Misson

While grabbing food from merchants was certainly one way pirates got their foodstuffs, merchant vessels didn't always show up just when the food supplies were running low. Pirates had places they could land that weren't populated to obtain food. Read any privateering account and you'll find that this is exactly what they did. There are absolute gobs of different foodstuffs they procured that way (with recurrence of 'bananoes', 'cocoanuts', and plantains.) Pirates would also plunder local fishing vessels and trade with local natives and fishermen. They'd also steal other peoples beeves when they could sneak on shore and get them. (I just love the word 'beeves'.) Although Barlow was not a pirate, he has accounts of Indians coming out in canoes to trade along with several accounts of making deals with small native tribes for food. Dampier and Woodes Rogers have accounts of making deals with native Indians at various places. What works for sailors and privateers would almost certainly work for pirates. (I doubt the Indians cared which white man's ship brought them trade.) Sea travelers would also slaughter wild goats, manatee, sea lions, seals, penguins, various birds and of course fish. (See above for period fishing. I have a dozen references more from Barlow and Dampier. Note that according to Dampier, penguins, seals and sea lions were not preferred food, but were resorted to when necessary.) Pirates also made deals with local governments who basically looked the other way. Blackbeard is one obvious example, but I was also reading an account of some pirates off Mexico who did the same thing. In their case, they would steal coffee from merchant ships and then sell it to the local Spanish residents as bribes or for cash other necessaries. Sometimes everyone just ignored the government entirely and traded with pirates as they could. Because pirates supplied very good trade items for local citizens, such people aided them. Some English and Scottish coastal towns practically relied upon pirates to bring goods in trade for foodstuffs and drink. Check out Eric Graham's Seawolves: Pirates & the Scots and W.R. Thrower's Life at Sea in the Age of Sail and The Pirate Picture for a little detail on that. Thrower implies that the trade with the Caribbean often worked like this - Merchants would bring stuff to Caribbean, Pirates would take them, Pirates would trade the stolen merchant's stuff with Caribbean citizens. I don't know if it was quite that pat (why the heck would the merchants continue sending stuff to the Caribbean then?), but that's how I recall him portraying it. (Edward Barlow made several trading voyages to the Carribean and was never molested by pirates there.)

Which locks? Why not look the particular locks you're aiming to go through up on the web? Worst case, if the pricing isn't listed, you can at least get a phone number for them or (in the case of the Soo locks, at least) their visitor center. That will at least get you started.

Here's some more on the roles that existed in a world-traveling privateer. (Although this sort of crew would probably only transfer to some world-traveling pirates, which I think is a rarity as I've mentioned in other posts; pirates seeming to have been fairly localized from what I've read. Still.) It's from Dampier. He's talking about what they would do to establish a fort and settlement in the East Indies (the natives there desired them to do so because they wanted to establish trade): "For was scarce any useful Trade but some or others of us understood it. We had Sawyers, Carpenters, Joyners, Brickmakers, Bricklayers, Shoemakers, Taylors, &c, we only wanted a good Smith for great Work; which we might have had at Mindanao. We are very well provided with Iron, Lead, and all sorts of Tools, as Saws, Axes, Hammers & c. We had Powder and Shot enough and very good small Arms. If we desired to build a Fort, we could have spared 8 or 10 Guns out of our Ship, and men enough to have managed it, and any Affair of Trade besides." So it was quite the crew of tradesmen. No Smith, though.

Yeah. You must have to have really good coordination and small fingers to make some of the folds in those patterns. Fortunately, you don't have to have any of that to construct it in your mind. Off into left field of the topic...I used to live next to this lovely old woman who lost her job because they told her she was too old. She was very depressed about it that so I used to make her origami swans and lanterns and stuff to cheer her up. I even bought a kit on how to make balloon animals and things. (Bet you never thought ol' Mission capable of things like that, didja? It's called good bedside manner, it is.)

