Behaving in a Golden Age Tavern

[Mission]

I first raised the point that bars in different places would be different and I stand by that. A bar by the port would most likely be more rough-and-tumble than one in the city center. Still, even the louts in the slummiest of establishments would behave differently if it contained both sexes (and not all of them were to be paid for after hours activities.) For the most part, a man can't impress a female by behaving like someone of no character at all. (This is not to say that everyone in a drinking establishment would be doing such, but some almost certainly would have. Probably more than less if our society is any indicator.)

----------------

Even now, this isn't always true. It's still a sweeping generalization. I have known male friends in my own world who have quite a bit of money and have been crass and vile and walked out with the prettiest woman in the room, even though there were insulting and degrading to them. I have rarely seen men act differently than they ordinarily would, even to get some nooky. Case in point. I was in a bar in Fort Pierce this weekend and the guy's opening line to a woman was (and I'm not making this up), "You look a lot better with makeup." If this was his best foot forward trying to impress a female, it wasn't working for him. And a vile buccaneer with a pocket full of several years' wages hardly had to be on his best behavior in Port Royal. There was no reason to be.

-- Hurricane

I didn't say it was always true; I specifically qualified that. However, your examples are non-specific and anecdotal and thus not proof of generalized social and psychological behaviors.

My point is not entirely a generalization. Various psychological studies have showed that men undergo behavioral and physical changes when in the presence of women. (As one example, see this abstract from such a study. One point in your favor from this particular study is that if the man does not view the woman as a potential partner the effect appears to be negligible. Feel free to make what you can of that.)

[Mission]

This is why I want sources. The lecturer may (or may not) sound compelling, but he is not the key here - the period sources are. <snip>

First paragraph: Victorian influence layered on top of upper-class attitudes of appropriate behavior, that started taking hold toward the later part of the 18C. That's the short version of why we have these long-held beliefs. In the earlier part of the 18C, and back into and before the 17C, the social divide wasn't quite as clear. The Victorian influenced, mostly elite, urban based research has been propagated time and again, up into at least 2003, but the primary documents do not back that up for the general population, or even the higher classes. And yes, skepticism as to the part of a woman in a painting of a tavern is a good idea, unless there are obvious indications (unlaced bodice, a procuress collecting money, a man leading her out of the public space).

Second paragraph: Yep, have to agree with you there (and so would Rod). Perhaps one of the reasons we have a hard time wrapping our heads around the idea of society imposing a stamp on our behavior is that we're much more like the transient society of a dockside pub. When you don't stick around for long, it isn't as noticeable when you're a regular brawler, or get the serving maids pregnant. And probably a lot harder to haul your body into court to sue you for whatever fees are involved as compensation.

Ok, but where's the proof (the "primary sources")? See if you can get info on the sources.

[hurricane]

Edited. Didn't like what I said. Damned writer. LOL

Edited November 2, 2010 by hurricane

[Zingara Carmella]

visit a bar in the gut of a seaport town in third world country, if you want to have something to write home about.

I agree with that.. I have been reading all and here goes my 2 cents....about naughty behavior most (some) of us would be offended but isn't the same behavior you seen in things like "girls gone wild" , college parties , rave clubs etc...? from what i remember my college days things weren't much different that from those paintings and from my husb stories of his parties in Marines it got to be quite interesting.... so are we that much evolved or prude or just would like to think? about being in a family enviroment I've seen things last year at TX refaire that should be in a adultmovie and they supose to be "family oriented" .

[Hawkyns]

[about naughty behavior most (some) of us would be offended but isn't the same behavior you seen in things like "girls gone wild" , college parties , rave clubs etc...? from what i remember my college days things weren't much different that from those paintings and from my husb stories of his parties in Marines it got to be quite interesting.... so are we that much evolved or prude or just would like to think? about being in a family enviroment I've seen things last year at TX refaire that should be in a adultmovie and they supose to be "family oriented" .

I think that is one of my big questions out of this whole discussion. How much would people be offended? Not just with wenches getting the girls out, but with drunken behaviour in general? I'm not seeing a lot of answers to that. I think the family friendly issue is also one that needs to be defined. Should the same behaviour be required whether it is 3pm in public hours or 10 pm after the public is gone and the kids should be in bed? I'm not seeing a lot of hard answers to this.

