Caitlin Cook

About the Author

For my project I want to research the history of wet nurses. I want to research the origins of wet nursing and how society's view on wet nursing changed. More specifically, I want to look at how wet nursing started as a necessity and then changed to a symbol of status. I am also interested in researching the effects on wet nursing on the wet nurse themselves as many wet nurses were forced to nurse for the wealthier women and in turn left their own children all day with no milk supply, ultimately leading to death of their own child in many situations. In these cases, I would want to learn more on how wet nurses felt about that and if that caused a decline in wet nursing at all. Moreover, becoming a wet nurse was not necessarily the greatest job and oftentimes black women became wet nurses, so I would like to learn more about the history of black wet nurses and white nurses and the treatment of both. Aside from the treatment of the nurse themselves, I want to learn more about the effect of wet nursing on the child. In some cases, mothers had wet nurses because they were unable to breastfeed, thus wet nursing was a positive for those who could not necessarily provide for their infant. In other cases women would breastfeed as a sign of status, and so it was not a necessity anymore in all cases. Throughout time there have always been many arguments about the importance of breastfeeding from the mother and the bond it creates between mother and infant. Moreover, I want to explore the negative effects of wet nursing, how people viewed it throughout time, and its effects on bonds between mother and child.  The concept of wet nursing still exists today, but not as a sign of social status, and it is commonly referred to as cross-nursing or co-feeding. I want to understand how views on wet nursing have changed and how the circumstances to use a wet nurse have changed. Along with changing views on wet nurses, I want to understand how wet nursing works today and how mothers go about it in comparison to how it used to occur. By researching the topic, I believe I will uncover more insights on the public perception of wet nursing and how it has changed over time. I also think I will uncover a variety of research on the effects of wet nursing on infants and mothers and how the view on the effects of wet nursing may have changed over time. 

My research on my proposed topic is going well. I have been able to find primary sources from the 19th and 20th centuries regarding wet nursing and what it is and stands for. I have found interesting information regarding wet nursing that I did not think I would find. More specifically, I have found many articles from the 19th century where writers explain the negatives of wet nursing, many saying how it takes the wet nurse away from her own child. I did not think I would find many articles taking the sides of the wet nurses. I have also found research on how wet nursing was a symbol of status, but that there were cases of working women seeking wet nurses as they had to go to their job all day. However, in most cases, working women were provided with the “bad” wet nurses, and the “good” ones were often taken by the upper class. During the 19th century, when other forms of feeding became safe, there was a shift of wet nursing for poor children as their mothers had to get a job and work. Overall, when women would become wet nurses, they often had to put their own baby out. Many wet nurses' babies died as a result of the neglectful treatment that came from the wet nurse having to focus more on the family she worked for rather than her own child. In cases where they lived, they were still treated poorly in many cases. Today, cross feeding or cross nursing is the term for a woman breastfeeding a baby that is not hers. In many cases, this is frowned upon today for medical reasons. However, women still practice cross feeding and in many cases it is a way to build community for raising the baby in question. 

Annotated Bibliography 

1. Doyle, Nora. “Good Mothers and Wet Nurses: Breastfeeding and the Fracturing of Sentimental Motherhood.” In Maternal Bodies: Redefining Motherhood in Early America, 115–45. University of North Carolina Press, 2018. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5149/9781469637211_doyle.8.

This article highlights the case of Eliza Fisher and the Irish wet nurse she engaged in Philadelphia in 1844. Overall, this source provides information on how little privileged women respected wet nurses. It also looks at how little privileged women cared about the children of the wet nurses themselves which ultimately led to emotional detachment between wet nurses and their own babies. This resource will help in explaining the effects of wet nursing on the wet nurses own children along with how those who employees wet nurses really viewed wet nurses. 

2. Hewitt, Graily. “Wet-Nurses And ‘Fallen’ Women.” The British Medical Journal 1, no. 8 (1861): 211–211. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25197470.

This article published in the British Medical Journal in 1861 argues that wet nursing is not natural for the child being nursed by the wet nurse herself as well as unnatural for the wet nurses child that she will have to leave behind. Overall, this article will help to explain why wet nursing was seen as bad. 

3. Sussman, George D. “The Wet-Nursing Business in Nineteenth-Century France.” French Historical Studies 9, no. 2 (1975): 304–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/286130.

