Cotton Mather

From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Jump to: navigation, search
Cotton Mather
Cotton Mather.jpg
Cotton Mather, circa 1700
Born (1663-02-12)February 12, 1663
Boston, Massachusetts Bay Colony
Died February 13, 1728(1728-02-13) (aged 65)
Occupation Minister
Parent(s) Increase Mather and Maria Cotton
Relatives John Cotton and Richard Mather
Appletons' Mather Richard - Cotton signature.png

Cotton Mather, FRS (February 12, 1663 – February 13, 1728; A.B. 1678, Harvard College; A.M. 1681, honorary doctorate 1710, University of Glasgow) was a socially and politically influential New England Puritan minister, prolific author, and pamphleteer. Known for his vigorous support for the Salem witch trials, he also left a scientific legacy due to his hybridization experiments and his promotion of inoculation for disease prevention. He was subsequently denied the Presidency of Harvard College which his father, Increase, had held.

Life and work

Richard Mather
John Cotton (1585–1652)

Mather was born in Boston, Massachusetts Bay Colony, the son of Maria (née Cotton) and Increase Mather, and grandson of both John Cotton and Richard Mather, all also prominent Puritan ministers. Mather was named after his maternal grandfather, John Cotton. He attended Boston Latin School, where his name was posthumously added to its Hall of Fame, and graduated from Harvard in 1678 at age 15. After completing his post-graduate work, he joined his father as assistant pastor of Boston's original North Church (not to be confused with the Anglican/Episcopal Old North Church of Paul Revere fame). In 1685 Mather assumed full responsibilities as pastor of the church.[citation needed]

Mather lived on Hanover Street, Boston, 1688–1718[1]

Mather wrote more than 450 books and pamphlets, and his ubiquitous literary works made him one of the most influential religious leaders in America. Mather set the moral tone in the colonies, and sounded the call for second- and third-generation Puritans, whose parents had left England for the New England colonies of North America, to return to the theological roots of Puritanism. The most important of these, Magnalia Christi Americana (1702), comprises seven distinct books, many of which depict biographical and historical narratives.

From his religious training, Mather viewed the importance of texts for elaborating meaning and for bridging different moments of history—linking, for instance, the Biblical stories of Noah and Abraham with the arrival of such eminent leaders as John Eliot, John Winthrop, and his own father, Increase. Highly influential, Mather was a force to be reckoned with in secular, as well as in spiritual, matters. After the fall of James II of England, in 1688, Mather was among the leaders of the successful revolt against James' governor of the consolidated Dominion of New England, Sir Edmund Andros.

The Mather tomb in Copp's Hill Cemetery

Mather was not known for writing in a neutral, unbiased perspective. Many, if not all, of his writings had bits and pieces of his own personal life in them or were written for personal reasons. According to literary historian Sacvan Bercovitch:[2]

Few puritans more loudly decried the bosom serpent of egotism than did Cotton Mather; none more clearly exemplified it. Explicitly or implicitly, he projects himself everywhere in his writings. In the most direct compensatory sense, he does so by using literature as a means of personal redress. He tells us that he composed his discussions of the family to bless his own, his essays on the riches of Christ to repay his benefactors, his tracts on morality to convert his enemies, his funeral discourses to console himself for the loss of a child, wife, or friend.

Mather influenced early American science. In 1716, because of observations of corn varieties, he conducted one of the first recorded experiments with plant hybridization. This observation was memorialized in a letter to his friend James Petiver:[3]

First: my Friend planted a Row of Indian corn that was Coloured Red and Blue; the rest of the Field being planted with corn of the yellow, which is the most usual color. To the Windward side, this Red and Blue Row, so infected Three or Four whole Rows, as to communicate the same Colour unto them; and part of ye Fifth and some of ye Sixth. But to the Leeward Side, no less than Seven or Eight Rows, had ye same Colour communicated unto them; and some small Impressions were made on those that were yet further off.[4]

In November 1713, Mather's wife, newborn twins, and two-year-old daughter all succumbed during a measles epidemic.[5] Twice widowed, of his 15 children, only two survived Mather, who died on the day after his 65th birthday and was buried on Copp's Hill, near Old North Church.[citation needed]

Boyle's influence on Mather

A huge influence throughout Mather's career was Robert Boyle. Mather read The Usefulness of Experimental Natural Philosophy, which Boyle had written. Mather read Boyle's work closely throughout the 1680s and his early works on science and religion borrowed greatly from it. He used almost identical language to Boyle.[6][page needed]

Increase Mather

Mather's relationship with his own father, Increase Mather, is thought by some to have been strained and difficult. Increase was a pastor of the North Square Church and president of Harvard College; he led an accomplished life. Despite Cotton's efforts, he never became quite as well known and successful in politics as his father. He did surpass his father's output as a writer, writing over 400 books. One of the most public displays of their strained relationship emerged during the witch trials, which Increase Mather reportedly did not support.[7]

Yale College

Cotton Mather helped convince Elihu Yale to make a donation to a new college in New Haven that would come to be Yale College.[8]

Salem witch trials of 1692, The Mather Influence

Mather's contemporary critic, Robert Calef, considered him responsible for laying the very groundwork that inspired the Salem witch trials:[9]

Mr Cotton Mather was the most active and forward of any Minister in the Country in those matters [the Goodwin children and Goody Glover],[10][page needed] taking home one of the Children, and managing such intrigues with that Child, and after printing such an account of the whole, in his Memorable Provinces [published in 1689], as conduced much to the kindling of those Flames, that in Sir Williams time [i.e. Salem Witch Trials] threatened the devouring of this Country."[11]

