"Jakes", "Privy", "Loo", "Bog"? (as opposed to "Garderobe")

Tamara wrote:

I'm looking up the appropriate fifteenth-century term or terms for a bog that wasn't in a castle (i.e., wasn't a garderobe).

"Jakes" or "jacques" might be a touch too new (the earliest reference I can find is from 1532 and uses the spelling "jacques"). "Privy" might not have acquired the double meaning of "loo" at that time. (As for "loo", it's at least a century too new and came from Scotland, from what I can find. Same with "bog".

Any help with this would be greatly welcomed.

Doug here:

Are you certain about the dating (and origination) of loo? I've always understood it's descended from when the contents of chamberpots were thrown out upper story windows with the warning Guardez l'eau (sp?) and came into use sometime after the Norman Conquest.

Or am I mistaken (again)?

Doug

Doug says:

"Are you certain about the dating (and origination) of 'loo'? I've always understood it's descended from when the contents of chamberpots were thrown out upper story windows with the warning Guardez l'eau (sp?) and came into use sometime after the Norman Conquest.

Or am I mistaken (again)?"

That's what's so frustrating. It's hard to tell as my source for the idea that it came from Scotland is a book by John Pudney called The Smallest Room that tries to take a humorous, yet historically accurate, view of bathrooms and their usages through the ages. ("Tries" being the operative word here. It doesn't always succeed, as I've found.)

Hence my plaintive call for help. (Cleverly disguised as a way to keep some action going in the forum. ;-) )

Tamara


---In , <destama@...> wrote :

Tamara wrote:

I'm looking up the appropriate fifteenth-century term or terms for a bog that wasn't in a castle (i.e., wasn't a garderobe).

"Jakes" or "jacques" might be a touch too new (the earliest reference I can find is from 1532 and uses the spelling "jacques"). "Privy" might not have acquired the double meaning of "loo" at that time. (As for "loo", it's at least a century too new and came from Scotland, from what I can find. Same with "bog".

Any help with this would be greatly welcomed.

Doug here:

Are you certain about the dating (and origination) of loo? I've always understood it's descended from when the contents of chamberpots were thrown out upper story windows with the warning Guardez l'eau (sp?) and came into use sometime after the Norman Conquest.

Or am I mistaken (again)?

Doug

Tamara wrote:

I'm looking up the appropriate fifteenth-century term or terms for a bog that wasn't in a castle (i.e., wasn't a garderobe)."

Carol responds:

Have you tried the OED. which will give you a detailed etymology for all those terms, with dates and examples?

Carol

Thak as, Carol, someone's made that same suggestion. :-)

That reminds me: The name of the legendary Greek personage Ajax was pronounced "a jakes" in Shakespeare's day (and probably also a century earlier), which since Shakespeare wrote Ajax's character to be a buffoon, makes for at least one glorious opportunity for a pun:
itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002352.html

Tamara (who will now get herself to a punnery)

That should be "Thanks". ,:-)

Tamara

You're welcome. BTW, there's something in the current Ricardian (p. 92) about a public privy with 64 seats for men and women (sexes segregated) being called a "long house." The article is a review of a book about communal health in medieval England, short title "Urban Bodies," by Carole Rawcliffe. Both the review and the book might be worth a look if you're researching sanitary conditions or related terminology. Evidently, it presents the medieval English as being more concerned with hygiene and general cleanliness than we generally give them credit for.

Carol

It's a common misconception that the further back you go the dirtier folk got. That's not true at all. Poor hygiene comes from overcrowding (Tudor London) or plain laziness. The dirtiest century by far was the eighteenth century - no toilets at Versailles, think of the fleas in those big wigs. And by the end of that we'd hit general overcrowding again. So Bazalgette apart, you'd probably be impressed by Richard's standards and those of his subjects H (who for her sins used to teach this in another life)
From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 30 June 2015, 0:21
Subject: Re: "Jakes", "Privy", "Loo", "Bog"? (as opposed to "Garderobe")

You're welcome. BTW, there's something in the current Ricardian (p. 92) about a public privy with 64 seats for men and women (sexes segregated) being called a "long house." The article is a review of a book about communal health in medieval England, short title "Urban Bodies," by Carole Rawcliffe. Both the review and the book might be worth a look if you're researching sanitary conditions or related terminology. Evidently, it presents the medieval English as being more concerned with hygiene and general cleanliness than we generally give them credit for.

