The Bloodless Revolution

by Tristram Stuart

  102 Reynolds (1725), pp.60–5; Thomas, K. (1983), pp.139–40.

  103 Marsay (1938), pp.105, 223–5ff., 245–8; Marsay (1739), pp.86–9; Marsay (1749), pp.23–4, 28–32; Cheyne (1740), p.50; Cheyne (1943), pp.123–4. Cheyne considered his theory of universal salvation similar to Marsay’s, but Marsay can hardly have been a source for Cheyne because, according to Marsay, God only revealed this system to Marsay in 1735, whereas Cheyne had come up with his ideas by 1705 when Marsay was only seventeen; cp. Guerrini (2000), p.172; Shuttleton (1996), p.39 and passim; Shuttleton (1992), p.96n.; Ramsay (1730), subscription list; Ramsay (1727), II.ii.98–127; cf. e.g. the Cheynian passage at I.90. Cheyne’s publisher, George Strahan, printed the Origenist tract [Rust?] (1721).

  CHAPTER 14

  1 Cheyne (1943), pp.62, 72; cf. pp.50, 58, 60–1, 71, 72, 78–9, 88, 94, 116.

  2 Cheyne (1943), pp.32–3 (9 Aug 1735). It seems that the issue of mercury poisoning may not have been raised previously partly because of Mullet’s oversight in translating Cheyne’s Latin prescription of Aethiop mineral as ‘black mineral powder’ without noting that this was one of Cheyne’s favourite mercurial compositions.

  3 Hirschorn et al. (2001).

  4 [Cheyne] (1701), pp.106–7; cf. Shapin (2003), p.277; Guerrini (2000), p.132.

  5 Cheyne (1733), pp.125–34; Huxham (1759), p.25.

  6 Cheyne (1943), pp.42, 49, 54, 58, 62, 66, 108, 115. On Richardson’s withdrawing from social contact, see e.g. Eaves and Kimpel (1971), p.157. This could provide an interesting perspective to the antisocial tendencies of ‘sensibility’ documented in Mullan (1988).

  7 Cheyne (1943): further mercurial prescriptions made in June 1738 (p.38) (Mercury Alcalisatus, three pills morning and evening); again in September (p.42); and the same again in May 1739 to be continued morning and night until midsummer (p.49); Cinnabar of Antimony and Antimony Diaphoretic in February 1741 (5 pills morning and night) (p.66).

  8 Scheuer and Bowman (1994); cf. Eaves and Kimpel (1971), p.84.

  9 Cheyne (1733), pp.238–9.

  10 Cheyne (1943), 16 July 1739, p.54; cf. p.59.

  11 Cheyne (1943), pp.78–9, 104–5; cf. 59, 61, 88–9, 90–1, 92.

  12 Cheyne (1943), 20 April 1740, pp.75–6.

  13 Cheyne (1943), 1735–41, pp.32–3, 38, 42, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 54, 57, 58, 59–60, 64.

  14 Cheyne (1943), p.66.

  15 Cheyne (1943), Letter 62, n.d., pp.96–8. In Mullett’s edition this letter has been printed as ‘Letter 62’ which would mean it was written between 2 and 17 May 1742; but in fact it was obviously written immediately after Letter 47 (dated 15 November 1741) and immediately before Letter 48 (2 December 1741) (p.73). In Letters 48 and 49 Cheyne refers to a recent letter in which he has suggested that Richardson take up the vegetable diet; it has hitherto been assumed that this letter was missing, but it is really referring to the mis-positioned ‘Letter 62’ in which Cheyne does first suggest the vegetable diet (which would make no sense if it had been written in May 1742, four months after Richardson adopted the diet). Letter 48 refers to ‘my last letter’ with details about book deals which actually appear in the misplaced ‘Letter 62’ (£125+£80 for his books). Also in ‘Letter 62’ Cheyne asks for a copy of Pamela which he thanks Richardson for in Letters 48 and 49. cf. also p.109.

