2 Wallis & Tyson (1702), pp.769–85; Wallis & Tyson (1721), pp.1–9.
3 Sarasohn (1996), p.178; Rosenfield (1968), pp.114–18; Darmon (1998).
4 Bougerel (1737), pp.413, 425, 455; Makin (1986).
5 Bernier (1964), VII.453–69; Garber and Ayers, eds (1998), I.569–71, 585–8; Lennon (1993), pp.3–7.
6 Bernier (1694), pp.162–3; cf. Stanley (1655–60), III.ii.244–6. On Epicurus’ frugality, cf. e.g. Jerome (2005a), Bk II, ch.11; Reynolds (1725), pp.55–6.
7 Bernier (1992), pp.303–11; Descartes (1952), ‘Discourse On The Method’, § v, Hobbes, ‘Objection 4’, p.136 (cp. Objection 6, p.138); Pierre Gassendi, ‘Fifth Objections’, pp.171–209, espec. p.176; Rosenfield (1968), p.9; Serjeantson (2001), pp.437–8; Bernier (1964), VI.312–28 (which retreats somewhat from Gassendi’s earlier position). cf. [Tyssot de Patot] (1743), pp.28–9; McKee (1941), pp.80–4; Voltaire (1980–), XXXV.411–15; Darmon (1998), pp.109–18.
8 Plutarch (1995), pp.551–3 (994F–995B), 571–3 (998B).
9 Compare the discussion in Doddridge (1794), I.208. Thomas Moffet countered Plutarch’s point, insisting that it was not ‘nature’ that made us shrink from killing, but unnaturally over-cultivated ‘Niceness and Conceit’, Moffet (1746), pp.132–5; cf. Montaigne (1991), p.509.
10 Gassendi (1658), III.76; Celsus (1935–8), I.51 (I.iii); Plutarch, De Sanitate Tuenda (132A); cit. Plutarch (1995), p.537; Williams, Howard (1883), p.104.
11 Gassendi (1658), II.301–2, VI.19–23; cf. III.75–6; Bougerel (1737), pp.45–57; Bernier (1684), V.581–6; VII.466–7; Williams, Howard (1883), pp.101–4; Newton, J.F. (1897), pp.32, 61, 63; Pufendorf (1749), pp.359–60+n.
12 Grand (1694), pp.274–5; cf. shorter version in Grand (1672), p.293; cf. Pufendorf (1749), pp.359–60+n.
13 Murr (1992).
14 Bernier (1684), V.585.
15 Bernier (1694), pp.147–72; cf. pp.280–3; Sarasohn (1996), p.178.
16 Bernier (1999), p.338. For related comments on Indian medical practice, cf. Majumdar (1960), p.276; Polo (1972), pp.278–9; Boemus (1885–90), Vol.VI, Bk ii, ch.8; Linschoten (1988), I.248; Foster (1999), p.310; Lord (1630), p.50; Tavernier (1995), I.198–9; Gaitonde (1983), p.44. cf. Harrison, M. (1996), p.78ff.; Harrison, M. (1994), pp.40–2. In fact, ancient Sanskrit medical texts do prescribe rich meat broths as the most strengthening diet for the sick, but this practice was later frowned upon by supporters of vegetarianism (Zimmerman (1987), pp.182–92).
17 Bernier (1684), V.585–6 [my translation]; corresponding to Gassendi (1658), II.302 (where this passage is, of course, absent).
