Hygiene, one of the oldest ways to deal with various epidemics and infectious diseases, has been studied not only from medicine, but also from history. Tales of hygiene and the fight against dirt and disease can be found in many historical books and traditions.

The oldest and most basic form of hygiene is bathing. Bathing was the most popular and affordable way to cleanse the body of dirt and give it a fragrance and tenderness. In the Middle Ages, the use of water to purify the body was seen as a source not only of physical purity, but also of purity in a religious sense. Turkish baths have existed since the Ottoman Empire and are an excellent example of hygiene at that time. In Turkish baths, various types of essential oils, shampoos and soap powder were used to cleanse the body, which were served in gilded vessels and vases. But it is worth noting that there are many facts in history when even the great people of their time rejected the rules of hygiene. So Isabella of Castile, the Queen of Spain, according to her confession, in her whole life washed only twice on her birthday and when she walked down the aisle. Napoleon Bonaparte, returning home from the battlefields, sent a messenger to his beloved with a message in which he asked Josephine not to take a bath for a short time before his arrival. For the appearance of soap, modern people should thank the ancient Celts of Gaul, who boiled the first samples of soap from sheep fat and thus opened the way to the improvement of one of the main hygiene assistants.

One of the conditions for observing the rules of hygiene is keeping the toilet clean and periodically disinfecting. For many centuries, toilets were built over simple pits dug away from habitation, or any cluttered place was used to meet the need. The Romans were the first to use flow sewers to accommodate toilets. In ancient Rome, toilets were not only a place for the administration of natural needs, but also a place where the townspeople communicated and resolved the necessary issues. Roman baths were built in close proximity to the toilets, this was due to the presence of sewer channels under the toilets and the flow of water. The citizens of Rome still use the ancient sewerage system to this day. Modern toilets in this form familiar to us first appeared at the end of the 19th century.

The oldest toilet with heating and an air circulation system is located in Paris. The toilet is equipped with a soft seat, and for better air circulation and access for cleaning the cesspool, the room was built several meters above ground level. The toilet was covered with a lid to prevent unpleasant odors from entering the rest of the house. In order to prevent men from urinating on the walls of buildings, images of crosses were applied as protection, which allowed Paris to become one of the cleanest cities in Europe at that time. Small pieces of linen or cotton fabric were used as toilet paper, but this was only available to the rich, ordinary people used large leaves of various plants or just grass as toilet paper.

Hygiene has existed in various forms for thousands of years, it originated as the basis of cleanliness and has evolved into a mandatory rule of sanitation, which we also use in our modern world. The great invention of Louis Pasteur can be attributed to the basics of hygiene. His method of fighting germs was first tested in the 19th century and led to a real revolution in the field of medicine. Sterilization of surgical instruments has led to a sharp reduction in post-operative complications associated with infection in wounds. Pasteurization is widely used not only in medicine, but also in the food industry.

Dental human health is one of the sections of hygiene and is of great importance. Many studies have proven that it is in the oral cavity that the most terrible and dangerous bacteria and microbes for the health of the whole organism find refuge. The first known toothbrush appeared in China in the 14th century and was made from wood and wild boar bristles.

No related links found

Myth or truth?

Christian preachers urged to walk literally in rags and never wash, since it was in this way that spiritual purification could be achieved. It was also impossible to wash, because in this way it was possible to wash off the holy water that had been touched during baptism. As a result, people did not wash for years or did not know water at all.

Queen of Spain Isabella of Castile (end of the 15th century) admitted that she washed herself only twice in her life - at birth and on her wedding day. The Duke of Norfolk refused to bathe, allegedly out of religious beliefs. His body was covered with ulcers. Then the servants waited until his lordship got drunk dead drunk, and barely washed it. Louis XIV bathed only twice in his life - and then on the advice of doctors. Washing brought the monarch into such horror that he swore never to take water procedures.

“Water baths insulate the body, but weaken the body and enlarge the pores. Therefore, they can cause illness and even death,” said a fifteenth-century medical treatise. In the Middle Ages, it was believed that contaminated air could penetrate the cleansed pores. That is why public baths were abolished by royal decree. And if in the 15th-16th centuries rich townspeople bathed at least once every six months, in the 17th-18th centuries they stopped taking a bath at all.

