Bathing and cleanliness in medieval ages
Bill Johnston
ages. More usually, one hears that most people bathed very
infrequently. But I've also heard that that's a myth. What do you
folks think? What kind of actual research is there on this?
William Black
"Bill Johnston" <wacke...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174627979.8...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
1. People who don't bath get sick?
2. Why wouldn't they have a bath?
3. Why are there all those recipies for soap?
4. People who stink rot their clothes. Clothes are expensive items, getting
washed is not expensive. There's no shortage of water in medieval Europe.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea
Uwe Müller
"Bill Johnston" <wacke...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1174627979.8...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Bath houses were a regular feature of medieval towns, and they were used
quite frequently. They supplied cleanliness, food and drink and
entertainment and were equiped with sophisticated technics for heating the
water (firewood was expensive).
At the end of the medieval, due to religious reasoning, bath houses got shut
down, too many violations of the rules about fasting, mixing of the sexes,
etc. It was the age of enlightenement that preferred perfume to cleanliness,
that thought bathing to be bad for your health.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Jack Linthicum
> "Bill Johnston" <wackedd...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:1174627979.8...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Not many people lived in town then, what was the standard for rural
cleanliness?
Paul J Gans
Where full body bathing was difficult because of poverty, washing
hands and face (and other parts of the body) using a basin was
common.
Anybody who doubts this should avoid all washing for a month and see
how they feel.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
sarah...@gmail.com
I think it depends what you mean by infrequently. Well into the 20th
century, bathing was a weekly activity...I consider that infrequent.
My impression is that it also varied quite a bit with the seasons,
which is pretty sensical.
Zebee Johnstone
Depends where and when of course.
I think it was mostly down to who got to haul the water. Running
water's a relatively new invention after all.
According to "Lark Rise to Candleford" a farm labourer's wife would have
a basin bath every day which might not be what someone with unlimited
hot water in a tap might think of as "bathing", but was what I and my
mother thought of as bathing for a year when we had to cart every drop
of water and heat it on a fire.
I dunno how true the "have a bath every Saturday night whether I need
it or not" stereotype is, I expect that a full bath in water might be
weekly but a basin bath might well be daily for those who hauled their
own water. On the other hand, those who had others to do it for them
would bathe more often. Not to mention patronise the public bath - I
know that there were such things in many Australian cities from the early
to mid 1800s, Turkish and "normal".
The Nedlands Baths of my youth were a swimming venue but had showers
to wash off afterwards and they were built in 1907.
Silfren
am...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> "Bill Johnston" <wackedd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1174627979.8...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >I alway hear conflicting things about bathing in the European middle
> > ages. More usually, one hears that most people bathed very
> > infrequently. But I've also heard that that's a myth. What do you
> > folks think? What kind of actual research is there on this?
>
> 1. People who don't bath get sick?
It is anything but obvious that this connection was universally
accepted. At some times and places _bathing_ (not 'washing' in
general) was considered sinful (see, for example, memories of Phillip
de Comnin).
Of course, sometimes it _was_ considered as a medical procedure.
>
> 2. Why wouldn't they have a bath?
>
Because this was not always an easy thing to do. Jean Renoir described
a bathing procedure at the times of his childhood in the rural France
at it was an event on which the neighbours would comment (negatively,
because it would cost a lot to rent a bathtube).
Not that I did notice well-developed bathing utilities in the
Scherlock Holmes Museum. In both cases we are talking about the times
well past Middle Ages.
Bathing facilities in Versallies are almost non-existing: there is a
_single_ bathroom used by Louis XIV (and probably his family).
> 3. Why are there all those recipies for soap?
>
Because people did _wash_ themselves. It was not 'bathing' in most
cases. IIRC, Louis XIV, who prided himself for his cleannes, washed
his hands and face daily.
> 4. People who stink rot their clothes. Clothes are expensive items, getting
> washed is not expensive.
Clothes had been washed (by McWasherwomen) and people who cared about
the smell had been using perfume.
>There's no shortage of water in medieval Europe.
>
The issue is not shortage of the water but availability of the bathing
facilities.
am...@hotmail.com
> "Bill Johnston" <wackedd...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:1174627979.8...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I alway hear conflicting things about bathing in the European middle
> > ages. More usually, one hears that most people bathed very
> > infrequently. But I've also heard that that's a myth. What do you
> > folks think? What kind of actual research is there on this?
>
> Bath houses were a regular feature of medieval towns, and they were used
> quite frequently.
>They supplied cleanliness,
Not necessarily: the old engraving often show the huge wooden
bathtubes used simultaneously by many people. It can be argued that
they were bettter than nothing but it is quite possible that they also
served as an 'exchange pool' of various infections.
[]
> At the end of the medieval, due to religious reasoning, bath houses got shut
> down, too many violations of the rules about fasting, mixing of the sexes,
> etc. It was the age of enlightenement that preferred perfume to cleanliness,
> that thought bathing to be bad for your health.
And for your soul as well. :-)
am...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
IMO, situation with the rural bathing varied from place to place. For
example, in Russia and Scandinavia the bathing houses were a common
place. In the rural Russia peasants quite often had their own 'bania'
and weekly bathing was considered a religious duty. Situation in the
cities could be worse not better.
Brian M. Scott
<news:1174685301.8...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
in soc.history.medieval,rec.org.sca:
> On Mar 23, 3:49 am, "Uwe Müller" <uwemuel...@go4more.de> wrote:
[...]
>> Bath houses were a regular feature of medieval towns, and they were used
>> quite frequently.
>>They supplied cleanliness,
> Not necessarily: the old engraving often show the huge wooden
> bathtubes used simultaneously by many people. It can be argued that
> they were bettter than nothing but it is quite possible that they also
> served as an 'exchange pool' of various infections.
That's a separate issue: even if they also served to
transmit disease, they still supplied cleanliness in the
everyday sense of the word.
[...]
Brian
JJS
am...@hotmail.com wrote:
From History of Russian Bath
³Going to bania is a very old Russian custom. From medieval times it
was popularly seen as a national institution, and not to bathe in one
at least three times a week was practically taken as a proof of foreign
origins.
Most villagers in Russia had a bathhouse, usually some way off from
the rest of the houses in the village, where possible near water. The
bathhouse had its own resident sprite, the bannik, the most hostile of
the Russian domestic goblins, and was not a place to visit alone. The
bannik was envisaged as a naked dwarf or a little old man. The proper
time for people to use it was the five or seven hours before the midday.
Only three or two bathing sessions were safe, after that it was Devil's
turn and no peasant would go in after the third session or after the
sundown. A site of former bathhouse was considered to be unclean, even
evil and new houses were not built there.²
Seems strange that the bathhouse had a hostile goblin and was considered
so unsafe but was still used as often as it was.
Joe
am...@hotmail.com
> In article <1174685546.692024.269...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
IIRC, a 'normal' bathtime was before holyday's midday church service
so that people would go to the church clean.
> Only three or two bathing sessions were safe, after that it was Devil's
> turn and no peasant would go in after the third session or after the
> sundown. A site of former bathhouse was considered to be unclean, even
> evil and new houses were not built there.²
>
> Seems strange that the bathhouse had a hostile goblin and was considered
> so unsafe but was still used as often as it was.
>
> Joe- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, every house had its own goblin, domovoy, who also was not a very
pleasant creature and could even arrange for a slow death of an
offending or simply disrespectful person. However, people lived in the
houses 24x7. AFAIK, most if not all creatures of the Russian folklore
were, to the various degrees, unpleasant and dangerous: rusalka
(mermaid) in the river, leshii and baba-yaga in the forest, kikimora
in the swamp, etc. People had been afraid of them but had to live
somehow. :-)
Julian Richards
wrote:
Middle Ages. In general, from the end of the Roman Empire to about the
Battle of Bosworth Field. That's knocking at the door of a thousand
years. The late medievals are closer to us in time than they are to
the early medievals. Over that large slice of history, it seems that
bathing went in and out of fashion. The renaiisance people, just after
the medieval period seems to be rather adverse to bathing. King John
was accused of a perverted Arab practice, regular bathing. Yet at many
points in this time it seems that bathing was rather more common.
There were certain class distinctions. The poor might cover their
skins in goose fat to keep warm over the winter, so there was little
chance of bathing until the spring. The rich could make other
arrangements.
--
Julian Richards
www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"
THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL
am...@hotmail.com
> On 23 Mar 2007 14:28:22 -0700, <a...@hotmail.com> wrote in
In the terms of getting rid of a dirt, definitely.
Mark S. Harris
Julian Richards <jul...@spam-me-not.co.uk> wrote:
> On 22 Mar 2007 22:32:59 -0700, "Bill Johnston" <wacke...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
<snip>
> There were certain class distinctions. The poor might cover their
> skins in goose fat to keep warm over the winter, so there was little
> chance of bathing until the spring. The rich could make other
> arrangements.
> --
This is the first I've heard of this.
Can someone give me more details such as references or more specifics
such as time and place that this was done?
