Viennese birthing and foundling house

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Viennese foundling house was founded by Emperor Joseph II in 1784 and existed until 1910. It was one of the largest institutions of this type in the world, and the mortality rate among the highest. Most of the 750,000 or so children admitted during its existence were born in the adjoining birthing center . The foundling house had no turntable , only children of single mothers were admitted.

history

As a forerunner of the Viennese birthing and foundling house, the Chaos Foundation House with a house "for the foundling and uneducated poor child orphans" functioned since the 17th century and the Wiener Bürgerpital with a branch in Sankt Marx , in which the " A building for unmarried women and a sanatorium for syphilitic women ”. The joint placement of illegitimate women and women with syphilis occurred because the same cause was seen for both: fornication , which is considered an illness , and which includes all sexual acts outside of marriage. The children were admitted to the foundation house free of charge against payment of a tax or if they were poor and passed on to foster parents. As a deterrent, the women could be viewed by the population, which meant they had to endure ridicule and scorn. The building has also served as a training center since the Chair of Obstetrics was established at the University of Vienna in 1754 ; unlike the intimate home births that were still common at the time, the women giving birth were exposed to the gaze of the trainees. The situation made the birthing center unattractive and the university complained that around 500 births per year were not sufficient for adequate education. In 1764, Maria Theresa ordered the establishment of a foundling house by court decree . Although their project was not realized, it paved the way for the reforms enacted by Joseph II in 1781, encompassing all areas of welfare.

In the Wiener Bürgerpital, which was divided into several small hospitals, there was originally no separation, all types of people seeking help were accommodated together - the elderly, the sick, the disabled, disabled soldiers, the mentally ill and the homeless as well as giving birth and children. The separation of the different needy was one of the most important points in the directive rules issued by Joseph II . The establishment of a foundling house was the top priority. Central collection point for needy children was from the beginning of 1784, first in the Vienna- highway location orphanage on the Rennweg , which so far only six to thirteen year old orphan had been in charge, to give children of citizens, soldiers and craftsmen preferentially taken. The children born in Sankt Marx and left behind by their mothers were also brought here.

The opening of the Gebärhaus took place at the same time as the opening of the General Hospital on August 16, 1784. In October 1784 the foundling house moved from Rennweg together with the Chaos Foundation under the name “ k. k. Viennese Findel and Orphanage ”in the so-called Strudlhof, part of the recently closed Spanish Hospital . This resulted in a short-term separation of the foundling house from the orphanage on Rennweg, which only followed a year later - in October 1785 - and was again under joint management until 1788. With the relocation of the foundling home to the so-called Mölkergarten, a former Trinitarian monastery on Alser Strasse (today No. 23), on July 1, 1788, the foundling home was finally separated from the orphanage.

From 1801 on, the newly founded nurse's institute in the Findelhaus also referred nurses to private individuals. In 1802 the main protective pox institute was founded as part of the foundling center in Vienna.

From 1806 the foundling house was under the management of the General Hospital and thus the k. k. Lower Austrian Lieutenancy. In 1819 the Gebärhaus and the foundling house came under the jurisdiction of the court chancellery as "Provincial State Institutions", which meant a separation from the General Hospital. As a medical training center of the University of Vienna, the Gebärhaus was also subordinate to the Ministry of Education.

In 1851 the reorganization proposed by a commission in 1848 was implemented. Organizationally, the Gebärhaus was separated from the General Hospital and combined with the Foundling House, which was documented in a separate joint management. In 1852 the new subordination to the k. k. Lower Austrian Lieutenancy. The status of a k. k. The institution was retained, the state financially covered two thirds of the expenditure and the Archduchy of Lower Austria one third. The foundling house was expanded by 138 places for wet nurses and twice as many for children in 1857. On the occasion of the establishment of the Austrian state representations in 1861, the Viennese foundling house was to be handed over to the state of Lower Austria while maintaining the previous cost allocation, but the state feared that sooner or later they would remain entirely responsible for the costs. In 1865 the birth house and in 1868 the foundling house were taken over by the state of Lower Austria, which resulted in a dispute over the prerogative to research children's corpses between anatomy, pathology and the foundling house. Both institutions were given joint management again. The organizational statute was valid for 40 years, apart from minor changes.

After the relationship between the birthing center and foundling center began to change in the 1890s, a reorganization took place at the beginning of the 20th century. The birthing center was no longer limited to single mothers, there were also many married mothers who then took their children home with them. The foundling house developed more and more into a welfare facility where destitute parents could temporarily accommodate their children. Between 1893 and 1902 the proportion of temporary recordings rose from just under four to 16%. On January 1 , 1909, there was an official separation, when the building became part of the administration of the kk hospital fund. The orphanage became the central children's home, which was still under the Lower Austrian provincial administration and moved to Gersthof .

Political goal and further measures to achieve it

The aim of founding the Foundling House in Vienna and the adjoining birthing center was to protect the newborns from the uncontrollable events following a child's abandonment or murder (however, this occurred far less often than the arguments of the proponents suggested) and the simultaneous protection of mother and child giving birth under medical supervision. Or, as Joseph II put it in his directive rules: the "preservation of humanity". It was the mercantilist - populationist age of the Enlightenment , in which an increase in the population and thus also the survival of as many children as possible were sought in order to strengthen economic and defense power. The establishment of the foundling house was therefore accompanied by other measures designed to ensure the survival of the newborns. For example, self- breastfeeding , vaccination and an end to fashing were propagated by doctors and an improvement in the training of doctors and midwives was called for. Legal practitioners dealt with discrimination against illegitimate children and the penalties for fornication. The sale of abortion drugs was banned, as was a common bed for mother and child so that mothers would not crush their children in their sleep. Since the 1780s, fines and shame were no longer allowed to be imposed on unmarried parents, the political marriage consensus was revoked, as was the stigma of illegitimate birth and that of “fallen women”, although the change in legal status did not protect against discrimination. A legal equality of illegitimate children that took place in 1786 was canceled four years later.

The illegitimacy rate in Vienna was around 1800 at 30%, in 1847 it reached 51% and between 1848 and 1868 it was 50%, as a result of which over 30% of all newborns in Vienna became foundlings in this phase . With the abolition of the marriage consensus in 1868, there was a sharp drop in the illegitimacy rate of four percent in the Alpine countries. In the mid-1870s, the rate of illegitimate children in Vienna temporarily fell to below 40%.

The birthing house

Admission requirements and anonymity

The most important condition for the admission of the mothers to the birthing center was that they were single, with widowed mothers being treated as such. The possibility of an anonymous birth was guaranteed to the mothers from the start, and even in court, the stay in the birthing center could not be taken as an indication of a secret birth. However, the conditions for wealthy and poor women were different:

  • The free department could be used by women if they presented a certificate of poverty and thus disclosed their personal data to the birthing and foundling center. More than 90% of women chose this variant in the second half of the 19th century. Accommodation was in the large dormitories that were common at the time. They were used for work in the period before birth. The women were also expected to be available for the training of obstetricians and midwives as study objects and later for four months as wet nurses at the foundling house .
  • Women could use the services of the birthing center against payment of a fixed tax, which meant that they were better accommodated and could leave their newborn in the foundling center without being asked for their name. All they had to do was hand in a sealed envelope with their name on it so that their families could be notified in the event of death; they got the envelope back when they left the birthing house. They were given the opportunity to enter and leave the General Hospital through their own gate in a quiet side street - the “Schwangerthor” in Rotenhausgasse - discreetly “covered with larvae and generally as unrecognizable as they always want”.

