74 Kircher (1987), pp.141–5; Rubiés (2000), pp.345–7. cf. Hasan (1733), Notes, Part 2, pp.31–2; [Créquinière] (1705), p.56; Compte (1697), pp.323–32; Gueullette (1725), pp.vi–xxiii. Walker (1972), p.194 and passim.
75 [Palladius et al.] (1665); Mitter (1977), p.191; Derrett (1960), p.67; Fox (1997), pp.344–5; John Keay, India: A History, p.77; Rajumdar (1960), p.277; cf. Boemus (1885–90), Part II, ch.8.
76 Walli (1974), pp.15, 39, 53–4, 56–7; Terry (1655), pp.326–30, 336–7, 341–2, 348–52; cf. sigs. A2r–A4r, A6r–v, A8r, A8v, [*]r; Terry substantially expanded his account in 1655 to recreate it as a sermon against schism and excess. cf. Lord (1630), p.41; Anon. (1687), pp.10–11.
77 Burke (1999); Rubiés and Elsner (1999), p.50; Murr (1993).
78 Bernier (1988), pp.326–7; cf. Tavernier (1995), II.30; cp. e.g. Rubiés (2000), pp.377–8+n.; Fryer (1909), I.177–80+n., I.209–10, II.83–4, 114–15, 120; cf. I.94, II.79–80, 100; cf. [Tryon] (1684a), pp.54–5.
79 Diogenes Laertius (2000), II.331–2; cf. Celenza (1999); Reuchlin (1983), pp.173–9; Sabinus (1584), pp.604–6; Ovid (1632), Sandys’ commentary, Bk XV; [Rust?] (1661), pp.53–4; Cudworth (1678), pp.38–9; Blount (1680), pp.2–3; Bulstrode (1692), pp.115–16, who cites Iamblichus, Life of Pythagoras as his authority; Tryon (1691a), pp.28–9; Athenian Society (1703), I.19; Toland (1704), p.57; [Créquinière] (1705), p.57; Cocchi (1745), pp.29–33; Ritson (1802), p.170; Harrison, M. (1999), pp.85–6. See below ch. 17 note 7 and ch. 5 notes 97 and 107.
80 Aquinas (1975), pp.118–19, 157–8; Picart (1733–7), IV.ii.15.
81 Bernier (1988), pp.381–2; cf. pp.334–5; McCrindle (1960), p.68 (Strabo, XV i.53–6); Boemus (1885–90), Vol.VI, Bk.ii, ch.8; Linschoten (1988), I.200+n.; Spy, VI.5–7; Rubiés (2000), p.198; Tavernier (1995), I.311; cf. I.225, II.137, 143.
82 Ovington (1929), pp.163–4; Manucci (1965), I.151–3; cf. Jerome (2005a), Bk II, ch.11.
83 Regan (2001); Teltscher (2000), pp.162–3; Glacken (1967), p.86; Tryon (1705a), pp.37–8; Lambe (1815), pp.18–20; Falconer (1781), pp.236–9.
84 E.g. Terry (1655), pp.248–59.
85 cf. e.g. Purchas, ed. (1905–7), XVI.56; Lockman, ed. (1743), I.111, 190, 234, 402–3; Prest (1981), p.74; Anon. (1687), pp.56–7; Adair (1787b), pp.268–9; Africanus (1788), pp.46–7; cf. Boas (1948), passim.
86 Purchas, ed. (1905–7), V.384, 389, 443–4, 519; VII.14–15, 26–9; VIII.135–6; XII.381, 461; XV.158 (cf. Warren (1667?), pp.19–20, 23, 26–7); Fryer (1909), II.282–3, III.146–9.
87 Manucci (1965), I.151–3, III.39–42, 232; cf. Fryer (1909), I.59, 120–1, II.107–8+n; Teltscher (2000), p.165.
88 Tavernier (1995), I.57–8, 93–4, 140, 193; II.50, 59, 144, 146, 154, 156, 162–3 192–7; cf. Ovington (1929), p.202; Lach (1971), pp.439–40.
