What do you think?
Rate this book
The Heretic's Feast: A History of Vegetarianism
In this fascinating and informative story of vegetarianism since prehistoric times, Colin Spencer describes the religious, philosophical, and social aspects of vegetarianism, introducing such prominent and often colorful practitioners as Pythagoras, Ovid, Leonardo da Vinci, Sir Thomas More, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Leo Tolstoy, George Bernard Shaw, Gandhi, and Hitler. Though the word "vegetarian" was not coined until the mid-nineteenth century, the meatless diet has been around for as long as people have. Spencer describes the major movements that shared the doctrine as well as the surprisingly diverse moralities, perspectives, and philosophies that motivated them. He shows that vegetarianism, when not forced on humans by poverty, was often just one element in a radical ideology that repeatedly led to the marginalization of vegetarians in our society. This gracefully written and meticulously researched book presents not only a surprising slice through world history but also an unusual story of dissidence and revolt.
402 pages, Paperback
First published September 19, 1994
26 people are currently reading
876 people want to read
About the author
Colin Spencer
59 books5 followersAuthor biography:
Colin Spencer was born in London in 1933 and attended Brighton Grammar School and Brighton Art College. From an early age, he was interested in both art and writing and had his first stories published in The London Magazine and Encounter when he was 22.
Spencer’s first novel, An Absurd Affair, was published in 1961, but it was with his second, Anarchists in Love (1963), the first in the four-volume Generation sequence, that he began to garner widespread critical acclaim. Seven more novels followed between 1966 and 1978, including Poppy, Mandragora and the New Sex (1966), Asylum (1966), and Panic (1971), books that one critic has said ‘revel in the eccentric, the bizarre, and the grotesque’.
A man of many talents, Spencer is also a prolific author of non-fiction books, including gay-interest titles like Homosexuality: A History (1995) and The Gay Kama Sutra (1997) and acclaimed works on food and cooking which led Germaine Greer to call him ‘the greatest living food writer’.
More recently, Spencer has devoted himself to painting and to writing a trilogy of autobiographical works, the first of which, the memoir Backing into Light: My Father’s Son, was published by Quartet in 2013. He lives in East Sussex.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
January 22, 2008
This book is so freakishly dense. I need to buy a copy and wade through it a million more times. I was thrilled to discover that folks throughout time have had the same radical ideas i have, (radical like gnarly, not like progressive,)and that omnivorous-as-normative propaganda is bullshit. f that s.
September 9, 2017
Brilliant. Highly recommended for students of history, philosophy and vegetarianism.
September 13, 2023
AN EXCELLENT AND COMPREHENSIVE HISTORY
Author Colin Spencer wrote in the Foreword to this 1993 book, “I have to confess that before I began to work on this book I was only vaguely aware of vegetarian history... Like many others I thought that the vegetarian movement was a very contemporary phenomenon. I had no idea that the issues which agitate so many today---a hatred of unnecessary slaughter, the concept of animal welfare, our own physical health, the earth’s balance and hence its ecology---would have been perfectly understood in the ancient world… At a certain point in prehistory it obviously became clear to some people, and these would have most likely been priests, that the living food which sustains the body and spirit logically could not come from dead flesh.” (Pg. ix-x)
In ancient prehistory, “it is likely that humankind’s ancestors, some of the hominids, became regular fish-eaters many million years before they hunted and slaughtered animals and ate red meat. As we now know, a diet of plants, leaves, seeds, nuts, fruit and fish would be nutritionally extremely well-balanced fare for sturdy growth, health and vigor.” (Pg. 12) Later, he adds, “killing is not natural to humans, it does not fit either their physical or their dietary nature. Ways and means of hunting and killing were devised simply through necessity and the urge to survive.” (Pg. 18)
