Capt. Sterling

Well, what distinguished the Puritans was not that they had such a highly developed sense of sin; the Catholics matched them for that. What distinguished them was how they looked at their neighbors' sins. Old-style Catholicism was all about utilizing the goodness of your neighbors to make up for your own sins: getting absolution from the priest in return for penance, getting holy-living monks and nuns to pray for you, bringing the saints in on your side, and of course accepting the sacrifice of the ultimate good neighbor, Jesus.

The Puritans concentrated so much more on repressing the neighbors' sins and keeping them from ever happening, rather than getting them forgiven. Ultimately it was almost like they wanted to get everybody in their whole society to be disciplined and regimented as harshly as the monks and nuns of the Catholic church, (with the exception that marriage would be allowed so the church could continue).

Both religions were based also in works... i.e. I must do this in order to get to Heaven, instead of just accepting that Christ died to pay for all sins. It is almost a flip flop then between the Puritans and the Catholics, the Catholics, trying to work things out for themselves by agreeing to do this or that and the Puritans almost trying to force folks to do good works by their strict laws. And their laws went right to the basic family because they very much believed that unless the family was sound, the government run by the men of those families would not be sound. Some of their ideas were quite nit picky, for instance only God is perfect, so young children were instructed to do their best but then before you complete a project, add a known mistakes... this is very evident in girls' sampler from the time... There is a very interesting book I believe it is called the Copse of Heaven, dealing with the puritans and their religion and government in the colonies.... a tedious read but interesting none the less.

Hector

Hector

Sorry, I thought you were making a connection between "leftenants" and left-shoulders

That would be erroneous.

For the record then, lieutenant has been pronounced "leftenant" in England since at least the beginning of the 17thC, and still is today.

Oh not a problem Foxe! I went back and reread my original post and realized it was all over the place... I'm the one who should apologize...

Hector

The Avery print I posted earlier is very clearly an example of a left shoulder knot, and I know I've seen others (when I was considering adding a shoulder knot to one of my justacorps last year I couldn't make up my mind which shoulder to put it on - if all the pictrues had shown the right there would have been no question). A print of the "Cavalry and Infantry at the funeral of Queen Mary" shows a cavalry officer with what looks like a shoulder knot (and I can't think what else it might be). Whatever it is it's on his left shoulder.

of the theory it seems unlikely that they were just suddenly invented one day, so it's reasonable to assume they originally had some function - whatever it may have been. I'd be hesitant to make any claim either way.

Again just theory (and thanks for posting that info on the left shoulder pictures,) but one wonders if the fact that the baldrick seemed to become such a huge and elaborate thing, in one fashion plate of the period it almost looks as if the fella is wearing a blanket roll, if that had anything to do with the development of all those ribbons on the shoulder.... just a thought...

Hector

Yup!

Well, that sort of answers it for me. Shoulder knots were not worn for the purpose of keeping the baldrick on your shoulder, but they could help certainly just by their position.

You see, I wanted to know before I posited that they began as a stabilizer for baldricks.

Well my question for Foxe is are we speaking of a shoulder knot, like the more modern day cord that is used, for corporals, or are we still talking about the shoulder knots/bands, all those red or blue ribbons, that show in the fashion plates circa 1670-90s. I haven't seen this particular item on the left shoulder at all yet, but I have read that they were also worn at the knees and at the sleeves where the cuffs turned back... still haven't found an actual print to prove this though...at least not for circa 1675-1730...only modern day interpretations....

Hector

Aha! So we have different experiences, based on a similar item, but worn under different conditions. Never done the riding bit with a sword baldric, so my experience is ntirely that of the foot slogger. I've worn my unlined leather baldric over both a leather jerkin (flesh side out) and a wool doublet.

CAVEAT- I'm not making any hard points here. I'm kicking around vague possibilities, based on the artwork known to us, and the modern expereinces of re-enactors. DO NOT take any of this as anything but my ramblings. Enough of these odd opinions may steer us in the right direction, but without primary source material telling us the specific purpose of the knots, we are only guessing.

