Note – we use ‘vegan’ and ‘vegans’ in inverted commas here, because we are discussing a period long before the word vegan came into existence. Even the word vegetarian was not yet in use. Pythagorean & Vegetable Eater / Eating – these were the commonly used terms.
……
Our history is rich indeed. Circa 200 years ago in the UK –
-
There had recently been a ‘vegan’ (or close to vegan) Sheriff of London – Sir Richard Phillips.
-
At potlucks you might have got to sit & chat with the Shelleys. We love the genius of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, thinking up the ‘vegan’ monster of Victor Frankenstein.
-
……’vegans’ were being ‘ribbed’ by carnists.
This 208 years old print is in our Ernest Bell Library. It ‘links’ us to these great thinkers, who were both humanitarians, and very often vegetarians, ……apparently coming close to what we now call veganism.
All discussed more below……
TRIUMPHAL PROCESSION OF THE HOG IN ARMOUR.
The Print Explained
Sir Richard Phillips was being satirized in a drawing by Samuel de Wilde, which had been commissioned & published by Samuel Tipper.
Sir Richard Phillips was a recently knighted Sheriff of London and also a publisher. Here he is shown as the hog being carried by some of his hack writers. Phillips had been attacked in the journal Satirist over a court case regarding a book he had published and he in turn had taken the Satirist to court over a hostile review of his publication Nursery Tales and although successful in this he was only awarded a shilling damages.
Provision (Farmers?) Hog’s Feast
The woman on the left carrying the basket of vegetables is a reference to the fact that Sir Richard was a vegetable eater. The story of Sir Richard Phillips’ conversion to vegetable eating can be read – here.
Description – 13¼ x 7¾ – uncoloured aquatint. Thomaso Scrutiny, Esqr., invt. ( a pseudonym of the artist Samuel De Wilde – more). Published for the Satirist by S. (Samuel) Tipper 37 Leadenhall Street.
It dates from – 1 August 1808. It originally appeared as a plate in the Satirist, Volume iii. I., as an illustration to the article, ‘A Letter to Sir Richard Phillips Knt’. The article is 8 pages long – here.
……
Sir Richard Phillips – Biographical Notes
Sir Richard Phillips (13 December 1767 – 2 April 1840) was an English schoolteacher, author and publisher. He was a vegetarian, possibly a 100% vegetarian.
He established premises in Paternoster Row, St. Paul’s Churchyard, and founded The Monthly Magazine in 1796; its editor was Dr. John Aikin, and among its early contributors were fellow radicals William Godwin (father of Mary Godwin – later Mary Shelley) and Thomas Holcroft. He built up a prominent fortune based on the speculative commission of newly revised textbooks and their publication, in a competitive market that had been freed by the House of Lords’ decision in 1777 to strike down the perpetual copyright asserted by a small group of London booksellers to standard introductory works. His Juvenile Library published in 1800–03 provided the steady returns of all successful children’s books. By 1807 he was in sufficient standing to serve as a Sheriff of London, at which time he was knighted on the occasion of presenting an address. – Wiki.
……
Sir Richard Phillips’ –
Reasons for not Eating Animal Food
From the book – The Ethics of Diet – A Catena by Howard Williams M.A., 1883 – read the book in full – here.
In 1811 Phillips published his Treatise on the Powers and Duties of Juries, and on the Criminal Laws of England. Three years later Golden Rules for Jurymen, which he afterwards expanded into a book entitled Golden Rules of Social Philosophy (1826), in which he lays down rules of conduct for the ordinary business of life – lawyers, clergymen, schoolmasters, and others being the objects of his admonitions. It is in this work that the civic dignitary – so “splendidly false” to the habits of his class – sets forth at length the principles upon which his unalterable faith in the truth of humanitarian dietetics was founded. The reasons of this “true confession” are fully and perspicuously specified, and the first forms the key-note of the rest :-
1. Because, being mortal himself, and holding his life on the same uncertain and precarious tenure as all other sensitive beings, he does not find himself justified, by any supposed superiority or inequality of condition, in destroying the enjoyment of existence of any other mortal, except in the necessary defence of his own life.
2. Because the desire of life is so paramount, and so affectingly cherished in all sensitive beings, that he cannot reconcile it to his feelings to destroy or become a voluntary party in the destruction of any innocent being being, however much in his power, or apparently insignificant.
3. Because he feels the same abhorrence from devouring flesh in general that he hears carnivorous men express against eating human flesh, or the flesh of Horses, Dogs, Cats, or other animals which, in some countries, it is not customary for carnivorous men to devour.