Historian Charles Wentworth Upham, writing in 1869 says that both Mathers "are answerable... more than almost any other... for the opinions of their time. It was indeed a superstitious age, but made much more so by their operations, influence, and writings, beginning with Increase Mather's movement at the assembly of Ministers in 1681, and ending with Cotton Mather's dealings with the Goodwin children, and the account thereof which he printed [1689] and circulated far and wide."[12][page needed] Upham refers to the afflicted in Salem as the "imitators" of the Goodwin children, whose family's conduct resulted in the hanging of Goodwife Ann Glover.[13]

Mather was influential in the construction of the court for the trials from the beginning. Sir William Phips, governor of the newly chartered Province of Massachusetts Bay, appointed his lieutenant governor, William Stoughton, as head of a special witchcraft tribunal and then as chief justice of the colonial courts, where he presided over the witch trials. According to George Bancroft, Mather had been influential in gaining the politically unpopular Stoughton his appointment as lieutenant governor under Phips through the intervention of Mather's own politically powerful father, Increase. "Intercession had been made by Cotton Mather for the advancement of Stoughton, a man of cold affections, proud, self-willed and covetous of distinction."[14] Apparently Mather saw in Stoughton, a bachelor who had never wed, an ally for church-related matters. Bancroft quotes Mather's reaction to Stoughton's appointment as follows:

"The time for a favor is come", exulted Cotton Mather; "Yea, the set time is come."[15]

Mather claimed not to have attended the trials in Salem (although his father attended the trial of George Burroughs). Two contemporaries, Calef and Thomas Brattle, place him at the executions (see below). Mather began to publicize and celebrate the trials well before they were put to an end: "If in the midst of the many Dissatisfaction among us, the publication of these Trials may promote such a pious Thankfulness unto God, for Justice being so far executed among us, I shall Re-joyce that God is Glorified..." Mather called himself a historian not an advocate, but his writing largely presumes the guilt of the accused and includes such venomous comments as calling Martha Carrier "a rampant hag". Mather referred to George Burroughs—a Harvard alumnus, survivor of Indian attacks in Maine, and unordained minister hanged the same day as Martha Carrier, John Proctor, George Jacobs and John Willard—as a "very puny man" whose "tergiversations, contradictions, and falsehoods" made his testimony not "worth considering".[16][17][page needed]

Use of spectral evidence

Mather's most fatal influence over the trials was in composing the answer to the question of whether or not to allow spectral evidence, that is, allowing the afflicted girls to claim that some invisible ghost of the defendant was tormenting them, and for this to be considered evidence of witchcraft by the defendant, even if the defendant denied it and professed their own strongly held Christian beliefs. An opinion on the matter was sought from the most esteemed ministers of the area and Mather took credit for their response when anonymously celebrating himself years later: "drawn up at their desire, by Cotton Mather the younger, as I have been informed."[18][page needed]

On May 31, 1692, Mather wrote to one of the judges, John Richards, a member of his congregation,[19][page needed] expressing his support of the prosecutions, but cautioning; "do not lay more stress on pure spectral evidence than it will bear ... It is very certain that the Devils have sometimes represented the Shapes of persons not only innocent, but also very virtuous. Though I believe that the just God then ordinarily provides a way for the speedy vindication of the persons thus abused."[20]

Hutchinson sums the letter, "The two first and the last sections of this advice took away the force of all the others, and the prosecutions went on with more vigor than before." (Reprinting the letter years later in Magnalia, Mather notably omitted the fateful "two first and the last" sections.) The original full version of the letter, called Return of the Several Ministers, was dated June 15, 1692, and had been reprinted in late 1692 in the final two pages of Increase Mather's Cases of Conscience. It is a curious document and remains a source of confusion and argument. Calef calls it "perfectly Ambidexter, giving as great as greater Encouragement to proceed in those dark methods, then cautions against them... indeed the Advice then given, looks most like a thing of his Composing, as carrying both Fire to increase and Water to quench the Conflagration."[21][page needed]

Regarding spectral evidence, Upham concludes that "Cotton Mather never in any public writing 'denounced the admission' of it, never advised its absolute exclusion; but on the contrary recognized it as a ground of 'presumption' ... [and once admitted] nothing could stand against it. Character, reason, common sense, were swept away."[12]

The S.G. [Salem Gentlemen] will by no means allow, that any are brought in guilty, and condemned, by virtue of spectre Evidence... but whether it is not purely by virtue of these spectre evidences, that these persons are found guilty, (considering what before has been said,) I leave you, and any man of sense, to judge and determine.

— Thomas Brattle, October 8, 1692.[22]

The later rejection of spectral evidence by Governor Phips and its exclusion from trial beginning in January 1693 immediately brought about far fewer convictions. Also due to a reprieve by Phips, there were no more executions.[12] Bancroft notes that Mather considered witches "among the poor, and vile, and ragged beggars upon Earth",[23] and Bancroft asserts that Mather considered the people against the witch trials to be witch advocates.[23] Calef places Mather at the scene of the execution of George Burroughs (and four others who were executed after Mather spoke) and shows him playing a direct and influential role:

Mr. Buroughs (sic) was carried in a Cart with others, through the streets of Salem, to Execution. When he was upon the Ladder, he made a speech for the clearing of his Innocency, with such Solemn and Serious Expressions as were to the Admiration of all present; his Prayer (which he concluded by repeating the Lord's Prayer) [as witches were not supposed to be able to recite] was so well worded, and uttered with such composedness as such fervency of spirit, as was very Affecting, and drew Tears from many, so that if seemed to some that the spectators would hinder the execution. The accusers said the black Man [Devil] stood and dictated to him. As soon as he was turned off [hung], Mr. Cotton Mather, being mounted upon a Horse, addressed himself to the People, partly to declare that he [Mr. Burroughs] was no ordained Minister, partly to possess the People of his guilt, saying that the devil often had been transformed into the Angel of Light. And this did somewhat appease the People, and the Executions went on; when he [Mr. Burroughs] was cut down, he was dragged by a Halter to a Hole, or Grave, between the Rocks, about two feet deep; his Shirt and Breeches being pulled off, and an old pair of Trousers of one Executed put on his lower parts: he was so put in, together with [John] Willard and [Martha] Carrier, that one of his Hands, and his Chin, and a Foot of one of them, was left uncovered.

