The Bloodless Revolution

by Tristram Stuart

  15 Ovid (1632), Sandys’ commentary, Bk I and Bk XV.

  16 Bushell (1659), ‘To the reader’, sig.A3r.

  17 Bushell (1659), ‘Post-Script’, pp.4–8; cf. Hill (1991), p.27. For Rosicrucian vegetarianism, cf. e.g. Heydon (1662), Bk I.14, Bk III.1, 26–32, 106.

  18 cf. e.g. Dornavius (1619); Volckerstorff (1721), I.i.

  19 Bacon does not explicitly state this view, but see Bacon (1650), pp.15ff, 21.

  20 Culpeper (1656), p.21; cf. Parkinson (1629) and especially Tryon (1691a), p.217.

  21 Coudert (1999), p.74.

  22 Passmore (1974), pp.18–20; Webster (1975), pp.25–7; Garber and Ayers eds (1998), p.395.

  23 Bacon (1640), p.382; Turner (1980), p.3n; Proverbs 12:10; Almond (1999), pp.124–5; Ray (1717), pp.55–6. Bacon’s subsequent comments on the kindness of Turks to animals could have come from George Sandys (1610–11) repr. in Purchas ed., (1905–7), VIII.135–6. For Bacon’s other comments on Pythagoras and the Brahmins, cf. e.g. Bacon (1996), II.640–1; V.422 and especially IV.377.

  24 Powicke ed., (1926), p.197; cit. Almond (1999), p.119.

  CHAPTER 2

  1 Garment (1651), p.4; Anon. (1651a), pp.3, 7–9, 12–13; H[all?], G. (1651), pp.2–3; PA (1651) no. 21, p.166; Taylor (1651), p.2; Reeve [and Muggleton?] (1711), pp.6, 9–13; Muggleton (1699), pp.20–2, 45–6; Hill (1983), p.67; Ariel Hessayon, ‘John Robins’, ODNB; Greaves and Zaller eds, (1982–4), III.100–1; Hopton, ed. (1992). Jacob Böhme and George Fox similarly tried to speak the Adamic language; cf. Thune (1948), pp.63–4, 159–60.

  2 Katz (1982), p.120.

  3 Hill, Reay and Lamont (1983), pp.18–19, 68–70; Hill (1990), pp.160–73; H[all?]., G. (1651); Berckendal (1661); Muggleton (1699), p.47.

  4 Reeve [and Muggleton?] (1711), p.12; H[all?]., G. (1651), p.2; cf. Muggleton (1699), p.22.

  5 Reeve [and Muggleton?] (1711), p.11; cf. Muggleton (1699), p.45.

  6 Muggleton (1699), pp.46–7; H[all?]., G. (1651), p.4; Katz (1982), pp.114–5; Thomas Tany was also accused of witchcraft, (Hill, Reay and Lamont (1983), p.69), as was Roger Crab.

  7 Reeve [and Muggleton?] (1711), p.13.

  8 Hopton, ed. (1992), p.12; PA (1651) no.21, p.166; Reeve [and Muggleton?] (1711), p.12.

  9 Hill, Reay and Lamont (1983), pp.18–19; cf. Thune (1948), p.146. The Robins sect were compared to the Adamites and Familists in Taylor (1651), pp.2–4. For the Adamites and other radical nudists, see Cohn (1970), pp.180–1, 210, 218–21. The frontispiece woodcut in H[all?]., G. (1651) showing naked dancing was used before in Anon. (1650b), which reveals that one of the figures represented was Dr Pordage, the associate of John Robins’ collaborator Thomas Tany, cf. p.3 and Anon. (1650a), p.6.

  10 Muggleton (1699), pp.22–3; Hill (1983), p.68; cf. Hill (1986b), p.63; Katz (1982), p.109.

  11 Garment (1651), p.6.

  12 Muggleton (1699), pp.20–1; Revelation 7:4.

  13 Garment (1651), pp.3–4; Katz (1982), pp.107–26.

  14 Hill, Reay and Lamont (1983), p.69; Hill (1995), p.128. Pythagoras was also said to have circumcised himself, cf. e.g. Ovid (1632), Bk XV, Sandys’ commentary.

