SC - Domostroi

[L Herr-Gelatt and J R Gelatt]

Kathleen M Everitt wrote:

> Actually, I remember from one of my college classes (long ago, in a
> Kingdom far, far away) one of the professors said that the reason that
> there were so many fast days was the Church's attempt to prevent the
> "silly common man" from killing off all his breeding stock over the long,
> hungry winter. Supposedly they killed off the weak stock that wouldn't
> make it through winter and ate what they could and preserved the rest,
> but saved at least one strong male and female to breed again in the
> spring. The fast days were just a way to make sure that hunger didn't get
> in the way of good intentions. I can't remember which class it was, or
> which time period, country, class, etc. he (or she) was talking about.
> That was a long time ago! I don't know how true this is, but considering
> some of the other things the Church did, it wouldn't especially surprise
> me. Anyone else ever heard this?
> 
> Julleran

You got me. I never heard that one. True, I've heard the Church being
blamed for just about everything else, but this is a new one on me. In
order to buy the theory, you more or less have to figure that the Pope
and/or various colleges of cardinals, bishops, etc., decided that they
knew more about farming than the people who actually did it. I don't
think the concept of Papal Infallibility (interpreted in different ways
at different times) covers that.

I'd be more likely to accept a theory which says that  between real life
on one side, with its various plagues and wars, not to mention the
Crusades being the next best thing to the Apocolypse, and the approach
of the expected end of the world (supposedly set to occur in the year
1000, but fully expected by many at any time even after this date), and
on the other side various writings by people like Saints Jerome and
Benedict, talking about how Fleshly Denial brings one closer to God,
it's no surprise there were so many fast days, fish days, ember days,
etc. Another possibility that exists is that since fast days, fish days,
and ember days were regarded as separate entities, they may have been
instituted at different times, by different Church "Fathers", for
entirely different reasons, and it is only when they are viewed today in
combination that the whole thing seems kind of unreasonable.

Perhaps we might have hoped for an Earl of Warren to set up a commission
to look deeper into your professor's theory ;  ) ?

Adamantius