Proper Period Etiquette

[CrazyCholeBlack]

I've been wondering about etiquette during the GAoP. How similar is it to modern etiquette, what important details are different? Good resources? Big mistakes to avoid?

Anyone care to discuss or am I the only one that thinks of these random things during my daily life?

[Patrick Hand]

Well... you had to understand ediquite.... or peave someone... and then get into a sword fight.....

I'm sure someone else can post something better..... but the whole "honor" thing was very important.....

Hey.... me being Pyrate scum....... not a problem........(well not that much of a problem..... not being a Gentleman and such......).....

<hey... I can't afford Honor.... I have to work for a living........>

[kass]

Chole, you're certainly not the only one to think about these things. Matter of fact, I just got a book on this very subject on my trip last week. Foxe and I arm wrestled over who was going to buy it and I won!

So I don't have an answer for you right this minute, but I'll read the book and bump this thread in a couple of days.

[Red Cat Jenny]

I'm no expert here, but if yer talkin Pirate, I would think the only thing which counted as "etiquette" to them would fall more along military or sailors guidelines such as amongst Captain and crew. More of a respect and honor thing or perhaps purely because there were punishments for breaking the "rules"

Plus what ever personal values

::which don't have to be the traditional and commonly discussed values:: a man (or woman) had in their own heart based on their own ideas/ideals which they were fiercly loyal to.

Everyone has a drum beat they silently march to whether they keep it secret or not. At least I think most do, I do....

[kass]

Jenny, I think you're placing a little too much modern independence on 18th century thought. We are raised to be individuals, to not let anyone tell us what to do or oppress us in any way.

In the 18th century, it really wasn't that way. People were raised with the idea that they needed to fit into society and not stir the pot too much. Those who did step outside the norm were ostrasized, and being outside society in this period meant you didn't live very long.

I suggest you read as many period diaries and thought pieces as you can get your hands on and you will see what I mean.

Putting our modern perceptions onto 18th century thought is a big mistake. If you want to know what they thought, read what they wrote.

[Red Cat Jenny]

Well as I said in my post I am no expert,

I don't discount your well read opinion, and as an avid reader always welcome input. As I've said before you have an impressive wealth of period knowledge (waves a flag in yer honor)..

That said...

I believe a pirate woud be someone who had "already stepped outside the norm"?"

and as you said were ostrascized. I would think then they didn't have much need to fit into societies rules, or much use or desire for them as well..

But they would have to heed the rules of survival as a ships crew member. Whether voluntary or perhaps pressed into service. I have read about the rules for such individuals, which I suppose you could interpret as an imposed "class system".

Probably the only one of the day you could perhaps advance in due to might, wit or strength not surname.

--

I know some were forced by circumstances to piracy, but I'll bet there were some who just didn't desire "society" and it's impossible restrictions of the time and so set out in an effort not to be hopelessly bound to their born station in life, when they thought there could be more.

Regardless of the rules placed on man by man, what's inside has driven evolution into modern society.

That lone internal drummer spawning kings, explorers, rogues and the figures of history both known and unknown.

(Wow that was poetic..excuse me whilst I fetch me period hankie)

Red Cat

[CrazyCholeBlack]

So I don't have an answer for you right this minute, but I'll read the book and bump this thread in a couple of days.

oh I look forward to it. Have a title etc?

I've been thinking about the instinctive response that we (well, I) have in any situation and trying to think about how that response would have been the same/different were I from the period. Little things like holding a door for someone, hat removal, bows etc. I was reading the list of etiguette rules set out by George Washington (after GAoP) and that's what got me thinking. There were a few things in his list that didn't even occur to me as "to do" and some that I remember learning from childhood.

and Red Cat, that's an interesting point. I've always seen it as pyrates were stepping out of one society and joining another. But some of the social rules they were raised with would certainly filter through without them even noticing. Like me, I can be the biggest dreadlocked hippie but I still say thank you when a server fills my water glass at a resturant. Heck most of the time I don't even notice I'm doing it. I figure if I know proper etiquette then I can make the choice about what parts I let slip.

[Fox]

I'll bet terrorists say "bless you" when one of them sneezes.

By which I mean there are certain forms of etiquette which even those who have left society observe.

:)

[kass]

oh I look forward to it. Have a title etc?

Yes, Chole. It's called "The Rudiments of Genteel Behavior" by Francis Nivelon. It's a facsimile copy of the 1737 edition of the book. I can't wait to devour it!

[The Doctor]

No doubt I broke the first 12 by drawing a breath, my dear. No matter; I live to break rules. :)

[Capt. Sterling]

I'll bet terrorists say "bless you" when one of them sneezes.

