kass

And I will come to see you where you play and listen to your lovely talent and envy you.

Me too, bro. Number one, doesn't sound like Defoe's work -- at least not purely his work. Number two, because I am not a literary scholar, I tend to believe the word of those who are. So I believe Furbank and Owens.

Hugh, He's English... Silkie, that was so AWESOME!!!!

Hearing you out, Murin! You may do whatever you like with your character from the 'Dog. You don't need my permission. If you are happy with your justifications, that's all that matters. And I will sit at your feet and listen to the lovely stories you spin about your character's adventurers. I'm actually quite looking forward to that. All through this thread, I think the basic misunderstanding has been that we are doing different things. Some are living history done for the education of the public. Some are roleplaying done purely for self-entertainment. And MOST of what we're doing in our various pirate groups is somewhere in between those two extremes. In other words, there are play pirates who educate the public. There are living historians who do roleplaying. The two extremes are just that -- the opposite ends of the continuum. There are many different aspects in between them. Here in TWILL, we are supposedly having a scholarly discussion of the time period. That scholarship does not include speculation. If asked, "What would a pirate own?" we can dig up some inventories and say, "Here are what some seamen owned." But if the question is asked, "Can I justify having a whojits?" the reply must be "Is a whojits in any of the seamen's inventories? If so, yes. If not, no." Now this does NOT mean that if you go to a pirate event with a whojits, they're going to throw you out. This means only that we can't find evidence of a whojits in the extant seaman's inventories. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't carry one. I have to tell you a story now. There was a living history site near me that took one book of extant clothing as their Bible. The book included men's and women's clothing in a local museum and pretty accurately represented the clothing of the local era in the late 18th century. However because the museum had no extant stays, the group refused to wear stays. There were no stays in the collection so they chose not to wear them. What this group didn't realise is that there were also no petticotes ("skirts") in the collection either. The author of the book used an extrapolation of petticotes in other collections, nothing local to the site. In other words, there were no petticotes in the collection. So if the group wasn't wearing stays because there were none in the collection, they shouldn't be wearing petticotes either! Wouldn't it be funny if the women at this historic site refused to wear petticotes because they weren't in the collection? They'd be running around completely bottomless! In living history, we have to take the extant evidence and fill in the blanks in order to have complete kit. We have to look at pictures and make guesses based on other time periods all the time. In the parts of our pirate hobby less strict that living history, you take what you like from the extant evidence and use it as you will. Or you can make up things out of thin air. That decision is YOURS. It doesn't make any of it wrong. It just means that you're doing something different than living history. Different does not equal wrong. So what I'm trying to say is that TWILL is where we discuss the extreme -- the documentable evidence. Take it and use it as you will for whatever flavour of the pirate hobby you choose to practice.

Pat, you said it really well in the thread in TWILL: women were around. They did things. Do those things! Did you know that in many of port towns in England, the entire economy was run by women? Yes, technically the men owned the shops, but they were at sea most of the time, so the women ran them. Basically you had these little "cities of women" that ran well and efficiently. I think we all have that Victorian picture of the helpless, weak woman in our heads and it's hard to get over that.

Yup, the SCA dances Playford although it entirely post-dates their period. 'Nuff said. "English Country Dance" is generally what's correct for the period, Michael. Of course we have to be careful with that terminology. There are modern (20thc) English Country Dances -- dances combining steps from 17th century dances but in patterns that are not documentable to the 17th and 18th centuries. They're fun to dance. But they're not Black Nag or Hole in the Wall or Cuckholds A Row. There are English Country Dance societies in some areas that have practice nights once a month or so. If you're interested in finding one near you, google English Country Dance in your local area. Or contact your local ballroom dance studio. Sometimes they know about the local English Country Dance groups.

Chole, really good point! I hadn't thought about things from that perspective. Thanks for the insight! Usually when I'm doing a living history display, I'm only too happy when they start the skirmish because the crowds will leave me alone for a while and I'll get a break! Sometimes I even get to eat something... :) At one of my first RevWar events, a bunch of the women demonstrating colonial crafts were heard to whine about our group getting all the attention: "The public is only interested if it floats or goes boom!" Short attention span theatre... That's the public for you! But I agree with what Michael says. I've been the "cute chick"on the WWII battlefield who stole the crowd's attention at the tactical. But I much prefer when I gather a crowd with my spinning, weaving and dyeing demo and they ask me thoughtful questions and I get to teach them something about historical clothing production. Or social history and economic development with the coffeehouse. In those pictures at the Lockhouse, did you see where the people were gathered when they weren't shooting each other? The coffeehouse. There were three battle scenarios that day. Each lasted about ten minutes. All the rest of the hours in the day, everyone was gathered around the coffeehouse. So who's the center of attention? Another point about the Lockhouse -- I think there were only five women total at the event. And I was the only one doing a living history presentation. So it's not entirely a fair comparison. But you didn't know that. It is far easier to get the crowd's (and the cameraman's) attention by firing muskets or cannon. But that attention only lasts for a few minutes. I'll have a crowd around me from the moment they let the crowd enter the site until they make them leave.

