Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:06:18.565Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sex, Scandal, Satire, and Population in 1798: Revisiting Malthus's First Essay

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2012

Gail Bederman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 47 , Issue 4 , October 2008 , pp. 768 - 795
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Cody, Lisa Forman, Birthing the Nation: Sex, Science and the Conception of Eighteenth-Century Britons (New York, 2005), 294Google Scholar.

2 Ibid., 267–71, 80–95. Cody, Lisa Forman, “The Politics of Illegitimacy in an Age of Reform: Gender, Reproduction and Political Economy in England's New Poor Law of 1834,” Journal of Women's History 11, no. 4 (Winter 2000): 131–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mason, Michael, The Making of Victorian Sexuality (Oxford, 1994), 258–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Laqueur, Thomas, “Sex and Desire in the Industrial Revolution,” in The Industrial Revolution and British Society, ed. O’Brien, Patrick K. and Quinalt, Roland (Cambridge, 1993), 100–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gallagher, Catherine, “The Body versus the Social Body in the Works of Thomas Malthus and Henry Mayhew,” in The Making of the Modern Body, ed. Catherine Gallagher and Thomas Laquer (Berkeley, CA, 1987), 83–106Google Scholar. The literature on Malthus is vast. I have relied particularly on Donald Winch, Malthus (Oxford, 1987), Riches and Poverty: An Intellectual History of Political Economy in Britain, 1750–1834 (Cambridge, 1996), 221–406, and “Introduction,” in Thomas Robert Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population (Cambridge, 1992), xii–xxxiii; A. M. C. Waterman, Revolution, Economics and Religion: Christian Political Economy, 1798–1883 (Cambridge, 1991), 1–112, 136–50; Patricia James, Population Malthus: His Life and Times (London, 1979); T. R. Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, or, A View of its Past and Present Effects on Human Happiness, 2 vols., ed. Patricia James (Cambridge, 1989); William Empson, “Life, Writings, and Character of Mr. Malthus,” Edinburgh Review (January 1837), 469–506; and William Otter, “Memoir of Robert Malthus,” in T. R. Malthus, Principles of Political Economy (London, 1836), xiii–liv. I have also consulted Harold A. Bonar, Hungry Generations: The Nineteenth Century Case against Malthusianism (New York, 1955); James Bonar Malthus and His Work (London, 1924); S. Chandrasekhar, “Malthus: Father of Demography,” Population Review 13 (1969): 76–81; Brian Dolan, ed., Malthus, Medicine and Morality: “Malthusianism” after 1798 (Amsterdam, 2000); James Field, Essays on Population and Other Papers (Chicago, 1931), 1–86; Gertrude Himmelfarb, Victorian Minds (New York, 1952), 82–110; William Peterson, Malthus (Cambridge, MA, 1979); Mary Poovey, A History of the Modern Fact (Chicago, 1998), 278–95; Kenneth Smith, The Malthusian Controversy (1951; repr., New York, 1978); Michael Edward Turner, ed., Malthus and His Time (London, 1986); Arthur E. Waltzer, “Logic and Rhetoric in Malthus's Essay on the Principle of Population, 1798,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 73, no. 1 (February 1987): 1–17; E. A. Wrigley, “Introduction,” in The Works of Thomas Robert Malthus, 8 vols. (London, 1986), 1:7–39; and Boyd Hilton, The Age of Atonement (Oxford, 1988), 3–70. Malthus wrote six versions of the Essay on the Principle of Population before he died in 1834.

3 Three articles that have usefully considered gender, sex, and the body in relation to Malthus's population principle are Bruce Burgett, “Between Speculation and Population: The Problem of ‘Sex’ in Our Long Nineteenth Century,” Early American Literature 37, no. 1 (2002): 119–53; Laqueur, “Sex and Desire,” 100–123; and Gallagher, “The Body versus the Social Body,” 83–106. An excellent historical discussion of Malthus, gender, and the poor laws may be found in Cody, “The Politics of Illegitimacy,” 131–56. See also Mervyn Nicholson, “The Eleventh Commandment: Sex and Spirit in Wollstonecraft and Malthus,” Journal of the History of Ideas 51, no. 3 (July–September 1990): 401–21.