He notes, “Those who abstained from meat, if not religiously orthodox, would have to find a reason for their abstention that seemed not to be a condemnation of society itself. They had to find some divine sanction which would vindicate their behavior in the eyes of the community. Nothing but a reinterpretation of the nature of god or of the gods would do, or, at least, an explanation of the invisible world which could gather all living things into it and give them equal spiritual value… A specific vegetarian ideology… cannot exist without a settled habitat with no foreseeable climatic changes…” (Pg. 32)
He explains, “It is the Flood which heralds the beginning of a new dietary era. After the Flood humanity was able to kill animals for food. At the time of the Flood, God had not separated animals into clean and unclean—if he had, the Flood would have been an opportunity to drown all the unclean animals. Instead, God gives directions to Noah to take aboard the Ark ‘everything that creepeth upon the earth.’” (Pg. 115)
He recounts, “In England the vegetarian ethic seemed to have suddenly flowered and it was to continue to grow until the present day. The seventeenth century was a time for radical ideas. Religious faith was an area for dispute and sects began to proliferate: the Ranters, Juidaists, and later the Southcottians and Swedenborgians. They all abstained from animal food. There was a general change in how people thought of animals. Moral objections began to appear as people found they had a distaste for the subjugation and exploitation of animals…” (Pg. 204-205)
He continues, “By the end of the [18th] century the upsurge in humanitarian feelings had given the concept of animal rights grater propulsion and dynamism. Yet there was another more pragmatic reason for the growing vociferousness of the movement. The vegetarian campaign now had some hope of expanding because for the first time in modern history enough vegetables and cereals were available…” (Pg. 239)
He observes, “The vegetarian movement, small in numbers, could not have existed without a general change in public sensitivity over the slaughter and preparation of animals for meat. The Victorian age was no different from our own—meat was enjoyed, but no one wanted to see the transition of live animal to carcass… By the middle of the nineteenth century moves were being made to hide the slaughterhouses or shift them away from the centre of the town for the sake of the gentry and their sensibilities. In the great industrial centres they were often built opposite public houses and schools, which outraged vegetarians, who believed that the very sight and smell of them brutalized people.” (Pg. 269)
Of George Bernard Shaw, he wrote, “He was delighted with the economy of vegetarianism. He saved money on his lunches by eating in those vegetarian restaurants… Shaw’s polemics on behalf of vegetarianism must, at times, have seemed to the vegetarian societies a mixed blessing… There was a private and a public Shaw in the matter of vegetarianism as in everything else. The private Shaw wrote: ‘I am a vegetarian purely on humanitarian and mystical grounds; and I have never killed a flea or a mouse vindictively or without remorse,’ But because he felt that most people were vulgar, he made [himself] into the most ‘unsympathetic’ of vegetarians.” (Pg. 281)
He reports, “Vegetarianism did not really become involved in the welfare of animals until the 1870s and then it was the issue of vivisection that elicited passionate denunciation from all the most prominent campaigners. Vivisection was entwined with vegetarians’ dislike of medicine and doctors… The campaign against vivisection did bring some form of parliamentary legislation in the 1876 Cruelty to Animals Act.” (Pg. 285-286)
