¹ D’Oyley, Elizabeth, James, Duke of Monmouth London, 34Google Scholar.

² The first public declaration of Charles's insistence that his brother had to inherit the crown occurred in 1678. See Cobbett's Parliamentary History London, 4:1035–36.

³ On the class composition of urban radicals in 1680s London, see De Krey, Gary S., “Revolution Redivivus: 1688–1689 and the Radical Tradition in Seventeenth-Century London Politics,” in The Revolution of 1688–1689: Changing Perspectives, ed. Schwoerer, LoisCambridge, 198–217Google Scholar. De Krey shows that London radicals in the 1680s transcended any horizontal division of class and instead “cut a vertical division through London society, integrating citizens from different walks of life” (208).

⁴ Harris, Tim, London Crowds in the Reign of Charles II: Propaganda and Politics from the Restoration until the Exclusion Crisis CambridgeGoogle Scholar.

⁵ Zook, Melinda, Radical Whigs and Conspiratorial Politics in Late Stuart England University Park, PA, 113Google Scholar; Kenyon, J. P., Stuart England New York, 214Google Scholar. Kenyon's phrasing echoes language that was current during Monmouth's life. See, e.g., A Second Remonstrance by Way of Address from the Church of England to Both Houses of Parliament n.p., which called Monmouth “the unthinking Tool” of the republican faction (1).

⁶ Jones, J. R., The First Whigs: The Politics of the Exclusion Crisis, 1678–1683 New York, 125Google Scholar. Compare Aphra Behn, Love Letters between a Nobleman and his Sister 1684–87; repr., New York, who makes the same point about the absence of “the men of substantial quality,” which she contrasts with the “dirty crowd” that “rang [Monmouth] peals of joy” (447). Even some Whigs worried about Monmouth's appeal to the gentry. See, e.g., A True Narrative of the Duke of Monmouth's Late Journey into the West (1680), 4; and Samuel Pordage's response to John Dryden's Absalom and Achitophel (1681), Azaria and Hushai (1682), lines 788–89.

⁷ The term “episode” is used by Bryan Little, The Monmouth Episode London.

⁸ Zook, Radical Whigs, x–xxi.

⁹ Greaves, Richard, Secrets of the Kingdom: British Radicals from the Popish Plot to the Revolution of 1688–1689 Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ Goldie, Mark, “Contextualizing Absalom: William Lawrence, the Laws of Marriage, and the Case for King Monmouth,” in Religion, Literature, and Politics in Post-Reformation England, 1540–1688, ed. Hamilton, Donna and Strier, RichardCambridge, 211Google Scholar.

¹¹ Instead, Goldie offers an instructive account of William Lawrence's Marriage by the Moral Law of God n.p., a book that justified Monmouth's succession by offering a broad cross-cultural critique of the laws of marriage and illegitimacy.

¹² Biographical Dictionary of British Radicals in the Seventeenth Century, 3 vols., ed. Richard Greaves and Robert Zaller (Brighton, 1982–84).

¹³ Zook acknowledges Monmouth's popularity in Radical Whigs, 127. Her ultimate assessment accuses him of sacrificing the political cause to “private aims and ambitions” (ibid., 139).

¹⁴ L’Estrange, Roger, The Character of a Papist in Masquerade London, 60Google Scholar.

¹⁵ See ibid., 20. Compare Zook's argument that the opposition deliberately aimed at convincing “the meaner people” (Radical Whigs, 107–8).

¹⁶ I take these adjectives from quotations in Christopher Hill, Change and Continuity in Seventeenth-Century England Cambridge, MA, 185, 201, 201, 197, 196, 195, 183, 185. Exceptions to such negative portrayals of the multitude are rare. For one example, see England's Misery and Remedie, an anonymous tract published in 1645 (reprinted in Divine Right and Democracy: An Anthology of Political Writing in Stuart England, ed. David Wootton [London, 1986], 276–82). Another example can be found in Roger L’Estrange's The Dissenter's Sayings London, which quotes from a book that argues: “to the Multitude a Portion of the Sword of Justice is committed” (30). I have not been able to track down L’Estrange's source, which he identifies as “Dan. Pos. Lib. 2 Cap.”

