Morgan Drawing

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Well, it depends on what you mean by exaggerated....

I think that in the pictures that you are talking about, the artist is poking fun of the excesses of English dress and illustrates this with the figure having every possible frill and ribbon on his clothes.

The other pictures show typical gentlemen's clothing for the mid-17 century. I wish they had more working men's clothing as that would be more sailor like.

Foxe has listed cloting from wills and such on this site before. I think that gives us a pretty good idea what kinds of clothes that the sailor had in his possession. If they had fancy bucket boots for going ashore, they would have been listed in their effects when they died.

But we are not seeing that (or Foxe is holding out on us )

GoF

[Fox]

bootleg

1889 (adj.), 1903 (v.), Amer.Eng. slang, from the trick of concealing something down the leg of a high boot (originally a flask of liquor).

My mistake! Does that dictionary give citations for the early use? Either way, 1889 is nothing to do with pirates of the GAoP.

I have a question - it relates to the other thread discussing the 'buccaneer' period. During that period, with the land raids, etc, would boots have been more common? And where would Morgan and his fancy dress have fallen - in that era, or the GAoP?

Because many buccaneers came from a military rather than maritime background, and were generally earlier in period anyway, boots may have been more common, but there's no reason why they should have been. If we look at the contemporary pictures of the buccaneer grunts they're all either wearing shoes or have bare feet. To protect their legs they have thick bindings round the lower part.

Morgan was the ultimate buccaneeer.

Foxe has listed cloting from wills and such on this site before. I think that gives us a pretty good idea what kinds of clothes that the sailor had in his possession. If they had fancy bucket boots for going ashore, they would have been listed in their effects when they died.

But we are not seeing that (or Foxe is holding out on us )

Not holding out. I don't recall ever having come across a pair of bucket boots in a will or probate inventory of a common seaman circa 1600-1750. Even in the early period when they were fashionable, seamen seem not to have worn boots! Even Sir Henry Morgan's probate contained 39 pairs of shoes, and NO BOOTS.

[dasNdanger]

My mistake! Does that dictionary give citations for the early use? Either way, 1889 is nothing to do with pirates of the GAoP.

Oh, I don't think you made a mistake - you were close enough. Actually, I always thought the term came from prohibition days...so it's nice to get a reference point. The site doesn't go back any further, HOWEVER...I just looked up in my Webster's Dictionary...and wow - we were BOTH wrong!! LOL!! According to Webster's:

Function: noun (1634). 1 : the upper part of a boot. 2 : something bootlegged; specifically : MOONSHINE.

Function: verb (1900). transitive senses: 1 a : to carry (alcoholic liquor) on one's person illegally; b : to manufacture, sell, or transport for sale (alcoholic liquor) illegally. 2 a : to produce, reproduce, or distribute illicitly or without authorization; b : SMUGGLE.

Hmm...so, as a noun referring to a smuggled good it's been around since 1634? Could Webster's been wrong? And why would it have taken nearly 300 years to evolve into a verb?

Morgan was the ultimate buccaneeer.

I knew you were gonna say that...soooo...IF as the 'ultimate Buccaneer' Morgan has been portrayed as a man with a penchant for boots - of some kind - then I say forget the boring ol' GAoP, and dress like a foppish buccaneer!!

I don't recall ever having come across a pair of bucket boots in a will or probate inventory of a common seaman circa 1600-1750.

Okay - now I'm going into the realm of wild speculation here...so bear with me. What if - during the early part of the 17th century - pirates/buccaneers/filibusters/freebooters and the like DID wear boots, but only ashore. From what I've read, many pirates during that time had digs on the islands, etc...not living 24/7 aboard ship. When crews were recruited, they'd go to sea...then afterwards they would disperse, live ashore, spend their wealth and sit tight until called to got to sea again. During that time ships weren't the most important thing, and many pirates operated out of small boats. So...could it be possible that these men just dressed like normal folk - crazy boots and all - when on shore, and donned their sailor garb when at sea. Land clothes kept on land, sailing clothes worn aboard ship. I mean, a pirate would want to 'blend' into society by dressing like the rest of the men around.