He summarizes, “What can explain not only the rise in vegetarianism but the organization of it in the nineteenth century? It first flowered in the center of industrial England and there can be no doubt that its main influence remained in the urban centers. The experience of living ion these fast-growing towns and cities cut off from the countryside had a certain effect on human beings…. Nature study became a subject in primary schools; field studies and venturing out into the country by cheap public transport or cycling became the most popular weekend hobby… urbanization also provided the foundation for the subsequent organization of the vegetarian movement. Instead of vegetarians being isolated, flung far and wide over a rural landscape, they were now within a small area and likely to be going to the same public places… The vegetarian movement also collected about itself a great number of sympathetic radicals who were not members of the Societies because they were not completely vegetarian, yet who embraced many if not all of the issues: socialism, animal welfare, non-violence, pacifism, health and homeopathy.” (Pg. 293-294)
He reports, “The vegans broke away from the Vegetarian Society because they refused to publicize the vegan view. At first vegans were thought of as very extreme indeed and the diet was considered anti-social… Veganism is much respected by vegetarians for many feel that it must be the next step forward. Veganism is an idea to aim at. The diet certainly produces health and vigor and it is known as being one with the lowest reports of the common afflictions like cancer and coronary complaints.” (Pg. 317-318)
He notes, “Members of the [‘60s] counter-culture were either vegetarian or macrobiotic, but not necessarily members of the Vegetarian Society… There was no way, of course, in which the counter-culture could make such issues as vegetarianism acceptable for the rest of society… the hippy image was again that of the outsider… Yet because they were older in the seventies one finds a gradual merging into the edge of the social structure, as in the running of health food shops and restaurants…” (Pg. 321-322)
He points out, “Factory farming methods became bad publicity for the product, for the more the public learned, the more the public felt a distaste for carcass meat. For a time hormones were used to fatten cattle, accelerating their weight gain in the shortest time possible, and some of these hormones residues produced horrific side-effects when used by a very few unscrupulous farmers. The over-reliance on antibiotics, which the great pharmaceutical companies had encouraged, can leave drug residues in some of the organs… Whatever life is like in the wild---and it is often bleak---it could never match this for suffering and deprivation … How had modern livestock farming been allowed to grow into this monster now covering so much of the landscape?” (Pg. 322-323)
He says, “The founders of the Vegetarian Society in the middle of the last century had a strong concept of pure food. It was… food without death and without blood… The concept of pure food that emerged in the 1970s… was food untainted by chemicals… it had to be organically grown if possible… it avoids the toxins in meat that may be produced at the moment of death from the adrenaline pumped through the terrified animal… The dislike of unnecessary chemical additives being added to canned, frozen and processed food began in the seventies. In the following decade labeling was brought in…” (Pg. 333-334)
He concludes, “The future of animal protein lies in genetic engineering; all of the multinational companies are now researching the subject and some transgenic animals have been produced… there is no doubt that it may be possible to reduce sentient creatures to food machines to such a degree that we develop… a featherless, legless, beakless chicken which … simply sits and fattens for its short seven-week life. Animal welfare campaigners find such Frankenstein-like visions nauseating and appalling, yet there are no government of EC guidelines to stop such inhumanity… In evolutionary terms we have reached that Malthusian point where the rise in population has an effect upon the environment that begins to accelerate so that the earth is unable to replenish its resources as fast as they are used up…. It is profoundly ironic that the human need to prove our dominance is the driving force which exhausts the environment. If we had accepted other animals as our equals, neither killing nor exploiting them, would the world’s natural resources have been so depleted?” (Pg. 342-343)
This book will be of great interest to anyone studying the history and development of Vegetarianism and Veganism.
