This topic has been researched quite many years ago by vegetarian history research pioneers Bill Shurtleff (USA) and John Davis (UK).
The Healthian - THE HEALTHIAN. A Journal of Human Physiology, Diet, and Regimen - was a short-lived monthly periodical ("magazine") from London, England.
It is not entirely sure who was the editor and at what time. It seems that "protovegan" William Horsell was the editor to start with (Shurtleff & Aoyagi 2022). "Protovegan" Charles Lane may also have been the editor at some point.
According to William Shurtleff, The Healthian started publication at Alcott House (something like a "vegan" community centre and private mini-school) at Ham Common (a park) in Surrey (Shurtleff & Aoyagi 2022) - in what is today Richmond in the western outskirts of Greater London. This was in December of 1841 (Shurtleff & Aoyagi 2022).
The earliest appearance of the word "vegetarian" in print appears to be in this magazine. In the April 1842 issue (volume 1 [= year 1], number 5), on the front page and the following two pages (technically, pages 33-35), there is an article titled "Flesh diet". The author is the "editor", so presumably the author was William Horsell.
At the end of the article it says "To be continued." And the article is continued in the next issue (May 1842, volume 1, number 6, pages 42-44).
But the word "vegetarian" is mentioned only in the first part of the article, three times, i.e., in the April 1842 issue.
Backstory
The article in question is a reply to a letter to the editor, signed "Barbara", which was published in previous issue of The Healthian (March 1842, volume 1, number 4, pages 31-32).
In it, Barbara states:
"[...]The question of animal food should, in my opinion, be simply this," Is animal food good or pernicious to man?" If good, then it should be adopted; and whatever there may be repulsive to us in the practice, must be met by reason . We should consider, that hundreds of the creatures which serve us as food are brought into a happy existence, which, but for that circumstance, would otherwise never see the light-the pain of death is nothing to them; and they are metamorphosed into beings of a nobler nature than themselves an ox from an ox becomes a man.
[...]
The argument, that it is cruel and wicked to destroy life, is met by the answer, that such seems to be the law of this world's economy that - each prey upon each; or, if you choose so to express it, that there is a continual and all-pervading transmutation of particles, and that the elements of which one organization is composed are absorbed into other and higher organizations. Moisture is changed into plant-plant into animal-animal into man. Moreover, whether we will or not, we must destroy life, if we would preserve our own; for we can neither eat, nor drink, nor breathe, without destroying myriads of living creatures.
[...]
"
That is, Barbara argues (though not explicitly) that the issue of whether meat is murder is irrelevant because this is just how nature and life are, but that she appreciates the magazine for addressing the question of whether eating meat is healthy. And she urges - quite reasonably - that this matter should be addressed separately from the moral issue (which she dismisses - self-interestedly, one might say).
"Part 1" (April 1842 issue)
Presumed author: William Horsell
He uses the word vegetarian both as a noun ("a healthy vegetarian", "with vegetarians") and as an adjective ("vegetarian advocacy").
"
FLESH DIET
[The Editor's answer to Barbara's Letter, pp. 31 and 32.]
To find arguments in favour of an old- established practice, however
irrational or unloving it may be, is so easy a matter, thousands having
already preceded our generation in this task, that we by no means marvel
at finding our correspondent Barbara ready with abundant assertions which
seemingly oppose the universal command, "Thou shalt not kill." With the
thoughtless, such suggestions carry much weight; but it is only fair to state,
that just as none of those objections specified on page 32 are now advanced
for the first time, so also none of them have escaped refutation. For these
points, however, we refer our readers to the works of Tryon, Cheyne,
Oswald, Newton, Shelley, and to sundry articles in the Graham Journal.
It is probable, moreover, that we also shall touch these objections at a
future time, but having graver matter in mind at the present moment, we
beg to premise that our fair correspondent has by no means disposed of
these preliminary objections "more nostro," [in our usual way] and that we defer our disposal
of them, that we may the more conveniently discuss the important question
which Barbara proposes: "Is the practice of eating meat noxious or good
for man?" We coincide in believing that here the subject of diet must first
be discussed - minor objections may be met afterwards.
