The Bloodless Revolution

by Tristram Stuart

  44 Bonnet (1975), pp.249–50; Barkas (1975), pp.75–8; Wheaton (1983), pp.224–6. Morton (1994), pp.42–3, 97; Thomas, K. (1983), p.176. In her otherwise illuminating discussion, Rebecca L. Spang misrepresents Rousseau’s dietary ethic and aesthetic by aligning him with the promoters of the nouvelle cuisine in not celebrating ‘the dark bread of peasant fare’ but instead ‘(comparatively expensive) fruits and dairy products’ (Spang (2000), p.42). Rousseau did celebrate peasant fare and brown bread (pain bis) (see note 45 below; and Rousseau, J.-J. (1979), pp.190–1). Julie’s dairy foods and fruits which Rousseau celebrated were home-grown as part of a self-sufficient domestic economy and therefore, while privileged (although shared among the servants), they cost nothing (‘Our own commodities alone grace our table’, Rousseau, J.-J. (1997a), pp. 372–3, 450). The restaurants did seize on Rousseauist appeals to natural food by serving fruits and dairy-foods, alongside their refined meat soups. But Spang puts her own comments right by observing how at odds Rousseau really was with the restaurant’s sophisticated, urban food and their rhetoric of ‘simplicity’ (Spang (2000), pp.57, 59–61). On her death-bed Julie does not take the restorative consommé of the type served in restaurants, and instead opts for locally caught fish (Rousseau, J.-J. (1997a), pp.496, 599).

  45 Rousseau, J.-J. (1973), p.111.

  46 Rousseau, J.-J. (1953), Bk iv; cf. Runt (1978), p.68ff.; Saint-Pierre (1997a), II.19.

  47 Spang (2000), pp.21–8, 34–65.

  48 On Rousseauist education, see Darnton (1984), pp.215–56; Kenyon-Jones (2001), pp.59–65; Spang (2000), pp.58–9.

  49 Sade (2003), pp.10–11; Bonnet (1975), p.250n.

  50 Saint-Pierre (1826), I.212–13; Saint-Pierre (1836), pp.755, 765.

  51 Saint-Pierre (n.d.), p.103.

  52 Saint-Pierre (n.d.), pp.46, 50, 111; Brown (1978).

  53 Saint-Pierre (1791a), pp.48–58; cf. pp.ix–x, xii–xv, xxi, xxiv–xxviii, 25; Saint-Pierre (1791b), pp.26–8, 46–8, 69, 79–81, 100, 105, 117.

  54 cf. Rousseau, J.-J. (1997b), pp.192–3, Note 4; Monboddo (1773–92), I.254; Voltaire (1779–80), I.37.

  55 Saint-Pierre (1836), p.178; Grove (1995), pp.9, 248, 252–3; Schwab (1984), p.102.

  56 Saint-Pierre (1997b), I.51–2, 98–100; Kaempfer (1727), I.103, 113, 120, 124–5, 128, 132–41, 218, 297; cf. Cocchi (1745), p.87. On soil fertility cf. Rousseau, J.-J. (1997b), pp.192–3, n.4; cf. Evelyn (1670); Kenyon-Jones (2001), pp.132–3; cf. Saint-Pierre (1798), II.398; Pigott, R. (1792); Ritson (1802), pp.64–5; Lambe (1815), pp.230–1. For Byron’s bread-fruit eating utopia in The Island see Kenyon-Jones (2001), pp.132–3. Lambe could have been a source for Byron. On the related ideas of Linguet see e.g. Schama (1989), p.197.

  57 Williams, Howard (1883), pp.175–6; Bigland (1816), pp.66–7; cf. Saint-Pierre (n.d.), p.99; Saint-Pierre (1997a), I.168, II.145–6, 441–4, III.70; Saint-Pierre (1826), III.316.