Author Colin Spencer wrote in the Foreword to this 1993 book, “I have to confess that before I began to work on this book I was only vaguely aware of vegetarian history... Like many others I thought that the vegetarian movement was a very contemporary phenomenon. I had no idea that the issues which agitate so many today---a hatred of unnecessary slaughter, the concept of animal welfare, our own physical health, the earth’s balance and hence its ecology---would have been perfectly understood in the ancient world… At a certain point in prehistory it obviously became clear to some people, and these would have most likely been priests, that the living food which sustains the body and spirit logically could not come from dead flesh.” (Pg. ix-x)
In ancient prehistory, “it is likely that humankind’s ancestors, some of the hominids, became regular fish-eaters many million years before they hunted and slaughtered animals and ate red meat. As we now know, a diet of plants, leaves, seeds, nuts, fruit and fish would be nutritionally extremely well-balanced fare for sturdy growth, health and vigor.” (Pg. 12) Later, he adds, “killing is not natural to humans, it does not fit either their physical or their dietary nature. Ways and means of hunting and killing were devised simply through necessity and the urge to survive.” (Pg. 18)
He notes, “Those who abstained from meat, if not religiously orthodox, would have to find a reason for their abstention that seemed not to be a condemnation of society itself. They had to find some divine sanction which would vindicate their behavior in the eyes of the community. Nothing but a reinterpretation of the nature of god or of the gods would do, or, at least, an explanation of the invisible world which could gather all living things into it and give them equal spiritual value… A specific vegetarian ideology… cannot exist without a settled habitat with no foreseeable climatic changes…” (Pg. 32)
He explains, “It is the Flood which heralds the beginning of a new dietary era. After the Flood humanity was able to kill animals for food. At the time of the Flood, God had not separated animals into clean and unclean—if he had, the Flood would have been an opportunity to drown all the unclean animals. Instead, God gives directions to Noah to take aboard the Ark ‘everything that creepeth upon the earth.’” (Pg. 115)
He recounts, “In England the vegetarian ethic seemed to have suddenly flowered and it was to continue to grow until the present day. The seventeenth century was a time for radical ideas. Religious faith was an area for dispute and sects began to proliferate: the Ranters, Juidaists, and later the Southcottians and Swedenborgians. They all abstained from animal food. There was a general change in how people thought of animals. Moral objections began to appear as people found they had a distaste for the subjugation and exploitation of animals…” (Pg. 204-205)
He continues, “By the end of the [18th] century the upsurge in humanitarian feelings had given the concept of animal rights grater propulsion and dynamism. Yet there was another more pragmatic reason for the growing vociferousness of the movement. The vegetarian campaign now had some hope of expanding because for the first time in modern history enough vegetables and cereals were available…” (Pg. 239)
He observes, “The vegetarian movement, small in numbers, could not have existed without a general change in public sensitivity over the slaughter and preparation of animals for meat. The Victorian age was no different from our own—meat was enjoyed, but no one wanted to see the transition of live animal to carcass… By the middle of the nineteenth century moves were being made to hide the slaughterhouses or shift them away from the centre of the town for the sake of the gentry and their sensibilities. In the great industrial centres they were often built opposite public houses and schools, which outraged vegetarians, who believed that the very sight and smell of them brutalized people.” (Pg. 269)
Of George Bernard Shaw, he wrote, “He was delighted with the economy of vegetarianism. He saved money on his lunches by eating in those vegetarian restaurants… Shaw’s polemics on behalf of vegetarianism must, at times, have seemed to the vegetarian societies a mixed blessing… There was a private and a public Shaw in the matter of vegetarianism as in everything else. The private Shaw wrote: ‘I am a vegetarian purely on humanitarian and mystical grounds; and I have never killed a flea or a mouse vindictively or without remorse,’ But because he felt that most people were vulgar, he made [himself] into the most ‘unsympathetic’ of vegetarians.” (Pg. 281)
He reports, “Vegetarianism did not really become involved in the welfare of animals until the 1870s and then it was the issue of vivisection that elicited passionate denunciation from all the most prominent campaigners. Vivisection was entwined with vegetarians’ dislike of medicine and doctors… The campaign against vivisection did bring some form of parliamentary legislation in the 1876 Cruelty to Animals Act.” (Pg. 285-286)
