A vindication of natural diet: Being one in a series of notes to Queen Mab

by Percy Bysshe Shelley

I hold that the depravity of the physical and moral nature of man originated in his unnatural habits of life. The origin of man, like that of the universe of which he is a part, is enveloped in impenetrable mystery. His generations either had a beginning, or they had not. The weight of evidence in favour of each of these suppositions seems tolerably equal; and it is perfectly unimportant to the present argument which is assumed. The language spoken however by the mythology of nearly all religions seems to prove, that at some distant period man forsook the path of nature, and sacrificed the purity and happiness of his being to unnatural appetites. The date of this event, seems to have also been that of some great change in the climates of the earth, with which it has an obvious correspondence. The allegory of Adam and Eve eating of the tree of evil, and entailing upon their posterity the wrath of God, and the loss of everlasting life, admits of no other explanation, than the disease and crime that have flowed from unnatural diet. Milton was so well aware of this, that he makes Raphael thus exhibit to Adam the consequence of his disobedience.

Genres: Nonfiction, Philosophy, Classics, Food, Essays, Vegan, Health

27 pages, Unknown Binding

First published January 1, 1813

About the author

Works of Percy Bysshe Shelley, British romantic poet, include "To a Skylark" in 1820; Prometheus Unbound , the lyric drama; and "Adonais," an elegy of 1821 to John Keats.

The Cenci , work of art or literature of Percy Bysshe Shelley of 1819, depicts Beatrice Cenci, Italian noblewoman.

People widely consider Percy Bysshe Shelley among the finest majors of the English language. He is perhaps most famous for such anthology pieces as Ozymandias , Ode to the West Wind , and The Masque of Anarchy . His major long visionary Alastor , The Revolt of Islam , and the unfinished The Triumph of Life .

Unconventional life and uncompromising idealism of Percy Bysshe Shelley combined with his strong skeptical voice to make an authoritative and much denigrated figure during his life. He became the idol of the next two or three generations, the major Victorian and Pre-Raphaelite Robert Browning, Alfred Tennyson, Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Algernon Charles Swinburne, as well as William Butler Yeats and in other languages, such as Jibanananda Das and Subramanya Bharathy . Karl Marx, Henry Stephens Salt, and [authorm:Bertrand Russell] also admired him. Famous for his association with his contemporaries Lord Byron, he also married Mary Shelley, novelist.

Reviews

[Jassmine · Rating 4 out of 5]

The allegory of Adam and Eve eating of the tree of evil, and entailing upon their posterity the wrath of God, and the loss of everlasting life, admits of no other explanation than the disease and crime that have flowed from unnatural diet.

As with every other piece of PBS's writing that I attempted before, I had troubles getting into this, but once I managed that, it was actually a pretty quick and engaging read. This is one of the oldest writings arguing for vegetarianism (as far as I know, it's obviously nowhere near the really old ones, like Epicurus and I'm sure there would be plenty non-European works concerning this topic).
Shelley's main argument concerns health - it's not natural for humans to eat meat, we aren't carnivorous animals, we don't look like them, we don't have the same biology as them and therefore meat can't be good for us. Considering how much meat some members of higher society at the time consume, he's not far from the truth. Not that we today don't consume more meat than is good for us...
According to Shelley and Regency-era science we are most similar to orang-outangs and therefore we should only eat fruit. He also at one point argues that we can only eat meat because of fire, so clearly it's not natural and therefore not good but we know from various sources on his life that he loved bread and lived almost entirely of it, so... it doesn't add up so well here 🤭
Never mind, to the more interesting parts!
Where it gets interesting is in his argumentation that vegetarianism can lead to social change:

The whole of human science is comprised in one question - How can the advantages of intellect and civilisation be reconciled with the liberty and pure pleasures of natural life? How can we take the benefits and reject the evils of the system which is now interwoven wit all the fibres of our being? I believe that abstinence from animal food and spirituous liquors would in a great measure capacitate us for the solution of this important question.

