Behaving in a Golden Age Tavern

[Grymm]

Weird ideas some folk get that certain modes of dress/jewelery indicate sexual availability/preferences/orientation, still, today, in the 21stC. Like my Welsh barmaid ex who had a labrette peircing (just below her lips......on her face you filthy minded bunch) and was nervously approached by a young man who asked if that it was true that it meant she liked botty sex She didn't hit him but some choice words were said! Men with peirced ears are gay, yup I still occasionally get asked that, not true. Me Nanna used to say that women who wore red hats were indicating a lack of knickers and women with ankle chains were prostitutes.I pretty sure somewhere in a pub there is someone who makes all this shi'ite up to see how many people they can get into fights just for a giggle

[jendobyns]

I think that's very true, Master Roberts. There is only slight differences in the mores of the times, but human nature hasn't changed much. We still have hookers and drunks. We still have bar fights. We still have those who will never behave. And that is the glory of our world, frankly. The good, the bad and the ugly.

Today, the hookers in Orlando carry paper cups from fast food restaurants. At least that's what Diosa told me when I moved here. Hookers in Vancouver BC look like Pretty Woman hookers. Easy enough to tell the difference, though I wish everyone would wear thigh high boots, but I digress.

-- Hurricane

And then there is Thailand, but I won't go there.

Actually, for some reason I was reminded of something I ran across back when I was working at a historic site that had active archaeological work. They excavated a plate with a rather homely mermaid on it. Somewhere during that time I found out, and I'll have to do some digging for the source, that the sign of a mermaid on a tavern meant more than drink could be procured. The people in charge of the site decided, in a "d### the torpedoes, full speed ahead" moment, to adopt the plate as their logo. A decade or more later, it still stands.

So, it might not be the dress of the women inside, but some indication outside the tavern, that makes the difference. Kind of like the red-light thing.

I'm off to email someone at that historic site, see if they've found anything more about the mermaid/bordello/tavern thing.

[Grymm]

After digging through Covent Garden Ladies, Lascivious Bodies and several of books on Restoration and early 1700s London one of the know approaches by working girls, the street walking variety, was to tap a prospective client on the cheek or shoulder with a closed fan. Might just be London code though.

[Mission]

Here is a simple dance that was commonly used by professional women to indicate availability and such not - warning it's a link to a video. (Ok, I know this will shock some of you, but I pretty much made that up after reading some of the above stuff. Sorry, I'll just crawl back in my hole and wait for passing flies. )

I tend to think it wouldn't be all that complicated to locate and recognize whores if you were seeking them unless you were a complete neophyte sailor. (And your more experienced shipmates would surely guide you. The iniquitous like nothing quite so much as company to justify their behavior.)

[Grymm]

How to behave! Just hit play all =o) Sorry about the odd duplication. Edited October 29, 2010 by Grymm

[jendobyns]

Well, the feedback regarding the Mermaid sign for a sailor's tavern with potential for light skirts isn't encouraging. It appears to be one of those things where people have heard something, but nobody knows the source. So no documentation for that lead. But it might be a starting point for some research. Will keep you posted if anything solid comes up.

[John Maddox Roberts]

People's perceptions of these historical locales are shaped more than anything else by what they see in film and on television. With the pirate ports as with the Old West gold camps, we always see far more women than were actually there. This is so that women viewers will not be turned away. In fact, women of any sort were a rarity, and "respectable" women practically nonexistent. Women arrived with settlement and the establishment of law and order. In the pirate hangouts usually once the governor had settled things down he brought his wife over, soon followed by the wives of other officials, then whole shiploads of women to be wives for the settlers. In the West first law had to be established, then the railroad arrived, then women came out to marry the homesteaders. Previous generations were not shy about mentioning the "civilizing influence of women," i.e. men just behave better when women are around. Anything goes in their absence.

[Hawkyns]

Good point. When we are talking about the dockside taverns of Port Royal, Charleston, or Southwark, are we going to find any 'respectable' women? Move uptown to a traveller's inn or hostelry and perhaps. The ladies of the town will entertain each other at each other's homes. The clientel at the boozing kens and alehouses would be of the lowest sort.

