The Bloodless Revolution

by Tristram Stuart

  47 Boemus (1885–90), VI, Bk ii, ch.8.

  48 Keith (1671), pp.126–9. Keith was also published by the Sowle family, and Tryon’s books were advertised in Keith’s books (George Keith, The way to the city of God described (Netherlands, and London, 1678 [advertisement added later]); cf. Field (1701). On Keith and the kabbalist reincarnation see ch. 7 below.

  49 cf. e.g. Upright Lives [1683], p.7.

  50 cf. e.g. Ridderus (1669), pp.590, 610–12, 635, 644, 655, 660, 675, 694–7, 700, 706, 713, 717; Terry (1655), pp.A6r–v.

  51 Upright Lives [1683]; [Tryon and Palladius et al.] (1707); Upright Lives (1740); Hahn ed. (1981), pp.iii–xiii: Hahn discusses the textual relation between the Upright Lives [1683] and Tryon’s Brackmanny (1683), but did not know Tryon was the author of the latter.

  52 Anon. (1687), p.55; cf. pp.10–12, 30–1, 37–8, 43–4, 50, 55–7; Proverbs 12:10; and e.g. Lord (1630), p.41. The author of this interesting treatise ignored Terry and Lord’s more derogatory statements.

  53 [Tryon] (1695a), [sig.A6r]. Virginia Smith lists this among the three of Tryon’s works ‘not yet found’, all of which I have identified (Virginia Smith, ‘Tryon, Thomas (1634–1703)’, ODNB). (Tryon’s magnum opus, The Way to Health (1683) is not, as Smith says, a reprint of the short pamphlet, Health’s Grand Preservative (1682).) Tryon refers to the Letters From Averroes in his other writings, maintaining the myth of their authenticity (Tryon (1696), p.11). In the last year of his life, Tryon published a list of his writings in which the work is alluded to obscurely as ‘Averroes Letter to Pythagoras’ (Tryon (1703), [sig.A5v]). As was his habit, Tryon recycled numerous passages from his previous works (e.g. [Tryon] (1695a), pp.74–5 = [Tryon] (1683), p.8; [Tryon] (1695a), pp.25–6 = [Tryon] (1690), pp.115–6). He re-used further passages in his later works ([Tryon] (1695a), pp.66–7 = Tryon (1695b), pp.1–2). The only correct bibliographical identification I have come across is in Sinclair (1807), II.298. [Tryon and Palladius et al.] (1707); the catalogue of Duke University, North Carolina, which holds the only known copy of this edition, notes that the letters of Averroes ‘are of questionable authenticity’!

  54 [Tryon] (1695a), pp.80–4, 140–1; cf. Philostratus (1912), II.303–5 (Bk VIII, ch.7).

  55 [Tryon] (1695a), pp.149–50. Compare [Tryon] (1695a), p.84 with [Tryon] (1683), p.19.

  56 [Tryon] (1695a), p.116; cf. e.g. Linschoten (1988), I.252–5; Ovington (1929), pp.177–9.

  57 [Tryon] (1695a), pp.116–17.

  58 [Tryon] (1695a), p.117; cf. Tryon (1700), p.84 (cp. p.86); Tryon (1691a), pp.60–1, 209, 370–80; cf. e.g. Ovington (1929), pp.168–70, 202; Numbers 22:28–30; cf. Hildrop (1752), pp.28–9.

  59 [Tryon] (1695a), p.118.

  60 [Tryon] (1695a), p.123; cf. [Tryon] (1683), p.20; Tryon (1700), p.184; cf. e.g. Lord (1630), pp.65, 70; Tavernier (1995), II.49, 144–5; Ovington (1929), pp.165, 168–70; Boemus (1885–90), Vol. VI, Bk ii, ch.8; Rubiés (2000), pp.101–2; Foster (1999), p.322; Spy, III.332–5; Herbert (1634), p.38.

  61 [Tryon] (1695a), p.122; cf. also p.120 and Porphyry (2000), p.113.

