"Sins of the Flesh": Vegetarianism in the English Civil War
In the English Civil War, vegetarianism helped reinforce the religious arguments for which some of the protagonists fought. Refraining from meat was not just a question of taste - for many it was a question of faith.
The diet of early modern England was sparing when it came to consumption of flesh. For the majority of people, meat was an expensive rarity. But recent research has revealed that even the poorer members of 17th century society ate considerable amounts of meat, and those involved in heavy labour, such as agricultural workers, may have consumed between one and two pounds of flesh a day (Hailwood, 2013). Given this revelation, it is all the more remarkable that there were those among the lower classes who maintained a meat-free diet, not out of necessity but for reasons of morality.
Going 'veggie' was a regular occurrence for those who lived in London during the Civil War, when the last Wednesday of each month was observed as a public fast and eating meat was prohibited. The Bible taught that after Adam and Eve were cast out of Eden they were condemned to live by their own labour: “In the sweate of thy face thou shalt eat bread” (Genesis, 3:18-19), and reverting to a meat-free diet was a reminder to the London citizens of their innate sinfulness. Parliament's stipulation of these monthly fasts was both an act of humility and an acknowledgement of Christ's ultimate salvation, bringing the London population closer to God.
Humility was just one reason for abstaining from flesh. Anglican clergyman Thomas Barlow, a lecturer at Oxford in the 1640s, was fervent in his belief that certain foods were forbidden in scripture. In his 1652 tract, Triall of a Black-Pudding, he noted that rabbinical law had prohibited the eating of blood among the Hebrews. Although, he argued, the Apostles had later rescinded the Jewish dietary laws set down in Leviticus, the ban on eating animal blood was retained (specifically in Acts, 15). While the eating of an animal’s flesh was allowed, God, Barlow asserted, forbade the consumption of blood because it was “the life and soul of Beasts” (Shapin, 2007). To consume an animal’s God-given life-force was a blasphemy. The absence of blood at the dinner table was as important to Barlow as it is would be in kosher or halal diets, and he maintained that the consumption of black pudding was anti-Christian.
Those of the period who had received a classical education would have first encountered through studying the works of Greek and Roman authors. These writers argued that the philosopher Pythagoras had abstained from flesh, and the Roman historian Plutarch wrote that he was "astonished to think, on the contrary, what appetite first induced man to taste of a dead carcass" (quoted in Nichols, Vegetarian Cookery). Others found their own, more individualistic, reasons to turn vegetarian. In 1646 the Anglican divine Thomas Edwards published Gangraena, a rambling and repetitive catalogue of heresies associated with the mood of religious toleration that had emerged among Parliamentarians during the civil war. Among the beliefs Edwards considered heretical were those that appeared to show an undue affection toward animals. The author cited examples of people who believed: “God loves creatures that creep upon the ground as well as the best saints”; who believed “there shall be in the last day a resurrection from the dead of all the brute creatures, all beasts and birds that ever lived upon the earth “and that it was “unlawful to . . . kill any of the creatures for our use, as a chicken” (Rudrum, 2003). Edwards cited a Hackney bricklayer named Marshall, who insisted that it was unlawful to kill any living creature because life itself was God-given. This kind of ethical vegetarianism reported by Edwards was quite different to the theological argument espoused by Barlow. Edwards clearly disapproved of vegetarianism, primarily because such views were based on a highly individualistic reading of the Bible that was discouraged by the established church, but which formed a good deal of Puritan opposition to Charles I and the Anglican liturgy. It is possible, then, to observe a correlation between independent religious thought, political persuasion and a vegetarian diet: if one was vegetarian in the 1640s it was likely that one was also a Parliamentarian.
Humility was just one reason for abstaining from flesh. Anglican clergyman Thomas Barlow, a lecturer at Oxford in the 1640s, was fervent in his belief that certain foods were forbidden in scripture. In his 1652 tract, Triall of a Black-Pudding, he noted that rabbinical law had prohibited the eating of blood among the Hebrews. Although, he argued, the Apostles had later rescinded the Jewish dietary laws set down in Leviticus, the ban on eating animal blood was retained (specifically in Acts, 15). While the eating of an animal’s flesh was allowed, God, Barlow asserted, forbade the consumption of blood because it was “the life and soul of Beasts” (Shapin, 2007). To consume an animal’s God-given life-force was a blasphemy. The absence of blood at the dinner table was as important to Barlow as it is would be in kosher or halal diets, and he maintained that the consumption of black pudding was anti-Christian.