  15 Muggleton (1699), pp.20–1, 43–4; PA (1655 [n.s.]), no.210, p.1680; WIC (1655 [n.s.]) 9–17 Jan., pp.154–5; WIC (1655 [n.s.]) 2–9 Jan, pp.151–2, 158; MF (1655 [n.s.]) no.32, 3–10 Jan, front page, p.252 and espec. p.256; PA (1654) no.209; Katz (1982), pp.107–26; Hill, Reay and Lamont (1983), p.69; Hill (1995), pp.128+n, 284; Hill (1990), p.160; Hill (1986a), p.281 and passim; Popkin (1998), p.395; Smith (1989), p.233+n.; Luxon (1993), p.900; Tany (1988), pp.4–8+n.; Hopton, ed. (1992).

  16 Norwood (1651[–2]), p.17; Hill (1995), p.128; Cooper, ed. (1971), p.571; cf. Katz (1982), pp.107–26 espec. p.110.

  17 It has been argued that Blake was a member of, or was influenced by, the Muggletonians, a sect that grew out of, or in opposition to, the Robins sect (cf. Hill (1990), p.323).

  18 H[all?]., G. (1651), p.5.

  19 PA (1651) no.21, p.166.

  20 H[all?]., G. (1651), pp.2–3; cf. Garment (1651), p.4; Muggleton (1699), pp.20–1.

  21 Katz (1982), pp.109–10; Hill (1995), pp.128, 282; Morton (1970), p.92; Almond (1999), p.121; Thomas, K. (1983), pp.289–90; Spencer (1993), pp.204–5; Hopton, ed. (1992); Luxon (1993), p.900; Prest (1981), p.74.

  22 Nigel Smith, ‘Foster, George (fl. 1650)’, ODNB.

  23 H[all?]., G. (1651), p.5.

  24 H[all?]., G. (1651), p.5.

  25 Muggleton (1699), pp.46–7.

  26 Reeve [and Muggleton?] (1711), p.13; cf. Muggleton (1699), pp.46–7.

  27 Field (1685), p.8; [Vaughan, W.] (1633), p.62.

  28 Reeve [and Muggleton?] (1711), p.13; cf. Muggleton (1699), pp.46–7; cf. Field (1685), p.8; cf. pp.A2r, 15, 17; 1 Timothy 4:1–5; cf. St Hippolytus (2005), Bk. vii, ch.12 and Bk. viii, ch.13 (pp.326–7); Jerome (2005a), Bk II, ch.16.

  29 Garment (1651), pp.4–7; H[all?], G. (1651), pp.2–3; Muggleton (1699), pp.20–1; Hill, Reay and Lamont (1983), p.69; Genesis 14:18; Hebrews 6:20; cf. Böhme (1924), pp.398–9; Whiting (1968), pp.255, 316.

  30 Garment (1651), pp.3, 6; cf. Niclaes (1649), pp.143–4 (ch. 11. vs 51–2); Coppe (1651), p.3.

  31 Isaiah 65:25; cf. Isaiah 11:6–9.

  32 Anon. (1650a), pp.4–5; Katz (1982), pp.18–30; Chamberlain (1939), II.140n.; Birch (1849), II.65; Hamilton, W.D., ed. (1873), pp.466–7. Mrs Traske may or may not have been in prison since the time of her husband’s first conviction. cf. Vaughan, W. (1630), p.56.

  33 Scobell (1657–8), pp.124–5, 149–50; Hill (1990), p.157ff.; Hill (1991), p.208; Jones (1909), p.478.

  34 H[all?]. (1651), pp.2–3; Anon. (1651a); Taylor (1651); PA (1651), no.21, p.166; Anon. (1651b), pp.1–5; Katz (1982), pp.111–12; Hopton, ed. (1992); Tany (1988).

