Calico Jack & Notoriety

[JoshuaRed]

GOF posted this as part of a different topic here:

Calico Jack is famous for the Calico printed clothing that he wore.

This got me thinking. If Calico Jack was known far and wide for something as basic as calico clothing then wouldn't a pirate who sported a gold hoop earring, floor-length sash, bucket-top boots and an eyepatch be equally reknowned for that if not more so? I'm not saying these items didn't exist on their own, but that if they were ever worn with the regularity of Jack's calico, it would have garnered a good deal of notoriety. So there's a reason this stuff is never mentioned in Johnson, Dampier, or anywhere else. Their absence speaks volumes.

Just another nail in the coffin for piratical fashion myths...

[Gentleman of Fortune]

EXACTLY!

gof

[blackjohn]

Not so fast with the hammer boyo!

Everyone knows pirate bands were like rock bands, only the lead gets PR!

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Or has history just turned its back on...

Red Sashed Sam

Bucket Boots Bill

Ron the Rapier

Earings Earl Jones

Silken Shirt Smith

Cotton Garb Gary

Fancy Hat Harold

Spanish Sandaled Stephan

are there others....?

gof

[blackjohn]

C'mon, as we all know, it was about money! That is, selling books! So our good "Captain" Johnson made up names of pirates that would sell!

And lets not forget Puffy Shirt Pete (not to be confused with our own good Pirate Petee).

[JoshuaRed]

Let's not forget ye poxiest of all ye sea villians....Hooke-Handed Harold

[Pirate Petee]

Don't things that are common go unmentioned.

Oh and thank you blackjohn.

[Fox]

Nope, we have descriptions of trousers, shoes, shirts, hats, beds, buttons, pocket-knives, and a million and one other things that were not only common, but universal. The fact that nobody has yet managed to find a single reference for GAoP period pirates with earrings, eyepatches or hooks tends to indicate their rarity rather than everyday use.

Let us not forget the notorious pirate Aaarrthur.

Point. Johnson does not tells us anything about Rackham's clothing except that it was made of calico. "Calico" can be an expensive, bright, printed Indian cotton, but it can also be a coarse, often undyed, Indian cotton. It seems most likely that Johnson meant the former, but not absolutely definitely

[Pirate Petee]

Yep, we have descriptions, but not in the form of a nickname. what I meant was, he was probably dressed uncommonly. Why would someone have a nickname for something that was not out of the ordinary. Except for maybe Plain Jain. That’s probably why we didn’t hear Trouser Tim, Buckle Shoe Bob, or Slop Steve.

[Captain Jim]

Calico is a fabric made from unbleached, and often not fully processed, cotton. It may contain unseparated husk parts, for example. The fabric is less coarse and thick than canvas or denim, but owing to its unfinished and undyed appearance, it is still very cheap.

http://www.apparelsearch.com/Definitions/F...lico_fabric.htm

Sooo, cotton fabric was so common that the British had to ban it to protect the home textile industry. Interesting. And another reason to mention the wearing of it by a Pyrate is that it was seditious to wear banned and probably smuggled cloth. And this Pyrate apparently flaunted this apparel.

Also, not mentioning a thing is not proof that a thing did not exist. Perhaps these things were so common that they did not merit any mention? Now don’t get yer calico undies in a wad: Playing Devil’s advocate here.

As a scientist in the RW, I never try to prove that thing does not exist; only that it is improbable. It is so much easier to prove the existence of a thing or phenomena. Now we know that tall boots existed in European societies before, during and after this time as riding and military gear, especially cavalry gear. It is not out of the realm of possibility to imagine that one pyrate somewhere wore tall boots ashore, or one Pyrate captain liked to stride the Quarterdeck wearing such boots, trying to fulfill his own desires and conceits with a perhaps misguided parroting of the upper crust. To prove that all I need is one reference. To disprove it takes researching all references to that time period, not only as relates to Pyrates but to general clothing, social mores and conventions as well, both known and unknown. Tomorrow the one reference will surface. Always tomorrow.

