Mission

Well, lookey here! Something I stumbled across while searching my notes from Pierre Labat's book on the privateers. “Other items in the agreement are: That if a man be wounded he has to receive one écu a day as long as he remains in the surgeon’s hands up to sixty days, and this has to be paid or allowed for before any man receives his share. A man receives 600 écus for the loss of each limb, 300 écus for the loss of a thumb or the first finger of the right hand, or an eye, and 100 écus for each of the other fingers. If a man has a wooden leg or a hook for his arm and these happen to be destroyed, he receives the same amount as if they were his original limbs.” (Labat, p. 37)

I'm not saying it didn't happen, that would be absurd. I'm saying it doesn't appear to have been very common at sea. If it were, at least one of the sea surgeon's guides would have devoted space on what to do in that case. Sea surgeon manuals were targeted towards operations the surgeon might encounter. They were meant to be a sort of quick reference manual for newly minted surgeons or (in the worst case) laymen who were tasked with performing surgery at sea where no surgeon was present. This is why none of them discuss how to deliver infants, for example. So the lack of information on how to treat a damaged or missing eye is somewhat telling by its absence. As for your images, those all appear to be examples of couching - pushing cataracts out of the way of vision in the eye. The middle drawing (from Lorenz Heister's 1742 book, I think) shows this pretty clearly. The surgeon actually inserts a small needle into the eye to try to move the cataract. That's why the surgeon is holding a small instrument each photo. There are several examples of the couching procedure mentioned in period medicine books. (And why not? The operation has been around since before the birth of Christ.) But this procedure is not mentioned in any of the sea surgeon manuals, because, as an elective surgery, it would not be performed at sea where the ship moving might interfere with such a delicate operation.

Curiously, I have found very few accounts of this in the period medical literature. It was very common at this time for surgical writers to stuff case studies into the middle of their medical literature to illustrate the cures they had seen and performed. I now have six period or near-period books specific to sea surgery (two of which - Hugh Ryder's New practical observations in surgery containing divers remarkable cases and cures and John Moyle's Chyrurgic memoirs : being an account of many extraordinary cures which occurred in the series of the author's practice are devoted exclusively to case studies) and have not seen a complete account of a cure of someone having lost an eye. (So far. I haven't finished Ryder's book yet.) I have read LOTS of accounts of splinter-removals, amputations, open wounds, broken bones, abdominal damage and head wounds.

I can see the point about published sources, at least as far as modern material goes. Every ill-informed idiot with an idea seems to want to state their views in a blog and many ill-informed idiots with ideas do. I suppose they figure if something has been published, it has at least been reviewed a little and that will separate the wheat from the chaff.. OTOH, Berg got his book published, so maybe that's not such a great measuring stick either. The primary source evidence thing is kind of bizarre. I suppose that again comes back to wheat/chaff thing. Just because someone wrote a letter from the trenches about their role in the great war (whichever great war) doesn't necessarily mean they got their information right, especially in regard to the larger picture. In fact, I would think the opposite would often be true. So rather than try and sift through it or get involved in mediating silly arguments between two writers with letters containing differing opinions, wiki issues a preemptive inconcessus. Interesting. (Irrelevant to the topic, but still interesting.)

Wow, good stuff there! I particularly like the point about the articles. It doesn't really help with the eye patch point, but it does highlight the the idea that the danger of losing an eye was important enough to include in at least one set of articles. Thanks!

Yeah, that's the portrait that Swashbuckler posted above. She's not a pirate, though. Was there a pirate with an eye patch in the book Treasure Island? (Someone's gotta' help me here; I've never read it and Google isn't telling.)

Somehow eye patches got linked to the popular image of pirates and I'm trying to figure out how. Being a good researcher, I am trying to find some evidence...any evidence... of Golden Age of Piracy era eye patches on pirates. So far, nada. "Might be" and "no a thing that would need really much evidence" are a part of the reason crap like this is the modern conception of a pirate: Say, where did the eye patch first enter the popular main stream? [Edit] This article by Johnathan Clayborn has some interesting features. He actually does find an historical pirate with an eye patch: "The only pirate being recorded as having worn an eye patch is Rahmah ibn Jabir al-Jalahimah, an Arab pirate who sailed in the 1800's. He mostly sailed in the Persian Gulf and was described by an English author as "the most successful and the most generally tolerated pirate, perhaps, that ever infest any sea." So, way past period. And, as he notes, not a popular mainstream persona, either. He makes a further interesting point. "In examining the lives of over 400 notable naval officers of America, England, France & Spain I could not find any evidence that supports the notion that injuries to the eye were commonplace. And yes, there is a mountain of evidence to suggest that splinters were indeed very lethal aboard ships during combat, but usually the most common splinter injuries were to the torso, legs and arms. Most people use their hands and arms to shield their face in the case of flying debris, so injuries to the eye would have been somewhat mitigated by that action."

