Hi guys, interesting article.
There were 3 main religious groups in the Galilee area in the 1st century AD, one of these being the Essenes/Nazzarines who wore white and were vegetarian.
I also found some of this extra history which seems to intermix with early Christianity, playing a role in the early days:
What do you think?
Cheers, Metagenics
It needs an intro, and the section dealing with the early roots of Vegetarianism needs to be expanded (and handled very carefully) - but much of the later detail reads very well to me. Other thoughts? Gouranga(UK) 08:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
"As far as the sources allow us to trace the roots of vegetarianism, it originated in India and, independently, in the ancient Greek civilization which flourished in the eastern Mediterranean and in Southern Italy. In both areas it was, according to the earliest evidence, promoted by minority groups as an essential part of their religious philosophies. [1]"
As for your statement in the other discussion: "non-violence as a concept or practice is not restricted to India, or any particular sect - it is far more ancient than history allows us trace", I reply: I did not say that it is restricted to India (nowadays it is certainly a worldwide phenomenon), I just wrote on the historical origin according to the sources and according to the position of modern scholars. I want to point out that as far as Asia is concerned, the concept of ahimsa and vegetarianism first occurred in India and was part and parcel of Jain and Buddhist philosophy and of some currents in the Vedic religion. No scholar doubts that these were, from the very beginnings, Indian religions, and not imported to India from elsewhere. No concept of ahimsa/vegetarianism occurs in any Asian religion of non-Indian origin (if you know any, please comment). Wherever you find it in the history of Asian countries, it is demonstrably a result of Buddhist or Hindu influence, and you can trace it back to an Indian origin. Therefore it is reasonable to assume an Indian origin, as all modern scholars do. The opposite would be original research. I am aware of the fact that according to the Vaishnavas, there was a Golden Age Satya Yuga more than two million years ago, with worldwide ahimsa of course, but that belongs to the religion section, not to the history article. The history article must reflect the position of the historians, and all modern scholars agree on the Indian origin (if you know an exception, please comment). If scholarly references are needed for this point, I can provide dozens of them. 89.49.187.156 11:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
In regards to the India section I have found that amongst historians there is much speculation and theory on it's ancient history - with sometimes several conflicting opinions. I'm wondering if there is anything solid we could work off, rather than a scholars best guess? Archaeological remains containing certain food particles, or particular utensils within ancient sites? Or at least we should make it clear that our vision of that time is not definite? Gouranga(UK) 09:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
(Subsection “Early Buddhism and Jainism”): Jain and Buddhist sources show that the principle of nonviolence towards animals was an established rule in both religions as early as the 6th century BCE. The Jain concept, which is particularly strict, may be even much older. Parshva, the earliest Jain leader ( Tirthankar) whom modern Western historians consider to be a historical figure, lived in the late 9th and early 8th century BCE. He is said to have preached nonviolence no less radically than it was practised in the Jain community in the times of Mahavira (6th century BCE).
It must be noted, however, that not everyone who refused to participate in any killing or injuring of animals also abstained from the consumption of meat. Hence the question of Buddhist vegetarianism in the earliest stages of that religion’s development is controversial. There are two schools of thought. One says that the Buddha and his followers ate meat offered to them by hosts or alms-givers if they had no reason to suspect that the animal had been slaughtered specifically for their sake. The other one says that the Buddha and his community of monks ( sangha) were strict vegetarians and the habit of accepting alms of meat was only tolerated later on, after a decline of discipline.
The first opinion is supported by several passages in the Pali version of the Tripitaka, the opposite one by some Mahayana texts. All those sources were put into writing several centuries after the death of the Buddha. They may reflect the conflicting positions of different wings or currents within the Buddhist community already in its early stage. According to the Vinaya Pitaka, the first schism happened when the Buddha was still alive: a group of monks led by Devadatta left the community because they wanted stricter rules, including an unconditional ban on meat eating.
The Mahaparinibbana Sutta, which narrates the end of the Buddha's life, states that he died after eating sukara-maddava, a term translated by some as pork, by others as mushrooms (or an unknown vegetable).