¹⁷ Balibar, Etienne, Masses, Classes, Ideas: Studies on Politics and Philosophy before and after Marx, trans. Swenson, JamesNew York, 4Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Hobbes, Thomas, The Elements of Law Natural and Politic, ed. Tönnies, Ferdinand 1889; repr., London, 125Google Scholar. For the full discussion of multitude in Elements of Law, see 102–36.

¹⁹ Bodin's influential argument on the indivisibility of sovereignty is in his The Six Books of a Commonweale, ed. Kenneth McRae Cambridge, MA.

²⁰ D’Oyley, James, Duke of Monmouth, 197.

²¹ For Aristotle's discussion of generation, see Generation of Animals, ed. G. P. Goold, Loeb (Cambridge, MA, 1990), 101–27 (I.xx–I.xxiii). For helpful histories of theories of generation, see Needham, Joseph, A History of Embryology (Cambridge, 1934)Google ScholarPubMed; and Elizabeth Gasking, Investigations into Generation, 1651–1828 Baltimore. Examples of the continuing influence of Aristotle's idea that male form has to be imposed on female matter can be found in the popular Aristoteles Master-Piece; or, The Secrets of Generation Displayed London, 32–33; or in Nathaniel Highmore's more highbrow History of Generation (London 1651), 86, 111. Compare Keller's, Eve discussion of Highmore in “Embryonic Individuals: The Rhetoric of Seventeenth-Century Embryology and the Construction of Early-Modern Identity,” Eighteenth-Century Studies 33, no. 3 (Spring 2000): 334–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²² Even though Aristoteles Master-Piece argues that the “Woman not only affords matter to make the Child, but force and vertue to perfect the conception,” it asserts the formative role of the male seed vis-à-vis the “moist Clay” of the woman (33). A similar pattern characterizes Thomas Raynalde, The Byrth of Mankinde London, 17, and The Compleat Midwife's Practice London, 63–64.

²³ Shakespeare, King Lear, ed. G. K. Hunter London, 1.2.11–15.

²⁴ While recommending passionate sex, Aristoteles Master-Piece notes that “unseasonable and unreasonable Venery” leads to deformed births (51). For a discussion of the bastard's association with deformity, see Neill, Michael, “‘In Everything Illegitimate’: Imagining the Bastard in Renaissance Drama,” Yearbook of English Studies 23 (1993), esp. 284–92Google Scholar. Adelman, Janet discusses illegitimacy and femininity in Suffocating Mothers: Fantasies of Maternal Origin in Shakespeare's Plays, Hamlet to the Tempest New YorkGoogle Scholar. The most comprehensive survey of Renaissance representations of the bastard is Alison Findlay's Illegitimate Power: Bastards in Renaissance Drama Manchester.

²⁵ Grimalkin; or, The Rebel-Cat London, 1.

²⁶ Ibid., 4.

²⁷ Ibid.

²⁸ Ibid., 1.

²⁹ Dryden, John, Absalom and Achitophel, lines 367–70 (in The Oxford Authors: John Dryden, ed. Walker, Keith [Oxford, 1992])Google Scholar.

³⁰ Tate, Nahum, King Lear (1681), 5.2.204–15Google Scholar.

³¹ For Monmouth's canting name, see Greaves, Secrets of the Kingdom, 105.

³² Grimalkin, 7.

³³ Tim Harris notes that L’Estrange recognized the trimmer as a distinct political phenomenon in 1682 (Restoration: Charles II and His Kingdoms, 1660–1685 [London, 2005], 325. Harris has called for more extensive study of the trimmer phenomenon [ibid.]).

³⁴ I am quoting from The Character of a Trimmer London, a short anonymous poem that adopts the same title as Lord Halifax's treatise on trimming.

³⁵ The Character of a Church-Trimmer (1683), 2.

³⁶ Halifax's Character of a Trimmer was published in 1684, but it circulated in manuscript as early as 1680. For an account of Halifax's contribution to the debate on trimming, see Brown's, Mark discussion in The Works of George Savile Marquis of Halifax, ed. Brown, MarkOxford, 1:343–54Google Scholar. For a detailed account of the events that befell Monmouth and the opposition in 1683, see D’Oyley, , James, Duke of Monmouth, 204–50Google Scholar.

