herring

[Joel S. Berson]

At 2/2/2011 03:01 AM, Victor Steinbok wrote:
>I came across the Britannica article on herring from several early
>editions (it seems to have been repeated virtually unchanged from 1797
>well into the middle of the 19th century).
>...
>
>Under 1., there is a statement "a hundred of herrings is to be a hundred
>and twenty". Is this the herring version of a "baker's dozen"? Or is
>there some other significance to this?

I am pretty sure I came across a court case from
colonial Massachusetts where someone was fined
for selling a quantity of 100 instead of
120.  While I'm not absolutely sure of the
specific numbers, I am of the notion.  And
unfortunately I don't remember the
commodity.  The crime (e.g., theft, fraud) was
not stated, as is common in the court
records.  (May I be excused for not having
considered this case significant at the
time?  You never know -- I was searching for adultery and ncest.)

Of course this by itself does not explain the
significance, but "baker's dozen" seems quite
plausible.  An allowance for some number of
"shotten" (in the extended sense of "worthless",
or "spoiled"; see below) articles in the lot.

>Also under 1., an interesting use of "tun": "eight barrels go to the tun
>by law". Now, "tun" can be a barrel or a ton measure. Neither of these
>applies here. Clearly, it does not refer to a single barrel and 4800 to
>6400 herrings makes for several tons, not one.

If weight:  Why do you say 4800 to 5400 herrings
make for several tons?  Wikipedia's article
"Herring" says the Baltic herring  is small,
about 40% the length that a large "proper
Atlantic herring" of 1.5 pounds can reach.  That
would make a live Baltic herring (the type caught
and sold in England by the Dutch?) less than 1/2
pound (using a linear reduction rather than the
normal cubic ratio of length to volume/weight,
which would make the Baltic herring even
lighter), and the ones in tuns are presumably
cleaned and eviscerated for shipping.  Herrings
of about 0.4 pounds would come 4800 to 5600 per
ton.  And was the "ton" for shipping more than
2000 pounds?  Under ton n.1, I find:
    "1821    J. Q. Adams in C. Davies Metr. Syst.
(1871) iii. 98   The casks of Bordeaux wine were
then [1423] and still are made for stowage in
such manner that four hogsheads occupy one ton of
shipping. The ton was of thirty-two cubic feet by
measure, and of 2,016 English pounds, of fifteen
ounces to the pound, in weight; equal to 2,560 of the easterling tower pound."

If volume:  "Eight barrels to the tun" might mean
volume -- the OED tells me tun n.1 sense 2. "A
unit used in measuring the carrying capacity or
burden of a ship, the amount of cargo, freight,
etc. Originally, the space occupied by a tun cask
of wine... Now, for the purposes of registered
tonnage, the space of 100 cubic feet."  In 1797
might 8 barrels of herring have made 100 cubic
feet?  (However, this does seem like rather small barrels.)

The OED seems little help:  barrel 2. "Used as a
measure of capacity both for liquids and dry
goods, varying with the commodity."  But for one
dry measure, there is a suggestive relationship
to weight:  "1712    Act 10 Anne in London Gaz.
No. 5012/1,   A Barrel of Soap is to contain 256
pound." -- 8 barrels therefore very close to the ton of 2000 pounds.

>So this has to be a
>different, unlisted meaning of "tun". "Tunned herring" (as opposed to
>"corved herring"--see 6.) is also used to describe barrel-held herring.
>But that's from the verb. So this seems to be quite a convoluted story.
>
>"Shotten" and "sick" seems to be a designation of post-spawn herring.
>But there is no actual description for the "special designation"

Where does the Britannica article say "special
designation"?  It just says "the barrel whereof
is to be marked distinctly" -- seems like a
required warning for "sick" or shoddy goods (the
"as is" of the 18th century?).  Note the extended
meaning of "shotten" in 3.b. "...  Hence gen.,
†Thin, emaciated; worthless, good-for-nothing."

>assigned to these in 4. Further below, "shotten" is also referred to as
>"empty", apparently confirming the meaning.
>
>Under 5., what is the meaning of the designation "salt upon salt"?

There is much about "salt upon salt" recoverable via GBooks.

"The Gentleman's magazine" Volume 59, Part 2
(1789) - Page 973:  In "Topographical Description
of Biddeford in Devonshire":  "It is a place of
considerable trade; but the herring-fishery has
failed for some years; and so has the
manufacturing rock salt into what was called salt
upon salt, by first dissolving it in sea-water, and then boiling it again."

"The art of making common salt, as now practised
in most parts of ...", William Brownrigg - 1748
(GBooks), chapter 7,  "Of the Dutch method of
preparing salt upon salt." "IN Holland and
Zealand, the Dutch for ages past have practised
the art of refining salt with the greatest success"

Or "Fish on Friday: feasting, fasting, and the
discovery of the New World", by Brian M. Fagan -
2006 - Page 47:  chapter 4, "SALT UPON SALT: PRESERVING THE CATCH ".

Joel

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org