18 Bernier (1694), p.165.
19 Bernier (1988), pp.253–4; Bonno (1955), pp.39–41, 55, 67, 80, 82, 215–16; Milner (1700), pp.6–7.
20 Locke (1997), I.133–40 (II.x.10, II.xi.5, 7, 9–11); cf. IV.239–40, IX.283; Cureau de la Chambre (1658), pp.561, 597–8, cf. pp.571, 591; Cureau de la Chambre (1657), sig.A3r, p.7, cf. sig.A4r, pp.3, 9, 13–14, 18, 21–2, 29–31, 34, 85–6, 256, 262–5, 278–9; Locke (1858), pp.70, 73, 128–30, 251–3. cf. Rosenfield (1968), pp. 18–19, 44; Lennon (1993), p.92–6, 158–9, 314–26 (where Lennon says that Chambre uses the chain of being to argue that since ‘there is a rational soul, there must also be a (merely) sensitive soul’, whereas it seems to me that Chambre is arguing that there must be a degree of reason); [Bayle, P.] (1684), pp.19–20; Chanet (1643), espec. Part II, Ch.2; Charron (1601), espec. Bk II, Ch.8; Sarasohn (1996), pp.170–3, 177; Spink (1960), p.107; Kish (1984) (Abstract only seen); Kroll (1984).
21 Locke (1692), Part I, § 13–14; Part II, § 29; cf. V.583.
22 For a summary of, and hostile response to, this ‘standard view’, see Milton (2000); cf. Kroll (1984); Wright (1991), pp.242–3; and see note 20 above.
23 Tyson (1699), pp.31–2; Plate 6.
24 Tyson & Wallis (1702), p.783.
25 Tyson & Wallis (1702), pp.769–85; Tyson & Wallis (1721), pp.1–9; cf. Clarke (1720), p.271.
26 PT February 1700 [i.e. 1701], no. 269 [Eve.a.149 (vol. 1699–1701)], pp.777, 784; cf. Porphyry (2000), Bk I.13.5, p.36.
27 Boerhaave (1742–6a), I.63–4; cf. Falconer (1781), pp.231–2.
28 Arbuthnot (1731), pp.100–2.
29 Cocchi (1745), p.47; cf. also The Universal Spectator, (20 Feb. 1731), no.124, p.1 and Moffet (1746), pp.62–6. cf. Reynolds (1725), p.76.
30 See e.g. Wilmot (1964), pp.118–24 ‘Satyr against Mankind’ [1680]; Cheyne (1724), p.91; Hastings (1936), pp.254–7, 263; Williams, Howard (1883), p.166; Oswald (1791), p.33; Haller (1754), pp.122–3; Brückner (1768), pp.26–7, 60–4+n.; Holwell (1970), pp.85–6; Nicholson (1999), pp.95–7; Ritson (1802), pp.41–2; Shelley, Vind., pp.7–8, V.Sys, p.340; Sinclair (1807), I.428–9.
31 Cit. Williams, Howard (1883), p.106; Spencer (1993), pp.211–12; Almond (1999), pp.23–4. cf. Ray (1717), p.20ff. (pp.53–7); Catholic Encyclopedia (2003, www.newadvent.org), ‘Physical Effects of Abstinence’.
32 Schiebinger (2004), pp.40–74.
33 Linnaeus to Johann Gmelin, February 1747; cit. Greene (1909), pp.25–6.
34 Linnaeus (1790), X.8–9; cit. Lambe (1815), p.176.
35 Svensson (1757), p.5; cf. Lind (1759); Burg (1756), pp.2–3; Linnaeus (1781), I.115, 118–9.
36 cf. e.g. Kaempfer (1694), p.36; Aberdour (1791), pp.80–1; Goldsmith (1774 – [1785?]), VIII.428; Willich (1799), pp.308–10; Adair (1787b), pp.268–9.
37 Haeckel (1912), ch.1.5.
38 Lémery (1704), pp.5–6, 136, 144–9; Lémery (1702), pp.8–10.
39 Lémery (1704), p.147.
CHAPTER 12
1 Clement of Alexandria (2004b), Bk II, ch.1 ‘On eating’; Pseudo-Clement (2005b), Homily VIII, ch. 15–17; Tertullian (2004b), ch.1; Cassian (1491), Bk V, ch.21; Cassian (1894), Bk IV, ch.22; Bk. V, ch.5; Bynum (1988), pp.35–9, 45, 82.
2 St John Chrysostom (2005b), Homily 49, § 3; St John Chrysostom (2005a), Homily 13 on 1 Timothy 5.
3 St John Augustine (2005), Bk XVI.6, XXII.3; cf. e.g. Pseudo-Clement (2005b), Homily XII, ch. 6; Pseudo-Clement (2005a), Bk VII. ch.6; Eusebius (1903), II.2–3; Berkman (2004).