Heh heh heh heh heh... Poor Chole. Ya think he's a nice, quiet, conservative English boy and then: KAHBAM!!!

Quiet Jack! Bo, they could be either gaiters or boots. Desportes painted himself in the guise of hunter in this self-portrait. Hunters were mounted so it would not be out of the question for him to be wearing boots. It's funny. I didn't find this painting in one of my clothing searches. I found it on a site for adopting retired racing greyhounds (I have two). It just so happened that it was dated 1699. :) You'll note the fawn-coloured boy in the foreground is a grey while the other is a bird dog of some type. Strange to be hunting birds with a greyhound. Maybe that hare was his contribution.

Yeah, Pat, if you're shipping UPS, there's a LxWxD restriction and the package can't weigh more than I think 70lbs...

Jim? He's English. They're weird...

Yup. We've got a perfect GAoP source for dancing -- Playford's Dancing Master 1651-1728. Here's a link to an online version: Online Playford

Yeah... I'm skeptical too, Duchess. I don't really know much about the Victorian period and I know they loved bright colours (even though we think of them as always being in black and white ). But neon is quite a different thing than "bright", you know? I'm hearing what Pat is saying -- aniline dyes are much brighter and more colourfast than natural dyes. They would have seemed "neon" to people in the 19th century. But day-glo they weren't. Perhaps by "dayglo" she just means extraordinarily bright?

Hmmm... I'm going to guess that they meant that the first artificial dyes were invented in the Victorian era. These were known as aniline dyes and were derived from benzene. The first aniline dye was made in 1856 by William Perkins and called "mauve". I don't really know when neon/day-glo dyes were invented, but I assume the day-glo effect is a product of treatment of the fabric rather than the dye colour itself. Interestingly enough, you can make an almost-neon green with weld and indigo, two of the most common dyestuffs in the GAoP. :)

Well, the short answer, Michael, you've guessed. Dye technology was such that just about every colour was available. Some were more expensive (black, bright reds), some were less (blue jeans blue). But pretty much anything this side of neon is documentable. However it's always a good idea to err on the side of muted and less-bright colours. So you see, your ochre wool sounds perfect! In England wool was the most commonly used fabric -- from fine "tropical weight" to heavy broadcloth and everything in between. Linen was used for undergarments and some other clothes. Canvas (usually hemp but also linen) was much used by sailors for thinks like wet weather gear -- overcoats, slops, jackets... Cotton was coming into use in this period, but it depends on where you were and who you were if you had it. Silks, same thing.

Strangely enough, I first fell in love with reenacting at a little colonial living history village too. But in mine I saw women portraying women and still being strong and vital and essential to the life of the village. You see, what bothers me is that those of you who like to wear boys clothes and do what men do are in essence saying that what women did in the period in question isn't interesting, isn't fun, isn't cool. And I ask, "Do you know anything about women in the period in question?" The men are a complete snore compared to the amazing women in this period! Why discount that? Why ignore it? Why not teach THAT? You suggested that perhaps the women who want to dress in boys' clothes want a "more powerful" role. Why not take a more powerful role as a woman. To do otherwise rather forcefully implies that women were not powerful. And I assure you that they were. If you don't think women were powerful in this period of history, then you haven't read much about women in this period. And I encourage you to do so. You love books, Jenny. You've gotta educate yourself about the powerful and inspirational women of the GAoP. And none of them had to disguise themselves as men! I'm not taking any of this as an insult or a personal attack. There are no attacks intended or implied here and I know none of this is personal. So don't worry. I do get what you're saying, Jenny. I really do! I understand that people who "do pirate" come from a whole range of related hobbies. Some people are really into the history and doing something not documentable is like lying to the public to us. And some people, as you said, just want to "try it on". I really do think that's cool. But here in TWILL, I err on the side of authenticity because that's what this part of the forums is about. When I go to the Ren Faire or fantasy conventions, I just love to see the outfits people wear. I love to see what they come up with -- what pieces from history inspired them and how they adapted them for their outfit. It's very creative and fun and inspiring and awesomely cool. But in living history, it's not about being creative. It's about portraying history. And women are cool too... {Cue music!} "I just love being a girl..."