Hawkyns

Yes I agree with you on both points... I still have not found any rock hard evidence regarding shoulder knots except that they were a fashion... but the thing with fashion, NOT ALL, but there are many fashion items that come from practical use, especially for men...

Hector

The glossary in An Elegant Art states: Surtout "(M/F) long, loose overcoat with one or more spreading collars called capes. Became known in the the nineteenth century as a box coat. Worn by men 1680-1840s; after 1790, also worn by women. "He was forced constantly to wear a surtout of oiled cloth, by which means he came home pretty clean." Arbuthnot, Law is a Bottomless Pit, Exemplified in the Case of ...John Bull, 1712

Hector

The word toutpie is an early forerunner of the word toupee. And it must be a style,

According to Laver and Brooke's English Costume from the Seventeenth Through the Nineteenth Centuries "The toupet, or hair immediately over the forehead, was often natural, the join between the wig and the real hair being disguised by a liberal use of powder."

An Elegant Art states toupee "M/F) Curl or artificial lock of hair on the top of the head. "Love in his lac'd coat lies,/And peeps from his toupee."Fielding, Grubstreet Opera, 1731. "Little Girls have their heads dressed a foot high so that their Faces seem to be just half way between the top of their Toupets and their feet." Northumberland, Diaries of a Duchess, 1774.

Hector

So 'experimental archeology' tells me that either there was something about their baldrics that is different from ours, or this was a theory put forward by someone who never actually wore a baldric.

Many fashion plates from the late 17th century which show the large baldrick also show a number of them... not all, caught at the waist by a sash.

Also I can tell you, from experience when riding at a full gallop, a leather sword belt, not properly held in place by a shoulder strap or epaulette will slip off your shoulder...

So now comes the question, depending on the type of shoulder, the fabric of the coat or buff coat, or the type of shoulder carriage may all come into play...

Hector

It is common in the British army for a special epaulette to be worn on the left shoulder for lieutenants... as in England (at least during the Rev. War) they were actually called leftenants....

"leftenant" is only the way we pronounce "lieutenant", and it's been that way since long before either shoulder knots or epaulettes.

Yes, I realize the spelling is the same and the pronuciation is different, just trying to figure out how to show that in type. Like I said At least during the Rev. War it was common for Lieutenants in the British army to wear a single epaulette on the left shoulder. What I was trying to say was that at least at one point the rank tied in with the name and could be used to distinguish that rank from others... ... and in the long run, was trying to say that shoulder knots or bands as Pepys refers to them may very well have been used to secure a baldrick on one's shoulder, just like epaulettes or just a shoulder strap with button were used on the regimental coats to hold crossbelts in place during the Rev. War. Research has only come up with "so fars" and "Maybes".

Hector

Well, Mr. Foxe, the costume books say they were ALWAYS worn on the right shoulder!

Never heard anything about them being functional, huh? To be honest, most of the pictures I'm looking at are French. Do you know if they had any rank significance in the French Army. I doubt the Duke of Burgundy is only a corporal! Damned foreigners...

Yes I believe either Waugh, 1700 London, Restoration London states that at first shoulder knots WERE used to keep the baldrick in place so that it would NOT shift off the shoulder. Then they became fashionable as seen in many fashion plates (especially when waist carriage began to replace the baldrick). Even as late as the American Rev. War. the Epaulettes on many regimental coats for dragoons/cavalry even foot regiments, were use to keep the cross belts from falling off your shoulders. So it seems very, very likely that originally shoulder knots did tie the heavy baldricks in place.

It is common in the British army for a special epaulette to be worn on the left shoulder for lieutenants... as in England (at least during the Rev. War) they were actually called leftenants....

Hector

I do believe so... as I believe it causes sensitivity to light...

Know anyone who does 18th C. Physician?

We've discussed this on a 19th century list and tinted glasses were considered healthful for those inflicted with VD. But I believe it was only certain colors and most folks, it seems, refused to wear them because it marked you.

If you want, I'll go search the archives....

Hector

Most modern dictionaries describe dimity as being sheer, but the term crops up relatively often in period parlance and seems then to have been a universal description for a cotton (but possibly not always) fabric with a distinctive ridged weave. It's not too unusual to find it used to describe seamen's clothes (I'm working from memory 'cos I'm not at home, but I'll do my best to find sources when I get home if this becomes a debated point).