  35 Scobell (1657–8), pp.124–5, 149–50; Hill (1990), p.157; Hill (1991), p.208; Jones (1909), p.478.

  36 Hopton, ed. (1992), p.12.

  37 Records based on official interrogation reports (which Christopher Hill considered often biased) state that he and his followers believed he was God. The two pamphlets not relying on government sources report that he and some of his followers explicitly denied he was God (Garment (1651) and H[all?]. (1651)). However, these statements were made after his arrest and could have been tailored to avoid conviction for blasphemy. Garment also denied that they were pantheists, another doctrine outlawed by the Blasphemy Act. Garment (1651); H[all?]., G. (1651), p.6; Anon. (1651a), pp.1–14; Anon. (1651b); Anon. (1654); Hopton, ed. (1992), pp.10–12; Luxon (1993), p.900; cf. Webster (1975), p.13.

  38 Katz (1982), pp.113–14; H[all?]., G. (1651), pp.2–3; Anon. (1651a).

  39 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series 1651–2, p.114, which may be referring to John Robins; Reeve [and Muggleton?] (1711), pp.6–14; Muggleton (1699), pp.38–9, 45–7; Katz (1982), p.115.

  40 Scobell (1657–8), pp.124–5; cf. e.g. Anon. (1650b), p.2; [Clarkson] (1659), p.98ff.; Baxter (1696), p.76.

  41 Bauthumley (1650), pp.3–9; Holland (1650), p.5. cf. O[verton] (1643), pp.17–19; Ecclesiastes 3:19; Böhme (1654), ch. 22, § 4, pp.97–8; Salmon (1651), pp.37–8; Coppin (1649), title page. Hill (1991), pp.204–27; Morton (1970), p.73; Acheson (1990), p.66; Whiting (1968), p.272.

  42 Winstanley (1973), pp.84, 90, 94; Smith (1994), p.334.

  43 Winstanley (1941), pp.82, 157; Hill (1991), pp.139–40, 206; Winstanley (1649), pp.2–4; cf. Mss Rawlinson (Bodleian) D 833, fol.105r–v; Harrison, P. (1993), p.530; cp. Smith (1989), p.258; cf. Winstanley (1973), pp.19, 219; Coppin (1649), Part I, pp.9–10; Bauthumley (1650), pp.4–6; Morton (1970), pp.70–1; Jacob (1981), p.224; Lennon (1993), pp.323–6n.

  44 Winstanley (1649), pp.4, 9–10; cit. Harrison, P. (1993), pp.538–9; cf. Winstanley (1973), pp.219–20, 250; Winstanley (1941), p.156. Hill (1986b), p.90; Böhme (1920), p.426; see ‘Golden Rule’ under ‘Animals’ in index. On Winstanley’s ideas of the Fall, see Winstanley (1973), p.99; cf. Böhme (1894), ch. 4, § 109–10; and compare Winstanley (1942), pp.156
–7 with Böhme (1920), p.426.

  45 Winstanley (1973), p.224; cp. Smith (1994), p.334; Smith (1989), pp.258, 266. It may have been as a result of the conflation of pantheism and vegetarianism that Nigel Smith says that Thomas Tany was vegetarian without providing any evidence (Smith (1999), p.110). There is a danger of reading back into Winstanley views held by others with similar beliefs, like Thomas Tryon; cf. e.g. Tryon (1700), p.86, 127 and pp.63–5 (which Smith cites (Smith (1999), pp.108–9); cf. [Tryon] (1684b), pp.91–4; cf. e.g. Spencer (1993), pp.204–5.

  46 Bauthumley (1650), pp.3–9.

  47 Smith (1994), p.334.

  48 Niclaes (1649), pp.1, 23, 57, 143–4; [Niclaes] (1574), sig.A2v – A5r; Romans 12:18–19; Hebrews 12:14; Exodus 20; Matthew 5; [Niclaes] (1575a?), sig.52v–53r; [Rogers] (1579), sig.Hv.v; Thomas More, Utopia, cit. Williams, Howard (1883), p.93; Hamilton (1981), p.133; Moss (1975); Jundt (1875), p.201. Niclaes did not say that God was limited to the universe, making him a panentheist rather than pantheist.