  16 Eaves and Kimpel (1971), pp.154, 157.

  17 Cheyne (1733), pp.286–90.

  18 Cheyne (1733), pp.238–9, 343; cf. Fuller (1711), pp.243–6: Fuller says his own giddiness and convulsions were caused by poisoning from the mercury he applied to a skin condition; Cheyne (who seems to have used Fuller as a guide) used the same application for his leg ulcers and experienced giddiness and convulsions (see Fuller, ch.13, p.175+n.61 above). [Cheyne] (1701), pp.90–127.

  19 Cheyne (1943), 22 June 1738, p.37.

  20 Hirschorn et al. (2001).

  21 Coudert (1999), pp.156–7.

  22 Cheyne (1943), pp.76–8, 81.

  23 Cheyne (1943), 7 December 1741, pp.74–5; cf. Shapin (2003), pp.282–8.

  24 Cheyne (1943), pp.74–8, 94.

  25 Cheyne (1943), pp.74–5, 76–8, 78–9, 80, 90, 120.

  26 Cheyne (1943), p.100.

  27 Cheyne (1943), pp.58, 74–5, 76–8, 78–9, 80, 84–5, 93, 94, 97, 101 (‘our’ food), 110–11, 112, 114, 116, 117.

  28 Cheyne (1943), pp.74–5, 82–4, 105, 121; cf. Shapin (2003), pp.286–7.

  29 Cheyne (1943), pp.74–9, 82–4, 86–8, 95, 120.

  30 Cheyne (1943), pp.78–9.

  31 Cheyne (1943), p.101; cf. pp.78–89, 96, 107; Matthew 18:3; Böhme (1924), p.158.

  32 Cheyne (1943), pp.99–100, 113, 123.

  33 Eaves and Kimpel (1971), pp.154–6.

  34 Richardson (1749) [my emphasis], quoted in Shuttleton (1992), p.278; cf. Lockyer (1783), p.147; White (1770), p.122.

  35 Cheyne (1943), pp.32–5, 42.

  36 Richardson (1985b), pp.738, 799, 895, 1054, 1058, 1059; Richardson (1985a), pp.133, 136, 165, 299, 373, 392, 436, 495; cf. Fielding (1973), pp.1, 22, 29; cf. Rousseau, J.-J. (1997a), p.136+n.

  37 Richardson (1985a), pp.49, 57, 65, 69, 165, 206, 223, 282, 308, 311, 316, 323, 331, 340, 355, 363, 364, 378, 380, 397+n., 399–400, 408, 425, 428, 436, 443, 446–8, 491; Richardson (1985b), pp.263–4, 525, 532–3, 573, 581, 639–41, 799; Eaves and Kimpel (1971), p.123.

  38 Richardson (1985a), p.230+n.; Richardson (1985b), p.108+n. (cf. e.g. p.429); Plutarch (1928), III.162; cf. pp.210–11. Eaves and Kimpel (1971), pp.121, 94. On the fraught issue of Richardson’s politics, see Keymer (1995), pp.94–96+n.; cp. Doody (1990).

  39 Richardson (1985a), pp.47, 73, 112–13, 230; cf. pp.45, 58, 66, 68, 70, 95, 102, 108, 228, 268–9, 294.

  40 Cheyne (1943), p.76; Richardson (1985b), pp.263–4.

  41 Richardson (1985b), pp.1117–18, 1129; Cheyne (1943), pp.76, 81, 86, 100; cf. Fasick (1993), p.25; Dussinger (1974), pp.116–21; Shuttleton (1992), p.278.

