“Scientists, especially those who are Catholics, will by their research establish the truth of the Church’s claim”

Pope Francis has recently said, to the outrage of the more traditional followers of the Catholic Church, that Church teachings have focused too heavily on matters of homosexuality, abortion, and birth control. However, his personal stance and the official stance of the Church, still oppose use of contraceptives except in extreme cases where they are used to address another medical issue.

Not surprising, as this has been the view of the Church since Pope Paul VI outlawed the use of oral contraceptives in 1968. What may be surprising to some however, is that the pill was sanctioned for a brief time by the Church and its very development and design were intended to merit the approval of the Catholic Church.

John Rock was a strongly devout man. He was also a pioneer in sperm cell preservation and in-vitro fertilization, and was a major developer and proponent of oral contraceptives. And he wholeheartedly believed that his work in the development of the birth control pill was “perfectly compatible” with his faith in the Catholic Church.

But he was by no means a radical proponent of women’s reproductive rights – he was traditional minded in many ways and a conservative who still opposed the admittance of women to medical schools. But he supported birth control because as a doctor he saw the necessity of preventing pregnancy in ill patients and for families who could not afford more mouths to feed.

The complicated chart used to help women determine their periods of infertility according to the Rhythm Method, "Nature's Method"

The complicated chart used to help women determine their periods of infertility according to the Rhythm Method, “Nature’s Method”

However, in the field of contraception, he was radical.  He boldly signed a petition to repeal the Massachusetts ban on sale of contraceptives (1931) and later was the first medical doctor to open a Rhythm method clinic in Boston (1936). At the time, the rhythm method was the only contraceptive sanctioned by the Church because it was a “natural” method of regulating procreation, unlike other methods which killed sperm (spermicides) or disrupted natural biological processes (vasectomies).

The pill works by providing women with a constant dose of Progestin, a synthetic version of Progesterone.  Progesterone is a hormone released during pregnancy to prevent the release of more eggs which may threaten the current pregnancy. The pill therefore was an arguable extension of nature by duplicating what already happens naturally, but more often and consistently.  This was the logic with which Rock believed the pill would be approved by the Church.  Plus, to its credit, the pill regulated women’s cycles and could be used as a aid to the rhythm method.

However, the design of the pill contains one aspect which is biologically unnecessary – a week of placebo pills which enable menstruation to occur.  Ironically, this aspect is present only to satisfy the whims of Church approval.

Menstruation occurs because ovulation produces an egg and the lining of the uterus becomes flooded with blood and nutrients in expectation of fertilization. If fertilization does not occur, the swollen endometrium is shed. The pill prevents ovulation all together. No ovulation means no swelling, and no need for the menstrual shedding.  

There is no medical reason why women should have to have the week of placebo pills which allow menstruation. Yet it is found in nearly all birth control regimens, for two reasons:

  1. It was Rock’s belief that women who took the pill will feel safer and more natural if they still had their monthly cycles.
  2. By providing women with a reliable cycle of menstruation, it technically aided in the rhythm method (though the method is unnecessary with the pill).  If the pill aided in an already acceptable form of birth control, logically, one could go one step further and say the pill itself was pre-sanctioned by the Church.

Unfortunately, only 8 years after the first birth control pill was released for mass purchase, the Church rejected it and banned its use.  And Catholic women are still stuck fighting for their own reproductive rights today.

Advertisements

“Who was the fool, who the wise, who the beggar, or the emperor?”

Living during the Dark Ages, as the name suggests, was quite a struggle – plague and famine was rampant, wars and persecutions were common, and the medicine of the time could be worse than the condition it sought to cure. Science and technology of the time could do nothing to prevent this, and people simply had to accept the dangers of day-to-day Medieval life.

"The Triumph of Death" Pieter Brueghel the Elder, 1562

“The Triumph of Death”
Pieter Brueghel the Elder, 1562

This created an understandable gloom and the uncertainty of daily survival lead to constant forced confrontations with morbidity and death. But out of this fear, people were inspired to live in the moment, and accepting death as natural and inevitable allowed it to become an artistic source.