Bumping this up to see if anyone has knowledge of any period references to La Buse/La Bouche/Levasseur outside of the General History...

Who called you a nincompoop, Daniel? As I have stated in the past, I think wiki is right more often than wrong. However, I also think that if they want to be the internet's encyclopedia they ought to maintain consistency throughout a given article. It confuses the issue when they say one thing in one place and another later on. (Which is one of the problematic facets of any group exercise.) I must say, I have never understood the desire to separate out the Roundsmen. It seems like a slightly different shade of the Golden Age of piracy to me. Of course, that really just returns us to the definition of guidelines problem and how fuzzy the underlying facts really are.

I got an email question from a writer who was reading my website and wanted to know how gold teeth were attached in the mouth. It took some effort to assemble the answer, so I thought I'd share it here. Maybe I'll stick it up on my website in the next month or two. Here is the answer: Sorry to burst your bubble, but I've never come across any mention of gold teeth on anyone during the Golden Age of Piracy. That appears to be yet another pop-culture addition to the legend and lore of pirates. Here is about he closest thing I've seen. It is from Ambroise Paré's book "The Workes of that Famous Chirurgion Ambrose Parey": “...other teeth artificially made of bone or Ivorie may bee put in the place of those that are wanting, and they must bee joined one fast unto another and also fastened to the natural teeth adjoining, that are whole; and this must chiefly bee don with a thred of gold or silver, or for want of either, with a common thred of silk or flax, as it is declared at large by Hippocrates...” (Paré, p. 577) Elizabeth Bennion tells us more about period-era false teeth in her book "Antique Medical Instruments". Her comments suggest false teeth would be a luxury reserved for the rich, making it extraordinarily unlikely that a pirate would have access to any kind of false teeth at all. (Pirates would be EXTREMELY unlikely to reach the sort of people who served the rich. Such surgeons would be well-established land practitioners in places where pirates would usually not go without fear of being caught and hung.) “In England the very rich might have had dentures by the end of the seventeenth century. The mouth would have been measured with compasses and the false teeth tied onto the natural ones with silk. A full lower set would be hand carved, often from one piece of ivory, but upper sets, being more difficult to keep in place, presented more problems. Walrus ivory was favoured but rhinoceros was used too. Sometimes human teeth were set in tinted ivory gums (in desperate cases, animal teeth were used). For fashionable use at Court, teeth might be of silver or mother of pearl, and Lord Hervey astonished his friends in 1735 by appearing with teeth carved from Italian Agate.” (Bennion, p. 249) She also gives some interesting details on how false teeth were fashioned. “All these [false] teeth had to be removed for eating, though some women had their gums pierced with hooks to keep the teeth in place. The Parisian dentist Fauchard, in the early eighteenth century, fastened the upper and lower sets together with a steel spring, but constant pressure was needed to keep the mouth closed.” (Bennion, p. 249) So the short answer? Gold teeth are inaccurate if you're trying to be historically correct. A pirate having any false teeth at all would be very, very unlikely.

You could also do a surgery. That's one I haven't been willing to tackle yet because I want to make it super-detailed. I'd be glad to assist you.

Yeah, I already cited the Wiki three conceptualizations idea back when this first came up. When you come down to it, history is necessarily messy when you're being fair about what really happened. Although, of your three concepts, two of the results agree with Foxe's results for the most part. We can keep slicing and dicing this and get the wide variety of ideas when the time period could be defined as shown in my first post of all the top Google results, but I think Foxe has presented a pretty logical rationalization for how we can define the GAoP. Of course, since he did that by establishing a set of guidelines, it can re-done and re-done and re-done by modifying the guidelines you want to use.