Thanks,
Stefan
--
THLord Stefan li Rous Barony of Bryn Gwlad Kingdom of Ansteorra
Mark S. Harris Austin, Texas Stefan...@austin.rr.com
**** See Stefan's Florilegium files at: http://www.florilegium.org ****
Mark S. Harris
"Bill Johnston" <wacke...@yahoo.com> wrote:
It is conflicting in part because a blanket statement about a thousand
years and covering such a large geographic areas is likely to have many
exceptions, no matter what you say.
Here are a few files in the PERSONAL CARE section of the Florilegium
which might be of use to you.
bathing-msg (21K) 2/14/00 Bathing and cleanliness in the
Middle Ages.
Hist-of-Soap-art (9K) 8/31/04 "What no Soap?" by Lord Xaviar the
Eccentric.
p-hygiene-msg (37K) 6/26/04 Period bathing, hygiene, menstrual
care.
Roman-hygiene-msg (15K) 8/30/00 Hygiene of the Romans.
soap-msg (43K) 6/26/04 Period soap and soapmaking.
Tubd-a-Scrubd-art (10K) 3/ 2/02 "Tubbed and Scrubbed"
by Master Giles de Laval.
William Black
<sarah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174671991.5...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 23, 1:32 am, "Bill Johnston" <wackedd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I alway hear conflicting things about bathing in the European middle
>> ages. More usually, one hears that most people bathed very
>> infrequently. But I've also heard that that's a myth. What do you
>> folks think? What kind of actual research is there on this?
>
> I think it depends what you mean by infrequently. Well into the 20th
> century, bathing was a weekly activity...
Only in temperaste climates.
Try living in the tropics without air conditioning and only getting fully
washed once a week.
Julian Richards
<stefan...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>In article <j6t8031qt083bf1jr...@4ax.com>,
> Julian Richards <jul...@spam-me-not.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 22 Mar 2007 22:32:59 -0700, "Bill Johnston" <wacke...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
><snip>
>> There were certain class distinctions. The poor might cover their
>> skins in goose fat to keep warm over the winter, so there was little
>> chance of bathing until the spring. The rich could make other
>> arrangements.
>> --
>This is the first I've heard of this.
>
>Can someone give me more details such as references or more specifics
>such as time and place that this was done?
I got this from the displays at Montfichet Castle which are not always
wholly accurate. I could stand to be corrected on this. If true, it
would place it as early medieval.
Peter Jason
subject related (I suppose) to the "Roman de
la Rose" thing, and pictures a curious mix of
fashion and bathing.
Of course I've forgotten the name of it.
Anyway, the people present are dressed in the
fashion of about 1470 with tall hats and
voluminous dresses, all affecting
aristocratic poses. To the left of the
picture is a room containing solely a tub of
water in which a fully-dressed lady is
immersed, and she just sits there.
To the right of the picture, in the next
room, a young man gazes at this lady through
a hole in a wall, and this peeping-tom
pervert is indecently dressed in hose too
tight to be believed. Further to the
right in the picture are various people
coming & going, talking to each other and
probably arranging assignations.
One wonders if bath houses doubled as fetish
brothels in the middle ages! Please let me
know if you discover more about this.
"Mark S. Harris" <stefan...@austin.rr.com>
wrote in message
news:stefanlirous-295E...@news-server.austin.rr.com...
Steve Mesnick
No hard documentation from me, but I suspect the answer lies in
a definition of "bathe" as "immerse body in large quantity of water
prepared for that purpose". Certainly medieval people *washed*,
but I imagine it was more usually what we'd call a "sponge bath"
such a convalescent might get in a hospital.
Steffan ap Kennydd
am...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> <sarahlb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1174671991.5...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Mar 23, 1:32 am, "Bill Johnston" <wackedd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> I alway hear conflicting things about bathing in the European middle
> >> ages. More usually, one hears that most people bathed very
> >> infrequently. But I've also heard that that's a myth. What do you
> >> folks think? What kind of actual research is there on this?
>
> > I think it depends what you mean by infrequently. Well into the 20th
> > century, bathing was a weekly activity...
>
> Only in temperaste climates.
>
> Try living in the tropics without air conditioning and only getting fully
> washed once a week.
Like most of the natives of sub-Sakhartian Africa? :-)
William Black
<am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174841611....@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 24, 2:46 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> <sarahlb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> Try living in the tropics without air conditioning and only getting fully
>> washed once a week.
>
> Like most of the natives of sub-Sakhartian Africa? :-)
>
My experience is that people in tropical climates wash daily or die.
Everyone still stinks.
am...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> <a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1174841611....@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Mar 24, 2:46 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> <sarahlb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> Try living in the tropics without air conditioning and only getting fully
> >> washed once a week.
>
> > Like most of the natives of sub-Sakhartian Africa? :-)
>
> My experience is that people in tropical climates wash daily or die.
>
William Black
<am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174912752.2...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 25, 12:57 pm, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk>
>> My experience is that people in tropical climates wash daily or die.
>>
> Hardly realistic if there is not enough water around.
>
Define 'enough' in this case please.
JJS
am...@hotmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure if I'm remembering correctly but wasn't the domovoy
a goblin that the family could call on for help and was considered
at least benign, admittedly with a mischievous streak, until the advent
of Christianity when it became an evil creature?
>However, people lived in the
> houses 24x7. AFAIK, most if not all creatures of the Russian folklore
> were, to the various degrees, unpleasant and dangerous: rusalka
> (mermaid) in the river, leshii and baba-yaga in the forest, kikimora
> in the swamp, etc. People had been afraid of them but had to live
> somehow. :-)
Baba-yaga is one of my favorites.8^)
Joe
Jack Linthicum
> In article <1174697670.734906.220...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
and the house with the chicken legs. I liked Sadko, and his gusli.
Jack Linthicum
> In article <1174697670.734906.220...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
For domovoi (household spirit) and his replacement
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/d/domovoi.html
Goedjn
wrote:
>I alway hear conflicting things about bathing in the European middle
>ages. More usually, one hears that most people bathed very
>infrequently. But I've also heard that that's a myth. What do you
>folks think? What kind of actual research is there on this?
You'll need to define what you mean by
"Bath", "Middle ages", and "Europe".
And quite possibly what you mean by "people".
Climbing into a tub full of heated water
isn't the only way to get (reasonably) clean,
it's just the most expensive.
Goedjn
<stefan...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>In article <j6t8031qt083bf1jr...@4ax.com>,
> Julian Richards <jul...@spam-me-not.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 22 Mar 2007 22:32:59 -0700, "Bill Johnston" <wacke...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
><snip>
>> There were certain class distinctions. The poor might cover their
>> skins in goose fat to keep warm over the winter, so there was little
>> chance of bathing until the spring. The rich could make other
>> arrangements.
>> --
>This is the first I've heard of this.
>
>Can someone give me more details such as references or more specifics
>such as time and place that this was done?
>
Although this isn't anywhere near by area of expertise,
My understanding was that fat/grease isn't really helpful
unless it's REALLY cold. AS in winter on the north atlantic,
or north-pole-expedition cold. And that its more about
keeping exposed skin from coming apart than about staying warm,
anyway.
According to the US Army, getting slime in/on your clothing
in cold weather just makes the clothes stop working,
so I wouldn't expect an all-over body greasing.
JJS
Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Neither here nor there but one of my favorite Russian operas is
Sadko by Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov.
Joe
Paul J Gans
That's true. Actual immersive bathing depended on many
things, including in winter being able to afford a large
amount of wood for heating water -- and the pot to heat
it in.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
am...@hotmail.com
These definitions will work fine only if we exclude the 'Northern
experience' with the various types of the steam baths (wet and dry
steam) which did not require anything like a bathtube.
In some cases a 'cooling process' would include jumping into a nearby
lake or river (summer or winter, does not matter) or just into a snow
but, short of the modern times, an indoor pool was not a part of a
bathing installation.
These types of washing are, strictly speaking, neither 'immersive' nor
'sponging'.
am...@hotmail.com
> In article <1174939921.229347.320...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, "Jack
Well, only a very limited number (of a very top rank) of 'nechistaya
sila' in this opera. :-)
There was a very funny poem by A.K.Tolstoy on the subject of Sadko's
visit of the underwater kingdom: Sadko explains in some details why
Underwater Tsar's offer of one of his daughters in marriage is not
attractive in the practical terms and Tsar explains why Sadko deserves
to become a member of his Privy Council ("I noticed long ago that you
are unreasonable, ignorant, and plain stupid. You deserve to be a
member of my Duma and I'll immediately give you a rank of a Water
Counselor!"). :-)
Steve Mesnick
> Actual immersive bathing depended on many
> things, including in winter being able to afford a large
> amount of wood for heating water -- and the pot to heat
> it in.
And what's more, popular preconceived notions regarding "primitive"
vs. "civilized" are undoubtedly wrong as well. I understand that period
sources describe the obsessive cleanliness of the Vikings (which I imagine
has to be connected somehow with Scandinavian sauna traditions) while
there are stories of people in "civilized" cultures who were considered holy
because they truly never *did* wash, ever (eeewww).
Steffan
Vlad the Emailer
"Peter Jason" <p...@jostle.com> wrote in message
news:eu4a8b$qjd$1...@otis.netspace.net.au...
> These's a wonder medieval painting on this
> subject related (I suppose) to the "Roman de
> la Rose" thing, and pictures a curious mix of
> fashion and bathing.
>
> Of course I've forgotten the name of it.
