This image of a bourdaloue might be somewhat confusing to the uninitiated. Could this small and elegant vessel be a gravy boat? Or a blood-letting container?
Sevres bourdaloue, 1831.
This image by Francois Boucher says it all. A fully dressed lady is relieving herself into an object called the bourdaloue or bourdalou, careful not to soil her skirts. Her maid, no doubt, stands nearby, waiting to receive the small chamber pot in order to empty it. The lady (or woman of ill repute) is in a public place – a theatre or tavern, perhaps – but certainly not a church. Wherever she is, the place has no public toilet. And so she must relieve herself standing up, taking care not to soil her skirt and petticoats.
Louis Bourdaloue. Image @Wikimedia Commons
According to legend, the name of this porta potty comes from Louis Bourdaloue (1632-1704), one of Louis XIVs Jesuit priests. His oratorical skills were reputedly so accomplished that people felt they could not miss a single word of his sermons. It is said that women sat through his masses with a bourdaloue placed under their dresses, whose skirts were held out by panniers. Since the priest’s sermons were somewhat longwinded, the chances that ladies would need to relieve themselves were almost certain. As a rule, churches and theatres had no toilets, and there were no breaks given during sermons. Ergo these portable urinals, which were ergonomically designed to accommodate the female body.
The vessel was oblong, rectangular, or oval in shape. A slightly raised lip at one end and a handle at the other allowed the woman to relieve herself from a squatting or standing position. The edges curved inward to avoid hurting her tenderest parts.
Sevres bourdaloue, with medallion depicting a scene from Watteau, blue lapis and framed in gold leaf. 1892.
It is a little hard to distinguish truth from fiction, so I am a bit skeptical about this apocryphal tale. Were the priest’s sermons in the early 18th century so truly awe-inspiring that a lady would squat in her pew, however discreetly, to relieve herself in front of her family and other parishioners so as not to miss a word?
In truth it was her maid who brought the vessel in, for bourdaloues were compact and came with a cover. When a lady had to relieve herself she would, I imagine, retreat discreetly to a private corner of a tall pew or to a back or side room in the church. Her maid would then hand the vessel over to her mistress, who took care not to spill any liquid on her skirts. When the lady was finished, she would hand the bourdaloue to her maid to empty its contents. When attending a play or opera at the theatre, I imagine she would again retreat to a darker more private corner of the box to urinate.
A PAIR OF SEVRES BOURDALOUES (POTS DE CHAMBRE OVALE) CIRCA 1776,
Designed only for women, these bourdalous are quite beautiful. Made of faience or porcelain, they are decorated with flowers or painted scenes. Many are gilded. The portable pots, or coach pots as they were known in England, could be decorated inside as well. They were quite small and compact, designed for travel, which made it easy to carry them and pack them for coach trips. They were also taken to long banquets, where ladies would scurry behind curtains when they needed to go.
Bourdalou made in France c. 1840. It has an engraved crest and a leather case to contain it. The silver bourdalou is a small urinary receptacle for female use, of compressed eliptical shape and generally made of porcelaine or earthenware, but also made occasionally of silver. Its front end has an incurved rim and, usually, stands on a simple foot ring with a simple loop handle. Also known as a coach pot in England.
Bourdaloues were used throughout the 18th and for most of the 19th century. As water closets began to be built inside homes and buildings, the use of these chamber pots began to be reduced dramatically.
Plain bourdaloue made of creamware. The shape is quite elegant.
Gentlemen had it a little easier, although this satiric French cartoon, which I have shown before, depicts the disgust that Frenchmen felt towards Englishmen who freely pissed in a pot in the dining room. In this instance, the man misses the chamber pot and hits the floor. There seems to be a lack of modesty among these men, which largely holds true today.
c1816, from Fitzwilliam Museum.
Modesty is also lacking in this cartoon of ladies relieving themselves inside a public restroom at Vauxhall Gardens. Four are arrayed on a long latrine against the wall. One lady is refreshing her make up and another is tightening her garter. If such scenes were common for upper class women in public spaces, perhaps many felt no modesty relieving themselves in church as well.
