There are many myths about medieval times. Few of the most popular ones seem to concerne the hygiene or lack of it in medieval times. You would sopose, that when the cartoon character Hågar the Horrible takes his yearly bath, it is a commonly unterstood joke, about the impossibility of the popular image. Alas no. For I have actually met in a museum (I will not say wich one, because in my mind this is too embarrasing to them) a guide, who was perfectly happy to claim that medieval people did not wash themselves more often than once a year. In the same museum other guides have told me, that medieval people did not change their clothes more often than once a year and that they were lice infested and wore furs, because they actually believed that vermin would jump from their hair to the animal furs in their clothing. When asked of sources for such outrageous claims, they usually bring up the story about church being wery intolerant towards bathing.
Let us look upon these stories. First the idea of medieval people having more lice than the modern people. Lice were a common thing in the western world until after the WWII when they developed the DDT. Nice substance. It got us rid of the lice and wery nearly all the birds of pray, since it is a poison that is cumulating to the reprpductive organs of animals at the top of the food chain. Who knows what it did to us humans. Even though there have been lice in men for thousands of years, they have usually been wery well dealt with by good hygiene. Sometimes, because of a war or a natural catastrophy the conditions get so terrible for people, that hygiene gets wery difficult to maintain. Those are the times all sorts of vermin and disease multiply in numbers. The usual historical solution to lice, when they have become an epidemic has been cutting hair short. Nobody wants to live with lice and never has, so the solutions are either good hygiene, that is washing your self often enough and combing your hair with a tight comb. The former methods were used in medieval times and judging from the picture sources of the time since short hair was never in fashion they worked fine. You see, when catastrophy struck like during the Napoleonic wars and the both world wars it became fashionable to have short hair. Even the roman legionaries had short hair. The reason was obvious, when you have thousands of men camped in poor hygienic conditions for years lice are bound to become a problem. Easiest way to deal with it is short hair. Even at the end of medieval era, when the landsknecht infantryman was replacing the mounted knights on battle fields, the size of the armies grew in such multitudes that the bald or wery short hair was their fashion.
I allready claimed that in medieval times people would wash themselves more often than once a year. I am willing to go as far as to say medieval people had good hygiene. It was definetly different from how we see it today, but good never the less. We finns are proud of our “sauna” culture, and there are even people who would claim that the whole concept of “sauna” was a finnish invention. This could be, but now we are talking of such an old invention that nationalities had not been born as such. In light of historical evidence the sauna was a well known phenomenon around the medieval Europe. It was only after medieval times that it was banned in many parts of Europe, and survived only in remote areas like in Northern Scandinavia, Finland and Russia. Even the roman and turkish baths are just extensions of the same concept, wich has been around the world since wery early stone age. In medieval times the area wich was once a part of Roman empire had sustained its bathing culture in the more sophisticated manner inhereted from the romans. There were large baths in many old cities and these were often enough originally built by the romans. North of the Alps there were of course also public baths, where a weary traveller, a tired labourer or a pleasure seeking noble might take a bath. The church was indeed against these installations often enough, because there were many brothels among them, but this was not a wery strong opposition. The baths were regulated by both the chruch and the bourgeois of towns to provide satisfactory service and not to bring too embarrasing immoral fame on the town. So the prostitutes costumes and manner how they conducted their busines was often strictly defined even if they worked in a bathhouse. Baths were not only places to wash and get laid, they were places where it was common for people to enjoy themselves in various relaxing activities. For example from Stockholm in the excavations of several of these baths (they were lined by the shoreline of the city on an island) they have found numerous dice, chesspieces and other utensils of games. And of course beer was often served in these establishments too.
The church was not against people washing themselves. On the contrary, it was seen as a bit of an embarresment if people would come to mass dirty or in their “working clothes”. Even the monasteries had regulations that said monks and nuns should wash themselves at least once in every two weeks and once a week if they were engaged in heavy work. These regulations may well be the result of the ideal of selibacy. It affected the way the clergy saw nakedness. When you are denying your sexuality, it is not a surprice, that it tries to surface itself in everyway, so that in the end you are unable to look upon naked people without thinking of sex. In a culture affected strongly by such religious ideals the nakedness itself becomes a symbol for sexuality. Also the fact that a lot of the venerable diceases were “trafficked” in the public bath houses was an obvious reason for those who see everything enjoyable as a sin, to seek to close these kind of premises. However church was rather ambiguous in medieval times. Priests were not all known for their piety and many high clergymen were even known to have expensive curtisans of their own. Their bastard sons were often born in brothels and still they might reach high positions in their later years in the organisation of church. It was more about whom your father was, as it was the case of the rest of the society, then as it is today. This may have been seen as notorious by some of the clergy, but commonly accepted by the commoner and nobleman alike.
