At 03:43 PM 5/17/96 GMT+1200, you wrote:
>The interviewer asks the fisherman 'Quid si inmundi fuerint
>pisces?', to which the reply is 'Ego proiciam inmundos foras, et
>sumo mihi mundos in escam.' ('What if they're unclean fishes?'
>'I throw out the unclean ones and take the clean ones for
>food.' OE version similar.)
>
>Garmonsway in his edition of _AElfric's Colloquy_ (London:
>Methuen, 1939) refers to Deut. 14:10, and Mitchell and Robinson
>give the same reference and add: 'Some Anglo-Saxons scrupulously
>observed many of the Mosaic dietary laws.' (p. 185) This would
>be fascinating for the nature of the conversion, but
>unfortunately there are no leads.
>
>Further, a bit later the fisherman says that when he goes sea-
>fishing he catches, amongst other things 'cancros' (crabs) and
>'polipodes' (which the OE translator thinks are lobsters), which
>are unclean, by my reading of Deut. At this point the fisherman
>makes *no* pious remarks about throwing them back.
>
>Could someone learned help explain what's going on? Some
>further references to strict observation of the dietary code of
>the Torah would be very helpful, if they are to be found. I am
>inclined to read it all as a joke, with the fisherman at first
>pretending to be v. pious, and later forgetting it at the
>thought of a nice and/or profitable lobster, but that would
>depend on knowledge, and presumably some degree of observance,
>of the Deuteronomy law.
Dear Michael,
The person to ask about this is Rob Meens from Utrecht
([log in to unmask]). If memory serves, he also had a wonderful article in
Early Medieval History about food practices and uncleanliness.
Best of luck,
Esther Cohen
Hebrew University
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|