I think the striking (no pun) nature of the event is what would make the boys remember the stones, beating or no. But I can also recall many of the details of my Bar Mitzvah ceremony, which was more than a half-century ago, and there wasn't much unpleasant about that. No question, I remember exactly where I was for both events. that my memory of this etymology antedates Kennedy's assassination, so it's not a case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc.) One example may lend some credence to this theory: Almost everyone remembers where they were, and what they were doing. Ordinarily several boys were used, so that the group wasn't dependent on any one of them in that era when so many died young.Ī few centuries ago the ritual lost its original purpose, as more accurate methods of surveying developed, but many English congregations still sponsor symbolic tours of the boundary stones, some of them annual, with some sort of "beating" of the stones rarely of the boys. I'm not clear on whether actual pain was required it seems to me the event was sufficiently out of the ordinary to register without the infliction of actual pain. It wasn't mandatory to beat the boys as well, but it could be done as part of the ritual. in a Google search for refutation (using "beating " after a bit of experimenting with other phrases), I found quite a bit of what looks like solid confirmation.Īpparently the usual practice was to take several boys along on a tour of the boundary stones, and the boys would beat each stone with a symbolic rod or tree branch.
I found this one of the most ridiculous things I'd ever heard. of the markers for a longer period of time than the older villagers who would probably have died before him.
(I must add that my memory of this etymology antedates Kennedy's assassination, so it's not a case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc.)Ĭan anyone tell me if the etymology of "metes," that I read or heard some years ago has any basis. One example may lend some credence to this theory: Almost everyone remembers where they were, and what they were doing when JFK was assassinated, or when the Twin Towers were attacked: terrible events that remain in one's memory for years. Being the youngest, he would be able to testify to the location of the markers for a longer period of time than the older villagers who would probably have died before him. Consequently, he would keep a vivid recollection of the places of pain and punishment throughout his life and, so the theory went be a reliable witness to the location of the boundaries of property in the village. punishment would be meted out to the child. That is, at each marker a tree, a large boulder, etc. The supposed connection between the two meanings derives from a reputed practice where literacy was rare (and mapmaking inaccurate) of taking the youngest child of a village to the points that mark the outline of a piece of property and beating him soundly at each one. The word mete means not only to measure, as in the phrase "metes and bounds" used in property descriptions, but also to allot, or dole out, as in the phrase to mete out punishment. Can anyone tell me if the etymology of "metes," that I read or heard some years ago has any basis in fact.
0 kommentar(er)