³⁷ The ballad in which Monmouth embraces Halifax as “Shaftesbury the Second” is A Merry New Ballad in Answer to Old Rowley the King (1683), line 4 (the reference to trimming is in line 40). See the reprint of the ballad in Poems on Affairs of State, vol. 3, ed. Howard Schless New Haven, CT.

³⁸ Dryden, The Duke of Guise London, 4.1.1–82; 1.1.198–202.

³⁹ Dryden, “Epilogue” to The Duke of Guise, lines 39–44.

⁴⁰ The Ghost of Tom Ross to his Pupil D. of Monmouth London, lines 8–19.

⁴¹ On Lucy Walter's affairs, see D’Oyley, , James, Duke of Monmouth, 17–27Google Scholar.

⁴² Under Charles, Monmouth held the same position as Tom Howard under William of Orange's wife Mary. The reference to spying is a looser analogy but might have to do with Howard's questionable role in 1655/56, when Charles expected a rising in England to restore him (see D’Oyley, , James, Duke of Monmouth, 19–20Google Scholar). On Monmouth's side, the reference might be to Monmouth's task of reporting Catholics to Charles, which Robert Ferguson mentions in Historical Account of the Heroick Life London, 74.

⁴³ Thanks to Harold Love for drawing my attention to the rumored paternity of Sir Robert Sidney. See his English Clandestine Satire, 1660–1702 Oxford, 132. Algernon Sidney first joined the so-called council of six after Shaftesbury's death, in January 1683 (D’Oyley, James, Duke of Monmouth, 213–14).

⁴⁴ Fortescue, John, On the Laws and Governance of England, ed. Lockwood, ShelleyCambridge, 57Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ The phrase “Son of the People” comes from the ballad The Western Rebel London, stanza 5. The phrase “seven Fathers have a share” comes from “A Canto on the New Miracle” (published alongside and usually cataloged under The Oxford Alderman's Speech to the D. of M. [n.p., 1680]). The phrase is an inverted allusion to the belief that the seventh son of any father could cure the King's Evil, whose healing by Monmouth is the subject of “A Canto.”

⁴⁶ Dryden, The Duke of Guise, 1.1.77–79.

⁴⁷ The government had, in fact, cut his pension after the Oxford Parliament in 1681: see the Dangerfield entry in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.

⁴⁸ Monmouth is “the base and inglorious Counterfeit” of Charles's original in Grimalkin, 6. Compare The Unfortunate Phaeton; or, The Fall of Ambition, an Heroick Poem London, which calls Monmouth “the Counterfeit of Royalty” (line 21) and contrasts his “Pajeant Glories” (line 30) with “Real Honour” (line 25).

⁴⁹ This and the preceding quotation are from Duke Dangerfield Declaring? Duke Dangerfield Declaring How He Represented the D. of Mon. London, 1.

⁵⁰ The quotation from Baker is in Harris, London Crowds, 161.

⁵¹ Duke Dangerfield Declaring, 2.

⁵² Blount, An Appeal from the Country to the City London, 25. The notoriety of this pamphlet is confirmed by Roger L’Estrange in An Answer to the Appeal from the Country to the City London, which states that “the Libell is already, by several Impressions of it, made as Publique as a News-Book” (35). Other pamphlets that refer prominently to Appeal from the Country to the City include The Case Put, Concerning the Succession of his Royal Highness the Duke of York London 31, 35; and The Interest of the Three Kingdoms, with respect to the Business of the Black Box, and all other Pretensions of the Duke of Monmouth London, 27.

⁵³ Blount, An Appeal from the Country to the City, 18. See also Behn, who points to the calculation of the Whigs that, by raising Monmouth, they would get a “soft” king whose “weakness” would oblige him to cater to the people (Love Letters, 36). Dryden articulates the same point in His Majesties Declaration Defended London, 13–14.

⁵⁴ Shakespeare, , King Richard II, ed. Wells, StanleyLondon, 1.3.319, 1.3.24Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ The reference to rebellion is in Tate, Richard II, 2.1.25; to France, ibid., 2.1.26; and the new scene with the rabble is ibid., 2.4.