— Robert Calef


In the years after the trials, of the principal actors in the trial, whose lives are recorded after, neither he nor Stoughton ever admitted to any misgivings.[24] In the years after the trials, he became an increasingly vehement defender of them. At the request of then Lt.-Gov. Stoughton, Mather wrote Wonders of the Invisible World during the trials, which were published in 1693.[25]:67 The book contained a few of Mather's sermons, the conditions of the colony and a description of witch trials in Europe.[26]:335 He somewhat clarified the contradictory advice he had given in Return of the Several Ministers, by defending the use of spectral evidence.[27] Wonders of the Invisible World appeared at the same time as Increase Mather's Cases of Conscience."[28]

Mather did not sign his name or support his father's book initially:

Oct. 20th, 1692 CM letter to his uncle

There are fourteen worthy ministers that have newly set their hands unto a book now in the press, containing Cases of Conscience about Witchcraft. I did, in my Conscience think, that as the humors of this people now run, such a discourse going alone would not only enable the witch-advocates, very learnedly to cavil and nibble at the late proceedings against the witches, considered in parcels, while things as they lay in bulk, with their whole dependencies, were not exposed; but also everlastingly stifle any further proceedings of justice & more than so produce a public & open contest with the judges who would (tho beyond the intention of the worthy author & subscribers) find themselves brought unto the bar before the rashest mobile [mob] — October 20, 1692 letter to his uncle John Cotton.[29][page needed]

The last event in Mather's involvement with witchcraft was his attempt to cure Mercy Short and Margaret Rule.[30] Boston merchant Robert Calef began his eight-year campaign against the influential Mathers.[31] Calef's book was inspired by the fear that Mather would succeed in once again stirring up new witchcraft trials, and the need to bear witness to the horrible experiences of 1692. He quotes the public apologies of the men on the jury and one of the judges. Upon reading Calef's More Wonders of the Invisible World, Increase Mather, Cotton's father, publicly burned the book in Harvard Yard.[32]

Poole vs. Upham

In 1869, William Frederick Poole quoted from various school textbooks of the time demonstrating they were in agreement on Cotton Mather's role in the Witch Trials:

If anyone imagines that we are stating the case too strongly, let him try an experiment with the first bright boy he meets by asking,...

'Who got up Salem Witchcraft?'... he will reply, 'Cotton Mather'. Let him try another boy...
'Who was Cotton Mather?' and the answer will come, 'The man who was on horseback, and hung witches.'[33]

Poole was a librarian, and a lover of literature, including Mather's Magnalia "and other books and tracts, numbering nearly 400 [which] were never so prized by collectors as today." Poole announced his intention to redeem Mather's name, using as a springboard a harsh critique of a recently published tome by Charles Wentworth Upham, Salem Witchcraft Volumes I and II With an Account of Salem Village and a History of Opinions on Witchcraft and Kindred Subjects, which runs to almost 1,000 pages, and a quick search of the name Mather (referring to either father, son, or ancestors) shows that it occurs 96 times. Poole's critique, in book form, runs less than 70 pages but the name "Mather" occurs many more times than the other book, which is more than ten times as long. Upham shows a balanced and complicated view of Cotton Mather, such as this first mention: "One of Cotton Mather's most characteristic productions is the tribute to his venerated master. It flows from a heart warm with gratitude." Upham's book refers to Robert Calef no fewer than 25 times with the majority of these regarding documents compiled by Calef in the mid-1690s and stating: "Although zealously devoted to the work of exposing the enormities connected with the witchcraft prosecutions, there is no ground to dispute the veracity of Calef as to matters of fact." He goes on to say that Calef's collection of writings "gave a shock to Mather's influence, from which it never recovered."[citation needed]

Calef produced only the one book; he is self-effacing and apologetic for his limitations, and on the title page he is listed not as author but "collector". Poole, champion of literature, cannot accept Calef whose "faculties, as indicated by his writings appear to us to have been of an inferior order;..." and his book "in our opinon, has a reputation much beyond its merits." Poole refers to Calef as Mather's "personal enemy" and opens a line, "Without discussing the character and motives of Calef..." but does not follow up on this suggestive comment to discuss any actual or purported motive or reason to impune Calef. Upham responded to Poole in a book running five times as long and sharing the same title (referring to Poole as "the Reviewer.") Many of Poole's arguments were addressed, but both authors emphasize the importance of Cotton Mather's difficult and contradictory view on spectral evidence, as copied in the final pages, called "The Return of Several Ministers", of Increase Mather's "Cases of Conscience".[34]

In 1914, historian George Lincoln Burr sided with Upham in a note on Thomas Brattle's letter, "The strange suggestion of W. F. Poole that Brattle here means Cotton Mather himself, is adequately answered by Upham..." Burr reprinted Calef in full and dug deep into the historical record for information on the man and concludes "...that he had else any grievance against the Mathers or their colleagues there is no reason to think." Burr finds that a comparison between Calef's work and original documents in the historical record collections "testify to the care and exactness..."[citation needed]

Mather Revivalists: 20th Century Revision

Following the Poole vs Upham debate, a handful of influential scholars began to demonstrate a desire to expunge the record of the Mathers. A survey:

1891 Cotton Mather, The Puritan Priest by Barret Wendall. An English professor at Harvard University, Wendall played a leading role in the Mather revival, but he might have been surprised to see how far the wheel turned. His book often expresses agreement with Upham, and unlike Poole, he is meek and nuanced in announcing an intention to merely show Cotton Mather in a more positive light. “[Cotton Mather] gave utterance to many hasty things not always consistent with fact or with each other...” And some pages later: “[Robert] Calef’s temper was that of the rational Eighteenth century; the Mathers belonged rather to the Sixteenth, the age of passionate religious enthusiasm.”

