3 Anon. (1794), pp.84–5; Brissot (1830–2), I.234–5; cf. Breck (2002), pp.82–4. Valady had published an anti-war poem in 1783 in Chansons choisies, 4 vols (Londres [i.e. Paris], 1783), IV.98–9.
4 Patris (1930), pp.25–7, 132–3; Breck (2002), p.226.
5 Breck (2002), p.223; Anon. (1797a), pp.150–4; Anon. (1794), p.84; Patris (1930), p.148. In 1788 Valady subscribed to Bell’s edition of Shakespeare, 20 vols (John Bell, London, 1785–80).
6 Patris (1930), pp.27–30; Breck (2002), pp.221–2.
7 Breck (2002), pp.225–7. The only source for this journey is the memoirs of Samuel Breck and it is therefore not found in Patris. Its authenticity is supported by Breck’s claim that he has a letter from Valady dated from London 1787. On the French assistance to the Dutch Patriots, see Schama (1989), pp.251–3.
8 Patris (1930), pp.30–4; Breck (2002), pp.225–7.
9 Patris (1930), pp.138–40. All translations from Valady’s letters are my own.
10 Anon. (1797a), pp.154–7. On Phillips’ vegetarianism, see Medical Journal, 27 July 1811 and Phillips (1826).
11 Ritson (1802), p.81; Thomas Seccombe, rev. M. Clare Loughlin-Chow, ‘Richard Phillips’, ODNB.
12 Pigott, R. (1792).
13 Robert Pigott, ‘Liberté de la Presse’, Le Patriote François, 10 février 1790 et Supplement, pp.4–6, and another separate print at the end of the volume in the edition at the British Library. I have not seen the vegetarian appendix mentioned by J.G. Alger: J.G. Alger, rev. Stephen M. Lee, ‘Robert Pigott’, ODNB; Alger (1894), pp.103–6; Alger (1899), pp.39–45, 76–7; Alger (1902), pp.58–9, 79; Morton (2002), p.65; cf. Erdman (1986), pp.159, 174, who I think mistakenly mentions an ‘Arthur Piggot’ at a meeting of the Society of the Friends of the People.
14 Brissot ( [1912?]), I.350.
15 Brissot (1912a), pp.249+n., 252–4; Roland (1835), pp.94, 100, 105–6, 112, 116, 119; Roland (1902), II.58+n., 77–8, 97, 102, 150, 156, 161–2, 177, 179, 182–3, 185, 188, 191, 193, 679–80, 695, 698–700, 732+n., 733, 743, 746.
16 [Southey] (1807), III.193–4; Anon. (1797a), pp.154–7.
17 Saint-Pierre to Brissot [probably in reply to a letter from Brissot dated 23 April 1788], Brissot (1830–2), III.72–3.
18 Patris (1930), pp.37–8.
19 Williams, Howard (1883), pp.175–6; cf. Ritson (1802), pp.83–4.
20 Saint-Pierre (1826), I.212–13.
21 They were in the Society of the Blacks together (Brissot (1830–2), III.88+n.; Brissot ([1912b]), II.86–7n.) and Valady entrusted his library and belongings to him when he sent them over to America in advance of his planned journey in October 1788: Patris (1930), pp.137, 147–8; Valady to Thomas Jefferson, Paris 26 September 1789, Jefferson (1958), p.483, in which Valady asks Jefferson to forward a letter to Crèvecœur ensuring the safety of his ‘Trunks filled with Books and things’ which ‘I have been at great trouble and expence to collect’ and which he hopes Jefferson’s ‘love of learning and Philosophy will bring you to sympathize with the Sollicitude of a Young man, and to excuse the irregularity of his address’; cf. Roland (1902), II.34+n. Crèvecœur introduced Breck to Brissot (Breck (2002), pp.82–4), and since Valady had known Breck before coming to Paris, it was perhaps through these two that Valady first caught the revolutionary fire.
22 Patris (1930), pp.138–40.
23 Patris (1930), p.146; Anon. (1797a), pp.154–7.
24 Patris (1930), pp.138–40.
25 Anon. (1794), pp.84–5. Phillips based his account on the same material as The History of Robespierre, but he claimed that Pigott, rather than Oswald, was Valady’s vegetarian guru because Valady thanked his conversion to Pigott in a letter to Thomas Taylor (see below).
