Fox

It's a letter printed in the appendix to the second volume of Johnson's General History, relating Evans' capture by pirates commanded by Captain (not Walter) Kennedy, and formerly commanded by John Martel.

A general observation: I've noticed, Swashbuckler, a few times in various threads you have mentioned "some book" or other. It would be much better to tell us which book and who wrote it, allowing us to make up our own minds whether it's good, flawless, or rubbish.

These days it is a generally accepted reenactorism that petticoat breeches are more full than slops, but at what point wide slops become narrow petticoat breeches is hard to define. In the GAoP itself I doubt anyone made the distinction. They were not so concerned with giving things specific labels as we are now, and to be honest I can't recall any reference to "petticoat breeches" in a period source at all. The most common description is 'wide kneed breeches' which is ambiguous enough that it could mean either

Ah, well that's an easier question to answer. Any label like "navy seaman" or "merchant seaman" was only temporary. Men moved from one branch of sea-service to another on a regular basis, so really it's best just to think of them as "seamen". Admiralty slop clothing was only sold to sailors in the Navy, but it wasn't compulsory for them to buy it, so in the navy men would be dressed in a mix of Admiralty slop clothing and civilian seaman's clothing. When a man left the navy he might end up on a merchantman or privateer, but any clothing that he had bought while in the RN was his to keep, so the crews of merchant ships would be dressed in a mix of civilian seamen's clothing with elements of Admiralty slop clothing.

Not naval slops, those were just for the navy. Presumably, and without any evidence to hand, they were usually typical seamen's clothes, perhaps similar to RN slops or the contents of Haycock's shop. But you could probably have figured that out without my help.

Woodes Rogers' voyage was 1708-1711, and Cooke's account was published in, I think, 1712. There were also four pairs of trousers in Joseph Haycock's slop shop at his death in 1699.

It's from one of the accounts of Woodes Rogers' circumnavigation - Cooke's I think.

They usually are

There were certainly a great many similarities between pirates and privateers. Both were involved primarily in maritime plunder, and used force or the threat of force to overwhelm merchant vessels for economic gain. Operationally there were common trends between them: both tended to carry large crews compared to merchant ships of similar size; both preferred to use intimidation rather than actual violence to subdue their prey; both were regulated by articles of agreement. For the average merchant captain at sea the difference between being captured by an enemy privateer and being captured by pirates would have been negligible. It is also true that pirates and privateers were often the same people at different times.Sometimes this was a result of changing circumstances - for example, at the end of the War of the Spanish Succession it was former privateers from English colonies that formed the nucleus of the golden age pirates: men like Blackbeard, Hornigold, Jennings, Ashworth and others slipping from one form of employment to the other. At other times it was caused by privateers exceeding the terms of their commission. Thomas Tew, William Kidd, John Quelch and others all started out as privateers but crossed the line into piracy when they attacked shipping not covered by their commissions. Occasionally, as in the case of Morgan, they inadvertently became pirates when their commissions were revoked without their knowledge. For what it's worth, Drake was never a privateer. However, there were also many differences between pirates and privateers, operationally, legally, and economically. For example, although both were regulated by articles, the privateers' articles were drawn up by, or with the consent of, the owners and investors in the cruise, while pirate articles were drawn up by the crew themselves. Privateer officers were appointed by the owners and could only be deposed by the crew if the crew was willing to turn pirate, unlike pirate crews in which officers could be replaced at will. (I think that the case for pirates voting their officers in and out of office has been greatly overstated, but that's another story). Crucially, privateers had access to friendly and neutral ports in which to refit and resupply, which pirates did not. As has already been pointed out, privateers were limited in their choice of targets, and while some pirates like Hornigold chose not to attack English shipping, this was unusual and was also their own choice, not a limitation imposed by others. I could go on and on, but I think the point is made that there were as many differences between pirates and privateers as there were similarities. I'm not sure I'd say they were 'virtually the same'.

Unless someone knows better, that's a Chelsea Pensioner uniform, so the guy is a soldier whose wounds entitled him to a place in the state hospital. Later pictures of Greenwich pensioners (the naval equivalent of a Chelsea Pensioner) tend to show them with wooden legs and hooks too. It's a kind of 18th century artists' convention on how to portray wounded servicemen. I will respond on privateers and pirates when I've given it some more thought...

Normally I don't respond to a summons unless it is accompanied by naked dancing round a fire and the sacrifice of a black cockerell or a goat, but... I haven't so far added to this thread because I have nothing to add. I've never come across a reference to a pirate with a hook, but there are a lot of pirates whose hands don't get mentioned either. Or did you want me to comment on the question of pirates/privateers? But this thread is about hooks...

Ah well, Anne Bonny and Mary Read got in Johnson's book, Martha Farley and Maria Critchett missed the boat on that one...

Working on it... not only all the things we know are wrong, but also all the things we know are right, and most importantly, where "Johnson" got his information. Current estimated completion date: 2020.

