18세기 초 식민지 보스턴에서 감염병 통제, 인두법, 그리고 정치 = Infectious Disease Control, Smallpox Inoculation, and Politics in Early 18th Century Colonial Boston

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In response to the public’s fear of a large-scale smallpox epidemic, in the mid- seventeenth to early eighteenth centuries, colonial Boston adopted rudimentary public health policies including sanitary and quarantine laws. Local physician Zabdiel Boylston (1679 -1766) first used the inoculation procedure in Boston amid the 1721 -1722 smallpox epidemic. His practice provoked considerable opposition, for the inoculation procedure itself created new cases of smallpox, and these contagious persons were subject to traditional public health controls.
The Boston “Inoculation Controversy” has frequently been a lens through which historians have observed a changing colonial society and medical world. As the town in which began the triumphant history of inoculation and vaccination in America, Boston has taken pride in its historical connection to the introduction of these medical technologies； accordingly, a huge historical literature focuses on smallpox in this colonial town. Most of the substantial works on the early reception of inoculation ideas in Boston show an intense interest in the controversies swirling around the procedures adoption or rejection.
This article, however, will examine the familiar history of the inoculation controversy from another perspective-the connection between Bostonians’ struggle for political autonomy and the development of local public health policy will be considered as important as the debate over inoculation. In the late seventeenth century, Boston became a provincial hub within the British Empire, and local events, including inoculation, reflected simultaneous assimilation into and distinction from the mother country. Smallpox control often prompted local debates about Boston’s relationship to Britain, namely concerns about local governing autonomy and contests for authority prior to inoculation. This article will summarize changes to public health law to show how inoculation fueled the burgeoning conflict between local governing bodies and imperial political authorities, as well as illustrate how preexisting political tensions in colonial Boston heightened the chasm between inoculation and anti-inoculation supporters.