FOOD.
SEC. 1. General principles.--SEC. 2. Conduct of the mother.--SEC. 3.
Nursing--rules in regard to it.--SEC. 4. Quantity of food. Errors.
Over-feeding. Gluttony.--SEC. 5. How long should milk be the child's
only food?--SEC. 6 Feeding before teething. Cow's milk. Sucking bottles.
Cleanliness. Nurses.--SEC. 7. Treatment from teething to weaning.--SEC.
8. Process of weaning-rules in regard to it.--SEC. 9. First food to be
used after weaning. Importance of good bread. Other kinds of food.--SEC.
10. Remarks on fruit.--SEC. 11. Evils and dangers of confectionary.--SEC.
12. Mischiefs of pastry.--SEC. 13. Crude and raw substances.
SEC. 1. _General Principles._
The mother's milk, in suitable quantity, and under suitable regulations,
is so obviously the appropriate food of an infant during the first
months of its existence, that it seems almost unnecessary to repeat the
fact. And yet the violations of this rule are so numerous and constant,
as to require a few passing remarks.
There are some mothers who seem to have a perfect hatred of children;
and if they can find any plausible apology for neglecting to nurse them,
they will. Few, indeed, will publicly acknowledge a state of feeling so
unnatural; but there are some even of such. On the latter, all argument
would, I fear, be utterly lost. Of the former, there may, be hope.
They tell us--and they are often sustained by those around them--that it
is very inconvenient to be so confined to a child that they cannot leave
home for a little while. Can it be their duty--for in these days, when
virtue and religion, and everything good, are so highly complimented, no
people are more ready to talk of _duty_ than they who have the least
regard to it--can it be their duty, they ask, to exclude themselves from
the pleasures and comforts of social life for half or two thirds of
their most active and happy years? Ought they not to go abroad, at least
occasionally? But if so, and their children have no other source of
dependence, must they not suffer? Is it not better, therefore, that they
should be early accustomed to other food, for a part of the time?
Besides, they may be sick; and then the child must rely on others; and
will it not be useful to accustom it early to do so?
Perhaps few mothers are conscious that this train of reasoning passes
through their minds. But that something like it is often made the
occasion of substituting food which is less proper, for that furnished
by Divine Providence, there cannot be a doubt. And the mischief is, that
she who has gone so far, will not scruple, ere long, to go farther. And,
strange and unnatural as it may seem, that mothers should turn over
their children to be nursed wholly by others, in order to get rid of the
inconvenience of nursing them at their own bosoms, it is only carrying
out to its fullest extent, and reducing to practice, the train of
reasoning mentioned above.
Nor is it necessary that I should stop here to denounce a course of
conduct so unchristian and savage. I know it is very common in some
countries; and those American mothers who ape the other eastern
fashions, or countenance their sons and daughters in doing it, will not
be slow to imitate this also--especially as it is a very _convenient_
fashion. And I question whether I shall succeed in reasoning them out of
it. Habit, both of thought and action, is exceedingly powerful. I will,
therefore, confine myself chiefly to those efforts at prevention, from
which much more is to be hoped, in the present state of society, than
from direct attempts at cure.
It will be soon enough to leave a child with another person, when the
mother is actually sick, or unavoidably absent; or when some other
adequate cause is known to exist. We are to be governed, in these and
similar cases, by general rules, and not by exceptions. The general
rule, in the present case, is, that mothers can nurse their own
children; and, if they have the proper disposition, that they can do it
uninterruptedly.
But those who are so ready to become counsellors on these occasions,
will tell us, perhaps, that the child must be "fed to spare the mother."
That is to say, nursing weakens the mother, and the child must be taken
away, a part of the time, to save her strength.
Now it may safely be doubted whether the process of nursing, in itself
considered, does weaken, at all. The Author of nature has made provision
for the secretion (formation) of the milk, whether the child receives it
or not. If it is not taken by the child, or drawn off in some other way,
one of two things must follow;--either it must be taken up by what are
called absorbent vessels, and carried into the circulation, and chiefly
thrown out of the system as waste matter, or it will prove a source of
irritation, if not of inflammation, to the organs themselves which
secrete it. In both cases, the strength of the mother is quite as likely
to be taxed, as if the child received the milk in the way that nature
intended.
Besides, on this very principle, the plan of saving a mother's strength
by requiring another to nurse for her, is but saying that we will weaken
one person to save another. Or if we feed the child, to "spare its
mother," what is this, in practice, but to say that the works of the
Creator are very imperfect; and that he has thrown upon the mass of
mankind a task to which they are not equal? For the mass of mankind are
poor; and the poor, having neither the means nor the time to escape the
duties in question, must submit to them, while their more wealthy
neighbors escape.
But it is idle to defend customs so monstrous. They admit of no defence
that has the slightest claim to solidity. The general rule then is, that
mothers should nurse their own children.
SEC. 2. _Conduct of the Mother._
Originally it was not my intention to give directions, in this volume,
in regard to the food, drink, &c., of the mother while nursing; but
repeated solicitations on this point, have led me to the conclusion that
a few general principles may be very properly introduced.
The future health, and even the moral well-being of the child, depend
much more on the proper management of the mother herself than is usually
supposed. How, indeed, can it be other wise? How can the mother's blood
be constantly irritated with improper food and drink, without rendering
the milk so? And how can a child draw, daily and hourly, from this
feverish fountain, without being affected, not only in his physical
frame, but in his very temper and feelings?
It is not enough that we adopt the principles already insisted on by
some of our wisest medical men, and even by one or two medical
societies,[Footnote: Those of Connecticut and New Hampshire.] that
children in this way often acquire a propensity for exciting drinks,
that may end in their downright intemperance. What if it should not, in
every case, proceed quite so far as to make the child a drunkard? If it
but lays the foundation of a constitutional fondness for _excitements_,
it tends to disease. Indeed that, in itself, is a disease; and one, too,
which is destroying more persons every year than the cholera, or even
the consumption. Consumption has at most only slain her tens of
thousands [Footnote: About 40,000 a year, in the United States, as nearly
as it can be estimated.] a year; but a fondness for exciting food and
drink--innocent and harmless as it is often supposed to be, and
therefore only the more dangerous a foe--does not fail to slay every
year, directly or indirectly, its hundreds of thousands. At least this
is my own opinion.
Why, where can you find the individual who is not a slave to this
perpetual rage within--this perpetual cry, "Who will show us any"
physical "good"? Who, in this land of abundance, will eat or drink plain
things? Who will eat simple bread, meat, potatoes, rice, pudding,
apples, &c. or drink simple water? A few instances may be found, of
late, in which people confine themselves to simple water for drink; but
they are rather rare. And no wonder. They _must_ be rare so long as an
unnatural thirst is kept up everywhere by the most exciting and most
strange mixtures of food. Where, I again ask, is the person who will eat
and relish plain bread, plain meat, plain puddings, &c.? Certainly not
in the nursery. No young mother--scarcely one I mean--will, for a single
meal, confine herself to a piece of bread, the sweetest and best food in
the whole world, unless it is hot, or toasted, or soaked, or buttered. A
natural, healthy appetite, is as rare a thing on our planet, almost, as
an inhabitant of the sun or moon.
I have seen more than one mother made sick by using, while nursing,
improper food and drink. I have known milk punch, taken by
stealth--(because how could the mother, it was said, ever have a supply
of food for her poor child without it!)--to kindle a fever that came
very near burning up the mother and child both. And yet, if I have once
or twice succeeded in convincing the mother that she was only suffering
the natural punishment of her own transgressions, I have never, so far
as I now recollect, succeeded in making her believe that her iniquities
were visited upon her unoffending infant.
There is everywhere the most painful apathy on this most painful
subject. We see little children of all ages, everywhere, the victims of
debility, and pain, and suffering, and disease and death, and yet we
very seldom seem to search for one moment for the causes of this
premature destruction. In fact most parents--even many intelligent
mothers--at once stare, if you attempt to inquire into the causes of
their child's death, as if it was either a kind of sacrilege, or an
impeachment of their own parental affection. Diseases, even at this day,
with the sun of science blazing in meridian splendor, they seem to
regard as the judgments of heaven; and to think of tracing out the
causes of the early death of half our race, is, in their estimation, not
only idle, but wicked.
Yet this is obviously one of the first steps, every, where, which
philanthropy demands; to say nothing of the demands of christianity. It
is the first step for the physician, the first step for the educator,
the first step for the parent, and above all, the mother. Nay; more--we
must not suppress so great and important a truth--it is the first step
for the legislator and the minister. What sense is there in continuing,
century after century, and age after age, to expend all our efforts in
merely _mending_ the diseased half of mankind, when those same efforts
are amply sufficient, if early and properly applied, not only to
continue the lives of the whole, but to make them _whole beings_,
instead of passing through life mere _fragments_ of humanity?
But I must not forget that this is merely a small manual, not intended
for those who make it their profession to teach the laws of God and man,
but simply for young mothers. For the sake of erring humanity, would
that I could, but for one moment, divest myself of the idea, that in
writing for the young mother I am not writing for legislators and
ministers! Would that I could banish from my mind the deep conviction
that the mother is everywhere far more the law-giver to her infant--far
more the arbiter of the present and eternal destiny of her child--than
he who is more commonly regarded as such.
Every mother owes it, not only to herself--for on this part she is not
_wholly_ forgetful--but to her offspring, to abstain, during the period
of nursing at least, from all causes which tend to produce a feverish
state of her fluids. Among these are every form of premature exertion,
whether in sitting up, laboring, conversing, or even thinking. It is of
very great importance that both the body and the mind should be kept
quiet; and the more so, the better.
Among the particular causes of fever to the young mother, Dr. Dewees
enumerates spirits, wine, and other fermented liquors, a room too much
heated, closed curtains, confined air, too much exposure, and too much
company; and during the early period of confinement, broths and animal
food.
There is nothing which he insists on more strongly, than the importance
of fresh air. Indeed, the practice of confining a nursing woman in a
space scarcely six feet square, and excluding the air surrounding her by
curtains and closed windows, and subjecting her to the necessity of
breathing twenty times the air that has already been as often
discharged, filled with poison, from her lungs, is not too strongly
reprobated by Dr. Dewees, or anybody else. But I have spoken of these
things in the chapter which treats on "The Nursery." I would only
observe, on this point, that if I were asked what one thing is most
indispensable to the health of the nursing woman, I would reply, Fresh
air; and if asked what were the second and third most important things,
I would still repeat--in imitation of the orator of old, in regard to
another subject--Fresh air, Fresh air.
This important ingredient in human happiness, and especially in the
happiness of the young mother and her tender infant, can usually be had
within doors, if pains enough be taken. But if the weather is fine and
in every respect favorable, a woman who is in tolerable health may
venture abroad a little in about three weeks after her confinement, and
sometimes even in two. Whether her exercise be without or within doors,
however, she should be effectually protected against chills, and against
the influence of currents of cold air.
It has been incidentally stated, that Dr. Dewees objects to the mother's
use, during her early period of nursing, of broths and animal food. This
is about as much as we could reasonably expect from one who belongs to a
profession whose members are, almost without exception, enslaved to the
practice of flesh-eating. But even this advice of his, if duly followed,
would be a great advance upon the practice which generally prevails.
There is so universal a belief among females that they demand, at this
period of their existence, not only a larger quantity of food than
usual, but also that which is more stimulating in its quality, as almost
to forbid the hopes of making much impression upon their minds. Many
young mothers seem to consider themselves as licensed, during a part of
their lives, not only to eat immoderately, and even to gluttony, but
also to swallow almost every species of vile trash which a vile world
affords.
