 |
 |
Dear Sarah, It indeed seems obvious that being hatched from barnacles accounts for the barnacle goose to be considered a fish. However, not all versions of the legend mention barnacles. more often the bird is supposed to grow like fruit on a tree or like a protuberance on rotten wood at sea (so not from a shell but rather like a shell.) Medieval authors never explicitly say that hatching from barnacles (or like barnacles) is the reason for the bird to be considered a fish. They claim more vaguely that the barnacle goose is a fish because it isn't hatched from an egg, the underlying assumption apparently being that an animal that develops in the water must be a fish. (likewise, a Goliard poem mocks monks for turning poultry into fish by boiling it). Other authors say that the barnacle cannot be considered flesh because 'it is not born from flesh'. Strictly speaking this just means that the barnacle is not meat, but not necessarily that it is to be considered a fish. Maaike van der Lugt %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%