Michelle wrote:"I'm a real history nerd, so "a scholarly dissertation" on childbirth in the 19th century actually sounds kind of fun."
A subject near to my heart. Not just 19th century, but in history. A long time ago I taught childbirth classes -- not "natural" but "mother centered" -- and being a history buff did a lot of research on the past. It's a complicated subject, but one thing is that through most of it women gave birth sitting, using birthing stools or chairs. If one wasn't available someone, possibly the husband, would take the woman on his lap, thus becoming a sort of chair and leaving clear access to her vagina for the midwife.
Lying on the back is an inefficient way to push a baby out because the vagina is pointing upward. It might be true that the position was first devised so Louis XIV could get a thrill by watching one of his mistresses give birth, but I don't know. It became more common when "man-midwives" and doctors became involved in childbirth, especially when they used forceps. The intruments would have saved some babies and mothers, but they probably were also used unnecessarily as well. That can apply to midwives, too. In childbirth there's always been a balance between necessary intervention and interference with a natural procress. Most women have bodies able to gestate and birth a baby without a scrap of damage. That's what they're designed to do.
Death in childbirth was always a risk, but the risk wasn't huge until the 19th century when the increasing involvement of doctors lead to the puerperal fever epidemic. Most midwives weren't hygiene freakes because no one knew it was important, but most didn't come straight from sick and infected patients to a birthing mother without washing their hands.
As an aside, I did read an article once that said that midwives often doubled as chimney sweeps. I don't know why that would be, but the writer claimed that this a) was why they got a reputation in some places as dirty, and b) why the mothers did so well, because soot is an antibiotic.
But anyway, as in so many aspects, we tend to take our image of historical times from the Victorian age, when in fact in was the nadir for women in many ways. Women, especially the middle class, were more restricted both by clothing and convention, and their health was worse in many ways. This led to them often not being healthy in pregnancy anyway, and then puerperal fever killed many perinatally. So the idea of women frequently dying in childbirth throughout history was created and lingers still.
I just heard about another possible way that the Victorian age was a nadir, this time for men. Athletic achievement. It can be argued that before the mid 19th century athletic achievement was close to modern times in things like running. There were all those running footmen who ran for a living and engaged in highly competitive races. Plus, people regularly walked long distances as part of their jobs. But then, the thesis goes, the general unhealthiness of the Victorian times along with improved communications like trains, meaning people didn't have to walk ten miles there and back, led to a general reduction in athletic ability from which we've slowly risen over about a century.
May be true, may not. But I have this thing about the Victorian Age. ::shudder.::
Here's a Duhrer picture from the 16th century. (Click on the picture to see it enlarged.) It's a birth of the Virgin, so that's St. Anne exhausted in the bed being offered nourishing food. Note that there's lots of women there to offer support. It's a social event, which is doubtless comforting and heartening for the hard-working mother.
On another point, note on the wall on the left the hand wash basin, with the pot above and the tap. It looks like the pot is filled by a pipe. Towel hanging nearby. Such things, also called a lavabo in the middle ages, were common, especially in places where people ate. They weren't as dirty as people often assume.
That's all for now!
Jo :)
Recent Comments