How long will it be, ere the mother can be induced to take as much pains
to select the most appropriate and most healthy aliment for herself and
her child, as she now does that which is demanded by a capricious
appetite, without the smallest reference to fitness or digestibility!
How long will it be ere the mother can be brought to believe and feel
that, in every step she takes, she is forming the habitation of an
immortal spirit--a spirit, too, whose character and destiny, both
present and eternal, must depend, in no small degree, upon the character
of the dwelling it occupies while passing through this stage of earthly
existence! How long will it be, before mothers can be made to believe
even these two simple truths, that the nourishment, which the human
being actually receives, is not always in exact proportion to the
quantity of nutritious food which he throws into his stomach, and that
the diet is always best for both mother and child, which is least
exciting.
The Charleston Board of Health, during the existence of cholera in that
city in 1836, publicly announced that the "best food is the least
exciting," and this great truth is just as true in all other places and
circumstances on the globe as it was then in South Carolina. And though
I am far from believing that health depends more on food and drink than
on all other things put together, as many seem to suppose, yet I am
entirely of opinion that he who should devote himself successfully to
the work of applying this truth, in all its bearings, to the dietetic
practice of all mankind, would do more for their reformation--yes, and
their salvation too--than has yet been done by any merely _human_ being,
since the first day of the creation.
SEC. 3. _Nursing--how often._
Many lay it down, as an invariable rule, that no system can be pursued
with a child till it is six months old; and it must be admitted by all,
that for several months after birth there are serious difficulties in
the way of determining, with any degree of precision, how often a child
should be nursed or fed. Still, there are a few rules of universal
application; some of which are here presented.
1. A child should never be nursed, merely to quiet it; for if this be
done, it will soon learn to cry, whenever it feels the slightest
uneasiness, not only from hunger, but from other causes; merely to be
gratified with nursing. Besides, if its cries should happen to be from
illness, it is ten to one but the reception of anything into the stomach
will do harm instead of good.
2. The stomach, like every other organ in the body which is muscular,
must have time for rest; and this in the case of children as well as
adults. But to nurse them too frequently is in opposition to this rule,
and therefore of evil tendency.
3. For reasons which may be seen by the last rule, there should be
regular seasons for nursing, and these should be adhered to, especially
by night. When very young, once in three hours may not be too frequent;
I believe that it is seldom proper to nurse a child more frequently than
this. But whenever three hours becomes a suitable period by day, once in
four hours will be often enough by night. I will not undertake to say at
what precise age children should be nursed at intervals of three and
four hours each; because some children are older, _constitutionally_, at
three months, than others are at four.
There is one grand mistake, however, against which I must caution young
mothers; which is, not to indulge the vain expectation that feeble
infants will become robust, in proportion to their indulgence. On the
contrary, it is the more necessary to be strict with feeble children,
_because_ they are feeble. To keep them hanging at the breast to
invigorate them, is the very way to counteract our own intentions, and
defeat our own purpose. Seasons of entire rest are even more important
to their stomachs than to those of other persons.
4. But in order to secure intervals of rest, both to the strong and the
feeble, we must avoid the pernicious habit of giving infants pap, and
other delicacies, "between meals." Many a child's health is ruined by
this practice. Nothing should be put into their stomachs for many
months--if they are in health--but the mother's milk.
"This," says Dr. Dunglison, "is the sole food of the infant, and is
consequently sufficiently nutrient to maintain life, and to minister to
the growth, during the earliest periods of existence." [Footnote:
Elements of Hygiene, page 271.] In another place, he says, "Milk is an
appropriate nourishment at all ages, and is more so the nearer to
birth."
SEC. 4. _Quantity of Food._
"We all know," says Dr. Dewees, "how easily the stomach may be made to
demand more food than is absolutely required; first, by the repetition
of aliment, and secondly, by its variety;--therefore both of these
causes must be avoided. The stomach, like every other part, can, and
unfortunately does, acquire habits highly injurious to itself; and that
of demanding an unnecessary quantity of aliment is not one of the least.
It should, therefore, be constantly borne in mind, that it is not the
quantity of food taken into the stomach, that is available to the proper
purposes of the system; but the quantity which can be digested, and
converted into nourishment fit to be applied to such purposes."
There is a great deal of truth in these remarks; and especially in the
closing one, that not all which is taken into the stomach is digested.
It is highly probable, that the least quantity which is usually given to
an infant is more than sufficient for the purposes of digestion; and
that nearly every child in the arms of its mother, is over-fed.
I know it has been said, by some physicians--and by those who are
sensible men, in other respects, too--that the child's stomach is a
pretty correct guide in regard to quantity. If we give it too much, say
they, it will reject it;--as if that were an end of the matter.
But it is not so. It is by no means harmless to fill the child's stomach
as full as is possible without overflowing. Such a process, though it
should not create disease directly, would produce a gluttonous habit.
The stomach, being muscular, may be increased in size by use, like all
other muscular organs. The hands, the arms, the legs, the feet, the
fleshy portions of the face, even, may be disproportionally enlarged by
constant use. Thus a sailor, who uses his hands and arms much more than
his legs and feet, has the former unusually large; one who is much
accustomed to walking, has large feet; and in a tailor, who from
childhood uses his lower limbs comparatively little, they are both small
and slender. On the same principle, the stomach, by inordinate use, and
by carrying unreasonable loads, may be made nearly twice as large as
nature intended, and may demand twice as much food. And I have no doubt
that the bulk of mankind, young and old, eat about twice as much as
nature, unperverted, would require.
If the suggestions of our last section are duly attended to, one of the
causes which lead the stomach to demand an unreasonable quantity of food
will be avoided--I mean the too frequent "repetition of aliment." And if
we never depart from the general rule, already laid down, not to give
the infant anything but its mother's milk, we shall escape the evils
incident to variety.
SEC. 5. _How long should milk be the only food._
On this point, there is a great diversity of opinion. Perhaps the most
approved role, of universal application, is, that the first change
should be made in the child's diet, when the teeth begin to appear.
This period, it is well known, cannot be fixed to any particular age,
but varies from the fifth to the twelfth month.
Some mothers, who have borne with me patiently to this place, will
probably here object. "What child," they will ask, "would ever have any
strength, brought up so?" Not only a little pap and gruel is, in their
estimation, necessary, long before this period, but even many choice
bits of meat.
Now I am very sure, that these choice bits--whatever they may be--given
to a child before it has teeth, not only do no good, but actually do
mischief. Indeed, that which does no good in the stomach must do harm,
of course; since it is not only in the way, but acts like a foreign body
there, producing more or less of irritation.
I ought to state, in this place, that many people--mothers among the
rest--have very inadequate ideas of digestion. They appear to have no
farther notion of the digestive process than that it consists in
reducing to a pulp the substances which are swallowed; and hence,
whatever is reduced to a pulp, they regard as being digested. Whereas
nothing is better known to the anatomist and physiologist, than that
this--the formation of _chyme_ in the stomach--constitutes only a very
small part of the digestive process. The chyme must pass into the
duodenum and other portions of intestine beyond the stomach, and be
retained there for some time, before it will form perfect chyle.
This is a more important part of the work of digestion than even the
former. For, suppose the chyme to be perfect, though even this may be
mere pulp, rather than chyme, and suppose it pass quietly along into the
duodenum and other small intestines. All this process, thus far, may go
on naturally enough, and yet the chyle may not be well formed, and the
chymous mass may find its way out of the system without answering any of
the purposes of nutrition. For no matter how well the food is dissolved
in the stomach, if it do not become good and proper chyle, the blood
which is formed will not be good and perfect blood; or, lastly, if it
_seem_ to make good blood, it may still be faulty, so that the
particles which should be applied to build up or repair the system, are
either not used, or if used, answer the purpose but imperfectly.
We hence see how little prepared a large proportion of the community,
are, to judge of the digestibility or fitness of a substance for
infants, by their own observation and experience merely; and how much
more wisely they act, in contenting themselves with giving them--at
least until they have teeth--such food only as the Author of nature
seems to have assigned them; especially when thus course, is precisely
that which is recommended or sanctioned by nearly every judicious
physician, as well as by almost all our writers on health.
SEC. 6. _On Feeding before Teething._
Having laid down the general rule, that until the appearance of teeth,
the sole food of an infant should be the milk of its own mother, I
proceed to speak of some of the more common exceptions to it.
EXCEPTION 1.--The first of these is when the supply furnished by the
mother is scanty. There may be two causes of the scantiness of this
supply; 1st, the want of suitable nourishment by the mother; and, 2dly,
a feeble constitution, or bad health. In the former case, it should be
her first object, as it undoubtedly will be that of her physician, to
improve the quality of her diet; and in the latter, to restore her
health, or at least invigorate her constitution.
In regard to the proper diet of a _mother_, as such, as well as the
general management which her case requires, a volume might be written
without exhausting the subject. But I have already said as much on this
subject, in another place, as my limits will permit.
But we cannot wait for the mother's health to improve, and allow the
infant to suffer, in the mean time, for a due supply of food. The
appropriate question now is, How shall such a supply be furnished?
This should be done by means of an article resembling in its properties,
as closely as possible, the mother's milk. For this purpose, we have
only to mix with a suitable quantity of new cow's milk, one third of
water, and sweeten it a little with loaf sugar. This is to be given to
the child, at suitable intervals, and in proper quantities, by means of
a common sucking bottle. It is, indeed, sometimes given with the spoon;
but the bottle is better.
To the question, whether the child should be confined to this, till the
period of weaning, Dr. Dewees answers, No. I am surprised at this; and
my surprise is increased, when I find him, almost in the very next
breath, urging with all his might, numerous reasons against the very
common notion, that children in early life require a variety of food. He
even insists on the importance of confining the child to a single
article of food when it is practicable. Yet he has not given us so much
as one reason why it is not practicable in the case before us; but has
gone on to speak of barley water, gum arabic water, rice water,
arrowroot, &c. I venture, therefore, to dissent from him, and to answer
the foregoing question in the affirmative. When one good and substantial
reason can be given for _change_, the decision will, however, be
reconsidered.
I have already stated the general rule for preparing this substitute for
the mother's milk. But there are several minor directions, which may be
useful to those who are wholly without experience on the subject.
If possible, the milk used should not only be just taken from the cow,
but should always be from the _same_ cow; for it is well known, that the
quality of milk often differs very materially, even among cows feeding
in the same pasture, or from the same pile of hay; and the stomach
becomes most easily reconciled to the mixture when it is uniform in its
qualities. Great care should also be taken to see that the cow whose
milk is used is young and healthy.
The mixture should not be prepared any faster than it is wanted, and
should always be prepared in vessels perfectly clean and sweet, and
given as soon as possible after it is prepared, to prevent any degree of
fermentation. It is never so well to heat it by the fire. If taken from
the cow just before it is used, and if the water to be added is warm
enough, the temperature will hardly need to be raised any higher.
When it is impracticable, in all cases, to take milk for this purpose
immediately from the cow, it should be kept, in winter, where it will
not freeze; and in summer, where there will be no tendency to acidity.
Some mothers and nurses are addicted to the practice of passing the food
through their own mouths, before they give it to the child--with a view,
no doubt, to see that it is at a proper temperature. This practice is
not only wholly unnecessary, but altogether disgusting, and even
ridiculous. A thermometer would answer every purpose; and save even the
trouble of another disgusting practice--that of blowing it with the
breath.
The most proper season for giving the child this preparation, is
immediately after it has been nursing. It is better for both mother and
child, that the latter should nurse just as often as though the supply
of food was adequate to his wants. And when his first supply is
exhausted, then let him make up his meal from the sucking bottle. The
great advantage of this plan is, that he will not be so likely in this
way to be over-fed. If he is really needy, he will accept the bottle,
even if he do not like it quite so well; if he refuse it, let him go
without till he is hungry enough to receive it.
