11 Quincey (1890), III.99.
12 Stewart, J. (1794), pp.9–10; cf. Stewart, J. ([1818?]), pp.43–4, 51–3; Stewart, J. ([1795] or 1813?), pp.xii–xiv, xxix–xxx, 101; Stewart, J. (1808), p.15; [Brande?] (1822), pp.7–9.
13 Quincey (1890), III.107–8; Taylor, J. (1832), p.288.
14 Morton (1994), p.68; Stewart, J. ([1795] or 1813?), p.101. The British Library catalogue calculates the publication date as 1813, apparently taking it as five years from the publication of The Apocalypse of Nature (1808). But The Apocalypse of Nature was first published in 1789–90, making the date of this Revelation of Nature more like 1795. This dating is supported by a ms. notation on the British Library copy of this edition which reads ‘Charles Goberl, … No.154. Broad-way, New York. to M.Callanano Philadelphia 1796’.
15 Stewart, J. ([1818?]), pp.xxiv, 54, 95–8, 211; Stewart, J. ([1795] or 1813?), pp.32–5, 82, 87; Quincey (1890), III.109, 116; Stewart, J. (1808), pp.11–12; Nigel Leask refers to him as a Scots Jacobin; Morton says he was not a reactionary monarchist; Leask (1992), p.178; Morton (1994), p.68.
16 Stewart, J. ([1795] or 1813?), pp.60, 82. Stewart’s ideas relate to those of Paley, Malthus and Godwin; see ch.27.
17 [Brande?] (1822), p.14; Taylor, J. (1832), p.294; Quincey (1890), III.109.
18 Stewart, J. (1794), p.63; cf. Oswald (1791), pp.6–7; Taylor, J. (1832), p.289.
19 Quincey (1890), III.109.
20 The Annual Biography and Obituary for the Year 1823 (1823), pp.101–2; Taylor, J. (1832), I.284–5; Kelly (1826), I.247–9; Jane Girdham, ‘Michael Kelly (1762–1826)’, ODNB.
21 Quincey (1890), III.113–20; Leask (1992), p.178.
22 Stewart, J. ([1818?]), pp.8–10; Stewart, J. (1808), pp.11–12.
23 Stewart, J. ([1818?]), pp.153, 258–9; Stewart, J. ([1795] or 1813?), pp.xii–xiv; Stewart, J. (1794), p.63; Quincey (1890), III.98–9, 109; Stewart, J. (1808), p.13; cf. Reuchlin (1983), p.179. Stewart was thus not strictly a pantheist or animist as he has been referred to hitherto (Leask (1992), p.178; Morton (1994), p.68). In an otherwise edifying article, Ian McCalman says that Oswald and Stewart ‘depicted an animistic universe in which all parts interpenetrated and corresponded through vitalist energies, sympathies, and antipathies’ (McCalman (1998), p.102). Stewart’s material universe had sense, not soul and therefore cannot be called animist. He was contemptuous of all metaphysics and ‘the ridiculous doctrine of spiritualism’ (i.e. all systems containing souls, spirits or gods). Neither Oswald nor Stewart believed in vitalist corresponding sympathies and antipathies. The ‘sympathy’ that bound their universe together was based on somatic emotion.
24 Stewart, J. ([1818?]), Title Page; Stewart, J. ([1795] or 1813?), pp.19, 39.
25 Stewart, J. (1808), pp.18–19; Stewart, J. ([1818?]), pp.36–7; cf. Pal (1994), p.59.
26 Stewart, J. ([1818?]), p.2.
27 Stewart, J. ([1818?]), p.84; cf. pp.1, 145–6, 149–50; Stewart, J. ([1795] or 1813?), Title Page, pp.xii–xiv; Alexander Pope, Essay on Man, III.vi; III.i, cf. I.ix, IV.i; cf. Pratt (1788), pp.38–41.
28 cf. Stewart, J. ([1795] or 1813?), pp.xii–xiv, 41; cf. p.27; Taylor, J. (1832), pp.284–5.
29 Stewart, J. ([1795] or 1813?), pp.iv, 21–5, 63; Armstrong (1992), Vol.1; e.g. Bk II, ll.345–6; cf. Oswald, (1791), pp.17–18.
30 Stewart, J. ([1795] or 1813?), pp.iv, 25, 58. He may have been adapting Thomas Morgan who said that in the countryside where people have open air, exercise and live plainly, women do not suffer so much sickness in breeding. Morgan (1735), p.219.