Louis XIII wet in the bath every day

The examples given are completely real - the monks, who did not wash themselves from excess "holiness" for years, the nobleman, who also did not wash himself from religiosity, almost died and was washed by the servants. And they also like to remember Princess Isabella of Castile, who made a vow not to change clothes until victory is won. And poor Isabella kept her word for three years.

But again, strange conclusions are drawn - the lack of hygiene is declared the norm. The fact that all the examples are about people who vowed not to wash, that is, they saw in this some kind of feat, asceticism, is not taken into account. By the way, Isabella's act caused a great resonance throughout Europe, a new color was even invented in her honor, so everyone was shocked by the vow given by the princess.

And if you read the history of baths, and even better - go to the appropriate museum, you can be amazed at the variety of shapes, sizes, materials from which the baths were made, as well as ways to heat water. At the beginning of the 18th century, which they also like to call the dirty century, one English count even got a marble bathtub with taps for hot and cold water in his house - the envy of all his friends who went to his house as if on a tour. Queen Elizabeth I took a bath once a week and demanded that all courtiers also bathe more often. Louis XIII generally soaked in the bath every day. And his son Louis XIV, whom they like to cite as an example of a dirty king, since he didn’t like baths, rubbed himself with alcohol lotions.

However, in order to understand the failure of the myth of the "dirty Middle Ages", it is not necessary to read historical works. It is enough to look at pictures of different eras. Even from the sanctimonious Middle Ages, there are many engravings depicting bathing, washing in baths and baths. And in later times, they especially liked to portray half-dressed beauties in baths.

Not for washing

Ordinary people in the Middle Ages bathed about once a week. Washing technology, I believe, is known to many readers, at times of seasonal shutdown of hot water: pots of hot water, a basin and a ladle. Little has changed here in a thousand years. Representatives of the wealthier classes could afford to take a bath. In the absence of plumbing, it was a troublesome business and you can’t do without servants - you need to heat the water, drag it into the bath, and then scoop out the bath with the same buckets and pour out the water. Wiping with a wet cloth was a common routine of daily hygiene.

Now about the "obscurantist churchmen." One of the most common myths is the story that, at the initiative of the church, public baths in cities were closed, and therefore everyone went dirty. Those who tell this do not take into account that these baths were really a hotbed of vice, and they did not go there at all to wash themselves. Well, just like now, “sauna with girls” is by no means a hygienic event. And it is unlikely that a person who does not go to the sauna regularly will now be considered “dirty”.

But there is another aspect, much less obvious to people unfamiliar with history. The case concerns the issues of confrontation between Christianity and Judaism. A fair number of Jews lived in Europe, and many of them, in order to avoid persecution and infringement of their rights, were formally baptized, but continued to secretly practice the religion of their ancestors. From the point of view of Christian theologians, such behavior was classified as heresy and was strongly discouraged and persecuted. One of the rituals of Judaism is ritual washing through immersion in water to cleanse from ritual impurity. It is clear that the encrypted Jews tried to disguise this rite as household hygiene procedures. And that is why washing by immersion, especially of several people in the same water, aroused very strong suspicions about the possible ritual nature of these actions, and the zealots of Christian piety considered it necessary to play it safe just in case.

It is with this that the often quoted (without indicating the source and without understanding the essence) refusals of the Spanish kings and queens from washing in the bath / pool are connected. This is not a hatred of hygiene, but a refusal to perform one specific action - complete immersion in water.

"It is necessary, it is necessary to wash in the mornings and evenings, and unclean chimney sweeps - shame and disgrace!" Since childhood, we have been taught that cleanliness is the key to health. Yes, and in Russia, the bath has always been held in high esteem, unlike Europe, which for this reason was called unwashed. As you know, medieval Europeans neglected personal hygiene, and some were even proud of the fact that they washed only two, or even once, in their lives.

People could bathe in dirty water, often the whole family, followed by servants, took turns washing in the same water. The Queen of Spain, Isabella of Castile, even admitted that she washed herself only twice in her entire life - at birth and on her wedding day. And Louis XIV also washed himself only twice in his life - and then on the advice of doctors. However, washing horrified him and he swore off doing it. Russian ambassadors wrote that their majesty "stinks like a wild beast." And Pope Clement V died of dysentery.

