Raphael Misson

As I motor through Edward Coxere's book, I am struck by the difference between his views of the men he sailed with and his pay and the views of Edward Barlow. Barlow complains fairly consistently throughout his journal about the Captains he sailed under, officers and particularly the Pursers. He is even set ashore to find his own way home mid-voyage by a Captain on one journey (whom Barlow says is another poor Captain in his litany of poor Captains). Barlow rarely has any money and regularly complains about his wages and plans for making money going wrong. Coxere, on the other hand, always talks about how good (or at least decent to him) and interesting his officers are. He highlights how one captain goes to great lengths to keep Coxere from being pressed by a gang (where Barlow is one of two men taken off a ship at one point in his journal by such a gang.) He always seems to have money enough from his voyages and strikes several good bargains on his behalf. He explains that he is well treated by officers, even when other men are not being so treated. Now, these men sailed only 20 years apart. Could it have been that different? Or is it just their perception and what they did in response to their environment that made their situations what they were? It hearkens to Shakespeare's wonderful quote, "There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so" and to that old hoary concept, what you put out into the world comes right back to you in spades.

I didn't say it works...in many ways it doesn't work very well at all. I just said that's how we're currently stuck operating. Any government is only going to make some of the people happy all of the time - if you think about it, it's a precarious balancing act in most countries just to keep one form governing for an extended period. There are an infinite number of ways to govern the masses (including not governing them) and ours is one of them. (I'd personally like to see a whole lot less governing and whole lot more giving responsibility to the governed - it makes for an intrinsically stronger and free-thinking population. But again, it's a balancing act. It also allows them to make stupid decisions. (Which I also think is a good thing provided no one steps in to save them from learning from their mistakes. But I digress.)) While we're on interesting political cycles; I've also read that the US has about a 40 year cycle back and forth between conservatism and liberalism. The voters get sick of the inherent corporate and/or military excesses created by conservatism and vote in liberals and then get sick of the sometimes stultifying controls on business and freedom imposed by liberals in the name of fairness and vote conservatives back in. Back and forth, back and forth. If my previous post is right, it's that 20% in the middle doing all that. (I believe we're actually heading back towards liberalism at present.) If the psychology of politics interests you, here's a fascinating program you can download from Radio Australia on the Political Brain: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/allinthemind/stor...007/2089172.htm I think you can still get it on mp3 from their site. Isn't it just? I wish I could remember where I read that. It was quite awhile ago. If I were making a recent list, it'd go like this (and some will no doubt disagree. Recency makes it hard to discern the impact of some presidents.): Reagan JFK FDR Teddy Lincoln Each of them significantly impacted the direction of the government in their time. (Assuming "change" is the operative concept here.) Looking at it, it seems extend longer than a generation by my list. (My dad studies presidents - he's reading a book on each of them, working backwards. If I think of it, I'll ask him who he thinks the most influential presidents were.) Absolutely. I just read a fascinating book that talked about the psychological impact (both good and bad) of comparison called Predictably Irrational - The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions by Dan Ariely. He explains that we rely heavily on comparisons to make judgments, even though this is not always valid.

Oh boy! I discovered a new set of sea journals! I ordered it through inter-library loan today. While not necessarily the "common seaman's" life, they sound very interesting to me, particularly the last one. Three sea journals of Stuart times, being, first, the diary of Dawtrey Cooper, captain of the Pelican of the navy of His Majesty King Charles I. Kept during the expediton under the Earl of Lindsey to relieve La Rochelle in the year of our Lord 1628. Secondly, the journals of Jeremy Roch, captain of the King's navy, describing some remarkable voyages and adventures at sea during the reigns of their Majesties Charles II, James II and William III, together with a description of the grand engagements between the English and Hollander in the year 1666, in which he took an active part. Thirdly, the diary of Francis Rogers, London merchant. Kept on his voyages to the East Indies, the West Indies and elsewhere in the years 1703 and 1704, describing many strange sights and adventures in different parts of the globe. Edited and transcribed from the original manuscripts by Bruce S. Ingram. (1877)

Well, I'm still willing to do the surgeon bit. However, I doubt if that alone is enough to bring the droves in.