>
> Anyway, the people present are dressed in the
> fashion of about 1470 with tall hats and
> voluminous dresses, all affecting
> aristocratic poses. To the left of the
> picture is a room containing solely a tub of
> water in which a fully-dressed lady is
> immersed, and she just sits there.
>
> To the right of the picture, in the next
> room, a young man gazes at this lady through
> a hole in a wall, and this peeping-tom
> pervert is indecently dressed in hose too
> tight to be believed. Further to the
> right in the picture are various people
> coming & going, talking to each other and
> probably arranging assignations.
>
> One wonders if bath houses doubled as fetish
> brothels in the middle ages! Please let me
> know if you discover more about this.
Always have done, and will probably always do...
I have an old JPEG woodcut somewhere with a medieval couple in 'the bath'
... an outside affair, both starkers, accompanied by minstrels and
entertainers etc, and the usual sumptuous feast. Both with goblets in hand
(ahem). Quite shameless...
Withotu H&C running water and CH I imagine bathing was an inconvenient,
expensive and time consuming luxury... perhaps a way of 'showing off' one's
status? Washing was another matter, and I can imagine lowly agricultural
workers in rural areas were somewhat reluctant to crack the ice on that
bucket of murky well water in midwinter, to deluge their nethers with? Even
so, it seems that people were generally far cleaner in medieval times than
they were later... the Tudors seemed less keen on the idea of personal
hygeine, and the Stuarts abandoned it altogether.
David Cameron Staples
Whereas ibn Rashid was scathing of the *filthy* habits of the Vikings he
met. Specifically, their habit of using one bowl of water in the morning,
with which each would take a sip, scrub his face and blow his nose into
it, then pass it on for the next guy to do similar.
See _The Thirteenth Warrior_ for what this looks like.
--
David Cameron Staples | staples AT cs DOT mu DOT oz DOT au
Melbourne University | Computer Science | Technical Services
Is someone here not having a good time?
David Friedman
David Cameron Staples <sta...@cs.mu.oz.au.SPAM> wrote:
> Whereas ibn Rashid was scathing of the *filthy* habits of the Vikings he
> met. Specifically, their habit of using one bowl of water in the morning,
> with which each would take a sip, scrub his face and blow his nose into
> it, then pass it on for the next guy to do similar.
>
> See _The Thirteenth Warrior_ for what this looks like.
Do you mean Ibn Fadlan?
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
David Cameron Staples
> In article <4609...@news.unimelb.edu.au>,
> David Cameron Staples <sta...@cs.mu.oz.au.SPAM> wrote:
>
>
>> Whereas ibn Rashid was scathing of the *filthy* habits of the Vikings he
>> met. Specifically, their habit of using one bowl of water in the morning,
>> with which each would take a sip, scrub his face and blow his nose into
>> it, then pass it on for the next guy to do similar.
>>
>> See _The Thirteenth Warrior_ for what this looks like.
>
> Do you mean Ibn Fadlan?
>
Ahmad ibn Fadlān ibn al-Abbās ibn Rašīd ibn Hammād...
...
<very quietly> yes </>
--
David Cameron Staples | staples AT cs DOT mu DOT oz DOT au
Melbourne University | Computer Science | Technical Services
LITTLE GOLDEN BOOKS THAT NEVER MADE IT:
1. You Are Different and That's Bad
Steve Mesnick
> Whereas ibn [Fadlan] was scathing of the *filthy* habits of the Vikings he
> met. Specifically, their habit of using one bowl of water in the morning,
> with which each would take a sip, scrub his face and blow his nose into
> it, then pass it on for the next guy to do similar.
>
> See _The Thirteenth Warrior_ for what this looks like.
Well, okay. Ibn Fadlan wasn't the most reliable of historians (in an age
of not-very-reliable
historians) and almost certainly exaggerated: he was writing from his
own meticulous culture's
perspective, and was clearly shocked -- *shocked* I tell you! -- by the
Vikings'
lack of culture by his own lights. But the point is that the Vikings
*did* wash at all.
Compare Giraldus Cambrensis's not-very-complimentary descriptions of the
Irish.
And I hardly count Crichton as a reliable source either %^).
Samuel ben Isaac of Sarkel
(a wholly-owned subsidiary of Steffan ap Kennydd)
David Cameron Staples
>> Whereas ibn [Fadlan] was scathing of the *filthy* habits of the Vikings he
>> met. Specifically, their habit of using one bowl of water in the morning,
>> with which each would take a sip, scrub his face and blow his nose into
>> it, then pass it on for the next guy to do similar.
>>
>> See _The Thirteenth Warrior_ for what this looks like.
>
> Well, okay. Ibn Fadlan wasn't the most reliable of historians (in an age
> of not-very-reliable
> historians) and almost certainly exaggerated: he was writing from his
> own meticulous culture's
> perspective, and was clearly shocked -- *shocked* I tell you! -- by the
> Vikings'
> lack of culture by his own lights. But the point is that the Vikings
> *did* wash at all.
He did also recount how the Rusiyyah turned around and castigated *him* for
*his* culture's barbarity. Putting the people you love in the _ground_ when
they die? To rot? What a disgrace! What disrespect!
> Compare Giraldus Cambrensis's not-very-complimentary descriptions of the
> Irish.
>
> And I hardly count Crichton as a reliable source either %^).
Um, no. Most definitely he is not. But I went and checked against
http://www.uib.no/jais/v003/montgo1.pdf as well. It's not like I took his
word *alone*.
--
David Cameron Staples | staples AT cs DOT mu DOT oz DOT au
Melbourne University | Computer Science | Technical Services
I cut my tongue shaving -- bash.org/?400
David Friedman
Steve Mesnick <ste...@pobox.com> wrote:
As best I remember, the beginning and end of _Eaters of the Dead_ is
actual ibn Fadlan, the middle is entirely Crichton. The passage being
referred to can be found at:
http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/ibn_fdln.shtml#Risala
which isn't Crichton.
erilar
David Cameron Staples <sta...@cs.mu.oz.au.SPAM> wrote:
> in Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:22:07 -0400, Steve Mesnick in hic locum scripsit:
>
> >> Actual immersive bathing depended on many things, including in winter
> >> being able to afford a large amount of wood for heating water -- and
> >> the pot to heat it in.
> >
> > And what's more, popular preconceived notions regarding "primitive" vs.
> > "civilized" are undoubtedly wrong as well. I understand that period
> > sources describe the obsessive cleanliness of the Vikings (which I
> > imagine has to be connected somehow with Scandinavian sauna traditions)
> > while there are stories of people in "civilized" cultures who were
> > considered holy because they truly never *did* wash, ever (eeewww).
>
> Whereas ibn Rashid was scathing of the *filthy* habits of the Vikings he
> met. Specifically, their habit of using one bowl of water in the morning,
> with which each would take a sip, scrub his face and blow his nose into
> it, then pass it on for the next guy to do similar.
>
> See _The Thirteenth Warrior_ for what this looks like.
You're using a movie based on a novel by a so-so author whose period
research is shallow to begin with as authoritative? After reading
_Timeline_ my opinion of his "research" went straight down.
--
Mary, biblioholic
bib-li-o-hol-ism : the habitual longing to purchase, read, store,
admire, and consume books in excess.
Christophe Bachmann
> "Peter Jason" <p...@jostle.com> wrote in message
> news:eu4a8b$qjd$1...@otis.netspace.net.au...
>> These's a wonder medieval painting on this
>> subject related (I suppose) to the "Roman de
>> la Rose" thing, and pictures a curious mix of
>> fashion and bathing.
>>
>> Of course I've forgotten the name of it.
>>
>>
>> brothels in the middle ages! Please let me
>> know if you discover more about this.
>
> Always have done, and will probably always do...
>
> I have an old JPEG woodcut somewhere with a medieval couple in 'the bath'
> entertainers etc, and the usual sumptuous feast. Both with goblets in hand
> (ahem). Quite shameless...
>
> Withotu H&C running water and CH I imagine bathing was an inconvenient,
> expensive and time consuming luxury... perhaps a way of 'showing off' one's
> status? Washing was another matter, and I can imagine lowly agricultural
> workers in rural areas were somewhat reluctant to crack the ice on that
> bucket of murky well water in midwinter, to deluge their nethers with? Even
> so, it seems that people were generally far cleaner in medieval times than
> they were later... the Tudors seemed less keen on the idea of personal
> hygeine, and the Stuarts abandoned it altogether.
>
>
water for a few years I can tell you that it usually is completely
clean, except after very hefty rains that let surface runoffs pollute
the wells. After all, Evian water and Perrier are well-waters. ;-)
As for cracking the ice, it is not so frequent when you bring in the
water to the stable before nightfall so the beasts keep it above
freezing in all but the harshest days, even at 1000 m altitude in the
alps.
Now even without the added work of breaking ice, a full bath isn't
something to contemplate lightly because of all the wood burnt to heat
water, and all the water to haul from the well. Sponge baths are far
less of a hassle, at least until spring lets one run to the nearest
brook for a good bath. :-)
--
Greetings, Salutations,
Guiraud Belissen, Chāteau du Ciel, Drachenwald,
Chris CII, Rennes, France
Peter Jason
"Christophe Bachmann"
<Chri...@Compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:460aa417$0$27391$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
In the old days on my Godmother's farm, way
off in the wilderness, they had a small "chip
heater" which was about the size of a small
beer barrel.
