About Blackbeard's gun and pants...

[Mission]

I was posting photos of period drawings of pirates in the thread on buckle shoes, one of which was this one:

According to Wikipedia Commons, it was first published in 1736 in the General History. (I'm assuming that they're right, of course.) It makes BB look a bit like a silly ass, but I have some questions about it since it's pretty close to period.

1. Why is he wearing long pants? I didn't think that was the style at all. The guys in the background aren't...

2. What is he holding in his right hand? It looks a little like rifle, but then it doesn't. (If you want to really see it, click on the picture and it will be blown up to absurd dimensions.)

[Fox]

1. Presumably the artist wanted to make it clear he was a seaman so put him in trousers.

2. I'm pretty sure it's a firearm of some description, call it a musketoon if you like. It's pretty crude, but all the elements are there: there is a distinction between the barrel and the stock, there is something resembling a lock in the right place, and there are definite lines of a shoulder rest at the bottom end.

[Cascabel]

If it was first published in 1736, it was most certainly not drawn from life! So many of the early illustrations are notoriously innacurate as to proportion and details. I suspect that the artists never even used a costumed model for reference, and just made the illustrations according to what they imagined the character looked like. If you look at the pistols, they are also poorly rendered. Even the tree does not look like anything that actually exists. The old woodcuts are even worse than the engravings for reference purposes.

[Mission]

1. Presumably the artist wanted to make it clear he was a seaman so put him in trousers.

Is this because they wore them in the Navy? Who all wore trousers at this time? Merchant seamen wore slops, correct?

I do not rely on photos from period to be accurate in depicting someone or some object as I have noted in the past. However, the styles should be relatively accurate. As for the musket, I was curious about it because it sort of looks like a walking stick when the pic is small. (In fact, that is what I thought it was until I was looking at that huge photo. If you look at the small version, it almost seems like there is a knob at the top, such as a walking stick might have.) Blackbeard with a walking stick would be rather absurd, but then so would his fey expression and hand gesture.

[landlubbersanonymous]

Mission - thanks for posting. Have never seen the image at that size.

IMHO object in question looks like a quick artistic rendering of a matchlock musket.

Edited February 5, 2012 by landlubbersanonymous

[Fox]

Is this because they wore them in the Navy? Who all wore trousers at this time? Merchant seamen wore slops, correct?

Navy, privateers, merchant seamen... They appear in wills a lot.

[Mission]

Would a sea-surgeon have worn trousers?

[Fox]

I suspect that the artists never even used a costumed model for reference, and just made the illustrations according to what they imagined the character looked like. ... The old woodcuts are even worse than the engravings for reference purposes.

Up to a point I agree, but I think that generalising that they're all bad is as bad as generalising that they're all good as far as reference material is concerned.

Taking this picture as an example. It was drawn 18 years after Blackbeard's death, and it is most probable that the artise never saw Blackbeard in the flesh. If he had, the time lapse would have much the same effect as him never having seen him anyway. But, he was working in London, which at the time was the biggest sea port in the English speaking world, so to suggest that he was unfamiliar with the appearance of seamen of the time is absurd. To use this picture to determine how many braids Blackbeard had in his beard would be wrong, but you could certainly use it to show, say, that seamen of the 1730s wore trousers that ended just above the ankle or (as in Mission's original post) thaty not all shoes had square toes.

Would a sea-surgeon have worn trousers?

Could he have done? Yes.

Would he have done? Unlikely.

Trousers were essentially work-wear, not fashion, and in the written record at least (including such catch-all sources as wills and inventories) trousers appear significantly less often than breeches. A surgeon was not a man who would have worn trousers as part of his work-wear, and he certainly wouldn't have worn them for fashion's sake. He might have worn them from necessity I suppose, but if you're talking about wearing them for your surgeon portrayal then you're venturing into the realms of making up stories to excuse inappropriate kit.

[Mission]

You hate me. (Actually 18th century fashion hates me.) Stupid knee pants.