Who are "God's pearls"

The fact is that the Catholic Church forbade any ablutions except those that occur during baptism and before the wedding. It was believed that when immersed in hot water, pores open through which water enters the body, which then will not find an exit. Thus, the body allegedly becomes vulnerable to infections. And the baths - the heirs of the Roman baths were considered the abode of debauchery. The Church believed that a person should care more about the purity of the soul than about the purity of the body. Ablution was very often perceived as a medical procedure, after which people very often got sick.

It was also impossible to wash, because in this way it was possible to wash off the holy water that had been touched during baptism. As a result, people did not wash for years, or even did not know water at all. Lice were called "God's pearls" and considered a sign of holiness.

Where did the phrase "money doesn't smell" come from?

Unlike Europe, in Russia the bath has always been held in high esteem. For the Slavs, the bath had not only hygienic, but also a deep sacred meaning. The people believed that all sins would be washed away, so they went to the bathhouse once or even twice a week. By the way, Dmitry the impostor did not like the bath, for which he was considered non-Russian. The Russians themselves were considered perverts in Europe because they went to the bath "too often."

But in ancient Rome, hygiene was elevated to unimaginable heights. Roman baths were visited daily. It was a separate culture. By the way, they had public toilet rooms where people calmly communicated. "Money doesn't smell!" - this catchphrase was first uttered by the emperor Vespasian, when his son reproached him for imposing a tax on toilets, while these places, in his opinion, should have remained free.

But what about Versailles?

But in medieval Europe there were no toilets at all. Only the highest nobility. It is said that the French royal court periodically moved from castle to castle, because there was literally nothing to breathe there. The absence of toilets did not bother anyone at all. Even at Versailles, not a single latrine was provided. Long corridors were hung with heavy curtains, behind which everyone relieved themselves. It was then that perfumes gained the greatest popularity. Persistent aromas were designed to drown out the stench coming from human bodies.

Meanwhile, Louis XIV himself had a water closet. As historians say, he could sit on it and at the same time receive guests. By the way, the first public toilet appeared there only in the 19th century. And it was for men only. In Russia, latrines appeared under Peter I.

"Watch out, water!"

According to the description of many guests of Paris, among whom was the great Leonardo da Vinci, there was a terrible stench on the streets of the city. It got to the point that, in the absence of toilets, the chamber pot was easily poured out of the window directly onto the street. It was then that wide-brimmed hats appeared, which were not only a tribute to fashion, but also an ordinary necessity. Since, due to the lack of sewerage, the contents of the chamber pots poured out directly from the windows. At the end of the 13th century, a law was issued in Paris that read: “When pouring a chamber pot out of a window, you need to shout:“ Caution! Water!".

“For since childhood they have not entered the water”

In medieval Europe, clean healthy teeth were considered a sign of low birth. Noble ladies were proud of bad teeth. Representatives of the nobility, who naturally got healthy white teeth, were usually embarrassed by them and tried to smile less often so as not to show their "shame".

People are so unaccustomed to water procedures that Dr. F.E. Bilts, in a popular textbook of medicine from the late 19th century, had to persuade people to bathe. “There are people who, in truth, do not dare to bathe in a river or in a bath, because since childhood they have never entered the water. This fear is unfounded, - Biltz wrote in the book "Natural New Treatment". - After the fifth or sixth bath, you can get used to it ... ".

"The French king Louis XIV bathed only twice in his life - and then on the advice of doctors."(c) Absentis

With light steam, Your Majesty, or, did the Sun King bathe?
(author Nasedkina Ekaterina)

Who among us does not like to read historical novels? Lines run before our eyes, and now brilliant gentlemen and beautiful ladies pass before our eyes. In silks, gold embroidery with skillful hairstyles and magnificent jewelry. So, before us is France - the most beautiful kingdom after the kingdom of God - so the French say, and the Golden Age - the time of the brilliant royal Court, with its taste and grace setting the tone for all of Europe, the time of gallant monsieurs and sophisticated madams. And in the center of this society is the most important luminary - the Sun, the Sun King, Louis XIV in his incomparable palace with parks - Versailles. What a wonderful performance, but, as you know, any holiday has both a beginning and an end. And even Louis the Great will not hide from everyday life and everyday life. And it is about everyday life that our story will go. Or rather, the subject of our conversation will be customs and mores, as a rule, little advertised, but, nevertheless, inseparable from the existence of any person. We will talk about hygiene.