Then there is this:

At the end of the reign of Charles II (1630-85) the militarty still wore an old style heavy boot. This was replaced by a light leather leggings covering the boot called houseaux. The heavy boot was still used for riding. In 1663 the first seamless boot was made by a Gascon shoemaker called Lestage. King William of Orange (1650-1702) introduced the jackboot, which was of sturdy construction and worn high above the knee, quartered, and heeled with immense breadth for the toes. Thigh high boots were fashionable for soldiers and horsemen; worn tight on the calf they were ample enough to be folded over in a buccaneer fashion above the knee. Sometimes covered in decoration with punched designs they covered the whole leg and were held in place with garters or suspenders from the doublet. The above knee section was known as bucket tops and were worn with leathers and spurs. The boot offered protective armour to the leg and is still worn by the Household Cavalry. Before the advent of gum boots the style of boot was worn by fishermen. Thigh high boots were originally worn by pirates and smugglers, who tucked contraband or "booty" into them. The practice gave rise to the term, "bootlegging'.

Curtin University of Technology.

http://podiatry.curtin.edu.au/boot.html#spike

But it is improbable.

Now mind you that I am just beginning to release my inner Pyrate and catch up to the rest of you on the research, but as a scientist the one thing that I notice is the appalling lack of historical record of Pyrates for a time period not that far removed. Much is being inferred in the absence of data. While this is a good a strategy as any to form a general hypothesis as to what Pyrates wore, it does not rise to the level of a theory defining what they would not wear. What we need is to expand our references beyond Johnson, Dampier, Exquemelin and any other reference that deals specifically with Pyrates and out further into the general history of the time. Who would a Pyrate emulate? What was the most flamboyant segment of society at the time? Where was rank and privilege, and what did they wear? As fighting men would they not have emulated the elite fighting men, the fighter pilots of their time, the cavalry? Are there no references from the locals or merchants in the Caribbean regarding the comings and goings of Pyrates and what they bought, how they dressed?

Also as a scientist it is my job to shoot at hypotheses and theories alike, both mine and others, to see if they can stand up to abuse, sorry, I mean testing (one tests one’s own hypotheses and abuses someone else’s). So if a shot rings out from my direction, don’t duck, this shot is not meant for you personally and I am not questioning your scholarship. Indeed, withstanding the questions and doubts of others is what makes scholarship stronger. So don’t be alarmed, it’s just me poking at hypotheses.

[Pirate Petee]

Well said.

[JoshuaRed]

Why would someone have a nickname for something that was not out of the ordinary.

This is my point. If mere calico was worthy of a moniker, than certainly a flamboyant sash or double hoop earrings would be too.

Welcome, Capt. Jim. :) Good to have ya here.

fwiw, I've spent over 10 years researching ALL aspects of daily life in the colonial era during and beyond the GAOP , not just piracy, with a focus on New England and the West Indies. I've read everything I can get my hands on and then some. I spoken with writers, historians, curators and reenactors. I've taken the first steps toward doing an accurate reenactment myself. And in allllll that time, not once have I found one single solitary recorded instance of a GAOP pirate wearing the stereotypical trappings given to us in the 19th-20th century. If you can find it, I will worship you. Good luck!

[Pirate Petee]

One of us has got to invent a time machine.

[Fox]

Well said Captain Jim.

As a scientist in the RW, I never try to prove that thing does not exist; only that it is improbable.

As an historian I never try to prove that something never occurred, only that it is either improbable that it occurred or that it occurred only rarely. A case in point is earrings - I have never sought to convince anyone that no pirate anywhere between 1680 and 1730 wore an earring, only that it was clearly not the fashion we believe it to be.

Much is being inferred in the absence of data. While this is a good a strategy as any to form a general hypothesis as to what Pyrates wore, it does not rise to the level of a theory defining what they would not wear.

One of the things I like about this board is the general receptiveness of people to looking at and taking in sources associated with, but not directly related to piracy, such as merchant and RN practices to help fill the many huge gaps in our knowledge of pirates in an educated and sensible way. In terms of defining what was not worn, as a scientist how large a proportion of something would you have to look at in detail to consider it representative of the whole?

On Boots. "Bootlegging", I believe, is a term dating from the early 20th century and has nothing to do with pirates and/or olden day smugglers. One might also note that the Curtin Universtiy offer no source for their assertions about the popularity of boots amongst pirates. Would pirates have emulated cavalry? I can't think of why they should - one thing we do know is that seamen often despised landsmen, thought themselves a breed apart, pirates even more so if you're a Rediker fan. If pirates emulated anyone for their prowess it was probably the RN (back to grey shrunk kersey jackets...), but I doubt they made any particular effort to emulate any one group.