(then subsection " Historical Vedic religion", not yet finished)
Do you have any objections so far? If you have the primary source evidence for Saint David (see discussion above), please let me know. 89.59.19.221 19:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The Buddhist emperor Ashoka the Great (304 BCE – 232 BCE) was a vegetarian and a determined promoter of nonviolence to animals. He promulgated detailed laws aimed at the protection of many species, abolished animal sacrifice, and admonished the population to avoid all kinds of unnecessary killing and injury.
Theravada Buddhists used to observe the regulation of the Pali canon which allowed them to eat meat unless the animal had been slaughtered specifically for them. In the Mahayana school some scriptures advocated vegetarianism; a particularly uncompromising one was the famous Lankavatara Sutra written in the fourth or fifth century CE.
(section " Historical Vedic religion":) Few source texts have survived from the Vedic period, which lasted from the middle of the second millennium BCE to the middle of the first. According to the opinion prevailing among modern scholars, ritual animal sacrifice with subsequent eating of the meat was a predominant custom, and the principle of ahimsa (nonviolence) was hardly known or not respected. The earliest reference to the idea of nonviolence to animals is in the Kapisthala Katha Samhita (31.11) which may have been written in the 9th century BCE or earlier. The Chandogya Upanishad, dated to about the 8th century BCE, one of the oldest Upanishads, bans violence against animals except in the case of ritual sacrifice (8.15.1).
(section "Hinduism") The Manu Smriti composed between ca. 200 BCE and ca. 200 CE, a highly authoritative Hindu lawbook, contains in its fifth chapter many diet rules. In some passages it defends ritual sacrifice of specific animals and eating of their meat. It claims that such killing is not really violence (himsa), but rather a benevolent act, because the slaughtered animal will attain a high rebirth in the cycle of reincarnation. All slaughter except in the context of ritual is strongly condemned, and the text states that the seller and buyer of such meat, as well as the cook and the eater, are all killers on the same grounds as the butcher.
In the following centuries, the principle of universal non-violence to animals was accepted in wide parts of the population. When the famous Chinese Buddhist monk Faxian visited the Magadha region of India in the early 5th century CE, he found that people abstain from taking life. ... They do not breed pigs or poultry or sell any animal food.
Vegetarianism was (and still is) mandatory for the yogis, both for the practitioners of Hatha Yoga and for those of Bhakti Yoga (especially the Gaudiya Vaishnavas).
In the Colonial Era (1757-1947) upper class Indians, especially the Brahmins, were vegetarians, whilst the poor Shudras (members of the lowest caste) were reported to eat almost anything that came in their way.
In regards to early forms of Hinduism / Vedic culture, one or two of the following quotations may also be of use:
"You must not use your God-given body for killing god's creatures, whether they are human, animal or whatever." ( Yajur Veda 12.32)
"One who partakes of human flesh, the flesh of a horse or of another animal, and deprives others of milk by slaughtering cows, O King, if such a fiend does not desist by other means, then you should not hesitate to cut off his head." ( Rig Veda 10.87.16)
and with later Hinduism:
"The purchaser of flesh performs himsa [violence] by his wealth; he who eats flesh does so by enjoying its taste; the killer does himsa by actually tying and killing the animal. Thus, there are three forms of killing. He who brings flesh or sends for it, he who cuts off the limbs of an animal, and he who purchases, sells, or cooks flesh and eats it - all of these are to be considered meat-eaters. ( Mahabharata, Anu. 115:40)
"Those sinful persons who are ignorant of actual religious principles, yet consider themselves to be completely pious, without compunction commit violence against innocent animals who are fully trusting in them. In their next lives, such sinful persons will be eaten by the same creatures they have killed in this world." ( Bhagavata Purana 11.5.14) [2]
Vegetarianism is common throughout Vaishnavism, not just the Gaudiya branch, as well as in other branches of modern Hinduism so that should be probably be made more obvious. I will take a further look later on today. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 08:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I think we have to be careful about mixing these two subjects together, or treating them as part of the same issue. For example in the Bhagavata-Purana (11.5.13) it is clearly describing that just because animals can be offered in sacrifice, does not mean that it's okay to kill animals simply for the meat:
As contradictory as this may sound to our modern ears, it is quite plausable that in ancient India there existed societies wherein animal sacrifices were permitted on religious grounds, and yet a vegetarian diet was followed. I wouldn't see the existance of animal sacrifice as evidence of vegetarianism not being followed. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 14:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, on both counts - I have not yet been able to find a scholastic quotation in regards to Vegetarianism but will take another look tonight. In regards to the article rating I have put in a request for assessment from the Food & Drink project. Best Wishes, Gouranga(UK) 09:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll be moving the contents of the current situation section for possible inclusion in the 'Vegetarianism' article (this is a history article - I'm not sure how some demographic tidbits about today fit in.) Comments? DaveinMPLS ( talk) 03:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I am tidying up and reffing the "historians of vegetarianism" list.
