JoshuaRed Posted March 4, 2005 Share Posted March 4, 2005 yep, Hogarth does eyepatches and peglegs, but I haven't seen an earring yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corsair2k3 Posted March 4, 2005 Author Share Posted March 4, 2005 I even got out the magnifying glass... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentleman of Fortune Posted March 4, 2005 Share Posted March 4, 2005 Even if Hogarth had a sailor with an earing, I am not sure how much credence I would lend it. As I have said on this forum before, a bulk of Hogarth's work was done post 1720 and a lot of the fashion styles he depicts are 1730-1740ish. He almost always shows stockings tucked under breeches etc.... I am a fan of his work though GoF Come aboard my pirate re-enacting site http://www.gentlemenoffortune.com/ Where you will find lots of information on building your authentic Pirate Impression! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Hand Posted March 5, 2005 Share Posted March 5, 2005 So far, noone has found any documintation for the GAoP wearing earrings.... but when did the fashion of wearing earings go out of style? Would ear rings be period for buccaneers ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshuaRed Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 Though I hesitate to even call this tidbit a "clue" into whether or not men were wearing earrings in the GAOP, it does make me stop and think. It's from Woodes Rogers' "A Cruising Voyage Round The World" from 1712. The version I have is the one edited by Robert Leslie in 1894, called "Life Aboard A British Privateer In The Time Of Queen Anne". Anyway, it was during this voyage that Rogers made his famous sack of Guiaquil in Peru. This tidbit in question is from when the officers of the Duke & Duchess are writing up rules of plunder for the raiding party to abide by. They get very specific about what is considered allowable for the sailors to keep for themselves, what must be divided, and what must be left alone. Rogers was very concerned about preserving the legitimacy of this expedition, lest he meet a similar fate as Kidd upon returning to England. The following excerpt is Robert Leslie, quoting Roger's original text: Rules were, therefore, after much discussion, drawn up for the conduct of all taking part in this little invasion, and "what was to be deem'd the men's share" in the booty settled, which included "all manner of bedding and clothes, short of "Striping", "gold rings, buckles, buttons, liquors and provisions; with all arms and ammunitions, except great guns for ships;" in a word, everything portable was to be carried off, and be divided equally among the men, the one very honourable exception being "woman's earrings." Now then. What struck me about this, is that IF men were not generally known to wear earrings during this time, then why would Rogers even feel the need to specify womens' earrings? He could just as easily say "guys, don't rob the women of the jewelry they're wearing." Or, "guys, don't take out any earrings" and the men would know he meant WOMEN. One could infer that Rogers was saying it was ok to take men's earrings as a trophy or prize, but not womens'. I dunno. It could well be nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 An interesting tidbit, and I'm gonna look more dogmatic than ever, but I think you may be reading too much into that. For example, the following statement seems quite natural to me: "in a word, everything portable was to be carried off, and be divided equally among the men, the one very honourable exception being "woman's brassieres." Now, that could mean that men also wore brassieres, but that pirates shouldn't steal women's, or it could mean (and in fact does mean) that brassieres are only worn by women. There's just no way of telling. Personally, I read that statement to mean that generally only women wore earrings - based I must admit on a combination of other evidence (or lack of) and my own prejudices. Foxe"With this Fore-Staff he fansies he does Wonders, when, God knows, it amounts to no more but only to solve that simple Question, Where are we? Which every chi'd in London can tell you." - Ned Ward The Wooden World Dissected, 1707ETFox.co.uk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Hand Posted December 30, 2005 Share Posted December 30, 2005 As posted in another topic, there were a lot more women at Sea than you would think. Bonny and Mary are the first that come to mind, then there is Marie (I think that was her name) who joined Captain Jack Sparrow’s crew in Tortuga in “Pirates of the Caribbean” And I remember reading in “Two Fisted Bedtime Stories for Men” about a Pyrate ship that was crewed entirely by women. Everyone knows that Women have always worn