The Pirate Code (Pirate Articles)

[Mission]

So then what sorts of articles were typical of privateering crews? Or does Little have this wrong? I at first thought many merchant crews had some form of articles that were composed by the ship's owners, but re-reading Littles comment, I realized that this wasn't what he was saying; he was restricting his comments to "rovers." "Rover" is the term he uses to encompass privateers, pirates, buccaneers, filibusters and those strange white orbs that float up from the ocean bottom and attack you when you try to leave.

[Fox]

Trawling through the old posts here I was surprised to discover that there is no thread devoted to the discussion of pirate articles - the sets of rules drawn up to regulate behaviour. This seems an odd oversight, so here we go.

Pirate articles: discuss.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Foxe

[Mission]

It's mostly a bunch of twaddle. (I read that on some bonny adventure site somewhere. )

Myself, I prefer The Pirates' Code, which is universal and usually considered to be more like guidelines. (Remember answering that one every other week over at Pirate's Info?)

[Beowoulf]

Not sure what twaddle is, but.... as always, Wikipedia has interesting stuff to say:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_code

[LadyBarbossa]

::: Gibb's slaps Mission; rolls eyes::: Nay, they be th' Law!

Hmmm... tis a good question and thank ye for raisin' th' topic, Foxe. I have often wondered who realistic these are. It's a bit of fun to utilize giving kids their own "Articles" or good to incorporate rules for current crews to modify for their needs. But, seriously... Are we missing more here?

~Lady B

[Fox]

DECLARATION OF ULTERIOR MOTIVE

...But, seriously... Are we missing more here?

I'm currently doing a fairly large research project on pirate articles, so I seriously hope we have been missing plenty more, or it's going to be a short project!

I was sort of hoping that some light discussion here would stimulate my brain cells...

In terms of how realistic they are, do you mean whether or not the commonly quoted sets were actually employed by the pirates they were purported to have been written by? I have reason to believe that they probably were: Roberts', Lowther's and Phillips', although they all come from Johnson, do at least come from some of the more reliable parts of Johnson. Low's set can actually be found in two independent sources, which seems like a reasonable measure of reasonable accuracy.

Edited November 26, 2010 by Foxe

[Mission]

Twaddle is nonsense. Didn't you used to say there wasn't sufficient provenance for most of the sets of articles we had access to? Has this changed?

[Fox]

I suspect you may be thinking of someone else. The Pirate Mythtory page is about dispelling the myth of THE pirate code, and doesn't really deal with the provenance of their reported sets. I may have passed comment at some point elsewhere that three of the four oft-quoted sets come from Johnson's GHP and should be treated with the caution that work deserves.

If that was the case then I'm prepared to revise my earlier statement a little in the light of further research. Johnson should still be treated with caution, but I think there is emerging a general consensus that most elements of the GHP fall into three categories: firstly, information that was available in another published source, which was probably the source used by Johnson (newspapers, pamphlets etc); secondly, information that's wrong, fanciful, or imaginative, and is probably the product of Johnson's own brain; and thirdly, information which can be positively corroborated from other sources, but which sources Johnson probably didn't have access to, suggesting that he was able to interview or correspond with someone directly involved - a witness.

It's the last type of information which I find most interesting (because it presents an interesting challenge - one of my on-the-side ongoing projects is trying to identify these potential witnesses). It ought to be noted that Johnson himself says in the preface (or introduction) that much of his information came from the pirates themselves and from other witnesses, and he acknowledges the input of RN surgeon John Atkins. It's also interesting because it raises the possibility (even probability) that sections of the GHP are 'right', but can no longer be corroborated at such, and it's down to the researcher to determine which bits. FWIW, I'm fairly comfortable with all three sets of the articles quoted in Johnson being more or less reliably recorded, and if you'll allow me to hold forth a little longer, I'll explain why.

The whole chapter on Roberts had a number of potential informants: the aforementioned John Atkins was present at the Cape Corso trial and spent a lot of time with the pirates, and several members of Roberts' crew were imprisoned in London in the couple of years leading up to the publication of the GHP. Thus, there were a number of possible people who could have told Johnson the contents of the articles, and judging by the surrounding text, Atkins was the most likely (which, admittedly, brings in a whole load of caveats about how much the pirates would have told Atkins). Moreover, evidence given at the Cape Corso trial actually corroborates directly some of the substance of the articles quoted by Johnson.