What of the sauna then? First of all there are historical, and archeological evidence that in many of the Nordic towns there were numerous public bath houses. In medieval pictures one often runs into depictions of nakedness in a natural way. Naked people are not presented in any pornographic way, but just in a natural way. One typical group of these pictures is the so called “bath house baebes”. These are women working as bathers in a bath house. Typically they have a long underdress of sorts on them. Transparent because the linnen is totally soaked. In their hands they carry a bucket and a “vihta”. The latter is an item, wery hard to recognise for other people than those that are familiar with sauna culture, but to us it is obvious and could not be anything else. Just as a sword is a sword to anyone who recognizes it. The “vihta” is a bundle of birch branches, that has only one purpose and it is possible to use it in only particular conditions of a sauna or in other words a steam room. The use of a “vihta” is simple. It is softened with hot water, and after that it is used to “whip” oneself or a nother person in the hot steamy air of sauna. This not only removes dirty layers of skin, but also relaxes the muscles in a soothing way. So a picture of a bohemian girl from the 13th century clearly is an evidence for them having, what a finn would call a “sauna”. Traditional sauna culture in Finland is wery old and at least from the medieval times it has been customary to go to sauna on saturday, so that you are clean on sunday for the mass. During the hardest working days of agricultural living in a year it was customary to go to sauna every day after work, much like today people are having a shower.
It seems hardly worth the effort after what I have allready said to comment on the people changing their clothes, but lets address it also as the topic demands. The medieval people mostly wore linnen, hemp and wool. Only rich people could afford furs to their clothing, but even they did not see those as single use items. So the furs were there to keep warm and to show of wealth. Certainly they were not worn to get rid of lice. Or what were they soposed to do with the furclothes into wich the lice had jumped to? The whole concept is such utter rubbish, it deserves no more attention. The wool was usually the topmost layer of clothing. It was perfect. It is warm, but it also breaths, so moisture does not form inside the clothes. It does not get easily wet, so woollen clothes keep you warm and dry in most conditions. When it eventually gets wet it is still warm. It is easy to dye almost any colours imaginable. It is possible to weave cloth that streches and sits on your body perfectly of wool. The outer clothing was not often washed, but certainly more often than the woollen winter jacket of our day. The linnen and hemp underclothes were washed frequently. Those were most often bleached in the sun, so any dirt would show on them easily and natural body odours would get just as stuck to them as in the modern cotton underwear. They had to be washed as often as the people themselves washed. Nobody liked to wear dirty clothes then, no more than today.
In popular culture, the medieval commoner is often set apart from the noblesse by the grey and brown colours. This is an artistic choise made by the directors of the movies and such. Of course the natural greys and browns of sheepswool, could have been more common colour of the clothes of the poor people, though all the pictorial evidence we have from the many centuries of medieval times does not imply that the poor would not have worn brightly coloured clothes. In fact the impression is rather the opposite. The fact that medieval poor people are also depicted in popular culture as dirty, having mud and ash all over their faces, is a stereotype, with little or no evidence to back it up. No doubt, there has allways been people whose lives are catastrophies. who are so poor that they have nowhere to sleep or wash themselves. But a beggar is something totally else than a peasant, even in medieval times.
As we know medieval people ate with their bare hands. In popular culture this is often depicted as a way of unhygienic behaviour. The drunken knights throwing bones over their shoulders to dogs on the floor, or such images. You might think that the medieval way of eating porrige from a common bowl, when only the spoon is your own, might seem unhygienic. Even the fact that the spoon is not washed but only liked clean sounds terrible to many modern ears. Medieval people were not however unhygienic in comparrison to modern people about their table manners. Throughout Europe in medieval times (and long beyond) it was customary to wash hands before eating and after it. Things like napkins are traditions from those days. Today it is typical for western people to go to a hamburger bar and eat fast food with their hands they have not washed after handling dozens of doors and who knows what during the day. The common porrige bowl did spread bacteria, but sometimes even this was for the good. They did not know it, but many diseases like say syfilis was not a common problem, because most people had its weaker form as children from their common food, so they had developed immunity to the nastier effects of the venerable form of the disease.