The Inside of the Lady’s Garden at Vauxhall, 1788 by SW Fores. Image @British Library. The interior of a ladies’ cloak-room. Against the wall on two sides of the room is a bench forming a latrine on which four fashionably dressed ladies are seated. On the right a woman in profile to the right, resembling Lady Archer, applies paint to her cheeks before a mirror lit by two candles. A young woman seated beside her on the extreme right ties up her garter.
Jane Austen's World 
How fascinating!
This was an incredibly fascinating post Vic. What elegant materials for such a common, everyday object.
Yes, a fascinating insight into what was we would hardly call ‘polite’ and ‘acceptable’ behaviour in today’s world. When people lament ‘the dropping of standards’ in modern society it really is relative.
So is this where the term loo originated from?
no, actually the term loo comes from the term regardez l’eau pronouced (gardy-loo) which means watch out for the water, because people would empty their chamberpots onto the street below….only it wasn’t water you needed to watch out for! lol
Delightfully interesting. Vallerie has a good point… is this where the term Loo came from? Of course that has always been a big debate. Regardless, great article
Harry and Vallerie: I wish I knew. Your guess is as good as mine!
Very amusing but informative
This post leaves me with two questions. Did gentlemen ever borrow their lady’s bourdaloue in a case of emergency? And how did people take care of their hands? Did they bring a little wet handkerchief or cloth to wipe in case of clumsiness? Curious minds want to know.
So very interesting! Thank you.
Fascinating post Vic! I often wonder how such things were handled…who knew?? As much as I long for some Victorian traditions, the lack of “facilities” is not one of them.
Now this appears to take physical skill to pull off and could result in some disasters. Could be that women having to retire from company from faintness or some other excuse were really trying to deal with some desperate situations that spring to mind.
Lovely little pots though.
You have an excellent point, Nokomarie!
I’d always wondered about the excess sufferings of “headaches” and “fainting” in that era…
Although some degree is quite understandable (lack of Advil, air-conditioning, and tightness of corsets, etc)…. it is also plausible that women simply “had to go” and didn’t want to embarrass themselves.
Better to feint a faint! LOL
There’s a great series hosted by Lucy Worsley, Chief Curator of Historic Royal Palaces, on the history of the main rooms of a house, bathroom, bedroom, kitchen, and living room. Here’s a link to the bathroom episode, which opens with Lucy in full regalia, pretending to use the bourdaloue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inoVg5a1kps&feature=relmfu
Thanks, Chris! This was quite a neat trick for a woman wearing wide skirts with panniers. This must have been slightly more challenging for Regency misses in gossamer gowns! Also, one would imagine a certain amount of deftness in retrieving the bourdaloue and handing it over to the maid without spillage.
This is really interesting. I definitely would never have been able to guess what this was used for. They are so pretty. I am now reading the book,”Catherine the Great” and I am sure that this was used then too. Thank goodness things are different now. I cannot imagine being in those long dresses with all the slips, etc. and still have to take care of personal neccessities!
Omg, so interesting – details like this really help us understand the world of the past……and I love this blog — it’s the best!
Fascinating info. Love this blog for all the great info you share with us.
Well, now, see – I’m never going to be able to look at a gravy boat again!
Julie
I was totally thinking the same thing as Julie above!
I’m sure I will look at a gravy boat in the future but I suspect I shall be apprehensive regarding it’s contents; and I shall say no more! ;-)
Reblogged this on Murosymuebles's Blog.
The bourdaloues don’t look very big–I guess the Big Gulps hadn’t been invented yet.
Vic, This is such an interesting topic. Would we had something of the sort today, to avoid the lines to the Lady’s. Having lived in Europe for many years, I can attest that European women are not nearly as worried about modisty as American women are.
I suppose it also helped that the beginnings of knickers/panties didn’t start to catch on until the 1830s or so – with all those petticoats you wouldn’t want to be worrying about pulling something down as well!