4. Because Nature seems to have made a superabundant provision for the nourishment of [frugivorous] animals in the saccharine matter of Roots and Fruits, in the farinaceous matter of Grain, Seed, and Pulse, and in the oleaginous matter of the Stalks, Leaves and Pericarps of numerous vegetables.
5. Because he feels an utter and unconquerable repugnance against receiving into his stomach the flesh or juices of deceased animal organisation.
6. Because the destruction of the mechanical organisation of vegetables inflicts no sensible suffering, not violates any moral feeling, while vegetables serve to sustain his health strength, and spirits above those of most carnivorous men.
7. Because during thirty years of rigid abstinence from the flesh and juices of deceased sensitive beings, he finds that he has not suffered a day’s serious illness, that his animal strength and vigour have been equal or superior to that of other men, and that his mind has been fully equal to numerous shocks which he has had to encounter from malice, envy, and various acts of turpitude in his fellow-men.
8. Because observing that carnivorous propensities among animals are accompanied by a total want of sympathetic feelings and gentle sentiments – as in the Hyena, the Tiger, the Vulture, the eagle, the Crocodile, and the Shark – he conceives that the practice of these carnivorous tyrants affords no worthy example for the imitation or justification of rational, reflecting, and conscientious beings.
9. Because he observes that carnivorous men, unrestrained by reflection or sentiment, even refine on the most cruel practices of the most savage animals [of other species] and apply their resources of mind and art to prolong the miseries of the victims of their appetites – bleeding, skinning, roasting, and boiling animals alive, and torturing them without reservation or remorse, if they thereby add to the variety or the delicacy of their carnivorous gluttony.
10. Because the natural sentiments and sympathies of human beings, in regard to the killing of other animals, are generally so averse from the practice that few men or women could devour the animals whom they might be obliged themselves to kill; and yet they forget, or affect to forget, the living endearments or dying sufferings of the being, while they are wantoning over his remains.
11. Because the human stomach appears to be naturally so averse from receiving the remains of the animals, that few people could partake of them if they were not disguised and flavoured by culinary preparation; yet rational beings ought to feel that the prepared substances are not the less what they truly are, and that no disguise of food, in itself loathsome, ought to delude the unsophisticated perceptions of a considerate mind.
12. Because the forty-seven millions of acres in England and Wales would maintain in abundance as many human inhabitants, if they lived wholly on grain, fruits, and vegetables; but they sustain only twelve millions [in 1811] scantily, while animal food is made the basis of human subsistence.
13. Because animals do not present or contain the substance of food in mass, like vegetables; every part of their economy being subservient to their mere existence, and their entire frames being solely composed of blood necessary for life, of bones for strength, of muscles for motion, and of nerves for sensation.
14. Because the practice of killing and devouring animals can be justified by no moral plea, by no physical benefit, nor by any just allegation of necessity in countries where there is abundance of vegetable food, and where the arts of gardening and husbandry are favoured by social protection, and by the genial character of the soil and climate.
15. Because wherever the number an hostility of predatory land animals might so tend to prevent the cultivation of vegetable food as to render it necessary to destroy and, perhaps, to eat them, there could in that case exist no necessity for destroying the animated existences of the distinct elements of air and water; and, as in most civilised countries, there exist no land animals besides those which are properly bred for slaughter or luxury, of course the destruction of mammals and birds in such countries must be ascribed either to unthinking wantonness or to carnivorous gluttony.
16. Because the stomachs of locomotive beings appear to have been provided for the purpose of conveying about with the moving animal nutritive substances, analogous in effect to the soil in which are fixed the roots of plants and, therefore, nothing ought to be introduced into the stomach for digestion and for absorption by the lacteals, or roots of the animal system, but the natural bases of simple nutrition – as the saccharine, the oleagious, and the farinaceous matter of the vegetable kingdom.
……
Thanks to Google Search & www.archive.org – we now know that Howard Williams had edited 22 ‘Reasons……’ down to just 16.
Howard Williams removed / censored the racist & colonialist points = made them more suitable for his 1880s humanitarian readers = an early example of ‘political correctness’.
Golden rules of social philosophy; by Phillips, Richard, Sir, Published 1826, Publisher London, Printed for the author.
An online copy of the original book. Originally with ’22 Reasons’ – pages 347 to 356 – here.
……and, we also now know that Sir Richard Phillips talked about his –
~ …forty-six years’ rigid abstinence from the flesh and juices of deceased sensitive beings,…… ~
– 1826 – minus 46 = 1780 – so he probably changed in 1780!
For historical / academic interest, we have added the full set of 22 original points, at the bottom of this blog post.
……
Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley – Percy Bysshe Shelley – the connection with Sir Richard Phillips
Sir Richard Phillips worked with the freethinker William Godwin. Godwin’s daughter Mary became Mary Shelley.