By which I mean there are certain forms of etiquette which even those who have left society observe.

:)

hmmm one wonders if they "observe" on purpose ... or ... it is simply something that has been drummed into them over the years so that it becomes habit without thought....

[CrazyCholeBlack]

simply something that has been drummed into them over the years so that it becomes habit without thought....

But Sterling, isn't that exactly what etiquette is? Proper conduct that we observe without thinking. Things that we've had drummed into our heads and have drummed into our children's? We only have to think about it now because period eriquette isn't necessarily what we've learned in the 20-21st centuries.

[Red Cat Jenny]

True, I don't think anyone can help being colored by their youth and the things they learned. There's really no way to erase all of them. That's what makes it interesting.

The way you relate to other people is no doubt ingrained by what you experienced while developing your own personality.

It adds an unexpected charm to some.

[Capt. Sterling]

simply something that has been drummed into them over the years so that it becomes habit without thought....

But Sterling, isn't that exactly what etiquette is? Proper conduct that we observe without thinking. Things that we've had drummed into our heads and have drummed into our children's? We only have to think about it now because period eriquette isn't necessarily what we've learned in the 20-21st centuries.

Methinks you may have misunderstood my post Chole...as I was having a poke at Foxe.... drumming into or training up is exactly what I believe etiguette to be... as for learning by observation only and not thinking... no, I don't believe that is what teaches most of us... to a very small extent perhaps, but most children learn manners by constant reminders and reinforcement of some kind whether it be reward, reasoning or punishment.... once the order of behaviour is established it becomes habit and then thought is usually not necessary regarding said habit... somewhat like muscle memory for athletes....

"train up a child in the way they should go and when they are old they shall not depart from it"....

[Brit.Privateer]

I would like to point some things that may have a major impact on etiquette, social classes and economy. One thing to observe about Europe is that they had a concept of settled aristocratic ruling power that they accepted (unlike the U.S., which when forming their own country involved the common person into politics and rule and tried to avoid a settled aristocratic class). Standards were set for each social class. With those social classes also came etiquettes.

A lot of the social classes were not set by economic standing (which today plays one major role in U.S. society), but by who your father was or your nationality. A person who had earned a lot of money and was not royal was treated a little different from somone who had blood lines of royalty. Imagine all the different etiquettes that can result out of all this? Just throwing this out to get thought going.

[Red Cat Jenny]

Yes that's one thing I was rfeferring to when I mentioned "surname" what name you dropped would identify you to many whom had never met you. Money or no.

[kass]

Brit. Privateer,

You've not read alot of 19th century literature, have you? I ask because social standing was incredibly important in the US as well. In the age of the Robber Barons in particular even though men like Carnegie and Rockefeller had tons of money, but could only buy a certain level of respect. There was a decided "looking down one's nose" at New Money and the way they tried to buy their way into society. They may have been accepted, but the Old Money never forgot that they were new.

It may have been more pronounced in Europe, but there is evidence to demonstrate that the upper class in the US was even more restrictive than that in Europe. Trying to hold on to what little respectability and legacy they thought they had, I suppose...

But this doesn't have anything really to do with etiquette at the turn of the 18th century -- a subject I will report upon as soon as I read the book I mentioned.

Kass

[Brit.Privateer]

I think I may have exagerated too much my last post, but I still stand that there was a difference in aristocratic classes of Europe and America in the early 19th century. Maybe not as much as I said before, but differences none the less. For some reason the Jacksonian age rings a bell.

[Red Sea Trade]

One facet of the past, especially that before the mid-18th century, that is too often neglected is the almost complete absence of privacy. That has to have an impact on how people conducted themselves.

Examples-- Benjamin Franklin was one of 16 children, all of them conceived, born and raised in a two room dwelling.

Archaeologists point out that, prior to the early 18th century, there was no such thing as an individual serving in America. Large cuts of meat were prepared and served to groups.

Most American dwellings (and many of those in Europe) were little more than one room. Extended families worked, ate, slept, lived and died in a space that would barely qualify as a summer cottage today.

All of this is to demonstrate my major point-- etiquette would have been ESSENTIAL in a setting like that. We like to think that everyone in the past was a rugged individualist, but that wouldn't work. People had to function smoothly as a part of the larger group, be it a family, a town, a regiment or a ship's crew. A modern example: I was in the grocery store today. A sudden altercation broke out just ahead of me, with two elderly men shouting curses and threats at each other. The cause? One accused the other of cutting in front of him to sample a new brand of cheese puff.

Had this happened two hundred years ago, with both men heavily armed, what might have transpired? Murder? Over a cheesepuff? Perhaps, but I doubt it. I believe that, having lived all their lives in a close-packed, communal setting, two men of the GAoP would have realized that it wasn't worth the bother.