  42 Richardson (1985b), p.1129.

  43 cf. e.g. Cheyne (1724), p.36; Cheyne (1733), pp.166–7; Cheyne (1740), p.xxix; Cheyne (1943), p.77. Richardson (1985b), pp.746, 932, 979, 980, 1012, 1081, 1158, 1127, 1167, 1198, 1380, 1470–1; Richardson (1754), III.373–4; Haggerty (1990), p.133; Willis (1683), p.194ff.; Harvey (1672?), p.55; Gross (1985), pp.284–5; Frega (1998), p.119+n.13

  44 Cheyne (1943), pp.99–100; cp. p.95.

  45 Cheyne (1943), p.87. Cheyne’s defence ironically fulfils J.B. van Helmont’s warning that diet-doctors ‘do oftentimes hope to get occasion of excusing death, by the disobedience of the sick, about the rules of diet not being strictly observed’ (Helmont, J.B. (1664), p.451).

  46 Cheyne (1943), pp.74–5.

  47 Shuttleton (1992), pp.269–70; Shuttleton (1999b); cf. Fasick (1993), p.25.

  48 Cheyne (1733), pp.viii, 20; Cheyne (1724), p.91.

  49 Pamela as animal: Richardson (1985a), pp.96, 97, 169, 176, 224; cf. pp.56, 57, 202, 204, 456. Rakes as carnivorous beasts: Richardson (1985a), pp. 71, 169, 207, 216, 233–4, 472; Richardson (1742), IV.33; Richardson (1985b), pp.165, 823, 891, 1089, 1437; predation: pp.196, 267, 418–19, 574, 887, 891, 1089; hunting: pp.165, 181, 209, 323, 557, 706, 792, 795, 803, 814; sacrifice: pp.67, 70, 85, 133, 162, 674; trapping: pp.119, 133, 144, 145, 199, 517, 557, 710; fishing: p.85. cf. Hume (1985), II.xi; Backscheider (1976); Eaves and Kimpel (1971), pp.84, 90; Hilliard (1990); Haggerty (1990), p.137; Keymer (1995); Biggs (1982). Clarissa consoled herself on her sacrificial status by reflecting on Christ’s sacrifice; she could have received succour from Wilson’s Lord’s Supper, one of the books that she is ‘not a little pleased with’ when she discovers it in her closet at Sinclair’s, which says that sinners were reformed ‘when they saw, that their Sins could not be forgiven, but by the Death of an innocent Creature, bleeding and dying before their Eyes, to make Atonement for their Sin’ (Richardson (1985b), p.525; Wilson (1745), pp.8, 21; cf. Nelson (1979), pp.5, 433, 439. Shuttleton (1995), p.325; [Delany] (1733), pp.144–6; Cheyne (1740), pp.70–1).

  50 Ri
chardson (1985a), pp.136, 221–2, 249–50, 290, 332, 410, 447–9; cf. pp.61, 65, 112–13, 423; Richardson (1985b), pp.66, 77, 294, 591, 911; cf. Fasick (1993), pp.19–20, 30n.8; Jooma (1996); Moon (1985), p.32; Frega (1990); Eaves and Kimpel (1971), p.104; cf. Doody (1974), p.51; cp. Robert James Merrett, ‘Natural History and the Eighteenth-Century Novel’, Eighteenth-Century Studies, 145–70, pp.161–3; Kay (1973).

  51 Richardson (1985b), p.1202; cf. pp.857, 1363; Harvey (1672?), pp.236–7.

  52 Richardson (1985a), pp.159, 168; cf. Fielding (1973), pp.31–2: Shamela identifies with the hares being hunted by the country gentlemen, and tries to protect them.

  53 Richardson (1985b), p.557; cf. p.610. Richardson (1985a), pp.97, 114, 149, 218.

  54 Richardson (1985b), p.1125–6.

  55 Montaigne (1991), pp.502, 539.

  56 cf. e.g. Cheyne (1943), p.76; Richardson (1985b), pp.263–4; and Ellis (1966), pp.65–6.

  57 ‘Nervous distempers’ and their influence on literature have received much attention from G.S. Rousseau, Roy Porter, John Mullan and Barker-Benfield. Barker-Benfield (1992), p.7; Eaves and Kimpel (1971), p.156. But the dietary cures have been insufficiently discussed, which deprives Cheyne’s construction of nervous disorders of its means for the reformation of moral action, which Richardson in turn adapted for his novels. The fact that many nervous sufferers – both real and fictional – were given dietary restrictions, effectively cutting them off from conviviality with mainstream society, but binding them together in smaller intimate circles, should also be seen alongside the anti-sociability of sensibility discussed by Mullan (1988) and Spang (2000), p.59.

