Sheer Ignorance Research Articles

The Britsh Food Journal Volume 51 Issue 2 1949

Many changes in the law have occurred since the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, was placed on the statute book in an effort to regulate in some degree the supply of food. The battle to ensure that food should be of good quality, pure, wholesome and free from disease still continues, though the weapons used have changed somewhat from those early days, and the hands that wield them have been considerably strengthened by Acts which cover the ramifications of the public food supply in a more efficient manner than their predecessors. Despite all the experience gained over these many years of trial and error, the fact remains that the administration of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, is still beset with problems, and the adulteration of food, either wilfully or through sheer ignorance, still continues. The maintenance of good health is brought about not only by a food supply of quantity, but also one of quality. The cost of providing and maintaining an efficient service for checking the purity of the nation's food is heavy, when one takes into account the money spent in maintaining and equipping departments for this purpose. This raises the question as to whether the effort is worth while and the results have justified the means in time and money expended. The answer is of course obvious. It is rather alarming to contemplate what would happen if no control existed and the zealous watch on food were relaxed. Especially is this so to‐day, when food is in short supply and buyers are not so particular with regard to quality as long as there is quantity. Does the average man‐in‐the‐street realise the steps taken by local authorities to protect his health and his pocket? He might occasionally see a report in the Press of a prosecution for food adulteration, but his mind travels no further than the immediate case in question. The work of officials in connection with food and drugs cannot be overestimated and it is to be hoped that new legislation which undoubtedly will be introduced in the years to come to meet the changing conditions will add strength to their activities in preserving the quality and standard of the people's food.

A pax at Abergavenny

Dr. Johnson thought that a pax was a pyx, and amended Shakespeare accordingly. Since the issue of the Dictionary, however, the pax has more than once been thesubject of communications by Fellows of our Society, and the ‘Ignorance, madame, sheer ignorance’ to which the Doctor might have pleaded would now be more difficult to excuse. Nevertheless, the salient features in the usage and history of the pax may perhaps be restated very briefly.

Mehercle and Herc(v)lvs

Everyone interested in Latin Etymology knows the last word on mehercle, that the old vocative of meus is prefixed to the old Second Declension form Herc(u)lus, Voc. -lě. Without discussing whether this explanation is wholly true or partly wrong, I wish here to disqualify two pieces of evidence. Both originate from a marginal annotation on Rufinus' translation of Eusebius' Church History (4, 9, 3 ‘illud mehercule magnopere curabis’) in, I think, a seventh-century English MS. These marginalia were used for the Leyden Glossary and for the common source of the E E (Épinal and Erfurt) and Corpus Glossaries. The compiler of Leid. transferred them unaltered to his pages; and in the section devoted to Rufinus glosses we find (§ 35, 19) Mehercule: mi fortis. The other compiler often recasts them for dictionary purposes. He gave this item the form Herculus: fortis (Ep. 11 A 26 = C.G.L. V. 364, 23 = Corp. H. 54). But of course the original annotation mi fortis was a mere lucky guess, and the substitution of ‘Herculus’ for Hercules was sheer ignorance.