In the first years of the institution, 70% of women could still afford this anonymity, but their number fell over the years. By the 1820s at the latest, the tax was no longer affordable for women from the lower classes, in the second semester of 1868 only 20 women could afford their own anonymity and thus also the legal responsibility of their children in Vienna. In the 1860s, a discussion about anonymity began. This was based on the view that salvation of honor could not be the task of a public charity and that this would diminish the children's right to care by their parents, which had been enshrined in 1811, and thwart the concept of motherly love. As a result, there was a change in the foundling house statute in 1870, which also brought an end to total discretion for paying women. From now on this was limited for the duration of the foundling care. Only if the child died was the illegitimate birth still treated with discretion. As a result of the new regulation, the frequency of the payment department continued to decrease, which is why the old regulation was reinstated in 1878. In 1899 the claim to anonymity was finally revoked.

The mothers

The picture of the single mothers, which was circulated around the time of the birth house, can be read from a text written on the occasion of the opening of the General Hospital:

“Back to the right, the so-called Gebärhaus comes into play, where admission takes place again after different classes. Here the sacrifice of seduction and the shameless thirst of joy are received with equal humanity. [...] Here she becomes a mother and leaves the house without being recognized. "

Most of the women who came to the birthing center came from the wage-dependent lower classes, whose marriage was often prevented by political marriage consensus . In addition, women in this class could not afford to stay away from work for long periods of time, wages for women were far below those of men and it was not possible to finance a care place for a child. The majority of the women who went to the birthing center were servants; In 1857 almost half belonged to this professional group, in 1888 two thirds. They lived in dependence on domestic law and were therefore not in a position to consider setting up a household in marriage, or only in their later years. Day laborers and manual workers made up the second largest group. These two largest groups of underprivileged professions were represented among the foundlings in 1857 with a share of 77%, in 1888 their share was almost 90%, because the abolition of the marriage consensus did nothing to change the economic problems of the lowest social classes.

Until the middle of the 19th century, little is known about the geographical origin of the mothers. Since the possibility of claiming the cost of meals from the community of origin of the mothers was initially not used - the service of the women as study objects was considered sufficient consideration - no records were kept of the places of origin. The catchment area of ​​the institution should not have been particularly large at that time due to the low mobility. In 1851 statistics on the places of origin of women were started in the Gebärhaus. It was systematically managed from 1864 onwards, after the Heimatgesetz (Home Act) came into force in December 1863 , according to which the responsibility of foundlings was also based on the origin of the mothers. The places of origin, which were spread across the monarchy , were not necessarily identical to the places of residence. The home church for women usually changed only through marriage. Vienna's population quadrupled between 1830 and 1900, and in the second half of the 19th century less than half of the Viennese population had the right of home in Vienna. The records of the places of origin therefore say nothing about where the mothers actually lived.

The women who went to the birthing center were therefore mostly entitled to reside in Lower Austria, Bohemia, Moravia and Hungary. The majority was made up of women from Lower Austria and Bohemia. From the middle of the 19th century, women entitled to residency were always the largest group in Lower Austria with 35 to 50%. The reason for the reduction in the proportion of women from Bohemia, Moravia and Hungary were in each case social policy measures at the national level. In 1881, for example, the Moravian Provincial Committee decided to only pay for those women who had to be admitted to the birthing center “in cases of the most urgent irreversibility”. After that, their share was still around ten percent, but as a result there was an increase in the number of children being abandoned and child murder among Moravian mothers. Records of the last place of residence are only available for the year 1888, according to which 76.5% of the mothers lived in Vienna and the surrounding area (which was incorporated two years later). The fact that the Gebärhaus clientele was largely made up of immigrant women is also confirmed by the social position of the women, because the Viennese maids, who made up the largest group of mothers, were also predominantly immigrants.

procedure

Women usually came to the birthing center the day before giving birth. The senior midwife decided on her admission after a physical examination. The pregnant women could be admitted at an earlier point in time (which, for example, facilitated secrecy) if they made themselves available to the guards as maids. The statutes provided that the pregnant women in the free department were assigned to work that was necessary for the operation of the foundling home. It was not until 1900 that they were exempted from “rough work”, including, for example, wooden columns, carrying laundry and - until the connection to the Viennese mountain spring pipeline in 1875 - carrying water to higher floors. From 1900 heavy work was done by day laborers.

Confession was first taken from the newly admitted, and from 1822 they also received religious and moral lessons - which was otherwise only usual in the general hospital in the syphilis department. Verena Pawlowsky states: “The birthing and foundling house, which was praised as a humanitarian institution, did not break with the moral condemnation of single women giving birth.” The senior midwife was responsible for childbirth care, with two interns at her side. The large number of deliveries suggests, however, that simple births were accompanied by interns or midwifery students alone. Only in difficult cases, such as when the forceps were used, did the senior midwife have to call the professor or his assistant for help. She then had to “be present at the operation as an art assistant, and at the same time as the only female authority and witness, even to calm the suffering woman in labor”. The beds in the delivery rooms belonging to each department differ from normal beds only in that they have movable side handles for the hands of the parturient. Birth stools , as is common in other cities, were missing.

The infants were baptized in the house chapel as quickly as possible; in critical cases, emergency baptisms were carried out immediately by the midwife. The foundlings born in the free department were baptized as Catholics regardless of their mothers' denomination. In the payment department, children of mothers of Protestant faith were exempt from compulsory baptism, but the children were brought up Catholic. Children of Jewish origin were forcibly baptized as Catholics. It was not until 1868 that the compulsory Catholic baptism was abandoned; mothers could now choose the religion of their children themselves.

After the birth, the mothers and their children stayed in the birthing house for a few days to breastfeed them. Women from the free department were obliged to present themselves as wet nurses in the foundling house after they were released, although only a small number were accepted. Some were referred to private individuals by the in-house nursing institute.

The foundling house

Admission numbers

In the early years, the Vienna Findelhaus was the leader among comparable institutions in Europe in terms of the number of admissions. In the first decades of the 19th century, the number of admissions from the Parisian Hôtel-Dieu de Paris exceeded those of Vienna. From around 1820 Moscow topped the ranking, Vienna and St. Petersburg alternated in second place.

During its 126-year existence, the Vienna Foundling House took care of around 750,000 children. Starting with 1366 children in the first year, the workload rose steadily; the 2000 mark was exceeded in 1787 and the 3000 mark in 1799. Twenty years later, more than 4,000 children were enrolled annually, and 20 years later, more than 5,000. The highest number of admissions was recorded in 1880: 9820 children were given to the foundling asylum that year - an average of 27 children a day. The rapidly increasing frequency is seen as a “reflection of the clearly advancing pauperization of the Viennese population”.

Admission and division of children

Mainly those children who were born in the birthing center were accepted into the foundling center. On the eighth or ninth day of the child's life, mothers and children were usually transferred from the birthing center “in a closed wagon to the foundling center”. There was space for 138 wet nurses and at least 226 infants. The mothers had to face the choice of wet nurse, whereby health, sufficient milk production and a good physical constitution were decisive for the choice. The infants were first examined and entered in the institution protocol with a serial number, name, dates of birth and admission and details of the mother (if she had not paid). Then a head slip , also called a child's mark , was issued. The child's sign always stayed with the child, even if it was given into care. In addition, the child was given a tape with the recording number sewn around the wrist. The mother received a receipt that she had to show when inquiring about or eating her child.

From 1867 the children were also weighed, which allowed a more differentiated classification of the children into strong, weak, weak and premature births than the conventional classification based on visual evidence. This categorization had a great influence on the length of stay of the children in the foundling house, which was decided in this admission procedure.