89 Ovington (1929), pp.163–4, 168–70, 175–9, 184, 186–7, 202; Harrison, M. (1999), pp.51–2; Lach (1971), pp.441–2. cf. Teltscher (2000), p.160. cf. Bernier (1988), pp.253–4. On the ancient history of Indian religion, cf. Ovington (1929), pp.139, 168–72; Temple (1690), pp.10–13; Drew (1998), pp.50–1; Robinson (2000), who does not mention Ovington. In his explanation of metempsychosis, Ovington translated sections straight out of Porphyry (2000), p.112. Compare the parallel passages in Spy, III.88, IV.18–20 (see ch. 9 below).
CHAPTER 5
1 Tryon (1700), pp.189–90; Tryon (1699), pp.11–12; Tryon (1691a), p.361; [Tryon] ([1688?]), pp.76–7, 133–4; [Tryon] (1684a), p.96. Tryon used slave dialect words such as ‘bukra’ (white man), ‘okra’ and ‘gumbo’ (okra stew) up to 120 years before their first recorded use in the Oxford English Dictionary: [Tryon] (1684c), pp.43–4; [Tryon] (1684a), pp.150–1; cf. Warren (1667?), pp.6–7, 15; cf. also pp.19–20, 26–7.
2 [Tryon] (1684c), pp.100–6, 115–22, 128; [Tryon] (1685), pp.39–40; [Tryon] (1684a), pp.1, 3, 194, 198–9; cf. Penn (1683); cf. Hahn, ed. (1981), p.iv.
3 Tryon (1705a), pp.7–8, 12–25; Gordon trusted Tryon and therefore did not find the entry for his birth in the Bibury Parish Register for 6 September 1635 (Gordon ([1871]), pp.280–1+n.; http://www.theleefamily.org/ Ancestry/wc12/wc12370.htm; Terasaki (1995); Fox (2000)).
4 cf. Pressick (n.d.), pp.2, 20; Smith (1983), p.53.
5 Tryon (1705a), pp.26–9.
6 Both were ‘vegan’: Tryon (1705a), pp.41–2; both their bodies ‘rebelled’ but resuscitated: Tryon (1691a), p.46; Tryon (1705a), p.26 with Crab (1655), title page, pp.1–2. See also the possible connection between [Tryon] (1684a), p.72 and Crab (1655), pp.1 – 2; cf. ‘Insurrections’ in Tryon (1696), p.125; cf. the same passage in Tryon (1691a), p.41. Both said alcohol was a waste of grain: Tryon (1700), pp.229–33, 236; and e.g. [Tryon] ([1684c]), pp.115–16; [Tryon] (1684b), p.185; Crab (1655), p.7. Both said vegetarianism enhanced psychic acuity: Crab (1655), p.3; Tryon (1705a), p.26. Compare also Böhme (1894), ‘Of Regeneration’, § 107; Hotham (1654) in Böhme (1654).
7 For Crab and Tryon’s similarities with Böhme and the (not exclusively Behmenist) ‘Seven Grand Properties’: Tryon (1691a), sig.A4r, pp.13, 82, 321–2; Tryon (1705a), pp.23–4; Crab (1657), pp.20–2; Crab (1655), p.3; cp. Hutin (1960), p.72n. cf. Agrippa (1651), III.459; Tryon (1691a), p.252; Böhme (1924), pp.5–33, 344–5 (Ch.35.30–34); cf. e.g. Case (1682), p.16; Case (1697), pp.31, 34–6, 39–42 (This book was dedicated to Tryon: sig.a2r–a3v; cit. Thomas, K. (1971), pp.376–7). Both Crab and Tryon thought eating flesh attracted flesh-destroying spirits: Crab (1655), pp.[iv], 4; Tryon (1691a), pp.314–17, cf. p.46; Tryon (1691b), p.38; Baxter (1696), pp.76–8. Tryon started writing in 1682, immediately after the death of Crab (1680) and John Pordage (1680–1). See also Rudrum (2003). Crab had given up his hat-trade by this time, but as a Baptist he was aligned with the Anabaptists; it is possible that Crab and Tryon crossed paths. G.S. Rousseau says Tryon joined a splinter group of the Philadelphian Society (Rousseau, G.S. (1998), p.101); I have found no mention of the Philadelphians in the copies I have seen. He may be referring to Tryon (1705b), pp.10–11 (in the 18 pages inserted between pp.34 and 35).