26 For the multiple connections between Pigott, Oswald and Lanthenas, cf. Alger (1899), pp.76–7; Alger (1902), p.326; Brissot (1830–2), III.88+n.; Brissot ([1912b]), II.86–7n.; Roland (1902), II.34+n., 695, 698–700, 744; Darnton (1968), p.134; Erdman (1986), pp.1, 73–6, 124, 132.
27 Alger (1894), pp.71–3.
28 Breck (2002), pp.225–7.
29 Brissot ([1912b]), II.86–7n.; Patris (1930), pp.34–5. Volney argued that Christianity was a third hand derivative of more ancient Egyptian and Hindu religions claiming, for example, that Christ was etymologically connected to ‘Christna’ and Abraham and Sarah were derived from ‘Brahma’ and ‘Saraswadi’. This was an attitude recycled by Shelley in Queen Mab (1813) and in Revolt of Islam (Schwab (1984), p.172; Leask (1992), pp.104–6, 114–15). Volney was a significant part of the education of Frankenstein’s ‘monster’, who was vegetarian (McLane (1996)).
30 Brissot ([1912b]), II.83–7n.; Brissot (1912a), pp.xlv–xlvi, 172–5; Brissot (1830–2), III.54–5+n., 88+n.; Mercier (1800), p.197; Roland (1902), II.695; Barruel (1798), II.449.
31 Brissot (1830–2), III.72–4; Brissot ([1912b]), II.83–4; Brissot (1912a), p.249.
32 Brissot (1912a), pp.xlv–xlvi, 174–5; Patris (1930), pp.51–2, 148; St Clair (1989), pp.262–3; Morton (1994), pp.65–6.
33 Brissot (1912a), pp.195, 244–5. Perroud thinks that the first letter does not refer to Valady, though in the light of the second letter it obviously does. Furthermore, Valady was indeed planning to travel for a short time to London in July 1788 and thence to travel to America, as the letter indicates. cf. Brissot (1912a), pp.172–3, cf. pp.426–8.
34 Patris (1930), p.137.
35 Anon. (1797a), pp.154–7. On this visit he stayed with Brissot’s friend, Sir Garlek, later Lord Auckland, Governor General of British India: Brissot (1912a), pp.140–1.
36 Patris (1930), pp.34–41.
37 Taylor, T. (1788–9), pp.213–320, cf. e.g. p.217; cf. Porphyry (1823), pp.vi–viii.
38 [Southey] (1807), III.193–4; [Taylor, T.] (1966), pp.viii, xii–xiii; Axon (1890), pp.1, 9. The stories of animal sacrifices have been dismissed, but from the internal evidence of Taylor’s writing it does not seem implausible. Taylor conditionally advocated much of the content of the texts he translated. When he did not agree, he often made an editorial note. For example, in the Abstinence from Animal Food when Porphyry condemns animal sacrifice, Taylor butts in with a counter-quote from Iamblichus who argues that while sacrifices are not appropriate for immaterial gods, they are appropriate for those gods that infuse matter (Porphyry (1823), pp.72–4n.; cf. p.156n).
39 [Taylor, T.] (1799), pp.72–4; [Southey] (1807), III.193–4; W[elsh] (1831), p.4.
40 Valady to Taylor, 12 December 1788; this letter was published in a biographical article on Valady in Biographical Anecdotes of the Founders of the French Republic (R. Phillips, London, 1797) (henceforth Anon., (1797a)), pp.150–60. Boas’ claim that Taylor authored this article (cf. Taylor, T. (1969), p.127n.) is unlikely since the report was written by a radical republican sympathiser, which Taylor was not. The supposition that the article was an original account by an acquaintance is doubtful since most of the material is a verbatim reproduction of the account of Valady (written by an author hostile to republicanism) in The History of Robespierre, 2nd edn (T. Boosey, London, 1794) (henceforth Anon. (1794)). It may have been authored by the publisher of the Biographical Anecdotes, Richard Phillips, the radical republican vegetarian who was friends with Taylor from whom he may have obtained Valady’s letter to Taylor (supposing that letter is authentic).