The spelling in period books seems to be almost entirely phonetic. I have seen the same word spelled two different ways in the same book within a few pages. Barlow's editor, who purchased his journal from the family in the 1930s, has updated many of the words in the published book. However, he has also left a bunch of the actual spellings of certain words in the body of the main text with quotes around them - at least that seems to be what he's done. There are several illustrations reprinted in the book with what appear to be Barlow's original text explaining them. For example - "Thus doth Cappe Degullas [Agulhas] shew itself Bering from you North eight Leagues, Liying in South Lattitude thertey five Degreis." The actual text of the book does not read like this, nor does it contain the slightly random capitalization. So I presume editor Basil Lubbock has updated the text, except the stuff with quotes around it as noted above. So I'm sure 'musichionor' is Barlow's attempt to spell musicianer - which is not actually a word, but that is another common element in the period books. In fact, I have just returned to Dampier's book (which I left to read Barlow as that was a library book with a due date) and I notice that Dampier's attempts at spelling are much better than Barlow's. This sort of makes sense since Dampier seems to have been better educated (Dampier took Latin among other things. I doubt Barlow made it completely through school). Blah, blah, blah, I'm way OT for the Shanties forum. I'd definitely consider calling myself a musicianer if I were you.

By George, if I didn't come across a comment in Barlow's Journal on this! Barlow got into an argument with a disagreeable merchant ship's commander who wound up sending him aboard English man-of-war where he found out all sorts of things that were going on in whatever war they were involved in at the time (there were so many...) "[1702] ...and many times it happens that [French] privateers are met with and taken by our frigates, by which means the hostages [of the privateers] get their liberty and save ship and goods likewise, and many times arrive at home before their ships, when good luck attends them." Of course, he doesn't say what happens to the privateers, but I thought it was interesting that it came up so soon after my commenting on it. *Sigh* I've finished this book. I am really going to miss it. I wish I had it in my library.

Personally, I want to hang him over the moat (or whatever it is) surrounding the fort so that he can be seen on the path to the Archangel and Mercury camps. I don't know if they can do that or not, but that seems ideal to me. You'd be hard-pressed to steal him from there.

Perhaps I should have broken that out better. I dismissed the privateers rather quickly, although I actually implied that the privateers are the only ones that would have been in the Pacific since many of them were also explorers. Wafer was part of several legitimate privateering voyages. After reading a few privateering journals, I am inclined to differentiate them from what I refer to as 'true pirates.' True pirates took vessels of any nation, often including England. From what I've read, their activities were often quite localized. (Although not always.) Note that when Wafer refers to capture, he's probably refers to capture by the French or the Dutch (they being at war with both of them in 1680) or possibly the Spanish. I am a trifle unsure of the Spanish sentiment toward the English in 1680 as that is not what I am reading for. However, Morgan was governor of Jamaica at that time and the Spanish thought he was the devil incarnate. The English were a war-going lot at this time, which is part of the reason that the privateers existed. In his book, Edward Barlow often notes that the merchants were afraid of being taken by ships of nations they were presently at war with. (In fact, Barlow got taken by the Dutch during the second or third Dutch-Anglo war.) So fear of capture is not always the same thing as being brought to justice for piracy. (Although it is difficult to say what an enemy might do to a known privateer.) Now, on to point, I dug out Wafer and noticed that he actually talks about the colours of tattoos that the Darien Isthmus indians painted, which I was about to quote, when I noticed that I had already quoted it previously. "The Women are the Painters, and take a great delight in it. The Colours they like and use most are Red, Yellow and Blue, very bright and lovely. They temper them with some kind of Oil, and keep them in Calabashes..." (Wafer, p. 136) He also describes war paint (so it wasn't that bad a description): "The Men [of the tribe], when they go to War, paint the Faces all over with Red; and the Shoulders, Breast, and the rest of the Bodies, here with Black and there with Yellow, or any other Colour at pleasure, in large Spots; all which they wash off at Night in the River before they go to sleep." (Wafer , p. 137) So this sort of goes against my conjecture that they would be tattooed for such. He also describes the designs they paint, so I am going to have to eat my Patrick Hand original hat on my notion that they didn't record the tattoo designs as well (although it is not made clear whether these are tattoos or painted on designs): "Both these [rare light skinned Indians] and the Copper-colour'd Indians use painting their Bodies, even of the Sucking Children sometimes. They make Figures of Birds, Beasts, Men, Trees, or the like, up and down in every part of the Body, more especially the Face: But the figures are not extraordinary like what they represent, and are of differing Dimensions, as their Fancies lead them." (Wafer, p. 136) Lastly, I'm not sure where I saw it said that he painted his chest red, as I can't seem to find it. However, he does say this: "[My clothes} I saved to cover my Nakedness, if ever I should come among Christians again; for at this time I went naked as the Savages and was painted by their Women; but I would not suffer them to prick my Skin, to rub the Paint in, as they use to do, but only to lay it on in little Specks." (Wafer, p. 58) It seems to me I have typed that in before, so a search of Twill may dig up the quote about the red on his chest. Or it may not. Onto Fletcher Christian and the tattooing of the crew of the Bounty. Again, this is a recent novel, I have never read the period accounts of the mutiny, so make of it what you will. It's from Dea Birkett's book Serpent in Paradis which is about her visit to the island of Pitcairn. I'm afraid there's not much there, but here's what it says, "Freed from the restraints of shipboard discipline, the officers and crew amused themselves wrestling with the island men and flirting with the island women. Christian had his buttocks blackened with a tattoo. Able-bodied seamen Thomas Ellison, still a teenager, simply had a date scratched on his right arm - October 25, 1788. It was the day they had first sited Oro-Hena, the highest peak in Tahiti, which shadows Matavai Bay." (Birkett, p. 10) So at least those natives took requests for tattoo designs - if by 'scratched' the author means tattooed. Somewhere recently I read that several men from the Bounty were tattooed on Tahiti, though.