Surely the reader has come across various statements on this topic more than once, where our ancestors, discharged to smithereens, were accused of a terrifying lack of this very hygiene. Is it so - see for yourself.

In fact, this topic is quite difficult to discuss. Since the first thing to do is to define the boundaries of the norm. But by what criteria should the state of cleanliness be judged? And just as we cannot ignore how an individual imagines cleanliness, and how he introduces the rules of neatness into his life. As you can see, the concept of hygiene is quite ambiguous. There are no general rules that apply everywhere, and, therefore, the judgment on this issue is largely subjective. So why be surprised that when systematizing what is commonly called cleanliness of the body within the framework of “general conclusions about the era, in caring for the body and maintaining cleanliness,” no application of these rules is found in practice. And these conclusions lead to the conclusion that the king's personality allows for a specific resistance to a dirty body. At the same time, the opinion varies to the point that cleanliness is a quality inevitably associated with the status of the individual, and therefore the king cannot be dirty, like a peasant. On the other hand, does not the superiority of the royal person over the world free her from the norms that apply to other aristocrats and courtiers? At the same time, taking care of your health is not an argument in favor of taking good care of your body? However, as there is no answer to the question why some customs become mandatory without any reliable confirmation of their need for health.

So what did it mean to be "clean" for the class of aristocrats to which the king belonged? “Culture of appearance, the need to appear aesthetically superior, and the fear of infection were defining factors rather than mere obedience to prescriptions for keeping oneself clean, healthy, and bodily beauty.” . This is not only a requirement for the need for some cleanliness, these are clear instructions for caring for all parts of the body: mouth, nose, ears, sphincter, skin and its folds, nails, hairline and hair, to which clothing and accessories should be added. The rules of care concern the cleanliness of the body as much as the cleanliness of clothes and shoes, and become more complicated in various cases (in war, the king is no less demanding on cleanliness, as when receiving ambassadors at Versailles or when he leaves for Marly).

The limit of purity in the 17th century denotes, first of all, the position and status befitting the office and the courtier and almost synonymous with decency. Saint-Simon claimed that Louis XIV "had sound health and a beautifully proportioned body, enduring admirably hunger, thirst, cold, heat, rain, and any bad weather." It must be understood that in this era such concepts as caring for the body (including its protection from diseases) and maintaining the rank (the social position that a person occupies) are mixed up.

So what was the toilet of the king and the place of water in this process? The lie, but firmly established that Louis XIV took only one bath during his life, and that in fact he is a model of incredible dirt hiding under magnificent clothes, has, to put it mildly, already outlived its usefulness. For the existing sources of information make it possible to sharply criticize this stamp. Historians are well aware of the ritual of the morning rise of the king, which involves "morning toilet, but which follows some nightly ablutions that take place in complete silence." . So, the day begins with the disinfection of hands: “the king is still in bed, the first room footman, holding a bottle of wine alcohol in his right hand, waters His Majesty’s hands, under which he holds a gilded plate with his left hand.” The king washes his face and mouth, as advised by some medical treatises (moreover, such treatises date from the 16th century, and in the 17th century many treatises calling for hygiene are provided with detailed instructions). The king is combed, then he is shaved by one of the barbers, once every two days: “The one whose day His Majesty shaves, puts a napkin on him, washes with soap, shaves, washes after shaving with water mixed with wine alcohol with a soft sponge, and, Finally, pure water. During the time that the king is being shaved, the room footman holds a mirror in front of the king. The king himself wipes his face with a napkin. After the king drank a glass of water, a cup of broth, the footman handed him a napkin to wipe his mouth.

Before going to bed, a napkin “dampened from one edge was provided. The king washed his face and hands with it and dried himself with a dry edge” [ibid, p.303].