  62 Tryon (1705a), pp.82–6, 126–8. On the questionable existence of Tryon’s followers cf. Field (1685), sig.A2r. 8, 12–13, 15, 17, 25; Gordon (1871), pp.277–9. Tryon also gathered whatever he could from other sources on Pythagoreanism: for example, eating local food; not laughing; silence and solitude (Agrippa (1651), III.459, 524–5; Lord (1630), pp.73–4); a special taboo against wool (sheep excrement), preferring linen (Agrippa (1651), III.520; Tryon (1691a), pp.39–40; Tryon (1691c), pp.198–200; Philostratus (1912), I.3, 261, II.39, 41, 303–7; Kirk and Raven (1960), p.220; Guthrie (1962), p.160; Burghardt (1944), pp.484–5; Quasten (1942); Spitzer (1943); Eusebius (1903), IV.471a and note; Lord (1630), ‘Introduction’; Della Valle (1892), p.74; Yahuda, 16.1; Tryon (1691a), p.359); a belief in the symbolic powers of numbers and music ([Tryon] ([1684c]), p.81; Agrippa (1651), III.522–3 with e.g. Tryon (1691a), pp.23–4, 36–7; [Tryon] (1684b), p.8; Tryon (1691c), p.103).

  63 Smith (1774), pp.371–4; Julian C. Walton, ‘Robert Cook’, ODNB; cf. Tryon (1691b), pp.139–40.

  64 [Tryon] (1695a), pp.149–50.

  65 Hobbes (1893–45), V.185–8; Hobbes (1651), Part I, ch.xiv, pp.64–9.

  66 [Tryon] (1695a), p.156.

  67 Hobbes (1839–45), II.113–4; V.166, 185–8; Hobbes (1969), pp.130–1; cf. Tryon (1691b), pp.131–3.

  68 Tryon (1703), p.36; [Tryon] ([1684c]), pp.8, 101–4, 128; [Tryon] (1685), p.44.

  69 Tryon (1691a), p.280.

  70 [Tryon] ([1684c]), p.118; Tryon (1705a), pp.82–4.

  71 Tryon (1703), p.61.

  72 [Tryon] (1684a), pp.107–8, 151–2.

  73 [Tryon] ([1684c]), pp.59–61; Tryon (1691a), pp.365–6; compare the similar views expressed in Patrizi (1593), fols. 57v–58r (to which compare especially Tryon (1691a), pp.373–4); cf. Serjeantson (2001), p.435; cf. also Almond (1999).

  74 Tryon (1691a), pp.367–81; cf. Numbers 22:28–30.

  75 [Tryon] ([1684c]), p.146.

  76 Tryon (1691a), pp.258–9; cit. Spencer (1993), p.206.

  77 Tryon (1700), p.146.

  78 [Tryon] ([1684c]), pp.11, 167; Tryon (1700), p.280; Tryon (1691a), pp.279–82.

  79 Tryon (1691a), pp.52–3, 124–31, 184–5; cf. Tryon (1682b), pp.16–17; Harvey (1675), pp.103–4; Evelyn (1699), p.132.

  80 Tryon (1691a), p.168.

  81 Tryon (1684c), p.155.

  82 Tryon (1700), p.280.

  83 Tryon (1691a), pp.331–3; cf. pp.49, 267, 336; [Tryon] (1685), pp.52–3.

  84 [Tryon] (1684b), p.213.

  85 Tryon (1700), p.119; [Tryon] (1685), pp.4–5; [Tryon] ([1684b]), pp.84–9, 119, 175–7, 181, 183, 213; Tryon (1696), p.125; Tryon (1682b), p.13; Tryon (1691a), pp.52–3, 124–131, 126–7, 163–4; [Tryon] (1702), pp.236–7; cf. Harvey (1672?), pp.133–4. On the topos of ransacking the world cf. Diogenes Laertius (2000), II.331–2; Ovid, Metamorphoses, Bk.1; Seneca (1917–25), III.66–71, Epistle 95; Lessius, Cornaro and Anon. (1634), pp.61–2; Blount (1680), pp.2–3; Evelyn (1996), pp.88–9; Cheyne (1733), pp.49–51; Rousseau, J.-J. (1979), p.59; Williams, Howard (1883), p.166.

