Child-murder is so unnatural a crime, that mankind can be brought
to the commission of it only by the greatest desperation, for which
unfortunately there is too much cause. To parents who are just able by
incessant labour to procure those things indispensably necessary to
support life, the birth of every child increases the fear of starving
or of being reduced to beggary. Those who have secured to them a
scanty subsistence, but who live amidst the torments of slavery,
wish to the new-born child, which at any rate is doomed to death, a
speedy dissolution, before it can know that it has had the misfortune
to be brought into the world, in order that they may not bequeath to
it their poverty. A young female who has acquired by education the
most delicate sense of honour and shame, finds herself, on the birth
of an illegitimate child, exposed at once to the utmost disgrace
and contempt. Her misfortune, though viewed with an eye of pity by
the compassionate, excites the hatred of the greater part of her
relations and friends, by whom she was before loved and respected,
and who endeavoured to render her happy; and often amidst the most
poignant feelings, and an agitation bordering on madness, she sees no
other means of saving her honour than the total concealment of her
error by destroying the child: a resolution which, notwithstanding the
vigilance of the laws, is too often attended with success. A young
woman who at this moment finds herself suddenly despised and neglected
by her admirer, who gained her affections by the most powerful of all
means, love and confidence, and obtained from her what she can never
recover, is often induced, in a fit of despair, to vent her fury on the
consequences of her seduction--the child of her seducer.
These misfortunes of mankind are among the disadvantages attending
civilised society, which always render marriage more difficult as
well as burthensome, and thereby make it impossible to gratify one of
the most powerful impulses of nature. In the savage state, parents
require no more for themselves and their children than what they can
easily obtain. The inhabitants of Terra del Fuego, who live at the
greatest distance from all culture, find shell-fish and esculent
plants sufficient to appease their hunger; never are their thoughts
disturbed by care for the maintenance of a child. The black slaves
in St. Domingo say, that “it is only the white man who begs;” and
indeed in this they are right[1056]. Beggars exist only where they are
established by religion and governments which command them to be fed.
But the transition from living by one’s own industry to beggary is, in
consequence of the shame attending it, most painful and insupportable
to those who with the greatest exertion and waste of strength, amidst
the privation of every comfort, are exposed with their children to the
horrors of famine. On the other hand, to those who, in our states,
are obliged to eat the bread of mendicity, children are a blessing;
because as long as they are incapable of running alone, they increase
their alms by exciting greater compassion, and afterwards by begging in
the streets[1057].
It is not therefore poverty already reduced to the state of beggary,
but the dread of being at length overwhelmed notwithstanding every
exertion to swim against the stream, that occasions child-murder. The
same is the effect of slavery, which excludes the possibility of even
hoping for a change to a better condition. The serfs of a hard-hearted
land-proprietor, who however acted according to the established laws,
entered into a resolution to get no children, that they might not be
under the necessity of putting any of them to death[1058]. The sense
of honour becomes stronger the more the manners approach towards a
certain degree of refinement; and it is proved that it is this cause
which, in most instances, gives rise to child-murder. In vain have
legislators endeavoured to prevent this crime by capital punishment,
more cruel than the crime itself. But indeed it is difficult, or rather
impossible, to proportion punishment to delinquency or the just degree
of guilt.
It needs excite no wonder that many states where the Christian
religion was not introduced, and even the Jewish, made no law against
child-murder, though the atrocity of it was never denied[1059]. To
render this crime less frequent, men fell upon the way of exposing
children, in the hope that they might be found by benevolent persons,
who would educate and maintain them. Parents imagined that in this
manner less violence was offered to humanity, and they could more
easily be induced to resign their children to chance than to become
their murderers. They consoled themselves with the possibility, proved
by various examples, that the exposed children might be saved, and
be more fortunate than their parents[1060]. To promote this, they
deposited them in places where a great many people might be expected
soon to pass, and where the child would consequently be found before it
should perish by cold and hunger or be devoured by ravenous animals.
