Quote:
Originally Posted by issybird
When a pretty good, apparently well-researched historical novel with a good review in the NYT (which is how I found it) has rookie anachronisms which even half-competent editing or common sense should have caught.
A person imprisoned in the Tower of London, describing his cell, includes “a bucket for a toilet.” A toilet?  In 1600? That’s not what toilet meant. I really don’t expect, don’t even want, turn of the 17th century characters to talk entirely in the vernacular, but I expect their vocabulary to be contemporaneous with their era. No Revolutionary War airports.
So much for all that research. And NYT reviews, at that. I should know better. |
At least they didn't call it a bathroom. Though "toilet" started as a euphemism in about 1820 for the place rather than doing up one's self. The original meaning still survives. A bucket as a chamber pot would have been common in 1600. Perhaps someone can explain to me why Americans "go to the bathroom".
Plenty of cells in England might still use a bucket. It's not worthy of mention. What would have been memorable would be if it had had a real "garderobe", a seat over a hole on the outer wall. Only rich people had those.