<Mod> Moved your buccaneer illustration to "The Buccaneer Project" where it will get better attention</Mod>

Yes, that article is an interesting indicator. (FWIW, the article is also only recorded by Johnson, but it happens to be one of the bits of Johnson I believe). The best we can say is that several hundred pirates were captured and tried, and we know that none of them were women (it's the kind of thing that would have come out in court), and that there are no other records of disguised women pirates being uncovered. So if there were women disguised as men then they were very good at hiding their gender and lucky enough never to get caught. There were, of course, other women who spent time aboard pirate ships, but not as part of the crew.

Thanks, I'm familiar with the drawing from the first ed. of Johnson, I was hoping for a later picture with a thrum cap (collecting pictures of thrum caps is a bit of an obsession...)

The cross-staff is mentioned in most navigational texts well into the 18th century. It was not as good as a back-staff but was considerably cheaper and more robust. There is fair evidence that the cross-staff was widely used by young officers like midshipmen and apprentices: see, for example, the second picture you posted or my signature quotation.

OK, just for the fun of it I made a start, then gave up counting when I reached the end of the obvious sources. On my bookcase there are folders containing copies of: Newspaper Articles: 399. Indictments and depositions from the High Court of Admiralty piracy cases: 686 pages High Court of Admiraly papers relating to the St. Mary's pirate settlement: 79 pages Letters from Royal Navy captains operating in the Caribbean and American coast, 1716-1722: 165 pages Letters from Colonial Governors (Bahamas, Bermuda, Leeward Islands, St. Kitt’s, 1715-1725): 196 pages Trials: Bellamy’s crew – 25 pages Harris – 21 pages Roberts’ company – 85 pages Stede Bonnet – 50 pages Weaver, Ingrams, and Gow’s company – 7 pages John Vidal (inc. Martha Farley) – 18 pages Edward Williams (inc. Maria Critchett) – 6 pages Rackham, Vane (inc. Bonny and Read) – 59 pages John Quelch – 24 pages William Kidd – 60 pages John Baptist Jedre – 33 pages Thomas Shafto – 4 pages William Fly – 24 pages George Cusack – 8 pages Alexander Wyatt et al. – 19 pages Matthew Parry et al. – 13 pages John Auger – 13 pages Richard Hancock – 19 pages Aaron Gibbons and William Bournal – 12 pages Every’s crew – 15 pages Total, 515 pages Captive memoirs: Snelgrave – 95 pages Du Bucquoy – 15 pages Ashton – 148 pages Fillmore - 10 pages Simmons and Barlow – 11 pages Roberts – 68 pages Total: 347 pages Grand Total: 2,387 pages This total does not include the many depositions and other documents that are in odd places - for example, several depositions made by Every's crew are in the Irish State Papers. Nor does it include correspondence from any North American colonial officials, or any correspondence earlier than 1715. The letters from RN captains includes fewer than half those serving in the Americas in 1715-1725, and none at all from other theatres or earlier. No correspondence from East India Company or Royal African Company officials is included, and neither is any private business correspondence of merchants such as Humphrey Morrice whose paper include many references to pirates. At a reasonable estimate these ommitted sources are at least as numerous as those listed.

That's interesting Mark, any chance you have a copy?

No, no reason to suppose it's inaccurate. But no reason to suppose it's accurate either, the only source for it again is Johnson, and we know that he made so much of the Bonny and Read story up. There are four women known to have sailed in pirate crews during the GAoP, Anne Bonny, Mary Read, Martha Farley, and Maria Critchett. All of whom are also known to have done so quite openly as women. It is possible that one or more women disguised themselves as men in order to go aboard and were never discovered, but it's statistically and practically unlikely.

What Mark said...

There are indeed many many books that tell that story about Mary Read, but every single one of them is copying it from Johnson's General History. The big problem is that Johnson got it wrong. In fairness, there is no evidence either way as to whether she really was a cavalryman in Flanders - she may have been, but there's no other record of it. However, there is other evidence relating to the time of her piracy, and from that we can definitely say that she was not disguised as a man at any point. Within about three or four days of Rackham and his crew going on the account Woodes Rogers issued a proclamation declaring them pirates, and naming Bonny and Read as members of the crew. If Woodes Rogers knew she was a woman then she wasn't disguised, and all those slightly comic misunderstanding that were supposed to have taken place betwene Bonny and Read didn't happen.

Mary Read joined Rackham's crew, with Bonny, at its formation. And Charlotte de Berry is most certainly fictional, and some very new research is casting serious doubt on Hannah Snell's story. Sorry.

One question can be answered: Catherine Lincken, who went to sea disguised as a man in the GAoP period used a cow's horn covered with leather to go to the head. I don't know how much scandal was really caused by Bonny and Read. They were notable at the time, certainly, but they weren't disguised in the sense that they didn't hide the fact they were women, they simply wore men's clothes from time to time for practical reasons - as other women also did without creating uproar. It was notable because it was unusual, but not scandalous. Even women who did actually disguise themselves as men were usually either treated as a bit of a 15 minute celebrity or just ignored. In the early 19th century there was a black woman calling herself "William Brown", who served for many years in the Royal Navy as an able seamen. Eventually she was found out to be a woman, but the following year reenlisted on the same ship!

Yes there was, some of it has been recovered from the wreck.