I can only agree with Robert Heinlein, who said (and I paraphrase) "An armed society is a polite society."

[Silver Steele]

Please forgive my stupidity here but there are a few things I am wrestling with here on this topic and the posts that follow.

1. Are we speaking of the Golden Age or are we speaking only of the 19thC? To compare the etiquette of the 19thC vs 1650ish to 1720ish would be like comparing cannons or better yet, clothing styles from the same.

2. Are we speaking of etiquette of pirates or of noble and upper class citizens? For as we all know, there is quite a bit of a difference between the two.

To assume that pirates had etiquette that paralleled that of the nobles and upper crust would be absurd. Do you think these men cared if they had the proper tea at the right time of day? Do you think they left calling cards? Do you think they took off their hats everytime they were inside or in the presence of a woman? Do you think they dressed for meals?

Remember the origins of piracy in the 1650s originated in the Caribbean as a revolt to the way sailors were treated from merchant and RN ship officers. So thus to follow the etiquette of the sea (within reason of course) would be defeating the purpose of "going on account".

Of course one exception does come to mind.. ... Stede Bonnet. And we all remember what Blackbeard thought of "Gentleman" Stede walking on the deck in his dressing gown......

Steele

[Red Cat Jenny]

Very interesting.. out East on Long Island where I live as I am sure it is in other areas of the country. The old farm houses (some over 150 yrs) had sections that you can see were added on as family mambers married and had children. I suppose those with enough money were able to expand. Still multiple generations under one roof.. think of the holidays when you have all your far flung relatives in one house. Much as you like to see them (or most of them) How exhausting is that? I can certainly see your point. I bet each family had some interesting affectations based on how things were done in their particular household. Seems a bit of reading is in order to bridge the century gap.

[Red Sea Trade]

Some interesting ruminations have come out of this. Still, I think that we must be extremely cautious about reading our own thoughts, wants and preferences backwards in time.

One poster asked "Do you think pirates dressed for dinner?" My answer would be "Almost certainly...on rare occasions."

The two things to remember are these-- until very, VERY recently, people aspired upwards in their dress, their desires and their attitudes. Modern westerners are about the only people I can find in all of history who aspire downwards-- billionaires in bluejeans and wealthy, coddled suburban kids dressing like ghetto gang members. Yes, previous generations sometimes enjoyed "slumming", but that was the exclusive domain of a wealthy few. The lower and middle classes were more inclined to "ape their betters" in dress and deportment. Not any longer.

Secondly, many "primitive" cultures have highly evolved rules of conduct and etiquette. The Pathans of Afghanistan are extraordinarily cruel in their conduct (they would make 18th century pirates squeal like debutantes), yet they have extremely complex and unshakable rules of hospitality and proper conduct.

If one knew the rules, I would suspect that you would be significantly safer in 19th century Kandahar or 17th century Port Royal than in South Central Los Angeles on a hot Saturday night.

One difference--but not an insignificant one--is an accepted standard of behavior.

[Brit.Privateer]

The two things to remember are these-- until very, VERY recently, people aspired upwards in their dress, their desires and their attitudes. Modern westerners are about the only people I can find in all of history who aspire downwards-- billionaires in bluejeans and wealthy, coddled suburban kids dressing like ghetto gang members. Yes, previous generations sometimes enjoyed "slumming", but that was the exclusive domain of a wealthy few. The lower and middle classes were more inclined to "ape their betters" in dress and deportment. Not any longer.

That reminds me how pirates were notorious for dressing in more upper class clothing they had taken when they arrived in ports. But what was the inspiration of this, to show wealth or to try and be like the upper class. My bet is on to show wealth. Any thoughts?

[Red Sea Trade]

I think that they were probably interested in doing both, because they were really the same thing. They wanted to demonstrate their wealth by being like the upper classes. They could not buy breeding or stature, but they could accumulate wealth and try to resemble their social superiors.

I am sure that, when Blackbeard went to bribe...uh, I mean visit...Governor Eden, he was probably dressed in his best estimation of what a properous gentleman would wear. He probably drank his tea with his pinkie extended and said please and thank you, then went back to his ship for some opium and a whore.

Sort of like politicians today.

[CrazyCholeBlack]

Just added a new book to the collection that pertains to this thread.

The School of Manners or Rules for children's behaviour

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/090520936...2749687-2959366

My complaint is that the images are additions to the printing that aren't from the same period as the text. Otherwise an interesting & quick read that reminds me of how much etiquette has changed (especially for kids). It's also interesting because this is the behaviors that people would have ingrained in them from youth.