  58 Saint-Pierre (1826), II.180–1; cf. III.10.

  59 Saint-Pierre (1826), III.169; cf. III.109–10, 172–3; Haller (1754), I.xxvi, xxxiv, xxxviii, II.340, 346, 360–1, 369, 423–4.

  60 Goethe (1932), p.286; cf. pp.303, 534.

  61 Goethe (1962), p.358; Nichols (1991), § 9; Nicholson (1999), p.xviii; Teltscher (1995), pp.5, 213; Schwab (1984), pp.60, 141.

  62 Goethe (1917), Bk 1, § 64, 21 June; § 68, 1 July.

  63 See ch. 18 below.

  64 Williams, Howard (1883), p.184.

  65 Lamartine (1849–51), pp.73–5; cf. Lamartine (1832–3), p.229; Williams, Howard (1883), p.245; Hastings (1946), p.1111n.

  CHAPTER 16

  1 Mack (1985), pp.590, 800; cf. 73, 621, 757.

  2 Borkfelt (2000); Williams, Howard (1883), pp.129–32; Spencer (1993), pp.216–19; Allen, D. (2001), p.290+n.

  3 The quote comes from the otherwise very sensitive article, Oerlemans (1994). The attitude is pervasive.

  4 Dryden (1700), p.529; Thomas, K. (1983), p.292; Dryden (1958), IV.1736, 2080 (ll.705–6); Terry (1655), p.327. Dryden’s Pythagorean section of Book XV was incorporated into the oft-reprinted full translation of Ovid (1717).

  5 Thomson (1746), ‘Spring’, ll.236–41; Ovid (1717), pp.512–17; Williams, Howard (1883), pp.116–19.

  6 Thomson (1746), ‘Spring’, ll.340–68; cf. l.789; Alexander Pope (1993), ‘Essay on Man’, III.152; Evelyn (1669), p.[3].

  7 Oswald (1791), pp.18–19.

  8 Thomson (1746), ‘Spring’, ll.370–78; cf. l.785 ff.; Morton (1994), p.92.

  9 Thomson (1736), ‘Liberty’, iii.60–70.

  10 [Pope] (1729), I.259–64; for the authorship see sig.A4v; Plutarch (1928), III.168; Seneca (1917–25), Epistle 95, III.66–71; Pope (1993), ‘Essay on Man’, I.111–12, III.21–4.

  11 Plutarch (1995), p.565 (996F–997A); cf. Cheyne (1733), pp.49–50. cf. also Browne (1672), Bk III, ch.xxv, pp.189–94 and Pliny, XI.210–11.

  12 The Guardian (J. Tonson, London 1729), no.6, I.30–4; The Tatler (14–16 Feb. 1709 [1710]), no.134; Scher (1993).

  13 The Universal Spectator, (20 Feb. 1731), no.124; cf. (10 July 1731), no 144; GM (Feb. 1731), Vol. 1.ii, p.62.

  14 Pope (1993), ‘Essay on Man’, III.151–4. The Indian in Pope’s ‘Essay on Man’ I.111–12 resembles the opening scene in the Hindu epic, the Ramayana; but it seems unlikely that Pope would know of this.

  15 Pope (1993), ‘Essay on Man’, III.159–68; cf. Seneca (1917–25), Epistle 95, III.66–71; [Tryon] ([1684b]), pp.217–18.

  16 Pope (1993), ‘Essay on Man’, III.49–70; cf. I.81–6, III.195–6, 264–6. cp. Borkfelt (2000), Williams, Howard (1883), pp.131–2; Spencer (1993), pp.216–19. Morton observes that the passages in Pope he calls ‘vegetarian’ are balanced by a resignation to fate; I think the counter-vegetarian thrust is more forceful than ‘resignation’, cf. Morton (1994), pp.91–2.

  17 Pope (1993), ‘Essay on Man’, I.81–4; Ovid (1717), Bk XV [ll. 686–7], pp.530–1. cf. Rousseau, J.-J. (1979), pp.153–4, 225; cf. Beranek (2004), pp.68–71.

