SC - Lenten fasting...

[Chris Stanifer]

Hello the List!

The two refs I promised to find were in the same book:  Elizabeth Burton's 
'The Elizabethans at Home' (Arrow, London, 1973).

Anecdote told by William Harrison in 'A Description of England', which has 
no date in this book but I think was written in 1577 (p. 147)
'It appears that an English nobleman sent a great hog's-head of brawn to a 
Roman Catholic gentleman in France, "who supposing it to be fish reserved it 
until Lent and ate it most frugally every day".  This unfortunate Catholic 
gentleman liked the brawn so well that he sent to England for more "as fish 
for next Lent".  On this Harrison comments with ill-concealed delight and 
scepticism, "had he known it was flesh he would not have touched it for a 
thousand crowns - I dare say - without the Pope's consent".*

'* Yet at the Coronation Banquet of Katherine of Valois, wife of Henry V, 
Alderman Fabyan records "their feast was all of fish, for, being February 
24th Lent was entered upon and nothing of meat was there saving brawn with 
mustard".  Brawn may have been a permitted Lenten dish in pre-Reformation 
England, or a special dispensation may have been granted.'

[Although according to Barbara Santich soldiers, and pregnant/nursing women 
were permitted not to fast.  Perhaps the brawn was for them.  CJvT]

Anecdote no 2 from Wm Harrison (p. 148):
'Even more deplorable is the story of and Englishman living in Spain who 
served brawn to some Jewish guests.  They, too, under the illusion that is 
was some uncommon kind of fish, enjoyed the dish heartily.  When they had 
finished, their host - whose high spirits seem to have been matched only by 
his crass insensitivity - produced the boar's head and, no doubt nearly 
speechless with laughter, explained that this was the animal from which the 
strange fish had been made.  The wretched Jews stayed not a moment longer.  
All rushed off to their homes where, stomach pumps not having been invented, 
they resorted to other violent measures to escape contamination.'

Although there is no excuse for forcing someone to eat something which you 
know is forbidden to him/her, there is actually a precedent for someone 
choosing not to eat a permitted food so as not to offend those around him:

'In one of the letters written before reaching Japan [1549], [St. Francis] 
Xavier says that they had been told that the Japanese would be offended if 
they saw the missionaries eating animal food, and so to avoid offence they 
determined to refrain from it.'  A History of Christianity in Japan, 
originally printed 1909, reprinted 1994 Curzon Press, Richmond, England.
Elsewhere in the book it is explained that the Buddhist and Shinto priests 
in Japan demonstrated their holiness by abstaining from animal products, and 
the Christians thought it would suit their purpose to copy this, even though 
the church did not require it.

As to appropriate behaviour when confronted with an array of food which your 
persona can't eat, most of the mundane people here who encounter the same 
problem tend to sit in a corner toying with a glass of water and looking 
miserable and apologetic.  Admittedly we pay for feasts, but that is to 
cover the food costs the SCA can't bear.  When we get to the feast, as a 
rule, we behave as though we are the guests of whoever is giving the feast, 
and we can't throw a tantrum about not being provided for if we are a guest.

There is also another side to religion and feasting, which I hadn't 
anticipated:  a friend of ours from Gaza (the one we visited the weekend 
before the Intifada struck) came to dinner and was uncomfortable with 
looking at our hands.  The reason?  Apparently Muslims don't eat with their 
left hand, because in the Koran it says this is the way you can tell demons 
- - they do use their left hand for food.

Cairistiona
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.