Carol

As it is, apparently, wrong, to assume that in the past people had bad teeth.
Until sugar was available and a reasonable price, peoples teeth were on the whole very sound.

JessFrom: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []
Sent: 01/07/2015 10:05
To:
Subject: Re: "Jakes", "Privy", "Loo", "Bog"? (asopposed to "Garderobe")

It's a common misconception that the further back you go the dirtier folk got. That's not true at all. Poor hygiene comes from overcrowding (Tudor London) or plain laziness. The dirtiest century by far was the eighteenth century - no toilets at Versailles, think of the fleas in those big wigs. And by the end of that we'd hit general overcrowding again. So Bazalgette apart, you'd probably be impressed by Richard's standards and those of his subjects H (who for her sins used to teach this in another life)
From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 30 June 2015, 0:21
Subject: Re: "Jakes", "Privy", "Loo", "Bog"? (as opposed to "Garderobe")

You're welcome. BTW, there's something in the current Ricardian (p. 92) about a public privy with 64 seats for men and women (sexes segregated) being called a "long house." The article is a review of a book about communal health in medieval England, short title "Urban Bodies," by Carole Rawcliffe. Both the review and the book might be worth a look if you're researching sanitary conditions or related terminology. Evidently, it presents the medieval English as being more concerned with hygiene and general cleanliness than we generally give them credit for.

Carol

Hello, I have seen several manuscripts over the years depicting Medieval people bathing in public baths. They had what we would call bathhouses with very good fascilities and they appear to have been well used. Local authorities also provided clean water through deep underground cisterns cut into rock; for bathing and drinking. Those who could afford it from the fifteenth century, and especially in the sixteenth had conduits bring water into their homes into ensuite fascilities. We may not have had flushing loos but we did have guard robes and in some cases actual loos. There are also references to people falling into streams and being drowned while doing their washing in reports on death; if they were not concerned with washing, why clean their clothes? People wore a special cloth next to the skin that the dirt and sweat went into and they washed it every couple of weeks; they still washed their hands and face; they still bathed the bits we can see; they also cleaned their homes. We know they also scrubbed the buttery and kitchen utensils and buckets and we know that they put them outside to dry in the sun as it acted to protect them from disease. They also knew how to keep the buttery spotless and designed it so it was spotless and germ free. They may not have known what a germ was but they knew what an infection was. At court you were inspected head to toe before being allowed in and dismissed if you had any sign of disease. Regulations exist for increased sanitation during outbreaks of the plague, regulations also existed for the collection of rubbish, the movement of such and the removal of manure and poo from the streets which was then used as fuel. Someone had a job to go every night and pick it up! There are regulations that exist about handling and burial of the dead. People tried to keep as clean as possible just as we do today. They may not have bathed head to toe or had a shower every day as we do; they did not have the luxery of hot running water; but people did wash their hands and face, feet and combed their hair clean. By the way, regulations existed about the bath houses as well; they had to introduce these as bathers were mixed to begin with.
We can go to any era in history and find ways of cleaning parts of the body and areas that we lived in. Some are quite bazzzarre and would not have done a great job but it was better than nothing. One of the strangest is cleaning your teeth with urine in Ancient Rome. Apparantly it worked, but it must have tasted aweful. They also collected urine to clean clothes in because of the amonia. To put it bluntly, you deposited it outside and someone came every day to collect it for the local laundary. You could actually be fined if you did not provide enough samples. Our local councils did not get their ideas out of thin air lol. The Tudors had a sort of tooth paste; you can get something like it today; in balls that you suck in the mouth and then despose of like chewing gum, but these existed as early as the central Middle Ages. All sorts of weird things were used on hair, and of course we have always had knit combs. You tended to comb your hair clean as it was difficult to remove the dirt and oil without damaging it. They may have also have had home made shampoo. Lemon has also been used to clean homes as has whitewash for centuries.
I love finding that we have new evidence that proves that people did not wallow in squalour, they may have lived in poor and primative conditions in parts of the city and the country, they may have had dirt on their doorsteps, may have fought a constant battle to change and keep rushes or floors clean, may have lived with animals and so on or been overcrowded, but they did attempt to keep themselves clean as best they could. This article sounds fascinating/ I must check it out for more information. Thanks