FWIW, I thought this was sort of interesting. It's the only reference I've found to music so far. "[1697] And about ten days after our arrival, having delivered the passengers and moneys we had on board on freight, which was about the value of sixty thousand dollars, I having leave of the President [of the East India Company] to come up to Surat, and going up thither, I took up our music, being a 'vioallin' and a 'hoboy' to cheer up the factory after their great troubles, and to see if they could teach our 'musichionors' to play 'The Worst is Past'. (Barlow's Journal, Edward Barlow, p. 487-8)

As noted above, I find that tattoos were more of an extraordinary than an ordinary sailor's lot. However, I think you'd have to search long and hard (and most likely fruitlessly) for any reference to a specific tattooed pattern. Every pirate board I've posted on has people dying to find specific evidence of such because they want to believe the Hollywood mythos. The writings from the time aren't usually specific on points like that. If you read through the Wafer quotes, all you get is "But finer Figures, especially by their greater Artists, are imprinted deeper, after this manner. They first with the Brush and Colour make a rough Draught of the Figure they design; then they prick all over with a sharp Thorn till the Blood gushes out; then they rub the place with their Hands, first dipp'd in the Colour they design; and the Picture so made in indelible. But scarce one in forty of them is painted this way." Note here that a specific design is a scarce thing. Given that tattooed sailors were probably scarce, a scarce practice among scarce practices probably makes designs very rare indeed. (This appear to have been due to how time-consuming designs were - see my previous post.) Still, I have found four references to tattoo artists from around period. The first is Wafer and the primitive Central American Indian artists. The second is Wafer's reference to Bullman and the African Tribal tattoo artists. The third is from the Bounty mutineers (about which I was recently reading, although the book was not a period account) where the men were tattooed by the natives on Tahiti. (As I recall it, Fletcher Christian had his arse tattooed black among other things. You may find more info on the tattoos of the Bounty, but it is unfortunately 75 years out of period, so still not completely accurate.) The last are reference to Chinese tattoos, although I haven't actually read any specific accounts of this (mostly because my reading habits on period events do not bend in that direction) I do note that those who argue most strenuously for tattooed sailors during period often bring China up, so I am guessing there must be evidence to support it. However, China is not an area for GAoP pirates, so I don't think it would be as likely as some of the other places, depending on the life of the tattooed sailor. More on that later. So if you're a Caribbean pirate, you're probably stuck with Wafer's accounts if you use my little list. I think he said he had his torso tattooed red. If I remember, I'll dig out the book and see if I can find it for you. I would expect the "figures" that native women in Central America would paint would be based on their culture and experience. I can't imagine it would be like a tattoo parlor where you would go in with a design and gleam in your eye. I also expect that the figures would be rather roughly drawn, even with the native skill Wafer lauds because they were using gnawed wood for brushes and thorns for needles to create them. No details are given on the African method, although it probably isn't a stretch to says that they would run in a similar vein. Note that this is all supposition. If I were searching for potential intricate tattoo designs from such cultures, I'd look at the artwork we have of theirs from that period. Tattoos are essentially skin art, after all. You might also try and find reference to types of war paint (for lack of a better term) or other reasons that one would festoon their body with designs in the more primative cultures. Tattoos could be a way of revealing your inner self or making yourself appear fierce to potential adversaries to avoid a fight. (Remarkably like the reason for creating a pirate flag, actually.) Remember too that the number of colours a relatively primitive tribe would have access to would probably be limited. I'm sure the folks who hotly debate period correct dye colours around here could fill you in more on that particular point. (And they're dealing with dyes from the 'civilized' world where there would be more impetus to expand the range of colours available.) You could also extrapolate a bit and expect that the colours they would use would show to best advantage on their skin colour - the Indians and Africans having darker skin than Europeans would and probably would prefer darker colours. If you were serious in your interest in period correct tattoos, you could even research the types of materials that the tribe whom your character would have been inked by would have access to and match those colors. (This would make for a fascinating book if well researched.) One interesting thing I find from Edward Barlow's Journal is that the man went all over the 'civilized' world during his 40+ years of sailing - the Caribbean, Europe, the colonies, India, China and so forth. He says several times that it was his intent to see the world, so this makes sense. However, this was probably also, in part at least, because he had to ship aboard whatever vessel would pay him. So it is conceivable that a sailor could have been all round the world and been exposed to many of the places listed. (Well, like Barlow, probably not the South Pacific so much - that was still being explored during period and so had little or no trade. Even the Bounty's mission in the late 18th c. was exploratory in nature, designed to bring Breadfruit plants to Europe.) A privateer at this time could wind up anywhere - many privateers were both privateering and exploring and there are several accounts of them wandering the world. However, a true pirate (being someone who took any ship regardless of nationality) would seem to me to have less opportunity for travel. They had to skulk about in areas that were less policed - the Caribbean and Africa seem to have been where I've come across the most accounts during the GAoP. Since travel to the South Pacific seems to have been limited at this time, there would be no point in going there. So, after all that, I would expect tattooed pirates to have relatively primitive designs done by Central American or African artists depicting the things that such people would have experienced and thought about. As Wafer tells it, you get the distinct impression that tattooing was sort of an honorary tribal thing and not a planned, "Put an anchor on me forearm!' sort of affair. At least that's my impression from what I've read so far.