With this view they made choice of the market-places, temples, places
where two or more highways met, wells, the banks of rivers or the
sea-shore, from which water was brought or which were the usual places
of bathing; and even, when the children were placed in the water, means
were contrived that they should at any rate float some time without
being injured. For this purpose they were placed in small chests,
trays, or close baskets, or wrapped up in waterproof bandages[1061].
At Athens children were commonly exposed in that place called
_cynosarges_, which was one of the _gymnasia_. At Rome the most usual
place was that pillar called _columna lactaria_, which stood in the
market where kitchen vegetables were sold[1062].
When the exposure of children in civilised states began to be
condemned as unlawful, it was however suffered to pass unpunished,
even under the first Christian emperors. Legislators only endeavoured
by regulations of every kind to render it less common, and to provide
for the maintenance of children; until at last, through horror at the
cruelty of it, but without thinking of the causes or attempting to
remove them, they conceived the unfortunate idea, in order to guard
against this crime, of declaring it to be murder, and punishing it as
such. It became then much safer for parents to bury children, or to
throw them into the sea, than to run the chance of exposing themselves
to the utmost shame and punishment, when they were searched out and
discovered. In Greece, but not at Thebes in Bœotia[1063], the exposure
of children was permitted and common, and therefore many of the Greek
historians mention the contrary as a foreign but meritorious custom.
Strabo[1064], on this account, praises the Egyptians, and Ælian[1065]
extols the laws of the Thebans against the killing and exposing of
children. This cruel practice was equally common at Rome. Romulus
however, who was himself a foundling, endeavoured to restrain it,
and his order was confirmed in the twelve tables; but as population,
luxury, scarcity, and dissipation increased, it became customary for
those who had more children than they wished, to expose some of them.
Many deposited with them rings and other costly ornaments; and those
who were poorer, trinkets of little value, partly to entice people to
receive the children, and partly that, by describing these appendages,
when the children were grown up, or their own circumstances had become
better, they might be able to recover them.
Even at present, in many places, the children carried to foundling
hospitals are accompanied by tokens, which are carefully preserved, as
is the case in the Spedale degl’ Innocenti at Florence, where a piece
of lead imprinted with a number is hung round the neck of each babe,
in such a manner that it cannot be easily removed, and occasions no
inconvenience in the wearing. By these means one can obtain information
there, even at a late period, in regard to each child[1066].
It is mentioned by Tacitus[1067], as a circumstance deviating from the
Roman manners, that the old Germans considered child-murder as a crime;
and where he speaks of the peculiarities of the Jews, he does not fail
to relate the same thing of them[1068]. Dionysius of Halicarnassus
bestows the like praise on the Aborigines[1069].
When the morals of mankind began to be improved under the influence of
Christianity, its followers endeavoured by every means in their power
to banish from among them this cruelty, on account of which they so
bitterly reproached the Romans[1070]. The first Christian emperors,
however, did not venture to forbid it as a crime; though Constantine
called exposure a kind of murder, and wisely exerted himself to remove
the causes of it. By an order issued in the year 331, he endeavoured
to deter parents from it, as he there deprived them of all hope of
being able to claim or recover exposed children, even if they should
make good the expenses incurred by those who had maintained them[1071].
This cruel practice was nevertheless continued for a long time after.
Lactantius[1072], who lived under the reign of Constantine, describes
it as a still prevailing remnant of barbarity; and Julius Firmicus,
who wrote about the year 336, considered it worth his while to give
particular instructions for casting the nativity of foundlings[1073].
The exposure of children was not completely prohibited till the time
of Valentinian, Valens and Gratian, in the last half of the fourth
century[1074].