Hello!
It’s a really amazing vessel. So, at that time the women used a lot of clothes: one dress over another one, and so on… I think it’s very dificult for peeing and at that menstruation period. It should be amusing to see how the women skirting at that age. These ones suffered for making a simple activity like peeing. Best regards.
I found this quite fascinating Vic, it’s a subject I must admit I’ve never given any thought to, yet it really is a subject of some moment and I thank you for it.
Too I must agree with your remarks regarding the modesty of men, frankly the attitude of many men disgusts me and I can make no excuse for them. They seem to take great delight in their being coarse and crude and even to boasting about it quite proudly.
Since making my previous comment I’d been sitting in the garden enjoying a warm winter sun with my dog CoCo and reading Pride & Prejudice for the eleventyninth time and I had a dreadful vision.
There was Mrs Gardiner and Elizabeth at the theatre and popping behind a pillar to use their bourdaloues during the performance and it quite destroyed my image of these ladies :-( ;and then I realized that they did not wear pantaloons or knickers and in distress I put the book down and went in to the house and had my lunch. ;-)
Love this comment! Thanks for making me laugh.
Secular moderns may find the idea of interesting sermons to be incomprehensible, but many of our ancestors did not. George Whitfield was all the rage in the colonial United States, and John Wesley “packed ’em in” during his open-air sermons in England.
As for wondering about the lack of modesty exhibited by the ladies in their room at Vauxhall Gardens, remember this was before Victorian times, when *everything* became shameful. Even these Georgian demoiselles, however, would wonder at our lack of shame if they saw us in modern swimsuits on the beach.
Wasn’t dreadfully elegant was it? And it in a period we often think of as elegant. And of course the streets in towns and cits stank – All I can say is, thank God for modern plumbing.
And those things weren’t very large were they?
very funny and sad… poor creatures, and their maids…imagine the stench! even now in our kinds of countries there are corporators and activist groups making it possible for poor women in urban spaces to relieve themselves safely and have access to light and water in the public (and only) toilets.. slumdog is overdone, though .
I must say that this whole thing is taking up a lot of my time thinking about it, hahaha. But, looking at the clothing of the woman in the painting, and imagining how easily hidden the whole process might be is one thing. Thinking of the simple and elegant shape of the Regency dresses is something else – now, we have to bring the whole thing up around our waist to be sure we haven’t left any tell-tale “signs”… I’m still having a lot of trouble imagining Lizzy Bennet doing any such thing, let alone Miss Austen!
Julie
I have actually wondered about this topic for years. I lived In Williamsburg until I was 7 and had grandparents there so I was in the Colonial part frequently. It occurred to me at a fairly early age that those people in the costumed stores or out doing their “job” had to have had to use the, the, uhm, toilet. As I got older I began to notice a port-o-potty occasionally, probably for some big event. I thought it was kind of weird that I was the only who was curious about that. I did order a book on sanitation, etc, from that series of books by Shropshire Libraries, correct me, Vic, if I’ve got the reference wrong, the company that prints thin little books about any number of topics. You can easily read them in about an hour or less.
superbe reportage
on ne s’ imagine pas les petits problèmes que les femmes pouvaient
rencontrer à cette époque le xviii
je n’ en avais jamais vu , mais beaucoup entendu dans certains romans
merci de cette découverte
edith
I have no idea what you are saying 501pendules but it all looks rather naughty and rude to me. Keep up the good work :-)
Je vous remercie de votre compliment, Edith, and thank you for stopping by!
I would love to find one of these little handy vessels to take with me to the doctor, so the next time someone hands me the tiny little cup to try and void into, I will say, “No thank you, I brought my own.”. LOL Actually with the wider dresses and a chair or stool situated just right I can see one of this little handies working quite well. I am a Civil War living historian. When drawers did start to come into fashion they were split crotch drawers, so it is actually quite easy to accomplish the chore when needed. Many older women didn’t wear drawers even then, apparently, they felt it was an “optional” undergarment. I would much prefer one of these to using the public port-o-lets at most events. I would love to see one with the lid that was mentioned. One of the first rules of collecting antique dishware is: two handles it is a soup tureen, one handle it is a chamber pot.