I put the advocacy historians - whose popular histories promote vegetarianism without necessarily earning academic citation - in a sub-list. This isn't on the basis of the authors being vegetarian (several in the main list are) but to distinguish the writers who are regarded as historians.
Added James Gregory.
I also removed for lack of due weight:
Ian McDonald ( talk) 02:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
This article contains a partly-fabricated quotation that is, unfortunately, very widespread: "It is far better to be happy than to have your bodies act as graveyards for animals" -- attributed to Clement of Alexandria. Said misquotation in this article has a footnote sourcing the book The Ethics of Diet by Howard Williams, but in fact the misquotation does not exist anywhere in Williams' book. The first ten words of the quotation are legitimate; they are found at the end of section 2.1.15.4 (in Book II, Chapter 1) of Clement's Paedagogus. Links to the Greek text and translations can be found there (i.e., in the Wikipedia article Paedagogus). The Greek text is: Ἄμεινον δὲ πολλῷ τοῦ δαίμονα ἔχειν σύνοικον εὐδαίμονα γενέσθαι• εὐδαιμονία δὲ ἐν χρήσει ἀρετῆς ἐξετάζεται.
A transliteration of the Greek text: Ameinon de pollō tou daimona ekhein sunoikon eudaimona genesthai. Eudaimonia de en khrēsei aretēs exetazetai.
The English rendering (from here) is: It is far better to be happy than to have a demon dwelling with us. And happiness is found in the practice of virtue.
There's nothing there about bodies, graveyards, or animals.
In that passage, Clement is describing gluttony as being like a demon which possesses you; by contrast, the word for happy/happiness in Greek is etymologically something like "having a good demon", so he's making a pun.
The misquotation "It is far better to be happy than to have your bodies act as graveyards for animals" (or "our bodies" instead of "your bodies") has gone viral; google it and you get 1,945 hits, including at least nine books! This misquotation is a veritable urban legend.
The oldest occurrence of the misquotation that I have found is in this book:
The misquotation occurs on page 18 of Rosen’s book, with a footnote referencing Clement's Paedagogus, Book 2, as found on page 241 of ‘’Ante-Nicene Fathers’’, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Volume 2. But see that for yourself, here. You see there the standard English rendering, not Rosen's misquotation.
The Wikipedia article Clement of Alexandria formerly contained an occurrence of the misquotation, but it was deleted on April 29, 2011 after discussion in that article's Talk page showed the quotation to be spurious.
I will delete the misquotation from this ( History of vegetarianism) article, one week from today. Mksword ( talk) 22:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of vegetarianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.vegsoc.org/info/definitions.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on History of vegetarianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
It seems absurd to describe Cranks as 'the first successsful vegetarian restaurant in the UK' That's a completely subjective judgement. What is 'success'? After all, Cranks isn't around any more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.59.213 ( talk) 22:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. External links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority, are to be avoided per WP:LINKSTOAVOID. |
I've broadcast a radio history of vegetarianism. I think it'd be a worthy addition to the "Further Reading" section, but I have a stonking big conflict of interest.
It was broadcast on London's radio art station, Resonance FM, and featured on national radio in Ireland, The Guardian, and The Indy newspapers. It's a well-researched 15-part series, with dozens of expert historians as well as the usual radio documentary stuff like visits to places where the story unfolded and actors reading historic texts.
So I'd be grateful if you'd take a look and consider adding it.
Thanks,
Ian
McDonald, Ian (22 Jan 2016 – 6 Jun 2017).
Vegetarianism: The Story So Far. The Vegan Option.
Resonance FM. {{
cite serial}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |transcripturl=
and |transcript=
(
help)CS1 maint: date format (
link)
Ian McDonald ( talk) 22:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
References
Not approved per
WP:ELNO #11
spintendo
23:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi guys, interesting article.