  86 Cf. [Tryon] (1684a), pp.48–52, 60–1; Palladius et al. (1668); Rajumdar (1960), pp.431–4, 443–4; Upright Lives [1683], p.3; Hippolytus (2005), pp.59–60; Tryon (1696), p.125; Tryon (1682b), p.13.

  87 Cf. Tryon (1703), pp.72–3; Tryon (1700), p.139; cf. e.g. Lord (1630), p.41.

  88 Hitherto scholars have labelled Tryon a disciple of Böhme. Some of Tryon’s ideas which scholars have assumed came from Böhme, like the Seven Grand Properties, are more similar to popular astrology: Hutin (1960), pp.71–3; Thomas, K. (1971), p.376; Spencer (1993), p.206; Guerrini (1999a), p.35ff; Smith (1999), pp.107–8; Morton (2002). The argument has been more sophisticatedly developed by Gibbons (1996), pp.114–5.

  89 Agrippa (1651), II.263; Agrippa (1630?), I.190; Tryon (1682b), p.6. Even Tryon’s division of the universe and God into a light and dark side, the former characterised by love, the latter by wrath – a hallmark of Böhme – might have been partly influenced by Agrippa: compare e.g. Agrippa (1651), III.473–4 with [Tryon] (1695a), pp.71–9.

  90 Agrippa (1651), Bk III, Ch.55, pp.522–3; Agrippa (1630?), I.378–9; cf. Philostratus (1912), II.41–3.

  91 Tryon (1691c), pp.232–3; cf. Tryon (1691a), p.41; Tryon (1691b), pp.74, 78. Tryon (1696), p.125; compare Stoneman (1994), p.503; Hahn, ed. (1981), f.97r.

  92 Agrippa (1655), pp.[i–iv]; Hill (1991), p.179.

  93 Hotham (1654), sig.C2r–v.

  94 On the ancient magicians, especially the Indian wise men, see Agrippa (1676), ch.42, p.110; Agrippa (1651), Bk III, Chs.55, 58; Agrippa (1676), ‘The Censure: Of Magick’; Madaurensis (1853), pp.272, 278–9; Pseudo-Clement (2005a), Bk IV, ch.27; Porphyry (2000), p.112; Kämper (1995), pp.149, 166, 184–5; Origen (2005), Bk I, ch.25; Polo (1972), p.261; Vaughan, T. (1984), pp.482–6; Della Valle (1892), pp.106–7; Tavernier (1995), I.55, II.142; Fryer (1909), III.86–7; Boemus (1885
–90), II.vii; Linschoten (1999), p.212; Rubiés (2000), pp.106, 110–11; Arnobius (2005), Bk IV.13; Arrian (1633), VIII.xi; Spy, IV.336–7; Blount (1680), pp.2–3; Postel (1553?b), pp.18v–19r; The Zohar (1931–4), II.33–34; Temple (1690), pp.19, 44–5; Ammianus (1935), II.366–9 (xxiii.6.32–3), III.96–9 (xxviii.1.13).

  95 [Créquinière] (1705), p.102; Locke (1858), p.252.