  58 Gross (1985), p.285; Eaves and Kimpel (1971), p.84.

  59 Eaves and Kimpel (1971), p.142.

  60 Richardson (1985b), pp.931, 957, 973, 1023, 672–3, 1201, 1431–3, 612–16, 1225–6, 55, 1157, 828, 1476, 1378, 1434, 659, 1476, 1217, 1491, 560, 543, 606, 888; Richardson (1996a), pp.105–6; Richardson (1985a), pp.290–2, 295; Mrs Jewkes escapes this fate and Pamela remarks how lucky she is to have repented before reaching the inevitable sick-bed.

  61 Richardson (1985b), pp.539, 543, 934, 1088–9, 1123, 1227, 1431; cf. Pope (1993), ‘Essay on Man’, III.165–6; Campbell, D.G. (1990), p.137; Keymer (1995).

  62 Richardson (1985b), p.1426.

  63 Richardson (1985b), p.1429; cf. also Richardson (1985a), pp.99, 212, 231, 251.

  64 Richardson (1985b), p.838.

  65 Richardson (1985b), p.659.

  66 Mandeville (1924), Remark P, I.173–81. cf. Coleridge (1796); George and Stephens (1978), VI. § 8081; Radcliffe (1980), pp.79–81.

  67 Richardson (1985b), p.609; cf. pp.559, 605, 833, 838; cf. Hilliard (1990).

  68 Richardson (1985b), pp.543, 614, 1226.

  69 Smollett (1978), pp.235–6. For more similarities with Clarissa cf. pp.237–41. cf. the regulated lifestyle of love-sick, melancholy, isolated and suicidal Nekayah in Rasselas (1759), Johnson (1958), pp.578, 580; Gross (1985), pp.284–5.

  70 Smollett (1978), pp.237, 330, 334, 354, 361; cp. p.351.

  71 Smollett (1978), p.149; cf. Smollett (1996b), I.17–23.

  72 Barker-Benfield (1992); Smollett (1996a), Vol.II, ch.75, p.295; cf. ch.98.

  73 Smollett (1961), pp.170–3; cf. Ovingdon (1696), p.310.

  74 Schnorrenberg (1984), pp.191–5; cf. Shuttleton (1992), pp.127–9; cf. Smollett (1996a), Vol.II, ch.75, pp.291–5.

  75 Austen, J. (1997c), pp.20–2, 39, 45, 70–1.

  76 Austen, J. (1997b), p.19.

  77 Austen, J. (1997b), pp.24–5; cf. pp.213, 391; cf. Austen, J. (1997a), p.185.

  78 Austen, J. (1997c), p.466, cf. pp.71–2. On her mock-macabre sympathy for animals, cf. pp.3, 6, 10, 12, 15, 35–6, 57–8, 68, 72, 280, 336, 344.

  CHAPTER 15

  1 cf. Willett and Cunnington (1957), pp.119–32, 268–75; cit. Sherwood (1993), p.27.

  2 Schama (1989), pp.217–20; Spang (2000), pp.27+n.67, 63.

  3 Rousseau, J.-J.(1997b), pp.134–5, 140–2 (I follow this edition, though I have changed some words and phrases, in consultation with Rousseau’s original (Rousseau, J.-J. (1755)) and the translation of G.D.H. Cole. In this case I have given ‘également’ a literal translation to restore the resonance with the essay’s title). Centuries earlier, Pico della Mirandola had seen the absence of a fixed nature as man’s God-given free-will; Montaigne had seen it as his pathetic deficiency; Rousseau, on the other hand, presented it as an adaptation which liberated humans from slavish adherence to either herbivorous or carnivorous instincts. Like Tyson, Wallis and Jan Baptista van Helmont, Rousseau considered omnivorousness a manifestation of man’s special – even microcosmic – status: Mirandola [1496], ch.4–5, § 10–23; Montaigne (1991), p.502; Gassendi (1658), VI.21; cf. Aquinas (1975), pp.116–17; Skinner and Kessler, eds. (1988), pp.313–15; Leary (1984), p.167; cf. ch. 11, pp.145, and n.9; ch.14, p.192–3 (Belford’s comment) above. cf. Monboddo (1773–92), I.204; [Monboddo] (1797), p.135. On omnivorousness as a special human characteristic, cf. ch.18, p.257–8 below; Lawrence (1819), pp.210–11.