Hey Jill...I'll bet you think the folding pattern is interesting. (When I see them I tend to try and figure out how the folds produce the result.)

Here's an interesting quote on topic from Barlow: “[1695] And the 7th day of February it pleased God to take to himself my youngest child, who had lain lingering a long time under a consumptive disease. She was about three years and a half old, and a fine hopeful child, our griefs being multiplied, one grief following another. But blessed be the name of the Lord, who then had out of six left us two children, and His loving mercies to depend upon; for He had given and He had taken away, and praised be His holy name that we were yet in the land of the living, for it had been a sickly time in and about London, and the smallpox very rife, of which distemper my child had her first illness.” (Barlow, p. 454)

Ah. eBay is full of some fascinating medical things this week. More than I can afford this month. Here is my favorite, though (I'm just posting the pic because the auction will be over by the time you read this: It's an 19th century apothecary weight set in a mahogony box with brass and bone tweezers for removing the smaller weights. Isn't it beautiful? Alas, it's post period and unnecessary for my Rx. (I'd almost be willing to buy it just to get those tweezers...but it's too expensive for that.) Then there's this beautiful brass scale with four bone handled lancets. Alas, I already have a decent shell handled lancet that will serve and a more period correct scale - if I can ever find it. Finally, for all you folks in Wisconsin (Duchess, Mary ) there's this fine objet d'art. Pretty affordable, esp. with the box included. (Everyone should have one.)

I wonder what's too graphic for a family oriented show anymore... half the shows on TV seem to be about really graphic autopsies and murder recreations during prime time. (Well, that's what I've heard - I actually haven't watched prime time in several years.) I wondered if the decrepit skeleton was too much, but I saw the following at the Maritime Museum of the Atlantic in Nova Scotia when I was hunting for gibbet photos: http://museum.gov.ns.ca/mma/events/pirates.html You can't see the guy in the gibbet real well in the photo, but I copied the pic and played around with it and, well...here he is: Mine would be a little more bizarre, because I plan to give him eyes. He'd probably be something along these lines: Although if that looks to be too much for PiP, someone please let me know. If I can't make him like that, I probably won't make him. (And I really, really don't want to spend all that money on the gibbet only to not be able to use it. Not to mention all the time it will take to do the skeleton up.)

I think I'm gonna take the easy way out on the gibbet. I found one for sale cheaper than I could probably make it (and with fewer shipping weight and no design time issues) on-line. For those interested: http://www.eccentricgryphons.com/collapsible-cage.html Then I plan to paint it with texture paint and add rust colors to give it that aged look. I can't quite figure what it's made of - I'm guessing it's some sort of polymer. (Anyone got any old period correct clothing they'd be willing to part with? It doesn't matter the condition - I plan to tear parts of it anyhow for optimal grisly viewing.)