Johnson also had a very likely witness available to interview about Lowther's early career, including the drawing up of articles. The fact that Lowther's articles appear to have been adopted wholesale by his associate Ned Low, whose articles are recorded in two independent sources, suggests that Johnson's version is substantially accurate.

Phillips' articles are more difficult to be sure of, but there are a number of pointers. Firstly, it must be said that Johnson only put three sets of articles in his book which covered over 30 pirate crews, so he was not in the habit of deliberately inventing articles. Secondly, the other two sets he recorded appear to be reasonably accurate, which further suggests that he only included articles when he had some genuine source for them. Thirdly, some very important features about Phillips' early career cannot be verified from other contemporary published sources (which, incidentally, led Manuel Schonhorn to assume that Johnson had made it up), but can be verified from some of the testimony relating to Thomas Anstis' crew, suggesting that Johnson had a witness able to describe Phillips' early career, but which I haven't yet managed to identify. There are also strong points of correlation between Phillips' reported articles and those of Thomas Anstis, his pirate 'mentor'.

[Mission]

I was kinda' yanking your chain there. I know you cast some aspersions on some of the published articles (not just the stupid POTC code) long ago. If the search engine worked at PI, I'll bet I could find it...

Hey, this kind of reminds me of something I came across a year or two ago in the (somewhat lurid) book Captured by Pirates edited from period accounts by John Richard Stephens. In Stephens book there's an excerpt from the book The Four Voyages of Capt. George Roberts...written by himself (1726). Captain Roberts accounts for his capture by Low's pirates, specifically mentioning several rules (perhaps articles) which are not in the Low's published articles. You can see the list of the ones I found in the text here. It sort of makes you wonder what we really know.

[LadyBarbossa]

I'm liking what I hear thus far.

I guess, to me, the books I've read have stated ship's have rules and then listed the general articles and was done with it. Umm, hello? Not all that satisfying really when you want to know a little more I suppose. Good point that made me question a little more, and Mission, I know you might not like it, is a PotC sourcebook mention the Pirata Codex and a couple excerpts. One that really caught my eye was "The member of the crew may lay claim to a pistol of his choice barring that the Captain, Quartermaster nor Master at Arms does not want it". It was such tiny details I do often wonder now. Plus, another was just reading this article from the Journal of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation about Smuggling, of articles that smugglers had. It seemed rather tricky as to who wrote up the articles, whether it was the captain or the ship's owner.

It's obvious that there's not just one type of style and I am eager awaiting to read what you find out, Foxe. Maybe the Ship's Articles irons out a little more the difference between a pirate crew, Privateer, smugglers, etc.

~Lady B

[Mission]

Oh, I don't care one way or the other about the Pirate Code; it's fine where it belongs. (Although source books and other such literature are never canon, so I wouldn't rely on that. The script writers almost never do.*) Ed and I used to be co-mods at another site where a surfeit of ill-researched folks (usually kids, as I recall) would come in looking for information about "the real pirates code." We patiently explained that it never really existed for awhile, then it got annoying, then it became a sort of running joke amongst the mods and regulars to lightly taunt such people. (Well, for some of the regulars, mercilessly taunt them.)

*The exception I've seen being The Clone Wars, where they appear to take an avid interest in and make use of a lot of the published literature.

[Fox]

One that really caught my eye was "The member of the crew may lay claim to a pistol of his choice barring that the Captain, Quartermaster nor Master at Arms does not want it".

That one perhaps has some basis in truth, but not in that form. Someone's articles (I forget whose) say that whoever sees a prize first can have the best pistols aboard.

I am eager awaiting to read what you find out, Foxe.

Don't hold you breath, I don't expect this one to be ready to read for about four years or so...

We patiently explained that it never really existed for awhile, then it got annoying, then it became a sort of running joke amongst the mods and regulars to lightly taunt such people. (Well, for some of the regulars, mercilessly taunt them.)