  4 Rousseau, J.-J. (1997b), pp.141–2, and Note X, pp.205–6; cf. Jerome (2005a), Bk II, ch.13; Rousseau, J.-J. (1979), p.151.

  5 Rousseau, J.-J. (1997b), p.134 and Note V, pp.193–4; Cocchi (1745), p.47; cit. Rousseau, J.-J. (1979), p.58n.; Ritson (1802), pp.41–2; cf. Kenyon-Jones (2001), p.126.

  6 Bonnet (1975), pp.265–6.

  7 Schiebinger (2004), pp.40–74.

  8 Rousseau, J.-J. (1997b), Note V, pp.193–4; Lovejoy (1933), pp.285–6; cf. ch.18 below; cp. Jenyns (1793), III.186–93; Ritson (1802), p.233+n.

  9 Rousseau, J.-J. (1997b), Note VIII, p.196 and Note XII, pp.213–14; cf. Note X, pp.205–6.

  10 Schama (1989), pp.148, 769–75; Schiebinger (2004), pp.40–74; Hunt (2004), pp.93–4.

  11 Rousseau, J.-J. (1997b), pp.152–3; Hobbes (1651), Part I, ch.xiv, pp.64–9.

  12 See discussion of Mandeville above and Hume below, pp.179, 225+n.26.

  13 Grotius (1901), Bk I, ch.1, § 11.

  14 Rousseau, J.-J. (1997b), Preface, pp.127–8; Rousseau, J.-J. (1754); cf. Morton (1994), p.30; Bentham pp.362–2.

  15 Ovid (1717), Bk XV, p.514.

  16 Hobbes (1676), p.66 (Pt. I, ch. xiv).

  17 Rousseau, J.-J. (1997b), p.134; Rousseau, J.-J. (1979), pp.56–8; Bonnet (1975), p.265.

  18 Schiebinger (2004), pp.40–74.

  19 cf. Pufendorf (1749), p.361; Hastings (1994), ch.3, § 32.

  20 Buffon (1780), III.423–6; Buffon (1753), IV.437–42, ‘Le Boeuf’; Oswald (1791), pp.113–15; Rees et al. (1819), ‘Man’, sig.Ss4r; Williams, Howard (1883), p.166; Hastings (1936), pp.254–61.

  21 Rousseau, J.-J. (1997b), pp.229–30; cf. Stillingfleet, ed. (1759), p.98.

  22 Rousseau, J.-J. (1997b), pp.230–1; cf. Richardson (1742), IV.17–18; Monboddo (1773–92), I.215.

  23 Buffon (1780), IV.164–94; Buffon (1758), VII.3–38, ‘Les Animaux Carnassiers’; cit. Hastings (1936), pp.254–61; cf. King (1731), pp.118–19.

  24 Hastings (1936), pp.254–61.

  25 Williams, Howard (1883), p.177n.

  26 Ulmer (1972); Litwack (1977). Compare for example Rousseau, J.-J. (1997a), pp.599–600, 604+n.134; Richardson (1985b), pp.1360–3; Clarissa’s postmortem letters (pp.1367, 1371–7, 1425–7) and Julie’s (p.608 ff.).