  18 Graves (1996), I.245, 260; II.10, 15, 19; Shuttleton (1999a), p.61; Shuttleton (1995), pp.319–20. Graves may also have modelled his ‘Graham’ character on James Graham the vegetarian doctor.

  19 Graves (1996), I.235–40; Measure for Measure in Shakespeare (1990), III.i.76–9.

  20 Brückner (1768), pp.134–5, 141–6; see CR, Vol.26 (August 1768), p.50.

  21 Oswald (1791), pp.41–3; Erdman (1986), pp.52–5; see ch. 26 below.

  22 Clarke (1720), p.271 (my emphasis).

  23 I quote from the punchier translation in Pufendorf (1749), p.361n.; cf. King (1731), pp.118–20+n.; Clarke (1720), pp.273–85; Doddridge (1794), I.207–9; cf. Thomas, K. (1983), pp.20–1.

  24 Cheyne would be one such ‘great name’, though the assertion that natural reason can establish the right to eat meat without Scripture goes back to Thomas Hobbes’ dispute with Bishop Bramhall (see ch.10 above); Hutcheson (1764), I.156–9; Hutcheson (1755), I.309–17+n. Hutcheson and Rousseau are clear precedents to the later animal rights theories of Humphrey Primatt and Thomas Young, for which see Garrett (2000), I.v–xxiv; Garrett (forthcoming); cf. Regan (2001), p.121; Thomas, K. (1983), p.179; Passmore (1975), p.209; Turner (1980), pp.6–7.

  25 Hume (1985), II.I.xii, p.375; II.II.xii, pp.444–5; cf. II.II.v, pp.411–12.

  26 Thomas, K. (1983), pp.175–6; Hume (1983), III.i. pp.25–6; cf. Montaigne (1999), Bk II, ch. xi ‘Of Crueltie’: ‘Unto men we owe Justice, and to all other creatures that are capable of it, grace and benignity’; Plutarch (1928), III.168: ‘nature teacheth us to use justice onely unto menne, but gentlenesse sometimes is shewed unto brute beastes’. Hume (1985), II.I.xii, p.375; II.II.xii, pp.444–5; cf. II.II.v, pp.411–12; cf. ‘An Apology for Raymond Sebond’ in Montaigne (1991), pp.525–6; Passmore (1975), p.209; Fosl (2000); Arnold (1995); Kuflik (1998).

  27 Hartley (1749), II.222–4 (II.ii.2.§.52); cf. I.404, II.140; Cheyne (1724), p.91; King (1731), pp.118–20; Doddridge (1794), I.208; Thomas, K. (1983), pp.140, 155, 295, 298; Perkins (2003), p.1
18. Hartley’s statements were mutilated by Williams and thus misrepresented by all the ‘vegetarian’ historians who have relied on him: Williams, Howard (1883), pp.138–9; Spencer (1993), pp.217–19; Borkfelt (2000); http://www.vegdot.org/ quotes. For Cheyne and Hartley, cf. Shuttleton (1992), pp.96, 213, 220, 234–5; Shuttleton (1999a), p.69.

  28 The World, 19 Aug. 1756, 190; cit. Ritson (1802), pp.225–6, Williams, Howard (1883), pp.125, 139–41; Thomas, K. (1983), p.295.

  29 Jenyns (1793), III.186–93 (my emphasis); Turner (1980), p.8; Ritson (1802), pp.228–36; Nicholson (1999), pp.103–4; cf. Nicholson (1797), pp.37–9.

  30 Ritson (1802), pp.90–1; Williams, Howard (1883), pp.110–11, 178; Mullan (2001), p.22; Morton (1994), p.89; Morton refers to ‘the vegetarian Task VI (759–817)’; cf. Morton (2002), p.82.