Clenliness is also a matter of perspective. When the european crusaders came to the Holy land, the local muslims saw them as dirty barbarians, wich they of course were in comparrison. The european knight was an illiterate person, wearing heavy fighting gear fit for his own climate. When the muslim mamluk was engaged in arts and read from his holy scriptures the ritual like rules for hygiene and constant washing and care for clenliness. We can say a lot of ill things that resulted of the crusades, but the link between European nations and Islamic areas of the world was there before those days and after, and some cultural things were learned on both groups of people, even if you can not call either wery homogenous. The turks have their baths, as a result of inheretance from the roman baths. The europeans learned many things from arabs, like the sewing of wounds. Medical hygiene is of course a complete subject of its own, and rather infamous during medieval times. But it is a more complex question to be addressed here. If a person thinks people who do not shower twice a day are dirty, he/she might see medieval people down right filthy. Hygiene is about health, so it should be good to remember, it is not healthy for your skin to wash it too often either.
Hygiene is a matter of culture. The fact that people like to bring out the terrible unhygienic conditions of medieval life wether imagined or real, is a way to separate “us” from “them”. We like to see ourselves as better and more clever people than any other group. For this ego trip we may even look down on our own ancestors. In that case the imagined superiority is based too often on fairytales and twisted facts. It is also typical that people see the good in the modern world as their own accomplishment, when it is all handed down to us. It is often also a result of intermixing of cultures. Rarely a singular culture on its own has developed to anything but a bitter end.
April 2, 2012 at 2:49 pm
Good article. I think it is a travesty that Museum guides are disseminating myths and misinformation about the Middle Ages. Museum guides are seen as well-informed people who ‘know thier stuff’ and people believe what they say.
April 2, 2012 at 2:51 pm
I think it is terrible that Musuem guides, people who are generally viewed knowledgeable, and the information they give as reliable are disseminating myths and misinformation about the Middle Ages.
April 2, 2012 at 2:56 pm
You can find an article with some useful information about Medieval Table manners here http://medievalreader.wordpress.com/2011/07/24/medieval-table-manners/
These are arctually the source of most of our table manners today. So much for the idea that Medieval people were uncouth barbarians.
April 2, 2012 at 3:08 pm
@medievaljo 1, thank you for commenting. I am sorry that my settings on wordpress demanded for me to acknowledge your comments before they came through.
Indeed. Medieval times are just enough distant from us, and so much romanticised, that a lot of strange stories are build around what was the reality. Perhaps, that is part of the fascination, but anyway museums should be the places to seek the correct answers to these questions not just there to give credibility to the legends we have heard of.
I hear museum guides explaining, that this is what the audience wants to hear, but to me that is a poor excuse. How can they know what the audience wants. If there is a part of the audience that comes to the museum to feel good about themselves just by hearing the same “folklore” they allready thought they knew by looking at Hollywood movies, then is it that particular audience they should serve and not an audience, that is actually interrested in facts. In my opinion, it would be much more interresting to hear about facts that actually contradict such popular images.
Thanks for the link. I shall look it up with time.
June 14, 2012 at 6:46 am
Hi
I notice you have not commented or posted for a while. I hope you’re OK.
June 14, 2012 at 8:27 am
Thank you for your concern. I am fine. I simply have been very busy. I am following your blog by email and been thinking of commenting a number of your posts.
June 14, 2012 at 9:13 am
I meant say I thought you may be busy, but I think I pressed the ‘Post’ button too early and could not put that in. Didnt mean to sound like a stalker or anything LOL!
June 20, 2012 at 12:53 pm
Oh, I am more like flattered by your attention. But I am also very sorry I will be very busy in the near future as well, so we will see, if I have much time to comment on your blog, or post much new stuff in my own. Sailing has eaten up most of my free time for now.
November 16, 2022 at 1:33 pm
I’m beginning to hate you already! I can only look at my boats and dream now 😦
July 21, 2012 at 5:33 pm
I only know too well what you mean about museum guides spreading myths about medieval periods. I work as a cruice guide and museum guide in summer, and most of my colleagues have one or two fun facts they like to tell the guests. Some of these fun facts are easily dismissed just by a quick search on the net. I even had to tell them that the medieval worldview did not include a flat earth, even though several of them study history themselves.
July 22, 2012 at 4:57 am
Thank you for the comment Hans Tjelle.
Yes it is a shame how easily we end up making mockery of the past generations that can not defend themselves. I suppose it is some sort of cultural bigotry. Medieval times are so distant to the modern ones, that even if we are talking about our own ancestors people seem to look at them like they were the representatives of a nother culture. This is of course true, but the attitudes people present seem to respond to how they percieve other cultures in general. Educated and civil people usually are able to accept that other cultures (wether ancient or just from some other part of the globe) are not automatically inferior to ours, just because they are different. Hygiene is a typical area of cultural bias. Representatives of different cultures are often seen as unhygienic, just because they have a different practices and approach to hygiene. Myths about how the other cultures are unhygienic are often abundant and ignorant people take such myths at face value.