There were 3 main religious groups in the Galilee area in the 1st century AD, one of these being the Essenes/Nazzarines who wore white and were vegetarian.
I also found some of this extra history which seems to intermix with early Christianity, playing a role in the early days:
What do you think?
Cheers, Metagenics
It needs an intro, and the section dealing with the early roots of Vegetarianism needs to be expanded (and handled very carefully) - but much of the later detail reads very well to me. Other thoughts? Gouranga(UK) 08:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
"As far as the sources allow us to trace the roots of vegetarianism, it originated in India and, independently, in the ancient Greek civilization which flourished in the eastern Mediterranean and in Southern Italy. In both areas it was, according to the earliest evidence, promoted by minority groups as an essential part of their religious philosophies. [1]"
As for your statement in the other discussion: "non-violence as a concept or practice is not restricted to India, or any particular sect - it is far more ancient than history allows us trace", I reply: I did not say that it is restricted to India (nowadays it is certainly a worldwide phenomenon), I just wrote on the historical origin according to the sources and according to the position of modern scholars. I want to point out that as far as Asia is concerned, the concept of ahimsa and vegetarianism first occurred in India and was part and parcel of Jain and Buddhist philosophy and of some currents in the Vedic religion. No scholar doubts that these were, from the very beginnings, Indian religions, and not imported to India from elsewhere. No concept of ahimsa/vegetarianism occurs in any Asian religion of non-Indian origin (if you know any, please comment). Wherever you find it in the history of Asian countries, it is demonstrably a result of Buddhist or Hindu influence, and you can trace it back to an Indian origin. Therefore it is reasonable to assume an Indian origin, as all modern scholars do. The opposite would be original research. I am aware of the fact that according to the Vaishnavas, there was a Golden Age Satya Yuga more than two million years ago, with worldwide ahimsa of course, but that belongs to the religion section, not to the history article. The history article must reflect the position of the historians, and all modern scholars agree on the Indian origin (if you know an exception, please comment). If scholarly references are needed for this point, I can provide dozens of them. 89.49.187.156 11:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
In regards to the India section I have found that amongst historians there is much speculation and theory on it's ancient history - with sometimes several conflicting opinions. I'm wondering if there is anything solid we could work off, rather than a scholars best guess? Archaeological remains containing certain food particles, or particular utensils within ancient sites? Or at least we should make it clear that our vision of that time is not definite? Gouranga(UK) 09:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
(Subsection “Early Buddhism and Jainism”): Jain and Buddhist sources show that the principle of nonviolence towards animals was an established rule in both religions as early as the 6th century BCE. The Jain concept, which is particularly strict, may be even much older. Parshva, the earliest Jain leader ( Tirthankar) whom modern Western historians consider to be a historical figure, lived in the late 9th and early 8th century BCE. He is said to have preached nonviolence no less radically than it was practised in the Jain community in the times of Mahavira (6th century BCE).
It must be noted, however, that not everyone who refused to participate in any killing or injuring of animals also abstained from the consumption of meat. Hence the question of Buddhist vegetarianism in the earliest stages of that religion’s development is controversial. There are two schools of thought. One says that the Buddha and his followers ate meat offered to them by hosts or alms-givers if they had no reason to suspect that the animal had been slaughtered specifically for their sake. The other one says that the Buddha and his community of monks ( sangha) were strict vegetarians and the habit of accepting alms of meat was only tolerated later on, after a decline of discipline.
The first opinion is supported by several passages in the Pali version of the Tripitaka, the opposite one by some Mahayana texts. All those sources were put into writing several centuries after the death of the Buddha. They may reflect the conflicting positions of different wings or currents within the Buddhist community already in its early stage. According to the Vinaya Pitaka, the first schism happened when the Buddha was still alive: a group of monks led by Devadatta left the community because they wanted stricter rules, including an unconditional ban on meat eating.
The Mahaparinibbana Sutta, which narrates the end of the Buddha's life, states that he died after eating sukara-maddava, a term translated by some as pork, by others as mushrooms (or an unknown vegetable).