I just read that Guillermo del Toro may make a movie of Marvell's Dr. Strange. Talk about the perfect director for such a project. I sure hope that happens - it'd be one of those rare movies I'd go to the theater to see.

Yep, mentioned it one one of my posts above. Great show. The planes were cool. I have Boynton's book, but I haven't read it yet. I may save it for Key West. (Boynton actually played a character on the show in one episode.)

You confine the place where the magic happens to one room, eye? I think you're being modest! Last we forget: http://pyracy.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7174

Really? In some perverse way that just makes them more interesting IMO.

I suggest you get it through a library or library loan. It's too expensive to be worth buying.

What's this? Well, to tell the truth, in all the excitement, I kind of lost track of this post. So let me just respond to it now. I don't really know. I really added a lot to this, didn't I? I forget which book I was reading - I think it was James Yonge's Journal - but it talked several times quite matter-of-factly about having to go off and find the surgeon to let a patient's blood while the physician considered more weighty treatment. (There were three types of land medicine men during period - the physician, who advised patients, debated theory and wrote books; the apothecary - who created medicines, usually based on the physician's recommendation and the lowly surgeon - who did everything else.) It would make sense to me that if you had enough blood let, you would get light-headed. Could this be euphoric? Well, euphoria is a funny word; what one person thinks is euphoric, another might think dizzy. (It's kind of like being "in the Spirit" - what exactly is it to be "in the Spirit"? It could be the same as euphoric which could be the same as dizzy. But that's another debate entirely, I suppose.) Certainly some people are addicted to pain (that's definitely another debate entirely) but another possibility is that some people are addicted to illness and treatment. This is a psychological addiction and is thought by many to stem from the attention people get when they are ill. As always, most people will do all sorts of things to get more attention. One thing that has interested me exceedingly about Edward Barlow's Journal is how similar the psychology of people at that time period is to today. I don't post much of his moaning about stuff, but he is a champion complainer when it come to things that inconvenience him. And, just as today, he complains about one set of things that went on in a ship in the beginning of the journal that irritated him as a seaman and then turns around and complains about nearly the exact opposite set of things that go on in a ship when he is put in charge later in the journal. Take that and a hundred other little things he says about things like patriotism, cynicism, lawyers, insurance, prejudice, war, politics, marriage and so forth and you soon discover that the thinking wasn't so different then than it is now. People are people whenever you go. (I really, really advise anyone interested in the daily life and thoughts of a seamen to read this book.)

In truth, Mission is not entirely sure which baby we are talking about. Lily had said, "...and with my character development regarding the passing of her child" which is what I was referring to.

Smallpox was a common illness at this time. I'd have to get to my other notes to cite the book I read recently on the topic, but I have some from Guy William's book that will also serve. From Williams: “Among these [deadly infectious diseases], one of the most dreaded during the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was smallpox –‘the most terrible of all the ministers of death’, in Lord Macaulay’s words. The smallpox he said, was always present…" From the Wikipedia Entry: "The disease killed an estimated 400,000 Europeans each year during the 18th century (including five reigning monarchs), and was responsible for a third of all blindness. Between 20 and 60% of all those infected—and over 80% of infected children—died from the disease." In 1717, a form of inoculation was brought to England from India (where it was widely used) to deal with smallpox called variolation. Also from Williams: “In a letter written at Adrianople on 1 April 1717, [Lady Mary, wife of Edward Wortley Montagu] reported the practice of inoculation for the prevention of smallpox: Lady Mary did have inoculation tried on her dear little son, and after the family returned to England at the end of October 1718 she went to a lot of trouble to make other people aware of the advantages of the operation. Under her distinguished and energetic patronage, a Mr Maitland, who had been the physician of her husband’s embassy, started to carry out the first British inoculations. By 1721 the possibilities of protection offered by the newly imported practice had been successfully demonstrated, and the services of Mr Maitland were in ever-increasing demand.” (Williams, p. 72-3)