41 Anon. (1797a), pp.157–60.
42 [Southey] (1807), III.193–7; [Taylor, T.] (1966), pp.viii, xii–xiii; Axon (1890), pp.7–9; Fraser’s Magazine, New Series, 12:71 (Nov. 1875), pp.647, 649; Iamblichus (1818), p.xi; Porphyry (1823) (some of which was originally translated in [Taylor, T.] (1792), along with passages from Plutarch’s ‘Whether Land or Sea Animals are Cleverer’); Porphyry (1823), pp.100n., 122n. Taylor’s other translations relating to Pythagoreanism and animals include Apuleius (1822) (see e.g. I. 322), the Political fragments of Archytas … and other Ancient Pythagoreans (1822), Aristotle’s History of Animals (1809), Iamblichus, On the mysteries of the Egyptians (1821), Julian, Two oration
s, the Hymns of Orpheus (1792), Plato’s writings on metempsychosis in the Timaeus and Phaedrus, Plotinus, On the Beautiful, and a summary of Porphyry’s Life of Plotinus. Raine and Boas both refer to Taylor as a vegetarian: Taylor, T. (1969), pp.40, 127n.
43 Taylor, T. (1969), pp.8, 49–102; Axon (1890), p.2.
44 Porphyry (1823), pp.ix–xi.
45 [Taylor, T.] (1792), pp.iii–iv, 18–20. For Taylor on the Brahmins see [Taylor, T.] (1792), pp.59–67; Porphyry (1823), p.158n.; Taylor, T. (1788–9), p.213.
46 cf. ch. 23, note 15 below. Turner (1980), pp.9, 13.
47 [Taylor, T.] (1792), p.103; Taylor, T. (1969), p.127; [Taylor, T.] (1799), pp.81, 88; Morton (1994), p.30.
48 [Taylor, T.] (1792), p.20; cf. Oswald (1791), pp.52–8+nn., 83–90.
49 [Taylor, T.] (1792), pp.vi–vii; [Taylor, T.] (1966), pp.xiii–xiv; Taylor, T. (1969), p.47.
50 [Taylor, T.] (1799), p.85.
51 Anon. (1797a), pp.157–60; [Southey] (1807), III.193–4.
52 Anon. (1794), p.86; Pagés (1797), I.96; Carlyle (1998), 1.5.III. Carlyle also mentions Valady at 1.4.IV, 1.5.VI. Brissot was in D’Orleans’ pay, cf. Brissot (1912a), pp.xl–xli.
53 Patris (1930), pp.41–56; Anon. (1797a), pp.157–60; Anon. (1796a), I.143–5; Saint Étienne and Cretelle (1795), I.76; Pagés (1797), I.96; Les Cases (1823), I.v..625, II.iii.285–368; Anon. ([1797b]), I.42 (which reports that Brissot voted in favour of regicide).
54 Breck (2002), pp.228–9; Brissot and Claviere (1797), p.xlvi; Anon. (1794), p.87.
55 Quoted in Schama (1989), p.723.
56 Breck (2002), pp.228–31; Schama (1989), pp.722–6; Taine (2001), p.103.
57 Brissot ([1912b]), II.74–5.
58 Anon. (1797a), opp. title page; Anon. (1796a), II.259–60; Anon. (1794), p.74; Williams (1795), p.41; Schama (1989), pp.803–5.
59 Couvray (1795), pp.139–51; Breck (2002), pp.232–45.
60 Anon. (1797a), pp.157–60; Anon. (1796a), II.272; Anon. (1796b), p.87; Breck (2002), p.246; Bulletin de la Société Historique et Archéologique Du Périgord, 20 (1893), p.356; 21 (1894), p.34.
61 Valady (1935), p.311.
62 Patris (1930), pp.153–9; Breck (2002), p.223.
CHAPTER 23
1 Erdman (1986), pp.73–6, 160–1; Roland (1902), II.204+n., 299, 699, 744; Fraser’s Magazine, New Series, 12:71 (Nov. 1875), pp.649–50; Schama (1989), p.474; [Southey] (1807), III.189.