The use of toilet articles (mirror, toiletry bag, comb, spittoon, gold or silver shaving dish) appear in the descriptions of the transported royal equipment, while the castles were not lacking in napkins confirms the existence of hygienic practices, even if their actual frequency of implementation is not exactly However, it is known that the habits of the sovereign were unchanged.

During the course of the day, it could happen that the king is "dirty" after returning from a ball game where he sweats profusely. “If His Majesty, having come from a ball game, does not want to wipe himself in bed, two room footmen throw a sheet over his shoulders, wrap it in it, after warming it well, then the king wipes himself on a chair or chair with the help of his barbers and footmen, warming himself in the shofuar (the so-called specially heated place where you can warm up). The barbers are charged with the duty not only to shave the monarch, but also to deal with the whole body. Their role exceeds the feeling of a razor blade, because it is they who wipe the sovereign at the exit from the bath or steam room” [ibid, p.179]. And we were convinced that there were no steam rooms in Versailles!

Did Louis XIV swim? Historians always answer this question in the negative, nevertheless noting that it happened to the king to visit the bathroom, but only in case of illness and on the recommendation of doctors. And they considered that such use of water is not body care.

However, Louis was in the habit from his youth and throughout his adolescence to refreshing baths in the river. . “It happened that he went to bathe in Conflans-Saint-Honore during the stay of the Court with Saint-Germain” [La Porte in the Memoirs testifies that in 1651 the king bathed with Monsieur]. Dubois, the room footman of the young monarch, reports what happened in the afternoon of 1648: “It was hot in the afternoon. The queen was bathing and the king, who also wanted to bathe with her, ordered me to go find Monsieur Vauthier, the first doctor, and urge him to give consent for His Majesty to take a bath with the queen. Sometimes this urge to take baths with the mother might disturb conscientious lackeys. “The courtesy of the queen can do another thing that is completely unsuitable. The king went too far into the garden of the Palais Royal, and got so excited that he was covered with sweat. He was told that the queen was going to take a bath; he quickly ran to join her and ordered me to undress him. I did not want to, and he went to tell the queen, who would not dare to refuse him. I told His Majesty that it was like death for him to take a bath in the state he was in […]. When she (the queen) saw that I was denying this incident connected with her, she said that her first doctor Votier should be asked about this. This incident speaks of the sincere fears of La Porta for the health of the king, when the boy, in such a feverish state, plunges into cold water. And at the very least, there is no evidence of fear or disapproval of baths and their use.

In any case, in his "Dictionary" of 1690. Fuuretière defines baths as “a place full of water, in which one is immersed for some time, necessary to wash and cleanse or refresh. A natural bath - in a river - is especially good in places where there is only sand. And artificial ones - when they go to baths and steam rooms.

Here is another piece of evidence. On July 6, 1651, the king bathed in the river. Then there was a custom to bathe in a long gray robe. During the royal bath, the Captain-Concierge of the small crew, or the Chief Keeper of the awnings and pavilions of the Court, chose the cleanest place for swimming, where he installed a canopy on the river bank and a room for His Majesty, where the king undressed and then dressed.

The need to take a bath depended entirely on the feeling of cleanliness or "dirty", that is, subjectively, and did not create a ritualization of the everyday life of the king.

It may seem that the first bathing in the river received its later continuation in the bathing in the rooms. However, it is not. A study of the sanitary facilities in royal castles may provide additional insight into this issue. So in Fontainebleau there are steam rooms and baths built during the time of Francis I. Here are the testimonies of Pierre Dan: after describing the steam rooms of the castle, he notes “another hall where there is a bath in the middle, as well as a pool 3.5 feet deep (about 113 cm) and 14 long (4.5 m) and 10 wide (about 3.2 m), surrounded by a balustrade, where water descends through bronze pipes that come from the aforementioned vat. It is not difficult to guess that this equipment served not only as decoration.