Welcome Boo! Looking forward to seeing you again this year. Is your wife coming again? (We really must miss a battle over conch fritters.)

What book is that in? The description of the fishhooks is sort of neat, too. Every book I've read by a sailor during or near period has described fishing in one way or another. I can't believe I ever considered the idea that they wouldn't fish on a ship! (I think I mentioned this previously, but on another forum, someone told me they would never fish from a ship.)

I am reading Adventures by Sea of Edward Coxere and he really spreads himself on the topic of seines... "[~1650, the Barbaries] The boat, being gone from the ship several leagues and was gone some days, at last found the island and returned with ten Moors and nets to fish with, sent by the Hollanders who inhabited there on the island. This was welcome news, for we were in a despairing condition. If we could not a found the place to have made our voyage in catching of fish, it would a been a very considerable loss to a returned empty back again." (Coxere, p. 19) "We fell to works with our nets or seines to draw the fish to the shore. One of the Moors placed himself on the land looking into the sea, where he could see the shoals of fish. then he making signs to the other Moors in the boat, our men rowing off, the net being thrown into the sea, we should haul to the shore a ton of fish at a time, I think, of brave stately large mullets; that was the general sort of fish, which was called by the Moors leeses. There was also a large fish like a salmon, a very good fish, called carabeenes. We split our fish and salted it, and so put it in the hold. We caught, I think, near a hundred tons. There was also trouts in abundance swimming by the ship's side. Our hooks we made of nails; we made them crooked and filed beards to them, with which we could get as many trouts as desired. The carabines we would get with a shark-hook, putting on it a whole mullet for bait. There is also another fish, which the Dutch call a pillestart [see Endnote A for absolute scads of info on identifying this as an eagle ray], in shape like a thornback, but a face something like a monkey, or some such creature, more than other fish. The sting on their tails were like poison. We, shooting of the seine into the sea, supposing a great draft of mullets we had met with but it proved to b e shoal of these pillestarts which are not worth anything to us." (Coxere, p. 20-1)

I looked into the whole third party concept at one point. It basically doesn't work in our country very well. About 40% of the voting population purchase Brand X without fail, 40% go with Brand Y (or 'Brandy') and 20% decide the election. Some statistics place it closer to 45%, which may be why 5% is considered a landslide. When a viable third party candidate comes along, it's often due to a schizm resulting from dissatisfaction over the current selection of Brand X or Y. Then X's or Y's 40% break rank which usually assures the success of the opposing candidate. (See Ross Perot for a case study.) This is true unless the third party candidate is middle-of-the-road enough to sway at least half or more of the dedicated 40% (unlikely) and enough of the 20% to make up the missing difference. However, this produces another middling, lackluster candidate and we're back where we started. So, until the perception of the two 40% groups change or something astonishing happens, we're sort of stuck with the current setup. Now (going out on a psychological limb here), it seems to me that the sort of person that votes early and often would tend to be more traditional and not inclined towards change. (This I think true for both Brand X and Brandy.) So these crucial blocks of reliable voters are not going to embrace any massive changes in the system. My thought is that the best way for a 3rd party candidate to get his horse a good position in the race would be to appeal to the typically non-voting, non-traditionalists. If you look closely at the two major candidates, you'll find they are really quite traditional in what they're spouting about lately - in fact each of them seems to have tempered their more non-traditional "primary views" in an effort to gather up their traditional 40%ers. However, my whole proposition is predicated upon the non-voting masses being lured into the fray by some stirring message. (Also unlikely.) As for great presidents, I once read that the country can only handle one great president a generation. In between, you get mediocre examples of the specie. If I recall it correctly, the writer said this was actually for the best as a great president was great because they caused (usually needed) upheaval and change. (I don't know if that's true or not, but I liked the sound of it so here I am repeating it.) Most people are actually afraid of change as a general precept (campaign slogans notwithstanding) and so it must either occur during a time of chaos or the perceived brass knuckles of change must be hidden in the silk glove of politics-as-usual. Politics is a rather curious example of psychology.

