I have curiosity about a subject which would have been unspeakably vulgar to mention during the Victorian era: excusing one’s self to answer a call of Nature. If it’s crude to mention evacuation, how could you politely indicate that you needed to do so, and find out in which room a chamberpot was located or where the outhouse was?
I actually have several books on the history of bathrooms and more on Victorian etiquette, but not a one ever mentions how such a thing was accomplished. Today, one of my guests can casually ask where the bathroom is located, but what was a Victorian lady to do?
I’ve read that Victorian women often suffered from infections and constipation due to their embarassment over their bodily functions. But sometimes, when Nature calls, it sends a Howler. What would you do in a situation such as this?
I would think that a lady would casually wander off and ask a lady’s maid or another female. Or maybe hostesses always made it a point to show guests where they could “wash up.”
The problem with being overly shy about bodily functions still exists. One elderly lady that I know refuses to take her water pill before playing Bingo. She doesn’t want to have to excuse herself from the game because they would know that she was going to the bathroom.
You mention Victorian times. Many houses, even those of well-off people, did not have indoor toilets until the late 1800s (or for that matter well into the 20th century).
Hence, those well-dressed ladies in all their finery would have to go out back to the nasty jakes and wipe their butts with gawd-knows-what. Can you imagine a bangle falling off your wrist and down into the hole, twinkling as it sank into the merde?
But as for what they said, well, I highly doubt they sputtered, “Where’s the shithouse?” I bet there was a very plain-sounding euphamism of some sort, such as, “I think I’ll take a little walk in the garden.”
Agatha Christie’s autobiography reminisces about her childhood at the end of the nineteenth century, when their WC with an indoor toilet (still rather a novelty) was located on the landing of the main staircase, visible from the entrance hall. It was contrary to etiquette to be seen actually going into or coming out of the loo, so if visitors came into the hall while you were in there, you had to stay put till they’d gone somewhere else and you could sneak out unobserved!
I rather question the premise that short-term guests would have requested to use the family toilet at all. No doubt if you were staying overnight or longer, the hostess would discreetly mention its location when she showed you to your room (and of course everybody knew that a chamberpot would be under the bed). But wouldn’t ordinary visitors be expected just to hold it till they got home? I await correction from the more knowledgeable.
Heck, when I was in my teens I had a cousin (female) who was so mortified about her bodily functions that she wouldn’t excuse herself to the bathroom anywhere except at home. Not on dates, not at family gatherings, not in public (like at restaurants or something with her family).
Her attitude was a little counterproductive, since her mom & dad made such a big joke of it and told everyone about it.
“I beg your pardon sir, could you perhaps tell me where a gentleman could drop a duece in this fine establishment? I would be horribly embarrased if I was forced to crap myself in front of Lord Kensington. Thank you.”
I don’t know whether it goes back to the Victorian era, but a common euphemism for asking for the toilet is to ask to wash one’s hands.
At the Edwardian dinner table, the hostess would ask the ladies to withdraw to the drawing room so that the gentlemen could have their port and cigars. This was also an opportunity for the ladies to use the toilet.
When I was a kid watching the I Love Lucy reruns, I never understood why the women were constantly going to “powder their noses” in restaurants. I figured that their makeup required a lot of touchup work, but now I realize it was just a euphemism.
Well, that one wouldn’t work in the Victorian times, because a proper lady didn’t wear makeup.
After reading all of the responses, another question comes to mind: how did one wipe when using someone else’s chamberpot? In outhouses, there was usually a catalog, or a bundle of papers nailed to the wall. I’ve never heard of any provisions made for chamberpot use. (Oh, the important information left out of our history books!)
Urination isn’t a really big deal: though it’s distasteful to modern sensibilities, in a situation in which there is no paper, a woman can let herself “drip dry”. Other excretory functions are a different matter.
Would there have been some wiping aparatus kept with the chamberpot? Would you have been forced to use your handkerchief? :eek:
Yes, I can.
I work in a museum, and we get a lot of donations from local archaeologists’ digs. One of these fine, intrepid souls has devoted himself to the study of “privies” and is always bringing in boxes of what he’s found by excavating extant outhouses and the areas in which ones which are gone once stood. It’s quite interesting.