We acknowledge that great difficulty is found in meeting this question
decisively in our limited space; for it is evident we must discuss the idea
universal of health, and then
its application
to man.
The law
of
co-efficient
conditions must also be thoroughly understood;
and finally ,we must unite
these laws together,
and judge accordingly.
The difficulty
is great,
but
briefly we state the argument thus -:
1st. HEALTH
is
the condition
of
ease that always follows when the
life-power works uninterruptedly
in the organism.
Pain
or
disease
is
a
certain consequence when some obstruction
is
encountered
in the organism by the life-power.
The working
of
life
is
analogous
to electricity, which shatters
to pieces a non-conducting substance, but passes healthfully and genially through all elements that offer to its progress no opposition. It is warmth and health to them.
So does
life make
its own warmth and bliss
in the organism that kindly receives
its
ministration.
2nd. Health
is
a realization
of
the idea which the Creator, by natural
laws, attempts
to personate
in every form.
Every object
in
creation
is
a
more
or
less perfect personification
of
a divine idea - a man
of
the man
idea,
a vegetable
of the vegetable idea,
a stone
of the stone idea.
The man [page 33] perfect, or, in other words, a perfect personation of the universal man idea,
is nowhere to be found; yet the idea struggles in our hearts for utterance,
and in our consciences for realization. It battles with us - we admit it
perceptively, yet not vitally. It is not to us an electricity, that carries
its
warmth into our arteries, our nerves, our moral substance, but rather by
the law previously pointed out,
that which should be
to
us
the source
of
health, becomes the tormentor and inflicter
of
disease.
Thus are we all
out
of health;
and that life-order which would work for
us all our bliss,
inconsequence
of
the many obstructions
to
it,
produces anxiety,
remorse,
disease.
3rd.
A man
is
a personation
of
the man idea, viz. goodness,
truth, and
utility.
The idea
is triple,
as every one knows who has analyzed his own
nature, and
is triply personified;
as we commonly say,
that man
is moral,
intellectual,
and physical - the first personifying goodness,
the second
truth,
and the third utility. 4th.
Bearing
in mind the distinction between life and the organism
of
life,
we propose that conditions are good which are
in harmony with the
life-power
in
its creative, sustentative, and vivifying processes.
And now
let
us ask whether flesh
is such a condition.
How coincide together the
following terms? -
1.
Flesh, morality, and goodness.
2.
Flesh,
intellectuality, and truth.
3.
Flesh, physics, and utility.
On the third particular, the controversy has been made to hinge almost exclusively, unless we except some few, such as OSWALD, SWEDENBORG, and others, who have argued for a fruit and vegetable diet on the ground of sentimental morality. And here it seems to us, that, physiologically and practically, an answer must be returned most decisively negativing a flesh diet. Physiological authority is abundant, which it would be tedious to repeat: but HERDER, whose name, we believe, has never yet been brought into this controversy, says distinctly that man is not originally organized for flesh eating.
Again, authority is decidedly in favour of vegetables and fruit being more nutritious than flesh, were there not abundant living experimental proof of the fact. Gross darkness, indeed, rests upon the subject of nutrition—what it is, is not clear; and ridiculously absurd are the chymical experiments made respecting it; yet in spite of the vagueness of theory and its specious delusions, we have incontestible practical corroborations of the general truism, that vegetable diet is by far the more sustentative. So decidedly are the health facts on the side of the frugiverous [!] portion of the people in this country and clime, that did we not acknowledge a possibility of such superiority, arising from other causes in addition, we would not trouble ourselves to theorize, and say that it must so be, but we would say at once it is. To tell a man, who is in the stocks for a given fault, that he cannot be so confined for such an offence, is ridiculous enough; but not more so than to tell a healthy vegetarian that his diet is very uncongenial with the wants of his nature, and contrary to reason.