If this was the case, then it falls on the re-enactor to decide what sort of pirate he wants to portray. Does he want to portray the pirate as he probably would have been ashore - dressed like everyone else, to the best of his ability, or does he want to portray the pirate in his working duds. I would think that no pirate (unless the weather merited it) would be wearing a heavy justaucorps and bulky boots while working out in the hot Caribbean sun. However, would a reenactor wear 'in towne' what a pirate would probably be wearing aboard ship - probably not much more than slops (with or without drawers) and a working knife, and a bandana/neckerchief/cap.

I think herein lies the problem. 'Formal' attire v. work attire. Sure, some things probably were mixed and matched, and there may have been degrees of shore attire, but unlike Naval officers who actually had dress uniforms and the like, pirates would only have civilian finery for shore visits, or shore life, while wearing traditional sailor attire aboard ship. Also - I suspect there would be a difference between what a 'captain' would wear as opposed to what the grunts would wear.

This is JUST speculation, of course...I'm not suggesting that this is how things actually were. However, I would like to see what others think in this regard. It does have a bearing on that picture of Morgan - looking very much like a gentleman about town...with a gun. The ship, the gun, and any other 'piratey' effects were probably just added to enhance the picture anyway...

das

[BILLY BONES]

I, for one, ocassionally wear bucket boots to functions that I feel warrant it. By this, I mean that if I'm at a Halloween party, or a function where the general public will be present, I feel compelled to wear them, since that's what the public expects. Otherwise, I'm barefoot, sandaled, or wearing shoes.....OK, now there are the inevitable questions about educating the public about what a pirate really wore. Hey, I look good in bucket boots! I know what's right, but at certain times, I wear them anyway. As stated by previous posters, wear 'em if you feel like it. Just know what's correct for the function you're attending. BTW, I'm frankly quite sick of bad bucket boots, as it seems that every "pirate" on POTC must wear them, except, of course, the actual ship riggers, who go barefoot or wear tennis shoes. BB

[BILLY BONES]

I forgot. It's my feeling that bucket boots may have been worn as a stylistic trend, much as they are now, but only on shore, not universally, and certainly before 1700.

[Capt. Sterling]

http://collectionsonline.lacma.org/mwebcgi...500872;type=803

The above link is a collection of actual fashion plates circa 1670s-80s from the French court.... as the French were already setting fashion you may want to look over some of these. Most are for Gentleman, I believe there is one ship's captain, and some merchants... If you click on the prints you can enlarge them. If you click on the words below they translate some of the french, give artist and dates...

Hector

[Fox]

Function: noun (1634). 1 : the upper part of a boot. 2 : something bootlegged; specifically : MOONSHINE.

...

Hmm...so, as a noun referring to a smuggled good it's been around since 1634? Could Webster's been wrong? And why would it have taken nearly 300 years to evolve into a verb?

Unless I've read it wrong, the mention of 1634 is only referring to the first use of the word "bootleg", probably meaning the upper part of a boot (def. 1), not necessarily smuggled goods. Without a better citation it's impossible to prove, but it's probable that the alternative meaning is much later, hence the discrepancy between the dates of the noun and the verb.

Okay - now I'm going into the realm of wild speculation here...so bear with me. What if - during the early part of the 17th century - pirates/buccaneers/filibusters/freebooters and the like DID wear boots, but only ashore.

If we're talking about the early part of the 17th century then it's a completely different matter. Boots were fashionable then, which they were not a century later.

unlike Naval officers who actually had dress uniforms and the like

Not a particularly significant point, but the navy had no uniform (even for officers) until much later. The French navy led the way with the first uniforms being issued (only for specific personel) in 1667. The Royal Navy's first uniforms didn't come in until 1747.

Also - I suspect there would be a difference between what a 'captain' would wear as opposed to what the grunts would wear.

I agree wholeheartedly. The evidence supports that in some cases, and in the cases where the captains were dressed the same as the men it often transpires that the captains were dressed like grunts. See the oft-cited Cocklyn/Davis/La Bouse incident.

The above link is a collection of actual fashion plates circa 1670s-80s from the French court....

Nice link Hector! You'll notice that despite the apparent cross section of society represented (courtiers, peasants, tradesmen etc) the only pair of bots is being worn by a... wait for it... cavalry officer.