4 Clement of Alexandria (2004b), Bk II, ch.1 ‘On eating’; St John Chrysostom (2005b), Homily 25, § 2, p.1098. cf. Manu (1971), v.56.
5 Pseudo-Clement (2005b), Homily III, ch. 36; Homily VII, ch. 4 and Homily VIII, ch. 19. For gluttony cf. Pseudo-Clement (2005a), Bk IV, ch. 17.
6 cf. St Irenaeus (2004), Bk I, ch.24, § 2; Bk I, ch.28, § 1. St Augustine (2004a), XX.36; St Augustine (2004b), ch.15; St Augustine (2005), Bk VI.6–8; Bk XIII.18; Bk XVI.6.
7 Origen (2005), Bk V, ch.49; cf. Bk V, ch.39 and 41, Bk VIII, ch.30; Augustine (2004c), ch.31, § 65–67.
8 Passmore (1975), p.197.
9 Kisbán (1986), pp.3–4; Bynum (1988), pp.35–45, 61; Thomas, K. (1983), p.289; for an interesting vegetarian discussion of eating fish, see Pufendorf (1749), pp.360–1.
10 Calvin (2002), ‘Prefatory Address’ § 4; Bk 4, ch.12, § 21.
11 Erasmus (1534), pp.45–6; cf. Agrippa (1676), p.311.
12 Holland (1596), sigs.A1v–[A4r], pp.1, 35, 95–104, 108–9; cf. Thomas, K. (1971), pp.229, 271, 479, 485–7, 593.
13 Nashe (1599), p.31; cf. Nashe (1592), ‘The complaint of Gluttonie’; Vaughan, W. (1630), pp.9, 14–15, 56–8.
14 John Donne, ‘The Liar’, cit. Main (1983), pp.84–6; cf. Browne (1672), Bk III, ch.xxv, pp.189–94; Fryer (1909), II.282–3; Poole (2000), pp.7–8, 45–69.
15 Holland (1596), sig.A2v–A3r, pp.105–6; cf. [Vaughan, W.] (1633), p.62; [Hecquet] (1710), pp.524–5; [Rheims, The English College of] (1582), p.142 (‘Luke 2’, n.37 (not n.17 as noted by Henry Holland)); cf. p.330 (‘Acts 13’, n.3).
16 Vaughan, W. (1630), pp. 4–5, 9–10, 15–18, 38–45, 49, 53, 55; [Vaughan, W.] (1633), pp.1–2, 50–4, 61–2, 121–2; cp. Vaughan, W. (1600), p.45; [Hecquet] (1710), p.518. cf. e.g. Edwards (1699), I.131–2.
17 Benedict (1998), ch. 39.
18 Johnston ed. (2000), pp.483–4, 1056, 1298�
�1300.
19 When Rousseau and Voltaire came to advocate the vegetarian diet, one of the most radical aspects of their arguments was that they encouraged it without appealing to the Catholic Church for support. Voltaire’s complaint that the Trappists were the only people in France to abide by Porphyry’s vegetarian teaching was a deliberately provocative irony. cf. also Diderot (1966), pp.34, 70.
20 Linand (1700), sigs.a.iiir–v, e.iir–v, e[iv]r–v, pp.1–14; Boerhaave (1751), p.701.
21 [Hecquet] (1709), sig.a.iiiv.
22 Cf. e.g. [Hecquet] (1741), I.[a.xi v]; [Hecquet] (1758); Roger (1889), pp.67–8.
23 Roger (1889), p.21; [Hecquet] (1733), I.160–1; Brockliss (1989), p.193.
24 Roger (1889), pp.21–3, 25–8. Condé’s father, Louis Bourbon, spent several years on a milk diet trying to cure his gout: [Coste] (1693), II.194, cit. Cheyne (1720), pp.13–15.
25 [Hecquet] (1710), pp.479–512, 513–25; [Hecquet] (1709), sig.a.ivr, pp.2, 11–14; Roger (1889), pp.46–8, 57–8; cf. L’Espine (1723).