Now, as for Versailles. The King had at his disposal the Bathrooms, begun in 1672, located near the Great Apartments on the ground floor. Here is the description given to these rooms by Felibien des Avaux: “On one side of the room there are four columns of purple marble, the bases and capitals of which are of gilded bronze. They serve to separate the place where there is a table in the form of a rack, on which there are all the vases and other items necessary for taking a bath. The study is, as it were, divided in two, since the part you enter first, measuring 18 feet by 4, has a huge marble bathroom in the middle, and in the other part, which is made in the form of an alcove and where several steps are visible, has a size of 9 feet wide and 3 tuaz (6 feet = 1 tuaz, total about 6 meters) long. There are several small marble baths here. In the last room is a tank of water." It is quite obvious that the presence of a water tank indicates that the baths are filled with water. By the way, the accounts of the castle also speak about this. 9,000 livres were spent in 1673 for a marble bath, while in 1675 the marble makers demanded an additional 5,000 livres. In the same year, Lefebvre plans the following works: to finish the bathroom apartments, to drain the water from the baths into an underground reservoir. In 1677, this is 6,000 livres, which are listed in the receipts in the form of 2 additional baths.

By the way, such a historical case will serve as additional proof of cleanliness. Water was available all the time, so when Louis, upon learning of the death of his mother, Anne of Austria, felt ill (almost fainting) "he entered the bathroom (Louvre), where he had to splash water on his face."

There is a description of the Louvre bathrooms, equipped with hot water taps, contained in the records dedicated to the Siamese embassy in 1686 in the Supplement to the Gallant Mercury. Even more significant is the mention in the list of 1675 of pieces of paintings intended for baths, a stool for baths, etc.

Moreover, all this took place in a perfumed atmosphere. “When the King or Monsignor needs a bath in the rooms, or just to wash his feet, the officers of the Stations warm and pour warm water, and the King or Monsignor is in the bath when they burn or evaporate the odors; it is the parking lot officer who holds the heated spatula on which the perfume is spilled.

If these baths were not in the nature of everyday life, they would have had much more witnesses and testimonies. The king could take baths repeatedly, just to relax. However, numerous details suggest that he did not always bathe alone. This can be seen in the direct condemnations of the pious Puget de La Serre: “You bathe in fountains of fragrant water, and my Jesus in streams of his own blood, or rather in the sea. You richly adorn your body in linen and silk, and my Savior with your skin, flayed so that trembling insides are visible. . And also on the small indiscretions of Visconti: “It seems that ladies are more disposed here than men.”

As for the use of fragrant fountains, this was done specifically for a pleasant smell, rather than for cleansing the skin. In his youth, the king used perfume liberally. Even the ambassador of Siam managed to visit the Spirits' cabinet in the Porcelain Trianon. But later, "considering that the king suffered from terrible migraines, he had to give preference to a bath in order to get rid of inappropriate aromas." Although the king used the "Water of the Hungarian Queen" (which was perfumed with rosemary) - the equivalent of our cologne, but for the purpose of pain relief. It also needs to be clarified as to the existence of perfumed accessories designed to remove unpleasant odors, such as scented pillows and other perfumed bed toiletries that appear in royal reports. The very use of water for baths or for more modest ablutions testifies to a care for cleanliness that was not neglected.

We are advised to beware of judgments about the degree of royal purity in the light of modern ideas. Speaking about the fact that today's concept of "pure" is not at all the same as in those days. Then it would not be superfluous to recall the famous passion for purity of the Spanish King Philip II. And this fashion inspired the French, the royal house, which became related to the glorious Spanish family. Even the Italian Marana exclaimed: “Everyone dresses with great cleanliness, bows, lace and mirrors - these are three things without which the French cannot live!” . The desire to remain clean is confirmed in the change of clothes of the king when he feels that he himself or his clothes have lost their freshness. Riding a horse, playing ball, hunting to an even greater extent subjected his purity to severe tests. Also, let's not forget that etiquette provides for the presence of a footman holding a mirror while the king is dressing, undressing or changing clothes, which happens when he plays ball, goes to bathe in the Bathrooms or on the river, etc. At the same time, he dresses after visiting the bath. The same thing happens when he returns from hunting or long walks in the gardens. He also has scarves, napkins, sheets, etc. at his disposal. enough to be changed frequently. By the whiteness of fabrics, cleanliness is judged, in a broad sense - about hygiene.