I think Mission must be thinking of someone else, I don't recall anything of that sort going on.

[MarkG]

DECLARATION OF ULTERIOR MOTIVE

...But, seriously... Are we missing more here?

I'm currently doing a fairly large research project on pirate articles, so I seriously hope we have been missing plenty more, or it's going to be a short project!

I was sort of hoping that some light discussion here would stimulate my brain cells...

In terms of how realistic they are, do you mean whether or not the commonly quoted sets were actually employed by the pirates they were purported to have been written by? I have reason to believe that they probably were: Roberts', Lowther's and Phillips', although they all come from Johnson, do at least come from some of the more reliable parts of Johnson. Low's set can actually be found in two independent sources, which seems like a reasonable measure of reasonable accuracy.

Here's something to think about - the reason why articles were so important. You have a bunch of violent men and potentially large sums of money. If you don't agree ahead of time on how the booty will be divided then there is going to be arguments and probably blood shed. You cannot sue over disputes since the whole thing is illegal, anyway. So you all agree ahead of time.

Mark

[Fox]

Here's something to think about - the reason why articles were so important. You have a bunch of violent men and potentially large sums of money. If you don't agree ahead of time on how the booty will be divided then there is going to be arguments and probably blood shed. You cannot sue over disputes since the whole thing is illegal, anyway. So you all agree ahead of time.

Mark

Yar, the importance (or perhaps significance would be a better word) of articles is one of the big questions I'm looking at. I think it goes further than the division of loot, but it must be said that clauses detailing the division of loot are the most common amongst pirate articles, appearing in all but one of the sets from the 17th and 18th centuries that I'm aware of.

[Daniel]

One of the enduring mysteries about pirate articles is where the pirates got the idea for them. We know that pirates, privateers, and merchant ships all had articles at some point in history. But who had them first?

The earliest articles I know of by pure pirates, who knew their actions hadn't even a fig leaf of legality and whose articles could have had no purpose except to regulate the relationship of the ship's company among themselves, were Bartholomew Roberts' in 1721.

We have privateer articles from before then. Richard Zacks reproduces a portion of what he says are Kidd's articles, although as always with Zacks it's impossible to tell where he found them. Kidd supposedly had people signing the articles in New York, while his intentions were still legal, and thus the articles are properly considered privateer articles rather than pirate articles. In their provisions, they resemble later pirate articles in many ways: division of shares, reward for the person who first sights a prize, punishment for cowards and cheats, and compensation for the mutilated. But, they differ from later pirate articles in having a punishment for mutineers, and in reserving some 40 shares for Kidd and the owners. Still earlier were Henry Morgan's articles, which were at least nominally privateer articles, and again resembled the 18th century pirate articles. But Morgan's articles were supposedly based on those of earlier Tortuga buccaneers, many of whom had no commissions and were basically pirates. So we still have to wonder, did pirates get their articles from privateers, or privateers from pirates?

I have not been able to find any mention of articles aboard Navy ships. The Articles of War were not individual to each ship, but were imposed by Parliament on all Navy ships and specified only rules of conduct and punishments. They say nothing about shares or wages, except to strictly forbid looting prizes and their crews, and to clarify that you would still be hanged if you refused orders even if your wages hadn't been paid for months or years.

In the 19th century, merchant ships also had articles; Dana mentions them in Two Years Before the Mast. These were basically presented ona take-it-or-leave-it basis to the crew, and always specified wages instead of shares. I have searched in vain for a copy of any merchant articles. I also have not been able to find any mention of merchant articles from before the 19th century.

One of the most fascinating clues about the origin of buccaneer articles, which I think is mentioned in Benerson Little, is that they were once called the "charter party," or in French "chasse-partie." Merchant ships had "charter parties" going back at least to the 15th century, but on merchant ships they had nothing to do with the crew. The merchant charter party was a contract between the owner of a ship and the merchant who leased the ship for a voyage to some specified destination. Possibly (this is just my speculation), early buccaneers used the merchant charter party as as an inspiration to come to a similar agreement between buccaneer crewmen and their leaders.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Daniel

[Fox]

Some interesting points Daniel. Allow me to add a couple of thoughts of my own.