⁵⁶ Sandford, Francis, A Genealogical History London, 260Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ Somers, John, A Brief History of the Succession London, 6–8Google Scholar. For the accusation that Shaftesbury compared Charles II to Richard II, see Haley, K. H. D., The First Earl of Shaftesbury Oxford, 677Google Scholar. Richard II's deposition found additional support in Richard Howard's The Life and Reign of King Richard the Second (1681), which claimed that Bolingbroke's elective title was legitimate. Pamphlets that argued against the case of Richard II as a valid precedent include: A Letter from a Gentleman of Quality in the Country, to his Friend, upon his Being Chosen a Member to Serve in the Approaching Parliament (1679), The Bishop of Carlile's Speech in Parliament, Concerning Deposing of Princes. Thought Seasonable to be Published to this Murmuring Age (1679), and The Parallel; or, The New Specious Association an Old Rebellious Covenant (1682).

⁵⁸ “Lucy's baser earth” comes from Pordage's Azaria and Hushai, line 535.

⁵⁹ Sol in Opposition to Saturn (1683), lines 1–4.

⁶⁰ Ibid., lines 53–55.

⁶¹ The “mobile ran” to Monmouth, as a 1680 ballad has it, because “we know thy desert” (The Rose of Delight; or, An excellent New Song in the Praise of his Grace James D. of Monmouth [1680], stanza 1). The same language is echoed in A New Ballad to the Praise of James, Duke of Monmouth (1682).

⁶² Dryden repeatedly recoiled from such an ascent of the multitude to the position of judgment. See, e.g., Absalom and Achitophel, lines 765 and 781.

⁶³ That Monmouth's fate depended on his merit and virtue is also emphasized in Congratulatory Poem on the Safe Arrival (1679) and England's Lamentation for the Duke of Monmouth's Departure, Reflecting on his Heroick Actions (1679). The latter repeats the suggestion that Monmouth cannot rest on his descent or his laurels and that his virtue requires persistent demonstration when it celebrates one of Monmouth's military victories as follows: “And Victory, which on a Hill did sit, / Doubtful to which she might her Favour show, / Now clapt her Wings, and to the English Flew, / The English who deserv’d her best, and knew, / Best by their Valour always to maintain, / That which their Valour nobly did obtain. Thus the brave duke prov’d English Spirits are, / In fight, as daring as e’re they were,” lines 49–53. For additional assertions of Monmouth's dependence on merit, see Pordage, Azari and Hushai, lines 579–613, and The Duke of Monmouth's Kind Answer to His Mournful Dutchess Complaint in the Time of His Absence (1683), lines 55–61. Algernon Sidney made the point about the bastard's dependence on virtue and merit in a more general way when he mentioned the story of Rhea, who “was so well pleased with the soldier that had gotten her with child, that she resolved to think or say that Mars was the father of the children, that is to say, they were bastards; and therefore whatever was due to them was upon their own personal account, without any regard to their progenitors. This must be measured according what they did for those nations before they were kings, or by the manner of their advancement. Nothing can be pretended before they were kings” (Discourses Concerning Government, ed. Thomas G. West [1698; repr., Indianapolis, 1996], 327).

⁶⁴ A Relation of the Birth, as well as of Several Remarkable Passages during the Minority of the Victorious James, Duke of Monmouth London, 8.

⁶⁵ A Seasonal Invitation for Monmouth to Return to Court London explains that Monmouth is “the Peoples only Object, on which their Eyes with such Delight were fixed, that scarce could they remove from thence” (1). Another opposition text that highlights the visual connection between Monmouth and the crowd is Historical Account of the Heroick Life London (“every one [was] desirous of seeing his Grace, and welcoming him to the walks. Abundance of Country people flocking thither likewise to see the Duke, gazing on him with incredible admiration” [113]). Roger L’Estrange's The Case Put, Concerning the Succession of his Royal Highness the Duke of York London, presents the Tory version: “The Common people are caught just as we catch Larks; ‘Tis but setting up a fine Thing for a Wonderment, they all flock to’t as far as they can see it, and never leave Flickering about it, till the Fowler has them in their Net. A Pomp of words, and Colours, to the Multitude; is but the Casting of the Sun in their Eyes from a Looking-Glass; the more they look at it, the less able are they to discern what the matter is” (3).

