be applied around it, and let the parent at once prepare suitable food. And here it ought especially to be observed, that the mother herself ought to be the nurse,[1] and not to repel her own flesh, nor grudge to the infant the sustenance which she supplied to it prior to its birth. Oh, how grievous, how hurtful and reprehensible is the strange conduet of certain mothers (especially of the upper classes), who, feeling it irksome to cherish their own offspring, delegate the duty of nourishing their offspring upon other women. This matter imposes the necessity of showing here the hard-heartedness of such culpability, and of showing how cautiously they ought to proceed in it; for the deeper this custom has spread its roots and diffused itself, the greater the necessity of not passing it by in silence, especially here, when we purpose to show the benefit arising out of good order from the very foundation.
6. I maintain, therefore, that this cruel alienation of mothers from their infants, by handing them over to be suckled with the milk of others (unless in some inevitable case, or when the mother is unable), is opposed, (1) to God and nature; (2) hurtful to the children; (3) pernicious to mothers themselves; (4) dishonorable, and deserving the highest reprobation.
7. That such conduct is strongly opposed to nature is manifest from this: First, that no such thing is found in nature, not even among wild beasts: the wolf, the bear, the
- ↑ Vives, with whose educational writings Comenius was familiar, says in De Institutione Femine Christianæ (Basle, 1524): “The mother, like Cornelia, should regard her children as her greatest treasures. Where possible, she should nurse them herself. It is the most natural for mother and child and the surest foundation of the child’s affections.” Rousseau’s injunction in the same connection is well known. He says: “Let mothers only vouchsafe to nourish their children, and our manners will reform themselves; the feelings of nature will reawaken in all hearts.”
