Why did the captain of a Spanish naval ship capture an English ship captain in 1739 and cut off his ear?

Otol Neurotol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 Feb 1.

Published in final edited form as:

PMCID: PMC3711623

NIHMSID: NIHMS427542

Abstract

Objective

In 1731, Spanish sailors boarded the British brig Rebecca off the coast of Cuba and sliced off the left ear of its captain, Robert Jenkins. This traumatic auriculectomy was used as a pretext by the British to declare war on Spain in 1739, a conflict that is now known as the War of Jenkins’ Ear. Here, we examine the techniques available for auricular repair at the time of Jenkins’ injury and relate them to the historical events surrounding the incident.

Methods

Review of relevant original published manuscripts and monographs.

Results

Surgeons in the mid-18th century did not have experience with repair of traumatic total auriculectomies. Some contemporary surgeons favored auricular prostheses over surgical treatment. Methods for the reconstruction of partial defects were available, and most authors advocated a local post-auricular flap instead of a free tissue transfer. Techniques for repair of defects of the auricle lagged behind those for repair of the nose.

Conclusion

Limitations in care of traumatic auricular defects may have intensified the significance of Jenkins’ injury and helped lead to the War of Jenkins’ Ear, but conflict between Britain and Spain was probably unavoidable due to their conflicting commercial interests in the Caribbean.

The Traumatic Auriculectomy and Global Conflict

On April 9, 1731, the British brig Rebecca, captained by Robert Jenkins of the East India Company and supposedly carrying a cargo of sugar from the British colony of Jamaica to London, lay becalmed off Havana when she was overtaken by the 16-oared Spanish sloop San Antonio*, captained by Juan León Fandiño†1. The Spaniards fired several shots in the direction of the Rebecca and demanded to search her for contraband1,2. They motivated Jenkins’ cooperation by hoisting him up the mast three times by a rope tied around his neck then casting him down the forward hatch1,2. A report in Benjamin Franklin’s Pennsylvania Gazette for October 7, 1731 stated what happened next: the Spanish Lieutenant Dorce (although some historians report that it was Fandiño himself3,4), seized Jenkins, “took hold of his left Ear, and with his Cutlass slit it down; and then another of the Spaniards took hold of it and tore it off, but gave him the Piece of his Ear again, bidding him carry it to his Majesty King George”1 [italics in original] (Figure 1).‡

A British representation of the capture of the Rebecca in 1731, including the removal of Jenkins’ ear. Image courtesy of the British History Museum. ©The Trustees of the British Museum, with permission.

Other contemporary sources support a similar version of events, with one British periodical complaining of the Spaniard’s “barbarous usage” of Jenkins and their “insolence to his majesty” King George II of England5. Alexander Pope, the leading poet of the day, even penned the couplet: “And own the Spaniard did a waggish thing, who cropt our ears, and sent them to the king”6. The story was also recounted in a letter dated September 12th, 1731 from Rear-Admiral Charles Stewart, the British commander at Jamaica, to Dionisio Martinez de la Vega, the governor of Havana, in which Stewart referred to a British captain treated “in a most barbarous, inhuman manner, taking all his money, cutting off one of his ears…”7

Although Spanish accounts did not necessarily deny Jenkins’ injury, they portrayed him as a smuggler and a pirate who deserved his treatment8,9. Indeed, some English accounts acknowledge that Jenkins was a well-known smuggler4. Stewart wrote to the Duke of Newcastle in October 1731: “…but give me leave to say that you only hear one side of the question ; and I can assure you the sloops that sail from this island, manned and armed on that illicit trade, has more than once bragged to me of their having murdered 7 or 8 Spaniards on their own shore”7.