2 Brissot ( [1912?]), I.350–1.
3 See ch.16 above.
4 Williams (1789b), pp.48–61; Williams (1789a), I.84–8, 104; III.201.
5 Brissot ([1912?]), I.350–1.
6 Graham (1789), pp.29–30; Porter (1984); Graham (1793), pp.3–4.
7 Graham (1778), p.27; Graham (1776), p.9.
8 Graham (1790), p.1; cf. Graham (1776), Title Page, p.11.
9 Graham (1790), p.4; cf. p.20 ‘Wisdom’s Dictates’.
10 Graham (1790), p.5. For more details on his dietary advice, in which he often permitted certain sorts of meat, cf. Graham (1790), p.2; Graham (1793), pp.3–4, 20–1; Graham ([1785?]), pp.2–6, 30; Graham (1778), pp.12, 18–19, 22–3, 29. Porter (1984) and Porter (1982), esp. pp.201–3, simplify Graham’s varied dietary advice by saying that he recommended vegetarianism, as does McCalman (1998) and, by implication, Decker (1995).
11 Graham (1775), p.3; Graham (1778), pp.27–8. See ch. 18 above.
12 Graham (1793), p.25ff.; cf. Schnorrenberg (1984), pp.191–5; Graham (1778), pp.30–1.
13 For a letter from Graham to Macaulay, see Graham (1778); cf. Decker (1995); McCalman (1998).
14 Regan (2001), pp.129–34; Kenyon-Jones (2001), pp.59–65. It seems disingenuous of Regan to suggest that Macaulay did not advocate vegetarianism because she was ‘writing at a time when the discourse of vegetarianism was only moving towards its formulation’. There were plenty of fully formulated vegetarian arguments available which Macaulay could have adopted had she wished – not least those made by her acquaintances James Graham and Benjamin Franklin. Surely the same applies to Regan’s claim that ‘[Mary] Hays never reaches the point of explicit recommendations for a vegetarian diet largely because there was no precedent for this. But, as we have seen, writers like Macaulay did makes moves in this direction.’ As I have argued in chapter 16, many authors who have been assumed to be ‘moving in the direction of vegetarianism’, should really be considered ‘counter-vegetarian’: they show how sympathy for animals could be adopted without going to the extreme of vegetarianism.
15 Wollstonecraft (1792), ch.1 + note; ch.12; cf. Nicholson (1797), pp.39–40; Turner (1980), p.12; Oerlemans (1994); cp. Regan (2001), pp.127–9, 138. Surely Regan misrepresents Wollstonecraft by claiming that she provided a ‘theoretically justifiable indifference toward animals’. Regan is bemused about, and even implicitly condemnatory of, Wollstonecraft: ‘How, then, could she turn a deaf ear to the growing regard for the suffering of animals?’ Although Wollstonecraft’s perspective can be called anthropocentric, I think it ahistorical for Regan to suggest that Wollstonecraft’s denial of ‘reason’ or ‘equality’ to animals – in line with the vast majority of her contemporaries – was an ‘oversight’ or a failure to espouse the ‘obvious’ alliance between feminism and animal-rights advocacy. Wollstonecraft did in any case articulate the familiar parallel between patriarchal cruelty to women and animals (‘This habitual cruelty is first caught at school, where it is one of the rare sports of the boys to torment the miserable brutes that fall in their way. The transition, as they grow up, from barbarity to brutes to domestic tyranny over wives, children, and servants, is very easy’). What Wollstonecraft objected to – perfectly legitimately – was the system of sentimental education which encouraged women to exhibit a ‘parade of sensibility’ (what Coleridge called ‘a false and bastard sensibility’) by fawning over their pets, while ignoring the acute suffering of humans and other animals (in her illustrative example she mentions the neglected horses as well as the coachman).
16 Brissot ([1912b]), I.350–3.
17 [Southey] (1807), II.348–9.
18 Kenyon-Jones (2001), pp.42–3; [Southey] (1807), III.185–94; I.164–70, cf. I.3, II.300ff.
19 McCalman (1995), p.322; McCalman (1998); McCalman (1988); Morton (2002), pp.68–70.
20 Brothers (1830), pp.22–3; [Brothers] (1794), I.13; Brothers (1801), p.64.
21 Brothers (1801), pp.43, 48, 86–7.
22 Brothers (1801), p.63; Morton (2002), pp.68–70.
23 Rocher (1983), pp.39–40, 215, 242, 305; Rocher (1993), pp.226–7; Morton (2002), pp.68–70; Halhed (1777), pp.ix, xxxvii–xxxviii, lxiv.
24 Brothers (1801), pp.82–3; [Southey] (1807), III.254–65.
25 [Brothers] (1794), II.45.