  96 Vaughan, T. (1984), p.484; Nauert (1965), pp.326–7, 330–1.

  97 Plato, Timaeus, 30a; Skinner and Kessler, eds. (1988), pp.312–15; Allers (1944); Conger (1922); Heninger (1977), pp.144–9; Kemp (1981), p.114. On Moses see note 9 above. On Pythagoras: Tryon (1691b), pp.130–1; Tryon quotes from Hierocles (1657), p.12. Mirandola [1496], espec. § 28–30, 35, 37, 44; Tryon (1691a), pp.28–9 (compare Bernier’s comments in ch. 4 pp.56–7 and note 79 above); Tryon (1695b), p.101; Tryon (1688). For other echoes of Pico cf. Tryon (1700), p.84 and Tryon’s perennial emphasis on sympatheia, ‘Nothing in excess’, ‘Know thyself’ (e.g. Tryon (1691a), p.1). cf. Heninger (1974), p.268+n.; Kristeller (1972), pp.10–16; Cassirer, Kristeller, Randall, eds (1948), p.389; Celenza (1999); Agrippa (1651), III.459; Reuchlin (1983), pp.173–9; Primaudaye (1618), p.584; [Rust?] (1661), pp.53–4; Cudworth (1678), pp.38–9; Toland (1704), p.57; [Créquinière] (1705), p.57; Hasan (1733), Notes, Part 2, pp.31–2; Teltscher (2000), pp.162–5. Interpreting metempsychosis as Pico did was related to the tradition of denying that Pythagoras was vegetarian at all, which Aristotle had maintained according to Plutarch (Guthrie (1962), pp. 188–91); see ch. 17 note 7 below.

  98 Tryon (1700), pp.23, 82, 87, 126; [Tryon] (1685), pp.66–7; Tryon (1691c), pp.27, 66–7; Tryon (1691a), pp.14, 70, 186; [Tryon] ([1684c]), p.170; [Tryon] (1695a), pp.12–13; Tryon (1695b), pp.1–3; cf. Agrippa (1651), III.458.

  99 Tryon (1682b), p.6; Tryon (1682b), p.14; Tryon (1691a), pp.27, 189, 192. Compare Agrippa (1651), III.459–60 with [Tryon] (1683), p.8; Tryon (1691a), pp.186, 268, 353. For Ficino, Pico and Agrippa’s use of the sympatia cf. Yates (1961), pp.68–9, 88–90, 109–17, 131–41.

  100 Tryon (1696), pp.35–40; cf. Gassendi (1658), VI.21; Tryon (1700), p.151; Tryon (1703), p.37; Guerrini (1999a), p.35; Böhme (1920), p.347; Lémery (1704), pp.146–7; Helmont, J.B. (1664), pp.797–8.

  101 Tryon (1691a), p.293; cf. [Tryon] (1685), pp.55–6; Tryon (1696), pp.150–1. [Tryon] (1684b), pp.198–9; cf. Aristotle, On the Soul, II.iv.

  102 Tryon (1691a), p.268; cf. Tryon (1700), p.87; Festugière (1936), pp.586, 593–4; Pseudo-Clement (2005b), Homily VIII, chs 15–17.

  103 Tryon (1691a), p.261; cf. pp.189, 197–8.

  104 [Tryon] (1685), p.58.

  105 Tryon (1691a), p.99; cf. Agrippa (1651), III.520; Tryon (1696), pp.ii–iv.

  106 [Tryon] (1683), pp.16–17; Tryon (1688); Tryon (1682b), pp.13–17; Tryon (1691a), pp.60–1, 64–5, 209; Tryon (1700), p.86; Tryon (1695b), p.101; Clement of Alexandria (2004b), Bk 2, ch.1 ‘On eating’; Clement of Alexandria (2004a), Bk I, ch.15; Bk II, ch.18; Bk VII, ch.1; Manu (1971), v.49.

