39 8 . Hi/lory and Antiquity of the Cozv-PocL 



able fources, and, fa far we know, without communication 

 with one, another, feems to place the fad beyond the reach 

 of doubt. We (late them as they feverally came to out 

 hands. 



I' i. Dr. William Buet, of Sheffield, in the ftateof Maf- 

 fachufeUs, in a letter to Dr. JViiller, dated 20th May, 1801, 

 defcribes the cafe of a lad, in his neighbourhood, affected 

 with an eruption on his face and hands, greatly refembling 

 vaccine puftules, to whom he was called on the tothof the 

 preceding month. With matter taken from thefe puftules he 

 inoculated feveral perfons, and obferved the difeafe to purfue 

 a fimi : ar courfe, and to exhibit fimilar phenomena, to a cafe 

 of actual vaccine-pox then under his care. And after the 

 termination of this new difeafe, he tefted it, as ufual, by 

 variolous inoculation, with the fame happy refult as in other 

 cafes of the vaccine-pox. Upon inquiry, he found the lad 

 had fometimes milked cows, that thefe cows had been ob- 

 ferved to have fore teats, and that the hands and face of the 

 lad had been prepared for the reception of the difeafe, by 

 having been preyioufly fcratched in play by his companions. 



" 2. Dr. Elifha North, of Gofhen, in the ftate of Connec- 

 ticut, who has beftowed much attention on the vaccine 

 difeafe, has found it among the cows of that neighbourhood, 

 and inoculated it with fuccefs. In a letter of the 2^th of 

 May laft to Dr. Miller, he announces the difcovery, and 

 that the inoculation of the difeafe had been tried in a num- 

 ber of inftances with complete effecl:. 



" 3. Dr. Jofeph Trowbridge, of Danbury, in the ftateof 

 Connecticut, in a letter to Dr. Mitchill, dated 6th of July, 

 1 80 1, communicates a fimilar difcovery which he has made 

 among the cows of that place. At that time he had inocu- 

 lated three perfons of his own familv, and the difeafe pro- 

 duced by the inoculation exhibited all the appearances of the 

 genuine vaccine-pox. 



" Since our laft Number, the vaccine difeafe, apparently 

 genuine, has been introduced and propagated in this city 

 (New-York). The prefent feafon of the year, which, ac- 

 cording to popular prejudice, is deemed unfavourable to in- 

 oculation, has hitherto prevented the difeafe from being em- 

 ployed frequently or generally : and the ufual baniftiment of 

 thefmall-pox at this time renders it more difficult to apply 

 as a teft of the genuinenefs of the few cafes of vaccine- pox 

 which have yet occurred. We hope to be able to offer a 

 more fatisfacWy account of the progrefs of the difeafe in 

 our next Number." 



The 



