38 Bacon (1640), p.382; cp. Bacon (1974), p.104 (Bk 2, IX.1).
39 Keynes 130.7, f.[3r] [Transcript, p.6]; cf. Keynes 130.6, Notebooks 1; [Pope] (1729), I.263.
40 Clement of Alexandria (2004a), Bk II, ch. 17; cf. Aquinas (1975), pp.118–19; see ch. 5 above.
41 Calvin (1999), I, ‘Genesis 9:3’; Mercerus (1598), ‘Genesis 9:4’, p.197; cf. e.g. Anon. (1652a), pp.4–5.
42 Edwards (1699), I.117–19. On the nutritional motive cf. Moore (1669), pp.35–6; Evelyn (1996), pp.78–80; Maimonides (1963), p.598 (III.xlviii); Mead (1755), p.26.
43 Patrick Delany later came to the same conclusion: [Delany] (1733), II.2–9.
44 cf. e.g. Roe (1662), pp.125–6; Anon. (1646a), p.6; Calvin (1999), I, ‘Genesis 9:3’; Edwards (1699), Vol. II, ch.18.
45 Yahuda 15.5, f.79v; cf. Keynes 3, p.30.
46 Holland (1596), pp.105–6.
47 Anon. (1646b), p.5.
48 Anon. (1646b), p.6.
49 Anon. (1652a), p.4.
50 Roe (1662), p.5.
51 Moore (1669), p.25. cf. Thomas, K. (1983), pp.289–90+n.
52 Evelyn (1996), pp.78–80; Evelyn (1850), II.17–18, 23.
53 [Tryon] ([1684c]), p.168; [Tryon] (1685), p.57; [Tryon] (1684a), pp.165–75; cf. Williamson, ‘Just Complaint’, f.7v.
54 Keynes 130.7, f.[7v] or ‘Sheet 4’ [Transcript, pp.13–14]; cf. Maclaurin (1748), pp.13–16; Westfall (1980), p.850.
55 On the Judaists, see ch. 2 above; Spy, III.110–11, 245–7; IV.21–3, 110; V.305; VI.28–30; VII.301–2.
56 Almond (1999), pp.25–7.
57 cf. e.g. Romans 14:20.
58 Rodis-Lewis (1998), p.182.
59 On the Golden age, see Yahuda 41, f.12; cf. Newton (1728), pp.163–5, 182; cf. e.g. Browne (1672), Bk III, ch.xxv, pp.189–94. Sacrifices were used from the beginning, but they were holocausts: Yahuda 26.2, f.33; Yahuda 41, f.4r; cp. the Jewish sacrifice (Newton, I. (1728), p.337, and Keynes 3, p.5); cf. Edwards (1699), p.115; Evelyn (1996), pp.75–6; Evelyn (1850), II.16; [Delany] (1733), I.124–5. cf. [Hecquet] (1709), pp.32–3.
60 Newton (1728), pp.241–2; Yahuda 25.1 a), f.‘38’; cf. Yahuda 25.1 f), f.1r; Diodorus Siculus (1700) [Harrison, J. (1978), item 518], pp.2–3, 22–3, 37–45; Diodorus Siculus (1604) [Harrison, J. (1978), item 517], Bk 1, pp.42–3; Diodorus Siculus (1559), p.29; cf. Diodorus Siculus (1933), I.29–31 (Bk I.viii).
61 Newton (1728), pp.241–2; cf. pp.161–2, 182, 197–8; Yahuda 25.1 a), f.‘38’; cf. also Yahuda 25.1 f), f.1r. For other sources on Egyptian vegetarianism, cf. e.g. Edwards (1699), I.96–7.
62 Fréret (1758), pp.246, 285–7; Fréret (1728), pp.10–11, 89–91; Newton (1728), pp.201–4; Yahuda 25.1 e), f.10–12; S[teuar]t (1757), p.160; [Newton, I.] (n.d.), p.8; PT (1734), VII.ii, pp.4–6; Manuel (1968), p.353. See the contradictions in Yahuda 25.1 e), f.11r; Yahuda 25.1 f), f.31v.