I was just entering notes from Dampier and I came across this which might interest those of your with Cartouche boxes (spelling preserved from Dampier's text): “[1685] …[Captain Townley] put ashoar on a sandy Bay, but overset all his Canoas: He had one Man drowned, and several lost their Arms, and some of them that had not waxt up their Cartage or Catouche Boxes, wet all their Powder.” (Dampier, p. 162)

Now this is a really interesting comment on the updating of material from 17th century - it's from the editor who interpreted Edward Coxere's Memoirs. He got the original manuscript in the 1940s so he could publish it. (Adventures by Sea of Edward Coxere, Edited by E. H. W. Meyerstein, p. xxvii - xxxiii)While I admittedly find the genuine article fascinating in a perverse way (even the un-interpreted Woodall), the idea of having to interpolate all that information (which varies from writer to writer) while reading horrifies me. I personally would rather have a modernized version complete with salient footnotes than try and sift through all that. It is particularly problematic when you're trying to get the facts and ideas out of a manuscript and not primarily attempting to immerse yourself in period lore. But for those who want the full period experience, I suppose it is best advised to get the database versions of texts published during period. (Sorting out place names is going to be their main burden based on what I saw in the endnotes of Barlow's text. How you get 'Cales' from 'Kearrls' is a slight mystery to me. It would require an intimate knowledge of the places the writer was referring to and perhaps of his journeys, I suppose. Ironically, this requires you to know about his text before reading it. I guess it all comes down to what you want from your reading. Oh, and from now on, we should call Dutch 'Doch' so that we can be sure he is period correct.

From what I've read, no method of preventing sensation works every time. If it is indeed a function of the brain, no method would work every time. (Short of brain surgery...or trepaning.) Ramachandran has a really curious way of changing the pyschological perception of the missing limb using a sort of mirror box. It doesn't always work either, but the fact that it works at all suggests a definite brain and/or psychological component to the phantom limb phenomena.) Note also that Ramachandran is talking about sensation, not just pain.

I've been fascinated by the concept of phantom limbs since I read V.S. Ramanchandran's explanation for how he believes they come about a year ago. (Those of you not interested in his theory can skip to the next paragraph; what follows is a bit technical. Basically Ramanchandran says that the notion of sensation in a non-existent body part comes from cross-wiring in the human brain. Our brain has a sort of map of sensations (called by psychologists the somatosensory homunculus) that explains which parts of the somatosensory cortex interpret which sensation inputs. Ramachandran's theory is that the sensation in the part next to that which has been removed sort of pirates (heh) the area that belonged to the thing removed. So if the forehead sensing area is by the finger sensing area on the brain "sensing map", the forehead takes over the area belonging to the finger when the finger is removed. The wiring in the brain is still the same, however, which results in a real sensation in the forehead producing a perceived feeling coming from the non-existent finger. The mind is a wondrous thing.) I had heard the earliest reports of phantom limbs came from the Civil War, but, low and behold, Paré talks about it quite a bit in 1585. "...the patiens pricked on that part would say they felt much paine there. But that feeling is oft deceiptfull, as that which proceeds rather from the strong apprehension of great paine which formerly reigned in the part, then from any facultie of feeling as yet remaining. A most cleare and manifest argument of this false and deceitful sense appeares after the amputation of the member; for a long while after they will complaine of the part which is cut away. Verily it is a thing wondrous strange and prodigious, and which will scarse be credited, unless by such as have seene it with their eyes, and heard with their eares the patients who have many moneths after the cutting away of the Legge, grievously complained that they yet felt exceeding great paine of that Leg so cut off. Wherefore have a speciall care least this hinder your intended amputation; a thing pittifull, yet absolutely necessary for to preserve the life of the patient and all the rest of the body, by cutting away of that member which hath all the signes of a Sphacell and perfect mortification..." (Paré, p. 147) "...the Patients imagine they have their members entire, and yet doe complaine thereof (which I imagine to come to passe, for that, the cut nerves retire themselves towards their originall, and thereby cause a paine like to convulsions; for as Galen writes in his book, De moru musuclorum, That contraction is the true and proper action of a nerve and muscle: and againe, extension is not so much an action as a motion: ) now wee must indeavor to give remedy to this symptome. Which may be done by annointing the spine of the backe and all the affected part with the following Liniment which is very powerfull against Convulsions, the Palsie, numnesse, and all cold affects of the nervous bodies." (Paré, p. 154) So Paré not only recognizes it as happening, he offers a cure! (I haven't reprinted it here because it's quite long and all in Latin.)