This article highlights that in 18th century France, wet nursing was a sign of status. It also explains that although wet nursing was a symbol of status in many cases, there were also cases where the working class women had to go out and get jobs. As a result they would not be able to nurse their own infants, so they would sometimes send their children to wet nurses. However, in the cases where the poor, working class had to turn to wet nurses, it was never good. This resource will help show the change in wet nursing as a status symbol and also the deeper meanings within those changes and how even when it turned to poor people, it was not the same as when it was a symbol of status for the wealthy. 

4. F. R. C. P. “Baby-Farming And Wet-Nursing.” The British Medical Journal 1, no. 543 (1871): 570–71. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25229668.

This article was published in the British Medical Journal in 1871 and talks about why wet nursing is bad for the infant, how wet nurses should not be allowed to leave their own infant to die to feed another, and how wealthy women should not even be allowed to buy the service to begin with. This will help shape my research on the views of wet nursing through time. 

5. Terry, H. “Wet-Nursing.” The British Medical Journal 1, no. 5 (1861): 129–129. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25196765.

This article was published in the British Medical Journal in 1861 and talks about how wet nurses should not be employed unless it is extremely necessary as it takes babies away from their mothers which is not morally okay. This will help shape my research on the views of wet nursing through time. 

6. “Wet-Nursing.” The British Medical Journal 1, no. 646 (1873): 565–565. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25234637.

This article was published in the British Medical Journal in 1873 and it talks about how the mortality rate of those nursed by a wet nurse are much higher than those nursed by their own mothers. This will help shape my research on the views of wet nursing through time. 

7. Thorley, Virginia. “Breasts for Hire and Shared Breastfeeding: Wet Nursing and Cross Feeding in Australia, 1900-2000.” Health and History 10, no. 1 (2008): 88–109. https://doi.org/10.2307/40111595.

This articles talks about wet nurses and cross freeding. It explains that the difference is that wet nursing involves two women that are often not social equals whereas in cross feeding they are equals. It talks about how in Australia wet nursing began to go away in the early 20th century when other safe options became available. This will help show the timeline of wet nursing as well as cross feeding and why each emerged along with what they are like in contrast to each other. 

8. Grünebaum, Amos. “Do Wet Nurses Still Exist?” babyMed.com, May 11, 2020. https://www.babymed.com/do-wet-nurses-still-exist.

This article highlights cross feeding and how that is the modern form of wet nursing in a way. This article highlights how it is not a common practice, but when it is it is for the well being of the baby and intends to form a community for the baby. This will help aid in my research and explanation of cross feeding. 

9. Jones-Rogers, Stephanie E. “‘Wet Nurse for Sale or Hire.’” In They Were Her Property: White Women as Slave Owners in the American South, 101–22. Yale University Press, 2019. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvbnm3fz.8.

This article highlights how wet nurses in the South were seen as slaves. They were treated like slaves and disrespected by white women as they were really seen as property of the wealthy rich white families. The article highlights how the North was not as harsh, but that in almost all cases, black wet nurses in the North were also treated like property. This article will help explain the views on wet nurses through time. 

10. Wolf, Jacqueline H. “‘Mercenary Hirelings’ or ‘A Great Blessing’?: Doctors’ and Mothers’ Conflicted Perceptions of Wet Nurses and the Ramifications for Infant Feeding in Chicago, 1871-1961.” Journal of Social History 33, no. 1 (1999): 97–120. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3789462.

This article highlights how in the 19th century wet nurses were hired by physicians to help sick babies in hospitals. It also highlights how many were hired by well-to-do families who could not or did not want to breastfeed. Even though it was seen as a symbol of class, many wealthy women who hired them had little respect for the wet nurse and thought it was a bad practice in many cases. 

11. Bryan, Nicola. Wet nurse: The mum who breastfeeds other women's babies. BBC.com, June 16, 2018. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-42946650.

This article features a woman, Samantha Galdsen, who cross feeds for other women that may be struggling to produce milk, but that also want their child to be breastfed. She says she doesn't know other women who do it, as it is not a common practice, but that she is sure others exist. She gets a lot of negative comments when she explains that she breastfeeds other women's children. This article will help explain how cross feeding is viewed today in contrast to wet nursing over time. 

