Saga - 1986, Qupperneq 121

ÓVELKOMIN BÖRN?
119
Palladius, bishop of Zealand (Denmark), expresses his fear that women may
overexert themselves and spoil their milk if they return to work too quickly. The
ooncern of the Church is clear, and whether for this reason or not, breastfeeding
continues to be the rule into the 17th century. In 1750 it was still common for a
w°man to breastfeed for between one and three days, occasionally even up to a
'Veek, but to stop immediately the lying-in period was over.
is more difficult to say with any certainty when the idea that cows' milk was
ketter for infants than breast milk gained currency in Iceland — more research
needs to be done. The author feels it is not unlikely, however, that this idea first
kecame generally accepted when the period of convalescence had become quite
short, i.e. only a week or so. If we accept that mothers did love their children and
Were concerned about their welfare, we might expect them to have favoured a
longer lying-in period in order to insure the quality of their milk. As this did not
happen, the reason may be that even during the lying-in period women may have
heen uncertain as to the quality of their milk, and therefore felt it best to give their
lr>fants cows' milk right from the start. This could also explain why it was
c°mmon around 1800 for midwives to look after the infant for the first week:
hreastfeeding was regarded with suspicion, and the lying-in period intended only
for the mother to rest. The commonly expressed view that women who per-
formed physical labour were unable to breastfeed was therefore not the result of
any attempt on their part to avoid physical exertion, but rather an expression of
^heir belief that their breast milk was ruined by mental and physical strain.
The idea that breast milk could be „ruined" under certain circumstances was at
(his time a commonplace, but seems to have gained unusually wide currency in
,celand. This is perhaps due to lack of wet-nurses and to familiarity by the
c°mmon people with the ideas and teachings of learned men greater than was
C'sewhere the case. Poverty and hunger were also more general in Iceland than
C'scwhere, which can also have had the result that breastfeeding was less common
there.
This theory needs to be investigated more fully, e.g. by examining Icelandic
mcdical texts from this period, and by comparing the Icelandic material with
Cvidence from other countries, in particular Denmark, Norway and Sweden.
^ is interesting to note that the position of mothers was worse in the 18th
century than it had been during the middle ages, when they were allowed
c°mplete rest for forty days after giving birth, during which time they were not
reiluired to fast. The child' s lot seems also to have been better during this period,
W^en women commonly breastfed their children for up to two years. This would
latUrally have been demanding on the mother, but on the other hand, there was an
^rraordinarily large number of rest days in the medieval period — 97 a year. In
nion, the economic situation was on the whole better and climatic conditions
111 °re fívourable than in the 18th century.
th^C°UrSe cotta8crs exlsted in the middle ages too, and their lives, and those of
lr w°rnenfolk and children, were on the whole hard. Can it be that 14th century
Icelai
ndic cottagers' wives could have breastfed their babies for two years? We