In regard to the water used in the preparation, only one thing needs to
be said; which is, that it should be pure. If it is not, it should by
all means be boiled. The sugar used should be of the very best kind; and
the quantity not large; since if the preparation be too sweet, it
readily becomes acid in the stomach.
There has been, and still is, a controversy going on among medical men,
whether sugar is or is not hurtful to the young. "Who shall decide, when
doctors disagree?" has often been asked. Without undertaking the task
myself, I may perhaps be permitted to say, that I cannot see any reason
why a substance so pure, and so highly nutritious as sugar--if given in
very small quantity only--should prove injurious: though I do not regard
the reasoning of Dr. Dewees as very conclusive on the subject, when, in
reply to Dr. Cadogan, he has the following language--"If sugar be
improper, why does it so largely enter into the composition of the early
food of all animals? It is in vain that physicians declaim against this
article, since it forms between seven and eight per cent of the mother's
milk."--Now with me, the fact that milk and almost all other kinds of
food are furnished with a measure of this substance, is the strongest
reason I am acquainted with for making no additions. I believe, however,
that they may sometimes be made, but not for these reasons.
EXCEPTION 2.--The second striking exception to the general rule that has
been laid down, is when the mother is unable to nurse her own child from
positive ill health, or when circumstances exist which render it
obviously improper that she should do it. The following are some of the
circumstances which render such a departure from nature indispensable.
1. When the mother is affected strongly with a hereditary disease, such
as consumption or scrofula; or when her constitution is tainted, as it
were, with venereal disease, or other permanent affections.
2. When nursing produces, uniformly, some very troublesome or dangerous
disease in the mother; as cough, colic, &c.
3. There are a few instances in which the milk of the mother, owing to
an unknown cause, has been found by experience to disagree with the
child. In these circumstances, it is the unquestionable duty of the
mother to resort wholly to feeding.
4. Sometimes the milk, at first abundant, fails suddenly, owing to some
accidental or constitutional defect; and this failure becomes habitual.
In all these circumstances, the proper resort is to a sucking bottle, or
a hired nurse. I generally prefer the latter. The cases which seem to me
to admit of the former, will be pointed out in the next section.
"When the bottle is used," says Dr. Dewees, "much care is requisite to
preserve it sweet and free from all impurities, or the remains of the
former food, by which the present may be rendered impure or sour; for
which purpose a great deal of caution must be observed."
The business of feeding a child, whether by the bottle or the spoon,
should never be hurried: the slower it is, the better. We should stop
from time to time, during the process. Nor should the nourishment be
given while lying down; it is much more pleasant, as well as more safe,
to sit up.
A few thoughts more on the character and condition of the milk which we
give to the young, will conclude the second division of this section.
Some are fond of boiling milk for infants; but to this I am decidedly
opposed, so long as they are in health. Boiling takes away, or appears
to take away, some of the best properties of the milk.
It is true that milk which is boiled does not turn sour so readily in
hot weather; but it is quite unnecessary to boil milk in the common
manner in order to present its changing, since such a result can be
prevented by another process. You have only to put your milk in a
kettle, cover it closely, and heat it quickly to the boiling point, and
then remove and cool it as speedily as possible. This plan prevents the
rising to the surface of that coat or pellicle which contains some of
the most valuable properties of the milk.
I have already said that it was as necessary that the stomach should
have rest as any other muscular organ. Some writers say that the infant
should be kept perfectly quiet, at least half an hour, after each meal.
This is certainly necessary with feeble children, but I question its
necessity in the case of those who are strong and robust. I would not
recommend, however, nor even tolerate, for one moment, the absurd
practice of _jolting_, so common with a few ignorant nurses and,
mothers, as if they could jolt down the food in the stomach with just as
much safety as they can shake down the contents of a farmer's bag of
produce. Such mothers as these should go and reside among the native
tribes of Indians in Guiana, in South America, where they make it a
point not only to stuff their children's stomachs as long as they will
hold, but actually to shake it down.
Little less absurd than jolting is the custom of tossing a child high,
in quick succession, which is practised not only after meals, but at
other times. But on this point, I have treated elsewhere.
Some give the sucking bottle to children as a plaything. This is just
about as wise a practice as that of giving them books as playthings.
Both are done, usually, to save the time and trouble of those whose
office it is to devote their time to the very purpose of managing and
educating their offspring. The evil, however, of suffering the child to
have the bottle when it pleases is, that he will thus be tasting food so
often as to interfere with and disturb the process of digestion, to his
great and lasting injury. For in this way, a part of the food will pass
from the stomach into the bowels unchanged, or at least but imperfectly
digested, where it is liable to become sour, and cause disease. It is
not to be doubted that many diarrhoeas, as well as, other bowel
affections, are produced in this way. Children that are always eating
are seldom healthy; and we may hence see the reason.
In speaking of the importance of keeping the bottle, from which a child
takes his food, perfectly clean and sweet, I ought to have extended the
injunction much farther. There is a degree of slovenliness sometimes
observable in those who manage children, both when they are sick and
when they are in health, which even common sense cannot and ought not to
tolerate. Every vessel which is used in preparing or administering
anything for children, ought, after we have used it, to be immediately
and effectually cleansed. How shocking is it to see dirty vessels
standing in the nursery from hour to hour, becoming sour or impure! How
much more so still, to see food in copper vessels, or in the red earthen
ones, glazed with a poisonous oxyd! I speak now more particularly of
vessels in which food is given; for with the administration of medicine,
and nursing the sick, I do not intend in this volume to interfere.
EXCEPTION 3.--We come now to the consideration of those cases--for such
it will not be doubted there are--where a hired nurse is to be preferred
to feeding by the hand.
Before proceeding farther, however, it is important to say, that if a
nurse could always be procured whose health, and temper, and habits were
good, who had no infant of her own, and who would do as well for the
infant, in every respect, as his own mother, it would be preferable to
have no feeding by the hand at all.
But such nurses are very scarce. Their temper, or habits, or general
health, will often be such as no genuine parent would desire, and such
as they ought to be sorry to see engrafted, in any degree, on the child.
For even admitting what is claimed by some, that the temper of the nurse
does _not_ affect the properties of the milk, and thus injure the child
both physically and morally, still much injury may and inevitably will
result from the influence of her constant presence and example.
Others have infants of their own, in which case either their own child
or the adopted one will suffer; and in a majority of cases, it can
scarcely be doubted _which_ it will be. And I doubt the morality of
requiring a nurse, in these cases, to give up her own child wholly. If
_one_ must be fed, why not our own, as well as that of another?
The only cases, then, which seem to me to justify the employment of a
nurse, are where she possesses at least the qualifications above
mentioned; and as these are rare, not many nurses, of course, would on
this principle be employed. But when employed, it is highly desirable
that the following rules should be observed:
1: The nurse should suckle the child at both breasts; otherwise he is
liable to acquire a degree of crookedness in his form. There is another
evil which sometimes results from the too common neglect of this rule,
which is, that it endangers the deterioration of the quality of the
milk.
2. The milk which is thus substituted for that of the mother, should be
as nearly as possible of the same age as the child who is to receive it.
It should be remembered, however, that the milk is not so good after the
twelfth or thirteenth month, nor _quite_ so good under the third.
3. When the parent or some trusty and confidential friend can, without
the aid of interested spies and emissaries, have an eye to the general
treatment, and especially to the moral management, it should be done;
for even the best nurses may so differ in their principles, manners and
habits from the parent, that the latter would deem it preferable to
withdraw the child, and resort at once to feeding.
SEC. 7. _From Teething to Weaning._
This period will, of course, be longer or shorter according as the teeth
begin to appear earlier or later, and according to the time when it is
thought proper to wean.
On few points, perhaps, has there existed a greater diversity of opinion
than in regard to the age most proper for weaning. The limits of this
work do not permit a thorough discussion of the question; and I shall
therefore be very brief in my remarks on the subject.
Dr. Cullen, whose opinion on topics of this kind is certainly entitled
to much respect, thought that less than seven, or more than eleven
months of nursing was injurious. Yet in some countries, and even in some
parts of our own, the period is extended by the mother, from choice, to
two years. And although the milk is not so good after the thirteenth or
fourteenth month, I have never either known or heard that any evil
consequences followed from the practice.
Dr. Loudon, a recent writer, observes, that the period of nursing has a
great influence over the numbers of mankind in various countries, as is
evinced by numerous facts. He adduces proofs of this, position. Thus, he
says, in China, where the population is excessive, and the inhuman
practice of infanticide is common, they wean a child as soon as it can
put its hand to its mouth. On the other hand, the Indians of North
America do not wean their children until they are old and strong enough
to run about: generally they are suckled for a period of more than two
years.
He then enters into a physiological inquiry why it is that British
mothers do not usually suckle their children longer than ten months. He
seems--though he does not give us his precise opinion--to think that, in
all ordinary cases, the period of nursing ought to be protracted to two
or three years, and that perhaps it would be better still to extend it
to four or five. His remarks are so excellent, and withal so curious,
and their tendency so humane, that we venture to insert one or two of
his paragraphs entire.
"Certain it is, that the milk does not diminish particularly at that
time, (ten months,) so far as regards quantity; and from the health of
children reared without spoon-meat beyond this time, it as certainly
undergoes no change in its quality. Children are sometimes so old before
weaning, as to be able to ask for the breast; and it has not been
remarked that the health of mothers, thus suckling, was in any way worse
than that of their neighbors. Altogether, then, it may be asserted, that
a mother is likely to enjoy better health, and to be less liable to
sickness and death during lactation, than during pregnancy.
"Many women believe, or affect to believe, that the weakness they labor
under arises from some latent moral or physical cause; but this weakness
is not attributed to lactation in the earlier months of suckling,
because the mother then considers herself fulfilling a necessary duty,
which her constitution, for so long, is well able to bear. So soon,
however, as the period of lactation has passed over, as it is
established by custom or fashion, she imagines she is exceeding the
intentions of nature, and she forthwith concludes that the continuance
of suckling is the cause of her uncomfortable sensations. This whim
being entertained, the child is weaned, and too often becomes the victim
of a most reprehensible delusion.
"Since nature has furnished the mother with milk for a longer period
than custom demands, it is evident that some good purpose for the mother
and child was intended in this arrangement. Had it been otherwise, the
secretion of milk would stop at a definite time, in like manner as the
period of gestation is definite. That a child, in comparison with the
young of the lower animals, is so long unable to provide for itself,
strongly tends to corroborate the proofs already advanced--that nature
originally had in view a more protracted period for lactation than is
now allowed.
"Some writers, following the laws of nature, as they interpreted them,
fixed the period of weaning at fifteen months, when the infant has got
its eight incisors and four canine teeth. There are well-authenticated
instances of mothers having suckled their children for three, four,
five, and even seven consecutive years; we ourselves have known cases
of lactation being prolonged far three and for four years, with the
happiest results."
It appears to me better, therefore, that the child should be nursed, in
all ordinary cases, from twelve to fifteen months; and when there are no
special objections, about two years. As the change, whenever it is made,
and however gradual it may be, is an important one, in its effects on
the stomach and bowels, it is better to wean a little earlier or a
little later, than to do so just at the close of summer or beginning of
autumn, at which season bowel complaints are most common, most severe,
and most dangerous. It is sufficiently unfortunate that teething should
commence just at this period; but when we add another cause of irregular
action, which we can control, to one which we _cannot_, we act very
unwisely.
I have already observed that we may begin to feed children when the
teeth begin to appear. By this is not meant that we should do so while
the system is under the irritation to which teething usually, or at
least often, subjects it. But when this is over, and a few teeth have
appeared, it is usually a proper time to commence our operations.