4 A note on my terminology. As do many historians of sexuality, I distinguish between “sexuality” and “sex.” “Sexuality” refers to the ways that acts, pleasures, beliefs, and moralities are constructed in particular times or places. “Sex” refers to specific bodily acts, regardless of culture or context. Historians normally study “sexuality” rather than “sex.” When Malthus's population principle discusses the sex act as a universal avenue to human reproduction regardless of time, place, and ideas, I use the term “sex” to identify what he is talking about. Malthus's population principle usually discusses “sex,” not “sexuality.” Conversely, when Godwin explains how sexual intercourse will be treated in a just society, he is discussing “sexuality.” Of course, Malthus's understanding of “sex” was shaped by his own “sexuality” and the “sexualities” of his time—but that is not the subject of my essay.

5 Clark, Anna, Scandal: The Sexual Politics of the British Constitution (Princeton, NJ, 2004), 138Google Scholar.

6 Poynter, J. R., Society and Pauperism: English Ideas on Poor Relief, 1795–1834 (London, 1969), 1–185Google Scholar; Oxley, Geoffrey W., Poor Relief in England and Wales, 1601–1834 (London, 1974), 109–19Google Scholar.

7 James, Population Malthus, 40, 102.

8 Although the full text of “The Crisis” is lost, excerpts may be found in Otter, “Memoir of Robert Malthus,” xxxvi–xxxvii, and in Empson, “Life, Writings, and Character,” 481–84. Empson, who had access to the complete manuscript, writes: “In 1796 he [Malthus] had seen so little of his way, that he was a warm advocate of Mr. Pitt's Poor Law bill, and of the jus trium liberorum [special privileges given to the parents of three or more children in the Roman Empire].”

9 This article cites the original edition of Malthus's first essay, Malthus, T. R., An essay on the principle of population, as it affects the future improvement of society. With remarks on the speculations of Mr. Godwin, M. Condorcet, and other writers (London, 1798), 73, 87, 86–89Google Scholar. This is based on information from English Short Title Catalogue, Eighteenth Century Collections Online, Gale Group, http://galenet.galegroup.com.lib-proxy.nd.edu/servlet/ECCO. All citations for the Essay are from this edition unless otherwise noted.

10 Nearly all have been published in John Pullen and Trevor Hughes Parry, eds., T. R. Malthus: The Unpublished Papers in the Collection of Kanto Gakuen University, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1997 and 2003).

11 I am grateful to Frances Willmoth, archivist, Old Library, Jesus College, Cambridge, for her indispensable aid in consulting the Malthus Library. I am also grateful to the Pergamon Press for publishing The Malthus Library Catalogue: The Personal Collection of Thomas Robert Malthus at Jesus College, Cambridge (New York, 1983); without it, this line of research would never have occurred to me.

12 Malthus's copy of Godwin's The Enquirer (London, 1797), Malthus Library shelf mark MI 2.5, includes only one marginal mark, on page 34, in an essay about reading. Malthus's library is held at the Old Library of Jesus College, Cambridge.

13 Of course, Malthus was also addressing Condorcet, whose arguments in favor of perfectibility, like Godwin’s, were widely condemned in wartime England. Yet Malthus's Essay spends relatively little time discussing Condorcet as compared to discussing Godwin. Only one-and-a-half chapters (144–72, in the 1798 version of the Essay) are devoted to discussing Condorcet, while six chapters (173–303) discuss Godwin. A textual search using the Eighteenth-Century Collection Online finds that only fourteen pages in the Essay mention Condorcet by name, while sixty-one pages mention Godwin.

14 Himmelfarb, Gertrude, The Idea of Poverty: England in the Early Industrial Age (London, 1984), 107–8Google Scholar. For a persuasive and comprehensive refutation of Himmelfarb's suggestion, see Waterman, Revolution, Economics and Religion, 16–18.