He even argues that:

Who will assert that, had the populace of Paris drank at the pure source of the Seine, and satisfied their hunger at the ever furnished table of vegetable nature that they would have lent their brutal suffrage to the proscription-list of Robespierre?

He is basically saying that eating meat and slaughtering animals is making us callous (with which by the way I absolutely agree. I mean, the way we treat animals in mass meat production is horrendous and the fact that our society is finding it acceptable is... really proof enough of this argument for me. Also, if you want to know how cattle was treated in Regency Britain, read the related part from The Time Traveler's Guide to Regency Britain: A Handbook for Visitors to 1789–1830, it can be a bit nauseating in places though...) ... sorry, digression, where was I? Oh, right, he argues that eating meat is making us callous and that if the French were vegetarians the Revolution would never get out of their hands like that. Which... you know... interesting argument. I'm not sure that I would go this far...
The social aspect of his argument continues when he writes:

The monopolising eater of animal flesh would no longer destroy his constitution by devouring an acre at a meal...

By which he basically means that farmers spend too much space and effort farming crops for animals when they could be feeding people directly instead. He's arguing for better distribution of resources between classes. (I'm not sure if agricultural math works like this, but he gets some points from me.)
But he doesn't end here. Since he argues for natural and therefore simple diet he continues:

On a natural system of diet, we should require no spices from India; no wines from Portugal, Spain, France, or Madeira; none of those multitudinous articles of luxury, for which every corner of the globe is rifled, and which are the causes of so much individual rivalship, such calamitous and sanguinary national disputes.

I mean... saying that vegetarianism can stop wars and international conflicts is a bit naïve, but... I really appreciate that he positions his arguments on so many axes. He doesn't quite go there, but in essence, his arguments are anti-colonialist. But note that there is a luxury item that he doesn't name - tea! (How English of him... tea is a necessity - and I agree 🤭) So I guess a war with China is still on!
He ends:

...the use of animal flesh and fermented liquors, directly militates with this equality of the rights of man. The peasant cannot gratify these fashionable cravings without leaving his family to starve. Without disease and war, those sweeping curtailers of population, pasturage would include a waste too great to be afforded. The labour requisite to support a family is far lighter than is usually supposed. The peasantry work, not only for themselves, but for the aristocracy, the army, and the manufacturers.

Overall, this was much more interesting than I expected and I'm so glad I read this!
P.S. I'm not a vegetarian myself. Unlike Shelley, I think some meat is natural for human diet, but I'm trying to eat as little of it as possible and as much ethical as I can.

[Tessa · Rating 4 out of 5]

As both a vegan and an English, I felt that Shelley's A Vindication of Natural Diet was a must read. Shelley's activism here (and his status as "the first celebrity vegan") shows how ahead of his time the Romantic poet truly was. While his arguments tend to be mostly health-related, he really does emphasize why so many people choose to go meat-free in the first place: the idea of consuming an animal "excite[s] intolerable loathing and disgust."

Perhaps what I enjoyed the most was the ending, though not for any negative reason. In his final paragraph, Shelley forcefully claims there are only two rules for the person longing to live natural life and desiring good health: "NEVER TAKE ANY SUBSTANCE INTO THE STOMACH THAT ONCE HAD LIFE.
DRINK NO LIQUID BUT WATER RESTORED TO ITS ORIGINAL PURITY BY DISTILLATION."

Overall, the essay was an insightful read regarding the arguments of 19th century vegetarians/vegans and how they compare to those of today, and I'm certainly interested in reading similar work of Shelley's.

[Joel · Rating 5 out of 5]

The purpose of this written piece by Shelly was to inform the reader of the benefits of a vegetable based diet and the need, the most dire need to show compassion to other sentience. He details with articulate prowess the need to call and end to the hostilities of consuming the flesh of those which lived and breathed, and raises to attention the fact humans are (Homo Saipiens Sapiens) anatomically closest to apes which are fruigivorous, sustaining entirely from plant based matter. What human would slay an animal if it were required to look it in the eye? What developed human civilisation, with medicine, science and technology, transport and infrastructure has no choice but to maintain sustenance from formerly living flesh? What kind of a human being is naturally carnivorous to the point of being able to hunt down and tear apart a living animals flesh?


