggested above. Here's what I find in General History of the Pyrates:

Her [Mary Read's] Sex was no so much as suspected by any Person on Board, till Ann Bonny, who was not altogether so reserv'd [as Mary Read was] in point of Chastity, took a particular liking to her; in short, Ann Bonny took her for a handsome young Fellow, and for some Reasons best known to herself, first discovered her Sex to Mary Read; Mary Read knowing what she would be at, and being very sensible of her own Incapacity that Way, was forced to come to a right Understanding with her, and so to the great Disappointment of Ann Bonny, she let her know she was a Woman also..."

Since it clearly a big secret, it's pretty doubtful that they ran around as depicted. Which would throw the veracity of those pics into doubt in my mind.

[JoshuaRed]

Yeah, my thought is that Anne Bonney would have gotten away with it for some time, had Mary Read not also come on board. I think Jack knew of Anne long before the crew in general did, and furthermore I think that once the crew knew, they were ok with it. Whether that was from her skill as a sailor, prowess as a drinker or fighter, or whether Jack "shared" her with the crew, we'll never know. Maybe it was all of the above.

[Fox]

Good point Mission, I'd forgotten that passage. I thought it probably was just artistic license, hence the italics, and that confirms my opinions (and most people's I believe)

furthermore I think that once the crew knew, they were ok with it. Whether that was from her skill as a sailor, prowess as a drinker or fighter, or whether Jack "shared" her with the crew, we'll never know.

If we believe what Johnson tells us about the relationships on that ship then it's unlikely that Rackham shared her. a: because he would probably have mentioned it, he knew a great amount of detail about the goings on on that ship, and in the Blackbeard chapter he mentions BB passing his wife around, so he wasn't prudish, and b: remember that Rackham got jealous and threatened to kill Mary Read when he thought she fancied Bonny.

From other, albeit later, cases of women cross-dressing on ships we find a high proportion of instances where the crew all said what a marvellous sailor so-and-so was after their gender was revealed.

[dasNdanger]

Das: I'm not convinced those are low cut shirts, rather I think they have long slits down the front.

Yeah - that too!

That's actually what I meant. Some slits stop at about the top o' me cleavage, but they are usually the lace-up type which you really don't see (I have one lace-up one, but I laced it backwards - not criss-cross but running the laces up through the holes on each given side - then letting the laces dangle from the top like a traditional sailor's shirt). Anyway, I have seen the more traditional shirt with the tie at the top and the long slit down the front, but have passed on them because the slit nearly goes down to me navel! So perhaps I can find something in the middle somewhere.

And yes, nobody can argue if you wear your hair down, though I doubt anyone would if you wore it up either.

K - I tend to be a wild woman and prefer my hair down and free!! ALTHOUGH working aboard ship it wouldn't be very practical or safe. I have to tie it back whenever I go sailing or doing maintenance - so perhaps they did pull it back when working, and let it loose when idle. Either way, I guess I'm covered...

I've come across quite a few references to canvas trousers, as well as cotton ones. While the pictures do tend to show light coloured trouser I think anyone would be hard pushed to prove that darker or coloured ones aren't authentic

That's great! I have a pair of cotton trousers (black - I have a thing for black ) that are about the length shown in those pictures - not wide like slops, but not tight, either...really very similar in appearance to those pictures except for color and the fly. See, the problem is they have a draw string waist and pockets. Hmmm...wondering how I can alter them. I have a friend who is a wonder with needle and thread - I'll see what she thinks. I prefer these over some of the trousers I've seen at faires and re-enactments because they are relatively light-weight.

As to how to tie scarves...how do you tie a piece of string?  the engravings from Johnson do show scarves though (and they're the only period depictions of pirate head scarves I know of), so copy them and you can't go too wrong.

Yeah - I'm trying to figure out exactly how they are worn in those pictures...hard to really tell...(they DO look like a 1984 Madonna-style tied scarf!) I'll just wing it if I decide to go that route.

Thanks for helping. Now I have another question...

In these pictures - and in many others - most everyone is wearing coats or jackets. Frankly, I cannot for the life of me comprehend how anyone could wear a coat in the tropical heat! So, why coats? What about vests (waistcoats or whatever they may have been called) instead of coats?

das

[JoshuaRed]

The simple answer is, that is was just the accepted norm, and being seen without such clothing would be like you or me walking down the street naked today. Not to mention it offered protection from the sun.

Now speaking from personal experience, I cannot see how they did it either. I was a groomsman in my brother's wedding which was outdoors on a HOT 90+degree July day, and we were in full tuxedos. Well after an hour I damn near had heatstroke and just barely made it inside to lay down before passing out. Course, the period linens breathed much better than today's synthetic stuff.

[kass]

Josh hit it on the head -- walking around without your jacket would be like us walking around shirtless. Yeah, you can do it, but you better not try to go anywhere like that. Even today you cannot get into a store without a shirt or shoes.

We have pictures of men working in just their waistcoats, but this is for active labour. When they are done, they put their jackets back on. Part of that is sun protection. Part of it is convention. In the 19th century in India, Western men didn't go around in their shirtsleeves either. And India is HOT!

Do you know that if you're wearing natural materials, you are less in danger of heatstroke when wearing clothing covering every inch of your skin than with skin exposed? Don't believe me? Ask a Bedouin. There is a reason why the tradition garments of these desert-dwellers is an ankle-length wool (goat hair, actually) robe and not shorts and a tank top!

I can tell you from experience that I've worn a lot of clothing on one of those 90+ July days and I was fine. And believe me, I am not a very heat-resistant person.

Remember too that we live in a world of climate control and air conditioning. These people did not. I am relatively certain that they were tougher than us.

[Fox]

You should be careful with black if you're trying to be authentic. a sort of dirty black/dark grey kind of colour is fine, there are a number of different dyes for that, but if you're talking about true black, jet colour, then that was VERY expensive because in order to get that dark it had to be dyed over and over and over again. Being a pirate you could always go with the "I stole this off a ship we took and..." but then you've got to consider a: how much jet black fabric there was floating around on ships at the time and b: if you had taken this very expensive stuff would you really make a pair of working trousers from it?

As Josh said natural fibre breathes a hell of a lot better than modern synths. In modern terms think of the difference between weaing a cotton t-shirt on a hot day and wearing a polyester one.

Plus, of course the mid 17th century is said to have been a mini-ice age, so the GAoP was just coming out of that.

Right, more pictures.