Yes according to An Elegant Art, Fashion & Fantasy in the Eighteenth Century from the Los Angeles County Museum of Art Collections of Costumes and textiles... Dimity is "fine ribbed cotton fabric woven with raised stripes or figures; made first in Damietta, India. Used undyed for beds, bedroom hangings, and for garments. 'A half bedstead as the new mode, dimity with fine shades of worstead works well made up.' Fiennes, Diary, c.1710. 'His waistcoat was a white dimity, richly embroidered with yellow silk.' Fielding, Life of Jonathan Wild the Great. 1743."

And all you wig wearers will LOVE this... "Dildo: (M)Sausage-shaped curl of a wig. Worn throughout the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries." (M) denotes those used by males.

Same reference.

Hector

And I was wondering, just how well all those velvets and silks would hold out at sea as compared to good woolen garmetnts?? Still you've got to love that quote about the captain pacing the deck in his good silk banyan as his ship was coming into port... but then he wasn't a pirate....

Hector

Plus, Kass's patterns should be arriving soon and I have been itching to get started!

GOF

Now see those already make putting a good kit together that much easier!

Hector

Post Script

What width on the lace would you be interested in?

Tons and tons of metallic trim doesn't look "rich", guys. It just looks fake and tacky...

Not only that, but do you know what real silver lace looks like after 15 mins in humid weather... it turns black... and looks right nasty!!

Hector

GOF There are three places for silver and gold lace, I will get you the website lists and there is a place in India, Hand I believe, that if you could actually track down a period pattern will make the lace to your specifications... like the shoes, it might be worth thinking about... but then again, how many captains can there be wearing the same exact lace on their coats?? right now Kass has me trying to hunt down colors for worsted narrowwares or lace if you prefer....Anyone have a close up shot of the lace on the Red Suit?

is that what "trim" is called now?

Narrow wares (sp) is a term that was used back then due to the looms the trims were woven on... being narrow...

Hector

Even if you do the sewing yourself, its not an easy project to tackle.  Yes, you can sew it, but you are going to have to learn to do passimenterie buttons and where would you find the trim???

Jo Anne's doesn't carry trim like that.

The reproductions out there this nice are few and far between.  It will take dedication, skill, and money beyond what the average to even experienced pirate-renactor is willing to do.

So, I say, a fancy gentlemen's outfit is hard to put together.

So I recomend not going that approach.  I would think a simpler justaucorps made of lesser quality wool with cloth covered buttons (or pewter) would be easier and more realistic for a common sailor.

I just have a hard time with a pirate saying they stole their coat from a "gentlemen" and their coat is not shaped right, is amade of cheezy synthetic velvet, and has 2" diameter pewter buttons...

(which of course is ok if you are doing the fantasy thing....)

GoF

But GOF already do make passimenterie buttons!! And there are certainly other places to obtain silver or gold narrowwares... certainly not Joann's!

Although I do agree that the average reenactor may not want to tackle such a project it is still doable. :)

Hector

  Wouldn't boots full of booty jingle and clank with each step?

Yes but all that booty noise wouldn't be noticable if you were wearing the correct spurs....

Hector

just one source.  But think about it.  We spend time looking at records and paintings.  Wouldn't someone such as a podiatrist maybe hold the key to this discussion?

I suppose that would depend on how many podiatrists there were in the last quarter of the 17th century and the 18th century. Check out personal journals and wills... you'd be surprised how many pairs of shoes were passed down through wills... the task now becomes how many actual wills of known GAoP pirates and even ordinary sailors are still available to read over?

Hector

And lastly,

As I said in a previous post, it really is hard to put together a high fashion gentlemen's out fit... this is what you are shooting for

http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/fashion/r...wool/index.html

which would be a serious undertaking...

GoF

Not hard to put together, if you know your stuff and are good with a needle, just possibly costly... and GOF this is not a gentleman's suit, it is assumed to be a younger boy's. The V&A's book, Four Hundred Years of Fashion, I believe, goes into further detail about this outfit. I'm still unpacking after the move and haven't come across my copy yet or I would type it out for you...