Jenkins’ auriculectomy aroused little interest on his return to Britain on June 11, 17312. Cropping the ears was a relatively common punishment at the time, which may explain why the British public’s initial response was relatively tepid10. Later in the 1730s, opposition members of Parliament and the British South Sea Company hoped to spur outrage against Spain in a belief that a victorious war between the countries would improve Britain’s trading opportunities in the Caribbean11–15. As a result, Jenkins was called to testify about his injury before Parliament in March, 173816,17 (Figure 2). Prime Minister Robert Walpole initially resisted the drive to war but eventually relented in part due to public warmongering and domestic political pressure13–15. Britain declared what is now known as the War of Jenkins’ Ear on October 19, 173911.

A British cartoon depicting Robert Jenkins showing his severed ear to a seated Prime Minister Robert Walpole. Notice that Jenkins’ wig is being removed to reveal the auriculectomy defect. Image courtesy of the British History Museum. ©The Trustees of the British Museum, with permission.

Repair of Auricular Defects

Contemporary surgeons were unable to treat complete auricle defects effectively18–20. Ambroise Paré, the late 16th century military surgeon, dedicated a section of his text “De l’oreille perdu” (“Of the lost ear”) to methods of treatment for auricular defects that were congenital, accidental, traumatic, or as a result of the plague or an animal bite18. He explained that reattachment of completely severed parts was impossible, arguing that unlike a graft from a tree, the severed parts need to receive nutrition, life and sentiment. He recommended instead applying an artificial ear of adhesive and leather (“où l’oreille auroit esté de du tout amputee, on y en appliquera une artificielle de papier collé, ou cuir bouilly, façonnee de bonne grace, comme tu vois par cette figure”) (Figure 3). In his 1620 work Elucidarium chirurgicum, the Italian surgeon Giovanni Colle suggested that ears could be restored with prostheses made of wood, silver, paper, or leather (“Aures etiam, vel restaurantur cum fictis, & simulatis modis ex ligno, argento papyro, vel ex corio”)19. Giovanni Batista Cortesi, a surgeon who taught in Bologna and Medina in the early 17th century, wrote that it was not possible to reattach a completely amputated ear because there was no tissue remaining to which the flap could be attached (“Nec quisquam putet posse ex toto amputatam aurem restaurari, ac de novo reformari; nam cum mediante traduce sit refarcienda, ubi tota fuerit abscissa, nullum remanet subsidium, cui inniti possit tradux”)20. He did not even discuss the possibility of total reconstruction, a procedure that was not seriously considered until the 20th century21,22 and which was probably first performed by Julius von Szymanowski 150 years after Jenkins’ injury23.

An artificial ear, designed by the French military surgeon Ambroise Paré in the late 1500s for complete auricle defects.

In contrast to total auriculectomy, surgeons had centuries of experience reconstructing partial defects. Sushruta, in the 6th century B.C. text Samita, described an advancement flap from the cheek to reconstruct ear lobe defects24. According to a 1907 translation:

A surgeon well-versed in the knowledge of surgery should slice off a patch of living flesh from the cheek of a person devoid of ear-lobes in a manner so as to have one of its ends attached to its former seat (cheek). Then the part, where the artificial ear-lobe is to be made, should be slightly scarified (with a knife), and the living flesh, full of blood and sliced off as previously directed, should be adhesioned to it (so as to resemble a natural ear-lobe in shape)24.

It is believed that Sushruta’s techniques were not known in Europe until at least 179425.

The Roman Aulus Cornelius Celsus, writing in the first century AD, described an advancement flap for small defects of the auricle, lips, and nose in his multi-volume work De Medicina26. He noted that the procedure was unsuitable for certain patients, specifically the aged, those in poor health, or those whose wounds heal with difficulty (“Neque senile autem corpus, neque quod mali habitus est, neque in quo diffficulter ulera sanescunt, huic medicinae idoneum est”)26.

Antonio Branca, a 15th century Sicilian physician who left no published works, was reported to have repaired subtotal defects of the ear, as well as the nose and lips, using local flaps (“Quippe non solum Nares, sed Labias, & Aures mutilatae quemadmodum resarcirentur excogitavit”)27,28. Although Branca is thought to be the first European to describe a distant tissue transfer, he did not apply this technique to repairs of the auricle28.