Those of the period who had received a classical education would have first encountered through studying the works of Greek and Roman authors. These writers argued that the philosopher Pythagoras had abstained from flesh, and the Roman historian Plutarch wrote that he was "astonished to think, on the contrary, what appetite first induced man to taste of a dead carcass" (quoted in Nichols, Vegetarian Cookery). Others found their own, more individualistic, reasons to turn vegetarian. In 1646 the Anglican divine Thomas Edwards published Gangraena, a rambling and repetitive catalogue of heresies associated with the mood of religious toleration that had emerged among Parliamentarians during the civil war. Among the beliefs Edwards considered heretical were those that appeared to show an undue affection toward animals. The author cited examples of people who believed: “God loves creatures that creep upon the ground as well as the best saints”; who believed “there shall be in the last day a resurrection from the dead of all the brute creatures, all beasts and birds that ever lived upon the earth “and that it was “unlawful to . . . kill any of the creatures for our use, as a chicken” (Rudrum, 2003). Edwards cited a Hackney bricklayer named Marshall, who insisted that it was unlawful to kill any living creature because life itself was God-given. This kind of ethical vegetarianism reported by Edwards was quite different to the theological argument espoused by Barlow. Edwards clearly disapproved of vegetarianism, primarily because such views were based on a highly individualistic reading of the Bible that was discouraged by the established church, but which formed a good deal of Puritan opposition to Charles I and the Anglican liturgy. It is possible, then, to observe a correlation between independent religious thought, political persuasion and a vegetarian diet: if one was vegetarian in the 1640s it was likely that one was also a Parliamentarian.
One vegetarian who saw military service in the war was Roger Crab (c.1616-1680). Popularly supposed to have been a Leveller spokesman, he was wounded on campaign in 1645: “my skull . . . cloven to the braine in the late War for the Parliament against the King” (Bowers, 2003). He was convinced that his life had been spared only by an act of God and he subsequently underwent a religious conversion, turning to vegetarianism as a form of spiritual purification. Forgoing the roast mutton, rabbit and other 'dainty' dishes of his former life, Crab subsisted on what he was able to grow on a small patch of land: “Cabbage, Turneps, Carrets, Dock-leaves, and Grasse; also Bread and Bran, without Butter or Cheese” (Hessayon, 2004), although in old age he allowed himself the indulgence of parsnips. Crab's asceticism and vegan diet developed from a vow of poverty inspired by the figure of John the Baptist (whom Crab regarded as the first Leveller), and he claimed to live on just three farthings a week (Bowers, 2003).
The vegetarianism of Thomas Tryon (1634-1703) was among the most complex and considered of this period. Apprenticed to an Anabaptist in 1650s London, Tryon, like Crab, came to vegetarianism through a spiritual revelation, feeling compelled to follow “an abstemious self-denying life . . . My drink was only water, and food only bread and some fruit” (Smith, 2004), though he later reverted to eating butter and cheese. When in later years Tryon published his personal philosophy in a series of highly popular writings, he urged readers to “eschew things derived from violence” and the death of “fellow creatures” (ibid.). It was Tryon's belief that violence toward animals stemmed from the “Dark and Stygian Degeneracy and Separation, from the Divine Power and Union” (Rudrum, 2003), the detachment of man from God that had occurred with the expulsion from Eden. Tryon considered vegetables to be “indisputably innocent”, and a vegetarian diet for him was a way of retracing the path to Eden – it was popularly supposed that Adam and Eve had been vegetarians before the fall, living solely off the "herb bearing seed" (Genesis, 1:29-30). Tryon summed up the health benefits of a meat free diet in his assertion that meat-eaters were "digging their Graves with their own Teeth" (Smith, 2004).
Crab and Tryon both emerged from a background of Baptist puritanism, and indicate a link between vegetarianism and the religious Independents who formed a good deal of Parliamentarian support against Charles I during the Civil War.
The vegetarianism of Thomas Tryon (1634-1703) was among the most complex and considered of this period. Apprenticed to an Anabaptist in 1650s London, Tryon, like Crab, came to vegetarianism through a spiritual revelation, feeling compelled to follow “an abstemious self-denying life . . . My drink was only water, and food only bread and some fruit” (Smith, 2004), though he later reverted to eating butter and cheese. When in later years Tryon published his personal philosophy in a series of highly popular writings, he urged readers to “eschew things derived from violence” and the death of “fellow creatures” (ibid.). It was Tryon's belief that violence toward animals stemmed from the “Dark and Stygian Degeneracy and Separation, from the Divine Power and Union” (Rudrum, 2003), the detachment of man from God that had occurred with the expulsion from Eden. Tryon considered vegetables to be “indisputably innocent”, and a vegetarian diet for him was a way of retracing the path to Eden – it was popularly supposed that Adam and Eve had been vegetarians before the fall, living solely off the "herb bearing seed" (Genesis, 1:29-30). Tryon summed up the health benefits of a meat free diet in his assertion that meat-eaters were "digging their Graves with their own Teeth" (Smith, 2004).