For Crab and Tryon’s similar flesh-proscribing astro-medicine, see Crab (1655), p.4; Tryon (1688), pp.8–9 and passim; Tryon (1691a), pp.53, 58, 71, 103, 267–8; Jerome (2005a), Bk II, ch.11; [Tryon] (1684b), pp.1–8, 44, 218–19; cf. e.g. Paracelsus (1979), pp.19–20; Culpeper (1656), sig.A2r, pp.5–6, 20, 21, 38–9; Case (1682), pp.10–11; Harvey (1672), pp.236–7; Willis (1683), pp.115, 224; Smith (1983); Smith (1985), pp.259–61 (Smith argues that Tryon is indebted to Hippocratic medicine, which is true, but so were innumerable contemporaneous mainstream physicians, so it is not his most distinguishing feature). Tryon may have been encouraged in using meatless medicine by the example of the Indian physicians who renownedly specialised in dietary remedies; like Tryon they were also said to specialise in ointments and herbal plasters (cf. e.g. Rajumdar (1960), p.276, and see ch. 11 below. For other similarities between Tryon and Crab, compare Strype (1720), II, Appendix 1, p.99, line 5 with Tryon (1691a), pp.59–60; [Tryon] (1685), p.11 with Crab (1655), [pp.ii–iii]; Tryon (1691a), pp.27, 254 with Crab (1655), pp.3–4; [Tryon] (1685), p.74 and [Tryon] (1684a), pp.152–8 with Crab (1655), pp.12–13; Tryon (1691c), p. 50 with Crab (1655), p.12; [Tryon] (1685), p.81 and [Tryon] (1684c), p.138 with Crab (1657), p.20; Tryon (1705a) [128, [2]pp.; 12o; CUL VIII.32.70], pp.23–4 with Crab (1655), p.4.
8 Tryon (1691b), p.82; Tryon (1691a), pp.42, 126–7, 264, 283–90, 359–60, 458–9; [Tryon] (1684c), pp.90, 97; [Tryon] (1685), pp.31, 86; Tryon (1691b), pp.35–6; cf. Winstanley (1973), p.99. On Tryon’s utopian community, see Tryon (1691a), pp.337–62; cf. Hotham (1654); cp. Tryon (1691a), p.331; Diogenes Laertius (2000), II.323.
9 On Moses: Tryon (1682b), pp.14, 19; Tryon (1691a), pp.28–32, 60, 72, 73, 75, 101–2, 188, 194, 251, 257–8, 322–5, 353, 370–1; Numbers 11:4, 18, 22. Compare Tryon (1691a), pp.154–5 with Evelyn (1699), pp.74–5, 128; Spy, IV.109–10; Lémery (1704), p.6; [Hecquet] (1733), I.33–6, 63–4, 68; Cheyne (1740), pp.72–5; Wesley (1776), ‘Numbers 11:4’
; St Jerome (2005a), Bk II, ch.15. Compare Böhme (1909), p.225 with Tryon (1691a), p.73; cf. pp.39–40; Clement of Alexandria (2004b), Bk 2, ch.1 ‘On eating’. On the prohibition of blood: [Tryon] ([1684c]), p.168; [Tryon] (1685), p.57; [Tryon] (1684a), pp.165–75. On Jesus: [Tryon] (1685), p.66. Others: Tryon (1691a), pp.38–9; compare Tryon’s rhetoric about Daniel to Crab on John the Baptist (Crab (1655), p.12); cf. also Tryon (1691c), pp.104–5; Eusebius (1903), II.2–3; St Augustine (2005), Bk 22, ch. 3; cit. Williams, Howard (1883); Spy, VI.278–9; Smith (1774), pp.373–4. On the Wrath: Tryon (1691a), pp.309–10; cf. p.217; [Tryon] ([1684c]), p.120; Tryon (1700), pp.69–72.