He summarizes, “What can explain not only the rise in vegetarianism but the organization of it in the nineteenth century? It first flowered in the center of industrial England and there can be no doubt that its main influence remained in the urban centers. The experience of living ion these fast-growing towns and cities cut off from the countryside had a certain effect on human beings…. Nature study became a subject in primary schools; field studies and venturing out into the country by cheap public transport or cycling became the most popular weekend hobby… urbanization also provided the foundation for the subsequent organization of the vegetarian movement. Instead of vegetarians being isolated, flung far and wide over a rural landscape, they were now within a small area and likely to be going to the same public places… The vegetarian movement also collected about itself a great number of sympathetic radicals who were not members of the Societies because they were not completely vegetarian, yet who embraced many if not all of the issues: socialism, animal welfare, non-violence, pacifism, health and homeopathy.” (Pg. 293-294)
He reports, “The vegans broke away from the Vegetarian Society because they refused to publicize the vegan view. At first vegans were thought of as very extreme indeed and the diet was considered anti-social… Veganism is much respected by vegetarians for many feel that it must be the next step forward. Veganism is an idea to aim at. The diet certainly produces health and vigor and it is known as being one with the lowest reports of the common afflictions like cancer and coronary complaints.” (Pg. 317-318)
He notes, “Members of the [‘60s] counter-culture were either vegetarian or macrobiotic, but not necessarily members of the Vegetarian Society… There was no way, of course, in which the counter-culture could make such issues as vegetarianism acceptable for the rest of society… the hippy image was again that of the outsider… Yet because they were older in the seventies one finds a gradual merging into the edge of the social structure, as in the running of health food shops and restaurants…” (Pg. 321-322)
He points out, “Factory farming methods became bad publicity for the product, for the more the public learned, the more the public felt a distaste for carcass meat. For a time hormones were used to fatten cattle, accelerating their weight gain in the shortest time possible, and some of these hormones residues produced horrific side-effects when used by a very few unscrupulous farmers. The over-reliance on antibiotics, which the great pharmaceutical companies had encouraged, can leave drug residues in some of the organs… Whatever life is like in the wild---and it is often bleak---it could never match this for suffering and deprivation … How had modern livestock farming been allowed to grow into this monster now covering so much of the landscape?” (Pg. 322-323)
He says, “The founders of the Vegetarian Society in the middle of the last century had a strong concept of pure food. It was… food without death and without blood… The concept of pure food that emerged in the 1970s… was food untainted by chemicals… it had to be organically grown if possible… it avoids the toxins in meat that may be produced at the moment of death from the adrenaline pumped through the terrified animal… The dislike of unnecessary chemical additives being added to canned, frozen and processed food began in the seventies. In the following decade labeling was brought in…” (Pg. 333-334)
He concludes, “The future of animal protein lies in genetic engineering; all of the multinational companies are now researching the subject and some transgenic animals have been produced… there is no doubt that it may be possible to reduce sentient creatures to food machines to such a degree that we develop… a featherless, legless, beakless chicken which … simply sits and fattens for its short seven-week life. Animal welfare campaigners find such Frankenstein-like visions nauseating and appalling, yet there are no government of EC guidelines to stop such inhumanity… In evolutionary terms we have reached that Malthusian point where the rise in population has an effect upon the environment that begins to accelerate so that the earth is unable to replenish its resources as fast as they are used up…. It is profoundly ironic that the human need to prove our dominance is the driving force which exhausts the environment. If we had accepted other animals as our equals, neither killing nor exploiting them, would the world’s natural resources have been so depleted?” (Pg. 342-343)
This book will be of great interest to anyone studying the history and development of Vegetarianism and Veganism.
July 21, 2012
How did the idea of vegetarianism start? How did it evolve? Is it true we can do without meat entirely, that it’s actually healthier for us or is that just a bunch of hype propagated by meat haters?
Vegetarianism is an issue steeped in pre-history, history, philosophy, religion and politics with ramifications that extend far beyond its ecological, biological or moral roots. It is by no means as current or au courant as many people believe nor was it necessarily something indulged in exclusively by our distant ancestors from millions of years ago.
This book goes into its subject with such in-depth detail and a multitude of facts, dates and historical names that it can be a bit overwhelming for those who aren’t scholastically minded. But, if you’re at all interested in gaining a balanced view about the vegetarian question, it leaves no stone unturned. Vegetarianism is a hot-bed issue, one capable of rousing great affection as it can virulent hatred and Mr. Spencer illuminates the philosophies, religious thinking and cultural teachings that can lead to either emotion.