(then subsection " Historical Vedic religion", not yet finished)
Do you have any objections so far? If you have the primary source evidence for Saint David (see discussion above), please let me know. 89.59.19.221 19:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The Buddhist emperor Ashoka the Great (304 BCE – 232 BCE) was a vegetarian and a determined promoter of nonviolence to animals. He promulgated detailed laws aimed at the protection of many species, abolished animal sacrifice, and admonished the population to avoid all kinds of unnecessary killing and injury.
Theravada Buddhists used to observe the regulation of the Pali canon which allowed them to eat meat unless the animal had been slaughtered specifically for them. In the Mahayana school some scriptures advocated vegetarianism; a particularly uncompromising one was the famous Lankavatara Sutra written in the fourth or fifth century CE.
(section " Historical Vedic religion":) Few source texts have survived from the Vedic period, which lasted from the middle of the second millennium BCE to the middle of the first. According to the opinion prevailing among modern scholars, ritual animal sacrifice with subsequent eating of the meat was a predominant custom, and the principle of ahimsa (nonviolence) was hardly known or not respected. The earliest reference to the idea of nonviolence to animals is in the Kapisthala Katha Samhita (31.11) which may have been written in the 9th century BCE or earlier. The Chandogya Upanishad, dated to about the 8th century BCE, one of the oldest Upanishads, bans violence against animals except in the case of ritual sacrifice (8.15.1).
(section "Hinduism") The Manu Smriti composed between ca. 200 BCE and ca. 200 CE, a highly authoritative Hindu lawbook, contains in its fifth chapter many diet rules. In some passages it defends ritual sacrifice of specific animals and eating of their meat. It claims that such killing is not really violence (himsa), but rather a benevolent act, because the slaughtered animal will attain a high rebirth in the cycle of reincarnation. All slaughter except in the context of ritual is strongly condemned, and the text states that the seller and buyer of such meat, as well as the cook and the eater, are all killers on the same grounds as the butcher.
In the following centuries, the principle of universal non-violence to animals was accepted in wide parts of the population. When the famous Chinese Buddhist monk Faxian visited the Magadha region of India in the early 5th century CE, he found that people abstain from taking life. ... They do not breed pigs or poultry or sell any animal food.
Vegetarianism was (and still is) mandatory for the yogis, both for the practitioners of Hatha Yoga and for those of Bhakti Yoga (especially the Gaudiya Vaishnavas).
In the Colonial Era (1757-1947) upper class Indians, especially the Brahmins, were vegetarians, whilst the poor Shudras (members of the lowest caste) were reported to eat almost anything that came in their way.
In regards to early forms of Hinduism / Vedic culture, one or two of the following quotations may also be of use:
"You must not use your God-given body for killing god's creatures, whether they are human, animal or whatever." ( Yajur Veda 12.32)
"One who partakes of human flesh, the flesh of a horse or of another animal, and deprives others of milk by slaughtering cows, O King, if such a fiend does not desist by other means, then you should not hesitate to cut off his head." ( Rig Veda 10.87.16)
and with later Hinduism:
"The purchaser of flesh performs himsa [violence] by his wealth; he who eats flesh does so by enjoying its taste; the killer does himsa by actually tying and killing the animal. Thus, there are three forms of killing. He who brings flesh or sends for it, he who cuts off the limbs of an animal, and he who purchases, sells, or cooks flesh and eats it - all of these are to be considered meat-eaters. ( Mahabharata, Anu. 115:40)
"Those sinful persons who are ignorant of actual religious principles, yet consider themselves to be completely pious, without compunction commit violence against innocent animals who are fully trusting in them. In their next lives, such sinful persons will be eaten by the same creatures they have killed in this world." ( Bhagavata Purana 11.5.14) [2]
Vegetarianism is common throughout Vaishnavism, not just the Gaudiya branch, as well as in other branches of modern Hinduism so that should be probably be made more obvious. I will take a further look later on today. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 08:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I think we have to be careful about mixing these two subjects together, or treating them as part of the same issue. For example in the Bhagavata-Purana (11.5.13) it is clearly describing that just because animals can be offered in sacrifice, does not mean that it's okay to kill animals simply for the meat:
As contradictory as this may sound to our modern ears, it is quite plausable that in ancient India there existed societies wherein animal sacrifices were permitted on religious grounds, and yet a vegetarian diet was followed. I wouldn't see the existance of animal sacrifice as evidence of vegetarianism not being followed. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 14:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, on both counts - I have not yet been able to find a scholastic quotation in regards to Vegetarianism but will take another look tonight. In regards to the article rating I have put in a request for assessment from the Food & Drink project. Best Wishes, Gouranga(UK) 09:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll be moving the contents of the current situation section for possible inclusion in the 'Vegetarianism' article (this is a history article - I'm not sure how some demographic tidbits about today fit in.) Comments? DaveinMPLS ( talk) 03:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I am tidying up and reffing the "historians of vegetarianism" list.
