126 RüdigerKunow
contributiontothepublicdebate,co-authoredwithDr.ZabdielBoylston
under a pseudonym,^78 was titled Some Account of What is Said of
InoculatingorTransplantingtheSmallPox(1721) and was intended as
amanualfor(self-)inoculation.Matherwouldlaterreturntothisissuein
hislastmajorwork,TheAngelofBethesda(1721).
The brief text published at the height of the smallpox controversy is
an interesting cultural document, even today, not only because of its
well-timed and adroit argument but also because of some daring
rhetorical maneuvers. In order to "sell" the new and experimental
treatment he advocated, Mather at times even assumes a speaking
positionthatmighttodaybecalled"transcultural":afterabriefreference
to Greek Antiquity and the Royal Society in London, he references the
"considerable Number ofAfricans in the Town" who informed the
authorsofthewidespreaduseofinoculationinAfrica.Matherproceeds
to offer additional relevant testimony, possibly coming from Mather's
slaveOnesimus:"ThatabundanceofpoorNegro'sdieoftheSmallPox,
tilltheylearnthisWay;thatPeople taketheJuiceoftheSmallPox,and
CuttheSkin,andputinadrop;thenby'nbyalittleSick, thenfewSmall
Pox; and no body dye of it: no body have Small Pox any more"
(TimoniusandPylarinus9;spellingoriginal).Thisisclearlyaninstance
of what Mita Banerjee would call "ethnic ventriloquizing," a form of
often unacknowledged intercultural exchange in which the ethnic
subject, even while explicitly invoked, nonetheless remains silent (33).
Obviously, this particular "transcultural" argument, while highlighting
the cultural dimension of the smallpox crisis, had already previously
been introduced into the debate and not fared well with the Bostonians.
So, the authors (possibly Mather because Boylston was not trained in
theologicalfineprint)dedicatedmuchoftheappendixoftheirpamphlet
("Some Remarks") to an expanded line ofreasoning,once again strictly
cultural. Seeking to counter the prevailing sense of cultural superiority
inmedicalmattersamongtheirfellowcitizenstheysetouttoprovethat
(^78) His doctoral title not withstanding, Boylston was essentially a self-educated
medical practitioner who had acquired some of his knowledge during an
apprenticeship with an English surgeon. During the epidemic, he inoculated a
total of 247 persons of whom only six died. Nevertheless, he was forced to go
into hiding at the height of the controversy (Mather, Angel ofBethesda xxxiii-
xxxiv).