Themes such as the universality of death and the uselessness of vanity were common, and were demonstrated most strongly in Le Danse Macabre, an artistic genre of Medieval Europe. It focused on the understanding that treasures and worldly possessions were useless after death, and that life was a fragile gift. Furthermore, without this vanity and wealth, everyone is equal in death.

One of my favorite products of this genre is the graveyard soliloquy in Hamlet, where Hamlet ponders the possibility that the remains of great men such as Alexander and Caesar may now be present in the mud used to seal buildings and barrels.  When Hamlet finds the skull of Yorick, he then comments:

“Now get you to my lady’s chamber and tell her, let her paint her face an inch thick, yet to this favor she must come”
Hamlet, Act V, Scene I

The most common expression of this genre is a dancing skeleton leading victims to their graves – the dancers come from all walks of life, but having been stripped of worldly goods, they enter the next world together as equals.

But these images should not be taken as being particularly dark or imply that Medieval culture was death-obsessed.  Rather, they come from an understanding and acceptance about the nature of life and death.

Beyond reminding people to cherish life, constant reminders of the inevitability of death can turn one’s thoughts to the afterlife. With the feeling of death all around, both literally and in the art and literature of the time, there was an increased desire for religious absolution and preparation of one’s soul.

The emptiness of earthly treasures combined with the frailty of life might work to turn one’s thoughts to the future and the afterlife.  This in turn may encourage people to focus more on faith and piety for a permanent, and more important, existence after death.

Le danse macabre belongs to a larger genre known as memento mori, literally meaning “remember that you will die”.

Supposedly this phrase comes from a tradition during a Roman Triumphal Parade: a conquering general would march his legion, as well as captured treasures and slaves, through Rome in a glorious parade to demonstrate his greatness.  But all the while a servant would constantly utter something along the lines of “memento mori” as a way of keeping him humble even during one of his greatest moments.

In modern times, one may find a parallel in the Catholic practice of Ash Wednesday, which is celebrated as a day of mourning, repentance, and a reminder of mortality. An observer receives a mark of ash, sometimes a cross, upon their forehead while a priest repeats a famous line from scripture noting the inevitability of death.

“Remember that thou art dust, and to dust shalt thou return”
Genesis 3:19

But beyond practices and scripture, art too could turn man’s thoughts toward death and therefore piety. Michelangelo’s fresco “The Last Judgment” did just this when it was originally revealed in 1541. Centuries before television and movies could provide a rich visual source for emotions to feed off and fears to take form, paintings and sculptures served this purpose.

The image, located directly behind the altar, focuses on Christ’s Second Coming and the Judgment of all mankind. Saints and the Virgin Mary hover with Christ along with the pure souls that rise to Heaven, while demons and monsters drag the guilty to hell. People are skinned, burned, beaten, and consumed by serpents in a general atmosphere of chaos and fear. Even the Saints and Mary, who sit safely among Christ, seem fearful of the display below them.

The painting was perceived as being so terrifying and so real that it was meant to inspire fear, and faith, in all who saw it. Legend says that Pope Paul III, who commissioned it, was so filled with fear upon seeing it that he fell on his knees and exclaimed “Don’t charge me with my sins when you come on Judgment Day!

One can only imagine the fear that this painting might instill, if during a sermon the only place to gaze is upon it, while the world outside is filled with death, famine, war, and disease. I probably would have paid a little closer attention to the sermon too.

"What does my praying avail me now? I must step into the dead's dance"

“What does my praying avail me now? I must step into the dead’s dance”

“Now I have – against knight's order – become coerced to this dance”

“Now I have – against knight’s order – become coerced to this dance”

“Now I must dance and can’t yet walk”

For a full translation of these images, plus many more images, click here.

“Emperor, your sword won’t help you out
Scepter and crown are worthless here
I’ve taken you by the hand
For you must come to my dance”

Unknown, ~1460

“And so many died that all believed it was the end of the world”

The infamous outbreak of the Bubonic Plague in the 14th century was one of the worst epidemics in human history, killing 30-60% of the population of Europe.  It caused such an impact that if the world’s population over time is charted, one can clearly see the decline caused by the pestilence, and it took decades for the population to recover from this devastating blow.

After the wave of Black Death slowed, there continued to be major outbreaks for centuries and even now plague is present in most of the world, causing hundreds of cases a year.