10 [Tryon] ([1684b]), pp.94–5[b], 119, 185; [Tryon] ([1684c]), pp.115–6; Tryon (1700), pp.63, 70–1, 86; Tryon (1691a), pp.46, 249–51, 280–3, 320–1, 346; Tryon (1691b), pp.38, 134–6; [Tryon] (1685), pp.45, 60; Tryon (1703), pp.72–3; Tryon (1682b), p.13; [Tryon] (1695a), pp.68–9; Almond (1999), pp.121–2; cf. Crab (1655), p.[iv]. Böhme lamented that since the Fall ‘man is become a wolf to them [in devouring the beasts]’ (Böhme (1920), p.426; cf. also e.g. Böhme (1924), pp.150–1); Winstanley (1941), pp.156–7; [Hecquet] (1733), I.4–6.
11 Tryon (1691a), pp.496–7; Tryon (1691c), pp.38–9, 42; Tryon (1705b), pp.10–11 (in the 18 pages inserted between pp.34 and 35). On the extension of ‘do as you would be done by’ to animals, cf. e.g. Tryon (1691a), pp.251; Tryon (1705a), p.79; and see ch. 3, 4, 6, 8, 9 above and below.
12 Tryon (1705a), pp.41–4.
13 Tryon (1705a), pp.54–6; cf. Jacob Böhme: ‘When I consider and think why I write thus … I find that my spirit is kindled in this matter … and it is laid on me as a work which I must exercise.’ cit. Penny (1912), p.75.
14 Defoe (1694); Plomer (1968b), pp.30, 146, 217; for Tryon’s other publishers cf. pp.15–16, 30–1, 80, 96, 146–7, 183–4, 253, 260, 284.
15 Tryon against revolution: [Tryon] (1685), pp.78–80; cf. pp.21–2, 36–7, 75; Tryon (1703), p.54; Tryon (1691b), pp.125, 134; [Tryon] (1684a), pp.140–1, 202; [Tryon] (1702), pp.210–11.
16 Tryon (1691b), pp.141–53; [Tryon] ([1684b]), p.49; Tryon (1700), p.233; Tryon (1691a), pp.153–6, 160, 165; [Tryon] ([1695?]), pp.3–19; cf. Evelyn (1699), p.128; Evelyn (1996), pp.74–5; Lémery (1704), p.6.
17 Tryon (1691a), pp.35, 50, 62, 105–6, 147–8, 154, 221, 248; Tryon (1700), pp.24, 98; Tryon (1691b), pp.103, 108–9; Tryon (1690), pp.67–8, 70–1; [Tryon] ([1684c]), pp.86, 96; [Tryon] ([1684b]), pp.29–32, 50, 79, 81, 86, 97, 117; Tryon (1696), p.144; Tryon (1688); cf. Lessius, Cornaro and Anon. (1634), p.59; Evelyn (1699), p.126.
18 Tryon (1691a), pp.59–60, 78–89; Tryon (1682a); cf. Clement of Alexandria (2004b), Bk 2, ch.1 ‘On eating’.
19 Todd (1996), p.49; Spencer (2000b), p.225. Behn and Tryon published works simultaneously with the same bookseller, e.g. Thomas Benskin published Behn’s The City-heiress (1682), The Roundheads (1682), Romulus and Hersilia (1683) and The young king (1683) at the same time as Tryon’s Healths Grand Preservative (1682) (cf. Plomer (1968b), pp.30–1); Duffy (1989), p.241; [Behn ed.] (1685). The collection, devised and signed by ‘A.Behn’, includes this poem with the same signature ‘Mrs A.B.’ as several other poems in the collection. The appearance of the name ‘Mrs. Ann Behn’ in one of Tryon’s versions must be an error (Tryon (1697), sig.A4r–v); a variant version of the poem in [Tryon] (1685), pp.[i–iii]; cf. also Smith, ‘Tryon’, ODNB. It is difficult to follow Sheffey’s suggestion that Tryon’s epitaph, printed in one of the editions of Tryon’s Memoirs, was written by Behn who died 14 years before Tryon (Tryon (1705b), p.[129]; Sheffey (1962), p.54). Behn’s verses to Creech and Lestrange are similarly hyperbolic. (cf. also the descriptipn of George Cheyne as ‘Man’s Saver’: Cheyne (1943), p.128, 137).
20 Tryon (1697), sig.A4r–v; cf. Ovid’s Metamorphoses, I and XV; Field (1685), sig.A2r, pp.19–20.
21 Tryon (1705a), pp.40–2, 86; Field (1685), pp.14, 20, 24; Tryon (1691b), pp.83–4.
22 Tryon (1705a), pp.40–2, 86; Tryon (1691b), pp.83–4; Tryon (1691a), pp.68–9, 83; Field (1685), sig.A2r, A3r, pp.14, 20, 24, 27.