As the song says (period):

He that would an alehouse keep

Must have three things in store

A chamber with a feather bed,

A chimney and a whore

(ok, they said hey nonny nonny, but we know what they meant)

Hawkyns

[Silkie McDonough]

Hence why my cousin Fionntan is at more events than I am. Unless we can have a respectable ordinary I tend to stay away. lol

[hurricane]

Port Royal always had a large supply of womenfolk.

In 1662 in Port Royal, there was about two men for every woman, 400 men, 200 women, 90 children. These are free men and women.

By 1692, there were 1,600 free men, 1,400 women and 1,000 children, living in roughly 2,000 structures. The balance of the population, roughly 1,0000, composed of an equal amount of men and women.

Obviously, the only entertainment in town besides the drinking establishments was making babies. :)

-- Hurricane

[Hawkyns]

Port Royal always had a large supply of womenfolk.

In 1662 in Port Royal, there was about two men for every woman, 400 men, 200 women, 90 children. These are free men and women.

By 1692, there were 1,600 free men, 1,400 women and 1,000 children, living in roughly 2,000 structures. The balance of the population, roughly 1,0000, composed of an equal amount of men and women.

Obviously, the only entertainment in town besides the drinking establishments was making babies. :)

-- Hurricane

Any indication of population breakdown by profession, Hurricane?

Hawkyns

[hurricane]

Unfortunately, no. The only reference to that in terms of numbers is a list of occupations and the people who held them before the earthquake, which included one architect,two barbers, four blacksmiths, two bricklayers, five butchers, a slew of carpenters, 14 chryrurgeons/chandlers, coopers, cordwainers, one drugster, fishermen, goldsmiths, gunsmiths, a hatmaker, one ivory turner, lots of merchants and mariners, two pewterers, a pipemaker, four sailmakers, shipwrights, a dozen or so tailors, watermen and wherrymen, and lots of victuallers, vintners and tavern-keepers, two of whom were female.

More useful to show the breadth of professions rather than the distributions. Also, there is a note that many of the "free" men and women would have been indentured for 10 years upon their arrival in Jamaica.

-- Hurricane

[jendobyns]

This thread's sure taking some interersting turns.

... would the average visitor to a port side tavern know which ladies are for sale and which just work in the establishment (or are they the same?)?

Working girls wore blue aprons when looking for business.

You guys made me think of another question: did ordinary women ever go to the taverns for a drink (or a flirt, or whatever)?

In Port Royal, prostitutes wore their hair down. Ladies wore them up. Simple enough, eh. Wish they would do that today.

I heard something about the Nice Girls kept their heads covered, but I might've heard wrong.

YES!

OK, here's the scoop from the lecture today. Basically, from the 1600's through the early 19C, women of nearly every walk of life could be found in taverns and ordinaries. The info I had about only certain types of women being found in taverns (servants, proprietors, "working girls") is dated information based on secondary sources in a limited geographic range. A lot of research has brought new information to light. Primary source information (court documents, diaries, travelers accounts, etc.) show that people of both genders would go to taverns to get together, dine, party and drink pretty much as they do today, and as they did in England at the time. Out of period, later in the 18C, there started to be more of a sense of "delicacy" about ladies being in taverns, but that was a minority of people influencing the accounts, and doesn't represent the majority. And it certainly doesn't reflect what more common folk considered normal.

Women could be prodigious drinkers, have multiple drinking partners, run up dept for their drinks, attend taverns with and without their husbands, get into trouble pretty much the same way men could, etc. Women proprietors, daughters of tavern keepers and tavern keeping families, servants of all types (free, indentured, slave, native), and patrons are all found in taverns. So there is a lot more flexibility in interpretation than there was a decade ago, thanks to some great folks researching the primary sources. I love it when the Victorian, sanitized versions of history are blown away! Research rules!

And I'm still processing a lot of what was said today. With any luck I can talk Mr. Cofield into sharing his bibliography for the talk. He's got some great stuff!

Edited November 2, 2010 by jendobyns

[Mission]

YES!

OK, here's the scoop from the lecture today. Basically, from the 1600's through the early 19C, women of nearly every walk of life could be found in taverns and ordinaries. The info I had about only certain types of women being found in taverns (servants, proprietors, "working girls") is dated information based on secondary sources in a limited geographic range. A lot of research has brought new information to light. Primary source information (court documents, diaries, travelers accounts, etc.) show that people of both genders would go to taverns to get together, dine, party and drink pretty much as they do today, and as they did in England at the time. Out of period, later in the 18C, there started to be more of a sense of "delicacy" about ladies being in taverns, but that was a minority of people influencing the accounts, and doesn't represent the majority. And it certainly doesn't reflect what more common folk considered normal.