It burned chips of wood (which gave a rapid
intense flame) below a winding iron coil
through which river water was pumped.
This gadget had no trouble filling a
good-sized bath with hot water.
Of course, chopping the wood to get the
"chips" was a *real* bitch of a job, and this
was the boys' task.
The Medievals must have had a similar device
if they woke up to the secret of burning the
fast-burning chips, which gave hot water on
demand.
David Cameron Staples
> In article <4609...@news.unimelb.edu.au>,
> David Cameron Staples <sta...@cs.mu.oz.au.SPAM> wrote:
>
>> in Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:22:07 -0400, Steve Mesnick in hic locum scripsit:
>>
>> >> Actual immersive bathing depended on many things, including in winter
>> >> being able to afford a large amount of wood for heating water -- and
>> >> the pot to heat it in.
>> >
>> > And what's more, popular preconceived notions regarding "primitive" vs.
>> > "civilized" are undoubtedly wrong as well. I understand that period
>> > sources describe the obsessive cleanliness of the Vikings (which I
>> > imagine has to be connected somehow with Scandinavian sauna traditions)
>> > while there are stories of people in "civilized" cultures who were
>> > considered holy because they truly never *did* wash, ever (eeewww).
>>
>> Whereas ibn Rashid was scathing of the *filthy* habits of the Vikings he
>> met. Specifically, their habit of using one bowl of water in the morning,
>> with which each would take a sip, scrub his face and blow his nose into
>> it, then pass it on for the next guy to do similar.
>>
>> See _The Thirteenth Warrior_ for what this looks like.
>
> You're using a movie based on a novel by a so-so author whose period
> research is shallow to begin with as authoritative? After reading
> _Timeline_ my opinion of his "research" went straight down.
>
No, I'm using the English translation of the report of the Arabic
ambassador who was there as authoritative, as far as anything can be, and
the movie based on the book based (loosely) on the report as an
illustration of the point being made, being more accessible to many, and
certainly more visceral.
--
David Cameron Staples | staples AT cs DOT mu DOT oz DOT au
Melbourne University | Computer Science | Technical Services
What's ADD stand for? Attention Deficit LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
-- bash.org/?22094
Bill Johnston
Hmm, so...
1. If you're not well-to-do, the effort needed to fill a bathtub from
the well, and the firewood needed to heat it, are probably excessive.
2. Washing oneself out of a basin, OTOH, seems quite practical and
not very much trouble.
3. Its probably just as good as bath, hygiene-wise, and probably
better than a public bath sharing water with other people.
So common sense would indicate that this is the most likely practice
for medieval commoners- at least during the warmer months (the risk of
catching a chill being too high during the colder months).
The question is, is that what they did? Do we have a way of knowing?
I imagine we might have a great deal of information on upper-class
practices (paintings of bathers, at least), but not much on what the
peasants and co. did...
D. Spencer Hines
Truly Clean -- as would be the case with an immersion bath in clean water --
or a shower.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Eugene Griessel
>Bathing from a basin with a sponge is obviously not as good a way to get
>Truly Clean -- as would be the case with an immersion bath in clean water --
>or a shower.
A truly fascinating subject to us folk here on sci.military.naval.
Other than the vague idea that water might be involved there is
absolutely nothing here of interest to anybody on this NG.
The sooner something horrible happens to Pogue Hines the better .....
Eugene L Griessel
The cruelest fiction ever put forward is that every person matters.
Chances are, you don't. -- Alex Beam
Newsgroups
news:%AKOh.1$fz1...@eagle.america.net...
> Bathing from a basin with a sponge is obviously not as good a way to get
> Truly Clean -- as would be the case with an immersion bath in clean
water --
> or a shower.
In the Medieval period bathing was simply not attractive, because there was
no practical way to take a hot bath. The climate in Europe is such that for
much of the year a cold bath would be a very unpleasant, perhaps even life
threatening, experience. People could wash in cold water in any weather
because the mass of water involved was not enough to significantly lower
their body temperature.
It is not correct to think that simply because people did not bathe, they
were necessarily dirty and/or evil smelling. It is possible to be reasonably
cleanly without ever taking a bath. Louis XIV never took a bath in his life,
with the possible exception of baptism. But he changed clothes several times
a day, and was wiped with perfumed cloths and lotions which kept his body
reasonably clean.
It was not until the 1700s that (a few) people began to take hot baths on a
regular basis. Of course there were always hot springs, and the Roman baths
at Bath and some continental spas were among a few examples of surviving
European public bathing.
Dave Welsh
dwel...@cox.net
Eugene Griessel
>In the Medieval period bathing was simply not attractive, because there was
>no practical way to take a hot bath. The climate in Europe is such that for
>much of the year a cold bath would be a very unpleasant, perhaps even life
>threatening, experience. People could wash in cold water in any weather
>because the mass of water involved was not enough to significantly lower
>their body temperature.
>
>It is not correct to think that simply because people did not bathe, they
>were necessarily dirty and/or evil smelling. It is possible to be reasonably
>cleanly without ever taking a bath. Louis XIV never took a bath in his life,
>with the possible exception of baptism. But he changed clothes several times
>a day, and was wiped with perfumed cloths and lotions which kept his body
>reasonably clean.
>
>It was not until the 1700s that (a few) people began to take hot baths on a
>regular basis. Of course there were always hot springs, and the Roman baths
>at Bath and some continental spas were among a few examples of surviving
>European public bathing.
Until about 1600 public bathhouses were both numerous and well
patronised. However constant pressure by the church because of the
"immoralities" fostered there (they used to be a popular haunt for
prostitutes) finally saw the end of most of them on "medical grounds".
A very brief precis here:
http://www.gallowglass.org/jadwiga/herbs/baths.html
however there are scholarly tomes which are more extensive.
Eugene L Griessel
Looking for a helping hand? There's one on your arm.
Neli the Harmless
the Dead_ is an actual historical document. In fact, when I first
read that book, about two pages into it, I stopped and said "Wait a
second, I remember reading this in one of my history classes!"
The problem with the document is that we moderns cannot be sure how
much its (real, historical) author exaggerated for effect.
-Neli (the Harmless)
Paul J Gans
>Hmm, so...
In town, there was likely no problem as many towns had baths.
Among the nobility there was likely no problem as they could afford
to heat the water in winter.
If we divide the peasantry into the usual three classes, the rich
peasant (who often had servants) could afford to bathe in winter.
The poorest peasants almost certainly could not afford the firewood.
Nor could they afford the pot or cauldron needed for the heating.
What we know of hovels, information that we have literally dug up,
shows that pots were few and furniture almost lacking.
The largest group of peasants would have been those in the "middle
class". Their ability to bathe in winter would depend on the year.
By the start of the 14th century, if not earlier, firewood was very
scarce and expensive. In the 10th, this was likely not a problem.
I fully agree with your assessement as to washing. I've washed in
a bowl of cold water and I imagine that many who have gone camping
have done the same. It isn't fun, but is still much better than not
washing at all.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Bathing from a basin with a sponge is obviously not as good a way to get
>>Truly Clean -- as would be the case with an immersion bath in clean water --
>>or a shower.
>A truly fascinating subject to us folk here on sci.military.naval.
>Other than the vague idea that water might be involved there is
>absolutely nothing here of interest to anybody on this NG.
>The sooner something horrible happens to Pogue Hines the better .....
Hey, he's yours by profession. A constant reminder that no service is
perfect.
wrecked 'em
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 07:21:10 GMT, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene
Griessel) wrote:
>"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Bathing from a basin with a sponge is obviously not as good a way to get
>>Truly Clean -- as would be the case with an immersion bath in clean water --
>>or a shower.
>
>A truly fascinating subject to us folk here on sci.military.naval.
>Other than the vague idea that water might be involved there is
>absolutely nothing here of interest to anybody on this NG.
>
>The sooner something horrible happens to Pogue Hines the better .....
It has already happened.
Here are the rules for cross-posting:
*******************************************************
BEGIN QUOTE
1. As a general rule, only send your post to one newsgroup. Pick
that one carefully according to the criterion of relevance, content,
readership and the discrete subject matter of your specific post. It
is virtually always a mistake to post to eight or ten newsgroups, as
some spammers are wont to do.
2. However, if your post genuinely crosses over lines of separation
between categories --- and after you have carefully considered your
logic --- post with confidence. Generally, this should be a
relatively infrequent occurrence. Posting to more than three
newsgroups simultaneously would almost always be a bad show and
charges of spamming will be thrown at you.
3. Followups can be set to one group, if desired. If the content of
a subsequent post in the thread does not justify multiple posting ---
cut the followups accordingly to include only the relevant groups.
4. If you cut groups off the distribution of the followups --- tell
your audience clearly in your first paragraph what you are doing.
People are not mind-readers and will not know what you are up to
unless you tell them.
5. Following these quite simple guidelines will ensure you that you
reach the audience you desire and do not cast your net too widely.