This written piece, had it been heeded like the bible for some- would not only have changed the environmental scene for the better, it would transform our world views. Shelly should be admired for his articulations so early on in history. Indubitably, a vindication for a natural diet this is.

[Ele · Rating 5 out of 5]

Percy Bysshe Shelley was notably very much ahead of his time. While there was a major vegetarian movement at the time (Alexander Pope and John Gay, a little time before, had also been advocates for the diet), but not only was it not quiet so large as it is today, no one had really delved quiet the way Percy had. He questions not only the morality of eating meat, but also the health concerns to financial questions. Some times he does read a bit fanatical (he was always a bit mad), but this work is truly inspiring for anyone trying to learn about vegetarianism in the past.

[Steve R · Rating 3 out of 5]

Published as a separate pamphlet in 1813 when Shelley was 21 years of age, this tract originated among the extensive notes to his epic poem Queen Mab. Like a lot of his extended works in poetry, such as Prometheus Unbound and The Revolt of Islam, Mab and the pamphlet to which it gave rise carry the distinct stain of being perilously overblown. It is as if Shelley, once possessed of an enthusiasm, could not resist carrying to the nth possible degree.

How else should one interpret such a claim as the one that vegetarianism and abstention from all distilled liquors ‘alone might offer a certain pledge of the moral reformation of society.’ Or the interpretation that the original sin committed by Adam and Eve was not so much to bite of the tree of knowledge as to develop a taste for flesh of other livings things in their diet. Later, the specific rebellion of Prometheus in bringing fire to mankind was that the latter would use it to cook meat. Vegetarianism may indeed improve one’s overall health, but to trace all social ills to drinking rum and eating beef and to ascribe the quality of a universal panacea to its rejection seems a might overblown.

The question is asked Mi>‘How can the advantage of intellect and civilization be reconciled with the liberty and pure pleasures of natural life?’ to which the answer is provided that ‘abstinence from animal food and spirituous liquors form the solution of this important problem.’ Further, Shelley awaits a physician who can parallel the work of Locke, who ‘traced all knowledge to sensation [and might similarly] trace all bodily and mental derangements to our unnatural habits’.

His political radicalism even breaks through when, he argues that the pasturage set aside for animals to feed so that they can later dress the dinner tables of men could much more efficiently and prosperously be used for planting vegetables and grains which would both decrease reliance of foreign imports and improve the health and well being of society. Such an alteration would follow on the realization that ‘animal flesh and fermented liquors are … but certain poison’.

He claims that he and his wife (given the date of publication I assume that this was his first wife, Harriet, not Mary, his second) have been practising the self-imposed restrictions to eat nothing that was once alive and drink only distilled natural waters for about eight months. The author of the preface to the work claims that evidence exists both that while later dwelling in southern England this diet seemed to be in force but that later in Italy, a certain degree of back sliding seems to have set in.

Shelley was definitely of an ‘all or nothing’ temperament no matter whether it came to his atheism, his republicanism, his rejection of the conventions of marriage or, in this instance, his vegetarianism. He never seems to have realized that by excessive exaggeration in proclaiming the benefits of one’s conception, one often weakens the strength of the argument with which it is espoused. But such are the exigencies of youth.

Recommended, but more as a curiosity than as a insightful interpretation and presentation of the chosen viewpoint. After all, who can resist the small of bacon in the morning?

[Ulla · Rating 4 out of 5]

Long before vegetarianism became popular and intensive livestock farming was a topic,
P.B. Shelley (one of my favourite English poets) contemplated on why eating meat is unnatural for humans and which negative implications it has on health.
Further he critically addresses the concept of spending more money than you have (as a community) and the effects on economy. On both topics he was very foresighted.