63 He (inconsistently) argued that the ‘Shepherds’ referred to in various ancient sources were not the Israelites but the ‘ignoble’ human-sacrificing Canaanites. Yahuda 25.1 e), f.10r–11r, 12r; Yahuda 25.2 c), f.1, 3–4; Yahuda 25.2 a), f.25; Yahuda 25.2 b), f.4–5, 31 (cp. f.13); Newton (1728), pp. 11, 20, 191, 198, 201–2, 205–6, 215–16; Porphyry (2000), II.lv (not, as Newton writes, I.lv), p.77; Manetho (1940), fragment 85, pp.198–201; Diodorus Siculus (1700), pp.27–8; Philostratus (1707) [Tr/NQ 11.2–3], II.720–2 (d). Newton was less consistent in his identification of Ammon with Ham than Westfall implies; cf. e.g. Newton (1728), pp.205–6, 241–2.
64 Yahuda 41, f.5r; Yahuda 25.2 b), f.10.
65 John Spencer had brought upon himself furious and widespread accusations of atheism merely for suggesting that God had designed Moses’ religion with some features deliberately like those of the Egyptians in order to hijack those rites from the Egyptian devil-worshippers and convert them to the use of the true God instead: Yahuda 41, f.5r; Spencer (1685), Bk 3; Edwards (1699), I.245–51; cf. DNB, ‘John Spencer’; Maimonides (1963), p.581 (III.xlvi).
66 Harrison (1978), pp.117, 186, 223, 228, 248; Rogerius (1670), pp.42, 59, 61, 95. Newton’s Jan[ua]. reserat[a] (‘The unlocked door’) is a Latin shorthand reference to Rogerius’ work. There appears to have been a Latin version of this, circulating under the title Gentilismus Reseratus (Leiden, 1651?) which I have not traced; cf. Schwab (1984), p.138 and www.missionstudies.org/asia/ india.htm. The title of Jan Amos Comenius’ Janua linguarum reserata may have influenced Newton’s shorthand.
67 Vossius (1641), pp.648–52; Yahuda 41, f.3–4, 8. See ch. 4 above.
68 Strabo (1707) [Tr/NQ 11.2–3], II.1007 (d2s), 1027 (d2s), 1031, 1035 (d2s), 1043 (d2s); Philostratus (1709) [Tr/ NQ.18.13], pp.105–6 (d2s).
69 Genesis 25:6; Newton (1728), pp.347–50; cf. Yahuda 41, f.25; see also ch. 9 below. Bouwsma does not note the biblical source, and without referring to Abraham ibn Ezra, suggests that the source of this theory was probably the Zohar which speaks of the ‘other sons’ of Abraham who ‘inhabit the mountains of the East, where they instruct the sons of men in the arts of magic and divination’ (Zohar (1931–4), II.33–4). On the Abrahaman genealogy, see Hakluyt, ed. (1885–90), Vol.VI, Bk.ii, ch.8; Hudson (2000), pp.8–9; [Créquinière] (1705), p.100. Pailin (1984), p.57; Manuel (1963), p.111; Pseudo-Clement (2005a), Bk I, ch. 33. It was refuted by others: Lord (1630), p.71; cf. Schwab (1984), pp.138, 152; Županov (1999), p.70; Camões (1776), pp.291–3n.; Voltaire gave credence to it in one place, and in another lambasted Bouchet for positing it (Schwab (1984), p.152).
70 Maier (1617), p.7, slightly misremembering Agrippa (1630?), II.ii.1077–8; cf. 1 Chronicles 1:32–3, Genesis 25:1–6 (in King James (1611), the name is rendered Hanoch and Henoch; Enoch in the Biblia Sacra Vulgata); Levy (1927), p.16; Ezra (1988), p.245; Ezra (1939), pp. 57, 155–7, 160, 183; Ezra (1947), pp.48, 75+n., 101. For Newton on Hermes, cf. Yahuda 25.2 a), f.26; Yahuda 25.2 b), f.9v–10.