I found a period reference to branding as a punishment, although not specifically for pirates. This is a rather round-about way of getting to the point, but the story is sort of interesting in other respects, so please bear with me. It's from Barlow's Journal by Edward Barlow: "[1695] And two days afterward [of arriving in Blackwall] came aboard a woman, one of our seamen's wives, and she presently comes to me and threatens me with the death of her husband, saying I had killed him, and hanged she would see me if all the friends in the world I had should say to the contrary, and to prosecute the same she would spend the smock off her back, which made me admire to hear such a salutation. But it seemed a man that ran away from us at Plymouth, who had no good will towards me, an idle fellow who I had struck sometimes in the term of our voyage for not doing his business, had given her his 'affidavey' [affidavit] how that when her husband died he laid his death to me for some blows I had given him not long before he died, which was when we lay at the river's mouth of Hoogli coming home, And another man or two had given the like 'affidavey', which God knows I scarce knew or heard anything of it all the ways coming home. I must confess I did strike him several blows with a cane for not doing what I commanded him: it was about a parcel of canes we were stowing away, which he, not doing as he might have done and denying it, made me have to strike him, for I was in place to see the work done. But he was well after I had struck him, and did his business about and never complained; and two days after, I asked him why he would provoke me and not do as I ordered. He made an excuse and said he thought he could not do it, to put the canes in such a place where he saw me put the very same canes. he complained to me then of no hurt I had given him, nor told the doctor of the ship. He had been sick a long time before, and then was recovered. But about ten days after, he fell sick again, but then I was not aboard, but was gone up the Hoogli river to buy some goods I had occasion to carry to England, I being gone about ten days; and before I returned he died, as did our cook and two men more. And as these men informed, he said a little before he died that they blows I gave him were the greatest cause of the death, which was very strange, nothing appearing or any sign of blows, nor all the time he had been sick before he died that he should not make it known if he had found himself so much wronged. As for me to be the cause, I do believe some of those men that swore against me, that had little love to me, seeing in his sickness that there was but little hope of his recovery and that he himself was thinking he should die, wrought upon and persuaded him to give it out at that time, that his wife might come upon me and by that means recover a sum of money by his death. And here I do take God to witness that I think in my very soul and conscious that what I did to him could be no real cause or means of his death, for he was not far from the likelihood of death in his sickness before: and the man, I never had any ill-will or malice toward him, only in commanding him to do his business when he had an occasion, as I did to others; and many seamen are of that lazy, idle temper, that let them alone and they never care for doing anything they should do, and when they do anything it is with a grumbling unwilling mind, so that they must be forced and drove to it, which is a great trouble and vexation to those men that overlook them, and many times are forced to strike them against their will when fair means will not do it. Sop the news being come home, his wife made great bustle and fee'd a lawyer. And he, coming to me, made me to understand what condition I was in and how prejudicious and dangers it might prove to me, although it could not touch my life, yet it might come to a condemnation of being burnt in the hand (Footnote 1: Barlow would have been liable to be branded on the left hand with the letter 'M' signifying 'manslayer'.), and all that I was worth be confiscated; and if I gave what I was worth, it was all to little in consideration of the widow's loss, having two ro three children, all which they laid open with all the law and exactly what should be expected. At last they came to this - to ask me what I would give to get clear of the business: and indeed I had no great mind to give anything, and would willingly have suffered trial; but being otherwise persuaded by my relations not to bring my name in question for no such matter (they declaring that) if I did come off clear, it would be a great disgrace to me and likewise charge, although it did cost me some money And at last I proffered fifty pounds, but that was so far thought too little as not worth naming. So I let them alone and told them I would give no more. So at last they got the Recorder's warrant to take mu up, and seeing I would give no more, rather than put it to a trial they agreed for me to give the widow fifty pounds, and five pounds for to the lawyer for his advice and pain: and so I had a discharge from the widow and here executors, heirs and assigns as to that trouble, which was a good sum of money, she getting more by his death than ever she had seen together since he had been her husband. Indeed it was a great deal out of my pocket, and upon such a score, as I thank God for it was never in the least questioned about before, having then gone to sea thirty-six years; and I had many times before met with several knaves and rogues but never with any that accused me in that nature before, I always being reckoned rather too mild than too harsh to bear command over a parcel of seamen, for they are troublesome and unruly many times." (Barlow, p. 451-3)

I'm sure you're right about it not stopping altogether. Fads were fads, even then - certainly some people would have continued in the fine old ways. Note too that a lot of the rural areas used whatever medical practices they had been taught previously because there were so few physicians there. Also, there were an abundance of quacks in London and the British Isles. Physicians were very expensive and many regular people turned to self-medication, street vendors and patent medicine. So some vendor could easily have purveyed leeches at this time. (Land medicine is not my particular interest, so I have only read a small amount on it. Most of this line of thought is courtesy of the book The Age of Agony by Guy Williams.) BTW, your child could well have died of smallpox - it was a very common malady that killed a large number of children during period. Somewhere recently I read that it was believed at this time that a child was not your own until it had survived smallpox.