16 Spy, I.196; II.48–51, 133–5, 226–9; III.207–17; IV.86–7, 164–5; VI.191–6; VIII.25–8.
17 On Mahmut’s fascination for Eastern chronology, cf. Spy, IV.354–9; cf. IV.166–7, 193–4; V.216; VI.144–8, 246–9; VII.96, 104–7, 190–7, 249ff.; VIII.248, and especially 313–29. The Turkish Spy’s use of foreign cultures, especially the antiquity of China, to undermine the claims of Christian orthodoxy relate to similar techniques employed by La Peyrère and Guillaume Postel. On the Eastern testimony to the eternity of the earth, cf. Spy, VI.246–9; VII.104–7, 190–7; VIII.325–9. On the eternity of the earth in general, cf. III.216–17, 318; VI.191–6, 246–9; VIII.83–9. On Pre-Adamism, cf. III.315–22, 360; VI.191–6; VIII.336–9. cf. Patot (1760), II.146–7; D’Argens (1739–40), I.281–4. Newton did the opposite by trying to prove that such claims of antiquity were exaggerated (Newton (1728), passim; Manuel (1968), pp.351–2). On Sanskrit as the first language, cf. Spy, III.216–17, 321–2; VI.191–6; cf. Webb (1669). Guillaume Postel appears to have thought the ancient Brahmins had retained antediluvian books (Postel (1553?a), pp.72–3). For the Spy’s cultural relativisim, cf e.g. Spy, I.258; III.150; VI.77–80, 135–40; VII.188–9, 219; VIII.108–15; Marana (1970), pp.xiii–xiv. For the interest in travel in general, cf. Spy, II.35–7, 229–35; IV.253, 303–5; V.44, 186, 338; VI.135–40, 177–9; VII.143, 188–9, 226. Popkin (1979), pp.215–19, 224, 228; Popkin (1987a), pp.127–31; Popkin (1987b), pp.xxxix–xl; Popkin (1990a); Rubiés (2000), p.347; Drew (1998), p.47; Popkin (1998), p.414; Popkin (1990b), pp.20–1; Hazard (1953), pp.8–12; Rubiés (2000), pp.220n., 309, 312, 343, 347–8, 354–7+n., 378–85; Walker (1972), pp.194–230, espec. 214–15; Shimi (1973), p.10. In contrast to the active role that Popkin, Rubiés and Hazard and I attribute to the impact of travel literature, C.J. Betts takes the view that ‘Knowledge of foreign societies seems to have determined the forms and setting of deistic literature rather than its content’ (Betts (1984), p.75).
18 Even though C.J. Betts acknowledges that Mahmut ‘returns to the question in other letters, as if he took it seriously,’ he dismisses this central concern as the ‘anti-climax when Mahmut asks whether to abstain from meat’ (Betts (1984), pp.100–1). Richard H. Popkin’s discussion of Mahmut’s vegetarian mission is much more sensitive, Popkin (1987b).
19 Spy, IV.218; cf. IV.78, 109–10; V.16–17; VI.15.
20 Spy, V.87–90; cf. IV.18–21, 193–4; V.303–4; VI.191–6; VII.17; Ovington (1929), pp.168–70, 175, 177–9; Porphyry (2000), p.112; Evelyn (2000), p.154. Whether the several curious parallel passages in Ovington and the Turkish Spy are the result of either of them directly borrowing from the other, or both of them borrowing from a prior common source, the linguistic similarities could well be strong evidence that the anonymous volumes of the Turkish Spy were originally written in English. cf. also Spy, IV.305–10, 348–50; V.168; VII.145–54.
21 Spy, III.118; IV.16–22; VI.347–51; VII.17, 76; cf. Ovington (1929), pp.175, 178–9. Like Spinoza, Winstanley and other radicals, Mahmut emphasised that there was no landed property in the state of nature; cf. Israel (2001), p.271; and Ovid, Metamporphoses, Bk XV. On primitivism, cf. Spy, II.114–18, 168; IV.109–10; V.309, VI.347–51.