……from the writings of Thomas Jefferson Hogg (1792 – 1862) – talking about Mary and Percy Bysshe Shelley’s dairy-free (almost – it was given to guests) & eggs-free & meat-free living.
“I conformed, not through faith, but for good fellowship. Certainly their vegetable dinners were delightful. Flesh never appeared; nor eggs bodily in their individual capacity, nor butter in the gross: the two latter were admitted into cookery, but as sparingly as possible, under protest, as culinary aids not approved of, and soon to be dispensed with. Cheese was under the ban. Milk and cream might not be taken unreservedly; however, they were allowed in puddings, and to be poured sparingly into tea, as an indulgence to the weakness of neophytes.”~ – Thomas Jefferson Hogg – 1813 ~ – more.
Mary Shelley later conceived of a ‘vegan’ monster.
Here, Victor Frankenstein’s monster is speaking –
“My food is not that of man; I do not destroy the lamb and the kid to glut my appetite; acorns and berries afford me sufficient nourishment. My companion will be of the same nature as myself, and will be content with the same fare. We shall make our bed of dried leaves; the sun will shine on us as on man, and will ripen our food. The picture I present to you is peaceful and human, and you must feel that you could deny it only in the wantonness of power and cruelty. Pitiless as you have been towards me, I now see compassion in your eyes; let me seize the favourable moment, and persuade you to promise what I so ardently desire.”
This is in Chapter 17 of – Frankenstein; or, the modern Prometheus. By Mrs. Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley. London : Printed for Lackington, Hughes, Harding, Mavor, & Jones 1818.
For additional excellent analysis, refer to Carol J. Adams – Chapter 6 of The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory – pages 108-119 –
~ Literary critics identify in Frankenstein a distillation of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley’s life and learning, an interweaving of biography and bibliography. Through her father, William Godwin, Mary Shelley met many notable vegetarians, such as John Frank Newton, author of The Return to Nature; or, A Defence of the Vegetable Regimen, Joseph Ritson, his publisher Sir Richard Phillips, and, of course, Percy Shelley, who had authored A Vindication of Natural Diet and the visionary and vegetarian Queen Mab. ~
&
~ That Victor goes to slaughterhouses not only incorporates into the novel the anathema with which vegetarians beheld it, but suggestively implies the Creature was herbivorous. Since it is only herbivorous animals who are consumed by humans, the remnants gathered by Victor from the slaughterhouse would have been parts from herbivorous bodies. Thus, at least a portion of the Creature was anatomically vegetarian. Romantic vegetarians held that humans did not have a carnivorous body; ill health consequently resulted from meat eating. In what would become a standard vegetarian argument, Rousseau discussed the physiological disposition of the body to a vegetable diet. Like herbivorous animals, humans had flat teeth. The intestines, as well, did not resemble those of carnivorous animals. By positing the Creature’s creation in part from the slaughterhouse, Mary Shelley circumvents the anatomical argument that vegetarians of this time found compelling and their critics ludicrous. ~
– much more from Carol J. Adams – a delightful read – here.
………………
…………….
…………..
…………
……….
……..
……
….
..
The 1808 print at higher resolution – click on it to see it all – click again to enlarge it.
………………
…………….
…………..
…………
……….
……..
……
….
..
The full set of Sir Richard Phillips’ 22 original points. These were written down 190 years ago.
WARNING – There is colonialism and racism included in these.
Original – here.
THE AUTHOR’S REASONS FOR NOT EATING ANIMAL FOOD.
I.
Because, being mortal himself, and holding his life on the same uncertain and precarious tenure as all other sensitive beings, he does not feel himself justified, by any alleged superiority, or inequality of condition, in destroying the vital enjoyment of any other mortal, except in the necessary defence of his own life.
II.
Because the desire of life is so paramount, and so affectingly cherished by all sensitive beings, that he cannot reconcile it to his feelings to destroy, or become a voluntary party in the destruction of, any living creature, however much in his power, or apparently insignificant.
III.
Because he perceives in nature a gradation of existence, subordinate and successive, by which atoms form the granular and crystallized masses of inert matter, these forming vegetation, and vegetables forming animalization; and this succession, with some exceptions, unworthy of moral example, is the general chain of all existence.
IV.
Because nature appears to have made a super-abundant provision for the nourishment of animals in the saccharine matter of roots and fruits; in the farinaceous matter of grain, seed, and pulse; and in the oleaginous matter of the stalks, leaves, and pericarps, of numerous vegetables.
V.
Because the destruction of the mechanical organization of vegetables inflicts no sensitive suffering, nor violates any moral feeling; while vegetables serve to render his own health, strength, and spirits, better than those of most carnivorous men.