Before the Black Death there was the Plague of Justinian in the mid 500s, and after it was the London Plague in the mid 1600s.  But the medieval outbreak of the mid 1300s was by far the worst.  It seemed no one was safe and people died so quickly it was said that there wasn’t time to bury the dead.  This unsanitary situation only propagated the disease further.

“How many valiant men, how many fair ladies breakfast with their kinsfolk and the same night supped with their ancestors in the next world?!”
-Giovanni Boccaccio

It strongly impacted human population growth for years, but beyond this it also led to major political, cultural, and religious upheavals in Europe as society tried to cope with the devastation which surrounded it.

The Bubonic plague, also called the “Black Death” because it caused lymph nodes and extremities to necrotize and turn black, is a disease transmitted through the bacterium called Yersinia pestis. It arrived in Europe from Asian trade ships, carried by fleas and rats.

Yersinia pestis

Yersinia pestis

However, at the time of the Medieval outbreak, little was known about bacteria and disease transmission. Instead, it was believed that a disease was caused by spirits or demons. An early belief about the Black Death was that it was a plague sent by God to punish Europe for descending into sinful ways.

A related, but more secular, theory was Miasma – the idea that diseases were spread by bad air and bad smells. Therefore breathing the same air as an infected individual could spread the disease, as could foul-smelling things.  While there is a bit of truth in this, as airborne plague infections are possible, this theory suggested that anything which smelled bad could cause disease.

Miasma inspired the traditional image of the Medieval Plague doctor with a “beaked mask” because the mask was meant to hold strong smelling herbs and oils to block the smell of decay and therefore block transmission of the disease.

Well, obviously this didn’t work.

Doctors got infected just as often as everyone else. Monks and priests were also at especially high risk because they took care of the sick, buried the dead, and were constantly exposed. The commoners started to notice that even the servants of God were getting sick in the so-called time of judgment. This led to two things:

  1. people began to believe they were not merely being punished, but that the Apocalypse was coming
  2. people began to question the Church’s authority and power because it failed to protect them

The 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse, the harbingers of the world’s end, are named Pestilence, War, Famine, and Death. During medieval times, a common portrayal of the Horseman of Pestilence was a horse with black spots, perhaps as a reference to the Black Death and a prophecy of future events.

When people began to believe that the Church could not protect itself, they feared the Church could not protect them or prepare them for the rapture. Faith in traditional churches started to crumble and radical Catholic groups which promised salvation in a new way began to rise.

One of these groups were the Flagellants, a militant and radical sect of the Catholic Church that believed self-mutilation was a form of penance. This was usually done publicly along with chanting and singing. This group was outlawed by the church as it superseded the basic Church teaching that Jesus’ death removed all need for sacrifice by mankind.

Nevertheless, these alternate forms of worship were used by people who were dissatisfied with the Church as a form of protest, but it was also a last resort when the Church failed them. The popularity of the Flagellants and other similar groups wavered over time, but the era of the Black Death marked the highest membership in cult history.

 Xenophobia also rose with suspicion and fear, and in terror the afflicted masses sought for a scapegoat.  With wavering faith in the Church, religious leaders began to panic and tried to keep order by shifting the blame to anyone they could: Jews, lepers, witches, pagans, minorities, beggars, foreigners, and even widows.

Due to their isolation within cities, because of location (the Jewish ghettos were typically far from docks and city centers) and culture (Jews followed much stricter sanitary laws than most of the population), the prevalence of disease was much lower among Jewish populations.  This was noticed by those suffering and people became suspicious.  Jews were often accused of poisoning wells and there was a mass persecution of Jewish communities for years to come.

Jews being burned alive as part of Medieval persecutions

Jews being burned alive as part of Medieval persecutions in response to plague

In Northern Europe (where the Jewish population was lower) widows and old women suspected of witchcraft were seen as a strong threat.  A common metaphor for a plague infection striking a village was the arrival of an old hag in black robes. If she brought a broom with her, the whole village was “swept away”. But if she only brought a rake then some of the village would survive being hit by the pestilence.

The Church and society as a whole also suffered from the sheer loss of manpower – laborers were especially susceptible to disease, causing a labor shortage which led to a food shortage.  Within the Church, the loss of faith and also the loss of monks and priests who contracted the disease at higher rates than most of the population, caused a decline in current and future numbers of men entering the service of the Church.