A woman CAN pull off that interpretation as well as a man. That's what I've been trying to say. But she doesn't have to put on pants and call upon the names of Bonny and Read to do it. Reenacting and living history is about interpreting the past. Like translating a language, that interpretation is never perfect. But it is imperative that we who present that interpretation do it to the best of our ability. If you are a 35 year old man trying to interpret a 25 year old man from the GAoP, you do it to the best of your ability. The best of your ability does not include putting on Nikes. Or wearing a frock coat if you're not an officer. Or calling yourself the bosun and you can't tie an overhand knot. We can only work with what we have. If you're a woman and you want to portray a man, then become a man. Cut your hair, lower your voice, bind your breasts, and fool people. Yes, a woman has to go a lot farther to portray a 25-year old pirate than a 35-year-old man does. But hey, you're the one who wanted to portray a man... {And I mean "you" in a non-specific, conversational way. Not you, False Ransom or you, Jenny or you anyone else who is reading this thread. Or all of you. Whichever you like. } You see, what I fear is that the ladies are saying they want to portray an historically accurate female pirate, but what they really want to do is wear a frock coat and pants and run around swinging a sword and yelling "Arrrrr". :) I guess I just don't understand why so many women want to protray men. I think men's clothing is ugly and unwieldy while women's GAoP clothing makes me look better than I ever do in modern kit AND I'm more comfortable too! But y'all just go on and run around in your frock coats and pants. I'll be at the coffeehouse if you want some. Penny a dish!

Yes, I've been a busy little bee... The pattern for the shift in RH104 is very different from the shift in the forthcoming RH713. That's one of the reasons I'm doing a new pattern. Men's shirts didn't change very much from the early 16th through the early 19th centuries, but women's shifts changed dramatically. I wish I could sell you the new pattern and save you the money of having to buy two. I had hoped to get RH713 out in time for Christmas, but I had a lot of unexpected work with the new website. But be assured that there will be so much other stuff in the RH713 pattern that you won't mind the fact that you have two shirt patterns.

Hi Michael, As you guessed, this item is "in the works". It's part of a forthcoming GAoP Accessories patterns (RH713) that will include shirts, shifts, men's and women's caps, headdresses, and other assorted stuff. But if you want to order today, I recommend RH104 -- 1600s shirts. The men's shirt in this pattern is similar to the shirts in the GAoP. Matter of fact, for men, there's no difference between the shirt in this pattern and the one in the forthcoming pattern. So as you like -- RH104 now or RH713 in a month.

Me too! Everything I've said in this thread only applies to living history and reenactment.

It's just the excitement of actually being able to throw cheese and sausage at Foxe in person, isn't it, Bo?

I picked these to further illustrate Foxe's post about hawking bags. I presume those are all hawking bags since they're pictured with falcon hoods. Do you agree? Hunting horns? Oh yeah... They would have to have bottoms to be powder horns, wouldn't they? What do you want from me, Jim! I'm just a girl!

It's no shock, I'm sure, that I agree with you completely, Rod. Not that I always do... But we're definitely singing the same song here. I would like to expand this to include men as well, though. There are men who know nothing about period navigation and call themselves "Captain". There are men who hold the position of Bosun who can't tie a knot. There are too many men in frock coats and yet common sailors' kit is exceedingly rare. In reenactment, it is important that we protray the roles we tell the public we hold. And it's just as important not to have too many officers and no "enlisted men" as it is too many women in boy's clothes.

I've been a brewer's wife for a number of years now, and I had no idea that distilling was legal. Thanks for teaching me something new today, DocF! You can actually brew quite a lot of beer before you hit the homebrewing limit. Check your state's regulations for sure. And look at these cool links I just found on distilling!

You know what my answer is going to be, Rod, because when I met the two ladies in your unit I didn't know they weren't men at first! If a woman can truly pull off dressing and behaving as a man, then I support that. If they can fool the public, then numbers don't come into it. They are men. As you say, most just put on the frock coats and pants and make no attempt at being male. That's the problem.