Depending on the result, the children were given different names:

  • Breast children were the children of the selected wet nurses who were breastfed by their mothers for three to four months.
  • Beileg children or siblings were placed on the breast of a wet nurse. After a night or a few days they were given outside care, and weak children could stay longer.
  • Night children only stayed a few hours, often not even a night, before they were given to a foster mother. The majority of the foundlings belonged to this group.
  • Water children referred to those children who had infectious diseases, especially syphilis, and who were not allowed to breastfeed by their wet nurses because of the risk of infection. They were put in the water rooms , where they mostly did not die of their illnesses, but of the cow's milk diluted with water.
  • As a paid-children children were referred to women who paid for their own anonymity and had thus not serve as nurses, moreover, had for children who have not come in the maternity hospital to the world, a city tax to be paid. Paid-in children were therefore also Beileg, night or water children.
  • Deceives were not newborns, but older foundlings who were brought back by their foster parents and cared for in the foundling house for a few days. They were then placed in new foster care places unless they had reached discharge age. According to figures from the 1850s and 1860s, an average of 860 children were brought back by their foster parents each year, half of whom were less than a year old. At the beginning of the 1880s, some crown lands decided to take their children back, whereupon hundreds of children were brought back from their foster homes and housed in a collective transport in the foundling center until they could continue their journey. Three small rooms with mattresses were available for dupes.
  • Temporary children were not foundlings. Since there was no other institution in Vienna to which children could be handed over to their mother in the event of illness, death or imprisonment, the foundling house was also used inappropriately in such cases. The mothers did not have to be single for these recordings, which were always limited in time. At the beginning there were only isolated recordings of temporary children, but at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, temporary children made up more than ten percent of the total. This was because mothers who were not responsible for Lower Austria under local law found a way to still place their children in the foundling house.

A teacher was available in the house for older dupes and temporary children, but he only taught the boys . Girls attended the community school. From the 1830s to 1843 there was also a branch of the foundling house in the supply house on Alserbach, in which male deceitfuls were housed.

climate

There was an inhumanly raw and noisy atmosphere in the foundling house, characterized by quarrels among the wet nurses as well as rude insults and rough treatment by the guards. Women who were reluctant to fulfill their obligation to serve as wet nurses treated their siblings lovelessly.

During an inspection in 1811, doctors from the medical faculty of the University of Vienna discovered a terrifying "corruption of the air". Dirty diapers, laundry hung up to dry and poor hygiene all contributed to this, as did the fact that until the 1890s the windows and doors of the morgue faced the main aisle. On the other hand, the regulation that a window always had to be open per room, made out of fear of miasms , did not help .

The foundling house was also heavily frequented from the outside: there were foster women who hired foundlings every day, brought children back or had care allowances paid out at the disbursement fund, families looking for private weddings, families who wanted to have their children vaccinated and, though not too often, visits for the wet nurses. Until 1839, children who had died on the way from the foundling house to the foster parents' house were allowed to be brought back to the foundling house. The corpse bearer also came twice a day from the 1890s to pick up the deceased children and bring them to the General Hospital for coroner examination and autopsy . Until then, the deceased children were dissected in the foundling house. The mothers of foundlings also came to ask about their children's whereabouts. The administration, which initially consisted of the head of the institution, the "counter dealer" and two clerks, later of 29 men, was also housed in the house.

Due to the extreme shortage of space since the middle of the 19th century at the latest, diseases could easily spread. The gonoblennorrhea was endemic in the foundling house and led to an epidemic in 1855 in which the newborns and around a hundred deceivers, as well as the guards, seamstresses and the head of the institution were infected. The epidemic lasted until 1857. A ward for children with eye disorders was not set up until the 1880s, after which the disease could be contained.

The lack of space in the foundling facility prompted science to repeatedly point out the life-threatening nature of the infants. The aim was to transfer the children to care places as quickly as possible in order to increase their chances of survival.

The wet nurses

The records of the foundling house about the origin of the mothers who served as wet nurses are much more complete than those of the birthing house. According to this, 30.9% of the women came from Lower Austria, 11.4% from Vienna, 9.5% from Hungary , 7.7% from Bohemia , 7.3% from Bavaria and 6.8% from Germany .

In contrast to the birthing center, the mothers serving as wet nurses in the foundling home had to wear hospital clothing. In the nurses' rooms there was a bed for each woman, with an infant bed on the left and right side. Even-numbered cots were intended for the nurses' children, those with odd numbers for the Beileg or secondary children. A large table in the middle of the room served both as a changing table and as a dining table for the nurses. They received a low wage for their services. Occasionally it also happened that a wet nurse had to look after two, three or even four children in addition to her own. This was the case, for example, when the caregivers from the country were absent in winter due to the weather.

The foundling house attendants were primarily occupied with checking compliance with the house rules. The wet nurses were only allowed to leave the house if they had an exit permit and a guard accompanied them. They were also not allowed to move freely in the area and they were only allowed to receive visits on Sundays and public holidays. According to the “Instruction for the Overseer” from 1816, they had to make sure that the wet nurses “did not talk to men at the windows, that they did not make a noise, scream or sing excessively, that they and pray gracefully loudly and uplifting ”. Breastfeeding was also checked, in particular to ensure that no wet nurse disadvantaged her next child compared to her own. In addition to breastfeeding and baby care, the women were obliged to do various work in the house, as in the birthing center, which mainly consisted of cleaning work. Her strictly regulated day began at four in the morning.

The women were mostly unhappy about their choice as wet nurse, they described the service as “wet nurse compulsory” and tried various tricks to evade it. For example, they always put their newborns on the same breast in the building, which meant that the other one produced too little milk to serve as a wet nurse. In response to the election as wet nurse, there was also a suicide attempt in the 1890s and a mother who killed her child. Despite all the control and functionalization of the mothers by the foundling house, one cannot speak of a total institution in the sense of Erving Goffman , as the women only had to be available as wet nurses for a limited period of four months.

As an incentive, the women were given beer with their meals - a total of 1.7 liters per day. Although it was known that breastfeeding women could have a negative effect on children, it was believed that beer was essential as a motivational tool. In 1904 the amount was reduced to 0.6 liters.

The system of “wet nurse compulsory” was also controversial among doctors. Friedrich Benjamin Osiander , who visited the foundling asylum at the beginning of the 19th century, and Carl Friedinger, later director of the foundling's home, warned that children not only need breast milk in order to thrive, but also care, but that from women who felt locked up in the middle of the city and unhappy that was not to be expected. It was therefore particularly important to Carl Friedinger that the children were given to foster women as quickly as possible.

Hierarchies and tips

Caretakers from the birthing center and foundling center also lived in the institution until the middle of the 19th century and were thus subject to its extensive disciplinary powers. They were unskilled, not permanently employed, and had the lowest hierarchical position among the servants. They came from the same class as the single mothers who supervised them. Midwives were women with qualified training and had their own rights. They were subordinate to the senior midwife, who was responsible for “the feminine order” and at least until the 1820s was in part treated as an assistant. She was subordinate to the assistant only in the absence of the professor or primary obstetrician. There were sharp dividing lines between the individual levels of this hierarchy in order to maintain it. For example, confidentiality or relationships between doctors, midwives and nurses were prohibited. Just as sharp was the dividing line between the guards and the single women, which stated in particular that the guards were not allowed to accept any money.

However, it can be proven on the basis of numerous reports and the frequently renewed bans, but also on the basis of a tipping affair uncovered by Ernst Vergani in 1888 , that the women in both the birthing and the foundling homes were exploited by the subordinate staff. The affair turned into a scandal that preoccupied the Lower Austrian state parliament for several sessions.