Although the major outbreaks of plague during the Middle Ages only lasted about 5 years, it took human populations decades to recover and effects on the culture echoed for centuries after the initial outbreak as a constant reminder of the fear and panic that had once swept through all of Europe and Europe did not emerge from the Dark Ages until over a hundred years later at the birth of the Renaissance.

“Trust not too much in appearances”

I’ve been re-watching some of my favorite childhood movies – I think its a quarterlife crisis thing as graduation draws near – and one that I especially made a point to watch was “Prince of Egypt”. It was one of Dreamwork’s first animated films and is based off the Biblical story of Moses and the Exodus out of Egypt.

Val Kilmer voices Moses and Ralph Fiennes (Voldemort) voices Ramses II. Patrick Stewart, Jeff Goldblum, Michelle Pfeiffer, Sandra Bullock, Danny Glover, Helen Mirren, Martin Short, and Steve Martin also lend their voices. And you get to hear Ralph Fiennes, Martin Short, and Steve Martin sing. It’s pretty epic.

I always loved it as a child, but I recently realized I loved it for different purposes than were intended – being the story of the Exodus, a viewer is perhaps supposed to learn about the Bible, Moses, and the power of God in freeing his people from oppression.  And I will admit, the burning bush as sign of God’s power is a well-done scene and very cool… but I always loved the portrayal of the Egyptian gods more.  The Egyptian priests were far more suave than Moses or Aaron, especially with their jackal- and hawk-headed gods and their love of all things “cat”.  Not to mention, young Ramses II had a way cooler haircut.

As kid I thought the Egyptian gods might have really existed alongside the Christian God (though I surely wasn’t supposed to believe that from the Bible), and I always figured they actually had animal-heads. As a student who enjoys archaeology and mythology, I now question what the purpose of the animal-heads were and how literally they were meant to be taken.  Simply:

“Did the Egyptians actually belief their gods had animal heads?”

And the answer is not a simple one. Our understanding of Egyptian religion is lacking because we still can’t even read all of the hieroglyphics we have found. Furthermore, Egyptians considered it bad luck to write about the afterlife, religious practices, and ideas about evil, so for some topics we have no information at all.

Early Egyptologists may have believed the Egyptians had somewhat primitive ideas about religion and would have actually believed in the improbabilities of an animal-headed god. We in modern society tend to have an obsession with exotic cultures or mysterious traditions and do sometimes forget that our ancient ancestors were intelligent and capable of the same critical thinking we are, and their religion was highly organized and complex. And their religious leaders were well-educated scholars – the Dalai Lama is an incredibly well-educated man though admittedly his lifestyle, religion, or appearance can be seen as a bit “exotic” in Western culture.

The Egyptian gods are described as being “therianthropomorphic”, meaning partly human and partly animal. But representations varied widely – Anubis always has his jackal head, but Osiris is usually represented in human form. Osiris can also be represented by the “crook and the flail”, an “atef” crown, sometimes a bull (these animals were sacred to him), and even the color green (representing rebirth and fertility – understandable considering he is the king of the afterlife and fathered a son after his death). Since Osiris was a deity connected to several aspects of life and death, a mere single representation of him is neither an accurate nor fair way to demonstrate his power.

An ancient image of Osiris – note the green skin on the human form, and that he is wearing an Atef crown and holding a crossed Crook and Flail across his chest.

The famous Classicist and author Edith Hamilton wrote that the Egyptians deliberately made their gods unhuman to distance them from mortals, to make them more awe-inspiring and something to be feared. Indeed the Greeks saw the Egyptian gods as uncompanionable, mysterious, aloof, and beast-like, unlike their own gods who were human-formed with idealized beauty and very human personality traits.

And this may be slightly true, as the afterlife was seen by ancient Egyptians as being very hierarchical – gods were better than kings, who were better than elites, and at some points the possibility of a mere peasant going to the afterlife wasn’t even considered. Therefore, if the gods were meant to demonstrate their status above kings through imposing appearances, perhaps they were meant to appear aloof because they were in fact inhuman.