VI.
Because, in the hope of emancipating himself from the sensual and selfish instincts which govern the human race, he yields to his moral and mental convictions, setting at defiance all those considerations about health and vigour which have been pressed upon him by the intellectual darkness and unfeeling assumptions of the medical and philosophical schools.
VII.
Because he feels an utter and unconquerable repugnance against applying to his palate, masticating with his teeth, or receiving into his stomach, the flesh or juices of deceased animal organizations.
VIII.
Because, against devouring flesh in general, he feels the same abhorrence which he hears carnivorous persons express against eating human flesh, or the flesh of dogs, cats, horses, or other animals, which in some countries it is customary for the carnivorous to devour.
IX.
Because he observes that carnivorous men, unrestrained by reflection or sentiment, even refine on the cruel practices of the most savage animals; and apply their resources of mind and art to prolong the miseries of the victims of their appetites, skinning, roasting, and boiling, animals alive, and torturing them without reservation or remorse, if they add thereby to the variety or the delicacy of their carnivorous gluttonies.
X.
Because, observing that carnivorous propensities among animals are accompanied by a total want of sympathetic feelings and humane sentiments, as in the hyena, the tyger, the vulture, the eagle, the crocodile, and the shark; he conceives that the practices of those carnivorous brutes afford no worthy example for the imitation or justification of rational, reflecting, and conscientious, beings.
XI.
Because, during forty-six years’ rigid abstinence from the flesh and juices of de-
ceased sensitive beings, he finds that he has suffered but one month’s serious illness; that his animal strength and vigour have been equal, or superior, to that of his contemporaries; and that his mind has been fully equal to numerous shocks, which it has had to encounter, from innumerable cases of turpitude in his fellow-men.
XII.
Because the natural sentiments and sympathies of human beings, in regard to the killing of other animals, are generally so averse to the practice, that few men or women could devour the animals which they might be obliged themselves to kill; yet they forget, or affect to forget, the living endearments or dying sufferings of the creature, while they are wantoning over his remains.
XIII.
Because the human stomach appears to be naturally so averse to the remains of animals, that few could partake of them if they were not disguised and flavoured by culinary preparation; yet rational creatures ought to feel
that the prepared substances are not the less what they truly are, and none but savages could devour raw flesh, or kill and eat on the spot the quivering warm flesh of their victims, in itself loathsome.
XIV.
Because the forty-seven millions of acres in England and Wales would maintain in abundance as many human inhabitants, if they lived wholly on grain, fruits, and vegetables; but they sustain only fifteen millions scantily, while animal food is made the basis of human subsistence.
XV.
Because animals do not present or contain the substance of food in mass, like vegetables; every part of their economy being subservient to their own existence; and their entire frames being solely composed of blood necessary for life, of bones for strength, of muscles for motion, and of nerves for sensation, just like ourselves.
XVI.
Because the practice of killing and devouring animals can be justified by no moral plea,
by no physical benefit, nor by any allegation of necessity, in countries where there is abundance of vegetable food; and where the arts of gardening and husbandry are favoured by social protection, and by the genial character of the soil and climate: for man is either not indigenous in climates which produce no vegetation, or has neglected to migrate from countries whose physical character has changed.
XVII.
Because in morals, universally, the moral sense governs practices without regard to possible inconveniences ; while assumed inconveniences are not in any case admitted as justifications of practices either unjust or immoral. It is not the duty, or in the power of man, to regulate the universe; but it is his duty to respect his own moral sentiments, and leave to powers above his own, the balancing of nature, and the harmonizing of existence.
XVIII.
Because the practices of savages, and of savage ancestry, in killing and eating animals,
are not entitled to more respect among civilized men, than the practices of many nations, even at this day, in killing and eating either their enemies or their way-laid neighbours; and so forcible is custom, that the laws of civilization against murder appear to be insufficient in deterring the practice of cannibalism among some black tribes in the British colonies.
XIX.
Because custom has so misled men, and so hardened their hearts against sympathy for the sufferings of creatures in their power and unprotected by law, that killing and maiming is denominated sport, and skill in such practices placed even on a level with the liberal arts and sciences, insomuch that man is the terror of all other animals, and the merciless tyrant of the whole animated creation.
XX.
Because all such practices as hunting, shooting, fowling, fishing, badger-baiting, cock-fighting, bull-baiting, rook and gull shooting, &c. &c. deprive men of that sympathy and
bizio (1 comments)
Very interesting article. Well done!
John Edmundson (6 comments)
Thank you Fabrizio,
I thoroughly enjoyed researching it.
The Shelleys, in particular, are two of my favourite people.
John