71 Newton (1728), pp.40–1, 347–50; Yahuda 25.2 b), f.10; Yahuda 41, f.3–4; Ammianus (1935), II.366–9 (xxiii.6.32–33) (Newton, and the seventeenth-century translator, took Ammianus’ ‘qui’ to refer back to Hystaspes rather than (as modern translators) to Zoroaster); Ammianus (1609), p.231; cf. pp.235–6; cf. Maier (1617), p.8.
72 Newton (1728), pp.24, 252–3, 327; Yahuda 25.2 a), f.21; Yahuda 25.1 a), random page order, facing a page marked 20 [i.e. f.19v]; cf. Diodorus Siculus (1700), pp.13, 42; Manuel (1974), pp.43–4.
73 Newton (1728), pp.347–50; Madaurensis (1853), pp.388–9; Philostratus (1709) [Tr/ NQ.18.13], pp.3+n., 247 (d2s), 347; Maier (1717) [Tr/NQ 10.148(2)], p.48; Maier (1617), pp.8, 113–14.
74 Keynes 3, pp.5–6; reproduced in Goldish (1998), Appendix A, p.167; cf. pp.42, 49–50. The version at Keynes 3, p.27 also includes ‘the flesh’ of living animals, apparently meaning ‘of animals still alive’ (as in the Mosaic law against cutting off limbs while the animal is still alive); other versions only mention ‘the blood’, e.g. Newton (1950), p.29. cf. Maier (1717) [Tr/ NQ 10.148(2)], p.53; Philostratus (1709) [Tr/NQ.18.13], pp.3+n.; Strabo (1707) [Tr/NQ 11.2–3], II.1043 (d2s).
75 Metempsychosis arose from the corrupt belief that the seven planets and then that animals could be animated by souls: Yahuda 17.3, f.8r–9r, 11, 15; Yahuda 25.2 a), f.25; Yahuda 25.2 b), f.31; Westfall (1982), p.16; Newton (1950), p.50.
76 Yahuda 17.3, f.11; Manuel (1963), p.112+n., Plate 10; McGuire and Rattansi (1966), pp.109, 122–3+n. and passim; Westfall (1982), p.15; Schaffer (1993), p.220; Maclaurin (1748), pp.31–3.
77 For Newton’s interest in Pythagorean works, cf. e.g. Harrison (1978), pp.159, 166, 207, 217, 219; Philostratus (1709) [Tr/NQ.18.13], p.120.
78 Huet (1694); Edwards (1693), p.250; cf. Lockman, ed. (1743), II.266, 277; Bayle, P. (1734–41), VIII.614; Hazard (1953), pp.45–6; Vossius (1641); Popkin (1990a), pp.28–31; Markley (1999), pp.126–7. For the claim that Pythagoras learned from the Jews, cf. Clement of Alexandria (2004a), Bk I, ch.15; Josephus (1755), ‘Against Apion’, Bk I, section 22; Blount (1678?), pp.13–15; Dupleix (1610), p.8; Burthogge (1675)
, pp.374–5, 378–81; [Créquinière] (1705), p.100; McGuire and Rattansi (1966), pp.129–34; Heninger (1974), pp.201–2+n.
79 Clement of Alexandria (2004a), Bk II, ch.18; Exodus 22:30; Manuel (1963), pp.93–4; Mercerus (1598), ‘Genesis 9:4’, p.197; Selden (1640), pp.14–22, 43–5, 82–3; Selden (1725), I.193–4, II.333, 880–91, III.1735; Selden (1665), pp.117, 313, 830–1.
80 Roe (1990), pp.274–5; Gaitonde (1983), pp.31–3; Linschoten (1988), I.253+n.; Purchas, ed. (1905–7), X.218–318; Ovington (1929), pp.178–9; Lockman, ed. (1743), II.240, 266, 277; Herbert (1634), p.38; cf. ch. 19 below.