  107 [Tryon] (1695a), pp.71–9, 93–4, 115; Tryon (1700), p.139; Agrippa (1651), III.473–4, 480, cp. p.481; Agrippa (1630?), Vol.1, Bk iii, ch. 41. For some of Tryon’s other numerous quotations from Agrippa on this system, compare Agrippa (1651), III.479 with Tryon (1691c), pp.194–5; and Agrippa (1651), III.478–9 with Tryon (1691c), p.71. Note the difference between Agrippa (1651), III.480 and Tryon (1691c), p.198; cf. also pp.65–6. Johann Reuchlin also tried to reconcile Pythagoras’ teaching with Christianity by saying that the bodies a soul takes on after death ‘were imaginary and figurative, but nevertheless real’ (Reuchlin (1983), p.173). Plato, Phaedo, 81E–82A; cf. Plato, Timaeus, 91D–92C; cit. Porphyry (2000), p.125 n.29; Plotinus (1952), III.iv.2, IV.iii.12; Harrison, P. (1993), pp.535–6n.; see also ch. 7 below. In 1656 Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle, warned of a very similar afterlife in which ‘the bodily part’ of those who displease the gods ‘may be tormented out of one shape into another, and be perpetually dying or killing with all manner of torments, and yet never dye; as … in the shape of a Bull, knocks on his head, or the like; in the shape of a Hart, Arrows in the haunch, or the like; in the shape of a Fish, Hooks tearing the jaws’, Cavendish (2004), p.23 (thanks to Zoe Hawkins). As a friend of Gassendi, and interested in Lucretian-Epicurean atomism, Cavendish’s system is corporal in contrast to Tryon’s mental-spiritual ‘Other World’. Though Cavendish does not say that these punishments are for the sin of meat-eating (as Tryon does), there is an implied sense of retribution for the suffering mankind inflicts upon animals. Tryon’s system of natural justice works without God’s active intervention; cf. Smith (2004); More, H. (1682), pp.16, 126; Harrison, P. (2001), p.206nn. See the relation to deist thought in ch. 9 below.

  108 O’Flaherty, ed. (1980), pp.4, 14, and passim; Terry (1655), pp.351–2; Fryer (1909), I.94, 108; Manucci (1965), III.232; Kircher (1987), p.142; Compte (1697), p.330; Stanley (1655–60), III.105; Ovington (1929), pp.171–2; Blount (1680), pp.2–3, n.1; Blount (1678?), pp.59–60; Anon. (1692), p.86; Toland (1704), pp.57–8. [Tryon] (1695a), p.86. Tryon did not claim (as others did) that the Hindus’ value of animal life derived from the belief that they contained human souls.

  109 Tryon (1691c), pp.198–9; cf. Mohammed, O. (1984), pp.35, 111, 128–9, 136.

  110 Revelation 22:15; Tryon (1700), pp.135–6, 146; Tryon (1691a), pp.328–9; Tertullian (2004a), Ch.48.

  111 Field (1685), p.13.

  CHAPTER 6

  1 Franck (1694), p.207; cf. Smith (1994), pp.335–6; Smith (1990); Smith (1993); Cox (1952); Goodspeed (1943). Franck prepared Northern Memoirs in 1685, the same year that Tryon published his ‘Dialogue Between Sophronio and Guloso’, [Tryon] (1685).

  2 Franck (1687), pp.142, 151–60; Terry (1655), pp.205–6, 326–30; Culpeper (1656), sig.A2r.

  3 Levine (1997), p.62n.; [Evelyn] (1659), pp.38, 57–8.

  4 Evelyn (1997), pp.10–11.

  5 Main (1983); Murray (1957), pp.851–2. cf. Bacon (1650), p.41.

  6 Evelyn (1699), sig.[A8v].

  7 Evelyn (1699), pp.146–7, 149, 157–9; Evelyn (1850), II.16.

  8 Evelyn (1699), pp.190–1.

  9 Prest (1981); Drayton (2000); O’Malley and Wolschke-Bulmahn, eds (1997); Parry (1992).

  10 Coles (1657), ‘Epistle to the Reader’; cit. Almond (1999), pp.23–4.

  11 Evelyn (2000), pp.30–1.

  12 Evelyn (1669), p.5; Evelyn (2000), p.421; cf. Hunt, J. (1997), p.272+n.; Sherman (2002), pp.72–5.

  13 Evelyn (1699), pp.4–5.

  14 Evelyn (1699), pp.119–20.

  15 Thomas, K. (1983), p.159.

  16 Prest (1981), p.52; Schama (1995), pp.537–8; cf. Manucci (1965), I.151–3.

  17 Koch (1988), p.40nn.32, 33, 36, pl.27; Radcliffe and Thornton (1978), pp.254–62.

  18 PT (1668), III, no.40, p.799; Sherman (2002), p.70.

  19 Almond (1999), pp.91–4; Rostvig (1954), p.179.

  20 Williamson (1961), p.592.

  21 Boyle (1744), V.398.

  22 Browne (1672), Bk III, ch.xxv, pp.189–94; Grotius (1727), Genesis 1:29–30 and 9:3; cf. Grotius (1901), Bk II, ch. 2, § 2.

