-"-------~s~
 -
 --------
 ~i---
 r --- -__z~--=r;c~-"==s3 ~S~CS---; ~fi -_r= --~-~-;==~`~-~=L~
 --C_
 I------
,;C--r~z~T-- --~-
 ----


Sodomy and the Perception of
Evil: English Sea Rovers in the
Seventeenth-Century Caribbean,
B.R. Burg. 215 pp. New York
University Press, 1983. $20.00

It is not easy to critique a book which
 appears to be a historical study of gay
 pirates in the seventeenth-century Ca-
ribbean but whose author immediately an-
nounces that his study is "simply not
history." Normally, a reviewer attempting to
reveal such a book's virtues and defects
would ask: Is there empirical evidence to
support the claim that pirates lived in little
sodomitic shipboard communities? Do
theory and evidence come together in a
manner that satisfies the cannons of mod-
ern historical scholarship? But professor
B.R. Burg seemingly pulls the rug out from
under would-be detractors by insisting that
his book should be categorized not as his-
tory but as interdisciplinary sociology, spec-
ulative social science. By denying to us the
evidential base for examining the thesis that
piracy spawned floating gay communes are
we thus left with the task of simply admiring
a clever speculation, a fascinating pos-
sibility or, conversely, denouncing imagina-
tion without a solid empirical base?


 In the final analysis, however, Burg's the-
sis must be viewed and reviewed as a histor-
ical work. To open the door to a new field of
historical possibilities-history as it might
have occurred-without responsibility for
evidence, may be worthwhile and fruitful,
but it is also dangerous. Professor Burg's
disclaimer aside, it is essential that we ask
whether or not there is evidence that piracy
and sodomy go together like love and
marriage.
 Let us begin with praise. This is a well-
written book and the author has done a fine,
lawyer-like job of building a circumstantial
case for linking piracy with the gay life. Burg
argues that pirates were programed from
childhood for a homosexual lifestyle. Pre-
sumably they were products of all-male en-
vironments from their earliest years. Many
had been part of roving bands of ex-appren-
tices where the absence of women created
sexual and presumably nonsexual male
bonding. Introduced to sea life at an early
age, whether in the navy or on commercial
vessels, they lived without women. If they
journeyed to the Caribbean in the seven-
teenth century, they encountered societies
in which women were scarce. By the time
they chose a piratical lifestyle, male relation-
ships would be all they had ever known. The
reason there is no clear evidence for gay


pirates depends on Burg's argument that in
seventeenth-century England and the West
Indies, there was high tolerance for sodomy.
In effect, it was not considered worthy of
comment. Only the abnormal elicits reac-
tion, and gay pirates were about as news-
worthy in the seventeenth century as
intramarital sexuality. Copulating pirates
would have been about as interesting as
copulating flies.
 One of Burg's unstated assumptions is
that sex drives are more or less constant
over time, and that as in modern prison
populations, if you close down one set of
sexual alternatives other options will be
opened up. This may be true but it ignores
the views of Edward Shorter and others that
for dietary and environmental reasons, sex
drives and concommitantly sexual experi-
mentation were probably much less in ear-
lier times (The Making of the Modern
Family, Basic Books, New York, 1975). In-
deed the growing concern with sexuality of
all kinds in the eighteenth and, in particular,
the nineteenth centuries might be a func-
tion of increased sexual activity. In addition,
Burg is almost painfully anxious to see sex-
ual liaison behind activities that might be
explained in other ways. There is, after all,
such a thing as strong male friendships,
and relationships between a man and a boy


can be both deep and powerful, and non-
sexual. It is certainly understandable that
nonsexual male bonding would be as
strong in pirates as it has often been in the
navy and army. After reading Burg one be-
comes very suspicious of such innocents
as the Lone Ranger and Tonto. Where there
is smoke (male-male relationships) there is
fire (sodomy) is not entirely convincing in
this case.
 There are specific aspects of the Burg
case for sodomitic pirates which need com-
ment. As I have noted, a good part of the
case depends on the view that silence in the
seventeenth century means acceptance of
sodomy. He may well be correct and his
case is a strong one. Yet there are problems:
in his desire to prove acceptance of sod-
omy, the author often ignores alternative
explanations. At one point he writes of a
William Holdbrook's sentence to the pillory
for sodomy and notes that the crowd was
"more entertained than enraged." The evi-
dence for this is that the would-be sodomite
was pelted only with "rotten eggs and cu-
cumbers." That they did not use more
deadly missiles hardly indicates that sod-
omities were amusing fellows. While there
was violence against individuals in the pil-
lory, it was never a punishment that called
for public maiming or death by paving


stone or brick. The idea was public
shame-not carte blanche to the mob to
execute offenders.
 Interpretation of evidence is also a prob-
lem in Burg's chapter on how homosexuals
became pirates. Wandering bands of young
male vagrants might have meant early in-
troduction to the gay life. It is also possible
that while these bands were bound together
for economic survival and friendship they
did have ready access to women. There
were inexpensive prostitutes in the towns as
well as women as desperate for a bit of food
as the runaway servants and apprentices
that Burg describes. Even for the poorest,
heterosexual sex might have been available
outside the structure of the wandering
bands.
 The assumption that sex drives are con-
stant throughout history leads Burg to
claim that homosexuals joined the navy be-
cause relations with females did not matter.
Yet if Shorter is correct, it is possible that
sexual opportunity mattered not at all. The
lower classes in society, deprived of nutri-
tional benefits, might have had no interest
in sex-homo- or heterosexual. It may be
true that the Royal Navy was manned by the
impotent or by those for whom an occa-
sional fling in port was quite enough sex for
the upcoming year.


 One minor point, Burg accepts un-
 critically John Esquemeling's questionable
 account of torture attributed to Henry Mor-
 gan and his crew (The Buccaneers of
 America, Dover Publications, Inc., New
 York, 1967) and seems unaware of Dudley
 Pope's biography of Morgan (The Buc-
 caneer King, Dodd Mead, New York,
 1978), which makes a convincing case that
 these were products of the author's
 imagination.
 In spite of these reservations, there is
much to admire in Burg's book. It may well
be true that sodomy was tolerated in the
seventeenth century and that pirate com-
munities were sodomitic ones. There are
times when highly speculative books like
this one have more value than empirical
works on uninteresting topics. Speculation
promotes historical discourse and chal-
lenges other historians to study topics ig-
nored by more traditional scholars. On the
other hand, calling his study speculative so-
cial science does not excuse Burg from
closer attention to the evidential base and
alternative explanations. D

Arthur N. Gilbert teaches history at the Univer-
sity of Denver Among his works are In Search
of a Meaningful Past and "Buggery and the
British Navy" (Journal of Social History).


34/CATBBE:AN r'EVlLW


CARBBCAN PEVIEW/35