The first food given should be precisely of the kind which has been
recommended for those children who are fed by the hand. The rules and
restrictions by which we are to be guided, are the same, except in one
point, which is, that in the case we are now considering, the child
should be fed _between nursing_.
Let not parents be anxious about their healthy children under two years,
who have a supply of good milk, either from the mother or from the cow.
For those that are feeble, a physician may and ought to prescribe--not
medicine, but appropriate food, drink, &c.
When the grinding teeth have cut through, if we have any doubts in
regard to the nutritive qualities of the food we are giving, we may
improve it by adding, instead of the one third of pure water, a similar
quantity of gum arabic water, barley water, or rice water. Some use a
little weak animal broth; but this is unnecessary, and I think, on the
whole, injurious, except for purposes strictly medicinal.
This course is so simple, and so far removed from that which is
generally adopted, that few mothers will probably be willing to pursue
it with perseverance, especially when the teeth appear very late. Those
who are, however, will be richly rewarded, in the end, in the
advantages; which will accrue to the child's health, and the vigor it
will ensure to his constitution.
SEC. 8. _During the process of Weaning._
It has already been shown that, in weaning, some regard should be had to
the season of the year; and that the end of summer and beginning of fall
are of all periods the most unfavorable. The best time, on every
account, is in the spring--in March, April, May, or June; and the next
best is during the months of October and November. But December, January
and February are better than July, August and September.
Weaning should never be sudden. We may safely and properly call upon
those who are addicted to snuff or opium taking, tobacco chewing, rum
drinking, and other habits which are purely artificial, to break
off--_to wean themselves_--suddenly; since _they_ can do so with
considerable safety, and will seldom have the courage or the
perseverance to do it otherwise. But with the child, in regard to his
food, such a course will not be advisable. If we regard his future
health or happiness, he must be weaned gradually.
The first proper step will be to give the child a little larger quantity
of the cow's milk and gum arabic mixture, between nursings, at the same
time increasing very gradually the intervals of nursing. When the
intervals become six hours distant from each other, it will be best to
add a little good bread to the milk with which it is fed, about two or
three times a day. Arrowroot jelly, if he can be made to relish it, will
be highly useful; but if not, some boiled rice, into which a little
arrowroot has been sprinkled while boiling, may be added to his milk.
It may be worth the attempt to excite an aversion in the child to
nursing his mother, so that be will refuse to nurse, if possible, of his
own accord. This aversion may be excited by such an application of
aloes, or some other offensive substance, as will cause him to withdraw
himself from the breast as soon as he tastes it.
A serious mistake is often made, in connection with weaning, in giving
the child not only too much food, but that which is too solid, or too
rich. This mistake has undoubtedly grown out of the belief that his
feeble condition _requires_ it; whereas the truth is, that he neither
needs food at this period, nor is capable of digesting it. For let us be
as judicious in the process of weaning as we may, the tone of the
child's stomach will be somewhat reduced, or in other words, its powers
of digestion will be weakened by it; and to give it strong food, or
overload it with that which is weaker, is not only unreasonable and
unphilosophical, but cruel. And if there should be a tendency in the
child's constitution to rickets, scrofula, consumption, and other
wasting diseases, such a course would be likely to bring them on, and
destroy life.
"When milk will agree," says Dr. Dewees, "there is no food so proper. It
may be employed in any of its combinations, with good wheaten bread,
rice, sago, &c., only remembering that when either of these articles is
found to agree, it should be continued perseveringly, until it may
become offensive. In this case, some new combination may be required." I
do not see the necessity of continuing one kind of food till it
_offends_. Besides, I do not believe that these simple articles of food
are apt to become offensive to stomachs that have not already been
spoiled. But whether a single dish should or should not come to be
offensive, I greatly prefer an occasional change.
Buchan, in his Advice to Mothers, has recommended it to them to boil
bread for their infants, in water. It should not, for this purpose--nor
indeed for any other--be new; it is best at one or two days, old. It may
be boiled in a small quantity of water, or what is still better, of
milk; or it may be steamed till it becomes soft and light, almost like
new bread, but without any of the objectionable properties of that which
is wholly new. To bread, thus prepared, is to be added a suitable
quantity of milk, fresh from the cow, and a little diluted with water,
but not boiled.
But as there may be, here and there, at any age, a stomach with which
milk, with bread, or rice, or sago, will not agree--though I think they
must be very rare cases--we may be allowed to substitute for it a
solution of "gum arabic, in the proportion of an ounce to a pint of
water," to which may be added a little sugar; and if the child is old
enough to observe the color, just milk enough to change the appearance.
Another preparation for the same purpose consists of rennet whey, a
little sweetened, and "disguised, if necessary, as just stated."
The health of the mother, too, during the period of weaning, often needs
great attention. Let her avoid medicine, however, if possible. A due
regard to food, drink, exercise, and rest of body and mind, &c., will
usually be found more effective, as well as more permanently
efficacious.
SEC. 9. _Food subsequently to Weaning._
You will allow me to introduce in this place, some of the sentiments of
Dr. Cadogan, an English physician, from a little work on the management
of children. [Footnote: Though Dr. C.'s remarks will apply more closely
to England in 1750, they are by no means inapplicable to the United
States in 1837.] I do it with the more pleasure because, though he wrote
almost a century ago, he urges the same general principles on which I
have all along been insisting: hence it will be seen that mine are no
new-fangled notions. His remarks refer to the young of every age, but
chiefly to early infancy and childhood. It will be found necessary, in
some instances, to abridge, but I shall endeavor not to misrepresent the
Doctor's views.
* * * * *
"Look over the bills of mortality. Almost half of those who fill up that
black list, die under five years of age; so that half the people that
come into the world go out of it again, before they become of the least
use to it or to themselves. To me, this seems to deserve serious
consideration.
"It is ridiculous to charge it upon nature, and to suppose that infants
are more subject to disease and death than grown persons; on the
contrary, they bear pain and disease much better--fevers especially; and
for the same reason that a twig is less hurt by a storm than an oak.
"In all the other productions of nature, we see the greatest vigor and
luxuriancy of health, the nearer they are to the egg or bud. When was
there a lamb, a bird, or a tree, that died because it was young? These
are under the immediate nursing of unerring nature; and they thrive
accordingly.
"Ought it not, therefore, to be the care of every nurse and every
parent, not only to protect their nurslings from injury, but to be well
assured that their own officious services be not the greatest evils the
helpless creatures can suffer?
"In the lower class of mankind, especially in the country, disease and
mortality are not so frequent, either among adults or their children.
Health and posterity are the portion of the poor--I mean the laborious.
The want of superfluity confines them more within the limits of nature;
hence they enjoy the blessings they feel not, and are ignorant of their
cause.
"In the course of my practice, I have had frequent occasion to be fully
satisfied of this; and have often heard a mother anxiously say, 'the
child has not been well ever since it has done puking and crying.'
"These complaints, though not attended to, point very plainly to the
cause. Is it not very evident that when a child rids its stomach of its
contents several times a day, it has been overloaded? While the natural
strength lasts, (for every child is born with more health and strength
than is generally imagined,) it cries at or rejects the superfluous
load, and _thrives apace_; that is, grows very fat, bloated, and
distended beyond measure, like a house lamb.
"But in time, the same oppressive cause continuing, the natural powers
are overcome, being no longer able to throw off the unequal weight. The
child, now unable to cry any more, languishes and is quiet.
"The misfortune is, that these complaints are not understood. The child
is swaddled and crammed on, till, after gripes, purging, &c., it sinks
under both burdens into a convulsion fit, and escapes farther torture.
This would be the case with the lamb, were it not killed, when full fat.
"That the present mode of nursing is wrong, one would think needed no
other proof than the frequent miscarriages attending it, the death of
many, and the ill health of those that survive. But what I am going to
complain of is, that children, in general, are over-clothed and
over-fed, and fed and clothed improperly. To these causes I attribute
almost all their diseases.
"But the feeding of children is much more important to them than their
clothing. Let us consider what nature directs in the case. If we follow
nature, instead of leading or driving her, we cannot err. In the
business of nursing, as well as physic, art, if it do not exactly copy
this original, is ever destructive.
"If I could prevail, no child should ever be crammed with any unnatural
mixture, till the provision of nature was ready for it; nor afterwards
fed with any ungenial diet whatever, at least for the _first three
months_; for it is not well able to digest and assimilate other elements
sooner.
"I have seen very healthy children that never ate or drank anything
whatever but their mother's milk, for the first ten or twelve months.
Nature seems to direct to this, by giving them no teeth till about that
time. The call of nature should be waited for to feed them with anything
more substantial; and the appetite ought ever to precede the food--not
only with regard to the daily meals, but those changes of diet which
opening, increasing life requires. But this is never done, in either
case; which is one of the greatest mistakes of all nurses.
"When the child requires more solid sustenance, we are to inquire what
and how much is most proper to give it. We may be well assured there is
a great mistake either in the quantity or quality of children's food, or
both, as it is usually given them, because they are made sick by it; for
to this mistake I cannot help imputing nine in ten of all their
diseases.
"As to quantity, there is a most ridiculous error in the common
practice; for it is generally supposed that whenever a child cries, it
wants victuals: it is accordingly fed ten or twelve or more times in a
day and night. This is so obvious a misapprehension, that I am surprised
it should ever prevail.
"If a child's wants and motions be diligently and judiciously attended
to, it will be found that it never cries, but from pain. Now the first
sensations of hunger are not attended with pain; accordingly, a very
young child that is hungry will make a hundred other signs of its want,
before it will cry for food. If it be healthy, and quite easy in its
dress, it will hardly ever cry at all. Indeed, these signs and motions I
speak of are but rarely observed, because it seldom happens that
children are ever suffered to be hungry.[Footnote: That which we
commonly observe in them, in such cases, and call by the name of hunger,
the Doctor, I suppose would regard as morbid or unnatural feeling,
wholly unworthy of the name of HUNGER.]
"In a few, very few, whom I have had the pleasure to see reasonably
nursed, that were not fed above two or three times in twenty-four hours,
and yet were perfectly healthy, active, and happy, I have seen these
signals, which were as intelligible as if they had spoken.
"There are many faults in the quality of children's food.
"1. It is not simple enough. Their paps, panadas, gruels, &c. are
generally enriched with sugar, spices, and other nice things, and
sometimes a drop of wine--none of which they ought ever to take. Our
bodies never want them; they are what luxury only has introduced, to the
destruction of the health of mankind.
"2. It is not enough that their food should be simple; it should also be
light. Many people, I find, are mistaken in their notions of what is
light, and fancy that most kinds of pastry, puddings, custards, &c. are
light; that is, light of digestion. But there is nothing heavier, in
this sense, than unfermented flour and eggs, boiled hard, which are the
chief ingredients in some of these preparations.
"What I mean by light food--to give the best idea I can of it--is, any
substance that is easily separated, and soluble in warm water. Good
bread is the lightest thing I know, and the fittest food for young
children. Cows' milk is also simple and light, and very good for them;
but it is often injudiciously prepared. It should never be boiled; for
boiling alters the taste and properties of it, destroys its sweetness,
and makes it thicker, heavier, and less fit to mix and assimilate with
the blood."
* * * * *
It is hardly necessary for me to repeat, that in these general views of
Dr. C., with a few exceptions, I entirely concur; indeed some of them
have already been presented. But I have expressed my doubts of the
soundness of his conclusion in regard to sugar. Used with food, in very
small quantity, by persons whose stomachs are already in a good
condition, both sugar and molasses, especially the former, appear to me
not only harmless, but wholesome and useful.