1892 Life and Times of Cotton Mather by Rev. Abijah P. Marvin, published by Congregational Sunday School and Publishing society. This work tends to paraphrase Cotton Mather’s artfully constructed diary. Marvin presents a lengthy critique of Robert Calef.

1925 Increase Mather, The Foremost American Puritan by Kenneth B. Murdock, Harvard University Press. Murdock studied under Wendall and is also critical of Cotton Mather, but in a strong desire to show Increase Mather in a positive light he omits much.

1940 Cotton Mather, A Bibliography by TJ Holmes, Harvard University Press. Holmes was Librarian at the William G. Mather Library. His notes are pugilistic and pro-Mather. But Holmes published, for the first time, Cotton Mather’s October 20, 1692 letter (see above) to his uncle opposing an end to the trials.

1971 Selected Letters of Cotton Mather by Ken Silverman, Louisiana State University Press. On page 31, Silverman writes, “Actually, Mather had very little to do with the trials.” Twelve pages later he publishes, for the first time, to chief judge William Stoughton on September 2, 1692, in which Cotton Mather writes “... I hope I can may say that one half of my endeavors to serve you have not been told or seen.” And continues, “I have labored to divert the thoughts of my readers with something of a designed contrivance...”

1971 The Admirable Cotton Mather by James Playsted Wood. A young adult book. In the preface, Wood writes that a “changed attitude” began with Wendall (above), and passed to Murdock (above) and another colleague in the Harvard English Department, Lyman Kittredge.

The intricate relationship of the Mathers to Harvard, with a revisionist movement emerging from the same institution, can, at times, give an uncomfortable aspect of history being bent to team spirit.

Ongoing Revision

Chadwick Hansen's Witchcraft at Salem, published in 1969, defined Mather as a positive influence on the Salem Trials. Hansen considered Mather's handling of the Goodwin children to be sane and temperate.[35] Hansen posited that Mather was more concerned with helping the affected children than witch-hunting.[36] Mather treated the affected children through prayer and fasting.[37] In 1688, Mather tried to convert Goodwife Glover, a Catholic, before she was executed, accused of practicing witchcraft on the Goodwin children. Hansen claimed Mather acted as a moderating influence in the trials by opposing the death penalty for those who confessed — or feigned confession — such as Tituba and Dorcas Good.[38] Hansen claims that most negative impressions of Mather stem from his defense of the ongoing trials in Wonders of the Invisible World. After some others had lamented the roles they played in the executions and imprisonments, Mather and Stoughton remained the chief defenders of the trials, which diminishes the view of him as a moderate influence.[39]

Historian Larry Gragg highlights Mather's cloudy thinking and confusion between sympathy for the possessed, and the boundlessness of spectral evidence when Mather stated, "the devil have sometimes represented the shapes of persons not only innocent, but also the very virtuous."[40]:88

Writing in the early 1980s, historian John Demos imputed to Mather a purportedly moderating influence on the trials.[41]:305

Smallpox Inoculation Controversy

The practice of smallpox inoculation (as opposed to the later practice of vaccination) was developed possibly in 8th-century India[42] or 10th-century China.[43] Spreading its reach in seventeenth-century Turkey, inoculation or, rather, variolation, involved infecting a person via a cut in the skin with exudate from a patient with a relatively mild case of smallpox (variola), in order to bring about a manageable and recoverable infection that would provide later immunity. By the beginning of the 18th century, the Royal Society in England was discussing the practice of inoculation, and the smallpox epidemic in 1713 spurred further interest.[44] It was not until 1721, however, that England recorded its first case of inoculation.[citation needed]

Early New England

Smallpox was a serious threat in colonial America, most devastating to Native Americans, but also to Anglo-American settlers. New England suffered smallpox epidemics in 1677, 1689–90, and 1702.[45] It was highly contagious, and mortality could reach as high as 30 percent.[46] Boston had been plagued by smallpox outbreaks in 1690 and 1702. During this era, public authorities in Massachusetts dealt with the threat primarily by means of quarantine. Incoming ships were quarantined in Boston harbor, and any smallpox patients in town were held under guard or in a "pesthouse".[47]

In 1706, Mather's slave, Onesimus, explained to Mather how he had been inoculated as a child in Africa.[48] Mather was fascinated by the idea. By July 1716, he had read an endorsement of inoculation by Dr Emanuel Timonius of Constantinople in the Philosophical Transactions. Mather then declared, in a letter to Dr John Woodward of Gresham College in London, that he planned to press Boston's doctors to adopt the practice of inoculation should smallpox reach the colony again.[49]