81 Schaffer (1993), pp.222–5.
82 Westfall (1980), pp.530–1; Westfall (1982), p.18; Westfall (1984); Vickers, ed. (1984), pp.8–9, 15, 20–2.
83 McGuire and Rattansi (1966); Dobbs (1975), pp.15, 20, 90, 105–6, 108–10, 180–1; Dobbs (1991), p.150; Manuel (1963) (3, n.72), pp.112–16; Craven (1910), pp.65–6, 71–5; Agrippa (1676), p.110; Anon. (1694a), sig.[a4r]; Churchill (1967), pp.38–9; Rattansi (1972); Matton (1987); [Glanvill] (1662), pp.1–3, 33–4; Harrison (1978), pp.184, 188–9; Keynes 32, p.3; Cambridge University Library (2001–2).
84 Maier (1617), pp.7, 38–44, 113–14, 120; Maier (1717) [Tr/ NQ 10.148(2)], pp.38, 47 (ds), 48–55; cf. Maier (1656), pp.10–11, 96–7; Maier (1687) [Tr/NQ 16.88], p.57 (ds); Maier (1619a) [Tr/NQ 10.148(1)], pp.109 (ds), 136 (d); Maier (1619b) [Tr/NQ 10.148(3)], p.214 (ds); Maier (1618)[Tr/NQ 10.148], pp.177 (ds), 178, 179 (d2s), (the pages on the prisca sapientia are among the only marked pages in this book).
85 Isaac Newton (1728), pp.305, 347–50; cf. Porphyry (2000), p.112 (4.16.2); Philostratus (1709) [Tr/NQ.18.13], pp.3+n., 85–8 (d2s); Harrison (1978), p.84, 217; Keynes 67, f.7r–10r; White (1997), pp.119–20.
86 Ben Jonson, The Alchemist, II.ii.96ff. cit. Coudert (2000), pp.84, 86; Anon. (1694a), pp.3–4, 31, 56–7; Geber (1928), p.30; [Aquinas attrib.] (1966), pp.107–8+n., 115–16, 336; Jung (1974), pp.270–1; Schuler (1980); Holland (1596), sig.A1v, A2r, pp.101–2. Holland’s information on the Persian Magi’s diet of ‘farina and olus’ was probably derived from Jerome (2005a), Bk II, ch.14, cf. Porphyry (2000), p.112n.
87 Josephus (1755), ‘Antiquities of the Jews’, Bk X, Ch.10.2; Daniel 1.
88 Keynes 130.6, Notebook 2, f.[9r–v]; Manuel (1968), p.173; cp. Dobbs (1975), p.15; cf. Iliffe (1998), p.148.
89 cf. Keynes 135, First Letter (17 Jan. 1727/8), side 3.
90 cf. Harrison (1978), pp.215, 232; Westfall (1980), p.531n. cites Newton’s note in Sanguis naturae (1696) about Tace/Tacy Sowle as one of the three pieces of evidence that Newton continued an interest in alchemy after 1693 (though Westfall misnames her ‘Stacy Sowles’ and exaggerates her role in alchemical publishing). Tacy inherited her business from her father Andrew Sowle who died in 1695. Furthermore, if Newton, who referred to her as ‘a Quaker Widow in White Hart Court’, is right that she was a widow at the time he wrote the note, he must have written the note in or after 1723 which seems very surprising. It seems more likely that Newton was mistaken; Tacy was a spinster until 1706 and it was probably before then that Newton wrote his note; or Newton was talking about Jane Sowle, Andrew’s widow, under whose name Tacy continued to publish after her marriage.
