Camp Manners

[hanktrent]

Here are some random thoughts.

There's an underlying base of 21st century behavior at any event, so I don't think anyone is going to be genuinely offended (as their 21st century self), unless they'd be offended in a similar modern circumstance, which would be rare. For example, say you're driving a classic convertible and you wave when you pass another person who's also driving a classic convertible. Or any other similar acknowledgement of "hey, we both share the same interest." That's pretty much expected and welcomed in all hobbies.

Since this is at mainstream events, there's not much expectation that you should interact with others based on 19th century viewpoints. In other words, a modern reenactor would classify a top-notch impression of a prostitute equally with a top-notch impression of a minister's wife, because they're both, well, top-notch, and they'd both get a greeting.

In the 19th century, though, a person would most likely treat them differently. A man who tipped his hat and smiled at a woman he guessed was a prostitute, would be conveying something in the 1860s, and he'd be conveying something even more if he immediately tipped his hat and smiled the same way at the minister's wife. In that case, you might get some 19th century offense, though I doubt you'd get 21st century offense.

There are events set up for that kind of subtlety, but I don't think you'll find much of it at mainstream events, where it is about making that connection, "Hey, you like classic convertibles too!"

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[StLouislady]

Oh, dear. Now I don't know that I'd phrase it in, oh, hm, quite that way ... in other words, a gentleman who smiles at a lady is implying that she is a soiled dove? I'd like to make a suggestion here -- shall we put the civil back in civilian, and try to use gentler, and, perhaps, oh, let's call them more appropriate metaphors? We wouldn't want it to be said that the good folks who yearn for authenticity can't be kind, would we?

Being pleasant, polite, friendly, and welcoming is always correct, at least as far as I understand social ... eptitude, for lack of a better word.

In my readings on 19th century society I've often come across situations where folks were welcomed and treated kindly by strangers of either gender; where ladies could ask for assistance of gentlemen they did not know personally, and be perfectly assured that no one would think ill of them; where it was considered a Christian duty to reach a helping hand where it was necessary, regardless of introductions. Tipping a hat and offering a smile at a mainstream reenactment ought never to be construed as anything other than a lovely, warm gesture. Such a gentleman would live high in my estimation.

[hanktrent]

Oh, dear. Now I don't know that I'd phrase it in, oh, hm, quite that way ... in other words, a gentleman who smiles at a lady is implying that she is a soiled dove?

Are you referring to my post above? If so, that's certainly not what I meant. I was giving an example of a specific hypothetical situation, and in that situation, I think what I said holds true. However, I never said it applied to all gentlemen smiling at all women everywhere, nor to mainstream reenactments.

The kind of man who would smile and tip his hat on the street to a woman he believed to be a prostitute is, first of all, not the average 19th century gentleman. If, within sight of that action, he were to do the same thing to a strange woman on the arm of a minister, yes, I think that would make the minister's wife uncomfortable. Honestly, I think it would make a woman uncomfortable even in the non-reenacting 21st century. I know that if we're out on the street in a city in the evening, my wife doesn't like stares or worse yet greetings or catcalls from "those kind of guys," and conversely, it would never occur to me in the 21st century to make eye contact and greet a strange woman on the street who looked like a prostitute, because that would imply something about me that isn't true.

But all that has nothing to do with normal daily social interaction and certainly nothing to do with mainstream reenactor interaction.

We wouldn't want it to be said that the good folks who yearn for authenticity can't be kind, would we?

Well, this gets down to whether we're behaving like 19th century people, or like 21st century people.

Kindness usually means to treat people how they would like to be treated. At mainstream events, it's my understanding that everyone sees it as a festival, an extended family gathering, where everyone is supposed to interact happily and casually, except perhaps for brief scenarios, and the blue and the gray might come together for the big potluck supper or the ball or shop together at the sutlers. So yes, in those situations, it would be unkind to behave any other way.

But does that mean that those who yearn for authenticity are unkind if they set out pickets all night to keep half the reenactors away, search or steal from civilians who stray too close to hostile military lines, or whatever? No, they are in fact "being kind" because they're treating the other reenactors how they want to be treated.

Different mindset, different hobbies, different expectations.

where ladies could ask for assistance of gentlemen they did not know personally, and be perfectly assured that no one would think ill of them; where it was considered a Christian duty to reach a helping hand where it was necessary, regardless of introductions.