31 Stewart, J. ([1818?]), pp.1, 8–10; cf. Stewart, J. (1794), p.6.
32 Bentham (1907), ch.17, no.IV.+n. In another text (Traités de Legislation Civile et Pénale (1802)) Bentham seems to have slipped into the much more conventional idea that cruelty to animals was undesirable only insofar as it encouraged cruelty to humans. And in yet another text (Constitutional Code) he switched the emphasis from their sentience to their intelligence. cf. Passmore (1975), pp.211, 217; Thomas, K. (1983), pp.175–6. I think I am justified in rejecting Passmore’s suggestion that Bentham’s differing statements on the moral status of animals was a progression rather than inconsistency. Although the works Passmore cites are in chronological order, the ‘earliest’ statement is not revised even in the final edition in Bentham’s lifetime (1823).
33 Thomas, K. (1983), p.176; Turner (1980), p.13; Singer (1975); Singer (1980).
34 Dombrowski (1986), p.29; Regan (2001), p.123. Regan misleadingly implies that ‘Blake, Bentham, Barbauld and numerous others’ ‘were setting the stage for the acceptance of a vegetarian platform predicated on animal rights.’
35 Thomas, K. (1983), pp.175–6; Turner (1980), p.13; Doddridge (1794), I.207–9; Sedlar (1982), p.176.
36 Thomas, K. (1983), pp.178–9.
37 See ch.27 below.
38 Nichols (1991); Darwin, E. (1803), IV.189–96nn., 419–28.
39 Buffon (1780), III.423–5, IV.165, 191–2; Kenyon-Jones (2001), pp.61–2.
40 Quincey (1890), III.103.
CHAPTER 25
1 Ritson (1833), II.22–4.
2 Ritson (1833), II.7; Bronson (1938), I.150–1.
3 For Ritson’s republican activities and friendship with Godwin, see Bronson (1938), pp.144–71; St Clair (1989), pp.130, 165, 189, 217, 260–1; McCalman (1998), p.99; Hogg (1858), II.444–7; Morton (1994), p.63. cf. e.g. Lambe (1809), pp.21–2, which copies Ritson (1802), pp.150–4. For Shelley’s borrowings from Ritson, see Clark (1939). Newton shows little direct influence from Ritson; for a few echoes (which could equally come from elsewhere), see Newton, J.F. (1897), p.14 and Ritson (1802), reverse side of title page and p.235n.; pp.24–5+n; p.27; 120n. Godwin and Newton were acquainted well before Morton’s dating of 1809 (Morton (1994), p.65); cf. St. Clair (1989), pp.262–3+n. Godwin (2005), Bk VI; Godwin (1831), xxi.3; vi; John Milton, Paradise Lost, XI.483–8; cf. Ritson (1802), p.39; Vind.5; Medwin (1913), p.136; Morton (1994), p.58.
4 Ritson (1833), II.12, 22–4, II.194.
5 Ritson (1812), p.131; Ritson (1833), I.40–1; cf. Cheyne (1733), pp.39–42.
6 Ritson (1802), pp.1–32, 187–9, 226n.; Ritson (1833), I.32–3; cf. QM. VII.25–30.
7 Ritson (1802), p.233n.; cf. pp.41–2, 44, 47–50, 231–2n.; cp. e.g. Brückner (1768), pp.60–4. cp. Morton (1994), pp. 152–8. Timothy Morton, in agreement with The Edinburgh Review ((1803–4), II.129), says that Ritson’s first chapter ‘attempts to show how unnatural (in the sense of refined, civilized) vegetarianism is, and that the second chapter is concerned to show how unnatural (in the sense of unrefined, savage), meat-eating is.’ According to my reading, the first chapter is devoted to arguing that there is no benevolence or ‘God’ in nature, and argues that man should be ‘just, mild, mercyful, benevolent, humane, or, at least, innocent or harmless, whether such qualitys be natural or not’ (p.40). In the second chapter, I understand Ritson (who does not agree on every point with Monboddo) to argue that vegetarianism is natural (in the sense of unrefined, harmless), and that meat-eating is a vicious and unnatural product of civilisation (i.e. in the sense of civilised, savage). Man was naturally vegetarian not in the sense that God had made him to be gentle and benevolent, but because he was not naturally formed for the killing and eating of animals.