The link I provided below the last image features a bourdaloue with a lid! It truly looks like a piece of dinnerware then!
My mother, when she had a long stay in the hospital, was given a plastic “Jane”, which resembles the bourdaloue in many ways.
Necessity is the mother of invention. Needing to pee is such a basic requirement, but lack of public toilets and the unnecessary requirement of ‘modesty’ placed on women did make such inventions necessary!
Brilliant piece, Vic. I had NO idea there was a Boucher depicting such a subject, nor that a wide array of gorgeous Regency and Victorian creamers were…not what they seemed! It’s actually an efficient system for a lady relieving herself at a theatre or in a coach, and having the bourdaloue “hatted” makes it less icky. The thing that has always given me nightmares is the thought of all the maids who had to carry away and wash chamberpots filled with, er, nombre deux, not to mention washing menstrual rags. If women used rags then. I’ve read that they simply bled into their clothing, but I either don’t understand that, or completely disbelieve it. For what would happen to the thin white muslin gowns of Austen’s day in such a case?
Funny you mentioned, rags, Diana. I had been wondering about that topic as well. Were there receptacles for such rags in outhouses, for example? And what did one do with a soiled rag? Leave it behind for the maid? I’ve seen no “rag” containers. As for women not wearing any protective cloths during menstruation – I just don’t buy it, especially during the regency era. Imagine how quickly muslin and silk dresses would be destroyed with such a practice.
I know that in many cultures, girls simply remained in a private room for a while until menstruation was over. (But what about the servants and working stiffs? They had no such luxury.)There are so many details that have escaped history – we don’t tend to record our most intimate moments when it comes to bodily functions – and one era can respond very differently from the next!
Well, that’s the thing, Vic, and that’s why I was amazed you found that Boucher and the bourdaloues. The information only goes so far and then it stops! I’ve done a bit of research myself (there’s a fine historical museum of menstruation online), but it’s flabbergasting how such basic facts can be lost to history. You’d think *some* writer would have written a description, but I haven’t found one. I know the maids had to wash menstrual cloths, but oh what a mess without running water; how could the job be hidden from the public eye? Perhaps “ladies” took to their beds and remained “indisposed” with “vapors” during menstruation, but yes, what did the maids do themselves? And, during all those drawing-room scenes in Jane Austen, did ladies excuse themselves to go to their chamber and use a pot there, or did they trot out to an outhouse where everyone could see where they were going? I think there is one possible example in Austen, here, in Emma:
“Did you ever have your likeness taken, Harriet?” said she: “Did you ever sit for your picture?”
Harriet was on the point of leaving the room, and only stopt to say, with a very interesting naïveté — ,
“Oh! dear, no, never.”
Well, we can guess where she was going, can’t we!
Diana: I’m sure you’ve seen this. Just in case you haven’t, check the section on menstruation (at the bottom of the post). There is a fascinating description on how the pads were cleaned. http://13depository.blogspot.com/2002/03/private-lives-of-17th-and-18th.html
This link contains a description of French periodical pills: http://www.alwaysmorequestions.com/?p=113
Here are some late 19th century ads: http://www.mum.org/suspend.htm
Books on the topic veer from ancient Greece to primitive societies, with hardly any mention of 18th and 19th century Europe.
Somehow I think I’ll give this & these links a miss, I’m just about to eat breakfast. :-\
I would like to thank Vic for this excellent post, as well as Chris, above, who was kind enough to link to the British show about the history of bathrooms. Living in America, I was entirely innocent of the existence of Dr. Lucy Worsely before this post. Now I have a new YouTube obsession. She’s hilarious!
something i haven’t seen mentioned is ‘wiping’. What did they use? The out house stories here talk about using old catalogs. leaves are mentioned. is information available?