I have always found historical hygiene quite a fascinating topic, and there was certainly more of it is generally believed. Thanks for a really interesting post. Nico





On Monday, 24 August 2015, 2:08, poohlandeva <[email protected]> wrote:


Hello, I have seen several manuscripts over the years depicting Medieval people bathing in public baths. They had what we would call bathhouses with very good fascilities and they appear to have been well used. Local authorities also provided clean water through deep underground cisterns cut into rock; for bathing and drinking. Those who could afford it from the fifteenth century, and especially in the sixteenth had conduits bring water into their homes into ensuite fascilities. We may not have had flushing loos but we did have guard robes and in some cases actual loos. There are also references to people falling into streams and being drowned while doing their washing in reports on death; if they were not concerned with washing, why clean their clothes? People wore a special cloth next to the skin that the dirt and sweat went into and they washed it every couple of weeks; they still washed their hands and face; they still bathed the bits we can see; they also cleaned their homes. We know they also scrubbed the buttery and kitchen utensils and buckets and we know that they put them outside to dry in the sun as it acted to protect them from disease. They also knew how to keep the buttery spotless and designed it so it was spotless and germ free. They may not have known what a germ was but they knew what an infection was. At court you were inspected head to toe before being allowed in and dismissed if you had any sign of disease. Regulations exist for increased sanitation during outbreaks of the plague, regulations also existed for the collection of rubbish, the movement of such and the removal of manure and poo from the streets which was then used as fuel. Someone had a job to go every night and pick it up! There are regulations that exist about handling and burial of the dead. People tried to keep as clean as possible just as we do today. They may not have bathed head to toe or had a shower every day as we do; they did not have the luxery of hot running water; but people did wash their hands and face, feet and combed their hair clean. By the way, regulations existed about the bath houses as well; they had to introduce these as bathers were mixed to begin with.
We can go to any era in history and find ways of cleaning parts of the body and areas that we lived in. Some are quite bazzzarre and would not have done a great job but it was better than nothing. One of the strangest is cleaning your teeth with urine in Ancient Rome. Apparantly it worked, but it must have tasted aweful. They also collected urine to clean clothes in because of the amonia. To put it bluntly, you deposited it outside and someone came every day to collect it for the local laundary. You could actually be fined if you did not provide enough samples. Our local councils did not get their ideas out of thin air lol. The Tudors had a sort of tooth paste; you can get something like it today; in balls that you suck in the mouth and then despose of like chewing gum, but these existed as early as the central Middle Ages. All sorts of weird things were used on hair, and of course we have always had knit combs. You tended to comb your hair clean as it was difficult to remove the dirt and oil without damaging it. They may have also have had home made shampoo. Lemon has also been used to clean homes as has whitewash for centuries.
I love finding that we have new evidence that proves that people did not wallow in squalour, they may have lived in poor and primative conditions in parts of the city and the country, they may have had dirt on their doorsteps, may have fought a constant battle to change and keep rushes or floors clean, may have lived with animals and so on or been overcrowded, but they did attempt to keep themselves clean as best they could. This article sounds fascinating/ I must check it out for more information. Thanks