Today there are many types of dietary options, meaning a
broader range of choice for the likes of pescatarians, vegans and vegetarians. It
is the latter which appears to be most problematic for the Victorians,
demonstrated in from the political periodical Punch. John Leech’s ‘Grand Show of Prize Vegetarians’ (1852) portrays
the discussion and ultimate condemnation of the role of vegetarianism in
Victorian society. The title of cartoon acts as a pastiche of the Great
Exhibition of 1851, as Leech depicts an exhibition of vegetarians, who have
been transformed into vegetables due to their diet.
 |
| Click the picture to see a bigger, more detailed image! |
Next to most of the vegetarians
are signs to indicate what their diet consists of in the absence of meat. One
of the signs simply states ‘on potatoes only’, implying that diet is the fundamental
cause for these shocking mutations. Carol J. Adams, provides a moral
explanation for vegetarianism, stating “[v]egetarians identify a connection
between a healthy diet and a diet that protects the moral relations between us
and other animals” (146). Leech however clearly disputes this within his cartoon,
indicated by the use of the word ‘fed’ in most of the signs. The effect of this
verb creates a sense of irony, dehumanising the vegetarians inferring they are
similar animals at a market as the ideology of vegetarianism is bathetically
undermined.
Leech establishes the power
dynamics between the omnivores and vegetarians through a stark visual
opposition, using comic grotesque imagery.
The image conforms to Mikhail Bakhtin’s
definition of the comic grotesque, with attributes including “exaggeration,
hyperbolism [and] excessiveness” (303) all of which are present in the cartoon.
Applying this theory to the image it
becomes clear Leech establishes the power dynamics between the omnivores and
vegetarians through a stark visual opposition. As the vegetarians sprout leaves
or roots that protrude the floorboards and even a sign the characters become
more engrossed in the grotesque, as Bakhtin elaborates further on the
construction of the grotesque as “a body in the act of becoming. It is never
finished, never completed; it is continually built, created and builds and
creates another body” (317). It is evident that Leech engages with these ideas
to make a comic criticism of vegetarianism.
I think the intended audience is
supposed to be appalled by these dietary choices, as readers are prompted to identify
with the child in the centre, who points at the turnip boy. The effect of this
stigmatises the ideology of choosing not to eat meat as vegetarians become a
spectacle of satire. Failing that, they are supposed to be shocked by the grotesque
imagery. This is reflected by the woman on the far-left of the frame, whose
facial expression is that of disgust and horror. Leech appears to lace
ambiguity within the cause of the woman’s disgust. He seems to be asking
readers to decide if she simply shocked at the grotesque nature of the ‘Prize
Vegetarians’, or the behaviours that have led to the ‘Grand Show’?
Works Cited:
Adams, Carol J. The
Sexual Politics of Meat. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990. Print.
Bakhtin, Mikhail. Rabelais
and His World. Massachussetts: Indiana University Press, 1984. Print.
Spencer, Colin. The
Heretics Feast: A History of Vegetarianism. London: Fourth Estate Limited,
1994. Print.