The earliest articles I have found in a maritime context are those of an Elizabethan privateer, and are very similar in content to many of the later privateer and pirate articles. The earliest articles I've found in a criminal context are purportedly those of the London highwaymen and street robbers, printed in the 1650s. The earliest pirate articles are more difficult to define: I think the earliest set of numbered clauses is John Taylor's, from about 1720, though Sneglgrave mentions odd clauses from Davis' articles from 1719 or thereabouts. However, George Cusack's pirate crew are reported as signing an 'obligation' which served the same purpose as articles, if not in the common form, in the 1660s, according to a pamphlet published in 1671. Articles outside a maritime or criminal context go back as far as the medieval guilds.

Some of the most interesting articles I've found were created by American PoWs in the Revolution and War of 1812, most of whom were sailors. In Dartmoor prison, for example, inmates were forbidden (by their own rules, not the prison's) to defecate anywhere except in the latrines, on pain of being made to clear it up...

[Daniel]

John Taylor's articles? Where did you find those? I'd like to see them. Taylor could well have inherited those articles from his former captain Edward England, and that could trace them all the way back to Nassau and thence to the raid on the Bahama galleon wrecks in 1715.

How about merchant ship articles? What's the earliest reference you've found to them?

[Fox]

I'm not convinced, Johnson's account notwithstanding, that John Taylor was Edward England's successor. There's some tricky things going on with people moving ships but, I'm fairly sure that Taylor left Davis' crew and joined Cocklyn's crew, after briefly replacing Davis as commander. Cocklyn then sailed into the Indian Ocean and at some point (probably on the West African coast) joined up in consort with England. Cocklyn died in the Indian Ocean and was replaced by Taylor. Taylor and England sailed in consort for a while until England's crew replaced him with Jasper Seagar. Oliver La Buse at some point replaced Seagar, and Taylor and La Buse sailed in consort until they parted company in 1722.

Taylor and La Buse captured a Dutch engineer names Jacob du Bucquoy, whose memoires were published in 1744. Since I'm feeling generous, he says:

The first article of their code declares as enemies all those who are not part of their association, permits the use of force or guile to take their goods, commands each man to give no consideration or mercy to anyone and to put to death any who resist or defend themselves, even his own father.

The following article obliges each man, under pain of death, to keep faith and to give assistance to any brother danger.

A further article allows the looting of prizes, but everything taken must be delivered up to the quarter-master, under pain of flogging and confiscation into the common pool of all the possessions of the guilty party.

The code is very severe against violence committed on women travelling on prizes, who must be taken to land as soon as possible and, if no land is in view, must be left to the hazards of the sea.

Deserters are condemned to have the nose and ears cut off and to be cast away, naked, on desert isles.

It is forbidden on pain of death to kill or wound in cold blood anyone who has surrendered [it should be noted that this article is not generally applied to pirates who are drunk.] It is also commanded to set ashore the crews of captured ships, which must be sent to the bottom if they cannot be used.

It is not permitted to force any prisoner into the association against his will.

In order to preserve the peace and union necessary between members of the brotherhood, quarrels and insults are forbidden, likewise religious disputes; for the same reason, gambling for money is also forbidden.

...

When they have finished a cruise, they usually come to recuperate at Madagascar, where they divide of spoils which they dissipate in no time. This division is made by the quarter-master, overseen by four crew members. Here are the proportions by which the shares are allocated: a sailor receives one share; the captain, first boatswain, first master gunner and first master pilot each have one share and a quarter; men who are not counted among the crew have one half share and the boys one quarter share. The quarter-master gets only one share, but everyone adds something for his effort.

FWIW, I was in error earlier: du Bucquoy only recorded the articles in 1722, though of course, they may have been in use earlier.

Incidentally, I meant to mention earlier, the articles recounted by Zacks are found, more or less in one of the CO series papers at the National Archives, and in part in the Calendar of State Papers, Colonial series. They were drawn up (allegedly at the instigation of the crew) once the Adventure Galley was at sea, after leaving New York, and replaced the set earlier agreed with the expedition's sponsors.