Gaspare Tagliacozzi, professor of Anatomy and Medicine in Bologna, is credited with giving the first detailed instructions for reconstructing large defects of the ear in his 1597 text De curtorum chirurgia per insitionem (“On the surgery of mutilation by grafting”)22,25. In the chapter “De curtorum aurium chirurgia” (“On the surgery of mutilation of the ear”), he provided detailed instructions for a local post-auricular flap repair of upper and lower subtotal auricular defects, including how to raise the post-auricular skin flap, resize and inset it, suture it in place, and bolster and bandage the surgical site (Figure 4)29. Tagliacozzi, like Branca, preferred the postauricular skin to tissue transplanted from the arm (“Caeterum non ex brachio ut in superioribus, sed ex regione post auriculam proxima”) because it did not require as much preparation time, demonstrated less contraction (“Unde nec decrescene”), and was richly supplied with blood (“quoniam tam infra quam supra sanguis accredit, uberrime enutritur “). He admitted, though, that it had a greater predisposition to infection, more pain, and a higher risk of bleeding. In the latter circumstance, he advised using cotton to stanch bleeding caused by a severed artery (“Gossypio ad sanguinis eruptionem, quae violentissima est, arteria iam incise utimur”).

A figure from Gaspare Tagliacozzi’s 1597 text De curtorum chirurgia per insitionem, showing auricle defects before and after their repair. Tagliacozzi is credited with giving the first detailed instructions for reconstructing large defects of the ear

Giovanni Batista Cortesi, a disciple of Tagliacozzi’s, wrote at length about the repair of auricle defects and even reproduced his mentor’s figures in the chapter “De curtis auribus reformandis” (“On repairing mutilated ears”) of his 1625 text20. He observed that repair of auricle deformities was difficult, laborious, and not altogether safe (“est tamen difficilis, ac laboriosa, necque undequaque tuta”). He argued that defects of the lower part of the ear were more easily repaired than the upper part because the latter were more likely to occlude the auditory meatus. Cortesi also described an unsuccessful auricle reconstruction by Joseph Galletti, another student of Tagliacozzi’s, which failed due to the thinness of the skin and subsequent necrosis (“id quod contigit quidam nobili ex oppido Castri Realis, cuius elegans Chirurgus Joseph Galletti suscepit curtam aurem restaurandam, quae quamuis ex artesuerit restitute, ob cutis tamen tenuitatem consistere nequiuit, totaque exiccata concidit”).

In the early 17th century, although Giovanni Colle argued that while a prosthesis was a possible method of reconstruction, a local flap based behind the ear was the optimal method for auricular reconstruction (“sed modus realis est, ut secetur cutis extra aures, & ex illa cute efformetur denuo alia auris primo secatur idonee cutis tanta post aures, quanta conuenit pro restauranda”)19. He observed that auricular repairs were more successful on children and adolescents due to their superior healing abilities. He also described what he considered to be the optimal post-operative diet, suggesting light foods for seven to fourteen days to decrease the risk of inflammation, followed by more generous nourishment to generate blood and offer aid into the defect (“Victus ratio usque ad septimum & 14 tenuis instituenda est, ne oriatur inflammatio, transacto vero inflammationis periculo victus paulo plenior est adhibendus, ut sanguis copiose generetur, & possit ad restaurandas partes opem ferre & concurrere”). He even specified that the optimal post-reconstruction diet would include, among other things, snails, tortoises, pigs’ flesh, veal, and chicken.