26 Harvey (1628); Descartes (1952) ‘Discourse On The Method’, § v.
27 cf. e.g Bellini (1696), pp.68–9; Guerrini (1985), p.249. Guerrini cites Cunningham (1981), p.89, who says that Pitcairne replaced Cartesian physiology with what he believed to be Newtonian principles. But Pitcairne was regarded as a follower of Bellini the Cartesian and they remained close friends, cf. Pitcairne (1715), p.x; Pitcairne (1701), sig.*2r; Cocchi (1741), I.xiii–xiv.
28 cf. e.g. Pitcairne (1715), pp.111–12; Cheyne (1733), pp.4–5; Cheyne (1705), II.229–30.
29 Pitcairne (1722), sig.***3v, Definition 2.
30 Theodore M. Brown says that the excessive or diminished circulation, according to Pitcairne, were the sole causes of disease, while those other interruptions – blockages and so forth – were Cheyne’s later additions; Brown (1987), p.634. But cf. e.g. Pitcairne (1718a), pp.101–2 (NB in the obvious place, ‘quantity’ is an error for ‘quality’ cf. Pitcairne (1718b), p.68: ‘qualitata’; Pitcairne (1722), sig.[***4r], Definition 30).
31 [Mead] (n.d.), pp.74, 79.
32 Leeuwenhoek (1962), pp.17–20; Leeuwenhoek (1695), I.165ff., 189ff; cf. e.g. [Cheyne] (1701), p.108.
33 [Hecquet] (1733), I.65, 68–72, 76–7, 146; cf. Cheyne (1740), pp.72–3; Haller (1757), p.17; cf. Reynolds (1725), pp.50–1.
34 [Hecquet] (1733), I.124, 132–7, 147–9, 156–8, 197–9; Bellini (1696), p.235, cf. 207–8, 210, 229–31, 235–6, 251; Bellini (1730), pp.369–70, 503–4; Bellini (1741), I.xxiii–xxiv, 93.
35 Decker (1693); Pitcairne (1715), sig.A2v–[A3v], pp.130–4; [Hecquet] (1733), Vol.II, Appendix ‘An Funtiones’; [Hecquet] (1709), pp.15–18, 22; [Hecquet] (1712); [Hecquet] (1733), I.75; Cheyne (1943), p.49. Hecquet was opposed by the defenders of the fermentation system: Andry (1710), pp.12–13, Astruc (1714); Pitcairne (1713), espec. ‘Lector’ and p.257. Boerhaave tried to reconcile the chemists and mechanists: Boerhaave (1742–6b), I.184–6. On Pitcairne and Hecquet’s friendship, cf. [Hecquet] (1733), II.13, 188; Pitcairne (1727), p.iv; Pitcairne (1718b), p.283. cf. Debus (2001), pp.154–6.
36 The United States National Library of Medicine, ‘Philippe Hecquet correspondence and medical notes’, Ms C 168 (not seen).
37 [Hecquet] (1709), pp.15–27; [Hecquet] (1733), I.98–101, 143, 145.
38 [Hecquet] (1733), I.78, 94–5; [Hecquet] (1709), pp.26–9.
39 [Hecquet] (1733), I.68–9, 81–3, 102–4, 134–5; cf. Reynolds (1725), p.47.
40 [Hecquet] (1733), I.81–3; Geoffroy (1732), p.217, cit. Cheyne (1740), pp.56–60; [Hecquet] (1709), ‘Approbation’.