[Choyette · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good Read: Short and Quick

This essay is good for anyone who might have an interest in how a vegetarian diet was viewed in the romantic period. The main reason I read this, though, is that I like Mary's work and decided to give her husband's work a try. This was my first Percy Shelley piece. As a disclaimer I've been a vegetarian for 10 years before reading this.

[a.g.e. montagner · Rating 3 out of 5]

“Unsophisticated instinct is invariably unerring; but to decide on the fitness of animal food, from the perverted appetites which its contrained adoption produce, is to make the criminal a judge in his own cause; it is even worse, it is appealing to the infatuated drunkard in a question of the salubrity of brandy”.

[Amanda · Rating 1 out of 5]

I can see why he was admired by Marx. I'm glad I read it, but I didn't like it. Parts of it were good, but most was strange. I can understand Shakespeare and even Dante, but Shelley was a lot harder. It was very interesting, but I don't think the author was a very happy person.

[Aidan Rynne · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Never take any substance into the stomach that once had life."

As an argument for vegetarianism, Vindication become stronger as it goes on. Shelley begins with his weakest argument, suggesting one's diet influences their morality. At worst, he borders on criminological pseudoscience (his Napoleon takedown is especially funny, imagine when he finds out about Hitler!). To give Shelley some credit, what he says is true to some degree. What we eat does effect our brain a lot more than we probably realise. 95% of serotonin is produced in the gut, which is certainly going to have some effect on one's mood and judgement. This argument is mostly valid for the anti-alcohol aspect of the essay. Not that meat is particularly good for one's gut.

The second half of Vindication is what makes it worth reading. Shelley writes with an economic and environmental awareness that is undeniably truer now than when it was written two-hundred and ten years ago.

Shelley puts it better than I ever could, so I'm collecting my favourite quotes below:

“The change which would be produced by simpler habits on political economy is sufficiently remarkable. The monopolising eater of animal flesh would no longer destroy his constitution by devouring an acre at a meal … The quantity of nutritious vegetable matter consumed in fattening the carcase of an ox, would afford ten times the sustenance, undepraving indeed, and incapable of generating disease, if gathered immediately from the bosom of the earth.
“The most fertile districts of the habitable globe are now actually cultivated by men for animals, at a delay and waste of aliment absolutely incapable of calculation. It is only the wealthy that can , to any great degree, even now, indulge the unnatural craving for dead flesh, and they pay for the greater licence of privilege, by subjection to supernumerary diseases."

“Let it be remembered, that it is the direct influence of commerce to make the interval between the richest and the poorest man wider and more unconquerable.
The odious and disgusting aristocracy of wealth is built upon the ruins of all that is good in chivalry or republicanism; and luxury is the forerunner of a barbarism scarce capable of cure."

“He will embrace a pure system, from its abstract truth, its beauty , its simplicity and its promise of wide-extended benefit; unless custom has turned poison into food, he will hate the brutal pleasures of the chase by instinct; it will be a contemplation full of horror and disappointment to his mind, that beings capable of the gentlest and most admirable sympathies, should take delight in the death pangs and last convulsions of dying animals."

"Crime is madness. Madness is disease... Should ever a physician be born with the genius of Locke, I am persuaded that he might trace all bodily and mental derangements to our unnatural habits, as clearly as that philosopher has traced all knowledge to sensation. What prolific sources of disease are not those mineral and vegetable poisons that have been introduced for its extirpation? How many thousands have become murderers and robbers, bigots and domestic tyrants, dissolute and abandoned adventures, from the use of fermented liquors; who had they slaked their thirst only at the mountain stream, would have lived but to diffuse the happiness of their own unperverted feelings. How many groundless opinions and absurd institutions have not received a general sanction from the sottishness and intemperance of individuals? … Is it to be believed that a being of gentle feelings, rising from his meal of roots, would take delight in sports of blood?"