⁶⁶ Such activity of the multitude cuts against Tory condemnations of the “wretched, hopeless, gaping multitude” (The Contrey's Advice to the Late Duke of Monmouth [London, 1685], stanza 5). The language of idolatry and adoration is used in the following attacks on Monmouth's popularity: Dryden, Absalom and Achitophel, lines 686–90 and 730–37; Monmouth and Bucleugh's Welcome from the North London, seventh stanza; Mr. Ferguson's Lamentation London, 11; Monmouth Degraded London, second stanza; An Elegy on James Scott London, line 45; The Western Rebel London, fifth stanza; and L’Estrange, The Case Put, 3. L’Estrange's writings are especially rich in denunciations of the multitude, often in connection with visual seduction. See, e.g., The Character of a Papist in Masquerade London, 2, 7, 8, 16–17, 20, 35, 48, 51, 52, 61, 69, 72, 73, 77.

⁶⁷ The reference to the common good is in line 9 of Upon the Departure of His Grace, James, Duke of Monmouth to All Protestant Well-Wishers London. The quoted lines are ibid., 13–18.

⁶⁸ A True Narrative of the Duke of Monmouth's Late Journey into the West, 2.

⁶⁹ Ibid.

⁷⁰ Mr. Ferguson's Lamentation for the Destruction of the Association and the Good Old Cause London, 2–3, 7.

⁷¹ A True Narrative of the Duke of Monmouth's Late Journey into the West, 1.

⁷² Ibid., 2. The hearts and tongues of the people reappear a little later, when “20000 persons came all forth to meet the Duke with their Souls and Mouths filled with love and joy” ibid..

⁷³ His Grace the Duke of Monmouth Honoured in His Progress in the West of England in an Account of a Most Extraordinary Cure of the Kings Evil London, 2.

⁷⁴ The uproar over Monmouth's healing can be measured in the pamphlets that responded to this event: A True and Wonderful Account of a Cure of the Kings-Evil, by Mrs. Fanshaw, Sister to his Grace the Duke of Monmouth (London, 1681); “A Canto on the New Miracle Wrought by the D. of M. Curing a Young Wench of the Kings Evil” (London; An Answer to a Scoffing and Lying Lybell (London, 1968); (which responds critically to A True and Wonderful Account). All of these were reprinted in A Choice Collection of Wonderful Miracles, Ghosts and Visions London.

⁷⁵ See the classic history by Marc Bloch, The Royal Touch: Sacred Monarchy and Scrofula in England and France 1924; repr., London. On the same subject, see Weber, Harold, Paper Bullets: Print and Kingship under Charles II Lexington, KYGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁶ Bloch, The Royal Touch, 210; Weber, Paper Bullets, 51.

⁷⁷ For a detailed account of the healing ceremony during Charles's reign, including recommendations on how to prevent cheating and how to achieve greater efficiency, see John Browne, Adenochoiradelogia; or, An Anatomick-Chirurgical Treatise of Glandules & Strumaes London, 84–101. Compare Weber's account of the changes Charles made: Paper Bullets, 61–64.

⁷⁸ For an account of this moment, see French ambassador Barillon's letter of 28 March 1681. Reprinted in W. D. Christie, A Life of Anthony Ashley Cooper London, app. vii, cxvi–cxvii.

⁷⁹ “A Canto,” lines 1–8.

⁸⁰ Ibid., lines 9–10. The “botts” is a parasitical worm typically affecting horses.

⁸¹ Ibid., lines 30–35.

⁸² Ibid., lines 61–63.

⁸³ Ibid., lines 43–46.

⁸⁴ The royalist press exploited the attempt at portraying more egalitarian social relationships through touching to no end. Apart from the Dangerfield pamphlet I discussed, in which Dangerfield is said to touch “all night,” see, e.g., The Glory of the West; or, The Virgins of Taunton Dean. Who Ript Open Their Silk-Pettycoats, to make Colours for the late D. of M.'s Army London, which builds its satire around the equation of sexual promiscuity with the leveling of gender, age, and class lines. Compare The Young Bastards Wish London, a ballad that aligns sexual volatility with the obliteration of class distinctions.