I was thinking about strange GAoP medical theories this morning (as I read about applying what was purported to be "ground up mummy" to wounds) and it occurred to me that while there were many odd concepts out there like the 'wandering womb' these were not always widely accepted. Even the "accepted" medicinal theories from the 1500s onward were hotly debated - cauterization, ligatures used on amputation, the "flap" method of amputation, mercury use -just to name a few. These theories were subject to huge arguments (many of which were published so that we have a record of all this.) Accepted medicine was a bit like theories on dieting are today - there were a hundred ways to do it and precious little scientific proof backing the theories up. As if the professional medical folk weren't bad enough, you had the quacks. A large chunk of medicine was provided to the common people who couldn't afford a physician's care by rather scurrilous untrained street sellers creating the potential for lots of wacky physiological and medical theories. The various medical guilds were trying to stamp such people out during period, but this didn't really happen until quite awhile after the GAoP. I don't know that I'd call a theory 'widely accepted' unless you found the concept discussed in several reasonably respectable period medical books. (And there are many of them out there if you hunt those databases I mention in other posts. Unfortunately the titles are sometimes misleading which is why my reading list is coming from recommendations I respect rather than random searches.)

This would be a good post for the Beyond Piracy forum. We get all kinds of weather reports there. (I should raise some old earthquake posts from the graveyard...look! That one wasn't it! (You know...the one everyone in CA is waiting for...)

Huh. I have read nothing whatsoever on 'wandering wombs' or the requirement of joint consummation as a prerequisite for pregnancy. However, I have not really been concentrating much on land medicine (and thus not on women), either. I have noticed that most of the medical books refer primarily to men in describing operations. In fact (I hope I have my facts right; I'm going off memory since I copied few notes on this topic), surgeons were rarely involved in birthin' babies - that was the job of midwives. Somewhere (possibly here) I read that baby deliveries were almost like tea parties and the man's presence was not particularly wanted. On the other hand, there were the Chamberlens and their mystical obstetrician's forceps. The forceps were a closely guarded secret of the family for more than a hundred years. If I recall the story rightly (as opposed to being responsible and looking it up), the men of the family became renowned midwives and would not allow anyone in the room when they delivered babies with the forceps...lest someone discover their secret. They even blindfolded the pregnant mother!

That's because we have yet another "lesser of two weevils" vote. Personally I'm voting for Patrick Hand, myself. (Write in. Let's see 'em figure out who that is. Vintage goggles for everyone!)

Tough to walk in, in Key West?? The man already did so... he wore it all day last year...running around the Fort True. I was thinking specifically of the walk on the concrete from the airport to Smathers Beach. That's at least a mile or more of no shade with the sunlight reflecting off the water and concrete...remember Clint (Eastwood) in The Good the Bad and the Ugly? And I've seen MD and Billie after a day walking round the fort in their gear... (This is actually my favorite picture of them from last year.)

It is a great walking island.