8 Ritson was following Porphyry in blaming priests for introducing sacrifice, and may also have had Oswald’s use of Porphyry in mind. Ritson knew about Oswald (Ritson (1802), pp.198–200) but Erdman says he did not know Oswald’s Cry of Nature (Erdman (1986), p.90). It seems odd that Ritson – capable of turning up the most obscure references to vegetarians hundreds of years before – would have been unaware of the vegetarian work of a fellow Jacobin-sympathiser contemporaneously residing in London with several mutual acquaintances, including John Stewart. Since Ritson deliberately ignored Stewart’s ‘absurd’ vegetarian arguments in his anthology, it seems plausible that he also had reasons for remaining judiciously silent about Oswald’s. Ritson also makes no ment
ion of the third major vegetarian anthologist, George Nicholson, whom he may well have derived some information from; so perhaps Ritson – a notoriously jealous scholar – was disguising his debt to these antiquarian predecessors. For parallels that may (inconclusively) suggest that Ritson had read Oswald’s Cry of Nature, see e.g. Ritson (1802), pp.41–2=Oswald (1791), p.33+n. (pp.113–14), pp.44–5+n. (pp.114–15); Ritson (1802), pp.60–2+n., 87+n.=Oswald (1791), pp.103–9 (they quote some of the same passages from Arbuthnot, but use different editions); Ritson (1802), pp.103ff=Oswald (1791), pp.68–71+nn. (pp.132ff.); Ritson (1802), pp.105–7=Oswald (1791), pp.145–7.
9 Ritson (1802), pp.30–2.
10 Ritson (1802), pp.40, 51.
11 Ritson (1802), pp.206–8; cf. pp.77, 86, 181–3, 208–16, 236. Like Volney and Rousseau, Ritson derided the Brahmin priesthood and their religion, but nevertheless admired their principles (Rousseau, J.-J. (1979), pp.153+n.); cf. Rousseau, J.-J. (1998), pp.81–2; cf. Volney in ch.22 above. He contortedly argued that vegetarianism made people ‘gentle’ but did not diminish their ‘valour’ in battle.
12 Ritson (1802), pp.72–8, 183–9, 192–5.
13 Ritson (1833), I.46–7ff.; cf. I.32–3, 38–9, 66.
14 Ritson (1833), I.39–41.
15 Ritson (1802), pp.201–2; cf. Shelley (1858), II.414.
16 Ritson (1802), p.35n.
17 For Ritson and his nephew’s vegetarian antics, see Ritson (1833), I.30–1, 39–41, 62, 86, 95, 97, 101, 104, 105; Bronson (1938), pp.93–100, 297.
18 Everett (2001).
19 [Southey] (1807), III.191–2.
20 Bronson (1938), pp.295–9.
21 S.L., ‘Joseph Ritson’, DNB (1896); Stephanie L. Barczewski, ‘Joseph Ritson’, ODNB.
22 Brougham (1803), II.128–36.
23 Teltscher (1995), p.95; cf. ch. 4 note 59 above. Indian scriptures do in fact deal with the problem of unavoidable violence, and speak of limiting himsa (violence) as far as possible; cf. Gandhi (1999), XXIV.27–8.
24 Cheyne (1724), pp.91–5.
25 Bronson (1938), pp.295–9.
26 Ritson (1833), p.lxxvii; cf. Huddesford (1992), ll.31–6, p.207.
27 Bronson (1938), pp.134–7+nn.
28 Ritson (1833), p.lxxviii; Scott (1999e), pp.iv–v; S.L., ‘Ritson’, DNB; Lockhart (1910), I.87–92 [Ch.3, 1801]; Scott (1932–7), I.199, 205, 262, 298, 355–6.
29 Scott (1999d), II.184–5; cf. II.293; Scott (1999c), I.116–17+n., 296; Scott (1999a), II.127; cf. Scott (1999b), I.343. See ch. 18 above.
CHAPTER 26
1 Shelley (1926–30), VI.17n., 348; Hogg (1858), II.287–8; Newton, J.F. (1897), pp.46–7; cf. Rousseau, J.-J. (1997a), p.167; cf. Newton, J.F. (1897), pp.83–4; Shelley (1971), p.828.
2 Lambe (1809), p.18.
3 Vind.17n.
4 Shelley (1964), II.92. For most of the information on Godwin I have relied on St Clair (1989), pp.259–64, 337–8, 343, 356–7; cf. also Morton (1994), pp.59, 65–9, 76, 133; Drew (1998), pp.274–6+nn.; Vind.17n.; McCalman (1998), p.103+n.; Medwin (1913), pp.94–9+n.