23 On Tryon’s construction of natural religion, see [Tryon] ([1684c]), pp.68–70; [Tryon] (1684a), pp.116–22, 151–2, 188–9, [192]; [Tryon] (1695a), pp.11, 66–7, 101–2, 105–6; Tryon (1691a), pp.34, 253, 258–9; Tryon (1695b), pp.1–2; Tryon (1682a), pp.19–20; [Tryon] (1685), pp.9–10; Tryon (1703), pp.59–60; Tryon (1700), p.147. The name of Tryon’s Ethiopian ‘Sophy’ implies that he has inherited knowledge from the ‘gymnosophists’. cf. Hahn, ed. (1981), pp.iii–v; Young (1998), p.110; Dobbs (1975), p.60; Drew (1998), p.90; Philostratus (1912), II.39, 303–5; Dryden (1958), ‘Religio Laici’, ll.178–211; Warren (1667?), pp.19–20, 23, 26–7; Fryer (1909), II.24+n.
24 Agrippa (1651), III.342, 347–8, 477, 524–5; Agrippa (1655), Preface; Agrippa ([1630]), II.ii.994; Agrippa (1676), p.110; compare e.g. Agrippa (1651), III.347–8 with Tryon (1691c), pp.191–3; cf. e.g. Lucian (1905), IV.97–8; Fryer (1909), II.101. On the prisca sapientia or theologia, see e.g. Mirandola [1496], § 212, 220, 283; Agrippa (1655), pp.[i–iv]; Yates (1961), pp.5, 14–15, 78, 80, 84–90; Heninger (1977), p.90; Walker (1954); and Walker (1972). There was even a traditional claim, made by Clearchus of Soli, that the Jews were descendants of the Indian philosophers, the Kalanoi, who were themselves descendants of the Persian Magi (cf. Walbridge (2001), pp.70–2).
25 [Tryon] (1683), pp.18–19; cf. Edwards (1699), pp.91–9, 113–18; Browne (1672), Bk III, ch.xxv, pp.189–94; Selden (1640), p.19. For the contemporaries, Nebuchadnezzar and Pythagoras, and the relevance this had for theories of transmigration, cf. Ovington (1929), pp.171–2.
26 [Tryon] (1695a), pp.87–8, 107, 128–9; Tryon (1691a), pp.28–9, 75. For his blanket term ‘Wise Ancients’ cf. Tryon (1691c), pp.151–2, 232; [Tryon] (1684a), pp.66–7; Tryon (1691a), pp.180, 338, 365; [Tryon] ([1684c]), pp.67, 94.
27 ‘Brackmanny’ is from .
28 [Tryon] (1683), p.2. On the Francophobia in this piece, cf. Hahn, ed. (1981), pp.vi–viii; Tryon (1691a), p.138. cf. also [Tryon] ([1684c]), pp.151–2.
29 [Tryon] (1683), p.19.
30 The Brahmin voices Tryon’s (probably Behmenist) creation story according to which a dialectic of powers caused the ‘strife’ between the Forms, Qualities and Properties of the hidden Nature (e.g. [Tryon] (1683), p.13).
31 Field (1685), p.12; [Tryon] (1683), p.20; Tryon (1703), p.49.
32 Tryon (1691a), pp.258–9.
33 Walli (1974), pp.53–4.
34 Ovid (1632), Bk XV, Sandys’ commentary; [Tryon] (1683), pp.2, 9–10, 16–17, 21–2; Tryon (1691a), p.280; cp. Spy, III.300; Ovington (1929), pp.175, 178–9.
35 [Tryon] (1683), pp.16–17.
36 [Tryon] (1683), pp.9–10; [Tryon] (1685), pp.83–4; Tryon (1691a), pp.258–9. cf. Bernier (1988), pp.253–4. On the savageness of the non-vegetarian Indians, compare Upright Lives [1683], pp.9–10; Pseudo-Clement (2005a), Bk 9, ch.20; Tryon probably read about them in Eusebius (1903), III.297 (col.275a–b).
