Pyrates, cabin boys and powder monkeys

[Patrick Hand]

I was wondering about this, so I will state my possible misinformation, and let someone who knows correct me…

From what I understand, a cabin boy was in training to become an officer. But with different views on child labor, a powder monkey was just a young boy who carried the powder for the ship’s guns. Maybe they were also learning the skills to become a sailor…On the job training, as it were…

I can’t see why there would be any cabin boys on a Pyrate ship…. Basically the Pyrates aren’t working on improving the future of their careers…. Just going for some quick money. So training a cabin boy wouldn’t be worth the time and effort….

But with a different view on child labor, having powder monkeys working on a Pyrate ship sounds about right….

I can sorta remember reading about a captured Pyrate crew that had a young boy aboard that was let go because of his age, but can’t remember where I read that…..

[Fox]

Okey-dokey... first off, the term "cabin boy" is not something I've come across in the GAoP, and "powder monkey" is definitely a post GAoP term.

What we would now term "cabin boys" would probably have been descirbed either as Captain's servants or as volunteers, depending on their status. Essentially, yes, they were young boys preparing to train as officers. One they actually began to train as officers they were mostly probably midshipmen. "Midshipman" had originally been a low ranking officer, often a rank into which warrant or petty officers were placed before working their way up to becoming a master or lieutenant. Soon after the Restoration the Duke of York devised a method of properly training young men for the sea, by making them midshipmen - thus the rank began its evolution into the familiar kind of middy which Hornblower et al have taught us about.

His Royal Highness, being desirous to give encouragement to such young gentlemen as are willing to apply themselves to the learning of Navigation, and fitting themselves to the service of the sea, hth determined that one volunteer shall be entered on every ship now going forth; and for his encouragement, that he shall have the pay of a midshipman, and one midshipman less be borne on the ship.

Those young gentlemen who were not quite well off enough to serve as volunteers might secure themselves a post as Captain's servant instead - in which they would recieve the patronage of their captain. However, being a Captain's servant meant just that, and they were expected to serve the captain as well as learn the sea trade.

The other boys of the ship, simply termed "boys" (or sometimes "younkers" or "grommets" - though these terms could also refer to inexperienced adults), were boys of a lower class who were learning the ropes of pratical seamanship. They were put to work on the routine jobs of the ship, and slowly worked their ways up to becoming seamen.

On a pirate ship I can't think of any reason to have boys as Captain's servants, and I've certainly never come across such a thing. Other boys (who may or may not have been captain's servants I suppose) do turn up occasionally in pirate records. For example, two boys were captured with Joseph Bannister's ship, and while Bannister and some of his men were brought into Port Royal hanging from the yard arms the two boys were hanging by their waists from the mizzen peak.

[Daniel]

One they actually began to train as officers they were mostly probably midshipmen. "Midshipman" had originally been a low ranking officer, often a rank into which warrant or petty officers were placed before working their way up to becoming a master or lieutenant. Soon after the Restoration the Duke of York devised a method of properly training young men for the sea, by making them midshipmen - thus the rank began its evolution into the familiar kind of middy which Hornblower et al have taught us about.

One thing I want to get clarified; was "midshipman" an exclusively naval rank during the Golden Age, or were there midshipmen in the merchant service also?

Addressing the original question, here are some further known instances of boys on pirate ships.

On December 20, 1699, Governor Francis Nicholson of Virginia, one of the few antipirate colonial officials at the time, issued a warrant for the arrest of the crew of the Adventure, who had recently landed in Virginia after a pirate cruise to the Red Sea.  The list of wanted men included: . . . Thomas Simpson, short and small, much squint-eyed, about 10 of age; . . . William Saunders, of ordinary stature, well-set, fresh-colored, black hair, about 15.

- - Douglas Botting, The Pirates, Alexandria: Time-Life Books, 1978, p. 28

Captain Every contributed 40 Peices of Eigh and four Peices of Gold and every Sailer (being one hundred men besides Boyes) twenty Peices of Eight and two Peices of Gold a man, which sum being collected were sent to Mr. Governour Trott.

- - Affidavit of Philip Middleton, November 11, 1696, in J. Franklin Jameson, ed., Privateering and Piracy in the Colonial Period: Illustrative Documents, New York: August M. Kelley, 1970, p. 172.

Other contemporary reports in Jameson give Every's whole crew as either 130 or 150 in strength (p. 154-55), so if Middleton's reckoning of 100 adults is correct, it is possible that as many as 30 to 50 of Every's crew could have been boys.

[William Brand]

When does the term "powder monkey" first appear?

[Rumba Rue]

Well I suspect that many of the powder monkeys/young ones were most likely molested and buggered quite often.

[Patrick Hand]

The reason that I’m asking about “Boys” on Pyrate ships is because in our group, we have two boys that go to the camping events. (Bakersfield, Ojai and Kearney Park)

I was thinking about what Foxe posted in the demo thread, and figured that I could “kill three stones with one bird”, by teaching then some sailors skills, It would give them something to do at events, give their Mom a break, and they could also recruit other kids to learn Pyrate stuff, for a demo….

I personally don’t like the term “cabin boy” because of all the off color jokes, and figured that powder monkey sounded better. “Boy” doesn’t quite have the right “ring” to it; I’m looking for something to use to refer to them, also something that I can put on “certificates” that I can give out after the “classes” that they (and anyone that they recruit) can keep…

For a demo, I can focus on teaching children Pyrate/Sailor skills, and tell them what their place in the society back them was….