5 Shelley (1964), II.187–8.
6 Morton (1994), p.65.
7 BL Add Ms.37232.(F), Hogg to Newton, London, 11 Feb. 1832, f.44.
8 Hogg (1858), II.412–35, 448, 469–70, 485–7; Morton (1994), pp.67–9; Shelley (1971), p.830; Vind.11.
9 Morton (1994), pp.65, 69; Clark, D.L. (1939), p.71.
10 Lawrence (1811); Medwin (1913), p.94–9+nn.; Morton (1994), pp.65–6, 133; St Clair (1989), pp.262–3; Drew (1998), pp.274–6+nn.; cf. Anon. (1800); McCalman (1998), p.103+n.
11 St Clair (1989), pp.356–7.
12 Peacock (2001), II.380, 475; Forster’s testimony on Lawrence is corroborated by Lambe (1815), pp.128–9 (see below).
13 Morton (1994), p.47; McLane (1996), pp.979–80. Morton finds vegetarianism in Mary Shelley’s The Last Man (Morton (1994), pp.51–6).
14 Byron, Don Juan, II.529–34; Kenyon-Jones (2001), pp.123–5; cf. Lambe (1809), p.12. For a context to Byron’s Cain, cf. Darwin, E. (1800), p.468.
15 Peacock (2001), II.475.
16 Lambe (1809), pp.v, 4–12, 18, 21–2; Lambe (1815), pp.117–18, 280–1; Newton, J.F. (1897), pp.vii, ix, xi, 84–5; Vind.12–13; cp. Lambe (1805), pp.36, 53, 138–9, 167. cf. Tryon (1691a), pp.267–8; Jerome (2005a), Bk II, ch.11.
17 Lambe (1809), p.8; Lambe (1815), p.119.
18 Lambe (1809), pp.21–2, which copies Ritson (1802), pp.22–31, 150–4. Lambe (1815), p.96, which could have come from Ritson (1802), pp.150–3; Lambe (1815), pp.98, 101–2, 128–9, 148, 161ff., 519–22. Lambe may have been alerted to Cocchi’s existence by Sir John Sinclair’s Code of Health; cf. Newton, J.F. (1897), pp.xii, 23–5+n., 60–3, 82; Newton, J.F. (1821), pp.137–8; Vind.8, 15–16; V.Sys.340; Rees et al., eds (1819), f.Ss3v–Ss4v.
19 Lambe (1815), pp.105–8.
20 Lambe (1815), pp.18–21, 91–3, 99–108, 139, 192–4, 203–20, 244; Lambe (1809), pp.6–8; Lambe (1805), p.36. cf. Newton, J.F. (1897), pp.45–6, 50, 73–7; Morton (1994), p.168; cf. also Ritson (1802), pp.192–5.
21 Newton, J.F. (1897), passim; cf. Nicholson (1999), p.96; Cheyne (1724), pp.91–4; Vind.5–7; Raben (1963), pp.104–5+n.; Porphyry (2000), Bk I.13, p.36; Morton (1994), pp.65–7; Hogg (1858), II.421–2. Newton, J.F. (1897), p.73 and Lambe (1815), pp.177–9, citing authorities on the nutritional value of raw potatoes.
22 Newton, J.F. (1897), pp.21–3+n., 33, 82–3; cf. pp.60–1, 189; Temple (1690), pp.14–16; Newton, J.F. (1821), pp.112, 117–20+n, 127–8, 138–9; see chs 8 and 20 above.
23 Newton, J.F. (1821), pp.v–vi, 127–8; Faber (1816), pp.vii–ix.
24 Newton, J.F. (1821), passim.
25 Newton, J.F. (1897), pp.21–3; QM, VI.45–6+n.; Vind.5; Drew (1998), pp.259–60+n. Though he finds no direct link, Drew suggests a possible debt to Holwell. The similarities are probably explained by their shared set of cultural assumptions and intermediary sources such as Monboddo.
26 Newton, J.F. (1897), pp.87–9, 42–3. D.L. Clark was taking his argument that Shelley was influenced by Ritson rather than Newton too far when he claimed that ‘Both Ritson and Shelley considered that man’s physical and moral depravity was due to an unnatural diet, while Newton emphasized only the physical’ (Clark, D.L. (1939), pp.72–3).
27 Lambe (1809), p.10; Lambe (1805), pp.230–2.
28 Vind.11–14; Shelley (1971), p.830.
29 Vind.19–20; Ritson (1802), pp.72–7, 156–7. Despite innumerable borrowings, Shelley only ever cites Ritson in an unpublished draft manuscript (V.Sys.341 and 342 where his note ‘See Essay’ refers to Ritson (1802), pp.72–7, 156–7). Ritson was kept out of any published work.