⁸⁵ The numbers come from two registers that were kept for the years 1660–64 (by Thomas Haynes, “Serjeant of his Majesties Chappel Royal”) and 1667–82 (by Thomas Donkley, “Keeper of his Majesties Closet belonging to His Majesties Royal Chappel”). The registers are printed as an appendix to Browne's Adenochoiradelogia, from which I take the names and positions of the register keepers 197. In The Royal Touch Bloch indicates that there is independent confirmation of these numbers through the certificates that were handed out with the medals (403 n. 192). Based on certificates, Bloch adds the number of 6,610 for 1684 (212). This suggests that the numbers remained high throughout the 1680s until Charles's death.

⁸⁶ In the opening pages of Browne's Adenochoiradelogia, a blunt poem saluting Browne's labors points out that the touch, “which Heaven on our Monarchs does bestow,” is meant “to make the vain, conceited Rabble know / That Pow’r and Government from Heaven flow.”

⁸⁷ For the financial trail left by the black box pamphlets, see Greaves, Secrets of the Kingdom, 19.

⁸⁸ Ferguson, , Letter to a Person of Honour London, 1, 3Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ I am quoting from one of the great critics of mixed government, Robert Filmer. See his Observations upon Mr. Hunton's Treatise of Monarchy; or, The Anarchy of a Limited or Mixed Monarchy (London, 1648; repr. in Filmer, Patriarcha and Other Writings, ed. Johann Sommerville [Cambridge, 1991], 160).

⁹⁰ Corinne Comstock Weston has traced the rise of mixed government from Charles's Answer in persuasive detail. My discussion relies on her account in English Constitutional Theory and the House of Lords London, 9–43.

⁹¹ On the motivations behind Charles's Answer, see Franklin's, Julian discussion in John Locke and the Theory of Sovereignty: Mixed Monarchy and the Right of Resistance in the Political Thought of the English Revolution Cambridge, 24–25Google Scholar.

⁹² Charles I, His Majesties Answer to the XIX. Propositions of Both Houses of Parliament (1642; repr. in Weston, English Constitutional Theory, 263).

⁹³ Ibid., 263.

⁹⁴ For a full discussion of the history of mixed government in the seventeenth century, see in addition to Weston's English Constitutional Theory, Weston and Janelle Renfrow Greenberg, Subjects and Sovereigns: The Grand Controversy over Legal Sovereignty in Stuart England Cambridge.

⁹⁵ I am quoting from Filmer's title: Observations upon Mr. Hunton's Treatise of Monarchy; or, The Anarchy of a Limited or Mixed Monarchy. For an account of the royalist disenchantment with mixture, see Zera Silver Fink, The Classical Republicans: An Essay in the Recovery of a Pattern of Thought in Seventeenth-Century England (Evanston, IL, 1962), 26–27.

⁹⁶ On the reemergence of mixed government in the 1670s, see Fink, The Classical Republicans, 123–47; and generally Weston, English Constitutional Theory, 87–141. For the specific claim about the exclusion years as a period of intense concern with mixed government, see Weston, ibid., 110. Compare Pocock, J. G. A., The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition Princeton, NJ, who confirms Weston's point (361)Google Scholar.

⁹⁷ Brydall, John, Jura Coronae: His Majesties Royal Rights and Prerogatives Asserted London, 20Google Scholar.

⁹⁸ I take the phrase “Unity at top” from The Interest of the Three Kingdoms, 12.

⁹⁹ The Kings Supremacy Asserted (1660), 12, quoted in Weston, English Constitutional Theory, 30.

¹⁰⁰ For a brief history of this document, see Zook, Radical Whigs, 130–37. James Ferguson dates the earliest discussion of the declaration to the end of 1682 (Robert Ferguson, the Plotter [Edinburgh, 1887], 85–86). In March of 1683, the declaration was discussed again, this time in the presence of Sidney, who had embraced Monmouth (158–60). Additional conversations followed in the same spring (167–68), again with possible input from Sidney, and more revisions were discussed in exile in Holland (214; all references to Ferguson, Robert Ferguson, The Plotter).

¹⁰¹ The Declaration of James, Duke of Monmouth n.p., 1. For the argument that, though government is from God, its form is determined by man, see Sidney, Discourses Concerning Government, 20–23. Compare Philip Hunton, one of the most important theorists of mixed government, on the same point: A Treatise of Monarchy, ed. Ian Gardner (1644; repr., Bristol, 2000), 11–13.

¹⁰² The Declaration of James, Duke of Monmouth, 1–2.