41 Hecquet (1695); Roger (1889), pp.43–6, 71; Hecquet (1724); Brockliss (1989), p.201n.; cf. also [Hecquet] (1733), I.2–3; Lonie (1981); St Jerome (2005a), Bk II, ch.11; Reynolds (1725), pp.52–3; Edelstein (1987), p.303; Barker (1747), pp.87–9, 94–5, 158; Bacon (1650), p.7; Vaughan, W. (1630), pp.15–16; Powicke, ed. (1926), p.198; Deodatus (1628) (it was disingenuous of Baxter to cite Venner, who was an enemy of dieting for ordinary people, Venner (1660), p.230). For the emergence of the neo-Galenic vegetarian diet in sixteenth-century Germany, see the case of Philip of Mecklenburg (1514–57), in Midelfort (1994). For the rise of Hippocratic medicine in sixteenth-century Paris, see Lonie (1985). For the impact of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century translations of Galen on diet, see Boerhaave (1807), II.i.175–6. (Arnau de Vilanova credited the longevity of Carthusian monks to their vegetarian diet, Ziegler (1998).)
42 [Hecquet] (1733), I.2–3; I cannot explain how L.W.B. Brockliss came to the conclusion that ‘Hecquet, even in his later works, showed no awareness of the vegetarian prophylaxis of the English early eighteenth-century doctor, George Cheyne (1671–1743)’ (Brockliss (1989), p.202n.). Hecquet’s later works are full of adulatory remarks about Cheyne; e.g. [Hecquet] (1733), I.81–3, 102–3, 120–3, II.200. On the neurological impact of meat-induced ‘plethora’, for example, which Hecquet took from Cheyne, cf. [Hecquet] (1733), I.xxiv–xxvii, 79–81, 299, 314, II.13; cf. Pitcairne (1718a), pp.142–4, 173–9.
43 [Hecquet] (1733), I.76–7, 95–7, 119; cf. Cheyne (1724), pp.30–3; PT (1716), III.306–11 (the man of 169 was Henry Jenkins). Harvey (1847), pp.587–92; Gruman (1966), pp.68–73. Parr was incorporated into the canon of vegetarian apologia, cf. Taylor, J. (1825), pp.16–18; Tryon [1684], pp.19–20; Temple (1701), p.124; Floyer & Baynard (1715), p.407; Adair (1787a), p.220; Oswald (1791), p.18; Hufeland (1797); Ritson (1802), pp.156–7; Shelley, Vind. 19–20; Newton, J.F. (1897), pp.56–7; Caulfield (1813), II.135.
44 [Hecquet] (1709), pp.31–3; cf. [Hecquet] (1733), I.52.
45 [Hecquet] (1709), pp.2, 24–5, 30–3; [Hecquet] (1733), I.xiii–xix, 40–1. cf. Biblia Sacra Vulgata, Liber Iesu filii Sirachi [Ecclesiasticus] c.39.v.31; The Holy Bible, King James version (http://etext.lib. virginia.edu/relig.browse.html), The Apocrypha, Prologue to Sirach 40:26: ‘The principal things for the whole use of man’s life are water, fire, iron, and salt, flour of wheat, honey, milk, and the blood of the grape, and oil, and clothing.’ cf. [Tryon] (1685), p.107.
46 [Hecquet] (1733), I.159–60.
47 [Hecquet] (1733), I.xiii–xix, 4–7, 13–15, 22–5, 54, 70–2, 151, 562–3; [Hecquet] (1709), pp.29–30; St Jerome (2005a), Bk II, ch.15; cf. Bk I, ch.18; Cheyne (1724), pp.91–4; cf. chs 3 and 5 above.
48 [Hecquet] (1741), ‘Approbation’, ‘Avis’, sig.[a.xv]–b.iv.
49 Hecquet knew Lémery personally: he joined the Paris medical Faculty four years before Lémery, he had been taught chemistry by Louis’ father, and got Louis to write an approbation of his mechanical work, De la Digestion (1712); cf. Brockliss (1989), p.221.
50 Andry (1710), pp.1–3, 12–19, 27–8, 32–45; Andry (1704); Andry (1705); Andry (1737); [Docteurs de la Faculté] (1736); cf. Aristotle, On the Parts of Animals, IV.x. Hecquet was unrepentant: cf. [Hecquet] (1710), I.48–50; [Hecquet] (1733), I.38–9. Hecquet and Andry seem to have been reconciled later: Andry approved of [Hecquet] (1733), (end of vol.I); cf. Brockliss (1989), p.220n.