[willie wobble]

White Sox and Tennis Shoes TOO!!!

[Mission]

Ever since I got my Robert Land shoes, I have pretty well stopped wearing tennis shoes in the off-hours. The shoes I used to have were very poorly made (I bought 'em cheap) and, being diabetic, I had to be concerned with my feet so I switched to tennies once the public had left the building.

As for white socks... what on earth are you talking about? You'll have to post a photo of that one, cuz' I don't recall wearing period inappropriate socks with my kit at an event.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

About firearm:

I am satisfied that it is just poorly drawn musket. Some pirate book said also so about this pic.

[MarkG]

The artist never saw Blackbeard so don't over analze this. A couple of decades later the woodcut washer reworked and Blackbeard was given a thrum cap.

[Fox]

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

[Swashbuckler 1700]

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

Correct me if i am wrong (you can always do that )I belive he means this stuff

Blackbeard 1724 early edition of Johnson's book

http://upload.wikime..._%281724%29.jpg

he in late 1724 edition

http://upload.wikime..._the_Pirate.jpg

He in 1725 Dutch edition

http://www.longjohns...age004_0000.jpg

The 1736 edition

http://www.wilsonsal...ges2/teach1.gif

Edited February 12, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Fox]

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...)

[Swashbuckler 1700]

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...)

Maybe he has some pics and I was wrong...

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Note that he is not replied yet so he may really have that pic....and i was wrong...

Edited February 12, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Mission]

Most people aren't in here quite as frequently as you are, Swashbuckler. Give Mark some time to reply.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Most people aren't in here quite as frequently as you are, Swashbuckler. Give Mark some time to reply.

Of cource... I was just saying that he has not replied so lets not give upp to hope to that he would have that cap picture

[Swashbuckler 1700]

About the tree...I belive that is supposed to be pine...It also may represent a palm tree and it has been drawn by illustrator who had never be in tropics or seen palm tree (or blackbeard).

[Cascabel]

About the tree...I belive that is supposed to be pine...It also may represent a palm tree and it has been drawn by illustrator who had never be in tropics or seen palm tree (or blackbeard).

........My point exactly !! I think the artist based it on what seamen were wearing at the time the illustration was comissioned, and apparently had no studio props to base detail on, thus the poorly rendered weapons. Blackbeard's appearance was apparently based on the artist's imagination, and whatever descriptions he could get from his client.

>>>>> Cascabel

[Swashbuckler 1700]

About the tree...I belive that is supposed to be pine...It also may represent a palm tree and it has been drawn by illustrator who had never be in tropics or seen palm tree (or blackbeard).

........My point exactly !! I think the artist based it on what seamen were wearing at the time the illustration was comissioned, and apparently had no studio props to base detail on, thus the poorly rendered weapons. Blackbeard's appearance was apparently based on the artist's imagination, and whatever descriptions he could get from his client.

>>>>> Cascabel

I can only repeat what Foxe said....You have point but what sailor were wearing in 1730s would certainly not be very different than it would be 1718 (and we know ith was practically similar because of other sources)...There certainly were some artistic liberties as always in illustrations (even in photos cropping etc can lie) but we cant say that all illustrations are bad....Some could argue even in documentary evidence relying on to language changes etc... but lets not get paranoid here this picture of Blackbeard is good refenrence but not perfect.... Lets not debate with this please

[MarkG]

See "X Marks the Spot, the Archeology of Piracy" chapter 13 "Pirate Imagery", page 274 for a discussion on the evolution of Blackbeard's image. This is what I was referring to.

I would have copied the relevent text but after Swachbuckler 1700's post I'm finished with this thread. This is why I went from checing the Pub daily to once every few weeks.

[IvanHenry]

Mission - there is quote somewhere referencing Spanish sailors who knew for a fact that they were attacked by Englishmen because "they were wearing trousers"

I have a pair in my kit - you would have seen them at PIP in 2009.