15 Winch, Malthus, 16, 24–32, and Riches and Poverty, 250–82. My argument in no way contradicts Winch's brilliant analysis of the philosophical similarities and differences between Godwin and Malthus or his crucial insights into Malthus's relationship with the intellectual currents of his time. However, I believe that Winch underestimates the first Essay's irony and polemical intent.

16 Waterman, Revolution, Economics and Religion, 9. Emphasis in original.

17 I have relied on Pollin, Burton R., Godwin Criticism: A Synoptic Bibliography (Toronto, 1967)Google Scholar, to identify contemporary literature on Godwin. Pollin identifies the following volumes from 1798 to February 1799 criticizing Godwin: [Green, Thomas], An Examination of the Leading Principle of the New System of Morals (London, 1798)Google Scholar; Fellowes, Robert, A Picture of Christian Philosophy (London, 1798)Google Scholar; Proby, W. C., Modern Philosophy and Barbarism (London, 1798)Google Scholar; [Malthus, Thomas Robert], Essay on the Principle of Population (London, 1798)Google Scholar; Hutton, George, A Sermon, Preached in the Cathedral-Church at Lincoln on Sunday, September 16, 1798 (Lincoln, 1798)Google Scholar. Novels include: King, Sophia, Waldorf, or the Dangers of Philosophy (London, 1798)Google Scholar; Lloyd, Charles, Edmund Oliver, 2 vols. (Bristol, 1798)Google Scholar; Walker, George, The Vagabond, 2 vols. (London, 1799Google Scholar; actually published in 1798, according to the review in Anti-Jacobin Review 1 [January 1799]: 137). Verse includes: Polwhele, Richard, The Unsex’d Females (London, 1798), esp. 27–39Google Scholar; [Thomas Mathias], The Shade of Alexander Pope on the Banks of the Thames (London, 1798); see also Ferriar, John, “Dialogue in the Shades,” in his Illustrations of Sterne, with Other Essays and Verses (London, 1798), 291–302Google Scholar.

18 For 1799: Lloyd, Charles, Letter to the Anti-Jacobin Reviewers (Birmingham, 1799)Google Scholar, and Lines Suggested by the Fast (London, 1799); Mackintosh, James, On the Law of Nature and Nations (London, 1799)Google Scholar; [Matthias], Shade of Alexander Pope, esp. 44–66; Mrs. West, Jane, A Tale of the Times (London, 1799)Google Scholar. Robert Bisset's Historical, Biographical, Literary, and Scientific Magazine also devoted twelve detailed articles to attacking Godwin. Other publications criticizing Godwin in 1800: Bisset, Robert, Douglas, or The Highlander (London, 1800)Google Scholar; Dubois, E., St. Godwin (London, 1800)Google Scholar; Findlater, Reverend Charles, Liberty and Equality, a Sermon (Edinburgh, 1800)Google Scholar; Hall, Reverend Robert, Modern Infidelity (London, 1800)Google Scholar; Hamilton, Elizabeth, Memoirs of Modern Philosophers (London, 1800)Google Scholar; King, Sophia, Cordelia, or a Romance of Real Life (London, 1800)Google Scholar; Lucas, Charles, The Infernal Quixote (London, 1800)Google Scholar; Rigshaw, Cincinnatus, Sans Culotides (London, 1800)Google Scholar. For 1801: Burges, Mary Ann, The Progress of Pilgrim Good-Intent in Jacobinical Times (London, 1801)Google Scholar; [Mrs. Bullock], Dorothea, or A Ray of the New Light (London, 1801); Parr, Samuel, A Spital Sermon (London 1801)Google Scholar. Other contemporary books denigrating Godwin in this way that Pollin does not mention include: G. W., A Rowland for an Oliver, addressed to Mr. Wansey, on his letter to the Bishop of Salisbury (Salisbury, 1798), 36–37; Friend to Social Order, Thoughts on marriage, and criminal conversation, with some hints of appropriate means to check the progress of the latter; comprising remarks on the life, opinions, and example of the late Mrs. Wollstonecraft Godwin: respectfully addressed and inscribed to the Right Honorable Lord Kenyon, Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench (London, 1799); Gisborne, Thomas, Innovation: A Poem (London, 1999), 6–7Google Scholar; Not Infallible! Or, a poem, addressed to Peter Pindar, Esq. on reading his Nil admirari, … By the author of Gleanings after Thomson, or the village muse, &c (Cambridge, 1800), 23–25, 31; The millennium: A poem in three cantos (London: 1800–1801).