By 1721, a whole generation of young Bostonians was vulnerable and memories of the last epidemic's horrors had by and large disappeared.[50] On April 22 of that year, the HMS Seahorse arrived from the West Indies carrying smallpox on board. Despite attempts to protect the town through quarantine, eight known cases of smallpox appeared in Boston by May 27, and by mid-June, the disease was spreading at an alarming rate. As a new wave of smallpox hit the area and continued to spread, many residents fled to outlying rural settlements. The combination of exodus, quarantine, and outside traders' fears disrupted business in the capital of the Bay Colony for weeks. Guards were stationed at the House of Representatives to keep Bostonians from entering without special permission. The death toll reached 101 in September, and the Selectmen, powerless to stop it, "severely limited the length of time funeral bells could toll."[51] As one response, legislators delegated a thousand pounds from the treasury to help the people who, under these conditions, could no longer support their families.[citation needed]

On June 6, 1721, Mather sent an abstract of reports on inoculation by Timonius and Jacobus Pylarinus to local physicians, urging them to consult about the matter. He received no response. Next, Mather pleaded his case to Dr. Zabdiel Boylston, who tried the procedure on his only son and two slaves—one grown and one a boy. All recovered in about a week. Boylston inoculated seven more people by mid-July. The epidemic peaked in October 1721, with 411 deaths; by February 26, 1722, Boston was again free from smallpox. The total number of cases since April 1721 came to 5,889, with 844 deaths—more than three-quarters of all the deaths in Boston during 1721.[52] Meanwhile, Boylston had inoculated 287 people, with six resulting deaths.[53]

Inoculation debate

Boylston and Mather's inoculation crusade "raised a horrid Clamour"[54] among the people of Boston. Both Boylston and Mather were "Object[s] of their Fury; their furious Obloquies and Invectives", which Mather acknowledges in his diary. Boston's Selectmen, consulting a doctor who claimed that the practice caused many deaths and only spread the infection, forbade Boylston from performing it again.[55]

The New-England Courant published writers who opposed the practice. The editorial stance was that the Boston populace feared that inoculation spread, rather than prevented, the disease; however, some historians, notably H. W. Brands, have argued that this position was a result of the contrarian positions of editor-in-chief James Franklin (a brother of Benjamin Franklin).[56]

Public discourse ranged in tone from organized arguments by Reverend John Williams from Boston, who posted that "several arguments proving that inoculating the smallpox is not contained in the law of Physick, either natural or divine, and therefore unlawful",[57] to those put forth in a pamphlet by Dr. William Douglass of Boston, entitled The Abuses and Scandals of Some Late Pamphlets in Favour of Inoculation of the Small Pox (1721), on the qualifications of inoculation's proponents. (Douglass was exceptional at the time for holding a medical degree from Europe.) At the extreme, in November 1721, someone hurled a lighted grenade into Mather's home.[58]

Medical opposition

Several opponents of smallpox inoculation, among them Rev. John Williams, stated that there were only two laws of physick (medicine): sympathy and antipathy. In his estimation, inoculation was neither a sympathy toward a wound or a disease, or an antipathy toward one, but the creation of one. For this reason, its practice violated the natural laws of medicine, transforming health care practitioners into those who harm rather than heal.[59]

As with many colonists, Williams' Puritan beliefs were enmeshed in every aspect of his life, and he used the Bible to state his case. He quoted Matthew 9:12, when Jesus said: "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick." Dr. William Douglass proposed a more secular argument against inoculation, stressing the importance of reason over passion and urging the public to be pragmatic in their choices. In addition, he demanded that ministers leave the practice of medicine to physicians, and not meddle in areas where they lacked expertise. According to Douglass, smallpox inoculation was "a medical experiment of consequence," one not to be undertaken lightly. He believed that not all learned individuals were qualified to doctor others, and while ministers took on several roles in the early years of the colony, including that of caring for the sick, they were now expected to stay out of state and civil affairs. Douglass felt that inoculation caused more deaths than it prevented. The only reason Mather had had success in it, he said, was because Mather had used it on children, who are naturally more resilient. Douglass vowed to always speak out against "the wickedness of spreading infection".[60] Speak out he did: "The battle between these two prestigious adversaries [Douglass and Mather] lasted far longer than the epidemic itself, and the literature accompanying the controversy was both vast and venomous."[61]

Puritan resistance

Generally, Puritan pastors favored the inoculation experiments. Increase Mather, Cotton's father, was joined by prominent pastors Benjamin Colman and William Cooper in openly propagating the use of inoculations.[62] "One of the classic assumptions of the Puritan mind was that the will of God was to be discerned in nature as well as in revelation."[63] Nevertheless, Williams questioned whether the smallpox "is not one of the strange works of God; and whether inoculation of it be not a fighting with the most High." He also asked his readers if the smallpox epidemic may have been given to them by God as "punishment for sin," and warned that attempting to shield themselves from God's fury (via inoculation), would only serve to "provoke him more".[64]

Puritans found meaning in affliction, and they did not yet know why God was showing them disfavor through smallpox. Not to address their errant ways before attempting a cure could set them back in their "errand". Many Puritans believed that creating a wound and inserting poison was doing violence and therefore was antithetical to the healing art. They grappled with adhering to the Ten Commandments, with being proper church members and good caring neighbors. The apparent contradiction between harming or murdering a neighbor through inoculation and the Sixth Commandment – "thou shalt not kill" — seemed insoluble and hence stood as one of the main objections against the procedure. Williams maintained that because the subject of inoculation could not be found in the Bible, it was not the will of God, and therefore "unlawful."[65] He explained that inoculation violated The Golden Rule, because if one neighbor voluntarily infected another with disease, he was not doing unto others as he would have done to him. With the Bible as the Puritans' source for all decision-making, lack of scriptural evidence concerned many, and Williams vocally scorned Mather for not being able to reference an inoculation edict directly from the Bible.[66]