Crab and Tryon both emerged from a background of Baptist puritanism, and indicate a link between vegetarianism and the religious Independents who formed a good deal of Parliamentarian support against Charles I during the Civil War.
There were also critics of meat-eating in the Royalist camp. In the 1650s physician Thomas Browne, essayist John Evelyn and Irish chemist Robert Boyle together proposed the idea of a Royalist agricultural collective to offset the agrarian radicalism of Levellers such as Crab. Evelyn argued that 'Gardens and Rural Employments', as well as a diet composed largely of salads, was a calming influence and an antidote to the distracted times in which he lived (Guerrini, 2011). In 1645 Boyle wrote on the rights of animals, recognising “the Soul of every Beast does immediately descend from God's as ours” (Rudrum, 2003). But did these men argue for vegetarianism? Browne rationalised that early in man's history the Flood had turned the climate colder and wetter and that vegetation had suffered as a result, forcing humans to turn to eating meat for sustenance (it was believed that the dry and hot humours of meat counteracted the cold and moist nature of vegetables, providing a balanced diet). Evelyn simply declared that the argument against animal slaughter was 'not my business' (Guerrini, 2011): 17th century science may have argued for a vegetable-based diet, but the moderate-minded who propounded this view lacked the conviction of Crab, Tryon and the anecdotal figures who populate Edwards’s Gangraena.
How common, then, was the vegetarian view at the time of the Civil War? Roger Crab was certainly regarded as a crank during his lifetime, which suggests that his brand of Bible-driven asceticism was rare. Vehemently anti-establishment, he denounced the Anglican church as a "Whore"; for voicing his belief that it was better to live under the authority of "a golden Calfe or Asse" than Charles I, for which he was fined 100 marks, despite a plea for clemency from General Fairfax. Crab's followers (known as the Rationalists) never numbered more than a handful. Thomas Tryon's views, however, earned him an immense readership. His book, Way to Health had reached a third edition by 1697, and he was a popular author with advocates of healthy eating for the following two centuries (Smith, 2004).
16th century physician, Thomas Moffett, had praised the amount of meat that was consumed in England: "Let us give God thangs [sic] for storing us with Flesh above all other Nations". Moffett had proclaimed England's slaughter houses to be the envy of Europe, "yea verily rather of the whole World" (Guerrini, 2011). By the end of the 17th century, however, the consumption of flesh had been questioned by the independent religious thought espoused by the Civil War puritans.
Robert Hodkinson, January 2016 (revised, 2020)
16th century physician, Thomas Moffett, had praised the amount of meat that was consumed in England: "Let us give God thangs [sic] for storing us with Flesh above all other Nations". Moffett had proclaimed England's slaughter houses to be the envy of Europe, "yea verily rather of the whole World" (Guerrini, 2011). By the end of the 17th century, however, the consumption of flesh had been questioned by the independent religious thought espoused by the Civil War puritans.
Robert Hodkinson, January 2016 (revised, 2020)
Sources:
Bowers, R. (2003), “Robert Crabb: Opposition Hunger Artist in 1650s England”, The Seventeenth Century, 18:1 (2003)
Guerrini, A. “The English Diet: Roast Beef and… Salad?”, History Today, 61: 2 (2011)
Hailwood, M. (2013) “Eating Animals: A Bit of History”, The Many-Headed Monster [online] https://manyheadedmonster.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/eating-animals-a-bit-of-history/
Hessayon, A. “Crab, Roger (c.1616-1680)” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: University Press, 2004)
Nichols, T. L. Vegetarian Cookery (1888)
Rudrum, A. “Ethical Vegetarianism in Seventeenth-Century Britain”, The Seventeenth Century, 18:1 (2003)
Shapin, S. “Vegetable Love”, in: The New Yorker (January 2007), pp.80-84
Smith, V. “Tryon, Thomas (1634-1703)”, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: University Press, 2004)
Bowers, R. (2003), “Robert Crabb: Opposition Hunger Artist in 1650s England”, The Seventeenth Century, 18:1 (2003)
Guerrini, A. “The English Diet: Roast Beef and… Salad?”, History Today, 61: 2 (2011)
Hailwood, M. (2013) “Eating Animals: A Bit of History”, The Many-Headed Monster [online] https://manyheadedmonster.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/eating-animals-a-bit-of-history/
Hessayon, A. “Crab, Roger (c.1616-1680)” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: University Press, 2004)
Nichols, T. L. Vegetarian Cookery (1888)
Rudrum, A. “Ethical Vegetarianism in Seventeenth-Century Britain”, The Seventeenth Century, 18:1 (2003)
Shapin, S. “Vegetable Love”, in: The New Yorker (January 2007), pp.80-84
Smith, V. “Tryon, Thomas (1634-1703)”, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: University Press, 2004)