19 See books and articles for 1783–97 listed in Pollin, Godwin Criticism, 579–81. Most of the articles listed for 1796 and 1797 were reviews or wedding announcements.

20 Desan, Suzanne, The Family on Trial in Revolutionary France (Berkeley, CA, 2004), 93–140, 178–219Google Scholar.

21 See St. Clair, William, The Godwins and the Shelleys: The Biography of a Family (New York, 1989), 153–56Google Scholar; Gordon, Lyndall, Mary Wollstonecraft: A New Genus (London 2005)Google Scholar.

22 Numerous “Jacobin novels” dramatized the evils of indissoluble marriage and coverture during these years. See, e.g., Smith, Charlotte, Desmond (London, 1791)Google Scholar; Holcroft, Thomas, Anna St. Ives (London, 1792)Google Scholar; and Imlay, GilbertThe Emigrants (London, 1793)Google Scholar.

23 Emsley, Clive, British Society and the French Wars, 1793–1815 (London, 1979), 65–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Franklin, Alexandra and Philp, Mark, Napoleon and the Invasion of Britain (Oxford, 2003), 8–11, 36–39, 46–50Google Scholar.

24 Clark, Scandal, 126–40 and 146–47, shows how this and other scandals helped transform the British constitution in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Also essential is Binhammer, Katherine, “The Sex Panic of the 1790s,” Journal of the History of Sexuality 6, no. 3 (January 1996): 409–34Google Scholar.

25 See Richard Holmes's introduction to Godwin, William, Memoirs of the Author of “The Rights of Woman”, in A Short Residence in Sweden and Memoirs of the Author of “The Rights of Woman”, ed. Richard Holmes (London, 1987)Google Scholar.

26 “Preface,” in Posthumous Works of the Author of “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman”, ed. William Godwin, 4 vols. (London, 1798), vol. 3, first page of the nonpaginated preface. Ironically, the English translation of Werther that Godwin probably read was rendered by Malthus's father, Daniel.

27 Godwin, William, Memoirs of the Author of “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman” (London, 1798), 157Google Scholar.

28 [C. Mooney], “Review of Memoirs of the Author of 'A Vindication of the Rights of Woman',” Monthly Review, ser. 2, 27 (1798): 321.

29 Harrison, John, “Introductory Essay,” in Malthus Library Catalogue, xxiiGoogle Scholar.

30 Malthus's marginal comments may be found in Malthus Library MG5.16, Wollstonecraft, Posthumous Works, 3:118; Malthus Library MG5.17, Wollstonecraft, , Posthumous Works, 4:155–56, 170, 179, 182, 195Google Scholar.

31 Malthus's handwriting in Malthus Library MG5.16, Wollstonecraft, Posthumous Works, 3:118.

32 See, e.g., reviews of Godwin's Memoirs in Analytical Review 27 (1798): 239–40, and Monthly Visitor 3 (1798): 240–41, both published in March 1798.

33 Malthus's handwriting in Malthus Library MG5.17, Wollstonecraft, Posthumous Works, 3:155–56.

34 Malthus's handwriting in Malthus Library MG5.16, Wollstonecraft, Posthumous Works, 4:70. It is possible that Malthus wrote another line that was cut off when the book was rebound in the nineteenth century. For discussion of Wollstonecraft's genius, see “Review,” Monthly Visitor 3 (1798): 240–41, and “Review,” Monthly Review, ser. 2, 27 (1798): 325.