We can go round and round on what historical behaviour was, and I'm sure that with the the libraries and scholars here, we can all justify our positions, documentation being sketchy and incomplete as it is. But to go back to the original point of this thread, what should be our limits? How far should we be allowed to go in our own taverns and camps, when the public is not around?

Hawkyns

[Jib]

I seem to recall another thread where we discussed the appearance of the women in the service industry at Port Royal. As I recall the concept was that most professional women might not have been very attractive, simply available. I believe we also spoke that few disrobed completely when doing the dirty deed. So perhaps these rough cut ladies just dealt with crass and brutish men? They had no looks to fall back on and lived day by day. Maybe they just bit a lip and took a mental trip else where when engaged in the act much in the fashion that some people work fast food or retail today?

Still curious as to who would provide the service as opposed to who is just a scullery maid...? Maybe it is location or time of day? If you are in the Three Turns after sunset you must be a whore!

[Mission]

I think that is one of my big questions out of this whole discussion. How much would people be offended? Not just with wenches getting the girls out, but with drunken behaviour in general? I'm not seeing a lot of answers to that. I think the family friendly issue is also one that needs to be defined. Should the same behaviour be required whether it is 3pm in public hours or 10 pm after the public is gone and the kids should be in bed? I'm not seeing a lot of hard answers to this.

I'll bet most people have quite a tolerance for lurid and what is generally viewed as socially unbecoming behavior. Prime-time TV will bear me out on this. I was astonished at how tolerant most people were of my grotesque Scarecrow prop that I set out at my friend's house at Hallowe'en this year. Heck, my friend's kid's costume was not too far different in the sort of gore my prop showed. So I doubt playing the outgoing whore or drunken sot will really bother everyone. (In fact, I've seen both at events - even during the day. Not everyone does it, but if they did, the event would just be monotonous.)

OTOH, there will definitely be some people who would be offended by such public behavior. But then some people are offended by the mere idea of re-enacting a group of criminals, so there's not much hope for them anyhow.

As for hard answers...that's really a whole separate issue which we discussed at length in this thread. As I indicated then, you have to ask the event organizers what is acceptable at an event. Individual re-enactors can say "I must be allowed to do x" as stridently as we like, but then still get booted from the event for violating their policies. You play on their field, you play by their rules.

We can go round and round on what historical behaviour was, and I'm sure that with the the libraries and scholars here, we can all justify our positions, documentation being sketchy and incomplete as it is. But to go back to the original point of this thread, what should be our limits? How far should we be allowed to go in our own taverns and camps, when the public is not around?

Actually, the original question was about how much of this was allowed during period, as asked by our now much beleaguered period-story author Red_Dawn. So the sketchy documentation is exactly what was originally asked for.

I seem to recall another thread where we discussed the appearance of the women in the service industry at Port Royal.

I believe you're talking about this thread. Hawkins is right, though. Our documentation is incomplete and sketchy. It's probably also contradictory if it's anything like most historical documentation.

[Silkie McDonough]

Okay, mission said basically what I was working on saying.

...How far should we be allowed to go in our own taverns and camps, when the public is not around?

I don't think there is one answer to this. It would depend on the encampment and the event organizers. I think that if you choose to push the envelope at a public event after hours you need to be open to others requests to curb tho said behavior. On the other side of the coin I think that those who might prefer a less "barbaric" behavior need to be willing to voice that opinion (if the majority agrees) or remove themselves from that situation.

If you want to portray a "real" pub or tavern I think that is best done in a private setting but that then changes the "reality" in itself.

Again, no answer.

[hurricane]

Such will always be the problem, I fear. Someone will say they want to play all on period contact pub but then someone will end up with red wine spilled all over their duds and get pissy about it, wanting to change the rules midstream. There would be no curbing behavior unless it was by duel or cutlass. Things just aren't settled the same way these days. Pity. A good drubbing would do some people good in this world.

[Mission]

Hydrogen Peroxide and dish soap would do the world even better in that situation. But I digress...

[Hawkyns]

Such will always be the problem, I fear. Someone will say they want to play all on period contact pub but then someone will end up with red wine spilled all over their duds and get pissy about it, wanting to change the rules midstream. There would be no curbing behavior unless it was by duel or cutlass. Things just aren't settled the same way these days. Pity. A good drubbing would do some people good in this world.