CHAPTER 9
1 Spinoza (2000), Part 1, Prop. 14, p.85, cf. pp.22, 55–7. Israel downplays the influence of the mid-century English republican ‘pantheists’ by contrasting Spinozism with Winstanley’s ‘poetic’ pantheism (Israel (2001), pp.162, 177, 187, 601–3, 610); but Winstanley was not a pantheist. More relevant predecessors were the true pantheists like Bauthumley and those borderline atheists – familiarly alluded to in short-hand by horrified contemporaries and outlawed by the Blasphemy Act (1650) – who held that ‘there is no God, but Nature only’ (cf. e.g. Muggleton (1699), pp.18–20; Collins (1651), p.6; Anon. (1650a), pp.1–4, 6; Anon. (1650b), pp.2–3; Anon. (1652b), pp.4–5. The Family of Love were accused of this (Hayes (1884), pp.58–67; [Rogers] (1579), sig. H.v.v.; Strype, ed. (1824), p.563; Hill, Reay and Lamont (1983), pp.18–19; Hill (1990), pp.155, 165; Hill (1991), pp.204–5, 209; Whiting (1968), p.273).
2 On the question of authorship, cf. Popkin (1987b), p.xxix; Popkin (1998), p.396; Marana (1970), pp.ix–xi, ‘Bibliography’; Disraeli (1798), II.121–5 (Disraeli presents evidence that the whole work was written by Marana); Boswell (1799), pp.207–8+n.; cf. Boswell (1785), p.427. C.J.Betts shares the view of Almansi and Warren that all eight volumes were authored by Marana: Betts (1984), p.97+n. (citing Guido Almansi, ‘‘‘L’Esploratore turco’’ e la genesi del romanzo epistolare pseudo-orientale’, Studi secenteschi 7 (1966), 35–65 and G. Almansi and D.A. Warren, ‘Roman épistolaire et analyse historique: l’’’Espion turc’’ de G.P. Marana’, XVIIe Siècle 110 (1976), 57–73; Shimi (1973), pp.2–5 [only first 20 open-access pages seen]); cf. note 20 on parallels in Ovington below.
3 Marana (1970), p.vii; Drew (1998), p.205; Disraeli (1798), II.121–5.
4 All these authors used the perspective of Indian vegetarianism to critique Western mores; as did Oliver Goldsmith’s similar Citizen of the World (see ch. 16 below); cf. Hamilton (1796), espec. I.xv, xvii–xviii, II.222–6. For literature on the Spy’s impact on this literary genre, cf. Disraeli (1798), II.121–5; Shimi (1973), pp.11–12; Douthwaite (1997); Degategno (1975) (not seen); Dufrenoy (1975), III.18ff.
5 Marana (1970), pp.xiii–xiv; Disraeli (1798), II.121–5; cp. Popkin (1987a), p.120. Part of the threat of deism in the Turkish Spy was defused by Mahmut’s non-republican and even royalist sympathies, cf. Spy, II.84–5, 318–24; III.231–3, 290, 347, 357; Marana (1970), p.ix. Even this royalism, however, may have been sardonic, since he comments that the greatness of kings like Louis of France consisted in oppression, fleecing the rich and keeping the poor powerless (II.176, 275–7).
6 Spy, V.A5v, 319; VII.17; VIII.83–9, 254–6.
7 Spy, II.325–31, where he both repudiates but also defends this theory; V.165–6, where he is acutely equivocal; VI.253–5, where he equivocally defends it; and VIII.88 and 188, where he asserts it; cf. VII.242; VIII.A3v–A4v, where the editors deny he is atheist but sound sardonic; cf. III.A4r–v. Compare Spy, VIII.83–9 with Thomas Burnet, ‘An Appendix Concerning the Modern Brachmins in the Indies, Together with their generally received Opinions’, in Blount, Gildon et al. (1693), p.82. On the virtue of atheists, cf. Spy, II.325–33; IV.90–2; cf. also I.49; II.19; IV.207; Marana (1970), p.104n. For the radical sceptics’ use of Epicurus’ quasi-vegetarian frugality, cf. e.g. Berti (1994), ch. 9, p.138+n.; cf. ch. 11 below.