12. Kolata, Gina. “Wet-Nursing Boom in England Explored.” Science 235, no. 4790 (1987): 745–47. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1698115.

This article explains the reasoning behind the spark of wet nursing, specifically in England. During this time many people believed it would make you age faster. Women were also having 20 to 30 children and lactation acted as a form of birth control, so many did not breastfeed in order to keep having children. This article aids in explaining the roots of wet nursing and its effects on mothers. 

13. Daniell, Edward. “Wet-Nursing: Its Evils.” The British Medical Journal 1, no. 11 (1861): 290–290. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25197538.

This article argues that using a wet nurse will inhibit the bond between mother and infant as another woman will be playing a crucial role in the baby's life. This will help explain the negative views that existed in the 19th century regarding wet nursing. 

14. Stevens, E. E., Patrick, T. E., & Pickler, R. (2009). A history of infant feeding. The Journal of perinatal education, 18(2), 32–39. https://doi.org/10.1624/105812409X426314.

This article explains how during the industrial revolution wet nursing went back to being for poor families as women needed to get jobs to live and had no time to take care of their own children. This article will help explain the change in wet nursing as a status symbol and also explain the consequences of wet nursing on working mothers that had to "farm" out their children.

Essay:

The use of a wet nurse, a woman who breastfeeds another woman's baby, was a common practice that dated as early as 2000 BC and continued all the way until the 20th century. In Israel, dating back as early as 2000 BC, breastfeeding was not always possible due to either lactation failure or the mother dying in childbirth (1). Thus, this is when women turned to wet nursing to get their child the nutrients they needed to survive as there were no other safe alternative ways of feeding. The reasoning behind the practice began as a need and slowly became a choice for many mothers over time. This change in the motivation for wet nursing also influenced the selection process of wet nurses. Although wet nursing became an accessible choice to almost all classes, it still remained a practice of status and oppressed the lower classes who utilized it along with the slaves who provided it by treating those of lower status poorly within the practice, ultimately prevailing as an affluent practice. 

In Ancient Egypt, along with those who sought out wet nurses, wet nurses were also of high status and well respected as protecting infants was such an essential piece of religion (2). The emphasis on infancy and their protection is what gave way to the treatment of wet nurses and those caring for infants. Moreover, the job of wet nurse was God-like, and in turn, so were those doing it. During this time, wet nurses were depicted as “God-like status, wearing headdresses similar to Hathor, the goddess of fertility” (3). Ancient goddess, Isis, was viewed as “a goddess who protects the coffin, she is mother, wet-nurse, of the dead, and brings about rebirth” (4). In Figure 1, Isis is depicted feeding her own child, Hortus, and in Figure 2 she is depicted feeding another child, Harpocrates. 

Into Ancient Rome, the idea of wet nursing continues. At this time, philosophers began to comment on the practice as there was a new fear that wet nurses would compromise the bond between mother and infant that is made through breastfeeding (7). By having another woman breastfeed another woman's baby, there was arguably a disconnect between the mother and the infant when they were supposed to be building their bond. Differently from Egypt, it was important to take care of infants, but it was important that the mother do it if possible. If the mother was ill, then it was acceptable to wet nurse, otherwise the mother should be taking care of their own child. However, many women went against these recommendations and continued to use wet nurses as a sign of status (8). Differently from Ancient Egypt, wet nurses were more commonly slaves that could work as a wet nurse throughout a child's life into adulthood to gain freedom (9). Comparing Ancient Egypt to Ancient Rome, there is a noticeable shift in wet nursing practices. Wet nurses went from being a well respected woman who was solely in charge of breastfeeding whereas into Ancient Rome wet nurses were still respected, but they were considered slaves and therefore property of the owner until freed which was often after a child reached adulthood.  Into the middle ages, wet nursing continued to be a sign of status. During the Middle Ages, wet-nursing continued to serve as an indicator of social class, and many wet nurses were slaves or ex-slaves (10). 