22 Spy, I.175, III.150–2; IV.306–8, 321–2; V.210; VIII.84, 97, 101; cf. Crab (1655), pp.12–13.
23 Spy, IV.109–10. The Turkish Spy’s portrayal of Muhammad is reminiscent of the medieval Islamic romantic figure of Majnun in the desert.
24 Purchas (1905–7), VIII.135–6; cf. Bacon (1640), p.382; Marana (1970), p.45n.; [Pope] (1729), I.262.
25 Spy, IV.14–15.
26 Spy, IV.16–17, 62–7; V.87–90; an echo of La Peyrère (cf. Popkin (1979), p.217). On Bible textual criticism in this period cf. e.g. Popkin (1998), p.413.
27 Spy, VI.284–93; cf. Williamson, ‘Just Complaint’, f.7v. On the lost tribes, cf. VI.317; VII.96; VIII.116ff. and the letters, apparently a (mock?) emulation of La Peyrère’s Postellian Messianism, at VII.307–14; VIII.18, 83–9 and cp. II.229–35; cf. Popkin (1979), pp.216–28; Popkin (1990a), pp.33–4; Popkin (1987b), pp.xxxviii–xlii. cf. also Montenegro and Jerónimo (1780), III.351–6; Patot (1760), I.17–21.
28 Spy, VII.145–54; cf. V.199; Matthew 3:4; Mark 1:6.
29 Spy, VI.278–9; VI.28–30.
30 Spy, IV.300–1; cf. Israel (2001), p.651. On the vegetarian Essenes, cf. Josephus (1755), ‘Antiquities of the Jews’, Bk XV, ch.10.4; Josephus (1755), ‘The Wars Of The Jews’, Bk II, ch. 8; Lord (1630), pp.74–6; Evelyn (1850), II.48–9; Grotius (1901), Bk II, ch. 2, § 2.
31 Spy, VI.246–9. For Mahmut’s Neoplatonism, see Spy, I.39; II.332–5; III.80–1; V.23–5, 169–71, 359; VII.76, 121–6; VIII.253; Marana (1970), pp.122–6; contrast I.39 with VI.36–8. On his favourite philosopher, Porphyry, Spy, IV.196–7; V.319; cf. II.93–6; III.14–23; V.303–4; VII.236–41; VIII.253; and cf. Lloyd (1699), p.v. For Mahmut’s reverence of Egypt: Spy, V.53, 64, 103, 128–9, 212–13, 216; VI.34–8; cf. Marana (1970), p.109n. For Mahmut’s reverence for ancient religions other than his favourites, Egypt and India, see Spy, II.189–90, 323; III.158–60, 173, 255–61, 278; IV.297–8, 336–7; V.117; VII.286–91. Daniel Defoe completely reneges on the agenda of the Turkish Spy by subsuming ancient paganism into Hebraic myth ([Defoe] (1718), pp.81ff., 152ff.).
32 Spy, VII.145–54; cf. e.g. I.32, 120; VII.16, VIII.222–3; Radicati (1734), p.44; Popkin (1987b), p.xliv; cf. Shahrastânî (1951–5), I.619–30.