26 Pigott, C. (1795), pp.7–8; cf. pp.1, 10, 28–9. Archenholtz (1787–91), IV.2.
27 Billington (1980), p.50; Darnton (1968), chs 3–4; Erdman (1986), pp.73–6, 118+n.; Bronson (1938), pp.30–3; Nicholas Roe, ‘John Tweddell’, ODNB.
28 Morton (1994), pp.15–16; Lawrence ([1810]); McCalman (1998); Sebastian Mitchell, ‘John Lawrence’, DNB; Turner (1980), p.13+n.
29 Nicholson, ed. (1803); cf. Odes, by George Dyer …&c.[c.1802]); Nicholson, ed.? (1796) (Franklin’s Way to wealth probably owed its name to Tryon’s work with a similar title (Tryon [?] (1699)).
30 Lambe (1815), pp.128–9; cp. Newton, J.F. (1897), pp.14–15n.; Thomas, K. (1983), p.296. See ‘Epilogue’ below.
31 Moseley (1800), pp.159–68; Lee (2002), pp.178–9; Lee (August 2002); Morton (2000), p.190; Morton (1998a), pp.96. 87–106, p.96.
32 Bruce E. Graver, ‘Wakefield, Gilbert (1756–1801)’, ODNB.
33 Kenyon-Jones (1983), pp.83, 87.
34 Kenyon-Jones (1983), pp.79–108; Sheridan proposed a similar conspiracy to Charles Blount (see ch.9, p.126 above); Thomas, K. (1983), pp.184–5; Mitchell, ‘John Lawrence’, ODNB.
35 Cheyne (1742); cf. Ritson (1802), p.159. Gillray ([1873]), pp.148–50; Gillray (1966), pp.63–4; Morton (1998b);
cf. George and Stephens (1978), VI, § 6967.
36 Oswald ([1792]), p.35; Erdman (1986), p.97; cf. pp.43, 69–71.
CHAPTER 24
1 Erdman(1986), pp.118–19.
2 Quincey (1890), III.105–6.
3 OIOC P/240/25 MPC, Jan-June 1767, p.377, 488 (missing?).
4 W.P.C., ‘John Stewart’, DNB (1897). His letter of resignation should be in the second half of the Madras Public Proceedings 1769; OIOC’s copy is missing; I have not looked for this document in Madras. The letter is mentioned in the index in P/240/28 MPC, Jan–July 1769, pp.906, 907, 911.
5 Quincey (1890), III.94; Taylor, J. (1832), pp.285–6.
6 John Stewart, ‘Mr. Stuart’s account of the battle between Hydra Ally and the Morattoes’, OIOC Mss Eur/Orme OV 8.10, pp.51–4 (Stewart’s holograph original); and a copy, John Stewart, ‘Battle Between Hyder and the Morrattoes, written by Mr.Stuart, who was in it’, at Mss Eur/Orme XIII.64, pp.3771–3. In the original, one can see Stewart’s fib-weaving in action where the claim that ‘I walkd over the Field’ is crossed out as being incompatible with the claim that he was taken prisoner. Sinha, N.K. (1959), pp.102–8 corroborates Stewart’s account with Indian sources.
7 [Brande?] (1822), p.13.
8 John Stewart, ‘Mr John Stuart’s Travels’, OIOC Mss Eur Orme XVII.42, pp.4932–7. The letter in Mss Eur Orme.71.2, pp.41–9 appears to be Stewart’s own holograph draft. This report does not differ hugely from the account in his letter of apology in P/240/ 32 MPC, 22 Oct. 1771; P/240/31 MPC, Jan–Aug 1771, pp.702–9 (not p.609 as listed in the index); receipt entered on p.699. cf. Ali (1963), pp.155–61. The story does not agree with the that of Colonel Wilks (cit. W.P.C., ‘John Stewart’, DNB) and may have been partly inspired by Maistre de la Tour (1774 [i.e. 1784?]); cf. GM, Vol.68.ii.998–9 and Vol.54.ii.519–21, 531.
9 From John Stewart to Warren Hastings (24 December 1784), BL Add.Mss. 29167 f.259. This could have been on the separate journey mentioned in Kelly (1826), I.247–9; EM (March 1790), XVII.198–9.
10 Taylor, J. (1832), p.287; Quincey (1890), III.108; Barry Symonds, ‘Stewart, John (1747–1822)’, ODNB.
The Bloodless Revolution Page 84