Despite these reports, repair of auricular defects was not commonly performed in the early 1700s and operative techniques lagged behind those available for the nose21,22,25. This may have been because the use wigs or natural hair could cover up a defect of the ear and because repair of the ear was cosmetic21, whereas defects of the lips caused functional defects in eating and speaking26, or because nasal defects were more common due to an emerging epidemic of syphilis in 18th century Europe30. Antonio Philippo Ciucci’s observations that auricular reconstructions required so long to perform that they amounted to torture may have also lessened enthusiasm for the procedure (“Quae omnes operations seri nequeunt tanta cum celeritate, ut misero patient extremos non inserant cruciatus”)31.

The Path to War

Even if surgical technique had been advanced enough to accomplish a successful repair of Jenkins’ severed ear, Britain and Spain’s competing commercial interests would likely have led to war anyway11,13–15. The 1713 Treaty of Utrecht had granted the British a monopoly on supplying slaves (Asiento de Negros) to the Spanish colonies but limited them to selling just one shipload of goods (Navio de Permiso) to the Spanish for each of the next thirty years14,32–34. British merchants often ignored this agreement, trading in fresh goods at Spanish colonial ports and smuggling contraband11,14,34,35. The Spanish government countered this by licensing privateers known as guarda costas to enforce the treaty’s provisions and counteract the British piracy and smuggling11,13,14,32,33. The British merchants subsequently complained of depredations and mistreatment at the hands of the Spanish11,13. Lengthy diplomatic negotiations between the two nations ensued, culminating in the Convention of the Pardo in January 173911,13. This, however, was unsuccessful in finding a diplomatic resolution to the quarrel, leaving the two countries ripe for war 11,13,32,33.

In the initial hostilities, Vice-Admiral Edward Vernon led the British to a swift victory over the Spanish at Porto Bello in Panama15,35§. He then turned his force, grown to thirty-five ships and over 8,000 soldiers, to the fortified port of Cartagena de Indias 35**. This city, located in what is now Colombia, was a transshipment point for treasure from the mines of Peru36. It was defended by 4,000 troops under the command of Blas de Lezo, who was initially known as Patapalo (“Pegleg”) and then later as Mediohombre (“Half-man”) from the sequential loss of his left leg, right arm, and left eye in battle35,37,38.

Vernon laid siege to the city in March 1741, but was forced to withdraw after two months due to Blas de Lezo’s determined defense and the loss of two thirds of the British force, mostly to yellow fever12,15. Only one in five of Vernon’s colonial soldiers returned home alive12, but a Virginian among them, Captain Lawrence Washington, maintained such admiration for his commander that he renamed his plantation on the Potomac “Mount Vernon”12,15.

The War of Jenkins’ Ear also spilled onto the North American continent. Spain claimed land considered by Britain to be part of its colony of Georgia. The colony’s founder, James Oglethorpe, led a preemptive attack on the Spanish fort at St. Augustine, Florida in 174014,37. A month-long siege was repulsed, but later he successfully defended the colony from Spanish invasion with his victory at the Battle of the Bloody Swamp in 174214,37. Eventually the conflict expanded to involve Prussia, France, Austria, the Netherlands, Sardinia, Saxony, and Bavaria in what became known as the War of the Austrian Succession and which formed the frontispiece for what is known in America as the French and Indian War.

Traumatic Auriculectomy: Fact or Fiction?

Despite his ear’s impact on world history, some doubt whether Jenkins actually did suffer a traumatic auriculectomy at the hands of the Spanish12,16,39–41. The eminent contemporary politician and author Sir Edmund Burke doubted his story, calling it the “Fable of Jenkins’s Ears”39. Whether Jenkins appeared before the House of Commons in March of 1738 to publicly demonstrate the extent of his alleged injury is also controversial16,17. The House of Commons Journal for 1738 reads as follows: “16th March. Ordered, That captain Robert Jenkins do attend this House immediately” and “17th March. Ordered, That captain Robert Jenkins do attend, on Tuesday morning next, the Committee of the whole House, to whom the Petition of divers merchants, planters, and others, trading to, and interested in, the British plantations in America, on behalf of themselves, and many others, is referred”16,17. Yet the records for the House of Commons detailing the petition on that Tuesday March 21, 1738 did not mention Jenkins16. William Cobbett, author of the multi-volume Parliamentary History of England, concluded that in all likelihood Jenkins never appeared before Parliament16. The official position of Parliament about Jenkins’ testimony is that “detailed records of the proceedings of the Committee of the whole House do not exist for this period” and therefore that “the evidence from parliamentary records is inconclusive17”.