“It is only among the enlightened and benevolent that so great a sacrifice of appetite and prejudice can be expected, even though its ultimate excellence should not admit of dispute.”

That being said, how the hell did this guy maintain his health as a vego in 1813???

[Lizzy · Rating 4 out of 5]

This pamphlet is sort of unintentionally funny. I laughed so hard at Shelley's ego of thinking himself above everyone else for being a vegetarian, and I also laughed at his overly moral and prissy arguments for vegetarianism. There also is the inherent irony of while he says that vegetarianism will lead to a long life, he didn't even live to thirty, and was illness riddled and a hypochondriac for most of his life. Really this pamphlet, in terms of its arguments, is a two star book, but I was so amused by it that I must give it four stars. I was doing a research project on Shelley for a college class, and read this of my own free will because I discovered it and found it funny. I am, by the way, vegetarian, and so am not laughing at the idiocy of vegetarians, but at Shelley's idiocy and inflated sense of self importance. Reading this made writing an essay about him much easier, though I was told by my professor that I couldn't simply laugh at Shelley, but had to instead analyze his works. This was a slight disappointment, but I recovered and wrote a semi critical, semi analytical essay about Shelley and several of his works.

[Gabi · Rating 3 out of 5]

„No sane mind in a sane body resolves upon a real crime. It is a man of violent passions, bloodshot eyes, and swollen veins, that alone can grasp the knife of murder.” Perhaps he was the first so-called vegetarian celebrity of his time.

[Marcus · Rating 4 out of 5]

Over 200 years old, this work sees the famous poet push against the ills of eating meat. He cites the biblical fall from grace and Prometheus as examples of the ignoble incorporation of flesh into human diets. This idea of natural harmony is inspired by The Return to Nature, or a Defence of the Vegetable Regimen: With Some Account of an Experiment Made During the Last Three or Four Years in the Author's Family.

He goes on to make ethical and environmental points that are still used today, regarding the inefficiency of pastoral land, the unsuitability of the human body for hunting sans technology and has a Tolstoyan idea that violence on the plate fosters a violent human society.

“… it will be a contemplation full of horror and disappointment to his mind, that beings capable of the gentlest and most admirable sympathies should take delight in the death-pangs and last convulsions of dying animals.”

“The change which would be produced by simpler habits on political economy is sufficiently remarkable. The monopolising eater of animal flesh would no longer destroy his constitution by devouring an acre at a meal … The quantity of nutritious vegetable matter consumed in fattening the carcase of an ox, would afford ten times the sustenance, undepraving indeed, and incapable of generating disease, if gathered immediately from the bosom of the earth.”

“The most fertile districts of the habitable globe are now actually cultivated by men for animals, at a delay and waste of aliment absolutely incapable of calculation. It is only the wealthy that can , to any great degree, even now, indulge the unnatural craving for dead flesh, and they pay for the greater licence of privilege, by subjection to supernumerary diseases."

“Let the advocate of animal food force himself to a decisive experiment on its fitness, and, as Plutarch recommends, tear a living lamb with his teeth, and plunging his head into its vitals, slake his thirst with the streaming blood; when fresh from the deed of horror, let him revert to the irresistible instincts of nature that would rise in judgment against it, and say 'Nature formed me for such work as this. Then, and then only, would he be consistent.”

[stephen k · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well-known poet Percy Shelley applies empiricist principles to human biology. As with all empiricism, there are some big problems, but this is a useful beginning to thought on nutrition, with a little bit of politics thrown in. His conviction is affecting and the aesthetics of it bolster his defense where the reasoning is weak.

[Velvetink]

kindle

[Coraline · Rating 5 out of 5]

epic vegan moment PURE WATER AND VEGETABLE DIET LETS GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. etc

[TanguyYun]

Important read

[Katie Rose Ravelle · Rating 5 out of 5]

A VEGETARIAN KING!

Big up the vegetable diet n pure water combo x