Eh? While the luggage/wheel comment wasn't specifically directed at you (or anyone really), weren't you the one telling me you filled your truck to capacity with stuff going to events? Yellow chemise aside, that breastplate and helmet would be tough to run or even walk 4 miles in in the November Key West sun.

Since the island is only four miles long and the airport is roughly at one end and the fort at the other...I'd say it's about 3-1/2 Miles or so. (And the walk from the airport to some decent shade is probably 2 of those miles. Nice view, though. Be sure to oil those little wheels on the bottom of your luggage.

As I have mentioned before, I am a big fan of libraries for this stuff. Beginning around 1950 there was quite a bit of fascination with re-printing surgical manuals along with introductions, footnotes and other useful material. Many libraries still have these books gathering dust on their shelves - if you can't get it from your library, check inter-library loans. These books sometimes includes modernization of language - for better or worse, depending on your inclinations. (I still say in the case of Woodall (which no one has converted to modern language) it would be better.) One nice thing about having a library copy is that you have to read it within a specified time period. I find this makes my reading and note-taking more efficient - there's nothing like a deadline to help you achieve a goal. The version of Paré I have, called The Apologie and Treatise of Anbroise Paré appears to be the original, with all its inherent misspellings and occasionally archaic wording, yet I find it highly readable for the most part. It was printed by the University of Chicago press in 1952. I am occasionally astounded by the complexity of some of the procedures Paré describes. He goes through several ways to operate on a hernia and I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that the modern methods are similar to the ones he describes. He also has a surprisingly naturalistic approach to medicine. In his section on wounds he says: "The Chirurgion shall performe the first scope of curing Wounds, which is of preserving the temper of the Wounded part [while this sort of makes sense in a modern context, it is referring to humoural types], by appointing a good order of Diet by the Prescript of a Physition, by using universall and locall Medicines. A slender, cold and moyste Diet [referring to humours again] must be observed, untill that time be passed, wherein the patient may be safe and free from accidents which are usually feared. Therefore let him bee fed sparingly, especially if he be plethorick [florid; red-faced]; he shall abstaine from salt and spiced flesh, and also from wine; If he shall be of a Cholerick (a hot and dry humour - energetic) or Sanguine (a hot and wet humour - fun-loving) nature: In steed of wine he shall use the decoction of Barly or Liquerice, or Water and Sugar. He shall keepe himselfe quiet; for rest is (in [Aulus Cornelius] Celsus opinion [from De Medicina, ~40 A.D.]) the very best Medicine. Hee shall avoyde Venery [sex], Contentions, Brawles, Anger, and other perturbations of the minde. [so sex is really just a perterbation of the mind. ] When hee shall seeme to bee past danger, it will bee time to fall by little and little to his accustomed maner of diet and life." (Paré, p. 125) While it's a bit coarse and reliant on (the medically out-dated) humoural theory, I find it interesting that diet and individual temperament and activity are so important in the late 1500s to effective healing according to Paré. In fact, I am quite enjoying this book - he appears to have a very ordered approach to his topic.

No rules against hanging and torture at Hampton, I see. Wow, Leigh! Your hair looks really cool in those photos! http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v702/lei...Beaufort019.jpg

frank-and-betty always put that note on their auctions. (They auction a lot of old medical stuff, so I've gotten familiar with them.) For the a couple of months I didn't have a good place to put my skeletons, so I stuck 'em in one of the closets in the bedroom. Jokes about skeletons and closets aside, I imagine that would be something you probably wouldn't do either. All skeletons are now in the garage, though. Since I'm not doing anything for the haunted house this year, I may have to find something new to do with them of Halloween. I had this idea for a skelarecrow...

Everyone needs one: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=300248617012

Sounds interesting. Your best bet is to run it by Harry. He works for Fort Zach. Taylor and meets regularly (or maybe irregularly - it is Key West) with the Bone Island Buccaneers to organize the event. You can contact him through his user profile: http://pyracy.com/forums/index.php?showuser=3585