END QUOTE
*******************************************************
You won't believe it, but those sensible rules were posted nine years
ago by DSH himself (http://tinyurl.com/2o4yra), evidently before the
brain injury occurred.
am...@hotmail.com
> In article <4609b...@news.unimelb.edu.au>,
> David Cameron Staples <stap...@cs.mu.oz.au.SPAM> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > in Tue, 27 Mar 2007 17:22:07 -0400, Steve Mesnick in hic locum scripsit:
>
> > >> Actual immersive bathing depended on many things, including in winter
> > >> being able to afford a large amount of wood for heating water -- and
> > >> the pot to heat it in.
>
> > > And what's more, popular preconceived notions regarding "primitive" vs.
> > > "civilized" are undoubtedly wrong as well. I understand that period
> > > sources describe the obsessive cleanliness of the Vikings (which I
> > > imagine has to be connected somehow with Scandinavian sauna traditions)
> > > while there are stories of people in "civilized" cultures who were
> > > considered holy because they truly never *did* wash, ever (eeewww).
>
> > Whereas ibn Rashid was scathing of the *filthy* habits of the Vikings he
> > met. Specifically, their habit of using one bowl of water in the morning,
> > with which each would take a sip, scrub his face and blow his nose into
> > it, then pass it on for the next guy to do similar.
>
> > See _The Thirteenth Warrior_ for what this looks like.
>
> You're using a movie based on a novel by a so-so author whose period
> research is shallow to begin with as authoritative?
Well, if he _did_ a thorough research, he would be burdened by the
weight of the other people's (often wrong) opinions and the
questionable 'facts' presented in so-called 'original sources'. As it
was proved over the years of the SHM discussions, in most cases
authors of these sources were not present at the event (as the guy who
reported on 'swimming in a full armour' contest) or were pathological
liars (as in the cases when local _eyewitness_ reported a complete
annihilation of a population by the <insert your favorite> invaders)
or simply did not have a clue what they are blabling about. As our
dear Herr Professor correctly noticed, there are no facts whatsoever
(including fact of his own existence or at least a fact of him being a
human being and not a small green orc). So it is much better to know
close to nothing on a subject you are writing about: the results can
be really enjoyable. Ditto for using these results as an
argument. :-)
>After reading
> _Timeline_ my opinion of his "research" went straight down.
Mary, you are on a dangerous slope. If you doubt 'The 13nth
Moron' (especially the part with a poisonous fingernail), the next
thing I know you'll start doubting authenticity of the
'Braveheart' (which established beyond any reasonable doubt an all
important historical fact that Mel Wallace had a hairy ass) and going
further down this slippery slope end up with expressing doubts in the
facts presented in the 'Chroinicles of the BT' and 'The Most Modern
View on the Middle Ages and Stuff". I sincerely hope that you'll not
go THAT far!
:-)
Jack Linthicum
> (Spelling and capitalization in the subject line corrected)
>
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 07:21:10 GMT, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene
>
> Griessel) wrote:
I am making a copy of that and making it the first post in response
to Hines' multiple posting tic.
Soren Larsen
And the price of firewood depended on where you lived.
Probably not an accident that Scandinavia and Russia had sauna
and washing traditions even in the countryside.
The Scandinavian word for saturday 'lørdag' translates as 'washing-day'.
It included both persons and clothes.
In Denmark the forest had became few and far between at the start of the
early modern period though.
So here we adjusted to the filthy west europeans customs from then on.
Soren Larsen
--
History is not what it used to be.
Uwe Müller
"Newsgroups" <dwel...@cox.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:f2MOh.85592$115....@newsfe10.phx...
> "D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%AKOh.1$fz1...@eagle.america.net...
> > Bathing from a basin with a sponge is obviously not as good a way to get
> > Truly Clean -- as would be the case with an immersion bath in clean
> water --
> > or a shower.
>
> In the Medieval period bathing was simply not attractive, because there
was
> no practical way to take a hot bath. The climate in Europe is such that
for
> much of the year a cold bath would be a very unpleasant, perhaps even life
> threatening, experience. People could wash in cold water in any weather
> because the mass of water involved was not enough to significantly lower
> their body temperature.
Over here, north eastern Germany, there are plenty of people doing their
daily swim in the open. Even through the winter.
Since cattle was the most widely kept animal, water was a central topic for
any settlement. Even small villages would have a village pond, so bathing
would have been no problem.
The church (and many other religions) prescribe cleanliness for those taking
part in religious services.
Medieval people seem to have adapted to quite a number of conditions, we
would find intolerable. [A visitor to Luebeck in the latest medieval
described the air as clean and the water as sweet; he was probably comparing
things to the situation at home.] So a quick bath in the village pond on
Saturday, to be clean for the service on Sunday, would have been normal for
everyone living on the land. The thing is that they did not write about it,
and made no pictures showing peasants in a bath. So we don't _know_. Which
does not mean, they did not do it.
>
> It is not correct to think that simply because people did not bathe, they
> were necessarily dirty and/or evil smelling. It is possible to be
reasonably
> cleanly without ever taking a bath. Louis XIV never took a bath in his
life,
> with the possible exception of baptism. But he changed clothes several
times
> a day, and was wiped with perfumed cloths and lotions which kept his body
> reasonably clean.
sarcasm on
That was probably, what ruined the medieval farmers, all those potions, and
perfumes and oils, and the servants...
sarcasm off
Working on the field or in the workshop, in the kitchen or in the garden,
makes people sweaty and dirty, in other words unclean. Heathens were
described as unclean, so cleanliness would have had a religious connotation,
even for the stink of piety. I would think it highly unlikely, that medieval
christian Germans didn't bath at least once a week. But there is no
evidence, one way or the other, for the majority of village people.
>
> It was not until the 1700s that (a few) people began to take hot baths on
a
> regular basis. Of course there were always hot springs, and the Roman
baths
> at Bath and some continental spas were among a few examples of surviving
> European public bathing.
Bath houses were a normal feature in german medieval towns, they had to be
lincesed by the town council, so their existence is well documented since
the 12th c.. A few have been excavated, I'd be happy to supply cites (in
German).
A lot of pictures and the statutes for the bath houses in Hamburg from 1375
can bes seen here:
http://www.fogelvrei.de/besucher/badekultur.shtml
have fun
Uwe Mueller
erilar
Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
> I've washed in
> a bowl of cold water and I imagine that many who have gone camping
> have done the same. It isn't fun, but is still much better than not
> washing at all.
Not only when camping. For three of my college years I lived in an
apartment where the only place one could wash was the kitchen sink.
Stand in a tub and you can manage a pretty thorough sponge bath.
erilar
am...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Mary, you are on a dangerous slope. If you doubt 'The 13nth
> Moron' (especially the part with a poisonous fingernail), the next
> thing I know you'll start doubting authenticity of the
> 'Braveheart' (which established beyond any reasonable doubt an all
> important historical fact that Mel Wallace had a hairy ass) and going
> further down this slippery slope end up with expressing doubts in the
> facts presented in the 'Chroinicles of the BT' and 'The Most Modern
> View on the Middle Ages and Stuff". I sincerely hope that you'll not
> go THAT far!
Oh, I'm past Braveheart, but I believe wholeheartedly the facts in the
"Chronicles" and "Most Modern View".
D. Spencer Hines
Pogue J. Gans is in Run-For-The-Tall Grass, Full-On, Tail-Between-Legs
Retreat from his previously LONG HELD Position that "the medievals" were NOT
often dirty and smelling of dung or offal.
How Sweet It Is!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:euge09$7a4$2...@reader2.panix.com...
>>Hmm, so...
>
>>1. If you're not well-to-do, the effort needed to fill a bathtub from
>>the well, and the firewood needed to heat it, are probably excessive.
>
>>2. Washing oneself out of a basin, OTOH, seems quite practical and
>>not very much trouble.
>
>>3. Its probably just as good as bath, hygiene-wise, and probably
>>better than a public bath sharing water with other people.
>
>>So common sense would indicate that this is the most likely practice
>>for medieval commoners- at least during the warmer months (the risk of
>>catching a chill being too high during the colder months).
>
>>The question is, is that what they did? Do we have a way of knowing?
>>I imagine we might have a great deal of information on upper-class
>>practices (paintings of bathers, at least), but not much on what the
>>peasants and co. did...
>
> In town, there was likely no problem as many towns had baths.
>
> Among the nobility there was likely no problem as they could afford
> to heat the water in winter.
>
> If we divide the peasantry into the usual three classes, the rich peasant
> (who often had servants) could afford to bathe in winter.
>
> The poorest peasants almost certainly could not afford the firewood.
> Nor could they afford the pot or cauldron needed for the heating.
> What we know of hovels, information that we have literally dug up,
> shows that pots were few and furniture almost lacking.
>
> The largest group of peasants would have been those in the "middle
> class". Their ability to bathe in winter would depend on the year.
> By the start of the 14th century, if not earlier, firewood was very
> scarce and expensive. In the 10th, this was likely not a problem.
>
> I fully agree with your assessement [sic] as to washing. I've washed in
> a bowl of cold water and I imagine that many who have gone camping
> have done the same. It isn't fun, but is still much better than not
> washing at all.
>
> ---- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
I'll bet she was Really Smelly.
Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this.
The Germans like their women to smell "earthy".
Enjoy!