Women could be prodigious drinkers, have multiple drinking partners, run up dept for their drinks, attend taverns with and without their husbands, get into trouble pretty much the same way men could, etc. Women proprietors, daughters of tavern keepers and tavern keeping families, servants of all types (free, indentured, slave, native), and patrons are all found in taverns. So there is a lot more flexibility in interpretation than there was a decade ago, thanks to some great folks researching the primary sources. I love it when the Victorian, sanitized versions of history are blown away! Research rules!

And I'm still processing a lot of what was said today. With any luck I can talk Mr. Cofield into sharing his bibliography for the talk. He's got some great stuff!

That's really, really interesting! In a way, it casts this whole discussion in a new light as men nearly always modify their behavior around women in one way or another. Could you cite a source for this? (It sounds like there are many.)

[jendobyns]

YES!

OK, here's the scoop from the lecture today. Basically, from the 1600's through the early 19C, women of nearly every walk of life could be found in taverns and ordinaries. The info I had about only certain types of women being found in taverns (servants, proprietors, "working girls") is dated information based on secondary sources in a limited geographic range. A lot of research has brought new information to light. Primary source information (court documents, diaries, travelers accounts, etc.) show that people of both genders would go to taverns to get together, dine, party and drink pretty much as they do today, and as they did in England at the time. Out of period, later in the 18C, there started to be more of a sense of "delicacy" about ladies being in taverns, but that was a minority of people influencing the accounts, and doesn't represent the majority. And it certainly doesn't reflect what more common folk considered normal.

Women could be prodigious drinkers, have multiple drinking partners, run up dept for their drinks, attend taverns with and without their husbands, get into trouble pretty much the same way men could, etc. Women proprietors, daughters of tavern keepers and tavern keeping families, servants of all types (free, indentured, slave, native), and patrons are all found in taverns. So there is a lot more flexibility in interpretation than there was a decade ago, thanks to some great folks researching the primary sources. I love it when the Victorian, sanitized versions of history are blown away! Research rules!

And I'm still processing a lot of what was said today. With any luck I can talk Mr. Cofield into sharing his bibliography for the talk. He's got some great stuff!

That's really, really interesting! In a way, it casts this whole discussion in a new light as men nearly always modify their behavior around women in one way or another. Could you cite a source for this? (It sounds like there are many.)

He did have a bunch of sources, most of them in the Chesapeake area, but there were other places. I'll see him again on Sunday and if there is time, will sound him out about a bibliography. A lot of it comes from archival material, court cases and such, but hopefully there's some available from various data bases that he can share. One source I have on my shelf, which is "The Journal of Madam Knight" by Sarah Kemble Knight "A Woman's Treacherous Journey by Horseback from Boston to New York in the year 1704". It is interesting to read, as she writes very frankly about her journey and various lodging conditions, including at least one instance where she shares a room with strange men with absolutely no sense alarm. Other sources were things like newspaper advertisements, offering services, notifying people when there was a change of ownership, and at least two cases where men published that they wouldn't be responsible for their wives tavern bills over a certain cost. And then there were the journals.

Do you think there might be a forum in which it would be appropriate for him to give his presentation to folks from the Pub? I don't think I can really do him justice! But I will try to track down as many of his sources as possible.

[Mission]

Do you think there might be a forum in which it would be appropriate for him to give his presentation to folks from the Pub? I don't think I can really do him justice! But I will try to track down as many of his sources as possible.

It would probably have to be at an event.

[Hawkyns]

[

YES!

OK, here's the scoop from the lecture today. Basically, from the 1600's through the early 19C, women of nearly every walk of life could be found in taverns and ordinaries. The info I had about only certain types of women being found in taverns (servants, proprietors, "working girls") is dated information based on secondary sources in a limited geographic range.

OK, questions. Did he break it down by type of tavern or area? Dockside alehouses vs travellers ordinaries, for instance? Civilised areas like Boston or Philadelphia vs places on the fringe like Port Royal?