On the subject of simplicity in children's food, I should be glad to
enlarge. There is nothing more important in diet than simplicity, and
yet I think there is nothing more rare. To suit the fashion, everything
must be mixed and varied. I have no objection to variety at different
meals, both for children and adults; indeed I am disposed to recommend
it, as will be seen hereafter. But I am utterly opposed to any
considerable variety at the same meal; and above all, in a single dish.
The simpler a dish can be, the better.
But let us look, for a moment, at the dishes of food which are often
presented, even at what are called plain tables.
Meats cannot be eaten--so many persons think--without being covered
with mustard, or pepper, or gravy--or soaked in vinegar; and not a few
regard them as insipid, unless several of these are combined. Few people
think a piece of plain boiled or broiled muscle (lean flesh) with
nothing on it but a little salt, is fit to be eaten. Everything, it is
thought, must be rendered more stimulating, or acrid; or must be
swimming in gravy, or melted fat or butter.
Bread, though proverbially the staff of life, can scarcely be eaten in
its simple state. It must be buttered, or honied, or toasted, or soaked
in milk, or dipped in gravy. Puddings must have cherries or fruits of
some sort, or spices in them, and must be sweetened largely. Or
perhaps--more ridiculous still--they must have suet in them. And after
all this is done, who can eat them without the addition of sauce, or
butter, or molasses, or cream? Potatoes, boiled, steamed or roasted,
delightful as they are to an unperverted appetite, are yet thought by
many people hardly palatable till they are mashed, and buttered or
gravied; or perhaps soaked in vinegar. In short, the plainest and
simplest article for the table is deemed nearly unfit for the stomach,
till it has been buttered, and peppered, and spiced, and perhaps
_pearlashed_. Even bread and milk must be filled with berries or fruits.
Where can you find many adults who would relish a meal which should
consist entirely of plain bread, without any addition; of plain
potatoes, without anything on them except a little salt; of a plain rice
pudding, and nothing with it; or of plain baked or boiled apples or
pears? And _could_ such persons be found, how many of them would bring
up their children to live on such plain dishes?
It need not be wondered at, that a palate which has been so long tickled
by variety, and by so many stimulating mixtures of food, should come to
regard cold water for drink as insipid; and should feel dissatisfied
with it, and desirous of boiling some narcotic or poisonous herb in it,
or brewing it with something which will impart to it more or less of
alcohol. The wonder is, not that some of our epicures become drunkards,
but that all of them do not.
Dr. Cadogan alludes to a sad mistake everywhere made about _light_ food;
and condemns, very justly, hard-boiled custards, pastry, &c. It is very
strange that these substances--for these are among the injurious
articles which I call mixtures--should ever have obtained currency in
the world, to the exclusion of bread, which, as the same writer justly
says, is among the lightest articles of food which are known.
It is strange, in particular, what views people have about bread.
Judging from what I see, I am compelled to believe that there are few
who regard it in any other light than as a kind of necessary evil. They
appear to eat it, not because they are fond of it, by itself, but
because they _must_ eat it; or rather, because it is a fashionable
article; and not to make believe they eat it, at the least, would be
unfashionable. They will get rid of it, however, when they can. And when
they must eat it, they soak it, or cover it with butter or milk, or
something else which will render it tolerable--or toast it. And use it
as they may, it must be hot from the oven. After it is once cold, very
few will eat it. The idea, above all, of making a full meal of simple
cold bread, twenty-four hours old, would be rejected by ninety-nine
persons in a hundred; and by some with abhorrence.
People not only dislike bread, but regard it as unnutritious. I have
heard many a fond parent say to the child who ate no meat, and seemed to
depend almost wholly on bread--"Why, my dear child, you will starve if
you eat no meat. Do at least put some butter on your bread or your
potatoes." A thousand times have I been admonished, when eating my
vegetable dinner during the hot and fatiguing days of summer--for I was
bred to the farm, and ate little or no meat till I was fourteen years
of age--to eat more butter, or cheese, or something that would give me
strength; for I could not work, they said, without something more
nourishing than bread and the other vegetables. And yet few if any boys
of my age did more work, or performed it better, or with more ease, than
myself. And I early observed the same thing in other vegetable eaters.
The truth is, there is nothing in the world better adapted to the daily
wants of the human stomach than good bread; and few things more
nutritious. There may be a little more nutriment in eggs or jelly; but
if the former are hard-boiled, the stomach cannot digest them; and fat
meat of any kind is digested with great difficulty. Indeed it is
doubtful whether stomachs in temperate climates digest fat at all. They
may dissolve it, but that is not making good chyle of it. They may even
reduce it to chyle; _but chyle is not blood_. Fat may slip through the
system without much of it _adhering_; and I think it pretty evident that
it usually does so.
The muscle--the lean part of animals--may be nearly as nutritious as
good bread, and is more easily digested. But it is very far from being
proved that, for the healthy, those things are always best which are
most easily digested. Nobody will pretend that potatoes are better for
us than bread; and yet the experiments of Dr. Beaumont seem to prove
that boiled or roasted potatoes are much more quick and easy of
digestion than bread of the first and best quality. Even over-boiled
eggs and raw cabbage, bad as they are, are dissolved in the stomach, and
appear to be digested as quick, if not quicker, than good wheat bread.
But nobody in the world will pretend they form more wholesome food.
Neither is meat--even _lean_ meat--necessarily more wholesome, or better
calculated to give strength than bread, simply be cause it is more
quickly and easily digested. It would be nearer the truth to say, that
those substances which digest slowest (provided they do not irritate)
are best adapted to the wants of the human stomach.
The philosopher LOCKE--perhaps from his knowledge of medicine--gives
some excellent directions on this subject. "Great care should be used,"
be says, that the child "eat bread plentifully, both alone and with
everything else; and whatever he eats that is solid, make him chew it
well." This writer, by the way, supposed that the teeth were made to be
used in beating our food; and that we ought neither to swallow it
without chewing, as is customary in our busy New England, nor to mash or
soak it in order to save the labor of mastication--a practice almost
equally universal. But let us hear his own words.
"As for his diet, it ought to be very plain and simple; and if I might
advise, flesh should be forborne, at least till he is two or three years
old. But of whatever advantage this may be to his future health and
strength, I fear it will hardly be consented to by parents, misled by
the custom of eating too much flesh themselves, who will be apt to think
their children--as they do themselves--in danger to be starved; if they
have not flesh at least twice a day. This I am sure, children would
breed their teeth with much less danger, be freer from diseases while
they were little, and lay the foundations of a healthy and strong
constitution much surer, if they were not crammed so much as they are,
by fond mothers and foolish servants, and were kept wholly from flesh
the first three or four years of their lives."
Were Locke still living, I should like to interrogate him at this
place. He first speaks of giving children no meat till they are two or
three years old; and then afterwards extends the period to three or
four. The question I would put is this: If the child is healthier
without meat till he is three or four years old, why not till he is
thirteen or fourteen; or even till thirty, or forty, or seventy? And is
not Professor Stuart, of Andover--a meat eater himself, and an advocate
for its moderate use by those who have already been trained to the use
of it--is not the Professor, I say, more than half right when he
asserts, as I have heard him, that it may be well to train all children,
from the first, to the exclusive use of vegetable food?
I have a few more extracts from Locke, particularly on the subject of
bread.
"I should think that a good piece of well made and well baked brown
bread would be often the best breakfast for my young master. I am sure
it is as wholesome, and will make him as strong a man, as greater
delicacies; and if he be used to it, it will be as pleasant to him.
"If he, at any time, call for victuals between meals, use him to nothing
but dry bread. If he be hungry more than wanton, bread will go down; and
if he be not hungry, it is not fit that he should eat. By this you will
obtain two good effects. First, that by custom he will come to be in
love with bread; for, as I said, our palates and stomachs, too, are
pleased with the things we are used to. Another good you will gain
hereby is, that you will not teach him to eat more nor oftener than
nature requires.
"I do not think that all people's appetites are alike; some have
naturally stronger and some weaker stomachs. But this I think, that
many are made gormands and gluttons by custom, that were not so by
nature. And I see, in some countries, men as lusty and strong, that eat
but two meals a day, as those that have set their stomachs, by a
constant usage, to call on them for four or five.
"The Romans usually fasted till supper, the only set meal, even of those
who ate more than once in a day; and those who used breakfasts, as some
did at eight, same at ten, others at twelve of the clock, and some
later, neither ate flesh nor had anything made ready for them.
"Augustus, when the greatest monarch on the earth, tells us he took a
piece of dry bread in his chariot; and Seneca, in his 83d epistle,
giving an account how be managed himself when he was old, and his age
permitted indulgence, says that he used to eat a piece of dry bread for
his dinner, without the formality of sitting to it. Yet Seneca, as it is
well known, was wealthy.
"The masters of the world were brought up with this spare diet, and the
young gentlemen of Rome felt no want of strength or spirit because they
ate but once a day. Or if it happened by chance that any one could not
fast so long as till supper, their only set meal, he took nothing but a
bit of dry bread, or at most a few raisins or some such slight thing
with it, to stay his stomach. And more than one set meal a day was
thought so monstrous that it was a reproach, as low as Caesar's time, to
make an entertainment, or sit down to a table, till towards sunset.
Therefore I judge it most convenient that my young master should have
nothing but bread for breakfast. I impute a great part of our diseases
in England to our eating too much flesh, and too little bread. Dry
bread, though the best nourishment, has the least temptation."
I shall not undertake to defend all the sentiments of Mr. Locke in these
extracts; but in regard to the main point--the nutritive properties and
wholesome tendency of bread, and the importance of making it a principal
article of diet for children--I think his views are just. In short, they
do not differ, substantially, from those of a large proportion of the
best writers on this subject in every country, during the last three
hundred years. As if with one voice, they dissuade from the use of too
much animal food for the young, and encourage the use of a larger
proportion of vegetable food--bread, plain puddings, rice, potatoes,
turnips, beets, apples, pears, &c., and milk.
Yet they all, or nearly all, seem to write just as if they did not
expect to be believed; or if believed, to be followed. They seem to
regard mankind as so inveterately attached to old habits, and so much
addicted to flesh eating, that there is little hope of reclaiming them.
Now, though my opinions are no more entitled to respect than many of
theirs, I hope for greater success than they appear to do. I expect that
many young mothers who read this work, will be led to think and inquire
further on the subject; and if they find that the views here advanced
are in accordance with reason, and common sense, and higher authority, I
am not without hope that they will reform, and do what they can to
reform their neighbors.
I have dwelt the longer, in this section, on the _general_ principles of
diet, because I am of opinion that whatever is true, on this subject, in
regard to the diet of children, soon after weaning, is equally, or
nearly equally applicable to the whole of childhood, youth, manhood and
age. It is not true that one period of life, and one mode of employment,
demands a diet essentially different from that which is demanded at
another period, and in other circumstances; provided always, that the
individual is in health. Occasional instances of the kind, there may be;
but they are not numerous.
The digestive powers of the young are more nearly as strong as those of
the adult than is usually admitted, and they are much more active. They
require a less quantity of food, undoubtedly; and they should be fed at
shorter intervals. But as a general rule, what is best for them, as
regards its quality, at three years old, is best for them at thirty; or,
should they live so long, at ninety. I repeat it; there is very little
difference in the nature of the food required ever after teething.
Let me not be understood as saying that the strong, and the robust, and
the active cannot digest food which the weak, and enervated, and
indolent cannot. Undoubtedly they can. But this does not prove that they
_ought_ to do it. It does not prove that their strength and vigor were
not given them for other purposes than to be expended on the poorer
substances for food, when they might have better. Nor is it true, as
often pretended, that the hard laborer needs either more food, or that
which is of a stronger quality, just in proportion to the severity of
his labor. The man or the child who labors moderately, just sufficient
for the purposes of health, and labors with his hands in the open air,
needs rather _more_ food than the indolent or the sedentary, or those
who labor to excess; but not that which is of a stronger quality. It is
he who labors to excess--if any difference of quality were required at
all--who should eat milder food, as well as less in quantity.