DSH
"erilar" <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:drache-AA4DF1....@news.airstreamcomm.net...
> In article <euge09$7a4$2...@reader2.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> I've washed in
>> a bowl of cold water and I imagine that many who have gone camping
>> have done the same. It isn't fun, but is still much better than not
>> washing at all.
>
> Not only when camping. For three of my college years I lived in an
> apartment where the only place one could wash was the kitchen sink. Stand
> in a tub and you can manage a pretty thorough sponge bath.
Mary Loomer Oliver -- "Erilar" -- Our Resident Toglodyte -- Retired
High-School German Teacher & Certified SCA Nut
D. Spencer Hines
limited to sponge baths from a basin.
Keith Willshaw
"Newsgroups" <dwel...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:f2MOh.85592$115....@newsfe10.phx...
> "D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%AKOh.1$fz1...@eagle.america.net...
>> Bathing from a basin with a sponge is obviously not as good a way to get
>> Truly Clean -- as would be the case with an immersion bath in clean
> water --
>> or a shower.
>
> In the Medieval period bathing was simply not attractive, because there
> was
> no practical way to take a hot bath. The climate in Europe is such that
> for
> much of the year a cold bath would be a very unpleasant, perhaps even life
> threatening, experience. People could wash in cold water in any weather
> because the mass of water involved was not enough to significantly lower
> their body temperature.
>
Not strictly true I'm afraid
In London the communal public baths known as 'The Stews' were
extremely popular. During the reign of Richard II there were 18 stews in
the Southwark region of London alone. Young boys were often seen
running through the streets shouting out that the water was now hot.
The baths were open for business.
It was later , during the reformation that the practise fell out of favour
as the church complained of the immorality of such establishments,
which often doubled as brothels, and they were finally banned .
Keith
Peter Skelton
There's a bit about this in The Medieval Machine. Apparently the
baths didn't start as brothels, it took some time for them to
decline. Their decline lead to hygiene problems which helped
disease spread.
Peter Skelton
Barbara Bailey
<pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Then there are the additional problems of Feminine Hygiene -- if one is
>limited to sponge baths from a basin.
>
>DSH
What additional problems would those be, pray tell? It's easier to
get clean with a basin bath than a shower, and sitting in a tub of
water is no better than using a well-rinsed-out cloth.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Peter Jason
an immersion bath once a week. And every
night washing was done in an ordinary hand
basin.
Anyway, by the present orthodoxy, too much
cleanliness is bad for the developing immune
system.
"Barbara Bailey" <rabr...@yahoo.com> wrote
in message
news:vfjo03l3hjv1cp0a4...@4ax.com...
Paul J Gans
>Paul J Gans wrote:
>> In soc.history.medieval Bill Johnston <wacke...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Mar 26, 7:10 pm, Paul J Gans <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>> In soc.history.medieval Steve Mesnick <stef...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>
>> The largest group of peasants would have been those in the "middle
>> class". Their ability to bathe in winter would depend on the year.
>> By the start of the 14th century, if not earlier, firewood was very
>> scarce and expensive. In the 10th, this was likely not a problem.
>And the price of firewood depended on where you lived.
>Probably not an accident that Scandinavia and Russia had sauna
>and washing traditions even in the countryside.
>The Scandinavian word for saturday 'l?rdag' translates as 'washing-day'.
>It included both persons and clothes.
>In Denmark the forest had became few and far between at the start of the
>early modern period though.
>So here we adjusted to the filthy west europeans customs from then on.
I suspect that the bulk of the butter using Europeans did
pretty much the same.
For some reason the French modern-era king who never bathed
(Louis the high numbered) seems to have caught the imagination
of all sorts of folks.
Since *he* never bathed, nobody at court did either. People
fled his court so that they could go home and bathe.
But since most folks believe that medievals were hairy knuckle-
draggers and that the Renaissance was an improvement on the
Middle Ages in every way, if Louis the high numbered did not
bath, then NOBODY bathed in the Middle Ages.
Bathing once a week in the US was not unknown prior to World
War II. The military seems to have taught a large number of
kids that bathing frequently was a *good* thing.
But for some reason folks today tend to regard what *we* do
as perfect and what *they* did 1000 years ago as *bad*.
My maternal grandparents grew up in surroundings that were
closer to the Middle Ages than today is to them. (That would
have been about 1870-1880 in rural Austria.) And my maternal
grandfather's father was born in 1832. Lived to be 101.
>History is not what it used to be.
And never was.... ;-)
Paul J Gans
>In article <euge09$7a4$2...@reader2.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>> I've washed in
>> a bowl of cold water and I imagine that many who have gone camping
>> have done the same. It isn't fun, but is still much better than not
>> washing at all.
>Not only when camping. For three of my college years I lived in an
>apartment where the only place one could wash was the kitchen sink.
>Stand in a tub and you can manage a pretty thorough sponge bath.
Yup. I've done that too. I've even showered in ice-cold
water. Can be done, but if done, 'twere best done quickly...
;-)
>--
>Mary, biblioholic
>bib-li-o-hol-ism : the habitual longing to purchase, read, store,
>admire, and consume books in excess.
Then I shall expect to see you in Kalamazoo in May? I certainly
hope so.
Imagine. Three or four[1] days of real medievalists.
[1] I'm chairing a session on Sunday. Boo, hiss. Oh
well, I was invited and did accept...
Paul J Gans
>Then there are the additional problems of Feminine Hygiene -- if one is
>limited to sponge baths from a basin.
I'm sorry you don't know about that. If you asked
nicely, somebody might explain it to you.
Paul J Gans
Yes, things generally went to hell in the late middle ages.
This led to the enlightenment, humanism, the burning of witches,
the closing of the baths, religious wars that make Iraq look
like a picnic, and all sorts of other renaissance activities.
And oh yes, enormous sexual repression, at least in the English
speaking nations.
D. Spencer Hines
Pogue Gans is flaunting his ignorance again -- and broadcasting it.
He's referring to Louis XIV.
Gans calls himself a "Medievalist" -- 1066-1347 and England ONLY.
Put him outside that narrow zone of time and place and he's as dumb as a
sack of hammers.
Of course he can be remarkably dumb INSIDE that zone too.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:euhncl$5q0$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> For some reason the French modern-era king who never bathed
> (Louis the high numbered) seems to have caught the imagination
> of all sorts of folks.
>
> Since *he* never bathed, nobody at court did either. People
> fled his court so that they could go home and bathe....
> Bathing once a week in the US was not unknown prior to World
> War II. The military seems to have taught a large number of
> kids that bathing frequently was a *good* thing.
The Armed Forces, not just "the military", teach all sorts of people Good
Things.
Gans is ignorant about THAT too.
Tankfixer
mumbled
> "D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Bathing from a basin with a sponge is obviously not as good a way to get
> >Truly Clean -- as would be the case with an immersion bath in clean water --
> >or a shower.
>
> A truly fascinating subject to us folk here on sci.military.naval.
> Other than the vague idea that water might be involved there is
> absolutely nothing here of interest to anybody on this NG.
Bathing involves water.
Ships float in water
Ships can be naval
Ergo:
Bathing involves navels
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
D. Spencer Hines
So Gans is lying again.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Veritas
Billzz
news:uvao039vlts8mnp6f...@4ax.com...
Well, I did not think that I would have anything to contribute to this
"ancient" subject, but my brother does real estate development in Los
Angeles and I invested in one of his strip malls which we visited, in the
1970s, and it was next to an abandoned, very large, facility.
My brother explained that it was once a gay bathhouse, but apparently there
was disease, and even death, and they closed. He considered expanding, but
realizing the stigma attached to the site, knew that he would have to raze
the building completely, and even then it may have an "urban legend"
connection to the past use, and so he decided to not have anything to do
with it. We all know now what happened, and maybe it happened before.
D. Spencer Hines
Are you saying AIDS was rampant there?...
Or just bloviating?
DSH
"Billzz" <billzz...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:544b0$460c882c$9440b19b$92...@STARBAND.NET...
Ian Smith
> Bathing from a basin with a sponge is obviously not as good a way to get
> Truly Clean -- as would be the case with an immersion bath in clean water --
> or a shower.
>
>
> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
>
>
>
TRIM THE HEADERS!
La N
"Billzz" <billzz...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:544b0$460c882c$9440b19b$92...@STARBAND.NET...
Since the subject is tremendously way off-topic anyway, I may as well add a
little factoid. The great songstress Bette Midler, accompanied by pianist
Barry Manilow, started their stellar careers in the (gay) Continental Baths
in the basement of the grand old Ansonia Hotel in New York City.
As far as I know they remain "clean" ...%)
- nilita
Goedjn
<pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You certainly do make a lot of noise.
>Hilarious!
>
. . . .is flaunting his ignorance again -- and broadcasting it.
>
>He's referring to Louis XIV.
. . . Much drivel deleted.
am...@hotmail.com
> In soc.history.medieval Bill Johnston <wackedd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 26, 7:10 pm, Paul J Gans <g...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> In soc.history.medieval Steve Mesnick <stef...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> I alway hear conflicting things about bathing in the European middle
> >> >> ages. More usually, one hears that most people bathed very
> >> >> infrequently. But I've also heard that that's a myth. What do you
> >> >> folks think? What kind of actual research is there on this?