  49 [Niclaes] (1575a?), sig,55r; cf. sigs.7r, 9v, 54v; Niclaes (1575b?), sig.17r, 45r; Isaiah 11:6–9, 65:25; Hosea 2:18.

  50 Edwards (1645–6), Bk I, p.80; cit. Thomas, K. (1983), pp.290–1. cf. [Niclaes] (1649), p.1. Marshall also preached universal salvation, like John Robins.

  51 Edwards (1645–6), Bk I, pp.21, 35, 80; cf. Edwards (1646), pp.25, 35–6. Edwards echoes Etherington (1645), p.1; cf. Thomas, K. (1983), p.139. For links between Winstanley and the Family of Love, see e.g. Hill (1991), pp.27, 110–87; Berens (1906), cit. Bailey (1914), p.113.

  CHAPTER 3

  1 For Crab’s practices and beliefs which indicate that he was a Baptist, see Edwards (1646), p.110; Crab (1655), pp.8–9; Crab (1657), pp.5–6, 15.

  2 Edwards (1646), p.110; Edwards is often regarded as unreliable (Woolrych (1986), p.97), but in this case the evidence is corroborated by a Parliamentary report.

  3 Fairfax (1647), p.5. This document helps to confirm Crab’s affiliation with the Levellers which Christopher Hill suspected (Hill (1995), p.283). Andrew Hopton and Rick Bowers, who also did not know about these sources, take at face value the claim of Crab’s publisher that Crab was ‘neither for the Levelers, nor Quakers, nor Shakers, nor Ranters’. But the publisher had an interest in making his client as acceptable to the public as possible and by 1655 affiliation with these groups would have been unpopular and dangerous. Bowers (2003), p.93.

  4 PA (1655), no.210, p.1680.

  5 Hessayon, ‘Roger Crab’, ODNB.

  6 Crab (1655), pp.1, 15; Crab (1657), p.17; cf. Winstanley (1973), pp.12, 127; Winstanley (1942), p.188; cf. Crab (1990), p.6.

  7 Hessayon, ‘Roger Crab’, ODNB.

  8 Crab (1655), p.1. For Ranters in Uxbridge cf. Whiting (1968), p.273.

  9 Crab (1655), p.12; cf. Purchas, ed. (1905–7), VIII.211. Crab’s allusion to John the Baptist as a Leveller recalls Winstanley saying in 1650 that ‘Jesus Christ … is the head Leveller’, Hill (1995), p.287.

  10 cf. Goldsmith (1986), pp.70–1.

  11 Crab (1655), pp.7–8; Hill (1995), pp.286–7; Tryon (1700), p.236. Crab even pointed out that shirt-starching was a waste of flour (Crab (1657), p.19).

  12 Crab (1990), pp.4–5.

  13 William Lilly, Bodleian Library, Oxford, Ashm. 427, f.51v; cf. Ashm. 210, f.107v; cit. Thomas, K. (1971), p.373.

  14 Crab (1655), ‘To the Reader’, p.[i].

  15 Crab (1990), p.4.

  16 O[verton] (1643), pp.17–19, 38, 49–51; Harrison, P. (1993), pp.538–9n.; cf. Hildrop (1742–3), p.42; Ecclesiastes 3:19; Thomas, K. (1983), p.139; Harrison, P. (2001), p.210; Bauthumley (1650), pp.3–9; Hill (1991), p.207; Coppin (1649), Part III, p.8; Cudworth (1678), pp.44–5; [Vaughan, T.] (1650), pp.12–13, 15–16; Rudrum (1989).

  17 Crab (1990), pp.4–5.

  18 Crab (1655), p.[ii]; Hill (1995), pp.128, 282–4; Rogers (1903), p.1084; cp. Bowers (2003), p.96; Ariel Hessayon, ‘Robert Norwood’, ODNB.