[Capt. Sterling]

Nice link Hector! You'll notice that despite the apparent cross section of society represented (courtiers, peasants, tradesmen etc) the only pair of bots is being worn by a... wait for it... cavalry officer.

Thanks Foxe! Hey, in my Uniforms of Trafalgar, I believe it mentions that boots were worn by officers, that could afford them, for protection from splinters... What's your take on that? and have you ever come across anything similar for the GAoP? Just wondering.

As for the cavalry officer...hmmm, I think that would make sense, don't you? :)

Hector

[dasNdanger]

Unless I've read it wrong, the mention of 1634 is only referring to the first use of the word "bootleg", probably meaning the upper part of a boot (def. 1), not necessarily smuggled goods. Without a better citation it's impossible to prove, but it's probable that the alternative meaning is much later, hence the discrepancy between the dates of the noun and the verb.

Yeah - that might be the case. It's hard to tell the way the dictionaries are written - that quote I posted was from the net, in my dictionary at home it first gives all the definitions, then states, "1625-35 - American. Boot + Leg; secondary senses arose from the practice of hiding a liquor bottle in the leg of one's boot" - but it doesn't specify when those secondary senses took hold.

If we're talking about the early part of the 17th century then it's a completely different matter. Boots were fashionable then, which they were not a century later.

I'm liking the buccaneer era more and more - first pig roasts, now BOOTS!! WOOT!

Not a particularly significant point, but the navy had no uniform (even for officers) until much later. The French navy led the way with the first uniforms being issued (only for specific personel) in 1667. The Royal Navy's first uniforms didn't come in until 1747.

*DOH!* I forgot about that little tidbit - mine eyes were blinded by Hollywood, forgive me...

das

[Fox]

Erm, boots were certainly worn by some officers circa 1805 because they were fashionable. In a sea-battle if a flying splinter hits your leg a boot ain't gonna protect you, it'll just make it harder for the sawbones to take it out. Not come across anything similar from the GAoP.

As for the cavalry officer - makes perfect sense. Boots were worn for riding, but were not otherwise fashionable - bloke who's about to get on a horse is wearing boots, nobody else is. Perfect sense.

Funnily enough, I've just been flicking through Henry Teonge's diary looking for something else, and in the index I noticed he mentioned boots. "Ok," thinks I, "I'd better have a look at this". So I had a look... He rode from Warwick to London, then sold his horse, saddle, bridle, and boots all together, before joining his ship.

[Cannon Jack]

One thing I did not see any one mention is that maybe he frillied up for the paining to be done! sence the dawn af time people have put on there best dress for portrates!! so no that may not be what he wore at sea but wit morgan being a captain he probably had finer clothing for for higher acassions. as for it being overly sized it may have been Englich atire for we all know they didnt like to bath they just piled more layers of clothing. an who know what ship he may of found them from or who they may of tailors for. as for the long legs maybe that is how he wanted to look as whell maybe he had a hight complex. as a pirate you get what you want!!

[JoshuaRed]

Wha?

This is a 20th century illustration, not an actual portrait of Morgan done during his lifetime. There is no known contemporary "official" portrait of Morgan, sadly. The various engravings of him done during and just after his life were based on current fashion and the descriptions of those who had seen him - just as most of the pirate engravings were.

[Fox]

it may have been Englich atire for we all know they didnt like to bath they just piled more layers of clothing.

...and that just ain't true!

[Pirate Petee]

Boots, yeah. I love this debate. Now see people, we can have a friendly debate, without peoples slops getting in a bunch. GoF, I didn’t get your PM about the Batavia’s boots, but I received those pics from Charity here at the pub. True, if you look at the pics of the “Bucket Boots” who in there right mind would want to wear those stiff looking things on a ship, maybe some, I don’t know. If you look at the pics of the Batavia boots and another illustration of seamen wearing boots, they look totally different, looser, more baggy and more “ship friendly”. Is it possibly that there were several different styles of boots, both tall with folded tops, maybe. A discussion in its own. Now I’m not saying that every pirate or sailor wore boots, hell I’m not even saying that most of them wore boots, I am just saying that some did. Hey, don’t get me wrong I wear buckle shoes too. Shhh don’t tell my boot friends about that . I don’t think Hollywood came up with the idea that they wore boots, there are a lot of early 19th century images of seamen wearing boots, that’s in the 1800’s, a lot closer to the GAoP than we are , with so many depictions of them wearing boots it had to have come from some where.