An important fact connected with this subject is, that flesh enters upon the putrid stage of fermentation very soon after its reception into the stomach, but vegetables undergo a triple fermentation, viz. the vinous, the acetous, and the putrid. This fact may account for the slowness of the digestion of vegetables, and, at the same time, furnishes the opponents of a [page 34] fruit diet with an argument which they are not slow to use against such a mode of dieting; for they urge, that vegetables are altogether unsuitable to persons of a weakened digestion. They adopt, moreover, Barbara's hint, that a lighter digestion allows the vital force to be expended on other functions. To this we reply, first, that there is no proof that a quick digestion is desirable; on the contrary, analogy is in favour of slow operations. What nature does gradually she does well and for a permanency. The oak, offspring of a hundred summers, is formed in nature's tardy processes, but it is hardy and majestic; while the mushroom, that springs up in a night, perishes with the evening sun. Secondly, it is an advantage to the constitution to call forth the sturdy vigour of the life-power. It has been treated too delicately. Based as it is on an antecedency that is infinite, its springs and energy are not soon exhausted. But in cases where the digestion is already dangerously diseased, the remedy is to be found, not in ministering to its vitiated feebleness, but in strong exercise, pure air, water drinking, hunger, and small quantities of food. And, thirdly, the time occupied in the triple fermentation of vegetables, gives the opportunity for the life-power to eliminate three orders of substances, and that in the most perfect manner. For if there is any aliment to be extracted from wine and vinegar as well as putrescency, then assuredly the vegetables present over flesh a twofold advantage. And it may be suggested as probable, from analogy, that the vinous process is contributive of sweetness to the moral organism, the acetous of pungency, aptitude, and wit to the intellectual, and the putrescent of activity to the corporeal. At any rate, there is generally with vegetarians, and especially fruit eaters, a calmness and even sweetness of temper, and we believe also a clearness of reason, that are highly desirable for humanity, and for health. We esteem this fact of the triple fermentation of vegetables of high importance, and one that, though caught at immediately by the advocates of the old regime, is of great and irresistible weight in the vegetarian advocacy.
(To
becontinued.)
[page 35]"
"Part 2" (May 1842 issue)
"
FLESH DIET.
(Concluded from page 35.)
We resume our subject of last month; and in doing so, we aver our strong conviction, that flesh diet, being only a remnant of barbarous ages, and a practice of barbarous natures, will, like other habits, fall off and die, in the proportion in which the blood-loving ferocity passes away, to which it owes its developement.Evil in nature is developed as criminality in act, and increases its forcefulness by all such displays of its power. Exercise is the means wherein strength, exerting itself, acquires fresh stamina for its organism. The truth is analogous with respect to spiritual substance. No sturdy vigour of moral organism is manifested without exercise. The propensities also, and the natures, whether brutal or human, acknowledge the law of active conditions. The doings of a man, therefore, are the symbols of his being; and the practices of a nation or of an age are explicative of the principles therein embodied.
Modern reformers, dissatisfied with the present, and unwilling to model themselves and society on the past, yet obliged by the progress law, which instigates them to act, are fain to justify their universal condemnation of what has been, by declaring that irrationality has characterized all personal, domestic, and social proceedings up to the present time. Natures irrational have generated irrational institutions. The truth is, that the animal human—has been, during the six thousand years of mundane existence, in process of developement. Hence, force and fraud have held that place in policy which intellectual wit and discernment are gradually assuming. But may we not fairly ask whether the universal assertion of man’s irrationality does not bear as forcibly upon the subject which we are [page 42] discussing as upon any other? If he is irrational in his commercial arrangements, and associative conventionalities, equally so is he in his clothing, and certainly not less so in his alimentation. If the nature irrational originates always irrational act (which is incontrovertible), an absolute necessity is discovered, upon these premises, for a condemnation of the slaying of animals for food.