However, the Egyptians were sophisticated and methodical, and from their art we know they valued symbolism. Therefore it is possible that the images of gods were meant to be completely symbolic and not literal. If you have ever examined an Egyptian drawing, you will immediately notice that detail, size, perspective, and realism are absent – the information that the image projects is much more important. If pictures weren’t meant to be taken literal, we shouldn’t assume that because Horus is drawn as hawk-headed that Egyptians believed if they physically saw Horus in real life, he would have a beak.

The animal associations of power and magic were much more important than realism. It is likely that Anubis was shown with a jackal head not because it was believed that he was half dog but because the jackal was associated with cemeteries because they were scavengers and it was feared they might unearth buried corpses, and so the jackal was associated with the god who was associated with protection during burial, mummification, and the afterlife. Anubis’s jackal head is also an excellent example of the symbolic nature of the animal-headed deity because during mummification rites, priests would often don a jackal mask to emulate Anubis – but in no way was it believed this priest actually became Anubis.

Image taken from the "Book of the Dead', showing an Egyptian priest wrapping a mummy, meant to invoke protection from the god Anubis

Image taken from the “Book of the Dead’, showing an Egyptian priest wrapping a mummy, meant to invoke protection from the god Anubis

And Egyptians weren’t the only ones to do this – In classical Greek, it was believed Zeus often came to earth as a bull or swan, or disguised as a mortal (usually to seduce a maiden), but this wasn’t the actual likeness of Zeus himself. And how often is Jesus portrayed as a lamb, or the Holy Spirit as dove, even in modern society? Jesus is described as the “lamb of god”, but not because it is believed he is or ever was an actual lamb. Animal representations simply give us a more basic understanding about the nature of a deity.

This was especially important in Ancient Egypt, where the majority of people could not read. Hieroglyphs are complex and there are thousands of them to learn. It is much easier to represent the violent nature of the female demon Ammut (who eats the hearts of evil men) by showing her as having the body of a river beast like a hippopotamus rather than by describing her wrath in writing.

And another possibility to consider is that Egyptians might have accepted that they didn’t even know what their gods would look like. The gods are described as being able to hide themselves from mortals and even from other gods. Likewise, they could transform themselves and hide their true forms and secret names from mortals as well as each other, never looking the same to two different individuals. Egyptian religion therefore acknowledges there is no single concrete form a god can take, and even the idea of Egyptian bodies are multifaceted and complex – there are 5 aspects of a person, each with different appearances and functions.

So probably the safe answer is that we don’t really know what the Egyptians believed, and they might not have fully known either. But, they did not worry about actual representations – images of specific individuals and even their mummy death masks are never lifelike portraits but are instead idealized representations of what the perfect person or mummy might look like. And the fact that the gods could change their forms, even among each other, might imply there is no one specific way a god would look.

“If God did not intend for us to eat animals, then why did he make them out of meat?”

The perks of being in a “Human Nutrition and Culture” class is that a bunch of great topics relating to food keep popping up in discussions. Meat consumption is an extremely intricate and variable topic among the cultural groups of the world – just to name a few interesting topics: cultures such as the Inuit live almost entirely off of animal products in a land with no vegetation, many major world religions ban the consumption of pork, a meal isn’t considered complete among Maasai without meat, and there is an arguable vegetarian trend that has been spreading throughout the United States in recent years.

For the purposes of a recent study, I looked at how meat consumption was viewed among different social classes in Medieval Europe and how this impacted their nutrition and health – and was surprised to find a modern day connection to how we identify different meats. (And if you are curious, the lower classes were actually healthier than higher classes because they ate more “cheap” foods such as vegetables and less “high-class” foods such as sugar. If only it were like that today).

Have you ever wondered why some meat is called the same thing as the animal it comes from and some have different names? Well… maybe not… but consider:

  • chicken is called chicken, turkey is turkey, fish is fish

However:

  • cow meat is called beef
  • calf is veal
  • sheep is mutton
  • pig is pork
  • deer is venison

The argument is often made that calling meat by other names such as beef and pork allows for people to psychologically distance themselves from the fact that they are actually eating a once-living creature. It’s easier to eat a steak when your mental image is not of an actual living cow but rather an abstract food term “beef”.

vs.

While this may be part of the explanation, it certainly doesn’t explain why we still call chickens chicken, which is one of the most eaten animals and hence should be the most likely to have a differential name for its consumption.