One cannot, without reluctance, believe that this barbarous practice
was so long permitted, or remained unpunished, in civilised states;
but it must be mentioned, to the honour of antiquity, that in many
countries the care of government was directed at an early period to
exposed children. Not only were means pursued in Greece and Rome to
encourage the reception and educating of foundlings, by assigning them
as property to those who took them under their protection; but it was
also made a law, that foundlings who were not received by private
persons should be educated at the public expense. At Thebes, where,
as already observed, child-murder and the exposure of children were
forbidden, parents in needy circumstances were desired to carry their
new-born children to the government, and the latter committed them into
the hands of those who engaged to take the best care of them for the
least money. In the like manner, at present, foundlings are placed with
nurses to be maintained at the cheapest rate; but with this difference,
that at Thebes the children became slaves for life to those by whom
they were educated, whereas in our times, when they grow up they are
free people and learn to gain a livelihood for themselves.
The humane decrees of the emperor Constantine the Great, both for
Italy and Africa, the first in the year 315, and the second in 322,
deserve here to be mentioned. The governments in those countries were
enjoined to prevent the murder, sale, giving in pawn, or the exposure
of children, by taking care that parents who were too poor to educate
their offspring, should receive from the public treasury or magazines,
or from the emperor’s privy purse, as we say at present, food, clothing
and other necessaries; and as new-born children required immediate
attention, that this should be done without any delay[1075].
The conjecture of Gothofredus, that the emperor was induced to adopt
these measures by the urgent representation of Lactantius, appears to
me highly probable. This writer, from the year 317, had been tutor to
prince Crispus, and had before dedicated or transmitted to the emperor
his book, wherein he painted, in glowing colours, the detestable
practice of parents then prevalent, which gave rise to the greatest
disorders; and on that account he offered them the specious advice not
to beget more children than they were able to maintain. I am inclined
to think that this advice did not much please the emperor, who was
obliged to keep on foot a numerous army; and as it could not be very
agreeable to many married persons, he comprehended this recommendation
of prudence or moderation among those calamities from which he was
desirous to preserve parents by the above decrees.
After these imperial orders, children remained with their parents, and
were educated by them; but it appears that the cities of Athens and
Rome had, at an early period, public orphan-houses, in which children
were educated at the public expense. What has been already said of the
gymnasium called _cynosarges_ may serve as a proof; and Festus and
Victor make it still more certain that there was an institution of this
kind at the _columna lactaria_. At any rate there can be no doubt that,
in the sixth century, there were houses at Rome for the reception of
deserted children.
The emperor Justinian, who by a particular law, in the year 529,
declared foundlings to be free, and forbade those by whom they were
received and educated to treat them and detain them as slaves[1076],
often introduces these establishments, under the appellation of
_brephotrophium_, in his laws respecting donations to churches and
other beneficent institutions[1077]. This word, composed of the Greek
term _brephos_ a child, and _trepho_ to educate, seems to show that
houses of this kind were established at an earlier period in the cities
of Greece, and were only imitated at Rome; though of this I have as yet
found no proof. Du Cange and Stephen have both introduced the word in
their Greek dictionaries, but refer only to the Justinian code. Gesner,
in Stephen’s lexicon, makes a distinction between _brephotrophium_ and
_curotrophium_; the latter, it is said, means a house in which grown-up
and not new-born children are educated, and the same thing is repeated
in the same words in Calvini Lexicon Juridicum. Both assert that this
word, formed from κοῦρος or κόρος, _puer_, is used by Justinian, but
does not occur in the book of laws, nor is used by Brisson. It is not
to be found in the dictionary of Basle nor in Stephen’s Greek Lexicon,
but both these have the word κουροτρόφος, which indeed occurs in Homer
and in Hesiod. As Calvin and Gesner refer to Hottoman, I am inclined
to think that the word was coined by him, especially as Gesner in the
Thesaurus of Faber says, “Curotrophium _potest dici_ domus alendis
parvulis destinata.”
It is rather astonishing that no mention of the oldest institutions
of this kind, or of their establishment, is to be found in the works
of the ancients. There is reason however to conjecture, that as long
as the sale of children and the slavery of foundlings were permitted,
the number of those maintained at the public expense could not be
very great. But respecting the _brephotrophia_, even under the later
Christian emperors, nothing is said to be found that can give us any
idea of the manner in which they were regulated; nothing in regard to
the place from which the nurses were procured, or how food and clothing
were provided for the children, and as little in regard to the number
of children reared in these benevolent institutions who lived to become
old.