Hector

Blackbeard on the National Geographic Channel

SUNDAY MARCH 12 8P et/9P pt

and this one

The bottom picture, wish I could find my Hogarth book, it explains a lot of what the characters symbolized or represented, any way the fella with the stiff looking boots is wearing spurs and the case he is carrying looks very similar to a valiesse or port-mantau (forgive spelling both cases) which were cases carried behind the saddle when riding, like a suitcase. I doubt very much he is supposed to represent anything other than some type of horseman or cavalry folk.

Hector

das

If this image is of one of the Versailles statues, it was done in the 1830s, according to some help from the Early 18th century wars list.

Hector

Now here's where I disagree. This crap about "what the public expects" and "what the public recognises as being a pirate" is just a pile of steaming horse dung. The public genuinely don't "expect" anything - they are just impressed with what they get. They don't need boots or sashes or big skull earrings to recognise someone as a pirate. Hell, when I do non-pirate events as an authentic seamen, even in my 1805 gear I have to explain to people that I'm not a pirate! If the public walked into a camp full of guys in buckle shoes, petticoat breeches, short jackets, neck-cloths and long wooly hats they'd KNOW instantly that they were in a pirate camp - even if they weren't!

MOST of the public hasn't a clue! I captained a reenactment group of the 17th Light Dragoons, a rev war Brit calvary unit stationed in America. We have the famous skull and cross bones on our helmet plates... you would not believe HOW MANY PEOPLE thought we were pirates on horseback!!!!

As far as historical pirate versus hollywood... hey do as you please. I'm all for historical personally. What I find disturbing are them that are hollywood and say this is what a real pirate would have looked like! Why mislead the public? Why do so many hollwood types not state the truth that they are "hollywood" or simply state, plain and simple, that they are just out to have fun? Or even still, why not explain the myth behind your characterization? I've been part of a Wild West event that shows the difference to the public regarding Reel West versus Real West... it is wonderfully done. I think the public would love to know your kit is based on the "ideals" of fiction and film, not history. Nothing wrong with that...

Hector

On firearms and swords, I was quite interested by the following passage and the light it sheds on "everyday" armaments. It is the testimony of one Mr White who was robbed by a highwayman named Goodman, then a few days later came across him again, quite by chance.

I sent my servant to demand my horse, and he going up to them, they both clapt spurs to their horses, and rode away. We pursued them. Goodman flash'd a pistol at me, but it did not go off. Then they quitted their horses, and got over a ditch into a field, unpon which, I gave my servant a small gun {which he just happened to be carrying}, and order'd him to pursue them, which he did. The prisoners fir'd twice at him, but miss'd him; he fir'd at them but miss'd likewise.

"Damn it!" says one of the prisoners, "we'll kill or be kill'd, we won't be taken alive! Let's turn upon 'em, and fire again, for our lives are as good as theirs!"

Upon this, my man recharged his gun with some pebble-stones and, firing, wounded Goodman behind the head. He presently fell down, and was taken. Another person, whose name was White, coming by, leap'd the ditch and pursued Stevens with a drawn hangar; Stevens perceiving himself hard put to it, presented two pistols at him; White bid him fire, but told him, if he mist, he would cleave his skull; and thereupon Stevens dropt his pistols and surrendered. We took from them two musquetoons, a screw pistol, which was loaded with three bullets, and each of the other pistols was charg'd with two.

I would think that highway men intent on robbery would be as heavily armed as possible and yet still be able to ride away with haste. What I'm not seeing from the quote is whether the fellow giving chase with his servant, was pretty much on the road traveling, in which case he might be heavily armed as well for protection. Does the rest of the book mention anything about pistol buckets, and other tack that could be used for carrying all the additional weapons? I think it might be hard to compare carrying guns on the road with your average citizen walking about town... although I do agree swords were carried on a regular basis by gentlemen.

Neat quote, as always Foxe... Where's it from? Just purchased Stand and Deliver by Brandon but haven't yet cracked the cover.

Hector