35 Malthus, Thomas Robert, The Travel Diaries of Thomas Robert Malthus, ed. Patricia James (London, 1966), plate with facsimile page. I thank Frances Willmoth for her help in identifying this handwriting as Malthus’s, circa 1798Google Scholar.

36 James, Population Malthus, 43.

37 Ibid., 44.

38 Daniel Malthus to Thomas Robert Malthus, 14 April 1796, in Pullen and Parry, T. R. Malthus: The Unpublished Papers, 1:63; also excerpts in Bonar, Malthus and His Work, 413–14; also James, Population Malthus, 54.

39 Daniel Malthus to Thomas Robert Malthus, 14 April 1796, in Pullen and Parry, T. R. Malthus: The Unpublished Papers, 1:62.

40 James, Population Malthus, 102.

41 [Otter], “Memoir of Robert Malthus,” xxx, xxxi, xxxii.

42 Ibid., xxx; see also Bonar, Malthus and His Work, 417.

43 Whereas six of the 1798 Essay's nineteen chapters are devoted to refuting Godwin, only two of the 1803 Essay's fifty chapters discuss Godwin. See Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, ed. James.

44 Malthus, Essay (1803), in An Essay on the Principle of Population, ed. James, 1:1.

45 Two factors show that Malthus did not use the English translation of Condorcet's Equisse. First, his text's translations of Condorcet are entirely unlike—and superior to—the English edition. Contrast Malthus, Essay, 59, with Condorcet, Outlines of an Historical View of the Progress of the Human Mind: Being a Posthumous Work of the Late M. De Condorcet. Translated from the French (London, 1795), 394–96. Second, Malthus condemns Condorcet's passage on contraception, while the English translation published by Johnson omits that passage entirely. Thanks to Jane Rendall for the reference to the 1795 English translation.

46 Godwin, William, An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice, in Political and Philosophical Writings of William Godwin, vol. 3, ed. Philp, Mark (London, 1993)Google Scholar. The best scholarly analysis of Godwin's Enquiry is Mark Philp's Godwin's Political Justice (Ithaca, NY, 1986). Malthus read the 1796 (2nd) edition of Political Justice, on which I will rely when discussing Malthus's Essay on the Principle of Population. William Godwin, Enquiry concerning political justice, and its influence on morals and happiness. The second edition corrected. In two volumes (London, 1796), Eighteenth Century Collections Online, Gale Group, http://galenet.galegroup.com.lib-proxy.nd.edu/servlet/ECCO.

47 See Godwin, Political Justice (1793), in Philp, Political and Philosophical Writngs of William Godwin, 3:49–54, esp. 52. Given the limitations of space, I am necessarily simplifying Godwin's argument.

48 Ibid., 72.

49 Ibid., 27–31; Malthus, Essay, e.g., 4–5, 16–17, 161–63; Winch, Malthus, 2, 35.

50 Godwin, William, Political Justice, 2nd ed. (London, 1796), 498–504Google Scholar. Malthus read this edition.

51 Godwin, Political Justice (1793), in Philp, Political and Philosophical Writings, 3:465; the 1796 version of this passage is in Godwin, Political Justice (1796), 520.

52 “Poetry,” AJWE, 2 April 1798, 95–101; 16 April 1798, 162–74; 23 April 1798, 200–205; 7 May 1798, 274–80; 4 June 1798, 415–30; 11 June 1798, 446–61. On “Higgins” as Godwin, see Pollin, Godwin Criticism, 12–13.

53 Poetry of the Anti-Jacobin (London, 1799), 97–104, 108–30, 134–41, 161–99; Malthus Library Catalogue, 6.

54 “Poetry,” AJWE, 2 April 1798, 96. For other mock-respectful treatments of Mr. Higgins in this vein, see “Poetry,” AJWE, 16 April 1798, 162, 166; 4 June 1798, 415–16; 11 June 1798, 446–49.

55 “Poetry,” AJWE, 2 April 1798, 97.

56 “Poetry,”AJWE, 4 June 1798, 421. Italics in original.