18th and 19th century wet nursing was most documented and most popular. Into the 19th century there was a bigger change in the practices of wet nursing and the views on it. Wet nurses were still mostly slaves, but the treatment and views on these slaves began to diminish and families, especially mothers, did not respect wet nursing or the practice. One could argue that this change in treatment was the result of the change in views of slaves. Into the late 18th and early 19th century slaves were most often black people and whites were known to view blacks as inferior and in turn they were treated as inferior. Black women were often wet nurses hired by white women, and the white womens thought of superiority to blacks translated into how they treated their wet nurses. Differences remained in terms of slavery and wet nurses in the south compared to the north. More specifically, “The southern wet nurse marketplace operated differently from the northern one…white southern women were among those who took full advantage of their access to enslaved women’s bodies and labor. These women were instrumental in creating a market for enslaved wet nurses” (11).The process of hiring and choosing a nurse became much more intricate as a result of an increasing number of slaves and in turn, wet nurses. As a result, women employing wet nurses would inspect the physical appearance and health and wet nurses to decide who they wanted. The following figure 3 depicts the bureau of wet nurses in Paris during the 19th century where wet nurses waited to be inspected and then potentially selected. 

Wet nursing continued to be a sign of status, but the industrial revolution changed the accessibility of the practice from exclusively upper class to upper and lower class as a result of more women having to enter the workforce. Moreover, “for the working class certainly the demand for rural wet nurses was a consequence of urban growth” (13). The only problem with the working class hiring wet nurses was that they got what they could afford. For the working class, hiring a wet nurse became a need rather than a want, just like it was at the roots of the practice. “The increased cost of living and poor wages forced many women to seek employment and contribute financially to their family, which made it virtually impossible for many mothers to breastfeed and attend to their children. Consequently, many of these children were farmed out to destitute peasant women” (14). Working class women did not necessarily want to hire wet nurses, but rather they needed to make money to support their families, and therefore they could not stay home to tend to their children. Moreover, the symbol of status still shined through within the practice and the accessibility to wet nurses as those with enough money would be able to afford the best of the best whereas the working class took what they could get. This meant that getting a wet nurse was no longer a problem for the lower class, but rather the problem stemmed from “the fact that the number of good nurses is not proportionate to the number of infants being nurses. Thus, poverty feeding poverty leads to infant mortality in many cases” (15). This shift in the accessibility to wet nurses almost portrayed the practice as a symbol of status even more than before as those of higher class would not expect their child to die under the care of a wet nurse, rather it was seen as a best practice and the infant was sure to be well taken care of. This was also a result of the fact that in many cases wet nurses were basically seen as slaves and thus their job was solely to take care of the infant. However, for lower class mothers hiring wet nurses, their child was not guaranteed to be well taken care of as they were given to women that could barely take care of themselves and their own families let alone other women's children. Moreover, it was not a luxury to have a wet nurse like it was for the upper class. Arguably it was an unfortunate reality when a lower class mother had to hire a wet nurse as she knew the wet nurse would not guarantee the safety of her child, but she had to do it in order to keep her family afloat. Overall, although wet nursing became accessible and popular within the lower class, it still continued to be a sign of status as those of higher status had access to the best, private wet nurses whereas lower class mothers had access to wet nurses that could not even guarantee the infants life. 

In most cases, hiring a wet nurse meant that the wet nurse would have to leave her own baby behind to take care of the baby she was hired to take care of. If a woman was lactating, that meant that they must have had their own baby. In most cases, those employing the wet nurses expected the wet nurse to leave her own child behind in order to properly care for the infant of the employer. An example of this is as follows:

“One mother, Fanny B. Workman, wrote a letter to Babyhood magazine describing how she hired a “decidedly unattractive” wet nurse and was disappointed when, contrary to her instruction, the prospective employee showed up at her job interview with her own infant. The wet nurse eventually “placed out” the baby to take the job. Two weeks later, she received a telegram informing her that her child had died. Workman described convincing the woman to stay on the job instead of going to the baby’s funeral but wrote that afterwards she “became very unruly and obstinate” and ate food that did not agree with Workman’s baby. Finally, Workman fired her” (16).  

Wet nursing was not a favorable position. For many, it meant giving up your own child's life to continue that of another. Physicians often argued that, “the hiring of a private wet nurse usually meant a rich baby survived at the expense of a poor baby” (17). Those who hired wet nurses often disregarded the emotions of the wet nurses and their connection to their own baby (18). 