Most people in the medieval times thought, that the earth is somewhat flat. It was a myth told to them, that they never had any reason to question. Most did not ever even contemplate on the subject, like most of us today do not contemplate quatum physics. There were few learned men who knew better, but to most people the world did not extend much beyond the next village, so in a way the earth was flat to the common people also in reality. The knowledge of the shape of the earth had absolutely no practical value to them.
July 22, 2012 at 7:10 am
I’m gonna have to correct you there. Although many people may have thought the earth was flat, this is not someting we know. What we do know is that every educated person knew the earth to be round. They also knew the general circumferance of the Earth.
What regular people thought is unrecorded, and as you say, most people probably never gave it much thought.
July 22, 2012 at 8:04 pm
Oh yes, the Ptolemian understanding of the round earth had the circumference of the world quite correctly. Some people did knew about this. Who of the medieval people could be counted to be an “educated person” is a more complicated issue. A common priest in some remote parish? A copyist monk in a monastery? A bishop more concerned in making politics and waging wars? A scholar and teacher in the universities of Paris, or Prague? A military engineer perhaps, or a master builder of castles and cathedrals? An admiral in charge of fleets and ships?
When Mr. Columbus was planning his trip to India he was able to convince the Spanish court, king and queen, that his calculations of the circumference of the earth was correct, even though he had estimated it a lot less than that of the Ptolemic estimation (and reality). His entire endeavour was based on that false premise and indeed he propably died believing to have reached India. Was he not an “educated person”. He was the admiral of the Spanish navy. No doubt there were academics who challenged his idealism before the trip, but was their knowledge of this issue based on understanding the Ptolemic calculations, or just blind faith in the authority of the science of antiquity. There is a great difference between these two types of knowledge.
The flat earth myth has existed for ages. For example sailors have told wild stories about the edge of the world where seas fall into abyss. To the sailor the shape of the earth is much more significant information, than to the commoner toiling on a field. These stories may have originated as jokes, or fairytales, but people have a tendency to believe the most wildest of claims. Like that medieval people did not wash themselves…
The flat earth myth was also transmitted through the middle ages by the “educated people” who saw it as ancient lore from the great scientists of the antiquity.
Of course, when we say medieval people, we have not defined wich geographical area, wich civilization or even when, very specifically, but we are talking about such different cultures as the Bysantian empire, Italian city states and for example the kingodm of Denmark under the rule of Harald Bluetooth.
June 24, 2013 at 2:23 pm
I also find museum guide, docents, and even many amateur history writers or lazy scholars often disseminate myth, folklore and other false information.
Even more commonly, they over simplify or provide only partial truths. Sadly I suspect you might be doing just that in this column.
I’m not making any accusation and I don’t mean to be critical, but you pointed out that the museum guides you grilled could not provide scholarly footnotes or sources. (A bit unrealistic an expectation of museum guides in my experience, but I appreciate your dudgeon.) But where are YOUR sources and references? I have read a few books and articles, scholarly and not, on this topic and while they greatly contradict the museum guides and are much closer to your statements, they do not paint quite as rosy a picture as you do. It is true that the general renunciation of bathing was an Early Modern, rather than Medieval phenomenon, but it is also true that hygiene levels, particularly among the masses, were lower in the Barbarian Kingdoms than in the Roman Empire (both previously in the West and as it continued in the East) and that the clergy were often (though not always) the promoters of anti-hygiene measures.
I’m not trying to start a debate, I would prefer a discussion. Perhaps you can footnote this very interesting and constructive column of yours so that I can better my education and understanding on these matters. I would very much appreciate the guidance.
June 25, 2013 at 11:00 pm
Hello thecormac! It is quite possible that I have false information. I would like anyone to correct me. As I would rather learn the truth, than revel in a delusion of my own making. So, if you have better information, please do present it for the benefit of me and anyone perhaps reading this post.
I have some experience about museums and even about museum work. Hence, I think, I am entiteled to my opinion about what quality of information a museum guide should be able to give. The post was very much about that. Is it “unrealistic” for us to expect that an airline pilot can fly, or that a news reporter holds true to the facts? Perhaps it sometimes is, but should it be, is a nother matter and more, or less the point of the entire post.
My idea was to discuss how silly such a dignified and trusted public forum of knowledge as a museum may fall into the pittfalls of distributing popular culture as knowledge, when indeed, they should be the ones who know better. Not so much to reveal any shocking new data about the medieval times.