> >> >No hard documentation from me, but I suspect the answer lies in
> >> >a definition of "bathe" as "immerse body in large quantity of water
> >> >prepared for that purpose". Certainly medieval people *washed*,
> >> >but I imagine it was more usually what we'd call a "sponge bath"
> >> >such a convalescent might get in a hospital.
>
> >> That's true. Actual immersive bathing depended on many
> >> things, including in winter being able to afford a large
> >> amount of wood for heating water -- and the pot to heat
> >> it in.
>
> >> --- Paul J. Gans
> >1. If you're not well-to-do, the effort needed to fill a bathtub from
> >the well, and the firewood needed to heat it, are probably excessive.
> >2. Washing oneself out of a basin, OTOH, seems quite practical and
> >not very much trouble.
> >3. Its probably just as good as bath, hygiene-wise, and probably
> >better than a public bath sharing water with other people.
> >So common sense would indicate that this is the most likely practice
> >for medieval commoners- at least during the warmer months (the risk of
> >catching a chill being too high during the colder months).
> >The question is, is that what they did? Do we have a way of knowing?
> >I imagine we might have a great deal of information on upper-class
> >practices (paintings of bathers, at least), but not much on what the
> >peasants and co. did...
>
> In town, there was likely no problem as many towns had baths.
>
> Among the nobility there was likely no problem as they could afford
> to heat the water in winter.
>
> If we divide the peasantry into the usual three classes, the rich
> peasant (who often had servants) could afford to bathe in winter.
>
> The poorest peasants almost certainly could not afford the firewood.
People who could not afford some type of a fuel, surely would have
some serious problems besides bathing. For example, cooking the food,
warming themselves during the winter and (if the 'wood' in general was
too expensive for them), having the agricultural implements of their
own. Chances are that they would not survive the 1st winter (providing
they manage to exist strictly on a raw food during the warmer
seasons).
IMO, 'firewood' (unlike wood suitable for construction, etc.) should
not cost anything to a medieval peasant unless access to the trees was
completely banned (somehow, this does not look realistic). For
building a fire one can use falling branches and other types of a low-
quality wood which even extremely stingy feudal would not deny to his
subjects. They were not _buying_ it.
BTW, in the areas were the wood _is_ in a short supply (like in the
steppe areas) people were/are using a dried manure to build a fire.
Works just fine (in the 60's I spent a summer in the area where people
used 'kyziak' to build fire for cooking).
>
> The largest group of peasants would have been those in the "middle
> class". Their ability to bathe in winter would depend on the year.
> By the start of the 14th century, if not earlier, firewood was very
> scarce and expensive. In the 10th, this was likely not a problem.
>
When you are writing things like this, you have to clarify 'where'
because otherwise it does not make any sense.
> I fully agree with your assessement as to washing. I've washed in
> a bowl of cold water and I imagine that many who have gone camping
> have done the same. It isn't fun, but is still much better than not
> washing at all.
Is this extent of your contact with the 'rpimitive conditions'? :-)
am...@hotmail.com
> In soc.history.medieval Soren Larsen <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Paul J Gans wrote:
> >>> On Mar 26, 7:10 pm, Paul J Gans <g...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>>> In soc.history.medieval Steve Mesnick <stef...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >> The largest group of peasants would have been those in the "middle
> >> class". Their ability to bathe in winter would depend on the year.
> >> By the start of the 14th century, if not earlier, firewood was very
> >> scarce and expensive. In the 10th, this was likely not a problem.
> >And the price of firewood depended on where you lived.
> >Probably not an accident that Scandinavia and Russia had sauna
> >and washing traditions even in the countryside.
> >The Scandinavian word for saturday 'l?rdag' translates as 'washing-day'.
> >It included both persons and clothes.
> >In Denmark the forest had became few and far between at the start of the
> >early modern period though.
> >So here we adjusted to the filthy west europeans customs from then on.
>
> I suspect that the bulk of the butter using Europeans did
> pretty much the same.
'Butter using Europeans' being who exactly? AFAIK, butter usage was
not limited to the Western Europe.
>
> For some reason the French modern-era king who never bathed
> (Louis the high numbered) seems to have caught the imagination
> of all sorts of folks.
I don't think that the number of this Louis would be too high and him
being 'modern-era' limits candidates even further. With Louis XIV
already taking (form time to time) a bath (there is a special bathing
room in Versallies), the only suitable person left is Louis XIII.
Taking into an account that he was hardly a person to caught anybody's
imagination, we have 2 distinct possibilities:
a. The monarch in question was not 'modern' or 'high-numbered'. The
only Louis before the Sun King capable to caught imagination of any
noticeable number of people was Louis XI who was not 'modern'.
b. The whole story is a 'historical anecdote' based on a false
information.
If, as I suspect, this story is about Louis XIV, it is simply not
true. What _is_ true is that hygienic conditions in Versallies were
terrible (by the modern standards). There was no toilet arrangements
and the washing facilities for the 'ordinary' members of the court.
People had been wearing special 'lice-catchers' and using a lot of
perfume to kill an odor of unwashed body.
am...@hotmail.com
> In soc.history.medieval erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Paul J Gans <g...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> I've washed in
> >> a bowl of cold water and I imagine that many who have gone camping
> >> have done the same. It isn't fun, but is still much better than not
> >> washing at all.
> >Not only when camping. For three of my college years I lived in an
> >apartment where the only place one could wash was the kitchen sink.
> >Stand in a tub and you can manage a pretty thorough sponge bath.
>
> Yup. I've done that too. I've even showered in ice-cold
> water. Can be done, but if done, 'twere best done quickly...
>
> ;-)
Oh please, millions of people were and are doing this routinely so the
only thing your 'experience' tells us is that US is well ahead of many
other places in the terms of a hygiene. How about the places where is
are no showers and no hot water (unless you heat it somewhere else) in
the bathromms? Or no 'bathrooms' at all?
Christophe Bachmann
am...@hotmail.com a écrit :
> On Mar 29, 9:12 am, Paul J Gans <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> In town, there was likely no problem as many towns had baths.
>>
>> Among the nobility there was likely no problem as they could afford
>> to heat the water in winter.
>>
>> If we divide the peasantry into the usual three classes, the rich
>> peasant (who often had servants) could afford to bathe in winter.
>>
>> The poorest peasants almost certainly could not afford the firewood.
>
> People who could not afford some type of a fuel, surely would have
> some serious problems besides bathing. For example, cooking the food,
> warming themselves during the winter and (if the 'wood' in general was
> too expensive for them), having the agricultural implements of their
> own. Chances are that they would not survive the 1st winter (providing
> they manage to exist strictly on a raw food during the warmer
> seasons).
>
> IMO, 'firewood' (unlike wood suitable for construction, etc.) should
> not cost anything to a medieval peasant unless access to the trees was
> completely banned (somehow, this does not look realistic). For
> building a fire one can use falling branches and other types of a low-
> quality wood which even extremely stingy feudal would not deny to his
> subjects. They were not _buying_ it.
>
Firewood indeed cost no money as the right to glean fallen wood was
often left by the owners of the forests, but even then it still cost a
lot in terms of time and labour. Even with modern tools(good quality
steel axes and machined saws with modern teeth) it is still quite a
tedium to transform heavy branches or logs in calibrated firewood, and
you need an incredible pile of small deadwood to keep a fire going and
heating, so one tends to ponder if one needs a full bath or if one can
get by with sponge bathing after the essentials, cooking and keeping the
house barely warm have been met.
> BTW, in the areas were the wood _is_ in a short supply (like in the
> steppe areas) people were/are using a dried manure to build a fire.
> Works just fine (in the 60's I spent a summer in the area where people
> used 'kyziak' to build fire for cooking).
Yes, but then the rations of combustible are still more meager, and must
be allotted even more sparsely, and heating a full tub of water is just
so much waste.
--
Greetings, Salutations,
Guiraud Belissen, Chāteau du Ciel, Drachenwald,
Chris CII, Rennes, France
Larry Swain
AH! The dreaded Sunday morning slot!
Jack Linthicum
There's a country song about a guy in a bar trying to pick up a woman
so he can check her out for ticks.
Brad Paisley - Ticks Lyrics
Lyrics:
everytime you take a sip
in this smoky atmosphere
you press that bottle to your lips
and i wish i was your beer
and in the small there of your back
your jeans are playing peek a boo
id like to see the other half
of your butterfly tattoo
hey that gives me an idea
lets get out of this bar
and drive out into the country
and find a place to park
cause id like to see you out in the moonlight
id like to kiss you way back in the sticks
id like to walk you through a field of wildflowers
and id like to check you for ticks
i know the perfect little path
out in these woods i used to hunt
dont worry babe ive got your back
and ive also got your front
id hate to waste a night like this
ill keep you safe you wait and see
the only thing allowed to crawl all over you
when we get there is me
you know every guy in here tonight
would like to take you home
but ive got way more class than them
and that aint what i want
cause id like to see you out in the moonlight
id like to kiss you way back in the sticks
id like to walk you through a field of wildflowers
and id like to check you for ticks
oooh you never know where one might be
and oooh theres lots of places that are hard to reach
oh id sure like to check you for ticks
am...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> a...@hotmail.com a écrit :
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 9:12 am, Paul J Gans <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >> In town, there was likely no problem as many towns had baths.