33 Spy, IV.354–9; cf. IV.21–3, 303–5, 310; V.272; VI.144–8.
34 Spy, VIII.18–23; 170–6; cf. V.17–19.
35 Spy, IV.217–22; cf. IV.21–3; V.16–17, 250; VI.5–7, 28–30; VII.145–54; compare V.87–8 with Ovington (1920), pp.178–9.
36 Spy, V.16–17; cf. Tryon (1696), p.125.
37 Spy, III.66–70, 93–4; cf. II.142; IV.15–16, 78, 109–10; V.196; VIII.181–5.
38 Spy, VI.86–9.
39 Spy, VII.208; cf. V.69 and Drew (1998), p.205. For other vegetarians see Spy, I.261; II.312–13; III.260–1; and cf. I.38, 39, 213–14, 261, 322–3, 343–4; II.21ff., 197–9, 241–2; III.93–4. See also Mahmut’s other comments on abstinence: II.4, 33–4, 72–3, 172, 226; III.192–3; IV.109–10; Marana’s first volume shares this theme (Spy, I.38, 39, 213–14, 261, 322–3, 343–4) but exhibits contempt for Pythagorean vegetarianism (I.62, 230). cf. [Defoe] (1718), p.54. Mahmut seems to allude to the anchoritic community of Munastir in Tunisia (IV.109–10; cf. Bosworth et al., eds (1993), VII.227–9).
40 Spy, VII.145–54; cf. III.66–70; IV.16–17, 23, 109–10, 218, 331–2; V.15; VI.30, 347–51; VII.121–8, 145–54; Weitzman was simplifying the fraught issue when he said that Mahmut was a vegetarian (Marana (1970), p.xi–xii).
41 Spy, VII.126–7.
42 Spy, IV.109–10; cf. Ovington (1929), p.178; and Spy, III.110–11, 120, 181, 278. Mahmut eats flesh even though it is polluted with blood: Spy, III.245–7: VI.28–30; cf. V.3–5. Mahmut initially abstained from wine, but eventually becomes an alcoholic: Spy, II.48–9, 354, 357–9; IV.348–9; V.53–5; VI.49–51; VIII.181–5; cf. [Defoe] (1718), p.74ff.
43 Spy, VII.145–54; cf. VI.191–6; VII.276–7; VIII.7–12.
44 Spy, VII.127–8, 208, 145–54; cf. III.260–1, VII.201–4; for anti-monasticism cf. VII.162–4; VIII.25–8; Bernier (1988), p.320. The Turkish Spy may have been influenced by Bernier’s two-pronged technique of snidely ridiculing Christian practices under the guise of criticising similar Indian superstitions.
45 Spy, VIII.7–12.
46 Spy, IV.331–2; cf. VII.145–54.
47 Spy, IV.109–10.
48 Calvin (1999), I, Genesis 1:29 and 9:3.
49 Reynolds (1725), p.95, and pp.1–96.
50 Betts (1984), pp.11–12nn.
51 Popkin (1979), pp.215–19, 224, 228; Popkin (1990a), pp.33–4; Popkin (1987a), pp.78, 115–20, 128–32; Rubiés (2000), p.347. cf. Patot (1760), II.146–7; Hasan (1733), Notes, ii.254–5; Poole (2004), p.3 and passim.
52 Postel (1553?a),
pp.68–70, 72; Postel (1986), pp.39–40, 91–92, 140; Postel (1981), pp.100, 102, 240–73; Postel (1969), pp.188–90+n., 206, 229+n.; Postel (1553?b), pp.4v–5r, 11r–12r, 16v–20r, 29v, 32v, 45v–60r, 65r, 66r–67v, 86v–87r (my translations from a facsimile of the edition in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France with Postel’s ms emendations); Bouwsma (1957), pp.58, 61–2, 206–12, 252, 298; cf. pp.43, 51, 275–7; Lach (1977), pp.41, 266–70; Kuntz (1981), pp.6, 27, 34, 50–2, 83–4, 96–7, 104–5, 172; Kuntz (1999), II.278, 280–1, IV.34, XIII.171, XIV.445; Scholem (1991), p.199; Popkin (1992), p.287; cf. Herbert of Cherbury (1705), pp.358–9; cp. Bayle, P. (1734–41), III.560.
53 Spy, VI.A5v; VII.A3r–v.
54 Blount, Gildon et al. (1693), p.82 and passim; Blount (1680), sig.[A3r].
55 Bayle, P. (1734–41), II.101–2; cf. Lloyd (1699), I.xii, xvii–xxvi, xxxvi–xlv.
56 Blount (1680), pp.1–4; Blount ([1680?]), pp.19–20, 40–1, 51, 58–9; cf. Ovid, Metamorphoses, Bk XV; Clement of Alexandria (2004a), Bk VII, ch.1; cp. [Delany] (1733), pp.124–5; [Coxall?] (1721), pp.21–2; cf. pp.16–18, 26–7.