I put the advocacy historians - whose popular histories promote vegetarianism without necessarily earning academic citation - in a sub-list. This isn't on the basis of the authors being vegetarian (several in the main list are) but to distinguish the writers who are regarded as historians.
Added James Gregory.
I also removed for lack of due weight:
Ian McDonald ( talk) 02:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
This article contains a partly-fabricated quotation that is, unfortunately, very widespread: "It is far better to be happy than to have your bodies act as graveyards for animals" -- attributed to Clement of Alexandria. Said misquotation in this article has a footnote sourcing the book The Ethics of Diet by Howard Williams, but in fact the misquotation does not exist anywhere in Williams' book. The first ten words of the quotation are legitimate; they are found at the end of section 2.1.15.4 (in Book II, Chapter 1) of Clement's Paedagogus. Links to the Greek text and translations can be found there (i.e., in the Wikipedia article Paedagogus). The Greek text is: Ἄμεινον δὲ πολλῷ τοῦ δαίμονα ἔχειν σύνοικον εὐδαίμονα γενέσθαι• εὐδαιμονία δὲ ἐν χρήσει ἀρετῆς ἐξετάζεται.
A transliteration of the Greek text: Ameinon de pollō tou daimona ekhein sunoikon eudaimona genesthai. Eudaimonia de en khrēsei aretēs exetazetai.
The English rendering (from here) is: It is far better to be happy than to have a demon dwelling with us. And happiness is found in the practice of virtue.
There's nothing there about bodies, graveyards, or animals.
In that passage, Clement is describing gluttony as being like a demon which possesses you; by contrast, the word for happy/happiness in Greek is etymologically something like "having a good demon", so he's making a pun.
The misquotation "It is far better to be happy than to have your bodies act as graveyards for animals" (or "our bodies" instead of "your bodies") has gone viral; google it and you get 1,945 hits, including at least nine books! This misquotation is a veritable urban legend.
The oldest occurrence of the misquotation that I have found is in this book:
The misquotation occurs on page 18 of Rosen’s book, with a footnote referencing Clement's Paedagogus, Book 2, as found on page 241 of ‘’Ante-Nicene Fathers’’, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Volume 2. But see that for yourself, here. You see there the standard English rendering, not Rosen's misquotation.
The Wikipedia article Clement of Alexandria formerly contained an occurrence of the misquotation, but it was deleted on April 29, 2011 after discussion in that article's Talk page showed the quotation to be spurious.
I will delete the misquotation from this ( History of vegetarianism) article, one week from today. Mksword ( talk) 22:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of vegetarianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.vegsoc.org/info/definitions.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on History of vegetarianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
It seems absurd to describe Cranks as 'the first successsful vegetarian restaurant in the UK' That's a completely subjective judgement. What is 'success'? After all, Cranks isn't around any more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.59.213 ( talk) 22:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. External links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority, are to be avoided per WP:LINKSTOAVOID. |
I've broadcast a radio history of vegetarianism. I think it'd be a worthy addition to the "Further Reading" section, but I have a stonking big conflict of interest.
It was broadcast on London's radio art station, Resonance FM, and featured on national radio in Ireland, The Guardian, and The Indy newspapers. It's a well-researched 15-part series, with dozens of expert historians as well as the usual radio documentary stuff like visits to places where the story unfolded and actors reading historic texts.
So I'd be grateful if you'd take a look and consider adding it.
Thanks,
Ian
McDonald, Ian (22 Jan 2016 – 6 Jun 2017).
Vegetarianism: The Story So Far. The Vegan Option.
Resonance FM. {{
cite serial}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |transcripturl=
and |transcript=
(
help)CS1 maint: date format (
link)
Ian McDonald ( talk) 22:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
References
Not approved per
WP:ELNO #11
spintendo
23:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)