  27 Rousseau, J.-J. (1997a), p.599.

  28 Rousseau, J.-J. (1997a), IV.x.373; cf. pp.444, 470, 496.

  29 Rousseau, J.-J. (1979), p.395; cf. Rousseau’s description of himself and Mme Warens, Rousseau, J.-J. (1953), pp.21, 105–6. Richard Graves’ Charlotte Woodville, with her ‘artless freedom’ and ‘native simplicity’, resembles Rousseau’s Sophie (Graves (1996), II.13).

  30 Rousseau, J.-J. (1997a), p.372; cf. [Hecquet] (1733), I.124–8; Rousseau, J.-J. (1979), pp.56–8+n., 151; Richardson (1985b), pp.41ff., 532; Spang (2000), p.54. This is not necessarily Rousseau’s own opinion. Saint-Preux may, as usual, be misinterpreting the extent of Julie’s naturalness. Sugar was an exotic,
colonial product, at odds with Julie’s self-sufficiency; and most of her foods – even her milk-based sweets – do not include it. In Emile, Sophie’s affection for sugar is a (minor) flaw in her character; one that Rousseau as a child shared (Rousseau, J.-J. (1953), p.21). cp. Spang (2000), pp.44–5. On the masculinisation of meat, cf. Adams (1990).

  31 Rousseau, J.-J. (1997a), pp.306–7, 363, 444, 450.

  32 Rousseau, J.-J. (1997a), pp.390–3; cf. Godwin (2005), Bk vi.

  33 Evelyn (2000), p.154; Spy, V.II.iii.88–90.

  34 Rousseau, J.-J. (1997a), IV.xvii.422; cf. pp.495–6.

  35 Linnaeus also encouraged mothers to nurse their own infants; Schiebinger (2004), pp.40–74; Sherwood (1993), p.27; Mellor (1993), p.81ff.; Perry (1999); Stone (1977), pp.257–70.

  36 Schiebinger (2004), pp.40–74.

  37 Rousseau, J.-J. (1979), pp.56–8; Locke (1692), Pt I, § 13; cf. Rousseau, J.-J. (1979), p.55 and Locke (1692), Pt II, § 29; Richardson (1742), IV.10–29, 139, 256, 331–2; Vaughan, W. (1630), p.90; [Hecquet] (1733), I.124–8, 522–3; Hecquet (1990), pp.21–5 et passim; Morgan (1735), p.305.

  38 Bernier (1964), V.583–4 (Gassendi (1658), II.301–2); cf. Evelyn (1996), pp.74–5. Rousseau may have read these arguments in Pufendorf (1749), pp.359–60.

  39 Rousseau, J.-J. (1979), pp.153+n.; cf. Rousseau, J.-J. (1998), pp.81–2; Smellie (1790–9), I.60–1; cit. Thomas, K. (1983), p.292; Bonnet (1975), p.250.

  40 Rousseau, J.-J. (1979), pp.222–5; cf. p.320.

  41 Rousseau, J.-J. (1979), pp.153–5; cf. Plutarch (1995), pp.551–3 (994F–995B)ff.; cf. Rousseau, J.-J. (1997b), pp.274–5.

  42 Rousseau, J.-J. (1979), pp.320, 351.

  43 Rousseau, J.-J. (1979), pp.59, 190–1, 345; Spang (2000), pp.51–2. Rousseau and Plutarch regard the repulsion to the act of slaughter and butchery as ‘natural’. ‘Civilisation’ creates the distance and disguise which allows those acts to occur out of sight. (In Rousseau’s case the development of sensibility to animals was natural and ought to be cultivated (Rousseau, J.-J. (1979), pp.222–3).) George Cheyne made an analogous attempt to ‘disgust the stoutest stomach’ by highlighting the process of producing animal food in cramped and noxious agricultural practices (Cheyne (1733), pp.49–50 and Cheyne (1724), p.28). Norbert Elias identifies the putting ‘out of sight’ as the tool of the progress of civilisation; however, he does not regard disgust as ‘natural’ but as the product of civilisation, linking it to the human suppression of everything in them ‘of an “animalic character”’ (Elias (2000), pp.102–3).