Uring's comment I cited was from the time he was shipwrecked in 1711, smack in the middle of the GAoP. He specifically says some of them had been pirates. As for raising food, it seems to have been primarily for their own use, which again, doesn't support [in my mind] the idea that they were other than parasites as you want to define the word. However, there is this interesting comment from William Funnel's book: “[1704] I have heard Captain Martin tell of some French Pirates who were in these Seas, that having been sometime cruising up and down, and not meeting with a sufficient Booty, and being every where discovered by the Spaniards, and out of hopes of getting any more; they concluded to come to this Island of Juan Fernando’s, they being twenty in number, and there to lie nine or ten Months; which accordingly they did, and landed on the West side of the Island; then drew there little Armadilla ashoar, and in a small time brought the Goats to be so tame, as that they would many of them come to themselves to be milked; of which Milk they made good Butter and Cheese, not only just to supply their Wants whilst they were upon the Island, but also to serve them long after…” (Funnell, p. 20-1) But even then, he explains that they were thinking of themselves. We are talking about criminals here. Generally (Robin Hood excepted), criminals are self-interested and their behaviors reflect that. You sort of have to put your own interests first if you decide you're going to actively seek victims to take what is rightfully theirs. Of course, a big problem I see is that when writers take up the subject of pirates, they usually want to emphasize the fantastic. it's good marketing. So we don't often get to read about the day-to-day stuff, like stopping off at some island and harvesting monkeys for dinner. But sometimes... “[Avery] It was Time to consider what they should do with themselves, their Stock of Sea Provision was almost spent, and tho’ there was Rice and Fish, and Fowl to be had ashore, yet these would not keep for Sea, without being properly cured with Salt, which they had not Conveniency of doing; therefore, __ since they could not go a Cruizing any more, it was Time to think of establishing themselves at Land, to which Purpose they took all Things out of the Sloops, made Tents of the Sails, and encamped themselves, having a large Quantity of Ammunition, and abundance of small Arms.” (Johnson, 3rd, p. 56-7) “[England] They sent several of their Hands on Shore [of Madagascar] with Tents, Powder, and Shot, to kill Hogs, Venison, and such other fresh Provision as the Island afforded...” (Johnson, 3rd, p. 118) And then there was 'trading': “[blackbeard] Captain Teach, alias Black-beard, passed three or four Months in the River, sometimes lying at Anchor in the Coves, at other Times falling from one Inlet to another, trading with such Sloops as he met, for the Plunder he had taken, and would often give them Presents for Stores and Provisions took from them, that is, when he happened to be in a giving Humour, at other Times he made bold with them, and took what he liked, without saying, by your Leave, knowing well, they dared not send him a Bill for the Payment.” {Johnson, 3rd, p. 77) “[bonnet] In the Month of July, these Adventurers came off the Capes, and meeting with a Pink with a Stock of Provisions on Board, which they happened to __ be in Want of, they took out of her ten or twelve Barrels of Pork, and about 400 Weight of Bread ; but because they would not have this set down to the Account of Pyracy, they gave them eight or tea Casks of Rice, and an old Cable, in lieu thereof. Two Days afterwards they chafed a Sloop of sixty Ton, and took her two Leagues off of Cape Henry, they were so happy here as to get a Supply of Liquor to their Victuals, for they brought from her two Hogsheads of Rum, and as many of Moloises, which, it seems, they had need of, tho' they had not ready Money to purchase them. What Security they intended to give, I can't tell...” (Johnson, 3rd, p. 94-5) “[bonnet] He took off Cape Henry, two Ships from Virginia, bound to Glascow out of which they had very little besides an hundred Weight of Tobacco. The next Day they took a small Sloop bound from Virginia to Bermuda, which supply'd them with twenty Barrels of Pork, some Bacon, and they gave her in return, two Barrels of Rice, and a Hogshead of Molossus; out of this Sloop two Men enter'd voluntarily. The next they took was another Virginia Man, bound to Glascow out of which they had nothing of Value, save only a few Combs, Pins and Needles, and __ gave her instead thereof, a Barrel of Bork, and two Barrels of Bread.” (Johnson, 3rd, p. 95) ____________________________________ Didn't the buccaneers take to arms in part because the Spanish kicked them off Tortuga? It seems to me they started pirating because their regular livelihood was disrupted and they were, in part, seeking retaliation.