Inoculation defended

With the smallpox epidemic catching speed and racking up a staggering death toll, a solution to the crisis was becoming more urgently needed by the day. The use of quarantine and various other efforts, such as balancing the body's humors, did not slow the spread of the disease. As news rolled in from town to town and correspondence arrived from overseas, reports of horrific stories of suffering and loss due to smallpox stirred mass panic among the people. "By circa 1700, smallpox had become among the most devastating of epidemic diseases circulating in the Atlantic world."[67]

Mather strongly challenged the perception that inoculation was against the will of God and argued that the procedure was not outside of Puritan principles. He wrote that "whether a Christian may not employ this Medicine (let the matter of it be what it will) and humbly give Thanks to God's good Providence in discovering of it to a miserable World; and humbly look up to His Good Providence (as we do in the use of any other Medicine) It may seem strange, that any wise Christian cannot answer it. And how strangely do Men that call themselves Physicians betray their Anatomy, and their Philosophy, as well as their Divinity in their invectives against this Practice?"[68] The Puritan minister began to embrace the sentiment that smallpox was an inevitability for anyone, both the good and the wicked, yet God had provided them with the means to save themselves. Mather reported that, from his view, "none that have used it ever died of the Small Pox, tho at the same time, it were so malignant, that at least half the People died, that were infected With it in the Common way."[69]

While Mather was experimenting with the procedure, prominent Puritan pastors Benjamin Colman and William Cooper expressed public and theological support for them.[70] The practice of smallpox inoculation was eventually accepted by the general population due to first-hand experiences and personal relationships. Although many were initially wary of the concept, it was because people were able to witness the procedure's consistently positive results, within their own community of ordinary citizens, that it became widely utilized and supported. One important change in the practice after 1721 was regulated quarantine of innoculees.[71]

The aftermath

Although Mather and Boylston were able to demonstrate the efficacy of the practice, the debate over inoculation would continue even beyond the epidemic of 1721–22. After overcoming considerable difficulty and achieving notable success, Boylston traveled to London in 1725 where he published his results and was elected to the Royal Society in 1726.[citation needed]



Boston Ephemeris

The Boston Ephemeris was an almanac written by Mather in 1686. The content was similar to what is known today as the Farmer's Almanac. This was particularly important because it shows that Cotton Mather had influence in mathematics during the time of Puritan New England. This almanac contained a significant amount of astronomy, celestial within the text of the almanac the positions and motions of these celestial bodies, which he must have calculated by hand.[72][page needed]

The Biblia Americana

When Mather died, he left behind an abundance of unfinished writings, including one entitled The Biblia Americana. Mather believed that Biblia Americana was the best thing he had ever written; his masterwork.[73] Biblia Americana contained Mather's thoughts and opinions on the Bible and how he interpreted it. Biblia Americana is incredibly large, and Mather worked on it from 1693 until 1728, when he died. Mather tried to convince others that philosophy and science could work together with religion instead of against it. People did not have to choose one or the other. In Biblia Americana, Mather looked at the Bible through a scientific perspective, completely opposite to his perspective in The Christian Philosopher, in which he approached science in a religious manner.[74]

Pillars of Salt

Mather's first published sermon, printed in 1686, concerned the execution of James Morgan, convicted of murder. Thirteen years later, Mather published the sermon in a compilation, along with other similar works, called Pillars of Salt.[75]

Magnalia Christi Americana

Magnalia Christi Americana, considered Mather's greatest work, was published in 1702, when he was 39. The book includes several biographies of saints[vague] and describes the process of the New England settlement.[76] In this context "saints" does not refer to the canonized saints of the Catholic church, but to those Puritan divines about whom Mather is writing. It comprises seven total books, including Pietas in Patriam: The life of His Excellency Sir William Phips, originally published anonymously in London in 1697. Despite being one of Mather's best-known works, many have openly criticized it[by whom?], labeling it as hard to follow and understand, and poorly paced and organized. However, other critics have praised Mather's work, citing it as one of the best efforts at properly documenting the establishment of America and growth of the people.[77]

The Christian Philosopher

In 1721, Mather published The Christian Philosopher, the first systematic book on science published in America. Mather attempted to show how Newtonian science and religion were in harmony. It was in part based on Robert Boyle's The Christian Virtuoso (1690). Mather reportedly took inspiration from Hayy ibn Yaqdhan, by the 12th-century Islamic philosopher Abu Bakr Ibn Tufail.[citation needed]

Despite condemning the "Mahometans" as infidels, Mather viewed the novel's protagonist, Hayy, as a model for his ideal Christian philosopher and monotheistic scientist. Mather viewed Hayy as a noble savage and applied this in the context of attempting to understand the Native American Indians, in order to convert them to Puritan Christianity. Mather's short treatise on the Lord's Supper was later translated by his nephew Josiah Cotton in the Massachusett.[78]

Minor works

  • Mather, Cotton (2001) [1689], A Family, Well-Ordered<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.

In popular culture

Cotton Mather is played by Seth Gabel (as "Reverend Cotton Mather") in the 2014 TV series Salem.[citation needed]