  31 Cowper (1785), pp.259–60; cf. pp.249–55.

  32 Cowper (1812), I.206, 213–14, 221, 273–4, 293; II.44–50, 73, 98; III.70, 114, 149, 150, 160–2, 164, 360–2.

  33 Cowper (1812), I.213; II.165; IV.157, 314–20.

  34 Cowper (1992), Vol.X, ‘Elegy VI. To Charles Deodati’; Williams, Howard (1883), pp.110–11, 178; Morton (1994), p.107+n.

  35 Cowper (1785), pp.251, 254, 260–1.

  36 Pratt (1788), pp.38–41; Pratt (1786), pp.7–8, 11; Plutarch (1995), p.565 (996F–997A); cf. Pratt (1779), III.119–20; Pratt (1781), p.[v]; cp. Morton (1994), pp.94–6. On Howard’s vegetarianism, see Anon. (1790), p.18; Aikin (1792), p.40; EM (March 1790), XVII.163–4.

  37 Doody (1999); [Nicholson, ed.?] (1798), pp.27–8. In Richardson’s novels, women team up with animals in defiance of their male aggressors; this is not easily distinguishable from the objections to male cruelty to women and animals made by contemporaneous women writers.

  38 [Scott, S.] (1986), pp.4–5, 17–19, 21, 59, 63, 67, 155–6. Isaiah 11:6–9; Thomson (1746), ‘Spring’, l.786; cf. Pope (1993), ‘Essay on Man’, III.151–4; Morton (1994), p.75; Cowley (1777), p.34, ‘The Wish’, I.20; Bancroft (1770), III.70–6; Bancroft (1769), pp.260–2; Burke (1756), p.99.

  39 Deverell (1781), I.240–51.

  40 Darwin, E. (1797), pp.46–8.

  41 Darwin, E. (1794–6), II.384–5.

  42 Thomas, K. (1983), p.301; Goldsmith may have been thinking of his acquaintance, the ‘doctor’ George Cheyne, or more probably he is lampooning the theodicy of the Jesuit Father Guillaume Hyacinthe Bougeant who thought devils were imprisoned in animals before being sent to hell (see ch. 20 below). cf. Goldsmith’s ‘The Hermit’.

  43 cf. Thomas, K. (1983), pp.185–6; Kenyon-Jones (2001), p.92; Schama (1989), p.186; Mandeville (1924), I.173–81; Evelyn (1699), pp.119–20.