The difference actually comes from the Norman conquest of England and the resulting mixture of cultures and languages that occurred. When the Normans (French) took over England and it’s government, they became the elite and the nobles of the country. And they used their own words for their food – beouf, porc, and mouton. The commoners still kept the Anglo-Saxon names they used for the animals – cow, pig, and sheep.

Venison follows along this same pattern, as deer were considered royal property and legal only for nobles to consume.

The language differences may have come from a deliberate desire of the Normans to separate themselves from the commoners, or it may have been a natural response of each group to continue to use their native language.

Furthermore, the elites and nobles who used the French words only saw the meat and so called it by their French names, while the commoners who raised the animals – but were probably too poor to actually eat them – called the living animals by the Anglo-saxon names. Over time, as the languages and cultures mixed due to coexistence, both were incorporated into the common language because both developed different implications – beouf, beef, for the meat and cow for the living animal.

“I don’t know. But it’s a tradition!”

In the opening song to one of my favorite musicals, “Fiddler on the Roof”, Tevye described the traditions of his hometown Anatevka:

“For instance, we always keep our heads covered and always wear a little prayer shawl… This shows our constant devotion to God. You may ask, how did this tradition start? I’ll tell you – I don’t know. But it’s a tradition!”

I have always loved this part because it is a funny and honest explanation that even someone that values their religious traditions doesn’t always understand them. Many traditions in our culture don’t have solid explanations to their origins, and ones centering on religion are always the most interesting in my opinion.

For example, I never understood as a kid why I was forced to eat fish sticks on Fridays in public school because some kids couldn’t eat any other meat on Fridays. Later I learned that it was a Catholic tradition, but I still didn’t understand why it was so important.

So why do Catholics eat fish on Friday?

Fasting is required by the Code of Canon Law for anyone over the age of 14 and under the ago of 60. Ask any devout Catholic and they will explain that it is related to the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross: fasting provides a constant reminder of his death and allows an individual the opportunity to contemplate their faith and make reparation for their sins. As for the specific day, according to the Bible, Jesus died on a Friday and so this is the day that should commemorate his sacrifice. However, the specificity of only being allowed to eat fish is less clear.

Fish are linked to parables of Jesus several times in Christian stories, such as the loaves and the fishes, and one of the symbols associated with Christianity is the “Jesus Fish”:

However, the Bible does not specifically mention that people should eat fish on Fridays nor does it literally say that Catholics should fast on Fridays. This unclear source of information has lead to several fun myths regarding the “true” reason for the tradition.

1.   Training the Navy

I was told one myth during a tour of Sulgrave Manor in South Northamptonshire, the ancestral home of George Washington. According to our tour guide Cymon:

Queen Elizabeth I was worried about a potential war with Spain, which was highly feared for its impressive Armada. So she wanted to make the English navy better, and whats the best way to have a highly skilled navy? Have a highly skilled civilian sailor population.

Ensuring that the populous of England could only eat fish on Fridays kept the demand for work high in the fish market ensuring that they were always busy and kept in their prime, ready to answer the call for Queen and country should a war with Spain erupt.

So Elizabeth, who had already been sorting through some religious issues regarding the drastic shift from Catholicism to Protestantism by her father Henry VIII, simply added this in when no one was looking.

In reality, there is absolutely no evidence nor references to this theory anywhere, so I’ve always been curious as to where our supposedly ex-history professor guide came up with this story.

2.   The Pope’s secret profits

Another myth involves a secret pact between the Pope and the leaders of the fishing industry. The Pope decreed that Catholics could only eat fish on Fridays so they could both profit from an increase in fish sales. While this is also probably not the case, there is no denying that the fishing industry did greatly profit from this rule.

3.  The importance of the Fishing Industry

Another myth centering on fishing seems even less likely: when Henry VIII separated from the Roman Catholic Church and created the Church of England, the eating of fish became political – it implied a support of the Catholic Pope.

Fish sales supposedly declined and the fishing industry was hurt, which in turn hurt tax income and the trading industry. This was such a problem that fast days were instated by law to reverse the problems.