For merchant articles, the problem is, again, one of definition. I wouldn't like to say about 'articles' with numbered clauses like Johnson reports, but if we accept 'articles' to mean a written, signed agreement which regulates behaviour, authority, and wage, then merchant ships were using articles fairly early in the 17th century at least, and they were almost universal by the end of the century.

[Mission]

The Articles of Bartholomew Roberts:

IV. The lights and candles to be put out at eight o'clock at night: if any of the crew, after that hour still remained inclined for drinking, they were to do it on the open deck; [which Roberts believed would give a check to their debauches, for he was a sober man himself, but found at length , that all his endeavours to put an end to this debauch proved ineffectual.]

When I first read this article, I wondered at its purpose. It may be as is stated, but I was thinking it may also have to do with a drunken man setting fire to the ship (as is the implied purpose of Philip's article 5 and Low's article 10.) Counter to it (in a way - a rather thin way...) is Article 1, which states that each man has "equal title to the fresh provisions, or strong liquors, at any time seized, and may use them at pleasure..."

It could also have to do with men being unfit for service in the morning which is related to the point being made in this comment to the article.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

The Articles of Bartholomew Roberts:

IV. The lights and candles to be put out at eight o'clock at night: if any of the crew, after that hour still remained inclined for drinking, they were to do it on the open deck; [which Roberts believed would give a check to their debauches, for he was a sober man himself, but found at length , that all his endeavours to put an end to this debauch proved ineffectual.]

When I first read this article, I wondered at its purpose. It may be as is stated, but I was thinking it may also have to do with a drunken man setting fire to the ship (as is the implied purpose of Philip's article 5 and Low's article 10.) Counter to it (in a way - a rather thin way...) is Article 1, which states that each man has "equal title to the fresh provisions, or strong liquors, at any time seized, and may use them at pleasure..."

It could also have to do with men being unfit for service in the morning which is related to the point being made in this comment to the article.

I believe that meanig of this one is one of these possibilities

1. The fire risk in wooden ships

2. he wanted to sleep without glimmer of any light

3. He wanted that in night his ship would be hard to see e.g to hunting man of wars and thus he wanted to decrease chance of surprise attack in the midle of the night.

4. He wanted to save candles

I would not say roberts to be entirely sober man. Accordingly GHoP he drank some beer.(note that aroud this time beer was not held as real boose) but he was certainly not an alcololic and did not liked that he crew caroused all the time.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Fox]

Thanks for resurrecting this thread Mission - Articles are my current favourite topic!

In answer to your question, I suspect that that article is more to do with sociabilty than fire risk. Candles are no more dangerous on a wooden ship after 8pm than before, though I suppose that a candle in the hands of a drunken man is more dangerous than in the hands of a sober man, and that men are more likely to be drunk after 8.

I'm not convinced that it was just Roberts who wanted a bit of peace and quiet below decks after eight. The idea of all-night drinking binges was not so widespread in the GAoP, and people did tend to go to bed earlier. Evidence from, I think, George Roberts' account bears out that this applied to pirates as well. Even when pirates did indulge in all night drinking, they wouldn't have wanted to do it every night, and probably not everyone would have wanted to join in.

Such forms of social control for the preservation of the community harmony were one of the most important aspects of the articles. I'm reminded of the articles employed by American PoWs in the Revolution and War of 1812, which served exactly the same purpose and contained many similar clauses to pirate articles. One set, I forget when and where except that it was on a hulk rather than a prison camp, included a rule about not smoking below decks, and the memorialist who mentions it (Benjamin Palmer?) links it specifically to the comfort of the sick, not fear of fire. The interesting thing is that, in that case at least, it was scrupulously obeyed. The author bemoaned the fact that when the prisoners were confined below decks at night he went nearly mad with craving but even though his hammock was next to an open gun-port he still wouldn't smoke, because it was against the rules.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Thanks for resurrecting this thread Mission - Articles are my current favourite topic!