57 Blount (1680), pp.3–4, 110; Blount ([1680?]), pp.49–50; cf. [Créquinière] (1705), p.30; Blount, Gildon et al. (1693); cf. Burnet (1729), IV, ‘Modern Brachmans’; Burnet (1736), p.16ff.; Edwards (1699), I.95–6.
58 Blount (1680), pp.2–3, 69, 88–90; cf. p.152; Diogenes Laertius (2000), II.331–2; Blount ([1680?]), p.22. Compare Blount (1680), p.17 with Philostratus (1912), II.303–5 (Bk VIII, ch.vii).
59 Blount ([1680?]), p.22.
60 Blount (1680), pp.23–4.
61 Toland (1704), pp.21–2, 31–3, 38–9, 53, 57–8, 191; Ovington (1929), pp.195–6; Spy, IV.176; VI.253–4; VII.45; Reuchlin (1983), pp.169, 179; cf. Ovid (1632), Bk XV, and cf. Sandys’ commentary; Cudworth (1678), pp.40–2; Kurth-Voigt (1999), pp.38–40; cf. [Créquinière] (1705), pp.30, 54–7, 99–100, 102–3; Kircher (1987), pp.141–5; Hasan (1733), Notes, Part 2, pp.31–2; cf. Betts (1984), pp.235–7; Jacob (1981), pp.215–21.
62 Jacob (1976b), pp.233–4 (cf. pp.212–13, 227, 231; Creech (1699), sigs.Ar–v, p.90; León-Jones (1997), pp.33, 83–91, 123–4, 149–53. León-Jones does not solve the question to what extent Bruno understood metempsychosis as individual souls reincarnating in different bodies, rather than as the eternal cycling of matter and spirit. Stanley (1655–60), III.105; Porphyry (2000), Bk I.6, p.33n.29. cf. Blount (1678?), pp.8–9, 59–66, 92; Blount (1680), pp.2–3, Note 1; Blount (1680?), pp.25–6; cf. Anon. (1692), p.86; Helmont, F.M. (1685), p.145; [Glanvill] (1662), e.g. pp.52–3.
63 Spy, V.105–7; VI.250–2, 341–6; VII.242 and IV.218; V.23–5; VIII.250; and Mahmut’s other discussions of metempsychosis: I.39; II.335–6; IV.16–17, 110, 202, 348–9; V.247, 295; VII.96, 145–54; Disraeli (1798), II.493–4. C.J. Betts denies that Mahmut gives metempsychosis such high priority, Betts (1984), p.109; Kurth-Voigt (1999), pp.38–40. Mahmut also tried to show that metempsychosis was compatible with Islam; Spy, V.105–8; Pococke (1650), pp.134–5; cf. Hasan (1733), Notes, Part 2, pp.31 – 2; Abul-Pharajio (1663), pp.33, 50; cf. Blount (1678?), p.66; Ovington (1929), pp.171–2; Scholem (1987), pp.191–4. See also the Spinozists’ interest in Pococke’s Latin translation of the Arabic pantheistic novel, the Life of Hai Ebn Yokhdan, which presented the origin of flesh-eating as an accident ([Pococke] (2001), p.198). Compare other attempts to reconcile reincarnation and resurrection in ch.5 and ch.6, and Gott (1670), p.477.
64 Yates (1961), p.249; Gatti (1995); Temple (1690), pp.22–3; Locke (1858), pp.128–30; Israel (2001), p.136.
65 Lloyd (1699), I.v; Fréret (1758), p.379. On Buddhism as atheism, see e.g. Locke (1690), Bk.I, Ch.iii; Radicati (1737), pp.36–7; Israel (2001), pp.647, 654, 660, 675.