It might be satisfactory to know, whether the oldest institutions
of this kind were more fortunate in answering the object of their
establishment than our expensive orphan-houses are at present.
The great difficulties which attend institutions of this kind are, no
doubt, the chief cause why mention of them so seldom occurs during the
later centuries, in which the foundation of hospitals, and donations
to these and other pious establishments, were so numerous; they are
however found so often, that it is impossible to consider them as an
invention of modern times. I shall here point out those instances
which have hitherto occurred to me; but must first observe, that many
more will be found in perusing the lives of saints, and the history
of convents, religious orders, churches and towns. Wherever they are
mentioned, they are always under the inspection of the clergy.
The oldest establishment for orphans in Germany, which I can mention at
present, is that at Triers, in the eighth, or seventh, or even sixth
century; the account of it is to be found in the life of St. Goar, who
lived at Triers under Childebert, consequently in the last half of
the sixth century. His historians or panegyrists relate that, being
accused before archbishop Rusticus of many misdemeanours, as a proof
of his innocence he hung up his hood upon one of the sun’s rays, which
entered his cell, as if upon a nail, and that his enemies were still so
incredulous as to consider him guilty. The archbishop then, continue
they, to whom a new-born child, which had been deposited in the marble
conch before the church-door, had been brought, asked him, as a proof
of his sanctity, whether he could tell the father of it; upon which
Goar, after a most fervent prayer, commanded the child, in the name of
the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, to declare who were its parents. The
child, with a clear voice, immediately named its mother, and also its
father, the archbishop himself, who in consequence was deprived of his
dignity[1078].
The small portion of truth contained in this ridiculous story is, that,
at the time when the author wrote, there was an establishment for
foundlings at the church of Triers; that the children were deposited
in a marble conch placed before the church; that they were received
by poor people maintained in order to watch the church, and who were
called _matricarii_, because they were matriculated in it, and by
them carried immediately to the bishop, and that the child under his
sanction was given to some person in the community who agreed to take
care of it. These foster-parents were named _nutricarii_. It may be
thence easily perceived, that there were then no orphan-houses properly
so called, in which children are educated; but that the children, as is
the case in our institutions for the poor, were given to others to be
nursed, and in all probability the clergy paid to the _nutricarii_ a
certain sum from the alms destined for that purpose.
One of the lives which relates to the silly tale already mentioned was
written by an author who, according to the opinion of Mabillon, lived
at a period not much later than St. Goar. The other is by Wandelbart,
who lived in the ninth century, and who refers for his authorities
to old manuscripts and other documents, _vetusta et perantiqua
exemplaria_. It may therefore with safety be asserted, that this
establishment for foundlings existed at Triers in the eighth century.
The annalists of Triers, indeed, do not mention any bishop named
Rusticus who lived about that period; but no doubt needs be excited
on that account, as this difficulty may be solved in more ways than
one[1079].
In the seventh century there were similar establishments at Anjou, or
Angers, in France. St. Magnebodus, who was bishop of that place, where
he died, and was buried in the church called at present Saint Mainbeuf,
is praised in a very old life of him, never yet printed, for having
caused several houses for the rearing of children to be erected[1080].
In the following century, that is about the year 787, an arch-priest
named Datheus, established at Milan, at his own expense, a foundling
hospital, in order to put a stop to the crime of child-murder, which
had been introduced, and of which he gives a very affecting account
in the letter of foundation. With this view he purchased a house near
the church, and issued an order that the foundlings (_jactati_) should
be suckled in it by hired nurses, and educated for seven years. They
were to be taught some handicraft; to be supplied in the establishment
with food, clothing and shoes, and at the age of seven to be discharged
as free-born[1081]. It deserves to be remarked, that the mothers of
children carried to such establishments strewed salt between the
swaddling-clothes, when they wished to announce that the child had not
been baptized. This perhaps had a reference to the circumstance of
new-born children being washed in salt water; but I conjecture that the
salt thus interspersed was meant to denote that the child had not been
washed, and much less baptized.
