Annotated Bibliography:
Primary Sources:
Dimsdale, Elizabeth. An English Lady at the Court of Catherine the Great: The Journal of Baroness Elizabeth Dimsdale, 1781. (Crest Publications, Cambridge, 1989)
A diary kept by Dr. Dimsdale’s wife throughout his second trip to Russia. Little of it relates directly to smallpox inoculations, although on pg 63-65 she gives an account of her husband inoculating Prince Alexander and Prince Constantine and the ensuing results. I think that I’d like to include portions of this in my paper, in addition to a paragraph on pg 84 where Elizabeth includes a letter that Catherine wrote to her husband, thanking him for his services.
Dimsdale, Thomas. Thoughts on General and Partial Inoculations (Eighteenth Century Collections Online, Gale, Stanford Libraries. 20 April. 2011)
A text written by Thomas Dimsdale in 1776 during his first trip to Russia, it includes observations about his travels, comparisons of smallpox treatments in England and Russia, and it details the steps that Catherine the Great took to have the poor of St. Petersburg inoculated. Especially if I look at how governments mandated smallpox inoculation, I think this would be a great primary source for Catherine the Great’s approach in Russia.
Dimsdale, Thomas. Observations on the Introduction to the plan of the dispensary for general inoculation (1778, Eighteenth Century Collections Online, Gale, Stanford Libraries)
Discusses the English plan for inoculating the poor and various problems with it. I think it would be a useful primary source text to introduce the problems associated with smallpox inoculations. Namely, that there is still a danger of death and an inoculated patient can still pass on the disease to other people.
Trumbull, Jonathan. A Proclamation (Feb 1, 1777, Early American Imprints, Series 1)
A proclamation reminding citizens of the ban on smallpox inoculations during the winter months, when people are more likely to die from the inoculations. Also provides a glimpse into how inoculations were mandated by the state of Connecticut at the same time that Dimsdale is writing.
Williams, John Several Arguments proving, that inoculating the small pox is not contained in the law of physick, either natural or divine, and therefore unlawful. (Boston, 1721: Early American Imprints, Series 1)
A series of arguments actually written by a number of different authors including Cotton Mather that oppose smallpox inoculations on primarily religious grounds. I would use this source in part to explore the controversy surrounding inoculations.
Colony of Rhode-Island (June, 1776), An Act Permitting the Inoculation of Small Pox to be Permitted Within This Colony.
More on state mandated inoculations.
Secondary Sources:
Becker, Ann. “Smallpox in Washington’s Army: Strategic Implications of the Disease duting the American Revolutionary War” The Journal of Military History, Vol. 68, No. 2 (April, 2004) pg 381-430
Miller, Genevieve. “Smallpox inoculation in England and America: A Reappraisal” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, Vol. 13, No. 4 (October, 1956) pg 476-493.
Clendenning, Philip. “Dr. Thomas Dimsdale and Smallpox Inoculation in Russia.” Oxford Journals, pg 109-125
Description of the aftermath of Dimsdale’s first visit to Russia, and the steps that Catherine the Great took to popularize inoculations.
Hi Cameron, You seem to already have a good sense of the shape your paper will take, which is terrific! I was curious about the Williams source suggesting Americans opposed inoculations on primarily religious grounds. Might you argue that there was something different about importantly religion in England or Russia, or its relation to the state? Or, perhaps your suggestion would be that the religious environments were pretty similar and it just so happened that Russia met Thomas Dimsdale or had Catherine the Great as queen? Then maybe it would be a paper that told an implicit story about how individuals and contingency have shaped bit movements in history?
ReplyDeleteI think it is very interesting that you have the Dr's account as well as his wifes. It might be interesting to get their different perspectives on it to see how inculations and the idea of it were translating to different people. Either way seems like you have a good range of sources!
ReplyDeleteMackenzie Tudor
You have a plethora of interesting and varied sources here, plenty of background and secondary support for when you come up with your main argument - I look forward to seeing what that is!
ReplyDeleteI think your topic is very interesting. Seems like your going into the Enlightenment science vs. religion debate? You've got a great range of primary sources here. It'll be interesting to see the different approaches to inoculation in Russia and America and the different problems that arose.
ReplyDeleteOn first thought, I wonder if there is any fundamental differences in terms of various governmental approaches to the provision of societal welfare measures such as smallpox? Do the same standards for care stay the same across the board: Russia, America, England? If there are differing stances on this issue, this may affect the application/dissemination of smallpox treatment...
ReplyDeleteWow, you have pretty much enought to write a substantial paper, it seems. I think you're writing about the differences in smallpox inoculations in Russia, England, and America, right? Maybe you can focus on differences in treatment based on class, religion, etc.
ReplyDelete