[dasNdanger]

okay - I have a question about this Morgan picture, and every other pirate picture I've ever seen: Would they have pranced around in public sporting muskets and pistols and cutlasses - or is this just 'artistic license' taken to distinguish a pirate from a respectable gentleman/gentlewoman?

das

[JoshuaRed]

No "gentleman" would be seen in public without his sword at his side...this continued throughout the 18th century.

Guns? I don't think so...it wasn't until the lighter and reliable firearms of the 19th century that a sidearm became a trusted companion.

[dasNdanger]

No "gentleman" would be seen in public without his sword at his side...this continued throughout the 18th century.

Guns? I don't think so...it wasn't until the lighter and reliable firearms of the 19th century that a sidearm became a trusted companion.

Thanks, much!!! Living at a time when weapons just aren't openly displayed (in most societies), it's odd to see all of these pictures of sword-wielding folks roaming about town. Now I won't look at the pictures with so much scepticism...

das

[Fox]

On firearms and swords, I was quite interested by the following passage and the light it sheds on "everyday" armaments. It is the testimony of one Mr White who was robbed by a highwayman named Goodman, then a few days later came across him again, quite by chance.

I sent my servant to demand my horse, and he going up to them, they both clapt spurs to their horses, and rode away. We pursued them. Goodman flash'd a pistol at me, but it did not go off. Then they quitted their horses, and got over a ditch into a field, unpon which, I gave my servant a small gun {which he just happened to be carrying}, and order'd him to pursue them, which he did. The prisoners fir'd twice at him, but miss'd him; he fir'd at them but miss'd likewise.

"Damn it!" says one of the prisoners, "we'll kill or be kill'd, we won't be taken alive! Let's turn upon 'em, and fire again, for our lives are as good as theirs!"

Upon this, my man recharged his gun with some pebble-stones and, firing, wounded Goodman behind the head. He presently fell down, and was taken. Another person, whose name was White, coming by, leap'd the ditch and pursued Stevens with a drawn hangar; Stevens perceiving himself hard put to it, presented two pistols at him; White bid him fire, but told him, if he mist, he would cleave his skull; and thereupon Stevens dropt his pistols and surrendered. We took from them two musquetoons, a screw pistol, which was loaded with three bullets, and each of the other pistols was charg'd with two.

[kass]

This is a 20th century illustration, not an actual portrait of Morgan done during his lifetime. There is no known contemporary "official" portrait of Morgan, sadly. The various engravings of him done during and just after his life were based on current fashion and the descriptions of those who had seen him - just as most of the pirate engravings were.

I've gotta agree with brother Josh here. Whoever did this illustration is mixing periods a bit. The sleeves are very 1630s but the open way of wearing the doublet is a 1650s fashion, and the breeches are just weird. I wouldn't be surprised if this was made by someone who not only never saw Morgan in life, but didn't know what people wore in his time period. It's kind of like those Victorian illustrations of medieval clothing in Braun and Schneider. They look "medieval" but they show a fundamental misunderstanding of medieval clothing and what went together and what didn't.

[JoshuaRed]

Right! Go to the source or don't go at all. I'm always shocked at how much 19th-20th century popular art (illustrations, etc) just blatantly copy earlier art without checking up to see if what they copy is even feasible, let alone accurate.

Case in point - those "Piracy" EC Comics from the 50's & 60s...every other panel is just a poor copy of a Howard Pyle painting and you know what happens to a copy of a copy of a copy...incrementally you don't notice the slippage until you hold it up to the original source, and the difference is suddenly vast.

[Pirate Petee]

Telephone game.

[kass]

Precisely! It's interesting when you know the sources that were copied for the illustrations. You can see all the mistakes. For illustrations in a comic, that's not really important. But you can't base historical clothing on it.

Kinda like the visual version of "Whisper Down the Lane". :)

[kass]

Telephone game.

Heh! Now the voices in your head are talking to me, Petee!

[Pirate Petee]

Your never lonely when you got voices.

[kass]

I like the pretty voices...