In the capitulary of Charlemagne we meet with all the _loci
venerabiles_ of the Justinian code: _xenodochium_, _ptochotrophium_,
_nosocomium_, _orphanotrophium_[1082], _gerontocomium_, and also
_brephotrophium_[1083]. But at that time, at least among the Franks,
the foundlings belonged to those by whom they had been received and
educated, unless they were demanded back by their parents or relations
within ten days[1084]. It is not improbable that the same practice
prevailed at this time in other countries; and perhaps the founder of
the foundling hospital at Milan, on this account, declared so expressly
that the children, when they grew up, were to be discharged from the
institution, as persons born free.
In the year 1168, St. Galdinus, cardinal and archbishop of Milan,
exercised great severity against heretics; but took particular care of
the poor, who believed what he taught; namely, that the hospital there
considered itself obliged, not only to receive the sick, but also such
children as might be exposed in the city, and to provide them with food
and clothing[1085].
In 1070 Olivier de la Trau founded at Montpellier an order, the
members of which called themselves _hospitalarii_, sive _spiritus_.
They entered into an engagement to take care of the poor as soon
as possible, and to provide for the maintenance and education of
foundlings and orphans. In the course of a little time they spread
themselves into different countries; and wherever they went, the
effects of their benevolent vow are still to be found. Some say that
the institution for foundlings, or the Hospital of the Holy Ghost, at
Montpellier, was established in the year 1180. In 1201 they settled
at Rome, and, according to the testimony of historians, formed there
an establishment of the same kind, after they had been confirmed by
Pope Innocent III., in the year 1198, and obtained for that purpose
an elegant mansion, fitted up in the best manner. In the papal bulls
mention is made of many convents founded by this order; and I am
inclined to think that those who might take the trouble to examine
thoroughly the confused history of these hospitallers, or of this order
of the Holy Ghost, and of the still existing hospitals distinguished
by that title, would find much information in regard to this subject.
I call the history confused, because there have been many kinds of
hospitallers and similar orders, and these have often been confounded
with each other[1086].
Our neighbourhood had similar establishments at an early period. At
any rate there was one of this kind at Einbeck, before the year 1274,
that is to say, an hospital of the Holy Ghost. It began to be built
by duke Albert, who brought Einbeck to the house of Brunswick, when
it submitted to him in 1272, in order to get rid of the importunity
of count von Dassel. Alms were collected for its establishment and
maintenance; and to promote these, the council issued recommendations,
or letters-patent, in which it was expressly stated, that not only
the indigent, and among these foreigners, were received into their
hospital, but also orphans and foundlings, who were maintained and
educated till they grew up. Such recommendations were from time to
time repeated, for one still exists of the year 1300, which is a
literal transcript of that issued in 1274. I do not believe that the
hospital at Einbeck was established by the order before-mentioned; at
any rate, hospitals of the Holy Ghost occur chiefly in the twelfth and
two following centuries; and were founded, not by hospitallers, but
established perhaps upon their model.
In this manner a rich citizen of Nuremberg, Conrad Heinz, surnamed
_der Grosse_, founded the hospital of the Holy Ghost, in 1331. It
began to be built in 1333, and was completed in 1341. Neither in the
letter of foundation, however, nor in the confirmation, are foundlings
particularly named; but it may be readily seen that this institution
received poor pregnant women, and educated the children which were
either born in it or admitted into it. In the like manner pregnant
females, both married and unmarried, and also foundlings, are received
into the hospital of St. John, at Turin. The founder of the house at
Nuremberg made it a rule, that the day of the birth or reception of
each child should be written down, in order that the expense incurred
by it might be known, in case it should ever be able and inclined to
repay it[1087].