In the reports, the guards are referred to as callous, dehumanized women who referred to unmarried mothers with insults such as "dung pankers and whores". "A twenty" is said to have helped against such humiliations. The nurses and midwives are said to have paid for the baptism, and even more if the mother wanted a second name or did not have a godparent for the child. If the pregnant woman was brought into the birthing house by relatives or gentlemen, they are also said to have been "literally robbed". The hand is also said to have been held by the midwife when she was admitted, the nurse who took the pregnant woman to her room, the nurse in this room, the nurse and midwife in the delivery room and the nurse in the week room. In addition, the women who had recently given birth had to do private work such as sewing and knitting for the guards. The sales of food and drinks by the guards should have been profitable given the often criticized kitchen. Sunday visits for the wet nurses were often only reported to the nurses concerned if the visitor had a twenty with them for the nurse. In the main institute for protective pox, the lower waiting numbers for the vaccination were sold openly.

Midwives also had other sources of income: for a fee, they placed the infants on good places to eat on their own, or the women who had recently given birth as wet nurses to attractive employers. The latter was forbidden to midwives, since the placement of wet nurses was the task of the in-house “nursing institute” from 1801. The foundling center was also responsible for placing the children in feeding places and for free choice only for mothers in the payment department.

The reason for the grievances is seen in the poor pay of the staff, which was criticized by the medical faculty as early as 1811, as it only got inferior staff. Even after the scandal in the late 1880s, that didn't change. Instead, those who could be proven to have accepted tips were dismissed, while others terminated themselves in order to forestall the dismissal. In 1888, complaint books were introduced so that single mothers could enter new tips or other abuses, but these were hardly used due to their location in the administrative office. With a petition to the Lower Austrian state parliament brought in by the female employees in 1889 and supported by the respective department heads, no wage increase was achieved either. Instead, the secular nurses in the foundling house were exchanged for religious sisters. The poor funding of the institution is also seen as a sign of contempt for the unmarried women giving birth who are about even in the eight to ten days limited postpartum expressed, which was very short even after contemporary medical views.

The care places

The organizational form of giving children outside care to care places corresponded to the recommendations of the scholars of the orphanage dispute in the second half of the 18th century. The aim was the survival of the infants, there were no educational concepts. The nurses were recruited - in accordance with Josephinism - in cooperation with the church. As early as the year the foundling house was opened, pastors were asked to publicize the opportunity for this godly work from the pulpit and to preach from time to time later. However, very few foster women came out of Christian charity.

Requirements for the nurses and controls

The foster women had to be married or widowed, had to live in their own house in the country, had milk-producing animals and, if possible, be able to breastfeed. The welfare certificate, with which these facts were to be proven, had to be presented together with a moral certificate before they had a child carried out. From 1890, the welfare certificates had to contain information about the number of children and adults living in the household as well as information about the size of the apartment and the number of lactating animals. Ecclesiastical and secular authorities that did not want foundlings in their communities often boycotted the issuing of certificates - one reason why some foster women were given children without submission of certificates. They were reimbursed for all costs, such as traveling to Vienna or fees for the certificates. They did not have to pay doctor visits, medication or school fees, coronary examinations and funerals for the children; this was free for foundlings. If the foster women took over a newborn, they also received a bundle of laundry and a higher care allowance than for older children. If the child had their first birthday, they were entitled to an extra payment.

Inspectors were used to check, but pastors and local authorities as well as district and district doctors and later state vaccinators were included in the monitoring. There was a separate visitor within Vienna and in the suburbs; from 1788 there were three and from 1824 four. However, the inspectors could only act selectively, so that the management of the foundling center was not spared the confrontation with extreme cases of child neglect. For example, a doctor who acted as a foundling overseer reported in 1825 of "miserable damp huts", in which the following picture was presented:

“On a wretched bed of straw spread over two tables, four boulders, none of them 2 months old, lay next to each other; three of them stained with diarrhea, the fourth, maybe for an hour already, dead ... I know a woman who received a living boulder for the 13th time in a year in exchange for one who died in her hands. "

Other doctors spoke of “industrial women eating”, “emaciated, unclean boulders wrapped in stinking rags”, of poor food, failure to follow medical orders and abuse. When mortality among foundlings fell in the course of the 19th century, it was less common for foster women to fetch a new child every few weeks; more and more people were now looking after a foundling for several years. The improved chances of survival were one of the reasons why - after the highest number of foundlings to be cared for was reached in 1880 with 9,820 children - in 1881 the highest number of foundlings to be cared for was reached with 36,364.

The sanction for particularly negligent foster families or if a particularly large number of children had died under their care was usually the withdrawal of the foster child. Entire districts could also be temporarily excluded from foundling care if there were more cases of poor care. This affected around 1873/1874 both Kojákovice in the Bohemian district of Třeboň and the Lower Austrian municipality of Haugsdorf , in 1877/1878 the Styrian municipality Loipersdorf and the Bohemian Jílovice (district Třeboň), and in 1883/1884 the districts Zwettl (Lower Austria) and Friedberg (Styria) . The children in care from the respective region were then simply picked up. The controls were made particularly difficult by the fact that the boulders were also given to other crown lands from the middle of the 19th century.

Breastfeeding

Foster women who were able to breastfeed were referred to as breast parties and preferred when giving children. Due to the enormous number of boulders, however, there were not enough women available who met this requirement, which is why the infants were often switched to substitute food after eight days in the birthing center, where they were breastfed by their mother, and one day of foster milk in the foundling center, mostly cow's milk diluted with water. Only very robust children survived that. A doctor in the 1870s estimated that 40 to 70% of the infants who died were digestive diseases.

Place of residence and social situation of the foster families

In the early years of the foundling home, the foster families belonged predominantly to the professional groups of small craftsmen and tradespeople, the second largest group were day laborers. In 1799, only 3.8% of foster families had an agricultural activity. At that time the catchment area of ​​the nursing women was still very limited, they always lived in or near Vienna, often in the suburbs. This was also determined by the foundling house administration, which required that foundlings in winter could only be given to food locations that were not more than five miles away from Vienna. Until 1840, other crown lands except Lower Austria were fundamentally excluded from the adoption of foundlings. Exceptions were made, however, if not enough foster women could be found in Lower Austria, or if the foster woman also took an older foundling with her for free care. For example, foundlings were given to Hungarians in 1821.

From the 1840s it was officially allowed to give children to the crown lands. According to the will of the foundling center, Vienna should lose importance as a care location because of the majority of the nursing women coming from the classic working-class districts. Lower Austria developed into the main customer - in 1857 there were around 450 Lower Austrian places listed as care centers, in 1872 there were 166 Lower Austrian places in which more than ten foundlings lived, in 1882 there was one foundling in Vienna for every 140 inhabitants. The districts of Krems , Waidhofen an der Thaya and Zwettl topped the list - districts in which the population was mostly landless and worked as day laborers for the harvest and haymowing, or they were smallholders who spun and weave flax for them Textile industry could earn little extra. The apartments often consisted of a single filthy room where people cooked, washed, woven, ate and slept.

The regional increase in the adoption of foundlings in certain areas is taken as an indication that there were hardly any other additional income opportunities for the landless population and that foundling care had the character of a trade. In addition to Lower Austria, this also applied to some areas of western Hungary, where in 1857 a sixth of all newly admitted children were accommodated, in 1888 more than a third. There were also clusters in Bohemia, where around 16% of children were admitted in 1888. In this industrially most important part of Cisleithania , around 20% or more of the foster parents belonged to a craft or trade.

From the middle of the 19th century, Eastern Styria, especially the Hartberg district , also developed into an important buyer of foundlings. An accountability report of the foundling house in the early 1890s shows that many foundlings were kept here beyond the discharge age. Most of the East Styrian foster families were self-sufficient farmers, chaste farmers and mountain farmers, for whom taking over children also brought urgently needed cash into their homes . In addition to the commonality of the social class, there was another phenomenon in Eastern Styria: Ernst Mischler observed in 1896 "that the foundlings often come back to care in the same areas, villages and communities from which their mothers came".