[Fox]

Midshipman was not, so far as I know, strictly an RN rank, but I can't think offhand of any merchant examples during the GAoP.

I'm going to eat my words re: Powder Monkey. According to Wikipedia the term is first found in 1682. Sadly no source is offered so it's impossible to check (and at the risk of sounding like my pride is wounded, Wikipedia is not 100% reliable). I would still maintain that the term's common usage post-dates the GAoP.

Patrick, sounds like a great idea to me. Call em "yonkers".

Rumba, why on earth should the ship's boys have been buggered "quite often"?

[William Brand]

The Navy Historical Center has this to say about the term Powder Monkey.

"A "powder monkey" was a boy who carried gun powder from the magazine to cannons and performed other ordnance duties on a warship (usage dating to 1682)."

[Fox]

I'd still like to know where the 1682 reference comes from, and exactly what it says. :)

[William Brand]

So would I. I've only ever seen period references to "powder monkey" from 1765 on up.

EDIT. The Oxford English Dictionary also states that the origin of the term is 1682. And I found this from Blackwell's New England Books Project. It has a reference to the term powder monkey at the very end...

" JOHN, Ipswich, physician, had perhaps liv. in Boston, for a mortg. to him of est. rec. here Vol. X. 233, titles him now of Ipswich, chirurg. and the date is 9 Oct. 1652. His Excor. Robert Paine sold, Dec. 1677, the Boston est. to William Hudson. He perhaps resid. at Hampton 1640, some time at Salem,, was cous. of Rev. John, and that benefact. of Harv. Coll. ment. by Pierce, 35; also, I presume, the freem. of 1643; in his will of 28 Dec. 1652, pro. on new. yrs. day, 25 Mar. 1656, speaks of no. w. or ch. [see abstr. in Essex Inst. I. 50.] His benefaction to Harv. Coll. was realiz. in 1658, as the invaluab. History, by Quincy, shows us: "obtained in horses L72." See I. 513 of that work. JOHN, Haverhill, elder br. of James, b. at Haverhill in Co. Suffk. 5 Nov. 1606, as Mather tells, III. cap. 31, or p. 167 in the London ed. of Magn. Yet "where his educ. was, I have not been inform." he says, "the first notice of him that occurs to me, being in the yr. 1639, when he came over into these parts." In Eng. I found that he was matric. at Emanuel, 1622, and had his A. B. 1626, and A. M. 1630. He had begun his serv. in Eng. "at a very small place" wh. was Hadleigh in Co. Suffk. and in this country, preach. first at Kittery or York in 1641, as Winthrop II. 29 relates, but Mather, wh. loves always to be indefinite, and sometimes hides his ignorance under periphrasis, would magnify his watch over the flock at H. to "as many yrs. as there are sabbaths in the yr." We kn. that he was chos. and ord. in Oct. 1645, when the ch. was gather. Winthrop II. 252; and that flock he could, of course, serve but 48 yrs. He d. 27 Dec. 1693; and could the truth ever be sufficient for the author of the Magnalia, he might have call. it a very honor. and protract. course of duty. On 19 Nov. preced. he preach. an excell. sermon, enter. the 88th yr. of his age, "the only sermon that ever was. or perhaps ever will be preach. in this country, at such an age," adds the eclesiast. historian, tho. since that day sev. more aged pastors have in like kind, obey. their call. He was prob. the freem. of 3 May 1649, By his w. Alice Edmunds. brot. from Eng. wh. d. bef. him, he had Elizabeth b. 7 Apr. 1647, wh. m. 1665 Nathaniel Saltonstall, and d. 29 Apr. 1714; and Mary, 24 June 1649, m. e June 1672, Rev. Benjamin Woodbridge, and d. 11 Oct. 1680. JOHN, Newton, s. prob. eldest of William of Sudbury, b. in Eng. a. 1626, m. a 1650, Hannah, d. of [[vol. 4, p. 409]] the first Edward Jackson of the same, had Hannah; John, b. 26 Jan. 1654, d. in few mos.; Rebecca, 15 June 1655; John, again, 8 Mar. 1658; Elizabeth 18 June 1660; Deborah, 19 July 1662; William, 19 Nov. 1664; Richard, 15 Nov. 1666; Mercy, 27 Jan. 1669; Edward, 13 Mar. 1671; Eleazer, 26 Feb. 1673; Jonathan, 22 Apr. 1674; and Joseph, 15 Nov. 1677.

He was of the first selectmen when the town was set off from Cambridge, freem. 1685, rep. 1689 and sev. yrs. aft. and d. 2 July 1708. His w. had d. 21 Apr. 1704, aged 73. Hannah m. 8 June 1670, Thomas Greenwood; Elizabeth m. 7 June 1679, Joshua Fuller; and Deborah m. 2 Feb. 1682, John Wythe. JOHN, Newport, came late in life, aft. hear. of d. of his s. Thomas, as inconsisit. tradit. tells, prob. a. 1690, took charge of his gr. childr. and d. says the gr.-st. in Apr. 1698, aged 79. Possib. he had serv. fifty-five yrs. bef. in the Parlim. army in the gr. civil war, and that was the origin of the fable as to Thomas. But Thomas d. at mid. age, and as the sacred tradit. of serv. in Cromwell's army belongs to him, and not his f. it will be seen that he was not old eno. to be a powder monkey to the gr. Protector."

I have found several other vague refernces to the term powder monkey in reference to Oliver Cromwell and the Great Civil War.