¹⁰³ Hunton, A Treatise of Monarchy, 63–64.

¹⁰⁴ The Declaration of James, Duke of Monmouth, 2.

¹⁰⁵ See Booth's speech in the House of Commons of 21 October 1680 (Cobbett's Parliamentary History of England, 4:1195).

¹⁰⁶ The relevant passage from The Declaration of James, Duke of Monmouth reads thus: “James Duke of Monmouth from the generousness of his own nature, and the Love he bears to these nations, (whose welfare & settlement he infinitely prefers, to whatsoever may concern himselfe,) doth not at present insist upon his Title, but leaves the determination thereof to the wisdom, justice, & authority of Parliament, legally chosen & acting with freedom” (7).

¹⁰⁷ When he discusses mixed government in Leviathan (1651), Hobbes hesitates over identifying a natural figure that could represent “this irregularity of a commonwealth.” He eventually seizes on a monstrous body he has seen, which he describes as “a man that had another man growing out of his side, with an head, arms, breast, and stomach of his own.” Even this, however, does not fully represent mixed government. To achieve an accurate image, Hobbes claims, we would have to imagine yet “another man growing out of his other side” (Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. Edwin Curley [Indianapolis, 1994], 217 [II:29:17]).

¹⁰⁸ See the introduction to Turkle's, SherryThe Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit New York, 12–13Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁹ In this interpretation of Monmouth's diary (or what remains of it), I follow Richard Ashcraft's Revolutionary Politics and Locke's Two Treatises of Government Princeton, NJ, 375.

¹¹⁰ As a trusted aide and friend to the Earl of Shaftesbury, Locke was involved in the opposition effort to topple the Stuarts. He helped plan Monmouth's progress in the West in July of 1680, drafted instructions for the final exclusion parliament in Oxford, and assisted Monmouth's rebellion after he slipped into Holland under the threat of political prosecution. For Locke's involvement in meetings between Shaftesbury and Monmouth, see Ashcraft, Revolutionary Politics, 375n. Compare Maurice Cranston, who confirms Ashcraft's account in John Locke: A Biography London, 194–95. Ashcraft also points out that in July 1680, “Shaftesbury and Monmouth retired to St. Giles to discuss political strategy, and Locke accompanied them” (Ashcraft, Revolutionary Politics, 86; cf. Cranston, John Locke: A Biography, 195). For the argument that Locke drafted the instructions for the Oxford parliament, see John Dunn, The Political Thought of John Locke: An Historical Account of the Argument of the Two Treatises of Government Cambridge, 55. For the argument that Locke provided funds for the Monmouth rebellion, see Ashcraft, Revolutionary Politics, 457–62. Jonathan Scott notes that Sidney had a dim view of Monmouth's intellectual abilities but that he “decided to put his contempt for Monmouth to one side” in 1683, when the two first met and began to plot insurrectionary activities (Algernon Sidney and the Restoration Crisis, 1677–1683 [Cambridge, 1991], 275–77).

¹¹¹ I develop this argument in greater detail in my book manuscript, “Illegitimate Bodies: Mixture and British Culture, 1660–1740.” For now, I offer these references: Sidney asserts the right of the multitude in Discourses Concerning Government, 21, 314–15. Locke is more circumspect, but he concedes the same point in Two Treatises of Government, ed. Peter Laslett Cambridge, 247 and 411. For Sidney's argument on the rights of bastards, see Discourses Concerning Government, 168–69. In the second treatise, Locke approvingly quotes the biblical story of Jephta to show that bastards can be elected ruler (340; cf. Sidney's use of Jephta, Discourses Concerning Government, 125, 314). Sidney embraces the mixing of the different “species” of government in Discourses Concerning Government, 31, 166. Locke does the same in the second treatise when he describes English government as mixed government (408) and advocates the right of “the Community [to] make compounded and mixed Forms of Government” (354).

¹¹² On the dominance of the idea of mixed government in the early eighteenth century, see Vile, M. J. C., Constitutionalism and the Separation of Powers Oxford, 37Google Scholar; and Gwyn, W. B., The Meaning of the Separation of Powers: An Analysis of the Doctrine from Its Origin to the Adoption of the United Sates Constitution New Orleans, 67–69Google Scholar.