Thats a good point. My kit has many match burn holes, gun spooge stains, wear stains and the like. I wash my shirt, but the doublet and breeches get washed when it rains or when the bow spray hits it. So a wine stain wouldn't bother me a bit. But there are pirates out there who don't see it the same way. Hell, I've known pirates who have their kit dry cleaned.

We need to get together at PIP and see how many others would be interested in a real pirate evening. Not for the faint of heart or the picky.

Hawkyns

[Silkie McDonough]

If the gathering takes place at The Hide my bouncers will be taking all weapons at the door so no sword fights and no duels on the spot. What you do the following morning has nothing to do with me. Oh yea, and any damage to the place will be charged to those involved in the damaging act.

[Capt. Sterling]

We need to get together at PIP and see how many others would be interested in a real pirate evening. Not for the faint of heart or the picky.

Hawkyns

Would be interested in being part of this discussion...time allowing down at the Fort.

[hurricane]

I hope we can find the time for this dialogue there. It's very intriguing. Dry cleaning? Isn't that when you drag your shirt through the dust to soak up all the ale you spilled on it?

Fabreeze is the magic mix for today's dirty looking rogue. Allows me to be authentic while still being able to slip close to the wench at night. :)

-

[Jib]

I wonder how the Puritans viewed such behavior in Port Royal? Did not Cromwell send his "New Model Army" to take the colony from the Spanish? Certainly Puritans imbibed in drink. I imagine more than a few were less than pious (despite the image).

[Elena]

All this talk is very interesting for any writer, i followed it with enthusiasm too. And I think the problem is to be as historically correct as the story makes sense. It doesn't matter how the things are viewed now, it matters to keep close to how they were viewed THEN, in order to portray the right atmosphere and to offeryour readers the experience of a XVIII-th century tavern, not of a bike pub of today.

Most adventure books (or stories on the net) have their rowdy part there, which are still appreciated nowadays, even if in our times stle, behaviour and norms are different. (Besides, some modern writers have a style... which made more sense if describing a scene in Port Royal than in the modern day they do ). And yes, I am talking about behaviour in a tavern.., or with a woman.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Elena

[Fox]

I wonder how the Puritans viewed such behavior in Port Royal? Did not Cromwell send his "New Model Army" to take the colony from the Spanish? Certainly Puritans imbibed in drink. I imagine more than a few were less than pious (despite the image).

Not all of the New Model Army were necessarily puritan, in fact, the vast majority were Presbyterian or Independent. Additionally, conscripted recruits might be of almost any denomination (barring Papists). The particular troops sent under Venables to the Caribbean were, to a great extent, the dregs of pre-existing regiments whose officers took the opportunity to get rid of them. There's a good discussion of religion in the Caribbean colonies in Christopher Hill's essay, Radical Pirates?

[Fox]

From the Spectator, no. 155, 28/7/1711: a satire in the form of a letter written by a female coffee-house keeper.

...I am unavoidably hasped in my Bar, and cannot help hearing the improper Discourses they [her male customers] are pleased to entertain me with. They strive who shall say the most immodest things in my Hearing: At the same time half a dozen of them loll at the Bar staring just in my face, redy to interpret my looks and gestures, according to their own Imaginations...

[Mission]

Ah, but satire, while it contains the germ of truth, is usually exaggeration. We're back to the problem with Ned Ward and Hogarth.

[Fox]

Yes indeed, but how big a germ of truth, and how much exaggeration? Satire must be believable.

[Mission]

How much indeed? (We're dangerously close to complete subjectivity here. )

[Elena]

Additionally, conscripted recruits might be of almost any denomination (barring Papists).

I think there were Catholic Irishmen too...

[Fox]

I think there were Catholic Irishmen too...

In the New Model Army? I'd be surprised.

In Jamaica? Possibly.

[jendobyns]

After talking to Rod Cofield yesterday, I think it might be best to give him the link to the Pub (as I did with Carol) so he can post his info here. He's offered to share the slide show presentation, which has most of the sources in it. He will be offering the paper for publication in the Saint Mary's Quarterly (a publication of St. Mary's University) but until they decide to publish it, it won't be available in print as far as I know.

[Elena]

I think there were Catholic Irishmen too...

In the New Model Army? I'd be surprised.

In Jamaica? Possibly.

In Jamaica and all the islands, yes, and if not among the soldiers, at least among the sailors.