30 Shelley, H. (1889), p.4; Lambe (1815), pp.41–6, 109–10, 222–7, 232–3, 245–6; Lambe (1809), pp.26–7; Newton, J.F. (1897), pp.91–2+n.; Morton (1994), pp.67–9; Hogg (1858), II.412–35, 448, 469–70, 485–7; Shelley (1971), p.830; V.Sys.341–3; Vind.11.
31 Hogg (1858), I.120–3 (cf. ch. 16 above), II.446–7; Morton (1994), pp.73–5, 104–5; Shelley (1964), I.368; Drew (1998), p.260n.; Vind.17; Shelley (1971), p.359+n.; William Wordsworth, The Excursion, VIII.568–71; William Wordsworth, ‘Hart-Leap Well’, ll.178–80; Oerlemans (1994).
32 Lambe (1815), pp.237–8; Vind.7–8; V.Sys.341–3; Ritson (1802), pp.33–4; Clark, D.L. (1939), p.74; Tryon (1691a), pp.371–2.
33 V.Sys.343 – 4. This makes sense of Harriet Shelley’s comments (Shelley (1964), I.368) and Hogg’s (Hogg (1858), II.469–70), and Shelley’s (QM, VI.198n.), and even shows that Shelley’s eventual abandonment of the vegetable diet on the firm recommendation of his doctors need not necessarily be seen as contrary to his original moral argument.
34 cf. Adams, C. (1990); Morton (1994), pp.78–9; cf. Voltaire ch. 20, p.292 above.
35 Morton (1994), pp.65, 73, 75, 79; cf. Nicholson (1797), pp.41–2, 44; Shelley (1964), I.337.
36 Oerlemans (2002), p.117.
37 QM, VII.43–8, VIII.191–3.
38 QM, VIII.211–27; cf. The D
aemon of the World, ll.443–60; Vind.12; Newton, J.F. (1821), pp.136–7. For Shelley’s depiction of harmony with the cosmos, cf. e.g. QM, VI.42–3, VIII.15–18, 64–9; Alastor, ll.651–3; Mg, ll.133–5; Morton (1994), pp.84–7, 106.
39 Vind.12–13. He was more hesitant in the text of the footnote to QM than in the Vindication; cf. Newton, J.F. (1897), pp.40–3.
40 Shelley (1964), I.347, 368; Vind.9–13, 16; Lambe (1809), pp.6–8, 12–16; Lambe (1815), pp.101–12, 121–9, 140; Newton, J.F. (1897), pp.xiii, 14–15n., 38–43, 51–3, 88; Medwin (1913), pp.190–1. In Hogg (1858), II.429, was Hogg thinking of the ‘Epicurean materialist’, John ‘Walking’ Stewart? [Southey] (1807), III.193; Evelyn (1699), p.123.
41 Pindar’s use of ‘dome’ resembles Shelley’s frequent use of the word to express both ‘home’ and the wider ‘dome’ of the world; the ‘radical domestic’ employed by Pindar and Shelley shows how the power of an individual could map out onto the anthropocentric macrocosmic universe; cf. e.g. Shelley, Alastor, l.435; ‘Mont Blanc’, ll.104, 140.
42 Morton (1994), pp.62–3.
43 QM, VIII.124–8; cf. VIII.77–87; and Shelley (1926–30), V.254; Morton (1994), pp.89–90, 212, 227.
44 Oerlemans (2002), pp.143–7.
45 QM, IV.89–99, 104, 111–12, 117–18; Shelley (1971), pp.271–4.
46 Oerlemans (2002), pp.104–7; Sax (1997), pp.62–3 (Sax makes very misleading quotations from Smellie and Buffon); Godwin (1831), ch. 21, ‘Of Astronomy’, § iii; Ritson (1802), pp.37–40.
47 On Shelley’s later mystical pantheism, cf. Leask (1992), pp.120–1.
48 cf. Dawson (1997).
49 Bougainville (1772), pp.39–40; Monboddo (1773–92), I.205–7; Morton (1994), p.154; Darwin, E. (1794–6), I.158–61; White (1789), pp.214–16; Moseley (1800), pp.167–8. For a contemporary example, see Deep Trouble (BBC/WW, 2003) where Joanna Sarsby writes of fish in a marine reserve that, ‘once scared of man, the fish are now perhaps a little over-friendly’ (a fish nibbles a scientist’s pen). For the alternative fantasy that humans were carnivorous by bestial agreement, Ben Jonson, ‘The Forest: To Penshurst’, ll.19–39 ‘The painted Partridge lies in ev’ry Field,/ And for thy Mess is willing to be kill’d’ (Jonson (1716–17), III.178); Juvenal, 4th Satire.
The Bloodless Revolution Page 85