See also


  1. Forty of Boston's historic houses, State Street Trust Co, 1912<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
  2. Bercovitch 1972, p. 106
  3. Zirkle 1935, p. 104
  4. Zirkle 1935, p. 105
  5. Hostetter, Margaret Kendrick (April 5, 2012). "What We Don't See". The New England Journal of Medicine. 366: 1328–34. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1111421. Retrieved April 6, 2012.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  6. Middlekauff, Robert (1999), The Mathers: Three Generations of Puritan Intellectuals, 1596–1728, Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
  7. Hovey, pp. 531–32
  8. Profile, Yale University, retrieved December 25, 2014<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
  9. Calef 1700, p. 152.
  10. Hansen 1969.
  11. Calef, Robert (1700), More Wonders of the Invisible World, London, UK: Nath Hillar on London Bridge, p. 156<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  12. 12.0 12.1 12.2 Upham, Charles (1859), Salem Witchcraft, New York: Frederick Ungar, ISBN 0-548-15034-6<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
  13. Upham 1869, p. 603.
  14. Bancroft 1874–1878, p. 83.
  15. Bancroft 1874–1878, p. 84.
  16. Stacy Schiff. "The Witches of Salem: Diabolical doings in a Puritan village", The New Yorker, September 7, 2015, pp. 46-55.
  17. Wonders of the Invisible World<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
  18. Anonymous (1697), The Life of Sir William Phips, London, UK<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
  19. Upham 1869.
  20. Mather, Cotton (1971). Silverman, Kenneth (ed.). Selected Letters. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana State University Press. pp. 35–40. ISBN 0-8071-0920-7. |access-date= requires |url= (help)<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  21. Upham 1859.
  22. Burr, George Lincoln. Narrative of Witchcraft Cases 1648–1706. University of Virginia Library: Electronic Text Center.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  23. 23.0 23.1 Bancroft 1874–1878, p. 85.
  24. Bancroft 1874–1878, p. 98.
  25. Levy, Babette (1979). Cotton Mather. Boston: Twayne. ISBN 0-8057-7261-8.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  26. Craker, Wendel D. (1997), "Spectral Evidence, Non-Spectral acts of Witchcraft, and Confessions at Salem in 1692", The Historical Journal, 40 (2)<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  27. Hansen 1969, p. 209.
  28. Breslaw 2000, p. 455.
  29. Holmes, Thomas James (1974), Cotton Mather: A Bibliography of His Works, Crofton<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
  30. Lovelace 1979, p. 202.
  31. Breslaw 2000.
  32. Lovelace 1979, p. 22.
  33. Poole, William Frederick (1869). Cotton Mather and Salem Witchcraft. Cambridge: University Press: Welch, Bigelow, & Co. p. 67.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  34. Mather, Witchcraft, University of Virginia<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
  35. Hansen 1969, p. 168.
  36. Hansen 1969, p. 60.
  37. Hansen 1969, p. 24.
  38. Hansen 1969, pp. 23-24.
  39. Hansen 1969, p. 189.
  40. Gregg, Larry (1992). The Salem Witch Crisis. New York: Praeger.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  41. Demos, John (2004). Entertaining Satan: Witchcraft and the Culture of Early New England. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-503131-8.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  42. Hopkins, Donald R. (2002). The Greatest Killer: Smallpox in History; ISBN 0-226-35168-8, p. 140.
  43. Needham, Joseph (2000), Part 6, Medicine, Science and Civilization in China, 6. Biology and Biological Technology, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, p. 154<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
  44. Blake 1952, pp. 489–90
  45. Aronson and Newman 2002
  46. Gronim 2007, p. 248.
  47. Blake 1952, p. 489
  48. Niven, Steven J. (2013). "Onesimus (fl. 1706–1717), slave and medical pioneer, was born in the..." Hutchins center. Harvard College. Retrieved September 21, 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  49. Blake 1952, pp. 490–91
  50. Winslow 1974, pp. 24–29
  51. Blake 1952, p. 495
  52. Blake 1952, p. 496
  53. Best, M (2007). "Making the right decision: Benjamin Franklin's son dies of smallpox in 1736". Qual Saf Health Care. 16 (6): 478–80. doi:10.1136/qshc.2007.023465. PMC 2653186. PMID 18055894. Retrieved September 13, 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  54. Mather 1911–1912, pp. 11, 628.
  55. Blake 1952, p. 493.
  56. The Smallpox Inoculation Hospital at St. Pancras, UK: BL, 2003-11-30, retrieved 2013-07-15<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  57. Williams 1721.
  58. Blake 1952, p. 495.
  59. Williams 1721, p. 13.
  60. Douglass 1722, p. 11.
  61. Van de Wetering 1985, p. 46.
  62. Stout, The New England Soul, p. 102
  63. Heimert, Alan, Religion and the American Mind, p. 5<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
  64. Williams 1721, p. 4.
  65. Williams 1721, p. 2
  66. Williams 1721, p. 14
  67. Gronim 2007, p. 248.
  68. Mather 1721, p. 25, n. 15.
  69. Mather 1721, p. 2.
  70. Cooper, William (1721), A Letter from a Friend in the Country, Attempting a Solution of the Scruples and Objections of a Conscientious or Religious Nature, Commonly Made Against the New Way of Receiving the Small Pox, Boston: S. Kneeland, pp. 6–7<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> Apparently Cooper, also a minister, wrote this in cooperation with Colman because nearly the same response to the objections to inoculation is published under Colman's name as the last chapter to Colman (1722), A Narrative of the Method and Success of Inoculating the Small Pox in New England<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  71. Van de Wetering 1985, p. 66, n. 55.
  72. Burdick 2009.
  73. Hovey 2009, p. 533.
  74. Smolinski 2009, pp. 280–81.
  75. Mather, Cotton (2008). True Crime: An American Anthology. Library of America. ISBN 978-1-59853-031-5. Retrieved December 10, 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  76. Meyers 2006, pp. 23–24.
  77. Halttunen 1978, p. 311.
  78. "Thanksgiving's Wampanoag call: Come Over and Help Us!". Josiah Cotton. To every tribe. Retrieved September 13, 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>