In the “reception centers” that were created in this way, children from the Viennese foundling house and children from other institutions (such as Prague, Brno or Graz) were taken into care, with Vienna paying most of the boarding allowance. Lower Austria was the only state that took over foundlings exclusively from the Vienna foundling center.

Abuse of the foundling

Foster women succeeded again and again in obtaining food allowance for foundlings who had already died by either not reporting the death of the child or by presenting other (own) children as foundlings and showing illegally obtained confirmations of life. That brought not only the cost of food as a financial advantage, but also the free purchase of medication for another child. Evidence of the ability to breastfeed was also forged in order to get to a foundling more quickly.

Since most of the boarding allowance was paid for children in the first year of life, some foster families had no interest in the survival of the children - they could replace the dead one with a new foundling. This form of angel making found many imitations.

Loans were taken out from merchants for the "payment books" required to receive the food money. During inspections in Hungary and Styria in 1881, there was virtually no payment book in the possession of the nursing women, but pledged to money messengers and merchants. Like the bad care, the temporary exclusion from foundling care could also be sanctioned.

Abuse was also carried out by some parish councils who, despite repeated admonitions, collected illegal fees for issuing certificates. Some municipalities are aware of illegal fees for keeping foundlings on records.

Most of the business, however, was done by “middlemen” who took over the business with the foundlings at the local level. First of all, for a commission, they relieved the women of the arduous journey to Vienna, which was initially necessary to collect the cost of the food. The middleman took the food books into his possession and the nurses could also get an advance credit on the expected food money. Some of the middlemen were also regarded as authorities by parishes and community boards, their competence was not questioned, some also presented themselves as authorized representatives of the foundling center. In the end, they also organized the pick-up of the children from the foundling center, for example by giving the women the money for the trip, giving them quarters in Vienna and arranging for an infant to be taken over through contacts in the foundling center. Or wet nurses were sent to the foundling house, from whom they took the assigned children and sold them to foster women. They managed the pay books to clear the boarding allowance, of which they often withheld more than half. This child trafficking mainly affected some Hungarian districts, where it was no longer possible for the foundling home to find the children, they were simply "lost". After these incidents became known in 1888 and 1889, the foundling house tightened the controls. Nursing women in the affected districts had to show a personal description written and sealed by the local pastor. Hungarian nurses were no longer given pay books, but sent to the respective parish offices for the administration and payment of the nursing allowances. From 1891 the administration of the payment books and the payment of the boarding fees were also transferred to the local authorities in Lower Austria and soon after in Styria.

It is assumed that the foundlings served as additional workers in addition to their function as a source of money from a very young age. Due to their illegitimate birth, they were stigmatized and often led an outsider existence in the family, which was more reminiscent of very young servants.

Discharge from care by the foundling center

When the children reached “normal age”, the care provided by the foundling center ended. On the occasion of this event, they were once again given age-appropriate clothing and shoes. The normal age was initially fifteen, so the children were more or less grown up and could choose their future path in life from the options offered to them. Unless they have died beforehand, because only five percent of the foundlings reached this age by 1806.

The normal age was reduced to twelve in 1805 and ten in 1829. Afterwards they were either returned to their birth mother, remained with the foster parents, or they were given to the communal poor welfare system. If they came to their birth mothers, their continued well-being depended very much on whether the mothers had so far kept in contact with their children or whether they were strangers to each other. In the annual reports of the Child Protection and Rescue Society, founded by Lydia von Wolfring in 1899, there are repeated cases that make such alienation clear in the form of abuse, and at the first Austrian child protection congress held in 1907, the "alienation of the foundling children" was one of them Subjects. If the children stayed with the foster parents, they had the right to use them for various jobs such as field or housework until they were 22 years old. Younger children were given even easier tasks, and from the age of 13 most had to work like adults. Statistics on how many children stayed with their foster parents and how many came to their mothers were not kept; only a few figures are available. According to a note from the 1890s, around 38% of foundlings stayed with their foster parents. Records of departures between 1863 and 1872 show that around 60% of the children were released from foundling care before they reached normal age - which could only happen if a private person took over further care. It does not tell whether it was always your own parents. Since 1829 it has been possible for parents to return home without having to pay compensation.

Unless the children were paid in, the mother's home parish was responsible for caring for the poor, even if she had not lived there for a long time. The children were brought back to the foundling house by the foster parents and from there either picked up by the home parish or transferred to the respective parish via the official “Viennese push”. For this they had to spend the night before the transport in the Vienna police station. The practice of accommodating ten-year-old children "together with vagabonds and rascals" was first criticized in 1874 by foundling house director Carl Friedinger after seeing foundlings in the company of prostitutes on a visit to the police station. The Lower Austrian Landtag found in its investigations that it was mainly children responsible to Lower Austria who were transported by push, while Hungarian children, for example, were mostly picked up by relatives. In the same year it was therefore decreed that delegates from the home parishes had to pick up the children. From 1891 they were sent to Bohemia in groups.

There are no records of who they were ultimately handed over to, only “normal old from” was noted in the foundling house. However, research suggests that they lived their lives in the rural underclass or urban proletariat, confronted with the prejudice against them.

mortality

By 1813, 97% of the children admitted to the foundling house died while they were being fed. Measured against the total number of children cared for by the foundling house in the respective year, this corresponds to a mortality rate of 59%. In the research year 1799 half of the children died during the first month of life, 90% did not live to see their first birthday. The death rate fell during the 19th century. Of the 730,130 children admitted during the existence of the foundling house, around 493,670 or just under 68% died. By the end of the 19th century, around 30% of these died in the foundling house, 70% among the foster care parties, after which the proportion of children who died in the foundling house fell to 9.4%. There is no record of mortality in the birthing house.

A significant increase in the care allowance was an effective way of reducing child mortality. After an increase in 1813, the death rate decreased from 94% in 1812 to 78%, after a further increase it decreased from 76% in 1872 to 65% in 1873, in each case measured by the number of admissions. Apart from minor adjustments, there were no further increases in the care allowance in the 19th century.

The foundling center had to provide for more and more children financially not only because of the increasing number of children being admitted, but also because more children survived the critical first year of life and became older due to the improved chances of survival. After the care allowance increase in 1813, the number of foundlings from Vienna had quintupled within 16 years, the increase in 1873 was followed by a doubling of the number within eight years.

Dealing with death

For foundlings who died at their place of feeding, the doctor examining the death entered the place and day of death on the child's sign, and the pastor noted the date of burial. Children who died while being transported from the foundling home to the feeding center were brought back to the foundling home until 1839, after which they had to be examined and buried at the place of death. If the child did not survive longer than eight months, the foster mother had to bring the laundry package that had been handed out since 1830 back to the foundling house - minus a shirt that served as a death shirt.

If a child died in the institution, the examination was carried out and the child could be buried by the relatives, who then had to pay for the costs, which very few could afford. Children of Jewish women were picked up by a servant from the Jewish community, who took over the burial. After their death, the majority of the children served the training and research of doctors. The later burial took place in the form of a poor funeral in which ten or twenty children's corpses were placed together in a coffin. An annual lump sum was paid for this. From November 1, 1874, these burials took place in Vienna's central cemetery .

