About that time the practice of inoculation first excited public attention. But this preventive had been previously known and resorted to in confined districts in different countries. The discovery of it must have been entirely fortuitous, and it is probable that the want of any analogy betty cell its effects and all the facts previously known, pre vented the attention of medical men from being duly di rected to it. Hence it was for several ages under the ma nagement of poor old women, and other ignorant persons. After inoculation had been introduced into London in 1724, and excited much general conversation as a foreign inven tion, it was found, (to the great surplize of the learned,) that it had been known in South Wales as far back as tea. dition could be traced. And it was a remarkable circum stance, that it had there been communicated artificially, under the denomination of buying the small pox, exactly in the same manner as in Africa and Tut key. When thus bought, a quantity of the matter was rubbed on the skin, or inserted by pins infected with it. Sometimes dry variolous crusts were held in the palm of the hand. In the High lands of Scotland it w as artificially communicated, for many ages, by tying worsted threads contaminated with the mat ter round the wrists of children ; and it was superstitiously imagined that it would not produce the desired effect un less purchased for a piece of money, or some other article, however trifling, in exchange. This was the case in dif ferent parts of Italy, France, Germany, Denmark, and Swe den. In China it seems to have been practised for more than 2J0 years, and still longer in Ilindostan. The Chi nese performed inoculation by introducing dried pustules with aromatics into the nostrils, a method less successful th n that which has been in general use in other countries. In Hindostan this operation was practised by a particular tribe of Brahmins, by means of a slight puncture, over which they tied a rag impregnated with variolous matter. accompanying the operation with superstitious observan ces.
In 1701, inoculation having been previously in frequent use among the poor G reeks of European Turkey, was adopted by the higher classes in consequence of a very mortal smallpox which then prevailed at Constantinople. The knowledge of this fact was circulated in England i;1 1716, by a paper from Py larini, published in the Philoso phical Transactions, and by Mr. Kennedy, in an essay on external remedies. But the subject was more generally impressed on the public mind by one of the letters of La dy Mary Wortley Montague, written from Adrianople, for the purpose of introducing this useful invention into her native country. That celebrated lady had the operation performed on her own son. It was in 1721 that it was first attempted among persons of education in England, Jacob de Castro and Dr. Harris exerted themselves to recommend it. We must, however, consider the la dy now mentioned as having the chief merit of the introduction of inoculation into Britain. It did not meet with a ready adoption among the generality of medical men, who were rather inclined to despise it on ac count of the obscure origin of the invention, and the pro gress of it was somewhat unsteady. It was for some years forgotten from mere indifference, or held in dread in con sequence of the remonstrances of eloquent and plausible adversaries. The inoculators were sometimes assailed by the most formidable invective. Mistakes occasionally arose among them in consequence of the imperfection of the knowledge of the subject under which they for some time laboured. Mr. 'Maitland, for instance, maintained that the inoculated small-pox was incapable of transmitting infection, and he encouraged persons indiscriminately to handle children under the inoculated disease, in conse quence of which some received it in a severe or fatal forth. Advantage was taken of such occurrences to misrepresent the whole motives of the advocates of inoculation; and the crimes of mercenary cruelty, and downright murder, were imputed to them. A few theologians united their intem
perate denunciations to swell the general outcry. In per forming this imaginary duty, the Rev. Mr. Massey main tained, " that the cutaneous disease of Job was produced by inoculation from the hands of the devil, and that the whole art was of infernal invention." One of its most powerful opponents was Dr. \Vagstaffe, physician to St.
Bartholomew's hospital, Iv hose high character for learning and professional practice gave uncommon weight to his opinions. He condemned it on account of the uncertainty of the consequences, drawn from facts which had appeared only in one sort of climate. He denounced it as contra dictory to reason, and maintained that, though some who were inoculated took the disease in a moderate form, others were either not affected, or so slightly, that lio security could be expected against a future attack, while others had it in the most alarming and dangerous form, and died under it. He denied its power in securing the constitu tion against the disease in future. He condemned it as keeping up a focus of contagion from which much &anger to others proceeded. Ile took advantage of the dissensions existing among its abettors, as evincing that their positions were unworthy of confidence. Some cases occurred in which, after the inoculated small pox, the disease was said to have been received by casual inlection. These gave rise to much clamour against the inoculated disease as an inef fectual security, though they were generally found, on fair inquiry, to be eases of chicken pox. The argument was, on the w hole, enveloped in mus.11 confusion, till Dr. Junin fixed the attention of the public on the two important points in dispute, which wet e capable of being brought to the test of experience, and which, if established, were sufficient to supersede all theoretic reasoning, and all religious scru ples. He first detailed the multiplied facts, which sheaved that the inoculated small-pox secured the constitution against the disease in future, and then those which proved that the hazard of inoculation was much less than that of the natural small pox. Ile stated, that the whole number of deaths, in London, for For ty years back, was 903,798, of which 65,079 were occasioned by the natural small-pox, chewing that more than one-fourteenth part of mankind died of this disease; and as some must have (lied without having had the small-pox in any form, he concluded, from a judicious calculation, that of those who were seized with smallpox, two in seventeen, or nearly one in nine, died. But, by some actual inquiries into the history of numerous families, it appeared that the natural small-pox was fatal to one patient in five or six, while those who died of the ino culated disease Were only one in 60. In the years 1721, 1722, and 1723, 474 persons were inoculated in England, of whom 9 died. In 1724, the number inoculated was only 40, of whom one died. In the following year, when the natural small-pox was very prevalent, and very mortal, 151 were inoculated, and in the following year 105, making 256 in these two years, of whom 4 died. In the next two years only 124 inoculations took place. Thus, dur ing the first 8 years of inoculation, 897 pet-sons were ino culated. From statements, it appears that 845 of these had true variolous pustules, and 13 an imperfect eruption; in 39 no disease was produced by the virus, and 17 were suspected to have died of the inoculated disease. From domiciliary visits, it was discovered that of 18,229 per sons who had been affected with the natural small-pox, 5008 had died of it, i. e. one in six ; whereas the deaths by inoculation, granting the utmost contended fur by its ad %ersarics, did not exceed 1 in 50.