Oh, we're going to talk ALL about that hat in the Columbus Surgeon's Journal.

Oh, that reminds me - there are several accounts of people bringing alcohol to Madagascar and the African coast to trade/sell with the successful pirates. I read that in the General History as well as in several of the merchant captain's sea journals. To say anyone in as large a group as this was could be completely parasitic would be sort of absurd. If you have goods, they eventually enter the regular stream of commerce one way or another. (Today we call it laundering money.)

I can't speak to the buccaneers specifically since they don't interest me as much as the Golden Age pirates and I don't retain a lot of their info. However, Captain Nathaniel Uring had this to say about the Logwood cutters while he was shipwrecked in Honduras Bay. “The Wood-Cutters are generally a rude drunken Crew, some of which have been Pirates, and most of them Sailors; their chief Delight is in drinking; and when they broach a Quarter Cask or a Hogshead of Wine, they seldom stir from it while there is a Drop left: It is the same thing when they open a Hogshead of Bottle Ale or Cyder, keeping at it sometimes a Week together, drinking till they fall asleep; and as soon as they awake, at it again, without stirred off the Place. Rum Punch is their general Drink, which they’ll sometimes sit several Days at also; they do most Work when they have no strong Drink, for while the Liquor is moving they don’t care to leave it.” (Uring, p. 241-2) I don't know if I'd call that the Marxist ideal. In fact, it is more in the spirit of Marx's "opiate of the masses" comment. I can give you a lot of accounts of pirates stealing goods and food but not nearly as many of them gathering it. But, again, not the buccaneers, the Golden Age pirates (as Foxe defined them in another post.) There are also some curiously vague references to pirates "trading" for the stuff they need, although sometimes the trade was a promise and not an actual good. Of course, the General History (where I found this) is decidedly biased against the real pirates as being anything other than scheming lowlifes, so that may not be the best source. Still, I always sort of viewed (GA) pirates as being opportunists who got whatever they needed however they could get it to sustain themselves. If that meant trading, they traded. If it meant harvesting, they harvested. If it meant stealing, they stole. There are more than a few examples of desperate pirates resorting to pretty base behaviors to sustain themselves. (Think 'shoe leather'...)

Roberts had several unusual policies. Not impressing married men, making the men drink on deck at night with the hope that they wouldn't drink so much... (Remember trying to convince all the newbs that there was no universal "Code" back on piratesinfo, Daniel? I'll bet that came up once a week when the first POTC came out...) I think William's point covers things quite thoroughly, which may be why this thread stopped when it did the last time. I have the feeling that ship's boys were so common that they didn't usually merit comment.

There are some absolutely stunning pictures in there, DB. Wonderful, wonderful stuff. (And I don't even want to know how much time it took to photoshop M.A. d'Dogge...)

Ha ha. This is a rather cutting remark from Hugh Ryder's introduction to his book New Practical Observations in Surgery Containing Divers Remarkable Cases and Cures: "If any Zoile or Mome will be making Grimaces, and carping, my regard of them shall be less than of those small Insects, which let alone would spoil the best meat, if not corrected with a Fly-flap." Zoile appears to be French for 'a wicked and envious critic'. Mome means 'A dull, silent person; a blockhead." One can only wonder at what sort of device was used to kill flies (the meaning of a fly-flap) during this period. No doubt someone will produce examples.

Hey, there's an event coming up shortly in VA: http://www.blackbeardfestival.com/

OK, if you're looking for events and you're anywhere near Put-in-Bay, you should consider this event. It gets the Mission seal of approval as being a top pirate reenactment. Cool place, cool people, cool set-up... Cool.

Patrick, I'd be willing to forgive the prince of pirates and a master pirate reenactor like you anything. (But it still looks extremely silly to me.)

I don't think anyone cares whether you're a reenactor or not, but many of you questions focus on clothing which is the sort of thing a reenactor wonders about, yet they're not really asked the way a reenactor would ask them. FYI, Matty, he draws fashion-plate style images. I believe he has posted some of them in his gallery.

Wow. Here I was complaining about how silly knee pants look...

I have seen the John Brailsford Cutlery card somewhere recently. I can't remember where, though. If I recall correctly, I believe it dates to the mid/late 18th century. [Edit] Yep, that looks about right. Here is Brailsford's will, dated 1779.