Nature as Norm in Medieval Medical Discussions of Maternal Breastfeeding and Wet-Nursing

IF 0.4 2区 历史学 0 MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE STUDIES JOURNAL OF MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN STUDIES Pub Date : 2019-09-01 DOI:10.1215/10829636-7724673
M. Lugt, S. Kay, Nicolette Zeeman
{"title":"Nature as Norm in Medieval Medical Discussions of Maternal Breastfeeding and Wet-Nursing","authors":"M. Lugt, S. Kay, Nicolette Zeeman","doi":"10.1215/10829636-7724673","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Medieval discussions about breastfeeding were saturated with moral and social meanings and arguments about how a good mother should behave and what makes for a happy, healthy baby. At the center was the question of who should breastfeed, the mother or a wet nurse. While the church sanctioned maternal breastfeeding as a moral norm, recourse to wet nurses was the norm for elites, and the custom spread in the later Middle Ages to the middling segments of society. Medieval physicians formulated their advice according to their understanding of the moral and normative authority of nature, but also in complex dialogue with contemporary pastoral theory and moral philosophy (which rejected wet-nursing), as well as contemporary social practices, values, and beliefs. Physicians recognized maternal breastfeeding as the best and most natural option because of the physiological continuity between gestation and lactation, yet their advice was adapted to the social realities of their patrons and patients by giving guidance about choosing a good wet nurse and controling her manner of life. Contrary to what is often claimed or supposed, the notion that the milk of amoral and bad-mannered wet nurses might lead to the degeneration of children did not originate from Galenic physiology but from nonmedical sources. Physicians themselves were reticent about attributing quasi-hereditary powers to mother’s milk, insisting instead on the dangers of neglect in the care of infants.","PeriodicalId":51901,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN STUDIES","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN STUDIES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/10829636-7724673","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Medieval discussions about breastfeeding were saturated with moral and social meanings and arguments about how a good mother should behave and what makes for a happy, healthy baby. At the center was the question of who should breastfeed, the mother or a wet nurse. While the church sanctioned maternal breastfeeding as a moral norm, recourse to wet nurses was the norm for elites, and the custom spread in the later Middle Ages to the middling segments of society. Medieval physicians formulated their advice according to their understanding of the moral and normative authority of nature, but also in complex dialogue with contemporary pastoral theory and moral philosophy (which rejected wet-nursing), as well as contemporary social practices, values, and beliefs. Physicians recognized maternal breastfeeding as the best and most natural option because of the physiological continuity between gestation and lactation, yet their advice was adapted to the social realities of their patrons and patients by giving guidance about choosing a good wet nurse and controling her manner of life. Contrary to what is often claimed or supposed, the notion that the milk of amoral and bad-mannered wet nurses might lead to the degeneration of children did not originate from Galenic physiology but from nonmedical sources. Physicians themselves were reticent about attributing quasi-hereditary powers to mother’s milk, insisting instead on the dangers of neglect in the care of infants.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
以自然为规范的中世纪医学——兼论母亲的母乳喂养与湿法护理
中世纪关于母乳喂养的讨论充斥着道德和社会意义,以及关于一个好母亲应该如何表现以及什么能造就一个快乐、健康的婴儿的争论。中心的问题是谁应该母乳喂养,母亲还是奶妈。虽然教会认可母乳喂养是一种道德规范,但求助于奶妈是精英们的规范,这种习俗在中世纪后期传播到了社会的中等阶层。中世纪医生根据他们对自然的道德和规范权威的理解,以及与当代田园理论和道德哲学(拒绝湿护理)以及当代社会实践、价值观和信仰的复杂对话,制定了他们的建议。由于妊娠期和哺乳期之间的生理连续性,医生们认为母乳喂养是最好、最自然的选择,但他们的建议通过指导选择一名好的奶妈和控制她的生活方式来适应顾客和患者的社会现实。与人们经常声称或假设的相反,认为不道德和不礼貌的奶妈的牛奶可能会导致儿童退化的观点并非源于盖尔生理学,而是非医学来源。医生们自己对将准遗传权力归因于母乳保持沉默,而是坚持认为忽视婴儿护理的危险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
JOURNAL OF MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN STUDIES
JOURNAL OF MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN STUDIES MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE STUDIES-
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
期刊介绍: The Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies publishes articles informed by historical inquiry and alert to issues raised by contemporary theoretical debate. The journal fosters rigorous investigation of historiographical representations of European and western Asian cultural forms from late antiquity to the seventeenth century. Its topics include art, literature, theater, music, philosophy, theology, and history, and it embraces material objects as well as texts; women as well as men; merchants, workers, and audiences as well as patrons; Jews and Muslims as well as Christians.
期刊最新文献
Intention and Interpretation, Now and Then Who Has Intention? Chaucer Studies and the Search for Meaning Making or Declaring Law? Legislative Intent and Privileged Speech in Anglo-Saxon England The Audacity of Judging Mind in Medieval England Scholastic Literary Theory: Intentionalism and the Desire for Stable Sense
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1