Acknowledgments

Supported by NIH K08 DC006869 (TEH). Grateful thanks to Martha Riley, Michael North, and Lewis Wyman for assistance gathering historical references, to Dr. Avery Springer for ensuring the fidelity of our Latin translations, and Dr. Richard A. Chole for helping produce the figures.

Footnotes

*Fandiño’s ship is also known as La Isabella (Marley DF. Wars of the Americas: A chronology of armed conflict in the western hemisphere. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2008.).

†April 9 is the date in the Julian (“old style”) calendar which was in use in Britain at the time and corresponds to April 20 by the Gregorian (“new style”) calendar which was adopted in Britain in 1752.

‡This was not the only report implicating Fandiño in abusing his position as a guarda costa. A letter from Dionisio Martinez de la Vega, the governor of Havana, on May 26, 1732 to the British Admial Charles Stewart recounted Fandiño’s capture of a British ship named the Dolphin and Fandiño’s subsequent appearance before a court of justice (Reel 90 V-Wp, Peter Force collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C).

§Vernon was known as “Old Grog” because of his foul weather gear made of grogsgrain, or grogram (a fabric made of silk, mohair, and wool). Later, “grog” was used as the name for Vernon’s invention of a dilute mixture a half pint of rum in a quart of water meant to curb the dangerous effects of pure rum12, 38.

**Vernon’s force included 3,600 troops from eleven of Britain’s North American colonies, and represented the first time that soldiers fought under the title “Americans”12, 13 and were used as marines (i.e. ship-based troops) 12.

References

1. Pensylvania Gazette [microform] Philadelphia: B. Franklin and H. Meredith; Oct 7, 1731. [Google Scholar]

2. Urban S. The Gentleman’s Magazine: Or, Monthy Intelligencer. London: F. Jefferies; 1731. Ship news this month; p. 265. [Google Scholar]

3. Lanning JT. The American Colonies in the Preliminaries of the War of Jenkins’ Ear. Georgia Historical Quarterly. 1927;11:129–155. [Google Scholar]

4. Lawson EW. What became of the man who cut off Jenkins’ Ear? The Florida Historical Quarterly. 1958;37:33–42. [Google Scholar]

5. Urban S. Weekly Essays the Gentleman’s Magazine: Or, Monthly Intelligencer. London: F. Jefferies; 1731. p. 288. [Google Scholar]

6. Pattison M. Pope-Satires & Epistles. London: Oxford University Press; 1881. [Google Scholar]

7. Laughton JK. Jenkins’ Ear. English Historical Review. 1889;IV:741–749. [Google Scholar]

8. Fernández LS. Historia general de España y América: La España de las reformas. Madrid: Rialp; 1984. [Google Scholar]

9. Láinez FM, Torres CC. Banderas Leejanas. Madrid: EDAF; 2009. [Google Scholar]

10. Cane EFD. The Punishment and Prevention of Crime. London: Macmillan; 1885. [Google Scholar]

11. Temperley HWV. The causes of the war of Jenkins’ ear, 1739. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society. 1909;3:197–236. [Google Scholar]

12. Meyers HB. Good Governor Gooch and the War of Jenkins’ Ear: He lived 22 years in the palace, led the first “Americans” to fight abroad, and saved the Capitol for Williamsburg. Colonial Williamsburg. 1993;15:25–33. [Google Scholar]