  23 Levine (1997), p.57.

  24 [Tryon et al.] (1695?), p.19. Morton assumes a connection between Evelyn and Tryon, stating that Evelyn’s use of the phrase ‘Health and Long Life’ was derived from Tryon (whose magnum opus was called The Way to Health, Long Life and happiness, which Morton calls The Way to Health and Long Life) (Morton (2002), p.79). But Evelyn would have frequently used Ralph Austen’s A Treatise of Fruit – Trees … most conducing to Health and Long – Life (Oxford, 1657) and the phrase was a generic label for works on health, appearing in the title of at least ten works of the period and in the text of innumerable others. The phrase derived from the Latin key phrase ‘sanitate et longævitate’ and was widespread since Galen’s seminal treatise, De sanitate tuenda.

  25 Schreiber (n.d.).

  26 Evelyn (1699), pp.153, 190–1, O2r–v.

  27 Evelyn (1699), pp.164–5;
Almond (1999), p.120; Morton (2002), p.80.

  28 Evelyn (1997), pp.13–20 and passim (in which Evelyn described 207 flesh-free dishes and 118 dishes including animal products).

  29 Webster (1975), passim; Webster (1982), pp.48–9, 65–8.

  30 Jacob (1976a), pp.338–40; cf. Jacob and Lockwood (1972).

  31 Evelyn (1699), pp.179, 190.

  32 Evelyn (1670), pp.226, 233; Evelyn (2000), pp.150–2; Evelyn (1850), II.17–20; Gaudenzio (1641), p.31ff.

  33 Evelyn (1699), pp.137–8, 150–1.

  34 Webster (1982), pp.65–8; Levine (1997), p.68; cf. Hippolytus (2005), pp.59–60; Burthogge (1675), pp.374–5, 378–81; Postel (1986), pp.39–40, 91–2; Hartlib (1652). Others tried to trace pantheism to the Bible: e.g. Salmon (1651), pp.37–8; Coppin (1649), Part III, title page and p.8. cf. Vaughan, T. (1984), p.491; [Vaughan, T.] (1650), pp.12–13, 15–16.

  35 PT (1702), pp.729–38 (Evelyn’s copy in the British Library, Eve.a.149).

  36 Evelyn (1699), pp.79–81; Evelyn (2000), pp.343–4; pp.417–18; Evelyn (1670), pp.231–2.

  37 Evelyn (1699), pp.153–4, 163–4.

  38 Evelyn (1699), pp.124, 150.

  39 Evelyn (2000), pp.54, 343–4; see ch. 4 above.

  40 Evelyn (2000), pp.150–7, 418–19; Evelyn (1670), pp.225–33; cf. Lord (1630), pp.58–9; Yule, ed. (1915), III.242–3; Fryer (1909), I.59, 110.

  41 Evelyn (1670), pp.228, 246–7 and ‘Pomona’, p.3; Evelyn (1995), p.223n.; Schama (1995), pp.158–9; Tryon (1691a), p.361; [Tryon] ([1688?]), pp.76–7, 133–4.

  42 Evelyn (1661); Evelyn (1699), pp.131–2; cf. Tryon (1691a), pp.184–5.

  43 Evelyn (1699), pp.151, 153.

  44 Ovid (1632), Sandys’ commentary, Bk XV.

  45 [Burnet] (1691), p.190; cf. Evelyn (1699), pp.150, 163–4; Almond (1999), pp.25–6; Pseudo-Clement (2005b), Homily VIII, chs 15–17; Bacon (1650) [Eve.b.30], p.13; Lambe (1815), pp.102–7.

  46 cf. Levine (1997), p.74.

  47 Temple (1690), pp.13–23; Temple (1680), p.189ff.; Temple (1701), pp.112–15; cf. Mitter (1977) p.191; Drew (1998), p.47.