Some physicians there are who tell us that all mankind would live
longer, as well as be more healthful, if they ate nothing but bread, and
drank nothing but water. It may be so, but I do not believe it. Water,
as I shall show hereafter, is indeed the only appropriate drink; but I
do not believe that bread, even after the second year, is in all cases
and circumstances the best food. Besides that the experiments of
Majendie and other physiologists go a little way--though not far, I
confess--to prove that animals generally, (and if so, why not man, as
well as the rest?) thrive best with some degree of variety in their
food, it seems to me more in accordance with the general intentions of
the Creator, so far as we can discover what they are.
While, therefore, I deny that either milk or bread is better, in all
cases, for human sustenance, than any other articles of food, I must, at
the same time, be permitted to regard them as among the best, and as
deserving more general attention. Every infant, after leaving the
breast, should, as it seems to me, make bread, in some of its forms, a
chief article of food.
This article, so justly and emphatically called the staff of life, may
be found in almost every country. Common sense seems to have dictated
the propriety of its use; though fashion has often led us to overlook
or despise it--like air, and fire, and water, and nearly every other
common but indispensable blessing.
The best kind of bread is made from wheat, the worst from bark,
saw-dust, &c. Wood and bark afford so little nutriment, that it is only
in such countries as Norway, Sweden, Lapland. Iceland, Greenland, and
Siberia, that the inhabitants can be induced to make use of them. Here
they are often useful; either because people cannot get food which is
better, or to blend with their fat or oily animal food. For it should
never be forgotten, that healthy digestion requires a large proportion
of innutritious matter along with the pure nutriment. In order to make
bread from wheat, the meal should not be bolted. If it seems to contain
particles which are too coarse, it may be well to pass it through a
coarse family sieve; but the best bread I have ever eaten, as well as
the cleanest and neatest, was not sifted at all.
I know there is an almost universal prejudice against this sort of
bread. Some complain that it scratches their throats; others, that it is
tasteless; and others still, that it does not agree with them. With
others there is another objection--which is that bread of this sort has
sometimes been called _dyspepsia_ bread; and with others still, that it
has been called _Graham_ bread. Either of these appellations seems
sufficient to condemn it.
Now as to the harshness, this is owing to its being made of bad
materials, or to its being baked too hard, or kept too long. Much of
what they call dyspepsia bread, in our cities, is evidently made by
mixing the bran and flour of wheat after they have been once separated;
besides which, in not a few cases, the finest of the flour appears to be
taken away. Now bread made of such materials thus combined, will always
be darker colored, as well as harsher, than when made from the wheat,
simply ground without any bolting, and wet up in the usual manner. Such
bread is best two or three days old. After four days, it becomes dry and
somewhat harsh.
They who complain that such bread is insipid, are persons whose
appetites have been injured by food which is high-seasoned; and who, if
they eat bread at all, must eat it hot, or soaked in butter. No wonder
such persons do not like plain bread, and say it is tasteless. But it
must not be denied that bakers often suffer this kind of bread to be
over-risen, in order to make it sufficiently light and porous. This
renders it less tasteful, and from the saleratus they use, less
wholesome.
No child who has been accustomed, from the first, to good wheaten bread,
made of unbolted meal, and not less than one day old, will ever prefer
any other, until he has been rendered capricious on this subject, and
wishes to change for the sake of changing, or until he has been misled
by surrounding example. I speak from observation when I say that
infants, whose habits have not been depraved, will not prefer hot bread
of any kind. "It is hot, mother," I have heard them say, as an apology
for refusing a piece of bread; but never, "It is cold," or "It is too
old."
It is the epicurean--it is he with whom it is a sufficient objection to
any kind of food whatever, that he has used it for several successive
meals or days--that is most ready to complain of good bread. He whose
habits are correct, and who is the more unwilling to change any of his
articles of diet, the longer he has been in the use of them, and who
only changes them, or uses variety, from principle--he, I say, will
never complain of harshness or want of taste in good wheat bread; nor
will it be an objection of weight with him that _Mr. Graham_ has
recommended it, or that it has either prevented or cured _dyspepsia_.
Nor will the epicurean himself complain that bread is insipid, after
being confined to it for a month or six weeks. He will then find a
sweetness in it, for which he had long sought in vain in the more
delicate and costly viands of a luxurious, and expensive, and
unchristian modern table.
It is they only who observe simplicity, and confine themselves to very
plain food, who truly enjoy pleasure in eating. The bulk of mankind
benumb their sense of taste by their high-seasoned, over-stimulating
food and drink, and by such constant variety and strange mixtures; and
thus, in their eager cry, "Who will show us any good?" they actually
enjoy less than he who eats plain food, and is contented with it.
Bread of all kinds is greatly improved in whiteness and pleasantness by
being wet with milk; though even when wet with nothing but water, there
is a solid and rational sweetness to it, of which the despisers of
bread, and devourers of much flesh and condiments never dreamed, and
never will dream, till they reform their habits.
If children are furnished with good bread, on the plan of Mr. Locke,
there is no doubt that they will relish it most keenly; that their
attachment to it will strengthen, and that unless we give them other
food occasionally, from principle, or seduce them by depraving their
tastes, they will continue it through life. "Train up a child in the way
he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it," is a
general rule, and has as few exceptions, when applied to the diet of a
child, as when it is applied to his moral tastes and preferences.
With those parents who, though convinced of the justness of the views
here advanced, have already trained their children in the way they
should _not_ go, but are anxious to retrace their steps as far as
possible, there will here be a difficulty. "Our children," they will
say, "do not, at present, _relish_ the kind of bread you speak of; and
how shall we bring them to do so? or is the thing indeed possible?"
The answer to these inquiries is easy. Such parents have only to confine
their children to the kinds of food which they deem proper for them, a
few weeks or a few months, and they will soon relish them. If those who
are old enough to be convinced can be brought to unite heartily in the
change, and to endeavor to be pleased with it, the work of reformation
will be more pleasant and probably more speedy. I have never found any
difficulty of bringing myself to relish in a very short time an article
of food for which I had no relish before, and to which I had even a
dislike, provided I was thoroughly convinced it was best for me, and was
earnest in the desire of change--except sweet oil, to which I was about
six months in becoming reconciled.
It is with physical, as with moral habits, in their formation. We
should fix on what we believe, from experience, observation, and divine
and human testimony, is best for us, and habit will soon render it
agreeable. It is important, even to health, that food should be
agreeable; but as I have already said, what we know to be best for us
will soon become agreeable, if we confine ourselves to it; and to our
children also, if we confine them to it, in like manner.
Next to bread made of wheat--when that cannot be procured--is a mixture
of wheat and Indian meal; but the proportion of the latter should be the
smallest. Wheat, rye, and Indian, in the proportion of one third of
each, make excellent bread, sometimes called _third_ bread. Rye and
Indian make a tolerable bread. Rye alone is not so good. The want, in
the latter, of the vegetable principle called gluten, makes its general
use of very questionable propriety.
Indian meal alone, baked in cakes by the fire, if eaten only in small
quantities, is a very nutritious and by no means unwholesome bread. But
its sweetness, and the general fondness which people who are accustomed
to its use have for it, lead them to eat it in too large proportions, if
they use it while it is warm. In these circumstances, it proves itself
too active for the stomach and bowels. If warm, six ounces is as much
as a hearty adult ought to eat of it at once; and children should of
course take much less. It is less active on the bowels, and scarcely
less agreeable, as soon as we become accustomed to it, if eaten when it
is cold--even if baked in loaves, in the oven.
Potatoes, added to unbolted wheat flour, make excellent bread; and so,
as I am informed, does rice. Of the latter, however, I have never eaten.
Oats and barley, and many other grains and substances, will make bread;
but it is of an inferior kind.
The question may again recur, after this extended series of remarks,
whether I intend to confine the young almost exclusively to bread, in
one or another of its forms. We shall see how this is, presently.
While bread, therefore, should constitute a part, at least, and
sometimes the whole of a meal, a great variety of other articles are not
only admissible, but desirable. Among these may be mentioned plain
puddings.
One of the most wholesome puddings is made of Indian meal, enclosed in a
bag and boiled. Nearly allied to this is the common hasty pudding; but
the last is less wholesome, because it requires less chewing; and it
ought to have been observed, before now, that after weaning, any food
is digested better which has undergone the process of thorough
mastication.
Boiled rice, though hardly to be regarded as a pudding, is very
nutritious, and very easy of digestion. I am not without doubts,
however, in regard to the utility of a large proportion of rice, as
food. A dinner of it, two or three times a week, I believe to be
wholesome; but used too frequently, it seems to me not active enough for
the stomach and bowels; having in this respect precisely a contrary
effect to that of warm Indian cakes. The common notion that rice has a
tendency to make people blind, is entirely unfounded. Its worst effect
is when eaten without being boiled through. In such cases, I have known
it to do mischief; perhaps because it was swallowed without much
chewing. Some grind it, and use the flour; but I cannot recommend it to
be used in this manner.
The best pudding in the world is a loaf of bread, (What!--you will
say--bread again?) three or four or five days old, boiled, or rather
_steamed_, in milk. All kinds of bread are excellent for this purpose,
but wheat and Indian are the best. They are excellent even without
milk--that is, simply steamed.
Puddings made of the flour of wheat, rye, buckwheat, &c., are less
wholesome than those which have been already mentioned. And all sorts
of puddings are less wholesome, when eaten as hot as our unreasonable
fashions require, than when their temperature is quite below that of our
bodies. I would not have them so cold as to chill us, for this would be
to go to the other, though less dangerous extreme; but they ought to be
cool. Too much heat is an unnatural stimulus, likely to leave more or
less debility behind it. In addition to this, those who eat hot food are
more exposed to take cold, in consequence of it.
With none of these puddings ought we to mix any fruits, green or
dried--not even raisins. Some of the more important properties of nearly
every kind of fruit or berry are lost by boiling, unless we eat the
water in which they are boiled, and save the vapor which would otherwise
escape. I am not in favor of boiled fruit generally, especially if
boiled in puddings.
Puddings, like most other kinds of food--even bread--may be slightly
salted: not that this is indispensable, but because the balance of human
testimony is in its favor. The argument that we evidently need salt
because the other animals require it, is without much weight. The other
animals do not _generally_ require or use it.[Footnote: Some
considerable savage nations use no salt, and a few have a strong
aversion to it.] The cases so often triumphantly mentioned, where
animals appear to thrive better from the use of it, are only exceptions
to the general rule, nor are they very numerous in comparison with the
whole race of animals. Still I have no objections to its moderate use.
It may be useful in preventing worms; though there are doubts even of
that. In large quantities, it is unquestionably hurtful.
But neither fruits nor berries--permit me to repeat the sentiment--no,
nor any such thing as cinnamon or spices, nor even sugar or molasses in
any considerable quantity, should go into the composition of any sort of
pudding. If the puddings are not sweet enough without, it is better to
add a little sugar or molasses on your plate. Nor should sauces, or
cream, or butter, or suet be used in or upon them; though of all these
substances, cream is least injurious. Nutmegs, grated cheese, &c., are
unnecessary and hurtful. Cheese should never be eaten, in any way.
There is one thing, however, which may be eaten in moderate quantity
with all sorts of puddings and with bread; I mean milk. I say eaten
_with_, for it is better never to put these substances, nor indeed any
other, _into_ the milk. The bread, pudding, &c., should be eaten by
itself, and the milk by itself, also. In this way we shall not be liable
to cheat the teeth out of what is justly their due, and then make the
deranged stomach and general system pay for it.