13. Woodfine P. Brittania’s glories: the Walpole ministry and the 1739 war with Spain. Woodbridge, UK: Royal Historical Society by Boysdell Press; 1998. [Google Scholar]

14. Middleton R. Colonial America: A History 1565–1776. Oxford: Blackwell; 2002. [Google Scholar]

15. Simms B. Three Victories and a Defeat: The Rise and Fall of the First British Empire, 1714–1783. London: Allen Lane; 2007. [Google Scholar]

16. Cobbett W. Parliamentary History of England. London: T.C. Hansard; 1812. pp. 638–642. [Google Scholar]

18. Paré A. Les Oeuvres. Paris: Gabriel Buon; 1585. [Google Scholar]

19. Colle G. Elucidarium chirurgicum. Venice: Evangelista Deuchino; 1620. [Google Scholar]

20. Cortesi GB. Miscellaneorum medicinalium. Messina: Peter Brea; 1625. [Google Scholar]

21. Santoni-Rugiu P, Sykes PJ. A history of plastic surgery. Berlin: Springer; 2007. [Google Scholar]

22. Weerda H. History of Auricular Reconstruction. In: Staudenmaier R, editor. Aesthetics and Functionality in Ear Reconstruction. Basel: Karger; 2010. pp. 1–24. [Google Scholar]

23. Szymanowski Jv. Handbuch der operativen Chirurgie. Braunschweig: Friedrich Vieweg and Son; 1870. [Google Scholar]

24. Bhishagratna KK. An English Translation of the Sushruta Samhita Based on Original Sanskrit Text. Calcutta: J.N. Bose; 1907. [Google Scholar]

25. Zeis E. The Zeis Index and History of Plastic Surgery 900 B.C. to 1863 A.D. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins; 1977. [Google Scholar]

26. Celsus AC. De Medicina. Paris: Christian Wechel; 1529. [Google Scholar]

27. Auria V. La sicilia inventrice. Palermo: Felix Marino; 1704. [Google Scholar]

28. Fazio B. In: De viris illustribus. Mehus L, editor. Florence: Cajetanum Tanzini; 1745. [Google Scholar]

29. Tagliacozzi G. De curtorum chirurgia per insitionem. Venice: Gaspare Bindoni; 1597. [Google Scholar]

30. Sherrow V. For Appearance’ Sake: The Historical Encyclopedia of Good Looks, Beauty, and Grooming. Westport, CT: Oryx; 2001. [Google Scholar]

31. Ciucci AP. Promptuarium chirurgicum. Maceratae: Joseph Piccini; 1679. [Google Scholar]

32. Robertson CG. England Under the Hanoverians. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons; 1921. [Google Scholar]

33. Savelle M. Empires to Nations: Expansion in America, 1713–1824. St. Paul: North Central Publishing Company; 1974. [Google Scholar]

34. Ibáñez IR. Mobilizing Resources for War: The British and Spanish Intelligence Systems During the War of Jenkins’ Ear (1739–1744) London: University College London; 2008. p. 296. [Google Scholar]

35. Rodger NAM. The Command of the Ocean: a Naval History of Britain, 1649–1815. New York: WW Norton; 2004. [Google Scholar]

36. Salas RS. Las Fortificaciones de Cartagea de Indias. Bogota, Colombia: Tercer Mundo Editores; 1992. [Google Scholar]

37. Marley DF. Wars of the Americas: A Chronology of Armed Conflict in the Western Hemisphere. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO; 2008. [Google Scholar]

38. Stewart W. Admirals of the World: a Biographical Dictionary, 1500 to the present. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarlan & Company; 2009. [Google Scholar]

39. Burke E. Thoughts on the Prospect of a Regicide Peace. London: J. Owen; 1796. [Google Scholar]

40. Mahon L. A History of England from the Peace of Utrecht, to the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle. London: John Murray; 1838. [Google Scholar]

41. Adams WHD. England on the Sea. London: F.V. White & Co; 1885. [Google Scholar]