37 On Tryon’s prelapsarian vegetarian vision cf. also Tryon (1691a), pp.217, 251, 266, 336, 341–63, 499; Tryon (1700), p.47; [Tryon] ([1684c]), p.170; Tryon (1703), pp.59–60; Tryon (1691b), pp.28, 41–2, 68–9, 105. On Adamic pansophia: Tryon (1691a), pp.337–62; cf [Tryon] (1683), pp.9–10.
38 For the Sowle family publishers see McDowell (1996); Plomer (1968a), pp.168–9; Plomer (1968b), pp.277–8; Burtt (1946), pp.16–17; Mortimer (1948), pp.37–9, 47; www.mith.umd.edu/fellows/king/change.htm; cf. e.g. Thune (1948), pp.60–1, 87.
39 [Tryon] (1683), pp.9–10; [Tryon] (1684a), pp.176–7; [Tryon] (1685), pp.72–5; [Tryon] ([1684c]), pp.100–2; Roe (1990), pp.270–1; Foster (1999), p.320ff; Fryer (1909), I.274–5, II.276, 293; cf. I.93, 177; Manucci (1965), II.219; Thune (1948), pp.60–1, 87; Hahn, ed. (1981), p.viii. Compare [Tryon] (1684a), pp.179–80 with [Tryon] (1683), p.12. On Marco Polo’s approbation of Kublai Khan’s toleration policies, see Rubiés (2000), p.72. Locke (1689); cp. Locke (1858), p.73.
40 [Tryon] (1685), pp.74�
�84; cf. Plutarch (1995), pp.557–9 (995F–996A); Lord (1630), p.83.
41 On reincarnation, cf. Thomas, K. (1983), pp.138–9; Purchas, ed. (1905–7), XII.127–8. On communism see ch. 2. The Pythagoreans, Essenes and Indian monks were loci classici of communist vegetarian sects, cf. e.g. Diogenes Laertius (2000), II.329; Iamblichus (1989), p.11+n.; Baker (1996), n.53; Bayle, P. (1734–41), VIII.612; Stanley (1655–60), III.46; Josephus (1755), ‘Antiquities of the Jews’, Bk II, ch.8; Lord (1630), pp.74–6; Boemus (1885–90), vol.VI, Bk. ii, ch.8; Drew (1998), p.166; and see ch. 2 above. On pacifism: Tomé Pires, Suma Oriental (1512–15) in Gaitonde (1983), pp.31–7; cf. e.g. Lord (1630), p.83.
42 Gaudenzio (1641), pp.70–1.
43 Majumdar (1960), pp.273–5, 278; cf. Plutarch, ‘Life of Alexander’ in ibid., p.195; Goyal (2000), pp.120, 122, 126–7; [Palladius et al.] (1665), sig.c2r; Stoneman (1991), pp.131–3, 178–9; Stoneman (1994), p.508; Rhodiginus (1542), p.716; Manucci (1965), III.27–8. On Pythagoras’ analogous pantheism see e.g. Philostratus (1912), I.307; Blount (1680), pp.2–3; Bacon (1996), vol.II, Part 2, pp.640–1; Heninger (1974), pp.202–4; Ovid (1632), Bk I and XV, Sandys’ Commentary.
44 Tryon (1691a), pp.139, 225; Rousseau, J.-J. (1979), p.127.
45 [Créquinière] (1705), pp.87–8; cf. Bayle, P. (1734–41), I.238–40; Picart (1733–7), VI.i.185–7. Picart was a member of a Masonic group associated with John Toland who published similar comments in 1705 (cf. Jacob (1976b), pp.224–6).
46 Purchas (1626), pp.547–9; cf. Majumdar (1960), pp.278, 443; McCrindle (1960), pp.69, 71, 121; Della Valle (1892), p.105; Tavernier (1995), II.150ff; Hudson (2000), pp.8–9; Teltscher (1995), pp.44, 51; Teltscher (2000), pp.165–8; Rubiés (2000), pp.219, 299–300n., 363; Gaitonde (1983), p.39; Acheson (1990), p.66. For an analysis of the Puritan self-representation of austerity being undermined by criticism of sensual hypocrisy, cf. Poole (2000).
The Bloodless Revolution Page 73