Unfortunately, the problem with this myth is that fish are already associated with Catholic traditions before the reinstatement of a fasting law.  So the law may have helped continue the tradition, but it by no means explains its origin.

So what is the real truth?

Sadly, it is likely that it did not involve a political ploy or religious scandal. It also is not the result of a literal translation of the Bible. More likely it is the result of a mistranslation of the Bible:

First off, technically, it is only the eating of warmblooded animals that is off limits, so fish technically are edible on Fridays.

The way the word “meat” is translated from Latin, it implies something that is “bloody” flesh, from the word caro – but fish meat is not considered bloody or really considered flesh by any definition, so perhaps it was assumed that fish simply did not count in the fasting rules.

Or, because Catholics were expected to abstain from “special foods” on Fridays in order to be reminded of Christ’s sacrifices, it is plausible that fish wasn’t really considered a special food and thus not applicable to the ban. This is likely because fish was such an integral part of the diet of the time that it wasn’t banned because it simply couldn’t be omitted from the diet.

So in all reality, the Friday Fish Fry is probably due to a translation based on the culture of the Medieval era, which turned into a tradition that Catholics still honor to keep their faith. If only the Pope had made a secret agreement with the fishing industry, it would have made the story so much more interesting.

“Starbucks represents something beyond a cup of coffee”

In keeping with the theme of logo mythology (see my post about Godiva), I have always loved the Starbucks logo and am annoyed that they are constantly “modernizing” it, taking away all the imagery it represents. The original logo, back in 1985 when Starbucks first started, was this:

Starbucks Logo, 1985

From the FAQ page of Starbucks.com, they say they “wanted to capture the seafaring tradition of early coffee traders”. And they did so rather well, with the twin-tailed mermaid. However, the symbolism associated with them is perhaps more controversial than Starbucks, as a national corporate company, would like, which is probably why it keeps getting simplified.

A twin-tailed mermaid, sometimes called a Melusine or a siren, and is commonly portrayed as being half-serpent/fish and half-human. They are a symbol of transformation (specifically relating to alchemy) and also symbols of unity that link earth and water, and body and soul. They could be evil, like the sirens of Greek mythology who lured sailors to their deaths, or simply a feminine spirit of fresh or ocean waters that bestow love on humans.  In mythology the are commonly represented in a very similar manner to the original Starbucks logo:

A depiction of a twin-tailed mermaid in a Medieval Bestiary (a book of stories and Images relating to animals that were real and perceived-real)

A depiction of a twin-tailed mermaid in a Medieval Bestiary (a book of stories and images relating to animals that were real or perceived as real)

The most common story involving a twin-tailed mermaid is that of Melusine, a beautiful woman who turned into a serpent from the waist down while bathing. Her suitor, a variety of different men depending on the source, met her at a magical enchanted fountain in the middle of the woods (an innocent maiden alone at an enchanted spot in the forest should always always always raise a red flag, but apparently he didn’t think it was that strange). She agreed to marry him under the condition that he never disturb her on Saturdays when she bathed. He agrees to her wishes and they get married and live happily ever after.

For a while anyway, but eventually he gets curious and suspicious of what she does alone and sneaks a peek, only to see her in her serpentine form. He is horrified and she is angered by his betrayal, so she turns into a full-on dragon in a fit of rage and she leaves him in a fury. Basically, moral of the story is: there is a monster inside every woman. Even though it was his mistrust and disobedience that caused the whole incident, it was a sexist medieval metaphor for the duality of female nature and the malevolent forces that could reside in all women.

Twin-tailed mermaids also represent fertility in most cultures they are found in, which is what the Starbucks logo most closely resembles – the bare breasts and the two tails spread apart say “come hither” in a very obvious way. This logo has actually sparked controversy in the past, which may be why Starbucks seems to be systematically censoring their logo, first covering the breasts with hair, cropping out the view of the navel, and then omitting the images of the tails.  Now it has become so cropped that it is hardly noticeable as a mermaid:

Starbucks Logo, 2012

So if you take anything away from this, I hope you have learned two things:

  1. Starbuck’s logo is that of a creature that lures people to their doom with sweet music, just as their coffee lures me in to waste my money every time I need a caffeine high.
  2. Starbucks should stop changing their logo because the old one is super cool and full of interesting history and sexy symbolism.