I am not sure what you base your claim about the level of hygiene being lower in the “Barbarian kingdoms”, than in the Roman empire. It is quite possible, that is somewhat true. Especially concerning civic life, as the Romans were very organized builders of sewers, “termae” and pipes for clean water, but did they value clenliness more than the massive rural folk living in the more “barbaric” areas? Most of the written sources are by Romans and one of my main points in the post was that a foreign culture is often dispised, because of their different approach to hygieny. That is, different methods to solve problems of hygieny are seen as unhygienic. Understandably, since we are talking about taboos. But also regrettably, because it may lead to dehumanization of the other population.
Did I paint a rosy picture somewhere along the line? Perhaps I did, even though, that was never my intention. Could you please point out where did I get it wrong? I do not mind a bit of an argument, as long as it remains civil, But I do not want to even argue over something I claimed, if you can point out where and why I was wrong.
You present a reasonable request for sources and the reasons for wich I did not give mine here included in this post as such was the same as very often in these blog posts of mine. Namely, my posts are my private opinions about facts anyone interrested can research for themselves, not scholarly work in their own right and this post is in English and most of my sources are in other languages. If you are interrested in further reading about medieval hygiene, I can recommend the work of Gudrun Wessnert who has written exellent sourcebooks and scholarly work about the subject. But I am affraid her books are mainly published in Swedish.
But you are right, that as far as my posts are making any positive claims, I should be able to provide my sources when ever requested to do so.
Now, maybe I should write a separate post about the sauna phenomenon, that I briefly glanced in this post and post more pictures of medieval people going to “sauna” with their “vihta”. And then some modern pics, with the traditional modern day “vihta” that has not changed one bit during the transition from Bohemia to Finland, or perhaps vice versa.
For now, I’ll leave you with these images below:
Behind the link there are three separate sources for a woman carrying what is an obvious “vihta”. Two of these seem to have been made from oak branches and the third tree type is hard to recognize. Here in Finland most “vihta” today are made from birch leaves, but it was not uncommon to make them from oak leaves as well. Oaks are simply much more rarer trees in Finland today, than they used to be. Then there is an obvious depiction of a couple of monks or priests at a “sauna” the tub could be the equipment of any kind of bath, but the wooden structures behind are a dead giveaway for this to be the interior of a “sauna”.
These are also evidence about medieval people bathing and quite obviously some of them (even clergy) enjoying it.
Were these sources helpfull in any way? Or was it something else you meant?
I am sorry, that I am very busy at the moment, so my replies may take a bit of time.
July 22, 2016 at 7:16 pm
It is hard to take your article seriously when there are so many mispellings or typos. Proof reading and editing is pretty easy and woefully neglected these days.
September 3, 2016 at 11:36 am
Apologies, Misty, for not answering you promptly. I have been very busy.
As for the typos and mispellings in my article, please bear with me. English is my second language. Besides, my blog articles are not supposed to be scientific works, rather they are observations I have made. That is why I never post any sources for any of the claims I make. If I manage to arouse your intelligence, please look into the matters I present yourself and make your own mind up. If I simply selected the sources for you, I would have poisoned the well for you.
With my articles I wish to point out stuff, that in my opinion deserves the focus of others, not just me. However, most importantly I am writing to myself to later look upon a subject and remember what sort of view I had upon it when I was interrested enough to write about it here. Sadly you, my readers, are out there for me to remain honest and perhaps get an inspiration from me to investigate what I speak of, not to take my word as such. 😉
I do not present myself as an authority. Perhaps my mispellings and typos may help you to not take my word for anything I say. You should not, never, take the word of a blogist as a reliable information. The format of this media is more to the point of alarming us from what others have observed, and then making our own research into the matters. Is it not?
November 16, 2022 at 1:47 pm
“the word of a blogist” I read that as biologist and thought how did he know that biologists are inherently untrustworthy.
It is not our fault! We examine very very complex systems.
November 16, 2022 at 3:24 pm
Haha! You think biology is complex? Try human cultures throughout history and pre-history. They are especially complex to us, because we look at them already biased by our own cultures.
November 16, 2022 at 7:02 pm
This is the fascinating part to me. You throw up a defense for misspellings and typos. I counter with a defense for not recognizing a mistake which by the way was not a mistake. And now we are about to discuss the complexities found in the chaos of our respective disciplines. I like the flavor of this site already!
November 18, 2022 at 12:25 pm
Yuo are most wellcome! I hope you enjoy the rest of it, though I am affraid the subjects of my posts are not very coherent. They are all over the place, like my interrests andI tend to ramble on.