The numerically considerable "corpse material" was initially shared by pathology, anatomy and the orphanage. A Swedish doctor who visited Carl von Rokitansky around 1840 reported:

“Numerous corpses from the foundling house lay piled up next to his lecture hall without being dissected. I received his permission to examine it on the condition that I should show him if I found anything remarkable. I dissected hundreds of corpses, but without learning much because I did not learn anything about the previous course of the disease. "

The transfer of the foundling facility to the Lower Austrian provincial administration led to decades of disputes over competence between the doctors at the foundling facility, the birthing clinics and the pathological facility at the general hospital, who were equally interested in the "material". It was finally decided that the bodies would initially belong to the foundling doctors. Those children's corpses who did not need them were taken to the General Hospital. At the end of the 1870s, the Lower Austrian Provincial Committee refused to pay the funeral costs of the children who were dissected by doctors from the General Hospital. An agreement in the dispute over the children's corpses was only reached in 1890. The corpses were now picked up three times a day from the building and twice a day from the foundling house and were again available to the doctors of the birthing and foundling house after the coronary examination in the general hospital "while preserving the rights of the pathological-anatomical museum".

Discrimination against Jewish women and their children

The forced Catholic baptism of the children of Jewish women shows the legal and social discrimination against people of Jewish faith in the 18th and 19th centuries. But the forced baptism, in addition to the Catholic upbringing of the foster parents, had even more far-reaching consequences: if a Jewish mother wanted to take her child back, whether before or after the foundling had ended, she was denied this on the grounds of the different religious affiliations. During the foundling care, too, contact between Jewish mothers and their children forcibly baptized into Catholics was consistently prevented; the mothers were not allowed to find out the names or whereabouts of their children. This only did not apply if the mother was able to confirm her admission to the Catholic Church.

From 1848 onwards, protests by the Jewish Community of Vienna were rejected with reference to the existing regulations. In 1852, Franz Prinz, the director of the foundlings and births, described it as impracticable to look for Jewish foster parents or to arrange for separate food preparation in the birth house. In addition, it is the right of the state to raise the children left to it in the religion of the majority. It was not until 1868 that mothers were able to decide on the religious affiliation of their children. Up to this point in time, Jewish mothers were also excluded from the choice of wet nurses in the foundling center.

Forced baptized children of Jewish mothers were less well cared for by the foster parties than children of Catholic mothers. This is reflected in an increased mortality rate: around the middle of the 19th century, 94% of these children were still dying. After 1868, when compulsory baptism ceased to exist, some Jewish children also came to Catholic foster parents due to the lack of Jewish foster women. They were allowed to bring the deceased foster children back to the orphanage; it is believed that this rule is due to the fact that Catholic pastors often refused to bury a Jewish child. The above-average mortality of Jewish children fell suddenly after the religious community decided in 1871 to make annual payments to the foundling house.

The fathers

It was in keeping with the understanding of anonymity that no research was carried out into the fathers of illegitimate children, which was also stated in the directive rules. This did not change after the father's maintenance obligation was clearly regulated in the ABGB in 1811 . However, the foundling house books contain records for the first few weeks of 1784, in which the fathers were entered in 93.4% of the cases, stating their occupation. The largest group with 37.5% were members of various trades, half of which were journeymen. Soldiers were the second largest group with 29.7%, “servants” and servants were represented at 25.8%. The long-time director of the institution, Carl Friedinger, also reported on his observations that many of the fathers were soldiers or craftsmen. Most of the fathers were therefore unable to marry or start a household themselves. The general assumption that illegitimate children were conceived in relationships between employers and servants may therefore not have corresponded to reality.

When the foundling house had to care for more and more children due to the falling child mortality, the successive restriction of the institution to the Lower Austrian provincial residents could not contain the cost explosion. It was not until 1905 that the use of fathers to support the children was envisaged. This required an amendment to the statute by the Lower Austrian state parliament , according to which it was forbidden until then to ask the mother about the child's father. Based on the model of the Styrian Findelanstalt, a legal protection department was finally opened in July 1907. Their tasks were the handling of the guardianship business and the assertion of the alimentation claims of illegitimate children against their fathers. The implementation of the children's right, which has been anchored in the ABGB since 1811, after almost a hundred years, was primarily due to financial aspects.

The nursing institute

Women who had completed the nursing service were often referred to as private wives. This had been common practice since the foundling center was built, and the nursing institute was finally founded in 1801. The wet nurses were examined by a doctor and the institute advertised that they would place “pure, healthy nurses”. At the same time, a warning was given not to accept any wet nurses whose health certificate was older than three days. There was also a two-week guarantee that the wet nurse was fit. If the nurse lost her milk during this time, the institute was obliged to send another nurse. However, if she broke her contract, she was punished with the release of her child from the foundling house.

A monopoly was to be achieved and the private "nurse feeders" to be ousted. But this could never be achieved - despite political measures such as the obligation to have medical examinations in the foundling as well as for private wet nurses. Between 1863 and 1872 the mammal institute provided 40% of all housewives, in 1897 it was only 10%. At the same time, wet nursing lost its importance towards the end of the 19th century: the pasteurization of milk became possible and the first surrogates for baby food came onto the market.

The main institute for protective pox

After the development of vaccination against smallpox by Edward Jenner at the end of the 18th century, experiments were carried out in 1801 in the Vienna General Hospital with 26 children, 21 of whom came from the foundling house. Due to the positive outcome, the main protective pox institute was installed in the foundling house in 1802. This offered the population a free vaccination and provided vaccinators throughout the monarchy with vaccines. The vaccine was obtained from foundlings, the so-called parent vaccinees . However, vaccine shortages regularly occurred. Doctors also had the opportunity to “borrow” a foundling as a primary vaccinee.

The broadest possible immunization of the population was sought and the measures to achieve this became more and more rigid. Doctors received rewards for vaccinating a particularly large number of people; Pastors were instructed to recommend vaccination to the population twice a year from the pulpit; an obligation to report has been introduced; the pastors had to read those who had died of smallpox four times a year; unvaccinated, deceased children had to be buried unaccompanied; In 1815 and 1816 lists of heads of families who refused to be vaccinated were ordered to be drawn up.

In the foundling house itself, the nurses' children were vaccinated because only they were in the house long enough. The chest children it was also known as Stammimpflinge were used. With the other children, the foster parents had to take care of the vaccination - if they did not, their boarding allowance could be cut.

In 1893 the foundling house lost its function as a vaccination institute. A separate institute for the production of animal vaccines was founded. This remained in close proximity, however, it was located in a newly built, one-story building in the garden of the foundling home. The first experiments with calf lymph were again carried out on foundlings.

The end of the foundling home

In the 1860s the so-called foundling dispute broke out, in which scholars discussed the meaning of the institution (and the foundling homes in general). The proponents did not find the system bad, only its organization. They were of the opinion that a reform - away from the stamp of anonymity, towards more protection and preservation of the rights granted to children in the ABGB, could solve the problems. The opponents propagated the concept of motherly love , which would awaken by itself if mothers were allowed to look after their children themselves. The discussion ebbed in the 1870s after some institutions in other cities were closed. In Vienna, from 1870 onwards, the possibility of taking care of their children for their mothers was promoted.

Another discussion arose in the 1880s, but it flared up over the questions of mortality and financial feasibility. The foundling was now seen more and more in the area of ​​poor relief, since the only reason for giving up the children was the poverty of the mothers, and called for a return of responsibility to the state level. A separate child protection law, a general regulation of poor child welfare and new institutions such as children's asylums, custody facilities and crèches were discussed and demanded.