earrings. And because there were so many women Pyrates, who would have worn earrings, we know that Pyrates DID wear earrings. And if some Pyrates wore earrings, then all Pyrates would have worn earrings. Awh… my brilliance amazes me at times, I think I will have another rum, knowing that this argument has finally been settled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Posted December 31, 2005 Share Posted December 31, 2005 Actually, historical evidence suggests that the comparitively small number of women at sea removed the earrings they habitually wore for practical reasons. One transcript of the Bonny and Read trial, often overlooked by historians, includes the slightly different words during the testimony of Dorothy Thomas "they were dressed in men's trousers and jackets with kerchiefs tied about their heads, and they were not wearing earrings..." <removes tongue from cheek> Foxe"With this Fore-Staff he fansies he does Wonders, when, God knows, it amounts to no more but only to solve that simple Question, Where are we? Which every chi'd in London can tell you." - Ned Ward The Wooden World Dissected, 1707ETFox.co.uk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Hand Posted December 31, 2005 Share Posted December 31, 2005 <removes tongue from cheek> Awh... I thought you'd like that...... I just didn't want you to spit-up any coffee,tea or rum on your monitor..... so I toned it down just a little..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentleman of Fortune Posted December 31, 2005 Share Posted December 31, 2005 Hee Hee! You guys are killing me! Thanks for the laugh.... and happy new year! GoF Come aboard my pirate re-enacting site http://www.gentlemenoffortune.com/ Where you will find lots of information on building your authentic Pirate Impression! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Hand Posted December 31, 2005 Share Posted December 31, 2005 Now the transcript of the Bonny and Read trial, even MORE often overlooked by historians,... "they were dressed in men's trousers and jackets with kerchiefs tied about their heads, and they had huge bangles" Resent research sujest that "Bangles" were infact earrings, and NOT thier womanly bazooms...... as many armchair and perverted Historians have said in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Posted December 31, 2005 Share Posted December 31, 2005 Come off it Pat, any historian worth his salt knows that in that context "bangles" is referring to those arabic looking metal bracelets that used to be so popular. Any truly authentic faire going female pirate re-enactor should have at least 20 of them so that they jangle when she unties her tankard from her belt... :) Oh, and Corsair, in case you're looking in from time to time... 10 PAGES dude! Foxe"With this Fore-Staff he fansies he does Wonders, when, God knows, it amounts to no more but only to solve that simple Question, Where are we? Which every chi'd in London can tell you." - Ned Ward The Wooden World Dissected, 1707ETFox.co.uk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Hand Posted December 31, 2005 Share Posted December 31, 2005 any historian worth his salt knows that in that context "bangles" is referring to those arabic looking metal bracelets See... that is a very common misconception..... most armchair historians don't realize that the Authentic Tiawanees Arabic bracelets are actully spelled with two "Gs" so it would be "Banggles"... "Ten Banggles for one Dollar...so you get more bangg for your buck" And a side note on authentic female garp... you Did mention the tankard on the belt... but you failed to mention the easly doccumentable fox tails and the purple leather floggers..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Posted December 31, 2005 Share Posted December 31, 2005 Oh yeah, my mistake... I didn't bother with the fox tails et al cos I figured everyone KNEW they were authentic - there's no need to find evidence for them... Foxe"With this Fore-Staff he fansies he does Wonders, when, God knows, it amounts to no more but only to solve that simple Question, Where are we? Which every chi'd in London can tell you." - Ned Ward The Wooden World Dissected, 1707ETFox.co.uk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
 {if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)}; if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0'; n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script', 'https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1074427760321280'); fbq('track', 'PageView'); </script> <noscript><img height=)
&ev=PageView&cd%5Bitem_id%5D=3642&cd%5Bitem_name%5D=Earrings%3F+Help+settle+an+argument&cd%5Bitem_type%5D=topic&cd%5Bcategory_name%5D=Captain Twill"/>
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now