Despite all that wet nurses did and the disregard that mothers had for wet nurses emotional connection between them and their own infants, mothers who employed them would also often become jealous of the bond they saw between their infant and their wet nurse. This goes back to the ancient times when philosophers were concerned with their relationship disconnect as a result of wet nursing. An account from the 19th century quotes a mother speaking of her wet nurse and her relationship with the infant saying, “The little monkey is beginning to love her Nurse so much better than me that I am quite mortified—which I ought not to be as the preference is as yet purely physical… I must therefore not let my jealousy get the better of me” (19).  The mother believes that she should have nothing to worry about as she claims the relationship between the infant and the wet nurse is purely physical. This disregard for the emotional connection formed between a wet nurse and a baby that she is nursing to keep alive everyday highlights the little respect women really had for wet nurses. Moreover, although in some cases wet nurses were a result of the inability to breastfeed, in many cases they were just a sign of status. Thus, women not only disrespected the wet nurses, but then had little appreciation for the actual practice as a result of their jealousy and inability to see the emotional connection between the infant and the wet nurse. 

Wet nurses were not only disrespected by mothers, but the overall practice in many cases was not respected by society as a whole despite the popular practice of it. During the 19th century many doctors and writers spoke about the practice in a very negative light. For example, in 1861, Graily Hewitt wrote in The British Medical Journal about wet nursing claiming, “I consider that, as a system, wet-nursing is most objectionable, and in all but a very few exceptional cases, morally as well as medically unjustifiable, yet it is adopted in the highest society and sanctioned, I fear, by the highest medical authority” (20). There were arguments about the safety of wet nursing. In some cases there could be infections or diseases transmitted due to an unhealthy feeder. Many also argued about the disconnect that would occur between the mother and her infant as a result of having someone else feed their own baby along with the disconnect that would result from wet nurses having to leave their own baby. Another article in the British Medical journal highlighted the effects of another woman nursing ones infant explaining: 

“A lady…was obliged to give up her first child to the tender mercies of a wet-nurse. In the process of time, she was confirmed of a second child, which she was able to nurse herself. The result, according to the views I have taken, may be almost anticipated. This second child absorbed all her love; the first was shamefully and cruelly neglected; it rarely appeared in the parlour, was suffered to run wild in the kitchen, and was always the guest of the servants, being very rarely found in the family room. She imbibed habits amongst this class of persons which would be likely to lower the tone of her mind and character; and, when a women, she became the drudge - the “Cinderella”. The result is obvious enough. This really beautiful girl sank so low as to elope with a vulgar fellow, gave birth to a child, and died” (21).

It is argued that the connection between a mother and her infant is greatly affected during the breastfeeding stages and if that time is spent with another woman, that can affect the relationship between the infant and their actual mother. 

The overall negative views on wet nursing along with the invention of alternative ways of feeding, like the sterilization of animal milk along with formula, lead to the decrease of the practice. Today, in the 21st century, the idea of “wet nursing” is no longer a thing. However, the practice of cross-nursing, also known as cross-feeding, exists. Although rare, cross-nursing does exist, but it is different from wet nursing in a sense that, “While wet nursing and cross feeding share similarities, they differ in that wet nursing involves two women who usually are not social equals and payment of the wet nurse, whereas cross-feeding involves social equals. Wet nursing is never reciprocal, whereas cross-nursing may involve a reciprocal arrangement” (22). Due to the fact that many mothers believe that the skin-to-skin contact is important for the baby, cross feeding resolves any problems that mothers may have if they cannot breastfeed themselves. Not only does it help mothers who want skin-to-skin feeding that may not be able to provide that, but in many cases mothers argue that formula is not as nutritious as breast milk, thus the idea of cross feeding can resolve any concerns regarding alternative feeding, including formula. Consistent with the later views of wet nursing, cross feeding is a practice that is often met with negative views and comments. Samantha Galdsen, a mother from Wales, highlights her experience with cross nursing saying that she is often met with negative comments regarding the fact that she cross nurses for other women. For example, one woman said to her, “She didn't even know you, you could have been anything, you could have had anything, you might have had Aids” (23). Today there are still worries regarding the safeness and cleanliness of the practices. Public Health of Wales claims, “If a mother's own milk was not available the next best thing would be donated breast milk, but those sharing milk should be aware of the risks which include the transmission of blood-borne viruses and other infections, the transfer of chemicals, and the bacterial contamination after collection” (24). 