From the probings of anthropologists who study teeth, scrape through the earth’s layers and study the fossils of extinct wild life through the practices of historical figures such as Pythagoras, Mani, Porphyry, et al., and the religions of devoted non-meat-eaters, Mr. Spencer has created a focused, many-faceted treatise on a subject that is no less relevant today than it was millions of years ago.
Vegetarianism is an issue steeped in pre-history, history, philosophy, religion and politics with ramifications that extend far beyond its ecological, biological or moral roots. It is by no means as current or au courant as many people believe nor was it necessarily something indulged in exclusively by our distant ancestors from millions of years ago.
This book goes into its subject with such in-depth detail and a multitude of facts, dates and historical names that it can be a bit overwhelming for those who aren’t scholastically minded. But, if you’re at all interested in gaining a balanced view about the vegetarian question, it leaves no stone unturned. Vegetarianism is a hot-bed issue, one capable of rousing great affection as it can virulent hatred and Mr. Spencer illuminates the philosophies, religious thinking and cultural teachings that can lead to either emotion.
From the probings of anthropologists who study teeth, scrape through the earth’s layers and study the fossils of extinct wild life through the practices of historical figures such as Pythagoras, Mani, Porphyry, et al., and the religions of devoted non-meat-eaters, Mr. Spencer has created a focused, many-faceted treatise on a subject that is no less relevant today than it was millions of years ago.
December 31, 2014
Vegetarianism follows a radical path through Western culture: borne in the Orphic traditions inherited by Pythagoras from Ancient Egyptian religion. It flourished within Greek philosophy becoming an essential component by the time of Plutarch and Plotinus. It was usurped by the dominant Hebraic basis of Christianity, but it continued to challenge the orthodoxy through the various heresies such as Bogomilism, Gnosticism, and Manicheanism.
Colin Spencer identifies three major factors that drive vegetarian thinking: 1) Compassion for the suffering of animals, 2) An abhorrence of flesh and things of the world, and 3) The use of diet as a support for good health. Interesting this last factor, which is the most often cited reason for people adopting a vegetarian diet, is also the most recent.
This is a great book that covers a lot of ground but does so with eloquence and intelligence. Each chapter could be expanded into its own volume without exhausting the material.
Colin Spencer identifies three major factors that drive vegetarian thinking: 1) Compassion for the suffering of animals, 2) An abhorrence of flesh and things of the world, and 3) The use of diet as a support for good health. Interesting this last factor, which is the most often cited reason for people adopting a vegetarian diet, is also the most recent.
This is a great book that covers a lot of ground but does so with eloquence and intelligence. Each chapter could be expanded into its own volume without exhausting the material.
December 24, 2014
I think the most surprising revelation in this book was the fact that vegetarians were considered politically subversive for so long in the West. The vested interests in killing animals for food were so huge they were considered to be part of what a human being is.
Sad.
Sad.
December 3, 2016
This is an authoritative book that assuredly covers everything there is to know about the history of meat-free diets -- from a British perspective.
It begins with a study of the diet of prehistoric humans, and proceeds through Pythagoras and the ancient Greeks, to early Christianity and the 'heresies'. It visits the religions of the Near East, Buddhism and Hinduism.
It then gets increasingly britanno-centric as it advances through history, giving an enlightening history of vegetarianism leading up to the present day.
It starts as objective history, and becomes increasingly partisan until it ends on a clarion call for vegetarianism on grounds of health, compassion for animals, and the solution to the Malthusian problem of feeding the planet's rapidly expanding population.
It covers everything a Brit could wish to know on the subject. It's nicely written, and if it's a bit dry, that's far preferable to a more sensationalist or emotive tone.
It begins with a study of the diet of prehistoric humans, and proceeds through Pythagoras and the ancient Greeks, to early Christianity and the 'heresies'. It visits the religions of the Near East, Buddhism and Hinduism.
It then gets increasingly britanno-centric as it advances through history, giving an enlightening history of vegetarianism leading up to the present day.