>
> >> Among the nobility there was likely no problem as they could afford
> >> to heat the water in winter.
>
> >> If we divide the peasantry into the usual three classes, the rich
> >> peasant (who often had servants) could afford to bathe in winter.
>
> >> The poorest peasants almost certainly could not afford the firewood.
>
> > People who could not afford some type of a fuel, surely would have
> > some serious problems besides bathing. For example, cooking the food,
> > warming themselves during the winter and (if the 'wood' in general was
> > too expensive for them), having the agricultural implements of their
> > own. Chances are that they would not survive the 1st winter (providing
> > they manage to exist strictly on a raw food during the warmer
> > seasons).
>
> > IMO, 'firewood' (unlike wood suitable for construction, etc.) should
> > not cost anything to a medieval peasant unless access to the trees was
> > completely banned (somehow, this does not look realistic). For
> > building a fire one can use falling branches and other types of a low-
> > quality wood which even extremely stingy feudal would not deny to his
> > subjects. They were not _buying_ it.
>
> Firewood indeed cost no money as the right to glean fallen wood was
> often left by the owners of the forests,
Not to mention that quite often the parts of the forests had been a
communal property.
>but even then it still cost a
> lot in terms of time and labour.
It costs something, to be sure, but this was a routine practice over
the centuries.
>Even with modern tools(good quality
> steel axes and machined saws with modern teeth) it is still quite a
> tedium to transform heavy branches or logs in calibrated firewood, and
> you need an incredible pile of small deadwood to keep a fire going and
> heating, so one tends to ponder if one needs a full bath or if one can
> get by with sponge bathing after the essentials, cooking and keeping the
> house barely warm have been met.
Let's sort things out:
1. People needed some type of a fuel to cookj their meal and to keep
them warm during the cold times. Which means that they needed a lot of
a firewood or its equivalent on a regular basis anyway.
2. Preparing a firewood (sawing logs into the smaller pieces and then
splitting these logs with an axe) is not such a big deal and even a
reasonably unexperienced person (like myself when I was young) could
do it. Person with relevant experience was doing this as a routine
work (more than once I had a chance to see how much easier it is for
someone with experience).
3. When I'm talking about 'bathing' I'm talking about a steam bath
with a dry or wet steam (Scandinavian sauna or Russian banya). They do
not use bathtubes. AFAIK, they were not popular in the Western Europe
but I don't think that the reason was a shortage of wood.
Peter Jason
<am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175274607.1...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Of course it's not true. Louis has a grand
bathhouse but only the huge granite circular
bath itself survives. It has a seat cut into
the granite within the rim so that the bather
(Louis & the royal lady backscrubber) could
sit in water up to their necks..
I have a picture of this contraption
somewhere....
Paul J Gans
>Hilarious!
>Pogue Gans is flaunting his ignorance again -- and broadcasting it.
>He's referring to Louis XIV.
>Gans calls himself a "Medievalist" -- 1066-1347 and England ONLY.
>Put him outside that narrow zone of time and place and he's as dumb as a
>sack of hammers.
>Of course he can be remarkably dumb INSIDE that zone too.
You don't get it, do you? No sense of humor at all.
That's rather sad. Probably explains why you don't
understand politics, medieval history and life, or
much of anything else either.
>"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:euhncl$5q0$1...@reader2.panix.com...
>> For some reason the French modern-era king who never bathed
>> (Louis the high numbered) seems to have caught the imagination
>> of all sorts of folks.
>>
>> Since *he* never bathed, nobody at court did either. People
>> fled his court so that they could go home and bathe....
>> Bathing once a week in the US was not unknown prior to World
>> War II. The military seems to have taught a large number of
>> kids that bathing frequently was a *good* thing.
>The Armed Forces, not just "the military", teach all sorts of people Good
>Things.
>Gans is ignorant about THAT too.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Actually, it is the ever-hated *LATE* Sunday morning slot...
Still, it *is* Kalamazoo....
Right now I'm at Penn State at the Arthurian Conference there.
Great sessions today. Many well-known folks present though the
entire meeting only has about 100 people present.
I've learned much, including the interesting fact that the
Tristram story seems to have reached Iceland. And given that
Icelandic culture is really quite different than that of
knightly Europe, the story got rewritten a *lot*.
As was pointed out, in Iceland Iseult could simply have
divorced Mark and married Tristram, so the standard story
made no sense to them and had to be redone.
Good other stuff too. More tomorrow (Friday) and then
off to visit grandchildren. But I'll probably continue
to be on-line.
erilar
Christophe Bachmann <Chri...@Compuserve.com> wrote:
> then the rations of combustible are still more meager, and must
> be allotted even more sparsely, and heating a full tub of water is just
> so much waste.
"bathe" is not necessarily equivalent to "immerse in hot water"
--
Mary, biblioholic
bib-li-o-hol-ism : the habitual longing to purchase, read, store,
admire, and consume books in excess.
Sid
> Tristram story seems to have reached Iceland. And given that
> Icelandic culture is really quite different than that of
> knightly Europe, the story got rewritten a *lot*.
>
> As was pointed out, in Iceland Iseult could simply have
> divorced Mark and married Tristram, so the standard story
> made no sense to them and had to be redone.
Promise you'll tell us more!
Robert Uhl
>
> 1. People needed some type of a fuel to cookj their meal and to keep
> them warm during the cold times. Which means that they needed a lot of
> a firewood or its equivalent on a regular basis anyway.
Not that much for cooking--you can heat small amount of food with just a
few small sticks.
I'm not familiar with how much you need to stay warm, but considering
that in Boy Scouts we managed to do fine in the Rockies during winter
with just warm clothes, I don't know that all that much is needed.
Heating an entire tub of water--or even more than a pint or two--is
another matter entirely.
--
Guthlac of Caerthe <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the
question of whether a submarine can swim. --Edsger W. Dijkstra
John Kane
> a...@hotmail.com writes:
>
> > 1. People needed some type of a fuel to cookj their meal and to keep
> > them warm during the cold times. Which means that they needed a lot of
> > a firewood or its equivalent on a regular basis anyway.
>
> Not that much for cooking--you can heat small amount of food with just a
> few small sticks.
>
> I'm not familiar with how much you need to stay warm, but considering
> that in Boy Scouts we managed to do fine in the Rockies during winter
> with just warm clothes, I don't know that all that much is needed.
>
> Heating an entire tub of water--or even more than a pint or two--is
> another matter entirely.
It is likely that most places would keep a fire of some sort going all
the time year round so one might have used the 'waste' heat to warm
water. Relighting a fire was not all that easy before matches.
I believe the normal technique if the fire went out was to dispatch a
runner to the neighours to get some coals. I have heard of this being
done as late as the 1830's or 40's in Canada.
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
Peter Jason
"John Kane" <jrkr...@gmail.com> wrote in
message
news:1175894286.5...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
This sort of thing was told to me long ago by
an Irish woman who said that the fireplace
was stocked all winter (with coke) and kept
going day and night. The aim was to heat the
whole chimney breast and this would keep the
two adjoining rooms warm constantly. The
damper was adjusted to allow the minimum loss
of heat up the chimney.
Jack Linthicum
> "John Kane" <jrkrid...@gmail.com> wrote in
> messagenews:1175894286.5...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Most colonial homes were living quarters displaced around a central
chimney structure and multiple hearths. As above when the fires had
been going for a period of time the entire central brick structure got
warm, cooling down to a point at dawn where new fires were needed. I
would assume they were built on a known model from England.
John Kane
> "John Kane" <jrkrid...@gmail.com> wrote in
Yes though techncialy these are two different matters. Your one, is
presumably talking about staying warm. Certainly when I grew up the
wood fire in the furnace would be continuous from say late October to
April even if it sometimes died down to a bed of coals but I was also
trying to make the point that without matchs one would probably keep a
fire going all year round. It was just easier to do this than start a
new one.
And as you say one loses the heated mass which is not only good for
keeping people warm but also may[1] enable the cook to roast and bake
items that cannot be done over a quick fire.
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
1. The existence of separate baking ovens makes this a weak argument
in many cases.
John Kane
wrote:
Perhaps but they may have been an indigenous design or from another
European country that "understood" winter. The little I have seen and
heard of UK heating technology does not encourage me. They seldom get
'cold' weather, at least as we understand it in most of Canada. Any
one who runs the water pipes through the unheated attic ...
In any case, I certainly remember the need to stoke the fires in the
morning :) As a small child, I can remember dressing for school
behind the kitchen wood stove where it was a lot warmer than anywhere
else in the house until the wood furnace began to raise the
temperatures.
Temperatures never got below freezing but they were damn cold for a 7
year old. Still it beat the school. On a cold day it usually took
till 10:00 AM to defrost the ink.
Nadine
> hands and face (and other parts of the body) using a basin was
> common.
But surely the nobles could have a full body wash! Didn't richer
women wash their bodies--ahem--at least once a month?
erilar
"Nadine" <nadinem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Total immersion is not necessary to get clean. I haven't taken a
lie-on-my-back bath for years. I like showers. And it would take less
water to have someone pour it over you a time or two. . .