Sat, 14 Jan 2006

Tacitus and Trees

A question recently arose from a Heathen email list which I found fascinating. If my Christian friends think they're they only ones to spend time debating textual exegesis, they're mistaken. Questions like this, and my rather intense search for a plausible and accurate answer, are why Asatru is often called "The Religion with Homework" in contemporary pagan circles. Here are the relevant passages, and several translations:

Terra etsi aliquanto specie differt, in universum tamen aut silvis horrida aut paludibus foeda, umidior qua Gallias, ventosior qua Noricum ac Pannoniam adspicit; satis ferax, frugiferarum arborum inpatiens, pecorum fecunda, sed plerumque improcera.
-- Tacitus, Germania, Ch. 5

Their lands, however somewhat different in aspect, yet taken all together consist of gloomy forests or nasty marshes; lower and moister towards the confines of Gaul, more mountainous and windy towards Noricum and Pannonia; very apt to bear grain, but altogether unkindly to fruit trees; abounding in flocks and herds, but generally small of growth.
-- trans. Gordon

Their country, though somewhat various in appearance, yet generally either bristles with forests or reeks with swamps; it is more rainy on the side of Gaul, bleaker on that of Noricum and Pannonia. It is productive of grain, but unfavorable to fruit-bearing trees; it is rich in flocks and herds, but these are for the most part undersized...
-- trans A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb

The appearance of the country differs considerably in different parts; but in general it is covered either by bristling forests or by foul swamps. It is wetter on the side that faces Gaul, windier on the side of Noricum and Pannonia. A good soil for cereal crops, it will not grow fruit trees. It is well provided with livestock; but the animals are mostly undersized...
-- trans. Mattingly

Auspicia sortesque ut qui maxime observant: sortium consuetudo simplex. Virgam frugiferae arbori decisam in surculos amputant eosque notis quibusdam discretos super candidam vestem temere ac fortuito spargunt.
-- Tacitus, Germania, Ch. 10

To the use of lots and auguries, they are addicted beyond all other nations. Their method of divining by lots is exceedingly simple. From a tree which bears fruit they cut a twig, and divide it into two small pieces. These they distinguish by so many several marks, and throw them at random and without order upon a white garment.
-- trans. Gordon

Augury and divination by lot no people practise more diligently. The use of the lots is simple. A little bough is lopped off a fruit-bearing tree, and cut into small pieces; these are distinguished by certain marks, and thrown carelessly and at random over a white garment.
-- trans A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb

For omens and the casting of lots they have the highest regard. Their procedure in casting lots is always the same. They cut off a branch of a nut-bearing tree and slice it into strips; these they mark with different signs and throw them completely at random onto a white cloth.
-- trans. Mattingly

The phrases in question are "frugiferae arbori" and "frugiferarum arborum" (same phrase, different contexts). Nobody disagrees that we're talking trees here - we have Arbor Day to celebrate trees, after all, and that root is pretty apparent. Also note that all the translations cited agree on the phrase in chapter five and translate it as "fruit trees" or "fruit-bearing trees". The real question comes from chapter ten, where there seems to be some disagreement - is this more accurately translated as "fruit-bearing tree" or "nut-bearing tree"?

Note the apparent contradiction here as well: in the first passage cited Tacitus describes the country as poor for this type of tree, while later he describes the procedure for divination as using this type of tree, and says the Germans make extensive use of this type of augury, implying somewhat abundant raw materials.

Going into Lewis and Short's Latin Dictionary we find:

frugi adj. indecl. [dat predic. of frux] , useful, fit, proper, worthy, honest, discreet, virtuous, temperate, frugal (for comp. and sup. see frugalis): frugi es; ubi? T.: frugi hominem dici: homines plane frugi ac sobrii: Hominis frugi officium, T.: frugi dicatur, H.: Sum bonus et frugi, H.: mancipium, H.--Of things: cenula, Iu.

frux , frugis, and more freq. in plur. fruges , um
I. nom. sing. frugis : frugi rectus est natura frux, at secundum consuetudinem dicimus, ut haec avis, haec ovis, sic haec frugis, Varr. L. L. 9, § 76 dub.), f. [from the root FRUG; v. fruor] , fruits of the earth (that may be enjoyed), produce of the fields, pulse, legumes (whereas fructus denotes chiefly tree-fruit, and frumentum halm-fruit, grain), sometimes also, in gen., for fruits (grain, tree-fruit, etc.).

The sense of the term seems to indicate more of what in English we would call "fruitful" - if I describe my chicken house as fruitful, I do not mean it's filled with apples, I mean rather that it's productive, worthy of remark and fecund. Also, remember that, technically, nuts are a kind of fruit - they differ in having a hard exterior shell as opposed to a relatively soft rind or skin. Did the Romans make a differentiation between the two? I honestly don't know, and can't seem to find any texts to help me here.

So I would say that either translation is technically correct, but would lean more towards the sense of the passage: cut the staves from a tree that produces fruit in the broadest sense - from a productive and useful tree. It must also be recognized that Tacitus may have been saying that Germans cut staves from the "proper" tree - not from a species or type known to him, but from one they considered proper and useful for the rite in question.

Personally, I lean towards cutting staves from oak. It's nut bearing (acorns) and it's also very useful for building. It's common across Northern Europe, and is sacred in several Indo-European cultures.

But I'm more than willing to be pedantically corrected on this, if my favorite Latin professor happens to be reading ...

/Asatru | 4 writebacks | permanent link

On 1/14/2006 16:00:56
Brenda wrote

Red Raven's Roost

On 1/14/2006 23:33:58
Dave H wrote

Yep...

On 1/15/2006 09:18:45
Starlight Bunnybutt wrote

On 1/15/2006 09:38:25
Dave H wrote

Excellent Point!

comment...

 
Notes: If you put a <mailto:> link in the URL field your address will not be mangled: this could be a bad idea as your email address could be easily harvested by bots designed for SPAM. The comments field should now format correctly for line feeds and carriage returns: when you hit the 'Enter' or 'Return' keys in your comment it should break to a new line. The text should wrap cleanly. Please let me know if it doesn't. No HTML tags will pass through - entering links seems to be the main cause of comment SPAM. Also, please be sure that Javascript is enabled in your browser before attempting to post a writeback. Sorry for any inconvenience, but this really helps cut down on the amount of comment SPAM I have to deal with.
 
 Name:
 URL:(optional)
 Title: (optional)
 Comments:  
Save my Name and URL/Email for next time