Agreed. It's the whole concept of opening doors, giving seats, etc. A woman travelling alone could indeed expect to be protected and assisted by strangers.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[MissMaggie]

I think we also need to keep in mind that prostitues of the 1860's did not dress any differently from the average women of the 1860's. The man might not even know that she was a women of easy virtue as he tipped his hat to her (unless he happens to be a client). A women wearing a respectable day dress with the full compliment of acceptable and fashionable accessories can only be taken for a lady. While women wearing out of fashion or obviously working clothing are not ladies, but probably still women with a respectable if somewhat low status in life. To sum it up a gentleman would tip his hat to someone he percieved as an equal in society and not tip his hat to someone who appeared to be lower than him in society.

[hanktrent]

I think we also need to keep in mind that prostitues of the 1860's did not dress any differently from the average women of the 1860's.

Good point, and yet another example of the subtlety of social clues. I recall an event where period behavior was expected, and a woman I knew in real life was portraying a stranger to me. She was dressed like a normal poor country woman. Though she seemed nervous when we met, she had an odd way of looking me directly in the face and answering my questions in a friendly but circumspect way. She was looking for work, and when I asked what she could do, she said she could clean houses, cook, or "just about anything."

It was such a combination of openness, compliancy, friendliness and wariness, in close proximity to an army camp, with apparently no fixed home, that I finally decided she was not a normal farm wife, and was perhaps a prostitute or a very easy woman. Turned out she was portraying someone who was mentally ill. Her behavior was just enough "off" from the norm that I knew something was up, though I couldn't guess what. It was a superbly subtle portrayal.

But in another reenacting context, where period behavior wasn't assumed, she might have just seemed like a nervous, shy reenactor trying to make new friends in the hobby.

By the way, I was just looking at The Ladies' Book of Etiquette by Florence Hartley, 1860, which we have in reprint, and in the chapter on "Conduct in the Street," the author is quite strict in her rules--moreso, I expect, than most people actually followed in the period. Still, it's interesting. A few examples:

A lady's conduct is never so entirely at the mercy of critics, because never so public, as when she is in the street... every unlady-like action will be marked; and in no position will a dignified, lady-like deportment be more certain to command respect...

If you are ever caught in a shower, and meet a gentleman friend who offers an umbrella, accept it, if he will accompany you to your destination... If a stranger offers you the same services, decline it positively, but courteously, at the same time thanking him...

Loud talknig and laughing in the street are excessively vulgar. Not only this, but they expose a lady to the most severe misconstruction. Let your conduct be modest and quiet...

Be careful not to be alone in the streets after night fall. It exposes you to insult. If you are obliged to go out, have a servant, or another lady, if you cannot procure the escort of a gentleman, which is, of course, the best.
Walk slowly, do not turn your head to the right or left, unless you wish to walk that way, and avoid any gesture or word that will attract attention.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[StLouislady]

Since I don't need the last word and don't have the time to make sure I achieve it (because I have to get back to work in about five minutes) I will leave the privilege to you as always. Please consider this an invitation.

I just want to say a few things about all this. First, the fact that someone objected to the use of the word "prostitute" in connection with mainstream lady reenactors should be evidence enough that someone found your post offensive.

Second, the original poster made it clear that the subject under discussion was manners at a mainstream reenactment. As such I thought the original question was well-taken and important, and deserved a considerate, polite reply. Reaching for the most egregious metaphor was not the way to achieve that. I don't know that any modern gentleman, regardless of his circumstances (reenactment or elsewhere) would enjoy being told that he was treating his lady friends and acquaintances as ... I don't want to keep repeating the offensive word. I don't think your reply was an effort to educate and enlighten; I see it as another way of making life hard for folks who don't reenact the way you do.

I certainly see the validity of your ideas and conduct at your own events; in fact, as you know I attended one and thought it was brilliantly planned and executed. It was one of the most interesting and authentic reenactments I've ever attended. (Just so you know that I'm not questioning your methods.) I'm only saying that it isn't fair or kind to cast such opprobrium on folks who don't reenact the way you do. You yourself are an ambassador for allowing folks to have their own style and do things as they think right. There are better, more helpful, and kinder ways of making your point, that's all I'm saying.

And that's my last point; now back to work for me.

[hanktrent]

Since I don't need the last word and don't have the time to make sure I achieve it (because I have to get back to work in about five minutes) I will leave the privilege to you as always.

Silvana, I know you don't really like me for some reason, and that colors how you read my posts and interpret my behavior.

However, I see it differently. Just when we get a really in-depth conversation going on a good topic, you find some reason to interpret what I say in the most negative way possible, take offense, and withdraw in a huff. I wish our dialogs could continue, because I always find them interesting, but oh well.

If you have the chance, I hope you'll post again.