I remember one in which the main discovery was liquor bottles. Hundreds of them. Someone must have snuck out to the privy for a “little nip” more frequently than he should have. (Can you imagine drinking in such a place? I’ve been to some seedy bars before but, man . . . .)
Some households seem to have used the privy as an all-purpose trash disposal site. Broken china, cans, bottles, bones from dinner . . . . And, of course, there’s the “accidental loss” items. They tend not to exceed a certain value. The archaeologist has uncovered dozens of coins and “junk” jewelery, but never anything like a diamond bracelet. I assume that for items of small worth, people let it go, but otherwise insisted that someone go down there and get something of high value.
Cecil expounds upon the topic. I don’t think the article distinguishes between what would be used on the chamber pot vs. what would be used in the outhouse, though.
I am an archaeologist and I have excavated many privies. They are a treasure trove of information about daily life from whatever time period they date to as they were almost always used to discard trash as well. Often we can determine race, ethnicity, social class, family size, etc. by what we find. However, it does make for some interesting conversations on job sites…
Construction worker: “Hey, that’s cool. What did you find?”
Archaeologist: “It’s a privy. Probably dates to the mid 1860’s.”
Construction worker: “A privy…isn’t that a…”
Archaeologist: “Yep.”
Construction worker: “So you’re diggin in someone’s…”
Archaeologist: “Yep.”
Construction worker: “They don’t pay you enough to do that.”
We were at a historical house earlier this year (circa early 1800s) and the guide showed us a door in the dining room, yes, the dining room sideboard behind which was a pisspot. He intimated that the gentlemen would pass the pot around whilst partaking their cigars and brandy after dinner. Which would seem to be a very matter-of-fact, don’t-have-to-ask-anyone way to do it. For the men, anyway.
I don’t know if he was telling us what they thought happened or what did happen. It’s possible the guide made it up on an otherwise boring afternoon just to see us recoil.
I am in my 50s and when I was young, I had relatives who still had outdoor facilities.
One of the first things that was pointed out to a newcomer was where the outhouse was so they would not have to be embarassed by asking where it was.
Regarding the chamberpots, at least in my rememberence it was that each individual who was staying overnight had his or her own provided by the host or hostess and it was kept under the bed (this was understoon). I was under the impression that when a woman ‘repaired to the bedroom’ it was to handle the call of nature.
Generally in my memory, a man was expected to head to the privy or bushes, but the woman was not. But on cold Montana nights it wasn’t required of men either.
In one of Patrick O’Brian books (Master and Commander, I think), he describes an almost identical scene. Given the degree of research he put into those books, I’m inclined to think that this might have been fairly common.
Ya know those colonial-style houses? The ones with the second-story overhangs? That was to shelter pedestrians below, when people emptied the chamberpots from the upstairs bedroom windows.
Who took care of all the excrement in the streets? The hordes of pigs that lived in the streets cleaned up.
Man, those colonial towns mus have stunk something awful in the summertime!
As anyone who read “Gone With the Wind” or saw the movie knows, before going to a social event the ladies would stuff themselves silly and (one assumes) use the chamberpot before leaving the house. At the actual function, they would then nibble. Eating was discouraged as being “unladylike.” I suspect it was more a case of not eating in public to avoid having to use the facilities.
Of course, a lady could claim she was “feeling faint” and go outside to “get a breath of fresh air.” Any gentleman who understood the euphanism would not offer to accompany her.
I once read a biography of the philosopher/mathematican Bertran Russell, that made a cryptic comment about chamber pots.
Russell was quoted saying he did his deepest thinking while walking late at night under the trees in the quiet quadrangles of Oxford’s dormitories. In a side comment, he added that, in the silence of the night, he also came to recognize the “three sounds of the chamberpot, not just the two that are recognized by most people”
This would have been approx 1910 -1920.I wonder if there is anyone alive today who knows what he is referring to.
My blind guess: in addition to the rude sounds that we all know, did chamberpots perhaps have lids which screwed or sealed in place, and made a sound when opening /closing?