8 Spy, V.169–71; cf.II.114–18, 174–5; III.255–61; IV.354–9; V.303–4; VI.32–8; Marana (1970), pp.122–6n.; cf. [Defoe] (1718), pp.199ff., 218ff.; cp. IV.201 and cp. Betts (1984), p.114. The authors of the Turkish Spy may have derived information from the works of Edward Pococke, see Toomer (1996), pp.123, 220. Some views in the Turkish Spy are similar to the vegetarian sceptical Muslim poet-scholar Abū al-’Alā’ al-Ma’arrī (AD 973–1058), and his predecessor Ibn Al-Rāwandī who described the freethinking philosophy of the Barāhima (almost certainly the Indian Brahmins) apparently as a cover for his own heretical views. (Stroumsa (1999), pp.145–7, 162–3, 240–1; Encyclopædia Britannica, ‘Islamic art: the new style’, ‘Abu al-Ala al-Ma’ari’; Ali (2003), pp.55–6). The Turkish Spy’s interest in India is also reminiscent of the sixth/twelfth-century Baghdad-based Islamic theologian, Shahrastānī, who shared many views with the Ikhwan al-Safa. The Ikhwan al-Safa also gave voice to the complaints of animals against the abuses of mankind; cf. Titley (1983), p.148.
9 Spy, V.A4r; Marana (1970), p.ix; cf. [Defoe] (1718), p.v; Popkin (1987b), p.xliii. For a catalogue of persecution meted out against the protagonists of the Radical Enlightenment, though omitting the Turkish Spy, see Israel (2001).
10 Spy, III.116–19, 185–6; IV.203, 262–4; V.258. C.J. Betts dismisses this recurrent, powerful and cogent critique of the Bible as ‘little more than local colour, a necessity of the genre’, ‘not intended to do more than give ve
risimilitude to the fiction that a Muslim is the author’; Betts (1984), pp.100–3, 114.
11 Spy, VIII.119–24.
12 Spy, VI.254. On the claim that the law of nature, regardless of religion, will lead to virtue and salvation, cf. I.31; II.332–5; III.14, 179, 292; IV.262–4, 320; V.302–3, 341–3; VII.14–15, 188–9. On Mahmut’s desire to reconcile all religions, cf. I.129, 226; II.109–10, 114–18; III.87; IV.101–9, 295–301; V.102, 186; VI.32–8, 274–6, 278–9, 282; VI.114; VII.162–6. Popkin (1987b), pp.xlii–xliii. This was also consistent with the aims of the Ikhwan al-Safa (cf. Farrukh (n.d.)).
13 On the Brahmins, cf. Spy, I.32; II. 21ff., 77–8, 325–31; III.A4r, 14, 116–19, 286, 291–4, 297, 299; IV.203, 205, 260, 354–9; V.303–5; VI.32–8; VIII.119–24; Marana (1970), p.vii; [Defoe] (1718), p.152ff. cf. e.g. Blount (1680), pp.19–20; cf. Betts (1984), pp.76, 101. On the vacillations between Mahmut’s eirenic and partisan statements on the Sunni-Shia conflict, see Spy, II.114–8; IV.101–9; VI.32–4; cp. V.43–4; cf. Marana (1970), p.8n.
14 Spy, I.[A5r]; III.A4r–v; VI.274–6; cf. the mirror image in Mahmut’s defence of Christians against the bigotry of his Turkish friends: Spy, II.55, 109–10; III.179, 255–61; VIII.197–201. In another vein, however, Mahmut’s deist and Islamic voices combine to attack Christianity vigorously (cf. III.51).
15 Spy, I.26, 27–9, 196, 285, 355, 368; II.48–51, 129, 132–5, 224, 226–9, 273; III.124, 207–17, 260–1, 279–80, 295, 321–2, 332–5; IV.309–10, 342–3; V.128–130, 247, 289–91; VI.18ff., 77–80, 181–5; VII.17, 286–91; VIII.138, and further notes below. See also related fascination with China whose culture the Turkish Spy regards as largely contiguous with that of India, IV.87–98; V.31. Marana’s first volume exhibits interest in travel literature, especially from India but nothing like the enthusiastic Indophilia and vegetarianism which commences in the second volume (Spy, I.26, 27–9, 62, 78, 99, 133, 175, 196, 199, 203, 206, 219, 230, 253, 258, 261, 285, 322–3, 355, 368).
The Bloodless Revolution Page 76