  CHAPTER 17

  1 Mazza & Tomasello (1996); [Cocchi, V.] (1871); Aikin (1799–1815), III.45.

  2 Rousseau, J.-J. (1979), pp.56–8+n.; Bianchi (1752).

  3 Pasta (1795), pp.173–5; cf. pp.40–1, 134–6, 146; Cocchi (1745), pp.66–7.

  4 Cocchi (1824), III.2–3; cf. Morgan (1735), pp.90–1.

  5 Cocchi (1741), I.xiii–xiv.

  6 Cocchi (1745), pp.47–51; cf. pp.53, 58–9, 61, 68; Lind (1753), pp.302–5+n.

  7 Cocchi (1745), pp.29–33 (Cocchi (1743), p.32; Cocchi (1824), I.211). cf. Diogenes Laertius (2000), II.331–2: ‘The Sameness of the Nature of the Soul was indeed a Pretence for the forbidding the eating of Animals: But the Truth was, that he intended by such a Prohibition to accustom Men to content themselves with such a Diet as was every where to be Found with Ease, (which they might eat without dressing) and with drinking only pure Water; all which is highly conducive both to the Health of the Body, and the Alacrity of the Mind’; Cocchi also cites Plutarch’s defence of vegetarianism without recourse to Pythagorean metempsychosis and Plato’s Timaeus: ‘We restrain Mankind by false Reasons … if they will not let us guide them by the true. Whence arises the Necessity of talking of those strange Punishments of Souls, as if they passed out of one Body into another.’ cf. Blount (1680), pp.2–3 ‘Thus Ovid in the 15th. Book of his Metamorphosis, gives us a full and admirable Character of all Pythagoras’s Tenents, whereof the abstaining from Flesh-meats was one: however not out of Superstition, as some would have it, but rather (as Laertius observes) for conveniency and healths-sake, as thinking all those sanguinary Meats too gross and stupifying for the Brain; and therefore most disagreeable with the study of Philosophy’. cf. also Bulstrode (1692), pp.115–16: ‘But did not Pythagoras abstain from Flesh-Meat, for fear of eating his Parents, according to the gross Notion of Transmigration? Most certainly not; for Jamblicus in the Life of Pythagoras, tells us That he being the Disciple of Thales, one of the chief Things Thales advised him, was, to husband his Time well; upon which account, he abstained from Wine and Flesh, only eating such things as were light of Digestion’; Ritson (1802), p.170. On the Epicurean-influenced tradition of denying Pythagoras and/or the Hindus believed in reincarnation, and the related claim that they abstained from meat with more ‘rational’ motives, such as the preservation of health, see ch. 4 note 79; ch. 5 notes 97 and 107; and ch. 19 note 25.

  8 Cocchi (1745), p.78; Butler (1774), pp.234–6n.

  9 Cocchi (1745), p.87; Kaempfer (1727), I.103, 124–5, 128, 211–12; cp. pp.133ff., 141.

  10 Jean-Baptiste Sénac, ‘Preface’ in Cocchi (1750).

  11 Cocchi (1745), p.39.

  12 Cocchi (1745), pp.79–80.

  13 A.F. (1980), p.51; Cocchi (1745), pp.30, 35, 63; Anon. (1730), p.4ff.

  14 Gibbon (1796), II.350–9; Johnson, S. (1793), I.283; Boccage (1770), p.170; Blackburne (1780), I.222.

  15 Cocchi (1824), I, e.g. p.309; Cocchi (1762).

  16 Cocchi (1745), p.27.

  17 Cocchi (1745), pp.66–7; Dole (1707); Greisel (1670), p.179; Greisel (1681). Hecquet regarded the sixteenth-century Parisian physicians, such as Guillaume Baillou (1538–1616), as the modern progenitors of Hippocratic medicine (Lonie (1985)). Cheyne focused on the late seventeenth-century debate as articulated by Sydenham. Opinions varied on the origins of the revival of dietary medicine, but all the vegetarian doctors considered themselves part of this renaissance.

  18 Cocchi (1745), p.88.

  19 Cocchi (1750), pp.105–11; Carpenter, K. (1986), pp.46–51.

  20 cf. e.g. Harvey (1675); Cheyne (1990), pp.xxxvi–xl.

  21 cf. e.g. [Hecquet] (1733), II.385–8.

  22 Thomas, K. (1971), pp.6–7; incidents of scurvy dropped between 1720 and 1760, but rose again after the Enclosures Act according to Drummond and Wilbraham (1939).

  23 Carpenter, K. (1986), pp.45–6; Rodger (2004), p.308; Cuppage (1994), p.11.

  24 Vaughan, W. (1630), pp.51, 53, 63–4; [Vaughan, W.] (1633), p.53; cf. Carpenter, K. (1986), p.45.

  25 Ravenstein, ed. (1898), pp.20–1, 35, 39, 89, 93, 124; Carpenter, K. (1986), pp.1–2; Cuppage (1994), pp.9, 12.

  26 Bushell (1659) ‘[Bacon’s] New Atlantis’, p.5.

  27 Bromfield (1679), pp.2–3; Carpenter (1986), pp.11–12, 17–18, 20–3, 32–3.

  28 Harvey (1672), p.19; Harvey (1675), pp.10–11, 89, 103–4, 107–8, 112, 222, 257–8.

  29 Pitcairne (1715), pp.252–9; Pitcairne (1718a), pp.300–6; Willis (1681), ‘Pathology of the Brain’, III.6; cf. Cheyne (1733), pp.183–90.