57 For other 1798 examples of attacks Godwin's views on sex and marriage, see Proby, Modern Philosophy and Barbarism, 6, 11–16, 40–42, 62–63; “Review of Modern Philosophy and Barbarism… by W. C. Proby,” Analytical Review 27 (1798): 604; “A Character,” Aberdeen Magazine 3 (1798): 380; “Review of An Examination of the Leading Principle of the New System of Morals,” Anti-Jacobin Review 1 (1798): 335; “Review of Geraldina: A Novel,” Anti-Jacobin Review 1 (1798): 668; “Review, Vaurien: or Sketches of the Times,” Anti-Jacobin Review 1 (1798): 686, 690; Walker, The Vagabond, e.g., 1:65–73, 172–85; Lloyd, Edmund Oliver, esp. 1:vii–ix, 47–48; 2:76–77, 85–86.

58 During the year 1798, reviews of the Memoirs were published in the Monthly Visitor 3 (February 1798): 108–24 and (March 1798): 236–42; Analytical Review 27 (March 1798): 235–40; Monthly Mirror 5 (March 1798): 153–54; London Review and Literary Journal [European Magazine] 33 (April 1798): 246–51; Critical Review, ser. 2, 28 (April 1798): 414–17; Hibernian Magazine (Walker's Hibernian), April 1798, 289–96; Scientific Magazine and Freemason's Repository 10 (June 1798): 403–4; Anti-Jacobin Review and Magazine 1 (July 1798): 94–102; Monthly Magazine and British Register 33 (15 July 1798): 493–94; Aberdeen Magazine 3 (August 1798): 365–68 and 3 (September 1798): 417–20; British Critic 12 (September 1798): 228–33; Monthly Review, ser. 2, 27 (November 1798): 321–24. See also Polwhele, Unsex’d Females (New York, 1798), 27–39, originally published in London. Polwhele's pamphlet devotes ten pages to the most scandalous aspects of Wollstonecraft's story, as revealed in Godwin's Memoirs. Extensive excerpts of many of these reviews may be found in Kenneth W. Graham, William Godwin Reviewed: A Reception History (New York, 2001), 136–56.

59 For other 1798 examples of attacks on Godwin's belief in perfectibility, see “Perfection Not Attainable by Man: The Story of Celsus,” Aberdeen Magazine 3 (1798), esp. 219; Walker, The Vagabond, 2:176–210; and John Ferriar, “Dialogue in the Shades,” Universal Magazine of Knowledge and Pleasure 104 (January 1799): 50.

60 “Poetry,” AJWE, 16 April 1798, 164. These attacks relate to scientific ideas that were attracting much attention during the 1790s. Higgins's self-improving cabbage joke clearly refers to Erasmus Darwin's recently published Zoönomia (London, 1794–96). See also “Poetry,” AJWE, 4 June 1798, 415. For other 1797–98 examples attacking Godwin's belief that people might learn to live forever, see “The Reflector,” Monthly Visitor and Entertaining Pocket Companion 1 (April, 1797): 393–94; “Strictures on the Love of Our Country,” Monthly Visitor and Entertaining Pocket Companion 2 (1797): 338; “The Gleaner,” Universal Magazine of Knowledge and Pleasure, 1798, 108–11 (reprinted as “Tenets of a Modern Philosopher,” Scots Magazine 60 [1798], 752–56); “Perfection Not Attainable by Man: The Story of Celsus,” Aberdeen Magazine 3 (1798): 219.

61 “Poetry,” AJWE, 7 May 1798, 275.

62 “Poetry,” AJWE, 16 April 1798, 164–65.

63 Winch, Malthus, 2.

64 Malthus, Essay (1798), i; William Godwin, “Of Avarice and Profusion (The Enquirer),” in Political and Philosophical Writings of William Godwin, ed. Pamela Clemit (London, 1993), 5:153–60.