66 [Gildon] (1710); Marana (1970), pp.xvi–xvii.
67 Blount, Gildon et al. (1693), p.182; cf. Spy, IV.193–4; cf. e.g. Heylyn (1625), p.692; Speed (1646), p.38; Olearius (1669), p.188. John Locke drew from the same source as Gildon when he commented in his notebook that ‘The Brahmins estimate that in the year 1639 of the Christian era the world had existed for 3,892,739 years’ (Bonno (1955), p.55; Locke (1858), pp.70, 73, 251–3). Suprisingly John Marshall’s apparently independent report chronologically tallies with Locke’s source, in saying that a 1670 Sanskrit almanac reckoned the world was 3,892,771 years old (a point Evelyn marked in his own copy) (Marshall (1702), p.733; cf. Temple (1690), pp.19–20).
68 Gordon (1871), pp.277–8.
69 Spy, III.245, 272; V.251, 323; VI.250–2, 347–51; VII.2–5; VIII.18–23; cf. e.g. Tryon (1691a), pp.99, 186. For other Tryonist echoes in Turkish Spy see e.g. Tryon’s pantheism (Tryon (1691a), pp.29–30; [Tryon] (1685), pp.66–7; Tryon (1703), pp.40, 62); the echo of Tryon’s title in Mahmut’s phrase, ‘Health, long Life, and Happiness’ (Spy, II.122, 217); and microcosm and pansophia (Spy, II.197–9).
70 This (and Tryon’s Quaker precedents) revises the view of Drew and Popkin that the Turkish Spy is ‘the first work in which the Orient serves as the basis for a satire on European manners and morals’ (John Drew (1998), pp.79–80, 90; Popkin (1987a), p.115). For deist-like views, cf. [Tryon] (1695a), pp.5, 11, 90–5; Tryon (1691a), p.261; Tryon (1691b), pp.130–1; Agrippa (1651), III.473–5; Spy, III.300. Mahmut also goes through a phase of mystical Quietism which he compares to the spirituality of the Brahmins, a comparison that had already been made by François Bernier, John Locke and Pierre Bayle: Spy, VII.236–41, VIII.92–6; cf. [Defoe] (1718), p.270ff.; Bernier (1890), pp.19–20; Bernier (1988), pp.316–19; Betts (1984), pp.107–8; Aaron and Gibb, eds (1936), p.119; Bayle, P. (1734–41), III.563–4. McDowell (2002), pp.524, 527; cf. e.g. Spy, II.139–42.
CHAPTER 10
1 Cohen (1936), p.53; Malebranche (1694[–5]), I.ii.77; II.798–9; Passmore (1974), pp.204–5.
2 Malebranche (1694[–5]), II.249–51, 776–7.
3 When Thomas Huxley came to defend Charles Darwin’s revolutionary theories, it was to Descartes he turned as the founder of their line of thought: Huxley (1874); Huxley (1870).
4 Shugg (1968b); Rosenfield (1968); Malebranche (1997), Bk V, ch.III, pp.352–3; Spy, VII.220–5; Ray (1717), I.54–7.
5 Thomas Hobbes, ‘Objections’, in Descartes (1952), p.136.
6 Hobbes (1839–45), II.113–14; V.166, 185–8; Hobbes (1969), pp.130–1; cit. Thomas, K. (1983), p.171; Hobbes (1651), Part I, ch.xiv, pp.64–9.
7 ‘The Hunting of the Hare’, in Cavendish (1653), pp.112–13; see also Cavendish’s anti-meat poem, ‘Nature’s Cook’ and Cavendish (2004), pp.18, 64, for a world in which meat-eating equals cannibalism and where she castigates Aristotle because ‘his Knowledge was got by untimely Deaths, and cruel Dissections’. cf. Sarasohn (1996), pp.170–1; Thomas, K. (1983), p.170; Smuts ed. (1996), p.191; Spencer (1993), pp.211–12; Regan (2001), p.100.