We do not, then, in the present case, commit ourselves to any assertion which would indicate an inconsistency between the dietary practices of men and the general features of their conduct in other respects. On the contrary, we remark on obvious consistency—the consistency of irrationality. It is irrational to fight for gain in the fraudulent matches of the prize-ring; but it is equally and consistently irrational to educate oneself for the contest by the stimulating diet of flesh half cooked. The exterminating wars of savage islanders are irrational, but their cannibalism is no inconsistent developement of the same semi-created humanity. But we say, these practices have been, because men have been what they are. The developement of purer natures will be accompanied with purer habits—the general incarnation of goodness in the soul will originate good-will in man, and peace on earth.
There is, however, a strong presentiment in human bosoms of the possibility of realizing a much higher and purer state than that of physical, or even of intellectual antagonism. While the past and the present are legibly inscribed upon the brow of man, the future is enfolded in his heart, struggling for birth. In all ages, even in the very midst of the lowest massal degradation, individuals have appeared who, while they acknowledged, by the lineaments of their countenances, and their social affections, and their often dwarfed sentiments, the kindredship in which they were allied with their fellows, yet felt natures astir within them more god-like and of purer origin than that of earth. Nay, are not we ourselves conscious of the same iupresence? Do we not, while we perceive how markedly our lower attributes and faculties have been unfolded, perceive also that an incipient evolution of higher sensibilities, of a more god-like nature, may be distinctly noticed? And as a Pythagoras prophecied in the midst of corrupt nations of the simplicity and innocence congenial with his own nature, so also it is true that in the distortion of our much-abused constitutions, there is the Brahmin existence demanding the conditions that can further its developement and formal activity.
Every instinct demands its own food—requires a liberty to energise in its own way. To the nature Pythagoric, unfolding in the heart, the Pythagoric habits are essential, or else it cannot be displayed in act: and so also the nature cannibal shall never be externally evidenced, unless its practices are licensed. It is, therefore, a question with us now, whether, in the order of progress, it is not well that the Brahmin nature shall be developed, even though it supersede for a time the practices introduced and cherished by the animalic existence of more barbarous times. We confess our natures more intimately sympathise with the manna of heaven, and the fruits of earth, than with the high-spiced flesh-pots of idolatrous Egypt.
There is no error more fatal than that which initiates practices tending to subvert or impede man’s developing destiny. Whether we regard ourselves as ruins of the past, or as the germs of the future, we are compelled to recognize, inwrought in our very beings, the idea of majesty and greatness. We are to be kings—the outward is the sphere for our domination. The Creation shall be united with us in Love. The ruler exists in the affections [page 43] of his subjects, but we stand severed from our inheritance by the antagonism which must ever subsist between tyranny and the apprehensiveness of its cruelty. The animals fly from us, contend with us, or turn their murderous powers upon us, because they love us not:—they love us not because we have not yet manifested any love to them. Creation thus is too strong for man. Yet the idea imprinted in his being suffers him not to rest—his destiny will press him on to its accomplishment. But he has made for himself impediments insurmountable; and both the inward impulsive power and the outward thwarting obstacles press upon him with force irresistible, and he becomes a wreck, battered, engulphed, and at last disappears for ever.
All that initiates or tends to preserve the antagonism between man and his destiny is, therefore, a moral wrong, and results in his ill being; and we add, that animal murder is eminently exposed to this imputation.
Our limits will not allow us to multiply arguments in this paper, but we believe enough has been said to show that animal food is not a condition best suited for the developement of that idea which is called man. New society, originated by new beings, from new sympathies, and on new principles, will have its new practices, and we are pretty confident one of its first reforms will be a revision of its BILL OF FARE.
[page 44]"
Note 2: The “six thousand years of mundane existence” seems to refer to biblical chronology which may still have been widely assumed (or poetically used?) by many educated writers in England in the mid-1800s.
Photos
Also see:
First use of the German words for "vegetarian".
First use of the Spanish words for "vegetarian".