51 Lesage (1977), Bk II, chs 2–5.
52 Nouvelle Biographie Générale (Paris, 1858), Vol.23; Roger (1889), pp.34–6, 40–1.
CHAPTER 13
1 Mack (1985), p.371.
2 An ell was 45 inches.
3 Cheyne (1943), p.7; Shuttleton (1992), pp.26, 154–5; Ponsonby (1949), p.158.
4 Cheyne (1733), pp.325–6.
5 Oliphant (1702), pp.4–5; cf. Guerrini (1993a).
6 Cheyne (1943), pp.76–8; cp. Cheyne (1733), p.342; Child (1992), pp.192–99; Guerrini (1995).
7 Keynes Ms 130.7, [f.2r] [Transcript pp.3–4]; Keynes Ms 130.6, Notebook 2, f.6v–7r; Cheyne (1703).
8 Cheyne (1733), pp.325–7.
9 Cheyne (1733), pp.6–9, 192–203, 245–54; Guerrini (2000), pp.5–7.
10 Cheyne (1733), pp.331–2; Shuttleton (1992), pp.50–100, espec. pp.54, 75–6; Shuttleton (1996); Mss Rawlinson (Bodleian) D 833, f.26r [illeg. ‘Cheny’?]. There are similarities between Cheyne’s and Tryon’s be
liefs, but Nigel Smith’s statement that Tryon’s books introduced Cheyne to Jacob Böhme is rash: there is no firm evidence that Cheyne read any of Tryon’s books and Tryon never mentions Böhme in any case. Even Timothy Morton’s view seems to be contradicted by Shuttleton (Smith (1999), pp.107–8; Morton (2002), p.81; Shuttleton (1992), p.112; Gibbons (1996), p.186); cf. Rousseau, G.S. (1998), p.101.
11 The mystical authors he read also recommended abstinence: Bourignon (1737), pp.49, 57, 60; Bourignon (1707), p.11; cit. Guerrini (2000), pp.15–19; Shuttleton (1992), pp.57–8; Shuttleton (1999a), p.70; Bourignon (1699), pp.326–7; cf. Garden (1699), p.43; Bourignon (1703), II.74–7, III.65–70; Marsay (1749), pp.13, 22.
12 Cheyne (1733), pp.335–7; cf. pp.253–4; Cheyne (1738), pp.102–4; Cheyne (1724), p.32; Cheyne (1940), pp.52–3, 88; Cheyne (1943), pp.31–2, 76–8, 81, 102–4. There is no reason to believe Shuttleton’s suggestion that Dr Taylor was ‘was probably an adherent of the Pythagorean doctrines flourishing amongst dissenters’. Cheyne says Taylor got the diet from Dr Thomas Sydenham (see below) (Shuttleton (1992), pp.54–5+n.)
13 Cheyne (1733), pp.335–8; Cheyne (1943), pp.82–5, 105. Contrary to Cheyne’s claims, Pitcairne did not say the milk diet was an ‘infallible Cure’, nor the only one, and the three disorders Cheyne says Pitcairne used it for were all in fact the same thing according to Pitcairne. Despite Pitcairne’s new medical theories, most of the remedies he prescribed were inherited from the old pharmacopia: Pitcairne (1718a), pp.77, 101–2, 181–2, 304–6. In a later publication Pitcairne recommends water drinking for the scurvy but does not mention the milk diet: Pitcairne (1715), p.259.
14 Playing with the common pun on vegetable (which the gardener Philip Miller said was ‘deriv’d from the Latin, vegeto to quicken, to refresh, to make lively and strong’), Cheyne announced that since taking up vegetables ‘I am more alive than I ever was’. (Indeed, as a believer in the Adamic language, Cheyne may have thought the etymology of vegetables revealed their true nature.) Cheyne (1733), pp.88–9, 361–2; Miller (1731), p.vi; Boerhaave (1742–6a), I.54; cf. Lémery (1704), pp.20, 47, 67, 84, 87, 134; Evelyn (1996), p.92; Evelyn (1676), p.9; Tryon (1691a), pp.39, 99.
The Bloodless Revolution Page 78