8 Tryon once indirectly addressed the Cartesian debate in his attack on the Earl of Rochester, Tryon (1691b), pp.131–3; Wilmot (1964), ‘Satyr against Mankind’ [1680], pp.118–24.
9 Tyssot de Patot fused sections from both Hobbes’ and Gassendi’s ‘Objections’ to Descartes Meditations: Tyssot de Patot (1997), I.43, 207; [Tyssot de Patot] (1743), pp.28–9; cf. Betts (1984), p.187; [Gildon] (1997), Letter 54, pp.[181–3], 170–2; McKee (1941), pp.80–4.
10 Spy, IV.310.
11 Ovington (1929), pp.168–70; cf. La Mettrie, L’Homme-Machine (1748).
12 Spy, IV.310; Israel (2001), pp.270–1; cf. Bergerac (1657).
13 Pufendorf (1749), pp.361–2.
14 Cohen (1936); Rosenfield (1968), pp.16–17, 52, 54; Passmore (1975), pp.204–5; Thomas, K. (1983), p.34+n. Henry More’s Platonist colleague, Ralph Cudworth, agreed that even Pythagoreanism was ‘more Reasonable and Tolerable’, though he assuaged the anxiety of ‘those, who are so much burthened with this difficulty’, by explaining that animal souls did not reincarnate, but were reabsorbed into the world soul: Cudworth (1678), pp.38–46.
15 Williams, Howard (1883), p.102.
16 [Baillet] (1691), II.447–9 and p.xx
vi; cf. Descartes (1897–1913), V.184, 199–201; Haldane (1905), p.360; Rodis-Lewis (1998), pp.xiii, 182; Gruman (1966), pp.77–9; Descartes (1984–91), III.75, 131, 136, 237, 275, 353; and the invaluable article Shapin (2000), which says that Descartes was not actually vegetarian; this may be the case, but it leaves unanswered, for example, why his diet was spoken of in terms of the fleshless Lenten fast.
17 Montaigne (1991), pp.505–9; Descartes (1897–1913), X.219; Descartes (1952), ‘Discourse On The Method’, § v; cf. Cureau de la Chambre (1658), p.587; Serjeantson (2001), p.437+n.74; Boas (1966), pp.56–61; cp. Rosenfield (1968), pp.3, 19; Charron (1601); Rodis-Lewis (1998), pp.44–7.
18 Malebranche (1694[–5]), Bk II (part 3), Vol.I.i.253–63 (ch. 5); Malebranche (1962), I.368–9n.295.
19 This mechanical theory was a radical alternative to the belief, espoused by Francis Bacon, that sympathy was an ethical principle imprinted by God on every human soul (see ch. 1).
20 This idea that women were susceptible to intense sympathy and even vegetarianism was excoriated and idolised in turns throughout the eighteenth century.
21 Malebranche (1694), pp.56–8; Malebranche (1997), Bk 5, ch.3, pp.352–3; cf. Malebranche (1962), XVII.i.513–18.
22 Seward (1795), II.171–2; Ritson (1802), pp.180–1.
23 Even Malebranche acknowledged that somatic sympathy ‘gives check to our Malice and Cruelty’; in this he anticipated the moral-sense school’s refutation of Hobbes (see ch.15 below).
24 Mandeville (1924), I.173–81.
CHAPTER 11
1 Tyson (1699) [Eve.b.17], sig.A1r, pp.1, 5, 22–3, 28, 30, 42 (ms marginalia), 51–2, 55; Thomas, K. (1983), pp.129–30, 132; PT (1700 [o.s.]), no. 268 [Eve.a.149, vol. 1699–1701], pp.338–41; Serjeantson (2001), p.441; cf. Descartes (1952), ‘Discourse On The Method’, § v; Cureau de la Chambre, (1657), pp.262–3; Schiebinger (2004), pp.44, 78–88.
The Bloodless Revolution Page 77
