An account of the accessibility, odor, and sanitation of latrines throughout the 15th-18th c. in primarily London and the surrounding areas.
Plaque advertising fosses mobiles or transportable privies. (Fantelin)
Introduction
In medieval London, prior to the advent of closed sewer systems and indoor flush toilets, latrines became a creative addition to both the private and public spheres. With what would be considered now as no technology to flush waste, flowing water became an integral part to latrines. As the odor and health issues became worse, latrines focused on accessibility and odor control and began to use systems other than sole water disposal.
Latrines
Sir John Harrington may have been the first to develop the first waste system similar to the one we have today. The accumulation of rainwater in a large tank would allow for a constant supply of water without proximity to a river or stream. The tank’s valve would allow water to fill a bowl at certain times to cover the odor of the waste in the bowl, and once filled, could be released into a cesspool. Similar to modern water closets and flush toilets, this system dealt with odor, water for flushing, and prevented an abundance of waste in the public gutters. (Sabine 313)
Latrines in the end of the Middle Ages could be found between buildings and in alleys of cities, tucked away in the narrow lanes but close enough for easy access. These latrines were designed with removable walls in the box-like shape we would think of now like an outhouse, which could allow waste to be removed from the latrine when full, smelly, or overflowing. The waste, for these latrines removed from water, would be transported and disposed of away from the living areas of the cities. (Jørgensen, Sanitation, 563-564)
As time went on, latrine design became more advanced and flexible in arrangement within cities and households. For instance, by the end of the 18th century, fosses mobiles, or transportable latrines, became popular within England and France. These movable privies prevented fermentation by separating excrement and urine, which reduced the odors emitted from latrines. (Patent 11) In addition, the catchments were hermetically sealed to avoid leaks and other disastrous occurrences that were common among the previous systems. (Patent 12) The system worked by dividing the waste and through a series of catchments and bowls and pans which allowed waste to pass without the lingering smell which had been cause for abundant issues in medieval London. This system can be seen in the diagrams below. (Edwards)
Sketch depicting the system of waste disposal in fosses mobiles. (Galtier-Boissière)
Pan system to separate excrement from urine and avoid fermentation and odor. (Edwards)
Stench
Cited by multiple sources throughout history, the stench of waste disposal was cause for complaints and even indictment in many cases. In Modernity and Medieval Muck, Jørgensen writes that 24 out of 252 cases of complaints about locations of latrines. (227) The “nuisances” and complaints of odor and inconvenience were all too common in medieval London, bringing the problems to the city officials and mayors. This common complaint was a result of no centralized sewer or waste management system, as each household or housing group dealt with waste in their individual way, inconsiderate of the effect on passersby and neighbors to the waste. The creative solutions of each household resulted in the accumulation of waste in the public gutters, which as a result, would become backed up with waste. (Sabine 311-313)
Different diseases from the contaminated Thames River, “a design for a fresco in the New House of Parliament.” (London Stink)
One author even writes that the putrid smell is “the true source of an infinity of evils which afflict humanity.” (Patent 4) The massive population of London was too much for the capacity of privies, which would often lay stagnant and full of excrement. The stench was cause for a variety of illnesses which afflicted people of all ages, classes, and sexes because despite many public latrines used only by lower classes, the smell infiltrated the city for all to experience. (Patent 8-9) As remarked in the design for a fresco above, the disease ridden waterways and privies were host to diphtheria, scropula, and cholera to name a few. (London Stink) The stench and dangers of latrines were also major contributing factors for fevers, dysentery, conjuntivitis, and chronic stomach aches. (Patent 6)
Sanitation
With the effects of disease and stench, latrine designs required sanitation and methods of upkeep. Private latrines, belonging only to people of nobility or wealth in the Middle Ages, would use a local running water supply as an open sewer system. This did not come without cost, the waterways to be cleaned required an annual fee to pay for cleaners. (Sabine 310) Of the 200,000 privies in London, about 10,000 worked in tandem with water and were considered to be water closets. (Patent 5) These water closets were much safer for humans but contaminated water supplies. The urine and other waste runoff would percolate into both above-ground and underground waterways, contaminating water supplies for drinking water. (Patent 10)
The matter of cleanliness, more a matter of odor and built up waste, was dealt with by paid privy-cleaners who worked during the night hours. Unfortunately, cesspools used by the poor would be within the same unit as the privy, in which the floor was the only separation between the privy and cesspool below. This led to numerous accidents and deaths of those sitting and those cleaning. (Sabine 314-317) The deaths of workmen were numerous from the dangers of emptying the privies when full and falling in or the residual effects of inhaling and touching the filth. (Patent 8)
Conclusion
England throughout the Middle Ages and pre-Industrial Revolution dealt with a slew of issues and solutions regarding public access to latrines, odor, and sanitation. These inventions and advances contribute a large part to the history of the toilet today.
Bibliography
Jørgensen, Dolly. “Cooperative Sanitation: Managing Streets and Gutters in Late Medieval England and Scandinavia.” Technology and Culture, vol. 49, no. 3, 2008, pp. 547–567. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40061427.
Jørgensen, Dolly. “Modernity and Medieval Muck.” Nature and Culture, vol. 9, no. 3, 2014, pp. 225–237. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43304068.
“Patent of Importation in [Sic] the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Fosses Mobiles Inodores, or Privies Transportable and without Odour, of the Invention of Mr. Cazeneuve, and the Fabrication of the Calcarious [Sic] Urine, and Fine Sifted Dung, by the Process in Chemistry of Mr. Donat : Fauche-Borel & Co : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming.” Internet Archive, [London], 1 Jan. 1970, pp. 4-20, archive.org/details/b30354900/page/6/mode/2up.
Sabine, Ernest L. “Latrines and Cesspools of Mediaeval London.” Speculum, vol. 9, no. 3, 1934, pp. 310–317., doi:10.2307/2853898.
Image Sources
Edward S. Philbrick, “Lecture XI: Apparatus Used for House Drainage,” American Sanitary Engineering (New York: The Sanitary Engineer, 1881), p. 117.
Fantelin, André. Fosses Mobiles Inodores, parismyope.blogspot.com/2010/11/fosses-mobiles-inodores.html.
Galtier-Boissière, Emile. Illustrated Dictionary of Usual Medicine, 1902.
“London’s Great Stink.” Historic UK, www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Londons-Great-Stink/.