  19 James Caulfield (1813), II.155–6.

  20 Winstanley (1973), p.18.

  21 Crab (1990), p.6.

  22 Crab (1655), p.15; Winstanley (1973), pp.289–90; cit. Goldsmith (1986), pp.75, 77. This idea of personal agrarian reform was revived by radicals at the end of the eighteenth century; cf. Shelley, Vind. 15.

  23 cf. e.g. Crab (1657), title page; Hill (1995), pp.286–7.

  24 Strype (1720), II, Appendix 1, p.99; Winstanley (1942), p.111; cit. Harrison, P. (1993), pp.539; Crab (1657), pp.6–7; Goldsmith (1986), pp.67, 70–1.

  25 Woolman (1922), p.306; Turner (1980), pp.6–7, 9.

  26 Christopher Hill says many ex-Leveller Quakers did the same (Hill (1995), p.286).

  27 Crab (1655), p.3.

  28 Crab (1655), pp.3–4; cf. Aquinas (1975), ch.112, § 12–13, pp.118–19. Crab developed this idea further in his description of butchers as bloodthirsty. The reviling of butchers, as a scapegoat for human cruelty to animals, was common; Thomas More’s Utopians gave the job of butchering only to their criminalised bondsmen; cf. also ch. 16 below; Mercerus (1598), ‘Genesis 9:4’, p.197; Hartley (1749), II.222; Blount ([1680?]), pp.58–9; Edwards (1699), I.117–19: ‘Butchers, who kill Beasts, are generally cruel and bloody to Men; and for that reason the Law suffers them not to be on the Jury of Life and Death’; Bernard Mandeville parallels Crab’s reasoning closely in his argument that the consumer is guilty as well as the butcher Mandeville (1924), Remark P, I.173–81; Rousseau was building on Mandeville and probably inherited this idea from him (Rousseau, J.-J. (1979), pp.153–4); Jeremy Bentham in turn repeated Rousseau’s maxim (see ch. 24 below). Keith Thomas says that this common notion that butchers were not allowed to be jurymen has no basis in fact (Thomas, K. (1983), p.295; cf. Fudge (2000), p.132).

  29 Crab (1655), p.4.

  30 Crab (1655), p.3; cf. e.g. 1 Peter 2:11.

  31 Crab (1655), pp.[ii], 1, 3.

  32 Ironically, later in the century, John Edwards, the son of Crab’s anti-vegetarian foe, Thomas Edwards, would come to the same conclusion, Edwards (1699), I.113, 117; cf. e.g. Dupleix (1606), p.189; Browne (1672), Bk III, ch.xxv, pp.189–94; cp. [Hecquet] (1733), I.xiii–xix, 7–8, 16–18, 21, 42–4, 104–10; Reynolds (1725), pp.92–3.

  33 Crab (1657), p.20; Crab (1655), p.3; cf. Rostvig (1954); Smith (1994), p.335; Morton (2002), p.64.

  34 Exodus 16:2–3; Numbers 11:33; cf. Jerome (2005a), Bk I, ch.18, Bk II, chs.15, 17; [Hecquet] (1709), pp.29–30; [Hecquet] (1733), I.27–9.

  35 Crab (1655), pp.[i], 11; also the Rechabites; Ezekiel 4:9; Isaiah 20; Jeremiah 35:6.

  36 Jerome (2005a), Bk II, ch.15.

  37 Crab (1655), pp.12–13.

  38 Isaiah 7:15; Crab (1655), ‘To the impartial Reader’, p.9.

  39 Crab (1655), p.9. The distinction is reminiscent of Catholic fast laws which forbade land, but not aquatic, animals.

  40 Matthew 15:11; Mark 16:18; I Corinthians 10:25; I Timothy 4:1–4; Crab (1655), pp.4–5; Aquinas (1975), ch.127, p.158.

  41 Crab (1657), p.17; cf. Crab (1655), title page; Romans 14:21; 1 Corinthians 8:13.

  42 1 Timothy 4:5.

  43 Crab (1655), p.10. Crab’s reliance on voluntary levelling action in the department of diet was like the Levellers’ insistence that landowners should not be commanded to give up their property but should do so voluntarily (Goldsmith (1986), p.74). He also echoes Philostratus (1912), II.305–7.