There are several sources readily available which describe pirates, other than Johnson, Esquemeling and Dampier. None of them, as far as I know, mention bucket boots, earrings, eye-patches or hooks.

Now don’t get yer calico undies in a wad: Playing Devil’s advocate here.

My undies are of the finest Indian silk, and I welcome anyone who contributes such well thought out and well argued posts as yours, no matter what point of view they contain.

1827 engraving of a Greenwich Pensioner.

[Pirate Petee]

Eyepatch - anyone who had there eye put out, pirates have eyes too.

Ear ring - Sailors are a very superstitious lot, why not, earings existed then.

Peg leg- Any one who lost a leg, yes pirates had legs as well.

Hooks - I don't know.

BBucket Boots - Well they were around then, and they were free people and could where what ever they want.

[Deadeye]

Let's not forget ye poxiest of all ye sea villians....Hooke-Handed Harold 

What Does Captain Hook fear more than the Crocodile?

Jock Itch!!!

Just thought id lighten the mood a bit, whilst trying to absorb everything being said...

[JoshuaRed]

We do need a time machine, Petee. Big time. In lieu of that, someone finally unearthing that old engraving lost for 3 centuries of a pirate crew carousing in Nassau with earrings, headscarves and sashes is the holy grail.

[Fox]

Eyepatch - anyone who had there eye put out, pirates have eyes too.

So why associate eyepatches with pirates rather than anyone else?

Ear ring - Sailors are a very superstitious lot, why not, earings existed then.

There appears to have been no superstition attached to the wearing of earrings until a century or more after the GAoP, so that doesn't mean a lot. Earrings existed but were unfashionable, rather than "why not" how 'bout asking "why?"

Peg leg- Any one who lost a leg, yes pirates had legs as well.

There are one or two historical pirates with wooden legs (covered in a recent thread IIRC). Like eyepatches, why should pirates wear them more than anyone else?

Hooks - I don't know.

I believe we have seen one or two examples of hook prosthetics from the GAoP or earlier, but no record of a pirate with one.

BBucket Boots - Well they were around then, and they were free people and could where what ever they want.

Absolutely true. BUT bucket boots were neither practical for seamen, nor fashionable in society of the time. They certainly could have worn bucket boots, but where would they have got them and why? It's unlikely that they would have worn them at sea because they were impractical, and unlikely they would have worn them ashore because they were unfashionable.

With practical items, like hooks and eyepatches, even if we don't have a specific example of a pirate with one it is a reasonable inference to say "if a pirate lost an eye he would probably cover it with an eyepatch like anyone else". Unfortunately the same logic does not apply to non-practical items like earrings, boots, sashes etc. I must repeat myself, none of this means that I believe no pirate ever wore an earring or boots, merely that I consider it just this side of impossible that they were ever major pirate fashions.

Deadeye, does the Crocodile fear Tock Itch?

[blackjohn]

Just thought id lighten the mood a bit, whilst trying to absorb everything being said...

As if the pic Foxe posted didn't lighten the mood enough...

I think this guy should be the Pub's official mascot.

And now, we return you to Chapter 5 of The Return of the Bling.

[Pirate Petee]

I would have to call him the most unlucky pirate ever.

Quick question, what and where did the term "bully boys" come from.

[Gentleman of Fortune]

It seems like the "Clothing Question" thread has spilled over to this one... which is good beacause i really like to hear your opinions on things.

Helps to stretch the brain out a little.

Sooo, cotton fabric was so common that the British had to ban it to protect the home textile industry. Interesting. And another reason to mention the wearing of it by a Pyrate is that it was seditious to wear banned and probably smuggled cloth. And this Pyrate apparently flaunted this apparel.

I don't think that it was because it was "common", England was just protecting their market from cheap imports. Plus, fashions from other countries seem so "exotic" that they were probably all the rage.

Calico Jack wasn't the only one wearing them as the demand for them skyrocketed when the ban went into place.

It is not out of the realm of possibility to imagine that one pyrate somewhere wore tall boots ashore, or one Pyrate captain liked to stride the Quarterdeck wearing such boots, trying to fulfill his own desires and conceits with a perhaps misguided parroting of the upper crust. To prove that all I need is one reference. To disprove it takes researching all references to that time period, not only as relates to Pyrates but to general clothing, social mores and conventions as well, both known and unknown. Tomorrow the one reference will surface. Always tomorrow.