Potatoes are a good article of diet--to be used once a day--though they
are not very nutritious. They are best either steamed or roasted in the
ashes. They are also excellent when boiled. Turnips are also good.
Onions are not so useful as is generally supposed, except for the
purposes of medicine.
Beets; in small quantity, and carrots and asparagus, and above all,
beans and peas--but not their pods--are tolerable food once a day,
during most of the year, except it be the middle of the winter. But
neither these, nor potatoes, nor any other vegetables, ought to be
cooked in any way with fat, or fat meat, or butter; or be mashed after
they are cooked, or eaten with oil or butter.
If there be an exception to this general rule--which may seem to be
rather sweeping--it should be in favor of a little sweet oil on rice, or
on bread puddings. But the common practice, founded upon the apparent
belief that we can scarcely eat anything until it is well covered with
lard or butter, is quite objectionable--nay, it is even disgusting. No
pure stomach would ever prefer oily bread, or pudding, or beans, or
peas; and most people would abhor the sight of such a strange
combination, were not habit, in its power to change our very nature,
almost omnipotent.
SEC. 10. _Remarks on Fruit._
There is a very great diversity of opinion on the subject of fruit. Some
maintain that all fruit, even in the most ripe and perfect state, is of
doubtful utility, especially for children. Others say none is hurtful,
if ripe, and eaten in moderate quantity. Some require care in making a
proper selection; but here again, in regard to what constitutes a proper
selection, there is a difference of opinion. Some consider fruits easy
of digestion; others believe they are digested only with very great
difficulty.
When the cholera prevailed in the large cities of the United States, a
majority of the physicians believed all fruits, even those which were
ripe, to be injurious in their tendency. But it was insisted by the
minority--I think very justly--that whenever fruit appeared to be
injurious, it was accidental--that is, the disease, being prepared to
make its attack just at that time, happened to do so immediately after
the use of fruit, rather than something else, and especially in the
_season_ of fruits--or on account of excess; or (which was certainly
the case in some instances) because the quality of the fruit was bad.
At present, the _weight_ of testimony on this subject--estimating
according to talent, and not according to numbers--is in favor of good
fruit, used with moderation--even in the face of the cholera. Dr.
Dunglison--one of the last to adopt such an opinion--appears to be in
its favor.
On several points, in regard to fruit, I believe that among medical men
there is no essential difference of opinion. As I always prefer, in
controversies, to see in how many things antagonists agree, before
proceeding to the points in which they differ, I will here endeavor to
enumerate them.
1. All unripe fruits, especially, if eaten raw and uncooked--let the
season, or prevalent disease, or individual, be what or who it may--are
unwholesome.
2. Excess, in the use of the most wholesome fruits, under any
circumstances, is also injurious.
3. Fruits, eaten immediately after a full meal, when the stomach is in
an improper condition for receiving anything more, contribute to
overtask the digestive powers, and must hence produce more or less of
injury.
4. The skins and kernels of the larger fruits are unwholesome, because
indigestible. The skins of fruits, if beaten or masticated finely; may
appear to be digested, because dissolved; but I have already endeavored
to show that solution is not always digestion.
5. Fruits of all kinds are most wholesome in their own country, and in
their own appropriate season.
6. Dried fruits are less wholesome than fresh.
7. Fruit of all kinds should be withheld from infants, until they have
teeth.
Thus far, as I have already said, all agree; at least so far as I know.
There are several other points on which medical men are generally
agreed, though not universally. One of these is, that fruits, if eaten
at all, should usually form a part of a regular meal. Another is, that
it is better not to eat them immediately before going to bed.
There are contradictory opinions among the mass of the community,
physicians as well as others, on the general intention of our summer
fruits. From the fact that children's diseases prevail more at the
season of the year when fruits are more abundant, many think the fruits
are the immediate cause of them. Others, and with better reason, suppose
that the latter are intended by the Author of nature to check or prevent
the bowel diseases of summer.
Nothing, certainly, is more unnatural than to suppose that at the very
season of the year when so many other influences combine to awaken a
tendency to disease in the human system, the Creator should place before
our eyes an abundance of fruits, inviting us by all their cooling and
tempting properties, only to do us mischief. On the contrary, it seems
to me much more probable that many of them were designed for our
moderate use. In what quantity, under what circumstances, and which are
best, it is left to human experience to determine.
Some say that fruit should never be eaten in the morning, before
breakfast. Now everything I know of the human constitution, together
with what I have learned from experience and observation, has been for
years leading me to the contrary opinion. Indeed, I am most fully
convinced, that of all periods for eating fruit, whether we use it alone
or make it a part of our regular meals, the morning, soon after we rise,
is the most favorable. [Footnote: I ought to remark, that as the morning
is the best time for eating _good_ fruit, so it is the very worst time
for eating it if _not_ good; and as a large proportion of that which is
eaten is unripe, or otherwise bad, this may account for the general
prejudice against eating it at this period.] My reasons are as follows:
1. The rest and sleep of the preceding night has restored our general
vigor, and consequently has invigorated the stomach, so that digestion
will be more easily and perfectly accomplished.
2. We have been, at our rising, so long without food on our stomachs,
that they are not likely to be oppressed by a moderate quantity of good,
ripe, wholesome fruit. In the course of our waking hours, meals follow
each other in such quick succession, and there is so much variety, even
at the plainest tables, to tempt us to excess, that there is more danger
of injury from the addition of fruit than at our first rising.
3. I have never known any one to receive injury from the use of fruit in
this way, provided no other circumstance in relation to quantity,
quality, &c. had been disregarded. In my own case, the practice has, on
the contrary, seemed beneficial.
4. There is one reason in favor of this practice which perhaps would
have less weight, if people rose as early in the morning as they ought;
or, in the language of Dr. Franklin to the inhabitants of Paris, if they
knew that the sun gives light as soon as he rises. I allude to the
demand which I conceive that the stomach makes for something, after so
long fasting, and the pernicious custom of late breakfasts. I am
persuaded that it is advisable to eat something nearly as soon as we
rise, be it never so early; and if we can get nothing else for
breakfast, and have not accustomed ourselves to relish a piece of good
bread, or some other simple thing, which requires no labor of
preparation, I think it perfectly proper to eat a small quantity of
fruit.
We come now to the particular consideration of some of those fruits
which universal experience has shown to be the most salutary.
Of all these, none is more wholesome than the apple. There is indeed a
great diversity in the quality even of this single article. Sweet apples
are the most nutritious; but perhaps those which are gently acid, and at
the same time mealy, are rather more cooling, and when eaten raw, and in
the heat of summer, not less wholesome.
Apples which come to maturity very early in the season appear, as a
general rule, to be less rich, and even less perfect, than those which
ripen later. In view of this fact, some writers have endeavored to
dissuade us from their use; and among others, Mr. Locke. We may judge a
little what his opinions were, from his concluding remarks on the
subject:--"I never knew apples hurt anybody," says he, "after October."
But although neither apples nor any other fruits which ripen uncommonly
early are quite so good as those which come in a little later, yet I do
not think they are to be wholly rejected, unless they have been raised
in hot houses. Fruits, and indeed vegetables in general, whose maturity
is hastened by artificial processes, must be less wholesome than when
brought to perfection in nature's own appropriate time and manner. I
ought to say, however, very distinctly, that of the fruits of any
particular tree, those which first ripen are always the worst; for they
are usually wormy, or otherwise defective.
Most of the fruit, as well as other vegetables, brought to our city
markets in this country, is utterly unfit to be eaten. Sometimes it is
immature; sometimes it has a hot house maturity; sometimes it has been
picked so long that it has begun to decay. Many fruits--berries
especially--are in perfection for a very short period only. Mulberries,
for example--one kind especially--are not in perfection long enough to
carry to the market house, even though the distance were very small.
Luckily, however, very few mulberries are eaten. But the raspberry and
strawberry, if perfect when gathered, have usually begun to decay,
before they are purchased. That this appears to be rather unfrequent, is
because they are gathered before they are ripe.
Dr. Dewees regards most fruits as difficult of digestion. I do not think
they are so, if perfect and ripe. The experiments of Dr. Beaumont, so
far as they prove any general principle, show conclusively that mellow
sweet apples are more quickly digested than any kind of vegetable food
whatever, except rice and sago. But even admitting they were slow of
digestion, I do not think--as I have already shown in another
place--that they ought on that account to be excluded. Besides, my
opinion differs from that of Dr. D. in regard to the strength of the
digestive powers of children. After teething, they seem to me to be able
to digest any substances which adults can; and with as little
difficulty.
But to return:--No fruit is in perfection longer than the apple.
Besides, no fruit appears to be less injured in its nature and
properties by picking it a little before it is ripe, and preserving it
during the winter. It is on this account, more perhaps than any other,
that I value it more highly than all other fruits united.
Apples may be used either raw or cooked. In either case, the skins and
seeds should be avoided, as has been before suggested. I am not ignorant
that WILLICH, in his "Lectures on Diet and Regimen"--an excellent work,
in the main--says that the seeds ought to be eaten; but I believe few
physiologists would comply with his injunction, especially when it is
considered that he recommends, in the same connection, that we swallow
the stones of cherries and plums. Strange how far our theories will
sometimes carry us!
The apple is excellent when roasted or baked, especially the sweet
apple. It is very common, in some places, to eat baked sweet apples with
milk; and the practice is by no means a bad one. Indeed, baked or raw
apples might be advantageously made a part of at least one of our meals
every day. There is said to be a miserly farmer--a single gentleman--in
the western part of the state of Massachusetts, who has lived on nothing
but apples for his food, and water for his drink, about forty years. And
yet he is said to enjoy the most perfect health. I do not propose this
as an example worthy of imitation; but it shows that apples maybe made
to subserve an important purpose in diet. And though I have more than
once expressed an opinion highly unfavorable to the exclusive use of any
one article of diet, yet if I were to confine myself to any one thing, I
know of nothing except bread that I should prefer to good apples. Still,
however, I prefer a variety--sweet, sour, early, late, &c.; and I should
use them raw, roasted, baked, made into sauce with new or unfermented
cider, and boiled. Good apples, eaten raw, with bread, form not only a
very wholesome, but, to an unperverted appetite, a most delicious
dinner.
Much has been said about cutting down orchards; but the whole seems to
me idle--for if the fruit is of a good quality, it may be used as food,
either for man or beast. And if not good, the trees ought either to be
destroyed or replaced by those that will produce fruit which is
better--even if the object were to make it into cider. I have said that
apples may be used both by man and beast. It is well known that most
domestic animals thrive well on good apples, especially sweet ones. Very
tolerable molasses is also sometimes made from sweet apples.
Nearly everything which has been said above in regard to apples, will
apply to pears. The best varieties of this excellent fruit are quite as
nutritious and as wholesome as the apple; and as much improved for the
table by baking. I believe, however, that no cheap process has yet been
devised for keeping them as long in the winter. They may be preserved in
the form of sauce, prepared in the same way with common apple sauce. The
skins, of many kinds of pears are less injurious than those of apples;
but even the skins of pears need not be eaten.
Some kinds of peaches are tolerably wholesome; but the stringy character
of their pulp appears to me to render them less so than apples and
pears, though I am not confident on this point. But if used at all, they
should be used in less quantity at one time. Tempting as their flavor
is, I seldom eat them, when I can get apples and pears; holding myself
in duty bound to use the _best_, even of the fruits.