With regard to oral care, this is a separate issue, since the king really had very ordinary teeth. In addition, all personal care manuals refer to the need to brush your teeth in the morning and after meals. Damikur in his "Secrets of Removing Old Age", Duchenne with advice to use a toothpick made of mastic wood, rosemary or other fragrant plant. Lois Guyon in The Mirror of Beauty is more specific - one should prevent this erosion by frequent rinsing of the mouth with a decoction of sage in wine, filling the mouth with black hellebore powder with honey or camphor, which is said to completely prevent destruction. And Barthélemy Martan in his Dissertation on Teeth invites the reader to brush his teeth every morning with fresh water and a fine cloth. These precautions will become unnecessary for the king only at the moment of complete loss of teeth, what he said about himself, obviously, without complexes about this.

Now let's talk about table manners, for the way people eat food gives us an opportunity to judge their cleanliness. So, before breakfast, the headwaiter gives the king “the first folded napkin with which his Majesty washes his hands before eating. And this part of the ritual they (head waiters) do not yield to anyone except the princes of the blood and legitimate sons. Also, hands are washed after eating. During meals, the use of a fork is a sign of tidiness, since according to Curtan “it is very indecent to touch something fatty, sauces and some syrups with your fingers. In addition, this will oblige you to commit two or three more obscenities. One is to frequently wipe your hands on a tissue and get it dirty like a kitchen rag, risking heartaches to those who see you wipe your mouth with it. Another is to wipe your hands on bread, which is also unpleasant. And the third is to lick your fingers - which is the height of sloppiness. The fact that Louis XIV at the table used a golden spoon, fork, knife and toothpick is little known to the Russian-speaking reader. But, nevertheless, confirming evidence remained about this in the description of the royal inventory.

From all this it follows that the prince must be "clean", if not for reasons of health or impeccable appearance, then at least out of respect for his rank. And since the title of king is higher than all other titles, he should be neat first of all.

I hope that now, reading the next historical novel or watching the next film adaptation, the reader will not have a slight grin about the mores of that time and the desire to speak out about the swarm of flies that accompanied all this court campaign decorated with gold and precious stones. Let's admit it - they washed, and it was as natural for them as it is for you and me.

In addition to these sources, the article used Stanis Perez's monograph "Journal of Health of Louis XIV".

The myth that hygiene was not followed in Europe is rooted in the traditional life of Russian culture, namely the existence of baths in Russia. There is an assumption that our invention is a bath, the European one is perfumery. The eternal dispute about whether Europe was washed in the Middle Ages or not, still rumbles with a terrifying colonnade.

Whether a person washed or not, or rather how often he did it, depended on several factors: a) the financial status of a citizen, it is clear that the richer you are, the more comfortable life is; b) time, for example, an epidemic of plague or syphilis weakened the European's interest in hygiene, and did not cause a pandemic; c) and individual factors. The church treated washing in two ways, on the one hand there were always fanatics who claimed that everything natural is from God, including dirt, on the other hand, more reasonable representatives of the clergy did not care about hygiene. Confused by another - public baths.

Namely, that after the third liter of beer, the local men had a desire to take a steam bath and, in order not to be bored, call the "girls" for the company. Girls who charge by the hour. Why not go with your wife? But come on, I admit - I got carried away, now about Louis XIV, the Sun King, who washed himself twice in his life: at baptism and before the wedding. Or not. By the way, an absolutely similar myth is attributed to Isabella of Castile, where she allegedly boasts to her friend that she “discredited” her body only twice in her life. However, she really did not bathe for several years, but only because she made a vow - while the Moors remain in Spain, no shower.

The etiquette of that time attributed to the nobleman, especially the king, to look neat, look after his appearance, regularly wash, shave, which the king, of course, did. So, he could hardly stink, except perhaps with spirits. From which, by the way, he refused (well, or reduced the amount) in adulthood - he tortured the migraine.

But the Sun King really did not like baths, which is true. The French king bathed most often on the advice of doctors; to relax - after learning about the death of his mother, he became so ill that he ordered to take a bath, and from a subjective point of view - that is, when the body began to smell - nothing prevented him from getting into warm water (which he did if necessary) . This is already part of palace etiquette, you can’t smell bad in society. Even if you are a king, even if it's in the 17th century. Again, it is difficult to track how often Ludovic took water procedures, but definitely more than twice in his life. We also know that Louis liked to swim in the river (no, not in the one where incense is dumped), here the account was not entered.