The director of the institution, Carl Friedinger, could not understand the change in nature of the institution. He still considered it “more sensible to save the mother's honor and to keep the child's life than to destroy the trust in the future because of the uncertain inheritance of the child of the shy young mother”. At the same time, he overestimated the abilities of the foundling home - given the problems with outdoor care:

“If the illegitimate children are born, then state wisdom advises not to leave them. […] If one wants to stop the increase in the proletarians, the socialists, the anarchists, the nihilists and whatever the enemies of order may be called, then one must seize the children of the poor and the children for the truth, the beautiful and the good more than the parents make receptive. "

While a child protection law had already been passed in Graz and the foundling system had been completely reformed, step-by-step reforms took place in Vienna from 1898, the implementation of which lasted until 1907, as the Lower Austrian provincial committee wanted to avoid "too deep cutting of far-reaching innovations in habits that had been established for centuries". These reforms were initially the separation of the birthing center from the foundling asylum, the end of anonymity, new reception conditions geared towards actual poverty instead of illegitimacy, promotion of contact between mother and child, obligation of the child's fathers to provide alimentation, for which a legal protection department was set up in 1907, a new building and the reorganization of child welfare in general and the preparation of a child protection law.

When the foundation stone was laid for the new building in 1908, it was decided to change the name of the new institution. With the disappearance of the terms foundling asylum and foundling , the aim was at the same time to remove the stigma attached to these children for life. The decision of the statute for the newly founded Lower Austrian state central children's home took place in 1909/1910 and was the conclusion of the reform of the foundling system that began in 1898. Its purpose was to protect “children in need who had to do without parental care permanently or temporarily”, but also “to take in children born out of wedlock in the state brewery in Vienna [...]”.

The Lower Austrian Provincial Central Children's Home was opened in Gersthof on April 20, 1910 and the foundling house was closed at the same time.

Directors

Directors of the United Viennese Foundling and Orphanage:

Under the administration of the General Hospital, its directors were also directors of the birthing and foundling center:

  • 1805 - 1811: Franz Nord
  • 1811 - 1818: Johann Valentin Hildenbrand
  • 1818 - 1829: Johann Nepomuk Raimann
  • 1829-1830: Andreas Belleczky
  • 1830 - 1831: Johann Christian Schiffner
  • 1831 - 1837: Franz Günther
  • 1838 - 1848: Johann Christian Schiffner
  • 1848 - 1851: Theodor Helm

Directors of the Maternity and Foundling Home:

  • 1851 - 1867: Franz Prinz
  • 1867 - 1888: Carl Friedinger
  • 1889 - 1901: Ernst Braun

Director of the foundling house and the later state central children's home:

  • 1901 - 1910: Gustav Riether

Oddities

  • Because of the foundling house, but also the other hospitals in the area, the parish of the Alserkirche currently has the largest register archive in Europe.

See also

literature

  • Verena Pawlowsky: The birthing and foundling house in Vienna 1784-1910 . Studien-Verlag, Innsbruck, Vienna, Munich 2001, ISBN 978-3-205-99268-4 .