65 Malthus, Essay (1798), i.

66 Waterman, Revolution, Economics and Religion, 9.

67 Godwin, “Of Avarice and Profusion,” 155.

68 Ibid., 156.

69 Winch, Riches and Poverty, 80–89.

70 He did not, for example, cite Arthur Young's Political Arithmetic; containing Observations on the Present State of Great Britain (1774), or Young's books discussing his travels in Ireland (1780) or France (1792–94), or Joseph Townsend's Dissertation on the Poor Laws (1787) or A Journey through Spain (1792), or Sir F. M. Eden's The State of the Poor (1797). In 1803, Malthus would discuss all these authors. I thank Chris Hamlin for raising this point. Although Malthus did mention books by Thomas Short and Johann Sussmilch, he was clearly quoting Price's citations of those authors (Malthus, Essay [1798], 48, 51).

71 In his unpublished 1796 essay, “The Crisis,” Malthus touches in passing upon Paley's views upon population: “On the subject of population, I cannot agree with Archdeacon Paley, who says that the quantity of happiness in any country is best measured by the number of people. Increasing population is the most certain possible sign of the happiness and prosperity of a state, but the actual population maybe only a sign of the happiness that is past.” Because the complete essay is lost, however, the importance of this observation to Malthus's argument is unclear. See also Empson, “Life, Writings, and Character,” 482.

72 In Godwin, Political Justice (1796), vol. 1, Volume MI2.3 in Malthus's Library, Jesus College, Cambridge, marginalia appear on 2–5, 7, 15, 34 (2 marks), 38–39, 43–44, 47–49, 51–52, and 60.

73 Godwin, Political Justice (1796), vol. 2, Volume MI2.4 in Malthus's Library, Jesus College, Cambridge, 455.

74 Ibid., 456.

75 Ibid., 458. Malthus reprints this entire paragraph in the crucial chap. 10, Malthus, Essay, 177–79. He repeats or parodies this sentence on 179–80 and 189.

76 Godwin, Political Justice (1796), vol. 2, Volume MI2.4 in Malthus's Library, Jesus College, Cambridge, 461.

77 The marginal lines on 500 and 503, both marking passages that refer to sex, were made with an inkless pen, leadless stylus, or fingernail, pressing with so much force that a clear indentation was made on the subsequent page or pages. Otherwise they match the length and placement of the other marginalia.

78 Godwin, Political Justice (1796), vol. 2, Volume MI2.4 in Malthus's Library, Jesus College, Cambridge, 500.

79 Ibid., 503.

80 Ibid., 521.

81 Malthus, Essay (1798), iii–iv.

82 For examples of this interpretation, see Winch, Malthus, 16–18, and Riches and Poverty, 223.

83 Malthus, Essay, 3.

84 Ibid., 10–11. The italicized text is also in Godwin, “Of Avarice and Profusion,” 156.

85 Malthus, Essay (1798), 11.

86 “Poetry,” AJWE, 16 April 1798, 164–65.

87 Malthus, Essay, 12–13, 62, 210–18, 250–51.

88 Ibid., 12–13.

89 Ibid., 179–180.

90 Italicized text in Godwin, Political Justice (1796), vol. 2, Volume M12.4 in Malthus's Library, Jesus College, Cambridge, 500.

91 This paraphrases the phrase that Malthus had marked with an inkless indentation: “In a state of equality, it will be a question of no importance, to know who is the parent of each individual child.” Godwin, Political Justice (1796), vol. 2, Volume MI2.4 in Malthus's Library, Jesus College, Cambridge, 503.

92 Italicized text in Godwin, Political Justice, 2, 1796, 504.

93 Malthus, Essay, 183–84. Italicized text is in Godwin, Political Justice (1796), vol. 2, Volume M12.4 in Malthus's Library, Jesus College, Cambridge, 505.

94 Malthus, Essay, 184.

95 Ibid., 185, 189–90.

96 Ibid., 194–206, quote on 204.

97 Ibid., 208.

98 Quentin Skinner, F., Visions of Politics, vol. 1, Regarding Method (Cambridge, 2002), esp. 57–128Google Scholar.