That sort of divide still exists today- upscale wine bars and biker bars, Central Park and the Lower East Side. Women will still be found in both of them, but not the same type of women.

Does he have this lecture avaialble as printed text? I'd really like to see it.

Hawkyns

[Silkie McDonough]

Somehow I am not able to find the name of the lecturer (could be that I didn't look hard enough). I would very much like to listen to what he has to say. Does he have a web site with a listing of his upcoming lectures?

[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. Whatever else you think, the concept flies in the face of a long-standing belief that regular women were not to be freely about in taverns during our era. Perhaps we have been assuming the Victorian age extended back to the dark ages. (Well, I sort of had based on what I've heard.) If there are indeed several sources, it sort of forces us to question some of our other beliefs (like the notion that the women in a picture of a 17th/18th c. bar must be prostitutes - as hinted in this discussion.)

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.)

[jendobyns]

[

YES!

OK, here's the scoop from the lecture today. Basically, from the 1600's through the early 19C, women of nearly every walk of life could be found in taverns and ordinaries. The info I had about only certain types of women being found in taverns (servants, proprietors, "working girls") is dated information based on secondary sources in a limited geographic range.

OK, questions. Did he break it down by type of tavern or area? Dockside alehouses vs travellers ordinaries, for instance? Civilised areas like Boston or Philadelphia vs places on the fringe like Port Royal?

That sort of divide still exists today- upscale wine bars and biker bars, Central Park and the Lower East Side. Women will still be found in both of them, but not the same type of women.

Does he have this lecture avaialble as printed text? I'd really like to see it.

Hawkyns

No, he didn't break it down that way, although the lecture was pretty much cut in half for time considerations. I'll find out if he covers that when he has more time, as he does have material from a fairly broad range of sources. I don't know if he has it available as a printed text and will find that out as well.

[jendobyns]

Somehow I am not able to find the name of the lecturer (could be that I didn't look hard enough). I would very much like to listen to what he has to say. Does he have a web site with a listing of his upcoming lectures?

His name is Rod Cofield and he has a full time job at a local museum, so he's not exactly doing a lecture circuit. Right now he's up to his eyeballs in planning an event for Sunday, I'm gong to be there and plan to take some time to talk and I'll be taking some notes from the Pub and see where we get with questions. The best thing would be to direct him here, though I'll wait until the Sunday event so he has more time.

[jendobyns]

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. Whatever else you think, the concept flies in the face of a long-standing belief that regular women were not to be freely about in taverns during our era. Perhaps we have been assuming the Victorian age extended back to the dark ages. (Well, I sort of had based on what I've heard.) If there are indeed several sources, it sort of forces us to question some of our other beliefs (like the notion that the women in a picture of a 17th/18th c. bar must be prostitutes - as hinted in this discussion.)

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.)

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.

Edited November 2, 2010 by jendobyns

[jendobyns]

Do you think there might be a forum in which it would be appropriate for him to give his presentation to folks from the Pub? I don't think I can really do him justice! But I will try to track down as many of his sources as possible.

It would probably have to be at an event.

Agreed. That could be tough, as he works weekends as a rule, at least during the "on" season. But the site might consider it outreach.

[hurricane]

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

[Red_Dawn]

I'm getting more information here than I know what to do with. I'll have to print this topic when it starts winding down.

Primary source information (court documents, diaries, travelers accounts, etc.) show that people of both genders would go to taverns to get together, dine, party and drink pretty much as they do today, and as they did in England at the time. Out of period, later in the 18C, there started to be more of a sense of "delicacy" about ladies being in taverns, but that was a minority of people influencing the accounts, and doesn't represent the majority. And it certainly doesn't reflect what more common folk considered normal.

So the idea of a woman simply there for a drink or other fun isn't that farfetched (though I suspect the governor's wife wouldn't go to the dockside taverns).

Women could be prodigious drinkers, have multiple drinking partners, run up dept for their drinks, attend taverns with and without their husbands, get into trouble pretty much the same way men could, etc.

Emphasis mine.

That includes fighting, right? Like catfighting, or beating up that persistant jerk who thinks that when a woman says no nine times, try a tenth?

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.

Does that mean if a sailor gets permanently banned from a dockside tavern, he has to do something epic? I could gladly work with that! (Where's an evil grin smilie when I need one?)

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' date=' 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.)[/quote']

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.

The more things change...