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b Bernhard Grois: The General Hospital in Vienna and its history . Publishing house for med. Sciences Wilhelm Maudrich , Vienna 1965, p. 26-39 .
  2. ↑ a b Verena Pawlowsky: The Birth and Findling House in Vienna 1784 - 1910 . Studien-Verlag, Innsbruck, Vienna, Munich 2001, ISBN 978-3-205-99268-4 , Chapter 2: The emergence of an institution, p. 37-45 .
  3. ↑ a b Verena Pawlowsky: The "abandoning of overly annoying and injurious children". The Vienna Findelanstalt 1784–1910 . In: Austrian Society for Historical Sciences, Vienna (ed.): Die Kinder des Staates / Children of the State. Austrian journal for historical sciences . tape 25/2014/1 + 2 . StudienVerlag Ges.mbH, Innsbruck 2014, ISBN 3-7065-1548-2 , p. 18–21 ( online (PDF)).
  4. ↑ a b c Peter Csendes, Ferdinand Opll: Vienna: From 1790 to the present . Böhlau Verlag, Vienna 2006, ISBN 978-3-205-99268-4 , p. 20-21 .
  5. ↑ a b c d Verena Pawlowsky: The Birth and Findling House in Vienna 1784 - 1910 . Studien-Verlag, Innsbruck, Vienna, Munich 2001, ISBN 978-3-205-99268-4 , 5th chapter: In the house, p. 109-110, 114-115 .
  6. ↑ a b c d e Verena Pawlowsky: The "abandonment of troublesome and harmful children". The Vienna Findelanstalt 1784–1910 . In: Austrian Society for Historical Sciences, Vienna (ed.): Die Kinder des Staates / Children of the State. Austrian journal for historical sciences . tape 25/2014/1 + 2 . StudienVerlag Ges.mbH, Innsbruck 2014, ISBN 3-7065-1548-2 , The Children in the House: Night Children, Beileg Children, Breast Children, Water Children and Deceivers, p. 25–28 and footnote 77 on p. 39 ( online (PDF)).
  7. ↑ Verena Pawlowsky: The "abandonment of troublesome and harmful children". The Vienna Findelanstalt 1784–1910 . In: Austrian Society for Historical Sciences, Vienna (ed.): Die Kinder des Staates / Children of the State. Austrian journal for historical sciences . tape 25/2014/1 + 2 . StudienVerlag Ges.mbH, Innsbruck 2014, ISBN 3-7065-1548-2 , Foundling homes and population policy, p. 21–23 ( online (PDF)).
  8. ↑ a b Verena Pawlowsky: The Birth and Findling House in Vienna 1784 - 1910 . Studien-Verlag, Innsbruck, Vienna, Munich 2001, ISBN 978-3-205-99268-4 , Chapter 3: The Mothers, p. 46-47, 51, 53-57, 61-69 .
  9. ↑ a b Verena Pawlowsky: The "abandoning of overly annoying and injurious children". The Vienna Findelanstalt 1784–1910 . In: Austrian Society for Historical Sciences, Vienna (ed.): Die Kinder des Staates / Children of the State. Austrian journal for historical sciences . tape 25/2014/1 + 2 . StudienVerlag Ges.mbH, Innsbruck 2014, ISBN 3-7065-1548-2 , The Josephine System: Claim and Reality, p. 25 ( online (PDF)).
  10. ↑ Verena Pawlowsky: The "abandonment of troublesome and harmful children". The Vienna Findelanstalt 1784–1910 . In: Austrian Society for Historical Sciences, Vienna (ed.): Die Kinder des Staates / Children of the State. Austrian journal for historical sciences . tape 25/2014/1 + 2 . StudienVerlag Ges.mbH, Innsbruck 2014, ISBN 3-7065-1548-2 , p. 25 ( online (PDF)).
  11. ↑ a b Verena Pawlowsky: The "abandoning of overly annoying and injurious children". The Vienna Findelanstalt 1784–1910 . In: Austrian Society for Historical Sciences, Vienna (ed.): Die Kinder des Staates / Children of the State. Austrian journal for historical sciences . tape 25/2014/1 + 2 . StudienVerlag Ges.mbH, Innsbruck 2014, ISBN 3-7065-1548-2 , Findelhäuser - a transitional phenomenon, p. 31–35 ( online (PDF)).
  12. ^ Verena Pawlowsky: The Birth and Findling House in Vienna 1784 - 1910 . Studien-Verlag, Innsbruck, Vienna, Munich 2001, ISBN 978-3-205-99268-4 , pp. 46 .
  13. ^ Verena Pawlowsky: Tips, private work, surreptitious trafficking with wet nurses: staff and patients in the unofficial economy of the Vienna Gebärhaus (1784 - 1908) . In: Jürgen Schlumbohm (Ed.): Rituals of birth . CH Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung , Munich 1998, ISBN 3-406-42080-X , p. 213 .
  14. ↑ From the "official instructions", quoted in: Verena Pawlowsky: Tips, private work, surreptitious trade with wet nurses: staff and patients in the unofficial economy of the Vienna Gebärhaus (1784 - 1908) . In: Jürgen Schlumbohm (Ed.): Rituals of birth . CH Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung , Munich 1998, ISBN 3-406-42080-X , p. 214 .
  15. ↑ a b c Verena Pawlowsky: The Birth and Findling House in Vienna 1784 - 1910 . Studien-Verlag, Innsbruck, Vienna, Munich 2001, ISBN 978-3-205-99268-4 , Chapter 3: The Mothers, Religion, p. 71-74 .
  16. ^ Verena Pawlowsky: The Birth and Findling House in Vienna 1784 - 1910 . Studien-Verlag, Innsbruck, Vienna, Munich 2001, ISBN 978-3-205-99268-4 , pp. 83 .
  17. ↑ a b c d Verena Pawlowsky: The Birth and Findling House in Vienna 1784 - 1910 . Studies-Verlag, Innsbruck, Vienna, Munich 2001, ISBN 978-3-205-99268-4 , 5th chapter: In the house. Section 2. The wet nurses, p. 116, 118-130 .
  18. ↑ a b Verena Pawlowsky: The Birth and Findling House in Vienna 1784 - 1910 . Studies-Verlag, Innsbruck, Vienna, Munich 2001, ISBN 978-3-205-99268-4 , 5th chapter: In the house. Section 5. Older Children, p. 146-148 .
  19. ↑ Instruction for the overseer (1816), quoted in: Verena Pawlowsky: Das Gebär- und Findelhaus in Vienna 1784 - 1910 . Studien-Verlag, Innsbruck, Vienna, Munich 2001, ISBN 978-3-205-99268-4 , pp. 119 .
  20. ^ Verena Pawlowsky: Tips, private work, surreptitious trafficking with wet nurses: staff and patients in the unofficial economy of the Vienna Gebärhaus (1784 - 1908) . In: Jürgen Schlumbohm (Ed.): Rituals of birth . CH Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung , Munich 1998, ISBN 3-406-42080-X , p. 206-214 .
  21. ^ Verena Pawlowsky: The Birth and Findling House in Vienna 1784 - 1910 . Studies-Verlag, Innsbruck, Vienna, Munich 2001, ISBN 978-3-205-99268-4 , 5th chapter: In the house. Section 3. The staff, p. 130-132 .
  22. ↑ a b Verena Pawlowsky: The Birth and Findling House in Vienna 1784 - 1910 . Studien-Verlag, Innsbruck, Vienna, Munich 2001, ISBN 978-3-205-99268-4 , Chapter 6: The outdoor care, p. 151-161 .
  23. ^ Verena Pawlowsky: The Birth and Findling House in Vienna 1784 - 1910 . Studien-Verlag, Innsbruck, Vienna, Munich 2001, ISBN 978-3-205-99268-4 , pp. 159 .
  24. ↑ a b c Verena Pawlowsky: The "abandoning of overburdening and injurious children". The Vienna Findelanstalt 1784–1910 . In: Austrian Society for Historical Sciences, Vienna (ed.): Die Kinder des Staates / Children of the State. Austrian journal for historical sciences . tape 25/2014/1 + 2 . StudienVerlag Ges.mbH, Innsbruck 2014, ISBN 3-7065-1548-2 , The children with the foster women: Zöglinge and breadwinner, p. 28–31 ( online (PDF)).
  25. ^ Verena Pawlowsky: The Birth and Findling House in Vienna 1784 - 1910 . Studien-Verlag, Innsbruck, Vienna, Munich 2001, ISBN 978-3-205-99268-4 , Chapter 6: The outdoor care; Section 1: The Nursing Women. Subsection: Social situation, p. 161-171 .
  26. ^ Verena Pawlowsky: The Birth and Findling House in Vienna 1784 - 1910 . Studien-Verlag, Innsbruck, Vienna, Munich 2001, ISBN 978-3-205-99268-4 , Chapter 6: The outdoor care; Section: 2. Care, p. 172-187 .
  27. ^ Verena Pawlowsky: The Birth and Findling House in Vienna 1784 - 1910 . Studien-Verlag, Innsbruck, Vienna, Munich 2001, ISBN 978-3-205-99268-4 , Chapter 6: The outdoor care; Section: 3. The foundlings, p. 193-198 .
  28. ↑ a b Verena Pawlowsky: The "abandoning of overly annoying and injurious children". The Vienna Findelanstalt 1784–1910 . In: Austrian Society for Historical Sciences, Vienna (ed.): Die Kinder des Staates / Children of the State. Austrian journal for historical sciences . tape 25/2014/1 + 2 . StudienVerlag Ges.mbH, Innsbruck 2014, ISBN 3-7065-1548-2 , Foundling homes and mortality, p. 24, 37 (footnote 34), 39 (footnote 92) ( online (PDF)).
  29. ^ Verena Pawlowsky: The Birth and Findling House in Vienna 1784 - 1910 . Studien-Verlag, Innsbruck, Vienna, Munich 2001, ISBN 978-3-205-99268-4 , Chapter 7: Chances of Survival and Risks of Death, p. 200 .
  30. ^ Verena Pawlowsky: The Birth and Findling House in Vienna 1784 - 1910 . Studien-Verlag, Innsbruck, Vienna, Munich 2001, ISBN 978-3-205-99268-4 , Chapter 7: Chances of survival and risk of death. Section 2: Analysis of the factors. Subsection: Place of birth, place of death and age of death, p. 216 .
  31. ^ Verena Pawlowsky: The Birth and Findling House in Vienna 1784 - 1910 . Studien-Verlag, Innsbruck, Vienna, Munich 2001, ISBN 978-3-205-99268-4 , Chapter 7: Chances of survival and risk of death. Section 3: Dealing with Death: Examination, Section and Burial, p. 249 .
  32. ^ Verena Pawlowsky: The Birth and Findling House in Vienna 1784 - 1910 . Studien-Verlag, Innsbruck, Vienna, Munich 2001, ISBN 978-3-205-99268-4 , Chapter 7: Chances of survival and risk of death. Section 3: Dealing with Death: Examination, Section and Burial, p. 248-250 .
  33. ^ Verena Pawlowsky: The Birth and Findling House in Vienna 1784 - 1910 . Studien-Verlag, Innsbruck, Vienna, Munich 2001, ISBN 978-3-205-99268-4 , Chapter 7: Chances of survival and risk of death. Section 2: Analysis of the factors. Subsection: Denomination, p. 242 .
  34. ^ Verena Pawlowsky: The Birth and Findling House in Vienna 1784 - 1910 . Studien-Verlag, Innsbruck, Vienna, Munich 2001, ISBN 978-3-205-99268-4 , 4th chapter: The discrete birth: secrecy of motherhood; Section: 4. The Fathers, p. 105-108 .
  35. ^ Verena Pawlowsky: The Birth and Findling House in Vienna 1784 - 1910 . Studies-Verlag, Innsbruck, Vienna, Munich 2001, ISBN 978-3-205-99268-4 , 5th chapter: In the house. Section 4. Hygiene; Subsection: Vaccination, p. 142-145 .
  36. ↑ a b Verena Pawlowsky: The Birth and Findling House in Vienna 1784 - 1910 . Studies-Verlag, Innsbruck, Vienna, Munich 2001, ISBN 978-3-205-99268-4 , chapter: The end of the findingling. Section 2: A system under discussion, p. 265 .
  37. ^ Verena Pawlowsky: The Birth and Findling House in Vienna 1784 - 1910 . Studies-Verlag, Innsbruck, Vienna, Munich 2001, ISBN 978-3-205-99268-4 , chapter: The end of the findingling. Section 2: A system under discussion, p. 257-268 .
  38. ^ Verena Pawlowsky: The Birth and Findling House in Vienna 1784 - 1910 . Studien-Verlag, Innsbruck, Vienna, Munich 2001, ISBN 978-3-205-99268-4 , Appendix 11, p. 304-305 .