First, the fact that someone objected to the use of the word "prostitute" in connection with mainstream lady reenactors should be evidence enough that someone found your post offensive.

Who is the someone? Do you mean yourself? I'm not aware that anyone else has taken offense. If they have, I wish they'd post here and tell me about it.

As everyone can see from my post, I never said anything about prostitutes in connection with mainstream reenactors. In fact, I only used that example in connection with two things: the real 19th century, and events where subtle impressions were expected.

I also don't think that any man who smiles at a woman in the real 1860s, or in the 21st century, is treating her as a prostitute either. Just the opposite. I encouraged those who wanted to greet others, and suggested it would be welcome and no offense meant or taken. As I said, "For example, say you're driving a classic convertible and you wave when you pass another person who's also driving a classic convertible. Or any other similar acknowledgement of 'hey, we both share the same interest.' That's pretty much expected and welcomed in all hobbies."

As such I thought the original question was well-taken and important, and deserved a considerate, polite reply.

I agree, which is what I thought we'd been doing.

There are better, more helpful, and kinder ways of making your point, that's all I'm saying.

There are better, more helpful, and kinder ways of continuing an interesting conversation than assuming the worst of others. Oh well.

I still think it's an interesting topic, because I've always found etiquette at mainstream events to be a complex issue, since the social norms require behavior that's neither too period nor too modern, with numerous chances for offense or misinterpretation for those who cross the boundaries either way.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[MissMaggie]

"First, the fact that someone objected to the use of the word "prostitute" in connection with mainstream lady reenactors should be evidence enough that someone found your post offensive."

Umm....I wasn't taking offense at the word prostitute because I thought that Mr, Trent was saying that mainstream reenactors are portraying postitues or were prostitutes. I think Mr. Trent was simply picking two extream cases from real 19th century life and using those to make his point.
I was simply pointing out that your average 19th century guy would never be able to tell the difference between the two if they were both walking down the street so he would not treat them any differently.
Because if you really wanted to get into it....most women who portray postititues at mainstream events walk around in their underwear or do something else to draw attention to themselves (at one event there was a sign outside the tent saying they offered horizontal refreshment).

[Linda Trent]

And here's my particular ignorance........when greeting a lady and "tipping" the hat, is the hat just touched, or should it be completely lifted from the head, and, how far?

From Martine's Handbook & Vulgarisms in Conversation, 1866. Reprinted by R.L. Shep as Civil War Etiquette, 1988.

Never nod to a lady in the street, neither be satisfied with touching your hat, but take it off-- it is a courtesy her sex demands.

From The Ladies' Book of Etiquette, and Manual of Politeness." by Florence Hartley. Boston, 1860. Reprinted by Amazon Vinegar and Pickling Works Drygoods, Ltd., 1993.

Remember that in greeting your gentlemen friends it is your duty to speak first, therefore do not cut them by waiting to be recognized...
You are not expected to recognize any friend on the opposite side of the street. Even if you see them, do not bow.

Another original question:

How should they address the lady? For instance, if it was my wife, would it be appropriate to address her as "Mrs. Stuart" (formal) or the informal "Miss Wanda"? Would it be any different if she was a "laundress" who was in the camp often, or, just an infrequent visitor? How should the other soldiers of our "mess" address her?

A lot of this depends upon how formal the situation is, how close of a friend you're addressing, your rank and status in the camp, who else is within hearing, etc. I would assume that 95% of the time in a camp atmosphere it would be "Mrs. Stuart."

And finally:

Tipping a hat and offering a smile at a mainstream reenactment ought never to be construed as anything other than a lovely, warm gesture.

That's *exactly* what Hank was saying. At mainstream events that's what's expected regardless whether a person is dressed as a prostitute or as the minister's wife, or anything in between. The greeting at a mainstream event is merely a "I like your impression" or a "Hi how ya doin'" kind of greeting regardless one's portrayal. No one assumes that the person tipping the hat is being forward.

Mainstream events no matter what you're portraying you can assume that the treatment that you get from your fellow reenactors is pretty much all 21st century "warmth and love."

Anyway... I agree that it's been an interesting discussion.

Linda.

[hanktrent]

"Never nod to a lady in the street, neither be satisfied with touching your hat, but take it off-- it is a courtesy her sex demands."

Here's a trivia fact I hadn't noticed before. While putting that book back on the shelf for Linda, I was skimming that chapter, and the author apparently felt it was okay for men to just touch their hats when greeting other men, just not ladies.

While walking the street no one should be so absent-minded as to neglect to recognize his [male] friends. If you do not stop, you should always bow, touch your hat, or bid your friend good day.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net