Some Latin Fieldfare-fun-to-know … !? (1 Viewer)

[Björn Bergenholtz]

Or simply an odd and somewhat curious, maybe self-made, claim or theory?

Here in Sweden we have (or had) a well-known illustrator, Author and Artist; Gunnar Brusewitz (1924–2004), who also was an acknowledged Naturalist [for example, commemorated in the beetle Microteuchestes brusewitzi LANDIN 1974], but even more important here, in this case, an experienced ornithologist and a true scholar in (especially Swedish) Natural History.

According to him, in the Explanatory Text part of Rudbeck's major Plate work Fogelboken*, derives the pilaris in the scientific name of the Fieldfare Turdus pilaris from pilum (hair), hence Fieldfares was a popular catch, a popular dish, captured by snares [in Swedish "Donor"] made out of tagel (hair from horses)!

At least that is, according to Brusewitz (in that book), what the etymology interested Swedish Professor Einar Lönnberg** claimed as the simple reason for this name! And this has long been, and is still today, a popular explanation of its pilaris (at least here in Sweden).

If true, based on what source, I don´t know! I haven´t even been able to find where Lönnberg claimed it, in this I´m simply trusting Brusewitz.

And even if true, if this is the real reason for its pilaris, I doubt that it was only Fieldfares that was caught in such a manner, as most Trushes (as well as other smaller passerines) was hunted in the same way in Sweden (and elsewhere) during the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th Century.

In any case it´s not an impossible explanation, to my eye they are not particularly "hairy", although also consider the far more accepted explanation of pilaris as in today's HBW Alive Key:

pilaris
● L. pilare to deprive of hair < pilus hair (Atalotriccus).
● Mod. L. pilaris thrush; a confused coining, mistaking Gr. τριχας trikhas type of thrush, for θριξ thrix, τριχος trikhos hair < L. pilus hair (cf. pilaris of the ball < pila ball); ex “Turdus pilaris” of Gessner 1555, Aldrovandus 1599, and Willughby 1676, “Fieldfare” or “Feldefare” of Ray 1713, “Fieldfare” of Albin 1731, and “Turdus rectricibus nigris: extimis margine interiore apice albicantibus, capite uropygioque cano” of Linnaeus 1746 (Turdus).

It sure looks very well-researched.

But could this claim be true?! Does any of the references in the OD by Linnaeus 1758 (attached) support Lönnberg's supposed claim? Does Linnaeus's own Fauna Svecia 1746 (here, No. 188***), alt. Gessner 1555 (here, p.753), Aldrovandus 1599 (here, pp.565-566: Etymum; "Ego pilaris nomen non vulgare …") or Willughby 1676 (here, pp.138-139) alt. Ray (Willughby) 1678 (here, pp.188-189) … and so on, mention this possible explanation, or hints in that direction, in any way?

Can anyone of you guys out there, who know Latin, find anything that support Mr. Lönnberg's theory?

If this is well-known nonsense (boloney) theory, long since dismissed and proven wrong, I apologize for once again repeating it.

Björn

--------
* Fogelboken, from 1693+ (wasn´t published until 1985) by Olof Rudbeck d.y. [d.y. = den yngre, the younger] (1660–1740) , Linnaeus tutor at Uppsala University. Not to confuse with his famous father, and namesake; Olof Rudbeck d.ä. [d.ä. = den äldre, the older] (1630–1702).

**As in loennbergi.

*** Note that the Swedish name is given as Kramsfogel, a collective name used for many edible, more or less, tasty passerines.
---

 

[l_raty]

But could this claim be true?! Does any of the references in the OD by Linnaeus 1758 (attached) support Lönnberg's supposed claim? Does Linnaeus's own Fauna Svecia 1746 (here, No. 188***), alt. Gessner 1555 (here, p.753), Aldrovandus 1599 (here, pp.565-566: Etymum; "Ego pilaris nomen non vulgare …") or Willughby 1676 (here, pp.138-139) alt. Ray (Willughby) 1678 (here, pp.188-189) … and so on, mention this possible explanation, or hints in that direction, in any way?

At first sight I see nothing that goes in this direction. Both Gessner and Aldrovandus attribute the name to Gaza, who translated Aristotle's work from Greek into Latin.

Gessner 1555 (p.720/image 753):

TVRDORVM Aristoteles tria genera facit:unum uisciuorum [...]:alterũ tricháda uocat, pilare Gaza uertit, [...]:tertium quod iliacum quidam uocant, [...]

= Aristotle makes three kinds of thrushes: a first viscivorus [...]; he calls another trichas, which Gaza turned into pilaris, [...]; a third which some call iliacus, [...]

Aldrovandus 1599:

Ego pilaris nomen non vulgare esse puto, sed Latinum à Gaza confictum, vt Graecum τριχας exprimeret. τριχα enim Graeci pilum dicunt.

= I think the name pilaris not to be vulgar, but a Latin [name] made up by Gaza, that would have meant the same as the Greek [name] τριχας. For the Greeks call a pilus [= hair] τριχα.

*** Note that the Swedish name is given as Kramsfogel, a collective name used for many edible, more or less, tasty passerines.

Kramsvogel is certainly still the Dutch name of Turdus pilaris.

 

[l_raty]

PS - Theodorus Gaza's Latin translation of Aristotle's Περὶ Τὰ Ζῷα Ἱστορίαι, where he used the word pilaris (in the ablative: "pilare"): [here].
(De Natura Animalium -- AKA De Animalibus [Historiae]. This edition is from 1513 according to Google Books; the translation itself dates back from the 15th C.)

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

Thanks Laurent!

Ok, thereby, I guess, it sounds and looks like a delusion, a simple Tale ...

Anyone else heard or read this explanation before, anywhere, or seen anything in support of the Brusewitz/Lönnberg claim?

---

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

Anyone else heard or read this explanation before, anywhere, or seen anything in support of the Brusewitz/Lönnberg claim?

Ok, apparently not. Thereby I will not mention the Brusewitz/Lönnbergs explanation any more than I´ve already done. No need to spread a doubtful, possibly self-fabricated, theory any further than this.

Well, that´s it! My stack of "Etymologies-to-look-into" is empty. I don´t have any more threads to start. For now. Time to check the recent up-dates. I guess that stack will pile up again.

Pilaris … over and out!

Björn