  30 C[ockburn] (1696); Wynter (1725), pp.4, 39–42; Floyer & Baynard (1715), Part I, pp.10, 74–5; [Temple] (1680), p.200; Temple (1701), pp.163–4, 182, 185; Morgan (1735), pp.117–18, 119–20, 274–6, 350–62; cf. Morgan (1725), pp.411–15, 434–5; Ray (1717), I.114; cf. Carpenter, K. (1986), pp.14, 46.

  31 Carpenter, K. (1986), p.46.

  32 Evelyn (2000), p.105 (‘Endemical’ replaces Evelyn’s ‘Endemial’); Evelyn (1699), pp.14, 19, 23, 46, 63, 89–90; cf. [Tryon] ([1684b]), p.191. cf. also [Hecquet] (1733), I.109–10; Ritson (1802), p.151.

  33 [Tryon] ([1684b]), pp.191, 216–19; cp. pp.45, 74, 88, 216, 217–21; Tryon (1691a), pp.51, 122, 143, 184; cf. Tryon (1682a), pp.2–3; Tryon (1691a), pp.143–4.

  34 Carpenter, K. (1986), p.17.

  35 Bachst
rom (1734), p.39.

  36 Cocchi (1745), p.71; cf. Cocchi (1824), III.73, 82, 97ff.

  37 Swieten (1744–73), XI.323–4+n.

  38 cf. Jerome (2005a), Bk II.11.

  39 Cocchi (1750), pp.105–11.

  40 Article ‘Scurvy’. The mention under ‘Medicine’ is more nuanced.

  41 Carpenter, K. (1986), pp.52–63, 69–71, 96; cf. Addington (1753), pp.15–16.

  42 Lind (1753), pp.303–4+n.

  43 Clark (1773), pp.281, 335–6; cf. p.332; Richard Mead, ‘On the Scurvy’ in Sutton (1749), pp.112–13, 116, 173–8; Buchan (1772), pp.80, 171, 501–4; Ritson (1802), p.147; Jefferson (1958), p.482; Newton, J.F. (1897), p.73; Lambe (1815), pp.177–9; [Stewart] [1795], pp.22–4; Mertans (1809), XIV.401; Carpenter, K. (1986), pp.59–60, 68, 75–98.

  CHAPTER 18

  1 Guerrini (1999a), p.34.

  2 For a selection of over one thousand texts that address the use of the vegetable diet, cf. Aberdour (1791), pp.54, 80–1; Buchan (1772), pp.56, 80, 87, 171, 218, 226–7, 245, 309, 380, 391, 398, 420, 424, 426, 433, 446, 473, 495–6, 501–4, 541, 545, 624, 659; Culpeper ([1794?]), II.125–6, 150, 152, 163, 168, 179, 183–4, 208; Atkins (1758), pp.23–9, 46, 170, 319; James, ed. (1750), p.7; Tissot (1774), I.69, 86, 119, 135, 151; Willich (1799), pp.43, 227, 300–1, 308–10, 358, 364, 603–4; Carter (1788), I.9–10, 30, 102, II.22–4, 45–8; Adair (1799), pp.18–19–23, 123; Adair (1786), p.88; Adair (1787b), pp.194–5, 209, 248, 257, 268–9, 368–70, 374–5; Adair (1772), pp.89, 90; Addington (1753), pp.16, 31; Anon. (1786), I.30–4; Aitken (1782), p.365; Aitken (1779), p.126; Allen (1733), pp.37–8; Adam (1789), II.523; Reid (1798), p.275; Reid (1795), pp.15–16; The Aberdeen Magazine, 3 vols (Aberdeen, 1788–90), I.548, 648; Armstrong (1783), pp.113–14, 194–5; Armstrong (1737), pp.317, 321; Anon. (1773), p.91; Ball (1762), I.310; Barker ([1795?]), pp.131–2; Barry (1726), p.154.