"Fruit," says Mr. Locke, "makes one of the most difficult chapters in
the government of health, especially that of children. Our first parents
ventured Paradise for it; and it is no wonder our children cannot stand
the temptation, though it cost them their health. The regulation of this
cannot come under any one general rule; for I am by no means of their
mind who would keep children wholly from fruit, as a thing totally
unwholesome for them, by which strict way they make them but the more
ravenous after it, to eat good or bad, ripe or unripe, all that they can
get, whenever they come at it.
"Melons, peaches, most sorts of plums, and all sorts of grapes, in
_England_, I think children should be wholly kept from, as having a very
tempting taste, in a very unwholesome juice, so that if it were
possible, they should never so much as see them, or know that there was
any such thing. But strawberries, cherries, gooseberries and currants,
when thoroughly ripe, I think may be pretty safely allowed them."
Excellent as these remarks are, in general, I do not like his entire
interdiction of the use of melons, peaches, plums, and grapes, even in
England. Peaches, to be sure, as they come at a season when apples or
pears, or both of them--which are more wholesome than peaches--are
abundant, may be better omitted, delicious as they are to the taste; and
I do not think very highly of plums. But melons, in very moderate
quantity, and grapes, if we eat nothing but the ripe pulp, rejecting
both the husk and the interior hard part, including the seeds, are, I
think, useful and wholesome. On the other hand, I should never place
cherries and gooseberries in the same list with strawberries; for the
latter are, if I may use the expression, infinitely the most wholesome.
Many seem to think that not to eat all sorts of fruits is to despise, or
at least to treat with neglect the gifts of God, intended for our
reception; by which they mean, if they mean anything, that the use of
all sorts of fruits is already found out, even in the present
comparative infancy of the world. Now I do not suppose that God has made
anything in vain--absolutely so--though I do not think we have found out
the true uses of half the things which he has made and given us. And
among those things of which we are yet ignorant, are some of the fruits.
I do not believe it follows, necessarily, that because fruits are
created, we are obliged to use them all.
Besides, if this is a rule, it is one which nobody follows. Every one
uses more of some sorts, and fewer of others; and a large proportion of
the community entirely reject some kinds. Now if the statement commonly
made, that all fruits are the gifts of God, and ought therefore to be
used by all persons, is correct, those who make the statement ought to
conform to it as a rule of their lives, and to eat all kinds of fruit
which the season and country affords; and not only eat all kinds, but
see that the whole of every kind is consumed; since to waste any portion
is to slight the good gifts of God.
The result then is, that we cannot obey such a rule; but are driven back
to the mode which common sense dictates, which is, to make a selection,
using some, and rejecting others. And the value of studying the nature
of these fruits, by examining the experience of mankind in regard to
them, consists in the aid thus afforded us in making our selection
wisely.
There is one very common error in the use of the smaller summer fruits,
such as strawberries, whortleberries, currants, &c., which is that of
mixing cream, wine, spices, sugar, &c., with them. We are thus tempted
to eat too great a quantity at once. Besides--which is a worse evil--we
change the proportions of the saccharine parts, and thus do all in our
power, by increasing a similarity in all fruits, to destroy that
agreeable variety which God has established, and which is probably
salutary.
SEC. 11. _Confectionary._
By confectionary we here mean the substances usually sold at those shops
in our cities distinguished by the general name of confectionaries, and
which consist either wholly of sugar, or of sugar and some other
substances combined.
As to the use of a moderate quantity of pure sugar at our meals, whether
it is procured at a confectioner's shop or elsewhere, I do not know that
there is any strong objection to it; though I believe that it cannot be
regarded as indispensable to health--for were that the fact, it seems to
me to imply something short of infinite wisdom in the creation of
articles destined for our sustenance. But I have spoken on this subject
elsewhere.
A part, however, of the contents of the confectionary shop are actually
poisonous. I refer to those things which are either frosted, as it is
called, or colored. The substances applied to the sugar for this purpose
are usually some mineral or vegetable poison; although the fact of its
being a poison may not always be known to the manufacturer. The most
unhappy consequences have occasionally followed the use of
confectionary, when poisoned in this manner. A family of four persons,
in New York, were made sick in this way in March of year before last,
and some of them came very near losing their lives. The "frosting" which
caused the mischief was pronounced by eminent chemists to be one fifth
rank poison.[Footnote: It is to be remembered that those who eat
confectionary so slightly poisoned that it does not make them sick at
once, may nevertheless be as much injured in their constitutions as they
who are poisoned outright. In the latter case, the poison is in part
thrown out of the body; in the former, it remains in it much longer--and
therefore more surely, though more slowly, accomplishes the work of
destruction.] The coloring substances used are sometimes poisonous, as
well as the frosting.
Some of the articles sold at these shops consist of sugar mixed with
paste. Others are called sweetmeats; that is, fruits, or rinds of
fruits, preserved in sugar. All these substances, I believe, without
exception, are injurious.
The great evils of confectionary yet remain to be mentioned. These are
of three kinds, physical, mental and moral.
Some of the _physical_ evils have, it is true, just been mentioned; but
there is another evil of still greater magnitude. Young people who eat
confectionary, commonly eat it between meals. This produces mischief in
two ways. First, it keeps the stomach at work when it ought to rest; for
this, like every other muscular organ, requires its seasons of repose.
Secondly, it destroys gradually the appetite; so that when the regular
meal arrives, the accustomed keenness of appetite does not come with it.
And the consequence is, not so much that we do not eat enough, as that
we are fastidious, and eat a little of this, then a little of that; and
usually select the worst things. We are not hungry enough to make a meal
of a single article of plain food. And this evil goes on increasing, as
long as we have access to the confectionary shop. These statements
describe the case of thousands of pupils, of both sexes, at our schools
and seminaries.
The _intellectual_ evil resulting from the use of confectionary consists
in the fondness for excitement which is produced. You will seldom find a
person who depends daily and almost hourly on some excitement to his
appetite and stomach, and is not satisfied with plain food, who will
content himself to _study_ without unnatural excitements of the mind.
Duty to himself or to others will not move him. He must have before him
the hope of reward, or the fear of punishment. He must be moved by
emulation or ambition, or some other questionable or wicked motive or
passion.
But the _moral_ results, to the young, of using confectionary, are still
more dreadful. I do not here refer to the danger of meeting with bad
company at the shops themselves, or of going from these places of
pollution _directly_ to the grog-shop, the gambling-house, or the
brothel; though there is danger enough, even here. But I allude to the
tendency which a habit of not resting satisfied with plain food, but of
depending on exciting things, has, to make us dissatisfied with plain
moral enjoyments--the society of friends, and the quiet discharge of our
duty to God and our neighbor. Just in proportion as we gratify our
propensity for excitement at the confectioner's shop, just in the same
proportion do we expose ourselves to the, danger of yielding to
temptation, should other gratifications present themselves. The young of
both sexes who are in the use of confectionary, are on the high road to
gluttony, drunkenness, or debauchery; perhaps to all three. I do not say
they will certainly arrive there, for circumstances not quite miraculous
may pluck them as "brands from the burning;" but I do not hesitate to
say that such is the inevitable tendency; and I call on every mother and
teacher who reads this section, to beware of confectionaries, and see,
if possible, that the young never set foot in them. They are a road
through which thousands pass to the chamber of death--death to the
immortal spirit, as well as to the body, its vehicle.
More might be added--for this is an important subject--but I trust I
have said enough. Those who have read and believe what I have written,
if they remain wholly unaffected and unmoved, would not be roused to
effort were anything to be added.
SEC. 12. _Pastry._
Dr. Paris, a distinguished British writer on diet, says that all pastry
is "an abomination." And yet, go where we will, we find it often on the
table. Hardly any one, whether old or young, attempts to do without it.
There are indeed some, who will not eat pie-crust, or high-seasoned
cakes formed of paste; but yet will not hesitate to eat hot bread, or
rolls, or biscuits made of wheat flour, bolted. Now what is this but
paste? If we could see the contents of the stomach, an hour after the
mass is swallowed, we should find it to be paste, and _mere_ paste.
And yet the evil is increasing everywhere. So generally is this true,
that a person who refuses to eat hot bread, or cake, or biscuit, is
deemed singular. He who ventures to lift his voice against it is deemed
an ascetic or a visionary. But such a voice must be raised, and heard,
too, whether its monitions are or are not regarded.
Pastry is less objectionable, however, when used in the form of hot
bread, &c., than when butter or fat is mixed with it. Then it becomes
one of the most indigestible substances in the world. Besides, it not
only tries the patience of the stomach, but according to Willich, whose
authority ranks high, it tends to produce diseases of the skin,
especially a disease which he calls "copper in the face," and which he
pronounces incurable.
I know not whether the eruptions so common on the faces of young people
in this country, and especially of young men, are in every instance
either produced or aggravated by pastry; but I am very sure of one
thing, viz., that those who are in the use of pastry, and have eruptions
of the skin of any kind, will not be apt to get well, as long as they
continue the use of this objectionable substance.
Physicians are often consulted about eruptions on the face. When they
assign the real cause, which is undoubtedly connected with the improper
gratification of some of the appetites, in one way or another, it is
seldom that the patient has self-command enough to follow his
prescription of temperance or abstinence. Mothers, it is yours to
prevent this mischief;--first, by establishing correct physical habits;
secondly, by teaching your children the great duty of self-denial--not
only by precept, but by your own good example.
SEC. 13. _Crude or Raw Substances._
I have reserved this section for remarks on certain articles used at our
fashionable modern tables, of which I could not well find it convenient
to speak elsewhere. And first, of SALADS, and HERBS used in cooking;
such as asparagus, artichokes, spinage, plantain, cabbage, dock,
lettuce, water-cresses, chives, &c.
Several of these substances are often eaten raw, in which state they are
exceedingly indigestible, at the best; and they are rendered still more
beyond the reach of the powers of the stomach, by the oil or vinegar
which is added to them. Boiled, they are more tolerable; especially
asparagus. In the midst, however, of such an abundance of excellent food
as this country affords, it is most surprising that anybody should ever
take it into their heads to eat such crude substances; and above all,
that they should fill children's stomachs with them. What child, with an
unperverted appetite, would not prefer a good ripe apple, or peach, or
pear, to the most approved raw salads?--and a good baked one, to the
best boiled asparagus?
NUTS, in general, are probably made for other animals rather than man;
though of this we cannot in the present infancy of human knowledge be
quite certain. But if any of them were intended, by the Creator, for
man, it is the chesnut; and this should be boiled. Boiled chesnuts are
used as food, in many parts of southern Europe; and to a very
considerable extent.
SPICES, as they are sometimes called, such as nutmeg, mace, pepper,
pimento; cubebs, cardamoms, juniper berries, ginger, calamus, cloves,
cinnamon, caraway, coriander, fennel, parsley, dill, sage, marjoram,
thyme, pennyroyal, lavender, hyssop, peppermint, &c., are unfit for the
human stomach--above all in infancy--except as medicines.
There are several other vegetables equally objectionable with the last,
though they cannot be classed under the same head. Such are mustard,
horseradish, raw onions, garlic, cucumbers, and pickles. No appetite
which has not been accustomed to these substances in early infancy, will
ever require them. Not that they may not sometimes be useful in enabling
the stomach--at every age--to get rid of certain substances with which
it has been improperly or unreasonably loaded;--this is undoubtedly the
fact; ardent spirits would do the same. And it is with a view to some
such effect, generally, that medical writers have spoken in their favor.
Some of them stimulate the stomach to get rid of a load of _green_
fruit; others, of a load of _fat_ or _salt_ food; others, again,
of too large a _quantity_ of food which is naturally wholesome.
But in all these cases, they should be considered, not as food, but as
medicine; and we ought to call them by their right name. And if we
withhold the cause of the disease, there will be no need of the
medicine.