It starts as objective history, and becomes increasingly partisan until it ends on a clarion call for vegetarianism on grounds of health, compassion for animals, and the solution to the Malthusian problem of feeding the planet's rapidly expanding population.
It covers everything a Brit could wish to know on the subject. It's nicely written, and if it's a bit dry, that's far preferable to a more sensationalist or emotive tone.
abandoned-ship
April 5, 2009Huh. Is it just me, or is this totally unreadable unless you want a specific worldview reinforced? This is pretty out there in the Cult of Vegetarianism. This is quite dense, and I'm sure there's some valid history in there. But I do not have the patience to pick through the speculation and spiritual rambling.
Is there a vaguely objective/accessible history out there? Or some type of collection of essays from different vegetarian traditions would be really worthwhile. I'm confused that there isn't more published on this topic.
Is there a vaguely objective/accessible history out there? Or some type of collection of essays from different vegetarian traditions would be really worthwhile. I'm confused that there isn't more published on this topic.
Want to read
February 14, 2008I think I should go vegetarian again. And read this book.
December 28, 2024
egetarianism, the practice of abstaining from eating meat, has a recorded history dating back to ancient Greece. Despite this, it is only in recent years that researchers have begun conducting empirical investigations of the practices and beliefs associated with vegetarianism. The present article reviews the extant literature, exploring variants of and motivations for vegetarianism, differences in attitudes, values and worldviews between omnivores and vegetarians, as well as the pronounced gender differences in meat consumption and vegetarianism
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 21, 2017
There was a time when if you were a vegetarian it was considered kooky or cranky, but no longer. Colin Spencer’s comprehensive book explores the psychology of abstention from flesh and attempts to discover why omnivorous humans at times voluntarily abstain from an available food.
June 29, 2018
I kept expecting this book to get better, but there's a bitter thread of editorializing throughout. More for heretic hunters who have run out of prey than vegetarianism, and of course obsessed with the English experience, all else getting a lazy, hazy gloss.
April 5, 2025
A good resource if one is interested in the history of popular delusions, neurotic intellectuals, restrictive eating disorders, esoteric mumbo jumbo. . . Etc.
Particularly interesting chapter on why the pyrthagoreans might not have eaten beans.
Particularly interesting chapter on why the pyrthagoreans might not have eaten beans.
April 4, 2019
I spent 7 years trying to finish this book and never could because it was too pedantic even for a history text. Disappointing.
July 30, 2019
A very complete historical look at vegan and vegetarianism. Highly recommended
May 22, 2016
This book illustrates the history of vegetarianism, and that, unlike what many people may think, vegetarianism did not erupt in the 1960's. The chapters about Plutarch I found most interesting since I share his perspective concerning the consumption of animal flesh. I also found it interesting to discover how vegetarians were persecuted for their beliefs and eating habits, similarly to how religious groups were persecuted.
March 28, 2008
I just found out that it's written by a food-writer. Which is all good, but it helps me understand it better. It's a very historical approach to vegetarianism, but it's a pretty intense journey..kind of nice to read a little history.
February 22, 2014
A well-put and researched historical timeline of the wave of vegetarianism throughout human history -- really puts into perspective how what you choose to eat reflects philosophical, religious, political, cultural, and historical content.
April 13, 2013
omg -- this is so interesting. not done yet.
September 7, 2014
very good overview but too much second-degree material that you have you cut through to get to the direct histories of vegetarianism. Also, largely written for a UK audience.
February 4, 2015
Colin Spencer seems like a nice guy, but he isn't a historian. I found the rambling structure and unfocused inquiry too frustrating to continue reading after the first few chapters.
May 3, 2016
Amazing history of vegetarianism
As a Buddhist I advocate for a vegetarian diet and was amazed at the wealth of history included in this book.
As a Buddhist I advocate for a vegetarian diet and was amazed at the wealth of history included in this book.
August 24, 2018
A thorough historical review of Vegetarianism that is neither for nor against any dietary practice.
February 17, 2013
Very good
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews