This study deals primarily with the proverb "Neither fish
nor flesh"[1] and its variations, but also serves the larger purpose of
illustrating by a concrete example some typical problems in
folklore studies. It is convenient to use a proverb for this
purpose because the texts used in the discussion are brief
and can be quoted in full and because they can be easily
gathered in generous quantity. We must first determine the
form or forms of the proverb, their relative ages and their
distribution. When we have accomplished these tasks we can
draw some tentative inferences. There is always the chance
that a later comer may point out an overlooked text that
will raise doubts about our inferences but that is
unavoidable. We shall comment on origins and try to explain
the variations and finally arrive at a more or less
satisfactory idea of the history of the development. The
fundamental importance of dated and localized texts in such
endeavors is obvious.
The first English version of our proverb is reported by
Morris P. Tilley A Dictionary of Proverbs and Proverbial
Phrases in England in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth
Centuries (Ann Arbor, 1950), F 319: "Wone [One]
that is nether flesshe nor fisshe" and is dated 1528. He
cites another instance from Gammer Gurton's Needle (1552, published 1575) and an enlarged version "Neither
flesh nor fish nor good red herring" from 1621. To the last
of these we shall return a little later. No one appears to
have found more versions of the first form. They are
independent witnesses to a tradition that enjoyed no great
popularity and soon ceased to maintain itself. If we look
abroad for parallels, the first we find is in the last
edition of the Adagia made by Erasmus (d. 1534). Here
we read: "Neque intus neque foris... simili figura dicunt
hodie neque caro neque piscis, de homine qui sibi vivet, nec
ullarum est partium."[2] Erasmus has used it to explain another saying ("Neither in
nor out") that has much the same meaning, but he does not
give a source for either. He often cited texts from popular
speech and we can infer that he was familiar with it in
Dutch. This association of the two texts is useful in
identifying borrowings from the Adagia. There is no
reason to see any connection between the Dutch and English
texts and we can believe that they reflect early
sixteenth-century tradition on the two sides of the North
Sea. In the Low Countries the proverb had subsequendy a
somewhat greater success than it had in England. Stoett
reports Dutch instances from a novel of 1785, a modern
miscellany, and a modern pedagogical journal. He adds a
Frisian parallel and the French "Ni chair ni poisson," for
which he gives no sources or dates. The long break in the
record suggests that the modern instances may represent a
borrowing of the French proverb rather than a continuing
tradition. In 1639 Orlando Pescetti cited an Italian version
(the first edition of 1603 not seen), but the reference
includes "Neque intus neque foris" and is probably Erasmian
in origin.[3]With
this scanty evidence it is not possible to do much. We can
perhaps infer that "Neither flesh nor fish" was the original
form of the proverb and that only in French did it establish
itself securely enough to remain the standard form. Probably
euphony was the determining factor. It is difficult to say
how far the French form influenced tradition in other
countries.
Similar contrasts employing other terms are both old and
numerous. We may begin with the Biblical "thou are neither
hot nor cold" (Rev.)
English: Neither here nor there; Neither the one nor the
other; Neither this nor that; Neither head nor tail; Neither
hawk nor buzzard; Without rhyme or reason.
Spanish: Ni chica ni limonada. Emilio Rodríguez
Demorizi, Refranero dominicano (Rome, 1950), p. 194
adds the comment "Dice Alix en sus décimas Se
acabo la carestia:
Los pobres no pueden ya
soportar cosa tan seria,
porque morir de miseria
no es chicha ni lomoná.
Examples can be easily gathered from collections by
Correas and Francisco Rodríguez Marín.
Arabic: Como el avestruz, ni pájaro ni caballo
(Demorizi).
Russian: Neither fish nor butter (A. V. Kunin, Anglo-russkii frazeologiceskii slovar', 2nd ed.
(Moscow, 1954), p. 390, F 639).
More proverbs or proverbial phrases of this sort can no
doubt be turned up, but these are enough to show that the
contrast in "Neither fish nor flesh" is a widely used
pattern. Since this involves familiarity with the church
rule for ordinary days and fast days, it was probably
originally expressed in Latin and then translated into
vernacular forms that suited these languages. Some have
insisted that it reflects religious controversy of the
sixteenth century,[11] and this may be a correct interpretation of the lack of
medieval texts. Controversy naturally increased general
awareness of the contrast in religious practices. In
England, but apparently less often in other countries, the
contrast of fish and flesh caught popular fancy, and
expansion and variation followed: "Neither fish, flesh, nor
good red herring" is a whimsical enlargement. Much later,
when the allusion to the church rule was no longer in
everyone's mind, it became possible to say "Neither fish,
flesh, nor fowl," in which "fowl" is from the theological
point of view a meaningless duplication suggested by
alliteration. It is hardly likely that there is a reference
here to the three elements water, earth, and air, for this
version does not occur before the middle of the nineteenth
century. By that time the concept of the elements (fire
obviously does not come into consideration) can hardly have
influenced a traditional proverb. I see nothing to support
an oral suggestion that there is here an allusion to
characteristic foods of Jews, Catholics, and
Protestants.
The details we have studied throw light on the cultural
history of the western world and show how what was once
significant has declined in importance. Why this saying in
its many forms should have been so much more popular in
England than in other countries remains a puzzle. The
folklorist will note the enormous value of dated and
localized texts in interpretation and will call for a dozen
more to clarify this history.
POSTSCRIPTUM
The foregoing discussion illustrates perhaps sufficiently
well the proverb "Neither fish nor fowl" in western European
tradition and the remarkable number and variety of its forms
in English use. I cannot see why it has been so popular in
England and America. As I have said, we can probably find
its origin in Christian ritual and in further support of
this explanation I add the Polish "Nie ryba, nie mieso" and
the Russian "Ni ryba ni mjaso.''[12] Both mean "Neither fish nor flesh." They are eastern
examples of the same widespread tradition. More interesting
than these examples is the Finnish "Hänestä ei
tiedä, onko hän kala vai lintu" (One does not know
what kind of man he is, whether he is fish or
bird).[13]
The parallel Estonian "Ei ole lindu ega kala" (He is
neither a bird nor a fish / That is, he is a strange man) in
oral tradition is to the same effect and indicates a common
tradition. I do not readily see an explanation for it except
the obvious fact that birds and fish are very different in
every regard. The curious traditional Polish "Nie pies, nie
wydra, / Cos w'rodzaju swidra" (Neither dog, nor otter, /
Something like a bore [i.e., a drill]), suggests
extending the search for parallels. I know nothing like
it.
Notes
*Reprinted from Wolfgang Mieder (ed.) Selected Writings on Proverbs by Archer Taylor, Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, Helsinki 1975, pp.
122-128
I use this form in the title and for general
reference because it is short and is still in general
use.
Chil. IV, cent. v, n. 44. See also F. A. Stoett,
Nederlandsche spreekwoorden..., 4th ed., 2 vols.
(Zutphen, 1924, 1925), II, 425, No. 2415. I have used Adagia (Paris, 1579), col. 862.
Cited from W. H. D. Suringar, Erasmus over
nederlandsche spreekwoorden... (Utrecht, 1873), pp.
250--251, No. 139. This and many others of Suringar's
citations include "Neque intus neque foris" and are
obviously derived from the Adagia. Some give
"Neque albus atque ater" as a parallel and thus betray
that they also are book learning and not folk tradition.
I have not learned from what book they have been taken.
'To make flesh of one and fish of the other" may be a
derivative of the form first discussed or it may be a
chance variation.
See Die sprichwörtlichen Redensarten der
deutschen Sprache, 6th ed. (Leipzig, 1955), pp.
147--148. The passage cited from Fischart is a
translation of a Dutch original.
A. H. Holt, Phrase Origins (New York,
[l934]), p. 274. This conjecture has been taken
from E. C. Brewer, Dictionary of Phrase and Fable.
See T. Vogel-Jørgensen, Bevingede ord, 4th ed. (Copenhagen, 1953), pp. 375--376.
Although mention of "fowl" is lacking, this anomalous
text of uncertain origin may be included here. Dixon
gives it as an explanation and may have concocted it
himself.
Cited by Stoett; Vogel-Jørgensen; and with
precise references in the Ordbog over det danske
sprog, IV (Copenhagen, 1922), col. 1042; Ordbog
över svenska språket, IX (Lund, 1928),
cols. 1969--1970.
C. E. Funk, A Hog on Ice and Other Curious
Expressions (New York, [1948]), p. 93.
See K. F. W. Wander, Deutsches
Sprichwörterlexikon, 5 vols. (Leipzig,
1867--1880), I, col. 1039, No. *263. His quotations
require verification by comparisons with the sources and
include nothing that seems to justify this labor.
I owe this oral Polish text to the kindness of a
friend. The Russian may be found in A. V. Kunin, Anglo-russkij frazeologicheskij slovar', 2d ed.
(Moscow, 1952), p. 390 and in B. Tougan-Baranovskaia, Proverbes et dictons russes avec des
équivalents français (Moscow, n. d.),
p. 44, No. 389. According to the French idiom, the order
of the parts is reversed in the French equivalent.
Matti Sadeniemi, Nykysuomen sanakirja (Porvoo-Helsinki, 1954), III, 178. Elsewhere (II, 158)
the author offers the slightly differing explanation,
"what kind of man he is, trustworthy or untrustworthy, or
something like that." The Estonian version is from oral
tradition.
Forum