Overall, wet nursing started as an alternative to a need and slowly became a symbol of status in society despite the accessibility of the practice to almost all. Today, wet nursing does not exist, but similar practices are still, yet rarely, found in society. One could argue that, although it was a good option prior to other alternatives, wet nursing was not the most beneficial for the wet nurse herself, the infant, nor the mother of the infant. As a result, the decrease in the practice and those similar has remained to this day. 

1. Wickes IG. A history of infant feeding. Part I. Primitive peoples: Ancient works: Renaissance writers. Archives of Disease in Childhood. 1953a;28:151–158. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1988596/pdf/archdisch01407-0073.pdf

2. Baumgartel, K. L., Sneeringer, L., & Cohen, S. M. (2016). From royal wet nurses to Facebook: The evolution of breastmilk sharing. Breastfeeding review : professional publication of the Nursing Mothers' Association of Australia, 24(3), 25–32. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5603296

3. Ibid. 

4. Gordon, Richard. "Isis." Oxford Classical Dictionary. 22 Dec. 2015; https://oxfordre.com/classics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-3342.

5. Isis Nursing the Infant Harpocrates. 3rd C. https://jstor.org/stable/community.13585452.

6. Carole Reeves. Goddess Isis Feeding Horus, Wall Relief. n.d. Wellcome Collection. https://jstor.org/stable/community.24808325.

7. Fildes, Valerie A. Wet nursing: a history from antiquity to the present. B. Blackwell, 1988.

8. Baumgartel, K. L., Sneeringer, L., & Cohen, S. M. (2016). From royal wet nurses to Facebook: The evolution of breastmilk sharing. Breastfeeding review : professional publication of the Nursing Mothers' Association of Australia, 24(3), 25–32. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5603296

9. Fildes V. Breasts, bottles and babies. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press; 1986.

10. Obladen M. Early neonatal special care units and their scientific achievements. Neonatology. 2012;102:89–97.

11. Jones-Rogers, Stephanie E. “‘Wet Nurse for Sale or Hire.’” In They Were Her Property: White Women as Slave Owners in the American South, 101–22. Yale University Press, 2019. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvbnm3fz.8.

12. The Bureau of Wet Nurses in Paris - Wet Nurses Waiting to Be Selected. Aquatint, 1822. 1822. Aquatint ;, platemark 22.8 x 30.2 cm. <a href="https://wellcomecollection.org/">Wellcome Collection</a>. https://jstor.org/stable/community.24839791.

13. Sussman, George D. “The Wet-Nursing Business in Nineteenth-Century France.” French Historical Studies 9, no. 2 (1975): 304–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/286130.

14. Stevens, E. E., Patrick, T. E., & Pickler, R. (2009). A history of infant feeding. The Journal of perinatal education, 18(2), 32–39. https://doi.org/10.1624/105812409X426314.

15. Sussman, George D. “The Wet-Nursing Business in Nineteenth-Century France.” French Historical Studies 9, no. 2 (1975): 304–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/286130.

16. Wolf, Jacqueline H. “‘Mercenary Hirelings’ or ‘A Great Blessing’?: Doctors’ and Mothers’ Conflicted Perceptions of Wet Nurses and the Ramifications for Infant Feeding in Chicago, 1871-1961.” Journal of Social History 33, no. 1 (1999): 97–120. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3789462.

17. A Social History of Wet Nursing in America: From Breast to Bottle. Janet Golden.  February 23, 1996. 97-98.121-127.

18. Doyle, Nora. “Good Mothers and Wet Nurses: Breastfeeding and the Fracturing of Sentimental Motherhood.” In Maternal Bodies: Redefining Motherhood in Early America, 115–45. University of North Carolina Press, 2018. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5149/9781469637211_doyle.8.

19. Ibid. 

20. Terry, H. “Wet-Nursing.” The British Medical Journal 1, no. 5 (1861): 129–129. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25196765.

21. Daniell, Edward. “Wet-Nursing: Its Evils.” The British Medical Journal 1, no. 11 (1861): 290–290. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25197538.

22. Thorley, Virginia. “Breasts for Hire and Shared Breastfeeding: Wet Nursing and Cross Feeding in Australia, 1900-2000.” Health and History 10, no. 1 (2008): 88–109. https://doi.org/10.2307/40111595.

23. Bryan, Nicola. Wet nurse: The mum who breastfeeds other women's babies. BBC.com, June 16, 2018. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-42946650

24. Ibid.