  44 Romans 14:2–3; Crab (1657), p.16.

  45 Crab (1655), p.[iv]; Crab (1657), p.3; Bowers (2003), p.97, n.14; Hearmon (1982), p.28.

  46 Crab (1655), p.7; Crab (1657), pp.3–4, 17, 19, 24–8.

  47 PA (1655 [n.s.]), no.210, p.1680; cit. Crab (1990), p.5.

  48 Crab (1655), p.1.

  49 Roger Crab’s contemporaries and later generations emasculated his ‘radicalism’ by constructing it as ‘eccentricity’; so effective was this that it is claimed that Lewis Carroll’s ‘Mad Hatter’ in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland was based on Roger Crab, and Christopher Hill even going as far as to claim that the phras
e ‘Mad as a Hatter’ was invented as a title for Crab. Others have speculated that Crab’s head-wound could explain his unorthodox opinions. Morgan, J. (1732), I; Crab (1745); Lysons (1792–6), III.438, 454–6; Lempriere (1808); Caulfield (1813), II.154–6; Wilson (1813), I.46–8; Gibbs (1888), pp.116–17; Rogers (1903); Hill (1995), pp.282–9; Sieveking (1988); cf. Bowers (2003).

  50 Crab (1659a), p.4; cf. Smith (1994), p.335.

  51 Crab (1659a), pp.3–4; Crab (1659b); Hessayon, ‘Roger Crab’, ODNB; Salter (1659), p.5.

  52 Strype (1720), II, Appendix 1, p.99; Gibbons (1996), pp.114–5; Walker (1964), p.218; Revelation 1:11, 3:7.

  53 Hill (1995), p.284; Elmer (1989), p.23; Rogers (1903), p.1085; Ariel Hessayon, ‘John Pordage’, ODNB.

  54 Baxter (1696), pp.76–8 ; Moss (1981), pp.58, 60, 63; Etherington (1645), p.10; Nuttal (1954), pp.3–9; Hamilton (1981), pp.136–9; Hill (1995), p.284; Hill (1991), pp.224, 284, 289; Thune (1948), pp.36–43, and passim; Jones (1914), pp.227–34; Whiting (1968), p.299; Mss Rawlinson (Bodleian) D 833, fol.63r; Anon. (1650b), p.3; Anon. (1650a), p.6 (Pordich and Buckeridge = Pordage).

  55 Mss Rawlinson (Bodleian) D 833, fols.12v, 86v.

  56 Thune (1948), pp.79, 92, 94; Lead (1695), p.4; Almond (1999), p.118.

  57 Mss Rawlinson (Bodleian) D 833, fols.105r–v, 227r; Crab (1655), p.13.

  58 Timothy Morton told me of a Philadelphian vegetarian by the name of ‘Bathsheba Bowers’ (sp?), but I have found no references to such a person.

  59 Thune (1948), pp.48, 156; cf. p.150; Mss Rawlinson (Bodleian) D 833, fols.1v, 6v–7r, 14r, 69, 85r, 190r; Nuttal (1954), pp.7–16; Whiting (1968), p.301; Hill, Reay and Lamont (1983), p.69; Rousseau, G.S. (1998), p.101; McDowell (2002), p.515; Crab (1655), p.3.

  60 Mss Rawlinson (Bodleian) D 833, fol.63r.

  61 Mss Rawlinson (Bodleian) D 833, fols.48r, 77, 165v–r, 185r, 223v.

  62 Thune (1948), pp.36–7, 42–3, 48, 63–4, 72–4, 80–1, 117, 141, 150 and passim; Walker (1964), pp.218–30; Whiting (1931). pp.321–2; Lead (1695), pp.4, 64; Lead (1696), pp.54–5; Whiting (1968), p.299, 309–10 ; Bromley (n.d.), pp.4–5 (Pythagoras’ Golden Verses), p.10 (History of the Waldenses, probably by Perrin); Jones (1914), pp.208, 219–11, 223, 227–34; Plard (1970), p.145.