  • Aronson, Stanley M; Newman, Lucile (2002), God Have Mercy on This House: Being a Brief Chronicle of Smallpox in Colonial New England, Brown University News Service<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
  • Bancroft, George (1874–1878), History of the United States of America, from the discovery of the American continent, Boston: Little, Brown, & co, ISBN 0-665-61404-7<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
  • Bercovitch, Sacvan (1972), "Cotton Mather", in Emerson, Everett (ed.), Major Writers of Early American Literature, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
  • Blake, John B (December 1952), "The Inoculation Controversy in Boston: 1721–1722", The New England Quarterly, 25 (4): 489–506, doi:10.2307/362582<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
  • Boylston, Zabdiel. An Historical Account of the Small-pox Inoculated in New England. London: S. Chandler, 1726.
  • Breslaw, Elaine G (2000), Witches of the Atlantic World: A Historical Reader & Primary Sourcebook, New York: New York University Press, ISBN 0-8147-9850-0<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  • Burdick, Bruce (2009), Mathematical Works Printed in the Americas 1554–1700, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press, ISBN 0-8018-8823-9<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  • Calef, Robert (1700), More Wonders of the Invisible World, London, ENG, UK: Nath Hillar on London Bridge<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
  • Douglass, William (1722), The Abuses and Scandals of Some Late Pamphlets in Favor of Inoculation of the Small Pox, Boston: J. Franklin<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
  • Felker, Christopher D. Reinventing Cotton Mather in the American Renaissance: Magnalia Christi Americana in Hawthorne, Stowe, and Stoddard (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1993); ISBN 1-55553-187-3
  • Gronim, Sara Stidstone (2006), "Imagining Inoculation: Smallpox, the Body, and Social Relations of Healing in the Eighteenth Century", Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 80: 247–68, doi:10.1353/bhm.2006.0057<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
  • Halttunen, Karen (1978), "Cotton Mather and the Meaning of Suffering in the Magnalia Christi Americana", Journal of American Studies, 12 (3): 311–29, doi:10.1017/s0021875800006460, JSTOR 27553427<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
  • Hansen, Chadwick (1969), Witchcraft at Salem, New York: George Braziller, ISBN 0-451-61947-1<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
  • Hovey, Kenneth Alan (2009), "Cotton Mather: 1663–1728", in Lauter, Paul (ed.), Heath Anthology of American Literature, A, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, pp. 531–33<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
  • Kennedy, Rick (2015), The First American Evangelical: A Short Life of Cotton Mather, Eerdmans<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>, xiv, 162 pp.
  • Lovelace, Richard F (1979), The American Pietism of Cotton Mather: Origins of American Evangelicalism, Grand Rapids, MC; Washington, DC: American University Press; Christian College Consortium, ISBN 0-8028-1750-5<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
  • Mather, Cotton (1911–1912), Diary, Collections, vii–viii, Massachusetts Historical Society<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
  • ——— (1995), Smolinski, Reiner (ed.), The Threefold Paradise of Cotton Mather: An Edition of 'Triparadisus', Athens and London: University of Georgia Press, ISBN 0-8203-1519-2<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
  • ——— (2010), Smolinski, Reiner (ed.), Biblia Americana (edited, with an introduction and annotations), 1: Genesis, Grand Rapids and Tuebingen: Baker Academic and Mohr Siebeck, ISBN 978-0-8010-3900-3<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
  • Mather, Increase (1692) Cases of Conscience from University of Virginia Special Collections Library.
  • Meyers, Karen (2006), Colonialism and the Revolutionary Period (Beginning–1800): American Literature in its Historical, Cultural, and Social Contexts, New York: DWJ<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
  • Middlekauff, Robert. The Mathers: Three Generations of Puritan Intellectuals, 1596–1728, ISBN 0-520-21930-9
  • Monaghan, E. Jennifer (2005,7) Learning to Read and Write in Colonial America; ISBN 978-1-55849-581-4
  • Montagu, Mary Wortley (1763), Letters of the Right Honourable Lady M—y W—y M—e (3 vols)|format= requires |url= (help), London: T. Becket and P.A. de Hondt<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
  • Silverman, Kenneth. The Life and Times of Cotton Mather; ISBN 1-56649-206-8
  • Smolinski, Reiner (2006), "Authority and Interpretation: Cotton Mather's Response to the European Spinozists", in Williamson, Arthur; MacInnes, Allan (eds.), Shaping the Stuart World, 1603–1714: The Atlantic Connection, Leyden: Brill, pp. 175–203<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
  • ——— (November 3, 2009) [2008], "How to Go to Heaven, or How to Heaven Goes? Natural Science and Interpretation in Cotton Mather's Biblia Americana (1693–1728)", The New England Quarterly, Farmville, VA: MIT Press Journals, Longwood University Library, 81 (2): 278–329, doi:10.1162/tneq.2008.81.2.278<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
  • Upham, Charles Wentworth (1859), Salem Witchcraft, New York: Frederick Ungar, ISBN 0-548-15034-6<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
  • ——— (1869), Salem Witchcraft and Cotton Mather, A Reply, Morrisania, Bronx: Project Gutenberg<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
  • Van De Wetering, Maxine (March 1985), "A Reconsideration of the Inoculation Controversy", The New England Quarterly, 58 (1): 46–67, doi:10.2307/365262<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
  • Wendell, Barrett (1891), Cotton Mather, the Puritan priest, New York: Dodd, Mead & co<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
  • White, Andrew (2010), "Zabdiel Boylston and Innoculation", Today In Science History<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
  • Williams, John (1721), Several Arguments Proving that Inoculating the Smallpox is not Contained in the Law of Physick, Boston: J. Franklin<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
  • Winslow, Ola Elizabeth (1974), A Destroying Angel: The Conquest of Smallpox in Colonial Boston, Boston: Houghton Mifflin<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.
  • Zirkle, Conway (1935), The beginnings of plant hybridization, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>.

External links