The magnificent foundling hospital at Florence, called at present
_Spedale degl’ Innocenti_, was founded in 1316, by one Pollini. There
can be little doubt that this is the same establishment for which the
well-known Camaldule monk, Ambrosius, often mentioned under his family
name Traversari, solicited support from the pope, in the beginning of
the fifteenth century. He boasts that the foundlings received by this
institution, which he calls _brephotrophium_, were first given to
nurses to be suckled, and then admitted into the house and instructed.
Girls fit for marriage were furnished with a portion. Citizens also
were accustomed to send their children to be educated in the school of
this hospital[1088].
L’Hopital du S. Esprit, at Paris, is said to have been founded in
1362, and various persons out of compassion for the exposed children
contributed the money necessary to its support. A brotherhood, called
la Confrairie du S. Esprit, established to conduct the affairs of the
institution, was confirmed the same year by pope Urban V.
Paris, however, from time to time obtained more institutions of this
kind. In the year 1638 a widow devoted her house to this purpose, and
on that account it was called la Maison de la Couche, a name still
given to the foundling hospital at the church of Notre Dame. But it
was soon found necessary to abandon this well-meant institution, in
consequence of the shameful abuses which had crept into it. The nurses
often sold the children to beggars, who distorted or mutilated their
limbs, in order that they might excite more compassion, and thereby
obtain greater alms. Many were purchased also for magical purposes. The
price for each was twenty sous.
St. Vincent de Paule, of the congregation St. Lazare, founded, in 1640,
a new institution, which in 1670 was transferred to the street Notre
Dame. It obtained new improvements by the chancellor Etienne d’Aligre
and his lady Elizabeth Luillier. At present this house is known
under the name l’Hopital des Enfans Trouvés, or de Notre Dame de la
Misericorde.
That an institution for foundlings at Venice, named before the
destruction of the republic Della Pietá, was established in 1380, by a
Franciscan named Petruccio, I have somewhere read, but in what author I
do not at present remember.
In England a proposal for a similar institution was made so early as
1687; but the present foundling hospital was not established till the
year 1739[1089]. I shall not however enlarge further on the modern
institutions of this kind: my object was to show that they are by no
means a new invention, and that they have been continued from the
oldest periods to the present time through all ages, and even in those
which we are accustomed to call barbarous.
In our times most of the foundling hospitals have been suffered to
fall to decay; chiefly because, to answer the benevolent purpose for
which they are intended, they would require to be on a larger scale
and better supported than it is possible for them to be at present;
also because they do not entirely prevent child-murder, as they
are not capable of completely removing the causes of it. After the
establishment of the foundling institution at Cassel, not a year passed
without some children being found murdered, either in that place or
its neighbourhood. To this may be added also, that it is impossible
with the utmost exertion to provide sound nurses for the continually
increasing number of children brought in, and to ensure to them
sufficient attention.
From the year 1763 to the end of 1781 the number of children brought
into the foundling hospital at Cassel amounted to 740, of whom no more
than eighty-eight remained alive at the end of the latter year. More
than one half of them died under the age of eight, and scarcely ten
attained to their fourteenth year. In Paris, in the year 1790, more
than 23,000, and in 1800 about 62,000 children were brought in[1090].
In 1790, of the children which had been brought in between 1774 and
that period, 15,000 only were alive; and it is estimated that 11/13 of
all the children brought in perish annually through hunger or neglect.
Of 100 foundlings in the foundling hospital at Vienna, 54½ died in the
year 1789. In 1797, the nurses in the foundling hospital at Metz had
for fourteen months received no wages, and calculation showed that
7/8ths of the whole children perished. In an institution of this kind,
in a certain German principality, only one of the foundlings in twenty
years attained to manhood, and yet the establishment had cost the
country annually 20,000 dollars at least. The education of no German
prince ever cost so much.
The case with foundling hospitals is the same as with the artificial
breeding of fowls; it is easy to obtain chickens, but for want of
maternal feeding and care it is almost impossible to rear them. Of what
use then is it to collect chickens?