This is NOT a stab at Captain Jim but I think the above quote does strikes at the Heart of Bad re-enacting/Living History. Every living history period is over populated with folks that only need that one bit of proof to throw off the proportional representation of that item.

Go to your average pirate festival and you will probably find that the majority of "pirates" are wearing bucket boots. If they were as popular during the GAoP as they are at modern Pirate events, don't you think that at least one of the seamen pictured Here would be wearing them?

Now I know I am mostly preaching to the choir at this forum but I think the consciencious living historian need more than just ONE coroborating refrence to build a living history impression (unless, like Hurricane, you are trying to portray a specific person in history).

Of all the periods of living history that I have ever done, GAoP is definately the hardest. The reason is not really the scant amount of actual artifacts or documents, but because so many of the people interested in it have such a pre-concieved idea of what a pirate was, and they WILL ABSOLUTELY DEFEND THOSE IDEAS TO THEIR DEATH. No matter what evidence you might find or what acutal evidence stares them in the face, it cannot compete with Pirates of the Caribbean, Captain Blood, Cut Throat Island, Treasure Island, and Peter Pan.

Ask your average Pirate Re-enactor where they got the idea that pirates wore earings, had long sashes, wore bucket boots, had puffie shirts, carried rapiers, said Arrrrr etc etc etc, and If they answer honestly, they will probably say some movie, or that someone who has been doing it for 20 years said so, or that its just plain common knowledge.

I can't help but wonder how many of them have ever seen the picture of Woodes Rogers and his men Raiding Guayacil?

GoF

[blackjohn]

It seems like the "Clothing Question" thread has spilled over to this one...

Hey, and I didn't jump overboard from this Clothing thread!!!

Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your point of view, I'm kinda busy gearing up for tomorrow. Time for me to go do a flint check. But, as the Guvna' Arnold once said, "I'll be back."

[Pirate Petee]

That mates, is a bucket boot.

[MadMike]

Some references-

"...and John Rackham, alias Callico Jack, (so called, because his Jackets and Drawers were always made of Callico) Quarter-Master to Vane, was unanimously chosen Captain of the Kingston." (Johnson, History of the Pyrates, vol II).

As for "flamboyantly" dressed pirates, I know of only one mention-

"Roberts himself made a gallant Figure, at the Time of the Engagement, being dressed in a rich crimson Damask Wastcoat and Breeches, a red Feather in his Hat, a Gold Chain round his Neck, with a Diamond Cross hanging to it," (Johnson, History of the Pyrates, vol I). Can anyone provide similar examples?

As to mention of a pegleg and whatnot-

"a Fellow with a terrible pair of Whiskers, and a wooden Leg, being stuck round with Pistols, like the Man in the Almanack with Darts, comes swearing and vapouring upon the Quarter-Deck, and asks, in a damning Manner, which was Captain Mackra: The Captain expected no less than that this Fellow would be his Executioner; —— but when he came near him, he took him by the Hand, swearing, Damn him he was glad to see him; and shew me the Man, says he, that offers to hurt Captain Mackra, for I'll stand by him; and so with many Oaths told him, he was an honest Fellow, and that he had formerly fail'd with him." (Johnson, vol I)

A good reference for clothing is "Captured by Pirates", not to mention Johnson's volumes. Did I forget to mention Foxe's images? lol

I strive to portray a common seaman turned pirate, no fancy garb, although I may deck myself out in the justacorps this Halloween.

Yours, &c.

Mike

Hand sewn coat project progress- finished the bottom hem (finally!). Awaiting button order. Working on pockets and starting buttonholes tonight...

[Fox]

That is indeed a bucket boot. Here's the rest of the picture, that guy's got the matching boot and his pal's got a pair on as well.

'Course, they're not seamen (my guess, based on the rest of their clothing and their positioning is that they're soldiers). Plus, it's one picture out of a hundred. Proves the point very nicely - one or two people may have worn boots/earrings/crotchless slops, but it doesn't mean they all did. Still no evidence of a seaman wearing boots either afloat or ashore.

Is it my imagination, or is the scruffy guy in the first picture (who probably IS a buccaneer) looking at Monsieur Bootee and thinking "what the **** do you look like mate"?