In answer to your question, I suspect that that article is more to do with sociabilty than fire risk. Candles are no more dangerous on a wooden ship after 8pm than before, though I suppose that a candle in the hands of a drunken man is more dangerous than in the hands of a sober man, and that men are more likely to be drunk after 8.

I'm not convinced that it was just Roberts who wanted a bit of peace and quiet below decks after eight. The idea of all-night drinking binges was not so widespread in the GAoP, and people did tend to go to bed earlier. Evidence from, I think, George Roberts' account bears out that this applied to pirates as well. Even when pirates did indulge in all night drinking, they wouldn't have wanted to do it every night, and probably not everyone would have wanted to join in.

Such forms of social control for the preservation of the community harmony were one of the most important aspects of the articles. I'm reminded of the articles employed by American PoWs in the Revolution and War of 1812, which served exactly the same purpose and contained many similar clauses to pirate articles. One set, I forget when and where except that it was on a hulk rather than a prison camp, included a rule about not smoking below decks, and the memorialist who mentions it (Benjamin Palmer?) links it specifically to the comfort of the sick, not fear of fire. The interesting thing is that, in that case at least, it was scrupulously obeyed. The author bemoaned the fact that when the prisoners were confined below decks at night he went nearly mad with craving but even though his hammock was next to an open gun-port he still wouldn't smoke, because it was against the rules.

Great help for parents who have kids who are interested in pirates (to get the kids to sleep on the rigth time) "pirates too went bed early"

Good points there. I think all those were reasons for that ligths out on 8 thing... after all in articles of a only dozen of rules there is no need room for useless rules.

Edited March 5, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Mission]

In answer to your question, I suspect that that article is more to do with sociabilty than fire risk. Candles are no more dangerous on a wooden ship after 8pm than before, though I suppose that a candle in the hands of a drunken man is more dangerous than in the hands of a sober man, and that men are more likely to be drunk after 8.

Yes, that was my point if I didn't state it.

I'm not convinced that it was just Roberts who wanted a bit of peace and quiet below decks after eight. The idea of all-night drinking binges was not so widespread in the GAoP, and people did tend to go to bed earlier. Evidence from, I think, George Roberts' account bears out that this applied to pirates as well. Even when pirates did indulge in all night drinking, they wouldn't have wanted to do it every night, and probably not everyone would have wanted to join in.

This is one of several reasons I always get a hotel room at re-enactments.

As a point of interest related to this discussion, later in the Roberts account I found this bit,

“They passed some Time here [bennet’s Key], after they had got their Vessel ready, in their usual Debaucheries; they had taken a considerable Quantity of Rum and Sugar, so that Liquor was as plentiful as Water, and few denied themselves the immoderate Use of it; nay, Sobriety brought a Man under Suspicion of being in a Plot against the Commonwealth, and in their Sense, he was looked upon to be a Villain that would not be drunk.” (MacKlecan, p. 55)

[Mission]

Now I found this sort of interesting. First we have this article...

I. Every man has a vote in affairs of moment; has equal title to the fresh provisions, or strong liquors, at any time seized, and may use them at pleasure, unless a scarcity (no uncommon thing among them) makes it necessary, for the good of all, to vote a retrenchment.

Then, later in the General History account I have of Roberts, we have this point being raised at the trial,

“…Men who had been entered only since their being

__

on the Coast of Guiney, and therefore had not so liberal a Share in fresh Provisions, or Wine, as the Fortune’s People…” (MacKlecan, p. 91-2)

So it would appear that, despite the wording of Article I (viz. 'Every man has...equal title to fresh provisions...'), there was a sort of seniority provision recognized that circumvented it. Perhaps they really are "more like guidelines."

[Fox]

Perhaps they really are "more like guidelines."

It's odd, in some cases the articles appear to have been adhered to with an almost devotional fervour, but in other cases "more like guidelines" would appear the most appropriate description.

For further examples from Roberts' articles, at least one boy was definitely aboard Roberts' ship, despite being banned in the articles; soldiers who joined Roberts' company were only awarded 1/4 of a share, instead of the whole share they were entitled to; and, despite Roberts' articles being the only set to stipulate that "every man shall have a vote...", in practice less than half the people on board were enfranchised.